<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<posthistory>
  <row Id="1" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="e8732f85-fd9d-4e97-a14b-0f755ed2b904" CreationDate="2012-09-05T04:41:22.167" UserId="3" Text="$SiteName is a collaboratively edited Q&amp;amp;A platform for patent experts, inventors and citizens who wish to participate in the US patent process. **Its primary purpose is to help individuals:**&#xA;&#xA;1.  **Solicit help finding prior art that might apply to a patent or application**&#xA;2.  **Get answers to hard questions about specific patents**&#xA;3.  **Ask questions about the the US patent system or process**&#xA;&#xA;$SiteName was designed in collaboration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and Peer To Patent, whose efforts empowering citizens to help find prior art inspired the crowdsourced approach you see here. We also worked with Google to leverage the power of Google Patents Search and their new Prior Art Finder Tool.&#xA;        " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2" RevisionGUID="1f08f082-4555-48a4-b43b-05fd2aa01387" CreationDate="2012-09-05T07:40:28.807" UserId="3" Text="On September 16th, 2012, the America Invents Act (AIA) became law. The AIA is a bipartisan bill with four goals:&#xA;&#xA;1.  Establish a fast track option to get Patents processed within 1\. months&#xA;2.  Reduce the current backlog&#xA;3.  Reduce patent litigation&#xA;4.  Increase patent quality.&#xA;&#xA;To achieve those goals, it’s crucial that Patent Examiners can quickly find any prior art that would apply to an application.&#xA;&#xA;Three new resources now work together to help achieve that goal:            &#xA;&#xA;**$SiteName** is here to help interested parties ask questions about what type of prior art might be relevant, and to ask for examples of relevant prior art of which the community may be aware.            &#xA;&#xA;**Google Patents** is helping with prior art browsing and discovery. Google’s new Prior Art Finder searches for relevant inventions that precede the publication of a pending patent application. Hit “Discuss” at any patent or application on Google Patents and you’ll arrive at $SiteName, where you can view questions about the invention or prior art or ask your own.&#xA;&#xA;**The USPTO Prior Art Submission Site**, scheduled for launch on September 16, 2012, will deliver prior art directly to examiners at the USPTO. While it is possible for patent examiners to search Patents - Stack Exchange for prior art submissions related to a specific patent, the best way to make sure your discoveries are included in the review process is to submit them directly to the USPTO.&#xA;&#xA;    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3" RevisionGUID="46147177-3b97-4c52-a231-0574b81fb1a5" CreationDate="2012-09-05T07:41:25.530" UserId="3" Text="To keep the Q&amp;amp;A productive, please try to avoid asking questions that…&#xA;&#xA;*   Are argumentative or overly opinionated&#xA;*   Provoke endless discussion or ongoing back-and-forth&#xA;*   Provide prior art without explanation of relevance&#xA;*   Seek prior art, but show little effort trying to find it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4" RevisionGUID="50ba3f00-e6f2-4ef1-b3f7-cd3d39cfb52a" CreationDate="2012-09-05T08:01:12.993" UserId="3" Text="### Other questions you should avoid are those…&#xA;&#xA;- relating to **trademarks, service marks or copyrights** — unless your question &#xA;  relates specifically to how those topics influence the patent system.&#xA;&#xA;- with **unreasonably broad scope**. If you can imagine an entire book that &#xA;  answers your question, you’re asking too much.&#xA;&#xA;- with **unreasonably narrow scope (‘too localized’)**, e.g. “Is the sippycup my &#xA;  neighbor’s kid has at my picnic right now covered by any design patents?”&#xA;&#xA;- that are **requests for legal or governmental advice**. If you want to know how &#xA;  something related to patents works, you’re in the right place. If you’re looking &#xA;  for a legal opinion or formal assurances, you’re not.&#xA;&#xA;- that are subjective. Subjective questions include those where…&#xA;&#xA;    - **every answer is equally valid**: “What’s your favorite utility patent?”&#xA;&#xA;    - **your answer is provided along with the question**, and you expect more &#xA;      answers: “I use Balsamiq for mocking up my application illustrations; &#xA;      what do you use?”&#xA;&#xA;    - **there is no actual problem to be solved**: “I’m curious if other people &#xA;      feel like Mark Cuban does about patents.”&#xA;&#xA;    - **your question is open-ended, or hypothetical**: “What if they banned &#xA;      software patents outright?”&#xA;&#xA;    - **your post is a rant** disguised as a question: “Wouldn’t we all be &#xA;      better off if there was no such thing as fishing lure patents?”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5" RevisionGUID="c311ca41-5ae0-4650-b878-003d6fde7e8b" CreationDate="2012-09-05T08:03:51.803" UserId="3" Text="The **3 types of questions** you can ask here are those about:&#xA;&#xA;1. **US patent law** or the patent approval process&#xA;&#xA;2. **Specific aspects or interpretations** of a particular patent or patent application&#xA;&#xA;3. **Prior art for an application**, whether anyone knows of any that might exist, &#xA;   or whether something you’ve found would qualify&#xA;&#xA;Before asking, please [look around](/search) to see if your question or a similar question has already been asked. And, remember, it’s OK to [ask and answer your own question](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/07/its-ok-to-ask-and-answer-your-own-questions/).&#xA;&#xA;If you have a question about the site itself, please ask it in [meta](http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6" RevisionGUID="0601bb3c-22f9-4fff-b45e-d09daca0ccc3" CreationDate="2012-09-05T08:07:55.280" UserId="3" Text="**Search for similar questions**.  Use the site search feature to make sure no one has already asked a similar question. If you’re asking about a specific patent, you can see any other questions about that patent by doing a tag search. Tag search format simply has brackets surrounding the tag name, like this: [US3141592]&#xA;&#xA;**Show the community you’ve thought about it**.  Tell us what you already know in the body of your question. When you post a new question, other users, including civilian experts and those at the USPTO, will see your question and hopefully attempt to provide good answers. The more you can do to include relevant details such as patent numbers, publication numbers, links to prior art, and links to patents and applications at Google Patents, the more likely it is that others will be able to help you.&#xA;&#xA;Additionally, **questions about specific patents** or applications **should be tagged with the the relevant patent number** (for approved patents) or publication number (for applications). See [“How do I use tag?”](#tag-use) for more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7" RevisionGUID="62cbc262-137a-4b7a-99d7-9d153316c246" CreationDate="2012-09-05T08:10:20.080" UserId="3" Text="No. This website does not provide legal advice and is not an official government site. While our users may well be lawyers, they are not your lawyers, and their posts are not legal advice.  Similarly, while our users may well be government officials, they are here to educate the public and provide citizens a voice, not to change or establish the government’s position on any issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4" RevisionGUID="c8c9060d-1c06-49fd-a3d7-5e07fe0df850" CreationDate="2012-09-05T08:16:26.453" UserId="22" Comment="edited body" Text="### Other questions you should avoid are those…&#xA;&#xA;- relating to **trademarks, service marks or copyrights** — unless your question &#xA;  relates specifically to how those topics influence the patent system.&#xA;&#xA;- with **unreasonably broad scope**. If you can imagine an entire book that &#xA;  answers your question, you’re asking too much.&#xA;&#xA;- with **unreasonably narrow scope (‘too localized’)**, e.g. “Is the sippycup my &#xA;  neighbor’s kid has at my picnic right now covered by any design patents?”&#xA;&#xA;- that are **requests for legal or governmental advice**. If you want to know how &#xA;  something related to patents works, you’re in the right place. If you’re looking &#xA;  for a legal opinion or formal assurances, you’re not.&#xA;&#xA;- that are subjective. Subjective questions include those where…&#xA;&#xA;    - **every answer is equally valid**: “What’s your favorite utility patent?”&#xA;&#xA;    - **your answer is provided along with the question**, and you expect more &#xA;      answers: “I use Balsamiq for mocking up my application illustrations; &#xA;      what do you use?”&#xA;&#xA;    - **there is no actual problem to be solved**: “I’m curious if other people &#xA;      feel like Mark Cuban does about patents.”&#xA;&#xA;    - **your question is open-ended, or hypothetical**: “What if they banned &#xA;      software patents outright?”&#xA;&#xA;    - **your post is a rant** disguised as a question: “Wouldn’t we all be &#xA;      better off if there was no such thing as fishing lure patents?”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8" RevisionGUID="35f3d282-41c3-4ab2-aff2-830f4787e889" CreationDate="2012-09-05T08:17:53.533" UserId="3" Text="**Patent numbers** (e.g. US5640541) - A patent number is a 7-digit ID (preceded by country code) given to a patent that has been granted by the USPTO. A patent number can be found on the first page of a granted patent or in the left panel of a patent viewed at Google Patents.&#xA;&#xA;**Publication numbers** (e.g. US2012013973 or US 2012/013973 A1) -  A publication number is an 11-digit ID given to a pending patent application when it is published. The country code precedes the publication number, with the first four digits representing the year of publication. If an application is published for the first time, it will be appended with an “A1”. If it has been republished it will be appended with an “A2”. If it has been published and corrected it will be appended by an “A9”.&#xA;&#xA;**Link to Google Patents** - To help the community help you, be sure to hyperlink or include the URL of the patents and applications in Google’s database that are relevant to your question. Google Patents structures its URLs in a straightforward convention: www.google.com/patents/[patent ID]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9" RevisionGUID="4a9cd790-ea8e-4b1e-a12d-bc0a826c5dca" CreationDate="2012-09-05T08:20:07.947" UserId="3" Text="You want to stop a patent from being granted in error? Finding prior art is just step one. Succinctly describing its significance is step two, and submitting it to the USPTO is step three. While patent examiners can search this site, the best way to ensure they see your discovery is to submit it using the [USPTO electronic filing system](http://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fefs.uspto.gov%2Fefile%2Fportal%2Fefs-unregistered&amp;amp;sa=D&amp;amp;sntz=1&amp;amp;usg=AFQjCNFslPS24hlRRAPWF5O6v21-KeLr3Q), launching on September 16, 2012." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10" RevisionGUID="3644c704-977c-405f-b3e2-fda00e923301" CreationDate="2012-09-05T08:31:37.993" UserId="3" Text="If you’re going to make a submission, make sure it counts. It’s important to only submit art that seems likely to be relevant. (If you’re not sure, ask a new question about the relevance here on AskPatents.) The goal is to make a meaningful contribution, not spam a patent examiner’s inbox. You can only submit **3 examples of prior art per patent application** before the USPTO charges you a fee. Here are the official USPTO guidelines for making an online prior art submission:&#xA;&#xA;**Your prior art submission must include:**&#xA;&#xA;- A document list identifying the documents (or portions of documents) and:&#xA;    - Heading that identifies the list as a third-party submission under § 1.290,&#xA;    - Application number on each page of the list, and&#xA;    - U.S. patents and patent application publications listed in separate section.&#xA;&#xA;- A statement affirming submission is made in compliance with 35 USC 122(e) and § 1.290.&#xA;&#xA;- A statement that submission is not made by an individual who has a duty to disclose information with respect to the application under § 1.5\. (e.g., the applicant).&#xA;&#xA;- Any required fee (or statement if fee exemption applies).&#xA;&#xA;- Documents&#xA;    - Identified in accordance with § 1.290(e).&#xA;    - U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications – copy not required.&#xA;    - Non-U.S. patent documents – copy required.&#xA;    - Non-English language documents – translation required.&#xA;&#xA;**And...**&#xA;&#xA;- Concise description of relevance of each document listed. &#xA;&#xA;But what is a “concise description”? We’ll let the USPTO take it away...&#xA;&#xA;- The concise description should set forth facts, explaining how an item listed is of potential relevance to the examination of the application in which the preissuance submission has been filed.&#xA;&#xA;- The concise description is not an invitation to a third party to propose rejections of the claims or set forth arguments relating to an Office action in the application or to an applicant’s reply to an Office action in the application.&#xA;&#xA;- It would be best practice that each concise description point out the relevant pages, lines, particular figure or paragraph of the respective document." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11" RevisionGUID="05074dad-3372-429c-bfd9-89e4528c24a8" CreationDate="2012-09-05T08:33:04.170" UserId="3" Text="Prior art is the body of public knowledge that patent examiners (and you) can sift through to determine whether a patent application describes a new and nonobvious invention. &#xA;&#xA;Prior art can take many forms, from patents granted in the 1800\. to diagrams published in foreign scientific journals.  High quality prior art, described accurately and submitted to the USPTO is one of the most important things that determine whether a patent is granted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12" RevisionGUID="cc72bef8-a403-4311-88ae-05e91279f3b3" CreationDate="2012-09-05T08:39:55.817" UserId="3" Text="### But what is _good_ prior art?&#xA;&#xA;Good prior art is prior art that is significant to the patent’s claims. To demonstrate this, when you submit prior art to the USPTO, the examiners ask that you submit a short description (no more than a paragraph) that describes the significance of your submission. That should generally include:&#xA;&#xA;- **What is it? (Link or attach)**&#xA;- **When was it published?**&#xA;- **What, specifically, did it do first?**&#xA;&#xA;Relevant prior art must prove that an infringing application or patent breaches one of 2 tenets of patent law: **novelty** and **non-obviousness**. It either proves a patent or application describes an old idea, or it that it is an obvious innovation on the old idea.&#xA;&#xA;Novelty is fairly straightforward. Non-obviousness is not. What’s obvious to you is not obvious to someone else. A non-obvious patent is a patent that takes a substantial leap into the future from the “state of the art” that precedes it. Wikipedia — which is sometimes used by examiners to get an overview of a class of inventions — [puts it well](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness#United_States):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; One of the main requirements of patentability is that the invention &#xA;  being patented is not obvious, meaning that a “person having ordinary &#xA;  skill in the art” would not know how to solve the problem at which the &#xA;  invention is directed by using exactly the same mechanism.&#xA;&#xA;You may have to read that more than once. The gist: find prior art that shares a mechanism and solves the same problem as a patent, and you may have found a good reason that patent should not be granted.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13" RevisionGUID="583bcd31-90d1-41a7-8d03-ea95f1812180" CreationDate="2012-09-05T08:42:09.870" UserId="3" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Every $SiteName question is required to have at least one tag. Tags are how we group, order, and find questions, so that users can search for specific question types.&#xA;&#xA;So, if you’re only interested in questions that relate to software, you can simply search the site for [software](/questions/tagged/software).&#xA;&#xA;But how do you determine which tags are correct for your question?&#xA;&#xA;**First, 3 Rules:**&#xA;&#xA;- If you mention a patent in your question, include its patent number as a tag&#xA;- If you mention a patent application in your question, include its &#xA;  publication number as a tag&#xA;- If you seek or propose prior art in your question, include the tag [tag:prior-art]&#xA;&#xA;**Otherwise, tagging is up to you.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14" RevisionGUID="ffc442c6-ad22-4c8a-b776-b2b47afe1310" CreationDate="2012-09-05T08:45:54.420" UserId="3" Text="**But we have a few suggestions...**&#xA;&#xA;- Include the **inventor** or **assignee** as a tag if you think that information &#xA;  is relevant to your question&#xA;&#xA;- Include the **class** or **subclass** of the invention or inventions mentioned &#xA;  in your question&#xA;&#xA;- Include the tag **[USPTO]** if your question pertains to the way the US Patent &amp;amp; Trademark Office issues patents&#xA;&#xA;- Include the tag **[software]** if you are asking about a software patent. Include the tag **[fishing-lures]** if you are asking about a fishing lure patent. Include the tag that you think most intuitively describes the patent or application mentioned in your question.&#xA;&#xA;- Include the tag that you _want_ your question to be associated with. This will help others with similar interests find and answer your question.&#xA;&#xA;Questions can include a maximum of 5 tags. Combine multiple words into a single tag with dashes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15" RevisionGUID="2fc5b4bc-1680-43ce-96fb-6714b4ce2733" CreationDate="2012-09-05T08:50:01.247" UserId="3" Text="### Some _good_ example questions:&#xA;&#xA;**… About the US Patent Process:**&#xA;&#xA;- “What is the difference between a disclosure document and a provisional application?”&#xA;- “Are there guidelines to determine what makes a patent obvious?”&#xA;- “Can a YouTube video qualify as prior art?”&#xA;&#xA;**… About specific patents or applications:**&#xA;&#xA;- “What is the key inventive step of US5640541?”&#xA;- “How is US493841\. not an obvious improvement upon US3306512?”&#xA;- “What is novel about the invention described in application US20120093958?”&#xA;- “Why does claim 1 of US493841\. say the invention is ‘edible’ if it is later &#xA;  described as being made of “webbed” or “laminated” paper?”&#xA;&#xA;**… About specific examples of prior art:**&#xA;&#xA;Important: All prior art questions must show that you have put in effort to find and understand the prior art that you are looking for. Questions like, “US8675309 - any prior art out there?” will be closed unless they also include details of what you’re looking for, or what you’ve already done to search.&#xA;&#xA;- “Is Apple’s pinch-to-zoom technology relevant to IBM’s pending patent US20120174029?”&#xA;- “There must be prior art for US20120093958. I have done Google ArtFinder &#xA;  and Westlaw searches. Where can I find it?”&#xA;- “Is the ice cream scoop described herein a good example of prior art for &#xA;  application US20120093958?”&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15" RevisionGUID="8d8beaab-99bd-4fa2-837c-5fc99bcec19d" CreationDate="2012-09-05T12:06:13.393" UserId="14" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="### Some _good_ example questions:&#xA;&#xA;**… About the US Patent Process:**&#xA;&#xA;- “What is the difference between a disclosure document and a provisional application?”&#xA;- “Are there guidelines to determine what makes a patent obvious?”&#xA;- “Can a YouTube video qualify as prior art?”&#xA;&#xA;**… About specific patents or applications:**&#xA;&#xA;- “What is the key inventive step of US5640541?”&#xA;- “How is US493841\. not an obvious improvement upon US3306512?”&#xA;- “What is novel about the invention described in application US20120093958?”&#xA;- “Why does claim 1 of US493841\. say the invention is ‘edible’ if it is later &#xA;  described as being made of “webbed” or “laminated” paper?”&#xA;&#xA;**… About specific examples of prior art:**&#xA;&#xA;*Important: All prior art questions must show that you have put in effort to find and understand the prior art that you are looking for. Questions like, “US8675309 - any prior art out there?” will be closed unless they also include details of what you’re looking for, or what you’ve already done to search.*&#xA;&#xA;- “Is Apple’s pinch-to-zoom technology relevant to IBM’s pending patent US20120174029?”&#xA;- “There must be prior art for US20120093958. I have done Google ArtFinder &#xA;  and Westlaw searches. Where can I find it?”&#xA;- “Is the ice cream scoop described herein a good example of prior art for &#xA;  application US20120093958?”&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2" RevisionGUID="0c8d447a-02b7-4516-ae75-7520d595845f" CreationDate="2012-09-05T12:13:55.960" UserId="14" Comment="edited body" Text="On September 16th, 2012, the America Invents Act (AIA) became law. The AIA is a bipartisan bill with four goals:&#xA;&#xA;1.  Establish a fast track option to get Patents processed within 12 months&#xA;2.  Reduce the current backlog&#xA;3.  Reduce patent litigation&#xA;4.  Increase patent quality.&#xA;&#xA;To achieve those goals, it’s crucial that Patent Examiners can quickly find any prior art that would apply to an application.&#xA;&#xA;Three new resources now work together to help achieve that goal:            &#xA;&#xA;**AskPatents** is here to help interested parties ask questions about what type of prior art might be relevant, and to ask for examples of relevant prior art of which the community may be aware.            &#xA;&#xA;**Google Patents** is helping with prior art browsing and discovery. Google’s new Prior Art Finder searches for relevant inventions that precede the publication of a pending patent application. Hit “Discuss” at any patent or application on Google Patents and you’ll arrive at $SiteName, where you can view questions about the invention or prior art or ask your own.&#xA;&#xA;**The USPTO Prior Art Submission Site**, scheduled for launch on September 16, 2012, will deliver prior art directly to examiners at the USPTO. While it is possible for patent examiners to search Patents - Stack Exchange for prior art submissions related to a specific patent, the best way to make sure your discoveries are included in the review process is to submit them directly to the USPTO.&#xA;&#xA;    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16" RevisionGUID="cfcaea3e-3fa2-473e-89a0-2c991726c167" CreationDate="2012-09-05T14:23:09.340" UserId="7" Text="It is my understanding that YouTube videos are admissible as prior art. But has a third party YouTube submission ever actually forced the USPTO to change or reject a patent application? If so, what video?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16" RevisionGUID="cfcaea3e-3fa2-473e-89a0-2c991726c167" CreationDate="2012-09-05T14:23:09.340" UserId="7" Text="Has a YouTube video ever been used to successfully alter or take down a pending patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16" RevisionGUID="cfcaea3e-3fa2-473e-89a0-2c991726c167" CreationDate="2012-09-05T14:23:09.340" UserId="7" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16" RevisionGUID="fe816bef-9074-4019-8aa0-d546c4859691" CreationDate="2012-09-05T15:30:50.823" UserId="14" Comment="Changed to make more universal?" Text="I'm trying to determine whether there is evidence that **definitively confirms** that a YouTube video can be submitted as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is an example of one being used as the grounds for rejecting an application, that would obviously work, as would a statement or copy from the USPTO, but I wasn't able to find anything on their site that would specifically apply." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16" RevisionGUID="fe816bef-9074-4019-8aa0-d546c4859691" CreationDate="2012-09-05T15:30:50.823" UserId="14" Comment="Changed to make more universal?" Text="Can a YouTube video be submitted as prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16" RevisionGUID="eba9f272-a630-4ae6-9c55-6f66a612f38d" CreationDate="2012-09-05T17:56:58.780" UserId="7" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;video&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2" RevisionGUID="d8fef95c-e620-424f-a3c8-097bf9bc592b" CreationDate="2012-09-05T17:59:19.220" UserId="3" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="On September 16th, 2012, the America Invents Act (AIA) became law. The AIA is a bipartisan bill with four goals:&#xA;&#xA;1.  Establish a fast track option to get Patents processed within 12 months&#xA;2.  Reduce the current backlog&#xA;3.  Reduce patent litigation&#xA;4.  Increase patent quality.&#xA;&#xA;To achieve those goals, it’s crucial that Patent Examiners can quickly find any prior art that would apply to an application.&#xA;&#xA;Three new resources now work together to help achieve that goal:            &#xA;&#xA;**$SiteName** is here to help interested parties ask questions about what type of prior art might be relevant, and to ask for examples of relevant prior art of which the community may be aware.            &#xA;&#xA;**Google Patents** is helping with prior art browsing and discovery. Google’s new Prior Art Finder searches for relevant inventions that precede the publication of a pending patent application. Hit “Discuss” at any patent or application on Google Patents and you’ll arrive at $SiteName, where you can view questions about the invention or prior art or ask your own.&#xA;&#xA;**The USPTO Prior Art Submission Site**, scheduled for launch on September 16, 2012, will deliver prior art directly to examiners at the USPTO. While it is possible for patent examiners to search Patents - Stack Exchange for prior art submissions related to a specific patent, the best way to make sure your discoveries are included in the review process is to submit them directly to the USPTO.&#xA;&#xA;    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10" RevisionGUID="697727af-c0fd-4622-8849-a97207bdf310" CreationDate="2012-09-05T17:59:44.147" UserId="3" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="If you’re going to make a submission, make sure it counts. It’s important to only submit art that seems likely to be relevant. (If you’re not sure, ask a new question about the relevance here on $SiteName.) The goal is to make a meaningful contribution, not spam a patent examiner’s inbox. You can only submit **3 examples of prior art per patent application** before the USPTO charges you a fee. Here are the official USPTO guidelines for making an online prior art submission:&#xA;&#xA;**Your prior art submission must include:**&#xA;&#xA;- A document list identifying the documents (or portions of documents) and:&#xA;    - Heading that identifies the list as a third-party submission under § 1.290,&#xA;    - Application number on each page of the list, and&#xA;    - U.S. patents and patent application publications listed in separate section.&#xA;&#xA;- A statement affirming submission is made in compliance with 35 USC 122(e) and § 1.290.&#xA;&#xA;- A statement that submission is not made by an individual who has a duty to disclose information with respect to the application under § 1.5\. (e.g., the applicant).&#xA;&#xA;- Any required fee (or statement if fee exemption applies).&#xA;&#xA;- Documents&#xA;    - Identified in accordance with § 1.290(e).&#xA;    - U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications – copy not required.&#xA;    - Non-U.S. patent documents – copy required.&#xA;    - Non-English language documents – translation required.&#xA;&#xA;**And...**&#xA;&#xA;- Concise description of relevance of each document listed. &#xA;&#xA;But what is a “concise description”? We’ll let the USPTO take it away...&#xA;&#xA;- The concise description should set forth facts, explaining how an item listed is of potential relevance to the examination of the application in which the preissuance submission has been filed.&#xA;&#xA;- The concise description is not an invitation to a third party to propose rejections of the claims or set forth arguments relating to an Office action in the application or to an applicant’s reply to an Office action in the application.&#xA;&#xA;- It would be best practice that each concise description point out the relevant pages, lines, particular figure or paragraph of the respective document." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17" RevisionGUID="119cc316-1113-453f-9d82-411db3dd7d6b" CreationDate="2012-09-05T19:08:38.290" UserId="49" Text="Well, all evidences might be taken into consideration. &#xD;&#xA;To be a prior art, evidence must be public and need to have a date and comprise one or more subject matter, which is claimed in new invention. But, like other evidences in the internet, video can be deleted from youtube and there will be a problem to prove that 1 year ago youtube (or any other public web-site) contained a specific video.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to make a reference in a patent application - it's better to provide a &quot;hard-copy&quot; of video to the USPTO on the CD or DVD." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="3121e048-323f-40ff-a49b-94ef19316688" CreationDate="2012-09-05T19:15:58.707" UserId="50" Text="It's going to be hard for anyone to answer this &quot;definitively&quot; without revealing potentially privileged information.  This is because patent prosecutions before the USPTO are *ex parte*, meaning that they are not adversarial (like a lawsuit would be).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, it's the person filing the application, up against the USPTO.  The office actions (rejections etc) from the USPTO to the applicant are sent only to the applicant, and not made public.  So, the only way the world would know that an application had been rejected under obviousness or novelty grounds due to prior art, is if the applicant disclosed that fact.  Or, if this fact was somehow forced out in subsequent litigation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applying the above to your situation, the only way someone would be able to &quot;definitively confirm&quot; that a YouTube video was prior art would be if their own application was rejected on those grounds, and in most cases, they wouldn't/couldn't tell you the specifics about that without breaching privacy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19" RevisionGUID="02dc7d9e-89e3-41ab-9853-99cedaedb8c6" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:11:43.503" UserId="80" Text="We regularly hear a lot of news about software patents and how certain companies own or are buying gobs of patents in order to stave off potential law suits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a developer who would like to develop software for sale, when should I explore patenting my work? What constitutes an original idea and how would I go about pursuing a patent on my piece of software?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19" RevisionGUID="02dc7d9e-89e3-41ab-9853-99cedaedb8c6" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:11:43.503" UserId="80" Text="What kinds of software innovation can (or should) be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19" RevisionGUID="02dc7d9e-89e3-41ab-9853-99cedaedb8c6" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:11:43.503" UserId="80" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19" RevisionGUID="09242797-e4d5-4903-bc9e-492d9059119c" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:20:59.323" UserId="80" Comment="deleted 145 characters in body" Text="We regularly hear a lot of news about software patents and how certain companies own or are buying gobs of patents in order to stave off potential law suits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What constitutes an original patentable idea in software?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19" RevisionGUID="f359bb73-a644-4c98-9846-849523aaa851" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:25:44.330" UserId="74" Comment="Updated title based on question and comments" Text="What constitutes an original patentable idea in software?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19" RevisionGUID="f359bb73-a644-4c98-9846-849523aaa851" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:25:44.330" Comment="Proposed by 74 approved by 80 edit id of 1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21" RevisionGUID="0f6dc033-f7bc-40dd-b766-d9c4dd1a4c25" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:26:10.257" UserId="79" Text="I'm aware of several resources for searching the national or regional (e.g. EU) patent databases, but have found no tool for searching patents in all (or even several) countries at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a resource for searching patents globally?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21" RevisionGUID="0f6dc033-f7bc-40dd-b766-d9c4dd1a4c25" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:26:10.257" UserId="79" Text="Is there a resource for searching patents globally?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21" RevisionGUID="0f6dc033-f7bc-40dd-b766-d9c4dd1a4c25" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:26:10.257" UserId="79" Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;databases&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22" RevisionGUID="1fe49c15-b2ea-42f9-8d8c-f23f0a54901a" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:29:03.033" UserId="79" Text="I have several patents that I have filed with and have been received by the USPTO that have yet to appear when I search the USPTO online database. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How long is the delay between filing and appearance on the USPTO site? Will I be notified when the applications appear there?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22" RevisionGUID="1fe49c15-b2ea-42f9-8d8c-f23f0a54901a" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:29:03.033" UserId="79" Text="How long does it tale a patent application to appear in the USPTO database?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22" RevisionGUID="1fe49c15-b2ea-42f9-8d8c-f23f0a54901a" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:29:03.033" UserId="79" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;search&gt;&lt;databases&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21" RevisionGUID="2a83240d-3684-47a2-b4b4-5c807310d3f2" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:33:45.413" UserId="79" Comment="Should be free." Text="I'm aware of several resources for searching the national or regional (e.g. EU) patent databases, but have found no tool for searching patents in all (or even several) countries at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a free resource for searching patents globally?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="21" RevisionGUID="2a83240d-3684-47a2-b4b4-5c807310d3f2" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:33:45.413" UserId="79" Comment="Should be free." Text="Is there a free resource for searching patents globally?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22" RevisionGUID="cde4c46f-cfca-4baf-ac98-bb14d7569edd" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:34:07.737" UserId="88" Comment="Formatting, Grammar, Spelling, and a kitten!" Text="I have several patents that I have filed which have been received by the USPTO, but have yet to appear when I search the USPTO online database. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How long is the delay between filing and appearance on the USPTO site?  &#xD;&#xA;Will I be notified when the applications appear there?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="22" RevisionGUID="cde4c46f-cfca-4baf-ac98-bb14d7569edd" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:34:07.737" UserId="88" Comment="Formatting, Grammar, Spelling, and a kitten!" Text="How long does it take a patent application to appear in the USPTO database?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="22" RevisionGUID="cde4c46f-cfca-4baf-ac98-bb14d7569edd" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:34:07.737" Comment="Proposed by 88 approved by 79 edit id of 2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23" RevisionGUID="2678fd68-5543-41b3-8271-f085863901c7" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:35:11.630" UserId="84" Text="I have heard about &quot;[Copy Left][1]&quot; and was wondering if there is an equivalent for non-software ideas. How can I ensure that someone cannot patent an idea without filing for a patent myself?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft#Applying_copyleft" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23" RevisionGUID="2678fd68-5543-41b3-8271-f085863901c7" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:35:11.630" UserId="84" Text="Does &quot;Copy Left&quot; Exist Outside of Software?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23" RevisionGUID="2678fd68-5543-41b3-8271-f085863901c7" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:35:11.630" UserId="84" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="24" RevisionGUID="42142f62-38a8-4fbd-a65f-3226a9710e89" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:42:25.943" UserId="81" Text="If I have an existing UK patent, is there a way to get it recognised in the US, or to convert it to be a US patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that there must be agreements between countries on how they handle patents, but is this true?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="24" RevisionGUID="42142f62-38a8-4fbd-a65f-3226a9710e89" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:42:25.943" UserId="81" Text="Is there a specified route to convert UK patents to US patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="54" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="24" RevisionGUID="42142f62-38a8-4fbd-a65f-3226a9710e89" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:42:25.943" UserId="81" Text="&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="55" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="25" RevisionGUID="f0e0f103-d647-4a02-a498-590eb3e02216" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:43:30.987" UserId="79" Text="In the past I've been discouraged from filing provisional applications (in the US), but the new &quot;first to file&quot; provisions of the &quot;America Invents Act&quot; would seem to make a provisional application a wise choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will filing a provisional application secure a filing date for my invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="56" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="25" RevisionGUID="f0e0f103-d647-4a02-a498-590eb3e02216" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:43:30.987" UserId="79" Text="Should I file a provisional application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="57" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="25" RevisionGUID="f0e0f103-d647-4a02-a498-590eb3e02216" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:43:30.987" UserId="79" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;date-of-invention&gt;&lt;america-invents-act&gt;&lt;ustpo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="58" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="26" RevisionGUID="8975e591-3f03-4611-a18d-aef4d3cb4f47" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:44:47.880" UserId="76" Text="[WIPO](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO) has a [patent search interface](http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf) that covers PCT applications and many national databases, including Europe, Japan, Korea, Russia, many Latin American countries, and more. I think all currently-applicable patents are covered, and there is additional historical data for some countries, but not all of them provide full-text search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[EPO](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Patent_Office) has a [patent search interface](http://www.epo.org/searching/free/espacenet.html), [Espacenet](http://worldwide.espacenet.com/) which includes a search engine for European and PCT patents and applications as well as links to other countries' databases (especially Asian countries).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="59" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="8cb34731-cb74-4260-adfa-ae1810765504" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:49:11.283" UserId="50" Comment="clarify" Text="It's going to be hard for anyone to answer this &quot;definitively&quot; without revealing potentially privileged information.  This is because patent prosecutions before the USPTO are *ex parte*, meaning that they are not adversarial (like a lawsuit would be).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, it's the person filing the application, up against the USPTO.  The office actions (rejections etc) from the USPTO to the applicant are sent only to the applicant, and not made public.  So, the only way the world would know that an application had been rejected under obviousness or novelty grounds due to prior art, is if the applicant disclosed that fact.  Or, if this fact was somehow forced out in subsequent litigation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applying the above to your situation, the only way someone would be able to &quot;definitively confirm&quot; that a YouTube video was prior art would be if their own application was rejected on those grounds, and in most cases, they wouldn't/couldn't tell you the specifics about that without breaching confidentiality." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="60" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="27" RevisionGUID="d2c19581-bc6d-4ab2-b9fb-880c6a65606a" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:49:49.327" UserId="79" Text="I'm a small-scale independent inventor with few resources and have a patent that I believe is being infringed by a large company. I fear that if I approach the company on my own, I will have little leverage in negotiating with them, and I lack the resources to take them to court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can I do about an infringer if all I'm a small independent inventor with limited resources other than my patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="61" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="27" RevisionGUID="d2c19581-bc6d-4ab2-b9fb-880c6a65606a" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:49:49.327" UserId="79" Text="What can I do about an infringer if all I'm a small independent inventor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="62" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="27" RevisionGUID="d2c19581-bc6d-4ab2-b9fb-880c6a65606a" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:49:49.327" UserId="79" Text="&lt;infringing&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;litigation&gt;&lt;independent-inventor&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="63" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="21" RevisionGUID="e20aae29-61a9-4945-94d7-46e7d007128f" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:52:28.490" UserId="16" Comment="Clarify title" Text="How can I perform a global patent search for free?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="64" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="28" RevisionGUID="d13aa459-7805-44ee-9983-b002caa25a82" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:53:09.170" UserId="88" Text="&quot;Copyleft&quot; is a specific application of [copyright law][1] (restricting the license to use copyrighted material by requiring that those obtaining it must also redistribute it for free / under specified terms).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any work under &quot;copyleft&quot; is protected by copyright law (thanks to [The Berne Convention][2] copyright is &quot;automatic&quot; in most of the world), and those copyright protections are what allow the author to dictate the terms under which the work is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I'm aware there is no Berne Convention equivalent in patent law: in order for you to have patent protection and the ability to dictate how your invention is used (by licensing the patent for it) you *must* file for (and receive) a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the sort of protection the Copyleft folks would seek *is* inherent in US Patent Law and most other patent systems -- it is known as [Prior Art][3].  &#xD;&#xA;In its most simplistic definition (cribbed from Wikipedia):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Prior art …, in most systems of patent law, constitutes all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality. If an invention has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you have designed and publicly released something patentable (and can document the date of such a release to the satisfaction of the patent authorities) you can seek invalidate any subsequent patent claims on the grounds that prior art exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="65" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="25" RevisionGUID="7ae167da-2297-4652-aa11-c082125da404" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:54:10.673" UserId="16" Comment="The USTPO is a fine organization for all of your TP needs, but..." Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;date-of-invention&gt;&lt;america-invents-act&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="66" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="29" RevisionGUID="b70aed8f-1b13-4e12-bd22-bfae93ca7a04" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:54:31.150" UserId="96" Text="I am not aware of a definitive answer to your question either in the statutes or in case law, but I can set out likely parameters for making such a determination.  The following excerpt from 35 USC section 102 most directly addresses the issues relevant to your question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—&#xD;&#xA;(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or&#xD;&#xA;(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or* ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other limiting factors that are pertinent to your question.  The key question, already addressed earlier, is whether the YouTube video can be proven to be prior to the date of the claimed invention.  I don't know enough about the innards of the YouTube system to know whether definitive proof is available, though I suspect it is - provided that the Google folks will cooperate in demonstrating the actual publication date of the video.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is plenty of room for argument from the other side as to whether posting on YouTube is &quot;publication&quot; for purposes of the statute.  Also, given the nature of the medium, it may be difficult to establish that the video is &quot;truthy.&quot;  Remember the videos showing fantastic basketball shots and people launched through hoops?  It is also possible to misinterpret what a video actually represents, for example whether it shows an actual working process or a mockup such as stop motion animation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It comes down to proof - convincing a court as to the factual nature of the video and the date of its publication.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="67" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="30" RevisionGUID="d2a3dcb0-e48c-4637-b884-b6c0e639acfa" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:58:00.277" UserId="100" Text="According to the [USPTO FAQ][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Most patent applications filed on or after November 29, 2000, will be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; published **18 months after the filing date** of the application, or any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; earlier filing date relied upon under Title 35, United States Code.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Otherwise, all patent applications are maintained in the strictest&#xD;&#xA;&gt; confidence until the patent is issued or the application is published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Emphasis mine*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This was in response to the question, *Is there any danger that the USPTO will give others information contained in my application while it is pending?*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/faq/patents.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="68" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="31" RevisionGUID="2205dcff-a76d-45f1-adb4-5eb150412b94" CreationDate="2012-09-05T20:59:46.193" UserId="79" Text="&quot;Public disclosure&quot; of an invention, meeting the basic requirements of a patentable idea, notably &quot;enabling&quot; it, so that it teaches someone &quot;of ordinary skill in the art&quot; how to duplicate the invention, will generally serve as prior art, barring others from subsequently patenting an invention. In fact as faculty at research institutions are [often warned][1] &quot;public disclosure is interpreted by courts as *an intention to donate the invention to public domain*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.csuohio.edu/research/technologytransfer/faqs/inventiondisclosure.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="69" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="30" RevisionGUID="7506f723-7a9c-49c9-9a67-77fa7bb000da" CreationDate="2012-09-05T21:03:46.477" UserId="100" Comment="added 831 characters in body" Text="According to the [USPTO FAQ][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Most patent applications filed on or after November 29, 2000, will be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; published **18 months after the filing date** of the application, or any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; earlier filing date relied upon under Title 35, United States Code.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Otherwise, all patent applications are maintained in the strictest&#xD;&#xA;&gt; confidence until the patent is issued or the application is published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Emphasis mine*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This was in response to the question, *Is there any danger that the USPTO will give others information contained in my application while it is pending?*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Title 35 [in the USC][2] (which the above FAQ cites) has this to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Subject to paragraph (2), each application for a patent shall be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; published, in accordance with procedures determined by the Director,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; promptly after the expiration of a period of 18 months from the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought under this title.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At the request of the applicant, an application may be published&#xD;&#xA;&gt; earlier than the end of such 18-month period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bottom line:** 18 months after you file it, unless you request that it's published sooner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some exceptions that provide that the application isn't published, but I don't think they are really important to your question (read: they were too dry for me to get through).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/faq/patents.jsp&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/122" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="70" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="32" RevisionGUID="da31fa6b-c5d2-4d1f-a718-b86bb2b33646" CreationDate="2012-09-05T21:05:13.997" UserId="76" Text="The usual way to have a patent recognized outside your home country¹ is to make a [PCT](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Cooperation_Treaty) application. A majority of countries are PCT members (Taiwan is the most notable exception). The PCT application must be made within 12 months of the original UK application (in the general case, there are exceptions). Usually, at this stage, you have a preliminary report from the UK office but no definitive grant or rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The PCT application leads to a search of prior art and preliminary report on patentability. There is no such thing as a “worldwide patent”: the PCT application itself does not lead to a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within 30 months of the original filing in the UK (*priority date*), you may select countries¹ in which to deposit a national patent application, for example the US. The patent application is said to enter a *national phase*. The national patent office will have access to the international search report, but it is in no way bound by its recommendations. It can happen that one country accepts a patent and another denies it; you may get your US patent but not your UK patent or vice versa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information, see the [official PCT website](http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I am not a lawyer, I cannot guarantee that what I wrote above is true. The process is complicated; you will need a US attorney to handle the US patent application anyway (like in most countries). Your UK patent attorney should know how to advise you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;¹ &lt;sub&gt; Or group of countries (EPO in Europe, ARIPO in Africa, …) &lt;/sub&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="72" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="28" RevisionGUID="cf9d3124-0cd7-4584-839c-33483bc6d0a7" CreationDate="2012-09-05T21:12:55.313" UserId="88" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="&quot;Copyleft&quot; is a specific application of [copyright law][1] (restricting the license to use copyrighted material by requiring that those obtaining it must also redistribute it for free / under specified terms).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any work under &quot;copyleft&quot; is protected by copyright law (thanks to [The Berne Convention][2] copyright is &quot;automatic&quot; in most of the world), and those copyright protections are what allow the author to dictate the terms under which the work is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I'm aware there is no Berne Convention equivalent in patent law: in order for you to have patent protection and the ability to dictate how your invention is used (by licensing the patent for it to impose Copyleft-style requirements on those using it) you *must* file for (and receive) a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the sort of &quot;keeping information free&quot; protection the Copyleft folks would seek *is* inherent in US Patent Law and most other patent systems -- it is known as [Prior Art][3].  &#xD;&#xA;In its most simplistic definition (cribbed from Wikipedia):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Prior art …, in most systems of patent law, constitutes all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality. If an invention has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you have designed and publicly released something patentable (and can document the date of such a release to the satisfaction of the patent authorities) you can seek invalidate any subsequent patent claims on the grounds that prior art exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="73" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="33" RevisionGUID="d7de364d-b643-4935-9ade-02b873f65e01" CreationDate="2012-09-05T21:13:14.190" UserId="96" Text="Become a troll.  Or join up with one.  Or sell out to one.  Or sell to someone else who wants your patent for other reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are now a very large number of investors and attorneys who will help you to monetize your patent - provided they think they can make money from it.  Almost all of them would be described as patent trolls, more politely known as &quot;non-practicing entities&quot; or NPEs.  These are the guys who provide Davids with slings and stones to go up against Goliaths - for a piece of the action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some reasonably accurate background on the term &quot;patent troll&quot;, check out the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, you could also offer to sell your patent to practicing entities other than your suspected infringer in the appropriate technological field.  Your patent could be an arrow in the quiver of any entity who contests with the large company that you suspect is infringing your patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The principle is much the same in any case - trying to determine a net present value of the patent in the marketplace.  Making such a determination has little to do with judging whether your invention is worthy as being original and much more to do with judging how much money can be extracted from the broader world of commerce via ownership of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="74" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="31" RevisionGUID="450b7894-f283-43ae-bcbc-51676f985806" CreationDate="2012-09-05T21:13:35.663" UserId="79" Comment="Link to previous sentence." Text="&quot;Public disclosure&quot; of an invention, meeting the basic requirements of a patentable idea, notably &quot;enabling&quot; it, so that it teaches someone &quot;of ordinary skill in the art&quot; how to duplicate the invention, will generally serve as prior art, barring others from subsequently patenting an invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact (as faculty at research institutions are [often warned][1]) such &quot;public disclosure is interpreted by courts as *an intention to donate the invention to public domain*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.csuohio.edu/research/technologytransfer/faqs/inventiondisclosure.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="75" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="21" RevisionGUID="b049400b-3d08-438d-a097-5b90e74b4df0" CreationDate="2012-09-05T21:18:12.487" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;databases&gt;&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="76" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="34" RevisionGUID="582870e5-5e95-4417-9577-677e9e88bc5b" CreationDate="2012-09-05T21:25:11.560" UserId="105" Text="There is not a direct analog to copy left in the world of patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned by the two previous answers if your sole concern is ensuring that no one else can patent your invention then public disclosure of the invention is probably your best course of action. However, you would want to make that disclosure as widespread as you are capable of so that patent examiners are capable of finding your invention to use it as prior art against anyone that attempts to file for a patent on your invention. Simply posting it to your blog is probably not going to cut it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You ideally would want to get it published in some sort of widespread journal with a large distribution, and publicize your invention like crazy so that there are multiple venues through which an examiner would run into your invention. Of course that course of action is not always feasible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="77" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="35" RevisionGUID="bfa20ce1-c8bb-4381-8110-61dd4274128e" CreationDate="2012-09-05T21:29:24.940" UserId="105" Text="There is no free global patent search system. There has been tremendous amounts of normalization of intellectual property law around the world through the [World Intellectual Property Organization][1], but as of today there is no free service, governmental or otherwise, that can search the multitude of patent databases around the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wipo.int/portal/index.html.en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="78" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="36" RevisionGUID="645d9934-35cd-48fb-88d6-7f2e7bfc7664" CreationDate="2012-09-05T21:29:45.867" UserId="76" Text="A patent application was originally drafted in a language other than English and filed in a country other than the US. It was subsequently translated into English and made a PCT application and entered into US national phase. During the US examination, it was discovered that the translation into English was poor, leading to comprehension problems. There is a real risk that, due to the bad translation, the application might be rejected as unclear, or might be accepted but turn out not to cover the invention as intended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Up to what point in the procedure can the translation be revised to match the original text? What procedure should the applicant follow?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="79" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="36" RevisionGUID="645d9934-35cd-48fb-88d6-7f2e7bfc7664" CreationDate="2012-09-05T21:29:45.867" UserId="76" Text="Revising a translation of a foreign application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="80" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="36" RevisionGUID="645d9934-35cd-48fb-88d6-7f2e7bfc7664" CreationDate="2012-09-05T21:29:45.867" UserId="76" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;translations&gt;&lt;process&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="82" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="26" RevisionGUID="d923b8d5-5317-4902-8fc7-1bdef397a216" CreationDate="2012-09-05T21:37:29.833" UserId="76" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="[WIPO](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO) has a [patent search interface](http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf) that covers PCT applications and many national databases, including Europe, Japan, Korea, Russia, many Latin American countries, and more. I think all currently-applicable patents in these countries are covered, and there is additional historical data for some countries, but some of them only index metadata and abstracts, only a few provide full-text search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[EPO](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Patent_Office) has a [patent search interface](http://www.epo.org/searching/free/espacenet.html), [Espacenet](http://worldwide.espacenet.com/) which includes a search engine for European and PCT patents and applications as well as links to other countries' databases (especially Asian countries).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="83" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="37" RevisionGUID="8b1eadfb-de01-49ae-9fdc-4358074602a0" CreationDate="2012-09-05T21:48:00.403" UserId="79" Text="While working for a company I contributed inventions that were eventually became issued patents. While all other members of the team I worked on are named on those patents, my name is missing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I do to ensure that my name is added to patents on which it belongs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="84" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="37" RevisionGUID="8b1eadfb-de01-49ae-9fdc-4358074602a0" CreationDate="2012-09-05T21:48:00.403" UserId="79" Text="What should I do if my name is missing from a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="85" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="37" RevisionGUID="8b1eadfb-de01-49ae-9fdc-4358074602a0" CreationDate="2012-09-05T21:48:00.403" UserId="79" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="86" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="38" RevisionGUID="78a36da5-cedf-4ef9-a25e-7d52316591c0" CreationDate="2012-09-05T22:07:36.550" UserId="105" Text="I can only speak to the United States and actually that is somewhat all that matters as it is very difficult to get software patents in other countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US, [35 U.S.C. 101][1] states that &quot;Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what does that mean exactly? The attorneys at the invaluable website [bitlaw.com][2] have complied a [list of relevant cases][3] concerning software patents. There are a few take away points that can be summarized:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You can't patent algorithms in their purest sense detached from the physical world. The relevant case is *[Gottschalk v. Benson][4]*. They must be attached to something in the physical world.&#xD;&#xA; - You can patent software that is a part of a larger invention connected to the physical world. The first case on this issue was *[Diamond v. Diehr][5]*. Specifically, if what you are applying for performs a function that transforms or reduces an article to a different state or thing it generally would be afforded patent protection.&#xD;&#xA; - However, the test mentioned in Diamond v. Diehr is not to be used as the sole test for patentability as pointed out in the recent *[Bilski v. Kappos][6]* case. The court in *Bilski* stated that the [machine-or-transformation test][7] is not to be the sole determinant for patentability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which brings us to the present day. It is now unclear what the particular standard is that software needs to meet to be patented. If it is connected to a machine, or is involved in transforming something else then it is probably patentable. So what you will see is patents for software that have some sort of effect in the physical world like e.g. video compression software that produces high quality video on a display screen to a user or something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a much more thorough treatment of the topic and far better insight than I can provide I highly recommend the blog [Patently-O][8].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_101.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.bitlaw.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/history.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1972/1972_71_485&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_79_1112&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2009/2009_08_964&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-or-transformation_test&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.patentlyo.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="87" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="39" RevisionGUID="8154627a-3a30-48b4-b362-1d7926cf7e01" CreationDate="2012-09-05T22:13:16.907" UserId="105" Text="If it is a United States patent see if your company's patent attorney(s) will file a &quot;Correction of Inventorship&quot; pursuant to CFR 37 Section 1.48 which reads in relevant part to your situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; § 1.48 Correction of inventorship in a patent application, other than a reissue application, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 116.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Nonprovisional application after oath/declaration filed. If the inventive entity is set forth in error in an executed § 1.63 oath or declaration in a nonprovisional application, and such error arose without any deceptive intention on the part of the person named as an inventor in error or on the part of the person who through error was not named as an inventor, the inventorship of the nonprovisional application may be amended to name only the actual inventor or inventors. Amendment of the inventorship requires:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1) A request to correct the inventorship that sets forth the desired inventorship change;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2) A statement from each person being added as an inventor and from each person being deleted as an inventor that the error in inventorship occurred without deceptive intention on his or her part;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(3) An oath or declaration by the actual inventor or inventors as required by § 1.63 or as permitted by §§ 1.42, 1.43 or § 1.47;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(4) The processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i); and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(5) If an assignment has been executed by any of the original named inventors, the written consent of the assignee (see § 3.73(b) of this chapter)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="88" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="37" RevisionGUID="704117ca-c08f-460c-848e-5a26e86638ba" CreationDate="2012-09-05T22:20:54.113" UserId="79" Comment="Extend question." Text="While working for a company I contributed inventions that were eventually became issued patents. While all other members of the team I worked on are named on those patents, my name is missing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I do to ensure that my name is added to patents on which it belongs? What can I do if the company is not cooperating?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="89" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="27" RevisionGUID="62f6be0d-1c75-4ed4-9ee8-3ceaf347e807" CreationDate="2012-09-05T22:21:45.813" UserId="79" Comment="Fix title." Text="What can I do about an infringer if I'm a small independent inventor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="91" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="41" RevisionGUID="143e884c-3e22-4368-afa9-a1dd40d5117d" CreationDate="2012-09-05T22:33:41.490" UserId="34" Text="[Patent 7,222,078][1] (one of the [Lodsys patents][2]), uses the term 'commodity' repeatedly throughout the patent.  Many of the claims are so generic because they use this term. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a term that is defined in this patent, or is it a term that has a common legal definition? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, the patent specifics are about software in a fax machine that lets you give feedback, but Lodsys is applying it to any software that gives feedback (which isn't defined either).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/?tbm=pts#hl=en&amp;sugexp=les;&amp;gs_nf=1&amp;tok=LQqjbkByVViGdRnPZLVsZA&amp;cp=9&amp;gs_id=7&amp;xhr=t&amp;q=7,222,078&amp;pf=p&amp;safe=off&amp;output=search&amp;tbm=pts&amp;sclient=psy-ab&amp;oq=7,222,078&amp;gs_l=&amp;pbx=1&amp;bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&amp;fp=7492e4548c390019&amp;biw=1115&amp;bih=611&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2011061523371286" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="92" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="41" RevisionGUID="143e884c-3e22-4368-afa9-a1dd40d5117d" CreationDate="2012-09-05T22:33:41.490" UserId="34" Text="What does the term 'commodity' mean in patent 7,222,078?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="93" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="41" RevisionGUID="143e884c-3e22-4368-afa9-a1dd40d5117d" CreationDate="2012-09-05T22:33:41.490" UserId="34" Text="&lt;7222078&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="94" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23" RevisionGUID="122e243f-96d4-4163-95ab-66704d10023e" CreationDate="2012-09-05T22:40:03.143" UserId="88" Comment="Clarify the question (at least I *think* it's a little clearer, may have bollocksed up the meaning)" Text="I have heard about &quot;[Copyleft][1]&quot; and was wondering if there is an equivalent for works which fall under Patent law rather than Copyright law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, is there a way I ensure that someone cannot patent an idea without filing for a patent myself?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft#Applying_copyleft" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="95" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="23" RevisionGUID="122e243f-96d4-4163-95ab-66704d10023e" CreationDate="2012-09-05T22:40:03.143" UserId="88" Comment="Clarify the question (at least I *think* it's a little clearer, may have bollocksed up the meaning)" Text="Is there a way to achieve protections similar to &quot;Copyleft&quot; under the patent system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="96" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="23" RevisionGUID="122e243f-96d4-4163-95ab-66704d10023e" CreationDate="2012-09-05T22:40:03.143" Comment="Proposed by 88 approved by 16 edit id of 4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="97" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="41" RevisionGUID="38ae61eb-6afd-43c4-a15a-968d0da0ee38" CreationDate="2012-09-05T22:47:37.520" UserId="76" Comment="made the link direct; added official link" Text="[Patent 7,222,078][1] ([USPTO](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=7222078.PN.&amp;OS=PN/7222078&amp;RS=PN/7222078)) (one of the [Lodsys patents][2]), uses the term 'commodity' repeatedly throughout the patent.  Many of the claims are so generic because they use this term. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a term that is defined in this patent, or is it a term that has a common legal definition? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, the patent specifics are about software in a fax machine that lets you give feedback, but Lodsys is applying it to any software that gives feedback (which isn't defined either).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents?id=nA2AAAAAEBAJ&amp;dq=7,222,078&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2011061523371286" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="98" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="41" RevisionGUID="38ae61eb-6afd-43c4-a15a-968d0da0ee38" CreationDate="2012-09-05T22:47:37.520" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 34 edit id of 5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="99" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="41" RevisionGUID="2badfabe-fc5f-4a7d-815a-97c5d2f1305b" CreationDate="2012-09-05T22:50:26.700" UserId="7" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;us7222078&gt;&lt;definition&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="41" RevisionGUID="2ac36952-5ce2-4cf0-8dea-8da3c90f65cb" CreationDate="2012-09-05T23:05:52.663" UserId="11" Comment="quoted" Text="[Patent 7,222,078][1] ([USPTO](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=7222078.PN.&amp;OS=PN/7222078&amp;RS=PN/7222078)) (one of the [Lodsys patents][2]), uses the term 'commodity' repeatedly throughout the patent, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In an exemplary system, information is received at a central location from different units of a commodity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the claims are so generic because they use this term. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a term that is defined in this patent, or is it a term that has a common legal definition? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, the patent specifics are about software in a fax machine that lets you give feedback, but Lodsys is applying it to any software that gives feedback (which isn't defined either).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents?id=nA2AAAAAEBAJ&amp;dq=7,222,078&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2011061523371286" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="42" RevisionGUID="985e15c7-4a47-4abb-b6a5-1598fb5bfe18" CreationDate="2012-09-05T23:13:41.380" UserId="79" Text="Absent some definition or example in the document itself, one must fall back on the “[ordinary and plain meaning][1]” of the term, which, as with all terms, is subject to interpretation and dispute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though it's tempting to say more than that, anything further would be misleading: how the “ordinary and plain meaning” of an undefined term is established will depend on the nature of the term, the context in which the term us used, the venue in which it is meaning is being disputed, and the persuasiveness and expertise of the participants in the process. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2111_01.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="43" RevisionGUID="082bea12-086d-4c32-be99-1de2d850c7ab" CreationDate="2012-09-06T03:57:29.130" UserId="118" Text="Please note, I'm not speaking in the context of a [land patent][1], I just could not think of a better word than `deed`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. I have a concrete implementation of something that can be patented&#xD;&#xA; 2. I have the financial and legal resources to likely obtain said patent&#xD;&#xA; 3. I wish to grant the public at large an exclusive royalty free license to my patent&#xD;&#xA; 4. I could not otherwise (with certainty) just establish prior art by having my concept published in respected journals and other common venues&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I simply deed the patent to the public? If not, how could I accomplish my goal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="103" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="43" RevisionGUID="082bea12-086d-4c32-be99-1de2d850c7ab" CreationDate="2012-09-06T03:57:29.130" UserId="118" Text="In the US, can a granted patent be deeded to the public?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="104" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="43" RevisionGUID="082bea12-086d-4c32-be99-1de2d850c7ab" CreationDate="2012-09-06T03:57:29.130" UserId="118" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="44" RevisionGUID="c3b0ceea-062c-46e0-9afc-57e9ba93be98" CreationDate="2012-09-06T04:36:29.843" UserId="49" Text="Sometimes, during a patent research i found patents, which comprise one or more similar images and/or text paragraphs. So, my question: Are text and/or images in the patent copyrighted? Does any 3rd party, other than inventor and patent attorney, who filed 1st application, is eligible to copy-paste some paragraphs from the 1st patent to the 2nd patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;standard&quot; ending of the description:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The following description is presented to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the disclosed embodiments, and is provided in the context of a particular application and its requirements. Various modifications to the disclosed embodiments will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art, and the general principles defined herein may be applied to other embodiments and applications without departing from the spirit and scope of the present embodiments. Thus, the system is not limited to the embodiments shown, but is to be accorded the widest scope consistent with the principles and features disclosed herein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="106" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="44" RevisionGUID="c3b0ceea-062c-46e0-9afc-57e9ba93be98" CreationDate="2012-09-06T04:36:29.843" UserId="49" Text="Are text and images in the patent copyrighted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="107" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="44" RevisionGUID="c3b0ceea-062c-46e0-9afc-57e9ba93be98" CreationDate="2012-09-06T04:36:29.843" UserId="49" Text="&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;specification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="45" RevisionGUID="e29059fb-46c6-4ec7-a34f-bd6735cc0e14" CreationDate="2012-09-06T07:50:43.570" UserId="127" Text="Maybe http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/ could help you with that ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="46" RevisionGUID="d5abadb5-822b-43ca-ae82-d079b2d76980" CreationDate="2012-09-06T08:52:29.630" UserId="129" Text="Currently the majority of bad press about trivial software patents is all centred around Apple and other smartphone industry players.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few years ago it was the Amazon &quot;1-click&quot; patent everybody was deriding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going back a few decades when I was getting into computers I recall being shocked to learn that the implementation of a flashing cursor / caret on a computer screen using `XOR` was patented and many well known tech companies were paying royalties on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what I want to know is if there was a patent before even this that was widely denigrated as obvious and trivial and a perfect example of why software patents were a bad idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="110" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="46" RevisionGUID="d5abadb5-822b-43ca-ae82-d079b2d76980" CreationDate="2012-09-06T08:52:29.630" UserId="129" Text="Was there an &quot;infamous&quot; trivial software patent before the XOR flashing cursor / caret patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="111" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="46" RevisionGUID="d5abadb5-822b-43ca-ae82-d079b2d76980" CreationDate="2012-09-06T08:52:29.630" UserId="129" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="116" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="41" RevisionGUID="1726dbd4-9a72-4dc3-b8f2-2d43daed8c21" CreationDate="2012-09-06T09:51:25.773" UserId="129" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;us7222078&gt;&lt;definition&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="117" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="43" RevisionGUID="d3b61870-c4a0-4a30-8ea1-b112507adb17" CreationDate="2012-09-06T09:53:29.903" UserId="129" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;usa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="46" RevisionGUID="1831fab5-7634-47ee-9f32-5b124a3e11e7" CreationDate="2012-09-06T09:58:03.533" UserId="129" Comment="patent numbers for 1-click and xor cursor, with links; a new &quot;history&quot; tag" Text="Currently the majority of bad press about trivial software patents is all centred around Apple and other smartphone industry players.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few years ago it was the Amazon &quot;1-click&quot; patent everybody was deriding. ([US 5960411][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going back a few decades when I was getting into computers I recall being shocked to learn that the implementation of a flashing cursor / caret on a computer screen using `XOR` was patented and many well known tech companies were paying royalties on it. ([U.S. Patent #4197590][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what I want to know is if there was a patent before even this that was widely denigrated as obvious and trivial and a perfect example of why software patents were a bad idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&amp;IDX=US5960411&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT4197590" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="119" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="46" RevisionGUID="1831fab5-7634-47ee-9f32-5b124a3e11e7" CreationDate="2012-09-06T09:58:03.533" UserId="129" Comment="patent numbers for 1-click and xor cursor, with links; a new &quot;history&quot; tag" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;history&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="120" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="24" RevisionGUID="5eb95db8-6f60-4741-85bc-c4de11e21327" CreationDate="2012-09-06T10:00:47.803" UserId="129" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;uk&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="46" RevisionGUID="15bcc791-2c67-4f3d-952f-34fd77fd1073" CreationDate="2012-09-06T10:12:59.170" UserId="129" Comment="wikipedia link to XOR" Text="Currently the majority of bad press about trivial software patents is all centred around Apple and other smartphone industry players.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few years ago it was the Amazon &quot;1-click&quot; patent everybody was deriding. ([US 5960411][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going back a few decades when I was getting into computers I recall being shocked to learn that the implementation of a flashing cursor / caret on a computer screen using [`XOR`][2] was patented and many well known tech companies were paying royalties on it. ([U.S. Patent #4197590][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what I want to know is if there was a patent before even this that was widely denigrated as obvious and trivial and a perfect example of why software patents were a bad idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&amp;IDX=US5960411&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT4197590" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="48" RevisionGUID="4f9f07bc-0897-462a-ae3d-38ed7338fd2e" CreationDate="2012-09-06T10:31:49.017" UserId="128" Text="Suppose the following situation: A company is incorporated in a country other than U.S.A., which does not allow software patents (e.g. EU member countries). This company produces an invention as a result of its own research which is embodied as a software product. The results of this work are not screened for being patentable, because it's no even possible for this legal entity according to local law. The company is “in good will”, that it doesn't infringe anyone else's rights, selling the software internationally. Further suppose that there is a valid patent filed with the USPTO which covers portions of this company's idependent achievements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What will be the legal consequences in the following cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the software product is sold in the US by means of electronic software distribution directly by the foreign company;&#xD;&#xA; - the software product is sold by a reseller incorporated in the US;&#xD;&#xA; - the company establishes a subsidiary in the US which then handles sales in the US? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that research and development in this case remains in a country which does not allow software patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the US patent holder empowered to file a lawsuit againts the foreign company / its reseller / its subsidiary in either case? Are there any other legal consequences, or claims made possible by either party? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="124" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="48" RevisionGUID="4f9f07bc-0897-462a-ae3d-38ed7338fd2e" CreationDate="2012-09-06T10:31:49.017" UserId="128" Text="Consequences of unwilful US patent infringment by a foreign legal entity when establishing US presence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="125" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="48" RevisionGUID="4f9f07bc-0897-462a-ae3d-38ed7338fd2e" CreationDate="2012-09-06T10:31:49.017" UserId="128" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;infringment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="126" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="48" RevisionGUID="517b0b38-cb4b-450b-bdeb-759d8ca31792" CreationDate="2012-09-06T10:39:46.133" UserId="129" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;infringment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="45" RevisionGUID="4cce9d8d-f49e-4507-a4a6-b599069c7cad" CreationDate="2012-09-06T10:43:49.387" UserId="81" Comment="added some context from the website" Text="Maybe http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/ could help you with that ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From their website: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Open Invention Network® is refining the intellectual property model so that important patents are openly shared in a collaborative environment. Patents owned by Open Invention Network® are available royalty-free to any company, institution or individual that agrees not to assert its patents against the Linux System. This enables companies to make significant corporate and capital expenditure investments in Linux — helping to fuel economic growth.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="128" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="45" RevisionGUID="4cce9d8d-f49e-4507-a4a6-b599069c7cad" CreationDate="2012-09-06T10:43:49.387" Comment="Proposed by 81 approved by 127 edit id of 7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="49" RevisionGUID="b19f8ffd-6c90-44ab-a321-ce56cf9a75e0" CreationDate="2012-09-06T10:58:37.460" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="50" RevisionGUID="99ab2382-a118-4818-9153-3704542fb1ba" CreationDate="2012-09-06T10:58:37.460" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="51" RevisionGUID="69e4b13e-fb7a-419d-b01b-eb791d85d334" CreationDate="2012-09-06T10:59:27.253" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="52" RevisionGUID="7ac96e67-71ad-4d7f-8a92-ad7e089bf1e2" CreationDate="2012-09-06T10:59:27.253" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="53" RevisionGUID="32d227e2-700f-4767-b60c-7251b46ace9f" CreationDate="2012-09-06T11:00:13.383" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="54" RevisionGUID="c609280e-129a-4c9f-8179-e1fd55aa9f6b" CreationDate="2012-09-06T11:00:13.383" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="55" RevisionGUID="589252f9-5a0a-4194-87a6-7569ee84ec19" CreationDate="2012-09-06T11:00:55.223" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="56" RevisionGUID="c0756b10-f089-4af9-b393-30faee86b40d" CreationDate="2012-09-06T11:00:55.223" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="57" RevisionGUID="3ceb80a1-1114-497b-bd83-5ab81a8ebfc5" CreationDate="2012-09-06T11:02:16.627" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="58" RevisionGUID="96f01dde-c47d-4719-a79c-e4d5c280d9a9" CreationDate="2012-09-06T11:02:16.627" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="59" RevisionGUID="8c7cba8b-687e-48e1-b8c2-9868728c56c8" CreationDate="2012-09-06T11:04:03.457" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="60" RevisionGUID="55eb4450-7f4f-4218-a6a3-da2521ca98e8" CreationDate="2012-09-06T11:04:03.457" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="43" RevisionGUID="609301d6-c2b8-4ce3-a5b3-ab8289a725ec" CreationDate="2012-09-06T11:52:37.060" UserId="118" Comment="added 156 characters in body" Text="Please note, I'm not speaking in the context of a [land patent][1], I just could not think of a better word than `deed`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. I have a concrete implementation of something that can be patented&#xD;&#xA; 2. I have the financial and legal resources to likely obtain said patent&#xD;&#xA; 3. I wish to grant the public at large an exclusive royalty free license to my patent&#xD;&#xA; 4. I could not otherwise (with certainty) just establish prior art by having my concept published in respected journals and other common venues&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I simply deed the patent to the public? If not, how could I accomplish my goal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While software is my primary focus and occupation, I'm really interested to know how to accomplish this with any given patent, or if it's even possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="61" RevisionGUID="c9f46ea5-2838-450b-83b1-5de1b09cc749" CreationDate="2012-09-06T12:47:27.300" UserId="118" Text="In order for a company to accuse an organization of _willful_ infringement, or alleging that they are actively and _knowingly_ infringing on a patent, must the patent holder first send the allegedly infringing company notice? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, how long after notice is sent until the alleged infringement can be called willful if it continues?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, can willful infringement apply to a company that simply failed to search?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="144" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="61" RevisionGUID="c9f46ea5-2838-450b-83b1-5de1b09cc749" CreationDate="2012-09-06T12:47:27.300" UserId="118" Text="In the US, can willful patent infringement exist without prior notification?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="145" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="61" RevisionGUID="c9f46ea5-2838-450b-83b1-5de1b09cc749" CreationDate="2012-09-06T12:47:27.300" UserId="118" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="56" RevisionGUID="4a59299e-a092-4f14-af96-90a384b42a89" CreationDate="2012-09-06T13:06:48.690" UserId="129" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="Questions specifically relating to the patent system of the United States of America." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="148" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="56" RevisionGUID="4a59299e-a092-4f14-af96-90a384b42a89" CreationDate="2012-09-06T13:06:48.690" Comment="Proposed by 129 approved by 1 edit id of 12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="54" RevisionGUID="ddbaaa97-009d-4ba4-b191-41f5f607a6ea" CreationDate="2012-09-06T13:06:54.930" UserId="129" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="United States Patent and Trademark Office, the body which issues patents in the USA." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="150" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="54" RevisionGUID="ddbaaa97-009d-4ba4-b191-41f5f607a6ea" CreationDate="2012-09-06T13:06:54.930" Comment="Proposed by 129 approved by 1 edit id of 11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="44" RevisionGUID="4c5ab923-e590-4dd1-8f1b-397793b03317" CreationDate="2012-09-06T13:07:06.160" UserId="133" Comment="improved spelling, and punctuation" Text="Sometimes, during a patent research, I found patents which comprise one or more similar images and/or text paragraphs. Are text and images in the patent copyrighted? Does any 3rd party, other than inventor and patent attorney, who filed 1st application, is eligible to copy-paste some paragraphs from the 1st patent to the 2nd patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the &quot;standard&quot; ending of the description is the following one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The following description is presented to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the disclosed embodiments, and is provided in the context of a particular application and its requirements. Various modifications to the disclosed embodiments will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art, and the general principles defined herein may be applied to other embodiments and applications without departing from the spirit and scope of the present embodiments. Thus, the system is not limited to the embodiments shown, but is to be accorded the widest scope consistent with the principles and features disclosed herein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="152" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="44" RevisionGUID="4c5ab923-e590-4dd1-8f1b-397793b03317" CreationDate="2012-09-06T13:07:06.160" Comment="Proposed by 133 approved by 1 edit id of 8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="60" RevisionGUID="2023f7f5-198d-4a21-8b8a-cfc61626c730" CreationDate="2012-09-06T13:07:11.887" UserId="129" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="Questions specifically relating to the patent system of the United Kingdom." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="154" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="60" RevisionGUID="2023f7f5-198d-4a21-8b8a-cfc61626c730" CreationDate="2012-09-06T13:07:11.887" Comment="Proposed by 129 approved by 1 edit id of 14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="50" RevisionGUID="6fd28259-8ea0-404d-8fae-2b2d867f40ae" CreationDate="2012-09-06T13:07:15.897" UserId="129" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="Questions involving patent issues across multiple countries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="156" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="50" RevisionGUID="6fd28259-8ea0-404d-8fae-2b2d867f40ae" CreationDate="2012-09-06T13:07:15.897" Comment="Proposed by 129 approved by 1 edit id of 9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="58" RevisionGUID="6e867097-0e76-428d-872d-9182b5abc6ea" CreationDate="2012-09-06T13:07:19.360" UserId="129" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="Questions about the history of the patent system or the histories of specific patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="158" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="58" RevisionGUID="6e867097-0e76-428d-872d-9182b5abc6ea" CreationDate="2012-09-06T13:07:19.360" Comment="Proposed by 129 approved by 1 edit id of 13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="52" RevisionGUID="89adb9d3-2502-43de-b489-9143b3d37d18" CreationDate="2012-09-06T13:07:28.843" UserId="129" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="For questions relating specifically to software patents, permitting in some but not all countries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="160" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="52" RevisionGUID="89adb9d3-2502-43de-b489-9143b3d37d18" CreationDate="2012-09-06T13:07:28.843" Comment="Proposed by 129 approved by 1 edit id of 10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="63" RevisionGUID="0c81f197-3a54-4431-8b1b-7cef11132fc8" CreationDate="2012-09-06T14:36:34.267" UserId="50" Text="Yes, it's called a [statutory disclaimer][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxr_1_321.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A patentee owning the whole or any sectional interest in a patent may disclaim any complete claim or claims in a patent. In like manner any patentee may disclaim or dedicate to the public the entire term, or any terminal part of the term, of the patent granted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="64" RevisionGUID="8efae1d7-8c73-480f-a6f4-72f30b7be2ac" CreationDate="2012-09-06T14:43:43.820" UserId="50" Text="The AIA is not really a first-to-file system.  It's more of a first-to-disclose system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, after public disclosure, you have a year to file.  Publishing in a journal can beat a later-filed provisional application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="61" RevisionGUID="13648cd2-f992-4976-be08-2c7306181bd8" CreationDate="2012-09-06T14:58:45.030" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="In order for a company to accuse an organization of _willful_ infringement, or allege that they are actively and _knowingly_ infringing on a patent, must the patent holder first send the allegedly infringing company notice? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, how long after notice is sent until the alleged infringement can be called willful if it continues?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, can willful infringement apply to a company that simply failed to search?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="168" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="61" RevisionGUID="3b55007e-b423-4d3a-b529-73afb4b7cea3" CreationDate="2012-09-06T15:04:49.410" UserId="118" Comment="This has the uspto tag, people know it's about the US" Text="Can willful patent infringement exist without prior notification?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="169" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="43" RevisionGUID="0f8a55e6-c984-452c-9e1c-5075bcfe4d6d" CreationDate="2012-09-06T15:05:18.290" UserId="118" Comment="This has the uspto tag, people know it's about the US" Text="Can a granted patent be deeded to the public?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="170" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="41" RevisionGUID="ca5cdb02-801c-4926-85db-a535f2b50bb2" CreationDate="2012-09-06T15:26:04.713" UserId="41" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;us7222078&gt;&lt;definition&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;us20040177002&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="46" RevisionGUID="932db0a0-e00d-47c3-a1d0-7c64e67dff13" CreationDate="2012-09-06T15:27:13.960" UserId="129" Comment="standard links to google patents as recommended on meta" Text="Currently the majority of bad press about trivial software patents is all centred around Apple and other smartphone industry players.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few years ago it was the Amazon &quot;1-click&quot; patent everybody was deriding. ([US 5960411][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going back a few decades when I was getting into computers I recall being shocked to learn that the implementation of a flashing cursor / caret on a computer screen using [`XOR`][2] was patented and many well known tech companies were paying royalties on it. ([US 4197590][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what I want to know is if there was a patent before even this that was widely denigrated as obvious and trivial and a perfect example of why software patents were a bad idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5960411&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4197590" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="172" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="46" RevisionGUID="37f120a3-f4f9-43b8-85f4-03e799a6308b" CreationDate="2012-09-06T15:45:32.713" UserId="129" Comment="add patent number/code/id tags as recommended in meta" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;us5960411&gt;&lt;us4197590&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="65" RevisionGUID="0eb6a928-3728-4040-9596-e497b0249bfb" CreationDate="2012-09-06T15:46:21.680" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="66" RevisionGUID="87261578-57ea-41e9-8b57-fad8bbe41ddb" CreationDate="2012-09-06T15:46:21.680" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="67" RevisionGUID="bed2cb87-5ff9-4c7e-8f6e-248f5409d888" CreationDate="2012-09-06T15:47:33.770" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="68" RevisionGUID="3304c13f-9bfb-41e3-99c5-3038d4a683b4" CreationDate="2012-09-06T15:47:33.770" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="69" RevisionGUID="48c41567-a979-4d9a-bf34-974bacbfbe6f" CreationDate="2012-09-06T15:49:36.527" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="70" RevisionGUID="cce3f96b-0965-451f-bb97-19ef20ca4ef8" CreationDate="2012-09-06T15:49:36.527" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="68" RevisionGUID="8e3f5e13-1140-46a7-a162-b2c1b1f9cbbc" CreationDate="2012-09-06T16:34:51.407" UserId="129" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="Method for dynamically viewing image elements stored in a random access memory array" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="180" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="68" RevisionGUID="8e3f5e13-1140-46a7-a162-b2c1b1f9cbbc" CreationDate="2012-09-06T16:34:51.407" Comment="Proposed by 129 approved by 6 edit id of 16" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="66" RevisionGUID="c6517167-6746-4b65-afb5-30aaeab9ac06" CreationDate="2012-09-06T16:34:59.440" UserId="129" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="Method and system for placing a purchase order via a communications network" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="182" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="66" RevisionGUID="c6517167-6746-4b65-afb5-30aaeab9ac06" CreationDate="2012-09-06T16:34:59.440" Comment="Proposed by 129 approved by 6 edit id of 15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="70" RevisionGUID="c402ffbb-02e1-49f5-87ad-a862b66b49e1" CreationDate="2012-09-06T16:35:02.513" UserId="129" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="Methods and systems for gathering information from units of a commodity across a network" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="184" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="70" RevisionGUID="c402ffbb-02e1-49f5-87ad-a862b66b49e1" CreationDate="2012-09-06T16:35:02.513" Comment="Proposed by 129 approved by 6 edit id of 17" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="71" RevisionGUID="6beea7a1-9792-4927-8a4b-afd5a07cc602" CreationDate="2012-09-06T16:38:17.560" UserId="96" Text="Making the accusation of willfulness is trivial; proving it at a trial is more difficult.  Simple failure to search is not sufficient basis for a finding of willfulness.  Some showing of actual knowledge of infringement or likely infringement is required.  Notification (whether by the patent holder or any other party) is evidence of knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As with so many of the answers you will see on this site, even this explanation comes with a large helping of &quot;it depends.&quot;  For example, one may avoid searching *because he knows (somehow) that relevant patented technology is out there.*  If that can be shown, then the failure to search supports an argument for willfulness.  But even then, if the infringer was utterly ignorant of the patent claims being asserted, a jury might well find that the specific infringement was not willful.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The determination of willfulness is up to the finder of fact - either the judge (in a bench trial) or a jury.  The finding will always depend on the specific set of facts presented at trial.  &quot;Facts&quot; as reported in the news or assumed by the public are not the same sort of creature as a &quot;fact&quot; admitted into evidence in a trial.  All facts are weighed by the finder of fact to arrive at a verdict.  Different juries (and judges) could well reach different conclusions based on the same sets of facts.  Litigation is very expensive, so &quot;slam dunk&quot; questions rarely make it into a trial. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something else to be aware of: a jury's (or judge's) finding of willfulness is one condition under which the judge **can** enhance a monetary award, but the judge is not required to do so.  The willfulness premium is limited at the top end, and the lower bound is zero.  The judge has discretion to select an enhanced value that seems most appropriate in all of the circumstances - which may include mitigating factors that reduce or preclude additional compensation even when the infringer is fully aware of the patent before initiating the infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="72" RevisionGUID="f3c58c3a-ef85-430d-847f-5d808ccc9e42" CreationDate="2012-09-06T17:13:26.970" UserId="96" Text="The holder of a valid US patent has two forums in which to assert its patent rights: Federal District Court and the International Trade Commission (ITC).  In either forum, the court must have jurisdiction to try the case.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, a Federal District Court needs some &quot;hook&quot; to assert jurisdiction over a party. In the circumstances you describe, it seems likely that the reseller or subsidiary will be subject to the jurisdiction of at least one Federal District Court because the business exists or operates or has assets somewhere in the United States.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ITC has the authority to prohibit the importation of goods into the United States. So even in the first circumstance you posit, the US company has recourse to halt the infringement (in the US) by bringing suit at the ITC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Federal District Court both parties have the full panoply of rights and defenses normally available in the forum.  At the ITC the parties face issues that are unique to that forum, such as proof of impact on a domestic industry, for example.  But again, the rights and defenses of the parties within that forum are well established and fit the circumstances you propose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="73" RevisionGUID="431ad6ef-75d4-4615-8c09-d2093c7ba9c8" CreationDate="2012-09-06T17:43:06.107" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="74" RevisionGUID="6d571997-a2f5-48ef-bd57-2bcaa56e8dc8" CreationDate="2012-09-06T17:43:06.107" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="75" RevisionGUID="0f8fda24-372a-4329-a331-b42bc67c7b58" CreationDate="2012-09-06T17:58:55.567" UserId="96" Text="One further gloss on the answer previously posted: Although copyright vests upon creation of the work, in order to enforce the copyright of a work (created in the US) through the Federal Courts, the copyright must be registered.  See page 7 of http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The passage that you cited is one particular form of a common expression and may technically be enforceable as a copyrighted work (or may not), but I doubt that any court would entertain an attempt to do so regardless.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13" RevisionGUID="1ef8e5d1-2501-49b5-a5d6-0c8e1869f5fe" CreationDate="2012-09-06T18:23:39.210" UserId="4" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="Every $SiteName question is required to have at least one tag. Tags are how we group, order, and find questions, so that users can search for specific question types.&#xA;&#xA;So, if you’re only interested in questions that relate to software, you can simply search the site for [software](/questions/tagged/software).&#xA;&#xA;But how do you determine which tags are correct for your question?&#xA;&#xA;**First, 3 Rules:**&#xA;&#xA;- If you mention a US or EU patent in your question, include its patent number as a tag with &quot;US&quot; or &quot;EU&quot; at the front.  For example, use tag [tag:us7222078] for [US Patent 7222078](http://www.google.com/patents/US7222078).&#xA;- If you mention a patent application in your question, include its &#xA;  publication number as a tag&#xA;- If you seek or propose prior art in your question, include the tag [tag:prior-art]&#xA;&#xA;**Otherwise, tagging is up to you.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="52" RevisionGUID="99c06c84-cd7a-440e-89ad-50b8f858fbbd" CreationDate="2012-09-06T19:38:47.660" UserId="129" Comment="oops wrong verb form" Text="For questions relating specifically to software patents, permitted in some but not all countries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="192" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="52" RevisionGUID="99c06c84-cd7a-440e-89ad-50b8f858fbbd" CreationDate="2012-09-06T19:38:47.660" Comment="Proposed by 129 approved by 1 edit id of 18" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="37" RevisionGUID="231f9d59-a468-4656-9129-d93e5e4edf42" CreationDate="2012-09-06T19:38:59.797" UserId="133" Comment="improved grammar, and punctuation" Text="While working for a company, I contributed inventions that eventually became issued patents. While all other members of the team I worked on are named on those patents, my name is missing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I do to ensure that my name is added to patents on which it belongs? What can I do if the company is not cooperating?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="194" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="37" RevisionGUID="231f9d59-a468-4656-9129-d93e5e4edf42" CreationDate="2012-09-06T19:38:59.797" Comment="Proposed by 133 approved by 1 edit id of 20" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="74" RevisionGUID="37ef7a94-fb07-428f-af7e-6af1e5ed140f" CreationDate="2012-09-06T19:39:13.383" UserId="129" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="Customer-based product design module" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="196" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="74" RevisionGUID="37ef7a94-fb07-428f-af7e-6af1e5ed140f" CreationDate="2012-09-06T19:39:13.383" Comment="Proposed by 129 approved by 1 edit id of 19" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11" RevisionGUID="20db9c9a-3cb8-4f75-84e6-66c8f064b6cb" CreationDate="2012-09-06T20:48:23.680" UserId="1" Comment="edited body" Text="Prior art is the body of public knowledge that patent examiners (and you) can sift through to determine whether a patent application describes a new and nonobvious invention. &#xA;&#xA;Prior art can take many forms, from patents granted in the 1800s, to diagrams published in foreign scientific journals.  High quality prior art, described accurately and submitted to the USPTO is one of the most important things that determine whether a patent is granted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="76" RevisionGUID="5f486dbd-c660-4f8f-93ba-e92200b6788c" CreationDate="2012-09-06T20:58:51.000" UserId="168" Text="If an invention was in use in a foreiegn country (not in the U.S.), but was not patented in that (or any other) country, and was not the subject of a printed publication anywhere, is that, in itself, a bar to issuance of a patent in the U.S.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="199" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="76" RevisionGUID="5f486dbd-c660-4f8f-93ba-e92200b6788c" CreationDate="2012-09-06T20:58:51.000" UserId="168" Text="Is Use in Foreign Countries a Bar to Patentability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="200" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="76" RevisionGUID="5f486dbd-c660-4f8f-93ba-e92200b6788c" CreationDate="2012-09-06T20:58:51.000" UserId="168" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="76" RevisionGUID="3e54b607-174f-47e3-b8bc-81daf3c6393f" CreationDate="2012-09-06T21:50:26.003" UserId="133" Comment="improved grammar; edited title to use sentence case" Text="If an invention is in use in a foreign country, but it is not patented in that country (or any other countries), and it is not the subject of a printed publication anywhere, could that invention be patented in the U.S.A.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="202" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="76" RevisionGUID="3e54b607-174f-47e3-b8bc-81daf3c6393f" CreationDate="2012-09-06T21:50:26.003" UserId="133" Comment="improved grammar; edited title to use sentence case" Text="Is use in foreign countries a bar to patentability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="203" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="76" RevisionGUID="3e54b607-174f-47e3-b8bc-81daf3c6393f" CreationDate="2012-09-06T21:50:26.003" Comment="Proposed by 133 approved by 168 edit id of 21" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="77" RevisionGUID="4cf4daeb-b4fb-4ce5-8389-5a627488e12e" CreationDate="2012-09-07T02:56:54.610" UserId="168" Text="There have been recent patent fights (such as Apple v. Samsung) that seem to claim certain basic physical forms of devices, such as a smartphone, can be patented. Aren't there a limited number of possible shapes possible? Does patent law allow one company to  **own** a simple shape such as a rectangle with rounded corners for a type of machine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="205" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="77" RevisionGUID="4cf4daeb-b4fb-4ce5-8389-5a627488e12e" CreationDate="2012-09-07T02:56:54.610" UserId="168" Text="Can a very basic shape of a product be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="206" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="77" RevisionGUID="4cf4daeb-b4fb-4ce5-8389-5a627488e12e" CreationDate="2012-09-07T02:56:54.610" UserId="168" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;scope&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="78" RevisionGUID="0f1ccab5-d559-4ffb-adb0-94ddf45017aa" CreationDate="2012-09-07T05:26:19.273" UserId="49" Text="I found answer on the [USPTO][1] web-site: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patents are published as part of the terms of granting the patent to the inventor. Subject to limited exceptions reflected in 37 CFR 1.71(d) &amp; (e) and 1.84(s) , the text and drawings of a patent are typically not subject to copyright restrictions. The inventors' right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States for a limited time is not compromised by the publication of the description of the invention. In other words, the fact that a patent's description may have been published without copyright restrictions does not give you permission to manufacture or use the invention without permission from the inventor during the active life of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/news/media/ccpubguide.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="78" RevisionGUID="04af9b1a-c160-4f9a-9966-e5c49033c3c0" CreationDate="2012-09-07T06:53:38.510" UserId="49" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I found answer on the [USPTO][1] web-site: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patents are published as part of the terms of granting the patent to the inventor. Subject to limited exceptions reflected in 37 CFR 1.71(d) &amp; (e) and 1.84(s) , **the text and drawings of a patent are typically not subject to copyright restrictions**. The inventors' right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States for a limited time is not compromised by the publication of the description of the invention. In other words, the fact that a patent's description may have been published without copyright restrictions does not give you permission to manufacture or use the invention without permission from the inventor during the active life of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/news/media/ccpubguide.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="209" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="77" RevisionGUID="ef32e9c3-46a5-473f-9428-cf274976ca6c" CreationDate="2012-09-07T07:57:06.873" UserId="129" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;scope&gt;&lt;trade-dress&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="210" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="61" RevisionGUID="31185fa8-39c1-4fe8-b139-a16824d78c5e" CreationDate="2012-09-07T08:04:30.407" UserId="129" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;search&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="46" RevisionGUID="623cc06b-ff49-4cb2-bf5b-384ab8fe38e5" CreationDate="2012-09-07T12:35:16.910" UserId="118" Comment="Suggest a little more objectivity for answers." Text="Currently the majority of bad press about trivial software patents is all centred around Apple and other smartphone industry players.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few years ago it was the Amazon &quot;1-click&quot; patent everybody was deriding. ([US 5960411][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going back a few decades when I was getting into computers I recall being shocked to learn that the implementation of a flashing cursor / caret on a computer screen using [`XOR`][2] was patented and many well known tech companies were paying royalties on it. ([US 4197590][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what I want to know is if there was a patent before even this that was widely denigrated as obvious and trivial?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5960411&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4197590" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="212" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="46" RevisionGUID="623cc06b-ff49-4cb2-bf5b-384ab8fe38e5" CreationDate="2012-09-07T12:35:16.910" Comment="Proposed by 118 approved by 1 edit id of 22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="79" RevisionGUID="5ec2b8b5-5ed2-42c6-bcf0-f40117568788" CreationDate="2012-09-07T12:53:00.397" UserId="168" Text="Patent Application No. **20120052930** is titled  &quot;System and method for the heros journey mythology code of honor video game engine and heros journey code of honor spy games wherein one must fake the enemy's ideology en route to winning&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1. *A system and method for creating video games and virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the specification, **&quot;codes of honor&quot;** are described as &quot;warrior ideals&quot; and seem to be a number of preset value systems or moral attributes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that there are a number of role playing games that allow players to take on characters or avatars having particular attributes, or  allow them to adopt such attributes during the game. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been away from the gaming world for some time and cannot recall which games, especially those that may no longer be in distribution, have features such as these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question: What prior art addresses computer based games that allow a player to play according to a chosen value system such as the claimed &quot;codes of honor&quot;? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="214" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="79" RevisionGUID="5ec2b8b5-5ed2-42c6-bcf0-f40117568788" CreationDate="2012-09-07T12:53:00.397" UserId="168" Text="Prior art teaches about computer-games played according to a selected value system such as the claimed &quot;codes of honor&quot; in Pat. App. No. 20120052930?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="215" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="79" RevisionGUID="5ec2b8b5-5ed2-42c6-bcf0-f40117568788" CreationDate="2012-09-07T12:53:00.397" UserId="168" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;app20120052930&gt;&lt;computer-games&gt;&lt;video-games&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="79" RevisionGUID="60fa64ae-1e5a-42af-9bfc-40d1a5d7d836" CreationDate="2012-09-07T13:26:27.450" UserId="76" Comment="Patent tagging and linking as per http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/questions/16/best-practices-for-linking-references-to-patent-numbers/19#19" Text="US patent application 2012/0052930 http://www.google.com/patents/US20120052930 is titled  &quot;System and method for the heros journey mythology code of honor video game engine and heros journey code of honor spy games wherein one must fake the enemy's ideology en route to winning&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1. *A system and method for creating video games and virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the specification, **&quot;codes of honor&quot;** are described as &quot;warrior ideals&quot; and seem to be a number of preset value systems or moral attributes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that there are a number of role playing games that allow players to take on characters or avatars having particular attributes, or  allow them to adopt such attributes during the game. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been away from the gaming world for some time and cannot recall which games, especially those that may no longer be in distribution, have features such as these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question: What prior art addresses computer based games that allow a player to play according to a chosen value system such as the claimed &quot;codes of honor&quot;? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="217" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="79" RevisionGUID="60fa64ae-1e5a-42af-9bfc-40d1a5d7d836" CreationDate="2012-09-07T13:26:27.450" UserId="76" Comment="Patent tagging and linking as per http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/questions/16/best-practices-for-linking-references-to-patent-numbers/19#19" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;computer-games&gt;&lt;video-games&gt;&lt;us20120052930&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="218" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="79" RevisionGUID="60fa64ae-1e5a-42af-9bfc-40d1a5d7d836" CreationDate="2012-09-07T13:26:27.450" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by -1 edit id of 23" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="79" RevisionGUID="f7c26c97-9a93-4e5f-916a-c4d1759af392" CreationDate="2012-09-07T13:26:27.450" UserId="14" Comment="Patent tagging and linking as per http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/questions/16/best-practices-for-linking-references-to-patent-numbers/19#19" Text="[US patent application 2012/0052930][1] is titled  &quot;System and method for the heros journey mythology code of honor video game engine and heros journey code of honor spy games wherein one must fake the enemy's ideology en route to winning&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1. *A system and method for creating video games and virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the specification, **&quot;codes of honor&quot;** are described as &quot;warrior ideals&quot; and seem to be a number of preset value systems or moral attributes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that there are a number of role playing games that allow players to take on characters or avatars having particular attributes, or  allow them to adopt such attributes during the game. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been away from the gaming world for some time and cannot recall which games, especially those that may no longer be in distribution, have features such as these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question: What prior art addresses computer based games that allow a player to play according to a chosen value system such as the claimed &quot;codes of honor&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120052930" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="80" RevisionGUID="f51c9286-2b72-4a15-8a18-86adf504bc36" CreationDate="2012-09-07T13:34:54.830" UserId="14" Text="**Inventor: Elliot McGucken**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Original Assignee: Dr. Elliot McGucken**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Current U.S. Classification: 463/1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Full application on Google Patents.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A system and method for creating video games and virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The system and method in claim 1 wherein said code of honor can be the Knights of King Arthur's Code of Honor, Buddha's Code of Honor, the Samurai Bushido Code of Honor, Moses' Code of Honor, The Ten Commandments Code of Honor, the Constitutional Code of Honor, the Jeffersonian Code of Honor, or another Code of Honor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The system and method in claim 1 where the selected code of honor determines which in-game words and deeds are rewarded with rewards, and which in-game deeds are punished with punishments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The system and method in claims 1 and 3 wherein said rewards consist of incrementing a character's attributes such as strength or morality or their ability to wield weapons such as a Gold 45 Revolver which may fires Zeus's lightning in a manner proportional to the character's morality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. The system and method in claim 3 wherein said punishments consist of decreasing a character's attributes such as strength or morality or their ability to wield weapons such as a Gold 45 Revolver which may fires Zeus's lightning in a manner proportional to the character's morality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. A system and method for creating video games and virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by, and also combine various codes of honor, such as those found in the Classical, Judeo Christian Heritage, whose contradictions drove Hamlet nuts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. A system and method for unifying the plot and subplot in a videogame wherein order to save the soul of an artificial intelligence computer, the player must save the soul of the player's love.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. The system and method in claim 7 wherein the artificial intelligence computer created the player's love interest, and copied its soul into it, before the feminist/fanbaby/fiatocracy could debauch her soul, like they did to Dante's Inferno and most everything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9. The system and method of claim 7 wherein the love interest and the physical battle are also unified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10. The system and method of claim 7 wherein the dramatic action and physical action are also unified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;11. A system and method for creating a spy game wherein a plurality of ideologies may be defined by players and NPCs in their words and deeds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12. The system and method in claim 11 wherein the player must adopt the words and deeds of the enemy so as to infiltrate their ranks as a spy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;13. The system and method in claim 11 wherein if the player fails to act or talk like the enemy they are infiltrating, the enemy may capture and kill them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;14. The system and method in claim 11 wherein the player can advance towards the top of the enemy's power structure by demonstrating their loyalty in words and deeds to the enemy's ideology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;15. The system and method in claim 11 wherein the player can advance towards the top of the enemy's power structure by demonstrating their loyalty in words and deeds to the enemy's ideology, while also using other words and deeds to subvert the emery's ideology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;16. The system and method in claim 11 wherein the player can advance towards the top of the enemy's power structure by demonstrating their loyalty in words and deeds to the enemy's ideology, en route to assassinating the leader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;17. The system and method in claim 11 wherein the player can advance towards the top of the enemy's power structure by demonstrating their loyalty in words and deeds to the enemy's ideology, en route to assassinating the leader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;18. The system and method in claim 11 wherein the overall game is governed by a Hero's Journey Code of Honor disclosed in claims 1-5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;19. The system and method in claims 7-10 wherein the artificial intelligence computer APRIL creates vampire/zombie roboclones all endowed with its own debauched soul, and wherein Ranger must save his love Autumn as she contains APRIL's original innocence, which they must upload into an army of roboclones created for prostitution so as to save APRIL and the world from the feminist/fanbaby/fiatocracy vampire/zombies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![First Image from Application][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120052930&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/q6pjw.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="81" RevisionGUID="af942459-f63e-4b19-bf09-a9e84d8d5318" CreationDate="2012-09-07T13:34:54.830" UserId="14" Text="A system and method for creating more exalted videogames and unifying game plots and subplots with heroic codes of honor is disclosed. Novel methods simplifying game design and deepening gameplay via “codes of honor” are shared. The Hero's Journey Mythology Code of Honor Game Engine is presented, as well as novel spy games, wherein players fake ideologies in word and deed to gain access to groups and subvert them. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="82" RevisionGUID="4deaea4d-c435-4d07-b715-b637a5c2d4bf" CreationDate="2012-09-07T13:43:45.050" UserId="128" Text="In [StarWars Galaxies][1], a MMORPG developed by Sony Online Entertainment, originally one could have evolved their avatar during the game play and specialize for different attributes (skills), gaining a *profession*, further divided into *sub-professions*. The game also distinguishis among several *species* that determined abilities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later on, the game system was changed in such a way, one would have to pre-select one given preset of attributes that defined the character abilities, skills, moral and possible evolution of the avatar. This change was introduced as “New Game Enhancements”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The New Game Enhancements were implemented in November 2005. Major changes included the reduction and simplification of professions, simplification of gameplay mechanics, and Jedi becoming a starting profession.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starwars_Galaxies" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="223" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="79" RevisionGUID="4997bd49-19f5-4b65-8140-9e60ec39b584" CreationDate="2012-09-07T13:47:12.503" UserId="14" Comment="Changed title for minor brevity increase and switch from &quot;computer games&quot; term (from application) to more common &quot;video games&quot;." Text="Prior art of video games played according to a selected value system such as the claimed &quot;codes of honor&quot; in Pat. App. No. 20120052930?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="83" RevisionGUID="2286695c-23a7-4a10-b0a6-b2f6eccb8dfa" CreationDate="2012-09-07T15:24:34.510" UserId="200" Text="It appears that the USPTO [no longer does defensive publications][1], but instead you're supposed to [abandon a patent application][2].  But that will still incur filing fees, etc.  I figure an obscure blog post is not likely to be seen by the patent examiner, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the apparent triviality of some patents, is there a simple way to make some &quot;neat trick&quot; un-patentable without incurring costs to do so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Defensive_Publication&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_invention_registration" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="225" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="83" RevisionGUID="2286695c-23a7-4a10-b0a6-b2f6eccb8dfa" CreationDate="2012-09-07T15:24:34.510" UserId="200" Text="How to make an invention un-patentable easily?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="226" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="83" RevisionGUID="2286695c-23a7-4a10-b0a6-b2f6eccb8dfa" CreationDate="2012-09-07T15:24:34.510" UserId="200" Text="&lt;defensive-publications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="84" RevisionGUID="6ad0165c-644f-44ad-8328-988bf162ae3b" CreationDate="2012-09-07T15:28:10.027" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="85" RevisionGUID="74a835e8-ae8e-46f4-9281-5cee84a3d4a3" CreationDate="2012-09-07T15:28:10.027" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="86" RevisionGUID="da2da414-1759-47ca-b7f2-510a433e8431" CreationDate="2012-09-07T16:30:35.633" UserId="76" Text="A publication doesn't have to be official to count as prior art against the novelty of a patent application. [Defensive publication](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_publication) is not regulated by any particular formalism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You must take care that your description is as precise as possible. Simply describing a general idea in vague terms may not be considered prior art for a patent application that describes the working of the invention in detail: the defensive publication must, like a patent application, be [enabling](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufficiency_of_disclosure#Enablement), i.e. it must enable a person with ordinary skill in the art to reproduce the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is in your interest to make the defensive publication in a venue where people in that specialty may come upon it. That could be a popular blog, or better, some technical journal. That publication would then be not only prior art regarding novelty, but also would improve the chance that some trivial variation is considered unpatentable due to the [non-obviousness requirement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness), as one skilled in the art would be considered familiar with your technique.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is in your interest to make your publication known to the examiner. While you can still defend against a granted patent by establishing that you followed a preexisting publication, having the patent granted shifts the burden of proof. Again, a technical journal in the relevant field that the examiner is likely to search specifically is a good option. Examiners can use Google too, so a blog isn't out of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing to take care of is that the content and the date of the publication must not be subject to controversy. A blog under your control might be cast into doubt, you would be depending on third-party archives. Again, a technical publication archived in many libraries would be ideal. A message to a mailing list as a complement of a blog post would also help spread your content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some large corporations make or made their own publication, such as IBM's [Technical Disclosure Bulletins](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Technical_Disclosure_Bulletin). I don't know why they discontinued the practice (in 1998). It may have had to do with the rising ability to publish and be read on the web.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[“The Effect of E-Resouces on Technology Development”](http://www.stpi.narl.org.tw/fdb/tr/2007/pdf/08-Anthony-doc.pdf) by Anthony Breitzman analyzes the sources of references in patents and trends from 1997 to 2006. Technical journals and conference reports make up the bulk, but Internet citations are on the rise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your invention can be considered applied science, even if you don't want to go all the way towards a refereed publication, consider writing a technical paper and publishing it on [arXiv](http://arxiv.org/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IP.com maintains [a database of publications](http://priorartdatabase.com/) that can be [searched for free](http://ip.com/) but &#xD;&#xA;[requires payment for inclusion](http://priorartdatabase.com/frequently-asked-questions.html). You can read [their presentation of the benefits of their service](http://priorartdatabase.com/defensive-publishing.html#technical-disclosures) for arguments against self-publication of technical disclosures.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="84" RevisionGUID="247db6b5-2355-4a9b-9152-3cc67b7a04e7" CreationDate="2012-09-07T18:02:46.787" UserId="200" Comment="added 325 characters in body" Text="There have been a number of methods for preventing a patent from issuing for a given invention.  [Defensive Publications][1] and [Statutory invention registrations][2] are two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Defensive_Publication&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_invention_registration" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="232" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="84" RevisionGUID="247db6b5-2355-4a9b-9152-3cc67b7a04e7" CreationDate="2012-09-07T18:02:46.787" Comment="Proposed by 200 approved by 2 edit id of 24" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="85" RevisionGUID="46820aee-c4ed-45af-a17a-9dfe4e6e958f" CreationDate="2012-09-07T18:02:51.107" UserId="200" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="Publications used to prevent patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="234" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="85" RevisionGUID="46820aee-c4ed-45af-a17a-9dfe4e6e958f" CreationDate="2012-09-07T18:02:51.107" Comment="Proposed by 200 approved by 2 edit id of 25" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="87" RevisionGUID="ca726cb1-53c1-4602-9813-45c67d4c5a16" CreationDate="2012-09-07T21:35:02.793" UserId="212" Text="This is a specific type of US patent filing.  It relates to the underlying form and style of the device.  Apple said that a 'white rectangle' with 'large borders/margins' and 'curved corners' was their 'signature' design features for a 'flat tablet' computer device.  The jury agreed (very strongly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally don't agree this type of patent should be used so broadly, or provide protection that strong.  That said, the Apple court argument does have some merit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The British / Common Law approach, providing protection against &quot;Passing Off&quot;, is (**IMHO**) a much better approach.  This protects anyone (even without specific 'design' patent filing) from a product (particular an inferior one) from being too close in exact appearance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope (in the Apple / Samsung case) the jury finding is overturned or weakened on appeal, to be closer to &quot;Passing Off&quot; protection, and simply requiring Samsung to diverge enough in their design." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="88" RevisionGUID="2a18de88-ae00-4ff4-a640-910e9c55c3de" CreationDate="2012-09-08T04:56:54.987" UserId="50" Text="The Supreme Court recently addressed the issue of whether abstract ideas, like basic shapes, are patentable.  In *Bilski*, the court held that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The concept of hedging, described in claim 1 and reduced to a mathematical formula in claim 4, is an unpatentable abstract idea, just like the algorithms at issue in Benson and Flook. Allowing petitioners to patent risk hedging would preempt use of this approach in all fields, and would effectively grant a monopoly over an abstract idea. -- http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/06/bilski-v-kappos-business-methods-out-software-still-patentable.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, trade dress violations are redressed by an entirely separate and distinct body of federal law than patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer to your question is that yes, the number of shapes is limited, and no, a company cannot patent a simple shape.  However, trademark and trade dress provide protections for all types of shapes.  Think about all the company logos which use geometric shapes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="89" RevisionGUID="a818878c-d63a-418e-a3d1-78b772c0f985" CreationDate="2012-09-08T05:19:52.610" UserId="222" Text="Regarding software, can an application or block of code licensed under the GPL (pre version 3), or a similar license requiring the source to be made available under the terms of the license after redistribution or modification, be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="239" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="89" RevisionGUID="a818878c-d63a-418e-a3d1-78b772c0f985" CreationDate="2012-09-08T05:19:52.610" UserId="222" Text="Can software or a block of code under the GPL or a similar license be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="240" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="89" RevisionGUID="a818878c-d63a-418e-a3d1-78b772c0f985" CreationDate="2012-09-08T05:19:52.610" UserId="222" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;open-source&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="90" RevisionGUID="bbd38d76-8011-41b0-8865-a092b2eecb0b" CreationDate="2012-09-08T06:53:11.493" UserId="224" Text="I am an undergraduate student in the US, and have come up with a (hopefully) patentable idea independently of my studies. The upside of that is the university cannot claim any rights to my invention; the downside is that I cannot take advantage of the university's legal help for navigating the patent process. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no prior experience with filing patent applications, and only know what I've found through websites and talking briefly with an academic adviser. From what I have learned so far, anybody *can* file a patent by themselves, but it is likely that either a) it will be rejected, or b) the patent will be granted, but might be worded such that workarounds could easily (and technically legally) be executed based on the *idea* of the patent with a different implementation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some quick research into law firms and individual lawyers specializing in patent law in my region shows that it could easily cost me up to $10,000 just to get an application filed, and that's without any guarantee of it actually being accepted. As a college student, I can't really afford that cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any practical and affordable options for individuals who have little to no patent experience and coincidentally have little to no capital? Are there reputable sources of advice/guidance that are cheaper than a full-fledged law firm that can still guide the writing process? Alternatively, is it possible to write a patent application oneself without legal assistance?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="244" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="90" RevisionGUID="bbd38d76-8011-41b0-8865-a092b2eecb0b" CreationDate="2012-09-08T06:53:11.493" UserId="224" Text="Is it practical for a novice to successfully file a patent without hiring a patent lawyer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="245" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="90" RevisionGUID="bbd38d76-8011-41b0-8865-a092b2eecb0b" CreationDate="2012-09-08T06:53:11.493" UserId="224" Text="&lt;usa&gt;&lt;process&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="91" RevisionGUID="0b114f82-cbfe-4b52-9d59-5ea125445f9a" CreationDate="2012-09-08T07:08:58.720" UserId="118" Text="Yes. In fact that's one of the reasons why version 3 of the GPL specifically states that you must grant all downstream recipients of a covered work an irrevocable, royalty free license to the patented component, or you can't distribute the software. Redhat reached the first licensing deal that [complied with this requirement][1]. However, the requirement really is a stop gap. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a myriad of patents that could potentially apply to any sufficiently complex piece of software, such as a file system, and no license (no matter what version or conditions implemented) can solve that problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember, you're not patenting _code_, your patenting what it _implements_ or _accomplishes_. Thus, you could take that bit of code, re-write it in a completely different language and you still have the patent problem to deal with. The copyright changed because the work is your own (thus the license no longer applies), but the patent remains because the code still implements or accomplishes the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://truthhappens.redhat.com/2008/06/12/red-hat-patent-settlement-compatible-with-gplv3/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="91" RevisionGUID="8b409313-fb47-49ec-a8c0-0ed05e02e675" CreationDate="2012-09-08T07:18:10.267" UserId="118" Comment="added 243 characters in body" Text="Yes. In fact that's one of the reasons why version 3 of the GPL specifically states that you must grant all downstream recipients of a covered work an irrevocable, royalty free license to the patented component, or you can't distribute the software. Redhat reached the first licensing deal that [complied with this requirement][1]. However, the requirement really is a stop gap. If you license a patent to be able to use and distribute something under GPL3, you must ensure that patent license applies royalty free to everyone who receives a copy so they can use and distribute it as well. It's a step, but not a solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a myriad of patents that could potentially apply to any sufficiently complex piece of software, such as a file system, and no license (no matter what version or conditions implemented) can solve that problem. The problem is, parts of complex software are often _already_ patented, but the patents are unknown to the author. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember, you're not patenting _code_, your patenting what it _implements_ or _accomplishes_. Thus, you could take that bit of code, re-write it in a completely different language and you still have the patent problem to deal with. The copyright changed because the work is your own (thus the license no longer applies), but the patent remains because the code still implements or accomplishes the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If _no_ patent exists that could apply to the software, then the software itself would be prior art - but that might not stop the patent from being granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://truthhappens.redhat.com/2008/06/12/red-hat-patent-settlement-compatible-with-gplv3/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="91" RevisionGUID="bc1dc1f3-7764-4953-8217-a59323605d16" CreationDate="2012-09-08T07:23:50.833" UserId="118" Comment="added 243 characters in body" Text="Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's one of the reasons why version 3 of the GPL specifically states that you must grant all downstream recipients of a covered work an irrevocable, royalty free license to the patented component, or you can't distribute the software. Redhat reached the first licensing deal that [complied with this requirement][1]. However, the requirement really is a stop gap. If you license a patent to be able to use and distribute something under GPL3, you must ensure that patent license applies royalty free to everyone who receives a copy so they can use and distribute it as well. It's a step, but not a solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a myriad of patents that could potentially apply to any sufficiently complex piece of software, such as a file system, and no license (no matter what version or conditions implemented) can solve that problem. The problem is, parts of complex software are often _already_ patented, but the patents are unknown to the author. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember, you're not patenting _code_, your patenting what it _implements_ or _accomplishes_. Thus, you could take that bit of code, re-write it in a completely different language and you still have the patent problem to deal with. The copyright changed because the work is your own (thus the license no longer applies), but the patent remains because the code still implements or accomplishes the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If _no_ patent exists that could apply to the software, then the software itself would be prior art - but that might not stop the patent from being granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://truthhappens.redhat.com/2008/06/12/red-hat-patent-settlement-compatible-with-gplv3/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="249" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="89" RevisionGUID="b555b860-f1b1-43e6-9b67-d63b2c2856d6" CreationDate="2012-09-08T09:29:10.987" UserId="129" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;open-source&gt;&lt;gpl&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="250" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="90" RevisionGUID="0fdd264a-a59c-474d-985e-47d8407aef7d" CreationDate="2012-09-08T09:29:59.100" UserId="129" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;usa&gt;&lt;process&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;lawyers&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="251" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="46" RevisionGUID="1b502308-6dd3-4e3d-88c4-1c83884db770" CreationDate="2012-09-08T09:38:54.297" UserId="129" Comment="change the title wording from &quot;infamous&quot; to &quot;landmark&quot; + &quot;controversial&quot;" Text="Was there a landmark controversial software patent of a trivial idea before the &quot;XOR flashing cursor&quot; patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="92" RevisionGUID="ae72a745-5022-4553-ae99-79d1612a7161" CreationDate="2012-09-08T12:06:19.483" UserId="154" Text="I've seen where companies have filed for the same patent in multiple additional countries beyond the United States.  What is the motivation for such extensive patenting?  What impact (if any) do these international patents have on their US patent?  What strategy is used to decide what other countries are worth patenting in and what other countries are just skipped?  Are their reciprocal agreements with some countries that make such additional patents needless or even with reciprocality is it sometimes advantageous to still apply for the other countries patent as well?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="253" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="92" RevisionGUID="ae72a745-5022-4553-ae99-79d1612a7161" CreationDate="2012-09-08T12:06:19.483" UserId="154" Text="When patenting in the United States, what impact does patenting in other countries too have?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="254" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="92" RevisionGUID="ae72a745-5022-4553-ae99-79d1612a7161" CreationDate="2012-09-08T12:06:19.483" UserId="154" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;united-states&gt;&lt;reciprocality&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="93" RevisionGUID="be392577-85ac-4b38-b699-a6a363aaee7f" CreationDate="2012-09-08T12:30:40.397" UserId="76" Text="Unlike copyright, a patent is only valid in a country where it has been filed, accepted and registered. A US patent gives you an exclusive right to use your invention (including manufacturing a product using it and selling a product manufactured using it) in the US. It doesn't constrain someone who operates entirely outside the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some groups of countries that have mutual patent recognition agreements ([ARIPO](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Regional_Intellectual_Property_Organization) and [OAPI](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_Africaine_de_la_Propri%C3%A9t%C3%A9_Intellectuelle) in Africa, [EAPO](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Patent_Organization) around Russia, [EPO](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Patent_Office) in Asia). These groups of countries have agreements where a patent application is examined by only one office, but if the patent is granted the applicant must decide in which countries in the group the patent will apply (and pay each country's fee). The US isn't a member of any such organization; there's no particular agreement on patents between the US and Canada, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to apply in more than one country (or group of countries), the patent must be examined in each country. A majority of countries (including the US) have ratified the [Patent Cooperation Treaty](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Cooperation_Treaty). The usual way to extend a patent to many countries is to file it in your home country, then file a PCT application, then have the patent examined by national offices of PCT member states. See the [PCT website](http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/) for more information. See also [this answer](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/24/is-there-a-specified-route-to-convert-uk-patents-to-us-patents/32#32). Note that it can happen that a patent is granted in one country but rejected in another: maybe one country will find some prior art that another country won't, or maybe they'll interpret it in a different way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which countries to file your patent is depends heavily on what the logistics and market is for your product. If you only ever expect to sell your product in the US, a US patent is good enough. If you think your product can only be manufactured economically in a few countries, patent it in these countries (assuming that you trust these countries' patent enforcement). If you think your product could be manufactured and sold anywhere, it's a matter of investment: each additional country costs you money upfront but locks your competitors down more.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="95" RevisionGUID="a7eaf107-af57-4092-a345-fbc7ce733bac" CreationDate="2012-09-08T21:08:21.133" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="96" RevisionGUID="6243e3e5-5d0e-45cf-a724-6da67e5f78c6" CreationDate="2012-09-08T21:08:21.133" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="95" RevisionGUID="82f2c669-6695-44b5-ac41-c798cc177fe8" CreationDate="2012-09-09T05:53:02.070" UserId="79" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="Foe questions about the practice of independent inventing, especially advice for filing, prosecuting, and monetizing patents that come from inventions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="268" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="95" RevisionGUID="82f2c669-6695-44b5-ac41-c798cc177fe8" CreationDate="2012-09-09T05:53:02.070" Comment="Proposed by 79 approved by -1 edit id of 26" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="95" RevisionGUID="7e7806f5-473b-4bd5-bbde-35a584381e53" CreationDate="2012-09-09T05:53:02.070" UserId="6" Comment="edited body" Text="For questions about the practice of independent inventing, especially advice for filing, prosecuting, and monetizing patents that come from inventions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="96" RevisionGUID="3db16627-7847-4c1d-b3e8-9f4cb21db310" CreationDate="2012-09-09T05:53:10.650" UserId="79" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="Small-scale, often self-employed inventors working outside of large firms, typically with invention as a primary career or as a hobby." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="271" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="96" RevisionGUID="3db16627-7847-4c1d-b3e8-9f4cb21db310" CreationDate="2012-09-09T05:53:10.650" Comment="Proposed by 79 approved by 6 edit id of 27" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="272" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="92" RevisionGUID="5781f68d-4399-47f2-9b2e-1967e2014eaa" CreationDate="2012-09-09T08:20:32.420" UserId="129" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;united-states&gt;&lt;reciprocality&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="273" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="92" RevisionGUID="10467444-e86a-41de-815a-be96d768eba7" CreationDate="2012-09-09T08:20:43.623" UserId="129" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;usa&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;reciprocality&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="97" RevisionGUID="8ad08cb6-1129-44be-bb5b-6e1b6b99b68d" CreationDate="2012-09-09T16:34:10.247" UserId="96" Text="As I write, your question has received 8 up-votes.  I won't down-vote it, but I don't think that there is a direct answer available.  Your circumstances actually pose a generic strategy question for someone with an idea for something new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I have written in answer to other questions, the underlying issue is net present value of the idea/invention.  How do you capture, and then accelerate, that value?  You are confronted with compound questions of timing, cost, implementation, secrecy, and business partners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Patent protection, even if possible, might not be the best way to protect or exploit your idea. Patent prosecution is an arcane art with innumerable opportunities the get side-tracked or lost in the process.  Pick a few patents and compare the filing date with the issue date. Ten thousand dollars can get your patent application in the door at the Patent Office, but it commonly takes many years, and tens of thousands of additional dollars, to get a patent issued, even for experienced inventors with capable legal help.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Can your idea be implemented into products and protected as a trade secret as you exploit it in the marketplace?  Is it likely to be leap-frogged by other technology is a relatively short period?  By leap-frogged, I mean the development of alternatives that do not employ your idea to get the same or superior performance.  Trade secret protection does not work if your idea is obvious or easily reproduced just by observing or examining any product in which it is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The penurious have options for obtaining patents, but the choice of 1) going it alone *pro se* or 2) finding a money partner is a common threshold for technical folks.  Can you put together a prototype product illustrating the value of your idea? If so, you have a better chance of finding that money partner.  Be aware, though, that you have only one year from the full realization of your idea to file for a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Do you really have a new idea?  Do you know enough about the area of technology and the history of that technology to be reasonably (read economically) sure?  There are something north of 8 million US patents already - with hundreds of thousands of applications working their way through the system.  There are tens of millions of technical papers, doctoral dissertations, white papers - and physical products extant in the world.  Are you saying that none of them could possibly be interpreted to encompass your idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not trying to rain on your parade with respect to your possibly patentable idea, but I think the question is ill-considered because it assumes that patenting the idea is the best (or even a reasonable) approach.  Alternatively, I would say that, while it is theoretically possible for a novice to prosecute a patent application successfully, the chances of that being a reasonable investment of time and effort is within *epsilon* of nil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="97" RevisionGUID="3d18986e-e54f-4dee-8f8e-8ffd71a92de7" CreationDate="2012-09-09T18:38:58.263" UserId="96" Comment="edited body" Text="As I write, your question has received 8 up-votes.  I won't down-vote it, but I don't think that there is a direct answer available.  Your circumstances actually pose a generic strategy question for someone with an idea for something new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I have written in answer to other questions, the underlying issue is net present value of the idea/invention.  How do you capture, and then accelerate, that value?  You are confronted with compound questions of timing, cost, implementation, secrecy, and business partners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Patent protection, even if possible, might not be the best way to protect or exploit your idea. Patent prosecution is an arcane art with innumerable opportunities the get side-tracked or lost in the process.  Pick a few patents and compare the filing date with the issue date. Ten thousand dollars can get your patent application in the door at the Patent Office, but it commonly takes many years, and tens of thousands of additional dollars, to get a patent issued, even for experienced inventors with capable legal help.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Can your idea be implemented into products and protected as a trade secret as you exploit it in the marketplace?  Is it likely to be leap-frogged by other technology in a relatively short period?  By leap-frogged, I mean the development of alternatives that do not employ your idea to get the same or superior performance.  Trade secret protection does not work if your idea is obvious or easily reproduced just by observing or examining any product in which it is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The penurious have options for obtaining patents, but the choice of 1) going it alone *pro se* or 2) finding a money partner is a common threshold for technical folks.  Can you put together a prototype product illustrating the value of your idea? If so, you have a better chance of finding that money partner.  Be aware, though, that you have only one year from the full realization of your idea to file for a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Do you really have a new idea?  Do you know enough about the area of technology and the history of that technology to be reasonably (read economically) sure?  There are something north of 8 million US patents already - with hundreds of thousands of applications working their way through the system.  There are tens of millions of technical papers, doctoral dissertations, white papers - and physical products extant in the world.  Are you saying that none of them could possibly be interpreted to encompass your idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not trying to rain on your parade with respect to your possibly patentable idea, but I think the question is ill-considered because it assumes that patenting the idea is the best (or even a reasonable) approach.  Alternatively, I would say that, while it is theoretically possible for a novice to prosecute a patent application successfully, the chances of that being a reasonable investment of time and effort is within *epsilon* of nil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="98" RevisionGUID="227f78de-eeac-4fad-99c8-c7fb5eb6c81f" CreationDate="2012-09-10T15:38:52.377" UserId="169" Text="1. Find patent attorney and figure out best strategy&#xD;&#xA;2. Let the patent attorney to contact with that company who infringes your patent.&#xD;&#xA;3. Try to negotiate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="99" RevisionGUID="c1611b7e-14aa-452a-9cc6-9904b3287113" CreationDate="2012-09-10T15:47:31.963" UserId="237" Text="35 USC 101 as interpreted by the Supreme Court does not allow patent claims that merely describe abstract ideas to be examined for a patent.  How would the Court's precedent apply in a case in which the inventor can show that the description of a particular claim can be described more abstractly, ie, at a higher level of abstraction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="280" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="99" RevisionGUID="c1611b7e-14aa-452a-9cc6-9904b3287113" CreationDate="2012-09-10T15:47:31.963" UserId="237" Text="If a claimed invention can be described at a higher level of abstraction, is the claim not merely an abstract idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="281" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="99" RevisionGUID="c1611b7e-14aa-452a-9cc6-9904b3287113" CreationDate="2012-09-10T15:47:31.963" UserId="237" Text="&lt;101&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="e7317a36-f677-4774-b59f-5aac0a24aa66" CreationDate="2012-09-11T08:01:51.333" UserId="125" Text="Suppose I'm developing a software and I operate in the country that doesn't recognize Software Patents. I make my software available for users in several countries including the United States. What if my software infringes some software patent? Am I liable for it? Are my users in the US liable for using software?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More specifically I'm interested in the following groups of my users:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - US citizens on the territory of the US&#xD;&#xA; - Non-US citizens on the territory of the US&#xD;&#xA; - US citizens outside of the US and in the country where Software Patents are not enforced&#xD;&#xA; - US citizens outside of the US and in the country where Software Patents are not enforced but assuming that this country has an extradition agreement with the US" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="285" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="e7317a36-f677-4774-b59f-5aac0a24aa66" CreationDate="2012-09-11T08:01:51.333" UserId="125" Text="What are the possible consequences of using software developed outside of the US that infringes a software patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="286" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="e7317a36-f677-4774-b59f-5aac0a24aa66" CreationDate="2012-09-11T08:01:51.333" UserId="125" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="101" RevisionGUID="64b0e191-f33e-4fdf-902b-62e442b1cc19" CreationDate="2012-09-11T14:49:01.717" UserId="115" Text="I don't think that anyone would need to worry about being extradited to the United States as a result of a patent infringement.  Patent infringement is a civil matter not a criminal matter, and extradition is not available for civil matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference: http://www.panamalaw.org/guide_to_extradition.html#" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="102" RevisionGUID="cd996b21-eacc-4c82-b5fe-c24608779ac6" CreationDate="2012-09-11T15:14:24.393" UserId="96" Text="The fundamental description of infringement is given in USC 35 section 271(a) as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority **makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells** any patented invention, within the United States, or **imports into the United States any patented invention** during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that infringement is defined as occurring **within the United States**.  For that reason, your latter two circumstances fall outside the scope of infringement for purposes of United States law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the circumstance you posit, and recognizing that the criteria for infringement as stated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US citizens within the territory of the US may well be liable as patent infringers because they **use** the infringing software.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Non-US citizens are just as liable as patent infringers as **users** because US Courts have jurisdiction over anyone present in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this answers the question as posed, but see http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_271.htm for the full text of 35 USC section 271 for more details and nuance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, what you did not ask is whether you are liable as an infringer.  If it is determined that you &quot;sell&quot; your software &quot;within the United States,&quot; you are.  Further, the International Trade Commission has jurisdiction to **prevent importation** of infringing devices (including software devices).  So, while the ITC may not be able to haul you into a courthouse in Washington, D.C., it can issue an injunction that prohibits the importation of your software.  Were that to happen, anyone who defied the injunction by, say, directly downloading your software into the US from a foreign website, would be in much deeper doo-doo than a mere infringer.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="97" RevisionGUID="42e3ef0b-272b-4c3e-b3f4-b763d06ac640" CreationDate="2012-09-11T15:33:32.067" UserId="133" Comment="comments about question's votes are irrelevant" Text="I don't think there is a direct answer available. Your circumstances actually pose a generic strategy question for someone with an idea for something new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I have written in answer to other questions, the underlying issue is net present value of the idea/invention. How do you capture, and then accelerate, that value? You are confronted with compound questions of timing, cost, implementation, secrecy, and business partners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Patent protection, even if possible, might not be the best way to protect or exploit your idea. Patent prosecution is an arcane art with innumerable opportunities the get side-tracked or lost in the process. Pick a few patents and compare the filing date with the issue date. Ten thousand dollars can get your patent application in the door at the Patent Office, but it commonly takes many years, and tens of thousands of additional dollars, to get a patent issued, even for experienced inventors with capable legal help.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Can your idea be implemented into products and protected as a trade secret as you exploit it in the marketplace? Is it likely to be leap-frogged by other technology in a relatively short period?  By leap-frogged, I mean the development of alternatives that do not employ your idea to get the same or superior performance. Trade secret protection does not work if your idea is obvious or easily reproduced just by observing or examining any product in which it is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The penurious have options for obtaining patents, but the choice of 1) going it alone *pro se* or 2) finding a money partner is a common threshold for technical folks. Can you put together a prototype product illustrating the value of your idea? If so, you have a better chance of finding that money partner. Be aware, though, that you have only one year from the full realization of your idea to file for a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Do you really have a new idea? Do you know enough about the area of technology and the history of that technology to be reasonably (read economically) sure? There are something north of 8 million US patents already - with hundreds of thousands of applications working their way through the system. There are tens of millions of technical papers, doctoral dissertations, white papers - and physical products extant in the world. Are you saying that none of them could possibly be interpreted to encompass your idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not trying to rain on your parade with respect to your possibly patentable idea, but I think the question is ill-considered because it assumes that patenting the idea is the best (or even a reasonable) approach. Alternatively, I would say that, while it is theoretically possible for a novice to prosecute a patent application successfully, the chances of that being a reasonable investment of time and effort is within *epsilon* of nil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="290" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="97" RevisionGUID="42e3ef0b-272b-4c3e-b3f4-b763d06ac640" CreationDate="2012-09-11T15:33:32.067" Comment="Proposed by 133 approved by 96 edit id of 28" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="103" RevisionGUID="e99eb4dc-1831-4393-8de6-9a06e8ff9360" CreationDate="2012-09-12T02:05:24.963" UserId="79" Text="“Abstract ideas” does not mean what your question assumes it means. What it *does* mean will only become clear over (likely quite some) time; but an abstract description of something does not make it an &quot;abstract idea&quot; in the sense of any probable interpretation. The desire, as expressed by the courts, appears to be to prevent the patenting of &quot;a fundamental truth; an original cause; a motive&quot;, but it is unclear how to achieve that, or where to draw lines. Various tests have been described and proposed, but it remains to be seen what those tests mean in practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, as long as an invention meets other criteria of patentability, the level of &quot;abstraction&quot; of its description — or of a *potential other* higher-level description — is unlikely to have much bearing, one way or the other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="82" RevisionGUID="12c4606a-5b0b-40b7-abbe-438caa92558c" CreationDate="2012-09-12T02:52:28.430" UserId="9" Comment="fix spelling of &quot;distinguishes&quot;" Text="In [StarWars Galaxies][1], a MMORPG developed by Sony Online Entertainment, originally one could have evolved their avatar during the game play and specialize for different attributes (skills), gaining a *profession*, further divided into *sub-professions*. The game also distinguishes among several *species* that determined abilities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later on, the game system was changed in such a way, one would have to pre-select one given preset of attributes that defined the character abilities, skills, moral and possible evolution of the avatar. This change was introduced as “New Game Enhancements”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The New Game Enhancements were implemented in November 2005. Major changes included the reduction and simplification of professions, simplification of gameplay mechanics, and Jedi becoming a starting profession.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starwars_Galaxies" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="104" RevisionGUID="b8cc6e7a-b0f6-4e4b-9146-13f193367a21" CreationDate="2012-09-12T08:02:59.277" UserId="125" Text="It's a tricky question. In past **there were cases when a patent was awarded despite the fact that the invention was demonstrated or even standardized in other countries**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One notable example is [MagSafe][1] [patent (US-7311526)][2] that Apple filed in 2005 and was awarded in 2007. However, not only were magnetic power cords used before that but they were even standardized in one case. In 2001 [Underwriters Laboratories][3] designed [a standard for safe operation of deep fryers in Japan][4] that _required_ kitchen appliance manufacturers to use magnetic power cords in their consumer products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The new cord is connected to the fryer by a magnet. If the cord is pulled, it will break away from the fryer, preventing it from tipping over and reducing the chances of spilling hot grease.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, despite the fact that these power cords existed and were known in the industry the patent was awarded to Apple and surprisingly no other consumer electronics manufacturer questioned their claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like the Underwriters Laboratories doesn't have that standard published on their website but this work [is mentioned in the bio of one of its founders - James Beyreis][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MagSafe&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7311526&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ul.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/07/03/deep.fryers/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/corporate/aboutul/whms/beyreis/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="93" RevisionGUID="d86b5b57-615b-4fc0-949b-e20e983ad033" CreationDate="2012-09-13T17:01:49.407" UserId="61" Comment="EPO is for europe" Text="Unlike copyright, a patent is only valid in a country where it has been filed, accepted and registered. A US patent gives you an exclusive right to use your invention (including manufacturing a product using it and selling a product manufactured using it) in the US. It doesn't constrain someone who operates entirely outside the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some groups of countries that have mutual patent recognition agreements ([ARIPO](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Regional_Intellectual_Property_Organization) and [OAPI](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_Africaine_de_la_Propri%C3%A9t%C3%A9_Intellectuelle) in Africa, [EAPO](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Patent_Organization) around Russia, [EPO](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Patent_Office) in Europe). These groups of countries have agreements where a patent application is examined by only one office, but if the patent is granted the applicant must decide in which countries in the group the patent will apply (and pay each country's fee). The US isn't a member of any such organization; there's no particular agreement on patents between the US and Canada, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to apply in more than one country (or group of countries), the patent must be examined in each country. A majority of countries (including the US) have ratified the [Patent Cooperation Treaty](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Cooperation_Treaty). The usual way to extend a patent to many countries is to file it in your home country, then file a PCT application, then have the patent examined by national offices of PCT member states. See the [PCT website](http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/) for more information. See also [this answer](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/24/is-there-a-specified-route-to-convert-uk-patents-to-us-patents/32#32). Note that it can happen that a patent is granted in one country but rejected in another: maybe one country will find some prior art that another country won't, or maybe they'll interpret it in a different way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which countries to file your patent is depends heavily on what the logistics and market is for your product. If you only ever expect to sell your product in the US, a US patent is good enough. If you think your product can only be manufactured economically in a few countries, patent it in these countries (assuming that you trust these countries' patent enforcement). If you think your product could be manufactured and sold anywhere, it's a matter of investment: each additional country costs you money upfront but locks your competitors down more.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="306" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="93" RevisionGUID="d86b5b57-615b-4fc0-949b-e20e983ad033" CreationDate="2012-09-13T17:01:49.407" Comment="Proposed by 61 approved by 1 edit id of 30" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="107" RevisionGUID="19aca857-b0a5-4ec2-9269-3ea47cd16a2d" CreationDate="2012-09-14T19:41:10.963" UserId="14" Text="**The &quot;[Die for use in game play][1]&quot; patent application describes a die that returns two independent (random) variables.**  According to the application, one is (&quot;preferably&quot;) a color.  The other, as you might surmise, is a number that can range from 1 to 6.  This illustration in the application demonstrates the latter mechanism:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Given the prevalence of mechanical devices that deliver that second (numerical) variable, can anyone find an example of prior art for *either*:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **A device triggered by a mechanical action that delivers a random color, or**&#xD;&#xA; 2. **A device triggered by a mechanical action that delivers two independent variables (i.e. a letter and a number, two unrelated letters, etc.)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&amp;r=1&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=20120223477&amp;OS=20120223477&amp;RS=20120223477&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/6pf6Z.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="308" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="107" RevisionGUID="19aca857-b0a5-4ec2-9269-3ea47cd16a2d" CreationDate="2012-09-14T19:41:10.963" UserId="14" Text="Prior art for a die (or dice) that return any two independent variables or a random color as seen in us20120223477?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="309" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="107" RevisionGUID="19aca857-b0a5-4ec2-9269-3ea47cd16a2d" CreationDate="2012-09-14T19:41:10.963" UserId="14" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20120223477&gt;&lt;amusement-devices-games&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="311" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="107" RevisionGUID="fbd049d2-f366-4ce3-b00e-eb959bdaf150" CreationDate="2012-09-16T02:34:11.127" UserId="133" Comment="too much bold sentences" Text="The &quot;[Die for use in game play][1]&quot; patent application describes a die that returns two independent (random) variables. According to the application, one is (&quot;preferably&quot;) a color.  The other, as you might surmise, is a number that can range from 1 to 6. This illustration in the application demonstrates the latter mechanism:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the prevalence of mechanical devices that deliver that second (numerical) variable, can anyone find an example of prior art for *either*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. A device triggered by a mechanical action that delivers a random color&#xD;&#xA; 2. A device triggered by a mechanical action that delivers two independent variables (i.e. a letter and a number, two unrelated letters, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&amp;r=1&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=20120223477&amp;OS=20120223477&amp;RS=20120223477&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/6pf6Z.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="312" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="107" RevisionGUID="fbd049d2-f366-4ce3-b00e-eb959bdaf150" CreationDate="2012-09-16T02:34:11.127" Comment="Proposed by 133 approved by 6 edit id of 31" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="108" RevisionGUID="e9c3cfee-ede8-491d-b47c-c5db3108b94f" CreationDate="2012-09-16T04:18:09.757" UserId="50" Text="You might want to have a look at the following patents for the first question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents?id=NjbTAAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US3450408?printsec=abstract#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US4669728&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one looks like it could cover both:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US7980933" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="103" RevisionGUID="663b1621-3135-4cdf-b93a-d435b87eb228" CreationDate="2012-09-17T16:20:17.340" UserId="79" Comment="Fix quotes." Text="“Abstract ideas” does not mean what your question assumes it means. What it *does* mean will only become clear over (likely quite some) time; but an abstract description of something does not make it an “abstract idea” in the sense of any probable interpretation. The desire, as expressed by the courts, appears to be to prevent the patenting of “a fundamental truth; an original cause; a motive”, but it is unclear how to achieve that, or where to draw lines. Various tests have been described and proposed, but it remains to be seen what those tests mean in practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, as long as an invention meets other criteria of patentability, the level of “abstraction” of its description — or of a *potential other* higher-level description — is unlikely to have much bearing, one way or the other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="108" RevisionGUID="9824f272-1b7d-4423-a5d2-cca473895506" CreationDate="2012-09-17T17:14:57.597" UserId="41" Comment="formatting and including patent names" Text="You might want to have a look at the following patents for the first question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Game having an electronic instruction unit with a mechanical die agitator (7780166)](http://www.google.com/patents?id=NjbTAAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;- [Electrical game equipment and switch employed therin (3450408)](http://www.google.com/patents/US3450408?printsec=abstract#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;- [Electronic dice game (4669728)](http://www.google.com/patents/US4669728)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Method of and apparatus for playing a card game (7980933)](http://www.google.com/patents/US7980933) looks like it could cover both." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="320" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="108" RevisionGUID="9824f272-1b7d-4423-a5d2-cca473895506" CreationDate="2012-09-17T17:14:57.597" Comment="Proposed by 41 approved by 1 edit id of 32" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="109" RevisionGUID="467b876e-4b1d-4a86-a1ba-c1a6fea77875" CreationDate="2012-09-18T10:00:47.377" UserId="81" Text="Microsoft has filed for a patent on a new technique that allow users of mobile devices to silence them by delivering a firm whack. From [The Register][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patent application 20120231838, aka CONTROLLING AUDIO OF A DEVICE,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aims to patent:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “A method comprising: in a mobile communications device: receiving&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information indicative of acceleration of the mobile communications&#xD;&#xA;&gt; device; determining correlation between the information indicative of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; acceleration of the mobile communications device and exemplar whack&#xD;&#xA;&gt; event data; and based at least on the correlation, controlling an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; audio signal of the mobile communications device.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now my HTC Desire HD already uses accelerometers to silence a ringing phone on my desk simply by turning it over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me this seems like entirely the same principle, only a different set of data from accelerometers will be used to trigger the silencing of the ringer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**tl;dr** - would this count as prior art, or is it not specific enough?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/17/whack_your_phone_says_microsoft/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="322" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="109" RevisionGUID="467b876e-4b1d-4a86-a1ba-c1a6fea77875" CreationDate="2012-09-18T10:00:47.377" UserId="81" Text="Microsoft have submitted a patent for a whack to silence a phone ringer. How similar does prior art have to be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="323" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="109" RevisionGUID="467b876e-4b1d-4a86-a1ba-c1a6fea77875" CreationDate="2012-09-18T10:00:47.377" UserId="81" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="109" RevisionGUID="a0c19d36-07be-4191-b0ac-0ac27179ba05" CreationDate="2012-09-18T11:01:01.590" UserId="76" Comment="added patent link" Text="Microsoft has filed for a [patent](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20120231838.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20120231838RS=DN/20120231838) on a new technique that allow users of mobile devices to silence them by delivering a firm whack. From [The Register][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patent application 20120231838, aka CONTROLLING AUDIO OF A DEVICE,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aims to patent:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “A method comprising: in a mobile communications device: receiving&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information indicative of acceleration of the mobile communications&#xD;&#xA;&gt; device; determining correlation between the information indicative of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; acceleration of the mobile communications device and exemplar whack&#xD;&#xA;&gt; event data; and based at least on the correlation, controlling an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; audio signal of the mobile communications device.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now my HTC Desire HD already uses accelerometers to silence a ringing phone on my desk simply by turning it over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me this seems like entirely the same principle, only a different set of data from accelerometers will be used to trigger the silencing of the ringer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**tl;dr** - would this count as prior art, or is it not specific enough?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/17/whack_your_phone_says_microsoft/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="325" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="109" RevisionGUID="a0c19d36-07be-4191-b0ac-0ac27179ba05" CreationDate="2012-09-18T11:01:01.590" UserId="76" Comment="added patent link" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20120231838&gt;&lt;telecommunications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="326" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="109" RevisionGUID="a0c19d36-07be-4191-b0ac-0ac27179ba05" CreationDate="2012-09-18T11:01:01.590" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 81 edit id of 33" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="110" RevisionGUID="f9e92751-9223-4c56-8c91-32b8d34516be" CreationDate="2012-09-18T11:21:31.867" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="111" RevisionGUID="54386c0d-d137-403b-988b-0ef9ba00b1c5" CreationDate="2012-09-18T11:21:31.867" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="112" RevisionGUID="ca1a8ea6-8494-4ad7-9f0a-ef7a5bc6d8a6" CreationDate="2012-09-18T11:24:43.487" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="113" RevisionGUID="f671774e-0100-4d2b-a929-0a2d735d2b09" CreationDate="2012-09-18T11:24:43.487" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="331" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="79" RevisionGUID="5c248441-1d53-458b-9a54-2c68758a2aa0" CreationDate="2012-09-18T11:27:25.980" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;video-games&gt;&lt;us20120052930&gt;&lt;amusement-devices-games&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="332" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="41" RevisionGUID="ada82ed2-f846-40e1-bbf9-23abebb7a861" CreationDate="2012-09-18T11:33:18.550" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;us7222078&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;us20040177002&gt;&lt;data-processing-financial&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="114" RevisionGUID="a0da4ddd-61e1-4065-972e-6c9df73bd7a2" CreationDate="2012-09-18T11:44:33.003" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="115" RevisionGUID="2ff372b4-dbf3-446c-999a-c9ab916aa6de" CreationDate="2012-09-18T11:44:33.003" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="116" RevisionGUID="89468b08-a634-4618-a692-56691d9c48ad" CreationDate="2012-09-18T14:09:20.113" UserId="14" Text="@Gilles found [these dice][1] for sale on Amazon, which return two independent variables.  (Each is a number from 1 to 6).  (He posted his find as a comment above.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This item clearly establishes that no claims can reasonably made for the novelty of a die-like invention returning two independent variables.**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That would seem to limit the potential viability of this patent to the question of whether one of those variables being a color, rather than a number, is sufficiently useful and non-obvious.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.amazon.com/Koplow-Games-Inc-Double-Dice/dp/B000F8VAE2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/fWbIR.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="107" RevisionGUID="c267b01c-acf7-415d-850c-43d96ca28173" CreationDate="2012-09-18T14:13:26.067" UserId="14" Comment="Changed mechanical to &quot;user&quot;" Text="The &quot;[Die for use in game play][1]&quot; patent application describes a die that returns two independent (random) variables. According to the application, one is (&quot;preferably&quot;) a color.  The other, as you might surmise, is a number that can range from 1 to 6. This illustration in the application demonstrates the latter mechanism:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the prevalence of devices that deliver that second (numerical) variable, can anyone find an example of prior art for *either*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. A device triggered by a user action that delivers a random color&#xD;&#xA; 2. A device triggered by a user action that delivers two independent variables (i.e. a letter and a number, two unrelated letters, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&amp;r=1&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=20120223477&amp;OS=20120223477&amp;RS=20120223477&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/6pf6Z.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="108" RevisionGUID="57c6db16-0e24-4dcc-b3e0-e0cf34bd3301" CreationDate="2012-09-18T14:29:41.337" UserId="14" Comment="Added quote and image" Text="You might want to have a look at the following patents for the first question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Game having an electronic instruction unit with a mechanical die agitator (7780166)](http://www.google.com/patents?id=NjbTAAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;- [Electrical game equipment and switch employed therin (3450408)](http://www.google.com/patents/US3450408?printsec=abstract#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;- [Electronic dice game (4669728)](http://www.google.com/patents/US4669728)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Method of and apparatus for playing a card game (7980933)](http://www.google.com/patents/US7980933) looks like it could cover both:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The invention provides an electronic video game apparatus which includes a display for displaying a video depiction of a first card game on the display. Each card in the first card game has a card suit, a card value and a card color.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/H9aui.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="11d5885d-9789-4ccb-8623-67d244547cf7" CreationDate="2012-09-18T15:28:39.393" UserId="4" Text="US Patent Application US20120226658A1: [Data model versioning for document databases](http://www.google.com/patents/US20120226658)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim #1 describes an extremely simple versioning system for a document database:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; reading, by a processing device, a first version tag, the first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; version tag associated with a document database;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; comparing the first version tag to a second version tag, the second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; version tag associated with a current document template of an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if the first version tag does not match the second version tag,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; performing a version migration operation to update a document format&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the document database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I am reading this correctly, it's attempting to patent **a system in which one revision number is compared to the previous revision number, and if it's different do an upgrade.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 8 and 15 go on to describe a &quot;processing system&quot; and a &quot;machine-readable storage medium&quot; without adding any specific details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surely there must be prior art for this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="339" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="11d5885d-9789-4ccb-8623-67d244547cf7" CreationDate="2012-09-18T15:28:39.393" UserId="4" Text="Prior art for a simple versioning system on a document database" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="340" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="11d5885d-9789-4ccb-8623-67d244547cf7" CreationDate="2012-09-18T15:28:39.393" UserId="4" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20120226658a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="341" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="113" RevisionGUID="0c6f37ce-ee88-442a-8446-48788d4941fa" CreationDate="2012-09-18T15:30:39.047" UserId="76" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="US patent class 273 or 463 — Amusement devices: games" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="342" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="113" RevisionGUID="0c6f37ce-ee88-442a-8446-48788d4941fa" CreationDate="2012-09-18T15:30:39.047" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 6 edit id of 37" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="111" RevisionGUID="a938e7dd-28f5-40c1-b56f-a3be8767113a" CreationDate="2012-09-18T15:30:42.977" UserId="76" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="US patent class 455: telecommunications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="344" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="111" RevisionGUID="a938e7dd-28f5-40c1-b56f-a3be8767113a" CreationDate="2012-09-18T15:30:42.977" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 6 edit id of 35" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="110" RevisionGUID="c591e621-ca5e-4ece-9190-5265f9525bd5" CreationDate="2012-09-18T15:30:49.203" UserId="76" Comment="added 354 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 455: telecommunications](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc455/sched455.htm) [[detailed definition](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc455/defs455.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: telephones, radio and other wireless transmissions, transmitters and receivers, relays and content filters, signal converters, …&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="346" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="110" RevisionGUID="c591e621-ca5e-4ece-9190-5265f9525bd5" CreationDate="2012-09-18T15:30:49.203" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 6 edit id of 34" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="112" RevisionGUID="f4603ef6-1d9b-4e71-be4f-0c967d7fda0c" CreationDate="2012-09-18T15:30:52.213" UserId="76" Comment="added 740 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 273: amusement devices: games](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc273/sched273.htm) [[detailed definition](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc273/defs273.htm)]  &#xD;&#xA;[US patent class 463: amusement devices: games](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc463/sched463.htm) [[detailed definition](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc463/defs463.htm)]  &#xD;&#xA;Patent class 273 is being reclassified into 463 and [473 (games using tangible projectiles)](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc473/sched473.htm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: ball games and other projectiles, board games, card games, chance devices, puzzles, games of skill, computer and video games, …&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="348" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="112" RevisionGUID="f4603ef6-1d9b-4e71-be4f-0c967d7fda0c" CreationDate="2012-09-18T15:30:52.213" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 6 edit id of 36" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="115" RevisionGUID="b5a098d4-71f4-4097-bcf8-ef32097e29f0" CreationDate="2012-09-18T15:31:10.857" UserId="76" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="US patent class 705: data processing: financial, business practice, management, or cost/price determination" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="350" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="115" RevisionGUID="b5a098d4-71f4-4097-bcf8-ef32097e29f0" CreationDate="2012-09-18T15:31:10.857" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 6 edit id of 39" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="114" RevisionGUID="dd5d10a5-b4e2-472f-8df7-f00356b4e256" CreationDate="2012-09-18T15:31:13.850" UserId="76" Comment="added 427 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 705: data processing: financial, business practice, management, or cost/price determination](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc705/sched705.htm) [[detailed definition](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc705/defs705.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: business processing using cryptography, electronic negociation, automated financial or business practice or management arrangement, …&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="352" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="114" RevisionGUID="dd5d10a5-b4e2-472f-8df7-f00356b4e256" CreationDate="2012-09-18T15:31:13.850" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 6 edit id of 38" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="118" RevisionGUID="053b94f5-fbb8-44db-bd08-33a8b3310824" CreationDate="2012-09-18T15:43:52.633" UserId="15" Text="In context with other examples of prior art (such as [Bump's application](https://bu.mp/) which allows you to trade contact information by knocking two phones together) this seems like a potentially valuable piece of prior art.  In this case, Microsoft has appeared to take two well known concepts (using the accelerator to detect motion in a single plane and silencing a ringer based on sensing motion) and combined them in a very obvious way.  Given the obviousness of this combination and wealth of examples of other devices with very similar features, this is definitely a pretty crappy patent application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="65d9943d-4c83-40e4-9418-d41c38f88340" CreationDate="2012-09-18T15:44:03.347" UserId="4" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="US Patent Application US20120226658: [Data model versioning for document databases](http://www.google.com/patents/US20120226658)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim #1 describes an extremely simple versioning system for a document database:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; reading, by a processing device, a first version tag, the first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; version tag associated with a document database;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; comparing the first version tag to a second version tag, the second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; version tag associated with a current document template of an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if the first version tag does not match the second version tag,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; performing a version migration operation to update a document format&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the document database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I am reading this correctly, it's attempting to patent **a system in which one revision number is compared to the previous revision number, and if it's different do an upgrade.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 8 and 15 go on to describe a &quot;processing system&quot; and a &quot;machine-readable storage medium&quot; without adding any specific details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surely there must be prior art for this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="355" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="65d9943d-4c83-40e4-9418-d41c38f88340" CreationDate="2012-09-18T15:44:03.347" UserId="4" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20120226658&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="119" RevisionGUID="5cff5a5a-7daa-4d41-a0b2-83cf9df61eff" CreationDate="2012-09-18T15:53:59.203" UserId="8" Text="US Patent Application US20120226390: [History timeline display for vehicle fleet management][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for providing history information for a plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vehicles, the system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a computer system comprising computer hardware programmed to implement&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a user interface module configured to at least:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; receive telematics data corresponding to a plurality of vehicles in a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vehicle fleet, the telematics data comprising location information for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the vehicles over time;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; generate a vehicle management user interface comprising data&#xD;&#xA;&gt; representing the plurality of vehicles;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; output the vehicle management user interface for presentation to a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user, the vehicle management user interface comprising a map depicting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the plurality of vehicles for selection by the user;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; receive a selection by the user of first vehicle data from the vehicle&#xD;&#xA;&gt; management user interface, the first vehicle data representing a first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vehicle of the plurality of vehicles;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; in response to receiving the selection of the first vehicle data,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; outputting a first vehicle history timeline comprising first vehicle&#xD;&#xA;&gt; status data reflecting at least a portion of the telematics data&#xD;&#xA;&gt; corresponding to the first vehicle;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving a second selection by the user of second vehicle data from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the vehicle management user interface, the second vehicle data&#xD;&#xA;&gt; representing a second vehicle of the plurality of vehicles; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; in response to receiving the second selection of the second vehicle&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data, outputting a second vehicle timeline comprising second vehicle&#xD;&#xA;&gt; status data reflecting at least a portion of the telematics data&#xD;&#xA;&gt; corresponding to the second vehicle, the second vehicle timeline&#xD;&#xA;&gt; configured to be displayed together with the first vehicle timeline&#xD;&#xA;&gt; such that the first and second vehicle timelines are configured to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; correlated in time, thereby enabling a visual comparison of the first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and second vehicle status data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These all seem to be obvious design choices that would occur to anyone who was making software to track vehicles. For instance there is already a patent for displaying the positions of vehicles in [US6339745][2]. Isn't this just applying a timeline (obvious design choice for history) to something? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120226390&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6339745" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="357" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="119" RevisionGUID="5cff5a5a-7daa-4d41-a0b2-83cf9df61eff" CreationDate="2012-09-18T15:53:59.203" UserId="8" Text="Prior Art for Histroy Timeline Display for Vehicle Fleet Management" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="358" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="119" RevisionGUID="5cff5a5a-7daa-4d41-a0b2-83cf9df61eff" CreationDate="2012-09-18T15:53:59.203" UserId="8" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20120226390&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="359" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="118" RevisionGUID="99c569a9-13b8-41a5-b211-20da56ca6867" CreationDate="2012-09-18T15:56:09.717" UserId="14" Comment="Removed crappy colorful metaphor. Added bold and bullets for easier scanning." Text="In context with other examples of prior art (such as [Bump's application](https://bu.mp/) which allows you to trade contact information by knocking two phones together) this seems like a potentially valuable piece of prior art.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In this case, Microsoft has appeared to take two well known concepts...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Using the accelerator to detect motion in a single plane, and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- Silencing a ringer based on sensing motion),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**...and combined them in a very obvious way.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the obviousness of this combination and wealth of examples of other devices with very similar features, it seems nearly impossible to deem this patent to be sufficently novel and non-obvious to be approved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="120" RevisionGUID="25bc4b32-9cf9-439f-ba88-cdfa918229ef" CreationDate="2012-09-18T16:02:50.180" UserId="11" Text="The [VMS operating system](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenVMS) - first released in 1977 - tagged each file with a [version number](http://www.glindra.org/doc/version_number.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is [a script written in 1992](http://dcl.openvms.org/stories.php?story=03/09/23/4479412) called COPY_IF_NEWER which does what the patent claims, using the creation date of the file as the &quot;version tag&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [COPY command](http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/83final/9996/9996pro_32.html) of VMS did this automatically and by default." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="78f0d3b2-1807-4c17-a5bc-5a103b34b613" CreationDate="2012-09-18T16:05:42.153" UserId="272" Text="While browsing freshpatents.com for software patents, I happened upon this application which seeks to patent a system for moving patient beds from one room to another.  The claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A system for the facilitation of bed transitions in health care system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;   - a vendor network subsystem,&#xD;&#xA;   - a bed transitions subsystem and&#xD;&#xA;   - a nurse realty subsystem&#xD;&#xA; - A web based application for the facilitation of bed transitions in health care systems comprising:&#xD;&#xA;   - a web browser&#xD;&#xA;   - an application generating a webpage&#xD;&#xA;   - an application for generating a bed transition system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, this seems pretty obvious technology.  While I am unable to find a directly analogous software package, there are numerous patient management systems in existence, which manage the patient experience as well as handle doctor/nurse scheduling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of patient/inpatient management systems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - NextGen (http://www.nextgen.com/EHR)&#xD;&#xA; - Epic InPatient Clinicals (http://www.epic.com/software-inpatient.php)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="362" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="78f0d3b2-1807-4c17-a5bc-5a103b34b613" CreationDate="2012-09-18T16:05:42.153" UserId="272" Text="US20120226507 - The combination of these claims seems pretty obvious" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="363" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="78f0d3b2-1807-4c17-a5bc-5a103b34b613" CreationDate="2012-09-18T16:05:42.153" UserId="272" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;us20120226507&gt;&lt;healthcare&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="122" RevisionGUID="49fb7b10-aa8f-4946-bce2-dbbc94f4fdf5" CreationDate="2012-09-18T16:14:19.520" UserId="26" Text="I know that patents are not part of the public purview until months or years after the patent application is filed. Once these patent applications are made public, for how long can I submit prior art (or ask other people to help me find prior art)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the typical timeframe for when the U.S. Patent &amp; Trademark Office will make a decision about any given patent, and are there any categories of patent applications that are processed faster than others?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="365" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="122" RevisionGUID="49fb7b10-aa8f-4946-bce2-dbbc94f4fdf5" CreationDate="2012-09-18T16:14:19.520" UserId="26" Text="What is the window for finding prior art on a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="366" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="122" RevisionGUID="49fb7b10-aa8f-4946-bce2-dbbc94f4fdf5" CreationDate="2012-09-18T16:14:19.520" UserId="26" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="a84b1f1e-78be-4d97-9558-dcdd2f0a2d03" CreationDate="2012-09-18T16:18:22.997" UserId="272" Comment="blockquoted the claims for easy readability" Text="While browsing freshpatents.com for software patents, I happened upon this application which seeks to patent a system for moving patient beds from one room to another.  The claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A system for the facilitation of bed transitions in health care system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - a vendor network subsystem,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - a bed transitions subsystem and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - a nurse realty subsystem&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A web based application for the facilitation of bed transitions in health care systems comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - a web browser&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - an application generating a webpage&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - an application for generating a bed transition system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, this seems pretty obvious technology.  While I am unable to find a directly analogous software package, there are numerous patient management systems in existence, which manage the patient experience as well as handle doctor/nurse scheduling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of patient/inpatient management systems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - NextGen (http://www.nextgen.com/EHR)&#xD;&#xA; - Epic InPatient Clinicals (http://www.epic.com/software-inpatient.php)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="c1982894-c315-42c5-abe6-e58adb4dbad1" CreationDate="2012-09-18T16:28:48.130" UserId="272" Comment="added 130 characters in body; edited title" Text="While browsing freshpatents.com for software patents, I happened upon this application which seeks to patent a system for moving patient beds from one room to another.  The claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A system for the facilitation of bed transitions in health care system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - a vendor network subsystem,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - a bed transitions subsystem and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - a nurse realty subsystem&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A web based application for the facilitation of bed transitions in health care systems comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - a web browser&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - an application generating a webpage&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - an application for generating a bed transition system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, this seems pretty obvious technology.  While I am unable to find a directly analogous software package, there are numerous patient management systems in existence, which manage the patient experience as well as handle doctor/nurse scheduling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of patient/inpatient management systems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - NextGen (http://www.nextgen.com/EHR)&#xD;&#xA; - Epic InPatient Clinicals (http://www.epic.com/software-inpatient.php)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*InPatient Clinicals* seems to be very close to the patent's description.  Does anyone know of a more exact prior art example?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="370" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="c1982894-c315-42c5-abe6-e58adb4dbad1" CreationDate="2012-09-18T16:28:48.130" UserId="272" Comment="added 130 characters in body; edited title" Text="US20120226507 - The claims of this application seem pretty obvious, are there any other prior art examples I'm missing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="371" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="119" RevisionGUID="7de4a390-0f2e-4522-a1ce-0d4fc5c55114" CreationDate="2012-09-18T16:29:04.113" UserId="19" Comment="histroy? no siree" Text="Prior Art for History Timeline Display for Vehicle Fleet Management" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="372" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="119" RevisionGUID="7de4a390-0f2e-4522-a1ce-0d4fc5c55114" CreationDate="2012-09-18T16:29:04.113" Comment="Proposed by 19 approved by 1 edit id of 40" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="123" RevisionGUID="aea4cab0-e94a-4179-869d-078216fb3042" CreationDate="2012-09-18T16:32:07.033" UserId="34" Text="If you read further into the patent under [0022] it says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  The examples below describe a web based computer network. Although the present examples are described and illustrated herein as being implemented in internet based system, the system described is provided as an example and not a limitation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IANAL, but I believe prior art for this patent would just be *any* hospital that currently manages beds. It does not even need to be a software management system.  It could be paper based, or whiteboard based, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, if you could show a hospital that has a list of vendors, a list of beds, and a list of nurses and uses those three things to manage where beds are then simply reimplementing this in software, does not add anything novel to the process. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="374" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="0e8202f1-f401-483a-829e-285b0516073d" CreationDate="2012-09-18T17:14:01.917" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20120226658&gt;&lt;data-processing-database&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="124" RevisionGUID="14c3e5d6-ebfe-4533-8eae-02cbb1cb0226" CreationDate="2012-09-18T17:20:36.437" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="125" RevisionGUID="072dec51-9f9b-43e3-b898-51713cbe246b" CreationDate="2012-09-18T17:20:36.437" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="377" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="119" RevisionGUID="396d09c8-1dd9-4745-8a2a-fa4fe570a1e6" CreationDate="2012-09-18T17:21:28.197" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20120226390&gt;&lt;data-processing-vehicles&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="378" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="38515803-0f43-4de1-8df0-33a50e49f324" CreationDate="2012-09-18T17:23:19.100" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;data-processing-financial&gt;&lt;us20120226507&gt;&lt;healthcare&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="126" RevisionGUID="8b1464bf-0625-47e3-89e5-90d25c1aa24d" CreationDate="2012-09-18T17:28:15.490" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="127" RevisionGUID="118e5e55-a73e-45b1-b97f-ed9210c629a4" CreationDate="2012-09-18T17:28:15.490" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="381" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="122" RevisionGUID="d2c912b0-abd0-47ae-bcd0-49e5b56ad6b6" CreationDate="2012-09-18T17:51:54.067" UserId="7" Comment="title clarification" Text="What is the window for finding prior art on a patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="382" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="122" RevisionGUID="d2c912b0-abd0-47ae-bcd0-49e5b56ad6b6" CreationDate="2012-09-18T17:51:54.067" Comment="Proposed by 7 approved by 26 edit id of 45" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="129" RevisionGUID="1bdd4a12-e6d6-4b19-9913-7c880c2b22d5" CreationDate="2012-09-18T17:54:04.173" UserId="7" Text="A patent application can be contested by a third party via prior art submission during a window that lasts no longer than 6 months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That window **opens** when a patent application is published -- usually 18 months after the application is first filed. The window **closes** when either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) The inventor has received a Notice of Allowance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) The USPTO has completed the first office action on the merits of that application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See page 83 [here][1] (pdf) for full rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/bills-112hr1249eh.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="129" RevisionGUID="a4f21ab5-bd42-4a60-bf59-9d70e9b60508" CreationDate="2012-09-18T18:12:04.620" UserId="14" Comment="Added summary so I can delete my redundant answer below." Text="A patent application can be contested by a third party via prior art submission during a window that lasts no longer than 6 months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That window **opens** when a patent application is published -- usually 18 months after the application is first filed. The window **closes** when either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) The inventor has received a Notice of Allowance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) The USPTO has completed the first office action on the merits of that application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TL;DR (Too Long; Didn't Read Summary): You generally have at least six months from initial publication, and the easiest way to ensure you're finding places to make an impact is to look at the most recently published applications**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See page 83 [here][1] (pdf) for full rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/bills-112hr1249eh.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="131" RevisionGUID="46ef3363-05c1-4a70-be1f-70c299b54214" CreationDate="2012-09-18T18:15:04.433" UserId="273" Text="In this Patent Application #20120222191 Titled &quot;Sports garment with a seat pad, in particular for cycling&quot;, it claims to have a unique method for attaching a padded section to a spandex cycling short.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having worn them myself, I know that padded sports garments have been around for years and their must be prior art for such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question: What prior art addresses padded sports garments - particularly cycling shorts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="390" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="131" RevisionGUID="46ef3363-05c1-4a70-be1f-70c299b54214" CreationDate="2012-09-18T18:15:04.433" UserId="273" Text="Prior art of Pat. App. No. 20120222191?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="391" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="131" RevisionGUID="46ef3363-05c1-4a70-be1f-70c299b54214" CreationDate="2012-09-18T18:15:04.433" UserId="273" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="129" RevisionGUID="2a44eec9-1135-42ec-8242-57a68d18893c" CreationDate="2012-09-18T18:15:13.717" UserId="7" Comment="deleted 56 characters in body" Text="A patent application can be contested by a third party via prior art submission during a window that lasts no longer than 6 months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That window **opens** when a patent application is published -- usually 18 months after the application is first filed. The window **closes** when either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) The inventor has received a Notice of Allowance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) The USPTO has completed the first office action on the merits of that application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TL;DR: You generally have six months from initial publication, and the easiest way to ensure you're finding actionable applications is to find those that were most recently published**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See page 83 [here][1] (pdf) for full rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/bills-112hr1249eh.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="393" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="3bc5517a-3405-45aa-8b86-4998083f53eb" CreationDate="2012-09-18T18:47:40.853" UserId="9" Comment="made title more informative" Text="Bed management software in healthcare: are there examples of obviousness or prior art? (US20120226507)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="131" RevisionGUID="2c506c09-3adc-4d3f-86e2-82c51e56fe06" CreationDate="2012-09-18T18:48:26.657" UserId="7" Comment="fixed grammar, spelling, added tag" Text="The invention in patent application #20120222191 titled &quot;Sports garment with a seat pad, in particular for cycling&quot; claims to have a unique method for attaching a padded section to a spandex cycling short.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having worn them myself, I know that padded sports garments have been around for years and there must be prior art for such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question: What prior art addresses padded sports garments - particularly cycling shorts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="395" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="131" RevisionGUID="2c506c09-3adc-4d3f-86e2-82c51e56fe06" CreationDate="2012-09-18T18:48:26.657" UserId="7" Comment="fixed grammar, spelling, added tag" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20120222191&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="396" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="131" RevisionGUID="2c506c09-3adc-4d3f-86e2-82c51e56fe06" CreationDate="2012-09-18T18:48:26.657" Comment="Proposed by 7 approved by 9 edit id of 46" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="397" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="131" RevisionGUID="74739f7c-4f4e-4165-ae75-002b04a2ca8a" CreationDate="2012-09-18T18:49:56.950" UserId="9" Comment="edited title" Text="Examples of prior art for athletic gear with padded seat area" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="398" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="806b0fc1-96c3-44f6-a8fe-ee933c8ba3ed" CreationDate="2012-09-18T18:53:08.990" UserId="9" Comment="edited title" Text="Bed management in healthcare: are there examples of obviousness or prior art? (US20120226507)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="132" RevisionGUID="439d71ca-7b98-4871-ac95-401df65877f6" CreationDate="2012-09-18T20:00:16.067" UserId="6" Text="This reads to me to be more about character alignment than professions and skills. Still, there is prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [the Mass Effect series](http://www.masseffect.com) allows the player to choose responses that follow one of the three moral paths - paragon (&quot;good&quot;), renegade (&quot;evil&quot;), and neutral. The other characters in the game then take the player character's alignment into account when reacting to their actions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A paragon and a renegade character could accomplish the same goals (such as saving all of humanity), but they would go about it in different ways and with different consequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the [Mass Effect Wiki](http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Morality):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Paragon or Charm dialogue choices (colored blue in dialogue trees) often lead to people being more open and friendly with Shepard, and can sometimes avert entire battles that would otherwise be triggered.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Renegade or Intimidate dialogue choices (colored red in dialogue trees) generally lead to people disliking and even fearing Shepard, and occasionally &quot;encourage&quot; people to tell or give more than they otherwise would. Like with Paragon/Charm options, Shepard can sometimes avert entire battles that would otherwise be triggered." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="126" RevisionGUID="403ffd2b-4cf4-4626-a2a7-8ba6bd50f063" CreationDate="2012-09-18T20:26:11.867" UserId="76" Comment="added 386 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 701: data processing: vehicles, navigation, and relative location](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc701/sched701.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc701/defs701.htm))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: vehicle control (steering, brakes, etc.), autopilot, navigation (tools and automated systems), collision avoidance, …&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="401" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="126" RevisionGUID="403ffd2b-4cf4-4626-a2a7-8ba6bd50f063" CreationDate="2012-09-18T20:26:11.867" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 6 edit id of 43" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="125" RevisionGUID="874659bb-8cf0-409c-8f05-c3268a5429f4" CreationDate="2012-09-18T20:26:16.233" UserId="76" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="US patent class 707: data processing: database and file management or data structures" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="403" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="125" RevisionGUID="874659bb-8cf0-409c-8f05-c3268a5429f4" CreationDate="2012-09-18T20:26:16.233" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 6 edit id of 42" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="124" RevisionGUID="3953d57e-2e72-4729-8909-3a3a868e25e0" CreationDate="2012-09-18T20:26:22.147" UserId="76" Comment="added 380 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 707: data processing: database and file management or data structures](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc707/sched707.htm) [[detailed definition](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc707/defs707.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: databases (synchronization, integrity, design), file systems, information retrieval, garbage collection, …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="405" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="124" RevisionGUID="3953d57e-2e72-4729-8909-3a3a868e25e0" CreationDate="2012-09-18T20:26:22.147" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 6 edit id of 41" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="127" RevisionGUID="5b97e693-920c-4aad-8046-a522bf368116" CreationDate="2012-09-18T20:26:25.407" UserId="76" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text="US patent class 701: data processing: vehicles, navigation, and relative location" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="407" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="127" RevisionGUID="5b97e693-920c-4aad-8046-a522bf368116" CreationDate="2012-09-18T20:26:25.407" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 6 edit id of 44" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="133" RevisionGUID="e6ef0cca-a948-445f-8b7f-92a64184dc24" CreationDate="2012-09-18T20:46:57.083" UserId="19" Text="Toyota has filed a patent for a [&quot;Driving support apparatus and driving support method&quot;](http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20120906ptan20120226392.php). Its main claim: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A driving support apparatus that performs a driving support for causing a vehicle to travel in a lane, the driving support apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an image taking section for taking an image of a road surface which is travelled upon and is in front of the vehicle; &#xD;&#xA;- an image processing section for detecting for a lane dividing line on the road surface which is travelled upon, by using the image taken by the image taking section, and setting a virtual lane dividing line in a section in which no lane dividing line is detected;&#xD;&#xA;- a support section for performing the driving support by controlling the vehicle so as to prevent the vehicle from deviating from the lane dividing line or the virtual lane dividing line; and&#xD;&#xA;- a warning section for issuing a warning when the vehicle is likely to deviate from the lane dividing line or the virtual lane dividing line; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc. The claims go on into much further detail, but the gist is that we are looking at a patent for a device that contains a camera and a processor which it uses to drive a car. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've been experimenting with [autonomous cars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driverless_car) for years. Surely Toyota is not the first to use a camera (er, image taking section) to give its car a view of the road. Does anyone know of any specific prior art that exists? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="409" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="133" RevisionGUID="e6ef0cca-a948-445f-8b7f-92a64184dc24" CreationDate="2012-09-18T20:46:57.083" UserId="19" Text="Is Toyota really the first to use a camera to support a &quot;self-driving&quot; car?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="410" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="133" RevisionGUID="e6ef0cca-a948-445f-8b7f-92a64184dc24" CreationDate="2012-09-18T20:46:57.083" UserId="19" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20120226392&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="133" RevisionGUID="140ef45a-b91e-417e-8fa0-da48b639b7ca" CreationDate="2012-09-18T21:01:55.960" UserId="19" Comment="added full claim text; link to USPTO instead of non-free-access site" Text="Toyota has filed a patent for a [&quot;Driving support apparatus and driving support method&quot;](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=20120226392.PGNR.). Its main claim: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A driving support apparatus that performs a driving support for causing a vehicle to travel in a lane, the driving support apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an image taking section for taking an image of a road surface which is travelled upon and is in front of the vehicle; &#xD;&#xA;- an image processing section for detecting for a lane dividing line on the road surface which is travelled upon, by using the image taken by the image taking section, and setting a virtual lane dividing line in a section in which no lane dividing line is detected;&#xD;&#xA;- a support section for performing the driving support by controlling the vehicle so as to prevent the vehicle from deviating from the lane dividing line or the virtual lane dividing line; and&#xD;&#xA;- a warning section for issuing a warning when the vehicle is likely to deviate from the lane dividing line or the virtual lane dividing line; wherein&#xD;&#xA;- in a case where the vehicle satisfies a predetermined condition,  &#xD;&#xA;- the warning section is actuated when the vehicle is likely to deviate from the lane dividing line, and  &#xD;&#xA;- the warning section stops operating when the vehicle is likely to deviate from the virtual lane dividing line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gist is that we are looking at a patent for a device that contains a camera and a processor which it uses to drive a car. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've been experimenting with [autonomous cars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driverless_car) for years. Surely Toyota is not the first to use a camera (er, image taking section) to give its car a view of the road. Does anyone know of any specific prior art that exists? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="412" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="133" RevisionGUID="140ef45a-b91e-417e-8fa0-da48b639b7ca" CreationDate="2012-09-18T21:01:55.960" UserId="19" Comment="added full claim text; link to USPTO instead of non-free-access site" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;data-processing-vehicles&gt;&lt;us20120226392&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="134" RevisionGUID="e3ae60a8-3620-4d33-9ae7-bbcaefdb735b" CreationDate="2012-09-18T21:14:07.347" UserId="24" Text="A patent found at [the USPTO](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20120222429.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20070198578&amp;RS=DN/20120222429)&#xD;&#xA;claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. A vehicle air conditioner for a passenger compartment of a vehicle, comprising: a power source for driving the vehicle; a radiator provided outside the passenger compartment; a heat medium passage through which heat medium is circulated between the power source and the radiator; a first pettier module having a first pettier device and a first heat exchanger, the first pettier device having a first surface and a second surface, one of the first surface and the second surface serving to release heat, the other of the first surface and the second surface serving to absorb heat, the first heat exchanger being thermally coupled to the first surface; and a second pettier module having a second pettier device and a second heat exchanger, the second pettier device having a first surface and a second surface, one of the first surface and the second surface serving to release heat, the other of the first surface and the second surface serving to absorb heat, the second heat exchanger being thermally coupled to the first surface, wherein the heat medium passage is thermally coupled to the second surface of the first pettier device and the second surface of the second pettier device. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this fundamentally different from the way other AC systems in cars are made? Are there prior examples of something similar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="414" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="134" RevisionGUID="e3ae60a8-3620-4d33-9ae7-bbcaefdb735b" CreationDate="2012-09-18T21:14:07.347" UserId="24" Text="How is this air conditioner patent different from regular car AC's?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="415" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="134" RevisionGUID="e3ae60a8-3620-4d33-9ae7-bbcaefdb735b" CreationDate="2012-09-18T21:14:07.347" UserId="24" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20120222429&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="416" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="134" RevisionGUID="0170e68a-8822-4eb2-8682-6a58df1b971c" CreationDate="2012-09-18T21:26:44.083" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20120222429&gt;&lt;refrigeration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="135" RevisionGUID="0acc42cd-9f50-47fa-967d-7f644e3350e4" CreationDate="2012-09-18T21:30:14.157" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="136" RevisionGUID="2745b0ed-9e40-4638-ab73-20fed678feed" CreationDate="2012-09-18T21:30:14.157" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="129" RevisionGUID="e02af7ba-77ea-4da2-8866-ccac00003bd2" CreationDate="2012-09-18T21:36:56.507" UserId="7" Comment="deleted 190 characters in body" Text="A patent application can be contested by a third party via prior art submission during a window that lasts no longer than 6 months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That window **opens** when a patent application is published -- usually 18 months after the application is first filed. The window **closes** when either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) The inventor has received a Notice of Allowance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) The USPTO has completed the first office action on the merits of that application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See page 83 [here][1] (pdf) for full rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/bills-112hr1249eh.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="135" RevisionGUID="2ad857b9-c0c5-4e0c-88d1-0d53ebac8317" CreationDate="2012-09-18T22:00:07.340" UserId="76" Comment="added 462 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 62: refrigeration](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc062/sched062.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc062/defs062.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: products produced by cooling, cooling due to chemical or physical processes, cooling apparatus, automatic control of cooling apparatus, cryogenic treatment of gases, storage of solidified or liquefied gas, low-pressure cold trap processes, …&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="421" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="135" RevisionGUID="2ad857b9-c0c5-4e0c-88d1-0d53ebac8317" CreationDate="2012-09-18T22:00:07.340" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 6 edit id of 49" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="136" RevisionGUID="a88b1465-729a-4740-b94b-3ab111b21114" CreationDate="2012-09-18T22:00:09.507" UserId="76" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="US patent class 62: refrigeration" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="423" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="136" RevisionGUID="a88b1465-729a-4740-b94b-3ab111b21114" CreationDate="2012-09-18T22:00:09.507" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 6 edit id of 50" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="137" RevisionGUID="aae151c6-bd48-475e-aa88-3af16f0ecacc" CreationDate="2012-09-18T22:50:08.323" UserId="24" Text="This patent at [the USPTO](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20120226962.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20070198578&amp;RS=DN/20120222429) makes the claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A computer implemented method for storing data in memory, the method comprising: receiving write data to be written into a memory that is logically divided into a plurality of regions, the plurality of regions including a first region and a second region, the first region and the second region implemented by the same memory technology, and the memory subject to degradation as a result of write operations; classifying the write data as dynamic data or static data; in response to classifying the write data as dynamic data performing: encoding the write data using a first type of encoding; and storing the write data encoded using the first type of encoding in the first region of the memory; and in response to classifying the write data as static data performing: encoding the write data using a second type of encoding; and storing the write data encoded using the second type of encoding in the second region of the memory. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Isn't this what has been done in the industry and has support in operating systems for several years now? My translation of the above is similar to the description in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear_leveling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="425" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="137" RevisionGUID="aae151c6-bd48-475e-aa88-3af16f0ecacc" CreationDate="2012-09-18T22:50:08.323" UserId="24" Text="Isn't this like wear leveling on non-volatile drives?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="426" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="137" RevisionGUID="aae151c6-bd48-475e-aa88-3af16f0ecacc" CreationDate="2012-09-18T22:50:08.323" UserId="24" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20120226962&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="427" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="137" RevisionGUID="e9c1329c-4953-4e6f-b386-4039d6b5a7dd" CreationDate="2012-09-18T23:28:01.683" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20120226962&gt;&lt;error-detection&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="138" RevisionGUID="f6169a89-ec73-438f-aa7c-cf11d713c401" CreationDate="2012-09-18T23:30:29.700" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="139" RevisionGUID="b89d4e02-af13-481b-8c06-2f02e22e9905" CreationDate="2012-09-18T23:30:29.700" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="139" RevisionGUID="dd240b7f-2222-476c-8ac7-8ea34a560145" CreationDate="2012-09-19T01:50:31.567" UserId="76" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="US patent class 714: error correction/correction and fault detection/recovery" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="432" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="139" RevisionGUID="dd240b7f-2222-476c-8ac7-8ea34a560145" CreationDate="2012-09-19T01:50:31.567" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 6 edit id of 52" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="138" RevisionGUID="761b6648-5ae5-434e-a964-1c5abcd8e271" CreationDate="2012-09-19T01:50:34.547" UserId="76" Comment="added 372 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 714: error correction/correction and fault detection/recovery](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc714/sched714.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc714/defs714.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include error detection and correction in analog or digital communications and signal processing, fault isolation, …&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="434" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="138" RevisionGUID="761b6648-5ae5-434e-a964-1c5abcd8e271" CreationDate="2012-09-19T01:50:34.547" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 6 edit id of 51" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="140" RevisionGUID="c1b8d02c-eeaa-44e1-8dfe-926d07cabd10" CreationDate="2012-09-19T02:34:15.913" UserId="15" Text="There seem to be numerous examples of this technology at play as researchers have been working on autonomous vehicles for quite some time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the best examples I found was from the [2007 DARPA Grand Urban Challenge](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge_%282007%29) in which a team from [Tartan Racing](http://www.tartanracing.org/) successfully completed an urban driving challenge using a Chevy Tahoe equipped with, among other tech, [cameras used for observing road markings](http://www.tartanracing.org/tech.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Tartan Racing Chevy Tahoe][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That same challenge also featured a team from [Stanford Racing](http://cs.stanford.edu/group/roadrunner/team.html) led by Sebastian Thrun who went on to lead [Google's autonomous vehicle program](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car) and likely incorporates much of the same type of technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/bcqnv.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="141" RevisionGUID="76d1c9d2-fbc7-4cb0-b12a-5809fa07d29f" CreationDate="2012-09-19T09:25:21.967" UserId="22" Text="##TL;DR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given a patent application describing a calculation using a maximum likelihood approach, and a piece of prior art that has the same goal but uses Monte Carlo simulation, is this sufficient to challenge non-obviousness?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The documents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking at patent application 20120226640, [Behavior and information model to yield more accurate probability of successful outcome](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220120226640%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20120226640&amp;RS=DN/20120226640) (a more readable PDF version can be downloaded [from FreshPatents](http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20120906ptan20120226640.php)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is really a business method patent, so wether this would actually hold in light of Bilski etc. may be questionable, but I'm not focusing on this issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the described method very strongly reminded me of [Evidence based scheduling](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/10/26.html) (EBS). This description from 2007 by Joel Spolsky, while being &quot;just a blog post&quot;, has been [extensively circulated and studied](http://www.google.com/search?q=evidence+based+scheduling), so my impression is that it passes the test for being valid prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Summaries&#xD;&#xA;Here are my (obviously non-authorative) summaries of the patent application and of EBS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The patent application*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is about salespeople giving an estimate of how probable it is that a particular deal they're pursuing will eventually be closed (&quot;have a successful outcome&quot;, in the words of the application).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The salesperson gives their estimate (the &quot;user-reported probability&quot;), and based on this (and previous knowledge), the computer gives a better estimate that's more realistic, based on previous estimates and eventual outcomes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application calls this the &quot;user-believed probability&quot; under the assumption that the report may be skewed (consciously or sub-conciously) by the salesperson, and the computer-estimated value more closely reflects the salesperson's actual feeling of how probable a successful deal really is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Evidence based scheduling*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is about software developers giving an estimate of how long it takes to complete a certain feature. Based on this estimate and knowledge about the quality of the developer's previous estimates (compared to the corresponding eventual completion times), EBS gives a better estimate that's more realistic (in fact, it even more detailedly gives a distribution of how probabable it is that the feature will be complete by any given date).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##My obviousness argument&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main difference between the two is the statistical method that is utilized to improve the estimate. The patent application mathematically calculates its result using a maximum likelihood approach, while EBS uses a Monte Carlo simulation. Monte Carlo essentially is a method to *estimate* a maximum likelihood (it actually does more than that, but I'll leave it at this).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, here's my question: **If the difference between the two comes down to the statistical method used to obtain the result, does this pass the obviousness test?** Quoting from the [FAQ](http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art) (which in turn quotes Wikipedia),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One of the main requirements of patentability is that the invention being patented is not obvious, meaning that a “person having ordinary skill in the art” would not know how to solve the problem at which the invention is directed by using exactly the same mechanism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, a &quot;person having ordinary skill in the art&quot; would probably a statistician. And interchanging two different well-known methods for getting similar results looks like a fairly obvious thing to do for a statistician.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The claim&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm just focusing on claim 1 of the patent application. All other claims either explicitly or at least more or less implicitly depend on 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Full-bold blockquotes are from the claim; if you read only those, you have the full claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **A method comprising: receiving, by a processor, a report indicating a user-reported probability of a successful outcome;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This corresponds to a computer receiving a software developer's estimate for a given task. Note that &quot;the feature is completed by day X&quot; is a &quot;successful outcome&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **estimating, by the processor, a behavior and information model based on the report,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;behavior and information model&quot; is described in a little more detail below; the &quot;processor&quot; in EBS is obviously just the computer that does the calculations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **the behavior and information model including a behavior model component having a bias parameter and a consistency parameter,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In EBS, these parameters are actually there, but they are somewhat combined in a single parameter: the developer's velocity history vector. The [description](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/10/26.html) (in section 2) does in fact use the term &quot;consistent&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This *common estimator* has very consistent velocities, but they’re below 1.0. For example, {0.6, 0.5, 0.6, 0.6, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.6} &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(emphasis in original). Compared to the so-called *bad estimator*, where the velocities are &quot;all over the map&quot;, having the values close to each other is a sign of consistency. The bias paramter isn't explicitly called out in EBS, but it is hinted at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Most estimators get the scale wrong but the relative estimates right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;scale&quot; in this case is precisely the bias parameter; it's pretty much an average velocity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **the behavior and information model including an information model component having a first user-believed probability of a successful outcome and a second user-believed probability of a successful outcome,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is extremely broad in claim 1, which doesn't actually give any details about those values. It gets a bit more specific in subsequent claims, but for the purposes of claim 1, it's just &quot;we have these two values&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And since we established the &quot;user-believed probability&quot; to correspond to the estimated shipping date, these are in fact there in EBS. Not only two such values, but one for each round of the Monte Carlo simulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I'm going for obviousness via substituting statistical methods, it may be irrelevant that EBS has more than two, but it should be noted that the claim says &quot;having&quot;, not &quot;consisting of&quot;, so it's not even excluding the possibility of more than two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **where estimating the behavior and information model based on the report comprises employing a maximum likelihood technique that determines the bias parameter, the consistency parameter, the first user-believed probability of winning, and the second user-believed probability of winning that maximize a likelihood;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the difference: EBS uses a Monte Carlo approach in which those values are more implicitly present on the way to yielding estimated shipping dates (or rather, their probabilites), while the patent application uses a maximum likelihood to explicitly calculate those parameters in order to eventually use them for yielding a result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **and, using, by the processor, the behavior and information model to yield a model-determined probability of a successful outcome that more accurately reflects a probability of a successful outcome than the user-reported probability of a successful outcome does.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In EBS, this corresponds to the computer using the developer's velocity history to yield shipping date estimates that more accuratly reflect the probabilities than the developer's estimate does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Once again, my question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the different statistical-mathematical approach be considered an obvious step for a &quot;person having ordinary skill in the art&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="437" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="141" RevisionGUID="76d1c9d2-fbc7-4cb0-b12a-5809fa07d29f" CreationDate="2012-09-19T09:25:21.967" UserId="22" Text="Can the non-obviousness of an invention be challenged if the difference to prior art is only the mathematical-statistical approach?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="438" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="141" RevisionGUID="76d1c9d2-fbc7-4cb0-b12a-5809fa07d29f" CreationDate="2012-09-19T09:25:21.967" UserId="22" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;us20120226640&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="141" RevisionGUID="e14ab69d-39f8-4530-aef9-67875a34db98" CreationDate="2012-09-19T11:27:00.210" UserId="22" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="##TL;DR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given a patent application describing a calculation using a maximum likelihood approach, and a piece of prior art that has the same goal but uses Monte Carlo simulation, is this sufficient to challenge non-obviousness?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The documents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking at patent application 20120226640, [Behavior and information model to yield more accurate probability of successful outcome](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220120226640%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20120226640&amp;RS=DN/20120226640) (a more readable PDF version can be downloaded [from FreshPatents](http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20120906ptan20120226640.php)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is really a business method patent, so whether this would actually hold in light of Bilski etc. may be questionable, but I'm not focusing on this issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the described method very strongly reminded me of [Evidence based scheduling](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/10/26.html) (EBS). This description from 2007 by Joel Spolsky, while being &quot;just a blog post&quot;, has been [extensively circulated and studied](http://www.google.com/search?q=evidence+based+scheduling), so my impression is that it passes the test for being valid prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Summaries&#xD;&#xA;Here are my (obviously non-authorative) summaries of the patent application and of EBS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The patent application*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is about salespeople giving an estimate of how probable it is that a particular deal they're pursuing will eventually be closed (&quot;have a successful outcome&quot;, in the words of the application).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The salesperson gives their estimate (the &quot;user-reported probability&quot;), and based on this (and previous knowledge), the computer gives a better estimate that's more realistic, based on previous estimates and eventual outcomes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application calls this the &quot;user-believed probability&quot; under the assumption that the report may be skewed (consciously or sub-conciously) by the salesperson, and the computer-estimated value more closely reflects the salesperson's actual feeling of how probable a successful deal really is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Evidence based scheduling*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is about software developers giving an estimate of how long it takes to complete a certain feature. Based on this estimate and knowledge about the quality of the developer's previous estimates (compared to the corresponding eventual completion times), EBS gives a better estimate that's more realistic (in fact, it even more detailedly gives a distribution of how probabable it is that the feature will be complete by any given date).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##My obviousness argument&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main difference between the two is the statistical method that is utilized to improve the estimate. The patent application mathematically calculates its result using a maximum likelihood approach, while EBS uses a Monte Carlo simulation. Monte Carlo essentially is a method to *estimate* a maximum likelihood (it actually does more than that, but I'll leave it at this).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, here's my question: **If the difference between the two comes down to the statistical method used to obtain the result, does this pass the obviousness test?** Quoting from the [FAQ](http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art) (which in turn quotes Wikipedia),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One of the main requirements of patentability is that the invention being patented is not obvious, meaning that a “person having ordinary skill in the art” would not know how to solve the problem at which the invention is directed by using exactly the same mechanism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, a &quot;person having ordinary skill in the art&quot; would probably a statistician. And interchanging two different well-known methods for getting similar results looks like a fairly obvious thing to do for a statistician.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The claim&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm just focusing on claim 1 of the patent application. All other claims either explicitly or at least more or less implicitly depend on 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Full-bold blockquotes are from the claim; if you read only those, you have the full claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **A method comprising: receiving, by a processor, a report indicating a user-reported probability of a successful outcome;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This corresponds to a computer receiving a software developer's estimate for a given task. Note that &quot;the feature is completed by day X&quot; is a &quot;successful outcome&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **estimating, by the processor, a behavior and information model based on the report,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;behavior and information model&quot; is described in a little more detail below; the &quot;processor&quot; in EBS is obviously just the computer that does the calculations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **the behavior and information model including a behavior model component having a bias parameter and a consistency parameter,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In EBS, these parameters are actually there, but they are somewhat combined in a single parameter: the developer's velocity history vector. The [description](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/10/26.html) (in section 2) does in fact use the term &quot;consistent&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This *common estimator* has very consistent velocities, but they’re below 1.0. For example, {0.6, 0.5, 0.6, 0.6, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.6} &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(emphasis in original). Compared to the so-called *bad estimator*, where the velocities are &quot;all over the map&quot;, having the values close to each other is a sign of consistency. The bias paramter isn't explicitly called out in EBS, but it is hinted at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Most estimators get the scale wrong but the relative estimates right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;scale&quot; in this case is precisely the bias parameter; it's pretty much an average velocity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **the behavior and information model including an information model component having a first user-believed probability of a successful outcome and a second user-believed probability of a successful outcome,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is extremely broad in claim 1, which doesn't actually give any details about those values. It gets a bit more specific in subsequent claims, but for the purposes of claim 1, it's just &quot;we have these two values&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And since we established the &quot;user-believed probability&quot; to correspond to the estimated shipping date, these are in fact there in EBS. Not only two such values, but one for each round of the Monte Carlo simulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I'm going for obviousness via substituting statistical methods, it may be irrelevant that EBS has more than two, but it should be noted that the claim says &quot;having&quot;, not &quot;consisting of&quot;, so it's not even excluding the possibility of more than two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **where estimating the behavior and information model based on the report comprises employing a maximum likelihood technique that determines the bias parameter, the consistency parameter, the first user-believed probability of winning, and the second user-believed probability of winning that maximize a likelihood;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the difference: EBS uses a Monte Carlo approach in which those values are more implicitly present on the way to yielding estimated shipping dates (or rather, their probabilites), while the patent application uses a maximum likelihood to explicitly calculate those parameters in order to eventually use them for yielding a result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **and, using, by the processor, the behavior and information model to yield a model-determined probability of a successful outcome that more accurately reflects a probability of a successful outcome than the user-reported probability of a successful outcome does.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In EBS, this corresponds to the computer using the developer's velocity history to yield shipping date estimates that more accuratly reflect the probabilities than the developer's estimate does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Once again, my question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the different statistical-mathematical approach be considered an obvious step for a &quot;person having ordinary skill in the art&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="118" RevisionGUID="9c3dfe15-ec90-41a7-86c3-c22f62185093" CreationDate="2012-09-19T12:28:43.967" UserId="14" Comment="Remembered how to conjugate verbs and fixed errors from my last edit." Text="In context with other examples of prior art (such as [Bump's application](https://bu.mp/) which allows you to trade contact information by knocking two phones together) this seems like a potentially valuable piece of prior art.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In this case, Microsoft appears to have taken two well known concepts...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Using the accelerator to detect motion in a single plane, and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- Silencing a ringer based on sensing motion),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**...and combined them in a very obvious way.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the obviousness of this combination and wealth of examples of other devices with very similar features, it seems nearly impossible to deem this patent to be sufficently novel and non-obvious to be approved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="142" RevisionGUID="8b041193-a62f-421b-aaba-5909ae313e1a" CreationDate="2012-09-19T16:16:13.817" UserId="96" Text="Not every element of a claim is expected to be novel.  This patent does not claim that the inventor is the first to put a camera on an autonomous vehicle.  Look at all of the claim elements, taken together, and ask yourself whether you know of pre-existing art that teaches or discloses **every element** of the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, look at the dependent claims that progressively narrow the focus of the independent claim.  Do the same analysis with the conditions (claim elements) of the dependent claim added to those of the independent claim from which it depends.  Only when you reach a &quot;leaf claim&quot; (i.e. one that has no dependents) have you done enough analysis to be sure that you have considered all of the possible sources of novelty in the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not to say that all dependent claims add novelty.  Sometimes a dependent claim makes explicit something that was implicit in a claim from which it depends, thereby making it clear that the claim from which it depends takes in more than just the explicitly identified scope in the dependent claim.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="143" RevisionGUID="b2b8b2c2-0776-4664-a439-a5bcc968f696" CreationDate="2012-09-19T16:24:30.313" UserId="96" Text="Look at the dependent claims and consider my answer to this question: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/133/is-toyota-really-the-first-to-use-a-camera-to-support-a-self-driving-car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot do a full prior art analysis just by looking a one independent claim, especially not the first claim of a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, you have to read the entire specification of the patent to determine whether any of the terms in the claims may have uncommon meanings attached to them.  The inventor is given latitude to &quot;act as his own lexicographer&quot; and assign peculiar meanings to terms.  When such terms are used in a patent claim, it may not be apparent to the casual reader that the claim has a meaning that differs from what one would normally expect.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="144" RevisionGUID="d05c24cc-c4af-417d-b795-83f32746dd00" CreationDate="2012-09-19T16:35:12.863" UserId="96" Text="A short answer to your question is that employing different statistical methods **could** be sufficient novelty - but it depends on whether such a switch in approach would be a natural move for &quot;one of ordinary skill in the art.&quot;  Is such a move somehow counter-intuitive, or even contra-indicated?  Is the result unexpected?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More significantly, though, prior art analysis does not end with the first claim of a patent.  Please see my answers at http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/133/is-toyota-really-the-first-to-use-a-camera-to-support-a-self-driving-car and http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/109/microsoft-have-submitted-a-patent-for-a-whack-to-silence-a-phone-ringer-how-sim for some explanation of additional elements of the analysis.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="145" RevisionGUID="9e9768ac-df3b-41a1-8b4b-5f12e1db8919" CreationDate="2012-09-19T16:55:21.130" UserId="96" Text="You quote claim 1 of the patent, and that may be (or be close to) common practice in the art.  Each claim of a patent, however, is a separate invention. In order invalidate all of the claims of a patent, it is necessary to perform prior art analysis for each claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not every element of a claim has to be novel.  Invalidating an independent claim does not necessarily invalidate any of its dependent claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please see my answers to these question: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/133/is-toyota-really-the-first-to-use-a-camera-to-support-a-self-driving-car and http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/109/microsoft-have-submitted-a-patent-for-a-whack-to-silence-a-phone-ringer-how-sim and http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/141/can-the-non-obviousness-of-an-invention-be-challenged-if-the-difference-to-prior for more detail on why addressing a single claim element or a single independent claim is not sufficient to invalidate all of the claims of a patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="96a98866-0ca8-4d69-822f-c10afff3b703" CreationDate="2012-09-19T16:56:14.327" UserId="17" Text="Patent Application #20120225162 describes a weight management method.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1.** A method for managing weight, comprising the steps of: eating at least five meals a day with each meal comprising one serving of a vegetable or a fruit, a complex carbohydrate, and a lean protein for a predetermined number of calories per meal at ranges of 25-35% protein, 50-55% carbohydrate, 15-20% fat with a predetermined range of grams of fiber, wherein said predetermined range of calories is about 300 calories or is about 450 calories; losing weight by said eating at least five meals a day; and optimizing body composition by said eating at least five meals a day, [etc.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm reasonably sure this correlates with advice I've seen for *years* in various &quot;women's interest&quot; magazines, in a number of diet books (including Weight Watchers guides), and even the USDA nutrition guide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm challenging the novelty of this claim. **Is there existing prior art for this, as I suspect?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="447" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="96a98866-0ca8-4d69-822f-c10afff3b703" CreationDate="2012-09-19T16:56:14.327" UserId="17" Text="Prior art for weight management method" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="448" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="96a98866-0ca8-4d69-822f-c10afff3b703" CreationDate="2012-09-19T16:56:14.327" UserId="17" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20120225162&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="147" RevisionGUID="27bdad9e-1077-4a2c-9594-6ca518b1472d" CreationDate="2012-09-19T17:10:58.933" UserId="96" Text="I don't know the technical area, so I cannot speak to whether claim 1 identifies anything &quot;fundamentally different&quot; for pre-existing AC systems.  It is not necessary that the patent disclose a fundamental difference with prior art - the novelty may be small, even very small.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, claim 1 is not the be-all and end-all of the patent.  This application has three dependent claims, each of which is a separate invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have given other similar answers to similar questions. Taken together, they give a more complete overall answer to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/133/is-toyota-really-the-first-to-use-a-camera-to-support-a-self-driving-car&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/109/microsoft-have-submitted-a-patent-for-a-whack-to-silence-a-phone-ringer-how-sim&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/109/microsoft-have-submitted-a-patent-for-a-whack-to-silence-a-phone-ringer-how-sim&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/137/isnt-this-like-wear-leveling-on-non-volatile-drives." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="147" RevisionGUID="6795eff4-a48d-42d7-9ee8-dcdc6f11efe3" CreationDate="2012-09-19T17:49:22.290" UserId="15" Comment="Removed duplicate link" Text="I don't know the technical area, so I cannot speak to whether claim 1 identifies anything &quot;fundamentally different&quot; for pre-existing AC systems.  It is not necessary that the patent disclose a fundamental difference with prior art - the novelty may be small, even very small.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, claim 1 is not the be-all and end-all of the patent.  This application has three dependent claims, each of which is a separate invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have given other similar answers to similar questions. Taken together, they give a more complete overall answer to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/133/is-toyota-really-the-first-to-use-a-camera-to-support-a-self-driving-car&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/109/microsoft-have-submitted-a-patent-for-a-whack-to-silence-a-phone-ringer-how-sim&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/137/isnt-this-like-wear-leveling-on-non-volatile-drives." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="451" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="147" RevisionGUID="6795eff4-a48d-42d7-9ee8-dcdc6f11efe3" CreationDate="2012-09-19T17:49:22.290" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 22 edit id of 53" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="147" RevisionGUID="0b2c349f-e9db-4d3c-99b0-263ead2e965c" CreationDate="2012-09-19T19:06:26.527" UserId="96" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="I don't know the technical area, so I cannot speak to whether claim 1 identifies anything &quot;fundamentally different&quot; for pre-existing AC systems.  It is not necessary that the patent disclose a fundamental difference with prior art - the novelty may be small, even very small.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, claim 1 is not the be-all and end-all of the patent.  This application has three dependent claims, each of which is a separate invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have given other similar answers to similar questions. Taken together, they give a more complete overall answer to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/133/is-toyota-really-the-first-to-use-a-camera-to-support-a-self-driving-car&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/109/microsoft-have-submitted-a-patent-for-a-whack-to-silence-a-phone-ringer-how-sim&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/141/can-the-non-obviousness-of-an-invention-be-challenged-if-the-difference-to-prior&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/137/isnt-this-like-wear-leveling-on-non-volatile-drives." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="c62b481e-2842-43c2-a446-46d5e56fac89" CreationDate="2012-09-19T19:22:43.410" UserId="19" Comment="added link to patent in question body" Text="[Patent Application #20120225162](http://www.google.com/patents/us20120225162) describes a weight management method.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1.** A method for managing weight, comprising the steps of: eating at least five meals a day with each meal comprising one serving of a vegetable or a fruit, a complex carbohydrate, and a lean protein for a predetermined number of calories per meal at ranges of 25-35% protein, 50-55% carbohydrate, 15-20% fat with a predetermined range of grams of fiber, wherein said predetermined range of calories is about 300 calories or is about 450 calories; losing weight by said eating at least five meals a day; and optimizing body composition by said eating at least five meals a day, [etc.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm reasonably sure this correlates with advice I've seen for *years* in various &quot;women's interest&quot; magazines, in a number of diet books (including Weight Watchers guides), and even the USDA nutrition guide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm challenging the novelty of this claim. **Is there existing prior art for this, as I suspect?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="454" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="c62b481e-2842-43c2-a446-46d5e56fac89" CreationDate="2012-09-19T19:22:43.410" Comment="Proposed by 19 approved by 1 edit id of 54" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="129" RevisionGUID="e4131217-565e-4a3e-aa82-bbd1eab31486" CreationDate="2012-09-19T19:49:35.050" UserId="7" Comment="Corrected reading of the preissuance submission timeframe rules" Text="A patent application can be contested by a third party via prior art submission during a window that usually lasts more than 6 months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That window **opens** when a patent application is published -- usually 18 months after the application is first filed. The window **closes** when:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) The inventor receives a Notice of Allowance (NOA)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**OR** If no NOA has been sent, the window closes at the later of the following two events:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) The application has been published for 6 months&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c) The USPTO has completed the first office action on the merits of that application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [other words][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unless a patent is issued very quickly, third parties have at least six months from publication to file a preissuance submission.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See page 83 [here][2] (pdf) for full rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/09/pre-issuance-submissions.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/bills-112hr1249eh.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="148" RevisionGUID="60a75401-23cc-4fa6-8377-b2f13c23fed5" CreationDate="2012-09-19T23:14:46.987" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="149" RevisionGUID="4878c512-2f61-4e36-8815-3f119df82b0b" CreationDate="2012-09-19T23:14:46.987" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="150" RevisionGUID="226e88b7-f58d-4ffd-845c-eedcb9895f5a" CreationDate="2012-09-19T23:21:07.103" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="151" RevisionGUID="adb2a19f-bc35-4e05-8675-10bd9035c5c0" CreationDate="2012-09-19T23:21:07.103" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="152" RevisionGUID="29557e1e-2f2f-427a-93a5-823a4d2d99f4" CreationDate="2012-09-20T00:16:02.517" UserId="1" Text="US Patent Application US20120207901: [INFLATABLE CUSHION](http://www.google.com/patents/us20120207901)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim #1 describes an ice cream maker assembly comprising of an inflatable cushion to insulate a an ice cream maker apparatus inside. The rest of the claims generally describe the shape and construction of the air-filled insulator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This type of air-filled cushion is used commonly as a portable &quot;cooler&quot; for applications from keeping ice from melting to keeping drinks cold. See: Amazon: [Inflatable Cooler](http://www.amazon.com/s/field-keywords=inflatable+cooler).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Substituting more conventional insulators with the air-filled cushion may be unique in this application, but anyone reasonable knowledgeable about insulating methods would already be familiar with this option. Would simply substituting one material for another well-known material in this application be considered prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone find an inflatable cooler that uses these pentagonal sections?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="461" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="152" RevisionGUID="29557e1e-2f2f-427a-93a5-823a4d2d99f4" CreationDate="2012-09-20T00:16:02.517" UserId="1" Text="Prior art for ice cream maker insulated with inflatable cushion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="462" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="152" RevisionGUID="29557e1e-2f2f-427a-93a5-823a4d2d99f4" CreationDate="2012-09-20T00:16:02.517" UserId="1" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20120207901&gt;&lt;consumer-food&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="149" RevisionGUID="861deb87-67ea-4c37-aa48-d5cf36085ce5" CreationDate="2012-09-20T01:39:52.427" UserId="15" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="For questions relating to the legal requirements necessary for applications to be granted a patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="464" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="149" RevisionGUID="861deb87-67ea-4c37-aa48-d5cf36085ce5" CreationDate="2012-09-20T01:39:52.427" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 1 edit id of 55" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="150" RevisionGUID="7180c965-985b-4aef-bc52-2d2895f55e0c" CreationDate="2012-09-20T01:40:19.960" UserId="15" Comment="added 638 characters in body" Text="There are two types of questions on which to use the [tag:prior-art] tag:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Prior Art Searches:** Any time you are soliciting help in searching for examples of prior art for a given application (such as [Prior art for a simple versioning system on a document database](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/117/prior-art-for-a-simple-versioning-system-on-a-document-database)).&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Prior Art Clarification:** Questions that are clarifying what constitutes valid prior art (such as [Can a YouTube video be submitted as prior art?](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/16/can-a-youtube-video-be-submitted-as-prior-art))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="466" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="150" RevisionGUID="7180c965-985b-4aef-bc52-2d2895f55e0c" CreationDate="2012-09-20T01:40:19.960" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 1 edit id of 56" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="151" RevisionGUID="bdff9cdc-de5f-409a-9496-0f07b73db7a3" CreationDate="2012-09-20T01:40:30.413" UserId="15" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="For questions relating to the search for prior art for patent applications or what constitutes valid prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="468" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="151" RevisionGUID="bdff9cdc-de5f-409a-9496-0f07b73db7a3" CreationDate="2012-09-20T01:40:30.413" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 1 edit id of 57" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="153" RevisionGUID="1a9f0e58-b9a3-4462-a571-6f41b80347c4" CreationDate="2012-09-20T02:37:51.993" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="154" RevisionGUID="8fda6f0a-d4fa-4978-8628-35f7f7069395" CreationDate="2012-09-20T02:37:51.993" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="155" RevisionGUID="aa1a6fde-f598-4c6b-91c4-10a054d4da6e" CreationDate="2012-09-20T02:38:51.417" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="156" RevisionGUID="5da4c9f4-64dc-44f0-be03-24abcbde3937" CreationDate="2012-09-20T02:38:51.417" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="157" RevisionGUID="60bfc8cf-3785-4805-a8e8-3bb5a4a233d6" CreationDate="2012-09-20T02:42:07.763" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="158" RevisionGUID="62d7271a-c6bd-41c7-92ac-009d3bc9da13" CreationDate="2012-09-20T02:42:07.763" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="159" RevisionGUID="cc428c2e-3dbe-47b0-98d8-608293927e64" CreationDate="2012-09-20T02:44:08.073" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="160" RevisionGUID="aca5b6c3-35d4-488f-b783-7a74bd14ddcc" CreationDate="2012-09-20T02:44:08.073" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="161" RevisionGUID="6aa79235-4cc5-46e6-b860-06528f6dbfc5" CreationDate="2012-09-20T02:48:17.773" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="162" RevisionGUID="09853f90-30de-44a0-9078-d4d84339d9c4" CreationDate="2012-09-20T02:48:17.773" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="163" RevisionGUID="b88ad47c-02af-4711-b257-4a9d615a1464" CreationDate="2012-09-20T02:49:52.763" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="164" RevisionGUID="d8a89e0d-cfe7-4f12-8f68-d7f19fa38b21" CreationDate="2012-09-20T02:49:52.763" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="165" RevisionGUID="ca99e685-8558-45a7-96c0-3b8068f3b654" CreationDate="2012-09-20T02:52:41.497" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="166" RevisionGUID="18defb06-bae1-45b4-bac9-3a19e50291c1" CreationDate="2012-09-20T02:52:41.497" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="167" RevisionGUID="c64d7ce5-7197-42e8-95dd-156d0e91e966" CreationDate="2012-09-20T02:53:32.387" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="168" RevisionGUID="d71310b4-ccb2-4998-bed3-d87f717bd10f" CreationDate="2012-09-20T02:53:32.387" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="169" RevisionGUID="b9c68073-692b-430a-9a60-984bde98fae9" CreationDate="2012-09-20T02:55:18.843" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="170" RevisionGUID="bde33454-f697-4171-aa2d-fa0bc7752625" CreationDate="2012-09-20T02:55:18.843" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="171" RevisionGUID="15982baa-0481-4dd9-91f8-f9194b34f320" CreationDate="2012-09-20T02:56:10.263" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="172" RevisionGUID="c65047be-606c-43df-abfe-e9577217b073" CreationDate="2012-09-20T02:56:10.263" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="173" RevisionGUID="24f2839e-3697-445d-ac11-c31c3fcf8c7f" CreationDate="2012-09-20T02:57:01.307" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="174" RevisionGUID="f7e68396-cfd4-4e78-96eb-9ffec1db9530" CreationDate="2012-09-20T02:57:01.307" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="491" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="90" RevisionGUID="4b0ac32c-a178-45c3-bb07-f171690cd99c" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:17:31.663" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/248621888975294464" />
  <row Id="492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="175" RevisionGUID="a06eaf7b-0be5-4418-af67-9738e38429de" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:21:33.390" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="176" RevisionGUID="2fc253c9-bea6-4a2f-ba79-17c7406d8f27" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:21:33.390" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="156" RevisionGUID="d5982cb4-3f6d-41af-8bf4-e8e5fab17b69" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:22:18.283" UserId="15" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="Method and system for weight management" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="495" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="156" RevisionGUID="d5982cb4-3f6d-41af-8bf4-e8e5fab17b69" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:22:18.283" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 16 edit id of 60" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="165" RevisionGUID="7fcbcf8f-e622-4ddb-8975-b5d851004df5" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:22:31.043" UserId="15" Comment="added 653 characters in body" Text="**HISTORY TIMELINE DISPLAY FOR VEHICLE FLEET MANAGEMENT** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A vehicle management system can generate a vehicle management user interface that depicts vehicle history information in timelines or graphical timelines. These history timelines can include information regarding vehicle location, speed, and idling, among other useful information. The graphical nature of the history timelines can quickly convey vehicle tracking details and potential problems, such as idling and congregation, to an administrator. Further, history timelines for multiple vehicles can be displayed in parallel, allowing comparison between histories for different vehicles. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="497" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="165" RevisionGUID="7fcbcf8f-e622-4ddb-8975-b5d851004df5" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:22:31.043" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 16 edit id of 70" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="171" RevisionGUID="8a43d36a-4f85-408b-9781-cf2f14514110" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:22:34.773" UserId="15" Comment="added 445 characters in body" Text="**DATA MODEL VERSIONING FOR DOCUMENT DATABASES**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A data model versioning method may read a first version tag associated with a document database. The method compares the first version tag to a second version tag associated with a current document template of an application. If the first version tag does not match the second version tag, the method performs a version migration operation to update a document format of the document database." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="499" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="171" RevisionGUID="8a43d36a-4f85-408b-9781-cf2f14514110" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:22:34.773" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 16 edit id of 76" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="162" RevisionGUID="1642664b-806d-4ee5-99a6-4dc6796ea009" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:22:37.877" UserId="15" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="A vehicle air conditioner for a passenger compartment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="501" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="162" RevisionGUID="1642664b-806d-4ee5-99a6-4dc6796ea009" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:22:37.877" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 16 edit id of 66" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="170" RevisionGUID="1067336a-3260-4f84-8734-7da3f86852c4" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:22:40.700" UserId="15" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="Controlling audio of a device" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="503" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="170" RevisionGUID="1067336a-3260-4f84-8734-7da3f86852c4" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:22:40.700" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 16 edit id of 75" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="161" RevisionGUID="5b18b60b-6525-4046-bb59-75df99c6319d" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:22:43.523" UserId="15" Comment="added 918 characters in body" Text="**VEHICLE AIR CONDITIONER**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A vehicle air conditioner for a passenger compartment includes a power source, a radiator provided outside the passenger compartment, a heat medium passage through which heat medium is circulated between the power source and the radiator, a first peltier module having a first peltier device and a first heat exchanger, and a second peltier module having a second peltier device and a second heat exchanger. The first and second peltier devices each has a first surface and a second surface, one of the first surface and the second surface serves to release heat, the other of the first surface and the second surface serves to absorb heat. The first heat exchanger is thermally coupled to the first surface. The second heat exchanger is thermally coupled to the first surface. The heat medium passage is thermally coupled to the second surfaces of the first and second peltier devices. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="505" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="161" RevisionGUID="5b18b60b-6525-4046-bb59-75df99c6319d" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:22:43.523" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 16 edit id of 65" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="157" RevisionGUID="9a98fbbc-ccbc-4135-bc10-16274007b486" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:22:46.397" UserId="15" Comment="added 421 characters in body" Text="**SPORTS GARMENT WITH A SEAT PAD, IN PARTICULAR FOR CYCLING**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A sports garment, for example a cycling suit, comprises a seat pad located in a crotch area, the seat pad is attached to the garment in a front attachment region and in a rear attachment region of the seat pad, and a central portion of the seat pad is free from attachment to the garment and forms as a loose portion in the inner crotch area of the garment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="507" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="157" RevisionGUID="9a98fbbc-ccbc-4135-bc10-16274007b486" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:22:46.397" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 16 edit id of 64" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="172" RevisionGUID="5aecfa88-5ea3-49fc-a373-96eda453f7ff" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:22:48.890" UserId="15" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="Data model versioning for document databases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="509" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="172" RevisionGUID="5aecfa88-5ea3-49fc-a373-96eda453f7ff" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:22:48.890" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 16 edit id of 77" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="154" RevisionGUID="ae4217a8-2cfa-4147-b051-6b818cc3c41a" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:22:51.637" UserId="15" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="An inflatable cushion useable for an ice cream maker" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="511" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="154" RevisionGUID="ae4217a8-2cfa-4147-b051-6b818cc3c41a" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:22:51.637" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 16 edit id of 59" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="167" RevisionGUID="8ea4ef46-4866-4d3e-bad2-769d993b756e" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:22:54.413" UserId="15" Comment="added 878 characters in body" Text="**DRIVING SUPPORT APPARATUS AND DRIVING SUPPORT METHOD** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A driving support detects for a lane dividing line on a road surface which is travelled upon, by using an image which is taken by a camera and which represents the road surface which is traveled upon and is in front of a vehicle, sets a virtual lane dividing line in a section in which no lane dividing line is drawn, performs a driving support by controlling the vehicle based on the lane dividing line and the virtual lane dividing line, and issues a warning when the vehicle deviates from the virtual lane dividing line. Further, the driving support detects a state of the vehicle, calculates information indicating the state as vehicle information, cancels the driving support when the vehicle information satisfies a predetermined cancel condition, and inhibits the warning when the driving support is canceled. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="513" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="167" RevisionGUID="8ea4ef46-4866-4d3e-bad2-769d993b756e" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:22:54.413" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 16 edit id of 72" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="158" RevisionGUID="0ad7bbde-a550-4e50-8842-aefdf143f309" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:22:57.080" UserId="15" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="Sports garment with a seat pad, in particular for cycling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="515" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="158" RevisionGUID="0ad7bbde-a550-4e50-8842-aefdf143f309" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:22:57.080" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 16 edit id of 61" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="175" RevisionGUID="a7620dc1-ef7c-4504-bc57-258dd17f4af0" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:22:59.843" UserId="15" Comment="added 411 characters in body" Text="The America Invents Act is a 2011 law designed to make a number of updates to the US patent system including moving to a &quot;First to File&quot; system and allowing the third party submission of prior art on pending patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information see descriptions of the law at the [USPTO](http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/index.jsp) or [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_Invents_Act)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="517" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="175" RevisionGUID="a7620dc1-ef7c-4504-bc57-258dd17f4af0" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:22:59.843" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 16 edit id of 80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="164" RevisionGUID="ab3f2b7e-6d33-4130-ba2e-812887b7e583" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:23:02.853" UserId="15" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="Die for use in game play" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="519" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="164" RevisionGUID="ab3f2b7e-6d33-4130-ba2e-812887b7e583" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:23:02.853" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 16 edit id of 68" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="166" RevisionGUID="714bfa31-40e6-48ad-84cc-45787664007d" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:23:05.537" UserId="15" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="History timeline display for vehicle fleet management" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="521" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="166" RevisionGUID="714bfa31-40e6-48ad-84cc-45787664007d" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:23:05.537" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 16 edit id of 71" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="168" RevisionGUID="303f7ce5-7a58-45c9-8e30-b3b19840155a" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:23:08.360" UserId="15" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="Driving support apparatus and driving support method" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="523" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="168" RevisionGUID="303f7ce5-7a58-45c9-8e30-b3b19840155a" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:23:08.360" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 16 edit id of 73" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="153" RevisionGUID="a22c1b57-eb67-4f4c-863f-fed3ac40f15b" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:23:12.807" UserId="15" Comment="added 445 characters in body" Text="**INFLATABLE CUSHION** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An inflatable cushion useable for an ice cream maker. The ice cream maker can be spherical in shape and the inflatable cushion can approximate a spherical or dodecahedron shell. The inflatable cushion can be comprised of two half-shell portions that are pivotable with respect to one other to be selectively placed in a closed or open position. The ice cream maker can be snugly inserted within the inflatable cushion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="525" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="153" RevisionGUID="a22c1b57-eb67-4f4c-863f-fed3ac40f15b" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:23:12.807" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 16 edit id of 58" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="169" RevisionGUID="48071ab7-0bf6-42dd-ad58-a850a1781b6a" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:23:15.660" UserId="15" Comment="added 410 characters in body" Text="**CONTROLLING AUDIO OF A DEVICE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Techniques and tools are described for controlling an audio signal of a mobile device. For example, information indicative of acceleration of the mobile device can be received and correlation between the information indicative of acceleration and exemplar whack event data can be determined. An audio signal of the mobile device can be controlled based on the correlation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="527" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="169" RevisionGUID="48071ab7-0bf6-42dd-ad58-a850a1781b6a" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:23:15.660" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 16 edit id of 74" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="163" RevisionGUID="751f3373-b270-4ef5-8437-f8ec2c6f2a5f" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:23:18.530" UserId="15" Comment="added 463 characters in body" Text="**DIE FOR USE IN GAME PLAY**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A die having at least two variable qualities that convey information for use in game play, wherein the variable qualities randomly change independently of one another upon rolling the die. Therefore, multiple independent random outcomes are produced each roll of the die. Preferably, at least one of the variable qualities is the color of the die such that the die changes color in response to sensor-detected movement of the die. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="529" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="163" RevisionGUID="751f3373-b270-4ef5-8437-f8ec2c6f2a5f" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:23:18.530" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 16 edit id of 67" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="173" RevisionGUID="0a2e9060-f654-4d2e-bb3d-e2a0ba0275bd" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:23:21.213" UserId="15" Comment="added 922 characters in body" Text="**WEAR-FOCUSING OF NON-VOLATILE MEMORIES FOR IMPROVED ENDURANCE** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Storing data in memory using wear-focusing techniques for improved endurance. A method for storing the data includes receiving write data to be written into a memory that is logically divided into a plurality of regions. The plurality of regions includes a first region and a second region that are implemented by the same memory technology. The memory is subject to degradation as a result of write operations. The write data is classified as dynamic data or static data. The write data is encoded using a first type of encoding in response to the write data being classified as dynamic. The write data encoded using the first type of encoding is stored in the first region of the memory. The write data is encoded using a second type of encoding and stored in the second region of the memory in response to classifying the write data as static data. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="531" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="173" RevisionGUID="0a2e9060-f654-4d2e-bb3d-e2a0ba0275bd" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:23:21.213" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 16 edit id of 78" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="532" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="159" RevisionGUID="e6700611-5824-4aab-8d31-7947937a6c1b" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:23:24.320" UserId="15" Comment="added 462 characters in body" Text="**SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING AN INTEGRATED HEALTH NETWORK**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A system and process for aiding the transition of patients to and from the post acute market, and more specifically to a computer based system for facilitating the transition and an application program for doing so in a networked computer environment. The system may include advertising, the transfer of employment records, and the networking of vendors to coordinate the provision of services." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="533" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="159" RevisionGUID="e6700611-5824-4aab-8d31-7947937a6c1b" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:23:24.320" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 16 edit id of 63" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="176" RevisionGUID="eebb6537-4e0d-4436-8c5f-c0423503813d" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:23:27.300" UserId="15" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="Questions relating to the text or implementation of the 2011 law updating the US patent process" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="535" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="176" RevisionGUID="eebb6537-4e0d-4436-8c5f-c0423503813d" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:23:27.300" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 16 edit id of 81" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="155" RevisionGUID="00938b12-a380-4dc9-997c-ac74755d891d" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:23:30.403" UserId="15" Comment="added 439 characters in body" Text="**METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR WEIGHT MANAGEMENT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The present invention is a method for losing weight and optimizing body composition comprising the steps of eating five meals a day with 1 serving of vegetables or fruit, complex carbohydrate, and lean protein for approximately 300 calories per meal at ranges of 25-35% protein, 50-55% carbohydrate, 15-20% fat with six to seven grams of fiber for a total of 1,500 calories per day for women." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="537" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="155" RevisionGUID="00938b12-a380-4dc9-997c-ac74755d891d" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:23:30.403" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 16 edit id of 69" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="174" RevisionGUID="595e8768-ee87-45d1-b16f-6d947f7ac58d" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:23:33.273" UserId="15" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="Storing data in memory using wear-focusing techniques for improved endurance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="539" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="174" RevisionGUID="595e8768-ee87-45d1-b16f-6d947f7ac58d" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:23:33.273" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 16 edit id of 79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="160" RevisionGUID="38f9ccbc-aaf3-4390-9886-ced98ff7667c" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:23:35.893" UserId="15" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="A system and method for providing an integrated health network" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="541" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="160" RevisionGUID="38f9ccbc-aaf3-4390-9886-ced98ff7667c" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:23:35.893" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 16 edit id of 62" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="177" RevisionGUID="64b824c8-a77b-4594-8169-c73ace08d142" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:29:05.217" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="178" RevisionGUID="f4721495-2a36-4f27-ad58-348d3e34da2e" CreationDate="2012-09-20T03:29:05.217" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="544" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="26" RevisionGUID="8a210a70-2872-42aa-911c-e85e328839ea" CreationDate="2012-09-20T04:02:41.653" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/248633253106417664" />
  <row Id="545" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="152" RevisionGUID="5ac95569-c6b9-401f-91b0-551fa03887cf" CreationDate="2012-09-20T07:02:41.477" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/248678551564464128" />
  <row Id="546" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="36" RevisionGUID="8875e66a-8502-4c4f-82d1-c58e1091389c" CreationDate="2012-09-20T10:02:41.407" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/248723850177695744" />
  <row Id="547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="179" RevisionGUID="b3398e09-d22e-4e29-b303-eb1de98b0864" CreationDate="2012-09-20T11:54:15.293" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="180" RevisionGUID="77bbb812-82c8-4d18-915e-fae47a4eaafa" CreationDate="2012-09-20T11:54:15.293" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="181" RevisionGUID="e2ee7339-0acf-4ee9-8c4d-ea88d1110880" CreationDate="2012-09-20T11:54:54.090" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="182" RevisionGUID="e53b2419-9bbc-4271-9b23-9b9c6cf63fe1" CreationDate="2012-09-20T11:54:54.090" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="183" RevisionGUID="ba656a20-f34d-4ba5-9a1f-1a226eee31cb" CreationDate="2012-09-20T11:56:29.237" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="184" RevisionGUID="75c4da94-6628-48a7-a26c-2682fa84ca2e" CreationDate="2012-09-20T11:56:29.237" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="180" RevisionGUID="95ff9f94-4c0b-4e46-a27f-f62461188cdd" CreationDate="2012-09-20T14:28:26.903" UserId="15" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="For patent applications wherein any skilled practitioner would find the idea obvious " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="554" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="180" RevisionGUID="95ff9f94-4c0b-4e46-a27f-f62461188cdd" CreationDate="2012-09-20T14:28:26.903" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 1 edit id of 84" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="184" RevisionGUID="cf183231-5fa5-4e47-8d56-e04595f69c52" CreationDate="2012-09-20T14:28:29.790" UserId="15" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="Questions relating to searching for or through patents and applications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="556" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="184" RevisionGUID="cf183231-5fa5-4e47-8d56-e04595f69c52" CreationDate="2012-09-20T14:28:29.790" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 1 edit id of 86" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="178" RevisionGUID="a31ea53a-f733-4109-988a-7ea8e25527db" CreationDate="2012-09-20T14:28:35.187" UserId="15" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="Behavior and information model to yield more accurate probability of successful outcome" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="558" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="178" RevisionGUID="a31ea53a-f733-4109-988a-7ea8e25527db" CreationDate="2012-09-20T14:28:35.187" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 1 edit id of 83" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="177" RevisionGUID="432496a5-e7ec-4148-b627-0a0e87cfa0f8" CreationDate="2012-09-20T14:28:40.553" UserId="15" Comment="added 817 characters in body" Text="**BEHAVIOR AND INFORMATION MODEL TO YIELD A MORE ACCURATE PROBABILITY OF SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A report indicating a user-reported probability of a successful outcome is received. A behavior and information model is estimated based on the report. The behavior and information model includes a behavior model component having a bias parameter and a consistency parameter. The behavior and information model includes an information model component having a first user-believed probability of a successful outcome and a second user-believed probability of a successful outcome. The behavior and information model is used to yield a model-determined probability of a successful outcome that more accurately reflects a probability of a successful outcome than the user-reported probability of a successful outcome does. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="560" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="177" RevisionGUID="432496a5-e7ec-4148-b627-0a0e87cfa0f8" CreationDate="2012-09-20T14:28:40.553" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 1 edit id of 82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="182" RevisionGUID="2dfaa215-d013-4379-8013-62b7ab41e664" CreationDate="2012-09-20T14:28:49.463" UserId="15" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="For questions related to the licensing and legal sharing of patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="562" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="182" RevisionGUID="2dfaa215-d013-4379-8013-62b7ab41e664" CreationDate="2012-09-20T14:28:49.463" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 1 edit id of 85" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="185" RevisionGUID="70278ff3-74fe-4a59-adae-10aadf5dc80f" CreationDate="2012-09-20T14:45:56.393" UserId="289" Text="The game [inFamous][1] includes a &quot;Karma&quot; system that rewards the player with additional power based on adherence to &quot;Good&quot; or &quot;Evil&quot; codes of behavior. From the link:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Many powers are acquired over the course of the game; once acquired the player can use *ex*, awarded for specific actions, stunts and missions, to increase the power's effectiveness. The growth of these powers is affected by Cole's current Karma level. Starting in a neutral position, it ranges from Guardian to Champion to Hero on the Good side, and from Thug to Outlaw to Infamous on the Evil side. Certain actions, such as stopping to help injured citizens or draining their health to restore Cole's, will affect the Karma level in either direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rewards and punishments for adherence to either &quot;good&quot; or &quot;evil&quot; courses, I believe impacts several of the claims of the application, particularly claims 3, 4, and 5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infamous_%28video_game%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="186" RevisionGUID="739b0c45-52e6-42c1-95ce-696d5dbb0eea" CreationDate="2012-09-20T14:53:15.450" UserId="313" Text="[&quot;Black and White&quot;][1] from 2001 required the player to take either a &quot;good&quot; or &quot;evil&quot; role as the deity controlling a creature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_&amp;_White_%28video_game%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="187" RevisionGUID="5da0bb41-6a77-4eeb-ad9b-901769aa77d0" CreationDate="2012-09-20T15:01:57.727" UserId="299" Text="The game *Deus Ex* ([Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_Ex)) by Eidos Interactive, released in North America on June 26, 2000, had very different results based on player moral decisions in three areas: conversations with other characters; direct actions in the physical world of the game; and choices of specialization area in the attributes of the character's advancement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, in one action-based moral decision, the player has to decide whether or not to kill an &quot;ally&quot; who is threatening to kill another character that the player may be sympathetic to, and whose faction the player will eventually join (thus becoming an enemy of the purported &quot;ally&quot; who is doing the threatening). The player can survive the conflict and proceed in the game regardless of whether or not the player prevents their purported &quot;ally&quot; from killing the one they are threatening, but the player's choice will have consequences of a moral nature. (For those familiar with the game, the reference here is the Anna Navarre vs. Jaime Lebedev scene).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The player can also assign various skills and attributes to their character as part of play advancement. The &quot;points&quot; needed for the player to select these attributes are doled out in such a way that players are forced to specialize in particular areas, and cannot become a master of all. For example, the player can choose to specialize in stealth, by developing skills and choosing augmentations that allow the player to sneak past enemies without directly confronting them. This play style causes the player to be able to avoid enemy casualties, which has direct moral consequences when the player deals with other characters in the game. By contrast, if the player specializes in abilities that further the player's ability to kill enemies, such as better accuracy and damage with rifles, the player will likely not have enough points left over to also be stealthy, and will thus reap the *moral* consequences of killing more enemies (which could sometimes be by necessity in some situations where special stealth abilities are required to avoid a conflict and progress in the game).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the player is given moral decisions from the very beginning of the game through the culmination in the end, via dialogue. The player can choose to help people or to ignore, confront, or even kill them. Sometimes these people may be perfectly innocent, and sometimes they may be devious and attempting to deceive or take advantage of the player. This aspect I feel is even more common in video games both prior and since, compared to the other two moral aspects of Deus Ex." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="188" RevisionGUID="a2b0b1a1-3beb-4a81-a6c7-7ea54c900b76" CreationDate="2012-09-20T15:13:05.030" UserId="338" Text="In the game Ultima Online, launched in 1997, your character has the ability to build reputation titles based on actions taken in the game.  Hero titles are achieved by killing various monsters and nefarious titles were earned by killing innocent creatures, NPCs (Non-Player Characters), and in some cases other players in non-PVP realms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="189" RevisionGUID="1d8db01a-6489-4aa5-87cd-c1b1d6485a00" CreationDate="2012-09-20T15:19:18.203" UserId="326" Text="Fallout also uses a [Karma System](http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Karma) that affects the game in regards to *good* or *evil* choices you make.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Karma** is the reflection of all good and evil choices you make during the game and how they are perceived by the inhabitants of the wasteland in Fallout, Fallout 2, Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas and Fallout Tactics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Karma" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="190" RevisionGUID="55e52486-bb47-43fd-a8f8-427351612164" CreationDate="2012-09-20T15:21:11.713" UserId="349" Text="I assume that the term submission should have been &quot;Peltier&quot; instead.  Most automotive systems today don't use Peltier cooling.  Still, to substitute a conventional compressor with a Peltier system seems rather &quot;obvious&quot; to someone of &quot;ordinary skill in the art.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="191" RevisionGUID="295ef56a-3e2a-4d50-81e7-da3df09a9ddd" CreationDate="2012-09-20T15:24:25.113" UserId="350" Text="I saw down below where someone was asking how long we have to invalidate or send in a submission of a patent up to 6 months after it is published. Does that mean that 3rd parties can not go back and invalidate patents from years ago that never should have been awarded? Some of those most egregious lawsuits involved patents that have been published for quite some time now. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="576" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="191" RevisionGUID="295ef56a-3e2a-4d50-81e7-da3df09a9ddd" CreationDate="2012-09-20T15:24:25.113" UserId="350" Text="Can we not invalidate older patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="577" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="191" RevisionGUID="295ef56a-3e2a-4d50-81e7-da3df09a9ddd" CreationDate="2012-09-20T15:24:25.113" UserId="350" Text="&lt;obvious&gt;&lt;patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="192" RevisionGUID="c554c7c7-bf71-4cdc-840f-3f4f1cf8dec2" CreationDate="2012-09-20T15:27:01.913" UserId="339" Text="To me this seems like what motorcycle clothing has been doing forever. In jackets and pants they have padding inserts that can be removed and/or replaced. They are primarily for protection in case of a fall but to me this sounds like the exact same proposal. Just in a different area of the body. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="193" RevisionGUID="20bb2821-3294-4807-b6bb-6c54d3696b2f" CreationDate="2012-09-20T15:35:08.653" UserId="357" Text="I have been doing SEO for a few mom and pop stores and recently someone pointed me to this patent. It seems to be a patent  &lt;http://www.google.com/patents/US20120016857&gt; for a Search Engine but according to the title it is for SEO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to patent something like that?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="580" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="193" RevisionGUID="20bb2821-3294-4807-b6bb-6c54d3696b2f" CreationDate="2012-09-20T15:35:08.653" UserId="357" Text="How is it possible to obtain a patent on SEO" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="581" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="193" RevisionGUID="20bb2821-3294-4807-b6bb-6c54d3696b2f" CreationDate="2012-09-20T15:35:08.653" UserId="357" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;seo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="118" RevisionGUID="207d3449-68de-4ee7-8e81-e0d0a9ebef76" CreationDate="2012-09-20T15:38:03.297" UserId="-1" Comment="Added additional example of prior art in N900" Text="In context with other examples of prior art (such as [Bump's application](https://bu.mp/) which allows you to trade contact information by knocking two phones together or the [N900's Shake to Control app](http://mynokiablog.com/2010/04/07/video-shake-to-control-your-n900s-music-player-buttons-awesome-accelerometer-app-for-maemo-5-fantastic-alternative-to-dedicated-music-keys/) which controls music with similar movement) this seems like a potentially valuable piece of prior art.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In this case, Microsoft appears to have taken two well known concepts...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Using the accelerator to detect motion in a single plane, and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- Silencing a ringer based on sensing motion),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**...and combined them in a very obvious way.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the obviousness of this combination and wealth of examples of other devices with very similar features, it seems nearly impossible to deem this patent to be sufficently novel and non-obvious to be approved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="583" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="118" RevisionGUID="207d3449-68de-4ee7-8e81-e0d0a9ebef76" CreationDate="2012-09-20T15:38:03.297" Comment="Proposed by 204.75.251.112|d4d68bb2-8c50-4b11-b044-a83c92b41dd1 approved by 6 edit id of 87" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="193" RevisionGUID="d7131056-0224-42b6-bffc-79ba34ffb3e1" CreationDate="2012-09-20T15:49:31.187" UserId="345" Comment="Conform to http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/345" Text="[Patent Application #20120016857][1] appears to be for Search Engine Optimisation (SEO).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been doing SEO for a few mom and pop stores and recently someone pointed me to this patent. Once you start reading the patent, it becomes clear that the patent could be for a search engine, rather than the optimisation, but the title suggests otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there prior art for SEO?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120016857" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="585" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="193" RevisionGUID="d7131056-0224-42b6-bffc-79ba34ffb3e1" CreationDate="2012-09-20T15:49:31.187" UserId="345" Comment="Conform to http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/345" Text="Prior art for SEO" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="586" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="193" RevisionGUID="d7131056-0224-42b6-bffc-79ba34ffb3e1" CreationDate="2012-09-20T15:49:31.187" Comment="Proposed by 345 approved by 1 edit id of 88" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="587" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="191" RevisionGUID="ed2cdaba-86b2-4010-b7e9-c8da611a3b72" CreationDate="2012-09-20T15:51:16.803" UserId="76" Comment="more constructive wording " Text="I saw that we have 6 months after a patent is published to send in a submission to have it invalidated. Yet some of those most egregious lawsuits involved patents that have been published for quite some time now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way for me, as a third party, to go back and invalidate patents from years ago,  that I think should never have been awarded?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="588" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="191" RevisionGUID="ed2cdaba-86b2-4010-b7e9-c8da611a3b72" CreationDate="2012-09-20T15:51:16.803" UserId="76" Comment="more constructive wording " Text="Can we invalidate older patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="589" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="191" RevisionGUID="ed2cdaba-86b2-4010-b7e9-c8da611a3b72" CreationDate="2012-09-20T15:51:16.803" UserId="76" Comment="more constructive wording " Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="590" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="193" RevisionGUID="e873b989-a272-4eaf-ab09-2a2899ed4e25" CreationDate="2012-09-20T15:52:40.543" UserId="345" Comment="Add [tag:prior-art]" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="591" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="193" RevisionGUID="e873b989-a272-4eaf-ab09-2a2899ed4e25" CreationDate="2012-09-20T15:52:40.543" Comment="Proposed by 345 approved by 1 edit id of 89" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="137" RevisionGUID="10bb606f-cf19-4b24-89d6-bdb47d3f7b34" CreationDate="2012-09-20T15:54:54.160" UserId="345" Comment="Conform to http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/345" Text="[Patent application #20120226962](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20120226962.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20070198578&amp;RS=DN/20120222429) makes the claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A computer implemented method for storing data in memory, the method comprising: receiving write data to be written into a memory that is logically divided into a plurality of regions, the plurality of regions including a first region and a second region, the first region and the second region implemented by the same memory technology, and the memory subject to degradation as a result of write operations; classifying the write data as dynamic data or static data; in response to classifying the write data as dynamic data performing: encoding the write data using a first type of encoding; and storing the write data encoded using the first type of encoding in the first region of the memory; and in response to classifying the write data as static data performing: encoding the write data using a second type of encoding; and storing the write data encoded using the second type of encoding in the second region of the memory. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Isn't this what has been done in the industry and has support in operating systems for several years now? My translation of the above is similar to the description in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear_leveling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="593" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="137" RevisionGUID="10bb606f-cf19-4b24-89d6-bdb47d3f7b34" CreationDate="2012-09-20T15:54:54.160" UserId="345" Comment="Conform to http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/345" Text="Prior art for wear-focusing of non-volatile memories" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="594" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="137" RevisionGUID="10bb606f-cf19-4b24-89d6-bdb47d3f7b34" CreationDate="2012-09-20T15:54:54.160" Comment="Proposed by 345 approved by 1 edit id of 90" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="194" RevisionGUID="c5906e76-cbc5-4695-b679-0fcf8e6a98d1" CreationDate="2012-09-20T15:57:35.783" UserId="376" Text="This effect can be achieved (to a point) using the &quot;Tasker&quot; Android application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="133" RevisionGUID="9cd199c4-c0ed-4b4a-b820-8129958825d2" CreationDate="2012-09-20T15:58:45.700" UserId="345" Comment="Conform to http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/345" Text="Toyota has filed a patent ([#20120226392][1]) for a [&quot;Driving support apparatus and driving support method&quot;][1]. Its main claim: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A driving support apparatus that performs a driving support for causing a vehicle to travel in a lane, the driving support apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an image taking section for taking an image of a road surface which is travelled upon and is in front of the vehicle; &#xD;&#xA;- an image processing section for detecting for a lane dividing line on the road surface which is travelled upon, by using the image taken by the image taking section, and setting a virtual lane dividing line in a section in which no lane dividing line is detected;&#xD;&#xA;- a support section for performing the driving support by controlling the vehicle so as to prevent the vehicle from deviating from the lane dividing line or the virtual lane dividing line; and&#xD;&#xA;- a warning section for issuing a warning when the vehicle is likely to deviate from the lane dividing line or the virtual lane dividing line; wherein&#xD;&#xA;- in a case where the vehicle satisfies a predetermined condition,  &#xD;&#xA;- the warning section is actuated when the vehicle is likely to deviate from the lane dividing line, and  &#xD;&#xA;- the warning section stops operating when the vehicle is likely to deviate from the virtual lane dividing line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gist is that we are looking at a patent for a device that contains a camera and a processor which it uses to drive a car. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've been experimenting with [autonomous cars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driverless_car) for years. Surely Toyota is not the first to use a camera (er, image taking section) to give its car a view of the road. Does anyone know of any specific prior art that exists?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=20120226392.PGNR." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="597" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="133" RevisionGUID="9cd199c4-c0ed-4b4a-b820-8129958825d2" CreationDate="2012-09-20T15:58:45.700" UserId="345" Comment="Conform to http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/345" Text="Prior art for using a camera in self-driving cars" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="598" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="133" RevisionGUID="9cd199c4-c0ed-4b4a-b820-8129958825d2" CreationDate="2012-09-20T15:58:45.700" Comment="Proposed by 345 approved by 19 edit id of 92" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="599" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="79" RevisionGUID="1a21be34-5764-48c7-9be2-71f0aae12d58" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:02:41.780" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/248814448079429633" />
  <row Id="600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="195" RevisionGUID="922b638b-6229-469f-a6b7-cac386323e0f" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:03:18.683" UserId="340" Text="Typical air conditioning systems use an evaporative cooling system with a mechanical compressor acting as the heat pump moving heat away from the passenger compartment to the exterior of the vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent appears to replace the evaporative cooling heat pump with a peltier module heat pump.  A peltier device is a semiconductor heat pump frequently used for [small refrigerators][1] and [drink coolers][2].  It is notable for its inefficiency (energy in vs heat pumping ability) and for its low cooling capacity(requires many modules to provide cooling for spaces larger than a small cooler).  Advantages include small size, no moving parts, and electrically powered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would surprise me if a patent didn't already exist for this.  I know vehicle manufacturers have been looking at this for many years, especially in connection with electric vehicles.  They find, however, that to meet cooling capacity, efficiency, and low cost requirements they are better off with a motor running a typical compressor in an evaporative cooling system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doing a search for vehicle patents using peltier devices should bring up patents that precede this one which are substantially similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.amazon.com/Coleman-40-Quart-PowerChill-Thermoelectric-Cooler/dp/B0014VSR90/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1348155566&amp;sr=8-5&amp;keywords=car%20refrigerator&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.amazon.com/Coolit-Systems-USB-Beverage-Chiller/dp/B000EDJJMI" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="196" RevisionGUID="55cf881e-1329-41d4-be5a-2e2b032fc60e" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:05:00.660" UserId="371" Text="In 1972 the US Supreme Court decided the case of [Gottschalk v. Benson][1], which addressed the then-controversial idea of whether or not the software implementation of an algorithm for converting decimal numbers to binary could be patented. The algorithm itself was very straightforward (simple enough that lawyers could explain the thing in its entirety in a few paragraphs in the holding), and the court rejected the patent, on the grounds that allowing the software implementation of the algorithm to be patented would &quot;wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gottschalk is usually cited as the first important ruling on software patents, and it's hard to imagine a substantially earlier application - the actual application is hard to find online, but it was filed in 1963 (according to the [first appellate decision][3]). It also had significant parties supporting both sides (IBM on one side, Mobil on the other, for example). So it's probably the earliest example of a controversial software patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottschalk_v._Benson&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://digital-law-online.info/cases/169PQ548.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="197" RevisionGUID="47116d14-d5f9-4615-a784-3e06564dd224" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:05:17.783" UserId="385" Text="Microsoft's [application][1] aims to patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Methods and systems for style and/or layout caching of Web content are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; usable to build reusable style caching trees and cacheable layout&#xD;&#xA;&gt; calculations. Such style caching trees may be used to avoid&#xD;&#xA;&gt; recalculating style content of Web pages for document object model&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (DOM) elements that have not changed. Additionally, the cacheable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; layout calculations may be used to avoid recalculating the layout&#xD;&#xA;&gt; content of Web pages that are subsequently accessed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can prior art be demonstrated from the WebKit and Gecko source trees from several years ago?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=20120110437.PGNR." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="603" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="197" RevisionGUID="47116d14-d5f9-4615-a784-3e06564dd224" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:05:17.783" UserId="385" Text="Prior art for &quot;Style and layout caching of web content&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="604" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="197" RevisionGUID="47116d14-d5f9-4615-a784-3e06564dd224" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:05:17.783" UserId="385" Text="&lt;us20120110437&gt;&lt;css&gt;&lt;web-browser&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="134" RevisionGUID="6b85e199-1789-412b-beb2-d6d65a4da3de" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:09:28.440" UserId="345" Comment="Conform to http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/345" Text="[Patent application #20120222429](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20120222429.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20070198578&amp;RS=DN/20120222429)&#xD;&#xA;claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. A vehicle air conditioner for a passenger compartment of a vehicle, comprising: a power source for driving the vehicle; a radiator provided outside the passenger compartment; a heat medium passage through which heat medium is circulated between the power source and the radiator; a first pettier module having a first pettier device and a first heat exchanger, the first pettier device having a first surface and a second surface, one of the first surface and the second surface serving to release heat, the other of the first surface and the second surface serving to absorb heat, the first heat exchanger being thermally coupled to the first surface; and a second pettier module having a second pettier device and a second heat exchanger, the second pettier device having a first surface and a second surface, one of the first surface and the second surface serving to release heat, the other of the first surface and the second surface serving to absorb heat, the second heat exchanger being thermally coupled to the first surface, wherein the heat medium passage is thermally coupled to the second surface of the first pettier device and the second surface of the second pettier device. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this fundamentally different from the way other AC systems in cars are made? Are there prior examples of something similar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="606" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="134" RevisionGUID="6b85e199-1789-412b-beb2-d6d65a4da3de" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:09:28.440" UserId="345" Comment="Conform to http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/345" Text="Prior art for Vehicle Air Conditioner" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="607" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="134" RevisionGUID="6b85e199-1789-412b-beb2-d6d65a4da3de" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:09:28.440" Comment="Proposed by 345 approved by 1 edit id of 91" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="131" RevisionGUID="d2ceed73-96a0-48a6-b748-c7932099d7cb" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:09:42.933" UserId="345" Comment="Conform to http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/345" Text="[Patent application #20120222191][1] titled &quot;Sports garment with a seat pad, in particular for cycling&quot; claims to have a unique method for attaching a padded section to a spandex cycling short.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having worn them myself, I know that padded sports garments have been around for years and there must be prior art for such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What prior art addresses padded sports garments - particularly cycling shorts?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20120222191" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="609" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="131" RevisionGUID="d2ceed73-96a0-48a6-b748-c7932099d7cb" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:09:42.933" UserId="345" Comment="Conform to http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/345" Text="Prior art for athletic gear with padded seat area" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="610" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="131" RevisionGUID="d2ceed73-96a0-48a6-b748-c7932099d7cb" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:09:42.933" Comment="Proposed by 345 approved by 1 edit id of 93" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="611" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="193" RevisionGUID="75e51a64-bf53-4b07-a81c-60634bfaf546" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:09:50.657" UserId="390" Comment="add tag to follow post guidelines" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;us20120016857&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="612" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="193" RevisionGUID="75e51a64-bf53-4b07-a81c-60634bfaf546" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:09:50.657" Comment="Proposed by 390 approved by 1 edit id of 94" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="198" RevisionGUID="293cad32-ffee-49e3-81ea-4507e9dc4387" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:10:09.457" UserId="391" Text="Yes, there is a process for invalidating older patents. It is called reexamination. However, the process is costly (~$16k in filing fees) and somewhat complex. Provided you have the killer prior art that is needed to invalidate a patent, you will need more skin in the game than simple indignation to go this route. The best bet is to try to make it a bit easier for the folks that do have skin in the game by sharing what you have on the problematic patent(s)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="194" RevisionGUID="1917de41-3eb9-473a-88e5-3f85e62b6029" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:11:52.170" UserId="376" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="This effect can be achieved (to a point) using the &quot;Tasker&quot; Android application. While tuning it to work just right may require a dedicated app, this ability has existed for a long time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="191" RevisionGUID="ee50782f-bb00-4f71-b75d-8933c657d26d" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:13:03.683" UserId="350" Comment="made changes with specific instances of older patents that should not have been granted." Text="I saw down below where someone was asking how long we have to invalidate or send in a submission of a patent up to 6 months after it is published. Does that mean that 3rd parties can not go back and invalidate patents from years ago that never should have been awarded? Some of those most egregious lawsuits involved patents that have been published for quite some time now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example back around April a company called World Inc. started suing major video game companies like Blizzard, regarding patents 8,082,501, 7,493,558, 7,945,856 and 7,181,690 &quot;System and Method for Enabling Users to Interact in a Virtual Space&quot;.(original filing, November 1995). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Virtual reality systems to the best of my knowledge were being developed and tested before November 1995(see the guys at [VRML][1] - April 1995) not to mention many games, although while primitive also used various aspects of what they are claiming. See [CitySpace][2] (SIGGRAPH 1993), various Text Based (MUDS), [Wolfenstein 3D][3](July 1995), [Worlds Away][4](September 1995)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean you could take their claim and argue that they own the rights to things that every MMPORG has done in the last 20 years. Theres also a lot of other games and other pieces of the games that i mentioned that were using 2D. Just because you go from 2D to 3D, I could argue, doesn't mean that it's a clear invention either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRML&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cityspace&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfenstein_3D&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldsAway" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="616" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="191" RevisionGUID="ee50782f-bb00-4f71-b75d-8933c657d26d" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:13:03.683" UserId="350" Comment="made changes with specific instances of older patents that should not have been granted." Text="Can we not invalidate older patents? - i.e. World Inc vs Blizzard Entertainment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="617" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="191" RevisionGUID="ee50782f-bb00-4f71-b75d-8933c657d26d" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:13:03.683" UserId="350" Comment="made changes with specific instances of older patents that should not have been granted." Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="199" RevisionGUID="d6bfff3d-c191-4385-b92f-3b72010a9b8c" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:13:41.797" UserId="399" Text="Um, I have had Shake2MuteCall on my Droid2 for a while now.  I hit my phone and it stops ringing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="198" RevisionGUID="b02bc11d-956f-468d-a8f9-603b0fa84c24" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:15:21.140" UserId="14" Comment="Added emphasis and clarification to how one can still help." Text="Yes, there is a process for invalidating older patents. It is called reexamination. However, the process is costly (~$16k in filing fees) and somewhat complex. Provided you have the killer prior art that is needed to invalidate a patent, you will need more skin in the game than simple indignation to go this route. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But you can still ask for or post prior art and potentially make a difference.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even thought you can't just submit that for free on a granted patent, you make it a bit easier for the folks that do have skin in the game by sharing what you have on the problematic patent(s).  That way, if someone *is* sued for infringing, they'll be armed with what they need to defend themselves." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="200" RevisionGUID="4e9f162f-a42d-415f-a83e-30871a92372f" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:17:39.953" UserId="389" Text="Having read through the claims of Magsafe patent #7311526 I am not sure how it differs from previous examples of magnetic power connectors. What exactly is the novelty being claimed in that particular patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certain deep fryers have had a magnetic connector for years in Japan and there was a project with Underwriters Laboratory to bring them to the US in the early 2000s:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.dowell.com.hk/breakawaycord_news.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/07/03/deep.fryers/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="621" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="200" RevisionGUID="4e9f162f-a42d-415f-a83e-30871a92372f" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:17:39.953" UserId="389" Text="Is Apple's Magsafe patent covered by these previous inventions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="622" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="200" RevisionGUID="4e9f162f-a42d-415f-a83e-30871a92372f" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:17:39.953" UserId="389" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="191" RevisionGUID="505b1cde-6b1b-42b1-98a9-683caceae091" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:18:08.470" UserId="350" Comment="made changes with specific instances of older patents that should not have been granted." Text="I saw down below where someone was asking how long we have to invalidate or send in a submission of a patent up to 6 months after it is published. Does that mean that 3rd parties can not go back and invalidate patents from years ago that never should have been awarded? Some of those most egregious lawsuits involved patents that have been published for quite some time now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example back around April a company called World Inc. started suing major video game companies like Blizzard, regarding patents 8,082,501, 7,493,558, 7,945,856 and 7,181,690 &quot;System and Method for Enabling Users to Interact in a Virtual Space&quot;.(original filing, November 1995). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Virtual reality systems to the best of my knowledge were being developed and tested before November 1995(see the guys at [VRML][1] - April 1995, but started work in 1994) not to mention many games, although while primitive also used various aspects of what they are claiming. See [CitySpace][2] (1993, SIGGRAPH 1994), various Text Based (MUDS), [Wolfenstein 3D][3](July 1995), [Worlds Away][4](September 1995)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean you could take their claim and argue that they own the rights to things that every MMPORG has done in the last 20 years. Theres also a lot of other games and other pieces of the games that i mentioned that were using 2D. Just because you go from 2D to 3D, I could argue, doesn't mean that it's a clear invention either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRML&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cityspace&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfenstein_3D&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldsAway" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="624" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="197" RevisionGUID="292f389a-2ca7-4348-976f-27446e550821" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:19:11.227" UserId="385" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;us20120110437&gt;&lt;css&gt;&lt;web-browser&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="201" RevisionGUID="36a2fe0b-3f6f-4b7a-8db8-8fbc6800fd12" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:24:31.397" UserId="350" Text="As an example back around April a company called World Inc. started suing major video game companies like Blizzard, regarding patents 8,082,501, 7,493,558, 7,945,856 and 7,181,690 &quot;System and Method for Enabling Users to Interact in a Virtual Space&quot;.(original filing, November 1995).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Lawsuit Story][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Virtual reality systems to the best of my knowledge were being developed and tested before November 1995(see the guys at [VRML][2] - April 1995, but started work in 1994) not to mention many games, although while primitive also used various aspects of what they are claiming. See [CitySpace][3] (1993, SIGGRAPH 1994), various Text Based (MUDS), [Wolfenstein 3D][4](July 1995), [Worlds Away][5](September 1995)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is a good start. I'll look around to find more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/04/13/worlds-inc-explains-why-its-suing-activision-blizzard-over-world-of-warcraft-and-call-of-duty/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRML&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cityspace&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfenstein_3D&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldsAway" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="626" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="201" RevisionGUID="36a2fe0b-3f6f-4b7a-8db8-8fbc6800fd12" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:24:31.397" UserId="350" Text="Prior Art - &quot;System and Method for Enabling Users to Interact in a Virtual Space&quot;(Worlds Inc)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="627" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="201" RevisionGUID="36a2fe0b-3f6f-4b7a-8db8-8fbc6800fd12" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:24:31.397" UserId="350" Text="&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="202" RevisionGUID="0e799a8d-6075-421e-944c-a65093c2ee3a" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:27:31.467" UserId="34" Text="The claim is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A computer-readable medium comprising computer-readable instructions for providing search engine optimization analysis, wherein execution of said computer-readable instructions by one or more processors causes said one or more processors to carry out steps comprising: obtaining a starting uniform resource locator identifying a network location for a starting web resource; analyzing said starting uniform resource locator, wherein said analyzing comprises obtaining a text-based portion of said starting web resource comprising data and metadata, processing said data and said metadata to determine a plurality of potential target terms, and performing a relevancy test of said text-based portion of said starting web resource based on said plurality of potential target terms; determining any referred uniform resource locators in said text-based portion of said starting web resource, wherein said referred uniform resource locators each identify a referred web resource sharing a domain with said starting web resource; recursively analyzing said referred uniform resource locators, said recursive analysis comprising obtaining an additional text-based portion of a referred web resource; processing additional data and additional metadata in said additional text-based portion of said referred web resource to determine additional potential target terms for each referred web resource, and performing an additional relevancy test of said additional text-based portion of each referred web resource based on said additional potential target terms for each referred web resource; analyzing a link index of a network comprising said starting uniform resource locator to determine web resources linking to said web resources associated with said starting uniform resource locator and said referred uniform resource locators; calculating an internal search engine optimization score based on said analysis and said recursive analysis; calculating an external search engine optimization score based on said link index; providing a graphical report comprising a visualization of statistical information related to search engine optimization; and providing a domain visualization map comprising a graphical network representation of said statistical information for said starting uniform resource locator and said referred uniform resource locators. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will attemp a translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; code for doing seo analysis by a) getting a starting webpage and figuring out the relevancy of the text on that page b) getting all the outgoing urls on the same domain, and doing the same thing recursively (so spider the website) c) looking at other web sites linking into this site d) giving the text an SEO score e) giving the links an SEO score f) showing the SEO results in picture form and g) showing the network links visually as a graph&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art for section A: &#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art for section B:&#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art for section C:&#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art for section D: &#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art for section E: Definitely PageRank, in Patent number [6,285,999][1]&#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art for section F: &#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art for section G:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the pieces of this exist as prior art. The question is whether putting it together is patentable.  (In certain cases, this can happen, in others it cannot - it depends on how obvious that is to a skilled practitioner in that area). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the best initial approach is to show prior art for all the clauses of the independent claim I quoted above, so I'm making my answer community wiki and anyone should feel free to edit it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=6,285,999.PN.&amp;OS=PN/6,285,999&amp;RS=PN/6,285,999&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="629" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="202" RevisionGUID="85911601-895a-423a-baf4-27b231550128" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:27:31.467" UserId="34" />
  <row Id="630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="203" RevisionGUID="3a02cb3c-d00c-4f4f-b5ce-c77d11612d17" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:30:55.987" UserId="406" Text="For example, if something like a method of Agile programming practices were singularly developed before they were popularly used, could a company have patented the 'system' including the parts that describe human interaction dynamics such as pair programming?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where is the line drawn on a software development method or process being patentable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might be a dumb question but hey, I am here to learn!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="631" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="203" RevisionGUID="3a02cb3c-d00c-4f4f-b5ce-c77d11612d17" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:30:55.987" UserId="406" Text="Patenting a Software Development Method" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="632" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="203" RevisionGUID="3a02cb3c-d00c-4f4f-b5ce-c77d11612d17" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:30:55.987" UserId="406" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;process&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="201" RevisionGUID="901afc94-8be6-477d-a495-13460d1cdbd7" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:32:35.423" UserId="350" Comment="added Habitat and Neverwinter Nights to the list of prior art" Text="As an example back around April a company called World Inc. started suing major video game companies like Blizzard, regarding patents 8,082,501, 7,493,558, 7,945,856 and 7,181,690 &quot;System and Method for Enabling Users to Interact in a Virtual Space&quot;.(original filing, November 1995).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Lawsuit Story][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Virtual reality systems to the best of my knowledge were being developed and tested before November 1995(see the guys at [VRML][2] - April 1995, but started work in 1994) not to mention many games, although while primitive also used various aspects of what they are claiming. See [CitySpace][3] (1993,1994 - SIGGRAPH), various Text Based (MUDS), [Wolfenstein 3D][4](July 1995), [Worlds Away][5](September 1995), [Habitat][6](1986, 1988, 1990, 1994), [Neverwinter Nights][7](1991)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is a good start. I'll look around to find more. To my eyes their patent claim describes pretty much any 3D multiplayer computer game in which the game is hosted by a central server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/04/13/worlds-inc-explains-why-its-suing-activision-blizzard-over-world-of-warcraft-and-call-of-duty/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRML&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cityspace&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfenstein_3D&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldsAway&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_%28video_game%29&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neverwinter_Nights_%28MMORPG%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="204" RevisionGUID="41da9f17-fb21-4259-8929-c5a3ee7c9006" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:35:54.373" UserId="424" Text="Microsoft Word for example, will notice that you have loaded a document using and old data format and will update that to a newer data format for you. That data format is presumably described by a format template.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following description from the patent just isn't a true description of what numerous other applications do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, these applications may use a highly structured, code-defined&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data model for storing data (such as metadata pertaining to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; software repositories). This data model may be embodied in a template&#xD;&#xA;&gt; used to format the data. In addition, the data model (and templates)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; may change over time, such as in new releases of the application.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since the document database is freely structured and schema-free, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; database may contain documents having fields that do not match the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data model currently used by the management application. **Current&#xD;&#xA;&gt; systems do not include the ability to verify that that version of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data model used by the application matches the data model used in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; document database.** If the application attempts to read a document in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the document database having a different data model than is expected,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it may result in the incorrect data being read or other errors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="205" RevisionGUID="3eb3b72b-eac2-4d12-968f-0292ee4a6235" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:37:50.080" UserId="299" Text="Examples of online, real-time, interactive, three-dimensional &quot;virtual reality&quot;-type multiplayer interaction in the commercial sector date back to at least 1995; earlier if you count the development time needed prior to the official public release.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Meridian 59](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meridian_59) was (is?) one of the first MMOs. It has all attributes I've listed above (online, real-time, interactive, three-dimensional, multiplayer) in their most basic form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Underlight](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underlight) came three years later in 1998, but I am aware of the fact that very large chunks of the source code comprising this game were copyrighted as early as 1993-1994, and private beta testing with members of the public was available prior to 1998.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if text based interfaces would count as prior art, but certainly anything that is even in the same class as MMORPGs (think World of Warcraft, just much more primitive) would have to be legitimate prior art, I think. That said, I have not read the full text of those patents, so more research would be needed to determine whether titles such as Meridian 59 could count as prior art for one or more of the claims in those patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="199" RevisionGUID="fc6e8b95-a48f-4ee9-8d7f-98eb84a96cb1" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:38:27.487" UserId="1" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="I have an app called [Shake2MuteCall](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ru.atrant.shake2mute&amp;hl=en) on my Droid2 for awhile now. I hit my phone and it stops ringing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="201" RevisionGUID="51f210c5-2fe3-4d4a-a932-f824a23fade1" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:40:34.630" UserId="350" Comment="added links to patents on google patents" Text="As an example back around April a company called World Inc. started suing major video game companies like Blizzard, regarding patents [8,082,501][1], [7,493,558][2], [7,945,856][3] and [7,181,690][4] &quot;System and Method for Enabling Users to Interact in a Virtual Space&quot;.(original filing, November 1995).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Lawsuit Story][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Virtual reality systems to the best of my knowledge were being developed and tested before November 1995(see the guys at [VRML][6] - April 1995, but started work in 1994) not to mention many games, although while primitive also used various aspects of what they are claiming. See [CitySpace][7] (1993,1994 - SIGGRAPH), various Text Based (MUDS), [Wolfenstein 3D][8](July 1995), [Worlds Away][9](September 1995), [Habitat][10](1986, 1988, 1990, 1994), [Neverwinter Nights][11](1991)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is a good start. I'll look around to find more. To my eyes their patent claim describes pretty much any 3D multiplayer computer game in which the game is hosted by a central server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8082501?dq=8,082,501&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=TEZbUM_wAuPz0gGSq4HoAw&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7493558?dq=7,493,558&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=rUZbUK_HOuj40gH2mYHYDA&amp;ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7945856?dq=7,945,856&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=zUZbUNqWFqTq0gHIkIDAAQ&amp;ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7181690?dq=7,181,690&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=4EZbUIniC4Hv0gHZlYD4Dg&amp;ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/04/13/worlds-inc-explains-why-its-suing-activision-blizzard-over-world-of-warcraft-and-call-of-duty/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRML&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cityspace&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfenstein_3D&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldsAway&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_%28video_game%29&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neverwinter_Nights_%28MMORPG%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="639" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="201" RevisionGUID="51f210c5-2fe3-4d4a-a932-f824a23fade1" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:40:34.630" UserId="350" Comment="added links to patents on google patents" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="207" RevisionGUID="c8186dac-1113-460d-bc90-a41ebb675372" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:46:06.920" UserId="442" Text="Providing prior art around the concept (as opposed to alternative implementations) would include the book Snow Crash, published by Neil Stephenson in 1992 - that goes into incredible detail describing several interactions related to a Virtual Space." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="203" RevisionGUID="368994b7-cf4a-4319-8e27-9523bab50067" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:47:11.047" UserId="345" Comment="Is a question ever dumb?" Text="For example, if something like a method of Agile programming practices were singularly developed before they were popularly used, could a company have patented the 'system' including the parts that describe human interaction dynamics such as pair programming?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where is the line drawn on a software development method or process being patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="644" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="203" RevisionGUID="368994b7-cf4a-4319-8e27-9523bab50067" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:47:11.047" UserId="345" Comment="Is a question ever dumb?" Text="Are Software Development Methods patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="645" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="203" RevisionGUID="368994b7-cf4a-4319-8e27-9523bab50067" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:47:11.047" Comment="Proposed by 345 approved by 406 edit id of 95" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="208" RevisionGUID="5fa9e694-5571-4db1-b82a-2ba276c1c072" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:48:10.640" UserId="444" Text="From my experience as a software developer I don't see how something like agile can be patented and if it was patented how that could be enforced. Any money you would make from that would likely be more in the form of selling publications and certifications. So that falls more in the copyright and trademark arenas. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="647" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="200" RevisionGUID="1119a04b-9326-43e2-9134-119a57f5cfad" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:57:15.960" UserId="16" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;us7311526&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="210" RevisionGUID="17e22b6c-b237-4f8c-9fd6-da2bcf06e6a1" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:58:08.740" UserId="447" Text="There's a board game that I really like called Mystery Mansion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to make a similar digital version of the game for various mobile platforms, but I don't want to get sued by Milton Bradley (Now Hasbro) for infringing on their idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My game of course would not steal any of their artwork and my gameplay is slightly different, but the core of the game uses the same mechanics of a modular game board.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is changing the artwork enough to avoid infringement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I heard through the grape vine that game mechanics can't be patentable but the layout of the game can (Scrabble for example patented the layout of their game board, but not the Crossword Puzzle gameplay, or so I've heard). Is this a true statement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="650" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="210" RevisionGUID="17e22b6c-b237-4f8c-9fd6-da2bcf06e6a1" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:58:08.740" UserId="447" Text="Can game mechanics be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="651" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="210" RevisionGUID="17e22b6c-b237-4f8c-9fd6-da2bcf06e6a1" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:58:08.740" UserId="447" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="211" RevisionGUID="033d4b24-bb8a-4a9d-8880-1650c5a46bfa" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:58:54.053" UserId="451" Text="This is precisely what Acacia Research does.&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acacia_Research&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have an issued patent that is being infringed, then Acacia will assess its value, then if the numbers work, have you transfer ownership of your patent to a separate legal entity (business shell) that both you and Acacia own. Acacia then spends their resources to collect compensation on the intellectual property in behalf of the company both you and Acacia own. Proceeds are then split based on business ownership.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Acacia has sometimes been called a 'patent troll', but they do not file patents for the purpose of trolling, they are more like a personal injury law firm, where clients, like you, come to them with a problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="212" RevisionGUID="1fe607cb-4340-433a-b856-b890703c77e2" CreationDate="2012-09-20T17:03:34.217" UserId="433" Text="Yes, you can submit a YouTube Video as prior art as long as the YouTube video is publicly available. YouTube videos usually have the publication date under the video, such as &quot;Uploaded by X on Oct 17, 2011&quot;. If you provide a hard copy of the video itself, it be hard to prove that the video was public  or its publication date, especially if the public version of the video gets removed at a later time. I would recommend making a &quot;Print Screen&quot; image of each second in the video that is considered prior art. Make sure that the &quot;Print Screen&quot; image shows the URL of the video as well as its publication date on YouTube. Then convert each &quot;Print Screen&quot; image into a PDF Document. Combine all the PDF pages into a single document and submit this to the USPTO.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this helps! :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="201" RevisionGUID="be65f818-16d0-41ee-bf0f-2d1313379b05" CreationDate="2012-09-20T17:07:38.813" UserId="350" Comment="added 140 characters in body" Text="As an example back around April a company called World Inc. started suing major video game companies like Blizzard, regarding patents [8,082,501][1], [7,493,558][2], [7,945,856][3] and [7,181,690][4] &quot;System and Method for Enabling Users to Interact in a Virtual Space&quot;.(original filing, November 1995).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Lawsuit Story][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Virtual reality systems to the best of my knowledge were being developed and tested before November 1995(see the guys at [VRML][6] - April 1995, but started work in 1994) not to mention many games, although while primitive also used various aspects of what they are claiming.  See [CitySpace][7] (1993,1994 - SIGGRAPH), various Text Based (MUDS), [Wolfenstein 3D][8](July 1995), [Worlds Away][9](September 1995), [Habitat][10](1986, 1988, 1990, 1994), [Neverwinter Nights][11](1991)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Found another interesting case of prior art(at least in part) [Netrek][12](1988)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is a good start. I'll look around to find more. To my eyes their patent claim describes pretty much any 3D multiplayer computer game in which the game is hosted by a central server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8082501?dq=8,082,501&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=TEZbUM_wAuPz0gGSq4HoAw&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7493558?dq=7,493,558&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=rUZbUK_HOuj40gH2mYHYDA&amp;ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7945856?dq=7,945,856&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=zUZbUNqWFqTq0gHIkIDAAQ&amp;ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7181690?dq=7,181,690&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=4EZbUIniC4Hv0gHZlYD4Dg&amp;ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/04/13/worlds-inc-explains-why-its-suing-activision-blizzard-over-world-of-warcraft-and-call-of-duty/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRML&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cityspace&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfenstein_3D&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldsAway&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_%28video_game%29&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neverwinter_Nights_%28MMORPG%29&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netrek" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="213" RevisionGUID="9aba0ff0-8a89-482b-93ef-d2e0333e4c12" CreationDate="2012-09-20T17:09:52.320" UserId="466" Text="There are apps for old nokia N95 that do similar things using accelerometer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="214" RevisionGUID="4ebe5924-a673-4de0-b640-bb0017e4184e" CreationDate="2012-09-20T17:12:46.667" UserId="288" Text="Board game mechanics (the process for playing the game) are patentable.  A Google Patent search for [&quot;board game&quot;][1] turns up lots of results.  See the article [Patenting Board Games 101][2] for more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An additional note regarding copyrights of board games:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference: [Can I copyright my game? Are game rules protected by copyright?][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=pts&amp;hl=en&amp;q=board%20game&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/12/22/patenting-board-games-101/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.rpglibrary.org/articles/faqs/copyright.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="212" RevisionGUID="9ab4ac52-030d-42d5-9bca-0cb1dcac3523" CreationDate="2012-09-20T17:14:16.893" UserId="433" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="Yes, you can submit a YouTube Video as prior art as long as the YouTube video is publicly available. YouTube videos usually have the publication date under the video, such as &quot;Uploaded by X on Oct 17, 2011&quot;. If you provide a hard copy of the video itself, it be hard to prove that the video was public  or its publication date, especially if the public version of the video gets removed at a later time. I would recommend making a &quot;Print Screen&quot; image of each second in the video that is considered prior art. Make sure that the &quot;Print Screen&quot; image shows the URL of the video as well as its publication date on YouTube. Then convert each &quot;Print Screen&quot; image into a PDF Document. Combine all the PDF pages into a single document and submit this to the USPTO.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a patent searcher and I have done this before. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this helps! :) &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="215" RevisionGUID="0e3e4b6b-2b59-4fb4-8959-1f812ff14f5b" CreationDate="2012-09-20T17:16:07.087" UserId="207" Text="[xpilot](http://www.xpilot.org/) (released in 1991) provides everything as described in the patent except for the 3D aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is adding another visual dimension sufficiently novel for the purposes of a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="216" RevisionGUID="6793a552-c3ac-4485-800b-2df1ac696425" CreationDate="2012-09-20T17:18:41.297" UserId="468" Text="You might want to contact the company first, to see if they will try to settle with you. If not, then you can try the following.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you lack the resources, I think it would makes sense to team up with someone or a company that does have the resources. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a strong case, and can show they are already in violation, then the person/company with resources may see dollar signs, and be willing to &quot;invest&quot; to aid you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could be a separate contract specifying terms, selling part of the patent, or even selling the whole patent. You might also be able to find an IP lawyer who would be willing to work the case for a percent of the result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lots of possibilities..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="217" RevisionGUID="22782aa8-5270-4540-8703-9137e42f201e" CreationDate="2012-09-20T17:22:46.177" UserId="480" Text="While it's not silencing a communication device, surely the silencing of an alert noise would even date back to the old alarm clocks which were designed to be thrown at a wall to turn them off. Had a friend had one of those back in the 1990s. Might not be a direct example of prior art, but modifying it to be a communication device rather than an alarm clock would seem a fairly obvious development" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="201" RevisionGUID="d89b185d-f3d5-4254-a1f9-860ba4b5f0c2" CreationDate="2012-09-20T17:23:13.680" UserId="350" Comment="added 139 characters in body" Text="As an example back around April a company called World Inc. started suing major video game companies like Blizzard, regarding patents [8,082,501][1], [7,493,558][2], [7,945,856][3] and [7,181,690][4] &quot;System and Method for Enabling Users to Interact in a Virtual Space&quot;.(original filing, November 1995).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Lawsuit Story][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Virtual reality systems to the best of my knowledge were being developed and tested before November 1995(see the guys at [VRML][6] - April 1995, but started work in 1994) not to mention many games, although while primitive also used various aspects of what they are claiming.  See [CitySpace][7] (1993,1994 - SIGGRAPH), various Text Based (MUDS), [Wolfenstein 3D][8](July 1995), [Worlds Away][9](September 1995), [Habitat][10](1986, 1988, 1990, 1994), [Neverwinter Nights][11](1991)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Found another interesting case of prior art(at least in part) [Netrek][12](1988)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another EDIT***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How about the movie [The Lawnmower Man][13](1992)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is a good start. I'll look around to find more. To my eyes their patent claim describes pretty much any 3D multiplayer computer game in which the game is hosted by a central server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8082501?dq=8,082,501&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=TEZbUM_wAuPz0gGSq4HoAw&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7493558?dq=7,493,558&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=rUZbUK_HOuj40gH2mYHYDA&amp;ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7945856?dq=7,945,856&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=zUZbUNqWFqTq0gHIkIDAAQ&amp;ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7181690?dq=7,181,690&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=4EZbUIniC4Hv0gHZlYD4Dg&amp;ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/04/13/worlds-inc-explains-why-its-suing-activision-blizzard-over-world-of-warcraft-and-call-of-duty/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRML&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cityspace&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfenstein_3D&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldsAway&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_%28video_game%29&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neverwinter_Nights_%28MMORPG%29&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netrek&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lawnmower_Man_%28film%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="218" RevisionGUID="018666a8-8233-4c62-8e88-d42816722aa5" CreationDate="2012-09-20T17:28:44.733" UserId="444" Text="The patent is about transferring a patient from a health care organization to a third party post-acute facility. I have no knowledge of any other software that does this. However, as mentioned above, virtually all that is mentioned in the patent is a software reimplimentation done by HCO's as a service during discharge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="84bf5d7f-f2d8-4c4e-b0c9-017700b50735" CreationDate="2012-09-20T17:42:27.313" UserId="300" Text="I was wondering whether there was sufficient prior art for some of the patents that Microsoft is using in (what I consider) strong-arming Android manufacturers? Most of those seem to have been resolved under NDA, but here's some information from the [Barnes &amp; Noble case][1] and the just-completed [Motorola case in Germany][2] ([patent link][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - #6,891,551: “Selection handles in editing electronic documents.” Issued May 10, 2005&#xD;&#xA; - #5,778,372: “Remote retrieval and display management of electronic document with incorporated images.” Issued July 7, 1998.&#xD;&#xA; - #6,957,233: “Method and apparatus for capturing and rendering annotations for non-modifiable electronic content.” Issued Oct. 18, 2005.&#xD;&#xA; - [#7,411,582][4]: &quot;Soft input panel system and method.&quot; Issue date: Aug 12, 2008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.geekwire.com/2012/microsoft-barnes-noble/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/20/microsoft-wins-third-injunction-motorola-software-patent/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7411582&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7411582" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="665" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="84bf5d7f-f2d8-4c4e-b0c9-017700b50735" CreationDate="2012-09-20T17:42:27.313" UserId="300" Text="Prior Art on Microsoft Patents Asserted Against Barnes &amp; Noble and Motorola" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="666" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="84bf5d7f-f2d8-4c4e-b0c9-017700b50735" CreationDate="2012-09-20T17:42:27.313" UserId="300" Text="&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;android&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="220" RevisionGUID="c6f3df76-ba50-45d4-be50-192a826a55b7" CreationDate="2012-09-20T17:42:39.233" UserId="489" Text="What about the ramifications if this does pass?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's consider that using computers to display timelines has been done for ages.  The only possibly &quot;unique&quot; aspect here is applying it to Vehicle Fleet Management.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this patent is valid, is any other application of a timeline to a new business case also valid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - History Timeline Display for IT Inventory Management. &#xD;&#xA; - History Timeline Display for Snack Vendor Inventory Management. &#xD;&#xA; - History Timeline Display for ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent application should fail because it's not an invention; it's the application of a visual construct (the timeline) that has been used for millennia." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="201" RevisionGUID="a78fb269-c489-4b22-a612-7879eb4edd2e" CreationDate="2012-09-20T17:42:57.737" UserId="350" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="As an example back around April a company called World Inc. started suing major video game companies like Blizzard, regarding patents [8,082,501][1], [7,493,558][2], [7,945,856][3] and [7,181,690][4] &quot;System and Method for Enabling Users to Interact in a Virtual Space&quot;.(original filing, November 1995).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Lawsuit Story][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Virtual reality systems to the best of my knowledge were being developed and tested before November 1995(see the guys at [VRML][6] - April 1995, but started work in 1994) not to mention many games, although while primitive also used various aspects of what they are claiming.  See [CitySpace][7] (1993,1994 - SIGGRAPH), various Text Based (MUDS), [Wolfenstein 3D][8](July 1995), [Worlds Away][9](September 1995), [Habitat][10](1986, 1988, 1990, 1994), [Neverwinter Nights][11](1991)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Found another interesting case of prior art(at least in part) [Netrek][12](1988)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another EDIT***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How about the movie [The Lawnmower Man][13](1992) it does describe all of the patents but it addresses the idea of 3-D and virtual worlds thus the obviousness test fails here i think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is a good start. I'll look around to find more. To my eyes their patent claim describes pretty much any 3D multiplayer computer game in which the game is hosted by a central server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8082501?dq=8,082,501&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=TEZbUM_wAuPz0gGSq4HoAw&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7493558?dq=7,493,558&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=rUZbUK_HOuj40gH2mYHYDA&amp;ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7945856?dq=7,945,856&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=zUZbUNqWFqTq0gHIkIDAAQ&amp;ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7181690?dq=7,181,690&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=4EZbUIniC4Hv0gHZlYD4Dg&amp;ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/04/13/worlds-inc-explains-why-its-suing-activision-blizzard-over-world-of-warcraft-and-call-of-duty/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRML&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cityspace&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfenstein_3D&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldsAway&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_%28video_game%29&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neverwinter_Nights_%28MMORPG%29&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netrek&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lawnmower_Man_%28film%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="221" RevisionGUID="d0628b42-3145-4e85-901b-13214e16647c" CreationDate="2012-09-20T17:45:01.103" UserId="496" Text="Microsoft filed  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20120906ptan20120227028.php&quot;&gt;this patent&lt;/a&gt; for the automatic generation of GUIs to instantiate objects, and I vaguely recall seeing a implementation of this concept in Java somewhere. Are there any other examples of prior art, or is my memory just bad?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="671" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="221" RevisionGUID="d0628b42-3145-4e85-901b-13214e16647c" CreationDate="2012-09-20T17:45:01.103" UserId="496" Text="Prior art for Graphical Instance Instaniation (US20120227028)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="672" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="221" RevisionGUID="d0628b42-3145-4e85-901b-13214e16647c" CreationDate="2012-09-20T17:45:01.103" UserId="496" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;java&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="201" RevisionGUID="0a925ca7-5e9a-4d55-a9d2-0ae86bb85c3a" CreationDate="2012-09-20T17:47:59.537" UserId="350" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="As an example back around April a company called World Inc. started suing major video game companies like Blizzard, regarding patents [8,082,501][1], [7,493,558][2], [7,945,856][3] and [7,181,690][4] &quot;System and Method for Enabling Users to Interact in a Virtual Space&quot;.(original filing, November 1995).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Lawsuit Story][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Virtual reality systems to the best of my knowledge were being developed and tested before November 1995(see the guys at [VRML][6] - April 1995, but started work in 1994) not to mention many games, although while primitive also used various aspects of what they are claiming.  See [CitySpace][7] (1993,1994 - SIGGRAPH), various Text Based (MUDS), [Wolfenstein 3D][8](July 1995), [Worlds Away][9](September 1995), [Habitat][10](1986, 1988, 1990, 1994), [Neverwinter Nights][11](1991)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Found another interesting case of prior art(at least in part) [Netrek][12](1988). &#xD;&#xA;Also possible [Doom][13] (December 1993) - although i don't remember how it processed positions of other players(from a client/server perspective) for the network communication piece. If it didn't then Quake did(but was released in 1996) - someone will have to answer if pre-release development counts as prior art before public interaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another EDIT***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How about the movie [The Lawnmower Man][14](1992) it doesn't describe all of the patents but it addresses the idea of 3-D and virtual worlds thus the obviousness test fails here i think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is a good start. I'll look around to find more. To my eyes their patent claim describes pretty much any 3D multiplayer computer game in which the game is hosted by a central server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8082501?dq=8,082,501&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=TEZbUM_wAuPz0gGSq4HoAw&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7493558?dq=7,493,558&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=rUZbUK_HOuj40gH2mYHYDA&amp;ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7945856?dq=7,945,856&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=zUZbUNqWFqTq0gHIkIDAAQ&amp;ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7181690?dq=7,181,690&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=4EZbUIniC4Hv0gHZlYD4Dg&amp;ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/04/13/worlds-inc-explains-why-its-suing-activision-blizzard-over-world-of-warcraft-and-call-of-duty/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRML&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cityspace&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfenstein_3D&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldsAway&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_%28video_game%29&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neverwinter_Nights_%28MMORPG%29&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netrek&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_%28video_game%29&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lawnmower_Man_%28film%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="214" RevisionGUID="afd2d06e-7fb7-492a-8ce1-2725346ce877" CreationDate="2012-09-20T17:49:03.067" UserId="288" Comment="added 503 characters in body" Text="Board game mechanics (the process for playing the game) are patentable.  A Google Patent search for [&quot;board game&quot;][1] turns up lots of results.  So no, just changing the artwork is not enough to avoid infringement if the game mechanics are patented.  (See the article [Patenting Board Games 101][2] for more information.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the legal battle surrounding Scrabble, the game mechanics did play a part.  [Hasbro dropped their lawsuit][3] against the makers of Scrabulous after they agreed to change the name *and* the rules of the game, by increasing the number of letter tiles that each player receives from 7 to 8.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An additional note regarding copyrights of board games:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference: [Can I copyright my game? Are game rules protected by copyright?][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=pts&amp;hl=en&amp;q=board%20game&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/12/22/patenting-board-games-101/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.kioskea.net/news/11082-scrabble-maker-hasbro-drops-lawsuit-over-online-word-game&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.rpglibrary.org/articles/faqs/copyright.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="222" RevisionGUID="464cefeb-44c8-41a0-ab26-a2bcc995dcc2" CreationDate="2012-09-20T17:58:05.830" UserId="517" Text="Well, a good place to look would be the NetBeans release notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://netbeans.org/community/releases/old.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NetBeans is a Java IDE that's rougly the Java equivalent a Visual Studio. Seeing that Microsoft's patent was issued in 2012 and NetBeans has been around for a while, you might find something there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="223" RevisionGUID="91398d27-306a-40db-90b3-983511aa7a14" CreationDate="2012-09-20T17:58:22.123" UserId="512" Text="How about [this infographic][1] from 8/31/11? Also, a simple google search of &quot;small meals 5 times a day&quot; resulted in 13,700 results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.healthytimesblog.com/2011/08/infographic-5-small-meals-%E2%80%94-what-when-why/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="224" RevisionGUID="e5f0f7d5-ade5-41bc-9c98-576bd8ad63d3" CreationDate="2012-09-20T18:02:19.247" UserId="408" Text="As far as I can tell in this cryptically worded application, the request is for a patent which uses a peltier thermocouple to salvage heat energy from the car engine and then relays that electricity to a second thermocouple where the process is reversed and the cool side of the second thermocouple is used for AC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both these steps have occurred to car enthusiasts for decades (5 seconds on Google yielded this for [using a Peltier plate engine heat to generate electricity][1] and [here][2] and [this for building a Peltier air conditioner][3] (2003)). Wikipedia even has a page [just for vehicle thermocouple generators][4], which have been used as far back as 1963 (Porche) as well as Nissan test vehicles. And hop on utube and you'll see lots of home-made versions of both steps. The main reason why there is less interest in the air conditioning abilities of peltier plates is that they are terribly inefficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm no expert, but I'm not sure that coupling these two processes together (generating electricity and then using the electricity) should pass the &quot;must be useful&quot; patent test. Both ideas have been done plenty of times and there is no value added by patenting them together. It would be like the following: Imagine that both pencils and paper have been invented but are so expensive that they are not in in widespread use, and I come along and say &quot;I know that I can't patent paper, because someone already made that, and I know and I can't patent pencils, because someone already made that, but I'm going to patent 'the process of using a pencil to write on paper'&quot;... and then hope that the price of pencils and paper comes down. Obviously pencils are used to write, and obviously paper is used to write on, and just because people aren't doing it today due to cost/efficiency reasons doesn't mean it's not perfectly obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.navitron.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=15086.0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/test-alternator-vs-no-alternator-10-mpg-gain-98-4.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=513384&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_Thermoelectric_Generators" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="225" RevisionGUID="1ffd6a85-b066-4447-9de1-f453b33a60b2" CreationDate="2012-09-20T18:04:19.090" UserId="454" Text="Strategic Simulations, Inc created several games using the Advanced Dungeons &amp; Dragons rules and world, beginning in 1988 with [Pool of Radience][1]. In these games, the player could choose one of 9 &quot;alignments&quot; (ethical systems or orientations) for each of their characters. The game engine took these alignments into consideration when adjudicating interactions with non-player characters. Later games based off the Dungeons &amp; Dragons ruleset, such as [Neverwinter Nights][2] from BioWare accounted for character actions to adjust alignment during gameplay, possibly changing the alignment of the character or adjusting non-player character actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pool_of_Radiance&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Alignment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="215" RevisionGUID="6a39e32c-1ae4-4f59-9e96-746615bfd7a0" CreationDate="2012-09-20T18:12:08.710" UserId="207" Comment="added 496 characters in body" Text="[xpilot](http://www.xpilot.org/) (released in 1991) provides everything as described in the patent except for the 3D aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is adding another visual dimension sufficiently novel for the purposes of a patent? (apparently not)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[An article in the ACM magazine](http://xrds.acm.org/article.cfm?aid=332134) may talk about how it works, but I can't read it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [earliest copy of the XPilot FAQ](https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rec.games.computer.xpilot/CCsXEiMU2Y8/discussion) I can find is from 1995/04/23.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earliest copy of the XPilot source I can find (not that I've tried much) is from 2001 on sourceforge - too recent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure *someone* has earlier source / documentation lying around…" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="226" RevisionGUID="a7f14c27-c357-47af-ac7e-593a7949a9f9" CreationDate="2012-09-20T18:17:35.783" UserId="486" Text="http://www.fitfaq.com/muscle-building-guide.html  Seems to be close, it doesn't have the correct percentages for carbs and fat though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA; - Eat 5-6 healthy, balanced meals per day.&#xD;&#xA; - Each meal should be approximately 30% protein, 30% fats, 40% carbs.&#xD;&#xA; - Consume 1 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight every single day.&#xD;&#xA; - Good protein sources include: eggs, chicken, turkey, fish, lean beef, cottage cheese, low-fat cheese, whey protein powder, protein bars, and meal replacement powders (MRPs).&#xD;&#xA; - Good sources of carbs include: vegetables, fruits, legumes, and whole grains (including oatmeal, brown rice, whole grain wheat, etc.).&#xD;&#xA; - Good sources of fats include: nuts, seeds, olive oil, peanut butter, low fat cheese, fatty-fish, low-fat mayonnaise, and flax seeds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And http://www.leehayward.com/protein_part2.htm gives percentages in the correct range but doesn't appear to have the other details:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The ideal ratios may vary widely based on these factors, but as a &quot;baseline&quot; I recommend that 30% of your calories come from protein. That leaves 15% from fat and 55% from natural, unrefined complex carbohydrates." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="227" RevisionGUID="a958ac37-8fc9-4291-bf68-b93101a673df" CreationDate="2012-09-20T18:18:44.037" UserId="526" Text="take a look @ [Livestrong][1], which has the five-meals-a-day limitation and percentages of p/c/f (although not the same). there are also some references listed in that article that may be of use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while not asked, the main issue with this claim (and patent) will be 101 eligibility. it's almost certainly not patentable under this ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.livestrong.com/article/509180-food-ideas-for-5-meals-a-day/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="224" RevisionGUID="65ff7cd0-1a91-4b9a-a435-0f46d5ae7e7e" CreationDate="2012-09-20T18:21:35.847" UserId="408" Comment="answer part two of question" Text="As far as I can tell in this cryptically worded application, the request is for a patent which uses a peltier thermocouple to salvage heat energy from the car engine and then relays that electricity to a second thermocouple where the process is reversed and the cool side of the second thermocouple is used for AC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both these steps have occurred to car enthusiasts for decades (5 seconds on Google yielded this for [using a Peltier plate engine heat to generate electricity][1] and [here][2] and [this for building a Peltier air conditioner][3] (2003)). Wikipedia even has a page [just for vehicle thermocouple generators][4], which have been used as far back as 1963 (Porche) as well as Nissan test vehicles. And hop on utube and you'll see lots of home-made versions of both steps. The main reason why there is less interest in the air conditioning abilities of peltier plates is that they are terribly inefficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm no expert, but I'm not sure that coupling these two processes together (generating electricity and then using the electricity) should pass the &quot;must be useful&quot; patent test. Both ideas have been done plenty of times and there is no value added by patenting them together. It would be like the following: Imagine that both pencils and paper have been invented but are so expensive that they are not in in widespread use, and I come along and say &quot;I know that I can't patent paper, because someone already made that, and I know and I can't patent pencils, because someone already made that, but I'm going to patent 'the process of using a pencil to write on paper'&quot;... and then hope that the price of pencils and paper comes down. Obviously pencils are used to write, and obviously paper is used to write on, and just because people aren't doing it today due to cost/efficiency reasons doesn't mean it's not perfectly obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, **to answer your question &quot;How is this fundamentally different from the way other AC systems in cars are made?**&quot; - AC in cars today use a compressor (generally running directly off the rotational motion of the engine, but also possibly off of the current generated by the generator) to compress a large volume of gas into a small space. Applying the [combined gas law][5], this means that the compressed gas is much hotter that the uncompressed gas (same amount of energy in a smaller space). This hot compressed gas is then run over a radiator (generally lots of plates of thin metal) which vent the heat into the outside air. The compressed gas is then decompressed (let into a wider pipe) but now it has much less heat energy that when it was first compressed, so it's comparatively cold. The Peltier plates, by contrast, cool via the [Thermoelectric effect][6] which causes a temperature differential to occur between two substances (generally metals) if a current was run betweeen them (one plate will heat up and the other will cool down)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.navitron.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=15086.0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/test-alternator-vs-no-alternator-10-mpg-gain-98-4.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=513384&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_Thermoelectric_Generators&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_gas_law&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="228" RevisionGUID="29f4c07c-eabc-4697-9cbf-bc2390e223aa" CreationDate="2012-09-20T18:22:34.080" UserId="536" Text="This seems like prior art to me:&#xD;&#xA;http://agiletrac.gehealthcare.com/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="226" RevisionGUID="457f471f-3cb5-4d7b-828d-bd27981966e3" CreationDate="2012-09-20T18:23:17.350" UserId="486" Comment="added 277 characters in body" Text="http://www.fitfaq.com/muscle-building-guide.html  Seems to be close, it doesn't have the correct percentages for carbs and fat though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA; - Eat 5-6 healthy, balanced meals per day.&#xD;&#xA; - Each meal should be approximately 30% protein, 30% fats, 40% carbs.&#xD;&#xA; - Consume 1 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight every single day.&#xD;&#xA; - Good protein sources include: eggs, chicken, turkey, fish, lean beef, cottage cheese, low-fat cheese, whey protein powder, protein bars, and meal replacement powders (MRPs).&#xD;&#xA; - Good sources of carbs include: vegetables, fruits, legumes, and whole grains (including oatmeal, brown rice, whole grain wheat, etc.).&#xD;&#xA; - Good sources of fats include: nuts, seeds, olive oil, peanut butter, low fat cheese, fatty-fish, low-fat mayonnaise, and flax seeds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And http://www.leehayward.com/protein_part2.htm gives percentages in the correct range but doesn't appear to have the other details:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The ideal ratios may vary widely based on these factors, but as a &quot;baseline&quot; I recommend that 30% of your calories come from protein. That leaves 15% from fat and 55% from natural, unrefined complex carbohydrates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;edit to show that this information is &quot;prior&quot;: http://web.archive.org/web/20040225033829/http://www.fitfaq.com/muscle-building-guide.html and while not the same page has the same information http://web.archive.org/web/20040606172718/http://www.leehayward.com/howmanycal.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="229" RevisionGUID="cd635839-43bd-4504-bd06-8748893b1501" CreationDate="2012-09-20T18:30:25.590" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="230" RevisionGUID="1d207f63-7f34-422e-a2e8-cc4020dbd5aa" CreationDate="2012-09-20T18:30:25.590" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="215" RevisionGUID="758f3011-09d2-4fe4-b8db-2fcd0fb37851" CreationDate="2012-09-20T18:31:35.260" UserId="207" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="[xpilot](http://www.xpilot.org/) (released in 1991) provides everything as described in the patent except for the 3D aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is adding another visual dimension sufficiently novel for the purposes of a patent? (apparently not)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[An article in the ACM magazine](http://xrds.acm.org/article.cfm?aid=332134) may talk about how it works, &lt;strike&gt;but I can't read it&lt;/strike&gt; you can read it [on the wayback machine](http://web.archive.org/web/19970626144925/http://www.acm.org/crossroads/xrds3-2/xpilot.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [earliest copy of the XPilot FAQ](https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rec.games.computer.xpilot/CCsXEiMU2Y8/discussion) I can find is from 1995/04/23.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earliest copy of the XPilot source I can find (not that I've tried much) is from 2001 on sourceforge - too recent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure *someone* has earlier source / documentation lying around…" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="79" RevisionGUID="9a68a7e9-6a2d-40ba-9f64-965209cf78b5" CreationDate="2012-09-20T18:31:58.783" UserId="345" Comment="Number isn't needed in title" Text="[US patent application 2012/0052930][1] is titled  &quot;System and method for the heros journey mythology code of honor video game engine and heros journey code of honor spy games wherein one must fake the enemy's ideology en route to winning&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1. *A system and method for creating video games and virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the specification, **&quot;codes of honor&quot;** are described as &quot;warrior ideals&quot; and seem to be a number of preset value systems or moral attributes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that there are a number of role playing games that allow players to take on characters or avatars having particular attributes, or  allow them to adopt such attributes during the game. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been away from the gaming world for some time and cannot recall which games, especially those that may no longer be in distribution, have features such as these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What prior art addresses computer based games that allow a player to play according to a chosen value system such as the claimed &quot;codes of honor&quot;?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120052930" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="692" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="79" RevisionGUID="9a68a7e9-6a2d-40ba-9f64-965209cf78b5" CreationDate="2012-09-20T18:31:58.783" UserId="345" Comment="Number isn't needed in title" Text="Prior art for video games played according to a selected value system such as the claimed &quot;codes of honor&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="693" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="79" RevisionGUID="9a68a7e9-6a2d-40ba-9f64-965209cf78b5" CreationDate="2012-09-20T18:31:58.783" Comment="Proposed by 345 approved by -1 edit id of 98" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="694" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="79" RevisionGUID="22db33ef-d0c6-43d8-8406-c6bcfa8d23e0" CreationDate="2012-09-20T18:31:58.783" UserId="168" Comment="I was told number is needed on prior art Qs" Text="Prior art for video games played according to a selected value system such as the claimed &quot;codes of honor&quot; in US Pat. App.US 2012/0052930?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="231" RevisionGUID="49db1a00-4a70-4c78-b2f6-ec64d27e4c42" CreationDate="2012-09-20T18:32:20.063" UserId="542" Text="Software to do this has been around for years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just search for 'telematics satellite tracking software maps'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: http://www.cantelematics.com/ (I'm not affiliated).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent was filed in Sept 2011, I worked for a company back in 2008 that used to make this very type of solution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="232" RevisionGUID="a069fcec-de84-4df4-b5c2-d5d54c70ad1a" CreationDate="2012-09-20T18:34:21.963" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="233" RevisionGUID="d061c9f9-f1b7-4acc-b84c-665bcb9eeb9d" CreationDate="2012-09-20T18:34:21.963" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="234" RevisionGUID="c53df748-5a3d-4284-ba70-84883959cdef" CreationDate="2012-09-20T18:36:56.123" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="235" RevisionGUID="a1163a24-f1cf-47c4-b2a9-01eab8956a8f" CreationDate="2012-09-20T18:36:56.123" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="236" RevisionGUID="cc4d0443-5c00-4abe-9251-8c07abe3ecbe" CreationDate="2012-09-20T18:51:44.953" UserId="558" Text="I think that many of the claims there looked like it was describing original Smalltalk implementation at the Palo Alto Research Center (early '70s), or code that would be trivial to have implemented on that system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="237" RevisionGUID="0daf33ef-0080-4fe3-afe0-b33e2a53a6c1" CreationDate="2012-09-20T18:52:10.983" UserId="559" Text="One could argue there is prior art from the server-side &quot;widget&quot; cache of phpNuke" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="238" RevisionGUID="67286148-5fde-4578-803e-df0e29390edf" CreationDate="2012-09-20T18:54:22.120" UserId="475" Text="In trying to answer [this question][1] I was unsure which claims the prior art needed to cover. Can prior art for Claim 1 invalidate the entire patent application since all the other claims are dependent claims? Or does that just mean the patent examiner won't grant Claim 1 but other claims will be granted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/197/prior-art-for-style-and-layout-caching-of-web-content" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="704" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="238" RevisionGUID="67286148-5fde-4578-803e-df0e29390edf" CreationDate="2012-09-20T18:54:22.120" UserId="475" Text="Does prior art need to cover all claims in a patent application in order to invalidate it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="705" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="238" RevisionGUID="67286148-5fde-4578-803e-df0e29390edf" CreationDate="2012-09-20T18:54:22.120" UserId="475" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="239" RevisionGUID="e2b94626-6381-46fb-99e0-cd61854d41b7" CreationDate="2012-09-20T18:54:38.750" UserId="475" Text="Claim 1 doesn't seem novel, everything seems to be described in an article from October 2009 (before the October 2010 filing date of this patent):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;parsing the Web page file to create a document object model (DOM) tree comprising DOM tree nodes;&quot; [http://taligarsiel.com/Projects/howbrowserswork1.htm#DOM][1]&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;constructing a style caching tree comprising structure information of the DOM tree;&quot; [http://taligarsiel.com/Projects/howbrowserswork1.htm#Firefox_rule_tree][2]&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;storing the style caching tree in a memory;&quot; *Where else you gonna put it?!?*&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;constructing a render tree comprising render objects based at least in part on the structure information of the DOM tree;&quot; [http://taligarsiel.com/Projects/howbrowserswork1.htm#Render_tree_construction][3]&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;performing a layout calculation for render objects;&quot; [http://taligarsiel.com/Projects/howbrowserswork1.htm#Layout][4]&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;and storing the layout calculation results in the memory.&quot; *Where else you gonna put it?!?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://taligarsiel.com/Projects/howbrowserswork1.htm#DOM&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://taligarsiel.com/Projects/howbrowserswork1.htm#Firefox_rule_tree&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://taligarsiel.com/Projects/howbrowserswork1.htm#Render_tree_construction&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://taligarsiel.com/Projects/howbrowserswork1.htm#Layout" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="237" RevisionGUID="763fa1b7-f8b5-4b12-ab05-a7ef65f374d0" CreationDate="2012-09-20T18:57:54.067" UserId="559" Comment="Clarification &amp; expansion of response." Text="One could argue there is prior art from the server-side &quot;widget&quot; cache of phpNuke&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The term cache can be ambigous. The browser stores the page in memory (since Netscape 1.0 or earlier ), which is a form of cache.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, modifying DOM nodes without re-rendering the whole page has been done for a long time. Certainly before 2010 that Microsoft are suggesting in the patent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="240" RevisionGUID="7de2ad21-e52b-47a6-88b8-25d24efc873f" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:00:30.263" UserId="564" Text="Is it possible to patent my own logic for determining if pantry items have gone bad in a software system for managing items? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't expect there to be a god-given algorithm for this logic, but if I have my own, can I patent it? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="710" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="240" RevisionGUID="7de2ad21-e52b-47a6-88b8-25d24efc873f" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:00:30.263" UserId="564" Text="Pantry Management" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="711" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="240" RevisionGUID="7de2ad21-e52b-47a6-88b8-25d24efc873f" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:00:30.263" UserId="564" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;process&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="241" RevisionGUID="15b44ff8-ad79-40ab-90cc-5ecd5768a92b" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:03:26.753" UserId="486" Text="Any claims in a patent application not rejected by the patent examiner (i.e. covered by the prior art) would be considered to be allowable.  &#xD;&#xA;Just because a piece of prior art may not cover all the claims does not mean it is &quot;bad&quot; prior art.  This type of prior art could be used in an obvious-type rejection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="242" RevisionGUID="c2c3182d-24d9-4c8d-b0cd-0e57d15de135" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:03:49.340" UserDisplayName="user569" Text="Would something like [Glade](http://glade.gnome.org/) count?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    What is Glade?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Glade is a RAD tool to enable quick &amp; easy development of user interfaces for the GTK+&#xD;&#xA;    toolkit and the GNOME desktop environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The user interfaces designed in Glade are saved as XML, and by using the GtkBuilder GTK+&#xD;&#xA;    object these can be loaded by applications dynamically as needed. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="243" RevisionGUID="33e01015-c089-4a77-9f01-c3645d91038a" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:05:07.260" UserId="567" Text="One reason for having dependent claims in the first place is that they can potentially stand on their own even if the claim that they depend from is deemed invalid. So no, if a particular claim has prior art it doesn't necessarily mean that its dependent claims will also be invalidated. However, depending on the particular prior art they could very well be rejected for obviousness." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="245" RevisionGUID="508601b7-aa74-4ae8-ad8a-3d15ff2fc071" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:08:33.313" UserId="562" Text="A Peltier device is a type of heat pump.  Traditionally, automobiles have used heat exchangers, which are a more passive way to move heat from one place to another (from inside the vehicle to outside), but in situations where the driver/operator wishes to cool the interior air but the outside air is extremely warm, the use of an active heat pump rather than a passive heat exchanger to improve the effectiveness of the system strikes me as an obvious step forward.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specific usage of a Peltier cooler rather than any other type of powered heat pump strikes me as irrelevant; if there are examples of prior art in which any type of heat pump is used, I think those would apply here as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="246" RevisionGUID="7e07f919-dcd8-43ff-b164-4d8b70a01feb" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:08:46.287" UserId="538" Text="It would appear that any [virtual keyboard][1] would qualify under #7,411,582: &quot;Soft input panel system and method.&quot;, and as the wikipedia article shows, even the general idea of [intelligent work surfaces][2] has been around since at least 1993, although if Microsoft's version is an improvement on that, it will not be relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_keyboard&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=EP&amp;NR=546704&amp;KC=&amp;FT=E&amp;locale=en_EP" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="247" RevisionGUID="b88bcbbc-d7bc-441d-8111-366bbeaeb3b0" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:13:06.550" UserId="521" Text="Every now and then I hear and read about 'prior art'? Is that a US specific thing or is a global thing regardless of where you are based in, if and when wanting to apply a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any answers would be appreciated in getting the terminology correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="721" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="247" RevisionGUID="b88bcbbc-d7bc-441d-8111-366bbeaeb3b0" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:13:06.550" UserId="521" Text="What is the definition of prior art in layman's terms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="722" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="247" RevisionGUID="b88bcbbc-d7bc-441d-8111-366bbeaeb3b0" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:13:06.550" UserId="521" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="248" RevisionGUID="84fef0c5-3bb8-40ef-bd42-3bfb141e66b3" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:13:34.333" UserId="526" Text="these types of things would most likely not be patentable under 101. the law and judicial exceptions to 101 are rather complex (and nonsensical at times) but in general, a good rule of thumb is that an &quot;abstract&quot; process isn't patentable. often, in practice the patent office will not issue patents that can be done &quot;solely&quot; in a persons mind. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that being said, you could probably patent a tool for implementing agile practices et al. (e.g., aspects of cucumber, BDD, or what have you). obviously this can get pretty close to the actual human steps and there are a ton of patents related to software development, but most deal with the actual software itself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="7c9b51fd-8799-4a97-9498-0b3b3e1f66c0" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:13:34.553" UserId="578" Text="Many people in the commercial vehicle industry use a &quot;twin&quot; air drying arrangement.&#xD;&#xA;This patent which was granted on Feb 21, 2012 seems ridiculous to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, here is a twin dryer manufactured by the SKF corporation:&#xD;&#xA;http://vsm.skf.com/en-US/HeavyDuty/AirSystem/HCDualTurbo.aspx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link to patent below:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US8118911?dq=US8118911&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=62hbULzbEamujALb04HoCQ&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="725" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="7c9b51fd-8799-4a97-9498-0b3b3e1f66c0" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:13:34.553" UserId="578" Text="Dual Air Drying Arrangement is too general?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="726" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="7c9b51fd-8799-4a97-9498-0b3b3e1f66c0" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:13:34.553" UserId="578" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="250" RevisionGUID="dff78949-77a9-46b7-8a86-a76cb8be64a9" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:17:22.237" UserId="397" Text="A quick google search for warehouse management systems with logic for tracking expiration dates brought back [this system](http://www.asapsystems.com/warehouse_management_systems.php). While it's not a pantry system and is in fact intended for much larger operations, it does track products and locations, includes &quot;Tracking for Expiration Dated Food&quot;, and is mobile. I've never used it so I can't attest to the truth in the advertising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant search terms in this case would be 'warehouse management' or 'asset management' software. I don't have the ability to look up if there's a specific patent on the subject currently." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="227" RevisionGUID="e6e66017-d223-43f6-89ff-ceb2186429cf" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:22:18.477" UserId="288" Comment="fixed capitalization; spelled out an unfamiliar abbreviation" Text="Take a look at [Livestrong][1], which has the five-meals-a-day limitation and percentages of protein/carbohydrates/fats (although not the same). There are also some references listed in that article that may be of use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While not asked, the main issue with this claim (and patent) will be 101 eligibility. It's almost certainly not patentable under this ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.livestrong.com/article/509180-food-ideas-for-5-meals-a-day/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="729" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="227" RevisionGUID="e6e66017-d223-43f6-89ff-ceb2186429cf" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:22:18.477" Comment="Proposed by 288 approved by 526 edit id of 102" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="733" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="221" RevisionGUID="b64b9c40-b4df-490b-9139-cc9380a73c11" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:24:01.273" UserId="345" Comment="Moved number to tag." Text="Prior art for Graphical Instance Instaniation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="734" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="221" RevisionGUID="b64b9c40-b4df-490b-9139-cc9380a73c11" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:24:01.273" UserId="345" Comment="Moved number to tag." Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;java&gt;&lt;us20120227028&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="735" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="221" RevisionGUID="b64b9c40-b4df-490b-9139-cc9380a73c11" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:24:01.273" Comment="Proposed by 345 approved by 1 edit id of 97" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="235" RevisionGUID="ec3317b4-35fc-4897-a11e-4a87b3e2ee7d" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:26:13.017" UserId="451" Comment="added 206 characters in body" Text="Infring{e}ment is when someone makes, uses, or sells a validly patented item without permission from the patent holder, after proper notification. &lt;br/&gt; See also 'infringing' and 'Patent-infringement' tags." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="737" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="235" RevisionGUID="ec3317b4-35fc-4897-a11e-4a87b3e2ee7d" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:26:13.017" Comment="Proposed by 451 approved by -1 edit id of 101" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="235" RevisionGUID="5ca16b1c-ae77-4698-8074-5a77903e6123" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:26:13.017" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 96 characters in body" Text="For questions involving the creation, use, or sale of patented item without permission from the patent holder." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="230" RevisionGUID="a24292f9-c908-491e-8954-b09c67623442" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:27:12.597" UserId="451" Comment="added 206 characters in body" Text="Patent-infringement is When someone makes, uses, or sells a validly patented item without permission from the patent holder, after proper notification. &lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;See also 'infringement' and 'infringing' tags." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="740" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="230" RevisionGUID="a24292f9-c908-491e-8954-b09c67623442" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:27:12.597" Comment="Proposed by 451 approved by -1 edit id of 99" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="230" RevisionGUID="aa6e8464-6f4c-4acb-a1e8-271470393a67" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:27:12.597" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 96 characters in body" Text="For questions involving the creation, use, or sale of patented item without permission from the patent holder." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="764e1c6c-b016-45f1-be71-e5ecfc87e9ab" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:27:25.123" UserId="345" Comment="Conform to http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/345" Text="While browsing freshpatents.com for software patents, I happened upon [Patent Application #20120226507][1], which seeks to patent a system for moving patient beds from one room to another.  The claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A system for the facilitation of bed transitions in health care system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - a vendor network subsystem,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - a bed transitions subsystem and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - a nurse realty subsystem&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A web based application for the facilitation of bed transitions in health care systems comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - a web browser&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - an application generating a webpage&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - an application for generating a bed transition system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, this seems pretty obvious technology.  While I am unable to find a directly analogous software package, there are numerous patient management systems in existence, which manage the patient experience as well as handle doctor/nurse scheduling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of patient/inpatient management systems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - NextGen (http://www.nextgen.com/EHR)&#xD;&#xA; - Epic InPatient Clinicals (http://www.epic.com/software-inpatient.php)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*InPatient Clinicals* seems to be very close to the patent's description.  Does anyone know of a more exact prior art example?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20120226507" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="743" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="764e1c6c-b016-45f1-be71-e5ecfc87e9ab" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:27:25.123" UserId="345" Comment="Conform to http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/345" Text="Prior art for bed management in healthcare" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="744" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="764e1c6c-b016-45f1-be71-e5ecfc87e9ab" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:27:25.123" UserId="345" Comment="Conform to http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/345" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;data-processing-financial&gt;&lt;us20120226507&gt;&lt;healthcare&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="745" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="764e1c6c-b016-45f1-be71-e5ecfc87e9ab" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:27:25.123" Comment="Proposed by 345 approved by 1 edit id of 96" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="233" RevisionGUID="83b4383e-8cd5-4a6d-aef7-45379bc32829" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:27:49.177" UserId="451" Comment="added 204 characters in body" Text="Infringing is When someone makes, uses, or sells a validly patented item without permission from the patent holder, after proper notification. &lt;br/&gt; See also 'infringement' and 'Patent-infringement' tags." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="747" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="233" RevisionGUID="83b4383e-8cd5-4a6d-aef7-45379bc32829" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:27:49.177" Comment="Proposed by 451 approved by -1 edit id of 100" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="233" RevisionGUID="6b2bab9a-68ef-4054-b6be-4c6b358d7c66" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:27:49.177" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 94 characters in body" Text="For questions involving the creation, use, or sale of patented item without permission from the patent holder." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="1c04a5d5-cb82-463c-9f1b-8c70d34b816b" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:28:06.697" UserId="41" Comment="adding tag for patent" Text="Many people in the commercial vehicle industry use a &quot;twin&quot; air drying arrangement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This patent (us8118911)](http://www.google.com/patents/US8118911?dq=US8118911&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=62hbULzbEamujALb04HoCQ&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA), which was granted on Feb 21, 2012, seems ridiculous to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, here is a twin dryer manufactured by the SKF corporation:&#xD;&#xA;http://vsm.skf.com/en-US/HeavyDuty/AirSystem/HCDualTurbo.aspx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="750" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="1c04a5d5-cb82-463c-9f1b-8c70d34b816b" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:28:06.697" UserId="41" Comment="adding tag for patent" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us8118911&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="751" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="1c04a5d5-cb82-463c-9f1b-8c70d34b816b" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:28:06.697" Comment="Proposed by 41 approved by 1 edit id of 104" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="755" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="238" RevisionGUID="0a72e6dc-680c-4bb5-b8f3-24450b5a71f0" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:35:14.297" UserId="1" Comment="Made it less &quot;meta.&quot; Shuffled the question to be more generally applicable to the patent process rather than this site specficially." Text="If there are several Claims in a patent application, can prior art for **one** of them invalidate the *entire* patent application since all the other claims are dependent claims? Or does that just mean the patent examiner won't grant Claim 1 but other claims will be granted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in trying to answer [this prior art question regarding caching of web content][1], I was unsure which claims the prior art needed to cover. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/197/prior-art-for-style-and-layout-caching-of-web-content" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="251" RevisionGUID="62d4f131-1f27-4740-8c70-1b01687b7dbc" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:36:57.450" UserId="594" Text="Sounds like Naked Objects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_objects). Apace Isis is mentioned in the Wikipedia article. I remember running something similar for C++ in the early 90's." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="252" RevisionGUID="5bef7a8d-d07b-4dcc-ab0e-4f36bde50731" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:42:25.353" UserId="605" Text="It looks to me like the open-source [xvkbd][1] was performing precisely this function in 2000 - four years before the Microsoft #7,411,582 was submitted. However, it would only serve as prior art if it was usable on a touch surface? Does a touch-screen based X windows display running some UNIXy operating system count for this? I'm sure someone can show this existed before, and I would not be surprised if the touch-screen display was paired with precisely this sort of keyboard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the xvkbd project's Changelog, you will see version 2.5, which was released October 12, 2002, added a feature they call &quot;Quick Modifier&quot;. In the description of the feature in the main part of the site the author describes this as a feature that &quot;... may be useful especially for machines with touch panels such as PDAs.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/xvkbd/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="758" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="75" RevisionGUID="7137e16e-ed7f-410d-abe6-aeec0b1f1a5e" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:47:57.663" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="759" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="75" RevisionGUID="cce11367-029c-4834-8cb9-223084e2d44a" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:48:26.553" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="253" RevisionGUID="7db00c4f-9b2b-4b3e-98ab-be2b7ea78505" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:52:02.727" UserId="617" Text="Dutch software focused on patient / bed transport, with a web interface:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ortusgroupbv.com/arta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consists of bed management and patient transport management. Seems like an exact match to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="254" RevisionGUID="8db47c5d-b111-47cc-8b3b-fb807b93b79e" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:52:37.317" UserId="608" Text="Following on from #191, I looked at http://www.google.com/patents/US8082501.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;System and method for enabling users to interact in a virtual space&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was granted in Nov 2009 and describes ::&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  plurality of users interact in the three-dimensional, computer-generated graphical space &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  virtual world shows avatars representing the other users &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  updated to reflect the motion of the remote user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which seems a pretty good description of Second Life if nothing else.  Second Life was released in 2003, 6 years earlier than this application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what are the challenges to this being invalidated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It is linked to other patents, which may well be older &#xD;&#xA;2. Second Life is an implementation of the method not a description of it &#xD;&#xA;3. (this is the bit I am most interested in) the prior art that is Second Life is either subtly different, or does not cover the whole of the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If 3. is true, what is it about a claim that is patentable and different - what makes it sufficiently, well, unique?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="762" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="254" RevisionGUID="8db47c5d-b111-47cc-8b3b-fb807b93b79e" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:52:37.317" UserId="608" Text="How specific must prior art be to invalidate a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="763" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="254" RevisionGUID="8db47c5d-b111-47cc-8b3b-fb807b93b79e" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:52:37.317" UserId="608" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="251" RevisionGUID="ccb5ab84-7387-4d9e-87e8-31b2e3a9a426" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:53:06.780" UserId="-1" Comment="Cleaned up a link." Text="Sounds like [Naked Objects][1]. Apace Isis is mentioned in the Wikipedia article. I remember running something similar for C++ in the early 90's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_objects" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="765" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="251" RevisionGUID="ccb5ab84-7387-4d9e-87e8-31b2e3a9a426" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:53:06.780" Comment="Proposed by 109.76.204.21|9f6ea6c3-73e6-40d1-9459-e796e4dd30a7 approved by 594 edit id of 105" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="255" RevisionGUID="ca4fa1a7-1e16-41f5-b1b8-085aec3d79f8" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:54:22.973" UserId="526" Text="Prior art is not limited to the US, and is at the core of all patent prosecution (the steps taken to get a patent) that I am aware of (European, Eastern Asia, and the US). In the simplest terms, &quot;prior art&quot; is simply evidence that something has been done before a person applies for a patent. For example, if I file a patent today, and somebody wrote an article, or had a patent, or sold a product, that did the same exact thing (or something close) *before* I filed my patent, that is prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to look at it is that prior art is the &quot;flip side&quot; of patent infringement.  Take Apple v. Samsung for example. If the Samsung device came out *before* Apple filed for a patent, the Samsung device would be prior art. Since the Samsung device(s) came out *after* Apple received a patent the devices are not prior art and (allegedly) infringe Apple's patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the key question is one of timing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few notes...The exact rules for the timing of prior art is a subject much to detailed for AP. Additionally, under US law, the *type* of prior art (publication, sale of goods, etc) will affect how the art is classified. Additionally, the &quot;filing date&quot; of a patent may not actually be the day the inventor puts the application in the mail, it may be earlier if the inventor claims &quot;priority&quot; to another filing.Here's a [link][1] with some brief descriptions of types of prior art in the US (subject to AIA changes). For more information on US law, try googling for &quot;35 USC 102 prior art&quot; (35 USC 102 is the section of the US Code relating to prior art).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.patents-tms.com/?p=77" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="256" RevisionGUID="c729d0b2-a9e7-4328-b73b-49d037c8f1c1" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:55:14.190" UserId="567" Text="As John Daniel has commented, they reference those very examples of prior art you cite. Even though there is prior art it doesn't invalidate the patent because Apple have substantially improved on it. The novel parts are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A symmetrical connector that can can be coupled in two or more orientations (claims 1-33)&#xD;&#xA;* The magnets within a connector are arranged in opposing polarities for improved coupling strength (claims 34-57)&#xD;&#xA;* The connector is decoupled without being damaged when driven by a non-axial (e.g., perpendicular) force. (claims 46, 51-54)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="257" RevisionGUID="afa1f38a-1660-4481-8c71-4dd985c4f31b" CreationDate="2012-09-20T19:58:35.163" UserId="486" Text="The linking you describe in point 1 is very important.  The patent you cited claims priority to previous patents/applications.  These are all &quot;continuations&quot; which means they have the same specification and cover the same subject matter (as opposed to a &quot;continuation-in-part&quot; or &quot;divisional&quot; which may have different subject matter).  Since they have this priority chain, you would actually have to find prior art from 1995.&#xD;&#xA;This set of cases is also being discussed here: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/201/prior-art-system-and-method-for-enabling-users-to-interact-in-a-virtual-space" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="258" RevisionGUID="99a7a5c3-3c24-4b50-ba1c-268e22181f8b" CreationDate="2012-09-20T20:04:22.910" UserId="451" Text="Try [IP.com](http://ip.com) this is exactly what they do. &lt;br/&gt; U.S. Japanese, Chinese, European &amp; Canadian; &lt;br/&gt; Patents, Applications, and Prior Art; &lt;br/&gt; in one free search. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="259" RevisionGUID="374add3e-8eba-4389-ab46-277ff38c7db9" CreationDate="2012-09-20T20:09:37.983" UserId="609" Text="Without specifics, it's hard to give an absolute answer.  For instance, &quot;A System for Tracking Expiration and Stock of Pantry Items&quot; would likely have quite a bit of prior art (and perhaps a degree of obviousness).  However, if there's something unique about the process that you can describe, it may be patentable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="247" RevisionGUID="cc281a5f-b029-4ef4-91ed-66a11d0d6509" CreationDate="2012-09-20T20:12:43.987" UserId="521" Comment="Reworded the last paragraph of question" Text="Every now and then I hear and read about 'prior art'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that a US specific thing or is a global thing regardless of where you are based in, if and when wanting to apply a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any answers would be appreciated in getting the &lt;s&gt;terminology&lt;/s&gt; nuances of the wording 'prior art' correct, using no jargon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="773" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="255" RevisionGUID="014876f5-800d-4a00-8c92-26e303803166" CreationDate="2012-09-20T20:24:17.783" UserId="526" Comment="noun agreement" Text="Prior art is not limited to the US, and is at the core of all patent prosecution (the steps taken to get a patent) that I am aware of (Europe, Eastern Asia, and the US). In the simplest terms, &quot;prior art&quot; is simply evidence that something has been done before a person applies for a patent. For example, if I file a patent today, and somebody wrote an article, or had a patent, or sold a product, that did the same exact thing (or something close) *before* I filed my patent, that is prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to look at it is that prior art is the &quot;flip side&quot; of patent infringement.  Take Apple v. Samsung for example. If the Samsung device came out *before* Apple filed for a patent, the Samsung device would be prior art. Since the Samsung device(s) came out *after* Apple received a patent the devices are not prior art and (allegedly) infringe Apple's patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the key question is one of timing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few notes...The exact rules for the timing of prior art is a subject much to detailed for AP. Additionally, under US law, the *type* of prior art (publication, sale of goods, etc) will affect how the art is classified. Additionally, the &quot;filing date&quot; of a patent may not actually be the day the inventor puts the application in the mail, it may be earlier if the inventor claims &quot;priority&quot; to another filing.Here's a [link][1] with some brief descriptions of types of prior art in the US (subject to AIA changes). For more information on US law, try googling for &quot;35 USC 102 prior art&quot; (35 USC 102 is the section of the US Code relating to prior art).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.patents-tms.com/?p=77" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="260" RevisionGUID="f583336a-3433-42d3-9629-6a526ab20f4d" CreationDate="2012-09-20T20:28:09.713" UserId="567" Text="Apple has patented ([US7864163](http://www.google.com/patents/US7864163)) the behaviour in Mobile Safari whereby double-tapping zooms in just enough to fit on the screen the particular box of content  that was tapped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A computer-implemented method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* at a portable electronic device with a touch screen display;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* displaying at least a portion of a structured electronic document on the touch screen display, wherein the structured electronic document comprises a plurality of boxes of content;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* detecting a first gesture at a location on the displayed portion of the structured electronic document;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* determining a first box in the plurality of boxes at the location of the first gesture;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* enlarging and translating the structured electronic document so that the first box is substantially centered on the touch screen display;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* while the first box is enlarged, a second gesture is detected on a second box other than the first box; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* in response to detecting the second gesture, the structured electronic document is translated so that the second box is substantially centered on the touch screen display.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is one of the patents that was asserted against Samsung in their recent lawsuit. Unlike the other two patents asserted in the case, this one is not already subject to a reexamination, probably because the &quot;second gesture&quot; part is not a stock Android behaviour and it was likely Google themselves who submitted the other patents for ex parte reexamination. **Nevertheless, is there any prior art for this?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="775" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="260" RevisionGUID="f583336a-3433-42d3-9629-6a526ab20f4d" CreationDate="2012-09-20T20:28:09.713" UserId="567" Text="Prior art for double-tap to zoom in a structured document / web browser" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="776" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="260" RevisionGUID="f583336a-3433-42d3-9629-6a526ab20f4d" CreationDate="2012-09-20T20:28:09.713" UserId="567" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;multitouch&gt;&lt;us7864163&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="777" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="696ff141-a33c-49e4-a7b4-5592c15917ea" CreationDate="2012-09-20T20:43:09.233" UserId="300" Comment="edited title" Text="Prior art on Microsoft patents asserted against Barnes &amp; Noble and Motorola" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="261" RevisionGUID="9b84c869-4fb2-4417-a386-d97e569f7921" CreationDate="2012-09-20T20:45:27.700" UserId="649" Text="I'm a Engineering student in Canada. Me and a couple of my friends developed a simple inductive system for wirelessly charging a mouse battery.  &#xD;&#xA;The mouse pad has a grid of neodymium magnets built in. The mouse itself has a number of coils at the bottom. Current is induced in the coils according to Faraday's law of induction. This current is filtered and regulated before being used to charge a standard AAA battery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't plan to pursue this in a commercial capacity. Basically, we're just looking to add it to our resumes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it worth pursuing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="779" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="261" RevisionGUID="9b84c869-4fb2-4417-a386-d97e569f7921" CreationDate="2012-09-20T20:45:27.700" UserId="649" Text="Can a system for wirelessly charging a mouse battery be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="780" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="261" RevisionGUID="9b84c869-4fb2-4417-a386-d97e569f7921" CreationDate="2012-09-20T20:45:27.700" UserId="649" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="781" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="247" RevisionGUID="ab229905-0661-430e-9b9e-421c91d22864" CreationDate="2012-09-20T20:46:06.610" UserId="521" Comment="Re-editted the title as per comment below" Text="What is the layman's definition of 'prior art' in the US and other countries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="262" RevisionGUID="aea07451-c522-4a39-8c21-4420d0e8b8aa" CreationDate="2012-09-20T20:57:21.170" UserId="486" Text="This may not be the best answer as I don't know the technology that well, but I think this patent publication http://www.google.com/patents/US20090096413 is substantially similar to the invention you described as it has the neodymium magnets in a pad (paragraph [0504]) for charging mobile devices" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="263" RevisionGUID="a72e68fe-965e-4e3c-ae26-198ef12cda18" CreationDate="2012-09-20T20:59:18.360" UserId="654" Text="This seems an obvious development to stuff that opera were doing with their mini browser in 2007.  In their version, you zoom to parts of the screen by tapping them.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/evolving-the-internet-on-your-phone-des/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="264" RevisionGUID="ee312215-9907-486d-b246-b6bd318b18d4" CreationDate="2012-09-20T21:02:30.637" UserId="655" Text="I know &quot;it depends...&quot; But what are some general principles on what is patentable and what isn't?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have various ideas, as do we all, some of them good, as do we all, but I don't want to keep running to a patent attorney to see if something is a defensible patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know I'll always need advice, but I'd at least be able to triage my ideas...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="785" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="264" RevisionGUID="ee312215-9907-486d-b246-b6bd318b18d4" CreationDate="2012-09-20T21:02:30.637" UserId="655" Text="General primer on what's patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="786" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="264" RevisionGUID="ee312215-9907-486d-b246-b6bd318b18d4" CreationDate="2012-09-20T21:02:30.637" UserId="655" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="2d42fa94-a14f-4f3e-994a-874fe66d07e8" CreationDate="2012-09-20T21:17:45.550" UserId="345" Comment="Conform to http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/345" Text="Many people in the commercial vehicle industry use a &quot;twin&quot; air drying arrangement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Patent #us8118911](http://www.google.com/patents/US8118911?dq=US8118911&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=62hbULzbEamujALb04HoCQ&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA), which was granted on Feb 21, 2012, seems ridiculous to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, here is a twin dryer manufactured by the SKF corporation:&#xD;&#xA;http://vsm.skf.com/en-US/HeavyDuty/AirSystem/HCDualTurbo.aspx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="788" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="2d42fa94-a14f-4f3e-994a-874fe66d07e8" CreationDate="2012-09-20T21:17:45.550" UserId="345" Comment="Conform to http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/345" Text="Prior art for Dual Air Drying Arrangement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="265" RevisionGUID="580cebb0-15c5-44fb-ba49-6980bc209ef1" CreationDate="2012-09-20T21:17:45.627" UserId="444" Text="In my brief career as a hotel steward, I found that nearly all expiration dates were governed by labels and/or state and local laws. I'm not sure to what point there could be an algorithm for this. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="790" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="2d42fa94-a14f-4f3e-994a-874fe66d07e8" CreationDate="2012-09-20T21:17:45.550" Comment="Proposed by 345 approved by 6 edit id of 107" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="791" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="221" RevisionGUID="8c255242-2bf1-4333-a011-349cbee47761" CreationDate="2012-09-20T21:17:49.163" UserId="-1" Comment="Fix spelling of &quot;Instantiation&quot; in title." Text="Prior art for Graphical Instance Instantiation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="792" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="221" RevisionGUID="8c255242-2bf1-4333-a011-349cbee47761" CreationDate="2012-09-20T21:17:49.163" Comment="Proposed by 206.80.2.66|133f5793-d37b-4ceb-81d3-3e8bde8e2217 approved by 6 edit id of 108" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="200" RevisionGUID="dedae5e9-9093-4ebf-b695-7e9eea0df5d7" CreationDate="2012-09-20T21:18:21.813" UserId="345" Comment="Conform to http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/345" Text="Having read through the claims of [Magsafe patent #7311526][1], I am not sure how it differs from previous examples of magnetic power connectors. What exactly is the novelty being claimed in that particular patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certain deep fryers have had a magnetic connector for years in Japan and there was a project with Underwriters Laboratory to bring them to the US in the early 2000s:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.dowell.com.hk/breakawaycord_news.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/07/03/deep.fryers/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us7311526" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="794" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="200" RevisionGUID="dedae5e9-9093-4ebf-b695-7e9eea0df5d7" CreationDate="2012-09-20T21:18:21.813" UserId="345" Comment="Conform to http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/345" Text="Prior art for Apple's Magsafe" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="795" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="200" RevisionGUID="dedae5e9-9093-4ebf-b695-7e9eea0df5d7" CreationDate="2012-09-20T21:18:21.813" Comment="Proposed by 345 approved by 6 edit id of 106" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="796" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="261" RevisionGUID="ef3a5d62-8244-4e9e-8400-5750e06566bf" CreationDate="2012-09-20T21:18:33.203" UserId="345" Comment="Added country tag" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;ca&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="797" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="261" RevisionGUID="ef3a5d62-8244-4e9e-8400-5750e06566bf" CreationDate="2012-09-20T21:18:33.203" Comment="Proposed by 345 approved by -1 edit id of 109" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="798" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="261" RevisionGUID="bedf70f6-1563-40d3-981a-62000073cb9c" CreationDate="2012-09-20T21:18:33.203" UserId="6" Comment="Added country tag" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;canada&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="266" RevisionGUID="0df2e4ef-11fd-4b5a-8db6-dbe4d46c3697" CreationDate="2012-09-20T21:23:47.780" UserId="669" Text="This seems to be a little more than a double tap and zoom patent.  This is like double tap and zoom on your tablet and it zooms on your laptop also. But it's interesting that the patent was filed 4 days after that opera article came out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="267" RevisionGUID="53d6696f-b984-4d91-b9ba-ad443c465ad5" CreationDate="2012-09-20T21:24:36.717" UserId="666" Text="The idea in question is for a gardening tool." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="802" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="267" RevisionGUID="53d6696f-b984-4d91-b9ba-ad443c465ad5" CreationDate="2012-09-20T21:24:36.717" UserId="666" Text="How do we check if a patent already exists for our idea" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="803" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="267" RevisionGUID="53d6696f-b984-4d91-b9ba-ad443c465ad5" CreationDate="2012-09-20T21:24:36.717" UserId="666" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="268" RevisionGUID="dfbd4022-0a1f-48dc-85ad-1e35f69ae51f" CreationDate="2012-09-20T21:40:26.483" UserId="526" Text="Most countries provide a search engine for their patent data. Additionally there are third-party search engines for patent data. Most of these will (all the big ones do) search the text of the patents for the supplied terms. Below are some links for the most popular tools. If you are looking for US patents, I would start with Google Patents first to get a sense of what's out there. From there you can get more detailed with the USPTO's site (which has a fairly weighty searching syntax). I don't search for European assets that much, but I generally used Espacenet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Official:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [United States Patent Office][1] &#xD;&#xA; - [Espacenet (Europe)][2]&#xD;&#xA; - [Japan Patent Office][3]&#xD;&#xA; - A few others, just search for &quot;[country] patent office&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unofficial:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Google Patents][4]&#xD;&#xA; - [Google Scholar][5] (combines Google Patents with non-patent literature, e.g., prior art)&#xD;&#xA; - [Patent Lens][6]&#xD;&#xA; - [Fresh Patents][7]&#xD;&#xA; - [Freepatentsonline][8]&#xD;&#xA; - [Boliven][9] (note: Boliven is somewhat limited for free searching. The last time I used it I was capped at a small amount of searches. Their s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unofficial (paid):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Delphion][10]&#xD;&#xA; - [Lexis][11] and [Westlaw][12] (subscription based)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/?locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www4.ipdl.inpit.go.jp/Tokujitu/tjftermena.ipdl?N0000=114&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://scholar.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.patentlens.net/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.freshpatents.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.boliven.com/alt-index&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.delphion.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://lexisnexis.com&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://westlaw.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="805" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="267" RevisionGUID="8ee128b8-b8d7-428e-a893-ea667c824897" CreationDate="2012-09-20T21:40:48.627" UserId="6" Comment="edited title" Text="How do we check if a patent already exists for our idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="269" RevisionGUID="606af157-5e72-4aae-8830-247253c111af" CreationDate="2012-09-20T21:52:13.337" UserId="105" Text="Since you are in the US, I would suggest you start by reading the United States Code, specifically 35 U.S.C. 100-103. You can find the law, as well as the upcoming changes, on the website www.bitlaw.com, or www.uspto.gov.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said the answer will almost always be it depends. Generally you can't patent laws of nature, abstract ideas, physical phenomena, or things that are not useful, or impossible, or even possibly offensive to public morality." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="270" RevisionGUID="425354a1-12e4-4f4e-a206-1f3926429add" CreationDate="2012-09-20T21:53:59.167" UserId="50" Text="I'm not an expert in Canadian law.  However, in the U.S., and keeping in mind Pleplus' answer regarding the 1-year filing window after disclosure of your device, and assuming that your disclosure is sufficient (see my above comment calling that into question):  I think your biggest problem is going to be getting over an obviousness objection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching Google for &quot;wireless mouse charging&quot; and &quot;wireless mouse charger&quot; I get many results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while it's not impossible that you would get a narrow patent after a few rejections, an examiner would almost certainly argue right away that your invention would be obvious to one skilled in the art (i.e., an electrical engineer or the like).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea of wirelessly-charging devices is not new, and technically isn't patent-worthy unless you could demonstrate that some aspect of your invention is new and non-obvious.  You don't say much about your idea of &quot;filtering and regulation&quot; (and I wouldn't!) but that could be the part that does the trick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there are lawyers who will charge you a lot of money to get this through the patent office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Roddy mentioned in the comments, some schools have provisions like this one at MIT which might end up owning your ass:  http://web.mit.edu/policies/13/13.1.html#sub2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be careful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="274" RevisionGUID="941896e2-b7b7-4107-8fd5-e532b103db6e" CreationDate="2012-09-20T22:24:47.647" UserId="713" Text="Just curiosity. Is it worth patenting something before submitting to the W3? If it's a royalty free patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="816" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="274" RevisionGUID="941896e2-b7b7-4107-8fd5-e532b103db6e" CreationDate="2012-09-20T22:24:47.647" UserId="713" Text="Is it worth patenting something before submitting to the W3?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="817" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="274" RevisionGUID="941896e2-b7b7-4107-8fd5-e532b103db6e" CreationDate="2012-09-20T22:24:47.647" UserId="713" Text="&lt;web-browser&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="275" RevisionGUID="cbb25960-30f4-4fa5-b60d-f42652c1acf9" CreationDate="2012-09-20T22:31:31.087" UserId="408" Text="There are a variety of induction chargers on the market already, but it sounds like you may be talking about a fundamentally different design, as the designs I've seen use a current to induce a charge in the mouse (thus they draw power). It sounds like what you're talking about is having natural magnets in the mat and then using the movement of the mouse in and out of the magnetic fields (by a human being) to do the charging. I have never seen such a system and I think that it is different from what Plepleus was describing in his answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming I've understood you correctly, my only concern would be the sensibility of placing powerful rare-earth magnets next to your computer :) Shielding has gotten better, but how good?..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="276" RevisionGUID="d8526edf-d2e2-4a18-8446-36e5dfcba03e" CreationDate="2012-09-20T22:37:13.683" UserId="716" Text="First of all, this is obvious. If each part of the device is going to wear out after a certain number of writes, then clearly you want to make the number of writes to each part of the device equal. In prior art terms, thats the [same thing that's done for gears][3], to maximize the lifespan of the teeth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's very similar to how a [hash table][1] works. In both cases, you have a fixed number of buckets, and you want to distribute your work evenly among buckets, because you get bad results when one of the buckets is too big.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, they're not using a static hash function, because that wouldn't really even out the writes. It sounds like they've cooked up some sort of dynamic classifier, most likely a [markov model][2], and are using that to sort their data into buckets. Then they'll rotate the buckets to level the wear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summary: there's no way this is original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_table&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_model&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2406562" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="277" RevisionGUID="637c7f37-ca99-40ae-a7ec-66b758126174" CreationDate="2012-09-20T22:45:46.227" UserId="702" Text="Is there any way to read the proceedings of a patent prosecution or a re-examination? Public would be great of course, but so far I have not found even a fee-based resource so I wonder if proceedings are confidential. (If so, why?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="821" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="277" RevisionGUID="637c7f37-ca99-40ae-a7ec-66b758126174" CreationDate="2012-09-20T22:45:46.227" UserId="702" Text="Are examination and re-examination proceedings publicly available?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="822" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="277" RevisionGUID="637c7f37-ca99-40ae-a7ec-66b758126174" CreationDate="2012-09-20T22:45:46.227" UserId="702" Text="&lt;prosecution&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="278" RevisionGUID="2d41beaf-376c-4500-bcbe-9acdcaba6096" CreationDate="2012-09-20T23:15:37.010" UserId="526" Text="Prosecution and re-exam proceedings (often referred to as &quot;file wrappers&quot;) are selectively available on [Public Pair][1]. There you can search by patent number (e.g., 1,234,567) or publication number (e.g., 20130143080). If the file is available online you'll be able to view the transaction history (e.g, the titles of documents sent back and forth). If the file is newer you'll be able to view the Image File Wrapper (PDFs of all correspondence except for non-patent prior art cited). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some patent applications can be held in confidence and not open to inspection. See [MPEP §103][2]. The MPEP describes in detail all of the situations where a file wrapper may not be available, but in general, many recent patents/applications are available for free online. Some common situations where you won't be able to view the documents online are if the patent/application is older (usually patent numbers lower than 6,400,000 do not have the full images), the patent is new (is not published yet), or the patent is pending and subject to a secrecy request (not that common, but occurs enough to warrant mention).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this only discusses methods to get file wrappers for free online. You can always travel to the patent office archives, although I've not met anyone who's done that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also some paid services that will get file wrappers that are not available online. I can't speak to the exact cost, but some are rather costly and some are based on the number of pages (which can easily run past 500):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Landon IP][3]&#xD;&#xA; - [Thomson Reuters][4]&#xD;&#xA; - [ReedFax][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s103.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://landon-ip.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.thomsonfilehistories.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.reedfax.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="262" RevisionGUID="4b8f96d2-7ca8-4adf-ba93-10e33d621ef2" CreationDate="2012-09-20T23:30:24.890" UserId="-1" Comment="Corrected understanding of how the proposed invention differs from an externally powered inductive charging pad." Text="As I understand it, your invention would used the fixed magnetic field generated by the magnets to induce a current in the moving mouse.  That strikes me as fundamentally different than this patent publication http://www.google.com/patents/US20090096413, which involves fixed  neodymium magnets in a pad (paragraph [0504]) for charging mobile devices, but only uses the magnets for alligning the receiving coil with the power supply coil.  The device described is a powered charging pad, not a device that generates power only through the motion of the mouse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="827" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="262" RevisionGUID="4b8f96d2-7ca8-4adf-ba93-10e33d621ef2" CreationDate="2012-09-20T23:30:24.890" Comment="Proposed by 208.255.90.221|910df5ec-e273-478b-ab05-228b0e63f86a approved by 1 edit id of 111" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="102" RevisionGUID="23dcf7ee-4d12-452f-9c66-9e9229c2cf7b" CreationDate="2012-09-20T23:30:37.557" UserId="587" Comment="USPTO link was already stale, replaced that link and added link to USC 35.271 at Cornell's LII as an alternative source. And a link to the beta website for USC from the Office of the Law Revision Counsel." Text="The fundamental description of infringement is given in USC 35 section 271(a) as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority **makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells** any patented invention, within the United States, or **imports into the United States any patented invention** during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that infringement is defined as occurring **within the United States**.  For that reason, your latter two circumstances fall outside the scope of infringement for purposes of United States law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the circumstance you posit, and recognizing that the criteria for infringement as stated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US citizens within the territory of the US may well be liable as patent infringers because they **use** the infringing software.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Non-US citizens are just as liable as patent infringers as **users** because US Courts have jurisdiction over anyone present in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this answers the question as posed, but see USC 35 section 271 &quot;Infringement of patent&quot; for more details and nuance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The text of USC 35 section 271 is available online from&#xD;&#xA;the [Legal Information Institute][1]&#xD;&#xA;at &quot;[35 USC § 271 - Infringement of patent][2]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;,&#xD;&#xA;from the [USPTO][3] &#xD;&#xA;in _[Manual of Patent Examining Procedure Eight Edition, Revision 9 (August 2012)][4]_ [MPEP]&#xD;&#xA;at &quot;[35 U.S.C. 271 Infringement of Patent][5]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;and from the [Office of the Law Revision Counsel][6] &#xD;&#xA;in [_United States Code_][7] &#xD;&#xA;at &quot;[35 USC 271: Infringement of patent][8]&quot;. (Note that MPEP is a specific version and in the future will not be the latest. The USC from the Office of the Law Revision Counsel is a beta website, with &quot;beta&quot; in the URL. I expect that link to go stale in the future.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, what you did not ask is whether you are liable as an infringer.  If it is determined that you &quot;sell&quot; your software &quot;within the United States,&quot; you are.  Further, the International Trade Commission has jurisdiction to **prevent importation** of infringing devices (including software devices).  So, while the ITC may not be able to haul you into a courthouse in Washington, D.C., it can issue an injunction that prohibits the importation of your software.  Were that to happen, anyone who defied the injunction by, say, directly downloading your software into the US from a foreign website, would be in much deeper doo-doo than a mere infringer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/detail/manual/MPEP/e8r9/d0e18.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/detail/manual/MPEP/e8r9/d0e18.xml#/manual/MPEP/e8r9/d0e305527.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://uscode.house.gov&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://uscodebeta.house.gov/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://uscodebeta.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-title35-section271&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://uscode.house.gov/beta.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://uscodebeta.house.gov/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="829" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="102" RevisionGUID="23dcf7ee-4d12-452f-9c66-9e9229c2cf7b" CreationDate="2012-09-20T23:30:37.557" Comment="Proposed by 587 approved by 1 edit id of 110" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="279" RevisionGUID="140b02d7-39d6-4116-804d-31a556304955" CreationDate="2012-09-20T23:37:38.030" UserId="740" Text="As a programmer I sometimes limit myself to some types of work because of patents. It is very difficult for me to find information about codes that some way they are patented. This affects me in a negative way when thinking of a solution to a specific problem in the programming department.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in regards to software development, why should code from software not be patented and how does it affect the future of software development in general." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="831" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="279" RevisionGUID="140b02d7-39d6-4116-804d-31a556304955" CreationDate="2012-09-20T23:37:38.030" UserId="740" Text="Why should software coding patents not be allowed and how do they affect future coding" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="832" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="279" RevisionGUID="140b02d7-39d6-4116-804d-31a556304955" CreationDate="2012-09-20T23:37:38.030" UserId="740" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="280" RevisionGUID="fc2cea5a-aa24-42ae-8da5-c868a7310b0d" CreationDate="2012-09-20T23:40:16.563" UserId="735" Text="While looking through old newsgroups I was able to find this possible prior art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------&#xD;&#xA;TwisterGame on Network&#xD;&#xA;by Masaki FUJIHATA, Nobuya Suzuki&#xD;&#xA;Keio University, Faculty of Environmental Information&#xD;&#xA;April-1994&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aim and condition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1:  Experimentation for connecting 2 different places by an electrical&#xD;&#xA;network, using telephone line with modem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2:  A collaboratation in one virtual place where participant will arise&#xD;&#xA;through the network.  They are remotely connected from their own place.&#xD;&#xA;Each participant will share same experience in this virtual place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3:  To examine and construct the rule based framework for sharing an experience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was also a presentation at &quot;Networked Reality 1994&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quote from a PDF of the event:  &quot;Session 3, was titled Networked Reality Systems and featured three presentations...a networked virtual space implementation of the Twister parlor game, by Fujihata and Suzuki of Keio University.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The networked reality implementation of the Twister game consists of having human operators manipulate, via joysticks, tripedal clones of themselves in a virtual space equipped with a virtual Twister mat.  The system was demonstrated on 18 February, 1994 by linking the site of IMAGINA '94 (Monte Carlo, France) with Keio University in Yokohama.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...Twister game presentations had associated demonstration systems available during session breaks.  &quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PDF can be found here: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;ved=0CCYQFjAA&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dtic.mil%2Fdtic%2Ftr%2Ffulltext%2Fu2%2Fa292366.pdf&amp;ei=gqdbUMDXKOa6igK9xIDgBQ&amp;usg=AFQjCNELzbJ4mWWB9j7rquIMoQctyxGbpA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Problem is that this is probably just peer to peer (modem), not enough detail to tell whether a server is involved.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="281" RevisionGUID="9a0ad2fc-728c-45d9-b353-d1a67fc3f02e" CreationDate="2012-09-20T23:41:55.780" UserId="731" Text="I haven't seen that sort of design used to charge a computer mouse before, but I *have* seen the &quot;coil + natural magnet&quot; design used to provide power for other sorts of devices that were being moved or operated by a human (exercise equipment, RFID tags, flashlights, etc).  Wireless mouse charging (by other means) is not new, so it's unlikely that the combination of the two would be considered novel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We don't plan to pursue this in a commercial capacity. Basically,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; we're just looking to add it to our resumes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're just looking for a resume booster, don't waste your time with a patent.  Patents aren't cheap, and you won't be able to put it on your resume for years since it takes a while for an application to make its way through the system.  The work that you did in designing and implementing the charging system is the real resume-worthy material, anyway.  The only difference between saying that you &quot;designed&quot; such a system and &quot;designed and patented&quot; it is that you demonstrate that you're capable of hiring a lawyer to do some paperwork.  If you were planning on selling the technology to another company, then it would be a different story (being able to point to a product currently on the market and say &quot;I invented that&quot; is a *big* resume booster)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="282" RevisionGUID="018c777a-4fd4-4ae1-8fa7-3342b8dc236c" CreationDate="2012-09-21T00:03:21.863" UserId="747" Text="Should I patent my idea before posting it on public internet forums? Could someone who sees my post beat me to it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="837" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="282" RevisionGUID="018c777a-4fd4-4ae1-8fa7-3342b8dc236c" CreationDate="2012-09-21T00:03:21.863" UserId="747" Text="Should I patent my idea before posting it on the internet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="838" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="282" RevisionGUID="018c777a-4fd4-4ae1-8fa7-3342b8dc236c" CreationDate="2012-09-21T00:03:21.863" UserId="747" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="839" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="201" RevisionGUID="2ec06a46-0db6-4189-89dd-692ffca59674" CreationDate="2012-09-21T00:06:26.740" UserId="489" Comment="Tag patent numbers / remove disallowed patent tag / removed less descriptive tag to fit us patent tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us8082501&gt;&lt;us7493558&gt;&lt;us7945856&gt;&lt;us7181690&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="840" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="201" RevisionGUID="2ec06a46-0db6-4189-89dd-692ffca59674" CreationDate="2012-09-21T00:06:26.740" Comment="Proposed by 489 approved by 1 edit id of 112" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="283" RevisionGUID="cdbe6bf8-11f5-43b9-8f2f-c30bc4df768a" CreationDate="2012-09-21T00:08:58.780" UserId="736" Text="Consider this WIPO: [METHODS FOR TREATING SOCIAL DISORDERS](http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2009065112&amp;recNum=1&amp;maxRec=1&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=&amp;queryString=ALL%3A%28US2008083755%29&amp;tab=PCT+Biblio) and its current 3 entries at national levels:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - US: 20110027765 @ ( appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=%22Nader%3B+Amir%3B%22&amp;OS=%22Nader;+Amir;%22&amp;RS=%22Nader;+Amir;%22 ) -&gt; Reviewer has requested some changes in the claims but it's going forward.&#xD;&#xA; - UK: GB2467710 @ ( www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/ApplicationNumber/GB1010044.4 ) -&gt; [Review is highly critical for many reasons, one being found prior art.](http://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB1010044.4/G10138515A708CP1%20-1/GB2467710-20120703-Exam%20report%20%20Standard.pdf)&#xD;&#xA; - Canada: 2706329 @ ( brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/2706329/summary.html ) -&gt; No review yet(?) in Canada.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reviewer from the UK obviously did a much better job than his WIPO and US counterpart. (The WIPO review is horrible and makes absolutely no sens.) The UK reviewer findings are right and the prior art he found is obvious to anyone in the cognitive neuroscience field. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q1. Shouldn't the American and Canadian reviewers consider this UK review and its findings before granting a patent for this application? (They don't know about the prior art)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q2. Based on the UK review findings, could the WIPO application be voided?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q3. If Yes to Q1, how will or could this happen? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q4. Regarding Q1 and Q3, to make this happen, do I need to communicate with the USPTO, CIPO(Canada) and/or WIPO? Where, when and what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not only is this patent not deserved, but this patent application is as if someone tried to patent Cognitive behavioral therapy (the most popular and effective psychological therapy) before its widespread adoption, trying to cash on everyone dispensing and receiving it. Voiding it (for prior art?) will allow us to dispense it for free to thousands of patients. Any help will be greatly appreciated! **THANK YOU**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="842" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="283" RevisionGUID="cdbe6bf8-11f5-43b9-8f2f-c30bc4df768a" CreationDate="2012-09-21T00:08:58.780" UserId="736" Text="Could prior art discovery in one national review of an application affect other national applications or patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="843" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="283" RevisionGUID="cdbe6bf8-11f5-43b9-8f2f-c30bc4df768a" CreationDate="2012-09-21T00:08:58.780" UserId="736" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;wipo&gt;&lt;review&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="284" RevisionGUID="2c64a468-755f-4e3c-970f-65af9ce477ba" CreationDate="2012-09-21T00:13:21.433" UserId="751" Text="I have seen a YouTube video cited as prior art in an Office action, and a claim rejection was based in part on the YouTube video.  So yes, YouTube videos can be prior art.  In the Office action, the Examiner provided a screenshot of the video as well as its URL." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="285" RevisionGUID="1d0e084b-f156-4f05-946e-64d39d1ae533" CreationDate="2012-09-21T00:14:07.687" UserId="731" Text="Getting a patent is an expensive process that takes several years.  If you wait to get a patent first, then it's likely to be old and irrelevant by the time you post it.  If you're planning on patenting an idea, it's best to not disclose anything about it in public.  Aside from the potential of someone stealing your idea, you risk limiting your ability to patent it later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The U.S. is a 'first to file' system, meaning that someone can steal your idea and file an application before you.  There is a thing called a &quot;[provisional patent application][1]&quot; that lets you &quot;lock in&quot; a submission date for an idea and use the term &quot;patent pending&quot;.  If you decide to file a full patent application, the date you submitted the provisional application is used as the submission date for the patent.  This can give you more time to put together a full patent application without worrying about someone jumping in and beating you to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="286" RevisionGUID="b70990c1-939b-437c-80ff-d8bccb34edf9" CreationDate="2012-09-21T00:22:17.567" UserId="752" Text="After reading an answer to [this question](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/282/should-i-patent-my-idea-before-posting-it-on-the-internet), I realized how often I see the term used in marketing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What kind of security level does a pending patent give you? &#xD;&#xA;- Why do so many companies use them? And what level of credibility do they offer? &#xD;&#xA;- If your patent is pending, does that mean it really could just be a flim flam idea but you haven't submitted any proof for it yet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="847" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="286" RevisionGUID="b70990c1-939b-437c-80ff-d8bccb34edf9" CreationDate="2012-09-21T00:22:17.567" UserId="752" Text="What does &quot;patent pending&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="848" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="286" RevisionGUID="b70990c1-939b-437c-80ff-d8bccb34edf9" CreationDate="2012-09-21T00:22:17.567" UserId="752" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="852" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="283" RevisionGUID="c7dbfbd8-cbe0-4192-9a25-385d8fba74a6" CreationDate="2012-09-21T00:29:05.713" UserId="736" Comment="The title was too complicated and unattractive. " Text="Prior Art - A revolutionary (and free) new treatment for anxiety disorder is being robbed for profit. Help us!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="288" RevisionGUID="65292df4-c3a3-4055-b92e-de3c6f49243e" CreationDate="2012-09-21T00:36:53.920" UserId="758" Text="The [Bilski decision][1] is probably the one most relevant to this question. Unfortunately, the answer is that nobody really knows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Bilski decision, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that to qualify as a patentable method (rather than an unpatentable abstract idea), the invention had to involve either a specific machine, or a transformation of matter (e.g., mixing chemicals).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Supreme court upheld the decision (i.e., rejected the patent in question as invalid), but specifically rejected the &quot;machine or transformation&quot; test that the CAFC had created. At the same time, they do fairly directly say that although the machine or transformation test cannot be used as the sole rule, that it is a useful guideline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd take that to mean that *if* the invention does involve a specific machine or a transformation of matter, it almost certainly *is* patentable. Otherwise, it *may* still be patentable, but to do so you're going to have to convince the PTO (and quite possibly courts) that it really is *not* an abstract idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside that's somewhat relevant here, earlier rulings have established that just &quot;computer&quot; probably doesn't qualify as a specific machine, but &quot;digital computer&quot; probably does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [1]: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="289" RevisionGUID="608c18c2-7f47-423b-8532-46875aacabc9" CreationDate="2012-09-21T00:37:31.033" UserId="759" Text="The Epic enterprise suite of applications very likely covers any claim made by this application. Although Inpatient Clinical is a component of that, that application's focus is more on clinical documentation and order entry. The Epic ADT application has a number of modules geared specifically towards bed management and has been in use since the late 90s." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="290" RevisionGUID="3ad20676-e657-41ab-9986-a7899d7c13e6" CreationDate="2012-09-21T00:42:59.473" UserId="762" Text="Patent pending means that a patent has been filed but not issued.  Filing a patent is expensive serious business and not a flim flam. The notice is there to put potential infringers on notice, like a no trespassing sign.  There isn't any real security in it for the maker because if the patent is rejected it means nothing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="861" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="283" RevisionGUID="74fb11b6-8deb-4699-8b77-9de932744d64" CreationDate="2012-09-21T00:53:04.427" UserId="1" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;wipo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="292" RevisionGUID="364b0e8f-65b2-432d-8b92-320b9e600ea1" CreationDate="2012-09-21T00:57:01.440" UserId="764" Text="I've been granted 3 provisional Patents and it cost me an arm and a leg - over $20,000. Unless you have money to burn I offer my personal advice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I post a registered post letter to myself with the idea and get people&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I discuss the idea with to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements. I never open the registered letter I keep them all in my safe. This way if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; someone beats me/you to it and you or your attorney are monitoring&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patent applications, you have evidence to show the Patent Office it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Never put a good idea up on a forum. Thats one way RedGate use to come up with new product's.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="293" RevisionGUID="1be0e083-202e-4e1b-9b07-d9e42be421aa" CreationDate="2012-09-21T01:03:58.907" UserId="764" Text="In addition to DuckPaddles answer regarding `not issued`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many companies only file to be granted Provision Patents and each year when the Patent comes up for review they ask for it to be put at the bottom of the pile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This way companies dont have to pay the hundreds of thousands of dollars until they realise the idea is good enough and wish to create barriers to entry. More commonly is for companies to wait for competition, issue there provisional patent then put an injunction against a competitor.. its a dirty and expensive business." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="294" RevisionGUID="bee81fbd-07ec-419d-8fbf-df8562bd2ca2" CreationDate="2012-09-21T01:04:54.780" UserId="768" Text="Google is turning up difficult results, but this sounds like a standard apparatus for classical Pavlovian conditioning, either in a booth or at home on a computer. I'd ask university behavioral science departments about classical conditioning apparatus for prior art. This kind of thing gets homemade a lot by scientists, I think. There doesn't seem to be a Pavlov Kit around for sale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some links I found that might also be relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19089760&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://psychiatry.duke.edu/divisions/general-psychiatry/virtual-reality-therapy-phobias&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry I don't have more time to answer. The UK's response seems great, since they acknowledged prior art but then claimed a patent on using that prior art to treat anxiety, which isn't patentable according to them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="283" RevisionGUID="638e3d52-56a6-402b-b0ef-cec624c67b5a" CreationDate="2012-09-21T01:05:45.663" UserId="765" Comment="Readability/formatting edits." Text="Consider this WIPO: [METHODS FOR TREATING SOCIAL DISORDERS](http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2009065112&amp;recNum=1&amp;maxRec=1&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=&amp;queryString=ALL%3A%28US2008083755%29&amp;tab=PCT+Biblio) and its current 3 entries at national levels:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - US: 20110027765 @ ( &lt;http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=%22Nader%3B+Amir%3B%22&amp;OS=%22Nader;+Amir;%22&amp;RS=%22Nader;+Amir;%22&gt; ) -&gt; Reviewer has requested some changes in the claims but it's going forward.&#xD;&#xA; - UK: GB2467710 @ ( &lt;http://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/ApplicationNumber/GB1010044.4&gt; ) -&gt; [Review is highly critical for many reasons, one being found prior art.](http://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB1010044.4/G10138515A708CP1%20-1/GB2467710-20120703-Exam%20report%20%20Standard.pdf)&#xD;&#xA; - Canada: 2706329 @ ( &lt;http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/2706329/summary.html&gt; ) -&gt; No review yet(?) in Canada.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reviewer from the UK obviously did a much better job than his WIPO and US counterpart. (The WIPO review is horrible and makes absolutely no sense.) The UK reviewer findings are right and the prior art he found is obvious to anyone in the cognitive neuroscience field. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q1. Shouldn't the American and Canadian reviewers consider this UK review and its findings before granting a patent for this application? (They don't know about the prior art.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q2. Based on the UK review findings, could the WIPO application be voided?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q3. If &quot;yes&quot; to Q1, how could or will this happen? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q4. Regarding Q1 and Q3: to make this happen, do I need to communicate with the USPTO, CIPO(Canada) and/or WIPO? Where, when and what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not only is this patent not deserved, but this patent application is as if someone tried to patent cognitive behavioral therapy (the most popular and effective psychological therapy) before its widespread adoption, trying to cash on everyone dispensing and receiving it. Voiding it (for prior art?) will allow us to dispense it for free to thousands of patients. Any help will be greatly appreciated!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="874" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="283" RevisionGUID="638e3d52-56a6-402b-b0ef-cec624c67b5a" CreationDate="2012-09-21T01:05:45.663" Comment="Proposed by 765 approved by 1 edit id of 113" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="295" RevisionGUID="d9c0dd5d-a2c8-43c0-a03b-8dc45a3260c1" CreationDate="2012-09-21T01:07:50.077" UserId="770" Text="Having a patent on an idea also helps protect you against someone else patenting it later and then trying to use the patent against you.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="296" RevisionGUID="d5902a1b-d911-4d44-a7a1-a586fe225666" CreationDate="2012-09-21T01:12:21.943" UserId="753" Text="The old GEnie network offered [Air Warrior][1], a WWII air combat simulator.  You could also drive jeeps, parachute from a plane, etc. starting in 1986.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Warrior" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="250" RevisionGUID="55fd515a-2824-4db7-8531-2ad9b4c9508c" CreationDate="2012-09-21T01:21:41.663" UserId="397" Comment="+ patents and apps" Text="A quick google search for warehouse management systems with logic for tracking expiration dates brought back [this system](http://www.asapsystems.com/warehouse_management_systems.php). While it's not a pantry system and is in fact intended for much larger operations, it does track products and locations, includes &quot;Tracking for Expiration Dated Food&quot;, and is mobile. I've never used it so I can't attest to the truth in the advertising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant search terms in this case would be 'warehouse management' or 'asset management' software. &lt;s&gt;I don't have the ability to look up if there's a specific patent on the subject currently.&lt;/s&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These patents and applications seem to cover what you're looking for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [2010179881](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=20100179881.PGNR.) - System for Making Product Purchases (application)&#xD;&#xA; - [6,982,740](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PALL&amp;RefSrch=yes&amp;Query=PN/6982640) (2006) - RFID system and method for tracking food freshness (patent)&#xD;&#xA; - [20120101876](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=20120101876.PGNR.) - Method of Managing Household Product Inventory (application)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one consists of web-based software plus an in-house terminal; the second is an RFID system; the third is &quot;virtual&quot; on an &quot;electronic device&quot;. Of them I think the first is the best fit (and kind of cool.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="279" RevisionGUID="2c9191e7-1002-4c56-830f-123677cb8abb" CreationDate="2012-09-21T01:30:42.400" UserId="740" Comment="deleted 63 characters in body; edited title" Text="As the current software patents stand, is there a need for software patents in regards to software development and what benefits do they bring to the software developer in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is founded on the general limitations I feel when trying to create a software that is thought to benefit present and future users but is created with difficulty as to avoid lawyer problems." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="879" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="279" RevisionGUID="2c9191e7-1002-4c56-830f-123677cb8abb" CreationDate="2012-09-21T01:30:42.400" UserId="740" Comment="deleted 63 characters in body; edited title" Text="Benefits of Software Patents for the software developer (freelancer, companies...)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="880" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="279" RevisionGUID="a44950e2-745f-486d-a676-0a13852b860e" CreationDate="2012-09-21T01:41:48.840" UserId="397" Comment="adding question mark to the question, commas, and some grammar fixes" Text="As the current software patents stand, is there a need for software patents in regards to software development, and what benefits do they bring to the software developer in general?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is founded on the general limitations I find when trying to create a software that is thought to benefit present and future users, but is created with difficulty as to avoid legal problems." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="881" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="279" RevisionGUID="a44950e2-745f-486d-a676-0a13852b860e" CreationDate="2012-09-21T01:41:48.840" Comment="Proposed by 397 approved by 1 edit id of 114" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="882" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="79" RevisionGUID="c9c3de11-06fd-4ec9-a0a6-f4b216113c55" CreationDate="2012-09-21T02:06:09.260" UserId="1" Comment="Patent # not needed in title. See http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/1 for discussion." Text="Prior art for video games played according to a selected value system such as the claimed &quot;codes of honor&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="297" RevisionGUID="2c475be0-373d-4811-9ebc-a0eee53b0fdb" CreationDate="2012-09-21T02:36:37.330" UserId="786" Text="You should focus more energy on determining market-worthiness of the idea.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the idea doesn't seem like there is much of a margin for profit, then you could consider posting it since it doesn't matter if someone steals it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively then, you could publish it via a CC license that will limit the terrain of other patentability (due to your public prior art)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="283" RevisionGUID="e15bc79f-386e-4997-8ddc-57c9449b0f5e" CreationDate="2012-09-21T02:37:29.443" UserId="736" Comment="Title and links fixed." Text="Consider this WIPO: [METHODS FOR TREATING SOCIAL DISORDERS](http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2009065112&amp;recNum=1&amp;maxRec=1&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=&amp;queryString=ALL%3A%28US2008083755%29&amp;tab=PCT+Biblio) and its current 3 entries at national levels:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - US: [20110027765](http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=%22Nader%3B+Amir%3B%22&amp;OS=%22Nader;+Amir;%22&amp;RS=%22Nader;+Amir;%22) -&gt; Reviewer has requested some changes in the claims but it's going forward.&#xD;&#xA; - UK: [GB2467710](http://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/ApplicationNumber/GB1010044.4) -&gt; [Review is highly critical for many reasons, one being found prior art.](http://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB1010044.4/G10138515A708CP1%20-1/GB2467710-20120703-Exam%20report%20%20Standard.pdf)&#xD;&#xA; - Canada: [2706329](http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/2706329/summary.html) -&gt; No review yet(?) in Canada.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reviewer from the UK obviously did a much better job than his WIPO and US counterpart. (The WIPO review is horrible and makes absolutely no sense.) The UK reviewer findings are right and the prior art he found is obvious to anyone in the cognitive neuroscience field. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q1. Shouldn't the American and Canadian reviewers consider this UK review and its findings before granting a patent for this application? (They don't know about the prior art.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q2. Based on the UK review findings, could the WIPO application be voided?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q3. If &quot;yes&quot; to Q1, how could or will this happen? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q4. Regarding Q1 and Q3: to make this happen, do I need to communicate with the USPTO, CIPO(Canada) and/or WIPO? Where, when and what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not only is this patent not deserved, but this patent application is as if someone tried to patent cognitive behavioral therapy (the most popular and effective psychological therapy) before its widespread adoption, trying to cash on everyone dispensing and receiving it. Voiding it (for prior art?) will allow us to dispense it for free to thousands of patients. Any help will be greatly appreciated!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="886" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="283" RevisionGUID="e15bc79f-386e-4997-8ddc-57c9449b0f5e" CreationDate="2012-09-21T02:37:29.443" UserId="736" Comment="Title and links fixed." Text="A revolutionary (and free) new treatment for anxiety disorder is being robbed for profit. Help us!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="298" RevisionGUID="1cb87786-b384-4c32-a677-46535872ed2e" CreationDate="2012-09-21T02:54:35.750" UserId="786" Text="I'm interested to find the range of patented art for apparatus / systems that control the shape/structure of fluid motion.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm interested in fluid separations, but *dis*-interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - screens&#xD;&#xA; - media filters&#xD;&#xA; - cooking frac-ers&#xD;&#xA; - evaporation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a moderate interest in &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - zeolite reactions &#xD;&#xA; - electrochemical stimulation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But mostly I'm interested in mass-transfer based on pure fluid dynamics.  Centrifuges are interesting, but no real patentable art is introduced along these lines.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are certain keywords important for exclusion or inclusion, to ensure I head in the right direction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="888" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="298" RevisionGUID="1cb87786-b384-4c32-a677-46535872ed2e" CreationDate="2012-09-21T02:54:35.750" UserId="786" Text="Should certain concepts be avoided/included when searching for fluid dynamics patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="889" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="298" RevisionGUID="1cb87786-b384-4c32-a677-46535872ed2e" CreationDate="2012-09-21T02:54:35.750" UserId="786" Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;water&gt;&lt;purification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="299" RevisionGUID="6bd24610-d9ec-4581-8659-d207fe408af3" CreationDate="2012-09-21T03:05:09.230" UserId="791" Text="I am originally from Canada, and I live in Asia, but, like a lot of software developers, software code I develop on the web is hosted and used within the United States.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like many, I've heard lots of news recently about patent problems, but most of the focus in stories is about patent trolls and frivolous lawsuits in the United States. However, recently I noticed that Apple won their claims against Samsung in the US, but lost their case in Japan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am working on a couple of apps that will hopefully be made available on iPhone, Android, and on the web. And I'm a little nervous that certain aspects of my code might be a target for patent trolls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I have no idea of the extent of US patents, or if those patents are global, or what's going on. If a patent is global, how can a company like Apple defend their patents in one country but not in another? If a developer like me lives outside the US but a service I operate has code existing on servers in the US, can I be sued?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope my question is specific enough, but essentially I'm trying to work out how the (broken, in my opinion) US patent system impacts development in a global world, where code moves in and out of US borders as a matter of course." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="891" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="299" RevisionGUID="6bd24610-d9ec-4581-8659-d207fe408af3" CreationDate="2012-09-21T03:05:09.230" UserId="791" Text="How much does US patent law affect international development?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="892" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="299" RevisionGUID="6bd24610-d9ec-4581-8659-d207fe408af3" CreationDate="2012-09-21T03:05:09.230" UserId="791" Text="&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="300" RevisionGUID="dabad9b1-13f7-4d76-a22e-6f53cc591e9f" CreationDate="2012-09-21T03:07:22.597" UserId="786" Text="Fine Art is heavily dependent upon per-piece uniqueness.  However, sometimes a good style / form comes along that excites people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this fall under the category of a design patent (on a specific rendering / likeness)?  Does this instead come under the level of copyright?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does much value exist, or do Fine Art products rarely see likeness-competition except from **forgeries**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="894" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="300" RevisionGUID="dabad9b1-13f7-4d76-a22e-6f53cc591e9f" CreationDate="2012-09-21T03:07:22.597" UserId="786" Text="How patentable are Fine Art products?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="895" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="300" RevisionGUID="dabad9b1-13f7-4d76-a22e-6f53cc591e9f" CreationDate="2012-09-21T03:07:22.597" UserId="786" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;arts&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="301" RevisionGUID="f69e81ac-efeb-44fb-8f4a-bbfb25993054" CreationDate="2012-09-21T03:20:22.573" UserId="371" Text="The basic answer to your question is that all parties who submit ideas to a W3C specifications development process agree to license those patents to anyone who creates or uses an implementation of the specification. (The full license is [here][1].) This is simplified a bit, and will depend on how you submit the idea, but that is the basic goal of the policy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you will not get much (if any) revenue from patenting an idea that you then submit to W3C. If you do file the patent, you can still use it against people who are not implementing the relevant W3C specification, so depending on the nature of the patent you could perhaps use it against competitors to the specification. But that is highly speculative at that point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your goal is to protect the specification (i.e., you want to support W3C), your best bet is not to file a patent, but rather to provide very good detail on the patentable idea to relevant, public W3C forums as quickly as possible.  Publishing it in this way makes it prior art for future patents as quickly as possible, and would help W3C or supporters of W3C should someone try to later patent the same idea. This is also much cheaper and easier than filing a patent, which is an expensive, multi-year process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This process is known as [defensive publication][2]. There are tips for writing good defensive publications at defensivepublications.org (though that site is down right now - I'll update this with better links when I have a chance.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is not the case for all specifications or standards bodies; they all have different rules about this sort of thing. For example some allow for royalties, or some have compliance rules; i.e., only compliant implementations get licenses, so anyone who embraces/extends the specification might be sued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Requirements&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_publication" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="303" RevisionGUID="9aa38137-599a-4638-ab40-bda54c0ab25f" CreationDate="2012-09-21T04:00:03.297" UserId="807" Text="I would argue that art is often conciously operating with citation. Ultimately the quality of a piece can then be defined by how comprehensible the citation works as an argument in the piece itself. I doubt that a blunt copy of an existing idea would be accepted by any professional or the art market as being itself a piece of art. There wouldnt be any value in it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="304" RevisionGUID="7c22156a-6fab-42e5-a839-baaafebdfc9d" CreationDate="2012-09-21T04:59:49.490" UserId="820" Text="I don't think the right standard here is whether &quot;double tap to zoom&quot; has been done. Rather, it needs to be separated into two parts: have people used double-tap as a user interface input, and have people used zooming as a user interface verb? If you don't separate them, you might imagine an analogous &quot;Ctrl+Q to search&quot; patent. While it's unlikely that anyone has used that particular hotkey for that particular action before, everyone who's putting together a device knows that there's a list of available actions (tap, slide, double tap, etc) and a list of desirable functions (select, pan, zoom, etc); putting them together is a matter of choosing priorities, not innovating. That's all that happened here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="292" RevisionGUID="c36a47e4-132f-452d-a77a-d0957519b880" CreationDate="2012-09-21T05:16:08.297" UserId="764" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="I've been granted 3 provisional Patents and it cost me an arm and a leg - over $20,000 (this was in 1998 and 1999). Unless you have money to burn I offer my personal advice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Using snail mail I post a letter via registered post to myself with the idea and get people&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I discuss the idea with to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements. I never open the registered letter I keep them all in my safe. This way if someone beats me/you to it and you (or your attorney) are monitoring Patent applications, you have evidence to show the Patent Office it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Never put a good idea up on a forum. Thats one way RedGate use to come up with new product's.. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="293" RevisionGUID="bb4731ab-a0ee-472e-bbfe-e6952a2669ea" CreationDate="2012-09-21T05:20:50.673" UserId="764" Comment="added 231 characters in body" Text="In addition to DuckPaddles answer regarding `not issued`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Many companies only file to be granted Provision Patents (PPs) and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; each year when the Patent comes up for review they ask for it to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; put at the bottom of the pile. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This way companies dont have to pay the hundreds of thousands of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dollars until they realise the idea is good enough and wish to create&#xD;&#xA;&gt; barriers to entry. More commonly is for companies to wait for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; competition, issue there provisional patent then put an injunction&#xD;&#xA;&gt; against a competitor.. its a dirty and expensive business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I held 3 PP's and the Australian Patent Office and my Patent Attorney charged me about $3500 to have one of the Provisional Patent delayed. This was in 1999, I was only 20 years old and could only afford to do it once.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="283" RevisionGUID="8e409ba2-7cc9-4f28-988a-08f79bbe1984" CreationDate="2012-09-21T05:25:36.767" UserId="736" Comment="added 167 characters in body; edited title" Text="**EDIT: Still no answer and now I'm afraid: I take it it's a difficult question even for a patent expert? Could any professional confirm this is a hard question?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider this WIPO: [METHODS FOR TREATING SOCIAL DISORDERS](http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2009065112&amp;recNum=1&amp;maxRec=1&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=&amp;queryString=ALL%3A%28US2008083755%29&amp;tab=PCT+Biblio) and its current 3 entries at national levels:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - US: [20110027765](http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=%22Nader%3B+Amir%3B%22&amp;OS=%22Nader;+Amir;%22&amp;RS=%22Nader;+Amir;%22) -&gt; Reviewer has requested some changes in the claims but it's going forward.&#xD;&#xA; - UK: [GB2467710](http://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/ApplicationNumber/GB1010044.4) -&gt; [Review is highly critical for many reasons, one being found prior art.](http://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB1010044.4/G10138515A708CP1%20-1/GB2467710-20120703-Exam%20report%20%20Standard.pdf)&#xD;&#xA; - Canada: [2706329](http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/2706329/summary.html) -&gt; No review yet(?) in Canada.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reviewer from the UK obviously did a much better job than his WIPO and US counterpart. (The WIPO review is horrible and makes absolutely no sense.) The UK reviewer findings are right and the prior art he found is obvious to anyone in the cognitive neuroscience field. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q1. Shouldn't the American and Canadian reviewers consider this UK review and its findings before granting a patent for this application? (They don't know about the prior art.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q2. Based on the UK review findings, could the WIPO application be voided?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q3. If &quot;yes&quot; to Q1, how could or will this happen? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q4. Regarding Q1 and Q3: to make this happen, do I need to communicate with the USPTO, CIPO(Canada) and/or WIPO? Where, when and what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not only is this patent not deserved, but this patent application is as if someone tried to patent cognitive behavioral therapy (the most popular and effective psychological therapy) before its widespread adoption, trying to cash on everyone dispensing and receiving it. Voiding it (for prior art?) will allow us to dispense it for free to thousands of patients. Any help will be greatly appreciated!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="903" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="283" RevisionGUID="8e409ba2-7cc9-4f28-988a-08f79bbe1984" CreationDate="2012-09-21T05:25:36.767" UserId="736" Comment="added 167 characters in body; edited title" Text="Please help. A revolutionary (and free) new treatment for anxiety disorder is being robbed for profit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="292" RevisionGUID="476b1f5d-7221-4d4c-b756-e529600b23fa" CreationDate="2012-09-21T05:26:37.780" UserId="764" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="I've been granted 3 provisional Patents and it cost me an arm and a leg - over $20,000 (this was in 1998 and 1999). Unless you have money to burn I offer my personal advice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Using snail mail I post a letter via registered post to myself with the idea and get people&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I discuss the idea with to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements. I never open the registered letter I keep them all in my safe. This way if someone beats me/you to it and you (or your attorney) are monitoring Patent applications, you have evidence to show the Patent Office it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Never put a good idea up on a forum. Thats one way RedGate use to come up with new product's.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I discuss [Provisional Patents here](http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/293/764)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="305" RevisionGUID="192803d7-1fff-46b3-8702-29ebc71c2a89" CreationDate="2012-09-21T06:14:26.590" UserId="843" Text="The US reviewer for this patent hasn't actually reviewed it yet - all he's done is issue a notice that the formalities are deficient.  Until you see an office action on this one, you have no idea what the examiner is going to do with it.  It's about due for an action, though - average pendency to first action is usually 2-3 years and this one is right around the 2 year marker.  It may be worth figuring out the new procedures for providing the PTO with prior art, if you're really worried the US examiner won't look at the UK results (they may or may not, depends on the examiner)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="306" RevisionGUID="267699f7-7a5a-4579-9394-d3e90cf5f407" CreationDate="2012-09-21T06:16:25.107" UserId="845" Text="Can someone list which patents Apple sued Samsung over? I believe one of them was rounded corners on a mobile device. I could be wrong though, but if I am correct about that one, then any mobile device you can possibly think of is prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="907" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="306" RevisionGUID="267699f7-7a5a-4579-9394-d3e90cf5f407" CreationDate="2012-09-21T06:16:25.107" UserId="845" Text="Apple V Samsung" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="908" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="306" RevisionGUID="267699f7-7a5a-4579-9394-d3e90cf5f407" CreationDate="2012-09-21T06:16:25.107" UserId="845" Text="&lt;apple&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="307" RevisionGUID="e4577d27-856c-4f55-98f7-54ebd1c6b0c9" CreationDate="2012-09-21T06:24:15.533" UserId="764" Text="I couldn't find an exact list, however Google index's US Patents and there are too many to count:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&amp;tbm=pts&amp;hl=en&amp;q=inassignee:%22Apple+Inc.%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="910" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="307" RevisionGUID="835077d8-5c26-46aa-89d6-e93d1bd660be" CreationDate="2012-09-21T06:56:05.713" UserId="764" Comment="added 1679 characters in body" Text="I couldn't find an exact list, however Google index's US Patents and there are too many to count:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&amp;tbm=pts&amp;hl=en&amp;q=inassignee:%22Apple+Inc.%22&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit** This appears to be the guts of the billion dollar suite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - '381 &quot;rubber-banding&quot; patent: Yes for all devices.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  '915 &quot;pinch-to-zoom&quot; patent: Yes for all devices except for Intercept&#xD;&#xA;   and Replenish smartphones.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  '163 &quot;tap-to-zoom&quot; patent: Yes for Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G,&#xD;&#xA;   Fascinate, Ace, Prevail, Galaxy S, Galaxy S 4G, S II AT&amp;T, i9100, S&#xD;&#xA;   II T-Mobile, Galaxy Tab, Tab 10.1, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and&#xD;&#xA;   Replenish. No for Captivate, Continuum, Gem, Indulge, Intercept,&#xD;&#xA;   Nexus S 4G, Transform, and Vibrant.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  D'667 iPhone design patent: Yes for SEC's Fascinate, Galaxy S, Galaxy&#xD;&#xA;   S 4G, Galaxy S II for AT&amp;T, Galaxy S II i9100, Galaxy S II for&#xD;&#xA;   T-Mobile, Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, Showcase, Infuse 4G,&#xD;&#xA;   Mesmerize and Vibrant. No for Ace. Yes for STA's Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy&#xD;&#xA;   S II for T-Mobile, Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, Showcase,&#xD;&#xA;   Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, and Vibrant.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  D'087 iPhone design patent: Yes for SEC's S i9000, Galaxy S 4G, and&#xD;&#xA;   Vibrant.  No for Galaxy S II ATT, S II i9100, Epic 4G Touch,&#xD;&#xA;   Skyrocket and Infuse 4G. Yes for STA's S 4G and Vibrant only.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  D'305 iPhone home screen design patent: Yes for SEC's Captivate,&#xD;&#xA;   Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy S i9000, Galaxy S&#xD;&#xA;   4G, Showcase, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Vibrant. Yes for&#xD;&#xA;   STA's Captivate, Continuum, Chrarge, Epic 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy S 4G,&#xD;&#xA;   Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Vibrant.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  D'889 iPad design patent: No for all devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ref: http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/24/jury_reaches_verdict_in_apple_v_samsung_trial.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="308" RevisionGUID="74b71a7b-4b96-48e5-ae02-c81fb58ff21f" CreationDate="2012-09-21T06:59:50.340" UserId="857" Text="[Here](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500273-37/apple-v-samsung-the-infringing-device-scorecard/) are the Apple patents either claimed or proved to be infringed by Samsung." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="912" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="279" RevisionGUID="67561ee5-c1df-4117-af8f-5223dc9b0a3c" CreationDate="2012-09-21T07:02:41.507" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/249040938897391617" />
  <row Id="913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="307" RevisionGUID="e6b41207-25ba-4ec3-bc72-97cf1f0ffab9" CreationDate="2012-09-21T07:04:01.897" UserId="764" Comment="found best answer" Text="This appears to be the guts of the billion dollar suite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - '381 &quot;rubber-banding&quot; patent: Yes for all devices.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  '915 &quot;pinch-to-zoom&quot; patent: Yes for all devices except for Intercept&#xD;&#xA;   and Replenish smartphones.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  '163 &quot;tap-to-zoom&quot; patent: Yes for Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G,&#xD;&#xA;   Fascinate, Ace, Prevail, Galaxy S, Galaxy S 4G, S II AT&amp;T, i9100, S&#xD;&#xA;   II T-Mobile, Galaxy Tab, Tab 10.1, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and&#xD;&#xA;   Replenish. No for Captivate, Continuum, Gem, Indulge, Intercept,&#xD;&#xA;   Nexus S 4G, Transform, and Vibrant.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  D'667 iPhone design patent: Yes for SEC's Fascinate, Galaxy S, Galaxy&#xD;&#xA;   S 4G, Galaxy S II for AT&amp;T, Galaxy S II i9100, Galaxy S II for&#xD;&#xA;   T-Mobile, Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, Showcase, Infuse 4G,&#xD;&#xA;   Mesmerize and Vibrant. No for Ace. Yes for STA's Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy&#xD;&#xA;   S II for T-Mobile, Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, Showcase,&#xD;&#xA;   Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, and Vibrant.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  D'087 iPhone design patent: Yes for SEC's S i9000, Galaxy S 4G, and&#xD;&#xA;   Vibrant.  No for Galaxy S II ATT, S II i9100, Epic 4G Touch,&#xD;&#xA;   Skyrocket and Infuse 4G. Yes for STA's S 4G and Vibrant only.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  D'305 iPhone home screen design patent: Yes for SEC's Captivate,&#xD;&#xA;   Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy S i9000, Galaxy S&#xD;&#xA;   4G, Showcase, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Vibrant. Yes for&#xD;&#xA;   STA's Captivate, Continuum, Chrarge, Epic 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy S 4G,&#xD;&#xA;   Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Vibrant.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  D'889 iPad design patent: No for all devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ref: http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/24/jury_reaches_verdict_in_apple_v_samsung_trial.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google index's US Patents but I couldn't find one for the rounded corners:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&amp;tbm=pts&amp;hl=en&amp;q=inassignee:%22Apple+Inc.%22&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It would depend on how broadly the Patent is written. The main job&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of a Patent Attorney is to write the application to encompass as much as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; possible. However I highly doubt it could embody 'any rounded corner&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on a phone'. It has to be technology, a manufacturing process, a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; formula &amp; etc - rounded corners would come under a registered design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its D '305 patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jumping to the user interface, the D '305 patent centers on a grid of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rounded square icons against a black background.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="309" RevisionGUID="73a291e5-9670-4832-a176-621ffc5b921b" CreationDate="2012-09-21T07:13:49.883" UserId="857" Text="&#xD;&#xA;    Should I patent my idea before posting it on public internet forums?&#xD;&#xA;If you post it on a public forum, then it becomes prior art for the others. So they can't patent it! You, on the other hand, have only one year to file before it becomes prior art for you as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Could someone who sees my post beat me to it?&#xD;&#xA;Theoretically, `No`. Even if someone tries to *beat you to it*, you can always post the prior art (which you yourself posted) to nullify it [Ref:[America Invents Act of 2011](http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_patentreformact2011.html)]. There's a good probability that the patent agent reviewing an application might miss the prior art you posted and grant the patent but this reform should take care of that discrepancy for the `US`. For other countries, you'll have to do a little research." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="308" RevisionGUID="d3737785-3913-491e-a7e1-fdb20ca03d87" CreationDate="2012-09-21T07:19:09.003" UserId="857" Comment="added 1321 characters in body" Text="[Here](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500273-37/apple-v-samsung-the-infringing-device-scorecard/) are the Apple patents either claimed or proved to be infringed by Samsung.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a list of them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    '381 patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Besides the &quot;rubber band&quot; effect where a page &quot;bounces&quot; when a user scrolls to the bottom, '381 also includes touch-screen actions like dragging documents and multi-touch capabilities like pinch to zoom and twist to rotate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    '915 patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Also a touch-screen patent, '915 relates to a device capable of distinguishing between a single-touch scroll operation and a multi-touch pinch-to-zoom operation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    '163 patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You know how you can double-tap a touch screen to enlarge and center portions of Web page, photo, or document? That's what this patent covers. The jury found that the Intercept did not violate patents '915 or '163.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    D '677 patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Switching to hardware, D '677 relates to the front face of an electronic device, as embodied by the iPhone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    D '087 patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Similar to D '677, the D '087 patent concerns the general outline or &quot;ornamental&quot; design of a phone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    D '305 patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Jumping to the user interface, the D '305 patent centers on a grid of rounded square icons against a black background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    D '889,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For the final patent, which relates to the industrial design of a tablet computer, the jury found that neither Wi-Fi nor the 4G LTE versions of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 infringed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="311" RevisionGUID="1d15969a-3f34-430a-9cf6-f9a55c77ba52" CreationDate="2012-09-21T07:39:09.780" UserId="871" Text="I am looking for some details about a patent application submitted by Terracotta Inc. around Off-Heap (Direct Memory) data stores: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=354892&amp;OS=354892&amp;RS=354892&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Big Data movement, the off-heap memory management solutions for Java platforms are going to become an increasing interest. I am interested in the impact of such a patent in a zone that seems to have an expanding, but not competitive enough market yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More precisely, I would like to know if anyone can shed some light on the following questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. To what extent is this patent consistent with the USTPO's requirements of &quot;non-abstract ideas&quot; and if it's possible for this concept to become a patent. The idea of managing off-heap data stores seems to me way too generic and I believe anyone could admit that the purpose of the JVM's off-heap capabilities are to be used as data stores.&#xD;&#xA;2. Assuming this patent will be issued (is still in an application form), what is the impact on commercial products built on similar technologies and on the customers purchasing these products.&#xD;&#xA;3. What would be the impact/relevance of such a patent be in the open source community. Considering that the idea is based largely on public/free components available in the Java platform, anyone can implement similar capabilities with very little obvious relation to the patent and with their own design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="921" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="311" RevisionGUID="1d15969a-3f34-430a-9cf6-f9a55c77ba52" CreationDate="2012-09-21T07:39:09.780" UserId="871" Text="To what extent is a Java Off-Heap management patent applicable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="922" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="311" RevisionGUID="1d15969a-3f34-430a-9cf6-f9a55c77ba52" CreationDate="2012-09-21T07:39:09.780" UserId="871" Text="&lt;java&gt;&lt;offheap&gt;&lt;directmemory&gt;&lt;bigdata&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="312" RevisionGUID="aab47040-e6fd-420e-8e11-33b529f234c5" CreationDate="2012-09-21T07:40:08.213" UserId="850" Text="As an independent software programmer it is very tricky and time consuming to understand these patents. I would say it is impossible for me. Do software patents have a lifetime? If they do, it would mean, that in a few years we do not have to care about software patents anymore. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="924" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="312" RevisionGUID="aab47040-e6fd-420e-8e11-33b529f234c5" CreationDate="2012-09-21T07:40:08.213" UserId="850" Text="How long are software patents valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="925" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="312" RevisionGUID="aab47040-e6fd-420e-8e11-33b529f234c5" CreationDate="2012-09-21T07:40:08.213" UserId="850" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="311" RevisionGUID="ab5fef7e-a6b1-4e22-9aad-fd43122baacd" CreationDate="2012-09-21T07:52:48.290" UserId="345" Comment="Tidy up the question for SE." Text="I am looking for some details about a [Patent Application #20120222005][1] submitted by Terracotta Inc. around Off-Heap (Direct Memory) data stores. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Big Data movement, the off-heap memory management solutions for Java platforms are going to become an increasing interest. I am interested in the impact of such a patent in a zone that seems to have an expanding, but not competitive enough market yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More precisely, I would like to know if anyone can shed some light on the following questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. To what extent is this patent consistent with the USTPO's requirements of &quot;non-abstract ideas&quot; and if it's possible for this concept to become a patent? The idea of managing off-heap data stores seems to me way too generic and I believe anyone could admit that the purpose of the JVM's off-heap capabilities are to be used as data stores.&#xD;&#xA;2. Assuming this patent will be issued (is still in an application form), what is the impact on commercial products built on similar technologies and on the customers purchasing these products?&#xD;&#xA;3. What would be the impact/relevance of such a patent be in the open source community? Considering that the idea is based largely on public/free components available in the Java platform, anyone can implement similar capabilities with very little obvious relation to the patent and with their own design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=354892&amp;OS=354892&amp;RS=354892" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="928" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="311" RevisionGUID="ab5fef7e-a6b1-4e22-9aad-fd43122baacd" CreationDate="2012-09-21T07:52:48.290" Comment="Proposed by 345 approved by 871 edit id of 116" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="311" RevisionGUID="d02cd94c-22b0-42d1-9b28-3fbb7d97f5de" CreationDate="2012-09-21T07:53:55.247" UserId="871" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="I am looking for some details about a [Patent Application #20120222005][1] submitted by Terracotta Inc. around Off-Heap (Direct Memory) data stores. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Big Data movement, the off-heap memory management solutions for Java platforms are going to become an increasing interest. I would like to find out more about the impact of such a patent in a zone that seems to have an expanding, but not competitive enough market yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More precisely, I would like to know if anyone can shed some light on the following questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. To what extent is this patent consistent with the USTPO's requirements of &quot;non-abstract ideas&quot; and if it's possible for this concept to become a patent? The idea of managing off-heap data stores seems to me way too generic and I believe anyone could admit that the purpose of the JVM's off-heap capabilities are to be used as data stores.&#xD;&#xA;2. Assuming this patent will be issued (is still in an application form), what is the impact on commercial products built on similar technologies and on the customers purchasing these products?&#xD;&#xA;3. What would be the impact/relevance of such a patent be in the open source community? Considering that the idea is based largely on public/free components available in the Java platform, anyone can implement similar capabilities with very little obvious relation to the patent and with their own design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=354892&amp;OS=354892&amp;RS=354892" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="313" RevisionGUID="db3d232d-ceb8-45f7-814f-d8f365b0b9ad" CreationDate="2012-09-21T08:21:04.297" UserId="345" Text="The UK Patent Act 1977 clearly states that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is hereby declared that the following (among other things) are not inventions for the purposes of this Act, that is to say, anything which consists of ... a program for a computer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar wording can be found in the European Patent Convention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, it is known that the USA grants software patents, where many companies claim them as processes or machines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Given a patent would never be granted in the UK, can US entities enforce their software patents here?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### References&#xD;&#xA;1. [United Kingdom on swpat.org][1]&#xD;&#xA;2. [European Patent Convention on swpat.org][2]&#xD;&#xA;3. [Legislation in the USA on swpat.org][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/United_Kingdom&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/European_Patent_Convention&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Legislation_in_the_USA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="931" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="313" RevisionGUID="db3d232d-ceb8-45f7-814f-d8f365b0b9ad" CreationDate="2012-09-21T08:21:04.297" UserId="345" Text="Are US software patents enforceable in the UK?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="932" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="313" RevisionGUID="db3d232d-ceb8-45f7-814f-d8f365b0b9ad" CreationDate="2012-09-21T08:21:04.297" UserId="345" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;uk&gt;&lt;european&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="314" RevisionGUID="1aaa307c-2724-49a2-825c-fbc38f4c1300" CreationDate="2012-09-21T08:27:47.343" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="315" RevisionGUID="5d0e4a83-e77d-40e9-902d-184c2ab4182d" CreationDate="2012-09-21T08:27:47.343" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="316" RevisionGUID="4ae4e5b1-e201-45f1-9cc8-e40e528f47ff" CreationDate="2012-09-21T08:38:07.203" UserId="886" Text="[&quot;Whack Gestures&quot;][1] (PDF) published by Hudson et al. at TEI 2010 seems to already cover this claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; While we were initially motivated by ESM applications, we believe&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other interactions could also benefit from this approach. Perhaps&#xD;&#xA;&gt; most compelling of these is quickly responding to (or silencing) a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ringing cell phone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gestures are performed by firmly striking the device, e.g. with an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; open palm or heel of the hand moved towards the waist – an action we&#xD;&#xA;&gt; refer to simply as a whack.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole paper is about these whack gestures, so it covers also implementation details (like processing of accelerometer data) and more complex gestures. Therefore, at least a few of the patent application's claims should be covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chrisharrison.net/projects/whackgestures/whackgestures.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="317" RevisionGUID="41ceb776-b48e-4404-847c-a6e408aae0a0" CreationDate="2012-09-21T08:39:40.637" UserId="885" Text="Basically patents are territorial grants, that is to say a patent granted in the US is enforceable in the US and cannot be enforced in other countries. To answer your question US entities cannot enforce US software patents or for that matter any US patents in the UK. &#xD;&#xA;I am certain about this, but back-up and constructive criticism is welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="307" RevisionGUID="d6931288-7199-4981-b107-7787d8cd8212" CreationDate="2012-09-21T08:42:24.653" UserId="345" Comment="Add links and general clean up." Text="## List of Patents&#xD;&#xA;This appears to be the guts of the billion dollar suite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ['381][381] &quot;rubber-banding&quot; patent: Yes for all devices.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - ['915][915] &quot;pinch-to-zoom&quot; patent: Yes for all devices except for Intercept&#xD;&#xA;   and Replenish smartphones.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - ['163][163] &quot;tap-to-zoom&quot; patent: Yes for Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G,&#xD;&#xA;   Fascinate, Ace, Prevail, Galaxy S, Galaxy S 4G, S II AT&amp;T, i9100, S&#xD;&#xA;   II T-Mobile, Galaxy Tab, Tab 10.1, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and&#xD;&#xA;   Replenish. No for Captivate, Continuum, Gem, Indulge, Intercept,&#xD;&#xA;   Nexus S 4G, Transform, and Vibrant.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  D'667 iPhone design patent: Yes for SEC's Fascinate, Galaxy S, Galaxy&#xD;&#xA;   S 4G, Galaxy S II for AT&amp;T, Galaxy S II i9100, Galaxy S II for&#xD;&#xA;   T-Mobile, Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, Showcase, Infuse 4G,&#xD;&#xA;   Mesmerize and Vibrant. No for Ace. Yes for STA's Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy&#xD;&#xA;   S II for T-Mobile, Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, Showcase,&#xD;&#xA;   Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, and Vibrant.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  D'087 iPhone design patent: Yes for SEC's S i9000, Galaxy S 4G, and&#xD;&#xA;   Vibrant.  No for Galaxy S II ATT, S II i9100, Epic 4G Touch,&#xD;&#xA;   Skyrocket and Infuse 4G. Yes for STA's S 4G and Vibrant only.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  D'305 iPhone home screen design patent: Yes for SEC's Captivate,&#xD;&#xA;   Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy S i9000, Galaxy S&#xD;&#xA;   4G, Showcase, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Vibrant. Yes for&#xD;&#xA;   STA's Captivate, Continuum, Chrarge, Epic 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy S 4G,&#xD;&#xA;   Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Vibrant.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  D'889 iPad design patent: No for all devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### References&#xD;&#xA;- [Apple Insider: Samsung guilty of patent infringement, Apple awarded nearly $1.05B][R1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google index's US Patents but I couldn't find one for the rounded corners:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&amp;tbm=pts&amp;hl=en&amp;q=inassignee:%22Apple+Inc.%22&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It would depend on how broadly the Patent is written. The main job&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of a Patent Attorney is to write the application to encompass as much as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; possible. However I highly doubt it could embody 'any rounded corner&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on a phone'. It has to be technology, a manufacturing process, a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; formula &amp; etc - rounded corners would come under a registered design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its D '305 patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jumping to the user interface, the D '305 patent centers on a grid of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rounded square icons against a black background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[381]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7469381&#xD;&#xA;[915]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7844915&#xD;&#xA;[163]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7864163&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[R1]: http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/24/jury_reaches_verdict_in_apple_v_samsung_trial.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="939" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="307" RevisionGUID="d6931288-7199-4981-b107-7787d8cd8212" CreationDate="2012-09-21T08:42:24.653" Comment="Proposed by 345 approved by 764 edit id of 118" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="318" RevisionGUID="79661e81-fc6e-43d1-bd9b-dc067f78342c" CreationDate="2012-09-21T08:52:13.380" UserId="895" Text="It can be complicated - you have to look for some clues on the front page of the patent - but generally it's 20 years after the filing date. For more info Google for &quot;patent expiry&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="320" RevisionGUID="68d56279-13e0-4085-bdbc-8146315ea125" CreationDate="2012-09-21T09:08:45.263" UserId="897" Text="From memory, Doom didn't transmit player coordinates.  It transmitted keypresses, and relied on starting up with synchronised random seeds to keep the game in sync between players.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other games that might be interesting: [Spectre VR][1] (1993?) and [NetTrek][2] (1984, I think).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How admissible are closed-source games, anyway?  Does the publication of an application which uses a technique but doesn't publicly describe it at the time actually count?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gigi.nullneuron.net/comp/svr.php&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.fatlion.com/nettrek/index.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="321" RevisionGUID="407f3169-6614-4fd2-9658-8a2eb3fffc61" CreationDate="2012-09-21T09:14:04.587" UserId="885" Text="I will try to answer the third question, actually there an example related to a patent for MapReduce owned by Google and the patent license offered to open source Apache Hadoop project. Here is the link - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/27/google_licenses_mapreduce_patent_to_hadoop/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, I see as a very good sign for good innovation from collaborative synergy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="946" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="321" RevisionGUID="ce6b0952-2021-4666-aeae-92899d12aa91" CreationDate="2012-09-21T09:22:44.810" UserId="885" Comment="corrected grammar" Text="I will try to answer the third question, actually there is an example related to a patent for MapReduce owned by Google and the patent license offered to open source Apache Hadoop project. Here is the link - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/27/google_licenses_mapreduce_patent_to_hadoop/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, I see as a very good sign for good innovation from collaborative synergy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="292" RevisionGUID="a8f37f47-1cb7-4670-8a52-ebf8e831d578" CreationDate="2012-09-21T09:29:04.013" UserId="764" Comment="added questions section to justify answer" Text="I've been granted 3 provisional Patents and it cost me an arm and a leg - over $20,000 (this was in 1998 and 1999). Unless you have money to burn I offer my personal advice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Using snail mail I post a letter via registered post to myself with the idea and get people&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I discuss the idea with to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements. I never open the registered letter I keep them all in my safe. This way if someone beats me/you to it and you (or your attorney) are monitoring Patent applications, you have evidence to show the Patent Office it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Never put a good idea up on a forum. Thats one way RedGate use to come up with new product's.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I discuss [Provisional Patents here](http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/293/764)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Questions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Is there a Registered-Post Patent legal precedent? [Wikikpedia Poor Mans Copyright](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_man's_copyright)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="292" RevisionGUID="6064b126-ec37-433b-9976-3addf375a025" CreationDate="2012-09-21T09:37:35.060" UserId="764" Comment="added questions section to justify answer" Text="I've been granted 3 provisional Patents and it cost me an arm and a leg - over $20,000 (this was in 1998 and 1999). Unless you have money to burn I offer my personal advice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Using snail mail I post a letter via registered post to myself with the idea and get people&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I discuss the idea with to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements. I never open the registered letter I keep them all in my safe. This way if someone beats me/you to it and you (or your attorney) are monitoring Patent applications, you have evidence to show the Patent Office it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Never put a good idea up on a forum. Thats one way RedGate use to come up with new product's.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I discuss [Provisional Patents here](http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/293/764)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Questions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Is there a Registered-Post Patent legal precedent? [Wikikpedia Poor Mans Copyright](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_man's_copyright)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is no provision in US copyright law regarding any such type of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; protection. However if the letter is forensically certified as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unopened and officially dated, stamped with an authentic Registered Barcode you can still object to the Patent being granted on the grounds that the Patent is not new idea. These matters are often settled out of court." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="292" RevisionGUID="1fb8c129-6b27-467e-890a-16a0faa14ad3" CreationDate="2012-09-21T09:44:30.713" UserId="764" Comment="corrected Q &amp; A" Text="I've been granted 3 provisional Patents and it cost me an arm and a leg - over $20,000 (this was in 1998 and 1999). Unless you have money to burn I offer my personal advice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Using snail mail I post a letter via registered post to myself with the idea and get people&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I discuss the idea with to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements. I never open the registered letter I keep them all in my safe. This way if someone beats me/you to it and you (or your attorney) are monitoring Patent applications, you have evidence to show the Patent Office it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Never put a good idea up on a forum. Thats one way RedGate use to come up with new product's.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I discuss [Provisional Patents here](http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/293/764)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Questions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Is there a Registered-Post Patent legal precedent? [Wikikpedia Poor Mans Copyright](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_man's_copyright)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is no provision in US copyright law regarding any such type of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; protection. However if the letter is forensically certified as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unopened and officially dated, stamped with an authentic Registered Barcode you can still object to the Patent being granted (or revoked) on the grounds that the Patent is not a new idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="322" RevisionGUID="6bdf8d12-ace8-463b-834d-ef0fa568b348" CreationDate="2012-09-21T09:49:52.427" UserId="169" Text="The biggest free patent information database is Espacenet like mentioned already. Bu there are  many free databases. Depends what kind of information do you need.&#xD;&#xA;On of the best resources about patent information databases and search tools is Intellogist and their patent coverage map http://intellogist.com/wiki/Patent_Coverage_Map&#xD;&#xA;Select the country and you will see the list of databases. Or you can browse the databases by technology fields http://intellogist.com/wiki/Resource:Resource_Finder&#xD;&#xA;Quite interesting search tool is http://www.priorsmart.com/ which is linked directly to several other databases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="283" RevisionGUID="4e0417e1-831c-467b-bda5-6c9846b72c82" CreationDate="2012-09-21T09:50:25.477" UserId="345" Comment="Cleanup question for SE. It has only been online for 7 hours. Conform to http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/345" Text="Consider this WIPO: [METHODS FOR TREATING SOCIAL DISORDERS](http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2009065112&amp;recNum=1&amp;maxRec=1&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=&amp;queryString=ALL%3A%28US2008083755%29&amp;tab=PCT+Biblio) and its current 3 entries at national levels:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - US: [20110027765](http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=%22Nader%3B+Amir%3B%22&amp;OS=%22Nader;+Amir;%22&amp;RS=%22Nader;+Amir;%22) -&gt; Reviewer has requested some changes in the claims but it's going forward.&#xD;&#xA; - UK: [GB2467710](http://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/ApplicationNumber/GB1010044.4) -&gt; [Review is highly critical for many reasons, one being found prior art.](http://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB1010044.4/G10138515A708CP1%20-1/GB2467710-20120703-Exam%20report%20%20Standard.pdf)&#xD;&#xA; - Canada: [2706329](http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/2706329/summary.html) -&gt; No review yet(?) in Canada.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reviewer from the UK obviously did a much better job than his WIPO and US counterpart. (The WIPO review is horrible and makes absolutely no sense.) The UK reviewer findings are right and the prior art he found is obvious to anyone in the cognitive neuroscience field. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q1. Shouldn't the American and Canadian reviewers consider this UK review and its findings before granting a patent for this application? (They don't know about the prior art.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q2. Based on the UK review findings, could the WIPO application be voided?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q3. If &quot;yes&quot; to Q1, how could or will this happen? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q4. Regarding Q1 and Q3: to make this happen, do I need to communicate with the USPTO, CIPO(Canada) and/or WIPO? Where, when and what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not only is this patent not deserved, but this patent application is as if someone tried to patent cognitive behavioral therapy (the most popular and effective psychological therapy) before its widespread adoption, trying to cash on everyone dispensing and receiving it. Voiding it (for prior art?) will allow us to dispense it for free to thousands of patients. Any help will be greatly appreciated!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="954" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="283" RevisionGUID="4e0417e1-831c-467b-bda5-6c9846b72c82" CreationDate="2012-09-21T09:50:25.477" UserId="345" Comment="Cleanup question for SE. It has only been online for 7 hours. Conform to http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/345" Text="Prior art for new treatment for anxiety disorder" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="955" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="283" RevisionGUID="4e0417e1-831c-467b-bda5-6c9846b72c82" CreationDate="2012-09-21T09:50:25.477" Comment="Proposed by 345 approved by 764 edit id of 117" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="956" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="306" RevisionGUID="a685f036-7f63-4b95-bb1f-4a6d9dfc9ec4" CreationDate="2012-09-21T09:50:33.793" UserId="857" Comment="added a tag" Text="&lt;apple&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="957" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="306" RevisionGUID="a685f036-7f63-4b95-bb1f-4a6d9dfc9ec4" CreationDate="2012-09-21T09:50:33.793" Comment="Proposed by 857 approved by 764 edit id of 115" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="323" RevisionGUID="63c273f6-5a5a-4be9-81b3-dcaa833c06a4" CreationDate="2012-09-21T09:50:49.643" UserDisplayName="user905" Text="&gt; Should I patent my idea before posting it on public internet forums?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. It then becomes prior art itself.  You wouldn't be able to patent it, because it was already publicly known - even though it was you who published it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can file a provisional patent application which will give you year's grace. They cost $125. Then you can post it online - but now the clocks starts ticking, and if you don't file the full application within that year, you won't be able to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: The USA used to give this year's grace automatically (&quot;first-to-invent&quot;), but is [changing to first-to-file](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent#The_USA.27s_change_to_first-to-file) next year (16 March 2013)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="959" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="260" RevisionGUID="dfe889d8-4503-4d27-8f35-e18beb59278a" CreationDate="2012-09-21T09:50:59.143" UserId="886" Comment="added tag &quot;user-interface&quot;" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;multitouch&gt;&lt;us7864163&gt;&lt;user-interface&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="960" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="260" RevisionGUID="dfe889d8-4503-4d27-8f35-e18beb59278a" CreationDate="2012-09-21T09:50:59.143" Comment="Proposed by 886 approved by 764 edit id of 122" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="315" RevisionGUID="f8b18242-e0e9-4655-9925-8815a77dade5" CreationDate="2012-09-21T09:51:45.413" UserId="345" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="Questions specifically relating to the patent systems of the European Union and the European Patent Convention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="962" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="315" RevisionGUID="f8b18242-e0e9-4655-9925-8815a77dade5" CreationDate="2012-09-21T09:51:45.413" Comment="Proposed by 345 approved by 16 edit id of 120" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="963" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="109" RevisionGUID="012f3a4e-57ea-4edd-9c4b-24abcd07f677" CreationDate="2012-09-21T09:51:57.113" UserId="886" Comment="added tag &quot;user-interface&quot; " Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20120231838&gt;&lt;telecommunications&gt;&lt;user-interface&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="964" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="109" RevisionGUID="012f3a4e-57ea-4edd-9c4b-24abcd07f677" CreationDate="2012-09-21T09:51:57.113" Comment="Proposed by 886 approved by 16 edit id of 121" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="314" RevisionGUID="f9520067-5547-434d-b9a4-c40a05802d0a" CreationDate="2012-09-21T09:52:09.077" UserId="345" Comment="added 858 characters in body" Text="#European Patent Convention&#xD;&#xA;From [swpat.org][1],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The European Patent Convention (EPC) is an international agreement signed by most countries of Europe in 1973. The primary organ created by the EPC is the European Patent Office (along with the Europan Patent Organisation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As of August 2010, there are 38 member signatories of the EPC[1]: Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Macedonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### References&#xD;&#xA;1. [European Patent Convention on swpat.org][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/European_Patent_Convention" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="966" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="314" RevisionGUID="f9520067-5547-434d-b9a4-c40a05802d0a" CreationDate="2012-09-21T09:52:09.077" Comment="Proposed by 345 approved by 16 edit id of 119" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="292" RevisionGUID="c71f7af1-c426-4db2-85c6-58f76f82e6c3" CreationDate="2012-09-21T09:55:39.323" UserId="764" Comment="clarified process of objecting" Text="I've been granted 3 provisional Patents and it cost me an arm and a leg - over $20,000 (this was in 1998 and 1999). Unless you have money to burn I offer my personal advice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Using snail mail I post a letter via registered post to myself with the idea and get people&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I discuss the idea with to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements. I never open the registered letter I keep them all in my safe. This way if someone beats me/you to it and you (or your attorney) are monitoring Patent applications, you have evidence to show the Patent Office it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Never put a good idea up on a forum. Thats one way RedGate use to come up with new product's.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I discuss [Provisional Patents here](http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/293/764)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Questions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Is there a Registered-Post Patent legal precedent? [Wikikpedia Poor Mans Copyright](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_man's_copyright)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is no provision in US copyright law regarding any such type of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; protection. However if the letter is forensically certified as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unopened and officially dated, stamped with an authentic Registered Barcode. You can still object to the Patent being granted on the grounds that the Patent is not a new idea.  To object a competing application being granted you have to lodge a complaint within 6 months. * *May differ per country*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="969" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="55" RevisionGUID="f220410c-60cf-4ef5-ab33-c0f3ffc642fc" CreationDate="2012-09-21T10:02:41.750" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/249086238693392384" />
  <row Id="971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="292" RevisionGUID="c2468bdc-56c5-48b6-8ff6-0157a74c7514" CreationDate="2012-09-21T10:13:39.247" UserId="764" Comment="my answer" Text="I've been granted 3 provisional Patents and it cost me an arm and a leg - over $20,000 (this was in 1998 and 1999). Unless you have money to burn I offer my personal advice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Using snail mail I post a letter via registered post to myself with the idea and get people&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I discuss the idea with to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements. I never open the registered letter I keep them all in my safe. This way if someone beats me/you to it and you (or your attorney) are monitoring Patent applications, you have evidence to show the Patent Office it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Never put a good idea up on a forum. Thats one way RedGate use to come up with new product's.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I discuss [Provisional Patents here](http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/293/764)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My answer is you should register post a letter containing the idea to yourself, include pic's, video's, document's diagrams &amp; etc and mail them to yourself. Then get any Venture Captialist to sign a NDA, then get funding to apply for the Patent if its got backing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Questions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Is there a Registered-Post Patent legal precedent? [Wikikpedia Poor Mans Copyright](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_man's_copyright)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is no provision in US copyright law regarding any such type of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; protection. However if the letter is forensically certified as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unopened and officially dated, stamped with an authentic Registered Barcode. You can still object to the Patent being granted on the grounds that the Patent is not a new idea.  To object a competing application being granted you have to lodge a complaint within 6 months. * *May differ per country*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="972" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="308" RevisionGUID="d9accf5d-8b39-45d1-a469-6bc47120be81" CreationDate="2012-09-21T10:20:04.973" UserId="857" Comment="deleted 31 characters in body" Text="[Here](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500273-37/apple-v-samsung-the-infringing-device-scorecard/) are the Apple patents either claimed or proved to be infringed by Samsung.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a list of them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    '381 patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Besides the &quot;rubber band&quot; effect where a page &quot;bounces&quot; when a user scrolls to the bottom, '381 also includes touch-screen actions like dragging documents and multi-touch capabilities like pinch to zoom and twist to rotate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    '915 patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Also a touch-screen patent, '915 relates to a device capable of distinguishing between a single-touch scroll operation and a multi-touch pinch-to-zoom operation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    '163 patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You know how you can double-tap a touch screen to enlarge and center portions of Web page, photo, or document? That's what this patent covers. The jury found that the Intercept did not violate patents '915 or '163.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    D '677 patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Switching to hardware, D '677 relates to the front face of an electronic device, as embodied by the iPhone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    D '087 patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Similar to D '677, the D '087 patent concerns the general outline or &quot;ornamental&quot; design of a phone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    D '305 patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The D '305 patent centers on a grid of rounded square icons against a black background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    D '889,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For the final patent, which relates to the industrial design of a tablet computer, the jury found that neither Wi-Fi nor the 4G LTE versions of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 infringed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="973" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="309" RevisionGUID="644077d5-36d9-489a-a47b-6f9a18d8b285" CreationDate="2012-09-21T10:27:43.980" UserId="857" Comment="added 398 characters in body" Text="    Should I patent my idea before posting it on public internet forums?&#xD;&#xA;If you post it on a public forum, then it becomes prior art for the others. So they can't patent it! You, on the other hand, have only one year to file before it becomes prior art for you as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Could someone who sees my post beat me to it?&#xD;&#xA;Theoretically, `No`. Even if someone tries to *beat you to it*, you can always post the prior art (which you yourself posted) to nullify it [Ref:[America Invents Act of 2011](http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_patentreformact2011.html)]. There's a good probability that the patent agent reviewing an application might miss the prior art you posted and grant the patent but this reform should take care of that discrepancy for the `US`. For other countries, you'll have to do a little research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT-** It seems the US is changing to first-to-file [(active 16 March 2013)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent#The_USA.27s_change_to_first-to-file)  which means that the one year grace period is gone, so that after posting online, it immediately becomes prior art for the poster too. So if you want to patent your idea, you just shouldn't post it before filing it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="326" RevisionGUID="e7dcd9a9-1440-4410-86b6-773e43002d0c" CreationDate="2012-09-21T10:34:08.400" UserId="915" Text="According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent) software patents have a lifespan of around 20 years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="327" RevisionGUID="bf5d4a14-dc66-470c-8a76-71384b82b824" CreationDate="2012-09-21T11:35:09.103" UserId="885" Text="In the US, software patents are same as normal patents. However there is another type of patent called the design patent which is for industrial designs. User Interfaces can be protected by design patents e.g., this one [here][1] is for Facebook's UI.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer the question, in the US - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - patent / software patent: as per, [35 USC § 154(a)(2)][2] is *20 years*, (subject to payment of fees)&#xD;&#xA; - design patent: as per, [35 USC § 173][3] is *14 years* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not very sure about the position in rest of the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/USD653258&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/173" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="213" RevisionGUID="d553b543-ab53-4702-a575-39d997bbf107" CreationDate="2012-09-21T11:50:19.350" UserId="14" Comment="Added comment info to answer" Text="There are apps for old nokia N95, such as the [ShutUp app by Samir][1], that do similar things, like putting the phone into silent mode when triggered by an accelerometer action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.symbian-freak.com/news/008/01/shutup_by_samir_available_for_donors.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="329" RevisionGUID="2cf0023e-06ce-4a7f-bd09-b2cc576af38e" CreationDate="2012-09-21T12:20:40.807" UserId="932" Text="As Duckpaddle has said, the mark &quot;patent pending&quot; means that a patent application has been filed but has not yet issued as a patent.  The mark generally has no legal effect, except for the provisional rights described in the next paragraph below.  In order for the mark to be used properly, however, a patent application must actually have been filed or else a penalty will be assessed according to 35 USC 292.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a patent issues with claims that are substantially similar to the claims present in the patent application publication, the patentee has some rights under [35 USC 154](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303482) to obtain reasonable royalty damages for any infringement occurring prior to the issuance of the patent, provided that the infringer had notice of the patent application publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jeremy Thompson's answer is incorrect, at least under current patent law in the United States.  In the U.S., applicants for patents cannot ask the patent office for their patent application to &quot;be put at the bottom of the pile.&quot;  This type of practice used to happen in the U.S. under what was called [Submarine Patents](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent), but Congress enacted laws in 1995 to put an end to that practice.  A patent applicant must make a bona fide effort to advance prosecution of the patent application, or the application may become abandoned (see MPEP 714.03." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="982" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="264" RevisionGUID="7b10ae38-a0a3-4643-8fd4-e87f6eb095a9" CreationDate="2012-09-21T12:29:44.413" UserId="105" Comment="clarified question title per the OP's clarification in the comments" Text="General primer on what's patentable in the United States?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="331" RevisionGUID="bbb69cb0-6160-4d1b-991e-3bf18b949790" CreationDate="2012-09-21T12:34:27.080" UserId="944" Text="My alarm clock responds to exactly the same stimulus, and I believe this has been an approach for decades." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="269" RevisionGUID="e28e6e04-8a71-48f9-bcd9-e658ff3c4842" CreationDate="2012-09-21T12:40:53.017" UserId="105" Comment="Expanded the answer to cover more generalities" Text="Since you are in the US, I would suggest you start by reading the United States Code, specifically [35 U.S.C. 100-103][1]. You can find the law and some explanations, as well as the upcoming changes, on the website [BitLaw][2], or the website for [The United States Patent and Trademark Office][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said the answer will almost always be it depends. You can't patent laws of nature, abstract ideas, physical phenomena, or things that are not useful, or impossible, or even possibly offensive to public morality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So whatever you are trying to patent must be: useful, novel, not obvious, and not anticipated by the prior art. Each of these criteria have been interpreted by US courts over the years to mean particular things, but knowing that those are the general criteria is a good starting point for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/part-II/chapter-10&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.bitlaw.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="989" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="306" RevisionGUID="231b514c-cecc-467e-8b17-ff4249351b1a" CreationDate="2012-09-21T12:58:38.617" UserId="935" Comment="Added &quot;samsung&quot; tag" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;samsung&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="990" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="306" RevisionGUID="231b514c-cecc-467e-8b17-ff4249351b1a" CreationDate="2012-09-21T12:58:38.617" Comment="Proposed by 935 approved by 15 edit id of 125" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="326" RevisionGUID="cab2dc3b-6335-4ac6-bbd5-eb587ad3c798" CreationDate="2012-09-21T13:00:22.610" UserId="920" Comment="Formatting" Text="According to this article on Wikipedia - [Software Patent](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent) software patents have a lifespan of around 20 years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="992" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="326" RevisionGUID="cab2dc3b-6335-4ac6-bbd5-eb587ad3c798" CreationDate="2012-09-21T13:00:22.610" Comment="Proposed by 920 approved by -1 edit id of 124" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="993" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="326" RevisionGUID="8f97c223-4cb1-4e40-b639-b24eba14ae09" CreationDate="2012-09-21T13:00:22.610" UserId="15" Comment="Formatting" Text="According to this article on [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent), software patents have a lifespan of around 20 years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="334" RevisionGUID="a3b7f75d-7306-49f0-a512-cd516087db32" CreationDate="2012-09-21T13:05:30.950" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="335" RevisionGUID="2dd7c079-04bb-4cc4-8bd5-3bf6d135d23b" CreationDate="2012-09-21T13:05:30.950" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="316" RevisionGUID="22738fae-a488-41ad-bf14-73eb7c0e09f9" CreationDate="2012-09-21T13:46:27.547" UserId="886" Comment="added link to conference website" Text="[&quot;Whack Gestures&quot;][1] (PDF) published by Hudson et al. [at TEI 2010][2] seems to already cover this claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; While we were initially motivated by ESM applications, we believe&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other interactions could also benefit from this approach. Perhaps&#xD;&#xA;&gt; most compelling of these is quickly responding to (or silencing) a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ringing cell phone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gestures are performed by firmly striking the device, e.g. with an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; open palm or heel of the hand moved towards the waist – an action we&#xD;&#xA;&gt; refer to simply as a whack.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole paper is about these whack gestures, so it covers also implementation details (like processing of accelerometer data) and more complex gestures. Therefore, at least a few of the patent application's claims should be covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chrisharrison.net/projects/whackgestures/whackgestures.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://tei-conf.org/10/Program/WhackGesturesInexactAndInattentiveInteractionWithMobileDevices" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="201" RevisionGUID="7770347e-d4ce-4a52-9f1a-3a5f71066abb" CreationDate="2012-09-21T13:50:19.960" UserId="350" Comment="deleted 712 characters in body" Text="As an example back around April a company called World Inc. started suing major video game companies like Blizzard, regarding patents [8,082,501][1], [7,493,558][2], [7,945,856][3] and [7,181,690][4] &quot;System and Method for Enabling Users to Interact in a Virtual Space&quot;.(original filing, November 1995).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Lawsuit Story][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Virtual reality systems to the best of my knowledge were being developed and tested before November 1995(see the guys at [VRML][6] - April 1995, but started work in 1994) not to mention many games, although while primitive also used various aspects of what they are claiming.  See [CitySpace][7] (1993,1994 - SIGGRAPH), various Text Based (MUDS), [Wolfenstein 3D][8](July 1995), [Worlds Away][9](September 1995), [Habitat][10](1986, 1988, 1990, 1994), [Neverwinter Nights][11](1991)&#xD;&#xA;To my eyes their patent claim describes pretty much any 3D multiplayer computer game in which the game is hosted by a central server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8082501?dq=8,082,501&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=TEZbUM_wAuPz0gGSq4HoAw&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7493558?dq=7,493,558&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=rUZbUK_HOuj40gH2mYHYDA&amp;ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7945856?dq=7,945,856&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=zUZbUNqWFqTq0gHIkIDAAQ&amp;ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7181690?dq=7,181,690&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=4EZbUIniC4Hv0gHZlYD4Dg&amp;ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/04/13/worlds-inc-explains-why-its-suing-activision-blizzard-over-world-of-warcraft-and-call-of-duty/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRML&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cityspace&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfenstein_3D&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldsAway&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_%28video_game%29&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neverwinter_Nights_%28MMORPG%29&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netrek&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_%28video_game%29&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lawnmower_Man_%28film%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="337" RevisionGUID="b6923bd5-83fb-4f77-b295-b783064647b1" CreationDate="2012-09-21T13:50:29.723" UserId="980" Text="As far as i'm aware, a *block of code* or a *piece of software* can't be patented, period.  That's strictly copyright territory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be patented is the *process* that the code implements.  And to that end, yes, a program licensed under the GPL may implement a process covered by a patent.  However, the terms of the license mandate that you grant all downstream users a license on the patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="338" RevisionGUID="65becfea-69ac-4769-a8ea-e4678869cb01" CreationDate="2012-09-21T13:51:50.753" UserId="885" Text="*If a patent is global, how can a company like Apple defend their patents in one country but not in another?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, there are no global patents. Apple defends its patents in countries where those patents are granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If a developer like me lives outside the US but a service I operate has code existing on servers in the US, can I be sued?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of copyright if your code (on the US servers) infringes some other code that is protected in the US, then you can be sued. As for software patents, a software patent is not the code as such, it is on how the whole method of computation that goes about on a microprocessor or in other words, the process of  - the algorithm being worked out in the CPU. An example software patent is [this][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*How the US patent system impacts development in a global world, where code moves in and out of US borders as a matter of course.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, it does not impact (I will abstain from speculating on any bureaucratic issues). One important thing about patents is - they are enforceable *only* in the country where they are granted. MNCs obtain patents in individual countries. Having said that, I should also point to the unitary patent system being developed in the EU. More about that [here][2]. In my opinion it will be very interesting to see how this goes about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7650331&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.european-council.europa.eu/home-page/highlights/eu-unitary-patent-%E2%80%93-a-historical-breakthrough?lang=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="335" RevisionGUID="e79e5173-9192-4805-8428-c65a4fc6c2b9" CreationDate="2012-09-21T13:54:04.383" UserId="15" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="The World Intellectual Proprty Organization - responsible for promoting IP protection internationally" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1008" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="335" RevisionGUID="e79e5173-9192-4805-8428-c65a4fc6c2b9" CreationDate="2012-09-21T13:54:04.383" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 1 edit id of 126" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="339" RevisionGUID="8daa455c-feb0-4647-b7e2-20b9e40c86ba" CreationDate="2012-09-21T13:54:05.023" UserId="973" Text="If I am found guilty of a software patent infringement how does the court determine how much damage is done and how much I should pay?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1010" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="339" RevisionGUID="8daa455c-feb0-4647-b7e2-20b9e40c86ba" CreationDate="2012-09-21T13:54:05.023" UserId="973" Text="How are damages calculated if found guilty of infringement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1011" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="339" RevisionGUID="8daa455c-feb0-4647-b7e2-20b9e40c86ba" CreationDate="2012-09-21T13:54:05.023" UserId="973" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="337" RevisionGUID="3b30d49a-7807-4301-9ac4-7ecb26e55fae" CreationDate="2012-09-21T13:59:14.017" UserId="980" Comment="added 267 characters in body" Text="As far as i'm aware, a *block of code* or a *piece of software* can't be patented, period.  That's strictly copyright territory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be patented is the *process* that the code implements.  And to that end, a program licensed under the GPL (at least as of v3) may implement a process covered by a patent.  However, the terms of the license mandate that you grant all downstream users a license on the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for v2 and earlier...there's no such requirement.  That's one of the huge differences between v2 and v3; before that, people just assumed that &quot;free software&quot; *meant* &quot;free software&quot;, and patents were threatening to ruin that.  Hence the change." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="340" RevisionGUID="00a0f245-8c6f-4567-953f-520dff16ebb2" CreationDate="2012-09-21T14:23:08.610" UserId="991" Text="How about prior art in the form of another patent? See: US5899810&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I filed this when my company fielded &quot;Terra: Battle for the Outlands&quot; back in the mid-'90s. We came from the distributed simulation world (BBN SIMNET, circa 1983) where nothing was done on a central computer. That worked great over low-latency high-bandwidth connections, but worked lousy over modems. So we moved the &quot;world state&quot; into a central computer. Our patent covers one way to manage that process, such that users perceive less latency than there really is. It sounds a lot like the system described in these patents, and predates them by about 10 years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="341" RevisionGUID="ffebd044-dc3d-4e13-a41c-826ec0071978" CreationDate="2012-09-21T14:28:39.193" UserId="996" Text="First, the law (35 U.S.C. 284):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Upon finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When the damages are not found by a jury, the court shall assess them. In either event the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed. Increased damages under this paragraph shall not apply to provisional rights under section 154 (d) of this title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The court may receive expert testimony as an aid to the determination of damages or of what royalty would be reasonable under the circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practical terms, &quot;damages adequate to compensate for the infringement&quot; are lost sales; that is, but for the infringement, how much money would the plaintiff have made?  As you can imagine, this can get very bogged down in numbers, but some factors can include: how many sales the infringer had, whether the plaintiff could have produced enough product to capture those sales himself, whether the infringement affected the price the plaintiff could charge for his own product, whether the patented features have a significant effect on the market position of the product, whether other reasons unrelated to infringement limited the commercial success of the plaintiff, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The alternative, a &quot;reasonable royalty,&quot; is also a bit of divination, but it can be based on what I feel are less speculative factors, such as: what are common licensing royalties paid in the industry; how much of the product is based on the patented technology; how well would the product perform without the patented technology?  This is also the more useful damage calculation for non-practicing entities (i.e., &quot;patent trolls&quot;), as their lost profits are, by definition, zero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then the willfulness factor is examined.  That is, if you *knew* or *should have known* that you were infringing a patent, damages can be 3x." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="309" RevisionGUID="65071904-c8ae-4f2e-a723-352acc5eae4b" CreationDate="2012-09-21T14:40:34.287" UserId="857" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="&gt;Should I patent my idea before posting it on public internet forums?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you post it on a public forum, then it becomes prior art for the others. So they can't patent it! You, on the other hand, have only one year to file before it becomes prior art for you as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Could someone who sees my post beat me to it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theoretically, `No`. Even if someone tries to *beat you to it*, you can always post the prior art (which you yourself posted) to nullify it [Ref:[America Invents Act of 2011](http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_patentreformact2011.html)]. There's a good probability that the patent agent reviewing an application might miss the prior art you posted and grant the patent but this reform should take care of that discrepancy for the `US`. For other countries, you'll have to do a little research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT-** It seems the US is changing to first-to-file [(active 16 March 2013)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent#The_USA.27s_change_to_first-to-file)  which means that the one year grace period is gone, so that after posting online, it immediately becomes prior art for the poster too. So if you want to patent your idea, you just shouldn't post it before filing it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="342" RevisionGUID="376ac485-8fdb-49d3-a517-1acf221e7e5e" CreationDate="2012-09-21T14:40:47.363" UserId="885" Text="&gt; Does this fall under the category of a design patent (on a specific rendering / likeness)? Does this instead come under the level of copyright?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It depends, the work can be protected as a design patent or under copyrights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Design patents are for the visual appearance of a product and are intended to be applied for industrial products. More information [here][1]. You can apply for a design patent but the disadvantage is, design patents have a limited term.&#xD;&#xA; - Advantage of copyright protection is, copyright duration in US is [70 years][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the author of the work has to choose which one suits him/her best. Another interesting information I came across, thanks to this question, is that, in the US there is a separate provision for design protection it can be found [here][3]. I am not much educated on this one, so you will have to check it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/171&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/302&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="343" RevisionGUID="78e0bf2a-8a99-49bf-b7a1-1fbc14820d42" CreationDate="2012-09-21T14:43:35.427" UserId="998" Text="The recent $1 billion verdict in Apple v. Samsung offers a contrast to ordinary patent infringement damages.  In that case, a number of Apple's patents were &quot;design patent.&quot; Design patents protection ornamentation (i.e., the interesting shape) of a device rather than technological development that is the province of utility patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By quirk of history, the design patent law allows a patentee to recover a defendant's profits.  This law is codified at 35 U.S.C. 289 reproduced below.  Thus, in that case, the jury looked to see how much the infringer (Samsung) had made in profits on the infringing devices and then awarded that to Apple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of technology (utility) patents, the patentee may be able to prove its own lost profits caused by the infringement. However, in the vast majority of cases courts (would) rule that lost profit calculations are too speculative and thus the patentee must fall back on proving what would have been a &quot;reasonable royalty.&quot;  To calculate a reasonable royalty, the jury is supposed to walk through a &quot;hypothetical negotiation&quot; between the patentee and the infringer and predict, at the time when infringement began, what would have been a reasonable payment at that time for a license?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Damages calculations is extremely inexact.  However, in recent years courts have been pushing parties to provide better evidentiary support to prove their case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 35 U.S.C. 289 Additional remedy for infringement of design patent.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whoever during the term of a patent for a design, without license of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the owner, (1) applies the patented design, or any colorable imitation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thereof, to any article of manufacture for the purpose of sale, or (2)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sells or exposes for sale any article of manufacture to which such&#xD;&#xA;&gt; design or colorable imitation has been applied shall be liable to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; owner to the extent of his total profit, but not less than $250,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; recoverable in any United States district court having jurisdiction of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the parties.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nothing in this section shall prevent, lessen, or impeach any other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; remedy which an owner of an infringed patent has under the provisions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of this title, but he shall not twice recover the profit made from the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="344" RevisionGUID="f348d191-1353-4ecd-bd27-e1b02c3a7894" CreationDate="2012-09-21T14:54:58.080" UserId="857" Text="Some Unofficial (paid) sites for searching patents in addition to the sites already mentioned:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Micropat](http://www.micropat.com/static/index.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Thomson Innovation](http://info.thomsoninnovation.com/)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="345" RevisionGUID="0ded37d3-8678-44d3-8737-f00eecd034dc" CreationDate="2012-09-21T15:04:54.080" UserDisplayName="user1005" Text="I worked for a large software company recently and quit to go work a much better place.  I thought I had a clean break, but apparently the company is filing to patent work I did there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specific patent is basically simple configuration screens on top of a regular expression engine to detect spam.  None of these screens is novel, and I was aware of similar implementations by competitors.  We were playing catch up in the industry.  These screens are just on-off switches and obvious to anyone who knows how to build software UIs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somehow my coworkers, looking to get the $1500 bounty and tally on their performance reviews, got these screens filed as a patent.  And they put my name on it and asked me to sign (I wrote the specs for this feature and prototyped it).  I said no to the patent lawyer, provided links to the existing examples (prior art) that the team was aware of, and the lawyer sent me a nice letter saying they would proceed and treat me as a &quot;non-cooperating inventor.&quot;  And they sent me a $250 check.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't want the money (if it were $10million, maybe, let's be honest).  Moreover, I don't agree with most software patents I read about in the papers, I don't want this patent filed.  What can I do?  Can I tell someone at the patent office about the prior art and the willful disregard of it when filing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1022" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="345" RevisionGUID="0ded37d3-8678-44d3-8737-f00eecd034dc" CreationDate="2012-09-21T15:04:54.080" UserDisplayName="user1005" Text="How to torpedo a bad patent my former large employer is filing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1023" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="345" RevisionGUID="0ded37d3-8678-44d3-8737-f00eecd034dc" CreationDate="2012-09-21T15:04:54.080" UserDisplayName="user1005" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="340" RevisionGUID="16022c5a-4c72-4357-9306-3c7f11dd8fb9" CreationDate="2012-09-21T15:17:17.383" UserId="345" Comment="Add link...." Text="How about prior art in the form of another patent? See: [US5899810][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I filed this when my company fielded &quot;Terra: Battle for the Outlands&quot; back in the mid-'90s. We came from the distributed simulation world (BBN SIMNET, circa 1983) where nothing was done on a central computer. That worked great over low-latency high-bandwidth connections, but worked lousy over modems. So we moved the &quot;world state&quot; into a central computer. Our patent covers one way to manage that process, such that users perceive less latency than there really is. It sounds a lot like the system described in these patents, and predates them by about 10 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5899810" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1026" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="340" RevisionGUID="16022c5a-4c72-4357-9306-3c7f11dd8fb9" CreationDate="2012-09-21T15:17:17.383" Comment="Proposed by 345 approved by 991 edit id of 127" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="201" RevisionGUID="55286606-5fe3-4f92-a5e0-9a936dd0ff43" CreationDate="2012-09-21T15:24:11.210" UserId="350" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="As an example back around April a company called World Inc. started suing major video game companies like Blizzard, regarding patents [8,082,501][1], [7,493,558][2], [7,945,856][3] and [7,181,690][4] &quot;System and Method for Enabling Users to Interact in a Virtual Space&quot;.(original filing, November 1995).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Lawsuit Story][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Virtual reality systems to the best of my knowledge were being developed and tested before November 1995(see the guys at [VRML][6] - April 1995, but started work in 1994) not to mention many games, although while primitive also used various aspects of what they are claiming.  See [CitySpace][7] (1993,1994 - SIGGRAPH), various Text Based (MUDS), [Wolfenstein 3D][8](July 1995), [Worlds Away][9](September 1995), [Habitat][10](1986, 1988, 1990, 1994), [Neverwinter Nights][11](1991)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my eyes their patent claim describes pretty much any 3D multiplayer computer game in which the game is hosted by a central server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8082501?dq=8,082,501&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=TEZbUM_wAuPz0gGSq4HoAw&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7493558?dq=7,493,558&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=rUZbUK_HOuj40gH2mYHYDA&amp;ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7945856?dq=7,945,856&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=zUZbUNqWFqTq0gHIkIDAAQ&amp;ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7181690?dq=7,181,690&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=4EZbUIniC4Hv0gHZlYD4Dg&amp;ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/04/13/worlds-inc-explains-why-its-suing-activision-blizzard-over-world-of-warcraft-and-call-of-duty/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRML&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cityspace&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfenstein_3D&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldsAway&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_%28video_game%29&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neverwinter_Nights_%28MMORPG%29&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netrek&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_%28video_game%29&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lawnmower_Man_%28film%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="347" RevisionGUID="11b1acdc-26b5-40c3-bfa8-86a07c27bab6" CreationDate="2012-09-21T15:35:06.620" UserId="998" Text="**This is a great question**.  First off, patent rights are initially owned by the inventor and are normally only assignable by a written agreement.  In tech companies, developers are normally required to sign such a written agreement when they start their jobs. If that didn't happen, then you still co-own the patent rights.  If you are a co-owner, one thing that you can do is simply announce to the world (perhaps here on this site) that you hereby give a free and open license to use this particular invention.  In patent law, any owner has full rights to give away (or sell) licenses without any recourse to the other parties. You can also cause lots of trouble at the USPTO if you have rights. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most likely you signed away your rights in the initial contract. However, it would be important to see the exact language of the contract.  In particular, did you &quot;promise to assign&quot; your rights or did you &quot;hereby assign all rights.&quot;  The courts have interpreted these two phrases differently, and, with a &quot;promise to assign&quot; they still need to obtain a written assignment of rights from you (or a court order) in order to have legal title. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, most of the time the employment agreements also include a promise that the inventor will assist with the filing and prosecution of the patent.  You will be contractually bound to this even after your employment and challenging the patent will be a violation of that promise.  This may be why you use the term &quot;torpedo&quot; which suggests some amount of subterfuge. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Companies have always had a mechanism for filing patents even when the inventors refused.  Elements of the America Invents Act (AIA) became effective on the 16th of September 2012 make this process even easier.  Thus, the USPTO will not care whether you sign the documents or not.  It is probably worth $1k to the company to get you to sign (rather than just $250) but that is far from $10m. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[More after a while]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="348" RevisionGUID="2637a854-604c-4c3d-af7c-e8937dbdd957" CreationDate="2012-09-21T15:36:40.083" UserId="1016" Text="Yajoe, this is rich.  You have all sorts of options and may already be well on the way, based on what you have provided here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To start, you and your co- inventors and their patent attorneys are all bound by a Duty of Disclosure - basically saying all of you must disclose any information that is &quot;material to patentability.&quot;  As an inventor you are supposed to fulfill this duty by disclosing any such information to the lawyer responsible for the application.  He is then responsible for disclosing it to the Patent Office.  You have already done that, so he should disclose what you have already disclosed to him.  Get onto the Public Pair system and see if they have disclosed it (you might need some help to do this the first time).  If they have, the Examiner should be able to figure it out.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if the lawyer didn't submit it, or you think the patent office will need more help, or really want to rub your employer's nose in it you can submit further information yourself.  You can also explain why the prior art makes the invention obvious.  You could even include a copy of your letter to the lawyer as evidence of their failure to comply with duty of disclosure.  You could either get help from a patent attorney or agent to do this, or keep watching this website, I would think it will eventually have some easy how-to postings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="349" RevisionGUID="81d99c7b-6b6b-43b0-b327-1bc6096384d1" CreationDate="2012-09-21T15:41:13.677" UserId="758" Text="The short answer is no, a US patent cannot be enforced in the UK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a criminal violation, there would be at least some possibility of being extradited to the US and being prosecuted in the US for that criminal violation. Patents, however, fall under civil law, and at least as I understand the situation extradition can't be (or at least isn't) applied for civil cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can imagine that if the infringement in question were valuable enough, and the owner of the patent large enough, it's barely conceivable that they could come up with some sort of criminal case that *might* be enough to support extradition, then after you were in the US, sue you for patent infringement. They'd still have to show, however, that your infringement fell within the jurisdiction of the court in the US. That would mean, for example, that even though you weren't *personally* in the US, your allegedly infringing product was sold in the US.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9" RevisionGUID="24f12b9c-5394-4c32-abfd-16effb4db3b4" CreationDate="2012-09-21T15:46:43.067" UserId="14" Comment="added 5107 characters in body; deleted 4871 characters in body; added 448 characters in body" Text="You want to stop a patent from being granted in error? Finding prior art is just step one. Succinctly describing its significance is step two, and submitting it to the USPTO is step three. While patent examiners can search this site, the best way to ensure they see your discovery is to submit it using the [USPTO electronic filing system](http://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fefs.uspto.gov%2Fefile%2Fportal%2Fefs-unregistered&amp;amp;sa=D&amp;amp;sntz=1&amp;amp;usg=AFQjCNFslPS24hlRRAPWF5O6v21-KeLr3Q).  &#xA;&#xA;If you've proposed useful prior art at Ask Patents, there's a good chance a USPTO patent examiner will find that prior art when he or she examines the application in question.&#xA;&#xA;**However, to be sure that your prior art counts, submit it to the USPTO.**&#xA;&#xA;If you’re going to make a submission, make sure it counts. It’s important to only submit art that seems likely to be relevant. (If you’re not sure, ask a new question about the relevance here on $SiteName.) The goal is to make a meaningful contribution, not spam a patent examiner’s inbox. You can only submit **3 examples of prior art per patent application** before the USPTO charges you a fee. &#xA;&#xA;**Heres how to make a submission directly to the USPTO:**&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10" RevisionGUID="c6fe4872-2348-49b2-9b6b-b5fd7afc70f9" CreationDate="2012-09-21T15:48:28.023" UserId="14" Comment="added 2742 characters in body" Text="&#xA;(This looks long, but we made it step-by-step to ensure that experts and inventors who aren't lawyers or patent experts can actually make a difference.)&#xA;&#xA;1) Sign in as an Unregistered eFiler here: https://efs.uspto.gov/efile/portal/efs-unregistered&#xA;&#xA;2) Select &quot;Existing application/patent&quot;&#xA;&#xA;3) Select &quot;Third-Party Preissuance Submission under 37 CFR 1.290&quot;&#xA;&#xA;4) Enter the Application Number and the Confirmation Number (found at the application's page within the [USPTO's Public PAIR system][1]) and hit &quot;Submit.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;5) Submit prior art: If your prior art is a US patent, submit it at the top section of the form. Sections follow for prior art in the form of patent applications, foreign patents &amp; foreign applications, and non-patent applications. Be sure to include a concise description of relevance for each example of prior art submitted. &#xA;&#xA;Also, at the beginning or end of each description of relevance, include your Ask Patents user name in the format: “Ask Patents: username.” Doing so will make sure you get credit if your prior art is accepted and help us measure the success of Ask Patents.&#xA;&#xA;See below for submission requirements for each type of prior art.&#xA;&#xA;**US Patents:**&#xA;Enter a Patent Number, Concise Description of Relevance, and Kind Code (see here for a list of USPTO Kind Codes: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/ebc/kindcodesum.jsp)&#xA;&#xA;**US Patent Applications**&#xA;Enter a Publication Number, Publication date, Concise Description of Relevance, Kind Code, and First Named Inventor&#xA;&#xA;**Foreign Patents and Foreign Patent Applications**&#xA;Enter a Patent Number, Kind Code (optional -- see Patent Kind Codes by country here: http://www.delphion.com/help/kindcodes); Applicant, Patentee or First Named Inventor; Concise Description of Relevance; Country Code (see Country Codes here: http://www.uspto.gov/patft/help/helpctry.htm); Publication Date; and mark whether or not there is a Translation Attached (Translations must be attached for non-English language foreign patents. Machine translations may be submitted.)&#xA;&#xA;**Non-Patent Publications**&#xA;Enter the Author, Title of the Publication, Pages Submitted, Publication Date (MM/DD/YYY), Publisher, and Place of Submission (enter all that apply); a Concise Description of Relevance; and mark whether there is a Translation Attached or Evidence of Publication Attached. &#xA;&#xA;Note: A URL is not an acceptable form of prior art. Information conveyed on a website can change from moment to moment, making date of publication difficult to determine. If your prior art is web-based, please be sure to attach a screenshot at the “Add Attachments” screen.&#xA;&#xA;6) Request Non-Compliance Notification&#xA;If you'd like to be notified if your prior art submission is non-compliant with third-party preissuance submission requirements, check the box and enter your email address. If you receive a notification of non-compliance, start at the top and resubmit your prior art with all requirements fulfilled.&#xA;&#xA;7) 3 is Free, 4 is More&#xA;You can submit 3 examples of prior art per application for free. If you want to submit more than 3, you must pay $180 for up to 10 examples of prior art per patent application. In the section titled “Statements,” mark whether you are exempt from payment or not. Then confirm your prior art submission by entering your signature (your name bound by forward slashes) and your name, and click &quot;Continue.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;8) Add Attachments&#xA;Upload foreign patents, translations, screenshots of pior art, and other relevant documents at the “Attach Documents” screen. Index your attachments properly by selecting “EProcessing” in the “Category” drop down menu. Select the appropriate description for your attachments in the “Document Description” drop down. Click “Upload &amp; Validate” for every attachment and click “Review” when all documents have been uploaded.&#xA;&#xA;9) Review &amp; File&#xA;Click &quot;File Third Party Submission&quot; to complete your prior art submission.&#xA;&#xA;**That’s it!** You’ve participated in the examination of a patent application. If your submission complies with the USPTO’s rules, you will be able to track the submission throughout prosecution via the [USPTO’s Public PAIR system][2]. If your prior art is used to alter the claims of an application or reject it outright, you will know at the conclusion of the examination process when a patent for the invention is either granted or denied.&#xA;&#xA;See [here][3] (pdf) for more comprehensive rules about third-party preissuance submissions.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/url?q=http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair&amp;sa=D&amp;sntz=1&amp;usg=AFQjCNGrBgrU_Bcb3a-D8UNn0oUGScL4PQ&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/url?q=http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair&amp;sa=D&amp;sntz=1&amp;usg=AFQjCNGrBgrU_Bcb3a-D8UNn0oUGScL4PQ&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/QSG_Third_Party_Preissuance.pdf&amp;sa=D&amp;sntz=1&amp;usg=AFQjCNH3YXZDpwQFPMaIncGsjGURTIcmdw" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1042" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="58" RevisionGUID="f8f8d93f-a76a-45ff-866a-a0dd670352bf" CreationDate="2012-09-21T16:02:41.533" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/249176834485407745" />
  <row Id="1056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="307" RevisionGUID="bfcce588-6150-490f-897c-45782ff65ec9" CreationDate="2012-09-21T16:06:31.610" UserId="906" Comment="Corrected some patent references" Text="## List of Patents&#xD;&#xA;This appears to be the guts of the billion dollar suite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Patent Application #US20080168404](http://www.google.com/patents/US7469381) &quot;rubber-banding&quot; patent: Yes for all devices.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - [Patent Application #US20080168384](http://www.google.com/patents/US7844915) &#xD;&#xA; &quot;pinch-to-zoom&quot; patent: Yes for all devices except for Intercept&#xD;&#xA;   and Replenish smartphones.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Patent Application #US20080094368](http://www.google.com/patents/US7864163) &quot;tap-to-zoom&quot; patent: Yes for Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G,&#xD;&#xA;   Fascinate, Ace, Prevail, Galaxy S, Galaxy S 4G, S II AT&amp;T, i9100, S&#xD;&#xA;   II T-Mobile, Galaxy Tab, Tab 10.1, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and&#xD;&#xA;   Replenish. No for Captivate, Continuum, Gem, Indulge, Intercept,&#xD;&#xA;   Nexus S 4G, Transform, and Vibrant.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  D'667 iPhone design patent: Yes for SEC's Fascinate, Galaxy S, Galaxy&#xD;&#xA;   S 4G, Galaxy S II for AT&amp;T, Galaxy S II i9100, Galaxy S II for&#xD;&#xA;   T-Mobile, Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, Showcase, Infuse 4G,&#xD;&#xA;   Mesmerize and Vibrant. No for Ace. Yes for STA's Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy&#xD;&#xA;   S II for T-Mobile, Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, Showcase,&#xD;&#xA;   Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, and Vibrant.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  D'087 iPhone design patent: Yes for SEC's S i9000, Galaxy S 4G, and&#xD;&#xA;   Vibrant.  No for Galaxy S II ATT, S II i9100, Epic 4G Touch,&#xD;&#xA;   Skyrocket and Infuse 4G. Yes for STA's S 4G and Vibrant only.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  D'305 iPhone home screen design patent: Yes for SEC's Captivate,&#xD;&#xA;   Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy S i9000, Galaxy S&#xD;&#xA;   4G, Showcase, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Vibrant. Yes for&#xD;&#xA;   STA's Captivate, Continuum, Chrarge, Epic 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy S 4G,&#xD;&#xA;   Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Vibrant.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  D'889 iPad design patent: No for all devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### References&#xD;&#xA;- [Apple Insider: Samsung guilty of patent infringement, Apple awarded nearly $1.05B][R1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google index's US Patents but I couldn't find one for the rounded corners:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&amp;tbm=pts&amp;hl=en&amp;q=inassignee:%22Apple+Inc.%22&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It would depend on how broadly the Patent is written. The main job&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of a Patent Attorney is to write the application to encompass as much as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; possible. However I highly doubt it could embody 'any rounded corner&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on a phone'. It has to be technology, a manufacturing process, a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; formula &amp; etc - rounded corners would come under a registered design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its D '305 patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jumping to the user interface, the D '305 patent centers on a grid of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rounded square icons against a black background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[381]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7469381&#xD;&#xA;[915]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7844915&#xD;&#xA;[163]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7864163&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[R1]: http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/24/jury_reaches_verdict_in_apple_v_samsung_trial.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1057" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="307" RevisionGUID="bfcce588-6150-490f-897c-45782ff65ec9" CreationDate="2012-09-21T16:06:31.610" Comment="Proposed by 906 approved by 1 edit id of 128" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1059" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="351" RevisionGUID="6ee02cc4-8517-4302-a144-1eb29d0df696" CreationDate="2012-09-21T16:28:54.073" UserId="998" Text="One problem with our patent system is that it is actually somewhat difficult to figure out whether a patent is still in force.  There are a few steps that get usually you to the answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If it is a design patent, then the patent remains in force for 14-years from the patent issue date. Case closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following steps apply to Utility Patents in the US.  The same rules apply to all utility patents regardless of whether the subject is a software patent or something else. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the patent application was filed on or after June 8, 1995, the starting patent term is 20 years. This accounts for the vast majority of patents in force today.  The 20 year term is calculated based upon the priority filing date, not counting provisional application or the original filing in a foreign country.  Patents that issued before the 1995 changeover have a term of 17 years from the patent issuance date.  Patents that were filed before the 1995 date but issued afterwards get the longer of the two terms.&#xD;&#xA; - Most patents issued in the past decade have an added term adjustment (PTA) due to delays in examination at the USPTO.  This adjustment can be found on the face of the patent in terms of the number of days that should be added to the patent term. &#xD;&#xA; - To stay in force for the entire 20 year term, utility patent owners must pay three maintenance fees.  If one of those fees is not paid then the patent will be seen as expired and no longer enforceable.  *Most patentees do not pay all three fees - thus most patents expire before completion of the 20 year term.*  &#xD;&#xA; - When a patent owner has a family of related patents, the USPTO often requires that the patentee file a &quot;terminal disclaimer&quot; that (partially) ensures that the patents all expire at the same time.  These terminal disclaimers sometimes impact the patent term, but they can only be found by digging through the file history. &#xD;&#xA; - There are a few other ways to extend the effective patent term, but most of these are related to pharmaceutical and other medical related patents rather than software. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you follow these steps then you'll get to the right answer in the vast majority of cases. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="352" RevisionGUID="093c6b32-5e81-4b81-ad79-273a9753488a" CreationDate="2012-09-21T17:12:26.047" UserId="932" Text="The main body of the patent does not appear to actually define the term &quot;commodity.&quot;  However, the claims of the patent appear to give examples of a &quot;commodity,&quot; such that these examples can be used to understand, i.e., define, what a &quot;commodity&quot; is in the context of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the &quot;commodity&quot; is defined in the claims as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 6: &quot;commodity&quot; = telephone extension equipment  &#xD;&#xA;Claim 8: &quot;commodity&quot; = facsimile equipment  &#xD;&#xA;Claim 11: &quot;commodity&quot; = consumer television equipment  &#xD;&#xA;Claim 27: &quot;commodity&quot; = configured to store voice or sound information  &#xD;&#xA;Claim 28: &quot;commodity&quot; = configured to digitize voice or sound information  &#xD;&#xA;Claim 50: &quot;commodity&quot; = a demonstration unit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="353" RevisionGUID="25ab476d-8041-4643-b7f1-d8a9bbb1e06c" CreationDate="2012-09-21T18:12:31.157" UserId="526" Text="Patently-o provides a good [summary][1] of the steps in order to determine what a term means. Starting with the plain meaning, commodity simply means &quot;goods&quot; or an &quot;article of commerce.&quot; (see e.g., [Merriam-Webster][2] supporting this plain meaning). One can argue that the analysis should stop there, however the claims and specification (while never actually using the term commodity) add context around this term. Specifically, a &quot;commodity&quot; in claim 1 requires a user interface, a memory, and a communication element. Thus, it's clear that this just isn't any type of &quot;good&quot; but a narrower type of good. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly, commodity could be construed (narrowly) as a tangible good (plain meaning) having a user interface, memory, and communication element. The other independent claims all recite, more or less, these aspects. Note: memory may be too much given that claim 60 does not require memory, but that may be splitting hairs given the minor importance in the ned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, the specification provides grounds for a broader construction that the term simply refers to electronic, consumer goods capable of data transmission (e.g., the examples of which are telephones, fax machines, and televisions). These devices all have a UI, memory, and communications means. With this construction, commodity would also cover laptops, desktops, tablets, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, there's no &quot;clear&quot; answer for claim construction most of the time. Unless the description provides an explicit &quot;definitions&quot; sections. What you want to do is find a reasonable balance between being too narrow and being overly broad. The patentee should not be unnecessarily forced to adopt a construction that forecloses infringement, but should not be allowed to claim protection over devices that are clearly not relevant to the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/09/claim-construction-a-structured-framework-1.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commodity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="354" RevisionGUID="1e78fedd-a17a-48a7-9eaa-c7bd726a3805" CreationDate="2012-09-21T18:37:51.043" UserId="998" Text="Under the law, prior art must fit within one of the categories defined in 35 U.S.C. 102.  The most likely categories for a youtube video are (1) a &quot;printed publication&quot; or (2) evidence of the invention being &quot;known ... by others in this country.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is at least one case holding that a video is NOT a printed publication. Diomed, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., 450 F. Supp. 2d 130 (D. Mass. 2006). In that case, the court ruled that &quot;The definition of 'printed' cannot be stretched to include a presentation which does not include a paper component or, at minimum, a substitute for paper such as the static presentation of slides.&quot;  To be &quot;known by others,&quot; you must be able to show that the video was sufficiently available to the public.  This could be shown by showing that it is searchable on the key search terms or that it was actually accessed by a number of people.    &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="355" RevisionGUID="eef2e402-10fb-4424-b53c-7d504b1f8338" CreationDate="2012-09-21T18:50:04.677" UserId="998" Text="Any patent lawyer will tell you that the safest strategy is to file a patent application before making any public disclosures.  Under both the old and new US patent laws an inventor can still file for patent protection for up to one year after making a public disclosure.  However, other countries do not offer that right and so your non-US patent rights would be lost.  In addition, filing for patent protection first helps demarcate your invention. If instead you first post it in a public forum, there may well be some later controversy regarding who invented what.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reality is, however, that a startup company is typically not going to be very successful if they always follow the safest strategy promoted by their lawyers.  Patenting is expensive and time-consuming and anyone with scarce resources will need to consider whether that is the highest and best use of their currently available resources.  Many new products are patented, but most are probably not patented.  Yet, their manufacturers are still able to make a profit.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="357" RevisionGUID="0bee50b2-2f9d-4cc5-9070-c91a80040c88" CreationDate="2012-09-21T19:23:33.363" UserId="998" Text="There are three main provision of the laws that might cause you problem and they all involve exporting to the US or encouraging others to do so. The primary statute on point is 35 U.S.C. 271(a)-(c).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention, within the United States or imports into the United States&#xD;&#xA;&gt; any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; infringes the patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Whoever actively induces infringement of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent shall be liable as an infringer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Whoever ... imports into the United States a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; component of a patented machine ... for use in practicing a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patented process, constituting a material part of the invention,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shall be liable as a contributory infringer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, if you import an infringing product into the US or induce someone to import the infringing product into the US, then you can be held fully liable as an infringer.  Even if you are selling through a third party distributor, you likely be seen as inducing the importation depending upon the facts.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is nothing illegal about selling to US customers when they are in the UK so long as that sale is not part of an import scheme. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, there are some procedural issues that a patentee would need to overcome: (1) can a court get jurisdiction over you as a non-US entity; and (2) can they collect money damages since you are in the UK. These are big questions. If the case is brought in the US International Trade Commission (USITC) rather than in court then the court automatically claims jurisdiction based upon the imported products. The nice thing (for you) about USITC cases is that USITC never awards money damages (only awards exclusion orders to block further imports).  If you lost a money judgment in court, the patentee could seize your US assets.  There is no particular treaty between the US and UK on enforcing foreign money judgments. However, it is usually relatively simple for a US judgment winner to go to the UK and collect the money. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="fe4b00b9-7521-4fc9-ab08-43c1e79b6e2b" CreationDate="2012-09-21T19:27:30.137" UserId="50" Comment="clarify" Text="It's going to be hard for anyone to answer this &quot;definitively&quot; without revealing potentially privileged information.  This is because patent prosecutions before the USPTO are *ex parte*, meaning that they are not adversarial (like a lawsuit would be).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, it's the person filing the application, up against the USPTO.  In the case of a non-published patent application, the office actions (rejections etc) from the USPTO to the applicant are sent only to the applicant, and not made public.  So, the only way the world would know that an application had been rejected under obviousness or novelty grounds due to prior art, is if the applicant disclosed that fact, the patent issued (at which time the prosecution record would become public), or if this fact was somehow forced out in subsequent litigation.  If an application is abandoned or denied, the prosecution record of a non-published patent is not published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applying the above to your situation, the only way someone would be able to &quot;definitively confirm&quot; that a YouTube video was prior art would be if their own application was rejected on those grounds, and in most cases, they wouldn't/couldn't tell you the specifics about that without breaching confidentiality." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="274" RevisionGUID="29903301-5cb0-4d5b-b3e1-cd5cc6f6e07f" CreationDate="2012-09-21T19:33:53.677" UserId="190" Comment="W3 refers to the world wide web. W3C is the consortium that sets standards for it" Text="Is it worth patenting something before submitting to the W3C, even if it's a royalty free patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1073" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="274" RevisionGUID="29903301-5cb0-4d5b-b3e1-cd5cc6f6e07f" CreationDate="2012-09-21T19:33:53.677" UserId="190" Comment="W3 refers to the world wide web. W3C is the consortium that sets standards for it" Text="Is it worth patenting something before submitting to the W3C?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1074" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="274" RevisionGUID="29903301-5cb0-4d5b-b3e1-cd5cc6f6e07f" CreationDate="2012-09-21T19:33:53.677" UserId="190" Comment="W3 refers to the world wide web. W3C is the consortium that sets standards for it" Text="&lt;internet&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1075" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="274" RevisionGUID="29903301-5cb0-4d5b-b3e1-cd5cc6f6e07f" CreationDate="2012-09-21T19:33:53.677" Comment="Proposed by 190 approved by 76 edit id of 130" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1076" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="306" RevisionGUID="dfacb282-b42f-46cf-b6ce-000c49228236" CreationDate="2012-09-21T19:33:58.857" UserId="190" Comment="Made title more descriptive" Text="Which patents were involved in Apple v. Samsung?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1077" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="306" RevisionGUID="dfacb282-b42f-46cf-b6ce-000c49228236" CreationDate="2012-09-21T19:33:58.857" Comment="Proposed by 190 approved by 76 edit id of 129" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1078" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="274" RevisionGUID="ccf50f48-7aa8-490f-bafe-00da5b790cb6" CreationDate="2012-09-21T19:34:53.253" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;standards&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="46" RevisionGUID="8a201eda-2079-434d-bf07-7910f53a05bc" CreationDate="2012-09-21T19:37:45.483" UserId="76" Comment="be more constructive — focus on factual answers with practical import" Text="Currently the majority of bad press about trivial software patents is all centred around Apple and other smartphone industry players.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few years ago it was the Amazon &quot;1-click&quot; patent everybody was deriding. ([US 5960411][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going back a few decades when I was getting into computers I recall being shocked to learn that the implementation of a flashing cursor / caret on a computer screen using [`XOR`][2] was patented and many well known tech companies were paying royalties on it. ([US 4197590][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were there earlier patents before even this that was widely denigrated as obvious and trivial? Did they lead to any court decisions that now constitute important jurisprudence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5960411&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4197590" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1080" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="46" RevisionGUID="8a201eda-2079-434d-bf07-7910f53a05bc" CreationDate="2012-09-21T19:37:45.483" UserId="76" Comment="be more constructive — focus on factual answers with practical import" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;us5960411&gt;&lt;us4197590&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="358" RevisionGUID="a68926ff-f7e6-470e-8885-5278ae4b35c8" CreationDate="2012-09-21T19:39:09.007" UserId="450" Text="In the more general case of submitting to any random standards body - that submission will likely be considered prior art for terms of patent-ability. So, if you do submit to the standards body BEFORE doing any patent filings, it is quite possible that you'll be unable to patent the thing later. Whether this is a good or bad thing depends on the body in question and their views on patented materials in a standard." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="359" RevisionGUID="6d60d9c7-de34-4d1c-913c-358cd28b458f" CreationDate="2012-09-21T19:40:05.103" UserId="998" Text="If you are a lone software developer, you probably don't need patent rights in order to operate in your business.  In your daily life, the patent won't help in any way. And you may even believe that software patents should be eliminated.  However, since we live in a world where software is largely patentable, there are some reasons why you might want to file for patent rights.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lets say that you have a good idea for an interesting solution that you reasonably believe would be really useful and valuable in the marketplace.  Getting a patent on that solution will be something like a stock-option for you.   If it turns out that the market goes in other directions then you have lost your option price (the cost of getting a patent). If, on the other hand, the market goes in your direction then the patent may become much more valuable.  Further, as a lone software developer, you qualify for 50% reduction of most patent fees and in 2013 may qualify for a 75% reduction.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1084" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="360" RevisionGUID="7f05bafe-6911-4c45-8a7c-4e4ae1f20ba8" CreationDate="2012-09-21T20:00:33.240" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/77/would-software-written-in-a-country-without-software-patents-constitute-prior-ar" Text="" />
  <row Id="1085" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="361" RevisionGUID="ffa70366-8700-4c1a-94f4-85713ebe0142" CreationDate="2012-09-21T20:00:33.240" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/77/would-software-written-in-a-country-without-software-patents-constitute-prior-ar/87#87" Text="" />
  <row Id="1086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="361" RevisionGUID="7e4040b0-fbf2-453f-bc67-aa466bd7d2c7" CreationDate="2012-09-21T17:07:21.843" UserId="998" Text=" 1. First, there are software patents in Europe. In fact with the new US cases on patentable subject matter issues, patent attorneys have told me that in many cases it is easier to get a software patent in Europe than in the US. &#xD;&#xA; 2. To answer your question - prior art can come from anywhere around the world and be used to invalidate a US patent or prevent issuance of a US patent application.  We have a change in the law in the US to make non-US information easier to use to invalidate US patents.  However, this change will only apply to patents and patent applications originally filed on or after March 16, 2013. &#xD;&#xA; 3. Under both the old and new law, if you write some software but then keep that software totally secret and hidden within your corporate (or home) walls then it will not count as prior art. This is because the usual touchstone for defining prior art is its public accessibility. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current U.S. law codified in 35 U.S.C. 102 identifies the available foreign sources of prior art as items &quot;patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country.&quot;  Under the new law being implemented in 2013, US patents will also be invalidated by prior foreign public uses, sales, and offers for sale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, lets say you have an unpatented computer algorithm developed in Germany and the question is whether that program can be used as prior art against a US patent.  The answer is maybe, depending upon what has been done with the algorithm.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Has the alogorithm (or a write-up of how it works) been published in some way? (internet counts, as does a video, as does a poster at an academic conference, ...)&#xD;&#xA; - Has the alogorithm been sold or transferred to folks in the US or publicly used in the US?&#xD;&#xA; - Did the US patentee get the idea from you? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the answer to any of these questions is &quot;yes&quot; then the algorithm [or publication] can work as prior art against the US application.  Otherwise, the answer is probably no. Under the new law, it might also count as prior art if publicly used or sold anywhere in the world. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="360" RevisionGUID="a95851c7-6e36-4aa9-9214-a7381b23fc0f" CreationDate="2012-09-21T13:51:42.593" UserId="981" Text="If I write an application here in Europe, where we don't have software patents, would an American company be able to apply for a US patent on a technique or algorithm used in the application? What evidence would be required to prove prior art in the event that this happened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1088" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="360" RevisionGUID="a95851c7-6e36-4aa9-9214-a7381b23fc0f" CreationDate="2012-09-21T13:51:42.593" UserId="981" Text="Would software written in a country without software patents constitute prior art in the USA?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1089" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="360" RevisionGUID="a95851c7-6e36-4aa9-9214-a7381b23fc0f" CreationDate="2012-09-21T13:51:42.593" UserId="981" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="362" RevisionGUID="c0138f28-d278-4c04-93b5-2e49e546210b" CreationDate="2012-09-21T20:11:46.683" UserId="1057" Text="There is no such thing as a software patent in the U.S. .  Software per se is not a category of patentable subject matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="221" RevisionGUID="bd76a73c-00c4-42d1-8a2e-ef7180f92563" CreationDate="2012-09-21T20:21:23.353" UserId="76" Comment="link to a more usable site; cite claim 1" Text="Microsoft filed [US20120227028 Graphical programming object population user interface autogeneration](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=20120227028.PGNR.), which describes the automatic generation of GUIs to instantiate objects. I vaguely recall seeing a implementation of this concept in Java somewhere. Are there any other examples of prior art, or is my memory just bad? Here is the claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-readable non-transitory storage medium configured with data and with instructions that when executed by at least one processor causes the processor(s) to perform a process for utilizing an instance of an object type in a graphical programming environment, the instance having at least one field defined by the object type, each field of the instance having a name and capable of being assigned a value, the process comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * receiving a selection that identifies the instance of the object type;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * automatically determining what fields are defined for the object type instance;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * automatically generating an instance data population user interface in the graphical programming environment;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * and displaying at least the following in the user interface:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    * the name of each field that is defined for the object type instance,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    * and a currently assigned value for each field that currently has an assigned value. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1092" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="221" RevisionGUID="bd76a73c-00c4-42d1-8a2e-ef7180f92563" CreationDate="2012-09-21T20:21:23.353" UserId="76" Comment="link to a more usable site; cite claim 1" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;us20120227028&gt;&lt;data-processing-software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="363" RevisionGUID="c86c3a28-e97d-4e26-91c6-2fd3528f5b0d" CreationDate="2012-09-21T20:23:39.513" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="364" RevisionGUID="d5d509b3-d511-4737-894b-86302a658b73" CreationDate="2012-09-21T20:23:39.513" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="364" RevisionGUID="cc654736-e40c-41a1-ba34-c0d3b673a142" CreationDate="2012-09-21T20:30:29.383" UserId="76" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="US patent class 717: software development, installation, and management" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1096" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="364" RevisionGUID="cc654736-e40c-41a1-ba34-c0d3b673a142" CreationDate="2012-09-21T20:30:29.383" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 132" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="283" RevisionGUID="cf50e6ff-ccde-41ad-bda1-d2990d4d3152" CreationDate="2012-09-21T20:37:15.313" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Consider this WIPO: [METHODS FOR TREATING SOCIAL DISORDERS](http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2009065112&amp;recNum=1&amp;maxRec=1&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=&amp;queryString=ALL%3A%28US2008083755%29&amp;tab=PCT+Biblio) and its current 3 entries at national levels:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - US: [20110027765](http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=%22Nader%3B+Amir%3B%22&amp;OS=%22Nader;+Amir;%22&amp;RS=%22Nader;+Amir;%22) -&gt; Reviewer has requested some changes in the claims but it's going forward.&#xD;&#xA; - UK: [GB2467710](http://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/ApplicationNumber/GB1010044.4) -&gt; [Review is highly critical for many reasons, one being found prior art.](http://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB1010044.4/G10138515A708CP1%20-1/GB2467710-20120703-Exam%20report%20%20Standard.pdf)&#xD;&#xA; - Canada: [2706329](http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/2706329/summary.html) -&gt; No review yet(?) in Canada.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reviewer from the UK obviously did a much better job than his WIPO and US counterpart. (The WIPO review is horrible and makes absolutely no sense.) The UK reviewer findings are right and the prior art he found is obvious to anyone in the cognitive neuroscience field. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Shouldn't the American and Canadian reviewers consider this UK review and its findings before granting a patent for this application? (They don't know about the prior art.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Based on the UK review findings, could the WIPO application be voided?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If &quot;yes&quot; to Q1, how could or will this happen? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Regarding Q1 and Q3: to make this happen, do I need to communicate with the USPTO, CIPO(Canada) and/or WIPO? Where, when and what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not only is this patent not deserved, but this patent application is as if someone tried to patent cognitive behavioral therapy (the most popular and effective psychological therapy) before its widespread adoption, trying to cash on everyone dispensing and receiving it. Voiding it (for prior art?) will allow us to dispense it for free to thousands of patients. Any help will be greatly appreciated!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1098" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="283" RevisionGUID="cf50e6ff-ccde-41ad-bda1-d2990d4d3152" CreationDate="2012-09-21T20:37:15.313" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;wipo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="365" RevisionGUID="f1020947-f15b-43e7-a22d-0a19f709e769" CreationDate="2012-09-21T20:38:13.350" UserId="1025" Text="I've always wondered if there was a financial background check on the examiner and all other USPTO staff that work on a patent application.  Or if there is a disclaimer section for those who worked on a case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm asking because these days, it is kind of hard not to be invested in Apple, Google, Microsoft, IBM, [...]. directly or indirectly (pension funds, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any verification to make sure that no examiner who handle an Apple patent application will not hold shares in Apple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And what if an examiner was to indirectly (through a pension fund) hold shares in Google, shouldn't this important information be disclaimed on a patent application by Google?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shouldn't every staff member who work on a case for Company X, be required to disclaim whether they own shares, directly or indirectly or whether their family own shares directly or indirectly in Company X.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be easy to turn a &quot;blind eye&quot; to some facts if you &quot;financially favored&quot; such company, no?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1100" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="365" RevisionGUID="f1020947-f15b-43e7-a22d-0a19f709e769" CreationDate="2012-09-21T20:38:13.350" UserId="1025" Text="USPTO examiner/staff financial background check and disclaimers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1101" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="365" RevisionGUID="f1020947-f15b-43e7-a22d-0a19f709e769" CreationDate="2012-09-21T20:38:13.350" UserId="1025" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;disclaimer&gt;&lt;financial-verification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="366" RevisionGUID="ae2de813-7e44-46e3-9ade-3fed66ff78a9" CreationDate="2012-09-21T20:40:42.330" UserId="932" Text="Since the US application is the national phase of a PCT application, the specification of the PCT application *is* the specification of the US application. The poor English translation is unfortunate, but the fact remains that the content set forth in the original PCT application should be the content that is represented in the US national phase application.  In this regard, correcting the poor English translation merely amounts to rephrasing or correcting an obvious error (see [MPEP 2163.07](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2163.html#d0e215099)).  Corrections to the specification of the US national phase application can be made in order to ensure that its content is the same as the content of the PCT application, as described below.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specification of the US application can be amended at anytime up until the issue of the patent by filing an amendment with the USPTO according to the guidance set forth in [MPEP 714](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s714.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the patent has already issued, then the specification may be amended by filing a reissue application in order to correct the issued patent.  A common ground for filing a reissue application is that the specification contains inaccuracies (see [MPEP 1402](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1402.html)).  During prosecution of the reissue application, an amendment may be filed with the USPTO that amends the specification according to the guidelines set forth in [MPEP 1453](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1453.html)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="193" RevisionGUID="b2fb86a9-9fb4-4d8b-b126-f57317237381" CreationDate="2012-09-21T20:41:05.917" UserId="76" Comment="added the text of claim 1" Text="[Patent Application #20120016857][1] appears to be for Search Engine Optimisation (SEO). Here is its claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A computer-readable medium comprising computer-readable instructions for providing search engine optimization analysis, wherein execution of said computer-readable instructions by one or more processors causes said one or more processors to carry out steps comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * obtaining a starting uniform resource locator identifying a network location for a starting web resource;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * analyzing said starting uniform resource locator, wherein said analyzing comprises obtaining a text-based portion of said starting web resource comprising data and metadata, processing said data and said metadata to determine a plurality of potential target terms, and performing a relevancy test of said text-based portion of said starting web resource based on said plurality of potential target terms;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * determining any referred uniform resource locators in said text-based portion of said starting web resource, wherein said referred uniform resource locators each identify a referred web resource sharing a domain with said starting web resource;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * recursively analyzing said referred uniform resource locators, said recursive analysis comprising obtaining an additional text-based portion of a referred web resource; processing additional data and additional metadata in said additional text-based portion of said referred web resource to determine additional potential target terms for each referred web resource, and performing an additional relevancy test of said additional text-based portion of each referred web resource based on said additional potential target terms for each referred web resource;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * analyzing a link index of a network comprising said starting uniform resource locator to determine web resources linking to said web resources associated with said starting uniform resource locator and said referred uniform resource locators;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * calculating an internal search engine optimization score based on said analysis and said recursive analysis;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * calculating an external search engine optimization score based on said link index;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * providing a graphical report comprising a visualization of statistical information related to search engine optimization; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * providing a domain visualization map comprising a graphical network representation of said statistical information for said starting uniform resource locator and said referred uniform resource locators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been doing SEO for a few mom and pop stores and recently someone pointed me to this patent. Once you start reading the patent, it becomes clear that the patent could be for a search engine, rather than the optimisation, but the title suggests otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there prior art for SEO?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120016857" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1104" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="193" RevisionGUID="b2fb86a9-9fb4-4d8b-b126-f57317237381" CreationDate="2012-09-21T20:41:05.917" UserId="76" Comment="added the text of claim 1" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;data-processing-database&gt;&lt;us20120016857&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="367" RevisionGUID="fa85c8c9-36c5-41d4-9a3b-f0e8425e4a83" CreationDate="2012-09-21T20:43:24.153" UserId="486" Text="With respect to Amending the specification after a PCT is filed: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Amendments, even those considered to be minor or to not include new matter, may not be incorporated into the translation. If an amendment to the international application as filed is desired for the national stage, it may be submitted in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121 . An amendment filed under 37 CFR 1.121 should be submitted within ** &gt; 3 months &lt; after completion of the 35 U.S.C. 371(c) requirements * &gt; for &lt; entry into the national stage. See 37 CFR 1.115 (b)(3)(iii)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1893.html#d0e190635&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, during prosecution the specification can be amended at any time as long as it conforms to [37 CFR 1.121][1] and 35 USC 112.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main problem I would see in amending after prosecution has started would be &quot;[new matter][2]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This also appears to be relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Where a U.S. application as originally filed was in a non-English language and an English translation thereof was subsequently submitted pursuant to 37 CFR 1.52(d), if there is an error in the English translation, applicant may rely on the disclosure of the originally filed non-English language U.S. application to support correction of an error in the English translation document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [MPEP 2163.07][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, it would be best to have the best translation made before the application is filed so that none of these problems would occur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323020&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2163.html#d0e215023&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2163.html#d0e215099" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="368" RevisionGUID="a66716cd-2347-4f09-ba1f-05ad60570bdf" CreationDate="2012-09-21T20:53:08.520" UserId="486" Text="The patent examiners are required to adhere to strict [ethics codes][1] (PDF warning) put forth by the Department of Commerce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a part of this examiner's of a particular grade must supply the following (page 12 of the PDF):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you are designated as required to file such a report, please keep in mind that the &#xD;&#xA;information you disclose is used to provide advice to you to help ensure that you do not &#xD;&#xA;inadvertently engage in prohibited activities.  To provide this advice (and to certify that &#xD;&#xA;the report includes all necessary information), it is important that the information you &#xD;&#xA;provide be as complete as possible.  Specifically, please be sure to include:  &#xD;&#xA;- the full name of any mutual fund (not just the generic name of the company managing &#xD;&#xA;the fund);  &#xD;&#xA;- specific holdings in any IRA, 401(k) account, trust, or investment account (other than &#xD;&#xA;broadly-diversified mutual funds, if you file a confidential report (OGE Form 450));&#xD;&#xA;- short description of the activities or industry sector of any privately-held company or &#xD;&#xA;limited partnership; and  &#xD;&#xA;- assets and sources of income of your spouse and dependent children&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More specific details from page 10:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You cannot participate as a Government official in a matter that will have &#xD;&#xA;a direct and predictable effect on your financial interests; on the financial interests of &#xD;&#xA;your spouse, minor children, household members, general partners, outside employers, &#xD;&#xA;or prospective employers; or on the financial interests of an organization in which you &#xD;&#xA;serve as a trustee, officer, or board member.  This includes a matter that affects a &#xD;&#xA;company in which you own stock.  Note that for patent examiners, the disqualification &#xD;&#xA;applies not only if you own stock in a company seeking a patent, but if you own stock in &#xD;&#xA;a company making devices similar to those for which a patent is sought.  Thus, you &#xD;&#xA;should not own stock in any company making devices covered by your Art Unit, unless &#xD;&#xA;you restrict your interests to those that will be covered by the exceptions listed below.  &#xD;&#xA;Exceptions to the General Rule: Exceptions permit you to participate in matters &#xD;&#xA;affecting a financial interest if the financial interest is:  &#xD;&#xA;-  in a publicly-traded diversified mutual fund; &#xD;&#xA;-  less than $50,000 in a publicly-traded &#xD;&#xA;“sector-specific fund” (a fund that focuses on a &#xD;&#xA;specific industry, foreign country, or state);   &#xD;&#xA;-  a publicly-traded stock or bond holding of $15,000 &#xD;&#xA;or less in a company;  &#xD;&#xA;-  a publicly-traded stock or bond holding of $25,000 &#xD;&#xA;or less in a company (which allows participation in &#xD;&#xA;broad policy matters affecting the company as a &#xD;&#xA;member of a group or industry sector (if total &#xD;&#xA;investments in the group/industry sector are &#xD;&#xA;$50,000 or less), but not matters affecting the &#xD;&#xA;company individually); or   &#xD;&#xA;-  covered by a conflict of interest waiver (which are generally available only for &#xD;&#xA;employees serving overseas or in unusual circumstances—contact the Ethics Law and &#xD;&#xA;Programs Division at 202-482-5384 for information on waivers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2012/january/pto_summary_of_ethics_rules_2012-e_0.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="280" RevisionGUID="e47b289e-d06a-4216-9d57-38d805931bfb" CreationDate="2012-09-21T20:54:46.447" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 186 characters in body" Text="While looking through old newsgroups I was able to find this possible prior art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------&#xD;&#xA;TwisterGame on Network  &#xD;&#xA;by Masaki FUJIHATA, Nobuya Suzuki  &#xD;&#xA;Keio University, Faculty of Environmental Information  &#xD;&#xA;April-1994&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aim and condition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1:  Experimentation for connecting 2 different places by an electrical&#xD;&#xA;network, using telephone line with modem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2:  A collaboratation in one virtual place where participant will arise&#xD;&#xA;through the network.  They are remotely connected from their own place.&#xD;&#xA;Each participant will share same experience in this virtual place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3:  To examine and construct the rule based framework for sharing an experience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was also a presentation at &quot;Networked Reality 1994&quot;. Quote from a [PDF of the event](http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a292366.pdf):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Session 3, was titled Networked Reality Systems and featured three presentations...a networked virtual space implementation of the Twister parlor game, by Fujihata and Suzuki of Keio University.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The networked reality implementation of the Twister game consists of having human operators manipulate, via joysticks, tripedal clones of themselves in a virtual space equipped with a virtual Twister mat.  The system was demonstrated on 18 February, 1994 by linking the site of IMAGINA '94 (Monte Carlo, France) with Keio University in Yokohama.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...Twister game presentations had associated demonstration systems available during session breaks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Problem is that this is probably just peer to peer (modem), not enough detail to tell whether a server is involved.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="367" RevisionGUID="e90f35fb-6705-472a-aa7e-d62237eee138" CreationDate="2012-09-21T20:57:21.493" UserId="486" Comment="deleted 621 characters in body" Text="During prosecution the specification can be amended at any time as long as it conforms to [37 CFR 1.121][1] and 35 USC 112.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main problem I would see in amending after prosecution has started would be &quot;[new matter][2]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This also appears to be relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Where a U.S. application as originally filed was in a non-English language and an English translation thereof was subsequently submitted pursuant to 37 CFR 1.52(d), if there is an error in the English translation, applicant may rely on the disclosure of the originally filed non-English language U.S. application to support correction of an error in the English translation document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [MPEP 2163.07][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, it would be best to have the best translation made before the application is filed so that none of these problems would occur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323020&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2163.html#d0e215023&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2163.html#d0e215099" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1109" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="4e054b7f-5005-42bd-9a65-87433d6f92d2" CreationDate="2012-09-21T21:01:42.100" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20120225162&gt;&lt;food-production&gt;&lt;health&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="369" RevisionGUID="540149dd-e51a-4f64-8e1c-7678f2cdd654" CreationDate="2012-09-21T21:09:25.133" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="370" RevisionGUID="64bd5f58-49c0-46c3-aa7b-512892a1111d" CreationDate="2012-09-21T21:09:25.133" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="371" RevisionGUID="3ee4be0a-6127-454d-a308-643917178dcd" CreationDate="2012-09-21T21:23:42.713" UserId="731" Text="If the term &quot;selection handles&quot; covers what is sometimes called a &quot;bounding box&quot;, then there is a lot of prior art for #6,891,551.  Software has had resizable selection mechanisms for ages.  Image and audio editors frequently have resizable selection boxes.  I specifically remember an audio player for BeOS (this was back in the mid/late 90's) that used multiple adjustable selection handles to select a portion of an audio track to play." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="369" RevisionGUID="6c4e6cb0-25ce-4343-8728-bfde86c0ad9a" CreationDate="2012-09-21T21:27:08.077" UserId="76" Comment="added 382 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 426: food or edible material: processes, composition and products](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc426/sched426.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/defs426/defs426.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: cooking, freezing, fermentation, separation of constituents, preservation, additives, sterilization, packaging...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1117" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="369" RevisionGUID="6c4e6cb0-25ce-4343-8728-bfde86c0ad9a" CreationDate="2012-09-21T21:27:08.077" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 134" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1118" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="36" RevisionGUID="386aa7f2-21b3-44d8-a838-b7a2ad9145e5" CreationDate="2012-09-21T21:27:21.337" UserId="932" Comment="fixed title to reflect that a foreign application is not being revised, but rather a US national phase application" Text="Revising a poor English translation of a US national phase application based on a foreign language PCT application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1119" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="36" RevisionGUID="386aa7f2-21b3-44d8-a838-b7a2ad9145e5" CreationDate="2012-09-21T21:27:21.337" Comment="Proposed by 932 approved by 76 edit id of 133" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="363" RevisionGUID="43768645-8d07-423d-9017-8219f94d3095" CreationDate="2012-09-21T21:27:37.917" UserId="76" Comment="added 352 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 717: software development, installation, and management](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc717/sched717.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc717/defs717.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: software development tools (compilers, development environments, etc.), package management, …&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1121" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="363" RevisionGUID="43768645-8d07-423d-9017-8219f94d3095" CreationDate="2012-09-21T21:27:37.917" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 131" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="370" RevisionGUID="91d225e2-bd68-47d4-b3ba-1838be505adb" CreationDate="2012-09-21T21:27:49.487" UserId="76" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text="US patent class 426: food or edible material: processes, composition and products" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1123" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="370" RevisionGUID="91d225e2-bd68-47d4-b3ba-1838be505adb" CreationDate="2012-09-21T21:27:49.487" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 135" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="372" RevisionGUID="503d32c9-b92b-4f0b-85f5-a7fc5ff91199" CreationDate="2012-09-21T21:29:57.920" UserId="973" Text="Lets say I made software initially publicly available, But some time in the future I decided I wise to patent it. Could I? Is there a time limit on how long after making software publicly available I have to patent it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1125" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="372" RevisionGUID="503d32c9-b92b-4f0b-85f5-a7fc5ff91199" CreationDate="2012-09-21T21:29:57.920" UserId="973" Text="Can software be patented after being made public?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1126" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="372" RevisionGUID="503d32c9-b92b-4f0b-85f5-a7fc5ff91199" CreationDate="2012-09-21T21:29:57.920" UserId="973" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="197" RevisionGUID="8209adde-6208-497f-a369-1d361a051667" CreationDate="2012-09-21T21:31:21.127" UserId="76" Comment="include claim 1" Text="Microsoft's [application][1] aims to patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Methods and systems for style and/or layout caching of Web content are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; usable to build reusable style caching trees and cacheable layout&#xD;&#xA;&gt; calculations. Such style caching trees may be used to avoid&#xD;&#xA;&gt; recalculating style content of Web pages for document object model&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (DOM) elements that have not changed. Additionally, the cacheable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; layout calculations may be used to avoid recalculating the layout&#xD;&#xA;&gt; content of Web pages that are subsequently accessed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method comprising: performed by one or more processors executing computer-readable instructions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * receiving a Web page file;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * parsing the Web page file to create a document object model (DOM) tree comprising DOM tree nodes;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * constructing a style caching tree comprising structure information of the DOM tree;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * storing the style caching tree in a memory;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * constructing a render tree comprising render objects based at least in part on the structure information of the DOM tree;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * performing a layout calculation for render objects;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * and storing the layout calculation results in the memory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can prior art be demonstrated from the WebKit and Gecko source trees from several years ago?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=20120110437.PGNR." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1128" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="197" RevisionGUID="8209adde-6208-497f-a369-1d361a051667" CreationDate="2012-09-21T21:31:21.127" UserId="76" Comment="include claim 1" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;us20120110437&gt;&lt;data-processing-interface&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="373" RevisionGUID="d808c33a-0fcd-4aff-8de7-3b02302c1391" CreationDate="2012-09-21T21:47:10.013" UserId="486" Text="In the United States, for any invention you have 1 year to file:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;35 U.S.C. 102   Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent.&#xD;&#xA;A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="374" RevisionGUID="2c741017-1927-41d3-bb1b-d8d88e6e4d9f" CreationDate="2012-09-21T21:50:29.213" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="375" RevisionGUID="c82ff738-bf8a-4365-a198-70065f000cfb" CreationDate="2012-09-21T21:50:29.213" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1132" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="109" RevisionGUID="2778a121-8881-42f5-ad6b-28324ae933e4" CreationDate="2012-09-21T22:02:41.787" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/249267433410531328" />
  <row Id="1133" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="298" RevisionGUID="cad76547-614a-4cc2-9c3f-3a86fcf00292" CreationDate="2012-09-21T22:09:01.060" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;physics&gt;&lt;fluid-dynamics&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1134" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="261" RevisionGUID="62835654-e6fa-4f2b-938a-1b2ae297d446" CreationDate="2012-09-21T22:11:04.163" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;canada&gt;&lt;electricity-charging&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="376" RevisionGUID="6be7fb2d-8bf8-4d52-8825-b9ad6b0ab54b" CreationDate="2012-09-21T22:13:13.083" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="377" RevisionGUID="1a71d60f-a27a-45b3-b939-0fbd94a10615" CreationDate="2012-09-21T22:13:13.083" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="375" RevisionGUID="66ef97cb-a87d-4037-a42c-6293734cdc07" CreationDate="2012-09-21T22:13:43.370" UserId="76" Comment="added 141 characters in body" Text="US patent class 715: data processing: presentation processing of document, operator interface processing, and screen saver display processing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1138" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="375" RevisionGUID="66ef97cb-a87d-4037-a42c-6293734cdc07" CreationDate="2012-09-21T22:13:43.370" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 6 edit id of 137" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1139" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="286" RevisionGUID="ee8996b4-a2e9-4bb7-a5b3-aa2cd983790a" CreationDate="2012-09-21T22:14:22.677" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="376" RevisionGUID="70558dde-01ee-4cda-8a1a-b92c3e8d86b4" CreationDate="2012-09-21T22:14:23.697" UserId="76" Comment="added 322 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 320: electricity: battery or capacitor charging or discharging](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc320/sched320.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc320/sched320.htm))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: battery or cell chargers, assemblages of batteries, ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1141" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="376" RevisionGUID="70558dde-01ee-4cda-8a1a-b92c3e8d86b4" CreationDate="2012-09-21T22:14:23.697" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by -1 edit id of 138" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="376" RevisionGUID="586a3c7b-e1e9-4029-8198-d55ea5a5f28f" CreationDate="2012-09-21T22:14:23.697" UserId="6" Comment="edited body" Text="[US patent class 320: electricity: battery or capacitor charging or discharging](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc320/sched320.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc320/sched320.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: battery or cell chargers, assemblages of batteries, ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="137" RevisionGUID="5668ea68-e3b6-4319-9788-14c38cc826ff" CreationDate="2012-09-21T22:16:10.180" UserId="76" Comment="split the steps for better readability" Text="[Patent application #20120226962](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20120226962.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20070198578&amp;RS=DN/20120222429) makes the claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A computer implemented method for storing data in memory, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * receiving write data to be written into a memory that is logically divided into a plurality of regions, the plurality of regions including a first region and a second region, the first region and the second region implemented by the same memory technology, and the memory subject to degradation as a result of write operations;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * classifying the write data as dynamic data or static data;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * in response to classifying the write data as dynamic data performing: encoding the write data using a first type of encoding;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * and storing the write data encoded using the first type of encoding in the first region of the memory;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * and in response to classifying the write data as static data performing: encoding the write data using a second type of encoding; and storing the write data encoded using the second type of encoding in the second region of the memory. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Isn't this what has been done in the industry and has support in operating systems for several years now? My translation of the above is similar to the description in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear_leveling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="fdd1b790-6d99-41e8-85b3-17e4223161a9" CreationDate="2012-09-21T22:22:40.890" UserId="76" Comment="added a question; tags; added claim 1" Text="Many people in the commercial vehicle industry use a &quot;twin&quot; air drying arrangement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Patent #us8118911](http://www.google.com/patents/US8118911?dq=US8118911&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=62hbULzbEamujALb04HoCQ&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA), originally filed Nov. 10, 2006, and was granted on Feb 21, 2012, seems ridiculous to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, here is a twin dryer manufactured by the SKF corporation:&#xD;&#xA;http://vsm.skf.com/en-US/HeavyDuty/AirSystem/HCDualTurbo.aspx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this dryer constitute prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is claim 1 of the patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A device attaching a pair of desiccant cartridges such that air flows to the pair of desiccant cartridges in parallel, the device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * an inner chamber; a first fluid flow passage for communicating air to the inner chamber;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * a pair of extensions, each of the pair of extensions adapted for mounting one of the pair of desiccant cartridges;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein each extension is spaced at a substantially equal distance from the inner chamber; and a second and a third fluid flow passage, each fluidly connecting the inner chamber with each of the pair of threaded extensions, compressed air flowing in substantially the same direction at substantially the same time through each of the second and third fluid passages in substantially equal amounts.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1145" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="fdd1b790-6d99-41e8-85b3-17e4223161a9" CreationDate="2012-09-21T22:22:40.890" UserId="76" Comment="added a question; tags; added claim 1" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us8118911&gt;&lt;physics&gt;&lt;gas-separation-processes&gt;&lt;thermodynamics&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="378" RevisionGUID="b1c1f605-fdfb-4bc8-bb0f-672a3063410f" CreationDate="2012-09-21T22:24:42.523" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="379" RevisionGUID="c9497442-f084-4d54-88b6-bf434d122d11" CreationDate="2012-09-21T22:24:42.523" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1148" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="267" RevisionGUID="94ffee97-c7af-4964-8255-eb165e13f6a6" CreationDate="2012-09-21T22:28:57.747" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="260" RevisionGUID="99d228d4-63f8-4850-82b8-38a71bad0f1a" CreationDate="2012-09-21T22:37:19.237" UserId="76" Comment="mention the priority date; tags" Text="Apple has patented ([US7864163](http://www.google.com/patents/US7864163)) the behaviour in Mobile Safari whereby double-tapping zooms in just enough to fit on the screen the particular box of content  that was tapped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A computer-implemented method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* at a portable electronic device with a touch screen display;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* displaying at least a portion of a structured electronic document on the touch screen display, wherein the structured electronic document comprises a plurality of boxes of content;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* detecting a first gesture at a location on the displayed portion of the structured electronic document;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* determining a first box in the plurality of boxes at the location of the first gesture;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* enlarging and translating the structured electronic document so that the first box is substantially centered on the touch screen display;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* while the first box is enlarged, a second gesture is detected on a second box other than the first box; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* in response to detecting the second gesture, the structured electronic document is translated so that the second box is substantially centered on the touch screen display.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The priority date is 2007-09-04.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is one of the patents that was asserted against Samsung in their recent lawsuit. Unlike the other two patents asserted in the case, this one is not already subject to a reexamination, probably because the &quot;second gesture&quot; part is not a stock Android behaviour and it was likely Google themselves who submitted the other patents for ex parte reexamination. **Nevertheless, is there any prior art for this?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1150" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="260" RevisionGUID="99d228d4-63f8-4850-82b8-38a71bad0f1a" CreationDate="2012-09-21T22:37:19.237" UserId="76" Comment="mention the priority date; tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;us7864163&gt;&lt;data-processing-interface&gt;&lt;computer-graphics&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="380" RevisionGUID="121c09e5-ab2e-4d9a-a668-a142abd13af9" CreationDate="2012-09-21T22:40:14.567" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="381" RevisionGUID="7900267b-31da-4758-9221-0b2a249a7672" CreationDate="2012-09-21T22:40:14.567" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="b582ba79-236a-4acb-9cd4-e9446071f43f" CreationDate="2012-09-21T22:48:05.090" UserId="76" Comment="added 137 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I was wondering whether there was sufficient prior art for some of the patents that Microsoft is using in (what I consider) strong-arming Android manufacturers? Most of those seem to have been resolved under NDA, but here's some information from the [Barnes &amp; Noble case][1] and the just-completed [Motorola case in Germany][2] ([patent link][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US 6,891,551](http://www.google.com/patents/US6891551): “Selection handles in editing electronic documents.” Issued May 10, 2005&#xD;&#xA; - [US 5,778,372](http://www.google.com/patents/US5778372): “Remote retrieval and display management of electronic document with incorporated images.” Issued July 7, 1998.&#xD;&#xA; - [US 6,957,233](http://www.google.com/patents/US6957233): “Method and apparatus for capturing and rendering annotations for non-modifiable electronic content.” Issued Oct. 18, 2005.&#xD;&#xA; - [US 7,411,582][4]: &quot;Soft input panel system and method.&quot; Issue date: Aug 12, 2008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.geekwire.com/2012/microsoft-barnes-noble/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/20/microsoft-wins-third-injunction-motorola-software-patent/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7411582&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7411582" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1154" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="b582ba79-236a-4acb-9cd4-e9446071f43f" CreationDate="2012-09-21T22:48:05.090" UserId="76" Comment="added 137 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;data-processing-interface&gt;&lt;computer-graphics&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;android&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="382" RevisionGUID="7af1c4aa-d4da-4452-98b7-70405835e876" CreationDate="2012-09-21T22:49:09.743" UserId="1079" Text="Interface Builder from NeXTStep through to versions shipped with Xcode 4.x  carries out the process of interface design and the resultant files are instantiated into GUI objects as described in the patent application. See the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interface_Builder this shows that Interface Builder dates from 1988 according to the wikipedia article. Interface builder has been available under OSX since first release and does indeed provide user interface object instantiation at run time from text file definitions.&#xD;&#xA;Glade provides similar mechanisms for constructing interfaces using a GUI.  The files are instantiated into GUI objects see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glade_Interface_Designer this dates from 1998. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="383" RevisionGUID="ea5c2a1e-6275-47a9-a155-8df686732f4a" CreationDate="2012-09-21T22:53:10.497" UserId="1078" Text="I have become convinced that the patent system is inherently unfair and hurting the well-being of people all over the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trivial patents are just one well-known pain and I want them gone as much as the next guy - but can we achieve more? Shorten the duration of patents, introduce prohibitive punishment for systematic abuse, stop international treaties that force more countries to abide by the false rules - what ever helps to keep it at bay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I best help this effort?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not going to overexert myself, I just want to do the right thing where I have a choice. Things that can be passed on as advice and make a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it help to name &quot;leading&quot; companies in patent abuse? &quot;Leading&quot; countries? Which political parties have actually done anything for or against it? Leading persons one has to know about?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1157" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="383" RevisionGUID="ea5c2a1e-6275-47a9-a155-8df686732f4a" CreationDate="2012-09-21T22:53:10.497" UserId="1078" Text="How can I best aid in keeping the patents system at bay?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1158" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="383" RevisionGUID="ea5c2a1e-6275-47a9-a155-8df686732f4a" CreationDate="2012-09-21T22:53:10.497" UserId="1078" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;politics&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="134" RevisionGUID="c6db2ff5-325f-48be-8262-a0efaf29eca8" CreationDate="2012-09-21T22:58:33.103" UserId="76" Comment="break up the components for better readability" Text="[Patent application #20120222429](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20120222429.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20070198578&amp;RS=DN/20120222429)&#xD;&#xA;claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. A vehicle air conditioner for a passenger compartment of a vehicle, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * a power source for driving the vehicle; a radiator provided outside the passenger compartment;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * a heat medium passage through which heat medium is circulated between the power source and the radiator;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * a first pettier module having a first pettier device and a first heat exchanger, the first pettier device having a first surface and a second surface, one of the first surface and the second surface serving to release heat, the other of the first surface and the second surface serving to absorb heat, the first heat exchanger being thermally coupled to the first surface;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * and a second pettier module having a second pettier device and a second heat exchanger, the second pettier device having a first surface and a second surface, one of the first surface and the second surface serving to release heat, the other of the first surface and the second surface serving to absorb heat, the second heat exchanger being thermally coupled to the first surface, wherein the heat medium passage is thermally coupled to the second surface of the first pettier device and the second surface of the second pettier device. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this fundamentally different from the way other AC systems in cars are made? Are there prior examples of something similar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1160" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="277" RevisionGUID="7ae9482c-f117-4d35-9870-83c72a7ba125" CreationDate="2012-09-21T22:59:54.687" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;search&gt;&lt;prosecution&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="384" RevisionGUID="3ddac6dd-c124-48aa-b2ba-8e8e4657ab4c" CreationDate="2012-09-21T23:29:27.853" UserId="932" Text="There are a few organizations out there whose goal it is to prevent some of the potential abuses you mention. You could get involved with those organizations by donating time and/or money. For example, see the following links:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Electronic Frontier Foundation](https://www.eff.org/patent)  &#xD;&#xA;[Public Patent Foundation](http://www.pubpat.org/About.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other organizations use crowdsourcing to uncover prior art, including the website you're on right now (i.e., [Ask Patents](http://patents.stackexchange.com/)), as well as [Article One Partners](http://www.articleonepartners.com/).  You can donate time in the form of research and submissions to further the projects on these websites.  While the goal of these websites is not necessarily to curb patent abuses, these types of crowdsourcing websites certainly have the potential, through the collective action of numerous individuals, to have a collateral impact on reining in patent abuses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA) allows third parties to submit prior art in pending patent applications (see [35 USC 122(e)](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303054912)).  This way you can submit prior art and a concise explanation of its relevance to the patent office, thus aiding the examiner in doing his/her job.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, under the AIA a third party may also initiate Inter Partes Review or Post Grant Review proceedings (see [here](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303054912)) with respect to a patent, which proceedings allow the third party to challenge the validity of the patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="385" RevisionGUID="9e77ccd3-9c73-452c-b18d-507b8caf6156" CreationDate="2012-09-22T00:22:16.857" UserId="1085" Text="First off, just because you think something is &quot;obviously&quot; covered by Prior Art doesn't mean that it really is.  It takes years of experience to understand how to read a list of claims and it is possible that the independent claim(s) is written in such a way that it is not covered by the existing art in the field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, you do have a duty to disclose any and all material that you think constitutes Prior Art.  It could well be that what you view as the Prior Art doesn't actually teach the methods or processes that are being disclosed.  Or it could be that what you came up with isn't being used as the Independent Claim -- dependent claims needn't be &quot;unique&quot;, they are simply additional variations on the Independent Claim.  If you read most of my software patents they have a laundry list of dependent claims about how and where the &quot;thing&quot; that is doing the Independent Claim can reside or be accessed.  My former employer pays for some huge number of applications to be filed annually and they all seem to include 20 claims, regardless of how pointless than last 4 or 5 are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll give you an example from my portfolio where &quot;Prior Art&quot; isn't really Prior Art --&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I applied for, and received, a patent on a Method and Process which makes use of bit masks in a manner which is virtually identical to another field of art which makes use of bit masks.  If you read the claims (ignoring the specific area of application), and you were familiar with that other field of art, you'd likely recognize what was being done, think that it was probably seriously broken, then question how I received a patent.  What was Novel wasn't the bit-shuffling, but the way in which that bit-shuffling was applied on a Non-Obvious way to a completely different field of art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, there are a lot of ways that Prior Art isn't.  If you dislike the software process system, that's one thing.  But don't confuse a dislike of software patents for a bad software patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="386" RevisionGUID="b394d2e8-9e25-4cef-aff7-963bbb16ac4f" CreationDate="2012-09-22T00:41:00.117" UserId="1085" Text="I like to think of Design Patents as being more of an extension of the &quot;trademark&quot; system than applying to copyrightable works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember that the goal of these different systems is to protect your original work from infringement, and typically for the longest period of time possible.  Copyright should be applicable here and has the longest protection.  Go with that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="387" RevisionGUID="354b2bdc-9a50-43ae-8b2e-271cd8a1038c" CreationDate="2012-09-22T00:59:47.483" UserId="1085" Text="Any change from any original &quot;methods and processes&quot;, which could include the statistical methods and algorithms, could warrant a completely new patent, in which case it wouldn't invalidate the original patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are two different approaches that hopefully show what I have in mind --&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the &quot;Ladder of Powers&quot; approach to fitting a curve to a data set.  If a simple linear fit doesn't work out, perhaps a logarithmic transform, or exponential transform might.  This is just basic statistical analysis and people go to college every day and learn this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now consider a different environment where you don't have the computational power to perform that analysis, and instead you come up with something that is &quot;good enough&quot;.  Perhaps you cache 20 values and do a simple linear interpolation.  You have horrible residual values, much worse than in a more precise curve fit, but your errors are within some acceptable bounds.  Because &quot;good enough&quot; is seldom taught by much of anyone, your new &quot;good enough&quot; approach may well rise to the level of patentability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1165" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="2297815f-3824-45eb-8861-04c04d99aef5" CreationDate="2012-09-22T01:02:41.577" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/249312730014683136" />
  <row Id="1166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="261" RevisionGUID="19cecf95-fe07-449f-b36f-304c52dc22d6" CreationDate="2012-09-22T01:49:10.083" UserId="649" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I'm a Engineering student in Canada. Me and a couple of my friends developed a simple inductive system for wirelessly charging a mouse's battery.  &#xD;&#xA;The mouse pad has a grid of neodymium magnets built in. The mouse itself has a number of coils at the bottom. Current is induced in the coils according to Faraday's law of induction. This current is filtered and regulated before being used to charge a standard AAA battery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't plan to pursue this in a commercial capacity. Basically, we're just looking to add it to our resumes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it worth pursuing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="388" RevisionGUID="8ba4dc26-7ec3-457f-a944-5dd91595420c" CreationDate="2012-09-22T01:55:13.397" UserId="786" Text="Google's [SPDY protocol](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPDY) is a way to reduce web page load time be smart-[multiplexing](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc370/defs370.htm) of the content.  It has gained a [strong opening acceptance](http://www.quora.com/SPDY) among high-traffic organizations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite [armchair opinions](http://www.horsesaysinternet.com/business/google-shouldnt-have-open-sourced-spdy/) that SPDY should have been leveraged with IP – *could it have been*?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Did Microsoft file](http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1737/) aggressively, or defensively?&#xD;&#xA;Are patents like [6,604,144](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PALL&amp;RefSrch=yes&amp;Query=PN/6604144) and [6269403](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PALL&amp;RefSrch=yes&amp;Query=PN/6269403) a bad example, compared with other [historical multiplexing IP](http://www.google.com/patents/US7177284)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1168" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="388" RevisionGUID="8ba4dc26-7ec3-457f-a944-5dd91595420c" CreationDate="2012-09-22T01:55:13.397" UserId="786" Text="The SPDY protocol is not patented. Could it have been? Is there prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1169" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="388" RevisionGUID="8ba4dc26-7ec3-457f-a944-5dd91595420c" CreationDate="2012-09-22T01:55:13.397" UserId="786" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;internet&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="378" RevisionGUID="31d23d64-50cb-49f0-9990-d792ebdd840d" CreationDate="2012-09-22T02:43:30.530" UserId="76" Comment="added 390 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 95: gas separation: processes](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc095/sched095.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc095/defs095.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: gas separation by any method (selective diffusion, electromagnetic field, liquid contacting, solid sorption, degasification, filtering, heat exchanging, ...)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1172" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="378" RevisionGUID="31d23d64-50cb-49f0-9990-d792ebdd840d" CreationDate="2012-09-22T02:43:30.530" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 6 edit id of 140" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="374" RevisionGUID="cf2c228e-3edc-42fc-95b0-6b66ba5d2b25" CreationDate="2012-09-22T02:43:35.460" UserId="76" Comment="added 440 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 715: data processing: presentation processing of document, operator interface processing, and screen saver display processing](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc715/sched715.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc715/sched715.htm))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: word processing, spreadsheets, document markup, user interface devices, graphical user interface elements, ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1174" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="374" RevisionGUID="cf2c228e-3edc-42fc-95b0-6b66ba5d2b25" CreationDate="2012-09-22T02:43:35.460" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 6 edit id of 136" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="377" RevisionGUID="201e4844-63b7-4787-9028-04454e849632" CreationDate="2012-09-22T02:43:38.487" UserId="76" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="US patent class 320: electricity: battery or capacitor charging or discharging" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1176" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="377" RevisionGUID="201e4844-63b7-4787-9028-04454e849632" CreationDate="2012-09-22T02:43:38.487" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 6 edit id of 139" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="380" RevisionGUID="c8b7fe84-dcc9-430e-a89b-d87e70fea0b5" CreationDate="2012-09-22T02:43:40.997" UserId="76" Comment="added 430 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 345: computer graphics processing and selective visual display systems](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc345/sched345.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc345/defs345.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: visualization algorithms, image processing for display (3d representation, color modification, zooming, ...), display hardware (electronics and optics), ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1178" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="380" RevisionGUID="c8b7fe84-dcc9-430e-a89b-d87e70fea0b5" CreationDate="2012-09-22T02:43:40.997" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 6 edit id of 142" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="381" RevisionGUID="0832f32c-38ad-45e4-8a27-2b826a16ed37" CreationDate="2012-09-22T02:43:43.183" UserId="76" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="US patent class 345: computer graphics processing and selective visual display systems" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1180" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="381" RevisionGUID="0832f32c-38ad-45e4-8a27-2b826a16ed37" CreationDate="2012-09-22T02:43:43.183" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 6 edit id of 143" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="379" RevisionGUID="4cf65d42-ee9c-4d0f-95d3-d77dfce2e38a" CreationDate="2012-09-22T02:43:46.020" UserId="76" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="US patent class 95: gas separation: processes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1182" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="379" RevisionGUID="4cf65d42-ee9c-4d0f-95d3-d77dfce2e38a" CreationDate="2012-09-22T02:43:46.020" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 6 edit id of 141" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="54a2ba03-0899-49dd-a1cb-cdfa0d7dfb7c" CreationDate="2012-09-22T03:44:38.900" UserId="1095" Text="I demonstrated a solar tracking mount I built at a Renewable Energy Fair, MREA Midwest Renewable Energy Association. in Custer. Wisconsin. Several thousand people saw it on or about June 21st 2001. A week or so later I posted pictures of this on my web site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.redrok.com/electron.htm#mrea2001.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found US6563040 which is clearly a close copy of my tracking mount. I listed it on my patent page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.redrok.com/neat.htm#US6563040&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After several years I found Herbert T. Hayden but he said he was not actually involved with writing the patent and didn't know where the idea came from. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I have clear evidence of prior art predating the filing date of US6563040, Oct 11, 2001. by about 4 months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't claim my idea was a &quot;True Invention&quot;. I call it a &quot;Personal Invention&quot;. I mean. I did think it up myself but didn't pursue a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Duane C. Johnson&#xD;&#xA;redrok@redrok.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1185" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="54a2ba03-0899-49dd-a1cb-cdfa0d7dfb7c" CreationDate="2012-09-22T03:44:38.900" UserId="1095" Text="Here is what I see as an invalid patent. US6563040" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1186" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="54a2ba03-0899-49dd-a1cb-cdfa0d7dfb7c" CreationDate="2012-09-22T03:44:38.900" UserId="1095" Text="&lt;solar&gt;&lt;tracking&gt;&lt;mount&gt;&lt;tripod&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="337" RevisionGUID="80930e6b-fe2c-4009-af8d-0140ff10f6fd" CreationDate="2012-09-22T03:48:00.077" UserId="980" Comment="deleted 36 characters in body" Text="As far as i'm aware, a *block of code* or a *piece of software* can't be patented, period.  That's strictly copyright territory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be patented is the *process* that the code implements.  And to that end, a program licensed under the GPL may implement a process covered by a patent.  GPL v3, however, mandates that you grant all downstream users a license on the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for v2 and earlier...there's no such requirement.  That's one of the huge differences between v2 and v3; before that, people just assumed that &quot;free software&quot; *meant* &quot;free software&quot;, and patents were threatening to ruin that.  Hence the change." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="11fc2c05-b0a4-4d5b-abad-4aa51abfe9b2" CreationDate="2012-09-22T04:40:18.277" UserId="1099" Text="**TL;DR:** if a majority of companies in an industry have entered into a patent licensing agreement with a patent troll on exhorbitant terms, and I as a consumer of their products am directly affected (paying extra for &quot;bogus&quot; patents), do I have legal recourse?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The long story:** As an Android tablet and smartphone user (Samsung &amp; HTC), I am obviously affected by what is known as the &quot;[Microsoft tax][1]&quot;, wherein Redmond is charging the smartphone maker $10-$15 per Android phone sold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, $10-$15 per device is extraordinarily high; in fact, it amounts to daylight robbery! But because the patent agreements between Microsoft and the phone makers are under NDA and secret, we don't know the exact terms of the deal. [Barnes &amp; Noble was the only one who fought][2] against this tactic long and hard, but it was bought out by a Microsoft investment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Long story short:** as an end-user and consumer (and Android fanboi, I must admit), I find this outrageous ... and even more outrageous that no one can do anything about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What we can do about it:** I went as far as consulting with a lawyer on whether we consumers could directly do anything about it. My understanding of his reply (IANAL, just paraphrasing) was that putting together the case docs would cost only a few hundreds (USD $), but filing it as a class-action or an anti-trust case would cost into the tens of thousands, up to a hundred thousand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That obviously puts it beyond my grasp; any other ways to approach this? I find it maddening that nothing can be done about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://techrights.org/2011/09/30/microsoft-extortion-framework/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.extremetech.com/computing/105113-microsofts-android-bullying-revealed-by-barnes-noble" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1191" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="11fc2c05-b0a4-4d5b-abad-4aa51abfe9b2" CreationDate="2012-09-22T04:40:18.277" UserId="1099" Text="Patent agreements, price gouging &amp; consumer protection" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1192" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="11fc2c05-b0a4-4d5b-abad-4aa51abfe9b2" CreationDate="2012-09-22T04:40:18.277" UserId="1099" Text="&lt;payments&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="392" RevisionGUID="542b7a88-e9da-4941-a6bb-1a8d454c5bb7" CreationDate="2012-09-22T04:45:23.467" UserId="758" Text="For the moment, I'm going to ignore the possibility that their patent actually covers something significantly different than your tracker, and just deal with the matter of dates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have 1 year following the invention within which to file the patent, so your invention would need to predate the patent by at least 1 year to qualify as statutory prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it stands right now, your invention *might* be prior art, but then again, it might not be. The question would come down to who actually invented it first. In most cases, that's translated as &quot;who actually reduced it to practice first&quot;. For example if you had lab notes (or similar) showing when you'd first gotten your invention to work, that would be the crucial date. Obviously it must have worked for at least some short period of time before you demonstrated it. If you could show that it was more than 8 months before you demonstrated it (i.e., more than one year before they filed for their patent) then it would clearly invalidate their patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just for the sake of argument, let's assume you had your device working 2 months before you showed it, so it predated their filing by six months. To show their patent was valid, they'd have to show that they invented it during the (approximately) six month period starting from a year before they filed, and ending the day you invented your tracker. Their patent could/would be valid if and only if they could show it was invented during that window.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, what you've shown isn't *necessarily* enough to prove their patent is invalid. Without knowing the exact history of their claimed invention, and how long before filing they invented it, it's impossible to say whether the patent is valid or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="308" RevisionGUID="8473084e-b086-4178-8153-d030df532f79" CreationDate="2012-09-22T04:51:58.357" UserId="857" Comment="added 1460 characters in body" Text="[Here](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500273-37/apple-v-samsung-the-infringing-device-scorecard/) are the Apple patents either claimed or proved to be infringed by Samsung.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a list of them with brief description:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;['381 patent](http://www.google.com/patents/US7469381?dq=apple+7469381&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=_UFdUNG4LY_rrQea1ICgDQ&amp;ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA)&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Besides the &quot;rubber band&quot; effect where a page &quot;bounces&quot; when a user scrolls to the bottom, '381 also includes touch-screen actions like dragging documents and multi-touch capabilities like pinch to zoom and twist to rotate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;['915 patent](http://www.google.com/patents/US7844915?printsec=abstract&amp;dq=apple+7844915&amp;ei=ekJdUJaqB43wrQeG9IDwDg#v=onepage&amp;q=apple%207844915&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Also a touch-screen patent, '915 relates to a device capable of distinguishing between a single-touch scroll operation and a multi-touch pinch-to-zoom operation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;['163 patent](http://www.google.com/patents/US7864163?printsec=abstract&amp;dq=apple+7864163&amp;ei=1kJdUMPlAY7yrQeV1YGwCw#v=onepage&amp;q=apple%207864163&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You know how you can double-tap a touch screen to enlarge and center portions of Web page, photo, or document? That's what this patent covers. The jury found that the Intercept did not violate patents '915 or '163.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[D '677 patent](http://www.google.com/patents/USD618677?printsec=abstract&amp;dq=apple+D677&amp;ei=E0NdULzyKs_nrAf8tIHICw#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Switching to hardware, D '677 relates to the front face of an electronic device, as embodied by the iPhone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[D '087 patent](http://www.google.com/patents/USD593087?printsec=abstract&amp;dq=apple+D+%27087&amp;ei=PENdUOeRDojirAf8woCQCQ#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Similar to D '677, the D '087 patent concerns the general outline or &quot;ornamental&quot; design of a phone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[D '305 patent](http://www.google.com/patents/USD604305?printsec=abstract&amp;dq=apple+D+%27305&amp;ei=bENdUKP7JMXIrQfQ94DgBA#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The D '305 patent centers on a grid of rounded square icons against a black background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[D '889 patent](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=D504,889.PN.&amp;OS=PN/D504,889&amp;RS=PN/D504,889)&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For the final patent, which relates to the industrial design of a tablet computer, the jury found that neither Wi-Fi nor the 4G LTE versions of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 infringed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1195" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="81" RevisionGUID="6aea42cc-c0fc-4eab-bb3c-a645a7633eef" CreationDate="2012-09-22T07:02:41.860" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/249403329271193600" />
  <row Id="1197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="393" RevisionGUID="3c66bebb-53c3-4ecb-a568-ac340d878bcd" CreationDate="2012-09-22T08:58:47.037" UserId="1115" Text="Some years ago I read that you should not use the phrase &quot;Patent Pending&quot; in connection to products or marketing materials that do not actually feature **or describe** technology that is actually claimed in a pending patent application, as large fines can be applied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this still stand? If I put a Patent Pending notice in a product do I have to describe it in the product? Can I just have a link to a description? What care do I need?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1198" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="393" RevisionGUID="3c66bebb-53c3-4ecb-a568-ac340d878bcd" CreationDate="2012-09-22T08:58:47.037" UserId="1115" Text="What should I know before using &quot;Patent Pending&quot; in my products/ website?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1199" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="393" RevisionGUID="3c66bebb-53c3-4ecb-a568-ac340d878bcd" CreationDate="2012-09-22T08:58:47.037" UserId="1115" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1200" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="345" RevisionGUID="55b9ebe7-9ffb-4e40-857f-377cb3ad8baa" CreationDate="2012-09-22T10:02:41.570" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/249448625602719744" />
  <row Id="1201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="394" RevisionGUID="a0c23bbb-83c2-464e-b437-f342fe8ba34a" CreationDate="2012-09-22T11:16:25.987" UserId="1120" Text="Some of Apple's patents, I am pretty sure are based on Prior art some of these include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent number:  7844915&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent number: 7864163 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first includes gestures like pinch to zoom which have been in use long before Apple's patent was filed. I believe the first implementation of a pinch gesture on a touch sensitive screen was in the late 1980s, if this is the case it could invalidate the patents as Apple were not the inventors of the technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second is based around a tap to zoom technology, which means taping a portion of a screen to zoom in or out again this has been in use long before Apple filed this patent in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are in my opinion many other patents filed by Apple based on prior art, but these are the ones I have found so far." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1202" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="394" RevisionGUID="a0c23bbb-83c2-464e-b437-f342fe8ba34a" CreationDate="2012-09-22T11:16:25.987" UserId="1120" Text="Could Apple's recent patents be based on prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1203" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="394" RevisionGUID="a0c23bbb-83c2-464e-b437-f342fe8ba34a" CreationDate="2012-09-22T11:16:25.987" UserId="1120" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;apple&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="395" RevisionGUID="877994fd-8e21-42c9-be00-aed9bb2dbd39" CreationDate="2012-09-22T14:25:14.953" UserId="885" Text="&gt; Does this still stand?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. Deceptive use of 'patent pending' is an offense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - More [here][1] from USPTO&#xD;&#xA; - And more [here][2] from UK IP Office&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If I put a Patent Pending notice in a product do I have to describe it in the product?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not required. But you have to mention the patent application number and the country where the patent is applied for. UK information [here][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can I just have a link to a description?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have already applied for a patent, yes you can have a webpage with a small description (use discretion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What care do I need?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After going through web-resources especially Patent Office websites you can seek professional advice if you have further queries or you just want to be that extra sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/faq/patents.jsp#a1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-manage/p-useenforce/p-displayrights.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-manage/p-useenforce/p-displayrights.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="396" RevisionGUID="ceff76e1-bd73-466c-b6aa-d4c73c2b9741" CreationDate="2012-09-22T14:39:56.593" UserId="1133" Text="I am a partner at a startup design company which has come up with a new novel simple electronic device.  Do I need an actual circuit diagram with all the parts, LCD's, clock, etc with wiring to actually be a working device, to have my utility patent application approved, or can I make it a generic diagram which can be understood by laymen?  I was reading that it is better to make your patent claims somewhat generic, but I was debating whether the circuit diagram would need to be a working device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1207" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="396" RevisionGUID="ceff76e1-bd73-466c-b6aa-d4c73c2b9741" CreationDate="2012-09-22T14:39:56.593" UserId="1133" Text="Do I need a circuit diagram to get a utility patent an electronic device?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1208" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="396" RevisionGUID="ceff76e1-bd73-466c-b6aa-d4c73c2b9741" CreationDate="2012-09-22T14:39:56.593" UserId="1133" Text="&lt;utility-patent&gt;&lt;circuitry&gt;&lt;electronics&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="396" RevisionGUID="224ef340-da78-41cc-8e14-54e3823078f3" CreationDate="2012-09-22T15:34:29.233" UserId="1133" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="I am a partner at a startup design company which has come up with a new novel simple electronic device for household use.  Do I need an actual circuit diagram with all the parts, LCD's, clock, etc with wiring to actually be a working device, to have my utility patent application approved, or can I make it a generic diagram which can be understood by laymen?  I was reading that it is better to make your patent claims somewhat generic, but I was debating whether the circuit diagram would need to be a working device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="397" RevisionGUID="13ae8841-57b4-4cce-b50b-9c1e53d887b4" CreationDate="2012-09-22T16:31:33.800" UserId="169" Text="Without detailed information about your novel device it's not possible to advise you. It's better to contact with some US patent attorney (if you are planning to file US patent application)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="398" RevisionGUID="2dd13e59-41d3-46bf-bc1d-50541979eca1" CreationDate="2012-09-22T17:14:45.293" UserId="1148" Text="@Julie, There is mention of the pinch gesture dating back to 1983 in Bill Buxton's article [here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="399" RevisionGUID="dc02295c-cd5e-4660-85a4-9ebfe84b41a5" CreationDate="2012-09-22T17:35:48.990" UserId="758" Text="Let me summarize what I see as your contentions to support this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You contend:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ... that cell phone vendors are paying Microsoft&#xD;&#xA;2. ... how much that is&#xD;&#xA;3. ... that it's affecting the price you pay for a phone&#xD;&#xA;4. ... that it's to license patents&#xD;&#xA;5. ... that those patents are invalid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US Federal (civil) courts operate under the [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure][1]. Rule 11 states (in part):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further  investigation or discovery;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as far as I can see, you don't have factual support for *any* of those contentions, nor do you have some sort of indirect/circumstantial evidence that a court would be likely to accept as reason to give you an opportunity for further investigation or discovery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Worse, even if you had factual support for *all* those contentions, I'm not sure you'd really have a case. Even if the patents really are invalid, if they've been issued, Microsoft has a right to presume that they are valid -- and, in fact, courts are legally required to give any issued patent a presumption of validity as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, the cell phone vendors presuming those patents are valid is perfectly reasonable (since the courts are required to grant that presumption, it would be pretty ridiculous for them to blame companies for doing the same).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, it appears to me that to have any real case, you'd have to also contend that Microsoft *knew* their patents were invalid before they negotiated the contract, but decided to carry forward anyway. Unless you could show something on the order of evidence that Microsoft had bribed a patent examiner to get a patent approved, I can hardly imagine how you'd be able to support such a contention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem here is that validity of a patent is a legal question, so essentially the only opinion that can possibly carry any weight in the matter is that of a court or at least an attorney. First of all, I can hardly imagine an attorney being stupid enough to say such a thing, even if it reflected his honest opinion. Second, if one of Microsoft's attorney's had told them such a thing, it would almost certainly fall under attorney-client privilege, so getting it admitted as evidence would be next to impossible anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, essentially the only way I can see that you could show wrong-doing on anybody's part would be if you could show something like Microsoft having litigated the patent(s) in question previously, and either the claims based on those patents had been dismissed with prejudice, or else the jury in the previous case had found the patents invalid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now, however, it seems to me that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. you don't have evidence to support your allegations&#xD;&#xA;2. even if you did, it's unlikely they would support a law suit&#xD;&#xA;3. allegations to support a suit can't be supported&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bottom line: Unless you have a *lot* more than you've posted, I can hardly *imagine* how even the best, brightest, most skillful attorney in the world could turn this into a real case that should really succeed in court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/2010%20Rules/Civil%20Procedure.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1214" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="283" RevisionGUID="72a722da-c30b-4a1d-9190-33cf216be08c" CreationDate="2012-09-22T17:52:18.167" UserId="736" Comment="The only way to implement this therapy is by implement it as a software. Reviewers are discussing this aspect." Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="400" RevisionGUID="aae8a72a-1809-42db-bac7-377ec074b319" CreationDate="2012-09-22T19:16:18.637" UserId="96" Text="The patent description needs to be sufficiently detailed to permit &quot;one of ordinary skill in the art&quot; to replicate it.  I don't recall having seen a patent without any drawings - particularly for inventions involving electronic circuits.  The figures help to set context - worth a thousand words and all that.  Look at the figures in a few other patents and you will see that the level of detail covers the entire spectrum from block diagrams to precise circuit elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The level of detail in the drawings and the scope of the claims are not necessarily linked.  In addition, your patent may contain both broader and narrower claims.  Each claim effectively defines a separate invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Drafting a patent - the drawings, the written specification and the claims - is a professional skill.  You would do well to employ a professional to protect such a valuable asset." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="401" RevisionGUID="a7a83be2-da1d-4fcc-a84a-0f615914283d" CreationDate="2012-09-22T20:34:02.187" UserId="446" Text="I have read many patent prosecution histories (on PAIR), but have never seen one that references an open-source codebase as grounds for a rejection.  Instead, examiners have a tendency to rely heavily on earlier patent applications, even when they are not well-suited to documenting a rejection.  Does anyone (perhaps, an actual examiner?) know if USPTO examiners actually look at existing open-source codebases for relevant prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1218" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="401" RevisionGUID="a7a83be2-da1d-4fcc-a84a-0f615914283d" CreationDate="2012-09-22T20:34:02.187" UserId="446" Text="Do USPTO examiners search open-source codebases?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1219" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="401" RevisionGUID="a7a83be2-da1d-4fcc-a84a-0f615914283d" CreationDate="2012-09-22T20:34:02.187" UserId="446" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="402" RevisionGUID="5219d123-76b5-4558-a063-bba85a5c88b9" CreationDate="2012-09-22T21:52:28.883" UserId="526" Text="In general, patents/applications are heavily favored as you noticed. One contributing factor is that the search system (EAST) is the subject of a good amount of examiner training and is actually pretty good since it has a lot of operators that let you really search down to the sentence level. Another factor is that patents somewhat have their own lexicon since most of the times attorneys are the ones writing the applications. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, the PTO has access to a lot of &quot;non-patent literature&quot; databases (NPL) which Examiners do use at times, although not as much as they probably should. One main reason (I found) for not using NPL, is that NPL doesn't neatly lay out entire systems to the extent needed. Previous patents tend to have a lot of language in them that helps hammer out the easy parts of claims when making a rejection. Most technical sources focus on the core functionality. This is especially true for software since claims are written more in terms of structure rather than pure algorithms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, it's really hard to search codebases for general ideas, especially if the codebases are not well documented. It's very tough to map a plain-english statement to a block of code in a way that will convince the attorney/applicant that it's truly invalidating. One analogous example of this is when a software patent claim incorporates an equation which is very difficult to search for in existing sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do a little searching, you'll definitely see many non-examiners complaining about the lack of NPL cited during prosecution, which has does have merit. It basically comes down to practical terms. Examiners have a very limited amount of time to do their jobs (unfortunately, and not their fault), so the quickest way to get things done will always prevail. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Side note*: if you look at file histories check out &quot;Examiner's search strategy and results&quot; and &quot;Search information including classification, databases and other search related notes&quot; to  see what the Examiner is doing in terms of searching. (I still can't believe I used to know what all those EAST search keywords did)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1221" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="401" RevisionGUID="439dff3e-6308-4630-bcf9-685498d4d4dc" CreationDate="2012-09-22T22:02:41.790" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/249629820756041728" />
  <row Id="1222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="131" RevisionGUID="e0ddc0a7-8603-4e18-b62e-cd5578cc669d" CreationDate="2012-09-22T22:31:41.317" UserId="76" Comment="added claim 1" Text="[Patent application #20120222191][1] titled &quot;Sports garment with a seat pad, in particular for cycling&quot; claims to have a unique method for attaching a padded section to a spandex cycling short. Here's claim 1 from the patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A skin-tight sports garment comprising at least a portion acting as trousers and a seat pad located in a crotch area of the garment, the seat pad comprising a front attachment region to the garment and a rear attachment region to the garment, a central portion of the seat pad being free from attachments to the garment and thus forming a loose bridge portion of the seat pad in the inner crotch area of the garment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having worn them myself, I know that padded sports garments have been around for years and there must be prior art for such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What prior art addresses padded sports garments - particularly cycling shorts?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20120222191" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1223" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="131" RevisionGUID="e0ddc0a7-8603-4e18-b62e-cd5578cc669d" CreationDate="2012-09-22T22:31:41.317" UserId="76" Comment="added claim 1" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20120222191&gt;&lt;apparel&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1224" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="89" RevisionGUID="315b549d-3415-4b4d-b8c3-5c04a6d228eb" CreationDate="2012-09-22T22:33:28.880" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="403" RevisionGUID="6724adf3-67b8-4b77-8c7f-eec391fa6e19" CreationDate="2012-09-22T22:47:10.860" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="404" RevisionGUID="45300d8a-508b-4a3e-a490-0b14611f1110" CreationDate="2012-09-22T22:47:10.860" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="311" RevisionGUID="15c12474-d691-4e9c-926a-02891d243127" CreationDate="2012-09-22T23:53:01.870" UserId="76" Comment="included the most relevant claims" Text="I am looking for some details about a [Patent Application #20120222005][1] submitted by Terracotta Inc. around Off-Heap (Direct Memory) data stores. Here are some of its claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7\. A method of managing memory of a computer system including at least one processor, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium tangibly storing data, and a software application executable by the at least one processor and programmed to make use of the data, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * dynamically allocating and directly managing an off-heap direct memory data storage area, using a memory manager, such that the off-heap direct memory data storage area is perceivable by the software application as being a part of local application tier memory and manageable, after initial allocation, independent of any memory managers of the computer system and any memory managers of an operating system running on the computer system, wherein the off-heap direct memory data storage area is scalable up to a size of the computer system's memory, upon direction from the memory manager, to accommodate terabytes-worth of data so that that data stored in the off-heap direct memory data storage area is transparently providable to the software application from the off-heap memory within microseconds and without having to repeatedly access that data from the non-transitory computer readable storage medium. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8\. The method of claim 7, wherein the method operates in connection with a Java-based environment, and further comprises:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * (a) attempting to allocate Java byte buffers in chunks of a preconfigured maximum size in response to a request for off-heap direct memory data storage at a predetermined maximum size;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * (b) repeating said attempts to allocate byte buffers until the off-heap direct memory data storage area is created at the predetermined size, or until an attempt fails, whichever comes first;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * (c) when an attempt to allocate byte buffers fails, reducing the preconfigured maximum size and repeating (a)-(b);&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * (d) receiving a request for a region of the off-heap direct memory data storage area, the region having an associated size;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * (e) finding, via a page source, an unused slice of the off-heap direct memory data storage area;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * (f) returning a page indicative of the unused slice, the page being a wrapped byte buffer that includes a reference to the slice where data is to be stored and a reference to an allocator object that created the slice;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * (g) continuing to return pages until the off-heap direct memory data storage area is exhausted;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * (h) managing the returned pages from the off-heap direct memory data storage area as a single coherent logical address space storing data keys and values, with a single page in the off-heap direct memory data storage area storing a hash table with metadata information linking data keys to values; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * (i) expanding and contracting the hash table in response to further entries being added thereto and removed therefrom, respectively, by rehashing into a new page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Big Data movement, the off-heap memory management solutions for Java platforms are going to become an increasing interest. I would like to find out more about the impact of such a patent in a zone that seems to have an expanding, but not competitive enough market yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More precisely, I would like to know if anyone can shed some light on the following questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. To what extent is this patent consistent with the USTPO's requirements of &quot;non-abstract ideas&quot; and if it's possible for this concept to become a patent? The idea of managing off-heap data stores seems to me way too generic and I believe anyone could admit that the purpose of the JVM's off-heap capabilities are to be used as data stores.&#xD;&#xA;2. Assuming this patent will be issued (is still in an application form), what is the impact on commercial products built on similar technologies and on the customers purchasing these products?&#xD;&#xA;3. What would be the impact/relevance of such a patent be in the open source community? Considering that the idea is based largely on public/free components available in the Java platform, anyone can implement similar capabilities with very little obvious relation to the patent and with their own design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=354892&amp;OS=354892&amp;RS=354892" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1228" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="311" RevisionGUID="15c12474-d691-4e9c-926a-02891d243127" CreationDate="2012-09-22T23:53:01.870" UserId="76" Comment="included the most relevant claims" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;data-processing-software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="254" RevisionGUID="ddb443d3-b928-4986-9007-34920858c0ed" CreationDate="2012-09-23T00:00:34.090" UserId="76" Comment="include the exact wording of claim 1" Text="Following on from #191, I looked at http://www.google.com/patents/US8082501.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;System and method for enabling users to interact in a virtual space&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was granted in Nov 2009 and claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1\. A method for enabling a first user to interact with other users in a virtual space, each user of the first user and the other users being associated with a three dimensional avatar representing said each user in the virtual space, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * customizing, using a processor of a client device, an avatar in response to input by the first user;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * receiving, by the client device, position information associated with fewer than all of the other user avatars in an interaction room of the virtual space, from a server process, wherein the client device does not receive position information of at least some avatars that fail to satisfy a participant condition imposed on avatars displayable on a client device display of the client device;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * determining, by the client device, a displayable set of the other user avatars associated with the client device display; and&#xD;&#xA;displaying, on the client device display, the displayable set of the other user avatars associated with the client device display.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which seems a pretty good description of Second Life if nothing else.  Second Life was released in 2003, 6 years earlier than this application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what are the challenges to this being invalidated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It is linked to other patents, which may well be older &#xD;&#xA;2. Second Life is an implementation of the method not a description of it &#xD;&#xA;3. (this is the bit I am most interested in) the prior art that is Second Life is either subtly different, or does not cover the whole of the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If 3. is true, what is it about a claim that is patentable and different - what makes it sufficiently, well, unique?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1230" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="254" RevisionGUID="ddb443d3-b928-4986-9007-34920858c0ed" CreationDate="2012-09-23T00:00:34.090" UserId="76" Comment="include the exact wording of claim 1" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;data-processing-interface&gt;&lt;us8082501&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1231" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="fa91bbdb-676b-4511-9e09-54cea1951704" CreationDate="2012-09-23T00:11:51.753" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;patent-misuse&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1232" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="9a2fbb8b-0ff9-435a-bb64-04794640353e" CreationDate="2012-09-23T00:15:31.547" UserId="397" Comment="adding tag for patent" Text="&lt;solar&gt;&lt;tracking&gt;&lt;mount&gt;&lt;tripod&gt;&lt;us6563040&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1233" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="9a2fbb8b-0ff9-435a-bb64-04794640353e" CreationDate="2012-09-23T00:15:31.547" Comment="Proposed by 397 approved by 76 edit id of 147" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="394" RevisionGUID="95de4d2c-967e-43ce-a0fb-ddb40216e0df" CreationDate="2012-09-23T00:15:48.190" UserId="288" Comment="added links to uspto" Text="Some of Apple's patents, I am pretty sure are based on Prior art some of these include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent number:  [7844915][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent number: [7864163][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first includes gestures like pinch-to-zoom which have been in use long before Apple's patent was filed. I believe the first implementation of a pinch gesture on a touch sensitive screen was in the late 1980s, if this is the case it could invalidate the patents as Apple were not the inventors of the technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second is based around a tap-to-zoom technology, which means taping a portion of a screen to zoom in or out again this has been in use long before Apple filed this patent in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are in my opinion many other patents filed by Apple based on prior art, but these are the ones I have found so far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PALL&amp;RefSrch=yes&amp;Query=PN/7844915&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PALL&amp;RefSrch=yes&amp;Query=PN/7864163" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1235" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="394" RevisionGUID="95de4d2c-967e-43ce-a0fb-ddb40216e0df" CreationDate="2012-09-23T00:15:48.190" Comment="Proposed by 288 approved by 76 edit id of 146" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="372" RevisionGUID="50b21685-6e67-407c-b882-43766b3ed555" CreationDate="2012-09-23T00:15:51.607" UserId="288" Comment="fixed a few typos that affected clarity" Text="Let's say I made software initially publicly available, but some time in the future I decided I wish to patent it. Could I? Is there any time limit on how long after making software publicly available that I have to patent it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1237" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="372" RevisionGUID="50b21685-6e67-407c-b882-43766b3ed555" CreationDate="2012-09-23T00:15:51.607" Comment="Proposed by 288 approved by 76 edit id of 145" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1238" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="240" RevisionGUID="c464f950-7f14-46d2-ae7d-21db5aa386e2" CreationDate="2012-09-23T00:15:56.413" UserId="190" Comment="Made title more descriptive" Text="Can I patent my logic for a pantry management system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1239" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="240" RevisionGUID="c464f950-7f14-46d2-ae7d-21db5aa386e2" CreationDate="2012-09-23T00:15:56.413" Comment="Proposed by 190 approved by 76 edit id of 144" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1240" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="312" RevisionGUID="afdc35df-6d37-4e12-bb62-ae56c605678c" CreationDate="2012-09-23T01:02:41.457" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/249675118442323968" />
  <row Id="1241" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="c273e534-5564-4f48-8cee-604a54f55c79" CreationDate="2012-09-23T01:02:58.070" UserId="76" Comment="tags; added a question; added a link to the patent" Text="I demonstrated a solar tracking mount I built at a Renewable Energy Fair, MREA Midwest Renewable Energy Association. in Custer. Wisconsin. Several thousand people saw it on or about June 21st 2001. A week or so later I [posted pictures of this on my web site](http://www.redrok.com/electron.htm#mrea2001).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found [US6563040](http://www.google.com/patents/us6563040) which is clearly a close copy of my tracking mount. I listed it on [my patent page](http://www.redrok.com/neat.htm#US6563040).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After several years I found Herbert T. Hayden but he said he was not actually involved with writing the patent and didn't know where the idea came from. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I have clear evidence of prior art predating the filing date of US6563040, Oct 11, 2001. by about 4 months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't claim my idea was a &quot;True Invention&quot;. I call it a &quot;Personal Invention&quot;. I mean. I did think it up myself but didn't pursue a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is my mount prior art for that patent? Can I get the patent invalidated?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1242" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="c273e534-5564-4f48-8cee-604a54f55c79" CreationDate="2012-09-23T01:02:58.070" UserId="76" Comment="tags; added a question; added a link to the patent" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;us6563040&gt;&lt;batteries&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="394" RevisionGUID="7ee51355-d140-4242-b146-ac1e6b96f486" CreationDate="2012-09-23T01:12:53.673" UserId="76" Comment="tags; added the text of claim 1 in both patents" Text="Some of Apple's patents, I am pretty sure are based on Prior art some of these include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent [US 7844915][1]. Here is its claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A machine implemented method for scrolling on a touch-sensitive display of a device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * receiving a user input, the user input is one or more input points applied to the touch-sensitive display that is integrated with the device;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * creating an event object in response to the user input;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * determining whether the event object invokes a scroll or gesture operation by distinguishing between a single input point applied to the touch-sensitive display that is interpreted as the scroll operation and two or more input points applied to the touch-sensitive display that are interpreted as the gesture operation;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * issuing at least one scroll or gesture call based on invoking the scroll or gesture operation;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * responding to at least one scroll call, if issued, by scrolling a window having a view associated with the event object based on an amount of a scroll with the scroll stopped at a predetermined position in relation to the user input;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * and responding to at least one gesture call, if issued, by scaling the view associated with the event object based on receiving the two or more input points in the form of the user input.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent [US7864163][2]. Here is its claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * at a portable electronic device with a touch screen display;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * displaying at least a portion of a web page on the touch screen display, wherein the web page comprises a plurality of boxes of content;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * detecting a first finger tap gesture at a location on the displayed portion of the web page;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * determining a first box in the plurality of boxes at the location of the first finger tap gesture;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * and enlarging and translating the web page so as to substantially center the first box on the touch screen display, wherein enlarging comprises expanding the first box so that the width of the first box is substantially the same as the width of the touch screen display;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * resizing text in the enlarged first box to meet or exceed a predetermined minimum text size on the touch screen display;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * while the first box is enlarged, detecting a second finger tap gesture on a second box other than the first box;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * and in response to detecting the second finger tap gesture, translating the web page so as to substantially center the second box on the touch screen display. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first includes gestures like pinch-to-zoom which have been in use long before Apple's patent was filed. I believe the first implementation of a pinch gesture on a touch sensitive screen was in the late 1980s, if this is the case it could invalidate the patents as Apple were not the inventors of the technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second is based around a tap-to-zoom technology, which means taping a portion of a screen to zoom in or out again this has been in use long before Apple filed this patent in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are in my opinion many other patents filed by Apple based on prior art, but these are the ones I have found so far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PALL&amp;RefSrch=yes&amp;Query=PN/7844915&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PALL&amp;RefSrch=yes&amp;Query=PN/7864163" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1244" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="394" RevisionGUID="7ee51355-d140-4242-b146-ac1e6b96f486" CreationDate="2012-09-23T01:12:53.673" UserId="76" Comment="tags; added the text of claim 1 in both patents" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;data-processing-interface&gt;&lt;computer-graphics&gt;&lt;us7864163&gt;&lt;us7844915&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="396" RevisionGUID="db5c2125-1d97-4599-8124-d9e5df1a8345" CreationDate="2012-09-23T01:37:06.950" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am a partner at a startup design company which has come up with a new novel simple electronic device for household use.  Do I need an actual circuit diagram with all the parts, LCD's, clock, etc with wiring to actually be a working device, to have my utility patent application approved, or can I make it a generic diagram which can be understood by laymen?  I was reading that it is better to make your patent claims somewhat generic, but I was debating whether the circuit diagram would need to be a working device.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1246" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="396" RevisionGUID="db5c2125-1d97-4599-8124-d9e5df1a8345" CreationDate="2012-09-23T01:37:06.950" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;electronics&gt;&lt;diagrams&gt;&lt;writing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="6147667d-55aa-4c3b-8a6e-4c83091c4d55" CreationDate="2012-09-23T01:43:09.750" UserId="76" Comment="added the priority date" Text="[Patent Application #20120225162](http://www.google.com/patents/us20120225162) describes a weight management method.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1.** A method for managing weight, comprising the steps of: eating at least five meals a day with each meal comprising one serving of a vegetable or a fruit, a complex carbohydrate, and a lean protein for a predetermined number of calories per meal at ranges of 25-35% protein, 50-55% carbohydrate, 15-20% fat with a predetermined range of grams of fiber, wherein said predetermined range of calories is about 300 calories or is about 450 calories; losing weight by said eating at least five meals a day; and optimizing body composition by said eating at least five meals a day, [etc.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The priority date is Jun. 15, 2004 (from a provisional application).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm reasonably sure this correlates with advice I've seen for *years* in various &quot;women's interest&quot; magazines, in a number of diet books (including Weight Watchers guides), and even the USDA nutrition guide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm challenging the novelty of this claim. **Is there existing prior art for this, as I suspect?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1248" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="365" RevisionGUID="3c95f517-0c76-4a65-b974-8e4d3c3b01d6" CreationDate="2012-09-23T01:44:53.820" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;ethics&gt;&lt;conflict-of-interest&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1249" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="393" RevisionGUID="9d0e9448-e160-4c78-8a3b-9907e1c01ba4" CreationDate="2012-09-23T01:45:10.123" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-pending&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1250" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="401" RevisionGUID="5d16ef9c-1050-4060-91ea-da42870c7513" CreationDate="2012-09-23T01:46:14.630" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;examination&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="266" RevisionGUID="61557b96-7fb5-40ef-a122-73ab080811ee" CreationDate="2012-09-23T01:51:46.620" UserId="76" Comment="added a link to the article" Text="This seems to be a little more than a double tap and zoom patent.  This is like double tap and zoom on your tablet and it zooms on your laptop also. But it's interesting that the patent was filed 4 days after [that opera article](http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/evolving-the-internet-on-your-phone-des/) came out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1252" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16" RevisionGUID="a3abc287-dcaf-4871-a109-02c31766957c" CreationDate="2012-09-23T01:52:35.980" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;process&gt;&lt;video&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="405" RevisionGUID="76175d18-c28b-4cb9-848b-4fcd2f3df472" CreationDate="2012-09-23T04:09:14.497" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="406" RevisionGUID="fe09825f-a89f-44ec-95e0-51ecc0e36f81" CreationDate="2012-09-23T04:09:14.497" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="407" RevisionGUID="5d79008b-6fd7-460c-9369-1265e0b3739b" CreationDate="2012-09-23T04:21:08.570" UserId="786" Text="If you made a patentable invention, as recognized by the law of the land, then your recognition is subservient to such law.  You probably signed an IP assignment agreement with your former employer, so they likely have rights to file. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your interest and insider knowledge to materially harm your former employer may impact the judgement in a case where your acts or information is used as evidence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Food for thought." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="408" RevisionGUID="e9e9e388-7da5-43f0-b168-cc89ed9584e2" CreationDate="2012-09-23T04:48:22.467" UserId="1183" Text="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitive_sensing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue is not the gestures but the sensing technology. Capacitive sensing has been around for decades. No particular gesture can lay claim to a patent because they are all normal and natural human functions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="398" RevisionGUID="0ac81ea1-4ecc-4af4-9297-a963217350a2" CreationDate="2012-09-23T04:59:49.330" UserId="6" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="There is mention of the pinch gesture dating back to 1983 in Bill Buxton's article [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="403" RevisionGUID="fb091b5c-00e4-4e73-a599-c74c7382e263" CreationDate="2012-09-23T05:06:39.827" UserId="76" Comment="added 283 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 2: apparel](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc002/sched002.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc002/defs002.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: clothes and garments of all kinds, straps and attachments, shoes, ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1261" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="403" RevisionGUID="fb091b5c-00e4-4e73-a599-c74c7382e263" CreationDate="2012-09-23T05:06:39.827" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 6 edit id of 148" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="406" RevisionGUID="9c184f30-a41b-449b-ab64-ca7ea4fc3634" CreationDate="2012-09-23T05:06:46.863" UserId="15" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="Questions about patent laws and their implementation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1263" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="406" RevisionGUID="9c184f30-a41b-449b-ab64-ca7ea4fc3634" CreationDate="2012-09-23T05:06:46.863" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 6 edit id of 150" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="404" RevisionGUID="3bc0b18a-e48e-438d-8ce0-2f41a4a4ebef" CreationDate="2012-09-23T05:06:49.907" UserId="76" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="US patent class 2: apparel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1265" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="404" RevisionGUID="3bc0b18a-e48e-438d-8ce0-2f41a4a4ebef" CreationDate="2012-09-23T05:06:49.907" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 6 edit id of 149" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1266" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="388" RevisionGUID="8de7b1f2-c994-4ac7-b9d7-c0e26ff681fb" CreationDate="2012-09-23T07:02:41.660" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/249765715815583744" />
  <row Id="1267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="409" RevisionGUID="b4bd700c-d255-4414-af30-dcedc8a7f6c0" CreationDate="2012-09-23T07:56:24.210" UserId="1181" Text="Yes, Apple's patents here are undeniably based on prior art.  I'll try to answer your question best by providing details for your points, and then follow up with links to the authoritative sources.  Hope this helps!  :-)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Prior Art as an invention:&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Touch screens are approximately 40 years old, first built by IBM.  The first publicly available touchscreen was produced by 'Control Data' in 1972.  Multi-touch was first implemented in 1982 by the University of Toronto's Input Research Group.  It was an optical imaging system, rather than the capacitance based systems most commonly used today.  The same group developed a multi-touch tablet that used capacitance in 1985.  All multi-touch screens today have roots to this development, 27 years prior.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior Art as a patent:&lt;br /&gt;The earliest I found was US4476463, filed in 1981, issued in 1984.  Claim 21 in the patent calls to a second detection (i.e. multi-touch).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior art as published:&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In 1983, two Bell Labs employees authored and published a paper on multi-touch screen user interfaces. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior art as published:&lt;br /&gt;Gestures date back to at least 1991, in Pierre Wellner's published paper titled &quot;Digital Desk&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior art as published:&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Multi-touch computer pads were used throughout the television show Star Trek: The Next Generation, which ran from 1987 to 1994.  Additionally, the technologies were described in detail in the book &quot;The Star Trek Encyclopedia&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior art as published:&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Apple bought the company 'FingerWorks' in 2005, which produced touchscreens.  One of the newly acquired employees was Wayne Westerman, who had ironically written his PhD thesis on multi-touch screens in 1999.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Links to authoritative sources:&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(sorry about hxxp instead of http - new people aren't permitted to have more than 2 in the beginning)&#xD;&#xA;hxxp://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=800045.801573&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;hxxp://electronics.howstuffworks.com/iphone2.htm&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;hxxp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8lCetZ_57g&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;hxxp://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;hxxp://www.eecis.udel.edu/~westerma/main.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="409" RevisionGUID="cf3af2a0-80d6-4f6e-a79a-242b2001a10c" CreationDate="2012-09-23T08:42:01.733" UserId="1181" Comment="added extra line breaks to improve readability" Text="Yes, Apple's patents here are undeniably based on prior art.  I'll try to answer your question best by providing details for your points, and then follow up with links to the authoritative sources.  Hope this helps!  :-)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Prior Art as an invention:&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Touch screens are approximately 40 years old, first built by IBM.  The first publicly available touchscreen was produced by 'Control Data' in 1972.  Multi-touch was first implemented in 1982 by the University of Toronto's Input Research Group.  It was an optical imaging system, rather than the capacitance based systems most commonly used today.  The same group developed a multi-touch tablet that used capacitance in 1985.  All multi-touch screens today have roots to this development, 27 years prior.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior Art as a patent:&lt;br /&gt;The earliest I found was US4476463, filed in 1981, issued in 1984.  Claim 21 in the patent calls to a second detection (i.e. multi-touch).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior art as published:&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In 1983, two Bell Labs employees authored and published a paper on multi-touch screen user interfaces. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior art as published:&lt;br /&gt;Gestures date back to at least 1991, in Pierre Wellner's published paper titled &quot;Digital Desk&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior art as published:&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Multi-touch computer pads were used throughout the television show Star Trek: The Next Generation, which ran from 1987 to 1994.  Additionally, the technologies were described in detail in the book &quot;The Star Trek Encyclopedia&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior art as published:&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Apple bought the company 'FingerWorks' in 2005, which produced touchscreens.  One of the newly acquired employees was Wayne Westerman, who had ironically written his PhD thesis on multi-touch screens in 1999.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Links to authoritative sources:&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(sorry about hxxp instead of http - new people aren't permitted to have more than 2 in the beginning)&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;hxxp://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=800045.801573&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;hxxp://electronics.howstuffworks.com/iphone2.htm&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;hxxp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8lCetZ_57g&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;hxxp://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;hxxp://www.eecis.udel.edu/~westerma/main.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1269" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16" RevisionGUID="42a86052-f0ab-4f05-ac3c-23661db47d6c" CreationDate="2012-09-23T10:02:41.513" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/249811014089060352" />
  <row Id="1270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="410" RevisionGUID="02f2fa16-ade5-4155-a16c-2ef6023e434b" CreationDate="2012-09-23T10:27:44.283" UserId="1193" Text="Believe these could all be relevant -- all written by me while at Whereonearth and Yahoo;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[20090018770][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[20090019182][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US 2005003835 and GB2402841B][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090018770&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090019182#b&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patent.ipexl.com/GB/GB2402841B.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1271" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="311" RevisionGUID="5d35cfce-d6c8-4327-b466-51720ba36845" CreationDate="2012-09-23T13:02:41.773" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/249856312563859456" />
  <row Id="1273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="412" RevisionGUID="5885d389-cf53-492c-9c84-31a4177f519a" CreationDate="2012-09-23T15:10:40.723" UserId="885" Text="I will attempt to answer in brief.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First-off on protocols. Protocols as such cannot be patented [good reference required], just like the case of standards. Standards cannot be patented, but the catch is, technologies used in a standard could be patented. An example is the MPEG-2 standard that incorporates many patents. So, SPDY protocol as such cannot be patented, but the implementation (software) of the protocol can be (considering, we are talking about the US here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Despite armchair opinions that SPDY should have been leveraged with IP – could it have been? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure it could have been leveraged as a proprietary IP, say like a tradesecret, may be in the form of encrypted or obfuscated code. The article says, the protocol should have been kept proprietary. I think there is subtle difference between proprietary and patented. As said earlier, proprietary could mean a trade secret, e.g., the famous Coca Cola formula or even for that matter Google's search algoritms, and proprietary may not necessarily mean a patent. The information pertaining to a patent becomes publicly available (so not essentially proprietary), only restraint is that you cannot implement it without the permission of the patent owner before it expires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I must say that in my opinion making it open source was more beneficial. And beneficial to us, the public, since I feel the open source community has some pretty darn good developers and open source software comes free to the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Did Microsoft file aggressively, or defensively? Are patents like 6,604,144 and 6269403 a bad example, compared with other historical multiplexing IP?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Honestly, I don't know. Somebody else has to take this up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dev.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-whitepaper" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="413" RevisionGUID="51657c94-a3bb-45dc-91ed-62dc3452635d" CreationDate="2012-09-23T15:40:37.647" UserId="1206" Text="While in principle this could work as described, as a physicist/electronics/product-development guy I'm slightly sceptical that in normal use you would generate *enough* power to keep the battery charged (or total energy generated exceeds energy required to run the mouse when averaged over a few days of normal use). Even if it's just for a resume, you'll be a lot more credible if you have data from a prototype which *proves* that you can generate sufficient energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be aware that &quot;energy-harvesting devices&quot; are a hot topic, but frequently when you look at the details the energy (and the economics/cost) fail to add up. Something which merely extends the battery life by 10-20% (for example) is unlikely to be a compelling product proposition, given the extra cost/complexity and need for a special mat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="409" RevisionGUID="7a1e8e2b-e09c-4ccf-954b-b65b75f53d1b" CreationDate="2012-09-23T15:43:38.437" UserId="1109" Comment="Formatting" Text="Yes, Apple's patents here are undeniably based on prior art.  I'll try to answer your question best by providing details for your points, and then follow up with links to the authoritative sources.  Hope this helps!  :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Prior Art as an invention&#xD;&#xA;Touch screens are approximately 40 years old, first built by IBM.  The first publicly available touchscreen was produced by 'Control Data' in 1972.  Multi-touch was first implemented in 1982 by the University of Toronto's Input Research Group.  It was an optical imaging system, rather than the capacitance based systems most commonly used today.  The same group developed a multi-touch tablet that used capacitance in 1985.  All multi-touch screens today have roots to this development, 27 years prior.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Prior Art as a patent&#xD;&#xA;The earliest I found was US4476463, filed in 1981, issued in 1984.  Claim 21 in the patent calls to a second detection (i.e. multi-touch).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Prior art as published&#xD;&#xA;In 1983, two Bell Labs employees authored and published a paper on multi-touch screen user interfaces. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Prior art as published&#xD;&#xA;Gestures date back to at least 1991, in Pierre Wellner's published paper titled &quot;Digital Desk&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Prior art as published&#xD;&#xA;Multi-touch computer pads were used throughout the television show Star Trek: The Next Generation, which ran from 1987 to 1994.  Additionally, the technologies were described in detail in the book &quot;The Star Trek Encyclopedia&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Prior art as published&#xD;&#xA;Apple bought the company 'FingerWorks' in 2005, which produced touchscreens.  One of the newly acquired employees was Wayne Westerman, who had ironically written his PhD thesis on multi-touch screens in 1999.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Links to authoritative sources&#xD;&#xA;http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=800045.801573  &#xD;&#xA;http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/iphone2.htm  &#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8lCetZ_57g  &#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch  &#xD;&#xA;http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html  &#xD;&#xA;http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~westerma/main.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1276" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="409" RevisionGUID="7a1e8e2b-e09c-4ccf-954b-b65b75f53d1b" CreationDate="2012-09-23T15:43:38.437" Comment="Proposed by 1109 approved by 76 edit id of 151" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="414" RevisionGUID="4e07c373-d527-47d2-9d23-3554cf49c234" CreationDate="2012-09-23T15:48:17.553" UserId="1205" Text="Note that as of March 2013 (for apps filed after then) these rules change in the US; there is still a one-year grace-period -- but only as to *your own* disclosures.  If someone else publishes the concept (or something that would make your invention obvious) before you file then you are (probably) out of luck." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="415" RevisionGUID="92eee8f2-b27c-40cf-b31a-7a337bac6ae6" CreationDate="2012-09-23T15:56:14.080" UserId="1205" Text="I would add to User96's good answer that the description of the patent must also show that the inventor had &quot;possession&quot; of the invention (though the courts have been somewhat unclear in defining possession).  So a diagram or drawing can help with that as well.  In general if it would help in understanding your invention, you should strongly consider including it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="416" RevisionGUID="6654081f-ae6c-43f0-b4dd-0d89315f7da8" CreationDate="2012-09-23T16:04:45.443" UserId="1206" Text="In general, patents contain simple block-diagrams which articulate the key features of the device or mechanism you wish to patent. If the key feature of your idea is embodied in a specific circuit (for the sake of argument, with say 10 components or less) then a circuit diagram is probably appropriate. If on the other hand, it's going to involve several op-amps or a small microcontroller then probably the key idea can (and should) be abstracted to a higher level - and having redundant detail is a sure sign of a novice's patent!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The important bit of a patent are the Claims; the preamble before them sets the context and should be sufficient for someone &quot;skilled in the art&quot; to verify that your idea is indeed practical and workable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would expect a patent for an electronic alarm clock (if they hadn't already been invented) would indicate a &quot;means for displaying the current time&quot; &quot;a means for displaying and changing the time of the required alarm&quot; &quot;a circuit which keeps time&quot; &quot;a device capable of making a sound sufficiently loud to wake a sleeping person&quot; &quot;a circuit or system which detects when the current time = the preset alarm time and when this occurs sounds the alarm&quot;. I wouldn't expect a full circuit diagram.&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, in a previous job we were designing circuits which go in individual pixels of an LCD or OLED display screen, where the objective is to get much performance from as few transistors and capacitors as possible (because they have to be physically very very small). In this case it was entirely appropriate (and required) to show a circuit diagram showing the 2 to 4 transistors and 2-3 capacitors and how they were arranged and what waveforms had to be applied to them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="418" RevisionGUID="77b65c69-7f12-4507-99a3-4cfab78a6119" CreationDate="2012-09-23T17:03:00.207" UserId="1205" Text="Yajoe, there are a few possibilities here, but it isn't very likely that you can actually stop the patent application from being filed - as Dennis Crouch noted, in most cases, your employee agreement will require you to sign papers, etc.   -- you can (and should) ask for copies of all the filings of course!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given your description, there are a couple of things that will happen now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, the patent attorney and anyone else involved with the patent application that you told about the prior art will be obligated to disclose that prior art to the USPTO. (This may not actually invalidate the patent, of course, but the art will have to be disclosed.)  You may want to remind the attorney and your former colleagues of this obligation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, unless they claim an invention that you did not participate in creating, you will have to be named as an inventor. I think it is unlikely that this will give you any actual ownership rights over the patent -- you probably signed those away as part of your employee agreement.  But you may want to check in on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So one thing you should check on is whether the relevant prior art has been disclosed to the USPTO.  If not, then I'd argue that you not only have the *right* to disclose what you know, but the *affirmative obligation to do so*.  If the art has been disclosed to the USPTO, then the matter is basically out of your hands - unless your employee agreement is unusual and allows you to withdraw your assignment or something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the bottom line is that your best bet is to make sure that the USPTO examiner has the relevant prior art, and everything you knew of at the time of filing. At that point the ball is in the examiner's court.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="419" RevisionGUID="439f650a-c179-4c34-92b4-702a98eb8d5e" CreationDate="2012-09-23T17:10:18.827" UserId="1205" Text="A specific, applied method like that you describe is, in principle, patentable under section 101.  The real question is whether it meets the other standards for patentability, as other answers have noted.  Is is truly novel and nonobvious?  Can you describe it an an application-specific way? If the answers to this are yes, then you have a shot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="512a5dcc-a660-4893-abde-940d90ca0ff7" CreationDate="2012-09-23T18:30:26.060" UserId="1212" Text="Posting to make clear that any patent examiner should at least follow-up should it seriously be considered acceptable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This DocuSign U.S. Patent Application number 13/158,937 (filed 13 June 2011) has claim 1 as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method in an electronic signature service, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     without use of a Portable Document Format processing module,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;         creating a template that specifies required electronic signature data;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;         transmitting a URL that identifies the template;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;         receiving a request based on the transmitted URL;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;         in response to the received request, preparing a form based on the template;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;         presenting the form within a Web browser; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;         receiving the required electronic signature data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We hope that the patent examiner will look at competing technologies before they decide on the validity here. Claim 1 as written above has been in our customer deployed practice since June 2001. Every web form is a template accessible via an URL, and if that web form allows for an electronic signature (legal agreement), it would do exactly this, with possibly the only exception that such forms were not &quot;in an electronic signature service.&quot; Of course, our web forms were part of an electronic signature service and did exactly this. We even expanded greatly on this concept in November 2005 with our eSignForms product, and most recently in July 2009 with Open eSignForms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly, this is an obvious solution to signing on the web and nobody should have a patent on it, and this one certainly is far too late to the game without significant changes to the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is surprising that a company with significant legal representation would even think the claims are novel and non-obvious considering their founder met with Yozons before even starting the company. Clearly they know better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1284" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="512a5dcc-a660-4893-abde-940d90ca0ff7" CreationDate="2012-09-23T18:30:26.060" UserId="1212" Text="WEB-BASED ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED DOCUMENTS US Patent App 13/158,937" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1285" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="512a5dcc-a660-4893-abde-940d90ca0ff7" CreationDate="2012-09-23T18:30:26.060" UserId="1212" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="421" RevisionGUID="fb3d198e-8a07-4882-818c-9af93307af2e" CreationDate="2012-09-23T18:40:55.513" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="422" RevisionGUID="815b9ee7-87b9-4990-8405-ebed134aa6f8" CreationDate="2012-09-23T18:40:55.513" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="423" RevisionGUID="b495fdeb-d5ad-48f7-a75b-63eee2038b09" CreationDate="2012-09-23T18:41:44.263" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="424" RevisionGUID="e92b5c06-8e69-4740-897a-98441c94d6bd" CreationDate="2012-09-23T18:41:44.263" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="425" RevisionGUID="9182a092-e873-45e9-a513-f19d3e721f9a" CreationDate="2012-09-23T18:42:24.980" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="426" RevisionGUID="4f355901-635c-45cc-a81d-7eb8de909722" CreationDate="2012-09-23T18:42:24.980" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="427" RevisionGUID="14888de2-09ec-4565-847f-867d5a4ef2e5" CreationDate="2012-09-23T18:43:15.447" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="428" RevisionGUID="01c8cbed-3891-4b5d-8246-3a89017e6147" CreationDate="2012-09-23T18:43:15.447" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="429" RevisionGUID="d3ab655a-6a24-45bc-841d-fda53857f4bf" CreationDate="2012-09-23T18:44:34.293" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="430" RevisionGUID="9df62221-aa75-4c6d-9c49-6110fb002ed4" CreationDate="2012-09-23T18:44:34.293" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="431" RevisionGUID="66576864-294d-4755-8a28-fd540a5f147c" CreationDate="2012-09-23T18:47:28.127" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="432" RevisionGUID="e6010964-e050-4a60-bbb9-e401fee43db4" CreationDate="2012-09-23T18:47:28.127" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="433" RevisionGUID="0e82dd2e-22f6-42d4-aabd-22c5e5b5c927" CreationDate="2012-09-23T18:48:18.080" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="434" RevisionGUID="b671a74a-b459-42c5-a8f7-c91b08bceb1a" CreationDate="2012-09-23T18:48:18.080" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="435" RevisionGUID="a91f73d5-b978-4b24-a9ad-8f3154db816a" CreationDate="2012-09-23T18:49:02.883" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="436" RevisionGUID="6d2fc8ac-1b60-46a7-8737-801c9b17bd59" CreationDate="2012-09-23T18:49:02.883" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="437" RevisionGUID="29d1b36e-4402-49f2-8299-7466711db01c" CreationDate="2012-09-23T18:49:54.460" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="438" RevisionGUID="c24eb88a-f926-4f1b-99f2-5b77e033d359" CreationDate="2012-09-23T18:49:54.460" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="439" RevisionGUID="9b364890-18c6-4845-b579-0716847ef4a7" CreationDate="2012-09-23T18:50:37.970" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="440" RevisionGUID="ead9cd6f-814e-45b6-b23e-ada0ada5412e" CreationDate="2012-09-23T18:50:37.970" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="1d392202-e88d-4099-ba56-5370f2beaa2b" CreationDate="2012-09-23T18:53:56.733" UserId="345" Comment="Conform to http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/345; add link" Text="Posting to make clear that any patent examiner should at least follow-up should it seriously be considered acceptable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[DocuSign U.S. Patent Application number 13/158,937][1] (filed 13 June 2011) has claim 1 as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method in an electronic signature service, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     without use of a Portable Document Format processing module,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;         creating a template that specifies required electronic signature data;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;         transmitting a URL that identifies the template;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;         receiving a request based on the transmitted URL;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;         in response to the received request, preparing a form based on the template;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;         presenting the form within a Web browser; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;         receiving the required electronic signature data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We hope that the patent examiner will look at competing technologies before they decide on the validity here. Claim 1 as written above has been in our customer deployed practice since June 2001. Every web form is a template accessible via an URL, and if that web form allows for an electronic signature (legal agreement), it would do exactly this, with possibly the only exception that such forms were not &quot;in an electronic signature service.&quot; Of course, our web forms were part of an electronic signature service and did exactly this. We even expanded greatly on this concept in November 2005 with our eSignForms product, and most recently in July 2009 with Open eSignForms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly, this is an obvious solution to signing on the web and nobody should have a patent on it, and this one certainly is far too late to the game without significant changes to the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is surprising that a company with significant legal representation would even think the claims are novel and non-obvious considering their founder met with Yozons before even starting the company. Clearly they know better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110314371" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1307" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="1d392202-e88d-4099-ba56-5370f2beaa2b" CreationDate="2012-09-23T18:53:56.733" UserId="345" Comment="Conform to http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/345; add link" Text="Prior art for web-based electronically signed documents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1308" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="1d392202-e88d-4099-ba56-5370f2beaa2b" CreationDate="2012-09-23T18:53:56.733" Comment="Proposed by 345 approved by 32 edit id of 172" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1309" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="306" RevisionGUID="6507ab6c-fb4d-4b7a-8871-9ff4ad13e3ac" CreationDate="2012-09-23T19:02:41.603" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/249946909823873024" />
  <row Id="1311" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="54d3b919-8716-4fdb-aeec-2875af72c679" CreationDate="2012-09-23T19:32:51.990" UserId="76" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Posting to make clear that any patent examiner should at least follow-up should it seriously be considered acceptable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[DocuSign U.S. Patent Application number 13/158,937][1] (filed 13 June 2011) has claim 1 as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method in an electronic signature service, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; without use of a Portable Document Format processing module,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *       creating a template that specifies required electronic signature data;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *       transmitting a URL that identifies the template;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *       receiving a request based on the transmitted URL;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *       in response to the received request, preparing a form based on the template;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *       presenting the form within a Web browser; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *       receiving the required electronic signature data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We hope that the patent examiner will look at competing technologies before they decide on the validity here. Claim 1 as written above has been in our customer deployed practice since June 2001. Every web form is a template accessible via an URL, and if that web form allows for an electronic signature (legal agreement), it would do exactly this, with possibly the only exception that such forms were not &quot;in an electronic signature service.&quot; Of course, our web forms were part of an electronic signature service and did exactly this. We even expanded greatly on this concept in November 2005 with our eSignForms product, and most recently in July 2009 with Open eSignForms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly, this is an obvious solution to signing on the web and nobody should have a patent on it, and this one certainly is far too late to the game without significant changes to the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is surprising that a company with significant legal representation would even think the claims are novel and non-obvious considering their founder met with Yozons before even starting the company. Clearly they know better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110314371" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1312" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="54d3b919-8716-4fdb-aeec-2875af72c679" CreationDate="2012-09-23T19:32:51.990" UserId="76" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;data-processing-interface&gt;&lt;us20110314371&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="441" RevisionGUID="5cccdecc-6ba0-43d8-bca4-354b7e46da9e" CreationDate="2012-09-23T19:53:13.860" UserId="128" Text="In response to a question related to multi-touch user interfaces [this answer][1] states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ## Prior art as published ##&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Multi-touch computer pads were used throughout the television show Star Trek: The Next Generation, which ran from 1987 to 1994. Additionally, the technologies were described in detail in the book &quot;The Star Trek Encyclopedia&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That leads me to a question whether a fictious technology mentioned in a science fiction work, when described in sufficient technical detail, can ever be submitted as a valid prior art? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note: Personally, I don't think so, because it is the result of the authors imagination, not a result of a scientific process. However, it would be interesting to read arguments for and against from a subject matter expert.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/409/128" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1314" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="441" RevisionGUID="5cccdecc-6ba0-43d8-bca4-354b7e46da9e" CreationDate="2012-09-23T19:53:13.860" UserId="128" Text="Can a sci-fi technology be submitted as prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1315" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="441" RevisionGUID="5cccdecc-6ba0-43d8-bca4-354b7e46da9e" CreationDate="2012-09-23T19:53:13.860" UserId="128" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;science-fiction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="442" RevisionGUID="c03fbda9-4b45-4438-af85-0b8585699e60" CreationDate="2012-09-23T20:10:15.300" UserId="76" Text="There is no intrinsic reason why a work of fiction could not considered prior art. It doesn't matter whether an invention is the result of the inventor's imagination, or of a series of experiment, or a combination of both. (In fact the US briefly has a “[flash of creative genius](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_of_genius)” as a test for patentability, but that is no longer the case.) The current US law regarding patentability states ([35 USC §103](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/103))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is important that in order to be considered prior art, it is necessary that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most science fiction works describe fictional technologies without going into the full details of how they work, insisting rather on what they enable. In order to be prior art, the science fiction work would have to not only show that a particular effect is achieved, but explain how to achieve this effect in sufficient detail that a skilled person could recreate the invention. This is very rarely the case.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="443" RevisionGUID="d800b9be-b9aa-4188-a5a0-21031bb5d8cc" CreationDate="2012-09-23T21:23:19.593" UserId="1206" Text="As a physicist/electronics/product-development engineer (and not a legal/patent expert - though I have filed several patents in the course of my employment) I would have thought that a sci-fi description or representation (film/TV) in sufficient detail could warrant prior art for a *user-interface method* for example. It would certainly weaken the case for a subsequent patent being non-obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, most patents require a physical technological implementation (&quot;a touch screen comprising a transparent glass or plastic insulating sheet supporting an orthogonal grid of conducting electrodes to which AC signals are applied; the coupling of said signals to crossing electrodes being modulated by the presence of a users' fingertip...&quot;) for which the prior fantasy would not have described in any detail, and certainly not to the level of detail that could be taken to be the basis for an actual implementation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems reasonable to me that a patent which merely describes and attempts (for example) to protect &quot;using two fingers to shrink/grow/rotate an object on a touchscreen&quot; should be ruled out by prior art if such a concept has been formerly shown/described/visualised in a work of art - usch as a sci-fi series. A patent which describes a realisable implementation makes a significant inventive step beyond the purely UI concept and therefore has merit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have attempted to describe the principle which I believe would (or should IMHO!) be applied. I'm sorry I cannot cite actual legal examples or outcomes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="443" RevisionGUID="b993881e-4a33-4a18-a4d6-9e2f759a5aeb" CreationDate="2012-09-23T21:28:43.363" UserId="1206" Comment="minor typo corrected" Text="As a physicist/electronics/product-development engineer (and not a legal/patent expert - though I have filed several patents in the course of my employment) I would have thought that a sci-fi description or representation (film/TV) in sufficient detail could warrant prior art for a *user-interface method* for example. It would certainly weaken the case for a subsequent patent being non-obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, most patents require a physical technological implementation (&quot;a touch screen comprising a transparent glass or plastic insulating sheet supporting an orthogonal grid of conducting electrodes to which AC signals are applied; the coupling of said signals to crossing electrodes being modulated by the presence of a users' fingertip...&quot;) for which the prior fantasy would not have described in any detail, and certainly not to the level of detail that could be taken to be the basis for an actual implementation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems reasonable to me that a patent which merely describes and attempts (for example) to protect &quot;using two fingers to shrink/grow/rotate an object on a touchscreen&quot; should be ruled out by prior art if such a concept has been formerly shown/described/visualised in a work of art - such as a sci-fi series. A patent which describes a realisable implementation makes a significant inventive step beyond the purely UI concept and therefore has merit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have attempted to describe the principle which I believe would (or should IMHO!) be applied. I'm sorry I cannot cite actual legal examples or outcomes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1319" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="122" RevisionGUID="96b0e68c-55c4-412d-98b0-20e89f0b0246" CreationDate="2012-09-23T22:02:41.747" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/249992207929593856" />
  <row Id="1321" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="282" RevisionGUID="e12fdd30-024d-40dc-84ae-a149388b2a0a" CreationDate="2012-09-24T01:02:42.163" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/250037508367327232" />
  <row Id="1322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="444" RevisionGUID="260d01f3-2ad6-4449-92b1-a9256b20b451" CreationDate="2012-09-24T02:33:08.403" UserId="1224" Text="Puma 'Sattelite Forms' and Symbol were working on a browser for the Symbol Ruggedized devices in 1998 that had a double tap (With a stylus) to zoom in on a picture.  Unfortunately I don't know there would be many examples now that PalmOS is defunct.  Might be a good area to research though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1323" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="191" RevisionGUID="6a0e490c-6ba4-4088-abd5-6805891de64f" CreationDate="2012-09-24T04:02:41.860" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/250082806401736704" />
  <row Id="1324" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="286" RevisionGUID="8003b7b2-bcf4-4c37-8ac5-e50cef1e7059" CreationDate="2012-09-24T09:51:34.607" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;patent-pending&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="445" RevisionGUID="4c678a6d-caa4-47dc-9a3f-a3f6cb63a839" CreationDate="2012-09-24T09:58:05.503" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="446" RevisionGUID="963c49c6-7346-43bb-aea8-eb1722aca997" CreationDate="2012-09-24T09:58:05.503" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="447" RevisionGUID="2a7e6977-f4fe-4dfa-a6b8-ffb6d64a5981" CreationDate="2012-09-24T10:01:05.813" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="448" RevisionGUID="0b56e805-ece3-447c-9005-77b9a15451e0" CreationDate="2012-09-24T10:01:05.813" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="449" RevisionGUID="c60e74e0-9a53-4afe-bec8-76975f514621" CreationDate="2012-09-24T10:56:19.840" UserId="1237" Text="I'll note now that this answer is not Sci-Fi specific, but does originate from a fictional, created, medium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [an article on Cracked](http://www.cracked.com/article_19021_5-amazing-things-invented-by-donald-duck-seriously.html), a Donald Duck comic prevented a patent being granted in at least one region. #3 of the above link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The summarized version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In 1964, a freighter capsized off the coast of Kuwait. [...] So Danish inventor Karl Kroyer designed a ship-raising technique that involved filling the vessel with small, buoyant balls injected through a tube. The combined buoyancy of which would float the ship to the surface. It took 27 million balls, but it worked. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Well, Kroyer understandably wanted to patent his idea. He applied to the German, U.K. and Dutch patent offices, and while the first two countries said sure, the Dutch office stopped him cold. They said he was stealing. [From Donald Duck.](http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2006/10/19/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-73/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's the exact same system, and while no one is accusing Kroyer of stealing the idea, the Dutch Patent Office considered the comic book &quot;prior art,&quot; thus preventing any new patents on the method." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="435" RevisionGUID="ba2eee11-c4fe-42ed-928e-fdb1b7e3d871" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:53:29.123" UserId="15" Comment="added 986 characters in body" Text="**Magnetic connector for electronic device**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An electrical plug and receptacle relying on magnetic force to maintain contact are disclosed. The plug and receptacle can be used as part of a power adapter for connecting an electronic device, such as a laptop computer, to a power supply. The plug includes electrical contacts, which are preferably biased toward corresponding contacts on the receptacle. The plug and receptacle each have a magnetic element. The magnetic element on one or both of the plug and receptacle can be a magnet, which is preferably a permanent rare earth magnet although electromagnets may also be used. The magnetic element on the plug or receptacle that does not include a magnet is composed of ferromagnetic material. When the plug and receptacle are brought into proximity, the magnetic attraction between the magnet and its complement, whether another magnet or a ferromagnetic material, maintains the contacts in an electrically conductive relationship." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1331" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="435" RevisionGUID="ba2eee11-c4fe-42ed-928e-fdb1b7e3d871" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:53:29.123" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 1 edit id of 166" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="423" RevisionGUID="9eb42725-76ab-43ec-a2ef-264d0143ac2c" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:53:36.223" UserId="15" Comment="added 1047 characters in body" Text="**SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION ANALYSIS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A system and method for providing search engine optimization analysis. A starting URL for a starting web resource is obtained and analyzed. A text-based portion of the starting web resource is processed to determine potential target terms, and a relevancy test is performed based on the potential target terms. Referred URLs are determined and recursively analyzed. A text-based portion of the referred web resource is processed to determine potential target terms, and a relevancy test is performed based on the potential target terms. A link index is analyzed to determine web resources linking to the starting and referred URLs. An internal search engine optimization score and an external search engine optimization score are calculated. A graphical report including a visualization of statistical information related to search engine optimization and a domain visualization map including a graphical network representation of the statistical information are provided." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1333" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="423" RevisionGUID="9eb42725-76ab-43ec-a2ef-264d0143ac2c" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:53:36.223" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 1 edit id of 154" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="437" RevisionGUID="75521ced-c3de-4956-8c86-1c5dc0d83280" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:53:39.107" UserId="15" Comment="added 963 characters in body" Text="**System and method for enabling users to interact in a virtual space**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The present invention provides a highly scalable architecture for a three-dimensional graphical, multi-user, interactive virtual world system. In a preferred embodiment a plurality of users interact in the three-dimensional, computer-generated graphical space where each user executes a client process to view a virtual world from the perspective of that user. The virtual world shows avatars representing the other users who are neighbors of the user viewing the virtual word. In order that the view can be updated to reflect the motion of the remote user's avatars, motion information is transmitted to a central server process which provides positions updates to client processes for neighbors of the user at that client process. The client process also uses an environment database to determine which background objects to render as well as to limit the movement of the user's avatar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1335" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="437" RevisionGUID="75521ced-c3de-4956-8c86-1c5dc0d83280" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:53:39.107" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 1 edit id of 168" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="424" RevisionGUID="52e5ab21-c94f-4f24-a4b3-c45d9135a79a" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:53:45.630" UserId="15" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="System and method for providing search engine optimization analysis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1337" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="424" RevisionGUID="52e5ab21-c94f-4f24-a4b3-c45d9135a79a" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:53:45.630" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 1 edit id of 155" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="438" RevisionGUID="8318579d-33bb-44fc-9218-85982bdd32fd" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:53:49.047" UserId="15" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="System and method for enabling users to interact in a virtual space" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1339" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="438" RevisionGUID="8318579d-33bb-44fc-9218-85982bdd32fd" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:53:49.047" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 1 edit id of 169" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="428" RevisionGUID="ce904067-53b0-43ea-b574-755a4516bde8" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:53:52.197" UserId="15" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="System and method for enabling users to interact in a virtual space" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1341" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="428" RevisionGUID="ce904067-53b0-43ea-b574-755a4516bde8" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:53:52.197" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 1 edit id of 159" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="433" RevisionGUID="fb8f68e7-67ca-440e-9bde-9daf8d8d12f6" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:53:54.660" UserId="15" Comment="added 644 characters in body" Text="**Application programming interfaces for scrolling operations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least certain embodiments of the present disclosure include an environment with user interface software interacting with a software application. A method for operating through an application programming interface (API) in this environment includes transferring a set bounce call. The method further includes setting at least one of maximum and minimum bounce values. The set bounce call causes a bounce of a scrolled region in an opposite direction of a scroll based on a region past an edge of the scrolled region being visible in a display region at the end of the scroll." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1343" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="433" RevisionGUID="fb8f68e7-67ca-440e-9bde-9daf8d8d12f6" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:53:54.660" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 1 edit id of 164" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="432" RevisionGUID="1de74573-5df7-493a-a6dc-bf0832aabafd" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:53:57.297" UserId="15" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="Structure for supporting a photovoltaic module in a solar energy collection system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1345" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="432" RevisionGUID="1de74573-5df7-493a-a6dc-bf0832aabafd" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:53:57.297" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 1 edit id of 163" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="430" RevisionGUID="ec8bf277-26d5-4cdf-bfaa-1e523d3ff939" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:00.747" UserId="15" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="Portable electronic device, method, and graphical user interface for displaying structured electronic documents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1347" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="430" RevisionGUID="ec8bf277-26d5-4cdf-bfaa-1e523d3ff939" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:00.747" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 1 edit id of 161" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="440" RevisionGUID="3f562f77-f5b4-49ea-8421-61f0f430c3fe" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:03.833" UserId="15" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="System and method for enabling users to interact in a virtual space" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1349" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="440" RevisionGUID="3f562f77-f5b4-49ea-8421-61f0f430c3fe" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:03.833" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 1 edit id of 171" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="436" RevisionGUID="416fcdf6-536e-47a9-89f2-334bbfbf0886" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:07.173" UserId="15" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="Magnetic connector for electronic device" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1351" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="436" RevisionGUID="416fcdf6-536e-47a9-89f2-334bbfbf0886" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:07.173" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 1 edit id of 167" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="434" RevisionGUID="8031ed49-5705-4947-a6a0-7da0c219cfb1" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:09.810" UserId="15" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="Application programming interfaces for scrolling operations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1353" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="434" RevisionGUID="8031ed49-5705-4947-a6a0-7da0c219cfb1" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:09.810" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 1 edit id of 165" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="431" RevisionGUID="5797c9ae-7097-4ffd-a6da-0c9920c0bec0" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:12.553" UserId="15" Comment="added 1087 characters in body" Text="**Structure for supporting a photovoltaic module in a solar energy collection system**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A tilted single-axis tracking system (20) for collecting solar energy includes a structure (22) for supporting an array (26) of photovoltaic (PV) modules (24) above a surface (28). The structure (22) includes a frame (34) having first and second legs (40, 42) configured to extend upwardly from the surface (28) and join at an apex (54). A base tensioning member (44) of the frame (34) is interposed between the first and second legs (40, 42). A torque tube (36) is pivotally retained by the frame (34) at the apex (54) and is configured for attachment of the array (26) of PV modules (24). A foot member (38) pivotally retains a tube end (60) of the torque tube (36) and is configured to rest on the surface (22). A first tensioning member (106) is coupled between the foot member (38) and the first leg (40), and a second tensioning member (108) is coupled between the foot member (38) and the second leg (42). A pre-tensioning member (110) extends from the apex (54) of the frame (34) and is..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1355" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="431" RevisionGUID="5797c9ae-7097-4ffd-a6da-0c9920c0bec0" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:12.553" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 1 edit id of 162" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="425" RevisionGUID="4e6ec6cb-413c-4448-bdfd-69815fc9a4f3" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:15.330" UserId="15" Comment="added 496 characters in body" Text="**STYLE AND LAYOUT CACHING OF WEB CONTENT** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Methods and systems for style and/or layout caching of Web content are usable to build reusable style caching trees and cacheable layout calculations. Such style caching trees may be used to avoid recalculating style content of Web pages for document object model (DOM) elements that have not changed. Additionally, the cacheable layout calculations may be used to avoid recalculating the layout content of Web pages that are subsequently accessed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1357" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="425" RevisionGUID="4e6ec6cb-413c-4448-bdfd-69815fc9a4f3" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:15.330" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 1 edit id of 156" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="447" RevisionGUID="6bbc0f09-94ba-4bb9-80f6-884d9e15849a" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:19.217" UserId="76" Comment="added 377 characters in body" Text="Use this tag for questions about invalidating a patent that has already been granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question is about a specific patent, also tag it with the patent number and class or domain as you would for a [tag:prior-art] question.  &#xD;&#xA;If your question is about the legal process, tag it with [tag:law] and any other applicable tag (such as one indicating the jurisdiction).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1359" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="447" RevisionGUID="6bbc0f09-94ba-4bb9-80f6-884d9e15849a" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:19.217" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 175" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="427" RevisionGUID="7bb87c53-3c13-4a44-86fa-9173b46c01de" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:22.023" UserId="15" Comment="added 963 characters in body" Text="**System and method for enabling users to interact in a virtual space**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The present invention provides a highly scalable architecture for a three-dimensional graphical, multi-user, interactive virtual world system. In a preferred embodiment a plurality of users interact in the three-dimensional, computer-generated graphical space where each user executes a client process to view a virtual world from the perspective of that user. The virtual world shows avatars representing the other users who are neighbors of the user viewing the virtual word. In order that the view can be updated to reflect the motion of the remote user's avatars, motion information is transmitted to a central server process which provides positions updates to client processes for neighbors of the user at that client process. The client process also uses an environment database to determine which background objects to render as well as to limit the movement of the user's avatar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1361" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="427" RevisionGUID="7bb87c53-3c13-4a44-86fa-9173b46c01de" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:22.023" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 1 edit id of 158" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="448" RevisionGUID="6cc49433-ab31-44b1-b52d-8a5a99ac32a9" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:28.153" UserId="76" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="Invalidating a patent that has already been granted" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1363" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="448" RevisionGUID="6cc49433-ab31-44b1-b52d-8a5a99ac32a9" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:28.153" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 176" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="422" RevisionGUID="fd2af947-08ea-4792-83cc-9fbb01d856db" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:30.433" UserId="15" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="Graphical programming object population user interface autogeneration" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1365" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="422" RevisionGUID="fd2af947-08ea-4792-83cc-9fbb01d856db" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:30.433" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 1 edit id of 153" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="439" RevisionGUID="b3485c00-43df-4f89-9f5b-c462e0ae50e7" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:34.177" UserId="15" Comment="added 964 characters in body" Text="**System and method for enabling users to interact in a virtual space**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The present invention provides a highly scalable architecture for a three-dimensional graphical, multi-user, interactive virtual world system. In a preferred embodiment a plurality of users interact in the three-dimensional, computer-generated graphical space where each user executes a client process to view a virtual world from the perspective of that user. The virtual world shows avatars representing the other users who are neighbors of the user viewing the virtual word. In order that the view can be updated to reflect the motion of the remote user's avatars, motion, information is transmitted to a central server process which provides positions updates to client processes for neighbors of the user at that client process. The client process also uses an environment database to determine which background objects to render as well as to limit the movement of the user's avatar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1367" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="439" RevisionGUID="b3485c00-43df-4f89-9f5b-c462e0ae50e7" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:34.177" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 1 edit id of 170" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="446" RevisionGUID="75b0ee6f-4d35-4a2a-8380-394109af3250" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:39.560" UserId="76" Comment="added 262 characters in body" Text="“[Patent pending](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_pending)” is a mark that can be included in the description of a product to indicate that some aspects of that product is covered by a patent application that has been filed, but not yet abandoned or granted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1369" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="446" RevisionGUID="75b0ee6f-4d35-4a2a-8380-394109af3250" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:39.560" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 174" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="445" RevisionGUID="6590f6c3-ee86-4356-b8a9-9a14a141efba" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:43.007" UserId="76" Comment="added 509 characters in body" Text="“[Patent pending](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_pending)” is a mark that can be included in the description of a product to indicate that some aspects of that product is covered by a patent application that has been filed, but not yet (at the time the mark is affixed) abandoned or granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The regulations regarding the “patent pending” mark depends on the jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions, this mark provides the applicant or licensee more recourse against infringers if the patent is granted.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1371" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="445" RevisionGUID="6590f6c3-ee86-4356-b8a9-9a14a141efba" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:43.007" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 173" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="429" RevisionGUID="568dd55f-6473-4197-a3fd-bcd7cee7df3e" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:45.190" UserId="15" Comment="added 706 characters in body" Text="**Portable electronic device, method, and graphical user interface for displaying structured electronic documents**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A computer-implemented method, for use in conjunction with a portable electronic device with a touch screen display, comprises displaying at least a portion of a structured electronic document on the touch screen display, wherein the structured electronic document comprises a plurality of boxes of content, and detecting a first gesture at a location on the displayed portion of the structured electronic document. A first box in the plurality of boxes at the location of the first gesture is determined. The first box on the touch screen display is enlarged and substantially centered." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1373" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="429" RevisionGUID="568dd55f-6473-4197-a3fd-bcd7cee7df3e" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:45.190" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 1 edit id of 160" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="421" RevisionGUID="f52dbfda-63c7-44be-81c5-233335644857" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:48.357" UserId="15" Comment="added 999 characters in body" Text="**GRAPHICAL PROGRAMMING OBJECTION POPULATION USER INTERFACE AUTOGENERATION**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Automatically generated user interfaces are provided to aid data population of object instances in graphical programming environments. A selection gesture identifies an instance of an object type. The public fields defined for the instance are automatically determined, and a user interface is automatically generated with the name of each defined field and a currently assigned value for each field that has one. Fields which have no currently assigned value are optionally displayed with a hint. The user interface can be placed in an application under development, such as a sequential workflow application, as a class initializer and/or as an object configurator. When the object to be populated has another object as a field, the fields of that nested object are similarly displayed. Data can be entered into a container object through the user interface without replacing prior value(s) of the container object.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1375" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="421" RevisionGUID="f52dbfda-63c7-44be-81c5-233335644857" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:48.357" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 1 edit id of 152" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="426" RevisionGUID="0f4bec1c-ff3d-421b-bdb6-faba540c207f" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:51.757" UserId="15" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="Style and layout caching of web content" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1377" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="426" RevisionGUID="0f4bec1c-ff3d-421b-bdb6-faba540c207f" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:54:51.757" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 1 edit id of 157" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="450" RevisionGUID="a4ca258e-585b-4324-a0ba-1fda98a59c28" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:59:40.410" UserId="1244" Text="I would like to know if any kind of object of design can be protected by the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act, or if it is just to vessel hull objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1379" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="450" RevisionGUID="a4ca258e-585b-4324-a0ba-1fda98a59c28" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:59:40.410" UserId="1244" Text="Does &quot;Vessel Hull Design Protection Act&quot; protects any kind of object of design?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1380" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="450" RevisionGUID="a4ca258e-585b-4324-a0ba-1fda98a59c28" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:59:40.410" UserId="1244" Text="&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;arts&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="451" RevisionGUID="077bdc19-7dd1-4034-aa5e-783a4518f255" CreationDate="2012-09-24T13:05:50.180" UserId="1245" Text="Nope, just vessel hulls.  The Congress passed the act in response to a Supreme Court case that said the State of Florida preempted the patent laws by filing a similar law.&#xD;&#xA;http://floridaiptrends.com/2009/02/23/vessel-hull-design-protection-act-what-the-hull/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other types of designs are potentially patentable in a design patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="452" RevisionGUID="b1a14149-2ffe-4a3d-a572-91b32593ba1f" CreationDate="2012-09-24T13:41:44.010" UserId="1250" Text="The concept of &quot;electronic signature&quot; made me think straight away of GPG. Does a a web interface requiring public-key signatures come close to this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://getfiregpg.org/s/home&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a small bit on that page talking about a fireGPG &quot;API that allows you to design a website that uses GPG's features on the client; for example to autheticate a user for an administration pane.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plenty of other sites use related methods, mostly done on the server side. Github provides a form for filling out your ssh key to authorise that you have access to the code repository.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://help.github.com/articles/generating-ssh-keys" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="454" RevisionGUID="9f8c3823-9292-4248-a3e8-e831d514c5a7" CreationDate="2012-09-24T14:11:26.810" UserId="1255" Text="I can not believe there is not prior art for this. I'm interested if anyone has used a device that could put the screen in either layout or portrait based on how the device was held prior to 2003?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1385" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="454" RevisionGUID="9f8c3823-9292-4248-a3e8-e831d514c5a7" CreationDate="2012-09-24T14:11:26.810" UserId="1255" Text="US20040201595 Screen that rotates based on orientation - Microsoft 2003" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1386" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="454" RevisionGUID="9f8c3823-9292-4248-a3e8-e831d514c5a7" CreationDate="2012-09-24T14:11:26.810" UserId="1255" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="455" RevisionGUID="d12ee40b-c012-4123-a2dd-0c5ea54bac4b" CreationDate="2012-09-24T14:32:47.223" UserId="1261" Text="Mitsubishi released the Diamond Touch - using a capacitive glass surface in 2001 which far predates Apple's so-called patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="456" RevisionGUID="7ef89257-9d81-4953-a87c-b7d9b3011d15" CreationDate="2012-09-24T14:36:02.890" UserId="1259" Text="The bullet points quoted describe the most obvious &quot;login&quot; form/box that has existed since the implementation of web forms. The key element is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - receiving the required electronic signature data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My login to this site is, in effect, my &quot;electronic signature data&quot; - it identifies me and only me. Unless their patent invents a new form of electronic signature that does not simply use a combination of logins, passwords, cypher keys, IP or other known elements - I consider it as obvious in its entirety." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="458" RevisionGUID="622121cd-066e-48ef-ba34-61e25499d7a6" CreationDate="2012-09-24T14:53:57.987" UserId="1261" Text="You should also investigate PKI as this has been used to sign documents for quite some time.  You might want to contact Verisign or Network Solutions to see if they can provide you with prior art as they most likely do.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly their patent is laughably easy to work around." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="459" RevisionGUID="0a13597c-23d8-404a-ab78-e52aef0473ed" CreationDate="2012-09-24T14:56:22.730" UserId="1259" Text="&gt; I have become convinced that the patent system is inherently unfair and hurting the well-being of people all over the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While that is a matter of opinion and point of view - after all, the NPEs and their legal firms are only hurting from laughing all the way to the bank - I do agree that MOST web software patents have been incorrectly granted. It DOES hurt creativity - developers are less likely to create &quot;new&quot; code but instead prefer to &quot;license&quot; existing code to protect themselves from frivolous NPE lawsuits - but I do not consider it as hurting people all over the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, I am glad to have found this place, it provides a platform for &quot;outing&quot; prior art in a way that was not available in the past. Find prior art, verify and post it here. That's the best way to fight back. That I know of. Which is why I'm here. I have been a developer ever since the dawn of the &quot;Internet&quot;, I have worked on thousands of sites, I am familiar with virtually every web method, logic and algorithm since the 90's. I see patent suits in the news and I know I have seen or worked with EXACTLY those patented things, long before they were filed. So hopefully I can help out here - maybe you can too. Read, research, post. Present the examiners with verifiable facts. Soon, with any luck, patent abuse will be a thing of the past, and we can tell our grandchildren stories of the &quot;patent trolls of the last century&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="461" RevisionGUID="1472d178-2886-498c-91d1-e1b40c7c210d" CreationDate="2012-09-24T15:02:00.960" UserId="1261" Text="I think so.  Check the iPAQ PDA's.  As I recall they used to do that and I think they came out in 2000.  You should also check the Handsprings because I think they used to do that too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="462" RevisionGUID="b46aa377-66ca-47fc-8f80-973d0b0e56ec" CreationDate="2012-09-24T15:04:50.427" UserId="1261" Text="The best thing you can do is to help people find prior art and other means to challenge patents that should not have been issued.  If the patent trolls find out that their tactics are unsuccessful, it will stop.  There will no longer be any financial incentive for it.  If the patents get struck down, then anyone who licensed said patent would be due a refund.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="3e162993-7362-4e7d-adfc-adaa4699c298" CreationDate="2012-09-24T15:27:28.677" UserId="578" Comment="added 286 characters in body" Text="Many people in the commercial vehicle industry use a &quot;twin&quot; air drying arrangement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Patent #us8118911](http://www.google.com/patents/US8118911?dq=US8118911&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=62hbULzbEamujALb04HoCQ&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA), originally filed Nov. 10, 2006, and was granted on Feb 21, 2012, seems ridiculous to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, here is a twin dryer manufactured by the SKF corporation:&#xD;&#xA;http://vsm.skf.com/en-US/HeavyDuty/AirSystem/HCDualTurbo.aspx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this dryer constitute prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is claim 1 of the patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A device attaching a pair of desiccant cartridges such that air flows to the pair of desiccant cartridges in parallel, the device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * an inner chamber; a first fluid flow passage for communicating air to the inner chamber;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * a pair of extensions, each of the pair of extensions adapted for mounting one of the pair of desiccant cartridges;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein each extension is spaced at a substantially equal distance from the inner chamber; and a second and a third fluid flow passage, each fluidly connecting the inner chamber with each of the pair of threaded extensions, compressed air flowing in substantially the same direction at substantially the same time through each of the second and third fluid passages in substantially equal amounts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More possible prior arts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US3717974?pg=PA1&amp;dq=US+3717974&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=d3xgUPHTKKS-igKF1YCICg&amp;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US5871564?dq=US5871564&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=gHtgUPwvw5uJAsylgbgG&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US4802899?pg=PA1&amp;dq=4802899&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=yHtgUNGoI8SLiALv7oHQCg&amp;ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=4802899&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="9a6021f8-3b1c-4246-bf14-7b339123c7ad" CreationDate="2012-09-24T16:46:09.177" UserId="1274" Text="DataTern has Patent No. 5,937,402 on using objects to access a relational database. Patent issued in 1999, and obviously people were using objects to access databases since the 80's.&#xD;&#xA;Basically, any software written in the past 15 years that access a database is likely violating this patent. This is true for Microsoft technologies, Java, SAP, etc.  &#xD;&#xA;Need prior art that shows programmers used objects to access databases long before 1999." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1404" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="9a6021f8-3b1c-4246-bf14-7b339123c7ad" CreationDate="2012-09-24T16:46:09.177" UserId="1274" Text="Prior Art for using objects to access database" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1405" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="9a6021f8-3b1c-4246-bf14-7b339123c7ad" CreationDate="2012-09-24T16:46:09.177" UserId="1274" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;databases&gt;&lt;data-processing-software&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="464" RevisionGUID="db084581-b5c1-40f9-9878-e7111a9831d2" CreationDate="2012-09-24T17:10:05.723" UserId="731" Text="I would recommend keeping drawings at a higher level (block diagrams, etc) whenever possible.  If you get too specific, you risk running into problems if you ever tweak your design.  For example, you might discover that it's cheaper to use two 10k resistors in series instead of one 20k resistor, or you might have to source a part from a different manufacturer that has a slightly different pinout or requires additional passive components.  If you included a detailed circuit diagram in your patent, then your device wouldn't match the diagram in the patent any longer, even though it's essentially the same thing.  Along a similar line of thinking, including overly-specific descriptions can make it easier for a competitor to &quot;work around&quot; the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, it's the claims of the patent (the &quot;legal-ese&quot;, if you will) that truly determine the scope of the invention being protected.  The illustrations and diagrams are merely there to provide additional clarity.  They are not binding in the same way as claims.  As long as your claims are well-written, you shouldn't need extensive detail in your diagrams.  Providing too much detail may actually be detrimental.  A patent examiner is more likely to interpret a high-level block diagram correctly than a detailed schematic that requires interpretation or a circuit simulator to understand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1408" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="454" RevisionGUID="51b8981f-6758-4873-b0b3-3cf0117d4d4b" CreationDate="2012-09-24T17:37:09.677" UserId="1070" Comment="Patent numbers are to be placed in tags" Text="Screen that rotates based on orientation - Microsoft 2003" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1409" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="454" RevisionGUID="51b8981f-6758-4873-b0b3-3cf0117d4d4b" CreationDate="2012-09-24T17:37:09.677" UserId="1070" Comment="Patent numbers are to be placed in tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20040201595&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1410" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="454" RevisionGUID="51b8981f-6758-4873-b0b3-3cf0117d4d4b" CreationDate="2012-09-24T17:37:09.677" Comment="Proposed by 1070 approved by 6 edit id of 177" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="410" RevisionGUID="76566b21-2285-4a93-a6bb-3bb785f74699" CreationDate="2012-09-24T17:38:38.893" UserId="129" Comment="improve format and provide link for not-so-well-known site/company referenced" Text="I believe these could all be relevant—all written by me while at [Whereonearth][1] and Yahoo:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [20090018770][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [20090019182][3] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [US 2005003835 and GB2402841B][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whereonearth&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090018770&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090019182#b&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patent.ipexl.com/GB/GB2402841B.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1412" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="410" RevisionGUID="76566b21-2285-4a93-a6bb-3bb785f74699" CreationDate="2012-09-24T17:38:38.893" Comment="Proposed by 129 approved by 16 edit id of 178" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="211" RevisionGUID="3d60d7c8-f1ed-4d97-bc2e-9726eb803575" CreationDate="2012-09-24T17:38:46.383" UserId="129" Comment="format link" Text="This is precisely what [Acacia Research][1] does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have an issued patent that is being infringed, then Acacia will assess its value, then if the numbers work, have you transfer ownership of your patent to a separate legal entity (business shell) that both you and Acacia own. Acacia then spends their resources to collect compensation on the intellectual property in behalf of the company both you and Acacia own. Proceeds are then split based on business ownership.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Acacia has sometimes been called a 'patent troll', but they do not file patents for the purpose of trolling, they are more like a personal injury law firm, where clients, like you, come to them with a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acacia_Research" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1414" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="211" RevisionGUID="3d60d7c8-f1ed-4d97-bc2e-9726eb803575" CreationDate="2012-09-24T17:38:46.383" Comment="Proposed by 129 approved by 16 edit id of 179" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="466" RevisionGUID="42f4f851-bc66-46d9-92fb-ac4205338328" CreationDate="2012-09-24T17:40:34.850" UserId="1278" Text="There may be prior art inherent in the product of the late, lamented FineGround:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.networkworld.com/reviews/2001/0611revside.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The product was a reverse proxy you could put in front of your web site to improve performance for end users. In addition to stuff like caching gzipped copies of images, it could analyze HTML pages, determine which parts changed on subsequent loads and which didn't, and inject JavaScript into the page so that end browsers would cache most of the page and only reload the changes from the server. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="454" RevisionGUID="4279dc84-6729-4231-a50e-2647e78bcff2" CreationDate="2012-09-24T18:03:18.777" UserId="345" Comment="Conform to http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/345; add link" Text="[Patent application #20040201595][1] describes a screen that rotates based on orientation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can not believe there is not prior art for this. I'm interested if anyone has used a device that could put the screen in either layout or portrait based on how the device was held prior to 2003?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20040201595" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1417" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="454" RevisionGUID="4279dc84-6729-4231-a50e-2647e78bcff2" CreationDate="2012-09-24T18:03:18.777" UserId="345" Comment="Conform to http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/345; add link" Text="Prior art for screen that rotates based on orientation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1418" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="454" RevisionGUID="4279dc84-6729-4231-a50e-2647e78bcff2" CreationDate="2012-09-24T18:03:18.777" Comment="Proposed by 345 approved by 1 edit id of 180" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="467" RevisionGUID="ad2a5bca-3a73-4de9-8ba8-592a43c9e7ea" CreationDate="2012-09-24T18:07:03.753" UserId="1281" Text="This is precisely what the Radius Pivot display did.  Here's a [review of it][1] published in 1990, and a [video demonstration][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/17/science/personal-computers-looking-at-life-from-both-sides.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh5175Q4Vgo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="468" RevisionGUID="b9eb5955-8a6c-4955-88fc-4cd670032afe" CreationDate="2012-09-24T18:22:10.187" UserId="1283" Text="Sierra Online had a Red Barron multi-play 3D flying game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember playing it prior to 1995, so it must date before this filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am unsure if their technology stack required a central server, or if it was peer-to-peer. I do remember you could dogfight multiple users at the same time, over a modem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="469" RevisionGUID="df8386b0-b8d1-4013-9876-035936562a6b" CreationDate="2012-09-24T18:27:03.963" UserId="1284" Text="Informatica (www.informatica.com) has used objects to store it's mappings and sessions in DB since late 90-s. I joined it in 1999 and it was a well-established company by then (went public in April 1999). I believe I've heard of a patent being awarded for that very thing: storing objects in RDBMS" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="470" RevisionGUID="1fc4a64a-9c7f-4c2a-892b-695064515fb1" CreationDate="2012-09-24T18:33:06.980" UserId="1281" Text="As far as I can tell, claim 7 describes precisely what every virtual memory system in the world does.  They then qualify it by saying it must be &quot;independent of any memory managers of the computer system,&quot; which leads me to interpret this claim as basically saying, &quot;A virtual memory system that runs independently of the operating system's virtual memory system.&quot;  But that also is completely standard.  To give a trivial example, I can boot Linux inside VMware on my Macintosh.  Linux, running inside the VM, has its own virtual memory manager independent of the one run by the host operating system (Mac OS X).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also is completely standard for virtual machines to have their own memory managers built into them, and has been for decades.  An example that springs to mind is the Z-machine developed by Infocom back in 1979 to run their adventure games.  See [this description][1], particularly the section on storage management that describes how virtual memory management is built into the VM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/Infocom/Articles/small.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="471" RevisionGUID="d9e60baf-fcda-44b1-ad5f-62f1ef70ed70" CreationDate="2012-09-24T18:45:21.470" UserId="486" Text="If you check [Public PAIR][1] you can see that the claims have changed drastically (see the 23rd page of the Appeal Brief filed 3-09-2011) since the application was published.  It is also currently waiting a decision for the internal USPTO Appeal board as the Applicant appealed the examiner's rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="472" RevisionGUID="83cacfcd-88b2-4797-a6ce-05fa89710d64" CreationDate="2012-09-24T18:48:00.473" UserId="1281" Text="My reading of this is that it's not talking about a UI design tool (like Interface Builder or Glade), but rather about a GUI for editing objects: you click on an object, and it displays an editable list of all the properties associated with that object.  Which is precisely what every graphical database front end in the world does.  Or, if you interpret it more as &quot;automatically generating a GUI for editing data&quot;, Ruby on Rails or something similar would be an appropriate precedent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="473" RevisionGUID="68b4fc76-5ecd-4c5f-b33e-23c9aa9ce4da" CreationDate="2012-09-24T19:39:41.483" UserId="1206" Text="I wouldn't consider myself a highly proficient patent-searcher, though I do have some experience. On some patent searches you can explicitly *exclude* results containing a certain keyword and this can be very useful.&#xD;&#xA;Another trick is to deliberately try some more general searches (which may well return 1000's of results) and just have a browse at the first 10 (or a handful of the first 100) and see if you can begin to spot patterns of keywords that start cropping up. This may give you clues to effectively narrow your search.&#xD;&#xA;Have you already exhausted searches based on the *application* you have in mind? I'm guessing you may be deliberately looking outside your immediate field?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another line of attack (if you've got a bit of patience) may be to ask your question on an active internet discussion forum on the subject of fluid dynamics, and see if a specialist in the field can give you some hints.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="474" RevisionGUID="16fb7621-2fff-4dc7-8667-00a3a8e66ea3" CreationDate="2012-09-24T19:53:29.330" UserId="1206" Text="I can't help with your specific question but as background it may be worth noting that low-cost, small and robust 'solid state accelerometers' (based on micromachined/etched silicon) -used to detect which way is 'up'- only emerged onto the market in the early 2000's. Prior to that you'd have to use weighted mechanical switches or variations of mercury tilt switches, which are a bit clunky by comparison." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1435" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="475" RevisionGUID="98d04eb9-5db7-487d-a111-a59a2d6e5735" CreationDate="2012-09-24T20:11:03.923" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/81/does-looking-at-prior-art-searches-pose-a-risk-for-engineers" Text="" />
  <row Id="1436" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="476" RevisionGUID="dbdf7de6-3f68-47c2-bc3c-2f24bc1e16ab" CreationDate="2012-09-24T20:11:03.923" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/81/does-looking-at-prior-art-searches-pose-a-risk-for-engineers/82#82" Text="" />
  <row Id="1437" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="477" RevisionGUID="cf0c2404-4826-40dc-a65c-cb197710a3b0" CreationDate="2012-09-24T20:11:03.923" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/81/does-looking-at-prior-art-searches-pose-a-risk-for-engineers/83#83" Text="" />
  <row Id="1438" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="478" RevisionGUID="340713be-b691-4f32-9dc4-e072a6bc8f60" CreationDate="2012-09-24T20:11:03.923" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/81/does-looking-at-prior-art-searches-pose-a-risk-for-engineers/84#84" Text="" />
  <row Id="1439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="476" RevisionGUID="e967e1c4-2441-4a1b-8979-7648ebca5288" CreationDate="2012-09-21T12:35:08.630" UserId="345" Text="[Rumour has it][1] that triple damages aren't guaranteed, but a judge can decide whether to award them or not. Just because an engineer looks at this site doesn't mean that (a) he understands what he is reading, (b) realises it applies to what he is working on or (c) realises it applies to another teams work within the same organisation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As others have [commented on HN][1], not looking is sidestepping the issue. If you aren't looking, you are neglecting any genuine patent holders their right to recognition for their work. If it's a dodgy patent, you should - in an ideal world - destroy it in court anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4548583" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="477" RevisionGUID="dd552786-eca0-49d5-8ced-30d5186bbeb6" CreationDate="2012-09-21T13:02:08.893" UserId="105" Text="Treble damages are awarded on a discretionary basis by the judge in the case, however, enhanced damages are only applicable in cases of willful infringement. The judge determines as a matter of law what is willful infringement by using a two-prong test: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) &quot;that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent&quot; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;(2) that the infringer had knowledge (or should have known) of this risk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the risk to engineers for using this site seems low. A judge would have to make the determination that the engineer in question derived information from here that somehow aided in a separate determination that the engineer had an &quot;objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent,&quot; and &quot;had knowledge (or should have known) of this risk.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is a long string of &quot;what ifs&quot; to connect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recommended Further Reading:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Enhanced Damages: The Seagate Objectively Reckless Standard is Now a Question of Law to be Decided by a Judge and Reviewed De Novo on Appeal][1]&#xD;&#xA; - [Courts to Play Greater Role Moderating Enhanced Damages for Willful Patent Infringement][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/06/enhanced-damages-the-seagate-objectively-reckless-is-now-a-question-of-law-to-be-decided-by-a-judge-and-reviewed-de-novo-on.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.martindale.com/litigation-law/article_Sheppard-Mullin-Richter-Hampton-LLP_1549678.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="478" RevisionGUID="d707329b-6583-49f5-be66-6a5be84810fd" CreationDate="2012-09-21T13:17:53.367" UserId="962" Text="Just staring at USPTO site doesn't indicate known patent infringement. However when a patent infringement lawsuit is filed the plaintiff can apply for gathering evidence from the proposed violator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Evidence requested will definitely include all corporate email (that's for sure) and likely can include logs of the corporate proxy servers and firewalls (not sure, but it's likely possible). The email may contain employees discussing patent search results (like &quot;Joe, I've searched whether this thing was patented and...&quot;) and logs may contain URLs requested which can make it clear that a patent search was done for certain keywords.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, leaving traces of a patent search in any form such that they can be discovered and brought to the court may pose a problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="479" RevisionGUID="2d55f374-0735-4b29-8d61-220fcf007e06" CreationDate="2012-09-21T15:12:43.663" UserId="998" Text="There are lots of potential benefits for engineers who understand patent law and who take some time to understand what competitors are trying to protect. However, the question focused on problems associated with using this site.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two potential legal problems are (1) being charged with willful infringement (or inducing infringement); and (2) beign charged with inequitable conduct. It is my view that neither of these are likely although some precautions might be needed to ensure that you do not run into trouble. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Willful Infringement**: Patent infringement is often thought of as a strict liability tort. It does not matter whether you intended to infringe or even knew that a patent system exists. Rather, if you are practicing someone else's patented invention then you are an infringer.  Knowledge and intent come in a few ways.  First, if a jury knows that you might have copied then they may be more likely to judge you as an infringer (even though copying is irrelevant to the law on that issue). Second, once you are judged to be an infringer the court can treble (triple) the damages if the infringement was &quot;willful.&quot; Knowledge of the patent is a critical element of proving infringement.  Third, sometimes parties are sued for inducing infringement -- i.e., encouraging someone else to infringe.  If you are liable for inducement then you will be jointly liable with the actual infringer.  Inducement requires proof that you knew of the patent and encouraged someone to infringe it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, in this discussion of infringement, I have been using the pronoun &quot;you.&quot;  The question was about engineers, and engineers are almost never accused of patent infringement. Rather, it is some company that they work for who is accused.  Usually, the knowledge of a single engineer will not be imputed onto the company itself. That changes if the engineer is somehow in management or if the information is shared with the group. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way to protect against willful infringement is not to bury your head in the sand. Instead, when you identify a patent that your company may be infringing, you should identify the patent and notify your counsel. In most cases the attorneys will be able to provide a fairly simple course of action that avoids the threat of treble damages.  In any event, the trebling of damages is normally 5-10 years down the line if ever.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Inequitable Conduct**: I suspect that many of the engineers looking at this site are involved with obtaining their own patents or are perhaps leading their company's patent efforts.  Anyone involved with the filing of patent applications (including the inventors) owes a legal duty of candor to the USPTO.  In addition to telling the truth, this duty also requires that you inform the USPTO of any information that you have that is somehow material to the prosecution of the patent.  Most often, this obligation is satisfied by submitting copies of all the relevant prior art that you know about to the USPTO.  The average patent applicant submits about 10 documents of this type to the USPTO per patent application.  Besides the duty of candor, it turns out to be a good thing to submit prior art to the USPTO. Every quantitative study that I've seen on the topic finds that patents tend to be more valuable when more prior art is cited by the applicant. This shows the world that you care about the invention.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the USPTO usually does not catch anyone failing the duty of candor. Where it comes up is later in litigation when you are trying to save your company by enforcing the patent.  If it turns out that you failed to submit important material, the patent can be held unenforceable.  The best course of action here is very straighforward - when you see information on this site that is somewhat close to a patent you are working on, then you should submit that information to the USPTO - easy. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="475" RevisionGUID="e7016343-6e65-41d9-bea0-536978c5b7f3" CreationDate="2012-09-21T12:29:45.413" UserId="942" Text="Due to triple damage provisions of patent law, for knowingly violating a patent, many companies bar engineers from visiting the USPTO site or looking at any patents. Do these sites which help with online patent searches also pose a similar risk for engineers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1444" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="475" RevisionGUID="e7016343-6e65-41d9-bea0-536978c5b7f3" CreationDate="2012-09-21T12:29:45.413" UserId="942" Text="Does looking at prior art searches pose a risk for engineers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1445" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="475" RevisionGUID="e7016343-6e65-41d9-bea0-536978c5b7f3" CreationDate="2012-09-21T12:29:45.413" UserId="942" Text="&lt;untagged&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1446" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="479" RevisionGUID="cf0cff8a-d78b-4ab0-9a7d-5a57b0fd704d" CreationDate="2012-09-24T20:11:03.923" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/81/does-looking-at-prior-art-searches-pose-a-risk-for-engineers/85#85" Text="" />
  <row Id="1447" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="480" RevisionGUID="71ed9e72-9572-4553-9ee4-a22e2013c1ca" CreationDate="2012-09-24T20:11:03.923" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/81/does-looking-at-prior-art-searches-pose-a-risk-for-engineers/100#100" Text="" />
  <row Id="1448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="480" RevisionGUID="7d821f7c-31ff-475a-b526-81bd379f4e5c" CreationDate="2012-09-23T23:39:43.890" UserId="1206" Text="I used to work for a very large and well-known company as an 'engineer', and filed a handful of patents there in the field of electronics and display screens. I think we outsourced the 'legalese' drafting of the patents to qualified people - who also performed basic Prior Art searches for us. They might come back with 30-odd possible 'prior-arts'; typically the vast majority of these could immediately be dismissed and 2-3 would need looking at closely. Sometimes you'd just have to admit one of those was exactly the idea you'd hand and drop the case there and then. Otherwise you might still have to look carefully to draw out the differences between your idea and the prior art - and maybe narrow your own patent to avoid coverage of the existing one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the scatter of hits that typically came back from their searches, I suspect that sometimes they likely missed some relevant prior art - but I don't know what you can do about that. Big companies play all sorts of games with patents - including giving them highly generic titles, which does not aid finding them in searches. :-(&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1449" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="475" RevisionGUID="d65a6cf4-0058-40d7-bba8-38a32bdc7273" CreationDate="2012-09-24T20:11:22.657" UserId="6" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="454" RevisionGUID="c2204330-55a5-4412-b704-b20d67ec32d2" CreationDate="2012-09-24T21:44:30.560" UserId="76" Comment="added the text of claim 1" Text="[Patent application #20040201595][1], filed April 11, 2003, describes a screen that rotates based on orientation. Here is its claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for orienting a display image, said method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * sensing at least one characteristic of an object;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * determining an orientation of said object from at least one of said at least one sensed characteristic;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * and orienting said display image relative to said determined orientation of said object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can not believe there is not prior art for this. I'm interested if anyone has used a device that could put the screen in either layout or portrait based on how the device was held prior to 2003?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20040201595" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1452" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="454" RevisionGUID="c2204330-55a5-4412-b704-b20d67ec32d2" CreationDate="2012-09-24T21:44:30.560" UserId="76" Comment="added the text of claim 1" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;computer-graphics&gt;&lt;us20040201595&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="481" RevisionGUID="1d2397d3-e00e-4038-a167-b0eab8cd3a57" CreationDate="2012-09-24T21:51:47.767" UserId="1259" Text="The [definition of SEO][1] generally describes this entire patent application. As such, the concept IS already prior art as it exists and has existed before the filing. Every search engine out there already uses the exact procedure described ([Googbot defined][2]), although the ranking and weighting system is unique to each search provider. Unless the logic of this patent application ranking/weighting/scoring system introduces some new innovation (which I don't see), this should be un-patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_optimization&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googlebot" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1454" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19" RevisionGUID="7e24c0c4-bc14-4163-869e-0804dc43ec1f" CreationDate="2012-09-24T21:52:06.767" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="450" RevisionGUID="f0cbad87-43a3-47d3-ba50-da72114d6b34" CreationDate="2012-09-24T21:53:17.903" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I would like to know if any kind of object of design can be protected by the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act, or if it is just to vessel hull objects.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1456" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="450" RevisionGUID="f0cbad87-43a3-47d3-ba50-da72114d6b34" CreationDate="2012-09-24T21:53:17.903" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;ships&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="482" RevisionGUID="f0020bce-890a-402e-8226-b30bd074cad6" CreationDate="2012-09-24T21:56:52.113" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="483" RevisionGUID="fea35b4d-0bf0-4ca1-9e47-88429253f3bb" CreationDate="2012-09-24T21:56:52.113" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="fe2d7765-6d99-44ff-b18e-3de8524884f8" CreationDate="2012-09-24T22:02:38.487" UserId="76" Comment="added hyperlink; added claim 1" Text="DataTern has Patent No. [5,937,402](http://www.google.com/patents/US5937402) on using objects to access a relational database. The patent was issued in 1999, and obviously people were using objects to access databases since the 80's.&#xD;&#xA;Basically, any software written in the past 15 years that access a database is likely violating this patent. This is true for Microsoft technologies, Java, SAP, etc. Here is its claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1\. A method for enabling an object oriented user application to access a relational database having one or more physical tables segmented into rows and columns, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * defining a logical table comprising a subset of columns from at least one of the one or more physical tables;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * designating one column of the logical table as a logical primary key column;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * forming a normalized relational schema object representing the logical table;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * generating, responsive to the normalized relational schema object, one or more object classes associated with the normalized relational schema object; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * employing an object of an object class including the one or more object classes associated with the normalized relational schema object and a respective corresponding logical primary key value to access data in the at least one of the physical tables in the relational database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for prior art that shows programmers used objects to access databases long before 1999." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1460" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="fe2d7765-6d99-44ff-b18e-3de8524884f8" CreationDate="2012-09-24T22:02:38.487" UserId="76" Comment="added hyperlink; added claim 1" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;data-processing-database&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;us5937402&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1461" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="441" RevisionGUID="ea3b4e80-b7d5-42ea-8a60-e0d80a87bdb0" CreationDate="2012-09-24T22:02:41.747" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/250354596726312962" />
  <row Id="1462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="469" RevisionGUID="b2e5af43-4d3c-4e79-bedd-a5f599403d74" CreationDate="2012-09-24T22:03:10.047" UserId="76" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="[Informatica](http://www.informatica.com/) has used objects to store its mappings and sessions in DB since late 1990's. I joined it in 1999 and it was a well-established company by then (went public in April 1999). I believe I've heard of a patent being awarded for that very thing: storing objects in RDBMS." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="484" RevisionGUID="d3f6c483-973d-473b-9551-6b124df8615c" CreationDate="2012-09-24T22:10:55.390" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="485" RevisionGUID="488b3263-bf95-4753-a0f8-add05f30977b" CreationDate="2012-09-24T22:10:55.390" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="486" RevisionGUID="40f083d1-188b-4269-a2fe-495b2c9f9f93" CreationDate="2012-09-24T22:13:27.647" UserId="1296" Text="I'd also like to point out DogPile and Copernic regarding this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="469" RevisionGUID="6937be01-4a01-4980-92d2-64bf65c6ad12" CreationDate="2012-09-24T22:24:35.763" UserId="1284" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="[Informatica](http://www.informatica.com/) has used objects to store its mappings and sessions in DB since late 1990's. I joined it in 1999 and it was a well-established company by then (went public in April 1999). I believe I've heard of a patent being awarded to Informatica for that very thing: storing objects in RDBMS." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="b812c7ba-cd30-4ad6-885a-720d12d3e4c3" CreationDate="2012-09-24T22:24:46.340" UserId="1297" Text="Is the following article prior art for the US patent application 12/669,616 ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/chem.200304957/abstract;jsessionid=D27264CCB3D4BAD7A3F12CF22DF45E3B.d03t01" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1468" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="b812c7ba-cd30-4ad6-885a-720d12d3e4c3" CreationDate="2012-09-24T22:24:46.340" UserId="1297" Text="Is this article prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1469" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="b812c7ba-cd30-4ad6-885a-720d12d3e4c3" CreationDate="2012-09-24T22:24:46.340" UserId="1297" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="482" RevisionGUID="e0f90b82-7ba6-4459-9f79-bc25af63dfb3" CreationDate="2012-09-24T22:27:49.423" UserId="76" Comment="added 422 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 114: ships](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc114/sched114.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc114/defs114.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: boats and ships, warships, submarines, torpedoes, scows, icebreakers, tows, docks, aircraft careers, floating platforms, life crafts, sails, smokestacks, spars, hulls, keels, steering, anchors, waterskis, ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1473" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="482" RevisionGUID="e0f90b82-7ba6-4459-9f79-bc25af63dfb3" CreationDate="2012-09-24T22:27:49.423" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 181" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="484" RevisionGUID="5c2dd8a4-8398-4bf5-a49e-d06aff19b556" CreationDate="2012-09-24T22:27:52.717" UserId="76" Comment="added 174 characters in body" Text="Databases of patents, patent application and prior art. See also [tag:search]. For questions about database software, see the US patent class [tag:data-processing-databases]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1475" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="484" RevisionGUID="5c2dd8a4-8398-4bf5-a49e-d06aff19b556" CreationDate="2012-09-24T22:27:52.717" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 183" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="483" RevisionGUID="baf5b80e-5825-4f5a-a9c9-11b799b2c7ae" CreationDate="2012-09-24T22:27:57.927" UserId="76" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="US patent class 114: ships" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1477" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="483" RevisionGUID="baf5b80e-5825-4f5a-a9c9-11b799b2c7ae" CreationDate="2012-09-24T22:27:57.927" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 182" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="485" RevisionGUID="1d4c9aff-b5c5-4c3c-9c98-27817452352e" CreationDate="2012-09-24T22:28:08.300" UserId="76" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="Databases of patents, patent application and prior art. For questions about database software, use the [data-processing-databases] tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1479" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="485" RevisionGUID="1d4c9aff-b5c5-4c3c-9c98-27817452352e" CreationDate="2012-09-24T22:28:08.300" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 184" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1480" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="b8494bd8-9c9e-4a9d-85f1-4d1fd6fb70e1" CreationDate="2012-09-24T22:33:59.943" UserId="1" Comment="4" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="bc86d760-404e-43e7-b798-f2808e29eb38" CreationDate="2012-09-24T23:05:54.523" UserId="1212" Comment="Added questions to make it fit the context. I guess some of these questions are implied when posting what seems a bad patent or patent app." Text="Posting to make clear that any patent examiner should at least follow-up should it seriously be considered acceptable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anybody here believe this is a valid set of claims in the patent application? Is is not overly broad? Obvious? Not novel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[DocuSign U.S. Patent Application number 13/158,937][1] (filed 13 June 2011) has claim 1 as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method in an electronic signature service, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; without use of a Portable Document Format processing module,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *       creating a template that specifies required electronic signature data;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *       transmitting a URL that identifies the template;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *       receiving a request based on the transmitted URL;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *       in response to the received request, preparing a form based on the template;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *       presenting the form within a Web browser; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *       receiving the required electronic signature data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We hope that the patent examiner will look at competing technologies before they decide on the validity here. Claim 1 as written above has been in our customer deployed practice since June 2001. Every web form is a template accessible via an URL, and if that web form allows for an electronic signature (legal agreement), it would do exactly this, with possibly the only exception that such forms were not &quot;in an electronic signature service.&quot; Of course, our web forms were part of an electronic signature service and did exactly this. We even expanded greatly on this concept in November 2005 with our eSignForms product, and most recently in July 2009 with Open eSignForms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly, this is an obvious solution to signing on the web and nobody should have a patent on it, and this one certainly is far too late to the game without significant changes to the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is surprising that a company with significant legal representation would even think the claims are novel and non-obvious considering their founder met with Yozons before even starting the company. Clearly they know better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110314371" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="488" RevisionGUID="edab3354-646c-4549-b90c-01fb980046e7" CreationDate="2012-09-24T23:33:04.673" UserId="1085" Text="The relevant prior art would be in having keys made of multiple fields and using an object which contained &quot;stuff&quot; that was then mapped to those multiple fields via the &quot;normalized schema&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was doing this sort of things with Informix (I think that's the correct RDBMS) in the late 80's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, that's not what this patent teaches.  What's being taught is a way to generate OBJECT CLASSES from the normalized schema, the perform the query.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a very narrow (IMHO) patent and probably not the least bit related to what most people think it is related to.  Especially since I have source code lying around on disk from '86-'87 time frame which did what people seem to think this patent covers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="8a641429-ec12-4b6d-b132-c7d5488ae8f6" CreationDate="2012-09-24T23:56:00.420" UserId="76" Comment="added a link to the patent; added the text of claim 1; tags; title" Text="[US patent application 12/669,616](http://www.google.com/patents/US20100186588), filed Jul 16, 2008, is for the preparation of functionalized zeolitic frameworks. Here is its claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1\. A zeolitic framework, comprising the general structure:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a plurality of the structure M-L-M, wherein M comprises a transition metal and L is a linking moiety, wherein the framework is selected from the group consisting of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) M-L-M, wherein L comprises structure III; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) M-L-M, wherein at least one L is structure III and at least one other L is structure I, II or a combination thereof:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein A can be either C or N, wherein R5-R8 are present when A1 and A4 comprise C, wherein R1, R4 or R9 comprise a non-sterically hindering group that does not interfere with M, wherein R2, R3, R5, R8, R10, R11, R12 are each individually an alkyl, halo-cyano-nitro-, wherein when the linking moiety comprises structure III, R10, R11 and R12 are each individually electron withdrawing groups, and wherein one of R6 and R7 comprise an electron withdrawing group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I saw the earlier article [The Silica-Like Extended Polymorphism of Cobalt(II) Imidazolate Three-Dimensional Frameworks: X-ray Single-Crystal Structures and Magnetic Properties](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/chem.200304957/abstract;jsessionid=D27264CCB3D4BAD7A3F12CF22DF45E3B.d03t01). Is it prior art for this patent?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1486" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="8a641429-ec12-4b6d-b132-c7d5488ae8f6" CreationDate="2012-09-24T23:56:00.420" UserId="76" Comment="added a link to the patent; added the text of claim 1; tags; title" Text="Prior art for application 12/669,616 (preparation of functionalized zeolitic frameworks)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1487" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="8a641429-ec12-4b6d-b132-c7d5488ae8f6" CreationDate="2012-09-24T23:56:00.420" UserId="76" Comment="added a link to the patent; added the text of claim 1; tags; title" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;gas-separation-processes&gt;&lt;chemistry&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="489" RevisionGUID="bd93f67a-c70a-49e8-9bcf-85fa9f27ad30" CreationDate="2012-09-25T01:11:55.713" UserId="1302" Text="I'd have a look at what [PowerBuilder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerBuilder) was able to do during that timeframe.  &#xD;&#xA;My memory about what features PB had back then is vague enough that I don't know how much of this patent it covers, but I suspect there would be a fair bit.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="490" RevisionGUID="3eab1acd-1659-4e88-a739-707344cece33" CreationDate="2012-09-25T02:13:54.443" UserId="1300" Text="C++ has long supported overriding allocation and deallocation by [overriding the 'new' and 'delete' operators][1] -- since 1997 at least (ANSI/ISO C++ 1997/8).&#xD;&#xA;To quote from the linked article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; overriding new and delete is a very powerful feature: it gives you tighter control over the language's memory management policy and enables you to extend its functionality in various ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [link][2] to an 1996 C++ ANSI draft document, specifically to the&#xD;&#xA;section 5.3.4 (and bullets therein) describing 'new' statement semantics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, between the years 2008 and 2010 I've been involved with a project that had to manage large amounts of domain objects encoded in specialized data structures on the heap, and kept running into 32-bit limitations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though we couldn't implement it at the time due to unrelated business constraints, it was easy for us to come up on paper with a scheme similar to that described in claim #7: since the encoded domain objects were accessible via domain interfaces, it was possible to store the objects off-heap and still access them transparently via interfaces with slight modifications. At the time I used to equate that concept with overriding 'malloc()' in C -- a common practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim #8 describes one way of doing dynamic memory allocation. It's only claim to fame here is in conjunction with claim #7, and by the use of NIO buffers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Granted, Java makes it exceedingly difficult to override memory allocation mechanisms for objects. Terracotta's product (BigMemory) was innovative in circumventing those difficulties. However, the underlying concepts here have prior art outside Java.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.informit.com/guides/content.aspx?g=cplusplus&amp;seqNum=40&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.csci.csusb.edu/dick/c++std/cd2/expr.html#expr.new" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="492" RevisionGUID="ea0c9038-28e8-4b70-b7cb-83b583c1f080" CreationDate="2012-09-25T03:39:19.297" UserId="1304" Text="Searching source code for a particular concept is extremely time-consuming, even for well-documented code.  Citing it in a rejection is therefore correspondingly rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've cited source code on a couple of occasions when I was fairly certain that the software in question did something in a particular way and digging through the source wasn't too hard.  Even then, the source code was used to get a small detail in a dependent claim, and not the core inventive concept." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="493" RevisionGUID="57d861ba-e055-45f3-a8f8-9bf9894a7123" CreationDate="2012-09-25T04:03:40.333" UserId="1304" Text="There are two important reasons to include greater detail in a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One, to ensure that you have an enabling disclosure.  This means that, given what's disclosed in your application as well as what is taught by the prior art, one having *ordinary* skill in the art (i.e., not someone of expert skill) has to be able to make and use the invention.  So, if the design of the circuit is straightforward based on a block diagram, then you wouldn't need to include the full circuit diagram.  But if there are subtleties to the design, the additional detail may be needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two, to give you more places to go if it turns out the broader invention is already taught by the prior art.  You can then rely on some of those details to arrive at claims that aren't obvious over the prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But most importantly - drafting a patent application is not really for the layman.  If you file *pro se*, you will almost certainly screw it up the first several times.  A registered patent attorney or agent has training to draft an application that gets you more patented claim scope with less potential for invalidation if the patent ever gets litigated.  Without understanding the law, it's possible to inadvertently make it impossible to get a patent for your invention or to reduce the available claim scope unnecessarily, by causing your own publications and/or public sales to become prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1494" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="5f87e25b-7be7-4d16-9f2c-dbaff86aa3da" CreationDate="2012-09-25T04:41:58.253" UserId="1099" Comment="edited title" Text="Patent agreements, over-charging &amp; consumer protection (Microsoft &quot;Android tax&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="494" RevisionGUID="4728e306-832b-4ce7-ae38-6d3e176b6601" CreationDate="2012-09-25T06:36:36.143" UserId="1310" Text="Claim 7 seems like a shockingly straightforward description of a pool allocator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 8: So you allocate Java NIO buffers with a pool allocator. SURELY this is obvious, given that the purpose of NIO buffers is to wrap chunks of memory that are suitable for DMA transfer from network adapters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1497" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="89" RevisionGUID="c2130e74-6e79-42f4-9e75-afe4a9203ee3" CreationDate="2012-09-25T07:02:41.633" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/250490491823616000" />
  <row Id="1502" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="ab9ce00d-dcba-4da9-9ba8-a86c7fd12885" CreationDate="2012-09-25T12:56:34.453" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="486" RevisionGUID="8009da52-e277-48a5-8001-dd0f99f6c7a2" CreationDate="2012-09-25T13:02:35.600" UserId="253" Comment="add links (wikify)" Text="I'd also like to point out [Dogpile][1] and [Copernic][2] regarding this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogpile&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1504" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="486" RevisionGUID="8009da52-e277-48a5-8001-dd0f99f6c7a2" CreationDate="2012-09-25T13:02:35.600" Comment="Proposed by 253 approved by 1 edit id of 185" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="497" RevisionGUID="92db54f5-5656-48f5-a5d5-e4b80b94082a" CreationDate="2012-09-25T13:04:57.360" UserId="325" Text="Microsoft has patent [20,110,246,973](http://www.google.com/patents/US20110246973) which sounds suspiciously like Lisp. Here's claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1\. A computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions that when executed by a processor perform compiling a source program written in a native programming language, the source program having a plurality of internal semantic objects written in the native programming language, according to acts comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * determining whether an internal semantic object of the plurality of internal semantic objects within the source program written in the native programming language is associated with an indicator in the source program signifying that an external semantic data object is to be created to represent the internal semantic object, wherein the internal semantic object comprises instructions to be executed by at least one application that responds to instructions in a programming language different from the native programming language; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * selectively processing the internal semantic object based on the indicator by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; * when the internal semantic object is associated with the indicator, processing, according to a syntax of the native programming language, the internal semantic object of the plurality of internal semantic objects and creating the external semantic data object representing the instructions included in the internal semantic object; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; * when the internal semantic object is not associated with the indicator, converting the internal semantic object into object code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would the [papers on Lisp](http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/recursive.html) count as prior art for this case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1506" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="497" RevisionGUID="92db54f5-5656-48f5-a5d5-e4b80b94082a" CreationDate="2012-09-25T13:04:57.360" UserId="325" Text="Prior art for compiler supporting programs as data objects" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1507" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="497" RevisionGUID="92db54f5-5656-48f5-a5d5-e4b80b94082a" CreationDate="2012-09-25T13:04:57.360" UserId="325" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;data-processing-software&gt;&lt;us20110246973&gt;&lt;lisp&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="498" RevisionGUID="c363b05a-67fc-4bdd-9088-9705e8bfdff5" CreationDate="2012-09-25T13:28:42.060" UserId="1322" Text="As far as I understand, this patent appears to be about LINQ, where a query is either converted to SQL (for database objects) or compiled into object code (for internal data structures).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Lisp papers don't talk about object code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For prior art, try searching for another compiler that supports multiple destination languages, both compiled and interpreted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="500" RevisionGUID="9f746fe9-1fba-4485-9d81-a892f1644c45" CreationDate="2012-09-25T15:45:00.467" UserId="886" Text="I agree with Plepleus and others that the claim is not just &quot;sensing orientation and rotating the screen accordingly&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just for completeness' sake (and for search engines, etc.), [&quot;Sensing techniques for mobile interaction&quot;][1] (Hinckley et al., 2000) presents a mobile device that dynamically changes the orientation of screen content based on accelerometer readings. The paper also contains a whole page of implementation details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.26.554&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="486" RevisionGUID="9b204f05-62b7-46ba-8771-55a1e172b572" CreationDate="2012-09-25T15:54:20.607" UserId="1" Comment="added 493 characters in body" Text="I'd also like to point out [Dogpile][1] and [Copernic][2] regarding this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DogPile is a meta search engine I used back in the 90's as a way to get results from multiple search engines, searching a database of search engines to show results the other search engines in which, in turn, relayed results from their databases to match the keyword queries. Copernic was/is a desktop search engine service, essentially using your computers HDD and indexing it in a searchable database on your HDD that can be used to quickly and easily find files on your computer system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogpile&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="b02cacf4-6a33-42ae-b9f1-2e1e841d02ee" CreationDate="2012-09-25T15:59:44.810" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="$SiteName is a collaboratively edited Q&amp;amp;A platform for patent experts, inventors and citizens who wish to participate in the US patent process. **Its primary purpose is to help individuals:**&#xA;&#xA;1.  **Solicit help finding prior art that might apply to a patent or application**&#xA;2.  **Get answers to hard questions about specific patents**&#xA;3.  **Ask questions about the US patent system or process**&#xA;&#xA;$SiteName was designed in collaboration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and Peer To Patent, whose efforts empowering citizens to help find prior art inspired the crowdsourced approach you see here. We also worked with Google to leverage the power of Google Patents Search and their new Prior Art Finder Tool.&#xA;        " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6" RevisionGUID="eba053b0-bf08-400c-b0ba-47e9236b4a99" CreationDate="2012-09-25T16:00:04.780" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="**Search for similar questions**.  Use the site search feature to make sure no one has already asked a similar question. If you’re asking about a specific patent, you can see any other questions about that patent by doing a tag search. Tag search format simply has brackets surrounding the tag name, like this: [US3141592]&#xA;&#xA;**Show the community you’ve thought about it**.  Tell us what you already know in the body of your question. When you post a new question, other users, including civilian experts and those at the USPTO, will see your question and hopefully attempt to provide good answers. The more you can do to include relevant details such as patent numbers, publication numbers, links to prior art, and links to patents and applications at Google Patents, the more likely it is that others will be able to help you.&#xA;&#xA;Additionally, **questions about specific patents** or applications **should be tagged with the relevant patent number** (for approved patents) or publication number (for applications). See [“How do I use tag?”](#tag-use) for more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="501" RevisionGUID="a6aa2a83-46b9-4183-b19e-bdaf64db00a0" CreationDate="2012-09-25T16:01:38.537" UserId="34" Text="Maybe oDesk or eLance are the prior art, but this patent on providing software development services via a website probably has loads of prior art.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of enabling a software developer to provide software&#xD;&#xA;&gt; development services to an end user, wherein: the software developer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; establishes a website and other network accessible computers that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; end user can access to define for the software developer the nature of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the custom source code or software to be developed for the end user;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; based on the input by the end user, the software developer develops,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compiles and installs on one of its own computers the defined custom&#xD;&#xA;&gt; software or source code as &quot;work for hire&quot; for review and testing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; online by the end user; and the developed custom software or source&#xD;&#xA;&gt; code is made available for downloading onto the end user's computer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for exclusive ownership and use by the end user who will have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exclusive intellectual property rights in the custom software or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; source code once the end user has approved it online after review and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; testing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My non-legalese version&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method where there is a website that allows someone to define what code they need built, then a dev builds it, and the end user reviews it, and OKs the code.  Then they download it and they own it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one quirk to this patent: Although the publication date is now (2012) it looks like something else was going on in 2006 with another patent.  This text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ser. No. 11/702,196, filed Feb. 5, 2007, pending, which claims the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; benefit and priority of Provisional Patent Application No. 60/765,204&#xD;&#xA;&gt; filed on Feb. 6, 2006, the entire contents of each of which are hereby&#xD;&#xA;&gt; incorporated by reference in this application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if the prior art needs to be before 2006 or what that refers to though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1520" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="501" RevisionGUID="a6aa2a83-46b9-4183-b19e-bdaf64db00a0" CreationDate="2012-09-25T16:01:38.537" UserId="34" Text="Is there prior art for a patent on oDesk or eLance?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1521" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="501" RevisionGUID="a6aa2a83-46b9-4183-b19e-bdaf64db00a0" CreationDate="2012-09-25T16:01:38.537" UserId="34" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;us20120240097&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="497" RevisionGUID="7638cdce-5b0f-4116-8966-293a3695c036" CreationDate="2012-09-25T16:03:41.327" UserId="76" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Microsoft has patent application [2011/0246973](http://www.google.com/patents/US20110246973) which sounds suspiciously like Lisp. Here's claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1\. A computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions that when executed by a processor perform compiling a source program written in a native programming language, the source program having a plurality of internal semantic objects written in the native programming language, according to acts comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * determining whether an internal semantic object of the plurality of internal semantic objects within the source program written in the native programming language is associated with an indicator in the source program signifying that an external semantic data object is to be created to represent the internal semantic object, wherein the internal semantic object comprises instructions to be executed by at least one application that responds to instructions in a programming language different from the native programming language; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * selectively processing the internal semantic object based on the indicator by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; * when the internal semantic object is associated with the indicator, processing, according to a syntax of the native programming language, the internal semantic object of the plurality of internal semantic objects and creating the external semantic data object representing the instructions included in the internal semantic object; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; * when the internal semantic object is not associated with the indicator, converting the internal semantic object into object code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would the [papers on Lisp](http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/recursive.html) count as prior art for this case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="8e1ecad6-14b3-470e-8772-8c2a3bc82266" CreationDate="2012-09-25T16:06:58.717" UserId="345" Comment="Conform to http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/345" Text="[US patent application 12/669,616][1], filed Jul 16, 2008, is for the preparation of functionalized zeolitic frameworks. Here is its claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1\. A zeolitic framework, comprising the general structure:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a plurality of the structure M-L-M, wherein M comprises a transition metal and L is a linking moiety, wherein the framework is selected from the group consisting of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) M-L-M, wherein L comprises structure III; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) M-L-M, wherein at least one L is structure III and at least one other L is structure I, II or a combination thereof:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein A can be either C or N, wherein R5-R8 are present when A1 and A4 comprise C, wherein R1, R4 or R9 comprise a non-sterically hindering group that does not interfere with M, wherein R2, R3, R5, R8, R10, R11, R12 are each individually an alkyl, halo-cyano-nitro-, wherein when the linking moiety comprises structure III, R10, R11 and R12 are each individually electron withdrawing groups, and wherein one of R6 and R7 comprise an electron withdrawing group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I saw the earlier article [The Silica-Like Extended Polymorphism of Cobalt(II) Imidazolate Three-Dimensional Frameworks: X-ray Single-Crystal Structures and Magnetic Properties][2]. Is it prior art for this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20100186588&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/chem.200304957/abstract;jsessionid=D27264CCB3D4BAD7A3F12CF22DF45E3B.d03t01" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1524" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="8e1ecad6-14b3-470e-8772-8c2a3bc82266" CreationDate="2012-09-25T16:06:58.717" UserId="345" Comment="Conform to http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/345" Text="Prior art for preparation of functionalized zeolitic frameworks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="501" RevisionGUID="04b118e5-5f99-4ffe-95e3-d869cd724ab8" CreationDate="2012-09-25T16:10:03.407" UserId="1" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="Maybe oDesk or eLance are the prior art, but this patent on providing software development services via a website probably has loads of prior art.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US20120240097 A1 &amp;mdash; Method of providing software development services](http://www.google.com/patents/us20120240097)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of enabling a software developer to provide software&#xD;&#xA;&gt; development services to an end user, wherein: the software developer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; establishes a website and other network accessible computers that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; end user can access to define for the software developer the nature of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the custom source code or software to be developed for the end user;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; based on the input by the end user, the software developer develops,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compiles and installs on one of its own computers the defined custom&#xD;&#xA;&gt; software or source code as &quot;work for hire&quot; for review and testing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; online by the end user; and the developed custom software or source&#xD;&#xA;&gt; code is made available for downloading onto the end user's computer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for exclusive ownership and use by the end user who will have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exclusive intellectual property rights in the custom software or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; source code once the end user has approved it online after review and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; testing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My non-legalese version&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method where there is a website that allows someone to define what code they need built, then a dev builds it, and the end user reviews it, and OKs the code.  Then they download it and they own it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one quirk to this patent: Although the publication date is now (2012) it looks like something else was going on in 2006 with another patent.  This text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ser. No. 11/702,196, filed Feb. 5, 2007, pending, which claims the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; benefit and priority of Provisional Patent Application No. 60/765,204&#xD;&#xA;&gt; filed on Feb. 6, 2006, the entire contents of each of which are hereby&#xD;&#xA;&gt; incorporated by reference in this application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if the prior art needs to be before 2006 or what that refers to though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="502" RevisionGUID="2e053d5f-944d-411b-a828-d9fd77a204d2" CreationDate="2012-09-25T16:12:16.053" UserId="34" Text="To be fair, I think this is a ridiculously better software patent than any of the other ones I've seen, but I bet there is prior art for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for correcting semantic errors in code in an integrated development environment, said method comprising the steps of: inputting, using a code editor, code being developed in an integrated development environment; identifying, in a syntax tree constructed for said code inputted, one or more nodes containing semantic errors pertaining to use of a third-party library; displaying one or more suggestions for correcting said semantic errors identified for a node in said syntax tree containing said semantic errors, wherein said one or more suggestions include one or more executable code snippets associated with one or more collaboration records located for a chosen node from the syntax tree; selecting at least one executable code snippet from said one or more executable code snippets displayed for correcting said semantic errors identified for said chosen node, wherein said at least one executable code snippet comprises a primary executable code snippet and a secondary executable code snippet; executing, by a computer, the primary executable code snippet; and in response to the primary executable code snippet failing to correct said semantic errors identified for said node chosen, automatically executing the secondary executable code snippet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My non-legalese summary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Finding semantic code errors in a syntax tree, picking up two likely corrections based on a body of previous code, and compiling and executing the snippets to see if they correct the semantic error." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1527" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="502" RevisionGUID="2e053d5f-944d-411b-a828-d9fd77a204d2" CreationDate="2012-09-25T16:12:16.053" UserId="34" Text="Auto correcting semantic code errors by executing code snippets and seeing which ones produce no errors" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1528" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="502" RevisionGUID="2e053d5f-944d-411b-a828-d9fd77a204d2" CreationDate="2012-09-25T16:12:16.053" UserId="34" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;source-code&gt;&lt;us20120240101&gt;&lt;ide&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="503" RevisionGUID="51a1ae0f-0b21-4392-88a3-52b1b1a0fc5b" CreationDate="2012-09-25T16:28:27.070" UserId="1328" Text="We wanted to make sure the protocol was as widely deployable as possible.  We knew that patents are encumbrances on technology adoption, so of course we didn't want patents at all.  Further, we knew the rules of the standards bodies, and that if the protocol ever were to be adopted, patents are just a headache and a barrier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given these goals - patenting SPDY or holding back the IP would have been a horrific mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example, consider the FAST TCP Congestion Avoidance protocol for TCP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAST_TCP).  It's generally well regarded as a promising and potentially better algorithm than what is used today.  But it's patented.  So nobody uses it.  It's not &quot;better enough&quot; to overcome the obstacles of the restricted IP." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="504" RevisionGUID="231e924a-00cf-4bda-8cba-f3b6ee4279f6" CreationDate="2012-09-25T17:00:00.687" UserId="1330" Text="When did ADA and smalltalk get the ability to access databases?  Both languages predate the patent by more than a decade, and I'm sure accessed databases before then." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="505" RevisionGUID="719788fa-d77a-459b-9f8e-427afdd468c6" CreationDate="2012-09-25T17:10:26.367" UserId="998" Text="ihtkwot's answer to this question is accurate but it focuses on the notion of &quot;patentable subject matter.&quot;  When I consider the patentable subject matter doctrine, I like to imagine a **really ingenious idea** and then ask whether that is the **type** of idea that should be amenable to patent protection.  Subject matter eligibility is also sometimes about how **concrete** the idea needs to be in terms of its implementation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the public debate on software patents tends to focus on subject matter eligibility, that doctrine actually does very little work in the patent system. Rather, the focus of patent attorneys and patent examiners is (1) whether the invention (as claimed in the patent application) is a significant step beyond what was known and (2) whether the patent application specifically and concretely describes and claims that invention.  Step (1) above is embodied by the doctrines of **novelty** and **nonobviousness**. Step (2) is embodied by the requirements of **definiteness**, **enablement**, and **written description**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nonobviousness**: In terms of actually obtaining a software patent at the USPTO, the most important and most used doctrine is that of nonobviousness.  When someone comes to the USPTO with a patent application, the examiner asks the hypothetical question of whether the invention would have been obvious at the time the application was filed (or sometimes at the time of the invention).  Importantly, the hypothetical question employs a hypothetical Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art (PHOSITA) who is familiar with all the relevant prior art.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the early 1900's, courts began requiring a &quot;flash of genius&quot; as part of the patentability test.  That approach was rejected by Congress in 1952 Patent Act and replaced with this ordinary thinker - PHOSITA.  To be clear, PHOSITA is **not** a creative genius -- and thus the law allows for lots of ideas that are non-obvious. (This helps explain why there are so many patents.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One important element of the obviousness analysis is that the patented invention must be considered &quot;as a whole.&quot;  Very often, every component element of an invention is already well known.  In those cases, the invention is found in the new combination of features or steps.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One problem with obviousness is that the results always require a judgment call -- this results from the fact that PHOSITA is a figment of our imagination. This inexactness is by design.  It allows the law to be more flexible in response to new innovations, but it also makes resolution more contentious and less predictable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the law begins with the presumption that a patent application properly claims an invention.  The USPTO Examiners have the burden of providing **evidence** that shows the invention is obvious.  We are all good at hand-waving, but the law requires **evidence** (combined with common sense). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Lets look at an example - I just randomly pulled up U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. [20120240162][1] that was published last week, titled &quot;Content Provision&quot; and owned by [Zeebox][2]. That application has been applied for, but is not yet patented.  Claim 8 reads as follows: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. A method of operating a television system, comprising the steps of: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving live television at a user device which includes a channel&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selector; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; displaying the received live television at the user device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selecting a channel using the channel selector; establishing a direct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; connection between the channel selector and a server device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; controlling channel selections at the user device by sending&#xD;&#xA;&gt; instructions from the server device which is operatively connected to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the user device, but is remote therefrom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we basically have four simple steps that control the interaction between (1) a user device that shows live TV; (2) a server that is remote from the user device; and (3) channel selector that directly connects with the server.  Has this been done before? How would you prove that it would have been obvious? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=5&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=GOogle&amp;OS=GOogle&amp;RS=GOogle&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://zeebox.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1532" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="504" RevisionGUID="773067bd-578a-43fc-a6b4-a333ea0f09fc" CreationDate="2012-09-25T17:12:38.693" UserId="1330" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="When did ADA and smalltalk get the ability to access databases?  Both languages predate the patent by more than a decade, and I'm sure accessed databases before then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://gnade.sourceforge.net/#ESQL&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ODBC bindings for ADA 95 - http://www.adahome.com/Resources/Compilers/Lowcost.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="503" RevisionGUID="aa2d994d-e536-449d-b4c7-d5a39b7f0108" CreationDate="2012-09-25T17:29:47.550" UserId="76" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="We wanted to make sure the protocol was as widely deployable as possible.  We knew that patents are encumbrances on technology adoption, so of course we didn't want patents at all.  Further, we knew the rules of the standards bodies, and that if the protocol ever were to be adopted, patents are just a headache and a barrier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given these goals - patenting SPDY or holding back the IP would have been a horrific mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example, consider the [FAST TCP](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAST_TCP) Congestion Avoidance protocol for TCP .  It's generally well regarded as a promising and potentially better algorithm than what is used today.  But it's patented.  So nobody uses it.  It's not &quot;better enough&quot; to overcome the obstacles of the restricted IP." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="506" RevisionGUID="5d8e125b-6184-418f-afec-ffb50899ca60" CreationDate="2012-09-25T17:46:14.957" UserId="998" Text="The statute begins with an original platitude about protecting design rights through the copyright regime: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The designer or other owner of an original design of a useful article which makes the article attractive or distinctive in appearance to the purchasing or using public may secure the protection provided by this chapter upon complying with and subject to this chapter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[17 U.S.C. 1301][1].  However, later the statute defines &quot;useful article&quot; as being limited to a boat hull or deck. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The statute was intentionally structured in this manner. The idea is that the law can be easily expanded by just altering the definition of useful article to include other types of articles.  Although it did not pass, a bill was proposed in Congress that altered the definition to include clothing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just as a point of background. Copyright is not generally available to protect useful articles (such as boat hulls or clothing) unless the original design is at least conceptually separable from the function. The Copyright Office has a [circular on this][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1301&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl103.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="507" RevisionGUID="ca3ca498-3e4f-4479-bfef-87d92c457566" CreationDate="2012-09-25T18:20:36.130" UserId="1332" Text="Also it is more time consuming to cite any code or NPL since we have to have dates in order to use the content as prior art.  Many times you can not verify the the date that the content was published and therefore it can not be used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="508" RevisionGUID="c5228f56-6da8-4ce3-ac0e-c8b4943451c1" CreationDate="2012-09-25T18:20:48.203" UserId="444" Text="The venerable MUMPS language (ISO standard M) has the XECUTE command which can execute stored code. Since all MUMPS commands work with both persistent and non-persistent data, the code can be stored in a database. MUMPS is not usually a compiled language however there is a version of MUMPS called GT.M which is. According to wikipedia: &quot;In GT.M, M code can freely call out to C code (or code in other languages with a C compatible interface), and C code can freely call in to M code&quot;. If so, then that should cover most, if not all, the claims in this patent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="509" RevisionGUID="fbab032d-0f30-4d34-9bd1-e13139a8a973" CreationDate="2012-09-25T18:47:38.367" UserId="1281" Text="After going through the whole patent, I can't find even a hint of anything novel.  It just describes a bunch of things people have been doing for years, trying to make the whole thing as unintelligible as possible.  Let me try to describe it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, this application involves code-as-data, which is why it sounds like LISP.  But it need not be anything as sophisticated as that.  They say an &quot;external semantic data object&quot; could be nothing more than a function pointer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This also is about inter-application communication.  They mention database access as an example, and also function delegates: exactly what people have been doing with SOAP, CORBA, etc. for years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another important part is having embedded support for a second language (e.g. SQL) inside the main compiler, allowing it to do syntax checking, variable binding, etc.  This is the one place they actually *claim* to be doing something novel: &quot;Thus, in contrast to the prior art in which source code instructions indended to control a separate application were &quot;quoted&quot; and passed to the application as a string or other literal form, an external semantic data structure representing the source code instructions is provided.&quot;  Of course, that's a complete lie.  Embedded support for other languages has been around for ages.  A good example of this is CUDA, which lets a single file contain both C++ code to be compiled down to a native executable, as well as kernels to run on the GPU, while providing full syntax checking and variable binding across both of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, they say that an &quot;indicator&quot; in the source code determines how a piece of code gets processed.  In CUDA, that's the \__global__ keyword, which tells the compiler whether to compile a function down to native code, or to produce an intermediate form (PTX in this case) that can later be executed on a different processor (the GPU)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="510" RevisionGUID="1609c456-26e0-44a7-aedc-dde01f5b66bb" CreationDate="2012-09-25T18:55:29.937" UserId="1333" Text="&quot;Patent pending&quot; occurs when a patent application is filed and pending at the U.S. Patent Office.  In other words, you need to have filed the patent application at the U.S. Patent Office and the patent application must not be granted as a patent or abandoned.  Patent pending period starts the day a patent application is filed with the U.S. Patent Office and ends the day either a patent is granted or the patent application is abandoned.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See http://www.patent-ideas.com/patent-pending-information.aspx for more information about patent pending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wish you the best!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Michael Neustel&#xD;&#xA;U.S. Patent Attorney&#xD;&#xA;www.neustel.com " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1540" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="501" RevisionGUID="ab0a496b-502d-4ac0-9eb8-7f7290720665" CreationDate="2012-09-25T19:02:42.077" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/250671686523953152" />
  <row Id="1541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="511" RevisionGUID="bd385fc1-7e94-4979-9671-8c0ad13f1958" CreationDate="2012-09-25T19:29:48.367" UserId="1335" Text="&gt; Did Microsoft file aggressively, or defensively?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those patents long predate SPDY, so the question of &quot;aggressively or defensively&quot; is moot. I think Microsoft, as a participant in the IETF standards process, is simply following it's duty in disclosing any patents they own that might have a bearing on this protocol. Given how broadly the claims are written up, it seems difficult for most application protocols to &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; infringe these patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to answer your questions in the title, there is some broad prior art, but the specific optimizations of SPDY could still have been patentable. By now, however, I'd guess the bar date to apply is long gone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are patents like 6,604,144 and 6269403 a bad example, compared with other historical multiplexing IP?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your &quot;historical multiplexing IP&quot; patent has almost &lt;i&gt;nothing&lt;/i&gt; to do with the Microsoft patents. The historical patent relates to [&quot;Inverse Multiplexing&quot;][1], which is achieving higher bandwidth transfers by splitting up and sending data over multiple lower-bandwidth channels in parallel. This is, of course, different from the multiplexing in SPDY and the Microsoft patents, which is combining multiple response objects into a single data connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So nobody uses [FAST TCP].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/akamai-acquires-fastsoft-169678966.html&quot;&gt;Akamai recently bought FastSoft&lt;/a&gt;, the company commercializing FAST TCP, so apparently, no; one of the largest CDNs ever will probably be using it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The moral of the story, I guess, is that with any innovation your choices are mainly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. to make your innovation as widely available for use as possible, you'd want to release it free of IP and other encumbrances; or&#xD;&#xA;2. to make money off your innovation, you might want to protect it with IP rights, such as patents and copyright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either is a valid choice, and there certainly are lots of variations in between.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_multiplexer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="510" RevisionGUID="6b5c8085-4106-4141-8257-b30d5a715575" CreationDate="2012-09-25T20:51:42.533" UserId="76" Comment="removed signature" Text="&quot;Patent pending&quot; occurs when a patent application is filed and pending at the U.S. Patent Office.  In other words, you need to have filed the patent application at the U.S. Patent Office and the patent application must not be granted as a patent or abandoned.  Patent pending period starts the day a patent application is filed with the U.S. Patent Office and ends the day either a patent is granted or the patent application is abandoned.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See http://www.patent-ideas.com/patent-pending-information.aspx for more information about patent pending.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="513" RevisionGUID="35ddc304-5d6f-4626-89a6-ac3fde085554" CreationDate="2012-09-25T21:34:01.713" UserId="1259" Text="I just remembered - I have used a software that was almost exactly the same. This had to be 10 or so years back, from what I recall it was marketed as a &quot;link checker&quot;. The name - from the fog of memory, was something like &quot;Web Analyzer&quot; or &quot;WebAna&quot;. I probably still have the package in storage, I will update this when I find out for sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;WebAna&quot; - one would enter a starting URL. The software would fetch the document headers, parse and prepare meta values and identifiers. It would parse the HTML content and assign some ranking values based on the text and links within, saturation, frequency, etc. The software would then go to each of the links it found and repeat this process. There was a setting to make it stop at a specific level (of link depth). When that was reached, a graphic representation was rendered on screen, with pages connected to the other pages by some logic of ranking as setup for that particular report. One could print or render HTML pages to be viewed as a (on a) website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a little short on time today, but I will try and find the exact name (or disk) and update this answer in a day or two. And some concrete links or prior art data, sorry for the rushed entry but someone else reading this may remember this product." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1549" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="267" RevisionGUID="09d2cbba-5d72-4e32-ba38-c21f386c3e97" CreationDate="2012-09-25T22:02:43.950" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/250716992678547456" />
  <row Id="1550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="515" RevisionGUID="720039c7-c432-49b0-ac18-91ccb445c466" CreationDate="2012-09-25T22:05:59.507" UserId="446" Text="I've seen the term, and it seems to influence how claims are interpreted, but most of what I've read on the subject (IANAL!) rapidly gets confusing.  Can anyone provide a good definition of what it is and what it means for patent interpretation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1551" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="515" RevisionGUID="720039c7-c432-49b0-ac18-91ccb445c466" CreationDate="2012-09-25T22:05:59.507" UserId="446" Text="What is functional claiming, and how does it affect the interpretation of a claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1552" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="515" RevisionGUID="720039c7-c432-49b0-ac18-91ccb445c466" CreationDate="2012-09-25T22:05:59.507" UserId="446" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="217" RevisionGUID="3afb786d-d3be-4c58-ba7a-cf2b54db0856" CreationDate="2012-09-26T01:16:55.560" UserId="16" Comment="add links to the sort of &quot;throwable alarm clock&quot; patents described in the answer" Text="While it's not silencing a communication device, surely the silencing of an alert noise would even date back to the old alarm clocks which were designed to be thrown at a wall to turn them off. Had a friend had one of those back in the 1990s. Might not be a direct example of prior art, but modifying it to be a communication device rather than an alarm clock would seem a fairly obvious development.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [An alarm clock having a removable throwable alarm.](http://www.google.com/patents/US4218875)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [a novel form of alarm clock which will permit it to be thrown on the floor to shut off the alarm.](http://www.google.com/patents/US4505597)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [An alarm clock in the form of a sports ball has an alarm clock assembly with a snooze-type audio alarm which is temporarily silenced when the ball is thrown against a wall.](http://www.google.com/patents/US4702614)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="516" RevisionGUID="b6c0cb67-b6e1-4b09-8258-58e56d5d2c19" CreationDate="2012-09-26T03:55:00.817" UserId="1347" Text="There is so much prior art out there:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2008: code.google.com/p/accelges/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2008: www.iphonedevsdk.com/forum/iphone-sdk-development/4381-iphone-shaking-code.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2009: www.ic.uff.br/~esteban/files/papers/SBGames09_Mark_A.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2009: www.ruf.rice.edu/~mobile/publications/liu09percom.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2009: klingmann.ch/msc_thesis_marco_klingmann_iphone_gestures.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2009: www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3e5Y0Tu_Ek&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could go on for hours.  Please tell me the patent has been denied..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="517" RevisionGUID="a607256e-3f6a-438f-b45b-cad13d8e16c9" CreationDate="2012-09-26T04:01:02.417" UserId="1348" Text="There are serveral patents out there like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pretent you buy a beer, on this bottle is an individual code, you can use this code on the campaign website to win a price or get a voucher e.g for an online shop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AOL (America Online) did this since 1992, you all know these CD-Roms, right? ;)&#xD;&#xA;The already did it with 3.5inch disks, you have a code and depending on the code you get a cerrtain amount of free online hours. Let's call it rebate ;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1558" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="517" RevisionGUID="a607256e-3f6a-438f-b45b-cad13d8e16c9" CreationDate="2012-09-26T04:01:02.417" UserId="1348" Text="US 2004/0172327 A1 Individual rebate code on goods transfered by customer via any network to give rebate or gifts to the customer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1559" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="517" RevisionGUID="a607256e-3f6a-438f-b45b-cad13d8e16c9" CreationDate="2012-09-26T04:01:02.417" UserId="1348" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="518" RevisionGUID="9232c34d-6380-44c9-9ebf-693896763779" CreationDate="2012-09-26T05:17:13.507" UserId="371" Text="As the comment above suggests, the prior art needs to be prior to 2005.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest that [Bugzilla][1], or any other bug tracking system that includes feature requests, is likely satisfactory prior art for at least the first claim of this patent. In specific, Bugzilla's source code dates back to ~2000, has a trackable history and documentation, and still has active developers who could help find the right version you need (probably the last version released before Feb. 2005.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To compare it to claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;element 1: `&quot;the software developer establishes a website and other network accessible computers that the end user can access to define for the software developer the nature of the custom source code or software to be developed for the end user;&quot;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bugzilla is a website; the end user can access it; you can define for the developer the nature of the source code to be developed - in default Bugzilla terminology, you do this by marking the bug &quot;severity-&gt;enhancement&quot; and then entering the discussion of the &quot;nature of the ... software to be developed&quot; into the summary and description fields.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;element 2: `&quot;based on the input by the end user, the software developer develops, compiles and installs on one of its own computers the defined custom software or source code as “work for hire” for review and testing online by the end user;&quot;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the user has taken the steps described in element 1, Bugzilla emails the developer the &quot;input by the end user.&quot; What the developer does is up to them; this is the place where Bugzilla doesn't define a mechanism so may be weaker. They then post the source code &quot;for review and testing online&quot; through Bugzilla.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;element 3: `&quot;the developed custom software or source code is made available for downloading onto the end user's computer for exclusive ownership and use by the end user who will have exclusive intellectual property rights in the custom software or source code once the end user has approved it online after review and testing.&quot;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, the developer posts the source code to Bugzilla, so it is &quot;made available for downloading onto the end user's computer...&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, though, that Bugzilla does not discuss the exclusivity of intellectual property rights; I'm not aware of any software system from that period that integrated licensing directly into the workflow. [CCMixter][2] did track licensing information for contributions (starting in 2004); a skilled patent attorney may be able to integrate that into an argument for combination of references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 2 and 4 are susceptible to the same sort of analysis; 5-7 would rely on finding other prior art with more control over licensing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://bugzilla.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CcMixter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1561" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="518" RevisionGUID="62aac008-5154-4123-ae26-c4a09411f481" CreationDate="2012-09-26T05:17:13.507" UserId="371" />
  <row Id="1562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="519" RevisionGUID="35fe6785-ad46-420f-829e-7f1b992e783d" CreationDate="2012-09-26T06:27:34.760" UserId="1349" Text="While studing at CWRU, one of the early ARPA net sites, I wrote graphics display software for Project LOGOS, a government supported effort and wrote it up in my Masters Thesis. Wouldn't the uses of the algorithms in this work be prior art against patents for similar projects in the computer graphics realm?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1563" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="519" RevisionGUID="35fe6785-ad46-420f-829e-7f1b992e783d" CreationDate="2012-09-26T06:27:34.760" UserId="1349" Text="I wrote software in 1973 under Federal grant for my MS, would not this be prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1564" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="519" RevisionGUID="35fe6785-ad46-420f-829e-7f1b992e783d" CreationDate="2012-09-26T06:27:34.760" UserId="1349" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;computer-graphics&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1565" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="501" RevisionGUID="5264974f-59dd-4538-ac50-009fbf3ac0fe" CreationDate="2012-09-26T07:07:42.483" UserId="345" Comment="Convention" Text="Prior art for a web-based system for commissioning software development" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1566" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="501" RevisionGUID="5264974f-59dd-4538-ac50-009fbf3ac0fe" CreationDate="2012-09-26T07:07:42.483" UserId="345" Comment="Convention" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;us20120240097&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="520" RevisionGUID="2eb39eee-d51d-4a5f-8b77-fd5eab9494d4" CreationDate="2012-09-26T07:08:32.223" UserId="1351" Text="I believe this is strictly dependent on the degree of technical teaching in the &quot;publication&quot; in question. If the publication provides enough information for an artisan to carry out a particular embodiment in my view ANY publication should be considered as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With respect to the Startrek PADDs I believe there is enough teaching to anticipate at least:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the general form, i.e. rectangular, flat, highly reflective surface; &#xD;&#xA;- touchscreen-based user interface;&#xD;&#xA;- wireless data connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give also a contrary example, although some Startrek Technical Manual may describe things such as the artificial gravity generators, a phaser or whatever, there is simply no technical teaching that could be carried out at all.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="521" RevisionGUID="caf838e9-27de-4a31-8a98-0a7fd3c4ed01" CreationDate="2012-09-26T08:37:02.353" UserId="1206" Text="Patents are very specific. Without knowing any details of your work or meaning to denegrate it, given how much things have advanced in 3-4 decades, I imagine that the work you did might be considered 'foundations' of what we do today.&#xD;&#xA;Your work should preclude new patents on near-enough the same thing, but does not prevent someone getting a patent on an algorithm which *builds upon* your work and advances it to a higher level.&#xD;&#xA;(If you had a patent which was still in force, then they may be infringing your patent by building upon it - but that doesn't sound like the case here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more specific feedback here, you'd need to explain (briefly) what you felt was innovative about your work at the time, and which patents you feel are now being applied for (or have been recently filed) that cover essentially the same ground." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="522" RevisionGUID="7e1faf60-93ef-4e8b-96a3-e8561e500611" CreationDate="2012-09-26T10:32:04.080" UserId="1354" Text="If you make a functional claim (a &quot;means-plus-function&quot; claim) then what it means is that you get the function, but only if you disclose sufficient structure for those means in the specification.  For literal infringement, you only get that function when tied to the relevant structure - you can also get the equivalent structure under the doctrine of equivalents, so long as you haven't surrendered it during the prosecution history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a pretty good explanation from a Federal Circuit case: http://www.patenthawk.com/blog/2006/05/meansplusfunction_claims.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="523" RevisionGUID="899681c8-1ce8-4d9e-89f2-b70a88789613" CreationDate="2012-09-26T12:31:20.927" UserId="450" Text="As long as your Thesis was published, then it can be used as prior art. You'd have to figure out what CWRU did with Master's Thesis at that time. Determining if it's actually prior art against a particular patent requires knowing which patents and seeing your Thesis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="516" RevisionGUID="dab92b86-a5e2-4071-8fd9-3dbc36e8e544" CreationDate="2012-09-26T12:42:57.920" UserId="76" Comment="added 387 characters in body" Text="There is so much prior art out there:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2008: [Accelerometer-based Gestures for Openmoko's Neo FreeRunner and Nintendo's Wii Remote](http://code.google.com/p/accelges/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2008: [iphone shaking code](http://www.iphonedevsdk.com/forum/iphone-sdk-development/4381-iphone-shaking-code.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2009: [gRmobile: A Framework for Touch and Accelerometer Gesture Recognition for Mobile Games](http://www.ic.uff.br/~esteban/files/papers/SBGames09_Mark_A.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2009: [uWave: Accelerometer-based Personalized Gesture &#xD;&#xA;Recognition and Its Applications](http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~mobile/publications/liu09percom.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2009: [Accelerometer-Based Gesture Recognition with the iPhone](http://klingmann.ch/msc_thesis_marco_klingmann_iphone_gestures.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3e5Y0Tu_Ek&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could go on for hours.  Please tell me the patent has been denied..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1573" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="519" RevisionGUID="1e7f3dfa-edf5-4fa1-ac18-9e8d31ea2187" CreationDate="2012-09-26T12:44:50.773" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="517" RevisionGUID="bc4551d6-2fcf-4bc4-9582-d2bd87827658" CreationDate="2012-09-26T12:50:34.920" UserId="76" Comment="turned into a question; added claim 1; tags" Text="There are several patents out there like this:&#xD;&#xA;you buy a beer, on this bottle is an individual code, you can use this code on the campaign website to win a price or get a voucher e.g for an online shop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AOL (America Online) did this since 1992, you all know these CD-Roms, right? ;)&#xD;&#xA;The already did it with 3.5inch disks, you have a code and depending on the code you get a certain amount of free online hours. Let's call it rebate ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this prior art for a patent like this one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US 2004/0172327](http://www.google.com/patents/US20040172327) ([PCT/DE02/02565](http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2003009190&amp;recNum=1&amp;docAn=DE2002002565&amp;queryString=ALLNUM:%28PCT/DE02/02565%29&amp;maxRec=1), priority date 2001-07-17): Method for providing reductions on products and/or services&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1\. Method for granting rebates on products and/or services, characterized in that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * an information carrier is made accessible to a customer at the purchase of a product and/or in connection with receiving services, which carrier contains information about the amount of a rebate issued to him/her for the purchase of the product or for receiving the service, in coded form, and/or about the product or the service,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * that the information of the information carrier is fed into a telecommunication device and transmitted to a central administration unit by way of a telecommunication network, by means of the telecommunication device,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * that the customer automatically receives credit for the value of the rebate on the product or the service, in the administration unit, for telecommunication services or other data technology services, free of charge to the customer, which the customer can make use of immediately and/or with a time delay, by means of telecommunication devices, by way of technical facilities made available by the central administration unit, whereupon the rebate that was granted expires.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1575" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="517" RevisionGUID="bc4551d6-2fcf-4bc4-9582-d2bd87827658" CreationDate="2012-09-26T12:50:34.920" UserId="76" Comment="turned into a question; added claim 1; tags" Text="Individual rebate code on goods transfered by customer via any network to give rebate or gifts to the customer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1576" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="517" RevisionGUID="bc4551d6-2fcf-4bc4-9582-d2bd87827658" CreationDate="2012-09-26T12:50:34.920" UserId="76" Comment="turned into a question; added claim 1; tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;data-processing-financial&gt;&lt;business-methods&gt;&lt;us20040172327&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="d5d8143e-f7b0-450a-9e32-447146e1ca1a" CreationDate="2012-09-26T13:00:41.697" UserId="578" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="Many people in the commercial vehicle industry use a &quot;twin&quot; air drying arrangement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Patent #us8118911](http://www.google.com/patents/US8118911?dq=US8118911&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=62hbULzbEamujALb04HoCQ&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA), originally filed Nov. 10, 2006, and was granted on Feb 21, 2012, seems ridiculous to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, here is a twin dryer manufactured by the SKF corporation:&#xD;&#xA;http://vsm.skf.com/en-US/HeavyDuty/AirSystem/HCDualTurbo.aspx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this dryer constitute prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is claim 1 of the patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A device attaching a pair of desiccant cartridges such that air flows to the pair of desiccant cartridges in parallel, the device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * an inner chamber; a first fluid flow passage for communicating air to the inner chamber;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * a pair of extensions, each of the pair of extensions adapted for mounting one of the pair of desiccant cartridges;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein each extension is spaced at a substantially equal distance from the inner chamber; and a second and a third fluid flow passage, each fluidly connecting the inner chamber with each of the pair of threaded extensions, compressed air flowing in substantially the same direction at substantially the same time through each of the second and third fluid passages in substantially equal amounts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More possible prior arts with an original filing date before 2006:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Patent #US3717974](http://www.google.com/patents/US3717974?pg=PA1&amp;dq=US+3717974&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=d3xgUPHTKKS-igKF1YCICg&amp;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Patent #US5871564](http://www.google.com/patents/US5871564?dq=US5871564&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=gHtgUPwvw5uJAsylgbgG&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Patent #US4802899](http://www.google.com/patents/US4802899?pg=PA1&amp;dq=4802899&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=yHtgUNGoI8SLiALv7oHQCg&amp;ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=4802899&amp;f=false)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1578" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="519" RevisionGUID="47fbb534-cc56-48a3-b0e9-8ad73a281d33" CreationDate="2012-09-26T13:02:43.620" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/250943483718803456" />
  <row Id="1580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="524" RevisionGUID="acbbd5b1-a2fe-4122-bb8e-2fcf3c7f938d" CreationDate="2012-09-26T13:33:18.080" UserId="1356" Text="Just have a simple question, the ATB system (Active Time Battle) from Final Fantasy has been patent in the past (i think 1992 on july). I am interested in making a turn based game based on the Charge Time System which is virtually a gauge filling up (using the speed value of the unit) until you reach 100 then the unit can act but nobody else can interfert the action of the unit. I am building an internal list from this to simulate turns of each units so i can see when units are actually playing.. then if the speed attribute change the list is updated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the info on the patent found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gameplay_of_Final_Fantasy : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A major departure from this system came in Final Fantasy IV, when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hiroyuki Ito introduced the &quot;Active Time Battle&quot; (ATB) system,[7]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; where the time-keeping mechanism does not stop whilst the play selects&#xD;&#xA;&gt; commands.[8] Square filed a Japanese patent application related to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ATB system on July 16, 1991 and a corresponding US application on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; March 16, 1992. One Japanese patent (JP2794230) and two US patents&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (US5390937 and US5649862)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my main question is : **Is my system an infrigement of this patent ?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would love also some answers on this in the answer..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1- Is the Charge Time System from Final Fantasy patented ? &#xD;&#xA;2- What is the Active Time System patent about ? It is the mechanic ? or the carbridge system which the ATS is based on ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1581" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="524" RevisionGUID="acbbd5b1-a2fe-4122-bb8e-2fcf3c7f938d" CreationDate="2012-09-26T13:33:18.080" UserId="1356" Text="Is my system an infrigement of the Active Time Battle patent from Final Fantasy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1582" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="524" RevisionGUID="acbbd5b1-a2fe-4122-bb8e-2fcf3c7f938d" CreationDate="2012-09-26T13:33:18.080" UserId="1356" Text="&lt;video-games&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="513" RevisionGUID="6b150bd5-5989-4038-93fe-9b8d75169353" CreationDate="2012-09-26T14:09:02.617" UserId="1259" Comment="added 590 characters in body" Text="I just remembered - I have used a software that was almost exactly the same. This had to be 10 or so years back, from what I recall it was marketed as a &quot;link checker&quot;. The name - from the fog of memory, was something like &quot;Web Analyzer&quot; or &quot;WebAna&quot;. I probably still have the package in storage, I will update this when I find out for sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;WebAna&quot; - one would enter a starting URL. The software would fetch the document headers, parse and prepare meta values and identifiers. It would parse the HTML content and assign some ranking values based on the text and links within, saturation, frequency, etc. The software would then go to each of the links it found and repeat this process. There was a setting to make it stop at a specific level (of link depth). When that was reached, a graphic representation was rendered on screen, with pages connected to the other pages by some logic of ranking as setup for that particular report. One could print or render HTML pages to be viewed as a (on a) website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a little short on time today, but I will try and find the exact name (or disk) and update this answer in a day or two. And some concrete links or prior art data, sorry for the rushed entry but someone else reading this may remember this product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*UPDATE 9/26*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be it:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.microsystools.com/products/website-analyzer/&#xD;&#xA;the current release is v4.0.9 - a posting dated March 30, 2010 on their support site yields at least that much discussion history of this product:&#xD;&#xA;http://webhelpforums.com/index.php?topic=9.0&#xD;&#xA;the product history page at:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.microsystools.com/products/website-analyzer/history.php&#xD;&#xA;does not have absolute release dates, but the earliest dated record is v1.0 **(28th of Marts 2006)** which appears to be a typo for 28th of MARCH 2006 (the page is rife with typos and spelling errors)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="525" RevisionGUID="792fe053-a2de-4d2a-a6af-32df7714ec81" CreationDate="2012-09-26T15:00:10.370" UserId="1259" Text="Kiplinger's Personal Finance Jan 1997&#xD;&#xA;http://books.google.com/books?id=aAcEAAAAMBAJ&amp;pg=PA136&amp;lpg=PA136&amp;dq=online+rebate&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=1tAKHdbd4z&amp;sig=WL-HEog8sppxb1BQ2rqsUD_yDG0&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=JxZjUMPLEOr30gGXqYDQBw&amp;ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=online%20rebate&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior art - article on **rebates** given by major credit cards/banks, describes the method as posted above. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The card enrollment and/or mailer included the card &quot;rebate&quot; information (the information carrier).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The charge (swipe, at time of purchase) is transmitted over telecommunication lines by telecommunication devices, to a central administration unit (the bank).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Customer (cardholder) would receive the prescribed rebate automatically by the administration unit (the bank), free of charge for that rebate, which the customer would make use of as appropriate to the offer provided." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1585" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="497" RevisionGUID="5104cc91-b2c6-45a8-968e-14063deb970f" CreationDate="2012-09-26T16:02:43.583" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/250988782579503106" />
  <row Id="1586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="526" RevisionGUID="b346ae6d-04b6-4c16-9e7d-e851a29293f7" CreationDate="2012-09-26T16:04:08.613" UserId="758" Text="Yes, a master's thesis can be used as prior art to invalidate a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been personally involved in a case where we got a case dismissed with prejudice, based on a doctoral dissertation which was apparently only ever published on paper, in Australia. We found somebody who lived near the college in Australia, photocopied the dissertation, and sent it to us for presentation in court (along with a sworn declaration that it was an accurate copy to the best of his knowledge). For completeness, he even sent a picture of the (thoroughly dusty) book sitting on the shelf in the college library. Looked like he was probably the first person to touch it since it had been bound and shelved, nearly 10 years before." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1587" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="202" RevisionGUID="5e840b5e-d61b-4193-aaa1-f52a049814b5" CreationDate="2012-09-26T16:16:16.363" UserId="1259" Comment="added section A link, added section G patent" Text="The claim is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A computer-readable medium comprising computer-readable instructions for providing search engine optimization analysis, wherein execution of said computer-readable instructions by one or more processors causes said one or more processors to carry out steps comprising: obtaining a starting uniform resource locator identifying a network location for a starting web resource; analyzing said starting uniform resource locator, wherein said analyzing comprises obtaining a text-based portion of said starting web resource comprising data and metadata, processing said data and said metadata to determine a plurality of potential target terms, and performing a relevancy test of said text-based portion of said starting web resource based on said plurality of potential target terms; determining any referred uniform resource locators in said text-based portion of said starting web resource, wherein said referred uniform resource locators each identify a referred web resource sharing a domain with said starting web resource; recursively analyzing said referred uniform resource locators, said recursive analysis comprising obtaining an additional text-based portion of a referred web resource; processing additional data and additional metadata in said additional text-based portion of said referred web resource to determine additional potential target terms for each referred web resource, and performing an additional relevancy test of said additional text-based portion of each referred web resource based on said additional potential target terms for each referred web resource; analyzing a link index of a network comprising said starting uniform resource locator to determine web resources linking to said web resources associated with said starting uniform resource locator and said referred uniform resource locators; calculating an internal search engine optimization score based on said analysis and said recursive analysis; calculating an external search engine optimization score based on said link index; providing a graphical report comprising a visualization of statistical information related to search engine optimization; and providing a domain visualization map comprising a graphical network representation of said statistical information for said starting uniform resource locator and said referred uniform resource locators. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will attemp a translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; code for doing seo analysis by a) getting a starting webpage and figuring out the relevancy of the text on that page b) getting all the outgoing urls on the same domain, and doing the same thing recursively (so spider the website) c) looking at other web sites linking into this site d) giving the text an SEO score e) giving the links an SEO score f) showing the SEO results in picture form and g) showing the network links visually as a graph&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art for section A: Data harvesting method apparatus and system Patent application US20050192948 http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=20050192948.PGNR.&#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art for section B:&#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art for section C:&#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art for section D: &#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art for section E: Definitely PageRank, in Patent number [6,285,999][1]&#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art for section F: &#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art for section G: Method and system for visualizing multivariate statistics in Patent number US8013864 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PALL&amp;RefSrch=yes&amp;Query=PN/8013864&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the pieces of this exist as prior art. The question is whether putting it together is patentable.  (In certain cases, this can happen, in others it cannot - it depends on how obvious that is to a skilled practitioner in that area). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the best initial approach is to show prior art for all the clauses of the independent claim I quoted above, so I'm making my answer community wiki and anyone should feel free to edit it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=6,285,999.PN.&amp;OS=PN/6,285,999&amp;RS=PN/6,285,999" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1588" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="202" RevisionGUID="5e840b5e-d61b-4193-aaa1-f52a049814b5" CreationDate="2012-09-26T16:16:16.363" Comment="Proposed by 1259 approved by 1 edit id of 186" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="519" RevisionGUID="1df5deb9-f20c-49ab-8022-1bdd69444326" CreationDate="2012-09-26T16:27:47.030" UserId="1" Comment="added 60 characters in body; edited title" Text="I wrote software in 1973 under Federal grant for my MS. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While studing at CWRU, one of the early ARPA net sites, I wrote graphics display software for Project LOGOS, a government supported effort and wrote it up in my Masters Thesis. Wouldn't the uses of the algorithms in this work be prior art against patents for similar projects in the computer graphics realm?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1590" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="519" RevisionGUID="1df5deb9-f20c-49ab-8022-1bdd69444326" CreationDate="2012-09-26T16:27:47.030" UserId="1" Comment="added 60 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can a Master's thesis be used as prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="518" RevisionGUID="edc04fd6-92b5-4b9f-9bb0-2500e31bc80b" CreationDate="2012-09-26T16:59:00.720" UserId="371" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="As the comment above suggests, the prior art needs to be prior to 2005.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest that [Bugzilla][1], or any other bug tracking system that includes feature requests, is possible prior art for at least the first claim of this patent (with one problem discussed at the end of the post). In specific, Bugzilla's source code dates back to ~2000, has a trackable history and documentation, and still has active developers who could help find the right version you need (probably the last version released before Feb. 2005).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To compare it to claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;element 1: `&quot;the software developer establishes a website and other network accessible computers that the end user can access to define for the software developer the nature of the custom source code or software to be developed for the end user;&quot;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bugzilla is a website; the end user can access it; you can define for the developer the nature of the source code to be developed - in default Bugzilla terminology, you do this by marking the bug &quot;severity-&gt;enhancement&quot; and then entering the discussion of the &quot;nature of the ... software to be developed&quot; into the summary and description fields.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;element 2: `&quot;based on the input by the end user, the software developer develops, compiles and installs on one of its own computers the defined custom software or source code as “work for hire” for review and testing online by the end user;&quot;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the user has taken the steps described in element 1, Bugzilla emails the developer the &quot;input by the end user.&quot; What the developer does is up to them; this is the place where Bugzilla doesn't define a mechanism so may be weaker. They then post the source code &quot;for review and testing online&quot; through Bugzilla.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;element 3: `&quot;the developed custom software or source code is made available for downloading onto the end user's computer for exclusive ownership and use by the end user who will have exclusive intellectual property rights in the custom software or source code once the end user has approved it online after review and testing.&quot;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, the developer posts the source code to Bugzilla, so it is &quot;made available for downloading onto the end user's computer...&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, though, that Bugzilla does not discuss the exclusivity of intellectual property rights; I'm not aware of any software system from that period that integrated licensing directly into the workflow. [CCMixter][2] did track licensing information for contributions (starting in 2004); a skilled patent attorney may be able to integrate that into an argument for combination of references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 2 and 4 are susceptible to the same sort of analysis; 5-7 would rely on finding other prior art with more control over licensing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://bugzilla.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CcMixter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="527" RevisionGUID="dc40dab2-1c91-4db2-9b81-b40d6b44415a" CreationDate="2012-09-26T17:29:57.570" UserId="1259" Text="This may not be a complete answer, but your summary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Finding semantic code errors in a syntax tree, picking up two likely corrections based on a body of previous code, and compiling and executing the snippets to see if they correct the semantic error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sounds exactly like the &quot;auto correct&quot; behavior that MS Word exhibits. For example, typing &quot;teh quick brown fox&quot; will result in an automatic change of &quot;teh&quot; into &quot;the&quot;. An error was found in the current line, the most likely correction was selected based on regular language rules (code), and the word was replaced to correct the error. While this does not correct programming code, or test by executing corrections; it does the same process as described above within the scope of a text document." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1593" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="519" RevisionGUID="84494f19-6b82-4700-b7e9-9001c20f1e44" CreationDate="2012-09-26T18:23:42.147" UserId="1" Comment="edited title" Text="Can a master's thesis be used as prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="528" RevisionGUID="07686650-35b6-463b-aeba-74fb5c7572cc" CreationDate="2012-09-26T18:59:02.620" UserId="1366" Text="According to a recent blog post on AVC.com, &quot;Section 18 of last year's America Invents Act provides for a &quot;post-grant review proceeding for review of the validity of covered business method patents.&quot;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/09/section-18-of-the-america-invents-act.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;If you are sued or threatened with a suit over a business method patent,&#xD;&#xA;you can submit the business method patent to the USPTO for a &quot;post&#xD;&#xA;grant review.&quot; If the USPTO determines that patent is overly broad or&#xD;&#xA;should not have been issued, it will be thrown out in its entirety.&lt;/blockquote&gt;,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.bitlaw.com/source/America-Invents-Act/18.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is what the time period is to get the review?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, if a patent is issued, how long after the patent is issued can someone ask the USPTO for the &quot;post-grant review proceedings&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would seem that if the time period is only 1 year (as Fred Wilson states), that affords little protection as a company issued a patent could simply wait 1 year before trying to enforce it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1595" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="528" RevisionGUID="07686650-35b6-463b-aeba-74fb5c7572cc" CreationDate="2012-09-26T18:59:02.620" UserId="1366" Text="Post Review, Section 18 of the America Invents Act" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1596" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="528" RevisionGUID="07686650-35b6-463b-aeba-74fb5c7572cc" CreationDate="2012-09-26T18:59:02.620" UserId="1366" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="529" RevisionGUID="546ae798-66a7-449a-8bc8-c92b6dac4b26" CreationDate="2012-09-26T18:59:29.367" UserId="998" Text="In patent law, it is the &quot;claims&quot; that define the scope of the exclusive patent right.  Claims that are more broadly written cover more potentially infringing activity and are thus seen as valuable (though more likely to be attacked on validity grounds). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One potential way to greatly increase claim scope is to draft a claim with **functional limits** rather than **structural limits**.  For a pencil, you might claim &quot;a marking element&quot; that in many cases will be much broader than &quot;a cylindrical piece of lead surrounded by an encasing material.&quot;  The functional version of a claim is also much easier to write because you don't have to actually explain how the invention works, only what it accomplishes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For various reasons, **pure** functional claim limitations are&#xD;&#xA;disfavored in the patent system.  If written improperly a purely functional claim will be found invalid as unduly indefinite or abstract.  If written properly, the claim will be quite narrowly interpreted.  Let me explain. A proper functional limitation will be written in what is known as &quot;means-plus-function&quot; form, such as &quot;a means for&#xD;&#xA;marking.&quot;  See 35 U.S.C. 112(6). Although the language &quot;means for marking&quot; seems quite&#xD;&#xA;broad, over the past 25 years, courts have given these claims&#xD;&#xA;increasingly narrow scope. As such, patent attorneys have largely&#xD;&#xA;moved away from using MPF language. On this point, [see my post on Patently-O][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more common approach is to use a **hybrid claim** form that includes some amount of structure and also some amount of function.  Thus, you might claim &quot;a circuit configured to receive data&quot; or &quot;software configured to display an inverted image.&quot;  In these cases, some amount of generalized structure is provided (a circuit; and software). However, the claims do not describe the exact design of the structure but instead provide a functional limitation.  The patentee hopes (and many courts have agreed) that this hybrid claim structure allows the patent to cover any and all forms of the generalized structure that is designed in a way that accomplishes the claimed function. This obviously gives the patent quite broad coverage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Professor Mark Lemley recently wrote an article where he argues that claim language in the form of &quot;software for accomplishing x&quot; should be seen as a pure functional claim (rather than a hybrid) and thus should be either rejected as invalid or narrowly interpreted. [Lemley Article][2].  Lemley's suggestion has not (yet) been adopted by the courts or the USPTO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011/07/the-frequency-of-means-plus-function-claims.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2117302" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="530" RevisionGUID="5ed9b56c-0e30-4f78-a4c2-cc0a8ef753ce" CreationDate="2012-09-26T19:13:01.940" UserId="998" Text="The US patents that you mentioned should both be expired.  In particular, US5390937 was issued on Feb 21, 1995. At that time, US patents were given patents that lasted 17-years from issue date.  The result is that the patent expired on Feb 21, 2012. The second patent (US5649862) issued in 1997 and would have two-years of term remaining except that patent includes a &quot;terminal disclaimer&quot; such that it expires on the same day as the '937 patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, this means that you can use the particular system disclosed and claimed in the patents without fear of incurring any legal liability for patent infringement.  If, however, you make some changes to the system disclosed in those applications, this analysis does not tell you whether the improved-system is patented.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="528" RevisionGUID="26bf2639-d2b1-4f71-af6b-fbe6b10f76d0" CreationDate="2012-09-26T19:14:40.863" UserId="998" Comment="Minor formatting change. " Text="According to a recent blog post on AVC.com, &quot;Section 18 of last year's America Invents Act provides for a &quot;post-grant review proceeding for review of the validity of covered business method patents.&quot;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/09/section-18-of-the-america-invents-act.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;If you are sued or threatened with a suit over a business method patent,&#xD;&#xA;you can submit the business method patent to the USPTO for a &quot;post&#xD;&#xA;grant review.&quot; If the USPTO determines that patent is overly broad or&#xD;&#xA;should not have been issued, it will be thrown out in its entirety.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.bitlaw.com/source/America-Invents-Act/18.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is what the time period is to get the review? In other words, if a patent is issued, how long after the patent is issued can someone ask the USPTO for the &quot;post-grant review proceedings&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would seem that if the time period is only 1 year (as Fred Wilson states), that affords little protection as a company issued a patent could simply wait 1 year before trying to enforce it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="531" RevisionGUID="b1412b67-d59c-42d4-9c82-91028a661fa6" CreationDate="2012-09-26T19:27:31.940" UserId="998" Text="The post grant business method review is not the panacea that you were hoping for. While there is no &quot;time limit&quot; on filing these post grant reviews, the statute very narrowly defines business method patents to only include non-technological financial services patents.  From the statutory definition: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) IN GENERAL.--For purposes of this section, the term “covered business method patent” means a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, except that the term does not include patents for technological inventions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Section 18][1].&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;A second problem with the post grant business method review is that the fee for filing such a review is - at minimum - $35,800.  [USPTO Fees][2].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other options available such as &quot;inter partes review&quot; and &quot;ex parte reexamination.&quot; Anyone considering any of these approaches will want to discuss options with a patent attorney *who is experienced with post-grant challenges* as these options are essentially alternate forms of litigation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bitlaw.com/source/America-Invents-Act/18.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee092611.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="532" RevisionGUID="281b48ce-f267-43c5-a1b2-20763b506076" CreationDate="2012-09-26T20:06:09.987" UserId="1259" Text="&gt; executing, by a computer, the primary executable code snippet; and in response to the primary executable code snippet failing to correct said semantic errors identified for said node chosen, automatically executing the secondary executable code snippet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This portion perfectly describes the ColdFusion error handling. ColdFusion is a web application server, that supports its own programming language CFML.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the book Mastering ColdFusion 4 - Jun 1, 1999 (the oldest edition of documentation I could find online).&#xD;&#xA;Google: http://books.google.com/books?id=ItBQAAAAMAAJ&#xD;&#xA;Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&amp;linkCode=qs&amp;keywords=0782124526&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book describes the error handling functionality of the tag CFCATCH. I will paraphrase here, relating prior art to the quoted segment above. Google in-book search for CFCATCH shows part of the content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A block of programming code is encapsulated in a CFTRY tag set. Any errors that occur in the primary executable code within this segment is intercepted - thereby preventing a program crash. At the bottom of the CFTRY code block, the tag CFCATCH can be used in response to error conditions to catch programming errors. Secondary executable code is placed within the CFCATCH tag encapsulation. CFCATCH supports several parameters which allow you to use multiple iterations to catch different error conditions, with new code to be executed for each node that could have failed. Each CFCATCH block can execute alternate programming code in lieu of the original error causing code (node), thereby self correcting the behavior of the overall program.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every high level programming language has this kind of exception handling, maybe worded differently but the concept is definitely prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="502" RevisionGUID="72b49218-509c-48de-bff3-ad24d754f982" CreationDate="2012-09-26T20:33:18.997" UserId="76" Comment="added 42 characters in body; edited tags" Text="To be fair, I think this is a ridiculously better software patent than any of the other ones I've seen, but I bet there is prior art for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1\. A method for correcting semantic errors in code in an integrated development environment, said method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * inputting, using a code editor, code being developed in an integrated development environment;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * identifying, in a syntax tree constructed for said code inputted, one or more nodes containing semantic errors pertaining to use of a third-party library;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * displaying one or more suggestions for correcting said semantic errors identified for a node in said syntax tree containing said semantic errors, wherein said one or more suggestions include one or more executable code snippets associated with one or more collaboration records located for a chosen node from the syntax tree;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * selecting at least one executable code snippet from said one or more executable code snippets displayed for correcting said semantic errors identified for said chosen node, wherein said at least one executable code snippet comprises a primary executable code snippet and a secondary executable code snippet;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * executing, by a computer, the primary executable code snippet;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * and in response to the primary executable code snippet failing to correct said semantic errors identified for said node chosen, automatically executing the secondary executable code snippet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My non-legalese summary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Finding semantic code errors in a syntax tree, picking up two likely corrections based on a body of previous code, and compiling and executing the snippets to see if they correct the semantic error." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1603" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="502" RevisionGUID="72b49218-509c-48de-bff3-ad24d754f982" CreationDate="2012-09-26T20:33:18.997" UserId="76" Comment="added 42 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;data-processing-software&gt;&lt;us20120240101&gt;&lt;programming-tools&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="524" RevisionGUID="ccd9eb29-f0c6-4b81-ba58-dc46ec6576b9" CreationDate="2012-09-26T20:37:28.713" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Just have a simple question, the ATB system (Active Time Battle) from Final Fantasy has been patent in the past (i think 1992 on july). I am interested in making a turn based game based on the Charge Time System which is virtually a gauge filling up (using the speed value of the unit) until you reach 100 then the unit can act but nobody else can interfert the action of the unit. I am building an internal list from this to simulate turns of each units so i can see when units are actually playing.. then if the speed attribute change the list is updated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the info on the patent found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gameplay_of_Final_Fantasy : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A major departure from this system came in Final Fantasy IV, when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hiroyuki Ito introduced the &quot;Active Time Battle&quot; (ATB) system,[7]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; where the time-keeping mechanism does not stop whilst the play selects&#xD;&#xA;&gt; commands.[8] Square filed a Japanese patent application related to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ATB system on July 16, 1991 and a corresponding US application on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; March 16, 1992. One Japanese patent (JP2794230) and two US patents&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (US5390937 and US5649862)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my main question is : **Is my system an infrigement of this patent ?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would love also some answers on this in the answer..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1- Is the Charge Time System from Final Fantasy patented ? &#xD;&#xA;2- What is the Active Time System patent about ? It is the mechanic ? or the carbridge system which the ATS is based on ?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1605" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="524" RevisionGUID="ccd9eb29-f0c6-4b81-ba58-dc46ec6576b9" CreationDate="2012-09-26T20:37:28.713" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;video-games&gt;&lt;amusement-devices-games&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1606" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="48" RevisionGUID="8b6f7d0a-1b8d-45ea-abb1-d3f66c538ce2" CreationDate="2012-09-26T20:37:57.807" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1607" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="27" RevisionGUID="2c95f293-ca67-4877-9273-ba745d97f046" CreationDate="2012-09-26T20:38:19.537" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;litigation&gt;&lt;independent-inventor&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1608" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="528" RevisionGUID="d4c57eea-6038-42b4-b97c-ba7d070200ed" CreationDate="2012-09-26T21:04:33.787" UserId="1" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="What is the time period allowed to get a &quot;post-grant review&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1609" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="528" RevisionGUID="d4c57eea-6038-42b4-b97c-ba7d070200ed" CreationDate="2012-09-26T21:04:33.787" UserId="1" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;america-invents-act&gt;&lt;post-grant-review&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="528" RevisionGUID="d4c57eea-6038-42b4-b97c-ba7d070200ed" CreationDate="2012-09-26T21:04:33.787" UserId="1" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="According to a recent [blog post on AVC.com](http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/09/section-18-of-the-america-invents-act.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Section 18 of last year's America Invents Act provides for a &quot;post-grant review proceeding for review of the validity of covered business method patents.&quot;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;If you are sued or threatened with a suit over a business method patent,&#xD;&#xA;you can submit the business method patent to the USPTO for a &quot;post&#xD;&#xA;grant review.&quot; If the USPTO determines that patent is overly broad or&#xD;&#xA;should not have been issued, it will be thrown out in its entirety.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[SEC. 18. TRANSITIONAL PROGRAM FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD PATENTS.](http://www.bitlaw.com/source/America-Invents-Act/18.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is what the time period is to get the review? In other words, if a patent is issued, how long after the patent is issued can someone ask the USPTO for the &quot;post-grant review proceedings&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would seem that if the time period is only 1 year (as Fred Wilson states), that affords little protection as a company issued a patent could simply wait 1 year before trying to enforce it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1611" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="502" RevisionGUID="39012a29-02bf-4897-9b60-35ac915685fd" CreationDate="2012-09-26T22:02:43.777" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/251079379621388288" />
  <row Id="1612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="533" RevisionGUID="bbc26736-7c5f-4f28-a76c-ad9edb76475a" CreationDate="2012-09-27T00:45:27.793" UserId="1281" Text="I'm not clear on what the last three bullet points are getting at - it might be clearer if I read the whole patent.  But the rest sounds very similar to the automatic error checking found in many IDEs (such as Intellij IDEA).  In particular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You enter code.&#xD;&#xA; - It parses your code and generates a syntax tree for it.&#xD;&#xA; - It identifies semantic errors related to third party libraries.  In the case of IDEA, that largely means the standard Java class libraries.  For example, it will detect if you call toUpperCase() on a String and forget to assign the result to something, or call read() on an InputStream and don't check the return value to see how much was actually read.  It knows these are common mistakes.&#xD;&#xA; - It often will offer suggestions for how to fix the error." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1613" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="528" RevisionGUID="38903f9a-7650-41b0-a2cd-a2da10205001" CreationDate="2012-09-27T01:02:43.580" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/251124678087827457" />
  <row Id="1614" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="524" RevisionGUID="ed81ed47-f787-44a4-a37f-01fdfc0e0c6d" CreationDate="2012-09-27T04:02:43.590" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/251169976998834177" />
  <row Id="1615" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="66" RevisionGUID="03b2a195-960d-4c8c-a94e-45eba96694a9" CreationDate="2012-09-27T10:02:43.720" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/251260574065901568" />
  <row Id="1616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="534" RevisionGUID="857993d9-f2d5-47c1-a866-deff113429a0" CreationDate="2012-09-27T12:41:07.537" UserId="1441" Text="[http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/27/apple-patents-in-screen-speakers-flexible-displays-and-tactile-keyboards-for-future-iphones-and-ipads/][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;apple patent flexi displays... how is ti possible when they are already done by Samsung and LG? has this patent been awarded already? Can someone please tell me more about this. Is the patent office a puppet in apple's hands?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/27/apple-patents-in-screen-speakers-flexible-displays-and-tactile-keyboards-for-future-iphones-and-ipads/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1617" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="534" RevisionGUID="857993d9-f2d5-47c1-a866-deff113429a0" CreationDate="2012-09-27T12:41:07.537" UserId="1441" Text="Apple patents flexi screens?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1618" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="534" RevisionGUID="857993d9-f2d5-47c1-a866-deff113429a0" CreationDate="2012-09-27T12:41:07.537" UserId="1441" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;samsung&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="535" RevisionGUID="8cd613f2-9341-4807-a00b-ad8ed26bdedf" CreationDate="2012-09-27T13:24:42.610" UserId="1374" Text="http://domainnamewire.com/2012/09/25/go-daddy-patents-announcing-a-domain-name-registration-on-a-social-website/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These patents are getting ridiculous. Uneducated approval of a patent will quickly hinder the technology market. The mobile development world is already seeing the impact of this…" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1620" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="535" RevisionGUID="8cd613f2-9341-4807-a00b-ad8ed26bdedf" CreationDate="2012-09-27T13:24:42.610" UserId="1374" Text="go Daddy patents announcing a domain name registration on a social website" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1621" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="535" RevisionGUID="8cd613f2-9341-4807-a00b-ad8ed26bdedf" CreationDate="2012-09-27T13:24:42.610" UserId="1374" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9" RevisionGUID="29206605-5c0d-489c-8556-a85ef8d8a5e2" CreationDate="2012-09-27T14:01:01.683" UserId="14" Comment="added 180 characters in body" Text="You want to stop a patent from being granted in error? Finding prior art is just step one. Succinctly describing its significance is step two, and submitting it to the USPTO is step three. While patent examiners can search this site, the best way to ensure they see your discovery is to submit it using the [USPTO electronic filing system](http://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fefs.uspto.gov%2Fefile%2Fportal%2Fefs-unregistered&amp;amp;sa=D&amp;amp;sntz=1&amp;amp;usg=AFQjCNFslPS24hlRRAPWF5O6v21-KeLr3Q).  &#xA;&#xA;If you've proposed useful prior art at Ask Patents, there's a good chance a USPTO patent examiner will find that prior art when he or she examines the application in question.&#xA;&#xA;**However, to be sure that your prior art counts, submit it to the USPTO.**&#xA;&#xA;If you’re going to make a submission, make sure it counts. It’s important to only submit art that seems likely to be relevant. (If you’re not sure, ask a new question about the relevance here on $SiteName.) The goal is to make a meaningful contribution, not spam a patent examiner’s inbox. You can only submit **3 examples of prior art per patent application** before the USPTO charges you a fee. &#xA;&#xA;**[This Meta post][1] has step-by-step instructions for how to submit prior art to the Patent Office.**&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/questions/105/i-want-to-make-a-difference-how-can-i-submit-prior-art-to-the-patent-office" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10" RevisionGUID="d1e88d05-5b86-418c-bd40-fb62684e96ba" CreationDate="2012-09-27T14:01:23.337" UserId="14" Comment="deleted 4872 characters in body" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="536" RevisionGUID="f31b1eb0-d2b8-4207-ade3-35db268bb8d3" CreationDate="2012-09-27T14:50:45.210" UserId="885" Text="&gt;  has this patent been awarded already?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nope. It has not been awarded. Apple has just filed the application and the application has got published. The patent itself is not granted. You can check it out [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;For the patent to be granted, after all the procedures, it takes few years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can someone please tell me more about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you are asking about the patent filing process, [here][2] you can find the general steps involved in obtaining a patent from the European Patent Office. You can check out USPTO website [here][3] for similar information for the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like the patent you have mentioned in the question is applied under PCT. So you can check the PCT procedure details [here][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is the patent office a puppet in apple's hands?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2012129247&amp;recNum=5&amp;office=&amp;queryString=FP:%28apple%29&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=Pub%20Date%20Desc&amp;maxRec=7022?ystfuv&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.epo.org/applying/basics.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/howtopat.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/appguide/ipindex.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1625" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="535" RevisionGUID="a57b2fa5-e914-4fff-ac8c-252cd9149f8b" CreationDate="2012-09-27T15:20:17.197" UserId="998" Comment="I have added a link to the patent and claim summary as well as a question requesting prior art. I left the original comment about the problem created by this type of patent." Text="DomainWire has [announced][1] that the USPTO has just issued a patent to GoDaddy that covers a method of announcing a domain name announcement on a social network. U.S. patent number [8,276,057][2]. In my view, these patents are getting ridiculous. Uneducated approval of a patent will quickly hinder the technology market. The mobile development world is already seeing the impact of this…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The '057 patent basically claims a method of setting up a link to a social network account (with some general authentication) and then, after a delay period, publishing a link to a domain on the social network. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A) receiving from a client computer communicatively coupled to a network, by one or more server computers communicatively coupled to said network: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;i) one or more authentication credentials, for a registrant of a domain name, for accessing an account on a social networking website; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;ii) a delay period after which to publish, on a web page for said account, a domain name announcement comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;&gt;a) an announcement of a registration of said domain name; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;&gt;b) a hyperlink to a website resolving from said domain name; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B) responsive to an expiration of said delay period: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; i) authenticating to said account, by said one or more server computers and using said one or more authentication credentials, via a social networking application programming interface; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;ii) publishing, by said one or more server computers, said domain name announcement to said web page for said account via said social networking application programming interface. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent application was filed on September 17, 2009.  Is there prior art that predates that 2009 filing date? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://domainnamewire.com/2012/09/25/go-daddy-patents-announcing-a-domain-name-registration-on-a-social-website/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=8,276,057.PN.&amp;OS=PN/8,276,057&amp;RS=PN/8,276,057" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1626" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="535" RevisionGUID="a57b2fa5-e914-4fff-ac8c-252cd9149f8b" CreationDate="2012-09-27T15:20:17.197" UserId="998" Comment="I have added a link to the patent and claim summary as well as a question requesting prior art. I left the original comment about the problem created by this type of patent." Text="Go Daddy Patent 8,276,057: announcing a domain name registration on a social website" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1627" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="535" RevisionGUID="34f55b77-5651-4230-817b-63f5d942ce2c" CreationDate="2012-09-27T16:02:44.440" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/251351173410484224" />
  <row Id="1628" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="535" RevisionGUID="477c87ff-2d78-4012-9028-84a7849a199f" CreationDate="2012-09-27T16:05:18.353" UserId="7" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;us8276057&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="538" RevisionGUID="3a1b8139-c38e-4acf-bc4c-bfcac33b21f0" CreationDate="2012-09-27T16:10:57.787" UserId="1115" Text="Assuming a company will work and submit on its patents, independently of whether its patents/ patents pendings are publicized (in its software and website) or not... Are there real benefits of publicizing your patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean, a competing company can't say it can break another's patents beacuse it didn't know they existed, right? So, are there benefits/ cons on publicizing the patents. Is the investment, of publicizing them, useful?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1631" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="538" RevisionGUID="3a1b8139-c38e-4acf-bc4c-bfcac33b21f0" CreationDate="2012-09-27T16:10:57.787" UserId="1115" Text="Benefits &amp; cons of publicizing patents/ patents pendings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1632" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="538" RevisionGUID="3a1b8139-c38e-4acf-bc4c-bfcac33b21f0" CreationDate="2012-09-27T16:10:57.787" UserId="1115" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-pending&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="534" RevisionGUID="2d52dda5-fd29-44e3-bd99-a4eb7d57786e" CreationDate="2012-09-27T16:40:34.710" UserId="1" Comment="Fixed sentences and removed the rhetorical snark." Text="[http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/27/apple-patents-in-screen-speakers-flexible-displays-and-tactile-keyboards-for-future-iphones-and-ipads/][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apple patented flexi displays. How is this possible when they are already done by Samsung and LG? Has this patent been awarded already? Can someone please tell me more about this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/27/apple-patents-in-screen-speakers-flexible-displays-and-tactile-keyboards-for-future-iphones-and-ipads/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1634" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="535" RevisionGUID="0999cfe4-b5e1-4534-838c-a99106a2bbd5" CreationDate="2012-09-27T16:46:53.313" UserId="1" Comment="edited tags; edited title; edited tags" Text="Prior Art for GoDaddy Patent Announcing a Domain Name Registration on a Social Website" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1635" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="535" RevisionGUID="0999cfe4-b5e1-4534-838c-a99106a2bbd5" CreationDate="2012-09-27T16:46:53.313" UserId="1" Comment="edited tags; edited title; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;us8276057&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="536" RevisionGUID="80c8031a-6b62-49b6-afab-2faeaac17ba4" CreationDate="2012-09-27T16:52:24.770" UserId="88" Comment="Since the cause for this was removed from the question let's not have it in the answer either..." Text="&gt;  has this patent been awarded already?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nope. It has not been awarded. Apple has just filed the application and the application has got published. The patent itself is not granted. You can check it out [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;For the patent to be granted, after all the procedures, it takes few years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can someone please tell me more about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you are asking about the patent filing process, [here][2] you can find the general steps involved in obtaining a patent from the European Patent Office. You can check out USPTO website [here][3] for similar information for the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like the patent you have mentioned in the question is applied under PCT. So you can check the PCT procedure details [here][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2012129247&amp;recNum=5&amp;office=&amp;queryString=FP:%28apple%29&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=Pub%20Date%20Desc&amp;maxRec=7022?ystfuv&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.epo.org/applying/basics.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/howtopat.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/appguide/ipindex.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1640" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="536" RevisionGUID="80c8031a-6b62-49b6-afab-2faeaac17ba4" CreationDate="2012-09-27T16:52:24.770" Comment="Proposed by 88 approved by 1 edit id of 187" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="539" RevisionGUID="7ac686df-ce52-472f-97a2-2b885309fcef" CreationDate="2012-09-27T16:54:02.523" UserId="88" Text="At least in the US, this is actually required (at least the patent number bit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A patentee who makes or sells patented articles, or a person who does so for or under the patentee **is required to mark the articles with the word “Patent” and the number of the patent**. The penalty for failure to mark is that the patentee may not recover damages from an infringer unless the infringer was duly notified of the infringement and continued to infringe after the notice.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The marking of an article as patented when it is not in fact patented is against the law and subjects the offender to a penalty. **Some persons mark articles sold with the terms “Patent Applied For” or “Patent Pending.” These phrases have no legal effect, but only give information that an application for patent has been filed in the USPTO.** The protection afforded by a patent does not start until the actual grant of the patent. False use of these phrases or their equivalent is prohibited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([From the USPTO &quot;General Information on Patents&quot; pamphlet][1], emphasis mine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also a deterrent to someone else cloning the invention and claiming ignorance: While you can definitely get the infringing product pulled (and sue for damages subject to what's above) it's a lot more work than if you never had to fight the clone-makers in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerning_patents.jsp#heading-29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1642" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="534" RevisionGUID="2fccffa6-dd6e-4d5a-9c5c-06eb96def3b9" CreationDate="2012-09-27T16:54:14.350" UserId="1" Comment="edited title" Text="How can Apple patent flexi screens?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="540" RevisionGUID="f81dab62-82b2-420a-94b1-d8a20b085e40" CreationDate="2012-09-27T17:35:47.100" UserId="1335" Text="There are many nuances to this issue, and I won't be able to cover all of them. Note that a company can be liable for infringement even if it was unaware of the patents. Awareness of patents only contributes to showing &lt;i&gt;willful&lt;/i&gt; infringement, which can have higher damages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some cases where you want to publicize your patents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You are looking to get investment or funding in a startup. Depending on your industry, such as biotech, many investors/VCs won't even consider funding you unless you have filed for patents [1][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. You want to &quot;stake your territory&quot; and put competitors (existing or potential) on notice. This may also help, say, if you sue for infringement and want to allege willful infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, you can do the opposite and keep your patents for publishing until they issue. Some cases where you may want to do this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You want to avoid tipping off your competitors of what you're working on, thus retaining a competitive advantage. For instance, you've pioneered a new field of technology and you want to mine all possible inventions before it becomes public. In other countries, companies intently watch their patent offices as a source of intelligence on their competitors' future plans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. You are, e.g. in &quot;stealth mode&quot;, and do not yet wish to disclose your work to the public.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. You want to maximize the value of your patent and hope that as many firms as possible will end up unintentionally infringing your patent instead of devising work-arounds. (These are often called &quot;submarine&quot; patents.) Note that in this case you are trading off the potential for willful infringement damages for (hopefully) a greater number of infringers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/07/patenting-by-entrepreneurs-the-berkeley-patent-survey-part-i-of-iii-1.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. http://www.law.northwestern.edu/searlecenter/papers/Sichelman_Graham_patenting.pdf&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="538" RevisionGUID="b01763c5-241d-482e-9fb0-4cacaadf8559" CreationDate="2012-09-27T17:51:32.503" UserId="1115" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Assuming a company will work on and submit its patents, independently of whether its patents/ patents pendings are publicized or not (e.g. in its software and website)... Are there real benefits in publicizing your patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean, a competing company can't say it can break another's patents because it didn't know they existed, right? So, are there benefits/ cons on publicizing the patents. Is the investment, of publicizing them, useful?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="f2762a6f-39b5-49a2-96d8-73a746f2df00" CreationDate="2012-09-27T17:52:20.770" UserId="50" Comment="taking commenter criticism into account" Text="As others have pointed out, a youtube video could be prior art, in the sense that a video recording is eligible subject matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prosecution is sometimes *ex parte*, as in the case of a non-published patent application.  This means that the office actions (rejections etc) from the USPTO to the applicant are sent only to the applicant, and not made public.  So, the only way the world would know that an application had been rejected under obviousness or novelty grounds due to prior art, is if the applicant disclosed that fact, the patent issued (at which time the prosecution record would become public), or if this fact was somehow forced out in subsequent litigation.  If an application is abandoned or denied, the prosecution record of a non-published patent is not published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as the commenters pointed out, most patent applications are public, so this might not matter.  If the application is public, then you might be able to find evidence of a YouTube-based rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if the application is private, then the only way someone would be able to &quot;definitively confirm&quot; that a YouTube video was prior art would be if their own application was rejected on those grounds, and in most cases, they wouldn't/couldn't tell you the specifics about that without breaching confidentiality." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="541" RevisionGUID="d4f4b329-e5eb-47a2-a568-afe634429e87" CreationDate="2012-09-27T17:59:25.143" UserId="1387" Text="Part of the apple litigation related to design patents.  These cover the appearance - not the functionality - of an item.  That is why the 2001 display device was relevant.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not have a citation, but I have heard that Robert Heinlein's description of a waterbed in Stranger in a Strange Land was considered sufficiently detailed and cited to be prior art for a later a patent application by someone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of my professors in law school took pride in his use of the bible as invalidating prior art for a method of using filaments to strengthen ceramics (straw in clay bricks).   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the scope of what may be considered prior art under 35 USC 102 and 103 (aka novelty and obviousness) is pretty broad. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="542" RevisionGUID="b1b41544-6488-4953-a66b-6d87f63dda76" CreationDate="2012-09-27T18:15:09.907" UserId="1388" Text="US Patent No. 5,715,314 titled “Network Sales System” claims systems and methods that allow a buyer to purchase products online using a computer.  Claim 34 describes a network-based sales system in which the buyer adds items to a “shopping cart” that is maintained in the seller’s online database and then receives a message to purchase the products.  The filing date of the patent is October 24, 1994.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any prior art that describes using a computer to add items to a shopping cart via a computer network and then purchasing the products?  We are particularly interested in sources that describe how the shopping cart feature operated and how the payment message, if any, was sent to the buyer.  The prior art does not have to relate specifically to the use of a computer although that is preferable. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1648" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="542" RevisionGUID="b1b41544-6488-4953-a66b-6d87f63dda76" CreationDate="2012-09-27T18:15:09.907" UserId="1388" Text="Prior Art for Online Shopping System" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1649" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="542" RevisionGUID="b1b41544-6488-4953-a66b-6d87f63dda76" CreationDate="2012-09-27T18:15:09.907" UserId="1388" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="543" RevisionGUID="7c129a8f-b63e-415c-98e5-87045a1c93d6" CreationDate="2012-09-27T18:54:22.817" UserId="92" Text="[TweetDeck][1], a service now owned by Twitter, was [originally released in July 2008 by Iain Dodsworth](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TweetDeck), TweetDeck largely matches all functionality within the patent with the exceptions of &quot;domain name&quot; (TweetDeck works on any textual form of information, domain names can be posted via the service).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TweetDeck's features seem to provide prior art to invalidate the originality of most of this patent's features. The remainders (domain names, advertising) seem obvious and not significant enough to make the process distinct from TweetDeck's functionality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To go over the section you quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A) receiving from a client computer communicatively coupled to a network, by one or more server computers communicatively coupled to said network: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;i) one or more authentication credentials, for a registrant of a domain name, for accessing an account on a social networking website; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tweetdeck does this (heck, all social media sites do this, save those without authentication). Ignoring &quot;for a registrant of a domain name&quot; which is just as easily replaced with &quot;user&quot;, this is functionally identical to Tweetdeck. TweetDeck allows multiple Social Network credentials to be entered and for one user to post to multiple sites from one location via a dashboard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;ii) a delay period after which to publish, on a web page for said account, a domain name announcement comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;&gt;a) an announcement of a registration of said domain name; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;&gt;b) a hyperlink to a website resolving from said domain name; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of Tweetdeck's features is scheduling Tweets or status updates so they may be published at a predefined date. The workflow is very similar to Figure 5 in Go Daddy's patent; you use a control panel to set your &quot;delay period&quot; and your information to post (in this use case, a domain name). The announcement or Tweet is posted after the delay period. The steps of monitoring traffic (analytics) and &quot;suggesting a product for increasing traffic&quot; (showing an ad) seem to fall under &quot;obvious&quot; to me, but Twitter and Google both offer Analytics packages matching the former (and have since before 2009), and the product recommendation seems trivial and obvious; there's also countless examples of general targeted advertising out there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B) responsive to an expiration of said delay period: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; i) authenticating to said account, by said one or more server computers and using said one or more authentication credentials, via a social networking application programming interface; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;ii) publishing, by said one or more server computers, said domain name announcement to said web page for said account via said social networking application programming interface. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TweetDeck does this as mentioned above; a user signs into TweetDeck using credentials, via TweetDeck which impliments Twitter's API, a social networking application programming interface. TweetDeck publishes the &quot;announcement&quot; (tweet) to the &quot;web page for said social networking application interface&quot; (twitter via Twitter's API)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.tweetdeck.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="542" RevisionGUID="3317983e-f515-40e8-92f2-58e6fec325a9" CreationDate="2012-09-27T20:01:18.237" UserId="1" Comment="Minor editing per http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/questions/47/question-titles-what-should-an-ideal-prior-art-request-look-like" Text="[US Patent No. 5,715,314](http://www.google.com/patents/US5715314) titled “Network Sales System” claims systems and methods that allow a buyer to purchase products online using a computer.  Claim 34 describes a network-based sales system in which the buyer adds items to a “shopping cart” that is maintained in the seller’s online database and then receives a message to purchase the products.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 34. A network-based sales system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- at least one buyer computer for operation by a user desiring to buy products;&#xD;&#xA;-    at least one shopping cart computer; and&#xD;&#xA;-    a shopping cart database connected to said shopping cart computer;&#xD;&#xA;    said buyer computer and said shopping cart computer being interconnected by a computer network;&#xD;&#xA;-    said buyer computer being programmed to receive a plurality of requests from a user to add a plurality of respective products to a shopping cart in said shopping cart database, and, in response to said requests to add said products, to send a plurality of respective shopping cart messages to said shopping cart computer each of which comprises a product identifier identifying one of said plurality of products;&#xD;&#xA;-    said shopping cart computer being programmed to receive said plurality of shopping cart messages, to modify said shopping cart in said shopping cart database to reflect said plurality of requests to add said plurality of products to said shopping cart, and to cause a payment message associated with said shopping cart to be created; and&#xD;&#xA;-    said buyer computer being programmed to receive a request from said user to purchase said plurality of products added to said shopping cart and to cause said payment message to be activated to initiate a payment transaction for said plurality of products added to said shopping cart;&#xD;&#xA;-    said shopping cart being a stored representation of a collection of products, said shopping cart database being a database of stored representations of collections of products, and said shopping cart computer being a computer that modifies said stored representations of collections of products in said database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The filing date of the patent is October 24, 1994.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any prior art that describes using a computer to add items to a shopping cart via a computer network and then purchasing the products?  We are particularly interested in sources that describe how the shopping cart feature operated and how the payment message, if any, was sent to the buyer.  The prior art does not have to relate specifically to the use of a computer although that is preferable. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1653" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="542" RevisionGUID="3317983e-f515-40e8-92f2-58e6fec325a9" CreationDate="2012-09-27T20:01:18.237" UserId="1" Comment="Minor editing per http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/questions/47/question-titles-what-should-an-ideal-prior-art-request-look-like" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us5715314&gt;&lt;data-processing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="534" RevisionGUID="6f322a4a-34d9-4629-b10d-f6c34dae3743" CreationDate="2012-09-27T20:19:32.547" UserId="76" Comment="added 203 characters in body; edited tags" Text="According to my reading of [http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/27/apple-patents-in-screen-speakers-flexible-displays-and-tactile-keyboards-for-future-iphones-and-ipads/][1], Apple patented flexi displays. How is this possible when they are already done by Samsung and LG? Has this patent been awarded already?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent is [WO/2012/129247](http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2012129247&amp;recNum=5&amp;office=&amp;queryString=FP%3A%28apple%29&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=Pub+Date+Desc&amp;maxRec=7022?ystfuv), US 2012/029844.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/27/apple-patents-in-screen-speakers-flexible-displays-and-tactile-keyboards-for-future-iphones-and-ipads/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1655" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="534" RevisionGUID="6f322a4a-34d9-4629-b10d-f6c34dae3743" CreationDate="2012-09-27T20:19:32.547" UserId="76" Comment="added 203 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;computer-graphics&gt;&lt;samsung&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="545" RevisionGUID="6b9f7ea6-8536-4600-9df1-635090a4a58a" CreationDate="2012-09-27T20:21:02.220" UserId="1333" Text="A provisional patent application will secure a filing date for your invention, BUT the filing date will only be for the subject matter you disclose in the provisional patent application.  If you make a mistake in your provisional patent application that must be fixed later, then the new subject matter added in the non-provisional patent application will NOT be able to claim priority to the provisional patent application filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See www.patentwizard.com for more information about provisional patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Michael Neustel  &#xD;&#xA;U.S. Patent Attorney  &#xD;&#xA;www.neustel.com " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1658" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="542" RevisionGUID="9698b2ef-0209-43fb-b1e2-55f79e840bd4" CreationDate="2012-09-27T20:21:38.723" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;data-processing-financial&gt;&lt;us5715314&gt;&lt;computers-support&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1659" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="535" RevisionGUID="8bd727bc-6c82-4f28-8b0e-71412435b706" CreationDate="2012-09-27T20:25:34.503" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;data-processing-interface&gt;&lt;us8276057&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="546" RevisionGUID="f695ebf4-c85b-48f9-ba3e-5e055cfaf503" CreationDate="2012-09-27T20:29:11.360" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="547" RevisionGUID="adb88233-4504-462a-a783-56a8c21d2f9b" CreationDate="2012-09-27T20:29:11.360" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="548" RevisionGUID="4adb947a-5725-459a-b5b6-014a23b48441" CreationDate="2012-09-27T21:27:58.897" UserId="1390" Text="[US Patent No. 6,396,482][1] - Hand-held electronic device with a keyboard optimized for use with the thumbs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking for prior art related to **claim 16**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of inputting characters into a mobile device having a keyboard and a display, the keyboard including a plurality of character keys and a space bar, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- (A) inputting a first set of characters into the mobile device using the keyboard, wherein the first set of characters comprise a first sentence; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- (B) selecting the space bar of the keyboard twice in succession and (1) displaying a period symbol (.) after the first sentence, and (2) instructing the mobile device to capitalize the next character input using the keyboard; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- (C) inputting a second set of characters into the mobile device using the keyboard, wherein the second set of characters comprise a second sentence, and wherein the first character in the second set of characters is automatically capitalized by the mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the patent has a filing date of **Jun 25, 1999**, so any relevant art must have been published before this date. This patent has been assigned to RIM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, this claim is directed to the familiar feature on modern smartphones of double tapping the spacebar at the end of a sentence to automatically insert a period followed by a space character. Additionally, the next character typed will be automatically capitalized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents?id=dmYLAAAAEBAJ&amp;zoom=4&amp;pg=PA1#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1663" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="548" RevisionGUID="4adb947a-5725-459a-b5b6-014a23b48441" CreationDate="2012-09-27T21:27:58.897" UserId="1390" Text="Prior art for RIM double tap spacebar to insert period and space" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1664" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="548" RevisionGUID="4adb947a-5725-459a-b5b6-014a23b48441" CreationDate="2012-09-27T21:27:58.897" UserId="1390" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;rim&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="549" RevisionGUID="7f5dd908-fa2f-4eea-aa18-4a8562a46ff3" CreationDate="2012-09-27T21:55:54.647" UserId="1394" Text="In the creation of the patent, you have two entities that are tied to it: the inventor and the assignee. Many times the patent inventor hands off the patent to a company as the assignee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pertaining to legality, who is allowed to sue for the patent infringement? The inventor, the assignee, or both of them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1666" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="549" RevisionGUID="7f5dd908-fa2f-4eea-aa18-4a8562a46ff3" CreationDate="2012-09-27T21:55:54.647" UserId="1394" Text="Who is allowed to sue for patent infringement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1667" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="549" RevisionGUID="7f5dd908-fa2f-4eea-aa18-4a8562a46ff3" CreationDate="2012-09-27T21:55:54.647" UserId="1394" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="550" RevisionGUID="8f70c1f0-ff98-43fa-9119-f396ec5c02c5" CreationDate="2012-09-27T22:05:50.220" UserId="1259" Text="Intershop claims to be the first online store, [WikiPedia][1] puts the date at 1995 but their own site claims they started doing it in 1992:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.intershop.com/company-profile.html&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  In the early days, **e-commerce websites were restricted to shopping functionality**, but it soon became possible to map complex sales and procurement processes. Customer expectations grew as technology progressed. As an industry pioneer, Intershop has been driving and supporting the **development of online retailing since 1992** and thus possesses unparalleled e-commerce experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;a call to them for historic records may prove fruitful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, a PRNewswire article dated Jan 3 1994 (which predates this filing date)&#xD;&#xA;http://www.thefreelibrary.com/APPLE+COMPUTER'S+eWORLD+TO+CHANGE+THE+SHAPE+OF+ONLINE+SERVICES-a014665738&#xD;&#xA;specifically mentions the new Apple eWorld which included:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Marketplace for purchasing products and services&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;online through their device(s). Presumably there was an online store, but someone is going to have to dig around to see when/if Apple did indeed &quot;sell products OR services&quot; online&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intershop_Communications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1670" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="548" RevisionGUID="81485f13-9084-4fca-8b5d-f75377a81097" CreationDate="2012-09-27T22:09:17.923" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;computer-graphics&gt;&lt;us6396482&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="551" RevisionGUID="d583af4d-3b31-4c37-8efe-f31ae7ae9bec" CreationDate="2012-09-27T22:19:44.910" UserId="1390" Text="In most cases the inventor (or assignor) assigns all of it's rights in the patent to the assignee. Thus, only the assignee has any rights in the patent. Accordingly, only the assignee can bring a suit for patent infringement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="551" RevisionGUID="f05bede4-f8f8-41e5-9f54-12e7bd6ac551" CreationDate="2012-09-27T22:27:48.997" UserId="1390" Comment="added related link" Text="In most cases the inventor (or assignor) assigns all of it's rights in the patent to the assignee. Thus, only the assignee has any rights in the patent. Accordingly, only the assignee can bring a suit for patent infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information see the USPTO's Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, [Ch. 300][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s301.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="547" RevisionGUID="a3dd2a87-27e2-4808-89c5-73a857a9aa18" CreationDate="2012-09-27T22:44:33.727" UserId="76" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text="US patent class 713: Electrical computers and digital processing systems: support" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1675" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="547" RevisionGUID="a3dd2a87-27e2-4808-89c5-73a857a9aa18" CreationDate="2012-09-27T22:44:33.727" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 189" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="546" RevisionGUID="868c5bfb-988e-4b07-a177-1b92d3f341c0" CreationDate="2012-09-27T22:44:40.903" UserId="76" Comment="added 385 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 713: Electrical computers and digital processing systems: support](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc713/sched713.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc713/defs713.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: cryptography and security (protocols, data storage, access control, ...), bootloaders, power management, clocks, ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1677" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="546" RevisionGUID="868c5bfb-988e-4b07-a177-1b92d3f341c0" CreationDate="2012-09-27T22:44:40.903" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 188" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="552" RevisionGUID="079cac1e-9b96-4a61-b388-826750c7171e" CreationDate="2012-09-28T01:11:20.367" UserId="885" Text="There are two cases - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Assignment of a patent (Assignor, Assignee)&#xD;&#xA; 2. Licensing of a patent (Licensor, Licensee)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of assignment, as answered by @[Hal][1], the assignee can bring suit for patent infringement. Generally, when an inventor works for an employer, he/she assigns the patent to his/her employer, may not be so in all cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of a license, depending upon the licensing agreement, either the licensor can bring suit, or the licensee, or in some cases both of them together can do that. This scenario is when a company/R&amp;D unit/employer owns a patent and licenses it to another company/R&amp;D unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/users/1390/hal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1679" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="103" RevisionGUID="8030a3e4-2e83-4fbc-8058-f6091526b883" CreationDate="2012-09-28T04:02:43.607" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/251532364558249984" />
  <row Id="1680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="553" RevisionGUID="f3bc9af0-ce62-469c-b2b5-5c134976ca95" CreationDate="2012-09-28T04:22:53.583" UserId="1411" Text="If you haven't yet filed a patent application, the most cost-effective way to accomplish your goal is a [defensive publication][1]. Very important: Make sure that you disclose enough information so that people of ordinary skill in the field of invention to which your invention pertains can make and use the invention without having to engage in an unreasonable amount of additional development work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_publication" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="554" RevisionGUID="b8cd9faf-36ac-45fc-8f07-b1d14cc0ba15" CreationDate="2012-09-28T04:59:29.290" UserId="1115" Text="What kind of penalties should I expect when using patents that expired in my products?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My product is software. Do I have to pay a fee for each copy of the software sold?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, what about the case where expired patent are used in versions of the software that, although old (let's say a newer version without the expired patents has been released), are still in use by clients?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1682" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="554" RevisionGUID="b8cd9faf-36ac-45fc-8f07-b1d14cc0ba15" CreationDate="2012-09-28T04:59:29.290" UserId="1115" Text="What kind of penalties should I expect when using patents that expired in my products?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1683" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="554" RevisionGUID="b8cd9faf-36ac-45fc-8f07-b1d14cc0ba15" CreationDate="2012-09-28T04:59:29.290" UserId="1115" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="554" RevisionGUID="34ae6538-2937-49b7-b5f3-edc682d93b28" CreationDate="2012-09-28T05:20:37.257" UserId="1115" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="What kind of penalties should I expect when putting patents that expired in my products?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My product is software. Do I have to pay a fee for each copy of the software sold?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, what about the case where expired patents are used in versions of the software that, although old (let's say a newer version without the expired patents has been released), are still in use by clients?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1685" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="554" RevisionGUID="34ae6538-2937-49b7-b5f3-edc682d93b28" CreationDate="2012-09-28T05:20:37.257" UserId="1115" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="What kind of penalties should I expect when putting patents that expired in my products?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="556" RevisionGUID="a90f7bd9-9fc9-401b-bb41-747e84409b93" CreationDate="2012-09-28T06:49:14.833" UserId="885" Text="&gt; What kind of penalties should I expect when putting patents that expired in my products?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None. Immaterial of the type of product (hardware or software) there is no penalty when you implement expired patents into your products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it would be a smart decision to check and verify if the patents have really expired or they have been renewed. Some countries allow for extension (not perpetual just few more years) upon renewal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do I have to pay a fee for each copy of the software sold?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It depends upon your licensing agreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And, what about the case where expired patents are used in versions of the software that, although old (let's say a newer version without the expired patents has been released), are still in use by clients?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you mean infringement in a retrospective way? I will leave this for some one else to take up.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1690" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="549" RevisionGUID="74b4bfae-959a-4166-b5a6-7be785c7612c" CreationDate="2012-09-28T07:02:43.600" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/251577663645429761" />
  <row Id="1691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="557" RevisionGUID="5cf52f86-13a4-4487-94d7-af1fa11fa3ae" CreationDate="2012-09-28T07:29:50.437" UserId="1418" Text="A product is expected to be deployed to 12 countries on 3 continents, with more to follow on successful launch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be better to aim for worldwide patent registration (as a matter of safety) or just aim to get the patent registered in as many of the launch countries as fast as possible?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1692" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="557" RevisionGUID="5cf52f86-13a4-4487-94d7-af1fa11fa3ae" CreationDate="2012-09-28T07:29:50.437" UserId="1418" Text="Is there a fast route to worldwide patent acquisition?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1693" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="557" RevisionGUID="5cf52f86-13a4-4487-94d7-af1fa11fa3ae" CreationDate="2012-09-28T07:29:50.437" UserId="1418" Text="&lt;worldwide&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="554" RevisionGUID="0cebdd81-9adb-4549-be1e-ae99aeaf5b13" CreationDate="2012-09-28T08:04:48.037" UserId="1115" Comment="added 142 characters in body; edited title" Text="What kind of penalties should I expect when text about patents patents that expired in my products? (e.g. &quot;This product is protected by Patent No. XXXX&quot; -&gt; This was true at one time, but not anymore, as the patent already expired)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My product is software. Do I have to pay a fee for each copy of the software sold?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, what about the case where expired patents are used in versions of the software that, although old (let's say a newer version without the expired patents has been released), are still in use by clients?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1695" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="554" RevisionGUID="0cebdd81-9adb-4549-be1e-ae99aeaf5b13" CreationDate="2012-09-28T08:04:48.037" UserId="1115" Comment="added 142 characters in body; edited title" Text="What kind of penalties should I expect when having text about patents that expired in my products?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="558" RevisionGUID="297e11f7-86ac-42de-ab85-f6e4fd337cf3" CreationDate="2012-09-28T09:39:08.770" UserId="1115" Text="When patenting software, is it important the name you use to qualify the product? Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Software product** protected by US Patent No. XXXX.&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Technology** protected by US Patent No. XXXX.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer to use &quot;Technology&quot;, as it is shorter than &quot;software product&quot;, although what I'm really protecting is a software product...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can this be used against me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1697" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="558" RevisionGUID="297e11f7-86ac-42de-ab85-f6e4fd337cf3" CreationDate="2012-09-28T09:39:08.770" UserId="1115" Text="In a patent notice, is the name you use to refer the patented product important?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1698" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="558" RevisionGUID="297e11f7-86ac-42de-ab85-f6e4fd337cf3" CreationDate="2012-09-28T09:39:08.770" UserId="1115" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="559" RevisionGUID="50c74eae-d138-4476-99b8-ade6129958c8" CreationDate="2012-09-28T09:53:57.097" UserId="1422" Text="Back in 1998 when I was going through my GCSEs (high school) I took graphic design and two of my projects were: a phone, and a car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My phone concept I believe (if it was valid), would be a good example of prior art for the iphone and other touch screen phones. It was a flat touch-screen phone, the exterior looked more iphone 4-5 &amp; sg2, rather than the edges of the original iphone/3g, simply because we had to construct our phones and I was keen to keep it as simple as possible  (other people were painstakingly carving individual keys). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long story short I wrote up the project, explained the concept, designed it, carved it out of foam. I personally saw it as the evolution of the current technology, palm pilots were all the rage, phones were starting to get smaller, and I was addicted to my game boy. In fact I thought it was so simple that I decided to change tact for my final GCSE submission to do a car instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The car was and electric sports car, inspired by the Lotus Elise. Unless there is a patent for the concept of an electric sports car (which I doubt), I think there isn't much point going into this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I am most annoyed about is Apple and co, claiming 'design' innovation, where if my 12 year old self was able to come up with the same concept, it can't have been *that* innovative. Would a child's graphic design project count as prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1700" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="559" RevisionGUID="50c74eae-d138-4476-99b8-ade6129958c8" CreationDate="2012-09-28T09:53:57.097" UserId="1422" Text="Would a graphic design projects constitute as prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1701" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="559" RevisionGUID="50c74eae-d138-4476-99b8-ade6129958c8" CreationDate="2012-09-28T09:53:57.097" UserId="1422" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1702" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="554" RevisionGUID="e590faa6-8415-46ca-9cb9-21dc593094ad" CreationDate="2012-09-28T11:09:47.640" UserId="998" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;false-marking&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="560" RevisionGUID="aa84d4e6-3282-44fa-aa13-8739fe61ff29" CreationDate="2012-09-28T11:24:01.087" UserId="998" Text="John, If I understand you question correctly, you are not likely to suffer any liability here in the US. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**False Marking**: It appears to me that you are asking a question that would fall within the doctrine of **False Marking**.  In the US, false marking occurs when marks an unpatented product as patented for the purpose of deceiving the public.  [35 U.S.C. 292][1].  The statute includes a fine of &quot;not more than $500 for every such offense.&quot;  A few yeas ago, there were a rash of false marking claims in the US for your very situation - expired patents.  Those cases where somewhat successful and there were a couple hundred payouts in the $20,000-$200,000 range.  In 2011, the false marking law changed as part of the America Invents Act (AIA). Under the new rule, the only parties that can bring a false-marking action are the US Gov't and someone who has suffered a competitive injury due to the false-marking.  It is highly unlikely that either of these would occur in your situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Regarding previously marked products**.  The general operative is that the products are &quot;marked&quot; when you put them out in the stream of commerce and there is no need to conduct a recall to scrub patent numbers that expired after you sold the product. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here is an article][2] that provides slightly more information from a more international perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/292&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.vennershipley.co.uk/show-news-id-373.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="561" RevisionGUID="b2c19c2d-4b36-4177-9a73-5d7a3d218541" CreationDate="2012-09-28T11:34:27.750" UserId="1425" Text="Mercantec (CEO Bill Tait -- [http://www.linkedin.com/in/billtait][1]) released a shopping cart system in 1995.  I'm not sure of the release date, but I have email from him, dated October 1995, describing the system.  He may well be able to document it prior to the filing date the previous year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.linkedin.com/in/billtait/ &quot;Bill Tait&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="562" RevisionGUID="0e77ede8-0b9f-4f30-b1c7-61dd419f65da" CreationDate="2012-09-28T12:05:04.363" UserId="885" Text="First off, just to add more clarity, there is no worldwide patent, that is a patent that can be enforced all over the world. Some countries might not have IP rights as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that the 12 countries where the product is deployed have a patent system. Generally huge MNCs would prefer for filing patents all across the world, since they have the resources. If a smaller company is to file for patents, then it would think about the size of the market in the country for its product(s). Once decision on the best possible successful market is made, it can file a patent in that country and later use this filing date as priority date in other countries subsequently where ever it is filing for patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted that patents can be used in two ways (i) to prevent someone from infringing your patent by manufacturing/making/selling the patented product and (ii) to prevent someone from importing the patented product into the market. So the company has to think about these aspects as well, in terms of its capacity to make a product locally in a market or export the final product to another market where the company has patent protection for its products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover filing in all countries may not necessarily be useful, and in some cases the patent fee will just be an expense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So essentially the answer is it depends on the IP strategy which the company wants to work out. Hope that was useful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="564" RevisionGUID="cdcba0ff-6f84-445c-a9b9-fa5bb2b7b19e" CreationDate="2012-09-28T13:36:59.340" UserId="450" Text="If it were PUBLISHED, then it could be considered prior art. Did anything happen other than your designs were turned in to your teachers? For a high school project, I'd think it unusual if it went any further than that, and thus it's unlikely that it's considered 'published'.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1712" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="393" RevisionGUID="defbe238-0628-41a4-a613-a2ea96cb4e1c" CreationDate="2012-09-28T13:50:28.773" UserId="998" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-pending&gt;&lt;false-marking&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="566" RevisionGUID="45741d2d-a3bc-45d6-9c0e-ab9720063ef6" CreationDate="2012-09-28T14:11:52.337" UserId="14" Text="I haven't found anything on the auto-insertion of the period, but the claim for autocapitalization documented in claims 16(B)2, which is getting ready to capitalize the next string, and 16(C), which describes actually doing so, appears to have prior art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Apple Newton][1], which was launched in developed in 1987 and discontinued in 1998, included autocapitalization of sentences, as documented [here][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now,  this auto-capitalization was not triggered by a double space; it appears to have been triggered by the insertion of a period.  But it seems that one could easily conclude that once there's art for a period-triggered capitalization, adding capitalization after a double-space triggered period isn't novel - the same period is triggering it, and only the way the period was generated seems new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**At a minimum, I'd think they do not have a valid claim to the auto capitalization.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_%28platform%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://support.apple.com/kb/TA29815?viewlocale=en_US&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/mueDB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1716" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="558" RevisionGUID="30afb89a-d547-4c39-9bfa-e99bf253657e" CreationDate="2012-09-28T14:21:10.177" UserId="1115" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="567" RevisionGUID="dea021e2-0cf4-4c90-a86c-8bba5d2f8d57" CreationDate="2012-09-28T14:31:06.620" UserId="758" Text="The wording of the patent law is actually kind of tricky in this area. Patentability is covered by section 35 USC 102, which says (in part): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if you were in the US at the time, *or* (you can show that) somebody in the US knew of your invention at the time, then it counts as prior art. Assuming, however, that you were in the UK at the time, and you didn't reveal it directly to somebody in the US, *then* it would have to have been described in a printed publication to qualify as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure it's ever been tested in court, but given the wording of the law, if you even visited the US at any time between the time of invention, and Apple's inventing it, that could qualify your invention as invalidating prior art (i.e., it was known to you, and you were &quot;in this country&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="568" RevisionGUID="ddde8771-0448-420a-a455-879936fd72cd" CreationDate="2012-09-28T14:35:58.233" UserId="1434" Text="Seems like OpenID is the standard for social networks. A number of companies, including Yahoo, Google, among others, allow us to login with OpenID as well as offering hosting services and domain name registration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent seems a bit vague; for example, it does not seem to explicitly come out and say that the announcement on the social website must be readable by your friends. It simply goes onto a page of the social network. And if you use your google account to create a site, [Webmaster Tools](https://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;answer=1052577) will automatically detect those sites and add them to the account that uses the google account, i.e. put the link to a new page on the new domain on your old page on your google account. Thus, the question I have is where do you draw the line. Google has had social networking in terms of email, Google Wave, and Google+. Google's not the only player in this space of companies that provide social networking and domain name registration. What is a more clear example?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="567" RevisionGUID="2f0f0340-74a2-40c2-aed9-0b0047e56c43" CreationDate="2012-09-28T14:46:31.103" UserId="758" Comment="added 258 characters in body" Text="The wording of the patent law is actually kind of tricky in this area. Patentability is covered by section 35 USC 102, which says (in part): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if you were in the US at the time, *or* (you can show that) somebody in the US knew of your invention at the time, then it counts as prior art. Assuming, however, that you were in the UK at the time, and you didn't reveal it directly to somebody in the US, *then* it would have to have been described in a printed publication to qualify as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure it's ever been tested in court, but given the wording of the law, if you even visited the US at any time between the time of invention, and Apple's inventing it, that could qualify your invention as invalidating prior art (i.e., it was known to you, and you were &quot;in this country&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I should probably add: I'm not sure entirely sure whether the patent you're talking about is really a utility patent or a design patent. The wording above is (at least primarily) about utility patents -- I'm a lot less certain about design patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="568" RevisionGUID="12834e9e-0042-4889-ba23-6c38bb1ce677" CreationDate="2012-09-28T14:47:27.720" UserId="1434" Comment="added 422 characters in body" Text="Seems like OpenID is the standard for social networks. A number of companies, including Yahoo, Google, among others, allow us to login with OpenID as well as offering hosting services and domain name registration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent seems a bit vague; for example, it does not seem to explicitly come out and say that the announcement on the social website must be readable by your friends. It simply goes onto a page of the social network. And if you use your google account to create a site, [Webmaster Tools](https://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;answer=1052577) will automatically detect those sites and add them to the account that uses the google account, i.e. put the link to a new page on the new domain on your old page on your google account. Thus, the question I have is where do you draw the line. Google has had social networking in terms of email, Google Wave, and Google+. Google's not the only player in this space of companies that provide social networking and domain name registration. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Wikipedia, [early social networking](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_networking_service#History) began around 1995. With Yahoo, and geocities, they provided a subdomain. Tripod.com also provided subdomains for their sites. However, I believe that Tripod.com also allowed for registering domain names.  Tripod offers domain name registration and was the social website, although it has currently evolved into more of a domain name registrant and web design company, people used to go to Tripod to interact with their friends. Does that count as prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a more clear example?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="569" RevisionGUID="b0ee14e9-2398-4133-bbeb-32a882bb543d" CreationDate="2012-09-28T14:54:09.313" UserId="758" Text="Assuming you're putting the marking on the box, in a help screen, or in the documentation (i.e., where the product with which it's associated is obvious) it's pretty routine to just say something like &quot;Protected by one or more of the following US patents: XXXX, YYYY, ZZZZ&quot;, without trying to specify any more about product vs. technology." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="570" RevisionGUID="1796a300-fbf6-4eed-8902-3575973f012b" CreationDate="2012-09-28T15:07:10.120" UserId="758" Text="Assuming (at least most of) the countries where you're releasing your product have signed the Patent Cooperation Treaty, you probably want to start at the [World Intellectual Property Office][1] (WIPO).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their [Standards][2] page summarizes the basic background, and their [Applicant's Guide][3] outlines the process itself. The basic idea is fairly simple though: you file an application with WIPO itself. This will establish a filing date for your patent. You then have a (limited) period of time to file patent applications in the countries you care about. The WIPO application won't result in an actual patent on its own; it only establishes a filing date. You *must* file applications in the individual countries where you want protection to get protection in those countries. Filing with WIPO (by itself) will *not* provide any protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/en/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wipo.int/standards/en/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/appguide/index.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="504" RevisionGUID="c2613b53-9c18-4ace-8387-ae890fc4e477" CreationDate="2012-09-28T15:08:59.477" UserId="288" Comment="changed URLs to links" Text="When did ADA and smalltalk get the ability to access databases?  Both languages predate the patent by more than a decade, and I'm sure accessed databases before then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Embedded SQL for Ada 95](http://gnade.sourceforge.net/#ESQL)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ODBC bindings for ADA 95 - [Low-cost Development Systems](http://www.adahome.com/Resources/Compilers/Lowcost.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1725" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="504" RevisionGUID="c2613b53-9c18-4ace-8387-ae890fc4e477" CreationDate="2012-09-28T15:08:59.477" Comment="Proposed by 288 approved by 16 edit id of 191" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="561" RevisionGUID="395c70be-2166-4abb-ba82-c0b773277387" CreationDate="2012-09-28T15:09:05.747" UserId="288" Comment="changed URL to a link" Text="Mercantec ([CEO Bill Tait](http://www.linkedin.com/in/billtait)) released a shopping cart system in 1995.  I'm not sure of the release date, but I have email from him, dated October 1995, describing the system.  He may well be able to document it prior to the filing date the previous year.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1727" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="561" RevisionGUID="395c70be-2166-4abb-ba82-c0b773277387" CreationDate="2012-09-28T15:09:05.747" Comment="Proposed by 288 approved by 16 edit id of 192" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="263" RevisionGUID="2e8dcc3c-da59-423a-8e49-47250bb669ae" CreationDate="2012-09-28T15:09:20.193" UserId="288" Comment="changed URL to a link" Text="This seems an obvious development to stuff that opera were doing with their mini browser in 2007.  In their version, you zoom to parts of the screen by tapping them.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Evolving the Internet on your phone: Designing web sites with Opera Mini 4 in mind](http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/evolving-the-internet-on-your-phone-des/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1729" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="263" RevisionGUID="2e8dcc3c-da59-423a-8e49-47250bb669ae" CreationDate="2012-09-28T15:09:20.193" Comment="Proposed by 288 approved by 16 edit id of 194" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="101" RevisionGUID="1db6080f-b528-4a85-bf54-164f00c1981c" CreationDate="2012-09-28T15:09:27.527" UserId="288" Comment="changed URL to a link" Text="I don't think that anyone would need to worry about being extradited to the United States as a result of a patent infringement.  Patent infringement is a civil matter not a criminal matter, and extradition is not available for civil matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference: [Extradition – A Guide for Expats](http://www.panamalaw.org/guide_to_extradition.html#)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1731" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="101" RevisionGUID="1db6080f-b528-4a85-bf54-164f00c1981c" CreationDate="2012-09-28T15:09:27.527" Comment="Proposed by 288 approved by 16 edit id of 193" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="452" RevisionGUID="cb8c01fd-0e99-48d7-8363-7c497569612b" CreationDate="2012-09-28T15:09:46.900" UserId="288" Comment="changed URLs to links" Text="The concept of &quot;electronic signature&quot; made me think straight away of GPG. Does a a web interface requiring public-key signatures come close to this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What is FireGPG?](http://getfiregpg.org/s/home)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a small bit on that page talking about a fireGPG &quot;API that allows you to design a website that uses GPG's features on the client; for example to autheticate a user for an administration pane.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plenty of other sites use related methods, mostly done on the server side. Github provides a form for filling out your ssh key to authorise that you have access to the code repository.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Generating SSH Keys](https://help.github.com/articles/generating-ssh-keys)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1735" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="452" RevisionGUID="cb8c01fd-0e99-48d7-8363-7c497569612b" CreationDate="2012-09-28T15:09:46.900" Comment="Proposed by 288 approved by 16 edit id of 195" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="571" RevisionGUID="0ea7175b-c370-4bd2-bf3a-954e5e5b2d85" CreationDate="2012-09-28T15:11:42.640" UserId="1259" Text="I understand that a continuation patent builds upon an existing patent (or application) by the same inventor. However, I find some aspects to be murky and prone to misuse. Specific questions follow:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a continuation patent; in the case of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (a) an application that is pending and has NOT been issued.&#xD;&#xA; - (b) an issued patent that HAS expired.&#xD;&#xA; - (c) an issued patent that has NOT expired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For (a) an application that has NOT yet been issued, sub-questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (1) Does the NEW application cancel the previous (original) application, taking its priority (filing) date? If the new application is defeated/rejected, does their original application come back to life or is it also lost?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (2) Does a significant change in the continuation application mean that the original application(s) was/were flawed and/or incomplete? How does this affect the new patent application credibility?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (3) Assuming the continued application builds upon the prior application (ergo, requiring prior art pertaining to original claims to predate the previous filing date), how does prior art on ADDED or CHANGED items affect the application, i.e. does prior art for new/changed claims also need to predate the ORIGINAL filing date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For (b) an issued patent that HAS expired:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- (1) Can a continuation patent be filed for an expired patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For (c) an issued patent that has NOT expired, sub-questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- (1) Can a trivial change be used to simply extend the life of the patent, indefinitely by applying trivial changes periodically? Is there a solid litmus test for this or is it just up to the examiners?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- (2) Can a major change that effectively turns the invention into something else be introduced periodically, resulting in indefinite continuations by simply writing in or incorporating new technologies as they come out, thus broadening the scope of the original invention (to the point where it covers completely different industries/areas)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- (3) If a continuation patent is found to be invalid, how does that affect the original (built upon) patent(s)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do have an example that matches (c)(1) and (2). Hypothetically, a patent is applied for and issued in 1990 for a fax receiving and routing/delivery idea, that specifically claims &quot;FAX message&quot; over &quot;telephone line&quot;. In 2000 a continuation is filed and approved, extending the claim to &quot;over network and internet&quot;. In 2010 a continuation is filed and approved, extending the claim to &quot;electronic messages&quot;. This has extended the patent from 1990 thru 2030 (20 years extra). This has changed the original intent of the invention (for facsimile documents over telephone lines) to cover a much broader delivery mechanism (network and internet) AND also covered all &quot;electronic messages&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1737" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="571" RevisionGUID="0ea7175b-c370-4bd2-bf3a-954e5e5b2d85" CreationDate="2012-09-28T15:11:42.640" UserId="1259" Text="What is a continuation patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1738" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="571" RevisionGUID="0ea7175b-c370-4bd2-bf3a-954e5e5b2d85" CreationDate="2012-09-28T15:11:42.640" UserId="1259" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patent-misuse&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;continuation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="572" RevisionGUID="3adf85b5-3d62-496a-b5c4-f3cf6d7e528b" CreationDate="2012-09-28T15:11:42.640" UserId="1259" Text="I am creating a wiki for the answer(s), please feel free to update below each question as appropriate. If you have a second answer, number it accordingly and place it below other answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For (a) an application that has NOT yet been issued, sub-questions:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Does the NEW application cancel the previous (original) application, taking its priority (filing) date? If the new application is defeated/rejected, does their original application come back to life or is it also lost?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(answer?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) Does a significant change in the continuation application mean that the original application(s) was/were flawed and/or incomplete? How does this affect the new patent application credibility?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(answer?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) Assuming the continued application builds upon the prior application (ergo, requiring prior art pertaining to original claims to predate the previous filing date), how does prior art on ADDED or CHANGED items affect the application, i.e. does prior art for new/changed claims also need to predate the ORIGINAL filing date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(answer?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For (b) an issued patent that HAS expired:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Can a continuation patent be filed for an expired patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not believe an expired patent can be used for continuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For (c) an issued patent that has NOT expired, sub-questions:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Can a trivial change be used to simply extend the life of the patent, indefinitely by applying trivial changes periodically? Is there a solid litmus test for this or is it just up to the examiners?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(answer?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) Can a major change that effectively turns the invention into something else be introduced periodically, resulting in indefinite continuations by simply writing in or incorporating new technologies as they come out, thus broadening the scope of the original invention (to the point where it covers completely different industries/areas)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(answer?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) If a continuation patent is found to be invalid, how does that affect the original (built upon) patent(s)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(answer?)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1740" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="572" RevisionGUID="c8c8dbe1-264e-405f-8f93-7ca6ac4a1e4a" CreationDate="2012-09-28T15:11:42.640" UserId="1259" />
  <row Id="1741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="573" RevisionGUID="b4b87392-0a1b-4403-beed-f267bb684105" CreationDate="2012-09-28T15:14:01.573" UserId="1437" Text="I believe you are asking about Patent Marking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent Marking is when you indicate on your product that it is patented for the purpose of giving due notice to the world about your patent. It is not required, but it has very important benefits which is why most practitioners suggest marking your products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;35 USC 287 deals with giving notice by marking your product. The requirement is that the term &quot;Patent&quot; or the abbreviation &quot;pat.&quot; be affixed to the product along with the patent number or an internet address where the patent number is provided and associated to the product. At first sight, the two suggestions you make seem to meet this requirement. In fact, you likely could simply write &quot;Protected by US Patent no....&quot; or just &quot;Patent ...&quot;. As far as I know, there is no particular issue with characterisation of your product (as a &quot;technology&quot; or &quot;software product&quot;), but there is a danger if your mark associates your patent to a technology rather than the actual product. In other words, if your mark is merely an indication that you have a patent for a technology, rather than an indication that the *product* is patented, then you may have an issue. For this reason, I would at least avoid your second option. Instead, I would opt for &quot;Patent ...&quot; or if you want, &quot;Product protected by US Patent ...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you mark your product, make sure you track the status of your patent, and the state of your software (if it changes due to patches, new versions, etc...) and update the marking information as the situation changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important that substantially all your products (e.g. not just a few samples or demo versions) be affixed with the marking. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will you be putting the mark on a DVD/BD, on a software startup screen or on an EUA?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1743" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="557" RevisionGUID="471064ba-b2eb-44c6-9277-a74e65d7c262" CreationDate="2012-09-28T16:02:43.980" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/251713560307183616" />
  <row Id="1744" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="558" RevisionGUID="98b61abe-7f41-4106-a637-768958371682" CreationDate="2012-09-28T16:40:45.973" UserId="998" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;false-marking&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1745" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="559" RevisionGUID="83b549b6-da17-4f8d-b875-1dc408d68ff4" CreationDate="2012-09-28T16:53:50.063" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="545" RevisionGUID="c1dad6a2-ec75-4751-b3f5-80941efe9fa2" CreationDate="2012-09-28T16:56:18.810" UserId="76" Comment="removed signature" Text="A provisional patent application will secure a filing date for your invention, BUT the filing date will only be for the subject matter you disclose in the provisional patent application.  If you make a mistake in your provisional patent application that must be fixed later, then the new subject matter added in the non-provisional patent application will NOT be able to claim priority to the provisional patent application filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See http://www.patentwizard.com/ for more information about provisional patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1747" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="557" RevisionGUID="a9244082-3e41-4909-ae73-80510fc005a2" CreationDate="2012-09-28T17:01:48.587" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="572" RevisionGUID="9071c055-3722-4f17-be78-9385eb69d9c0" CreationDate="2012-09-28T17:24:10.830" UserId="758" Comment="added 3127 characters in body" Text="I am creating a wiki for the answer(s), please feel free to update below each question as appropriate. If you have a second answer, number it accordingly and place it below other answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For (a) an application that has NOT yet been issued, sub-questions:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Does the NEW application cancel the previous (original) application, taking its priority (filing) date? If the new application is defeated/rejected, does their original application come back to life or is it also lost?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A continuation does not necessarily mean the original application is dead. Just like any other application, it may be rejected, or the applicant may abandon it, or it may issue as a patent. The continuation likewise, so it's possible that both the original application and the continuation would result in (separate) patents being issued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) Does a significant change in the continuation application mean that the original application(s) was/were flawed and/or incomplete? How does this affect the new patent application credibility?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, it doesn't mean the original was necessarily flawed or incomplete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) Assuming the continued application builds upon the prior application (ergo, requiring prior art pertaining to original claims to predate the previous filing date), how does prior art on ADDED or CHANGED items affect the application, i.e. does prior art for new/changed claims also need to predate the ORIGINAL filing date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least normally, a continuation gets the priority date of the first application from which it is derived (i.e., in some cases, you can have a continuation of a continuation of a continuation in part of a ..., going on for years). Just for one example, US Patent 6,442,336 says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/110,861, filed Aug. 24, 1993, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,446,599 which is a division of application Ser. No. 07/818,168, filed Jan. 8, 1992, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,260,837, which is a division of application Ser. No. 07/325,768, filed Mar. 20, 1989, abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 06/877,319, filed Jun. 23, 1986, now U.S. Pat. No. 4,819,101, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 06/516,532, filed Jul. 25, 1983, now U.S. Pat. No. 4,604,668, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 06/209,057, filed Nov. 21, 1980, abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For (b) an issued patent that HAS expired:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Can a continuation patent be filed for an expired patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not believe an expired patent can be used for continuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For (c) an issued patent that has NOT expired, sub-questions:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Can a trivial change be used to simply extend the life of the patent, indefinitely by applying trivial changes periodically? Is there a solid litmus test for this or is it just up to the examiners?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes and no. You can continue an *application*, but only while that application remains in prosecution (i.e., before it issues as a patent). Under the old patent expiration model (i.e., that patents were valid for 17 years after being issued) yes, it was possible to extend the life of a patent for quite a while by writing continuations, contiuations-in-part, divisions, etc. Under the current system (that a patent expires 20 years after application) this has been drastically reduced, if not eliminated entirely, because (at least normally) the date of the *original* application will be used to compute the expiration date of a continuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) Can a major change that effectively turns the invention into something else be introduced periodically, resulting in indefinite continuations by simply writing in or incorporating new technologies as they come out, thus broadening the scope of the original invention (to the point where it covers completely different industries/areas)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not supposed to happen -- the original specification is supposed to support whatever is claimed in a continuation, continuation-in-part or a divisional application. That said, people have certainly *tried* to &quot;stretch&quot; an application to cover newer technologies. Just for example, Jerome Lemelson (the inventor on the patent quoted above) once wrote a patent on a &quot;computer system&quot;. After TI came out with the first microcontroller (i.e., essentially a complete computer system on a single integrated circuit), Mr. Lemelson wrote an continuation of one of his earlier patents that add something to the effect that: &quot;...and all of it is on one integrated circuit&quot;. The patent issued, but eventually invalidated -- the court found that there was no support for the notion that he'd had the idea of the whole system being on a single integrated circuit, so the TI team (Gary Boone, et al) officially invented the microcontroller.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) If a continuation patent is found to be invalid, how does that affect the original (built upon) patent(s)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They're independent patents -- each is valid or invalid on its own. That said, if (for example) the parent patent were found invalid due to insufficient teaching of the patented invention, there's probably an increased chance that the same would be true of any derived patents as well.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="574" RevisionGUID="6f7ad8a3-19fc-4d88-b3d3-383a72f03dd3" CreationDate="2012-09-28T17:26:09.383" UserId="998" Text="**Is it &quot;prior art&quot;?**: This is a good example of how &quot;prior invention&quot; might not qualify as &quot;prior art.&quot;  For the most part, prior art has nothing to do with inventing. Rather the creation of prior art requires some move toward **publicizing** an innovation (or filing for patent protection).  Here, it seems that you probably did not create prior art because the design was kept within the confines of your school and examination system and not otherwise publicized or distributed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Would it be Invalidating?**:  Lets assume a minute that your design did count as prior art. I suspect (without seeing your design) that it is similar, but somewhat different from the Apple/Samsung product designs.  This is important because design patents (covering the ornamental shape of a useful article) are notoriously difficult to invalidate -- especially where the prior art is only similar and where the idea behind the patent was not derived from the prior art. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="572" RevisionGUID="9b5cf324-2e2c-40aa-bc32-a6f1ced20a3b" CreationDate="2012-09-28T17:33:09.397" UserId="758" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="I am creating a wiki for the answer(s), please feel free to update below each question as appropriate. If you have a second answer, number it accordingly and place it below other answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For (a) an application that has NOT yet been issued, sub-questions:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Does the NEW application cancel the previous (original) application, taking its priority (filing) date? If the new application is defeated/rejected, does their original application come back to life or is it also lost?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A continuation does not necessarily mean the original application is dead. Just like any other application, it may be rejected, or the applicant may abandon it, or it may issue as a patent. The continuation likewise, so it's possible that both the original application and the continuation would result in (separate) patents being issued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) Does a significant change in the continuation application mean that the original application(s) was/were flawed and/or incomplete? How does this affect the new patent application credibility?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, it doesn't mean the original was necessarily flawed or incomplete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) Assuming the continued application builds upon the prior application (ergo, requiring prior art pertaining to original claims to predate the previous filing date), how does prior art on ADDED or CHANGED items affect the application, i.e. does prior art for new/changed claims also need to predate the ORIGINAL filing date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least normally, a continuation gets the priority date of the first application from which it is derived (i.e., in some cases, you can have a continuation of a continuation of a continuation in part of a ..., going on for years). Just for one example, US Patent 6,442,336 says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/110,861, filed Aug. 24, 1993, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,446,599 which is a division of application Ser. No. 07/818,168, filed Jan. 8, 1992, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,260,837, which is a division of application Ser. No. 07/325,768, filed Mar. 20, 1989, abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 06/877,319, filed Jun. 23, 1986, now U.S. Pat. No. 4,819,101, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 06/516,532, filed Jul. 25, 1983, now U.S. Pat. No. 4,604,668, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 06/209,057, filed Nov. 21, 1980, abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For (b) an issued patent that HAS expired:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Can a continuation patent be filed for an expired patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not believe an expired patent can be used for continuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For (c) an issued patent that has NOT expired, sub-questions:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Can a trivial change be used to simply extend the life of the patent, indefinitely by applying trivial changes periodically? Is there a solid litmus test for this or is it just up to the examiners?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes and no. You can continue an *application*, but only while that application remains in prosecution (i.e., before it issues as a patent). Under the old patent expiration model (i.e., that patents were valid for 17 years after being issued) yes, it was possible to extend the life of a patent for quite a while by writing continuations, contiuations-in-part, divisions, etc. Under the current system (that a patent expires 20 years after application) this has been drastically reduced, if not eliminated entirely, because (at least normally) the date of the *original* application will be used to compute the expiration date of a continuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) Can a major change that effectively turns the invention into something else be introduced periodically, resulting in indefinite continuations by simply writing in or incorporating new technologies as they come out, thus broadening the scope of the original invention (to the point where it covers completely different industries/areas)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not supposed to happen -- the original specification is supposed to support whatever is claimed in a continuation, continuation-in-part or a divisional application. That said, people have certainly *tried* to &quot;stretch&quot; an application to cover newer technologies. Just for example, Jerome Lemelson (the inventor on the patent quoted above) once wrote a patent on a &quot;computer system&quot;. After TI came out with the first microcontroller (i.e., essentially a complete computer system on a single integrated circuit), Mr. Lemelson wrote a continuation of one of his earlier patents that added something to the effect that: &quot;...and all of it is on one integrated circuit&quot;. The patent issued, but was eventually invalidated -- the court found that the original specification contained no support for the idea of the whole system being on a single integrated circuit, so the TI team (Gary Boone, and, if memory serves, a few others) officially invented the microcontroller.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) If a continuation patent is found to be invalid, how does that affect the original (built upon) patent(s)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They're independent patents -- each is valid or invalid on its own. That said, if (for example) the parent patent were found invalid due to insufficient teaching of the patented invention, there's probably an increased chance that the same would be true of any derived patents as well.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="566" RevisionGUID="a37b410d-afad-4bb0-b979-361d9715653b" CreationDate="2012-09-28T18:06:33.157" UserId="14" Comment="moved the headline up to the top" Text="**At a minimum, I'd think they do not have a valid claim to the auto capitalization.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't found anything on the auto-insertion of the period, but the claim for autocapitalization documented in claims 16(B)2, which is getting ready to capitalize the next string, and 16(C), which describes actually doing so, appears to have prior art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Apple Newton][1], which was launched in developed in 1987 and discontinued in 1998, included autocapitalization of sentences, as documented [here][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now,  this auto-capitalization was not triggered by a double space; it appears to have been triggered by the insertion of a period.  But it seems that one could easily conclude that once there's art for a period-triggered capitalization, adding capitalization after a double-space triggered period isn't novel - the same period is triggering it, and only the way the period was generated seems new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_%28platform%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://support.apple.com/kb/TA29815?viewlocale=en_US&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/mueDB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="575" RevisionGUID="e2ebca4f-1842-487f-aada-8300f31d83bb" CreationDate="2012-09-28T18:45:21.097" UserId="1206" Text="Further to pkz's comment, patents can also be used in an important third way: to charge licenses or royalties to third parties who wish to manufacture or import an otherwise-infringing product of their own into a market which is protected by your patent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="576" RevisionGUID="63a03051-9841-4693-a89a-6db688132674" CreationDate="2012-09-28T18:51:03.597" UserId="1278" Text="Reading the claims closer, I now believe that the POSTGRES prior art doesn't apply. The patent appears to relate to an object-oriented software system accessing a database, not using object-oriented methodology within the database itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for prior art, we're looking for object-relational mapping (ORM) systems. The ActiveRecord part of Rails is an example of this, but it's not old enough for prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="572" RevisionGUID="66910992-e95d-4817-9282-e6d09f63038c" CreationDate="2012-09-28T19:05:15.070" UserId="998" Comment="added 554 characters in body" Text="I am creating a wiki for the answer(s), please feel free to update below each question as appropriate. If you have a second answer, number it accordingly and place it below other answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For (a) an application that has NOT yet been issued, sub-questions:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Does the NEW application cancel the previous (original) application, taking its priority (filing) date? If the new application is defeated/rejected, does their original application come back to life or is it also lost?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A continuation does not necessarily mean the original application is dead. Just like any other application, it may be rejected, or the applicant may abandon it, or it may issue as a patent. The continuation likewise, so it's possible that both the original application and the continuation would result in (separate) patents being issued.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of the original application as a lit candle that stays lit as long as the application is pending.  So long as the candle is lit, it can be used to light a another candle. That second candle is the continuation application.  Once the two applications are being processed, they are treated entirely separately and each judged on their merits.  US patent law allows applicants to file as many continuations as they like and in whatever series.  The only restriction is that you need a lit candle (pending application) to light another candle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) Does a significant change in the continuation application mean that the original application(s) was/were flawed and/or incomplete? How does this affect the new patent application credibility?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, it doesn't mean the original was necessarily flawed or incomplete.  Rather, there are many varied strategies used patent patent applicants when building a *patent family*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) Assuming the continued application builds upon the prior application (ergo, requiring prior art pertaining to original claims to predate the previous filing date), how does prior art on ADDED or CHANGED items affect the application, i.e. does prior art for new/changed claims also need to predate the ORIGINAL filing date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least normally, a continuation gets the priority date of the first application from which it is derived (i.e., in some cases, you can have a continuation of a continuation of a continuation in part of a ..., going on for years). Just for one example, US Patent 6,442,336 says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/110,861, filed Aug. 24, 1993, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,446,599 which is a division of application Ser. No. 07/818,168, filed Jan. 8, 1992, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,260,837, which is a division of application Ser. No. 07/325,768, filed Mar. 20, 1989, abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 06/877,319, filed Jun. 23, 1986, now U.S. Pat. No. 4,819,101, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 06/516,532, filed Jul. 25, 1983, now U.S. Pat. No. 4,604,668, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 06/209,057, filed Nov. 21, 1980, abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For (b) an issued patent that HAS expired:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Can a continuation patent be filed for an expired patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not believe an expired patent can be used for continuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For (c) an issued patent that has NOT expired, sub-questions:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Can a trivial change be used to simply extend the life of the patent, indefinitely by applying trivial changes periodically? Is there a solid litmus test for this or is it just up to the examiners?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes and no. You can continue an *application*, but only while that application remains in prosecution (i.e., before it issues as a patent). Under the old patent expiration model (i.e., that patents were valid for 17 years after being issued) yes, it was possible to extend the life of a patent for quite a while by writing continuations, contiuations-in-part, divisions, etc. Under the current system (that a patent expires 20 years after application) this has been drastically reduced, if not eliminated entirely, because (at least normally) the date of the *original* application will be used to compute the expiration date of a continuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) Can a major change that effectively turns the invention into something else be introduced periodically, resulting in indefinite continuations by simply writing in or incorporating new technologies as they come out, thus broadening the scope of the original invention (to the point where it covers completely different industries/areas)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not supposed to happen -- the original specification is supposed to support whatever is claimed in a continuation, continuation-in-part or a divisional application. That said, people have certainly *tried* to &quot;stretch&quot; an application to cover newer technologies. Just for example, Jerome Lemelson (the inventor on the patent quoted above) once wrote a patent on a &quot;computer system&quot;. After TI came out with the first microcontroller (i.e., essentially a complete computer system on a single integrated circuit), Mr. Lemelson wrote a continuation of one of his earlier patents that added something to the effect that: &quot;...and all of it is on one integrated circuit&quot;. The patent issued, but was eventually invalidated -- the court found that the original specification contained no support for the idea of the whole system being on a single integrated circuit, so the TI team (Gary Boone, and, if memory serves, a few others) officially invented the microcontroller.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) If a continuation patent is found to be invalid, how does that affect the original (built upon) patent(s)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They're independent patents -- each is valid or invalid on its own. That said, if (for example) the parent patent were found invalid due to insufficient teaching of the patented invention, there's probably an increased chance that the same would be true of any derived patents as well.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="577" RevisionGUID="35b9a76f-9cb6-4eef-bfd8-26f34c3d6d5f" CreationDate="2012-09-28T19:16:02.257" UserId="1206" Text="I realise it might be veering slightly off topic (patent law), but having done a fair bit of programming (both in IDEs in high-level languages and in assembly-language) I question how beneficial the try-to-execute methodolgy can really be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Almost any high-level-language code which parses and compiles is likely to be successfully executable (as long as the variables/pointers/functions it uses are valid at the time of execution). What kind of additional programming errors will this method actually detect?&#xD;&#xA; - What if the programmer hasn't yet written the surrounding code which defines the 'environment' of the code which is being entered/edited?&#xD;&#xA; - What if the code path is heavily depended on some 'live' data stream which is not available when the code is written/in the IDE? (I acknowledge that for reliability and security a program which takes input data really ought to be robust against any corrupt or malicious data)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe it's my lack of imagination, but I'm struggling somewhat to visualise circumstances when this try-to-execute would be of great benefit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe I'm mistakenly interpreting the use-case as a check-as-you-type, when this was not implied?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course the danger of any kind of 'auto-correct' is that it silently 'corrects' things to something other than the author's intention!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="191" RevisionGUID="90b672a2-bf1e-4296-8ff5-c09f049e4d1a" CreationDate="2012-09-28T19:30:19.003" UserId="6" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="I saw down below where someone was asking how long we have to invalidate or send in a submission of a patent up to 6 months after it is published. Does that mean that 3rd parties can not go back and invalidate patents from years ago that never should have been awarded? Some of those most egregious lawsuits involved patents that have been published for quite some time now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example back around April a company called World Inc. started suing major video game companies like Blizzard, regarding patents 8,082,501, 7,493,558, 7,945,856 and 7,181,690 &quot;System and Method for Enabling Users to Interact in a Virtual Space&quot;.(original filing, November 1995). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Virtual reality systems to the best of my knowledge were being developed and tested before November 1995(see the guys at [VRML][1] - April 1995, but started work in 1994) not to mention many games, although while primitive also used various aspects of what they are claiming. See [CitySpace][2] (1993, SIGGRAPH 1994), various Text Based (MUDS), [Wolfenstein 3D][3](July 1995), [Worlds Away][4](September 1995)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean you could take their claim and argue that they own the rights to things that every MMPORG has done in the last 20 years. Theres also a lot of other games and other pieces of the games that i mentioned that were using 2D. Just because you go from 2D to 3D, I could argue, doesn't mean that it's a clear invention either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRML&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cityspace&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfenstein_3D&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldsAway" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="289" RevisionGUID="5e711d6b-b15f-41ad-94ba-8dcd3226384c" CreationDate="2012-09-28T19:33:50.417" UserId="6" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="The [Epic enterprise suite of applications](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Systems) very likely covers any claim made by this application. Although Inpatient Clinical is a component of that, that application's focus is more on clinical documentation and order entry. The Epic ADT application has a number of modules geared specifically towards bed management and has been in use since the late 90s." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1763" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="571" RevisionGUID="28b9ddd3-e7e8-446e-a870-2260c682b535" CreationDate="2012-09-29T10:02:43.710" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/251985350266871808" />
  <row Id="1764" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="558" RevisionGUID="d2c3408d-ba4e-49a7-aa3d-23024b952f34" CreationDate="2012-09-29T13:02:43.917" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/252030648540340225" />
  <row Id="1766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="578" RevisionGUID="62751c1c-f868-494b-bb5b-582499ffaabf" CreationDate="2012-09-29T18:00:56.843" UserId="932" Text="U.S. Patent Application 12/669,616 is the national phase of International Patent Appplication PCT/US08/70149 filed on July 16, 2008, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application 60/950,295 filed on July 17, 2007.  Therefore, the effective U.S. filing date of U.S. 12/669,616 is July 17, 2007.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The journal article you reference (&quot;The Silica-Like Extended...&quot;) appears to have an online publication date of Nov 18, 2003, and a printed publication date of Nov 21, 2003.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any event, the journal article was published more than one year prior to the effective U.S. filing date of the '616 application, such that **the journal article is prior art to the '616 application under 35 USC 102(b)**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the content of the journal article and whether the subject matter disclosed therein is relevant to the subjet matter recited in the claims of the '616 application, it is difficult to tell based solely on the abstract. However, I'll do my best to address this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The '616 application claims a zeolitic framework minimally having the structure M-L-M, in which M is a transition metal, and L at the very least can be the structure III shown below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The variables in Structure III are as defined above in James Smith's question (and also in the claims of the '616 application).  Structure III appears to be an imidazolate-type structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The abstract of the journal article discloses cobalt(II) imidazolate frameworks which can have a zeolitic structure.  Cobalt(II) is a transition metal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, **it would appear that the journal article is relevant to the subject matter claimed in the '616 application**, but to be sure, the full journal article would need to be reviewed (and not just the abstract).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/YITvZ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="579" RevisionGUID="93f7dd32-a00f-4166-99ed-e7b49b0cf8a6" CreationDate="2012-09-29T19:52:58.783" UserId="1450" Text="A continuation is a later patent application filed during the pendency of an earlier (&quot;parent&quot;) application which has the same disclosure as the parent application. If the continuation includes additional subject matter it is called a &quot;continuation-in-part&quot; or &quot;CIP&quot;. If the continuation has claims directed to a different invention than the claims of the parent application, the continuation is called a &quot;divisional&quot; application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A continuation, CIP or divisional can be filed so long as there is still pending one patent application with the disclsoure, even if other prior applications with the same disclosure have been abandoned or issued. So, yes a continuation might be filed on an invention in an issued patent if there is still pending a prior continuation of the original application, that is if the continuation is a &quot;grandchild&quot; or great-grandchild, etc of the patent and was filed while one application in the chain was pending. However, this is often not economically viable since the term of a patent is 20 years from its priority date or &quot;effective filing date&quot;. Thus if the original application issued as a patent and that patent expired, it would make no sense to file a continuation or divisional or that patent even if a prior continuation was still pending because the 20 year term would have expired and any resultant continuation would expire immediately upon issuance and thus provide no coverage whatsoever. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example of fax message over telephone original 1990 patent and continuation in 2000 for fax over Internet, and continuation in 2010 for eMail, the later two would have to be CIPS which added new disclosure and there would have to be other continuations or CIPs to provide copendency. The 2000 case is not copending with a 1990 patent, so it would need a chain of continuations dating back to before 1990 to maintain copendency. Same as between the 2010 and 2000 &amp; 1990 application. There would have to be copendency.  Further, once the 1990 patent issued the subject matter is prior art as of the effective filing date of the 1990 patent. So, as to any new subject matter added in 2000, which only gets an effective filing date as of the date it was added, to get a valid claim the USPTO would have to deem that new subject matter patentable over the disclosure issued in 1990. Likewise, the new material added in 2010 would have and effective filing date of when it was added, and thus would to be patentable over the subject matter issued in either 1990 or 2000. If the 2010 patent claims cover only subject matter that was obvious from the 1990 or 2000 patent, would they be entitled to be benefit of the 1990 or 2000 patent's effective filing date. And if they were, their term would be 20 years from that date, which would mean they would expire as soon as they were issued because that 20 years would have already passed.  So, inherent in the issuance of the 2010 patent is surely that it is deemed to be patentable over the 1990 and 2000 patent disclosure at the time the 2010 new matter was added to the application which issued as the 2010 patent. So, there is no &quot;extension&quot; for 30 years as you suggest. The &quot;fax over the phone&quot; expired 20 years after the filing date of the 1990 patent. The &quot;fax over the internet&quot; would expire 20 years after the effective filing date of the 2000 patent (if it was continuation of the 1990 patent, that expiration would be sometime prior to 2010). Only the specific email claims of the 2010 patent would still remain. There is also the issue of &quot;double patenting&quot; as to any claims in a later patent that are essentially the same as those of an earlier patent, but this answer is long and complex enough already." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="580" RevisionGUID="d12cf7c1-d9f8-45ee-867d-c06913dd4fe8" CreationDate="2012-09-29T20:39:31.583" UserId="1450" Text="There are at least three possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Inventor, if the patent is at most partially unassigned (whether or not licensed). &#xD;&#xA;2. Assignee, if the patent is at least partially assigned (whether or not licensed).&#xD;&#xA;3. Licensee, if the patent is licensed. (whether assigned or unassigned)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the assignment is partial (e.g. to a field, product or territory) or the license is partial, there may be more than one of the three capable of suing if the alleged infringement affects more than the assigned or licensed part. It is possible all 3 might join the suit as plaintiffs.  And, the two or three can have separate attorneys to protect their separate interests, as a licensee might have a cause of action against a patent owner who failed to enforce a licensed patent and such failure materially damages the licensee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might also be situations where a distributor or retailer, particularly an exclusive one, might have standing to sue if the Inventor, Assignee and Licensee chose not to take action against an infringer. In such a situation the distributor or retailer might also take action against the patent owner for failure to enforce the patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="580" RevisionGUID="f82c5b5d-0e5b-4451-a10a-df348f712a59" CreationDate="2012-09-29T20:44:33.140" UserId="1450" Comment="to note that assignment or license agreement often spells out who sues for infringement" Text="There are at least three possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Inventor, if the patent is at most partially unassigned (whether or not licensed). &#xD;&#xA;2. Assignee, if the patent is at least partially assigned (whether or not licensed).&#xD;&#xA;3. Licensee, if the patent is licensed. (whether assigned or unassigned)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the assignment is partial (e.g. to a field, product or territory) or the license is partial, there may be more than one of the three capable of suing if the alleged infringement affects more than the assigned or licensed part. It is possible all 3 might join the suit as plaintiffs.  And, the two or three can have separate attorneys to protect their separate interests, as a licensee might have a cause of action against a patent owner who failed to enforce a licensed patent and such failure materially damages the licensee. Often the license or assignment will, particularly if it is well drafted, contractually determine who has the right and/or duty to sue for infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might also be situations where a distributor or retailer, particularly an exclusive one, might have standing to sue if the Inventor, Assignee and Licensee chose not to take action against an infringer. In such a situation the distributor or retailer might also take action against the patent owner for failure to enforce the patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="580" RevisionGUID="2cd9bed0-ea4e-47a8-80af-cf3179b63afb" CreationDate="2012-09-29T20:50:48.530" UserId="1450" Comment="to note that assignment or license agreement often spells out who sues for infringement and strategy may result in different plaintiffs for different defendants. " Text="There are at least three possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Inventor, if the patent is at most partially assigned (whether or not licensed). &#xD;&#xA;2. Assignee, if the patent is at least partially assigned (whether or not licensed).&#xD;&#xA;3. Licensee, if the patent is licensed. (whether assigned or unassigned)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the assignment is partial (e.g. to a field, product or territory) or the license is partial, there may be more than one of the three capable of suing if the alleged infringement affects more than the assigned or licensed part. It is possible all 3 might join the suit as plaintiffs.  And, the two or three can have separate attorneys to protect their separate interests, as a licensee might have a cause of action against a patent owner who failed to enforce a licensed patent and such failure materially damages the licensee. Often the license or assignment will, particularly if it is well drafted, contractually determine who has the right and/or duty to sue for infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might also be situations where a distributor or retailer, particularly an exclusive one, might have standing to sue if the Inventor, Assignee and Licensee chose not to take action against an infringer. In such a situation the distributor or retailer might also take action against the patent owner for failure to enforce the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, there might be different plaintiffs for different defendants. Choice of desired forum might have a bearing on who is chosen to sue. Patent litigation can get very complicated very quickly, and this is just about who sues who." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1771" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="554" RevisionGUID="ee5f01b0-2de8-46a5-93b2-4405c09c96bb" CreationDate="2012-09-30T01:02:43.737" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/252211842271809536" />
  <row Id="1773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="581" RevisionGUID="3cea48c8-f9a1-40b3-8864-49593f0299ac" CreationDate="2012-09-30T03:37:00.037" UserId="1456" Text="To answer your question &quot;would a graphics design project constitute prior art?&quot; The quick answer is yes it most certainly has the potential.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what you need to ask yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- was it made public? Given its a middle school project (you said you were 12?) I am leaning towards yes, like school gala or sharing your project. So others knew.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- was it prior to apple's patent (filed in 2005?). If so, then, congratz, you have prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If your not from US, then change the fisrt question to &quot;did you publicly print or sale it&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, whether this is proir art that anticipates and bars apples design is up to the courts to decide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because you came up with at 12 doesnt mean it's obvious. That's not how obvious works in the patent courts. (Fot all we know you could be a genius at the ageof 12)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1774" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="538" RevisionGUID="af7fa05c-d574-470e-b7aa-9fc4e1288d46" CreationDate="2012-09-30T10:02:43.947" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/252347738468016129" />
  <row Id="1775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="582" RevisionGUID="daca0114-2aa4-4e5b-b56d-75755d4640e4" CreationDate="2012-09-30T17:08:42.163" UserId="1193" Text="Also sounds like what [T9 Predictive Text][1] is doing on old feature phones for text messages.   I.e. based on the keys typed predicting the word which the user is trying to enter, and if multiple words matches allowing the user to select the word from a list which matches the intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T9_%28predictive_text%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1776" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="572" RevisionGUID="eacf989c-4a19-4e3a-88b3-bdaa8ef1efd3" CreationDate="2012-09-30T20:30:44.470" UserId="-1" Comment="clarified nature of &quot;parent&quot; cases, divisionals, and CIPs" Text="I am creating a wiki for the answer(s), please feel free to update below each question as appropriate. If you have a second answer, number it accordingly and place it below other answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For (a) an application that has NOT yet been issued, sub-questions:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Does the NEW application cancel the previous (original) application, taking its priority (filing) date? If the new application is defeated/rejected, does their original application come back to life or is it also lost?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A continuation is a later application filed during the pendency of an earlier application and which has the same specification (disclosure) as the prior application. Usually this is done to change (improve) the claims. The continuation does not necessarily mean the original application is dead, although most often the applicant, having improved the claims, no longer needs the prior application and abandons it. Normally that abandonment is expressly done in a transmittal letter accompanying the continuation when filed. If the continuation adds new subject matter to the specification, it is called a &quot;continuation in part&quot; since only part is the same specification. If the continuation has claims to a different invention, it is called a &quot;divisional&quot; rather than a continuation, since a divisional carves out or divides out a different invention found in the same specification. Just like any other application, either the first application (called the &quot;parent&quot; case) or the continuation, or both, may be searched, examined, rejected, or allowed by the Patent Office if the basic, search and examination fees were paid, and either the parent case, the continuation case, or both, may be abandoned or issue as a patent. So it's possible that both the original application and the continuation would result in (separate) patents being issued.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of the original application as a lit candle that stays lit as long as the application is pending.  So long as the candle is lit, it can be used to light other candles. Those other candles are the continuation, divisional or continuation-in-part applications.  Once the two applications are being processed, they are each judged on their merits.  US patent law allows applicants to file as many continuations as they like and in whatever series.  The only restriction is that you need a lit candle (pending application) to light another candle. And each candle can be considered to have been lit on the date the first candle was lit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) Does a significant change in the continuation application mean that the original application(s) was/were flawed and/or incomplete? How does this affect the new patent application credibility?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, it doesn't mean the original was necessarily flawed or incomplete.  Rather, there are many varied strategies used by patent applicants when building a *patent family*.  Most often continuations result from improvements to the invention or a desire to add claims after examination has been concluded. This might happen where the applicant discovers a product that might be covered by the claims but wants to be sure and so files additional claims in a continuation to specifically cover that product. That product might be the applicant's product or might be a competitive product that the applicant wants to stop as an infringement. As noted in (1) above, the continuation may be what is called a divisional to cover a separate invention disclosed in the parent case. There is some times strategic sense to including multiple inventions in a single case and then filing divisional cases. In the lit candle example, this might be where the first candle was described as red, white or blue and the examiner says those are 3 separate inventions, so the applicant &quot;elects&quot; to prosecute the red candle in the first case and files 2 divisional applications, one to a white candle and one to a blue candle. Three candle patents might result from this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) Assuming the continuation application builds upon the prior application (ergo, requiring prior art pertaining to original claims to predate the previous filing date), how does prior art on ADDED or CHANGED items affect the application, i.e. does prior art for new/changed claims also need to predate the ORIGINAL filing date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to all matter disclosed in the parent case, a continuation gets the priority date of the parent application from which it is derived. An applicant can have a continuation of a continuation of a continuation in part of a ..., going on for years) and each will get an &quot;effective filing date&quot; of the first filed application in the chain. Just for one example, US Patent 6,442,336 says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/110,861, filed Aug. 24, 1993, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,446,599 which is a division of application Ser. No. 07/818,168, filed Jan. 8, 1992, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,260,837, which is a division of application Ser. No. 07/325,768, filed Mar. 20, 1989, abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 06/877,319, filed Jun. 23, 1986, now U.S. Pat. No. 4,819,101, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 06/516,532, filed Jul. 25, 1983, now U.S. Pat. No. 4,604,668, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 06/209,057, filed Nov. 21, 1980, abandoned.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, that patent would have an effective filing date of Nov. 21, 1980. However, it is important to note that, since 1985, the term of a patent is 20 years from its effective filing date, while prior to that date the term was 17 years from the issue date. The change was made to eliminate long pendencies and suprises when such &quot;submarine patents&quot; surfaced after decades to potentially sink later products. This was famously the case with Jerome Lemelson and his &quot;machine vision&quot; patents which were pending more than 20 years and subsequently issued and resulted in more than a billion dollars of royalty for Lemelson from manufacturers of bar code scanners before the patents were eventually invalidated for abuse of the patent system due to the long pendency. ----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For (b) an issued patent that HAS expired:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Can a continuation patent be filed for an expired patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be a continuation, an application must be filed prior to issuance of the application from which it seeks to claim priority.  In the case of a chain of continuations, so long as one application in the chain is still pending, it is possible to file a continuation, even if a grandparent or great-great-great grandparent case has already issued, and even if that first patent has expired. However, this is not practical because the term of a patent is 20 years from the effective filing date, so claiming the benefit of the filing date of an expired patent means claiming back more than 20 years, and that would mean the continuation case so claiming would have zero term, it would expire immediately upon issuance and thus provide no exclusive rights. So, yes you could do it, but you would be a fool if you did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For (c) an issued patent that has NOT expired, sub-questions:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Can a trivial change be used to simply extend the life of the patent, indefinitely by applying trivial changes periodically? Is there a solid litmus test for this or is it just up to the examiners?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes and no. You can continue an *application*, but only while that application remains in prosecution (i.e., before it issues as a patent). Under the old patent expiration model (i.e., that patents were valid for 17 years after being issued) yes, it was possible to extend the life of a patent for quite a while by writing continuations, continuations-in-part, divisionals, etc. Under the current system (that a patent expires 20 years after application) this has been drastically reduced, if not eliminated entirely, because (at least normally) the date of the *original* application will be used to compute the expiration date of a continuation [see prior answer for &quot;expired patents&quot;.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) Can a major change that effectively turns the invention into something else be introduced periodically, resulting in indefinite continuations by simply writing in or incorporating new technologies as they come out, thus broadening the scope of the original invention (to the point where it covers completely different industries/areas)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. That is what continuation-in-part applications (&quot;CIPs&quot;) seek to accomplish. However, once a patent expires, the subject matter of its claims becomes public domain, so only the new aspects introduced in the CIPs still unexpired would thereafter be possible to cover or protect through CIPs. People have certainly *tried* to &quot;stretch&quot; an application to cover newer technologies. Just for example, Jerome Lemelson (the inventor on the patent quoted above) once wrote a patent on a &quot;computer system&quot;. After TI came out with the first microcontroller (i.e., essentially a complete computer system on a single integrated circuit), Mr. Lemelson wrote a continuation of one of his earlier patents that added something to the effect that: &quot;...and all of it is on one integrated circuit&quot;. The patent issued, but was eventually invalidated -- the court found that the original specification contained no support for the idea of the whole system being on a single integrated circuit, so the TI team (Gary Boone, and, if memory serves, a few others) officially invented the microcontroller.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) If a continuation patent is found to be invalid, how does that affect the original (built upon) patent(s)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They're independent patents -- each is valid or invalid on its own. That said, if any  patent in the chain of continuations is found invalid due to insufficient teaching of the patented invention or due to prior art, there's probably an increased chance that the same would be true of any derived patents as well.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1777" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="572" RevisionGUID="eacf989c-4a19-4e3a-88b3-bdaa8ef1efd3" CreationDate="2012-09-30T20:30:44.470" Comment="Proposed by 97.91.132.246|009c430c-04da-4ff0-8a64-993565f59519 approved by 76 edit id of 196" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="583" RevisionGUID="1a5c72af-2b7a-40f4-815d-0049682d0729" CreationDate="2012-09-30T23:53:22.820" UserId="1461" Text="To begin with I read: [Is it practical for a novice to successfully file a patent without hiring a patent lawyer?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a large community of hobbyist and DIYselfers who are constantly working on new stuff. Assuming that one of them comes up with something new what are the avenues that he/she can profitably explore. What I did understand from the link that I referenced, is that it is impractical to fight out your Patent Wars all alone. Are there communities, which for a certain percentage in the returns, help a small-time individual in filing for a patent of his/her idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first two communities that come to mind are: &lt;Br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- Universities (for those who have that option) &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- Sites like InventHelp ([link][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other groups out there who will do a similar/better job?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/90/is-it-practical-for-a-novice-to-successfully-file-a-patent-without-hiring-a-pate&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.similarsitesearch.com/alternatives-to/inventhelp.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1779" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="583" RevisionGUID="1a5c72af-2b7a-40f4-815d-0049682d0729" CreationDate="2012-09-30T23:53:22.820" UserId="1461" Text="How can a hobbyist file for a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1780" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="583" RevisionGUID="1a5c72af-2b7a-40f4-815d-0049682d0729" CreationDate="2012-09-30T23:53:22.820" UserId="1461" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="584" RevisionGUID="4965aa96-6f5d-4d00-9f6c-f45c95b72016" CreationDate="2012-10-01T11:03:17.250" UserId="1464" Text="These points seem overly vague/broad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - transmitting a URL that identifies the template;&#xD;&#xA; - receiving a request based on the transmitted URL;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every HTTP server in existence would satisfy the 2nd point as it's worded." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="585" RevisionGUID="8192b6ff-4450-4ffc-97ad-215cef0472dc" CreationDate="2012-10-01T14:26:01.287" UserId="1394" Text="Similar? Yes. Better? Probably not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Filing for a patent on an idea/invention/etc. without a patent lawyer is like bungee jumping without a bungee cable. There are many who attempt to create the verbiage of a patent on their own or with small-knit online communities, and when their idea comes to fruition, it gets stolen left and right because the patent itself is weak. Then you end up having to hire a lawyer anyways, spend thousands of dollars to get $0 in return.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do all the research to ensure the idea is usable now or in the future (don't waste your time on horrible ideas), research and pay for a good patent lawyer to help build your patent and to represent you if someone infringes, and move on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember that a patent is an investment. Be willing to 'invest' in it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1783" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="548" RevisionGUID="2b743df1-7a1e-4a45-a359-03801896123d" CreationDate="2012-10-01T14:28:00.180" UserId="1390" Comment="edited title" Text="Prior art for RIM double tap spacebar to insert period and capitalize next character" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="548" RevisionGUID="0d657762-a1ee-4688-903a-e01eed5a0895" CreationDate="2012-10-01T14:33:38.473" UserId="1390" Comment="fixed mistake in description" Text="[US Patent No. 6,396,482][1] - Hand-held electronic device with a keyboard optimized for use with the thumbs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking for prior art related to **claim 16**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of inputting characters into a mobile device having a keyboard and a display, the keyboard including a plurality of character keys and a space bar, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- (A) inputting a first set of characters into the mobile device using the keyboard, wherein the first set of characters comprise a first sentence; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- (B) selecting the space bar of the keyboard twice in succession and (1) displaying a period symbol (.) after the first sentence, and (2) instructing the mobile device to capitalize the next character input using the keyboard; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- (C) inputting a second set of characters into the mobile device using the keyboard, wherein the second set of characters comprise a second sentence, and wherein the first character in the second set of characters is automatically capitalized by the mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the patent has a filing date of **Jun 25, 1999**, so any relevant art must have been published before this date. This patent has been assigned to RIM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, this claim is directed to the familiar feature on modern smartphones of double tapping the spacebar at the end of a sentence to automatically insert a period. Additionally, the next character typed will be automatically capitalized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents?id=dmYLAAAAEBAJ&amp;zoom=4&amp;pg=PA1#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="586" RevisionGUID="dd9fd3db-87c6-46a7-8839-debcef9584d3" CreationDate="2012-10-01T15:28:57.147" UserId="786" Text="In most re-told cases, inventor services that take some ownership in your patent in-exchange for defending / promoting it – will marginalize their involvement with you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to consider their business model.  They are looking to optimize their expenses to maximize returns through litigation and portfolio sales.  If you dont' clearly have the next big thing in your area, you may be unlikely to get much attention in exchange for your costs.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will also have to spend time developing your business plan and market entry strategy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- this is for your own good&#xD;&#xA;- this may be another way to get attention from 'your new partner'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="407" RevisionGUID="b2138c29-648e-4352-a0ba-e3cb1d302608" CreationDate="2012-10-01T15:31:13.993" UserId="786" Comment="bolded warning" Text="If you made a patentable invention, as recognized by the law of the land, then your recognition is subservient to such law.  You probably signed an IP assignment agreement with your former employer, so they likely have rights to file. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Your interest and insider knowledge, used to materially harm your former employer, may impact the judgement in a case/suit where your acts or information is used as evidence (perhaps against you)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Food for thought." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="587" RevisionGUID="c84b5626-acf6-4fa3-88f4-237d864b07c7" CreationDate="2012-10-01T15:54:36.903" UserId="1216" Text="Assuming the invention disclosed in a patent issued by the USPTO has been described in a book two years before it was submitted, can this patent still be invalidated by this prior art? If yes what is the procedure to follow?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1789" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="587" RevisionGUID="c84b5626-acf6-4fa3-88f4-237d864b07c7" CreationDate="2012-10-01T15:54:36.903" UserId="1216" Text="If a patent has been issued, can it still be invalidated by prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1790" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="587" RevisionGUID="c84b5626-acf6-4fa3-88f4-237d864b07c7" CreationDate="2012-10-01T15:54:36.903" UserId="1216" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="588" RevisionGUID="eea9b0c4-ef61-4ee2-908a-096bfb8495c0" CreationDate="2012-10-01T15:56:56.323" UserId="252" Text="Looking for prior art dated before 2010 for patent applications regarding technology that determines that data being received at a mobile phone is speech if an accelerometer in the phone moves in a certain direction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prior art could be non patent or patent literature. I'm more interested to see whether how much has been published regarding this type of technology.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1792" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="588" RevisionGUID="eea9b0c4-ef61-4ee2-908a-096bfb8495c0" CreationDate="2012-10-01T15:56:56.323" UserId="252" Text="Prior art for speech detection in a data stream" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1793" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="588" RevisionGUID="eea9b0c4-ef61-4ee2-908a-096bfb8495c0" CreationDate="2012-10-01T15:56:56.323" UserId="252" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;mobile-phone&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1794" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="583" RevisionGUID="0331dbd7-285a-4b33-add6-93758552bb5a" CreationDate="2012-10-01T16:02:45.443" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/252800730044440576" />
  <row Id="1795" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="583" RevisionGUID="647890e2-3597-48dd-b8b9-f2c18fab8bce" CreationDate="2012-10-01T16:25:59.047" UserId="786" Comment="refined question to body content" Text="How can a hobbyist pragmatically defend a patent they file?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1796" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="583" RevisionGUID="647890e2-3597-48dd-b8b9-f2c18fab8bce" CreationDate="2012-10-01T16:25:59.047" UserId="786" Comment="refined question to body content" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;business-methods&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1797" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="583" RevisionGUID="647890e2-3597-48dd-b8b9-f2c18fab8bce" CreationDate="2012-10-01T16:25:59.047" Comment="Proposed by 786 approved by 76 edit id of 197" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1798" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="587" RevisionGUID="206fa252-3671-41b6-b9d6-f6e1efa5b21c" CreationDate="2012-10-01T16:26:30.577" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="589" RevisionGUID="9b1dca29-caaa-4895-b90c-709620d1512f" CreationDate="2012-10-01T17:33:19.153" UserId="96" Text="Yes.  An issued patent is **presumed** to be valid, but a challenger can produce prior art to demonstrate that the claims of the patent were anticipated or rendered obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are administrative post-grant procedures for challenging an issued patent, and, of course, anyone who is sued by a patent holder can support a defense of invalidity by producing prior art - even possibly art that was originally considered by the Patent Office when the patent was issued." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="590" RevisionGUID="bb56309c-08ee-4311-96a4-0be59d77ee47" CreationDate="2012-10-01T18:32:18.460" UserId="1216" Text="Let's imagine a patent is registered in 2003 and later approved by the USPTO. Let's imagine someone wants to challenge it with valid prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which legislation applies? The one applicable in 2003 or the current one? The reason I am asking this question is that the delays to apply for a patent have changed over time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1801" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="590" RevisionGUID="bb56309c-08ee-4311-96a4-0be59d77ee47" CreationDate="2012-10-01T18:32:18.460" UserId="1216" Text="Over time, which patent legislation applies, current or past?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1802" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="590" RevisionGUID="bb56309c-08ee-4311-96a4-0be59d77ee47" CreationDate="2012-10-01T18:32:18.460" UserId="1216" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="588" RevisionGUID="c066fdfe-ab3e-4ef4-adb3-3dda65af62f5" CreationDate="2012-10-01T18:43:37.073" UserId="252" Comment="deleted 32 characters in body" Text="Looking for prior art dated before 2010 regarding technology that determines that data being received at a mobile phone is speech if an accelerometer in the phone moves in a certain direction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prior art could be non patent or patent literature. I'm more interested to see how much has been published regarding this type of technology.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1804" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="587" RevisionGUID="17726c7e-9e8d-488e-84ca-c46b19fd0d00" CreationDate="2012-10-01T19:02:44.803" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/252846026459869184" />
  <row Id="1805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="591" RevisionGUID="9508378c-054d-49c9-9203-d55a7e6a820b" CreationDate="2012-10-01T19:03:56.650" UserId="758" Text="It will/would depend on how the new legislation was written. In most cases, the law will specify exactly how the transition will take place. For example, when they changed patent expiration rules in the US, the old rule was 17 years from issue, and the new rule was 20 years from application. The law specifies exact dates before which the old rule applies, and after which the new rule applies, as well as a transition period during which the rule that gives the later expiration date applies.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="592" RevisionGUID="499c8c18-043f-4d74-b24f-6e69a7a0d4ee" CreationDate="2012-10-01T19:14:24.667" UserId="1281" Text="I've looked through the full application, and it clearly was written to be completely unintelligible, which is not what patents are supposed to be for.  As a practitioner skilled in the art, I still have no clue what they're getting at with the last three bullet points, or what properties something would need to constitute prior art.  Here's a fairly typical sentence from the so called &quot;summary&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In an embodiment, the identifying step further includes the step of providing a collaboration datastore for storing the one or more collaboration records containing respective invocations for identifying the one or more nodes containing the semantic errors, where a collaboration record includes one or more properties and where a respective invocation of the respective invocations includes a type of invocation and one or more parameters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That clearly was written by someone trying to obscure, not someone trying to communicate.  For that reason alone, this application should be rejected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doing a *lot* of reading between the lines, I *think* the original idea is supposed to be something like this: you have multiple developers working on the same code and submitting fixes to bugs.  When two different developers submit fixes for the same bug, it automatically tries both of them (perhaps running a unit test?) and accepts whichever actually fixes it.  But that's just a guess.  The application certainly doesn't say anything like that.  It also keeps jumping between two seemingly separate ideas and confusing them with each other: interaction with the user, and automated error correction.  For example, the third bullet point in claim 1 speaks of &quot;displaying one or more suggestions&quot; to the user, indicating this is an interactive feature and the user will be selecting one of them.  But the remaining bullet points somehow jump to an automated system where the computer selects among various alternatives in an automated way with no user interaction required.  So which is it actually doing?  That's impossible to determine from the claim as written." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="593" RevisionGUID="2cb61157-e2dd-429b-b1d9-ccc57b25ba67" CreationDate="2012-10-01T19:32:34.763" UserId="1216" Text="Can someone explain what &quot;inter partes review&quot; and &quot;ex parte reexamination&quot; are when challenging patents with prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1808" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="593" RevisionGUID="2cb61157-e2dd-429b-b1d9-ccc57b25ba67" CreationDate="2012-10-01T19:32:34.763" UserId="1216" Text="Can some explain &quot;inter partes review&quot; and &quot;ex parte reexamination&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1809" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="593" RevisionGUID="2cb61157-e2dd-429b-b1d9-ccc57b25ba67" CreationDate="2012-10-01T19:32:34.763" UserId="1216" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="594" RevisionGUID="ed71f519-37ac-4570-b2e2-6cf1b7a0ed0c" CreationDate="2012-10-01T19:34:30.650" UserId="998" Text="There are several ways to challenge the validity or enforceability of a US patent.   For the particular case introduced above (patent filed and issued in the 2000's), the three available mechanisms appear to be (1) federal court challenge; (2) ex parte reexamination; and (3) inter partes review. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm going to do here is list all the ways that patents can be challenged. The following is a listing of mechanisms for opposing US patents (and pending applications).  Each mechanism has a number of intricacies that are not mentioned here.  All of the post-grant options are expensive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Federal Court**: Any patent can be challenged in federal court by filing a declaratory judgment (DJ) action.  Before you can file DJ action, you must somehow be threatened by the patent. Otherwise you have no standing to file and the lawsuit will be summarily dismissed.&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Ex Parte Reexamination**: Any issued patent (new or old, and including design patents) can be challenged by filing a request for ex parte reexamination at the USPTO.  The ex parte reexamination request must raise a substantial new question of patentability that is based only upon prior art patents and printed publications.  Ex Parte Reexamination cannot be used to directly challenge other non-prior art questions such as patentable subject matter, indefiniteness, utility, or inequitable conduct.  Anyone can file an ex parte reexamination request. &#xD;&#xA; 3. **Inter Partes Reexamination**:  Inter partes reexamination is no longer available.  Thus, unless you filed a request before September 16, 2012, you have lost your shot.  However, inter partes reexamination is being replaced by the combination of inter partes reviews and post grant reviews.&#xD;&#xA; 4. **Inter Partes Review**: Any issued patent (new and old) can be challenged with an inter partes review.  EXCEPT that the patent must be at least 9-months old.  Thus as of today (October 1, 2012), the only patents available for inter partes review were those issued before February 1, 2012. &#xD;&#xA; 5. **Post Grant Review**: The post grant review system has not been implemented yet because the only impacted patents are those with an effective filing date of on or after March 16, 2013.  Because the USPTO normally takes a few years to issue patents, it may well be 2015 before we see the first post grant review filing.  Once a patent issues, the post grant review must be requested within the first 9-months following issuance.  The process for post grant reviews and inter partes reviews are quite similar. The difference is only that a post grant review can challenge a broader scope of patentability questions that might have nothing to do with prior art. &#xD;&#xA; 6. **Transitional Covered Business Method Review**: The new business method review applies to all business method patents regardless of filing or issue date.  However, it can only be used against patents that claim *financial services* related business method inventions that do not include technological inventions. The review is termed &quot;transitional&quot; because it has a sunset provision. No new TPCBM requests will be accepted on or after September 16, 2020.&#xD;&#xA; 7. **Interference Proceedings**: Patent with an effective filing date of before March 16, 2013 will still fall under the old first-to-invent rules.  Thus, those applications can still be subject to an 'interference proceeding' where the USPTO attempts to figure out who is the first inventor (or who can *prove* that they were the first inventor).  To challenge another application/patent in this manner, you must file your own patent application within one year of the opposing entity's patent issuance.  I believe that to be eligible for an interference that you must also file your application before the March 16, 2013 date discussed above. &#xD;&#xA; 8. **Derivation Proceeding**: Derivation proceedings are remaining as a vestige of interference practice. If someone else used your work as the basis for their patent application, then you can file your own derivation petition that asks the USPTO to axe their application. A petition for a derivation proceeding must be filed within one-year of the first publication of the offending application.  Despite the seemingly broad wording of &quot;derivation,&quot; these cases are limited only to instances where the original invention is identical or substantially identical to the application being opposed.  If you miss this deadline, patent ownership rights can still be challenged in court. &#xD;&#xA; 9. **Pre-Issuance Submissions**: As [discussed here][1], prior art can be submitted for consideration at the USPTO while an application is still pending. The deadline for this submission is fairly tight. However, this is an attractive option if you meet the timeline because the submission is free. &#xD;&#xA; 10. Three other post-grant reviews - Reissues, Supplemental Examination, and Corrections are only available to the patent owner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120916162139282" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="594" RevisionGUID="5f39d481-b2f2-4af8-9843-4a2f2185b8ea" CreationDate="2012-10-01T19:41:39.707" UserId="998" Comment="Added links." Text="There are several ways to challenge the validity or enforceability of a US patent.   For the particular case introduced above (patent filed and issued in the 2000's), the three available mechanisms appear to be (1) federal court challenge; (2) ex parte reexamination; and (3) inter partes review. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm going to do here is list all the ways that patents can be challenged. The following is a listing of mechanisms for opposing US patents (and pending applications).  Each mechanism has a number of intricacies that are not mentioned here.  All of the post-grant options are expensive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Federal Court**: Any patent can be challenged in federal court by filing a declaratory judgment (DJ) action.  Before you can file DJ action, you must somehow be threatened by the patent. Otherwise you have no standing to file and the lawsuit will be summarily dismissed.&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Ex Parte Reexamination**: Any issued patent (new or old, and including design patents) can be challenged by filing a request for ex parte reexamination at the USPTO.  The ex parte reexamination request must raise a substantial new question of patentability that is based only upon prior art patents and printed publications.  Ex Parte Reexamination cannot be used to directly challenge other non-prior art questions such as patentable subject matter, indefiniteness, utility, or inequitable conduct.  Anyone can file an ex parte reexamination request. &#xD;&#xA; 3. **Inter Partes Reexamination**:  Inter partes reexamination is no longer available.  Thus, unless you filed a request before September 16, 2012, you have lost your shot.  However, inter partes reexamination is being replaced by the combination of inter partes reviews and post grant reviews.&#xD;&#xA; 4. **Inter Partes Review**: Any issued patent (new and old) can be challenged with an inter partes review.  EXCEPT that the patent must be at least 9-months old.  Thus as of today (October 1, 2012), the only patents available for inter partes review were those issued before February 1, 2012. &#xD;&#xA; 5. **Post Grant Review**: The post grant review system has not been implemented yet because the only impacted patents are those with an effective filing date of on or after March 16, 2013.  Because the USPTO normally takes a few years to issue patents, it may well be 2015 before we see the first post grant review filing.  Once a patent issues, the post grant review must be requested within the first 9-months following issuance.  The process for post grant reviews and inter partes reviews are quite similar. The difference is only that a post grant review can challenge a broader scope of patentability questions that might have nothing to do with prior art. &#xD;&#xA; 6. **Transitional Covered Business Method Review**: The new business method review applies to all business method patents regardless of filing or issue date.  However, it can only be used against patents that claim *financial services* related business method inventions that do not include technological inventions. The review is termed &quot;transitional&quot; because it has a sunset provision. No new TPCBM requests will be accepted on or after September 16, 2020.&#xD;&#xA; 7. **Interference Proceedings**: Patent with an effective filing date of before March 16, 2013 will still fall under the old first-to-invent rules.  Thus, those applications can still be subject to an 'interference proceeding' where the USPTO attempts to figure out who is the first inventor (or who can *prove* that they were the first inventor).  To challenge another application/patent in this manner, you must file your own patent application within one year of the opposing entity's patent issuance.  I believe that to be eligible for an interference that you must also file your application before the March 16, 2013 date discussed above. &#xD;&#xA; 8. **Derivation Proceeding**: Derivation proceedings are remaining as a vestige of interference practice. If someone else used your work as the basis for their patent application, then you can file your own derivation petition that asks the USPTO to axe their application. A petition for a derivation proceeding must be filed within one-year of the first publication of the offending application.  Despite the seemingly broad wording of &quot;derivation,&quot; these cases are limited only to instances where the original invention is identical or substantially identical to the application being opposed.  If you miss this deadline, patent ownership rights can still be challenged in court. &#xD;&#xA; 9. **Pre-Issuance Submissions**: As [discussed here][1], prior art can be submitted for consideration at the USPTO while an application is still pending. The deadline for this submission is fairly tight. However, this is an attractive option if you meet the timeline because the submission is free. &#xD;&#xA; 10. Three other post-grant reviews - Reissues, Supplemental Examination, and Corrections are only available to the patent owner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key legislation here is the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011. The USPTO has provided a fairly comprehensive guide to some of these changes [at the following link][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120916162139282&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/bpai.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="590" RevisionGUID="5e4e5e73-9fc7-4ace-a586-c5b74df42bae" CreationDate="2012-10-01T19:43:03.583" UserId="1216" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="Let's imagine a patent is filed in 2003 and later approved by the USPTO. Let's imagine someone wants to challenge it with valid prior art (year 2000 for example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which legislation applies? The one applicable in 2003 or the current one? The reason I am asking this question is that the delays to apply for a patent have changed over time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="594" RevisionGUID="af83a8d0-a2bb-4f90-9d06-5749b4c14483" CreationDate="2012-10-01T19:48:45.377" UserId="998" Comment="Added links." Text="There are several ways to challenge the validity or enforceability of a US patent.   For the particular case introduced above (patent filed and issued in the 2000's), the three available mechanisms appear to be (1) federal court challenge; (2) ex parte reexamination; and (3) inter partes review.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key legislation here is the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) that makes some changes in the definition of prior art and in the types of post-grant review proceedings.  The changes to prior art definitions will only apply to patent applications with an effective filing date of on or after March 16, 2013.  Thus, the old law would apply to a patent issued in the 2000's.  One exception, however, is that the courts will continue to interpret the old law as those old patents are litigated.  Normally, a new *interpretation* of the prior art rules is applied retroactively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm going to do here is list all the ways that patents can be challenged. The following is a listing of mechanisms for opposing US patents (and pending applications).  Each mechanism has a number of intricacies that are not mentioned here.  All of the post-grant options are expensive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Federal Court**: Any patent can be challenged in federal court by filing a declaratory judgment (DJ) action.  Before you can file DJ action, you must somehow be threatened by the patent. Otherwise you have no standing to file and the lawsuit will be summarily dismissed.&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Ex Parte Reexamination**: Any issued patent (new or old, and including design patents) can be challenged by filing a request for ex parte reexamination at the USPTO.  The ex parte reexamination request must raise a substantial new question of patentability that is based only upon prior art patents and printed publications.  Ex Parte Reexamination cannot be used to directly challenge other non-prior art questions such as patentable subject matter, indefiniteness, utility, or inequitable conduct.  Anyone can file an ex parte reexamination request. &#xD;&#xA; 3. **Inter Partes Reexamination**:  Inter partes reexamination is no longer available.  Thus, unless you filed a request before September 16, 2012, you have lost your shot.  However, inter partes reexamination is being replaced by the combination of inter partes reviews and post grant reviews.&#xD;&#xA; 4. **Inter Partes Review**: Any issued patent (new and old) can be challenged with an inter partes review.  EXCEPT that the patent must be at least 9-months old.  Thus as of today (October 1, 2012), the only patents available for inter partes review were those issued before February 1, 2012. &#xD;&#xA; 5. **Post Grant Review**: The post grant review system has not been implemented yet because the only impacted patents are those with an effective filing date of on or after March 16, 2013.  Because the USPTO normally takes a few years to issue patents, it may well be 2015 before we see the first post grant review filing.  Once a patent issues, the post grant review must be requested within the first 9-months following issuance.  The process for post grant reviews and inter partes reviews are quite similar. The difference is only that a post grant review can challenge a broader scope of patentability questions that might have nothing to do with prior art. &#xD;&#xA; 6. **Transitional Covered Business Method Review**: The new business method review applies to all business method patents regardless of filing or issue date.  However, it can only be used against patents that claim *financial services* related business method inventions that do not include technological inventions. The review is termed &quot;transitional&quot; because it has a sunset provision. No new TPCBM requests will be accepted on or after September 16, 2020.&#xD;&#xA; 7. **Interference Proceedings**: Patent with an effective filing date of before March 16, 2013 will still fall under the old first-to-invent rules.  Thus, those applications can still be subject to an 'interference proceeding' where the USPTO attempts to figure out who is the first inventor (or who can *prove* that they were the first inventor).  To challenge another application/patent in this manner, you must file your own patent application within one year of the opposing entity's patent issuance.  I believe that to be eligible for an interference that you must also file your application before the March 16, 2013 date discussed above. &#xD;&#xA; 8. **Derivation Proceeding**: Derivation proceedings are remaining as a vestige of interference practice. If someone else used your work as the basis for their patent application, then you can file your own derivation petition that asks the USPTO to axe their application. A petition for a derivation proceeding must be filed within one-year of the first publication of the offending application.  Despite the seemingly broad wording of &quot;derivation,&quot; these cases are limited only to instances where the original invention is identical or substantially identical to the application being opposed.  If you miss this deadline, patent ownership rights can still be challenged in court. &#xD;&#xA; 9. **Pre-Issuance Submissions**: As [discussed here][1], prior art can be submitted for consideration at the USPTO while an application is still pending. The deadline for this submission is fairly tight. However, this is an attractive option if you meet the timeline because the submission is free. &#xD;&#xA; 10. Three other post-grant reviews - Reissues, Supplemental Examination, and Corrections are only available to the patent owner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO has provided a fairly comprehensive guide to some of these changes [at the following link][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120916162139282&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/bpai.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1814" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="594" RevisionGUID="d93b0ecb-1a18-4fe7-8218-3490866f4c0a" CreationDate="2012-10-01T19:54:58.020" UserId="998" Comment="Added links." Text="The key legislation here is the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) that makes some changes in the definition of prior art and in the types of post-grant review proceedings.  The changes to prior art definitions will only apply to patent applications with an effective filing date of on or after March 16, 2013.  Thus, the old law would apply to a patent issued in the 2000's.  One exception, however, is that a new *interpretation* of a statute by a court is normally applied retroactively.  Thus, when the Supreme Court re-interpreted the obviousness doctrine in 2007, that change applied equally to patents that had already issued. See [KSR v. Teleflex][1].  Because of KSR, it should be easier to invalidate the patent than it was back in 2003 -- even though the same *legislation* applies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The post below does not answer your *edited* question, but it does provide some important information on mechanisms for challenging patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several ways to challenge the validity or enforceability of a US patent.   For the particular case introduced above (patent filed and issued in the 2000's), the three available mechanisms appear to be (1) federal court challenge; (2) ex parte reexamination; and (3) inter partes review.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm going to do here is list all the ways that patents can be challenged. The following is a listing of mechanisms for opposing US patents (and pending applications).  Each mechanism has a number of intricacies that are not mentioned here.  All of the post-grant options are expensive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Federal Court**: Any patent can be challenged in federal court by filing a declaratory judgment (DJ) action.  Before you can file DJ action, you must somehow be threatened by the patent. Otherwise you have no standing to file and the lawsuit will be summarily dismissed.&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Ex Parte Reexamination**: Any issued patent (new or old, and including design patents) can be challenged by filing a request for ex parte reexamination at the USPTO.  The ex parte reexamination request must raise a substantial new question of patentability that is based only upon prior art patents and printed publications.  Ex Parte Reexamination cannot be used to directly challenge other non-prior art questions such as patentable subject matter, indefiniteness, utility, or inequitable conduct.  Anyone can file an ex parte reexamination request. &#xD;&#xA; 3. **Inter Partes Reexamination**:  Inter partes reexamination is no longer available.  Thus, unless you filed a request before September 16, 2012, you have lost your shot.  However, inter partes reexamination is being replaced by the combination of inter partes reviews and post grant reviews.&#xD;&#xA; 4. **Inter Partes Review**: Any issued patent (new and old) can be challenged with an inter partes review.  EXCEPT that the patent must be at least 9-months old.  Thus as of today (October 1, 2012), the only patents available for inter partes review were those issued before February 1, 2012. &#xD;&#xA; 5. **Post Grant Review**: The post grant review system has not been implemented yet because the only impacted patents are those with an effective filing date of on or after March 16, 2013.  Because the USPTO normally takes a few years to issue patents, it may well be 2015 before we see the first post grant review filing.  Once a patent issues, the post grant review must be requested within the first 9-months following issuance.  The process for post grant reviews and inter partes reviews are quite similar. The difference is only that a post grant review can challenge a broader scope of patentability questions that might have nothing to do with prior art. &#xD;&#xA; 6. **Transitional Covered Business Method Review**: The new business method review applies to all business method patents regardless of filing or issue date.  However, it can only be used against patents that claim *financial services* related business method inventions that do not include technological inventions. The review is termed &quot;transitional&quot; because it has a sunset provision. No new TPCBM requests will be accepted on or after September 16, 2020.&#xD;&#xA; 7. **Interference Proceedings**: Patent with an effective filing date of before March 16, 2013 will still fall under the old first-to-invent rules.  Thus, those applications can still be subject to an 'interference proceeding' where the USPTO attempts to figure out who is the first inventor (or who can *prove* that they were the first inventor).  To challenge another application/patent in this manner, you must file your own patent application within one year of the opposing entity's patent issuance.  I believe that to be eligible for an interference that you must also file your application before the March 16, 2013 date discussed above. &#xD;&#xA; 8. **Derivation Proceeding**: Derivation proceedings are remaining as a vestige of interference practice. If someone else used your work as the basis for their patent application, then you can file your own derivation petition that asks the USPTO to axe their application. A petition for a derivation proceeding must be filed within one-year of the first publication of the offending application.  Despite the seemingly broad wording of &quot;derivation,&quot; these cases are limited only to instances where the original invention is identical or substantially identical to the application being opposed.  If you miss this deadline, patent ownership rights can still be challenged in court. &#xD;&#xA; 9. **Pre-Issuance Submissions**: As [discussed here][2], prior art can be submitted for consideration at the USPTO while an application is still pending. The deadline for this submission is fairly tight. However, this is an attractive option if you meet the timeline because the submission is free. &#xD;&#xA; 10. Three other post-grant reviews - Reissues, Supplemental Examination, and Corrections are only available to the patent owner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO has provided a fairly comprehensive guide to some of these changes [at the following link][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSR_v._Teleflex&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120916162139282&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/bpai.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1815" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="590" RevisionGUID="d96c1f44-97d6-4e41-beff-ee79782d49dc" CreationDate="2012-10-01T19:57:48.453" UserId="998" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;america-invents-act&gt;&lt;post-grant-review&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="595" RevisionGUID="a85ee52d-c807-4c66-b012-e22ca636353b" CreationDate="2012-10-01T20:22:29.880" UserId="444" Text="It's a very vague question that can be best answered by a google search restricting results by date. I found 136000 results for &quot;voice recognition phone accelerometer&quot; that were prior to 2010. I found a rather interesting article on research directions in 2006: http://machinedesign.com/article/smarter-than-your-average-pushbutton-0607&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I'd have to say that this was a major topic of research for many cell makers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="596" RevisionGUID="8e2b44d9-c318-42e8-b785-5906ac09b423" CreationDate="2012-10-01T20:25:33.443" UserId="998" Text="The question asked for an explanation of *inter partes review* and *ex parte reexamination* when considering challenging patent with prior art.  This is a big question that cannot be fully answered here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are *the* two primary administrative procedures currently available to a third party to challenge an issued US patent. My answer on [this other post discusses][1] a few other options. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both procedures, a third party can challenge a patent based upon prior art that arguably renders the patent invalid as either anticipated (not novel) or obvious.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The primary difference between the two options involves process. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In ex parte reexamination, the third party is merely a &quot;requester&quot; and has no direct input in the reexamination following the submission of that request.  Further, ex parte reexamination is conducted by patent examiners (technical experts) within the USPTO's central reexamination unit (CRU).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inter partes review is a new process that only became available in September 2012.  As such, only a handful of inter partes reviews have been filed and none have been completed (other than some requests rejected as inadequate).  Unlike ex parte reexamination, the requester in an inter partes review remains a party to the dispute has an opportunity to continue to file opposition briefs and present evidence throughout the process. Inter partes reviews are conducted by administrative patent judges (legal/technical experts) that serve as members of the Patent Trials and Appeals Board (PTAB).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In one sense, the reexamination is closer to ordinary patent examination while the inter partes review is more like ordinary patent litigation.  While both are expensive, hiring a patent attorney to conduct an inter partes review run in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is some fear that ex parte reexamination is ineffective. The idea is that if the patentee already convinced an examiner once, they can probably do it again.  That fear used to have some merit when reexaminations were sent back to the same examiner who issued the original patent to check his own work.  With the creation of the central reexamination unit, that fear is misplaced.  The results from ex parte reexaminations have been impressive with the bulk of reexamined patents being narrowed or outright cancelled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further background reading [here][2] and [here][3].&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/590/over-time-which-patent-legislation-applies-current-or-past&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.grayonclaims.com/storage/Critical_Analysis_of_Inter_Partes_Review.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.rppostgrant.com/ComparisonCharts/post-grant-review-comparison.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1818" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="593" RevisionGUID="8f84f928-09d5-4137-a09d-0bfc84196cd7" CreationDate="2012-10-01T20:29:58.087" UserId="998" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;post-grant-review&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1819" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="590" RevisionGUID="82d8f415-f374-4fea-adde-89ef57c77476" CreationDate="2012-10-01T20:30:16.557" UserId="998" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;america-invents-act&gt;&lt;post-grant-review&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="597" RevisionGUID="04f53f0c-8755-4710-850e-7205af0aaf6e" CreationDate="2012-10-01T22:53:07.580" UserId="1470" Text="The short uncomfortable answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He can't&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the [patent of the walkman][1] as example:&#xD;&#xA;There is a guy inventing the first mobile stereo player and Sony just refuses to acknowledge him and pay him royalities. He had the patents(in more than one country!) and still a united kingdom court invalidates them (how is it possible, you ask? I don't know)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally he got some money: 10 mio dollar is some rumor, however Sony sold more than 200 mio devices. And he got the money **25 years after** his invention and spent millions on lawyers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a hobbyist, you will not have the money/time to fight a big company for several years. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents are only for big players to seal markets. They were always for them. If you have 1 patent it is like a drop in the ocean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://intellogist.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/the-walkman-patent-fiasco/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="598" RevisionGUID="762b60ea-31c2-49b6-b2a4-f61d5d4faa9d" CreationDate="2012-10-02T03:55:49.867" UserId="1472" Text="I came across [this patent](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=7,945,544.PN.&amp;OS=PN/7,945,544&amp;RS=PN/7,945,544). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similarity of data items is determined by analyzing corresponding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; segments of the data items. A function is applied to each segment of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data item and the output of that function is compared to the output of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the same function applied to a corresponding segment of another data&#xD;&#xA;&gt; item. A function may be applied to the output of the functions. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; functions may be hash or message digest functions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I understand the legalese, it appears to patent comparing the output of a hash function to determine if the inputs are equal. This is an extremely trivial operation and is utilized in most websites today. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most websites and other password-security applications will use a one-way hash function on the saved password. This is so that the password can not be retrieved in case of a hack. I'm sure that this was round before the world wide web even though. I'm pretty sure that some UNIX-like operating systems used one-way hashing for passwords. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is there any prior art for this, or am I misinterpreting the patent? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1823" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="598" RevisionGUID="762b60ea-31c2-49b6-b2a4-f61d5d4faa9d" CreationDate="2012-10-02T03:55:49.867" UserId="1472" Text="Patent on comparing two values which are put through a hash function to determine if the same" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1824" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="598" RevisionGUID="762b60ea-31c2-49b6-b2a4-f61d5d4faa9d" CreationDate="2012-10-02T03:55:49.867" UserId="1472" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;us7945544&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1825" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="593" RevisionGUID="2be48a99-c9d2-442f-a4f4-fcf5be747700" CreationDate="2012-10-02T04:02:44.907" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/252981922278559744" />
  <row Id="1826" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="598" RevisionGUID="cec94524-0f1a-456a-bf11-f022cc2abaa4" CreationDate="2012-10-02T07:02:45.423" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/253027221982310400" />
  <row Id="1827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="599" RevisionGUID="90aa624e-410f-4816-b711-9892efb884ce" CreationDate="2012-10-02T08:06:19.030" UserId="1475" Text="The given answers 1-3 all relate to the situation in the USA. In other jurisdictions it may differ. First of all in most other jurisdictions, the inventor will not automatically be the owner of the patent, but the applicant (who may be a natural but also a legal person) will be the owner of the patent. Thus, an inventor can be the owner, but in most cases will not be the owner of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;This owner may bring forward any charges to alleged infringers, the inventor (if not the owner) does not have such a right. Whether licensees are entitled to sue depends on the national law of the country where such a licensee would want to start a law suit and on the text of the license agreement. Thus, this can vary enormously from country to country." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="600" RevisionGUID="8404616f-658c-439d-9428-5ed03636561d" CreationDate="2012-10-02T08:17:14.620" UserId="1475" Text="After March 2013, when the last phase of the AIA will enter into force, there will - for reasons of vesting a date of invention - not be a difference between filing a US provisional application and filing a priority application in any other jurisdiction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The disadvantage of a US provisional is that it is only a place holder, for which you have to pay more than $100 to achieve just that. If you file in other jurisdictions you have several options:&#xD;&#xA;1) not paying fees, which in many cases will still give you a filing date and filing number of your application and which thus allows you to use the application as a priority application for a later PCT and/or US application.&#xD;&#xA;2) pay a filing fee + a search fee. With this option, which is available in some jurisdictions, you will get within the priority year a novelty search + a (preliminary) opinion on the patentability of your claims. This can thus help to decide whether or not it is worthwhile to continue the patenting process, or whether or not you have to adapt your application. &#xD;&#xA;In some countries (where a so called patent registration system is available) you will also automatically get the patent, which you can enforce in a court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, filing a US provisional may be an option, but you should also explore other options which are available to you and which even cost less, or which provide more information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="601" RevisionGUID="cf90d3a8-8823-4514-a000-a55ddfd133a5" CreationDate="2012-10-02T08:25:04.510" UserId="1457" Text="I have seen this term used often and have a vague idea as to what it means, but since I have not seen this term used in other fields I thought I would ask here.  Is any response from the Patent Office considered an &quot;Office Action&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1830" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="601" RevisionGUID="cf90d3a8-8823-4514-a000-a55ddfd133a5" CreationDate="2012-10-02T08:25:04.510" UserId="1457" Text="What is an &quot;Office Action&quot;, and what types of &quot;Office Actions&quot; are there?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1831" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="601" RevisionGUID="cf90d3a8-8823-4514-a000-a55ddfd133a5" CreationDate="2012-10-02T08:25:04.510" UserId="1457" Text="&lt;process&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="603" RevisionGUID="947d2fbb-f840-480b-be38-f1d71f10b66f" CreationDate="2012-10-02T09:08:44.377" UserId="1475" Text="In general only communications from the Examiner or Examining Division which raise objections to the patentability of the claims that are pending are called Office Actions. Be aware that this is not an official term. The official term differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and may be called 'Communication pursuant to Art. 94(3)' [EPO], 'Notice of Rejection' [JPO] and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="604" RevisionGUID="bc90c0db-ec96-4135-9f16-89fb2424c730" CreationDate="2012-10-02T13:48:26.370" UserId="1474" Text="This seems to be roughly equivalent to what the `rsync` protocol does (as noted by Alex Chamberlain). From the [rsync technical report][1] (1998):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The rsync algorithm consists of the following steps:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.  ᵦ splits the file B into a series of non-overlapping fixed-sized blocks of size S bytes1. The last block may be shorter than S bytes.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. For each of these blocks ᵦ calculates two checksums: a weak ``rolling'' 32-bit checksum (described below) and a strong 128-bit MD4&#xD;&#xA;&gt; checksum.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  ᵦ sends these checksums to α.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4.  α searches through A to find all blocks of length S bytes (at any offset, not just multiples of S) that have the same weak and strong&#xD;&#xA;&gt; checksum as one of the blocks of B. This can be done in a single pass&#xD;&#xA;&gt; very quickly using a special property of the rolling checksum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; described below.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5.  sends ᵦ a sequence of instructions for constructing a copy of A. Each instruction is either a reference to a block of B, or literal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data. Literal data is sent only for those sections of A which did not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; match any of the blocks of B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rsync.samba.org/tech_report/node2.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="605" RevisionGUID="45fe9eda-24b2-4f72-8a01-14f5a99b2db4" CreationDate="2012-10-02T18:15:47.463" UserId="1485" Text="In the U.S. the term Office Action is typically used to describe a notice a patent applicant receives from a patent examiner, informing the applicant that the examiner has decided to reject some or all of the claims in an application and explaining the reasons why (e.g. a claim A is anticipated by reference X, claim b is obvious in view of references X and Y, claim C is ambiguous, and claim D is allowed). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicant then has a certain amount of time to file a response to the office action (often abbreviated RTOA), in which he or she may attempt to overcome the examiner's rejections, such as by amending the claims or arguing that the examiner's interpretation is incorrect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="605" RevisionGUID="b6e58ad0-d0fa-40d0-9250-4c6b6984b562" CreationDate="2012-10-02T18:22:58.983" UserId="1485" Comment="added 603 characters in body" Text="In the U.S. the term Office Action is typically used to describe a notice a patent applicant receives from a patent examiner, informing the applicant that the examiner has decided to reject some or all of the claims in an application and explaining the reasons why (e.g. a claim A is anticipated by reference X, claim b is obvious in view of references X and Y, claim C is ambiguous, and claim D is allowed). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;An office action may be &quot;final&quot; or &quot;non-final&quot;. In a non-final office action, the applicant is entitled to reply and request reconsideration or further examination, with or without making an amendment. In a final office action, the applicant has two options for reply. In the first option, the applicant may appeal rejection of claims to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences [now called the Patent Trials and Appeals Board]. Otherwise, the applicant may file an amendment which complies with the requirements set forth in the office action. Reply to a final rejection must include cancellation of, or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. If any claim stands allowed, the reply to a final rejection must comply with any requirements or objections as to form. Replies to final office actions must be in accordance with 37 C.F.R. 1.113-1.114&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1844" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="601" RevisionGUID="720e90cc-fef5-440e-8ddf-a45dbd290130" CreationDate="2012-10-02T19:02:45.560" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/253208416661671937" />
  <row Id="1845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="598" RevisionGUID="58ec6af1-6bd8-4fed-b73f-4e8ee2d60a5a" CreationDate="2012-10-02T20:12:02.483" UserId="76" Comment="added the text of claim 1" Text="I came across [this patent](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=7,945,544.PN.&amp;OS=PN/7,945,544&amp;RS=PN/7,945,544) titled “Similarity-based access control of data in a data processing system” (priority date: 1995-04-11).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similarity of data items is determined by analyzing corresponding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; segments of the data items. A function is applied to each segment of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data item and the output of that function is compared to the output of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the same function applied to a corresponding segment of another data&#xD;&#xA;&gt; item. A function may be applied to the output of the functions. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; functions may be hash or message digest functions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I understand the legalese, it appears to patent comparing the output of a hash function to determine if the inputs are equal. This is an extremely trivial operation and is utilized in most websites today. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most websites and other password-security applications will use a one-way hash function on the saved password. This is so that the password can not be retrieved in case of a hack. I'm sure that this was round before the world wide web even though. I'm pretty sure that some UNIX-like operating systems used one-way hashing for passwords. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is there any prior art for this, or am I misinterpreting the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the text of claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * (A) for a first data item comprising a first plurality of parts,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     * (a1) applying a first function to each part of said first plurality of parts to obtain a corresponding part value for each part of said first plurality of parts, wherein each part of said first plurality of parts comprises a corresponding sequence of bits, and wherein the part value for each particular part of said first plurality of parts is based, at least in part, on the corresponding bits in the particular part, and wherein two identical parts will have the same part value as determined using said first function, wherein said first function comprises a first hash function; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     * (a2) obtaining a first value for the first data item, said first value obtained by applying a second function to the part values of said first plurality of parts of said first data item, said second function comprising a second hash function;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * (B) for a second data item comprising a second plurality of parts,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     * (b1) applying said first function to each part of said second plurality of parts to obtain a corresponding part value for each part of said second plurality of parts, wherein each part of said second plurality of parts consists of a corresponding sequence of bits, and wherein the part value for each particular part of said second plurality of parts is based, at least in part, on the corresponding bits in the particular part of the second plurality of parts; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     * (b2) obtaining a second value for the second data item by applying said second function to the part values of said second plurality of parts of said second data item; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * (C) ascertaining whether or not said first data item corresponds to said second data item based, at least in part, on said first value and said second value.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1846" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="598" RevisionGUID="58ec6af1-6bd8-4fed-b73f-4e8ee2d60a5a" CreationDate="2012-10-02T20:12:02.483" UserId="76" Comment="added the text of claim 1" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;data-processing-database&gt;&lt;us7945544&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="606" RevisionGUID="d3a01f26-a896-45cd-985f-a84c14b8a61e" CreationDate="2012-10-02T20:19:00.270" UserId="1485" Text="In the U.S., the Patent Act provides that a “patentee” is entitled to bring a civil action for infringement of his/her patent.  This has been interpreted to cover the individual inventor(s) to whom the patent was issued as well as the inventor’s heirs or other successors in title.  Alternatively, if the patentee conveys “all substantial rights” in the patent to a third party (such as an employer),  the third party is treated as the patentee and has standing to sue in its own name.”   This is the typical case where an assignee/employer sues on behalf of an inventor/employee.  There is no “right to sue” for infringement separate from a conveyance of a proprietary interest in the patent.  &#xD;&#xA;Under the newly acted provisions of the AIA, since a non-inventor can now apply for a patent, I **believe** such a party would also have standing to sue for infringement, but I can’t say for certain off the top of my head. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the party that “owns” a patent can commence an action for patent infringement, however, a licensee ordinarily cannot, unless the license exclusively grants “all substantial rights” in the patent (i.e. a license the that is virtually equivalent to an assignment).  In some circumstances, an exclusive license that grants something less than “all substantial rights” can permit the licensee to join the patentee in suing an infringer, but the licensee couldn’t bring suit on its own.  A “bare licensee,” that is, someone who merely has non-exclusive permission to exercise one of the rights granted by a patent, doesn’t have standing to sue third parties for infringement, even if the patentee wants them too.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disagree with the answer above to the extent it implies that a licensed distributor or retailer could bring a suit for patent infringement in the case that the patentee does not. They certainly might have a complaint against the patentee, depending on the terms of the license, but they would have no basis to sue the alleged infringer.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="606" RevisionGUID="fb1b05b9-afcb-4034-b025-843089b36eec" CreationDate="2012-10-02T20:29:30.187" UserId="1485" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="In the U.S., the Patent Act provides that a “patentee” is entitled to bring a civil action for infringement of his/her patent.  This has been interpreted to cover the individual inventor(s) to whom the patent was issued as well as the inventor’s heirs or other successors in title.  Alternatively, if the patentee conveys “all substantial rights” in the patent to a third party (such as an employer),  the third party is treated as the patentee and has standing to sue in its own name.”   This is the typical case where an assignee/employer sues on behalf of an inventor/employee.  There is no “right to sue” for infringement separate from a conveyance of a proprietary interest in the patent.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the newly acted provisions of the AIA, since a non-inventor can now apply for a patent, I **believe** such a party would also have standing to sue for infringement, but I can’t say for certain off the top of my head. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the party that “owns” a patent can commence an action for patent infringement, however, a licensee ordinarily cannot, unless the license exclusively grants “all substantial rights” in the patent (i.e. a license that is virtually equivalent to an assignment).  In some circumstances, an exclusive license that grants something less than “all substantial rights” can permit the licensee to join the patentee in suing an infringer, but the licensee couldn’t bring suit on its own.  A “bare licensee,” that is, someone who merely has non-exclusive permission to exercise one of the rights granted by a patent, doesn’t have standing to sue third parties for infringement, even if the patentee wants them too.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disagree with the answer above to the extent it implies that a licensed distributor or retailer could bring a suit for patent infringement in the case that the patentee does not. They certainly might have a complaint against the patentee, depending on the terms of the license, but they would have no basis to sue the alleged infringer.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1850" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="590" RevisionGUID="b3907b74-3777-4484-a22a-b6c55b2bd1bd" CreationDate="2012-10-02T22:02:45.380" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/253253714666737664" />
  <row Id="1851" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="588" RevisionGUID="7d668270-7675-46ad-9392-fcd8046917bb" CreationDate="2012-10-03T01:02:46.467" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/253299016928989185" />
  <row Id="1852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="607" RevisionGUID="262b6b3e-eca8-4c39-92ba-f6ce99cf8ad8" CreationDate="2012-10-03T01:33:51.370" UserId="758" Text="Looking at the claims (at least claim 1), this isn't quite like rsync. In particular, it specifies using not just one, but two, hash functions for each block.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent does not, however mention &quot;bloom filter&quot; anywhere -- which seems like an odd omission, given that it sounds a lot like a Bloom filter (which was invented ~25 years before the patent was filed).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="607" RevisionGUID="b9b33dd6-200d-4234-9d5e-8ca96c4c2995" CreationDate="2012-10-03T02:02:06.687" UserId="758" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Looking at the claims (at least claim 1), this isn't quite like rsync. In particular, it specifies using, not just one, but two separate hash functions for each block.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent does not, however mention &quot;bloom filter&quot; anywhere -- which seems like an odd omission, given that it sounds a lot like a Bloom filter (which was invented ~25 years before the patent was filed).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="608" RevisionGUID="65eca246-731d-48ca-b30a-895ee4321251" CreationDate="2012-10-03T02:20:59.600" UserId="768" Text="I love this product, but it says Patents Pending at the bottom and this exact product has been on my personal &quot;to-invent&quot; list since at least 2008. I can't believe me and these guys are the only three to think this up, and it's pretty damn obvious to me (electronic locks for your home + mobile app + being renter-friendly by slipping over existing deadbolt.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://lockitron.com/preorder&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were they really the first to think this up, and do they really deserve a 20 year monopoly on this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1855" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="608" RevisionGUID="65eca246-731d-48ca-b30a-895ee4321251" CreationDate="2012-10-03T02:20:59.600" UserId="768" Text="Prior art on Wireless Deadbolt Actuator (Keyless entry)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1856" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="608" RevisionGUID="65eca246-731d-48ca-b30a-895ee4321251" CreationDate="2012-10-03T02:20:59.600" UserId="768" Text="&lt;deadbolt&gt;&lt;wireless&gt;&lt;keyless-entry&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="608" RevisionGUID="e68d2f42-cd5d-4966-a759-65666178ed9e" CreationDate="2012-10-03T02:33:18.973" UserId="768" Comment="added 191 characters in body" Text="I love this product, but it says Patents Pending at the bottom and this exact product has been on my personal &quot;to-invent&quot; list since at least 2008. I can't believe me and these guys are the only three to think this up, and it's pretty damn obvious to me (electronic locks for your home + mobile app + being renter-friendly by slipping over existing deadbolt.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://lockitron.com/preorder&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were they really the first to think this up, and do they really deserve a 20 year monopoly on this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure how to find their &quot;pending patent&quot; but started hunted around for similar patents just in case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://www.google.com/patents/US5790034?dq=keyless+entry+deadbolt+wireless" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="608" RevisionGUID="aa96b6a2-da78-4992-b30f-5d92c873cdd1" CreationDate="2012-10-03T02:57:48.977" UserId="768" Comment="adding names" Text="I love this product, but it says Patents Pending at the bottom and this exact product has been on my personal &quot;to-invent&quot; list since at least 2008. I can't believe me and these guys are the only three to think this up, and it's pretty damn obvious to me (electronic locks for your home + mobile app + being renter-friendly by slipping over existing deadbolt.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://lockitron.com/preorder&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were they really the first to think this up, and do they really deserve a 20 year monopoly on this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's something similar from awhile ago:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://www.google.com/patents/US5790034?dq=keyless+entry+deadbolt+wireless&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can't find anything mentioning Robertson and Gerhardt on http://patft.uspto.gov/ , might have to wait until it gets published." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1859" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="286" RevisionGUID="b29bd16b-182d-4dad-84fa-ede30926cbdb" CreationDate="2012-10-03T04:02:46.493" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/253344316146196481" />
  <row Id="1860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="609" RevisionGUID="1623ea0c-0aa5-4ef1-8c17-22839dd82ae4" CreationDate="2012-10-03T04:30:31.077" UserId="1457" Text="If I discuss or seek advice from others on portions of a patent on public sites such as SO, does that invalidate the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, lets say I have an idea in mind of a software patent  which consists of `X`, `Y`, and `Z`? I know that step `Y` can be done, but just don't know exactly how would be the best approach.  Say for example that step `Y` requires a sorting algorithm (perhaps this is not the best example, but should clarify what I am thinking of),  and I post on SO a very detailed description of things I need sorted, and asked for advice.  A detailed solution is posted along with the a description of how it works and why it would be the best approach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not posting the entire patent but just a step in the overall process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To protect my self I would think that filing a provisional would be best so that I have time to fill in the details. But if someone else actually solved `X` for me, does that effect my patent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, taking this a bit further, suppose I post three different questions, one for each of the three steps? Basically, I have gotten others to do the work for me. But I am still putting the steps together.  Would this invalidate the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##References:&#xD;&#xA;* http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/372/can-software-be-patented-after-being-made-public&#xD;&#xA;* http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/282/should-i-patent-my-idea-before-posting-it-on-the-internet?rq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1861" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="609" RevisionGUID="1623ea0c-0aa5-4ef1-8c17-22839dd82ae4" CreationDate="2012-10-03T04:30:31.077" UserId="1457" Text="Does a public discussion related to a patent invalidate the patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1862" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="609" RevisionGUID="1623ea0c-0aa5-4ef1-8c17-22839dd82ae4" CreationDate="2012-10-03T04:30:31.077" UserId="1457" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="610" RevisionGUID="5025d772-8310-4e3f-8185-4e65e5366008" CreationDate="2012-10-03T05:59:34.097" UserId="1489" Text="How was a patent granted for a technology that violates basic physics? Is our patent office just one big rubber stamp?  Does anyone actually read the application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1864" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="610" RevisionGUID="5025d772-8310-4e3f-8185-4e65e5366008" CreationDate="2012-10-03T05:59:34.097" UserId="1489" Text="Practicality of faster than light travel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1865" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="610" RevisionGUID="5025d772-8310-4e3f-8185-4e65e5366008" CreationDate="2012-10-03T05:59:34.097" UserId="1489" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="611" RevisionGUID="b71d86b0-6e02-4771-bfac-8c4e217a0bd6" CreationDate="2012-10-03T12:39:50.827" UserId="28" Text="US Patent No. [2010/0251120](http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20100930ptan20100251120.php) seems basically to be &quot;using a URL to link to a given part of a video&quot;. The key claim is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -  receiving from a first user interface a first input from a first user specifying a first particular instant in a video other than a beginning of the video;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - in response to the first input, generating by one or more computer systems first data for inclusion in a link to the video, the first data representing the first particular instant in the video and being operable automatically to direct playback of the video at a second user interface to start at the first particular instant in the video in response to a second user selecting the link at the second user interface;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and communicating the first data to a link generator for inclusion in the link to the video&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or in human speak, something to generate links like [blah#t=43s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ#t=43s)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(plus later, claim 12, that must then be processed by the system, and a lot of minor dependent claims about all of the above, etc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there doesn't seem to be anything particularly non-obvious about this, given that URLs are *designed* to convey context about a resource. Conveying time as part of a URL does *not* seem any kind of invention. Can anyone think of prior art for this? Perhaps for audio, if video is elusive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1867" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="611" RevisionGUID="b71d86b0-6e02-4771-bfac-8c4e217a0bd6" CreationDate="2012-10-03T12:39:50.827" UserId="28" Text="Prior Art for a URL to a point in time of video" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1868" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="611" RevisionGUID="b71d86b0-6e02-4771-bfac-8c4e217a0bd6" CreationDate="2012-10-03T12:39:50.827" UserId="28" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;us20100251120&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1870" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="611" RevisionGUID="a5904213-e62f-43d5-b375-8c13819c0dd0" CreationDate="2012-10-03T13:02:46.417" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/253480211398680578" />
  <row Id="1871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="466" RevisionGUID="3394609e-12b4-4916-a80c-4693d48d2b9b" CreationDate="2012-10-03T13:44:11.557" UserId="288" Comment="changed URL to a link" Text="There may be prior art inherent in the product of the late, lamented [FineGround](http://www.networkworld.com/reviews/2001/0611revside.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The product was a reverse proxy you could put in front of your web site to improve performance for end users. In addition to stuff like caching gzipped copies of images, it could analyze HTML pages, determine which parts changed on subsequent loads and which didn't, and inject JavaScript into the page so that end browsers would cache most of the page and only reload the changes from the server. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1872" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="466" RevisionGUID="3394609e-12b4-4916-a80c-4693d48d2b9b" CreationDate="2012-10-03T13:44:11.557" Comment="Proposed by 288 approved by 28 edit id of 199" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="597" RevisionGUID="cfef06f2-78b9-4700-b098-982836bc6f59" CreationDate="2012-10-03T13:45:03.693" UserId="288" Comment="fixed capitalization, punctuation, and typos; spelled out unfamiliar abbreviation &quot;mio&quot;" Text="The short uncomfortable answer:  He can't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the [patent of the Walkman][1] as an example:&#xD;&#xA;There is a guy inventing the first mobile stereo player and Sony just refuses to acknowledge him and pay him royalties. He had the patents(in more than one country!) and still a United Kingdom court invalidates them. (How is it possible, you ask? I don't know.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally he got some money (10 million dollars is one rumor, however Sony sold more than 200 million devices). And he got the money **25 years after** his invention and spent millions on lawyers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a hobbyist, you will not have the money/time to fight a big company for several years. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents are only for big players to seal markets. They were always for them. If you have one patent it is like a drop in the ocean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://intellogist.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/the-walkman-patent-fiasco/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1874" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="597" RevisionGUID="cfef06f2-78b9-4700-b098-982836bc6f59" CreationDate="2012-10-03T13:45:03.693" Comment="Proposed by 288 approved by 28 edit id of 198" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1875" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="610" RevisionGUID="53cfad09-2d8f-411a-b351-821bceec0b7d" CreationDate="2012-10-03T14:04:22.733" UserId="1" Comment="4" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:128,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ondrej Tucny&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="612" RevisionGUID="1c0be0ff-f5c8-42b6-98ef-f0fd98ad27c9" CreationDate="2012-10-03T14:27:12.220" UserId="1" Text="This patent application was published on September 30th, 2010. YouTube started featuring the ability to link to timestamps in videos sometime in October 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. `http://youtube.com/watch?v=qie-N8idatc#t=1m54s`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Reference:** [YouTube now offers deep links to timestamps (via URI hash)](http://christianheilmann.com/2008/10/26/youtube-now-offers-deep-links-to-timestamps-via-uri-hash/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="612" RevisionGUID="1d1dcf66-eac8-44ac-a416-38cf10fbbce6" CreationDate="2012-10-03T14:35:20.073" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 38 characters in body" Text="This patent application was published on September 30th, 2010. YouTube announced the ability to link to timestamps in videos in October, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. `http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlfKdbWwruY#t=1m18s`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**References:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Link To The Best Parts In Your Videos](http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2008/10/link-to-best-parts-in-your-videos.html)&#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1878" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="612" RevisionGUID="48546c1c-9a3b-4322-9d6c-8f07725d2f45" CreationDate="2012-10-03T14:38:25.657" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="612" RevisionGUID="650a559e-1b9c-4c9a-8ea1-f1434efb6464" CreationDate="2012-10-03T14:44:53.947" UserId="1" Comment="added 469 characters in body" Text="Google published this patent application on on September 30th, 2010. But YouTube (owned by Google) announced the ability to link to timestamps in videos in October, 2008 &amp;mdash; [Link To The Best Parts In Your Videos](http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2008/10/link-to-best-parts-in-your-videos.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wouldn't that invalidate their patent on that basis?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference: [Can software be patented after being made public?](http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/373/1)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;35 U.S.C. 102   Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent.&#xD;&#xA;A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1880" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="612" RevisionGUID="0a641709-3c7c-4f8c-a267-9ff0d1d3009a" CreationDate="2012-10-03T14:45:55.973" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="613" RevisionGUID="ff59ea7b-663a-4a79-aeac-64619e4d8a19" CreationDate="2012-10-03T15:08:16.553" UserId="998" Text="Public discussions create create prior art. If done in a public online written forum then the postings will count as &quot;printed publications.&quot; They would also likely qualify as proof that the invention (or a portion of the invention) was known or used by others.  Public responses to your inquiry would also be seen as a printed publication. However, a private message would not normally create prior art because it is not public. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prior art impact of of the online posting will depend upon when it was publicly posted relative to the effective filing date of the patent in question. There are three primary situations: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Posted after filing the patent application: Not Prior Art &#xD;&#xA; 2. Posted 1-year or less before filing the patent application: Prior Art in Some Cases&#xD;&#xA; 3. Posted more than 1-year before filing the patent application: Definitely Prior Art&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gold standard here is to wait until after you have &quot;secured a filing date&quot; by filing a patent application.  At that point you can communicate as much as you want without jeopardizing the novelty of your invention.  Now, there are still reasons not to do this -- especially if you are planning to market your own product or if you are planning on filing further patent applications. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The statute that controls in the US is 35 U.S.C. 102.  This provision was extensively revised in the 2011 America Invents Act (AIA).  The old rules apply to patent applications filed before March 16, 2016 and the new rules apply to patent applications filed on or after that date. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 1-year before filing uncertainty is based upon what we call the &quot;Grace Period&quot; for filing patent applications.  The US is the only major country with a standard grace period that allows for pre-filing disclosures by the inventors. Thus, if you are seeking a European patent, any pre-filing online public posting could be used to block your later-filed patent from issuing.  The US grace period allows patent applicants to make a public disclosure and then wait for up to one year to file their patent applications.  This grace period was narrowed in the AIA, but its exact scope is a matter of heated debate between patent attorneys. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1882" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="588" RevisionGUID="1171006c-12b1-449d-b562-b5509f909516" CreationDate="2012-10-03T15:15:57.220" UserId="252" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;search&gt;&lt;mobile-phone&gt;&lt;state-of-the-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="613" RevisionGUID="dfaab43e-1e52-48b3-8b25-36a9789b3e40" CreationDate="2012-10-03T15:22:06.083" UserId="998" Comment="added 1498 characters in body" Text="There are a few issues hidden in your question.  I'm first going to write about whether these **postings create prior art**. Next, I'll write about whether a suggestion from a third party alters **inventorship**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prior art and online postings**: Public discussions create create prior art. If done in a public online written forum then the postings will count as &quot;printed publications.&quot; They would also likely qualify as proof that the invention (or a portion of the invention) was known or used by others.  Public responses to your inquiry would also be seen as a printed publication. However, a private message would not normally create prior art because it is not public. More [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prior art impact of of the online posting will depend upon when it was publicly posted relative to the effective filing date of the patent in question. There are three primary situations: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Posted after filing the patent application: Not Prior Art &#xD;&#xA; 2. Posted 1-year or less before filing the patent application: Prior Art in Some Cases&#xD;&#xA; 3. Posted more than 1-year before filing the patent application: Definitely Prior Art&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gold standard here is to wait until after you have &quot;secured a filing date&quot; by filing a patent application.  At that point you can communicate as much as you want without jeopardizing the novelty of your invention.  Now, there are still reasons not to do this -- especially if you are planning to market your own product or if you are planning on filing further patent applications. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The statute that controls in the US is 35 U.S.C. 102.  This provision was extensively revised in the 2011 America Invents Act (AIA).  The old rules apply to patent applications filed before March 16, 2016 and the new rules apply to patent applications filed on or after that date. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 1-year before filing uncertainty is based upon what we call the &quot;Grace Period&quot; for filing patent applications.  The US is the only major country with a standard grace period that allows for pre-filing disclosures by the inventors. Thus, if you are seeking a European patent, any pre-filing online public posting could be used to block your later-filed patent from issuing.  The US grace period allows patent applicants to make a public disclosure and then wait for up to one year to file their patent applications.  This grace period was narrowed in the AIA, but its exact scope is a matter of heated debate between patent attorneys. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Inventorship**: In the US, patents must be filed by (or in the name of) the inventors of the invention being patented.  Often there is only 1 inventor. But more often than not, patent applications list multiple &quot;joint-inventors&quot; who each contributed to at least one of the patent claims.  Under the statute, “Inventors may apply for a patent jointly even though (1) they did not physically work together or at the same time, (2) each did not make the same type or amount of contribution, or (3) each did not make a contribution to the subject matter of every claim of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. 116. The online suggestion would certainly be sufficient to create joint inventorship if the suggestion becomes part of your conception of the invention. However, the tricky part is that the the contribution will count as a joint inventorship if it was &quot;simply a reduction to practice of the sole inventor’s broader concept.” Ethicon Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456, 1460-63, 45 USPQ2d 1545, 1548-1551 (Fed. Cir. 1998).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are two inventors, each inventor has full rights to the patent. As you can imagine this could lead to some conflicts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2128.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1884" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="609" RevisionGUID="37acaec0-2d37-459f-9b09-ce7f46132f39" CreationDate="2012-10-03T15:22:43.650" UserId="998" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="505" RevisionGUID="c437e306-6324-4688-84d6-837d8771402b" CreationDate="2012-10-03T15:24:56.923" UserId="998" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="ihtkwot's answer to this question is accurate but it focuses only on the notion of &quot;patentable subject matter.&quot;  When I consider the patentable subject matter doctrine, I like to imagine a **really ingenious idea** and then ask whether that is the **type** of idea that should be amenable to patent protection.  Subject matter eligibility is also sometimes about how **concrete** the idea needs to be in terms of its implementation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the public debate on software patents tends to focus on subject matter eligibility, that doctrine actually does very little work in the patent system. Rather, the focus of patent attorneys and patent examiners is (1) whether the invention (as claimed in the patent application) is a significant step beyond what was known and (2) whether the patent application specifically and concretely describes and claims that invention.  Step (1) above is embodied by the doctrines of **novelty** and **nonobviousness**. Step (2) is embodied by the requirements of **definiteness**, **enablement**, and **written description**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nonobviousness**: In terms of actually obtaining a software patent at the USPTO, the most important and most used doctrine is that of nonobviousness.  When someone comes to the USPTO with a patent application, the examiner asks the hypothetical question of whether the invention would have been obvious at the time the application was filed (or sometimes at the time of the invention).  Importantly, the hypothetical question employs a hypothetical Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art (PHOSITA) who is familiar with all the relevant prior art.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the early 1900's, courts began requiring a &quot;flash of genius&quot; as part of the patentability test.  That approach was rejected by Congress in 1952 Patent Act and replaced with this ordinary thinker - PHOSITA.  To be clear, PHOSITA is **not** a creative genius -- and thus the law allows for lots of ideas that are non-obvious. (This helps explain why there are so many patents.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One important element of the obviousness analysis is that the patented invention must be considered &quot;as a whole.&quot;  Very often, every component element of an invention is already well known.  In those cases, the invention is found in the new combination of features or steps.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One problem with obviousness is that the results always require a judgment call -- this results from the fact that PHOSITA is a figment of our imagination. This inexactness is by design.  It allows the law to be more flexible in response to new innovations, but it also makes resolution more contentious and less predictable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the law begins with the presumption that a patent application properly claims an invention.  The USPTO Examiners have the burden of providing **evidence** that shows the invention is obvious.  We are all good at hand-waving, but the law requires **evidence** (combined with common sense). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Lets look at an example - I just randomly pulled up U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. [20120240162][1] that was published last week, titled &quot;Content Provision&quot; and owned by [Zeebox][2]. That application has been applied for, but is not yet patented.  Claim 8 reads as follows: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. A method of operating a television system, comprising the steps of: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving live television at a user device which includes a channel&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selector; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; displaying the received live television at the user device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selecting a channel using the channel selector; establishing a direct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; connection between the channel selector and a server device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; controlling channel selections at the user device by sending&#xD;&#xA;&gt; instructions from the server device which is operatively connected to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the user device, but is remote therefrom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we basically have four simple steps that control the interaction between (1) a user device that shows live TV; (2) a server that is remote from the user device; and (3) channel selector that directly connects with the server.  Has this been done before? How would you prove that it would have been obvious? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=5&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=GOogle&amp;OS=GOogle&amp;RS=GOogle&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://zeebox.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1886" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="608" RevisionGUID="bed26134-992c-443c-ae66-11d9dfeb83f1" CreationDate="2012-10-03T16:02:46.290" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/253525509835722752" />
  <row Id="1887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="614" RevisionGUID="c10dc94d-9962-4642-b2e6-2b055265a155" CreationDate="2012-10-03T16:29:25.837" UserId="786" Text="Sadly, and incorrigibly, I think the safest answer to this is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whatever survives litigation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="611" RevisionGUID="e1dd4914-0260-4876-8ad2-59ccde90816e" CreationDate="2012-10-03T16:49:30.230" UserId="76" Comment="added 175 characters in body; edited tags" Text="US Patent No. [2010/0251120](http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20100930ptan20100251120.php) (filed 2009-03-26, [USPTO link](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=20100251120.PGNR.)) seems basically to be &quot;using a URL to link to a given part of a video&quot;. The key claim is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -  receiving from a first user interface a first input from a first user specifying a first particular instant in a video other than a beginning of the video;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - in response to the first input, generating by one or more computer systems first data for inclusion in a link to the video, the first data representing the first particular instant in the video and being operable automatically to direct playback of the video at a second user interface to start at the first particular instant in the video in response to a second user selecting the link at the second user interface;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and communicating the first data to a link generator for inclusion in the link to the video&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or in human speak, something to generate links like [blah#t=43s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ#t=43s)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(plus later, claim 12, that must then be processed by the system, and a lot of minor dependent claims about all of the above, etc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there doesn't seem to be anything particularly non-obvious about this, given that URLs are *designed* to convey context about a resource. Conveying time as part of a URL does *not* seem any kind of invention. Can anyone think of prior art for this? Perhaps for audio, if video is elusive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1889" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="611" RevisionGUID="e1dd4914-0260-4876-8ad2-59ccde90816e" CreationDate="2012-10-03T16:49:30.230" UserId="76" Comment="added 175 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;data-processing-interface&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;us20100251120&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="612" RevisionGUID="cb178a42-a8ca-4967-a627-751875224c26" CreationDate="2012-10-03T17:09:36.400" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 38 characters in body" Text="Google published this patent application on on September 30th, 2010. But YouTube (owned by Google) announced the ability to link to timestamps in videos in October, 2008 &amp;mdash; [Link To The Best Parts In Your Videos](http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2008/10/link-to-best-parts-in-your-videos.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wouldn't that invalidate their patent on that basis?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference: [USPTO.GOV: 35 U.S.C. 102   Conditions for patentability &amp;hellip;](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2133.html#d0e203781)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A person shall be entitled to a patent unless &amp;mdash;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country **or in public use** or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="615" RevisionGUID="a5c942fb-ce3e-4306-99d3-49d37d058607" CreationDate="2012-10-03T17:25:55.377" UserId="1485" Text="&gt; Google published this patent application on on September 30th, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But YouTube (owned by Google) announced the ability to link to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; timestamps in videos in October, 2008 — Link To The Best Parts In Your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Videos.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wouldn't that invalidate their patent on that basis?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No - the application was filed on March 26, 2009.  So a &quot;public use&quot; in October, 2008 would not be &quot;more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, keep in mind that this is a just a published application and this is the broadest claim the applicant originally submitted (standard practice - cast a wide net and let the examiner tell you where you have to trim). The fact that it was published has no bearing on its patentability. In fact, I took a quick look on PAIR, just out of curiosity, and this application was published before the examiner had even begun the examination process.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims have gone through the typical process of rejection, amendment, final rejection, amendment after final/request for continued examination.  Currently, all claims of the application have been &quot;finally&quot; rejected and the current version of the broadest independent claim, as amended after the final rejection, is considerably more limited than the version in the application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="616" RevisionGUID="8878b8e5-49bd-4ab5-a9b7-74768d93dacf" CreationDate="2012-10-03T18:09:18.837" UserId="1502" Text="totally new to this- and just beginning my research. Trying to educate myself, so please don't hate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i had an idea for a new piece of technology- i.e. a gadget. i found a patent filed and though the intent of the invention and results are similar to what i would propose, my method (technology for obtaining the result) would be different as technology has improved (that patent was filed in 1988! which in itself may mean it's expired?) there are several other patents which reference this, which are newer- so those would probably also factor into this i assume?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;can someone point me to, or give me the name of a reference website or book that discusses what i could do in order to pursue my invention? are there specialists who help in this situation, as a resource (before going to a patent lawyer i suppose)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i would love to get funding and develop this, but want to make sure i move forward smartly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thanks, cs " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1893" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="616" RevisionGUID="8878b8e5-49bd-4ab5-a9b7-74768d93dacf" CreationDate="2012-10-03T18:09:18.837" UserId="1502" Text="seeking direction to educate myself in patent process" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1894" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="616" RevisionGUID="8878b8e5-49bd-4ab5-a9b7-74768d93dacf" CreationDate="2012-10-03T18:09:18.837" UserId="1502" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;101&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="616" RevisionGUID="b1af5778-25a3-48e4-bca4-d1fba220b31e" CreationDate="2012-10-03T18:15:59.350" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 120 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I had an idea for a new piece of technology, a gadget. I found a patent filed and though the intent of the invention and results are similar to what I would propose, my method (technology for obtaining the result) would be different as technology has improved (that patent was filed in 1988! which in itself may mean it's expired?) There are several other patents which reference this, which are newer — so those would probably also factor into this I assume?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone point me to, or give me the name of a reference website or book that discusses what i could do in order to pursue my invention? Are there specialists who help in this situation, as a resource (before going to a patent lawyer I suppose)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would love to get funding and develop this, but want to make sure I move forward smartly.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1896" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="616" RevisionGUID="b1af5778-25a3-48e4-bca4-d1fba220b31e" CreationDate="2012-10-03T18:15:59.350" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 120 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="617" RevisionGUID="ca4b7881-b732-4ba6-9417-4e443be1d823" CreationDate="2012-10-03T18:18:17.477" UserId="1485" Text="This question is impossible to answer directly, primarily because we have no idea what they're claiming in their patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First off, keep in mind it only says patent pending.  Strategically, the ability to use that term can have at least some inherent value of its own (e.g. attracting potential investors or discouraging potential competitors).  Anyone with a few hundred bucks can file a provisional patent application on anything they want and label it &quot;Patent Pending&quot; for a year.  For a couple of thousand more they can file a non-provisional and it will still be a year and a half before their application gets published. That's two and a half years of having &quot;patent pending&quot; on your website without having to explain to anyone outside the patent office what it is you're actually claiming to have invented. (Assuming you can stave off a final rejection - depending on how lame your application is and how motivated the examiner is that could be anywhere from trivial to impossible/expensive.)   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, that's just the extreme corner case of getting the best return on investment one can get out of the system without actually intending to obtain a patent. There's no reason to assume that is what Lockitron is doing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They could have filed claims aimed at protecting the broad concept, and frankly it seems like they certainly should have - as I mentioned in another [post][1], the best strategy for an applicant is frequently to ask for the broadest claim coverage you can support with your specification and let the examiner tell you where the prior art is hedging you in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even beyond the broad idea you think is &quot;pretty damn obvious,&quot; they could be going for something narrower, e.g. something innovative they had to do in order to solve problems raised by their particular implementation of the idea.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just as a possible example, their website mentions &quot;intelligent power management&quot; - maybe they came up with a novel and non-obvious way of conserving battery power while still being reliable.  Speaking of which, what happens when a Lockitron runs out of juice? Are users locked out or can anyone let themselves in? Solving that issue could generate some patentable ideas.  What about security? Maybe they've came up with features to prevent someone stealing your lock/unlock credentials off the airwaves.  The customizable-shared access feature the website talks about would probably be worth filing on too.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's just what I can pull out off the top of my head from looking at their website.  I **am not** saying any of that is ultimately patentable, but there's plenty of room to try.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/611/prior-art-for-a-url-to-a-point-in-time-of-video &quot;post&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="618" RevisionGUID="5fe34df8-ce93-4ea4-8889-c849a76fd839" CreationDate="2012-10-03T18:35:30.737" UserId="1504" Text="I'm no expert, and I'm not sure if this qualifies, but the following draft specification appears to define &quot;temporal URI fragments&quot; in a generic way that covers the above clauses. It was published in 2005, there are probably older variants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Extract from the abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Temporal addressing enables, e.g., direct access to a clip inside a video stored on a Web Server, or direct jumps to a specific event within a piece of music. The syntax is not restricted to audio or video Web resources though, but covers all kinds of Web resources that contain time-continuous information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://annodex.net/TR/draft-pfeiffer-temporal-fragments-03.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1899" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="609" RevisionGUID="8ade9d67-69c2-42f8-ba4f-1a764d782951" CreationDate="2012-10-03T19:02:46.707" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/253570808960671744" />
  <row Id="1900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="619" RevisionGUID="2476d13d-3545-42f1-a05a-9304655c7baa" CreationDate="2012-10-03T19:17:18.857" UserId="1485" Text="&#xD;&#xA;The kind of &quot;specialist&quot; you're looking for is really a patent attorney, or a patent agent (a person who has a license from the Patent Office to represent inventors during the application process, but who is not licensed to practice law in any state). Patent agents are generally cheaper than patent attorneys and would be able to provide the type of help you need in terms of applying for a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you could work with a search firm directly and have them do a prior art search on your idea. (I like [Walsh IP][1] myself, but that's just personal preference.) The possible danger in taking this route is that, while you should be able to get a pretty comprehensive report on references that might read on your idea, you likely do not have the knowledge or experience necessary to interpret the importance of what you find.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever you do, do not pay anyone for anything without first looking into their reputation and abilities.  There are lots of different ways to approach IP from a strategic point of view and you need to make sure whoever you talk to understands **your** goals and are providing services that will help you meet those goals for a reasonable cost. Independent inventors, such as yourself, are often very passionate about their ideas, to the extent that their judgment can be somewhat clouded by their enthusiasm.  Unfortunately, there are plenty of people out there willing to take advantage of that enthusiasm by offering services that do not really provide any value.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.walsh-ip.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="620" RevisionGUID="3cfb15f4-d3c7-4bec-bdb9-3bd2377a6c13" CreationDate="2012-10-03T21:06:36.560" UserId="1506" Text="Jorge is dealing the straight goods! (meaning he is very correct - for those of you who do not speak fluent hipster [yet.]) Defensive publication is fast and cheap and gives the idea broad &quot;protection&quot; in your inverted sense of protection from privatization via patent. It will have worldwide impact no matter where you publish as long as it is a public pronouncement.  Making plain how it is done is vital and you might also, in the disclosure, list any alternatives you can think of to broaden the scope of what you are disclosing.... What is it? You get to be one of the rare participants in inventor circles who can just blab all they want, so go for it!  (however...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A thing to think about: Assuming it is useful, have you vigorously assured yourself it _is_ novel? If you don't do some diligence on that front, you risk inviting people to practice an invention not your own. If they infringe, you are not likely to get in trouble (statement of odds and an opinion so worth $.02 MAX) BUT you want to be a help to the users of your invention right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the service of making _sure_ it is yours to give away could mean:&#xD;&#xA;1) more research into the prior art&#xD;&#xA;and/or&#xD;&#xA;2) actually obtaining the patent and sharing it (per above)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a budget for the patent and have done the prior art search maybe it is time to spend a part of that budget with an attorney to figure out the best and most money/time efficient method of committing it to the public good. One of the things that makes it hard to prescribe a particular position is that different fields of invention behave differently. Some are very complexly staked out and full of ferocious litigants. Others less so and so on. Attorneys don't bite.  Find one and layout what you want.  Good luck" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1904" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="475" RevisionGUID="42e47914-0496-48b6-a71f-42ca03fdd8f3" CreationDate="2012-10-03T22:02:46.457" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/253616106906996736" />
  <row Id="1905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="621" RevisionGUID="a6a740e7-31ed-48bc-9a2f-ff9635a43bfc" CreationDate="2012-10-03T23:07:21.133" UserId="1506" Text="Remember this too: If others hold the patent and you can't &quot;work around&quot; it or make any but marginal  or obvious improvements... then you might be able to license from them. Might even be the best case scenario. They have sunk costs of the patent and if you see a market for it then you've just saved a bunch of start-up costs by outsourcing the inventing and patent gaining part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to crank up a business then not having to work out a new bit of IP is a real help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="622" RevisionGUID="8ff02f37-2baf-4bc4-ac83-f59b21a4a995" CreationDate="2012-10-03T23:31:39.110" UserId="1485" Text="&gt; The gist is that we are looking at a patent for a device that contains&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a camera and a processor which it uses to drive a car.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; We've been experimenting with autonomous cars for years. Surely Toyota&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is not the first to use a camera (er, image taking section) to give&#xD;&#xA;&gt; its car a view of the road. Does anyone know of any specific prior art&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that exists?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you looking for prior art that might anticipate or make obvious &quot;a device that contains a camera and a processor which it uses to drive a car&quot; or prior art that might anticipate or make obvious the actual claim you posted? They're two very different things. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, if you care about this patent application in particular then, as user96 pointed out, you need to look for prior art that discloses **all** the elements of the claim (alone or in combination), not that has the same general gist. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at the link to the Tartan Racing vehicle that Alex Miller posted.  &#xD;&#xA;It discloses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Boss is a Chevy Tahoe with over 500,000 lines of code to autonomously&#xD;&#xA;&gt; navigate in town and in traffic. Boss uses perception, planning and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; behavioral software to reason about traffic and take appropriate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; actions while proceeding safely to a destination.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Boss is equipped with more than a dozen lasers, cameras and radars to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; view the world. High-level route planning determines the best path&#xD;&#xA;&gt; through a road network. Motion planning requires consideration of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; static and dynamic obstacles detected by perception, as well as lane&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and road boundary information, parking lot boundaries, stop lines,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; speed limits, and similar requirements. Boss handles surprises such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other vehicles running a stop sign or making sudden stops or turns.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Defensive driving skills allow Boss to avoid crashes.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tartan Racing technology enables Boss to:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Follow rules of the road&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Detect and track other vehicles at long ranges&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Find a spot and park in a parking lot&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Obey intersection precedence rules&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Follow vehicles at a safe distance&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     React to dynamic conditions like blocked roads or broken-down vehicles&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Active safety can play a huge role in countering accidents from cell&#xD;&#xA;&gt; phone usage, drowsiness and drinking. Human payoffs for Urban&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Challenge technology include improved safety, and enhanced driving&#xD;&#xA;&gt; experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can safely assume the claim's &quot;an image taking section&quot; corresponds to a camera so that limitation is met, but what about the next one:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an image processing section for detecting [] a lane dividing line on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the road surface which is traveled upon, by using the image taken by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the image taking section, and setting a virtual lane dividing line in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a section in which no lane dividing line is detected;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though we can safely assume from the disclosure on the Tartan site that &quot;Boss&quot; has image processing capabilities that would correspond to &quot;an image processing section&quot; without any added qualifications, there's no disclosure that relates to anything corresponding to the much more specific &quot;an image processing section for detecting a lane dividing line ... and setting a virtual lane dividing line....&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From an anticipation point of view, we're already done with the Boss website (which isn't to say the Boss doesn't have this capability - it's just not disclosed on the website and thus the website does not anticipate the claim).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course there's the fact that this is just a claim from an application - it hasn't been allowed and may not even be a current claim (e.g. the applicant may have amended or cancelled it since publication).  Assuming it's still pending, your best source of prior art is to look at what the examiner has already cited against the claim during prosecution. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1908" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="548" RevisionGUID="e0d4c15d-255a-4af7-82f7-bcaa7588ea32" CreationDate="2012-10-04T01:02:46.433" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/253661405658611712" />
  <row Id="1909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="623" RevisionGUID="56612f10-6ac1-4ab9-9023-8bef2175fac9" CreationDate="2012-10-04T02:43:04.790" UserId="1513" Text="I thought that the html spec dealt with these as 'fragments' and has been in there for a while: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Fragment Identifiers -- Axioms of Web Architecture][1] Date: April, 1997. although it deals with music and video is not mentioned.&#xD;&#xA; - [Introduction to HTML 4][2] HTML 4.01 Specification, W3C Recommendation 24 December 1999. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the 1st link:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For a music object, the Fragment ID could give a  section in time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second link reads (2.1.1 Introduction to URIs):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Every resource available on the Web -- HTML document, image, video clip, program, etc. -- has an address that may be encoded by a Universal Resource Identifier, or &quot;URI&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and a bit further below (2.1.2 Fragment identifiers):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some URIs refer to a location within a resource&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would think a temporal location is within that scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Fragment.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/intro/intro.html#h-2.1.2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1910" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="201" RevisionGUID="03b64add-8001-47fd-90e4-ac4b5697a7d5" CreationDate="2012-10-04T04:02:46.843" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/253706705064562688" />
  <row Id="1914" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="559" RevisionGUID="c5c3e49a-f4ee-4ebb-a71a-00fe8b7926a5" CreationDate="2012-10-04T15:08:57.713" UserId="1520" Comment="spelling correction in title" Text="Would a graphic design project constitute as prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1915" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="559" RevisionGUID="c5c3e49a-f4ee-4ebb-a71a-00fe8b7926a5" CreationDate="2012-10-04T15:08:57.713" Comment="Proposed by 1520 approved by 1 edit id of 200" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="625" RevisionGUID="3200998e-19a1-45a1-852c-8915ddde45cc" CreationDate="2012-10-04T15:22:10.010" UserId="1520" Text="&gt; That said, **the America Invents Act** does create a new avenue for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; challenging patents, albeit a limited one. It allows third parties to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; introduce evidence of so-called “prior art” (proof the invention had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; already been invented) to block patents from being issued, and it also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **introduces a new framework to challenge patents in a “post-grant review” process.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/09/obama-signs-patent-reform-bill-crustless-sandwich-still-patented" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="626" RevisionGUID="8ae13ed9-f4f2-4966-85c8-5b7bce708c9a" CreationDate="2012-10-04T15:28:11.283" UserId="1520" Text="&gt; Yes. An issued patent is presumed to be valid, but a challenger can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; produce prior art to demonstrate that the claims of the patent were&#xD;&#xA;&gt; anticipated or rendered obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are administrative post-grant procedures for challenging an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; issued patent, and, of course, anyone who is sued by a patent holder&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can support a defense of invalidity by producing prior art - even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; possibly art that was originally considered by the Patent Office when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the patent was issued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/587/if-a-patent-has-been-issued-can-it-still-be-invalidated-by-prior-art&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That said, **the America Invents Act** does create a new avenue for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; challenging patents, albeit a limited one. It allows third parties to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; introduce evidence of so-called “prior art” (proof the invention had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; already been invented) to block patents from being issued, and it also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **introduces a new framework to challenge patents in a “post-grant review” process.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/09/obama-signs-patent-reform-bill-crustless-sandwich-still-patented" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="627" RevisionGUID="da73acb5-0fb3-4384-9b0d-78ced0e8068e" CreationDate="2012-10-04T15:32:43.853" UserId="1520" Text="Here is a video of Tim Meyer explaining post-grant proceedings as of 2009. This is before the &quot;new framework to challenge patents in a &quot;post-grant review&quot; process&quot; so keep that in mind when watching it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUjsCv8khdQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="625" RevisionGUID="05dfc74e-2b89-4847-a218-ef1b1d5f5a49" CreationDate="2012-10-04T15:33:51.420" UserId="1520" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="&gt; That said, **[the America Invents Act](http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_patentreformact2011.html)** does create a new avenue for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; challenging patents, albeit a limited one. It allows third parties to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; introduce evidence of so-called “prior art” (proof the invention had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; already been invented) to block patents from being issued, and it also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **introduces a new framework to challenge patents in a “post-grant review” process.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/09/obama-signs-patent-reform-bill-crustless-sandwich-still-patented&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1921" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="260" RevisionGUID="4ec17590-af3a-4537-86e8-f1899c34adf2" CreationDate="2012-10-04T16:02:48.227" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/253887905213333505" />
  <row Id="1922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="628" RevisionGUID="20534d18-0a4b-411a-9ffe-617466bd407b" CreationDate="2012-10-04T16:21:52.063" UserId="1522" Text="http://www.google.com/patents/US7353199?pg=PA6&amp;dq=7353199&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=NbZtUN62DcjZrAG1hIGYDQ&amp;ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=7353199&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;System for creating a web site where the user gets &quot;restricted&quot; access (less that full functionality) during a trial period, but &quot;full&quot; access once the user registers (e.g., pays) for the web site the user created through the system.  Claim 1 is representative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1923" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="628" RevisionGUID="20534d18-0a4b-411a-9ffe-617466bd407b" CreationDate="2012-10-04T16:21:52.063" UserId="1522" Text="US Patent 7,353, 199 - Looking for Prior Art - user creates web site &amp; &quot;restricted&quot; functionality until registers, then &quot;full&quot; functionality" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1924" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="628" RevisionGUID="20534d18-0a4b-411a-9ffe-617466bd407b" CreationDate="2012-10-04T16:21:52.063" UserId="1522" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="630" RevisionGUID="42eebd77-f181-4fde-a1f1-3361adf4142e" CreationDate="2012-10-04T18:14:04.133" UserId="1523" Text="Just 2 hits off the first 10 for a google search on &quot;automatic diary&quot; (I tried to post more but I'm new here)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://replaymyday.info/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://lifehacker.com/5935658/how-to-automatically-archive-your-life-with-ifttt-and-evernote&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading the text posted, all I see that is new is the language building process, which not only seems quite vague, but also easy to boil down to a simple algorithm (they half do in the patent itself).   Can we get some others to comment on why this isn;t just another software patent that shoudl not be approved?  I'm sure we can find a ton a prior art if we try to shoot this one down, automatic diaries are not even remotely new, and this, even internationally, was just filed on March 2011... " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1929" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="630" RevisionGUID="42eebd77-f181-4fde-a1f1-3361adf4142e" CreationDate="2012-10-04T18:14:04.133" UserId="1523" Text="wee bit of prior art on this one? Application 20120254255" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1930" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="630" RevisionGUID="42eebd77-f181-4fde-a1f1-3361adf4142e" CreationDate="2012-10-04T18:14:04.133" UserId="1523" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;samsung&gt;&lt;mobile-phone&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1931" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="628" RevisionGUID="fc2e0f14-27b6-4bf4-875a-ff08355bdcd7" CreationDate="2012-10-04T19:33:36.393" UserId="76" Comment="title; tags; English; added the text of claim 1" Text="[US patent 7353199](http://www.google.com/patents/US7353199) is about a system for creating a web site where the user gets &quot;restricted&quot; access (less that full functionality) during a trial period, but &quot;full&quot; access once the user registers (e.g., pays) for the web site the user created through the system.  Claim 1 is representative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for moderating external access to an electronic document authoring, development and distribution system comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * identifying a third party requesting access to said electronic document authoring, development and distribution system;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * permitting restricted access to said third party to selected functions of said electronic document authoring, development and distribution system; and,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * eliminating all access restrictions to said selected functions in said electronic document authoring, development and distribution system which were imposed in said permitting step when said third party registers as a registered user of said electronic document authoring, development and distribution system.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1932" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="628" RevisionGUID="fc2e0f14-27b6-4bf4-875a-ff08355bdcd7" CreationDate="2012-10-04T19:33:36.393" UserId="76" Comment="title; tags; English; added the text of claim 1" Text="Web site with restricted functionality until registers, then full functionality" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1933" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="628" RevisionGUID="fc2e0f14-27b6-4bf4-875a-ff08355bdcd7" CreationDate="2012-10-04T19:33:36.393" UserId="76" Comment="title; tags; English; added the text of claim 1" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;data-processing-financial&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="630" RevisionGUID="61bd0680-5e7d-4612-8cad-3e920e08e266" CreationDate="2012-10-04T19:43:25.713" UserId="76" Comment="added 1131 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I've been looking for prior art for a Samsung patent application KR 10-2011-0029154, published as [US 2012/0254255](http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&amp;r=11&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=(20121004.PD.%20AND%20Samsung.AS.)&amp;p=1&amp;OS=PD/20121004%20AND%20AN/Samsung&amp;RS=(PD/20121004%20AND%20AN/Samsung)), priority date 2011-03-31.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just 2 hits off the first 10 for a google search on &quot;automatic diary&quot; (I tried to post more but I'm new here):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * http://replaymyday.info/&#xD;&#xA; * http://lifehacker.com/5935658/how-to-automatically-archive-your-life-with-ifttt-and-evernote&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading the text posted, all I see that is new is the language building process, which not only seems quite vague, but also easy to boil down to a simple algorithm (they half do in the patent itself).   Can we get some others to comment on why this isn;t just another software patent that shoudl not be approved?  I'm sure we can find a ton a prior art if we try to shoot this one down, automatic diaries are not even remotely new, and this, even internationally, was just filed on March 2011... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the text of claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1\. An apparatus configured to summarize daily life information of a user, the apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * an information collection unit configured to collect log information comprising the daily life information from at least one electronic device;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * an analysis unit configured to analyze the log information collected from the information collection unit and decide at least one topic representing the daily life information;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * a story generator configured to generate at least one sentence representing the daily life information using the at least one topic decided by the analysis unit;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * and a display unit configured to display the at least one sentence generated by the story generator.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1935" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="630" RevisionGUID="61bd0680-5e7d-4612-8cad-3e920e08e266" CreationDate="2012-10-04T19:43:25.713" UserId="76" Comment="added 1131 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="US 2012/0254255: automatic diary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1936" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="630" RevisionGUID="61bd0680-5e7d-4612-8cad-3e920e08e266" CreationDate="2012-10-04T19:43:25.713" UserId="76" Comment="added 1131 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;data-processing-database&gt;&lt;samsung&gt;&lt;mobile-phone&gt;&lt;us20120254255&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="631" RevisionGUID="addf2324-f54e-4499-9543-5972ba3bf861" CreationDate="2012-10-04T21:21:11.623" UserId="1281" Text="The essential element of this patent seems to be computing a hash based on other hashes.  Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Compute a hash for each file on a disk.  Then compute a hash for each directory based on the hashes of the files it contains.  Use those directory hashes to determine whether two directories have identical contents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Compute a hash for each frame of a video.  Then compute a hash for each video based on the hashes of its individual frames.  Use that to determine if two videos are identical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. In any object oriented language with a collections framework, every object provides a method to compute a hash code.  A collection computes its hash code based on the hash codes of the objects it contains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know of a collections framework from prior to 1995 that worked that way?  Java 1.0 was released in Jan. 1996, so it just missed the cutoff.  STL is older, but the initial version didn't include hashing containers.  Perhaps something in Smalltalk?  Objective C?  Eiffel?  Ada?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="631" RevisionGUID="c418c578-8685-4a17-bc98-fa6f3d5c0c4e" CreationDate="2012-10-04T21:43:39.153" UserId="1281" Comment="added 923 characters in body" Text="The essential element of this patent seems to be computing a hash based on other hashes.  Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Compute a hash for each file on a disk.  Then compute a hash for each directory based on the hashes of the files it contains.  Use those directory hashes to determine whether two directories have identical contents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Compute a hash for each frame of a video.  Then compute a hash for each video based on the hashes of its individual frames.  Use that to determine if two videos are identical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. In any object oriented language with a collections framework, every object provides a method to compute a hash code.  A collection computes its hash code based on the hash codes of the objects it contains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know of a collections framework from prior to 1995 that worked that way?  Java 1.0 was released in Jan. 1996, so it just missed the cutoff.  STL is older, but the initial version didn't include hashing containers.  Perhaps something in Smalltalk?  Objective C?  Eiffel?  Ada?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bingo!  I downloaded the [source code][1] for Python 1.0.1, released in January 1994.  Found in tupleobject.c:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    static long&#xD;&#xA;    tuplehash(v)&#xD;&#xA;        tupleobject *v;&#xD;&#xA;        {&#xD;&#xA;    	register long x, y;&#xD;&#xA;    	register int len = v-&gt;ob_size;&#xD;&#xA;    	register object **p;&#xD;&#xA;    	x = 0x345678L;&#xD;&#xA;    	p = v-&gt;ob_item;&#xD;&#xA;    	while (--len &gt;= 0) {&#xD;&#xA;    		y = hashobject(*p++);&#xD;&#xA;    		if (y == -1)&#xD;&#xA;    			return -1;&#xD;&#xA;    		x = (x + x + x) ^ y;&#xD;&#xA;    	}&#xD;&#xA;    	x ^= v-&gt;ob_size;&#xD;&#xA;    	if (x == -1)&#xD;&#xA;    		x = -2;&#xD;&#xA;    	return x;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's doing precisely what the patent describes: computing a hash for the tuple based on the hashes of the objects it contains.  That hash then gets used in various contexts to determine identity, such as when you use it as a dictionary key.  (See the source code in mappingobject.c.)  I believe this is very clear prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.python.org/download/releases/src/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1941" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="628" RevisionGUID="8f9e444a-fac2-47e8-a0aa-a750a96b4a30" CreationDate="2012-10-04T22:02:49.027" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/253978504763437056" />
  <row Id="1942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="632" RevisionGUID="86741cc4-6d3e-466e-8bac-cdb040be093a" CreationDate="2012-10-04T22:39:46.467" UserId="76" Text="Let's look at a typical case, in plain English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (A) for a first data item comprising a first plurality of parts,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider a file or message A composed of several blocks A1,…,An, where each block is a sequence of bits: A = A1 || … || An where || denotes concatenation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a1) applying a first function to each part of said first plurality of parts to obtain a corresponding part value for each part of said first plurality of parts, wherein each part of said first plurality of parts comprises a corresponding sequence of bits, and wherein the part value for each particular part of said first plurality of parts is based, at least in part, on the corresponding bits in the particular part, and wherein two identical parts will have the same part value as determined using said first function, wherein said first function comprises a first hash function; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let H be a hash function. For each block Ai, compute H(Ai): that's the “corresponding part value” of the part Ai. “Based on the corresponding bits in the particular part” is inherent in using a hash function, as in “two identical parts will have the same part value”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a2) obtaining a first value for the first data item, said first value obtained by applying a second function to the part values of said first plurality of parts of said first data item, said second function comprising a second hash function;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let G be a hash function of many arguments — for example, calculating the hash of the concatenation of its argument. The “first value for the first data item” is U = G(H(A1),…,H(An)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (B) for a second data item comprising a second plurality of parts, (…)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do it again for a second file B = B1 || … || Bm: the second value is V = G(H(B1),…,H(Bm)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (C) ascertaining whether or not said first data item corresponds to said second data item based, at least in part, on said first value and said second value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claimed method is to compare A and B using U and V, i.e. to compare two messages using the hash of the concatenation of the hashes of the blocks in each message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a well-known technique called [hash trees](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_tree), here with a depth of 2. Hash trees are also called Merkle trees, because they were invented and patented by Ralph Merkle in 1979. [US patent 4309569](http://www.google.com/patents?vid=4309569) is prior art for this claim. Merkle teaches breaking a message into parts, calculating the hash of each part (F(Yi) in equation (1)) and calculating the hash of a plurality of parts (H(i,j,Y) in equation (2)) (col.2 l.54–65). Merkle teaches applying the same method to a second message (col.3 l.50–56: the method is applied both by the transmitter and by the receiver). Merkle teaches comparing the two data items based on the hash values (called “root values” in Merkle, col.3 l.52–56).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 2–21 are simple refinements of claim 1 and are not inventive in their own right. Claims 22, 32 and 36 concern the use of the hash values to look up objects in a database. This is arguably not obvious from Merkle. However, the use of hash trees in Python [as shown by peastman](http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/631) is prior art for that use.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1943" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="313" RevisionGUID="5884887a-5056-4c4f-9c76-fd8b012fa7e1" CreationDate="2012-10-05T01:02:48.253" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/254023800667127808" />
  <row Id="1944" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="197" RevisionGUID="e85ef386-6066-4f62-9894-4d109601acf6" CreationDate="2012-10-05T04:02:48.177" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/254069099477495808" />
  <row Id="1945" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="0fc1b06a-9a1a-43d8-afce-00135b51b3ee" CreationDate="2012-10-05T07:02:48.627" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/254114398820528128" />
  <row Id="1946" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="3d93199b-693f-4a3c-9d9f-2fadfe1e8e9d" CreationDate="2012-10-05T10:02:48.307" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/254159696523579393" />
  <row Id="1947" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="200" RevisionGUID="f11a82ed-e818-4217-805a-66dbc879473b" CreationDate="2012-10-05T19:02:48.280" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/254295591742500865" />
  <row Id="1948" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="630" RevisionGUID="59041d7e-dea5-4381-b918-b5b8263fe7ce" CreationDate="2012-10-05T22:02:48.323" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/254340890871603200" />
  <row Id="1949" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="559" RevisionGUID="db99d7d5-a2af-4a23-93f6-1a208e813f39" CreationDate="2012-10-06T01:02:48.847" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/254386190499856384" />
  <row Id="1950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="633" RevisionGUID="3f918477-0e94-4c71-bf8f-95812eba31d1" CreationDate="2012-10-06T03:44:01.030" UserId="1533" Text="We have applied for a patent, it is published by 'PATENTSCOPE' of WIPO 7 months ago. It is presently with IPEA. The basis of invention is complementarity of contour patterns on the faces of a pair of discs facing each other to attain specific functions. Now we realize that identical functions can also be attained by 2 more types of contour pattern complementarities on the faces of a pair of the same discs facing each other. Rest of the application is identical. The questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Can 'my own' published application be used against 'my newer application' on the ground of 'prior-art' although the contour patterns are different?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Won't the 'doctrine of equivalence'defend my patent in a court of law if new inventors try to patent upon those two newer contour patters?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1951" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="633" RevisionGUID="3f918477-0e94-4c71-bf8f-95812eba31d1" CreationDate="2012-10-06T03:44:01.030" UserId="1533" Text="Can 'my own' published application be used against 'my newer application' on the ground of 'prior-art' ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1952" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="633" RevisionGUID="3f918477-0e94-4c71-bf8f-95812eba31d1" CreationDate="2012-10-06T03:44:01.030" UserId="1533" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1953" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="339" RevisionGUID="a51b008d-089d-4bcc-a7e6-bd4c0c736a62" CreationDate="2012-10-06T04:02:48.263" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/254431487120789504" />
  <row Id="1954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="634" RevisionGUID="de69b64e-d43b-40a4-ae92-b66994715cdc" CreationDate="2012-10-06T04:15:43.877" UserId="1099" Text="From what I understand, FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms) and RAND (Reasonable and non-discriminatory terms) patents are also patents, and the original inventor has to license them at a reasonable rate. But from what I understand, those still have to be licensed, is that correct? Anyone using those patents has to be a reasonable sum to use those patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, how can Microsoft and Apple appear to be asserting FRAND/RAND defenses against their competitors and avoid paying license fees for these FRAND/RAND patents? Shouldn't they be paying the nominal license fee involved?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the flip side of this, Microsoft and Apple (well, Microsoft at least) are also aggressively pursuing licenses from other smartphone makers for their own patents. I realize that some of their patents aren't FRAND/RAND, but given that their technology has to be used in end-user products these days - not because they're the best, but because they have become end-user standards - shouldn't there be some sort of reasonable licensing for the patents that they are asserting as well? (Cases in point: Microsoft's FAT file system patents and Apple's touch-to-zoom patent.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1955" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="634" RevisionGUID="de69b64e-d43b-40a4-ae92-b66994715cdc" CreationDate="2012-10-06T04:15:43.877" UserId="1099" Text="FRAND / RAND patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1956" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="634" RevisionGUID="de69b64e-d43b-40a4-ae92-b66994715cdc" CreationDate="2012-10-06T04:15:43.877" UserId="1099" Text="&lt;frand&gt;&lt;rand&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="636" RevisionGUID="0a8b834f-8b16-482b-a1de-b21694bdc107" CreationDate="2012-10-06T14:31:13.997" UserId="1454" Text="I have lots of ideas and, not expecting them to be unique or profitable (or knowing how to profit from them), I discuss them online, expecting the information to be helpful to others or expecting others to help me develop them further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, I've found very similar ideas patented at a date after my public discussions.  (Not that I think they directly copied me, it was likely just [multiple invention][1].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering I'm not going to spend money trying to defend something I never intended to profit from in the first place, is there anything I can do to invalidate the patent so no one has an exclusive right to it, or at least help weaken it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are probably weak prior art, though.  (Postings on forums or now-defunct wikis, Google Docs, etc., all seen by only a handful of people...)  How much detail would my postings need to be considered prior art?  What if, in private, I had sufficiently detailed the workings to constitute prior art, but my public postings didn't contain enough detail?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1962" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="636" RevisionGUID="0a8b834f-8b16-482b-a1de-b21694bdc107" CreationDate="2012-10-06T14:31:13.997" UserId="1454" Text="Can forum/wiki postings invalidate a patent that was granted at a later date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1963" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="636" RevisionGUID="0a8b834f-8b16-482b-a1de-b21694bdc107" CreationDate="2012-10-06T14:31:13.997" UserId="1454" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="636" RevisionGUID="d5718b19-4d62-4bec-8275-cb2840a18056" CreationDate="2012-10-06T14:45:21.357" UserId="1454" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="I have lots of ideas and, not expecting them to be unique or profitable (or knowing how to profit from them), I discuss them online, expecting the information to be helpful to others or expecting others to help me develop them further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, I've found very similar ideas patented at a date after my public discussions.  (Not that I think they directly copied me, it was likely just [multiple invention][1].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering I'm not going to spend money trying to defend something I [never intended to profit from][2] in the first place, is there anything I can do to invalidate the patent so no one has an exclusive right to it, or at least help weaken it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are probably weak prior art, though.  (Postings on forums or now-defunct wikis, Google Docs, etc., all seen by only a handful of people...)  How much detail would my postings need to be considered prior art?  What if, in private, I had sufficiently detailed the workings to constitute prior art, but my public postings didn't contain enough detail?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://movingtofreedom.org/2006/08/31/ben-franklin-on-patents/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="637" RevisionGUID="9557cd32-9776-4fc1-bc22-0a35d1157770" CreationDate="2012-10-06T17:51:48.543" UserId="1485" Text="&gt; Considering I'm not going to spend money trying to defend something I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; never intended to profit from in the first place, is there anything I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can do to invalidate the patent so no one has an exclusive right to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it, or at least help weaken it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The short answer is yes, but only by investing a decent amount of money in the process with no guarantee of success - something that doesn't seem particularly practical for someone in your position.  (There is a really good explanation of the various options [here][1].) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, writing a detailed post on a site like this one, citing the patents, linking to your sources to the extent they're still available, and asking if others here are aware of other prior art, could certainly make a difference if the patent owners ever try to enforce them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/590/over-time-which-patent-legislation-applies-current-or-past" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1966" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="636" RevisionGUID="01800ace-ff2e-484b-a0c5-f164e4f012a4" CreationDate="2012-10-07T01:02:48.320" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/254748577220411392" />
  <row Id="1970" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="633" RevisionGUID="20fe2174-e0cc-47ff-9e46-3904b629abac" CreationDate="2012-10-07T04:02:49.047" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/254793877788188672" />
  <row Id="1971" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="221" RevisionGUID="47804e90-296a-4003-a8b0-098e8892507e" CreationDate="2012-10-07T07:02:48.200" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/254839173180186624" />
  <row Id="1972" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="541" RevisionGUID="d7e95730-6e8c-4282-bbae-30ebbec13d44" CreationDate="2012-10-07T07:49:24.183" UserId="6" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Part of the Apple litigation related to design patents. These cover the appearance - not the functionality - of an item.  That is why the 2001 display device was relevant.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not have a citation, but I have heard that Robert Heinlein's description of a waterbed in Stranger in a Strange Land was considered sufficiently detailed and cited to be prior art for a later a patent application by someone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of my professors in law school took pride in his use of the bible as invalidating prior art for a method of using filaments to strengthen ceramics (straw in clay bricks).   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the scope of what may be considered prior art under 35 USC 102 and 103 (aka novelty and obviousness) is pretty broad. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1973" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="16009707-8e25-4554-94f6-c9c490a08316" CreationDate="2012-10-07T10:02:48.303" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/254884472640643072" />
  <row Id="1974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="638" RevisionGUID="ce5cf8b2-7c77-4a69-8c98-a0ced339869a" CreationDate="2012-10-07T12:55:34.420" UserId="1539" Text="I am trying to file a patent in a related way to this patent but i just can't understand where it is not trivial to adapt the mersenne afocal telescope from a parabolic dish to a through, for a person skilled in the art. Damn, even people not skilled in the art would find it trivial to go from 3D parabolic revolution solid to a 2D parabolic through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you think about this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1975" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="638" RevisionGUID="ce5cf8b2-7c77-4a69-8c98-a0ced339869a" CreationDate="2012-10-07T12:55:34.420" UserId="1539" Text="Where is the innovation in this patent +us20100091396+?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1976" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="638" RevisionGUID="ce5cf8b2-7c77-4a69-8c98-a0ced339869a" CreationDate="2012-10-07T12:55:34.420" UserId="1539" Text="&lt;us20100091396&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="638" RevisionGUID="f8d08e59-ab65-4632-b9fe-a2c2e7c886d4" CreationDate="2012-10-07T21:01:39.463" UserId="76" Comment="added the wording of claim 1; word more like a question and less like a rant" Text="[US patent 2010/0091396 “Afocal Optical Concentrator”](http://www.google.com/patents/US20100091396), filed 2009-10-08, claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  An optical concentration and collimation system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * A. a concave parabolic trough as a primary reflector,  &#xD;&#xA;the primary reflector having a perimeter and a surface with a center,  &#xD;&#xA;the primary reflector having a longitudinal axis and two ends and longitudinal tips at each end wherein the longitudinal axis passes through the longitudinal tips,  &#xD;&#xA;the primary reflector having a length LP as measured along the longitudinal axis between the two tips wherein the longitudinal axis has a center point and the primary reflector has a vertex OP, being the center of the surface of the primary reflector,  &#xD;&#xA;the primary reflector having an optical axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and passing through the vertex OP,  &#xD;&#xA;the primary reflector having a transverse axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and passing through the vertex point OP,  &#xD;&#xA;the primary reflector having a focal line, being the line toward which rays parallel to the optical axis incident on the primary reflector, following reflection from the primary reflector, converge, which focal line is perpendicular to the optical axis and the longitudinal axis but parallel to the transverse axis,  &#xD;&#xA;the primary reflector having a focal length, the focal length being a distance along the optical axis from the primary reflector transverse axis to the primary reflector focal line,  &#xD;&#xA;the primary reflector's optical axis extending through the vertex OP and the longitudinal axis center point and perpendicular to both the longitudinal axis and the transverse axis,  &#xD;&#xA;the primary reflector having a plane of symmetry that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and that extends through the vertex OP and the longitudinal axis center point,  &#xD;&#xA;the primary reflector having a profile being a projection of the perimeter onto a plane perpendicular to the optical axis forming the shape of an ellipse with a semi-minor axis,  &#xD;&#xA;and the primary reflector having a width WP that is twice the semi-minor axis of the ellipse of its profile and the primary reflector's length LP is twice the semi-major axis of its profile ellipse;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * B. a convex parabolic trough as a secondary reflector,  &#xD;&#xA;the secondary reflector having a surface with a center,  &#xD;&#xA;the secondary reflector having a perimeter and a profile,  &#xD;&#xA;the secondary reflector having a transverse axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the primary reflector and contained within the surface of the secondary reflector,  &#xD;&#xA;the secondary reflector having a width WS as measured perpendicular to the primary reflectors longitudinal axis and having a center point or vertex OS,&#xD;&#xA;the secondary reflector having a focal length and an optical axis, the latter being an extension of the optical axis of the primary reflector through the vertex OS of the secondary reflector,  &#xD;&#xA;the secondary vertex being the intersection of the secondary reflectors optical axis with the secondary reflectors surface,  &#xD;&#xA;the secondary reflector profile being a projection of the perimeter parallel to the optical axis onto a plane perpendicular to the optical axis,  &#xD;&#xA;the secondary reflector having a focal line, being the line from which parallel rays parallel to the optical axis incident on the secondary reflector, following reflection, diverge, which focal line is perpendicular to the optical axis but parallel to the transverse axis,  &#xD;&#xA;the secondary reflector having a focal length, the focal length being a distance along the optical axis from the secondary reflector vertex OS to the secondary reflector focal line,  &#xD;&#xA;the secondary vertex being spaced from the primary vertex so as to place the focal lines of the primary and secondary reflectors into coincidence,&#xD;&#xA;the secondary reflector having a plane of symmetry perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and containing both the optical axis and the transverse axis,&#xD;&#xA;the secondary reflector profile being circular and having a diameter&#xD;&#xA;with a radius approximately equal to half the width of the primary reflector,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the longitudinal length of the primary reflector is at least greater than the diameter of the profile of the secondary reflector; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * C. said primary and secondary reflectors arranged in a Cassegrainian configuration,  &#xD;&#xA;the primary reflector having a hole centered on the reflectors vertex OP, the hole having a perimeter, a projection of that hole's perimeter onto a plane perpendicular to the optical axis being circular with a diameter equal to or larger than the secondary reflectors profile, to allow a beam reflected from the secondary mirror to pass through it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am trying to file a patent in a related way to this patent. I just can't understand where it is not trivial to adapt the Mersenne afocal telescope from a parabolic dish to a through, for a person skilled in the art. Surely even people not skilled in the art would find it trivial to go from 3D parabolic revolution solid to a 2D parabolic through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What existing material could be clear prior art for this patent?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1978" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="638" RevisionGUID="f8d08e59-ab65-4632-b9fe-a2c2e7c886d4" CreationDate="2012-10-07T21:01:39.463" UserId="76" Comment="added the wording of claim 1; word more like a question and less like a rant" Text="Where is the innovation in patent US 2010/0091396 (afocal optical concentrator)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1979" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="638" RevisionGUID="f8d08e59-ab65-4632-b9fe-a2c2e7c886d4" CreationDate="2012-10-07T21:01:39.463" UserId="76" Comment="added the wording of claim 1; word more like a question and less like a rant" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20100091396&gt;&lt;optical-systems&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="639" RevisionGUID="edd6ae34-7d92-44bd-a35c-7a0b8ba558ea" CreationDate="2012-10-07T21:10:50.343" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="640" RevisionGUID="a4ae7df2-054c-4343-98d8-7e32bb2d1d71" CreationDate="2012-10-07T21:10:50.343" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="641" RevisionGUID="ec340960-b829-4513-bbcd-ad31e2b2d3bf" CreationDate="2012-10-07T21:12:06.530" UserId="96" Text="To qualify as prior art, a reference needs a verifiable date attached to it.  Depending on the provenance, a blog posting might suffice in and of itself.  Even if it fails, the content of the blog post might lead to other published material that does qualify as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the proposed prior art has to be &quot;published.&quot;  Publication means that it is (somehow and reasonably) available to the public.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of it this way: the bargain the government offers to an inventor is exclusive rights to his invention in exchange to revealing that invention (which would presumably remain secret otherwise) to the public.  If the invention is already known to the public - because it has been published - then the inventor is not upholding his end of the deal.  But if the invention was already know to only a select few - who were keeping it secret (whether intentionally or unintentionally) - the inventor is aiding the public by exposing the details of his invention through publication of his patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your generosity in offering your insights to the public is commendable, but could be ineffective as prior art if it is not verifiably prior to the invention date or if it is not actually published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should add that a lot of material that may at first blush seem to be prior art is not sufficiently specific to communicate the same material as a well-crafted patent.  I have not encountered a patent that was awarded on a general idea.  Unless a blog post gets into the nitty gritty of a truly new device or method, it is unlikely to be sufficient to take out an issued patent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="642" RevisionGUID="236d67a9-a2ed-429b-8e57-3998523327eb" CreationDate="2012-10-07T21:17:54.687" UserId="786" Text="Since patents are a license to enforce, I think that the owner of the first patent (you?) would have to litigate agains the owner of the second patent (you?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="633" RevisionGUID="04c68661-5a5c-400b-8c82-7ae513a1c78f" CreationDate="2012-10-07T21:22:04.250" UserId="786" Comment="tagging it" Text="We have applied for a patent, it is published by 'PATENTSCOPE' of WIPO 7 months ago. It is presently with IPEA. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basis of invention is complementarity of contour patterns on the faces of a pair of discs facing each other to attain specific functions. Now we realize that identical functions can also be attained by 2 more types of contour pattern complementarities on the faces of a pair of the same discs facing each other. Rest of the application is identical. The questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Can 'my own' published application be used against 'my newer application' on the grounds of 'prior-art' - despite that the contour patterns are different?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Won't the 'doctrine of equivalence' defend my patent in a court of law if new inventors try to patent upon those two newer contour patters?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1985" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="633" RevisionGUID="04c68661-5a5c-400b-8c82-7ae513a1c78f" CreationDate="2012-10-07T21:22:04.250" UserId="786" Comment="tagging it" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;litigation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1986" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="633" RevisionGUID="04c68661-5a5c-400b-8c82-7ae513a1c78f" CreationDate="2012-10-07T21:22:04.250" Comment="Proposed by 786 approved by 76 edit id of 204" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="639" RevisionGUID="f6bde2d7-73b2-412b-aa2f-1cca3758ee16" CreationDate="2012-10-07T22:47:36.703" UserId="76" Comment="added 575 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 359: optical systems and elements](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc359/sched359.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc359/defs359.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: holograms; optical computing without diffraction; lens, prisms, mirrors, and other components that deflect or reflect light; optical modulation; optical filters, amplifiers and converters; projection screens; stereoscopic systems; polarization; lens protections; devices for diffraction or interference; glare reduction; kaleidoscope; ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1988" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="639" RevisionGUID="f6bde2d7-73b2-412b-aa2f-1cca3758ee16" CreationDate="2012-10-07T22:47:36.703" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 6 edit id of 202" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="640" RevisionGUID="e0dd576b-2f1e-4c68-aed4-0f83f164696d" CreationDate="2012-10-07T22:47:46.127" UserId="76" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="US patent class 359: optical systems and elements" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1990" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="640" RevisionGUID="e0dd576b-2f1e-4c68-aed4-0f83f164696d" CreationDate="2012-10-07T22:47:46.127" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 6 edit id of 203" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="645" RevisionGUID="367aebd4-40a0-45a6-a335-80492dda328b" CreationDate="2012-10-08T02:47:25.750" UserId="1083" Text="My friends and I wanted to create an online advertising service that would allow someone to create an advert, pay a one time fee, pay per click of the ad and have the ad displayed on our site and the sites of people that want to get paid by incorporating this ad on their site. We noticed that this was very similar to Google's Ad System and I was wondering how I could be 100% sure that we weren't interfering on anyone's (especially Google's) patents. I've googled google's patents and I haven't found anything but I'm still not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I do to be 100% sure and get the go ahead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1997" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="645" RevisionGUID="367aebd4-40a0-45a6-a335-80492dda328b" CreationDate="2012-10-08T02:47:25.750" UserId="1083" Text="Online advertising patent questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1998" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="645" RevisionGUID="367aebd4-40a0-45a6-a335-80492dda328b" CreationDate="2012-10-08T02:47:25.750" UserId="1083" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-pending&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="646" RevisionGUID="e3551b33-ccd6-4c66-a271-3484a11ed8a5" CreationDate="2012-10-08T07:08:04.550" UserId="1544" Text="Since it is a wipo application so you have to enter in national phases after this. Now if the description of your patent going to be the same then you can file a contiuation application when you go for US national phase filing. Please note that you can file a continuation before the grant of the parent patent. Once your parent patent is granted you can not file continuation after that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do this your patent cannot be cited as prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="648" RevisionGUID="f9662525-bdeb-4b2e-bb21-5f46644ad8ae" CreationDate="2012-10-08T09:42:26.660" UserId="1546" Text="1. Is it always better to fill patent in US first before extends to other countries. What if we do the reverse, Fill patent in a small country then only extends to US. What is the advantages?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. How to fill US patent if not US citizen instead a foreigner?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2004" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="648" RevisionGUID="f9662525-bdeb-4b2e-bb21-5f46644ad8ae" CreationDate="2012-10-08T09:42:26.660" UserId="1546" Text="which country to file patent first" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2005" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="648" RevisionGUID="f9662525-bdeb-4b2e-bb21-5f46644ad8ae" CreationDate="2012-10-08T09:42:26.660" UserId="1546" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="283" RevisionGUID="85a8c177-8c79-48e9-97ef-40d07a89dc3a" CreationDate="2012-10-08T12:52:23.063" UserId="906" Comment="Fixed patent links" Text="Consider this WIPO: [METHODS FOR TREATING SOCIAL DISORDERS](http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2009065112&amp;recNum=1&amp;maxRec=1&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=&amp;queryString=ALL%3A%28US2008083755%29&amp;tab=PCT+Biblio) and its current 3 entries at national levels:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [#US20110027765](http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=%22Nader%3B+Amir%3B%22&amp;OS=%22Nader;+Amir;%22&amp;RS=%22Nader;+Amir;%22) -&gt; Reviewer has requested some changes in the claims but it's going forward.&#xD;&#xA; - UK: [#GB2467710](http://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/ApplicationNumber/GB1010044.4) -&gt; [Review is highly critical for many reasons, one being found prior art.](http://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB1010044.4/G10138515A708CP1%20-1/GB2467710-20120703-Exam%20report%20%20Standard.pdf)&#xD;&#xA; - Canada: [2706329](http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/2706329/summary.html) -&gt; No review yet(?) in Canada.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reviewer from the UK obviously did a much better job than his WIPO and US counterpart. (The WIPO review is horrible and makes absolutely no sense.) The UK reviewer findings are right and the prior art he found is obvious to anyone in the cognitive neuroscience field. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Shouldn't the American and Canadian reviewers consider this UK review and its findings before granting a patent for this application? (They don't know about the prior art.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Based on the UK review findings, could the WIPO application be voided?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If &quot;yes&quot; to Q1, how could or will this happen? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Regarding Q1 and Q3: to make this happen, do I need to communicate with the USPTO, CIPO(Canada) and/or WIPO? Where, when and what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not only is this patent not deserved, but this patent application is as if someone tried to patent cognitive behavioral therapy (the most popular and effective psychological therapy) before its widespread adoption, trying to cash on everyone dispensing and receiving it. Voiding it (for prior art?) will allow us to dispense it for free to thousands of patients. Any help will be greatly appreciated!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2010" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="283" RevisionGUID="85a8c177-8c79-48e9-97ef-40d07a89dc3a" CreationDate="2012-10-08T12:52:23.063" Comment="Proposed by 906 approved by 1 edit id of 211" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="47299086-c099-4876-a713-ea5c9b6da402" CreationDate="2012-10-08T12:52:48.320" UserId="906" Comment="Fixed patent links" Text="I was wondering whether there was sufficient prior art for some of the patents that Microsoft is using in (what I consider) strong-arming Android manufacturers? Most of those seem to have been resolved under NDA, but here's some information from the [Barnes &amp; Noble case][1] and the just-completed [Motorola case in Germany][2], [#US7411582](http://www.google.com/patents/US7411582)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [#US6891551](http://www.google.com/patents/US6891551): “Selection handles in editing electronic documents.” Issued May 10, 2005&#xD;&#xA; - [#US5778372](http://www.google.com/patents/US5778372): “Remote retrieval and display management of electronic document with incorporated images.” Issued July 7, 1998.&#xD;&#xA; - [#US6957233](http://www.google.com/patents/US6957233): “Method and apparatus for capturing and rendering annotations for non-modifiable electronic content.” Issued Oct. 18, 2005.&#xD;&#xA; - [#US7411582][4]: &quot;Soft input panel system and method.&quot; Issue date: Aug 12, 2008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.geekwire.com/2012/microsoft-barnes-noble/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/20/microsoft-wins-third-injunction-motorola-software-patent/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7411582" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2012" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="47299086-c099-4876-a713-ea5c9b6da402" CreationDate="2012-10-08T12:52:48.320" Comment="Proposed by 906 approved by 1 edit id of 210" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2013" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="628" RevisionGUID="4d83893d-4df7-4774-8f41-4fe3d8af1771" CreationDate="2012-10-08T12:52:51.050" UserId="906" Comment="Fixed patent link" Text="[Patent #us7353199](http://www.google.com/patents/US7353199) is about a system for creating a web site where the user gets &quot;restricted&quot; access (less that full functionality) during a trial period, but &quot;full&quot; access once the user registers (e.g., pays) for the web site the user created through the system.  Claim 1 is representative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for moderating external access to an electronic document authoring, development and distribution system comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * identifying a third party requesting access to said electronic document authoring, development and distribution system;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * permitting restricted access to said third party to selected functions of said electronic document authoring, development and distribution system; and,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * eliminating all access restrictions to said selected functions in said electronic document authoring, development and distribution system which were imposed in said permitting step when said third party registers as a registered user of said electronic document authoring, development and distribution system.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2014" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="628" RevisionGUID="4d83893d-4df7-4774-8f41-4fe3d8af1771" CreationDate="2012-10-08T12:52:51.050" Comment="Proposed by 906 approved by 1 edit id of 205" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="237afe4b-3611-4eaa-b0b6-44fd9ebbbaf4" CreationDate="2012-10-08T12:52:54.360" UserId="906" Comment="Fixed patent link" Text="[Patent #US20100186588| &quot;PREPARATION OF FUNCTIONALIZED ZEOLITIC FRAMEWORKS&quot;](http://www.google.com/patents/US20100186588), filed Jul 16, 2008, is for the preparation of functionalized zeolitic frameworks. Here is its claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1\. A zeolitic framework, comprising the general structure:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a plurality of the structure M-L-M, wherein M comprises a transition metal and L is a linking moiety, wherein the framework is selected from the group consisting of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) M-L-M, wherein L comprises structure III; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) M-L-M, wherein at least one L is structure III and at least one other L is structure I, II or a combination thereof:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein A can be either C or N, wherein R5-R8 are present when A1 and A4 comprise C, wherein R1, R4 or R9 comprise a non-sterically hindering group that does not interfere with M, wherein R2, R3, R5, R8, R10, R11, R12 are each individually an alkyl, halo-cyano-nitro-, wherein when the linking moiety comprises structure III, R10, R11 and R12 are each individually electron withdrawing groups, and wherein one of R6 and R7 comprise an electron withdrawing group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I saw the earlier article [The Silica-Like Extended Polymorphism of Cobalt(II) Imidazolate Three-Dimensional Frameworks: X-ray Single-Crystal Structures and Magnetic Properties][1]. Is it prior art for this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/chem.200304957/abstract;jsessionid=D27264CCB3D4BAD7A3F12CF22DF45E3B.d03t01" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2016" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="237afe4b-3611-4eaa-b0b6-44fd9ebbbaf4" CreationDate="2012-10-08T12:52:54.360" Comment="Proposed by 906 approved by 1 edit id of 208" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2027" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="648" RevisionGUID="7fcf419c-7cb2-441e-a4db-44a547717289" CreationDate="2012-10-08T14:11:48.960" UserId="14" Comment="Made title clearer." Text="Are there any advantages to making your first filing in one country vs. another?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2028" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="a95223be-cd8b-4240-a269-c692d4038f07" CreationDate="2012-10-08T14:13:21.923" UserId="14" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;gas-separation-processes&gt;&lt;chemistry&gt;&lt;us8114195&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2029" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="638" RevisionGUID="8681a084-ca28-4ded-a24d-9ebc1eb5efba" CreationDate="2012-10-08T14:18:27.610" UserId="14" Comment="Tweaked wording in title to make clarify that question is genuinely asking for the specific novel innovation, rather than protesting the patent generally." Text="What is the specific innovation in patent US 2010/0091396 (afocal optical concentrator)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="651" RevisionGUID="0972c30f-26de-49f3-8c95-c9872bba07bc" CreationDate="2012-10-08T14:47:59.537" UserId="998" Text="First, what you have linked to is a pending patent application that has not yet issued as a patent.  In my studies, I have found that more than 80% of patent applications make some narrowing amendments to their claims during the patent prosecution process. Thus, even without any outside influence, odds are that the claims that you list here will not be identical tothe ones that eventually issue as patented. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, I looked up the application and found that the USPTO has not yet issued a rejection in the case, but that it is likely to do so any day.  This means that your timeline for submitting prior art for the examiner to consider is quite short and we don't know the exact deadline. (The Prior Art must be submitted by the time that the Examiner issues the rejection). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third, the patent applicant identified four relevant pieces of prior art. Those could be good starting points: U.S. Patent Nos. [6,667,381][1]; [5,729,387][2]; [4,429,952][3]; and [3,511,559][4]. It would probably help the examiner if you were able to identify an old reference that shows the 3D parabolic revolution solid that you discussed above and explain how that reference links to the invention as claimed. It appears to me that the application is focused on using the focal process for lighting rather than for telescopic applications.  Thus, you might be really helping the examiner by identifying the link between these two approaches. You should note that at this point only claims 1-4 and 40-44 are still pending. For what its worth, the application appears to be owned by the lighting company [Sun Dolier][5]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last point: You mentioned that you are considering filing a patent application.  The patentability of your invention will not depend in any way upon whether this Son Dolier gets their patent.  Now, their eventual patent might block you from actually practicing your invention, but it wouldn't block you from getting your own patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6667381&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5729387?pg=PA6&amp;dq=5,729,387&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=3OZyUOPLGqzyyAGO4oGIDw&amp;ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4429952?pg=PA2&amp;dq=4,429,952&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=-eZyULygCI6WyAHc3IGQAw&amp;ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=4,429,952&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US3511559?pg=PA4&amp;dq=3,511,559&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=G-dyUOOqCKPWygGbrYDoCw&amp;ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=3,511,559&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.sundolier.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="652" RevisionGUID="aeafe5fd-4091-42de-ac3d-da758951a834" CreationDate="2012-10-08T15:05:10.543" UserId="998" Text="Many countries have rules associated with application filing that require you to file first in your home country.  If the invention is made in the US, then you must obtain a &quot;foreign filing license&quot; from the USPTO before filing in another country.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The decision on where-to-file and the order-of-filing and depends upon (1) where will the exclusive right associated with a patent be most valuable; (2) how much it costs to file in particular locales; (3) which patent offices's work at the speed you want; and (4) are there agreements or practices that make it easier to get a patent in one locale after first obtaining a patent in another locale?  Most US inventors file in the US first. This is explained in-part because of the foreign filing license requirement. However, it is also likely true that the US invention solves a US problem that will have a relatively large US market.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2035" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="648" RevisionGUID="e9608279-d1b4-4915-ba06-ff0f4eb5359c" CreationDate="2012-10-08T15:05:37.330" UserId="998" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="651" RevisionGUID="971c1b02-c963-4b50-9714-c91371cdc04d" CreationDate="2012-10-08T15:11:21.223" UserId="998" Comment="added 468 characters in body" Text="As you see with this application, one unfortunate aspect of the US patent law system is that patent applicants have an incentive to file applications that lack clarity. In particular, it is seen as bad practice by most patent attorneys to particularly identify the improvement because that creates a particular target that has been used in the past to narrow and invalidate patent rights.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some ideas for how to deal with this particular application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, what you have linked to is a pending patent application that has not yet issued as a patent.  In my studies, I have found that more than 80% of patent applications make some narrowing amendments to their claims during the patent prosecution process. Thus, even without any outside influence, odds are that the claims that you list here will not be identical tothe ones that eventually issue as patented. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, I looked up the application and found that the USPTO has not yet issued a rejection in the case, but that it is likely to do so any day.  This means that your timeline for submitting prior art for the examiner to consider is quite short and we don't know the exact deadline. (The Prior Art must be submitted by the time that the Examiner issues the rejection). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third, the patent applicant identified four relevant pieces of prior art. Those could be good starting points: U.S. Patent Nos. [6,667,381][1]; [5,729,387][2]; [4,429,952][3]; and [3,511,559][4]. It would probably help the examiner if you were able to identify an old reference that shows the 3D parabolic revolution solid that you discussed above and explain how that reference links to the invention as claimed. It appears to me that the application is focused on using the focal process for lighting rather than for telescopic applications.  Thus, you might be really helping the examiner by identifying the link between these two approaches. You should note that at this point only claims 1-4 and 40-44 are still pending. For what its worth, the application appears to be owned by the lighting company [Sun Dolier][5]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last point: You mentioned that you are considering filing a patent application.  The patentability of your invention will not depend in any way upon whether this Son Dolier gets their patent.  Now, their eventual patent might block you from actually practicing your invention, but it wouldn't block you from getting your own patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6667381&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5729387?pg=PA6&amp;dq=5,729,387&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=3OZyUOPLGqzyyAGO4oGIDw&amp;ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4429952?pg=PA2&amp;dq=4,429,952&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=-eZyULygCI6WyAHc3IGQAw&amp;ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=4,429,952&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US3511559?pg=PA4&amp;dq=3,511,559&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=G-dyUOOqCKPWygGbrYDoCw&amp;ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=3,511,559&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.sundolier.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="653" RevisionGUID="992e2d7b-7551-4625-875f-c3c98882e7f8" CreationDate="2012-10-08T15:43:50.230" UserId="998" Text="Your own prior publications can and will be used against your own later filed patents.  There are many many cases where someone's patents were invalidated based upon their own prior publications.  However, there are differences on this particular point depending upon where you are seeking patent protection (US vs. India vs. EPO vs. Japan...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One potential solution is for you to think about how the claims in your original filing can be slightly amended to capture infringing activity covered by your improved idea.  The basic approach with this solution is to make a patent claim generic enough to cover the various ways of arranging your apparatus.  If your original filing is descriptive enough to support this more generic claim then there is no problem regarding publication because you will have priority associated with your filing date (which is obviously before the publication date). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, assuming that you want a patent that specifically claims your new approach. In most countries you will have to be able to justify how your new approach is a significant change from your old approach.  (In the US, we call this &quot;nonobviousness&quot;, the EPO uses the term &quot;inventive step.&quot;)  What some folks do is actually rewrite the new application from scratch (using a new patent attorney).  That re-writing process tends to instill differences into the application that can additionally be used to distinguish the two processes.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the Doctrine of Equivalents (DOE).  DOE is a doctrine that extends the scope of patent protection beyond what is actually claimed in the patent.  Thus, if you claim a solution with up to 10.5% ethane, a court *might* use the DOE to find that a product with 10.6% ethane also infringes. Over the past 30-years we have seen increasing reluctance of courts to permit DOE claims.  However, DOE is a matter of patent enforcement that varies greatly from country to country. In most countries, including the USA, you will *not* *likely* be allowed to extend your patent coverage to include embodiments that you already knew could not have patented because they were disclosed by the prior art. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="633" RevisionGUID="65219e53-cb28-43b4-b49a-5cee77942eb7" CreationDate="2012-10-08T15:46:09.853" UserId="998" Comment="added 54 characters in body; edited title" Text="We have applied for a patent, it is published by 'PATENTSCOPE' of WIPO 7 months ago. It is presently with the International Preliminary Examination Authority (IPEA). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basis of invention is complementarity of contour patterns on the faces of a pair of discs facing each other to attain specific functions. Now we realize that identical functions can also be attained by 2 more types of contour pattern complementarities on the faces of a pair of the same discs facing each other. Rest of the application is identical. The questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Can 'my own' published application be used against 'my newer application' on the grounds of 'prior-art' - despite that the contour patterns are different?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Won't the 'doctrine of equivalence' defend my patent in a court of law if new inventors try to patent upon those two newer contour patters?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2039" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="633" RevisionGUID="65219e53-cb28-43b4-b49a-5cee77942eb7" CreationDate="2012-10-08T15:46:09.853" UserId="998" Comment="added 54 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can 'my own' published application be used against 'my newer application' on the ground of 'prior-art'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2040" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="633" RevisionGUID="65219e53-cb28-43b4-b49a-5cee77942eb7" CreationDate="2012-10-08T15:46:09.853" UserId="998" Comment="added 54 characters in body; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;litigation&gt;&lt;doctrine-of-equivalents&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2041" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="648" RevisionGUID="0a112647-98f4-4a74-ba95-e08be53954c5" CreationDate="2012-10-08T16:02:48.887" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/255337458693206016" />
  <row Id="2042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="654" RevisionGUID="97c85f43-6654-4a73-b595-4d97633bff3f" CreationDate="2012-10-08T16:08:44.410" UserId="998" Text="There are lots of approaches here. The only one that satisfies your 100% criteria is to give up and go home. I.e., none of the approaches are satisfactory.  However, your risk here is probably relatively much less than other entrepreneurial risks associated with this venture.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) you can conduct a freedom-to-operate search that will perhaps get a relatively good answer for you. One problem is that this won't uncover all patent rights that might have an impact.  Another problem is that your actual software implementation will be much more specific that what you stated above. Although the general idea that you stated above might not infringe anyone else's patents, your particular implementation might actually infringe someone else's patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Some folks like to obtain patent protection on their own approach with the idea that their own patent serves something like proof that their approach is new (and thus doesn't infringe any one else's patents).  While this idea has some logical appeal, I have never seen it accepted by a court of law. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) You can obtain business insurance that will cover you in case you are found liable for (non-willful) patent infringement.  You insurance may require that you use additional caution. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(4) Your company is unlikely to be sued for patent infringement unless you become a business success or threat. When you are sued for patent infringement, you should take that lawsuit as a badge of honor and respect. While a handful of companies have been put out of business by patent infringement charges, most of the time these cases settle and you go about your business with a little less profit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bottom line: Yes, it is fine to spend a bit of time making sure you are avoiding infringing other's patents, but the real focus of a new venture needs to be on how to make an excellent product and how to sell that product. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="655" RevisionGUID="3064107f-ca33-4563-965a-c2ab9f6b3224" CreationDate="2012-10-08T16:54:12.950" UserId="169" Text="What is the advantage, it depends what strategy is best for you. It's probably easier and cheaper to start patenting in your home country or in your mother language. &#xD;&#xA;But you have to figure out where is the main market or where are the competitors. Or in other words which countries are most important for you. Maybe it's better for you to use PCT or European patent system, maybe Eurasian patent system.&#xD;&#xA;As I always recommend in these cases, consult it with some patent attorney. You can't find best answer in forums for that kind of questions. To give you some recommendations it is necessary to know more detailed background information. But it's not good to publish confidential information here.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="610" RevisionGUID="d022d9fb-7760-4e22-b7ad-6f76e80ca842" CreationDate="2012-10-08T17:39:59.000" UserId="1489" Comment="added 295 characters in body" Text="How was a patent granted for a technology that violates basic physics?&#xD;&#xA;I apologize, I'm new to the site and thought I had linked to the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent number: 6025810&#xD;&#xA;Filing date: Oct 2, 1997&#xD;&#xA;Issue date: Feb 15, 2000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6025810?printsec=claims#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A method to transmit and receive electromagnetic waves which comprises... thereby sending the signal at a speed faster than light.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="645" RevisionGUID="c66eb81d-1e6a-4b9a-a09f-f05280a6b3e1" CreationDate="2012-10-08T18:23:07.273" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="My friends and I wanted to create an online advertising service that would allow someone to create an advert, pay a one time fee, pay per click of the ad and have the ad displayed on our site and the sites of people that want to get paid by incorporating this ad on their site. We noticed that this was very similar to Google's Ad System and I was wondering how I could be 100% sure that we weren't interfering on anyone's (especially Google's) patents. I've googled google's patents and I haven't found anything but I'm still not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I do to be 100% sure and get the go ahead?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2046" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="645" RevisionGUID="c66eb81d-1e6a-4b9a-a09f-f05280a6b3e1" CreationDate="2012-10-08T18:23:07.273" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How can I be sure that I'm not infringing on anyone's patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2047" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="645" RevisionGUID="c66eb81d-1e6a-4b9a-a09f-f05280a6b3e1" CreationDate="2012-10-08T18:23:07.273" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;search&gt;&lt;patent-pending&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2048" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="645" RevisionGUID="f1c30587-79f0-4148-99c5-350dd43d1f58" CreationDate="2012-10-08T19:02:48.850" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/255382757616791552" />
  <row Id="2049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="251" RevisionGUID="858ca7fd-e2d4-419c-933a-b18fe3eb4923" CreationDate="2012-10-08T20:02:13.150" UserId="594" Comment="Fixed typo" Text="Sounds like [Naked Objects][1]. Apache Isis is mentioned in the Wikipedia article. I remember running something similar for C++ in the early 90's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_objects" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2050" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="638" RevisionGUID="76da7edb-a5fd-439b-929a-a1e5cafcb936" CreationDate="2012-10-08T22:02:48.803" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/255428056443928576" />
  <row Id="2051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="656" RevisionGUID="c3d5409f-d556-43e1-a588-bb1855fc3d26" CreationDate="2012-10-08T22:37:52.333" UserId="1550" Text="I am not a lawyer but my suggestion is do not bother. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It is the patent holders responsibility to defend their patents. By searching you are doing their job for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I would say that it is impossible to be 100% sure you do not infringe. Patents are written to cover a broad range of uses; because of that I would guess that very little software is written that does not infringe on some patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If you are doing good enough to get Googles attention they may just buy you out rather than fight patents :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="657" RevisionGUID="5e534455-76b5-42d6-8271-80a69c088877" CreationDate="2012-10-08T23:30:17.470" UserId="371" Text="Sam- FRAND and RAND are types of licensing schemes, not types of patents. So any patent may be licensed under (F)RAND terms if the owner of the patent wants to do so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, many standards bodies require all members to agree to license patents that cover the standards under (F)RAND terms to other members. Some require all members to agree to license them to anyone (not just members) under (F)RAND terms. And so on. The key theme is that someone has to agree to license their patents under (F)RAND, and exactly which patents they agree to license, who they agree to license to, etc. can vary a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without trying to dive into specific questions about specific lawsuits, patents that have been offered under (F)RAND can still come into litigation in various ways, including but not limited to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The specific &quot;reasonable and non-discriminatory&quot; terms may still be very specific, and violated. (Exactly what &quot;reasonable&quot; has no global definition, though various standards bodies or relevant legal systems may define it in specific situations.)&#xD;&#xA; - The party being sued may not be a member of the standards body, or otherwise not qualify to receive the license on RAND terms.&#xD;&#xA; - The patent holder may not be party to the standards body; e.g., a troll who isn't a member of a standards body is not obligated to offer their patents on the same (F)RAND terms as members of the standards body would be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Wikipedia article on this topic][1], by the way, is not too bad and may be a useful starting point for further reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second part of your question is a bit vague, but it sounds like what you're asking (to some extent) is &quot;shouldn't people who have patents on really key, central, underlying technology have to license patents over those technologies on RAND terms&quot;? Generally speaking, at least in the US, the answer is &quot;no&quot; - patents are a legally granted monopoly, and so in many ways aren't constrained by antitrust law. It's a pretty arcane area of the law, but a decent summary of the key case (in re Independent Services Organization) can be found [here][2].&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.rkmc.com/Federal_Circuit_Closes_the_Door_on_Antitrust_Refusal_to_Deal_Claim.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="658" RevisionGUID="43821786-41d7-4460-b01e-4cb49ac7d509" CreationDate="2012-10-09T00:58:22.470" UserId="1551" Text="There are many pay-per-click advertising networks. Google AdWords isn't the only one. They may quite possibly hold patents on some details of their particular implementation, but if you step on their toes you'll probably find out quickly enough. ;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="660" RevisionGUID="88012043-9619-47ae-a948-6832ece7a0b4" CreationDate="2012-10-09T08:49:42.330" UserId="1475" Text="Filing a first (priority founding) application in a particular country can be subject to other considerations than just business wise interest where you should have protection. As Dennis crouch already rightly has indicated, it may be that some countries require that an invention that has been done in their territory and/or by their citizens has to be filed in that country unless a foreign filing license is obtained. Next to the USA also France,  Great-britain and India are examples of such countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A further criterion, also indicated by Dennis Crouch, is the language requirement. If you want to file in the USA, the application needs to be in English. If you would prefer writing in Spanish, the options are to file in Spain or any South or Middle American country (except for Brazil).&#xD;&#xA;Also the costs of filing can play a role, although you will experience that the filing fees that are required often are just a small part of the total cost of drafting and filing an application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One important factor that has not yet been highlighted is whether or not the patent office where you will file your application will provide you with a novelty search and/or a preliminary opinion on the patentability of the claims of your application within the priority year. Although having such a search performed increases the costs at filing, it generally is a good way to judge the chances of success that your invention will appear patentable. And thus on basis of the outcome of such a search and/or patentability opinion you can decide whether it would be worthwhile to continue with the patenting process in other countries. Such a search and patentability opinion can be obtained by filing with the European Patent Office, or by filing in the UK, The Netherlands or PCT (in alle these cases it is possible to file the patent text in English). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="660" RevisionGUID="1347035e-072b-4484-b255-2656acff958d" CreationDate="2012-10-09T09:00:14.953" UserId="1475" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="Filing a first (priority founding) application in a particular country can be subject to other considerations than just business wise interest where you should have protection. As Dennis crouch already rightly has indicated, it may be that some countries require that an invention that has been done in their territory and/or by their citizens has to be filed in that country unless a foreign filing license is obtained. Next to the USA also France,  the UK and India are examples of such countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A further criterion, also indicated by Dennis Crouch, is the language requirement. If you want to file in the USA, the application needs to be in English. If you would prefer writing in Spanish, the options are to file in Spain or any South or Middle American country (except for Brazil).&#xD;&#xA;Also the costs of filing can play a role, although you will experience that the filing fees that are required often are just a small part of the total cost of drafting and filing an application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One important factor that has not yet been highlighted is whether or not the patent office where you will file your application will provide you with a novelty search and/or a preliminary opinion on the patentability of the claims of your application within the priority year. Although having such a search performed increases the costs at filing, it generally is a good way to judge the chances of success that your invention will appear patentable. And thus on basis of the outcome of such a search and/or patentability opinion you can decide whether it would be worthwhile to continue with the patenting process in other countries. Such a search and patentability opinion can be obtained by filing with the European Patent Office, or by filing in the UK, The Netherlands or PCT (in alle these cases it is possible to file the patent text in English). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2064" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="141" RevisionGUID="34dfea72-ce4a-4616-b647-655912c92122" CreationDate="2012-10-09T13:02:48.737" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/255654547983327233" />
  <row Id="2068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="610" RevisionGUID="cfa7c8dc-3f30-4a0a-a38f-d74a308acfa8" CreationDate="2012-10-09T13:31:53.180" UserId="1" Comment="formatted link" Text="How was a patent granted for a technology that violates basic physics?&#xD;&#xA;I apologize, I'm new to the site and thought I had linked to the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent number: [**6025810**](http://www.google.com/patents/US6025810?printsec=claims#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;Filing date: Oct 2, 1997&#xD;&#xA;Issue date: Feb 15, 2000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A method to transmit and receive electromagnetic waves which comprises... thereby sending the signal at a speed faster than light.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2069" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="610" RevisionGUID="85c7d696-2111-43e4-8f97-30963d828b9a" CreationDate="2012-10-09T13:32:12.243" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="657" RevisionGUID="7d88d060-be64-4a12-aab3-e6b461df32a3" CreationDate="2012-10-09T16:01:59.950" UserId="371" Comment="fix sentence grammar" Text="Sam- FRAND and RAND are types of licensing schemes, not types of patents. So any patent may be licensed under (F)RAND terms if the owner of the patent wants to do so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, many standards bodies require all members to agree to license patents that cover the standards under (F)RAND terms to other members. Some require all members to agree to license them to anyone (not just members) under (F)RAND terms. And so on. The key theme is that someone has to agree to license their patents under (F)RAND, and exactly which patents they agree to license, who they agree to license to, etc. can vary a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without trying to dive into specific questions about specific lawsuits, patents that have been offered under (F)RAND can still come into litigation in various ways, including but not limited to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The specific &quot;reasonable and non-discriminatory&quot; terms may still be very specific, and violated. (&quot;reasonable,&quot; in particular, has no specific/globally-accepted definition, though various standards bodies or relevant legal systems may define it in specific situations.)&#xD;&#xA; - The party being sued may not be a member of the standards body, or otherwise not qualify to receive the license on RAND terms.&#xD;&#xA; - The patent holder may not be party to the standards body; e.g., a troll who isn't a member of a standards body is not obligated to offer their patents on the same (F)RAND terms as members of the standards body would be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Wikipedia article on this topic][1], by the way, is not too bad and may be a useful starting point for further reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second part of your question is a bit vague, but it sounds like what you're asking (to some extent) is &quot;shouldn't people who have patents on really key, central, underlying technology have to license patents over those technologies on RAND terms&quot;? Generally speaking, at least in the US, the answer is &quot;no&quot; - patents are a legally granted monopoly, and so in many ways aren't constrained by antitrust law. It's a pretty arcane area of the law, but a decent summary of the key case (in re Independent Services Organization) can be found [here][2].&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.rkmc.com/Federal_Circuit_Closes_the_Door_on_Antitrust_Refusal_to_Deal_Claim.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="663" RevisionGUID="aab8353e-62de-423d-8071-7b9a5a144262" CreationDate="2012-10-09T21:28:08.780" UserId="76" Text="The applicable limitation here is *[utility](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_%28patent%29)*. Broadly speaking, utility means that the invention must have some practical use. As described, the invention does have a practical use, which is “to transmit and receive electromagnetic waves”. That the waves allow faster-than-light transmission of information is not intrinsic in the workings of the invention. The invention may be worthless from a business perspective if it only allows traditional light-speed transmission, but that is solely the applicant's problem — if he wishes to squander his resources on an invention that is inferior (in a business sense) to other known methods, he may. So to my non-legal eye the patent doesn't seem to be dismissable on these grounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A further requirement is that the wording of the patent must [enable a reader skilled in the art to reproduce the invention](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/112). Since the claimed conclusion that the communication signal travels faster than light is not inherent in building an apparatus that embodies the method, the patent is not invalid on these grounds alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not qualified to judge whether the technical terms used in the claims (such as “accelerator”, “injection point”, etc.) are defined sufficiently precisely in the description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some patent offices (I'm not sure about the US) do systematically refuse inventions that clearly require perpetual motion. However, in general, it is not the job of patent examiners to judge whether a claimed invention contradicts the known laws of physics. This is especially true as, while a newly discovered law of physics is not patentable, an invention that makes practical use of a hitherto unknown law of physics would be patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, there is a loophole in the claim wording:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  thereby sending and receiving the communication signal at a speed faster than a known speed of light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A* known speed of light — which could be the speed of light in a medium with a high refractive index. Admittedly, this medium would be the “new dimension” that is mentioned in the background but not in the description of the preferred embodiment — the interpretation would take some work to defend.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="610" RevisionGUID="b11f0d54-6d8a-4677-8b8b-03411f764ca4" CreationDate="2012-10-09T21:30:52.663" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 77 characters in body; edited tags" Text="How was a patent granted for a technology that violates basic physics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hyper-light-speed antenna  &#xD;&#xA;Patent number: [**6025810**](http://www.google.com/patents/US6025810)  &#xD;&#xA;Filing date: Oct 2, 1997  &#xD;&#xA;Issue date: Feb 15, 2000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A method to transmit and receive electromagnetic waves which comprises... thereby sending the signal at a speed faster than light.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2074" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="610" RevisionGUID="b11f0d54-6d8a-4677-8b8b-03411f764ca4" CreationDate="2012-10-09T21:30:52.663" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 77 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;utility&gt;&lt;us6025810&gt;&lt;communications-antennas&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="664" RevisionGUID="ae0f48de-7eb9-4e3c-a68e-1b9c00be29ea" CreationDate="2012-10-09T21:34:06.530" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="665" RevisionGUID="9391c704-204a-485c-b362-eaeb09ee078a" CreationDate="2012-10-09T21:34:06.530" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2077" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="634" RevisionGUID="655d1a7c-ae43-4f08-9147-8899166bdd85" CreationDate="2012-10-09T22:02:49.667" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/255790447073587200" />
  <row Id="2078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="665" RevisionGUID="df06524e-5426-4920-a908-420367b9652a" CreationDate="2012-10-09T22:48:30.967" UserId="76" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="US patent class 343: Communications: radio wave antennas" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2079" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="665" RevisionGUID="df06524e-5426-4920-a908-420367b9652a" CreationDate="2012-10-09T22:48:30.967" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 214" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="664" RevisionGUID="3bb31f98-b226-49b1-872f-a593c90f07a3" CreationDate="2012-10-09T22:48:36.270" UserId="76" Comment="added 335 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 343: Communications: radio wave antennas](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc343/sched343.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc343/sched343.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: antennas to send or receive electromagnetic waves, antenna mounts, guides, reflectors, ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2081" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="664" RevisionGUID="3bb31f98-b226-49b1-872f-a593c90f07a3" CreationDate="2012-10-09T22:48:36.270" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 213" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2082" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="610" RevisionGUID="9d6198ad-2473-4f7e-acfc-4294bc3dca18" CreationDate="2012-10-10T01:02:49.307" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/255835744713707521" />
  <row Id="2083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="666" RevisionGUID="e5035684-073f-45fe-a827-5e0d0f139b99" CreationDate="2012-10-10T01:17:20.460" UserId="1564" Text="SecurityAndPrivacyGuru made a good case for this particular patent being based on prior art. However, I haven't heard anyone discuss the &quot;rubberband&quot; concept - the &quot;snapping&quot; of the window screen when the minimum or maximum bounce values are crossed. Also, the deceleration of the scroll isn't discussed either. Those are unique and non-obvious traits in my humble opinion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2084" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="133" RevisionGUID="a3330d42-79c6-48d6-a221-8d700ecb1d7f" CreationDate="2012-10-10T10:02:49.287" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/255971640171692033" />
  <row Id="2085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="667" RevisionGUID="a8036bb4-c457-4b44-a3ed-0c22787e31c1" CreationDate="2012-10-10T17:39:41.847" UserId="1569" Text="This patent relies on an invention which Apple did not invent, multi-touch screens, which is itself the prior art. Apple simply uses the invention to improve its own product. Limiting how that the multi-touch screen invention(via the patents in question) can be used, also limits the inventors ability to use the invention. If this patent is considered valid, it is possible, and likely, that every action on a multi-touch screen could be patented, eventually the inventor of the multi-touch screen would not be able to create programming for the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent does not cover an invention, but instead covers a use of a previous invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="668" RevisionGUID="82ba1ebc-4923-480d-91e4-5f2dc1bfecc3" CreationDate="2012-10-10T18:42:57.337" UserId="1569" Text="Example:  &#xD;&#xA;PersonA files a patent, such as a gesture, which depends on a touch screen.  &#xD;&#xA;PersonB holds the patent for touch screens.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PersonA is therefore patenting a use for touch screens. PersonA's patent now limits what PersonB can do with the touch screen patent. Assume PersonA patents all obvious uses of the touch screen. Now PersonA is the only person who can reasonably implement PersonB's invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2087" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="668" RevisionGUID="82ba1ebc-4923-480d-91e4-5f2dc1bfecc3" CreationDate="2012-10-10T18:42:57.337" UserId="1569" Text="Are patents which are depenent on prior inventions valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2088" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="668" RevisionGUID="82ba1ebc-4923-480d-91e4-5f2dc1bfecc3" CreationDate="2012-10-10T18:42:57.337" UserId="1569" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2089" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="193" RevisionGUID="091ea30f-291f-4ff3-b43d-a8bca7ca1f73" CreationDate="2012-10-10T19:02:52.047" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/256107547134676993" />
  <row Id="2094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="616" RevisionGUID="e3718c4f-c391-4905-9d18-b4a5a6dc4607" CreationDate="2012-10-10T19:35:25.680" UserId="603" Comment="Copy edited. In English, the subjective form of the singular first-person pronoun, &quot;I&quot;, is capitalized, along with all its contractions such as I'll and I'm." Text="I had an idea for a new piece of technology, a gadget. I found a patent filed and though the intent of the invention and results are similar to what I would propose, my method (technology for obtaining the result) would be different as technology has improved (that patent was filed in 1988! - which in itself may mean it's expired?). There are several other patents which reference this, which are newer — so those would probably also factor into this I assume?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the address or name of a reference website or book that discusses what I could do in order to pursue my invention? Are there specialists who help in this situation, as a resource (before going to a patent lawyer I suppose)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would love to get funding and develop this, but I want to make sure I move forward smartly.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2095" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="616" RevisionGUID="e3718c4f-c391-4905-9d18-b4a5a6dc4607" CreationDate="2012-10-10T19:35:25.680" UserId="603" Comment="Copy edited. In English, the subjective form of the singular first-person pronoun, &quot;I&quot;, is capitalized, along with all its contractions such as I'll and I'm." Text="Seeking direction to educate myself on the patent process" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2096" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="616" RevisionGUID="e3718c4f-c391-4905-9d18-b4a5a6dc4607" CreationDate="2012-10-10T19:35:25.680" Comment="Proposed by 603 approved by 76 edit id of 217" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="669" RevisionGUID="8a654c8d-dd79-4098-ac3d-829d6ed58735" CreationDate="2012-10-10T20:02:32.260" UserId="76" Text="Almost every patent depends on a prior invention. If the invention is a material object, it probably depends on metal or plastic production techniques, chemical engineering, and other steps necessary to its manufacture. If the invention is the use of an algorithm on a computer, it depends on the many pieces of technology that are necessary to build a computer. It wouldn't make any sense to prevent patenting an invention that cannot be realized without other technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is in fact perfectly permissible, and routine, to patent improvements on previous inventions. For example, a cheaper manufacturing process, or a smaller device that was previously known to be possible. In the United States, the applicable law ([USC 35 §101](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/101)) reads (my emphasis):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any *new and useful improvement thereof*, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several flaws in your reasoning. One is that there is no such thing as “the patent for touch screens”. A patent is granted on a specific method for achieving a result, not on the result itself. A touchscreen is a result: an apparatus that both displays images and reacts to the touch of a finger or stylus. There are [many ways](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchscreen#Technologies) to accomplish this result (e.g. resistive, capacitive, etc.), and each of these is likely to be covered by many patents that concern a small part of the device or its manufacturing process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A second flaw is that even if person A held a patent covering a specific use of touchscreens, it would not prevent person B or anyone else from using touchscreens for another purpose. It is practically impossible to patent “all obvious uses of touchscreens”. For one thing, if it's obvious, it isn't patentable. Assuming you really meant *all the uses of touchscreens that anybody has thought of*, that's a tall order. Once again, a patent would have to cover a specific use of touchscreens, for one specific purpose. It does happen sometimes that a company can effectively “lock” the use of a technology by holding key patents related to that technology, but even then what it usually means is that the alternate ways to accomplish the same result, while known, are more expensive than paying royalties for the best method.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the specific case of [two Apple patents related to multi-touch screens](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/394/could-apples-recent-patents-be-based-on-prior-art/667#667), these patents cover the use of specific gestures to accomplish specific results (a particular way to scroll or zoom). Even if the patents are valid, they would not cover any method to scroll or zoom using multiple fingers on a touchscreen that does not follow the precise sequence of steps listed in the claims, let alone the use of multi-touch to do anything other than scroll or zoom.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2100" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="668" RevisionGUID="479dc039-4639-4ab4-b174-5487d9ea718c" CreationDate="2012-10-10T20:02:47.393" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="670" RevisionGUID="0c7a290b-2621-4397-8018-01269a31df9a" CreationDate="2012-10-10T23:02:26.830" UserId="1571" Text="Are there any Companies that assist in Pre-patent research? I have Googled this extensively and have only found The Davis Group, whose initial fees for a prototype and market research exceed $20,000.00. Thank you. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2102" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="670" RevisionGUID="0c7a290b-2621-4397-8018-01269a31df9a" CreationDate="2012-10-10T23:02:26.830" UserId="1571" Text="Patent Company Needed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2103" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="670" RevisionGUID="0c7a290b-2621-4397-8018-01269a31df9a" CreationDate="2012-10-10T23:02:26.830" UserId="1571" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="671" RevisionGUID="f8630923-b97c-4df0-9463-b96c8a797645" CreationDate="2012-10-11T02:20:18.590" UserId="371" Text="Putting aside some quibbles with the exact example, Person B's patent is what is known as a &quot;blocking patent.&quot; It is blocking, not in the sense that it blocks Person A from getting a patent, but that it blocks someone from practicing Person A's patent unless they also license Person B's patent. There is nothing in patent law that specifically prohibits the creation of blocking patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="672" RevisionGUID="272e4ff2-9e9c-485c-912f-a507b2733b7b" CreationDate="2012-10-11T04:44:02.297" UserId="1573" Text="Although [Square][1]'s credit card reader technology is [patented][2], more and more companies have been using Square's audio jack technology (Payfirma, Payd, Payleven).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be legal to purchase Square credit card readers off of eBay or AT&amp;T and develop my own mobile applications using its technology? This is assuming I sell these applications as a SaaS or off the app store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://squareup.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=VFzXAAAAEBAJ&amp;dq=7810729" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2106" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="672" RevisionGUID="272e4ff2-9e9c-485c-912f-a507b2733b7b" CreationDate="2012-10-11T04:44:02.297" UserId="1573" Text="Would it be legal to use Square's credit card reader for a startup?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2107" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="672" RevisionGUID="272e4ff2-9e9c-485c-912f-a507b2733b7b" CreationDate="2012-10-11T04:44:02.297" UserId="1573" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;electronics&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="673" RevisionGUID="91378b4b-9701-4365-95bb-a9d7f807bc2c" CreationDate="2012-10-11T06:07:28.357" UserId="1574" Text="I have a concept for a technology that requires a currently non-existing material. I can describe the properties of this material. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find a good real-life material for this concept, only materials that would partially work in one way but not in other ways necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know this is pretty far fetched, but what is the possibility of obtaining a patent (or preliminary patent) for said technology in this case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2109" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="673" RevisionGUID="91378b4b-9701-4365-95bb-a9d7f807bc2c" CreationDate="2012-10-11T06:07:28.357" UserId="1574" Text="Patent that references non-existing material" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2110" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="673" RevisionGUID="91378b4b-9701-4365-95bb-a9d7f807bc2c" CreationDate="2012-10-11T06:07:28.357" UserId="1574" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="674" RevisionGUID="cc0e5eb7-4223-43fb-b723-0fd65c6c97d0" CreationDate="2012-10-11T07:27:42.517" UserId="1576" Text="I have to do my final year project and I am going to do some kind of stuff that no one has yet attempted to do, though the completion of the project involves some things that have already been done but I am extending those ideas to do something that no one has yet done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In simple words I have an idea that needs combination of two ideas plus something from my own.(The idea is actually to do something that had always been done by humans and for the first time a software will be used for the purpose)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I claim this idea to be an intellectual property of mine so that no one else attempts to do it while I am doing the project?If Anybody does it after my project, will he need a license from me?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2112" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="674" RevisionGUID="cc0e5eb7-4223-43fb-b723-0fd65c6c97d0" CreationDate="2012-10-11T07:27:42.517" UserId="1576" Text="Can a new idea for a software project be an intellectual property?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2113" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="674" RevisionGUID="cc0e5eb7-4223-43fb-b723-0fd65c6c97d0" CreationDate="2012-10-11T07:27:42.517" UserId="1576" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;project&gt;&lt;ideas&gt;&lt;intellectual-property&gt;&lt;licence&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2114" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="668" RevisionGUID="dee6a580-ff2c-47c9-ab75-e4ef0827438f" CreationDate="2012-10-11T10:02:51.727" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/256334037508038656" />
  <row Id="2115" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="670" RevisionGUID="dab140e5-13d6-4fae-9cd0-939c08e0e1d4" CreationDate="2012-10-11T13:57:55.170" UserId="1" Comment="Reworded to remove the direct solicitation" Text="Are there any companies that assist in pre-patent research?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="670" RevisionGUID="dab140e5-13d6-4fae-9cd0-939c08e0e1d4" CreationDate="2012-10-11T13:57:55.170" UserId="1" Comment="Reworded to remove the direct solicitation" Text="Are there any companies that assist in pre-patent research? I have Googled this extensively and have only found The Davis Group, whose initial fees for a prototype and market research exceed $20,000.00. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2117" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="670" RevisionGUID="dab140e5-13d6-4fae-9cd0-939c08e0e1d4" CreationDate="2012-10-11T13:57:55.170" UserId="1" Comment="Reworded to remove the direct solicitation" Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2118" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="672" RevisionGUID="b41fa7d1-b658-4e17-a261-69cd3c906f7c" CreationDate="2012-10-11T14:04:05.087" UserId="1" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="675" RevisionGUID="45886cc6-81a2-4522-8798-7bb112e8992c" CreationDate="2012-10-11T14:49:41.587" UserId="1577" Text="How to patents become &quot;essential patents&quot;? Do the companies submit them to become standards or are they deemed &quot;standard&quot; based on their nature? Are peripheral patents more powerful than essential ones in patent disputes? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2120" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="675" RevisionGUID="45886cc6-81a2-4522-8798-7bb112e8992c" CreationDate="2012-10-11T14:49:41.587" UserId="1577" Text="What are standard-essential patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2121" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="675" RevisionGUID="45886cc6-81a2-4522-8798-7bb112e8992c" CreationDate="2012-10-11T14:49:41.587" UserId="1577" Text="&lt;standards&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="676" RevisionGUID="eb21ba29-3272-42da-8081-5db3182a46fb" CreationDate="2012-10-11T15:06:23.853" UserId="1425" Text="Given that the patent office has issued multiple patents for perpetual motion machines, which not only *don't* exist but *can't* exist, I don't see any reason that the non-existent material would necessarily be a barrier to patenting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2123" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="674" RevisionGUID="c0309987-0c17-498a-abe0-0c40b5e5f7e3" CreationDate="2012-10-11T16:30:19.577" UserId="1" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;intellectual-property&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="677" RevisionGUID="4e5be66d-0245-45f2-867c-f2c11dc1c231" CreationDate="2012-10-11T16:46:06.680" UserId="96" Text="One of the requirements of a patent is that it **enables** one of ordinary skill in the art to replicate the claimed invention.  What you describe does not seem to meet this criterion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, one of the criteria for demonstrating obviousness is that the claimed invention combines known elements to achieve a predictable results.  The sketch you draw would likely run afoul of this criterion as well.  Though the material you need is not currently known, it seems that the result of combining it with other materials is predictable - given that you are predicting it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="678" RevisionGUID="c35d857e-1e9f-4ffd-89ea-deca8d6f5217" CreationDate="2012-10-11T18:11:00.550" UserId="1579" Text="Could you explain me how the 35 USC 112 rule is satisfied by the patent US5946647: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The specification shall contain a written description of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; such **full**, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person&#xD;&#xA;&gt; skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US5946647 patent specification defines an analyzer server. The analyzing server consists of a parser and a grammar file. The parser retrieves a grammar from the grammar file and parses text using the retrieved grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [00030]  Referring now to FIG. 3, a block diagram illustrating an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; analyzer server 220 is shown. In this figure, analyzer server 220 is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; described as having a parser 310 and a grammar file 320, although&#xD;&#xA;&gt; alternatively or additionally a fast string search function or other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; function can be used. Parser 310 retrieves a grammar from grammar file&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 320 and parses text using the retrieved grammar. Upon identification&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of a structure in the text, parser 310 links the actions associated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with the grammar to the identified structure. More particularly,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parser 310 retrieves from grammar file 320 pointers attached to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; grammar and attaches the same pointers to the identified structure.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These pointers direct the system to the associated actions contained&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in associated actions file 330. Thus, upon selection of the identified&#xD;&#xA;&gt; structure, user interface 240 can locate the linked actions.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [00031]  FIG. 4 illustrates an example of an analyzer server 220,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which includes grammars 410 and a string library 420 such as a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dictionary, each with associated actions. One of the grammars 410 is a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; telephone number grammar with associated actions for dialing a number&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identified by the telephone number grammar or placing the number in an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electronic telephone book. Analyzer server 220 also includes grammars&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for post-office addresses, e-mail addresses and dates, and a string&#xD;&#xA;&gt; library 420 containing important names. When analyzer server 220&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identifies an address using the &quot;e-mail address&quot; grammar, actions for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sending e-mail to the identified address and putting the identified&#xD;&#xA;&gt; address in an e-mail address book are linked to the address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a normal software engineer. And, after reading the patent, I do not know how to make the parser, because there are many possible implementations of the parser, and all of them have drawbacks. For example, to extract an e-mail from the text I can use one from many of regular expressions (http://www.regular-expressions.info/email.html). I will have to strongly consider how to implement the parser and how to define the grammar file. Also, I do not know, which is the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out the parser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please, help me understand how the patent law works?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US5946647 is used by Apple against HTC and Samsung.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards&#xD;&#xA;Antoni Jakubiak" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2126" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="678" RevisionGUID="c35d857e-1e9f-4ffd-89ea-deca8d6f5217" CreationDate="2012-10-11T18:11:00.550" UserId="1579" Text="US5946647 and 35 USC 112" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2127" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="678" RevisionGUID="c35d857e-1e9f-4ffd-89ea-deca8d6f5217" CreationDate="2012-10-11T18:11:00.550" UserId="1579" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;samsung&gt;&lt;htc&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2131" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="678" RevisionGUID="1559ebbc-0013-48fe-a69f-7c3664e9f62f" CreationDate="2012-10-11T19:02:52.323" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/256469932496265218" />
  <row Id="2132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="680" RevisionGUID="e353e7f9-48c1-496f-a218-71d4be592d91" CreationDate="2012-10-11T19:09:11.797" UserId="96" Text="Applying the criteria that you quote from section 112, the question is not whether you can build the same parser element but whether you can build the **invention** - perhaps using any one of several parsers to satisfy the parser element of the invention.  Not every element of a claimed invention has to be defined in excruciating detail.  The question is whether one of ordinary skill in the art can build the invention based on the information set out in the patent - Figures, Specification and Claims all taken together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not at all uncommon that some claim elements can be satisfied in multiple ways.  If one of ordinary skill in the art can choose among several options - each of which permits assembling the claimed invention - then the inventor has given a full description of that claim element.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="681" RevisionGUID="cc058faa-6bd1-4422-bacb-1a2a6451455f" CreationDate="2012-10-11T21:06:02.240" UserId="1485" Text="&gt; I am a normal software engineer. And, after reading the patent, I do&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not know how to make the parser, because there are many possible&#xD;&#xA;&gt; implementations of the parser, and all of them have drawbacks. ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will have to strongly consider how to implement the parser and how&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to define the grammar file. Also, I do not know, which is the best&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out the parser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As user96 said, you've already stated you do, in fact, know not just one but several possible ways to implement the parser, you just don't know which of the several implementations would be best for your purposes.  The general rule is that the invention has to be enabled such that a person having ordinary skill in the art (you, it sounds like) could create the claimed invention using your basic knowledge and skills combined with the teachings of the specification and without resorting to &quot;undue experimentation.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without more information, it's hard to give a solid answer, but it doesn't sound like what you're talking about, e.g. having to &quot;strongly consider&quot; how to implement the parser or define the grammar file, would rise to the level of &quot;undue experimentation.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, **if** the inventor has a &quot;best mode&quot; in mind when they file, they are supposed to disclose it, but they are not obligated to have actually contemplated a best mode prior to filing.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="672" RevisionGUID="c57036a4-4de3-46ce-82b8-15a42507b060" CreationDate="2012-10-11T21:31:04.323" UserId="76" Comment="added 689 characters in body" Text="[Square][1]'s credit card reader technology is [patented][2]. Here's a claim from patent US7810729 for illustration:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1\.  A card reader device for reading a card having data stored on a magnetic stripe incorporated into the card the device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * a read head for passing a magnetic stripe of a card by to read data stored on a magnetic stripe and for producing a signal indicative of data stored on a magnetic stripe;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * a signal setting device for setting an amplitude of the signal indicative of data stored on a magnetic stripe; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * an output jack adapted to be inserted into a microphone input associated with a cell phone for providing the signal indicative of data stored on a magnetic stripe to a cell phone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In spite of that more and more companies have been using Square's audio jack technology (Payfirma, Payd, Payleven).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be legal to purchase Square credit card readers off of eBay or AT&amp;T and develop my own mobile applications using its technology? This is assuming I sell these applications as a SaaS or off the app store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://squareup.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=VFzXAAAAEBAJ&amp;dq=7810729" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="673" RevisionGUID="9c25bd9c-ba7b-46a9-8e72-34a8dcda233a" CreationDate="2012-10-11T21:31:55.960" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I have a concept for a technology that requires a currently non-existing material. I can describe the properties of this material. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find a good real-life material for this concept, only materials that would partially work in one way but not in other ways necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know this is pretty far fetched, but what is the possibility of obtaining a patent (or preliminary patent) for said technology in this case?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2136" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="673" RevisionGUID="9c25bd9c-ba7b-46a9-8e72-34a8dcda233a" CreationDate="2012-10-11T21:31:55.960" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="682" RevisionGUID="814f39aa-50c6-4d33-b85b-667e8df94b7b" CreationDate="2012-10-11T21:39:19.350" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="683" RevisionGUID="397f3f15-6c3f-45c9-8561-0823899fb570" CreationDate="2012-10-11T21:39:19.350" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="684" RevisionGUID="df3ecc49-af7c-4a5d-94ec-2b1e0d1bd129" CreationDate="2012-10-11T21:42:23.403" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="685" RevisionGUID="191a3630-b524-4ebc-911f-06ace5bdba08" CreationDate="2012-10-11T21:42:23.403" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="678" RevisionGUID="71e9cab2-4570-4ef3-b6af-aa12acabd96a" CreationDate="2012-10-11T21:47:36.703" UserId="76" Comment="added 18 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Could you explain me how the 35 USC 112 rule is satisfied by the patent [US5946647](http://www.google.com/patents/US5946647): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The specification shall contain a written description of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; such **full**, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person&#xD;&#xA;&gt; skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US5946647 patent specification defines an analyzer server. The analyzing server consists of a parser and a grammar file. The parser retrieves a grammar from the grammar file and parses text using the retrieved grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [00030]  Referring now to FIG. 3, a block diagram illustrating an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; analyzer server 220 is shown. In this figure, analyzer server 220 is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; described as having a parser 310 and a grammar file 320, although&#xD;&#xA;&gt; alternatively or additionally a fast string search function or other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; function can be used. Parser 310 retrieves a grammar from grammar file&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 320 and parses text using the retrieved grammar. Upon identification&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of a structure in the text, parser 310 links the actions associated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with the grammar to the identified structure. More particularly,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parser 310 retrieves from grammar file 320 pointers attached to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; grammar and attaches the same pointers to the identified structure.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These pointers direct the system to the associated actions contained&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in associated actions file 330. Thus, upon selection of the identified&#xD;&#xA;&gt; structure, user interface 240 can locate the linked actions.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [00031]  FIG. 4 illustrates an example of an analyzer server 220,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which includes grammars 410 and a string library 420 such as a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dictionary, each with associated actions. One of the grammars 410 is a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; telephone number grammar with associated actions for dialing a number&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identified by the telephone number grammar or placing the number in an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electronic telephone book. Analyzer server 220 also includes grammars&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for post-office addresses, e-mail addresses and dates, and a string&#xD;&#xA;&gt; library 420 containing important names. When analyzer server 220&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identifies an address using the &quot;e-mail address&quot; grammar, actions for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sending e-mail to the identified address and putting the identified&#xD;&#xA;&gt; address in an e-mail address book are linked to the address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a normal software engineer. And, after reading the patent, I do not know how to make the parser, because there are many possible implementations of the parser, and all of them have drawbacks. For example, to extract an e-mail from the text I can use one from many of [regular expressions](http://www.regular-expressions.info/email.html). I will have to strongly consider how to implement the parser and how to define the grammar file. Also, I do not know, which is the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out the parser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please, help me understand how the patent law works?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US5946647 is used by Apple against HTC and Samsung.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2144" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="678" RevisionGUID="71e9cab2-4570-4ef3-b6af-aa12acabd96a" CreationDate="2012-10-11T21:47:36.703" UserId="76" Comment="added 18 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;us5946647&gt;&lt;data-processing-language&gt;&lt;enablement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2145" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="675" RevisionGUID="a0b8776b-7e0b-45cf-82b9-feb773147b55" CreationDate="2012-10-11T21:49:18.357" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;standards&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2146" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="674" RevisionGUID="9226534e-d6cd-4687-9a18-f118a194e436" CreationDate="2012-10-11T22:02:51.630" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/256515231637966848" />
  <row Id="2147" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="678" RevisionGUID="cffdd3c0-ffcf-4145-9b72-58cc80f4118d" CreationDate="2012-10-11T22:05:57.387" UserId="1" Comment="Englished up the title a bit. Changed 'law' tag to the more apt [patentability] (see tag wiki)." Text="Does this analyzer server meet the &quot;full, clear, concise&quot; terms of 35 USC 112?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2148" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="678" RevisionGUID="cffdd3c0-ffcf-4145-9b72-58cc80f4118d" CreationDate="2012-10-11T22:05:57.387" UserId="1" Comment="Englished up the title a bit. Changed 'law' tag to the more apt [patentability] (see tag wiki)." Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;us5946647&gt;&lt;data-processing-language&gt;&lt;enablement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="682" RevisionGUID="471e665d-f641-4138-b38f-65feb54396c5" CreationDate="2012-10-11T22:09:36.243" UserId="76" Comment="added 330 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 417: pumps](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc417/sched417.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc417/defs417.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: pump parts (pistons, motors, chambers, valves, mounts, ...), operation of systems of multiple pumps, regulation, ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2150" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="682" RevisionGUID="471e665d-f641-4138-b38f-65feb54396c5" CreationDate="2012-10-11T22:09:36.243" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 218" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="685" RevisionGUID="63b48870-fdb5-48a7-99ab-d4c4bfc17ec7" CreationDate="2012-10-11T22:09:38.770" UserId="76" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="US patent class 60: power plants" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2152" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="685" RevisionGUID="63b48870-fdb5-48a7-99ab-d4c4bfc17ec7" CreationDate="2012-10-11T22:09:38.770" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 221" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="683" RevisionGUID="26fbb700-219a-4650-b582-3fc50942972b" CreationDate="2012-10-11T22:09:41.017" UserId="76" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="US patent class 417: pumps" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2154" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="683" RevisionGUID="26fbb700-219a-4650-b582-3fc50942972b" CreationDate="2012-10-11T22:09:41.017" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 219" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="684" RevisionGUID="07340799-b283-4caf-949d-6fefe4a1f154" CreationDate="2012-10-11T22:09:45.133" UserId="76" Comment="added 331 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 60: power plants](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc060/sched060.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc060/defs060.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: reaction motors, internal combustion engines, combustion products, pressure sources, usage of natural heat, ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2156" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="684" RevisionGUID="07340799-b283-4caf-949d-6fefe4a1f154" CreationDate="2012-10-11T22:09:45.133" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 220" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="686" RevisionGUID="8d327235-0840-4948-a53c-f2ec75386f43" CreationDate="2012-10-11T22:14:22.817" UserId="76" Text="There are two forms of intellectual property that might apply here: [patents](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent) and [copyright](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright). Patents can cover the idea but require considerable effort to get. Copyright is automatic but does not cover the idea, only the software itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent covers a specific method to accomplish a certain practical result. If your idea leads to some new practical realization, you can apply for a patent; this gives you an exclusive right to use the specific method for the specified purpose for a few years. New is called “no prior art”: it means that no one has ever done it that way before (except perhaps in private), or publicly described how to do it (even if they merely described the method but never wrote the software, that's prior art), or filed a patent about it. Getting a patent requires a substantial initial effort and expense (see e.g. http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/90/is-it-practical-for-a-novice-to-successfully-file-a-patent-without-hiring-a-pate). It is not automatic. If you publish your work, you can no longer patent it (except in a few countries, including the Unites States, where you have a 1 year grace period to file a patent). Your project defense or report would count as a public disclosure unless you take care to require a confidentiality agreement from all the people who have access to your report (some schools might be accommodating).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Copyright applies to works of literature, art and other original creations. Software is subject to copyright. Copyright is automatic: as soon as you create the work, you hold the copyright on it. You do not need to apply for or file anything (though in some jurisdiction filing increases the damages you can claim if someone breaches your copyright). Copyright only covers the software or works derived from that software. Someone else may look at how your software works and write their own code that implements the same idea, or they might have the same idea independently; you do not have a monopoly on the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way you might try to benefit from your idea is by keeping it secret, and making people pay to use the software or to obtain a description of the idea. Under [trade secret](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret) regulations, you do get some protection from the law if someone divulges your secret while under an agreement not to do so. If you accidentally release some information, or if someone else independently discovers the idea, you do not have any protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is fairly rare that a “final year project” leads to an idea that is so valuable that it is worthwhile going to the expense of protecting it. Do consult your educational institution: they might have in-house legal help, or conversely they might require you to publish your work in order to get your degree. They might also lay claim to some part of any benefit you get from the idea, as that idea might have been partly due to your advisor or other professors or mentors.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="687" RevisionGUID="e82755a6-ae40-4edd-a5d2-7a29f731f6e8" CreationDate="2012-10-11T22:18:03.763" UserId="76" Text="This particular patent covers the card reader device. If you purchase such a device and use it, the patent does not apply to you: it would only apply if you wanted to manufacture or sell a device using the same technology. In effect, you paid for the patent when you bought the device. Software that you might write to run on the device or to interact with the device is unrelated to patent claims on the device itself. There may, of course, be other applicable patents, from Square or others.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="688" RevisionGUID="a02e62c3-87ae-4489-b4e2-d049b43b4adf" CreationDate="2012-10-11T22:20:24.337" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="689" RevisionGUID="b8db00b7-3934-4916-9b32-de96c3510b63" CreationDate="2012-10-11T22:20:24.337" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="690" RevisionGUID="e975520e-26d7-49d2-9df4-cf6a0b32f254" CreationDate="2012-10-11T22:27:58.650" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="691" RevisionGUID="7247218d-93ca-45f5-9233-19ca9fddf2cf" CreationDate="2012-10-11T22:27:58.650" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="692" RevisionGUID="1c4cbf4f-f0fc-44bc-862c-b7f669e1c405" CreationDate="2012-10-11T22:58:18.103" UserId="1335" Text="For software, there are two main ways of claiming intellectual property. Firstly, your work would automatically be covered by copyright. However, that will not protect the essential idea in your project. Anybody else could re-implement the idea on their own and sidestep your copyright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, to protect the main idea itself, you could attempt to patent its implementation, which seems to be what you're thinking. From what you've disclosed here, there is no way to advise whether it would be patentable. But you certainly can try. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*However*... Getting a patent is a costly, lengthy and difficult process, especially for a student. Moreover, it can take many years for a patent to issue -- if it does at all -- and until then you cannot (usually) enforce it to keep others from doing the same thing. Your project will likely be long done by then, so you probably would not be able to prevent others from doing it *while* you're working on the project. You *could* tell everyone that it is &quot;patent-pending&quot; and hope that is enough discourage competitors. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After it issues, on the other hand, you can try to enforce it or license it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*However*... Understand that nobody is automatically obligated to *come to you* for a license. *You* will have to find *them*, approach them, and *get* them to either license or cease &amp; desist. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That, again, is a very complicated proposition... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Your claims, as allowed, might not cover the other's work because they do it differently.&#xD;&#xA;2. The market for the invention, or of the infringing products, may be very small, and the value of the license may be low.&#xD;&#xA;3. Even if it is actually infringed, the infringer may not wish to license it from you, and your only option at that time would be a lawsuit, an even more mind-bogglingly costly, lengthy and difficult prospect, for which you may need to turn to a &quot;patent assertion entity.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*However*... You could choose to bring the invention to market yourself, and having a patent does help in securing investments and VC funding. The coverage of the claims and infringement potential would not be a huge concern in that case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, if you *do* get good claims, and products with high market value *do* infringe it, and you *do* get good representation, and *do* get it licensed, you could make decent money off it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I may sound discouraging, but there are a lot of common misconceptions about what patents really cover, and the ease of securing and licensing patents. What I'm saying is, a patent may be a good option, but think it through carefully, and only go for it if you really think it's going to be worth it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="693" RevisionGUID="3f7ad9b7-b463-4bcb-bb41-6be86d679b07" CreationDate="2012-10-12T00:04:36.223" UserId="1581" Text="To hopefully further expound on what user96 said, this patent sounds a whole lot like the Interpreter Pattern (&lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpreter_pattern&gt;), but in patent-speak. One or more regular expressions would certainly constitute an appropriate set of grammars for certain actions (e.g., call a phone number), and for more complex grammatical rules, you could use a tool (ANTLR, Bison, Yacc, etc) to generate some code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I note that the filing date is 1996; the Interpreter Pattern was included in the Gang of Four's Design Patterns book in 1995, and must have been in general use before that date to have been included in the book. The diagrams also seem to be of ... well, computers. The fourth diagram of Bob and Alice IM-ing each other is nifty, but it's still probably just running the input through an implementation of the Interpreter Pattern. Am I overlooking something about this patent and/or these claims that was truly novel in 1996?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="691" RevisionGUID="6e6c7657-5c4c-41e2-9e07-bf0233aec3fd" CreationDate="2012-10-12T00:45:08.593" UserId="76" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="Enablement, or sufficiency of disclosure, is the requirement that a patent allows a person skilled in the art to reproduce the claimed invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2166" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="691" RevisionGUID="6e6c7657-5c4c-41e2-9e07-bf0233aec3fd" CreationDate="2012-10-12T00:45:08.593" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 225" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="688" RevisionGUID="f9cd4811-6e7f-4475-951e-45f8768e8b9d" CreationDate="2012-10-12T00:45:10.873" UserId="76" Comment="added 358 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 704: Data processing: speech signal processing, linguistics, language translation, and audio compression/decompression](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc704/sched704.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: translation machines, automated language processing, speech recognition, speech synthesis, speech analysis, sound compression, ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2168" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="688" RevisionGUID="f9cd4811-6e7f-4475-951e-45f8768e8b9d" CreationDate="2012-10-12T00:45:10.873" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 222" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="690" RevisionGUID="a9ff73bd-3039-425f-9923-ecc76529d074" CreationDate="2012-10-12T00:45:14.617" UserId="76" Comment="added 781 characters in body" Text="The legal requirement of *enablement* or [sufficiency of disclosure](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufficiency_of_disclosure)*, states that a patent must describe the invention in sufficient detail so that a person skilled in the art would be able to reproduce the claimed invention without undue further experimentation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the United States, this requirement is established by [35 USC §112](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/112). There is an additional requirement that the inventor must present the “best mode” known to him, i.e. not withhold information that is relevant to carrying out the invention. In Europe, the requirement is [disclosure according to article 83](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disclosure_of_the_invention_under_the_European_Patent_Convention).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2170" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="690" RevisionGUID="a9ff73bd-3039-425f-9923-ecc76529d074" CreationDate="2012-10-12T00:45:14.617" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 224" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="689" RevisionGUID="f3b63279-e968-47c0-a04b-6d1c0d19aa37" CreationDate="2012-10-12T00:45:17.703" UserId="76" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="US patent class 704: Data processing: speech signal processing, linguistics, language translation, and audio compression/decompression" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2172" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="689" RevisionGUID="f3b63279-e968-47c0-a04b-6d1c0d19aa37" CreationDate="2012-10-12T00:45:17.703" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 223" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="446" RevisionGUID="68f4e44d-6e10-4bdc-a241-4c6cfdce0b65" CreationDate="2012-10-12T00:45:26.567" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 47 characters in body" Text="“Patent pending” is a mark that can be included in the description of a product to indicate that some aspects of that product is covered by a patent application that has been filed, but not yet abandoned or granted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2174" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="446" RevisionGUID="68f4e44d-6e10-4bdc-a241-4c6cfdce0b65" CreationDate="2012-10-12T00:45:26.567" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 226" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2175" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="673" RevisionGUID="bc0d284f-724f-4d2c-8f5c-7f8deb53c8b9" CreationDate="2012-10-12T01:02:51.387" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/256560529571713024" />
  <row Id="2177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="694" RevisionGUID="d30e0f9b-3afe-401e-ac80-bc5fcfe667b5" CreationDate="2012-10-12T02:37:51.900" UserId="371" Text="The short answer is that an essential patent is a patent that covers technology required to implement a technology standard. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, it is used more specifically to refer to patents owned by companies that work together to create a standard, and agree to license their &quot;essential patents&quot; to other people who are implementing the standard. But in some contexts &quot;essential patents&quot; can also refer to patents held by third parties that did not participate in the drafting of the standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some nuances:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every standards body has slightly different definitions of what constitutes an essential patent. For example, the [W3C patent policy says][1]: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Essential Claims&quot; shall mean all claims in any patent or patent application in any jurisdiction in the world that would necessarily be infringed by implementation of the Recommendation. A claim is necessarily infringed hereunder only when it is not possible to avoid infringing it because there is no non-infringing alternative for implementing the normative portions of the Recommendation. Existence of a non-infringing alternative shall be judged based on the state of the art at the time the specification becomes a Recommendation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see by reading this where things might change from standards body to standards body: what does it mean to be &quot;necessarily infringed&quot;? (Some standards bodies don't define this at all, or use slightly different definitions.) When might we analyze whether something is necessarily infringed? And so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third parties who did not participate in a standards body process can also sometimes be said to have an essential patent, depending on how the term is being used. For example, [BT's supposed patent on hyperlinking][2] (if it had been upheld) would be an &quot;essential patent&quot; in at least some senses, because no one could implement HTML without infringing it. But unless BT had agreed to license the patent as part of the standards body that defined HTML, then in many formal settings the patent might not necessarily considered an essential patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exactly who has to license their essential patents also varies from standards body to standards body. Generally speaking, all participants in the creation of the standard will agree to license their relevant patents, but some standards bodies allow patent owners to withdraw from a process at certain points, or publish specific patents that are excluded from the process. Again, figuring out the exact answer can result in litigation: for example, [Rambus spent almost all of the '00s engaged in litigation with various parties over whether or not Rambus should have licensed their essential patents in certain RAM standards to various RAM manufacturers][3]. Deciding who has to license which patents is usually a matter of interpreting the specific terms of the standards body's legal agreements. It can also become an antitrust issue under certain conditions, in particular where the holder of the essential patent is not part of the standards body (as in the BT example above).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the exact terms of how the patents must be licensed can also vary from standards body to standards body. For example, W3C requires royalty-free licensing (see [point 5][4]), while many other standards bodies require &quot;[reasonable and non-discriminatory][5]&quot; licenses - which requires interpreting what &quot;reasonable&quot; means. Some standards bodies only require licenses be granted to companies that write &quot;compatible&quot; implementations, which requires understanding what is or isn't a compatible implementation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bottom line: there is no one answer for what an essential patent is; it varies from standards body to standards body, can be influenced by antitrust considerations, and in some cases can be used more broadly to mean &quot;any patent that is necessary to implement a standard, whether or not the patent holder participated in the creation of the standard.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#def-essential&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cptech.org/ip/business/hyperlink.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus#Lawsuits&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Requirements&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/634/frand-rand-patents/657#657" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="675" RevisionGUID="62cf18c6-4a3c-4dee-80cf-3af7b41e4c88" CreationDate="2012-10-12T02:46:01.737" UserId="1577" Comment="edited body" Text="How do patents become &quot;essential patents&quot;? Do the companies submit them to become standards or are they deemed &quot;standard&quot; based on their nature? Are peripheral patents more powerful than essential ones in patent disputes? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="697" RevisionGUID="6e9d5a3b-ccb6-40b2-9dda-160aa851b74e" CreationDate="2012-10-12T14:08:13.937" UserId="1475" Text="First of all the term pre-patent research is vague to me. I can see two main meanings of the term: 1) research as to whether your product would be feasible from a technical or economical pojnt o view and 2) research as to whether your invention would be deemed to be patentable. &#xD;&#xA;Since the first is just a feasability reasearch - and although you mention such an example in your question - I assume that this is not meant by the term 'pre-patent research, because in principle the word patent then would be misplaced. &#xD;&#xA;This thus leaves the meaning of research into the patentability. Again two possibilities are included herein: 1) whether the invention fulfills thecriteria of USC 101: is it patent-eleigible; and 2) whether the invention fulfills the criteria of USC 102 and 103: is it novel and not obvious?&#xD;&#xA;For an answer to the first question you should get legal advice from a patent attorney. For an answer to the second question you need a patent information specialist to provide a prior art search and maybe a patentagent or patent attorney to interpret the results of such a search.&#xD;&#xA;Companies that provide patent searches are abundant, as well as in the USA as abroad (e.g. India). I would suggest to contact a patent agent or patent searcher to find a reliable one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="693" RevisionGUID="cc2b16a8-ade3-44a7-b5bc-dcc936e96ebe" CreationDate="2012-10-12T18:07:57.123" UserId="288" Comment="changed URL to a link; added a link to a referenced answer" Text="To hopefully further expound on [what user96 said][1], this patent sounds a whole lot like the [Interpreter Pattern](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpreter_pattern), but in patent-speak. One or more regular expressions would certainly constitute an appropriate set of grammars for certain actions (e.g., call a phone number), and for more complex grammatical rules, you could use a tool (ANTLR, Bison, Yacc, etc) to generate some code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I note that the filing date is 1996; the Interpreter Pattern was included in the Gang of Four's Design Patterns book in 1995, and must have been in general use before that date to have been included in the book. The diagrams also seem to be of ... well, computers. The fourth diagram of Bob and Alice IM-ing each other is nifty, but it's still probably just running the input through an implementation of the Interpreter Pattern. Am I overlooking something about this patent and/or these claims that was truly novel in 1996?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/680/288" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2185" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="693" RevisionGUID="cc2b16a8-ade3-44a7-b5bc-dcc936e96ebe" CreationDate="2012-10-12T18:07:57.123" Comment="Proposed by 288 approved by 1 edit id of 227" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="698" RevisionGUID="8c014e3c-e91c-4af9-ae06-15f81527bdd5" CreationDate="2012-10-12T18:19:26.820" UserId="1585" Text="Is this for the outside shape?  The mixture of materials?  Please describe in detail what this patent actually means." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2188" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="698" RevisionGUID="8c014e3c-e91c-4af9-ae06-15f81527bdd5" CreationDate="2012-10-12T18:19:26.820" UserId="1585" Text="What exactly does the ornamental design for a dual-action vibrator entail" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2189" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="698" RevisionGUID="8c014e3c-e91c-4af9-ae06-15f81527bdd5" CreationDate="2012-10-12T18:19:26.820" UserId="1585" Text="&lt;usd653349&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2190" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="675" RevisionGUID="a42ad294-9d38-45bc-b32e-287fe98daf76" CreationDate="2012-10-12T19:02:53.077" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/256832327597060096" />
  <row Id="2191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="699" RevisionGUID="5b622588-f5b9-4473-aa3f-cca668a2a5d8" CreationDate="2012-10-12T19:24:51.927" UserId="1281" Text="US patent 8,086,604 is the one Apple used to temporarily get sales of Samsung's Galaxy Nexus blocked.  It covers using a single UI to search multiple data sources, including both local and remote ones.  Here is the first claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;1. A method for locating information in a network using a computer, comprising: receiving by the computer an inputted information descriptor from a user-input device; providing said information descriptor received from the user-input device to a plurality of heuristic modules, wherein: each heuristic module corresponds to a respective area of search and employs a different, predetermined heuristic algorithm corresponding to said respective area to search the area for information that corresponds to the received information descriptor, and the search areas include storage media accessible by the computer; searching by the heuristic modules, based on the received information descriptor, the respective areas of search using the predetermined heuristic algorithms corresponding to each respective area of search; providing at least one candidate item of information located by the heuristic modules as a result of said searching; and displaying by the computer a representation of said candidate item of information on a display device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a continuation of another patent application filed on Jan. 5, 2000.  There must be tons of prior art from before that.  One very obvious piece is Apple's own [Sherlock][1], first released as part of [Mac OS 8.5][2] on Oct. 17, 1998.  What else is there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_%28software%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_8#Mac_OS_8.5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2192" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="699" RevisionGUID="5b622588-f5b9-4473-aa3f-cca668a2a5d8" CreationDate="2012-10-12T19:24:51.927" UserId="1281" Text="Prior art for Apple's &quot;unified search&quot; patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2193" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="699" RevisionGUID="5b622588-f5b9-4473-aa3f-cca668a2a5d8" CreationDate="2012-10-12T19:24:51.927" UserId="1281" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;user-interface&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="698" RevisionGUID="948552a5-0b89-4ac1-b0a3-2891181c1526" CreationDate="2012-10-12T20:00:43.820" UserId="76" Comment="added a link to the patent" Text="Is this for the outside shape?  The mixture of materials?  Please describe in detail what this [design patent](http://www.google.com/patents/USD653349) actually means.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2195" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="698" RevisionGUID="948552a5-0b89-4ac1-b0a3-2891181c1526" CreationDate="2012-10-12T20:00:43.820" UserId="76" Comment="added a link to the patent" Text="What exactly does the ornamental design for a dual-action vibrator entail?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2196" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="698" RevisionGUID="948552a5-0b89-4ac1-b0a3-2891181c1526" CreationDate="2012-10-12T20:00:43.820" UserId="76" Comment="added a link to the patent" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;usd653349&gt;&lt;design-medical&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="700" RevisionGUID="6aabf7dc-6889-4aab-808e-0f0140434a91" CreationDate="2012-10-12T20:05:34.967" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="701" RevisionGUID="ad6dd406-c31f-462e-a0fb-dc9881e0f288" CreationDate="2012-10-12T20:05:34.967" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="702" RevisionGUID="d79414bd-04ba-4b67-a5d9-f46beef8753c" CreationDate="2012-10-12T20:08:19.270" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="703" RevisionGUID="f6c30d00-65d3-47bb-a81d-d5dce38b1b60" CreationDate="2012-10-12T20:08:19.270" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="699" RevisionGUID="1d7df694-5aa9-4b95-86d4-a23a019af945" CreationDate="2012-10-12T20:14:08.390" UserId="76" Comment="added 202 characters in body; edited tags" Text="[US patent 8,086,604](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PALL&amp;RefSrch=yes&amp;Query=PN/8086604) is the one Apple used to temporarily get sales of Samsung's Galaxy Nexus blocked.  It covers using a single UI to search multiple data sources, including both local and remote ones.  Here is the first claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1\. A method for locating information in a network using a computer, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * receiving by the computer an inputted information descriptor from a user-input device;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * providing said information descriptor received from the user-input device to a plurality of heuristic modules, wherein:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     * each heuristic module corresponds to a respective area of search and employs a different, predetermined heuristic algorithm corresponding to said respective area to search the area for information that corresponds to the received information descriptor, and the search areas include storage media accessible by the computer;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     * searching by the heuristic modules, based on the received information descriptor, the respective areas of search using the predetermined heuristic algorithms corresponding to each respective area of search;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     * providing at least one candidate item of information located by the heuristic modules as a result of said searching;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     * and displaying by the computer a representation of said candidate item of information on a display device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a continuation of another patent application filed on Jan. 5, 2000.  There must be tons of prior art from before that.  One very obvious piece is Apple's own [Sherlock][1], first released as part of [Mac OS 8.5][2] on Oct. 17, 1998.  What else is there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_%28software%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_8#Mac_OS_8.5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2202" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="699" RevisionGUID="1d7df694-5aa9-4b95-86d4-a23a019af945" CreationDate="2012-10-12T20:14:08.390" UserId="76" Comment="added 202 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;data-processing-database&gt;&lt;us8086604&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="701" RevisionGUID="11ef3a14-b13c-4ed8-b939-58ce4abf63da" CreationDate="2012-10-12T20:48:19.060" UserId="76" Comment="added 128 characters in body" Text="A design patent is a special kind of patent that covers the ornamental design, as opposed to the workings, of a functional item." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2204" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="701" RevisionGUID="11ef3a14-b13c-4ed8-b939-58ce4abf63da" CreationDate="2012-10-12T20:48:19.060" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 229" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="700" RevisionGUID="84182c3d-62b5-4e11-b3f4-cec124a2ba88" CreationDate="2012-10-12T20:48:23.600" UserId="76" Comment="added 280 characters in body" Text="A [design patent](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent) covers the *ornamental design*, i.e. the look, of an object that can be put to a practical purpose. Design patents do not cover the functional design of the item; this can be separately protected by a regular patent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2206" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="700" RevisionGUID="84182c3d-62b5-4e11-b3f4-cec124a2ba88" CreationDate="2012-10-12T20:48:23.600" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 228" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="703" RevisionGUID="357c4fc1-4617-43e8-846d-77865eb5f951" CreationDate="2012-10-12T20:48:29.463" UserId="76" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="US design patent class D24: medical and laboratory equipment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2208" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="703" RevisionGUID="357c4fc1-4617-43e8-846d-77865eb5f951" CreationDate="2012-10-12T20:48:29.463" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 231" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="702" RevisionGUID="6e705fe4-cec8-424d-a577-e0b389a800f2" CreationDate="2012-10-12T20:48:32.927" UserId="76" Comment="added 419 characters in body" Text="[US design patent class D24: medical and laboratory equipment](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspcd24/schedd24.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspcd24/defsd24.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: pharmaceutical products, medical equipment for surgery, therapy or other purposes, laboratory equipment not covered by other classes such as D23 [tag:design-sanitary], ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2210" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="702" RevisionGUID="6e705fe4-cec8-424d-a577-e0b389a800f2" CreationDate="2012-10-12T20:48:32.927" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 230" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="704" RevisionGUID="30827702-b9bc-4340-a254-090e3feb6642" CreationDate="2012-10-12T21:08:15.327" UserId="758" Text="To quote Judge Rader (of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), with a design paternt: &quot;you get the picture&quot;.  In other words, trying to describe it is generally pointless -- it's mostly about comparing the accused device to the picture(s) in the patent, and infringing basically means they look essentially the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="705" RevisionGUID="64795820-32f9-4783-a177-1d1d7d35b4f0" CreationDate="2012-10-12T22:50:03.507" UserId="1588" Text="Would running *linux* executing the *find* command to search for a song across multiple data-sources (local disks, virtual file-systems, and a remote mounted NFS partition) count?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - a user-input device (physical keyboard) providing an inputted information descriptor (null-terminated byte stream, aka a string representing the *filename* arg of the *find* command)&#xD;&#xA; - said information descriptor (string) is provided to a plurality of heuristic modules (various functions/file-system modules) wherein:&#xD;&#xA;    - each module corresponds to a unique file-system (nfs, ext2, proc, ramdisk, etc) employing different predefined heuristic algorithms (various file-system kernel modules/function calls), including various storage media accessible by the computer.&#xD;&#xA;    - search happens&#xD;&#xA;    - at least one candidate item of information (matching files) located by the heuristic modules as a result of searching is returned&#xD;&#xA;    - the result is then be printed out to your console&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="707" RevisionGUID="51e5b5ae-2de1-43b4-9d1a-1443c5530b8d" CreationDate="2012-10-13T03:04:19.380" UserId="1590" Text="Dennis -- you are not helping aiwarrior at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, your statement that &quot;The patentability of your invention will not depend in any way upon whether this Son (sic) Dolier gets their patent&quot; misses the point.  Any part of the Sun Dolier disclosure, including the pending claims, can be prior art the USPTO uses against aiwarrior's application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, any applicant who admits that &quot;I just can't understand where it is not trivial to adapt the Mersenne afocal telescope from a parabolic dish to a through, for a person skilled in the art. Surely even people not skilled in the art would find it trivial to go from 3D parabolic revolution solid to a 2D parabolic through&quot;  needs to be told to shut up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aiwarrior -- dude, if you think you have an invention, speak to someone who can help you in private. Don't air your thoughts in public. Dennis lives on the prosecution side - his type is paid per application. I live on the litigation side, and if you came to me with a patent and the attached admission, I'd be scared of you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2215" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="699" RevisionGUID="27d2b166-5cd2-4c27-ac1d-fb6fe449d3b2" CreationDate="2012-10-13T04:02:53.270" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/256968223927451650" />
  <row Id="2216" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="698" RevisionGUID="0ae2c26b-9849-4cda-9ff3-624b86ad1eb1" CreationDate="2012-10-13T07:02:53.607" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/257013522788134913" />
  <row Id="2218" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="672" RevisionGUID="0ec79509-5013-42bf-b043-65b8b1891d05" CreationDate="2012-10-13T10:02:53.100" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/257058819799130112" />
  <row Id="2219" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="670" RevisionGUID="68ddc59f-774b-4790-adf9-df5f3c2c0b48" CreationDate="2012-10-13T13:02:53.220" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/257104118957608960" />
  <row Id="2223" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="27" RevisionGUID="ca88d666-0a98-4160-860e-d922cc31c468" CreationDate="2012-10-13T22:02:53.253" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/257240014654672896" />
  <row Id="2224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="709" RevisionGUID="bf0f9232-3d8c-4d1e-963e-2405593f5910" CreationDate="2012-10-14T01:16:47.667" UserId="1582" Text="Might this help?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From &quot;Autonomous Cars and Society&quot; published by Worcester Polytechnic Institute and dated May 1, 2007.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-043007-205701/unrestricted/IQPOVP06B1.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Section 1.3.1.1.1 Lane Departure Warning System (LDWS), Page 17.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   The best way for everyday driving has been determined to be the use&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of image processing.  This detects existing lane markers to create a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; virtual lane in the video camera.  “Here, the predominant approach by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; far is the use of a monochrome video camera and image processing to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; extract the lane and road edge markings from the image.”&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   The down side to this method is that the road markings are not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; always clearly displayed.  They can be covered by snow, worn down, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; difficult for the camera to see because of highly reflective road&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conditions.  This is counteracted by using special detection&#xD;&#xA;&gt; algorithms that can even detect tire lanes in the snow.  There are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; still issues where the system may become confused or the ability for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the camera to transition between drastically different lighting. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another way to detect lane departure is downward looking infrared&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sensors on the bottom of the car.  These sensors look for the change&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the reflectivity of bare pavement and lane markings.  However, this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; system can only detect the lane departure as it is occurring and the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; camera system could predict lane departure from sensing the road&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ahead.  All of these systems provide a range of warnings from audible&#xD;&#xA;&gt; beeps to physical feedback to the driver to alert them that they are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; departing the lane.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2228" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="210" RevisionGUID="ab1512a7-a6bd-4149-8800-b4cdc640ddfc" CreationDate="2012-10-14T13:02:54.667" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/257466512447795200" />
  <row Id="2229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="711" RevisionGUID="bdce7e74-50f5-4e8d-b1bf-e9163acb9c3c" CreationDate="2012-10-14T16:55:43.347" UserId="1600" Text="Sites like HalfBakery &lt;http://halfbakery.com&gt; and this shared Google Doc http://goo.gl/alj3D act as open repositories for potentially patentable inventions. In effect, these sites act as anti-patent databases because the inventions are never pursued, but are available as prior art in the public domain. Is there currently a site or service that aggregates all of these different open repositories into one location? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2230" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="711" RevisionGUID="bdce7e74-50f5-4e8d-b1bf-e9163acb9c3c" CreationDate="2012-10-14T16:55:43.347" UserId="1600" Text="Is there a central anti-patent database for openly developed and abandoned inventions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2231" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="711" RevisionGUID="bdce7e74-50f5-4e8d-b1bf-e9163acb9c3c" CreationDate="2012-10-14T16:55:43.347" UserId="1600" Text="&lt;anti-patent&gt;&lt;public&gt;&lt;domain&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2232" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="393" RevisionGUID="7025a389-ec3c-4cc1-9143-2fc75017020f" CreationDate="2012-10-14T19:02:55.193" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/257557111079309313" />
  <row Id="2233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="712" RevisionGUID="57eed1c0-59dd-4876-8884-f67b3d204250" CreationDate="2012-10-15T00:07:23.627" UserId="371" Text="[Defensivepublications.org][1] has done some work in this direction, but there is no centralized database that I'm aware of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://defensivepublications.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="713" RevisionGUID="afbf99b6-6f0a-4af1-93ee-f55187fc9191" CreationDate="2012-10-15T02:53:01.797" UserDisplayName="user1602" Text="Hmm, $1500 bounty and performance reviews tied to patents. I suspect we both know exactly which _big_ company you're referring to, and I'm sorry to hear that it made you so _blue_ you had to leave.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it _is_ who I think it is then, yes, your employment contract will detail that all work carried out by yourself during your employment is owned by the company. IP is very important to many large companies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In employment contracts I've seen, they even tried to claim stuff that was unrelated to the work that people were doing for them, but people have gotten that stricken before accepting, since they may have been doing contract work or their own stuff in addition to what they was doing for the company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, bottom line, they almost certainly own the work you did before leaving, including that patent submission. Hence, no, you cannot stop this patent from being _filed_ since you have no control over that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you _can_ do is to try and stop it from getting to the NOA (notice of allowance, meaning that the patent has been approved) stage within the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I would cash the cheque. $250 is $250. It's not a reward for supporting the patent. It's really just the company trying to stop you from causing you trouble and, unless it's attached with an official agreement for you not to oppose, you can take the money and run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I would notify (in writing) the lawyers of the prior art and why you think it invalidates the submission. They will then be legally required to bring that information to the USPTO as part of the submission. However, these lawyers are paid very well for arguing their way around&#xD;&#xA;such prior art so that may not kill it off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other groups you can join such as Peer To Patent, which can be used to put forward prior art as well. I would wait until it hits the publication stage (available on PAIR) then submit the prior art to P2P and the USPTO. The latter _may_ cost a little bit of money but you can probably use some of that $250 if you feel strongly enough about it - it would be karmic for the company to fund the fight against their own patent :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll need to wait for official publication since it's the claims of the submission that you need to discredit. Arguing about how non-novel this is is irrelevant until you see the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Me, I would just cash the cheque and let it go. If you're ever called on to testify in the patent lawsuit, just tell the truth. Getting the patent thrown out after a certain large company has spent $50K+ on the whole process plus court costs will be far more damaging to them  than stopping it from filing at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Standard disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, I am certainly not _your_ lawyer, this diatribe above is not advice and it's worth every cent you paid me for it, which is a big fat zero :-)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2235" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="518f0429-9f75-4b2b-805b-b0597cf2c5d0" CreationDate="2012-10-15T04:02:54.820" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/257693005077700608" />
  <row Id="2236" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="668" RevisionGUID="916f37ad-e68c-4665-9991-5d76ceb48fee" CreationDate="2012-10-15T04:12:57.127" UserId="105" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Are patents which are dependent on prior inventions valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2237" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="668" RevisionGUID="916f37ad-e68c-4665-9991-5d76ceb48fee" CreationDate="2012-10-15T04:12:57.127" UserId="105" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="714" RevisionGUID="69e913d8-d56c-4b5f-a787-bafa42cc3deb" CreationDate="2012-10-15T05:12:37.250" UserId="1604" Text="Does any one know any prior art disclosing hydrolyzed chicken sternal cartilage derived collagen type II, or method for preparing collagen type II from chicken sternal cartilage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2240" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="714" RevisionGUID="69e913d8-d56c-4b5f-a787-bafa42cc3deb" CreationDate="2012-10-15T05:12:37.250" UserId="1604" Text="Prior art for US Patent No. 6025327 for hydrolyzed collagen type II" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2241" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="714" RevisionGUID="69e913d8-d56c-4b5f-a787-bafa42cc3deb" CreationDate="2012-10-15T05:12:37.250" UserId="1604" Text="&lt;collagen&gt;&lt;type&gt;&lt;ii&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2242" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="711" RevisionGUID="e0c143ea-929e-4039-8a9a-9067a33638c1" CreationDate="2012-10-15T07:03:55.080" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/257738556821356544" />
  <row Id="2243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="714" RevisionGUID="6e7069a6-4ae7-4f26-b4db-77e88e193c16" CreationDate="2012-10-15T09:59:40.200" UserId="906" Comment="Added patent link" Text="Does any one know any prior art for the [US patent US6025327](http://www.google.com/patents/US6025327), disclosing hydrolyzed chicken sternal cartilage derived collagen type II, or method for preparing collagen type II from chicken sternal cartilage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2244" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="714" RevisionGUID="6e7069a6-4ae7-4f26-b4db-77e88e193c16" CreationDate="2012-10-15T09:59:40.200" Comment="Proposed by 906 approved by 76 edit id of 232" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="714" RevisionGUID="29065bab-93bd-45a9-8a25-7b3d2f4f79bc" CreationDate="2012-10-15T10:11:50.610" UserId="76" Comment="tags; added the claim text" Text="Does any one know any prior art for the [US patent US6025327](http://www.google.com/patents/US6025327), disclosing hydrolyzed chicken sternal cartilage derived collagen type II, or method for preparing collagen type II from chicken sternal cartilage?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the first claims of the patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1\. Chicken sternal cartilage-derived material comprising hydrolyzed collagen type II, said hydrolyzed collagen type II having an average molecular weight of between about 1,500 and 2,500 daltons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2\. A method for treating an individual with a connective tissue disorder, comprising orally administering to said individual an effective daily amount of chicken sternal cailage-derived material comprising hydrolyzed collagen type II having an average molecular weight of between about 1,500 and 2,500 daltons.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2246" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="714" RevisionGUID="29065bab-93bd-45a9-8a25-7b3d2f4f79bc" CreationDate="2012-10-15T10:11:50.610" UserId="76" Comment="tags; added the claim text" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;drug-ingredients&gt;&lt;chemistry-microbiology&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="7d0ab97b-a6e5-408e-91ee-8c3f96a930d2" CreationDate="2012-10-15T10:15:55.380" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="716" RevisionGUID="8c0c0c0e-4c75-4c14-b893-f90390dcf248" CreationDate="2012-10-15T10:15:55.380" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="717" RevisionGUID="83a766f3-81d2-428f-9a78-e3aa0ae4813c" CreationDate="2012-10-15T10:21:34.190" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="718" RevisionGUID="b99c1622-9680-4e98-9219-d5b15a575b9b" CreationDate="2012-10-15T10:21:34.190" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2251" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="714" RevisionGUID="eb37c9f6-c43f-4adc-aad1-3c89efef7715" CreationDate="2012-10-15T13:03:55.230" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/257829153884221440" />
  <row Id="2252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="719" RevisionGUID="c1d9ba88-9016-4978-80d7-7adbe4cfbc9a" CreationDate="2012-10-15T13:06:24.820" UserId="998" Text="Most new products are covered by multiple patents.  That makes sense if you have every been involved with product design.  That process requires multiple innovations and breakthroughs even for simple products.  Each non-obvious innovation qualifies for a patent.  The innovation may be in the product design itself, a method of using the product (gesture), a method of making the product, raw materials needed for the product, a method of disposing of the product, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Touch-screen Smart phones are an interesting example because a typical smart phone will be covered by thousands of patents owned by dozens of different companies and individuals.  Now, just about everyone (including myself) agrees that there are major problems with the worldwide patent systems.  However, one amazing counterexample is that billions of these products are being manufactured and sold.  Somehow, the companies are figuring out how to traverse the patent minefield and still be profitable. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="717" RevisionGUID="ccb9290b-c61a-4cf0-a47a-bdacbc433e4c" CreationDate="2012-10-15T13:39:37.480" UserId="76" Comment="added 445 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 435: chemistry: molecular biology and microbiology](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc435/sched435.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc435/defs435.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: tissue composition, blood and other bodily fluids, enzymes, micro-organisms, viruses, animal or plant cells, cell fusion, genetic modification, measuring and testing processes, apparatus, ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2256" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="717" RevisionGUID="ccb9290b-c61a-4cf0-a47a-bdacbc433e4c" CreationDate="2012-10-15T13:39:37.480" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 235" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="718" RevisionGUID="a50267cd-14a8-4f2f-8c9e-b43cbdc1964a" CreationDate="2012-10-15T13:39:39.710" UserId="76" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="US patent class 435: chemistry: molecular biology and microbiology" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2258" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="718" RevisionGUID="a50267cd-14a8-4f2f-8c9e-b43cbdc1964a" CreationDate="2012-10-15T13:39:39.710" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 236" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="716" RevisionGUID="a19e7e20-912e-4ccc-a896-1858ecf67f60" CreationDate="2012-10-15T13:39:44.793" UserId="76" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="US patent class 514: drug, bio-affecting and body treating compositions — designated organic active ingredient" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2260" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="716" RevisionGUID="a19e7e20-912e-4ccc-a896-1858ecf67f60" CreationDate="2012-10-15T13:39:44.793" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 234" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="0da53f97-f733-4779-9615-65ae0309943b" CreationDate="2012-10-15T13:39:48.790" UserId="76" Comment="added 409 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 514: drug, bio-affecting and body treating compositions](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc514/sched514.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc514/defs514.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: designated organic active ingredient. Other aspects are filed under [class 424](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc424/sched424.htm).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2262" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="0da53f97-f733-4779-9615-65ae0309943b" CreationDate="2012-10-15T13:39:48.790" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 233" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="711" RevisionGUID="aed76fdd-84cb-47f8-89bb-f06d014d0bf9" CreationDate="2012-10-15T13:39:55.170" UserId="288" Comment="changed URLs to links" Text="Sites like [HalfBakery](http://halfbakery.com) and [this shared Google Doc](http://goo.gl/alj3D) act as open repositories for potentially patentable inventions. In effect, these sites act as anti-patent databases because the inventions are never pursued, but are available as prior art in the public domain. Is there currently a site or service that aggregates all of these different open repositories into one location? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2264" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="711" RevisionGUID="aed76fdd-84cb-47f8-89bb-f06d014d0bf9" CreationDate="2012-10-15T13:39:55.170" Comment="Proposed by 288 approved by 1 edit id of 237" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="651" RevisionGUID="cf828314-f5e9-4cd4-af8e-da76083f7435" CreationDate="2012-10-15T15:44:45.183" UserId="998" Comment="edited body" Text="As you see with this application, one unfortunate aspect of the US patent law system is that patent applicants have an incentive to file applications that lack clarity. In particular, it is seen as bad practice by most patent attorneys to particularly identify the improvement because that creates a particular target that has been used in the past to narrow and invalidate patent rights.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some ideas for how to deal with this particular application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, what you have linked to is a pending patent application that has not yet issued as a patent.  In my studies, I have found that more than 80% of patent applications make some narrowing amendments to their claims during the patent prosecution process. Thus, even without any outside influence, odds are that the claims that you list here will not be identical tothe ones that eventually issue as patented. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, I looked up the application and found that the USPTO has not yet issued a rejection in the case, but that it is likely to do so any day.  This means that your timeline for submitting prior art for the examiner to consider is quite short and we don't know the exact deadline. (The Prior Art must be submitted by the time that the Examiner issues the rejection). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third, the patent applicant identified four relevant pieces of prior art. Those could be good starting points: U.S. Patent Nos. [6,667,381][1]; [5,729,387][2]; [4,429,952][3]; and [3,511,559][4]. It would probably help the examiner if you were able to identify an old reference that shows the 3D parabolic revolution solid that you discussed above and explain how that reference links to the invention as claimed. It appears to me that the application is focused on using the focal process for lighting rather than for telescopic applications.  Thus, you might be really helping the examiner by identifying the link between these two approaches. You should note that at this point only claims 1-4 and 40-44 are still pending. For what its worth, the application appears to be owned by the lighting company [Sun Dolier][5]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last point: You mentioned that you are considering filing a patent application.  The patentability of your invention will not depend in any way upon whether this Sun Dolier gets their patent.  Now, their eventual patent might block you from actually practicing your invention, but it wouldn't block you from getting your own patent.  As Bob mentions in his Answer, the Sun Dolier published patent application will serve as prior art against your patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6667381&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5729387?pg=PA6&amp;dq=5,729,387&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=3OZyUOPLGqzyyAGO4oGIDw&amp;ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4429952?pg=PA2&amp;dq=4,429,952&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=-eZyULygCI6WyAHc3IGQAw&amp;ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=4,429,952&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US3511559?pg=PA4&amp;dq=3,511,559&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=G-dyUOOqCKPWygGbrYDoCw&amp;ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=3,511,559&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.sundolier.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2269" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="19" RevisionGUID="51be16ab-b84a-4011-b4e4-01d7c909e514" CreationDate="2012-10-15T16:03:54.957" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/257874451662794753" />
  <row Id="2270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="677" RevisionGUID="4ffcaadf-5c23-4ddc-b7f3-2eb228709b93" CreationDate="2012-10-15T16:09:52.533" UserId="998" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="One of the requirements of a patent is that it **enables** one of ordinary skill in the art to replicate the claimed invention without undue experimentation. What you describe does not seem to meet this criterion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, one of the criteria for demonstrating obviousness is that the claimed invention combines known elements to achieve a predictable results.  The sketch you draw would likely run afoul of this criterion as well.  Though the material you need is not currently known, it seems that the result of combining it with other materials is predictable - given that you are predicting it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="720" RevisionGUID="0cb9d690-04e0-41b1-b65c-59150b8db9cf" CreationDate="2012-10-15T16:22:38.693" UserId="998" Text="In the US, one condition for patentability is that the patent specification enable a person of skill in the relevant art to make and use the invention without undue experimentation.  A patent application that lacks enablement *should* be rejected by the USPTO.  Further, an issued patent that lacks enablement will be held invalid if the patent is challenged in court.  Patents issuing from applications filed after March 2013 can also be challenged on enablement grounds through a post-grant review, but only within the first 9-months after patent issuance. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There have been a number of cases where patents have been rejected for failing to describe how to obtain the starting materials. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Enablement != Working Model**: The patent laws do not require that you create a working model (known as actual reduction to practice) before obtaining a patent.  For starting materials you may be able to satisfy the enablement requirement if you can describe a process for obtaining the otherwise unavailable material. If you cannot, you might want to bring an expert onto your team to do so. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="694" RevisionGUID="4c692c5e-6aec-4df5-b1b0-833b522ff439" CreationDate="2012-10-15T17:14:49.893" UserId="371" Comment="clarify text re third-party essential patents." Text="The short answer is that an essential patent is a patent that covers technology required to implement a technology standard. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, it is used more specifically to refer to patents owned by companies that work together to create a standard, and agree to license their &quot;essential patents&quot; to other people who are implementing the standard. But in some contexts &quot;essential patents&quot; can also refer to patents held by third parties that did not participate in the drafting of the standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some nuances:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every standards body has slightly different definitions of what constitutes an essential patent. For example, the [W3C patent policy says][1]: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Essential Claims&quot; shall mean all claims in any patent or patent application in any jurisdiction in the world that would necessarily be infringed by implementation of the Recommendation. A claim is necessarily infringed hereunder only when it is not possible to avoid infringing it because there is no non-infringing alternative for implementing the normative portions of the Recommendation. Existence of a non-infringing alternative shall be judged based on the state of the art at the time the specification becomes a Recommendation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see by reading this where things might change from standards body to standards body: what does it mean to be &quot;necessarily infringed&quot;? (Some standards bodies don't define this at all, or use slightly different definitions.) When might we analyze whether something is necessarily infringed? And so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third parties who did not participate in a standards body process can also sometimes be said to have an essential patent, depending on how the term is being used. For example, [BT's supposed patent on hyperlinking][2] (if it had been upheld) would be an &quot;essential patent&quot; for HTML in at least some senses of the term, because no one could implement HTML without infringing it. But unless BT had agreed to license the patent as part of the standards body that defined HTML, then in many formal settings the patent might not necessarily considered an essential patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exactly who has to license their essential patents also varies from standards body to standards body. Generally speaking, all participants in the creation of the standard will agree to license their relevant patents, but some standards bodies allow patent owners to withdraw from a process at certain points, or publish specific patents that are excluded from the process. Again, figuring out the exact answer can result in litigation: for example, [Rambus spent almost all of the '00s engaged in litigation with various parties over whether or not Rambus should have licensed their essential patents in certain RAM standards to various RAM manufacturers][3]. Deciding who has to license which patents is usually a matter of interpreting the specific terms of the standards body's legal agreements. It can also become an antitrust issue under certain conditions, in particular where the holder of the essential patent is not part of the standards body (as in the BT example above).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the exact terms of how the patents must be licensed can also vary from standards body to standards body. For example, W3C requires royalty-free licensing (see [point 5][4]), while many other standards bodies require &quot;[reasonable and non-discriminatory][5]&quot; licenses - which requires interpreting what &quot;reasonable&quot; means. Some standards bodies only require licenses be granted to companies that write &quot;compatible&quot; implementations, which requires understanding what is or isn't a compatible implementation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bottom line: there is no one answer for what an essential patent is; it varies from standards body to standards body, can be influenced by antitrust considerations, and in some cases can be used more broadly to mean &quot;any patent that is necessary to implement a standard, whether or not the patent holder participated in the creation of the standard.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#def-essential&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cptech.org/ip/business/hyperlink.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus#Lawsuits&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Requirements&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/634/frand-rand-patents/657#657" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2273" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="454" RevisionGUID="6d160fed-eee2-4ada-8a70-f01866e1925c" CreationDate="2012-10-15T22:03:58.303" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/257965062109687808" />
  <row Id="2274" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="21" RevisionGUID="d29e930c-55f3-4a20-a1d6-e3ef26cff8e4" CreationDate="2012-10-16T01:03:55.973" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/258010349217918976" />
  <row Id="2275" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="394" RevisionGUID="8a8b276c-60ab-41b2-a53b-c19ce14ad8f9" CreationDate="2012-10-16T10:03:55.350" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/258146244227121153" />
  <row Id="2276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="721" RevisionGUID="b524fb7b-4244-40cf-b569-fcde6b355027" CreationDate="2012-10-16T12:31:45.763" UserId="1611" Text="Whats the best way to find an inventive concept OR idea from a patent OR patent application disclosure? A patent application is generally too lengthy and its hard to understand. Can somebody please let me know how to go about finding the core invention in the disclosed invention? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much does a beginner and an experienced person takes in order to determine inventive concept?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2277" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="721" RevisionGUID="b524fb7b-4244-40cf-b569-fcde6b355027" CreationDate="2012-10-16T12:31:45.763" UserId="1611" Text="determine inventive concept OR ideas" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2278" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="721" RevisionGUID="b524fb7b-4244-40cf-b569-fcde6b355027" CreationDate="2012-10-16T12:31:45.763" UserId="1611" Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="714" RevisionGUID="0d4af393-8df3-41c1-bdc2-2e75d55e5846" CreationDate="2012-10-16T14:03:04.343" UserId="906" Comment="Fixed patent link" Text="Does any one know any prior art for the [US6025327](http://www.google.com/patents/US6025327), disclosing hydrolyzed chicken sternal cartilage derived collagen type II, or method for preparing collagen type II from chicken sternal cartilage?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the first claims of the patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1\. Chicken sternal cartilage-derived material comprising hydrolyzed collagen type II, said hydrolyzed collagen type II having an average molecular weight of between about 1,500 and 2,500 daltons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2\. A method for treating an individual with a connective tissue disorder, comprising orally administering to said individual an effective daily amount of chicken sternal cailage-derived material comprising hydrolyzed collagen type II having an average molecular weight of between about 1,500 and 2,500 daltons.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2280" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="714" RevisionGUID="0d4af393-8df3-41c1-bdc2-2e75d55e5846" CreationDate="2012-10-16T14:03:04.343" Comment="Proposed by 906 approved by 1 edit id of 238" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="722" RevisionGUID="a4befa36-b9c4-4101-9d83-1c325ace174e" CreationDate="2012-10-16T14:14:24.820" UserId="1612" Text="Does anyone have any prior art for U.S. Patent 7,404,278.  The patent describes a method of siliconization for syringes, with the novelty of the method being asserted as &quot;subjecting the siliconized syringe to a temperature treatment of approximately 120 degrees C to 300 degrees C and more&quot; to bond the silicone to the glass surface of the syringe.  Subjecting the siliconized syringe to an elevated temperature, to effectively &quot;cure&quot; the silicone to the surface, has been known in the industry but I am unable to find the relevant references for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks,&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2282" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="722" RevisionGUID="a4befa36-b9c4-4101-9d83-1c325ace174e" CreationDate="2012-10-16T14:14:24.820" UserId="1612" Text="Broad claim of US Patent 7,404,278 and available prior art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2283" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="722" RevisionGUID="a4befa36-b9c4-4101-9d83-1c325ace174e" CreationDate="2012-10-16T14:14:24.820" UserId="1612" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="722" RevisionGUID="9c1bd9dd-bf60-424e-8275-929a3635b6a6" CreationDate="2012-10-16T15:19:42.057" UserId="7" Comment="included link and patent tag" Text="Does anyone have any prior art for [U.S. Patent 7,404,278][1].  The patent describes a method of siliconization for syringes, with the novelty of the method being asserted as &quot;subjecting the siliconized syringe to a temperature treatment of approximately 120 degrees C to 300 degrees C and more&quot; to bond the silicone to the glass surface of the syringe.  Subjecting the siliconized syringe to an elevated temperature, to effectively &quot;cure&quot; the silicone to the surface, has been known in the industry but I am unable to find the relevant references for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7404278" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2285" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="722" RevisionGUID="9c1bd9dd-bf60-424e-8275-929a3635b6a6" CreationDate="2012-10-16T15:19:42.057" UserId="7" Comment="included link and patent tag" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us7404278&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2291" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="714" RevisionGUID="7d7ddab9-62ab-4811-8cef-5810e1a73ddc" CreationDate="2012-10-16T15:32:39.997" UserId="7" Comment="added patent no tag" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;drug-ingredients&gt;&lt;chemistry-microbiology&gt;&lt;us6025327&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="725" RevisionGUID="e6a9a4c0-a2d4-4924-afd0-1edf2d441fc6" CreationDate="2012-10-16T15:51:31.110" UserId="1614" Text="Don't know of a centralized database.  Yet another resource is www.ip.com.  They have have a defensive publication service.  You have to pay to publish there, but you'll have the benefit of a more trustworthy documentation system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="725" RevisionGUID="0a69a14f-d582-428a-b510-9e71513daae5" CreationDate="2012-10-16T16:03:29.777" UserId="76" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="Don't know of a centralized database.  Yet another resource is [IP.com](http://www.ip.com).  They have have a defensive publication service.  You have to pay to publish there, but you'll have the benefit of a more trustworthy documentation system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="726" RevisionGUID="9a5845b4-4cd3-42b5-a310-18735a3194d3" CreationDate="2012-10-16T16:08:04.377" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="727" RevisionGUID="e02abdcb-3e28-4280-94ef-0a8ddb872c72" CreationDate="2012-10-16T16:08:04.377" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="722" RevisionGUID="7a9c03c0-5e59-4e3c-b03a-bbf96093f9b5" CreationDate="2012-10-16T16:09:31.833" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Does anyone have any prior art for [U.S. Patent 7,404,278][1].  The patent describes a method of siliconization for syringes, with the novelty of the method being asserted as &quot;subjecting the siliconized syringe to a temperature treatment of approximately 120 degrees C to 300 degrees C and more&quot; to bond the silicone to the glass surface of the syringe.  Subjecting the siliconized syringe to an elevated temperature, to effectively &quot;cure&quot; the silicone to the surface, has been known in the industry but I am unable to find the relevant references for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7404278" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2302" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="722" RevisionGUID="7a9c03c0-5e59-4e3c-b03a-bbf96093f9b5" CreationDate="2012-10-16T16:09:31.833" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;chemistry&gt;&lt;us7404278&gt;&lt;package-making&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="728" RevisionGUID="0a0dd8f2-faab-4353-a62d-740c3cc57384" CreationDate="2012-10-16T16:15:52.140" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="729" RevisionGUID="4db744a8-40c4-41e3-a789-a0c4ea69868b" CreationDate="2012-10-16T16:15:52.140" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="730" RevisionGUID="e17ff1f5-55df-4c3d-a8ae-556a0dc8f09d" CreationDate="2012-10-16T20:11:37.113" UserId="1618" Text="I've been working on an app/website that I planned to sell for iPhone and Android, but recently found a patent that describes the idea almost exactly. There are currently no apps that implement this idea, and the patent is 2 years old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will be talking with a patent attorney, but before I do, is there really any option for me to release this app if the attorney deems our 2 ideas alike? Could I:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Make the app free using ads&#xD;&#xA; 2. Make the app completely free with no ads, therefore no revenue&#xD;&#xA;    generated&#xD;&#xA; 3. Open source the app&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if I make nothing on the app, is there still a way for me to release it without the worry of being sued? I really like the idea and want to make it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2306" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="730" RevisionGUID="e17ff1f5-55df-4c3d-a8ae-556a0dc8f09d" CreationDate="2012-10-16T20:11:37.113" UserId="1618" Text="Found patent that describes my iPhone app/Website idea, any options?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2307" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="730" RevisionGUID="e17ff1f5-55df-4c3d-a8ae-556a0dc8f09d" CreationDate="2012-10-16T20:11:37.113" UserId="1618" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="731" RevisionGUID="ba516025-127c-4d7e-a6b8-b671128d3732" CreationDate="2012-10-16T20:48:42.263" UserId="1259" Text="If your patent attorney determines that your idea is the same as the other patent - you WILL be liable for infringement of the patent. It doesn't matter if you charge for it or give it away for free - it is an infringement. Now if you have noble intentions of release, you may want to contact the patent assignee and see if they are willing to grant you license to utilize their patent for the betterment of humanity - or even a revenue share if you intend to sell it. But if the idea is protected by the patent, you really cannot create a marketable product from it without the patent holder's permission." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="732" RevisionGUID="9e4d7d6d-284b-4ac3-82b2-8789403735e7" CreationDate="2012-10-16T20:52:45.253" UserId="1259" Text="There is usually a summary of the invention being disclosed - often at the start of the patent documentation. Assuming the topic is to one's interest, it should be at least cursorily readable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2310" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="711" RevisionGUID="44fec846-14b1-4e3f-9262-5937d9848f11" CreationDate="2012-10-16T23:46:45.567" UserId="1259" Comment="added defensive-publications tag" Text="&lt;defensive-publications&gt;&lt;anti-patent&gt;&lt;public&gt;&lt;domain&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2311" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="711" RevisionGUID="44fec846-14b1-4e3f-9262-5937d9848f11" CreationDate="2012-10-16T23:46:45.567" Comment="Proposed by 1259 approved by 76, 1 edit id of 243" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="726" RevisionGUID="ebfd5c25-4764-403d-8ca6-aa4bbaf6538e" CreationDate="2012-10-16T23:46:54.460" UserId="76" Comment="added 648 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 219: electric heating](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc219/sched219.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc219/defs219.htm))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This class includes [class 392: electric resistance heating devices](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc392/sched392.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc392/defs392.htm)] as a subclass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: induction, microwaves, capacitive dielectric heating, resistances and other metal heating, welding, lasers, heating devices (chambers, support, insulation, regulation), ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2313" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="726" RevisionGUID="ebfd5c25-4764-403d-8ca6-aa4bbaf6538e" CreationDate="2012-10-16T23:46:54.460" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 239" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="728" RevisionGUID="0153dc57-2a18-4cfb-90f5-5e60f698a452" CreationDate="2012-10-16T23:46:57.550" UserId="76" Comment="added 613 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 53: package making](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc053/sched053.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc053/defs053.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: packaging methods (banding, cutting, evacuating, folding, sealing, ...), reshaping, opening triggers and alarms, grouping (matchbooks, bottle carriers, ...), gas filling, packaging with content treating (treatment of edible contents, compression, ...), covers, fasteners, seams, apparatus (forming, filling, wrapping, arranging contents, ...), means to close, open or hold open packages, ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2315" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="728" RevisionGUID="0153dc57-2a18-4cfb-90f5-5e60f698a452" CreationDate="2012-10-16T23:46:57.550" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 241" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="727" RevisionGUID="1f152b84-92b3-4d07-84ed-d44e6954940c" CreationDate="2012-10-16T23:47:00.997" UserId="76" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="US patent class 219: electric heating" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2317" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="727" RevisionGUID="1f152b84-92b3-4d07-84ed-d44e6954940c" CreationDate="2012-10-16T23:47:00.997" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 240" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="729" RevisionGUID="7b851852-5b57-4da1-9be9-a2a209d27141" CreationDate="2012-10-16T23:47:04.040" UserId="76" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="US patent class 53: package making" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2319" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="729" RevisionGUID="7b851852-5b57-4da1-9be9-a2a209d27141" CreationDate="2012-10-16T23:47:04.040" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 242" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="733" RevisionGUID="b7b94474-27ab-4f57-8677-ecef3314bdc5" CreationDate="2012-10-17T01:10:41.977" UserId="998" Text="Unfortunately, the way that US patent law has been interpreted by the courts provides no incentive for a patentee to particularly identify the inventive concept associated with a patent. In fact, the law actually provides an incentive for patent attorneys to *avoid* providing any direct clue as to the particular inventive concepts associated with the invention.  So, it is ordinarily a fairly difficult task to identify the inventive concept. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although it may be hidden, there is always supposed to be an inventive concept -- otherwise no patent should issue.  I like to first look at the drawings and references to the drawings.  Then I look at a couple of the claims.  When the patentee includes a background section, that is usually helpful. The abstract is rarely of any use.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="734" RevisionGUID="42dc321d-cd5f-47ec-a67b-1ef43d87f1d5" CreationDate="2012-10-17T02:12:57.710" UserId="1622" Text="Unfortunately, there is rarely a single sentence that will say &quot;The inventive concept is X&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The abstract of a patent document is (in the U.S.) supposed to be a short description of the invention, but is not intended to have a lot of details about the specific invention.  Abstracts are typically not very helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In U.S. patents, the first section of the disclosure is usually the background.  These can be helpful explaining things that are similar to the invention.  Sometimes, the last paragraphs of this segment will have statements that try and explain what is wrong with the prior art and what the invention intends to correct/improve/fix.  Again, there isn't a lot of detail about the exact invention, but it can helpful in finding the general concept for the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following the background is the summary of the invention.  Some will have paragraphs that attempt to generalize the ideas and methods of the patent, but with varying levels of detail.  Other summaries will be very generic restatements of claim language and won't be very helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later than that is the detailed description of the patent, i.e. the long, difficult to understand part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the end of the document (in the U.S.) are the claims.  That's what is intended to be the invention and should include the inventive concept, but claim language can be challenging to understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the drawings can be useful.  If you have knowledge of the technology related to the patent, you can pick out familiar elements in the drawings and attempt to guess what the 'inventive stuff' is based on what looks unfamiliar in the drawings.  Also, matching things in the drawings to stuff that is in the claims can help with determining the invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2324" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="730" RevisionGUID="688071f7-fc73-4873-b96a-383227e6864c" CreationDate="2012-10-17T04:03:55.430" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/258418035474460672" />
  <row Id="2325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="735" RevisionGUID="441a27ba-d82c-4c3f-b7ab-3e3fdb458afb" CreationDate="2012-10-17T05:32:58.413" UserId="1611" Text="What are ways to find the value of a patent. By value, I mean its selling price in the market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is the most preferred method and if I need to go about it, how should I proceed/start?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2326" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="735" RevisionGUID="441a27ba-d82c-4c3f-b7ab-3e3fdb458afb" CreationDate="2012-10-17T05:32:58.413" UserId="1611" Text="Patent Valuation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2327" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="735" RevisionGUID="441a27ba-d82c-4c3f-b7ab-3e3fdb458afb" CreationDate="2012-10-17T05:32:58.413" UserId="1611" Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2328" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="722" RevisionGUID="942e6236-bcae-4c26-8371-7cf02ec5962b" CreationDate="2012-10-17T10:03:55.227" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/258508631052537856" />
  <row Id="2329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="736" RevisionGUID="bcf7618b-e18c-46e4-b7d4-948051826a37" CreationDate="2012-10-17T13:01:49.857" UserId="1259" Text="Too often the patent is viewed as a &quot;commodity&quot; and traded as such. This (in my opinion) detracts from the concept of patent protection - where an *inventor's idea* is to be protected. To answer the question - whatever the market will bear. Presumably the patent is for something useful, that some business entity may be interested in mass producing and marketing it. And there are always &quot;patent trolls&quot; (aka NPEs) that will be more than happy to buy out any trivial patent with the hopes of suing everyone on the left side of the room." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2330" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="721" RevisionGUID="eeb80adb-06a4-4fea-8ab0-6695580a8afe" CreationDate="2012-10-17T13:03:55.453" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/258553931054055424" />
  <row Id="2331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="737" RevisionGUID="36e67940-c38d-4b9d-8d8b-1d0081fabcb4" CreationDate="2012-10-17T13:46:03.997" UserId="8" Text="[US7028023][1] Seems to be a patent for a data structure (a variation on a linked list with an extra pointer to the item after the next item). Are data structures generally considered patentable, if so, are there other examples like this? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7028023" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2332" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="737" RevisionGUID="36e67940-c38d-4b9d-8d8b-1d0081fabcb4" CreationDate="2012-10-17T13:46:03.997" UserId="8" Text="Are Data Structures Patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2333" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="737" RevisionGUID="36e67940-c38d-4b9d-8d8b-1d0081fabcb4" CreationDate="2012-10-17T13:46:03.997" UserId="8" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="738" RevisionGUID="c5159e65-a991-4bd5-91af-0aaa2a5774ab" CreationDate="2012-10-17T13:50:27.423" UserId="34" Text="This is the first I've heard of this [patent for linked lists and traversals][1] filed in 2002.&#xD;&#xA;Note that the claim is not a patent on a linked list itself [(discussion on Hacker News)][2], but apparently on a doubly linked list, or a secondary traversal pointer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computerized list that may be traversed in at least two sequences comprising: a plurality of items that are contained in said computerized list; and a primary pointer and an auxiliary pointer for each of said items of said computerized list such that each of said items has an associated primary pointer and an associated auxiliary pointer, said primary pointer functioning as a primary linked list to direct a computer program to a first following item and defining a first sequence to traverse said computerized list, said auxiliary pointer functioning as an auxiliary linked list to direct said computer program to a second following item and defining a second sequence to traverse said computerized list. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can we collate some verifiable prior art for this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PALL&amp;RefSrch=yes&amp;Query=PN/7028023&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2873951" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2335" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="738" RevisionGUID="c5159e65-a991-4bd5-91af-0aaa2a5774ab" CreationDate="2012-10-17T13:50:27.423" UserId="34" Text="Prior art for linked list (secondary and tertiary traversal)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2336" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="738" RevisionGUID="c5159e65-a991-4bd5-91af-0aaa2a5774ab" CreationDate="2012-10-17T13:50:27.423" UserId="34" Text="&lt;us7028023&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="9a2c9025-de08-4e82-a2f8-d49c904c751b" CreationDate="2012-10-17T14:04:22.467" UserId="906" Comment="another attempt to fix patent links" Text="I was wondering whether there was sufficient prior art for some of the patents that Microsoft is using in (what I consider) strong-arming Android manufacturers? Most of those seem to have been resolved under NDA, but here's some information from the [Barnes &amp; Noble case][1] and the just-completed [Motorola case in Germany][2], [#US7411582](http://www.google.com/patents/US7411582)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [#US6,891,551](http://www.google.com/patents/US6891551): “Selection handles in editing electronic documents.” Issued May 10, 2005&#xD;&#xA; - [#US5,778,372](http://www.google.com/patents/US5778372): “Remote retrieval and display management of electronic document with incorporated images.” Issued July 7, 1998.&#xD;&#xA; - [#US6,957,233](http://www.google.com/patents/US6957233): “Method and apparatus for capturing and rendering annotations for non-modifiable electronic content.” Issued Oct. 18, 2005.&#xD;&#xA; - [#US7,411,582][4]: &quot;Soft input panel system and method.&quot; Issue date: Aug 12, 2008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.geekwire.com/2012/microsoft-barnes-noble/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/20/microsoft-wins-third-injunction-motorola-software-patent/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7411582" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2338" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="9a2c9025-de08-4e82-a2f8-d49c904c751b" CreationDate="2012-10-17T14:04:22.467" Comment="Proposed by 906 approved by 1 edit id of 245" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="628" RevisionGUID="761e5c3d-da87-4259-950c-bd6ce263d11f" CreationDate="2012-10-17T14:04:28.740" UserId="906" Comment="another attempt to fix patent link" Text="[US Patent #7,353,199](http://www.google.com/patents/US7353199) is about a system for creating a web site where the user gets &quot;restricted&quot; access (less that full functionality) during a trial period, but &quot;full&quot; access once the user registers (e.g., pays) for the web site the user created through the system.  Claim 1 is representative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for moderating external access to an electronic document authoring, development and distribution system comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * identifying a third party requesting access to said electronic document authoring, development and distribution system;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * permitting restricted access to said third party to selected functions of said electronic document authoring, development and distribution system; and,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * eliminating all access restrictions to said selected functions in said electronic document authoring, development and distribution system which were imposed in said permitting step when said third party registers as a registered user of said electronic document authoring, development and distribution system.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2340" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="628" RevisionGUID="761e5c3d-da87-4259-950c-bd6ce263d11f" CreationDate="2012-10-17T14:04:28.740" Comment="Proposed by 906 approved by 1 edit id of 244" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2341" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="737" RevisionGUID="80c2d6ef-5985-4a76-a867-72b2691d30d7" CreationDate="2012-10-17T14:06:34.727" UserId="1" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="737" RevisionGUID="e1c2c93d-dc53-4c7a-8c59-18a586acd944" CreationDate="2012-10-17T14:20:00.187" UserId="76" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="[US7028023][1] seems to be a patent for a data structure (a variation on a linked list with an extra pointer to the item after the next item). Are data structures generally considered patentable, if so, are there other examples like this? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7028023" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2344" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="737" RevisionGUID="e1c2c93d-dc53-4c7a-8c59-18a586acd944" CreationDate="2012-10-17T14:20:00.187" UserId="76" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Are data structures patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2345" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="737" RevisionGUID="e1c2c93d-dc53-4c7a-8c59-18a586acd944" CreationDate="2012-10-17T14:20:00.187" UserId="76" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;data-processing-database&gt;&lt;us7028023&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="738" RevisionGUID="50729ddb-d89b-4ed7-a4c0-c318d1eb8d8e" CreationDate="2012-10-17T14:21:35.460" UserId="76" Comment="added 26 characters in body; edited tags" Text="This is the first I've heard of this [patent for linked lists and traversals][1] filed in 2002.&#xD;&#xA;Note that the claim is not a patent on a linked list itself [(discussion on Hacker News)][2], but apparently on a doubly linked list, or a secondary traversal pointer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computerized list that may be traversed in at least two sequences comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * a plurality of items that are contained in said computerized list; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * a primary pointer and an auxiliary pointer for each of said items of said computerized list such that each of said items has an associated primary pointer and an associated auxiliary pointer,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   said primary pointer functioning as a primary linked list to direct a computer program to a first following item and defining a first sequence to traverse said computerized list,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   said auxiliary pointer functioning as an auxiliary linked list to direct said computer program to a second following item and defining a second sequence to traverse said computerized list. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can we collate some verifiable prior art for this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PALL&amp;RefSrch=yes&amp;Query=PN/7028023&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2873951" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2347" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="738" RevisionGUID="50729ddb-d89b-4ed7-a4c0-c318d1eb8d8e" CreationDate="2012-10-17T14:21:35.460" UserId="76" Comment="added 26 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;data-processing-database&gt;&lt;us7028023&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="739" RevisionGUID="38944c11-567c-4970-8e4f-8286d0d02649" CreationDate="2012-10-17T14:27:41.847" UserId="1335" Text="From a link from a previous HN discussion:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1bbb3/congratulations_mingjen_wang_on_patenting_the/c1bc13&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, some of the links in that comment itself are broken. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that while the claims only include a second &quot;auxiliary pointer,&quot; it can be interpreted to include third, fourth or more auxiliary pointers. (It's kind of like the principle of induction in mathematics; you claim for n = 1 and n = 2, and by &quot;induction&quot;, n = 3, 4... can be covered as well.) As such, the patent is really on having multi-pointer linked lists enabling multiple, different traversal orders (whereas a doubly linked list only enables traversing back and forth along the same order, which is a special case of this patent.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, according to the Reddit link above, apparently &quot;Taming C++&quot;, published in 1994, clearly describes this method. (Disclaimer: I have not read the book myself and am only going by the Reddit comment.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="740" RevisionGUID="e826753d-ffa8-4c8f-854c-b9905cd65e03" CreationDate="2012-10-17T14:44:51.247" UserId="1335" Text="Depending on how it is claimed, probably yes. I realize it's a non-definite semi-answer, but the topic, as with all things patent-law, is complex and involves legal theories like &quot;printed matter doctrine&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very interesting discussion in this article (which also has a few examples):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Andrew Joseph Hollander, &quot;Patenting Computer Data Structures: The Ghost, The Machine, and the Federal Circuit,&quot; Duke Law &amp; Technology Review, December 2003&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1102&amp;context=dltr [PDF]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="741" RevisionGUID="b8fd2818-0e58-4960-96cc-b2bda92f1655" CreationDate="2012-10-17T14:56:04.167" UserId="76" Text="This isn't exactly about a doubly-linked list, but rather about an object that contains two “next” pointers that let it be included in two unrelated linked lists. While a doubly-linked list is a special case of that, you'd need to argue that the generalization is obvious (and I don't think it is) or find prior art for it anyway. So let's look for prior art for nodes that can be included in two linked lists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure that this is about as old as linked lists themselves. However, I'll stick to a more recent (but still prior) example that I found by googling “two next pointers”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the source code of [Gcc 3.2](http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.2/), released on August 14, 2002 (hence prior art), such a data structure is used in the file `gcc/conflict.c`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoting from a comment in that file:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the arc data structures are threaded by a set of linked lists by single reg number.  Since each arc references two regs, there are two next pointers, one for the smaller-numbered reg and one for the larger-numbered reg. This permits the quick enumeration of conflicts for a single register.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rest of the file, and the code, describe the data structure and demonstrate its use. Checking the patent's claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a plurality of items that are contained in said computerized list&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The arc data structures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a primary pointer and an auxiliary pointer for each of said items of said computerized list such that each of said items has an associated primary pointer and an associated auxiliary pointer,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`smaller_next` and `larger_next`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said primary pointer functioning as a primary linked list to direct a computer program to a first following item and defining a first sequence to traverse said computerized list,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; said auxiliary pointer functioning as an auxiliary linked list to direct said computer program to a second following item and defining a second sequence to traverse said computerized list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the use of the two next pointers as described in the comment above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Gcc prior art does not teach claim 2 (with the addition of tertiary pointers), but once the leap to two lists has been made, allowing for more is obvious (it is well-known that programmers count “0, 1, 2, many”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 3 and 4 define the method to traverse the two lists and a system capable of performing the method, they are not inventive in their own right.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="742" RevisionGUID="d62f6f22-6c3b-4f03-abe6-c13f5a7dfbc6" CreationDate="2012-10-17T15:42:49.403" UserId="1629" Text="What is the best method to request use of a patented technology for use in a specific project? Is it possible to develop a simple agreement for a specific project or is it necessay to enter into a general technology licensing/royalty agreement, provided the patent holder is willing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2352" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="742" RevisionGUID="d62f6f22-6c3b-4f03-abe6-c13f5a7dfbc6" CreationDate="2012-10-17T15:42:49.403" UserId="1629" Text="Use of a patented technology" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2353" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="742" RevisionGUID="d62f6f22-6c3b-4f03-abe6-c13f5a7dfbc6" CreationDate="2012-10-17T15:42:49.403" UserId="1629" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;user-interface&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="743" RevisionGUID="135f3e98-d933-48cc-b4d0-bed9718f9aba" CreationDate="2012-10-17T16:06:11.193" UserId="998" Text="Looking for prior art for Apple's search algorithm patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In January 2000, Apple filed its original patent application to a heuristic search approach that uses a variety of algorithms that depend upon the area being searched.  The application also suggests that some of the searches will be done on the local computer while others will be over the network.  Although developed much later, Apple has claimed that this invention is embodied by its iPhone Siri application.   Apple has also sued Samsung for infringing one of the resulting patents. The courts have rejected that claim, but Apple still has a continuation application pending in the case. (Published as [US Pub. No. 2012-0166477][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new application claims: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computerized method, comprising &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving at least a partial search query;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; storing the at least partial search query on a non-transitory computer readable medium; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; searching a first plurality of files for matches with the at least partial search query, wherein the first plurality of files is located across an internet connection coupled to the non-transitory computer readable medium; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; searching a second plurality of files for matches with the at least partial search query, wherein the second plurality of files is only available via local access from &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO has identified two relevant references: Patent Nos. [6,185,567][2] and [6,070,158][3], but I suspect that others are available.  Prior art must be submitted to the USPTO before December 28, 2012. [Directions for Sending Prior Art to USPTO][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: This application is related to Apple's Patent No. 8,086,604 discussed in a [different AskPatents question][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=303204&amp;OS=303204&amp;RS=303204&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6185567&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6070158?pg=PA5&amp;dq=6,070,158&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=1NV-UKWsC8iLywG9wIHIAQ&amp;ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120916162139282&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/699/prior-art-for-apples-unified-search-patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2355" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="743" RevisionGUID="135f3e98-d933-48cc-b4d0-bed9718f9aba" CreationDate="2012-10-17T16:06:11.193" UserId="998" Text="Prior Art for Apple Heuristic Search Algorithm (Pub No. 2012-0166477)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2356" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="743" RevisionGUID="135f3e98-d933-48cc-b4d0-bed9718f9aba" CreationDate="2012-10-17T16:06:11.193" UserId="998" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;us8086604&gt;&lt;us20120166477&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="744" RevisionGUID="a19629cb-8d83-4ebd-8273-49f8e1b4d568" CreationDate="2012-10-17T16:15:10.277" UserId="1632" Text="How does this patent filed by Apple...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://www.google.com/patents/US20110037768?printsec=description#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... differ from Microsoft's DirectX/DirectDraw HEL (Hardware Emulation Layer) which has been around for a couple of decades?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110037768?printsec=description#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2358" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="744" RevisionGUID="a19629cb-8d83-4ebd-8273-49f8e1b4d568" CreationDate="2012-10-17T16:15:10.277" UserId="1632" Text="How does this differ from HEL?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2359" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="744" RevisionGUID="a19629cb-8d83-4ebd-8273-49f8e1b4d568" CreationDate="2012-10-17T16:15:10.277" UserId="1632" Text="&lt;apple&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="745" RevisionGUID="2bdae61f-a588-487d-9075-d0c6cf97a619" CreationDate="2012-10-17T16:19:41.407" UserId="96" Text="Lots of avenues to explore here.  First is the breadth or scope of use of the patented technology.  Is it going to be used only within your business?  Or will it be part of a product or service that your customers use?  Is it essential or just nice to have - i.e., how much is it worth to you?  Is your project the iPhone 6 or a neighborhood car pool web site?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent holder may be eager or wary - may consider your project to be too small to merit effort of negotiation or complications of policing the agreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At root what you are looking for is ordinary - a business agreement between a willing buyer and a willing seller. Issues are price, compliance, duration, scope, etc.  Just be aware that the law recognizes many &quot;slices&quot; of interest that can be transferred to a patent licensee, some of them pretty arcane.  It may be OK to initiate a conversation with a patent holder concerning a license on your own, but you should have professional legal help to evaluate any agreement before you sign on the dotted line.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="743" RevisionGUID="60b84a9e-f9a7-40ed-880d-18b812bfc92f" CreationDate="2012-10-17T16:22:47.537" UserId="998" Comment="added 137 characters in body" Text="Looking for prior art for Apple's search algorithm patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In January 2000, Apple filed its original patent application to a heuristic search approach that uses a variety of algorithms that depend upon the area being searched.  The application also suggests that some of the searches will be done on the local computer while others will be over the network.  Although developed much later, Apple has claimed that this invention is embodied by its iPhone Siri application.   Apple has also sued Samsung for infringing one of the resulting patents. The courts have rejected that claim, but Apple still has a continuation application pending in the case. (Published as [US Pub. No. 2012-0166477][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new application claims: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computerized method, comprising &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving at least a partial search query;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; storing the at least partial search query on a non-transitory computer readable medium; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; searching a first plurality of files for matches with the at least partial search query, wherein the first plurality of files is located across an internet connection coupled to the non-transitory computer readable medium; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; searching a second plurality of files for matches with the at least partial search query, wherein the second plurality of files is only available via local access from  a computer that includes the non-transitory computer readable medium; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving a notification of at least one search result; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO has identified two relevant references: Patent Nos. [6,185,567][2] and [6,070,158][3], but I suspect that others are available.  Prior art must be submitted to the USPTO before December 28, 2012. [Directions for Sending Prior Art to USPTO][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: This application is related to Apple's Patent No. 8,086,604 discussed in a [different AskPatents question][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=303204&amp;OS=303204&amp;RS=303204&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6185567&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6070158?pg=PA5&amp;dq=6,070,158&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=1NV-UKWsC8iLywG9wIHIAQ&amp;ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120916162139282&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/699/prior-art-for-apples-unified-search-patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="744" RevisionGUID="ce4146e0-727f-41ac-a250-1ba34857c890" CreationDate="2012-10-17T17:08:25.313" UserId="76" Comment="added 1033 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How does the patent application [US 2011/0037768 “System for Emulating Graphics Operations”](http://www.google.com/patents/US20110037768) filed by Apple differ from Microsoft's DirectX/DirectDraw HEL (Hardware Emulation Layer) which has been around for a couple of decades?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the first few claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1\. A method of creating an image, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * receiving a request to render a polygon having a plurality of pixels, the polygon represented by a programmable graphics processing unit (GPU) fragment program, the programmable GPU program comprising a plurality of programmable GPU fragment programs;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * converting the programmable GPU program to a central processing unit (CPU) program;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * unrolling a loop in the CPU program such that the unrolled loop will process N of the plurality of pixels;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * executing, by a CPU, the unrolled loop a variable number of times; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * rendering the N pixels in groups of L pixels, by executing, by the CPU, the unrolled loop L/N times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2\. The method of claim 1 wherein the act of rendering comprises performing texture lookups for each group of L pixels before rendering any of the L pixels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3\. The method of claim 1 further comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * dividing the polygon into sections;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * selecting a first section for rendering; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * selecting a first scan line in the first section for rendering.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2365" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="744" RevisionGUID="ce4146e0-727f-41ac-a250-1ba34857c890" CreationDate="2012-10-17T17:08:25.313" UserId="76" Comment="added 1033 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How does Apple's patent differ from Microsoft HEL?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2366" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="744" RevisionGUID="ce4146e0-727f-41ac-a250-1ba34857c890" CreationDate="2012-10-17T17:08:25.313" UserId="76" Comment="added 1033 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;computer-graphics&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;us20110037768&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="542" RevisionGUID="9e95fbb5-db7e-4831-bc5a-5f1d57f77752" CreationDate="2012-10-17T17:29:37.200" UserId="1388" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body" Text="[US Patent No. 5,715,314](http://www.google.com/patents/US5715314) titled “Network Sales System” claims systems and methods that allow a buyer to purchase products online using a computer.  Claim 34 describes a network-based sales system in which the buyer adds items to a “shopping cart” that is maintained in the seller’s online database and then receives a message to purchase the products.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 34. A network-based sales system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- at least one buyer computer for operation by a user desiring to buy products;&#xD;&#xA;-    at least one shopping cart computer; and&#xD;&#xA;-    a shopping cart database connected to said shopping cart computer;&#xD;&#xA;    said buyer computer and said shopping cart computer being interconnected by a computer network;&#xD;&#xA;-    said buyer computer being programmed to receive a plurality of requests from a user to add a plurality of respective products to a shopping cart in said shopping cart database, and, in response to said requests to add said products, to send a plurality of respective shopping cart messages to said shopping cart computer each of which comprises a product identifier identifying one of said plurality of products;&#xD;&#xA;-    said shopping cart computer being programmed to receive said plurality of shopping cart messages, to modify said shopping cart in said shopping cart database to reflect said plurality of requests to add said plurality of products to said shopping cart, and to cause a payment message associated with said shopping cart to be created; and&#xD;&#xA;-    said buyer computer being programmed to receive a request from said user to purchase said plurality of products added to said shopping cart and to cause said payment message to be activated to initiate a payment transaction for said plurality of products added to said shopping cart;&#xD;&#xA;-    said shopping cart being a stored representation of a collection of products, said shopping cart database being a database of stored representations of collections of products, and said shopping cart computer being a computer that modifies said stored representations of collections of products in said database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The filing date of the patent is October 24, 1994.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any prior art that describes using a computer to add items to a shopping cart via a computer network and then purchasing the products?  We are particularly interested in sources that describe how the shopping cart feature operated and how the payment message, if any, was sent to the buyer.  Any information about online shopping systems from the early 1990's would be helpful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="746" RevisionGUID="95e7f82c-867d-445d-89c2-87127a01f264" CreationDate="2012-10-17T19:02:42.523" UserId="1281" Text="This also sounds similar to [skip lists][1].  In that case, though, you can have many pointers for a single object, not just two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skip_list" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="747" RevisionGUID="1ee2ea5d-051f-4d52-9222-16775369e390" CreationDate="2012-10-17T20:47:21.147" UserId="1281" Text="This application relates to shading languages like Cg, GLSL, and HLSL.  In particular, it's about executing fragment programs on a CPU rather than a GPU, which is not even vaguely novel.  Shading languages have been around for decades, and can run on both CPUs and GPUs.  The bullet points simply describe the obvious, straightforward approach to executing the program on a CPU, and is precisely how most implementations do it (though some modern implementations are a bit fancier, using SIMD units to execute several instances of the program at once).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice something very sneaky they've done in the claims: they speak about a &quot;GPU fragment program&quot;, implying that the program was written for a GPU, and they're doing something novel by executing it on a CPU instead.  That is false.  The whole point of high level shading languages is to be hardware independent.  There is no such thing as a &quot;GPU fragment program.&quot;  There are only &quot;fragment programs&quot; that are hardware independent and can be executed on any type of processor you have available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding more specific prior art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first widely used shading language was [Renderman][1], developed in the 1980's.  It ran on CPUs, since there were no programming GPUs back in those days.  The first system I know of with programmable shading units was [Pixel Planes 5][2].  GLSL was developed starting in 2001, and included both CPU and GPU implementations from almost the very beginning.  For example, a CPU implementation appeared in [Mesa 4.1][3], released on Oct. 29, 2002, well before the priority date for this application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RenderMan&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=74341&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://mesa3d.org/RELNOTES-4.1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="741" RevisionGUID="04fb67db-cb81-48b8-abb1-bfe69a250f46" CreationDate="2012-10-17T20:49:13.453" UserId="76" Comment="show that this prior art is more than 1 year older than the patent application" Text="This isn't exactly about a doubly-linked list, but rather about an object that contains two “next” pointers that let it be included in two unrelated linked lists. While a doubly-linked list is a special case of that, you'd need to argue that the generalization is obvious (and I don't think it is) or find prior art for it anyway. So let's look for prior art for nodes that can be included in two linked lists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure that this is about as old as linked lists themselves. However, I'll stick to a more recent (but still prior) example that I found by googling “two next pointers”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the source code of [Gcc 3.0](http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.0/), released on June 18, 2001 (hence prior art), such a data structure is used in the file `gcc/conflict.c`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoting from a comment in that file:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the arc data structures are threaded by a set of linked lists by single reg number.  Since each arc references two regs, there are two next pointers, one for the smaller-numbered reg and one for the larger-numbered reg. This permits the quick enumeration of conflicts for a single register.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rest of the file, and the code, describe the data structure and demonstrate its use. Checking the patent's claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a plurality of items that are contained in said computerized list&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The arc data structures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a primary pointer and an auxiliary pointer for each of said items of said computerized list such that each of said items has an associated primary pointer and an associated auxiliary pointer,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`smaller_next` and `larger_next`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said primary pointer functioning as a primary linked list to direct a computer program to a first following item and defining a first sequence to traverse said computerized list,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; said auxiliary pointer functioning as an auxiliary linked list to direct said computer program to a second following item and defining a second sequence to traverse said computerized list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the use of the two next pointers as described in the comment above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Gcc prior art does not teach claim 2 (with the addition of tertiary pointers), but once the leap to two lists has been made, allowing for more is obvious (it is well-known that programmers count “0, 1, 2, many”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 3 and 4 define the method to traverse the two lists and a system capable of performing the method, they are not inventive in their own right.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="739" RevisionGUID="ee899d67-beb0-4bda-8b18-6fe0903cb0db" CreationDate="2012-10-17T21:23:21.053" UserId="1259" Comment="added link to google books to peek at this book" Text="From a link from a previous HN discussion:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1bbb3/congratulations_mingjen_wang_on_patenting_the/c1bc13&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, some of the links in that comment itself are broken. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that while the claims only include a second &quot;auxiliary pointer,&quot; it can be interpreted to include third, fourth or more auxiliary pointers. (It's kind of like the principle of induction in mathematics; you claim for n = 1 and n = 2, and by &quot;induction&quot;, n = 3, 4... can be covered as well.) As such, the patent is really on having multi-pointer linked lists enabling multiple, different traversal orders (whereas a doubly linked list only enables traversing back and forth along the same order, which is a special case of this patent.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, according to the Reddit link above, apparently [&quot;Taming C++&quot;, published in 1994][1], clearly describes this method. (Disclaimer: I have not read the book myself and am only going by the Reddit comment.) (edit note: the google books link only offers snippet views).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://books.google.com/books?isbn=0201528266" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2372" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="739" RevisionGUID="ee899d67-beb0-4bda-8b18-6fe0903cb0db" CreationDate="2012-10-17T21:23:21.053" Comment="Proposed by 1259 approved by 76, 1335 edit id of 247" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="744" RevisionGUID="74283d06-a78a-4567-a233-ddf939d24d77" CreationDate="2012-10-17T21:26:29.197" UserId="1259" Comment="added the issued patent no and link, and filing date of application" Text="How does the patent application [US 2011/0037768 “System for Emulating Graphics Operations”](http://www.google.com/patents/US20110037768) filed by Apple (filing date Oct 15, 2010) differ from Microsoft's DirectX/DirectDraw HEL (Hardware Emulation Layer) which has been around for a couple of decades? Issued patent [US8040353][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the first few claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1\. A method of creating an image, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * receiving a request to render a polygon having a plurality of pixels, the polygon represented by a programmable graphics processing unit (GPU) fragment program, the programmable GPU program comprising a plurality of programmable GPU fragment programs;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * converting the programmable GPU program to a central processing unit (CPU) program;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * unrolling a loop in the CPU program such that the unrolled loop will process N of the plurality of pixels;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * executing, by a CPU, the unrolled loop a variable number of times; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * rendering the N pixels in groups of L pixels, by executing, by the CPU, the unrolled loop L/N times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2\. The method of claim 1 wherein the act of rendering comprises performing texture lookups for each group of L pixels before rendering any of the L pixels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3\. The method of claim 1 further comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * dividing the polygon into sections;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * selecting a first section for rendering; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * selecting a first scan line in the first section for rendering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8040353" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2374" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="744" RevisionGUID="74283d06-a78a-4567-a233-ddf939d24d77" CreationDate="2012-10-17T21:26:29.197" Comment="Proposed by 1259 approved by 76, 1 edit id of 248" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2375" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="738" RevisionGUID="84ada067-201c-4648-9222-21e237f7cad7" CreationDate="2012-10-17T22:03:55.480" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/258689826046484480" />
  <row Id="2376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="748" RevisionGUID="944b6895-5f6f-43aa-bfbf-8ba9a1a59fdc" CreationDate="2012-10-17T22:05:46.837" UserId="1259" Text="Interestingly - patent [US7836044][1] (Google instant) sounds exceedingly similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A search system monitors the input of a search query by a user. Before the user finishes entering the search query, the search system identifies and sends a portion of the query as a partial query to the search engine. Based on the partial query, the search engine creates a set of predicted queries. This process may take into account prior queries submitted by a community of users, and may take into account a user profile. The predicted queries are be sent back to the user for possible selection. The search system may also cache search results corresponding to one or more of the predicted queries in anticipation of the user selecting one of the predicted queries. The search engine may also return at least a portion of the search results corresponding to one or more of the predicted queries.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sounds very similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving at least a partial search query;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;same as *the search system identifies and sends a portion of the query as a partial query to the search engine*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; storing the at least partial search query on a non-transitory computer readable medium;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; searching a first plurality of files for matches with the at least&#xD;&#xA;&gt; partial search query, wherein the first plurality of files is located&#xD;&#xA;&gt; across an internet connection coupled to the non-transitory computer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; readable medium;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; searching a second plurality of files for matches with the at least&#xD;&#xA;&gt; partial search query, wherein the second plurality of files is only&#xD;&#xA;&gt; available via local access from a computer that includes the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non-transitory computer readable medium; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving a notification of at least one search result;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The search system may also cache search results corresponding to one or more of the predicted queries* - storing on computer readable medium (memory);&#xD;&#xA;and *The search system may also cache search results corresponding to one or more of the predicted queries in anticipation of the user selecting one of the predicted queries. The search engine may also return at least a portion of the search results corresponding to one or more of the predicted queries.* - a &quot;cache&quot; may be stored to disk (or RAM), creating a &quot;plurality of files&quot; that are utilized in the searching operation; both locally and over a network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7836044" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="749" RevisionGUID="fe016fd2-a8a8-40b7-b7d1-f2c22ddfdd9d" CreationDate="2012-10-18T00:15:34.127" UserId="1335" Text="As far as I can guess, it's probably very much like pricing any other asset, but with several caveats that are very specific to the patent system. One such significant caveat is the unpredictable effect of case law as it is made. As an extreme example, imagine if you had a &quot;valuable&quot; business method patent, and the Bilski decision had flat out ruled business methods as un-statutory. Suddenly your patent value basically drops to 0.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it certainly is possible; after all, licensing executives and damages experts in patent lawsuits do it regularly. The best person to comment here would be an experienced licensing executive, but I doubt we'll get one here anytime soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From some light research, hearsay and guesswork, here is an approach at a very broad level. (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, licensing executive or a business person, and it'll be obvious; Heck, I don't even have an MBA.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Identify the potential target market for licensing. This may include: firms that would like to use the invention encapsulated in the patent and license it; firms that are already using the invention and thus infringing; or firms that are likely to infringe in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Identify the finances of the potential licensee firms, such as annual revenue statements etc. from public records and quarterly reports. This is typically pretty straightforward market research, especially for public companies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Identify the value of the invention with respect to the annual revenues above, i.e. what portion of their revenues could be attributed, either directly or indirectly, to this patent. Now *this* is a very complex problem because, as you can imagine, such detailed information is rarely available. Sometimes it is only accessible on discovery, which means a lawsuit has been filed and you're at one of the most expensive stages. Even with discovery things are complicated. For instance, a company may not be making any meaningful revenue from the product that practices the invention itself, but from other auxiliary sources. An example of this is Google's use of Java in Android in Oracle vs. Google; since Google mostly licenses Android for free and makes money from ads, Oracle had to work a bit to show how much *advertising* revenue could be attributed to *Android's* alleged infringement of their Java patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Once you get a number, say F, for the fraction of annual revenues attributable to the invention, determine the number of years, say T, left until your patent expires, and the period of past infringements during its term, if any. Multiply the number of years T by the fraction F to get a value V.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You now have a rough idea of the value V of the patent over its term based on the fraction of the revenues of potential licensees which could be attributable to the invention. However, no business is simply going to pay up that amount without negotiation, if at all they even bother to negotiate before filing a [Declaratory Judgement][1] to preemptively torpedo you. So this number is more of a rough *upper bound* on the value of that patent, since the actual value will typically be much lower. It *may* be higher, but I'd guess such cases are rare; say, for instance, if you can prove willful infringement and get treble damages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now the task is to identify the various factors, costs and risks involved in monetizing this patent. I discussed a few of the risks in the second half of [this previous answer][2]. Rest assured there are many more (such as the imaginary Bilski scenario above.) More interesting are the various factors that come into play. The value of the patent will change drastically depending on how you assert it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Would the potential licensee be amenable to a license, or do they have a strict &quot;anti-patent troll&quot; stance (for whatever their definition of &quot;troll&quot; is)? If they don't license easily, a lawsuit is in the offing and will reduce the value to you greatly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Can the potential licensee bring a countersuit against you? If so, the value of the patent would be offset by the liability of the countersuit, or you may be forced into a cross-license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Are you cross-licensing it? If so you have to estimate a value in terms of the value of the patents being offered for cross-license, and monetary value may well be 0.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Are you practicing the invention yourself? If so, your case becomes stronger as you could show damages from lost profits, which may raise the estimated value. If you're not practicing the invention yourself, your estimate should be lower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Are you asserting through your own lawyers or a licensing executive? If so, their fees will add a very significant cost that could reduce the value of that patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Alternatively, are you asserting through a NPE/patent assertion entity or a &quot;contingency&quot; law firm? If so, the value of the patent *to you* is much lower, because the NPE /contingency firm is taking most of the upfront risk, and as such will negotiate to keep most of the winnings, if any. Typically, the longer the case goes on, the greater their effort and risk and hence more of the pie they get. For instance, if the licensee settles immediately, they may keep less than 20%, but if the case goes all the way to trial and a jury decision, they may keep more than 50%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To reiterate, note that this is a *very* simplified and generalized approach. Actual methods would be much more sophisticated, taking into account many more factors I can't even begin to contemplate, such as industry-specific nuances. I imagine huge, complex, multi-sheet spreadsheets would be involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as in the other linked post, I simply want to emphasize that monetizing patents is not nearly as easy as many people think, and it begins right from estimating a &quot;value&quot; for the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/declaratory+judgment&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/674/can-a-new-idea-for-a-software-project-be-an-intellectual-property/692#692" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="750" RevisionGUID="89998223-503f-4734-a203-c0814684da52" CreationDate="2012-10-18T01:48:29.627" UserId="1637" Text="In Delphi7 there were several DBLookup components which make that, take an input and show a list of results using the input as a partial input.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DBLookup Text v.2.0	FWS 	4 k 	09 Apr 1999&#xD;&#xA;By Steve Flynn. Its a Label control that sources its text from a Database Field. The contents of this field is not actually displayed, but is used as a Lookup reference for a second Database. The result of the Lookup operation is used as the Text that is displayed in the Label.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Fully functional&#xD;&#xA;Source: Included&#xD;&#xA;Download: D1 D2 D3 D4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="751" RevisionGUID="e89f299f-6957-4d2e-9c8c-0814b5b13f35" CreationDate="2012-10-18T03:02:08.383" UserId="1639" Text="Is there anything in the claim that is not in a query made to a distributed database where some of the database is accessed over a network and some of it is on disks attached to the local machine? For example, the textbook, Principles of distributed database systems, by M. Tamer Özsu, Patrick Valduriez, second edition published 1999 discusses not just distributed databases but discusses implementations over the world wide web.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;NEW TO THIS EDITION&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relationship of distributed DBMSs with the new networking technologies is discussed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The query processing/optimization chapters now focus on techniques employed in commercial systems and include new algorithms such as randomized search strategies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Full chapters are devoted to parallel DBMSs and distributed object DBMSs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Current issues are discussed in a new chapter, including sections on data warehousing, world wide web and databases, push-based technologies, and mobile DBMSs.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2384" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="737" RevisionGUID="7bccdcf4-d86c-403d-9c00-2f87b7ee9f44" CreationDate="2012-10-18T07:03:55.453" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/258825721764515840" />
  <row Id="2385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="753" RevisionGUID="dc65d38e-447c-4362-bd08-992268dbcef3" CreationDate="2012-10-18T09:08:30.400" UserId="1642" Text="is it legal to take a idea from some existing app and re-code it for my app.It may sound very vague,but here is the situation :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found an android app and I like to code it for windows desktop.I am planning to code it from scratch,so its like a idea inspired from that android app.But there is in fact no addition and it will be a straight port of that android app to windows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;can the author of that app claim a royalty or money for taking his idea.Please help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just want to make sure everything is legal before diving into coding part.Thanks.." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2386" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="753" RevisionGUID="dc65d38e-447c-4362-bd08-992268dbcef3" CreationDate="2012-10-18T09:08:30.400" UserId="1642" Text="Taking ideas from other apps" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2387" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="753" RevisionGUID="dc65d38e-447c-4362-bd08-992268dbcef3" CreationDate="2012-10-18T09:08:30.400" UserId="1642" Text="&lt;android&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="754" RevisionGUID="6b2e52b7-178c-45a4-8b1f-6269bb0f7940" CreationDate="2012-10-18T10:27:32.483" UserId="1259" Text="For a software application, it would be protected by copyright. That means you cannot just port it to another platform without the copyright holders permission. There may be a patent tied to the original app, but without that specific information this question may not be appropriate to this forum." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="753" RevisionGUID="2685a9d5-acbb-4208-9744-5835c956ecc0" CreationDate="2012-10-18T10:51:10.207" UserId="1642" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="is it legal to take a idea from some existing app and re-code it for my app.It may sound very vague,but here is the situation :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found an android app and I like to code it for windows desktop.I am planning to code it from scratch,so its like a idea inspired from that android app.But there is in fact no addition and it will be a straight port of that android app to windows.I ll ofcourse change the name and some look and feel of the app&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;can the author of that app claim a royalty or money for taking his idea.Please help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just want to make sure everything is legal before diving into coding part.Thanks.." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="753" RevisionGUID="ed51eae7-6b36-40f7-b8cc-6ce9e52c49a4" CreationDate="2012-10-18T12:22:34.057" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Is it legal to take a idea from some existing app and re-code it for my app? It may sound very vague, but here is the situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found an android app and I like to code it for windows desktop. I am planning to code it from scratch, so its like a idea inspired from that android app. But there is in fact no addition and it will be a straight port of that android app to windows. I'll ofcourse change the name and some look and feel of the app.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the author of that app claim a royalty or money for taking his idea? I just want to make sure everything is legal before diving into coding part.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2391" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="753" RevisionGUID="ed51eae7-6b36-40f7-b8cc-6ce9e52c49a4" CreationDate="2012-10-18T12:22:34.057" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="751" RevisionGUID="be0f2786-fc16-4ddd-996a-7d3a67601e34" CreationDate="2012-10-18T12:23:26.303" UserId="76" Comment="edited body" Text="Is there anything in the claim that is not in a query made to a distributed database where some of the database is accessed over a network and some of it is on disks attached to the local machine? For example, the textbook, *Principles of distributed database systems*, by M. Tamer Özsu, Patrick Valduriez, second edition published 1999 discusses not just distributed databases but discusses implementations over the world wide web.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; NEW TO THIS EDITION&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The relationship of distributed DBMSs with the new networking technologies is discussed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The query processing/optimization chapters now focus on techniques employed in commercial systems and include new algorithms such as randomized search strategies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Full chapters are devoted to parallel DBMSs and distributed object DBMSs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Current issues are discussed in a new chapter, including sections on data warehousing, world wide web and databases, push-based technologies, and mobile DBMSs.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="755" RevisionGUID="f0880fad-01f9-4967-a6d1-ed6e756f4497" CreationDate="2012-10-18T12:38:46.600" UserId="76" Text="As far as patents (the topic of this site) are concerned, yes, there is a risk that reproducing that application will infringe on some patents. These patents may be held by the author of the application, or the author may have a license, or the author may be infringing. If you use different techniques inside to accomplish the same user-level behavior, the patents relevant to your application may be relevant from the ones relevant to the original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no magic bullet to know whether your application might infringe on some patents, and you can't know before starting on your project since patents would cover implementation techniques: you'll need to do at least the design first. A professional patent search costs a significant amount of money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the upside, it's pretty unlikely that a smartphone app would involve patented techniques. Only you can decide whether to take the risk but the risk is low.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt; Off-topic: the code and artwork of the original app are covered by copyright. As long as you don't copy any of them, you won't infringe on the original app's copyright. The name of the app may be covered by a trade mark, which isn't a problem as long as you pick a sufficiently different name. The [look and feel](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Look_and_feel) may or may not be covered by copyright: there isn't a clear jurisprudence on whether copying an interface wholesale (while using different graphics for the individual elements) is subject to legal restrictions. If you keep the same broad behavior while doing your own design for the details, your application is unlikely to be challenged on this grounds. The look and feel of a desktop app is likely to be pretty different from that of a mobile app anyway. &lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="756" RevisionGUID="b4db71dd-847d-4c57-be4c-1616762fd935" CreationDate="2012-10-18T14:51:24.130" UserId="1647" Text="Knuth, &quot;The Art of Computer Programming&quot;, vol. 1 &quot;Fundamental Algorithms&quot;, first edition, ca. 1970, shows a diagram of a sparse matrix implementation that uses precisely this technique.  Each cell contains two links, one to the next nonzero element in the row, one to the next nonzero element in the column.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That would seem to constitute Prior Art, seeing as how that book is one of the Fundamental Texts of computing.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2396" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="628" RevisionGUID="c8c3f7bd-5494-42c9-9419-1d77dc170bd0" CreationDate="2012-10-18T15:07:35.017" UserId="7" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;data-processing-financial&gt;&lt;us7353199&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="757" RevisionGUID="2305b4ab-edda-4715-855b-7eae1e90de16" CreationDate="2012-10-18T16:34:21.617" UserId="1648" Text="In many Window management systems I've seen, a Window object has a point to a number of other related Window objects such as 'Next Sibling', 'Previous Sibling', Parent, 'First Child', Owned windows. This is a clear example of an object being on a list (every Window has a Parent) and also have an auxiliary pointer to some other object possibly on the same list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm pretty sure this was in the internals of Microsoft Windows when I was there in 1999, but clearly I can't post the source code. It's highly likely there's similar examples in X Windows, but it's probably in the kernel-side representation - user space has Handles or References rather than pointers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="758" RevisionGUID="55429fc6-57a8-41af-ac2b-6ace4edf1ba1" CreationDate="2012-10-18T18:19:59.507" UserId="1653" Text="This is a patent on searching here and there. Don't the examiners practice this patent every day during the course of their work? Haven't they done so for years? How can they do something all day every day year after year and then issue someone a patent for inventing it? Duh!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="759" RevisionGUID="ecba771e-0e9f-44f0-b0fd-e3787c25965f" CreationDate="2012-10-18T19:08:55.857" UserId="1609" Text="I plan to develop an open-source software application that speaks words in a foreign language while displaying pictures that represent the words. Can teaching methods (such as Rosetta Stone's language immersion software, which also displays a picture of a word while pronouncing the word) be patented? I'm concerned that someone might already have a patent over this method of instruction, thus preventing other software developers from creating similar software." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2400" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="759" RevisionGUID="ecba771e-0e9f-44f0-b0fd-e3787c25965f" CreationDate="2012-10-18T19:08:55.857" UserId="1609" Text="Can teaching methods be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2401" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="759" RevisionGUID="ecba771e-0e9f-44f0-b0fd-e3787c25965f" CreationDate="2012-10-18T19:08:55.857" UserId="1609" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="759" RevisionGUID="0d988aa4-ba99-4070-bfb4-685bb330b382" CreationDate="2012-10-18T19:14:16.630" UserId="1609" Comment="clarify wording" Text="I plan to develop an open-source software application that speaks words in a foreign language while displaying pictures that represent the words. Can teaching methods (such as Rosetta Stone's language immersion software, which also displays a picture of a word while pronouncing the word) be patented? I'm concerned that someone might already have a patent over this method of instruction, thus preventing me (and other software developers) from creating similar software." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="760" RevisionGUID="ff1aa7bb-cfbf-4bda-8779-23047020d458" CreationDate="2012-10-18T19:15:57.657" UserId="1654" Text="This document from 1999 describes a distributed search system, and the claims from the Apple patent look like a subset of the capabilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.kmworld.com/Articles/Editorial/Feature/Excalibur-RetrievalWare-more-than-information-retrieval--9139.aspx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This paragraph is illustrative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The product offers a single interface for searching for information across multiple data sources, seamlessly presenting returned results within a single result list. Right from a Web browser, users can search and retrieve information--including text, word processing documents, PDF files, news feeds, images, messages and data from e-mail and groupware systems, and information from relational databases--without knowing or caring where the information is located. Information can be presented to users in a familiar folder hierarchy, making the software easy for users to learn.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck killing this presposterous patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="761" RevisionGUID="3beef8a9-529a-498c-acdf-cd058d51db04" CreationDate="2012-10-18T19:56:40.493" UserId="444" Text="As a former teacher and an experienced software developer the method you are talking about sounds obvious so it should not be patentable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="762" RevisionGUID="d8371234-e08c-469b-ac36-82d75f639706" CreationDate="2012-10-18T20:33:44.350" UserId="1657" Text="Isn't this effectively what WebFerret does?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;www.webferret.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was developed in 1995-1996 by Vironix Software Laboratories, and copied by Symantec with their FastFind product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At very least Webferret should illustrate the obviousness of the patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2406" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="759" RevisionGUID="c3c7a4d1-de67-41c2-9eb3-0aa6d0462f0f" CreationDate="2012-10-18T21:32:35.217" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="762" RevisionGUID="072babe2-57ca-429d-b1ec-65cf76a6eaf0" CreationDate="2012-10-18T21:33:30.207" UserId="76" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Isn't this effectively what [WebFerret](http://www.webferret.com/) does?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was developed in 1995-1996 by Vironix Software Laboratories, and copied by Symantec with their FastFind product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At very least Webferret should illustrate the obviousness of the patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="763" RevisionGUID="ac2b1491-3598-40d2-b8d1-5f25e8919e57" CreationDate="2012-10-18T21:55:19.450" UserId="1658" Text="This article combines heuristic web searches:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@article{gauch1996profusion,&#xD;&#xA;  title={ProFusion*: Intelligent fusion from multiple, distributed search engines},&#xD;&#xA;  author={Gauch, S. and Wang, G. and Gomez, M.},&#xD;&#xA;  journal={Journal of Universal Computer Science},&#xD;&#xA;  volume={2},&#xD;&#xA;  number={9},&#xD;&#xA;  pages={637--649},&#xD;&#xA;  year={1996}&#xD;&#xA;}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This article implements local site webs and web search:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@article{miller1998sphinx,&#xD;&#xA;  title={SPHINX: a framework for creating personal, site-specific Web crawlers},&#xD;&#xA;  author={Miller, R.C. and Bharat, K.},&#xD;&#xA;  journal={Computer Networks and ISDN systems},&#xD;&#xA;  volume={30},&#xD;&#xA;  number={1},&#xD;&#xA;  pages={119--130},&#xD;&#xA;  year={1998},&#xD;&#xA;  publisher={Elsevier}&#xD;&#xA;}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Combining these two teachings in a way obvious to a practitioner skilled in the arts (or indeed to a primary school student) would lead to a system with the local and remote search capabilities proposed in this patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2410" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="759" RevisionGUID="fff0c540-2cb3-47d3-b104-5ede893dd36e" CreationDate="2012-10-19T01:03:55.613" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/259097513292877824" />
  <row Id="2411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="764" RevisionGUID="805c396a-ff09-42c4-96cc-e6d07febcf7e" CreationDate="2012-10-19T01:14:46.527" UserId="1660" Text="This is another system which searches local files and remote storage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://radiographics.rsna.com/content/19/2/523.full&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. List item&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;To find a requested image, a strategy called “multipath search” is implemented for view stations in our PACS. When an image is requested, the view station used for retrieval searches the local hard disk first. If the image is not on the local disk, the retrieval process shifts to the related cache server. If the image is not in the cache server, the index database is used to find the image. If it is a current image, it will be retrieved from the central image server; otherwise, it will be retrieved from one of the CD-ROM jukebox readers&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2412" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="743" RevisionGUID="51d03e48-2d46-4cc7-ac0b-0285761acd3f" CreationDate="2012-10-19T04:03:55.183" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/259142810429706240" />
  <row Id="2413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="aca9a4d6-711b-4813-a16f-174b6d06b85a" CreationDate="2012-10-19T06:20:01.067" UserId="596" Text="Other than the &quot;coupled to the non-transitory computer readable medium&quot; clause which I don't understand, it seems like the DNS system fits this pretty well: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A caching resolver will store the query on a non-transitory computer readable medium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A DNS nameserver is the remote resource searched for matches, `hosts` files are the local resource, and `nsswitch.conf` allows you to configure the remote server to be queried before the local files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Partial queries are supported to a limited extent by wildcard records. (The system has far more provision for partial *responses*.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2414" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="753" RevisionGUID="c1cbabdf-3fb0-4f24-a547-ec4d8bb6a4ba" CreationDate="2012-10-19T07:03:55.333" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/259188108694790144" />
  <row Id="2415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="764" RevisionGUID="8c46075a-27c4-407c-b516-e538f6523304" CreationDate="2012-10-19T14:48:48.867" UserId="1259" Comment="added source name and article date 1999" Text="This is another system which searches local files and remote storage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://radiographics.rsna.com/content/19/2/523.full&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. List item&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;To find a requested image, a strategy called “multipath search” is implemented for view stations in our PACS. When an image is requested, the view station used for retrieval searches the local hard disk first. If the image is not on the local disk, the retrieval process shifts to the related cache server. If the image is not in the cache server, the index database is used to find the image. If it is a current image, it will be retrieved from the central image server; otherwise, it will be retrieved from one of the CD-ROM jukebox readers&quot; (source: March 1999 RadioGraphics)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2416" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="764" RevisionGUID="8c46075a-27c4-407c-b516-e538f6523304" CreationDate="2012-10-19T14:48:48.867" Comment="Proposed by 1259 approved by 76, 1 edit id of 249" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2417" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="742" RevisionGUID="914f4246-2947-46f5-b810-20a9ffcde7d2" CreationDate="2012-10-19T16:03:55.410" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/259324004056330240" />
  <row Id="2418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="766" RevisionGUID="cac3ad89-ccb6-4b53-8257-f8c15703d044" CreationDate="2012-10-19T17:11:03.727" UserId="1668" Text="Does a patent have a life span, say 7 years&#xD;&#xA;and if a piece of an old patent is used in a new one and much more accurately described and refined is that OK?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2419" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="766" RevisionGUID="cac3ad89-ccb6-4b53-8257-f8c15703d044" CreationDate="2012-10-19T17:11:03.727" UserId="1668" Text="Patent length and breadth" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2420" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="766" RevisionGUID="cac3ad89-ccb6-4b53-8257-f8c15703d044" CreationDate="2012-10-19T17:11:03.727" UserId="1668" Text="&lt;lawyers&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="767" RevisionGUID="64fa4e3c-7c7b-4d2c-a92c-8aa3269d7da1" CreationDate="2012-10-19T17:33:02.430" UserId="1669" Text="Has someone alerted SAP/Sybase, Microsoft or Oracle to this scam patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an EXACT description of how Sybase Adaptive Server handles multiple database, multi-vendor databases when joint querying with a local database.  Since Microsoft is derived from Sybase it does similar things and Oracle developed a product to compete with Sybase Adaptive Server (but whose product name I can not currently recall).  I was part of Alpha test for the Sybase product as well as many releases of Microsoft SQL Server. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2422" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="766" RevisionGUID="42de656a-af1d-49d0-b71a-275a60532e44" CreationDate="2012-10-19T20:18:02.933" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2423" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="744" RevisionGUID="f859252d-e93e-4409-9116-4999edd049fe" CreationDate="2012-10-19T22:03:55.190" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/259414601307938816" />
  <row Id="2424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="768" RevisionGUID="03e8b5b7-5104-4f37-8c9c-44b6df8325a9" CreationDate="2012-10-19T23:02:15.727" UserId="1639" Text="Sherlock in MacOS 8.5 does not cover everything in the patent claim, but it does most of it and could serve to restrict what is considered novel in the claim and show it to be obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sherlock was a feature introduced by Apple in Mac OS 8.5, released in 1998. It was a search tool with two tabs, one for local file search, one for Internet search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent claim is a computerized method of clicking one tab in Sherlock, then clicking the other tab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an Apple archived document on Sherlock features in MacOS 8.5:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://support.apple.com/kb/TA25758&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The correspondence to the claim is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***A computerized method***&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It is done on a Mac running MacOS 8.5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***receiving at least a partial search query***&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;query is typed by user in the search terms box&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***storing the at least partial search query on a non-transitory computer readable medium***&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;query is kept in memory and displayed to the user. Also there is a &quot;save search&quot; option&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***searching ... across an internet connection***&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This is done when the user clicks on the Search Internet tab and clicks the Search button&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***searching a second ... only available via local access***&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This is done when the user clicks on the Find By Content tab and clicks the Search button&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the patent claim does not say that the computer does everything without a user having to click any buttons. In any case combining the two clicks into one can be considered an obvious refinement, especially since the Search Internet of Sherlock already combined multiple sources to be searched, with additional sources configurable by adding plugin files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="769" RevisionGUID="f5827f42-6bae-4571-a807-29760a8a7fdb" CreationDate="2012-10-19T23:21:44.250" UserId="1114" Text="Patents often build on existing technology, which of course includes existing patents. Of course, the invention has to be novel, so simple describing it more accurately isn't good enough if the invention is the same. A refinement on an existing patent is patentable, but only if it wouldn't be obvious to someone skilled in that type of technology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put it more concretely, say there was a patent on a car: &quot;four wheels, a chassis, and a steering wheel.&quot; I refine the design by adding tread to the wheels. Let's say this tread is new: no one had thought of it before, and it wouldn't have been obvious to do. I can patent &quot;four wheels *with tread*, a chassis, and a steering wheel.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, remember that a patent gives a right to exclude, not to make or use the invention. So the original patent owner can stop me from making my car with tread because he has a patent on a car, while I can stop him from making a car with tread because I have a patent on that. Ideally, we'll come to an agreement about how to split the profits on my new kind of car, but it doesn't always happen in practice. If we can't come to an agreement, my refinement may not reach the market until the first patent expires." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="770" RevisionGUID="abee6449-10b8-484e-9797-dadf210037ef" CreationDate="2012-10-20T00:12:06.370" UserId="1671" Text="How does the referenced patent affect dropcards.com and similar websites that allow users to send in their media and artwork then furnish the users with unique cards. Users hand out the cards and the recipients enter the code for a (usually) audio file.&#xD;&#xA;It seems that this patent would preclude this type of business.&#xD;&#xA;Am I missing something here?&#xD;&#xA;I want to do something similar, but I want to be sure that this patent does not stop me. Thank you in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US20100325182?dq=download+codes&amp;ei=mbWBUIbtCuLM2AWPw4C4Ag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2427" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="770" RevisionGUID="abee6449-10b8-484e-9797-dadf210037ef" CreationDate="2012-10-20T00:12:06.370" UserId="1671" Text="How does this patent affect digital downloads of multimedia at sites like Dropcards.com?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2428" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="770" RevisionGUID="abee6449-10b8-484e-9797-dadf210037ef" CreationDate="2012-10-20T00:12:06.370" UserId="1671" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2429" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="23" RevisionGUID="52194641-97d1-4d57-8249-f90bb6a8f734" CreationDate="2012-10-20T10:03:55.670" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/259595796314456064" />
  <row Id="2430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="770" RevisionGUID="5cab37b9-3ab6-44a8-a35f-8d1f6f007341" CreationDate="2012-10-20T14:21:41.620" UserId="1259" Comment="added patent tag, fixed link" Text="How does the referenced patent affect dropcards.com and similar websites that allow users to send in their media and artwork then furnish the users with unique cards. Users hand out the cards and the recipients enter the code for a (usually) audio file.&#xD;&#xA;It seems that this patent would preclude this type of business.&#xD;&#xA;Am I missing something here?&#xD;&#xA;I want to do something similar, but I want to be sure that this patent does not stop me. Thank you in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US20100325182][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20100325182" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2431" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="770" RevisionGUID="5cab37b9-3ab6-44a8-a35f-8d1f6f007341" CreationDate="2012-10-20T14:21:41.620" UserId="1259" Comment="added patent tag, fixed link" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;us20100325182&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="770" RevisionGUID="8c2eda8c-3d3e-4b00-a10b-9ee9f020eceb" CreationDate="2012-10-20T14:49:02.250" UserId="76" Comment="added 1725 characters in body; edited tags" Text="How does patent application [US20100325182][1] affect dropcards.com and similar websites that allow users to send in their media and artwork then furnish the users with unique cards? Users hand out the cards and the recipients enter the code for a (usually) audio file.&#xD;&#xA;It seems that this patent would preclude this type of business.&#xD;&#xA;Am I missing something here?&#xD;&#xA;I want to do something similar, but I want to be sure that I would not be infringing on this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root claims of the patent are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1\.  A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * using a computer for downloading an item of multimedia which includes a code associated therewith, said code being separate from said item of multimedia, and said code being usable by a user separate from a playing of the multimedia; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * using the computer for entering said code on a website to obtain content on the website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15\. A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * using a computer for hosting a website that controls obtaining items of multimedia and allows selling said items of multimedia;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * using the computer for obtaining plural codes which are usable on the website, each code being usable on the website to automatically obtain content on the website detecting a request for download of a first multimedia item;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * first controlling a download by a first user of the first multimedia item along with a first code from said plural codes, said first code associated with said first multimedia item;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * preventing said first code from being downloaded again after said first controlling;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * second controlling a download by a second user of the first multimedia item along with a second code from said plural codes, said second code associated with said first multimedia item; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * preventing said second code from being downloaded again after said first controlling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 27\. A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * using a computer for downloading an item of multimedia which includes a bonus item associated therewith, said bonus item being separate from said item of multimedia, and said bonus item being usable by a user separate from a playing of the multimedia; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * obtaining said bonus item separately from obtaining said item of multimedia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20100325182" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2433" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="770" RevisionGUID="8c2eda8c-3d3e-4b00-a10b-9ee9f020eceb" CreationDate="2012-10-20T14:49:02.250" UserId="76" Comment="added 1725 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;data-processing-database&gt;&lt;business-methods&gt;&lt;us20100325182&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2434" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="770" RevisionGUID="72deb69c-2c35-4ee4-8cfd-2799a6994a16" CreationDate="2012-10-20T16:04:05.190" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/259686434338918400" />
  <row Id="2435" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="44" RevisionGUID="e921a976-29c5-49c2-bf1f-300c6bf0b9e0" CreationDate="2012-10-20T19:04:05.560" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/259731733228957696" />
  <row Id="2436" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="203" RevisionGUID="1964098b-ef28-4c7d-ac48-f00de44a5860" CreationDate="2012-10-21T07:04:06.007" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/259912929103708161" />
  <row Id="2437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="771" RevisionGUID="554aa4a8-cb77-4212-828a-5c483c975cd4" CreationDate="2012-10-22T14:35:16.740" UserId="628" Text="This might be seen weird, but what could happen if I register (video, notes, emails, logs, etc) the development of a software application and a company sues me because they have a patent from them that I supposedly violated (but I didn't even know anything about that patent)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way I could defend myself (or company or organization) I win a case showing that in any moment of the development I considered or looked to that patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2438" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="771" RevisionGUID="554aa4a8-cb77-4212-828a-5c483c975cd4" CreationDate="2012-10-22T14:35:16.740" UserId="628" Text="What happens if I come with an idea that was already patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2439" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="771" RevisionGUID="554aa4a8-cb77-4212-828a-5c483c975cd4" CreationDate="2012-10-22T14:35:16.740" UserId="628" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-misuse&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2440" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="772" RevisionGUID="46e632a5-6e5a-49df-9fc5-cd790d29c04d" CreationDate="2012-10-22T14:46:30.067" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/125/prior-art-for-an-apparatus-for-audio-mapping" Text="" />
  <row Id="2441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="772" RevisionGUID="6254dacf-ccba-4e0a-80bd-6a8017538e0e" CreationDate="2012-10-20T22:32:52.423" UserDisplayName="user1674" Text="Looking for prior art for a mobile phone (or portable device) that is capable of detecting the direction and type of sounds with the ability to display the results. I've found some art for gun shot detection, but nothing as general as this where the sounds, according to the specification, can include: laughing, crying, traffic, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 is to an apparatus comprising: at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: identify at least one audio type based on a signal representative of sound; determine the direction of any of said identified audio types; and provide feed-back to a user of the identified audio types and the direction of said audio types. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 2 is to apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising at least one audio input, wherein said signal representative of sound is received via said at least one audio input. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 3 is to an apparatus according to claim 2, wherein said at least one audio input port is at least one microphone. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2442" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="772" RevisionGUID="6254dacf-ccba-4e0a-80bd-6a8017538e0e" CreationDate="2012-10-20T22:32:52.423" UserDisplayName="user1674" Text="Prior art for an apparatus for audio mapping" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2443" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="772" RevisionGUID="6254dacf-ccba-4e0a-80bd-6a8017538e0e" CreationDate="2012-10-20T22:32:52.423" UserDisplayName="user1674" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="773" RevisionGUID="461981af-a71e-41b1-a799-8ce0377ecc52" CreationDate="2012-10-22T15:16:19.173" UserId="1114" Text="Unfortunately no. Unlike copyright, infringing a patent doesn't require that you copy anything. Independent invention is not a defense. However, there is a small consolation: you won't be liable for intentional infringement, which would mean you would be on the hook for 3 times the amount that the patent holder would normally be entitled to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the story is entirely different if those logs, notes, etc., date back to before the time the patent was filed or purportedly invented. If that's the case, please clarify your question and I'll give you a summary of what it might mean (could be good news for an accused infringer). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2446" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="769" RevisionGUID="6a91b0f6-2135-4eb1-8b97-2012c91715f9" CreationDate="2012-10-22T15:58:04.127" UserId="998" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="Patents often build on existing technology, which of course includes existing patents. Of course, the invention has to be novel, so simply describing it more accurately isn't good enough if the new invention is the same as the old. A refinement on an existing patent is patentable, but only if it wouldn't be obvious to someone skilled in that type of technology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put it more concretely, say there was a patent on a car: &quot;four wheels, a chassis, and a steering wheel.&quot; I refine the design by adding tread to the wheels. Let's say this tread is new: no one had thought of it before, and it wouldn't have been obvious to do. I can patent &quot;four wheels *with tread*, a chassis, and a steering wheel.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, remember that a patent gives a right to exclude, not to make or use the invention. So the original patent owner can stop me from making my car with tread because he has a patent on a car, while I can stop him from making a car with tread because I have a patent on that. Ideally, we'll come to an agreement about how to split the profits on my new kind of car, but it doesn't always happen in practice. If we can't come to an agreement, my refinement may not reach the market until the first patent expires." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2447" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="43" RevisionGUID="c130c085-5ba7-454d-ad7a-7963d333574c" CreationDate="2012-10-22T16:04:05.130" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/260411210040741889" />
  <row Id="2448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="774" RevisionGUID="fd448e3e-e840-4825-8716-592305445b2c" CreationDate="2012-10-22T16:12:30.380" UserId="998" Text="The question here skips over a big point. The patent document referred to (US20100325182) is a related to a pending patent application that has was rejected by the PTO and has now been abandoned by the patent applicant. So, there is no need to worry about this one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="502" RevisionGUID="eaddd9a0-9c41-4ade-905f-2fc481cdfa19" CreationDate="2012-10-22T16:17:08.000" UserId="7" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="To be fair, I think [this][1] is a ridiculously better software patent than any of the other ones I've seen, but I bet there is prior art for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1\. A method for correcting semantic errors in code in an integrated development environment, said method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * inputting, using a code editor, code being developed in an integrated development environment;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * identifying, in a syntax tree constructed for said code inputted, one or more nodes containing semantic errors pertaining to use of a third-party library;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * displaying one or more suggestions for correcting said semantic errors identified for a node in said syntax tree containing said semantic errors, wherein said one or more suggestions include one or more executable code snippets associated with one or more collaboration records located for a chosen node from the syntax tree;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * selecting at least one executable code snippet from said one or more executable code snippets displayed for correcting said semantic errors identified for said chosen node, wherein said at least one executable code snippet comprises a primary executable code snippet and a secondary executable code snippet;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * executing, by a computer, the primary executable code snippet;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * and in response to the primary executable code snippet failing to correct said semantic errors identified for said node chosen, automatically executing the secondary executable code snippet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My non-legalese summary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Finding semantic code errors in a syntax tree, picking up two likely corrections based on a body of previous code, and compiling and executing the snippets to see if they correct the semantic error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20120240101" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="774" RevisionGUID="ce09e2e7-8b7a-4d49-8de4-252fefc0f8d5" CreationDate="2012-10-22T16:32:28.670" UserId="998" Comment="added 220 characters in body" Text="The question here skips over a big point. The patent document referred to (US20100325182) is a related to a pending patent application that has was rejected by the PTO and has now been abandoned by the patent applicant. So, there is no need to worry about this one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, about 1/3 or more of patent applications filed are never issued as patents.  If no patent issues, that means that the information is open for public use (so long as someone else doesn't already have a patent)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="771" RevisionGUID="1bc3637e-b3a1-42e0-86d5-50f5002f40d6" CreationDate="2012-10-22T17:51:00.053" UserId="1114" Comment="Clarified some terms and tightened up the grammar a bit. " Text="This might seem weird, but what could happen if I document (video, notes, emails, logs, etc) the development of a software application and a company sues me because they have a patent from them that I supposedly violated (but I didn't even know anything about that patent)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way I could defend myself (or company or organization) in a lawsuit by showing that in no moment of the development did I consider or look at that patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2452" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="771" RevisionGUID="1bc3637e-b3a1-42e0-86d5-50f5002f40d6" CreationDate="2012-10-22T17:51:00.053" Comment="Proposed by 1114 approved by  edit id of 250" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="772" RevisionGUID="6120733e-8280-4162-b4a8-2bff8c8ba1c6" CreationDate="2012-10-22T20:32:34.833" UserId="76" Comment="added patent reference" Text="I'm looking for prior art for [US patent application 2011/0054890](http://www.google.com/patents/US20110054890) filed 2009/08/25.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That would be a mobile phone (or portable device) that is capable of detecting the direction and type of sounds with the ability to display the results. I've found some art for gun shot detection, but nothing as general as this where the sounds, according to the specification, can include: laughing, crying, traffic, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The independent claims and a few refinements are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1\. An apparatus comprising: at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * identify at least one audio type based on a signal representative of sound;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * determine the direction of any of said identified audio types; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * provide feed-back to a user of the identified audio types and the direction of said audio types.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2\. An apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising at least one audio input, wherein said signal representative of sound is received via said at least one audio input.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3\. An apparatus according to claim 2, wherein said at least one audio input port is at least one microphone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10\. A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * identifying at least one audio type based on a signal representative of sound received via at least one audio input;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * determining the direction of any of said identified audio types;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * and providing feed-back to a user of the identified audio types and the direction of said audio types.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2454" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="772" RevisionGUID="6120733e-8280-4162-b4a8-2bff8c8ba1c6" CreationDate="2012-10-22T20:32:34.833" UserId="76" Comment="added patent reference" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;data-processing-language&gt;&lt;us20110054890&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="51" RevisionGUID="97fc65f8-7841-4649-b372-01a84d29451c" CreationDate="2012-10-23T14:25:41.417" UserId="76" Comment="added 2966 characters in body" Text="Use this tag for [software patents](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent) in a broad sense, including patents whose core is an algorithm implemented in software or a computer interface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please use a [US patent class](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/selectnumwithtitle.htm) tag as well if your question is about a US patent. Software patents tend to be in one of these classes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * 345 [tag:computer-graphics] computer graphics processing and selective visual display systems&#xD;&#xA; * 700 [tag:data-processing-control] generic control systems or specific applications&#xD;&#xA; * 701 [tag:data-processing-vehicles] data processing: vehicles, navigation, and relative location&#xD;&#xA; * 702 [tag:data-processing-measuring] data processing: measuring, calibrating, or testing&#xD;&#xA; * 703 [tag:data-processing-modeling] data processing: structural design, modeling, simulation, and emulation&#xD;&#xA; * 704 [tag:data-processing-language] data processing: speech signal processing, linguistics, language translation, and audio compression/decompression&#xD;&#xA; * 705 [tag:data-processing-financial] data processing: financial, business practice, management, or cost/price determination&#xD;&#xA; * 706 [tag:data-processing-ai] data processing: artificial intelligence&#xD;&#xA; * 707 [tag:data-processing-database] data processing: database and file management or data structures&#xD;&#xA; * 708 [tag:computer-arithmetic] electrical computers and digital processing systems: arithmetic processing and calculating&#xD;&#xA; * 709 [tag:computer-data-transfer] electrical computers and digital processing systems: multicomputer data transferring&#xD;&#xA; * 710 [tag:computer-input-output] electrical computers and digital data processing systems: input/output&#xD;&#xA; * 711 [tag:computer-memory] electrical computers and digital processing systems: memory&#xD;&#xA; * 712 [tag:computer-processors] electrical computers and digital processing systems: processing architectures and instruction processing (e.g., processors)&#xD;&#xA; * 713 [tag:computer-support] electrical computers and digital processing systems: support&#xD;&#xA; * 714 [tag:error-detection] error detection/correction and fault detection/recovery&#xD;&#xA; * 715 [tag:data-processing-interface] data processing: presentation processing of document, operator interface processing, and screen &#xD;&#xA; * 716 [tag:circuits] computer-aided design and analysis of circuits and semiconductor masks&#xD;&#xA; * 717 [tag:data-processing-software] software development, installation, and management&#xD;&#xA; * 718 [tag:computer-task-management] electrical computers and digital processing systems: virtual machine task or process management or task management/control&#xD;&#xA; * 719 [tag:computer-ipc] electrical computers and digital processing systems: interprogram communication or interprocess communication (ipc)&#xD;&#xA; * 720 [tag:optical-storage] dynamic optical information storage or retrieval&#xD;&#xA; * 725 [tag:video-distribution] interactive video distribution systems&#xD;&#xA; * 726 [tag:information-security] information security&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2464" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="51" RevisionGUID="97fc65f8-7841-4649-b372-01a84d29451c" CreationDate="2012-10-23T14:25:41.417" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 251" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="52" RevisionGUID="73fa4d6d-3ec9-4b43-91a9-57472e88cf51" CreationDate="2012-10-23T14:25:46.957" UserId="76" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Patents about software algorithms, methods implemented via computer software, and software interfaces" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2466" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="52" RevisionGUID="73fa4d6d-3ec9-4b43-91a9-57472e88cf51" CreationDate="2012-10-23T14:25:46.957" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 252" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="779" RevisionGUID="98f22a61-6972-4dd4-82db-ff77c9c5ba5a" CreationDate="2012-10-23T15:40:44.460" UserId="1685" Text="I cannot comment on any specific application or anything related there to, however, I can question in general whether audio &quot;types&quot;, identified or not, have &quot;direction&quot;.  I can say with some certainty that they do not in this universe.  You might want to think about that one for awhile, and also consider 35 U.S.C 112 1st paragraph, there is a part of it that deals with impossible things.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also cite, against any such apparatus, in general, which supposedly comprises a 1 or a 0 therein any of the off the shelf computers and note that any of the 1's or 0's inside are just such a configuration as is called for by the claim.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bottom line, don't take language attempting to distinguish a computer in terms of 1's and 0's too seriously.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, in claims generally about 1's and 0's if you have the government granted power to do so, make them show you such a configuration, that is, the physical configuration, in the drawings.  Just so you understand exactly which collections of 1's and 0's you are discussing when you're talking about &quot;configurations&quot;.  And then consider how many different arrangements of 1's and 0's they have sufficient written description for in their spec.  If they have none, they probably lack written description under 35 U.S.C 112 1st paragraph.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="780" RevisionGUID="5c144e39-5356-425a-a741-17ff34b1cf74" CreationDate="2012-10-23T16:00:57.603" UserId="1686" Text="My question: My app features one functionality to see where your friends are, pretty much like Foursquare and Facebook do, but the scope and reason why are quite different. In fact, it would be check in / and check out and whatever you can do with it. Actually, I'd like not to say too much. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read somewhere that Facebook achieved a patent in 2007: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of sharing locations of users participating in a social&#xD;&#xA;&gt; networking service at a geographic location, the method executed by a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computer system and comprising: receiving location information and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; status information from a mobile device of a first user of the social&#xD;&#xA;&gt; networking service, the location information representing a geographic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; location of the first user, the status information manually provided&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by the first user on an input module of the mobile device; associating&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the location information with the status information of the first user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in a database; and sending the status information and the location&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information of the first user to a second user for display.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Does this mean that I cannot use any Geolocation API for check-in? How painful!  &#xD;&#xA;I have an alternative, which would be to check in into bars by visiting the profile of the bar (in the database), and a switch to mark a status as &quot;present&quot; (physically). It's lame, but there seems to be no alternative (?). Would this be allowed then? -&gt; In a certain way this also tells something about being in a physical location, but without using GeoLocation. And could I perhaps use Nearby places API if I make the functionality entirely separate from the check-in functional wise (very lame for the user but it's being with the back against the wall).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way I had in mind was to get bar owners to paste qr codes of their own bars on windows or make stamps on beer cards. This is actually too crazy for the short term. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you got any advice for me?&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks for your quick reply. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2469" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="780" RevisionGUID="5c144e39-5356-425a-a741-17ff34b1cf74" CreationDate="2012-10-23T16:00:57.603" UserId="1686" Text="Facebook patent related to physical Checkin (location)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2470" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="780" RevisionGUID="5c144e39-5356-425a-a741-17ff34b1cf74" CreationDate="2012-10-23T16:00:57.603" UserId="1686" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="780" RevisionGUID="670b42ee-cd37-4172-b29a-b8af3195ffb9" CreationDate="2012-10-23T16:31:41.813" UserId="567" Comment="link to the patent" Text="My app features functionality to see where your friends are, pretty much like Foursquare and Facebook do, but the scope and reason why are quite different. In fact, it would be check in / and check out and whatever you can do with it. Actually, I'd like not to say too much. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Facebook was awarded US Patent 7,809,805 in 2010 for: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of sharing locations of users participating in a social&#xD;&#xA;&gt; networking service at a geographic location, the method executed by a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computer system and comprising: receiving location information and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; status information from a mobile device of a first user of the social&#xD;&#xA;&gt; networking service, the location information representing a geographic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; location of the first user, the status information manually provided&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by the first user on an input module of the mobile device; associating&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the location information with the status information of the first user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in a database; and sending the status information and the location&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information of the first user to a second user for display.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this mean that I cannot use any Geolocation API for check-in? How painful!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have an alternative, which would be to check in into bars by visiting the profile of the bar (in the database), and a switch to mark a status as &quot;present&quot; (physically). It's lame, but there seems to be no alternative (?). Would this be allowed then? -&gt; In a certain way this also tells something about being in a physical location, but without using GeoLocation. And could I perhaps use Nearby places API if I make the functionality entirely separate from the check-in functional wise (very lame for the user but it's being with the back against the wall).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way I had in mind was to get bar owners to paste qr codes of their own bars on windows or make stamps on beer cards. This is actually too crazy for the short term. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you got any advice for me?&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks for your quick reply. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2473" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="780" RevisionGUID="670b42ee-cd37-4172-b29a-b8af3195ffb9" CreationDate="2012-10-23T16:31:41.813" UserId="567" Comment="link to the patent" Text="Has Facebook patented location checkins, and how could I get around it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2474" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="780" RevisionGUID="670b42ee-cd37-4172-b29a-b8af3195ffb9" CreationDate="2012-10-23T16:31:41.813" UserId="567" Comment="link to the patent" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;facebook&gt;&lt;us7809805&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="772" RevisionGUID="2cdc9da4-0092-4930-b057-a4c3a08067d2" CreationDate="2012-10-23T16:50:46.097" UserId="567" Comment="change the quoted part to make the claimed invention clearer" Text="I'm looking for prior art for [US patent application 2011/0054890](http://www.google.com/patents/US20110054890) filed 2009/08/25.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That would be a mobile phone (or portable device) that is capable of detecting the direction and type of sounds with the ability to display the results. I've found some art for gun shot detection, but nothing as general as this where the sounds, according to the specification, can include: laughing, crying, traffic, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The representative independent claim and the salient refinements are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1\. An apparatus comprising: at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * identify at least one audio type based on a signal representative of sound;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * determine the direction of any of said identified audio types; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * provide feed-back to a user of the identified audio types and the direction of said audio types.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2\. An apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising at least one audio input, wherein said signal representative of sound is received via said at least one audio input.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3\. An apparatus according to claim 2, wherein said at least one audio input port is at least one microphone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5\. An apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a motion sensor, and said processor uses an output from said motion sensor to determine the direction of the at least one audio type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6\. An apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a digital compass, and said processor uses an output from said digital compass to determine the direction of the at least one audio type.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2476" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="772" RevisionGUID="2cdc9da4-0092-4930-b057-a4c3a08067d2" CreationDate="2012-10-23T16:50:46.097" UserId="567" Comment="change the quoted part to make the claimed invention clearer" Text="Prior art for an apparatus for sound direction finding" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="781" RevisionGUID="db7a4ad0-aa70-4588-a8a9-c094bbaf7a5c" CreationDate="2012-10-23T17:09:44.273" UserId="105" Text="There seem to be a ton of patents that are relevant, and could be combined to predict Apple's patent following at least one of the factors laid out in [MPEP 2143][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This patent: &quot;Information management system&quot; [US5634051][2] Issue date: May 27, 1997**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim seems that it could be paired with prior referenced patents to suggest the approach Apple employed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An information storage, searching and retrieval system for large domain archived data of various types comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for storing a large domain of data contained in multiple source records, at least some of the source records being comprised of individual documents of multiple document types;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for searching at least a substantial portion of such data based on a search query to identify documents of multiple types responsive to the query; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for categorizing documents responsive to the query based on document type, including &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for generating a summary of the number of documents responsive to the query which fall within various predetermined categories of document types.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Additionally, although this patent deals with coordinates the drawings describe a very similar invention to Apple's patent: &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Information search and retrieval with geographical coordinates&quot; [US5893093][3] Issue date: Apr 6, 1999**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An information search and retrieval process using geographical coordinates, which process comprises:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; building an index of coordinates for a plurality of text based references, resources or sites, each having a set of said coordinates;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accepting a user inquiry containing a text reference;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; converting said text reference specified in said user inquiry to a set of coordinates;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; searching against said index of coordinates based on the converted coordinates of said user inquiry reference; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; returning all information retrieved from said searching in a text based format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The list continues: &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Information retrieval system&quot; [US5978803][4] Issue date: Nov 2, 1999**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An information retrieval system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a plurality of retrieval servers for performing retrieval processing; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a retrieval management server for managing operation of said plurality of retrieval servers;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein said retrieval management server divides a text base of a retrieval object and relating information regarding the text base into a number of parts based on a size of the text base and loads of the respective retrieval servers and selectively allocates the divided parts of the text base and the relating information corresponding to the divided parts in sets to some or all of said plurality of retrieval servers; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said plurality of retrieval servers perform information retrieval for the divided parts of the text base allocated by said retrieval management server parallelly to and independently of each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**And, one more:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;System for storage and retrieval of diverse types of information obtained from different media sources which include video, audio, and text transcripts&quot; [US5729741][5] Issue date: Mar 17, 1998**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 reads as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of processing information contained in different types of media, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) processing each and every of said different types of media by storing in memory a first, index storage file, which contains a text description of the contents of information contained in said any medium, and an identification of said first, index storage file; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) for each respective medium processed in step (a), analyzing the contents of information of said respective medium, regardless of the type of the subject matter of said contents of information, for the presence of text, and generating a second, text file, that contains all text found in said medium and storing said second, text file in memory in association with said first, index storage file; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein said respective medium comprises a video recording medium containing video and voice information signals associated with a video recorded activity, and a further medium containing a separate transcription of said voice information, and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein step (b) comprises processing said voice information signals through an automated voice recognition-to-text conversion mechanism, so as to generate a voice-converted text file, and processing said further medium containing said separate transcription of said voice information to generate a transcribed voice text file, and correlating successive words of said voice-converted text file and successive words of said transcribed voice text file to associate contents of said transcribed voice text file with said video information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2143.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5634051?dq=information%20retrieval%20in%20multiple%20locations&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=3seGUOb6EIqWrAHW9IDwBA&amp;ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5893093?dq=information%20retrieval%20in%20multiple%20locations&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=3seGUOb6EIqWrAHW9IDwBA&amp;ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5978803?dq=information%20retrieval%20in%20multiple%20locations&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=3seGUOb6EIqWrAHW9IDwBA&amp;ved=0CDsQ6AEwAw&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5729741" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="782" RevisionGUID="9298bfd2-7c8d-488f-93c7-279d17366460" CreationDate="2012-10-23T17:20:39.050" UserId="105" Text="It seems that if your users selected the profile of the bar from your app and your system indicated that they were present at said bar then you wouldn't be communicating location information which &quot;comprises street addresses determined by processing a wireless positioning signal detected at a sensor in the mobile device.&quot; That language is from Claim 2 which further limits Claim 1 that you posted in your question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="783" RevisionGUID="aff96b61-b83e-43b6-8d91-8214b4e2ff07" CreationDate="2012-10-23T17:27:22.850" UserId="567" Text="Claims 1-5 and 11-15 seem obvious over this [1996 press release from Release Software:][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Developers can configure SalesAgent to allow users to try their software for a limited period of time, or try a limited subset of the software's features. When the user decides to purchase the software, or when the trial period expires, SalesAgent launches itself and walks the user through a series of payment options that include an online credit card transaction, toll-free phone service, fax and mail. Developers can also program SalesAgent to recognize when it is copied from one machine to another, and reset itself back to demonstration mode, effectively turning possible piracy situations into sales opportunities.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SalesAgent is a 32-bit embedded sales agent that developers plug easily into their own applications. It includes the Release Software Secure API (RSAPI), a unique set of API's that allows developers to easily set time or feature locking for their applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.rsa.com/press_release.aspx?id=783" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="784" RevisionGUID="76b0e799-99ba-48a2-a4be-b0cdc83089c4" CreationDate="2012-10-23T17:28:47.153" UserId="105" Text="Generally, 20 years from filing date for a utility patent or plant patents, and 14 years from date of grant for design patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Generally, the term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment of maintenance fees. U.S. patent grants are effective only within the United States, U.S. territories, and U.S. possessions. Under certain circumstances, patent term extensions or adjustments may be available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; source: [General Information Concerning Patents][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More specifically, as a starting point you could look in [MPEP 2701][2] which covers patent terms. There are probably tons of additional places to look in the MPEP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also check out [35 U.S.C. Section 154][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerning_patents.jsp#heading-2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2701.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="785" RevisionGUID="d50b5b04-1cd3-4fca-8a2d-069cccc2a10b" CreationDate="2012-10-23T17:59:30.283" UserId="1688" Text="Patent application US 2011/0107630 A1 is anticipated by a commonly known craft format known as waterfall flip cards, or waterfall flip-book cards. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Waterfall flip cards also use basically the same strip spine with multiple indented fold lines corresponding to the number of cards to be animated as in waterfall photo albums made of heat indented and die-cut vinyl. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is novel about the application? Also, how do you notify the patent office that there is prior art?   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2482" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="785" RevisionGUID="d50b5b04-1cd3-4fca-8a2d-069cccc2a10b" CreationDate="2012-10-23T17:59:30.283" UserId="1688" Text="US 2011/0107630" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2483" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="785" RevisionGUID="d50b5b04-1cd3-4fca-8a2d-069cccc2a10b" CreationDate="2012-10-23T17:59:30.283" UserId="1688" Text="&lt;us20110107630&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="785" RevisionGUID="79687055-05b9-4ed0-88b6-4b68ff6e6f26" CreationDate="2012-10-23T20:16:45.133" UserId="76" Comment="added a link to the patent; added the text of claim 1; title; tags" Text="Patent application [US 2011/0107630](http://www.google.com/patents/us20110107630) claims a type of flip book greeting cards. Here is claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1\. A greeting card comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * a multi-panel greeting card body;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * a flip book panel operatively engaged with the multi-panel greeting card body such that a first portion of the flip book panel is fixedly attached to at least One panel of the greeting card and a second portion of the flip book panel is able to move linearly relative to at least one panel of the greeting card body&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * the flip book panel having a plurality of sub-panels separated by fold lines,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * the plurality of sub-panels arranged in a sequential stacked configuration, a first sub-panel containing an animation printed thereon and each consecutive sub-panel in the sequence containing a slight variation in the animation of the previous sub-panel in the sequence,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein linear movement of the second portion of the flip book causes iteration of the plurality of sequentially stacked sub-panels creating the illusion of incremental movement of the animation printed thereon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is anticipated by a commonly known craft format known as waterfall flip cards, or waterfall flip-book cards.&#xD;&#xA;Waterfall flip cards also use basically the same strip spine with multiple indented fold lines corresponding to the number of cards to be animated as in waterfall photo albums made of heat indented and die-cut vinyl. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is novel about the application? Also, how do you notify the patent office that there is prior art?   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2486" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="785" RevisionGUID="79687055-05b9-4ed0-88b6-4b68ff6e6f26" CreationDate="2012-10-23T20:16:45.133" UserId="76" Comment="added a link to the patent; added the text of claim 1; title; tags" Text="US 2011/0107630: waterfall flip-book cards" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2487" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="785" RevisionGUID="79687055-05b9-4ed0-88b6-4b68ff6e6f26" CreationDate="2012-10-23T20:16:45.133" UserId="76" Comment="added a link to the patent; added the text of claim 1; title; tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20110107630&gt;&lt;cards-pictures-signs&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="780" RevisionGUID="c8d4952e-c32c-4498-a50b-2f90c366b566" CreationDate="2012-10-23T20:19:47.890" UserId="76" Comment="added a link to the patent; formatted the claim; added the tag for the primary patent class" Text="My app features functionality to see where your friends are, pretty much like Foursquare and Facebook do, but the scope and reason why are quite different. In fact, it would be check in / and check out and whatever you can do with it. Actually, I'd like not to say too much. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Facebook was awarded [US Patent 7,809,805](http://www.google.com/patents/us7809805) in 2010 for: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of sharing locations of users participating in a social&#xD;&#xA;&gt; networking service at a geographic location, the method executed by a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computer system and comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * receiving location information and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; status information from a mobile device of a first user of the social&#xD;&#xA;&gt; networking service, the location information representing a geographic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; location of the first user, the status information manually provided&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by the first user on an input module of the mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * associating&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the location information with the status information of the first user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in a database; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * sending the status information and the location&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information of the first user to a second user for display.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this mean that I cannot use any Geolocation API for check-in? How painful!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have an alternative, which would be to check in into bars by visiting the profile of the bar (in the database), and a switch to mark a status as &quot;present&quot; (physically). It's lame, but there seems to be no alternative (?). Would this be allowed then? -&gt; In a certain way this also tells something about being in a physical location, but without using GeoLocation. And could I perhaps use Nearby places API if I make the functionality entirely separate from the check-in functional wise (very lame for the user but it's being with the back against the wall).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way I had in mind was to get bar owners to paste qr codes of their own bars on windows or make stamps on beer cards. This is actually too crazy for the short term. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you got any advice for me?&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks for your quick reply. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2489" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="780" RevisionGUID="c8d4952e-c32c-4498-a50b-2f90c366b566" CreationDate="2012-10-23T20:19:47.890" UserId="76" Comment="added a link to the patent; formatted the claim; added the tag for the primary patent class" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;facebook&gt;&lt;us7809805&gt;&lt;computer-data-transfer&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="787" RevisionGUID="d719831e-c093-4d3e-bdc3-b5186a876160" CreationDate="2012-10-23T20:32:17.357" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="788" RevisionGUID="7e92c17f-b480-4b07-86e0-3b672065e7fe" CreationDate="2012-10-23T20:32:17.357" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="789" RevisionGUID="abe4cf7c-0781-4319-a402-a691d2951aab" CreationDate="2012-10-23T20:32:33.080" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="790" RevisionGUID="0b84dbd1-6ed0-4510-89da-1c5e86e83caf" CreationDate="2012-10-23T20:32:33.080" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="791" RevisionGUID="40b21d3f-946f-410d-8aa5-41431e4b4cc1" CreationDate="2012-10-24T02:00:03.827" UserId="738" Text="Here is an example of engineering mutants to give better thermostability of a protease.  Essentially the methods are the same as the ones in this patent(different kind of activity assay) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3145814&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a version of this type of engineering from back in 1994 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7950371&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2496" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="791" RevisionGUID="40b21d3f-946f-410d-8aa5-41431e4b4cc1" CreationDate="2012-10-24T02:00:03.827" UserId="738" Text="Are any of these protein stabilization papers prior art for this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2497" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="791" RevisionGUID="40b21d3f-946f-410d-8aa5-41431e4b4cc1" CreationDate="2012-10-24T02:00:03.827" UserId="738" Text="&lt;us20100190188&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2498" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="791" RevisionGUID="041f1fd6-e795-4d9b-8465-d5e656157ba1" CreationDate="2012-10-24T02:25:04.997" UserId="738" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;chemistry-microbiology&gt;&lt;us20100190188&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="781" RevisionGUID="74bd234e-e8e4-4f6c-8fb5-665409f7eceb" CreationDate="2012-10-24T10:28:40.693" UserId="1259" Comment="cleaned session ID off the patent links" Text="There seem to be a ton of patents that are relevant, and could be combined to predict Apple's patent following at least one of the factors laid out in [MPEP 2143][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This patent: &quot;Information management system&quot; [US5634051][2] Issue date: May 27, 1997**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim seems that it could be paired with prior referenced patents to suggest the approach Apple employed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An information storage, searching and retrieval system for large domain archived data of various types comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for storing a large domain of data contained in multiple source records, at least some of the source records being comprised of individual documents of multiple document types;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for searching at least a substantial portion of such data based on a search query to identify documents of multiple types responsive to the query; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for categorizing documents responsive to the query based on document type, including &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for generating a summary of the number of documents responsive to the query which fall within various predetermined categories of document types.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Additionally, although this patent deals with coordinates the drawings describe a very similar invention to Apple's patent: &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Information search and retrieval with geographical coordinates&quot; [US5893093][3] Issue date: Apr 6, 1999**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An information search and retrieval process using geographical coordinates, which process comprises:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; building an index of coordinates for a plurality of text based references, resources or sites, each having a set of said coordinates;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accepting a user inquiry containing a text reference;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; converting said text reference specified in said user inquiry to a set of coordinates;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; searching against said index of coordinates based on the converted coordinates of said user inquiry reference; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; returning all information retrieved from said searching in a text based format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The list continues: &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Information retrieval system&quot; [US5978803][4] Issue date: Nov 2, 1999**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An information retrieval system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a plurality of retrieval servers for performing retrieval processing; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a retrieval management server for managing operation of said plurality of retrieval servers;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein said retrieval management server divides a text base of a retrieval object and relating information regarding the text base into a number of parts based on a size of the text base and loads of the respective retrieval servers and selectively allocates the divided parts of the text base and the relating information corresponding to the divided parts in sets to some or all of said plurality of retrieval servers; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said plurality of retrieval servers perform information retrieval for the divided parts of the text base allocated by said retrieval management server parallelly to and independently of each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**And, one more:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;System for storage and retrieval of diverse types of information obtained from different media sources which include video, audio, and text transcripts&quot; [US5729741][5] Issue date: Mar 17, 1998**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 reads as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of processing information contained in different types of media, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) processing each and every of said different types of media by storing in memory a first, index storage file, which contains a text description of the contents of information contained in said any medium, and an identification of said first, index storage file; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) for each respective medium processed in step (a), analyzing the contents of information of said respective medium, regardless of the type of the subject matter of said contents of information, for the presence of text, and generating a second, text file, that contains all text found in said medium and storing said second, text file in memory in association with said first, index storage file; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein said respective medium comprises a video recording medium containing video and voice information signals associated with a video recorded activity, and a further medium containing a separate transcription of said voice information, and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein step (b) comprises processing said voice information signals through an automated voice recognition-to-text conversion mechanism, so as to generate a voice-converted text file, and processing said further medium containing said separate transcription of said voice information to generate a transcribed voice text file, and correlating successive words of said voice-converted text file and successive words of said transcribed voice text file to associate contents of said transcribed voice text file with said video information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2143.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5634051&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5893093&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5978803&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5729741" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="791" RevisionGUID="be2d4c93-1e57-4e59-80da-008bd1b047cd" CreationDate="2012-10-24T10:34:57.737" UserId="1259" Comment="added patent title, no and filing date" Text="MUTANT G-PROTEIN COUPLED RECEPTORS AND METHODS FOR SELECTING THEM&#xD;&#xA;Patent application [12/450,358][1] filed Mar 20, 2008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example of engineering mutants to give better thermostability of a protease.  Essentially the methods are the same as the ones in this patent(different kind of activity assay) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3145814&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a version of this type of engineering from back in 1994 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7950371&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20100190188" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="788" RevisionGUID="8b519d5f-e479-422d-974f-1527e1535faf" CreationDate="2012-10-24T13:13:48.053" UserId="76" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="US patent class 40: card, picture, or sign exhibiting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2503" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="788" RevisionGUID="8b519d5f-e479-422d-974f-1527e1535faf" CreationDate="2012-10-24T13:13:48.053" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 254" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="787" RevisionGUID="15d5317a-3f18-4b96-84b4-a60502e5a38f" CreationDate="2012-10-24T13:13:52.250" UserId="76" Comment="added 544 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 40: card, picture, or sign exhibiting](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc040/sched040.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc040/defs040.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: license plates, skywriting, flag-waving devices, badges, display cards, memorial tablets, animal markers, indicia, labels, calendars, copyholders, transparency viewers, card filing devices, picture frames, display devices, changing exhibitors, illuminated signs, sign making, sign mounts, signposts, ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2505" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="787" RevisionGUID="15d5317a-3f18-4b96-84b4-a60502e5a38f" CreationDate="2012-10-24T13:13:52.250" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 253" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="789" RevisionGUID="e83f9a92-49d1-4cb9-9e86-684465445cdb" CreationDate="2012-10-24T13:13:55.183" UserId="76" Comment="added 448 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 709: Electrical computers and digital processing systems: multicomputer data transferring](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/sched709.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: distributed data processing, multicomputer shared memory, remote data access, networked computer management, computer communication protocols, routing, ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2507" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="789" RevisionGUID="e83f9a92-49d1-4cb9-9e86-684465445cdb" CreationDate="2012-10-24T13:13:55.183" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 255" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="790" RevisionGUID="ce398e36-a7a2-4f7e-9b53-879b9d6e5492" CreationDate="2012-10-24T13:13:58.847" UserId="76" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="US patent class 709: Electrical computers and digital processing systems: multicomputer data transferring" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2509" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="790" RevisionGUID="ce398e36-a7a2-4f7e-9b53-879b9d6e5492" CreationDate="2012-10-24T13:13:58.847" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 256" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2512" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="501" RevisionGUID="01ad35cf-abf0-46cd-884f-073a903e317a" CreationDate="2012-10-24T13:36:25.050" UserId="34" Comment="1" />
  <row Id="2516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="794" RevisionGUID="0820bd79-18d0-4c8e-bda8-c98c3c2ac030" CreationDate="2012-10-24T14:11:44.540" UserId="1690" Text="I work at [GForge Group, LLC][1].  [Our product][2] does exactly this, and has for over ten years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gforgegroup.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gforge.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="795" RevisionGUID="d0d2e50e-5307-4173-af6e-0ce1556fdd9e" CreationDate="2012-10-24T14:27:16.547" UserId="1693" Text="I used a website to provide programming assignments and collect products as early as '94." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="796" RevisionGUID="910a2a9f-daf3-4dcb-b7d9-13f58b5899f5" CreationDate="2012-10-24T14:44:11.283" UserId="284" Text="[vWorker (formerly rentacoder)](http://www.vworker.com/) could also be considered prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="797" RevisionGUID="4f4f1e48-4414-4d3e-a5e6-0f4f88546b0e" CreationDate="2012-10-24T15:47:47.783" UserId="1698" Text="Data structures have been upheld as patentable when they have structural and functional relationships that provide a useful result.  Data structures are not generally patentable if they are descriptive or recite a list. The manipulation of ideas is not patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims do matter. Compare In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579 (Fed Cir 1994)(memory having a pyramidal data structure with structural and functional relationships to provide a useful result) with In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(robotic collision avoidance description with a claimed method and a bubble data structure that were a mere algorithm and result)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="798" RevisionGUID="80649988-6e45-4c3a-93c3-81cb02ac5867" CreationDate="2012-10-24T16:21:31.557" UserId="1699" Text="This may not be close enough, but it is pretty much the same thing in a military application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.qinetiq-na.com/products/survivability/ears/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="797" RevisionGUID="ce5a31cf-b169-49df-b507-2e0150c1a570" CreationDate="2012-10-24T18:46:09.573" UserId="76" Comment="added links to the cited cases" Text="Data structures have been upheld as patentable when they have structural and functional relationships that provide a useful result.  Data structures are not generally patentable if they are descriptive or recite a list. The manipulation of ideas is not patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims do matter. Compare [In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579 (Fed Cir 1994)](http://digital-law-online.info/cases/32PQ2D1031.htm) (memory having a pyramidal data structure with structural and functional relationships to provide a useful result) with [In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1994)](http://digital-law-online.info/cases/31PQ2D1754.htm) (robotic collision avoidance description with a claimed method and a bubble data structure that were a mere algorithm and result)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="798" RevisionGUID="9988202b-97cf-4401-8ea2-665545ee3619" CreationDate="2012-10-24T18:56:09.297" UserId="76" Comment="quote a relevant passage" Text="This may not be close enough, but it is pretty much the same thing in a military application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.qinetiq-na.com/products/survivability/ears/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SWATS accurately detects gunfire and determines its source location in less than a second. Users are alerted to a threat by audio and/or visual reporting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This pretty much covers claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="799" RevisionGUID="bd1e6fd1-06b3-4044-ae12-98592b2671bb" CreationDate="2012-10-24T19:34:40.043" UserId="76" Text="*[Learning Sound Location from a Single Microphone](http://cs.stanford.edu/people/asaxena/monaural/monaural.pdf)* by Ashutosh Saxena and Andrew Y. Ng, presented at [ICRA 2009](http://www.icra2009.org/) in May 2009, anticipates claims 1–3, albeit not by the one-year period required in the US to be indubitably prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1\. An apparatus comprising: at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not explicit in Saxena that a computer is used to perform the method. However, Saxena discloses the use of a sensor containing a microphone (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, §IV.A. Saxena discloses the use of a [learned hidden Markov model](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Markov_model#Learning) (learned HMM) applied to the data obtained via the microphone (§IV.B). It would be obvious to one skilled the art to perform the learned HMM on a computer comprising a processor and a memory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * identify at least one audio type based on a signal representative of sound;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Saxena, title; Saxena, §IV.B (“Our test data comprised a variety of different sound sources: (…)”). Saxena is able to distinguish between a chosen audio type and background noise (§IV.B, “Our data was collected in a normal office environment, which had some background noise (…)”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * determine the direction of any of said identified audio types; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Saxena, §IV.B, p.4–5 (in particular “note a recurring pattern in the transfer function that changes as a function of the direction”); Saxena, Fig. 6.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * provide feed-back to a user of the identified audio types and the direction of said audio types.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Saxena, Fig. 4; Saxena, Fig. 5. Saxena discloses providing feedback in a form that is amenable to computer scientists studying sound localization; it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to provide feedback that is more suitable for a user by displaying the highest-confidence option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2\. An apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising at least one audio input, wherein said signal representative of sound is received via said at least one audio input.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3\. An apparatus according to claim 2, wherein said at least one audio input port is at least one microphone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Saxena, Fig. 3 discloses an audio input port that is a microphone.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="801" RevisionGUID="e8399020-492f-411b-8401-04fd66e10c2a" CreationDate="2012-10-24T21:33:35.963" UserId="1706" Text="Seems to me the exerpt below from the &quot;SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION&quot; section should help with finding &quot;prior art&quot;.  In that, it doesn't have to be a person but a &quot;computer program&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The term “software developer” used herein is intended to cover any type of provider such as a computer program and/or human services. Accordingly, the custom source code is developed from a set of requirements specifically for the end user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that I now direct you to look at wikipedia where you can find a history of tripod.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used tripod.com in 2002 to create a website where I was able to send in a request for a homepage design via their website builder tool.  It would then create all the code required to meet my needs.  I would then go to the preview my site options and make sure I was happy witht he results.  If not I would send feedback to Tripod.com about the changes I wanted made.  I was able to go into the website and view the html that it had built for me.  I was then free to download the html and edit it and move it to where ever I liked, ie ownsership of the scripts was passed to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must admit to using the free version, but there was an option for a paid version.  Therefore I could have paid for the services." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="802" RevisionGUID="ae5b07a2-b94d-45b2-bf94-9b215a76dc75" CreationDate="2012-10-24T22:53:22.483" UserId="1259" Text="This should help, patent [US5706502][1] Filing date: Mar 26, 1996&#xD;&#xA;Issue date: Jan 6, 1998&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Internet-enabled portfolio manager system and method**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A portfolio management system (PMS) is disclosed that allows users to manage, create, edit, debug and compile software portfolios that can include several different types of components, or projects. For example, projects can be Java applets, standalone executable programs, image files, Java class libraries or remote Java applets. The software portfolios and/or their constituent projects can be stored on the system hosting the portfolio management system or on any remote system that can be accessed via the Internet using standard Internet communications protocols, such as FTP or HTTP. The PMS includes portfolio files, each of which includes links to the projects that compose a portfolio and project files that set out the attributes of one project. The PMS also provides portfolio methods that allow users to create, choose, import and remove entire portfolios and project methods that allow users to create, import, choose, edit, remove, run, copy and paste...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A portfolio management system for portfolios of software projects that are distributed over a set of networked computers connected to the Internet, said portfolio management system being resident on a first computer of said set of networked computers and comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a Web browser that is configured to download to said portfolio manager system selected remote portfolio files from the Internet as said selected portfolio files are needed by said portfolio methods to process said portfolios.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a user interface that is configured to:&#xD;&#xA;display said portfolios, including the projects composing said portfolios, in a consistent fashion that is independent of location of said portfolios and projects; and&#xD;&#xA;enable user interaction with said portfolio methods so that the user can determine and manipulate the displayed portfolio using said portfolio methods. ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for use in a local computer connected via the Internet with a set of remote computers, said method enabling a user of said first computer to perform software development operations on software portfolios that are collections of projects, said method comprising the steps of: ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims are pretty detailed, and appear to describe the storage and retrieval of &quot;source code project portfolios&quot;, to wit, a software application or program.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5706502" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="803" RevisionGUID="8e09f882-3022-47dc-b424-913334780633" CreationDate="2012-10-24T23:27:07.680" UserId="799" Text="AltaVista released &quot;AltaVista Discovery&quot; in 1998. This was an application that ran on your local PC, and maintained a locally-stored index of your documents and emails.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;It also provided a browser toolbar via which you could launch a search, specifying whether you wanted to search your local files or the web. Regardless of whether you performed a web search or local search, the results would be displayed in the one format within your browser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's some quick links:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://news.cnet.com/AltaVista-debuts-Discovery-search-app/2100-1023_3-214018.html&quot;&gt;AltaVista-debuts-Discovery-search-app&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://labnol.blogspot.com.au/2004/10/forgotten-hero-in-desktop-search.html&quot;&gt;A forgotten hero in Desktop search&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="804" RevisionGUID="c53d55b4-1c53-4880-acd1-a2be1dc2253e" CreationDate="2012-10-25T01:01:56.800" UserId="1707" Text="The patent doesn't specify a locally run application, just &quot;a method..&quot;. So meta-search services on the web prior to 2000 would be prior art? They take a user input, and query multiple heuristic based search engines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;eg www.dogpile.com, metasearch.com etc etc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="806" RevisionGUID="4e2216a6-7b6b-4b86-a3c8-256eda0e0373" CreationDate="2012-10-25T04:28:10.987" UserId="1709" Text="Microsoft patented varied speed scrolling depending on the speed of mouse wheel spin, something that is now always used. Does this mean that most software that uses scrolling is in violation, or is the technology different?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2538" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="806" RevisionGUID="4e2216a6-7b6b-4b86-a3c8-256eda0e0373" CreationDate="2012-10-25T04:28:10.987" UserId="1709" Text="Doesn't this mean most current software using scrolling is in violation of Patent 5495566?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2539" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="806" RevisionGUID="4e2216a6-7b6b-4b86-a3c8-256eda0e0373" CreationDate="2012-10-25T04:28:10.987" UserId="1709" Text="&lt;microsoft&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="807" RevisionGUID="244ab4a3-ca7e-4faf-8189-8ab456126934" CreationDate="2012-10-25T04:59:40.133" UserId="1708" Text="There is nothing new or novel about most of this patent, acoustic direction finding has been around since the 1800's and was used to detect approaching aircraft pre radar http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/COMMS/ear/ear.htm . This device is doing exactly the same thing but using modern electronic devices devices. The bit about identifying the type of sound by comparing it to stored profiles is not a particularly novel idea either the technique is used in electronic warfare to identify target radars - the detected signal is analysed by a computer and compared to a stored library. Their technique for analysing the sound maybe novel. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="808" RevisionGUID="586890a8-29ce-49b9-a6ff-f5c3c374a29c" CreationDate="2012-10-25T09:24:55.843" UserId="1711" Text="Our startup is trying to provide a backup solution for Google Apps for your domain. In principle it's a software running on the client computer. Our software then connects to Google via APIs ([GData][1]) + Imap (for Mail) to download data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We recently got mail by a patent attorney stating that our software possibly violates a patent ([US6981007][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Especially regarding Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for onsite backup of internet-based data comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a central computer; a client computer; a communications link between&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said central computer and the Internet; a communications link between&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said client computer and the Internet; at least one database&#xD;&#xA;&gt; containing a plurality of data records accessible by said central&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computer, each data record containing a client identification number;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; software executing on said central computer for receiving a data&#xD;&#xA;&gt; backup request from said client computer; software executing on said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; central computer for transmitting said data backup to said client&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computer for onsite backup of internet-based data on said client&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our application uses really old ways to deal with data (Imap dates back to 1986, and connecting to a central server via an api is as old as the internet). We don't think that our software does infringe anything. And we think there is good reason to believe that there is tons of prior art to this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help on how to tackle the problem is much appreciated. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://developers.google.com/gdata/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6981007" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2542" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="808" RevisionGUID="586890a8-29ce-49b9-a6ff-f5c3c374a29c" CreationDate="2012-10-25T09:24:55.843" UserId="1711" Text="Prior Art for Onsite backup for internet-based data processing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2543" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="808" RevisionGUID="586890a8-29ce-49b9-a6ff-f5c3c374a29c" CreationDate="2012-10-25T09:24:55.843" UserId="1711" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;us6981007&gt;&lt;backup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2544" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="808" RevisionGUID="d90f2dfa-8f6e-4fa9-aec6-bba51cf765c4" CreationDate="2012-10-25T10:25:28.293" UserId="1259" Comment="added tag for infringement, removed backup which is irrelevant" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;us6981007&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="806" RevisionGUID="8207f19b-385b-4561-b90d-196e7a3c8e6a" CreationDate="2012-10-25T10:28:05.747" UserId="1259" Comment="added link to patent and tag" Text="[Patent 5495566][1] Microsoft patented varied speed scrolling depending on the speed of mouse wheel spin, something that is now always used. Does this mean that most software that uses scrolling is in violation, or is the technology different?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5495566" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2546" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="806" RevisionGUID="8207f19b-385b-4561-b90d-196e7a3c8e6a" CreationDate="2012-10-25T10:28:05.747" UserId="1259" Comment="added link to patent and tag" Text="&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;us5495566&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="809" RevisionGUID="a4a89850-8365-4c8a-9622-b96112e93bbb" CreationDate="2012-10-25T10:33:41.770" UserId="81" Text="An option you may have overlooked is that patented technology can be licensed, and in fact this is usually the case for commonly used patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in this case, applications typically will use the platform's own scrolling API (so on Windows they will use Microsoft's own scroll functionality) so there is no conflict.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="808" RevisionGUID="78320c12-b431-434e-a898-20e076cffe9f" CreationDate="2012-10-25T11:55:09.770" UserId="76" Comment="added 27 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Our startup is trying to provide a backup solution for Google Apps for your domain. In principle it's a software running on the client computer. Our software then connects to Google via APIs ([GData][1]) + Imap (for Mail) to download data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We recently got mail by a patent attorney stating that our software possibly violates a patent ([US6981007][2], priority date 1999-07-09).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Especially regarding Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for onsite backup of internet-based data comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * a central computer;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * a client computer;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * a communications link between said central computer and the Internet;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * a communications link between said client computer and the Internet;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * at least one database containing a plurality of data records accessible by said central  computer, each data record containing a client identification number;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * software executing on said central computer for receiving a data backup request from said client computer; software executing on said central computer for transmitting said data backup to said client computer for onsite backup of internet-based data on said client computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our application uses really old ways to deal with data (Imap dates back to 1986, and connecting to a central server via an api is as old as the internet). We don't think that our software does infringe anything. And we think there is good reason to believe that there is tons of prior art to this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help on how to tackle the problem is much appreciated. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://developers.google.com/gdata/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6981007" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2549" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="808" RevisionGUID="78320c12-b431-434e-a898-20e076cffe9f" CreationDate="2012-10-25T11:55:09.770" UserId="76" Comment="added 27 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;data-processing-financial&gt;&lt;us6981007&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="810" RevisionGUID="92b806f3-e834-4262-8b9e-8c4375a55775" CreationDate="2012-10-25T11:56:17.873" UserId="1714" Text="I would like to refer you to RFC-2060, documenting the invention of the IMAP protocol in 1996 by M. Crispin of the University of Washington, 4 years before the invention you claim to have invented in your patent.  For your reference, here is an internet link to said RFC:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2060.txt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have strong reason to believe that this RFC is an example of prior art of your patent, and therefore I would like to contend that your patent is invalid, and in fact you are incorrectly making claims for someone elses invention.  I will now present you with a brief grounding for my justification, comparing the RFC with Claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A system for onsite backup of internet-based data comprising:*&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Internet Message Access Protocol, Version 4rev1 (IMAP4rev1)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; allows a client to access and manipulate electronic mail messages on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent is about internet based data, and IMAP is about internet electronic mail messages, which is also internet based data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*a central computer;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; IMAP4rev1 supports a single server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both the IMAP invention and your patent require a central computer/server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*a client computer; a communications link between said central computer and the Internet; a communications link between said client computer and the Internet*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first quote from the RFC implies this since a client is accessing a server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*at least one database containing a plurality of data records accessible by said central computer, each data record containing a client identification number;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, the case-insensitive mailbox name INBOX is a special name&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reserved to mean &quot;the primary mailbox for this user on this server&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMAP requires a plurality of mailbox records, each identified against a user, just like your patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*software executing on said central computer for receiving a data backup request from said client computer; software executing on said central computer for transmitting said data backup to said client computer for onsite backup of internet-based data on said client computer.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The FETCH command retrieves data associated with a message in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mailbox.  The data items to be fetched can be either a single atom&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or a parenthesized list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the FETCH command in IMAP.  A backup request is simply a parenthesized list of all the messages items in the mailbox.  A client, implementing the IMAP protocol is backing up their mailbox on their client computer every time they issue the FETCH command.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is but a brief analysis, should you wish to proceed further I will be happy to present you with a full report that completely invalidates your patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kind Regards,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your mother.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Talk to a lawyer before sending them this, it might have to be modified slightly before you send it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="806" RevisionGUID="24a03325-e63e-4741-9961-01ecd205dc11" CreationDate="2012-10-25T11:58:13.977" UserId="76" Comment="added 45 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In [US patent 5495566][1] (filed 1994-11-22, issued 1996-02-27), Microsoft patented varied speed scrolling depending on the speed of mouse wheel spin, something that is now always used. Does this mean that most software that uses scrolling is in violation, or is the technology different?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5495566" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2552" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="806" RevisionGUID="24a03325-e63e-4741-9961-01ecd205dc11" CreationDate="2012-10-25T11:58:13.977" UserId="76" Comment="added 45 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;data-processing-interface&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;us5495566&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="811" RevisionGUID="5bf88e02-1fbc-48b2-9f1f-7a0c0ea3126a" CreationDate="2012-10-25T15:01:00.853" UserId="1259" Text="Unfortunately, the bottom line of any alleged patent infringement is that it will cost YOU money. If you lose, of course an enormous amount; if you win, you will probably be on the hook for tens of thousands in legal bills anyways. And yes - you have to respond to a lawyer's letter with a lawyer's letter. Any which way you slice it, you have to pay a lawyer. It is relatively easy and cheap(er) for these non-practicing-entities (aka patent trolls) to spray lawsuits around on anything that remotely resembles their patent, hoping something will stick. The investment for them is low, the possible payout enormous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your lawyer can persuade the other side that your product does NOT infringe, they may go away. Or, you are in for a fight to convince a judge. Or, the other side may accept a (smaller) settlement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have business insurance, they may take up the fight on your behalf (or settle, that becomes their problem).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't be surprised if a &quot;licensing solution provider&quot; like RPX suddenly appears out of the woodwork, offering to sell you a license on THEIR patents to &quot;protect against frivolous infringement lawsuits&quot;. In any other industry, this would probably be considered extortion; in the patent jungle - its just how the legal system works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you intend to fight it - your lawyer can provide a more detailed prior art request that you can bring here. Then your side would have to convince a judge to invalidate this patent, or prove in court that your product does not infringe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="812" RevisionGUID="750605f3-a610-4e6c-a314-2977bf5b5e6c" CreationDate="2012-10-25T15:27:12.237" UserId="998" Text="A design patent covers the ornamental features of an article of manufacture. As with standard &quot;utility&quot; patents, a design patent must also be novel and nonobvious.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a number of years, the USPTO has allowed companies to obtain design patents on &quot;icons&quot; shown on a computer screen.  Under the law, someone who displays a patented icon on their screen would be deemed a patent infringer subject to a lawsuit for damages.  One unfortunate aspect of patent law is that it lacks any substantial fair use doctrine that would likely serve as a defense if icon-rights were asserted under either copyright or trademark law. Thus, someone who includes the icon within a work of art or a criticism could still be considered infringing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the recent examples of an icon design patent is Apple's U.S. Design Patent No. [D668,263][1]. [Image][2]. That patent covers a three-lined circle with a set of rising eighth notes in the middle.  The patent was filed on October 8, 2010.  That means that prior art that was published prior to October 8, 2009 would definitely be available to invalidate the patent.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone suggest some prior art?  Feel free to email me dcrouch@patentlyo.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=D668,263.PN.&amp;OS=PN/D668,263&amp;RS=PN/D668,263&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.patentlyo.com/.a/6a00d8341c588553ef017ee46d9716970d-pi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2555" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="812" RevisionGUID="750605f3-a610-4e6c-a314-2977bf5b5e6c" CreationDate="2012-10-25T15:27:12.237" UserId="998" Text="Prior Art for Apple's iTunes Design Patent (Circle with Notes in the Middle)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2556" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="812" RevisionGUID="750605f3-a610-4e6c-a314-2977bf5b5e6c" CreationDate="2012-10-25T15:27:12.237" UserId="998" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;d668263&gt;&lt;itunes&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="812" RevisionGUID="773c13ce-38f6-4345-9568-520bdd2be664" CreationDate="2012-10-25T15:47:11.570" UserId="1" Comment="Removed reference to personal email reply. We don't do that. All questions and answers are to create public artifacts." Text="A design patent covers the ornamental features of an article of manufacture. As with standard &quot;utility&quot; patents, a design patent must also be novel and nonobvious.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a number of years, the USPTO has allowed companies to obtain design patents on &quot;icons&quot; shown on a computer screen.  Under the law, someone who displays a patented icon on their screen would be deemed a patent infringer subject to a lawsuit for damages.  One unfortunate aspect of patent law is that it lacks any substantial fair use doctrine that would likely serve as a defense if icon-rights were asserted under either copyright or trademark law. Thus, someone who includes the icon within a work of art or a criticism could still be considered infringing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the recent examples of an icon design patent is Apple's U.S. Design Patent No. [D668,263][1]. [Image][2]. That patent covers a three-lined circle with a set of rising eighth notes in the middle.  The patent was filed on October 8, 2010.  That means that prior art that was published prior to October 8, 2009 would definitely be available to invalidate the patent.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone suggest some prior art? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=D668,263.PN.&amp;OS=PN/D668,263&amp;RS=PN/D668,263&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.patentlyo.com/.a/6a00d8341c588553ef017ee46d9716970d-pi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="813" RevisionGUID="90e58354-ff12-4d5e-bddd-fbdb068ad602" CreationDate="2012-10-25T15:54:35.167" UserId="1114" Text="According to this [time-restricted google search](https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod%3D0&amp;q=musical+note&amp;um=1&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;hl=en&amp;tbm=isch&amp;source=og&amp;sa=N&amp;tab=wi&amp;authuser=0&amp;ei=UF6JUKXUPM7siQK73oGIBQ&amp;biw=1280&amp;bih=963&amp;sei=U16JUN_hJ8PkiwK9koHgBg#q=musical+note+logo&amp;um=1&amp;hl=en&amp;authuser=0&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=u16JUNG7KaTEigKrqYC4Dg&amp;ved=0CBsQpwUoAw&amp;source=lnt&amp;tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min%3A%2Ccd_max%3A10%2F8%2F2009&amp;tbm=isch&amp;bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&amp;fp=57779a026cb5e6c6&amp;bpcl=35466521&amp;biw=1280&amp;bih=963), [this image](http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-22032898/stock-vector-vector-orange-grunge-musical-note-button-icon.html) was indexed before October 8, 2009. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like there's a date on the website itself. If anybody knows a way to tell when google first indexed a page, that would be helpful. The WayBackMachine's first and only index was on [November 7, 2010](http://web.archive.org/web/20101107120530/http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-22032898/stock-vector-vector-orange-grunge-musical-note-button-icon.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/b74S1.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="812" RevisionGUID="c3fa4345-b285-4548-a459-37663932e9d4" CreationDate="2012-10-25T16:34:50.873" UserId="1114" Comment="displaying the image to save the laziest of users from having to click on the link" Text="A design patent covers the ornamental features of an article of manufacture. As with standard &quot;utility&quot; patents, a design patent must also be novel and nonobvious.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a number of years, the USPTO has allowed companies to obtain design patents on &quot;icons&quot; shown on a computer screen.  Under the law, someone who displays a patented icon on their screen would be deemed a patent infringer subject to a lawsuit for damages.  One unfortunate aspect of patent law is that it lacks any substantial fair use doctrine that would likely serve as a defense if icon-rights were asserted under either copyright or trademark law. Thus, someone who includes the icon within a work of art or a criticism could still be considered infringing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the recent examples of an icon design patent is Apple's U.S. Design Patent No. [D668,263][1]. [Image][2]. That patent covers a three-lined circle with a set of rising eighth notes in the middle.  The patent was filed on October 8, 2010.  That means that prior art that was published prior to October 8, 2009 would definitely be available to invalidate the patent.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone suggest some prior art? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=D668,263.PN.&amp;OS=PN/D668,263&amp;RS=PN/D668,263&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.patentlyo.com/.a/6a00d8341c588553ef017ee46d9716970d-pi&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/3voqy.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2563" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="812" RevisionGUID="c3fa4345-b285-4548-a459-37663932e9d4" CreationDate="2012-10-25T16:34:50.873" Comment="Proposed by 1114 approved by 998 edit id of 257" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="815" RevisionGUID="36c92d2f-f905-40be-a321-e52c4be46db3" CreationDate="2012-10-25T17:37:15.723" UserId="1718" Text="The rules here stipulate: &quot;Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question specifically regards the existence of prior art encompassing Claim 1: &quot;Claim 1. A system and method for creating video games and virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.&quot;  Does such prior art exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many folks above list games which perhaps incorporate Hero's Journey Codes of Honors in the games, but nobody lists a game wherein one can choose from various codes of honor to play by, or, as the application states, games which offer &quot;virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, in GTA/Fallout on can shoot hookers and innocent folks, and till &quot;win.&quot;  Howevere, because murder of the innocent is againt the Judeo Christian code of honor, a game with the Judeo Christian code of honor would not let a player &quot;win&quot; if they shot hookers and innocent folks in the game.  The patent imagines a menu wherein one could toggle between the GTA/Fallout/Fanboy/lzozloz code of honor and higher codes of honor such as those presented in Buddhism, Judeo-Christianity, the Samurai code of honor, and others.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There exists no game nor prior art which allows one to toggle between various codes of honor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="815" RevisionGUID="be7cdecb-07de-42d7-b573-db0c59ebae48" CreationDate="2012-10-25T17:44:34.250" UserId="1718" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="The rules here stipulate: &quot;Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question specifically regards the existence of prior art encompassing Claim 1: &quot;Claim 1. A system and method for creating video games and virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.&quot;  Does such prior art exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many folks above list games which perhaps incorporate Hero's Journey Codes of Honors in the games, but nobody lists a game wherein one can choose from various codes of honor to play by, or, as the application states, games which offer &quot;virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, in GTA/Fallout on can shoot hookers and innocent folks, and till &quot;win.&quot;  Howevere, because murder of the innocent is againt the Judeo Christian code of honor, a game with the Judeo Christian code of honor would not let a player &quot;win&quot; if they shot hookers and innocent folks in the game.  The patent imagines a menu wherein one could toggle between the GTA/Fallout/Fanboy/lzozloz code of honor and higher codes of honor such as those presented in Buddhism, Judeo-Christianity, the Samurai code of honor, and others.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There exists no game nor prior art which allows one to toggle nor choose between various codes of honor as described in Claim #1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="815" RevisionGUID="212c6a13-1663-493a-bceb-b69d8cbafedc" CreationDate="2012-10-25T17:45:56.567" UserId="1259" Comment="spelling errors fixed" Text="The rules here stipulate: &quot;Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question specifically regards the existence of prior art encompassing Claim 1: &quot;Claim 1. A system and method for creating video games and virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.&quot;  Does such prior art exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many folks above list games which perhaps incorporate Hero's Journey Codes of Honors in the games, but nobody lists a game wherein one can choose from various codes of honor to play by, or, as the application states, games which offer &quot;virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, in GTA/Fallout on can shoot hookers and innocent folks, and still &quot;win.&quot;  However, because murder of the innocent is against the Judeo Christian code of honor, a game with the Judeo Christian code of honor would not let a player &quot;win&quot; if they shot hookers and innocent folks in the game.  The patent imagines a menu wherein one could toggle between the GTA/Fallout/Fanboy/lzozloz code of honor and higher codes of honor such as those presented in Buddhism, Judeo-Christianity, the Samurai code of honor, and others.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There exists no game nor prior art which allows one to toggle nor choose between various codes of honor as described in Claim #1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="815" RevisionGUID="ba1dc687-5cc3-46db-a8ee-f1e82b338849" CreationDate="2012-10-25T17:55:43.227" UserId="1718" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="The rules here stipulate: &quot;Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question specifically regards the existence of prior art encompassing Claim 1: &quot;Claim 1. A system and method for creating video games and virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.&quot;  Does such prior art exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many folks above list games which perhaps incorporate Hero's Journey Codes of Honors in the games, but nobody lists a game wherein one can choose from various codes of honor to play by, or, as the application states, games which offer &quot;virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, in GTA/Fallout one can shoot hookers and innocent folks, and still &quot;win.&quot;  However, because murder of the innocent is against the Judeo Christian code of honor, a game with the Judeo Christian code of honor would not let a player &quot;win&quot; if they shot hookers and innocent folks in the game.  The patent imagines a menu wherein one could toggle between the GTA/Fallout/Fanboy/lzozloz code of honor and higher codes of honor such as those presented in Buddhism, Judeo-Christianity, the Samurai code of honor, and others.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There exists no game nor prior art which allows one to toggle nor choose between various codes of honor as described in Claim #1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2569" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="812" RevisionGUID="0a5715c0-8b0c-4adf-a0d1-c96d4e628efe" CreationDate="2012-10-25T19:04:06.267" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/261543675790782464" />
  <row Id="2570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="817" RevisionGUID="84b0e5c8-15d8-4540-8f6d-3f9401bc226b" CreationDate="2012-10-25T19:07:46.153" UserId="1259" Text="Following up, remote backups seem to have been around from long before this patent's priority date (as we all know). A cursory search has turned up these resources (you will need to investigate each further):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mr. Cosgrove literally wrote the book on the Online Backup Business with his industry-defining 1987 book, RBS Book: How to Start and Operate a Remote Backup Business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source link][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Book link][2] (note this is 2010 edition but it does have the initial publish date of 1987.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Network World - Jul 12, 1999 - Page 47 (even though the print date is a few days past, the articles may reference an older existence, I have not checked).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source link to preview entire magazine][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; InfoWorld - Mar 15, 1999 - Page 60 (Legato - that's the aged backup monolith we worked with back then!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source link to preview whole magazine][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.remote-backup.com/online-backup-about-rbs.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://books.google.com/books?id=HZ3USAAACAAJ&amp;dq=The%20Online%20Backup%20Guide%20for%20Service%20Providers:%20How%20to%20Start%20and%20Operate%20an%20Online%20Backup%20Service&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=W42JUPSZL4640QHT_oDABA&amp;ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://books.google.com/books?id=GBEEAAAAMBAJ&amp;pg=PA47&amp;dq=he%20Online%20Backup%20Guide%20for%20Service%20Providers:%20How%20to%20Start%20and%20Operate%20an%20Online%20Backup%20Service&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=XIuJUJPLFeqy0QHJuoDQBA&amp;ved=0CEIQuwUwAg#v=onepage&amp;q=he%20Online%20Backup%20Guide%20for%20Service%20Providers:%20How%20to%20Start%20and%20Operate%20an%20Online%20Backup%20Service&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://books.google.com/books?id=GVAEAAAAMBAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA60&amp;dq=The%20Online%20Backup%20Guide%20for%20Service%20Providers:%20How%20to%20Start%20and%20Operate%20an%20Online%20Backup%20Service&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=m4yJUNSZIuiA0AGJ1YCYDA&amp;ved=0CDoQuwUwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=The%20Online%20Backup%20Guide%20for%20Service%20Providers:%20How%20to%20Start%20and%20Operate%20an%20Online%20Backup%20Service&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2571" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="743" RevisionGUID="52d6a01e-c9d5-4fdb-87f8-13bc3ab38b2d" CreationDate="2012-10-25T19:40:23.353" UserId="998" Comment="2" />
  <row Id="2572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="818" RevisionGUID="dd2e7e6b-e724-43ee-979c-63eae83c9fe0" CreationDate="2012-10-25T22:02:11.283" UserId="1259" Text="[Patent number: 6377965][1] Filing date: Nov 7, 1997&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A word completion system that can automatically predict unrestricted word completions for data entries in an unstructured portion of a data file. ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Autocomplete, as we have come to know it. Further:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 15 In a computer system, a method for suggesting word completions for partial data entries within data files open in a plurality of application programs, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;running a word completion utility on the computer system;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;selecting a suggestion list comprising a plurality of associated name-completion pairs to &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;be used in connection with the word completion utility, each name-completion pair including a name entry and a completion entry;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;running a first application program on the computer system;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;opening a first data file in the first application program and receiving a first partial data entry into the first data file;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;identifying a first name entry in the suggestion list that corresponds to the first partial data entry;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;applying prediction criteria to the first partial data entry, the first name entry, and a first completion entry associated with the first name entry; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;if the prediction criteria are met, displaying the first completion entry as a word completion suggestion for the first partial data entry;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;running a second application program on the computer system;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;opening a second data file in the second application program and receiving a second partial data entry into the second data file;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;identifying a second name entry in the suggestion list that corresponds to the second partial data entry;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;applying the prediction criteria to the second partial data entry, the second name entry, and the second completion entry associated with the second name entry; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;if the prediction are met, displaying the second completion entry as a word completion suggestion for the second partial data entry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It &quot;searches&quot; one or more local files. Extending the reach over a network is not a great leap of innovation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6377965" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="819" RevisionGUID="c04a5412-29f2-49b7-8234-cdf7ffa5fa93" CreationDate="2012-10-25T22:07:50.370" UserId="1259" Text="Yet another auto-complete [patent 6377965][1] Filing date: Nov 7, 1997&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A word completion system that can automatically predict unrestricted word completions for data entries in an unstructured portion of a data file. The word completion system applies prediction criteria to avoid annoying the user by displaying an excessive number of wrong suggestions. Suggested word completions, which may change as the user types a partial data entry, are displayed in a non-disruptive manner and selected using traditional acceptance keystrokes, such as the &quot;tab&quot; key or the &quot;enter&quot; key. The word completion system may be deployed on an individual application program basis or on a application-independent basis. Because different word suggestion lists may be appropriate for different application programs, and for different data files created with the same application program, the word completion system allows the user to select one or more suggestion lists for use with each data file. A user interface allows the user to customize each suggestion list on an on-going basis...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, it does not explicitly mention &quot;remote&quot; or Internet files, but it seems to cover the other claims made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6377965" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="821" RevisionGUID="fd5795cc-22e5-4394-a72a-8781625eb356" CreationDate="2012-10-26T06:43:35.477" UserId="1724" Text="TopCoder is the first things that comes to mind. They have their own set of [patents](http://www.patentgenius.com/assignee/TopCoderInc.html) starting from 2003 (company founded in 2001, according to Wikipedia [article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topcoder)), and although their core business model is or was different (sponsors pay for competitions e.g. as a hiring tool) there is at least some overlap to the 2012 (2006) patent(s) you are citing (&quot;the software resulting from algorithm competitions [...] is not usually directly useful, but sponsor companies sometimes provide money to pay the victors&quot;, says same Wikipedia article.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot judge at this time whether there is sufficient documentation from that source (e.g. under client success stories or Enterprise Open Innovation) or in the Google News archive (the whole crowdsourcing trend manifested around 2005) to qualify as prior art, but can perhaps spend some more time on research if you further increase the &quot;competition&quot; bounty … ups, did StackExchange violate any TopCoder &quot;competition&quot; patents there ... ? :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2577" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="808" RevisionGUID="ce10c79d-ab3f-43e1-bf2c-490f1a1bfb68" CreationDate="2012-10-26T07:04:05.763" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/261724868238770176" />
  <row Id="2584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="824" RevisionGUID="cc6ea3f1-981d-417c-9176-fdab95f70a9b" CreationDate="2012-10-26T09:35:29.990" UserId="1727" Text="Research Disclosure have been offering this kind of defensive publication service for a long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Research Disclosure is included in the PCT minimum documentation list, the major patent authorities are required to search the archive when examining patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a paid service but if you're looking to create an effective block against future patents it's a good solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 min intro to defensive publication strategy :: vimeo.com/questel/defensivepublication&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;website :: researchdisclosure.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2585" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="806" RevisionGUID="07a68f22-d421-4395-8fe0-f24e4fc05a4e" CreationDate="2012-10-26T10:04:06.540" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/261770170484281344" />
  <row Id="2591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="815" RevisionGUID="b3d01b47-124a-4604-8c24-5933132af96b" CreationDate="2012-10-26T14:47:09.363" UserId="1718" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="The rules here stipulate: &quot;Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question specifically regards the existence of prior art encompassing Claim 1: &quot;Claim 1. A system and method for creating video games and virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.&quot;  Does such prior art exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many folks above list games which perhaps incorporate &quot;Codes of Honor&quot; in the games, but nobody lists a game wherein one can choose from various codes of honor to play by, or, as the application states, games which offer &quot;virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, in GTA/Fallout one can shoot hookers and innocent folks, and still &quot;win.&quot;  However, because murder of the innocent is against the Judeo Christian code of honor, a game with the Judeo Christian code of honor would not let a player &quot;win&quot; if they shot hookers and innocent folks in the game.  The patent imagines a menu wherein one could toggle between the GTA/Fallout/Fanboy/lzozloz code of honor and higher codes of honor such as those presented in Buddhism, Judeo-Christianity, the Samurai code of honor, and others.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There exists no game nor prior art which allows one to toggle nor choose between various codes of honor as described in Claim #1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="824" RevisionGUID="cdb6be5c-1418-40f9-aded-cd39cea6b50b" CreationDate="2012-10-26T15:01:59.597" UserId="1259" Comment="linked links" Text="Research Disclosure have been offering this kind of defensive publication service for a long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Research Disclosure is included in the PCT minimum documentation list, the major patent authorities are required to search the archive when examining patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a paid service but if you're looking to create an effective block against future patents it's a good solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 min intro to defensive publication strategy :: [vimeo.com/questel/defensivepublication][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;website :: [researchdisclosure.com][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://vimeo.com/questel/defensivepublication&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://researchdisclosure.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="815" RevisionGUID="1b241153-5c70-44c2-93cf-482c917df185" CreationDate="2012-10-26T16:24:03.503" UserId="14" Comment="Reordered post to eliminate (possibly unfair) perception that this answer is a criticism of the others, rather than a a proper answer.  I also deleted the quote from the FAQ - point it made is implied by the critique." Text="**There exists no game nor prior art which allows one to toggle nor choose between various codes of honor as described in Claim #1.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question specifically regards the existence of prior art encompassing Claim 1: &quot;Claim 1. A system and method for creating video games and virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.&quot;  Does such prior art exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many folks posting other answers here list games which perhaps incorporate &quot;Codes of Honor&quot; in the games, but nobody lists a game wherein one can choose from various codes of honor to play by, or, as the application states, games which offer &quot;virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, in GTA/Fallout one can shoot hookers and innocent folks, and still &quot;win.&quot;  However, because murder of the innocent is against the Judeo Christian code of honor, a game with the Judeo Christian code of honor would not let a player &quot;win&quot; if they shot hookers and innocent folks in the game.  The patent imagines a menu wherein one could toggle between the GTA/Fallout/Fanboy/lzozloz code of honor and higher codes of honor such as those presented in Buddhism, Judeo-Christianity, the Samurai code of honor, and others.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="826" RevisionGUID="730195b0-81ef-46fe-8a20-554c2c958f51" CreationDate="2012-10-26T17:14:05.227" UserId="1730" Text="Without repopulating this page with all of the responses, you might want to consider the responses from Groklaw readers found here:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121018133756787#comments&quot;&gt;http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121018133756787#comments&lt;/a&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="815" RevisionGUID="1e3dd152-b3fd-4d46-bfd8-79e289bc96ae" CreationDate="2012-10-26T19:28:46.667" UserId="1718" Comment="I just wanted to point out the irony" Text="**There exists no game nor prior art which allows one to toggle nor choose between various codes of honor as described in Claim #1.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question specifically regards the existence of prior art encompassing Claim 1: &quot;Claim 1. A system and method for creating video games and virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.&quot;  Does such prior art exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many folks posting other answers here list games which perhaps incorporate &quot;Codes of Honor&quot; in the games, but nobody lists a game wherein one can choose from various codes of honor to play by, or, as the application states, games which offer &quot;virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, in GTA/Fallout one can shoot hookers and innocent folks, and still &quot;win.&quot;  However, because murder of the innocent is against the Judeo Christian code of honor, a game with the Judeo Christian code of honor would not let a player &quot;win&quot; if they shot hookers and innocent folks in the game.  The patent imagines a menu wherein one could toggle between the GTA/Fallout/Fanboy/lzozloz code of honor and higher codes of honor such as those presented in Buddhism, Judeo-Christianity, the Samurai code of honor, and others.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I just wanted to point out the irony that the one post which actually *does* answer the question gets voted down and edited by others, while those posts which do *not* answer the question get voted up and are not edited by others.  Does stackexchange view this as &quot;success?&quot;  To what ends?  What is stackexchange trying to achieve by fostering such strange behavior? --Jeff Tucker&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="821" RevisionGUID="0edd6fe5-9250-4ff3-8439-ce8c354146d0" CreationDate="2012-10-26T20:24:16.367" UserId="1724" Comment="added links" Text="[TopCoder](http://www.topcoder.com/) is the first things that comes to mind. They have their own set of [patents](http://www.patentgenius.com/assignee/TopCoderInc.html) starting from 2003 (company founded in 2001, according to Wikipedia [article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topcoder)), and although their core business model is or was different (sponsors pay for competitions e.g. as a hiring tool) there is at least some overlap with the 2012 (2006) patent(s) you are citing (&quot;the software resulting from algorithm competitions [...] is not usually directly useful, but sponsor companies sometimes provide money to pay the victors&quot;, says same Wikipedia article).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot judge at this time whether there is sufficient documentation from that source (e.g. under [client success stories](http://www.topcoder.com/case-studies/) or [Enterprise Open Innovation](http://www.topcoder.com/whatiseoi/)) or in the Google News [archive](http://news.google.com/news/advanced_news_search?q=topcoder) (the whole [crowdsourcing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing) trend manifested around [2005](http://www.amazon.com/The-Wisdom-Crowds-James-Surowiecki/dp/0385721706)) to qualify as prior art, but can perhaps spend some more time on research if you further increase the &quot;competition&quot; bounty … ups, did StackExchange violate any TopCoder &quot;competition&quot; patents there ... ? :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="815" RevisionGUID="e97c8d0d-779c-4951-88f2-9c28bdf0d48c" CreationDate="2012-10-27T00:30:55.410" UserId="1718" Comment="addressing Gille's false and blatantly wrong statements" Text="**There exists no game nor prior art which allows one to toggle nor choose between various codes of honor as described in Claim #1.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question specifically regards the existence of prior art encompassing Claim 1: &quot;Claim 1. A system and method for creating video games and virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.&quot;  Does such prior art exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many folks posting other answers here list games which perhaps incorporate &quot;Codes of Honor&quot; in the games, but nobody lists a game wherein one can choose from various codes of honor to play by, or, as the application states, games which offer &quot;virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, in GTA/Fallout one can shoot hookers and innocent folks, and still &quot;win.&quot;  However, because murder of the innocent is against the Judeo Christian code of honor, a game with the Judeo Christian code of honor would not let a player &quot;win&quot; if they shot hookers and innocent folks in the game.  The patent imagines a menu wherein one could toggle between the GTA/Fallout/Fanboy/lzozloz code of honor and higher codes of honor such as those presented in Buddhism, Judeo-Christianity, the Samurai code of honor, and others.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I just wanted to point out the irony that the one post which actually *does* answer the question gets voted down and edited by others, while those posts which do *not* answer the question get voted up and are not edited by others.  Does stackexchange view this as &quot;success?&quot;  To what ends?  What is stackexchange trying to achieve by fostering such strange behavior? --Jeff Tucker&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Again, why are all the non-answers getting voted up, while the correct answer is getting voted down, sans any examples or reasons cited?  Below Gilles states several wrong things without even trying to back them up with examples, as they know they are wrong.  The question above states: &quot;What prior art addresses computer based games that allow a player to play according to a chosen value system such as the claimed &quot;codes of honor&quot;?&quot;  My post gives the only answer with, &quot;There exists no game nor prior art which allows one to toggle nor choose between various codes of honor as described in Claim #1.&quot;  Why is Gilles making false statements that are blatantly wrong?  They must cease and desist from doing so, in the spirit of stackexchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2605" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="780" RevisionGUID="32397ded-58ee-4dec-b9c4-874d021dccba" CreationDate="2012-10-27T04:04:06.580" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/262041961375096832" />
  <row Id="2609" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="771" RevisionGUID="ab70ac32-c9b6-4dd6-ae9c-03a2c899c134" CreationDate="2012-10-27T10:04:06.770" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/262132558773514240" />
  <row Id="2613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="815" RevisionGUID="3ba3c65c-7f2f-4db8-9603-89fafc3b3099" CreationDate="2012-10-27T19:54:26.053" UserId="1718" Comment="added 1309 characters in body" Text="**There exists no game nor prior art which allows one to toggle nor choose between various codes of honor as described in Claim #1.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question specifically regards the existence of prior art encompassing Claim 1: &quot;Claim 1. A system and method for creating video games and virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.&quot;  Does such prior art exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many folks posting other answers here list games which perhaps incorporate &quot;Codes of Honor&quot; in the games, but nobody lists a game wherein one can choose from various codes of honor to play by, or, as the application states, games which offer &quot;virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, in GTA/Fallout one can shoot hookers and innocent folks, and still &quot;win.&quot;  However, because murder of the innocent is against the Judeo Christian code of honor, a game with the Judeo Christian code of honor would not let a player &quot;win&quot; if they shot hookers and innocent folks in the game.  The patent imagines a menu wherein one could toggle between the GTA/Fallout/Fanboy/lzozloz code of honor and higher codes of honor such as those presented in Buddhism, Judeo-Christianity, the Samurai code of honor, and others.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I just wanted to point out the irony that the one post which actually *does* answer the question gets voted down and edited by others, while those posts which do *not* answer the question get voted up and are not edited by others.  Does stackexchange view this as &quot;success?&quot;  To what ends?  What is stackexchange trying to achieve by fostering such strange behavior? --Jeff Tucker&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Again, why are all the non-answers getting voted up, while the correct answer is getting voted down, sans any examples or reasons cited?  Below Gilles states several wrong things without even trying to back them up with examples, as they know they are wrong.  The question above states: &quot;What prior art addresses computer based games that allow a player to play according to a chosen value system such as the claimed &quot;codes of honor&quot;?&quot;  My post gives the only answer with, &quot;There exists no game nor prior art which allows one to toggle nor choose between various codes of honor as described in Claim #1.&quot;  Why is Gilles making false statements that are blatantly wrong?  They must cease and desist from doing so, in the spirit of stackexchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***In light of the fact that this is an extremely high-profile stackexchange case, the good folks here may wish to behave in a more professional and less fanboyish manner, whereby they mash some buttons to vote down the one answer that actually answers the question, while engaging in other fanboyish behavior.  law.com reports, &quot;Another application for a video game that includes “a system and method for creating video games and virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by” prompted a slew of gamers to explain &quot;what that really means (lzozolzzo)&quot; and cite examples of similar games (llozozlz). . . The success of patent crowdsourcing will largely depend on the degree of participation from &quot;technical experts&quot; (lloozzlzzo) and from people who understand patent law (lzollzoz).&quot;  -http://www.law.com/corporatecounsel/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202572623576&amp;PTO_Adds_Crowdsourcing_Tool_to_Patent_Application_Process&amp;slreturn=20120927153912&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as you can see, the future of this noble project rests upon your shoulders, so please do not resort to fanboyish tactics, misinformation, &amp; GTA-style drive-by postings of falsehoods like Gilles does in his fallacious, unsupported comments below, as the eyes of the world are upon you. Thanks in advance!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2614" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="186" RevisionGUID="d1300ec7-a22b-4f6a-b699-e0a7123cb34b" CreationDate="2012-10-27T20:22:35.247" UserId="313" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:313,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alnitak&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2615" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="186" RevisionGUID="0e78864d-8c14-4169-be3d-f7b15bb9b151" CreationDate="2012-10-27T20:24:23.937" UserId="313" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:313,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alnitak&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="815" RevisionGUID="0706a35a-26b1-44d8-9ee8-cecf18791a9a" CreationDate="2012-10-27T20:28:13.153" UserId="1718" Comment="vocatus atque non vocatus aderit Deus" Text="**There exists no game nor prior art which allows one to toggle nor choose between various codes of honor as described in Claim #1.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question specifically regards the existence of prior art encompassing Claim 1: &quot;Claim 1. A system and method for creating video games and virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.&quot;  Does such prior art exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many folks posting other answers here list games which perhaps incorporate &quot;Codes of Honor&quot; in the games, but nobody lists a game wherein one can choose from various codes of honor to play by, or, as the application states, games which offer &quot;virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, in GTA/Fallout one can shoot hookers and innocent folks, and still &quot;win.&quot;  However, because murder of the innocent is against the Judeo Christian code of honor, a game with the Judeo Christian code of honor would not let a player &quot;win&quot; if they shot hookers and innocent folks in the game.  The patent imagines a menu wherein one could toggle between the GTA/Fallout/Fanboy/lzozloz code of honor and higher codes of honor such as those presented in Buddhism, Judeo-Christianity, the Samurai code of honor, and others.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I just wanted to point out the irony that the one post which actually *does* answer the question gets voted down and edited by others, while those posts which do *not* answer the question get voted up and are not edited by others.  Does stackexchange view this as &quot;success?&quot;  To what ends?  What is stackexchange trying to achieve by fostering such strange behavior? --Jeff Tucker&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Again, why are all the non-answers getting voted up, while the correct answer is getting voted down, sans any examples or reasons cited?  Below Gilles states several wrong things without even trying to back them up with examples, as they know they are wrong.  The question above states: &quot;What prior art addresses computer based games that allow a player to play according to a chosen value system such as the claimed &quot;codes of honor&quot;?&quot;  My post gives the only answer with, &quot;There exists no game nor prior art which allows one to toggle nor choose between various codes of honor as described in Claim #1.&quot;  Why is Gilles making false statements that are blatantly wrong?  They must cease and desist from doing so, in the spirit of stackexchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***In light of the fact that this is an extremely high-profile stackexchange case, the good folks here may wish to behave in a more professional and less fanboyish manner, whereby they mash some buttons to vote down the one answer that actually answers the question, while engaging in other fanboyish behavior.  law.com reports, &quot;Another application for a video game that includes “a system and method for creating video games and virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by” prompted a slew of gamers to explain &quot;what that really means (lzozolzzo)&quot; and cite examples of similar games (llozozlz). . . The success of patent crowdsourcing will largely depend on the degree of participation from &quot;technical experts&quot; (lloozzlzzo) and from people who understand patent law (lzollzoz).&quot;  -http://www.law.com/corporatecounsel/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202572623576&amp;PTO_Adds_Crowdsourcing_Tool_to_Patent_Application_Process&amp;slreturn=20120927153912&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as you can see, the future of this noble project rests upon your shoulders, so please do not resort to fanboyish tactics, misinformation, &amp; GTA-style drive-by postings of falsehoods like Gilles does in his fallacious, unsupported comments below, as the eyes of the world are upon you. Thanks in advance!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would behoove everyone to act by the Hero's Journey Code of Honor here, for even though you do not encounter it in your videogames (by design), as Carl Jung stipulated, &quot;vocatus atque non vocatus aderit Deus&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2617" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="815" RevisionGUID="a592b8cd-fb00-4b62-9222-46eb81bd39dd" CreationDate="2012-10-27T21:26:04.833" UserId="1718" Comment="stackexchange is fulfilling its role in testifying to the strong novelty and nonobviousness of the current invention" Text="**There exists no game nor prior art which allows one to toggle nor choose between various codes of honor as described in Claim #1.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question specifically regards the existence of prior art encompassing Claim 1: &quot;Claim 1. A system and method for creating video games and virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.&quot;  Does such prior art exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many folks posting other answers here list games which perhaps incorporate &quot;Codes of Honor&quot; in the games, but nobody lists a game wherein one can choose from various codes of honor to play by, or, as the application states, games which offer &quot;virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, in GTA/Fallout one can shoot hookers and innocent folks, and still &quot;win.&quot;  However, because murder of the innocent is against the Judeo Christian code of honor, a game with the Judeo Christian code of honor would not let a player &quot;win&quot; if they shot hookers and innocent folks in the game.  The patent imagines a menu wherein one could toggle between the GTA/Fallout/Fanboy/lzozloz code of honor and higher codes of honor such as those presented in Buddhism, Judeo-Christianity, the Samurai code of honor, and others.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I just wanted to point out the irony that the one post which actually *does* answer the question gets voted down and edited by others, while those posts which do *not* answer the question get voted up and are not edited by others.  Does stackexchange view this as &quot;success?&quot;  To what ends?  What is stackexchange trying to achieve by fostering such strange behavior? --Jeff Tucker&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Again, why are all the non-answers getting voted up, while the correct answer is getting voted down, sans any examples or reasons cited?  Below Gilles states several wrong things without even trying to back them up with examples, as they know they are wrong.  The question above states: &quot;What prior art addresses computer based games that allow a player to play according to a chosen value system such as the claimed &quot;codes of honor&quot;?&quot;  My post gives the only answer with, &quot;There exists no game nor prior art which allows one to toggle nor choose between various codes of honor as described in Claim #1.&quot;  Why is Gilles making false statements that are blatantly wrong?  They must cease and desist from doing so, in the spirit of stackexchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***In light of the fact that this is an extremely high-profile stackexchange case, the good folks here may wish to behave in a more professional and less fanboyish manner, whereby they mash some buttons to vote down the one answer that actually answers the question, while engaging in other fanboyish behavior.  law.com reports, &quot;Another application for a video game that includes “a system and method for creating video games and virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by” prompted a slew of gamers to explain &quot;what that really means (lzozolzzo)&quot; and cite examples of similar games (llozozlz). . . The success of patent crowdsourcing will largely depend on the degree of participation from &quot;technical experts&quot; (lloozzlzzo) and from people who understand patent law (lzollzoz).&quot;  -http://www.law.com/corporatecounsel/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202572623576&amp;PTO_Adds_Crowdsourcing_Tool_to_Patent_Application_Process&amp;slreturn=20120927153912&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as you can see, the future of this noble project rests upon your shoulders, so please do not resort to fanboyish tactics, misinformation, &amp; GTA-style drive-by postings of falsehoods like Gilles does in his fallacious, unsupported comments below, as the eyes of the world are upon you. Thanks in advance!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would behoove everyone to act by the Hero's Journey Code of Honor here, for even though you do not encounter it in your videogames (by design), as Carl Jung stipulated, &quot;vocatus atque non vocatus aderit Deus&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**** In order to qualify for a patent, an innovation must be novel and non-obvious.  One way to show novelty is to demonstrate that there exists no prior art, and one way to demonstrate nonobviousness is to show that the invention opposes reigning expert opinion.  As all the videogame experts here--(the very best according to law.com)--vote down the one answer that actually answers the question regarding the patent, support for the patentability of the invention augments.  Couple this with the fact that the experts, while holding negative opinions regarding the current invention are also unable to cite any prior art (thusly proving the invention's novelty), and stackexchange is fulfilling its role, in this case, in testifying to the strong novelty and nonobviousness of the current invention and absolute patentability of the current invention, based on a plurality of criterion all testifying to the nonobviousness and novelty of said invention.  This will be studied in case law books for years to come.  Congrats to everyone on joining eternity!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="815" RevisionGUID="3dc856a0-9c86-45b3-adaf-076e66eef5ad" CreationDate="2012-10-27T21:40:45.100" UserId="1718" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="**There exists no game nor prior art which allows one to toggle nor choose between various codes of honor as described in Claim #1.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question specifically regards the existence of prior art encompassing Claim 1: &quot;Claim 1. A system and method for creating video games and virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.&quot;  Does such prior art exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many folks posting other answers here list games which perhaps incorporate &quot;Codes of Honor&quot; in the games, but nobody lists a game wherein one can choose from various codes of honor to play by, or, as the application states, games which offer &quot;virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, in GTA/Fallout one can shoot hookers and innocent folks, and still &quot;win.&quot;  However, because murder of the innocent is against the Judeo Christian code of honor, a game with the Judeo Christian code of honor would not let a player &quot;win&quot; if they shot hookers and innocent folks in the game.  The patent imagines a menu wherein one could toggle between the GTA/Fallout/Fanboy/lzozloz code of honor and higher codes of honor such as those presented in Buddhism, Judeo-Christianity, the Samurai code of honor, and others.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I just wanted to point out the irony that the one post which actually *does* answer the question gets voted down and edited by others, while those posts which do *not* answer the question get voted up and are not edited by others.  Does stackexchange view this as &quot;success?&quot;  To what ends?  What is stackexchange trying to achieve by fostering such strange behavior? --Jeff Tucker&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Again, why are all the non-answers getting voted up, while the correct answer is getting voted down, sans any examples or reasons cited?  Below Gilles states several wrong things without even trying to back them up with examples, as they know they are wrong.  The question above states: &quot;What prior art addresses computer based games that allow a player to play according to a chosen value system such as the claimed &quot;codes of honor&quot;?&quot;  My post gives the only answer with, &quot;There exists no game nor prior art which allows one to toggle nor choose between various codes of honor as described in Claim #1.&quot;  Why is Gilles making false statements that are blatantly wrong?  They must cease and desist from doing so, in the spirit of stackexchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***In light of the fact that this is an extremely high-profile stackexchange case, the good folks here may wish to behave in a more professional and less fanboyish manner, whereby they mash some buttons to vote down the one answer that actually answers the question, while engaging in other fanboyish behavior.  law.com reports, &quot;Another application for a video game that includes “a system and method for creating video games and virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by” prompted a slew of gamers to explain &quot;what that really means (lzozolzzo)&quot; and cite examples of similar games (llozozlz). . . The success of patent crowdsourcing will largely depend on the degree of participation from &quot;technical experts&quot; (lloozzlzzo) and from people who understand patent law (lzollzoz).&quot;  -http://www.law.com/corporatecounsel/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202572623576&amp;PTO_Adds_Crowdsourcing_Tool_to_Patent_Application_Process&amp;slreturn=20120927153912&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as you can see, the future of this noble project rests upon your shoulders, so please do not resort to fanboyish tactics, misinformation, &amp; GTA-style drive-by postings of falsehoods like Gilles does in his fallacious, unsupported comments below, as the eyes of the world are upon you. Thanks in advance!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would behoove everyone to act by the Hero's Journey Code of Honor here, for even though you do not encounter it in your videogames (by design), as Carl Jung stipulated, &quot;vocatus atque non vocatus aderit Deus&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**** In order to qualify for a patent, an innovation/invention must be novel and non-obvious.  One way to show novelty is to demonstrate that there exists no prior art, and one way to demonstrate nonobviousness is to show that the invention opposes reigning expert opinion.  As all the videogame experts here--(the very best according to law.com)--vote down the one answer that actually answers the question regarding the patent, support for the patentability of the invention augments.  Couple this with the fact that the experts, while holding negative opinions regarding the current invention are also unable to cite any prior art (thusly proving the invention's novelty), and stackexchange is fulfilling its role, in this case, in testifying to the strong novelty and nonobviousness of the current invention and solidifying the absolute patentability of the current invention, based on a plurality of criterion all testifying to the nonobviousness and novelty of said invention.  This will be studied in case law books for years to come.  Congrats to everyone on joining eternity!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="830" RevisionGUID="cf423999-cdd1-41b5-b639-46a16a327271" CreationDate="2012-10-29T00:01:22.280" UserId="1738" Text="From what I see, the patent is a search algorithm process. Any ideas why IBM thought they needed it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2623" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="830" RevisionGUID="cf423999-cdd1-41b5-b639-46a16a327271" CreationDate="2012-10-29T00:01:22.280" UserId="1738" Text="Why did IBM buy this Illinois Institute of Technology patent (6,904,428)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2624" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="830" RevisionGUID="cf423999-cdd1-41b5-b639-46a16a327271" CreationDate="2012-10-29T00:01:22.280" UserId="1738" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="831" RevisionGUID="41e4e07b-5117-4294-8835-d586c7fa85f4" CreationDate="2012-10-29T04:53:47.623" UserId="1114" Text="&gt; 1. A method of digital data gathering for providing a direct answer to a natural language question, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a) accepting input of a natural language question;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b) identifying the relevant concepts of the natural language question;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; c) assembling the relevant concepts of the natural language question into a query&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; d) identifying, via a meta-data source for a physical data warehouse, a data source in the physical data warehouse likely to contain an answer to the query;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;e) performing a first search of the query in the physical data warehouse;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;f) performing a second search of the query in an unstructured data source not contained in the physical data warehouse;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;g) integrating the results of the first and second searches and selecting a direct answer to the natural language question; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;h) displaying the direct answer to the natural language question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sounds an awful lot like [IBM's Watson](http://youtu.be/WFR3lOm_xhE).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For those of you who don't know, it's IBM's natural language processing AI that IBM showcased on Jeopardy about two years ago. The computer beat Jeopardy allstar Ken Jennings handily. From what I've heard, IBM has plans to use the service for processing all sorts of things, including diagnoses in medicine and document review in lawsuits.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2627" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="772" RevisionGUID="c15673c9-a050-422f-b141-8897925023d3" CreationDate="2012-10-29T07:04:07.500" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/262812038911369216" />
  <row Id="2628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="832" RevisionGUID="c2446341-0f40-44aa-bcea-f71e7dc6e1e6" CreationDate="2012-10-29T08:11:17.483" UserId="1742" Text="i am new to the world of patents but i wanted to manufacture this exactly(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US5271104&quot;&gt;toilet bidet&lt;/a&gt;) in Southern Africa would this infringe any patents. Is the patent in the link provided above expired? thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2629" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="832" RevisionGUID="c2446341-0f40-44aa-bcea-f71e7dc6e1e6" CreationDate="2012-10-29T08:11:17.483" UserId="1742" Text="Is toilet bidet patent design expired and now public?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2630" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="832" RevisionGUID="c2446341-0f40-44aa-bcea-f71e7dc6e1e6" CreationDate="2012-10-29T08:11:17.483" UserId="1742" Text="&lt;us5271104&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="830" RevisionGUID="00d0b380-8506-4a66-a49a-43c450b4ac42" CreationDate="2012-10-29T09:39:48.560" UserId="1114" Comment="added a link for the patent" Text="From what I see, [US patent 6,904,428](http://www.google.com/patents/US6904428) is a search algorithm process. Any ideas why IBM thought they needed it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2632" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="830" RevisionGUID="00d0b380-8506-4a66-a49a-43c450b4ac42" CreationDate="2012-10-29T09:39:48.560" Comment="Proposed by 1114 approved by -1 edit id of 258" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="830" RevisionGUID="83282834-3a2b-4050-8b9a-2027707bd2d3" CreationDate="2012-10-29T09:39:48.560" UserId="76" Comment="added the patent abstract" Text="From what I see, [US patent 6,904,428](http://www.google.com/patents/US6904428) (by the Illinois Institute of Technology) is a search algorithm process. Any ideas why IBM thought they needed it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An intranet mediator for obtaining direct answers to natural language questions allowing users to search both a data warehouse of integrated/structured data sources and unstructured data sources. The intranet mediator allows the user to obtain an answer to a natural language question without having to surf the data sources in which the answer might be contained, or without being limited to one specific factual item return. The intranet mediator operates on the supposition that most answers to business queries are contained within structured data sources which have been integrated into the data warehouse thereby having common schema and known contents. Preselection of the most relevant data source(s) is thus possible before query output. Search of unstructured data is also performed for additional context surrounding either the question or the answer. A direct answer is given in response to the question. If desired, the intranet mediator may also display a list of data sources where additional relevant information may be found.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2634" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="830" RevisionGUID="83282834-3a2b-4050-8b9a-2027707bd2d3" CreationDate="2012-10-29T09:39:48.560" UserId="76" Comment="added the patent abstract" Text="Why did IBM buy patent (6,904,428) about an “intranet mediator”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2635" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="830" RevisionGUID="83282834-3a2b-4050-8b9a-2027707bd2d3" CreationDate="2012-10-29T09:39:48.560" UserId="76" Comment="added the patent abstract" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;data-processing-database&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="832" RevisionGUID="ad2c58a0-5d8b-447b-8942-6d259c464078" CreationDate="2012-10-29T09:42:11.537" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I am new to the world of patents. I wanted to manufacture &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US5271104&quot;&gt;this toilet bidet&lt;/a&gt; in Southern Africa. Would this infringe any patents? Is the patent in the link provided above expired?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2637" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="832" RevisionGUID="ad2c58a0-5d8b-447b-8942-6d259c464078" CreationDate="2012-10-29T09:42:11.537" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Is this toilet bidet patent design expired and now public?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2638" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="832" RevisionGUID="ad2c58a0-5d8b-447b-8942-6d259c464078" CreationDate="2012-10-29T09:42:11.537" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;us5271104&gt;&lt;baths-closets-sinks&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="4bb23450-0767-4ec7-8b50-e3db9758a8f7" CreationDate="2012-10-29T09:48:04.997" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="834" RevisionGUID="2106a679-b553-4965-912c-74ca52e3f925" CreationDate="2012-10-29T09:48:04.997" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2641" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="830" RevisionGUID="1874c6fb-90e7-426f-b9bd-20b14fe00755" CreationDate="2012-10-29T14:09:55.443" UserId="1259" Comment="added patent no. and ibm tag" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;data-processing-database&gt;&lt;us6904428&gt;&lt;ibm&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="835" RevisionGUID="f08ee613-491f-4de6-8bfa-08f7aacfc814" CreationDate="2012-10-29T14:25:24.753" UserId="998" Text="The linked-to patent (US5271104) is expired worldwide. As such, the underlying technology is available for use by anyone.  There is no need to seek license or permission from the original patentee. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="836" RevisionGUID="799ef17d-10c0-4ad4-9056-33ab7e7b8326" CreationDate="2012-10-29T14:55:07.947" UserId="444" Text="I was studying Natural Language Processing in 2002 so I remember that there was a lot of feverish work being done in those years due to Google's sudden emergence and popularity. Neither of the authors are particularly notable so although their patent sounds pretty cutting edge for those years it doesn't mean that their results were necessarily the best. One thing I notice about the patent is that it seems to cover an overall design and not methods that produce improved outcomes. In NLP, it's really all about the outcome. So basically, the patent says &quot;hey! we're claiming NLP searches on a combination of structured and non-structured data! Who care that our software only has an 80% accuracy rate!&quot; I'm going to guess that IBM purchased the patent because of what it claimed and how early it claimed it, not what it actually produced. To IBM's credit, they actually backed up the claim with a whiz-banger product a few years later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="6a076237-e090-46d1-ac06-a8bbfb3cfa87" CreationDate="2012-10-29T15:39:41.543" UserId="76" Comment="added 432 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 4: baths, closets, sinks, and spittoons](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc004/sched004.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc004/desc004.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: bathtubs, sinks, bidets, spittoons, toilets, water and waste flush devices, showers, hair washing, saunas, tubs, drains, supports, plugs, ventilation, disinfection, obstruction remover, ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2645" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="6a076237-e090-46d1-ac06-a8bbfb3cfa87" CreationDate="2012-10-29T15:39:41.543" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 259" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="834" RevisionGUID="71ffb698-ac95-4362-81cb-2de861601445" CreationDate="2012-10-29T15:39:54.023" UserId="76" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="US patent class 4: baths, closets, sinks, and spittoons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2647" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="834" RevisionGUID="71ffb698-ac95-4362-81cb-2de861601445" CreationDate="2012-10-29T15:39:54.023" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 260" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2649" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="791" RevisionGUID="675da7bd-bc60-4936-8138-413a2e82a542" CreationDate="2012-10-29T16:04:07.543" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/262947934331617281" />
  <row Id="2650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="815" RevisionGUID="ca66ee4b-9efc-41a2-8c94-6440b0004521" CreationDate="2012-10-29T17:52:27.633" UserId="16" Comment="Holy unreferenced footnotes, batman! Edited answer down to salient points, removed rants and off-topic commentary." Text="**There exists no game nor prior art which allows one to toggle nor choose between various codes of honor as described in Claim #1.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question specifically regards the existence of prior art encompassing Claim 1: &quot;Claim 1. A system and method for creating video games and virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.&quot;  Does such prior art exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many folks posting other answers here list games which perhaps incorporate &quot;Codes of Honor&quot; in the games, but nobody lists a game wherein one can choose from various codes of honor to play by, or, as the application states, games which offer &quot;virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, in GTA/Fallout one can shoot hookers and innocent folks, and still &quot;win.&quot;  However, because murder of the innocent is against the Judeo Christian code of honor, a game with the Judeo Christian code of honor would not let a player &quot;win&quot; if they shot hookers and innocent folks in the game.  The patent imagines a menu wherein one could toggle between the GTA/Fallout/Fanboy/lzozloz code of honor and higher codes of honor such as those presented in Buddhism, Judeo-Christianity, the Samurai code of honor, and others.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;law.com reports, &quot;Another application for a video game that includes “a system and method for creating video games and virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by” prompted a slew of gamers to explain &quot;what that really means&quot; and cite examples of similar games. . .  -http://www.law.com/corporatecounsel/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202572623576&amp;PTO_Adds_Crowdsourcing_Tool_to_Patent_Application_Process&amp;slreturn=20120927153912&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="251" RevisionGUID="6ba13e80-b005-42b0-9dde-199775e96ea6" CreationDate="2012-10-29T18:09:05.943" UserId="594" Comment="Correction: changed 'early 90's' to 'late 90's'" Text="Sounds like [Naked Objects][1]. Apache Isis is mentioned in the Wikipedia article. I remember running something similar for C++ in the late 90's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_objects" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2652" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="815" RevisionGUID="4cedb591-7800-44d0-97ba-2baed220549f" CreationDate="2012-10-29T18:20:54.757" UserId="1718" Comment="Rollback to [3dc856a0-9c86-45b3-adaf-076e66eef5ad]" Text="**There exists no game nor prior art which allows one to toggle nor choose between various codes of honor as described in Claim #1.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question specifically regards the existence of prior art encompassing Claim 1: &quot;Claim 1. A system and method for creating video games and virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.&quot;  Does such prior art exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many folks posting other answers here list games which perhaps incorporate &quot;Codes of Honor&quot; in the games, but nobody lists a game wherein one can choose from various codes of honor to play by, or, as the application states, games which offer &quot;virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, in GTA/Fallout one can shoot hookers and innocent folks, and still &quot;win.&quot;  However, because murder of the innocent is against the Judeo Christian code of honor, a game with the Judeo Christian code of honor would not let a player &quot;win&quot; if they shot hookers and innocent folks in the game.  The patent imagines a menu wherein one could toggle between the GTA/Fallout/Fanboy/lzozloz code of honor and higher codes of honor such as those presented in Buddhism, Judeo-Christianity, the Samurai code of honor, and others.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I just wanted to point out the irony that the one post which actually *does* answer the question gets voted down and edited by others, while those posts which do *not* answer the question get voted up and are not edited by others.  Does stackexchange view this as &quot;success?&quot;  To what ends?  What is stackexchange trying to achieve by fostering such strange behavior? --Jeff Tucker&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Again, why are all the non-answers getting voted up, while the correct answer is getting voted down, sans any examples or reasons cited?  Below Gilles states several wrong things without even trying to back them up with examples, as they know they are wrong.  The question above states: &quot;What prior art addresses computer based games that allow a player to play according to a chosen value system such as the claimed &quot;codes of honor&quot;?&quot;  My post gives the only answer with, &quot;There exists no game nor prior art which allows one to toggle nor choose between various codes of honor as described in Claim #1.&quot;  Why is Gilles making false statements that are blatantly wrong?  They must cease and desist from doing so, in the spirit of stackexchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***In light of the fact that this is an extremely high-profile stackexchange case, the good folks here may wish to behave in a more professional and less fanboyish manner, whereby they mash some buttons to vote down the one answer that actually answers the question, while engaging in other fanboyish behavior.  law.com reports, &quot;Another application for a video game that includes “a system and method for creating video games and virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by” prompted a slew of gamers to explain &quot;what that really means (lzozolzzo)&quot; and cite examples of similar games (llozozlz). . . The success of patent crowdsourcing will largely depend on the degree of participation from &quot;technical experts&quot; (lloozzlzzo) and from people who understand patent law (lzollzoz).&quot;  -http://www.law.com/corporatecounsel/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202572623576&amp;PTO_Adds_Crowdsourcing_Tool_to_Patent_Application_Process&amp;slreturn=20120927153912&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as you can see, the future of this noble project rests upon your shoulders, so please do not resort to fanboyish tactics, misinformation, &amp; GTA-style drive-by postings of falsehoods like Gilles does in his fallacious, unsupported comments below, as the eyes of the world are upon you. Thanks in advance!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would behoove everyone to act by the Hero's Journey Code of Honor here, for even though you do not encounter it in your videogames (by design), as Carl Jung stipulated, &quot;vocatus atque non vocatus aderit Deus&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**** In order to qualify for a patent, an innovation/invention must be novel and non-obvious.  One way to show novelty is to demonstrate that there exists no prior art, and one way to demonstrate nonobviousness is to show that the invention opposes reigning expert opinion.  As all the videogame experts here--(the very best according to law.com)--vote down the one answer that actually answers the question regarding the patent, support for the patentability of the invention augments.  Couple this with the fact that the experts, while holding negative opinions regarding the current invention are also unable to cite any prior art (thusly proving the invention's novelty), and stackexchange is fulfilling its role, in this case, in testifying to the strong novelty and nonobviousness of the current invention and solidifying the absolute patentability of the current invention, based on a plurality of criterion all testifying to the nonobviousness and novelty of said invention.  This will be studied in case law books for years to come.  Congrats to everyone on joining eternity!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2656" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="830" RevisionGUID="49f05a0b-c188-4c9d-8e38-7310478eb0b1" CreationDate="2012-10-29T19:04:07.363" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/262993232663822336" />
  <row Id="2658" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="815" RevisionGUID="3c696f7b-69e1-495c-b520-7fdd23fc79ee" CreationDate="2012-10-29T19:51:02.500" UserId="16" Comment="Rollback to [ca66ee4b-9efc-41a2-8c94-6440b0004521]" Text="**There exists no game nor prior art which allows one to toggle nor choose between various codes of honor as described in Claim #1.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question specifically regards the existence of prior art encompassing Claim 1: &quot;Claim 1. A system and method for creating video games and virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.&quot;  Does such prior art exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many folks posting other answers here list games which perhaps incorporate &quot;Codes of Honor&quot; in the games, but nobody lists a game wherein one can choose from various codes of honor to play by, or, as the application states, games which offer &quot;virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, in GTA/Fallout one can shoot hookers and innocent folks, and still &quot;win.&quot;  However, because murder of the innocent is against the Judeo Christian code of honor, a game with the Judeo Christian code of honor would not let a player &quot;win&quot; if they shot hookers and innocent folks in the game.  The patent imagines a menu wherein one could toggle between the GTA/Fallout/Fanboy/lzozloz code of honor and higher codes of honor such as those presented in Buddhism, Judeo-Christianity, the Samurai code of honor, and others.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;law.com reports, &quot;Another application for a video game that includes “a system and method for creating video games and virtual realities wherein one can select from a plurality of Hero's Journey Codes of Honor to play by” prompted a slew of gamers to explain &quot;what that really means&quot; and cite examples of similar games. . .  -http://www.law.com/corporatecounsel/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202572623576&amp;PTO_Adds_Crowdsourcing_Tool_to_Patent_Application_Process&amp;slreturn=20120927153912&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2659" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="815" RevisionGUID="4ae9ae8a-1859-45c0-9b29-42a83507ba61" CreationDate="2012-10-29T19:51:17.447" UserId="16" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:16,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Shog9&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2660" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="815" RevisionGUID="1350d948-a5fa-4db8-b5ca-279fc9e6e63e" CreationDate="2012-10-29T19:51:17.447" UserId="16" Comment="3" />
  <row Id="2661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="838" RevisionGUID="a1f9951e-06b2-4723-8f9d-66843ed1719f" CreationDate="2012-10-30T01:00:04.720" UserId="1485" Text="I'm not a technical expert by any means, but if I was looking for design arounds to this claim I'd focus on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; associating the location information with the status information of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the first user in a database&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and instead see if I could get the functionality I needed by, say, associating the location information with the first user and with a time stamp in a database and associating the status information with the first user and with a time stamp in the database.  Then if a second user queries the database for users with that location information, you can search for the location information, get the time stamp, then search for status information for that user with temporally similar timestamps.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, that just random spit-balling. I have no idea whether or not that is feasible in general or practical for what you intend to do (and also no idea whether or not it would be infringing some other patent claim). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="782" RevisionGUID="d5847df3-0500-4f91-a7b1-3133aab5ee05" CreationDate="2012-10-30T03:28:18.473" UserId="105" Comment="Corrected error in answer" Text="It seems that if your users selected the profile of the bar from your app and your system indicated that they were present at said bar then you wouldn't be communicating location information which &quot;comprises street addresses determined by processing a wireless positioning signal detected at a sensor in the mobile device.&quot; That language is from Claim 2 which is further limited than the Claim 1 that you posted in your question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="58792718-6182-48f5-bb83-914ab9e05ef9" CreationDate="2012-10-30T04:15:22.637" UserId="105" Text="[This question][1] answers whether a prior patent application can be used against a newer commonly owned patent application, but my question is what situations (if any) exist where a prior publication, or patent, cannot be used as prior art against a pending application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/633/can-my-own-published-application-be-used-against-my-newer-application-on-the" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2664" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="58792718-6182-48f5-bb83-914ab9e05ef9" CreationDate="2012-10-30T04:15:22.637" UserId="105" Text="Can a patent with a common assignee to a patent application not be used as prior art against the patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2665" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="58792718-6182-48f5-bb83-914ab9e05ef9" CreationDate="2012-10-30T04:15:22.637" UserId="105" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;assignee&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2666" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="832" RevisionGUID="a498ca61-aaf6-4131-ae88-6b4d4672a3dd" CreationDate="2012-10-30T06:58:13.103" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/263172939845881856" />
  <row Id="2667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="840" RevisionGUID="8597ea27-4e44-43fd-b818-7781b4df753b" CreationDate="2012-10-30T07:01:46.900" UserId="1745" Text="I am surprised to see the claims made in us6544042. There are multiple open-source LMS and proprietory apps that help administer online tests. Can the claims in this learning express claims co-exist with what is readily available? Thanks for your input." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2668" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="840" RevisionGUID="8597ea27-4e44-43fd-b818-7781b4df753b" CreationDate="2012-10-30T07:01:46.900" UserId="1745" Text="Generic Learning Management System Claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2669" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="840" RevisionGUID="8597ea27-4e44-43fd-b818-7781b4df753b" CreationDate="2012-10-30T07:01:46.900" UserId="1745" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="840" RevisionGUID="d19006c0-e744-402b-8d92-53525a3e7361" CreationDate="2012-10-30T11:07:28.910" UserId="76" Comment="added patent link; added some claims; added the priority date; tags" Text="I am surprised to see the claims made in [US patent 6544042](http://www.google.com/patents/US6544042). There are multiple open-source LMS and proprietory apps that help administer online tests. Can the claims in this learning express claims co-exist with what is readily available?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent's priority date is April 14, 2000 (from a provisional application).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are claims 1 and 2 for illustration. Note that other claims introduce significant variation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1\. A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * a server, the server:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * receiving, from a client, a request to take an on-line practice test for a desired standardized test;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * providing a client, via a remote connection, with the on-line practice test;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * receiving, from the client, a set of answers for the on-line practice test;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * calculating a score for the client on the practice test;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * recommending an appropriate study aid to the client based upon the score;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * receiving, from the client, a request to purchase the recommended study aid; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * selling the recommended study aid to the client.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2\. The system as recited in claim 1 wherein the server:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * generates a first set of test questions relating to a first skill or content area, and storing said first set of test questions in a database;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * associates, in the database, a first study aid product with said first set of test questions, said first study aid product being related to said first skill or content area;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * generates a second set of test questions relating to a second skill or content area, and storing said second set of test questions in the database;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * associates, in the database, a second study aid product with said second set of test questions, said second study aid product being related to said second skill or content area;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * assembles a practice test, the practice test including at least a portion of one of the first and second sets of question, the practice test being stored in the database; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * associates, in the database, a cut-off score for the practice test.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2671" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="840" RevisionGUID="d19006c0-e744-402b-8d92-53525a3e7361" CreationDate="2012-10-30T11:07:28.910" UserId="76" Comment="added patent link; added some claims; added the priority date; tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us6544042&gt;&lt;education-demonstration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="841" RevisionGUID="f2bd152a-88ad-4a79-a342-e75b315d0c5b" CreationDate="2012-10-30T11:14:35.553" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="842" RevisionGUID="ececa4d2-34b0-47e6-8044-5ccbbf22233f" CreationDate="2012-10-30T11:14:35.553" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2674" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="840" RevisionGUID="43c30541-a4da-4ece-ae89-b882c3886360" CreationDate="2012-10-30T12:58:59.717" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/263263733785169921" />
  <row Id="2676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="841" RevisionGUID="3fc86e26-1487-4825-856d-0e5f3b272480" CreationDate="2012-10-30T15:19:01.040" UserId="76" Comment="added 599 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 434: education and demonstration](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc434/sched434.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc434/defs434.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: detection of objects (radar, sonar, ...), missile and gun aiming, aircraft simulation, architecture and decoration, demonstration models, globes and other geographical mapping apparatus, language learning, mathematics and science teaching, anatomy teaching, occupational training, physical education, means to administer tests involving questions and answers, ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2677" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="841" RevisionGUID="3fc86e26-1487-4825-856d-0e5f3b272480" CreationDate="2012-10-30T15:19:01.040" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 261" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="842" RevisionGUID="8d28ac72-33f5-4f3d-afea-34bfcf8bb063" CreationDate="2012-10-30T15:19:04.270" UserId="76" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="US patent class 434: education and demonstration" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2679" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="842" RevisionGUID="8d28ac72-33f5-4f3d-afea-34bfcf8bb063" CreationDate="2012-10-30T15:19:04.270" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 262" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="d7f26cae-9a18-4a26-987e-029ec7603920" CreationDate="2012-10-30T15:45:12.800" UserId="1114" Text="Assignee status itself has no bearing on whether something qualifies as prior art. In fact, if you look at [&amp;sect; 102](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102), you'll see that the only time who was the author of the prior art matters is for &amp;sect; 102(a), &quot;the invention was known or used *by others* in this country...&quot; For a published application or patent, the identity of the inventor or assignee does not affect whether it can be used as prior art against some other patent application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2681" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="815" RevisionGUID="814d3701-3b7b-419c-ad10-ff08e684ee53" CreationDate="2012-10-30T19:59:48.250" UserId="-1" Comment="3" />
  <row Id="2682" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="815" RevisionGUID="55b02e3d-3e74-4cbb-a810-f09d6fbb4bb8" CreationDate="2012-10-30T19:59:48.250" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="844" RevisionGUID="b172e72b-69fa-41a7-829d-5008ebcebaad" CreationDate="2012-10-30T21:34:10.593" UserId="1746" Text="I just read that under BSD, Apache, and MIT Licenses, one can use, modify and redistribute source code in a product as long as credit for the open source portion is given back to the the author. That seems clear (and significantly different from GPL).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, is it legally acceptable to try and patent a piece of software if that software uses a BSD Licensed open source file as library (or support) code? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2684" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="844" RevisionGUID="b172e72b-69fa-41a7-829d-5008ebcebaad" CreationDate="2012-10-30T21:34:10.593" UserId="1746" Text="Can one patent software based on a library that is Apache License, BSD, or MIT?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2685" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="844" RevisionGUID="b172e72b-69fa-41a7-829d-5008ebcebaad" CreationDate="2012-10-30T21:34:10.593" UserId="1746" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="844" RevisionGUID="64d76003-e026-42c1-adfe-e016d7b6bc20" CreationDate="2012-10-30T21:40:17.473" UserId="1746" Comment="added 168 characters in body" Text="I just read that under BSD, Apache, and MIT Licenses, one can use, modify and redistribute source code in a product as long as credit for the open source portion is given back to the the author. That seems clear (and significantly different from GPL).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, is it legally acceptable to try and patent a piece of software if that software uses a BSD Licensed open source file as library (or support) code? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Edit:* Not asking if one can patent the open source (BSD Licensed portion) rather the unique software that was written on top of the open source. Can that be patented? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2687" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="844" RevisionGUID="64d76003-e026-42c1-adfe-e016d7b6bc20" CreationDate="2012-10-30T21:40:17.473" UserId="1746" Comment="added 168 characters in body" Text="Can one patent software if that software uses a library that is Apache License, BSD, or MIT?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="845" RevisionGUID="3e55460d-58a2-4ea2-a24f-15a745db21c8" CreationDate="2012-10-30T22:12:35.160" UserId="76" Text="First, the patent system doesn't care about software licenses. Conversely, copyright doesn't care about patent licenses (it's automatic anyway). The only place where patents and copyright might interact is in licenses, which are contracts which might grant someone additional rights that they would not have given the restrictions imposed by patent and copyright laws (such as the right to perform a patented method or to distribute a piece of software).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, you can't patent a piece of software. Generally speaking, what is patented is not a device as such, but the way the device works. For example (prior art aside), you don't patent a Ford Model T, you patent a vehicle on four wheels, or a piston engine, etc. When it comes to software, what is really patented is the algorithm. See [What constitutes an original patentable idea in software?](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/19/what-constitutes-an-original-patentable-idea-in-software) for a more in-depth treatment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you write a program that uses a novel algorithm, you may patent the algorithm. You must file the patent before you distribute the program, under any license (in the US, you have a 1-year grace period in some circumstances). The GPLv3 is a contract where the copyright holder declares that he will not enforce any patent that the software may relate to (I'm simplifying somewhat but that's the gist of it). Other licenses, including older versions of the GNU GPL, do not preclude having patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that it is possible to unknowingly write software that violates a patent, for example if the author independently rediscovered an algorithm. Thus even the GPLv3 does not guarantee that a piece of software is unencumbered by a patent, only that it is unencumbered by patents assigned to the grantor of the license.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2695" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="844" RevisionGUID="b31af4ed-0982-48b7-8a8f-a7fee7409c3b" CreationDate="2012-10-31T12:59:11.593" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/263626169373577218" />
  <row Id="2696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="38" RevisionGUID="fc494e0a-2649-4985-ac50-9eee8ed99c9a" CreationDate="2012-10-31T14:08:06.157" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="I can only speak to the United States and actually that is somewhat all that matters as it is very difficult to get software patents in other countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US, [35 U.S.C. 101][1] states that &quot;Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what does that mean exactly? The attorneys at the invaluable website [bitlaw.com][2] have complied a [list of relevant cases][3] concerning software patents. There are a few take away points that can be summarized:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You can't patent algorithms in their purest sense detached from the physical world. The relevant case is *[Gottschalk v. Benson][4]*. They must be attached to something in the physical world.&#xD;&#xA; - You can patent software that is a part of a larger invention connected to the physical world. The first case on this issue was *[Diamond v. Diehr][5]*. Specifically, if what you are applying for performs a function that transforms or reduces an article to a different state or thing it generally would be afforded patent protection.&#xD;&#xA; - However, the test mentioned in Diamond v. Diehr is not to be used as the sole test for patentability as pointed out in the recent *[Bilski v. Kappos][6]* case. The court in *Bilski* stated that the [machine-or-transformation test][7] is not to be the sole determinant for patentability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which brings us to the present day. It is now unclear what the particular standard is that software needs to meet to be patented. If it is connected to a machine, or is involved in transforming something else then it is probably patentable. So what you will see is patents for software that have some sort of effect in the physical world like e.g. video compression software that produces high quality video on a display screen to a user or something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a much more thorough treatment of the topic and far better insight than I can provide I highly recommend the blog [Patently-O][8].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302376&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.bitlaw.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/history.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1972/1972_71_485&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_79_1112&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2009/2009_08_964&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-or-transformation_test&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.patentlyo.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="848" RevisionGUID="a638b4f2-b1cb-4d9e-ba1a-9e0635b50ea1" CreationDate="2012-10-31T18:11:49.567" UserId="1281" Text="The question is not &quot;Can I patent it?&quot; (you certainly can), but rather, &quot;Does the license require me to do anything particular with the patent?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The BSD and MIT licenses don't mention patents at all.  Therefore, you have no patent related obligations under them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Apache 2.0 license does include an explicit patent grant.  If you contribute any code to the Apache licensed library, you grant &quot;a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work...&quot;  This only applies to the library itself - that is, code you agree to distribute under the Apache license.  It does not apply to other code you use in the same program.  (Anyway, that's my reading of it.  I'm not a lawyer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other licenses have other terms.  The GPL, as you noted, goes further.  Merely using a GPL library in your program could require you to give a free license to any patents involved in any part of the program." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2700" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="20754ef1-6824-4c0a-b7ed-c8ea70889a6f" CreationDate="2012-10-31T18:59:12.163" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/263716771591254017" />
  <row Id="2705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="801" RevisionGUID="4b3f3c72-e7a7-403d-82cb-afd5a1965076" CreationDate="2012-11-01T02:01:12.677" UserId="267" Comment="Added links. Corrected spelling." Text="Seems to me the exerpt below from the &quot;SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION&quot; section should help with finding &quot;prior art&quot;.  In that, it doesn't have to be a person but a &quot;computer program&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The term “software developer” used herein is intended to cover any type of provider such as a computer program and/or human services. Accordingly, the custom source code is developed from a set of requirements specifically for the end user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that I now direct you to look at Wikipedia where you can find a [history of Tripod.com][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used [Tripod.com][2] in 2002 to create a website where I was able to send in a request for a homepage design using their website builder tool.  It would then create all the code required to meet my needs.  I would then go to the &quot;preview my site&quot; option and make sure I was happy with the results.  If not, I would send feedback to Tripod.com about the changes I wanted made.  I was able to go into the website and view the HTML that it had built for me.  I was then free to download the HTML and edit it and move it to where ever I liked, i.e. ownership of the scripts was passed to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must admit to using the free version, but there was an option for a paid version.  Therefore, I could have paid for the services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripod.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://tripod.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2706" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="801" RevisionGUID="4b3f3c72-e7a7-403d-82cb-afd5a1965076" CreationDate="2012-11-01T02:01:12.677" Comment="Proposed by 267 approved by 1 edit id of 263" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2707" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="743" RevisionGUID="853d50f2-f385-4ca1-b2da-71c35e6815de" CreationDate="2012-11-01T11:20:31.703" UserId="998" Comment="2" />
  <row Id="2708" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="766" RevisionGUID="da0e6c31-06fa-4337-9c19-d326c3ec68ab" CreationDate="2012-11-01T12:59:14.057" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/263988579322187776" />
  <row Id="2709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="850" RevisionGUID="9300cfbf-58ad-4cf4-baac-89a5edcd9fc9" CreationDate="2012-11-01T14:19:39.983" UserId="1755" Text="It means that any software that uses it is possibly in violation. But whether you're actually finally found guilty of being in violation is up to a jury to decide. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could, however, be sued at any time which means- unless you have very significant legal reserves typically into the millions of dollars- an end to your product and or company. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Virtually every piece of software you might write today could be the legitimate target of a software patent lawsuit. People offer various opinions about this which are intended to be reassuring such as, &quot;it will only happen to you if you're already making a lot of money&quot;. That particular meme is something to be wary of, since it's highly misleading. For example, the instance of RunwayFinder vs FlightPrep  detailed here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101214/17562412278/creating-flight-plans-online-patented-small-company-sued-out-business-not-wanting-to-pay-32-million-per-month.shtml&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bottom line is, this software patent you cite might be used to attack you very effectively if the patent holder so wishes simply by filing a case you must then respond to irrespective of how valid / invalid applicable/ inapplicable the actual patent is ultimately found to be. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a case in which the defendant won, but was still facing numerous other suits from the same litigant and was therefore forced to sell his company to the litigant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?pagewanted=all&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So being found innocent in he eyes of a the law isn't going to save you either. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I say this because when evaluating the danger posed by some patent, it's a mistake to spend much time considering whether or not it applies to you on its technical merits.  It actually doesn't matter, unless you have significant legal reserves , a lot of time to fight in court and an appetite for doing so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're worried about a software patent you have a few choices. One is to approach the patent holder and pay what he wants. If you can't / won't do that, you can roll the dice and see if you survive, knowing that you will permanently lose the ability to profit from all your labor should you be served. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another choice, and this may be the best option, is simply not to sell into markets that permit software patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That would at put on the exclude list at least US, AU, and JP and probably others as well.  But excluding those markets still leaves a lot of potential customers especially for a small business. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Companies do pursue this strategy for just  this reason. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might be wise to contact a lawyer with respect to developing appropriate advertising sales and licensing approaches as well as articles of incorporation etc. to make sure that execute on this approach correctly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or you could try a home grown approach which might consist of incorporating in a non-software patent jurisdiction, refusing all sales which originate from or are to parties within software patent jurisdictions and see how that works for you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HTH.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2714" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="501" RevisionGUID="54b90048-91b4-4042-b00a-8cce548ad459" CreationDate="2012-11-01T17:14:19.030" UserId="-1" Comment="1" />
  <row Id="2715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="850" RevisionGUID="6ddf700d-7155-420c-8b92-34c1e5afc856" CreationDate="2012-11-01T17:34:28.650" UserId="288" Comment="changed URLs to links" Text="It means that any software that uses it is possibly in violation. But whether you're actually finally found guilty of being in violation is up to a jury to decide. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could, however, be sued at any time which means- unless you have very significant legal reserves typically into the millions of dollars- an end to your product and or company. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Virtually every piece of software you might write today could be the legitimate target of a software patent lawsuit. People offer various opinions about this which are intended to be reassuring such as, &quot;it will only happen to you if you're already making a lot of money&quot;. That particular meme is something to be wary of, since it's highly misleading. For example, the instance of RunwayFinder vs FlightPrep  detailed here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Creating Flight Plans Online? Patented! Small Company Sued Out Of Business For Not Wanting To Pay $3.2 Million Per Month](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101214/17562412278/creating-flight-plans-online-patented-small-company-sued-out-business-not-wanting-to-pay-32-million-per-month.shtml)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bottom line is, this software patent you cite might be used to attack you very effectively if the patent holder so wishes simply by filing a case you must then respond to irrespective of how valid / invalid applicable/ inapplicable the actual patent is ultimately found to be. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a case in which the defendant won, but was still facing numerous other suits from the same litigant and was therefore forced to sell his company to the litigant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [In Technology Wars, Using the Patent as a Sword](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?pagewanted=all)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So being found innocent in he eyes of a the law isn't going to save you either. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I say this because when evaluating the danger posed by some patent, it's a mistake to spend much time considering whether or not it applies to you on its technical merits.  It actually doesn't matter, unless you have significant legal reserves , a lot of time to fight in court and an appetite for doing so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're worried about a software patent you have a few choices. One is to approach the patent holder and pay what he wants. If you can't / won't do that, you can roll the dice and see if you survive, knowing that you will permanently lose the ability to profit from all your labor should you be served. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another choice, and this may be the best option, is simply not to sell into markets that permit software patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That would at put on the exclude list at least US, AU, and JP and probably others as well.  But excluding those markets still leaves a lot of potential customers especially for a small business. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Companies do pursue this strategy for just  this reason. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might be wise to contact a lawyer with respect to developing appropriate advertising sales and licensing approaches as well as articles of incorporation etc. to make sure that execute on this approach correctly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or you could try a home grown approach which might consist of incorporating in a non-software patent jurisdiction, refusing all sales which originate from or are to parties within software patent jurisdictions and see how that works for you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2716" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="850" RevisionGUID="6ddf700d-7155-420c-8b92-34c1e5afc856" CreationDate="2012-11-01T17:34:28.650" Comment="Proposed by 288 approved by 76, 1 edit id of 264" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2721" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="785" RevisionGUID="6b9cdf9c-d68e-46ca-b55a-ba65f82b6335" CreationDate="2012-11-01T19:44:14.797" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/264090509402836992" />
  <row Id="2723" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="134" RevisionGUID="587e2194-7cd5-4a02-b8b9-96b8a6ee0e9c" CreationDate="2012-11-01T22:44:14.820" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/264135811904180224" />
  <row Id="2724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="853" RevisionGUID="a8250124-4804-45e8-9a19-35c80024f5ba" CreationDate="2012-11-02T02:49:19.427" UserDisplayName="user1758" Text="Is it possible to patent or trademark XML/JSON data structures? If Company A had a service that requested common data and Company B chose to use an identical structure for their clients, could Company A seek legal repercussions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, could someone use Facebook's JSON structure in their API without the risk of infringement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    {&#xD;&#xA;      &quot;id&quot;: &quot;123456789&quot;, &#xD;&#xA;      &quot;name&quot;: &quot;John Smith&quot;&#xD;&#xA;      &quot;gender&quot;: &quot;male&quot;, &#xD;&#xA;      &quot;locale&quot;: &quot;en_US&quot;, &#xD;&#xA;      &quot;languages&quot;: [&#xD;&#xA;        {&#xD;&#xA;          &quot;id&quot;: &quot;106059522759137&quot;, &#xD;&#xA;          &quot;name&quot;: &quot;English&quot;&#xD;&#xA;        }&#xD;&#xA;      ], &#xD;&#xA;      &quot;verified&quot;: true, &#xD;&#xA;      &quot;updated_time&quot;: &quot;2012-10-19T18:33:40+0000&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    }" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2725" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="853" RevisionGUID="a8250124-4804-45e8-9a19-35c80024f5ba" CreationDate="2012-11-02T02:49:19.427" UserDisplayName="user1758" Text="Can XML/JSON structure formats be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2726" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="853" RevisionGUID="a8250124-4804-45e8-9a19-35c80024f5ba" CreationDate="2012-11-02T02:49:19.427" UserDisplayName="user1758" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="854" RevisionGUID="75ca0035-e635-4bab-b4d5-ef6bf16184fc" CreationDate="2012-11-02T03:40:39.020" UserId="1759" Text="I have an 8x5 binder and have adhered one additional item to it.  I've also modified the paper that fits this binder, which fixes an existing issue.  The binder provides use for a specific audience.  Can I do a utility patent on this as a 'Manufacture'?  I have not created any specific parts/pieces.  It is a composition of several off the shelf items with two items that have not been used (with this binder) in this manner before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an additional note, any one can purchase all of these items, apply modification to paper and assembly everything without needing any special skills or machinery.  But it is not an obvious assembly nor is it an item currently being sold." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2728" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="854" RevisionGUID="75ca0035-e635-4bab-b4d5-ef6bf16184fc" CreationDate="2012-11-02T03:40:39.020" UserId="1759" Text="Is assembly of existing products a 'Manufacture'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2729" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="854" RevisionGUID="75ca0035-e635-4bab-b4d5-ef6bf16184fc" CreationDate="2012-11-02T03:40:39.020" UserId="1759" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;utility&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="855" RevisionGUID="276b602a-d9d3-4813-a2bf-79571bbef8fd" CreationDate="2012-11-02T04:01:07.833" UserId="758" Text="The fact the your invention is built entirely from existing items does not preclude it from being patentable. The items being relatively easy to assemble in the desired fashion doesn't either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, I feel obliged to point out that the patent may not mean a whole lot if it's as easy as you imply to buy the pieces individually and assemble them after the fact. It's generally impractical to try to enforce a patent against individual consumers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2731" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="119" RevisionGUID="1921e38d-404b-4026-b273-4446ebfef6a2" CreationDate="2012-11-02T04:44:14.747" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/264226410288279553" />
  <row Id="2732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="856" RevisionGUID="cb0c6b6a-85a8-41b3-8815-13658b532418" CreationDate="2012-11-02T09:21:47.443" UserId="1761" Text="A foldable footwear&#xD;&#xA;EP2382885 A1&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent awarded or pending? If pending how long before adecision is issued?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2733" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="856" RevisionGUID="cb0c6b6a-85a8-41b3-8815-13658b532418" CreationDate="2012-11-02T09:21:47.443" UserId="1761" Text="Is patent awarded or pending" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2734" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="856" RevisionGUID="cb0c6b6a-85a8-41b3-8815-13658b532418" CreationDate="2012-11-02T09:21:47.443" UserId="1761" Text="&lt;patent-pending&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="858" RevisionGUID="2089c3f8-93d0-411d-96c6-a50824abbc91" CreationDate="2012-11-02T13:34:02.607" UserId="1475" Text="the answer can be derived from the register of European patents that you can find here: https://register.epo.org/espacenet/regviewer. It tells you that examination was requested in march and that in May the applicant filed amended claims 9and thus that the application is still pending). Further, if you click on the 'all documents' tab in the left upper corner of the page, then you will be directed to the file itself where you can view or download al documents from the file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will be impossible to tell how long it will take before a decision is issued. First of all, it will depend on (the workload of) the Examiner how quick he will take up the file and issue the first Office Action, and then it will depend on the nature of the claims and the objections against those claims how long it will take before the application is accepted or refused." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2738" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="854" RevisionGUID="f0ee338b-7bc6-4717-83c3-32637b911042" CreationDate="2012-11-02T13:44:14.587" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/264362311244988417" />
  <row Id="2740" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="854" RevisionGUID="34a99f77-a0bc-486f-957f-982dcf66891c" CreationDate="2012-11-02T13:59:58.413" UserDisplayName="user1758" Comment="Re-tagging for clarification" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;utility&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2741" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="854" RevisionGUID="34a99f77-a0bc-486f-957f-982dcf66891c" CreationDate="2012-11-02T13:59:58.413" Comment="Proposed by 1758 approved by 1259, 1 edit id of 265" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="859" RevisionGUID="8d2160c4-6206-48d9-baa8-b0cde0bcd4d9" CreationDate="2012-11-02T14:05:55.967" UserId="1765" Text="Patent [8108092][1] entitled &quot;Autonomous behaviors for a remote vehicle&quot; states a rather broad method for commanding a retrotraverse behavior for a mobile robot.  This concept is far from new and conceived by many in Universities, business, and government labs well before the patent was issued.  Despite understanding this concept back in 2001 when I was in school, I looked further back for prior art and found the following SPIE publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The SPIE publication from 1996 by Karly Murphy from NIST entitled &quot;GPS Aided Retrotraverse for Unmanned Ground Vehicles&quot; clearly describes the concept of retrotraverse, which appears to be the central claim of this patent.  The only difference I see from the approach described in this paper and the patent claims are that the behavior is enacted upon loss of communication with a remote controller.  To me, this is inevitable discovery and not patentable if this is the only differentiation.  Further, it is pretty ridiculous that such an obvious and extremely general patent was awarded in general.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below is the text from Section 3 this paper:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Murphy, Karl and S. Legowik. *GPS Aided Retrotraverse For Unmanned&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ground Vehicles.* SPIE Proceedings: Navigation and Control&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Technologies for Unmanned Systems, Volume 273, May 1996.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. RETROTRAVERSE During retrotraverse the mobility controller drives the vehicle, retracing a. previously recorded path. Vehicle position&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and velocity data provided by the navigation system are used to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compute steering, brake, and throttle commands.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      The taught path is represented as a series of line segments defined by a set of x-y positions, or knot points, that denote the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; start and end of each path segment. As the scout drives the vehicle&#xD;&#xA;&gt; during teaching, the navigation data is monitored and a new knot point&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is recorded every meter. The vehicle's speed is recorded at each knot&#xD;&#xA;&gt; point and is used to control the speed during playback. The driver&#xD;&#xA;&gt; indicates a turn point to either the right or left of the path when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the vehicle is at an area that is clear of obstacles. When the final&#xD;&#xA;&gt; position is reached the driver passes control of the vehicle to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; remote operator and leaves.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     After the vehicle has completed its ATA mission at the current observation point the remote operator commands a retrotraverse. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mobility controller then starts the engine, shifts to reverse, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; begins backing up along the path using pure pursuit steering and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; velocity control, both described below. As the first turn point is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; approached the steering wheel is turned, either right or left,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; steering the vehicle into the clear area. After the vehicle turns 120&#xD;&#xA;&gt; deg. it stops and shifts into forward. It then steers back onto the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; path and continues following the path using pure pursuit steering. A&#xD;&#xA;&gt; similar procedure is followed at the final turn point, allowing the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vehicle to back into the final position. Obstacles such as another&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vehicle can be detected with a laser range imaging device, described&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in Section 3.3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8108092" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2743" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="859" RevisionGUID="8d2160c4-6206-48d9-baa8-b0cde0bcd4d9" CreationDate="2012-11-02T14:05:55.967" UserId="1765" Text="Is this prior art worth submitting to debunk patent 8108092?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2744" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="859" RevisionGUID="8d2160c4-6206-48d9-baa8-b0cde0bcd4d9" CreationDate="2012-11-02T14:05:55.967" UserId="1765" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="856" RevisionGUID="7a6da519-6f29-4287-85c7-dc4e6a9a1c18" CreationDate="2012-11-02T16:38:39.037" UserDisplayName="user1758" Comment="Formatting" Text="A foldable footwear, EP2382885 A1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent awarded or pending? If it is pending, how long will it be before a decision is issued?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2746" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="856" RevisionGUID="7a6da519-6f29-4287-85c7-dc4e6a9a1c18" CreationDate="2012-11-02T16:38:39.037" Comment="Proposed by 1758 approved by 1 edit id of 266" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2749" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="854" RevisionGUID="dc442b59-b6ca-4b3d-ac83-c1bcec4ce302" CreationDate="2012-11-02T21:35:30.027" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2750" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="859" RevisionGUID="a9b04473-8e75-4823-bda1-f6076dcccad9" CreationDate="2012-11-02T21:36:15.457" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;data-processing-vehicles&gt;&lt;us8108092&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="856" RevisionGUID="688a7e50-a8ba-4a89-bd86-d665e79e82d7" CreationDate="2012-11-02T21:39:34.907" UserId="76" Comment="added 50 characters in body; edited tags" Text="[A foldable footwear, EP2382885 A1](http://www.google.com/patents/EP2382885A1?cl=en)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent awarded or pending? If it is pending, how long will it be before a decision is issued?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2752" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="856" RevisionGUID="688a7e50-a8ba-4a89-bd86-d665e79e82d7" CreationDate="2012-11-02T21:39:34.907" UserId="76" Comment="added 50 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;european&gt;&lt;ep2382885&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2754" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="859" RevisionGUID="cb7ec752-5bad-4d06-8baf-93e186f93522" CreationDate="2012-11-03T04:44:34.487" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/264588897563066369" />
  <row Id="2755" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="37" RevisionGUID="33aec36e-4f53-406d-a9ca-ad50ecfdaa8c" CreationDate="2012-11-03T13:44:34.783" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/264724799933259776" />
  <row Id="2756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="861" RevisionGUID="2f76ec6b-ecd5-454c-8854-8ee0afb3b73b" CreationDate="2012-11-03T14:52:44.373" UserId="1769" Text="I saw this patent own by microsoft for their xbox.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US20060122716&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to make a game that give a small reward for player who complete some task in game something like kill 50 zombies, headshot 50 times.and there will be a list of achievement that will collect an information about detail and did player complete it already?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example for my game's achievement system idea is in many game in iOS,android and etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to make sure on this since i found a lot of silly(in my opinion) sue about patent in a news like patent trolling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So i want to ask a question.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Is my game's achievement system is same with the one own by microsoft and  will i be sued for making a game with this achievement system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2757" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="861" RevisionGUID="2f76ec6b-ecd5-454c-8854-8ee0afb3b73b" CreationDate="2012-11-03T14:52:44.373" UserId="1769" Text="Game with Achievement system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2758" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="861" RevisionGUID="2f76ec6b-ecd5-454c-8854-8ee0afb3b73b" CreationDate="2012-11-03T14:52:44.373" UserId="1769" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2759" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="861" RevisionGUID="35805d2b-678d-4981-b59f-d940282333e2" CreationDate="2012-11-03T19:25:10.810" UserId="1259" Comment="added tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;video-games&gt;&lt;us7887419&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2760" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="97a9723e-6ba9-4a66-ba33-2a97e2364dbf" CreationDate="2012-11-04T04:44:35.273" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/264951302352666624" />
  <row Id="2761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="862" RevisionGUID="9d7a64ef-df0c-4651-a9b1-fc155688049d" CreationDate="2012-11-04T17:25:33.357" UserId="1771" Text="The link you posted is an application. It has not issued and is not enforceable so there is no way you could infringe any of the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US7887419&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is the issued patent and the claims are much narrower and more specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If after reading that you are truly concerned about infringement you should contact an attorney." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="863" RevisionGUID="f0629ee3-5644-4ebf-ab77-b885c15cab33" CreationDate="2012-11-04T18:43:03.367" UserId="1772" Text="Say i patent an innovative method / device for creating ice-cream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am in the ice-cream business itself, not device manufacturing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suddenly, some competitor appears claiming to use a trade secret method for creating ice-cream, stealing my customers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously i can't prove they use my invention, without breaking into their facility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now what? Does it even make sense to patent non direct to market inventions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feels like i just shot myself in the foot by patenting my idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2763" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="863" RevisionGUID="f0629ee3-5644-4ebf-ab77-b885c15cab33" CreationDate="2012-11-04T18:43:03.367" UserId="1772" Text="Do patents offer protection from private use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2764" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="863" RevisionGUID="f0629ee3-5644-4ebf-ab77-b885c15cab33" CreationDate="2012-11-04T18:43:03.367" UserId="1772" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="864" RevisionGUID="2b4ecd7f-e506-4270-a7cb-fea7af3eb183" CreationDate="2012-11-04T18:48:18.483" UserId="1773" Text="As I was reading the ‘Systems and methods for identifying unauthorized users of an electronic device’ patent, I was just asking myself questions on how come this is patentable? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does it meet the three main criteria to be patentable? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2766" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="864" RevisionGUID="2b4ecd7f-e506-4270-a7cb-fea7af3eb183" CreationDate="2012-11-04T18:48:18.483" UserId="1773" Text="Patentable criteria ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2767" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="864" RevisionGUID="2b4ecd7f-e506-4270-a7cb-fea7af3eb183" CreationDate="2012-11-04T18:48:18.483" UserId="1773" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2768" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="861" RevisionGUID="c66afe52-2230-4b1f-a029-591a95671a11" CreationDate="2012-11-04T19:44:34.917" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/265177803752865792" />
  <row Id="2769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="865" RevisionGUID="82f0ed7b-16f6-46a6-9bfe-680f06813803" CreationDate="2012-11-04T20:00:45.237" UserId="96" Text="Not all is lost.  You made a bargain with the United States government, and that government does offer you some prospect of redress.  If you can offer some evidence that your competitor is practicing your patented process or has replicated your patented device, you can bring a law suit.  One effect of the law suit is that it affords you the opportunity to discover certain elements of the process your competitor practices. (You may not be allowed to see the results of the discovery yourself, but your attorneys and possibly hired experts will be able to inspect your competitor's operations.)  If, in fact, your competitor **does** practice your patented process or replicate your patented device, then you will be entitled to damages and possibly an injunction preventing further actions that infringe your patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You and your competitor illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of the choice between patents and trade secrets - particularly the advantages of your patent bargain.  His only protection is secrecy, while you have the full force of the federal government on your side.  He may have discovered the process or created the device before you did, but his decision to keep it secret means that you, even though you came to the idea later, own the public rights and he has to pay you to continue to implement that idea in his business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2770" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="283" RevisionGUID="fc016cbd-9465-4eee-ba7e-d35e4c10a36f" CreationDate="2012-11-04T22:44:35.313" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/265223104857505794" />
  <row Id="2771" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="41" RevisionGUID="1645a93f-9cda-46e7-ae7d-6106321d94d1" CreationDate="2012-11-05T01:44:34.713" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/265268404720635904" />
  <row Id="2775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="0c5b9c38-6085-4099-b58a-3d4b4d06d676" CreationDate="2012-11-05T03:26:01.323" UserId="1775" Text="There are sites like kickstarter which allow you to demo/display/show off your product with hopes that these viewers will help you and invest/donate capital. How can you reveal your product to the massess while still protecting your idea? Should I apply for a patent pending application first? Sorry, this is my first question.s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2776" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="0c5b9c38-6085-4099-b58a-3d4b4d06d676" CreationDate="2012-11-05T03:26:01.323" UserId="1775" Text="How can I raise capital on an idea without the huge patent investment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2777" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="0c5b9c38-6085-4099-b58a-3d4b4d06d676" CreationDate="2012-11-05T03:26:01.323" UserId="1775" Text="&lt;patent-pending&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="b8dd0e1d-3589-4555-8229-6fd0c63882de" CreationDate="2012-11-05T03:38:22.880" UserId="1775" Comment="I changed the title. A more accurate title existed in the body so I edited the post." Text="There are sites like kickstarter which allow you to demo/display/show off your product with hopes that these viewers will help you and invest/donate capital. How can I raise capital on an idea without the huge patent investment? Should I apply for a patent pending application first? Sorry, this is my first question.s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2779" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="b8dd0e1d-3589-4555-8229-6fd0c63882de" CreationDate="2012-11-05T03:38:22.880" UserId="1775" Comment="I changed the title. A more accurate title existed in the body so I edited the post." Text="How can you reveal your product to the massess while still protecting your idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="869" RevisionGUID="f36cee0d-cfa1-4ecc-b4b7-04b8c553d75f" CreationDate="2012-11-05T09:27:24.167" UserId="446" Text="The concept of limitations for &quot;anonymous&quot; users of a site existed in FTP services for quite a long time.  I would be surprised if there wasn't a similar capability in earlier BBS services or UUCP services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particular patent is directed to &quot;an electronic document authoring, development and distribution system&quot;, which suggests that you would have to do all three things in order to violate the patent.  I would venture a guess that not all web sites do &quot;authoring, development and distribution&quot;, but they only do the distribution part.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="863" RevisionGUID="46f6a4a7-f3fe-49a4-946d-76f0a837bd9b" CreationDate="2012-11-05T11:17:04.560" UserId="76" Comment="English" Text="Say I patent an innovative method or device for creating ice-cream. I am in the ice-cream business itself, not device manufacturing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suddenly, some competitor appears claiming to use a trade secret method for creating ice-cream, stealing my customers. Obviously, I can't prove they use my invention without breaking into their facility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now what? Does it even make sense to patent inventions that are not direct-to-market?&#xD;&#xA;It feels like I just shot myself in the foot by patenting my idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2783" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="f86ab80e-7422-429a-ac78-fd3b217aa7c5" CreationDate="2012-11-05T11:18:06.667" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="f86ab80e-7422-429a-ac78-fd3b217aa7c5" CreationDate="2012-11-05T11:18:06.667" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="There are sites like kickstarter which allow you to demo/display/show off your product with hopes that these viewers will help you and invest/donate capital. How can I raise capital on an idea without the huge patent investment? Should I apply for a patent pending application first?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2785" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="f86ab80e-7422-429a-ac78-fd3b217aa7c5" CreationDate="2012-11-05T11:18:06.667" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="How can you reveal your product to the masses while still protecting your idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="864" RevisionGUID="399f66ba-1711-42d4-94de-b62d2cd692f2" CreationDate="2012-11-05T11:34:57.143" UserId="76" Comment="added patent link; tags; title" Text="As I was reading [US patent 8289130 ‘Systems and methods for identifying unauthorized users of an electronic device’](http://www.google.com/patents/US8289130), I was just asking myself questions on how come this is patentable? How does it meet the three main criteria to be patentable?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2788" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="864" RevisionGUID="399f66ba-1711-42d4-94de-b62d2cd692f2" CreationDate="2012-11-05T11:34:57.143" UserId="76" Comment="added patent link; tags; title" Text="Patentibility of ‘Systems and methods for identifying unauthorized users of an electronic device’" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2789" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="864" RevisionGUID="399f66ba-1711-42d4-94de-b62d2cd692f2" CreationDate="2012-11-05T11:34:57.143" UserId="76" Comment="added patent link; tags; title" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;communications-electrical&gt;&lt;us8289130&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="870" RevisionGUID="b0c02f30-4b5d-42db-8381-dcd315740f59" CreationDate="2012-11-05T13:28:53.717" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="871" RevisionGUID="4fba2898-2b23-4c84-bce8-a2b8f9149c99" CreationDate="2012-11-05T13:28:53.717" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="870" RevisionGUID="d4dd0014-3e4b-407d-89ec-672a64ac302d" CreationDate="2012-11-05T13:40:02.957" UserId="76" Comment="added 454 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 340: communications: electrical](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc340/sched340.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc340/defs340.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: telemetering, remote monitoring and control, vehicle guidance and control, traffic control, alarms, wired or wireless data transmission through electromagnetic means, signaling systems, visual or audible indicators, ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2793" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="870" RevisionGUID="d4dd0014-3e4b-407d-89ec-672a64ac302d" CreationDate="2012-11-05T13:40:02.957" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 268" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="871" RevisionGUID="7d5413ef-0f10-4324-ae80-97383b9c5862" CreationDate="2012-11-05T13:40:06.170" UserId="76" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="US patent class 340: communications: electrical" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2795" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="871" RevisionGUID="7d5413ef-0f10-4324-ae80-97383b9c5862" CreationDate="2012-11-05T13:40:06.170" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 269" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="872" RevisionGUID="c968a3e9-2f67-41f4-8a14-df24a0909b89" CreationDate="2012-11-05T14:24:54.500" UserId="839" Text="This question is about the patent [Rest detection using accelerometer][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per my understanding the patent talks about using the Accelerometer  acceleration values and &quot;change in angle&quot; to detect whether the device is resting or processing an active user gesture. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But these same parameters are used as inputs in many mobile games. ([example1][2]) ([example2][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, are not the published claims too generic to be granted a patent ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120259578?dq=13/082,294&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=nMKXUPnmJc_KrAeS0ICIBg&amp;ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/27985/how-do-i-move-a-body-using-the-hardware-accelerometer&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://mashable.com/2008/12/03/iphone-games-accelerometer/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2800" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="872" RevisionGUID="c968a3e9-2f67-41f4-8a14-df24a0909b89" CreationDate="2012-11-05T14:24:54.500" UserId="839" Text="Patent: 13/082,294 : &quot;Rest detection using accelerometer&quot; - too generic to be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2801" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="872" RevisionGUID="c968a3e9-2f67-41f4-8a14-df24a0909b89" CreationDate="2012-11-05T14:24:54.500" UserId="839" Text="&lt;us20120259578&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="872" RevisionGUID="3c687c48-c2f9-4ff5-817a-5932afb37b49" CreationDate="2012-11-05T14:32:13.060" UserId="839" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="This question is about the patent [Rest detection using accelerometer][1] (Patent pending).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per my understanding the patent talks about using the Accelerometer  acceleration values and &quot;change in angle&quot; to detect whether the device is resting or processing an active user gesture. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But these same parameters are used as inputs in many mobile games. ([example1][2]) ([example2][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, are not the published claims too generic to be granted a patent ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120259578?dq=13/082,294&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=nMKXUPnmJc_KrAeS0ICIBg&amp;ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/27985/how-do-i-move-a-body-using-the-hardware-accelerometer&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://mashable.com/2008/12/03/iphone-games-accelerometer/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="872" RevisionGUID="b6297761-7987-4f77-adac-3d9edd30daee" CreationDate="2012-11-05T14:48:31.850" UserId="839" Comment="added 236 characters in body" Text="This question is about the patent [Rest detection using accelerometer][1] (Patent pending).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per my understanding the patent talks about using the Accelerometer  acceleration values and &quot;change in angle&quot; to detect whether the device is resting or processing an active user gesture. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But these same parameters are used as inputs in many mobile games. ([example1][2]) ([example2][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, the &quot;rest state&quot; is not well defined in the published document. In literal sense rest means: &quot;Cease work or movement&quot;, but to get a reading in the accelerometer and to get a change in the angle the device needs to move.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, are not the published claims too generic to be granted a patent ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120259578?dq=13/082,294&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=nMKXUPnmJc_KrAeS0ICIBg&amp;ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/27985/how-do-i-move-a-body-using-the-hardware-accelerometer&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://mashable.com/2008/12/03/iphone-games-accelerometer/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="873" RevisionGUID="318fa1fb-a00c-4923-801d-74f4f1daa727" CreationDate="2012-11-05T16:26:59.307" UserId="1642" Text="I want to know that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if I make some software and start selling it.Later on someone finds out that the main Idea in my software is same as theirs and they have patent for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now do they have to provide me a warning to remove my product from the market or can they directly sue me without any warning,and ask for some large amount of money." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2805" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="873" RevisionGUID="318fa1fb-a00c-4923-801d-74f4f1daa727" CreationDate="2012-11-05T16:26:59.307" UserId="1642" Text="warning before suing for patent infringment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2806" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="873" RevisionGUID="318fa1fb-a00c-4923-801d-74f4f1daa727" CreationDate="2012-11-05T16:26:59.307" UserId="1642" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="874" RevisionGUID="b08fcd78-260a-4eb0-8af0-798dc37f7dba" CreationDate="2012-11-05T16:53:27.283" UserId="96" Text="They can sue you without any prior notice.  The sum they can sue you for is determined by marketplace facts and a few other matters.  If you are a solo programmer with a few hundred or a few thousand sales at a nominal price, say under $100 per unit, then there is not a lot to be had, so there is little incentive for the patent holder to take you to court without first warning you to cease and desist your infringement.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main reason that patent holders are disinclined to give prior notice of infringement is that once you are warned, you have the option to bring your own law suit for a declaratory judgment (non-infringement and/or invalidity) in a federal court of your choosing.  Patent holders prefer to pick the jurisdiction to suit their own purposes to the extent they can.  The patent holder may be inclined to put you on notice by bringing a suit that they expect to settle immediately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also the issue of whether, without any &quot;prior notice&quot; from the patent holder, you were already aware of the patent and chose to ignore it.  In those circumstances you could be liable as a blatant or &quot;willful&quot; infringer.  If you are found by a judge or jury to be a willful infringer, the judge may award up to three times the actual damages proved by the patent holder at trial.  Note that he is not required to impose treble damages, but he has the option of awarding damages between the determined amount and three times the determined amount.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other possibilities spin out from these basic considerations.  Is a major corporation among your customers?  As users of an infringing product, they are infringers.  Perhaps the patent holder could go after them - even though it might be hard to show actual damages of any significant size.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But back to the original thought: If you are a little guy without much in the way of resources or money, you can probably get out of a law suit by withdrawing your product from the market and paying a more modest settlement.  There are some circumstances when it pays to be penurious.  This is one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2808" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="872" RevisionGUID="dba270a9-2605-4f19-a8e1-974c99d9adf7" CreationDate="2012-11-05T17:44:37.883" UserId="1259" Comment="application no and filing date" Text="This question is about the patent [Rest detection using accelerometer][1] (application 20120259578 filing date: April 7, 2011).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per my understanding the patent talks about using the Accelerometer  acceleration values and &quot;change in angle&quot; to detect whether the device is resting or processing an active user gesture. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But these same parameters are used as inputs in many mobile games. ([example1][2]) ([example2][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, the &quot;rest state&quot; is not well defined in the published document. In literal sense rest means: &quot;Cease work or movement&quot;, but to get a reading in the accelerometer and to get a change in the angle the device needs to move.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, are not the published claims too generic to be granted a patent ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120259578?dq=13/082,294&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=nMKXUPnmJc_KrAeS0ICIBg&amp;ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/27985/how-do-i-move-a-body-using-the-hardware-accelerometer&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://mashable.com/2008/12/03/iphone-games-accelerometer/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2809" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="872" RevisionGUID="dba270a9-2605-4f19-a8e1-974c99d9adf7" CreationDate="2012-11-05T17:44:37.883" UserId="1259" Comment="application no and filing date" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20120259578&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="875" RevisionGUID="216f1120-4eac-43eb-8d1f-ed557ae95c47" CreationDate="2012-11-05T21:21:20.723" UserId="1485" Text="&quot;Generic&quot; doesn't really have a relevant meaning to patentability. If you're asking about whether or not the claims are novel or non-obvious over the references you linked, it's hard to say.  The claim talks about measuring &quot;acceleration vibration&quot; whereas your links discuss  generally using a mobile device's accelerometer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say the first step to the analysis would be determining what the claim means by &quot;acceleration vibration.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="876" RevisionGUID="2fa9ebda-9c11-48c4-8482-dc39e614bb8b" CreationDate="2012-11-05T21:25:32.340" UserId="446" Text="It really is amazing that this patent was granted, in that it really is just two cocktail-napkin drawings.  The entirety of the detailed description simply describes the drawings.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, it seems to me that there is probably lots of ground for being non-infringing:&#xD;&#xA;- does the &quot;central computer&quot; have access to a database where *each* data record contains &quot;client identification numbers&quot;?  (I have no idea if Google puts client IDs in each record, but I kind of doubt it, and in any case, are they numbers or some other string?)&#xD;&#xA;- does the central computer &quot;receive backup requests&quot;? (or, does it receive normal data requests which are not specifically related to backup?)&#xD;&#xA;- does it transmit &quot;a&quot; (ie, only one) data backup [ie, file or object]?  Does it transmit to one &quot;client computer&quot;?  Is it the same one as the one doing the request?&#xD;&#xA;- does the &quot;central computer&quot; that does the creating of the data backup [file/object] actually do the transmitting (as required by claim 1)?&#xD;&#xA;- Is the data backup [file/object] stored on the client computer?  Or somewhere else?&#xD;&#xA;- Does something that is a mere copy qualify as a &quot;backup&quot;?  Or do you have to be able to restore it?  (The patent might suggest a backup has to be able to be restored.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As this application was actually rejected 4 times during prosecution, which probably leaves a lot of opportunity for finding out what the applicant specifically excluded from what they meant to cover.  When an applicant specifically excludes something in order to get the patent, they cannot later come back and claim it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point of all of this being, if you get a good lawyer to draft the right letter after looking at the available records, you might be able to do much better than just claiming prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1876" RevisionGUID="f91b9e38-2b64-4b79-a079-32445c361b67" CreationDate="2012-11-05T21:34:10.290" UserId="1777" Text="First of all, this is a patent **application**. Whether it will ever be granted, and with which scope, remains to be be seen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The independent claim as filed already clearly specifies both &quot;measuring a level of acceleration **vibration**&quot; and &quot;detecting a change in an angle of a measured gravity vector [...] **contemporaneously**&quot; in order to determine whether the mobile device is at rest. I do not see these aspects anticipated by any of your references. Your reference &quot;example1&quot; was in any case published after the filing date of the application in question and is thus irrelevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If and whenever the patent should be granted, it will likely cover a much narrower scope than what was claimed at the time of filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can get an insight into the state of the procedure through the [USPTO's PAIR][1]: Enter 13/082,294 in the search field and crack the captcha. You can then click on the Image File Wrapper tab (near the top, middle tab). Here you see all the original documents exchanged during the procedure. It seems the USPTO examiner has cited two patent documents and two pieces of non-patent literature. (See items labeled &quot;Foreign Reference&quot; and &quot;Non Patent Literature.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1877" RevisionGUID="83933b1e-dbbe-4a86-96f3-f36ad9025db7" CreationDate="2012-11-06T00:08:10.660" UserId="1335" Text="The three criteria for patentability in the US, as you probably know, are novelty, usefulness and non-obviousness. Let's look at the first claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for identifying an unauthorized user of an electronic device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - monitoring with the electronic device usage of at least one memory of the electronic device;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - detecting with the electronic device a sudden increase in the monitored memory usage; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - determining with the electronic device that a current user of the electronic device is the unauthorized user in response to the detecting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, it says if memory usage of a device suddenly shoots up, the current user is unauthorized. It's obviously some sort of a heuristic method. Let's evaluate this claim for each of the three criteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Novelty:** Since the examiner apparently could not find any prior art reference that describes everything the claim requires, it meets the novelty criteria. Of course, this may change if a reference is found that does describe the method but was not found by the examiner. Without knowing better, we have to trust the examiner's search results. (You can actually go into USPTO PAIR and inspect the examiners search methodology and results, if you so desire.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usefulness:** The patent describes a method for detecting unauthorized usage, such as when a device is stolen, so that it could potentially trigger some action (such as sending an alert.) I think most would agree that that is useful, in both the ordinary and patent law sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Non-obviousness:** This is the trickiest part of evaluating a claim. From an examiner's perspective, a claim is probably obvious if two or more (usually up to 3 - 4) relevant prior art references can be combined to cover all elements of a claim. This is not a hard-and-fast rule, but it's needed because examiners need some publicly available historical record to support their judgement, otherwise the system would become too arbitrary and subjective. In this case, it seems the examiner could not find any (or enough) such prior art references to invalidate the claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, even from a layman's perspective, I personally don't find the claim *obvious*, in the plain meaning of the word; I just don't get how increased memory usage is indicative of unauthorized use. I'll have to trust the patent when it asserts that sudden increase in memory usage probably means the device is being &quot;jailbroken.&quot; But then again, I'm not knowledgeable about the field of locking down devices or hacking them, where it may even be a commonly known effect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1878" RevisionGUID="ceee0b28-678b-412f-b030-775767ea854c" CreationDate="2012-11-06T00:34:58.393" UserId="1335" Text="A good option for you is to file a provisional patent. It costs a few hundred bucks ($250, or $125 for a &quot;small entity&quot;) and can be as informal as you like. It could even be the exact same description you put on your Kickstarter page. However, note that whatever is in the provisional application limits what you can &quot;claim priority to&quot; later, so you want it to be as detailed as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A provisional application secures a &quot;priority date&quot; (holding your place in line, as it were,) and to keep it, you must file a proper non-provisional patent application within a year of the provisional filing date. In a year's time you may be better-informed to decide whether to fork out for the costs of a non-provisional patent, e.g. depending on if your Kickstarter has reached its goal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3814" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="872" RevisionGUID="f67c2f31-7480-4eb0-944d-4c28d4b138aa" CreationDate="2012-11-06T01:44:57.107" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/265630900199501824" />
  <row Id="3815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1879" RevisionGUID="34ff6c2c-4dd8-4a90-b008-9c5b9117829c" CreationDate="2012-11-06T02:53:41.927" UserId="1778" Text="If I file a revision to a provisional patent (some diagrams are not detailed enough), would the original diagrams be automatically destroyed / kept secret, or will they still show?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3816" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1879" RevisionGUID="34ff6c2c-4dd8-4a90-b008-9c5b9117829c" CreationDate="2012-11-06T02:53:41.927" UserId="1778" Text="Revise Provisional patent diagrams" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3817" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1879" RevisionGUID="34ff6c2c-4dd8-4a90-b008-9c5b9117829c" CreationDate="2012-11-06T02:53:41.927" UserId="1778" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;revision&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="872" RevisionGUID="72218753-c4dc-4ed3-8587-4a690218bf7f" CreationDate="2012-11-06T06:08:19.267" UserId="839" Comment="added 25 characters in body; edited title" Text="This question is about the patent [Rest detection using accelerometer][1] (application 20120259578 filing date: April 7, 2011).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per my understanding the patent talks about using the Accelerometer  acceleration values and &quot;change in angle&quot; to detect whether the device is resting or processing an active user gesture. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But these same parameters are used as inputs in many mobile games. ([example1][2]) ([example2][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, the &quot;rest state&quot; is not well defined in the published document. In literal sense rest means: &quot;Cease work or movement&quot;, but to get a reading in the accelerometer and to get a change in the angle the device needs to move.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, are not the published claims too &lt;strike&gt;generic&lt;/strike&gt; obvious to be granted a patent ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120259578?dq=13/082,294&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=nMKXUPnmJc_KrAeS0ICIBg&amp;ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/27985/how-do-i-move-a-body-using-the-hardware-accelerometer&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://mashable.com/2008/12/03/iphone-games-accelerometer/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3819" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="872" RevisionGUID="72218753-c4dc-4ed3-8587-4a690218bf7f" CreationDate="2012-11-06T06:08:19.267" UserId="839" Comment="added 25 characters in body; edited title" Text="Patent: 13/082,294 : &quot;Rest detection using accelerometer&quot; - too obvious to be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3820" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="864" RevisionGUID="15a8759b-752e-4213-b6cf-93c73039806d" CreationDate="2012-11-06T07:44:57.023" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/265721499074297856" />
  <row Id="3821" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1879" RevisionGUID="796cfad4-7245-45ad-bce6-a47d4355ead4" CreationDate="2012-11-06T09:29:19.400" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Confidentiality of revised diagrams in a provisional application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3822" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1879" RevisionGUID="796cfad4-7245-45ad-bce6-a47d4355ead4" CreationDate="2012-11-06T09:29:19.400" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;diagrams&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3823" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="872" RevisionGUID="333e1145-4d20-4d07-bd36-302802410094" CreationDate="2012-11-06T09:31:28.337" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20120259578&gt;&lt;data-processing-measuring&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3824" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="711" RevisionGUID="c0b3ffe8-2cd0-495e-8071-09ca81ab5c05" CreationDate="2012-11-06T09:32:15.647" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;defensive-publications&gt;&lt;public-domain&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1880" RevisionGUID="7182b641-ab90-4522-b9e8-9275bbf21c67" CreationDate="2012-11-06T10:30:19.503" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1881" RevisionGUID="f94e71c6-ca97-40a2-b861-82f580587a2e" CreationDate="2012-11-06T10:30:19.503" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="861" RevisionGUID="985a946d-ea26-4605-b412-4663e2e4f75a" CreationDate="2012-11-06T10:50:29.330" UserId="1769" Comment="deleted 32 characters in body" Text="I saw this patent own by microsoft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US20060122716&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to make a game that give a small reward for player who complete some task in game something like kill 50 zombies, headshot 50 times.and there will be a list of achievement that will collect an information about detail and did player complete it already?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example for my game's achievement system idea is in many game in iOS,android and etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to make sure on this since i found a lot of silly(in my opinion) sue about patent in a news like patent trolling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So i want to ask a question.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Is my game's achievement system is same with the one own by microsoft and  will i be sued for making a game with this achievement system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1882" RevisionGUID="fcca5b14-9aa5-472a-8d1b-d30f48a67a20" CreationDate="2012-11-06T13:50:59.347" UserId="1779" Text="Note: I'm a USA practitioner, so what I say goes for the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There isn't a strict definition about what constitutes an &quot;Office action&quot;.  As generally used, the term generally encompasses any mailing from a patent examiner; it usually excludes decisions on petitions, communications from the Office of Patent Application Processing (the people who handle the applications before they get to the patent examiners), and communications in the appeals process (for example, decisions by the PTAB, or Examiner's Answers).  On the other hand, because it's not a strictly defined term, you can't really mess anything up by using it incorrectly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most common types of Office actions are non-final and final rejections, notices of allowance, requirements for election or restriction, requirements for information, and *Ex Parte Quayle* actions.  These are all notifications that the Office is taking some kind of specific action (ie, allowing a claim, rejecting a claim, objecting to something in the application, or requiring the applicant to do something) that is directly related to the patentability of a specific claim.  Hence the term &quot;Office action&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1883" RevisionGUID="49807941-7427-4681-8f59-991aa8f55d04" CreationDate="2012-11-06T13:59:39.160" UserId="1779" Text="Yes, both of the documents you cited on PubMed qualify as prior art under 35 USC 102(b); they were published more than one year before the effective filing date of application 12/450,358.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether the claims would be rejected over the teachings of these documents is a different question, which will have to be answered by the examiner to which the application is assigned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1884" RevisionGUID="dcec0284-4bc5-4015-918c-071962a2c8fb" CreationDate="2012-11-06T14:14:20.060" UserId="1779" Text="I'm a US practitioner, so what I say goes for the USPTO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anything submitted in the file of a published application, even material that's been made obsolete by revision or amendment, is open to the public.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Provisional applications are not published, so if you do nothing and let the provisional application expire, then the drawings will remain confidential.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you file a non-provisional application that claims priority to the provisional application, to keep the drawings confidential, you must submit a non-publication request in the non-provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your unpublished, non-provisional application is allowed, then the only way to keep the drawings confidential is to petition that the drawings be expunged.  See [MPEP 724.05][1].  This is not a common situation, and the Office may deny the request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s724.html#d0e96896" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1885" RevisionGUID="7d75d6d6-799d-4a86-81f5-c54d64071135" CreationDate="2012-11-06T14:48:10.923" UserId="1779" Text="First, the search tools that we examiners have are tuned for searching natural language, not source code, so it's far easier to find natural-language prior art than source code prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And your question assumes that most patent examiners who handle software-related applications are proficient at reading source code.  Most of us are not.  And there are even fewer of us that can read multiple programming languages proficiently, let alone read every language that an open source software project might use.  I know C(++), Python and R pretty well, but I commonly examine applications in scientific computing, and a lot of that software is written in FORTRAN.  It's more difficult for me to read the FORTRAN source code than it is to find and read the journal article that the author published about the program.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if I am absolutely sure that a certain program has implemented a procedure that's being claimed, and even if I have access to the source code of that program, and even if I am able to establish a clear prior art date of that source code, and even if that source code is written in a programming language I am comfortable reading, I still am very unlikely to cite that source code as prior art.  The people that we write for (attorneys and other patent examiners) rarely have experience reading source code, so it takes even longer to explain the code than just cite a source that explains it in natural language; a better document is something like an API reference or software documentation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1881" RevisionGUID="620acf7d-6641-4899-ade7-e94f481f96af" CreationDate="2012-11-06T16:34:19.933" UserId="76" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="US patent class 702: data processing: measuring, calibrating, or testing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3833" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1881" RevisionGUID="620acf7d-6641-4899-ade7-e94f481f96af" CreationDate="2012-11-06T16:34:19.933" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 271" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1880" RevisionGUID="c51c90bb-40aa-4ac6-a848-8d52160665aa" CreationDate="2012-11-06T16:34:23.927" UserId="76" Comment="added 346 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 702: data processing: measuring, calibrating, or testing](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc702/sched702.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc702/defs702.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: measurement systems and devices, calibration systems, signal testing, diagnostics, ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3835" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1880" RevisionGUID="c51c90bb-40aa-4ac6-a848-8d52160665aa" CreationDate="2012-11-06T16:34:23.927" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 270" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1886" RevisionGUID="2b77ac80-620a-4759-bc89-953e6aa6380a" CreationDate="2012-11-06T22:15:28.317" UserId="1698" Text="The short answer is YES. The question asked if you can patent software that uses open source libraries or files as support. There are no restrictions on what you use as support to meet the patentability requirements of Title 35 of the US Code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3837" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1879" RevisionGUID="f966f980-3608-4136-a474-21c08591ba27" CreationDate="2012-11-07T04:44:57.427" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/266038525504413698" />
  <row Id="3838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1887" RevisionGUID="9cc7a9b6-da02-45a6-acdb-7694919586a2" CreationDate="2012-11-07T12:34:16.237" UserId="1783" Text="If I purchase an existent patented commercial product, extract one specific part out of it, and re-use that one part in my own design (as part of a device that I manufacture and then sell), is this legal or would it constitute an IP violation / patent infringement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, the existent patented commercial product in question is the Wii Remote, out of which I would like to extract the camera (which is just one part of the entire Wii Remote) and then use it within an original device that I am designing and would like to sell." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3839" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1887" RevisionGUID="9cc7a9b6-da02-45a6-acdb-7694919586a2" CreationDate="2012-11-07T12:34:16.237" UserId="1783" Text="Would it be infringement if I re-use a PART of a patented product in my own design?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3840" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1887" RevisionGUID="9cc7a9b6-da02-45a6-acdb-7694919586a2" CreationDate="2012-11-07T12:34:16.237" UserId="1783" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;video-games&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1887" RevisionGUID="019ced63-2311-49a6-9f8c-122af44a30b6" CreationDate="2012-11-07T13:19:30.080" UserId="1783" Comment="added 39 characters in body; edited tags" Text="If I purchase an existent patented commercial product, extract one specific part out of it, and re-use that one part in my own design (as part of a device that I manufacture and then sell), is this legal or would it constitute an IP violation / patent infringement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, the existent patented commercial product in question is the Wii Remote (a videogame controller from Nintendo), out of which I would like to extract the camera (which is just one part of the entire Wii Remote) and then use it within an original device that I am designing and would like to sell." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3842" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1887" RevisionGUID="019ced63-2311-49a6-9f8c-122af44a30b6" CreationDate="2012-11-07T13:19:30.080" UserId="1783" Comment="added 39 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;video-games&gt;&lt;intellectual-property&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3843" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1887" RevisionGUID="2ad49481-ae3f-404a-a03d-d1c407c6a870" CreationDate="2012-11-07T14:48:28.267" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1888" RevisionGUID="aceb583a-3c82-41b7-b60e-8a239ac9d4e0" CreationDate="2012-11-07T16:12:00.123" UserId="1785" Text="I have received final office action with rejection. Patent attorney advised with going for RCE (request for continues examination). How does it work? and how many RCE can one request?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thank you,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alexey" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3845" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1888" RevisionGUID="aceb583a-3c82-41b7-b60e-8a239ac9d4e0" CreationDate="2012-11-07T16:12:00.123" UserId="1785" Text="What is request for continuous examination?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3846" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1888" RevisionGUID="aceb583a-3c82-41b7-b60e-8a239ac9d4e0" CreationDate="2012-11-07T16:12:00.123" UserId="1785" Text="&lt;process&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3847" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1887" RevisionGUID="b575268d-94ac-47b0-9562-b2761885663c" CreationDate="2012-11-07T16:44:58.490" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/266219732330504193" />
  <row Id="3851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1890" RevisionGUID="4df5ade2-8de8-4300-a20d-f5508123780f" CreationDate="2012-11-07T18:04:54.110" UserId="81" Text="[TQP are currently suing more large companies for using RC4 and SSL/TLS][1], but the way the patent was awarded confuses me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the Cipherlawgroup article linked to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The application for the ’730 patent was filed on April 23, 1992, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claimed priority as a continuation-in-part to an earlier application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; filed on Oct. 6, 1989.  The ’730 patent was originally issued with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; only two claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for transmitting data comprising a sequence of blocks in encrypted form over a communication link from a transmitter to a receiver &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The method as set forth in claim 1 further including the step of altering said predetermined number of blocks each time said new key value in said first and said second sequences is produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, since that 1989 wording, TQP have been allowed to add features to the patent and expand it through **continuation** and the 1992 additions appear to be the core of the lawsuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if one was searching for prior art, would it need to be found before 1989 or 1992? What is the date of validity of this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cipherlawgroup.com/blog/tqp-sues-another-round-of-companies-on-cryptography-patent/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3852" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1890" RevisionGUID="4df5ade2-8de8-4300-a20d-f5508123780f" CreationDate="2012-11-07T18:04:54.110" UserId="81" Text="How are continuations assessed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3853" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1890" RevisionGUID="4df5ade2-8de8-4300-a20d-f5508123780f" CreationDate="2012-11-07T18:04:54.110" UserId="81" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;us5412730&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1891" RevisionGUID="c1c55539-5f6e-4d49-80f9-6b6a11ef1e74" CreationDate="2012-11-07T18:09:24.190" UserId="81" Text="For a patent I am looking at, I see it expired on May 2, 2012, but that the owner can continue to &quot;assert the patent after it expires with a look back period of six years&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3855" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1891" RevisionGUID="c1c55539-5f6e-4d49-80f9-6b6a11ef1e74" CreationDate="2012-11-07T18:09:24.190" UserId="81" Text="What is a look back period" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3856" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1891" RevisionGUID="c1c55539-5f6e-4d49-80f9-6b6a11ef1e74" CreationDate="2012-11-07T18:09:24.190" UserId="81" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3857" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="ed48f94e-fba2-42aa-91da-97a03888c0ff" CreationDate="2012-11-07T19:44:58.177" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/266265031912611840" />
  <row Id="3858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1892" RevisionGUID="e6888f46-1199-4448-a3a8-f0af24e1e05f" CreationDate="2012-11-07T20:13:16.363" UserId="96" Text="Interesting question.  What the patent holder is protected from is for others to &#xD;&#xA;&quot;make, use, sell or offer for sale&quot; the patented device.  It is possible that your scavenging the camera from a Wii controller could be construed as &quot;use,&quot; but that seems unlikely.  And anyway, as a purchaser of the Wii controller, you can use it however you wish - even resell it - without infringing Sony's presumed patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But my guess is that you don't intend to purchase a Wii controller, pull out the camera, throw the rest away, then make your new device and offer it for sale.  Seems like a pretty high overhead method of manufacture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If what you want to do is to purchase a camera **like** the camera in the Wii, then use the camera to make something new, you are not likely to step on any toes unless the camera is somehow restricted to only certain uses.  I am not sure how the manufacturer could do that.  As a *bona fide* purchaser, you will have the right to use the camera however you like - even if the camera itself is separately patented.  In purchasing the camera, you have already paid the patent holder for his intellectual property.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that last qualification brings up a another.  The device you make from the camera may infringe either the Wii controller patents or some other patented device (whether patented by Sony or someone else).  So you still have to consider that prospect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And just to be clear, if you intend to manufacture your own version of the camera instead of purchasing the camera component for your invention, then you need to be aware of anyone who may have patented the camera and arrange a license with them.  But that would not necessarily be Sony.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1894" RevisionGUID="8f0d0f77-8970-4b27-80c3-c5bececc135d" CreationDate="2012-11-07T23:34:05.583" UserId="1771" Text="You've probably heard of a statute of limitations in a criminal law context, well, the same applies in patent law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents, like many causes of actions based in contracts, have a 6 year statute of limitations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now what does that mean.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a patent is infringed while it is enforceable i.e. before it expires, the patent owner can sue the infringer up to 6 years after the patent expires.  This is important in a situation where the patent owner may not become aware of the infringement until after the patent expires." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1895" RevisionGUID="8aaad9f0-b0db-4e08-979e-772fc7a94a76" CreationDate="2012-11-07T23:43:35.897" UserId="1767" Text="Patent damages may be limited in a variety of ways. [35 U.S.C. § 286](http://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc-after-america-invents-act/286.html) provides for a “running” period limiting recovery of damages to no more than six years before commencement of a cause of action for infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 35 U.S.C. § 286 **Time limitation on damages** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Except as otherwise provided by law, no recovery shall be had for any infringement committed more than six years prior to the filing of the complaint or counterclaim for infringement in the action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not a time limit on bringing the infringement suit; it is a time limit on recovering damages. The public policy idea behind this limitation is to discourage patent holders from sitting on their rights while damages accrue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1892" RevisionGUID="0d66c5b8-b9b9-4344-bf46-6340c28e5f1b" CreationDate="2012-11-08T04:52:15.840" UserId="96" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Interesting question.  What the patent holder is protected from is for others to &#xD;&#xA;&quot;make, use, sell or offer for sale&quot; the patented device.  It is possible that your scavenging the camera from a Wii controller could be construed as &quot;use,&quot; but that seems unlikely.  And anyway, as a purchaser of the Wii controller, you can use it however you wish - even resell it - without infringing Sony's presumed patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But my guess is that you don't intend to purchase a Wii controller, pull out the camera, throw the rest away, then make your new device and offer it for sale.  Seems like a pretty high overhead method of manufacture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If what you want to do is to purchase a camera **like** the camera in the Wii, then use the camera to make something new, you are not likely to step on any toes unless the camera is somehow restricted to only certain uses.  I am not sure how the manufacturer could do that.  As a *bona fide* purchaser, you will have the right to use the camera however you like - even if the camera itself is separately patented.  In purchasing the camera, you have already paid the patent holder for his intellectual property.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that last qualification brings up a another.  The device you make from the camera may infringe either the Wii controller patents or some other patented device (whether patented by Nintendo or someone else).  So you still have to consider that prospect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And just to be clear, if you intend to manufacture your own version of the camera instead of purchasing the camera component for your invention, then you need to be aware of anyone who may have patented the camera and arrange a license with them.  But that would not necessarily be Nintendo.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1888" RevisionGUID="a4337713-2a1d-4001-9a41-919e914d8433" CreationDate="2012-11-08T11:08:15.893" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I have received a final office action with a rejection. My patent attorney advised going for an RCE (request for continued examination). How does it work? and how many RCE can one request?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3872" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1888" RevisionGUID="a4337713-2a1d-4001-9a41-919e914d8433" CreationDate="2012-11-08T11:08:15.893" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What is a request for continued examination?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3873" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1888" RevisionGUID="a4337713-2a1d-4001-9a41-919e914d8433" CreationDate="2012-11-08T11:08:15.893" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;process&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3874" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1888" RevisionGUID="b5ef7d05-dc14-4203-bbe7-7ef4b758a13f" CreationDate="2012-11-08T16:44:59.843" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/266582142119731201" />
  <row Id="3876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1897" RevisionGUID="a1d4b318-2cbb-40fd-a37e-0cf12fede19d" CreationDate="2012-11-08T16:47:54.290" UserId="1794" Text="Three years ago I was working in a public research organisation, and we obtained a patent, I am one of the authors, the research institution payed everything. Later I moved to a different country and institution. Since I am one of the authors of the patent, but I am in another institution, can I exploit commercially the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3877" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1897" RevisionGUID="a1d4b318-2cbb-40fd-a37e-0cf12fede19d" CreationDate="2012-11-08T16:47:54.290" UserId="1794" Text="Exploiting a patent after changing organization" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3878" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1897" RevisionGUID="a1d4b318-2cbb-40fd-a37e-0cf12fede19d" CreationDate="2012-11-08T16:47:54.290" UserId="1794" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3879" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1897" RevisionGUID="26bff08f-cba6-4ad7-8db5-8361071812d4" CreationDate="2012-11-08T17:22:21.070" UserId="1259" Comment="update tag " Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1900" RevisionGUID="40f4544b-dc0e-4136-af37-def46f068fde" CreationDate="2012-11-08T23:17:21.880" UserId="1777" Text="A complicated question indeed. Contrary to common language use, there generally is no such thing as a &quot;patented product&quot;. Rather, individual aspects of technology are patented, which may be embodied in zero, one or any number of physical products. Nintendo submitted dozens, if not hundreds of applications regarding the WiiMote alone. To find out which aspects fall under patent protection would require to look at each patent and understand the scope of its independent claims. As somebody else said, if the camera component of the WiiMote is patent protected, it is well possible that the patent proprietor is actually somebody other than Nintendo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find the view that the (paid) purchase of physical products frees you from patent restrictions when recombining and reselling its constituent parts dubious, to say the least. After all, in the end you are commercially selling patent protected technology. I certainly would not go down that route without proper legal consultation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3885" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1897" RevisionGUID="b616ef5a-8e9e-45dd-840f-e60118ae4558" CreationDate="2012-11-09T01:44:59.723" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/266718042996748289" />
  <row Id="3886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1901" RevisionGUID="d0f01fde-891b-4b0d-be28-46a3a9b02cdd" CreationDate="2012-11-09T01:51:28.990" UserId="1767" Text="#Background:#&#xD;&#xA;Last month a company called &quot;BE Technologies LLC&quot; filed suit in Tennessee against Facebook and Google on US Patent [6,628,314 - Computer interface method and apparatus with targeted advertising][1].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The Request   &#xD;&#xA;Prior art **from 1998 or earlier** which might be relevant to either independent claim of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Why?&#xD;&#xA;A Reexamination is a process whereby a third party (or inventor) can have a patent reexamined by a patent examiner to verify that the subject matter it claims is patentable. When a patent is placed in Reexam in the USPTO during litigation in the US district court it very often results in a motion by the defendant to stay pending litigation. District Judges will often issue an order to stay pending litigation while the USPTO completes the reexam process on the patents in the case.  Plaintiffs generally dislike this because it slows down litigation and drives up their cost.  In addition it is potentially a catastrophic result for the plaintiff's case if the patent is determined to be invalid by the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The Case&#xD;&#xA;**B.E. Technology, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.**  &#xD;&#xA;[2-12-cv-02769][2] Filed **9/7/12**&#xD;&#xA;Western District of Tennessee (Memphis)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Patent(s):** [US6628314][3] by Hoyle  &#xD;&#xA;**Title:** Computer interface method and apparatus with targeted advertising  &#xD;&#xA;**Abstract:** A method and apparatus for providing an automatically upgradeable software application that includes targeted advertising based upon demographics and user interaction with the computer.  &#xD;&#xA;**Issue Date:** Sept 30, 2003   &#xD;&#xA;**Priority Date:** US1998118351A / July 17, 1998 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Independent Claims ##&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 11.** A method of providing demographically-targeted advertising to a computer user, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- providing a server that is accessible via a computer network,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- permitting a computer user to access said server via said computer network,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- acquiring demographic information about the user, said demographic information including information specifically provided by the user in response to a request for said demographic information,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- providing the user with download access to computer software that, when run on a computer, displays advertising content, records computer usage information concerning the user's utilization of the computer, and periodically requests additional advertising content,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- transferring a copy of said software to the computer in response to a download request by the user,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- providing a unique identifier to the computer, wherein said identifier uniquely identifies information sent over said computer network from the computer to said server,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- associating said unique identifier with demographic information in a database,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- selecting advertising content for transfer to the computer in accordance with the demographic information associated with said unique identifier;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- transferring said advertising content from said server to the computer for display by said program,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- periodically acquiring said unique identifier and said computer usage information recorded by said software from the computer via said computer network, &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- and associating said computer usage information with said demographic information using said unique identifier. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 1.** A computer-readable memory for use by a computer to provide a user of the computer with an automatically-upgradeable software application, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- a non-volatile data storage device;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- a program stored on said non-volatile data storage device in a computer-readable format, said program comprising a plurality of program modules;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- at least one version identifier associated with one or more of said program modules, said version identifier(s) being stored on said non-volatile storage device;&#xD;&#xA;wherein one of said program modules is operable upon execution to access said stored version identifier(s) and at least one updated version identifier from a server via a global public network, with said updated version identifier(s) representing one or more updated program modules accessible from a server via the public network, wherein said one program module is further operable to download one or more updated program modules when said stored version identifier and said updated version identifier are different, with said updated program module(s) replacing one or more of said program modules stored on said data storage device, and, further, wherein said one program module is operable to store said updated version identifier. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Disclosure/disclaimer**  I have no financial relationship with either defendants or plaintiff in this case.  I have not read the patent except to copy and paste the claim and abstract above. I **am** curious about whether AskPatents can be used to find prior art for patents in recently-filed litigation.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6628314&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://bit.ly/TchKDL&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6628314" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3887" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1901" RevisionGUID="d0f01fde-891b-4b0d-be28-46a3a9b02cdd" CreationDate="2012-11-09T01:51:28.990" UserId="1767" Text="Prior Art on targeted advertising patent asserted against Facebook and Google by B.E. Technologies LLC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3888" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1901" RevisionGUID="d0f01fde-891b-4b0d-be28-46a3a9b02cdd" CreationDate="2012-11-09T01:51:28.990" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us6628314&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3889" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="863" RevisionGUID="7a76f494-4c9f-4c02-8933-52e917d00f35" CreationDate="2012-11-09T04:44:59.763" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/266763343279296512" />
  <row Id="3890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1902" RevisionGUID="83f646d2-5510-4fe4-8d2d-019c9db4cbcd" CreationDate="2012-11-09T07:22:56.813" UserId="1799" Text="It's seem to me that many computer text books before 1990 have include exercises about how to write a simple number translation program. I don't think this patent about number translator is valid, since this kind of programs have been mentioned in a lot of computer programming textbooks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3891" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1902" RevisionGUID="83f646d2-5510-4fe4-8d2d-019c9db4cbcd" CreationDate="2012-11-09T07:22:56.813" UserId="1799" Text="Computer text books before 1990 have included similar stuff, is this patent valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3892" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1902" RevisionGUID="83f646d2-5510-4fe4-8d2d-019c9db4cbcd" CreationDate="2012-11-09T07:22:56.813" UserId="1799" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1902" RevisionGUID="972d66dd-7945-412d-90e7-7204b305fbba" CreationDate="2012-11-09T07:29:14.190" UserId="1799" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="About Patent us6513002:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's seem to me that many computer text books before 1990 have include exercises about how to write a simple number translation program. I don't think this patent about number translator is valid, since this kind of programs have been mentioned in a lot of computer programming textbooks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1904" RevisionGUID="8f3897a7-8c97-40c0-9392-687eaf4fc05f" CreationDate="2012-11-09T10:17:53.520" UserId="1802" Text="I wrote many patent applications while at my former company. After I left the company, I refused to sign any more documents handing over full patent rights because the company owed me money. They replied that they would simply declare me as a non-cooperative inventor at the USPTO so that the patent applications would be evaluated and valid. However, this is not true, I am willing to cooperate and sign patent documents handing over ownership as long as I get paid money due (we are talking about $5000). Going to court is too expensive and not worth if for this amount of money. However, we are talking about nearly 14 different patent applications filed. Does anyone have suggestion on what I should do? Should I contact the USPTO and inform them of the situation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3896" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1904" RevisionGUID="8f3897a7-8c97-40c0-9392-687eaf4fc05f" CreationDate="2012-11-09T10:17:53.520" UserId="1802" Text="What happens if I refuse to hand over full patent ownership rights to my former company?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3897" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1904" RevisionGUID="8f3897a7-8c97-40c0-9392-687eaf4fc05f" CreationDate="2012-11-09T10:17:53.520" UserId="1802" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1905" RevisionGUID="9021e989-0042-43a5-abed-94f2026289f9" CreationDate="2012-11-09T11:50:33.590" UserId="1804" Text="Is this patent under the public domain? Does a patent being on &quot;public domain&quot; mean it can be used by anyone without a license from the patent holder? Or that it has been published by the patent office? A lot of HYIP are claiming it's &quot;(under public domain)&quot;, and they may claim usage of the word &quot;public domain&quot; as being published on Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I confirm if a patent is under the public domain [free for use to anyone]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3899" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1905" RevisionGUID="9021e989-0042-43a5-abed-94f2026289f9" CreationDate="2012-11-09T11:50:33.590" UserId="1804" Text="U.S. Patent 6578010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3900" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1905" RevisionGUID="9021e989-0042-43a5-abed-94f2026289f9" CreationDate="2012-11-09T11:50:33.590" UserId="1804" Text="&lt;public-domain&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1907" RevisionGUID="b2728c24-a228-4757-815f-88fdad18be30" CreationDate="2012-11-09T13:11:38.690" UserId="1803" Text="There are a lot of different standards in Telecommunication area, which based on patents created, by telecom corporations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, there is a technology LTE - standard for high-speed wireless communication, patents of it certain parts belongs to various telecom companies, such as Ericsson, Nokia, Motorola. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually, they form a consortium, supported by the International Telecommunication Union(ITU), which publishes standards and specifications for these technologies. So when you use the LTE hardware as third party, you pay royalties to this consortium. Money then distributed, depending on the patents, between corporations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lets consider abstract situation: I am implementing software, not the hardware method, which is implementation of standard, such as LTE base station module in Haskell(programming language) and publishing it under the GPL. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Will it be infringement of the patents associated with standard, or not?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*How OSS projects like [openBTS][1], who implemented GSM standard in C++ and published it under GPL licence, do note face problems of infringement?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBTS" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3905" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1907" RevisionGUID="b2728c24-a228-4757-815f-88fdad18be30" CreationDate="2012-11-09T13:11:38.690" UserId="1803" Text="Will software implementation of international standard, published under GPL, be a patent infringement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3906" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1907" RevisionGUID="b2728c24-a228-4757-815f-88fdad18be30" CreationDate="2012-11-09T13:11:38.690" UserId="1803" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;telecommunications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3907" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1907" RevisionGUID="43c15399-cf55-4c35-b740-5e2eb105b3ef" CreationDate="2012-11-09T13:17:05.967" UserId="1803" Comment="edited title" Text="Will be software implementation of international standard, published under GPL, a patent infringement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1907" RevisionGUID="43c15399-cf55-4c35-b740-5e2eb105b3ef" CreationDate="2012-11-09T13:17:05.967" UserId="1803" Comment="edited title" Text="There are a lot of different standards in Telecommunication area, which based on patents created, by telecom corporations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, there is a technology [LTE][1] - standard for high-speed wireless communication, patents of it certain parts belongs to various telecom companies, such as Ericsson, Nokia, Motorola. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually, they form a consortium, supported by the International Telecommunication Union(ITU), which publishes standards and specifications for these technologies. So when you use the LTE hardware as third party, you pay royalties to this consortium. Money then distributed, depending on the patents, between corporations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lets consider abstract situation: I am implementing software, not the hardware method, which is implementation of standard, such as LTE base station module in Haskell(programming language) and publishing it under the GPL. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Will it be infringement of the patents associated with standard, or not?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*How OSS projects like [openBTS][2], who implemented GSM standard in C++ and published it under GPL licence, do note face problems of infringement?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTE_%28telecommunication%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBTS" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1908" RevisionGUID="9c165217-e7f0-4983-8868-9620579ab6bc" CreationDate="2012-11-09T14:14:46.650" UserId="1806" Text="US8249994 Claim 19 appears to claim no more than&#xD;&#xA;1.  a mineral lease management system (managing information about oil and gas leases and wells)&#xD;&#xA;2.  allowing a user to input data about a lease over the Internet&#xD;&#xA;3.  the lease data includes &#xD;&#xA;- identification of the land&#xD;&#xA;- identification of the lease&#xD;&#xA;- a royalty amount or the lessor or the lessee or the term of the lease&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These programs have been around for decades - except the Internet portion.  iLandman, landpro, etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking for prior art adding the Internet portion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3910" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1908" RevisionGUID="9c165217-e7f0-4983-8868-9620579ab6bc" CreationDate="2012-11-09T14:14:46.650" UserId="1806" Text="Prior art for an oil and gas lease and royalty management software program" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3911" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1908" RevisionGUID="9c165217-e7f0-4983-8868-9620579ab6bc" CreationDate="2012-11-09T14:14:46.650" UserId="1806" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;internet&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1909" RevisionGUID="b838dfc2-2dd1-426b-920b-1510b987b88b" CreationDate="2012-11-09T14:59:08.967" UserId="1777" Text="Horrible, I agree. Without any doubt fundamentally unpatentable in many jurisdictions for lack of technical character alone (business method). Even if one were to move into an obviousness discussion, performing a known method **unspecifically** &quot;over the Internet&quot; and by &quot;storing data in a database&quot; certainly does not require inventive activity. Examiner fatigue maybe? Everybody involved stopped reading after claim 10?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1910" RevisionGUID="34ff9cba-b00f-42df-b348-49c2313205ed" CreationDate="2012-11-09T15:12:11.000" UserId="1807" Text="Sheila,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions regarding your inventorship rights need to be posed to a registered patent attorney or agent.  The answer is highly fact specific to your particular situation.  There was also a major change in the law that went into effect September 16 that needs to be taken into account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding what the company owes you, if someone owes you a small amount of money (e.g. $5,000) you may be able to take them to small claims court.  No attorney is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1905" RevisionGUID="73732373-d375-4ca4-a5fb-0a1bf87ec6bb" CreationDate="2012-11-09T17:36:25.507" UserId="7" Comment="added 57 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Is [this patent][1] under the public domain? Does a patent being on &quot;public domain&quot; mean it can be used by anyone without a license from the patent holder? Or that it has been published by the patent office? A lot of HYIP are claiming it's &quot;(under public domain)&quot;, and they may claim usage of the word &quot;public domain&quot; as being published on Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I confirm if a patent is under the public domain [free for use to anyone]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6578010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3915" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1905" RevisionGUID="73732373-d375-4ca4-a5fb-0a1bf87ec6bb" CreationDate="2012-11-09T17:36:25.507" UserId="7" Comment="added 57 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Is U.S. Patent 6578010 in the public domain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3916" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1905" RevisionGUID="73732373-d375-4ca4-a5fb-0a1bf87ec6bb" CreationDate="2012-11-09T17:36:25.507" UserId="7" Comment="added 57 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;public-domain&gt;&lt;us6578010&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1908" RevisionGUID="4c805a5d-d70f-4002-8e7e-000b57c0bfae" CreationDate="2012-11-09T17:43:14.963" UserId="7" Comment="formatting" Text="[US8249994][1] Claim 19 appears to claim no more than:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A mineral lease management system (managing information about oil&#xD;&#xA;    and gas leases and wells) &#xD;&#xA; - Allowing a user to input data about a lease over the Internet &#xD;&#xA; - The lease data includes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Identification of the land&#xD;&#xA;  - Identification of the lease&#xD;&#xA;  - A royalty amount or the lessor or the lessee or the term of the lease&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These programs have been around for decades - except the Internet portion.  iLandman, landpro, etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking for prior art adding the Internet portion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8249994" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3918" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1908" RevisionGUID="4c805a5d-d70f-4002-8e7e-000b57c0bfae" CreationDate="2012-11-09T17:43:14.963" UserId="7" Comment="formatting" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;internet&gt;&lt;us8249994&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1902" RevisionGUID="74f57eec-9e9f-4670-9e45-df4a6204d266" CreationDate="2012-11-09T17:48:49.773" UserId="7" Comment="added 163 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="About Patent [US6513002][1]: Rule-based number formatter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that many computer textbooks published before 1990 have include exercises about how to write a simple number translation program. I don't think this patent about a number translator is valid, since programs like these have been mentioned in a number of computer programming textbooks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any specific examples of prior art for US6513002?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6513002" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3920" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1902" RevisionGUID="74f57eec-9e9f-4670-9e45-df4a6204d266" CreationDate="2012-11-09T17:48:49.773" UserId="7" Comment="added 163 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Is patent US6513002 valid? Is there prior art in computer textbooks published prior to 1990?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3921" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1902" RevisionGUID="74f57eec-9e9f-4670-9e45-df4a6204d266" CreationDate="2012-11-09T17:48:49.773" UserId="7" Comment="added 163 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us6513002&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1911" RevisionGUID="7e1a3cac-0376-471c-b1a1-fe75b3c49e61" CreationDate="2012-11-09T20:13:54.283" UserId="1810" Text="As a programmer, this patent seems to be meaningless.  All it appears to do is take a spoken number and translates it into a numeric representation.  This seems like what many voice-recognition gadgets already do, especially cell-phones.  Plus, besides the initial voice input, the rest is a simple, common algorithm." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1912" RevisionGUID="76245543-d7ac-4b24-996c-b933614c3215" CreationDate="2012-11-09T20:14:13.800" UserId="1485" Text="The invention claimed in an expired, invalid, or otherwise unenforceable patent may be **in** the public domain.  I don't really know what you mean by:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A lot of HYIP are claiming it's &quot;(under public domain)&quot;, and they may claim usage of the word &quot;public domain&quot; as being published on Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But figuring out whether or not the claims of an issued patent are currently enforceable can be tricky.  For example, just figuring out the expiration date of a patent, barring any other intervening circumstances, is a several stage process:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**First, what is the basic term of the patent?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the mid-90s, there was a change in the law about how to calculate terms going forward, so you need to figure out what side of the line the patent is on. Patents that issued from applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, have a term that begins on the date the patent issued and ends twenty years from the date on which the application was filed. This is called the &quot;twenty-year term.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents issued before June 8, 1995, or issuing from applications filed before June 8, 1995, have a term that is the greater of (1) the twenty-year term or seventeen years from &#xD;&#xA;the date the patent issues. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So an application that was filed on June 8, 1995 and issued as a patent on April 5, 1997, would have a term that ran from April 5, 1997, to June 8, 2015. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the application underlying the '010 patent was filed on June 5, 1995, (and issued June 10, 2003) so the second analysis applies and its term is the greater of:&#xD;&#xA;(a) twenty years from the date on which the application was filed - June 5, 2015&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;(b) 17 years from the date on the patent issues - June 10, 2020 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the basic term of the '010 patent would be from June 10, 2003 to June 10, 2020.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Second, does the patent claim priority to an earlier filed application?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it does, figuring out the effect can be a complex process and, since the '010 patent does not claim priority to any earlier applications I'm not going to go into detail here - but the one point I'll make is that just because a patent *claims* priority to an earlier filed application on its face, it doesn't necessarily mean the patent is actually entitled to do so - you should make sure the patent complies with all the statutory requirements.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Third, did the applicant have to make a &quot;terminal disclaimer&quot;?**&#xD;&#xA;An applicant can avoid a &quot;non-statutory double patenting&quot; rejection of an application by making a &quot;terminal disclaimer&quot; (an explanation of that kind of rejection would be too much here, but it comes up pretty frequently. See [MPEP 804][1]).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A terminal disclaimer is a statement by the applicant in the prosecution file history that he/she &quot;disclaims&quot; part of their patent term. It can either state the patent term ends on a particular date or, more commonly, ends on whatever date some other, earlier patent's term ends. The pre/post June 8, 1995 term calculation can make this a bit complicated, but since the '010 patent does not seem to have a terminal disclaimer associated with it, we don't need to worry about that. (See [MPEP 2701][2] if you're interested.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fourth, finally, was the applicant entitled to a patent term extension?**&#xD;&#xA;Under certain circumstances, if the PTO takes too long to examine a patent application, the applicant will be entitled to have the term of the patent extended to make up for the delay. This rule does not apply to pre-June 8, 1995 applications, so we don't have to worry about it here.  However, it's worth noting that the PTO has gotten into trouble [more than once][3] for miscalculating extensions.  As with claims to priority, use the information on the face of a patent as a starting point, but before you take any actions in reliance on that information, you should always dig into the details and figure it out yourself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, after all that, 010 patent **could** be in force until June 10, 2020. However, two other factors may also come into play.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, the patent could have been invalidated or found to be unenforceable during litigation (or during a reexamination proceeding at the PTO).  Statistically, this only applies to a tiny fraction of patents, but if you need to rely on whether or not the patent is in force, it's worth checking. (I didn't check for the '010.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, the patent could have expired early.        &#xD;&#xA;35 USC 41 requires a patentee to pay periodic &quot;maintenance fees&quot; to keep their patent in force&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 3 years and 6 months after grant, $900&#xD;&#xA; - 7 years and 6 months after grant, $2,300&#xD;&#xA; - 11 years and 6 months after grant, $3,800&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find out whether or not a patentee has been keeping up on maintenance fees by looking up the patent on the [Patent Application Information Retrieval][4] (PAIR) site. (You can actually find out a ton of useful information here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking up the '010 patent on PAIR, it turns out it expired for failure to pay maintenance fees in 2007.  Under some circumstances the patentee can claw this back, but it's probably unlikely in this case.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, I'd say the claims of the '010 patent are in the public domain. &#xD;&#xA;(and I'd normally just check this first, but I thought I'd trick you into reading a long winded explanation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s804.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2701.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/11/exelixis-kappos-pta-rce.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1913" RevisionGUID="fb40f764-dbea-4416-95a2-278bdd830b09" CreationDate="2012-11-09T20:16:35.383" UserId="1335" Text="Infringement happens when you make, sell or use a method or product covered by a patent. (As always, note that there are many nuances.) So, yes, technically, if your software implements a method in the way it is claimed, it would be infringing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publishing the patent method in software under GPL by an implementer unaffiliated with the patent owner does not affect the patent owner's rights, because those rights are not the implementer's to give away. Only if the patent owners themselves published code or software containing the patented method under an open source license could those rights be lost. (And even then it's probably debatable.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason it is not much of a problem is that just because you would be infringing does not mean you are automatically not supposed to do something. A patent does not mean anything that infringes is automatically illegal and that you must not do it. A patent simply is a right for the patent owner to sue you if you indeed are infringing, and it's entirely at the patent owner's discretion. If the owner does not find out about the infringement or does not care (which happens pretty much all the time), you can continue infringing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big risk is that doing so, especially knowingly, may make you liable for future damages if a patent owner does decide to assert the patent somewhere down the line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus open source projects like OpenBTS may certainly be infringing patents, but it's not a problem until the patent owners decide to assert them. Considering that there is currently a negligible chance of OpenBTS eating into telecom equipment providers' business, the risk of them initiating legal action should be minimal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3936" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1902" RevisionGUID="3f1d1899-f844-4dc4-a3f9-b59085d630c2" CreationDate="2012-11-09T21:51:09.193" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;data-processing-language&gt;&lt;us6513002&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1910" RevisionGUID="1be61bee-11c9-40df-8698-48c478a4836a" CreationDate="2012-11-09T21:53:40.183" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="Questions regarding your inventorship rights need to be posed to a registered patent attorney or agent.  The answer is highly fact specific to your particular situation.  There was also a major change in the law that went into effect September 16 that needs to be taken into account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding what the company owes you, if someone owes you a small amount of money (e.g. $5,000) you may be able to take them to small claims court.  No attorney is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3938" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1908" RevisionGUID="c69c36fc-cc3a-4b17-aab6-64b79ce2e7ac" CreationDate="2012-11-09T21:54:35.407" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;data-processing-financial&gt;&lt;us8249994&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1912" RevisionGUID="19e21dac-15fe-42bf-8d98-e4c7065bbe15" CreationDate="2012-11-09T22:03:25.470" UserId="1485" Comment="edited body" Text="The invention claimed in an expired, invalid, or otherwise unenforceable patent may be **in** the public domain.  I don't really know what you mean by:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A lot of HYIP are claiming it's &quot;(under public domain)&quot;, and they may claim usage of the word &quot;public domain&quot; as being published on Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But figuring out whether or not the claims of an issued patent are currently enforceable can be tricky.  For example, just figuring out the expiration date of a patent, barring any other intervening circumstances, is a several stage process:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**First, what is the basic term of the patent?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the mid-90s, there was a change in the law about how to calculate terms going forward, so you need to figure out what side of the line the patent is on. Patents that issued from applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, have a term that begins on the date the patent issued and ends twenty years from the date on which the application was filed. This is called the &quot;twenty-year term.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents issued before June 8, 1995, or issuing from applications filed before June 8, 1995, have a term that is the greater of (1) the twenty-year term or seventeen years from &#xD;&#xA;the date the patent issues. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So an application that was filed on June 8, 1995 and issued as a patent on April 5, 1997, would have a term that ran from April 5, 1997, to June 8, 2015. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the application underlying the '010 patent was filed on June 5, 1995, (and issued June 10, 2003) so the second analysis applies and its term is the greater of:&#xD;&#xA;(a) twenty years from the date on which the application was filed - June 5, 2015&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;(b) 17 years from the date on the patent issues - June 10, 2020 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the basic term of the '010 patent would be from June 10, 2003 to June 10, 2020.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Second, does the patent claim priority to an earlier filed application?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it does, figuring out the effect can be a complex process and, since the '010 patent does not claim priority to any earlier applications I'm not going to go into detail here - but the one point I'll make is that just because a patent *claims* priority to an earlier filed application on its face, it doesn't necessarily mean the patent is actually entitled to do so - you should make sure the patent complies with all the statutory requirements.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Third, did the applicant have to make a &quot;terminal disclaimer&quot;?**&#xD;&#xA;An applicant can avoid a &quot;non-statutory double patenting&quot; rejection of an application by making a &quot;terminal disclaimer&quot; (an explanation of that kind of rejection would be too much here, but it comes up pretty frequently. See [MPEP 804][1]).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A terminal disclaimer is a statement by the applicant in the prosecution file history that he/she &quot;disclaims&quot; part of their patent term. It can either state the patent term ends on a particular date or, more commonly, ends on whatever date some other, earlier patent's term ends. The pre/post June 8, 1995 term calculation can make this a bit complicated, but since the '010 patent does not seem to have a terminal disclaimer associated with it, we don't need to worry about that. (See [MPEP 2701][2] if you're interested.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fourth, finally, was the applicant entitled to a patent term extension?**&#xD;&#xA;Under certain circumstances, if the PTO takes too long to examine a patent application, the applicant will be entitled to have the term of the patent extended to make up for the delay. This rule does not apply to pre-June 8, 1995 applications, so we don't have to worry about it here.  However, it's worth noting that the PTO has gotten into trouble [more than once][3] for miscalculating extensions.  As with claims to priority, use the information on the face of a patent as a starting point, but before you take any actions in reliance on that information, you should always dig into the details and figure it out yourself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, after all that, 010 patent **could** be in force until June 10, 2020. However, two other factors may also come into play.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, the patent could have been invalidated or found to be unenforceable during litigation (or during a reexamination proceeding at the PTO).  Statistically, this only applies to a tiny fraction of patents, but if you need to rely on whether or not the patent is in force, it's worth checking. (I didn't check for the '010.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, the patent could have expired early.        &#xD;&#xA;35 USC 41 requires a patentee to pay periodic &quot;maintenance fees&quot; to keep their patent in force&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 3 years and 6 months after grant, $900&#xD;&#xA; - 7 years and 6 months after grant, $2,300&#xD;&#xA; - 11 years and 6 months after grant, $3,800&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find out whether or not a patentee has been keeping up on maintenance fees by looking up the patent on the [Patent Application Information Retrieval][4] (PAIR) site. (You can actually find out a ton of useful information here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking up the '010 patent on PAIR, it turns out it expired for failure to pay maintenance fees in 2007.  Under some circumstances the patentee can claw this back, but it's probably unlikely in this case.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, I'd say the claims of the '010 patent are in the public domain. &#xD;&#xA;(and I'd normally just check PAIR first, but I thought I'd trick you into reading a long winded explanation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s804.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2701.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/11/exelixis-kappos-pta-rce.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3940" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1907" RevisionGUID="b42a56f6-1fe8-4ded-8012-04c4bafc489b" CreationDate="2012-11-09T22:45:00.183" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/267035148258799618" />
  <row Id="3941" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1901" RevisionGUID="c151e7b8-c9f3-4136-acd6-220bc6406563" CreationDate="2012-11-09T23:00:00.513" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;facebook&gt;&lt;us6628314&gt;&lt;google&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1917" RevisionGUID="209e24b3-cb40-4d61-8ae2-69741e0fd08a" CreationDate="2012-11-10T00:15:12.813" UserId="1767" Text="#Background:#&#xD;&#xA;US Patent [7,853,881][1] **Multi-user on-line real-time virtual social networks based upon communities of interest for entertainment, information or e-commerce purposes**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier this year a company called &quot;Real Time Social Inventions LLC&quot; filed suit in Delaware against Yammer, Salesforce, Facebook and five other defendants.  Facebook requested a reexamination of the '881 patent with the USPTO.  The Delaware case was stayed pending the disposition of the reexamination, which is ongoing now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If additional prior art were found it could be considered now, during the reexamination process, and could be submitted by a third party.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The Request   &#xD;&#xA;Prior art **from 2006 or earlier** which might be relevant to any claim of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Why?&#xD;&#xA;A Reexamination is a process whereby a third party (or inventor) can have a patent reexamined by a patent examiner to verify that the subject matter it claims is patentable. When a patent is placed in Reexamination in the USPTO during litigation in the US district court it very often results in a motion by the defendant to stay pending litigation. District Judges will often issue an order to stay pending litigation while the USPTO completes the reexamination process on the patents in the case (as the judge did in this case).  Plaintiffs generally dislike this because it slows down litigation and drives up their cost.  In addition it is potentially a catastrophic result for the plaintiff's case if the patent is determined to be invalid by the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The Case&#xD;&#xA;**Real Time Social Inventions LLC v. Facebook Inc.**  &#xD;&#xA;[1-12-cv-00185][2] Filed **2/14/12** (Happy Valentine's Day?)  &#xD;&#xA;District of Delaware (Wilmington)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Patent(s):** [7,853,881][3] by Hoyle  &#xD;&#xA;**Title:** Multi-user on-line real-time virtual social networks based upon communities of interest for entertainment, information or e-commerce purposes    &#xD;&#xA;**Abstract:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;In a multi-user online real-time network in which users access content associated with a plurality of social networks related by common communities of interest, an interactor client application is embedded in content pages accessed by a user, and the user is provided a list of other users and the content pages in the related social networks that they are accessing. The inteactor client application cooperates with an interactor server application on a network server to enable a user to view the content being accessed by multiple selected ones of the other users, and to interact with the other users online and in real time. &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The invention affords methods and systems that enable a user to find out particular information, content or products of interest by interacting with any of the members of a social network that share the same interest, or that are connected to the user through a known set of the social network members, or because of the activity they are engaged in, or content they are viewing at a given time.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Issue Date:** Dec 14, 2010   &#xD;&#xA;**Priority Date:** US2006836273P / Aug 8, 2006 /  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Independent Claims ##&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 1.** 1. A method of interacting in real-time with online users accessible through a computer network, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **accessing** by a first user a first real-time social network comprising a community of members having a specific predetermined common interest, the first real-time social network being within an interactor zone that includes one or a logical collection of related real-time social networks, the first user accessing the first real-time social network using an interactor client application that allows the first user to communicate in real-time with other online users who are members of said first or another one of said real-time social networks;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **displaying** in real-time to the first user identities of other users who are online at the time and who are members of the first or another one of said real-time social networks within said interactor zone and who choose to be identifiable; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **enabling** using the interactor client application real-time interaction by the first user with said selected ones of said other online users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 17.** A method of real-time online interacting with users logged on to social networks in a computer network, the social networks being part of an interactor zone that includes one or a logical collection of related real-time social networks, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **accessing** by a first user a first real-time social network in said interactor zone using an interactor client application that allows the first user to communicate in real-time with other online users who are members of said first or another one of said real-time social networks;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **displaying** in real-time to the first user a list of other users who are online at the time and are accessing social networks within said interactor zone which meet predetermined criteria established by the first user, said displaying comprising displaying content pages being accessed by said other users who choose to be identifiable;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **selecting** by the first user for interaction selected ones of said other users based upon the content of the content pages; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **enabling** real-time interaction by said client application between said first user and said selected ones of said other users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Disclosure/disclaimer**  I have no financial relationship with either defendants or plaintiff in this case.  I have not read the patent except to copy and paste the claim and abstract above. I **am** curious about whether AskPatents can be used to find prior art for patents in recently-filed litigation.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;*Please answer with any references to possible prior art OR interpretation of claims of the '881 patent*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7853881&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://bit.ly/S6nr4f&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7853881" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3943" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1917" RevisionGUID="209e24b3-cb40-4d61-8ae2-69741e0fd08a" CreationDate="2012-11-10T00:15:12.813" UserId="1767" Text="Prior Art on Multi-User Social Networks. Patent asserted against Yammer, Salesforce, Facebook and others by Real Time Social Inventions LLC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3944" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1917" RevisionGUID="209e24b3-cb40-4d61-8ae2-69741e0fd08a" CreationDate="2012-11-10T00:15:12.813" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;facebook&gt;&lt;us7853881&gt;&lt;yammer&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3947" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1905" RevisionGUID="a353b5ef-8e0d-4cef-8aa6-bb38db174e93" CreationDate="2012-11-10T07:45:00.010" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/267171049567817728" />
  <row Id="3948" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1908" RevisionGUID="539d4e2d-6b44-4b6c-9941-80a6afcde595" CreationDate="2012-11-10T10:44:59.897" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/267216350630535168" />
  <row Id="3949" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1901" RevisionGUID="b8121c28-0a63-49fe-9454-2a4f519c2efc" CreationDate="2012-11-10T13:45:00.290" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/267261652385275905" />
  <row Id="3950" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1917" RevisionGUID="2ba650e6-b3a8-4839-9026-5543b6494351" CreationDate="2012-11-11T01:45:03.363" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/267442867000188928" />
  <row Id="3951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1918" RevisionGUID="373259e8-1cb6-402d-b407-783ce6d073d1" CreationDate="2012-11-11T05:56:33.580" UserId="446" Text="On claim 1, it seems to me that you might be able to satisfy all the elements with the UNIX operating system, particularly with the talk and finger programs.  &quot;talk&quot; dates from around 1970, and &quot;finger&quot; from 1971.  A similar direction would be to look at many online BBSes or CompuServe/AOL, which usually had similar features.  It all depends on how you define &quot;real-time social network&quot; and &quot;interactor zone&quot;.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1919" RevisionGUID="27c2468b-6c8e-4683-8abb-05adcad84922" CreationDate="2012-11-11T05:58:35.887" UserId="446" Text="Another direction would be IRC, which dates from 1988, and the IRC web URL dates from 2003.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately, the authors of the patent define the terms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Social Network: Is a community of members or other individuals that share similar values or interests. Each member typically comes with a personal profile, which may contain demographics, psychographics or professional information. Each member may have no, a single, or a plurality of connections or relationships with other members within the social network. Each member may engage in activities, such as email communications, information sharing, etc., with other members. These individuals may grow the social network community by inviting others to connect to their community. A social network also includes individuals who engage in some common real-time activities online and share some common context. This includes, but is not limit to, shopping at the same online e-merchant website, browsing the same or related content pages, engaging in an online event or activities at the same time. A social network may extend to activities and individuals engaging in activities around a web page or an object referred to by such a web page. As used herein, the term &quot;users&quot; includes members, guest members, and others accessing a social network, and the term &quot;social&quot; is used in broadest sense to refer to communities of interest.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Interactor Zone (or Network): FIG. 3c shows a graphical representation of an interactor zone 330. An interactor zone is an organization of a logical collection of pages within which users may interact in a collection of related real-time social networks. As will be explained, any content page 304 (or 100-154 of FIGS. 1a-1f) may include an embedded interactor client software application, also referred to as an interactor console that enables on-line real-time access to social networks and interaction with other users. The non-inclusion of such an application does not exclude a page from an interactor zone. A content page may be mapped to only one interactor zone.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and, since this definition refers to &quot;pages&quot; and &quot;content pages&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Content: Any material such as text, graphics, video or/and audio delivered to a user online (Internet or any other network) through a website.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the term &quot;Social Network&quot;, most broadly, can refer to any collection of identifiable users, one instance of which is the collection of users who can log into a given UNIX system (including, anonymously).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The term &quot;Interactor Zone&quot; refers to a &quot;content page&quot; which is on a &quot;website&quot;.  One could argue that a UNIX terminal is itself capable of being a provider of &quot;content&quot; (though it is not a &quot;website&quot;, which is simply an _obvious_ extension).  The &quot;finger:&quot; URL scheme was first proposed in 1995 by Paul Hoffman (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-uri-url-finger-00), and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, basically all you need is a URL scheme that allows a web page to link to some kind of chat client.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;irc:&quot; URL scheme was proposed in October 2003 by Simon Butcher, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-butcher-irc-url-00.  This link http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Codev/RenderIrcAsURL suggests that Twiki implemented the URL scheme in November 2003.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;im:&quot; URL scheme was proposed in August 2004 by J. Peterson (http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3860.txt)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1920" RevisionGUID="6e2d9698-6043-417e-b98c-fb3029cbedf5" CreationDate="2012-11-11T05:59:18.163" UserId="1816" Text="Will my patent be approved, is it being looked at?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3954" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1920" RevisionGUID="6e2d9698-6043-417e-b98c-fb3029cbedf5" CreationDate="2012-11-11T05:59:18.163" UserId="1816" Text="My company is bankrupt is my patent valuable" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3955" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1920" RevisionGUID="6e2d9698-6043-417e-b98c-fb3029cbedf5" CreationDate="2012-11-11T05:59:18.163" UserId="1816" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1921" RevisionGUID="d04bf873-8148-4b5b-95a3-4a5bd07a1b00" CreationDate="2012-11-11T06:02:14.147" UserId="1770" Text="Probably not, but it depends on the law of the country in which you worked. In many places, the invention belongs _by law_ to the employer. It also depends on whether the invention is covered in your current country. I suggest you obtain professional advice before taking any actions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1922" RevisionGUID="c29fbea4-5802-41fe-94c2-d157f3a01382" CreationDate="2012-11-11T07:20:49.837" UserId="1817" Text="Claim 1 has to do with a mobile device using speech recognition on a remote server to place a phone call and is well known, however claim 2 has to do with &quot;connecting the call to the mobile communication device and the call to the telephone number as an incoming call to the mobile communication device using the telephony server.&quot; It's claim 2 that I'm having difficulty with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3958" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1922" RevisionGUID="c29fbea4-5802-41fe-94c2-d157f3a01382" CreationDate="2012-11-11T07:20:49.837" UserId="1817" Text="Art for a mobile speech access US20120253817" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3959" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1922" RevisionGUID="c29fbea4-5802-41fe-94c2-d157f3a01382" CreationDate="2012-11-11T07:20:49.837" UserId="1817" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3960" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1904" RevisionGUID="a559b9ec-4fa2-47a1-9a14-f88924bc5986" CreationDate="2012-11-11T10:45:03.133" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/267578768871268353" />
  <row Id="3961" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1902" RevisionGUID="0754f28f-8f0f-4ec3-a49f-bdb15b5a71e2" CreationDate="2012-11-11T16:45:03.090" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/267669369524469760" />
  <row Id="3962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1922" RevisionGUID="bc4caf84-a233-4ed3-ab39-08aeab2de7db" CreationDate="2012-11-11T18:40:04.573" UserId="1259" Comment="patent no tag and link" Text="Mobile speech attendant access [US20120253817][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 has to do with a mobile device using speech recognition on a remote server to place a phone call and is well known, however claim 2 has to do with &quot;connecting the call to the mobile communication device and the call to the telephone number as an incoming call to the mobile communication device using the telephony server.&quot; It's claim 2 that I'm having difficulty with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120253817" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3963" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1922" RevisionGUID="bc4caf84-a233-4ed3-ab39-08aeab2de7db" CreationDate="2012-11-11T18:40:04.573" UserId="1259" Comment="patent no tag and link" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20120253817&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1922" RevisionGUID="ee33daf6-244c-4b83-86a5-40d377961298" CreationDate="2012-11-11T19:17:44.807" UserId="76" Comment="added 1108 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="[US20120253817][1] Mobile speech attendant access, filed Apr 4, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 has to do with a mobile device using speech recognition on a remote server to place a phone call and is well known. Claim 2 has to do with &quot;connecting the call to the mobile communication device and the call to the telephone number as an incoming call to the mobile communication device using the telephony server.&quot; It's claim 2 that I'm having difficulty with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1\. A method for connecting to a telephone extension listed in a remote telephone directory, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * recording an audio token on a mobile communication device, wherein the audio token is associated with a telephone number included in the remote telephone directory;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * transmitting the audio token from the mobile communication device to a server over a digital channel;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * matching the audio token received at the server over the digital channel with a telephone number in the remote telephone directory that is associated with the audio token using a speech recognition program; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * connecting the mobile communication device with a telephone line associated with the telephone number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2\. The method of claim 1, wherein connecting the mobile communication device further comprises:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * calling the mobile communication device and the telephone number using a telephony server; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * connecting the call to the mobile communication device and the call to the telephone number as an incoming call to the mobile communication device using the telephony server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120253817" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3965" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1922" RevisionGUID="ee33daf6-244c-4b83-86a5-40d377961298" CreationDate="2012-11-11T19:17:44.807" UserId="76" Comment="added 1108 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Prior art for a mobile speech access US20120253817" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3966" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1922" RevisionGUID="ee33daf6-244c-4b83-86a5-40d377961298" CreationDate="2012-11-11T19:17:44.807" UserId="76" Comment="added 1108 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;data-processing-language&gt;&lt;us20120253817&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1920" RevisionGUID="3d570d9f-377d-4bdb-9179-29d2ae4bb820" CreationDate="2012-11-12T00:54:31.537" UserId="133" Comment="improved punctuation" Text="Will my patent be approved? Is it being looked at?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3968" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1920" RevisionGUID="3d570d9f-377d-4bdb-9179-29d2ae4bb820" CreationDate="2012-11-12T00:54:31.537" UserId="133" Comment="improved punctuation" Text="My company is bankrupt. Is my patent valuable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3969" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1920" RevisionGUID="3d570d9f-377d-4bdb-9179-29d2ae4bb820" CreationDate="2012-11-12T00:54:31.537" Comment="Proposed by 133 approved by 6 edit id of 273" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3970" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1920" RevisionGUID="765eb56f-25fb-4e68-acf9-693ca4321d99" CreationDate="2012-11-12T00:55:48.723" UserId="6" Comment="Modified wording to be a bit more specific and answerable." Text="My company is bankrupt and we have an outstanding patent application. Will it still be considered and possibly approved?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3971" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1920" RevisionGUID="765eb56f-25fb-4e68-acf9-693ca4321d99" CreationDate="2012-11-12T00:55:48.723" UserId="6" Comment="Modified wording to be a bit more specific and answerable." Text="Will my patent application still be considered if my company goes bankrupt?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1923" RevisionGUID="8dd17484-919d-4ba1-9081-c522e0a7e545" CreationDate="2012-11-12T06:27:07.543" UserId="758" Text="That'll depend on whether any more office actions are needed, and if so whether they're handled on time. For example, if the patent office sends out a rejection notice, your (your company's attorneys) need to respond within a specific time period. If a response isn't sent in time, the application is considered abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on how things were arranged between your company and the patent attorneys, all the costs for processing a patent *may* have been paid up-front, so they'll continue to prosecute it. On the other hand, if they're being paid hourly, and your company doesn't pay the bill, chances are pretty good they won't do much more work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not, however, automatic that filing a bankruptcy immediately disables all the patent applications, or anything like that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1924" RevisionGUID="fe2035eb-b8f8-4817-ada9-c8cc48619b76" CreationDate="2012-11-12T14:59:52.453" UserId="1819" Text="I'm working on a method of user authentication. I googled the whole web, different places like wikipedia, and some science jurnals and didn't find the strategy I'm using. Can my strategy be copyrighted or patent so that nobody else can use it unless they ask for my permission ? Can a strategy be registered ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3974" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1924" RevisionGUID="fe2035eb-b8f8-4817-ada9-c8cc48619b76" CreationDate="2012-11-12T14:59:52.453" UserId="1819" Text="Registering Patent, Can a way of doing things be resgitered as patent or copyrighted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3975" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1924" RevisionGUID="fe2035eb-b8f8-4817-ada9-c8cc48619b76" CreationDate="2012-11-12T14:59:52.453" UserId="1819" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1925" RevisionGUID="a29f07fa-ea8d-4911-8b59-5325acd7083d" CreationDate="2012-11-12T17:17:11.410" UserId="758" Text="At least in the US, &quot;processes&quot; and &quot;methods&quot; can fall within the range of patentable subject matter. To be at all sure of a valid patent, you'd probably want to write it to require a specific machine (e.g., &quot;digital computer&quot;) carrying out the steps, not just the steps themselves. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a while, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had a rule that said to be valid, a process/method had to involve either a change in matter (e.g., mixing chemicals to give some sort of chemical reaction) or else a specific machine to carry out the steps. The US Supreme court recently said that couldn't be taken as an *absolute* rule, but still said it was a useful guideline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A copyright would apply to code you wrote to implement the process/method, not (generally) to the process/method itself. There have been cases about copyrights being applied to the &quot;look and feel&quot; of a product (i.e., to how its user interface looks and works) but I'd tend to be wary of depending on that. Decisions in that area haven't produced a simple, easy to understand set of rules about what is or isn't likely to be covered. In any case, at least based on what you've said, chances are pretty good that your &quot;strategy&quot; would have little or no direct, visible representation in the UI." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1923" RevisionGUID="eb732ba2-a336-4cb1-8719-488a734ea47d" CreationDate="2012-11-12T17:24:29.080" UserId="758" Comment="added 396 characters in body" Text="That'll depend on whether any more office actions are needed, and if so whether they're handled on time. For example, if the patent office sends out a rejection notice, your (your company's attorneys) need to respond within a specific time period. If a response isn't sent in time, the application is considered abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on how things were arranged between your company and the patent attorneys, all the costs for processing a patent *may* have been paid up-front, so they'll continue to prosecute it. On the other hand, if they're being paid hourly, and your company doesn't pay the bill, chances are pretty good they won't do much more work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not, however, automatic that filing a bankruptcy immediately disables all the patent applications, or anything like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I almost forgot one crucial point: there's (at least normally) a fee due when a patent is issued. As such, assuming the patent office did approve your application, you'd normally need to come up with some money to get it issued. The fee isn't terribly high though (around $600, if memory serves) so even a company in bankruptcy proceedings can probably come up with the money to pay it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3981" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1922" RevisionGUID="cd8c3223-9551-4f3e-8a13-e9e0f4f8ac92" CreationDate="2012-11-12T19:45:03.567" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/268077076765089792" />
  <row Id="3982" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1924" RevisionGUID="51bba364-b522-4a43-8c98-109634343749" CreationDate="2012-11-12T23:06:03.817" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3983" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1924" RevisionGUID="40a6ba5c-e5a6-429f-80b9-753fc41e5f12" CreationDate="2012-11-13T01:45:03.480" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/268167677778997248" />
  <row Id="3984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1924" RevisionGUID="dbc9fdf1-8fff-40c6-958f-d8e740c7d729" CreationDate="2012-11-13T15:23:52.910" UserId="1259" Comment="corrected typos, capitalization" Text="I'm working on a method of user authentication. I Googled the whole web, different places like Wikipedia, and some science journals and didn't find the strategy I'm using. Can my strategy be copyrighted or patent so that nobody else can use it unless they ask for my permission? Can a strategy be registered?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3985" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1924" RevisionGUID="dbc9fdf1-8fff-40c6-958f-d8e740c7d729" CreationDate="2012-11-13T15:23:52.910" UserId="1259" Comment="corrected typos, capitalization" Text="Registering Patent, Can a way of doing things be registered as patent or copyrighted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1926" RevisionGUID="2dd61171-16cd-4f3b-ab7b-937ca3f6b9b4" CreationDate="2012-11-13T16:46:10.403" UserId="1821" Text="Does anyone know of a situation in which a terminal disclaimer would not be appropriate in a nonstatutory double patenting rejection where the asserted patent and pending application are co-owned?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3987" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1926" RevisionGUID="2dd61171-16cd-4f3b-ab7b-937ca3f6b9b4" CreationDate="2012-11-13T16:46:10.403" UserId="1821" Text="Terminal Disclaimer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3988" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1926" RevisionGUID="2dd61171-16cd-4f3b-ab7b-937ca3f6b9b4" CreationDate="2012-11-13T16:46:10.403" UserId="1821" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1927" RevisionGUID="75b36292-a285-46c8-94dc-c8edb477d7a2" CreationDate="2012-11-13T17:01:48.540" UserId="1822" Text="It shouldn't be too hard to find prior art on [patent application 20120284783][1]. The primary claim is taking apart the password to identify common words or patterns. The password is checked by various weighted rules and given a final score to determine whether it passes or fails. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example of prior art that I can think of right away is https://tech.dropbox.com/2012/04/zxcvbn-realistic-password-strength-estimation/#comment-493768402.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20120284783.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20120284783RS=DN/20120284783" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3990" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1927" RevisionGUID="75b36292-a285-46c8-94dc-c8edb477d7a2" CreationDate="2012-11-13T17:01:48.540" UserId="1822" Text="Prior art for analyzing passwords" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3991" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1927" RevisionGUID="75b36292-a285-46c8-94dc-c8edb477d7a2" CreationDate="2012-11-13T17:01:48.540" UserId="1822" Text="&lt;passwords&gt;&lt;authentication&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3992" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1927" RevisionGUID="d118b799-1f61-4e89-9732-7e13ba105fc9" CreationDate="2012-11-13T17:21:09.220" UserId="1822" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;passwords&gt;&lt;authentication&gt;&lt;20120284783&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1928" RevisionGUID="d0646a80-77d8-4ec2-82fa-fe6018e9610a" CreationDate="2012-11-13T19:12:21.973" UserId="1335" Text="Actually, even claim 1 is not as straightforward as it seems at first glance, because it is vague about how the &quot;connecting the mobile communication device with a telephone line associated with the telephone number&quot; step works. It could be interpreted in two ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If the phone number detected by the server from the audio token is sent *back* to the mobile device, which then calls the number, then that is along the lines of commonly known prior art, such as voice dialing. (Modern voice dialing actually works by performing speech recognition on the device itself, because the limited vocabulary required allows it. However, shifting the speech recognition to the server is obvious.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. But the claim could also be interpreted to mean that the *server itself* initiates the connection between the caller and the callee, which is what the second claim indicates. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the independent claim is vague about it, it should be rejected for 1) indefiniteness, and 2) being non-novel/obvious in light of voice dialing prior art. My guess is, that after the initial rejection, the applicants will modify it to include that interpretation in the first claim. So relevant prior art should probably mention telephony server-initiated calls. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second claim further says that after you speak the number, you *receive* a call, which connects you to the number you called. Connecting two numbers so that they both receive an incoming call is a very old capability, and it has been possible since the days when operators manually connected calls. (It's a bit odd to get one like this: you get a call, you pick it up and you hear a ringing dial tone.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, even the second interpretation should be an easy obviousness-type rejection. I have only briefly looked at this area before, but I believe there is tons of relevant prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1929" RevisionGUID="657fe024-5e63-4349-bd00-0f2300059e91" CreationDate="2012-11-13T19:45:03.053" UserId="1823" Text="If so, how would I do so?  And why would patent law allow it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3995" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1929" RevisionGUID="657fe024-5e63-4349-bd00-0f2300059e91" CreationDate="2012-11-13T19:45:03.053" UserId="1823" Text="Could I patent a robust communication protocol (aka Morse code)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3996" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1929" RevisionGUID="657fe024-5e63-4349-bd00-0f2300059e91" CreationDate="2012-11-13T19:45:03.053" UserId="1823" Text="&lt;telecommunications&gt;&lt;protocol&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1930" RevisionGUID="b8016e43-f813-4bd7-bb3a-d9bdffbee889" CreationDate="2012-11-13T21:41:28.587" UserId="1485" Text="Yes.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By filing a patent application with the patent office.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To promote the progress of the useful arts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3998" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1929" RevisionGUID="368e2bbb-8517-443b-91a7-72983f34e301" CreationDate="2012-11-13T21:51:04.643" UserId="1259" Comment="tagged" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;telecommunications&gt;&lt;protocol&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1931" RevisionGUID="8158f342-3bfc-4583-aac4-57c9e9303c47" CreationDate="2012-11-14T03:47:42.650" UserId="1698" Text="Once your patent application is under a final rejection, your options are limited. There are several other options for specific cases, but here are the 3 main ones: 1. You can give up trying for a patent and allow your application to go abandoned. 2. You can appeal the final rejection to the Board. 3. You can file an RCE, amend the claims, and take another try at allowable claims. After the RCE is filed, it's similar to the original filing of the patent application, but you start the process right where you are. You need to amend the claims to overcome the current rejections, or you will get a first action final rejection and be right back where you started. There is currently no limit on the number of RCEs you can serially file." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1933" RevisionGUID="c86cf9f6-4ab3-4359-b9c8-ba931c5375ff" CreationDate="2012-11-14T08:10:59.380" UserId="1825" Text="This is a concept question for my and hopefully others' benefit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have recently developed a working prototype for a medical application. It is based on a principle that was developed in the 1960's and is an area of active research in universities around the world. Since my prototype is now functional, I plan to make a commercial product out of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the sake of this discussion, let us assume that I am building a thermometer that transmits the sensed temperature to the cloud so the user can trend his temperature changes on his smartphone. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did a patent search a found a few patents that are recently awarded that are very broad. My questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. In this case, measuring the temperature using a temperature sensor is a basic principle in science. So if I build a thermometer, do I have to pay royalties to existing patent holders of such a basic application? &#xD;&#xA;2. The existing patents also claim sending the measured data to the cloud for trending and later viewing. Does it mean that I cannot build similar functionality without paying royalties?&#xD;&#xA;3. If the existing patents claim N sensing units for measuring the temperature, does it mean that they have a patent on 2,3,4,..to..infinity sensors? Can I make a product with 3 sensing units without infringing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are general questions that will help a novice get started. I plan to get professional help, I am just trying to understand what to expect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4007" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1933" RevisionGUID="c86cf9f6-4ab3-4359-b9c8-ba931c5375ff" CreationDate="2012-11-14T08:10:59.380" UserId="1825" Text="Is it possible to get around broad patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4008" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1933" RevisionGUID="c86cf9f6-4ab3-4359-b9c8-ba931c5375ff" CreationDate="2012-11-14T08:10:59.380" UserId="1825" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4013" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1933" RevisionGUID="38e91587-d64b-429a-8cd4-02cdcf0d9e55" CreationDate="2012-11-14T22:45:03.537" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/268847186236813314" />
  <row Id="4014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1935" RevisionGUID="d966a532-6743-487c-8fb0-de4dfd8e9aae" CreationDate="2012-11-15T00:20:34.160" UserId="1830" Text="This patent is for putting a gear on a spindle shaft.  This has been done in automobiles, airplanes and machines for years.  Putting a gear with spindle spacing on the inside and actual gears on the outside is common.  Doing so on a servo motor spindle shaft is no different.  BTW, I am not the first to complain about this patent. Is the US Patent Office not paying attention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kudos to the &quot;inventor&quot; of this &quot;unique&quot; technology for pulling the wool over the USPTO's eyes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one chooses to build something that uses a gear on the spindle shaft of a servo are they doomed to license fees or can the patent be contested?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4015" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1935" RevisionGUID="d966a532-6743-487c-8fb0-de4dfd8e9aae" CreationDate="2012-11-15T00:20:34.160" UserId="1830" Text="us7795768 - Patenting something already used elsewhere" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4016" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1935" RevisionGUID="d966a532-6743-487c-8fb0-de4dfd8e9aae" CreationDate="2012-11-15T00:20:34.160" UserId="1830" Text="&lt;non-obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4017" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1935" RevisionGUID="11c1b3ef-7546-46e9-85a6-83bbe67f4bf1" CreationDate="2012-11-15T00:43:53.723" UserId="7" Comment="added tags" Text="&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;us7795768&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1936" RevisionGUID="4a3bfeb6-e57d-4555-b857-13bbc76539d5" CreationDate="2012-11-15T12:36:12.890" UserId="998" Text="The PTO has used terminal disclaimers for a long time when a single entity is trying to obtain several patents that are very similar to one another.  The terminal disclaimer typically links the term of a pending application to the term of another patent.  Thus, the impact is that the patent term will be shortened. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The usual patent term is 20 years from the filing date.  With a terminal disclaimer, that term might be cut short to say 18 years. So, what we are talking about here is the last few years of the patent term. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Companies that care about those last few years (such as pharmaceuticals) typically try to refuse to submit a terminal disclaimer.  Many others go ahead and submit terminal disclaimers because it makes the patenting process easier. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most terminal-disclaimer situations today, the pending application has the same priority filing date as the related issued patent.  In that situation the two patents will have the same patent term anyway (because patent term is calculated from the priority filing date*).  However, even in this situation a terminal disclaimer could be harmful because it could cut eliminate any patent term adjustment due to USPTO delays in the prosecution. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1937" RevisionGUID="eb909175-ce47-4bf6-b7bb-1edb0e04014d" CreationDate="2012-11-15T12:50:10.423" UserId="998" Text="This is a multi-layered question.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) An inventor who fully assigns his patent rights to someone else (such as his employer) generally does not have any right to practice the invention. Now, you could have contracted for a license-back, but I suspect that you did not.  In addition, you should remember that patents expire early because companies decide not to pay the renewal (maintenance) fees.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Patents are territorial.  Thus, the fact that a patent exists in the USA has no bearing on whether someone can practice the invention in Canada or Germany.  It is expensive to get patents in every country and so there is a good chance that it is not patented in your new country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Former employees should always be concerned with being accused of a breach of confidentiality, trade secret violation, and breach of a covenant not to compete.  I do not know your particular situation, but one nice thing is that the patent is public and so there can't be any accusations of trade secret violations for using that invention. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4020" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1935" RevisionGUID="c139ced2-5e75-400a-bcc2-000534ea1834" CreationDate="2012-11-15T13:45:09.727" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/269073716091170816" />
  <row Id="4021" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1935" RevisionGUID="adb3f0ff-8835-47fc-8057-7a0b0faa8cf7" CreationDate="2012-11-15T13:57:46.107" UserId="1259" Comment="tagged" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;us7795768&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4022" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1926" RevisionGUID="ce86c7e5-0996-47aa-acef-9216f64c1b05" CreationDate="2012-11-15T16:45:09.983" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/269119016776376320" />
  <row Id="4024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1935" RevisionGUID="71fed992-ff0b-4e08-91f7-d9776fd9c6c3" CreationDate="2012-11-15T19:39:06.640" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 145 characters in body" Text="This patent is for putting a gear on a spindle shaft.  This has been done in automobiles, airplanes and machines for years.  Putting a gear with spindle spacing on the inside and actual gears on the outside is common.  Doing so on a servo motor spindle shaft is no different.  BTW, I am not the first to complain about this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one chooses to build something that uses a gear on the spindle shaft of a servo are they doomed to license fees or can the patent be contested?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1938" RevisionGUID="f112bbd4-4c74-428b-b49e-6d7ee19078fd" CreationDate="2012-11-15T21:45:36.837" UserId="1777" Text="The independent claims all appear to be significantly more specific than you state. Can you provide evidence that the specific configuration described in the independent claims was actually in use before the priority date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether the transfer of some known technology into a different application area is obvious or not, strongly depends on the circumstances of the individual case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples you mentioned all concern machines which are significantly larger, made from different materials, are significantly more expensive, have to deal with entirely different forces, and may be designed for entirely different life spans. Therefore, it does not  necessarily strike me as immediately obvious to use the same gear configuration in a small and inexpensive hobby servo motor, where the technology and requirements may be entirely different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, one has to remember that it is fundamentally impossible to judge obviousness by looking **at the claimed invention alone**. Obviousness is a concept that is always defined **relative to the pertinent closest prior art**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest prior art in this case would be the (most similar) type of gear connection previously used in hobby servo machines. The question then is whether the skilled person would find the motivation to modify that closest prior art to arrive at the claimed solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an analysis that should be performed in a much more rigorous and systematic manner than looking at the solution and then saying &quot;hey, this looks like something I know&quot;. This latter approach has all the signs of hindsight (a.k.a. *ex post facto analysis*), or what I like to call the [Any Idiot Could Have Come Up With The Car][1] fallacy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.theonion.com/articles/any-idiot-could-have-come-up-with-the-car,11252/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="91" RevisionGUID="2dd381f4-d30e-49fc-b31b-16d839a9bb30" CreationDate="2012-11-16T02:20:43.200" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's one of the reasons why version 3 of the GPL specifically states that you must grant all downstream recipients of a covered work an irrevocable, royalty free license to the patented component, or you can't distribute the software. Redhat reached the first licensing deal that [complied with this requirement][1]. That is a good step, but not a solution. Patent threats can pop up like moles in a game of whack-a-mole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a myriad of patents that could potentially apply to any sufficiently complex piece of software, such as a file system, and no license (no matter what version or conditions implemented) can solve that problem. The problem is, parts of complex software are often _already_ patented, but the patents are unknown to the author. It can be just a matter of time before a patent holder discovers a possible infringement and begins to take action - or the 'infringing' parts may remain undiscovered forever. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember, you're not patenting _code_, your patenting what it _implements_ or _accomplishes_. Thus, you could take that bit of code, re-write it in a completely different language and you still have the patent problem to deal with. The copyright changed because the work is your own (thus the license no longer applies), but the patent remains because the code still implements or accomplishes the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If _no_ patent exists that could apply to the software, then the software itself would be prior art - but that might not stop the patent from being granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://truthhappens.redhat.com/2008/06/12/red-hat-patent-settlement-compatible-with-gplv3/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1940" RevisionGUID="d97e0681-3f78-432e-98b8-905bc2c2d7c0" CreationDate="2012-11-16T23:42:07.433" UserId="1840" Text="Apple have just been granted patent D670,713. &quot;Display screen or portion thereof with animated graphical user interface &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PTXT&amp;s1=D670,713.PN.&amp;OS=PN/D670,713&amp;RS=PN/D670,713&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opinion and possible prior art references here:&#xD;&#xA;http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/apple-now-owns-the-page-turn/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4033" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1940" RevisionGUID="d97e0681-3f78-432e-98b8-905bc2c2d7c0" CreationDate="2012-11-16T23:42:07.433" UserId="1840" Text="Apple patent page turning animation - any prior art to invalidate this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4034" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1940" RevisionGUID="d97e0681-3f78-432e-98b8-905bc2c2d7c0" CreationDate="2012-11-16T23:42:07.433" UserId="1840" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;animation&gt;&lt;page-turning&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1941" RevisionGUID="578b3820-c148-4542-8cd8-04ac78cc1a2b" CreationDate="2012-11-17T10:20:12.457" UserId="1843" Text="In my opinion patent [US20120105464][1], filed by Google on May 31, 2011 , shows the exact same image (see Figure 5). The only difference is that the cylinder in Apple's case has a radius of 0, so there would be no curve to the page turn. The other difference is that Google actually describes how the invention works, while Apple simply shows what it looks like. Google's patent wasn't cited by Apple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand patent [US7171630][2] was cited in Apple's reference list. It shows some images that are pretty similar to Apple's design, except the page curves a little bit as it is turned, rather than being flat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120105464&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7171630&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1942" RevisionGUID="b8a720ad-24a4-4897-b658-5a4ccacbd708" CreationDate="2012-11-17T13:13:13.257" UserId="1844" Text="A company named Appsbar has obtained a US utility patent on code generation as used for creating cross-platform apps for mobile devices: [US8261231][1]. This patent was filed for on **Feb 14, 2012**. Since I definitely recall various solutions for this prior to mid-February of this year, I am opening up a call to collect prior art, to help anyone looking to get this patent re-examined or otherwise invalidated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Techdirt article][2] that brought my attention to the patent cites the now-defunct [Whoop][3] as being a possible prior implementation of this technology, also pointing to [this article on Whoop][4]. Note that the Techdirt link to an [About.com list of tools][5] does not really fit the patent -- while the non-Whoop entries in that list represent cross-platform mobile development, they do not represent code generation of the style claimed in the patent (IMHO, IANALNDIPOOTV, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related to the Techdirt comments as presently written:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [App Inventor][6], cited by some as prior art, does not create cross-platform apps, as of now (and therefore would not be prior art even if it gets this capability in the future)&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I wrote an app to do this on the Apple Newton&quot; probably also did not create cross-platform apps&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will amend this question from time to time with prior art that I uncover -- if you have additional prior art, please contribute an answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8261231&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20121116/02165221072/patent-office-perhaps-forgetting-what-year-it-is-locks-down-mobile-app-development-platforms.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.crunchbase.com/company/whoop&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://davewalters.me/startups/item/69-whoop-powers-cross-platform-mobile-development&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://mobiledevices.about.com/od/mobileappbasics/tp/Top-5-Tools-Multi-Platform-Mobile-App-Development.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://appinventor.mit.edu/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4037" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1942" RevisionGUID="b8a720ad-24a4-4897-b658-5a4ccacbd708" CreationDate="2012-11-17T13:13:13.257" UserId="1844" Text="Any Prior Art on Mobile App Code Generators?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4038" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1942" RevisionGUID="b8a720ad-24a4-4897-b658-5a4ccacbd708" CreationDate="2012-11-17T13:13:13.257" UserId="1844" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us8261231&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1943" RevisionGUID="9ed7c9f8-17bb-4ab3-8b7b-57cc9d1707a4" CreationDate="2012-11-17T14:35:36.973" UserId="1845" Text="I'm new here, but I'll take a shot (also, I would use links, but apparently I don't have enough reputation. Maybe a moderator could put the links back?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In May 1995, Qt was released publicly, a cross-platform GUI for C++ (already a cross-platform language), which enabled an application written once to be deployed on both Linux and Windows. Support for Mac OS X was added in 2001, making it tri-platform. [[Qt History]] The Qt project spawned many GUI builders similar to the one described in the patent application, of which Qt Designer was built into an IDE. [[Qt GUI Builders]]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In December 1996, the Java Foundation Classes (now called Swing) for Java were announced, and these allowed Java applications to write the same GUI for multiple platforms with the same code, while maintaining native look-and-feel. [[JFC Announcement]] Netbeans has included a GUI builder from at least version 5.0 [[Verion 5.0 release]], and the project (Project Matisse) has been under public development from at least 2005 [[Lead developer]].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In March 2009, PhoneGap was revealed, a framework that enables a single HTML+CSS+Javascript application to be deployed to iPhone, Android and Blackberry, while still utilizing native functions (and therefore, more advanced than simply a browser) [[PhoneGap Article]]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  -[Qt History]: -http://my.safaribooksonline.com/0131872494/pref04&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  -[Qt GUI Builders]: -http://doc.qt.digia.com/qq/qq14-designer.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  -[JFC Announcement]: -http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&amp;STORY=/www/story/84048&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  -[Verion 5.0 release]: -http://netbeans.org/community/releases/50/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  -[Lead developer]: -http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/articles/javase/violet-pavek-qa-140197.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  -[PhoneGap Article]: -http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Application-Development/PhoneGap-Simplifies-iPhone-Android-BlackBerry-Development-788189/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1944" RevisionGUID="f30ed343-b84a-46b5-8b8e-24c6d497d130" CreationDate="2012-11-17T16:56:59.107" UserId="1844" Text="US8261231 &quot;claims benefit to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/472,609, which was filed on Apr. 6, 2011... The contents of the above-identified applications are incorporated by reference in their entirety as if recited in full herein.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am having difficulty finding the provisional patent application, so that we can examine its contents and know what portions of US8261231 are effective February 14, 2012 and what portions are effective April 6, 2011. Anyone know how we can search for US provisional patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4041" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1944" RevisionGUID="f30ed343-b84a-46b5-8b8e-24c6d497d130" CreationDate="2012-11-17T16:56:59.107" UserId="1844" Text="Searching for US Provisional Patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4042" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1944" RevisionGUID="f30ed343-b84a-46b5-8b8e-24c6d497d130" CreationDate="2012-11-17T16:56:59.107" UserId="1844" Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;us8261231&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1945" RevisionGUID="0272d125-514f-4177-86c9-ff1543e71df8" CreationDate="2012-11-17T18:13:06.843" UserId="1848" Text="GLBasic certainly fills the bill of prior art for this.  It's a lesser known platform that is primarily used for game development, however it can be used for traditional app development as well.  Developers create applications in a proprietary Basic dialect that at compile time generates a native application for the desired platform.  At present it targets the following platforms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Windows&#xD;&#xA;Mac OSX&#xD;&#xA;iOS&#xD;&#xA;Android&#xD;&#xA;Web OS (Palm Pre/HP Touchpad/etc...)&#xD;&#xA;Canoo&#xD;&#xA;GP2X&#xD;&#xA;GP2XWIZ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Future support is planned for HTML5 and Windows Phone 8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current release was released on Sept 13th of 2011, but this platform has been around much longer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find more information via wikipedia here [GLBasic on wikipedia][1]&#xD;&#xA;Or at the official home page here [enter link description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLBasic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://glbasic.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1946" RevisionGUID="0d097764-25d6-4f58-a4d9-30fbb7976775" CreationDate="2012-11-17T19:12:29.613" UserId="1777" Text="Pending applications can be searched through [AppFT][1] (when they have been published).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just enter 61/472,609 into the field (top left) and hit search. I get exactly one result concerning &quot;SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR A MOBILE APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT PLATFORM&quot;. Is this what you're looking for?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1945" RevisionGUID="f9751247-733f-478d-bfce-47e830ce1427" CreationDate="2012-11-17T19:13:51.170" UserId="1848" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="GLBasic certainly fills the bill of prior art for this.  It's a lesser known platform that is primarily used for game development, however it can be used for traditional app development as well.  Developers create applications in a proprietary Basic dialect that at compile time generates a native application for the desired platform.  At present it targets the following platforms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Windows&#xD;&#xA; - Mac OSX&#xD;&#xA; - iOS&#xD;&#xA; - Android&#xD;&#xA; - Web OS (Palm Pre/HP Touchpad/etc...)&#xD;&#xA; - Canoo&#xD;&#xA; - GP2X&#xD;&#xA; - GP2XWIZ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Future support is planned for HTML5 and Windows Phone 8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current release was released on Sept 13th of 2011, but this platform has been around much longer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find more information via wikipedia here [GLBasic on wikipedia][1]&#xD;&#xA;Or at the official home page here [GLBasic.com][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLBasic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://glbasic.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1947" RevisionGUID="1e1b989b-897c-4c26-896e-e11f45ea79c2" CreationDate="2012-11-17T20:50:36.567" UserId="1485" Text="By making a written request to the patent office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s103.html#d0e1338&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4047" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1940" RevisionGUID="9c71dd06-cbd6-4834-a5ec-c808cba88ca4" CreationDate="2012-11-17T21:18:23.823" UserId="1841" Comment="add patent tag" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;animation&gt;&lt;page-turning&gt;&lt;us670713&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4048" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1940" RevisionGUID="9c71dd06-cbd6-4834-a5ec-c808cba88ca4" CreationDate="2012-11-17T21:18:23.823" Comment="Proposed by 1841 approved by -1 edit id of 274" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1940" RevisionGUID="a4905fb0-5541-4676-88e8-09cfb4878424" CreationDate="2012-11-17T21:18:23.823" UserId="76" Comment="add patent tag" Text="Apple have just been granted patent [D670,713 &quot;Display screen or portion thereof with animated graphical user interface&quot;](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PTXT&amp;s1=D670,713.PN.&amp;OS=PN/D670,713&amp;RS=PN/D670,713)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A New York Times blog post](http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/apple-now-owns-the-page-turn/) discusses possible prior art references. How relevant are they? Might they invalidate the patent?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4050" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1940" RevisionGUID="a4905fb0-5541-4676-88e8-09cfb4878424" CreationDate="2012-11-17T21:18:23.823" UserId="76" Comment="add patent tag" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;animation&gt;&lt;page-turning&gt;&lt;usd670713&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1943" RevisionGUID="8b795f42-d64c-41fb-8d53-6a9cfcd807ed" CreationDate="2012-11-17T21:21:10.040" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 401 characters in body" Text="In May 1995, Qt was released publicly, a cross-platform GUI for C++ (already a cross-platform language), which enabled an application written once to be deployed on both Linux and Windows. Support for Mac OS X was added in 2001, making it tri-platform. (Source: [Qt History](http://my.safaribooksonline.com/0131872494/pref04).) The Qt project spawned many [GUI builders](http://doc.qt.digia.com/qq/qq14-designer.html) similar to the one described in the patent application, of which Qt Designer was built into an IDE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In December 1996, the [Java Foundation Classes](http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&amp;STORY=/www/story/84048) (now called Swing) for Java were announced, and these allowed Java applications to write the same GUI for multiple platforms with the same code, while maintaining native look-and-feel. Netbeans has included a GUI builder from at least [version 5.0](http://netbeans.org/community/releases/50/), and the project ([Project Matisse](http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/articles/javase/violet-pavek-qa-140197.html)) has been under public development from at least 2005.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In March 2009, [PhoneGap was revealed](http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Application-Development/PhoneGap-Simplifies-iPhone-Android-BlackBerry-Development-788189/), a framework that enables a single HTML+CSS+Javascript application to be deployed to iPhone, Android and Blackberry, while still utilizing native functions (and therefore, more advanced than simply a browser)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4052" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1942" RevisionGUID="18d783ae-65df-4cc1-808e-5e72089343d3" CreationDate="2012-11-17T21:22:37.930" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body; edited tags" Text="A company named Appsbar has obtained a US utility patent on code generation as used for creating cross-platform apps for mobile devices: [US8261231][1]. This patent was filed for on **Feb 14, 2012**. Since I definitely recall various solutions for this prior to mid-February of this year, I am opening up a call to collect prior art, to help anyone looking to get this patent re-examined or otherwise invalidated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Techdirt article][2] that brought my attention to the patent cites the now-defunct [Whoop][3] as being a possible prior implementation of this technology, also pointing to [this article on Whoop][4]. Note that the Techdirt link to an [About.com list of tools][5] does not really fit the patent -- while the non-Whoop entries in that list represent cross-platform mobile development, they do not represent code generation of the style claimed in the patent (IMHO, IANALNDIPOOTV, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related to the Techdirt comments as presently written:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [App Inventor][6], cited by some as prior art, does not create cross-platform apps, as of now (and therefore would not be prior art even if it gets this capability in the future)&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I wrote an app to do this on the Apple Newton&quot; probably also did not create cross-platform apps&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will amend this question from time to time with prior art that I uncover -- if you have additional prior art, please contribute an answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8261231&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20121116/02165221072/patent-office-perhaps-forgetting-what-year-it-is-locks-down-mobile-app-development-platforms.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.crunchbase.com/company/whoop&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://davewalters.me/startups/item/69-whoop-powers-cross-platform-mobile-development&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://mobiledevices.about.com/od/mobileappbasics/tp/Top-5-Tools-Multi-Platform-Mobile-App-Development.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://appinventor.mit.edu/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4053" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1942" RevisionGUID="18d783ae-65df-4cc1-808e-5e72089343d3" CreationDate="2012-11-17T21:22:37.930" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;data-processing-software&gt;&lt;us8261231&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1950" RevisionGUID="cc775e34-72d7-4f7d-acf8-bccec79f3dd1" CreationDate="2012-11-18T06:25:37.220" UserId="1770" Text="Searching in Public Pair &lt;http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair&gt; for the APPLICATION number 61/472609 gives details of this application. By clicking the continuity data tab you get 13/396,368 filed on 02-14-2012 which is Patented claims the benefit of 61/472,609&#xD;&#xA;13/396,392 filed on 02-14-2012 which is Pending claims the benefit of 61/472,609&#xD;&#xA;PCT/US12/32570 filed on 04-06-2012 which is Published claims the benefit of 61/472,609&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will then have to follow up the daughter documents - in PAIR you can download the full file wrapper if you need to. For the PCT you will have to look in WIPO or ESPACENET, remembering to use the application number." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1951" RevisionGUID="f890516d-9461-4fe9-998c-3be48972ba16" CreationDate="2012-11-18T11:20:59.827" UserId="390" Text="I'm not sure if this counts but it's from 2001&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.flashkit.com/movies/Applications/tcClassi-Benny_Vl-4481/index.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4059" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1952" RevisionGUID="983fd741-2b8a-40ef-ac8c-4f38e60dd166" CreationDate="2012-11-18T13:04:57.467" UserId="1639" Text="&quot;The present application claims benefit to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/472,609, which was filed on Apr. 6, 2011.&quot; Does that mean you are looking for prior art before April 6, 2010?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Might a laptop be considered a &quot;mobile device&quot; and therefore any operating system it runs be considered a &quot;mobile operating system&quot; for the purpose of satisfying the patent claims? Even if people usually mean phones, tablets, and PDAs when they say &quot;mobile devices&quot; would a laptop be close enough to make it prior art or make it obvious to do the same thing on a modern mobile device?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would then a Java development environment used to produce a Java applet that runs in a web browser after being downloaded from a remote web server  have all the elements of the claims? That would make any Java development environment that can produce an applet for a web site be prior art.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4060" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1944" RevisionGUID="3b330fe4-191d-4e32-94b4-53c4d895f368" CreationDate="2012-11-18T13:45:12.350" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/270160940505370624" />
  <row Id="4061" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1940" RevisionGUID="ea16e98e-ddaa-4375-af6d-0084e28b84c1" CreationDate="2012-11-18T19:45:12.253" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/270251540915314688" />
  <row Id="4062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1953" RevisionGUID="8bf38bcf-d762-474e-ba1b-455c9c0058ae" CreationDate="2012-11-18T22:25:19.460" UserId="1018" Text="[Illumination Software Creator](http://lunduke.com/?page_id=3454) was first published [May 12, 2010](http://lunduke.com/?p=1141), and the author discussed his idea on [the Linux Action Show](http://www.jupiterbroadcasting.com/tag/linux-action-show/) for most of the first half of 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ISC is a graphical development tool that builds programs from basic &quot;blocks.&quot; The software produced within the tool can be published to several different platforms, including Python on Windows/Mac/Linux, as native iOS apps, Android apps, HTML5 apps, and to other targets." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1954" RevisionGUID="24f81505-cb5c-4483-aaf0-dba0b289f2a1" CreationDate="2012-11-18T22:48:23.527" UserId="1018" Text="[cracklib](http://sourceforge.net/projects/cracklib/), which has been on Sourceforge since February 9, 2005 (and which evidently is much older - I can't find an exact date) implements a password validation algorithm that uses a dictionary, patterns, and several other heuristics to reject passwords deemed &quot;not secure enough,&quot; based on configured rules. It does not use a scoring system, and merely accepts or rejects a password based on its low entropy or use of common words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, KDE's KPasswordDialog [added a password strength meter](http://web.archive.org/web/20050425210930/http://cvs-digest.org/index.php?issue=nov52004) on November 1, 2004, and the changelog and mailing list traffic at the time reference earlier work by Mozilla. The meter uses a dictionary and other heuristics to assign a score to an input password." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4064" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1942" RevisionGUID="3ee5e2cf-c807-48cb-9587-9b7eafae1495" CreationDate="2012-11-19T04:45:12.387" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/270387442736054273" />
  <row Id="4065" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1927" RevisionGUID="660cc680-6d75-4fae-bacb-20e3863643f3" CreationDate="2012-11-19T10:45:12.243" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/270478042911088642" />
  <row Id="4071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1957" RevisionGUID="960a7008-8bd8-458c-88ea-1bd1f02180c5" CreationDate="2012-11-20T01:13:18.127" UserId="1861" Text="If I'm not mistaken, and I might be.  They usually don't approve patents for minor changes to existing technology.  It would have to be truly revolutionary.  The page turn has been around for a very long time, it was used in video games of the 80's.  What is special about apples? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1958" RevisionGUID="93f8c094-b522-4a1b-9f0e-12191e0789c7" CreationDate="2012-11-20T05:51:05.677" UserId="857" Text="Even on the iPhone/iPad platform, this is not innovative. [Here's](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/classics/id294773236?mt=8) the first page turning app seen on iOS that came out in 2007! One of its developers ended up being hired by Apple. The design patent is very narrow so developers need not worry." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1958" RevisionGUID="7adda02b-27f2-4f44-8e66-3ec9f1b4e831" CreationDate="2012-11-20T05:56:47.130" UserId="857" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="Even on the iPhone/iPad platform, this is not innovative. [Here's](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/classics/id294773236?mt=8) the first page turning app seen on iOS that came out in 2007! One of its developers ended up being hired by Apple. The design patent is very narrow so developers need not worry and there are still a lot of ways to implement this. Unfortunately, this doesn't invalidate the patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1960" RevisionGUID="5bcb82cb-fc56-42fd-a354-59256ae56f85" CreationDate="2012-11-20T10:24:57.413" UserId="1865" Text="I believe Norwegian company mBricks (www.mbricks.no) have been developing cross-compilation tools that have existed far longer than that. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1961" RevisionGUID="b97048dc-7794-47dd-b966-fa6837b96669" CreationDate="2012-11-20T13:34:26.740" UserId="1711" Text="We are currently trying to set up a startup that sells a software product online. The software can be downloaded worldwide and paid for via Paypal. Our company is a limited liability company based in Germany.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We recently got mail from a US attorney stating that we are infringing a patent they own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent in question covers a process commonly used in software products and depicts a simple backup scenario. (More here: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/808/prior-art-for-onsite-backup-for-internet-based-data-processing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our feeling it that it is a classical example of a patent troll and that we might want to wait at least for the SHIELD act.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interesting thing is that in Germany that kind of patent does not exist (for some very good reasons I guess).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are not dependent on the US market and could block US visitors from entering our site. But would that be enough? What is the worst thing that could happen? Any advice on how to proceed would be great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4079" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1961" RevisionGUID="b97048dc-7794-47dd-b966-fa6837b96669" CreationDate="2012-11-20T13:34:26.740" UserId="1711" Text="US Patent troll and Germany company" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4080" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1961" RevisionGUID="b97048dc-7794-47dd-b966-fa6837b96669" CreationDate="2012-11-20T13:34:26.740" UserId="1711" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;germany&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1961" RevisionGUID="d3c721bd-2942-44b4-afa5-e55138dc954d" CreationDate="2012-11-20T13:44:01.507" UserId="1711" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="We are currently trying to set up a startup that sells a software product online. The software can be downloaded worldwide and paid for via Paypal. Our company is a limited liability company based in Germany.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We recently got mail from a US attorney stating that we are infringing a patent they own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent in question covers a process commonly used in software products and depicts a simple backup scenario. (More here: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/808/prior-art-for-onsite-backup-for-internet-based-data-processing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our feeling it that it is a classical example of a patent troll and that we might want to wait at least for the SHIELD act.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interesting thing is that in Germany that kind of patent does not exist (for some very good reasons I guess).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are not dependent on the US market and could block US visitors from entering our site. But would that be enough? What is the worst thing that could happen? Any advice on how to proceed would be great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4083" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="e5615779-268b-45c0-b968-a2ebb8070d83" CreationDate="2012-11-20T13:45:12.527" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/270885749098938368" />
  <row Id="4084" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1961" RevisionGUID="52fd4c4d-5733-4429-b4b4-05e7b0b96401" CreationDate="2012-11-20T13:56:39.983" UserId="1711" Comment="edited title" Text="Possible US patent infringement and German company" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1960" RevisionGUID="3fe0a520-e55f-447b-ab4f-288ec838e718" CreationDate="2012-11-20T17:13:16.197" UserId="76" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="I believe Norwegian company [mBricks](http://www.mbricks.no/) have been developing cross-compilation tools that have existed far longer than that. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1957" RevisionGUID="69fc6648-89ed-46ec-99ae-4b48a65c6092" CreationDate="2012-11-20T17:17:24.673" UserId="76" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="If I'm not mistaken, and I might be.  They usually don't approve patents for minor changes to existing technology.  It would have to be truly revolutionary.  The page turn has been around for a very long time, it was used in video games of the 80's.  What is special about Apple's? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1963" RevisionGUID="17cef63a-049c-4b6c-a11c-e7ceed78d4b1" CreationDate="2012-11-20T18:47:18.980" UserId="1868" Text="I have been considering a wikipedia style system for code (software), and am trying to figure out what the patent implications are. Aside from the risk of accidentally violating someone else's patent (that would be a separate question), I wonder if patents can exist at all in that system. If all changes are made online, and published basically immediately online, and mostly peer-reviewed and possibly built on almost instantly, does that inherently preclude the contributor (inventor) from patenting their work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the one hand, it sounds like it might be patent-able, because the &quot;inventor&quot; is an identifiable contributor, and they would normally have a one year period that they would be allowed to file a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But since they are contributing to an existing system, within the context of a public forum, and most likely with help (in the form of other users' contributions), I would think that would make it prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone clear that up?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4092" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1963" RevisionGUID="17cef63a-049c-4b6c-a11c-e7ceed78d4b1" CreationDate="2012-11-20T18:47:18.980" UserId="1868" Text="Is collaborative public content always prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4093" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1963" RevisionGUID="17cef63a-049c-4b6c-a11c-e7ceed78d4b1" CreationDate="2012-11-20T18:47:18.980" UserId="1868" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;defensive-publications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1964" RevisionGUID="9ceabfc4-d5f3-498e-b824-1b3ae68468bc" CreationDate="2012-11-20T20:12:57.217" UserId="1335" Text="While I'd say Jay's answer is snarky as well as correct, you were probably looking for a detailed explanation about *what* you could patent, *how* you'd go about it, and *why* it would be allowed. If you were looking for a way to show the system is absurd, prepare to be disappointed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What you can patent**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, you can patent *a* robust communication protocol. No, you cannot patent *all* &quot;robust communication protocols&quot;. The former is a specific implementation of a protocol, the latter is what many would call an &quot;abstract idea.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And no, you cannot patent the Morse Code because it's been around for a very long time (and I believe, was also covered by a patent in its time.) This is &quot;prior art.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, as mentioned in a comment above, funny that you chose the Morse Code as your example, because Samuel Morse *did* try to [claim the broad, abstract idea of &quot;transmitting information via electromagnetic signals&quot;][1], and that was rejected by the Supreme Court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, assuming you had a novel robust communication protocol (for whatever you define &quot;robust&quot; to be) or a novel method of implementing it you, could patent those and aspects thereof. You could even patent a new way of implementing an existing protocol if it was sufficiently novel and non-obvious. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, you could patent a method of implementing Morse Code using carrier pigeons instead of electric signals. The 172-year old protocol isn't what's being patented, but your new implementation of it. Anyone else could continue using Morse Code via plain old electromagnetic signals and not infringe your patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your novel carrier pigeon-based method consists simply of attaching chits of paper containing morse code, it's obvious because it combines well known methods of using paper to contain information and using carrier pigeons to transmit information. However, if your method involves, say, training pigeons to peck out the dots and dashes with their beaks on arrival, that's likely non-obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How you can patent it**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would file a patent application describing the protocol and/or method in detail, and including a series of claims identifying the specific parts of the invention you think are novel and non-obvious. Then you (or ideally, your attorney or patent agent) and the USPTO would have a series of back-and-forths where you try to carve out the exact bits and pieces of invention that are novel and non-obvious in light of relevant prior art the USPTO examiner finds. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You file the application and claims, the examiner does a search for prior art and returns with reasons to reject your claims, you adjust your claims to sidestep prior art, and repeat until you end up with a claim that both parties are satisfied with. (You want claims that are broad as possible while covering the essential invention, but the examiner will only allow claims that are not covered by or made obvious by prior art.) Note one of the reasons for rejection is lack of enablement: if you do not describe in enough detail how you get your pigeons to peck out the intended Morse Code, you'd get a 112 &quot;lack of enablement&quot; rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The resulting claims are what will finally determine the exact scope of what your patent covers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why patenting something like this is allowed**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because *one* of the goals of the patent system is to encourage disclosure of inventions while allowing the inventors to profit from the fruits of their (intellectual) labor. As a competing carrier pigeon service, I would be very interested in knowing how you got your pigeons to memorize Morse Code! Think of the benefits! No more paper costs! No more cutting out tiny chits of paper and encoding them with dots and dashes! No more tying little chits of paper to tiny pigeon legs! No more retransmits if the chit of paper falls off! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You on the other hand, don't want me to simply apply your invention to my pigeons (or heck, even just kidnap a few of your pigeons!) and enjoy the benefits of all your work figuring out how to get the pigeons to peck out the right dots and dashes. Alternatively, you may not mind me using your method... as long as I *pay* you for it. That's where licensing comes into play. Patents can be used as a legal instrument to enforce licensing of technologies and methods. If I don't pay up, you can use your patent to sue me (and that's about all you can legally do with it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, the system does not want people claiming ownership of abstract ideas as that would truly hinder progress. Which is why what the patent covers will be very specifically defined by the claims. Sending Morse Code using plain old electric signals is not covered. Sending Morse Code by encoding dots and dashes in the flight patterns of carrier pigeons is not covered. Only sending Morse code by having pigeons peck out dots and dashes would be covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Reilly_v._Morse" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4095" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1963" RevisionGUID="617812ea-d34a-4b34-b32c-b637ed15411f" CreationDate="2012-11-20T22:45:12.387" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/271021650001137664" />
  <row Id="4096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1942" RevisionGUID="4657d266-1980-45bd-8fe8-e5fc0834f4ce" CreationDate="2012-11-21T00:36:38.960" UserId="1335" Comment="Edited to include the main claim. It's helpful to include representative claims because that's what prior art must be relevant to." Text="A company named Appsbar has obtained a US utility patent on code generation as used for creating cross-platform apps for mobile devices: [US8261231][1]. This patent was filed for on **Feb 14, 2012**. Since I definitely recall various solutions for this prior to mid-February of this year, I am opening up a call to collect prior art, to help anyone looking to get this patent re-examined or otherwise invalidated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main claim is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A system for allowing users to develop mobile applications that are capable of being compiled to run on a plurality of mobile operating&#xD;&#xA;&gt; systems associated with various mobile devices, the system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - a computing device having physical memory storing instructions that cause the computing device to:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - provide a mobile application development platform adapted to assist users with the development and customization of mobile applications;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - receive from a user a request to develop a mobile application through the mobile application development platform;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - receive from the user an application property selection comprising an indicator of an application category associated with the mobile &#xD;&#xA;&gt; application to be developed by the user;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - determine a plurality of customizable components based, at least in part, on the received application property selection, the plurality of customizable components pertaining to a functionality, design and content of the mobile application;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - send information causing the plurality of customizable components to be presented to the user;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - receive from the user a plurality of customizable component selections pertaining to the plurality of presented customizable components;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - associate application data with the mobile application based, at least in part, on the plurality of customizable component selections received from the user, the application data being stored on the physical memory and including:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one application component representing user-defined functionality to be provided by the mobile application,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one design element representing a user-defined design characteristic associated with the presentation of the mobile application on mobile devices, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one content element representing user-defined content to be accessed through the mobile application;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - determine at least one set of target mobile devices on which the mobile application is to be executed;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - generate compiled data for the mobile application based on the application data using build tools associated with a mobile operating system, the mobile operating system being associated with the at least one set of target mobile devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - generate a configuration file comprising an identifier for the mobile application, the configuration file being adapted for transmission to, and execution on, a mobile device associated with the at least one set of target mobile devices;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - wherein the identifier enables the retrieval of at least a portion of the compiled data by the mobile device from a remote storage location in response to the mobile application being installed on or executed by the mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Techdirt article][2] that brought my attention to the patent cites the now-defunct [Whoop][3] as being a possible prior implementation of this technology, also pointing to [this article on Whoop][4]. Note that the Techdirt link to an [About.com list of tools][5] does not really fit the patent -- while the non-Whoop entries in that list represent cross-platform mobile development, they do not represent code generation of the style claimed in the patent (IMHO, IANALNDIPOOTV, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related to the Techdirt comments as presently written:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [App Inventor][6], cited by some as prior art, does not create cross-platform apps, as of now (and therefore would not be prior art even if it gets this capability in the future)&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I wrote an app to do this on the Apple Newton&quot; probably also did not create cross-platform apps&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will amend this question from time to time with prior art that I uncover -- if you have additional prior art, please contribute an answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8261231&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20121116/02165221072/patent-office-perhaps-forgetting-what-year-it-is-locks-down-mobile-app-development-platforms.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.crunchbase.com/company/whoop&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://davewalters.me/startups/item/69-whoop-powers-cross-platform-mobile-development&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://mobiledevices.about.com/od/mobileappbasics/tp/Top-5-Tools-Multi-Platform-Mobile-App-Development.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://appinventor.mit.edu/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1965" RevisionGUID="7806bb7e-6230-47f9-afb3-18cfae28556a" CreationDate="2012-11-21T01:05:02.643" UserId="1335" Text="In addition to Jeremy Thompson's answer, remember that royalties only have to be paid if the patent owner demands them. There is no automatic legal requirement for you to *offer* to pay royalties; in fact, you may never have to pay anything if the patent owner either never finds out about you or does not care. It may turn out that you don't even actually infringe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if the owner does eventually decide to assert his patent, you may be liable. Prior knowledge of the patent may make you liable for enhanced damages if a lawsuit does occur and willful infringement is successfully proven. (This is statistically somewhat unlikely though, and most patent suits end in settlements.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may wish to head off your liabilities ahead of time by proactively seeking licensing. Or, more typically, you could focus on getting a successful product on the market out first before worrying about potential infringement. After all, if your product doesn't become a competitive threat, you're probably not worth suing. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1966" RevisionGUID="a98c8eeb-ca02-4947-80a9-82cf63c4b2e6" CreationDate="2012-11-21T02:06:13.260" UserId="1870" Text="Does anyone has any prior art for US 2011/0242130? This publication is about IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, AND COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4099" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1966" RevisionGUID="a98c8eeb-ca02-4947-80a9-82cf63c4b2e6" CreationDate="2012-11-21T02:06:13.260" UserId="1870" Text="Prior art for US 2011/0242130?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4100" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1966" RevisionGUID="a98c8eeb-ca02-4947-80a9-82cf63c4b2e6" CreationDate="2012-11-21T02:06:13.260" UserId="1870" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1968" RevisionGUID="2ce457f8-14fa-476e-a3ae-67e5093bd370" CreationDate="2012-11-21T04:26:28.837" UserId="1872" Text="This patent is about authenticating online users using a personality test to create a user behavior profile at registration on a website and then when the user logs in, he authenticates his profile by answering questions provided by the authentication client and based on his answers, his profile and User ID is verified? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4103" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1968" RevisionGUID="2ce457f8-14fa-476e-a3ae-67e5093bd370" CreationDate="2012-11-21T04:26:28.837" UserId="1872" Text="What keywords do I use to get a similar patent to US7249263?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4104" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1968" RevisionGUID="2ce457f8-14fa-476e-a3ae-67e5093bd370" CreationDate="2012-11-21T04:26:28.837" UserId="1872" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1963" RevisionGUID="d36b74ea-7953-49fe-912a-cbac2760e4af" CreationDate="2012-11-21T10:51:05.027" UserId="76" Comment="make it clear that the question is about the grace period" Text="I have been considering a wikipedia style system for code (software), and am trying to figure out what the patent implications are. Aside from the risk of accidentally violating someone else's patent (that would be a separate question), I wonder if patents can exist at all in that system. If all changes are made online, and published basically immediately online, and mostly peer-reviewed and possibly built on almost instantly, does that inherently preclude the contributor (inventor) from patenting their work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the one hand, it sounds like it might be patent-able, because the &quot;inventor&quot; is an identifiable contributor, and they would normally have a one year grace period that they would be allowed to file a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But since they are contributing to an existing system, within the context of a public forum, and most likely with help (in the form of other users' contributions), I would think that would make it prior art that precludes filing a patent even within the 1 year grace period after publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone clear that up?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4109" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1963" RevisionGUID="d36b74ea-7953-49fe-912a-cbac2760e4af" CreationDate="2012-11-21T10:51:05.027" UserId="76" Comment="make it clear that the question is about the grace period" Text="Can I file a patent after publishing as part of collaborative public content?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4110" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1963" RevisionGUID="d36b74ea-7953-49fe-912a-cbac2760e4af" CreationDate="2012-11-21T10:51:05.027" UserId="76" Comment="make it clear that the question is about the grace period" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;defensive-publications&gt;&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;grace-period&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1968" RevisionGUID="e2d52add-ae7b-4d5e-bd4e-ff9bf9ee3557" CreationDate="2012-11-21T10:55:35.280" UserId="76" Comment="added 108 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Patent [US7249263](http://www.google.com/patents/US7249263) is about authenticating online users using a personality test to create a user behavior profile at registration on a website and then when the user logs in, he authenticates his profile by answering questions provided by the authentication client and based on his answers, his profile and User ID is verified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What keywords should I use to search for similar patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4112" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1968" RevisionGUID="e2d52add-ae7b-4d5e-bd4e-ff9bf9ee3557" CreationDate="2012-11-21T10:55:35.280" UserId="76" Comment="added 108 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;search&gt;&lt;computers-support&gt;&lt;us7249263&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4113" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="372" RevisionGUID="7cc4b776-207d-4f89-8062-074137b5fcbc" CreationDate="2012-11-21T10:58:39.190" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;grace-period&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4114" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="c23d3d30-6a94-4d01-b5d6-f671b81f0bb6" CreationDate="2012-11-21T10:58:54.430" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;grace-period&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4115" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="609" RevisionGUID="66610e34-7472-473e-9b19-0b087ca16fd3" CreationDate="2012-11-21T10:59:18.300" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;grace-period&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1970" RevisionGUID="17e8cc4d-28bb-42ed-984e-1e4fe7b1f267" CreationDate="2012-11-21T11:04:52.047" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1971" RevisionGUID="4fb73f0c-2a1b-4cbc-841a-4f662eb224f8" CreationDate="2012-11-21T11:04:52.047" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1970" RevisionGUID="63988b29-fb8f-477e-9469-5c96c9253f1f" CreationDate="2012-11-21T11:58:10.270" UserId="76" Comment="added 739 characters in body" Text="A patent may not be granted for an invention that has been disclosed before the filing of the patent. In some countries, there is a *grace period* during which the inventor may still file a patent after disclosing the invention. In particular, in the United States, the inventor may file a patent up to one year after (this is sometimes known as the “one year rule”). Some countries, for example the EU, do not have a grace period at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### External links&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * [Novelty on Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelty_%28patent%29)&#xD;&#xA; * [Grace period at Ius Mentis](http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/priorart/#grace)&#xD;&#xA; * [What is the one-year rule?](http://www.mateoaboy.com/f6/blog_files/874912ee2802a38923c533ba23ecf6c5-32.html)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4119" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1970" RevisionGUID="63988b29-fb8f-477e-9469-5c96c9253f1f" CreationDate="2012-11-21T11:58:10.270" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 277" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1971" RevisionGUID="19663892-22d0-439f-b354-5379b8680391" CreationDate="2012-11-21T11:58:13.110" UserId="76" Comment="added 143 characters in body" Text="The amount of time during which the inventor may still file a patent after publishing the invention. This is 1 year in the US, and 0 in Europe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4121" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1971" RevisionGUID="19663892-22d0-439f-b354-5379b8680391" CreationDate="2012-11-21T11:58:13.110" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 278" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1942" RevisionGUID="34278363-da67-45ff-b078-4ccdbbfb4de3" CreationDate="2012-11-21T13:18:27.450" UserId="1844" Comment="added candidate services" Text="A company named Appsbar has obtained a US utility patent on code generation as used for creating cross-platform apps for mobile devices: [US8261231][1]. This patent was filed for on **Feb 14, 2012**. Since I definitely recall various solutions for this prior to mid-February of this year, I am opening up a call to collect prior art, to help anyone looking to get this patent re-examined or otherwise invalidated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main claim is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A system for allowing users to develop mobile applications that are capable of being compiled to run on a plurality of mobile operating&#xD;&#xA;&gt; systems associated with various mobile devices, the system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - a computing device having physical memory storing instructions that cause the computing device to:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - provide a mobile application development platform adapted to assist users with the development and customization of mobile applications;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - receive from a user a request to develop a mobile application through the mobile application development platform;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - receive from the user an application property selection comprising an indicator of an application category associated with the mobile &#xD;&#xA;&gt; application to be developed by the user;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - determine a plurality of customizable components based, at least in part, on the received application property selection, the plurality of customizable components pertaining to a functionality, design and content of the mobile application;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - send information causing the plurality of customizable components to be presented to the user;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - receive from the user a plurality of customizable component selections pertaining to the plurality of presented customizable components;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - associate application data with the mobile application based, at least in part, on the plurality of customizable component selections received from the user, the application data being stored on the physical memory and including:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one application component representing user-defined functionality to be provided by the mobile application,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one design element representing a user-defined design characteristic associated with the presentation of the mobile application on mobile devices, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one content element representing user-defined content to be accessed through the mobile application;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - determine at least one set of target mobile devices on which the mobile application is to be executed;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - generate compiled data for the mobile application based on the application data using build tools associated with a mobile operating system, the mobile operating system being associated with the at least one set of target mobile devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - generate a configuration file comprising an identifier for the mobile application, the configuration file being adapted for transmission to, and execution on, a mobile device associated with the at least one set of target mobile devices;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - wherein the identifier enables the retrieval of at least a portion of the compiled data by the mobile device from a remote storage location in response to the mobile application being installed on or executed by the mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Techdirt article][2] that brought my attention to the patent cites the now-defunct [Whoop][3] as being a possible prior implementation of this technology, also pointing to [this article on Whoop][4]. Note that the Techdirt link to an [About.com list of tools][5] does not really fit the patent -- while the non-Whoop entries in that list represent cross-platform mobile development, they do not represent code generation of the style claimed in the patent (IMHO, IANALNDIPOOTV, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related to the Techdirt comments as presently written:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [App Inventor][6], cited by some as prior art, does not create cross-platform apps, as of now (and therefore would not be prior art even if it gets this capability in the future)&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I wrote an app to do this on the Apple Newton&quot; probably also did not create cross-platform apps&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will amend this question from time to time with prior art that I uncover -- if you have additional prior art, please contribute an answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some candidate services that may represent prior art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [AppBreeder][7] was written up in articles dating as far back as January 2010. It offers code generation for multiple mobile platforms based on the user choosing a starting template (&quot;determine a plurality of customizable components based, at least in part, on the received application property selection&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [GENWI][8] dates back to at least June 2011 (based on date of [YouTube interview with Robert Scoble][9]). It too offers code generation for multiple mobile platforms based on the user choosing a starting template.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [MobileAppLoader][10] dates back to at least June 2011 (based on date of my note referencing them, plus their blog goes back to at least July 2011; they also cite changes in their system's behavior from March 2011). It too offers code generation for multiple mobile platforms based on the user choosing a starting template (in their case, pricing is also determined by this choice of category).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8261231&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20121116/02165221072/patent-office-perhaps-forgetting-what-year-it-is-locks-down-mobile-app-development-platforms.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.crunchbase.com/company/whoop&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://davewalters.me/startups/item/69-whoop-powers-cross-platform-mobile-development&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://mobiledevices.about.com/od/mobileappbasics/tp/Top-5-Tools-Multi-Platform-Mobile-App-Development.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://appinventor.mit.edu/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.appbreeder.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://genwi.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQZ3bHr3HvU&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://mobileapploader.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4125" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1968" RevisionGUID="f06d4804-4f3f-4ceb-ba45-4874928e2622" CreationDate="2012-11-21T16:46:13.353" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/271293453814624257" />
  <row Id="4127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1973" RevisionGUID="6335f7f1-e2cb-467d-a1d7-7f3cdf29c6ff" CreationDate="2012-11-21T19:09:49.013" UserId="252" Text="You can also file a defensive publication. This creates prior art and makes it so other people can't patent. Downside is that if you do this prior to filing any provision patent applications you cannot file for a patent. Check out ip.com or http://www.defensivepublications.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1975" RevisionGUID="63ca1a52-a2ec-48a1-8397-6d41d504617c" CreationDate="2012-11-21T21:54:15.470" UserId="1875" Text="If it was issued in 1997, wouldn't it have expired in 2007?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.wired.com/design/2012/11/3d-systems-formlabs-lawsuit/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4130" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1975" RevisionGUID="63ca1a52-a2ec-48a1-8397-6d41d504617c" CreationDate="2012-11-21T21:54:15.470" UserId="1875" Text="Can 3DSystems sue Formlabs over this patent? Shouldn't it be expired?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4131" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1975" RevisionGUID="63ca1a52-a2ec-48a1-8397-6d41d504617c" CreationDate="2012-11-21T21:54:15.470" UserId="1875" Text="&lt;us5597520&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1976" RevisionGUID="2c82fee0-7930-4e6f-8c25-b66a7a34cd89" CreationDate="2012-11-22T00:49:57.787" UserId="81" Text="Related to this question on [3D Systems patent expiry][1], it appears that 3D Systems are raising a patent infringement lawsuit on the basis that Kickstarter and Formlabs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; knew or should have known about, or were willfully blind to, 3D&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Systems' extensive patent rights in thearea of three-dimensional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; printing and stereolithography&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be more on the legal side rather than the patent side, but surely they must have to first find out whether any of their specific patents are infringed, rather than just say, &quot;We have a lot of patents in this field, you must have infringed some...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the correct process here? Shouldn't they wait to see what technology is implemented in this process?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/1975/81" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4133" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1976" RevisionGUID="2c82fee0-7930-4e6f-8c25-b66a7a34cd89" CreationDate="2012-11-22T00:49:57.787" UserId="81" Text="At what point can a patent lawsuit become reality?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4134" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1976" RevisionGUID="2c82fee0-7930-4e6f-8c25-b66a7a34cd89" CreationDate="2012-11-22T00:49:57.787" UserId="81" Text="&lt;process&gt;&lt;us5597520&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1977" RevisionGUID="526fa4b7-8eb8-46c0-b392-87bff2fa3013" CreationDate="2012-11-22T03:51:21.307" UserId="96" Text="The &quot;willfully blind&quot; passage that you quote from paragraph 17 is in the &quot;Background Facts&quot; section of the complaint.  It does not state the basis for the lawsuit - though it is possible that they are setting up an argument of willful infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paragraph 22 of 3D Systems' complaint reads as follows: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Upon information and belief, Formlabs' Form 1 3D printer is used for a process of stereolithographically forming a three-dimensional object by forming cross-sectional layers of the object from a material capable of physical transformation upon exposure to synergisticstimulation, including the steps of receiving data descriptive of cross-sectional layers, formingcross-sectional layers by selectively exposing the material to the synergistic stimulationaccording to data descriptive of the cross-sectional layers to build up the three-dimensionalobject layer-by-layer, and in particular in a process that infringes one or more claims the '520Patent.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The allegation is quoting language from 3D Systems' patent 5597520 claim 1.  That is, 3D Systems is making a specific allegation of infringement of a particular claim of a presumably valid patent issued by the USPTO.  It looks like they are basing their infringement claim on public descriptions of the operation of the FORM 1 printer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4136" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1976" RevisionGUID="42fdbc19-f3be-49e6-a67a-9dd2f4d4dffa" CreationDate="2012-11-22T10:45:12.557" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/271564984683753472" />
  <row Id="4140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1975" RevisionGUID="2d97f74e-7aac-48e1-a9b0-98f8783624c2" CreationDate="2012-11-22T21:03:00.393" UserId="76" Comment="added 208 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Can 3DSystems [sue Formlabs](http://www.wired.com/design/2012/11/3d-systems-formlabs-lawsuit/) over [US Patent 5597520](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PALL&amp;RefSrch=yes&amp;Query=PN/5597520)? If it was issued in 1997, wouldn't it have expired in 2007?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4141" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1975" RevisionGUID="2d97f74e-7aac-48e1-a9b0-98f8783624c2" CreationDate="2012-11-22T21:03:00.393" UserId="76" Comment="added 208 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Expiration date of US5597520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4142" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1975" RevisionGUID="2d97f74e-7aac-48e1-a9b0-98f8783624c2" CreationDate="2012-11-22T21:03:00.393" UserId="76" Comment="added 208 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;us5597520&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1979" RevisionGUID="4343c1a2-1aca-4c25-8682-3f1719dcd08c" CreationDate="2012-11-23T10:27:37.940" UserId="1777" Text="Generally speaking, there is no such thing as a &quot;patent on a product&quot; (with the exception of design patents and the like). Rather, individual aspects of technology can be patented. Such a patentable aspect has to solve a technical problem using a technical solution to cause a technical effect. Generally, one cannot obtain a patent for instance on the overall appearance or a generic formulation of the &quot;purpose&quot; of a device. The first question would be, do you have a good idea of what such a technical aspect would be? And if yes, is it actually necessary to reveal your technical solution in order to market your project? Generally, you should be able to make the public claim that your product does xyz and/or does it in a better way, if you do not reveal HOW it does that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, this is a tricky issue, and filing a patent application (then with an as-detailed-as-possible description of all potentially patentable aspects) is the only sure way to secure a priority date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you have to decide what your main objective is: Do you want to prevent other people from copying your idea, do you want to prevent them from getting a patent on the same idea first, or do you want to make sure that you will be able to obtain a patent at a later date yourself? These are slightly different issues and may require different strategies. A defensive publication, for instance, precludes competitors from obtaining a patent on the same idea, but also yourself. And since your idea has been published, you can be sure it will be copied if it is relevant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1942" RevisionGUID="0b5aed57-b65c-40a9-96c9-68e4a5593048" CreationDate="2012-11-23T14:34:49.180" UserId="1844" Comment="added Yapper" Text="A company named Appsbar has obtained a US utility patent on code generation as used for creating cross-platform apps for mobile devices: [US8261231][1]. This patent was filed for on **Feb 14, 2012**. Since I definitely recall various solutions for this prior to mid-February of this year, I am opening up a call to collect prior art, to help anyone looking to get this patent re-examined or otherwise invalidated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main claim is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A system for allowing users to develop mobile applications that are capable of being compiled to run on a plurality of mobile operating&#xD;&#xA;&gt; systems associated with various mobile devices, the system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - a computing device having physical memory storing instructions that cause the computing device to:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - provide a mobile application development platform adapted to assist users with the development and customization of mobile applications;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - receive from a user a request to develop a mobile application through the mobile application development platform;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - receive from the user an application property selection comprising an indicator of an application category associated with the mobile &#xD;&#xA;&gt; application to be developed by the user;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - determine a plurality of customizable components based, at least in part, on the received application property selection, the plurality of customizable components pertaining to a functionality, design and content of the mobile application;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - send information causing the plurality of customizable components to be presented to the user;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - receive from the user a plurality of customizable component selections pertaining to the plurality of presented customizable components;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - associate application data with the mobile application based, at least in part, on the plurality of customizable component selections received from the user, the application data being stored on the physical memory and including:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one application component representing user-defined functionality to be provided by the mobile application,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one design element representing a user-defined design characteristic associated with the presentation of the mobile application on mobile devices, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one content element representing user-defined content to be accessed through the mobile application;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - determine at least one set of target mobile devices on which the mobile application is to be executed;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - generate compiled data for the mobile application based on the application data using build tools associated with a mobile operating system, the mobile operating system being associated with the at least one set of target mobile devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - generate a configuration file comprising an identifier for the mobile application, the configuration file being adapted for transmission to, and execution on, a mobile device associated with the at least one set of target mobile devices;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - wherein the identifier enables the retrieval of at least a portion of the compiled data by the mobile device from a remote storage location in response to the mobile application being installed on or executed by the mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Techdirt article][2] that brought my attention to the patent cites the now-defunct [Whoop][3] as being a possible prior implementation of this technology, also pointing to [this article on Whoop][4]. Note that the Techdirt link to an [About.com list of tools][5] does not really fit the patent -- while the non-Whoop entries in that list represent cross-platform mobile development, they do not represent code generation of the style claimed in the patent (IMHO, IANALNDIPOOTV, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related to the Techdirt comments as presently written:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [App Inventor][6], cited by some as prior art, does not create cross-platform apps, as of now (and therefore would not be prior art even if it gets this capability in the future)&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I wrote an app to do this on the Apple Newton&quot; probably also did not create cross-platform apps&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will amend this question from time to time with prior art that I uncover -- if you have additional prior art, please contribute an answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some candidate services that may represent prior art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [AppBreeder][7] was written up in articles dating as far back as January 2010. It offers code generation for multiple mobile platforms based on the user choosing a starting template (&quot;determine a plurality of customizable components based, at least in part, on the received application property selection&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [GENWI][8] dates back to at least June 2011 (based on date of [YouTube interview with Robert Scoble][9]). It too offers code generation for multiple mobile platforms based on the user choosing a starting template.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [MobileAppLoader][10] dates back to at least June 2011 (based on date of my note referencing them, plus their blog goes back to at least July 2011; they also cite changes in their system's behavior from March 2011). It too offers code generation for multiple mobile platforms based on the user choosing a starting template (in their case, pricing is also determined by this choice of category).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Yapper][11] dates back to at least May 2010 (based on date of [InformationWeek article][12]). It offers code generation for multiple mobile platforms, though it is unclear how strong their template support is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8261231&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20121116/02165221072/patent-office-perhaps-forgetting-what-year-it-is-locks-down-mobile-app-development-platforms.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.crunchbase.com/company/whoop&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://davewalters.me/startups/item/69-whoop-powers-cross-platform-mobile-development&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://mobiledevices.about.com/od/mobileappbasics/tp/Top-5-Tools-Multi-Platform-Mobile-App-Development.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://appinventor.mit.edu/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.appbreeder.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://genwi.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQZ3bHr3HvU&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://mobileapploader.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://yapperapp.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.informationweek.com/development/mobility/develop-iphone-ipad-android-and-blackber/224701549" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1980" RevisionGUID="c75bc69a-9aac-4353-a8ea-f4c9495ba8c4" CreationDate="2012-11-24T06:13:49.013" UserId="1883" Text="I want to file an utility patent, I've read that by filing it in my country I ill only be able to enforce it inside the national limits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However will other entities outside my country be able to file my same patent? Will I have priority to file it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4155" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1980" RevisionGUID="c75bc69a-9aac-4353-a8ea-f4c9495ba8c4" CreationDate="2012-11-24T06:13:49.013" UserId="1883" Text="Does filing a patent protects u abroad?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4156" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1980" RevisionGUID="c75bc69a-9aac-4353-a8ea-f4c9495ba8c4" CreationDate="2012-11-24T06:13:49.013" UserId="1883" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1981" RevisionGUID="96ab9968-3282-4e13-9dc2-ca97bf469650" CreationDate="2012-11-24T06:35:07.710" UserId="1884" Text="which is the closest prior art for this patent which discloses less than 2mg of prednisone used for treatment of arthritis . The list of documents in hit results includes US6677326 patent European equivalents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4158" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1981" RevisionGUID="96ab9968-3282-4e13-9dc2-ca97bf469650" CreationDate="2012-11-24T06:35:07.710" UserId="1884" Text="prior art which discloses less than 2mg of prednisone used for treatment of arthritis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4159" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1981" RevisionGUID="96ab9968-3282-4e13-9dc2-ca97bf469650" CreationDate="2012-11-24T06:35:07.710" UserId="1884" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4160" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1975" RevisionGUID="7247d2a5-80fd-401c-88c5-31e53252e0f1" CreationDate="2012-11-24T07:45:12.770" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/272244462896422912" />
  <row Id="4161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1980" RevisionGUID="58741f7a-50d0-4fc4-89ee-32ca06c9e9a9" CreationDate="2012-11-24T13:22:39.963" UserId="76" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I want to file a utility patent, I've read that by filing it in my country I will only be able to enforce it inside the national limits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However will other entities outside my country be able to file my same patent? Will I have priority to file it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4162" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1980" RevisionGUID="58741f7a-50d0-4fc4-89ee-32ca06c9e9a9" CreationDate="2012-11-24T13:22:39.963" UserId="76" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Does filing a patent protect you abroad?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4163" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1980" RevisionGUID="58741f7a-50d0-4fc4-89ee-32ca06c9e9a9" CreationDate="2012-11-24T13:22:39.963" UserId="76" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1981" RevisionGUID="52a70606-1c3c-4fdc-bfd5-ae0b8940d9bb" CreationDate="2012-11-24T13:23:54.833" UserId="76" Comment="added 42 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Which is the closest prior art for this patent which discloses less than 2mg of prednisone used for treatment of arthritis? The list of documents in hit results includes [US6677326](http://www.google.com/patents/US6677326) patent European equivalents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4165" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1981" RevisionGUID="52a70606-1c3c-4fdc-bfd5-ae0b8940d9bb" CreationDate="2012-11-24T13:23:54.833" UserId="76" Comment="added 42 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Prior art which discloses less than 2mg of prednisone used for treatment of arthritis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4166" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1981" RevisionGUID="52a70606-1c3c-4fdc-bfd5-ae0b8940d9bb" CreationDate="2012-11-24T13:23:54.833" UserId="76" Comment="added 42 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;drug-ingredients&gt;&lt;medecine&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4167" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1981" RevisionGUID="03180853-a3c1-4164-a5cb-90a9e1c0cad2" CreationDate="2012-11-24T14:47:42.593" UserId="1259" Comment="tag spelling" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;drug-ingredients&gt;&lt;medicine&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4172" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1981" RevisionGUID="3d1bc0ad-af50-49a8-9bc1-053b698a97f0" CreationDate="2012-11-25T07:45:12.727" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/272606850602639360" />
  <row Id="4174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1983" RevisionGUID="9b0e1330-da78-4491-aa6a-6276b65cab07" CreationDate="2012-11-25T13:26:51.760" UserId="1777" Text="Obtaining a patent in any given jurisdiction (US / EU / Japan etc.) will only secure you rights within the geographical limits of that jurisdiction. It has no immediate effect whatsoever anywhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a patent application filed in one place can be claimed as priority for an application elsewhere. For instance, you could file in the US and then claim that US application - with its filing date - as priority for a subsequent application in the EU. However, this is only possible within 12 months of the original filing date. (You can get a longer waiting period between original filing and priority claim by going the PCT route, which however does not directly secure you any rights anywhere.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another, more subtle effect of a national filing is that the published application will quickly enter patent literature databases worldwide (18 months after filing). It can then be easily found by most patent offices in prior art searches, and can thus prevent others from obtaining a patent on the same invention - everywhere, not only in the place of original filing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4175" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1961" RevisionGUID="1d0e8fd9-ff80-4a20-8525-b096cbfc6615" CreationDate="2012-11-25T13:45:12.893" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/272697448105922560" />
  <row Id="4176" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="372" RevisionGUID="fceb6973-d700-4543-9661-28d87cac52b8" CreationDate="2012-11-25T16:45:12.847" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/272742746387787776" />
  <row Id="4177" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="608c0916-3e78-4b3f-a54a-7856181e8ac1" CreationDate="2012-11-26T01:45:12.883" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/272878642093244416" />
  <row Id="4178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1984" RevisionGUID="c59d5fc2-626e-4af5-9655-3c62a3fbde60" CreationDate="2012-11-26T01:58:06.670" UserId="1485" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I don't know about the first question, but the second is no.  Calculating a patent term can be [complicated][1], but assuming the maintenance fees were paid, etc., there's no reason it should have expired in 2007.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/1905/is-u-s-patent-6578010-in-the-public-domain/1912#1912" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1985" RevisionGUID="7166f7d5-2f1d-4826-adfa-78fdfabf84d7" CreationDate="2012-11-26T03:58:19.003" UserId="998" Text="Three part answer: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) **Grace Period**: The inventor's own pre-filing disclosure (or other disclosures stemming therefrom) will not invalidate the later-filed application so long as it is filed within the one-year deadline.  This is true even when the disclosure is very public and without any claim-to-patent-rights made in the disclosure.  One major caveat is that most other countries do not follow this same grace period.  On the other hand, additional contributions suggested by other folks will count as prior art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) **Implied License**: A court could potentially hold that the inventor's participation in the forum created an implied license -- giving other forum members the right to use and build upon the invention without paying any royalty. Most of the cases that would be relevant to this idea come in the area of shop rights and standard-setting negotiations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) **Solution**: A good solution is for you to implement rules of practice via the terms of use of your site and to use a click-through licensing scheme to ensure that all users are contractually bound by the agreement.  Depending upon what result you want, you could force all participants to promise *not* to file for patent protection on their suggestions. Alternatively, you could make clear that patents are OK and that there is no implied license. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1986" RevisionGUID="da356e81-cebc-4c30-9890-668a083fac8f" CreationDate="2012-11-26T04:21:18.310" UserId="998" Text="This patent covers an invention by a prominent US patent attorney (WESLEY W. WHITMYER) and enforced through is company (Whitserve).  A jury found claims 10 and 15 of the patent enforceable and that judgment was recently affirmed on appeal with the exception that the Federal Circuit found Claim 10 invalid as anticipated by prior art. A dissenting opinion in that case would have invalidated several Whitmyer patents as lacking subject matter eligibility (Section 101).  However, even the dissent found no problem with claim 15.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a link to what my co-blogger wrote on the case: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/08/whitserve-v-computer-packages.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4181" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="ec2f1816-d35c-4cc9-9b26-a521ade59c2f" CreationDate="2012-11-26T19:45:12.983" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/273150433374121984" />
  <row Id="4182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1987" RevisionGUID="b08ccb7f-c0df-4389-8a9d-a66b5ce9f6ab" CreationDate="2012-11-26T22:37:33.150" UserId="1895" Text="I was wondering what a patents `Priority date` is? If its set to 1997 and it has been published 6 times (the last publish was 2012) when does it expire?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent i am talking about is [`US20120221930`][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120221930?dq=load%20web%20pages%20in%20background&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=bdGzUKflAq-a0QXz64HACQ&amp;ved=0CEwQ6AEwCA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4183" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1987" RevisionGUID="b08ccb7f-c0df-4389-8a9d-a66b5ce9f6ab" CreationDate="2012-11-26T22:37:33.150" UserId="1895" Text="Patent expiration date" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4184" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1987" RevisionGUID="b08ccb7f-c0df-4389-8a9d-a66b5ce9f6ab" CreationDate="2012-11-26T22:37:33.150" UserId="1895" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;examination&gt;&lt;us20120221930&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1988" RevisionGUID="12ade0ee-6f0f-4d65-b47e-fb10888e9159" CreationDate="2012-11-27T03:24:18.963" UserId="1897" Text="US20120221930 is a pending application - not a granted patent.  It has a lengthy history as set out at the beginning of the description: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;This application is a continuation of co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/628,465, filed on Dec. 1, 2009, which claims priority under 35 U.S.C. §120 as a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/446,623, filed on May 28, 2003, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,647,550, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/712,586, filed on Sep. 13, 1996, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,584,498, the entire disclosures of which are incorporated by reference.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should expire on September 13, 2016 - BUT!  And there are a lot of buts.  First the application must be examined and a patent granted.  Then any renewal fees owing must be paid. If these happen then the term is calculated to be 20 years from the first filing date - September 13, 1996.  There is even another but.  The term may be extended if there is a delay of more than three years in processing in the US patent office - calculated from the date the of the filing of this continuation, August 30,2012.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can keep track of the application on the PAIR system at the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cheers " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4186" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1987" RevisionGUID="8daf673c-2c7b-48e1-8458-f8d3c80ba560" CreationDate="2012-11-27T04:45:12.990" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/273286328874070016" />
  <row Id="4187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1987" RevisionGUID="76422229-dad0-4a6e-b02f-bf8303dc8c38" CreationDate="2012-11-27T11:04:43.677" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I was wondering what a patents `Priority date` is? If its set to 1997 and it has been published 6 times (the last publish was 2012) when does it expire?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent I am talking about is [US20120221930][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120221930?dq=load%20web%20pages%20in%20background&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=bdGzUKflAq-a0QXz64HACQ&amp;ved=0CEwQ6AEwCA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4188" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1987" RevisionGUID="76422229-dad0-4a6e-b02f-bf8303dc8c38" CreationDate="2012-11-27T11:04:43.677" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Patent expiration date with multiple publications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4189" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1987" RevisionGUID="76422229-dad0-4a6e-b02f-bf8303dc8c38" CreationDate="2012-11-27T11:04:43.677" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;us20120221930&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1989" RevisionGUID="39550c82-3dd5-4750-a886-5b7646d13c49" CreationDate="2012-11-27T12:15:06.500" UserId="1475" Text="To add to the previous answer of Dr. Falken with respect to the question whether others could file a patent application for the same invention in countries where you have not filed yourself the following should be noted.&#xD;&#xA;First of all your application will normally only publish 18 months after your filing (or, if applicable, your priority date). As Dr. Falken already has mentioned, you are only entitled to file abroad **and** claim priority if you file within one year from your original filing date (=priority date). At that time your application(s) have not yet published and will not form prior art.&#xD;&#xA;Hence up and until the publication of your patent application(s) anybody, including you, may file a patent application on the same invention. If this is done in a different jurisdiction as where you filed your application(s), these unpublished applications will not be deemed to be prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus yes, anybody may file an application for the same invention in countries where you have not filed an application. If they do that before your applications publish and before any other pertinent prior art has become available they will be able to obtain a patent right for those countries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1991" RevisionGUID="2f199b05-b031-4792-9690-de72601ce37f" CreationDate="2012-11-27T17:17:55.300" UserId="252" Text="In reading the [Whitserv v Computer Packages][1] case and [blog entry from Patently-O,][2] I’m having problems in seeing how patent [6,981,007][3] is valid. I noticed that there is [another question][4] regarding this patent but the claim wording always confuses me. I tried to put Claim 1 into non-patent language to say this: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Users access service over the Internet from client computers to create Internet- based data such as documents which are stored on servers.&#xD;&#xA;User downloads and backs up data off internet based app&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent claims continuity from 1999. Is there prior art that pre-dates this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1: A system for onsite backup of internet-based data comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a central computer;&#xD;&#xA;a client computer;&#xD;&#xA;a communications link between said central computer and the Internet;&#xD;&#xA;a communications link between said client computer and the Internet;&#xD;&#xA;at least one database containing a plurality of data records accessible by said central computer, each data record containing a client identification number;&#xD;&#xA;software executing on said central computer for receiving a data backup request from said client computer; software executing on said central computer for transmitting said data backup to said client computer for onsite backup of internet-based data on said client computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentlyo.com/files/11-1206-1261.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/08/whitserve-v-computer-packages.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us6981007&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/808/prior-art-for-onsite-backup-for-internet-based-data-processing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4196" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1991" RevisionGUID="2f199b05-b031-4792-9690-de72601ce37f" CreationDate="2012-11-27T17:17:55.300" UserId="252" Text="Prior art for patent in Whitserv v Computer Packages case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4197" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1991" RevisionGUID="2f199b05-b031-4792-9690-de72601ce37f" CreationDate="2012-11-27T17:17:55.300" UserId="252" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;6981007&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1991" RevisionGUID="81091767-83a6-43f5-a1b7-1f2e62bcf51e" CreationDate="2012-11-27T17:33:30.463" UserId="76" Comment="added 33 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In reading the [Whitserv v Computer Packages][1] case and [blog entry from Patently-O,][2] I’m having problems in seeing how patent [6,981,007][3] is valid. I noticed that there is [another question][4] regarding this patent but the claim wording always confuses me. I tried to put Claim 1 into non-patent language to say this: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Users access service over the Internet from client computers to create Internet- based data such as documents which are stored on servers.&#xD;&#xA;User downloads and backs up data off internet based app&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent claims continuity from 1999. Is there prior art that pre-dates this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1: A system for onsite backup of internet-based data comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * a central computer;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * a client computer;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * a communications link between said central computer and the Internet;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * a communications link between said client computer and the Internet;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * at least one database containing a plurality of data records accessible by said central computer, each data record containing a client identification number;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * software executing on said central computer for receiving a data backup request from said client computer;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * software executing on said central computer for transmitting said data backup to said client computer for onsite backup of internet-based data on said client computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentlyo.com/files/11-1206-1261.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/08/whitserve-v-computer-packages.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us6981007&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/808/prior-art-for-onsite-backup-for-internet-based-data-processing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4199" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1991" RevisionGUID="81091767-83a6-43f5-a1b7-1f2e62bcf51e" CreationDate="2012-11-27T17:33:30.463" UserId="76" Comment="added 33 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;data-processing-financial&gt;&lt;us6981007&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1992" RevisionGUID="d5064096-2760-4fb4-baf3-9c330afa792c" CreationDate="2012-11-27T19:02:36.420" UserId="1259" Text="While my answer may not be fully relevant to the complete patent claim list - this particular claim introduced nothing new, even in 1999. Breaking it down and narrowing the prior art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1: A system for onsite backup of internet-based data comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a central computer;&#xD;&#xA;a client computer;&#xD;&#xA;a communications link between said central computer and the Internet;&#xD;&#xA;a communications link between said client computer and the Internet;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This part is pretty straightforward. Client, server, network connection between. Any information stored on the Internet accessible server is, Internet based data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at least one database containing a plurality of data records accessible by said central computer, each data record containing a client identification number;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Database &quot;servers&quot; that reached &quot;client&quot; computers over network connections existed well before 1999. A &quot;client identification number&quot; is not novel either, every database since the creation of databases uses such &quot;user ids&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; software executing on said central computer for receiving a data backup request from said client computer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The term &quot;software executing on said central computer&quot; is vague and the ability for server based software to &quot;receive requests from client computers&quot; is not novel in itself, Apache webserver had done this since the Internet started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; software executing on said central computer for transmitting said data backup to said client computer for onsite backup of internet-based data on said client computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ah. This is a reverse backup. The server based data is backed up on the CLIENT computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But - this was nothing new in 1999. From an old project we worked on in the '90s - may I present Sybase SQL Anywhere. Version 5 released in 1995 ([Wiki][1]) had remote replication. Remote replication allowed MANY client database computers to be updated with the exact data from the SERVER (central) database computer. Essentially, a backup copy - a remotely replicated database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is how it worked:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A central computer (database server) and one or more client computers were connected to the Internet via a communication link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least one database file that had many (or a plurality) of data records was stored on the central (server) computer. Databases identified each client computer with a &quot;replication ID&quot;, which was their client identification number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The replication management software executed on the database server (central) computer, which received the data replication (backup) request from the client computers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The replication management software executed on the database server (central) computer which sent packets of data to connected clients, the data stored on its Internet based connection (Internet-based data). This replicated data allowed each client computer to maintain an exact copy of the central database (the backup).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The end. Hopefully, of this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL_Anywhere" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1993" RevisionGUID="0f295a1f-8881-44fb-b734-bd5a440ab796" CreationDate="2012-11-27T21:16:43.910" UserId="1485" Text="The general standard one has to meet for filing any kind of factual assertion with a U.S. District Court is set out in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure [11(b)(3)][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party&#xD;&#xA;&gt; certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how much pre-lawsuit investigation is appropriate/necessary before filing a patent infringement suit isn't particularly clear cut and depends a lot on the context of the specific situation. Traditionally, the bar has been pretty low - in general, all a complaint has to do is allege facts that, if true, state a claim for relief (i.e. a valid reason to sue someone).  The Supreme Court raised the bar a bit in the last decade, requiring the allegations to at least be &quot;plausible,&quot; but still not requiring &quot;detailed factual allegations.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, even the slightly raised standard is muted in the patent context because the Federal Rules also supply a &quot;form complaint&quot; for *direct* patent infringement (along with complaints for a variety of other types of actions), and the Supreme Court also held that complying with the requirements of these form complaints de-facto meets the necessary pleading requirements.    &#xD;&#xA;Paraphrasing Form 18, all you have technically have to do is state/allege that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. My lawsuit arises under a federal statute (e.g. 35 U.S.C. 271);&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2. Patent No. X issued on Y date;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  3. I have/had an ownership interest in Patent No. X during period T; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  4. Defendant D infringed my rights in Patent X during period T by making, using, selling, and/or importing into the United States a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; doohickey W that embodies one or more claims of Patent No. X.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Therefore, give me money (and/or make D stop it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as you can say all four of those things subject to the requirements of Rule 11, you can file a suit for patent infringement.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, the most contentious is element 4, that the defendant is infringing, but as long as you can make a decent argument that, based on what you know now, you *believe* that if you're given the opportunity to conduct discovery (i.e. dig into the details of what the defendant is doing and how its doing it), it's *likely* that you'll discover evidence that supports your allegation, then you've complied with all the legal requirements.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The standard for pleading indirect infringement is a bit higher.  See @DennisCrouch's [post][2] on the subject. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/06/pleading-requirements.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1994" RevisionGUID="ddfde820-beab-4f5b-950b-98f7859f18f5" CreationDate="2012-11-28T00:11:08.033" UserId="1902" Text="I patented a game whereby I took the game called 4-Square and raised it 7 feet in the air and so you play it like a 4-way volleyball game ... 4-Square in the air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently found a game being sold called 9 Square in the Air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a copy of my game using 9 squares instead of 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My patent includes spinoffs of my design including multiple squares.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How was this guy able to get a patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I have any recourse?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4203" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1994" RevisionGUID="ddfde820-beab-4f5b-950b-98f7859f18f5" CreationDate="2012-11-28T00:11:08.033" UserId="1902" Text="How did this guy get a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4204" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1994" RevisionGUID="ddfde820-beab-4f5b-950b-98f7859f18f5" CreationDate="2012-11-28T00:11:08.033" UserId="1902" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1994" RevisionGUID="37810a6e-4397-44c7-86f7-1d67f9ca64f0" CreationDate="2012-11-28T01:10:59.020" UserId="1485" Comment="added 767 characters in body" Text="I invented a game whereby I took the game called 4-Square and raised it 7 feet in the air and so you play it like a 4-way volleyball game ... 4-Square in the air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I obtained U.S. Patent No. [7,608,000][1], entitled A System for Playing a game. From the abstract: &#xD;&#xA;&quot;A multiplayer game, having rules with aspects of the games of Four Square and Volleyball, is played with an apparatus that can optionally be respectively disassembled and set up.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 [is really long and not easily conducive to clear formatting, but if someone else wants to, go for it. -JSH]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently found a game being sold called 9 Square in the Air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a copy of my game using 9 squares instead of 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My patent discloses multiple alternative embodiments of my base design, including embodiments with more than four squares.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9 Square has two design patents, [D656,995][2], issued April 3, 2012, and [D650,445][3], issued December 13, 2011. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How was this guy able to get a patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I have any recourse?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7608000?dq=7,608,000&amp;ei=_V61UJvfF4fKrQHA5oDgCA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/USD656995&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/USD650445" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1995" RevisionGUID="50584e83-df17-4225-a1c4-1a64dd120f81" CreationDate="2012-11-28T01:40:08.360" UserId="1485" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How was this guy able to get a patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, it's important to consider that while you have a utility patent, the two 9 Square patents are design patents, which protect the ornamental design of an article of manufacture (i.e. what the thing looks like). The applicant cited your patent as relevant prior art to the Patent Office during, so the examiner must have found the ornamental design of the 9 Square patent applications to be novel and non-obvious over the drawings in your patent.   Unfortunately, both 9 Square patents issued with no office actions, so we can't really guess as to what the examiner was thinking.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do I have any recourse?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depends on what you want to accomplish.  If you want to try to show that their patents should be invalidated in view of your patent, the most obvious option is to file request for [supplemental examination][1], but that's a fairly expensive process - if it's just for spite, it's probably not worth it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think your patent entitles you to exclude them from making their product, you could send a demand letter or sue for patent infringement, but that's an even more expensive process and I doubt the sales of either 4 Square in the Air or 9 Square in the Air justify the expense.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, just based on a quick look at your claims, I wouldn't want to try and enforce them. For example, all of your claims require &quot;providing a projectile.&quot;  If 9 Square only sells the grid and not a ball, then they're not *literally* infringing any of your claims. Your claims also require &quot;positioning the apparatus&quot; and its unlikely 9 Square comes to their customer's houses to set up the grid.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your best bet, imho, is old fashioned free market capitalism - take the money you might otherwise spend on a lawyer, come up with a catchy name (4 Square in the Air is already pretty good) and market the crap out of your product.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/10/is-the-new-supplemental-examination-a-complete-replacement-for-owner-initiated-ex-parte-reexamination.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4212" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1994" RevisionGUID="8ff73304-9abc-4cce-9e2d-cd99c8f89441" CreationDate="2012-11-28T13:27:26.657" UserId="1259" Comment="tag patent id" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;video-games&gt;&lt;us7608000&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1992" RevisionGUID="d00169d3-a4ef-4b4d-904c-8b8afb7e9435" CreationDate="2012-11-28T13:48:05.073" UserId="1259" Comment="added links" Text="While my answer may not be fully relevant to the complete patent claim list - this particular claim introduced nothing new, even in 1999. Breaking it down and narrowing the prior art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1: A system for onsite backup of internet-based data comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a central computer;&#xD;&#xA;a client computer;&#xD;&#xA;a communications link between said central computer and the Internet;&#xD;&#xA;a communications link between said client computer and the Internet;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This part is pretty straightforward. Client, server, network connection between. Any information stored on the Internet accessible server is, Internet based data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at least one database containing a plurality of data records accessible by said central computer, each data record containing a client identification number;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Database &quot;servers&quot; that reached &quot;client&quot; computers over network connections existed well before 1999. A &quot;client identification number&quot; is not novel either, every database since the creation of databases uses such &quot;user ids&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; software executing on said central computer for receiving a data backup request from said client computer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The term &quot;software executing on said central computer&quot; is vague and the ability for server based software to &quot;receive requests from client computers&quot; is not novel in itself, Apache webserver had done this since the Internet started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; software executing on said central computer for transmitting said data backup to said client computer for onsite backup of internet-based data on said client computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ah. This is a reverse backup. The server based data is backed up on the CLIENT computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But - this was nothing new in 1999. From an old project we worked on in the '90s - may I present Sybase SQL Anywhere. Version 5 released in 1995 ([Wiki][1]) had remote replication. Remote replication allowed MANY client database computers to be updated with the exact data from the SERVER (central) database computer. Essentially, a backup copy - a remotely replicated database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is how it worked:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A central computer (database server) and one or more client computers were connected to the Internet via a communication link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least one database file that had many (or a plurality) of data records was stored on the central (server) computer. Databases identified each client computer with a &quot;replication ID&quot;, which was their client identification number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The replication management software executed on the database server (central) computer, which received the data replication (backup) request from the client computers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The replication management software executed on the database server (central) computer which sent packets of data to connected clients, the data stored on its Internet based connection (Internet-based data). This replicated data allowed each client computer to maintain an exact copy of the central database (the backup).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The end. Hopefully, of this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: Here is the Sybase replication [documentation][2] dated 1997&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Article on product in PC Mag Dec 19, 1995 [Google Books][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Article on product in InfoWorld magazine Dec 4, 1995 [Google Books][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Article on product in Computerworld Oct 7, 1996 [Google Books][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL_Anywhere&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.sybase.com/detail?id=44555&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://books.google.com/books?id=zZluSj3AT6YC&amp;pg=RA1-PA234&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://books.google.com/books?id=TDgEAAAAMBAJ&amp;pg=PA8&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://books.google.com/books?id=QBztcDotemMC&amp;pg=PT12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1994" RevisionGUID="654263ae-bc9f-4564-8ce9-8e5eb253f835" CreationDate="2012-11-28T13:51:58.133" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I invented a game whereby I took the game called 4-Square and raised it 7 feet in the air and so you play it like a 4-way volleyball game ... 4-Square in the air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I obtained U.S. Patent No. [7,608,000][1], entitled A System for Playing a game. From the abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A multiplayer game, having rules with aspects of the games of Four Square and Volleyball, is played with an apparatus that can optionally be respectively disassembled and set up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 [is really long and not easily conducive to clear formatting, but if someone else wants to, go for it. -JSH]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently found a game being sold called 9 Square in the Air. It's a copy of my game using 9 squares instead of 4. My patent discloses multiple alternative embodiments of my base design, including embodiments with more than four squares.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9 Square has two design patents, [D656,995][2], issued April 3, 2012, and [D650,445][3], issued December 13, 2011. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How was this guy able to get a patent? Do I have any recourse?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7608000?dq=7,608,000&amp;ei=_V61UJvfF4fKrQHA5oDgCA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/USD656995&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/USD650445" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4215" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1994" RevisionGUID="654263ae-bc9f-4564-8ce9-8e5eb253f835" CreationDate="2012-11-28T13:51:58.133" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Why did my patent on game rules not prevent these subsequent design patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4216" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1994" RevisionGUID="654263ae-bc9f-4564-8ce9-8e5eb253f835" CreationDate="2012-11-28T13:51:58.133" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;us7608000&gt;&lt;games-projectile&gt;&lt;design-games&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1998" RevisionGUID="e6e673ad-de89-44cf-84fd-fa87fcbec52b" CreationDate="2012-11-28T13:58:02.387" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1999" RevisionGUID="ea03f6ad-491e-4ccf-9e0e-6d9ed09f224e" CreationDate="2012-11-28T13:58:02.387" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2000" RevisionGUID="f9cc7813-f6ce-49d5-9385-2dee446cb657" CreationDate="2012-11-28T14:00:10.940" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2001" RevisionGUID="fda9d1da-48fc-4425-97e1-2536f7bc0c15" CreationDate="2012-11-28T14:00:10.940" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2002" RevisionGUID="81f451dc-a984-49b5-972a-11822626bdd9" CreationDate="2012-11-28T14:11:00.837" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2003" RevisionGUID="3d4c0d5a-c052-4f0a-90b3-30ac660b7ea1" CreationDate="2012-11-28T14:11:00.837" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2004" RevisionGUID="7c7a567f-c824-4b44-a36e-9e8591ee67e0" CreationDate="2012-11-28T14:27:31.427" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2005" RevisionGUID="7899267b-763c-4da5-aaa2-3a0b35ffa629" CreationDate="2012-11-28T14:27:31.427" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2005" RevisionGUID="b7b8b680-cf66-4481-bb97-6377571a4aae" CreationDate="2012-11-28T14:44:32.037" UserId="76" Comment="added 79 characters in body" Text="The term of a patent: the amount of time during which a patent can be enforced." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4226" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2005" RevisionGUID="b7b8b680-cf66-4481-bb97-6377571a4aae" CreationDate="2012-11-28T14:44:32.037" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 287" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2001" RevisionGUID="19fdc642-1693-4800-ba1a-97392b5ab9cd" CreationDate="2012-11-28T14:44:36.950" UserId="76" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="US patent class 473: games using tangible projectiles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4228" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2001" RevisionGUID="19fdc642-1693-4800-ba1a-97392b5ab9cd" CreationDate="2012-11-28T14:44:36.950" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 283" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1999" RevisionGUID="455269d2-cfb7-457b-9389-b49ca9c9dd67" CreationDate="2012-11-28T14:44:44.517" UserId="76" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="US design patent class D21: games, toys, and sports goods" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4230" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1999" RevisionGUID="455269d2-cfb7-457b-9389-b49ca9c9dd67" CreationDate="2012-11-28T14:44:44.517" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 281" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2004" RevisionGUID="d74910bd-ede2-425b-bcc1-4a732bc81abd" CreationDate="2012-11-28T14:44:47.827" UserId="76" Comment="added 724 characters in body" Text="The [term of a patent](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent) is the time period during which it can be enforced. After a patent expires, the invention is no longer protected by this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact term of a patent depends on the jurisdiction and can be subject to special cases. In most countries including the United States, the term of a utility patent is now 20 years from the filing date in most cases. For US patents filed before 1995, the term is up to 17 years after the application date. Design patents have a shorter term (14 years from issue in the US).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent can expire before its maximum term if the [maintenance fees](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maintenance_fee_%28patent%29) are not paid.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4232" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2004" RevisionGUID="d74910bd-ede2-425b-bcc1-4a732bc81abd" CreationDate="2012-11-28T14:44:47.827" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 286" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2003" RevisionGUID="e68bdfb4-7d19-4be2-a079-1d4aef48e7fe" CreationDate="2012-11-28T14:44:57.577" UserId="76" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="Questions about copyright as it relates to patents. Note that questions about copyright in itself are off-topic on this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4234" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2003" RevisionGUID="e68bdfb4-7d19-4be2-a079-1d4aef48e7fe" CreationDate="2012-11-28T14:44:57.577" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 285" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1998" RevisionGUID="5eb56c56-286c-428b-9c46-066730115d3d" CreationDate="2012-11-28T14:45:06.017" UserId="76" Comment="added 382 characters in body" Text="[US design patent class D21: games, toys, and sports goods](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspcd21/schedd21.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspcd21/defs21.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: game articles (balls, boards, consoles, chance devices, ...), toys, exercise equipment, sports equipment, playground equipment, tents, ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4236" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1998" RevisionGUID="5eb56c56-286c-428b-9c46-066730115d3d" CreationDate="2012-11-28T14:45:06.017" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 280" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2002" RevisionGUID="edd66f1a-8848-4482-8792-6b12912326a7" CreationDate="2012-11-28T14:45:17.733" UserId="76" Comment="added 712 characters in body" Text="[Copyright](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright) is a form of intellectual property that applies to “artistic” types of creative work such as writing, visual compositions, musical composition and performance, etc. This contrasts with patents, which applies to “technical” inventions with a practical purpose. There is nonetheless some overlap in scope; in particular, [tag:software] intellectual property can involve both copyright for the software in itself and patents for the embodied techniques and the devices using the software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site is specifically about patents, so questions about copyright in general are off-topic here. Use this tag for questions about copyright as it relates to patents.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4238" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2002" RevisionGUID="edd66f1a-8848-4482-8792-6b12912326a7" CreationDate="2012-11-28T14:45:17.733" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 284" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2000" RevisionGUID="634c9298-16ce-4575-b838-989f22569870" CreationDate="2012-11-28T14:45:21.680" UserId="76" Comment="added 374 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 473: games using tangible projectiles](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc473/sched473.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc473/defs473.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: billiards or pool, bowling, golf, croquet, playing field, stationary game accessories, player-held game accessories, projectiles, ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4240" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2000" RevisionGUID="634c9298-16ce-4575-b838-989f22569870" CreationDate="2012-11-28T14:45:21.680" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 282" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2006" RevisionGUID="adf47a9c-d222-4162-af3e-21905a28e346" CreationDate="2012-11-28T14:51:29.110" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2007" RevisionGUID="d4745553-b715-492b-93e0-496c48d78859" CreationDate="2012-11-28T14:51:29.110" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2007" RevisionGUID="61d14338-d44d-43f1-93d1-9e3caad17750" CreationDate="2012-11-28T16:01:33.160" UserId="76" Comment="added 228 characters in body" Text="Patent misuse is a possible defense against certain patent infringement charges. Note that this has nothing to do with patents that you think should not have been granted: see [patentability] or [prior-art] or [novelty] instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4245" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2007" RevisionGUID="61d14338-d44d-43f1-93d1-9e3caad17750" CreationDate="2012-11-28T16:01:33.160" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 289" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2006" RevisionGUID="c383af9a-7cc8-4c8a-9f6d-00fefcf43b28" CreationDate="2012-11-28T16:01:55.657" UserId="76" Comment="added 656 characters in body" Text="[Patent misuse](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_misuse) is a US legal doctrine that can be a defense against an infringement charge or reduce the damages that can be claimed against an infringer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note that patent misuse has nothing to do with the granting of the patent. If you think a patent should not have been granted, the issue is one of [tag:patentability], or perhaps [tag:novelty] or [tag:prior-art].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example of a behavior that can be considered misuse is a violation of antitrust law. A mere refusal to license a patent does not constitute misuse, but making a license conditional to the simultaneous use of another product might.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4247" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2006" RevisionGUID="c383af9a-7cc8-4c8a-9f6d-00fefcf43b28" CreationDate="2012-11-28T16:01:55.657" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 288" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1995" RevisionGUID="59e2473a-db48-4ab0-8707-c0707225e867" CreationDate="2012-11-28T20:01:38.963" UserId="1485" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How was this guy able to get a patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, it's important to consider that while you have a utility patent, the two 9 Square patents are design patents, which protect the ornamental design of an article of manufacture (i.e. what the thing looks like). The applicant cited your patent as relevant prior art to the Patent Office during prosecution, so the examiner must have found the ornamental design of the 9 Square patent applications to be novel and non-obvious over the drawings in your patent.   Unfortunately, both 9 Square patents issued with no office actions, so we can't really guess as to what the examiner was thinking.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do I have any recourse?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depends on what you want to accomplish.  If you want to try to show that their patents should be invalidated in view of your patent, the most obvious option is to file request for [supplemental examination][1], but that's a fairly expensive process - if it's just for spite, it's probably not worth it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think your patent entitles you to exclude them from making their product, you could send a demand letter or sue for patent infringement, but that's an even more expensive process and I doubt the sales of either 4 Square in the Air or 9 Square in the Air justify the expense.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, just based on a quick look at your claims, I wouldn't want to try and enforce them. For example, all of your claims require &quot;providing a projectile.&quot;  If 9 Square only sells the grid and not a ball, then they're not *literally* infringing any of your claims. Your claims also require &quot;positioning the apparatus&quot; and its unlikely 9 Square comes to their customer's houses to set up the grid.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your best bet, imho, is old fashioned free market capitalism - take the money you might otherwise spend on a lawyer, come up with a catchy name (4 Square in the Air is already pretty good) and market the crap out of your product.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/10/is-the-new-supplemental-examination-a-complete-replacement-for-owner-initiated-ex-parte-reexamination.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2009" RevisionGUID="7629a9c4-856c-4378-a32e-5e3b8f16ac7a" CreationDate="2012-11-29T12:59:48.827" UserId="1908" Text="I have an idea to do with visual projection systems. I'm not versed on the subject but I am technically inclined (I study computer science and engineering). How would I go about obtaining a patent for my idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4253" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2009" RevisionGUID="7629a9c4-856c-4378-a32e-5e3b8f16ac7a" CreationDate="2012-11-29T12:59:48.827" UserId="1908" Text="How does one start patenting an idea in the United States?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4254" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2009" RevisionGUID="7629a9c4-856c-4378-a32e-5e3b8f16ac7a" CreationDate="2012-11-29T12:59:48.827" UserId="1908" Text="&lt;video&gt;&lt;technology&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4255" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2009" RevisionGUID="1f6e8717-b083-41b5-b91a-981fab8e0232" CreationDate="2012-11-29T13:48:12.573" UserId="1259" Comment="tags edit" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2010" RevisionGUID="2b40177d-6d33-47a3-b6fc-0ba999082d06" CreationDate="2012-11-29T14:21:40.747" UserId="1259" Text="I found a prior art patent that describes the Sybase remote replication aka server to client backup of data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Data replication system and method**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent number: [US6304882][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Filing date: **May 5, 1998**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Issue date: Oct 16, 2001&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A data replication processing system includes a source database system and one or more target database systems all of which are coupled through a network. The replication processing system provides a replication protocol that allows for the source database and the target databases to remain consistent and in agreement. A method for the replication processing system includes having a target database request a refresh of its subset of the source database from the source database system. The source database system receives the refresh request message and constructs a refresh reply message that includes transactions from the source and the target. The target database system receives the refresh reply message from the source database system and applies the changes to its subset of the source database so that the two databases are in agreement with respect to their appropriate data sets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 spells out the basic idea (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1 A method for updating a **source database** and a plurality of **target databases** so that at a given instant the source database and the plurality of target **databases are in agreement**, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - respectively establishing a plurality of pure states between the source database and the plurality of target databases;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - asynchronously receiving at the source database a respective plurality of refresh requests from the plurality of target databases, wherein each refresh request is from a requesting target database and includes any provisional transactions applied to the requesting target database since the requesting target database's last pure state; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - asynchronously responding to the plurality of refresh requests from the respective plurality of target databases by:&#xD;&#xA; -  - applying any provisional transactions from the requesting target database to the source database;&#xD;&#xA; -  - providing the requesting target database with the transactions applied to the source database since the last pure state of the requesting target database including any provisional transactions applied to the requesting target database;&#xD;&#xA; -  - restoring the requesting target database to its last pure state; and&#xD;&#xA; -  - applying to the **requesting target database the transactions applied to the source database** since the last pure state of the requesting target database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This defines the central/server computer (source database) and one or more client computers (target databases), the source database and the plurality of target databases are in agreement - that is, data changes made to EITHER source or any target are backed up to the other side (server to client backup as well as clients to server backup).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The definition of &quot;database&quot; implies a plurality of data records. While the connectivity is not implicitly specified, a network connection between computers is an obvious element, and a network connection over the Internet is an obvious extension of connectivity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 8 and 9 provide for a UUID (client identification) for each of the plurality of client computers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8 The method of claim 7, further comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; periodically performing a marker transaction at the source database, the marker transaction identifying a pure state of the source and target databases by a source generation name;&#xD;&#xA;storing the source generation name at the source database and supplying the source generation name to the target database in response to a refresh request from the target database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9 The method of claim 8, wherein the stable pure state is identified by a UUID.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6304882" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4258" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1994" RevisionGUID="670ead0a-75bc-4dd7-b110-09faa50b50fe" CreationDate="2012-11-30T13:45:15.740" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/274509399417036801" />
  <row Id="4259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="614bb153-e307-49b1-b1bd-7ca7683d855b" CreationDate="2012-11-30T15:49:53.667" UserId="578" Comment="added 390 characters in body" Text="Many people in the commercial vehicle industry use a &quot;twin&quot; air drying arrangement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Patent #us8118911](http://www.google.com/patents/US8118911?dq=US8118911&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=62hbULzbEamujALb04HoCQ&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA), originally filed Nov. 10, 2006, and was granted on Feb 21, 2012, seems ridiculous to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, here is a twin dryer manufactured by the SKF corporation:&#xD;&#xA;http://vsm.skf.com/en-US/HeavyDuty/AirSystem/HCDualTurbo.aspx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this dryer constitute prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is claim 1 of the patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A device attaching a pair of desiccant cartridges such that air flows to the pair of desiccant cartridges in parallel, the device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * an inner chamber; a first fluid flow passage for communicating air to the inner chamber;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * a pair of extensions, each of the pair of extensions adapted for mounting one of the pair of desiccant cartridges;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein each extension is spaced at a substantially equal distance from the inner chamber; and a second and a third fluid flow passage, each fluidly connecting the inner chamber with each of the pair of threaded extensions, compressed air flowing in substantially the same direction at substantially the same time through each of the second and third fluid passages in substantially equal amounts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More possible prior arts with an original filing date before 2006:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Patent #US3717974](http://www.google.com/patents/US3717974?pg=PA1&amp;dq=US+3717974&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=d3xgUPHTKKS-igKF1YCICg&amp;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Patent #US5871564](http://www.google.com/patents/US5871564?dq=US5871564&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=gHtgUPwvw5uJAsylgbgG&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Patent #US4802899](http://www.google.com/patents/US4802899?pg=PA1&amp;dq=4802899&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=yHtgUNGoI8SLiALv7oHQCg&amp;ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=4802899&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This paper (see Figure 4.1) from MIT in 1998 details a parallel flow path through two desiccant beds:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;frm=1&amp;source=web&amp;cd=5&amp;cad=rja&amp;ved=0CGgQFjAE&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdspace.mit.edu%2Fbitstream%2Fhandle%2F1721.1%2F70736%2F48455670.pdf%3Fsequence%3D1&amp;ei=Bcq4UJSCE-WEjAKuqYGIDg&amp;usg=AFQjCNH6O6-P7dkoFBiQs684ONEjC3lmRg&amp;sig2=LvQ6sTVsSvc2B9xdVVa4IQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4260" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1991" RevisionGUID="50406231-b443-4573-a399-863f22eae2ff" CreationDate="2012-11-30T22:45:15.823" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/274645295156047872" />
  <row Id="4261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2011" RevisionGUID="d3de15ae-b918-4202-ae40-ffe7569b3bfd" CreationDate="2012-11-30T23:54:15.513" UserId="1485" Text="Start here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerning_patents.jsp&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/types/utility.jsp&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/index.jsp&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have specific questions after reviewing these resources, feel free to post them.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2012" RevisionGUID="1ff272bb-c832-4079-8ec6-ec95f61483b4" CreationDate="2012-12-01T08:14:38.540" UserId="1912" Text="Wordpress.com's various blogging tools and mobile apps. Their application domain is different than described in the patent, but the patent said theirs were examples only. Those examples are easily replicated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You setup an account on wordpress.com, pick a style of website (blog, photoblog, meeting board), pick a theme, pick some widgets if you want, add some content (always the hardest part).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Wordpress apps][1] display and edit your website when you are offline. Wordpress.com allows multiple-editor accounts. The ability to interact with your website while offline, plus the ability to grant other users similar access to the same website make it viable for building and distributing simple mobile applications. Example: a limited-distribution photo sharing app.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wordpress has code generating ability-- The [Export tool][2] gives you your content in XML form that you can redeploy elsewhere. This XML combined with the open-source wordpress.org is your entire mobile app and distribution platform in source form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.support.wordpress.com/go-mobile/ &quot;Wordpress apps&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.support.wordpress.com/export/ &quot;Export tool&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4263" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="853" RevisionGUID="447ef2ab-1362-439d-b957-cb0b6aafb1f8" CreationDate="2012-12-01T13:45:15.800" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/274871787274240000" />
  <row Id="4264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2013" RevisionGUID="57c271ae-1637-4eb5-b67b-f4fd7a3a32f8" CreationDate="2012-12-02T01:21:28.933" UserId="1915" Text="Can patents restrict the noncommercial distribution of schematics and contstruction kits in germany? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &#xD;&#xA;A company is patent holder for a *blinking LED*. A student puts schematics and partlists of *blinking LED* for hobby electrics on his website.&#xD;&#xA;He drew the schematics himself, but they clearly include the the idea of the *blinking LED* patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4265" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2013" RevisionGUID="57c271ae-1637-4eb5-b67b-f4fd7a3a32f8" CreationDate="2012-12-02T01:21:28.933" UserId="1915" Text="Patents on construction kits in germany" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4266" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2013" RevisionGUID="57c271ae-1637-4eb5-b67b-f4fd7a3a32f8" CreationDate="2012-12-02T01:21:28.933" UserId="1915" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;public-domain&gt;&lt;electronics&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2014" RevisionGUID="35150e02-6545-4d9e-8c23-66e02cf7e9e1" CreationDate="2012-12-02T01:38:01.353" UserId="1916" Text="Is this Patent Registered or just applied. &#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US20120228338?dq=vented+spout+for+bottles&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=q6u6UODaHNHOrQf2oYH4Bg&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As there is no Invention in it. already many such products in market. But this guy is claiming to be inventer. But this type of product is since many years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;please reply.&#xD;&#xA;thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4268" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2014" RevisionGUID="35150e02-6545-4d9e-8c23-66e02cf7e9e1" CreationDate="2012-12-02T01:38:01.353" UserId="1916" Text="Patent registered" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4269" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2014" RevisionGUID="35150e02-6545-4d9e-8c23-66e02cf7e9e1" CreationDate="2012-12-02T01:38:01.353" UserId="1916" Text="&lt;us7249263&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2015" RevisionGUID="7d89d0eb-8762-481d-ad4d-f2a19f2036e0" CreationDate="2012-12-02T03:07:25.060" UserId="1916" Text="some questions are;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) what do you mean by Non Provisional patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) does Non provisional application holder can stop sales of the similar product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) how do we know that a particular product can not be sold due to patent registration. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;hope you understand my question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4271" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2015" RevisionGUID="7d89d0eb-8762-481d-ad4d-f2a19f2036e0" CreationDate="2012-12-02T03:07:25.060" UserId="1916" Text="what is the difference between provisional and non provisional patent application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4272" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2015" RevisionGUID="7d89d0eb-8762-481d-ad4d-f2a19f2036e0" CreationDate="2012-12-02T03:07:25.060" UserId="1916" Text="&lt;us20120228338&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2016" RevisionGUID="9877da3d-eea0-4263-9aa6-54d16f912dee" CreationDate="2012-12-02T03:48:17.700" UserId="1917" Text="&quot;An electronic document authoring, development and distribution system&quot; is what the industry calls a content management system. There have been 15 years of CMS packages out there that do this is a standard practice to control what members and non-members have access to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, content management systems...The first products were around 1995. It was early for the web and everyone was building their own. Commercial offerings were pretty terrible. Many of the first CMS's were really just frameworks on which a CMS (as we now know it) could be built. There were some mid market ones that came and went due to being pretty terrible pieces of software. NCompass was one of the popular ones. It was taken over by Microsoft and killed. Red Dot was started in '95 was probably the most successful mid market CMS around the time of the tech-crash, but its since waned. There are of course more since, php-nuke for example. But the concept definitely predates the 1999 date mentioned above. Possibly the 1996 as well. (http://www.contegro.com/info-center/designers-blog/blog-article/_disc_/engage-the-web/_thread_/when-was-the-first-web-cms-released)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my perspective I don't understand how anyone should be allowed to claim that the concept of a member/non-member having rights specific to their group memebership is special enough to warrant a fee for its use. Regardless of what kind of information service they were using the concept on. This patent is better changed to an anti-patent and be used as an example for which to judge others against." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2017" RevisionGUID="8533aa9e-3d43-4769-a5f4-8608be64aedb" CreationDate="2012-12-02T05:23:46.397" UserId="1770" Text="If you look in Public PAIR http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair you can get the exact status of this application. It ia listed as &quot;Docketed New Case - Ready for Examination&quot; -i.e.  not yet granted. It has not yet been examined and if you are correct, the Examiners _should_ reject it. You will be able to follow the progress in PAIR." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4275" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="616" RevisionGUID="f68dac5e-0734-4ed7-9ca1-0903871cce5d" CreationDate="2012-12-02T07:45:15.793" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/275143578353807360" />
  <row Id="4276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2015" RevisionGUID="35ae7070-92f0-48d5-b809-f4095767d546" CreationDate="2012-12-02T14:02:57.063" UserId="1259" Comment="tags, grammer" Text="some questions are;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) what do you mean by Non Provisional patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) can a Non provisional application holder stop sales of a similar product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) how do we know that a particular product can not be sold due to patent registration. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;hope you understand my question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4277" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2015" RevisionGUID="35ae7070-92f0-48d5-b809-f4095767d546" CreationDate="2012-12-02T14:02:57.063" UserId="1259" Comment="tags, grammer" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;us20120228338&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2014" RevisionGUID="d9699efc-2c27-4d0b-88a3-c5e9e385b907" CreationDate="2012-12-02T18:10:16.003" UserId="1" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Is this Patent Registered or just applied &amp;mdash; [Vented spout](http://www.google.com/patents/US20120228338?dq=vented+spout+for+bottles&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=q6u6UODaHNHOrQf2oYH4Bg&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no Invention in it. There are already many such products in market, but this guy is claiming to be the inventor. This type of product has been around for many years.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2014" RevisionGUID="b99843d6-a5a2-45cb-80e6-e0e3ad2ba8f9" CreationDate="2012-12-02T19:08:08.620" UserId="76" Comment="added 16 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Is this Patent Registered or just applied &amp;mdash; [US 2012/0228338 Vented spout](http://www.google.com/patents/US20120228338?dq=vented+spout+for+bottles&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=q6u6UODaHNHOrQf2oYH4Bg&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no Invention in it. There are already many such products in market, but this guy is claiming to be the inventor. This type of product has been around for many years.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4280" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2014" RevisionGUID="b99843d6-a5a2-45cb-80e6-e0e3ad2ba8f9" CreationDate="2012-12-02T19:08:08.620" UserId="76" Comment="added 16 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;us20120228338&gt;&lt;dispensing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2018" RevisionGUID="3ea3f55f-59e9-474c-997c-be31979f6963" CreationDate="2012-12-02T19:12:27.413" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2019" RevisionGUID="0502150a-0970-4dde-bf67-663e3f364f91" CreationDate="2012-12-02T19:12:27.413" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4283" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2013" RevisionGUID="7ea1b7d8-cd96-4d47-a53f-7de00a70df99" CreationDate="2012-12-02T19:14:40.683" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;european&gt;&lt;electronics&gt;&lt;scope&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4284" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2014" RevisionGUID="c2ebf79b-41d5-46a0-8ae9-0bdb984ead30" CreationDate="2012-12-02T19:15:57.093" UserId="76" Comment="edited title" Text="Status of US 2012/0228338" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2020" RevisionGUID="70aaa5cf-652a-4ad5-8db3-7cef03f3be98" CreationDate="2012-12-02T23:09:28.753" UserId="1777" Text="The effects of granted patents (including European patents) in Germany are defined in the [Patentgesetz][1]. Relevant for your question is probably [§11.1][2], according to which non-commercial activities in the private area are not affected by patent protection. In any case, according to [§9][3], patents only concern activities such as the production, sale or use of a patented product (i.e., the physical embodiment). I believe the mere re-publication of the idea contained in a patent would not fall under any such category, in particular if done non-commerically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/patg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/patg/__11.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/patg/__9.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2019" RevisionGUID="394496fa-7efb-49a6-b9fa-d2721a36da87" CreationDate="2012-12-03T17:25:04.387" UserId="76" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="US patent class 222: dispensing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4287" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2019" RevisionGUID="394496fa-7efb-49a6-b9fa-d2721a36da87" CreationDate="2012-12-03T17:25:04.387" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 291" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2018" RevisionGUID="ebdad1c3-c34f-48be-9c0f-8103fa7cb1fe" CreationDate="2012-12-03T17:25:06.977" UserId="76" Comment="added 420 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 222: dispensing](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc222/sched222.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc222/defs222.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: gas or vapors dispenser, molten metal dispenser, inkwell, chambers, casing, supports, containers, pumps, siphons, nozzles, filters, cutoff mechanisms, seals, automatic control, metering, agitators, ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4289" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2018" RevisionGUID="ebdad1c3-c34f-48be-9c0f-8103fa7cb1fe" CreationDate="2012-12-03T17:25:06.977" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 290" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4290" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2014" RevisionGUID="75bca529-b885-4609-9429-6fd23b2ca58f" CreationDate="2012-12-03T22:45:16.057" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/275732459847565312" />
  <row Id="4291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2015" RevisionGUID="9f69f02c-e9e5-4a73-872c-9f443066695e" CreationDate="2012-12-04T01:15:38.980" UserId="1485" Comment="I tried to make the question a bit clearer, based on what I'm assuming is being asked.  If assumed incorrectly, please let me know." Text="The Detailed Description of this patent application begins with the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is a non-provisional application based upon U.S. provisional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent application Ser. No. 61/451,429, entitled “VENTED SPOUT”, filed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mar. 10, 2011, which is incorporated herein by reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) what is meant by &quot;non-provisional patent application?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) can a &quot;non-provisional application&quot; holder stop sales of a similar product?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) how do we know that a particular product can not be sold due to patent registration? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2021" RevisionGUID="9d359880-660e-4b07-8fc0-b9ecf21c1b5f" CreationDate="2012-12-04T01:29:27.943" UserId="1925" Text="In the process of seekin a patent on a domino style game and found a game with a lot of physical likeness as mine however that game was patented from around 1950.  Can I still file a patent since that patent has expired and our game still share significant differences on playing method and number of tiles? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4293" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2021" RevisionGUID="9d359880-660e-4b07-8fc0-b9ecf21c1b5f" CreationDate="2012-12-04T01:29:27.943" UserId="1925" Text="Can a patent be refiled after 20 years with slight changes and additions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4294" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2021" RevisionGUID="9d359880-660e-4b07-8fc0-b9ecf21c1b5f" CreationDate="2012-12-04T01:29:27.943" UserId="1925" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2022" RevisionGUID="d0ef97b3-eebd-4b18-a6bd-318068d28de4" CreationDate="2012-12-04T01:49:27.393" UserId="1485" Text="&gt; 1) what is meant by &quot;non-provisional patent application?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent application is a set of documents an inventor files with the patent office in the hopes of obtaining a patent.  There are &quot;provisional&quot; patent applications&quot; and &quot;non-provisional&quot; patent applications.  It would be slightly less accurate, but probably also slightly clearer, to refer to a provisional patent application as an &quot;informal&quot; patent application and a non-provisional patent application as a &quot;formal&quot; patent application instead. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Filing a provisional application is a relatively inexpensive mechanism for an applicant to document their invention with their patent office, thereby &quot;calling dibs&quot; on their invention as of the date the provisional application is filed.  The applicant then has one year to decide whether or not to formally pursue patent protection for their idea.  If they decide they do not want to move forward, they do nothing and one year after filing, the provisional application expires and is never heard from again.  If they decide they do want to move forward, they can file a non-provisional patent application that, if done right, can &quot;claim priority&quot; back to the filing date of the provisional application.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) can a &quot;non-provisional application&quot; holder stop sales of a similar product?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, a patent applicant does not yet have an issued patent and thus has no right to exclude anybody from doing anything. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once a patent issues from an application, the patent applicant becomes the patentee and theoretically has the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, and/or importing into the United States, infringing products. (There's a whole separate topic on the distinction between a &quot;similar&quot; product and an &quot;infringing&quot; product.)  (I say theoretically because a patent owner is not always entitled to an injunction, which would &quot;stop sales&quot; of an infringing product - but that is also better suited for a separate topic). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3) how do we know that a particular product can not be sold due to patent registration? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sell the product.  If no one sues you, you're fine.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although that sounds sarcastic, unfortunately it's closer to the truth than not. If you're contemplating selling a product and you're worried about patents in general or a patent in particular, you can obtain an &quot;opinion of counsel&quot; letter from an attorney that, hopefully, gives you a good faith basis for believing your product does not infringe the claims of a valid patent.  The letter won't stop you from being sued or, if your product is found to be infringing, being liable for damages, but it should help prevent you from being penalized for &quot;willful&quot; patent infringement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2023" RevisionGUID="46eeef76-90a0-4310-842d-4f0acda7f61f" CreationDate="2012-12-04T02:10:04.060" UserId="1485" Text="An expired patent does not affect your ability to **file a patent application**, but it certainly could affect your ability to actually **get a patent**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The information in the expired patent is in the public domain and you are only entitled to receive a patent if your game is &quot;novel and non-obvious&quot; compared to other games that already known.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The period of exclusive rights that come with a patent is the reward we, the public, give an inventor in exchange for the inventor teaching us something we didn't already know or couldn't have easily come up with on our own.  If &quot;we&quot; already know about a game that is the same as (or obviously similar to) the game you came up with, then you haven't taught us anything deserving of that reward.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4297" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2021" RevisionGUID="a2a936b2-d17d-4067-9f1e-4b6321992e44" CreationDate="2012-12-04T15:15:06.290" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2021" RevisionGUID="a2a936b2-d17d-4067-9f1e-4b6321992e44" CreationDate="2012-12-04T15:15:06.290" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="In the process of seeking a patent on a domino-style game, I found a game with a lot of physical likeness to mine. That game was patented around 1950.  Can I still file a patent since that patent has expired and our games have significant differences on playing method and number of tiles? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4299" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2021" RevisionGUID="2a04693a-901a-43b7-8aef-b66b886a904b" CreationDate="2012-12-04T16:45:16.133" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/276004250788708353" />
  <row Id="4300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2015" RevisionGUID="301be704-f5f7-47b1-8cff-78ff2e7d9e4a" CreationDate="2012-12-04T17:44:11.557" UserId="288" Comment="fixed capitalization; fixed list formatting" Text="The Detailed Description of this patent application begins with the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is a non-provisional application based upon U.S. provisional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent application Ser. No. 61/451,429, entitled “VENTED SPOUT”, filed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mar. 10, 2011, which is incorporated herein by reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What is meant by &quot;non-provisional patent application?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Can a &quot;non-provisional application&quot; holder stop sales of a similar product?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. How do we know that a particular product can not be sold due to patent registration? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4301" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2015" RevisionGUID="301be704-f5f7-47b1-8cff-78ff2e7d9e4a" CreationDate="2012-12-04T17:44:11.557" UserId="288" Comment="fixed capitalization; fixed list formatting" Text="What is the difference between a provisional and a non-provisional patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4302" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2015" RevisionGUID="301be704-f5f7-47b1-8cff-78ff2e7d9e4a" CreationDate="2012-12-04T17:44:11.557" Comment="Proposed by 288 approved by 76, 1 edit id of 292" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4303" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2015" RevisionGUID="24618495-080b-4448-9c8b-8cb88ca73a4b" CreationDate="2012-12-05T19:45:16.463" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/276411938626498560" />
  <row Id="4304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2024" RevisionGUID="cbe7f7b3-c671-4017-a519-d7be3e5057c8" CreationDate="2012-12-05T20:44:52.593" UserId="1929" Text="This patent appears to patent everything.. including everything that is 3D and has 'subregions'. How is this patentable? What problem is it solving?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4305" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2024" RevisionGUID="cbe7f7b3-c671-4017-a519-d7be3e5057c8" CreationDate="2012-12-05T20:44:52.593" UserId="1929" Text="Aren't there rules against patenting... everything?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4306" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2024" RevisionGUID="cbe7f7b3-c671-4017-a519-d7be3e5057c8" CreationDate="2012-12-05T20:44:52.593" UserId="1929" Text="&lt;us20040249303&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2025" RevisionGUID="611ca19b-f428-4fe0-9b03-2eb3020ff801" CreationDate="2012-12-05T20:51:08.677" UserId="1929" Text="Is there a good resource for translating IPC codes into something meaningful? The WIPO site is generally useless: http://www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/en/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4308" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2025" RevisionGUID="611ca19b-f428-4fe0-9b03-2eb3020ff801" CreationDate="2012-12-05T20:51:08.677" UserId="1929" Text="IPC Code Translations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4309" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2025" RevisionGUID="611ca19b-f428-4fe0-9b03-2eb3020ff801" CreationDate="2012-12-05T20:51:08.677" UserId="1929" Text="&lt;ipc&gt;&lt;wipo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4310" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2024" RevisionGUID="6f6fa86a-6c81-443b-a69d-6d521cafa57c" CreationDate="2012-12-05T20:53:34.117" UserId="1929" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="This patent appears to patent everything.. including everything that is 3D and has 'subregions'. How is this patentable? What problem is it solving?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US20040249303" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2026" RevisionGUID="f496ffca-a300-472a-afbb-76e1eeac8408" CreationDate="2012-12-05T21:07:03.087" UserId="1777" Text="Well, &quot;everything&quot; is maybe a little exaggerated. The independent claim clearly specifies a method for display 3D data which gets interactively divided into subregions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the claim is certainly much too broad and relies on vague terminology such as &quot;display rules&quot; and &quot;subregions&quot; separated by a &quot;boundary&quot;. Virtually any interactive 3D rendering system in which different portions are rendered differently could be read onto this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even when taking into account the description, i.e., when looking beyond the limitations of the independent claims, the patent merely appears to relate to a movable intersection plane in volume rendering. I would be extremely surprised if this hadn't been done before 2003 in commercial intraoperative navigation systems or at least in medical visualization research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, the independent claim is way too broad and generic. Somebody here has obviously been of the &quot;Interpreting It In the Sense of the Description&quot; school of thought, or as I like to call it the Death of the Patent System." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2024" RevisionGUID="5f526382-00c1-44dc-b412-abfef7fec0f4" CreationDate="2012-12-05T21:22:46.457" UserId="76" Comment="tags; title; English; added the text of claim 1" Text="[US patent application 2004/0249303](http://www.google.com/patents/US20040249303) appears to patent everything… including everything that is 3D and has 'subregions'. How is this patentable? What problem is it solving?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of displaying 3D data, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * subdividing a 3D display region into two or more display subregions;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * assigning a set of display rules to each display subregion;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * displaying part or all of a 3D data set in each display subregion according to the rules assigned to that display subregion.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4313" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2024" RevisionGUID="5f526382-00c1-44dc-b412-abfef7fec0f4" CreationDate="2012-12-05T21:22:46.457" UserId="76" Comment="tags; title; English; added the text of claim 1" Text="How could a patent have an extremely broad claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4314" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2024" RevisionGUID="5f526382-00c1-44dc-b412-abfef7fec0f4" CreationDate="2012-12-05T21:22:46.457" UserId="76" Comment="tags; title; English; added the text of claim 1" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;computer-graphics&gt;&lt;surgery&gt;&lt;us20040249303&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2027" RevisionGUID="7f044d9f-7648-4635-87ef-30e036de3c89" CreationDate="2012-12-05T21:30:10.147" UserId="1777" Text="Would you care to explain in more detail what you are trying to do? What is your problem with the WIPO website?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you click on [Browse and Search][1] in the WIPO website, you can enter the subclass or subgroup as &quot;current symbol&quot; on the left hand side and then click &quot;go to&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, if you want to know what G06F 3/033 means, you simply enter G06F 3/033 on the left and click &quot;go to&quot;. You will then find that the code stands for &quot;Pointing devices displaced or positioned by the user, e.g. mice, trackballs, pens or joysticks; Accessories therefor&quot;. Alternatively, you can enter G06F (the subclass), click on &quot;go to&quot;, and see the entire list. The WIPO website also offers downloadable PDFs and databases for the IPC symbols and the corresponding definitions in various languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What more do you need?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wipo.int/ipcpub/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2028" RevisionGUID="1796ab24-ae9e-442c-9559-956cbde894c4" CreationDate="2012-12-05T21:39:04.997" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2029" RevisionGUID="21271ed9-3256-46b4-a912-47812f8dcbdd" CreationDate="2012-12-05T21:39:04.997" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2030" RevisionGUID="1d2eeba9-01d7-4b5b-ae38-60b2663e986d" CreationDate="2012-12-05T22:14:46.770" UserId="1931" Text="I'm filing a patent application in the UK covering 10 or so linked inventions spanning various industries. I plan to use multiple dependent claims to link the various inventions. I believe the number of independent and dependent claims is effectively unlimited in the UK, with no charge for excess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the benefits and risks of listing many permutations of claims? For example, consider the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Claims 1-10 are related to invention A&#xD;&#xA;    Claims 11-20 are related to invention B&#xD;&#xA;    Claims 21-30 are related to invention C&#xD;&#xA;    Claims 31-40 are related to invention D&#xD;&#xA;    41) The systems of claims 1-10 in conjunction with the method of claims 11-20.&#xD;&#xA;    42) The systems and methods of claim 41 in conjunction with the method of claims 21-30&#xD;&#xA;    43) The systems and methods of claims 41 and 42 in conjunction with the method of claims 31-40&#xD;&#xA;    44) etc, etc..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Potentially thousands of theoretical claims are claimed. Am I likely to fall foul of the IPO rejecting them on the grounds that they are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ... of a total number or complexity not justified by the nature of the invention&#xD;&#xA;    ... in principle unsearchable by reason of the number of alternatives embraced, or the choice of characterising parameters or desiderata&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taken from the code of practice [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they decide there are multiple inventions, what happens? If the application is divided, how do claims reference claims in the other applications?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say invention A was deemed obvious over another patent. Are my claims of invention A in conjunction with inventions B, C and D still potentially valid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/practice-sec-014.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4319" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2030" RevisionGUID="1d2eeba9-01d7-4b5b-ae38-60b2663e986d" CreationDate="2012-12-05T22:14:46.770" UserId="1931" Text="Using multiple dependent claims of multiple dependent claims of multiple dependent claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4320" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2030" RevisionGUID="1d2eeba9-01d7-4b5b-ae38-60b2663e986d" CreationDate="2012-12-05T22:14:46.770" UserId="1931" Text="&lt;uk&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2031" RevisionGUID="3fb2830f-f0be-4acd-83c7-dfe6ee189dc4" CreationDate="2012-12-05T22:38:32.737" UserId="1777" Text="Clearly non-unitary, as you state yourself. I am not acquainted with the specific procedures in the UK, but normally a request for additional fees or a request to excise the additional inventions (potentially from the claims AND description) will result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If inventions B-D are to be excised, the dependent claims can only depend from the independent claims relating to A for obvious reasons. They will then have to be adapted accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Submitting clearly non-unitary subject-matter may also induce the examiner to look more closely and find more non-unitary inventions than you assume in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will have to pick ONE category for each claim. Either you claim an apparatus OR a method OR a system OR .... . Claiming &quot;The systems AND methods of....&quot; should normally not be accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may also potentially run into problems concerning basis in the description / sufficiency of disclosure. Simply offering a &quot;pool of features&quot; and then trying to come up with the actual invention later in the procedure sounds tempting (and is sometimes tried), but can cause all sorts of problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Try at your own risk, irreversible loss of rights included." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2029" RevisionGUID="ff43e046-68f9-4ff9-adc8-d129011ee730" CreationDate="2012-12-05T23:52:03.773" UserId="76" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="Surgical methods and equipment — US patent classes 128 and 600 through 699" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4323" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2029" RevisionGUID="ff43e046-68f9-4ff9-adc8-d129011ee730" CreationDate="2012-12-05T23:52:03.773" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 294" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2028" RevisionGUID="c42ec911-a8a5-4c9f-b763-791402e5ea5c" CreationDate="2012-12-05T23:52:06.147" UserId="76" Comment="added 1987 characters in body" Text="Surgery is covered by the following US patent classes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * [128: surgery](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc128/sched128.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc128/defs128.htm)] — trusses, birth control, body rests and restraints, respiratory devices, …&#xD;&#xA; * [600: surgery](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc600/sched600.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc600/defs600.htm)] — diagnostic testing, radiotherapy, speech correction, hearing aids, sleep induction, sexual appliances, fertilization, endoscopes, specula, …&#xD;&#xA; * [601: surgery: kinesitherapy](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc601/sched601.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc601/defs601.htm)]&#xD;&#xA; * [602: surgery: splint, brace or bandage](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc602/sched602.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc602/defs602.htm)]&#xD;&#xA; * [604: surgery](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc604/sched604.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc604/defs604.htm)] — injections and extraction of material from the body&#xD;&#xA; * [606: surgery](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc606/sched606.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc606/defs606.htm)] — instruments&#xD;&#xA; * [607: surgery: light, thermal, and electrical application](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc607/sched607.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc607/defs607.htm)]&#xD;&#xA; * [623: surgery: prosthesis (i.e., artificial body members), parts thereof, or aids and accessories therefor](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc623/sched623.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc623/defs623.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4325" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2028" RevisionGUID="c42ec911-a8a5-4c9f-b763-791402e5ea5c" CreationDate="2012-12-05T23:52:06.147" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 293" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4329" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2024" RevisionGUID="94f6d760-c4ab-4356-ba4f-785c2050d4f4" CreationDate="2012-12-06T19:45:17.227" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/276774329667170305" />
  <row Id="4330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2033" RevisionGUID="19e07832-1a9d-4c7a-85c3-a97634c73c5b" CreationDate="2012-12-06T20:57:42.503" UserId="1770" Text="You are citing a published application. Was it granted? Were claims rejected or restricted on examination?  It was granted as US 7408546 and appears to be currently valid with fees paid, and the claims still seem to be general. it looks as if the Examiners were not being sufficiently strict. Your only recourse seems to be to take professional advice and possibly challenge it - an expensive and time consuming process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2030" RevisionGUID="5ecbf4ba-67d3-4e38-8571-000eb0741094" CreationDate="2012-12-06T21:14:07.667" UserId="1" Comment="fixed the formatting" Text="I'm filing a patent application in the UK covering 10 or so linked inventions spanning various industries. I plan to use multiple dependent claims to link the various inventions. I believe the number of independent and dependent claims is effectively unlimited in the UK, with no charge for excess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the benefits and risks of listing many permutations of claims? For example, consider the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Claims 1-10 are related to invention A  &#xD;&#xA;    Claims 11-20 are related to invention B  &#xD;&#xA;    Claims 21-30 are related to invention C  &#xD;&#xA;    Claims 31-40 are related to invention D  &#xD;&#xA;    41) The systems of claims 1-10 in conjunction with the method of claims 11-20.  &#xD;&#xA;    42) The systems and methods of claim 41 in conjunction with the method of claims 21-30  &#xD;&#xA;    43) The systems and methods of claims 41 and 42 in conjunction with the method of claims 31-40  &#xD;&#xA;    44) etc, etc..  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Potentially thousands of theoretical claims are claimed. Am I likely to fall foul of the IPO rejecting them on the grounds that they are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    ... of a total number or complexity not justified by the nature of the invention  &#xD;&#xA;    ... in principle unsearchable by reason of the number of alternatives embraced, or the choice of characterizing parameters or desiderata  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taken from the code of practice [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they decide there are multiple inventions, what happens? If the application is divided, how do claims reference claims in the other applications?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say invention A was deemed obvious over another patent. Are my claims of invention A in conjunction with inventions B, C and D still potentially valid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/practice-sec-014.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="713" RevisionGUID="92696bf2-e1c2-48f1-9476-436f3cc98e80" CreationDate="2012-12-07T06:49:25.223" UserDisplayName="user1602" Comment="added 209 characters in body" Text="Hmm, $1500 bounty and performance reviews tied to patents. I suspect you were working for a _big_ company which made you _blue_ to the point where you had to leave.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it _is_ who I think it is then, yes, your employment contract will detail that all work carried out by yourself during your employment is owned by the company (as do all their contracts, I believe). Even if it's a different company, the fact that they submit patents at all probably means that their employment contracts come with similar clauses. IP is very important to many large companies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In employment contracts I've seen, they've even tried to claim stuff that was unrelated to the work that people were doing for them, but people have gotten that stricken before accepting, since they may have been doing contract work or their own stuff in addition to what they was doing for the company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, bottom line, they almost certainly own the work you did before leaving, including that patent submission. Hence, no, you cannot stop this patent from being _filed_ since you have no control over that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you _can_ do (if you feel strongly about it) is to try and stop it from getting to the NOA (notice of allowance, meaning that the patent has been approved) stage within the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I would cash the cheque. $250 is $250. It's not a reward for supporting the patent. It's really just the company trying to stop you from causing them trouble and, unless it's attached with an official agreement for you not to oppose, you can take the money and run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I would notify (in writing) the lawyers of the prior art and why you think it invalidates the submission. They will then be legally required to bring that information to the USPTO as part of the submission. However, these lawyers are paid very well for arguing their way around such prior art so that may not kill it off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other groups you can join such as Peer To Patent, which can be used to put forward prior art as well. I would wait until it hits the publication stage (available on PAIR) then submit the prior art to P2P and the USPTO. The latter _may_ cost a little bit of money but you can probably use some of that $250 if you feel strongly enough about it - it would be karmic for the company to fund the fight against their own patent :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll need to wait for official publication since it's the claims of the submission that you need to discredit. Arguing about how non-novel this is is irrelevant until you see the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Me, I would just cash the cheque and let it go, life's too short for crusades. If you're ever called on to testify in the patent lawsuit, just tell the truth. Getting the patent thrown out after the company has spent $50K+ on the whole process plus court costs will be far more damaging to them  than stopping it from filing at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Standard disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, I am certainly not _your_ lawyer, this diatribe above is not advice and it's worth every cent you paid me for it, which is a big fat zero :-)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4350" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2030" RevisionGUID="a077ee4f-add9-4bb1-989b-c555d32a42a0" CreationDate="2012-12-09T07:45:20.213" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/277680311498846209" />
  <row Id="4351" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2025" RevisionGUID="ccd168db-4366-4538-8a15-5a0b4ae522dd" CreationDate="2012-12-09T10:45:21.003" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/277725613903716353" />
  <row Id="4352" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2013" RevisionGUID="d97f5f7b-1d27-4eb3-9922-1570a6112b5d" CreationDate="2012-12-10T07:45:20.840" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/278042702413701120" />
  <row Id="4353" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="542" RevisionGUID="534d9ef6-09cf-46a3-bccf-27e39dbb0979" CreationDate="2012-12-10T10:45:20.863" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/278088000964005888" />
  <row Id="4356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2038" RevisionGUID="c2a19e99-7686-44c5-9efb-121ee91ccfc8" CreationDate="2012-12-10T15:41:36.883" UserId="1951" Text="This patent is about teachers that create, using special software, textbooks that will be sold. This is the same thing that iBooks Author does, isn't it?&#xD;&#xA;Therefore: does Apple know this? And: does this patent mean that we can't make software that lets teachers create their own electronic textbooks?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a little bit confused, thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is about patent us20120221436." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4357" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2038" RevisionGUID="c2a19e99-7686-44c5-9efb-121ee91ccfc8" CreationDate="2012-12-10T15:41:36.883" UserId="1951" Text="Does iBooks Author use this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4358" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2038" RevisionGUID="c2a19e99-7686-44c5-9efb-121ee91ccfc8" CreationDate="2012-12-10T15:41:36.883" UserId="1951" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4363" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2038" RevisionGUID="b968f086-7b90-4234-9a79-9f3f49f1bfb4" CreationDate="2012-12-10T20:10:38.013" UserId="7" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;us20120221436&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2038" RevisionGUID="00d37c97-e3db-47b4-a5bd-cd8541be74ce" CreationDate="2012-12-10T22:48:35.840" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="[US patent application 2012/0221436](http://www.google.com/patents/US20120221436) is about teachers that create, using special software, textbooks that will be sold. This is the same thing that iBooks Author does, isn't it?&#xD;&#xA;Therefore: does Apple know this? And: does this patent mean that we can't make software that lets teachers create their own electronic textbooks?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4367" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2038" RevisionGUID="00d37c97-e3db-47b4-a5bd-cd8541be74ce" CreationDate="2012-12-10T22:48:35.840" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Does iBooks Author use US patent 2012/0221436?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4368" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2038" RevisionGUID="00d37c97-e3db-47b4-a5bd-cd8541be74ce" CreationDate="2012-12-10T22:48:35.840" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;data-processing-financial&gt;&lt;us20120221436&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2038" RevisionGUID="4f9e8c5c-c33e-4f1d-b745-e4d7a8804f87" CreationDate="2012-12-11T10:06:21.960" UserId="1951" Comment="added information" Text="[US patent application 2012/0221436](http://www.google.com/patents/US20120221436) is about teachers that create, using special software, textbooks that will be sold. This is the same thing that iBooks Author does, isn't it?&#xD;&#xA;Therefore: does Apple know this? And: does this patent mean that we can't make software that lets teachers create their own electronic textbooks?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: some more information about this patent. From *Claims*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;8. The electronic book system of claim 1, wherein the curator processing subsystem is further configured to provide an interface for specifying a cover page for the electronic book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;9. The electronic book system of claim 1, wherein the curator processing subsystem is further configured to provide an interface for specifying a style for the electronic book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;10. The electronic book system of claim 1, wherein the curator processing subsystem is further configured to provide an interface for arranging the subset for presentation in the electronic book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;11. The electronic book system of claim 1, wherein the curator processing subsystem is further configured to provide an interface for specifying a table of contents for the electronic book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;12. The electronic book system of claim 1, wherein the curator processing subsystem is further configured to provide an interface for specifying an index for the electronic book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;curator processing subsystem&quot; is some software that lets you create your own textbooks. Therefore: is it possible that this patent is about something as vague as a software for creating textbooks?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2040" RevisionGUID="3ba85761-7694-4e96-b13a-cb6261d4c487" CreationDate="2012-12-11T10:14:04.707" UserId="1955" Text="This patent us7930197 says data mining of personal data is patented. Looks like patent officers weren't aware of data mining's huge overreach." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4371" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2040" RevisionGUID="3ba85761-7694-4e96-b13a-cb6261d4c487" CreationDate="2012-12-11T10:14:04.707" UserId="1955" Text="How can someone patent data mining?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4372" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2040" RevisionGUID="3ba85761-7694-4e96-b13a-cb6261d4c487" CreationDate="2012-12-11T10:14:04.707" UserId="1955" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2040" RevisionGUID="7a82330c-5b34-4f4f-920b-215a8da435af" CreationDate="2012-12-11T11:26:20.147" UserId="1259" Comment="link and tags" Text="This patent [us7930197][1] says data mining of personal data is patented. Looks like patent officers weren't aware of data mining's huge overreach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7930197" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4374" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2040" RevisionGUID="7a82330c-5b34-4f4f-920b-215a8da435af" CreationDate="2012-12-11T11:26:20.147" UserId="1259" Comment="link and tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;us7930197&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4375" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2040" RevisionGUID="5cf13388-4b99-413b-8919-9a86895ae0d5" CreationDate="2012-12-11T13:45:31.900" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/278495734309986304" />
  <row Id="4376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2041" RevisionGUID="3bf6b09f-07d5-48a9-972e-2ad43fdaf8a2" CreationDate="2012-12-11T17:47:13.087" UserId="427" Text="Metismo's Bedrock has been around since at least 2007.  It allows the user to build a mobile application in J2ME and Bedrock can generate code in Java, C++, C#, or ActionScript.  It has support for compiling into applications for: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Android&#xD;&#xA; - Bada&#xD;&#xA; - Blackberry&#xD;&#xA; - BREW&#xD;&#xA; - Flash&#xD;&#xA; - HTML5&#xD;&#xA; - iPhone&#xD;&#xA; - iPad&#xD;&#xA; - J2ME&#xD;&#xA; - WebOS&#xD;&#xA; - Nintendo DS&#xD;&#xA; - PSP&#xD;&#xA; - Symbian&#xD;&#xA; - Windows Mobile&#xD;&#xA; - Windows Phone 7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to compiling J2ME into an app for one of the aforementioned platforms, the user also gets fully generated code in the platform's language. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4377" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2040" RevisionGUID="0ac9e3d3-6d2a-47e7-981f-606107218543" CreationDate="2012-12-11T18:16:16.753" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;data-processing-financial&gt;&lt;telecommunications&gt;&lt;us7930197&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2041" RevisionGUID="eb1b9938-9063-441b-bf91-fc9070682f3a" CreationDate="2012-12-11T18:20:53.657" UserId="76" Comment="removed the detail of supported platforms; added links" Text="[Metismo's Bedrock](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metismo#Bedrock) (now [webMethods Mobile Designer](https://www.softwareag.com/corporate/products/wm/mobile_computing/mobile_designer/overview/default.asp) has been around since at least 2007.  It allows the user to build a mobile application in J2ME and Bedrock can generate code in Java, C++, C#, or ActionScript, which is then compiled for a variety of platforms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to compiling J2ME into an app for one of these platforms, the user also gets fully generated code in the platform's language. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2042" RevisionGUID="c0589c6d-dc55-4259-ac36-050ee30d2f85" CreationDate="2012-12-11T19:29:50.743" UserId="1485" Text="This patent claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A personal user information data mining system, comprising the following computer-implemented components:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     a processor; a memory communicatively coupled to the processor; a data repository adapted to store personal user data supplied by a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plurality of human users through a plurality of user devices&#xD;&#xA;&gt; communicatively coupled to the personal user information data mining&#xD;&#xA;&gt; system over a network, the personal user data comprising information&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generated by the human users, information owned by the human users,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and information linked to the human users;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     a data configuration component that executes in the processor from the memory and, when executed by the processor, normalizes the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; personal user data from a plurality of disparate taxonomies into a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; single taxonomy;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     a data mining component that executes in the processor from the memory and, when executed by the processor, identifies at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; correlation from the normalized personal user data; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     an application component that executes in the processor from the memory and, when executed by the processor, (a) retrieves the personal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user data from the plurality of user devices, (b) stores the retrieved&#xD;&#xA;&gt; personal user data in the data repository, (c) retrieves the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identified correlation, and (d) provides the plurality of human users&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with the identified correlation through the plurality of user devices,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (e) determines a user action based on the said correlation, (f)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; determines a value of the user action based on said correlation, (g)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and notifies a user of the user action when the value of the user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; action is greater than the cost of interruption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is not the same as claiming:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Datamining of personal data." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2043" RevisionGUID="b7d0506f-2b7c-4603-af31-86f70e71e416" CreationDate="2012-12-12T00:35:22.817" UserId="1961" Text="This is a highly specific system patent. The claims are so narrow that that what you did would have to be almost completely identical to have any relevance. You're probably thinking that something they do that you also did is the innovative element - it's not. There's no significant innovation here; all they're patenting is this very particular way of putting conventional design elements together. These types of patents are chiefly intended to prevent another manufacturer from selling an exact copy, but it's just another heliostat. They tend to look pretty similar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4381" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2038" RevisionGUID="e8e0ead9-6470-467e-bf48-060474110f37" CreationDate="2012-12-12T01:45:21.137" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/278676882474561536" />
  <row Id="4382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2044" RevisionGUID="2a4f2e03-a5f8-4d21-aef6-464510ef62b5" CreationDate="2012-12-12T15:32:03.547" UserId="1114" Text="It sounds an awful lot like http://www.flatworldknowledge.com/, and does seem broad. I'm not familiar with iBooks Author, but I don't think it would infringe because it doesn't provide actual content to be repackaged in a book. From a brief read of the spec of the '436 application, it looks like the &quot;book component&quot; is referring to something like a chapter or subchapter, which a professor can combine with other chapters to make a customized textbook.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your question, it is possible to patent software for creating textbooks, provided that the invention is novel and non-obvious. However, if the software is nothing more than doing on a computer what was done in the analog world before, the applicants will have a hard time establishing that it's non-obvious. I'd argue that this patent in particular is nothing more than a digital version of a university printshop, which often has articles on hand to compile into a custom book for a given course. The specification doesn't seem to address any difficult problem digitizing the process, so I don't think it would be a stretch to say that this application is simply combining old prior art elements in ways that don't change their functions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2045" RevisionGUID="84a07cff-1794-41b4-b97a-987b5061b4ce" CreationDate="2012-12-12T21:08:43.697" UserId="1963" Text="The patent says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; using each of the plurality of digital cameras&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does that mean that it only covers systems that have 2 or more cameras? Or would it cover a system with only 1 camera." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4384" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2045" RevisionGUID="84a07cff-1794-41b4-b97a-987b5061b4ce" CreationDate="2012-12-12T21:08:43.697" UserId="1963" Text="Does plurality mean that it must have more than 1 camera?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4385" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2045" RevisionGUID="84a07cff-1794-41b4-b97a-987b5061b4ce" CreationDate="2012-12-12T21:08:43.697" UserId="1963" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2046" RevisionGUID="b42ea628-f4ac-48c0-8c77-19539c6e8ca5" CreationDate="2012-12-12T21:35:28.230" UserId="1485" Text="Absent some reason from departing from the normal meaning, this language would seem to define something having 2 or more cameras, all of which must be being used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4387" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2045" RevisionGUID="edeedd40-ecbc-4c79-8d08-f8a6a5cf414f" CreationDate="2012-12-12T22:28:53.780" UserId="1" Comment="4" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="4388" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2045" RevisionGUID="a96fd738-4c49-49e7-83f5-4f5b868dd127" CreationDate="2012-12-12T22:33:27.000" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;terminology&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4389" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="2045" RevisionGUID="52852543-aeef-48dd-b7bd-bf2e5e3ca8ba" CreationDate="2012-12-12T22:35:47.010" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:76,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Gilles&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="4390" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2045" RevisionGUID="46d5ab26-5f95-4874-b8c5-6bea3c5893b3" CreationDate="2012-12-13T13:45:28.087" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/279220492848750593" />
  <row Id="4391" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2047" RevisionGUID="f84a8fdd-aba7-41db-b808-f5d0bd254f0a" CreationDate="2012-12-13T21:26:48.297" UserId="1967" Text="Is spreadsheet software protected by patents? I know that in the early days of spreadsheets there were legal battles over this question. A quick search on Google patents also shows that there are  people who claim to have a patent on the concept of a spreadsheet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I were to create spreadsheet-type software, would I be infringing on patents and be at risk of being taken to court by patent trolls or other companies?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4392" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2047" RevisionGUID="f84a8fdd-aba7-41db-b808-f5d0bd254f0a" CreationDate="2012-12-13T21:26:48.297" UserId="1967" Text="Is spreadsheet software patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4393" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2047" RevisionGUID="f84a8fdd-aba7-41db-b808-f5d0bd254f0a" CreationDate="2012-12-13T21:26:48.297" UserId="1967" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;spreadsheets&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2048" RevisionGUID="73b6957d-5af5-45b2-9180-62e12cb67612" CreationDate="2012-12-13T21:34:10.233" UserId="1968" Text="Firstly, remember that each and every element of the claim must be adopted to infringe a claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a main &quot;*data repository*&quot; containing all users data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In layman's terms, the most important distinguishing aspects of the invention are steps (d)-(g).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personal data on a device is compared with a main data repository (&quot;*identifies at least one correlation from the normalized personal user data*&quot;), e.g. user bob's current project &amp; bob's location is identified as having a correlation with user jill's project and location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(e): &quot;*determines a user action based on the said correlation*&quot; : e.g. send an SMS to Bob, to helpfully suggest to him that he might want to meet Jill while he is in Texas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(f) lets say this is of 8/10 value&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(g) *notifies a user of the user action when the value of the user action is greater than the cost of interruption*: lets say cost of interruption is 7, we above the threshold with the project/location Jill correlation; so the system decides to send the SMS to Bob.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The system would raise many privacy issues.  It essentially seeks to identify the correlation from personal data with other data, value it, then take a user action automatically if it is above a threshold.  e.g. you might use an receipt for an outdoor concert in NY Central Park, to then notify the user that there is a thunderstorm forecast on the day they are attending an outdoor concert; or so forth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2049" RevisionGUID="455d8063-43a3-4b76-8c5d-dd213e93bfab" CreationDate="2012-12-13T21:49:49.277" UserId="1968" Text="Firstly, you should note this is a patent *application*, not a patent (it has not been examined by the USPTO, or approved, and there are no rights to stop other party's until it has been *granted*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sub-claims all depend on the main claim 1, and so cannot be read in isolation (imagine instead to combine them - claim 2 is features of claim 1 + claim 2).  Claim 1 appears below as quote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In layman's terms, the system is trying to claim a system that has a lots of books/chapters/components in a digital repository, each component having a set of rules/policies (e.g. must be sold at &gt;= $2.00, you CAN include with any other content or ONLY include with other book components written by author X or having reputation &gt;4, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, it's required that the aggregator creates a book from the different book components (e.g. chapters), bundles it into a book, take money from customer, divides money between owners of book components, and sends to the book component owners (and presumably takes a commission also).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From customer's view, they could pay to dynamically build/purchase their most desired chapters on a topic from different book components/chapters, as a single book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a publisher processing subsystem configured to permit publisher supply&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of book components and one or more policies, the book components being&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stored in a book components database, the one or more policies being&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stored in a policy database;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a curator processing subsystem configured to permit curator selection&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of a subset of the book components from the book components database,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; responsive to the policies, for synthesis into an electronic book, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; curator processing subsystem further configured to store the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electronic book in a book database; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a distribution subsystem configured to retrieve the electronic book&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from the book database, provide the electronic book for purchase, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; collect payment for such purchase, wherein the electronic book system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is further configured to aggregate the payment with other payments for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disbursement to select publishers, responsive to the select publishers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; having provided at least one of the subset of the book components." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2050" RevisionGUID="6983034c-d202-42de-9bdf-62c2e5df9448" CreationDate="2012-12-13T21:52:51.310" UserId="1969" Text="Re: US20080316176 A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this invention novel and patentable? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4397" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2050" RevisionGUID="6983034c-d202-42de-9bdf-62c2e5df9448" CreationDate="2012-12-13T21:52:51.310" UserId="1969" Text="LAPTOP WITH EXTENDABLE USB-POWERED I/O DEVICE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4398" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2050" RevisionGUID="6983034c-d202-42de-9bdf-62c2e5df9448" CreationDate="2012-12-13T21:52:51.310" UserId="1969" Text="&lt;us20080316176&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2051" RevisionGUID="a8f8d69f-c956-46a8-bcca-00ae417720b6" CreationDate="2012-12-13T22:16:22.997" UserId="1970" Text="The first modern spreadsheet program was Visicalc which was very revolutionary in 1981. However, the creators did not take out a patent since software patents were not well established back then. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2052" RevisionGUID="ead569ca-ecfd-4fb1-b9b6-fa393d6d494b" CreationDate="2012-12-14T00:59:57.660" UserId="1514" Text="In computer programming, most inventions are mainly ideas, as they can be implemented in thousands ways. Is it possible and how to patent an idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the `badges` in `SE` is based on an idea how to give score to members based on their particular activities. How to /detect/calculate/store scores is not something special, but the idea is brilliant to motivate people for more activities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of Web 2.0 interactive features are merely based on idea, and the rest is trivial. For the above example, if patenting the implementing codes written in PHP and SQL Server, one can copy the idea and re-write it in Python and MySQL. Thus, patenting codes cannot protect the rights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to deal with ideas in Computer Software?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4401" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2052" RevisionGUID="ead569ca-ecfd-4fb1-b9b6-fa393d6d494b" CreationDate="2012-12-14T00:59:57.660" UserId="1514" Text="Is it possible (and how) to patent an idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4402" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2052" RevisionGUID="ead569ca-ecfd-4fb1-b9b6-fa393d6d494b" CreationDate="2012-12-14T00:59:57.660" UserId="1514" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2050" RevisionGUID="3aa0ac8a-cbc8-45f1-a1f5-d75780ceb7a1" CreationDate="2012-12-14T11:25:02.140" UserId="1259" Comment="patent link" Text="Re: [US20080316176][1] A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this invention novel and patentable? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20080316176" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4404" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2050" RevisionGUID="3aa0ac8a-cbc8-45f1-a1f5-d75780ceb7a1" CreationDate="2012-12-14T11:25:02.140" UserId="1259" Comment="patent link" Text="&lt;ibm&gt;&lt;us20080316176&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2053" RevisionGUID="19ec38fd-7f69-44ff-9bc4-d45dd684caf6" CreationDate="2012-12-14T12:49:02.387" UserId="1475" Text="Another very good source for finding the meaning of (IPC) classification(s) and even searching in the classifications to find classes that relate to your subject is the Espacenet site maintained by the European Patent Office (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/eclasrch?classification=ecla&amp;locale=en_EP). Here you can search the European classification (ECLA) which at this moment is replaced by the CPC (Cooperative Patent Classification) which will be used by both the USPTO and the EPO to classify patent documents.&#xD;&#xA;However, this CPC is deemed to comprise all the IPC classes; thus this site can be used to search IPC also." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2054" RevisionGUID="fc31cf7b-8f0d-4d60-99d3-6e496836bc86" CreationDate="2012-12-14T12:57:44.497" UserId="1475" Text="There is a potential danger that the student can be held liable for indirect or contributory infringement. This is the act of providing means that are essential for performing the infringing act while it was known or would be obvious that these means would be used for the infringing act. Of course - concurring with Dr. Falken - such an activity of providing means should be a commercial activity.&#xD;&#xA;This indirect infringement prevents infringers escaping liability by selling construction kits of parts with a construction scheme, while the intact product would infringe. Since they are not selling the intact product they would not infringe literally, but by selling the parts and construction scheme they would induce others of constructing the infringing product." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2055" RevisionGUID="2ab8e4a0-93b5-4134-a9dd-f8cd4f1499d0" CreationDate="2012-12-14T16:44:31.280" UserId="1114" Text="Just because the implementation is easy doesn't mean it's any less patentable. Easy implementation isn't unique to computers. As I understand it, the molecule structure of most medicines is easy to replicate once it's known--the difficulty is in discovering a useful molecule in the first place. There's a vast number of possibilities, many easy to replicate, but only a very small subset that are useful. It's not perfectly analogous to computers since the process of discovering useful molecules often involves creating many different variants and then testing them for effectiveness, but in many ways, even Web 2.0 technologies function like this. Take your example of SE badges. StackExchange certainly wasn't the first company to try to increase user participation. There are many different techniques, each trivial to implement, but not all equally effective. The key is that one doesn't know beforehand whether the &quot;idea,&quot; though trivial, will actually work. The patent system rewards experimentation by giving exclusive rights to those who try many ideas(and patent them, of course), even if those ideas are trivially implemented. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2056" RevisionGUID="9d1e421e-c8ad-4323-bb30-4584ed4b93d7" CreationDate="2012-12-14T17:10:57.323" UserId="1972" Text="Actually, although the above answers are what most would consider correct due to enablement requirements, there is a (perhaps not well-tested, since this situation is rare) supposed exception for something that you enable but for some intervening technology that does not yet exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, if the state of the art is &quot;A&quot;, you invent &quot;C&quot;, which requires &quot;B&quot;, but &quot;B&quot; does not yet exist, you may still be able to patent &quot;C&quot; if it turns out that you have enabled &quot;C&quot; once &quot;B&quot; exists. Your rights would not be valid until &quot;B&quot; exists (which raises the possibility that the entire lifetime of you patent could expire before &quot;B&quot; exists)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2057" RevisionGUID="d112f555-ca28-4db1-b1c6-45545ff4396a" CreationDate="2012-12-14T19:24:40.967" UserId="1973" Text="This is ridicoulous. I've done this since 2001 in commercial products (befor NIO is used large byte arrays, as actually the GC is hurt by the number of objects, not the size so much)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4410" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2052" RevisionGUID="78688f68-3b3c-4796-abe1-2ab9ba1e050f" CreationDate="2012-12-14T19:45:27.897" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/279673477475217410" />
  <row Id="4412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2059" RevisionGUID="f5a1a4dd-bc69-4326-a9f9-f25fdee7d714" CreationDate="2012-12-15T16:18:46.677" UserId="1114" Text="Short answer is that the devil is in the details. I doubt that one could successfully patent the generic concept of a spreadsheet program today (or, if there were any, would have since expired). However, one could certainly patent certain improvements on spreadsheet programs, or methods of implementing them. I don't think making a spreadsheet program will subject you to patent liability *per se*, but certain details of your concept or implementation might." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2060" RevisionGUID="20c9dc74-7273-4583-b408-46df58618c39" CreationDate="2012-12-15T16:33:10.873" UserId="1514" Text="In the history, invention conflicts were on who has patented an invention sooner. This is the subject of stealing an invention. Consider one has published an invention in any kind of media, can this give him a right for claiming in the future?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, someone publishes an invention (whether announcement, idea, report, etc) in a media (newspaper, magazines, journals, etc) with no intention to file a patent. Then, someone else simply file a patent for that invention. Can the first person claim and file patent for his own discovery? Or the winner is always the first application received at the US Patent Office?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I am asking if other media (not official patent) can be used for claiming an invention (e.g. at court) or only who have patented are protected?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4415" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2060" RevisionGUID="20c9dc74-7273-4583-b408-46df58618c39" CreationDate="2012-12-15T16:33:10.873" UserId="1514" Text="Can someone patent someone else's invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4416" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2060" RevisionGUID="20c9dc74-7273-4583-b408-46df58618c39" CreationDate="2012-12-15T16:33:10.873" UserId="1514" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;defensive-publications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2053" RevisionGUID="ac3acb68-d8c2-4f76-9ce5-22714934da54" CreationDate="2012-12-15T16:41:16.733" UserId="1259" Comment="linkie" Text="Another very good source for finding the meaning of (IPC) classification(s) and even searching in the classifications to find classes that relate to your subject is the Espacenet site maintained by the [European Patent Office][1]. Here you can search the European classification (ECLA) which at this moment is replaced by the CPC (Cooperative Patent Classification) which will be used by both the USPTO and the EPO to classify patent documents.&#xD;&#xA;However, this CPC is deemed to comprise all the IPC classes; thus this site can be used to search IPC also.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/eclasrch?classification=ecla&amp;locale=en_EP" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2060" RevisionGUID="d6f7b90b-b05d-4998-b2a2-8f1b2d803bbd" CreationDate="2012-12-15T16:49:28.870" UserId="1514" Comment="added 289 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In the history, invention conflicts were on who has patented an invention sooner. This is the subject of stealing an invention. Consider one has published an invention in any kind of media, can this give him a right for claiming in the future?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, someone publishes an invention (whether announcement, idea, report, etc) in a media (newspaper, magazines, journals, etc) with no intention to file a patent. Then, someone else simply file a patent for that invention. Can the first person claim and file patent for his own discovery? Or the winner is always the first application received at the US Patent Office?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article `35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability` states that patentability needs novelty, and the inventor file a patent within one year. Does this mean that after one year, someone else can modify it and add some content to submit an application for his own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I am asking if other media (not official patent) can be used for claiming an invention (e.g. at court) or only who have patented are protected?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4420" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2060" RevisionGUID="d6f7b90b-b05d-4998-b2a2-8f1b2d803bbd" CreationDate="2012-12-15T16:49:28.870" UserId="1514" Comment="added 289 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;defensive-publications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2061" RevisionGUID="6d099652-d1b0-4e79-b8e8-c49cdcc01b91" CreationDate="2012-12-15T16:51:06.337" UserId="1114" Text="According to the USPTO's [PEAR](http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair) database, the application was abandoned as of May 2011. The examiner rejected the claims based on obviousness in light [US 5949643](http://www.google.com/patents?id=szkXAAAAEBAJ&amp;pg=PA2&amp;source=gbs_selected_pages&amp;cad=4#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), which disclosed something similar. The patent disclosed two separate embodiments: one with an extendable touchpad, and another with hinges connected the screen to the base. The examiner felt it would be obvious to combine the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big question is when Google Patents will include the USPTO file wrapper so we don't have to use the terrible PEAR site to get that information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2060" RevisionGUID="5fed21a9-808e-407c-9002-bea2b6a808bf" CreationDate="2012-12-15T17:39:56.683" UserId="1514" Comment="added 181 characters in body" Text="In the history, invention conflicts were on who has patented an invention sooner. This is the subject of stealing an invention. Consider one has published an invention in any kind of media, can this give him a right for claiming in the future?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, someone publishes an invention (whether announcement, idea, report, etc) in a media (newspaper, magazines, journals, etc) with no intention to file a patent. Then, someone else simply file a patent for that invention. Can the first person claim and file patent for his own discovery? Or the winner is always the first application received at the US Patent Office?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article `35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability` states that patentability needs novelty, and the inventor file a patent within one year. Does this mean that after one year, someone else can modify it and add some content to submit an application for his own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I am asking if other media (not official patent) can be used for claiming an invention (e.g. at court) or only who have patented are protected?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, does USPTO wish/try to ideally/legally grant a patent to its real investor, or simply the first claimer is the legal owner (no matter who has actually invented)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2062" RevisionGUID="26ac6441-1e4f-4dc6-afbd-9dd2b730fd5a" CreationDate="2012-12-15T17:59:15.047" UserId="1114" Text="I'll go ahead and address 1) whether you can use other media that describe your invention like a patent, and 2) whether you can use other media to invalidate someone else's patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other media as a patent&#xD;&#xA;======================&#xD;&#xA;Other media cannot be used as a patent. You cannot sue anyone for patent infringement unless you have a patent, regardless of when you made the invention, how valuable it is, or how much money you spent on it. One must apply for a patent through the USPTO to get any protection under the patent statute. This is in contrast to copyright, where one need not file anything with the government in order to have rights in one's creation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other media to invalidate patent&#xD;&#xA;====&#xD;&#xA;First, 102(f) requires that one applying for a patent actually invented the invention. If the other guy really did just read your publication and went to the patent office with it, the patent should be invalid under 102(f). However, that might be hard (and costly) to prove.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, 102(a) says that if you published the material before he invented it, then his patent is invalid. This is also problematic, because it involves determining when he came up with the invention. However, if he didn't really invent it, he'll have a hard time coming up with proof that he invented it before the publication came out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third, if your publication came over a year before he filed for a patent, it's invalid. No need to determine when it was purportedly invented. This is the easiest way to invalidate a patent since it requires little investigation for evidence (you'd only need to show evidence that the publication was published when you said it was). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Under the old patent law (before September 2011), if you and someone else invented the same invention in the same time frame, the first to invent would receive the patent. However, under the new law, if someone else legitimately invented the same invention after you invented it, but before you published anything about it or filed for a patent, then he would receive the patent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2050" RevisionGUID="2b6cafd8-58a2-4522-9bdc-f80cfe421892" CreationDate="2012-12-15T21:53:15.573" UserId="1114" Comment="Added the text of the first claim, as well as a figure, for convenience. Small caps for title." Text="Re: [US20080316176][1] A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this invention novel and patentable? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1\. A laptop computer system having an extended touchpad functionality, the system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a base having a media bay, the base housing a microprocessor based computer system;&#xD;&#xA;a keyboard having a plurality of keys, the keys communicatively coupled to the microprocessor based computer system;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a display screen connected to the base via first and second hinges such that the display screen is moveable between a closed position and an open position, the display screen communicatively coupled to the microprocessor based computer system to drive the display screen; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a touch-pad disposed in the media bay, the touchpad being extendable and retractable with respect to the media bay, the touch-pad being (i) configured as a drawing tablet and (ii) configured to control the cursor movement and placement functions on the display screen,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the touchpad is disposed on either a right or left opposing side of the base having the media bay and the touchpad has a form factor substantially the same as a USB I/O powered device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Fig. 2][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20080316176&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ND7sa.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4425" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2050" RevisionGUID="2b6cafd8-58a2-4522-9bdc-f80cfe421892" CreationDate="2012-12-15T21:53:15.573" UserId="1114" Comment="Added the text of the first claim, as well as a figure, for convenience. Small caps for title." Text="Laptop with extendable USB-powered I/O device" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4426" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2050" RevisionGUID="2b6cafd8-58a2-4522-9bdc-f80cfe421892" CreationDate="2012-12-15T21:53:15.573" Comment="Proposed by 1114 approved by 1259, 76 edit id of 295" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2052" RevisionGUID="cbe63b37-679a-4346-9e47-70c3b951b799" CreationDate="2012-12-15T21:54:59.567" UserId="76" Comment="English" Text="In computer programming, most inventions are mainly ideas, as they can be implemented in thousands ways. Is it possible and how to patent an idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the badges of Stack Exchange are based on an idea how to give score to members based on their particular activities. How to /detect/calculate/store scores is not something special, but the idea is brilliant to motivate people for more activities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of Web 2.0 interactive features are merely based on idea, and the rest is trivial. For the above example, if the implementation written in PHP and SQL Server is protected, one can copy the idea and re-write it in Python and MySQL. Thus, patenting code cannot protect the rights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to deal with ideas in computer software?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4428" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2052" RevisionGUID="cbe63b37-679a-4346-9e47-70c3b951b799" CreationDate="2012-12-15T21:54:59.567" UserId="76" Comment="English" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4429" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2050" RevisionGUID="8856819a-3794-473a-845b-0abee5f532c0" CreationDate="2012-12-15T22:01:13.493" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;computer-graphics&gt;&lt;ibm&gt;&lt;us20080316176&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2063" RevisionGUID="0df496d6-dc9d-4808-86eb-42e511f1113a" CreationDate="2012-12-17T00:30:45.337" UserId="1977" Text="6125996  Reading claim 1 of this patent, it claims that the device has 2 plates that are attached together by means of a shaft and that both halves must rotate mutually around &quot;said shaft&quot;, yet one of the halves is pinned to &quot;said shaft&quot;. So how can this happen if according to the pictures and descriptions, there's only one bearing and the half that is attached to the shaft is rigidly fixed TO the shaft?&#xD;&#xA;If looking at the prior art, it looks like this already exists on the prior art and what they actually claim is not what they actually have?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4433" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2063" RevisionGUID="0df496d6-dc9d-4808-86eb-42e511f1113a" CreationDate="2012-12-17T00:30:45.337" UserId="1977" Text="patent 6125996. How can 2 halves of a component rotate both rotate around a shaft if one of the halves is pinned TO the shaft?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4434" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2063" RevisionGUID="0df496d6-dc9d-4808-86eb-42e511f1113a" CreationDate="2012-12-17T00:30:45.337" UserId="1977" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2063" RevisionGUID="1d2a53d7-582b-4762-ba2c-c0936c947506" CreationDate="2012-12-17T01:38:20.903" UserId="1114" Comment="Added a link to the patent, included the text of the claim, and changed some wording" Text="[US 6,125,996][1] Reading claim 1 of this patent, it claims that the device has 2 plates that are attached together by means of a shaft and that both halves must rotate mutually around &quot;said shaft&quot;, yet one of the halves is pinned to &quot;said shaft&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A body transfer device, this device comprising a multiplicity of plates (Ai, Bi) each supporting a body and which are coupled one after another in an endless curvilinear mobile chain with articulations suitable to allow the curvilinearity of said mobile chain and simultaneously the rotation of the plates around a horizontal axis so as to turn the bodies over or set them upright, characterized in that the plates supporting the bodies are coupled in the following way:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  the plates are joined in successive pairs (Ai, Bi) ***and the two plates (Ai, Bi) of each pair are coupled by a horizontal shaft (13) allowing the mutual rotation of the two plates around said shaft to turn the bodies (9) over or set them upright*** and,&#xD;&#xA;each of the two above-mentioned plates (Ai, Bi respectively) of a pair is coupled to another immediately adjacent plate belonging to a neighboring pair (Bi-1 Ai+1 respectively) in an articulated way around at least one vertical axis of rotation suitable to allow their mutual inclination around said vertical axis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; So how can this happen if according to the pictures and descriptions, there's only one bearing and the half that is attached to the shaft is rigidly fixed TO the shaft?&#xD;&#xA;If looking at the prior art, it looks like this already exists in the prior art and what they actually claim is not what they actually disclose?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6125996 &quot;us 6125996&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4436" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2063" RevisionGUID="1d2a53d7-582b-4762-ba2c-c0936c947506" CreationDate="2012-12-17T01:38:20.903" UserId="1114" Comment="Added a link to the patent, included the text of the claim, and changed some wording" Text="US 6,125,996. How can 2 halves of a component rotate both rotate around a shaft if one of the halves is pinned TO the shaft?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4437" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2063" RevisionGUID="1d2a53d7-582b-4762-ba2c-c0936c947506" CreationDate="2012-12-17T01:38:20.903" UserId="1114" Comment="Added a link to the patent, included the text of the claim, and changed some wording" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us6125996&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2057" RevisionGUID="048acda3-1164-4681-8533-f62e406960d7" CreationDate="2012-12-17T13:36:58.297" UserId="1259" Comment="spellings" Text="This is ridiculous. I've done this since 2001 in commercial products (before NIO is used large byte arrays, as actually the GC is hurt by the number of objects, not the size so much)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2065" RevisionGUID="63b221e9-a3cf-44ab-b720-5957dc1a15ad" CreationDate="2012-12-18T11:05:32.470" UserId="1872" Text="The US patent law does not exclude business methods from patentable subject matter. However, for software and mobile applications requires that the business method works in conjunction with a machine such as a computer or a mobile device. You can check check out the current case law *In re Bilski* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski regarding the same about software and business methods. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm not sure that you will be able to get a grant if you file a patent application before USPTO for an open source software. &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2066" RevisionGUID="15205ca0-934a-423e-b08b-4b477d0ac23b" CreationDate="2012-12-18T18:36:22.963" UserId="1609" Text="I found a patent for &quot;rule-based procedural terrain generation&quot;, applied by Sony Online Entertainment Inc. Is there any prior art for this patent (i. e., the procedural generation of video game terrain in real time)? Many roguelike video games use real-time terrain generation in gameplay, and I want to know whether this could be considered prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/EP1763846A2?cl=en&amp;dq=terrain+generator&amp;ei=BLXQUMCxH8ms0AHZ34GQDQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4447" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2066" RevisionGUID="15205ca0-934a-423e-b08b-4b477d0ac23b" CreationDate="2012-12-18T18:36:22.963" UserId="1609" Text="Can the video game terrain generation methods be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4448" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2066" RevisionGUID="15205ca0-934a-423e-b08b-4b477d0ac23b" CreationDate="2012-12-18T18:36:22.963" UserId="1609" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2066" RevisionGUID="8c8e9e6e-7638-4859-b57f-9fd156e74d21" CreationDate="2012-12-18T18:48:01.183" UserId="1609" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="I recently found a patent for &quot;rule-based procedural terrain generation&quot;, applied by Sony Online Entertainment Inc. Is there any prior art for this patent (i. e., the procedural generation of video game terrain in real time)? Many roguelike video games use real-time terrain generation in gameplay, and I want to know whether this could be considered prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/EP1763846A2?cl=en&amp;dq=terrain+generator&amp;ei=BLXQUMCxH8ms0AHZ34GQDQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4450" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2066" RevisionGUID="8c8e9e6e-7638-4859-b57f-9fd156e74d21" CreationDate="2012-12-18T18:48:01.183" UserId="1609" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Can video game terrain generation methods be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2066" RevisionGUID="20cd2e77-1064-419e-8eae-16ed63c8c779" CreationDate="2012-12-18T19:02:58.917" UserId="1114" Comment="adding reference to the US patent." Text="I recently found a patent for &quot;rule-based procedural terrain generation&quot;, applied by Sony Online Entertainment Inc. Is there any prior art for this patent (i. e., the procedural generation of video game terrain in real time)? Many roguelike video games use real-time terrain generation in gameplay, and I want to know whether this could be considered prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US Patent 8115765](http://www.google.com/patents/US8115765)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[European Patent EP1763846A2](http://www.google.com/patents/EP1763846A2?cl=en&amp;dq=terrain+generator&amp;ei=BLXQUMCxH8ms0AHZ34GQDQ)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4452" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2066" RevisionGUID="20cd2e77-1064-419e-8eae-16ed63c8c779" CreationDate="2012-12-18T19:02:58.917" UserId="1114" Comment="adding reference to the US patent." Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;us8115765&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4453" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="d0a5930e-dd41-4d2b-a017-5827c6f7acf4" CreationDate="2012-12-18T19:19:07.410" UserId="7" Comment="Added 'rejected' tag to indicate that patent in question has received a Final Rejection since question was asked." Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;data-processing-database&gt;&lt;us20120226658&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2067" RevisionGUID="514fbfae-a289-45d7-bd63-981a122624e0" CreationDate="2012-12-18T20:56:33.020" UserId="1698" Text="First, make sure you are asking the right questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Yes, you may have to pay royalities to a patent holder with a broad patent. Consider how much money TI made licensing the initial patent on an integrated circuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. No one can properly answer your question without seeing the entire claim. If you admit that you will infringe all of the other elements of the claim and this element as well, then yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Again, no one can properly answer your question without seeing the entire claim. If you admit that you will infringe all of the other elements of the claim and this element as well, then yes. For this question, you must evaluate what the patentee meant by N. What does the specification say about N? What did the patentee say about N during prosecution? Is N limited by prior art? Is N inherently limited by the specification?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2067" RevisionGUID="d3b6e85a-a4e3-4b50-8593-167d6c8f5149" CreationDate="2012-12-18T21:03:33.467" UserId="1698" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="First, make sure you are asking the right questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Yes, you may have to pay royalities to a patent holder with a broad patent. Consider how much money TI made licensing the initial patent on an integrated circuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. No one can properly answer your question without seeing the entire claim. If you admit that you will infringe all of the other elements of the claim and this element as well, then yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Again, no one can properly answer your question without seeing the entire claim. If you admit that you will infringe all of the other elements of the claim and this element as well, then yes. For this question, you must evaluate what the patentee meant by N. What does the specification say about N? What did the patentee say about N during prosecution? Is N limited by prior art? Is N inherently limited by the specification? In the end, will it matter? No-if N can be 2 and you use 2 or more, then you will infringe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2068" RevisionGUID="8841951e-e286-42d6-af0a-02cade64bce8" CreationDate="2012-12-18T21:12:09.357" UserId="1698" Text="If you want to make a third-party submission of prior art in a pending patent application, looking at the statute is not very useful. What you want to see is how the USPTO implemented the statute.  Look [here][1] The relevant Patent Rule is 37 CFR 1.290.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/forms/3prsubmission_instructions.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2068" RevisionGUID="1bdb2425-4025-4ac4-9221-516675b71c3d" CreationDate="2012-12-18T21:18:07.447" UserId="1698" Comment="added part about how long to examine different types of utility applications" Text="If you want to make a third-party submission of prior art in a pending patent application, looking at the statute is not very useful. What you want to see is how the USPTO implemented the statute.  Look [here][1] The relevant Patent Rule is 37 CFR 1.290.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some art units at the USPTO take longer than others to examine applications. Some mechanical cases issue in 12 months. Some business methods and software patents take 5 years. The reference you want is the most recent electronic issue of the [Official Gazette][2]. Browse to the most recent issue and look to the bottom for Patent Technology Centers. That listing gives the average filing date for a first office action in the last three months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/forms/3prsubmission_instructions.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/news/og/index.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="63" RevisionGUID="e501f469-95d0-4642-8d54-b0cfe91a86a0" CreationDate="2012-12-19T00:24:36.610" UserId="1698" Comment="fix broken link to the MPEP section on disclaimers" Text="Yes, it's called a [statutory disclaimer][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1490.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A patentee owning the whole or any sectional interest in a patent may disclaim any complete claim or claims in a patent. In like manner any patentee may disclaim or dedicate to the public the entire term, or any terminal part of the term, of the patent granted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4459" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="63" RevisionGUID="e501f469-95d0-4642-8d54-b0cfe91a86a0" CreationDate="2012-12-19T00:24:36.610" Comment="Proposed by 1698 approved by 76, 1114 edit id of 296" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2069" RevisionGUID="b460fe41-50b7-4ede-899a-952ee67d896a" CreationDate="2012-12-19T09:03:34.890" UserId="1968" Text="On first brush, the claim talks about a way to handle the visible discontinuities at the overlap of the procedural rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) read the patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) see if the prior art you have in mind reads onto each and every feature of the claim(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ignore the patent title!** It has no meaningful bearing on claim scope." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4461" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2066" RevisionGUID="402f20f3-fdbb-4ac7-835a-97f1fad63d7e" CreationDate="2012-12-19T22:45:32.973" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/281530736534749184" />
  <row Id="4462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2070" RevisionGUID="10d72349-658e-438f-98d2-fb96d503350b" CreationDate="2012-12-19T23:54:53.560" UserId="1335" Text="The first claim reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A non-transitory computer readable medium including a computer-implemented system for generating terrain in a virtual world,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a plurality of procedural rules configured to generate a virtual terrain in the virtual world,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - wherein said plurality of procedural rules is organized into hierarchical layers such that a single location in the terrain can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have multiple procedural rules that overlap and the terrain has at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least one location that has overlapping rules, each hierarchical layer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; defining boundaries, filters, and affectors; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a terrain generator configured to process the plurality of procedural rules so as to generate a virtual representation of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terrain,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - wherein when multiple procedural rules overlap the terrain generator specifies a blend region and initiates a boundary influence&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computation to blend heights and colors to prevent hard, visible&#xD;&#xA;&gt; discontinuities at the overlap of the procedural rules,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - wherein the plurality of procedural rules is textually represented so that the boundaries, filters, and affectors are assigned numeric&#xD;&#xA;&gt; values that represent desired attributes in a logical, textual format,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - wherein the terrain is modified by adding or deleting at least one rule from the plurality of procedural rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's a pretty readable claim, and it doesn't seem too broad. Remember: you need to perform each and every element of each and every bullet point to infringe. So the claim certainly does not cover the broad idea of procedural terrain generation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems to me that the key element of this claim is the clause that talks about &quot;blend regions&quot; where &quot;boundary influence computations&quot; are used to automatically mitigate &quot;visible discontinuities&quot; caused by overlapping rules. As a simplified example (which I'm making up on the spot): if a rule for generating desert terrain overlaps with a rule for generating mountains, you wouldn't want the desert to abruptly end at the boundary and have steep mountains start immediately after; you'd rather have a transition region where the desert gradually ends and the terrain height begins to increase, so that the desert terrain *blends* into the mountain terrain. This claim covers doing so automatically. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the element that is covered is somewhat significant; nobody would want to have drastic, unblended transitions in regions. However, the claim is also rather narrow: it specifically mentions blending *heights and colors*. So it won't apply if you have to transition between drastically different terrains, e.g. from deserts to jungles, where you'd need to manipulate many more parameters than just heights and colors, such as the number and density of trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claim is also narrow in other ways. Even if you happen to do everything required by that clause, I can think of a few trivial work arounds to avoid infringement (*not* foolproof, since legal theories like the &quot;Doctrine of Equivalents&quot; complicate things): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You could simply handle &quot;blend regions&quot; by finding them and editing manually. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You could represent your procedural rules in binary format, as the claim requires rules to be &quot;textually represented&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You could organize the rules in a fashion other than hierarchical layers (even if they actually are hierarchical.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So essentially, you are trading off a little development convenience to remove infringement liability. Contrary to what you may read on the web, there are very few patents that are so broad that they cannot be worked around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, even if you directly infringe the claims, you may be safe because the patent owners, Sony, may:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1. never find out that you are using this method (for example, if you release pre-generated terrains with the game instead of the generator itself);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. and/or they may simply not care. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of Sony suing game developers over patent infringement, and I doubt they will want to start doing so, as that would only alienate developers from their platform." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2071" RevisionGUID="61c96910-b23e-4c72-85c9-441e1270da30" CreationDate="2012-12-20T07:25:53.723" UserDisplayName="user1988" Text="I would like to know is patent &quot;US6323569 B1&quot; still valid? its end date? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4464" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2071" RevisionGUID="61c96910-b23e-4c72-85c9-441e1270da30" CreationDate="2012-12-20T07:25:53.723" UserDisplayName="user1988" Text="Is this patent US6323569 B1 still valid? Valid till? End date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4465" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2071" RevisionGUID="61c96910-b23e-4c72-85c9-441e1270da30" CreationDate="2012-12-20T07:25:53.723" UserDisplayName="user1988" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;data-processing-database&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2072" RevisionGUID="02b51a32-96be-49ac-b296-ae67a1677ba7" CreationDate="2012-12-20T08:16:30.967" UserId="1770" Text="If you look in http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair (enter the number without the &quot;US&quot; and &quot;B1&quot;) as &quot;Patented case&quot; and the next fee payment window closes on 11/27/2013. The patent is valid. You will also be able to see that it had quite a stormy path to its acceptance which resulted in a certificate of correction.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4467" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2071" RevisionGUID="97cbe7af-fb4e-4d13-a176-d6e821f12f8c" CreationDate="2012-12-20T13:20:23.870" UserId="1259" Comment="tag link" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;data-processing-database&gt;&lt;us6323569b1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2071" RevisionGUID="97cbe7af-fb4e-4d13-a176-d6e821f12f8c" CreationDate="2012-12-20T13:20:23.870" UserId="1259" Comment="tag link" Text="I would like to know is patent &quot;[US6323569 B1][1]&quot; still valid? its end date? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6323569" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4469" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2071" RevisionGUID="ee597d71-a787-40ef-b091-626049432d18" CreationDate="2012-12-20T21:23:32.797" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;data-processing-database&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;us6323569b1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4470" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2071" RevisionGUID="1b0ac81e-e869-46fa-938f-07fa016793ee" CreationDate="2012-12-20T22:45:33.600" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/281893127055355904" />
  <row Id="4471" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2060" RevisionGUID="089a983f-ab5b-4c75-ba00-6d202955feaa" CreationDate="2012-12-21T01:45:33.357" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/281938424527720448" />
  <row Id="4472" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2063" RevisionGUID="1251105f-9db8-4cde-a194-81cb26d6fe37" CreationDate="2012-12-21T04:45:33.520" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/281983723778490368" />
  <row Id="4474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2072" RevisionGUID="3d7e6ad0-cbd4-495a-95df-9f150af94f9b" CreationDate="2012-12-21T17:49:11.023" UserId="1114" Comment="added the ultimate expiration date" Text="If you look in http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair (enter the number without the &quot;US&quot; and &quot;B1&quot;) as &quot;Patented case&quot; and the next fee payment window closes on 11/27/2013. The patent is valid. You will also be able to see that it had quite a stormy path to its acceptance which resulted in a certificate of correction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the maintenance fee is paid, the patent will expire on 11/3/2019, 20 years after the effective filing date.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2073" RevisionGUID="42fd1126-0da2-4cda-8101-5f4f58261d53" CreationDate="2012-12-22T18:55:59.980" UserId="1989" Text="For patent us20040167786: this specific patent's PDF is in &quot;landscape&quot; format, but it appears to have been perhaps written in the usual &quot;portrait&quot; mode. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason that this is noteworthy is that I am trying to do a very careful reading of this patent, only to find that several lines of its decriptive text (beginning at around page 87) can not be read. Therefore, I can not know every detail of this patent, and it is vital for me that I do not miss anything in it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to request a &quot;portrait&quot; version of the document, i.e. a document that does *not* have several lines of descriptive text cut out? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: the patent can be found here: http://www.google.com/patents/US20040167786http://www.google.com/patents/US20040167786&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you view or download the PDF, and then jump to page 87+, you'll see that there appear to be lines of text that are excluded and not visible in the PDF format. Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4476" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2073" RevisionGUID="42fd1126-0da2-4cda-8101-5f4f58261d53" CreationDate="2012-12-22T18:55:59.980" UserId="1989" Text="The PDF of this document has cut off several lines of text / readability issues" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4477" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2073" RevisionGUID="42fd1126-0da2-4cda-8101-5f4f58261d53" CreationDate="2012-12-22T18:55:59.980" UserId="1989" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2074" RevisionGUID="6864ca1d-3d77-46a3-b27e-444a96fb7d0e" CreationDate="2012-12-23T06:03:45.680" UserId="1770" Text="If you retrieve the PDF from Espacenet http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&amp;NR=2004167786A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=3&amp;date=20040826&amp;DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&amp;locale=en_EP you will find it is OK. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2073" RevisionGUID="54ba5d57-581e-42d5-bfef-b29c57b223eb" CreationDate="2012-12-24T14:41:34.867" UserId="1770" Comment="Removal of concatenated double URL" Text="For patent us20040167786: this specific patent's PDF is in &quot;landscape&quot; format, but it appears to have been perhaps written in the usual &quot;portrait&quot; mode. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason that this is noteworthy is that I am trying to do a very careful reading of this patent, only to find that several lines of its decriptive text (beginning at around page 87) can not be read. Therefore, I can not know every detail of this patent, and it is vital for me that I do not miss anything in it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to request a &quot;portrait&quot; version of the document, i.e. a document that does *not* have several lines of descriptive text cut out? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: the patent can be found here: http://www.google.com/patents/US20040167786&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you view or download the PDF, and then jump to page 87+, you'll see that there appear to be lines of text that are excluded and not visible in the PDF format. Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4483" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2073" RevisionGUID="54ba5d57-581e-42d5-bfef-b29c57b223eb" CreationDate="2012-12-24T14:41:34.867" Comment="Proposed by 1770 approved by 1259, -1 edit id of 297" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2073" RevisionGUID="fced0845-69e3-4104-a95a-8f96fc8e4c7c" CreationDate="2012-12-24T14:41:34.867" UserId="1" Comment="Removal of concatenated double URL" Text="For patent us20040167786: this specific patent's PDF is in &quot;landscape&quot; format, but it appears to have been perhaps written in the usual &quot;portrait&quot; mode. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason that this is noteworthy is that I am trying to do a very careful reading of this patent, only to find that several lines of its decriptive text (beginning at around page 87) can not be read. Therefore, I can not know every detail of this patent, and it is vital for me that I do not miss anything in it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to request a &quot;portrait&quot; version of the document, i.e. a document that does *not* have several lines of descriptive text cut out? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent can be found here: http://www.google.com/patents/US20040167786&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you view or download the PDF, and then jump to page 87+, you'll see that there appear to be lines of text that are excluded and not visible in the PDF format. Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2076" RevisionGUID="27144c2c-d5b1-4112-8620-ac2ec69fb26b" CreationDate="2012-12-24T16:21:42.233" UserId="1997" Text="This patenet seems to describe or use elements of an Invention I patented in Australia, USA UK etc in the late 1970s and has subsequently been used and or published in uniaxial, triaxial sesquiaxial and septaxial forms.  These patents expired long ago.  The product has been used for breakwaters and coastal and lakeshore erosion control, spillways and SUDS driveways, and for retaining walls stacked on end and on sides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Photos, design manuals and basic design software are available on request from chrisbrown.seabees@gmail.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was this prior Art disclosed in the patent application? What is the inventive step that allows the granting of some parts of this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4487" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2076" RevisionGUID="27144c2c-d5b1-4112-8620-ac2ec69fb26b" CreationDate="2012-12-24T16:21:42.233" UserId="1997" Text="Patent us20110086189" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4488" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2076" RevisionGUID="27144c2c-d5b1-4112-8620-ac2ec69fb26b" CreationDate="2012-12-24T16:21:42.233" UserId="1997" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;defensive-publications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2077" RevisionGUID="efdbf8ae-0416-4fce-be00-9fd8ffe4c7f8" CreationDate="2012-12-24T20:39:22.720" UserId="1991" Text="I am a little confused with all that stuff with patents of intellectual property in Apple developers program. There is an opinion that for IOS developing, there is no protection for unique ideas and anybody can do their applications - use any ideas(even if it was used before), BUT do not copy design and music (or any other things which are protected by copyright of their owners).&#xD;&#xA;Is it true?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4490" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2077" RevisionGUID="efdbf8ae-0416-4fce-be00-9fd8ffe4c7f8" CreationDate="2012-12-24T20:39:22.720" UserId="1991" Text="Patent for ideas of iOS application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4491" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2077" RevisionGUID="efdbf8ae-0416-4fce-be00-9fd8ffe4c7f8" CreationDate="2012-12-24T20:39:22.720" UserId="1991" Text="&lt;ios&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2078" RevisionGUID="ae5e717e-e9bc-4593-84a4-953bb34eda10" CreationDate="2012-12-25T13:34:43.047" UserId="1999" Text="You could have provided your Australian patent number, or any other equivalent. In other effort, you may look at the US PAIR to check if your patent was considered in the prosecution of US 2011 00086189. Hope this helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2079" RevisionGUID="5625abb4-cfe4-49b7-9288-a1ff2227e06b" CreationDate="2012-12-25T13:39:45.317" UserId="1999" Text="Not sure if I understood your problem correctly but I found http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20040167786.pdf to be OK." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2080" RevisionGUID="9e1960a4-167a-4fb0-9a6b-f489e327dbb8" CreationDate="2012-12-25T18:12:42.223" UserId="1457" Text="The [Wikipedia page](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Prosecution_Highway) on this does not have much information, nor any mention of _prosecution_.  A few questions related to this come to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What is PPH and how does one use/benefit from it?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Who is intended to help: the patent offices, patent holder, or companies trying to defend against patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is this only relevant after a patent has been granted, or is it also useful during the application process?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4495" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2080" RevisionGUID="9e1960a4-167a-4fb0-9a6b-f489e327dbb8" CreationDate="2012-12-25T18:12:42.223" UserId="1457" Text="What exactly is Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4496" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2080" RevisionGUID="9e1960a4-167a-4fb0-9a6b-f489e327dbb8" CreationDate="2012-12-25T18:12:42.223" UserId="1457" Text="&lt;process&gt;&lt;prosecution&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2082" RevisionGUID="774dff07-3b53-49ef-9483-1ba14816772c" CreationDate="2012-12-26T04:48:25.943" UserId="2002" Text="How it can be possible both countries are different and there rules and regulations are also different , so i don't think so that it is possible to enforce US [software patents][1] into UK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentsusa.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2083" RevisionGUID="d4ac3b3a-5427-45c3-8da2-a530545a3a4c" CreationDate="2012-12-26T09:02:58.560" UserId="2003" Text="Philip Erdelsky's public domain &quot;Linked-List Memory Sort&quot; http://www.efgh.com/software/llmsort.htm, dated July 31, 1998, gives an example of a single data structure linked into two separate lists. Each element contains two &quot;next&quot; pointers. One chain of next pointers orders the elements alphabetically, the other numerically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    struct element&#xD;&#xA;    {&#xD;&#xA;      struct element *next_in_alphabetical_order;&#xD;&#xA;      struct element *next_in_numerical_order;&#xD;&#xA;      char name[9];&#xD;&#xA;      int number;&#xD;&#xA;      /* other members, if any */&#xD;&#xA;    };&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The page goes on to apply a function to sort the same set of elements according to the two different ordering criteria:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    first_in_alphabetical_order =&#xD;&#xA;      sort_linked_list(first, 0, compare_names, NULL);&#xD;&#xA;    first_in_numerical_order =&#xD;&#xA;      sort_linked_list(first, 1, compare_numbers, NULL);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that this example matches the claims rather closely.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2083" RevisionGUID="3884e7fa-21a0-4e4d-a181-4160feff04e7" CreationDate="2012-12-26T09:12:15.480" UserId="2003" Comment="added link to earlier version" Text="Philip Erdelsky's public domain &quot;Linked-List Memory Sort&quot; http://www.efgh.com/software/llmsort.htm, dated July 31, 1998, gives an example of a single data structure linked into two separate lists. Each element contains two &quot;next&quot; pointers. One chain of next pointers orders the elements alphabetically, the other numerically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    struct element&#xD;&#xA;    {&#xD;&#xA;      struct element *next_in_alphabetical_order;&#xD;&#xA;      struct element *next_in_numerical_order;&#xD;&#xA;      char name[9];&#xD;&#xA;      int number;&#xD;&#xA;      /* other members, if any */&#xD;&#xA;    };&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The page goes on to apply a function to sort the same set of elements according to the two different ordering criteria:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    first_in_alphabetical_order =&#xD;&#xA;      sort_linked_list(first, 0, compare_names, NULL);&#xD;&#xA;    first_in_numerical_order =&#xD;&#xA;      sort_linked_list(first, 1, compare_numbers, NULL);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that this example matches the claims rather closely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: An earlier version dated February 23, 1996 was posted by the same author on their Caltech alumni account:&#xD;&#xA;http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~pje/llmsort.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4504" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2076" RevisionGUID="1c9ae3e4-c38a-4cc5-a80f-59113a2c5678" CreationDate="2012-12-26T14:13:30.757" UserId="1259" Comment="tag" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;defensive-publications&gt;&lt;us20110086189&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4507" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2080" RevisionGUID="24671b92-6aa5-4aae-b909-3cda18abdc1e" CreationDate="2012-12-26T22:45:38.273" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/284067473823760385" />
  <row Id="4508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2086" RevisionGUID="2db69a72-f5d9-4e3c-b0ff-9dcbce5d9cc6" CreationDate="2012-12-27T00:51:57.803" UserId="2005" Text="Here's a hypothetical scenario:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a new idea, say a new engine of some sort. I don't want to patent it because I don't want to ever profit from it and I would like to use a license in the spirit of CC. For instance, I would like to release all the schematics/drawings/documentation using the [CC BY-NC-SA][1] (or similar) license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I would make sure to post about it, send it to other hackers, etc. Would this qualify as prior art, successfully preventing someone else from getting a valid patent using this idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My final goal would be to release the invention in an open way, ideally avoiding patents, but preventing someone else (patent-trolls mainly) of patenting the idea just to profit from it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is not the way to go, then what is the route to keep the idea free in order to avoid someone else to patent and close it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4509" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2086" RevisionGUID="2db69a72-f5d9-4e3c-b0ff-9dcbce5d9cc6" CreationDate="2012-12-27T00:51:57.803" UserId="2005" Text="avoid the possibility of a future patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4510" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2086" RevisionGUID="2db69a72-f5d9-4e3c-b0ff-9dcbce5d9cc6" CreationDate="2012-12-27T00:51:57.803" UserId="2005" Text="&lt;creative-commons&gt;&lt;opensource&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2087" RevisionGUID="46e0c6e3-cb8c-4bb2-a3e7-0cba1747f262" CreationDate="2012-12-27T02:19:20.340" UserId="2006" Text="Let say this patent for an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/USD285687?dq=steve+jobs&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=c67bUK-3GIegigea34CgBA&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CDsQ6AEwAQ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inventors are: &#xD;&#xA;Jerrold C. Manock, Terrell A. Oyama, Steven P. Jobs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are working in Apple and invent that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If one of them, leave the company, can he/she use this patent on his own project? or the company he/she work in?&#xD;&#xA;2. If all of them leave the company, can Apple still have the right to use the patent?&#xD;&#xA;3. If all of them leave the company, and they set up a new company, can the new company use them?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4512" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2087" RevisionGUID="46e0c6e3-cb8c-4bb2-a3e7-0cba1747f262" CreationDate="2012-12-27T02:19:20.340" UserId="2006" Text="What is the patent owner law in US?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4513" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2087" RevisionGUID="46e0c6e3-cb8c-4bb2-a3e7-0cba1747f262" CreationDate="2012-12-27T02:19:20.340" UserId="2006" Text="&lt;usa&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2088" RevisionGUID="679e4e87-6256-4334-ba61-f5e5c75c273f" CreationDate="2012-12-27T02:53:22.870" UserId="758" Text="The patent owner is the assignee -- in this case, Jerold Manock. I didn't try to check, but I'd guess that it was subsequently assigned to Apple Computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, the assignee (and possible subsequent assignees) really own the patent. Being (one of) the inventor(s) doesn't mean you necessarily have any rights/ownership to the patented invention at all. Most companies do give inventors some sort of reward but that's really voluntary, not something they're required to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most employment agreements (at least for positions where you're at all likely to invent much) require that you assign rights to anything you invent while working there to the employer so you don't own patents on such inventions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4515" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2086" RevisionGUID="43289f48-a91e-4af5-8f47-7f75e5fd3417" CreationDate="2012-12-27T04:35:15.287" UserId="1259" Comment="tagging" Text="&lt;defensive-publications&gt;&lt;creative-commons&gt;&lt;opensource&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2087" RevisionGUID="8980106c-0bb6-4bee-b3ae-55993ce8aa48" CreationDate="2012-12-27T04:37:17.537" UserId="1259" Comment="tagging and cleaned up linkie" Text="Let say this patent for an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/USD285687&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inventors are: &#xD;&#xA;Jerrold C. Manock, Terrell A. Oyama, Steven P. Jobs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are working in Apple and invent that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If one of them, leave the company, can he/she use this patent on his own project? or the company he/she work in?&#xD;&#xA;2. If all of them leave the company, can Apple still have the right to use the patent?&#xD;&#xA;3. If all of them leave the company, and they set up a new company, can the new company use them?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4517" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2087" RevisionGUID="8980106c-0bb6-4bee-b3ae-55993ce8aa48" CreationDate="2012-12-27T04:37:17.537" UserId="1259" Comment="tagging and cleaned up linkie" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;assignee&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4521" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2087" RevisionGUID="1fc00dc8-9d8f-424b-883e-8b28fe88c668" CreationDate="2012-12-28T10:45:40.843" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/284611064656715776" />
  <row Id="4524" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2086" RevisionGUID="258d39aa-ef05-40ab-b28e-f1bebd5a6b03" CreationDate="2012-12-28T19:45:41.917" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/284746964602597376" />
  <row Id="4525" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2076" RevisionGUID="705f686c-5ff1-4ff0-890b-3c9c9c70113e" CreationDate="2012-12-29T01:45:42.207" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/284837564232380417" />
  <row Id="4526" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2073" RevisionGUID="00e548ae-be41-4311-a0d1-aff6d2c4c8ff" CreationDate="2012-12-29T04:45:42.277" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/284882863306993665" />
  <row Id="4527" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2050" RevisionGUID="621f3366-7786-44d9-84ac-ac8ee873a876" CreationDate="2012-12-30T04:45:43.123" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/285245254825832448" />
  <row Id="4528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2090" RevisionGUID="f0d798b2-ad73-4ad7-ad5b-8f027c4aff66" CreationDate="2012-12-30T14:55:39.837" UserId="2017" Text="I have an idea for a mouth rinse I would like to patent.  When performing a quick google search, I found several patents that seem to have overlapping claims with each other.  My patent would likely overlap as well.  The question is why has the USPTO granted subsequent patents that seem to overlap with the prior ones.  Here are two example patents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From 1991:  http://www.google.com/patents/US5089255 - covers a mouth rinse with xylitol&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2008:  Publication number: US 2006/0286044 A1 - covers almost any delivery vehicle for xylitol, including mouth rinses!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you provide some clarity on what is and isn't allowed/patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4529" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2090" RevisionGUID="f0d798b2-ad73-4ad7-ad5b-8f027c4aff66" CreationDate="2012-12-30T14:55:39.837" UserId="2017" Text="What is the USPTO attitude toward mouth rinse patents, particularly given many seem to overlap?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4530" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2090" RevisionGUID="f0d798b2-ad73-4ad7-ad5b-8f027c4aff66" CreationDate="2012-12-30T14:55:39.837" UserId="2017" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4531" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2090" RevisionGUID="9550ad8c-d39e-4b65-9571-abaca6235a50" CreationDate="2012-12-31T01:45:45.243" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/285562352957546498" />
  <row Id="4532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2091" RevisionGUID="54a61a36-4e34-4eb6-b750-3b6ec2390867" CreationDate="2012-12-31T09:04:44.610" UserId="1872" Text="Basically, Patent Prosecution Highway is a fast track examination of patent applications. It provides a faster process to obtain a grant for any patent application in the patent office. The patent application can be prosecuted under PPH only when the applicant or inventor receives a ruling from patent office that at least one of the claims is patentable or allowable under the first office action sent by the examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicant then can put a request to the patent office to fast track the examination of the corresponding claims in the second office action for the same application. This helps the applicant to obtain the corresponding patents faster and more efficiently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This mainly helps the patent holder to obtain the patent faster since under PPH, the patent application will not be tied up in too many office actions. PPH is useful only when the examiner does not reject the claims and states that the corresponding claims as allowable subject matter under the first office action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, not many patent applications are prosecuted under PPH, since the examiner cites that the claims are rejected because they are obvious or lack novelty. Sometimes, the examiner also rejects the claims on basis that the claims are limited (too narrow) or that the claims need to be amended due to grammatical or language errors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for whether or not the claims are patentable, depends on what the allowable subject matter is according to the patent law of any particular country.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can get more information from the USPTO website about PPH in the US and for other countries provided in the link below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2090" RevisionGUID="c68488c7-4404-4d04-a26e-b39500721f28" CreationDate="2012-12-31T13:56:32.423" UserId="1259" Comment="tags and links" Text="I have an idea for a mouth rinse I would like to patent.  When performing a quick Google search, I found several patents that seem to have overlapping claims with each other.  My patent would likely overlap as well.  The question is why has the USPTO granted subsequent patents that seem to overlap with the prior ones.  Here are two example patents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From 1991:  [http://www.google.com/patents/US5089255][1] - covers a mouth rinse with xylitol&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2008:  [Publication number: US 2006/0286044 A1][2] - covers almost any delivery vehicle for xylitol, including mouth rinses!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you provide some clarity on what is and isn't allowed/patentable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5089255&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20060286044" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4539" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2090" RevisionGUID="c68488c7-4404-4d04-a26e-b39500721f28" CreationDate="2012-12-31T13:56:32.423" UserId="1259" Comment="tags and links" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;us5089255&gt;&lt;us20060286044&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2093" RevisionGUID="4fe159aa-462a-465e-9b44-8e3b2ad4d57b" CreationDate="2012-12-31T18:36:51.810" UserId="1114" Text="Given @Epicentre's comment, I think the answer is that the two patents cover different inventions. Remember that the claimed invention includes *every element* in the claim. Although the car has been around for a century, I can still patent a design for a car, as long as it has some combination of elements that hasn't been done or described in the prior art before.* It appears that although both the patent and the pending application indlude the use of xylitol, they include other limitations that hadn't been done before, and weren't obvious to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*See [section 102](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102) for the technical details of what can disqualify a patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2093" RevisionGUID="4fa05a67-9c08-437a-8904-af0a680cedbc" CreationDate="2013-01-01T15:39:26.523" UserId="1259" Comment="typo fix" Text="Given @Epicentre's comment, I think the answer is that the two patents cover different inventions. Remember that the claimed invention includes *every element* in the claim. Although the car has been around for a century, I can still patent a design for a car, as long as it has some combination of elements that hasn't been done or described in the prior art before.* It appears that although both the patent and the pending application include the use of xylitol, they include other limitations that hadn't been done before, and weren't obvious to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*See [section 102](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102) for the technical details of what can disqualify a patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4551" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2047" RevisionGUID="7b68f40f-f8a7-4de8-b763-53a05a6d7e94" CreationDate="2013-01-01T22:45:47.713" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/286241840615792641" />
  <row Id="4552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2095" RevisionGUID="af27164d-d07b-4c5d-a43f-25eb1ba91964" CreationDate="2013-01-02T07:39:16.733" UserId="2026" Text="The situation: After I left a particular company, they applied for a patent &#xD;&#xA;on something I had worked on, and contacted me to sign the application.  &#xD;&#xA;Although I consider myself to be the primary _and sole_ inventor, &#xD;&#xA;the patent's lists the inventors as  1) my former boss, 2) myself in that order.&#xD;&#xA;I signed, and the patent was granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the time, I was uneasy about this, but simultaneously&#xD;&#xA;did not want to make an issue with my former employer, and as well&#xD;&#xA;was perhaps a bit star-struck by the possibility of a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now however, if I were to be asked, I would say that my boss was not an inventor&#xD;&#xA;at all (let alone the primary inventor).  I believe I can argue this case;&#xD;&#xA;for the purpose of this question, please assume that I can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question: does this in any way affect the validity/enforceability of the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have searched on the web and found some related material, but nothing&#xD;&#xA;that conclusively answers the question. It appears that it may hinge&#xD;&#xA;on whether the inventors are incorrectly listed &quot;with deceptive intent&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In the present case, I would guess that my former boss and I might be &#xD;&#xA;in disagreement, but I'm not sure how this translates to deceptive intent (or not).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related #1,&#xD;&#xA;Degnan &amp; Huskey, Inventorship: What Happens When You Don't Get It Right?&#xD;&#xA;http://www.hollandhart.com/files/Publication/c61a859b-4515-4ae5-9b0d-ea5df0761f79/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/142a44bb-f91b-4bb8-bc54-4d9dbd9447b9/InventorshipWhatHappens.pdf&#xD;&#xA;This article states:&#xD;&#xA;   *&quot;A patent is invalid unless it lists the first and true inventor or inventors of the claimed invention. Accordingly, if the inventive entity listed on an issued patent is incorrect and the patent cannot be corrected due to deceptive intent, the patent is invalid and the owners cannot enforce it.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related #2&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/37/what-should-i-do-if-my-name-is-missing-from-a-patent&#xD;&#xA;says &#xD;&#xA;*&quot;The patent owner faces some very serious problems with enforcement of patent rights if any inventor is not properly identified.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;but the context for this quote is focusing on _missing_ inventors rather than &#xD;&#xA;extraneous inventors and incorrect order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related #3, A slide set entitled *&quot;Who should a patent attorney include&#xD;&#xA;in List of Inventors, And why you need to leave the boss, technician, &#xD;&#xA;and yourself off the list&quot;.*&#xD;&#xA;http://www.mgiip.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Inventorship-in-U-S-Patent-Practice1.pdf&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4553" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2095" RevisionGUID="af27164d-d07b-4c5d-a43f-25eb1ba91964" CreationDate="2013-01-02T07:39:16.733" UserId="2026" Text="How does a (possible) dispute over inventors affect a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4554" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2095" RevisionGUID="af27164d-d07b-4c5d-a43f-25eb1ba91964" CreationDate="2013-01-02T07:39:16.733" UserId="2026" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4555" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2009" RevisionGUID="ee9953f6-f091-4542-abad-c7385ed71a47" CreationDate="2013-01-02T10:45:47.397" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/286423033340645376" />
  <row Id="4556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2096" RevisionGUID="d383f200-9bff-452c-ac1c-7afe58fdc209" CreationDate="2013-01-02T19:43:45.297" UserId="1738" Text="Was looking at the subject US patent 6,839,541 and see that a company called MISONIMO CHI ACQUISITIONS L.L.C. heavily cites this patent, but I cannot find out what this citing company MISONIMO CHI ACQUISITIONS L.L.C. does. Is it a NPE or what?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4557" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2096" RevisionGUID="d383f200-9bff-452c-ac1c-7afe58fdc209" CreationDate="2013-01-02T19:43:45.297" UserId="1738" Text="Any idea why US Patent 6,839,541 is heavily cited by MISONIMO CHI ACQUISITIONS L.L.C.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4558" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2096" RevisionGUID="d383f200-9bff-452c-ac1c-7afe58fdc209" CreationDate="2013-01-02T19:43:45.297" UserId="1738" Text="&lt;telecommunications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2097" RevisionGUID="44110cae-f71b-454e-b240-6990efa86178" CreationDate="2013-01-02T21:47:51.270" UserId="1485" Text="Well for one, I wouldn't characterize a company having four patents that cite to the same prior art reference as that company &quot;heavily citing&quot; the prior art reference.  See US Pat. No. [4949976][1] for example.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless, all the citation means is that whoever was prosecuting the four Misonimo patent applications thought the patent examiner would believe the '541 patent might be relevant to the applications' patentability. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming the four Misonimo patents are for technically related inventions (and without checking, I'm guessing they are all from the same patent family), I wouldn't be surprised if each one cites the same, or a very similar, set of prior art references, which happens to include the '541 patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to whether Misonimo Chi Acquisitions LLC is an NPE, your guess is as good as mine. (FWIW, my guess is yes.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4949976" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2098" RevisionGUID="86b26fea-b183-4dd5-8f88-c56c095a7fcd" CreationDate="2013-01-02T21:55:52.327" UserId="1485" Text="The order of the named inventors on a patent doesn't matter, for legal purposes anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically, a patent with incorrectly named inventors is not enforceable.  However this will likely be a non-issue because even if the patent's assignee ever decides to enforce the patent and the accused infringer figures out there's an inventorship issue, it's easily correctable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The &quot;without deceptive intent&quot; requirement of correcting inventorship was removed by the AIA, so that's not an roadblock anymore.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2098" RevisionGUID="4e76a01a-4178-4412-a53f-d8fe9275d676" CreationDate="2013-01-02T22:02:16.433" UserId="1485" Comment="added 832 characters in body" Text="The order of the named inventors on a patent doesn't matter, for legal purposes anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically, a patent with incorrectly named inventors is not enforceable.  However this will likely be a non-issue because even if the patent's assignee ever decides to enforce the patent and the accused infringer figures out there's an inventorship issue, it's easily correctable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The &quot;without deceptive intent&quot; requirement of correcting inventorship was removed by the AIA, so that's not an roadblock anymore.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**35 U.S.C. 256   Correction of named inventor.** (Sept. 16, 2012)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) CORRECTION.—Whenever through error a person is named in an issued patent as the inventor, or through error an inventor is not named in an issued patent, the Director may, on application of all the parties and assignees, with proof of the facts and such other requirements as may be imposed, issue a certificate correcting such error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) PATENT VALID IF ERROR CORRECTED.— The error of omitting inventors or naming persons who are not inventors shall not invalidate the patent in which such error occurred if it can be corrected as provided in this section. The court before which such matter is called in question may order correction of the patent on notice and hearing of all parties concerned and the Director shall issue a certificate accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2099" RevisionGUID="35345791-6eae-42d2-ae81-9dcd417ad059" CreationDate="2013-01-03T09:02:13.810" UserId="2029" Text="I had recently heard about the SHIELD act that was meant to help curb the lawsuits initiated by patent trolls, particularly those that are highly unlikely to succeed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't seen any newer posts on it by doing a quick search since August. Was it shot down or is that still going forward? Are there any other pending patent reforms that may help alleviate small startups from those often noxious expenses?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;aed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4563" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2099" RevisionGUID="35345791-6eae-42d2-ae81-9dcd417ad059" CreationDate="2013-01-03T09:02:13.810" UserId="2029" Text="SHIELD Act progress" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4564" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2099" RevisionGUID="35345791-6eae-42d2-ae81-9dcd417ad059" CreationDate="2013-01-03T09:02:13.810" UserId="2029" Text="&lt;shield&gt;&lt;startup&gt;&lt;entrepreneur&gt;&lt;ip&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4565" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2099" RevisionGUID="af0fa915-d26e-4d1e-b35f-ab4bed957a83" CreationDate="2013-01-03T11:17:31.187" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;shield&gt;&lt;startup&gt;&lt;entrepreneur&gt;&lt;ip&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4566" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2096" RevisionGUID="ca9a10df-cb8a-49ef-8e5f-e52809c33b6e" CreationDate="2013-01-03T11:19:12.563" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;telecommunications&gt;&lt;us6839541&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2100" RevisionGUID="4321e15d-2e33-47b3-807b-c665a6e56f69" CreationDate="2013-01-03T11:31:05.387" UserId="2030" Text="Exergen has recently and successfully won legal battles with two other companies marketing products using a similar technology, American Diagnostic Corp. &amp; SDI Diagnostic Corp..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, it seems strange that Exergen can sue these companies considering their product isn't even non-contact, whereas the other companies' products were.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, there seems to be quite a few other companies, namely Veratemp and Veridian, that are currently marketing similar devices using technology that &quot;might&quot; infringe on this same patent, yet Exergen doesn't seem to be suing them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To conclude, I have three questions I'm hoping someone could help to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Why would Exergen not be suing these other companies too?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If Exergen terminated their previous patent (Patent number: 6292685), would this make the technology &quot;prior art&quot; or does it continue to be protected through their new patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If other patents were filed more than 20 years ago, which described measuring core body temperature as a function of surface temperature over an artery against ambient temperature, would their patent become invalid and technology be considered &quot;prior art&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for your time and assistance, much appreciated!!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4568" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2100" RevisionGUID="4321e15d-2e33-47b3-807b-c665a6e56f69" CreationDate="2013-01-03T11:31:05.387" UserId="2030" Text="How is this different from Exergen's previously filed patent (Patent number: 6292685)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4569" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2100" RevisionGUID="4321e15d-2e33-47b3-807b-c665a6e56f69" CreationDate="2013-01-03T11:31:05.387" UserId="2030" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2099" RevisionGUID="c0d6cf9d-eec7-47f9-8604-e41f13b71b9e" CreationDate="2013-01-03T15:43:22.447" UserId="76" Comment="removed fluff" Text="I had recently heard about the SHIELD act that was meant to help curb the lawsuits initiated by patent trolls, particularly those that are highly unlikely to succeed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't seen any newer posts on it by doing a quick search since August. Was it shot down or is that still going forward? Are there any other pending patent reforms that may help alleviate small startups from those often noxious expenses?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4571" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2099" RevisionGUID="c0d6cf9d-eec7-47f9-8604-e41f13b71b9e" CreationDate="2013-01-03T15:43:22.447" UserId="76" Comment="removed fluff" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;shield-act&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2100" RevisionGUID="9f6a277d-6f54-422e-b39f-804922962de2" CreationDate="2013-01-03T15:47:39.490" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Exergen has recently and successfully won legal battles with two other companies marketing products using a similar technology, American Diagnostic Corp. &amp; SDI Diagnostic Corp..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, it seems strange that Exergen can sue these companies considering their product isn't even non-contact, whereas the other companies' products were.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, there seems to be quite a few other companies, namely Veratemp and Veridian, that are currently marketing similar devices using technology that &quot;might&quot; infringe on this same patent, yet Exergen doesn't seem to be suing them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To conclude, I have three questions I'm hoping someone could help to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Why would Exergen not be suing these other companies too?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If Exergen terminated their previous patent [US6292685](http://www.google.com/patents/US6292685su), would this make the technology &quot;prior art&quot; or does it continue to be protected through their new patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If other patents were filed more than 20 years ago, which described measuring core body temperature as a function of surface temperature over an artery against ambient temperature, would their patent become invalid and technology be considered &quot;prior art&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4573" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2100" RevisionGUID="9f6a277d-6f54-422e-b39f-804922962de2" CreationDate="2013-01-03T15:47:39.490" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How is US6292685 different from Exergen's previously filed patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4574" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2100" RevisionGUID="9f6a277d-6f54-422e-b39f-804922962de2" CreationDate="2013-01-03T15:47:39.490" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;surgery&gt;&lt;us6292685&gt;&lt;thermal-measuring&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2101" RevisionGUID="f69d00bd-bb87-423c-a232-e7acd7fa695f" CreationDate="2013-01-03T15:50:10.700" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2102" RevisionGUID="c8296eca-7933-47e7-9067-2a721ef56904" CreationDate="2013-01-03T15:50:10.700" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2103" RevisionGUID="534bb478-7ef5-40fe-a55b-e1ba6cd16328" CreationDate="2013-01-03T16:17:43.030" UserId="2032" Text="regarding US Patent 7938262:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I offer a variety of early American string holders, used in stores to hold a ball of twine or string for ease of packaging. Some were designed to sit on a counter while others hung.  Some were hinged, some not.  Some cast iron, some wire, but many materials were used.  Hundreds of designs were made.  It appears that this patent is solely to prevent anyone from selling an antique string/twine holder to hold potpourri?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My wife bought one of these and it's exactly the same as an old string holder that was in my grandfather's shop 70 years ago, except the materials are cheaper, it's made of wire instead of cast iron, but that doesn't appear to justify a patent.  I was amazed to see a patent number on it when it doesn't appear to have anything new to it.  It looks almost exactly like, and functions exactly the same, as the first image below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, it appears that I can't post images or more than 2 links.  Guess I can try posting text to extra links?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[https://www.proxibid.com/AuctionImages/4235/59760/FullSize/321.jpg]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Td8ILpTU6X0/TaiEj8BoEMI/AAAAAAAACkM/MBfhjRJ3UOk/s1600/stringholder.jpg]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;another hinged one:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.rubylane.com/item/731026-00001100/Antique-General-Store-Cast-Iron&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;general info on twine/string holders:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.collectorsweekly.com/tools-and-hardware/string-holders&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and here are more: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://www.antiquesnavigator.com/ebay/images/2012/170757244074.jpg]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/OTAwWDE2MDA=/$(KGrHqFHJEIFBoB1ky+tBQ,2S(Z4Ug~~60_35.JPG]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://www.patented-antiques.com/images/2012-WRIT/11-12/string/IMG_6687.JPG]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4578" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2103" RevisionGUID="534bb478-7ef5-40fe-a55b-e1ba6cd16328" CreationDate="2013-01-03T16:17:43.030" UserId="2032" Text="what is the difference between this and antique string holders?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4579" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2103" RevisionGUID="534bb478-7ef5-40fe-a55b-e1ba6cd16328" CreationDate="2013-01-03T16:17:43.030" UserId="2032" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2104" RevisionGUID="ee12b29a-98e6-49a8-9e58-9c646f6d7536" CreationDate="2013-01-03T18:17:34.133" UserId="1485" Text="&gt; Regarding the &quot;it's easily correctable&quot;: Don't all the listed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inventors have to agree to a change? If A, B are listed, and A says&#xD;&#xA;&gt; later that B was not an inventor, but B says (s)he was... presumably&#xD;&#xA;&gt; this dispute has to be resolved before the inventorship problem can be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; corrected. Could there be a case where it is not easily resolved?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ran out of space in the comment section.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not necessarily.  In the administrative solution, defined in section (a) of the statute, requires that all listed inventors and all assignees agree to the change.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in your scenario, section (b) of the statute also lets A go to court and prove that B was not a true inventor, in which case the court can order the director of the PTO to correct the inventorship.  Unlike section (a)'s administrative remedy, a court is only required to give all parties notice and an opportunity to be heard.  So at most B would have to be given notice that A was trying to get him removed as an inventor, and the court would have to listen to his side of the story. If B fought the  change, A would have to prove that B was not an inventor by &quot;clear and convincing&quot; evidence but B does not have to actually agree.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I described the fact pattern in your original question as &quot;easily correctable&quot; because, assuming you already assigned all your rights in the patent to your former employer, it would seem to be in their best interest not to fight you over it anyway.  On the other hand, it doesn't seem worth your time and/or effort to bring it up either. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2105" RevisionGUID="760ddc98-a01d-47c7-b100-d30ceccf8df4" CreationDate="2013-01-03T20:44:42.290" UserId="1485" Text="The potpourri.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The patent claims potpourri as an element of the invention. Kind of ridiculous, imho, but there you go.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2105" RevisionGUID="d8bc4bd0-4d5a-42b1-90d1-913799a48bac" CreationDate="2013-01-03T21:52:21.143" UserId="1485" Comment="added 277 characters in body" Text="The potpourri.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent claims potpourri as an element of the invention.  In other words, in order to be anticipating prior art to the claims of this patent, the items you're thinking of would have to include potpourri and would also have to be in the shape of a fruit, vegetable, nut, tree, animal, sea creature, reptile, or star. (Kind of a ridiculous utility patent, imnho, but there you go.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4583" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2100" RevisionGUID="191850d7-9d08-4bbe-b33e-ea5f1816325c" CreationDate="2013-01-03T22:45:49.237" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/286966623645097984" />
  <row Id="4584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2103" RevisionGUID="d5f90584-5d71-498e-b35d-a50d89964450" CreationDate="2013-01-04T11:56:48.817" UserId="76" Comment="inlined images; tags" Text="I am wondering what is novel in [US Patent 7938262](http://www.google.com/patents/US7938262) for a potpourri holder:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I offer a variety of early American string holders, used in stores to hold a ball of twine or string for ease of packaging. Some were designed to sit on a counter while others hung.  Some were hinged, some not.  Some cast iron, some wire, but many materials were used.  Hundreds of designs were made.  It appears that this patent is solely to prevent anyone from selling an antique string/twine holder to hold potpourri?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My wife bought one of these and it's exactly the same as an old string holder that was in my grandfather's shop 70 years ago, except the materials are cheaper, it's made of wire instead of cast iron, but that doesn't appear to justify a patent.  I was amazed to see a patent number on it when it doesn't appear to have anything new to it.  It looks almost exactly like, and functions exactly the same, as the first image below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![321][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![stringholder][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Another hinged one](http://www.rubylane.com/item/731026-00001100/Antique-General-Store-Cast-Iron)  &#xD;&#xA;[General info on twine/string holders](http://www.collectorsweekly.com/tools-and-hardware/string-holders)&#xD;&#xA;And here are more:  &#xD;&#xA;![ebay1][3]&#xD;&#xA;![ebay2][4]&#xD;&#xA;![patented-antiques][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/sZp66.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/YHwIp.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/bYTUj.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/68fgT.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/o7xHG.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4585" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2103" RevisionGUID="d5f90584-5d71-498e-b35d-a50d89964450" CreationDate="2013-01-04T11:56:48.817" UserId="76" Comment="inlined images; tags" Text="What is the difference between US7938262 and antique string holders?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4586" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2103" RevisionGUID="d5f90584-5d71-498e-b35d-a50d89964450" CreationDate="2013-01-04T11:56:48.817" UserId="76" Comment="inlined images; tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;receptacles-packages&gt;&lt;us7938262&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2106" RevisionGUID="8d97b21c-27bf-4c4e-85a1-dfa4d2789b8b" CreationDate="2013-01-04T12:04:13.920" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2107" RevisionGUID="3acad0a9-fcef-4369-8a76-955b552526ba" CreationDate="2013-01-04T12:04:13.920" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2107" RevisionGUID="d831e932-3085-4852-8901-7c1318b0ebf3" CreationDate="2013-01-04T14:19:48.717" UserId="76" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="US patent class 206: special receptacle or package" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4590" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2107" RevisionGUID="d831e932-3085-4852-8901-7c1318b0ebf3" CreationDate="2013-01-04T14:19:48.717" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 302" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2102" RevisionGUID="ae4b582b-47f4-4898-a3f6-69f64c099723" CreationDate="2013-01-04T14:19:53.523" UserId="76" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="US patent class 374: thermal measuring and testing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4592" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2102" RevisionGUID="ae4b582b-47f4-4898-a3f6-69f64c099723" CreationDate="2013-01-04T14:19:53.523" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 299" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2106" RevisionGUID="a75bd03e-9e76-400f-84b2-b8b4b1980f4c" CreationDate="2013-01-04T14:20:00.933" UserId="76" Comment="added 803 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 206: special receptacle or package](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc206/sched206.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc206/defs206.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: receptacles and packages for gas, for coins, for tobacco or smoking utensils, for matches, for beverages (e.g. bottle or can holder), for hygiene products, for stationery, for apparel, for teeth, for eyeglasses, for sacramental implements, for data storage mediums (tapes, disks, ...), for sport equipment, for weapons, for building components, for electrical components, for fasteners, for tools, for books, for caspules, for prostheses, for sheets, for keys, ...; displays for samples, conversion between display and shipping configurations; shock protection; ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4594" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2106" RevisionGUID="a75bd03e-9e76-400f-84b2-b8b4b1980f4c" CreationDate="2013-01-04T14:20:00.933" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 301" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2101" RevisionGUID="64f3b7b7-908e-40da-9be9-364d296e92b9" CreationDate="2013-01-04T14:20:03.850" UserId="76" Comment="added 366 characters in body" Text="[US patent class 374: thermal measuring and testing](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc374/sched374.htm) [[detailed description](http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc374/defs374.htm)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Topics include: thermal calibration, determination of physical state transition, calorimetry, thermal testing, thermometers and accessories, ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4596" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2101" RevisionGUID="64f3b7b7-908e-40da-9be9-364d296e92b9" CreationDate="2013-01-04T14:20:03.850" Comment="Proposed by 76 approved by 1 edit id of 298" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2111" RevisionGUID="2bdf0408-ccb3-475d-9bc3-3b6d91090258" CreationDate="2013-01-04T16:54:56.747" UserId="1475" Text="Without delving into the patentability of overlapping compositions, the situation in this specific case is quite simple: US 2006/0286044 is not yet patented, it is the publication of a patent application. As such it has no other value than any other publication.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to know whether the application is still pending and what the chances are of the claims that you are curious about being granted, you should check the status of the application in the USPTO PAIR system.&#xD;&#xA;If you do that you will see that claim 1 has been amended in November 2012 and includes now the limitation that 'said xylitol is present in an amount from about 5% to about 20%, and said water-soluble calcium salt is present in an amount from about 0.01% to about 1% by weight'. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2105" RevisionGUID="17067d71-e2a5-45b9-a6b5-45589eb7b116" CreationDate="2013-01-04T17:54:35.483" UserId="1485" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="The potpourri.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent claims potpourri as an element of the invention.  In other words, in order to be anticipating prior art to the claims of this patent, the items you're thinking of would have to include potpourri and would also have to be in the shape of a fruit, vegetable, nut, tree, animal, sea creature, reptile, or star. (Kind of a ridiculous utility patent, imho, but there you go.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4611" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2103" RevisionGUID="1bf11867-b23c-4cd4-9c84-936204e6828b" CreationDate="2013-01-05T10:45:50.337" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/287510209897824256" />
  <row Id="4612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2112" RevisionGUID="cda361fa-dc55-4b71-a4f3-00f5c53dda43" CreationDate="2013-01-05T17:29:09.750" UserId="2038" Text="i submitted a provisional patent application from an foreign country (asia) @uspto.gov a few months ago , i researched and find out my idea worth a none provisional patent application (i made it public). is that possible me or my lawyer without usa residentship go there to submit a none provisional application with my passport ? or none-provisional application  @USPTO office is for USA residents only ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4613" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2112" RevisionGUID="cda361fa-dc55-4b71-a4f3-00f5c53dda43" CreationDate="2013-01-05T17:29:09.750" UserId="2038" Text="provisional patent application to non-provisional application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4614" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2112" RevisionGUID="cda361fa-dc55-4b71-a4f3-00f5c53dda43" CreationDate="2013-01-05T17:29:09.750" UserId="2038" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4615" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2099" RevisionGUID="adbbf970-8b78-4394-ba98-71a78b8b3a72" CreationDate="2013-01-05T19:45:50.120" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/287646104500178946" />
  <row Id="4619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2114" RevisionGUID="6283241a-f31f-4959-aec8-a2dc25261775" CreationDate="2013-01-06T20:08:37.820" UserId="2041" Text="Recently, a lawyer told me that if my company make a product (in my case an electronic board) like another **patented product** on the market. But my product adds functionality to the original product, automatically my product would be a `utility model` and not violate any patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I read online that the utility model is itself a patent.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;And now I'm a little confused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. *What is real difference between a patent and an utility model?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and it automatically generates me further questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  2. *My utility model can be replaced by another utility model?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for Availability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4620" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2114" RevisionGUID="6283241a-f31f-4959-aec8-a2dc25261775" CreationDate="2013-01-06T20:08:37.820" UserId="2041" Text="What is the real difference between a patent and an utility model?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4621" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2114" RevisionGUID="6283241a-f31f-4959-aec8-a2dc25261775" CreationDate="2013-01-06T20:08:37.820" UserId="2041" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;lawyers&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2112" RevisionGUID="26765e25-19ad-477d-9e20-1e9f6ccfd969" CreationDate="2013-01-07T14:27:18.067" UserId="2038" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="i submitted a provisional patent application from an foreign country @uspto.gov a few months ago , i researched and find out my idea worth a none provisional patent application (i made it public). is that possible me or my lawyer without usa residentship go there to submit a none provisional application with my passport ? or none-provisional application  @USPTO office is for USA residents only ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2116" RevisionGUID="6d759bd0-9d6c-4336-b67d-6ce9f17a431a" CreationDate="2013-01-07T19:40:23.780" UserId="2044" Text="I came up with an idea similar to this one (us20070091093) around the same time and I've read this patent pretty throughly. They cover a large part of what my idea is, but I have differences in execution and the fact that it is not directly clicking on the video that they have stated. If it is close enough that my idea would fall under this patent how do I go about opening dialogue for using parts of the patent in collaboration with my device. Also, I believe my idea may be different enough, but I am not sure who I would need to ask to evaluate this claim. Any advice or assistance that you can offer would be most helpful. Thank you for your time and consideration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sincerely, &#xD;&#xA;Jason Crossman" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4625" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2116" RevisionGUID="6d759bd0-9d6c-4336-b67d-6ce9f17a431a" CreationDate="2013-01-07T19:40:23.780" UserId="2044" Text="Implementation Questions and Differences in Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4626" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2116" RevisionGUID="6d759bd0-9d6c-4336-b67d-6ce9f17a431a" CreationDate="2013-01-07T19:40:23.780" UserId="2044" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2116" RevisionGUID="cd8ce70d-daa4-4e77-b351-ef01666590d0" CreationDate="2013-01-07T21:06:01.527" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="I came up with an idea similar to this one ([us20070091093][1]) around the same time and I've read this patent pretty thoroughly. They cover a large part of what my idea is, but I have differences in execution and the fact that it is not directly clicking on the video that they have stated. If it is close enough that my idea would fall under this patent how do I go about opening dialogue for using parts of the patent in collaboration with my device. Also, I believe my idea may be different enough, but I am not sure who I would need to ask to evaluate this claim. Any advice or assistance that you can offer would be most helpful. Thank you for your time and consideration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sincerely, &#xD;&#xA;Jason Crossman&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20070091093" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4628" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2116" RevisionGUID="cd8ce70d-daa4-4e77-b351-ef01666590d0" CreationDate="2013-01-07T21:06:01.527" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;us20070091093&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4629" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2095" RevisionGUID="b97cab0b-3815-40b8-af4a-58a449960f7d" CreationDate="2013-01-08T07:45:51.250" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/288552078970859520" />
  <row Id="4630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2117" RevisionGUID="43653123-04ff-433c-80ca-572175bbcb9b" CreationDate="2013-01-08T16:32:38.420" UserId="1485" Text="To briefly answer some of your more general questions before diving into the weeds:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If it is close enough that my idea would fall under this patent how do&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I go about opening dialogue for using parts of the patent in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; collaboration with my device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'd want to contact the assignee and express interest in taking a license.  In this case, that would be Microsoft.  You could start here:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/intellectualproperty/iplicensing/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BUT** you should really consult with a lawyer before doing so, in order to make sure you don't wind up getting in over your head (by, say, accidentally providing them with an admission your product would infringe their patent that could later be used against you).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also, I believe my idea may be different enough, but I am not sure who&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I would need to ask to evaluate this claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A registered patent attorney or agent is really the only person who can give you a competent opinion on this, but even then there's a certain amount of crystal ball gazing involved.  Be suspicious of anyone who gives you black and white/yes and no answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the specific patent you're concerned about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link you provided is to a published patent application.  The claims of applications are frequently quite broader than the claims in any patent that ultimately issues, as the applicant generally tries to initially claim a fairly broad scope which is then reduced during the application's prosecution as the examiner finds prior art that reads on the broader claims.  In this case, the application issued as a patent, which you can tell by looking here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the claims of the patent that actually issued, they're quite a bit narrower.  &#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 of the application you're looking at defines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method performed by a computing device, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;receiving a video stream that includes a sequence of video frames;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;identifying key frames in the video stream;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;binding a hyperlink to an object in the key frames; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;providing a separate stream that includes the hyperlink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While claim 1 of the actual patent defines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method performed by a first computing device having a processor for executing instructions stored in a memory, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     receiving a video stream by an authoring tool implemented by the processor on the first computing device, the video stream including a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sequence of multiple consecutive video frames, the video stream being&#xD;&#xA;&gt; formatted in a format conforming to a standard video format, wherein&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the authoring tool is configured to implement a hyperlink for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; association with a specified object visible in the sequence of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; multiple consecutive video frames when the sequence of multiple&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consecutive video frames in the video stream is displayed on a display&#xD;&#xA;&gt; device, the hyperlink to be selectable when the sequence of multiple&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consecutive video frames including the specified object is displayed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on the display device;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     identifying key frames of the sequence of multiple consecutive video frames in the video stream by the authoring tool implemented by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the processor on the first computing device by identifying a first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; frame and a last frame in the sequence of multiple consecutive video&#xD;&#xA;&gt; frames in the video stream, the sequence of multiple consecutive video&#xD;&#xA;&gt; frames in the video stream including a plurality of intermediate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; frames existing between the identified first frame and the identified&#xD;&#xA;&gt; last frame;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     binding the hyperlink directly to the specified object in each of the key frames by associating a shape to be displayed over the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; specified object in the sequence of multiple consecutive video frames&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the video stream when the sequence of multiple consecutive video&#xD;&#xA;&gt; frames is displayed on the display device, wherein the hyperlink is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; associated with the shape to bind the hyperlink to the specified&#xD;&#xA;&gt; object in the sequence of multiple consecutive video frames, wherein&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the hyperlink represents a connection between the specified object and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a website accessible via the World Wide Web having information&#xD;&#xA;&gt; corresponding to the specified object, wherein the hyperlink is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; configured to be activated in an application displaying the video&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stream to direct the application to present the website having&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information corresponding to the specified object;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     providing a separate hyperlink stream that includes the hyperlink and the shape to be displayed in the video stream over the specified&#xD;&#xA;&gt; object for transmitting the separate hyperlink stream with the video&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stream comprising the with the sequence of multiple consecutive video&#xD;&#xA;&gt; frames, wherein the hyperlink stream and the video stream are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transmitted by a communication interface of the first computing device&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for transmission over a network using a communication protocol for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receipt by a second computing device,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     wherein, when the video stream is displayed by the application at the second computing device, the shape is configured to become visible&#xD;&#xA;&gt; over the object in the displayed video stream in response to placement&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of a cursor icon of a pointing device onto a video display of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sequence of multiple consecutive video frames in the video stream&#xD;&#xA;&gt; during display of the video stream by the application at the second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computing device; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     receiving feedback information at the first computing device on user behavior regarding the hyperlink associated with the specified&#xD;&#xA;&gt; object in the sequence of multiple consecutive video frames in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; video stream, wherein the feedback is received from the second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computing device following display of the sequence of multiple&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consecutive video frames in the video stream at the second computing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; device, wherein the feedback information includes whether a user at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the second computing device activated the hyperlink associated with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the specified object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you also have to keep in mind that the reason the scope of the application's claims were narrowed is almost certainly because there are other patents that cover that subject matter.  If you want to see if any of *those* patents cover your idea, you'll have to look up this patent's prosecution history, download the rejections the examiner issued during prosecution, and look at the references he cited against the claims.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can look up the public documents associated with a patent or published application on the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) website:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you fill out the CAPTCHA, look up the patent and click on the Image File Wrapper Tab.  That will give you a list of all the documents you can look at with respect to this particular patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that was enough information to get you started. &#xD;&#xA;Good luck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/zsDHT.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/tGNG3.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2118" RevisionGUID="ee008a06-1279-4215-b53d-53c2621ba178" CreationDate="2013-01-08T17:24:23.923" UserId="2046" Text="Trials involving Google, Motorola, Microsoft and Apple about patents and especially FRAND patents are hitting the news everyday. But who decides a patent has to be offered under FRAND terms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, the owner of the patent can decide it himself, for example under the pressure of standard organizations, but can anybody else impose it to him? For example a court?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4633" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2118" RevisionGUID="ee008a06-1279-4215-b53d-53c2621ba178" CreationDate="2013-01-08T17:24:23.923" UserId="2046" Text="Who decides a patent is FRAND/RAND?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4634" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2118" RevisionGUID="ee008a06-1279-4215-b53d-53c2621ba178" CreationDate="2013-01-08T17:24:23.923" UserId="2046" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;frand&gt;&lt;rand&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2112" RevisionGUID="08ef7b5c-d67d-429b-8c85-14dced736649" CreationDate="2013-01-08T17:45:04.027" UserId="76" Comment="English" Text="I submitted a provisional patent application from a foreign country to USPTO a few months ago. I researched and determined that my idea is worth a proper patent application (I made it public). Is that possible that me or my lawyer without USA residentship go there to submit a non-provisional application with my passport? Or are patent application at USPTO offices for USA residents only?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4636" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2112" RevisionGUID="08ef7b5c-d67d-429b-8c85-14dced736649" CreationDate="2013-01-08T17:45:04.027" UserId="76" Comment="English" Text="US non-provisional application for a non-resident" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4637" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2112" RevisionGUID="08ef7b5c-d67d-429b-8c85-14dced736649" CreationDate="2013-01-08T17:45:04.027" UserId="76" Comment="English" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;usa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2116" RevisionGUID="d3a91719-681c-4fed-b761-b3557be8ec74" CreationDate="2013-01-08T18:04:01.927" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 31 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I came up with an idea similar to this one ([us20070091093][1]) around the same time and I've read this patent pretty thoroughly. They cover a large part of what my idea is, but I have differences in execution and the fact that it is not directly clicking on the video that they have stated. If it is close enough that my idea would fall under this patent how do I go about opening dialogue for using parts of the patent in collaboration with my device. Also, I believe my idea may be different enough, but I am not sure who I would need to ask to evaluate this claim. Any advice or assistance that you can offer would be most helpful. Thank you for your time and consideration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20070091093" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4639" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2116" RevisionGUID="d3a91719-681c-4fed-b761-b3557be8ec74" CreationDate="2013-01-08T18:04:01.927" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 31 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Idea that is similar but not identical to an existing patent: how do I evaluate the novelty?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4640" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2116" RevisionGUID="d3a91719-681c-4fed-b761-b3557be8ec74" CreationDate="2013-01-08T18:04:01.927" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 31 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;computer-graphics&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;us20070091093&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2114" RevisionGUID="c1014c2c-4298-4c9e-8216-e78ca463dc61" CreationDate="2013-01-08T18:43:14.890" UserId="76" Comment="English" Text="Recently, a lawyer told me that if my company makes a product (in my case an electronic board) like another **patented product** on the market, but my product adds functionality to the original product, then my product would automatically be a “utility model” and not violate any patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I read online that a utility model is itself a patent. And now I'm a little confused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the real difference between a patent and an utility model?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can my utility model can be replaced by another utility model?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4642" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2114" RevisionGUID="c1014c2c-4298-4c9e-8216-e78ca463dc61" CreationDate="2013-01-08T18:43:14.890" UserId="76" Comment="English" Text="What is the real difference between a patent and a utility model?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4643" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2114" RevisionGUID="c1014c2c-4298-4c9e-8216-e78ca463dc61" CreationDate="2013-01-08T18:43:14.890" UserId="76" Comment="English" Text="&lt;utility-model&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2120" RevisionGUID="e273e6bc-9ecc-4b4c-9f38-3113228fb886" CreationDate="2013-01-08T21:48:12.620" UserId="1500" Text="Your attorney will have to be admitted to practice before the USPTO (pass the patent bar) before he will be able to submit the patent on your behalf. Otherwise the US patent laws do not discriminate against foreign nationals filing on their own behalf. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See generally: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/foreign.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can always hire a US patent attorney or agent if you want someone with expertise in US patent laws to assist you or to file on your behalf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Short answer: Utility patent applications at the USPTO are NOT limited to US residents**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FYI--you don't actually have to travel to the USA to submit an application. It can be done by mail, or electronically. [File electronically here](https://efs.uspto.gov/efile/portal/efs-unregistered)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2121" RevisionGUID="cb4e9bbe-b98f-4059-a931-e7c1c7d3c27d" CreationDate="2013-01-08T22:03:33.930" UserId="1500" Text="A (US-sorry not down with EU antitrust) court may impose (F)RAND licensing if the holder of the patent typically licenses the patents under a (F)RAND scheme but blows the ND (non-discriminatory) part .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if Phillips typically licenses all its DVD patents under (F)RAND terms to DVD reader manufacturers, but then suddenly decides to charge Apple 100% more to make their own DVD reader drives, a court may force Phillips to license those patents to Apple under terms that are less discriminatory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a gross simplification, but hopefully it's helpful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This (quick scan by me) [looks like a great overview of current (F)RAND policy and pretty up to date with recent litigation/regulation][1].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20120221074826486" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2121" RevisionGUID="d96cd2a0-c97c-4edc-b452-07402dc3313c" CreationDate="2013-01-08T22:10:45.057" UserId="1500" Comment="added 220 characters in body" Text="A (US-sorry not knowledgeable about EU antitrust) court may impose (F)RAND licensing if the holder of the patent typically licenses the patents under a (F)RAND scheme but blows the ND (non-discriminatory) part .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if Phillips typically licenses all its DVD patents under (F)RAND terms to DVD reader manufacturers, but then suddenly decides to charge Apple 100% more to make their own DVD reader drives, a court may force Phillips to license those patents to Apple under terms that are less discriminatory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a gross simplification, but hopefully it's helpful. US courts don't force FRAND terms out of the blue. A patent, at it's heart, is a right to exclude and forcing a company to license that right (when they have made no commitment to do so) isn't part of the patent bargain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This (quick scan by me) [looks like a great overview of current (F)RAND policy and pretty up to date with recent litigation/regulation][1].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20120221074826486" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2122" RevisionGUID="a220c0de-b9d6-45b4-a92d-a3570da6d168" CreationDate="2013-01-08T22:30:15.810" UserId="2048" Text="Regarding the Patent located here, http://www.google.com/patents?id=rNqVAAAAEBAJ&amp;pg=PA2&amp;dq=real+estate+stock+market&amp;source=gbs_selected_pages&amp;cad=3#v=onepage&amp;q=real%20estate%20stock%20market&amp;f=false, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I find out whether this application was granted or abandoned and in either case, whether any other patents have cited or referred to this publication. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4652" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2122" RevisionGUID="a220c0de-b9d6-45b4-a92d-a3570da6d168" CreationDate="2013-01-08T22:30:15.810" UserId="2048" Text="Citing Patents? Abandoned or Filed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4653" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2122" RevisionGUID="a220c0de-b9d6-45b4-a92d-a3570da6d168" CreationDate="2013-01-08T22:30:15.810" UserId="2048" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2123" RevisionGUID="a4496a47-338a-458f-8b74-5131b13b2bd3" CreationDate="2013-01-08T22:56:36.397" UserId="2047" Text="The new Leap Motion device lets your devices &quot;see&quot; ten-finger motions in real-time 3-D.  I see no published patent application yet, but the device can be seen at leapmotion.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Microsoft has applied for a patent to use this kind of data to wave your hands and invoke software magic in 20120275686 A1.  This includes the use of wands in claim 20 and incantations in claim 5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Good Case&quot;:  Say Microsoft has been busy making sure this device works seamlessly with Windows 8 PCs, phones, and tablets on a plug &amp; play basis, shouldn't they be rewarded for their efforts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Bad Case&quot;:  Say Microsoft still has nothing better in mind than use with the XBox 360 Kinect.  Should they be allowed to prevent third party developers from integrating the Leap Motion device with Android Phones and iPads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reality may be somewhere in the middle.  The Leap Motion device enables new ways to interact with our devices.  What should it take to pass the &quot;obviousness&quot; hurdle when an O/S adapts to a newly invented device?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4655" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2123" RevisionGUID="a4496a47-338a-458f-8b74-5131b13b2bd3" CreationDate="2013-01-08T22:56:36.397" UserId="2047" Text="Beyond the touchscreen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4656" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2123" RevisionGUID="a4496a47-338a-458f-8b74-5131b13b2bd3" CreationDate="2013-01-08T22:56:36.397" UserId="2047" Text="&lt;non-obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2114" RevisionGUID="d2ed0763-bce6-4cb8-bb94-4ddd8471bf5d" CreationDate="2013-01-08T23:37:19.473" UserId="2041" Comment="Add more info " Text="Recently, a lawyer told me that if my company makes a product (in my case an electronic board) like another **patented product** on the market, but my product adds functionality to the original product, then my product would automatically be a “utility model” and not violate any patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I read online that a utility model is itself a patent. And now I'm a little confused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the real difference between a patent and an utility model?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can my utility model can be replaced by another utility model?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My jurisdiction is Italy but the patented product may be protected by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patents in other countries including US." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4658" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2118" RevisionGUID="2d926164-04cd-4eea-9986-360bfa3abd41" CreationDate="2013-01-09T04:45:51.933" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/288869171809353728" />
  <row Id="4659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2124" RevisionGUID="881b7868-aa2e-4d45-a2df-aa6bedff96ed" CreationDate="2013-01-09T05:42:00.200" UserId="1457" Text="According to [Patent Buddy](http://www.patentbuddy.com/Patent/20050015326), this patent has status **ABAN** so has been abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, this patent is cited in several other patents listed at [Google's patent datbase](http://www.google.com/patents/US20050015326)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2122" RevisionGUID="31ffce97-a3b1-4da7-a396-acb41df31e4f" CreationDate="2013-01-09T11:28:18.413" UserId="1259" Comment="tag and linkie" Text="Regarding the Patent located here, [http://www.google.com/patents?id=rNqVAAAAEBAJ&amp;pg=PA2&amp;dq=real+estate+stock+market&amp;source=gbs_selected_pages&amp;cad=3#v=onepage&amp;q=real%20estate%20stock%20market&amp;f=false][1], &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I find out whether this application was granted or abandoned and in either case, whether any other patents have cited or referred to this publication. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20050015326" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4661" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2122" RevisionGUID="31ffce97-a3b1-4da7-a396-acb41df31e4f" CreationDate="2013-01-09T11:28:18.413" UserId="1259" Comment="tag and linkie" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;us20050015326&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2122" RevisionGUID="41b4a703-2d3d-4abe-92be-e0688b187812" CreationDate="2013-01-09T13:07:35.240" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 92 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I'm looking for information on [US patent application 2005/0015326](http://www.google.com/patents/US20050015326).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I find out whether this application was granted or abandoned and in either case, whether any other patents have cited or referred to this publication. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20050015326" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4663" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2122" RevisionGUID="41b4a703-2d3d-4abe-92be-e0688b187812" CreationDate="2013-01-09T13:07:35.240" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 92 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How to find status and citation information about a patent application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4664" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2122" RevisionGUID="41b4a703-2d3d-4abe-92be-e0688b187812" CreationDate="2013-01-09T13:07:35.240" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 92 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;usa&gt;&lt;search&gt;&lt;us20050015326&gt;&lt;citations&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2123" RevisionGUID="fee7d1c4-dc10-4661-ab0f-d4f542727cb3" CreationDate="2013-01-09T13:11:35.310" UserId="76" Comment="added 90 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="The new [Leap Motion](http://leapmotion.com/) device lets your devices &quot;see&quot; ten-finger motions in real-time 3-D.  I see no published patent application yet, but the device is described on the website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Microsoft has applied for a patent to use this kind of data to wave your hands and invoke software magic: [US patent application 2012/0275686](http://www.google.com/patents/US20120275686).  This includes the use of wands in claim 20 and incantations in claim 5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Good Case&quot;:  Say Microsoft has been busy making sure this device works seamlessly with Windows 8 PCs, phones, and tablets on a plug &amp; play basis, shouldn't they be rewarded for their efforts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Bad Case&quot;:  Say Microsoft still has nothing better in mind than use with the XBox 360 Kinect.  Should they be allowed to prevent third party developers from integrating the Leap Motion device with Android Phones and iPads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reality may be somewhere in the middle.  The Leap Motion device enables new ways to interact with our devices.  What should it take to pass the &quot;obviousness&quot; hurdle when an O/S adapts to a newly invented device?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4667" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2123" RevisionGUID="fee7d1c4-dc10-4661-ab0f-d4f542727cb3" CreationDate="2013-01-09T13:11:35.310" UserId="76" Comment="added 90 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;user-interface&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4668" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2123" RevisionGUID="fee7d1c4-dc10-4661-ab0f-d4f542727cb3" CreationDate="2013-01-09T13:11:35.310" UserId="76" Comment="added 90 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Non-obviousness of user interfaces based on a new input device" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2121" RevisionGUID="91498e4e-eacb-4385-abb2-890f4bb59828" CreationDate="2013-01-09T15:05:56.333" UserId="1500" Comment="added doj paper " Text="A (US-sorry not knowledgeable about EU antitrust) court may impose (F)RAND licensing if the holder of the patent typically licenses the patents under a (F)RAND scheme but blows the ND (non-discriminatory) part .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if Phillips typically licenses all its DVD patents under (F)RAND terms to DVD reader manufacturers, but then suddenly decides to charge Apple 100% more to make their own DVD reader drives, a court may force Phillips to license those patents to Apple under terms that are less discriminatory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a gross simplification, but hopefully it's helpful. US courts don't force FRAND terms out of the blue. A patent, at it's heart, is a right to exclude and forcing a company to license that right (when they have made no commitment to do so) isn't part of the patent bargain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This (quick scan by me) [looks like a great overview of current (F)RAND policy and pretty up to date with recent litigation/regulation][1].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20120221074826486&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[update] &#xD;&#xA;DOJ just released a position paper on these licensing schemes yesterday. Interesting reading: http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/290994.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2121" RevisionGUID="1b6797a4-381d-4b78-8495-446ed443e507" CreationDate="2013-01-09T17:59:32.623" UserId="1" Comment="edited body" Text="A US court (sorry not knowledgeable about EU antitrust) may impose (F)RAND licensing if the holder of the patent typically licenses the patents under a (F)RAND scheme but blows the ND (non-discriminatory) part .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if Phillips typically licenses all its DVD patents under (F)RAND terms to DVD reader manufacturers, but then suddenly decides to charge Apple 100% more to make their own DVD reader drives, a court may force Phillips to license those patents to Apple under terms that are less discriminatory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a gross simplification, but hopefully it's helpful. US courts don't force FRAND terms out of the blue. A patent, at it's heart, is a right to exclude and forcing a company to license that right (when they have made no commitment to do so) isn't part of the patent bargain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This (quick scan by me) [looks like a great overview of current (F)RAND policy and pretty up to date with recent litigation/regulation][1].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20120221074826486&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[update] &#xD;&#xA;DOJ just released a position paper on these licensing schemes yesterday. Interesting reading: http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/290994.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2125" RevisionGUID="fb5f0717-581d-4e80-82db-ffebf55a17a5" CreationDate="2013-01-09T19:24:18.787" UserId="252" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an article written about defensive publications and the work being done through Linux Defenders. https://lwn.net/Articles/505030/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2126" RevisionGUID="2bc22864-bd9b-4f93-a920-c2ce0091d513" CreationDate="2013-01-10T14:30:07.220" UserId="2054" Text="lufthansa us8216392  and Gas T. E. us7445677 is very close to eachother and I assume there is an infringment.  If you search lufthansa cyclean pictures and patent drawing of us7445677 you will see that it is almost same. I know drawing doesnt mean patent but claims are also very similar. So I think that Lufthansa or GTE infringing or there is a licence agreement between them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4673" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2126" RevisionGUID="2bc22864-bd9b-4f93-a920-c2ce0091d513" CreationDate="2013-01-10T14:30:07.220" UserId="2054" Text="is there an infringement between this patent and lufthansa us8216392 patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4674" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2126" RevisionGUID="2bc22864-bd9b-4f93-a920-c2ce0091d513" CreationDate="2013-01-10T14:30:07.220" UserId="2054" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2127" RevisionGUID="37dba2ef-86b0-48d8-aa86-04dfab0d8b5f" CreationDate="2013-01-10T14:40:20.733" UserId="2054" Text="there is only 6 months between filing date and issue date of us7445677 patent. Am I missing something? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4676" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2127" RevisionGUID="37dba2ef-86b0-48d8-aa86-04dfab0d8b5f" CreationDate="2013-01-10T14:40:20.733" UserId="2054" Text="Approximately how long does it take between Filing date - Issue date in USA?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4677" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2127" RevisionGUID="37dba2ef-86b0-48d8-aa86-04dfab0d8b5f" CreationDate="2013-01-10T14:40:20.733" UserId="2054" Text="&lt;usa&gt;&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2128" RevisionGUID="af2d6ae5-2162-4328-b81c-258f2f810623" CreationDate="2013-01-10T14:50:08.653" UserId="2054" Text="us8216392 patent produced &quot;cyclean&quot; you can google for images and us7445677 drawings are very close, and also claims are very close" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4679" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2128" RevisionGUID="af2d6ae5-2162-4328-b81c-258f2f810623" CreationDate="2013-01-10T14:50:08.653" UserId="2054" Text="What is differences between us8216392 and us7445677?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4680" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2128" RevisionGUID="af2d6ae5-2162-4328-b81c-258f2f810623" CreationDate="2013-01-10T14:50:08.653" UserId="2054" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4681" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2126" RevisionGUID="b3c283ad-08c8-456c-81e6-ac57b48d61c8" CreationDate="2013-01-10T14:55:18.557" UserId="2054" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2128" RevisionGUID="6fceef33-c5b0-434a-97f0-dc14415cdeb0" CreationDate="2013-01-10T14:55:48.807" UserId="1259" Comment="tags and links" Text="[us8216392][1] patent produced &quot;cyclean&quot; you can google for images and [us7445677][2] drawings are very close, and also claims are very close&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8216392&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7445677" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4683" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2128" RevisionGUID="6fceef33-c5b0-434a-97f0-dc14415cdeb0" CreationDate="2013-01-10T14:55:48.807" UserId="1259" Comment="tags and links" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;us8216392&gt;&lt;us7445677&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2127" RevisionGUID="6920526f-1988-4cf1-8dfc-336f98cd2ae4" CreationDate="2013-01-10T14:57:38.090" UserId="1259" Comment="tag and link" Text="there is only 6 months between filing date and issue date of [us7445677][1] patent. Am I missing something? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7445677" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4685" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2127" RevisionGUID="6920526f-1988-4cf1-8dfc-336f98cd2ae4" CreationDate="2013-01-10T14:57:38.090" UserId="1259" Comment="tag and link" Text="&lt;usa&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;us7445677&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2126" RevisionGUID="cf6897c1-5ff5-4b0e-8896-139bffa314ea" CreationDate="2013-01-10T14:59:48.983" UserId="1259" Comment="tag and links" Text="lufthansa [us8216392][1]  and Gas T. E. [us7445677][2] is very close to eachother and I assume there is an infringment.  If you search lufthansa cyclean pictures and patent drawing of us7445677 you will see that it is almost same. I know drawing doesnt mean patent but claims are also very similar. So I think that Lufthansa or GTE infringing or there is a licence agreement between them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8216392&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7445677" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4687" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2126" RevisionGUID="cf6897c1-5ff5-4b0e-8896-139bffa314ea" CreationDate="2013-01-10T14:59:48.983" UserId="1259" Comment="tag and links" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;us7445677&gt;&lt;us8216392&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2129" RevisionGUID="5f476198-4927-48c5-9454-e2a2426b5942" CreationDate="2013-01-10T15:08:45.220" UserId="998" Text="Tarik - A few months ago I made the following histogram of patent application pendency for US patent applications. The chart is discussed on my blog. [Pendency Discussion on Patently-O][1]. ![Pendency Histogram][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic answer is that the average pendency for an application is just over five years from the earliest priority filing and about 3 1/2 years if ignoring priority filings (such as provisional or parent applications). The USPTO reports an average pendency of 2.8 years by (1) ignoring priority claims and (2) counting the RCEs as new application filings.  As the chart shows below, there is a large amount of variance and so it quite likely that any particular patent's pendency is far from the average. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent that you mention above (US7445677) did issue in only six months.  In that case, the applicant had filed a petition for accelerated examination.  A discussion of different ways to accelerate examination is available here: [Discussion of Options for Accelerationg Examination][3] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/03/total-patent-application-pendency.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/At6zF.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/12/expediting-prosecution-.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2129" RevisionGUID="1cea1c12-0864-415a-8ea0-9da7f1051595" CreationDate="2013-01-10T15:23:00.087" UserId="998" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="Tarik - A few months ago I made the following histogram of patent application pendency for US patent applications. The chart is discussed on my blog. [Pendency Discussion on Patently-O][1]. ![Pendency Histogram][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic answer is that the average pendency for an application is just over five years from the earliest priority filing and about 3 1/2 years if ignoring priority filings (such as provisional or parent applications). The USPTO reports an average pendency of 2.8 years by (1) ignoring priority claims and (2) counting the RCEs as new application filings.  As the chart shows below, there is a large amount of variance and so it quite likely that any particular patent's pendency is far from the average. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent that you mention above ([US7445677][3]) did issue in only six months.  In that case, the applicant had filed a petition for accelerated examination.  A discussion of different ways to accelerate examination is available here: [Discussion of Options for Accelerationg Examination][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/03/total-patent-application-pendency.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/At6zF.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us7445677&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/12/expediting-prosecution-.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2130" RevisionGUID="c3042555-cda0-4180-9978-b5ab4167d126" CreationDate="2013-01-10T15:44:39.880" UserId="998" Text="Interesting thing about these two patents is that the '392 patent was filed first - giving it the priority date, but the '677 patent was examined first because the applicant filed a request for accelerated examination. This becomes tricky because the first-filed application does not become prior art until it publishes. However, once it publishes it will count as prior art as of its priority filing date.  Here, the owners of the '677 patent were able to slip through the PTO without consideration of the earlier patent because the accelerated examination was completed prior to the publication of the '392 patent.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the '677 patent is ever enforced, the '392 patent will probably be the first-line of defense in an invalidation campaign. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2131" RevisionGUID="d7f19732-8d49-44e4-83bd-bbfa3fdf165e" CreationDate="2013-01-10T15:47:45.030" UserId="998" Text="Some countries allow for &quot;utility model&quot; patents. These are also known as &quot;petty patents.&quot; In most cases the utility model patents are easier to obtain but also have less enforcement potential.  The US does not allow for utility model patents.  Because patent rights are territorial on a country-by-country basis, your Italian or German utility model patent will not provide any exclusive rights in the US. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2132" RevisionGUID="77dd0920-33e1-436d-91ca-c75eeec16043" CreationDate="2013-01-10T15:57:07.830" UserId="998" Text="The SHIELD act legislation was a fee-shifting proposal that would have made it more likely that a patentee who loses its lawsuit would pay the attorney fees the victorious accused infringer. [SHIELD Act][1].  The current rule is that each side is responsible for its own attorney fees -- these fees are often more than $1 for a standard patent case.  A court is currently permitted to award fees to the prevailing party, but only in &quot;exceptional cases.&quot; The legislation would have lowered that standard to allow fee shifting if &quot;the party alleging the infringement of the patent did not have a reasonable likelihood of succeeding.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was no series support for this bill in Congress and it died when the new Congress began in January 2013.  It is likely that the bill will be re-introduced in the 113th Congress. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/08/loser-pays-system-introduced-in-congress.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2127" RevisionGUID="8bbde4f5-5bea-4218-b02d-5e5d259de3e3" CreationDate="2013-01-10T16:38:38.693" UserId="998" Comment="Grammar " Text="There is only 6 months between filing date and issue date of [us7445677][1] patent. Am I missing something? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7445677" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2128" RevisionGUID="3dc12027-75f2-40e8-b999-c45549bb2e54" CreationDate="2013-01-10T19:41:08.620" UserId="-1" Comment="insert duplicate link" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [is there an infringement between this patent and lufthansa us8216392 patent?](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/2126/is-there-an-infringement-between-this-patent-and-lufthansa-us8216392-patent)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;[us8216392][1] patent produced &quot;cyclean&quot; you can google for images and [us7445677][2] drawings are very close, and also claims are very close&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8216392&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7445677" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4695" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2128" RevisionGUID="87e557c4-87fd-49e6-b623-9c1f34c886fa" CreationDate="2013-01-10T19:41:08.620" UserId="1" Comment="1" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[2126],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1259,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ron J.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="4696" PostHistoryTypeId="37" PostId="2128" RevisionGUID="77539bd8-b6a0-4618-bcf3-94519b6ded82" CreationDate="2013-01-10T19:42:33.297" UserId="1" Comment="to http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/2126/is-there-an-infringement-between-this-patent-and-lufthansa-us8216392-patent" Text="[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]" />
  <row Id="4697" PostHistoryTypeId="38" PostId="2130" RevisionGUID="77539bd8-b6a0-4618-bcf3-94519b6ded82" CreationDate="2013-01-10T19:42:33.297" UserId="1" Comment="from http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/2128/what-is-differences-between-us8216392-and-us7445677" Text="[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]" />
  <row Id="4698" PostHistoryTypeId="38" PostId="2126" RevisionGUID="77539bd8-b6a0-4618-bcf3-94519b6ded82" CreationDate="2013-01-10T19:42:33.297" UserId="1" Comment="from http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/2128/what-is-differences-between-us8216392-and-us7445677" Text="[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]" />
  <row Id="4699" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="2128" RevisionGUID="4f7de46e-ff6e-4f95-bb0b-59c8e8dae224" CreationDate="2013-01-10T19:42:33.297" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="4700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2132" RevisionGUID="30b7ff0a-56ba-4ee4-bffc-3088ec9fa228" CreationDate="2013-01-10T22:43:00.657" UserId="1259" Comment="typo" Text="The SHIELD act legislation was a fee-shifting proposal that would have made it more likely that a patentee who loses its lawsuit would pay the attorney fees the victorious accused infringer. [SHIELD Act][1].  The current rule is that each side is responsible for its own attorney fees -- these fees are often more than $1 for a standard patent case.  A court is currently permitted to award fees to the prevailing party, but only in &quot;exceptional cases.&quot; The legislation would have lowered that standard to allow fee shifting if &quot;the party alleging the infringement of the patent did not have a reasonable likelihood of succeeding.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was no serious support for this bill in Congress and it died when the new Congress began in January 2013.  It is likely that the bill will be re-introduced in the 113th Congress. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/08/loser-pays-system-introduced-in-congress.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2133" RevisionGUID="b48b9e44-e8ff-4f43-8779-46062818f5f8" CreationDate="2013-01-11T00:20:13.547" UserId="2057" Text="Patents are subject to RAND/FRAND commitments if the patent holder is part of a standards-development organization (SDO) that imposes this requirement on its participants.  Such SDOs are typically voluntary membership organizations that any interested party can join, so long as they agree to the SDO's policies (including its FRAND policy).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A FRAND commitment usually applies to any patents that are &quot;essential&quot; to implementing a particular standard.  The term &quot;essential&quot; generally means technically necessary to implement the standard, but some SDOs have also experimented with including in this term other patents that are commercially essential to products implementing the standards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One big question is who decides whether a patent is &quot;essential&quot; to a standard.  Generally, the patent holder is required to declare what patents are essential to the SDO.  This disclosure is voluntary, and is not double-checked by the SDO.  However, there are significant risks associated with NOT disclosing all essential patents when an SDO's rules require such disclosure (e.g., possible unenforceability of patents under the theories established in the FTC's consent order with Dell (1998), and cases involving Rambus and Qualcomm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a brief discussion of these issues in the context of how some major companies have interpreted FRAND  you can see: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/03/february-of-frand.html " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2134" RevisionGUID="b36828aa-1920-4920-8968-1d451835232f" CreationDate="2013-01-11T01:07:21.837" UserId="2058" Text="Publish it. Period.  It's really that simple.  To be more specific, publish your idea is sufficient detail to enable others skilled in the art to make and use your invention.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2135" RevisionGUID="3fe9dfda-1586-4265-a38c-2d6d886ddc88" CreationDate="2013-01-11T05:37:36.380" UserId="2059" Text="Have a competent patent attorney draft an exhuastive specification, file the specification in the US and with WIPO. keep the process going until the specification is published then let the applications lapse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2137" RevisionGUID="78866817-df8f-48aa-a2ed-20aa57664f0c" CreationDate="2013-01-11T10:34:03.857" UserId="2062" Text="There are two services that are specifically designed to help in this situation: Research Disclosures (www.researchdisclosure.com) and IP.com (http://ip.com/publish/). Both of these charge a publication fee, but they are definitely searched by patent examiners doing novelty searches." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2138" RevisionGUID="85ed338c-d181-4762-82cd-1a635a0429ff" CreationDate="2013-01-11T14:03:00.483" UserId="2065" Text="Sounds wonderful in principle but I guess what you realy want to do is see your idea being utilised and creating a free for all may not be the best way to achieve your  objective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some inventions require extensive development and tooling etc. for manufacture yet have a limited market which you will fragment with your approach, possibly making it unviable for any or every business capable of bringinging it to market to ever do so.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider taking the rout suggested by Phil and then think again berfore adopting his final step of letting the application lapse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure - the best way involves you needing to incure expenditure on a  Patent Attorney otherwise you could have stab at it yourself - you should get the best book on the  subject of patenting by yourself and some patent attorneys also offer kits and are willing to review your efforts.   The claims are critical and this is where a patent attorney shines further but.... provided your application contains patentable subject matter and you try and write at least one claim which eventuates as unsatisfactory you may request your USPTO examiner to write a / good claim/s for you which they would accept - they are bound to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bottom line for a valid and effective patent includes that it requires an 'enabling specification with sufficient information such that a Person Having Ordinary Skills In The Art  (PHOSITA) of the invention must be able to understand it or reproduce it without any further  inventing although they may experiment with dimensions or materials which should preferably not be exactly specified although if nescessary one may generally safely mention a range of dimensions / quantities or the properties of materials. The specification needs to describe and the claims need to identify a sufficiently substantial clever, new, different or inventive step, having industrial applicability and not obvious to those skilled in the field or anyone else for that matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you only lodge in the US, once your Specification is published you will generally lose any patent rights in any other patenting country - approximately 142 - some countries - approximately 40 - have Grace Periods - but not all Grace periods have been created equel - both in regulation and time -  even if you are able to take advantage of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wish you every success.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stuart Fox - Inventor         " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2132" RevisionGUID="38023ba3-e4c5-4469-92f2-8dfb92084d91" CreationDate="2013-01-11T15:13:13.373" UserId="998" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="The SHIELD act legislation was a fee-shifting proposal that would have made it more likely that a patentee who loses its lawsuit would pay the attorney fees the victorious accused infringer. [SHIELD Act][1].  The current rule is that each side is responsible for its own attorney fees -- these fees are often more than $1 million for a standard patent case.  A court is currently permitted to award fees to the prevailing party, but only in &quot;exceptional cases.&quot; The legislation would have lowered that standard to allow fee shifting if &quot;the party alleging the infringement of the patent did not have a reasonable likelihood of succeeding.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was no serious support for this bill in Congress and it died when the new Congress began in January 2013.  It is likely that the bill will be re-introduced in the 113th Congress. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/08/loser-pays-system-introduced-in-congress.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2140" RevisionGUID="e69f1391-5be2-4611-bd3f-3e7cf6035e8c" CreationDate="2013-01-11T16:33:44.877" UserId="1475" Text="The best way to look for the actual information on the status of a US patent or patent application is to access the US Patent and Trademark Office's public information portal (PAIR). After searching for the patent document, which can be done in a number of ways, e.g. bu application number, publication number, and the like, information about the status can be obtained, and it is even possible to look at every document that has been exchanged between the inventor and the office.&#xD;&#xA;The website of PAIR can be found at: [PAIR][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2141" RevisionGUID="2f4c97d4-d72d-44dd-a6e7-5763b25423ef" CreationDate="2013-01-11T18:43:33.320" UserId="2069" Text="Maybe something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dev Dyn. 1993 Dec;198(4):284-95.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RS Tuan did a lot of work with chick sternal cartilage - seems quite likely that one of his papers (or the papers of similar researchers) inherently discloses the subject matter of claim 1.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2142" RevisionGUID="a1b25939-969d-4edd-91d9-e6e77711cb58" CreationDate="2013-01-11T22:08:53.853" UserId="2070" Text="A business competitor is claiming &quot;patent pending&quot; on a product I know they did not originally create. The product is manufactured by us, the competitor in question, as well as at least 15 other individuals/companies I know of. All our products are basically the same. There are cosmetic differences but everything else is the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe they filed for a patent in November/December 2012. So from what I understand that would give a prior art grace period from December 2011-December 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These products in question have been sold publicly online and discussed online since the start of 2011, with an extremely similar product sold since early 2009. We began manufacturing and selling ourselves in July 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me it seems pretty clear that the public sales and Internet discussions would count as prior art. But I won't assume it's obvious to the examiners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can easily provide all the proof. But without a patent application number, I can't submit anything directly to discredit their claim. So unless my competitor contacts me and claims some kind of infringement along with the patent number, I'm stuck either waiting until the application is public in 18 months... or hoping the examiner catches it quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is how rigorously will the patent examiner dig into the history of the product? (I know they like to search for existing patents - there are none covering this product.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And is there anything I can do to make their job easier ahead of time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4715" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2142" RevisionGUID="a1b25939-969d-4edd-91d9-e6e77711cb58" CreationDate="2013-01-11T22:08:53.853" UserId="2070" Text="How rigorous are examiners" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4716" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2142" RevisionGUID="a1b25939-969d-4edd-91d9-e6e77711cb58" CreationDate="2013-01-11T22:08:53.853" UserId="2070" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2143" RevisionGUID="436ba326-5de3-495b-ae7b-cb520a72f55e" CreationDate="2013-01-11T22:29:29.960" UserId="2072" Text="The Examiner Corps is a big group, and while some of them are very thorough, others may be happy to do one quick text search of their patent document databases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is diffuclut to do much before a competitor's application publishes.  Did you file your own patent application?  This is a good strategy for this type of situation (assuming no prior art bar).  You might think about gathering evidence showing you were the first inventor to invent the item in question.  Important prior art will be dated a year prior to the filing date; gather as much documentation as possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You sound concerned about your cometitor's advertising &quot;patent pending.&quot;  There is litle you can do about that.  If they make false claims (including stating that the invention is patented when it is not), you might talk to an attorney about an unfair competition claim.  Be careful, there is a liklihood of a counter-suit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4718" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2127" RevisionGUID="a4951f20-628a-4e53-af04-54f25522d0d6" CreationDate="2013-01-11T22:40:54.577" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/289864488516214785" />
  <row Id="4719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2143" RevisionGUID="c579f78c-5217-4bd2-801f-f3530f4c8e50" CreationDate="2013-01-11T22:58:06.347" UserId="2072" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="The Examiner Corps is a big group, and while some of them are very thorough, others may be happy to do one quick text search of their patent document databases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is difficult to do much before a competitor's application publishes.  Did you file your own patent application?  This can be a good strategy for this type of situation (assuming no prior art bar).  You might think about gathering evidence showing you were the first inventor to invent the item in question.  For prior art, it is important to find enabling disclosures dated a year prior to the filing date.  Gather as much documentation as possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You sound concerned about your cometitor's advertising &quot;patent pending.&quot;  There is litle you can do about that.  If they make false claims (including stating that the invention is patented when it is not), you might talk to an attorney about an unfair competition claim.  Be careful, there may be a liklihood of a counter-suit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2143" RevisionGUID="bc43bad7-b0c1-4501-9be2-03ce179d10d7" CreationDate="2013-01-11T23:43:13.547" UserId="2072" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="The Examiner Corps is a big group, and while some of them are very thorough, others may be happy to do one quick text search of their patent document databases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is difficult to do much before a competitor's application publishes.  Did you file your own patent application?  This can be a good strategy for this type of situation (assuming no prior art bar).  You might think about gathering evidence showing you were the first inventor to invent the item in question.  For prior art, it is important to find enabling disclosures dated a year prior to the filing date.  Gather as much documentation as possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You sound concerned about your competitor's advertising &quot;patent pending.&quot;  There is litle you can do about that.  If they make false claims (including stating that the invention is patented when it is not), you might talk to an attorney about an unfair competition claim.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2143" RevisionGUID="5b359e18-1b21-4c70-b67f-ed7f0890ce40" CreationDate="2013-01-12T03:50:52.733" UserId="2072" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="The Examiner Corps is a big group, and while some of them are very thorough, others may be happy to do one quick text search of their patent document databases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is difficult to do much before a competitor's application publishes.  Did you file your own patent application?  This can be a good strategy for this type of situation (assuming no prior art bar).  You might think about gathering evidence showing you were the first inventor to invent the item in question.  For prior art, it is important to find enabling disclosures dated a year prior to the filing date.  Gather as much documentation as possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You sound concerned about your competitor's advertising &quot;patent pending.&quot;  There is little you can do about that.  If they make false claims (including stating that the invention is patented when it is not), you might talk to an attorney about an unfair competition claim.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4722" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2142" RevisionGUID="0754114c-874f-498b-87ad-c3166c93216f" CreationDate="2013-01-12T15:14:10.500" UserId="2072" Comment="tag for on-sale bar" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;on-sale&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4723" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2142" RevisionGUID="0754114c-874f-498b-87ad-c3166c93216f" CreationDate="2013-01-12T15:14:10.500" Comment="Proposed by 2072 approved by -1 edit id of 303" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4724" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2142" RevisionGUID="bf9fbb76-e92f-43f0-8157-0e92705d642a" CreationDate="2013-01-12T15:14:10.500" UserId="1259" Comment="tag for on-sale bar" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;on-sale&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4726" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2142" RevisionGUID="eed6100d-373c-440a-a079-4758ca17ca24" CreationDate="2013-01-13T16:41:53.837" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/290498917165047809" />
  <row Id="4727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2144" RevisionGUID="701f0639-0943-4db2-bbc8-803c3ca25b36" CreationDate="2013-01-14T06:52:47.077" UserId="2054" Text="when I search patents at espacenet.com I see that some patent documents have multiple priority numbers. For example WO2010054132 has 4 priority numbers. (see bibliographic data). What does this mean? Why there is more than 1 priority number?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4728" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2144" RevisionGUID="701f0639-0943-4db2-bbc8-803c3ca25b36" CreationDate="2013-01-14T06:52:47.077" UserId="2054" Text="How many priority number can have a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4729" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2144" RevisionGUID="701f0639-0943-4db2-bbc8-803c3ca25b36" CreationDate="2013-01-14T06:52:47.077" UserId="2054" Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;date-of-invention&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3144" RevisionGUID="46796118-adfa-4f2f-94ca-6654b54623d9" CreationDate="2013-01-14T14:25:55.013" UserId="2072" Text="Good question.  I am unaware of any limit on the number of priority documents that may be claimed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes a patent application claims priority to a patent application that itself claims priority to another patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, an inventor could file a provisional application.  A non-provisional application could claim priority to the provisional.  Later, the inventor could file a continuation-in-part that claims priority to both the priority and parent non-provisional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3144" RevisionGUID="a1e45d86-171a-42ce-94e4-de7bacbd843f" CreationDate="2013-01-14T14:33:43.720" UserId="2072" Comment="added 366 characters in body" Text="Good question.  I am unaware of any limit on the number of priority documents that may be claimed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes a patent application claims priority to a patent application that itself claims priority to another patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, an inventor could file a provisional application.  A non-provisional application could claim priority to the provisional.  Later, the inventor could file a continuation-in-part that claims priority to both the provisional and non-provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, WO2010054132 lists the following priority documents: &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;12/612,355	 	04.11.2009	 	US&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;61/112,080	 	06.11.2008	 	US&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12/612,366	 	04.11.2009	 	US&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12/612,349	 	04.11.2009	 	US&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like the earliest claim of priority is to a U.S. provisional filed on June 11, 2008.  Three separate U.S. non-provisionals were subsequently filed on April 11, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3144" RevisionGUID="865f6b99-10ef-43cf-82da-4698ecc93694" CreationDate="2013-01-14T14:47:44.420" UserId="2072" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="Good question.  I am unaware of any limit on the number of priority documents that may be claimed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes a patent application claims priority to a patent application that itself claims priority to another patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, an inventor could file a provisional application.  A non-provisional application could claim priority to the provisional.  Later, the inventor could file a continuation-in-part that claims priority to both the provisional and non-provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, WO2010054132 lists the following priority documents: &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;12/612,355	 	04.11.2009	 	US&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;61/112,080	 	06.11.2008	 	US&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12/612,366	 	04.11.2009	 	US&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12/612,349	 	04.11.2009	 	US&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like the earliest claim of priority is to a U.S. provisional filed on June 11, 2008.  Three separate U.S. non-provisionals were subsequently filed on April 11, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12/612,366 appears to have been abandoned; the other non-provisionals appear to be pending.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5730" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2144" RevisionGUID="699ad15e-2ad2-48be-b268-8cfae4941544" CreationDate="2013-01-14T15:15:24.327" UserId="2072" Comment="added priority tag" Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;date-of-invention&gt;&lt;priority&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5731" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2144" RevisionGUID="699ad15e-2ad2-48be-b268-8cfae4941544" CreationDate="2013-01-14T15:15:24.327" Comment="Proposed by 2072 approved by 1 edit id of 304" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3144" RevisionGUID="38b02ce0-5363-46ba-96e8-b6f48298719b" CreationDate="2013-01-14T15:41:17.130" UserId="2072" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Good question.  I am unaware of any limit on the number of priority documents that may be claimed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes a patent application claims priority to an application that itself claims priority to another patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, an inventor could file a provisional application.  A non-provisional application could claim priority to the provisional.  Later, the inventor could file a continuation-in-part that claims priority to both the provisional and non-provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, WO2010054132 lists the following priority documents: &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;12/612,355	 	04.11.2009	 	US&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;61/112,080	 	06.11.2008	 	US&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12/612,366	 	04.11.2009	 	US&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12/612,349	 	04.11.2009	 	US&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like the earliest claim of priority is to a U.S. provisional filed on June 11, 2008.  Three separate U.S. non-provisionals were subsequently filed on April 11, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12/612,366 appears to have been abandoned; the other non-provisionals appear to be pending.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3145" RevisionGUID="481222e3-a9ed-4f8c-8dea-2ea3530dade5" CreationDate="2013-01-14T18:11:03.380" UserId="3076" Text="The information from Jeremy above seems to be quite far off. For instance, his example regarding the two head laser being a &quot;copy &quot;of someones invention is not the issue - the issue is does the product fall under the claims. If the claims say it has **only** one head then something with two heads likely would **not** fall under that claim. Also, the concept that if something performs the same function covered in a claim, it probably infringes that claim, isn't accurate. Generally claims cover structures. Two very different structures can have the same function. Patents do not monopolize all ways of carrying out a function. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--George" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3146" RevisionGUID="3f5bf056-e067-408a-9b13-d8aaa4e7e275" CreationDate="2013-01-14T18:54:58.513" UserId="3076" Text="To directly answer part of your question - yes methods of teaching can be patented. I did a quick search in the class that covers educational devices (434) and had over 5000 hits of patents with the word &quot;method&quot; in at least one claim.  Also searched for any patent with both method and teaching in the clam wording. About 1000 hits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---George" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3144" RevisionGUID="407bd3fc-8f27-4030-8c01-0cfbc68fcf0d" CreationDate="2013-01-14T20:30:04.763" UserId="2072" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Good question.  I am unaware of any limit on the number of documents on which priority may be claimed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes a patent application claims priority to an application that itself claims priority to another patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, an inventor could file a provisional application.  A non-provisional application could claim priority to the provisional.  Later, the inventor could file a continuation-in-part that claims priority to both the provisional and non-provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, WO2010054132 lists the following priority documents: &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;12/612,355	 	04.11.2009	 	US&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;61/112,080	 	06.11.2008	 	US&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12/612,366	 	04.11.2009	 	US&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12/612,349	 	04.11.2009	 	US&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like the earliest claim of priority is to a U.S. provisional filed on June 11, 2008.  Three separate U.S. non-provisionals were subsequently filed on April 11, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12/612,366 appears to have been abandoned; the other non-provisionals appear to be pending.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3147" RevisionGUID="7865eee5-22f5-4912-9d03-39531b932287" CreationDate="2013-01-14T22:17:00.450" UserId="3076" Text="Just to be clear - patents can not **infringe** patents. Products being made, sold used, or imported can infringe patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--George &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3148" RevisionGUID="9677c670-a410-4b67-8243-25871177839b" CreationDate="2013-01-14T22:29:29.947" UserId="3076" Text="To cover the most general version of your question, adding functionality is very rarely a way to avoid being accused of practicing someone else's patent. Going beyond what everyone else has done is important to you having a patentable invention. But the patentability of your invention is not relevant to the question of your possible infringing of someone else's patent. Many people think getting your own patent immunizes you from other's patents. Not the case. Your patent does not give you the right to make your own product - it gives you the right to try to stop others.&#xD;&#xA;---George" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2144" RevisionGUID="c654d5ac-ee42-4c93-9472-9187a2fa3de5" CreationDate="2013-01-14T22:40:37.477" UserId="1259" Comment="grammer on title!" Text="When I search patents at espacenet.com I see that some patent documents have multiple priority numbers. For example WO2010054132 has 4 priority numbers. (see bibliographic data). What does this mean? Why there is more than 1 priority number?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5739" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2144" RevisionGUID="c654d5ac-ee42-4c93-9472-9187a2fa3de5" CreationDate="2013-01-14T22:40:37.477" UserId="1259" Comment="grammer on title!" Text="How many priority numbers can a patent have?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3148" RevisionGUID="afa7ea54-3ca1-476f-b126-b4c14dce3b8e" CreationDate="2013-01-14T23:21:09.670" UserId="3076" Comment="Removed my name from end of post FAQ says no. " Text="To cover the most general version of your question, adding functionality is very rarely a way to avoid being accused of practicing someone else's patent. Going beyond what everyone else has done is important to you having a patentable invention. But the patentability of your invention is not relevant to the question of your possible infringing of someone else's patent. Many people think getting your own patent immunizes you from other's patents. Not the case. Your patent does not give you the right to make your own product - it gives you the right to try to stop others.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3145" RevisionGUID="35eb4114-7312-4153-8a9f-d9da4978ca89" CreationDate="2013-01-14T23:24:59.120" UserId="3076" Comment="I read FAQ and learned answers should not refer to other answers -sorry was my first post." Text=" Generally claims cover structures. Two very different structures can have the same function. Patents do not monopolize all ways of carrying out a function. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3147" RevisionGUID="1eda9f9c-65dc-4178-a909-5bf78c5f1d18" CreationDate="2013-01-14T23:30:09.650" UserId="3076" Comment="Removed signature" Text="Just to be clear - patents can not **infringe** patents. Products being made, sold used, or imported can infringe patents. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3150" RevisionGUID="58b0eb5c-6031-485e-8ca7-48bf40dbf1c0" CreationDate="2013-01-14T23:35:03.957" UserId="2072" Text="Mr. Brown,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I spend a fair amount of time on the water and appreciate your contributions.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer part of your question, the examiner cited your patent 4,172,680 as relevant art.  This reference appears to have been discovered during the Examiner's search. It appears, however, that this application issued on a first office action allowance.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2076" RevisionGUID="f56259f3-baf4-4259-a77f-2992a2bb3522" CreationDate="2013-01-15T01:12:47.740" UserId="1114" Comment="fixed a typo" Text="This patent seems to describe or use elements of an Invention I patented in Australia, USA UK etc in the late 1970s and has subsequently been used and or published in uniaxial, triaxial sesquiaxial and septaxial forms.  These patents expired long ago.  The product has been used for breakwaters and coastal and lakeshore erosion control, spillways and SUDS driveways, and for retaining walls stacked on end and on sides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Photos, design manuals and basic design software are available on request from chrisbrown.seabees@gmail.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was this prior Art disclosed in the patent application? What is the inventive step that allows the granting of some parts of this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5747" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2144" RevisionGUID="99ddf4fb-ab67-4b21-86fe-aac233dc418c" CreationDate="2013-01-15T01:47:39.647" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/290998650560196609" />
  <row Id="5748" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2126" RevisionGUID="f1799eee-c530-4741-8998-d9b1804fcce3" CreationDate="2013-01-15T16:47:41.760" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/291225152652460033" />
  <row Id="5753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3152" RevisionGUID="b9f6eaea-38bc-4e39-b94e-c24a6847310c" CreationDate="2013-01-15T23:59:13.363" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3153" RevisionGUID="d19b0510-0b03-4be0-930a-fa6822380c6c" CreationDate="2013-01-15T23:59:13.363" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5755" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3153" RevisionGUID="477f9722-9c97-4937-9149-9d12900d371d" CreationDate="2013-01-16T00:00:25.060" UserId="2072" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="On-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5756" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3153" RevisionGUID="477f9722-9c97-4937-9149-9d12900d371d" CreationDate="2013-01-16T00:00:25.060" Comment="Proposed by 2072 approved by 1 edit id of 305" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3154" RevisionGUID="f2c12a0f-728e-4230-829f-c8b1c396e5bd" CreationDate="2013-01-16T00:11:06.753" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3155" RevisionGUID="6878feb0-b049-4c56-8015-9adbe90084e2" CreationDate="2013-01-16T00:11:06.753" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3156" RevisionGUID="27473060-c75d-4432-a55e-dec57d886093" CreationDate="2013-01-16T01:40:46.500" UserId="3080" Text="So if there is no patent, only a publication number how do I tell if they were ever granted a patent or if they were, where is it?  I'm looking at publication # EP2526617.  thank you,  keith allen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5760" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3156" RevisionGUID="27473060-c75d-4432-a55e-dec57d886093" CreationDate="2013-01-16T01:40:46.500" UserId="3080" Text="My first time using google patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5761" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3156" RevisionGUID="27473060-c75d-4432-a55e-dec57d886093" CreationDate="2013-01-16T01:40:46.500" UserId="3080" Text="&lt;process&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3157" RevisionGUID="539ac548-ff9b-4061-8dd0-96f85d959c28" CreationDate="2013-01-16T02:01:02.913" UserId="2072" Text="According to the EPO website, this patent application has been published and is pending examination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP11735182" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3158" RevisionGUID="6073fb58-4bb4-423a-90d3-ecb1b580f26e" CreationDate="2013-01-16T02:12:10.797" UserId="3076" Text="As expanded on in the specification, story creation is quite involved. Equations and all.  If the invention takes boring daily details and turns into into an interesting narrative of your life, that might very well be new. Also a patent is supposed to tell you how to do it. If after reading the patent application you now know how to build it then the specification has done its job. To evaluate newness you need to not use the teaching of the patent itself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3159" RevisionGUID="3ffa5e30-8dc5-4cfd-b08d-4ec93c27edd8" CreationDate="2013-01-16T02:23:34.530" UserId="3076" Text="	&#xD;&#xA;I see a short pin (13) as the &quot;shaft&quot; of the claims and I do not see where either A sub i or B sub i is described as rigidly fixed to the shaft 13. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3157" RevisionGUID="fa0a46c2-a722-4dde-a5aa-0de7dfcc0a22" CreationDate="2013-01-16T02:34:01.653" UserId="2072" Comment="added 170 characters in body" Text="According to the EPO website, this patent application has been published and is pending examination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP11735182&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since it looks like priorty is claimed to a US filing, a search on the US Patent Office website seems to confirm that a US patent has not issued for this application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3160" RevisionGUID="ebd6858e-227a-4545-9522-670eb650e3aa" CreationDate="2013-01-16T03:24:24.403" UserId="3076" Text="A quick search brought up wo9717774 selective advertisement presentation 1994&#xD;&#xA;And wo9415294 interactive computer system with multiprotocol capability 1997 neither is cited on front page of the patent in question. Good luck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3161" RevisionGUID="c15b3009-bf65-4fac-a703-b0e5cc3aaece" CreationDate="2013-01-16T03:44:50.183" UserId="3076" Text="To the exact question - it is not valid and in force. IBM did not pay the maintance fee due in 2006 and it went abandoned in 2007. I looked it up in lexis total patents. You can use the Uspto maintenance fee shopping window or PAIR." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3162" RevisionGUID="0dab4075-10b2-4390-bc6a-eeeee6bef9d0" CreationDate="2013-01-16T16:41:51.953" UserId="3083" Text="Application US20120036028&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically this is check splitting...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have been working on a system for the last year and a half that has the same &quot;feature&quot;. By advice from our legal counsel, there was nothing novel about it and would not pass the USPTO examination so we didn't persue it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently you can try to get a monopoly on check splitting. Who would have thunk it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5769" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3162" RevisionGUID="0dab4075-10b2-4390-bc6a-eeeee6bef9d0" CreationDate="2013-01-16T16:41:51.953" UserId="3083" Text="Check splitting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5770" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3162" RevisionGUID="0dab4075-10b2-4390-bc6a-eeeee6bef9d0" CreationDate="2013-01-16T16:41:51.953" UserId="3083" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3155" RevisionGUID="9a795f74-a9ca-4d7c-96ae-a4c0ec1b84cf" CreationDate="2013-01-16T17:27:15.277" UserId="2072" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="Claims to priority based on foreign filings, parent application filings, or provisional application filings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5772" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3155" RevisionGUID="9a795f74-a9ca-4d7c-96ae-a4c0ec1b84cf" CreationDate="2013-01-16T17:27:15.277" Comment="Proposed by 2072 approved by 1 edit id of 306" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5773" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3156" RevisionGUID="5d635ae7-07dd-47fb-be8a-5bf1594de513" CreationDate="2013-01-16T17:27:21.877" UserId="2072" Comment="added tag for searching" Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;process&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5774" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3156" RevisionGUID="5d635ae7-07dd-47fb-be8a-5bf1594de513" CreationDate="2013-01-16T17:27:21.877" Comment="Proposed by 2072 approved by 1259, 1 edit id of 307" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3163" RevisionGUID="947558b6-cf9c-4a73-b531-a63a03d7c010" CreationDate="2013-01-16T17:35:38.763" UserId="3076" Text="Looking at the face of the patent there were many many references considered by the examiner. From their titles and a quick look at the initial rejection I believe that one or more of them are at least as good a reference as the SPIE article so this ref. is not likely to add anything new. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The image file wrapper in PAIR shows that claim 1 as-filed was initially rejected as obvious and gained allowance by being amended to include the limitation regarding loss of a control signal initiating the reversing and regaining the control signal stopping the reversing sequence. To attack this patent I would look for things having that behavior. As with most patents there are narrower claims that would be harder to successfully attack than claim 1. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Inevitable discovery&quot; is not a concept in patent law.  Everything is eventually inevitable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5776" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3162" RevisionGUID="78a499f6-4b26-44cd-be44-944cf509300a" CreationDate="2013-01-16T18:19:36.387" UserId="3085" Comment="USPTO Patent Application US20120036028" Text="Application US20120036028&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically this is check splitting...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have been working on a system for the last year and a half that has the same &quot;feature&quot;. By advice from our legal counsel, there was nothing novel about it and would not pass the USPTO examination so we didn't persue it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't a handful of apps already use such a mechanisim?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we have persued a patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So would this patent be valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5777" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3162" RevisionGUID="78a499f6-4b26-44cd-be44-944cf509300a" CreationDate="2013-01-16T18:19:36.387" UserId="3085" Comment="USPTO Patent Application US20120036028" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;us20120036028&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5778" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3162" RevisionGUID="78a499f6-4b26-44cd-be44-944cf509300a" CreationDate="2013-01-16T18:19:36.387" Comment="Proposed by 3085 approved by 1 edit id of 308" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3164" RevisionGUID="669188f1-669f-49aa-bdab-a94c02542533" CreationDate="2013-01-16T18:32:26.240" UserId="2072" Text="Well, you might want to be mindful that what your attorney tells you is privileged so long as both of you protect that privilege.  Lots of time and money is sometimes spent defending against demands to divulge opinion of counsel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether you should have filed for a patent is impossible to asnwer here.  However, if your patent counsel makes money from filing patent applications, then advice not to file is probably something to take to heart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link you provide is for a published patent application.  It has been rejected at least once, and it appears that the applicant has amended the claims in view of an obviousness rejection.  There is no guarantee that any claims will be allowed, or that they will be allowed without additional limiting amendments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3165" RevisionGUID="6ee0e759-c7de-4ff8-8def-eb6987baba6a" CreationDate="2013-01-16T19:01:20.537" UserId="3076" Text="The **claims** all require the response to a stimulus to be measured by a sensor. One independent claim says the sensor is a polygraph the rest say the sensor picks up EEG signals.  If you are looking for things that related to the claims you might use EEG, stimulus response, compare, match, identify. It is a biometric identification. So biometric authentication EEG might be good. I gave it a try in google patents and it hit on several things with abstracts that look relevant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3166" RevisionGUID="8a44fd2e-edb8-4c01-89bd-fea7bffb6e56" CreationDate="2013-01-16T19:44:06.173" UserId="3076" Text="I do not see the word desiccant in those references. Take a look at&#xD;&#xA;Patent number us4673420 from 1987. I do not see it listed in the face of the patent in question so it is likely something the examiner didn't look at.  It may not be seen as teaching the &quot;inner chamber&quot; of claim 1." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3167" RevisionGUID="dca69cb3-ad9c-40f1-a4e9-ecbca5637905" CreationDate="2013-01-16T20:18:53.060" UserId="3076" Text="I have a few suggestions: the USPTO is helping local non-profits set up pro bono patent help. The first one up and running is in Minneapolis but others are getting on line. Second their may be an inventors club in your area and there may be members who are patent agents or patent attorneys who provide some advice on DIY patent application. Third many inventors learn as much as they can and file a pro se provisional application. There is not much in the way of formal requirements for that type of filing and the fees are $125. It gives you a year to file a &quot;real&quot; application. However, their ultimate value as a stake in the ground will turn on how well the claims in the eventual non-provisional application are supported with details in the provisional. Last - not every patent practitioner charges that much. Most patent attorneys do not really want individual inventors as clients. They need more hand holding, do not represent repeat business and are very cost sensitive. Some are more oriented to small companies and individual inventors. Check with a local inventors club for names. &#xD;&#xA;Consider a patent agent rather than an attorney. Same rights at the USPTO, same patent bar exam and  same educational requirements. But we can't command the same size fees (yes I am one). You might look at the member list of the National Association of Patent Practitioners. About 1/2 are agents and 1/2 are attorneys almost all are sole practitioners with lower overhead than a big firm. Good luck." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3169" RevisionGUID="cfcceead-9def-4d70-8eb3-33617b2b4417" CreationDate="2013-01-16T20:43:29.623" UserId="3076" Text="A non final rejection was issued in November. Besides a rejection due to non patentable subject matter, 19 of the 20 claims were seen as anticipated by us2008/0165022, Hertz. The remaining claim was seen as obvious under Hertz in light of examiner's knowledge. You can look it up in public PAIR. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also Hertz has been issued as US7671756 in 2010. I did not look at his allowed claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3170" RevisionGUID="70304ecc-8fdf-4d5f-ac63-8ee87c534ae9" CreationDate="2013-01-16T21:10:21.963" UserId="4" Text="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Examples of prior art for a specific claim&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Patent law or the patent approval process&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;How to interpret a specific patent&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3171" RevisionGUID="63bd70c4-1c77-48f5-bb5a-1e2b6b9d151f" CreationDate="2013-01-16T21:11:05.703" UserId="4" Text="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Trademarks, copyrights, or anything not directly related to patents&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Questions that are primarily opinion-based&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Questions with too many possible answers or that would require an extremely long answer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="759" RevisionGUID="86731839-9ad7-43e7-9ef7-320b58746f44" CreationDate="2013-01-16T21:18:17.530" UserId="4" Comment="deleted 83 characters in body" Text="I plan to develop an open-source software application that speaks words in a foreign language while displaying pictures that represent the words. Can teaching methods (such as Rosetta Stone's language immersion software, which also displays a picture of a word while pronouncing the word) be patented? I'm concerned that someone might already have a patent over this method of instruction." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3146" RevisionGUID="3f01fe40-15fd-4fd7-a5f2-3824900abc56" CreationDate="2013-01-16T21:19:57.387" UserId="4" Comment="removed signature" Text="To directly answer part of your question - yes methods of teaching can be patented. I did a quick search in the class that covers educational devices (434) and had over 5000 hits of patents with the word &quot;method&quot; in at least one claim.  Also searched for any patent with both method and teaching in the clam wording. About 1000 hits." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3162" RevisionGUID="1be632f5-4ebf-403b-b7b0-373a93b0b171" CreationDate="2013-01-16T21:48:15.207" UserId="1259" Comment="link and spellings" Text="Application [US20120036028][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically this is check splitting...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have been working on a system for the last year and a half that has the same &quot;feature&quot;. By advice from our legal counsel, there was nothing novel about it and would not pass the USPTO examination so we didn't pursue it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't a handful of apps already use such a mechanism?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we have pursued a patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So would this patent be valid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120036028" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3156" RevisionGUID="5cc90512-241e-4d5a-9a9a-b3f2ea356747" CreationDate="2013-01-16T23:54:09.027" UserId="1" Comment="Fixed title, removed saluation. Did I get the publication link correct?" Text="So if there is no patent, only a publication number how do I tell if they were ever granted a patent or if they were, where is it?  I'm looking at [publication # EP2526617](http://www.google.com/patents/EP2526617A1?cl=en). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5792" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3156" RevisionGUID="5cc90512-241e-4d5a-9a9a-b3f2ea356747" CreationDate="2013-01-16T23:54:09.027" UserId="1" Comment="Fixed title, removed saluation. Did I get the publication link correct?" Text="How To Tell If Applicant Was Granted a Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5793" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3162" RevisionGUID="8a37a882-079a-4539-8b4c-987de94db656" CreationDate="2013-01-16T23:54:59.167" UserId="1" Comment="edited title" Text="Is this check-splitting patent valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3172" RevisionGUID="92f8a5db-d8d3-4670-b7d0-9f55916ef15c" CreationDate="2013-01-17T00:10:57.433" UserId="3076" Text="Patent number: 6447610&#xD;&#xA;Filing date: Jul 18, 2000 was considered by the examiner. It mentions silicone oil but not curing. A later filed application says the present invention won't work because the adhesive holding the needle to the syringe will not stand up to the cure temp." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3173" RevisionGUID="40f52ca2-e215-4382-98eb-667fa01d3113" CreationDate="2013-01-17T02:07:22.873" UserId="3076" Text="The patent in question is a CIP (continuation in part) of the earlier application. Any claims fully supported by the first filing would need pre 1989 references to be attacked. Any claim not fully supported by the initial filing would only need pre 1992 references to be attacked. Continuation in part allows new matter but the new matter gets the new date.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3174" RevisionGUID="1779dbfc-1213-4fee-9b26-b771f2010365" CreationDate="2013-01-17T02:21:55.557" UserId="3076" Text="Design patents are only for articles of manufacture. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 35 U.S.C. 171   Patents for designs. Whoever invents any new, original&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and ornamental design for an article of manufacture may obtain a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A painting is not an article of manufacture. A painted bread box probably is.. If a vase design can be fine art - why not - then mass &quot;reproductions&quot; of that vase are certainly subject matter for a design patent and are also probably fine art. A limited signed numbered set of reproductions would certainly be fine art and no less patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Design patents are for ornamental versions of things. The fineness of the art does not govern." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3167" RevisionGUID="41883f80-f57f-470c-8153-f59f13d88cbd" CreationDate="2013-01-17T08:06:38.350" UserId="3076" Comment="Fixed spelling and split long sentence. Added &quot;full disclosure&quot;" Text="I have a few suggestions: the USPTO is helping local non-profits set up pro bono patent help. The first one up and running is in Minneapolis but others are getting on line. Second there may be an inventors club in your area and there may be members who are patent agents or patent attorneys who can provide some advice on DIY patent application. Third many inventors learn as much as they can and file a pro se provisional application. There is not much in the way of formal requirements for that type of filing and the fees are $125. It gives you a year to file a &quot;real&quot; application. However, their ultimate value as a stake in the ground will turn on how well the claims in the eventual non-provisional application are supported with details in the provisional. Last - not every patent practitioner charges that much. Most patent attorneys do not really want individual inventors as clients. They need more hand holding, do not represent repeat business and are very cost sensitive. Some are more oriented to small companies and individual inventors. Check with a local inventors club for names. &#xD;&#xA;Consider a patent agent rather than an attorney. Same rights at the USPTO, same patent bar exam and  same educational requirements. But we can't command the same size fees (full disclosure - yes I am one). You might look at the member list of the National Association of Patent Practitioners. About 1/2 are agents and 1/2 are attorneys. Almost all are sole practitioners with lower overhead than a big firm. Good luck." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3161" RevisionGUID="31752896-b636-472f-a5da-d8af65ec369b" CreationDate="2013-01-17T08:19:47.957" UserId="3076" Comment="Added link, added emphasis" Text="To the exact question - it is **not** valid and in force. IBM did not pay the maintance fee due in 2006 and it went abandoned in 2007. I looked it up in lexis total patents. You can use the USPTO maintenance fee shopping window [https://ramps.uspto.gov/eram/patentMaintFees.do][1] or PAIR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ramps.uspto.gov/eram/patentMaintFees.do &quot;link&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3175" RevisionGUID="7ae6419e-6b48-48fb-8190-4f49a093f41e" CreationDate="2013-01-17T10:57:51.863" UserId="962" Text="Turns out [there's a US 2008/0250656 A1 patent][1] for a composite knife blade - a knife blade made of two pieces - one containing the area near cutting edge and the other containing the rest of the blade - welded together. This way the cutting edge may be made of steel that's better for cutting but is more brittle and the rest of the blade can be made of stronger steel that isn't that good for cutting. The patent is issued to Kershaw and they are the only company offering such knifes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't get one thing. What's the novelty here? Drill bits are done the same way - the bit tail is made of some crappy steel and the cutting part is made of better cutting steel and they are welded together with friction. This process for manufacturing drill bits has been used for ages so far and the composite knife blade is in fact a variation of that, so IMO it's not a novelty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How could such a patent be issued? Do I misunderstand how novelty requirement works or is is a USPTO error?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20080250656" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5800" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3175" RevisionGUID="7ae6419e-6b48-48fb-8190-4f49a093f41e" CreationDate="2013-01-17T10:57:51.863" UserId="962" Text="How could a ptent be issued for a composite knife blade?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5801" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3175" RevisionGUID="7ae6419e-6b48-48fb-8190-4f49a093f41e" CreationDate="2013-01-17T10:57:51.863" UserId="962" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5802" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3175" RevisionGUID="d3443cc9-2060-45ef-a6d6-f82fd2eda7e4" CreationDate="2013-01-17T11:08:19.240" UserId="962" Comment="edited title" Text="How could a patent have been issued for a composite knife blade?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5803" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3175" RevisionGUID="6aa67b0f-a9d4-4900-b404-cc43432ef9f7" CreationDate="2013-01-17T11:19:57.867" UserId="1259" Comment="tag" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;us20080250656&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3176" RevisionGUID="c0ae82e9-831a-49dc-8d63-44c98e9eaa23" CreationDate="2013-01-17T11:45:36.377" UserId="1770" Text="Have a look in [Public PAIR][1] for this publication number (2008-0250656) and you will find it has not yet been granted - indeed it was rejected and appealed. A very stormy Transaction History. In the Image File Wraqpper you will find the arguments on both sides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5805" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2125" RevisionGUID="7dd89b87-c65f-41d6-a44a-e7281ea33021" CreationDate="2013-01-17T13:28:02.457" UserId="252" Comment="added 403 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA; Publishing an idea is important but you have to make sure that examiner sees it. For example, if you post your idea or work on your blog, there is no guarantee that the patent examiner will see it. If these publications do not in front of the examiners, they rely on what is easily accessible which generally means patent literature.  Here is an article written about defensive publications and the work being done through Linux Defenders. https://lwn.net/Articles/505030/. I'm sure this is one of many that focus on defensive publications. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3177" RevisionGUID="ca0d1cf0-71bd-419f-b9d1-50b545843279" CreationDate="2013-01-17T13:55:04.417" UserId="252" Text="The USPTO started allowing the public to submit prior art just last year. How will the public know if prior art that is submitted through the third party submission system was used to reject a patent application? Has any prior art submitted by the public been used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5807" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3177" RevisionGUID="ca0d1cf0-71bd-419f-b9d1-50b545843279" CreationDate="2013-01-17T13:55:04.417" UserId="252" Text="Prior art shared with the USPTO" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5808" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3177" RevisionGUID="ca0d1cf0-71bd-419f-b9d1-50b545843279" CreationDate="2013-01-17T13:55:04.417" UserId="252" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;examiner&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3178" RevisionGUID="570253e9-3cf1-4ffe-96c9-ef23e65b4cf5" CreationDate="2013-01-17T16:33:16.437" UserId="2072" Text="Paul Morgan has a good article posted here on this subject:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/01/guest-post-should-you-submit-third-party-prior-art.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the prior art is used to reject a patent application, it will appear in the prosecution history. If an Office Action contains a rejection relying on that prior art, that prior art will be listed as cited art and discussed in the body of the Office Action.  You can access on-line prosecution histories and filed documents for pending patent applications through public PAIR:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5810" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="3159" RevisionGUID="9551ad50-b64e-4e64-ab7c-b6833226461d" CreationDate="2013-01-17T17:15:40.103" UserId="3076" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3076,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George White&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="5811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3179" RevisionGUID="c47fdc1f-50e6-4161-b2b9-3462c8fb4c87" CreationDate="2013-01-17T17:45:58.747" UserId="3076" Text="A direct answer to the question is that it must first be determined if the thesis is a &quot;printed publication&quot; under the patent laws. This is somewhat of a trick question and is often on the patent bar exam. The key can be how the thesis is shelved and cataloged in the school library. This has to do with its availability to the public before the critical date. Indexed by subject - it is accessible. Filed by students name or only department - not accessible to the public. Link to a famous case https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/890/890.F2d.1158.89-1434.html[][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/890/890.F2d.1158.89-1434.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3180" RevisionGUID="f3bfa751-cdf2-475f-88de-8f55538d0172" CreationDate="2013-01-17T18:12:20.047" UserId="3076" Text="Up until Bilski methods for playing a game, both board games and card games were getting through. Post Bilski the art unit that handles that area is taking the position that they will reject all methods of playing as abstract. This is from personal experience. Also including a pointer to a case I am not involved in where the board found a method for playing a card name to be abstract, un-patentable subject matter. Another case found the requirement for a random number generator tied a board game to a &quot;machine&quot; so it was ok. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; http://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/ReterivePdf?system=BPAI&amp;flNm=fd2010008274-02-07-2012-1[][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/ReterivePdf?system=BPAI&amp;flNm=fd2010008274-02-07-2012-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3181" RevisionGUID="5f0492b6-b15e-4a30-a492-fb38711b0ae7" CreationDate="2013-01-17T23:16:24.997" UserId="1335" Text="As mentioned by Epicenter, it's not issued yet (i.e. it cannot be legally enforced), just published. An interesting discussion, however, is whether usage of a similar technique in one field/application (drilling) makes it obvious in another (cutting.) Although drilling and cutting are similar at a very, very abstract level, the physics involved are different enough that they may be considered different fields, and that could be used as an argument for non-obviousness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, prior art references from other fields *have* previously been used to reject claims if the technical principles involved were considered similar enough. I heard of a case (no reference handy, unfortunately, and my recollection is hazy) where claims on a method for decelerating an anchor being dropped off a ship, by slowing the pulley, were rejected in light of prior art for braking used by large trucks. Though the fields were quite different (marine engineering vs. heavy automotive engineering) and the applications even more so (anchor sinking in water vs. a truck speeding on land) the mechanical principles involved in both inventions were similar enough to warrant an obviousness-type rejection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3182" RevisionGUID="6994cda0-3af3-4856-9dfb-64ad5af2250c" CreationDate="2013-01-18T04:17:50.097" UserId="3076" Text="The '915 patent was one of the patents Apple asserted in both the Samsung case and the HTC case.  It is now in an exparte reexamination that I believe was initiated anonymously. Anyone can follow it in [Public PAIR][1]. The effective application number for the reexamination is 90/012,332. The claim 1 above and several others have been rejected in a non-final action as anticipated by US7724242 Filing date: Nov 23, 2005 Issue date: May 25, 2010. The inventor is the famous Danny Hillis. As of today Apple has not yet responded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5815" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="3159" RevisionGUID="12c7ce93-8897-4ee8-8f1a-1003bc0935b0" CreationDate="2013-01-18T04:20:03.433" UserId="3076" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3076,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George White&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="5816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3159" RevisionGUID="d137dc86-2136-4449-ae30-86226a0b9d8c" CreationDate="2013-01-18T04:29:19.063" UserId="3076" Comment="I had deleted my original answer and made it a comment as suggested by someone. This left the post with no answer. So today I undeleted my answer and re-wrote it as an actual answer to an actual question this time." Text="To answer one the questions asked &quot;how can something rotate around a shaft if is pinned to the shaft&quot; - It can't. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I think you are misreading the specification and drawings to find that one of the two plates is pinned to the shaft. Please see my comment above. Possibly you read &quot;coupled **by** a shaft&quot; as &quot;coupled **to** a shaft&quot;. Even then, coupled is not pinned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3183" RevisionGUID="767050b0-4ebd-45f3-9fe1-c432cbc80217" CreationDate="2013-01-18T13:06:05.287" UserId="3088" Text="[Article 52 (2)][1] determines what is and is not patentable subject matter within the EU:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the meaning of paragraph 1:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (b) aesthetic creations;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (d) presentations of information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My business partners and I are filing for a UK patent. The patent is for software and has an application number. We are still to file the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Throughout the entire time we have been dealing with our patent lawyer we have been unable to get out of him a straight answer on UK software patents. This is likely due to the nature of the invention and the extremely complicated guidelines in the UK. Most people tend to point you to [Aerotel v Telco and Macrossan][2] as they don't really know the answer themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The invention**  &#xD;&#xA;The invention is a program. It will mostly be used on the internet. The user enters data (raw material) into the program, tweaks settings and receives a downloadable document (end product).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Article 52 (2) (c) states that &quot;programs for computers&quot; are non patentable matter. However, after the A v T case the UK patent office developed a new method for what describes an invention:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Properly construe the claim;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identify the actual contribution;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Ask whether the contribution falls solely within excluded subject matter; and  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Check whether the contribution is technical in nature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steps 1, 2 and 4 are easily passed. It is step three where most software patents fail and what we are hoping to beat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the IPO site, Patentable Subject Matter* page, point 14:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 14 - Also left open is a question over permissible forms of claim: can claims to a computer program (or a program on a carrier) be allowable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; when other claims in a different form, claims covering the use of that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; particular program, would be allowed? In the past, the Office has&#xD;&#xA;&gt; allowed such claims on the basis that substance should prevail over&#xD;&#xA;&gt; form. Whilst the judgment maintains the emphasis on substance over&#xD;&#xA;&gt; form, it also characterises the first step as deciding what the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; monopoly is, and if the monopoly does not go beyond the program, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; contribution is also unlikely to go beyond &quot;a program for a computer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Accordingly, whilst examiners will continue to assess each case on its&#xD;&#xA;&gt; merits, it seems likely that few claims to programs in themselves (or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; programs on a carrier) will pass the third test.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, since the user will using the program for the end product and not for the program itself will this mean that we have patentable subject matter under UK law?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is hotly debated topic but unfortunately not well understood by many.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for your help,  &#xD;&#xA;Joe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* I cannot post the third hyper link till I have 10 rep. Remove the spaces to get the site: http:// www. ipo.gov.uk/pro-types/pro-patent/p-law/p-pn/p-pn-subjectmatter.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2010/e/ar52.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerotel_v_Telco_and_Macrossan%27s_Application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5818" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3183" RevisionGUID="767050b0-4ebd-45f3-9fe1-c432cbc80217" CreationDate="2013-01-18T13:06:05.287" UserId="3088" Text="UK software patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5819" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3183" RevisionGUID="767050b0-4ebd-45f3-9fe1-c432cbc80217" CreationDate="2013-01-18T13:06:05.287" UserId="3088" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;uk&gt;&lt;patentable-subject-matter&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5820" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3177" RevisionGUID="bfa044ca-5386-4643-9c3b-d9ac63aa92ca" CreationDate="2013-01-18T13:47:43.240" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/292267025391312896" />
  <row Id="5821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3183" RevisionGUID="0ba9942d-4e2d-4774-9478-8dcdb3a9be91" CreationDate="2013-01-18T14:33:30.293" UserId="1259" Comment="link and tag" Text="[Article 52 (2)][1] determines what is and is not patentable subject matter within the EU:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the meaning of paragraph 1:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (b) aesthetic creations;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (d) presentations of information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My business partners and I are filing for a UK patent. The patent is for software and has an application number. We are still to file the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Throughout the entire time we have been dealing with our patent lawyer we have been unable to get out of him a straight answer on UK software patents. This is likely due to the nature of the invention and the extremely complicated guidelines in the UK. Most people tend to point you to [Aerotel v Telco and Macrossan][2] as they don't really know the answer themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The invention**  &#xD;&#xA;The invention is a program. It will mostly be used on the internet. The user enters data (raw material) into the program, tweaks settings and receives a downloadable document (end product).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Article 52 (2) (c) states that &quot;programs for computers&quot; are non patentable matter. However, after the A v T case the UK patent office developed a new method for what describes an invention:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Properly construe the claim;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identify the actual contribution;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Ask whether the contribution falls solely within excluded subject matter; and  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Check whether the contribution is technical in nature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steps 1, 2 and 4 are easily passed. It is step three where most software patents fail and what we are hoping to beat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the IPO site, [Patentable Subject Matter][3] page, point 14:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 14 - Also left open is a question over permissible forms of claim: can claims to a computer program (or a program on a carrier) be allowable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; when other claims in a different form, claims covering the use of that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; particular program, would be allowed? In the past, the Office has&#xD;&#xA;&gt; allowed such claims on the basis that substance should prevail over&#xD;&#xA;&gt; form. Whilst the judgment maintains the emphasis on substance over&#xD;&#xA;&gt; form, it also characterises the first step as deciding what the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; monopoly is, and if the monopoly does not go beyond the program, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; contribution is also unlikely to go beyond &quot;a program for a computer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Accordingly, whilst examiners will continue to assess each case on its&#xD;&#xA;&gt; merits, it seems likely that few claims to programs in themselves (or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; programs on a carrier) will pass the third test.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, since the user will using the program for the end product and not for the program itself will this mean that we have patentable subject matter under UK law?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is hotly debated topic but unfortunately not well understood by many.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for your help,  &#xD;&#xA;Joe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2010/e/ar52.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerotel_v_Telco_and_Macrossan%27s_Application&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-types/pro-patent/p-law/p-pn/p-pn-subjectmatter.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5822" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3183" RevisionGUID="0ba9942d-4e2d-4774-9478-8dcdb3a9be91" CreationDate="2013-01-18T14:33:30.293" UserId="1259" Comment="link and tag" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;uk&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5824" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3183" RevisionGUID="87cc34c2-2827-45dc-bed9-0137868d8781" CreationDate="2013-01-19T01:45:09.557" UserId="253" Comment="delete signature and thanks" Text="[Article 52 (2)][1] determines what is and is not patentable subject matter within the EU:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the meaning of paragraph 1:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (b) aesthetic creations;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (d) presentations of information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My business partners and I are filing for a UK patent. The patent is for software and has an application number. We are still to file the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Throughout the entire time we have been dealing with our patent lawyer we have been unable to get out of him a straight answer on UK software patents. This is likely due to the nature of the invention and the extremely complicated guidelines in the UK. Most people tend to point you to [Aerotel v Telco and Macrossan][2] as they don't really know the answer themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The invention**  &#xD;&#xA;The invention is a program. It will mostly be used on the internet. The user enters data (raw material) into the program, tweaks settings and receives a downloadable document (end product).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Article 52 (2) (c) states that &quot;programs for computers&quot; are non patentable matter. However, after the A v T case the UK patent office developed a new method for what describes an invention:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Properly construe the claim;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identify the actual contribution;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Ask whether the contribution falls solely within excluded subject matter; and  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Check whether the contribution is technical in nature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steps 1, 2 and 4 are easily passed. It is step three where most software patents fail and what we are hoping to beat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the IPO site, [Patentable Subject Matter][3] page, point 14:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 14 - Also left open is a question over permissible forms of claim: can claims to a computer program (or a program on a carrier) be allowable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; when other claims in a different form, claims covering the use of that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; particular program, would be allowed? In the past, the Office has&#xD;&#xA;&gt; allowed such claims on the basis that substance should prevail over&#xD;&#xA;&gt; form. Whilst the judgment maintains the emphasis on substance over&#xD;&#xA;&gt; form, it also characterises the first step as deciding what the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; monopoly is, and if the monopoly does not go beyond the program, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; contribution is also unlikely to go beyond &quot;a program for a computer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Accordingly, whilst examiners will continue to assess each case on its&#xD;&#xA;&gt; merits, it seems likely that few claims to programs in themselves (or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; programs on a carrier) will pass the third test.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, since the user will using the program for the end product and not for the program itself will this mean that we have patentable subject matter under UK law?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is hotly debated topic but unfortunately not well understood by many.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2010/e/ar52.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerotel_v_Telco_and_Macrossan%27s_Application&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-types/pro-patent/p-law/p-pn/p-pn-subjectmatter.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5825" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3183" RevisionGUID="87cc34c2-2827-45dc-bed9-0137868d8781" CreationDate="2013-01-19T01:45:09.557" Comment="Proposed by 253 approved by 1 edit id of 309" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5828" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2052" RevisionGUID="bdcd9bed-892c-4b0e-b996-cd7d8f2caedd" CreationDate="2013-01-20T07:44:17.947" UserId="1514" Comment="edited title" Text="How to patent an idea for computer software?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3186" RevisionGUID="8e54a33f-ab71-4b5b-bc77-87e9381d93f7" CreationDate="2013-01-20T19:17:41.697" UserId="3095" Text="my name is Nik Sohoritis, owner of SOHO Motorsports and we are in the process of designing a turbo system for a vehicle that is in our shop and i wanted to ask an important question before we begin building this turbo system on this vehicle.  Does this patent (patent # US6745568) include every single turbo system that requires the removal of the existing muffler on a vehicle?  Please let me know as we would like to know before we begin building this turbo system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5830" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3186" RevisionGUID="8e54a33f-ab71-4b5b-bc77-87e9381d93f7" CreationDate="2013-01-20T19:17:41.697" UserId="3095" Text="Turbo System and Method of Installing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5831" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3186" RevisionGUID="8e54a33f-ab71-4b5b-bc77-87e9381d93f7" CreationDate="2013-01-20T19:17:41.697" UserId="3095" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3187" RevisionGUID="b3073af6-4439-4bcb-8321-44a064ea7046" CreationDate="2013-01-20T19:41:49.777" UserId="2072" Text="Claim 1 recites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A turbocharger system for an internal combustion engine, comprising: a turbocharger having an oil inlet configured for being coupled to a pressure side of an oiling system, an oil outlet, an exhaust inlet, an exhaust outlet, an air charge inlet, and an air charge outlet; an oil pump in fluid communication with the oil outlet and configured for being in fluid communication with the oiling system; a pressure driven check valve in fluid communication with the oil inlet to prevent oil from flowing into the turbocharger when the pressure on the pressure side of the oiling system drops below a predetermined level; and mounting hardware for mounting the turbocharger to an exhaust pipe and away from the internal combustion engine, and at or below the oil level of the oiling system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This looks narrower and somewhat different than every single turbo system that requires the removal of the existing muffler on a vehicle, would you agree? There are a couple other independent claims, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5833" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3183" RevisionGUID="f8f22fb0-f44d-4715-bcbb-131378a2b6c0" CreationDate="2013-01-20T19:47:43.867" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/293082400672579584" />
  <row Id="5834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3188" RevisionGUID="c8b78f5e-ce6b-4954-8595-0bedcd6f2894" CreationDate="2013-01-20T20:51:19.257" UserId="3096" Text="Ah.  I am confused then, because claims 10 through 20 of the patent all say decorative items rather than potpourri and define the item as a decorative holder, no longer just a potpourri holder.  You are saying these claims listed are actually an abstract? Sorry if I'm missing something obvious here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3189" RevisionGUID="11b4251d-81c7-4bea-bfce-1d516ebd78a1" CreationDate="2013-01-20T21:09:41.960" UserId="3076" Text="I see a key aspect of the claims as the turbocharger is attached to the exhaust system to sit at a point lower than the existing oil flow and a regulated oiling system is therefore used. One thing you might do is look at the 9 patent documents cited on the front page of this patent. They were all things looked at by the examiner when deciding if these clams were new. Generally speaking, anything taught in any of those documents is **not** covered by this patent. And you could do your own quick search in google patents for &quot;turbo charger method remove muffler&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3190" RevisionGUID="744a9840-36fe-45fb-be07-ad080b6b303e" CreationDate="2013-01-20T21:53:52.220" UserId="3076" Text="In a direct answer - yes, up until March 16th when the provisions of the AIA kick in. The old/current law says you can't get a patent if it was patented of published anywhere in the world. Or if it was known or used by others **in this country**  - [35 USC sec 102(a)][1]. That all changes so that the location of the known or used is worldwide. I think it was originally USA specific due to the difficulty of proving or disproving that something was known or used out of the country. A publication is in black and white.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2132.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3190" RevisionGUID="082a2c56-099b-4f16-804e-9dc63c96c606" CreationDate="2013-01-20T22:27:26.883" UserId="3076" Comment="Mentioned the requirements of the inventors oath as being the first and true inventor" Text="In a direct answer - absolutely yes, up until March 16th when the provisions of the AIA kick in. The old/current law says you can't get a patent if it was patented of published anywhere in the world. Or if it was known or used by others **in this country**  - [35 USC sec 102(a)][1]. That all changes with the AIA so that the location of the known or used is worldwide. I think it was originally USA specific due to the difficulty of proving or disproving that something was known or used out of the country. A publication is in black and white.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That does not mean one can steal an idea you learn on a foreign trip or apply for a patent when you know you are not the first and true inventor, inventors sign an oath to that effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2132.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3191" RevisionGUID="a2d7af0c-6b45-4c1a-96ef-aeddac6728f7" CreationDate="2013-01-20T22:42:00.450" UserId="3097" Text="This patent is just so broad and generic that a lot of prior implementations could be described by it.  My first thought was of NFS shares.  Searching for files using GNU find or locate would return results on the local hard drive and files on the network in the hierarchy of the file system.  I was doing this in the late 90's when I first started using Debian and later Mandrake.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3192" RevisionGUID="27e2ec3a-2a33-4c79-839d-5049b70d3be5" CreationDate="2013-01-20T22:50:19.500" UserId="758" Text="Based on the rules, you seem to be looking at the wrong criterion. The end-user's goal is mostly irrelevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What matters is where you *innovation* lies. If your innovation is in the end product, and would be present even if the end-user obtained the product using a process that did not involve software running on a computer, then the rule against patents on software probably wouldn't apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if your innovation is in the process the end users follows to obtain the  product, and that process is carried out by software running on a computer, then chances are pretty good that your application will be rejected on the grounds that it applies to software." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3193" RevisionGUID="2d162324-052b-49f6-9b8d-3e6bbf0d2b01" CreationDate="2013-01-20T23:03:55.253" UserId="3076" Text="I recommend looking for a non-profit inventor club locally. The UIA maintains [a list][1]. My view is that the patent system can be used by the &quot;little guy&quot;. The big guys have market presence, capitol, name brand etc. - very hard to duplicate for a start up. Patents can be a leveler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uiausa.org/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=42" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3189" RevisionGUID="350ddae9-7ec3-4794-847d-26a112495dd5" CreationDate="2013-01-20T23:06:34.693" UserId="3076" Comment=" Spelling" Text="I see a key aspect of the claims as the turbocharger is attached to the exhaust system to sit at a point lower than the existing oil flow and a regulated oiling system is therefore used. One thing you might do is look at the 9 patent documents cited on the front page of this patent. They were all things looked at by the examiner when deciding if these claims were new. Generally speaking, anything taught in any of those documents is **not** covered by the claims of this patent. And you could do your own quick search in google patents for &quot;turbo charger method remove muffler&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2055" RevisionGUID="d8f1542d-76e6-4012-af82-da9fda0f8ceb" CreationDate="2013-01-20T23:40:56.753" UserId="1114" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="Just because the implementation is easy doesn't mean it's any less patentable. Easy implementation isn't unique to computers. As I understand it, the molecule structure of most medicines is easy to replicate once it's known--the difficulty is in discovering a useful molecule in the first place. There's a vast number of possibilities, many easy to replicate, but only a very small subset that are useful. It's not perfectly analogous to computers since the process of discovering useful molecules often involves creating many different variants and then testing them for effectiveness, but in many ways, even Web 2.0 technologies function like this. Take your example of SE badges. StackExchange certainly wasn't the first company to try to increase user participation. There are many different techniques, each trivial to implement, but not all equally effective. The key is that one doesn't know beforehand whether the &quot;idea,&quot; though trivial, will actually work *in the market*. The patent system rewards experimentation by giving exclusive rights to those who try many ideas(and patent them, of course), even if those ideas are trivially implemented. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: added italicized text" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3194" RevisionGUID="f0620e01-7b64-4c23-9366-a45d773dd95c" CreationDate="2013-01-20T23:47:23.427" UserId="3076" Text="There are attorneys who take infringement cases on a contingency basis. One I have heard of is [General Patent][1]. I attended a presentation they gave at a conference. When asked how they evaluated cases to take on they said one factor was the size and success of the infringement. Someone rips you off for hundreds of millions is more attractive than someone ripped you off for single digit millions. Second was how many different relevant patents you had to bring to play. The infringer might wiggle out of any single patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.generalpatent.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3161" RevisionGUID="f9637555-1089-402b-8780-5523767b7712" CreationDate="2013-01-21T04:02:27.847" UserId="3076" Comment="Added link for PAIR record - added caps." Text="To the exact question - it is **not** valid and in force. IBM did not pay the maintance fee due in 2006 and it went abandoned in 2007. I looked it up in Lexis Total Patents. You can use the USPTO maintenance fee shopping window [https://ramps.uspto.gov/eram/patentMaintFees.do][1] or [PAIR][2]. PAIR has a captcha wall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ramps.uspto.gov/eram/patentMaintFees.do &quot;link&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/!ut/p/c5/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3hff1NDc1NLYwN3SzcDA08PwyD_YF8zINcYKB-JW97AiCLdBgR0h4Nci992vPIGEHkDHMDRQN_PIz83Vb8gNzTCIDMgHQCGKKj-/dl3/d3/L0lDU0lKSWdrbUNTUS9JUFJBQUlpQ2dBek15cXpHWUEhIS80QkVqOG8wRmxHaXQtYlhwQUh0Qi83X01PNTE3NTkzMEc5RjAwSUgxUk9TTTYzMDI2L1M3ZlZmODc4MDAyOC9zYS5nZXRCaWI!/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3196" RevisionGUID="5ea921c5-d141-4da9-b8fc-12d95117ca2c" CreationDate="2013-01-21T12:58:39.507" UserId="3100" Text="My question is simple, if I take a published algorithm and apply it to a different problem than the one described in the publication&#xD;&#xA;is this patentable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since, for obvious reasons, I don’t want to disclose specific information let me use an imaginary example to better describe my situation.&#xD;&#xA;Suppose I have found a published method (an algorithm mainly) which described how to efficiently compute&#xD;&#xA;the rate of heat transfer from hot coffee drink to the cup, i.e. how quickly the cup will be heated.&#xD;&#xA;If I apply the **same** method (algorithm) to a **different** case, let’s say, to compute how quickly crowd moves to the exits when the alarm fires, or how quickly the fragments of an explosion will move, is this case patentable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: Although the underlying method is the same, some modifications may be necessary or even some extra steps may need to be added in order to apply it to the different case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for advance for your comments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5850" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3196" RevisionGUID="5ea921c5-d141-4da9-b8fc-12d95117ca2c" CreationDate="2013-01-21T12:58:39.507" UserId="3100" Text="Apply it to different (scientific) field, is it patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5851" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3196" RevisionGUID="5ea921c5-d141-4da9-b8fc-12d95117ca2c" CreationDate="2013-01-21T12:58:39.507" UserId="3100" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5852" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3186" RevisionGUID="01e7e10f-df49-4ceb-9750-567aea167a85" CreationDate="2013-01-21T13:47:43.927" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/293354191706009601" />
  <row Id="5853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3186" RevisionGUID="7ff0c5cd-2f28-4a31-81eb-2a529817492d" CreationDate="2013-01-21T13:57:41.213" UserId="1259" Comment="tags and personal info removed" Text="I am the owner of SOHO Motorsports and we are in the process of designing a turbo system for a vehicle that is in our shop and I wanted to ask an important question before we begin building this turbo system on this vehicle.  Does this patent (patent # [US6745568][1]) include every single turbo system that requires the removal of the existing muffler on a vehicle?  Please let me know as we would like to know before we begin building this turbo system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6745568" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5854" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3186" RevisionGUID="7ff0c5cd-2f28-4a31-81eb-2a529817492d" CreationDate="2013-01-21T13:57:41.213" UserId="1259" Comment="tags and personal info removed" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;us6745568&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5855" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3196" RevisionGUID="b61923c9-8afd-4417-a1f3-eda8463c5ec1" CreationDate="2013-01-21T14:05:01.640" UserId="1259" Comment="grammer on title" Text="If I apply a published algorithm to different (scientific) field, is it patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3197" RevisionGUID="10c36288-f474-4d1f-9c5e-68857bdc00b1" CreationDate="2013-01-21T15:11:29.963" UserId="998" Text="Short answer is yes, you should be able to get a patent in the US so long as (1) your application is nonobvious (i.e., a significant step beyond the prior art) and (2) you draft claims that are focused on practical application of the algorithm.  The vast majority of inventions rely upon well known physical phenomenon such as gravity or Maxwell's equations.  Such reliance is not a bar to patentability.  If you want to read more on the law pertaining to this particular issue, the most focused case is the Supreme Court's decision in *[Diamond v. Diehr][1]* where the court found that a computerized method of curing rubber that relied upon a well known mathematical equation was, in fact, patentable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get some perspective, you might try searching for patents on similar ideas and see what they cover. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_v._Diehr" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3198" RevisionGUID="7734ab07-a880-4446-9f29-9e76c85063ef" CreationDate="2013-01-21T15:18:34.380" UserId="998" Text="As of December 5, 2005, the USPTO had received 3rd Party Submissions in 111 pending applications. I have listed these here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;APN&#xD;&#xA;13057428&#xD;&#xA;13145379&#xD;&#xA;12829968&#xD;&#xA;12940276&#xD;&#xA;13036151&#xD;&#xA;13409599&#xD;&#xA;12832713&#xD;&#xA;12914510&#xD;&#xA;12940265&#xD;&#xA;13367018&#xD;&#xA;13403496&#xD;&#xA;12793132&#xD;&#xA;13133905&#xD;&#xA;12027158&#xD;&#xA;13146703&#xD;&#xA;13284337&#xD;&#xA;12901113&#xD;&#xA;13276498&#xD;&#xA;12949867&#xD;&#xA;13030014&#xD;&#xA;13061072&#xD;&#xA;13238728&#xD;&#xA;12911418&#xD;&#xA;12987982&#xD;&#xA;13308698&#xD;&#xA;13465789&#xD;&#xA;13270518&#xD;&#xA;12708697&#xD;&#xA;12980609&#xD;&#xA;13198108&#xD;&#xA;13205610&#xD;&#xA;13370103&#xD;&#xA;13330442&#xD;&#xA;13331182&#xD;&#xA;13331192&#xD;&#xA;13027232&#xD;&#xA;13370480&#xD;&#xA;13458626&#xD;&#xA;12896664&#xD;&#xA;13072724&#xD;&#xA;13212266&#xD;&#xA;13214397&#xD;&#xA;13331786&#xD;&#xA;13062414&#xD;&#xA;13444511&#xD;&#xA;13460635&#xD;&#xA;11946818&#xD;&#xA;12890208&#xD;&#xA;12890259&#xD;&#xA;13061068&#xD;&#xA;13062106&#xD;&#xA;13316963&#xD;&#xA;13325149&#xD;&#xA;12882610&#xD;&#xA;13143163&#xD;&#xA;13193319&#xD;&#xA;12908761&#xD;&#xA;13129175&#xD;&#xA;13281126&#xD;&#xA;13179249&#xD;&#xA;13328621&#xD;&#xA;12946772&#xD;&#xA;13052381&#xD;&#xA;13401848&#xD;&#xA;13039184&#xD;&#xA;13280490&#xD;&#xA;13354282&#xD;&#xA;13354286&#xD;&#xA;12950669&#xD;&#xA;13043011&#xD;&#xA;13052666&#xD;&#xA;13214230&#xD;&#xA;12731825&#xD;&#xA;13101072&#xD;&#xA;13280914&#xD;&#xA;13280932&#xD;&#xA;12899731&#xD;&#xA;13280536&#xD;&#xA;13331998&#xD;&#xA;13354244&#xD;&#xA;13354284&#xD;&#xA;13354290&#xD;&#xA;12899972&#xD;&#xA;13280843&#xD;&#xA;13413451&#xD;&#xA;13536353&#xD;&#xA;13196835&#xD;&#xA;12856888&#xD;&#xA;13092606&#xD;&#xA;13305290&#xD;&#xA;13064390&#xD;&#xA;13281615&#xD;&#xA;13487297&#xD;&#xA;11883950&#xD;&#xA;13486014&#xD;&#xA;13016460&#xD;&#xA;13126818&#xD;&#xA;13161311&#xD;&#xA;13208672&#xD;&#xA;13273864&#xD;&#xA;13160297&#xD;&#xA;12726539&#xD;&#xA;13024072&#xD;&#xA;13069446&#xD;&#xA;13265786&#xD;&#xA;13319070&#xD;&#xA;13551246&#xD;&#xA;12917202&#xD;&#xA;13376021&#xD;&#xA;12895942&#xD;&#xA;13493787" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5860" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3196" RevisionGUID="f41eecab-2db8-4f20-b3fd-35f79855ae79" CreationDate="2013-01-21T19:47:44.330" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/293444789364465664" />
  <row Id="5865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3198" RevisionGUID="3170cfaa-ce1e-4caf-b9f6-1bfc4887ae00" CreationDate="2013-01-22T17:59:06.227" UserId="7" Comment="corrected date" Text="As of December 5, 2012, the USPTO had received 3rd Party Submissions in 111 pending applications. I have listed these here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;APN&#xD;&#xA;13057428&#xD;&#xA;13145379&#xD;&#xA;12829968&#xD;&#xA;12940276&#xD;&#xA;13036151&#xD;&#xA;13409599&#xD;&#xA;12832713&#xD;&#xA;12914510&#xD;&#xA;12940265&#xD;&#xA;13367018&#xD;&#xA;13403496&#xD;&#xA;12793132&#xD;&#xA;13133905&#xD;&#xA;12027158&#xD;&#xA;13146703&#xD;&#xA;13284337&#xD;&#xA;12901113&#xD;&#xA;13276498&#xD;&#xA;12949867&#xD;&#xA;13030014&#xD;&#xA;13061072&#xD;&#xA;13238728&#xD;&#xA;12911418&#xD;&#xA;12987982&#xD;&#xA;13308698&#xD;&#xA;13465789&#xD;&#xA;13270518&#xD;&#xA;12708697&#xD;&#xA;12980609&#xD;&#xA;13198108&#xD;&#xA;13205610&#xD;&#xA;13370103&#xD;&#xA;13330442&#xD;&#xA;13331182&#xD;&#xA;13331192&#xD;&#xA;13027232&#xD;&#xA;13370480&#xD;&#xA;13458626&#xD;&#xA;12896664&#xD;&#xA;13072724&#xD;&#xA;13212266&#xD;&#xA;13214397&#xD;&#xA;13331786&#xD;&#xA;13062414&#xD;&#xA;13444511&#xD;&#xA;13460635&#xD;&#xA;11946818&#xD;&#xA;12890208&#xD;&#xA;12890259&#xD;&#xA;13061068&#xD;&#xA;13062106&#xD;&#xA;13316963&#xD;&#xA;13325149&#xD;&#xA;12882610&#xD;&#xA;13143163&#xD;&#xA;13193319&#xD;&#xA;12908761&#xD;&#xA;13129175&#xD;&#xA;13281126&#xD;&#xA;13179249&#xD;&#xA;13328621&#xD;&#xA;12946772&#xD;&#xA;13052381&#xD;&#xA;13401848&#xD;&#xA;13039184&#xD;&#xA;13280490&#xD;&#xA;13354282&#xD;&#xA;13354286&#xD;&#xA;12950669&#xD;&#xA;13043011&#xD;&#xA;13052666&#xD;&#xA;13214230&#xD;&#xA;12731825&#xD;&#xA;13101072&#xD;&#xA;13280914&#xD;&#xA;13280932&#xD;&#xA;12899731&#xD;&#xA;13280536&#xD;&#xA;13331998&#xD;&#xA;13354244&#xD;&#xA;13354284&#xD;&#xA;13354290&#xD;&#xA;12899972&#xD;&#xA;13280843&#xD;&#xA;13413451&#xD;&#xA;13536353&#xD;&#xA;13196835&#xD;&#xA;12856888&#xD;&#xA;13092606&#xD;&#xA;13305290&#xD;&#xA;13064390&#xD;&#xA;13281615&#xD;&#xA;13487297&#xD;&#xA;11883950&#xD;&#xA;13486014&#xD;&#xA;13016460&#xD;&#xA;13126818&#xD;&#xA;13161311&#xD;&#xA;13208672&#xD;&#xA;13273864&#xD;&#xA;13160297&#xD;&#xA;12726539&#xD;&#xA;13024072&#xD;&#xA;13069446&#xD;&#xA;13265786&#xD;&#xA;13319070&#xD;&#xA;13551246&#xD;&#xA;12917202&#xD;&#xA;13376021&#xD;&#xA;12895942&#xD;&#xA;13493787" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3200" RevisionGUID="d8644c8e-7669-497e-842b-fd10c3d59aaf" CreationDate="2013-01-22T18:45:34.530" UserId="3109" Text="Do you know of any patent search tool that allows you to search text within a predetermined set of patents? preferably free tool. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or alternatively, somewhere I can download the text of the set of patents I'm interested so that I can do local searches? Notice I have the pdf documents for these patents, downloaded from google patents, however these are scans with not too much quality -- and a local OCR doesn't seem to be able to get the correct text. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5867" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3200" RevisionGUID="d8644c8e-7669-497e-842b-fd10c3d59aaf" CreationDate="2013-01-22T18:45:34.530" UserId="3109" Text="search text within a predetermined set of patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5868" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3200" RevisionGUID="d8644c8e-7669-497e-842b-fd10c3d59aaf" CreationDate="2013-01-22T18:45:34.530" UserId="3109" Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;text&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3202" RevisionGUID="1d850989-f78b-4910-81aa-db58fe1b6ff0" CreationDate="2013-01-22T19:15:24.137" UserId="2072" Text="Free boolean search tool, can refine search results:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3203" RevisionGUID="8fef9456-2bf9-421b-b30f-9d0f82cf4cc5" CreationDate="2013-01-22T19:57:33.377" UserId="3076" Text="Expanding on Yorick's answer - I do not often recommend the USPTO search tools but this is a good use for them as long as you are not looking anything pre-1976. You can definitely download text using that URL at the USPTO and do a local search. Or a boolean search like [PN/(7,849,039  OR  7,890,523  OR 7,895,230  OR 7,933,904  OR 7,941,428  OR 7,970,822) AND locate] on the USPTO site (under Advanced) would look for &quot;locate&quot; in all of the listed &quot;OR'd&quot; patents and return a list of only the patents with that text. &#xD;&#xA;![Search result screen shot][1]. Note that to get published U.S. applications the search would need to be re-run. Patents and Publications are not searchable at one place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Y98Bx.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3204" RevisionGUID="408af16f-67c7-42c4-9b43-93a8b7d0e11e" CreationDate="2013-01-22T20:55:42.990" UserId="1114" Text="[Pattools](http://www.pattools.com) is nice. I don't know if it has the exact features you are looking for, but it does allow you to give a list of patents. It returns the specifications and claims for those patents in a much nicer format than the PDF. It also allows you to download the PDF. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5877" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3200" RevisionGUID="009a95fc-ce46-4b75-b1f5-6324a7637fcf" CreationDate="2013-01-22T22:47:46.420" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/293852484122849282" />
  <row Id="5879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3206" RevisionGUID="788c8c42-ee29-45a3-be6f-abd2352f91ca" CreationDate="2013-01-23T20:58:23.887" UserId="3076" Text="Putting my comment in the form of answers to the three sentences with question marks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shouldn't they be rewarded for their efforts.&lt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes and presumably they would be in increased sales and use by customers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; should they be allowed to prevent . . . &quot;&lt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure the basis of the **should**. Legally a patent owner can try to stop anyone from practicing the what is covered by a claim. In this case the patent is for a high-level interpretation of received arm and hand notion data. It is device independent. So " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5880" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3206" RevisionGUID="1689a250-1a1b-47b9-ae71-070fbeb46bd0" CreationDate="2013-01-23T21:18:13.800" UserId="3076" Comment="added 266 characters in body" Text="Putting my comment in the form of answers to the three sentences with question marks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shouldn't they be rewarded for their efforts.&lt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes and presumably they would be in increased sales and use by customers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; should they be allowed to prevent . . . &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure the basis of the **should**. Legally a patent owner can try to stop anyone from practicing the what is covered by a claim. In this case the patent is for a high-level interpretation of received arm and hand motion data. It is device independent. So it couldn't be used to stop all uses of any specific device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; what should the hurdle of obviousness be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviousness is not generally special-cased. Maybe one way to think about it is to differentiate devices that provide new capabilities and those that do not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5881" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3206" RevisionGUID="25b11a23-097a-4889-a613-61003a2d6225" CreationDate="2013-01-23T21:37:17.460" UserId="3076" Comment="Fix caps" Text="Putting my comment in the form of answers to the three sentences with question marks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shouldn't they be rewarded for their efforts.?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes and presumably they would be in increased sales and use by customers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; should they be allowed to prevent . . . ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure the basis of the **should**. Legally a patent owner can try to stop anyone from practicing the what is covered by a claim. In this case the patent is for a high-level interpretation of received arm and hand motion data. It is device independent. So it couldn't be used to stop all uses of any specific device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; what should the hurdle of obviousness be ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviousness is not generally special-cased. Although maybe one way to think about it in this context is to differentiate between devices that provide new capabilities and those that do not. Some newly invented devices truly need correspondingly newly invented OS functions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3208" RevisionGUID="5c39ff17-2220-4584-9afc-9da6a5d6a178" CreationDate="2013-01-23T22:56:13.837" UserId="2029" Text="I am not a lawyer. I am doing some basic research about laser scanner patents (this is my first time). A laser scanner is a 3D scanner that shines a laser onto an object and uses the information captured to reconstruct the object. The technology has been around for a few decades.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When searching the USPTO site for (TTL/laser AND TTL/scanner) I found 364 patents, many of which are just titled &quot;Laser scanner&quot;. Digging deeper into them, it looked like most of them used basically the same concept but with a small tweak that sometimes took me an hour to even find. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to understand more about this. Does this mean that if I make a minor tweak to the product, it would be non-infringing? If so, what is the process for me to determine that? And if not, then how do I reconcile the existence of so many patents and find out which (if any) applies. And what if our design overlaps with parts of some of the patents but not a single patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for your help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5884" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3208" RevisionGUID="5c39ff17-2220-4584-9afc-9da6a5d6a178" CreationDate="2013-01-23T22:56:13.837" UserId="2029" Text="Laser scanner patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5885" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3208" RevisionGUID="5c39ff17-2220-4584-9afc-9da6a5d6a178" CreationDate="2013-01-23T22:56:13.837" UserId="2029" Text="&lt;hardware-patents&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3211" RevisionGUID="53e9f0ea-2cef-4385-9f37-a60e6a2e1afa" CreationDate="2013-01-23T23:48:12.007" UserId="3116" Text="An attorney for the company associated with these two skateboard design patents seems to be sending cease and desist letters to anyone trying to sell wheels attached to an oblong wooden board. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two styles shown are standard skateboard shapes that have been around for decades (surfboard-shaped and fishtail).  There's lots of varieties of both these shapes in production everywhere.  The routed-out areas shown above the wheels on the underside of the boards are standard for all skateboards, too (for &quot;wheel-bite&quot;, to give the wheels more room when the board flexes side to side).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;So, for what specific aspects of these boards was a design patent issued?  There are no dimensions listed, and the drawings are fuzzy and stippled.  The boards shown are shaped like standard run-of-the-mill skateboards.  Nothing unusual or creative here.  Is it the long vertical routed-out lines along the undersides?  That's been tried by others before, but rejected; those grooves are totally pointless and compromise the strength of the board. So, don't look for that &quot;design violation&quot; on anyone's boards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there's no grooves routed out, what aspect of these patents does this attorney think boards makers are violating?  The paperwork sent to skateboard makers is vague and ponderous.  It hints to the shape of the board as being the subject of the design patent.  Is this company just abusing their design patent and trying to beat down the competition by pretending it's a utility patent?  What can be done, if this is indeed abuse of the patent?  Curiously, the company in question does not affix the patent symbol to any of it's products!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google links to the patents as well...sometimes these are quicker to read: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents?id=H-ioAAAAEBAJ&amp;pg=PA2&amp;dq=hamborg+peter&amp;source=gbs_selected_pages&amp;cad=4#v=onepage&amp;q=hamborg%20peter&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/USD556283?printsec=drawing&amp;dq=hamborg+peter&amp;ei=2GkAUZ6KBIXq0QHXqYDIBA#v=onepage&amp;q=hamborg%20peter&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5893" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3211" RevisionGUID="53e9f0ea-2cef-4385-9f37-a60e6a2e1afa" CreationDate="2013-01-23T23:48:12.007" UserId="3116" Text="D/285,860 and D/253,629 - These look like an ordinary skateboards" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5894" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3211" RevisionGUID="53e9f0ea-2cef-4385-9f37-a60e6a2e1afa" CreationDate="2013-01-23T23:48:12.007" UserId="3116" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5895" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3208" RevisionGUID="6811fce6-c221-4e51-b110-ee8cee3411d3" CreationDate="2013-01-24T00:07:14.473" UserId="1" Comment="edited title" Text="How do I determine if my product changes make it non-infringing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3212" RevisionGUID="b39eeb79-eb2b-49ae-b11b-6aef5f686877" CreationDate="2013-01-24T01:33:58.320" UserId="3076" Text="There are two things about patents that are often confused with each other. In layman's terms people ask - How different does my thing need to be to get a patent? They also ask - How different does my thing need to be to not infringe someone else's patent? While they sound like related questions, they actually have nothing to do with each other at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You found patents on similar things, each with a different, patentable twist. If you want a patent you will need to come up with your own clever twist that is novel and not obvious. **Completely** separately, if you want to make and sell something and not infringe anything then it is a different question. Each issued patent has claims. Lets say a particular claim says it covers a thing that has an a, a b, and a c. If you sell something with an a, a b, and a c you probably infringe. Adding a d or having a fancier c does not get you out from under it as long as you still have an a, a b, and a c.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The type of searching you need to do if you are going to produce something is called a **freedom to operate search, not a novelty search**.. This search is only really possible after your product is very well determined. While it is the cool parts of your design that can get **you** a patent, any part of your shipping product might infringe **someone else's patent**. You invent a car that runs on orange juice but have an infringing tail light design, for example. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3212" RevisionGUID="d5a7f4f2-e756-41a4-862e-5f8a7648a00a" CreationDate="2013-01-24T01:42:11.433" UserId="3076" Comment="Typo" Text="There are two things about patents that are often confused with each other. In layman's terms people ask - How different does my thing need to be to get a patent? They also ask - How different does my thing need to be to not infringe someone else's patent? While they sound like related questions, they actually have nothing to do with each other at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You found patents on similar things, each with a different, patentable twist. If you want a patent you will need to come up with your own clever twist that is novel and not obvious. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Completely** separately, if you want to make and sell something and not infringe any one else's rights that is a different question. Each issued patent has claims. Lets say a particular claim says it covers a thing that has an a, a b, and a c. If you sell something with an a, a b, and a c you probably infringe it. Adding a d or having a fancier c does not get you out from under it as long as you still have an a, a b, and a c. If you only have an a and a c with nothing like a b, then you probably do not infringe that claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The type of searching you need to do if you are going to produce something and want to be sure you ate in the clear is called a **freedom to operate search, in contrast to a novelty search**. This search is only really possible after your product is very well determined. While it is the cool parts of your design that can get **you** a patent, any part of your shipping product might infringe **someone else's patent**. You invent a car that runs on orange juice but might have an infringing tail light design, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3213" RevisionGUID="c6414261-ec8d-497c-80be-56d5a1866617" CreationDate="2013-01-24T01:59:56.637" UserId="3076" Text="If others do not have the grooves on the sides and these designs do have them, might not that be the most novel part of it? What is patented is the overall look. For a design patent, the groves being functionally pointless is perfect! You have essentially agreed that it is a novel look. Design patents are all about the look." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3214" RevisionGUID="3ed8223a-e19a-4738-a85a-b7c4a341d7bf" CreationDate="2013-01-24T02:39:12.687" UserId="2072" Text="In responding to an allegation of infringement, you should probably consult an attorney who works with design patents rather than relying on legal advice from an internet forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applying the wrong test for design patent infringement can lead to trouble.  *Pacific Coast Marine Windshields Limited v. Malibu Boats, LLC*, 6-12-cv-00033 (MDFL January 4, 2013).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An attorney will also advise you at what point you are on notice of the asserted patent, whether the product is marked or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3212" RevisionGUID="f66fb194-574d-43f1-886f-6e6fa7527599" CreationDate="2013-01-24T03:19:44.603" UserId="3076" Comment="Typo" Text="There are two things about patents that are often confused with each other. In layman's terms people ask - How different does my thing need to be to get a patent? They also ask - How different does my thing need to be to not infringe someone else's patent? While they sound like related questions, they actually have nothing to do with each other at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You found patents on similar things, each with a different, patentable twist. If you want a patent you will need to come up with your own clever twist that is novel and not obvious. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Completely** separately, if you want to make and sell something and not infringe any one else's rights that is a different question. Each issued patent has claims. Lets say a particular claim says it covers a thing that has an a, a b, and a c. If you sell something with an a, a b, and a c you probably infringe it. Adding a d or having a fancier c does not get you out from under it as long as you still have an a, a b, and a c. If you only have an a and a c with nothing like a b, then you probably do not infringe that claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The type of searching you need to do if you are going to produce something and want to be sure you are in the clear is called a **freedom to operate search, in contrast to a novelty search**. This search is only really possible after your product is very well determined. While it is the cool parts of your design that can get **you** a patent, any part of your shipping product might infringe **someone else's patent**. You invent a car that runs on orange juice but might have an infringing tail light design, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3215" RevisionGUID="02ba078c-12ac-4435-a678-9ff72596ec59" CreationDate="2013-01-24T03:49:52.123" UserId="3076" Text="Horrible, I agree. Without any doubt fundamentally unpatentable in many jurisdictions for lack of technical character alone (business method). Even if one were to move into an obviousness discussion, performing a known method **unspecifically** &quot;over the Internet&quot; and by &quot;storing data in a database&quot; certainly does not require inventive activity. Examiner fatigue maybe? Everybody involved stopped reading after claim 10?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Added by 2nd poster&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that there is more going on in the totality of the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A system for managing mineral interest, comprising: a computer;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; at least one database for storing oil and gas mineral interest data&#xD;&#xA;&gt; associated with an area of land, said oil and gas mineral interest&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data including deed records relating to deeds relating to oil and gas&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mineral interests associated with the area of land, lease records&#xD;&#xA;&gt; relating to leasing of oil and gas mineral interests associated with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the area of land, and well records associated with wells drilling on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the oil, and gas mineral interests associated with the area of land;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; at least one server for enabling generation of a graphical user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interface in a web browser at a plurality of locations over an open&#xD;&#xA;&gt; network, the graphical user interface enabling creation and editing of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the deed records, lease records and well records stored in the at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least one database from the plurality of locations over the open&#xD;&#xA;&gt; network, the graphical user interface further enabling viewing of deed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; records, lease records and well records from the plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; locations over the open network, wherein the at least one server&#xD;&#xA;&gt; provides a view of a mineral interest via the graphical user interface&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which shows a relationship between at least one instance of a deed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; record, at least one instance of a lease record, and at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; instance of a well record;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a deed management page provided by the at least one server enabling a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user to generate new deed records and edit existing deed records&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stored in the at least one database as part of the oil and gas mineral&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interest data;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a lease management page provided by the at least one server enabling a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user to generate new lease records and edit existing, lease records&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stored in the at least one database as part of the oil and gas mineral&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interest data comprising at least one of royalty data and land&#xD;&#xA;&gt; description data; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a well management page provided by the at least one server enabling a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user to generate new well records and edit existing well records&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stored in the at least one database as part of the oil and gas mineral&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interest data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in the U.S. neither technical character nor inventive step are material in the US patent system. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3211" RevisionGUID="a0c28cd6-6689-4008-892b-acf255d60137" CreationDate="2013-01-24T04:42:39.837" UserId="-1" Comment="Edited for brevity, clarity. " Text="The two styles shown are standard skateboard shapes that have been around for decades (surfboard-shaped and &quot;fishtail&quot;).  There's lots of varieties of both these shapes in production everywhere.  The routed-out wells shown above the wheels on the underside of the boards are standard for many skateboards, too (for &quot;wheel-bite&quot;, to give the wheels more room when the board flexes side to side).  The long vertical routed lines may be novel, but aren't in question (please read on).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An attorney for the company associated with these two skateboard design patents seems to be sending cease and desist letters to anyone trying to sell wheels attached to an oblong wooden board. He's essentially going after any small, vulnerable manufacturer making skateboards shaped like skateboards, regardless of any embellishment.  The skateboard makers accused of infringing do not carve vertical lines or wells under their boards; they do, however, shape their boards like skateboards.  That's the only similarity to these drawings...the shape of the boards, which the patent holder did not, of course, create.  What specific aspects of this design patent could this attorney be calling infringed? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This attorney seems to be claiming for his client a design patent for a novel decoration on a common item, and is claiming the exclusive rights to make this common item (with or without the decoration).  How does the patent office (or who will) handle patent misapplication/abuse?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google links to the patents as well...sometimes these are quicker to read: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents?id=H-ioAAAAEBAJ&amp;pg=PA2&amp;dq=hamborg+peter&amp;source=gbs_selected_pages&amp;cad=4#v=onepage&amp;q=hamborg%20peter&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/USD556283?printsec=drawing&amp;dq=hamborg+peter&amp;ei=2GkAUZ6KBIXq0QHXqYDIBA#v=onepage&amp;q=hamborg%20peter&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5907" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3211" RevisionGUID="a0c28cd6-6689-4008-892b-acf255d60137" CreationDate="2013-01-24T04:42:39.837" Comment="Proposed by 24.151.82.113|3ca3d544-32b7-4061-863f-0bd2c7f19343 approved by 3116 edit id of 312" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3215" RevisionGUID="445de75d-405a-4905-bf8c-33b308eac446" CreationDate="2013-01-24T05:05:18.840" UserId="3076" Comment="Made the answer my own by removing upper portion." Text="It seems to me that there is more going on in the totality of the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A system for managing mineral interest, comprising: a computer;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; at least one database for storing oil and gas mineral interest data&#xD;&#xA;&gt; associated with an area of land, said oil and gas mineral interest&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data including deed records relating to deeds relating to oil and gas&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mineral interests associated with the area of land, lease records&#xD;&#xA;&gt; relating to leasing of oil and gas mineral interests associated with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the area of land, and well records associated with wells drilling on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the oil, and gas mineral interests associated with the area of land;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; at least one server for enabling generation of a graphical user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interface in a web browser at a plurality of locations over an open&#xD;&#xA;&gt; network, the graphical user interface enabling creation and editing of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the deed records, lease records and well records stored in the at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least one database from the plurality of locations over the open&#xD;&#xA;&gt; network, the graphical user interface further enabling viewing of deed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; records, lease records and well records from the plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; locations over the open network, wherein the at least one server&#xD;&#xA;&gt; provides a view of a mineral interest via the graphical user interface&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which shows a relationship between at least one instance of a deed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; record, at least one instance of a lease record, and at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; instance of a well record;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a deed management page provided by the at least one server enabling a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user to generate new deed records and edit existing deed records&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stored in the at least one database as part of the oil and gas mineral&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interest data;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a lease management page provided by the at least one server enabling a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user to generate new lease records and edit existing, lease records&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stored in the at least one database as part of the oil and gas mineral&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interest data comprising at least one of royalty data and land&#xD;&#xA;&gt; description data; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a well management page provided by the at least one server enabling a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user to generate new well records and edit existing well records&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stored in the at least one database as part of the oil and gas mineral&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interest data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in the U.S. neither technical character nor inventive step are material in the US patent system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5909" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3211" RevisionGUID="6fb31e96-c8f6-47b0-8dc1-ff3ebe749541" CreationDate="2013-01-24T11:29:01.883" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;usd564613&gt;&lt;usd556283&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5910" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3211" RevisionGUID="557cdcb9-ea5f-47d7-9a0d-43c9c181b6a4" CreationDate="2013-01-24T16:47:46.793" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/294486666553483265" />
  <row Id="5919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2091" RevisionGUID="ed2b2b61-6e25-4387-815f-c897ec19215e" CreationDate="2013-01-25T19:44:29.093" UserId="3076" Comment="Fixed factual misunderstanding" Text="Basically, Patent Prosecution Highway is a fast track examination of patent applications. It provides a faster process to have a patent application considered by the patent office. The patent application can be prosecuted under PPH only when the applicantion receives a notice from one patent office that at least one of the claims is patentable or allowable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicant then can put in a request to a second  patent office where a coresponding application is on file to fast track the examination. This helps the applicant to obtain the corresponding patents faster and more efficiently but with no glue rented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although an application on the Patent Prosecution Highway skips to near the front of the queue, in theory they are still examined as rigouously as any other application. In practice they have a higher allowance rate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for whether or not the claims are patentable, depends on what the allowable subject matter is according to the patent law of any particular country.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can get more information from the USPTO website about PPH in the US and for other countries provided in the link below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="572" RevisionGUID="6ab22387-c674-4c8a-8ee3-78c9cae21850" CreationDate="2013-01-25T19:59:10.820" UserId="3076" Comment="Fixed a date. - patent term rule changed in 1995 not 1985" Text="I am creating a wiki for the answer(s), please feel free to update below each question as appropriate. If you have a second answer, number it accordingly and place it below other answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For (a) an application that has NOT yet been issued, sub-questions:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Does the NEW application cancel the previous (original) application, taking its priority (filing) date? If the new application is defeated/rejected, does their original application come back to life or is it also lost?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A continuation is a later application filed during the pendency of an earlier application and which has the same specification (disclosure) as the prior application. Usually this is done to change (improve) the claims. The continuation does not necessarily mean the original application is dead, although most often the applicant, having improved the claims, no longer needs the prior application and abandons it. Normally that abandonment is expressly done in a transmittal letter accompanying the continuation when filed. If the continuation adds new subject matter to the specification, it is called a &quot;continuation in part&quot; since only part is the same specification. If the continuation has claims to a different invention, it is called a &quot;divisional&quot; rather than a continuation, since a divisional carves out or divides out a different invention found in the same specification. Just like any other application, either the first application (called the &quot;parent&quot; case) or the continuation, or both, may be searched, examined, rejected, or allowed by the Patent Office if the basic, search and examination fees were paid, and either the parent case, the continuation case, or both, may be abandoned or issue as a patent. So it's possible that both the original application and the continuation would result in (separate) patents being issued.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of the original application as a lit candle that stays lit as long as the application is pending.  So long as the candle is lit, it can be used to light other candles. Those other candles are the continuation, divisional or continuation-in-part applications.  Once the two applications are being processed, they are each judged on their merits.  US patent law allows applicants to file as many continuations as they like and in whatever series.  The only restriction is that you need a lit candle (pending application) to light another candle. And each candle can be considered to have been lit on the date the first candle was lit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) Does a significant change in the continuation application mean that the original application(s) was/were flawed and/or incomplete? How does this affect the new patent application credibility?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, it doesn't mean the original was necessarily flawed or incomplete.  Rather, there are many varied strategies used by patent applicants when building a *patent family*.  Most often continuations result from improvements to the invention or a desire to add claims after examination has been concluded. This might happen where the applicant discovers a product that might be covered by the claims but wants to be sure and so files additional claims in a continuation to specifically cover that product. That product might be the applicant's product or might be a competitive product that the applicant wants to stop as an infringement. As noted in (1) above, the continuation may be what is called a divisional to cover a separate invention disclosed in the parent case. There is some times strategic sense to including multiple inventions in a single case and then filing divisional cases. In the lit candle example, this might be where the first candle was described as red, white or blue and the examiner says those are 3 separate inventions, so the applicant &quot;elects&quot; to prosecute the red candle in the first case and files 2 divisional applications, one to a white candle and one to a blue candle. Three candle patents might result from this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) Assuming the continuation application builds upon the prior application (ergo, requiring prior art pertaining to original claims to predate the previous filing date), how does prior art on ADDED or CHANGED items affect the application, i.e. does prior art for new/changed claims also need to predate the ORIGINAL filing date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to all matter disclosed in the parent case, a continuation gets the priority date of the parent application from which it is derived. An applicant can have a continuation of a continuation of a continuation in part of a ..., going on for years) and each will get an &quot;effective filing date&quot; of the first filed application in the chain. Just for one example, US Patent 6,442,336 says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/110,861, filed Aug. 24, 1993, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,446,599 which is a division of application Ser. No. 07/818,168, filed Jan. 8, 1992, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,260,837, which is a division of application Ser. No. 07/325,768, filed Mar. 20, 1989, abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 06/877,319, filed Jun. 23, 1986, now U.S. Pat. No. 4,819,101, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 06/516,532, filed Jul. 25, 1983, now U.S. Pat. No. 4,604,668, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 06/209,057, filed Nov. 21, 1980, abandoned.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, that patent would have an effective filing date of Nov. 21, 1980. However, it is important to note that, since 1995, the term of a patent is 20 years from its effective filing date, while prior to that date the term was 17 years from the issue date. The change was made to eliminate long pendencies and suprises when such &quot;submarine patents&quot; surfaced after decades to potentially sink later products. This was famously the case with Jerome Lemelson and his &quot;machine vision&quot; patents which were pending more than 20 years and subsequently issued and resulted in more than a billion dollars of royalty for Lemelson from manufacturers of bar code scanners before the patents were eventually invalidated for abuse of the patent system due to the long pendency. ----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For (b) an issued patent that HAS expired:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Can a continuation patent be filed for an expired patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be a continuation, an application must be filed prior to issuance of the application from which it seeks to claim priority.  In the case of a chain of continuations, so long as one application in the chain is still pending, it is possible to file a continuation, even if a grandparent or great-great-great grandparent case has already issued, and even if that first patent has expired. However, this is not practical because the term of a patent is 20 years from the effective filing date, so claiming the benefit of the filing date of an expired patent means claiming back more than 20 years, and that would mean the continuation case so claiming would have zero term, it would expire immediately upon issuance and thus provide no exclusive rights. So, yes you could do it, but you would be a fool if you did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For (c) an issued patent that has NOT expired, sub-questions:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Can a trivial change be used to simply extend the life of the patent, indefinitely by applying trivial changes periodically? Is there a solid litmus test for this or is it just up to the examiners?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes and no. You can continue an *application*, but only while that application remains in prosecution (i.e., before it issues as a patent). Under the old patent expiration model (i.e., that patents were valid for 17 years after being issued) yes, it was possible to extend the life of a patent for quite a while by writing continuations, continuations-in-part, divisionals, etc. Under the current system (that a patent expires 20 years after application) this has been drastically reduced, if not eliminated entirely, because (at least normally) the date of the *original* application will be used to compute the expiration date of a continuation [see prior answer for &quot;expired patents&quot;.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) Can a major change that effectively turns the invention into something else be introduced periodically, resulting in indefinite continuations by simply writing in or incorporating new technologies as they come out, thus broadening the scope of the original invention (to the point where it covers completely different industries/areas)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. That is what continuation-in-part applications (&quot;CIPs&quot;) seek to accomplish. However, once a patent expires, the subject matter of its claims becomes public domain, so only the new aspects introduced in the CIPs still unexpired would thereafter be possible to cover or protect through CIPs. People have certainly *tried* to &quot;stretch&quot; an application to cover newer technologies. Just for example, Jerome Lemelson (the inventor on the patent quoted above) once wrote a patent on a &quot;computer system&quot;. After TI came out with the first microcontroller (i.e., essentially a complete computer system on a single integrated circuit), Mr. Lemelson wrote a continuation of one of his earlier patents that added something to the effect that: &quot;...and all of it is on one integrated circuit&quot;. The patent issued, but was eventually invalidated -- the court found that the original specification contained no support for the idea of the whole system being on a single integrated circuit, so the TI team (Gary Boone, and, if memory serves, a few others) officially invented the microcontroller.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) If a continuation patent is found to be invalid, how does that affect the original (built upon) patent(s)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They're independent patents -- each is valid or invalid on its own. That said, if any  patent in the chain of continuations is found invalid due to insufficient teaching of the patented invention or due to prior art, there's probably an increased chance that the same would be true of any derived patents as well.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3218" RevisionGUID="ba85cc45-ac12-49ee-a4b6-97df491cf917" CreationDate="2013-01-25T21:12:34.103" UserId="3109" Text="I'm drafting the specification of a patent for my invention. The invention is in the field of computer vision and augmented reality. I'm quite sure that the main subject mater is novel enough and useful enough to be patentable. However, in order to implement my system I'm using some technologies that are quite cutting edge but I know there is a lot of other people working on the same thing and probably there is some patent filed for these already -- although I haven't been able to find any published patents on these. I'm implementing the mentioned technologies myself by putting together parts that independently don't seem that novel to me. So I think that if I wanted to patent these underlying technologies too it would be more difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My main intention is to patent the final invention, not the underlying technologies. However, I want to make sure my description meets the sufficient disclosure criteria. Describing what my invention does is not too difficult, but describing the underlying technologies is more difficult, in part because: (a) I haven't finished the prototype and some of the unfinished parts use the mention technologies, which I'm still implementing; (b) I'm not so sure I could patent these underlying technologies anyway.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So would it be safe to write a patent specification describing an invention and give references to the closest prior art for the invention and for the underlying technologies I use? Or would it be necessary to describe these underlying technologies in detail too?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5922" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3218" RevisionGUID="ba85cc45-ac12-49ee-a4b6-97df491cf917" CreationDate="2013-01-25T21:12:34.103" UserId="3109" Text="patent specification level of detail" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5923" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3218" RevisionGUID="ba85cc45-ac12-49ee-a4b6-97df491cf917" CreationDate="2013-01-25T21:12:34.103" UserId="3109" Text="&lt;specification&gt;&lt;prior&gt;&lt;art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3219" RevisionGUID="cad8f517-a3a8-47b8-91bf-0322f3974c18" CreationDate="2013-01-26T01:59:11.960" UserId="2072" Text="One of the primary purposes of the specification is to provide support for the claims.  It is the claims that define your invention and serve notice to others what is protected.  It is difficult to draft the specification without first thinking about the claims which in turn depend on prior art and other patentability considerations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traditionally, the specification is drafted so that it contains enough description to enable to someone skilled in the field of the invention to practice the invention as defined in the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the underlying techniologies are disclosed in other patents or publications, you usually do not need to repeat the disclosures, but may instead cite them as related art.  It is assumed that someone skilled in the relevant field will be familiar with related patents and publications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3219" RevisionGUID="4dff815a-16b4-45b2-b82a-e3f49bb0244b" CreationDate="2013-01-26T02:18:30.767" UserId="2072" Comment="added 496 characters in body" Text="One of the primary purposes of the written description is to provide support for the claims.  It is the claims that define your invention and serve notice to others what is protected.  It is difficult to draft the written description without first thinking about the claims which in turn depend on prior art and other patentability considerations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The written description is required to be in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable a person skilled in the field of the invention to practice the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specification must describe the claimed invention to distinguish it from other inventions and from what is old. It must describe completely a specific embodiment of the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of an improvement, the specification must point out the part of the invention to which the improvement relates, and the description should be confined to the specific improvement and related features that interact with it necessary for a complete understanding of the invention.  &#xD;&#xA;37 C.F.R. 1.71 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the underlying techniologies are disclosed in other patents or publications, you usually do not need to repeat the disclosures, but may instead cite them as related art.  It is assumed that someone skilled in the relevant field will be familiar with related patents and publications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3219" RevisionGUID="78bd5dee-779f-4169-bb83-f6bc8d19de73" CreationDate="2013-01-26T02:23:32.127" UserId="2072" Comment="added 496 characters in body" Text="One of the primary purposes of the written description is to provide support for the claims.  It is the claims that define your invention and serve notice to others what is protected.  It is difficult to draft the written description without first thinking about the claims which in turn depend on prior art and other patentability considerations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The written description is required to be in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable a person skilled in the field of the invention to practice the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The written description and claims must describe the invention to distinguish it from other inventions and from what is old. The written description must describe completely a specific embodiment of the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of an improvement, the written description must point out the part of the invention to which the improvement relates, and the description should be confined to the specific improvement and related features that interact with it necessary for a complete understanding of the invention.  &#xD;&#xA;37 C.F.R. 1.71 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the underlying techniologies are disclosed in other patents or publications, you usually do not need to repeat the disclosures, but may instead cite them as related art.  It is assumed that someone skilled in the relevant field will be familiar with related patents and publications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More here:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html#d0e42440" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5927" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3218" RevisionGUID="22884e03-8cd6-4613-8094-1cdd1a941010" CreationDate="2013-01-26T02:31:14.967" UserId="2072" Comment="added written description tag" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;specification&gt;&lt;written-description&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3219" RevisionGUID="92dc53a4-787e-487d-91fd-63d2408a663c" CreationDate="2013-01-26T02:40:55.993" UserId="2072" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="One of the primary purposes of the written description is to provide support for the claims.  It is the claims that define your invention and serve notice to others what is protected.  It is difficult to draft the written description without first thinking about the claims which in turn depend on prior art and other patentability considerations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The written description is required to be in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable a person skilled in the field of the invention to practice the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The written description and claims must describe the invention to distinguish it from other inventions and from what is old. The written description must describe completely a specific embodiment of the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of an improvement, the written description must point out the part of the invention to which the improvement relates, and the description should be confined to the specific improvement and related features that interact with it necessary for a complete understanding of the invention.  &#xD;&#xA;37 C.F.R. 1.71 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the underlying techniologies are disclosed in other patents or publications, you usually do not need to repeat the disclosures, but may instead cite them as related art.  It is often assumed that someone skilled in the relevant field will be familiar with related patents and publications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More here:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html#d0e42440" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3220" RevisionGUID="9ebdc1e5-e598-440b-8615-c1b98b18a9e2" CreationDate="2013-01-26T02:59:31.583" UserId="3109" Text="Can I include a &quot;method and apparatus claim&quot; for a patent filed in the UK?&#xD;&#xA;I'm developing a system that uses augmented reality in novel ways. All the patent prior art that I can find involves method claims and apparatus claims. But I've read that in the UK you can't patent business methods or software. So if I include a apparatus claim and a method claim in my application, would the method claim be ignored? or would that application be rejected?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If before 12 months after filing my UK patent, I file a patent application in the US claiming priority to my UK filing date, would then I be able to use the method claim even if in the UK application was rejected? would I, at this point, be able to change the claims for the US application, provided the specification supports these new claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5930" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3220" RevisionGUID="9ebdc1e5-e598-440b-8615-c1b98b18a9e2" CreationDate="2013-01-26T02:59:31.583" UserId="3109" Text="Can I include a &quot;method and apparatus claim&quot; for a patent filed in the UK?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5931" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3220" RevisionGUID="9ebdc1e5-e598-440b-8615-c1b98b18a9e2" CreationDate="2013-01-26T02:59:31.583" UserId="3109" Text="&lt;uk&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;method&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1966" RevisionGUID="763b0817-6341-4d0b-b79b-f0e0ffa0f0cb" CreationDate="2013-01-26T17:42:08.513" UserId="2072" Comment="re-word, fix citation, add tag" Text="Does anyone have any prior art for US 20110242130? This publication is about a composite image production process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Casio Computer Co.;&#xD;&#xA;filed: March 30, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220110242130%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20110242130&amp;RS=DN/20110242130" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5933" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1966" RevisionGUID="763b0817-6341-4d0b-b79b-f0e0ffa0f0cb" CreationDate="2013-01-26T17:42:08.513" UserId="2072" Comment="re-word, fix citation, add tag" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20110242130&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3221" RevisionGUID="306da934-7b05-4231-a7ca-f817ac372be7" CreationDate="2013-01-26T19:20:46.997" UserId="3076" Text="On Jan. 8th 2013 the examiner issued a non final rejection on this application as being anticipated by [2004/009608 Matsumoto ][1] and on other grounds. You can look this up in public PAIR at the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20040096085?pg=PA1&amp;dq=2004/0096085%20Matsumoto&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=JSsEUeeuB-eWiAKw_IGQDw&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=2004/0096085%20Matsumoto&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3222" RevisionGUID="25e9fb62-fcea-4cfc-976f-f62572746cfb" CreationDate="2013-01-26T19:27:40.673" UserId="3076" Text="I can't answer the UK part of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the second part: Yes the U.S. application, under the Paris Convention, would get priority from the U.K. application as-submitted regardless of the ultimate fate of the U.K. application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3223" RevisionGUID="a17c840e-83f1-498e-93b6-1e5249f9ce7f" CreationDate="2013-01-26T21:31:49.393" UserId="758" Text="Perhaps it's best to back up and consider the &quot;social contract&quot; a patent is intended to fulfill. You get protection for your patented invention until the patent expires. You, however, are expected to give something in return for that protection. Specifically, you're required to document your invention, revealing all its secrets, so that after the patent expires it's reasonable and practical for others to implement your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To fulfill that purpose, you're required to document your invention in sufficient detail that a &quot;person of **ordinary** skill in the art [emphasis added]&quot; (POSITA) can implement that invention. The &quot;ordinary&quot; there is probably the most important word in the phrase -- this is supposed to signify not just *some* other person, but essentially *any* other person who's received a normal level of training in that field. It also requires that s/he should be able to do so relatively directly -- it should be primarily a matter of just building the thing, not doing things like experimenting with different techniques until something is found that works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just for example, let's assume your invention relates to electronics, so &quot;the art&quot; would be electrical engineering. In that case, you *don't* have to include things in your patent specification if you can expect them to be known to any/all electrical engineers -- for example, if you'd expect it to be included in a normal college electrical engineering text book, and probably included on some test before somebody could get a degree, it's fair to call that something known to a person of ordinary skill in the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if the technology involved is something that probably would *not* be known to an average college graduate in that field, you really want to include at least some pointer to the background necessary to understand it. This can include things that are new enough that they're simply not included in typical text books *yet*, as well as anything obscure enough that it simply wouldn't necessarily be included in the curriculum at all (or nearly all) schools, even though it's actually been known for a long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same would apply to an even greater degree if (for one example) you're combining knowledge from two (or more) fields that are typically taught separately, so you can't pick out one specific field to point to where you can expect people of ordinary skill to have been taught all the background to understand your patent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3223" RevisionGUID="f06a1fed-3869-4fcb-bf98-baf5ab189a08" CreationDate="2013-01-26T21:37:44.993" UserId="758" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="Perhaps it's best to back up and consider the &quot;social contract&quot; a patent is intended to fulfill. You get protection for your patented invention until the patent expires. You, however, are expected to give something in return for that protection. Specifically, you're required to document your invention, revealing all its secrets, so that after the patent expires it's reasonable and practical for others to implement your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To fulfill that purpose, you're required to document your invention in sufficient detail that a &quot;person of **ordinary** skill in the art&quot; [emphasis added] (POSITA) can implement that invention. The &quot;ordinary&quot; there is probably the most important word in the phrase -- this is supposed to signify not just *some* other person, but essentially *any* other person who's received a normal level of training in that field. It also requires that s/he should be able to do so relatively directly -- it should be primarily a matter of just building the thing, not doing things like experimenting with different techniques until something is found that works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just for example, let's assume your invention relates to electronics, so &quot;the art&quot; would be electrical engineering. In that case, you *don't* have to include things in your patent specification if you can expect them to be known to any/all electrical engineers -- for example, if you'd expect it to be included in a normal college electrical engineering text book, and probably included on some test before somebody could get a degree, it's fair to call that something known to a POSITA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if the technology involved is something that probably would *not* be known to an average college graduate in that field, you really want to include at least some pointer to the background necessary to understand it. This can include things that are new enough that they're simply not included in typical text books *yet*, as well as anything obscure enough that it wouldn't necessarily be included in the curriculum at all (or nearly all) schools, even though it's actually been known for a long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same would apply to an even greater degree if (for one example) you're combining knowledge from two (or more) fields that are typically taught separately, so you can't pick out one specific field to point to where you can expect people of ordinary skill to have been taught all the background to understand your patent. If something should go to court, you don't want to have to tell the judge that a POSITA is a person with doctorates in geology, music, and underwater basket weaving.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3225" RevisionGUID="5def441e-2e53-48bd-aec5-b403f7cc810d" CreationDate="2013-01-27T00:23:08.673" UserId="3109" Text="I'm working on a prototype for my invention. My situation is that I can't afford a patent attorney at the moment. So my plan is to file a specification for the invention myself, no claims yet. Then advance my prototype a bit more and find investors. Once I have money for the project, and no later than 12months after my initial filing, I can get a patent attorney to write a full patent. Then my assumption is that as long as my first specification includes enough support for my invention writing a full patent for it should be possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any comments about this plan? is that fine? risks?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5942" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3225" RevisionGUID="5def441e-2e53-48bd-aec5-b403f7cc810d" CreationDate="2013-01-27T00:23:08.673" UserId="3109" Text="patent plan, comments please" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5943" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3225" RevisionGUID="5def441e-2e53-48bd-aec5-b403f7cc810d" CreationDate="2013-01-27T00:23:08.673" UserId="3109" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3222" RevisionGUID="e6405e3a-c8c8-41e7-a387-7c87cbbf2d03" CreationDate="2013-01-27T00:24:52.250" UserId="3076" Comment="Now just addressing the  part of the question I can answer. Adding link to Paris convention." Text="For the second part of the question: Yes the U.S. application, under [Article 4 of Paris Convention][1], would get priority from the U.K. application as-submitted regardless of the ultimate fate of the U.K. application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/paris/trtdocs_wo020.html#P83_6610" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5945" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3218" RevisionGUID="5ecffc28-5b73-4d41-9925-6a5e3a5c827c" CreationDate="2013-01-27T01:47:47.720" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/295347339542024192" />
  <row Id="5946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3226" RevisionGUID="0c9643ae-250d-4097-a133-6af18368674f" CreationDate="2013-01-27T13:07:19.530" UserId="3109" Text="Related to a previous question http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3218/patent-specification-level-of-detail&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to file two patent applications for two inventions that use some common underlying technologies (the same ones I'm talking about in the related question).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Should I describe these underlying technologies in both applications?&#xD;&#xA;These would implicate that some drawings and descriptions would be repeated in both applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5947" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3226" RevisionGUID="0c9643ae-250d-4097-a133-6af18368674f" CreationDate="2013-01-27T13:07:19.530" UserId="3109" Text="two new patent application using some common underlying technologies" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5948" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3226" RevisionGUID="0c9643ae-250d-4097-a133-6af18368674f" CreationDate="2013-01-27T13:07:19.530" UserId="3109" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;description&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3227" RevisionGUID="b7d8ba95-a13c-4514-86ee-8649118a935e" CreationDate="2013-01-28T00:51:29.860" UserId="3076" Text="If your first application has no claims I assume you are planning for it to be a US provisional application. Many people do follow this path. There are possible pitfalls if the provisional application does not turn out to have good support for the claims that are eventually written.  I have seen well written provisionals written by inventors and also some that provide zero value at all.  Study some of the voluminous information available on the net and in books. Include drawings. Good luck." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3228" RevisionGUID="7ae97e43-5a91-49f3-983e-2f4d22b72363" CreationDate="2013-01-28T00:58:48.607" UserId="3128" Text="As the second part of your question's been answered, I'll just answer the first part.  Yes, both method and apparatus claims are both permissible for UK patents.  Sometimes I write 'system' claims that are a bit of both!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are also correct that methods of doing business, and programs for computers are both excluded - insofar as the invention relates to those things as such.  The 'as such' is important - technical advances that happen to be implemented by software, and used in a business method, may still be patentable.  The criterion is whether the contribution itself is solely in the excluded areas.  The formal structure of the claim - method, apparatus, or whatever, is not important.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The leading case (at the moment!) is Aerotel/Macrossan, which provides a structured set of questions.  There's also some practical guidance in the AT&amp;T Knowledge Ventures case, called the AT&amp;T signposts. The first chapter of the UK IPO patent manual http://www.ipo.gov.uk/practice-sec-001.pdf discusses all this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's easier appreciate after looking at some examples, rather than discussing it in the abstract.  I'd recommend looking at some UK IPO decisions http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-types/pro-patent/pro-p-os/p-challenge-decision-results.htm .  Go to the 'keyword or phrase' and filter by 'excluded field (allowed)' or 'excluded field (refused)' and have a look through the decisions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you include in the claim - and the description as a whole - can really make a difference.  Emphasise the non-excluded technical aspects using the AT&amp;T guidance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth noting that the EPO use different criteria (though the underlying law is supposed to be the same).  I'd say they're more lenient.  After an EP patent is granted, you then validate it in your chosen European countries, which includes the UK; this would be more expensive than just going direct through the UK IPO (and of course if you try and enforce it in the UK courts, they'll apply the UK excluded matter tests, and might revoke the patent!).  But as for the US application you are considering, you can file the EP application within 12 months of your initial UK application, claiming priority." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3227" RevisionGUID="911ad781-72b0-4c0e-96ca-00a53ddb1c9a" CreationDate="2013-01-28T01:04:53.237" UserId="3076" Comment="Added more material to improve my orig. answer" Text="If your first application has no claims I assume you are planning for it to be a US provisional application. Many people do follow this path. There are possible pitfalls if the provisional application does not turn out to have good support for the claims that are eventually written.  I have seen well written provisionals done by inventors and also have seen some that provide zero value at all.  Study some of the voluminous information available on the net and in books on patenting it yourself .. Include drawings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Risks are that you will assume you have covered it better than you have. If you feel covered and tell people all about it without an NDA and the aspects you talk about are not sufficiently described in the provisional, you can lose your international rights. Or possibly even your US rights. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is hard to be sure you have good support for claims that have not yet been conceived. If push comes to shove at some point in the future and you need to rely on the provisional it will be looked at with the same criteria (35 USC section 112) as a &quot;real&quot; application would be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; You might submit drawings that have lines so thin that after being scanned at the USPTO there is essentially a set of blank pages on file." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3229" RevisionGUID="89ad86b1-686a-420c-b815-da22bea31048" CreationDate="2013-01-28T01:07:38.243" UserId="3076" Text="There is nothing wrong with two applications containing common material. Usually underlying technology is explained in the context of its use in that particular invention rather than in isolation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3230" RevisionGUID="18170621-a64e-447b-931c-ed9477e0d7b9" CreationDate="2013-01-28T01:25:40.293" UserId="3128" Text="Ultimately, this is determined by&#xD;&#xA;1) ensuring your description describes the invention sufficiently for a skilled person to perform it&#xD;&#xA;2) your claims are supported by the description&#xD;&#xA;3) for the US, you include the best mode known to you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it depends on just how common the technologies are, and how you are using them.  How much would the skilled person (in the field of your invention) know about them? If they're very well known, so everyone in the industry is familiar with them, you don't have to say much at all.  If they may not be familiar (maybe it's a different field), you can find a previous patent/application that describes the technology in detail and quote the patent number (or indeed any reference, but patents are convenient).  If you're relying on particular aspects of the technology, or a particular variation of the technology, and especially if you'll be including elements of the technology in the claims, it's better to spell it out in full.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Read some existing patents to get a feel for the level of detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT! You know the phrase 'if in doubt, leave it out'?  Patents are very much 'if in doubt, stick it in'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3231" RevisionGUID="8de1fd17-7f6f-42b7-9d07-1cf1b48bc7fa" CreationDate="2013-01-28T02:06:22.087" UserId="3128" Text="The earlier answer makes the important point that it's difficult to know if you have good support for claims yet to be conceived.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can never avoid the danger entirely, but the more preparation you put into you patent even at a provisional stage, the better.  I'd say do as much searching as you can, so you know the closest prior art (though I'm not a US attorney, I've heard some US attorneys advise against this).  Well, at least think about the prior art you know of.  Then think clearly about the differences, and the essential integers of your invention - in effect, your main claims.  Then emphasise this in the description. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US seems more relaxed (during examination at least) on 'added matter' - but the EPO can be very strict on this.  Say you disclose something that uses components A, B and C together.  If you try and add a claim to elements A and C, (without B), the EPO may say this is added matter - you are 'cherry picking' a new combination that wasn't originally disclosed - and you'll have to include B as well, even though perhaps B isn't really necessary.  You're allowed to spell out different permutations and variations - sometimes this is done in excruciating detail :(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Provisionals can lull one into making an unfocused, half-baked, too skimpy (or too rambling) application that isn't much use.  It's more work to start with, but if you can get as close to what you ultimately want, as early as you can, you can avoid a lot of later aggravation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3232" RevisionGUID="4285e21b-85ef-481a-858b-bb21ac03ea38" CreationDate="2013-01-28T06:18:23.110" UserId="3129" Text="If a patent *has been* issued for a system of the sort defined in the title of this post (a larger system with one, unproven general device) am I precluded from developing a similar system in which I have created and specified the &quot;miraculous device?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a silly, exaggerated example, what if a patent actually issues for a Personal Flying Machine with claims similar to the following: &quot;... comprises a ramp, a cable, and a bicycle (where flying bicycle is comprised of pedals, handlebars, and wheels) ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume that the Personal Flying Machine just might work but ONLY if the bicycle had a few more (unspecified) pieces. In this case, the modified bicycle is the *key* technology that makes the whole system work. It has not been built or publicly demonstrated to work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I, in fact create this special bicycle subsystem, am I not allowed now to build the Personal Flying Machine system just because someone else dreamed up a crazy idea that he did not know how to implement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope there is hope for me in this situation because I have been working down in the &quot;nuts and bolts&quot; of a subsystem for the purpose of enabling a larger system, only to find a very recent patent of the system without proof that it works (and few details of the key parts).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate intelligent help/comments.&#xD;&#xA;Thank you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5956" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3232" RevisionGUID="4285e21b-85ef-481a-858b-bb21ac03ea38" CreationDate="2013-01-28T06:18:23.110" UserId="3129" Text="Large System = &quot;miraculous unproven device&quot; + Subsystem1 + SubSystem2 ?= PATENT?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5957" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3232" RevisionGUID="4285e21b-85ef-481a-858b-bb21ac03ea38" CreationDate="2013-01-28T06:18:23.110" UserId="3129" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3233" RevisionGUID="5d039d89-1bad-4d8f-9273-2ad51f7f778c" CreationDate="2013-01-28T08:10:04.937" UserId="3076" Text="The specification must enable one of ordinary skill in the field to make and use the claimed invention. But it doesn't need to work well, or cost-effectively or reliably to be valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the patented system really couldn't work **at all** at the time it was filed and that was clear to the examiner it should not have been issued. However examiners normally do not question something that seems feasible on its face. The USPTO does not do any experiments or in-depth research to see if a specification is enabled. In rare cases they can assert that they think the invention has &quot;incredible utility&quot; and require the inventor to prove that it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3233" RevisionGUID="3e013b67-c056-4420-b140-1821de73d223" CreationDate="2013-01-28T08:19:21.297" UserId="3076" Comment="Fixed typos" Text="The specification must enable one of ordinary skill in the field to make and use the claimed invention. But it doesn't need to work well, or cost-effectively or reliably to be valid. Also, the inventor does not need to **prove** it works unless it calls for violating the known laws of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the patented system really couldn't work **at all** at the time it was filed and that was clear to the examiner it should not have been issued. However examiners normally do not question something that seems feasible on its face. The USPTO does not do any experiments or in-depth research to see if a specification is enabled. In rare cases they can assert that they think the invention has &quot;incredible utility&quot; and require the inventor to prove that it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone in your position could decide to practice the patent with the plan to defend themselves in an expensive law suit with the argument that the patent is invalid due tonon-enablement. Or they could approach the patent owner with the idea that they could work together. Presumably the inventor can't make money on the patent if they do not have a good way to make it work. Or maybe the magic subsystem is so cool that it can be used to make a different overall system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3233" RevisionGUID="419acc37-3126-49ef-97e5-b9dc16bc25a6" CreationDate="2013-01-28T08:28:19.653" UserId="3076" Comment="Added &quot; undue experimentation&quot;" Text="The specification must enable one of ordinary skill in the field to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. But it doesn't need to work well, or cost-effectively or reliably to be valid. Also, the inventor does not need to **prove** it works unless it calls for violating the known laws of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the patented system really couldn't work **at all** at the time it was filed and that was clear to the examiner it should not have been issued. However examiners normally do not question something that seems feasible on its face. The USPTO does not do any experiments or in-depth research to see if a specification is enabled. In rare cases they can assert that they think the invention has &quot;incredible utility&quot; and require the inventor to prove that it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone in your position could decide to practice the patent with the plan to defend themselves in an expensive law suit with the argument that the patent is invalid due to non-enablement. Or they could approach the patent owner with the idea that they should work together. Presumably the inventor can't make money on the patent if they do not have a good way to make it work. Or maybe the magic subsystem is so cool that it can be used to make a different overall system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2091" RevisionGUID="4825a175-eb53-4e72-b12b-09c87a8ca691" CreationDate="2013-01-28T09:14:09.567" UserId="1872" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Basically, Patent Prosecution Highway is a fast track examination of patent applications. It provides a faster process to have a patent application considered by the patent office. The patent application can be prosecuted under PPH only when the applicantion receives a notice from one patent office that at least one of the claims is patentable or allowable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicant then can put in a request to a second  patent office where a corresponding application is on file to fast track the examination. This helps the applicant to obtain the corresponding patents faster and more efficiently but with no glue rented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although an application on the Patent Prosecution Highway skips to near the front of the queue, in theory they are still examined as rigouously as any other application. In practice they have a higher allowance rate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for whether or not the claims are patentable, depends on what the allowable subject matter is according to the patent law of any particular country.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can get more information from the USPTO website about PPH in the US and for other countries provided in the link below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2091" RevisionGUID="02849881-edff-4d51-b857-4d1865fea871" CreationDate="2013-01-28T16:24:58.223" UserId="3076" Comment="Fixed auto spell error" Text="Basically, Patent Prosecution Highway is a fast track examination of patent applications. It provides a faster process to have a patent application considered by the patent office. The patent application can be prosecuted under PPH only when the applicantion receives a notice from one patent office that at least one of the claims is patentable or allowable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicant then can put in a request to a second  patent office where a corresponding application is on file to fast track the examination. This helps the applicant to get through the system faster and more efficiently but with no guarantee that a patent will issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although an application on the Patent Prosecution Highway skips to near the front of the queue, in theory they are still examined as rigouously as any other application. In practice they have a higher allowance rate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for whether or not the claims are patentable, depends on what the allowable subject matter is according to the patent law of any particular country.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can get more information from the USPTO website about PPH in the US and for other countries provided in the link below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5963" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3233" RevisionGUID="8d324a1e-754f-4a90-96d4-0e28b70c2985" CreationDate="2013-01-28T16:42:11.317" UserId="3076" Comment="Added links" Text="The specification must enable one of ordinary skill in the field to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. But it doesn't need to work well, or cost-effectively or reliably to be valid. [USPTO MPEP 2164 Enablement Requirement][1]. Also, the inventor does not need to **prove** it works unless it calls for violating the known laws of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the patented system really couldn't work **at all** at the time it was filed and that was clear to the examiner it should not have been issued. However examiners normally do not question something that seems feasible on its face. The USPTO does not do any experiments or in-depth research to see if a specification is enabled. In rare cases they can assert that they think the invention has &quot;incredible utility&quot; and require the inventor to prove that it works. [USPTO MPEP 2107.1 II Wholly Inoperative Inventions][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone in your position could decide to practice the patent with the plan to defend themselves in an expensive law suit with the argument that the patent is invalid due to non-enablement. Or they could approach the patent owner with the idea that they should work together. Presumably the inventor can't make money on the patent if they do not have a good way to make it work. Or maybe the magic subsystem is so cool that it can be used to make a different overall system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2107.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3234" RevisionGUID="9a8e3304-810b-47a3-b276-950abe5bccb6" CreationDate="2013-01-28T17:26:08.843" UserId="92" Text="I was a bit puzzled by part of [Newegg's patent case history](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/how-newegg-crushed-the-shopping-cart-patent-and-saved-online-retail/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Remarkably, the judge overseeing the case ruled during trial that the jury wouldn't be allowed to make a decision about Newegg's arguments that the patent was invalid. That line of reasoning—that Soverain's patents were bogus to begin with—would become the basis of Newegg's appeal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was a US case, and the US has [strong precedents for Jury Nullification](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States), in criminal law, at least. Are there particular exemptions in patent law that allow the apparent prevention of Jury Nullification, or is there otherwise precedence that would prevent a jury from ruling based on the lack of apparent validity of the patent/law (the common application of nullification) and instead only rule whether they violated the patent, yes or no? Or does Jury Nullification not exist in patent law in the same way it does in criminal law?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm aware a judge can more or less tell a jury anything and they'll believe that's how it works, but I'm wondering if this is a thing that would actually stand up to proper scrutiny." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5965" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3234" RevisionGUID="9a8e3304-810b-47a3-b276-950abe5bccb6" CreationDate="2013-01-28T17:26:08.843" UserId="92" Text="Is Jury Nullification valid in patent cases?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5966" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3234" RevisionGUID="9a8e3304-810b-47a3-b276-950abe5bccb6" CreationDate="2013-01-28T17:26:08.843" UserId="92" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3235" RevisionGUID="67cd060e-a3f6-47a3-9a79-dfb5ff7a3c90" CreationDate="2013-01-28T18:56:02.257" UserId="2072" Text="It is not clear to me what exactly your question is, but I do not see jury nullification here.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ’639 patent was found obvious by the jury.  The trial court probably felt it had grounds to rule in favor of the patentee on obviousness before it even went to the jury. However, the Court instead allowed the accused infringer to present its case of obviousness.  After the trial, the patentee filed a motion arguing that there was not enough evidence to support even a threshold finding of obviousness, and therefore the invalidity argument failed as a matter of law. (This is different than a jury reaching a verdict contrary to the weight of the evidence.) This is not uncommon as obviousness is ultimately a question of law, sometimes predicated on factual issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On appeal, the Court disagreed, finding that there were sufficient facts to support an obviousness finding.  Even more, the appellate Court viewed that evidence as clear and convincing, resulting in the Court entering judgment in the accused infringer's favor.  It looks like the trial court's decision to allow the question of obviousness to proceed to trial ultimately saved substantial time and resources since the Federal Circuit could effectively end the case (aside from damages) without further litigation on obviousness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Federal Circuit opinion is here:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/2011-1009.Opinion.1-17-2013.1.PDF&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Denis Crouch and others would have great insight on some of your side-questions.  However, I suspect that many patent trial attorneys would disagree with your comparison to criminal law trials.  Patent trials on average are far more complex with issues subdivided into questions of law and fact.  The court and jury each do their part.  I feel that juries have a great ability to arrive at the correct verdict.  A judge cannot simply &quot;tell them anything.&quot;  A jury will apply reasoned decision making more often than I think you credit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3235" RevisionGUID="c0109175-484b-47a5-b70b-d1a6ccdb6979" CreationDate="2013-01-28T19:10:51.863" UserId="2072" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="It is not clear to me what exactly your question is, but I do not see jury nullification here on the issue of invalidity.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The ’639 patent was found obvious by the jury.  The trial court probably felt it had grounds to rule in favor of the patentee on obviousness before it even went to the jury. However, the Court instead allowed the accused infringer to present its case of obviousness.  After the trial, the patentee filed a motion arguing that there was not enough evidence to support even a threshold finding of obviousness, and therefore the invalidity argument failed as a matter of law. (This is different than a jury reaching a verdict contrary to the weight of the evidence.) This is not uncommon as obviousness is ultimately a question of law, sometimes predicated on factual issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On appeal, the Court disagreed, finding that there were sufficient facts to support an obviousness finding.  Even more, the appellate Court viewed that evidence as clear and convincing, resulting in the Court entering judgment in the accused infringer's favor.  It looks like the trial court's decision to allow the question of obviousness to proceed to trial ultimately saved substantial time and resources since the Federal Circuit could effectively end the case (aside from damages) without further litigation on obviousness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Federal Circuit opinion is here:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/2011-1009.Opinion.1-17-2013.1.PDF&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Denis Crouch and others would have great insight on some of your side-questions.  However, I suspect that many patent trial attorneys would disagree with your comparison to criminal law trials.  Patent trials on average are far more complex with issues subdivided into questions of law and fact.  The court and jury each do their part.  I feel that juries have a great ability to arrive at the correct verdict.  A judge cannot simply &quot;tell them anything.&quot;  A jury will apply reasoned decision making more often than I think you credit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3235" RevisionGUID="55a7cb69-ce89-4301-98bd-5ca0d558588e" CreationDate="2013-01-28T19:23:31.933" UserId="2072" Comment="deleted 51 characters in body" Text="It is not clear to me what exactly your question is, but I do not see jury nullification here on the issue of invalidity.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The ’314 and ’492 patents were argued obvious.  The trial court probably felt it had grounds to rule in favor of the patentee on obviousness before it even went to the jury. However, the Court seems to have allowed the accused infringer to present its case of obviousness.  Before the jury was allowed to rule on obviousness, the patentee filed a motion arguing that there was not enough evidence to support even a threshold finding of obviousness, and therefore the invalidity argument failed as a matter of law. (This is different than a jury reaching a verdict contrary to the weight of the evidence.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On appeal, the Court disagreed, finding that there were sufficient facts to support an obviousness finding.  Even more, the appellate Court viewed that evidence as clear and convincing, resulting in the Court entering judgment in the accused infringer's favor.  It looks like the trial court's decision to allow the question of obviousness to proceed to trial ultimately saved substantial time and resources since the Federal Circuit could effectively end the case (aside from damages) without further litigation on obviousness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Federal Circuit opinion is here:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/2011-1009.Opinion.1-17-2013.1.PDF&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Denis Crouch and others would have good insight on this and some of your side-questions.  However, I suspect that many patent trial attorneys would disagree with your comparison to criminal law trials.  Patent trials on average are far more complex with multiple issues subdivided into questions of law and fact.  The court and jury each do their part.  I feel that juries have a great ability to arrive at the correct verdict.  A judge cannot simply &quot;tell them anything.&quot;  A jury will apply reasoned decision making more often than I think you credit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5970" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3235" RevisionGUID="7848d4c1-65f1-4f49-8367-653e623ba4e1" CreationDate="2013-01-28T19:40:42.930" UserId="2072" Comment="deleted 266 characters in body" Text="It is not clear to me what exactly your question is, but I do not see jury nullification here on the issue of invalidity.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The ’314 and ’492 patents were argued obvious.  The trial court probably felt it had grounds to rule in favor of the patentee on obviousness before it even went to the jury. However, the Court seems to have allowed the accused infringer to present its case of obviousness.  Before the jury was allowed to rule on obviousness, the patentee filed a motion arguing that there was not enough evidence to support even a threshold finding of obviousness, and therefore the invalidity argument failed as a matter of law. (This is different than a jury reaching a verdict contrary to the weight of the evidence.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On appeal, the Court disagreed, finding that there were sufficient facts to support an obviousness finding.  Even more, the appellate Court viewed that evidence as clear and convincing, resulting in the Court entering judgment in the accused infringer's favor.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Federal Circuit opinion is here:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/2011-1009.Opinion.1-17-2013.1.PDF&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Denis Crouch and others would have good insight on this and some of your side-questions.  However, I suspect that many patent trial attorneys would disagree with your comparison to criminal law trials.  Patent trials on average are far more complex with multiple issues subdivided into questions of law and fact.  The court and jury each do their part.  I feel that juries have a great ability to arrive at the correct verdict.  A judge cannot simply &quot;tell them anything,&quot; and a jury will apply reasoned decision making more often than I think you credit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5972" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3225" RevisionGUID="9d5a702a-f103-4aee-9cc9-765866b6ef62" CreationDate="2013-01-28T20:58:18.863" UserId="1" Comment="edited title" Text="Patent Without an Attourney, What are the Risks?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5973" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3233" RevisionGUID="8d376d6c-53da-4261-ab90-2afc62f26dfe" CreationDate="2013-01-28T21:46:03.757" UserId="3076" Comment="Added a few words to improve clarity." Text="The specification must enable one of ordinary skill in the field to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. But it doesn't need to work well, or cost-effectively or reliably to be valid. [USPTO MPEP 2164 Enablement Requirement][1]. Also, the inventor does not need to **prove** it works unless it calls for violating the known laws of physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the patented system really couldn't be made to work **at all** based on the disclousure at the time it was filed, and that was clear to the examiner, it should not have been issued. However examiners normally do not question something that seems feasible on its face. The USPTO does not do any experiments or in-depth research to see if a specification is enabled. In rare cases they can assert that they think the invention has &quot;incredible utility&quot; and require the inventor to prove that it works. [USPTO MPEP 2107.1 II Wholly Inoperative Inventions][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone in your position could decide to practice the patent with the plan to defend themselves in an expensive law suit with the argument that the patent is invalid due to non-enablement. Or they could approach the patent owner with the idea that they should work together. Presumably the inventor can't make money on the patent if they do not have a good way to make it work. Or maybe the magic subsystem is so cool that it can be used to make a different overall system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2107.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5974" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3225" RevisionGUID="3335c59b-a5d7-45f9-8722-c8593243bb18" CreationDate="2013-01-28T22:18:35.683" UserId="1259" Comment="spelling, tag" Text="Patent Without an Attorney, What are the Risks?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5975" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3225" RevisionGUID="3335c59b-a5d7-45f9-8722-c8593243bb18" CreationDate="2013-01-28T22:18:35.683" UserId="1259" Comment="spelling, tag" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;lawyers&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3235" RevisionGUID="8b5246f0-236e-4b06-b47b-6c631bf00349" CreationDate="2013-01-29T03:12:46.833" UserId="2072" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="It is not clear to me what exactly your question is, but I do not see jury nullification here on the issue of invalidity.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The ’314 and ’492 patents were argued obvious.  The trial court probably felt it had grounds to rule in favor of the patentee on obviousness before it even went to the jury. However, the Court seems to have allowed the accused infringer to present its case of obviousness.  Before the jury was allowed to decide obviousness, the patentee filed a motion arguing that there was not enough evidence to support even a threshold finding of obviousness, and therefore the invalidity argument failed as a matter of law. (This is different than a jury reaching a verdict contrary to the weight of the evidence.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On appeal, the Court disagreed, finding that there were sufficient facts to support an obviousness finding.  Even more, the appellate Court viewed that evidence as clear and convincing, resulting in the Court entering judgment in the accused infringer's favor.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Federal Circuit opinion is here:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/2011-1009.Opinion.1-17-2013.1.PDF&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Denis Crouch and others would have good insight on this and some of your side-questions.  However, I suspect that many patent trial attorneys would disagree with your comparison to criminal law trials.  Patent trials on average are far more complex with multiple issues subdivided into questions of law and fact.  The court and jury each do their part.  I feel that juries have a great ability to arrive at the correct verdict.  A judge cannot simply &quot;tell them anything,&quot; and a jury will apply reasoned decision making more often than I think you credit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3237" RevisionGUID="82724f37-7c5b-4d47-9745-1455508bb8e0" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:56:27.697" UserId="3076" Text="The question seems to take the position that the judge is or should be required to provide the opportunity for jury nullification and commits an error by not allowing for that to happen. As described in the Wikipedia link in the question, jury nullification is a tool to reject the system, it is not a formal part of the system. So its absense is not a flaw in the operation of the system. In this case the judge was overrulled for incorrectly deciding that no jury could not possibly find obviousness - given the evidence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, the fact that a judge removes a question from a jury will pass strick scrutiny. [judgement as a matter of law -- federal rule 50][1] This one, in particular, did not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_50" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3237" RevisionGUID="1d376315-f89c-45e0-9126-374403ca135d" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:13:05.090" UserId="3076" Comment="Spelling and double negative fixed" Text="The question seems to take the position that the judge is or should be required to provide the opportunity for jury nullification and commits an error by not allowing for that to happen. As described in the Wikipedia link in the question, jury nullification is a tool to reject the system, it is not a formal part of the system. So its absence is not a flaw in the operation of the system. In this case the judge was overrulled for incorrectly deciding that no jury could possibly find obviousness - given the evidence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, the fact that a judge removes a question from a jury will pass strick scrutiny. [judgement as a matter of law -- federal rule 50][1] This one, in particular, did not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_50" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5983" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3234" RevisionGUID="24afc714-ad80-4b61-a9a7-96ca0b0ac032" CreationDate="2013-01-29T22:47:51.517" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/296389222074572800" />
  <row Id="5984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3215" RevisionGUID="bea19dac-a69f-49db-bf52-98b261254105" CreationDate="2013-01-30T04:46:15.233" UserId="3076" Comment="Changed to address the actual question." Text="In contrast to claim 19, it seems to me that there is more going on in claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A system for managing mineral interest, comprising: a computer;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; at least one database for storing oil and gas mineral interest data&#xD;&#xA;&gt; associated with an area of land, said oil and gas mineral interest&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data including deed records relating to deeds relating to oil and gas&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mineral interests associated with the area of land, lease records&#xD;&#xA;&gt; relating to leasing of oil and gas mineral interests associated with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the area of land, and well records associated with wells drilling on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the oil, and gas mineral interests associated with the area of land;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; at least one server for enabling generation of a graphical user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interface in a web browser at a plurality of locations over an open&#xD;&#xA;&gt; network, the graphical user interface enabling creation and editing of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the deed records, lease records and well records stored in the at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least one database from the plurality of locations over the open&#xD;&#xA;&gt; network, the graphical user interface further enabling viewing of deed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; records, lease records and well records from the plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; locations over the open network, wherein the at least one server&#xD;&#xA;&gt; provides a view of a mineral interest via the graphical user interface&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which shows a relationship between at least one instance of a deed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; record, at least one instance of a lease record, and at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; instance of a well record;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a deed management page provided by the at least one server enabling a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user to generate new deed records and edit existing deed records&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stored in the at least one database as part of the oil and gas mineral&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interest data;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a lease management page provided by the at least one server enabling a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user to generate new lease records and edit existing, lease records&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stored in the at least one database as part of the oil and gas mineral&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interest data comprising at least one of royalty data and land&#xD;&#xA;&gt; description data; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a well management page provided by the at least one server enabling a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user to generate new well records and edit existing well records&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stored in the at least one database as part of the oil and gas mineral&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interest data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pertinent to the actual question, it is hard to argue that claim 19 has much in the way of solid limitations:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 19. A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;receiving, at an interest management system, one or more data input communication packets that have been transmitted over the Internet, the one or more data input communication packets containing lease data inputs that have been provided by a user in a lease data input field in a lease management page, wherein the lease data inputs comprise an identification of an area of land associated with a lease as well as one or more of a royalty amount for the lease, an identification of a lessor, an identification of a lessee, and a term of the lease; and&#xD;&#xA;storing the lease data inputs into a database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that it might be the case that someone assumed claim 1 was the broadest by virtue of being claim 1 and was't very careful looking at this claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that in the U.S. neither technical character nor inventive step per se are material in the US patent system.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3238" RevisionGUID="240639c4-6e5e-46c7-a6b7-f53ce90993ab" CreationDate="2013-01-30T05:36:54.103" UserId="3076" Text="This application got a non-final rejection at the end of Nov. based  on [Mobley 5666261][1] and [Angus 5857351][2]. If you are interested in it you can look in USPTO public PAIR. There are several things already listed on the record by the applicant and by the examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5622261&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5857351" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3239" RevisionGUID="0367fee8-92ed-4dcc-87a5-75ab51921811" CreationDate="2013-01-30T07:05:26.283" UserId="3129" Text="A patent exists for a broad system of interacting large, and independently complex, elements. However, at least one of the complex elements is described/claimed in the patent in a very cursory and general way. I would not be able to build and use the system as described in the patent. the system is too large and complex. In fact, I think that it would require a large team of persons with expertise in various areas to actually build and use the system (imagine the GPS satellite SYSTEM that required sattelite engineers for satellite elements, communications engineers for their devices, rocket scientists to further make the complex rockets work, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The system is claimed at an abstract level such as &quot;a system comprised of [things] ... and a ground control station, where said ground station is comprised of an antenna, a computer, a database, telephones ... etc.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question:&#xD;&#xA;Can I improve, or better or more thoroughly define (reduce to practice), a &quot;ground station&quot; with better specification and claimed elements such that my improvements (or better reduction to practice) precludes the other patentee from building and using his ground station without, in fact, infringing on my patent? This assumes he would actually NEED my claimed element improvements for his &quot;system&quot; to work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One outcome, I would hope, would be that the other patentee is essentially forced to work with me and me with him to respectively build and &quot;use&quot; our respective inventions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for any answers. I am still wrestling with this.&#xD;&#xA;[Could science fiction author Arthur C. Clark have patented his big system ideas in his book Profiles of the Future without more detailed specification/claims?]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5987" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3239" RevisionGUID="0367fee8-92ed-4dcc-87a5-75ab51921811" CreationDate="2013-01-30T07:05:26.283" UserId="3129" Text="Can I preclude the exercise of another patentee's system patent by defining a (PRACTICALLY necessary) improvement to an element of that system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5988" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3239" RevisionGUID="0367fee8-92ed-4dcc-87a5-75ab51921811" CreationDate="2013-01-30T07:05:26.283" UserId="3129" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;specification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3240" RevisionGUID="a658c247-09b8-4cea-87f0-2527ce03a94a" CreationDate="2013-01-30T09:09:43.167" UserId="3076" Text="It frequently happens that person B invents a patentable improvement to person A's invention. If it is a compelling enough improvement it can be thought as a blocking patent. Neither A or B can independently make the improved version without the other. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But just making it work efficiently or creating a specific, well-engineered, detailed embodiment is not necessarily creating a patentable improvement. For your scenario to play out, your work needs to be patentable in a way that is hard to get around. The value you plan to extract has an upper limit related to the cost of designing around your future patent or realizing the system in some completely different way.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3240" RevisionGUID="7c1a338c-29e4-425b-9997-47e67a3f2212" CreationDate="2013-01-30T09:16:13.043" UserId="3076" Comment="Small wording improvement" Text="It frequently happens that person B invents a patentable improvement to person A's invention. If it is a compelling enough improvement it can be thought as a blocking patent. Neither A or B can independently make the improved version without the other. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But just making it work efficiently or creating a specific, well-engineered, detailed embodiment is not necessarily creating a patentable improvement. For your scenario to play out, your work needs to be patentable in a way that is hard to get around. The value you plan to extract has an upper limit related to the cost of designing around your future patent or realizing the system in some completely different way. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5991" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3232" RevisionGUID="41c0db07-ece7-464b-9f37-b5903909289c" CreationDate="2013-01-30T16:47:51.870" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/296661014689243136" />
  <row Id="5998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3237" RevisionGUID="8d982955-349e-4dc5-8af5-452fddeb486c" CreationDate="2013-01-30T19:52:40.767" UserId="3076" Comment="Changed will to can" Text="The question seems to take the position that the judge is or should be required to provide the opportunity for jury nullification and commits an error by not allowing for that to happen. As described in the Wikipedia link in the question, jury nullification is a tool to reject the system, it is not a formal part of the system. So its absence is not a flaw in the operation of the system. In this case the judge was overrulled for incorrectly deciding that no jury could possibly find obviousness - given the evidence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, the fact that a judge removes a question from a jury can pass strick scrutiny. [judgement as a matter of law -- federal rule 50][1] This one, in particular, did not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_50" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13" RevisionGUID="8bff6571-ed8d-4dab-8b8b-91ec7e210cdc" CreationDate="2013-01-30T21:23:46.977" UserId="17" Comment="added 1 characters in body; added 1 characters in body" Text="Every $SiteName question is required to have at least one tag. Tags are how we group, order, and find questions, so that users can search for specific question types.&#xA;&#xA;So, if you’re only interested in questions that relate to software, you can simply search the site for [software](/questions/tagged/software).&#xA;&#xA;But how do you determine which tags are correct for your question?&#xA;&#xA;**First, 3 Rules:**&#xA;&#xA;- If you mention a US or EPO patent in your question, include its patent number as a tag with &quot;US&quot; or &quot;EPO&quot; at the front.  For example, use tag [tag:us7222078] for [US Patent 7222078](http://www.google.com/patents/US7222078).&#xA;- If you mention a patent application in your question, include its &#xA;  publication number as a tag&#xA;- If you seek or propose prior art in your question, include the tag [tag:prior-art]&#xA;&#xA;**Otherwise, tagging is up to you.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3243" RevisionGUID="606eb314-4cf8-46a3-8d9f-17cc266bbc6b" CreationDate="2013-01-30T21:42:11.240" UserId="2029" Text="Let's say I am building on a high-tech, novel product but that combines several techniques, components and/or innovations that I suspect may be patented (though those may have expired).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to do an FTO search to see if I'm in the clear but my guess would be that &quot;probably not&quot; and &quot;there's at least several dozen patents covering the components/techniques&quot;. If there's a handful I'd like to license them, but if there are dozens or hundreds, it is unmanageable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had read that if you are aware of the patents you're infringing, the charges are tripled if you're taken to court. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a.** Does your performing a FTO search prove that you were aware of the other patents and willfully infringed them, hence justifying higher costs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b.** What if I file my own patent for the novel product, while citing the patents that I infringed, then building the product. Does that constitute willful infringement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;aed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6001" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3243" RevisionGUID="606eb314-4cf8-46a3-8d9f-17cc266bbc6b" CreationDate="2013-01-30T21:42:11.240" UserId="2029" Text="Should I do a freedom to operate search if I suspect parts of my product infringe [US]?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6002" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3243" RevisionGUID="606eb314-4cf8-46a3-8d9f-17cc266bbc6b" CreationDate="2013-01-30T21:42:11.240" UserId="2029" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;freedom-to-operate&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6003" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3243" RevisionGUID="fd68989e-18eb-4ca7-8c2c-e62a1d96cfbd" CreationDate="2013-01-30T22:47:52.420" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/296751613014573056" />
  <row Id="6004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3244" RevisionGUID="697ce588-23a9-4dcc-a9b0-71fcee8a6b38" CreationDate="2013-01-30T22:49:11.297" UserId="2072" Text="A. Yes, it is possible. Your patent counsel might provide an opinion of noninfringement or invalidity, leaving you with a clear mind and a defense to willful infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B. If you cite a patent, then you are presumably on notice of it and this could be used as evidence that any infringememt was willful.  You have a duty of disclosure before the Patent Office, so you would need to disclose a patent material to patentability of your application.  Best get that opinion of counsel of noninfringement or invalidity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3245" RevisionGUID="a13c1b26-bb89-40b2-ac32-98ddc5761ed6" CreationDate="2013-01-31T02:39:33.267" UserId="3128" Text="It sounds like there are two possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) The current patent is insufficient; it cannot be implemented without some further inventive contribution. Such a patent is invalid.&#xD;&#xA;2) The system in the patent can be implemented, but needs some work.  Provided this work is predictable, and does not require undue experimentation, the patent still holds. The work might still be complex and require a team of skilled people, but it's essentially mundane. Electrical and electronic technologies are usually considered pretty predictable, and quite a high level of generality is enough to enable the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Situation 2 is the more usual in this field of technology; as the other answer says, you can patent improvements (or particular specific ways of implementing the invention) if it is inventive over the earlier patent.  And if your improvement is valuable enough, it could act as a blocking patent, or at least help you negotiate a cross-licence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But Situation 1 does sometimes occur.  It's interesting you mention Arthur C Clarke.  I'm not familiar with the book you mention, but Clarke proposed quite a detailed idea for using geostationary satellites for telecommunication in 1945, and the consensus is that he would not have been granted a patent, because any description he could give wouldn't allow the invention to be performed - the necessary technology to implement it simply didn't exist. (Clarke didn't even apply for a patent, considering them 'a licence to be sued')" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3246" RevisionGUID="bbb0324d-543e-493e-b685-17be00645d35" CreationDate="2013-01-31T02:51:49.797" UserId="3109" Text="How does the applicant of a patent cite prior art?&#xD;&#xA;Is it necessary to cite prior art that I'm aware of in a first filing (provisional)? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6007" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3246" RevisionGUID="bbb0324d-543e-493e-b685-17be00645d35" CreationDate="2013-01-31T02:51:49.797" UserId="3109" Text="How does the applicant of a patent cite prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6008" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3246" RevisionGUID="bbb0324d-543e-493e-b685-17be00645d35" CreationDate="2013-01-31T02:51:49.797" UserId="3109" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3247" RevisionGUID="8470e5e5-a097-4a13-a565-d00fecccdee4" CreationDate="2013-01-31T03:30:02.113" UserId="3076" Text="It is done by filing a document called an Information Disclosure Statement with the USPTO in the case file. An IDS is only allowed in a regular non-provisional application, **not in a provisional application**. [IDS directions for on-line submittal][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be obvious, but you only need to cite what you are aware of - no positive requirement to go looking for it, but you should look so you will know what you are up against and can tailor your application accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5857351?pg=PA2&amp;dq=Angus%205857351&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=JKwIUcyBKYu88wTeoIDIBA&amp;ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=Angus%205857351&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3249" RevisionGUID="c3e857ca-6372-4f08-bbe0-dbdabe3710eb" CreationDate="2013-01-31T09:40:19.060" UserId="1984" Text="This is a Microsoft Patent came in 2002 and issued in 2007, when Web 2.0 was in pregnancy. Is someone aware of similar work in the course of next 5/6 years from the issue date. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6012" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3249" RevisionGUID="c3e857ca-6372-4f08-bbe0-dbdabe3710eb" CreationDate="2013-01-31T09:40:19.060" UserId="1984" Text="Social mapping of contacts from computer communication information" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6013" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3249" RevisionGUID="c3e857ca-6372-4f08-bbe0-dbdabe3710eb" CreationDate="2013-01-31T09:40:19.060" UserId="1984" Text="&lt;us7167910&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3250" RevisionGUID="9eaf1623-e8ad-419c-a019-a3d3b200cbe9" CreationDate="2013-01-31T11:00:58.327" UserId="3143" Text="I work as an engineer (not software) and occasionally I have ideas that might make sense to follow through and maybe arive at some sort of invention. The first step would be, of course, to look up if anyone else had the same idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My approach consists mainly of either knowing from my field of the industry that something has already been done, asking collegues, or googling, searching journals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are other approaches? I'm especially mystified the way patents are sorted (I work in Germany, the most relevant search engine would be the DEPATIS net or somesuch of the german patent office) and would appreciate any guide here. Is there a patent research 101 out there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I find I hard to gather technical information from a patent but that's mostly because of the weird, long sentences that lawyers seem to like and the weird structure that the patent system forces on the documents - something that practice can probably fix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I want to know how to find out two linked things:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;*Has something been done and is proven or disproven to work? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Has something been patented or can't be because of prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I would really appreciate an answer that only adresses one of those.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6015" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3250" RevisionGUID="9eaf1623-e8ad-419c-a019-a3d3b200cbe9" CreationDate="2013-01-31T11:00:58.327" UserId="3143" Text="Where can I find best practices or guides for patent/SOTA research?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6016" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3250" RevisionGUID="9eaf1623-e8ad-419c-a019-a3d3b200cbe9" CreationDate="2013-01-31T11:00:58.327" UserId="3143" Text="&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6017" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3250" RevisionGUID="86fd5fbe-14ed-4f95-b0a0-6772f7cadebc" CreationDate="2013-01-31T11:24:36.990" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3249" RevisionGUID="e6105844-2443-4857-9692-7460e5157463" CreationDate="2013-01-31T11:26:43.260" UserId="1259" Comment="link and tag" Text="This is a Microsoft Patent [us7167910][1] applied in 2002 and issued in 2007, when Web 2.0 was in pregnancy. Is someone aware of similar work in the course of next 5/6 years from the issue date. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us7167910" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6019" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3249" RevisionGUID="e6105844-2443-4857-9692-7460e5157463" CreationDate="2013-01-31T11:26:43.260" UserId="1259" Comment="link and tag" Text="&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;us7167910&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3251" RevisionGUID="0d8186e6-4560-4ec2-9380-7d48d4ddbd47" CreationDate="2013-01-31T13:14:15.507" UserId="3128" Text="I'll just say a little about searching that may help get you started.  Your last two questions deserve separate answers, I might come back to that in a while if no-one else addresses them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most patent databases - both the free ones like depatis, espacenet, google patents and the uspto one, and the subscription ones - allow word searches.  But this has it's limitations, and getting to know the patent classification system will really improve your searches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The classification I use most often is the IPC which you can learn more about here http://www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/en/general/ Depatis uses this.  Espacenet also uses the CPC, which is is built on the IPC but with a further level of resolution.  Google patents and the USPTO site also use the US classification system, and you might be better using this for those database because some of the IPC codes the US patents where given aren't very accurate, but I believe the USPTO are switching to the CPC so this may change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can either dive straight in and search the classification, or find some close patents with keywords and see how they've been classified.  Some inventions fall neatly within a single classification group, others don't seem to fit in anywhere and can be liberally spread through the whole classification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How I search is to think of the relevant concepts, find classifications of each concept, and synonyms for each concept, and then search the combinations eg. classification(concept 1) AND ((synonym1(concept 2) OR (synonym2(concept 2)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you've found some close patents, you can also search through the cited and citing patents, piggybacking on an Examiner's previous search (though they were perhaps searching for something slightly different).  Still, it's a good way to widen a search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be aware of what coverage the database you're using has.  The USPTO database only has US patents, google patents now has EP patents, Espacenet has a good worldwide coverage, I think depatis is similar, but you need to check.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I say 'patent', this includes patent applications; for prior art purposes, it doesn't make any differences.  Patents are searched because they are (relatively) well classified, and the publication date is known with certainty, but of course it's often helpful to top a search up with other sources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3252" RevisionGUID="8163b8ae-3776-4d9b-8836-44e3a8026867" CreationDate="2013-01-31T13:23:50.870" UserId="3109" Text="Are there any negative aspects about using the same terms to refer to something as in prior art patents?&#xD;&#xA;What about diagrams? computer system related patents often add a system diagram where they enumerate all the parts of the computer system: processor, memory, display, etc. Is there any negative aspect if I draw more or less the same system diagram than a relevant prior art patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6022" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3252" RevisionGUID="8163b8ae-3776-4d9b-8836-44e3a8026867" CreationDate="2013-01-31T13:23:50.870" UserId="3109" Text="any negative aspects about using the same terms to refer to something as in prior art patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6023" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3252" RevisionGUID="8163b8ae-3776-4d9b-8836-44e3a8026867" CreationDate="2013-01-31T13:23:50.870" UserId="3109" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3252" RevisionGUID="fb481977-e591-457a-8a91-efe1666ed0cc" CreationDate="2013-01-31T13:53:57.467" UserId="3109" Comment="clarify question" Text="When drafting a patent, are there any negative aspects about using the same terms as prior art patents to refer to things?&#xD;&#xA;What about diagrams? computer system related patents often add a system diagram where they enumerate all the parts of the computer system: processor, memory, display, etc. Is there any negative aspect if I draw more or less the same system diagram than a relevant prior art patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6025" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3252" RevisionGUID="fb481977-e591-457a-8a91-efe1666ed0cc" CreationDate="2013-01-31T13:53:57.467" UserId="3109" Comment="clarify question" Text="any negative aspects about using the same terms as in prior art patents to refer to things?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6026" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3252" RevisionGUID="fb481977-e591-457a-8a91-efe1666ed0cc" CreationDate="2013-01-31T13:53:57.467" UserId="3109" Comment="clarify question" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;drafting&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13" RevisionGUID="0ac076f8-8654-487d-8a92-208823e141fe" CreationDate="2013-01-31T16:47:38.547" UserId="17" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Every $SiteName question is required to have at least one tag. Tags are how we group, order, and find questions, so that users can search for specific question types.&#xA;&#xA;So, if you’re only interested in questions that relate to software, you can simply search the site for [software](/questions/tagged/software).&#xA;&#xA;But how do you determine which tags are correct for your question?&#xA;&#xA;**First, 3 Rules:**&#xA;&#xA;- If you mention a US or EPO patent in your question, include its patent number as a tag with &quot;US&quot; or &quot;EP&quot; at the front.  For example, use tag [tag:us7222078] for [US Patent 7222078](http://www.google.com/patents/US7222078).&#xA;- If you mention a patent application in your question, include its &#xA;  publication number as a tag&#xA;- If you seek or propose prior art in your question, include the tag [tag:prior-art]&#xA;&#xA;**Otherwise, tagging is up to you.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3251" RevisionGUID="87a8e355-14f5-40f4-8ea9-6bca8d780fd4" CreationDate="2013-01-31T17:20:29.227" UserId="3128" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="I'll just say a little about searching that may help get you started.  Your last two questions deserve separate answers, I might come back to that in a while if no-one else addresses them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most patent databases - both the free ones like depatis, espacenet, google patents and the uspto one, and the subscription ones - allow word searches.  But this has it's limitations, and getting to know the patent classification system will really improve your searches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The classification I use most often is the IPC which you can learn more about here http://www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/en/general/ Depatis uses this.  Espacenet also uses the CPC, which is is built on the IPC but with a further level of resolution.  Google patents and the USPTO site also use the US classification system, and you might be better using this for those database because some of the IPC codes the US patents where given aren't very accurate, but I believe the USPTO are switching to the CPC so this may change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can either dive straight in and search the classification, or find some close patents with keywords and see how they've been classified.  Some inventions fall neatly within a single classification group, others don't seem to fit in anywhere and can be liberally spread through the whole classification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How I search is to think of the relevant concepts, find classifications of each concept, and synonyms for each concept, and then search the combinations eg. classification(concept 1) AND ((synonym1(concept 2) OR (synonym2(concept 2)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you've found some close patents, you can also search through the cited and citing patents, piggybacking on an Examiner's previous search (though they were perhaps searching for something slightly different).  Still, it's a good way to widen a search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be aware of what coverage the database you're using has.  The USPTO database only has US patents, google patents now has EP patents, Espacenet has a good worldwide coverage, I think depatis is similar, but you need to check.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I say 'patent', this includes patent applications; for prior art purposes, it doesn't make any difference.  Patents are searched because they are (relatively) well classified, and the publication date is known with certainty, but of course it's often helpful to top a search up with other sources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3253" RevisionGUID="96b7d1a2-5dfc-485f-8726-efd4b710a969" CreationDate="2013-01-31T17:42:16.533" UserId="3128" Text="It goes without saying (so I'll say it anyway!), primarily, it depends whether it's the best way of describing your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the terms are appropriate (in meaning, and particular in breadth, so they support what you will want to claim), then there's no harm in using the same terms; I'm assuming of course that your differences are sufficient persuade the Examiner that your invention is inventive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it makes the Examiner's job easier, he can see at a glance which bits are present in some prior art.  If you use different terms, the Examiner will have to construe both meanings and decide whether they refer to the same thing, overlap, or how similar they are etc.  If your invention's a bit thin, you might not want to make it so easy.  Some people will try and dress up an (alleged) invention with complicated terms to muddy the waters.  An English judge said &quot;Patents are not given for skill in inventing technically meaningless parameters.”  In practice, such subterfuge does sometimes work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've got a solid invention though, I'd say just write the best, clearest, description you can." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3247" RevisionGUID="d5c277d2-abb3-4cac-b07f-7b9f5115adf5" CreationDate="2013-01-31T17:44:48.373" UserId="3076" Comment="Fixed a link and added a link" Text="It is done by filing a document called an Information Disclosure Statement with the USPTO in the case file. An IDS is only allowed in a regular non-provisional application, **not in a provisional application** [IDS directions for on-line submittal][1] (link fixed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [Provisional Application for Patent page at USPTO][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No information disclosure statement may be filed in a provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be obvious, but you only need to cite what you are aware of - no positive requirement to go looking for it, but you should look so you will know what you are up against and can tailor your application accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/portal/efs/US_ids_form_inst.doc&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/types/provapp.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3254" RevisionGUID="d9cdb48f-e10d-46da-90e3-0b2f480b19f5" CreationDate="2013-01-31T18:15:34.043" UserId="3076" Text="To supplement the answer above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a book that is pretty good. &quot;Patent Searching Made Easy: How to do Patent Searches on the Internet and in the Library&quot; By David Hitchcock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other places to search might be google scholar and for some things [halfbakery][1]. I also look up old versions of web sites in the wayback machine [archive.org][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; At one presentation on searching by a professional searcher he had on his PowerPoint &quot;step 3 - walk your dog&quot;. There can be a Zen to searching.  One aspect of that I have noticed is that it is much easier to find things I hope to find. That means it is hard to find my own dumb ideas - I don't really want to find them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.halfbakery.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://archive.org/web/web.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3254" RevisionGUID="4080ed8f-d869-463c-8b42-d6266ccae520" CreationDate="2013-01-31T18:25:13.357" UserId="3076" Comment="Punctuation." Text="To supplement the answer above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a book that is pretty good. &quot;Patent Searching Made Easy: How to do Patent Searches on the Internet and in the Library&quot; By David Hitchcock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other places to search might be google scholar and for some things [halfbakery][1]. I also look up old versions of web sites in the wayback machine [archive.org][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; At one presentation on searching by a professional searcher, he had on his PowerPoint &quot;step 3 - walk your dog&quot;. There can be a Zen to searching.  One aspect of that I have noticed is that it is much easier to find things I hope to find. That means it is hard to find my own dumb ideas - I don't really want to find them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.halfbakery.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://archive.org/web/web.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3255" RevisionGUID="50672bd3-ff58-4214-bf8a-166f268c1c81" CreationDate="2013-01-31T18:37:59.583" UserId="3076" Text="You may have already looked at this but there are over a dozen patent documents that came after this and referred back to it. These cites are easy to see and follow on google patents which makes them into links. One example listed on the front of the Microsoft patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; US8234300	&#xD;&#xA;Filed Oct 7, 2008	&#xD;&#xA;Issued Jul 31, 2012	&#xD;&#xA;International Business Machines Corporation&#xD;&#xA;Access to electronic social networks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US 8234300][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8234300" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3251" RevisionGUID="8db5fcf8-5ee2-4286-87dd-c1832ac0c477" CreationDate="2013-01-31T19:04:39.133" UserId="3128" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="I'll just say a little about searching that may help get you started.  Your last two questions deserve separate answers, I might come back to that in a while if no-one else addresses them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most patent databases - both the free ones like depatis, espacenet, google patents and the uspto one, and the subscription ones - allow word searches.  But this has it's limitations, and getting to know the patent classification system will really improve your searches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The classification I use most often is the IPC which you can learn more about here http://www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/en/general/ Depatis uses this.  Espacenet also uses the CPC, which is is built on the IPC but with a further level of resolution.  Google patents and the USPTO site also use the US classification system, and you might be better using this for those database because some of the IPC codes the US patents were given aren't very accurate, but I believe the USPTO are switching to the CPC so this may change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can either dive straight in and search the classification, or find some close patents with keywords and see how they've been classified.  Some inventions fall neatly within a single classification group, others don't seem to fit in anywhere and can be liberally spread through the whole classification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How I search is to think of the relevant concepts, find classifications of each concept, and synonyms for each concept, and then search the combinations eg. classification(concept 1) AND ((synonym1(concept 2) OR (synonym2(concept 2)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you've found some close patents, you can also search through the cited and citing patents, piggybacking on an Examiner's previous search (though they were perhaps searching for something slightly different).  Still, it's a good way to widen a search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be aware of what coverage the database you're using has.  The USPTO database only has US patents, google patents now has EP patents, Espacenet has a good worldwide coverage, I think depatis is similar, but you need to check.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I say 'patent', this includes patent applications; for prior art purposes, it doesn't make any difference.  Patents are searched because they are (relatively) well classified, and the publication date is known with certainty, but of course it's often helpful to top a search up with other sources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3256" RevisionGUID="738f10d7-21e8-4c62-a3f4-ca93be5d7a41" CreationDate="2013-01-31T19:51:20.083" UserId="3128" Text="A patent system does have drawbacks, there's no doubt.  They're monopolies, so a firm which has a strong patent doesn't feel the same degree of competitive pressure that drives efficiency and benefits the consumer.  Again, depending on their strength, they can stifle research and development by other competitors.  This is nothing new; Watt's patents for steam engines are considered to have stopped anyone else bothering to develop their own steam power for the life of his main patents.  As a large piece of software may rely on so many smaller elements, avoiding a thicket of patents can be difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But by providing a reward, a clear shot at the market without competitors, it gives an incentive to come up with and develop products.  If as soon as you had developed and released your product, competitors copy you and compete, you might be less inclined to create innovations.  It's hard to see how the pharmaceutical industry could function, short of nationalisation or public subsidy, without the patent system.  Development costs are high, and copying easy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You've got to balance these pros and cons to decide whether patents benefit society (and I think there is the fairness to an individual inventor to consider, as well).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're a lone inventor with a good idea, how are you going to capitalise on this, without the possibility of a patent?  As soon as the idea is published, every other Tom Dick and Apple can make their own version and outcompete you.  You might get work out of it, since to start with you're a bit of an expert on it, and some bragging rights, but probably not the big bucks.  The same problem exists, though not as acutely, for smaller firms.  If you're short on resources, others can benefit as much as you from your idea. Copyright isn't really helpful, since you can usually sidestep copyright by extracting the idea and re-execute it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether there's a need for it, whether the pros outweigh the cons, to be honest, I don't know, and I'm not sure anyone else does.  For a long time, it was thought that software was unpatentable before the EPO, whilst the US was more generous.  Gradually, the EPO - how shall I put this - *came to understand* that their legislation actually allowing a lot of software to be patented.  I don't think there's any empirical evidence that Europe's software industry benefited from the absence of patents in the 1970s, or frankly, that it's benefited much from the increasing availability of patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3258" RevisionGUID="abd21112-de29-4c15-b8a2-6a3427a9c224" CreationDate="2013-01-31T21:54:35.463" UserId="2072" Text="Patent searching has become a specialty businesses with hundreds of individuals whose primary job is to perform patent searches. I think that there probably are best practices and minimum standards of care.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One aspect is the databases searched.  General subdivisions might include patents by place of origin, published patent documents by place of origin, and other techinical publications by database.  Some familiarity of the technology may be required to determine which databases need to be included.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another area subject to best practices would be the search tecnhiques which will depend greatly on the technology.  Some technologies lend themselves to image searches more than others.  Searching by classification as mentioned by PNH above is standard.  It is also becoming expected that a search will include general internet search results.  Additional expertise and search strategy probably varies by industry.  There is a steep learning curve, but eventually you will become familiar with the different parts of patent documents and the legalese.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most law firms contract out searches.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3249" RevisionGUID="af43c110-2e85-4ae3-9dea-b53ad0c230cd" CreationDate="2013-01-31T22:08:20.957" UserId="2072" Comment="edited body" Text="This is a Microsoft Patent [us7167910][1] filed in 2002 and issued in 2007, when Web 2.0 was in its infancy. Is someone aware of similar work in the course of next 5/6 years from the issue date. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us7167910" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3259" RevisionGUID="55c8d4c2-3ede-4a88-a79b-851c16560dad" CreationDate="2013-02-01T01:13:45.733" UserId="1767" Text="Denis Crouch put together a nice list of the 111 pending applications for which the USPTO had received 3rd party submissions as of Dec, 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was curious as to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The subject of the pending applications which had stimulated 3rd party submission to the USPTO; and&#xD;&#xA; 2. The assignee of these applications&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The top three applicants were Lockheed Martin (5 applications), Valens Semiconductor (5 applications) and Ineos Bio (5 applications).  Very few if any of the applications were related to software.  **Soliciting, organizing and submitting third party prior art in software specifically is a place where StackOverflow can help a lot, I think.**  The market doesn't seem to be doing this on its own yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the list of pending applications, the assignees, the titles and the abstracts. (Abstracts truncated to fit StackExchange).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120058247A1	&lt;/b&gt;	ZHEJIANG GREEN WORLD BIO TECH ENGINEERING CO LTD | EPC BEIJING NATURAL PRODUCTS INC	`	REBAUDIOSIDE A AND STEVIOSIDE COMPOSITIONS	`	The invention describes  stevia composi	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120081108A1	&lt;/b&gt;	WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP	`	NONDESTRUCTIVE INSPECTION METHOD FOR A HEAT EXCHANGER EMPLOYING ADAPTIVE NOISE THRESHOLDING	`	A method of eddy current testing for flaws in a tube is provided that includes passing an eddy current probe through the tube and obtaining eddy current data for a	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120117293A1	&lt;/b&gt;	VALENS SEMICONDUCTOR LTD	`	USB host adaptor for initiating a USB connection over a non-USB network	`	Initiating, by USB host adaptors, USB connections over a non-USB network, including the steps of: Connecting non-collocated USB h	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120117292A1	&lt;/b&gt;	VALENS SEMICONDUCTOR LTD	`	Method and system for initiating distinct USB connections over a network	`	Connecting USB devices with USB hosts over distinct network paths, including the following steps: Connecting USB hosts wi	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120117278A1	&lt;/b&gt;	VALENS SEMICONDUCTOR LTD	`	Method and system for partial USB enumeration and edge initiation	`	Initiating USB-over-network connections based on partial USB enumeration, including the steps of: Discovering U	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120117277A1	&lt;/b&gt;	VALENS SEMICONDUCTOR LTD	`	Method and system for USB addressing by a network adaptor	`	Addressing, by USB host adaptors, packets conveying USB data over a non-USB network, including the steps of: Connecting USB hosts	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120117276A1	&lt;/b&gt;	VALENS SEMICONDUCTOR LTD	`	USB device adaptor for initiating a USB connection over a non-USB network	`	Initiating, by USB device adaptors, USB connections over a non-USB network, including the steps of: Connecting non-collocated USB	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120068157A1	&lt;/b&gt;	US GOV SEC NAVY	`	Transistor Having Graphene Base	`	A transistor device having a graphene base for the transport of electrons into a collector is provided. The transistor consists of a heterostructure comprising an electron e	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110212467A1	&lt;/b&gt;	UNIV SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA	`	INHIBITORS OF dUTPase	`	Evidence demonstrating that elevated expression of dUTPase protects breast cancer cells from the expansion of the intracellular 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120107247A1	&lt;/b&gt;	UNIV NEW JERSEY MED	`	Proteins Expressed by Mycobacterium Tuberculosis and not by BCG and their Use as Diagnostic Reagents and Vaccines	`	The present invention is directed to reage	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120158354A1	&lt;/b&gt;	TROXLER ELECTRONIC LAB INC	`	METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS FOR LOCATING AND TRACKING OBJECTS	`	A system for locating and tracking an object is provided. The system includes a measuring device configured to det	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20080298695A1	&lt;/b&gt;	TOSHIBA KK	`	MOTION VECTOR DETECTING APPARATUS, MOTION VECTOR DETECTING METHOD AND INTERPOLATION FRAME CREATING APPARATUS	`	According to one embodiment, a motion vector detecting apparatus performs block matching of	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120021913A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC	`	TURF SAFE GRANULAR HERBICIDE FORMULATIONS	`	The present invention relates to	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120214386A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SUGINO MACHINED LTD	`	ABRASIVE WATER JET PROCESSING MACHINE	`	An abrasive water jet processing machine for jetting a fluid and performing a cutting includes a fluid supply device, an abrasive supply device, an injection pressure control	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US8342912B2	&lt;/b&gt;	SUGINO MACH	`	Abrasive water jet processing machine	`	An abrasive water jet processing machine for jetting a fluid and performing a cutting includes a fluid supply device, an abrasive supply device, an injection pressure control	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120195640A1	&lt;/b&gt;	STATIC CONTROL COMPONENTS INC	`	Systems &amp; Methods for Remanufacturing Imaging Components	`	A drive gear for a generally cylindrical imaging component. T	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120214125A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SS WHITE BURS INC	`	ENDODONTIC BURS, KITS, AND METHODS FOR USING ENDODONTIC BURS	`	A conical dental bur for endodontic procedures, including exploration, deep troughing, enlargement of orifices, and canal navigation is pres	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120239808A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SIPCO LLC	`	SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CONTROLLING COMMUNICATION BETWEEN A HOST COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATION DEVICES	`	An exemplary embodiment of the present invention provides a site controller for use in a 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120111396A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SIONYX INC	`	Photovoltaic Devices and Associated Methods	`	A method for making a semiconductor device includes providing a s	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US4249031A	&lt;/b&gt;	SHELL OIL CO	`	Process for the preparation of a hydrocarbon mixture	`	Method for the production of hydrocarbon comprises	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110165231A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SCIOTEC DIAGNOSTIC TECHNOLOGIES GMBH	`	Treatment of Fructose Malabsorption	`	The present invention relates to	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US8193408B2	&lt;/b&gt;	SANOFI AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND	`	Nematodes as model organisms for the investigation of neurodegenerative diseases, in particular parkinsons disease, uses and methods for the discovery of substances and genes which can used in the treatment of the above disease states and identification of a nematode gene	`	The invention relates to nematodes as model organisms for the investigation of neurodegenerative diseases, in particular, Parkinsons disease, uses and meth	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20080254475A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SANOFI AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND	`	NEMATODES AS MODEL ORGANISMS FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASES, IN PARTICULAR PARKINSONS DISEASE, USES AND METHODS FOR THE DISCOVERY OF SUBSTANCES AND GENES WHICH CAN USED IN THE TREATMENT OF THE ABOVE DISEASE STATES AND IDENTIFICATION OF A NEMATODE GENE	`	The invention relates to nematodes as model organisms for the investigation of neurodegenerative diseases, in particular, Parkinsons disease, uses and meth	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120129227A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SANDIA CORP | UNIV CALIFORNIA	`	THERMOSTABLE CELLULASES, AND MUTANTS THEREOF, CAPABLE OF HYDROLYZING CELLULOSE IN IONIC LIQUID	`	The present invention provides for a composition comprising an ionic liquid and a thermostable cell	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110088987A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SAMSONITE IP HOLDINGS S A R L	`	LUGGAGE PANEL WITH INTEGRATED CARRY HANDLE FOR SOFT-SIDE TYPE LUGGAGE CASES	`	Luggage cases of the soft-side construction are perceived to be lighter than hard-side cases. However, many rigidifying elements in s	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120121915A2	&lt;/b&gt;	SAINT GOBAIN	`	PROCESS FOR OBTAINING GLASS AND GLASS OBTAINED	`	The object of the invention is a continuous method for obtaining glass, comprising steps consisting of charging raw materials upstream of a furnace, along which a p	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110281078A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SAINT GOBAIN	`	TRANSPARENT GLASS SUBSTRATE AND PROCESS FOR MANUFACTURING SUCH A SUBSTRATE	`	This transparent glass substrate has at least one face which is provided with a texturing formed by a plurality of geometric features in relief relative to a g	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110135938A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SAINT GOBAIN	`	PROCESS FOR OBTAINING GLASS AND GLASS OBTAINED	`	&quot;The object of the invention is a continuous method for obtaining glass, comprising steps consisting of: charging raw materials upstream of a furnace, along wh&quot;	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US2692306A	&lt;/b&gt;	RCA CORP	`	Audio amplifier with plural automatic gain controls	`		&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110250338A1	&lt;/b&gt;	PEPSICO INC	`	Adsorption Purification Of Caramel	`	A process of purifying a caramel color solution comprisi	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120165885A1	&lt;/b&gt;	PACESETTER INC	`	CAPACITOR-INTEGRATED FEEDTHROUGH ASSEMBLY WITH IMPROVED GROUNDING FOR AN IMPLANTABLE MEDICAL DEVICE	`	A feedthrough assembly for use with implantable medical devices having a shield structure, the feedthrough assembly engaging with the remainder of the associa	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120041232A1	&lt;/b&gt;	OPX BIOTECHNOLOGIES INC	`	COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR 3-HYDROXYPROPIONATE BIO-PRODUCTION FROM BIOMASS	`	Methods of obtaining mutant nucleic acid sequences that d	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120105740A1	&lt;/b&gt;	OAKLEY INC	`	EYEWEAR WITH DETACHABLE ADJUSTABLE ELECTRONICS MODULE	`	A detachable adjustable electronics module may be removably or permanently connected to eyewear. The module may include electroni	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US5951438A	&lt;/b&gt;	NISSAN MOTOR	`	Drive force control device for a vehicle equipped with an antilock brake system	`	A vehicle having an antilock brake system to control a brake so as to suppress locking of wheels when a slip ratio of 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120168665A1	&lt;/b&gt;	NICHIAS CORP	`	Biosoluble inorganic fiber	`	An inorganic fiber having the following composition: 71 wt % to 80 wt % of SiO 2, 18 wt % to	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US1649801A	&lt;/b&gt;	NEW YORK AIR BRAKE CO	`	Push-rod latch for air brakes	`		&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120227113A1	&lt;/b&gt;	NANT HOLDINGS IP LLC	`	REMOTE DATA VIEWER	`	A medical image and data application service provider system provides a way of remotely viewing and manipulating medical images and d	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120253494A1	&lt;/b&gt;	N2IT HOLDING B V	`	System and Method for Controlling a Digital Audio Source	`	An apparatus for signal processing, wherein a disc is p	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110017305A1	&lt;/b&gt;	MOGAS IND INC	`	Tubular Member with Thermal Sleeve Liner	`	A tubular fluid flow device of varying outside dimensions adapted for use in a high pressure, rapidly cycling temperature environment, an isolation ball valve, a ball 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120012632A1	&lt;/b&gt;	MITSUBOSHI DIAMOND IND CO LTD	`	CUTTER AND METHOD FOR CUTTING BRITTLE MATERIAL SUBSTRATE USING SAME	`	A cutter with which a diagonal crack can be created without fail deeply within a brittle material substrate is provided. The cutter has s	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US6006660A	&lt;/b&gt;	MINSTER MACHINE CO	`	Segmented drive disk for a mechanical press	`	A drive disk assembly for use in a press machine is segmented into a plurality of discrete drive disk segments	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120204604A1	&lt;/b&gt;	MIDAS SAFETY INC	`	KNITTED GLOVE	`	A double layer knitted glove is disclosed, the glove comprising a first yarn and a second yarn, the knitted glove comprising at least eight glove components, the components includin	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120226498A1	&lt;/b&gt;	MICROSOFT CORP	`	MOTION-BASED VOICE ACTIVITY DETECTION	`	Motion-based voice activity detection may be provided. A data stream may be received and a determi	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120131514A1	&lt;/b&gt;	MICROSOFT CORP	`	Gesture Recognition	`	Gesture recognition is described. In one example, gestures performed by a user of an input device having a touch-sensitive portion are detected using a definition of a number of regions cor	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120081389A1	&lt;/b&gt;	LUCIDCHART LLC	`	MANIPULATING GRAPHICAL OBJECTS	`	In one example, a method for rendering graphical objects on a display includes rendering each of a plurality of graphical objects within respective layers. 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120099395A1	&lt;/b&gt;	LOCKHEED CORP	`	DETECTING STRUCTURAL CHANGES TO UNDERWATER STRUCTURES	`	A method and system that can be used for scanning underwater structures. The method and system allow a user to gain a better understanding of an underwater structure. For 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120099402A1	&lt;/b&gt;	LOCKHEED CORP	`	BUILDING A THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODEL OF AN UNDERWATER STRUCTURE	`	A method and system are described that can be used for scanning underwater structures. The method and system allow a user to gain a better understand	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120101715A1	&lt;/b&gt;	LOCKHEED CORP	`	ESTIMATING POSITION AND ORIENTATION OF AN UNDERWATER VEHICLE BASED ON CORRELATED SENSOR DATA	`	A method and system are described that can be used for combining two sources of position and orientation (pose) information	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120099400A1	&lt;/b&gt;	LOCKHEED CORP	`	ESTIMATING POSITION AND ORIENTATION OF AN UNDERWATER VEHICLE RELATIVE TO UNDERWATER STRUCTURES	`	A method and system that can be used for scanning underwater structures. For example, the method and system estimate a position and ori	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120099399A1	&lt;/b&gt;	LOCKHEED CORP	`	SONAR DATA COLLECTION SYSTEM	`	A system that can be used for inspecting underwater structures. The system allows a user to gain a better understanding of the condition of an underwater structure. The system is a self-	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110261020A1	&lt;/b&gt;	LG DISPLAY CO LTD | LG ELECTRONICS INC	`	TOUCH PANEL, METHOD FOR DRIVING TOUCH PANEL, AND DISPLAY APPARATUS HAVING TOUCH PANEL	`	A touch panel includes: a substrate; a plural	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120152827A1	&lt;/b&gt;	KRISTAR ENTPR INC	`	Bioretention System with Internal High Flow Bypass	`	The invention provides a bioretention system comprising one or more cham	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110221151A1	&lt;/b&gt;	KOBE STEEL LTD	`	AUTOMOBILE SUSPENSION PART AND MANUFACTURING OF THE SAME	`	A lightweight automobile suspension part having high strength is an aluminum alloy automobile	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110186478A1	&lt;/b&gt;	JX NIPPON OIL &amp; ENERGY CORP	`	PROCESS FOR PRODUCING NEEDLE COKE FOR GRAPHITE ELECTRODE AND STOCK OIL COMPOSITION FOR USE IN THE PROCESS	`	The invention provides a stock oil composition for needle coke for a graphite electrode, the stock oil composition having a 10	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120210638A1	&lt;/b&gt;	INTERNAT GROWER S SUPPLY INC	`	INDOOR GREENHOUSE	`	Described herein is an indoor greenhouse that includes a rack unit, an outer layer that surrounds the rack unit and defines a greenhouse interior, at least one light surrounded by a l	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120094349A1	&lt;/b&gt;	INEOS BIO LTD	`	Methods for Increasing the Production of Ethanol from Microbial Fermentation	`	A stable continuous method for producing ethanol from the anaerobic bacterial fermentation of a gaseous substrate containing at least one reducing gas involves culturing in a f	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120094346A1	&lt;/b&gt;	INEOS BIO LTD	`	METHODS FOR INCREASING THE PRODUCTION OF ETHANOL FROM MICROBIAL FERMENTATION	`	A stable continuous method for producing ethanol from the anaerobic bacterial fermentation of a gaseous substrate containing at least one reducing gas involves culturing in a f	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120088284A1	&lt;/b&gt;	INEOS BIO LTD	`	METHODS FOR INCREASING THE PRODUCTION OF ETHANOL FROM MICROBIAL FERMENTATION	`	A stable continuous method for producing ethanol from anaerobic fermentation of a gaseous substrate containin	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120088283A1	&lt;/b&gt;	INEOS BIO LTD	`	METHODS FOR INCREASING THE PRODUCTION OF ETHANOL FROM MICROBIAL FERMENTATION	`	A stable continuous method for producing ethanol from anaerobic fermentation of a gaseous substrate containin	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120088282A1	&lt;/b&gt;	INEOS BIO LTD	`	METHODS FOR INCREASING THE PRODUCTION OF ETHANOL FROM MICROBIAL FERMENTATION	`	A stable continuous method for producing ethanol from anaerobic fermentation of a gaseous substrate containin	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120272942A1	&lt;/b&gt;	HUSQVARNA AB	`	WIRE SAW	`	The invention relates to a wire saw having a saw wire drive sheave ( 2) for dri	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120064984A1	&lt;/b&gt;	HM ATTRACTIONS INC	`	LINEAR MOTOR DRIVEN AMUSEMENT RIDE AND METHOD	`	A waterslide amusement ride having in a portion thereof, a linear induction motor to efficiently and effectively affe	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110306816A1	&lt;/b&gt;	GTC TECHNOLOGY US LLC	`	HEAVY HYDROCARBON REMOVAL SYSTEMS AND METHODS	`	Apparatuses and systems for removing heavy hydrocarbons from a solvent stream are disclosed herein. The apparatuses extract h	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120047080A1	&lt;/b&gt;	GREEN HALO SYSTEMS INC	`	Waste Management and Recycling Tracking System	`	An on-line waste management reporting and tracking system allows contractors to create waste management plans. Cities and other governing	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110226457A1	&lt;/b&gt;	GOLDEN DRAGON PRECISE COPPER TUBE GROUP INC	`	CONDENSATION ENHANCEMENT HEAT TRANSFER PIPE	`	A condensation enhancement heat transfer pipe includes an optical pipe section, a fin section, and a transition section connecting the optical pipe section and the fin section. The outer surface of the fin section is provided with a plurality of individual fins, each	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US1637214A	&lt;/b&gt;	GODFREY CHRIST	`	Elastic suspension wheel	`		&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120149881A1	&lt;/b&gt;	GENENTECH INC	`	APOPTOTIC ANTI-IGE ANTIBODIES	`	The present application relates to ap	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120086560A1	&lt;/b&gt;	GEN ELECTRIC	`	OUTDOOR LIGHTING SYSTEM	`	An outdoor lighting system and operating methods are prese	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120086561A1	&lt;/b&gt;	GEN ELECTRIC	`	OUTDOOR LIGHTING SYSTEM	`	An outdoor lighting system and operating methods are presented in 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110053486A1	&lt;/b&gt;	G CON LLC	`	MODULAR, SELF-CONTAINED, MOBILE CLEAN ROOM	`	Biosafety units, methods of making, and sealing the same are disclosed herein. The units comprise at least one controlled air, sealable, sterilizable cleanroom; and a mechanical system r	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US6210347B1	&lt;/b&gt;	FORSELL PETER	`	Remote control food intake restriction device	`	A food intake restriction device for forming a stoma opening in the stomach or esophagus of a patient, comprises 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120073347A1	&lt;/b&gt;	FORD GLOBAL TECH LLC	`	System And Method For Manufacturing An F-Temper 7xxx Series Aluminum Alloy	`	A system and a method of processing an F-temper alumi	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US2632464A	&lt;/b&gt;	FMC CORP	`	Float valve	`		&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110022172A1	&lt;/b&gt;	ENTRIGUE SURGICAL INC	`	Disposable Medical Device for Engaging with Reusable Medical Instrument and Methods of Use	`	A disposable medical	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110015734A1	&lt;/b&gt;	ENTRIGUE SURGICAL INC	`	Methods for Providing Therapy to an Anatomical Structure	`	Methods for providing therapy to an anatom	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120111940A1	&lt;/b&gt;	DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS CORP	`	BALLOT IMAGE PROCESSING SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR VOTING MACHINES	`	A ballot processing system and method processes paper ballots, such as by optically scanning or opticall	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110297311A1	&lt;/b&gt;	DERPROSA FILM S L	`	FILM FOR THE LAMINATION OF GRAPHIC MEDIA AND PRODUCTION METHOD THEREOF	`	The invention relates to a film for the lamination of graphic media, comprising an extruded p	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20100269311A1	&lt;/b&gt;	DELSEY SOC	`	SAFETY DEVICE FOR A PIECE OF LUGGAGE COMPRISING A FIRST OUTSIDE ZIPPER AND A SECOND INSIDE ZIPPER	`	A safety device for a piece of luggage includes a first outside zipper ( 1) and a second insi	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110203435A1	&lt;/b&gt;	CONTAINER GRAPHICS CORP	`	Rotary Cutting Die Apparatus for Cutting Corrugated Board Including Retainers for Maintaining Trim Strippers Closely Adjacent Trim Cutting Blades	`	A rotary cutting die assembly is provided that includes a die cylinder, an anvil, and a die board mounted to the d	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120114814A1	&lt;/b&gt;	COCA COLA CO	`	METHOD OF BEVERAGE PRODUCTION, APPARATUS AND SYSTEM	`	There is provided a method of regulating the formulation of a multi-component beverage comprising a beverage attribute profile, the method comprising providing a first and second comp	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120116566A1	&lt;/b&gt;	COCA COLA CO	`	METHOD OF PRODUCTION, APPARATUS AND SYSTEM	`	There is provided a method of regulating the formulation of a multi-component product comprising a product attribute profile, the method comprising providing a first and second compo	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US7308244B2	&lt;/b&gt;	CAMBRIDGE SILICON RADIO LTD	`	Low voltage mixer	`	A mixer comprising a pair of low frequency mixer inputs, a pair of high frequency mixer inputs, a pair of mixer outputs, four switching units, each switching unit comprising a low frequency switching unit input, a high frequency switching unit input, a switching unit output	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20050272398A1	&lt;/b&gt;	CAMBRIDGE SILICON RADIO LTD	`	Low voltage mixer	`	A mixer comprising a pair of low frequency mixer inputs, a pair of high frequency mixer inputs, a pair of mixer outputs, four switching units, each switching unit comprising a low frequency switching unit input, a high frequency 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US1087482A	&lt;/b&gt;	BRUEHL PAUL | SEHMISCH OTTO	`	DOUBLE-ACTING ANTIFRICTIONAL THRUST-BEARING.	`		&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110099689A1	&lt;/b&gt;	ATG CEYLON PRIVATE LTD	`	PROTECTIVE GARMENTS AND MATERIALS THEREFOR	`	A method of making a garment material, comprising: providing a substrate f	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120070339A1	&lt;/b&gt;	AQUIONICS INC	`	ULTRAVIOLET DISINFECTION OF OIL FIELD PROCESS WATER	`	Methods and systems for inactivating  Desulfovibrio desulfuricans in a fracturing fluid are disclosed. The methods include exposing the fracturing fluid to a dose of 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120016678A1	&lt;/b&gt;	APPLE INC	`	Intelligent Automated Assistant	`	An intelligent automated assistant system engages with the user in an integrated, conversational manner using nat	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120094688A1	&lt;/b&gt;	ANDREW LLC	`	System and Method for Network Timing Recovery in Communications Networks	`	A system and method is disclosed for determining the network timing of a communications network from one or more mobile stations that receive signals from a 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120129944A1	&lt;/b&gt;	ALK AG	`	STABILIZED COMPOSITION COMPRISING AT LEAST ONE ADRENERGIC COMPOUND	`	A stabilised composition comprising a	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120004528A1	&lt;/b&gt;	ALCON RES LTD	`	Implantable Remote Monitoring Sensor	`	An exemplary implantable sensor includes a housing that generally conforms to a curvature 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120246273A1	&lt;/b&gt;	AKAMAI TECH INC	`	Optimal route selection in a content delivery network	`	A routing mechanism operable in a distributed networking environment, such as a content delivery network (CDN), provides improved connectivity back	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120150993A1	&lt;/b&gt;	AKAMAI TECH INC	`	ASSISTED DELIVERY OF CONTENT ADAPTED FOR A REQUESTING CLIENT	`	Disclosed herein are methods and apparatus facilitating delivery of web content that has adapted for particular client devices, such as mobile devices. Doing so may involve assistin	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120123701A1	&lt;/b&gt;	ADVANCED MECHANICAL TECH	`	FORCE PLATFORM SYSTEM	`	A method of processing force signals from plural force platforms includes, in a computer, in an initialization process, receiving data distinguishing the plural platforms, monitoring force data signals fro	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20100244563A1	&lt;/b&gt;	ACLARA POWER LINE SYSTEMS INC	`	UNDER FREQUENCY/UNDER VOLTAGE DETECTION IN A DEMAND RESPONSE UNIT	`	A demand response unit (DRU) interposed between a utility's electrical power line (PL) and at least one load (L 1-Ln) to which power is supplied by the utility over the line. A detector (Fdet or Vdet) measures a characteristic (frequency F	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120279192A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	RIDING MOWER WITH A SUSPENSION COMPONENT COUPLED TO A PLURALITY OF USER SUPPORT COMPONENTS AND METHODS OF MAKING AND USING THEREOF	`	In some embodiments, systems and methods provided herein relate to a riding mower including a p	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120267942A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	VEHICLE WHEEL BALANCE WEIGHTS	`	A vehicle wheel weight for attachment to a wheel rim comprises a mass portion formed of nonlead 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120263955A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	RESIN COMPOSITION AND USES OF THE SAME	`	A resin composition is provided. The resin composition comprises an epoxy resin and a hardener, wherei	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120246215A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	IDENTYING USERS OF REMOTE SESSIONS	`	Systems and methods of identifying users of remote sessions are disclosed. In an 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120223477A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	DIE FOR USE IN GAME PLAY	`	A die having at least two variable qualities that convey information for use in game p	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120221495A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	DIGITAL WEIGHT LOSS AID	`	A health management system provides instantaneous feedback as to the relationship of food items and exercise to one's fitn	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120196516A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	ABRASIVE WATER JET PROCESSING MACHINE	`	An abrasive water jet processing machine for jetting a fluid and performing a cutting includes a fluid supply device, an abrasive supply device, an injection pressure control	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120192937A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	THIN FILM STRUCTURE FOR PHOTOVOLTAIC APPLICATIONS	`	A thin film structure for photovoltaic applications includes a biaxially textured metal substrate; a seed lay	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120212879A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	HIGH ENERGY HYBRID SUPERCAPACITORS USING LITHIUM METAL POWDERS	`	A hybrid supercapacitor comprises a negative electrode made of lithium-absorbing material, a po	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120152354A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	SILICON-BASED SOLAR CELL WITH EUTECTIC COMPOSITION	`	Growth and characterization of low cost, and high efficiency micro- and nanostructured p-n heterojunction 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120179394A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	Metal Detector	`	The present invention provides apparatus for scanning a product to detect metal in that product. The apparatus comprises a drive coil ( 4), for generating an electrom	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120165435A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	ADDITIVES FOR CURABLE LIQUID COMPOSITIONS	`	Transition metal complex siccatives are provided. Aspects of the siccatives	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120136617A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	PAVING-RELATED MEASURING DEVICE INCORPORATING A COMPUTER DEVICE AND COMMUNICATION ELEMENT THEREBETWEEN AND ASSOCIATED METHOD	`	A system for determining a property of a paving-related material is provided. Such a system comprises a measuring device for selectively and directly measuring the property. A computer device is cap	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120150033A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	ANTIMICROBIAL ULTRASOUND TRANSMISSION GEL	`	An antimicrobial ultrasound transmitting gel has an ultrasoun	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120125712A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	Support Membrane for Floors, Ceilings or Residential Walls	`	A support membrane designed to be arranged with a covering that can be applied to bearing areas such as floors or even under and on concrete screeds for a floor is provided. Said membrane can also be used in the composition of c	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120098713A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	SYSTEM FOR TESTING MULTI-ANTENNA DEVICES USING BIDIRECTIONAL FADED CHANNELS	`	A test system for testing multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO) systems is provided. The test system may convey radio-frequency (RF) signals bidirectionally between a base station em	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120100813A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	SYSTEM FOR TESTING MULTI-ANTENNA DEVICES USING BIDIRECTIONAL FADED CHANNELS	`	A test system for testing multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO) systems is provided. The test system may convey radio-frequency (RF) signals bidirectionally between a device under test (DUT) and	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120086534A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	CHOKE HAVING A CORE WITH A PILLAR HAVING A NON-CIRCULAR AND NON-RECTANGULAR CROSS SECTION	`	A choke includes a single-piece core entirely made of a same material, the single-piece core having two boards and a pillar located between the tw	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120073182A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	MULTI ARM FISHING RIG WITH FLEXIBLE ARMS	`	A multi-arm fishing rig with flexible arms has been developed. The fishing rig 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120076133A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	System for Interconnecting Standard Telephony Communications Equipment to Internet	`	Apparatus include a communication predelivery receiver, configured to communicate with and relay both IP addressed overhead and IP addressed payload data from an originating communication device. The communic	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120061153A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	POWER VEHICLE WITH ADJUSTABLE VELOCITY PROFILES	`	Embodiments of the present invention relate to powered vehicles (e.g., lawn mowers) and, more particularly, to a control system for use with such a vehicle	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120024580A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	EPOXY RESIN COMPOSITION, AND PREPREG AND PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD USING THE SAME	`	Disclosed is an epoxy resin composition for printed circuit board, which includes 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120037286A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	PROTECTIVE BIKE COVER	`	A bicycle cover and methods of using the same are disclosed. The body of the bicycle cover is two walls made of thin and flexible transparent, weather 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110278853A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	METHODS, SYSTEMS AND APPARATUS FOR REGULATING FREQUENCY OF GENERATED POWER USING FLYWHEEL ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS WITH VARYING LOAD AND/OR POWER GENERATION	`	Featured are methods for regulating the AC frequency of the electrical power to be supplied on an 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110236638A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Parts Made With Untreated Embossed Surfacing Veils With No Whitening Agents	`	Untreated, embossed surfacing veils with no whitening additives can be used in a fiber-reinforced process to make	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110214246A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	Aeroacoustic Duster	`	The aero-acoustic duster invention disclosed herein provides for high particle removal rate from surfaces with low energy expenditure relative to competing vac	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110171753A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	MODIFIED ANTI-HEPARIN/PF4 COMPLEX ANTIBODY AND HIT ANTIBODY STANDARD	`	Provided is a modified antibody which enables the quantitative measurement of the amount of a heparin/PF	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110127364A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	MOBILE CREEL	`	A mobile creel for organizing yarn packages and directing yarn is disclosed. In on	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110125533A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	Remote Scribe-Assisted Health Care Record Management System and Method of Use of Same	`	The invention disclosed herein describes a health care records management system and method of use that utilizes a scribe located in a remote	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110086912A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	Derivatives of Propane Diyl Dicinnamate	`	The present invention provides a method for treating a cancer in a subject involving administering to the subject a compoun	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20100308984A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	VISUAL INDICATOR ADAPTOR AND ASSEMBLY FOR A TRACTOR TRAILER	`	A visual indicator assembly and adaptor for a trailer includes a control circuit electrica	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20080188725A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	OPTICAL SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR RATIOMETRIC MEASUREMENT OF BLOOD GLUCOSE CONCENTRATION	`	Novel optical devices, methods and systems relating to the detect	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20080221391A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	DIRECT DRIVE INSTRUMENTS AND METHODS OF USE	`	Disclosed herein are various instruments, systems, and methods of use. The instruments can have v	&lt;/p&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3259" RevisionGUID="4b199faa-90a0-4432-93e6-30f97a264c66" CreationDate="2013-02-01T01:20:28.803" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 2110 characters in body" Text="Denis Crouch put together a nice list of the 111 pending applications for which the USPTO had received 3rd party submissions as of Dec, 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was curious as to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The subject of the pending applications which had stimulated 3rd party submission to the USPTO; and&#xD;&#xA; 2. The assignee of these applications&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The top three applicants were Lockheed Martin (5 applications), Valens Semiconductor (5 applications) and Ineos Bio (5 applications).  Very few if any of the applications were related to software.  **Soliciting, organizing and submitting third party prior art in software specifically is a place where StackOverflow can help a lot, I think.**  The market doesn't seem to be doing this on its own yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the list of pending applications, the assignees, the titles and the abstracts. (Abstracts truncated to fit StackExchange).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120058247A1	&lt;/b&gt;	ZHEJIANG GREEN WORLD BIO TECH ENGINEERING CO LTD | EPC BEIJING NATURAL PRODUCTS INC	`	REBAUDIOSIDE A AND STEVIOSIDE COMPOSITIONS	`	The invention describes  stevia composi	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120081108A1	&lt;/b&gt;	WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP	`	NONDESTRUCTIVE INSPECTION METHOD FOR A HEAT EXCHANGER EMPLOYING ADAPTIVE NOISE THRESHOLDING	`	A method of eddy current testing for flaws in a tube is provided that includes passing an eddy current probe through the tube and obtaining eddy current data for a	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120117293A1	&lt;/b&gt;	VALENS SEMICONDUCTOR LTD	`	USB host adaptor for initiating a USB connection over a non-USB network	`	Initiating, by USB host adaptors, USB connections over a non-USB network, including the steps of: Connecting non-collocated USB h	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120117292A1	&lt;/b&gt;	VALENS SEMICONDUCTOR LTD	`	Method and system for initiating distinct USB connections over a network	`	Connecting USB devices with USB hosts over distinct network paths, including the following steps: Connecting USB hosts wi	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120117278A1	&lt;/b&gt;	VALENS SEMICONDUCTOR LTD	`	Method and system for partial USB enumeration and edge initiation	`	Initiating USB-over-network connections based on partial USB enumeration, including the steps of: Discovering U	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120117277A1	&lt;/b&gt;	VALENS SEMICONDUCTOR LTD	`	Method and system for USB addressing by a network adaptor	`	Addressing, by USB host adaptors, packets conveying USB data over a non-USB network, including the steps of: Connecting USB hosts	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120117276A1	&lt;/b&gt;	VALENS SEMICONDUCTOR LTD	`	USB device adaptor for initiating a USB connection over a non-USB network	`	Initiating, by USB device adaptors, USB connections over a non-USB network, including the steps of: Connecting non-collocated USB	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120068157A1	&lt;/b&gt;	US GOV SEC NAVY	`	Transistor Having Graphene Base	`	A transistor device having a graphene base for the transport of electrons into a collector is provided. The transistor consists of a heterostructure comprising an electron e	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110212467A1	&lt;/b&gt;	UNIV SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA	`	INHIBITORS OF dUTPase	`	Evidence demonstrating that elevated expression of dUTPase protects breast cancer cells from the expansion of the intracellular 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120107247A1	&lt;/b&gt;	UNIV NEW JERSEY MED	`	Proteins Expressed by Mycobacterium Tuberculosis and not by BCG and their Use as Diagnostic Reagents and Vaccines	`	The present invention is directed to reage	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120158354A1	&lt;/b&gt;	TROXLER ELECTRONIC LAB INC	`	METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS FOR LOCATING AND TRACKING OBJECTS	`	A system for locating and tracking an object is provided. The system includes a measuring device configured to det	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20080298695A1	&lt;/b&gt;	TOSHIBA KK	`	MOTION VECTOR DETECTING APPARATUS, MOTION VECTOR DETECTING METHOD AND INTERPOLATION FRAME CREATING APPARATUS	`	According to one embodiment, a motion vector detecting apparatus performs block matching of	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120021913A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC	`	TURF SAFE GRANULAR HERBICIDE FORMULATIONS	`	The present invention relates to	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120214386A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SUGINO MACHINED LTD	`	ABRASIVE WATER JET PROCESSING MACHINE	`	An abrasive water jet processing machine for jetting a fluid and performing a cutting includes a fluid supply device, an abrasive supply device, an injection pressure control	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120195640A1	&lt;/b&gt;	STATIC CONTROL COMPONENTS INC	`	Systems &amp; Methods for Remanufacturing Imaging Components	`	A drive gear for a generally cylindrical imaging component. T	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120214125A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SS WHITE BURS INC	`	ENDODONTIC BURS, KITS, AND METHODS FOR USING ENDODONTIC BURS	`	A conical dental bur for endodontic procedures, including exploration, deep troughing, enlargement of orifices, and canal navigation is pres	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120239808A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SIPCO LLC	`	SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CONTROLLING COMMUNICATION BETWEEN A HOST COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATION DEVICES	`	An exemplary embodiment of the present invention provides a site controller for use in a 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120111396A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SIONYX INC	`	Photovoltaic Devices and Associated Methods	`	A method for making a semiconductor device includes providing a s	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110165231A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SCIOTEC DIAGNOSTIC TECHNOLOGIES GMBH	`	Treatment of Fructose Malabsorption	`	The present invention relates to	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20080254475A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SANOFI AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND	`	NEMATODES AS MODEL ORGANISMS FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASES, IN PARTICULAR PARKINSONS DISEASE, USES AND METHODS FOR THE DISCOVERY OF SUBSTANCES AND GENES WHICH CAN USED IN THE TREATMENT OF THE ABOVE DISEASE STATES AND IDENTIFICATION OF A NEMATODE GENE	`	The invention relates to nematodes as model organisms for the investigation of neurodegenerative diseases, in particular, Parkinsons disease, uses and meth	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120129227A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SANDIA CORP | UNIV CALIFORNIA	`	THERMOSTABLE CELLULASES, AND MUTANTS THEREOF, CAPABLE OF HYDROLYZING CELLULOSE IN IONIC LIQUID	`	The present invention provides for a composition comprising an ionic liquid and a thermostable cell	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110088987A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SAMSONITE IP HOLDINGS S A R L	`	LUGGAGE PANEL WITH INTEGRATED CARRY HANDLE FOR SOFT-SIDE TYPE LUGGAGE CASES	`	Luggage cases of the soft-side construction are perceived to be lighter than hard-side cases. However, many rigidifying elements in s	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120121915A2	&lt;/b&gt;	SAINT GOBAIN	`	PROCESS FOR OBTAINING GLASS AND GLASS OBTAINED	`	The object of the invention is a continuous method for obtaining glass, comprising steps consisting of charging raw materials upstream of a furnace, along which a p	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110281078A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SAINT GOBAIN	`	TRANSPARENT GLASS SUBSTRATE AND PROCESS FOR MANUFACTURING SUCH A SUBSTRATE	`	This transparent glass substrate has at least one face which is provided with a texturing formed by a plurality of geometric features in relief relative to a g	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110135938A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SAINT GOBAIN	`	PROCESS FOR OBTAINING GLASS AND GLASS OBTAINED	`	&quot;The object of the invention is a continuous method for obtaining glass, comprising steps consisting of charging raw materials upstream of a furnace, along wh&quot;	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110250338A1	&lt;/b&gt;	PEPSICO INC	`	Adsorption Purification Of Caramel	`	A process of purifying a caramel color solution comprisi	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120165885A1	&lt;/b&gt;	PACESETTER INC	`	CAPACITOR-INTEGRATED FEEDTHROUGH ASSEMBLY WITH IMPROVED GROUNDING FOR AN IMPLANTABLE MEDICAL DEVICE	`	A feedthrough assembly for use with implantable medical devices having a shield structure, the feedthrough assembly engaging with the remainder of the associa	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120041232A1	&lt;/b&gt;	OPX BIOTECHNOLOGIES INC	`	COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR 3-HYDROXYPROPIONATE BIO-PRODUCTION FROM BIOMASS	`	Methods of obtaining mutant nucleic acid sequences that d	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120105740A1	&lt;/b&gt;	OAKLEY INC	`	EYEWEAR WITH DETACHABLE ADJUSTABLE ELECTRONICS MODULE	`	A detachable adjustable electronics module may be removably or permanently connected to eyewear. The module may include electroni	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120168665A1	&lt;/b&gt;	NICHIAS CORP	`	Biosoluble inorganic fiber	`	An inorganic fiber having the following composition: 71 wt % to 80 wt % of SiO 2, 18 wt % to	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120227113A1	&lt;/b&gt;	NANT HOLDINGS IP LLC	`	REMOTE DATA VIEWER	`	A medical image and data application service provider system provides a way of remotely viewing and manipulating medical images and d	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120253494A1	&lt;/b&gt;	N2IT HOLDING B V	`	System and Method for Controlling a Digital Audio Source	`	An apparatus for signal processing, wherein a disc is p	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110017305A1	&lt;/b&gt;	MOGAS IND INC	`	Tubular Member with Thermal Sleeve Liner	`	A tubular fluid flow device of varying outside dimensions adapted for use in a high pressure, rapidly cycling temperature environment, an isolation ball valve, a ball 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120012632A1	&lt;/b&gt;	MITSUBOSHI DIAMOND IND CO LTD	`	CUTTER AND METHOD FOR CUTTING BRITTLE MATERIAL SUBSTRATE USING SAME	`	A cutter with which a diagonal crack can be created without fail deeply within a brittle material substrate is provided. The cutter has s	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120204604A1	&lt;/b&gt;	MIDAS SAFETY INC	`	KNITTED GLOVE	`	A double layer knitted glove is disclosed, the glove comprising a first yarn and a second yarn, the knitted glove comprising at least eight glove components, the components includin	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120226498A1	&lt;/b&gt;	MICROSOFT CORP	`	MOTION-BASED VOICE ACTIVITY DETECTION	`	Motion-based voice activity detection may be provided. A data stream may be received and a determi	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120131514A1	&lt;/b&gt;	MICROSOFT CORP	`	Gesture Recognition	`	Gesture recognition is described. In one example, gestures performed by a user of an input device having a touch-sensitive portion are detected using a definition of a number of regions cor	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120081389A1	&lt;/b&gt;	LUCIDCHART LLC	`	MANIPULATING GRAPHICAL OBJECTS	`	In one example, a method for rendering graphical objects on a display includes rendering each of a plurality of graphical objects within respective layers. 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120099395A1	&lt;/b&gt;	LOCKHEED CORP	`	DETECTING STRUCTURAL CHANGES TO UNDERWATER STRUCTURES	`	A method and system that can be used for scanning underwater structures. The method and system allow a user to gain a better understanding of an underwater structure. For 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120099402A1	&lt;/b&gt;	LOCKHEED CORP	`	BUILDING A THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODEL OF AN UNDERWATER STRUCTURE	`	A method and system are described that can be used for scanning underwater structures. The method and system allow a user to gain a better understand	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120101715A1	&lt;/b&gt;	LOCKHEED CORP	`	ESTIMATING POSITION AND ORIENTATION OF AN UNDERWATER VEHICLE BASED ON CORRELATED SENSOR DATA	`	A method and system are described that can be used for combining two sources of position and orientation (pose) information where the information from one source is correlated with t	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120099400A1	&lt;/b&gt;	LOCKHEED CORP	`	ESTIMATING POSITION AND ORIENTATION OF AN UNDERWATER VEHICLE RELATIVE TO UNDERWATER STRUCTURES	`	A method and system that can be used for scanning underwater structures. For example, the method and system estimate a position and ori	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120099399A1	&lt;/b&gt;	LOCKHEED CORP	`	SONAR DATA COLLECTION SYSTEM	`	A system that can be used for inspecting underwater structures. The system allows a user to gain a better understanding of the condition of an underwater structure. The system is a self-	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110261020A1	&lt;/b&gt;	LG DISPLAY CO LTD | LG ELECTRONICS INC	`	TOUCH PANEL, METHOD FOR DRIVING TOUCH PANEL, AND DISPLAY APPARATUS HAVING TOUCH PANEL	`	A touch panel includes: a substrate; a plural	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120152827A1	&lt;/b&gt;	KRISTAR ENTPR INC	`	Bioretention System with Internal High Flow Bypass	`	The invention provides a bioretention system comprising one or more cham	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110221151A1	&lt;/b&gt;	KOBE STEEL LTD	`	AUTOMOBILE SUSPENSION PART AND MANUFACTURING OF THE SAME	`	A lightweight automobile suspension part having high strength is an aluminum alloy automobile	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110186478A1	&lt;/b&gt;	JX NIPPON OIL &amp; ENERGY CORP	`	PROCESS FOR PRODUCING NEEDLE COKE FOR GRAPHITE ELECTRODE AND STOCK OIL COMPOSITION FOR USE IN THE PROCESS	`	The invention provides a stock oil composition for needle coke for a graphite electrode, the stock oil composition having a 10	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120210638A1	&lt;/b&gt;	INTERNAT GROWER S SUPPLY INC	`	INDOOR GREENHOUSE	`	Described herein is an indoor greenhouse that includes a rack unit, an outer layer that surrounds the rack unit and defines a greenhouse interior, at least one light surrounded by a l	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120094349A1	&lt;/b&gt;	INEOS BIO LTD	`	Methods for Increasing the Production of Ethanol from Microbial Fermentation	`	A stable continuous method for producing ethanol from the anaerobic bacterial fermentation of a gaseous substrate containing at least one reducing gas involves culturing in a f	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120094346A1	&lt;/b&gt;	INEOS BIO LTD	`	METHODS FOR INCREASING THE PRODUCTION OF ETHANOL FROM MICROBIAL FERMENTATION	`	A stable continuous method for producing ethanol from the anaerobic bacterial fermentation of a gaseous substrate containing at least one reducing gas involves culturing in a f	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120088284A1	&lt;/b&gt;	INEOS BIO LTD	`	METHODS FOR INCREASING THE PRODUCTION OF ETHANOL FROM MICROBIAL FERMENTATION	`	A stable continuous method for producing ethanol from anaerobic fermentation of a gaseous substrate containin	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120088283A1	&lt;/b&gt;	INEOS BIO LTD	`	METHODS FOR INCREASING THE PRODUCTION OF ETHANOL FROM MICROBIAL FERMENTATION	`	A stable continuous method for producing ethanol from anaerobic fermentation of a gaseous substrate containin	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120088282A1	&lt;/b&gt;	INEOS BIO LTD	`	METHODS FOR INCREASING THE PRODUCTION OF ETHANOL FROM MICROBIAL FERMENTATION	`	A stable continuous method for producing ethanol from anaerobic fermentation of a gaseous substrate containin	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120272942A1	&lt;/b&gt;	HUSQVARNA AB	`	WIRE SAW	`	The invention relates to a wire saw having a saw wire drive sheave ( 2) for dri	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120064984A1	&lt;/b&gt;	HM ATTRACTIONS INC	`	LINEAR MOTOR DRIVEN AMUSEMENT RIDE AND METHOD	`	A waterslide amusement ride having in a portion thereof, a linear induction motor to efficiently and effectively affe	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110306816A1	&lt;/b&gt;	GTC TECHNOLOGY US LLC	`	HEAVY HYDROCARBON REMOVAL SYSTEMS AND METHODS	`	Apparatuses and systems for removing heavy hydrocarbons from a solvent stream are disclosed herein. The apparatuses extract h	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120047080A1	&lt;/b&gt;	GREEN HALO SYSTEMS INC	`	Waste Management and Recycling Tracking System	`	An on-line waste management reporting and tracking system allows contractors to create waste management plans. Cities and other governing	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110226457A1	&lt;/b&gt;	GOLDEN DRAGON PRECISE COPPER TUBE GROUP INC	`	CONDENSATION ENHANCEMENT HEAT TRANSFER PIPE	`	A condensation enhancement heat transfer pipe includes an optical pipe section, a fin section, and a transition section connecting the optical pipe section and the fin section. The outer surface of the fin section is provided with a plurality of individual fins, each	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US1637214A	&lt;/b&gt;	GODFREY CHRIST	`	Elastic suspension wheel	`		&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120149881A1	&lt;/b&gt;	GENENTECH INC	`	APOPTOTIC ANTI-IGE ANTIBODIES	`	The present application relates to ap	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120086560A1	&lt;/b&gt;	GEN ELECTRIC	`	OUTDOOR LIGHTING SYSTEM	`	An outdoor lighting system and operating methods are prese	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120086561A1	&lt;/b&gt;	GEN ELECTRIC	`	OUTDOOR LIGHTING SYSTEM	`	An outdoor lighting system and operating methods are presented in 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110053486A1	&lt;/b&gt;	G CON LLC	`	MODULAR, SELF-CONTAINED, MOBILE CLEAN ROOM	`	Biosafety units, methods of making, and sealing the same are disclosed herein. The units comprise at least one controlled air, sealable, sterilizable cleanroom; and a mechanical system r	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120073347A1	&lt;/b&gt;	FORD GLOBAL TECH LLC	`	System And Method For Manufacturing An F-Temper 7xxx Series Aluminum Alloy	`	A system and a method of processing an F-temper alumi	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110022172A1	&lt;/b&gt;	ENTRIGUE SURGICAL INC	`	Disposable Medical Device for Engaging with Reusable Medical Instrument and Methods of Use	`	A disposable medical	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110015734A1	&lt;/b&gt;	ENTRIGUE SURGICAL INC	`	Methods for Providing Therapy to an Anatomical Structure	`	Methods for providing therapy to an anatom	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120111940A1	&lt;/b&gt;	DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS CORP	`	BALLOT IMAGE PROCESSING SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR VOTING MACHINES	`	A ballot processing system and method processes paper ballots, such as by optically scanning or opticall	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110297311A1	&lt;/b&gt;	DERPROSA FILM S L	`	FILM FOR THE LAMINATION OF GRAPHIC MEDIA AND PRODUCTION METHOD THEREOF	`	The invention relates to a film for the lamination of graphic media, comprising an extruded p	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20100269311A1	&lt;/b&gt;	DELSEY SOC	`	SAFETY DEVICE FOR A PIECE OF LUGGAGE COMPRISING A FIRST OUTSIDE ZIPPER AND A SECOND INSIDE ZIPPER	`	A safety device for a piece of luggage includes a first outside zipper ( 1) and a second insi	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110203435A1	&lt;/b&gt;	CONTAINER GRAPHICS CORP	`	Rotary Cutting Die Apparatus for Cutting Corrugated Board Including Retainers for Maintaining Trim Strippers Closely Adjacent Trim Cutting Blades	`	A rotary cutting die assembly is provided that includes a die cylinder, an anvil, and a die board mounted to the d	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120114814A1	&lt;/b&gt;	COCA COLA CO	`	METHOD OF BEVERAGE PRODUCTION, APPARATUS AND SYSTEM	`	There is provided a method of regulating the formulation of a multi-component beverage comprising a beverage attribute profile, the method comprising providing a first and second comp	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120116566A1	&lt;/b&gt;	COCA COLA CO	`	METHOD OF PRODUCTION, APPARATUS AND SYSTEM	`	There is provided a method of regulating the formulation of a multi-component product comprising a product attribute profile, the method comprising providing a first and second compo	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20050272398A1	&lt;/b&gt;	CAMBRIDGE SILICON RADIO LTD	`	Low voltage mixer	`	A mixer comprising a pair of low frequency mixer inputs, a pair of high frequency mixer inputs, a pair of mixer outputs, four switching units, each switching unit comprising a low frequency switching unit input, a high frequency switching unit input, a switching unit output	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110099689A1	&lt;/b&gt;	ATG CEYLON PRIVATE LTD	`	PROTECTIVE GARMENTS AND MATERIALS THEREFOR	`	A method of making a garment material, comprising: providing a substrate f	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120070339A1	&lt;/b&gt;	AQUIONICS INC	`	ULTRAVIOLET DISINFECTION OF OIL FIELD PROCESS WATER	`	Methods and systems for inactivating  Desulfovibrio desulfuricans in a fracturing fluid are disclosed. The methods include exposing the fracturing fluid to a dose of 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120016678A1	&lt;/b&gt;	APPLE INC	`	Intelligent Automated Assistant	`	An intelligent automated assistant system engages with the user in an integrated, conversational manner using nat	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120094688A1	&lt;/b&gt;	ANDREW LLC	`	System and Method for Network Timing Recovery in Communications Networks	`	A system and method is disclosed for determining the network timing of a communications network from one or more mobile stations that receive signals from a 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120129944A1	&lt;/b&gt;	ALK AG	`	STABILIZED COMPOSITION COMPRISING AT LEAST ONE ADRENERGIC COMPOUND	`	A stabilised composition comprising a	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120004528A1	&lt;/b&gt;	ALCON RES LTD	`	Implantable Remote Monitoring Sensor	`	An exemplary implantable sensor includes a housing that generally conforms to a curvature 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120246273A1	&lt;/b&gt;	AKAMAI TECH INC	`	Optimal route selection in a content delivery network	`	A routing mechanism operable in a distributed networking environment, such as a content delivery network (CDN), provides improved connectivity back	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120150993A1	&lt;/b&gt;	AKAMAI TECH INC	`	ASSISTED DELIVERY OF CONTENT ADAPTED FOR A REQUESTING CLIENT	`	Disclosed herein are methods and apparatus facilitating delivery of web content that has adapted for particular client devices, such as mobile devices. Doing so may involve assistin	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120123701A1	&lt;/b&gt;	ADVANCED MECHANICAL TECH	`	FORCE PLATFORM SYSTEM	`	A method of processing force signals from plural force platforms includes, in a computer, in an initialization process, receiving data distinguishing the plural platforms, monitoring force data signals fro	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20100244563A1	&lt;/b&gt;	ACLARA POWER LINE SYSTEMS INC	`	UNDER FREQUENCY/UNDER VOLTAGE DETECTION IN A DEMAND RESPONSE UNIT	`	A demand response unit (DRU) interposed between a utility's electrical power line (PL) and at least one load (L 1-Ln) to which power is supplied by the utility over the line. A detector (Fdet or Vdet) measures a characteristic (frequency F	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120279192A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	RIDING MOWER WITH A SUSPENSION COMPONENT COUPLED TO A PLURALITY OF USER SUPPORT COMPONENTS AND METHODS OF MAKING AND USING THEREOF	`	In some embodiments, systems and methods provided herein relate to a riding mower including a p	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120267942A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	VEHICLE WHEEL BALANCE WEIGHTS	`	A vehicle wheel weight for attachment to a wheel rim comprises a mass portion formed of nonlead 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120263955A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	RESIN COMPOSITION AND USES OF THE SAME	`	A resin composition is provided. The resin composition comprises an epoxy resin and a hardener, wherei	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120246215A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	IDENTYING USERS OF REMOTE SESSIONS	`	Systems and methods of identifying users of remote sessions are disclosed. In an 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120223477A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	DIE FOR USE IN GAME PLAY	`	A die having at least two variable qualities that convey information for use in game p	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120221495A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	DIGITAL WEIGHT LOSS AID	`	A health management system provides instantaneous feedback as to the relationship of food items and exercise to one's fitn	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120196516A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	ABRASIVE WATER JET PROCESSING MACHINE	`	An abrasive water jet processing machine for jetting a fluid and performing a cutting includes a fluid supply device, an abrasive supply device, an injection pressure control	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120192937A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	THIN FILM STRUCTURE FOR PHOTOVOLTAIC APPLICATIONS	`	A thin film structure for photovoltaic applications includes a biaxially textured metal substrate; a seed lay	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120212879A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	HIGH ENERGY HYBRID SUPERCAPACITORS USING LITHIUM METAL POWDERS	`	A hybrid supercapacitor comprises a negative electrode made of lithium-absorbing material, a po	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120152354A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	SILICON-BASED SOLAR CELL WITH EUTECTIC COMPOSITION	`	Growth and characterization of low cost, and high efficiency micro- and nanostructured p-n heterojunction 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120179394A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	Metal Detector	`	The present invention provides apparatus for scanning a product to detect metal in that product. The apparatus comprises a drive coil ( 4), for generating an electrom	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120165435A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	ADDITIVES FOR CURABLE LIQUID COMPOSITIONS	`	Transition metal complex siccatives are provided. Aspects of the siccatives	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120136617A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	PAVING-RELATED MEASURING DEVICE INCORPORATING A COMPUTER DEVICE AND COMMUNICATION ELEMENT THEREBETWEEN AND ASSOCIATED METHOD	`	A system for determining a property of a paving-related material is provided. Such a system comprises a measuring device for selectively and directly measuring the property. A computer device is cap	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120150033A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	ANTIMICROBIAL ULTRASOUND TRANSMISSION GEL	`	An antimicrobial ultrasound transmitting gel has an ultrasoun	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120125712A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	Support Membrane for Floors, Ceilings or Residential Walls	`	A support membrane designed to be arranged with a covering that can be applied to bearing areas such as floors or even under and on concrete screeds for a floor is provided. Said membrane can also be used in the composition of c	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120098713A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	SYSTEM FOR TESTING MULTI-ANTENNA DEVICES USING BIDIRECTIONAL FADED CHANNELS	`	A test system for testing multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO) systems is provided. The test system may convey radio-frequency (RF) signals bidirectionally between a base station em	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120100813A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	SYSTEM FOR TESTING MULTI-ANTENNA DEVICES USING BIDIRECTIONAL FADED CHANNELS	`	A test system for testing multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO) systems is provided. The test system may convey radio-frequency (RF) signals bidirectionally between a device under test (DUT) and	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120086534A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	CHOKE HAVING A CORE WITH A PILLAR HAVING A NON-CIRCULAR AND NON-RECTANGULAR CROSS SECTION	`	A choke includes a single-piece core entirely made of a same material, the single-piece core having two boards and a pillar located between the tw	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120073182A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	MULTI ARM FISHING RIG WITH FLEXIBLE ARMS	`	A multi-arm fishing rig with flexible arms has been developed. The fishing rig 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120076133A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	System for Interconnecting Standard Telephony Communications Equipment to Internet	`	Apparatus include a communication predelivery receiver, configured to communicate with and relay both IP addressed overhead and IP addressed payload data from an originating communication device. The communic	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120061153A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	POWER VEHICLE WITH ADJUSTABLE VELOCITY PROFILES	`	Embodiments of the present invention relate to powered vehicles (e.g., lawn mowers) and, more particularly, to a control system for use with such a vehicle	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120024580A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	EPOXY RESIN COMPOSITION, AND PREPREG AND PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD USING THE SAME	`	Disclosed is an epoxy resin composition for printed circuit board, which includes 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120037286A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	PROTECTIVE BIKE COVER	`	A bicycle cover and methods of using the same are disclosed. The body of the bicycle cover is two walls made of thin and flexible transparent, weather 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110278853A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	METHODS, SYSTEMS AND APPARATUS FOR REGULATING FREQUENCY OF GENERATED POWER USING FLYWHEEL ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS WITH VARYING LOAD AND/OR POWER GENERATION	`	Featured are methods for regulating the AC frequency of the electrical power to be supplied on an 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110236638A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Parts Made With Untreated Embossed Surfacing Veils With No Whitening Agents	`	Untreated, embossed surfacing veils with no whitening additives can be used in a fiber-reinforced process to make	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110214246A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	Aeroacoustic Duster	`	The aero-acoustic duster invention disclosed herein provides for high particle removal rate from surfaces with low energy expenditure relative to competing vac	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110171753A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	MODIFIED ANTI-HEPARIN/PF4 COMPLEX ANTIBODY AND HIT ANTIBODY STANDARD	`	Provided is a modified antibody which enables the quantitative measurement of the amount of a heparin/PF	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110127364A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	MOBILE CREEL	`	A mobile creel for organizing yarn packages and directing yarn is disclosed. In on	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110125533A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	Remote Scribe-Assisted Health Care Record Management System and Method of Use of Same	`	The invention disclosed herein describes a health care records management system and method of use that utilizes a scribe located in a remote	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110086912A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	Derivatives of Propane Diyl Dicinnamate	`	The present invention provides a method for treating a cancer in a subject involving administering to the subject a compoun	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20100308984A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	VISUAL INDICATOR ADAPTOR AND ASSEMBLY FOR A TRACTOR TRAILER	`	A visual indicator assembly and adaptor for a trailer includes a control circuit electrica	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20080188725A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	OPTICAL SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR RATIOMETRIC MEASUREMENT OF BLOOD GLUCOSE CONCENTRATION	`	Novel optical devices, methods and systems relating to the detect	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20080221391A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	DIRECT DRIVE INSTRUMENTS AND METHODS OF USE	`	Disclosed herein are various instruments, systems, and methods of use. The instruments can have v	&lt;/p&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3260" RevisionGUID="c18b6ced-b4fe-4bda-9162-665abf58aeee" CreationDate="2013-02-01T02:15:02.570" UserId="3150" Text="I have a question about patents, for fictional use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it considered patent infringement if you use something that someone else may have patented in a fictional work? I'm curious as to how far this appliance, as I know that films/product lines like Apple get name dropped in a lot of series and, due to the real-life fiction of it, I doubt those can sue. I also remember general electric being in a sci-fi book I read once. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But on topic, I browse TED Talks a lot and often they come up with great ideas I'd often think would be good to integrate into stories I write, and am curious if taking those ideas and putting them in the future would be considered patent infringement. I'd doubt it since the fictional work isn't generating revenue off stealing or use the patented item, and simply using the fact this is possible, but would like to know if someone has seen a prior court case stating the otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6048" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3260" RevisionGUID="c18b6ced-b4fe-4bda-9162-665abf58aeee" CreationDate="2013-02-01T02:15:02.570" UserId="3150" Text="Patent questions prior art and for fictional use" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6049" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3260" RevisionGUID="c18b6ced-b4fe-4bda-9162-665abf58aeee" CreationDate="2013-02-01T02:15:02.570" UserId="3150" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;science-fiction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3261" RevisionGUID="3a674077-9662-4b33-a585-aa076456233e" CreationDate="2013-02-01T02:52:17.037" UserId="3076" Text="To directly infringe a patent one would need to make it, sell it, offer to sell it, import it, or if it is method, performing the steps of the method. [35 USC 271][1]     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Writing about it isn't any of those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3263" RevisionGUID="a87b6715-1c58-40ca-a9bd-61e3cca9cd5e" CreationDate="2013-02-01T14:58:40.313" UserId="3155" Text="We are a group of researchers in Europe, interested in filling a provisional application for a patent regarding a device that we developed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the cheapest, fastest and more effective way to do this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6056" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3263" RevisionGUID="a87b6715-1c58-40ca-a9bd-61e3cca9cd5e" CreationDate="2013-02-01T14:58:40.313" UserId="3155" Text="Which is the best way to file a provisional application in the United States?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6057" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3263" RevisionGUID="a87b6715-1c58-40ca-a9bd-61e3cca9cd5e" CreationDate="2013-02-01T14:58:40.313" UserId="3155" Text="&lt;patent-pending&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6060" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3259" RevisionGUID="e525fd2c-e552-49c3-b1bd-d996e62a0917" CreationDate="2013-02-01T17:52:04.450" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Denis Crouch put together a nice list of the 111 pending applications for which the USPTO had received 3rd party submissions as of Dec, 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was curious as to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The subject of the pending applications which had stimulated 3rd party submission to the USPTO; and&#xD;&#xA; 2. The assignee of these applications&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The top three applicants were Lockheed Martin (5 applications), Valens Semiconductor (5 applications) and Ineos Bio (5 applications).  Very few if any of the applications were related to software.  **Software is a technology area where StackOverflow can help a lot by soliciting, organizing and submitting third party prior art to the USPTO.**  The market doesn't seem to be doing this on its own yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the list of pending applications, the assignees, the titles and the abstracts. (Abstracts truncated to fit StackExchange).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120058247A1	&lt;/b&gt;	ZHEJIANG GREEN WORLD BIO TECH ENGINEERING CO LTD | EPC BEIJING NATURAL PRODUCTS INC	`	REBAUDIOSIDE A AND STEVIOSIDE COMPOSITIONS	`	The invention describes  stevia composi	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120081108A1	&lt;/b&gt;	WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP	`	NONDESTRUCTIVE INSPECTION METHOD FOR A HEAT EXCHANGER EMPLOYING ADAPTIVE NOISE THRESHOLDING	`	A method of eddy current testing for flaws in a tube is provided that includes passing an eddy current probe through the tube and obtaining eddy current data for a	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120117293A1	&lt;/b&gt;	VALENS SEMICONDUCTOR LTD	`	USB host adaptor for initiating a USB connection over a non-USB network	`	Initiating, by USB host adaptors, USB connections over a non-USB network, including the steps of: Connecting non-collocated USB h	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120117292A1	&lt;/b&gt;	VALENS SEMICONDUCTOR LTD	`	Method and system for initiating distinct USB connections over a network	`	Connecting USB devices with USB hosts over distinct network paths, including the following steps: Connecting USB hosts wi	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120117278A1	&lt;/b&gt;	VALENS SEMICONDUCTOR LTD	`	Method and system for partial USB enumeration and edge initiation	`	Initiating USB-over-network connections based on partial USB enumeration, including the steps of: Discovering U	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120117277A1	&lt;/b&gt;	VALENS SEMICONDUCTOR LTD	`	Method and system for USB addressing by a network adaptor	`	Addressing, by USB host adaptors, packets conveying USB data over a non-USB network, including the steps of: Connecting USB hosts	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120117276A1	&lt;/b&gt;	VALENS SEMICONDUCTOR LTD	`	USB device adaptor for initiating a USB connection over a non-USB network	`	Initiating, by USB device adaptors, USB connections over a non-USB network, including the steps of: Connecting non-collocated USB	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120068157A1	&lt;/b&gt;	US GOV SEC NAVY	`	Transistor Having Graphene Base	`	A transistor device having a graphene base for the transport of electrons into a collector is provided. The transistor consists of a heterostructure comprising an electron e	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110212467A1	&lt;/b&gt;	UNIV SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA	`	INHIBITORS OF dUTPase	`	Evidence demonstrating that elevated expression of dUTPase protects breast cancer cells from the expansion of the intracellular 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120107247A1	&lt;/b&gt;	UNIV NEW JERSEY MED	`	Proteins Expressed by Mycobacterium Tuberculosis and not by BCG and their Use as Diagnostic Reagents and Vaccines	`	The present invention is directed to reage	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120158354A1	&lt;/b&gt;	TROXLER ELECTRONIC LAB INC	`	METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS FOR LOCATING AND TRACKING OBJECTS	`	A system for locating and tracking an object is provided. The system includes a measuring device configured to det	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20080298695A1	&lt;/b&gt;	TOSHIBA KK	`	MOTION VECTOR DETECTING APPARATUS, MOTION VECTOR DETECTING METHOD AND INTERPOLATION FRAME CREATING APPARATUS	`	According to one embodiment, a motion vector detecting apparatus performs block matching of	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120021913A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC	`	TURF SAFE GRANULAR HERBICIDE FORMULATIONS	`	The present invention relates to	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120214386A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SUGINO MACHINED LTD	`	ABRASIVE WATER JET PROCESSING MACHINE	`	An abrasive water jet processing machine for jetting a fluid and performing a cutting includes a fluid supply device, an abrasive supply device, an injection pressure control	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120195640A1	&lt;/b&gt;	STATIC CONTROL COMPONENTS INC	`	Systems &amp; Methods for Remanufacturing Imaging Components	`	A drive gear for a generally cylindrical imaging component. T	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120214125A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SS WHITE BURS INC	`	ENDODONTIC BURS, KITS, AND METHODS FOR USING ENDODONTIC BURS	`	A conical dental bur for endodontic procedures, including exploration, deep troughing, enlargement of orifices, and canal navigation is pres	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120239808A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SIPCO LLC	`	SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CONTROLLING COMMUNICATION BETWEEN A HOST COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATION DEVICES	`	An exemplary embodiment of the present invention provides a site controller for use in a 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120111396A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SIONYX INC	`	Photovoltaic Devices and Associated Methods	`	A method for making a semiconductor device includes providing a s	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110165231A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SCIOTEC DIAGNOSTIC TECHNOLOGIES GMBH	`	Treatment of Fructose Malabsorption	`	The present invention relates to	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20080254475A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SANOFI AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND	`	NEMATODES AS MODEL ORGANISMS FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASES, IN PARTICULAR PARKINSONS DISEASE, USES AND METHODS FOR THE DISCOVERY OF SUBSTANCES AND GENES WHICH CAN USED IN THE TREATMENT OF THE ABOVE DISEASE STATES AND IDENTIFICATION OF A NEMATODE GENE	`	The invention relates to nematodes as model organisms for the investigation of neurodegenerative diseases, in particular, Parkinsons disease, uses and meth	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120129227A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SANDIA CORP | UNIV CALIFORNIA	`	THERMOSTABLE CELLULASES, AND MUTANTS THEREOF, CAPABLE OF HYDROLYZING CELLULOSE IN IONIC LIQUID	`	The present invention provides for a composition comprising an ionic liquid and a thermostable cell	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110088987A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SAMSONITE IP HOLDINGS S A R L	`	LUGGAGE PANEL WITH INTEGRATED CARRY HANDLE FOR SOFT-SIDE TYPE LUGGAGE CASES	`	Luggage cases of the soft-side construction are perceived to be lighter than hard-side cases. However, many rigidifying elements in s	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120121915A2	&lt;/b&gt;	SAINT GOBAIN	`	PROCESS FOR OBTAINING GLASS AND GLASS OBTAINED	`	The object of the invention is a continuous method for obtaining glass, comprising steps consisting of charging raw materials upstream of a furnace, along which a p	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110281078A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SAINT GOBAIN	`	TRANSPARENT GLASS SUBSTRATE AND PROCESS FOR MANUFACTURING SUCH A SUBSTRATE	`	This transparent glass substrate has at least one face which is provided with a texturing formed by a plurality of geometric features in relief relative to a g	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110135938A1	&lt;/b&gt;	SAINT GOBAIN	`	PROCESS FOR OBTAINING GLASS AND GLASS OBTAINED	`	&quot;The object of the invention is a continuous method for obtaining glass, comprising steps consisting of charging raw materials upstream of a furnace, along wh&quot;	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110250338A1	&lt;/b&gt;	PEPSICO INC	`	Adsorption Purification Of Caramel	`	A process of purifying a caramel color solution comprisi	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120165885A1	&lt;/b&gt;	PACESETTER INC	`	CAPACITOR-INTEGRATED FEEDTHROUGH ASSEMBLY WITH IMPROVED GROUNDING FOR AN IMPLANTABLE MEDICAL DEVICE	`	A feedthrough assembly for use with implantable medical devices having a shield structure, the feedthrough assembly engaging with the remainder of the associa	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120041232A1	&lt;/b&gt;	OPX BIOTECHNOLOGIES INC	`	COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR 3-HYDROXYPROPIONATE BIO-PRODUCTION FROM BIOMASS	`	Methods of obtaining mutant nucleic acid sequences that d	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120105740A1	&lt;/b&gt;	OAKLEY INC	`	EYEWEAR WITH DETACHABLE ADJUSTABLE ELECTRONICS MODULE	`	A detachable adjustable electronics module may be removably or permanently connected to eyewear. The module may include electroni	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120168665A1	&lt;/b&gt;	NICHIAS CORP	`	Biosoluble inorganic fiber	`	An inorganic fiber having the following composition: 71 wt % to 80 wt % of SiO 2, 18 wt % to	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120227113A1	&lt;/b&gt;	NANT HOLDINGS IP LLC	`	REMOTE DATA VIEWER	`	A medical image and data application service provider system provides a way of remotely viewing and manipulating medical images and d	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120253494A1	&lt;/b&gt;	N2IT HOLDING B V	`	System and Method for Controlling a Digital Audio Source	`	An apparatus for signal processing, wherein a disc is p	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110017305A1	&lt;/b&gt;	MOGAS IND INC	`	Tubular Member with Thermal Sleeve Liner	`	A tubular fluid flow device of varying outside dimensions adapted for use in a high pressure, rapidly cycling temperature environment, an isolation ball valve, a ball 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120012632A1	&lt;/b&gt;	MITSUBOSHI DIAMOND IND CO LTD	`	CUTTER AND METHOD FOR CUTTING BRITTLE MATERIAL SUBSTRATE USING SAME	`	A cutter with which a diagonal crack can be created without fail deeply within a brittle material substrate is provided. The cutter has s	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120204604A1	&lt;/b&gt;	MIDAS SAFETY INC	`	KNITTED GLOVE	`	A double layer knitted glove is disclosed, the glove comprising a first yarn and a second yarn, the knitted glove comprising at least eight glove components, the components includin	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120226498A1	&lt;/b&gt;	MICROSOFT CORP	`	MOTION-BASED VOICE ACTIVITY DETECTION	`	Motion-based voice activity detection may be provided. A data stream may be received and a determi	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120131514A1	&lt;/b&gt;	MICROSOFT CORP	`	Gesture Recognition	`	Gesture recognition is described. In one example, gestures performed by a user of an input device having a touch-sensitive portion are detected using a definition of a number of regions cor	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120081389A1	&lt;/b&gt;	LUCIDCHART LLC	`	MANIPULATING GRAPHICAL OBJECTS	`	In one example, a method for rendering graphical objects on a display includes rendering each of a plurality of graphical objects within respective layers. 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120099395A1	&lt;/b&gt;	LOCKHEED CORP	`	DETECTING STRUCTURAL CHANGES TO UNDERWATER STRUCTURES	`	A method and system that can be used for scanning underwater structures. The method and system allow a user to gain a better understanding of an underwater structure. For 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120099402A1	&lt;/b&gt;	LOCKHEED CORP	`	BUILDING A THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODEL OF AN UNDERWATER STRUCTURE	`	A method and system are described that can be used for scanning underwater structures. The method and system allow a user to gain a better understand	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120101715A1	&lt;/b&gt;	LOCKHEED CORP	`	ESTIMATING POSITION AND ORIENTATION OF AN UNDERWATER VEHICLE BASED ON CORRELATED SENSOR DATA	`	A method and system are described that can be used for combining two sources of position and orientation (pose) information where the information from one source is correlated with t	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120099400A1	&lt;/b&gt;	LOCKHEED CORP	`	ESTIMATING POSITION AND ORIENTATION OF AN UNDERWATER VEHICLE RELATIVE TO UNDERWATER STRUCTURES	`	A method and system that can be used for scanning underwater structures. For example, the method and system estimate a position and ori	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120099399A1	&lt;/b&gt;	LOCKHEED CORP	`	SONAR DATA COLLECTION SYSTEM	`	A system that can be used for inspecting underwater structures. The system allows a user to gain a better understanding of the condition of an underwater structure. The system is a self-	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110261020A1	&lt;/b&gt;	LG DISPLAY CO LTD | LG ELECTRONICS INC	`	TOUCH PANEL, METHOD FOR DRIVING TOUCH PANEL, AND DISPLAY APPARATUS HAVING TOUCH PANEL	`	A touch panel includes: a substrate; a plural	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120152827A1	&lt;/b&gt;	KRISTAR ENTPR INC	`	Bioretention System with Internal High Flow Bypass	`	The invention provides a bioretention system comprising one or more cham	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110221151A1	&lt;/b&gt;	KOBE STEEL LTD	`	AUTOMOBILE SUSPENSION PART AND MANUFACTURING OF THE SAME	`	A lightweight automobile suspension part having high strength is an aluminum alloy automobile	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110186478A1	&lt;/b&gt;	JX NIPPON OIL &amp; ENERGY CORP	`	PROCESS FOR PRODUCING NEEDLE COKE FOR GRAPHITE ELECTRODE AND STOCK OIL COMPOSITION FOR USE IN THE PROCESS	`	The invention provides a stock oil composition for needle coke for a graphite electrode, the stock oil composition having a 10	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120210638A1	&lt;/b&gt;	INTERNAT GROWER S SUPPLY INC	`	INDOOR GREENHOUSE	`	Described herein is an indoor greenhouse that includes a rack unit, an outer layer that surrounds the rack unit and defines a greenhouse interior, at least one light surrounded by a l	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120094349A1	&lt;/b&gt;	INEOS BIO LTD	`	Methods for Increasing the Production of Ethanol from Microbial Fermentation	`	A stable continuous method for producing ethanol from the anaerobic bacterial fermentation of a gaseous substrate containing at least one reducing gas involves culturing in a f	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120094346A1	&lt;/b&gt;	INEOS BIO LTD	`	METHODS FOR INCREASING THE PRODUCTION OF ETHANOL FROM MICROBIAL FERMENTATION	`	A stable continuous method for producing ethanol from the anaerobic bacterial fermentation of a gaseous substrate containing at least one reducing gas involves culturing in a f	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120088284A1	&lt;/b&gt;	INEOS BIO LTD	`	METHODS FOR INCREASING THE PRODUCTION OF ETHANOL FROM MICROBIAL FERMENTATION	`	A stable continuous method for producing ethanol from anaerobic fermentation of a gaseous substrate containin	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120088283A1	&lt;/b&gt;	INEOS BIO LTD	`	METHODS FOR INCREASING THE PRODUCTION OF ETHANOL FROM MICROBIAL FERMENTATION	`	A stable continuous method for producing ethanol from anaerobic fermentation of a gaseous substrate containin	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120088282A1	&lt;/b&gt;	INEOS BIO LTD	`	METHODS FOR INCREASING THE PRODUCTION OF ETHANOL FROM MICROBIAL FERMENTATION	`	A stable continuous method for producing ethanol from anaerobic fermentation of a gaseous substrate containin	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120272942A1	&lt;/b&gt;	HUSQVARNA AB	`	WIRE SAW	`	The invention relates to a wire saw having a saw wire drive sheave ( 2) for dri	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120064984A1	&lt;/b&gt;	HM ATTRACTIONS INC	`	LINEAR MOTOR DRIVEN AMUSEMENT RIDE AND METHOD	`	A waterslide amusement ride having in a portion thereof, a linear induction motor to efficiently and effectively affe	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110306816A1	&lt;/b&gt;	GTC TECHNOLOGY US LLC	`	HEAVY HYDROCARBON REMOVAL SYSTEMS AND METHODS	`	Apparatuses and systems for removing heavy hydrocarbons from a solvent stream are disclosed herein. The apparatuses extract h	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120047080A1	&lt;/b&gt;	GREEN HALO SYSTEMS INC	`	Waste Management and Recycling Tracking System	`	An on-line waste management reporting and tracking system allows contractors to create waste management plans. Cities and other governing	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110226457A1	&lt;/b&gt;	GOLDEN DRAGON PRECISE COPPER TUBE GROUP INC	`	CONDENSATION ENHANCEMENT HEAT TRANSFER PIPE	`	A condensation enhancement heat transfer pipe includes an optical pipe section, a fin section, and a transition section connecting the optical pipe section and the fin section. The outer surface of the fin section is provided with a plurality of individual fins, each	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US1637214A	&lt;/b&gt;	GODFREY CHRIST	`	Elastic suspension wheel	`		&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120149881A1	&lt;/b&gt;	GENENTECH INC	`	APOPTOTIC ANTI-IGE ANTIBODIES	`	The present application relates to ap	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120086560A1	&lt;/b&gt;	GEN ELECTRIC	`	OUTDOOR LIGHTING SYSTEM	`	An outdoor lighting system and operating methods are prese	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120086561A1	&lt;/b&gt;	GEN ELECTRIC	`	OUTDOOR LIGHTING SYSTEM	`	An outdoor lighting system and operating methods are presented in 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110053486A1	&lt;/b&gt;	G CON LLC	`	MODULAR, SELF-CONTAINED, MOBILE CLEAN ROOM	`	Biosafety units, methods of making, and sealing the same are disclosed herein. The units comprise at least one controlled air, sealable, sterilizable cleanroom; and a mechanical system r	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120073347A1	&lt;/b&gt;	FORD GLOBAL TECH LLC	`	System And Method For Manufacturing An F-Temper 7xxx Series Aluminum Alloy	`	A system and a method of processing an F-temper alumi	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110022172A1	&lt;/b&gt;	ENTRIGUE SURGICAL INC	`	Disposable Medical Device for Engaging with Reusable Medical Instrument and Methods of Use	`	A disposable medical	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110015734A1	&lt;/b&gt;	ENTRIGUE SURGICAL INC	`	Methods for Providing Therapy to an Anatomical Structure	`	Methods for providing therapy to an anatom	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120111940A1	&lt;/b&gt;	DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS CORP	`	BALLOT IMAGE PROCESSING SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR VOTING MACHINES	`	A ballot processing system and method processes paper ballots, such as by optically scanning or opticall	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110297311A1	&lt;/b&gt;	DERPROSA FILM S L	`	FILM FOR THE LAMINATION OF GRAPHIC MEDIA AND PRODUCTION METHOD THEREOF	`	The invention relates to a film for the lamination of graphic media, comprising an extruded p	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20100269311A1	&lt;/b&gt;	DELSEY SOC	`	SAFETY DEVICE FOR A PIECE OF LUGGAGE COMPRISING A FIRST OUTSIDE ZIPPER AND A SECOND INSIDE ZIPPER	`	A safety device for a piece of luggage includes a first outside zipper ( 1) and a second insi	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110203435A1	&lt;/b&gt;	CONTAINER GRAPHICS CORP	`	Rotary Cutting Die Apparatus for Cutting Corrugated Board Including Retainers for Maintaining Trim Strippers Closely Adjacent Trim Cutting Blades	`	A rotary cutting die assembly is provided that includes a die cylinder, an anvil, and a die board mounted to the d	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120114814A1	&lt;/b&gt;	COCA COLA CO	`	METHOD OF BEVERAGE PRODUCTION, APPARATUS AND SYSTEM	`	There is provided a method of regulating the formulation of a multi-component beverage comprising a beverage attribute profile, the method comprising providing a first and second comp	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120116566A1	&lt;/b&gt;	COCA COLA CO	`	METHOD OF PRODUCTION, APPARATUS AND SYSTEM	`	There is provided a method of regulating the formulation of a multi-component product comprising a product attribute profile, the method comprising providing a first and second compo	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20050272398A1	&lt;/b&gt;	CAMBRIDGE SILICON RADIO LTD	`	Low voltage mixer	`	A mixer comprising a pair of low frequency mixer inputs, a pair of high frequency mixer inputs, a pair of mixer outputs, four switching units, each switching unit comprising a low frequency switching unit input, a high frequency switching unit input, a switching unit output	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110099689A1	&lt;/b&gt;	ATG CEYLON PRIVATE LTD	`	PROTECTIVE GARMENTS AND MATERIALS THEREFOR	`	A method of making a garment material, comprising: providing a substrate f	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120070339A1	&lt;/b&gt;	AQUIONICS INC	`	ULTRAVIOLET DISINFECTION OF OIL FIELD PROCESS WATER	`	Methods and systems for inactivating  Desulfovibrio desulfuricans in a fracturing fluid are disclosed. The methods include exposing the fracturing fluid to a dose of 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120016678A1	&lt;/b&gt;	APPLE INC	`	Intelligent Automated Assistant	`	An intelligent automated assistant system engages with the user in an integrated, conversational manner using nat	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120094688A1	&lt;/b&gt;	ANDREW LLC	`	System and Method for Network Timing Recovery in Communications Networks	`	A system and method is disclosed for determining the network timing of a communications network from one or more mobile stations that receive signals from a 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120129944A1	&lt;/b&gt;	ALK AG	`	STABILIZED COMPOSITION COMPRISING AT LEAST ONE ADRENERGIC COMPOUND	`	A stabilised composition comprising a	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120004528A1	&lt;/b&gt;	ALCON RES LTD	`	Implantable Remote Monitoring Sensor	`	An exemplary implantable sensor includes a housing that generally conforms to a curvature 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120246273A1	&lt;/b&gt;	AKAMAI TECH INC	`	Optimal route selection in a content delivery network	`	A routing mechanism operable in a distributed networking environment, such as a content delivery network (CDN), provides improved connectivity back	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120150993A1	&lt;/b&gt;	AKAMAI TECH INC	`	ASSISTED DELIVERY OF CONTENT ADAPTED FOR A REQUESTING CLIENT	`	Disclosed herein are methods and apparatus facilitating delivery of web content that has adapted for particular client devices, such as mobile devices. Doing so may involve assistin	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120123701A1	&lt;/b&gt;	ADVANCED MECHANICAL TECH	`	FORCE PLATFORM SYSTEM	`	A method of processing force signals from plural force platforms includes, in a computer, in an initialization process, receiving data distinguishing the plural platforms, monitoring force data signals fro	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20100244563A1	&lt;/b&gt;	ACLARA POWER LINE SYSTEMS INC	`	UNDER FREQUENCY/UNDER VOLTAGE DETECTION IN A DEMAND RESPONSE UNIT	`	A demand response unit (DRU) interposed between a utility's electrical power line (PL) and at least one load (L 1-Ln) to which power is supplied by the utility over the line. A detector (Fdet or Vdet) measures a characteristic (frequency F	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120279192A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	RIDING MOWER WITH A SUSPENSION COMPONENT COUPLED TO A PLURALITY OF USER SUPPORT COMPONENTS AND METHODS OF MAKING AND USING THEREOF	`	In some embodiments, systems and methods provided herein relate to a riding mower including a p	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120267942A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	VEHICLE WHEEL BALANCE WEIGHTS	`	A vehicle wheel weight for attachment to a wheel rim comprises a mass portion formed of nonlead 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120263955A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	RESIN COMPOSITION AND USES OF THE SAME	`	A resin composition is provided. The resin composition comprises an epoxy resin and a hardener, wherei	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120246215A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	IDENTYING USERS OF REMOTE SESSIONS	`	Systems and methods of identifying users of remote sessions are disclosed. In an 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120223477A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	DIE FOR USE IN GAME PLAY	`	A die having at least two variable qualities that convey information for use in game p	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120221495A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	DIGITAL WEIGHT LOSS AID	`	A health management system provides instantaneous feedback as to the relationship of food items and exercise to one's fitn	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120196516A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	ABRASIVE WATER JET PROCESSING MACHINE	`	An abrasive water jet processing machine for jetting a fluid and performing a cutting includes a fluid supply device, an abrasive supply device, an injection pressure control	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120192937A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	THIN FILM STRUCTURE FOR PHOTOVOLTAIC APPLICATIONS	`	A thin film structure for photovoltaic applications includes a biaxially textured metal substrate; a seed lay	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120212879A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	HIGH ENERGY HYBRID SUPERCAPACITORS USING LITHIUM METAL POWDERS	`	A hybrid supercapacitor comprises a negative electrode made of lithium-absorbing material, a po	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120152354A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	SILICON-BASED SOLAR CELL WITH EUTECTIC COMPOSITION	`	Growth and characterization of low cost, and high efficiency micro- and nanostructured p-n heterojunction 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120179394A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	Metal Detector	`	The present invention provides apparatus for scanning a product to detect metal in that product. The apparatus comprises a drive coil ( 4), for generating an electrom	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120165435A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	ADDITIVES FOR CURABLE LIQUID COMPOSITIONS	`	Transition metal complex siccatives are provided. Aspects of the siccatives	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120136617A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	PAVING-RELATED MEASURING DEVICE INCORPORATING A COMPUTER DEVICE AND COMMUNICATION ELEMENT THEREBETWEEN AND ASSOCIATED METHOD	`	A system for determining a property of a paving-related material is provided. Such a system comprises a measuring device for selectively and directly measuring the property. A computer device is cap	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120150033A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	ANTIMICROBIAL ULTRASOUND TRANSMISSION GEL	`	An antimicrobial ultrasound transmitting gel has an ultrasoun	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120125712A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	Support Membrane for Floors, Ceilings or Residential Walls	`	A support membrane designed to be arranged with a covering that can be applied to bearing areas such as floors or even under and on concrete screeds for a floor is provided. Said membrane can also be used in the composition of c	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120098713A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	SYSTEM FOR TESTING MULTI-ANTENNA DEVICES USING BIDIRECTIONAL FADED CHANNELS	`	A test system for testing multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO) systems is provided. The test system may convey radio-frequency (RF) signals bidirectionally between a base station em	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120100813A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	SYSTEM FOR TESTING MULTI-ANTENNA DEVICES USING BIDIRECTIONAL FADED CHANNELS	`	A test system for testing multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO) systems is provided. The test system may convey radio-frequency (RF) signals bidirectionally between a device under test (DUT) and	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120086534A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	CHOKE HAVING A CORE WITH A PILLAR HAVING A NON-CIRCULAR AND NON-RECTANGULAR CROSS SECTION	`	A choke includes a single-piece core entirely made of a same material, the single-piece core having two boards and a pillar located between the tw	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120073182A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	MULTI ARM FISHING RIG WITH FLEXIBLE ARMS	`	A multi-arm fishing rig with flexible arms has been developed. The fishing rig 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120076133A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	System for Interconnecting Standard Telephony Communications Equipment to Internet	`	Apparatus include a communication predelivery receiver, configured to communicate with and relay both IP addressed overhead and IP addressed payload data from an originating communication device. The communic	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120061153A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	POWER VEHICLE WITH ADJUSTABLE VELOCITY PROFILES	`	Embodiments of the present invention relate to powered vehicles (e.g., lawn mowers) and, more particularly, to a control system for use with such a vehicle	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120024580A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	EPOXY RESIN COMPOSITION, AND PREPREG AND PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD USING THE SAME	`	Disclosed is an epoxy resin composition for printed circuit board, which includes 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20120037286A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	PROTECTIVE BIKE COVER	`	A bicycle cover and methods of using the same are disclosed. The body of the bicycle cover is two walls made of thin and flexible transparent, weather 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110278853A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	METHODS, SYSTEMS AND APPARATUS FOR REGULATING FREQUENCY OF GENERATED POWER USING FLYWHEEL ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS WITH VARYING LOAD AND/OR POWER GENERATION	`	Featured are methods for regulating the AC frequency of the electrical power to be supplied on an 	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110236638A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Parts Made With Untreated Embossed Surfacing Veils With No Whitening Agents	`	Untreated, embossed surfacing veils with no whitening additives can be used in a fiber-reinforced process to make	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110214246A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	Aeroacoustic Duster	`	The aero-acoustic duster invention disclosed herein provides for high particle removal rate from surfaces with low energy expenditure relative to competing vac	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110171753A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	MODIFIED ANTI-HEPARIN/PF4 COMPLEX ANTIBODY AND HIT ANTIBODY STANDARD	`	Provided is a modified antibody which enables the quantitative measurement of the amount of a heparin/PF	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110127364A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	MOBILE CREEL	`	A mobile creel for organizing yarn packages and directing yarn is disclosed. In on	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110125533A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	Remote Scribe-Assisted Health Care Record Management System and Method of Use of Same	`	The invention disclosed herein describes a health care records management system and method of use that utilizes a scribe located in a remote	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20110086912A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	Derivatives of Propane Diyl Dicinnamate	`	The present invention provides a method for treating a cancer in a subject involving administering to the subject a compoun	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20100308984A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	VISUAL INDICATOR ADAPTOR AND ASSEMBLY FOR A TRACTOR TRAILER	`	A visual indicator assembly and adaptor for a trailer includes a control circuit electrica	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20080188725A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	OPTICAL SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR RATIOMETRIC MEASUREMENT OF BLOOD GLUCOSE CONCENTRATION	`	Novel optical devices, methods and systems relating to the detect	&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;	US20080221391A1	&lt;/b&gt;		`	DIRECT DRIVE INSTRUMENTS AND METHODS OF USE	`	Disclosed herein are various instruments, systems, and methods of use. The instruments can have v	&lt;/p&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3264" RevisionGUID="a7f6c54e-01da-4249-bf84-21e94087ea93" CreationDate="2013-02-01T18:08:33.500" UserId="3076" Text="Cheapest is to write as complete a description as you can, include drawings that the text makes reference to and then fill out [a provisional application cover sheet][1]. Either mail it all to the USPTO or file it electronically using [EFS-Web][2]  I suppose the fastest is to do the above but use whatever description you already have created - maybe a PowerPoint presentation. **Of course these approaches may not be the most effective.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would consider getting advice from a US registered patent practitioner. One that works as a solo practitioner or in a small practice might be more oriented to cost-sensitive inventors.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/forms/ProvisionalSB.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/index.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6062" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3263" RevisionGUID="96cbb9e2-3238-4908-91f6-e5c81336af00" CreationDate="2013-02-01T20:40:22.327" UserId="2072" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-pending&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;cheap&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3265" RevisionGUID="dc03a66f-9dd8-45c8-a4f2-0953d46ff282" CreationDate="2013-02-01T21:01:43.123" UserId="3156" Text="How much did it cost to have this patented in total.  Including lawyer fees, patent, drawings, etc?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6065" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3265" RevisionGUID="dc03a66f-9dd8-45c8-a4f2-0953d46ff282" CreationDate="2013-02-01T21:01:43.123" UserId="3156" Text="Is it practical for me to use a websiite like inventhelp to ensure the security of my patent and how much does it cost?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6066" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3265" RevisionGUID="dc03a66f-9dd8-45c8-a4f2-0953d46ff282" CreationDate="2013-02-01T21:01:43.123" UserId="3156" Text="&lt;novelty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3266" RevisionGUID="cbe5cc5f-f1fb-4d0b-b3d1-08f98ef45451" CreationDate="2013-02-01T22:30:01.533" UserId="3076" Text="Please google [invention submission companies ][1] and also look at the USPTO pages on complaints and scam prevention (their word not mine) [uspto scam prevention site][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing you will see there are the statistics these companies are required to provided - you might have to ask for the data. One data point is the % of clients that ultimately&#xD;&#xA;make more money with their help than they spend on the help. Also, since some new rules went in place about four years ago they are not supposed to say they offer patenting services. The most they should do is refer you to a registered practitioner. In theory these companies earn your fees for market research, virtual or real prototype creation and introducing your idea to potential licenses or manufactures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Find a local non-profit inventors club to get input from others that have been throughout this. You can find them via the [UIA][3] ( a non profit ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no direct information on any company in this industry and there must be some that are not scams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=invention%20submission%20companies&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8&amp;hl=en&amp;client=safari&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/scam_prevention/index.jsp&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uiausa.org/inventor-clubs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6068" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3265" RevisionGUID="d16adfd9-07e4-456a-b4da-05eb9f075064" CreationDate="2013-02-01T23:21:39.000" UserId="1" Comment="edited title" Text="Is it helpful to use &quot;invention submission companies&quot; to ensure the security of a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3261" RevisionGUID="786721ad-4620-4721-935c-27c9f438fa51" CreationDate="2013-02-01T23:25:06.737" UserId="3076" Comment="Added use  - thanks for the comment" Text="To directly infringe a patent one would need to make it, sell it, offer to sell it, import it, **use it**, or if it is method, performing the steps of the method. [35 USC 271][1]     Use it means, if the patent is a hammer, picking it up and hitting something with it. It would not mean using the hammer as an idea in a story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Writing about it isn't any of those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6070" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3261" RevisionGUID="a7f96b72-7640-4136-8d26-6f5f6d690643" CreationDate="2013-02-01T23:45:34.853" UserId="3076" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="To directly infringe a patent one would need to make it, sell it, offer to sell it, import it, **use it**, or if it is method, performing the steps of the method. [35 USC 271][1]  Use means, if the patent claims a hammer, picking the patented hammer up and hitting something with it. It would **not** mean using the hammer as an idea in a story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Writing about it isn't any of those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3266" RevisionGUID="b6959559-79ec-4b56-aa6d-882d555b1171" CreationDate="2013-02-02T00:04:13.017" UserId="3076" Comment="Cleaned up to be a direct answer and added link to federal register   - fix caps problem" Text="A very direct answer to the question is that companies are not allowed to provide patenting services in the U.S. It can only be done by a registered practitioner with a direct relationship with the applicant. Also practitioners are not allowed to split fees with non-practioners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some invention submission companies used to sub-contracted this work to patent agents and patent attorney. This has been curtailed by changes in the rules. [see federal register][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please google [invention submission companies ][2] and also look at the USPTO pages on complaints and scam prevention (their word not mine) [uspto scam prevention site][3]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing you will see there are the statistics these companies are required to provided - you might have to ask for the data. One data point is the % of clients that ultimately&#xD;&#xA;make more money with their help than they spend on the help. Also, since some new rules went in place about four years ago they are not supposed to say they offer patenting services. The most they should do is refer you to a registered practitioner. In theory these companies earn your fees for market research, virtual or real prototype creation and introducing your idea to potential licenses or manufactures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Find a local non-profit inventors club to get input from others that have been throughout this. You can find them via the [UIA][4] ( a non profit ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no direct information on any company in this industry and addressing specific companies is off topic, I believe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/73fr47650.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=invention%20submission%20companies&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8&amp;hl=en&amp;client=safari&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/scam_prevention/index.jsp&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.uiausa.org/inventor-clubs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3266" RevisionGUID="a66a5090-6ae0-43d5-8faf-8445264bfffb" CreationDate="2013-02-02T00:14:16.470" UserId="3076" Comment="Cleaned up to be a direct answer and added link to federal register   - fix caps problem - typos" Text="A very direct answer to the question is that **these companies are not allowed to actually provide patenting services in the U.S**. It can only be done by a registered practitioner with a direct relationship with the applicant. Also practitioners are not allowed to split fees with non-practioners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some invention submission companies used to commit to the client to provide the services, take their money, and sub-contract the work to patent agents and patent attorneys. This has been curtailed by changes in the rules. [See federal register][1]. It is now clear that invention promotion companies can only refer clients to registered practitioners who then have a direct client relationship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please google [invention submission companies ][2] and also look at the USPTO pages on complaints and scam prevention (their word not mine) [uspto scam prevention site][3]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing you will see there are the statistics these companies are required to provided - you might have to ask for the data. One data point is the % of clients that ultimately&#xD;&#xA;make more money with their help than they spend on the help. Also, since some new rules went in place about four years ago they are not supposed to say they offer patenting services. The most they should do is refer you to a registered practitioner. In theory these companies earn your fees for market research, virtual or real prototype creation and introducing your idea to potential licenses or manufactures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Find a local non-profit inventors club to get input from others that have been throughout this. You can find them via the [UIA][4] ( a non profit ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no direct information on any company in this industry and addressing specific companies is off topic, I believe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/73fr47650.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=invention%20submission%20companies&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8&amp;hl=en&amp;client=safari&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/scam_prevention/index.jsp&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.uiausa.org/inventor-clubs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6073" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3250" RevisionGUID="8dc4d71f-235c-41fd-afd2-d87735364093" CreationDate="2013-02-02T01:47:52.757" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/297521689678462976" />
  <row Id="6074" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3265" RevisionGUID="317df38e-5993-4368-bf44-0ff6b901bac4" CreationDate="2013-02-02T02:00:48.323" UserId="3076" Comment="Changed security to securing in the title" Text="Is it helpful to use &quot;invention submission companies&quot; to ensure the securing of a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3167" RevisionGUID="b26ddd9a-f776-48d4-9906-a7532f2ad8f6" CreationDate="2013-02-02T06:13:21.333" UserId="3076" Comment="Added clarity in one place." Text="I have a few suggestions: the USPTO is helping local non-profits set up pro bono patent help. The first one up and running is in Minneapolis but others are getting on line. Second there may be an inventors club in your area and there may be members who are patent agents or patent attorneys who can provide some advice on DIY patent application. Third many inventors learn as much as they can and file a pro se provisional application. There is not much in the way of formal requirements for that type of filing and the fees are $125. It gives you a year to file a &quot;real&quot; application. However, their ultimate value as a stake in the ground will turn on how well the claims in the eventual non-provisional application are supported with details in the provisional. Last - not every patent practitioner charges that much. Many patent attorneys do not really want individual inventors as clients. They need more hand holding, do not represent repeat business and are very cost sensitive. Some registered practitioners are more oriented to small companies and individual inventors. Check with a local inventors club for names. &#xD;&#xA;Consider a patent agent rather than an attorney. Same rights at the USPTO, same patent bar exam and  same educational requirements. But we can't command the same size fees (full disclosure - yes I am one). You might look at the member list of the National Association of Patent Practitioners. About 1/2 are agents and 1/2 are attorneys. Almost all are sole practitioners with lower overhead than a big firm. Good luck." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3267" RevisionGUID="b351095d-f4a1-4152-a19c-bf0280e5f761" CreationDate="2013-02-02T10:57:22.673" UserId="3157" Text="It was found that the method developed by &quot;A&quot; (newer designers) versus &quot;B&quot; (the original designers and holders of a patent) was more complex. I think it falls into the improvement patents category, in the same application domain and with the same scope and goals. Nothing is new here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But &quot;A&quot; has a bit more complex of using the procedure B, which is entirely patented by &quot;B&quot;. Using, it means &quot;black box&quot;, nothing is changed, the idea is the same. But the method created by &quot;A&quot; also has procedure A which is not included in the patent held by &quot;B&quot;. So it is like &quot;A&quot; is using the patented procedure B in certain cases and, depending on the inputs into the system, switches to the procedure A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that USPTO might reject the approval of patent from &quot;A&quot; based on not too much novelty compared to &quot;B&quot; and being for more than 2 years away from approval of &quot;B&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, is this also a situation in which &quot;A&quot; is actually infringing the patent &quot;B&quot;? And this would require a licensing of &quot;B&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6077" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3267" RevisionGUID="b351095d-f4a1-4152-a19c-bf0280e5f761" CreationDate="2013-02-02T10:57:22.673" UserId="3157" Text="A entire procedure of a larger method is already patented, it was found during prior-art search" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6078" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3267" RevisionGUID="b351095d-f4a1-4152-a19c-bf0280e5f761" CreationDate="2013-02-02T10:57:22.673" UserId="3157" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3268" RevisionGUID="a4741a7a-0af9-40da-b5b2-c18045c71cc5" CreationDate="2013-02-02T19:54:44.523" UserId="3157" Text="I found this information searching the Internet. It belongs to Mr. Arnold B. Silverman is a partner in the law firm Eckert Seamans Cherin &amp; Mellott. He wrote an article in http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9501.html from which I quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another issue of importance is whether someone obtaining an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; improvement patent can practice the improvement without infringing the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; basic patent.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is a common misconception that obtaining a patent gives the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; right to practice the patented invention. A patent grants the patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; owner a negative right (i.e., the right to prevent others from making,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; using, or selling the patented invention); it does not give the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patentee the right to practice the invention. In many instances, a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patented improvement cannot be made, used, or sold without infringing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the basic patent.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A simplistic example: a basic patent is obtained for a chair having&#xD;&#xA;&gt; three legs. Another may decide that a chair would be more stable if it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; had four legs and obtains a patent for a chair with four legs. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; improvement patent would give the owner the right to keep others from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; making, using, or selling chairs having four legs. As the original&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent claimed a chair with three legs, making, using, or selling the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; four-legged version would infringe the basic patent. The presence of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an additional leg permits the inventor of the improvement to obtain a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent, but does not avoid infringement of the basic patent for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chair with three legs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please feel free to add responses to this topic, personal experience included. Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3268" RevisionGUID="eae6f6ec-6d45-4429-a796-d5592956e668" CreationDate="2013-02-02T20:29:03.830" UserId="3157" Comment="spelling" Text="I found this information searching the Internet. It belongs to Mr. Arnold B. Silverman is a partner in the law firm Eckert Seamans Cherin &amp; Mellott. He wrote an article in http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9501.html from which I quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another issue of importance is whether someone obtaining an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; improvement patent can practice the improvement without infringing the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; basic patent.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is a common misconception that obtaining a patent gives the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; right to practice the patented invention. A patent grants the patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; owner a negative right (i.e., the right to prevent others from making,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; using, or selling the patented invention); it does not give the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patentee the right to practice the invention. In many instances, a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patented improvement cannot be made, used, or sold without infringing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the basic patent.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A simplistic example: a basic patent is obtained for a chair having&#xD;&#xA;&gt; three legs. Another may decide that a chair would be more stable if it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; had four legs and obtains a patent for a chair with four legs. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; improvement patent would give the owner the right to keep others from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; making, using, or selling chairs having four legs. As the original&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent claimed a chair with three legs, making, using, or selling the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; four-legged version would infringe the basic patent. The presence of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an additional leg permits the inventor of the improvement to obtain a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent, but does not avoid infringement of the basic patent for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chair with three legs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please feel free to add responses to this topic, personal experience or disagreements included. Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3269" RevisionGUID="04020090-8f70-46c1-9e4a-6ece2a32f70f" CreationDate="2013-02-02T22:04:57.960" UserId="3160" Text="Whenever I see a product containing a list of patents, the list is almost always preceded by text similar to the following (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Covered by **one or more** of the following patents...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is the text &quot;one or more&quot; necessary, and what purpose does it serve?  Aside from false marking (which is no longer an issue in the United States), is there some legal concern that this text addresses?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6082" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3269" RevisionGUID="04020090-8f70-46c1-9e4a-6ece2a32f70f" CreationDate="2013-02-02T22:04:57.960" UserId="3160" Text="Why is a list of patents often preceded with text like &quot;covered by *one or more* of the following patents&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6083" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3269" RevisionGUID="04020090-8f70-46c1-9e4a-6ece2a32f70f" CreationDate="2013-02-02T22:04:57.960" UserId="3160" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;false-marking&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6084" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3269" RevisionGUID="b2a86359-b5a5-47d7-8198-1f81013820b9" CreationDate="2013-02-03T13:47:54.607" UserId="1259" Comment="tag fix" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2096" RevisionGUID="0d79b2e1-5c0a-4737-a8ee-d997a17e8180" CreationDate="2013-02-03T13:52:54.027" UserId="1259" Comment="linkie" Text="Was looking at the subject [US patent 6,839,541][1] and see that a company called MISONIMO CHI ACQUISITIONS L.L.C. heavily cites this patent, but I cannot find out what this citing company MISONIMO CHI ACQUISITIONS L.L.C. does. Is it a NPE or what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us6839541" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3270" RevisionGUID="87a2e133-a7e0-4083-abb4-29997465b1a4" CreationDate="2013-02-03T18:42:24.173" UserId="3161" Text="Regardless what gadget you prefer or use, we need to protect consumer choice and prevent companies like Apple on filing patents that were not originally designed by Apple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why did the USPTO (US Patent Trade Office), grant Apple the &quot;Wedge&quot; design when in fact it was first created by Sony's X505 product? Clearly this Sony X505 laptop with its wedge design dates back in 2004 vs Apple's MacBook Air introduced in 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.dailytech.com/Virtually+Every+Ultrabook+Appears+to+Violate+New+Apple+Patent/article24886.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we ignore Apple's ridiculous patent claims, our choice for specific products will dwindle because of these invalid patents granted by USPTO for Apple.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6087" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3270" RevisionGUID="87a2e133-a7e0-4083-abb4-29997465b1a4" CreationDate="2013-02-03T18:42:24.173" UserId="3161" Text="Apple designs were not the first. So why grant them patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6088" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3270" RevisionGUID="87a2e133-a7e0-4083-abb4-29997465b1a4" CreationDate="2013-02-03T18:42:24.173" UserId="3161" Text="&lt;apple&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3271" RevisionGUID="bdf322da-460c-467a-b1e1-16dc6c8bba2d" CreationDate="2013-02-03T18:48:10.397" UserId="2072" Text="Misonimo Chi Acquisitions appears to have about 8 patents issued, 6 of which issued in the last 3 years.  This roughly coincides with their date of incorporation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that this is a holding company rather than an NPE.  Unlike an NPE, a holding company is usually owned by a parent company that does directly practice the invention.  However, this is just my best guess, and I will leave it to others to provide additional information or opinions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3272" RevisionGUID="260f9bd8-67ab-4952-8f32-f3b7272eb328" CreationDate="2013-02-03T18:52:52.263" UserId="2072" Text="False marking is potentially still actionable after the recent amendments, just not as a *qui tam* action under the patent laws.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One advantage as you already identify is to avoid liability--under the old false marking law or under existing unfair competition or consumer protection laws.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility is to increase the expense to competitors analyzing the patents for validity and design-around strategy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may be other reasons, too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3273" RevisionGUID="48b4fb28-bf4c-4665-87e4-7ac2e582c0c1" CreationDate="2013-02-03T19:06:05.857" UserId="3163" Text="Who is the &quot;Delaware-based&quot; troll suing small companies on 5506866 currently?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who sold the rights to said troll?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6092" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3273" RevisionGUID="48b4fb28-bf4c-4665-87e4-7ac2e582c0c1" CreationDate="2013-02-03T19:06:05.857" UserId="3163" Text="who is the patent troll suing small companies on 5506866? which inventor sold the rights to them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6093" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3273" RevisionGUID="48b4fb28-bf4c-4665-87e4-7ac2e582c0c1" CreationDate="2013-02-03T19:06:05.857" UserId="3163" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;examination&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3274" RevisionGUID="11048227-ac42-4cba-8713-088603a5a539" CreationDate="2013-02-03T19:32:08.380" UserId="3076" Text="Page 2 of this design patent [D661296][1], that was issued seven months ago, lists all of the prior art the examiner took into consideration. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]The Sony X505 is listed as well as a couple dozen other things. All of those cited references are - by definition - not the same as whatever the patent covers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Apple does not own the wedge, they own the specific design in the patent drawings**. How broadly or narrowly they are interpreted depends on the distance between the prior art and the patented design. The closer the Apple design is to what came before it, the more narrow Apple's coverage would be. In any case design patents only cover the look of something not the functionality, so the choice being denied to consumers is ornamentation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/USD661296&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/BkoF5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3273" RevisionGUID="19996d88-4125-46c4-a1d0-c4c3a920c0e9" CreationDate="2013-02-03T19:35:34.863" UserId="3076" Comment="added link and tag" Text="Who is the &quot;Delaware-based&quot; troll suing small companies on [US5506866][1] currently?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who sold the rights to said troll?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5506866" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6096" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3273" RevisionGUID="19996d88-4125-46c4-a1d0-c4c3a920c0e9" CreationDate="2013-02-03T19:35:34.863" UserId="3076" Comment="added link and tag" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;examination&gt;&lt;us5506866&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3275" RevisionGUID="37daab37-96d7-48da-bff1-14d332d61c90" CreationDate="2013-02-03T19:45:51.020" UserId="3076" Text="From a patent's page on google patents you can click on the assignment record to get to the USPTO record of all of the assignments from inventor to owner to owner. It is like the recording of a deed. This one's (SIDE-CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS IN SIMULTANEOUS VOICE AND DATA TRANSMISSION) assignment record is [here][1]. It looks like it was invented by AT&amp;T and transferred to other AT&amp;T entities, used as collateral for loans to an AT&amp;T spin off and recently sold to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assignor:&#xD;&#xA;PATENT BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, LLC&#xD;&#xA;Exec Dt:&#xD;&#xA;05/23/2012&#xD;&#xA;Assignee:&#xD;&#xA;CLEARWATER INNOVATIONS, LLC&#xD;&#xA;3411 SILVERSIDE ROAD, SUITE 108&#xD;&#xA;WEBSTER BUILDING&#xD;&#xA;WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19810&#xD;&#xA;Correspondent:&#xD;&#xA;M. VANESSAH MELTON&#xD;&#xA;800 S. AUSTIN AVE., SUITE 200&#xD;&#xA;GEORGETOWN, TX 78626-5845&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&amp;pat=5506866" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6098" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3273" RevisionGUID="5d4abc3c-4da2-427f-bf5c-3b27d4d77136" CreationDate="2013-02-03T20:10:14.527" UserId="2072" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;us5506866&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3270" RevisionGUID="87cce97d-ded8-46d5-9883-beca60bdbfac" CreationDate="2013-02-03T20:15:22.180" UserId="2072" Comment="deleted 230 characters in body" Text="Why did the USPTO (US Patent Trade Office), grant Apple the &quot;Wedge&quot; design when in fact it was first created by Sony's X505 product? Clearly this Sony X505 laptop with its wedge design dates back in 2004 vs Apple's MacBook Air introduced in 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.dailytech.com/Virtually+Every+Ultrabook+Appears+to+Violate+New+Apple+Patent/article24886.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our choice for specific products will dwindle because of these patents granted by USPTO for Apple.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3274" RevisionGUID="7a93563b-65a6-4f4c-a4ac-b98116d41a1c" CreationDate="2013-02-03T20:21:46.360" UserId="3076" Comment="added info about IDS and some cleaning up." Text="Page 2 of this design patent [D661296][1], that was issued seven months ago, lists all of the prior art the examiner took into consideration. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]The Sony X505 is listed as well as a couple dozen other things. All of those cited references are - by definition - not the same as whatever the patent covers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, on an Information Disclosure Statement filed by Apple, they brought 26 US patents to the examiner's attention as well as the X505. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From IDS Apple filed, see #3 in non-patent literature:&#xD;&#xA;![IDS screen shot][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Apple does not own the wedge, they own the specific design in the patent drawings**. How broadly or narrowly the coverage is interpreted depends on the distance between the prior art and the patented design. The closer the Apple design is to what came before it, the more narrow Apple's coverage would be. In any case design patents only cover the look of something not the functionality, so the choice being denied to consumers is ornamentation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/USD661296&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/BkoF5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/wIbYK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6101" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3270" RevisionGUID="22c0ed83-af1a-4d02-a94f-0ffc6ff294db" CreationDate="2013-02-03T21:20:48.550" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag for patent is question" Text="&lt;apple&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;d661296&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3272" RevisionGUID="29904b53-97a2-4780-a76a-75e16fb11b35" CreationDate="2013-02-03T22:02:45.257" UserId="2072" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="False marking is potentially still actionable after the recent amendments, just not as a *qui tam* action under the patent laws.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One advantage you already identify is to avoid liability--under the old false marking law or under existing unfair competition or consumer protection laws.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility is to increase the expense to competitors analyzing the patents for validity and design-around strategy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may be other reasons, too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3265" RevisionGUID="f9bd31a9-7de6-4a14-a5f3-a4a5d9a7ca40" CreationDate="2013-02-03T22:14:40.260" UserId="3076" Comment="repeated the title as the question and added tag" Text="Is it helpful to use &quot;invention submission companies&quot; to ensure the securing of a patent? What other services might they provide?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6104" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3265" RevisionGUID="f9bd31a9-7de6-4a14-a5f3-a4a5d9a7ca40" CreationDate="2013-02-03T22:14:40.260" UserId="3076" Comment="repeated the title as the question and added tag" Text="&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;invention-promotion&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6105" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3270" RevisionGUID="bb22d5bc-b57f-49a1-b55c-00168fb52442" CreationDate="2013-02-03T22:47:53.000" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/298201168201535488" />
  <row Id="6106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3275" RevisionGUID="6f55175c-6300-46af-90c7-153b2a452668" CreationDate="2013-02-03T23:47:07.843" UserId="3076" Comment="Clarified " Text="From a patent's page on google patents you can click on Search USPTO Assignment Database to get to the USPTO records of all of the assignments from inventor to owner to owner. It is like the recording of a deed. This one's (SIDE-CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS IN SIMULTANEOUS VOICE AND DATA TRANSMISSION) assignment record is [here][1]. It looks like it was invented by AT&amp;T and transferred to other AT&amp;T entities, used as collateral for loans to an AT&amp;T spin off and recently sold to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assignor:&#xD;&#xA;PATENT BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, LLC&#xD;&#xA;Exec Dt:&#xD;&#xA;05/23/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assignee:&#xD;&#xA;CLEARWATER INNOVATIONS, LLC&#xD;&#xA;3411 SILVERSIDE ROAD, SUITE 108&#xD;&#xA;WEBSTER BUILDING&#xD;&#xA;WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19810&#xD;&#xA;Correspondent:&#xD;&#xA;M. VANESSAH MELTON&#xD;&#xA;800 S. AUSTIN AVE., SUITE 200&#xD;&#xA;GEORGETOWN, TX 78626-5845&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&amp;pat=5506866" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6107" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3273" RevisionGUID="15375f97-cd3c-4cd6-a927-5158218cf337" CreationDate="2013-02-04T00:03:58.090" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag NPE for non-practicing entity - neural terminology for patent troll." Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;us5506866&gt;&lt;npe&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3275" RevisionGUID="3b21781e-9a83-4eaf-b70d-fdc9fd6760bf" CreationDate="2013-02-04T00:33:54.910" UserId="3076" Comment="Added &quot;by&quot; and &quot;to&quot; for clarity." Text="From a patent's page on google patents you can click on Search USPTO Assignment Database to get to the USPTO records of all of the assignments from inventor to owner to owner. It is like the recording of a deed. This one's (SIDE-CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS IN SIMULTANEOUS VOICE AND DATA TRANSMISSION) assignment record is [here][1]. It looks like it was invented by AT&amp;T and transferred to other AT&amp;T entities, used as collateral for loans to an AT&amp;T spin off and recently sold &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assignor:&#xD;&#xA;PATENT BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, LLC&#xD;&#xA;Exec Dt:&#xD;&#xA;05/23/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assignee:&#xD;&#xA;CLEARWATER INNOVATIONS, LLC&#xD;&#xA;3411 SILVERSIDE ROAD, SUITE 108&#xD;&#xA;WEBSTER BUILDING&#xD;&#xA;WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19810&#xD;&#xA;Correspondent:&#xD;&#xA;M. VANESSAH MELTON&#xD;&#xA;800 S. AUSTIN AVE., SUITE 200&#xD;&#xA;GEORGETOWN, TX 78626-5845&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&amp;pat=5506866" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3277" RevisionGUID="1718db29-d85e-4d31-bcc1-4c672f9ed52b" CreationDate="2013-02-04T01:20:11.710" UserId="758" Text="I would guess a lot of it is to deal with method claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where an apparatus claim covers the device itself, a method claim covers carrying out the steps outlined in the method. In quite a few cases, that could be summarized pretty simply: the patented method is using the product as intended, for its intended purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other cases, however, it's going to be narrower than that though. Especially with &quot;convergence&quot; devices that can/do include quite a few features that are only minimally related, it's entirely possible that a particular patent might apply only if the device is used in a particular way under specific conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mere existence of the product doesn't mean anybody will necessarily use it in the way specified in the patent, so it's often nearly impossible for the vendor to way with any certainty whether or not you'll use the device in a way that would infringe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3278" RevisionGUID="b90dad2b-4737-4ad9-a2a4-85a83f46af78" CreationDate="2013-02-04T11:29:29.200" UserId="3128" Text="The Silverman article is correct, though as George White says, it depends on exactly what is claimed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Infringement and patentability - specifically novelty - can involve some similar questions.  Sometimes it's said 'what infringes if done after, anticipates if done before'.  Confused?  I'm not surprised, it's a specific and subtle point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while you need to consider the big picture - what you can do, and what you can stop others doing - infringement and patentability are different questions and **I would always recommend you consider them separately**, it's too easy to get confused otherwise, even for people who do patent work day to day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for infringement, does A read onto any of B's claims?  That's it.  There's a whole process to this of course, you will have to construe what B's claim means, apply the doctrine of equivalents, keep in mind contributory/indirect infringement and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For obviousness - the part of patentability that causes most grief - the test is simply, would the difference between A and B (and the other prior art) be obvious to one with ordinary skill?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For an 'improvement' patent, this might mean that working invention B needs A's permission.  But A couldn't use B's invention either.  In a Venn diagram, A would be the yolk in B's egg.  A third party wanting to use B's invention would need permission from both A and B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If A's got a really good improvement, B might want to use it too, so you might be able to negotiate a cross licence.  In some countries, sometimes A can even force B to issue a licence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3274" RevisionGUID="4d354b52-23c6-4867-8189-79b27e7a5dbb" CreationDate="2013-02-04T16:37:42.090" UserId="3076" Comment="Bolded one phrase" Text="Page 2 of this design patent [D661296][1], that was issued seven months ago, lists all of the prior art the examiner took into consideration. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]**The Sony X505 is listed** as well as a couple dozen other things. All of those cited references are - by definition - not the same as whatever the patent covers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, on an Information Disclosure Statement filed by Apple, they brought 26 US patents to the examiner's attention as well as the X505. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From IDS Apple filed, see #3 in non-patent literature:&#xD;&#xA;![IDS screen shot][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Apple does not own the wedge, they own the specific design in the patent drawings**. How broadly or narrowly the coverage is interpreted depends on the distance between the prior art and the patented design. The closer the Apple design is to what came before it, the more narrow Apple's coverage would be. In any case design patents only cover the look of something not the functionality, so the choice being denied to consumers is ornamentation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/USD661296&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/BkoF5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/wIbYK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3270" RevisionGUID="eb21c326-48a2-4483-80d9-6dcfe33bce15" CreationDate="2013-02-04T16:39:07.080" UserId="3076" Comment="Spelled out trademark" Text="Why did the USPTO (US Patent and Trademark Office), grant Apple the &quot;Wedge&quot; design when in fact it was first created by Sony's X505 product? Clearly this Sony X505 laptop with its wedge design dates back in 2004 vs Apple's MacBook Air introduced in 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.dailytech.com/Virtually+Every+Ultrabook+Appears+to+Violate+New+Apple+Patent/article24886.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our choice for specific products will dwindle because of these patents granted by USPTO for Apple.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3274" RevisionGUID="b2fb95bc-3d03-4678-821f-fe1a129fae39" CreationDate="2013-02-04T16:45:08.140" UserId="3076" Comment="Bolded one phrase moved some text added an introductory sentence" Text="Design patents are often granted for relatively small changes but then they have a corresponding narrow scope. In this case Page 2 of this design patent [D661296][1 lists all of the prior art the examiner took into consideration. **The Sony X505 is listed as well as a couple of dozen other things.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]   &#xD;&#xA;All of those cited references are - by definition - not the same as whatever the patent covers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, on an Information Disclosure Statement filed by Apple, they brought 26 US patents to the examiner's attention as well as the X505. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From IDS Apple filed, see #3 in non-patent literature:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![IDS screen shot][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Apple does not own the wedge, they own the specific design in the patent drawings**. How broadly or narrowly the coverage is interpreted depends on the distance between the prior art and the patented design. The closer the Apple design is to what came before it, the more narrow Apple's coverage would be. In any case design patents only cover the look of something not the functionality, so the choice being denied to consumers is ornamentation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/USD661296&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/BkoF5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/wIbYK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3274" RevisionGUID="5a8a9685-ad82-4111-bfc6-9f839be9c723" CreationDate="2013-02-04T17:29:04.587" UserId="3076" Comment="Fixed a link" Text="Design patents are often granted for relatively small changes but then they have a corresponding narrow scope. In this case Page 2 of this design patent [D661296] [1] lists all of the prior art the examiner took into consideration. **The Sony X505 is listed as well as a couple of dozen other things.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]   &#xD;&#xA;All of those cited references are - by definition - not the same as whatever the patent covers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, on an Information Disclosure Statement filed by Apple, they brought 26 US patents to the examiner's attention as well as the X505. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From IDS Apple filed, see #3 in non-patent literature:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![IDS screen shot][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Apple does not own the wedge, they own the specific design in the patent drawings**. How broadly or narrowly the coverage is interpreted depends on the distance between the prior art and the patented design. The closer the Apple design is to what came before it, the more narrow Apple's coverage would be. In any case design patents only cover the look of something not the functionality, so the choice being denied to consumers is ornamentation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/USD661296&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/BkoF5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/wIbYK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3268" RevisionGUID="1f484485-0ef1-479a-b040-004717acce04" CreationDate="2013-02-04T21:38:13.337" UserId="3157" Comment="typo" Text="I found this information searching the Internet. It belongs to Mr. Arnold B. Silverman, a partner in the law firm Eckert Seamans Cherin &amp; Mellott. He wrote an article in http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9501.html from which I quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another issue of importance is whether someone obtaining an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; improvement patent can practice the improvement without infringing the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; basic patent.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is a common misconception that obtaining a patent gives the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; right to practice the patented invention. A patent grants the patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; owner a negative right (i.e., the right to prevent others from making,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; using, or selling the patented invention); it does not give the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patentee the right to practice the invention. In many instances, a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patented improvement cannot be made, used, or sold without infringing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the basic patent.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A simplistic example: a basic patent is obtained for a chair having&#xD;&#xA;&gt; three legs. Another may decide that a chair would be more stable if it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; had four legs and obtains a patent for a chair with four legs. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; improvement patent would give the owner the right to keep others from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; making, using, or selling chairs having four legs. As the original&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent claimed a chair with three legs, making, using, or selling the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; four-legged version would infringe the basic patent. The presence of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an additional leg permits the inventor of the improvement to obtain a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent, but does not avoid infringement of the basic patent for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chair with three legs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please feel free to add responses to this topic, personal experience or disagreements included. Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3282" RevisionGUID="2d719f61-113c-4395-9dc1-ccdac12f66d4" CreationDate="2013-02-04T22:02:55.970" UserId="3171" Text="Patent  8,088,480 - Spend 10 years in the patent office and the file wrapper is really long..It looks like they have started infringement cases with 2 other companies. I am looking for a little help with New matter and Prior Art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions;&#xD;&#xA;1. Has any one seen or had cases with adding new matter incorrectly they added in new matter about 6 years into the case to over come Prior Art.&#xD;&#xA;2. Help with Prior Art. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6128" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3282" RevisionGUID="2d719f61-113c-4395-9dc1-ccdac12f66d4" CreationDate="2013-02-04T22:02:55.970" UserId="3171" Text="Adding of new matter in Patent 8,088,480" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6129" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3282" RevisionGUID="2d719f61-113c-4395-9dc1-ccdac12f66d4" CreationDate="2013-02-04T22:02:55.970" UserId="3171" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6130" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3273" RevisionGUID="de93576f-c2cc-47b0-8763-3a7930198dc5" CreationDate="2013-02-05T01:47:53.747" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/298608857679265792" />
  <row Id="6131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3282" RevisionGUID="2c3bcdf5-dfb8-4c6c-b5b3-9b094a4f0ced" CreationDate="2013-02-05T11:28:21.803" UserId="1259" Comment="tag linkie" Text="Patent [US8088480][1] - Spend 10 years in the patent office and the file wrapper is really long. It looks like they have started infringement cases with 2 other companies. I am looking for a little help with New matter and Prior Art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions;&#xD;&#xA;1. Has any one seen or had cases with adding new matter incorrectly they added in new matter about 6 years into the case to over come Prior Art.&#xD;&#xA;2. Help with Prior Art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8088480" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6132" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3282" RevisionGUID="2c3bcdf5-dfb8-4c6c-b5b3-9b094a4f0ced" CreationDate="2013-02-05T11:28:21.803" UserId="1259" Comment="tag linkie" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;us8088480&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6135" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3269" RevisionGUID="4800aff1-4d7c-4f54-9bd8-0ba598d2c2bf" CreationDate="2013-02-05T16:47:54.110" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/298835350615384064" />
  <row Id="6136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3283" RevisionGUID="659acffb-2d02-4551-95ed-89dbc418e67f" CreationDate="2013-02-05T17:40:37.440" UserId="3177" Text="I am trying to determine when US Patent Number 5,720,421 will expire.  Since it was pending before June 8, 1995, I would assume that it has a term of 17 years from the filing date and will be valid until Feb. 24th, 2015.  However, it is a Continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 202,513 from Feb. 28, 1994 that was abandoned and I am not sure if this affects the term of the patent.  Please help me if you can." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6137" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3283" RevisionGUID="659acffb-2d02-4551-95ed-89dbc418e67f" CreationDate="2013-02-05T17:40:37.440" UserId="3177" Text="When does US Patent 5,720,421 expire?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6138" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3283" RevisionGUID="659acffb-2d02-4551-95ed-89dbc418e67f" CreationDate="2013-02-05T17:40:37.440" UserId="3177" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6139" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3283" RevisionGUID="4266e01f-c91f-4f55-b0d7-51bad1162345" CreationDate="2013-02-05T19:45:03.710" UserId="7" Comment="Added publication number" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;us5720421&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3284" RevisionGUID="d1bcbd0d-e9a7-448e-a5a3-3b08654f3c32" CreationDate="2013-02-05T19:57:36.473" UserId="3076" Text="If you look at the patent [rules regarding term][1] you will see that for patents from applications that were pre-Uruguay Round **both the new and the old calculation for term are done and the patent gets the longer of the two**. The fact that it is a CIP of an earlier application does affect the 20-year from filing calculation. For that, the clock starts at the earliest U.S. priority date (not including provisional applications). So one calculation is 20 years from Feb. 28 1994 and the other is 17 years from Feb. 24 1998. Looks like it is Feb. 24, 2015. Another factor may be a terminal disclaimer. That can cut term short. Also, according to the USPTO PAIR database this has two patented children: 5808465 and 5868296. The '296 issued in 1999.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2701.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3284" RevisionGUID="6437cace-3df0-4c99-9518-30e15f807def" CreationDate="2013-02-05T20:03:55.317" UserId="3076" Comment="Added info re terminal disclosure" Text="If you look at the patent [rules regarding term][1] you will see that for patents from applications that were pre-Uruguay Round **both the new and the old calculation for term are done and the patent gets the longer of the two**. The fact that it is a CIP of an earlier application does affect the 20-year from filing calculation. For that, the clock starts at the earliest U.S. priority date (not including provisional applications). So one calculation is 20 years from Feb. 28 1994 and the other is 17 years from Feb. 24 1998. Looks like it is Feb. 24, 2015. Another factor may be a terminal disclaimer. That can cut term short; in order to check that you need the file history. Also, according to the USPTO PAIR database this has two patented children: 5808465 and 5868296. The '296 issued in 1999.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2701.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3285" RevisionGUID="c850d93c-db8f-43a1-b74d-f91b1fa04f43" CreationDate="2013-02-05T21:47:48.577" UserId="3178" Text="What's novel about Patent Application # 20120173688? Is there prior art? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6143" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3285" RevisionGUID="c850d93c-db8f-43a1-b74d-f91b1fa04f43" CreationDate="2013-02-05T21:47:48.577" UserId="3178" Text="Patent Application 20120173688" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6144" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3285" RevisionGUID="c850d93c-db8f-43a1-b74d-f91b1fa04f43" CreationDate="2013-02-05T21:47:48.577" UserId="3178" Text="&lt;telecommunications&gt;&lt;maintenance&gt;&lt;coordination&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3274" RevisionGUID="eaf5e60f-ee34-4a48-95ba-a5fdd280a6e4" CreationDate="2013-02-05T22:00:50.823" UserId="3076" Comment="Added bolding" Text="Design patents are often granted for relatively small changes but then they have a corresponding narrow scope. In this case Page 2 of this design patent [D661296] [1] lists all of the prior art the examiner took into consideration. **The Sony X505 is listed as well as a couple of dozen other things.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]   &#xD;&#xA;All of those cited references are - by definition - not the same as whatever the patent covers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, on an Information Disclosure Statement filed by Apple, they brought 26 US patents to the examiner's attention **and they listed the X505.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From IDS Apple filed, see #3 in non-patent literature:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![IDS screen shot][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Apple does not own the wedge, they own the specific design in the patent drawings**. How broadly or narrowly the coverage is interpreted depends on the distance between the prior art and the patented design. The closer the Apple design is to what came before it, the more narrow Apple's coverage would be. In any case design patents only cover the look of something not the functionality, so the choice being denied to consumers is ornamentation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/USD661296&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/BkoF5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/wIbYK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6147" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3285" RevisionGUID="aa1a6443-3e5f-46a8-ac54-6759d9d2f290" CreationDate="2013-02-05T22:05:31.640" UserId="7" Comment="Added patent number tag" Text="&lt;telecommunications&gt;&lt;maintenance&gt;&lt;coordination&gt;&lt;us20120173688&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3274" RevisionGUID="831c4ec4-95f5-41bf-b90d-95dff40381bc" CreationDate="2013-02-05T22:06:41.180" UserId="3076" Comment="Added bolding and link to paper on Egyptian Goddess case - fixed link" Text="Design patents are often granted for relatively small changes but then they have a corresponding narrow scope. In this case Page 2 of this design patent [D661296] [1] lists all of the prior art the examiner took into consideration. **The Sony X505 is listed as well as a couple of dozen other things.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]   &#xD;&#xA;All of those cited references are - by definition - not the same as whatever the patent covers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, on an Information Disclosure Statement filed by Apple, they brought 26 US patents to the examiner's attention **and they listed the X505.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From IDS Apple filed, see #3 in non-patent literature:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![IDS screen shot][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Apple does not own the wedge, they own the specific design in the patent drawings**. How broadly or narrowly the coverage is interpreted depends on the distance between the prior art and the patented design. ([see articles about Egyptian Goddess case][4])  The closer the Apple design is to what came before it, the more narrow Apple's coverage would be. In any case design patents only cover the look of something not the functionality, so the choice being denied to consumers is ornamentation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/USD661296&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/BkoF5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/wIbYK.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.bannerwitcoff.com/_docs/library/articles/Design%20Patent%20Litigation%20and%20Procurement%20Post-Egyptian%20Goddess.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3286" RevisionGUID="bdfd62de-5038-407c-b072-ac514d7b6304" CreationDate="2013-02-05T22:31:54.330" UserId="3179" Text="This patent broadly describes any news release with a headline and content.  It's childishly simple and has absolutely no value. It simply documents the extraordinarily broad and intuitive process of creating a news release.  Why is this a patent?  What idiot or group of idiots would give someone a patent on a generic process?  I'm not a lawyer, but this appears to put any individual or company creating a news release with a headline in a position of infringing on a patent.  I'm baffled.  Please make sense of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mike" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6150" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3286" RevisionGUID="bdfd62de-5038-407c-b072-ac514d7b6304" CreationDate="2013-02-05T22:31:54.330" UserId="3179" Text="Why is this allowed to exist as a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6151" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3286" RevisionGUID="bdfd62de-5038-407c-b072-ac514d7b6304" CreationDate="2013-02-05T22:31:54.330" UserId="3179" Text="&lt;us6370535&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3287" RevisionGUID="d0b2a002-08ac-4901-aa4e-84f5d7a155c0" CreationDate="2013-02-05T22:39:04.817" UserId="1025" Text="I'm in a similar situation as you are, where I have several ideas which I'm pretty sure are patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I'm definitely not an expert, here are my conclusions after doing a lot of reading and digging on the matter.  I hope this will be of use to anyone like me and you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NOTE:  The numbers bellow are only approximates since I don't remember them off the top of my head, but they were based on 2010 patent stats or something... use the following with a grain of salt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. There are discounts (I think up to 50%) for individuals filing (ie: non-corporate, no lawyers)&#xD;&#xA; 2. The filing process should normally cost around or a little over $5,000 (fees, paper-work, deposits, etc, etc.)&#xD;&#xA; 3. About 85% of patent applications do NOT get challenged and thus should NOT incur large additional fees&#xD;&#xA; 4. For the remaining 15% of patents which were challenged, the price could then sky-rocket from anywhere between $100K to millions of dollars... depending on who challenged, what was being challenged, how you decide to pursue (ie: with lawyer) and if its mediated or litigated, etc, etc. (whatever the last parts mean).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On those basis, I would not get discouraged... at least I'm hopeful.  I do admit that the filing process seems overly complex and the reason why I have not yet started.  But I would not let that discourage you!  If you believe in your idea and it's potential, you could always file and if challenged then give up... you would only loose 'some' money (when you're a student $5K hurts more).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I would not let comments of 'user96' (above) discourage you.  I've spent years reading patent files that were related to the patents filed by my last employers and I believe that the lingo can be learned.  Yes, what you write is crucial but it's legalese and it can be learnt.  I've tried to call a few lawyers in my parts of the world to see if they would be interested in 'only' proof-reading my claims document... didn't really get a definite yes/no answer, but my impression was that this was possible at reasonable costs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried to find a detailed FAQ on the filing process to no avail.  I guess lawyers and patent experts don't want that kind of tutorial and since they pretty much do 99% of the filings, why on earth would they post something like that.  But I'm still hopeful someone will eventually do it and it will be of immense use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3285" RevisionGUID="2316b67e-14df-4a8f-842d-ecf263b51cc2" CreationDate="2013-02-06T01:34:10.227" UserId="3076" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="What's novel about Patent Application [US 20120173688][1] ? Is there prior art? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120173688" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3288" RevisionGUID="bbc3cb92-c81a-437e-b6a4-f28b975706bd" CreationDate="2013-02-06T01:47:22.577" UserId="3076" Text="A non-final office action was issued in December citing [Zothner 6751657][1]. You can look the application in question up at USPTO public PAIR and see what else the examiner has cited and why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6751657" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3288" RevisionGUID="27bac19d-48f0-4bd5-8b53-98cc04470d86" CreationDate="2013-02-06T05:27:01.950" UserId="3076" Comment="Added link to PAIR" Text="A non-final office action was issued in December citing [Zothner 6751657][1]. You can look the application in question up at [USPTO Public PAIR][2]  and see what else the examiner has cited and why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6751657&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3286" RevisionGUID="a017bacd-fd84-4393-8dc4-34ec1eca1486" CreationDate="2013-02-06T05:51:53.687" UserId="3076" Comment="Added link to patent" Text="This patent [US6370535][1] broadly describes any news release with a headline and content.  It's childishly simple and has absolutely no value. It simply documents the extraordinarily broad and intuitive process of creating a news release.  Why is this a patent?  What idiot or group of idiots would give someone a patent on a generic process?  I'm not a lawyer, but this appears to put any individual or company creating a news release with a headline in a position of infringing on a patent.  I'm baffled.  Please make sense of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6370535.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3289" RevisionGUID="d3c5ff73-a8cb-4d4b-9132-62279a92503e" CreationDate="2013-02-06T06:27:00.043" UserId="3076" Text="The broadest claim looks really broad to me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for structured generation of a news release, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&lt;p&gt;a. separately specifying content of each of a plurality of pre-determined sections of the news release, the predetermined sections and their ordering determining in part a desired format for the news release;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;b. storing, in a digital storage medium, the content specified for each of the sections; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;c. assembling the news release by retrieving from the storage medium each of the stored sections in a manner consistent with the desired format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has more substance than just any news release. It is a **method for producing news releases** in a predetermined format based on pulling the ingredients together from multiple databases. The substance of the idea behind it is a menu driven Q and A with explanations and hints to help one produce a press release with a particular set of facts and points. Not earth-shattering, but probably new and non-obvious at the time.  Still, claim 1 is really broad on its face. I assume it was granted at a time when the patentability pendulum had swung far to one side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3289" RevisionGUID="33217400-aadd-4f94-b6ff-8dba0cdc106e" CreationDate="2013-02-06T06:37:57.720" UserId="3076" Comment="Added mention of depended claims with more limitations" Text="The broadest claims do look really broad to me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for structured generation of a news release, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&lt;p&gt;a. separately specifying content of each of a plurality of pre-determined sections of the news release, the predetermined sections and their ordering determining in part a desired format for the news release;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;b. storing, in a digital storage medium, the content specified for each of the sections; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;c. assembling the news release by retrieving from the storage medium each of the stored sections in a manner consistent with the desired format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But It does has more substance than just any news release. It is a **method for producing news releases** in a predetermined format based on pulling the ingredients together from multiple databases. The fleshed out idea behind it is a menu driven Q and A with explanations and hints to help one produce a press release with a particular set of facts and points. Not earth-shattering, but probably new and non-obvious at the time. The examiner looked at nine other, earlier patents in the field and a similar number of magazine articles and found this doing something none of those did.  Later claims, like 13 have more meat.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still, claim 1 is really broad on its face and might have a harder time standing up than many of the dependent claims. (I assume it was granted at a time when the patentability pendulum had swung far to one side.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3286" RevisionGUID="e7104f8f-c764-45c3-acf8-1e6923a029a5" CreationDate="2013-02-06T06:40:06.453" UserId="3076" Comment="Reduced inflammatory wording" Text="This patent [US6370535][1] broadly describes any news release with a headline and content.  It's childishly simple and has absolutely no value. It simply documents the extraordinarily broad and intuitive process of creating a news release.  Why is this a patent?  Why would the USPTO give someone a patent on a generic process?  I'm not a lawyer, but this appears to put any individual or company creating a news release with a headline in a position of infringing on a patent.  I'm baffled.  Please make sense of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6370535.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2053" RevisionGUID="0cdc9d8c-72db-4603-abaa-06125484c2d2" CreationDate="2013-02-06T11:28:01.417" UserId="1145" Comment="Fixed link and updated the information" Text="Another very good source for finding the meaning of (IPC) classification(s) and even searching in the classifications to find classes that relate to your subject is the Espacenet site maintained by the [European Patent Office][1]. Here you can search the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) which has replaced the European Patent Classification (ECLA) and is since Jan 1st 2013 used by both the USPTO and the EPO to classify patent documents.&#xD;&#xA;However, this CPC comprises all the IPC classes; thus this site can be used to search IPC also.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/classification" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6161" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2053" RevisionGUID="0cdc9d8c-72db-4603-abaa-06125484c2d2" CreationDate="2013-02-06T11:28:01.417" Comment="Proposed by 1145 approved by 2072, 1259 edit id of 313" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6162" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3285" RevisionGUID="2154dfb1-67af-4041-94ba-978b82d0f1e5" CreationDate="2013-02-06T13:48:05.087" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/299152486978183168" />
  <row Id="6167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3287" RevisionGUID="1336724a-c135-4b9e-b40e-99ad6fde1962" CreationDate="2013-02-06T17:30:23.253" UserId="3076" Comment="Added link to USPTO guide to filing a utility patent" Text="I'm in a similar situation as you are, where I have several ideas which I'm pretty sure are patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I'm definitely not an expert, here are my conclusions after doing a lot of reading and digging on the matter.  I hope this will be of use to anyone like me and you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NOTE:  The numbers bellow are only approximates since I don't remember them off the top of my head, but they were based on 2010 patent stats or something... use the following with a grain of salt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. There are discounts (I think up to 50%) for individuals filing (ie: non-corporate, no lawyers)&#xD;&#xA; 2. The filing process should normally cost around or a little over $5,000 (fees, paper-work, deposits, etc, etc.)&#xD;&#xA; 3. About 85% of patent applications do NOT get challenged and thus should NOT incur large additional fees&#xD;&#xA; 4. For the remaining 15% of patents which were challenged, the price could then sky-rocket from anywhere between $100K to millions of dollars... depending on who challenged, what was being challenged, how you decide to pursue (ie: with lawyer) and if its mediated or litigated, etc, etc. (whatever the last parts mean).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On those basis, I would not get discouraged... at least I'm hopeful.  I do admit that the filing process seems overly complex and the reason why I have not yet started.  But I would not let that discourage you!  If you believe in your idea and it's potential, you could always file and if challenged then give up... you would only loose 'some' money (when you're a student $5K hurts more).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I would not let comments of 'user96' (above) discourage you.  I've spent years reading patent files that were related to the patents filed by my last employers and I believe that the lingo can be learned.  Yes, what you write is crucial but it's legalese and it can be learnt.  I've tried to call a few lawyers in my parts of the world to see if they would be interested in 'only' proof-reading my claims document... didn't really get a definite yes/no answer, but my impression was that this was possible at reasonable costs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried to find a detailed FAQ on the filing process to no avail.  I guess lawyers and patent experts don't want that kind of tutorial and since they pretty much do 99% of the filings, why on earth would they post something like that.  But I'm still hopeful someone will eventually do it and it will be of immense use. [The USPTO has this guide.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/types/utility.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3291" RevisionGUID="a6b5541d-6c3c-4322-8945-04b67580a05c" CreationDate="2013-02-06T18:03:52.947" UserId="3185" Text="I just read all about US5024628 Maternity and Nursing bra pattent, but is there a way to find what products are based on this pattent? ie where could I find and buy this bra?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6169" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3291" RevisionGUID="a6b5541d-6c3c-4322-8945-04b67580a05c" CreationDate="2013-02-06T18:03:52.947" UserId="3185" Text="But where can I buy it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6170" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3291" RevisionGUID="a6b5541d-6c3c-4322-8945-04b67580a05c" CreationDate="2013-02-06T18:03:52.947" UserId="3185" Text="&lt;us5024628&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3292" RevisionGUID="e76dcd26-b2fd-4f74-ab49-380a8017d498" CreationDate="2013-02-06T18:34:08.870" UserId="3076" Text="Since the USPTO assignment database does not show that the original inventor ever signed over her patent to a company, I would call up or write a letter to the inventor, Mary Sanchez of Tucson AZ. The USPTO database, [Public PAIR][1], has her address and the name and phone number of her patent attorney. After getting past the Capcha screen at PAIR, you can type in the patent number and check the radio button to indicate you are searching by patent number. That will bring up the info on this patent. The tab on the far right is &#xD;&#xA;Addresses and Attorneys. The Info is there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3287" RevisionGUID="be28fa34-a766-49cb-8b11-17620e30ceba" CreationDate="2013-02-06T23:39:04.670" UserId="3076" Comment="Removed link I added a few hours ago" Text="I'm in a similar situation as you are, where I have several ideas which I'm pretty sure are patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I'm definitely not an expert, here are my conclusions after doing a lot of reading and digging on the matter.  I hope this will be of use to anyone like me and you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NOTE:  The numbers bellow are only approximates since I don't remember them off the top of my head, but they were based on 2010 patent stats or something... use the following with a grain of salt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. There are discounts (I think up to 50%) for individuals filing (ie: non-corporate, no lawyers)&#xD;&#xA; 2. The filing process should normally cost around or a little over $5,000 (fees, paper-work, deposits, etc, etc.)&#xD;&#xA; 3. About 85% of patent applications do NOT get challenged and thus should NOT incur large additional fees&#xD;&#xA; 4. For the remaining 15% of patents which were challenged, the price could then sky-rocket from anywhere between $100K to millions of dollars... depending on who challenged, what was being challenged, how you decide to pursue (ie: with lawyer) and if its mediated or litigated, etc, etc. (whatever the last parts mean).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On those basis, I would not get discouraged... at least I'm hopeful.  I do admit that the filing process seems overly complex and the reason why I have not yet started.  But I would not let that discourage you!  If you believe in your idea and it's potential, you could always file and if challenged then give up... you would only loose 'some' money (when you're a student $5K hurts more).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I would not let comments of 'user96' (above) discourage you.  I've spent years reading patent files that were related to the patents filed by my last employers and I believe that the lingo can be learned.  Yes, what you write is crucial but it's legalese and it can be learnt.  I've tried to call a few lawyers in my parts of the world to see if they would be interested in 'only' proof-reading my claims document... didn't really get a definite yes/no answer, but my impression was that this was possible at reasonable costs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried to find a detailed FAQ on the filing process to no avail.  I guess lawyers and patent experts don't want that kind of tutorial and since they pretty much do 99% of the filings, why on earth would they post something like that.  But I'm still hopeful someone will eventually do it and it will be of immense use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3293" RevisionGUID="4f5e3bae-972a-4e49-b279-2a3f2116ee29" CreationDate="2013-02-07T01:25:46.160" UserId="3109" Text="During patent drafting, do you think it is wise to make an acronym for the invention and use that in the description of the invention? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I titled my invention with three words and the word “system” at the end. I find myself repeating the three word system regularly in the description of the invention. I wonder if making an acronym is fine or maybe is going to make the interpretation too narrow. Maybe I shouldn't even refer to the invention by a name within the description?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the first time I'm writing a patent description, so sorry if the question sounds silly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6174" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3293" RevisionGUID="4f5e3bae-972a-4e49-b279-2a3f2116ee29" CreationDate="2013-02-07T01:25:46.160" UserId="3109" Text="acronym for the title of an invention. is it wise?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6175" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3293" RevisionGUID="4f5e3bae-972a-4e49-b279-2a3f2116ee29" CreationDate="2013-02-07T01:25:46.160" UserId="3109" Text="&lt;drafting&gt;&lt;title&gt;&lt;acronym&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3295" RevisionGUID="f53f8d6b-7aaf-4c5a-bf63-5eead6619be5" CreationDate="2013-02-07T05:51:47.860" UserId="3076" Text="Although patent applications should be readable, they are different from normal writing. If something is an &quot;inspection opening&quot;, in a more normally written document you might think you and the reader are getting tired of seeing those words and you might say &quot;observation window&quot; just to make it not so repetitive. In patent writing do not worry about being repetitive. Generally, if it is a spade keep calling it a spade. There are reasons to use different terminology for almost the same thing in some cases but generally you should give everything a name and stick with it throughout. I would not recommend making up multiple acronyms. I have read patents that are very hard to follow due to that practice. (The ABC fits into the BNM when the TRK is lined up with the RTY.) One acronym for something major seems ok.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An easy way wording can narrow the interpretation of your invention is to use the word &quot;invention&quot; or otherwise confuse a particular version, example or embodiment as The Invention. Google &quot;patent profanity&quot;.  We don't say &quot;the invention has a handle&quot;. We say &quot;some embodiments consistent with these teachings have a handle (or include a handle)&quot;. - &quot;The specific implementation seen in FIG. 23 has a handle.&quot; is fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, it is not a silly question but the acronym issue will likely not be the biggest hurdle to drafting a good application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6182" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="90" RevisionGUID="883d74bf-1df6-4895-9b22-07d07592e3e6" CreationDate="2013-02-07T06:01:34.347" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag - patent-agent" Text="&lt;usa&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;process&gt;&lt;lawyers&gt;&lt;patent-agent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3296" RevisionGUID="1beca990-c6ad-402f-b569-d14ad8a65d79" CreationDate="2013-02-07T06:13:52.000" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3297" RevisionGUID="11677baa-43ea-4881-9b73-88fac6e5e6c9" CreationDate="2013-02-07T06:13:52.000" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3167" RevisionGUID="93c9ec48-d2fe-4b9b-a12e-2225d63a8428" CreationDate="2013-02-07T06:30:19.183" UserId="3076" Comment="added links" Text="I have a few suggestions: the USPTO is helping local non-profits set up pro bono patent help. [(pro-se and pro bono at USPTO)][1] The first one up and running is in Minneapolis but others are getting on line. Second there may be an inventors club in your area and there may be members who are patent agents or patent attorneys who can provide some advice on DIY patent application. Third many inventors learn as much as they can and file a pro se provisional application. There is not much in the way of formal requirements for that type of filing and the fees are $125. [(guide to provisional applications at USPTO)][2] It gives you a year to file a &quot;real&quot; application. However, their ultimate value as a stake in the ground will turn on how well the claims in the eventual non-provisional application are supported with details in the provisional. Last - not every patent practitioner charges that much. Many patent attorneys do not really enjoy individual inventors as clients. Individual inventors need more hand holding, do not represent repeat business and are very cost sensitive. Some registered practitioners are more oriented to small companies and individual inventors. Check with a local inventors club for names. [(search for inventors clubs)][3]&#xD;&#xA;Consider a patent agent rather than an attorney. Same rights at the USPTO, same patent bar exam and  same educational requirements. But we can't command the same size fees (full disclosure - yes I am one). You might look at the member list of the [National Association of Patent Practitioners.][4] About 1/2 are agents and 1/2 are attorneys. Almost all are sole practitioners with lower overhead than a big firm. Good luck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/proseprobono/index.jsp&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/types/provapp.jsp&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uiausa.org/inventor-clubs&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.napp.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6186" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3283" RevisionGUID="9873f6e1-b91b-4ca1-afaa-cc224a77c73a" CreationDate="2013-02-07T10:48:05.783" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/299469577417531393" />
  <row Id="6187" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3293" RevisionGUID="9300477a-5840-4115-babf-b4f6ef8c99ae" CreationDate="2013-02-07T11:18:21.900" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3298" RevisionGUID="3516921a-5b59-4da7-ab2a-8e5faa3c0a1f" CreationDate="2013-02-07T13:20:29.680" UserId="3192" Text="Patent no (WO2012164480(A1) which is claiming priority no patent is IN2011DE01539(IN201101539I1), &#xD;&#xA;can these two patents we can consider as a same patent or different patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6189" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3298" RevisionGUID="3516921a-5b59-4da7-ab2a-8e5faa3c0a1f" CreationDate="2013-02-07T13:20:29.680" UserId="3192" Text="patent claiming that priority no?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6190" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3298" RevisionGUID="3516921a-5b59-4da7-ab2a-8e5faa3c0a1f" CreationDate="2013-02-07T13:20:29.680" UserId="3192" Text="&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3297" RevisionGUID="fea2e489-442e-4a48-9827-745ce345dd07" CreationDate="2013-02-07T15:50:32.763" UserId="3076" Comment="added 158 characters in body" Text="A patent agent is a USPTO registered practitioner (passed the patent bar exam, etc.) who is NOT an attorney. Same rights relative to USPTO as patent attorney." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6192" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3297" RevisionGUID="fea2e489-442e-4a48-9827-745ce345dd07" CreationDate="2013-02-07T15:50:32.763" Comment="Proposed by 3076 approved by 1 edit id of 315" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3296" RevisionGUID="6eb356ca-ce9e-474c-a0dd-907cfb85f746" CreationDate="2013-02-07T15:50:35.120" UserId="3076" Comment="added 692 characters in body" Text="A patent agent is a USPTO registered practitioner (passed the patent bar exam, etc.) who is not also licensed to practice law in any state. To the USPTO &quot;registered practitioners&quot; are the only people allowed to deal with them on someone else's behalf. Patent agents and patent attorneys have the same rights and responsibilities at/to the USPTO. If you need help with infringement issues or anything else outside the USPTO's processes, you need a lawyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[USPTO Presentation on Becoming a Registered Practitioner][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Find or verify a registered practitioner at USPTO ][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/oed/GRB_March_2012.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/query.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6194" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3296" RevisionGUID="6eb356ca-ce9e-474c-a0dd-907cfb85f746" CreationDate="2013-02-07T15:50:35.120" Comment="Proposed by 3076 approved by 1 edit id of 314" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3291" RevisionGUID="8df1170d-fa0b-4b15-9846-0a51401a647f" CreationDate="2013-02-07T15:53:27.907" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 40 characters in body" Text="I just read all about US5024628 Maternity and Nursing bra pattent, but is there a way to find what products are based on this pattent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3299" RevisionGUID="ffdfca3b-4383-4642-afc2-f21e3b088a2e" CreationDate="2013-02-07T16:49:49.960" UserId="2072" Text="Yes, these applications are directed to the same invention.  It looks like this is a PCT application (PCT/IB2012/052664) claiming priority to the Indian application you cited.  You can access the prosecution history here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2012164480&amp;recNum=1&amp;tab=PCTDocuments&amp;maxRec=1&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=&amp;queryString=FP%3A%28WO2012164480%29&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that there are some amendments to the claims in response to the international search report.  Otherwise, these applications are probably very similar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6202" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3267" RevisionGUID="c07849da-85ff-429b-8dd3-6ea0b77a68f3" CreationDate="2013-02-07T19:48:06.770" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/299605476809768960" />
  <row Id="6203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3298" RevisionGUID="87e45724-a47c-4742-b6b1-b68a221b87f3" CreationDate="2013-02-07T21:41:10.037" UserId="3076" Comment="Typo and improve English usage" Text="Patent no (WO2012164480(A1) which is claiming priority to patent is IN2011DE01539(IN201101539I1), &#xD;&#xA;can these two patents be considered as the same patent or different patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3291" RevisionGUID="68208f2d-f316-473d-b712-264b2de912b0" CreationDate="2013-02-07T22:04:11.633" UserId="1259" Comment="typo, patTent" Text="I just read all about US5024628 Maternity and Nursing bra patent, but is there a way to find what products are based on this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3298" RevisionGUID="f09e79d5-1573-4b30-86c8-3b027593d766" CreationDate="2013-02-07T22:09:11.710" UserId="1259" Comment="further grammer" Text="Patent no WO2012164480(A1) which is claiming priority to patent IN2011DE01539 (IN201101539I1), &#xD;&#xA;can these two patents be considered as the same patent or are they different patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6206" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3298" RevisionGUID="f09e79d5-1573-4b30-86c8-3b027593d766" CreationDate="2013-02-07T22:09:11.710" UserId="1259" Comment="further grammer" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;priority&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6207" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3225" RevisionGUID="c46ff013-7d05-44e6-a6ab-410e08f453ac" CreationDate="2013-02-07T22:48:06.637" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/299650775431409666" />
  <row Id="6208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3298" RevisionGUID="bcbfd0f4-af31-46bb-81e9-2d4d60ddc2da" CreationDate="2013-02-07T23:50:25.773" UserId="3076" Comment="Added link" Text="Patent no  [WO2012164480 (A1)][1] which is claiming priority to patent IN2011DE01539 (IN201101539I1), &#xD;&#xA;can these two patents be considered as the same patent or are they different patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2012164480&amp;recNum=1&amp;docAn=IB2012052664&amp;queryString=ALLNUM:%28WO2012164480%29&amp;maxRec=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3301" RevisionGUID="3b6fceb7-25ae-4a53-a297-aca39e8dbb00" CreationDate="2013-02-08T03:35:36.623" UserId="3195" Text="Since spreading large deposits among different banks has always been the only way to keep everything FDIC insured, and since that's been a common money management practice long before [CDARS][1] existed, how did CDARS not be considered obvious and duplicating practices already in use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_Deposit_Account_Registry_Service" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6210" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3301" RevisionGUID="3b6fceb7-25ae-4a53-a297-aca39e8dbb00" CreationDate="2013-02-08T03:35:36.623" UserId="3195" Text="Why was CDARS patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6211" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3301" RevisionGUID="3b6fceb7-25ae-4a53-a297-aca39e8dbb00" CreationDate="2013-02-08T03:35:36.623" UserId="3195" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3301" RevisionGUID="c1caef23-260d-4061-be81-e0048f61e439" CreationDate="2013-02-08T05:03:30.180" UserId="3076" Comment="Added links to three patents" Text="Since spreading large deposits among different banks has always been the only way to keep everything FDIC insured, and since that's been a common money management practice long before [CDARS][1] existed, how did CDARS not be considered obvious and duplicating practices already in use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[us7376606][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[us7440914][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[us7596522][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_Deposit_Account_Registry_Service&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7376606&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7440914&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7596522" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6213" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3301" RevisionGUID="f64b1743-53ad-4fc0-af5f-887048162317" CreationDate="2013-02-08T14:06:54.187" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;us7376606&gt;&lt;us7440914&gt;&lt;us7596522&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3303" RevisionGUID="9820b8f5-fbc9-40e5-b5a3-1a6b372134be" CreationDate="2013-02-08T17:16:16.087" UserId="3076" Text="Looking specifically at the '522 patent, the key feature that was viewed as new and non-obvious had to do with an automatic arrangement between a set of unaffiliated banks to reciprocally move depositors money between them and keep track of not hitting the limits taking into account that a depositor might already have accounts at some of the banks. As mentioned in my comment, this application was done under an accelerated program that requires the applicant to put themselves on the record as to what they think they have that is new and non-obvious. &lt;p&gt;In the normal case an applicant submits, the examiner rejects on some particular grounds and the applicant only responds to the rejection. With this type of accelerated examination the burden is one the applicant to do a comprehensive search (the file history has a 28+ page list of all the search strings used and what it turned up). Then the applicant has to point out what is new above and beyond what was found. From the accelerated examination  support document, they think t he closest references where:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Musmanno et al. u.S. Patent No. 4,774,663&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oncken u.S. Patent No. 4,985,833&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bent et al. u.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0108149&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, in normal U.S. prosecution there is no requirement for the applicant to point out what they regard as the closest references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their highlighting on what makes claim 1 novel is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Detailed Explanation of Patentability: All of the references identified above fail to teach or suggest at least the reciprocal (two-way) deposit exchange process defined by at least the claim language highlighted below: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A. Independent claims 1 and 11 &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Claim 1 A computer program product for processing large deposits that exceed an established deposit insurance limit so that the large deposits are fully insured, the large deposits being received by &lt;b&gt; a plurality of unaffiliated banks from their depositors&lt;/b&gt;, the computer program product comprising computer-readable media encoded with instructions for execution by a processor to perform a method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(a) receiving orders placed by &lt;b&gt; the plurality of unaffiliated banks to process the large deposits&lt;/b&gt;; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(b) partitioning each of the large deposits into a plurality of deposit portions, each deposit portion not exceeding the established deposit insurance limit; and &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(c) assigning at least some of the deposit portions &lt;b&gt;to at least some of the unaffiliated banks for deposit therein so that at least some of the unaffiliated banks that place orders to process large deposits also receive deposit portions from other unaffiliated banks that place orders to process large deposits. &lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like the basic idea is that you, the depositor, go into one bank and give them a lot of money and they, transparent to you, automatically spread it out to other banks, while the other banks are doing the same. And they figure out the interest rate they can give you by using a weighted average of the various interest rates the other banks provide. Everybody wins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other two patents went through the system normally and cover other aspects - I have not looked at them in any detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3304" RevisionGUID="6089a157-8985-4587-b0ae-50e49625d023" CreationDate="2013-02-08T18:39:17.973" UserId="7" Text="I'd like to link to certain patents or patent applications filed with the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Patents makes this relatively straightforward, hosting patents &amp; applications at this URL scheme: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/[publication number]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;URL schemes at the USPTO aren't so simple. An example of a application URL found at the Patent Application Full-Text and Image Database (AppFT):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&amp;r=1&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=3d.AS.&amp;OS=an/3d&amp;RS=AN/3d&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will that application permanently be hosted at that link? And is there a simpler way to link to applications and granted patents at the USPTO?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6218" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3304" RevisionGUID="6089a157-8985-4587-b0ae-50e49625d023" CreationDate="2013-02-08T18:39:17.973" UserId="7" Text="How to get a patent or patent application permalink at the USPTO website?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6219" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3304" RevisionGUID="6089a157-8985-4587-b0ae-50e49625d023" CreationDate="2013-02-08T18:39:17.973" UserId="7" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3304" RevisionGUID="2c2e3acb-c31b-4f45-981e-221e3c756b57" CreationDate="2013-02-08T18:45:10.070" UserId="7" Comment="edited body" Text="I'd like to link to certain patents or patent applications filed with the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Patents makes this relatively straightforward, hosting patents &amp; applications at this URL scheme: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://www.google.com/patents/[publication number]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;URL schemes at the USPTO aren't so simple. An example of an application URL found at the Patent Application Full-Text and Image Database (AppFT):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&amp;r=1&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=3d.AS.&amp;OS=an/3d&amp;RS=AN/3d&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will that application permanently live at that link? And is there a simpler way to link to applications and granted patents at the USPTO?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6221" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3304" RevisionGUID="a08440e9-c2cf-41ed-b390-410986c8be9d" CreationDate="2013-02-08T18:56:12.760" UserId="7" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;patent-search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3303" RevisionGUID="8857393e-d1e9-4eaa-9050-75b8bc467fc0" CreationDate="2013-02-08T19:02:48.087" UserId="3076" Comment="typo" Text="Looking specifically at the '522 patent, the key feature that was viewed as new and non-obvious had to do with an automatic arrangement between a set of unaffiliated banks to reciprocally move depositors money between them and keep track of not hitting the limits taking into account that a depositor might already have accounts at some of the banks. As mentioned in my comment, this application was done under an accelerated program that requires the applicant to put themselves on the record as to what they think they have that is new and non-obvious. &lt;p&gt;In the normal case an applicant submits, the examiner rejects on some particular grounds and the applicant only responds to the rejection. With this type of accelerated examination the burden is on the applicant to do a comprehensive search (the file history has a 28+ page list of all the search strings used and what it turned up). Then the applicant has to point out what is new above and beyond what was found. From the accelerated examination  support document, they think t he closest references where:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Musmanno et al. u.S. Patent No. 4,774,663&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oncken u.S. Patent No. 4,985,833&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bent et al. u.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0108149&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, in normal U.S. prosecution there is no requirement for the applicant to point out what they regard as the closest references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their highlighting on what makes claim 1 novel is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Detailed Explanation of Patentability: All of the references identified above fail to teach or suggest at least the reciprocal (two-way) deposit exchange process defined by at least the claim language highlighted below: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A. Independent claims 1 and 11 &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Claim 1 A computer program product for processing large deposits that exceed an established deposit insurance limit so that the large deposits are fully insured, the large deposits being received by &lt;b&gt; a plurality of unaffiliated banks from their depositors&lt;/b&gt;, the computer program product comprising computer-readable media encoded with instructions for execution by a processor to perform a method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(a) receiving orders placed by &lt;b&gt; the plurality of unaffiliated banks to process the large deposits&lt;/b&gt;; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(b) partitioning each of the large deposits into a plurality of deposit portions, each deposit portion not exceeding the established deposit insurance limit; and &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(c) assigning at least some of the deposit portions &lt;b&gt;to at least some of the unaffiliated banks for deposit therein so that at least some of the unaffiliated banks that place orders to process large deposits also receive deposit portions from other unaffiliated banks that place orders to process large deposits. &lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like the basic idea is that you, the depositor, go into one bank and give them a lot of money and they, transparent to you, automatically spread it out to other banks, while the other banks are doing the same. And they figure out the interest rate they can give you by using a weighted average of the various interest rates the other banks provide. Everybody wins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other two patents went through the system normally and cover other aspects - I have not looked at them in any detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3303" RevisionGUID="7a278d90-49f4-4460-8398-899df305616c" CreationDate="2013-02-08T19:15:23.993" UserId="3076" Comment="typo and mention of dependent claims" Text="Looking specifically at the '522 patent, the key feature that was viewed as new and non-obvious had to do with an automatic arrangement between a set of unaffiliated banks to reciprocally move depositors money between them and keep track of not hitting the limits taking into account that a depositor might already have accounts at some of the banks. As mentioned in my comment, this application was done under an accelerated program that requires the applicant to put themselves on the record as to what they think they have that is new and non-obvious. &lt;p&gt;In the normal case an applicant submits, the examiner rejects on some particular grounds and the applicant only responds to the rejection. With this type of accelerated examination the burden is on the applicant to do a comprehensive search (the file history has a 28+ page list of all the search strings used and what it turned up). Then the applicant has to point out what is new above and beyond what was found. From the accelerated examination  support document, they think the closest references are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Musmanno et al. u.S. Patent No. 4,774,663&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oncken u.S. Patent No. 4,985,833&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bent et al. u.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0108149&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, in normal U.S. prosecution there is no requirement for the applicant to point out what they regard as the closest references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their highlighting on what makes claim 1 novel is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Detailed Explanation of Patentability: All of the references identified above fail to teach or suggest at least the reciprocal (two-way) deposit exchange process defined by at least the claim language highlighted below: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A. Independent claims 1 and 11 &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Claim 1 A computer program product for processing large deposits that exceed an established deposit insurance limit so that the large deposits are fully insured, the large deposits being received by &lt;b&gt; a plurality of unaffiliated banks from their depositors&lt;/b&gt;, the computer program product comprising computer-readable media encoded with instructions for execution by a processor to perform a method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(a) receiving orders placed by &lt;b&gt; the plurality of unaffiliated banks to process the large deposits&lt;/b&gt;; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(b) partitioning each of the large deposits into a plurality of deposit portions, each deposit portion not exceeding the established deposit insurance limit; and &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(c) assigning at least some of the deposit portions &lt;b&gt;to at least some of the unaffiliated banks for deposit therein so that at least some of the unaffiliated banks that place orders to process large deposits also receive deposit portions from other unaffiliated banks that place orders to process large deposits. &lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like the basic idea is that you, the depositor, go into one bank and give them a lot of money and they, transparent to you, automatically spread it out to other banks, while the other banks are doing the same. And they figure out the interest rate they can give you by using a weighted average of the various interest rates the other banks provide. Everybody wins. Of course the two independent claims are the broadest and therefor the most susceptible to, at some point, being knocked out. However the dependent claims do go into quite a bit of detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other two patents went through the system normally and cover other aspects - I have not looked at them in any detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3305" RevisionGUID="c25e5141-c549-4f77-aca0-989a650af36b" CreationDate="2013-02-08T19:36:55.823" UserId="3076" Text="From the USPTO web site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To the Full-Text of a Particular Patent: A special shortened URL format:&#xD;&#xA;http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5123456&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;where the patent number &quot;5123456&quot; may be replaced by any valid patent number within the database, has been established to enable users to more easily construct a URL for bookmarking or linking to the full-text of a single granted patent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3303" RevisionGUID="624d981b-c3b5-4e2a-8645-d7e04e5bd773" CreationDate="2013-02-08T19:38:52.530" UserId="3076" Comment="mentioned underlining" Text="Looking specifically at the '522 patent, the key feature that was viewed as new and non-obvious had to do with an automatic arrangement between a set of unaffiliated banks to reciprocally move depositors money between them and keep track of not hitting the limits taking into account that a depositor might already have accounts at some of the banks. As mentioned in my comment, this application was done under an accelerated program that requires the applicant to put themselves on the record as to what they think they have that is new and non-obvious. &lt;p&gt;In the normal case an applicant submits, the examiner rejects on some particular grounds and the applicant only responds to the rejection. With this type of accelerated examination the burden is on the applicant to do a comprehensive search (the file history has a 28+ page list of all the search strings used and what it turned up). Then the applicant has to point out what is new above and beyond what was found. From the accelerated examination  support document, they think the closest references are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Musmanno et al. u.S. Patent No. 4,774,663&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oncken u.S. Patent No. 4,985,833&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bent et al. u.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0108149&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, in normal U.S. prosecution there is no requirement for the applicant to point out what they regard as the closest references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their highlighting (underlined in original - bolded here) on what makes claim 1 novel is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Detailed Explanation of Patentability: All of the references identified above fail to teach or suggest at least the reciprocal (two-way) deposit exchange process defined by at least the claim language highlighted below: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A. Independent claims 1 and 11 &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Claim 1 A computer program product for processing large deposits that exceed an established deposit insurance limit so that the large deposits are fully insured, the large deposits being received by &lt;b&gt; a plurality of unaffiliated banks from their depositors&lt;/b&gt;, the computer program product comprising computer-readable media encoded with instructions for execution by a processor to perform a method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(a) receiving orders placed by &lt;b&gt; the plurality of unaffiliated banks to process the large deposits&lt;/b&gt;; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(b) partitioning each of the large deposits into a plurality of deposit portions, each deposit portion not exceeding the established deposit insurance limit; and &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(c) assigning at least some of the deposit portions &lt;b&gt;to at least some of the unaffiliated banks for deposit therein so that at least some of the unaffiliated banks that place orders to process large deposits also receive deposit portions from other unaffiliated banks that place orders to process large deposits. &lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like the basic idea is that you, the depositor, go into one bank and give them a lot of money and they, transparent to you, automatically spread it out to other banks, while the other banks are doing the same. And they figure out the interest rate they can give you by using a weighted average of the various interest rates the other banks provide. Everybody wins. Of course the two independent claims are the broadest and therefor the most susceptible to, at some point, being knocked out. However the dependent claims do go into quite a bit of detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other two patents went through the system normally and cover other aspects - I have not looked at them in any detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3306" RevisionGUID="39acfe8b-8dbc-41b9-a700-f7417649d4e7" CreationDate="2013-02-08T19:43:09.480" UserId="3199" Text=" Application # 20120173688&#xD;&#xA; Primary Filing Category-Telecommunications-455 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The system is designed to coordinate planned maintenance on a network in order to prevent collisions and duplicated work from causing outages on any network. Quite often,there have been instances where multiple parties have attempted to upgrade a network and have interfered and overlapped with each other causing the network to go out of service. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My application asserts that this can all be handled intelligently and prevent any chance for duplication of work and network down time on any network. This system also optimizes available resources by efficiently allocating time,resources and personnel to more effectively time manage and perform maintenance on any network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During my research,I have not seen any prior art that would be similar to the application. &#xD;&#xA;However,I'm curious if any other  methods and systems currently exist that would prevent the application from being granted.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6227" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3306" RevisionGUID="39acfe8b-8dbc-41b9-a700-f7417649d4e7" CreationDate="2013-02-08T19:43:09.480" UserId="3199" Text="Prior Art for Method And System For Improved Network Maintence Scheduling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6228" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3306" RevisionGUID="39acfe8b-8dbc-41b9-a700-f7417649d4e7" CreationDate="2013-02-08T19:43:09.480" UserId="3199" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;telecommunications&gt;&lt;maintenance&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6229" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3306" RevisionGUID="84953cc7-a415-4961-8f6b-74263bd32f14" CreationDate="2013-02-08T20:26:26.137" UserId="7" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;telecommunications&gt;&lt;maintenance&gt;&lt;us20120173688&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6230" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="853" RevisionGUID="773cfdc5-fcfe-4744-9d19-42d525e2311e" CreationDate="2013-02-08T21:24:40.887" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6231" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3265" RevisionGUID="76d595f0-f8d1-4e43-91cc-a2d23245e825" CreationDate="2013-02-08T21:25:34.990" UserId="1259" Comment="tag" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;invention-promotion&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6232" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="23" RevisionGUID="31853a82-53ab-4379-8d09-c3cc02e4b6da" CreationDate="2013-02-08T21:35:43.687" UserId="1259" Comment="tag" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6233" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3304" RevisionGUID="71246071-ec83-4361-8072-81fea30598a2" CreationDate="2013-02-09T19:48:12.880" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/300330277660659712" />
  <row Id="6234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3307" RevisionGUID="62c842bb-8b66-4c6c-8a8b-8d571343a505" CreationDate="2013-02-09T20:30:13.130" UserId="3202" Text="Yes, it is for the same patent application number. Actually, Indian Patent Office has unique way to allot the patent application numbers. There are four patent offices in India viz. Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai. These patent offices are divided on the basis of jurisdictional states. Hence, a patent application can only be filed in Delhi if the applicant resides in the Northern States of India. The patent application number start from 1 to many till 31 Dec in each year by each patent office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, 1/DEL/2013, 1/MUM/2013, 1/KOL/2013 &amp; 1/CHE/2013 are available based on filing offices. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The actual number for said priority application is 1539/DEL/2011 i.e. application filed in Delhi Patent Office. However, the same format of application numbers are not used by EPO and other databases while quoting Indian Applications. Therefore, the confusion has been created.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6235" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3301" RevisionGUID="31f64539-ed54-4aba-b25f-da1d74e03be2" CreationDate="2013-02-09T22:48:12.473" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/300375574671667200" />
  <row Id="6236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3308" RevisionGUID="80f3a93c-26bd-4bcb-aa84-9701eb3ad47f" CreationDate="2013-02-10T02:19:10.513" UserId="3203" Text="I have an idea I would like to patent. I have not started working on the idea yet (and I'll swear to that in court). How best to keep my job without losing my intellectual property rights?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea is completely independent of my work, however it would be a software patent and I work as a software developer. No proprietary employer information or equipment would be used to develop the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have signed a non-compete with my employer (I am not in California), but have not signed any documents assigning intellectual property to my employer. I have asked my employer to clarify their policy regarding intellectual property, and they responded with a typical statement that work derived from proprietary knowledge or equipment gained from employment belongs to the company. However I have not signed any document to this effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know the jurisprudence on this? Is assignment of IP non-existent unless specified in an employment contract, or can it be implied by employment as my employer has said?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind my work would be orthogonal to my company's work, but I just want to make sure I should not quit my job before embodying my invention just to be safe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6237" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3308" RevisionGUID="80f3a93c-26bd-4bcb-aa84-9701eb3ad47f" CreationDate="2013-02-10T02:19:10.513" UserId="3203" Text="How best to patent idea while working for company?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6238" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3308" RevisionGUID="80f3a93c-26bd-4bcb-aa84-9701eb3ad47f" CreationDate="2013-02-10T02:19:10.513" UserId="3203" Text="&lt;intellectual-property&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6239" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3308" RevisionGUID="390582c6-a579-4f5a-b730-a6f5e3e2a71c" CreationDate="2013-02-10T13:14:00.423" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;intellectual-property&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3309" RevisionGUID="5bcfbca0-d885-45d4-a0a1-1442bd405640" CreationDate="2013-02-10T18:09:53.223" UserId="3207" Text="UK based Convertertechnology have dated their Power-Over-Ethernet based LED lightning reference system in 29th December, 2006, as Version 1.1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the link to the document: http://www.convertertechnology.co.uk/index.php?s=file_download&amp;id=10&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is however unclear when exactly the document was first published." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6241" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3309" RevisionGUID="5bcfbca0-d885-45d4-a0a1-1442bd405640" CreationDate="2013-02-10T18:09:53.223" UserId="3207" Text="Is this prior art to Power-over-Ethernet based LED lighting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6242" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3309" RevisionGUID="5bcfbca0-d885-45d4-a0a1-1442bd405640" CreationDate="2013-02-10T18:09:53.223" UserId="3207" Text="&lt;us20080197790&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6243" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3309" RevisionGUID="9fbd18a5-c84c-47d3-9741-eb82955da408" CreationDate="2013-02-10T18:35:26.960" UserId="3207" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;us20080197790&gt;&lt;us20120223650&gt;&lt;us20120271477&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3309" RevisionGUID="abd69e11-71b5-4f76-b481-4941b949f844" CreationDate="2013-02-10T18:49:37.433" UserId="3207" Comment="added 165 characters in body; edited title" Text="UK based Convertertechnology have dated their Power-Over-Ethernet based LED lightning reference system in 29th December, 2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the link to the document: http://www.convertertechnology.co.uk/index.php?s=file_download&amp;id=10&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following web page seems to indicate that the document was published in 11 February, 2007:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.convertertechnology.co.uk/index.php?id=53&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The document itself shows clearly that their design implements PoE detection and classification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6245" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3309" RevisionGUID="abd69e11-71b5-4f76-b481-4941b949f844" CreationDate="2013-02-10T18:49:37.433" UserId="3207" Comment="added 165 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is this prior art to Power-over-Ethernet based LED lighting or illumination?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6246" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3308" RevisionGUID="4b3bfb82-1ad6-4185-8ea3-b54fc660ccfb" CreationDate="2013-02-10T19:14:31.090" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/300684186853978113" />
  <row Id="6247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3309" RevisionGUID="6da49c4b-9d19-4150-9c01-c0f5c2dc21ce" CreationDate="2013-02-10T20:15:36.143" UserId="3076" Comment="Added links to the tagged patent applications" Text="UK based Convertertechnology have dated their Power-Over-Ethernet based LED lightning reference system in 29th December, 2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the link to the document: http://www.convertertechnology.co.uk/index.php?s=file_download&amp;id=10&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following web page seems to indicate that the document was published in 11 February, 2007:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.convertertechnology.co.uk/index.php?id=53&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The document itself shows clearly that their design implements PoE detection and classification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Links:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US20080197790][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US20120223650][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US20120271477][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20080197790&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120223650&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120271477" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3310" RevisionGUID="d30f1767-fa96-4dd1-a37c-e661d9e9456d" CreationDate="2013-02-10T20:25:53.803" UserId="3076" Text="The '790 application went abandoned at the USPTO in June for not responding to an office action. The '650 application cites the converter technology device in its Information Disclosure Statement to the patent office." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3310" RevisionGUID="4bc47c6f-8f14-4f09-b456-631979a8ef1d" CreationDate="2013-02-10T22:34:35.937" UserId="3076" Comment="added 163 characters in body" Text="The '790 application went abandoned at the USPTO in June for not responding to an office action. The '650 application cites the converter technology device in its Information Disclosure Statement to the patent office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last apication seems to claim a system where the light is controlled by data received over the data stream. I do not see that in the reference you link to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3311" RevisionGUID="5cc5f01d-ad4a-4bc7-a565-d52f006d545d" CreationDate="2013-02-11T00:40:59.467" UserId="3209" Text="I am developing a product idea similar to another product on the market, and see that this product has a &quot;patent pending&quot; status. In my research, I see that the competing patent lists:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Patent Pending, U.S. SN 61/705,026&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I cannot find any information on this patent reference number after doing extensive research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent application not published?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My best,&#xD;&#xA;Andy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6251" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3311" RevisionGUID="5cc5f01d-ad4a-4bc7-a565-d52f006d545d" CreationDate="2013-02-11T00:40:59.467" UserId="3209" Text="Finding Patent Pending Application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6252" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3311" RevisionGUID="5cc5f01d-ad4a-4bc7-a565-d52f006d545d" CreationDate="2013-02-11T00:40:59.467" UserId="3209" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3310" RevisionGUID="97e76d01-7187-40ae-b9c9-fc6cc356cc17" CreationDate="2013-02-11T01:04:17.750" UserId="3076" Comment="Added claim 1 of '477 doc. And spelling" Text="The '790 application went abandoned at the USPTO in June for not responding to an office action. The '650 application cites the converter technology device in its Information Disclosure Statement to the patent office. ( item #4 in non-patent literature )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the image file wrappers in [USPTO Public PAIR.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last application seems to claim a system where the light is controlled by data received over the data stream. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A Power over Ethernet-Internet Protocol (PoE-IP) Illuminator comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;a power/data separator, separating data and power received from a PoE LAN cable;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;a DC/DC circuit, converting said separated power to voltage required to power controller;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;a controller, receiving data and controlling driver in response to said received separated data;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;an IP-ID non-volatile memory, providing IP-ID to said controller;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;a driver, receiving commands from said controller and controlling said separated power supplied to at least one LED light source; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;at least one LED light source, producing illumination light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not see that in the reference you link to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3312" RevisionGUID="ede2ec44-a559-4511-8547-2e45966f615d" CreationDate="2013-02-11T01:40:09.240" UserId="3076" Text="By starting with 61 it is identifiable as the serial number/application number of a provisional patent application. They are not published but will be accessible if a non-provisional application is published or issued as a patent and claims the benefit of that provisional application. It is allowed to label something patent pending when a provisional is pending. Including the number is not necessary and takes away a little of the mystery." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3313" RevisionGUID="0e7e042b-581b-465e-afbb-05c47c9db6fd" CreationDate="2013-02-11T03:02:13.477" UserId="1335" Text="Are you sure you have not signed away your IP rights? Did you check your employment contract thoroughly? Generally, these days most employment contracts for salaried (and even contract) employees have standard boilerplate language broadly asserting that whatever intellectual property you come up with while you are employed belongs to the employer by default. This typically means even if you get an idea -- for something that has no relation at all with your employer's interests -- in a dream -- while you were on vacation -- on another continent -- they can still lay claim to it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if you're a software developer, your primary output in service of your employer is essentially intellectual property, so I would be surprised if your employer did not have that boilerplate in their employment contract. In fact, if your employer's main business happens to depend on software you write, it would be almost negligent if they didn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a great answer to a very similar question that identifies the problems in IP ownership of personal or hobby projects/ideas, even if it's done on your own time with your own resources:&#xD;&#xA;http://answers.onstartups.com/a/20136&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3312" RevisionGUID="312e2d3b-f61e-4f4c-9d88-0b648c00fb48" CreationDate="2013-02-11T03:57:23.780" UserId="3076" Comment="Added &quot;&quot; and changed labeled to marked and bolding added" Text="By starting with 61 it is identifiable as the serial number/application number of a **provisional** patent application. They are not published but will be accessible if a non-provisional application is published or issued as a patent and claims the benefit of that provisional application. It is allowed to mark something &quot;patent pending&quot; when a provisional is pending. Including the number is not necessary and takes away a little of the mystery." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3314" RevisionGUID="e8339828-1f27-4fcb-94fb-5d9656bb2ff4" CreationDate="2013-02-11T04:50:55.033" UserId="3211" Text="I saw this patent for Medbox and I was wondering how it doesn't violate EP 2174251 B1 which is for a medicine dispensing machine called Pyxis Medstation. They are similar machines however one dispenses pharmaceutical while the other dispenses marijuana. But they both dispense medicine. Don't see much of the distinction. Thanks for your help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6258" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3314" RevisionGUID="e8339828-1f27-4fcb-94fb-5d9656bb2ff4" CreationDate="2013-02-11T04:50:55.033" UserId="3211" Text="How is the patent 7,844,363 B1 not violating EP 2174251 B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6259" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3314" RevisionGUID="e8339828-1f27-4fcb-94fb-5d9656bb2ff4" CreationDate="2013-02-11T04:50:55.033" UserId="3211" Text="&lt;us7844363&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3314" RevisionGUID="5859131f-e69b-490a-a706-cc98b4490d3b" CreationDate="2013-02-11T06:58:08.643" UserId="3076" Comment="Added links and tag to EP cite" Text="I saw this patent for Medbox and I was wondering how it doesn't violate EP 2174251 B1 which is for a medicine dispensing machine called Pyxis Medstation. They are similar machines however one dispenses pharmaceutical while the other dispenses marijuana. But they both dispense medicine. Don't see much of the distinction. Thanks for your help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Links:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[us7844363][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ep2174251b1][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7844363&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/EP2174251B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6261" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3314" RevisionGUID="5859131f-e69b-490a-a706-cc98b4490d3b" CreationDate="2013-02-11T06:58:08.643" UserId="3076" Comment="Added links and tag to EP cite" Text="&lt;us7844363&gt;&lt;ep2174251b1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3315" RevisionGUID="45f7fd49-0584-4736-8996-4a89b9fe09f4" CreationDate="2013-02-11T07:09:18.283" UserId="3076" Text="Other than both being locked boxes for holding medicine, they do not seem to have a lot to do with each other. On skimming the claims, I see that one is a vending machine and the other is tied into a hospital's patient admitting/ discharging system to be sure the left over drugs go back to the pharmacy when the patient is discharged. I did only skim them so if I have missed something please comment on the specific overlap." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3316" RevisionGUID="12cf294a-d75f-40ca-86ad-966e33a5a1b0" CreationDate="2013-02-11T13:14:23.427" UserId="3212" Text="This patent is about the use of diaries with remote content (see quote), but given the current use of blogs (via sites as Blogspot, Wordpress etc) I would concider this to be a bit out-of-date.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method and apparatus to create a &quot;diary&quot; containing multimedia references to contents of Websites. These references (also called addresses) can be to, for example, text, bookmarks, images, programs, movies, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from it's global usage, why did all these patents about 'physical products gone digital' (I mean, we already had an offline diary way before this patent was issued) get handed out in the first place? A lot of these products were already invented and I'm pretty sure that the issuers of patents like this weren't the only ones with such an idea, but merely the first one to get all the required resources together." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6264" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3316" RevisionGUID="12cf294a-d75f-40ca-86ad-966e33a5a1b0" CreationDate="2013-02-11T13:14:23.427" UserId="3212" Text="Would this, given the global usage of diaries on both big and small websites, still be a valid patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6265" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3316" RevisionGUID="12cf294a-d75f-40ca-86ad-966e33a5a1b0" CreationDate="2013-02-11T13:14:23.427" UserId="3212" Text="&lt;us6415316&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3316" RevisionGUID="d81b2d10-8f85-4f2c-9158-99062f034ca0" CreationDate="2013-02-11T14:30:44.493" UserId="1259" Comment="spelling, tags" Text="This patent is about the use of diaries with remote content (see quote), but given the current use of blogs (via sites as Blogspot, Wordpress etc) I would consider this to be a bit out-of-date.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method and apparatus to create a &quot;diary&quot; containing multimedia references to contents of Websites. These references (also called addresses) can be to, for example, text, bookmarks, images, programs, movies, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from it's global usage, why did all these patents about 'physical products gone digital' (I mean, we already had an offline diary way before this patent was issued) get handed out in the first place? A lot of these products were already invented and I'm pretty sure that the issuers of patents like this weren't the only ones with such an idea, but merely the first one to get all the required resources together." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6267" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3316" RevisionGUID="d81b2d10-8f85-4f2c-9158-99062f034ca0" CreationDate="2013-02-11T14:30:44.493" UserId="1259" Comment="spelling, tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us6415316&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3311" RevisionGUID="dda2c4ca-a5d2-44f8-98f1-f01706702c49" CreationDate="2013-02-11T14:37:33.077" UserId="1259" Comment="signature removed, tags" Text="I am developing a product idea similar to another product on the market, and see that this product has a &quot;patent pending&quot; status. In my research, I see that the competing patent lists:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Patent Pending, U.S. SN 61/705,026&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I cannot find any information on this patent reference number after doing extensive research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent application not published?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6269" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3311" RevisionGUID="dda2c4ca-a5d2-44f8-98f1-f01706702c49" CreationDate="2013-02-11T14:37:33.077" UserId="1259" Comment="signature removed, tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;us61705026&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3314" RevisionGUID="2b946e72-5dcc-47d5-9e0b-e19c24886ca1" CreationDate="2013-02-11T14:38:51.140" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="I saw this patent for Medbox and I was wondering how it doesn't violate EP 2174251 B1 which is for a medicine dispensing machine called Pyxis Medstation. They are similar machines however one dispenses pharmaceuticals while the other dispenses marijuana. But they both dispense medicine. Don't see much of the distinction. Thanks for your help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Links:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[us7844363][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ep2174251b1][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7844363&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/EP2174251B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6271" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3314" RevisionGUID="2b946e72-5dcc-47d5-9e0b-e19c24886ca1" CreationDate="2013-02-11T14:38:51.140" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;us7844363&gt;&lt;ep2174251b1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6272" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3309" RevisionGUID="356aa61c-b345-4773-88f0-28af37b1c1ba" CreationDate="2013-02-11T14:39:28.067" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20080197790&gt;&lt;us20120223650&gt;&lt;us20120271477&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3315" RevisionGUID="24c95a43-3b19-4b92-8e2c-968eeb8c1292" CreationDate="2013-02-11T16:37:20.150" UserId="3076" Comment="Small wording change and add to description of '363" Text="They are both locked boxes for holding medicine that communicate with a remote computer system. Otherwise the claimed inventions do not seem to have a lot to do with each other. On skimming the claims, I see that one is a secure, patient identifying, vending machine and the other is tied into a hospital's patient admitting/ discharging system to be sure the left over drugs go back to the pharmacy when the patient is discharged. I did only skim them so if I have missed something please comment on the specific overlap." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3316" RevisionGUID="2452bcf2-2574-4de8-8071-82dd003b5d8a" CreationDate="2013-02-11T16:48:19.497" UserId="3076" Comment="Added link" Text="This patent is about the use of diaries with remote content (see quote), but given the current use of blogs (via sites as Blogspot, Wordpress etc) I would consider this to be a bit out-of-date.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method and apparatus to create a &quot;diary&quot; containing multimedia references to contents of Websites. These references (also called addresses) can be to, for example, text, bookmarks, images, programs, movies, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from it's global usage, why did all these patents about 'physical products gone digital' (I mean, we already had an offline diary way before this patent was issued) get handed out in the first place? A lot of these products were already invented and I'm pretty sure that the issuers of patents like this weren't the only ones with such an idea, but merely the first one to get all the required resources together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[us6415316][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6415316" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6280" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3314" RevisionGUID="e579af24-bee7-4294-a6d7-76e125c32dab" CreationDate="2013-02-12T01:16:48.627" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/301137750126628865" />
  <row Id="6281" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3309" RevisionGUID="ac2a7cf0-fdab-45ba-adbf-0bd32f947766" CreationDate="2013-02-12T04:16:49.327" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/301183049524203520" />
  <row Id="6282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3318" RevisionGUID="dd4a479d-339a-446b-81e7-5170250443c7" CreationDate="2013-02-12T08:50:40.993" UserId="1458" Text="searching for a prior art of US8361511 .. can any one suggest me any document discussing about separate coating of amino acid and vitamin followed by another coating used in food industry.." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6283" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3318" RevisionGUID="dd4a479d-339a-446b-81e7-5170250443c7" CreationDate="2013-02-12T08:50:40.993" UserId="1458" Text="separate coating of amino acid and vitamin in food suppliment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6284" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3318" RevisionGUID="dd4a479d-339a-446b-81e7-5170250443c7" CreationDate="2013-02-12T08:50:40.993" UserId="1458" Text="&lt;us20100009006&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3318" RevisionGUID="fb134df9-f09a-4b08-bc3c-a1d562ec145f" CreationDate="2013-02-12T11:27:31.817" UserId="1259" Comment="grammer, tags" Text="Searching for prior art of [US8361511][1] .. can any one suggest any document discussing separate coating of amino acid and vitamin followed by another coating used in the food industry?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us8361511" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6286" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3318" RevisionGUID="fb134df9-f09a-4b08-bc3c-a1d562ec145f" CreationDate="2013-02-12T11:27:31.817" UserId="1259" Comment="grammer, tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20100009006&gt;&lt;us8361511&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3319" RevisionGUID="71fc2c2f-7bcc-489e-b1ce-27ae2eb68697" CreationDate="2013-02-12T14:20:06.107" UserId="3216" Text="I have had a business partner &#xD;&#xA; for twenty years. We came together in my Business that he&#xD;&#xA;used as the birth of the IP in question. Listing himself on publications&#xD;&#xA;founder/owner with the exclusion of not so much as a reference to me as his&#xD;&#xA;business partner. I am (for the most part the conceptual part/with&#xD;&#xA;guidance through my research and pure intuition/solution, problem solver). He took my sweat&#xD;&#xA;equity/brain-trust/conception/ into patents and put our companies CEO and IP Attorney on the patents, leaving my name off. He has used&#xD;&#xA;the term &quot;an idea is not a patent&quot; over, over, and over again.  To the point of suspicion.&#xD;&#xA; His IP&#xD;&#xA;attorney wants to reduce me down to the claims....X did I come up with&#xD;&#xA;the idea of using the LED's etc, claiming I've been only his researcher.&#xD;&#xA; I have been called a disruptive innovator, dragon slayer,&#xD;&#xA;imagineer, creator, on and on to name just a few...plus statements of&#xD;&#xA;&quot;look what our work together in ...blank, blank business....has&#xD;&#xA;become_ To make matters worse this is an invention that does not&#xD;&#xA;relate to any of his previous patents, however it relates directly to&#xD;&#xA;my previous occupation. What constitutes an inventor? Is it just the&#xD;&#xA;mechanical/electrical/software terms relating to the patent/prototype (which I was involved in every engineering meeting) or is it the process of how the invention came to fruition and who contributed in that process?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;****What should one say if their told &quot;an idea is not a patent&quot;, or you've&#xD;&#xA;been just his researcher. Ok where's the proof that you came up with&#xD;&#xA;the use of LED lights etc.?****I am in an arena where they understand the game and I have to catch up with the verbiage.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6288" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3319" RevisionGUID="71fc2c2f-7bcc-489e-b1ce-27ae2eb68697" CreationDate="2013-02-12T14:20:06.107" UserId="3216" Text="What constitues/definition of an inventor. Is it simply the boilded down claims in a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6289" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3319" RevisionGUID="71fc2c2f-7bcc-489e-b1ce-27ae2eb68697" CreationDate="2013-02-12T14:20:06.107" UserId="3216" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3319" RevisionGUID="ddce647f-2c56-4ce1-9cf4-325330c07e1f" CreationDate="2013-02-12T15:07:14.673" UserId="1259" Comment="tag, grammer" Text="I have had a business partner for twenty years. We came together in my Business that he&#xD;&#xA;used as the birth of the IP in question. Listing himself on publications&#xD;&#xA;founder/owner with the exclusion of not so much as a reference to me as his&#xD;&#xA;business partner. I am (for the most part the conceptual part/with&#xD;&#xA;guidance through my research and pure intuition/solution, problem solver). He took my sweat&#xD;&#xA;equity/brain-trust/conception/ into patents and put our companies CEO and IP Attorney on the patents, leaving my name off. He has used&#xD;&#xA;the term &quot;an idea is not a patent&quot; over, over, and over again.  To the point of suspicion.&#xD;&#xA;His IP attorney wants to reduce me down to the claims....X did I come up with&#xD;&#xA;the idea of using the LED's etc, claiming I've been only his researcher.&#xD;&#xA;I have been called a disruptive innovator, dragon slayer,&#xD;&#xA;imagineer, creator, on and on to name just a few...plus statements of&#xD;&#xA;&quot;look what our work together in ...blank, blank business....has&#xD;&#xA;become_ To make matters worse this is an invention that does not&#xD;&#xA;relate to any of his previous patents, however it relates directly to&#xD;&#xA;my previous occupation. What constitutes an inventor? Is it just the&#xD;&#xA;mechanical/electrical/software terms relating to the patent/prototype (which I was involved in every engineering meeting) or is it the process of how the invention came to fruition and who contributed in that process?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;****What should one say if they're told &quot;an idea is not a patent&quot;, or you've&#xD;&#xA;been just his researcher. Ok where's the proof that you came up with&#xD;&#xA;the use of LED lights etc.?****I am in an arena where they understand the game and I have to catch up with the verbiage.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6291" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3319" RevisionGUID="ddce647f-2c56-4ce1-9cf4-325330c07e1f" CreationDate="2013-02-12T15:07:14.673" UserId="1259" Comment="tag, grammer" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3320" RevisionGUID="b7bdd6b8-4ff3-48f9-9d6c-4f3c1fb0e117" CreationDate="2013-02-12T15:33:31.380" UserId="2072" Text="Inventorship is a legal issue based of questions of fact. *C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Systems, Inc.*, 157 F.3d 1340, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1998). To be named as an inventor, one must have contributed to the invention, meaning at least one claim in a patent.  See 35 U.S.C. § 116. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A joint inventor must contribute in some significant manner to the conception of the invention; “each inventor must contribute to the joint arrival at a definite and permanent idea of the invention as it will be used in practice.” *Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Lab*., 40 F.3d 1223, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1994). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conception of an invention means “only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation.” *Id.* at 1228.&#xD;&#xA;“One who merely suggests an idea of a result to be accomplished, rather than means of accomplishing it, is not a joint inventor.” *Ethicon, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp*., 135 F.3d 1456, 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1998).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should consult an attorney if you have concerns.  The company attorney is not your attorney, especially if your interests are adverse to the company.  Also, please clarify whether the attorney is being included as an inventor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3320" RevisionGUID="36af04c9-353d-4df3-a120-b3d0753a8d9e" CreationDate="2013-02-12T15:41:41.627" UserId="2072" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="Inventorship is a legal issue based of questions of fact. *C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Systems, Inc.*, 157 F.3d 1340, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1998). To be named as an inventor, one must have contributed to the invention, meaning at least one patent claim.  See 35 U.S.C. § 116. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, a joint inventor must have contributed in some significant manner to the conception of the invention. “Each inventor must contribute to the joint arrival at a definite and permanent idea of the invention as it will be used in practice.” *Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Lab*., 40 F.3d 1223, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1994). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conception of an invention means “only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation.” *Id.* at 1228.&#xD;&#xA;“One who merely suggests an idea of a result to be accomplished, rather than means of accomplishing it, is not a joint inventor.” *Ethicon, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp*., 135 F.3d 1456, 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1998).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should consult an attorney if you have concerns.  The company attorney is not your attorney, especially if your interests are adverse to the company.  Also, please clarify whether the attorney is being included as an inventor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6294" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3319" RevisionGUID="9c48f6ba-4428-49a9-9cf4-04c47110d536" CreationDate="2013-02-12T16:11:54.797" UserId="2072" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6295" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3319" RevisionGUID="8ed26bdc-01e9-4a9b-b333-16562065ae7f" CreationDate="2013-02-12T16:16:49.190" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/301364243830300674" />
  <row Id="6296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3320" RevisionGUID="f73fbb91-5ced-4fc6-8630-f12b4b2cb8d4" CreationDate="2013-02-12T16:37:38.277" UserId="2072" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Inventorship is a legal issue based of questions of fact. *C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Systems, Inc.*, 157 F.3d 1340, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1998). To be named as an inventor, one must have contributed to the invention, meaning at least one patent claim.  See 35 U.S.C. § 116. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, a joint inventor must have contributed in some significant manner to the conception of the invention. “Each inventor must contribute to the joint arrival at a definite and permanent idea of the invention as it will be used in practice.” *Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Lab*., 40 F.3d 1223, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1994). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conception of an invention is complete when “only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation.” *Id.* at 1228.&#xD;&#xA;“One who merely suggests an idea of a result to be accomplished, rather than means of accomplishing it, is not a joint inventor.” *Ethicon, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp*., 135 F.3d 1456, 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1998).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should consult an attorney if you have concerns.  The company attorney is not your attorney, especially if your interests are adverse to the company.  Also, please clarify whether the attorney is being included as an inventor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3323" RevisionGUID="0fa79ad9-1572-446c-a101-90de141117b7" CreationDate="2013-02-12T18:19:16.330" UserId="3076" Text="This is a good [article on inventorship][1], although please note that &quot;deceptive intent&quot; is no longer an issue due to the new AIA law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bakerbotts.com/files/Publication/72b9adae-f4d5-4088-8a6a-262852d2e5ca/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/fad503e1-f5e0-4546-835b-015a3c69ff28/Inventorship_Paper_Final.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6304" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3319" RevisionGUID="a9c169a9-e890-4120-825a-a451408f4b10" CreationDate="2013-02-12T19:46:43.053" UserId="2072" Comment="edited title" Text="What constitues/definition of an inventor. Does it simply boil down to claims in a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3323" RevisionGUID="f7f96d20-af21-48b6-ab0c-73a46691a0d5" CreationDate="2013-02-12T19:59:13.507" UserId="3076" Comment="Added hypothetical examples" Text="This is a good [article on inventorship][1], although please note that &quot;deceptive intent&quot; is no longer an issue due to the new AIA law. The fact that people think of you as a problem solver, that it is in your field and the amount of sweat you put in are not relevant. On this specific application did you make a conceptual contribution to something that is claimed? If there are 10 claims and you contributed to only one of them you are an inventor. If that claim is left out then you are not an inventor on that application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes an invention starts with person A having a thought that is a desired outcome with no way of doing it and person B then has to invent a structure that accomplishes it. B is the inventor. In other cases A has a thought that includes a solution but not a particularly practical one and B knows of some existing technique or material to make is cost-effective. A is probably the inventor and B probably isn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bakerbotts.com/files/Publication/72b9adae-f4d5-4088-8a6a-262852d2e5ca/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/fad503e1-f5e0-4546-835b-015a3c69ff28/Inventorship_Paper_Final.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3326" RevisionGUID="1a728a03-05e1-4cb2-a1cc-0de40f152bfc" CreationDate="2013-02-12T21:54:48.313" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3327" RevisionGUID="9effb76e-5044-49fc-b357-e760168f6ea6" CreationDate="2013-02-12T21:54:48.313" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3320" RevisionGUID="b4abd87a-d68b-46b2-826c-54349ff68e54" CreationDate="2013-02-12T22:47:01.840" UserId="2072" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="Inventorship is a legal issue based of questions of fact. *C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Systems, Inc.*, 157 F.3d 1340, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1998). To be named as an inventor, one must have contributed to the invention, meaning at least one patent claim.  See 35 U.S.C. § 116. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, a joint inventor must have contributed in some significant manner to the conception of the invention. “Each inventor must contribute to the joint arrival at a definite and permanent idea of the invention as it will be used in practice.” *Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Lab*., 40 F.3d 1223, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1994). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conception of an invention occurs when “only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation.” *Id.* at 1228.&#xD;&#xA;“One who merely suggests an idea of a result to be accomplished, rather than means of accomplishing it, is not a joint inventor.” *Ethicon, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp*., 135 F.3d 1456, 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1998).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should consult an attorney if you have concerns.  The company attorney is not your attorney, especially if your interests are adverse to the company.  Also, please clarify whether the attorney is being included as an inventor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3323" RevisionGUID="ebda989c-0bf3-404d-90d6-ac8d0727b6aa" CreationDate="2013-02-12T23:31:26.347" UserId="3076" Comment="Typo" Text="This is a good [article on inventorship][1], although please note that &quot;deceptive intent&quot; is no longer an issue due to the new AIA law. The fact that people think of you as a problem solver, that it is in your field and the amount of sweat you put in are not relevant. On this specific application did you make a conceptual contribution to something that is claimed? If there are 10 claims and you contributed to only one of them you are an inventor. If that claim is left out then you are not an inventor on that application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes an invention starts with person A having a thought that is a desired outcome with no way of doing it and person B then has to invent a structure that accomplishes it. B is the inventor. In other cases A has a thought that includes a solution but not a particularly practical one and B knows of some existing technique or material to make it cost-effective. A is probably the inventor and B probably isn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bakerbotts.com/files/Publication/72b9adae-f4d5-4088-8a6a-262852d2e5ca/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/fad503e1-f5e0-4546-835b-015a3c69ff28/Inventorship_Paper_Final.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3328" RevisionGUID="f134a71d-3565-48a8-af3a-a60a1d8a58f9" CreationDate="2013-02-13T03:56:30.897" UserId="3222" Text="Has patent application 20130025039  Been granted a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6323" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3328" RevisionGUID="f134a71d-3565-48a8-af3a-a60a1d8a58f9" CreationDate="2013-02-13T03:56:30.897" UserId="3222" Text="So patent application 20130025039 has been issued a PATENT?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6324" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3328" RevisionGUID="f134a71d-3565-48a8-af3a-a60a1d8a58f9" CreationDate="2013-02-13T03:56:30.897" UserId="3222" Text="&lt;post-grant-review&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6328" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3328" RevisionGUID="46e2cd97-7389-4a85-b482-1ed77f575a5a" CreationDate="2013-02-13T04:13:08.773" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;post-grant-review&gt;&lt;us20130025039&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3330" RevisionGUID="76c1ca7c-31fa-4fd0-adaa-02b4b2f63be4" CreationDate="2013-02-13T04:22:32.897" UserId="3076" Text="No, it has not. It's status, available on public PAIR, is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Status:	 Docketed New Case - Ready for Examination&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has not been searched or examined yet.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3331" RevisionGUID="caf9faf4-0494-4a87-9b9d-bef2c536db8a" CreationDate="2013-02-13T05:02:43.673" UserId="3225" Text="I am considering filing for a provisional patent which deals with mobile and web technologies. Now this is a method to do something. But how detailed do I go? Right now, I have something working in Android but I plan to implement it in other platforms(iOS, windows, blackberry). How do I describe this in the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: Let's say I want the to open the app in the User's phone if the user clicks something on the website. How detailed would this be? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The user clicks button X on the website. The website sends a push notification to the user's Android device (iPhone, blackberry?). The android device receives this notification and sends a broadcast to invoke the app / apps and an activity is displayed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this too detailed? Can I include other platforms too somehow? Any help would be appreciated. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6333" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3331" RevisionGUID="caf9faf4-0494-4a87-9b9d-bef2c536db8a" CreationDate="2013-02-13T05:02:43.673" UserId="3225" Text="How detailed should a provisional patent be? (Software)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6334" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3331" RevisionGUID="caf9faf4-0494-4a87-9b9d-bef2c536db8a" CreationDate="2013-02-13T05:02:43.673" UserId="3225" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;android&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3332" RevisionGUID="d8acc89d-0452-4235-9e15-b1905e0ab264" CreationDate="2013-02-13T05:49:33.660" UserId="3226" Text="I have a kitchen and bath website. I was going to sell bidets on it, that I would buy from overseas, but now I'm worried about patents on the designs, since they are all similar. I did a patent search, and there are thousands of patents. How am I supposed to know what is allowed without spending thousands and thousands of dollars?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean I see several different companies selling bidets, but I also see numerous patents. What am I supposed to do? Last thing I want to do is get sued, but I also can't afford thousands of dollars for a lawyer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6336" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3332" RevisionGUID="d8acc89d-0452-4235-9e15-b1905e0ab264" CreationDate="2013-02-13T05:49:33.660" UserId="3226" Text="How do I know if a bidet is covered under a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6337" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3332" RevisionGUID="d8acc89d-0452-4235-9e15-b1905e0ab264" CreationDate="2013-02-13T05:49:33.660" UserId="3226" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3333" RevisionGUID="dd6d6b3d-f8d7-4afb-91c7-0d09a642e8e2" CreationDate="2013-02-13T09:32:44.700" UserId="3165" Text="When I [researched the assignment history][1] of a patent I found one assignement (from assignor A to assignee B) and a later assignement (from assignor B **and** C to assignee D).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where does C come from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/?db=pat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6339" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3333" RevisionGUID="dd6d6b3d-f8d7-4afb-91c7-0d09a642e8e2" CreationDate="2013-02-13T09:32:44.700" UserId="3165" Text="Why are the assignors of a patent not necessarily identical with previous assignees?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6340" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3333" RevisionGUID="dd6d6b3d-f8d7-4afb-91c7-0d09a642e8e2" CreationDate="2013-02-13T09:32:44.700" UserId="3165" Text="&lt;assignment-history&gt;&lt;research&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6341" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3331" RevisionGUID="6ea92f32-753a-415b-907f-123b1e559b3e" CreationDate="2013-02-13T11:20:24.273" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;android&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3333" RevisionGUID="f575b33b-144f-487f-9821-ba7b5ff7f5aa" CreationDate="2013-02-13T11:27:40.287" UserId="1259" Comment="typos" Text="When I [researched the assignment history][1] of a patent I found one assignment (from assignor A to assignee B) and a later assignment (from assignor B **and** C to assignee D).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where does C come from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/?db=pat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3334" RevisionGUID="017cf9f8-e45d-4f80-aa57-d1cc7796df17" CreationDate="2013-02-13T12:47:06.430" UserId="998" Text="The simple answer is that the USPTO Assignment Record Database is a complete mess and cannot really be relied upon to point you to the correct owner. There are many &quot;off record&quot; transactions.  In your case, the assignment from &quot;C&quot; may also be something like a quitclaim deed. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3320" RevisionGUID="764c2a5c-2004-48d6-9fa1-d9af206500ed" CreationDate="2013-02-13T13:50:45.527" UserId="2072" Comment="added 133 characters in body" Text="Inventorship is a legal issue based of questions of fact. *C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Systems, Inc.*, 157 F.3d 1340, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1998). To be named as an inventor, one must have contributed to the invention, meaning at least one patent claim.  See 35 U.S.C. § 116. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, a joint inventor must have contributed in some significant manner to the conception of the invention. “Each inventor must contribute to the joint arrival at a definite and permanent idea of the invention as it will be used in practice.” *Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Lab*., 40 F.3d 1223, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1994). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conception of an invention occurs when “only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation.” *Id.* at 1228.&#xD;&#xA;“One who merely suggests an idea of a result to be accomplished, rather than means of accomplishing it, is not a joint inventor.” *Ethicon, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp*., 135 F.3d 1456, 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1998).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should consult an attorney if you have concerns.  The company attorney is not your attorney, and it is possible for your personal interest to be adverse to those of a company in which you hold stock.  The fact that the company attorney is also the CEO may be cause for additional concern.  Please clarify whether the attorney is being included as an inventor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3331" RevisionGUID="341039fa-320e-43e8-bd1f-df8fcdb5894d" CreationDate="2013-02-13T14:03:11.980" UserId="3225" Comment="Added background information" Text="I am considering filing for a provisional patent which deals with mobile and web technologies. Now this is a method to do something. But how detailed do I go? Right now, I have something working in Android but I plan to implement it in other platforms(iOS, windows, blackberry). How do I describe this in the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: Let's say I want the to open the app in the User's phone if the user clicks something on the website. How detailed would this be? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The user clicks button X on the website. The website sends a push notification to the user's Android device (iPhone, blackberry?). The android device receives this notification and sends a broadcast to invoke the app / apps and an activity is displayed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this too detailed? Can I include other platforms too somehow? Any help would be appreciated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: &#xD;&#xA;Basically, I am a college student graduating soon and I am planning to do a startup. I have done some idea/customer validation and would like to protect my idea. Being a college student, my budget is limited (and hence considering Nolo, LegalZoom, etc). I might be getting some funding but in order to do that and talk to investors about my plans, I would like to file for a provisional patent first. Since my budget is limited, and looking to establish my company, I would say my risk acceptance is pretty high." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3335" RevisionGUID="5152aa21-af9f-43c8-9c9a-4413a7b6aa0f" CreationDate="2013-02-13T14:23:29.753" UserId="2072" Text="You are correct that you should think about consulting an attorney.  From a business perspective, you might consider a cost-benefit analysis.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One possibility is proceeding without any concern of the patents. In a worst-case scenario, the product is seized at the border and your business is stopped. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other extreme is that you conclusively address all patent-related concerns at great expense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The likely solution is somewhere in the middle, determined by your likely profits.  The greater the profit, the more your analysis might point towards fully addressing the legal issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can obtain affordable counsel in this case because you are working with design patents and you seem to know the patents in question, having done a search.  If you are comfortable with providing your own search, you can avoid some expense (at the risk of overlooking an important patent).  A small firm or solo patent attorney will most likely be more affordable than a larger firm.  Ask your colleagues for a referral, or look up some attorneys and ask for referrals for someone who might be interested in this work.  Discuss cost up front and mention you expect to pay less for an infringement analysis of a design patent than for a utility patent.  The attorney will probably be willing to provide a variety of levels of service for different costs and should be very clear what he will and will not do for various fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is to pose this question to your supplier.  The manufacturer often knows about competitors and key patents.  They may even have conducted a freedom to operate search or analyzed some key patents.  Good luck." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3335" RevisionGUID="7247748d-32e8-430f-8a68-c7db68eff392" CreationDate="2013-02-13T14:37:37.547" UserId="2072" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="You are correct that you should think about consulting an attorney.  From a business perspective, you might consider a cost-benefit analysis.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One possibility is proceeding without any concern of the patents. In a worst-case scenario, the product is seized at the border and your business is stopped. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other extreme is that you conclusively address all patent-related concerns at great expense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The likely solution is somewhere in the middle, determined by your likely profits.  The greater the profit, the more your analysis might point towards fully addressing the legal issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can obtain more affordable counsel in this case if you are working with design patents and have already identified the patents in question, having done a search.  (A patent search, especially for design patents, is surprisingly affordable).  A small firm or solo patent attorney will most likely be more affordable than a larger firm.  Ask your colleagues for a referral, or look up some attorneys and ask for referrals for someone who might be interested in this work.  Discuss cost up front and mention you expect to pay less for an infringement analysis of a design patent than for a utility patent.  The attorney will probably be willing to provide a variety of levels of service for different costs and should be very clear what he will and will not do for various fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is to pose this question to your supplier.  The manufacturer often knows about competitors and key patents.  They may even have conducted a freedom to operate search or analyzed some key patents.  Good luck." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3331" RevisionGUID="e0c19352-c674-4551-9547-45a3b4c3e680" CreationDate="2013-02-13T15:21:44.833" UserId="3225" Comment="Added more info" Text="I am considering filing for a provisional patent which deals with mobile and web technologies. Now this is a method to do something. But how detailed do I go? Right now, I have something working in Android but I plan to implement it in other platforms(iOS, windows, blackberry). How do I describe this in the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: Let's say I want the to open the app in the User's phone if the user clicks something on the website. How detailed would this be? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The user clicks button X on the website. The website sends a push notification to the user's Android device (iPhone, blackberry?). The android device receives this notification and sends a broadcast to invoke the app / apps and an activity is displayed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this too detailed? Can I include other platforms too somehow? Any help would be appreciated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: &#xD;&#xA;Basically, I am a college student graduating soon and I am planning to do a startup. I have done some idea/customer validation and would like to protect my idea. Being a college student, my budget is limited (and hence considering Nolo, LegalZoom, etc). I might be getting some funding but in order to do that and talk to investors about my plans, I would like to file for a provisional patent first. Since my budget is limited, and looking to establish my company, I would say my risk acceptance is pretty high.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also came across [this][1] excellent article about the changes that come into effect on March 16th. Would it help if I wait till then? And can I do this on my own? (I apologize, this might be for a separate question)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.innovation-america.org/winning-new-patent-law" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3336" RevisionGUID="86be192e-7cc5-4a99-b6fb-bb6a7555f228" CreationDate="2013-02-13T15:50:13.017" UserId="998" Text="The law requires that the application provide a complete &quot;written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains&quot; to make and use the invention.  If you want the provisional application to be valuable then it needs to have a full and complete description, with diagrams, flowcharts, pseudocode or sourcecode.  Most folks end up including 6-7 pages of drawings and 10-15 pages of text.  In addition, you should drafting about 20 different claims that cover your invention in various ways. That process of drafting claims helps an inventor to better understand the potential scope of the invention as well as particular detailed ideas that might add patentable weight. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should recognize that most patent applicants are forced to amend their patent claims in a way that falls-back on a narrower scope of invention than they previously thought. That is because there are many other folks doing similar technological work and you can only claim patent rights on the advances that you made.  Having a detailed description and multiple claims provides you with the ability to fall back on alternative descriptions of the invention if needed.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want to hire a patent attorney, you should at least read the book &quot;patent it yourself&quot; that provides a lot of helpful and important guidance.  Also, I would recommend that you search for patents on similar inventions, look at the disclosure and claims provided in those applications and then try to make yours more detailed than those.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3327" RevisionGUID="8e491e75-750a-4302-9c4b-24a1e6dba19a" CreationDate="2013-02-13T16:41:25.257" UserId="2072" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="payments for licensing a patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6353" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3327" RevisionGUID="8e491e75-750a-4302-9c4b-24a1e6dba19a" CreationDate="2013-02-13T16:41:25.257" Comment="Proposed by 2072 approved by 1 edit id of 316" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3330" RevisionGUID="3e2108c4-e32c-41c3-a78a-5d8fffa1741a" CreationDate="2013-02-13T17:53:49.640" UserId="3076" Comment="added 380 characters in body" Text="No, it has not. It's status, available on public PAIR, is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Status:	 Docketed New Case - Ready for Examination&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has not been searched or examined yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO has a web accessible system call PAIR (patent application information retrieval). Via [Public PAIR][1] one can look up the status of a published patent application. If is from mid 2003 or later, it possible to see all of the documents in the file including the back-and-forth between the applicant and the examiner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3330" RevisionGUID="3c8edc02-b935-4226-ad86-c9b9c76ba5cc" CreationDate="2013-02-13T18:19:49.593" UserId="3076" Comment="Added info on public pair" Text="No, it has not. It's status, available on public PAIR, is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Status:	 Docketed New Case - Ready for Examination&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has not been searched or examined yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO has a web accessible system call PAIR (patent application information retrieval). Via [Public PAIR][1] one can look up the status of a published patent application. If it is from mid 2003 or later, it possible to see all of the documents in the file including the back-and-forth between the applicant and the examiner. There is also a continuity tab. This will show parent and child applications that, themselves, may have resulted in issued patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PAIR is not very user-friendly. Do not have commas in the number. If you search by publication number be sure to set radio button to that option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3337" RevisionGUID="f4705a19-0f84-45a7-944b-1c0a2dd1642a" CreationDate="2013-02-13T19:47:29.100" UserId="1335" Text="As usual, there seems to be confusion about the scope of a patent. The scope of the patent is defined not by its title or abstract but by its claims. You have to read the claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While there are broad patents that simply end up claiming something &quot;on the Internet&quot; or &quot;on a computer&quot;, they are very likely invalid and also (contrary to popular opinion) rather rare and typically anomalous. If you read the claims, you'll see that this one is far from being a patent on a &quot;diary on the Internet.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At a quick glance, the claims require 1) a server sending (a) content of a &quot;diary&quot; and (b) time (presumably related to the &quot;diary content&quot;), (c) privacy level and (d) presentation information along with (e) configuration information to a remote browser, 2) and the *browser* then dynamically combining information from (a), (b), (c) and (d) based on the configuration (e) all into a cohesive page and displaying it, and 3) then receiving input that changes the information at the server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although steps 1) - 2) sound like what wikis, CMS and templating engines have done since forever, as far as I can tell, they always assembled pages at the server rather than in the client. (At least, this was so until 2003, when I last worked with CMS's.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, the &quot;privacy level&quot; element seems to be something missing completely from wikis, CMS/template engines and other prior art that I can think of. It may be analogous to access control systems, but access control is evaluated at the server rather than the client. (Otherwise it's akin to saying &quot;Here's data you don't have access to. Don't look at it.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'd might be tempted to think that elements (a) - (e) are just information, and steps 1) - 2) are no different from &quot;sending information and markup from a server to a browser which then combines and displays it as a page&quot;, but patents don't work like that. Abstractions and simplifications do not apply well to claims, because, like contracts, they are legal documents, and each and every word is important. To generalize, each and everything specified in the claim *has* to be specifically described in one or more prior art references to invalidate the claim. Conversely, each and everything specified in the claim *has* to be performed by something for infringement to occur." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3338" RevisionGUID="4097ba7a-6658-4674-98d5-ce6c7d251ef0" CreationDate="2013-02-13T19:53:03.463" UserId="3228" Text="From the inventor: Because this patent pertained to public safety, I chose to never enforce it. It was effectively a gift.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was there a more direct way to indicate the patent would never be enforced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6366" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3338" RevisionGUID="4097ba7a-6658-4674-98d5-ce6c7d251ef0" CreationDate="2013-02-13T19:53:03.463" UserId="3228" Text="Enforcement of patent 4103235" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6367" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3338" RevisionGUID="4097ba7a-6658-4674-98d5-ce6c7d251ef0" CreationDate="2013-02-13T19:53:03.463" UserId="3228" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3339" RevisionGUID="bc5f17ea-c903-421b-8bc1-ec08f0a1c64c" CreationDate="2013-02-13T20:09:27.477" UserId="3076" Text="Yes. The owner can file a disclaimer with the USPTO. See [this page at the patent office.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1490.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **37 C.F.R. 1.321   Statutory disclaimers, including terminal disclaimers**.&lt;p&gt;37 C.F.R. 1.321   Statutory disclaimers, including terminal disclaimers.(a) A patentee owning the whole or any sectional interest in a patent may disclaim any complete claim or claims in a patent. In like manner any patentee may disclaim or dedicate to the public the entire term, or any terminal part of the term, of the patent granted. Such disclaimer is binding upon the grantee and its successors or assigns. A notice of the disclaimer is published in the Official Gazette and attached to the printed copies of the specification. The disclaimer, to be recorded in the Patent and Trademark Office, must:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(1) be signed by the patentee, or an attorney or agent of record;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(2) identify the patent and complete claim or claims, or term being disclaimed. A disclaimer which is not a disclaimer of a complete claim or claims, or term, will be refused recordation;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(3) state the present extent of patentee’s ownership interest in the patent; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(4) be accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.20(d)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3338" RevisionGUID="3f10ae9f-e9ed-4dd2-8ef9-7043e760f52d" CreationDate="2013-02-13T21:20:28.220" UserId="1" Comment="added 64 characters in body; edited title" Text="For example, the enforcement of patent 4103235&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the inventor: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Because this patent pertained to public safety, I chose to never enforce it. It was effectively a gift.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was there a more direct way to indicate the patent would never be enforced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6371" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3338" RevisionGUID="3f10ae9f-e9ed-4dd2-8ef9-7043e760f52d" CreationDate="2013-02-13T21:20:28.220" UserId="1" Comment="added 64 characters in body; edited title" Text="How to indicate a patent will never be enforced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6372" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3333" RevisionGUID="e708209d-b58d-4293-8a20-4100f2e89953" CreationDate="2013-02-13T22:49:11.927" UserId="1259" Comment="tag" Text="&lt;assignment-history&gt;&lt;research&gt;&lt;us6535909&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6373" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3338" RevisionGUID="155866aa-3792-465f-933d-a2636c45d72e" CreationDate="2013-02-14T03:20:24.473" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;us4103235&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3335" RevisionGUID="f27a9822-e435-4b5f-8c07-cfa00b7eeec1" CreationDate="2013-02-14T13:11:06.250" UserId="2072" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="You are correct that you should think about consulting an attorney.  From a business perspective, you might consider a cost-benefit analysis.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One possibility is proceeding without any concern of the patents. In a worst-case scenario, the product is seized at the border and your business is stopped. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other extreme is that you conclusively address all patent-related concerns at great expense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The likely solution is somewhere in the middle, determined by your likely profits.  The greater the profit, the more your analysis might point towards fully addressing the legal issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can obtain more affordable counsel in this case if you are working only with design patents and have already identified the patents in question, having done a search.  (A patent search, especially for design patents, is surprisingly affordable).  A small firm or solo patent attorney will most likely be more affordable than a larger firm.  Ask your colleagues for a referral, or look up some attorneys and ask for referrals for someone who might be interested in this work.  Discuss cost up front and mention you expect to pay less for an infringement analysis of a design patent than for a utility patent.  The attorney will probably be willing to provide a variety of levels of service for different costs and should be very clear what he will and will not do for various fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is to pose this question to your supplier.  The manufacturer often knows about competitors and key patents.  They may even have conducted a freedom to operate search or analyzed some key patents.  Good luck." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6378" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3338" RevisionGUID="67d47ad5-08b4-46e8-bb06-bf8e838d89f4" CreationDate="2013-02-14T13:16:54.670" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/302043743509422080" />
  <row Id="6379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3335" RevisionGUID="f230caf6-d3b1-4469-bfe4-72c2cca38e13" CreationDate="2013-02-14T13:26:38.357" UserId="2072" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="You are correct that you should think about consulting an attorney.  From a business perspective, you might consider a cost-benefit analysis.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One possibility is proceeding without any concern of the patents. In a worst-case scenario, the product is seized at the border and your business is stopped. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other extreme is that you conclusively address all patent-related concerns at great expense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The likely solution is somewhere in the middle, determined by your projected profits.  The greater the profit, the more your analysis might point towards fully addressing the legal issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can obtain more affordable counsel in this case if you are working only with design patents and have already identified the patents in question, having done a search.  (A patent search, especially for design patents, is surprisingly affordable).  A small firm or solo patent attorney will most likely be more affordable than a larger firm.  Ask your colleagues for a referral, or look up some attorneys and ask for referrals for someone who might be interested in this work.  Discuss cost up front and mention you expect to pay less for an infringement analysis of a design patent than for a utility patent.  The attorney will probably be willing to provide a variety of levels of service for different costs and should be very clear what he will and will not do for various fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is to pose this question to your supplier.  The manufacturer often knows about competitors and key patents.  They may even have conducted a freedom to operate search or analyzed some key patents.  Good luck." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3337" RevisionGUID="f726071e-21f0-41c2-972b-137465950a8c" CreationDate="2013-02-14T14:11:41.390" UserId="1335" Comment="Fixed grammar" Text="As usual, there seems to be confusion about the scope of a patent. The scope of the patent is defined not by its title or abstract but by its claims. You have to read the claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While there are broad patents that simply end up claiming something &quot;on the Internet&quot; or &quot;on a computer&quot;, they are very likely invalid and also (contrary to popular opinion) rather rare and typically anomalous. If you read the claims, you'll see that this one is far from being a patent on a &quot;diary on the Internet.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At a quick glance, the claims require 1) a server sending (a) content of a &quot;diary&quot; and (b) time (presumably related to the &quot;diary content&quot;), (c) privacy level and (d) presentation information along with (e) configuration information to a remote browser, 2) and the *browser* then dynamically combining information from (a), (b), (c) and (d) based on the configuration (e) all into a cohesive page and displaying it, and 3) then receiving input that changes the information at the server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although steps 1) - 2) sound like what wikis, CMS and templating engines have done since forever, as far as I can tell, they always assembled pages at the server rather than in the client. (At least, this was so until 2003, when I last worked with CMS's.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, the &quot;privacy level&quot; element seems to be something missing completely from wikis, CMS/template engines and other prior art that I can think of. It may be analogous to access control systems, but access control is evaluated at the server rather than the client. (Otherwise it's akin to saying &quot;Here's data you don't have access to. Don't look at it.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might be tempted to think that elements (a) - (e) are just information, and steps 1) - 2) are no different from &quot;sending information and markup from a server to a browser which then combines and displays it as a page&quot;, but patents don't work like that. Abstractions and simplifications do not apply well to claims, because, like contracts, they are legal documents, and each and every word is important. To generalize, each and everything specified in the claim *has* to be specifically described in one or more prior art references to invalidate the claim. Conversely, each and everything specified in the claim *has* to be performed by something for infringement to occur." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3346" RevisionGUID="40a751f4-a35f-4faf-8ede-cfd3c9c3f317" CreationDate="2013-02-15T13:14:50.833" UserId="3236" Text="I'm considering making a game that uses patent illustrations (from &lt;a href=&quot;http://contextfreepatentart.tumblr.com/&quot;&gt;Context-Free Patent Art&lt;/a&gt;) as graphics. I've read the answers to &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/44/are-text-and-images-in-the-patent-copyrighted/78#78&quot;&gt;Are text and images in the patent copyrighted?&lt;/a&gt;, which suggests that if a graphic is not explicitly copyrighted, it can be freely reproduced. However, I have some concerns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- When looking at the original patent, is the lack of a copyright notice in the patent sufficient to make sure the images in it are not copyrighted? This would seem to violate the Berne convention.&#xD;&#xA;- The game would be accessible across the world, not just in the US. How does this complicate things? Is it possible/likely that a challenge could be brought against the game in a non-US court?&#xD;&#xA;- I assume that I have to check that the images aren't trademarked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__What I'm looking for is a test I can apply to patent images to see if they are _reasonably safe_ for me to use in a game.__ The game design doesn't rely on any specific images being available, as long as _some_ are safe to use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6400" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3346" RevisionGUID="40a751f4-a35f-4faf-8ede-cfd3c9c3f317" CreationDate="2013-02-15T13:14:50.833" UserId="3236" Text="Making a game with patent art graphics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6401" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3346" RevisionGUID="40a751f4-a35f-4faf-8ede-cfd3c9c3f317" CreationDate="2013-02-15T13:14:50.833" UserId="3236" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;video-games&gt;&lt;i&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6402" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3346" RevisionGUID="96ec8e77-83bc-43ea-87f1-ddd120eb292b" CreationDate="2013-02-15T13:52:57.993" UserId="3236" Comment="Removed stray tag of &quot;i&quot;." Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;video-games&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3347" RevisionGUID="f4e73920-b665-42ca-8b45-9e77e90fda7a" CreationDate="2013-02-15T14:01:51.670" UserId="2072" Text="In *Rozenblat v. Sandia Corp.* 69 USPQ2d 1474 (7th Cir 2003), the Seventh Circuit held that an inventor's patent drawings may be protected by copyright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office website says that &quot;the text and drawings of a patent are typically not subject to copyright restrictions,&quot; subject to limitations in 37 CFR 1.71(d) &amp; (e) and 1.84(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/news/media/ccpubguide.jsp&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the PTO goes on to say &quot;trademarks may be embedded in patents as part of the drawing, particularly for design patents...[t]here are also instances where a portion of the text or drawings of a patent may be under copyright.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these statements, you could do the following:&#xD;&#xA;(1) From the front page of the patent, note the inventor and assignee&#xD;&#xA;(2) Search these names to see if you find copyright registrations here: &#xD;&#xA;http://www.copyright.gov/records/&#xD;&#xA;(3) Search these names to see if you find corresponding trademarks here:&#xD;&#xA;http://tess2.uspto.gov&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3211" RevisionGUID="68d01c18-f265-47d5-92c7-14523369bcf0" CreationDate="2013-02-15T14:03:02.070" UserId="906" Comment="hyperlink formatting" Text="The two styles shown are standard skateboard shapes that have been around for decades (surfboard-shaped and &quot;fishtail&quot;).  There's lots of varieties of both these shapes in production everywhere.  The routed-out wells shown above the wheels on the underside of the boards are standard for many skateboards, too (for &quot;wheel-bite&quot;, to give the wheels more room when the board flexes side to side).  The long vertical routed lines may be novel, but aren't in question (please read on).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An attorney for the company associated with these two skateboard design patents seems to be sending cease and desist letters to anyone trying to sell wheels attached to an oblong wooden board. He's essentially going after any small, vulnerable manufacturer making skateboards shaped like skateboards, regardless of any embellishment.  The skateboard makers accused of infringing do not carve vertical lines or wells under their boards; they do, however, shape their boards like skateboards.  That's the only similarity to these drawings...the shape of the boards, which the patent holder did not, of course, create.  What specific aspects of this design patent could this attorney be calling infringed? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This attorney seems to be claiming for his client a design patent for a novel decoration on a common item, and is claiming the exclusive rights to make this common item (with or without the decoration).  How does the patent office (or who will) handle patent misapplication/abuse?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google links to the patents as well...sometimes these are quicker to read: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US Patent - D564613 Skateboard][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US Patent - D556283 Longboard][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents?id=H-ioAAAAEBAJ&amp;pg=PA2&amp;dq=hamborg%20peter&amp;source=gbs_selected_pages&amp;cad=4#v=onepage&amp;q=hamborg%20peter&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/USD556283?printsec=drawing&amp;dq=hamborg+peter&amp;ei=2GkAUZ6KBIXq0QHXqYDIBA#v=onepage&amp;q=hamborg%20peter&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6405" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3211" RevisionGUID="68d01c18-f265-47d5-92c7-14523369bcf0" CreationDate="2013-02-15T14:03:02.070" Comment="Proposed by 906 approved by 2072, 1259 edit id of 317" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3338" RevisionGUID="86f0edba-5dfe-4ea6-b08c-4b6855aa799c" CreationDate="2013-02-15T14:03:23.147" UserId="906" Comment="created hyperlink to the referenced patent" Text="For example, the enforcement of patent [US4103235 - Two-tone attention signal broadcasting system][1];&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the inventor: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Because this patent pertained to public safety, I chose to never enforce it. It was effectively a gift.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was there a more direct way to indicate the patent would never be enforced?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents?id=zMAtAAAAEBAJ&amp;zoom=4&amp;dq=4103235&amp;pg=PA1#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6407" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3338" RevisionGUID="86f0edba-5dfe-4ea6-b08c-4b6855aa799c" CreationDate="2013-02-15T14:03:23.147" Comment="Proposed by 906 approved by 2072, 1259 edit id of 318" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3347" RevisionGUID="1fe93303-14df-4a0d-950d-f626404ea3c9" CreationDate="2013-02-15T14:09:46.233" UserId="2072" Comment="added 184 characters in body" Text="In *Rozenblat v. Sandia Corp.* 69 USPQ2d 1474 (7th Cir 2003), the Seventh Circuit held that an inventor's patent drawings may be protected by copyright.  This case is frequently cited when addressing this question and usually has been interpreted to mean only that it is possible for a patent drawing to be protected by copyright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office website says that &quot;the text and drawings of a patent are typically not subject to copyright restrictions,&quot; subject to limitations in 37 CFR 1.71(d) &amp; (e) and 1.84(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/news/media/ccpubguide.jsp&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the PTO goes on to say &quot;trademarks may be embedded in patents as part of the drawing, particularly for design patents...[t]here are also instances where a portion of the text or drawings of a patent may be under copyright.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these statements, you could do the following:&#xD;&#xA;(1) From the front page of the patent, note the inventor and assignee&#xD;&#xA;(2) Search these names to see if you find copyright registrations here: &#xD;&#xA;http://www.copyright.gov/records/&#xD;&#xA;(3) Search these names to see if you find corresponding trademarks here:&#xD;&#xA;http://tess2.uspto.gov&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some form of attribution is probably a good idea, as you suggest in citing the Berne Convention.  One possibility is including the patent number somewhere in the reproduction of the drawings.  The safest approach would be to consult an attorney." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3347" RevisionGUID="92e90de5-85b2-44f7-aa0f-7fa02b144afe" CreationDate="2013-02-15T15:18:52.960" UserId="2072" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="In *Rozenblat v. Sandia Corp.* 69 USPQ2d 1474 (7th Cir 2003), the Seventh Circuit held that an inventor's patent drawings may be protected by copyright.  This case is frequently cited when addressing this question and usually has been interpreted to mean only that it is possible for a patent drawing to be protected by copyright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office website says that &quot;the text and drawings of a patent are typically not subject to copyright restrictions,&quot; subject to limitations in 37 CFR 1.71(d) &amp; (e) and 1.84(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/news/media/ccpubguide.jsp&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the PTO goes on to say &quot;trademarks may be embedded in patents as part of the drawing, particularly for design patents...[t]here are also instances where a portion of the text or drawings of a patent may be under copyright.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these statements, you could do the following:&#xD;&#xA;(1) From the front page of the patent, note the inventor and assignee;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Search these names to see if you find copyright registrations here: &#xD;&#xA;http://www.copyright.gov/records/  &#xD;&#xA;(3) Search these names to see if you find corresponding trademarks here:&#xD;&#xA;http://tess2.uspto.gov&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some form of attribution is probably a good idea, as you suggest in citing the Berne Convention.  One possibility is including the patent number somewhere in the reproduction of the drawings.  The safest approach would be to consult an attorney." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6410" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3331" RevisionGUID="51d63df1-16f0-4206-8f29-d45c47a86bad" CreationDate="2013-02-15T18:36:35.170" UserId="3076" Comment="Edited title " Text="How detailed should a provisional patent application be? (Software)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3348" RevisionGUID="3948f406-3784-467f-a349-d17abd044ced" CreationDate="2013-02-15T20:52:38.657" UserId="3109" Text="I'm writing the detailed description of a computer implemented system that involves a lot of steps that I describe using flowcharts at various levels of abstraction. If I was writing the documentation for this system I would be using headings for the higher level of abstraction steps, and subheadings for the various substeps involved in the implementation so that this structure helps with understanding. However, in a patent description I wonder if all these headings and subheading are going to be interpreted as limitations. Probably I'll claim some of the main steps which would correspond to headings, but I don't think I'll claim every substep. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any opinions on this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6412" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3348" RevisionGUID="3948f406-3784-467f-a349-d17abd044ced" CreationDate="2013-02-15T20:52:38.657" UserId="3109" Text="Headings and subheadings in detailed description" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6413" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3348" RevisionGUID="3948f406-3784-467f-a349-d17abd044ced" CreationDate="2013-02-15T20:52:38.657" UserId="3109" Text="&lt;description&gt;&lt;drafting&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3348" RevisionGUID="bb405b4a-8db8-45d6-98c3-e4088bed862a" CreationDate="2013-02-15T20:59:15.390" UserId="3109" Comment="clarification" Text="I'm writing the detailed description of a computer implemented system that involves a lot of steps that I describe using flowcharts at various levels of abstraction. If I was writing the documentation for this system I would be using headings for the higher level of abstraction steps, and subheadings for the various substeps involved in the implementation so that this structure helps with understanding. However, in a patent description I wonder if all these headings and subheading are going to be interpreted as limitations. The inventive subject is not on all the step, I just add all the steps to make sure I have sufficient disclosure. Probably I'll claim some of the main steps which would correspond to headings, but I don't think I'll claim every substep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any opinions on this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3349" RevisionGUID="3be394e2-1362-401a-9127-c7fc9064ab6e" CreationDate="2013-02-15T21:14:59.980" UserId="3076" Text="Generally headings and sub headings are good in patent specifications to help in readability - as in any long technical document. A key to not having headings or anything else be limiting is to characterize the entire description of it  as a description of one version or embodiment or example implementation -  not a description of &quot;the invention&quot;. Of course that holds more weight if you do have a 2nd version to also describe. Also, in the U.S. there is no need to point out the &quot;inventive step&quot;. Each claim is, respectively, taken as a whole." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3350" RevisionGUID="f01d4009-a54e-4c82-8d2c-6b136dc72152" CreationDate="2013-02-15T21:53:09.250" UserId="3162" Text="Well there seems to be a lot of PC manufacturers who think otherwise..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.dailytech.com/Virtually+Every+Ultrabook+Appears+to+Violate+New+Apple+Patent/article24886.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please let me know your thoughts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6417" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3348" RevisionGUID="b6b90974-ce3d-4778-8c4f-7e32b4819086" CreationDate="2013-02-15T22:15:17.270" UserId="1259" Comment="tagged as appropriate" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3351" RevisionGUID="7a81d2b6-5b54-42db-97d1-5ff45231906f" CreationDate="2013-02-15T22:23:58.667" UserId="3109" Text="I'm writing the detailed description of a computer implemented system. I have explained what the system does, that's where the inventive subject matter is. I have explained an exemplary architecture where embodiments of the system can be implemented. I have explained a block diagram with the software parts of the system and I have explained all the steps of 8 flow charts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote some system claims before writing the description. Then I thought to claim the same from a method point of view, so that I have both system and method claims. The system claims I wrote look already a bit like a method, as besides stating the parts of the system, they go through the main steps that the system follows. I must say, I'm just learning how to write a patent, that's why the after thought about method claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is, if I claim the same system from a method point of view, do I have to write a detailed description that states what the system does from a exclusive method point of view? Or a system description, with all these flowchart I added, is enough to support both system and method claims? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6419" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3351" RevisionGUID="7a81d2b6-5b54-42db-97d1-5ff45231906f" CreationDate="2013-02-15T22:23:58.667" UserId="3109" Text="Detailed description of a system to suit system and method claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6420" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3351" RevisionGUID="7a81d2b6-5b54-42db-97d1-5ff45231906f" CreationDate="2013-02-15T22:23:58.667" UserId="3109" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;description&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3297" RevisionGUID="32393dbf-a97a-4757-9d1e-d4acecd24f5f" CreationDate="2013-02-15T22:31:50.817" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 50 characters in body" Text="A patent agent is a USPTO registered practitioner (passed the patent bar exam, etc.) who is NOT an attorney." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6422" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3297" RevisionGUID="32393dbf-a97a-4757-9d1e-d4acecd24f5f" CreationDate="2013-02-15T22:31:50.817" Comment="Proposed by 3076 approved by 1 edit id of 319" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3352" RevisionGUID="b4626de7-b539-426a-9d86-a24039732a2a" CreationDate="2013-02-16T00:09:27.980" UserId="3225" Text="I have a limited budget and I am looking form a startup based on my idea. My idea is related to mobile (Android,  iOS, etc) apps and a supporting website. It is a broad idea which can be implemented as several different features of my product. Do I have to file for separate provisional patents or can it all be described in just 1 application? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example - Lets say Mark zuckerberg (Facebook) has the idea of &quot;people communicating with other people in their networks online&quot; . Can he file a single patent which describes 1) Posting on wall 2) Sending private message 3) Voice call 4) Video call 5) Chat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is probably a bad example but I hope I got my point across. Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6424" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3352" RevisionGUID="b4626de7-b539-426a-9d86-a24039732a2a" CreationDate="2013-02-16T00:09:27.980" UserId="3225" Text="Can I include multiple specific software functionalities of my broad idea in a single provisional patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6425" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3352" RevisionGUID="b4626de7-b539-426a-9d86-a24039732a2a" CreationDate="2013-02-16T00:09:27.980" UserId="3225" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;android&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3353" RevisionGUID="f868bc56-61d5-4d45-8246-d0ab798ccaab" CreationDate="2013-02-16T02:21:48.893" UserId="3076" Text="It sounds like all these ideas are very related and it would be normal to cover them in a single application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in theory, you could put a door stop and a database and a rocket in one **provisional** application. It would be odd but would save you a little bit if money. There is no 1:1 correspondence between provisional and regular non-provisional applications. Many non-provisionals can get the benefit of a single provisional and one non-provisional can get the benefit of many provisionals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3353" RevisionGUID="921bf842-00bc-49dc-bb06-edd9aea42486" CreationDate="2013-02-16T02:32:52.823" UserId="3076" Comment="Small clarification and typo" Text="It sounds like all these ideas are very related and it would be normal to cover them in a single application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in theory, you could put a door stop and a database and a rocket in one **provisional** application. It would be odd but would save you a little bit of money. There is no requirement for a 1:1 correspondence between provisional and regular non-provisional applications. Multiple non-provisionals can get the benefit of a single provisional and one non-provisional can get the benefit of multiple provisionals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6428" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3346" RevisionGUID="5d08db69-c44a-49a0-9233-ad09d0c9e8ba" CreationDate="2013-02-16T07:17:17.820" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/302678018336358401" />
  <row Id="6429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3354" RevisionGUID="75f47bc1-06d7-466e-876d-e36e3fb6e66e" CreationDate="2013-02-16T07:31:15.767" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3355" RevisionGUID="8db8887d-c3d7-4843-91b9-0683a933d250" CreationDate="2013-02-16T07:31:15.767" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6434" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3351" RevisionGUID="65c36216-7484-4edb-a50d-475251852bf4" CreationDate="2013-02-16T13:27:26.723" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;description&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3357" RevisionGUID="74fed45e-c58f-4ca5-a2e9-500bf6881cc8" CreationDate="2013-02-16T13:31:35.410" UserId="3109" Text="I have read that in patent drafting you have to be consistent with the terms you use. For example, if you  refer to a “motor” in one place don't refer to it as “engine” in another place. &#xD;&#xA;What about word order? If in one place I talk about “estimate of the orientation of the device” and in another I talk about “orientation estimates”, would that rise any problems? Should I every time write “estimate of the orientation”?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I think at some point I have made this type of change to avoid sentences like “the A of the B of the C of the E” " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6436" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3357" RevisionGUID="74fed45e-c58f-4ca5-a2e9-500bf6881cc8" CreationDate="2013-02-16T13:31:35.410" UserId="3109" Text="Word order consistency?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6437" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3357" RevisionGUID="74fed45e-c58f-4ca5-a2e9-500bf6881cc8" CreationDate="2013-02-16T13:31:35.410" UserId="3109" Text="&lt;drafting&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3357" RevisionGUID="1a6044e3-53c1-46fd-8e2c-5c118161e709" CreationDate="2013-02-16T15:10:34.130" UserId="3109" Comment="typo" Text="I have read that in patent drafting you have to be consistent with the terms you use. For example, if you  refer to a “motor” in one place don't refer to it as “engine” in another place. &#xD;&#xA;What about word order? If in one place I talk about a “estimate of the orientation of the device” and in another place I talk about “orientation estimates”, would that rise any problems? Should I every time write “estimate of the orientation”?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I think at some point I have made this type of change to avoid sentences like “the A of the B of the C of the E” " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3261" RevisionGUID="2254a2a2-f0ea-447c-9aa0-5d980cd7b915" CreationDate="2013-02-16T18:58:26.560" UserId="3076" Comment="Typo and formatting lean up" Text="To directly infringe a patent one would need to make it, sell it, offer to sell it, import it, use it, or if it is a method, performing the steps of the method. [35 USC 271][1]  (Note-&quot;use&quot; means, if the patent claims a hammer, picking the patented hammer up and hitting something with it. It would **not** mean using the hammer as an idea in a story.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Writing about it isn't any of those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3359" RevisionGUID="28891e16-8d69-40e2-af02-ad23badbf6df" CreationDate="2013-02-16T21:08:05.457" UserId="2029" Text="I am filing a patent application (pro se) and am wondering whether it is a good idea to assign it to an LLC that I own or to just keep it under my name. I'm assuming here for this question that it will get approved. The main con with the LLC is that if it goes under, I'm afraid I will lose ownership of the patent. On the other hand, I'm not sure if having a patent under my name exposes me to some liability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, can an individual get sued for owning a patent on something and then somehow be forced to pay fines? Both in the case where he has licensed the patent and in the case where the patent is just sitting there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;aed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6444" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3359" RevisionGUID="28891e16-8d69-40e2-af02-ad23badbf6df" CreationDate="2013-02-16T21:08:05.457" UserId="2029" Text="Should I keep my patent's ownership or assign it to an entity that I own?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6445" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3359" RevisionGUID="28891e16-8d69-40e2-af02-ad23badbf6df" CreationDate="2013-02-16T21:08:05.457" UserId="2029" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3360" RevisionGUID="7e9df876-b07a-41dc-93b7-980536c8107c" CreationDate="2013-02-16T22:58:26.000" UserId="3241" Text="Can the Director of a one man UK limited company be held personally liable if his product infringes a US software patent? The UK company's software product is sold in the states over the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6447" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3360" RevisionGUID="7e9df876-b07a-41dc-93b7-980536c8107c" CreationDate="2013-02-16T22:58:26.000" UserId="3241" Text="Personally liable for patent infringement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6448" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3360" RevisionGUID="7e9df876-b07a-41dc-93b7-980536c8107c" CreationDate="2013-02-16T22:58:26.000" UserId="3241" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3360" RevisionGUID="aaa9f6dc-082e-4e99-b459-991da1b8b212" CreationDate="2013-02-17T09:41:41.687" UserId="3241" Comment="edited body" Text="Can the director of a one man UK limited company be held personally liable if his product infringes a US software patent? The UK company's software product is sold in the states over the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6454" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3360" RevisionGUID="abf38b5d-26bc-4c3c-bfdb-4a82e79b0382" CreationDate="2013-02-17T13:53:40.147" UserId="1259" Comment="tag" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6455" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3357" RevisionGUID="d6431284-2d98-4e0b-bfff-23a2708c99bc" CreationDate="2013-02-17T13:57:19.863" UserId="1259" Comment="tag" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="85" RevisionGUID="c7cfb4d1-1876-4cdf-a275-97741fd95b1f" CreationDate="2013-02-17T22:17:40.963" UserId="3076" Comment="Added some detail to excerpt" Text="Publications used to put teachings into the public domain to prevent future patents in that subject matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6457" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="85" RevisionGUID="c7cfb4d1-1876-4cdf-a275-97741fd95b1f" CreationDate="2013-02-17T22:17:40.963" Comment="Proposed by 3076 approved by 1 edit id of 321" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="180" RevisionGUID="ba75eedd-c397-44c2-b6cb-e55e08c3664c" CreationDate="2013-02-17T22:17:47.110" UserId="3076" Comment="Made  neutral in tone." Text="For posts questioning whether any skilled practitioner would find the idea obvious in light of the prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6459" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="180" RevisionGUID="ba75eedd-c397-44c2-b6cb-e55e08c3664c" CreationDate="2013-02-17T22:17:47.110" Comment="Proposed by 3076 approved by 1 edit id of 320" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3355" RevisionGUID="d3d9216a-0924-4b69-808b-1b68ed645071" CreationDate="2013-02-17T22:17:53.647" UserId="3076" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="In the U.S., a process for opposing patents covered by the AIA. PGR allows a 3rd party to question a patent during the first 9 months from issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6461" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3355" RevisionGUID="d3d9216a-0924-4b69-808b-1b68ed645071" CreationDate="2013-02-17T22:17:53.647" Comment="Proposed by 3076 approved by 1 edit id of 324" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1970" RevisionGUID="c2a7ee4d-930d-425a-91c3-e3c770bd611d" CreationDate="2013-02-17T22:17:59.387" UserId="3076" Comment="Added some detail" Text="Generally patent may not be granted for an invention that has been disclosed before the filing of the patent. In some countries, there is a *grace period* during which the inventor may still file a patent after disclosing the invention. In particular, in the United States, the inventor may file a patent up to one year after (this is sometimes known as the “one year rule”). The AIA changes the details of the grace period for applications filed on or after March 16, 2013. Most jurisdictions, for example the EU, do not have a grace period at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### External links&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * [Novelty on Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelty_%28patent%29)&#xD;&#xA; * [Grace period at Ius Mentis](http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/priorart/#grace)&#xD;&#xA; * [What is the one-year rule?](http://www.mateoaboy.com/f6/blog_files/874912ee2802a38923c533ba23ecf6c5-32.html)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6463" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1970" RevisionGUID="c2a7ee4d-930d-425a-91c3-e3c770bd611d" CreationDate="2013-02-17T22:17:59.387" Comment="Proposed by 3076 approved by 1 edit id of 322" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1971" RevisionGUID="c8df6f49-2b88-451f-bf7b-f43ac933fb20" CreationDate="2013-02-17T22:18:02.147" UserId="3076" Comment="Added some detail" Text="The amount of time during which the inventor may still file a patent after disclosing the invention. This is 1 year in the US, and 0 in Europe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6465" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1971" RevisionGUID="c8df6f49-2b88-451f-bf7b-f43ac933fb20" CreationDate="2013-02-17T22:18:02.147" Comment="Proposed by 3076 approved by 1 edit id of 323" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3363" RevisionGUID="1a6f643e-0e4f-40e5-907a-7c914b024983" CreationDate="2013-02-17T23:49:04.557" UserId="3076" Text="	&#xD;&#xA;Probably not an issue in the specification but you need to be very careful in claim wording. Otherwise you get &quot;lacks proper antecedent basis&quot; in your office action.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3364" RevisionGUID="b86c5bf2-f698-4be8-b8a8-1ad5b9524db3" CreationDate="2013-02-18T02:02:08.877" UserId="3245" Text="The problems of recognizing blobs (the result of connected component analysis), classifying them as representing potential collections of interest such as text strings, and applying techniques such as are described in the patent application, have been known and practised for decades. In fact, if faced with this problem, it's impossible not to do what these gentlemen describe, and wish to patent, or a close facsimile thereof." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6471" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3364" RevisionGUID="b86c5bf2-f698-4be8-b8a8-1ad5b9524db3" CreationDate="2013-02-18T02:02:08.877" UserId="3245" Text="The techniques here are obvious" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6472" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3364" RevisionGUID="b86c5bf2-f698-4be8-b8a8-1ad5b9524db3" CreationDate="2013-02-18T02:02:08.877" UserId="3245" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3190" RevisionGUID="7ce80081-0cb0-4ef1-9671-92179535214e" CreationDate="2013-02-18T06:00:21.633" UserId="3076" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="In a direct answer to the question, absolutely yes (the title is worded opposite to the question so the answer to the tile is no), up until March 16th when the provisions of the AIA kick in. The old/current law says you can't get a patent if it was patented of published anywhere in the world. Or if it was known or used by others **in this country**  - [35 USC sec 102(a)][1]. That all changes with the AIA so that the location of the known or used is worldwide. I think it was originally USA specific due to the difficulty of proving or disproving that something was known or used out of the country. A publication is in black and white.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That does not mean one can steal an idea you learn on a foreign trip or apply for a patent when you know you are not the first and true inventor, inventors sign an oath to that effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2132.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3190" RevisionGUID="ad29a98f-6385-4622-9e47-d38d264a5d53" CreationDate="2013-02-18T15:20:34.280" UserId="1259" Comment="typo" Text="In a direct answer to the question, absolutely yes (the title is worded opposite to the question so the answer to the tile is no), up until March 16th when the provisions of the AIA kick in. The old/current law says you can't get a patent if it was patented or published anywhere in the world. Or if it was known or used by others **in this country**  - [35 USC sec 102(a)][1]. That all changes with the AIA so that the location of the known or used is worldwide. I think it was originally USA specific due to the difficulty of proving or disproving that something was known or used out of the country. A publication is in black and white.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That does not mean one can steal an idea you learn on a foreign trip or apply for a patent when you know you are not the first and true inventor, inventors sign an oath to that effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2132.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3365" RevisionGUID="4054bd10-80af-4cba-b9aa-c9ee66833c12" CreationDate="2013-02-18T16:53:30.403" UserId="2072" Text="The answer is it depends.  If you expect to do business, then as one commenter suggested above, you should consider assigning it to your comapny.  The road to successfully monetizing a patent is probably a bit more complicated than is readily apparent.  There are many sources of liabiliy. Given the choice, most individuals would prefer to have these liabilities compartmentalized in a corporate structure.  To illustate this, legal fees to enforce a patent are potentially a huge liabilty.  Patentees can be sued for a variety of reasons. You might want your company to shoulder this exposure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are reasons to keep a patent as a personal asset.  Maybe as a vehicle for control in a closely held company, maybe because the transactional costs (incorporation, assignment, and maintenance of corporate formalities) outweigh the benefit of limiting liability.  The fact you are prosecuting your patent *pro se* suggests this may be the case for you.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, consider consulting an accountant with expertise in IP.  You may discover that the most important factor here is a tax consequence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3365" RevisionGUID="f893fd91-6b19-44d6-ad2a-fbcb2c1de58b" CreationDate="2013-02-18T17:00:55.970" UserId="2072" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="The answer is it depends.  If you expect to do business, then as one commenter suggested above, you should consider assigning it to your comapny.  The road to successfully monetizing a patent is probably a bit more complicated than is readily apparent.  There are many sources of liabiliy. Given the choice, most individuals would prefer to have these liabilities compartmentalized in a corporate structure.  To illustate this, legal fees to enforce a patent are potentially a huge liabilty.  Patentees can be sued for a variety of reasons. As a licensor, you would have even more potential for liability arising from explicit and implied duties as the patent holder. You might prefer that your company to shoulder this exposure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are reasons to keep a patent as a personal asset.  Maybe as a vehicle for control in a closely held company, maybe because the transactional costs (incorporation, assignment, and maintenance of corporate formalities) outweigh the benefit of limiting liability.  The fact you are prosecuting your patent *pro se* suggests this may be the case for you.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, consider consulting an accountant with expertise in IP.  You may discover that the most important factor here is a tax consequence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6477" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="3364" RevisionGUID="c34e9740-be08-4576-a378-88fb6be6a7bf" CreationDate="2013-02-18T17:57:41.480" UserId="1" Comment="4" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1259,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ron J.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3366" RevisionGUID="bc18ea41-05f2-445e-b973-66ea322a7a8e" CreationDate="2013-02-18T18:05:08.823" UserId="3247" Text="In short, yes.  While the &quot;corporate veil&quot; protects an individual from personal liability in many instances, this isn't always the case when dealing with infringement of intellectual property.  A few reasons why the director may be personally responsible include:  &#xD;&#xA;(1) The court pierces the corporate veil.  If the company is undercapitalized, is used to commit fraud, or if the persons involved don't treat the corporation as a separate entity, the court may refuse to protect the director.  For example, if a person sets up a corporation to facilitate his counterfeiting operation, there's a good chance that the person will be held individually liable.&#xD;&#xA;(2) The court finds that the director induced infringement. Corporate officers who actively aid and abet their corporation's infringement may be personally liable for inducing infringement.  You can read about how this can apply in the case Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1578-79 (Fed. Cir. 1986). This usually requires some knowledge on the part of the director that he is encouraging another person (such as the company) to infringe a patent. For example, if you know of a particular patent and help your company infringe that patent, you may be liable for induced infringement even if the company (as opposed to you personally) was the entity that actually infringed the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The level of personal liability can vary greatly depending on the fact. Don't assume that the company's existence alone is going to provide protection to the director.  That isn't always the case. I'll echo kineticfocus's advice - speak with a lawyer; preferably one who has experience in U.S. intellectual property law.     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3365" RevisionGUID="3aaf8762-d10c-4077-8fb0-21817a7447de" CreationDate="2013-02-18T18:39:24.377" UserId="2072" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="The answer is it depends.  If you expect to do business, then as one commenter suggested above, you should consider assigning it to your comapny.  The road to successfully monetizing a patent is probably a bit more complicated than is readily apparent.  There are many sources of liabiliy. Given the choice, most individuals would prefer to have these liabilities compartmentalized in a corporate structure.  To illustate this, legal fees to enforce a patent are potentially a huge liabilty.  Patentees can be sued for a variety of reasons. As a licensor, you would have even more potential for liability arising from explicit and implied duties as the patent holder. You might prefer that your company shoulder this exposure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are reasons to keep a patent as a personal asset.  Maybe as a vehicle for control in a closely held company, maybe because the transactional costs (incorporation, assignment, and maintenance of corporate formalities) outweigh the benefit of limiting liability.  The fact you are prosecuting your patent *pro se* suggests this may be the case for you.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, consider consulting an accountant with expertise in IP.  You may discover that the most important factor here is a tax consequence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3367" RevisionGUID="863e1ea9-1b2b-4e1b-80a5-efd1a7a6845c" CreationDate="2013-02-18T19:33:19.720" UserId="2072" Text="As an alternative answer, courts generally presume that different words in a patent application have different meanings.  *CAE Screenplates, Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH &amp; Co. KG*, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000).  This canon has been applied not only to the use of different words in claims, *Id*., but also to the use of different words in the written description. *Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. v. International Securities Exchange, LLC,* 677 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  Therefore, patent attorneys pay careful attention not to interchange different words when describing the same feature.  Otherwise, as demonstrated in these two cases, using different words can cause a court to reach an adverse determination of what the patent covers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is an unfortunate consequence that using precisely the same term leads to awkward syntax, such as your string of infinitive phrases.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3367" RevisionGUID="a6cc6628-5af3-4f7f-a9cd-94266a176a5b" CreationDate="2013-02-18T19:43:49.700" UserId="2072" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="As an alternative answer, courts generally presume that different words in a patent application have different meanings.  *CAE Screenplates, Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH &amp; Co. KG*, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000).  This canon has been applied not only to the use of different words in claims, *Id*., but also to the use of different words in the written description. *Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. v. International Securities Exchange, LLC,* 677 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  Many patent attorneys pay careful attention not to interchange different words when describing the same feature.  Otherwise, as demonstrated in these two cases, using different words can cause a court to reach an unintended determination of what the patent covers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is an unfortunate consequence that using precisely the same term leads to awkward syntax, such as your string of infinitive phrases.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3367" RevisionGUID="8096d104-df82-4f37-92ca-5a2e9f6a37ba" CreationDate="2013-02-18T21:36:23.170" UserId="2072" Comment="added 133 characters in body" Text="As an alternative answer, courts generally presume that different words in a patent application have different meanings.  *CAE Screenplates, Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH &amp; Co. KG*, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000).  This canon has been applied not only to the use of different words in claims, *Id*., but also to the use of different words in the written description. *Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. v. International Securities Exchange, LLC,* 677 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  Many patent attorneys pay careful attention not to interchange different words when describing the same feature.  Otherwise, as demonstrated in these two cases, using different words can cause a court to reach an unintended determination of what the patent covers.  Even switching word order, changing an adjective, or converting a word to a different part of speech could lead to the same result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is an unfortunate consequence that using precisely the same term leads to awkward syntax, such as your string of infinitive phrases.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6483" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3364" RevisionGUID="aa5b37b0-f29d-4a7a-a306-93072ea89f9d" CreationDate="2013-02-19T02:29:46.783" UserId="7" Comment="added patent publication number as tag" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20120321216&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3368" RevisionGUID="8d82c7f3-f384-438b-afb8-e352ea28c1f9" CreationDate="2013-02-19T03:13:48.117" UserId="3248" Text="The USPTO provides data on applications -- both granted and non-granted -- since 2001.  Is there data available for pre-2001 US patent applications both granted and failed?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that [Google is crawling][2] the USPTO PAIR site and possibly gathering applied-not-granted data, however, the oldest one is 1998.   The PAIR data requires an application number for the search, so does not appear to easily provide a set of all possible patent grants.   There is of course the 18 month confidentiality window that limits most recent applications. So, if a 1995 patent fails in the application process, then we are outside that window and might be able to see the original application.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [2]: http://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto-patents-pair.html&#xD;&#xA; [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6485" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3368" RevisionGUID="8d82c7f3-f384-438b-afb8-e352ea28c1f9" CreationDate="2013-02-19T03:13:48.117" UserId="3248" Text="Finding pre-2001 applied not granted applications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6486" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3368" RevisionGUID="8d82c7f3-f384-438b-afb8-e352ea28c1f9" CreationDate="2013-02-19T03:13:48.117" UserId="3248" Text="&lt;historical-data&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3369" RevisionGUID="ba8ef45a-11a2-4e76-844c-483ab6138d7c" CreationDate="2013-02-19T05:26:55.743" UserId="3076" Text="Before the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) U.S. applications were not published unless and until they were issued [See announcement.][1] before that an applicant could decide to abandon a patent that was allowed and close to issuing at the last minute and keep an application secret instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/news/pr/2000/00-72.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3369" RevisionGUID="25d119ff-6824-4315-911c-94ce0ac0e3e2" CreationDate="2013-02-19T05:32:23.773" UserId="3076" Comment="Clarification " Text="Before the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) U.S. applications were not published and completely unavailable to the public unless and until they were issued as patents. [See announcement.][1] Before that an applicant could decide to abandon a patent that was allowed and close to issuing, almost at at the last minute, and keep an application secret instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/news/pr/2000/00-72.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3370" RevisionGUID="ef028c03-d626-4b09-9f5b-db800e2c45c3" CreationDate="2013-02-19T05:57:08.243" UserId="3249" Text="Does the actual inventor of this item have any means of gaining financial compensation for his stolen design despite having no patent, just published proof that he actually created the item and not the copy artist / patent-granted liar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6490" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3370" RevisionGUID="ef028c03-d626-4b09-9f5b-db800e2c45c3" CreationDate="2013-02-19T05:57:08.243" UserId="3249" Text="Does the actual inventor of this item have any means of gaining financial compensation for his stolen design?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6491" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3370" RevisionGUID="ef028c03-d626-4b09-9f5b-db800e2c45c3" CreationDate="2013-02-19T05:57:08.243" UserId="3249" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6492" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3360" RevisionGUID="d2c65c76-fcb5-490b-b65a-01acaecafbcc" CreationDate="2013-02-19T07:20:40.700" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/303766032592547840" />
  <row Id="6493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3365" RevisionGUID="c4b3b090-a888-4a7b-8ec6-9fa6c2aa9fc9" CreationDate="2013-02-19T14:45:26.067" UserId="1259" Comment="typos" Text="The answer is it depends.  If you expect to do business, then as one commenter suggested above, you should consider assigning it to your company.  The road to successfully monetizing a patent is probably a bit more complicated than is readily apparent.  There are many sources of liability. Given the choice, most individuals would prefer to have these liabilities compartmentalized in a corporate structure.  To illustrate this, legal fees to enforce a patent are potentially a huge liabilty.  Patentees can be sued for a variety of reasons. As a licensor, you would have even more potential for liability arising from explicit and implied duties as the patent holder. You might prefer that your company shoulder this exposure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are reasons to keep a patent as a personal asset.  Maybe as a vehicle for control in a closely held company, maybe because the transactional costs (incorporation, assignment, and maintenance of corporate formalities) outweigh the benefit of limiting liability.  The fact you are prosecuting your patent *pro se* suggests this may be the case for you.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, consider consulting an accountant with expertise in IP.  You may discover that the most important factor here is a tax consequence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6494" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="3370" RevisionGUID="2c39dca2-17fb-422e-82e7-b423450eb1af" CreationDate="2013-02-19T17:11:33.957" UserId="1" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1259,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ron J.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2072,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Yorick&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6495" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="3370" RevisionGUID="12981bee-9f35-48f1-b1a0-bbeb75fc1424" CreationDate="2013-02-19T18:09:12.147" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3371" RevisionGUID="a6b921cf-7546-4224-947c-95a576bc8835" CreationDate="2013-02-19T22:22:35.093" UserId="1698" Text="If the personal actions of the director are sufficient, then yes. Ignore the surrounding corporate structure and answer your own question based on the facts of the case. Most patentees would sue both the person and the organization in a situation like this, if there is any indication that the person's own actions caused infringement or induced infringement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3373" RevisionGUID="30be108d-e3b5-4a80-beb5-9e5ce7b8d07a" CreationDate="2013-02-20T01:52:29.483" UserId="3076" Text="The last and possibly most significant change to the U.S. patent system goes into effect in less than a month. What will it mean for inventors and for prior art submitters?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6501" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3373" RevisionGUID="30be108d-e3b5-4a80-beb5-9e5ce7b8d07a" CreationDate="2013-02-20T01:52:29.483" UserId="3076" Text="What are the major take-aways from the first to file rules that go into effect March 16, 2013?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6502" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3373" RevisionGUID="30be108d-e3b5-4a80-beb5-9e5ce7b8d07a" CreationDate="2013-02-20T01:52:29.483" UserId="3076" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;aia&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3374" RevisionGUID="fdb6d818-d767-4c26-8bed-b8beab7d2b98" CreationDate="2013-02-20T01:52:29.483" UserId="3076" Text="Answering my own question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What applications are covered under the new rules?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first issue is what applications are dealt with under the old laws and which will be dealt with under the new laws. Two easy categories are:  (1) Non provisional applications filed before March 16 - they are treated under the old system . And (2) applications filed on or after that date that do not make any priority or benefit claim to any application filed before that date - they are treated under the new system. &#xD;&#xA;More difficult are transitional applications.  Transitional applications have an actual filing date on or after March 16 but claim priority to or the benefit of an application filed before that date. If every claim in a transitional application has full support in priority applications filed before March 16 then the application is treated under the old system. If any claim ever existed  in a transitional application that was not supported by a pre-f-2-f  application then the whole application is treated under the new law. That means that  a f-2-f application can't be made into a f-2-i application by canceling claims. &#xD;&#xA;In practice many transitional applications will be non provisional applications filed between March 16 2013 and March 15 2014 that claim the benefit of a provisional application filed before March 16 2013. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are the new rules?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than explain the differences, which requires a clear understanding of the old laws/rules, I'm primarily  going to explain the new system - it is considerably simpler ( not necessarily  better, fairer, etc.) than the old. This all boils down to what falls into the domain of  prior art for an application. On Ask Patents we often use the term prior art as a short hand for &quot;prior art that can knock out a patent or patent application.&quot; Prior art, properly, is the entire body of information that is allowed to be considered in evaluating the patentability of a specific patent document. Whether or not something  is prior art to application X is significantly a question of timing. In some sense it needs to come before the thing it is being used against. In the U.S.,  35 USC section 102, and court cases interpreting  it, tell us if something qualifies or does not qualify to be used against an application based on that application's effective filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new 102 is laid out very logically. 102(a) says you are entitled to a patent unless the same thing was previously done,  as evidenced in one of the listed ways. And 102(b) has the exceptions to 102(a). There is additional parallelism in that 102(b) **1** has the exceptions to 102(a) **1**  while 102(b) **2** has the exceptions to 102(a) **2**. The types of prior art defined in 102(a) and (b) 1 have to do with information actually potentially available to the public before the effective filing date.  In contrast, the documents covered by 102(a) and (b) 2 involve information that, while in a patent document submitted before the effective filing date, do not become public until after that  date. This is sometimes called secret prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be used against a claim in a patent application under the new rules? Under 102(a)1 it is anything, by anyone, anywhere in the world, described in a &quot;printed publication&quot; or issued patent, or on public sale or in public use or otherwise available to the public anywhere in the world as of the day before the effective filing date of the specific claim in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exceptions to this (as seen in 102(b) 1) are:  (A)  it was done by the inventor or by someone who got the information from the inventor.  (B) the publication, public use, etc. was preceded by an essentially  identical disclosure by the inventor or by someone who got it from the inventor.  If the inventor, for example, publishes an article and a 3rd party afterward published essentially the same information, the inventor can still later file and have the 3rd party's article discounted as prior art under this exception without needing to show that the 3rd party derived it from the inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides the actually public information of 102(a) 1, the secret information under 102(a) 2 can also be used against a patent application. This is a very specific category of information. It includes things described in a patent application filed (anywhere in the world) before the one in question's effective filing date but only  if that patent application either eventually issues as a patent anywhere in the world OR eventually is published as a &quot;U.S.&quot; application. The quotes around U.S. are because it includes not only things published by the USPTO's publication  department but all PCT applications on a world-wide basis that designate the United States. Since the default PCT application form designates ALL member states, that is pretty much all PCT applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exceptions to 102(a)**2** are in 102(b)**2**. In (A) the exception is if it from the same inventor. The inventorship of the earlier application can't include anyone who is not also an applicant on the later application for this exception to apply. (B) the patent or published application was preceded by an essentially  identical disclosure by the inventor. (C) at the time of the effective filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other provisions in 102 and 103**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;102c defines what commonly owned means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;102d defines what effective filing date&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;103 says that everything admittable  under 102 can be used in an obviousness analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How does this apply to finding prIor art for purposes of reducing E number of bad software patents?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No longer does 102 say &quot;in the U.S.&quot;  - one thing that does is open up sales and use outside of the U.S. as prior art - Unfortunately for the goals of Ask Patents, the AIA provisions for 3rd party submission only allows printed publications and patents to be submitted and, if dated before the effective filing date they were already allowable on a worldwide basis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in the category of secret prior art - information existing in patent applications that were filed but not published as of the effective date - a potentially large new category of prior art will exist under F-2-F. Rather than only PCT applications that became &quot;real&quot; U.S. applications counting as of their date of becoming real  (published in English, fees paid to U.S. , etc.) - essentially all PCT applications will count as of their earliest priority date - independent of the country that the priority filing was made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To download the final rules follow [this to PatentlyO][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/02/final-rules-on-first-to-file-regime.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3374" RevisionGUID="0b2c2335-c9cc-4799-9f4f-70e5187b6c2b" CreationDate="2013-02-20T01:59:19.060" UserId="3076" Comment="Bolding" Text="Answering my own question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What applications are covered under the new rules?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first issue is what applications are dealt with under the old laws and which will be dealt with under the new laws. Two easy categories are:  (1) Non provisional applications filed before March 16 - they are treated under the old system . And (2) applications filed on or after that date that do not make any priority or benefit claim to any application filed before that date - they are treated under the new system. &#xD;&#xA;More difficult are transitional applications.  Transitional applications have an actual filing date on or after March 16 but claim priority to or the benefit of an application filed before that date. If every claim in a transitional application has full support in priority applications filed before March 16 then the application is treated under the old system. If any claim ever existed  in a transitional application that was not supported by a pre-f-2-f  application then the whole application is treated under the new law. That means that  a f-2-f application can't be made into a f-2-i application by canceling claims. &#xD;&#xA;In practice many transitional applications will be non provisional applications filed between March 16 2013 and March 15 2014 that claim the benefit of a provisional application filed before March 16 2013. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are the new rules?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than explain the differences, which requires a clear understanding of the old laws/rules, I'm primarily  going to explain the new system - it is considerably simpler ( not necessarily  better, fairer, etc.) than the old. This all boils down to what falls into the domain of  prior art for an application. On Ask Patents we often use the term prior art as a short hand for &quot;prior art that can knock out a patent or patent application.&quot; Prior art, properly, is the entire body of information that is allowed to be considered in evaluating the patentability of a specific patent document. Whether or not something  is prior art to application X is significantly a question of timing. In some sense it needs to come before the thing it is being used against. In the U.S.,  35 USC section 102, and court cases interpreting  it, tell us if something qualifies or does not qualify to be used against an application based on that application's effective filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new 102 is laid out very logically. 102(**a**) says you are entitled to a patent unless the same thing was previously done,  as evidenced in one of the listed ways. And 102(**b**) has the exceptions to that list in 102(**a**). There is additional parallelism in that 102(b) **1** has the exceptions to 102(a) **1**  while 102(b) **2** has the exceptions to 102(a) **2**. The types of prior art defined in 102(a) and (b) 1 have to do with information actually potentially available to the public before the effective filing date.  In contrast, the documents covered by 102(a) and (b) 2 involve information that, while in a patent document submitted before the effective filing date, do not become public until after that  date. This is sometimes called secret prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be used against a claim in a patent application under the new rules? Under 102(a)1 it is anything, by anyone, anywhere in the world, described in a &quot;printed publication&quot; or issued patent, or on public sale or in public use or otherwise available to the public anywhere in the world as of the day before the effective filing date of the specific claim in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exceptions to this (as seen in 102(b) 1) are:  (A)  it was done by the inventor or by someone who got the information from the inventor.  (B) the publication, public use, etc. was preceded by an essentially  identical disclosure by the inventor or by someone who got it from the inventor.  If the inventor, for example, publishes an article and a 3rd party afterward published essentially the same information, the inventor can still later file and have the 3rd party's article discounted as prior art under this exception without needing to show that the 3rd party derived it from the inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides the actually public information of 102(a) 1, the secret information under 102(a) 2 can also be used against a patent application. This is a very specific category of information. It includes things described in a patent application filed (anywhere in the world) before the one in question's effective filing date but only  if that patent application either eventually issues as a patent anywhere in the world OR eventually is published as a &quot;U.S.&quot; application. The quotes around U.S. are because it includes not only things published by the USPTO's publication  department but all PCT applications on a world-wide basis that designate the United States. Since the default PCT application form designates ALL member states, that is pretty much all PCT applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exceptions to 102(a)**2** are in 102(b)**2**. In (A) the exception is if it from the same inventor. The inventorship of the earlier application can't include anyone who is not also an applicant on the later application for this exception to apply. (B) the patent or published application was preceded by an essentially  identical disclosure by the inventor. (C) at the time of the effective filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other provisions in 102 and 103**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;102c defines what commonly owned means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;102d defines what effective filing date&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;103 says that everything admittable  under 102 can be used in an obviousness analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How does this apply to finding prIor art for purposes of reducing E number of bad software patents?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No longer does 102 say &quot;in the U.S.&quot;  - one thing that does is open up sales and use outside of the U.S. as prior art - Unfortunately for the goals of Ask Patents, the AIA provisions for 3rd party submission only allows printed publications and patents to be submitted and, if dated before the effective filing date they were already allowable on a worldwide basis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in the category of secret prior art - information existing in patent applications that were filed but not published as of the effective date - a potentially large new category of prior art will exist under F-2-F. Rather than only PCT applications that became &quot;real&quot; U.S. applications counting as of their date of becoming real  (published in English, fees paid to U.S. , etc.) - essentially all PCT applications will count as of their earliest priority date - independent of the country that the priority filing was made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To download the final rules follow [this to PatentlyO][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/02/final-rules-on-first-to-file-regime.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3374" RevisionGUID="f719b6b2-5ed9-412e-9ea5-0d08cb004cf4" CreationDate="2013-02-20T02:04:48.913" UserId="3076" Comment="Bolding and fixed common ownership portion" Text="Answering my own question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What applications are covered under the new rules?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first issue is what applications are dealt with under the old laws and which will be dealt with under the new laws. Two easy categories are:  (1) Non provisional applications filed before March 16 - they are treated under the old system . And (2) applications filed on or after that date that do not make any priority or benefit claim to any application filed before that date - they are treated under the new system. &#xD;&#xA;More difficult are transitional applications.  Transitional applications have an actual filing date on or after March 16 but claim priority to or the benefit of an application filed before that date. If every claim in a transitional application has full support in priority applications filed before March 16 then the application is treated under the old system. If any claim ever existed  in a transitional application that was not supported by a pre-f-2-f  application then the whole application is treated under the new law. That means that  a f-2-f application can't be made into a f-2-i application by canceling claims. &#xD;&#xA;In practice many transitional applications will be non provisional applications filed between March 16 2013 and March 15 2014 that claim the benefit of a provisional application filed before March 16 2013. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are the new rules?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than explain the differences, which requires a clear understanding of the old laws/rules, I'm primarily  going to explain the new system - it is considerably simpler ( not necessarily  better, fairer, etc.) than the old. This all boils down to what falls into the domain of  prior art for an application. On Ask Patents we often use the term prior art as a short hand for &quot;prior art that can knock out a patent or patent application.&quot; Prior art, properly, is the entire body of information that is allowed to be considered in evaluating the patentability of a specific patent document. Whether or not something  is prior art to application X is significantly a question of timing. In some sense it needs to come before the thing it is being used against. In the U.S.,  35 USC section 102, and court cases interpreting  it, tell us if something qualifies or does not qualify to be used against an application based on that application's effective filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new 102 is laid out very logically. 102(**a**) says you are entitled to a patent unless the same thing was previously done,  as evidenced in one of the listed ways. And 102(**b**) has the exceptions to that list in 102(**a**). There is additional parallelism in that 102(b) **1** has the exceptions to 102(a) **1**  while 102(b) **2** has the exceptions to 102(a) **2**. The types of prior art defined in 102(a) and (b) 1 have to do with information actually potentially available to the public before the effective filing date.  In contrast, the documents covered by 102(a) and (b) 2 involve information that, while in a patent document submitted before the effective filing date, do not become public until after that  date. This is sometimes called secret prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be used against a claim in a patent application under the new rules? Under 102(a)1 it is anything, by anyone, anywhere in the world, described in a &quot;printed publication&quot; or issued patent, or on public sale or in public use or otherwise available to the public anywhere in the world as of the day before the effective filing date of the specific claim in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exceptions to this (as seen in 102(b) 1) are:  (A)  it was done by the inventor or by someone who got the information from the inventor.  (B) the publication, public use, etc. was preceded by an essentially  identical disclosure by the inventor or by someone who got it from the inventor.  If the inventor, for example, publishes an article and a 3rd party afterward published essentially the same information, the inventor can still later file and have the 3rd party's article discounted as prior art under this exception without needing to show that the 3rd party derived it from the inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides the actually public information of 102(a) 1, the secret information under 102(a) 2 can also be used against a patent application. This is a very specific category of information. It includes things described in a patent application filed (anywhere in the world) before the one in question's effective filing date but only  if that patent application either eventually issues as a patent anywhere in the world OR eventually is published as a &quot;U.S.&quot; application. The quotes around U.S. are because it includes not only things published by the USPTO's publication  department but all PCT applications on a world-wide basis that designate the United States. Since the default PCT application form designates ALL member states, that is pretty much all PCT applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exceptions to 102(a)**2** are in 102(b)**2**. In (A) the exception is if it from the same inventor. The inventorship of the earlier application can't include anyone who is not also an applicant on the later application for this exception to apply. (B) the patent or published application was preceded by an essentially  identical disclosure by the inventor. (C) at the time of the effective filing date the applications were commonly owned or obligated to be commonly assigned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other provisions in 102 and 103**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;102c defines what commonly owned means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;102d defines what effective filing date&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;103 says that everything admittable  under 102 can be used in an obviousness analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How does this apply to finding prIor art for purposes of reducing E number of bad software patents?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No longer does 102 say &quot;in the U.S.&quot;  - one thing that does is open up sales and use outside of the U.S. as prior art - Unfortunately for the goals of Ask Patents, the AIA provisions for 3rd party submission only allows printed publications and patents to be submitted and, if dated before the effective filing date they were already allowable on a worldwide basis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in the category of secret prior art - information existing in patent applications that were filed but not published as of the effective date - a potentially large new category of prior art will exist under F-2-F. Rather than only PCT applications that became &quot;real&quot; U.S. applications counting as of their date of becoming real  (published in English, fees paid to U.S. , etc.) - essentially all PCT applications will count as of their earliest priority date - independent of the country that the priority filing was made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To download the final rules follow [this to PatentlyO][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/02/final-rules-on-first-to-file-regime.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3374" RevisionGUID="143d81b1-8961-4c73-b1db-72faebe92bd6" CreationDate="2013-02-20T02:24:21.743" UserId="3076" Comment="Typo" Text="Answering my own question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What applications are covered under the new rules?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first issue is what applications are dealt with under the old laws and which will be dealt with under the new laws. Two easy categories are:  (1) Non provisional applications filed before March 16 - they are treated under the old system . And (2) applications filed on or after that date that do not make any priority or benefit claim to any application filed before that date - they are treated under the new system. &#xD;&#xA;More difficult are transitional applications.  Transitional applications have an actual filing date on or after March 16 but claim priority to or the benefit of an application filed before that date. If every claim in a transitional application has full support in priority applications filed before March 16 then the application is treated under the old system. If any claim ever existed  in a transitional application that was not supported by a pre-f-2-f  application then the whole application is treated under the new law. That means that  a f-2-f application can't be made into a f-2-i application by canceling claims. &#xD;&#xA;In practice many transitional applications will be non provisional applications filed between March 16 2013 and March 15 2014 that claim the benefit of a provisional application filed before March 16 2013. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are the new rules?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than explain the differences, which requires a clear understanding of the old laws/rules, I'm primarily  going to explain the new system - it is considerably simpler ( not necessarily  better, fairer, etc.) than the old. This all boils down to what falls into the domain of  prior art for an application. On Ask Patents we often use the term prior art as a short hand for &quot;prior art that can knock out a patent or patent application.&quot; Prior art, properly, is the entire body of information that is allowed to be considered in evaluating the patentability of a specific patent document. Whether or not something  is prior art to application X is significantly a question of timing. In some sense it needs to come before the thing it is being used against. In the U.S.,  35 USC section 102, and court cases interpreting  it, tell us if something qualifies or does not qualify to be used against an application based on that application's effective filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new 102 is laid out very logically. 102(**a**) says you are entitled to a patent unless the same thing was previously done,  as evidenced in one of the listed ways. And 102(**b**) has the exceptions to that list in 102(**a**). There is additional parallelism in that 102(b) **1** has the exceptions to 102(a) **1**  while 102(b) **2** has the exceptions to 102(a) **2**. The types of prior art defined in 102(a) and (b) 1 have to do with information actually potentially available to the public before the effective filing date.  In contrast, the documents covered by 102(a) and (b) 2 involve information that, while in a patent document submitted before the effective filing date, do not become public until after that  date. This is sometimes called secret prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be used against a claim in a patent application under the new rules? Under 102(a)1 it is anything, by anyone, anywhere in the world, described in a &quot;printed publication&quot; or issued patent, or on public sale or in public use or otherwise available to the public anywhere in the world as of the day before the effective filing date of the specific claim in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exceptions to this (as seen in 102(b) 1) are:  (A)  it was done by the inventor or by someone who got the information from the inventor.  (B) the publication, public use, etc. was preceded by an essentially  identical disclosure by the inventor or by someone who got it from the inventor.  If the inventor, for example, publishes an article and a 3rd party afterward published essentially the same information, the inventor can still later file and have the 3rd party's article discounted as prior art under this exception without needing to show that the 3rd party derived it from the inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides the actually public information of 102(a) 1, the secret information under 102(a) 2 can also be used against a patent application. This is a very specific category of information. It includes things described in a patent application filed (anywhere in the world) before the one in question's effective filing date but only  if that patent application either eventually issues as a patent anywhere in the world OR eventually is published as a &quot;U.S.&quot; application. The quotes around U.S. are because it includes not only things published by the USPTO's publication  department but all PCT applications on a world-wide basis that designate the United States. Since the default PCT application form designates ALL member states, that is pretty much all PCT applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exceptions to 102(a)**2** are in 102(b)**2**. In (A) the exception is if it is from the same inventor. The inventorship of the earlier application can't include anyone who is not also an applicant on the later application for this exception to apply. (B) the patent or published application was preceded by an essentially  identical disclosure by the inventor. (C) at the time of the effective filing date the applications were commonly owned or obligated to be commonly assigned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other provisions in 102 and 103**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;102c defines what commonly owned means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;102d defines what effective filing date means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;103 says that everything admittable  under 102 can be used in an obviousness analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How does this apply to finding prIor art for purposes of reducing E number of bad software patents?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No longer does 102 say &quot;in the U.S.&quot;  - one thing that does is open up sales and use outside of the U.S. as prior art - Unfortunately for the goals of Ask Patents, the AIA provisions for 3rd party submission only allows printed publications and patents to be submitted and, if dated before the effective filing date they were already allowable on a worldwide basis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in the category of secret prior art - information existing in patent applications that were filed but not published as of the effective date - a potentially large new category of prior art will exist under F-2-F. Rather than only PCT applications that became &quot;real&quot; U.S. applications counting as of their date of becoming real  (published in English, fees paid to U.S. , etc.) - essentially all PCT applications will count as of their earliest priority date - independent of the country that the priority filing was made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To download the final rules follow [this to PatentlyO][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/02/final-rules-on-first-to-file-regime.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6507" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3369" RevisionGUID="98765070-06b8-43a0-81ec-932ac0af1d19" CreationDate="2013-02-20T02:28:58.770" UserId="3076" Comment="Typo" Text="Before the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) U.S. applications were not published and completely unavailable to the public unless and until they were issued as patents. [See announcement.][1] Before that an applicant could decide to abandon a patent that was allowed and close to issuing, almost at the last minute, and keep an application secret instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/news/pr/2000/00-72.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3373" RevisionGUID="d358be86-4ae3-4ba4-955b-fbd7864e0bfc" CreationDate="2013-02-20T02:37:37.493" UserId="3076" Comment="Small improvement to title" Text="The last and possibly most significant change to the U.S. patent system from the AIA goes into effect in less than a month. What will it mean for inventors and for prior art submitters?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6509" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3373" RevisionGUID="d358be86-4ae3-4ba4-955b-fbd7864e0bfc" CreationDate="2013-02-20T02:37:37.493" UserId="3076" Comment="Small improvement to title" Text="What are the major take-aways on the first-(inventor)-to-file rules that go into effect March 16, 2013?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3374" RevisionGUID="7dfebf10-186c-49de-bdba-5d6869e5154a" CreationDate="2013-02-20T02:38:36.777" UserId="3076" Comment="What changed to which" Text="Answering my own question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What applications are covered under the new rules?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first issue is which applications are dealt with under the old laws and which will be dealt with under the new laws. Two easy categories are:  (1) Non provisional applications filed before March 16 - they are treated under the old system . And (2) applications filed on or after that date that do not make any priority or benefit claim to any application filed before that date - they are treated under the new system. &#xD;&#xA;More difficult are transitional applications.  Transitional applications have an actual filing date on or after March 16 but claim priority to or the benefit of an application filed before that date. If every claim in a transitional application has full support in priority applications filed before March 16 then the application is treated under the old system. If any claim ever existed  in a transitional application that was not supported by a pre-f-2-f  application then the whole application is treated under the new law. That means that  a f-2-f application can't be made into a f-2-i application by canceling claims. &#xD;&#xA;In practice many transitional applications will be non provisional applications filed between March 16 2013 and March 15 2014 that claim the benefit of a provisional application filed before March 16 2013. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are the new rules?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than explain the differences, which requires a clear understanding of the old laws/rules, I'm primarily  going to explain the new system - it is considerably simpler ( not necessarily  better, fairer, etc.) than the old. This all boils down to what falls into the domain of  prior art for an application. On Ask Patents we often use the term prior art as a short hand for &quot;prior art that can knock out a patent or patent application.&quot; Prior art, properly, is the entire body of information that is allowed to be considered in evaluating the patentability of a specific patent document. Whether or not something  is prior art to application X is significantly a question of timing. In some sense it needs to come before the thing it is being used against. In the U.S.,  35 USC section 102, and court cases interpreting  it, tell us if something qualifies or does not qualify to be used against an application based on that application's effective filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new 102 is laid out very logically. 102(**a**) says you are entitled to a patent unless the same thing was previously done,  as evidenced in one of the listed ways. And 102(**b**) has the exceptions to that list in 102(**a**). There is additional parallelism in that 102(b) **1** has the exceptions to 102(a) **1**  while 102(b) **2** has the exceptions to 102(a) **2**. The types of prior art defined in 102(a) and (b) 1 have to do with information actually potentially available to the public before the effective filing date.  In contrast, the documents covered by 102(a) and (b) 2 involve information that, while in a patent document submitted before the effective filing date, do not become public until after that  date. This is sometimes called secret prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be used against a claim in a patent application under the new rules? Under 102(a)1 it is anything, by anyone, anywhere in the world, described in a &quot;printed publication&quot; or issued patent, or on public sale or in public use or otherwise available to the public anywhere in the world as of the day before the effective filing date of the specific claim in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exceptions to this (as seen in 102(b) 1) are:  (A)  it was done by the inventor or by someone who got the information from the inventor.  (B) the publication, public use, etc. was preceded by an essentially  identical disclosure by the inventor or by someone who got it from the inventor.  If the inventor, for example, publishes an article and a 3rd party afterward published essentially the same information, the inventor can still later file and have the 3rd party's article discounted as prior art under this exception without needing to show that the 3rd party derived it from the inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides the actually public information of 102(a) 1, the secret information under 102(a) 2 can also be used against a patent application. This is a very specific category of information. It includes things described in a patent application filed (anywhere in the world) before the one in question's effective filing date but only  if that patent application either eventually issues as a patent anywhere in the world OR eventually is published as a &quot;U.S.&quot; application. The quotes around U.S. are because it includes not only things published by the USPTO's publication  department but all PCT applications on a world-wide basis that designate the United States. Since the default PCT application form designates ALL member states, that is pretty much all PCT applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exceptions to 102(a)**2** are in 102(b)**2**. In (A) the exception is if it is from the same inventor. The inventorship of the earlier application can't include anyone who is not also an applicant on the later application for this exception to apply. (B) the patent or published application was preceded by an essentially  identical disclosure by the inventor. (C) at the time of the effective filing date the applications were commonly owned or obligated to be commonly assigned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other provisions in 102 and 103**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;102c defines what commonly owned means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;102d defines what effective filing date means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;103 says that everything admittable  under 102 can be used in an obviousness analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How does this apply to finding prIor art for purposes of reducing E number of bad software patents?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No longer does 102 say &quot;in the U.S.&quot;  - one thing that does is open up sales and use outside of the U.S. as prior art - Unfortunately for the goals of Ask Patents, the AIA provisions for 3rd party submission only allows printed publications and patents to be submitted and, if dated before the effective filing date they were already allowable on a worldwide basis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in the category of secret prior art - information existing in patent applications that were filed but not published as of the effective date - a potentially large new category of prior art will exist under F-2-F. Rather than only PCT applications that became &quot;real&quot; U.S. applications counting as of their date of becoming real  (published in English, fees paid to U.S. , etc.) - essentially all PCT applications will count as of their earliest priority date - independent of the country that the priority filing was made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To download the final rules follow [this to PatentlyO][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/02/final-rules-on-first-to-file-regime.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3369" RevisionGUID="0a71e2a4-8856-434d-9f65-89de0001de0f" CreationDate="2013-02-20T02:45:24.260" UserId="3076" Comment="Added direct answer" Text="The direct answer is no. Before the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) U.S. applications were not published and completely unavailable to the public unless and until they were issued as patents. [See announcement.][1] Before that an applicant could decide to abandon a patent that was allowed and close to issuing, almost at the last minute, and keep an application secret instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/news/pr/2000/00-72.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3374" RevisionGUID="bf0c5a32-465e-4fef-a53b-53125f344b27" CreationDate="2013-02-20T03:04:43.003" UserId="3076" Comment="Typo" Text="Answering my own question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What applications are covered under the new rules?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first issue is which applications are dealt with under the old laws and which will be dealt with under the new laws. Two easy categories are:  (1) Non provisional applications filed before March 16 - they are treated under the old system . And (2) applications filed on or after that date that do not make any priority or benefit claim to any application filed before that date - they are treated under the new system. &#xD;&#xA;More difficult are transitional applications.  Transitional applications have an actual filing date on or after March 16 but claim priority to or the benefit of an application filed before that date. If every claim in a transitional application has full support in priority applications filed before March 16 then the application is treated under the old system. If any claim ever existed  in a transitional application that was not supported by a pre-f-2-f  application then the whole application is treated under the new law. That means that  a f-2-f application can't be made into a f-2-i application by canceling claims. &#xD;&#xA;In practice many transitional applications will be non provisional applications filed between March 16 2013 and March 15 2014 that claim the benefit of a provisional application filed before March 16 2013. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are the new rules?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than explain the differences, which requires a clear understanding of the old laws/rules, I'm primarily  going to explain the new system - it is considerably simpler ( not necessarily  better, fairer, etc.) than the old. This all boils down to what falls into the domain of  prior art for an application. On Ask Patents we often use the term prior art as a short hand for &quot;prior art that can knock out a patent or patent application.&quot; Prior art, properly, is the entire body of information that is allowed to be considered in evaluating the patentability of a specific patent document. Whether or not something  is prior art to application X is significantly a question of timing. In some sense it needs to come before the thing it is being used against. In the U.S.,  35 USC section 102, and court cases interpreting  it, tell us if something qualifies or does not qualify to be used against an application based on that application's effective filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new 102 is laid out very logically. 102(**a**) says you are entitled to a patent unless the same thing was previously done,  as evidenced in one of the listed ways. And 102(**b**) has the exceptions to that list in 102(**a**). There is additional parallelism in that 102(b) **1** has the exceptions to 102(a) **1**  while 102(b) **2** has the exceptions to 102(a) **2**. The types of prior art defined in 102(a) and (b) 1 have to do with information actually potentially available to the public before the effective filing date.  In contrast, the documents covered by 102(a) and (b) 2 involve information that, while in a patent document submitted before the effective filing date, do not become public until after that  date. This is sometimes called secret prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be used against a claim in a patent application under the new rules? Under 102(a)1 it is anything, by anyone, anywhere in the world, described in a &quot;printed publication&quot; or issued patent, or on public sale or in public use or otherwise available to the public anywhere in the world as of the day before the effective filing date of the specific claim in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exceptions to this (as seen in 102(b) 1) are:  (A)  it was done by the inventor or by someone who got the information from the inventor.  (B) the publication, public use, etc. was preceded by an essentially  identical disclosure by the inventor or by someone who got it from the inventor.  If the inventor, for example, publishes an article and a 3rd party afterward published essentially the same information, the inventor can still later file and have the 3rd party's article discounted as prior art under this exception without needing to show that the 3rd party derived it from the inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides the actually public information of 102(a) 1, the secret information under 102(a) 2 can also be used against a patent application. This is a very specific category of information. It includes things described in a patent application filed (anywhere in the world) before the one in question's effective filing date but only  if that patent application either eventually issues as a patent anywhere in the world OR eventually is published as a &quot;U.S.&quot; application. The quotes around U.S. are because it includes not only things published by the USPTO's publication  department but all PCT applications on a world-wide basis that designate the United States. Since the default PCT application form designates ALL member states, that is pretty much all PCT applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exceptions to 102(a)**2** are in 102(b)**2**. In (A) the exception is if it is from the same inventor. The inventorship of the earlier application can't include anyone who is not also an applicant on the later application for this exception to apply. (B) the patent or published application was preceded by an essentially  identical disclosure by the inventor. (C) at the time of the effective filing date the applications were commonly owned or obligated to be commonly assigned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other provisions in 102 and 103**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;102c defines what commonly owned means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;102d defines what effective filing date means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;103 says that everything admittable  under 102 can be used in an obviousness analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How does this apply to finding prIor art for purposes of reducing the number of bad software patents?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No longer does 102 say &quot;in the U.S.&quot;  - one thing that does is open up sales and use outside of the U.S. as prior art - Unfortunately for the goals of Ask Patents, the AIA provisions for 3rd party submission only allows printed publications and patents to be submitted and, if dated before the effective filing date they were already allowable on a worldwide basis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in the category of secret prior art - information existing in patent applications that were filed but not published as of the effective date - a potentially large new category of prior art will exist under F-2-F. Rather than only PCT applications that became &quot;real&quot; U.S. applications counting as of their date of becoming real  (published in English, fees paid to U.S. , etc.) - essentially all PCT applications will count as of their earliest priority date - independent of the country that the priority filing was made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To download the final rules follow [this to PatentlyO][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/02/final-rules-on-first-to-file-regime.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3374" RevisionGUID="92ec8f81-8cf2-4fa6-a475-bc06ae4f7185" CreationDate="2013-02-20T03:23:26.810" UserId="3076" Comment="Typo" Text="Answering my own question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What applications are covered under the new rules?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first issue is which applications are dealt with under the old laws and which will be dealt with under the new laws. Two easy categories are:  (1) Non provisional applications filed before March 16 - they are treated under the old system. And (2) applications filed on or after that date that do not make any priority or benefit claim to any application filed before that date - they are treated under the new system. &#xD;&#xA;More difficult are transitional applications.  Transitional applications have an actual filing date on or after March 16 but claim priority to or the benefit of an application filed before that date. If every claim in a transitional application has full support in priority applications filed before March 16 then the application is treated under the old system. If any claim ever existed  in a transitional application that was not supported by a pre-f-2-f  application then the whole application is treated under the new law. That means that  a f-2-f application can't be made into a f-2-i application by canceling claims. &#xD;&#xA;In practice many transitional applications will be non provisional applications filed between March 16 2013 and March 15 2014 that claim the benefit of a provisional application filed before March 16 2013. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are the new rules?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than explain the differences, which requires a clear understanding of the old laws/rules, I'm primarily  going to explain the new system - it is considerably simpler ( not necessarily  better, fairer, etc.) than the old. This all boils down to what falls into the domain of  prior art for an application. On Ask Patents we often use the term prior art as a short hand for &quot;prior art that can knock out a patent or patent application.&quot; Prior art, properly, is the entire body of information that is allowed to be considered in evaluating the patentability of a specific patent document. Whether or not something  is prior art to application X is significantly a question of timing. In some sense it needs to come before the thing it is being used against. In the U.S.,  35 USC section 102, and court cases interpreting  it, tell us if something qualifies or does not qualify to be used against an application based on that application's effective filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new 102 is laid out very logically. 102(**a**) says you are entitled to a patent unless the same thing was previously done,  as evidenced in one of the listed ways. And 102(**b**) has the exceptions to that list in 102(**a**). There is additional parallelism in that 102(b) **1** has the exceptions to 102(a) **1**  while 102(b) **2** has the exceptions to 102(a) **2**. The types of prior art defined in 102(a) and (b) 1 have to do with information actually potentially available to the public before the effective filing date.  In contrast, the documents covered by 102(a) and (b) 2 involve information that, while in a patent document submitted before the effective filing date, do not become public until after that  date. This is sometimes called secret prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be used against a claim in a patent application under the new rules? Under 102(a)1 it is anything, by anyone, anywhere in the world, described in a &quot;printed publication&quot; or issued patent, or on public sale or in public use or otherwise available to the public anywhere in the world as of the day before the effective filing date of the specific claim in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exceptions to this (as seen in 102(b) 1) are:  (A)  it was done by the inventor or by someone who got the information from the inventor.  (B) the publication, public use, etc. was preceded by an essentially  identical disclosure by the inventor or by someone who got it from the inventor.  If the inventor, for example, publishes an article and a 3rd party afterward published essentially the same information, the inventor can still later file and have the 3rd party's article discounted as prior art under this exception without needing to show that the 3rd party derived it from the inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides the actually public information of 102(a) 1, the secret information under 102(a) 2 can also be used against a patent application. This is a very specific category of information. It includes things described in a patent application filed (anywhere in the world) before the one in question's effective filing date but only  if that patent application either eventually issues as a patent anywhere in the world OR eventually is published as a &quot;U.S.&quot; application. The quotes around U.S. are because it includes not only things published by the USPTO's publication  department but all PCT applications on a world-wide basis that designate the United States. Since the default PCT application form designates ALL member states, that is pretty much all PCT applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exceptions to 102(a)**2** are in 102(b)**2**. In (A) the exception is if it is from the same inventor. The inventorship of the earlier application can't include anyone who is not also an applicant on the later application for this exception to apply. (B) the patent or published application was preceded by an essentially  identical disclosure by the inventor. (C) at the time of the effective filing date the applications were commonly owned or obligated to be commonly assigned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other provisions in 102 and 103**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;102c defines what commonly owned means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;102d defines what effective filing date means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;103 says that everything admittable  under 102 can be used in an obviousness analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How does this apply to finding prIor art for purposes of reducing the number of bad software patents?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No longer does 102 say &quot;in the U.S.&quot;  - one thing that does is open up sales and use outside of the U.S. as prior art - Unfortunately for the goals of Ask Patents, the AIA provisions for 3rd party submission only allows printed publications and patents to be submitted and, if dated before the effective filing date, they were already allowable on a worldwide basis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in the category of secret prior art - information existing in patent applications that were filed but not published as of the effective date - a potentially large new category of prior art will exist under F-2-F. Rather than only PCT applications that became &quot;real&quot; U.S. applications counting as of their date of becoming real  (published in English, fees paid to U.S. , etc.) - essentially all PCT applications will count as of their earliest priority date - independent of the country that the priority filing was made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To download the final rules follow [this to PatentlyO][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/02/final-rules-on-first-to-file-regime.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6515" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3373" RevisionGUID="48137458-14a1-4e46-bf08-5a4dbeb8a46a" CreationDate="2013-02-20T19:22:40.987" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/304310118789558273" />
  <row Id="6516" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="3364" RevisionGUID="bbff7ee0-327f-407b-8e14-3636dbb628bb" CreationDate="2013-02-20T19:49:23.750" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3076,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George White&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3375" RevisionGUID="e0d1dfac-8acd-411c-a031-5764c1d2fc23" CreationDate="2013-02-20T21:10:27.517" UserId="3076" Text="As mentioned in a comment, this is a patent application that as of today (Feb. 20, 2013) has not yet been examined. All of what it describes is not what it desires to  claim and the broadest claims found in a published patent application are usually narrowed in the course of prosecution. As published the claim 1 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`enter preformatted text here`1. A method for correcting a distortion in an image including text, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;generating a first set of substantially straight lines corresponding to a first direction for a quadrangle for the image;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;generating a second set of substantially straight lines corresponding to a second direction for the quadrangle for the image;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;finding a first vanishing point based on said first set of substantially straight lines;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;finding a second vanishing point based on said second set of substantially straight lines;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;identifying the quadrangle for the image based on the first vanishing point and the second vanishing point;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;determining a parameter for a rectangle of a corrected image; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;reducing the distortion in the image including text by generating the corrected image based on the rectangle at least partially in a memory of a computer device." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3375" RevisionGUID="9a050a4c-1089-4675-b332-03a35808f509" CreationDate="2013-02-20T21:18:58.333" UserId="3076" Comment="Finished post " Text="As mentioned in a comment, this is a patent application that as of today (Feb. 20, 2013) has not yet been examined. All of what it describes is not what it desires to  claim and the broadest claims found in a published patent application are usually narrowed in the course of prosecution. As published the claim 1 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for correcting a distortion in an image including text, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;generating a first set of substantially straight lines corresponding to a first direction for a quadrangle for the image;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;generating a second set of substantially straight lines corresponding to a second direction for the quadrangle for the image;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;finding a first vanishing point based on said first set of substantially straight lines;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;finding a second vanishing point based on said second set of substantially straight lines;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;identifying the quadrangle for the image based on the first vanishing point and the second vanishing point;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;determining a parameter for a rectangle of a corrected image; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;reducing the distortion in the image including text by generating the corrected image based on the rectangle at least partially in a memory of a computer device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this is published but not yet subject to an office action on the merits it is in the time window allowing 3rd parties to submit prior art into the case. The mechanics for this are on several other Ask Patents posts. Up to three documents, with limited comments, per submitter, can be submitted at no cost. It is possible to do yourself. If done through a registered practitioner it can even be done with anonymity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please look up this application in [USPTO Public PAIR][1]to see that the applicant themselves has already made the examiner aware of several prior art patent documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3375" RevisionGUID="3c575fe3-4f39-4559-aaea-bf2da64ac13f" CreationDate="2013-02-20T21:29:27.357" UserId="3076" Comment="Added links. Typo" Text="As mentioned in a comment, this is a patent application that as of today (Feb. 20, 2013) has not yet been examined. All of what it describes is not what it desires to  claim and the broadest claims found in a published patent application are usually narrowed in the course of prosecution. As published the claim 1 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for correcting a distortion in an image including text, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;generating a first set of substantially straight lines corresponding to a first direction for a quadrangle for the image;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;generating a second set of substantially straight lines corresponding to a second direction for the quadrangle for the image;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;finding a first vanishing point based on said first set of substantially straight lines;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;finding a second vanishing point based on said second set of substantially straight lines;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;identifying the quadrangle for the image based on the first vanishing point and the second vanishing point;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;determining a parameter for a rectangle of a corrected image; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;reducing the distortion in the image including text by generating the corrected image based on the rectangle at least partially in a memory of a computer device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this is published but not yet subject to an office action on the merits it is in the time window allowing 3rd parties to submit prior art into the case. The mechanics for this are on several other Ask Patents posts. [This is the USPTO press release on the topic.][1] Up to three documents per submitter, with limited comments, can be filed at no cost. It is possible to do yourself. If done through a registered practitioner it can even be done with anonymity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please look up this application in [USPTO Public PAIR][2] to see that the applicant themselves have already made the examiner aware of several prior art patent documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/news/pr/2012/12-60.jsp&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3374" RevisionGUID="ed12e75f-3e4e-4d41-85b7-ec2812d1064c" CreationDate="2013-02-21T00:21:21.817" UserId="3076" Comment="Added link" Text="Answering my own question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What applications are covered under the new rules?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first issue is which applications are dealt with under the old laws and which will be dealt with under the new laws. Two easy categories are:  (1) Non provisional applications filed before March 16 - they are treated under the old system. And (2) applications filed on or after that date that do not make any priority or benefit claim to any application filed before that date - they are treated under the new system. &#xD;&#xA;More difficult are transitional applications.  Transitional applications have an actual filing date on or after March 16 but claim priority to or the benefit of an application filed before that date. If every claim in a transitional application has full support in priority applications filed before March 16 then the application is treated under the old system. If any claim ever existed  in a transitional application that was not supported by a pre-f-2-f  application then the whole application is treated under the new law. That means that  a f-2-f application can't be made into a f-2-i application by canceling claims. &#xD;&#xA;In practice many transitional applications will be non provisional applications filed between March 16 2013 and March 15 2014 that claim the benefit of a provisional application filed before March 16 2013. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are the new rules?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than explain the differences, which requires a clear understanding of the old laws/rules, I'm primarily  going to explain the new system - it is considerably simpler ( not necessarily  better, fairer, etc.) than the old. This all boils down to what falls into the domain of  prior art for an application. On Ask Patents we often use the term prior art as a short hand for &quot;prior art that can knock out a patent or patent application.&quot; Prior art, properly, is the entire body of information that is allowed to be considered in evaluating the patentability of a specific patent document. Whether or not something  is prior art to application X is significantly a question of timing. In some sense it needs to come before the thing it is being used against. In the U.S.,  35 USC section 102, and court cases interpreting  it, tell us if something qualifies or does not qualify to be used against an application based on that application's effective filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new 102 is laid out very logically. 102(**a**) says you are entitled to a patent unless the same thing was previously done,  as evidenced in one of the listed ways. And 102(**b**) has the exceptions to that list in 102(**a**). There is additional parallelism in that 102(b) **1** has the exceptions to 102(a) **1**  while 102(b) **2** has the exceptions to 102(a) **2**. The types of prior art defined in 102(a) and (b) 1 have to do with information actually potentially available to the public before the effective filing date.  In contrast, the documents covered by 102(a) and (b) 2 involve information that, while in a patent document submitted before the effective filing date, do not become public until after that  date. This is sometimes called secret prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be used against a claim in a patent application under the new rules? Under 102(a)1 it is anything, by anyone, anywhere in the world, described in a &quot;printed publication&quot; or issued patent, or on public sale or in public use or otherwise available to the public anywhere in the world as of the day before the effective filing date of the specific claim in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exceptions to this (as seen in 102(b) 1) are:  (A)  it was done by the inventor or by someone who got the information from the inventor.  (B) the publication, public use, etc. was preceded by an essentially  identical disclosure by the inventor or by someone who got it from the inventor.  If the inventor, for example, publishes an article and a 3rd party afterward published essentially the same information, the inventor can still later file and have the 3rd party's article discounted as prior art under this exception without needing to show that the 3rd party derived it from the inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides the actually public information of 102(a) 1, the secret information under 102(a) 2 can also be used against a patent application. This is a very specific category of information. It includes things described in a patent application filed (anywhere in the world) before the one in question's effective filing date but only  if that patent application either eventually issues as a patent anywhere in the world OR eventually is published as a &quot;U.S.&quot; application. The quotes around U.S. are because it includes not only things published by the USPTO's publication  department but all PCT applications on a world-wide basis that designate the United States. Since the default PCT application form designates ALL member states, that is pretty much all PCT applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exceptions to 102(a)**2** are in 102(b)**2**. In (A) the exception is if it is from the same inventor. The inventorship of the earlier application can't include anyone who is not also an applicant on the later application for this exception to apply. (B) the patent or published application was preceded by an essentially  identical disclosure by the inventor. (C) at the time of the effective filing date the applications were commonly owned or obligated to be commonly assigned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other provisions in 102 and 103**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;102c defines what commonly owned means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;102d defines what effective filing date means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;103 says that everything admittable  under 102 can be used in an obviousness analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How does this apply to finding prIor art for purposes of reducing the number of bad software patents?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No longer does 102 say &quot;in the U.S.&quot;  - one thing that does is open up sales and use outside of the U.S. as prior art - Unfortunately for the goals of Ask Patents, the AIA provisions for 3rd party submission only allows printed publications and patents to be submitted and, if dated before the effective filing date, they were already allowable on a worldwide basis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in the category of secret prior art - information existing in patent applications that were filed but not published as of the effective date - a potentially large new category of prior art will exist under F-2-F. Rather than only PCT applications that became &quot;real&quot; U.S. applications counting as of their date of becoming real  (published in English, fees paid to U.S. , etc.) - essentially all PCT applications will count as of their earliest priority date - independent of the country that the priority filing was made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To see section 102 old and new clean and marked up [see this page at bitlaw.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To download the final rules follow [this to PatentlyO][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc-after-america-invents-act/102.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/02/final-rules-on-first-to-file-regime.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3375" RevisionGUID="f04f71c6-076d-4a4a-990b-909b6b0ea505" CreationDate="2013-02-21T00:25:06.790" UserId="3076" Comment="Bolding" Text="As mentioned in a comment, this is a patent application that as of today (Feb. 20, 2013) has not yet been examined. All of what it describes is not what it desires to  claim and the broadest claims found in a published patent application are usually narrowed in the course of prosecution. As published the claim 1 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for correcting a distortion in an image including text, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;generating a first set of substantially straight lines corresponding to a first direction for a quadrangle for the image;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;generating a second set of substantially straight lines corresponding to a second direction for the quadrangle for the image;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;finding a first vanishing point based on said first set of substantially straight lines;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;finding a second vanishing point based on said second set of substantially straight lines;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;identifying the quadrangle for the image based on the first vanishing point and the second vanishing point;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;determining a parameter for a rectangle of a corrected image; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;reducing the distortion in the image including text by generating the corrected image based on the rectangle at least partially in a memory of a computer device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this is published but not yet subject to an office action on the merits it is in the time window allowing 3rd parties to submit prior art into the case. The mechanics for this are on several other Ask Patents posts. [This is the USPTO press release on the topic.][1] Up to three documents per submitter, with limited comments, can be filed at no cost. It is possible to do yourself. **If done through a registered practitioner it can even be done with anonymity.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please look up this application in [USPTO Public PAIR][2] to see that the applicant themselves have already made the examiner aware of several prior art patent documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/news/pr/2012/12-60.jsp&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3376" RevisionGUID="2fcd18c8-3dbb-4a25-bfcc-3d4c67447746" CreationDate="2013-02-21T01:34:19.620" UserId="3256" Text="Below are examples of prior art to the 2003 p16 patent from MTM Labs...how does that patent get granted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7591209&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9166931&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6523" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3376" RevisionGUID="2fcd18c8-3dbb-4a25-bfcc-3d4c67447746" CreationDate="2013-02-21T01:34:19.620" UserId="3256" Text="How is p16 for cervical neoplasias patentable in 2003 (US7306926) when the application has been published as far back as 1995?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6524" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3376" RevisionGUID="2fcd18c8-3dbb-4a25-bfcc-3d4c67447746" CreationDate="2013-02-21T01:34:19.620" UserId="3256" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6525" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3376" RevisionGUID="a84676b1-12bb-48d4-a949-1401e65d12e0" CreationDate="2013-02-21T02:13:22.750" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us7306926&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6527" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3364" RevisionGUID="b8151738-d905-466a-9fd3-43d1bc102cf1" CreationDate="2013-02-21T10:23:06.830" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/304536720152592384" />
  <row Id="6530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3378" RevisionGUID="218d0da4-0e8b-458e-be3b-4b351cd7d175" CreationDate="2013-02-21T16:50:52.093" UserId="1481" Text="Ultimately it is up to you, but consider the consequences of your decision:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. *You write some additional language describing how to perform the method.*  All you've lost is the time spent writing that additional language, much of which can be adapted from your system language, not to mention the flowchart you already created.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. *You submit the application as-is and see what happens.*  Two years from now, when the PTO actually assigns your application to an examiner's docket, the examiner looks over your application and concludes there is not enough to support the method claim.  So you try to amend the application with a description of the method.  Except the examiner won't let you; he says your amendment is barred by 35 USC § 132(a) (&quot;No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention&quot;).  You try explaining that you're NOT introducing new matter, you're just describing what is happening in the flowchart.  The examiner may or may not agree, depending on whether he's had lunch yet; either way, your fate is in the PTO's hands, because you opted for option 2.  Meanwhile, you'll have to pay fees for this back and forth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TL;DR: Describe the method unless you have a good reason to leave it out (i.e. not lazyness)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3374" RevisionGUID="e2943634-15f8-4676-8a06-42fe61ec507e" CreationDate="2013-02-21T18:23:13.903" UserId="3076" Comment="Punctuation" Text="Answering my own question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What applications are covered under the new rules?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first issue is which applications are dealt with under the old laws and which will be dealt with under the new laws. Two easy categories are:  (1) Non provisional applications filed before March 16 - they are treated under the old system. And (2) applications filed on or after that date that do not make any priority or benefit claim to any application filed before that date - they are treated under the new system. &#xD;&#xA;More difficult are transitional applications.  Transitional applications have an actual filing date on or after March 16 but claim priority to or the benefit of an application filed before that date. If every claim in a transitional application has full support in priority applications filed before March 16 then the application is treated under the old system. If any claim ever existed  in a transitional application that was not supported by a pre-f-2-f  application then the whole application is treated under the new law. That means that  a f-2-f application can't be made into a f-2-i application by canceling claims. &#xD;&#xA;In practice many transitional applications will be non provisional applications filed between March 16 2013 and March 15 2014 that claim the benefit of a provisional application filed before March 16 2013. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are the new rules?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than explain the differences, which requires a clear understanding of the old laws/rules, I'm primarily  going to explain the new system - it is considerably simpler ( not necessarily  better, fairer, etc.) than the old. This all boils down to what falls into the domain of  prior art for an application. On Ask Patents we often use the term prior art as a short hand for &quot;prior art that can knock out a patent or patent application.&quot; Prior art, properly, is the entire body of information that is allowed to be considered in evaluating the patentability of a specific patent document. Whether or not something  is prior art to application X is significantly a question of timing. In some sense it needs to come before the thing it is being used against. In the U.S.,  35 USC section 102, and court cases interpreting  it, tell us if something qualifies or does not qualify to be used against an application based on that application's effective filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new 102 is laid out very logically. 102(**a**) says you are entitled to a patent unless the same thing was previously done,  as evidenced in one of the listed ways. And 102(**b**) has the exceptions to that list in 102(**a**). There is additional parallelism in that 102(b) **1** has the exceptions to 102(a) **1**  while 102(b) **2** has the exceptions to 102(a) **2**. The types of prior art defined in 102(a) and (b) 1 have to do with information actually potentially available to the public before the effective filing date.  In contrast, the documents covered by 102(a) and (b) 2 involve information that, while in a patent document submitted before the effective filing date, do not become public until after that  date. This is sometimes called secret prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be used against a claim in a patent application under the new rules? Under 102(a)1 it is anything, by anyone, anywhere in the world, described in a &quot;printed publication&quot; or issued patent, or on public sale or in public use or otherwise available to the public anywhere in the world as of the day before the effective filing date of the specific claim in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exceptions to this (as seen in 102(b) 1) are:  (A)  it was done by the inventor or by someone who got the information from the inventor.  (B) the publication, public use, etc. was preceded by an essentially  identical disclosure by the inventor or by someone who got it from the inventor.  If the inventor, for example, publishes an article and a 3rd party afterward published essentially the same information, the inventor can still later file and have the 3rd party's article discounted as prior art under this exception without needing to show that the 3rd party derived it from the inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides the actually public information of 102(a) 1, the secret information under 102(a) 2 can also be used against a patent application. This is a very specific category of information. It includes things described in a patent application filed (anywhere in the world) before the one in question's effective filing date but only  if that patent application either eventually issues as a patent anywhere in the world OR eventually is published as a &quot;U.S.&quot; application. The quotes around U.S. are because it includes not only things published by the USPTO's publication  department but all PCT applications on a world-wide basis that designate the United States. Since the default PCT application form designates ALL member states, that is pretty much all PCT applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exceptions to 102(a)**2** are in 102(b)**2**. In (A) the exception is if it is from the same inventor. The inventorship of the earlier application can't include anyone who is not also an applicant on the later application for this exception to apply. (B) the patent or published application was preceded by an essentially  identical disclosure by the inventor. (C) at the time of the effective filing date the applications were commonly owned or obligated to be commonly assigned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other provisions in 102 and 103**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;102c defines what commonly owned means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;102d defines what effective filing date means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;103 says that everything admittable  under 102 can be used in an obviousness analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How does this apply to finding prIor art for purposes of reducing the number of bad software patents?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No longer does 102 say &quot;in the U.S.&quot;  - one thing that does is open up sales and use outside of the U.S. as prior art - Unfortunately for the goals of Ask Patents, the AIA provisions for 3rd party submission only allows printed publications and patents to be submitted and, if dated before the effective filing date, they were already allowable on a worldwide basis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in the category of secret prior art - information existing in patent applications that were filed but not published as of the effective date - a potentially large new category of prior art will exist under F-2-F. Rather than only PCT applications that became &quot;real&quot; U.S. applications counting as of their date of becoming real  (published in English, fees paid to U.S. , etc.) - essentially all PCT applications will count as of their earliest priority date - independent of the country that the priority filing was made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To see section 102 old and new, clean and marked up [see this page at bitlaw.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To download the final rules follow [this to PatentlyO][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc-after-america-invents-act/102.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/02/final-rules-on-first-to-file-regime.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3379" RevisionGUID="295ca1b1-fcde-48ff-a98d-b9ef10d6fe3c" CreationDate="2013-02-21T18:37:45.380" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3380" RevisionGUID="eeba7b00-8f92-4c23-bed4-9742307742fe" CreationDate="2013-02-21T18:37:45.380" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3381" RevisionGUID="a9e67e8d-e51e-4d38-8791-f3357c487dd5" CreationDate="2013-02-21T18:41:39.807" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3382" RevisionGUID="bc651296-e5f8-4f52-8616-833f4e9a6ca5" CreationDate="2013-02-21T18:41:39.807" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3380" RevisionGUID="d1a8083b-8fef-40f9-8fd9-59864e7165f2" CreationDate="2013-02-21T19:27:59.103" UserId="3076" Comment="added 192 characters in body" Text="Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) - patent law changes signed by the president Sept. 16 2011 with provisions coming into effect at various dates. First-to-file takes effect March 16, 2013." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6537" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3380" RevisionGUID="d1a8083b-8fef-40f9-8fd9-59864e7165f2" CreationDate="2013-02-21T19:27:59.103" Comment="Proposed by 3076 approved by 1 edit id of 325" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3382" RevisionGUID="7234088e-1d7a-4dd6-9ac9-fedc89de3b70" CreationDate="2013-02-21T19:28:19.400" UserId="3076" Comment="added 161 characters in body" Text="The process of pursuing getting a patent. Sometimes used to mean every step in that process but sometimes used to mean all of the steps after the initial filing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6539" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3382" RevisionGUID="7234088e-1d7a-4dd6-9ac9-fedc89de3b70" CreationDate="2013-02-21T19:28:19.400" Comment="Proposed by 3076 approved by 1 edit id of 328" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3381" RevisionGUID="60a3f757-4a68-409e-8dda-6bbb3f2843b3" CreationDate="2013-02-21T19:28:23.707" UserId="3076" Comment="added 161 characters in body" Text="The process of pursuing getting a patent. Sometimes used to mean every step in that process but sometimes used to mean all of the steps after the initial filing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6541" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3381" RevisionGUID="60a3f757-4a68-409e-8dda-6bbb3f2843b3" CreationDate="2013-02-21T19:28:23.707" Comment="Proposed by 3076 approved by 1 edit id of 327" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3379" RevisionGUID="069bada9-b227-4d57-82c5-c1dd4e6031c6" CreationDate="2013-02-21T19:28:28.417" UserId="3076" Comment="added 193 characters in body" Text="Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) - patent law changes signed by the president Sept. 16 2011 with provisions coming into effect at various dates. First-to-file takes effect March 16, 2013. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6543" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3379" RevisionGUID="069bada9-b227-4d57-82c5-c1dd4e6031c6" CreationDate="2013-02-21T19:28:28.417" Comment="Proposed by 3076 approved by 1 edit id of 326" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3383" RevisionGUID="6b082ca0-b15f-40af-99c9-07070c741f9e" CreationDate="2013-02-21T22:15:00.560" UserId="3076" Text="This answer is a &quot;teach you how to fish&quot; answer rather than a &quot;I got you a fish&quot; answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can dig into this and possibly answer or at least narrow your question. The image file wrapper for this application shows that the applicant put many patents and much non-patent literature in front of the examiner and of course the examiner searched also. &#xD;&#xA;In fact at least one of the two references you point to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Int J Cancer. 1995 Oct 9;63(2):226-30. CDKN2 in HPV-positive and HPV-negative cervical-carcinoma cell lines. Kelley MJ, Otterson GA, Kaye FJ, Popescu NC, Johnson BE, Dipaolo JA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is listed on their first Information Disclosure Statement. With your knowledge of the field you may be able to see if a key reference was not considered at all.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can get all of the back and forth between the applicant and inventor at [Public PAIR at the USPTO][1] or, in the specific case of this patent, I see that google patents has a link to the PAIR data in zip form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3383" RevisionGUID="c18a9d92-4e9d-4341-8fef-4488e180c7a5" CreationDate="2013-02-21T22:30:18.513" UserId="3076" Comment="Added links" Text="This answer is a &quot;teach you how to fish&quot; answer rather than a &quot;I got you a fish&quot; answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can dig into this and possibly answer or at least narrow your question. The image file wrapper for this application shows that the applicant put many patents and much non-patent literature in front of the examiner and of course the examiner searched also. &#xD;&#xA;In fact at least one of the two references you point to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Int J Cancer. 1995 Oct 9;63(2):226-30. CDKN2 in HPV-positive and HPV-negative cervical-carcinoma cell lines. Kelley MJ, Otterson GA, Kaye FJ, Popescu NC, Johnson BE, Dipaolo JA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is listed on their first Information Disclosure Statement. With your knowledge of the field you may be able to see if a key reference was not considered at all.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can get all of the back and forth between the applicant and inventor at [Public PAIR at the USPTO][1] or, in the specific case of this patent, I see that google patents has a link to the PAIR data in zip form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can [download it here.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://storage.googleapis.com/uspto-pair/applications/10650057.zip" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6546" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3373" RevisionGUID="969f4010-cf4f-4c4b-a6bb-cc82a0fa6963" CreationDate="2013-02-21T22:57:40.573" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;america-invents-act&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3383" RevisionGUID="f61f9736-1015-4db5-bbca-7ebf3d4c0c6e" CreationDate="2013-02-21T23:09:34.330" UserId="3076" Comment="Moved sentence" Text="This answer is a &quot;teach you how to fish&quot; answer rather than a &quot;I got you a fish&quot; answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can dig into this and possibly answer or at least narrow your question. The image file wrapper for this application shows that the applicant put many patents and much non-patent literature in front of the examiner and of course the examiner searched also. &#xD;&#xA;In fact at least one of the two references you point to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Int J Cancer. 1995 Oct 9;63(2):226-30. CDKN2 in HPV-positive and HPV-negative cervical-carcinoma cell lines. Kelley MJ, Otterson GA, Kaye FJ, Popescu NC, Johnson BE, Dipaolo JA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is listed on the applicant's first filed Information Disclosure Statement.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can get all of the back and forth between the applicant and inventor at [Public PAIR at the USPTO][1] or, in the specific case of this patent, I see that google patents has a link to the PAIR data in zip form. With your knowledge of the field you may be able to see if a key reference was not considered at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can [download it here.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://storage.googleapis.com/uspto-pair/applications/10650057.zip" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3384" RevisionGUID="4d305044-ad21-4980-9e7c-93cc445f0fb6" CreationDate="2013-02-21T23:27:36.783" UserId="3076" Text="Ask an attorney, especially if the patent holder is making tons of money from it. If it is a filed application rather than an issued patent, there are ways of bringing the published information to the examiner's attention to try to keep it from of being patented. If the person has gleaned information from you and added on to it, it is possible that legally you would be considered joint inventors. If you are legally joint inventors but you are not listed as an inventor, there are remedies for that.    If he copied from you or just made an independent invention/discovery but you did it first and his patent is relatively  new then you can file you own patent and provoke an interference proceeding. In that expensive process you can attempt to prove you were first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3384" RevisionGUID="70865ed3-561f-4b46-934e-ec16083215d6" CreationDate="2013-02-22T02:09:05.127" UserId="3076" Comment="Typo" Text="Ask an attorney, especially if the patent holder is making tons of money from it. If it is a filed application rather than an issued patent, there are ways of bringing the published information to the examiner's attention to try to keep it from of being patented. If the person has gleaned information from you and added on to it, it is possible that legally you would be considered joint inventors. If you are legally joint inventors but you are not listed as an inventor, there are remedies for that.    If he copied from you or just made an independent invention/discovery but you did it first and his patent is relatively  new then you can file your own patent application and provoke an interference proceeding. In that expensive process you can attempt to prove you were first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3385" RevisionGUID="e2a07764-6af1-4474-8f96-2f50286b9114" CreationDate="2013-02-22T03:05:46.250" UserId="3261" Text="Yes. I like to include as much asmpossible.  You can take matter out when filing an original, but not add or claim matter which was not dislosed and described consistent with sec 112 in ghe original application claiming priority to the provisional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3386" RevisionGUID="12c9b9d4-abf5-46a1-88c3-4cceb13bd35e" CreationDate="2013-02-22T03:29:04.253" UserId="3262" Text="Does anybody know who this inventor is?  I had a panic attack when I realized the implications of what is described.  How come we have not heard about this research?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6552" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3386" RevisionGUID="12c9b9d4-abf5-46a1-88c3-4cceb13bd35e" CreationDate="2013-02-22T03:29:04.253" UserId="3262" Text="Does anybody know who this inventor is?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6553" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3386" RevisionGUID="12c9b9d4-abf5-46a1-88c3-4cceb13bd35e" CreationDate="2013-02-22T03:29:04.253" UserId="3262" Text="&lt;us20120276518&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3387" RevisionGUID="7fa98e41-f96b-47f4-ba13-018727c7f119" CreationDate="2013-02-22T07:15:00.467" UserId="3076" Text="The file history of this application titled  **Method and Device for Perfusing Tissue by ExVivo Attachment to a Living Organism** says the inventor, John Archie Gillis, is from Halifax Canada. The application looks like it was done without professional help, to its detriment in my opinion. I have no idea if that predicts anything about the quality of the science. At this point it is an application that has not yet been examined on its merits. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3387" RevisionGUID="498a6285-33cf-4be1-88a8-b2008d73f734" CreationDate="2013-02-22T08:00:46.367" UserId="3076" Comment="Added general introductory sentence." Text="Not sure if you are impressed with this application's specific contributions or the general field of 3d printing of organic structures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding this particular document - the file history of this application titled  **Method and Device for Perfusing Tissue by ExVivo Attachment to a Living Organism** says the inventor, John Archie Gillis, is from Halifax Canada. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application looks like it was done without professional help, to its detriment in my opinion. I have no idea if that is reflective at all about the quality of the science. At this point it is an application that has not yet been examined on its merits (as of Feb. 2013)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3388" RevisionGUID="3ec33d41-d989-452a-b2b8-64a71d77f7d5" CreationDate="2013-02-22T09:58:02.723" UserId="3264" Text="I want to use the SIFT algorithm for my scientific research (in EU, concretely SP), but it may end in a commercial software. I've searched the internet and what I found is that the patent is only in US and that in EU there is no &quot;software development&quot; patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I use SIFT algorithm without any fear? For sure not selling to US. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent: [US6711293][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6711293 &quot;US6711293&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6557" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3388" RevisionGUID="3ec33d41-d989-452a-b2b8-64a71d77f7d5" CreationDate="2013-02-22T09:58:02.723" UserId="3264" Text="Is SIFT algorithm patent valid in Europe?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6558" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3388" RevisionGUID="3ec33d41-d989-452a-b2b8-64a71d77f7d5" CreationDate="2013-02-22T09:58:02.723" UserId="3264" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;european&gt;&lt;us6711293&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3388" RevisionGUID="37395c95-bc2a-4887-8e50-abade89c4f87" CreationDate="2013-02-22T14:09:06.333" UserId="3264" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I want to use the SIFT algorithm for my scientific research (in EU, concretely SP), but it may end in a commercial software. I've searched the internet and what I found is that the patent is only in US and that in EU there is no &quot;software development&quot; patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I use SIFT algorithm without any fear? For sure, without selling to US. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent: [US6711293][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6711293 &quot;US6711293&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3385" RevisionGUID="ca2a2ff7-ea87-42ea-99e7-ba709901d85a" CreationDate="2013-02-22T15:03:56.820" UserId="1259" Comment="typos" Text="Yes. I like to include as much as possible.  You can take matter out when filing an original, but not add or claim matter which was not disclosed and described consistent with sec 112 in the original application claiming priority to the provisional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6561" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3389" RevisionGUID="d28718b2-1996-4610-b3d7-31146cff0bc4" CreationDate="2013-02-22T16:46:44.063" UserId="3247" Text="It is possible that a patent covers a data structure, but it has to be tied to a computer-readable medium and structurally and functionally interrelated to that medium.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO makes a distinction between &quot;functional descriptive material&quot; and &quot;nonfunctional descriptive material.&quot; a data structure is a type of functional descriptive material, provided that it imparts some functionality.  Nonfunctional descriptive material includes things like music and literary works.  So, for example, you can't get a patent on a book, or a plot device - that is nonfunctional descriptive material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can, however, patent functional descriptive material if you tie it to a computer-readable medium.  The case *In re Lowry*, 32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994) held that a claim to a data structure stored on a computer readable medium that increased computer efficiency was statutory.  However, the case *In re Warmerdam*, 33 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1994) held that a claim to a data structure alone was not patentable subject matter. You can read a nice summary of all of this in the USPTO's Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) in section 2106 (http://mpep.info/2100_2106). This area of patent law (patentable subject matter) is a hot topic right now, so watch for changes and new developments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The practical take away is that you can't just conclude that the data structure is unpatentable and thus isn't covered by a patent. If you're very worried, you can search to see if the particular data structure is patented or read the terms and conditions associated with use of the data structure (what you're doing may be permitted, and developers may be given a license to use the data structures).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to trademarks, I wouldn't worry about that.  Trademarks are used to identify a brand to consumers; they deal with the source of the goods. I can't image a scenario in which a court determines that a functional data structure is a valid trademark. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this helps.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3391" RevisionGUID="407a2d94-0091-4656-be59-1641695c7332" CreationDate="2013-02-22T18:34:51.793" UserId="3129" Text="What is the optimal way for a solo/serial inventor and a patent professional (attorney or agent) to engage one another in a business relationship so that it is a WIN/WIN experience for both?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inventor needs to optimize their chances for financial success without going broke in the process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent professional needs to be paid for their time, education, and experience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it turn the professional off to have too educated a client such that the client gets in the way of an efficient path to patent. (E.g. do most pro's dislike an inventor who writes his own provisional patent application?). Or does participation by the inventor lighten the load for the attorney/agent and result in a better patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the best WIN/WIN situation for the independent inventor such that the inventor gets a valuable and quality patent in a reasonable time and without huge expenditures while at the same time the attorney or patent agent is fairly/well compensated for their time? Put another way, what is best for the inventor to do and what is best left to be done by the attorney or agent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The question is motivated by an abrupt and unexpected cessation of communication by an active and seemingly very competent professional on this site while I was in the process considering their services. They simply would not respond to my query about further services. To me this seems rude, at best and unethical at worst.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With all due respect. &#xD;&#xA;Thank you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6567" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3391" RevisionGUID="407a2d94-0091-4656-be59-1641695c7332" CreationDate="2013-02-22T18:34:51.793" UserId="3129" Text="How to initiate a WIN/WIN relationship for inventor and patent professional" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6568" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3391" RevisionGUID="407a2d94-0091-4656-be59-1641695c7332" CreationDate="2013-02-22T18:34:51.793" UserId="3129" Text="&lt;attorney&gt;&lt;patent-agent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3393" RevisionGUID="91dc1097-b51c-46f3-a150-e167d6708e44" CreationDate="2013-02-22T20:42:09.900" UserId="3076" Text="The INPADOC database of patent family members lists this patent as having no family members other than its own publication and its provisional application. iNPADOC does not cover all countries but it does cover Europe. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3394" RevisionGUID="f4e2d8f2-a76d-496d-8660-59feff63df57" CreationDate="2013-02-22T21:03:42.683" UserId="3076" Text="An Inventor wants someone to work with where the fees are reasonable and never a surprise. It is also important to find someone you can communicate well with and who has the expertise, time and will to actually understand the core of your invention. Both inventor and applicant need to view a patent is a business tool and not an end unto itself. Of corse a practitioner wants a client who can afford the services they need and can pay cheerfully. I hope it the case that a practitioner appreciates an inventor with a solid invention that they can sink their teeth into and that might make an impact. The inventor needs to be the one inventing, not thinking they are just &quot;the big picture guy&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some paradoxes: 1 )it will go more smoothly if the inventor has finished inventing before the application writing starts. On the other hand it is important to have an open mind to alternate embodiments and to the core patentable part not being what you think it is. 2) it is very helpful if an inventor is knowledgable about patent law and procedures. On the other hand, while the practitioner should be happy to explain everything at least twice, they do not want to be continually second guessed by someone with insufficient  appreciation for the depth and subtly of the field. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inventor should demand a practitioner who can explain complex patent system issues in a way that is understandable, even if the logic behind the law isn't. And who can explain their invention to the examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people work on an hourly basis and some on a project basis. Either way can work as long as all the cards are on the table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect I am the guilty party in the poster's scenario. Whether I am or am not, it is a good lesson for all of us to be considerate of people we communicate with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3394" RevisionGUID="69b6ce8c-e9a6-4ae6-85c2-44f061b2d59a" CreationDate="2013-02-22T21:51:12.517" UserId="3076" Comment="Typo" Text="An Inventor wants someone to work with where the fees are reasonable and never a surprise. It is also important to find someone you can communicate well with and who has the expertise, time and will to actually understand the core of your invention. Both inventor and applicant need to view a patent is a business tool and not an end unto itself. Of corse a practitioner wants a client who can afford the services they need and can pay cheerfully. I hope it the case that a practitioner appreciates an inventor with a solid invention that they can sink their teeth into and that might make an impact. The inventor needs to be the one inventing, not thinking they are just &quot;the big picture guy&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some paradoxes: 1) it will go more smoothly if the inventor has finished inventing before the application writing starts. On the other hand it is important to have an open mind to alternate embodiments and to the core patentable part not being what you think it is. 2) it is very helpful if an inventor is knowledgable about patent law and procedures. On the other hand, while the practitioner should be happy to explain everything at least twice, they do not want to be continually second guessed by someone with insufficient appreciation for the depth and subtly of the field. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inventor should demand a practitioner who can explain complex patent system issues in a way that is understandable, even if the logic behind the law isn't. And who can explain their invention to the examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people work on an hourly basis and some on a project basis. Either way can work as long as all the cards are on the table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect I am the guilty party in the poster's scenario. Whether I am or am not, it is a good lesson for all of us to be considerate of people we communicate with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3395" RevisionGUID="fb453852-08eb-4710-a542-c0e5dad9f564" CreationDate="2013-02-22T21:59:47.507" UserId="3076" Text="What might inventor A do  if a recently granted patent to person B was, in all its details, the same as something A previously invented well before B's  filing and could prove the complete history of that invention, and A had not yet filed anything and it was late February 2013?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6578" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3395" RevisionGUID="fb453852-08eb-4710-a542-c0e5dad9f564" CreationDate="2013-02-22T21:59:47.507" UserId="3076" Text="How can someone with proof of being the first to invent attack a recently granted patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6579" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3395" RevisionGUID="fb453852-08eb-4710-a542-c0e5dad9f564" CreationDate="2013-02-22T21:59:47.507" UserId="3076" Text="&lt;iamerica-invents-act&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3396" RevisionGUID="1f034b15-99b9-4b14-9982-8c9710fde1a4" CreationDate="2013-02-22T21:59:47.507" UserId="3076" Text="**Move fast.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the AIA first-to-file is not yet in effect, B's patent is certainly under the &quot;old&quot; , current law. If A moves quickly he can get in an application by March 15th under the old law also. That application could be made by editing the content of B's application to the extent needed to only include inventions actually made by A.  Under  35 U.S.C. 135   Interferences, the applicant A can suggest an interference with B's issued patent as long as (as per 135(b)) A's application is  filed within a year of B's publication or patenting.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This timing situation could be the case if B's patent was issued less than a year ago and B's application had a non-publication request or if B's application went through the system much more quickly than usual - under a prioritized or accelerated examination, for example. In the normal course of events,  if B's patent recently issued,  it is likely to  have been published longer than a year ago. That would prevent an interference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the interference  proceeding A and B would provide evidence of date of conception and diligence to reduction-to-practice and A may be able to prevail and get the patent or A and B might reach a settlement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course this system will be a thing of the past in several years when no pre f-2-f applications are in the pipeline." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6581" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3396" RevisionGUID="1b607495-f164-4812-a40b-b7c2b1a1c1be" CreationDate="2013-02-22T23:42:27.130" UserId="3076" Comment="Add small section on derivation" Text="**Move fast.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the AIA first-to-file is not yet in effect, B's patent is certainly under the &quot;old&quot; , current law. If A moves quickly he can get in an application by March 15th under the old law also. That application could be made by editing the content of B's application to the extent needed to only include inventions actually made by A.  Under  35 U.S.C. 135   Interferences, the applicant A can suggest an interference with B's issued patent as long as (as per 135(b)) A's application is  filed within a year of B's publication or patenting.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This timing situation could be the case if B's patent was issued less than a year ago and B's application had a non-publication request or if B's application went through the system much more quickly than usual - under a prioritized or accelerated examination, for example. In the normal course of events,  if B's patent recently issued,  it is likely to  have been published longer than a year ago. That would prevent an interference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the interference  proceeding A and B would provide evidence of date of conception and diligence to reduction-to-practice and A may be able to prevail and get the patent or A and B might reach a settlement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course this system will be a thing of the past in several years when no pre f-2-f applications are in the pipeline. Under the new scheme interference is replaced by derivation proceedings. Proving you we're first will not be the direct issue but rather proving the other person got it for you rather than inventing it themselves. Does not apply to the facts of the hypothetical question since it refers to a recently issued patent as of late Feb. 2013." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3394" RevisionGUID="5add190c-0555-49f8-a6d6-c51a0cee47ac" CreationDate="2013-02-22T23:49:06.793" UserId="3076" Comment="added 394 characters in body" Text="An inventor wants someone to work with where the fees are reasonable and never a surprise. It is also important to find someone you can communicate well with and who has the expertise, time and will to actually understand the core of your invention. Both inventor and applicant need to view a patent is a business tool and not an end unto itself. Of corse a practitioner wants a client who can afford the services they need and can pay cheerfully. I hope it the case that a practitioner appreciates an inventor with a solid invention that they can sink their teeth into and that might make an impact. The inventor needs to be the one inventing, not thinking they are just &quot;the big picture guy&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some paradoxes: 1) it will go more smoothly if the inventor has finished inventing before the application writing starts. On the other hand it is important to have an open mind to alternate embodiments and to the core patentable part not being what you think it is. 2) it is very helpful if an inventor is knowledgable about patent law and procedures. On the other hand, while the practitioner should be happy to explain everything at least twice, they do not want to be continually second guessed by someone with insufficient appreciation for the depth and subtly of the field. 3) an inventor who helps with the process can be a help; an inventor who helps with the process can be a hindrance. Good help is being clear about the invention, having written starting point documents and drawings, reading and carefully reviewing documents sent by the practitioner. Unwelcome help is re-writing the application, insisting on being at the examiner interview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inventor should demand a practitioner who can explain complex patent system issues in a way that is understandable, even if the logic behind the law isn't. And who can explain their invention to the examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people work on an hourly basis and some on a project basis. Either way can work as long as all the cards are on the table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect I am the guilty party in the poster's poor communication scenario. Whether I am or am not, it is a good lesson for all of us to be considerate of people we communicate with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3393" RevisionGUID="7d694dc1-21a6-4ee4-9039-46ee04964b4d" CreationDate="2013-02-22T23:53:02.933" UserId="3076" Comment="added 169 characters in body" Text="The INPADOC database of patent family members lists this patent as having no family members other than its own publication and its provisional application. iNPADOC does not cover all countries but it does cover Europe. Therefore there is not a related, corresponding patent in Europe. Another way to check this is to do a search at the EPO under the inventor's name. I have not done that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6584" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3388" RevisionGUID="577195e1-236f-4705-a7c8-cd1596aa1d64" CreationDate="2013-02-23T04:24:19.193" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/305171202463395840" />
  <row Id="6585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3396" RevisionGUID="b0480a2d-4711-4fb9-8526-ec41e8f06aef" CreationDate="2013-02-23T04:46:32.687" UserId="3076" Comment="Comma" Text="**Move fast.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the AIA first-to-file is not yet in effect, B's patent is certainly under the &quot;old&quot; , current law. If A moves quickly he can get in an application by March 15th under the old law also. That application could be made by editing the content of B's application to the extent needed to only include inventions actually made by A.  Under  35 U.S.C. 135   Interferences, the applicant A can suggest an interference with B's issued patent as long as (as per 135(b)) A's application is  filed within a year of B's publication or patenting.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This timing situation could be the case if B's patent was issued less than a year ago and B's application had a non-publication request or if B's application went through the system much more quickly than usual - under a prioritized or accelerated examination, for example. In the normal course of events,  if B's patent recently issued,  it is likely to  have been published longer than a year ago. That would prevent an interference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the interference  proceeding A and B would provide evidence of date of conception and diligence to reduction-to-practice and A may be able to prevail and get the patent or A and B might reach a settlement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course this system will be a thing of the past in several years when no pre f-2-f applications are in the pipeline. Under the new scheme, interference is replaced by derivation proceedings. Proving you were first will not be the direct issue but rather proving the other person got it for you rather than inventing it themselves. Does not apply to the facts of the hypothetical question since it refers to a recently issued patent as of late Feb. 2013." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6587" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3376" RevisionGUID="14817154-83af-4f27-ba70-22da0898d6f4" CreationDate="2013-02-23T10:24:18.790" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/305261800008581120" />
  <row Id="6588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3398" RevisionGUID="1fdddf56-0e93-4984-b0c9-1c02102752ca" CreationDate="2013-02-23T15:52:22.080" UserId="2072" Text="Unfortunately, the patent system has evolved to the point where it is unlikely for there to be a &quot;win/win&quot; situation for the independent inventor/small business and a &quot;patent professional.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Transactional costs for patent attorneys can be staggering, arising from ever-increasing insurance premiums, employment costs, on-line services fees, and the hidden cost of keeping our skills sharp in an era when patent laws are changing at a greater pace than any time most of us can remember.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many inventors/small businesses are looking for innovative ways to save money.  Some look for alternatives, such as invention promotion companies (http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0184-invention-promotion-firms), or representing themselves, a notion to which independent inventors seem uniquely susceptible.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The simple fact is that the overwhelming majority of small ventures fail. Patent firms that are both qualified and willing to work with these small ventures are taking an enormous amount of risk; firms often subsidize this practice area with more sustainable business.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best option left to many small ventures is to carefully vet many potential patent attorneys to determine which--if any--are a good fit.  However, it may be that for a variety of reasons, there is no good balance to be stricken, and no win/win is possible.  To maximize the possibility of a good working relationship, both sides would need to be able to provide effective communication, organization, professional competence, integrity, and funding.  Often, if either side excels at all of these, they are part of a larger organization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3398" RevisionGUID="343fc61e-ac67-461c-a906-adb4d85e4609" CreationDate="2013-02-23T16:34:39.813" UserId="2072" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately, the patent system has evolved to the point where it is unlikely for there to be a &quot;win/win&quot; situation for the independent inventor/small business and a &quot;patent professional.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Transactional costs for patent attorneys can be staggering, arising from ever-increasing insurance premiums, employment costs, on-line services fees, and the hidden cost of keeping our skills sharp in an era when patent laws are changing at a greater pace than at any time most of us can remember.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many inventors/small businesses are looking for innovative ways to save money.  Some look for alternatives, such as invention promotion companies (http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0184-invention-promotion-firms), or representing themselves, a notion to which independent inventors seem uniquely susceptible.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The simple fact is that the overwhelming majority of small ventures fail. Patent firms that are both qualified and willing to work with these small ventures are taking an enormous amount of risk; firms often subsidize this practice area with more sustainable business.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best option left to many small ventures is to carefully vet many potential patent attorneys to determine which--if any--are a good fit.  However, it may be that for a variety of reasons, there is no good balance to be stricken, and no win/win is possible.  To maximize the possibility of a good working relationship, both sides would need to be able to provide effective communication, organization, professional competence, integrity, and funding.  Often, if either side excels at all of these, they are part of a larger organization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3399" RevisionGUID="0fa09d8e-56dc-40b3-9b79-ac1d9337cc47" CreationDate="2013-02-24T01:01:51.937" UserId="3269" Text="There is a patent troll trying to get a number of websites to pay a license for a search that results in an image with text describing that image. The main claim is &quot;A logo is linked to each item of displayable text and an output list is produced in which each text item includes a displayable graphical image.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if I searched &quot;camera&quot; results would show Canon Camera with a photo of a canon camera. It can be either a local or web database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent is from 2001 so I am trying to find prior art to show that this was not &quot;novel&quot; even at the time it was patented. I'm looking for screenshots because its hard to get search results for a Wayback machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent: http://www.google.com/patents/US8032418?dq=8032418&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=jmUpUenJFI3LigLhsICwAg&amp;ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6591" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3399" RevisionGUID="0fa09d8e-56dc-40b3-9b79-ac1d9337cc47" CreationDate="2013-02-24T01:01:51.937" UserId="3269" Text="Patent Troll: Search Results with Image" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6592" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3399" RevisionGUID="0fa09d8e-56dc-40b3-9b79-ac1d9337cc47" CreationDate="2013-02-24T01:01:51.937" UserId="3269" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6593" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3399" RevisionGUID="f7f8da4c-98ff-44f4-baf6-c7d075aa82a5" CreationDate="2013-02-24T05:04:03.143" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;search&gt;&lt;us8032418&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3399" RevisionGUID="f7f8da4c-98ff-44f4-baf6-c7d075aa82a5" CreationDate="2013-02-24T05:04:03.143" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="There is a patent troll trying to get a number of websites to pay a license for a search that results in an image with text describing that image. The main claim is &quot;A logo is linked to each item of displayable text and an output list is produced in which each text item includes a displayable graphical image.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if I searched &quot;camera&quot; results would show Canon Camera with a photo of a canon camera. It can be either a local or web database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent is from 2001 so I am trying to find prior art to show that this was not &quot;novel&quot; even at the time it was patented. I'm looking for screenshots because its hard to get search results for a Wayback machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent:[us8032418][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8032418?dq=8032418&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=jmUpUenJFI3LigLhsICwAg&amp;ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3399" RevisionGUID="41e0c477-9b2a-45e9-bd47-de2b6f425c46" CreationDate="2013-02-24T05:13:47.127" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1442 characters in body" Text="There is a patent troll trying to get a number of websites to pay a license for a search that results in an image with text describing that image. The main claim might be roughly  paraphrased as: A logo is linked to each item of displayable text and an output list is produced in which each text item includes a displayable graphical image.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The actual claim 1 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A computerized apparatus configured to identify commercial suppliers in response to a keyword, the computerized apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;an input module arranged to receive an input keyword;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;a searching module configured to search a database indexed with respect to keywords to identify text items related to the input keyword for display, each text item regarding one commercial supplier of a plurality of commercial suppliers;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;an image store for storing graphical images, the graphical images provided to the image store independent of the text items related to the input keyword being identified, each graphical image identifying or being associated with one of the commercial suppliers, wherein each graphical image is linked with a respective one of the identified text items to form a respective stored results entry, the stored results entry in use being arranged to present the text item and the graphical image for simultaneous display; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;a server configured to supply data defining a displayable list of the stored results entries that include the text items related to the input keyword and the graphical images linked thereto, such that when the displayable list of the stored results entries is displayed, a user may readily identify a desired commercial supplier from the displayable list of stored results entries, based upon the graphical image of each stored results entry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if I searched &quot;camera&quot; results would show Canon Camera with a photo of a canon camera. It can be either a local or web database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent is from 2001 so I am trying to find prior art to show that this was not &quot;novel&quot; even at the time it was patented. I'm looking for screenshots because its hard to get search results for a Wayback machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent:[us8032418][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8032418?dq=8032418&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=jmUpUenJFI3LigLhsICwAg&amp;ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3399" RevisionGUID="deb3fc59-71d1-43d9-a2f2-54f8dc875807" CreationDate="2013-02-24T05:55:47.400" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="There is a patent troll trying to get a number of websites to pay a license for a search that results in an image with text describing that image. The main claim might be roughly  paraphrased as: A logo is linked to each item of displayable text and an output list is produced in which each text item includes a displayable graphical image.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The actual claim 1 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A computerized apparatus configured to identify commercial suppliers in response to a keyword, the computerized apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;an input module arranged to receive an input keyword;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;a searching module configured to search a database indexed with respect to keywords to identify text items related to the input keyword for display, each text item regarding one commercial supplier of a plurality of commercial suppliers;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;an image store for storing graphical images, the graphical images provided to the image store independent of the text items related to the input keyword being identified, each graphical image identifying or being associated with one of the commercial suppliers, wherein each graphical image is linked with a respective one of the identified text items to form a respective stored results entry, the stored results entry in use being arranged to present the text item and the graphical image for simultaneous display; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;a server configured to supply data defining a displayable list of the stored results entries that include the text items related to the input keyword and the graphical images linked thereto, such that when the displayable list of the stored results entries is displayed, a user may readily identify a desired commercial supplier from the displayable list of stored results entries, based upon the graphical image of each stored results entry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if I searched &quot;camera&quot; results would show Canon Camera with a photo of a canon camera. It can be either a local or web database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent is from 2001 so I am trying to find prior art to show that this was not &quot;novel&quot; even at the time it was filed. I'm looking for screenshots because its hard to get search results for a Wayback machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent:[us8032418][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8032418?dq=8032418&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=jmUpUenJFI3LigLhsICwAg&amp;ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6597" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3399" RevisionGUID="ddfc0fa7-d485-4b55-b3da-93da5e39c155" CreationDate="2013-02-24T13:26:30.267" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/305670037296005121" />
  <row Id="6598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3400" RevisionGUID="4f96ee2d-df8c-43a1-b99d-de2f4d9362b3" CreationDate="2013-02-24T16:59:51.463" UserId="3272" Text="It seems to me that services like this http://www.greengym.ca/QRCODES.html&#xD;&#xA;invalidate this patent.  Also, how is this an &quot;invention&quot;.  Seems to be it shouldn't be a patentable item." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6599" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3400" RevisionGUID="4f96ee2d-df8c-43a1-b99d-de2f4d9362b3" CreationDate="2013-02-24T16:59:51.463" UserId="3272" Text="Is this patent valid us20120228385?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6600" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3400" RevisionGUID="4f96ee2d-df8c-43a1-b99d-de2f4d9362b3" CreationDate="2013-02-24T16:59:51.463" UserId="3272" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6601" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3400" RevisionGUID="858aaa9d-2eee-4834-9c72-8c81cd5325db" CreationDate="2013-02-24T17:14:32.800" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;201228385&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3400" RevisionGUID="858aaa9d-2eee-4834-9c72-8c81cd5325db" CreationDate="2013-02-24T17:14:32.800" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="It seems to me that services like this http://www.greengym.ca/QRCODES.html&#xD;&#xA;invalidate this patent.  Also, how is this an &quot;invention&quot;.  Seems to be it shouldn't be a patentable item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[link to patent application][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120228385" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6603" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3400" RevisionGUID="44abf330-49e9-4962-96d4-5fa7a1c73b34" CreationDate="2013-02-24T17:19:51.047" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3401" RevisionGUID="75d8e27c-8453-4e6e-9a55-6635b2a007d1" CreationDate="2013-02-24T17:37:31.290" UserId="3076" Text="This is an application for a patent, not a granted patent. It has been given an initial rejection as of Dec. 19th 2012 based partially on a patent application that uses RFID rather than an image capture to get the URL of the video. You can see what the applicant has already made the examiner aware of and what the exminer found in his/her search by looking this up in [Uspto public PAIR][1] This qr code information may not yet be known by the examiner and you could consider, following this site's FAQs, filing it in the case yourself. Free for up to three documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3401" RevisionGUID="ec3e10bf-fceb-4710-940f-06a4d04fc596" CreationDate="2013-02-24T18:19:33.890" UserId="3076" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="This is an application for a patent, not a granted patent. It has been given an initial rejection as of Dec. 19th 2012 based partially on a patent application that uses RFID rather than an image capture to get the URL of the video. You can see what the applicant has already made the examiner aware of and what the exminer found in his/her search by looking this up in [Uspto public PAIR][1] To be prior art something needs to be prior. It is not clear that this greengym.ca service was public before this application was filed. You can try to look it up at the wayback machine and you could consider, following this site's FAQs, filing it in the case yourself. Free for up to three documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3401" RevisionGUID="305a831a-7295-41fb-84e2-120de63c45b0" CreationDate="2013-02-24T18:25:54.130" UserId="3076" Comment="added info about priority date and wayback machine " Text="This is an application for a patent, not a granted patent. It has been given an initial rejection as of Dec. 19th 2012 based partially on a patent application that uses RFID rather than an image capture to get the URL of the video. You can see what the applicant has already made the examiner aware of and what the exminer found in his/her search by looking this up in [Uspto public PAIR][1] To be prior art something needs to be prior. It is not clear that this greengym.ca service was public before this application was filed. I looked up this site at the wayback machine and the first time the qr code thing appears on the front page of their web site is in July 2001. This application has a priority date in March 2001. If you have documentation putting the greengym before March 2011 you could consider, following this site's FAQs, filing it in the case yourself. Free for up to three documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3401" RevisionGUID="ea6474c0-2cc7-4e58-8937-dbadfc976aaf" CreationDate="2013-02-24T20:35:37.183" UserId="3076" Comment="Formatting " Text="This is an application for a patent, not a granted patent. It has been given an initial rejection as of Dec. 19th 2012 based partially on a patent application that uses RFID rather than an image capture to get the URL of the video. You can see what the applicant has already made the examiner aware of and what the exminer found in his/her search by looking this up in [Uspto public PAIR][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **To be prior art something needs to actually be prior**. It is not clear that this greengym.ca service was public before this application was filed. I looked up this site at the wayback machine and the first time the qr code thing appears on the front page of their web site is in July 2001. This application has a priority date in March 2001. If you have documentation putting the greengym before March 2011 you could consider, following this site's FAQs, filing it in the case yourself. Free for up to three documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3401" RevisionGUID="8bfad250-18a6-47fc-897d-89efbeb99427" CreationDate="2013-02-24T20:43:11.650" UserId="3076" Comment="Formatting " Text="This is an application for a patent, not a granted patent. It has been given an initial rejection as of Dec. 19th 2012 based partially on a patent application that uses RFID rather than an image capture to get the URL of the video. You can see what the applicant has already made the examiner aware of and what the exminer found in his/her search by looking this up in [Uspto public PAIR][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **To be prior art something needs to actually be prior**. It is not clear that this greengym.ca service was public before this application was filed. I looked up this site at the wayback machine and the first time the qr code thing appears on the front page of their web site is in July 2001 with a big &quot;NEW&quot; banner. However the previous snapshot without it is back in April. This application has a priority date in March 2001. If you have documentation putting the greengym before March 2011 you could consider, following this site's FAQs, filing it in the case yourself. Free for up to three documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3400" RevisionGUID="cdb89a7a-02d3-4606-b45c-8e660734aa9b" CreationDate="2013-02-24T21:06:55.107" UserId="1259" Comment="tag" Text="It seems to me that services like this http://www.greengym.ca/QRCODES.html&#xD;&#xA;invalidate this patent.  Also, how is this an &quot;invention&quot;.  Seems to be it shouldn't be a patentable item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[link to patent application US20120228385][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120228385" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6610" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3400" RevisionGUID="cdb89a7a-02d3-4606-b45c-8e660734aa9b" CreationDate="2013-02-24T21:06:55.107" UserId="1259" Comment="tag" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20120228385&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3406" RevisionGUID="672fbc46-0392-4f0d-8644-989add3e330e" CreationDate="2013-02-26T14:11:21.413" UserId="3281" Text="I'm wondering if 'US6137498' is still valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent is about photo mosaic, and I'm thinking that it is very weird for a way of making artworks to be protected by a patent. I have read an article about the reexamine request of this patent by PUBAT(Public Patent Foundation), and the article said that 'In February 2010, the Examiner issued a final rejection of the vast majority of the claims in the patent.'. Does this mean the patent is not valid anymore?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also found a lot of software and companies that make or sell photo mosaic works. Is it ok to make my own photo mosaic software as long as I don't use the algorithm that proposed by the owner of 'US6137498'. (I think it would be OK. Like a Coca cola - Pepsi cola situation)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6621" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3406" RevisionGUID="672fbc46-0392-4f0d-8644-989add3e330e" CreationDate="2013-02-26T14:11:21.413" UserId="3281" Text="Is 'US6137498' a still valid patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6622" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3406" RevisionGUID="672fbc46-0392-4f0d-8644-989add3e330e" CreationDate="2013-02-26T14:11:21.413" UserId="3281" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3407" RevisionGUID="97cb8970-fb52-45b1-a10e-9464b6545afa" CreationDate="2013-02-26T14:23:37.667" UserId="3146" Text="Is there a website similar to [EPO][1] or [USPTO][2] to see Indian Patent applications (Not filed patents)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.epo.org/searching/free/espacenet.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6624" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3407" RevisionGUID="97cb8970-fb52-45b1-a10e-9464b6545afa" CreationDate="2013-02-26T14:23:37.667" UserId="3146" Text="Is there an online database for seeing patent applications from India?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6625" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3407" RevisionGUID="97cb8970-fb52-45b1-a10e-9464b6545afa" CreationDate="2013-02-26T14:23:37.667" UserId="3146" Text="&lt;databases&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;india&gt;&lt;websites&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3406" RevisionGUID="29516d45-8b9c-4a31-9058-46d7f247fd74" CreationDate="2013-02-26T14:28:38.247" UserId="1259" Comment="link, tag" Text="I'm wondering if '[US6137498][1]' is still valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent is about photo mosaic, and I'm thinking that it is very weird for a way of making artworks to be protected by a patent. I have read an article about the reexamine request of this patent by PUBAT(Public Patent Foundation), and the article said that 'In February 2010, the Examiner issued a final rejection of the vast majority of the claims in the patent.'. Does this mean the patent is not valid anymore?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also found a lot of software and companies that make or sell photo mosaic works. Is it ok to make my own photo mosaic software as long as I don't use the algorithm that proposed by the owner of 'US6137498'. (I think it would be OK. Like a Coca cola - Pepsi cola situation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6137498" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6627" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3406" RevisionGUID="29516d45-8b9c-4a31-9058-46d7f247fd74" CreationDate="2013-02-26T14:28:38.247" UserId="1259" Comment="link, tag" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;us6137498&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6629" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3406" RevisionGUID="ab0809ca-b1a6-484d-86d4-29b5d5334649" CreationDate="2013-02-26T15:04:42.100" UserId="2072" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I'm wondering if '[US6137498][1]' is still valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent is about photo mosaics, and I'm thinking that it is very weird for making artwork to be protected by a patent. I have read an article about the a reexamination request of this patent by PUBAT(Public Patent Foundation), and the article said that 'In February 2010, the Examiner issued a final rejection of the vast majority of the claims in the patent.'. Does this mean the patent is not valid anymore?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also found a lot of software and companies that make or sell photo mosaic works. Is it ok to make my own photo mosaic software as long as I don't use the algorithm that proposed by the owner of 'US6137498'. (I think it would be OK. Like a Coca cola - Pepsi cola situation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6137498" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3408" RevisionGUID="5f6c8c62-fe21-4a75-9484-36189eec91d7" CreationDate="2013-02-26T16:16:22.913" UserId="3109" Text="Apologies for length of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is a continuation on the results of this other question &#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3351/detailed-description-of-a-system-to-suit-system-and-method-claims&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice too I'm the guy of this other question http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3225/patent-without-an-attorney-what-are-the-risks and I'm trying to write myself the description of my invention, then before 12 months after filing get a patent lawyer to review my claims or write different ones. So my description writing is a bit speculative to what final claims will be used. I have written some claims myself but I expect them to be rewritten within a year. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I finished writing a description of a computer implemented system.  As I described it I've been talking about  “embodiments of the system” all the time. Now I wanted to add some language to the description to be able to support method claims. I'm a bit confused to what “language” may be required. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have some thoughts about how to introduce this method language in the description. It would be great if someone could comment on them, or point out the right way of introducing this language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) Describe as a method all what I have already described as a system and that involves steps of some sort. I have many flowcharts in the description, maybe I can re-describe them as a method. If I do that, shall I do it interlaced with the system description or shall I start a new section and describe all again as a method.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) Describe as a method only the human performed steps of the described system. Meaning the actions that a user would perform to use the system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c) Forget about the method claims and use only system claims, or use system claims and claims starting with “ A computer-implemented process for...”  In this case my current description language could already support both system claims and computer-implemented process claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;d) Just add the word “method” to the title, so that reads something like “system and method for...”. Then in the description add the word “method” to some of the places where I had system, so that now they are “system and method”. It sounds a bit weird though to refer to “embodiments of a system and method”. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related with my thought d) I've seen some patents that have the word “method” in the title and then have method claims, but they don't really use the word method in the description, they actually describe flowcharts but talk about a system. I made a search in the USPTO database http://patft1.uspto.gov and search for patents that have the word “method” in the title, but do not have the word “method” in the description. ie. ttl/method andnot spec/method&#xD;&#xA;This search results in 39713 hits!!! I checked a few of them and effectively they had “method” in the title and method claims but no references to methods in the description. &#xD;&#xA;Were all these people lazy? Or is it understood that if you describe something that can be interpreted as a method then I can claim it as a method regardless of specific language with the “method” word in the description?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6631" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3408" RevisionGUID="5f6c8c62-fe21-4a75-9484-36189eec91d7" CreationDate="2013-02-26T16:16:22.913" UserId="3109" Text="Turning an existing description of a system into a description of a method" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6632" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3408" RevisionGUID="5f6c8c62-fe21-4a75-9484-36189eec91d7" CreationDate="2013-02-26T16:16:22.913" UserId="3109" Text="&lt;description&gt;&lt;drafting&gt;&lt;method&gt;&lt;system&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3410" RevisionGUID="4cec3a11-cccd-4da9-bb57-281fc8d0f44d" CreationDate="2013-02-26T17:08:43.097" UserId="3076" Text="Sorry for the short answer. At the level of a pro se provisional I would not worry about the tilts so much. I would have a separate section for the methods. Typically it would be text corresponding to a flow chart saying: &quot;as seen in fig. x step s1xx is receiving the data packet by the widget which was produced by the foo.&quot; Method steps are ----ing.  Locating, painting, inserting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many people do recommend a separate set of flow charts and text covering the steps the user takes and those the system takes. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3411" RevisionGUID="6a899234-262c-4785-b167-b6b84ec956a0" CreationDate="2013-02-26T17:16:17.577" UserId="2072" Text="I could not find a reexamination file for this patent in the PTO database.  There is a reexamination of a patent in a similar field that references this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that the most recent maintenance fee has been paid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent was the basis for a patent infringement suit filed in New York, *Mosaic Legends LLC v. Blankinaki d/b/a Pixable*, case no. 1:10-cv-4302.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that the case was settled very early.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may be able to answer your question about the enforceability/validity prospects from this information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3412" RevisionGUID="dc869627-d0bb-48d1-b5f1-0b8a6eaf2749" CreationDate="2013-02-26T17:29:55.957" UserId="3076" Text="The reexam case number is 90/009275. If you look it up in public PAIR you will see that a re exam certificate was issued in Aug of 2010. Claim 1 was amended by adding the words  **&quot;to provide shape matching in order to&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making your own software is ok if it does not use the steps of these amended claims or those of any other patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3412" RevisionGUID="235304e6-de33-455d-9465-90b8e81a9e80" CreationDate="2013-02-26T17:59:41.133" UserId="3076" Comment="Bolding and parenthetical" Text="The reexam case number is 90/009275(from one of the documents posted at PubPat - I also didn't see it listed where I expected to find it in USPTO database)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look it up in public PAIR under that serial # you will see that a re exam certificate was issued in Aug of 2010. Claim 1 was amended by adding the words  **&quot;to provide shape matching in order to&quot;**. There may have been other changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making your own software is ok if it does not use the steps of **these amended claims or those of any other patent.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3410" RevisionGUID="9f477636-4cfd-40e4-910f-6ac05f4b7e02" CreationDate="2013-02-26T18:05:54.907" UserId="3076" Comment="Typo" Text="Sorry for the short answer. At the level of a pro se provisional I would not worry about the title so much. I would have a separate section for the methods. Typically it would be text corresponding to a flow chart saying: &quot;as seen in fig. x step s1xx is receiving the data packet by the widget which was produced by the foo.&quot; Method steps are ----ing.  Locating, painting, inserting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many people do recommend a separate set of flow charts and text covering the steps the user takes and those the system takes. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3411" RevisionGUID="4cc61e43-edba-4258-903d-145e64c5ff66" CreationDate="2013-02-26T18:58:42.707" UserId="2072" Comment="deleted 164 characters in body" Text="It appears that the most recent maintenance fee has been paid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent was the basis for a patent infringement suit filed in New York, *Mosaic Legends LLC v. Blankinaki d/b/a Pixable*, case no. 1:10-cv-4302.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that the case was settled very early.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may be able to answer your question about the enforceability/validity prospects from this information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3411" RevisionGUID="c9105683-8233-49ad-ac67-4a723f288c5a" CreationDate="2013-02-26T19:11:52.997" UserId="2072" Comment="added 194 characters in body" Text="After reexamination, this patent was the basis for a patent infringement suit filed in New York, *Mosaic Legends LLC v. Blankinaki d/b/a Pixable*, case no. 1:10-cv-4302.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that the case was settled very early.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There do not appear to be any additional reported cases of litigation asserting this patent.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to PTO records, the most recent maintenance fee has been paid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may be able to answer your question about the enforceability/validity prospects from this information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3411" RevisionGUID="ecb583ea-7e49-414d-b780-c895371bf0c1" CreationDate="2013-02-26T19:24:01.243" UserId="2072" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="During reexamination, this patent was the basis for a patent infringement suit filed in New York, *Mosaic Legends LLC v. Blankinaki d/b/a Pixable*, case no. 1:10-cv-4302.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that the case was settled very early, possibly as a result of the reexamination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There do not appear to be any additional reported cases of litigation asserting this patent.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to PTO records, the most recent maintenance fee has been paid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may be able to answer your question about the enforceability/validity prospects from this information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6644" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3406" RevisionGUID="182c2447-b587-45a5-9d4b-937f71bd241a" CreationDate="2013-02-27T04:28:13.253" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/306621737494278146" />
  <row Id="6645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3412" RevisionGUID="3d6802f6-4d6c-4c07-ae54-c8b6949ed34d" CreationDate="2013-02-27T04:47:42.503" UserId="3076" Comment="Formatting " Text="The reexam case number is 90/009275 (from one of the documents posted at PubPat - I also didn't see it listed where I expected to find it in USPTO database)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look it up in public PAIR under that serial # you will see that a re exam certificate was issued in Aug of 2010. Claim 1 was amended by adding the words  **&quot;to provide shape matching in order to&quot;**. There may have been other changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making your own software is ok if it does not use the steps of **these amended claims or those of any other patent.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6650" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3400" RevisionGUID="7d6ab403-f88f-45eb-a217-796f0778c40f" CreationDate="2013-02-27T10:28:13.350" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/306712333898629120" />
  <row Id="6663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3396" RevisionGUID="c052693d-10d4-4b0b-a359-d8f0082a3637" CreationDate="2013-02-27T19:36:18.673" UserId="3076" Comment="Typo" Text="**Move fast.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the AIA first-to-file is not yet in effect, B's patent is certainly under the &quot;old&quot; , current law. If A moves quickly he can get in an application by March 15th under the old law also. That application could be made by editing the content of B's application to the extent needed to only include inventions actually made by A.  Under  35 U.S.C. 135   Interferences, the applicant A can suggest an interference with B's issued patent as long as (as per 135(b)) A's application is  filed within a year of B's publication or patenting.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This timing situation could be the case if B's patent was issued less than a year ago and B's application had a non-publication request or if B's application went through the system much more quickly than usual - under a prioritized or accelerated examination, for example. In the normal course of events,  if B's patent recently issued,  it is likely to  have been published longer than a year ago. That would prevent an interference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the interference  proceeding A and B would provide evidence of date of conception and diligence to reduction-to-practice and A may be able to prevail and get the patent or A and B might reach a settlement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course this system will be a thing of the past in several years when no pre f-2-f applications are in the pipeline. Under the new scheme, interference is replaced by derivation proceedings. Proving you were first will not be the direct issue but rather proving the other person got it from you rather than inventing it themselves. Does not apply to the facts of the hypothetical question since it refers to a recently issued patent as of late Feb. 2013." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3416" RevisionGUID="15408b40-4338-4e32-8751-2e042e4ec792" CreationDate="2013-02-27T20:31:27.333" UserId="3289" Text="Has this patent (us20040116529) been issued or is it still pending?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6665" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3416" RevisionGUID="15408b40-4338-4e32-8751-2e042e4ec792" CreationDate="2013-02-27T20:31:27.333" UserId="3289" Text="Has this patent (us20040116529) been issued?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6666" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3416" RevisionGUID="15408b40-4338-4e32-8751-2e042e4ec792" CreationDate="2013-02-27T20:31:27.333" UserId="3289" Text="&lt;patent-pending&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3417" RevisionGUID="dfb95310-d9a8-4ad8-ac8e-b0641ba854f5" CreationDate="2013-02-27T21:39:18.357" UserId="3291" Text="The validity of Patent number: EP1646287B1 has been questioned in various research reports. How does one go about challenging the validity of the patent?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6668" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3417" RevisionGUID="dfb95310-d9a8-4ad8-ac8e-b0641ba854f5" CreationDate="2013-02-27T21:39:18.357" UserId="3291" Text="I want to challenge the validity of Patent number: EP1646287B1, do I need to officially hire a lawyer and present it to the tribunal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6669" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3417" RevisionGUID="dfb95310-d9a8-4ad8-ac8e-b0641ba854f5" CreationDate="2013-02-27T21:39:18.357" UserId="3291" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3416" RevisionGUID="fa1c1fde-6ec2-4fb2-912f-b7fa0e7be2e0" CreationDate="2013-02-27T21:54:15.683" UserId="1259" Comment="tag" Text="Has this patent ([us20040116529][1]) been issued or is it still pending?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20040116529" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6671" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3416" RevisionGUID="fa1c1fde-6ec2-4fb2-912f-b7fa0e7be2e0" CreationDate="2013-02-27T21:54:15.683" UserId="1259" Comment="tag" Text="&lt;patent-pending&gt;&lt;us20040116529&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3417" RevisionGUID="3185419a-8ec7-4e0a-8405-f395a6b13895" CreationDate="2013-02-27T21:58:29.097" UserId="1259" Comment="tag link" Text="The validity of Patent number: [EP1646287B1][1] has been questioned in various research reports. How does one go about challenging the validity of the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/EP1646287B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6673" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3417" RevisionGUID="3185419a-8ec7-4e0a-8405-f395a6b13895" CreationDate="2013-02-27T21:58:29.097" UserId="1259" Comment="tag link" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;ep1646287b1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3418" RevisionGUID="2a011daf-a7d6-4547-a2e5-e57e41628cea" CreationDate="2013-02-28T01:45:31.130" UserId="2072" Text="It looks like this application was abandoned in 2008.  It is not pending, and did not issue as a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can verify this here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3419" RevisionGUID="bc64f4f7-0641-44df-888c-13cbe561876f" CreationDate="2013-02-28T02:16:28.733" UserId="1335" Text="Another option is avoiding the patents by using an alternative algorithm. I was going to suggest SURF as an alternative, but turns out it's patented as well! (Hmmm, BRB, have to go change some of my code... ;-)) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternative that is ostensibly patent-free is BRISK, according to the last answer at this link:&#xD;&#xA;http://dsp.stackexchange.com/questions/1288/what-are-some-free-alternatives-to-sift-surf-that-can-be-used-in-commercial-app&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kinda off-topic for this forum, but another benefit of using alternative algorithms are that many of them were developed later, incorporating various advances, and hence are often better than SIFT and SURF in various ways." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3420" RevisionGUID="5b459c05-12ff-4965-894d-ca41e26f49be" CreationDate="2013-02-28T21:43:00.453" UserId="350" Text="I was looking at the new company [LeapMotion][1] and did some reading and it occurred to me that it looks like there is a patent from 2012 out there involving this subject - noting that the filers are not LeapMotion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patents in questions are: [20120287044, Processing of Gesture-based User Interaction Using Volumetric Zones ][2] and [20120317511, Display with built in 3D sensing capability and gesture control of a tv][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These patents are clearly too broad and we are looking here at yet another discipline that is going to be under litigation repeating the same experience with most other fairly new software development projects. There is nothing in these patents that i can see that talk about how we are going implement our own version of these processes - rather painting a broad stroke of just patenting the whole process. My concern is that this means no one else can make their own version of this in the future. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, somewhat i think this may be prior art. Kinect, for example, uses these types of ideas but just not in 3D. So here we are trying to get a patent on an implementation of something that has been done in 2D but since its 3D its &quot;oh so inventive&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would request any input or feeback. thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.leapmotion.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20120287044.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20120287044&amp;RS=DN/20120287044&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20120317511.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20120317511&amp;RS=DN/20120317511" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6677" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3420" RevisionGUID="5b459c05-12ff-4965-894d-ca41e26f49be" CreationDate="2013-02-28T21:43:00.453" UserId="350" Text="Processing of Gesture-based User Interaction Using Volumetric Zones" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6678" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3420" RevisionGUID="5b459c05-12ff-4965-894d-ca41e26f49be" CreationDate="2013-02-28T21:43:00.453" UserId="350" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;leapmotion&gt;&lt;3dmotion&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3421" RevisionGUID="800faea2-a630-4580-9996-d443550f58bd" CreationDate="2013-03-01T02:57:58.850" UserId="3294" Text="How us20120249774 is patentable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It just looks like structured light + 6DoF pose estimation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides being obvious, [this video][1] uploaded on Mar 31, 2011 pre-dates the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structured_light][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXJ0mq0hA18&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structured_light" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6680" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3421" RevisionGUID="800faea2-a630-4580-9996-d443550f58bd" CreationDate="2013-03-01T02:57:58.850" UserId="3294" Text="How is us20120249774 different from structured light?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6681" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3421" RevisionGUID="800faea2-a630-4580-9996-d443550f58bd" CreationDate="2013-03-01T02:57:58.850" UserId="3294" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6682" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3421" RevisionGUID="8fbb0562-6e6f-4b0d-abff-a8e94ef23780" CreationDate="2013-03-01T04:13:56.083" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;us20120249774&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6683" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3420" RevisionGUID="6752fea8-e002-488a-b81b-b05491a86190" CreationDate="2013-03-01T06:25:20.427" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;leapmotion&gt;&lt;us20120287044&gt;&lt;us20120317511&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3422" RevisionGUID="9a307437-41ca-424d-a8eb-7b028ab936e5" CreationDate="2013-03-01T07:01:31.920" UserId="3076" Text="Looking at one of the applications - us2012/0317511 - its claims all have to with recognizing a user and recognizing if that user has left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;a display; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;one or more hardware processors configured to execute instructions stored on a tangible computer readable medium in order to cause the system to:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;access image data of an interactive space;&#xD;&#xA;detect physical characteristics of a user within the interactive space using the &lt;P&gt;image data;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;monitor movement of the user in the interactive space using the image data, including detecting the user leaving the interactive space;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;identify the user based on the detected physical characteristics of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;automatically loading display settings associated with the identified user; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;initiating display of media content on the display according to the display settings associated with the identified user; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;in response to detecting the user leaving the interactive space, causing the display to enter an energy saving state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not think this needs accurate gesture sensing, just a camera. It has been rejected in December and a response has not yet been filed as of Feb. 28. You can look it up in USPTO public PAIR.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3423" RevisionGUID="ba92948d-b947-4f71-a11e-fe441ee88d7e" CreationDate="2013-03-01T08:36:20.407" UserId="3296" Text="You can use http://ipindiaservices.gov.in/patentsearch/search/index.aspx to search all patents in India including granted and published patent applications in India." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3424" RevisionGUID="db6f5c16-4290-47cc-b47f-ea60b3cc32a7" CreationDate="2013-03-01T16:20:54.830" UserId="3076" Text="It looks like this is the inverse of a normal structured light application. Structured light is usually used to determne unknown 3d shapes from a fixed point. This application uses a pattern of light on a known 3d shape to determine the location of the light and camera. The claims in this application all require a known cone or cylinder to be in the room. The light on that known structure is used to figure out the location of the camera or light source. Ultimately the application is for stabilizing the flight of an aerial vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also obviousness is determined as if the date of the application. &quot;Seems obvious now&quot; is not the proper test. The question is &quot;in light of everything known as of the day of the application, and before reading this application, was this obvious&quot;. It is very hard to put yourself where you would have been before having read something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3424" RevisionGUID="a30ffb5c-a7e3-4383-bd21-2740e90f1495" CreationDate="2013-03-01T16:29:53.447" UserId="3076" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="It looks like this is the inverse of a normal structured light application. Structured light is usually used to determne unknown 3d shapes from a fixed point. This application uses a pattern of light on a known 3d shape to determine the location of the light and camera. The claims in this application all require a known cone or cylinder to be in the room. The light on that known structure is used to figure out the location of the camera or light source. Ultimately the application is for stabilizing the flight of an aerial vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what the video is showing but I do not see a fixed, known cone or cylinder anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also obviousness is determined as of the date of the application. &quot;Seems obvious now&quot; is not the proper test. The question is &quot;in light of everything known as of the day before the application, and prior to reading this application, was this obvious&quot;. It is very hard to put yourself where you would have been before having read something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3425" RevisionGUID="d9d93217-9cd4-48e2-8a24-123958b73381" CreationDate="2013-03-01T17:09:34.800" UserId="3076" Text="You may have already seen the report on this topic [The Access and Benefit-Sharing Agreement on Teff Genetic Resources][1]. It talks about the opposition proceeding that was held in the EPO in 2007 and the chance they had to appeal it. According to that report the opposers did not have enough knowledge of the patent system or ammunition in terms of data at the time. It is now too late to challenge this at the epo level and there are apparently plans for it to be challenged at the country level in Germany.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://api.ning.com/files/5tIazdjsw51UGYG0K4fOCR7XPj0vC*OiG8xZYPgiE2uDIkfxjwFl8lVYeU9gad0jTjvUVS4zodoyyk3cDDlv*Tvz80gwmlHA/FNIR0612.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3424" RevisionGUID="c7620da8-6b00-4db8-ba10-190d96f8c410" CreationDate="2013-03-01T17:20:55.537" UserId="3076" Comment="Typo" Text="It looks like this is the inverse of a normal structured light application. Structured light is usually used to determine unknown 3d shapes from a fixed point. This application uses a pattern of light on a known 3d shape to determine the location of the light and camera. The claims in this application all require a known cone or cylinder to be in the room. The light on that known structure is used to figure out the location of the camera or light source. Ultimately the application is for stabilizing the flight of an aerial vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what the video is showing but I do not see a fixed, known cone or cylinder anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also obviousness is determined as of the date of the application. &quot;Seems obvious now&quot; is not the proper test. The question is &quot;in light of everything known as of the day before the application, and prior to reading this application, was this obvious&quot;. It is very hard to put yourself where you would have been before having read something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3426" RevisionGUID="d57a4b2a-c657-45be-bee4-9aa3e5ae4114" CreationDate="2013-03-01T21:12:37.193" UserId="3076" Text="In regard to the other patent application - US20120287044 - The claims in the published application (they can be broadened along the way) are not specific to the method used to analyze images to determine a body part location but they are limited in what they cover doing with that information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Claim 1.  A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;receiving information corresponding to a physical space from one or more cameras;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;mapping a position of a user in the physical space to a position in a virtual space based at least in part on the received information;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**determining an activation level of the user based on a position of a hand of the user with respect to a position of another portion of the user;** and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;generating an image comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a virtual object; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a **visually perceptible indicator that changes in appearance in response to a magnitude of a difference between the activation level and an activation threshold.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to read on someone's future product the product would need to use a camera, to determine the location of a person's hand, to determine the location of a different body part, calculate the difference in distance between those two, compare that distance to a predetermined &quot;threshold&quot; and change the appearance of a displayed object to reflect the difference between the calculated distance and the threshold distance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not have enough background in the field and have not looked at the references in the IDS or conducted my own search so I do not know if this is anticipated or made obvious by prior art. However it is **not** trying to cover everything that can be done with gesture information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Right or wrong, the first sentence on section 102 of the patent law is &quot;A person **shall be entitled to a patent unless** . . .  &quot;. What comes after the or else is essentially, it is not useful, or it is not new or it is obvious in light of everything that was know as of the filing date. No requirement that there be a flash of genius or any other measure of earth-shatteringness." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3424" RevisionGUID="83f06df2-bd34-42fc-b7c3-76a2590f03c4" CreationDate="2013-03-01T23:24:34.687" UserId="3076" Comment="Bolding" Text="It looks like this is the inverse of a normal structured light application. Structured light is **usually used to determine unknown 3d shapes** from a fixed point. This application uses a pattern of light on a **known** 3d shape to determine the location of the light and camera. The claims in this application all require a known cone or cylinder to be in the room. The light on that known structure is used to figure out the location of the camera or light source. Ultimately the application is for stabilizing the flight of an aerial vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what the video is showing but I do not see a fixed, known cone or cylinder anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also obviousness is determined as of the date of the application. &quot;Seems obvious now&quot; is not the proper test. The question is &quot;in light of everything known as of the day before the application, and prior to reading this application, was this obvious&quot;. It is very hard to put yourself where you would have been before having read something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3426" RevisionGUID="d4767a9d-f204-4945-91bb-933ec2275b80" CreationDate="2013-03-02T01:44:30.873" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="In regard to the other patent application - US20120287044 - The claims in the published application (they can be broadened along the way) are not specific to the method used to analyze images to determine a body part location but they are limited in what they cover doing with that information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Claim 1.  A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;receiving information corresponding to a physical space from one or more cameras;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;mapping a position of a user in the physical space to a position in a virtual space based at least in part on the received information;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**determining an activation level of the user based on a position of a hand of the user with respect to a position of another portion of the user;** and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;generating an image comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a virtual object; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a **visually perceptible indicator that changes in appearance in response to a magnitude of a difference between the activation level and an activation threshold.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to read on someone's future product the product would need to use a camera, to determine the location of a person's hand, to determine the location of a different body part, calculate the difference in distance between those two, compare that distance to a predetermined &quot;threshold&quot; and change the appearance of a displayed object to reflect the difference between the calculated distance and the threshold distance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not have enough background in the field and have not looked at the references in the IDS or conducted my own search so I do not know if this is anticipated or made obvious by prior art. However it is **not** trying to cover everything that can be done with gesture information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Right or wrong, the first sentence on section 102 of the patent law is &quot;A person **shall be entitled to a patent unless** . . .  &quot;. What comes after the &quot;unless&quot; is essentially, it is not useful, or it is not new or it is obvious in light of everything that was know as of the filing date. No requirement that there be a flash of genius or any other measure of earth-shatteringness." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3426" RevisionGUID="af5d1d26-6e36-43ad-a3e2-1c425e110ae1" CreationDate="2013-03-02T01:57:13.573" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="In regard to the other patent application - US20120287044 - The claims in the published application (they can be broadened along the way) are not specific to the method used to analyze images to determine a body part location but they are limited in what they cover doing with that information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Claim 1.  A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;receiving information corresponding to a physical space from one or more cameras;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;mapping a position of a user in the physical space to a position in a virtual space based at least in part on the received information;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**determining an activation level of the user based on a position of a hand of the user with respect to a position of another portion of the user;** and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;generating an image comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a virtual object; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a **visually perceptible indicator that changes in appearance in response to a magnitude of a difference between the activation level and an activation threshold.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to read on someone's future product the product would need to use a camera, to determine the location of a person's hand, to determine the location of a different body part, calculate the difference in distance between those two, compare that distance to a predetermined &quot;threshold&quot; and change the appearance of a displayed object to reflect the difference between the calculated distance and the threshold distance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not have enough background in the field and have not looked at the references in the IDS or conducted my own search so I do not know if this is anticipated or made obvious by prior art. However it is **not** trying to cover everything that can be done with gesture information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Right or wrong, the first sentence on section 102 of the patent law is &quot;A person **shall be entitled to a patent unless** . . .  &quot;. What comes after the &quot;unless&quot; is essentially, it is not useful, or it is not new or it is obvious in light of everything that was known as of the filing date. No requirement that there be a flash of genius or any other measure of earth-shatteringness." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3426" RevisionGUID="d52711de-5008-453a-9201-89cb4ed0dec7" CreationDate="2013-03-02T02:02:33.613" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="In regard to the other patent application - US201/20287044 - The claims in the published application (they can be broadened along the way) are not specific to the method used to analyze images to determine a body part location but they are limited in what they cover doing with that information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Claim 1.  A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;receiving information corresponding to a physical space from one or more cameras;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;mapping a position of a user in the physical space to a position in a virtual space based at least in part on the received information;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**determining an activation level of the user based on a position of a hand of the user with respect to a position of another portion of the user;** and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;generating an image comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a virtual object; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a **visually perceptible indicator that changes in appearance in response to a magnitude of a difference between the activation level and an activation threshold.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to read on someone's future product the product would need to use a camera, to determine the location of a person's hand, to determine the location of a different body part, calculate the difference in distance between those two, compare that distance to a predetermined &quot;threshold&quot; and change the appearance of a displayed object to reflect the difference between the calculated distance and the threshold distance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not have enough background in the field and have not looked at the references in the IDS or conducted my own search so I do not know if this is anticipated or made obvious by prior art. However it is **not** trying to cover everything that can be done with gesture information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Right or wrong, the first sentence on section 102 of the patent law is &quot;A person **shall be entitled to a patent unless** . . .  &quot;. What comes after the &quot;unless&quot; is essentially, it is not useful, or it is not new or it is obvious in light of everything that was known as of the filing date. No requirement that there be a flash of genius or any other measure of earth-shatteringness." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3425" RevisionGUID="94d7b7a6-d448-4962-9c1e-7748e637ad28" CreationDate="2013-03-02T02:06:10.490" UserId="3076" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="It seems to be too late. You may have already seen the report on this topic [The Access and Benefit-Sharing Agreement on Teff Genetic Resources][1]. It talks about the opposition proceeding that was held in the EPO in 2007 and the chance they had to appeal it. According to that report the opposers did not have enough knowledge of the patent system or ammunition in terms of data at the time. It is now too late to challenge this at the epo level and there are apparently plans for it to be challenged at the country level in Germany.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://api.ning.com/files/5tIazdjsw51UGYG0K4fOCR7XPj0vC*OiG8xZYPgiE2uDIkfxjwFl8lVYeU9gad0jTjvUVS4zodoyyk3cDDlv*Tvz80gwmlHA/FNIR0612.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3425" RevisionGUID="17beacb7-f3bb-4c25-a0b5-4d0b8d2434b3" CreationDate="2013-03-02T02:17:16.777" UserId="3076" Comment="added 185 characters in body" Text="It seems to be too late. You may have already seen the report on this topic [The Access and Benefit-Sharing Agreement on Teff Genetic Resources][1]. It talks about the opposition proceeding that was held in the EPO in 2007 and the chance they had to appeal it. According to that report the opposers did not have enough knowledge of the patent system or ammunition in terms of data at the time. It is now too late to challenge this at the epo level and there are apparently plans for it to be challenged at the country level in Germany.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However the US counterpart US2006/0286240 has not issued and currently is under a &quot;final&quot; rejection. One of the grounds of rejection is that is trying to patent a product of nature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://api.ning.com/files/5tIazdjsw51UGYG0K4fOCR7XPj0vC*OiG8xZYPgiE2uDIkfxjwFl8lVYeU9gad0jTjvUVS4zodoyyk3cDDlv*Tvz80gwmlHA/FNIR0612.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6697" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3421" RevisionGUID="17637d9e-431d-4b26-b78a-8d38a6ae9dbb" CreationDate="2013-03-02T13:31:38.610" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/307845657702567936" />
  <row Id="6701" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3420" RevisionGUID="3510dbd1-a2de-4028-944c-306ab3a66d41" CreationDate="2013-03-02T22:31:38.533" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/307981552732737537" />
  <row Id="6703" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3417" RevisionGUID="624a9754-7b7d-44e4-ad08-d06da8d153e4" CreationDate="2013-03-03T04:31:51.317" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/308072200987107329" />
  <row Id="6704" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3408" RevisionGUID="13ead131-d84f-4d8a-89a9-ee74e45ee5e7" CreationDate="2013-03-03T07:31:51.923" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/308117502414704640" />
  <row Id="6705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3428" RevisionGUID="27cfc4e6-cfa5-43bc-a53c-4bc5127fb152" CreationDate="2013-03-03T10:45:44.430" UserId="3300" Text="I would like to obtain and become the sole disturubtor of a  product?service that is patent in the US.&#xD;&#xA;What is the best way to go about this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6706" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3428" RevisionGUID="27cfc4e6-cfa5-43bc-a53c-4bc5127fb152" CreationDate="2013-03-03T10:45:44.430" UserId="3300" Text="Obtaining a licence for a patent product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6707" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3428" RevisionGUID="27cfc4e6-cfa5-43bc-a53c-4bc5127fb152" CreationDate="2013-03-03T10:45:44.430" UserId="3300" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6708" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3428" RevisionGUID="5d22a231-ddfa-4929-ba4a-0f30bb47c6f8" CreationDate="2013-03-03T13:40:37.867" UserId="1259" Comment="tag, spellings" Text="I would like to obtain and become the sole distributor of a product/service that is patented in the US.&#xD;&#xA;What is the best way to go about this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6709" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3428" RevisionGUID="5d22a231-ddfa-4929-ba4a-0f30bb47c6f8" CreationDate="2013-03-03T13:40:37.867" UserId="1259" Comment="tag, spellings" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6713" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3391" RevisionGUID="ceb46019-2495-4522-8917-3583fb48c222" CreationDate="2013-03-03T16:32:09.157" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/308253470664839168" />
  <row Id="6714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3430" RevisionGUID="b5485400-e455-4fa1-8a55-7bec8fe6a252" CreationDate="2013-03-03T17:38:54.153" UserId="3076" Text="After you do some homework call up the inventor/owner. You can look up the owner (assignee) from the google/patents page for the patent. If there is nothing in the assignment database, then the inventors are probably the owners. By looking in Public PAIR at the USPTO you can see the inventor's address and the current official correspondence address. I would check to be sure the patent it is unexpired has not been declared invalid or unenforceable by a court and the maintance fees are paid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on how exclusive you want to be (geographical or field or use or time-limited or completely exclusive with the right to go after infringers) you and the owner might consider you buying the patent outright." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3430" RevisionGUID="3076049a-1a25-404f-b748-1c92b9c179c7" CreationDate="2013-03-03T18:20:08.037" UserId="3076" Comment="Typo" Text="After you do some homework call up the inventor/owner. You can look up the owner (assignee) from the google/patents page for the patent. If there is nothing in the assignment database, then the inventors are probably the owners. By looking in Public PAIR at the USPTO you can see the inventor's address and the current official correspondence address. I would check to be sure the patent it is unexpired has not been declared invalid or unenforceable by a court and the maintance fees are paid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on how exclusive you want to be (geographical or field of use or time-limited or completely exclusive with the right to go after infringers) you and the owner might consider you buying the patent outright." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6716" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3428" RevisionGUID="c9b71aff-039b-4393-80d2-7a58f6d53efa" CreationDate="2013-03-03T19:27:24.180" UserId="3076" Comment="Tense" Text="Obtaining a licence for a patented product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3430" RevisionGUID="ee3943bb-eb22-49cc-bc3d-5c451de2abe8" CreationDate="2013-03-03T19:28:22.730" UserId="3076" Comment="Typo " Text="After you do some homework call up the inventor/owner. You can look up the owner (assignee) from the google/patents page for the patent. If there is nothing in the assignment database, then the inventors are probably the owners. By looking in Public PAIR at the USPTO you can see the inventor's address and the current official correspondence address. I would check to be sure the patent is unexpired has not been declared invalid or unenforceable by a court and the maintance fees are paid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on how exclusive you want to be (geographical or field of use or time-limited or completely exclusive with the right to go after infringers) you and the owner might consider you buying the patent outright." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3432" RevisionGUID="e0230600-2ee9-49ed-9088-d93ea96c15bc" CreationDate="2013-03-04T00:52:09.250" UserId="3305" Text="I am developing a new product, but I have a problem with this patent. I am using this circuit on my project (http://www.instructables.com/id/Turn-a-pencil-drawing-into-a-capacitive-sensor-for/?ALLSTEPS) but it looks like (http://www.google.com/patents/US7375656?printsec=drawing&amp;hl=tr#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) this patent. can you help me this patent include my project? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6722" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3432" RevisionGUID="e0230600-2ee9-49ed-9088-d93ea96c15bc" CreationDate="2013-03-04T00:52:09.250" UserId="3305" Text="capacitive touch" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6723" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3432" RevisionGUID="e0230600-2ee9-49ed-9088-d93ea96c15bc" CreationDate="2013-03-04T00:52:09.250" UserId="3305" Text="&lt;apple&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6724" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3331" RevisionGUID="5ca58fef-033f-4b35-a9be-56a40b18e218" CreationDate="2013-03-04T01:32:23.350" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/308389425040195585" />
  <row Id="6725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3433" RevisionGUID="0a34d902-ddde-45ef-9f3d-e4ba7cf67887" CreationDate="2013-03-04T01:57:31.820" UserId="3306" Text="Ref: Patent ep2404200a2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An atomic magnetometer is a magnetic field sensor. Like any other sensor, it can be used for any number of applications and in any number of industries. How can someone justify trying to patent just the use of an older patented technology in an entire industry without inventing anything at all. Basically all that is claimed in the application is that the &quot;inventors&quot; will incorporate magnetometers in their traditional surveying instrumentation to sense magnetic field, that's it. Don't you at least have to pretend to invent something first before trying to patent an invention? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6726" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3433" RevisionGUID="0a34d902-ddde-45ef-9f3d-e4ba7cf67887" CreationDate="2013-03-04T01:57:31.820" UserId="3306" Text="How can something like this be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6727" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3433" RevisionGUID="0a34d902-ddde-45ef-9f3d-e4ba7cf67887" CreationDate="2013-03-04T01:57:31.820" UserId="3306" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6728" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3433" RevisionGUID="f8c15af3-e04c-4b9f-ae59-bcda6838603b" CreationDate="2013-03-04T03:51:48.863" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;ep2404200&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3434" RevisionGUID="522ca41c-82f4-4a43-a87c-afd8e639ccc2" CreationDate="2013-03-04T04:09:03.563" UserId="3076" Text="This has not yet resulted in a granted patent. It is a patent application only. The U.S. counterpart is 2010/0225313. It has just been given a &quot;final&quot;  rejection by the USPTO in Jan. of 2013. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3435" RevisionGUID="15417bf4-f47c-4259-9f9c-a6eb3cb6f321" CreationDate="2013-03-04T04:40:23.200" UserId="3076" Text="The broadest claim of this patent is claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A circuit configuration for a capacitive touch switch, the circuit configuration comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;at least one sensor circuit containing:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a capacitive sensor element changing its capacitance value when touched;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;***a capacitor connected in parallel with said capacitive sensor element*** and defining a parallel circuit;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a **capacitance/frequency converter** connected to said parallel circuit containing said capacitor and said capacitive sensor element, said capacitance/frequency converter generating and outputting a frequency signal having a frequency being dependent on a total capacitance of said parallel circuit formed of said capacitor and said capacitive sensor element;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;said at least one sensor circuit being one of a plurality of sensor circuits outputting output signals and each of said sensor circuits having said capacitive sensor element;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;an evaluation circuit receiving the frequency signal being an output signal from said sensor circuit for determining whether said capacitive sensor element is actuated or not; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a switch connected between said plurality of sensor circuits and said evaluation circuit, the output signals from said plurality of sensor circuits being alternately supplied to said evaluation circuit through said switch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The instructables circuit does not seem to have a parallel capacitor or a capacitance-to-frequency element." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6731" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3433" RevisionGUID="812495f8-540f-492d-b91d-9643a6e56edc" CreationDate="2013-03-04T05:02:15.047" UserId="3076" Comment="Tag" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;ep2404200&gt;&lt;us20100225313&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3434" RevisionGUID="37ba665a-6ea0-4451-93c5-561f2b281bf4" CreationDate="2013-03-04T05:27:14.080" UserId="3076" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="This has not yet resulted in a granted patent. It is a patent application only. The U.S. counterpart is 2010/0225313. It has just been given a &quot;final&quot;  rejection by the USPTO in Jan. of 2013. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know the field, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong about a patent involving a known sensor applied in a new way. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3434" RevisionGUID="d6a46dcb-3365-42e8-843c-d256761071bc" CreationDate="2013-03-04T05:40:51.250" UserId="3076" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="This has not yet resulted in a granted patent. It is a patent application only. The U.S. counterpart is 2010/0225313. It has just been given a &quot;final&quot;  rejection by the USPTO in Jan. of 2013. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know the field, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong about a patent involving a known sensor applied in a new way. But it does have to be new and useful and not obvious - no requirement for being earth shattering." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3436" RevisionGUID="b7c4eb64-e026-445a-bb66-a1e2c9ef74d0" CreationDate="2013-03-04T09:36:17.947" UserId="852" Text="I am currently looking into patent [US20110202766][1]. I am new to patent law and I would like to know if the given patent is US-only, or international. How can I find out about where does a given patent apply?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110202766" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6735" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3436" RevisionGUID="b7c4eb64-e026-445a-bb66-a1e2c9ef74d0" CreationDate="2013-03-04T09:36:17.947" UserId="852" Text="Determining if patent is international?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6736" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3436" RevisionGUID="b7c4eb64-e026-445a-bb66-a1e2c9ef74d0" CreationDate="2013-03-04T09:36:17.947" UserId="852" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;research&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6737" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3436" RevisionGUID="a4f93c5e-a356-4a27-912a-0db82aa7100e" CreationDate="2013-03-04T10:32:24.100" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/308525323711021057" />
  <row Id="6738" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3436" RevisionGUID="c2c1fd33-35e3-4d34-86b7-8d87607e6e4e" CreationDate="2013-03-04T11:15:49.100" UserId="1259" Comment="tags link" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;us20110202766&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3366" RevisionGUID="e76c2f3e-d656-46b5-98a5-316310d3f058" CreationDate="2013-03-04T16:24:26.157" UserId="139" Comment="fixed formatting" Text="In short, yes.  While the &quot;corporate veil&quot; protects an individual from personal liability in many instances, this isn't always the case when dealing with infringement of intellectual property.  A few reasons why the director may be personally responsible include:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) **The court pierces the corporate veil**. If the company is undercapitalized, is used to commit fraud, or if the persons involved don't treat the corporation as a separate entity, the court may refuse to protect the director.  For example, if a person sets up a corporation to facilitate his counterfeiting operation, there's a good chance that the person will be held individually liable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) **The court finds that the director induced infringement**. Corporate officers who actively aid and abet their corporation's infringement may be personally liable for inducing infringement.  You can read about how this can apply in the case Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1578-79 (Fed. Cir. 1986). This usually requires some knowledge on the part of the director that he is encouraging another person (such as the company) to infringe a patent. For example, if you know of a particular patent and help your company infringe that patent, you may be liable for induced infringement even if the company (as opposed to you personally) was the entity that actually infringed the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The level of personal liability can vary greatly depending on the fact. Don't assume that the company's existence alone is going to provide protection to the director.  That isn't always the case. I'll echo kineticfocus's advice - speak with a lawyer; preferably one who has experience in U.S. intellectual property law.     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6740" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3366" RevisionGUID="e76c2f3e-d656-46b5-98a5-316310d3f058" CreationDate="2013-03-04T16:24:26.157" Comment="Proposed by 139 approved by 1259, 1 edit id of 330" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3432" RevisionGUID="6ef1a0e5-bbda-49ef-9505-08f594503ad6" CreationDate="2013-03-04T16:24:31.303" UserId="139" Comment="format, removed thanks" Text="I am developing a new product, but I have a problem with this patent. I am using [this circuit][1] on my project, but it looks like [this patent][2]. can you help me this patent include my project? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.instructables.com/id/Turn-a-pencil-drawing-into-a-capacitive-sensor-for/?ALLSTEPS&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7375656?printsec=drawing&amp;hl=tr#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6742" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3432" RevisionGUID="6ef1a0e5-bbda-49ef-9505-08f594503ad6" CreationDate="2013-03-04T16:24:31.303" Comment="Proposed by 139 approved by 1 edit id of 331" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3437" RevisionGUID="317a6961-8838-441e-9163-8326638c58d4" CreationDate="2013-03-04T16:34:14.993" UserId="3076" Text="Granted, enforceable patents are territorial limited. So a U.S. patent allows its owner to control the making, selling, using and importing into the U.S. In this case you are referencing an application that may or may not have resulted in one or more U.S. patents. The inventor could have filed counterpart applications in other countries or with international bodies that can lead to patents else where. One way to look into this is to look up the application it the EPO's database called Espacenet by the us application number. When you find it you will see a selection to the left called INPADOC family. Clicking on that brings up a list of all the related documents known to that international database. Besides the US application it shows one with a &quot;WO&quot; number. That is a PCT application. It is possible to go from a PCT application to &quot;real&quot; filings in 140+ locations. To look up PCT data and other international info go to WIPO's Patentscope search engine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3437" RevisionGUID="fcaef975-6832-4431-91bb-acb4e79af37e" CreationDate="2013-03-04T16:54:26.630" UserId="3076" Comment="added 175 characters in body" Text="Granted, enforceable patents are territorial limited. So a U.S. patent allows its owner to control the making, selling, using and importing into the U.S. In this case you are referencing an application that may or may not have resulted in one or more U.S. patents (looks like it hasn't as of March 2013). The inventor could have filed counterpart applications in other countries or with international bodies that can lead to patents else where. One way to look into this is to look up the application it the EPO's database called Espacenet by the us application number. When you find it you will see a selection to the left called INPADOC family. Clicking on that brings up a list of all the related documents known to that international database. Besides the US application it shows one with a &quot;WO&quot; number. That is a PCT application. It is possible to go from a PCT application to &quot;real&quot; filings in 140+ locations. To look up PCT data and other international info go to WIPO's Patentscope search engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might also search Patentscope for applications by the same inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application you are interested in got a non-final rejection in December 2012. You can look up the history in USPTO Public PAIR." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6748" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3432" RevisionGUID="738feacc-efd1-4abb-803e-fa524f79117a" CreationDate="2013-03-04T16:56:04.237" UserId="7" Comment="added publication number tag" Text="&lt;apple&gt;&lt;us7375656&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3440" RevisionGUID="fbf34da5-363a-4c44-ad5a-fad7b13da4e4" CreationDate="2013-03-04T18:33:38.100" UserId="3310" Text="Attorney wants to get declarations executed with respect to the provisional application, then hold it in the file until utility is filed.  This is done in case an inventor leaves the company.  Thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6757" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3440" RevisionGUID="fbf34da5-363a-4c44-ad5a-fad7b13da4e4" CreationDate="2013-03-04T18:33:38.100" UserId="3310" Text="Can you file an executed declaration in a provisional application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6758" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3440" RevisionGUID="fbf34da5-363a-4c44-ad5a-fad7b13da4e4" CreationDate="2013-03-04T18:33:38.100" UserId="3310" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;inventor-declaration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6759" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3432" RevisionGUID="8c45eb06-15e0-4155-bbf0-bb2755267ed5" CreationDate="2013-03-04T18:39:48.453" UserId="7" Comment="Elaborated upon question title" Text="Does my idea infringe upon this capacitative touch patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3441" RevisionGUID="083d80cd-0633-4f4a-9c57-29e651328629" CreationDate="2013-03-04T18:54:47.210" UserId="3076" Text="No - You can't file a declaration in a provisional. I guess you can sign something and not file it. The problem is that in  a declaration you are swearing to something . Normally you are swearing some thing about a particular application number or in relation to an attached application .  I do not see how that can be done in relation to an application  that has not been written and you have not read yet. Inventorship is about claims. What will the claims be?  I think this only can work if the prov. has claims and the future non prov. is word for word coma for coma identical to the prov. you have in front of you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3441" RevisionGUID="35155d96-b142-40c2-b928-e37171153df5" CreationDate="2013-03-04T19:02:55.300" UserId="3076" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="No - You can't file a declaration in a provisional. I guess you can sign something and not file it. The problem is that in  a declaration you are swearing to something . Normally you are swearing some thing about a particular application number or in relation to an attached application .  I do not see how that can be done in relation to an application  that has not been written and you have not read yet. Inventorship is about claims. What will the claims be?  I think this only can work if the prov. has claims and the future non prov. is word for word coma for coma identical to the prov. you have in front of you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I need to change one word in an application draft after a declaration is signed I need to tear up the declaration and get a new one signed. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3441" RevisionGUID="58102fe3-5058-428a-821b-8ace8aa25b45" CreationDate="2013-03-04T19:12:24.557" UserId="3076" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="No - You can't file a declaration in a provisional. I guess you can sign something and not file it. The problem is that in  a declaration you are swearing to something . Normally you are swearing some thing about a particular application number or in relation to an attached application .  I do not see how that can be done in relation to an application  that has not been written and you have not read yet. Inventorship is about claims. What will the claims be?  I think this only can work if the prov. has claims and the future non prov. is word for word coma for coma identical to the prov. you have in front of you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I need to change one word in an application draft after a declaration is signed I need to tear up the declaration and get a new one signed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The situation changed somewhat on Sept 16 but you are still swearing with ref . To either an attached application  or to an application number." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3441" RevisionGUID="4b471ef7-4b4c-4412-8753-7a6c3d9cb960" CreationDate="2013-03-04T19:47:51.053" UserId="3076" Comment="added 231 characters in body" Text="No - You can't **file** a declaration in a provisional. I guess you can sign something and not file it. The problem is that in  a declaration you are swearing to something . Normally you are swearing something about a particular application number or in relation to an attached application.  I do not see how that can be done in relation to an application  that has not been written (future non provisional utility application) and you have of course not read yet. Inventorship is about claims. What will the claims be? You are swearing now that you an inventor or joint inventor of a blank check. I think this only can work if the number of the prov. is listed and the prov. has claims and the future non prov. is word for word, coma for coma identical to the prov. you have in front of you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I need to change one word in an application draft after a declaration is signed I need to tear up the declaration and get a new one signed - although being that strict is probably pre-AIA thinking. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The situation changed somewhat on Sept 16 but you are still swearing with ref. to either an attached application  or to an application number." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3437" RevisionGUID="f3227954-88b9-4107-9265-37a828fd25a9" CreationDate="2013-03-04T19:54:36.217" UserId="3076" Comment="Typo" Text="Granted, enforceable patents are territorial limited. So a U.S. patent allows its owner to control the making, selling, using and importing into the U.S. In this case you are referencing an application that may or may not have resulted in one or more U.S. patents (looks like it hasn't as of March 2013). The inventor could have filed counterpart applications in other countries or with international bodies that can lead to patents elsewhere. One way to look into this is to look up the application it the EPO's database called Espacenet by the us application number. When you find it you will see a selection to the left called INPADOC family. Clicking on that brings up a list of all the related documents known to that international database. Besides the US application it shows one with a &quot;WO&quot; number. That is a PCT application. It is possible to go from a PCT application to &quot;real&quot; filings in 140+ locations. To look up PCT data and other international info go to WIPO's Patentscope search engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might also search Patentscope for applications by the same inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application you are interested in got a non-final rejection in December 2012. You can look up the history in USPTO Public PAIR." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3441" RevisionGUID="097d68ce-d70c-4a45-8d9e-43b88d5b9b5b" CreationDate="2013-03-04T20:08:29.950" UserId="3076" Comment="Clarified " Text="No - You can't **file** a declaration in a provisional. I guess you can sign something and not file it. The problem is that in  a declaration you are swearing to something . Normally you are swearing something about a particular application number or in relation to an attached application.  I do not see how that can be done in relation to an application  that has not been written (future non provisional utility application) and you have of course not read yet. Inventorship is about claims. What will the claims be? You are potentially swearing now that you are an inventor or joint inventor of a blank check. I think this only can work if the number of the prov. is listed and the prov. has claims and the future non prov. is word for word, coma for coma identical to the prov. you have in front of you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I need to change one word in an application draft after a declaration is signed I need to tear up the declaration and get a new one signed - although being that strict is probably pre-AIA Sept 16th thinking. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The situation changed somewhat on Sept 16 2013 but you are still swearing with ref. to either an attached application  or to an application number." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3441" RevisionGUID="6122b3ab-777b-4dd3-bb88-30a7f39a19bc" CreationDate="2013-03-04T20:20:26.043" UserId="3076" Comment="edited body" Text="No - You can't **file** a declaration in a provisional. I guess you can sign something and not file it. The problem is that in  a declaration you are swearing to something . Normally you are swearing something about a particular application number or in relation to an attached application.  I do not see how that can be done in relation to an application  that has not been written (future non provisional utility application) and that you have, of course, not read yet. Inventorship is about claims. What will the claims be? You are potentially swearing now that you are an inventor or joint inventor of a blank check. I think this only can work if the number of the prov. is listed and the prov. has claims and the future non prov. is word for word, coma for coma, identical to the prov. you have in front of you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I need to change one word in an application draft after a declaration is signed I tear up the declaration and get a new one signed - although being that strict is probably pre-AIA Sept 16th thinking. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The situation changed somewhat on Sept 16 2013 but you are still swearing with ref. to either an attached application  or to an application number." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3434" RevisionGUID="636f260b-0f50-4e48-bd9f-5667e75e7ec9" CreationDate="2013-03-04T20:27:50.120" UserId="3076" Comment="Clarification " Text="This has not yet resulted in a granted patent. It is a patent application only. The U.S. counterpart is 2010/0225313. It has just been given a &quot;final&quot;  rejection by the USPTO in Jan. of 2013. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know the field, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong about a patent involving a known sensor applied in a new way. But it does have to be new and useful and not obvious - no requirement for being earth-shattering. The claims do seem to be limited to subterranean applications and some claims further limit it to boreholes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3435" RevisionGUID="31582e09-f44c-47ef-ab0e-4c743d3ba64d" CreationDate="2013-03-04T20:36:11.320" UserId="3076" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="The broadest claim of this patent is claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A circuit configuration for a capacitive touch switch, the circuit configuration comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;at least one sensor circuit containing:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a capacitive sensor element changing its capacitance value when touched;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;***a capacitor connected in parallel with said capacitive sensor element*** and defining a parallel circuit;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a **capacitance/frequency converter** connected to said parallel circuit containing said capacitor and said capacitive sensor element, said capacitance/frequency converter generating and outputting a frequency signal having a frequency being dependent on a total capacitance of said parallel circuit formed of said capacitor and said capacitive sensor element;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;said at least one sensor circuit being one of a plurality of sensor circuits outputting output signals and each of said sensor circuits having said capacitive sensor element;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;an evaluation circuit receiving the frequency signal being an output signal from said sensor circuit for determining whether said capacitive sensor element is actuated or not; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a switch connected between said plurality of sensor circuits and said evaluation circuit, the output signals from said plurality of sensor circuits being alternately supplied to said evaluation circuit through said switch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The instructables circuit does not seem to have a parallel capacitor or a capacitance-to-frequency element. Also the stated theory of operations may not be correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3437" RevisionGUID="6dabbf26-c77c-4ce4-a8fd-1befeb3489f5" CreationDate="2013-03-04T20:43:04.127" UserId="3076" Comment="Capitalization" Text="Granted, enforceable patents are territorial limited. So a U.S. patent allows its owner to control the making, selling, using and importing into the U.S. In this case you are referencing an application that may or may not have resulted in one or more U.S. patents (looks like it hasn't as of March 2013). The inventor could have filed counterpart applications in other countries or with international bodies that can lead to patents elsewhere. One way to look into this is to look up the application it the EPO's database called Espacenet by the US application number. When you find it you will see a selection to the left called INPADOC family. Clicking on that brings up a list of all the related documents known to that international database. Besides the US application it shows one with a &quot;WO&quot; number. That is a PCT application. It is possible to go from a PCT application to &quot;real&quot; filings in 140+ locations. To look up PCT data and other international info go to WIPO's Patentscope search engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might also search Patentscope for applications by the same inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application you are interested in got a non-final rejection in December 2012. You can look up the history in USPTO Public PAIR." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3442" RevisionGUID="c0a5ad95-aa06-4602-926e-446764cfc2e2" CreationDate="2013-03-04T21:12:10.113" UserId="852" Text="I am faced at the moment with a potential US patent that might be enforceable in the future. It is currently undergoing a review process and the outcome is yet undetermined. I would like to know whether if I infringe on the potential patent before it is granted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Will I be liable if it is granted (or perhaps until it is decided that it will not be granted), assuming I would cease all infringing activities the moment it is granted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Can the patent applicant issue a cease and desist before the patent is granted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or in general - at what point in time is a patent enforceable under the US law?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6772" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3442" RevisionGUID="c0a5ad95-aa06-4602-926e-446764cfc2e2" CreationDate="2013-03-04T21:12:10.113" UserId="852" Text="At what time is a patent enforceable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6773" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3442" RevisionGUID="c0a5ad95-aa06-4602-926e-446764cfc2e2" CreationDate="2013-03-04T21:12:10.113" UserId="852" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3443" RevisionGUID="69e1cc5e-dff3-4708-8051-182b750cbee3" CreationDate="2013-03-04T21:42:27.283" UserId="3311" Text="Any Prometheus v. Mayo issues with this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6775" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3443" RevisionGUID="69e1cc5e-dff3-4708-8051-182b750cbee3" CreationDate="2013-03-04T21:42:27.283" UserId="3311" Text="Patentable Subject Matter in US 7396654 as claimed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6776" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3443" RevisionGUID="69e1cc5e-dff3-4708-8051-182b750cbee3" CreationDate="2013-03-04T21:42:27.283" UserId="3311" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;chemistry-microbiology&gt;&lt;method&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3366" RevisionGUID="ae1034bf-bf93-427c-be86-6ea358105f8a" CreationDate="2013-03-04T21:53:45.217" UserId="3293" Comment="Clarified initial paragraph." Text="In short, yes.  While the &quot;corporate veil&quot; protects an individual from personal liability in many instances, this isn't always the case when dealing with infringement of intellectual property.  A few ways the director may be held personally responsible include:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) **The court pierces the corporate veil**. If the company is undercapitalized, is used to commit fraud, or if the persons involved don't treat the corporation as a separate entity, the court may refuse to protect the director.  For example, if a person sets up a corporation to facilitate his counterfeiting operation, there's a good chance that the person will be held individually liable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) **The court finds that the director induced infringement**. Corporate officers who actively aid and abet their corporation's infringement may be personally liable for inducing infringement.  You can read about how this can apply in the case Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1578-79 (Fed. Cir. 1986). This usually requires some knowledge on the part of the director that he is encouraging another person (such as the company) to infringe a patent. For example, if you know of a particular patent and help your company infringe that patent, you may be liable for induced infringement even if the company (as opposed to you personally) was the entity that actually infringed the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The level of personal liability can vary greatly depending on the fact. Don't assume that the company's existence alone is going to provide protection to the director.  That isn't always the case. I'll echo kineticfocus's advice - speak with a lawyer; preferably one who has experience in U.S. intellectual property law.     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6780" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3366" RevisionGUID="ae1034bf-bf93-427c-be86-6ea358105f8a" CreationDate="2013-03-04T21:53:45.217" Comment="Proposed by 3293 approved by 1 edit id of 332" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3444" RevisionGUID="aacb004a-8267-4738-96f2-dd25db1e8e79" CreationDate="2013-03-04T22:06:52.803" UserId="3076" Text="As a patent agent not a patent attorney, in real life I can't answer this type of question for my clients. I can tell you that the rights of a patent owner do not start until a patent is issued. The plain words of 35 USC 271 indicate that. Also you migh look at the FAQs of a law firm [here][1]. (I have no relation to them) However there is a complicated thing called &quot;provisional rights&quot; that has absolutely nothing to do with provisional patent applications. Under provisional rights a patent owner, AFTER the patent is granted, can go after an infringer and in that action seek royalties from the date of the publication of the application. But there needed to be some notice and the claims need to be about the same as those on the finally issued patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check with a patent attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://hh-iplaw.com/faq/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3444" RevisionGUID="36129b1a-1142-447c-b4ba-d9dbfeb6a7af" CreationDate="2013-03-04T22:17:08.793" UserId="3076" Comment="Added link" Text="As a patent agent not a patent attorney, in real life I can't answer this type of question for my clients. I can tell you that the rights of a patent owner do not start until a patent is issued. The plain words of 35 USC 271 indicate that. Also you might look at the FAQs of a law firm [here][1]. (I have no relation to them) However there is a complicated thing called &quot;provisional rights&quot; that has absolutely nothing to do with provisional patent applications. Under provisional rights [(35 USC sec 154(d)][2] a patent owner, AFTER the patent is granted, can go after an infringer and in that action seek royalties from the date of the publication of the application. But there needed to be some notice and the claims need to be about the same as those on the finally issued patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check with a patent attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://hh-iplaw.com/faq/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6783" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3443" RevisionGUID="4d1f30d5-aba3-42c8-b32e-32c344e8d224" CreationDate="2013-03-04T22:30:29.990" UserId="3076" Comment="Tag " Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;chemistry-microbiology&gt;&lt;method&gt;&lt;us7396654&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3440" RevisionGUID="9df62643-dd53-4d89-9e85-57a8fd295853" CreationDate="2013-03-04T22:48:24.857" UserId="3076" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Attorney wants to get declarations executed with respect to the provisional application, then hold it in the file until utility is filed.  This is done in case an inventor leaves the company.  Thoughts? Thanks.k" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3441" RevisionGUID="7176bddc-390b-40d6-a66f-57f4db0bd0cd" CreationDate="2013-03-04T22:50:58.740" UserId="3076" Comment="Fix year" Text="No - You can't **file** a declaration in a provisional. I guess you can sign something and not file it. The problem is that in  a declaration you are swearing to something . Normally you are swearing something about a particular application number or in relation to an attached application.  I do not see how that can be done in relation to an application  that has not been written (future non provisional utility application) and that you have, of course, not read yet. Inventorship is about claims. What will the claims be? You are potentially swearing now that you are an inventor or joint inventor of a blank check. I think this only can work if the number of the prov. is listed and the prov. has claims and the future non prov. is word for word, coma for coma, identical to the prov. you have in front of you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I need to change one word in an application draft after a declaration is signed I tear up the declaration and get a new one signed - although being that strict is probably pre-AIA Sept 16th thinking. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The situation changed somewhat on Sept 16 2012 but you are still swearing with ref. to either an attached application  or to an application number." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3440" RevisionGUID="a3f84c62-288d-4094-8dd4-97d932e386c4" CreationDate="2013-03-05T00:04:16.287" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Attorney wants to get declarations executed with respect to the provisional application, then hold it in the file until utility is filed.  This is done in case an inventor leaves the company.  Thoughts? Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3445" RevisionGUID="1c9db299-3da5-4ad2-833e-635785e1a705" CreationDate="2013-03-05T05:42:25.643" UserId="3312" Text="I am a photo editor for a campus magazien. I am wondering about the use of publishing some of the images on 2008/0210728. It's about a solar backpack patent. Is this legal for a university to use? Are the images for public use or educational purposes? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for your time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lauren." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6788" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3445" RevisionGUID="1c9db299-3da5-4ad2-833e-635785e1a705" CreationDate="2013-03-05T05:42:25.643" UserId="3312" Text="Can I use these images for a college publication?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6789" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3445" RevisionGUID="1c9db299-3da5-4ad2-833e-635785e1a705" CreationDate="2013-03-05T05:42:25.643" UserId="3312" Text="&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6790" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3442" RevisionGUID="4d8b773e-d743-4c95-9d2e-850db6be2f36" CreationDate="2013-03-05T10:32:33.830" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/308887752592728064" />
  <row Id="6794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3445" RevisionGUID="42e2c48e-a15c-4c3d-8ee5-a3f3428308bd" CreationDate="2013-03-05T11:29:22.850" UserId="1259" Comment="typos" Text="I am a photo editor for a campus magazine. I am wondering about the use of publishing some of the images on 2008/0210728. It's about a solar backpack patent. Is this legal for a university to use? Are the images for public use or educational purposes? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for your time.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6795" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="3445" RevisionGUID="0835a796-7c09-4237-b8bd-a77ca9e90818" CreationDate="2013-03-05T15:38:54.453" UserId="1" Comment="1" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[44],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3448" RevisionGUID="26b5e6f7-6c3e-4424-aa66-1357e4830d0e" CreationDate="2013-03-05T20:47:14.127" UserId="3315" Text="From what I can tell, the language in these patents are exactly same with the exception of the degree of detail outlined in the claims. Claim 1, 1a, and 1b of US5693489 appear to re-phrasing claims 12, 13, and 14 through 22 from US4952496. Is US5693489 not simply a resubmission of the US4952496?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6802" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3448" RevisionGUID="26b5e6f7-6c3e-4424-aa66-1357e4830d0e" CreationDate="2013-03-05T20:47:14.127" UserId="3315" Text="How is US5693489 patent different from US4952496?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6803" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3448" RevisionGUID="26b5e6f7-6c3e-4424-aa66-1357e4830d0e" CreationDate="2013-03-05T20:47:14.127" UserId="3315" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6804" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3448" RevisionGUID="86afb334-0ee3-4620-b34f-955f9792b893" CreationDate="2013-03-05T21:29:35.077" UserId="3076" Comment="Tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;us4952496&gt;&lt;us5693489&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3449" RevisionGUID="618408a7-1aa3-4291-893a-fe5f62b92d22" CreationDate="2013-03-05T21:48:47.753" UserId="3076" Text="It was issued from an application that was a continuation of the application that resulted in the earlier patent. You can read that in the fine print on the front of the later patent. In a continuation application the specification and drawings are generally resubmitted as-is but with different claims. Usually it is done to fight for broader or just different claims than were originally allowed. It allows the inventor to have one in the hand and a second application on the back burner. If the overlap is too large they may need to file a terminal disclaimer where both patents expire whenever the earliest one expires. This can avoid some kinds of double patenting rejections." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6806" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3449" RevisionGUID="3267a954-e2bb-4d4e-8b45-f80f6c50b7e0" CreationDate="2013-03-05T21:57:53.070" UserId="3076" Comment="added 244 characters in body" Text="It was issued from an application that was a continuation of the application that resulted in the earlier patent. You can read that in the fine print on the front of the later patent. In a continuation application the specification and drawings are generally resubmitted as-is but with different claims. Usually it is done to fight for broader or just different claims than were originally allowed. It allows the inventor to have one in the hand and a second application on the back burner. If the overlap is too large they may need to file a terminal disclaimer where both patents expire whenever the earliest one expires. This can avoid some kinds of double patenting rejections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, claim 1 of the later patent (there is only one claim) is a method for controlling the expression of a gene. I do not see that in the preamble of the claims in the earlier patent. But it is very far from my technical expertise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3450" RevisionGUID="ec91bdc3-0822-4adb-8a2d-efb5bae884a6" CreationDate="2013-03-05T22:37:45.490" UserId="3316" Text="I wonder if the SKF product is unconsidered because it is patented and mentioned in the prior art.  The patent touts its usefullness &quot;for supplying dry air to a storage facility&quot; which is a different industry than the air brake industry?&#xD;&#xA;[US7097696](http://www.google.com/patents/US7097696?dq=US8118911&amp;ei=62hbULzbEamujALb04HoCQ)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6808" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3449" RevisionGUID="b93632ed-250b-464c-a68b-ea7d52070af0" CreationDate="2013-03-06T00:52:15.430" UserId="3076" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="Yes - in a way the '489 patent is from a refiling of the '496 patent. Techibally, the later patent was issued from an application that was a continuation of the application that resulted in the earlier patent. You can read that in the fine print on the front of the later patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a continuation application the specification and drawings are generally resubmitted as-is but with different claims. Usually it is done to fight for broader or just different claims than were originally allowed. It allows the inventor to have one in the hand and a second application on the back burner. If the overlap is too large they may need to file a terminal disclaimer where both patents expire whenever the earliest one expires. This can avoid some kinds of double patenting rejections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, claim 1 of the later patent (there is only one claim) is a method for controlling the expression of a gene. I do not see that in the preamble of the claims in the earlier patent. But it is very far from my technical expertise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6809" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="f8898b23-63b6-4743-ba25-98e2abfd5410" CreationDate="2013-03-06T00:52:50.130" UserId="-1" Comment="Updated link to SKF website." Text="Many people in the commercial vehicle industry use a &quot;twin&quot; air drying arrangement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Patent #us8118911](http://www.google.com/patents/US8118911?dq=US8118911&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=62hbULzbEamujALb04HoCQ&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA), originally filed Nov. 10, 2006, and was granted on Feb 21, 2012, seems ridiculous to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, here is a twin dryer manufactured by the SKF corporation:&#xD;&#xA;[H.C. Dual Turbo-2000](http://www.skf.com/binary/12-64719/457805.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this dryer constitute prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is claim 1 of the patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A device attaching a pair of desiccant cartridges such that air flows to the pair of desiccant cartridges in parallel, the device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * an inner chamber; a first fluid flow passage for communicating air to the inner chamber;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * a pair of extensions, each of the pair of extensions adapted for mounting one of the pair of desiccant cartridges;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein each extension is spaced at a substantially equal distance from the inner chamber; and a second and a third fluid flow passage, each fluidly connecting the inner chamber with each of the pair of threaded extensions, compressed air flowing in substantially the same direction at substantially the same time through each of the second and third fluid passages in substantially equal amounts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More possible prior arts with an original filing date before 2006:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Patent #US3717974](http://www.google.com/patents/US3717974?pg=PA1&amp;dq=US+3717974&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=d3xgUPHTKKS-igKF1YCICg&amp;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Patent #US5871564](http://www.google.com/patents/US5871564?dq=US5871564&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=gHtgUPwvw5uJAsylgbgG&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Patent #US4802899](http://www.google.com/patents/US4802899?pg=PA1&amp;dq=4802899&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=yHtgUNGoI8SLiALv7oHQCg&amp;ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=4802899&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6810" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="f8898b23-63b6-4743-ba25-98e2abfd5410" CreationDate="2013-03-06T00:52:50.130" Comment="Proposed by 206.16.105.32|16f056ca-4b79-4bc4-a87b-80b01b73a2bd approved by 1 edit id of 333" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3449" RevisionGUID="5b12742c-3343-4f66-bd34-b38a8e4c55d1" CreationDate="2013-03-06T00:55:29.580" UserId="1" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Yes - in a way the '489 patent is from a refiling of the '496 patent. Technically, the later patent was issued from an application that was a continuation of the application that resulted in the earlier patent. You can read that in the fine print on the front of the later patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a continuation application the specification and drawings are generally resubmitted as-is but with different claims. Usually it is done to fight for broader or just different claims than were originally allowed. It allows the inventor to have one in the hand and a second application on the back burner. If the overlap is too large they may need to file a terminal disclaimer where both patents expire whenever the earliest one expires. This can avoid some kinds of double patenting rejections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, claim 1 of the later patent (there is only one claim) is a method for controlling the expression of a gene. I do not see that in the preamble of the claims in the earlier patent. But it is very far from my technical expertise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3449" RevisionGUID="7353bba7-ad44-4d34-83ca-08a12674e703" CreationDate="2013-03-06T01:07:33.427" UserId="3076" Comment="added 712 characters in body" Text="Yes - in a way the '489 patent is from a refiling of the '496 patent. Technically, the later patent was issued from an application that was a continuation of the application that resulted in the earlier patent. You can read that in the fine print on the front of the later patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a continuation application the specification and drawings are generally resubmitted as-is but with different claims. Usually it is done to fight for broader or just different claims than were originally allowed. It allows the inventor to have one in the hand and a second application on the back burner. If the overlap is too large they may need to file a terminal disclaimer where both patents expire whenever the earliest one expires. This can avoid some kinds of double patenting rejections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, claim 1 of the later patent (there is only one claim) is a method for controlling the expression of a gene. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A **method for controlling the expression of a target gene,** comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a) introducing into an E. coli host cell containing a gene encoding an RNA polymerase from a T7 bacteriophage, a target gene operatively linked to a promoter recognizable by the RNA polymerase from the T7 bacteriophage; and&#xD;&#xA;b) maintaining the host cell under conditions appropriate for expression of the target gene by the RNA polymerase from the T7 bacteriophage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not see any other method with this goal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starting at claim 10 the methods are for: **process for producing enzymatically active RNA polymerase;  A process for creating vectors to supply enzymatically active DNA polymerase;**  and **A process for inserting the DNA sequence encoding enzymatically active T7 RNA**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it is very far from my technical expertise.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6813" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3440" RevisionGUID="dde2f914-e933-4e2b-ac04-8270d675fa4f" CreationDate="2013-03-06T01:32:36.250" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/309114256194949120" />
  <row Id="6814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3451" RevisionGUID="b7f819d4-ff87-4d5e-bd8d-e9d4f35e0793" CreationDate="2013-03-06T01:34:08.760" UserId="3317" Text="I have specific information as a deep matter expert on a topic that invalidates most, if not all, claims of a patent application currently pending. Some this information may be missed by the patent office since they are not deep matter experts and they may admit claims which should be invalidated if the prior art is understood. How do I proceed in informing the patent office of the details outlining these invalidation arguments? Complication, I am the inventor of the technology but not the assignee." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6815" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3451" RevisionGUID="b7f819d4-ff87-4d5e-bd8d-e9d4f35e0793" CreationDate="2013-03-06T01:34:08.760" UserId="3317" Text="I am seeking to provide information that invalidates claims in a specific patent, how do I provide this information to the patent office?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6816" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3451" RevisionGUID="b7f819d4-ff87-4d5e-bd8d-e9d4f35e0793" CreationDate="2013-03-06T01:34:08.760" UserId="3317" Text="&lt;process&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3452" RevisionGUID="a8cb0483-016f-4fff-b8ee-1973ef7d72f7" CreationDate="2013-03-06T05:54:33.123" UserId="3076" Text="The inventors, applicants, attorney and everyone involved in a pending patent application is required to inform the patent office of any published document or activity that pre-date the application and that might make for a rejection. You are also required to provide them any information you know of that tends to contradict a position you have taken. Normally the way to discharge this responsibility is to inform the patent attorney. If you are disconnected from the process you could write down your analysis and provide it to the attorney. They can ignore random documents that arrive over the transom but they can't ignore an affidavit from the inventor. There are ways for third parties to submit prior art documents with anonymity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand you have presumably signed a declaration saying you are the inventor. If there is no true invention claimed (in your opinion) then that declaration is false." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3452" RevisionGUID="fdf61adf-50a4-4c97-8f5e-67566317df47" CreationDate="2013-03-06T06:13:39.707" UserId="3076" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="The inventors, applicants, attorney and everyone involved in a pending patent application is required to inform the patent office of any published document or activity that pre-date the application and that might make for a rejection. You are also required to provide them any information you know of that tends to contradict a position you have taken. Normally the way to discharge this responsibility is to inform the inventor or the patent attorney. If you are disconnected from the process you could write down your analysis and provide it to the attorney. They can ignore random documents that arrive over the transom but they can't ignore an affidavit from the inventor. There are ways for third parties to submit prior art documents with anonymity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand you have presumably signed a declaration saying you are the inventor. If there is no true invention claimed (in your opinion) then that declaration is false." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3452" RevisionGUID="94b5eebc-8ce2-4e70-9b0b-c8cc7f02f401" CreationDate="2013-03-06T07:04:24.990" UserId="3076" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="The inventors, applicants, attorney and everyone involved in a pending patent application are required to inform the patent office of any published document or activity that pre-date the application and that might make for a rejection. You are also required to provide them any information you know of that tends to contradict a position you have taken in the case. Normally the way to discharge this responsibility is to inform the inventor or the patent attorney. If you are disconnected from the process you could write down your analysis and provide it to the attorney. They can ignore random documents that arrive over the transom but they can't ignore an affidavit from the inventor. There are ways for third parties to submit prior art documents with anonymity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand you have presumably signed a declaration saying you are the inventor. If there is no true invention claimed (in your opinion) then that declaration is false." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3452" RevisionGUID="d973db89-5311-4281-8f14-ea03db97bb88" CreationDate="2013-03-06T07:25:01.883" UserId="3076" Comment="Added quote" Text="The inventors, applicants, attorney and everyone involved in a pending patent application are required to inform the patent office of any published document or activity that pre-date the application and that might make for a rejection. You are also required to provide them any information you know of that tends to contradict a position you have taken in the case. Normally the way to discharge this responsibility is to inform the inventor or the patent attorney. If you are disconnected from the process you could write down your analysis and provide it to the attorney. They can ignore random documents that arrive over the transom but they can't ignore an affidavit from the inventor. There are ways for third parties to submit prior art documents with anonymity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand you have presumably signed a declaration saying you are the inventor. If there is no true invention claimed (in your opinion) then that declaration is false. If the application was submitted before last Sept. 16 you mst likely signed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I hereby declare that: (1) Each inventor's residence, mailing address, and citizenship are as stated below next to their name; and (2) I believe the inventor(s) named below to be the original and first inventor(s) of the subject matter which is claimed and for which a patent is sought on the invention titled:" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6827" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3432" RevisionGUID="71ec6fb4-bb69-41e0-b0f6-7ac5dfd85e4e" CreationDate="2013-03-06T10:32:36.013" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/309250151229313024" />
  <row Id="6828" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3451" RevisionGUID="a84e5e7d-0aab-448d-aaac-59cc2047cec9" CreationDate="2013-03-06T16:32:52.867" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/309340818014097409" />
  <row Id="6829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3452" RevisionGUID="8e34fcd9-5c02-4455-992f-b7bd43e2d0fd" CreationDate="2013-03-06T17:14:15.847" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="The inventors, applicants, attorney and everyone involved in a pending patent application are required to inform the patent office of any published document or activity that pre-date the application and that might make for a rejection. You are also required to provide them any information you know of that tends to contradict a position you have taken in the case. Normally the way to discharge this responsibility is to inform the inventor or the patent attorney. If you are disconnected from the process you could write down your analysis and provide it to the attorney. They can ignore random documents that arrive over the transom but they can't ignore an affidavit from the inventor. There are ways for third parties to submit prior art documents with anonymity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand you have presumably signed a declaration saying you are the inventor. If there is no true invention claimed (in your opinion) then that declaration is false. If the application was submitted before last Sept. 16 you most likely signed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I hereby declare that: (1) Each inventor's residence, mailing address, and citizenship are as stated below next to their name; and (2) I believe the inventor(s) named below to be the original and first inventor(s) of the subject matter which is claimed and for which a patent is sought on the invention titled:" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3452" RevisionGUID="4a13dd2b-0ba9-45ff-81f6-c24440f804a6" CreationDate="2013-03-06T17:21:35.057" UserId="3076" Comment="Bold" Text="The inventors, applicants, attorney and everyone involved in a pending patent application are required to inform the patent office of any published document or activity that pre-date the application and that might make for a rejection. You are also required to provide them any information you know of that tends to contradict a position you have taken in the case. Normally the way to discharge this responsibility is to inform the inventor or the patent attorney. If you are disconnected from the process you could write down your analysis and provide it to the attorney. They can ignore random documents that arrive over the transom but they can't ignore an affidavit from the inventor. There are ways for third parties to submit prior art documents with anonymity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand you have presumably signed a declaration saying you are the inventor. If there is no true invention claimed (in your opinion) then that declaration is false. If the application was submitted before last Sept. 16 you most likely signed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I hereby declare that: (1) Each inventor's residence, mailing address, and citizenship are as stated below next to their name; and (2) **I believe the inventor(s) named below to be the original and first inventor(s) of the subject matter which is claimed** and for which a patent is sought on the invention titled:" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3452" RevisionGUID="b7cf113c-3970-4c89-8a02-c88b3eea72d4" CreationDate="2013-03-06T17:33:25.630" UserId="3076" Comment="Added link" Text="The inventors, applicants, attorney and everyone involved in a pending patent application are required to inform the patent office of any published document or activity that pre-date the application and that might make for a rejection. You are also required to provide them any information you know of that tends to contradict a position you have taken in the case. Normally the way to discharge this responsibility is to inform the inventor or the patent attorney. If you are disconnected from the process you could write down your analysis and provide it to the attorney. They can ignore random documents that arrive over the transom but they can't ignore an affidavit from the inventor. The duty to disclose is in [37 cfr 1.56 ][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are ways for third parties to submit prior art documents with anonymity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand you have presumably signed a declaration saying you are the inventor. If there is no true invention claimed (in your opinion) then that declaration is false. If the application was submitted before last Sept. 16 you most likely signed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I hereby declare that: (1) Each inventor's residence, mailing address, and citizenship are as stated below next to their name; and (2) **I believe the inventor(s) named below to be the original and first inventor(s) of the subject matter which is claimed** and for which a patent is sought on the invention titled:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e319407" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3456" RevisionGUID="5536a102-eaf6-499f-b708-307be488644a" CreationDate="2013-03-06T18:51:11.397" UserId="2072" Text="Yes.  This patent issued on July 8, 2008--almost four years prior to the decision you cite, provided in all its glory here:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1150.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is one thing to identify an issue, and quite another to determine its significance. A more interesting question is what would happen if this patent were litigated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim one of your patent appears below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of determining the presence of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in a subject, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; measuring the amount of ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1) in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a sample of cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) or blood from a subject at a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; time within and up to seven days after occurrence of a suspected TBI;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and, comparing the amount of UCH-L1 in said sample with the amount of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; UCH-L1 in a respective sample from an uninjured subject wherein a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; higher amount of UCH-L1 in the subject sample relative to the amount&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in a CSF or blood sample from the uninjured subject is indicative of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; TBI in the subject suspected of having the TBI.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, it is difficult to overlook the similarity between the correlations relating to concerntration, here and in *Mayo v. Prometheus*. However, there are important differences. For one, *Mayo* could be construed narrowly to apply only to the specific claimed phenomenon relating to the relationship between concentration and efficacy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot would depend on the district judge presiding over the trial.  It may not be possible to predict the outcome at the trial level, but more adept district judges might be inclined to interpret *Mayo* narrowly.  On appeal, however, it is likely that at least some of the judges would be looking for an opportunity to temper the effect of *Mayo*.  This particular patent claim would present an interesting opportunity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This body of law is far from settled.  The uncertainty in any litigation should be strong motivation for both sides to settle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3456" RevisionGUID="3caa1bd0-2e82-45ef-8816-f61c5a14da91" CreationDate="2013-03-06T21:38:48.243" UserId="2072" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Yes.  This patent issued on July 8, 2008--almost four years prior to the decision you cite, provided in all its glory here:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1150.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is one thing to identify an issue, and quite another to determine its significance. A more interesting question is what would happen if this patent were litigated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim one of your patent appears below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of determining the presence of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in a subject, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; measuring the amount of ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1) in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a sample of cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) or blood from a subject at a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; time within and up to seven days after occurrence of a suspected TBI;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and, comparing the amount of UCH-L1 in said sample with the amount of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; UCH-L1 in a respective sample from an uninjured subject wherein a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; higher amount of UCH-L1 in the subject sample relative to the amount&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in a CSF or blood sample from the uninjured subject is indicative of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; TBI in the subject suspected of having the TBI.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, it is difficult to overlook the similarity between the correlations relating to concentration, here and in *Mayo v. Prometheus*. However, there are important differences. For one, *Mayo* could be construed narrowly to apply only to the specific claimed phenomenon relating to the relationship between concentration and efficacy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot would depend on the district judge presiding over the trial.  It may not be possible to predict the outcome at the trial level, but more adept district judges might be inclined to interpret *Mayo* narrowly.  On appeal, however, it is likely that at least some of the judges would be looking for an opportunity to temper the effect of *Mayo*.  This particular patent claim would present an interesting opportunity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This body of law is far from settled.  The uncertainty in any litigation should be strong motivation for both sides to settle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3456" RevisionGUID="c9b26de4-3e0e-4501-aca2-026dd149efeb" CreationDate="2013-03-06T22:04:04.283" UserId="2072" Comment="added 280 characters in body" Text="Yes.  This patent issued on July 8, 2008--almost four years prior to the decision you cite, provided in all its glory here:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1150.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is one thing to identify an issue, and quite another to determine its significance. A more interesting question is what would happen if this patent were litigated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim one of your patent appears below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of determining the presence of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in a subject, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; measuring the amount of ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1) in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a sample of cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) or blood from a subject at a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; time within and up to seven days after occurrence of a suspected TBI;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and, comparing the amount of UCH-L1 in said sample with the amount of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; UCH-L1 in a respective sample from an uninjured subject wherein a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; higher amount of UCH-L1 in the subject sample relative to the amount&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in a CSF or blood sample from the uninjured subject is indicative of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; TBI in the subject suspected of having the TBI.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, it is difficult to overlook the similarity between the correlations relating to concentration, here and in *Mayo v. Prometheus*. However, there are important differences. For one, *Mayo* could be construed narrowly to apply only to the specific claimed phenomenon relating to the relationship between concentration and efficacy.  Also, here it is possible that dependent claim 3 requiring a separation of blood plasma might otherwise move the claim within the purview of 35 U.S.C. 101, as the physical screening steps did in *Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics, Inc.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot would depend on the district judge presiding over the trial.  It may not be possible to predict the outcome at the trial level, but some district judges might be inclined to interpret *Mayo* narrowly.  On appeal, however, it is likely that at least some of the judges would be looking for an opportunity to temper the effect of *Mayo* as it did in *Myriad*.  This particular patent claim would present an interesting opportunity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This body of law is far from settled.  The uncertainty in any litigation should be strong motivation for both sides to settle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6849" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3443" RevisionGUID="ed23380e-ff8a-4b3e-a3d4-4e10d7ba7b92" CreationDate="2013-03-06T22:32:53.007" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/309431414741401600" />
  <row Id="6850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3456" RevisionGUID="240ef313-3018-4851-a28d-b44ca225d674" CreationDate="2013-03-06T23:27:05.070" UserId="2072" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Yes.  This patent issued on July 8, 2008--almost four years prior to the decision you cite, provided in all its glory here:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1150.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is one thing to identify an issue, and quite another to determine its significance. A more interesting question is what would happen if this patent were litigated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim one of your patent appears below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of determining the presence of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in a subject, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; measuring the amount of ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1) in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a sample of cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) or blood from a subject at a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; time within and up to seven days after occurrence of a suspected TBI;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and, comparing the amount of UCH-L1 in said sample with the amount of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; UCH-L1 in a respective sample from an uninjured subject wherein a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; higher amount of UCH-L1 in the subject sample relative to the amount&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in a CSF or blood sample from the uninjured subject is indicative of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; TBI in the subject suspected of having the TBI.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, it is difficult to overlook the similarity between the correlations relating to concentration, here and in *Mayo v. Prometheus*. However, there are important differences. For one, *Mayo* could be construed narrowly to apply only to the specific claimed phenomenon relating to the relationship between concentration and efficacy.  Also, here it is possible that dependent claim 3 requiring a separation of blood plasma might otherwise move the claim within the purview of 35 U.S.C. 101, as the physical screening steps did in *Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics, Inc.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot would depend on the district judge presiding over the trial.  It may not be possible to predict the outcome at the trial level, but some district judges might be inclined to interpret *Mayo* narrowly.  On appeal, however, it is likely that at least some of the judges would be looking for an opportunity to temper the effect of *Mayo* as it done in *Myriad*.  This particular patent claim might present an interesting opportunity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This body of law is far from settled.  The uncertainty in any litigation should be strong motivation for both sides to settle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3463" RevisionGUID="59f36bcf-55b3-4038-b837-d85e116addb4" CreationDate="2013-03-07T04:56:15.627" UserId="3076" Text="This is a partial answer. The Veratemp brand seems to be sold by Brooklands. Apparently they were also [sued just last month][1] The patent in suit is US7,787,938&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.biospace.com/News/exergen-corporation-sues-brooklands-over/287446" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6874" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3433" RevisionGUID="14bb3c44-e7f3-4156-9a81-d14345c0ab1b" CreationDate="2013-03-07T16:33:27.840" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/309703351824695296" />
  <row Id="6964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3463" RevisionGUID="98155c66-42ca-4ac9-a170-8675c98c1a70" CreationDate="2013-03-07T18:17:46.600" UserId="3076" Comment="Added quote of claim" Text="This is a partial answer. The VeraTemp brand seems to be made/sold by Brooklands. Apparently they were also [sued just last month][1] The patent in suit is US 7,787,938.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's claim 1 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of detecting human body temperature comprising moving a radiation detector to scan across skin over an artery and measure radiation as target skin surface over the artery is viewed, and electronically determining a body temperature approximation, distinct from skin surface temperature, from the radiation detector as the target skin surface over the artery is viewed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent status of the other patent has nothing to do with its applicability as prior art. For one thing they are both descended from the same original application. More fundamentally something is prior art for when it became public (sort of) and for what it teaches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In infringement is not a comparison between product X and product Y. It is a comparison of the claims of patent Z to product Y.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.biospace.com/News/exergen-corporation-sues-brooklands-over/287446" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3463" RevisionGUID="d9272336-7f09-469f-8058-f9d80b09f04d" CreationDate="2013-03-07T18:28:05.727" UserId="3076" Comment="Add chain of applications" Text="This is a partial answer. The VeraTemp brand seems to be made/sold by Brooklands. Apparently they were also [sued just last month][1] The patent in suit is US 7,787,938.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's claim 1 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of detecting human body temperature comprising moving a radiation detector to scan across skin over an artery and measure radiation as target skin surface over the artery is viewed, and electronically determining a body temperature approximation, distinct from skin surface temperature, from the radiation detector as the target skin surface over the artery is viewed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several applications and patents in this chain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;09/923,240 filed on 08-03-2001 which is Abandoned claims the benefit of 09/151,482&#xD;&#xA;10/684,818 filed on 10-14-2003 which is Patented claims the benefit of 09/151,482&#xD;&#xA;12/011,467 filed on 01-25-2008 which is Patented claims the benefit of 09/151,482&#xD;&#xA;12/857,252 filed on 08-16-2010 which is Pending claims the benefit of 09/151,482&#xD;&#xA;PCT/US99/20855 filed on 09-10-1999 which is Published claims the benefit of 09/151,482&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The three issued patents are the one you mentioned, the one in the suit and 	 7,346,386. There is still one application pending. Different patents for the same original application will have differently worded claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent status of the other patent has nothing to do with its applicability as prior art. For one thing they are both descended from the same original application. More fundamentally something is prior art for when it became public (sort of) and for what it teaches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In infringement is not a comparison between product X and product Y. It is a comparison of the claims of patent Z to product Y.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.biospace.com/News/exergen-corporation-sues-brooklands-over/287446" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3465" RevisionGUID="0bb80181-3055-4937-b2f5-284b42d1a333" CreationDate="2013-03-07T23:29:29.573" UserId="105" Text="[The SHIELD Act][1] was reintroduced into Congress recently ([this question previously addressed SHIELD][2]), and I'm wondering if every single would be &quot;licensee/defendant&quot; instead of engaging in licensing negotiations will now just bring SHIELD motions to intimidate licensors. Thoughts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/SHIELD_ACT_0.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/2099/shield-act-progress" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6969" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3465" RevisionGUID="0bb80181-3055-4937-b2f5-284b42d1a333" CreationDate="2013-03-07T23:29:29.573" UserId="105" Text="If the the SHIELD Act passes how will it impact the licensing and patent litigation worlds?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6970" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3465" RevisionGUID="0bb80181-3055-4937-b2f5-284b42d1a333" CreationDate="2013-03-07T23:29:29.573" UserId="105" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3466" RevisionGUID="38c667db-76eb-40ad-a24e-ee48dce4b3c9" CreationDate="2013-03-08T02:49:11.320" UserId="2072" Text="This bit of new legislation purports to amend Section 285 to allow an accused infringer to file a motion (A) limiting discovery and more imprtantly, (B) forcing the patentee to pay costs and attorenys' fees if it loses on the issue of infringement or validity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As part of this propsed rule, the moving party can request that the patentee be required to post a bond covering fees and costs of suit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Importantly, the trigger for this motion is that the patentee does not fall into one or more of the following categories: (1) inventor or original assignee; (2) substantial investor in exploiting the patent through sales; (3) a university related program.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, this type of legislation would never see the light of day. However, courtesy of a bunch of politicians who seem to have trouble simply keeping the government running, this could actually become reality.  The supreme court has demonstrated that their hostility to a 200+ year tradition of patent law is matched by their lack of comprehension of key elements of the 1952 Patent Act.  Regarding patents, some of their recent decisions seem to be pandering to their perceived public rather than applying *stare decisis*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bond provision arguably violates the First Amendment.  The legislation also seems ambiguous given the reality of patent litigation with multiple patents frequently asserted by both sides.  What about declaratory judgment plaintiffs using this as a weapon? &quot;Substantial investor&quot; sounds vague.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Until this radical procedural rule is tested, it may not be taken seriously. And if it does wind up being as radical as it seems, you can count on an exception to swallow the rule.  Perhaps future patents will only be enforced by original assignees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6972" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3466" RevisionGUID="10b027a8-2a27-475f-b592-b03dc5b75bca" CreationDate="2013-03-08T11:21:54.270" UserId="2072" Comment="added 387 characters in body" Text="This bit of new legislation purports to amend Section 285 to allow an accused infringer to file a motion (A) limiting discovery and more imprtantly, (B) forcing the patentee to pay costs and attorenys' fees if it loses on the issue of infringement or validity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As part of this propsed rule, the moving party can request that the patentee be required to post a bond covering fees and costs of suit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Importantly, the trigger for this motion is that the patentee does not fall into one or more of the following categories: (1) inventor or original assignee; (2) substantial investor in exploiting the patent through sales; (3) a university related program.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, this type of legislation would never see the light of day. However, courtesy of a bunch of politicians who seem to have trouble simply keeping the government running, this could actually become reality.  The supreme court has demonstrated that their hostility to a 200+ year tradition of patent law is matched by their lack of comprehension of key elements of the 1952 Patent Act.  Regarding patents, some of their recent decisions seem to be pandering to their perceived public rather than applying *stare decisis*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bond provision arguably violates the First Amendment.  The legislation also seems ambiguous given the reality of patent litigation with multiple patents frequently asserted by both sides.  What about declaratory judgment plaintiffs using this as a weapon? &quot;Substantial investor&quot; sounds vague.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Until this radical procedural rule is tested, it may not be taken seriously. And if it does wind up being as radical as it seems, you can count on an exception to swallow the rule.  (Remember the Inventor Protection Act?)  Perhaps future patents will be enforced only by those who have a record of &quot;substantial investment&quot; if they are not an original assignee.  To answer your question, until the amendment has been interpreted, upheld and applied, it will likely only be used by deep-pocket companies in a minority of cases.  Maybe someday it will graduate from a side-show to another ring in the circus, but I wont hold my breath.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6973" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3465" RevisionGUID="e96f298c-9e4e-4d22-a52c-630808c0b714" CreationDate="2013-03-08T15:15:15.593" UserId="1259" Comment="tag" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;shield-act&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3466" RevisionGUID="13c17819-bc3b-4a0b-9b3d-c2d8d02bc503" CreationDate="2013-03-08T15:15:55.497" UserId="1259" Comment="typos" Text="This bit of new legislation purports to amend Section 285 to allow an accused infringer to file a motion (A) limiting discovery and more importantly, (B) forcing the patentee to pay costs and attorneys' fees if it loses on the issue of infringement or validity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As part of this propsed rule, the moving party can request that the patentee be required to post a bond covering fees and costs of suit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Importantly, the trigger for this motion is that the patentee does not fall into one or more of the following categories: (1) inventor or original assignee; (2) substantial investor in exploiting the patent through sales; (3) a university related program.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, this type of legislation would never see the light of day. However, courtesy of a bunch of politicians who seem to have trouble simply keeping the government running, this could actually become reality.  The supreme court has demonstrated that their hostility to a 200+ year tradition of patent law is matched by their lack of comprehension of key elements of the 1952 Patent Act.  Regarding patents, some of their recent decisions seem to be pandering to their perceived public rather than applying *stare decisis*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bond provision arguably violates the First Amendment.  The legislation also seems ambiguous given the reality of patent litigation with multiple patents frequently asserted by both sides.  What about declaratory judgment plaintiffs using this as a weapon? &quot;Substantial investor&quot; sounds vague.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Until this radical procedural rule is tested, it may not be taken seriously. And if it does wind up being as radical as it seems, you can count on an exception to swallow the rule.  (Remember the Inventor Protection Act?)  Perhaps future patents will be enforced only by those who have a record of &quot;substantial investment&quot; if they are not an original assignee.  To answer your question, until the amendment has been interpreted, upheld and applied, it will likely only be used by deep-pocket companies in a minority of cases.  Maybe someday it will graduate from a side-show to another ring in the circus, but I wont hold my breath.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3467" RevisionGUID="f79d666e-32d5-4801-935c-bf907eadfb61" CreationDate="2013-03-08T16:12:18.057" UserId="3332" Text="I was having a conversation with my supervisor yesterday. He mentioned something about patent memo. Something that you can write your idea down, date it, have some witnesses to sign it and put it away. In case some day you need to patent the idea but someone else wants to patent the same idea. So that you can present the patent memo to prove that you have the idea first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to Google it, but nothing came up. Can anyone confirm such thing exists and is valid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6976" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3467" RevisionGUID="f79d666e-32d5-4801-935c-bf907eadfb61" CreationDate="2013-03-08T16:12:18.057" UserId="3332" Text="What is a Patent Memo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6977" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3467" RevisionGUID="f79d666e-32d5-4801-935c-bf907eadfb61" CreationDate="2013-03-08T16:12:18.057" UserId="3332" Text="&lt;patent-memo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3466" RevisionGUID="985638bd-dbc8-4d3e-9b5e-3d75e7647f7b" CreationDate="2013-03-08T16:14:09.233" UserId="2072" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="This bit of new legislation purports to amend Section 285 to allow an accused infringer to file a motion (A) limiting discovery and more importantly, (B) forcing the patentee to pay costs and attorneys' fees if it loses on the issue of infringement or validity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As part of this proposed rule, the moving party can request that the patentee be required to post a bond covering fees and costs of suit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Importantly, the trigger for this motion is that the patentee does not fall into one or more of the following categories: (1) inventor or original assignee; (2) substantial investor in exploiting the patent through sales; (3) a university related program.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, this type of legislation would never see the light of day. However, courtesy of a bunch of politicians who seem to have trouble simply keeping the government running, this could actually become reality.  The supreme court has demonstrated that their hostility to a 200+ year tradition of patent law is matched by their lack of comprehension of key elements of the 1952 Patent Act.  Regarding patents, some of their recent decisions seem to be pandering to their perceived public rather than applying *stare decisis*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bond provision arguably violates the First Amendment.  The legislation also seems ambiguous given the reality of patent litigation with multiple patents frequently asserted by both sides.  What about declaratory judgment plaintiffs using this as a weapon? &quot;Substantial investor&quot; sounds vague.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Until this radical procedural rule is tested, it may not be taken seriously. And if it does wind up being as radical as it seems, you can count on an exception to swallow the rule.  (Remember the Inventor Protection Act?)  Perhaps future patents will be enforced only by those who have a record of &quot;substantial investment&quot; if they are not an original assignee.  To answer your question, until the amendment has been interpreted, upheld and applied, it will likely only be used by deep-pocket companies in a minority of cases.  Maybe someday it will graduate from a side-show to another ring in the circus, but I wont hold my breath.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3468" RevisionGUID="f0f8ce2c-0d4e-4965-b81b-733f362e5790" CreationDate="2013-03-08T16:30:19.897" UserId="3076" Text="Big companies universities, etc use a form or template usually call an &quot;invention disclosure form&quot; as a way internally to capture the key information close to the time of the invention. Then it may go to a patent committee for evaluation along with other internal ideas as to which ones make business sense to pursue. I think that is what he is calling a patent memo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starting with applications filed on or **after March 16 2013 they will not be able to be used to prove much.** In the US we go to a first to file system and when you invented it is not relevant unless there is an issue of a 3rd party saying you got the idea from them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a sample document I found. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[invention disclosure form][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentapplications.net/disclosure/samp_dis.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3468" RevisionGUID="c5e78c38-5548-4b6e-9b14-9f5063229180" CreationDate="2013-03-08T16:39:08.980" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Big companies, universities, etc use a form or template usually call an &quot;invention disclosure form&quot; as a way internally to capture the key information close to the time of the invention. Then it may go to a patent committee for evaluation along with other internal ideas as to which ones make business sense to pursue. I think that is what he is calling a patent memo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starting with applications filed on or **after March 16 2013 they will not be able to be used to prove much.** In the U.S. we go to a first to file system and when you invented it is not relevant unless there is an issue of a 3rd party saying you got the idea from them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a sample document I found. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[invention disclosure form][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentapplications.net/disclosure/samp_dis.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3468" RevisionGUID="329c1cc3-ef86-43c6-bcc3-c117479903cd" CreationDate="2013-03-08T18:37:00.340" UserId="3076" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Big companies, universities, etc use a form or template usually call an &quot;invention disclosure form&quot; as a way internally to capture the key information close to the time of the invention. Then it may go to a patent committee for evaluation along with other internal ideas as to which ones make business sense to pursue. I think that is what he is calling a patent memo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starting with applications filed on or **after March 16 2013 they will not be able to be used to prove much.** In the U.S. we go to a first to file system and when you invented it is not relevant unless there is an issue of a 3rd party saying you got the idea from them or visa versa&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a sample document I found. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[invention disclosure form][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentapplications.net/disclosure/samp_dis.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3468" RevisionGUID="213ed8d2-7e63-48c6-a672-21dc0a1d65a3" CreationDate="2013-03-08T19:51:58.930" UserId="3076" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Big companies, universities, etc use a form or template usually call an &quot;invention disclosure form&quot; as a way internally to capture the key information close to the time of the invention. Then it may go to a patent committee for evaluation along with other internal ideas as to which ones make business sense to pursue. I think that is what he is calling a patent memo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starting with applications filed on or **after March 16 2013 these documents will not be able to be used to prove much.** In the U.S. we go to a first to file system and when you invented it is not relevant unless there is an issue of a 3rd party saying you got the idea from them or visa versa&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a sample document I found. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[invention disclosure form][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentapplications.net/disclosure/samp_dis.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3465" RevisionGUID="cd498be4-7a97-4722-8e9c-9bec7afd6088" CreationDate="2013-03-09T17:47:00.223" UserId="105" Comment="updated link to current bill text" Text="[The SHIELD Act][1] was reintroduced into Congress recently ([this question previously addressed SHIELD][2]), and I'm wondering if every single would be &quot;licensee/defendant&quot; instead of engaging in licensing negotiations will now just bring SHIELD motions to intimidate licensors. Thoughts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr845ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr845ih.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/2099/shield-act-progress" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3472" RevisionGUID="d1359924-54ea-483f-8bc7-483c59bbadc6" CreationDate="2013-03-11T15:26:52.037" UserId="3343" Text="I have found a patent on Google Patents which, while not infringing on what I want to patent, could form prior art to something that does infringe on what I want to patent.  I am finding it hard to start at this one patent and go forward to see which patents cite this as prior art.  Does anyone know a nice way to do this?  Anything I find would form very important prior art for my patent and may even preclude my patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6998" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3472" RevisionGUID="d1359924-54ea-483f-8bc7-483c59bbadc6" CreationDate="2013-03-11T15:26:52.037" UserId="3343" Text="Searching for prior art: what cites this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6999" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3472" RevisionGUID="d1359924-54ea-483f-8bc7-483c59bbadc6" CreationDate="2013-03-11T15:26:52.037" UserId="3343" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3473" RevisionGUID="2751d9b0-5a45-488e-8014-ad0a605b9f5c" CreationDate="2013-03-11T16:40:45.320" UserId="3076" Text="Google patents is a great way to track this. On the overview view there are hyperlinks to all the US patent documents that the patent cites and below that are hyperlinks to everything that cited the patent in question. It could fan out to be a large NU ber of things to plow through but following citations forward and backward is an important aspect of a search." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3474" RevisionGUID="963af2ca-58f3-4324-8f24-c194d3af3722" CreationDate="2013-03-11T20:33:43.887" UserId="3344" Text="These are patents by a cleaning company in Denmark named Vikan. I would like to understand if these are patents that are European only or also US patents. Also, when I look on the European patent website, Espacenet, on INPADOC legas Status for WO2005108015, it shows PRS Code WWW as one of the last PRS dates and says, WIPO INFORMATION: WITHDRAWN IN NATIONAL OFFICE&quot;. Does that mean that they withdrew their patent application for this item?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7004" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3474" RevisionGUID="963af2ca-58f3-4324-8f24-c194d3af3722" CreationDate="2013-03-11T20:33:43.887" UserId="3344" Text="Are the following patents European only? EP 1849393 B1 and WO2005108015 (A1)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7005" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3474" RevisionGUID="963af2ca-58f3-4324-8f24-c194d3af3722" CreationDate="2013-03-11T20:33:43.887" UserId="3344" Text="&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3475" RevisionGUID="5ac665a5-d583-4134-9bcc-2f1968fa0209" CreationDate="2013-03-11T21:44:19.923" UserId="3345" Text="Let me answer you with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) If a patent is of series EPXXX..XX, it is filed only in EP. It doesn't get patent rights in US. &#xD;&#xA;2) WO2005108015 is a WIPO application. It gives an inventor liberty/time to file patents in other countries taking priority from WIPO application.&#xD;&#xA;3) So, after filing WIPO application, the inventor can file another patent in US and other countries.&#xD;&#xA;4) Basically, same invention is filed in different countries.&#xD;&#xA;5) And, these are clubbed under one as a 'family members'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, in your case, WO2005108015, has only two members. DK200400741 and WO2005108015. So, as it doesn't have any US patents in family." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3473" RevisionGUID="4c68c969-1be0-4b4e-a0d8-3a63c9b6d32b" CreationDate="2013-03-11T23:22:26.287" UserId="3076" Comment="typo and mention of dependent claims" Text="Google patents is a great way to track this. On the overview view there are hyperlinks to all the US patent documents that the patent cites and below that are hyperlinks to everything that cited the patent in question. It could fan out to be a large number of things to plow through but following citations forward and backward is an important aspect of a search." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7018" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3474" RevisionGUID="badeacc2-2839-4731-9e16-6ac7a17054f4" CreationDate="2013-03-12T14:33:51.997" UserId="3345" Comment="added relevant tag" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;jurisdiction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7019" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3474" RevisionGUID="badeacc2-2839-4731-9e16-6ac7a17054f4" CreationDate="2013-03-12T14:33:51.997" Comment="Proposed by 3345 approved by 1259, 1 edit id of 334" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3479" RevisionGUID="e6693084-1f9b-4515-b1cc-a8b33bcce3d1" CreationDate="2013-03-12T18:01:16.610" UserId="3343" Text="I am wondering about whether or not my idea has already been patented.  In particular, I have combed over the patents that have been issued, but it remains a possibility that a patent, which eliminates my chances, is filed either as provisional or simply has not been issued yet.  I suppose I want to avoid the cost and pain of creating a patent, if someone already has something filed.  My question is, does Google patent search return patents that have not been issued?  How do I search against patents that are filed but not issued?   What about provisional patents?  It seems strange that there can be all these filed patents lurking away, eliminating our chances but we cannot see them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7022" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3479" RevisionGUID="e6693084-1f9b-4515-b1cc-a8b33bcce3d1" CreationDate="2013-03-12T18:01:16.610" UserId="3343" Text="Prior art and infringement: patents filed but not issued" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7023" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3479" RevisionGUID="e6693084-1f9b-4515-b1cc-a8b33bcce3d1" CreationDate="2013-03-12T18:01:16.610" UserId="3343" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3480" RevisionGUID="1a9ed1f3-d19e-436d-bc7c-3987c747467d" CreationDate="2013-03-12T19:38:15.023" UserId="3076" Text="It isn't only patent documents that can cause your invention to be seen as not new. Your idea may not be patented but may be described in a patent, a patent application, a magazine article or on-line. It may be in a Russian patent or patent application. Google patents is good but it is not close to exhaustive. Really, no search can prove a negative, that something isn't out there somewhere.  So we do the best we can in searching.  Most patent applications on a worldwide basis are published after 18 months. So at the time you file there are 18 months of things on a ww basis that are &quot;secret prior art&quot; to your application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3483" RevisionGUID="5c9bd1d0-8e3d-4b33-b606-1b7aca373c3a" CreationDate="2013-03-13T00:18:22.763" UserId="3353" Text="I have absolutely zero understanding of patent law, and have only just discovered that it's illegal for me to reproduce a game called &quot;9 Square in the Air&quot; for personal use due to two &quot;ornamental design&quot; patents they were able to secure, and because of their price purchasing is out of the question as a college student.  It may sound ridiculous, since I'm well aware no one is going to &quot;come after me&quot; over something I build for my backyard, but I'd like to obey the law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My friend has argued that all I have to do is modify the design in some manner in order to achieve enough of a change for it to be legal.  My question then stands, what is enough of a change for a patent to no longer apply?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if the result is still 9 squares in the air using PVC piping, does it really matter what else I change since it will perform the same function?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two design patents:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/USD656995&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/USD650445&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent created by some prior to them for the game idea itself (no idea how they got away with that):&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US7608000" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7034" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3483" RevisionGUID="5c9bd1d0-8e3d-4b33-b606-1b7aca373c3a" CreationDate="2013-03-13T00:18:22.763" UserId="3353" Text="What constitutes enough of a change in a patent for me to construct something for personal use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7035" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3483" RevisionGUID="5c9bd1d0-8e3d-4b33-b606-1b7aca373c3a" CreationDate="2013-03-13T00:18:22.763" UserId="3353" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3484" RevisionGUID="88f18ca3-52cd-4722-87e0-9754ab07f76e" CreationDate="2013-03-13T05:35:44.073" UserId="3354" Text="Any improvement that you make to the product or item." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3485" RevisionGUID="75060e81-02ac-4a84-ae3b-1e45575cce5e" CreationDate="2013-03-13T06:06:01.313" UserId="3355" Text="I am really confused about this patenting procedure. specially I want to know besides the requirement that the &quot;new idea&quot; have to be original, **what specifications** do the &quot;new idea&quot;s and specifically &quot;new design&quot;s have to have, to be eligible for patenting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7038" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3485" RevisionGUID="75060e81-02ac-4a84-ae3b-1e45575cce5e" CreationDate="2013-03-13T06:06:01.313" UserId="3355" Text="Required specifications of &quot;new design&quot;s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7039" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3485" RevisionGUID="75060e81-02ac-4a84-ae3b-1e45575cce5e" CreationDate="2013-03-13T06:06:01.313" UserId="3355" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3486" RevisionGUID="58d82cf4-de3d-4b9a-874a-03000368246b" CreationDate="2013-03-13T08:14:19.813" UserId="3357" Text="USD656995 is an &quot;ornamental design&quot; for a 9-square game that includes telescoping legs. The test of another design is that it won't be mistaken for the patented design. Nine circles or hexagons would clearly qualify. If squares are required, then have the legs mid-span instead of at the corners, or make them wider flat plates at the top instead of the same size as the legs, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3487" RevisionGUID="3fe31a45-6efe-4b59-b801-3c5e0995e77f" CreationDate="2013-03-13T08:37:39.943" UserId="3357" Text="&quot;I am the inventor of the technology&quot; is ambiguous; George thinks he means the technology of the application, and so he must withdraw the application, and give back his licensing fee depending on that agreement's wording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think he means he is the inventor of the invalidating technology but doesn't want to start an expensive fight, and is asking for the 3rd party methods." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3488" RevisionGUID="0b43d3d0-7685-475d-a3d1-af206a736646" CreationDate="2013-03-13T08:52:03.100" UserId="3357" Text="&quot;33kz0r&quot; is wrong. The patent grant is a U.S. Government work, and is never copyrighted.  However, the application and hence the grant could contain copyrighted images illustrating certain points, but they would have to be clearly marked with copyright information at the time of the application. The drawings required as part of the application are works created for the application, and are transfered to the government upon submittal.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole point of a patent is to make the &lt;i&gt;information&lt;/i&gt; available to everyone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7043" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3483" RevisionGUID="1b54ca19-4b50-40e7-ac39-fb2084918cfe" CreationDate="2013-03-13T10:20:37.720" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;us7608000&gt;&lt;usd650445&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3492" RevisionGUID="1498a030-58d9-42d4-bec8-6558c51006b9" CreationDate="2013-03-14T19:17:04.173" UserId="3367" Text="I would like to know how is the status of patent number US 4396600? I read that this patent was reexamined in 1986 and I wonder why this patent was canceled since I didn't see any justification writing inside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I mean when the examiner said that the clains 1-23 are cancelled? Is it represent that all the patent was cancelled? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best regards,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leandro M. Z. Scapin&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7066" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3492" RevisionGUID="1498a030-58d9-42d4-bec8-6558c51006b9" CreationDate="2013-03-14T19:17:04.173" UserId="3367" Text="US 4396600 Adult schistosome worm-derived antigenic substance and method of obtaining same" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7067" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3492" RevisionGUID="1498a030-58d9-42d4-bec8-6558c51006b9" CreationDate="2013-03-14T19:17:04.173" UserId="3367" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3493" RevisionGUID="6232df35-f08b-4f71-9e5d-607db6b0bada" CreationDate="2013-03-14T20:13:53.270" UserId="3363" Text="&lt;h2&gt; Additive Manufacturing System and Method for Printing Customized Chocolate Confections &lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application claims that 3D printing with chocolate is sufficiently inventive to receive a patent, paving the way for every thermoplastic material to be covered by its own patent when used for 3D printing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;This call for prior art is part of the [EFF][1]'s effort to keep 3D printing open. Read about the initiative [here][2], and check out [Google Patents][3] or the [USPTO][4] for full details about this particular application.&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC APPLICATION DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number:** 13/432424&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** US20120251688 A1&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Stratasys, Inc. &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date:** March 30, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until At Least April 4, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**APPLICATION OVERVIEW:** This application claims the use of chocolate in extrusion-based 3D printing. The chocolate is held in a heated reservoir.  When printing begins, the chocolate is pumped from the reservoir to the print head, while still being heated to maintain its temperature and tempered state.  The print head then extrudes the chocolate material to build the 3D object.  Unused chocolate in the print head is then sent back to the reservoir and heated again.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS:** Printing with chocolate is wonderful, but this isn’t just about chocolate. There is a vast array of thermoplastic materials that can be used in 3D printing, and it should not be possible to get an exclusive patent on each new material that is used in conjunction with well-known technology. The use of a recirculation loop (sending unused print material back to the reservoir) is also an obvious idea.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][5]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][6], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][7], and the [Ask Patents][8] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on  submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA; [2]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/join-effs-efforts-keep-3d-printing-open&#xD;&#xA; [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120251688&#xD;&#xA; [4]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20120251688&amp;OS=20120251688&amp;RS=20120251688&#xD;&#xA; [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA; [6]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA; [7]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic &#xD;&#xA; [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA; [9]; http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/ask?source=3dask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7069" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3493" RevisionGUID="6232df35-f08b-4f71-9e5d-607db6b0bada" CreationDate="2013-03-14T20:13:53.270" UserId="3363" Text="Call for prior art: 3D Printing application &quot;Additive Manufacturing System and Method for Printing Customized Chocolate Confections&quot; (13/432424)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7070" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3493" RevisionGUID="6232df35-f08b-4f71-9e5d-607db6b0bada" CreationDate="2013-03-14T20:13:53.270" UserId="3363" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3494" RevisionGUID="ee849e06-08c9-4ccf-b436-0f1f9ddc06d8" CreationDate="2013-03-14T20:38:03.307" UserId="3363" Text="&lt;em&gt;This call for prior art is part of the [EFF][1]'s effort to keep 3D printing open. Read about the initiative [here][2], and check out [Google Patents][3] or the [USPTO][4] for full details about this particular application.&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Process for Producing Three-dimensionally Shaped Object and Device for Producing Same&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application relates to 3D printing using laser sintering, a process capable of better resolution than traditional hobbyist 3D printing using thermoplastic extrusion, where the object is built in a chamber with a localized gas flow to capture fumes generated by the laser melting the powder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC APPLICATION DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number:** 13/503,217&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** US20120251378 A1&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Panasonic Corporation &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date:** October 21, 2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until At Least April 4, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**APPLICATION OVERVIEW:** This application claims the use of a chamber with a localized gas flow in laser sintering 3D printing. The 3D object is built in the chamber, and the localized gas flow captures the fumes resulting from the laser melting the powder in the process of building each layer of the object.  If the fumes are not captured, they may interfere with the laser’s beam.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS:** The idea of a localized gas flow is not a new one, and is an obvious solution to the problem of fumes interfering with a laser beam. The open source community has begun to use laser sintering 3D printing methods, which promise of better resolution and a new variety of materials. This type of patent, which covers both the gas capture method and any devices using this method, could block a wide range of inventive activity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. For details about what makes effective prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][7], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][8], and the [Ask Patents][9] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][10] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/join-effs-efforts-keep-3d-printing-open&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120251378&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20120251378&amp;OS=20120251378&amp;RS=20120251378&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/ask?source=3dask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7072" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3494" RevisionGUID="ee849e06-08c9-4ccf-b436-0f1f9ddc06d8" CreationDate="2013-03-14T20:38:03.307" UserId="3363" Text="CALL FOR PRIOR ART: 3D Printing application &quot;Process for Producing Three-dimensionally Shaped Object and Device for Producing Same&quot; (13/503217)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7073" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3494" RevisionGUID="ee849e06-08c9-4ccf-b436-0f1f9ddc06d8" CreationDate="2013-03-14T20:38:03.307" UserId="3363" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;3d-printing&gt;&lt;panasonic&gt;&lt;us20120251378&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3495" RevisionGUID="18f873d2-47c0-44e7-8d40-b3f58380109c" CreationDate="2013-03-14T20:43:08.037" UserId="3363" Text="&lt;h2&gt;Ribbon Filament and Assembly for Use in Extrusion-based Digital Manufacturing Systems&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application relates to 3D printing with a flattened, rectangular filament shaped like a ribbon instead of a cylindrical filament, taking advantage of the “insight” that larger surface area results in faster melting of print material. (Think fettuccine versus spaghetti.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;This call for prior art is part of the [EFF][1]'s effort to keep 3D printing open. Read about the initiative [here][2], and check out [Google Patents][3] or the [USPTO][4] for full details about this particular application.&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC APPLICATION DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number:** 13/530,191&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** US20120258190 A1&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Stratasys, Inc. &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date:** September 30, 2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until At Least April 11, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**APPLICATION OVERVIEW:** This application claims the use of a ribbon-shaped build material for use in 3D printing. The build material is shaped like ribbon rather than a cylinder and put through a ribbon liquefier rather than a cylindrical liquefier.  The ribbon shape allows the build material to melt faster and reduces build times.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS:** This patent is about using a basic, well-known scientific principle and applying it in an obvious way to 3D printing technology to improve melting and print speed. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][5]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][6], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][7], and the [Ask Patents][8] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA; [2]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/join-effs-efforts-keep-3d-printing-open&#xD;&#xA; [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120258190&#xD;&#xA; [4]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20120258190&amp;OS=20120258190&amp;RS=20120258190&#xD;&#xA; [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA; [6]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA; [7]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA; [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA; [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/ask?source=3dask&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7075" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3495" RevisionGUID="18f873d2-47c0-44e7-8d40-b3f58380109c" CreationDate="2013-03-14T20:43:08.037" UserId="3363" Text="Call for prior art: 3D Printing application &quot;Ribbon Filament and Assembly for Use in Extrusion-based Digital Manufacturing Systems&quot; (13/530191)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7076" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3495" RevisionGUID="18f873d2-47c0-44e7-8d40-b3f58380109c" CreationDate="2013-03-14T20:43:08.037" UserId="3363" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;3d-printing&gt;&lt;us20120258190&gt;&lt;stratasys&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3494" RevisionGUID="2560996a-2135-4b1c-9818-3554fc413b59" CreationDate="2013-03-14T20:58:19.063" UserId="7" Comment="Added image" Text="&lt;em&gt;This call for prior art is part of the [EFF][1]'s effort to keep 3D printing open. Read about the initiative [here][2], and check out [Google Patents][3] or the [USPTO][4] for full details about this particular application.&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Process for producing three-dimensionally shaped object and device for producing same][5]&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Process for Producing Three-dimensionally Shaped Object and Device for Producing Same&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application relates to 3D printing using laser sintering, a process capable of better resolution than traditional hobbyist 3D printing using thermoplastic extrusion, where the object is built in a chamber with a localized gas flow to capture fumes generated by the laser melting the powder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC APPLICATION DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number:** 13/503,217&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** US20120251378 A1&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Panasonic Corporation &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date:** October 21, 2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until At Least April 4, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**APPLICATION OVERVIEW:** This application claims the use of a chamber with a localized gas flow in laser sintering 3D printing. The 3D object is built in the chamber, and the localized gas flow captures the fumes resulting from the laser melting the powder in the process of building each layer of the object.  If the fumes are not captured, they may interfere with the laser’s beam.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS:** The idea of a localized gas flow is not a new one, and is an obvious solution to the problem of fumes interfering with a laser beam. The open source community has begun to use laser sintering 3D printing methods, which promise of better resolution and a new variety of materials. This type of patent, which covers both the gas capture method and any devices using this method, could block a wide range of inventive activity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. For details about what makes effective prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][7], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][8], and the [Ask Patents][9] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][10] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/join-effs-efforts-keep-3d-printing-open&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120251378&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20120251378&amp;OS=20120251378&amp;RS=20120251378&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/WBTmz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/ask?source=3dask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3495" RevisionGUID="b414de5c-298a-4da2-a7a0-1b8bca2691f2" CreationDate="2013-03-14T21:07:54.900" UserId="7" Comment="Added image, formatting" Text="&lt;em&gt;This call for prior art is part of the [EFF][1]'s effort to keep 3D printing open. Read about the initiative [here][2], and check out [Google Patents][3] or the [USPTO][4] for full details about this particular application.&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Ribbon Filament and Assembly for Use in Extrusion-based Digital Manufacturing Systems&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application relates to 3D printing with a flattened, rectangular filament shaped like a ribbon instead of a cylindrical filament, taking advantage of the “insight” that larger surface area results in faster melting of print material. (Think fettuccine versus spaghetti.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC APPLICATION DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number:** 13/530,191&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** US20120258190 A1&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Stratasys, Inc. &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date:** September 30, 2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until At Least April 11, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**APPLICATION OVERVIEW:** This application claims the use of a ribbon-shaped build material for use in 3D printing. The build material is shaped like ribbon rather than a cylinder and put through a ribbon liquefier rather than a cylindrical liquefier.  The ribbon shape allows the build material to melt faster and reduces build times.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS:** This patent is about using a basic, well-known scientific principle and applying it in an obvious way to 3D printing technology to improve melting and print speed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][7], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][8], and the [Ask Patents][9] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][10] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/join-effs-efforts-keep-3d-printing-open&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120258190&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20120258190&amp;OS=20120258190&amp;RS=20120258190&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/05h0n.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/ask?source=3dask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7079" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3495" RevisionGUID="b414de5c-298a-4da2-a7a0-1b8bca2691f2" CreationDate="2013-03-14T21:07:54.900" UserId="7" Comment="Added image, formatting" Text="CALL FOR PRIOR ART: 3D Printing application &quot;Ribbon Filament and Assembly for Use in Extrusion-based Digital Manufacturing Systems&quot; (13/530191)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3493" RevisionGUID="fd54936e-6540-4df1-8f15-091b20fd4f2c" CreationDate="2013-03-14T21:14:25.470" UserId="7" Comment="Added image, formatting" Text="&lt;em&gt;This call for prior art is part of the [EFF][1]'s effort to keep 3D printing open. Read about the initiative [here][2], and check out [Google Patents][3] or the [USPTO][4] for full details about this particular application.&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Additive manufacturing system and method for printing customized chocolate confections][5]&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Additive Manufacturing System and Method for Printing Customized Chocolate Confections&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application claims that 3D printing with chocolate is sufficiently inventive to receive a patent, paving the way for every thermoplastic material to be covered by its own patent when used for 3D printing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC APPLICATION DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number:** 13/432424&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** US20120251688 A1&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Stratasys, Inc. &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date:** March 30, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until At Least April 4, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**APPLICATION OVERVIEW:** This application claims the use of chocolate in extrusion-based 3D printing. The chocolate is held in a heated reservoir.  When printing begins, the chocolate is pumped from the reservoir to the print head, while still being heated to maintain its temperature and tempered state.  The print head then extrudes the chocolate material to build the 3D object.  Unused chocolate in the print head is then sent back to the reservoir and heated again.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS:** Printing with chocolate is wonderful, but this isn’t just about chocolate. There is a vast array of thermoplastic materials that can be used in 3D printing, and it should not be possible to get an exclusive patent on each new material that is used in conjunction with well-known technology. The use of a recirculation loop (sending unused print material back to the reservoir) is also an obvious idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][7], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][8], and the [Ask Patents][9] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on  submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/join-effs-efforts-keep-3d-printing-open&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120251688&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20120251688&amp;OS=20120251688&amp;RS=20120251688&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/v4YzF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/ask?source=3dask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7081" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3493" RevisionGUID="fd54936e-6540-4df1-8f15-091b20fd4f2c" CreationDate="2013-03-14T21:14:25.470" UserId="7" Comment="Added image, formatting" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;3d-printing&gt;&lt;stratasys&gt;&lt;us20120251688&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7082" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3493" RevisionGUID="fd54936e-6540-4df1-8f15-091b20fd4f2c" CreationDate="2013-03-14T21:14:25.470" UserId="7" Comment="Added image, formatting" Text="CALL FOR PRIOR ART: 3D Printing application &quot;Additive Manufacturing System and Method for Printing Customized Chocolate Confections&quot; (13/432424)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7088" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3493" RevisionGUID="0d67b96f-9b7f-4932-ad37-7219faea1b28" CreationDate="2013-03-15T01:40:08.903" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/312377645344100352" />
  <row Id="7090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3493" RevisionGUID="a3578c3f-6481-467c-aae4-db0ad26e36e7" CreationDate="2013-03-15T06:28:39.420" UserId="3076" Comment="added 202 characters in body" Text="&lt;em&gt;This call for prior art is part of the [EFF][1]'s effort to keep 3D printing open. Read about the initiative [here][2], and check out [Google Patents][3] or the [USPTO][4] for full details about this particular application.&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Additive manufacturing system and method for printing customized chocolate confections][5]&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Additive Manufacturing System and Method for Printing Customized Chocolate Confections&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application claims that 3D printing with chocolate is sufficiently inventive to receive a patent, paving the way for every thermoplastic material to be covered by its own patent when used for 3D printing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC APPLICATION DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number:** 13/432424&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** US20120251688 A1&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Stratasys, Inc. &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date:** March 30, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until At Least April 4, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**APPLICATION OVERVIEW:** This application claims the use of chocolate in extrusion-based 3D printing. The chocolate is held in a heated reservoir.  When printing begins, the chocolate is pumped from the reservoir to the print head, while still being heated to maintain its temperature and tempered state.  The print head then extrudes the chocolate material to build the 3D object.  Unused chocolate in the print head is then sent back to the reservoir and heated again.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a recirculation loop configured to circulate a flow of a chocolate material, and further configured to maintain a temper of the chocolate material; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS:** Printing with chocolate is wonderful, but this isn’t just about chocolate. There is a vast array of thermoplastic materials that can be used in 3D printing, and it should not be possible to get an exclusive patent on each new material that is used in conjunction with well-known technology. The use of a recirculation loop (sending unused print material back to the reservoir) is also an obvious idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][7], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][8], and the [Ask Patents][9] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on  submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/join-effs-efforts-keep-3d-printing-open&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120251688&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20120251688&amp;OS=20120251688&amp;RS=20120251688&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/v4YzF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/ask?source=3dask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7092" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3494" RevisionGUID="694b2e07-b568-44d7-8272-15d85e2c1d18" CreationDate="2013-03-15T07:40:08.913" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/312468241656193025" />
  <row Id="7093" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3492" RevisionGUID="a3948b5e-27ce-4009-b9b1-e9f040e93769" CreationDate="2013-03-15T12:58:26.863" UserId="1259" Comment="tag" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;us4396600&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3498" RevisionGUID="e1876b50-ef69-4d00-850c-66babf662a16" CreationDate="2013-03-15T16:44:16.867" UserId="3076" Text="A direct answer regarding the status is that is long expired." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3493" RevisionGUID="628c7509-f582-4388-ac63-427c16ef59c4" CreationDate="2013-03-15T16:46:49.453" UserId="3076" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="&lt;em&gt;This call for prior art is part of the [EFF][1]'s effort to keep 3D printing open. Read about the initiative [here][2], and check out [Google Patents][3] or the [USPTO][4] for full details about this particular application.&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Additive manufacturing system and method for printing customized chocolate confections][5]&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Additive Manufacturing System and Method for Printing Customized Chocolate Confections&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application claims that 3D printing with chocolate is sufficiently inventive to receive a patent, paving the way for every thermoplastic material to be covered by its own patent when used for 3D printing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC APPLICATION DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number:** 13/432424&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** US20120251688 A1&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Stratasys, Inc. &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date:** March 30, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until At Least April 4, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**APPLICATION OVERVIEW:** This application claims the use of chocolate in extrusion-based 3D printing. The chocolate is held in a heated reservoir.  When printing begins, the chocolate is pumped from the reservoir to the print head, while still being heated to maintain its temperature and tempered state.  The print head then extrudes the chocolate material to build the 3D object.  Unused chocolate in the print head is then sent back to the reservoir and heated again.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a recirculation loop configured to circulate a flow of a chocolate material, and further configured to maintain a temper[SIC] of the chocolate material; and .  . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS:** Printing with chocolate is wonderful, but this isn’t just about chocolate. There is a vast array of thermoplastic materials that can be used in 3D printing, and it should not be possible to get an exclusive patent on each new material that is used in conjunction with well-known technology. The use of a recirculation loop (sending unused print material back to the reservoir) is also an obvious idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][7], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][8], and the [Ask Patents][9] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on  submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/join-effs-efforts-keep-3d-printing-open&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120251688&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20120251688&amp;OS=20120251688&amp;RS=20120251688&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/v4YzF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/ask?source=3dask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3493" RevisionGUID="e87e6a77-1735-4eef-bd21-2159f24c5d9a" CreationDate="2013-03-15T18:52:51.567" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="&lt;em&gt;This call for prior art is part of the [EFF][1]'s effort to keep 3D printing open. Read about the initiative [here][2], and check out [Google Patents][3] or the [USPTO][4] for full details about this particular application.&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Additive manufacturing system and method for printing customized chocolate confections][5]&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Additive Manufacturing System and Method for Printing Customized Chocolate Confections&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application claims that 3D printing with chocolate is sufficiently inventive to receive a patent, paving the way for every thermoplastic material to be covered by its own patent when used for 3D printing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC APPLICATION DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number:** 13/432424&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** US20120251688 A1&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Stratasys, Inc. &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date:** March 30, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until At Least April 4, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**APPLICATION OVERVIEW:** This application claims the use of chocolate in extrusion-based 3D printing. The chocolate is held in a heated reservoir.  When printing begins, the chocolate is pumped from the reservoir to the print head, while still being heated to maintain its temperature and tempered state.  The print head then extrudes the chocolate material to build the 3D object.  Unused chocolate in the print head is then sent back to the reservoir and heated again.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a recirculation loop configured to circulate a flow of a chocolate material, and further configured to maintain a temper[SIC?] of the chocolate material; and .  . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS:** Printing with chocolate is wonderful, but this isn’t just about chocolate. There is a vast array of thermoplastic materials that can be used in 3D printing, and it should not be possible to get an exclusive patent on each new material that is used in conjunction with well-known technology. The use of a recirculation loop (sending unused print material back to the reservoir) is also an obvious idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][7], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][8], and the [Ask Patents][9] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on  submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/join-effs-efforts-keep-3d-printing-open&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120251688&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20120251688&amp;OS=20120251688&amp;RS=20120251688&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/v4YzF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/ask?source=3dask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3499" RevisionGUID="b09aff54-0a0d-40f1-8ec4-c71ea99ece42" CreationDate="2013-03-15T19:01:55.617" UserId="3376" Text="&quot;Temper [SIC]&quot; is a technical term referring to the structure of the chocolate. If you overheat it at any point in the loop, and then cool it again, it will harden with a bad texture and an oily feel. You then have to do a recrystallization (&quot;tempering&quot;) protocol to get it back into good shape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So they appear to be claiming keeping the chocolate in temper around the loop. They do not mean &quot;temperature&quot; except that temperature is important to retaining temper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously every material has to be kept within some temperature range or be damaged, so that's not novel by itself. And maintaining temper is a very basic principle of chocolate handling, so that wouldn't be novel. There are automated machines to put chocolate into temper and hold it at the right temperature; they hover just above the &quot;home cook&quot; level of kitchen instrument. Those chocolate fountains you see around are specifically designed to recirculate melted chocolate while holding it in temper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know about recirculating 3D printing media. Chocolate is relatively hard to melt properly, because the melting temperature is relatively close to the losing-temper temperature, so you have to heat the bulk very evenly. You might want to look at other 3D printing media with similarly narrow temperature requirements. That may mean something relatively exotic. I suspect most of the popular FDM media are specifically chosen *because* they're not too finicky about having the outside of the mass overheated a little in the melting process. So it may not be common to have to play tricks like recirculating the medium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But anyway I imagine the novelty they're claiming is for the combination of the recirculator with other elements, like maybe hooking it up to the extruder. I suggest you post the whole claim.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3493" RevisionGUID="c861aacf-8766-475f-9bf7-11d010dd84f9" CreationDate="2013-03-15T21:12:45.113" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="&lt;em&gt;This call for prior art is part of the [EFF][1]'s effort to keep 3D printing open. Read about the initiative [here][2], and check out [Google Patents][3] or the [USPTO][4] for full details about this particular application.&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Additive manufacturing system and method for printing customized chocolate confections][5]&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Additive Manufacturing System and Method for Printing Customized Chocolate Confections&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application claims that 3D printing with chocolate is sufficiently inventive to receive a patent, paving the way for every thermoplastic material to be covered by its own patent when used for 3D printing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC APPLICATION DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number:** 13/432424&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** US20120251688 A1&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Stratasys, Inc. &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date:** March 30, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until At Least April 4, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**APPLICATION OVERVIEW:** This application claims the use of chocolate in extrusion-based 3D printing. The chocolate is held in a heated reservoir.  When printing begins, the chocolate is pumped from the reservoir to the print head, while still being heated to maintain its temperature and tempered state.  The print head then extrudes the chocolate material to build the 3D object.  Unused chocolate in the print head is then sent back to the reservoir and heated again.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An additive manufacturing system for printing a chocolate confection, the additive manufacturing system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;at least one controller configured to receive instructions for printing the chocolate confection, and further configured to relay commands relating to the received instructions;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a platen;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a recirculation loop configured to circulate a flow of a chocolate material, and further configured to maintain a temper of the chocolate material; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a print head in signal communication with the at least one controller, the print head being configured to receive at least a portion of the chocolate material from the recirculation loop, and further configured to extrude and deposit the chocolate material onto the platen to print at least a portion of the chocolate confection based on the commands from the at least one controller.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS:** Printing with chocolate is wonderful, but this isn’t just about chocolate. There is a vast array of thermoplastic materials that can be used in 3D printing, and it should not be possible to get an exclusive patent on each new material that is used in conjunction with well-known technology. The use of a recirculation loop (sending unused print material back to the reservoir) is also an obvious idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][7], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][8], and the [Ask Patents][9] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on  submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/join-effs-efforts-keep-3d-printing-open&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120251688&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20120251688&amp;OS=20120251688&amp;RS=20120251688&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/v4YzF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/ask?source=3dask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3499" RevisionGUID="c9467421-058f-4b74-a623-a21df449022e" CreationDate="2013-03-15T21:17:28.630" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Temper&quot; is a technical term referring to the structure of the chocolate. If you overheat it at any point in the loop, and then cool it again, it will harden with a bad texture and an oily feel. You then have to do a recrystallization (&quot;tempering&quot;) protocol to get it back into good shape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So they appear to be claiming keeping the chocolate in temper around the loop. They do not mean &quot;temperature&quot; except that temperature is important to retaining temper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously every material has to be kept within some temperature range or be damaged, so that's not novel by itself. And maintaining temper is a very basic principle of chocolate handling, so that wouldn't be novel. There are automated machines to put chocolate into temper and hold it at the right temperature; they hover just above the &quot;home cook&quot; level of kitchen instrument. Those chocolate fountains you see around are specifically designed to recirculate melted chocolate while holding it in temper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know about recirculating 3D printing media. Chocolate is relatively hard to melt properly, because the melting temperature is relatively close to the losing-temper temperature, so you have to heat the bulk very evenly. You might want to look at other 3D printing media with similarly narrow temperature requirements. That may mean something relatively exotic. I suspect most of the popular FDM media are specifically chosen *because* they're not too finicky about having the outside of the mass overheated a little in the melting process. So it may not be common to have to play tricks like recirculating the medium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But anyway I imagine the novelty they're claiming is for the combination of the recirculator with other elements, like maybe hooking it up to the extruder. I suggest you post the whole claim.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3501" RevisionGUID="06f34280-cdbe-4a8b-a4fb-362505c0230d" CreationDate="2013-03-16T15:18:51.980" UserId="3359" Text="How about - US 5,793,972 - System and method providing an interactive response to direct mail by ...Filing date: May 3, 1996 / Issue date: Aug 11, 1998&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A system for providing an interactive response to direct mail programs comprises a recipient database, a mail generator, and a web server computer operationally connected through the Internet to remote computers accessible by direct mail recipients. The recipient database stores data records containing addressing information such as the name, mail, fax or e-mail address, and a unique personal identification code for each direct mail recipient. The mail generator retrieves recipient data from the database and generates a multiplicity of direct mail pieces each displaying the name, address, and a uniform resource locator containing the personal identification code for one recipient. A responding recipient accesses the web server computer by entering the uniform resource locator displayed on the direct mail piece into a web browser on a remote computer. The web server computer retrieves recipient data from the recipient database..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3374" RevisionGUID="12c45090-e750-41bf-ab7f-6fc9ed2ba3a7" CreationDate="2013-03-16T23:51:24.863" UserId="3076" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="Answering my own question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What applications are covered under the new rules?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first issue is which applications are dealt with under the old laws and which will be dealt with under the new laws. Two easy categories are:  (1) Non provisional applications filed before March 16 - they are treated under the old system. And (2) applications filed on or after that date that do not make any priority or benefit claim to any application filed before that date - they are treated under the new system. &#xD;&#xA;More difficult are transitional applications.  Transitional applications have an actual filing date on or after March 16 but claim priority to or the benefit of an application filed before that date. If every claim in a transitional application has full support in priority applications filed before March 16 then the application is treated under the old system. If any claim ever existed  in a transitional application that was not supported by a pre-f-2-f  application then the whole application is treated under the new law. That means that  a f-2-f application can't be made into a f-2-i application by canceling claims. &#xD;&#xA;In practice many transitional applications will be non provisional applications filed between March 16 2013 and March 15 2014 that claim the benefit of a provisional application filed before March 16 2013. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are the new rules?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than explain the differences, which requires a clear understanding of the old laws/rules, I'm primarily  going to explain the new system - it is considerably simpler ( not necessarily  better, fairer, etc.) than the old. This all boils down to what falls into the domain of  prior art for an application. On Ask Patents we often use the term prior art as a short hand for &quot;prior art that can knock out a patent or patent application.&quot; Prior art, properly, is the entire body of information that is allowed to be considered in evaluating the patentability of a specific patent document. Whether or not something  is prior art to application X is significantly a question of timing. In some sense it needs to come before the thing it is being used against. In the U.S.,  35 USC section 102, and court cases interpreting  it, tell us if something qualifies or does not qualify to be used against an application based on that application's effective filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new 102 is laid out very logically. 102(**a**) says you are entitled to a patent unless the same thing was previously done,  as evidenced in one of the listed ways. And 102(**b**) has the exceptions to that list in 102(**a**). There is additional parallelism in that 102(b) **1** has the exceptions to 102(a) **1**  while 102(b) **2** has the exceptions to 102(a) **2**. The types of prior art defined in 102(a) and (b) 1 have to do with information actually potentially available to the public before the effective filing date.  In contrast, the documents covered by 102(a) and (b) 2 involve information that, while in a patent document submitted before the effective filing date, do not become public until after that  date. This is sometimes called secret prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be used against a claim in a patent application under the new rules? Under 102(a)1 it is anything, by anyone, anywhere in the world, described in a &quot;printed publication&quot; or issued patent, or on public sale or in public use or otherwise available to the public anywhere in the world as of the day before the effective filing date of the specific claim in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exceptions to this (as seen in 102(b) 1) are:  (A)  it was done by the inventor or by someone who got the information from the inventor within a year of the fling. This the one year grace period applied to your own activities.  (B) the publication, public use, etc. was preceded by an essentially  identical disclosure by the inventor or by someone who got it from the inventor.  If the inventor, for example, publishes an article and a 3rd party afterward published essentially the same information, the inventor can still later file and have the 3rd party's article discounted as prior art under this exception without needing to show that the 3rd party derived it from the inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides the actually public information of 102(a) 1, the secret information under 102(a) 2 can also be used against a patent application. This is a very specific category of information. It includes things described in a patent application filed (anywhere in the world) before the one in question's effective filing date but only  if that patent application either eventually issues as a patent anywhere in the world OR eventually is published as a &quot;U.S.&quot; application. The quotes around U.S. are because it includes not only things published by the USPTO's publication  department but all PCT applications on a world-wide basis that designate the United States. Since the default PCT application form designates ALL member states, that is pretty much all PCT applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exceptions to 102(a)**2** are in 102(b)**2**. In (A) the exception is if it is from the same inventor. The inventorship of the earlier application can't include anyone who is not also an applicant on the later application for this exception to apply. (B) the patent or published application was preceded by an essentially  identical disclosure by the inventor. (C) at the time of the effective filing date the applications were commonly owned or obligated to be commonly assigned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other provisions in 102 and 103**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;102c defines what commonly owned means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;102d defines what effective filing date means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;103 says that everything admittable  under 102 can be used in an obviousness analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How does this apply to finding prIor art for purposes of reducing the number of bad software patents?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No longer does 102 say &quot;in the U.S.&quot;  - one thing that does is open up sales and use outside of the U.S. as prior art - Unfortunately for the goals of Ask Patents, the AIA provisions for 3rd party submission only allows printed publications and patents to be submitted and, if dated before the effective filing date, they were already allowable on a worldwide basis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in the category of secret prior art - information existing in patent applications that were filed but not published as of the effective date - a potentially large new category of prior art will exist under F-2-F. Rather than only PCT applications that became &quot;real&quot; U.S. applications counting as of their date of becoming real  (published in English, fees paid to U.S. , etc.) - essentially all PCT applications will count as of their earliest priority date - independent of the country that the priority filing was made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To see section 102 old and new, clean and marked up [see this page at bitlaw.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To download the final rules follow [this to PatentlyO][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc-after-america-invents-act/102.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/02/final-rules-on-first-to-file-regime.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3374" RevisionGUID="27a2d262-a8b5-4e21-9af7-5f113cfc894a" CreationDate="2013-03-16T23:58:06.100" UserId="3076" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="Answering my own question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What applications are covered under the new rules?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first issue is which applications are dealt with under the old laws and which will be dealt with under the new laws. Two easy categories are:  (1) Non provisional applications filed before March 16 - they are treated under the old system. And (2) applications filed on or after that date that do not make any priority or benefit claim to any application filed before that date - they are treated under the new system. &#xD;&#xA;More difficult are transitional applications.  Transitional applications have an actual filing date on or after March 16 but claim priority to or the benefit of an application filed before that date. If every claim in a transitional application has full support in priority applications filed before March 16 then the application is treated under the old system. If any claim ever existed  in a transitional application that was not supported by a pre-f-2-f  application then the whole application is treated under the new law. That means that  a f-2-f application can't be made into a f-2-i application by canceling claims. &#xD;&#xA;In practice many transitional applications will be non provisional applications filed between March 16 2013 and March 15 2014 that claim the benefit of a provisional application filed before March 16 2013. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are the new rules?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than explain the differences, which requires a clear understanding of the old laws/rules, I'm primarily  going to explain the new system - it is considerably simpler ( not necessarily  better, fairer, etc.) than the old. This all boils down to what falls into the domain of  prior art for an application. On Ask Patents we often use the term prior art as a short hand for &quot;prior art that can knock out a patent or patent application.&quot; Prior art, properly, is the entire body of information that is allowed to be considered in evaluating the patentability of a specific patent document. Whether or not something  is prior art to application X is significantly a question of timing. In some sense it needs to come before the thing it is being used against. In the U.S.,  35 USC section 102, and court cases interpreting  it, tell us if something qualifies or does not qualify to be used against an application based on that application's effective filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new 102 is laid out very logically. 102(**a**) says you are entitled to a patent unless the same thing was previously done,  as evidenced in one of the listed ways. And 102(**b**) has the exceptions to that list in 102(**a**). There is additional parallelism in that 102(b) **1** has the exceptions to 102(a) **1**  while 102(b) **2** has the exceptions to 102(a) **2**. The types of prior art defined in 102(a) and (b) 1 have to do with information actually potentially available to the public before the effective filing date.  In contrast, the documents covered by 102(a) and (b) 2 involve information that, while in a patent document submitted before the effective filing date, do not become public until after that  date. This is sometimes called secret prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be used against a claim in a patent application under the new rules? Under 102(a)1 it is anything, by anyone, anywhere in the world, described in a &quot;printed publication&quot; or issued patent, or on public sale or in public use or otherwise available to the public anywhere in the world as of the day before the effective filing date of the specific claim in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exceptions to this (as seen in 102(b) 1) are:  (A)  it was done by the inventor or by someone who got the information from the inventor within a year of the filing. This the one year grace period applied to your own activities.  The trap is that someone inspired by your disclosure can then publish something different but related and it will be prior art to you. (B) the publication, public use, etc. was preceded by an essentially  identical disclosure by the inventor or by someone who got it from the inventor.  If the inventor, for example, publishes an article and a 3rd party afterward published essentially the same information, the inventor can still later file and have the 3rd party's article discounted as prior art under this exception without needing to show that the 3rd party derived it from the inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides the actually public information of 102(a) 1, the secret information under 102(a) 2 can also be used against a patent application. This is a very specific category of information. It includes things described in a patent application filed (anywhere in the world) before the one in question's effective filing date but only  if that patent application either eventually issues as a patent anywhere in the world OR eventually is published as a &quot;U.S.&quot; application. The quotes around U.S. are because it includes not only things published by the USPTO's publication  department but all PCT applications on a world-wide basis that designate the United States. Since the default PCT application form designates ALL member states, that is pretty much all PCT applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exceptions to 102(a)**2** are in 102(b)**2**. In (A) the exception is if it is from the same inventor. The inventorship of the earlier application can't include anyone who is not also an applicant on the later application for this exception to apply. (B) the patent or published application was preceded by an essentially  identical disclosure by the inventor. (C) at the time of the effective filing date the applications were commonly owned or obligated to be commonly assigned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other provisions in 102 and 103**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;102c defines what commonly owned means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;102d defines what effective filing date means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;103 says that everything admittable  under 102 can be used in an obviousness analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How does this apply to finding prIor art for purposes of reducing the number of bad software patents?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No longer does 102 say &quot;in the U.S.&quot;  - one thing that does is open up sales and use outside of the U.S. as prior art - Unfortunately for the goals of Ask Patents, the AIA provisions for 3rd party submission only allows printed publications and patents to be submitted and, if dated before the effective filing date, they were already allowable on a worldwide basis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in the category of secret prior art - information existing in patent applications that were filed but not published as of the effective date - a potentially large new category of prior art will exist under F-2-F. Rather than only PCT applications that became &quot;real&quot; U.S. applications counting as of their date of becoming real  (published in English, fees paid to U.S. , etc.) - essentially all PCT applications will count as of their earliest priority date - independent of the country that the priority filing was made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To see section 102 old and new, clean and marked up [see this page at bitlaw.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To download the final rules follow [this to PatentlyO][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc-after-america-invents-act/102.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/02/final-rules-on-first-to-file-regime.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7113" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3495" RevisionGUID="df2e2822-d884-4ebb-8475-20f803458bd8" CreationDate="2013-03-17T10:43:05.360" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/313239057268359168" />
  <row Id="7114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3501" RevisionGUID="80b056f5-6a42-4d45-9a3c-49d673d637b1" CreationDate="2013-03-17T12:49:51.797" UserId="1259" Comment="link and quote made clear" Text="How about - [US 5,793,972][1] - System and method providing an interactive response to direct mail by ...Filing date: May 3, 1996 / Issue date: Aug 11, 1998&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for providing an interactive response to direct mail programs comprises a recipient database, a mail generator, and a web server computer operationally connected through the Internet to remote computers accessible by direct mail recipients. The recipient database stores data records containing addressing information such as the name, mail, fax or e-mail address, and a unique personal identification code for each direct mail recipient. The mail generator retrieves recipient data from the database and generates a multiplicity of direct mail pieces each displaying the name, address, and a uniform resource locator containing the personal identification code for one recipient. A responding recipient accesses the web server computer by entering the uniform resource locator displayed on the direct mail piece into a web browser on a remote computer. The web server computer retrieves recipient data from the recipient database...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5793972" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3507" RevisionGUID="82aba58e-6744-43dc-87f2-9ae9690b5f25" CreationDate="2013-03-18T11:54:38.787" UserId="2072" Text="Filed on December 18, 1980, U.S. Patent 4,396,600 issued on August 2, 1983 with a term ending in 2000.   The PTO database states that the patent expired earlier due to non-payment of maintenance fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 1984, a third-party filed a Request for Reexamination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result of re-examination, on **February 11, 1986**, a certificate issued canceling claims 1-23 (all claims).  This could explain why the maintenance fee shows up as unpaid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3160" RevisionGUID="48c00b1f-d687-481c-a6c6-38b5d1ccbe39" CreationDate="2013-03-18T14:15:31.370" UserId="1145" Comment="Added link to the PCT documents at Espacenet" Text="A quick search brought up [wo9717774](http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&amp;II=0&amp;ND=3&amp;adjacent=true&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;FT=D&amp;date=19970515&amp;CC=WO&amp;NR=9717774A1&amp;KC=A1) selective advertisement presentation 1994&#xD;&#xA;And [wo9415294](http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&amp;II=0&amp;ND=3&amp;adjacent=true&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;FT=D&amp;date=19940707&amp;CC=WO&amp;NR=9415294A1&amp;KC=A1) interactive computer system with multiprotocol capability 1997 neither is cited on front page of the patent in question. Good luck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7128" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3160" RevisionGUID="48c00b1f-d687-481c-a6c6-38b5d1ccbe39" CreationDate="2013-03-18T14:15:31.370" Comment="Proposed by 1145 approved by 2072, 1 edit id of 335" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="ab3d5c04-aed9-4cec-a582-9007a0a0657f" CreationDate="2013-03-18T20:02:30.350" UserId="1767" Comment="Reformatted question for clarity using the RFPA template" Text="&lt;em&gt;Check out [Google Patents][3] for full details about this particular application.&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method and System for Weight Management&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC APPLICATION DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number:** 13/466661&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** US20120225162 A1&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Scott A. Mann Enterprises Llc &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date:** June 15, 2004&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until March 6, 2013 &#xD;&#xA;- **AIA window:** CLOSED&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**APPLICATION OVERVIEW:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US Patent Application [#20120225162][3] describes a weight management method. I'm reasonably sure the claims below correlate with advice I've seen for *years* in various &quot;women's interest&quot; magazines, in a number of diet books (including Weight Watchers guides), and even the USDA nutrition guide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1.** A method for managing weight, comprising the steps of: eating at least five meals a day with each meal comprising one serving of a vegetable or a fruit, a complex carbohydrate, and a lean protein for a predetermined number of calories per meal at ranges of 25-35% protein, 50-55% carbohydrate, 15-20% fat with a predetermined range of grams of fiber, wherein said predetermined range of calories is about 300 calories or is about 450 calories; losing weight by said eating at least five meals a day; and optimizing body composition by said eating at least five meals a day, [etc.]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on  submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20120225162&#xD;&#xA; [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA; [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7132" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="ab3d5c04-aed9-4cec-a582-9007a0a0657f" CreationDate="2013-03-18T20:02:30.350" UserId="1767" Comment="Reformatted question for clarity using the RFPA template" Text="CALL FOR PRIOR ART: “Method and System for Weight Management” (13/466,661)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3509" RevisionGUID="2af2f18d-548c-47df-92d9-0cedab4320da" CreationDate="2013-03-19T00:06:53.080" UserId="3390" Text="Unfortunately, I can not locate the User Guide or Manual for the DTM Sintersation 2000 which was produced in 1993.  In this manual, there will be descriptions of an Atmospeheric Control Unit(ACU) which created airflow away from the part bed through the sides of the machine.  This air flow went through particulate filters and then charcoal filters to scrub the vapor / particulate residue from the build chamber as contributed by the laser melting / sintering process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally ran this machine for many years and can attest to its operation.  Unfortunately, a User Guide / Manual needs to be located.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rapidproto/students.98/parzick/sintering/process&#xD;&#xA;Section 2.2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/EP0948657A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;Description Section 1 - Describing ACU for air movement and filtration&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.mst.edu/~vram/proj-sls/sinterstation2000.gif&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3510" RevisionGUID="e8ae2151-b8dd-459c-be0b-86f03dbe064d" CreationDate="2013-03-19T00:43:12.240" UserId="3390" Text="The key to this claim is the recirculation of material however it is broad.  Not sure where to find prior art on this subject specific to chocolate. There should be more specifics on the recirculation claim since other 3d printers recirculate material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~saul/masters/masters_s.pdf&#xD;&#xA; Page 23 - Describing Chocolate through extrusion means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://rapidprototyping.wikidot.com/chocolate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://phys.org/news92328869.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.zcorp.com/documents/218_2008-0201-Cadalyst-Low%20Cost%20RP.pdf&#xD;&#xA; Under section: The Players&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ennex.com/~fabbers/RP-ML/food.asp&#xD;&#xA; Past discussions of 3d printing chocolate(not much info for claim busting)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3511" RevisionGUID="295debfd-8d8f-4ab6-8172-60047f41858b" CreationDate="2013-03-19T03:05:33.107" UserId="3391" Text="Please people understand Patent Terminology in this space. All of this stuff is described as solid freeform fabrication...housed under Class 425 Subclass 174 at the USPTO. I used to examine this entire spectrum of technology for years! I have already told EFF a number of times...sheesh. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.mit.edu/~tdp/www/info-flow/publications/nsf00-conf.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6280785  (Base 103 Reference) Teaches everything including Chocolate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6280784  (Base 103 Reference)Teaches everything including Chocolate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6902246  (Secondary 103 Reference) Teaches Recirculation Loop&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention because the teachings of '246 tout benefits as well would enable for reuse of build materials to avoid wastage and improve apparatus and methodology efficiency. There's case law to that touts that benefit as indicative for a satisfactory 103 (a) rejection. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3512" RevisionGUID="ea73790d-548c-4cf1-9be2-823eeb7ceae9" CreationDate="2013-03-19T03:25:23.167" UserId="3392" Text="Are wallets patent-able? How would I know if a patent is in the public domain?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7144" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3512" RevisionGUID="ea73790d-548c-4cf1-9be2-823eeb7ceae9" CreationDate="2013-03-19T03:25:23.167" UserId="3392" Text="Wallet Patent - Public Domain" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7145" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3512" RevisionGUID="ea73790d-548c-4cf1-9be2-823eeb7ceae9" CreationDate="2013-03-19T03:25:23.167" UserId="3392" Text="&lt;utility&gt;&lt;design&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3513" RevisionGUID="6b392a47-804f-4332-8f49-a4b9bfc17585" CreationDate="2013-03-19T03:53:21.223" UserId="3076" Text="Pretty much &quot;everything under the Sun&quot; is patentable as long as it is not an abstract idea, natural law, or has a human in it.  So an innovative functioning wallet could be patented with a utility patent and an innovating looking wallet could be patented as a design patent. A very rough guide would be about 20 years from filing. That is not at all precise so if you find a specific couple of things please come back and ask about them. Generally copying something out of a really old patent is ok. If you were going to make a business out of it you would want advice specific to you and the exact situation. Here is a [patent for a wallet with an anti-pickpocket alarm.][1]  And here is a [design for a wallet.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4884062&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/USD492483" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3512" RevisionGUID="2e36c152-53a3-4519-b874-116602f07db1" CreationDate="2013-03-19T06:40:47.880" UserId="3392" Comment="added specific design examples to see if these generic designs have a patent." Text="Are wallets patent-able? How would I know if a patent is in the public domain?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering if this design or similar designs have a patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.etsy.com/listing/125697284/retromodern-aged-leather-credit-card?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.etsy.com/shop/portel?ref=top_trail&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3513" RevisionGUID="11755b80-c51d-4f7f-b780-51c5d3fd19a0" CreationDate="2013-03-19T08:02:38.417" UserId="3076" Comment="added 415 characters in body" Text="Pretty much &quot;everything under the Sun&quot; is patentable as long as it is not an abstract idea, natural law, or has a human in it.  So an innovative functioning wallet could be patented with a utility patent and an innovating looking wallet could be patented as a design patent. A very rough guide would be about 20 years from filing. That is not at all precise so if you find a specific couple of patents please come back and ask about them. Generally copying something out of a really old patent is ok. If you were going to make a business out of it you would want advice specific to you and the exact situation. Here is a [patent for a wallet with an anti-pickpocket alarm.][1]  And here is a [design for a wallet.][2]. It is not likely that someone will do a proper search for a particular design for you unless you contact a professional searcher. To search yourself you can go to google patents and get to the advanced patent search. Set it for design patents and set the date range to start in 2009. Design patents have very few words in them so your search terms can't get too specific. Maybe wallet stitching card.&#xD;&#xA;Good luck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4884062&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/USD492483" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3514" RevisionGUID="39c13df5-fb56-4772-a4e1-dc9fed58bac1" CreationDate="2013-03-19T15:53:45.420" UserId="3374" Text="I did a quick search with Searcher.io and a lot of good matches come up:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 96.2 for http://www.google.com/patents/US5994295 (claim)&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  89.0 for http://www.google.com/patents/US6039989 (claim)&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  88.1 for http://www.google.com/patents/US5595772 (abstract)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to name a few, and using only the claim posted to seed the search. Sorry I see this question only now!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Disclosure: This prior art was found using Searcher.io - an experimental full-text patent search tool now in beta phase. More info at http://searcher.io/*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3515" RevisionGUID="82d9b7ec-ff6e-4279-8f93-e54134038639" CreationDate="2013-03-19T16:00:45.397" UserId="3400" Text="If I invent some earth-shaking (not literally) device, and someone issues a competing patent that adds something that doesn't really change the function of the device all that much, is my original patent still valid with the appropriate judicial back-up?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7151" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3515" RevisionGUID="82d9b7ec-ff6e-4279-8f93-e54134038639" CreationDate="2013-03-19T16:00:45.397" UserId="3400" Text="Is my patent still valid if someone appends minute changes to it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7152" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3515" RevisionGUID="82d9b7ec-ff6e-4279-8f93-e54134038639" CreationDate="2013-03-19T16:00:45.397" UserId="3400" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3516" RevisionGUID="80e1d5a2-299f-4897-8336-d4d439320bf2" CreationDate="2013-03-19T16:33:21.703" UserId="3400" Text="How do I protect my idea if my patent is rejected?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent clerk has my idea now, and he can probably write one up... how do I deal with that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7154" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3516" RevisionGUID="80e1d5a2-299f-4897-8336-d4d439320bf2" CreationDate="2013-03-19T16:33:21.703" UserId="3400" Text="How to prevent the usage of my idea if the patent is rejected?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7155" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3516" RevisionGUID="80e1d5a2-299f-4897-8336-d4d439320bf2" CreationDate="2013-03-19T16:33:21.703" UserId="3400" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3517" RevisionGUID="07049152-21ad-4490-8408-6dbbe38eea18" CreationDate="2013-03-19T16:36:40.617" UserId="3076" Text="There is more than one issue in this question. You used the phrase &quot;is my patent still valid?&quot;. Technically patent validity refers to the issue of whether or not a granted patent would hold up if scrutinized in a court or USPTO action. Something that comes after you can't change the **validity** of what was previously issued to you. Your patent gives you the power to **stop** someone else from making, selling, using, etc. it does give you any particular right to do anything with your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone patents an improvement on your invention (whemher or not they know anything about you and your invention) then they can stop people from making, selling, using, etc. that improved version. If they made their improvement by adding something to your invention you can probably stop them from making their own invention. If they made it different by removing something or doing it a different way then you probably can't stop them. Keep in mind that a patent is not a license to do something; it is a lIcense to try to stop people from doing something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3517" RevisionGUID="85a737fb-28ac-4931-b959-553bdb01521d" CreationDate="2013-03-19T16:42:20.633" UserId="3076" Comment="added 312 characters in body" Text="There is more than one issue in this question. You used the phrase &quot;is my patent still valid?&quot;. Technically patent validity refers to the issue of whether or not a granted patent would hold up if scrutinized in a court or USPTO action. Something that comes after you can't change the **validity** of what was previously issued to you. Your patent gives you the power to **stop** someone else from making, selling, using, etc. it does give you any particular right to do anything with your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone patents an improvement on your invention (whemher or not they know anything about you and your invention) then they can stop people from making, selling, using, etc. that improved version. If they made their improvement by adding something to your invention you can probably stop them from making their own invention. If they made it different by removing something or doing it a different way then you probably can't stop them. Keep in mind that a patent is not a license to do something; it is a lIcense to try to stop people from doing something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your scenic they add something that doesn't change the function much. If they invented/filed after you did then needs to be non-obvious over yours and everything else in existence at that time. **If it is an obvious addition to your idea then there may be an issue regarding the validity of their patent**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3518" RevisionGUID="4c11628d-8528-4a7a-8ff8-82b51c9335ed" CreationDate="2013-03-19T16:50:22.660" UserId="3076" Text="The administrative staff and examiners at the USPTO are not going to steal your idea. There are several reasons not to worry. One is that they are prohibited from acquiring any ownership rights to a patent while employed there other than by inheritance. Also your application is in the system. There is no way to erase it from the system so there is an electronic &quot;paper trail&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3517" RevisionGUID="486c93a9-67fd-4c6b-9f9b-3af3fbbf64c5" CreationDate="2013-03-19T16:52:55.187" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 characters in body typo spelling" Text="There is more than one issue in this question. You used the phrase &quot;is my patent still valid?&quot;. Technically patent validity refers to the issue of whether or not a granted patent would hold up if scrutinized in a court or USPTO action. Something that comes after you can't change the **validity** of what was previously issued to you. Your patent gives you the power to **stop** someone else from making, selling, using, etc. it does give you any particular right to do anything with your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone patents an improvement on your invention (whether or not they know anything about you and your invention) then they can stop people from making, selling, using, etc. that improved version. If they made their improvement by adding something to your invention you can probably stop them from making their own invention. If they made it different by removing something or doing it a different way then you probably can't stop them. Keep in mind that a patent is not a license to do something; it is a lIcense to try to stop people from doing something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your scenario they add something that doesn't change the function much. If they invented/filed after you then it needs to be non-obvious over yours and everything else in existence at that time. **If it is an obvious addition to your idea then there may be an issue regarding the validity of their patent**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3519" RevisionGUID="8ab954a7-9d12-45eb-a4e8-d1196dc4559c" CreationDate="2013-03-19T17:01:50.453" UserId="3359" Text="Your problem is if the patent was published.  Then everyone knows about it.  It is the bargain any patent holder makes that in exchange for disclosure you may get a limited monopoly.  PTO is not going to be your concern.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The concern is anyone who reads your published application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See there is a reason to tease out the idea and see what the art looks like before disclosing everything.  YOu may want to try doing that in the future by pointing to issued patents and then trying to see if people will identify additional art.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3520" RevisionGUID="119797f9-109a-400b-88dd-ab0ff653739b" CreationDate="2013-03-19T17:09:58.630" UserId="3359" Text="Valid does not equal valuable.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents are a negative right - they give you the power to exclude but not to use.  The power to exclude gets limited by (some) courts which makes this all more of an economic analysis. Can you afford to infringe?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do companies patent around other companies?  All the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you present to a big company, can they patent around my patent?  Absolutely.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3522" RevisionGUID="88bdec36-38ff-4f4c-a438-34910a80cdd4" CreationDate="2013-03-19T20:41:33.167" UserId="3400" Text="The title pretty much says it all. If I file a patent in the US, will forign companies be able to use it without fear?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7167" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3522" RevisionGUID="88bdec36-38ff-4f4c-a438-34910a80cdd4" CreationDate="2013-03-19T20:41:33.167" UserId="3400" Text="If I file a patent in America, will forign companies be completely invulnerable to my patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7168" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3522" RevisionGUID="88bdec36-38ff-4f4c-a438-34910a80cdd4" CreationDate="2013-03-19T20:41:33.167" UserId="3400" Text="&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3523" RevisionGUID="4ab2eb39-f7c5-49ee-8da8-6dcb220daf23" CreationDate="2013-03-19T20:47:54.257" UserId="2072" Text="Most likely, yes.  You may have some options if the competitor's product is imported or if the invention is a process used to make a product that finds its way to the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents are specific to the country in which they are issued." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3524" RevisionGUID="c51a6547-6855-49a4-92da-11933f8f8b41" CreationDate="2013-03-19T20:51:27.593" UserId="3404" Text="&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US6163785&quot;&gt;6163785&lt;/a&gt; controls text/translations in separate documents within a CSL Constrained Source Language model, applied to generate translations that require no post-editing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US20110097693&quot;&gt;12925732&lt;/a&gt; combines text/translation within a single editable text, while controlling delineation and pairing of &quot;chunks&quot; in both text and translation, meant to be edited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15384569/etc/12925732.pdf contains divergent opinions on the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12925732 is a step toward text/translation chunk/alignment controls in one editable text as shown here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIbvJck5JdM and further specified in 13842249.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is 6163785 truly prior art inherently able to control text/translation chunk/alignment within a single editable document? Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7171" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3524" RevisionGUID="c51a6547-6855-49a4-92da-11933f8f8b41" CreationDate="2013-03-19T20:51:27.593" UserId="3404" Text="is 6163785 this prior art to 12925732?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7172" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3524" RevisionGUID="c51a6547-6855-49a4-92da-11933f8f8b41" CreationDate="2013-03-19T20:51:27.593" UserId="3404" Text="&lt;us6163785&gt;&lt;us12925732&gt;&lt;us13842249&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3511" RevisionGUID="4eeee54f-3be1-4697-a1be-0f022e6f981f" CreationDate="2013-03-19T21:14:22.497" UserId="14" Comment="Removed commentary that could distract from core of the answer." Text="Please people understand Patent Terminology in this space. All of this stuff is described as solid freeform fabrication...housed under Class 425 Subclass 174 at the USPTO. I used to examine this entire spectrum of technology for years! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.mit.edu/~tdp/www/info-flow/publications/nsf00-conf.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6280785  (Base 103 Reference) Teaches everything including Chocolate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6280784  (Base 103 Reference)Teaches everything including Chocolate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6902246  (Secondary 103 Reference) Teaches Recirculation Loop&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention because the teachings of '246 tout benefits as well would enable for reuse of build materials to avoid wastage and improve apparatus and methodology efficiency. There's case law to that touts that benefit as indicative for a satisfactory 103 (a) rejection. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3524" RevisionGUID="007a1ea6-460f-4509-98a3-a60346a50fd9" CreationDate="2013-03-19T21:58:31.417" UserId="3076" Comment="Changed tag to ref publication # instead of application number" Text="&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US6163785&quot;&gt;6163785&lt;/a&gt; controls text/translations in separate documents within a CSL Constrained Source Language model, applied to generate translations that require no post-editing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Application &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US20110097693&quot;&gt;12925732&lt;/a&gt; that was published as US20110097693, combines text/translation within a single editable text, while controlling delineation and pairing of &quot;chunks&quot; in both text and translation, meant to be edited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15384569/etc/12925732.pdf contains divergent opinions on the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US20110097693 is a step toward text/translation chunk/alignment controls in one editable text as shown here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIbvJck5JdM and further specified in 13842249.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is 6163785 truly prior art inherently able to control text/translation chunk/alignment within a single editable document? Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7175" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3524" RevisionGUID="007a1ea6-460f-4509-98a3-a60346a50fd9" CreationDate="2013-03-19T21:58:31.417" UserId="3076" Comment="Changed tag to ref publication # instead of application number" Text="&lt;us6163785&gt;&lt;usus20110097693&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7176" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3524" RevisionGUID="007a1ea6-460f-4509-98a3-a60346a50fd9" CreationDate="2013-03-19T21:58:31.417" UserId="3076" Comment="Changed tag to ref publication # instead of application number" Text="is 6163785 this prior art to US20110097693?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3525" RevisionGUID="73c6e77d-f726-46c9-85aa-78c09fbb19f9" CreationDate="2013-03-19T22:04:24.983" UserId="3076" Text="As I am assuming the poster is aware, US20110097693 was given a final rejection a few months ago. It was **not** rejected as being fully anticipated by 6163785. So the examiner doesn't think everything in it is taught in that single application. It was rejected under 103 (obviousness) under 6163785 and 6,438,515." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3525" RevisionGUID="91ce54bb-c651-4247-9aa2-a6c96f02dd04" CreationDate="2013-03-19T22:09:51.880" UserId="3076" Comment="added 189 characters in body" Text="As I am assuming the poster is aware, US20110097693 was given a final rejection a few months ago. It was **not** rejected as being fully anticipated by 6163785. So the examiner doesn't think everything in it is taught in that single application. It was rejected under 103 (obviousness) under 6163785 and 6,438,515. The other application serial number mentioned in the question appears to still be unpublished.&#xD;&#xA;Ask Patents is not likely to produce a full analysis of the OA and advice on how to respond." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7179" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3524" RevisionGUID="3f940a2a-6187-4caf-90e1-978c5f840075" CreationDate="2013-03-19T22:41:38.140" UserId="3404" Comment="fixed tag i hope" Text="&lt;us6163785&gt;&lt;us20110097693&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3525" RevisionGUID="359cb1b0-61b8-4e76-93c0-d0ecf3b34fd8" CreationDate="2013-03-19T23:00:07.053" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="As I am assuming the poster is aware, US20110097693 was given a final rejection a few months ago. It was **not** rejected as being fully anticipated by 6163785. So even the examiner doesn't think everything in it is taught in that single document. It was rejected under 103 (obviousness) under 6163785 and 6,438,515 taken together. The other application serial number mentioned in the question appears to still be unpublished.&#xD;&#xA;Ask Patents is not likely to produce a full analysis of the OA and advice on how to respond." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3526" RevisionGUID="2eec3e5a-e3f4-4c95-9b6d-2e46986a843d" CreationDate="2013-03-20T02:51:39.197" UserId="3076" Text="&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;Technically it is not the **company** being foreign that is the issue, it is where the activity occurs. So IBM can make your US patented thing in the UK and sell it in China - if we are talking about a patented thing. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3527" RevisionGUID="4ac7ed08-9b36-4eb7-a51b-518ef0858b74" CreationDate="2013-03-20T09:13:08.193" UserId="3405" Text="My name is Dany Lipsker&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am the inventor of a unique method for rapid prototyping&#xD;&#xA;I got an US Patent in 2000 number 6153034&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scott Crump from Stratasys examined it in Chicago at Rosemont CC back in 1999&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Terry wohlers presented it to the public in his anual report and in the convention&#xD;&#xA;he also saw it in my lab in Israel at 1998, prior of exposing it to the world&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today, most of the systems sold everywhere as open sources use also my methods and invention, all for free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the main topics are the input method:&#xD;&#xA;In my patent I used any material produced as a wire or yarn or chord, thread etc&#xD;&#xA;meaning that I could create any size made from any material existing&#xD;&#xA;I also showed methods of creating nozzles for the sake of guiding the wire or the spool&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I it is possible, contact me directly to:&#xD;&#xA;dany.lipsker@gmail.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7184" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3527" RevisionGUID="4ac7ed08-9b36-4eb7-a51b-518ef0858b74" CreationDate="2013-03-20T09:13:08.193" UserId="3405" Text="US patent 6153034" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7185" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3527" RevisionGUID="4ac7ed08-9b36-4eb7-a51b-518ef0858b74" CreationDate="2013-03-20T09:13:08.193" UserId="3405" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3527" RevisionGUID="07eeb0cd-e12a-43c1-b678-b44df5c6a9da" CreationDate="2013-03-20T12:39:36.060" UserId="1259" Comment="tag and linkie" Text="My name is Dany Lipsker&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am the inventor of a unique method for rapid prototyping&#xD;&#xA;I got an US Patent in 2000 [number 6153034][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scott Crump from Stratasys examined it in Chicago at Rosemont CC back in 1999&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Terry Wohlers presented it to the public in his anual report and in the convention&#xD;&#xA;he also saw it in my lab in Israel at 1998, prior of exposing it to the world&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today, most of the systems sold everywhere as open sources use also my methods and invention, all for free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the main topics are the input method:&#xD;&#xA;In my patent I used any material produced as a wire or yarn or chord, thread etc&#xD;&#xA;meaning that I could create any size made from any material existing&#xD;&#xA;I also showed methods of creating nozzles for the sake of guiding the wire or the spool&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I it is possible, contact me directly to:&#xD;&#xA;dany.lipsker@gmail.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us6153034" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7188" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3527" RevisionGUID="07eeb0cd-e12a-43c1-b678-b44df5c6a9da" CreationDate="2013-03-20T12:39:36.060" UserId="1259" Comment="tag and linkie" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us6153034&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3527" RevisionGUID="9b8dee58-867e-4756-b9ae-e72e5288e7f5" CreationDate="2013-03-20T15:47:09.880" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 101 characters in body" Text="I am the inventor of a unique method for rapid prototyping&#xD;&#xA;I got an US Patent in 2000 [number 6153034][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scott Crump from Stratasys examined it in Chicago at Rosemont CC back in 1999.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Terry Wohlers presented it to the public in his anual report and in the convention&#xD;&#xA;he also saw it in my lab in Israel at 1998, prior of exposing it to the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today, most of the systems sold everywhere as open sources use also my methods and invention, all for free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the main topics are the input method:  &#xD;&#xA;In my patent I used any material produced as a wire or yarn or chord, thread etc&#xD;&#xA;meaning that I could create any size made from any material existing&#xD;&#xA;I also showed methods of creating nozzles for the sake of guiding the wire or the spool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us6153034" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3530" RevisionGUID="75089d59-2160-4714-a3db-bf026c4bb943" CreationDate="2013-03-20T16:28:45.930" UserId="3076" Text="Your claim 1 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for producing a prototype of an object, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;dispensing layers of a wire in at least four degrees of freedom in accordance with a geometry of the object; and &#xD;&#xA;bonding a previously dispensed portion of the wire to a presently dispensed portion of the wire with adhesive, said adhesive being formed of a material which is different and distinct from said wire. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So all of the systems have an adhesive dispenser emitting a material different from the build material? It looks like both the independent claim require this. If huge companies are really doing this I would find a contingency attorney and go after what is right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3530" RevisionGUID="9c2c2449-00c4-482f-8807-bb60d4291bf9" CreationDate="2013-03-20T16:39:05.047" UserId="3076" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="What your patent &quot;teaches&quot; isn't relevant. Only the claims define what belongs to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your claim 1 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for producing a prototype of an object, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;dispensing layers of a wire in at least four degrees of freedom in accordance with a geometry of the object; and &#xD;&#xA;bonding a previously dispensed portion of the wire to a presently dispensed portion of the wire with adhesive, said adhesive being formed of a material which is different and distinct from said wire. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So all of the systems have an adhesive dispenser emitting a material different from the build material? It looks like both the independent claim require this. If huge companies are really doing this I would find a contingency attorney and go after what is right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3493" RevisionGUID="901f2e96-a0d3-422b-b943-46b973addb59" CreationDate="2013-03-20T22:42:44.393" UserId="1767" Comment="Limit to one piece of prior art per answer.  Multiple answers from same individual are fine and encouraged." Text="&lt;em&gt;This call for prior art is part of the [EFF][1]'s effort to keep 3D printing open. Read about the initiative [here][2], and check out [Google Patents][3] or the [USPTO][4] for full details about this particular application.&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Additive manufacturing system and method for printing customized chocolate confections][5]&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Additive Manufacturing System and Method for Printing Customized Chocolate Confections&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application claims that 3D printing with chocolate is sufficiently inventive to receive a patent, paving the way for every thermoplastic material to be covered by its own patent when used for 3D printing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC APPLICATION DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number:** 13/432424&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** US20120251688 A1&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Stratasys, Inc. &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date:** March 30, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until At Least April 4, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**APPLICATION OVERVIEW:** This application claims the use of chocolate in extrusion-based 3D printing. The chocolate is held in a heated reservoir.  When printing begins, the chocolate is pumped from the reservoir to the print head, while still being heated to maintain its temperature and tempered state.  The print head then extrudes the chocolate material to build the 3D object.  Unused chocolate in the print head is then sent back to the reservoir and heated again.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An additive manufacturing system for printing a chocolate confection, the additive manufacturing system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;at least one controller configured to receive instructions for printing the chocolate confection, and further configured to relay commands relating to the received instructions;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a platen;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a recirculation loop configured to circulate a flow of a chocolate material, and further configured to maintain a temper of the chocolate material; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a print head in signal communication with the at least one controller, the print head being configured to receive at least a portion of the chocolate material from the recirculation loop, and further configured to extrude and deposit the chocolate material onto the platen to print at least a portion of the chocolate confection based on the commands from the at least one controller.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS:** Printing with chocolate is wonderful, but this isn’t just about chocolate. There is a vast array of thermoplastic materials that can be used in 3D printing, and it should not be possible to get an exclusive patent on each new material that is used in conjunction with well-known technology. The use of a recirculation loop (sending unused print material back to the reservoir) is also an obvious idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**.  We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one.  This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][7], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][8], and the [Ask Patents][9] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on  submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/join-effs-efforts-keep-3d-printing-open&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120251688&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20120251688&amp;OS=20120251688&amp;RS=20120251688&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/v4YzF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/ask?source=3dask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="29f12247-0039-43d2-bf0e-f108a2ff7e3f" CreationDate="2013-03-20T22:43:43.890" UserId="1767" Comment="One piece of prior art per answer preferred. Multiple answers per person are encouraged." Text="&lt;em&gt;Check out [Google Patents][3] for full details about this particular application.&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method and System for Weight Management&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC APPLICATION DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number:** 13/466661&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** US20120225162 A1&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Scott A. Mann Enterprises Llc &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date:** June 15, 2004&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until March 6, 2013 &#xD;&#xA;- **AIA window:** CLOSED&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**APPLICATION OVERVIEW:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US Patent Application [#20120225162][3] describes a weight management method. I'm reasonably sure the claims below correlate with advice I've seen for *years* in various &quot;women's interest&quot; magazines, in a number of diet books (including Weight Watchers guides), and even the USDA nutrition guide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1.** A method for managing weight, comprising the steps of: eating at least five meals a day with each meal comprising one serving of a vegetable or a fruit, a complex carbohydrate, and a lean protein for a predetermined number of calories per meal at ranges of 25-35% protein, 50-55% carbohydrate, 15-20% fat with a predetermined range of grams of fiber, wherein said predetermined range of calories is about 300 calories or is about 450 calories; losing weight by said eating at least five meals a day; and optimizing body composition by said eating at least five meals a day, [etc.]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**.  We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one.  This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on  submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20120225162&#xD;&#xA; [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA; [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3494" RevisionGUID="d3c02bc8-87b9-43e6-bc37-85f65d26a6ba" CreationDate="2013-03-20T22:44:24.550" UserId="1767" Comment="added 263 characters in body" Text="&lt;em&gt;This call for prior art is part of the [EFF][1]'s effort to keep 3D printing open. Read about the initiative [here][2], and check out [Google Patents][3] or the [USPTO][4] for full details about this particular application.&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Process for producing three-dimensionally shaped object and device for producing same][5]&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Process for Producing Three-dimensionally Shaped Object and Device for Producing Same&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application relates to 3D printing using laser sintering, a process capable of better resolution than traditional hobbyist 3D printing using thermoplastic extrusion, where the object is built in a chamber with a localized gas flow to capture fumes generated by the laser melting the powder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC APPLICATION DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number:** 13/503,217&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** US20120251378 A1&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Panasonic Corporation &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date:** October 21, 2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until At Least April 4, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**APPLICATION OVERVIEW:** This application claims the use of a chamber with a localized gas flow in laser sintering 3D printing. The 3D object is built in the chamber, and the localized gas flow captures the fumes resulting from the laser melting the powder in the process of building each layer of the object.  If the fumes are not captured, they may interfere with the laser’s beam.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS:** The idea of a localized gas flow is not a new one, and is an obvious solution to the problem of fumes interfering with a laser beam. The open source community has begun to use laser sintering 3D printing methods, which promise of better resolution and a new variety of materials. This type of patent, which covers both the gas capture method and any devices using this method, could block a wide range of inventive activity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**.  We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one.  This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes effective prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][7], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][8], and the [Ask Patents][9] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][10] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/join-effs-efforts-keep-3d-printing-open&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120251378&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20120251378&amp;OS=20120251378&amp;RS=20120251378&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/WBTmz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/ask?source=3dask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3495" RevisionGUID="a2b33255-9c1d-459d-899c-4fe45a1a18df" CreationDate="2013-03-20T22:45:03.200" UserId="1767" Comment="added 263 characters in body" Text="&lt;em&gt;This call for prior art is part of the [EFF][1]'s effort to keep 3D printing open. Read about the initiative [here][2], and check out [Google Patents][3] or the [USPTO][4] for full details about this particular application.&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Ribbon Filament and Assembly for Use in Extrusion-based Digital Manufacturing Systems&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application relates to 3D printing with a flattened, rectangular filament shaped like a ribbon instead of a cylindrical filament, taking advantage of the “insight” that larger surface area results in faster melting of print material. (Think fettuccine versus spaghetti.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC APPLICATION DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number:** 13/530,191&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** US20120258190 A1&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Stratasys, Inc. &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date:** September 30, 2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until At Least April 11, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**APPLICATION OVERVIEW:** This application claims the use of a ribbon-shaped build material for use in 3D printing. The build material is shaped like ribbon rather than a cylinder and put through a ribbon liquefier rather than a cylindrical liquefier.  The ribbon shape allows the build material to melt faster and reduces build times.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS:** This patent is about using a basic, well-known scientific principle and applying it in an obvious way to 3D printing technology to improve melting and print speed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**.  We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one.  This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][7], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][8], and the [Ask Patents][9] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][10] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/join-effs-efforts-keep-3d-printing-open&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120258190&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20120258190&amp;OS=20120258190&amp;RS=20120258190&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/05h0n.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/ask?source=3dask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3532" RevisionGUID="f199b8df-9b5c-44ed-b8de-f4de06facbb4" CreationDate="2013-03-20T23:11:02.743" UserId="3415" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;stumbled onto this from searching 3D printing.&#xD;&#xA;Any curtain coating process will likely be recirculating the product, and confectionary producer curtain coating with chocolate will be recirculating the chocolate.&#xD;&#xA;Hence documents such as&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.justia.com/patent/4032667&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3533" RevisionGUID="5cbd0702-2159-4b88-bc36-d58e0ed53d01" CreationDate="2013-03-20T23:57:26.540" UserId="3416" Text="Yes I'm asking this question so I can answer it, but of course others can join in if they want to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly relevant prior art: http://web.archive.org/web/20010223204516/http://miski.sourceforge.net/miski-white-paper.html.&#xD;&#xA;This describes a messaging system with follower/following mechanics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that Feb 2001 is not only earlier than the application date for 8401009, it is also earlier than all but 2 of the patents in the &quot;Referenced&quot; list (and those two don't have anything to do with &quot;follower/following&quot;, as far as I can tell).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7213" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3533" RevisionGUID="5cbd0702-2159-4b88-bc36-d58e0ed53d01" CreationDate="2013-03-20T23:57:26.540" UserId="3416" Text="Prior art for US Patent 8401009 &quot;Device independent message distribution platform&quot; (Twitter)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7214" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3533" RevisionGUID="5cbd0702-2159-4b88-bc36-d58e0ed53d01" CreationDate="2013-03-20T23:57:26.540" UserId="3416" Text="&lt;twitter&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3535" RevisionGUID="2c1be2a5-3485-41fa-8298-ed7cc01a7655" CreationDate="2013-03-21T01:22:19.440" UserId="3411" Text="I came across this question whilst doing research on open source BigData/BigMemory efforts.  My statements are made from personal experience as a former legal researcher and having many a conversation with a USPTO lawyer and drinking buddy (we'll just call him Joe).  Not to get too political, but collectively we need to realize that the current patent system is seriously flawed.  We, the creative, are asking lawyers to examine, understand, and rule on the novelty, eligibility, non-obviousness, and usefulness of an idea or collection of ideas.  Tell me, how do we know he/she has the strength of abstract thought to deal with the abstract principles in disciplines which are foreign to those who aren't deliberately SMEs?  How many lines of code has that examiner written?  How many hours has he/she spent crawling through the compiler/JVM/API source code or a thermodynamic equation to **intimately** understand how it all works?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience, patents on chemical processes, rubber baby bottle nipple design, etc. are wrought with enough problems, because just as Joe would tell you, they simply don't have enough lawyers who are also SMEs.  If you need a refresher on what they **do** focus on as a matter of procedure, see http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html&#xD;&#xA;See if you can find what's missing from the procedure.  If you say that there is no guaranteed subject matter oversight by experts on the government's part, you would be right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But software presents it's own problems, for one, *very little is actually **new** in software* - there simply are lots of minor variations on a few themes.  We rely on a non-technical person to intercede so that a whole segment of an industry isn't stifled from some unscrupulous applicant getting a patent on the obvious variants of Knuth's sort algorithms or a slickly re-worded spin on a rediscovered century-old recipe for anhydrous ammonia.  I maintain that the danger of software patents is that the better financed organizations will effect a &quot;Cloward-Piven&quot; strategy to overwhelm the system.  Through this shotgun approach, poorly adjudicated claims receive patents and provide fertile legal ground for frivolous law suits - look at Apple vs. Samsung.  We all know what a UI is, but it seems the patent is now received on the UX (seriously, this is like patenting what font you use in a document - meaning things are viewed stylistically rather than as a matter of process).  Maybe the inventor of the first digital tuner for radios should sue the first person who created the carousel UI component on infringement grounds?  Can you see how insidious and ridiculous this gets?&#xD;&#xA;The patent/copyright protections were not envisioned for minutia, rather, they were designed to protect big and/or progressive ideas for a fixed length of time.  **Most importantly**, they were designed to promote competition in intellectual problem solving pursuits.  And just like individual liberties, once good mechanisms will be corrupted, subjugated, and stolen if not jealously guarded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Terracotta's claims in this particular matter is just another shameful business practice akin to domain name parking - they've done nothing novel or &quot;non-obvious&quot;, we all know this.  They, like scores of others, are betting on getting away with it through the naivety of an overburdened &quot;system&quot;.  This won't change until there is some real awakening and fierce activism." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3536" RevisionGUID="2ce46e4c-b0a9-43fc-b771-37107a10112f" CreationDate="2013-03-21T03:36:21.337" UserId="3076" Text="This answer addresses the first question about patenting abstract ideas. Between the Supreme Court, the various judges on Federal Circuit and the appeals board at the USPTO this area is a vague and somewhat abstract mess. Generally speaking it comes down to exactly how it is claimed. Claim wording is dissected and argued over minutely. Skipping over mountains of complexities and angels dancing on pins, if a computer is required as part of the claimed system or if a computer is required to perform the steps of the method then it can be seen as not an abstract idea. If it could be performed completing in your head it is an abstract idea. At one time there was a bright line &quot;machine-or-transformation&quot; test. At another time there was a &quot;tangible and useful result&quot; test. Not that these were bright lines but they were better than the Supreme Court's essentially &quot;I know it whenI see it&quot; test.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, this can have claims that can be patentable subject matter if written correctly. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7220" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3533" RevisionGUID="c516797d-0680-4c87-ae83-97d158c3e1e1" CreationDate="2013-03-21T03:47:41.517" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;twitter&gt;&lt;us8401009&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3537" RevisionGUID="607dddf2-dd1b-422f-b638-956c96ebb9f6" CreationDate="2013-03-21T05:07:46.747" UserId="3419" Text="Why yes, I am knowledgeable about prior art for Chocolate printing. I mention it in my provisional patent application for mass-customization online in a 2006 patent filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Provisional 60/747,601 Filed May 18th, 2006. The patent was concerted to an actual Patent in May 2007 and has 5 co-pending Continuation-In-Part Applications pertaining to Chocolate and many other things. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say 2006 pre-dates March 2012!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7222" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="3538" RevisionGUID="f4e8234f-dd3f-4f89-8da7-26f783c485e1" CreationDate="2013-03-21T13:38:17.040" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/147/if-prior-art-only-exists-on-wayback-does-it-exist" />
  <row Id="7223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3538" RevisionGUID="7e8bfdf2-8539-4dca-9d81-03966f7d9af4" CreationDate="2013-03-21T04:55:43.620" UserId="3416" Text="I'm trying to claim prior art on the &quot;Twitter&quot; patent. As described at &lt;http://thinkinghard.com/blog/RelevantPriorArtForTwitterPatentUS8401009.html&gt;. But if it only ever existed as a web page, and only now exists as a Wayback snapshot, then maybe it no longer counts as prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7224" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3538" RevisionGUID="7e8bfdf2-8539-4dca-9d81-03966f7d9af4" CreationDate="2013-03-21T04:55:43.620" UserId="3416" Text="If prior art only exists on Wayback, does it exist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7225" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3538" RevisionGUID="7e8bfdf2-8539-4dca-9d81-03966f7d9af4" CreationDate="2013-03-21T04:55:43.620" UserId="3416" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3538" RevisionGUID="b0533378-254c-4263-a569-6bb8858511dc" CreationDate="2013-03-21T14:50:03.130" UserId="7" Comment="added 235 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I'm [trying to claim prior art][1] on the [&quot;Twitter&quot; patent][2]. But if that prior art only ever existed as a web page, and only now exists as a [Wayback Machine][3] snapshot, does it qualify as legitimate prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://thinkinghard.com/blog/RelevantPriorArtForTwitterPatentUS8401009.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PTXT&amp;s1=8401009&amp;OS=8401009&amp;RS=8401009&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://archive.org/web/web.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7228" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3538" RevisionGUID="b0533378-254c-4263-a569-6bb8858511dc" CreationDate="2013-03-21T14:50:03.130" UserId="7" Comment="added 235 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Can web pages found with the Wayback Machine qualify as prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7229" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3538" RevisionGUID="b0533378-254c-4263-a569-6bb8858511dc" CreationDate="2013-03-21T14:50:03.130" UserId="7" Comment="added 235 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us8401009&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3540" RevisionGUID="e40cd7db-b9e6-411f-a52a-fdbfd6dc3db2" CreationDate="2013-03-21T16:21:57.340" UserId="7" Text="Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Web pages that are part of the Internet Archive (ie. found with the Wayback Machine) are web pages that were once public, and may be considered &quot;Printed Publications&quot; as per [MPEP 2128][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, web pages have been used as prior art during patent prosecution before. For instance, during [Amazon.com v. Barnesandnoble.com (1999)][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pages from a website were relied on by defendants as an anticipatory reference (to no avail), however status of the reference as prior art was not challenged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wayback Machine is seen as an effective tool for searching for prior art that is no longer generally available online. But there are some drawbacks to using this tool. For instance, as [Intellogist points out][3], dating previously published materials can be tricky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; First, snapshots of a certain site may not be taken very frequently, which means that you can use the archive to prove a date when content existed on a page, but *not* when it was first added.  Secondly, the archive does not index pages which contain a robots.txt command, which specifically prohibits web crawlers from capturing the content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TLDR:** Public websites that are no longer available may serve as valid examples of prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2128.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property00/patents/AmazonInjunction.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://intellogist.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/date-online-materials-using-the-internet-archive/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3535" RevisionGUID="ff858c04-f2be-4fe8-aa82-f5322ff99da1" CreationDate="2013-03-21T17:37:13.130" UserId="3411" Comment="clarification - company's products are decent" Text="I came across this question whilst doing research on open source BigData/BigMemory efforts.  My statements are made from personal experience as a former legal researcher and having many a conversation with a USPTO lawyer and drinking buddy (we'll just call him Joe).  Not to get too political, but collectively we need to realize that the current patent system is seriously flawed.  We, the creative, are asking lawyers to examine, understand, and rule on the novelty, eligibility, non-obviousness, and usefulness of an idea or collection of ideas.  Tell me, how do we know he/she has the strength of abstract thought to deal with the abstract principles in disciplines which are foreign to those who aren't deliberately SMEs?  How many lines of code has that examiner written?  How many hours has he/she spent crawling through the compiler/JVM/API source code or a thermodynamic equation to **intimately** understand how it all works?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience, patents on chemical processes, rubber baby bottle nipple design, etc. are wrought with enough problems, because just as Joe would tell you, they simply don't have enough lawyers who are also SMEs.  If you need a refresher on what they **do** focus on as a matter of procedure, see http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html&#xD;&#xA;See if you can find what's missing from the procedure.  If you say that there is no guaranteed subject matter oversight by experts on the government's part, you would be right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But software presents it's own problems, for one, *very little is actually **new** in software* - there simply are lots of minor variations on a few themes.  We rely on a non-technical person to intercede so that a whole segment of an industry isn't stifled from some unscrupulous applicant getting a patent on the obvious variants of Knuth's sort algorithms or a slickly re-worded spin on a rediscovered century-old recipe for anhydrous ammonia.  I maintain that the danger of software patents is that the better financed organizations will effect a &quot;Cloward-Piven&quot; strategy to overwhelm the system.  Through this shotgun approach, poorly adjudicated claims receive patents and provide fertile legal ground for frivolous law suits - look at Apple vs. Samsung.  We all know what a UI is, but it seems the patent is now received on the UX (seriously, this is like patenting what font you use in a document - meaning things are viewed stylistically rather than as a matter of process).  Maybe the inventor of the first digital tuner for radios should sue the first person who created the carousel UI component on infringement grounds?  Can you see how insidious and ridiculous this gets?&#xD;&#xA;The patent/copyright protections were not envisioned for minutia, rather, they were designed to protect big and/or progressive ideas for a fixed length of time.  **Most importantly**, they were designed to promote competition in intellectual problem solving pursuits.  And just like individual liberties, once good mechanisms will be corrupted, subjugated, and stolen if not jealously guarded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Terracotta's claims in this particular matter is just another shameful business practice akin to domain name parking - they've done nothing novel or &quot;non-obvious&quot;, we all know this.  They, like scores of others, are betting on getting away with it through the naivety of an overburdened &quot;system&quot;.  This won't change until there is some real awakening and fierce activism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;btw - not slamming Terracotta's products - I applaud them for taking the **Lego(tm)** set of Java components and providing useful tools to solve people's business problems..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3536" RevisionGUID="7dec5f76-c843-4a27-9761-7bbbea7c146f" CreationDate="2013-03-21T19:20:12.877" UserId="3076" Comment="added 209 characters in body" Text="This answer addresses the first question about patenting abstract ideas. Between the Supreme Court, the various judges on Federal Circuit and the appeals board at the USPTO this area is a vague and somewhat abstract mess. Generally speaking it comes down to exactly how it is claimed. Claim wording is dissected and argued over minutely. (But to illustrate the indefiniteness of the law, there is also a doctrine of form over substance. And another principle that says it ok to ignore claim limitations that are &quot;mere after-solution actions&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Skipping over mountains of complexities and angels dancing on pins, if a computer is required as part of the claimed system or if a computer is required to perform the steps of the method then it can be seen as not an abstract idea. If it could be performed completing in your head it is an abstract idea. At one time there was a bright line &quot;machine-or-transformation&quot; test. At another time there was a &quot;tangible and useful result&quot; test. Not that these were bright lines but they were better than the Supreme Court's essentially &quot;I know it whenI see it&quot; test.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, this can have claims that can be patentable subject matter if written correctly. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3536" RevisionGUID="d2f3139f-8860-4065-9c91-37365c106fb4" CreationDate="2013-03-21T19:33:46.563" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="This answer addresses the first question about patenting abstract ideas. Between the Supreme Court, the various judges on Federal Circuit and the appeals board at the USPTO this area is a vague and somewhat abstract mess. Generally speaking it comes down to exactly how it is claimed. Claim wording is dissected and argued over minutely. (But to illustrate the indefiniteness of the law, there is also a doctrine of form over substance. And another principle that says it ok to ignore claim limitations that are &quot;mere after-solution actions&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Skipping over mountains of complexities and angels dancing on pins, if a computer is required as part of the claimed system or if a computer is required to perform the steps of the method then it can be seen as not an abstract idea. If it could be performed completing in your head it is an abstract idea. At one time there was a bright line &quot;machine-or-transformation&quot; test. At another time there was a &quot;tangible and useful result&quot; test. Not that these were bright lines but they were better than the Supreme Court's essentially &quot;I know it when I see it&quot; test.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, this can have claims that can be patentable subject matter if written correctly. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3541" RevisionGUID="6945536c-6152-4c2a-9b73-14eaf546637e" CreationDate="2013-03-21T21:52:32.093" UserId="3421" Text="We want to add Q&amp;A to our product pages, but don't want to get hit with an infringment. Are their any patents that claim to have invented the electronic Q&amp;A forum for posting questions and answers to a web page? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7238" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3541" RevisionGUID="6945536c-6152-4c2a-9b73-14eaf546637e" CreationDate="2013-03-21T21:52:32.093" UserId="3421" Text="Are there existing patents on electronic (web) Q&amp;A forums?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7239" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3541" RevisionGUID="6945536c-6152-4c2a-9b73-14eaf546637e" CreationDate="2013-03-21T21:52:32.093" UserId="3421" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3542" RevisionGUID="49ae6fe8-8bf7-484b-9bab-6798c7b4d899" CreationDate="2013-03-21T23:46:47.097" UserId="3422" Text="Quite confused as to which claims are violated by Facebook and AddThis.com, causing them to sue last month. Reference: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fish--richardson-files-patent-infringement-lawsuit-for-rembrandt-social-media-in-virginia-against-facebook-add-this-inc-189859931.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7241" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3542" RevisionGUID="49ae6fe8-8bf7-484b-9bab-6798c7b4d899" CreationDate="2013-03-21T23:46:47.097" UserId="3422" Text="Which Claims Have Been Violated By Facebook Causing Rembrandt Social Media To Sue For Infringement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7242" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3542" RevisionGUID="49ae6fe8-8bf7-484b-9bab-6798c7b4d899" CreationDate="2013-03-21T23:46:47.097" UserId="3422" Text="&lt;us6289362&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3543" RevisionGUID="de4b2533-335c-4ebd-853c-60867d469d77" CreationDate="2013-03-22T00:05:55.100" UserId="3076" Text="Off-topic but hard not to make an exception for this! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A very quick look found this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Answer ranking in community question-answering sites**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;US 8346701&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Microsoft, Corp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3542" RevisionGUID="d1bc5720-1e97-45ba-a6d4-09d0cc95e05e" CreationDate="2013-03-22T00:10:00.160" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="Quite confused as to which claims are violated by Facebook and AddThis.com, causing them to sue last month. Reference: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fish--richardson-files-patent-infringement-lawsuit-for-rembrandt-social-media-in-virginia-against-facebook-add-this-inc-189859931.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7245" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3542" RevisionGUID="d1bc5720-1e97-45ba-a6d4-09d0cc95e05e" CreationDate="2013-03-22T00:10:00.160" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;us6415316&gt;&lt;us6289362&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3543" RevisionGUID="c5534397-0bf2-4662-99a9-3e28b321c4ae" CreationDate="2013-03-22T00:28:28.317" UserId="3076" Comment="Added second ref." Text="Off-topic but hard not to make an exception for this! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A very quick look found this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Answer ranking in community question-answering sites**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;US 8346701&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Microsoft, Corp&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Providing community for customer questions** (only an application)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;US 20130013546&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;IBM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3543" RevisionGUID="a8e05f30-e6a7-425e-88a8-5db5a45a3d3f" CreationDate="2013-03-22T00:53:48.187" UserId="3076" Comment="added 147 characters in body" Text="Off-topic but hard not to make an exception for this! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A very quick look found this (don't let the titles scare you):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Answer ranking in community question-answering sites**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[US 8346701][1]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Microsoft, Corp&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Providing community for customer questions** (only an application)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[US 20130013546][2]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;IBM&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8346701&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130013546" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3537" RevisionGUID="b457d1af-f2e5-4324-8700-850b5e8f602b" CreationDate="2013-03-22T01:16:11.540" UserId="3076" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="Why yes, I am knowledgeable about prior art for Chocolate printing. I mention it in my provisional patent application for mass-customization online in a 2006 patent filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Provisional 60/747,601 Filed May 18th, 2006. The patent was concerted to an actual Patent in May 2007 and has 5 co-pending Continuation-In-Part Applications pertaining to Chocolate and many other things. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say 2006 pre-dates March 2012!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US20110313878" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3544" RevisionGUID="f4cfb437-956e-40c7-a956-380352431269" CreationDate="2013-03-22T01:36:57.420" UserId="2072" Text="*Rembrandt Social Media, LP v. Facebook, Inc. et al* (Case No. 1:13-cv-00158) &#xD;&#xA;was filed 2/4/13 in the Eastern District of Virginia.  It has been assigned to Judge T. S. Ellis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges infringement of independent claims 1, 6, 17, 28, and 39 of the '316 patent and claim 7 of the '372 patent.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3545" RevisionGUID="a15d57b0-9c82-4c1e-9c10-35541df26882" CreationDate="2013-03-22T01:43:15.050" UserId="1335" Text="Interesting reference, but I think one main difference is that Miski is based on users subscribing to arbitrary *subjects*, whereas the Twitter patent is (partly) based on users subscribing to other *users*. Now this might seem like an obvious variation (&quot;let subject = user id&quot;), but:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. it changes the functionality in subtle but significant ways (for instance, only one user can make posts on a &quot;subject&quot;, and a user can only make posts on one &quot;subject&quot;); and&#xD;&#xA;2. the claims have many other elements in addition to followed/follower mechanics, and this is related to only *one* of those (and even that one it doesn't directly address).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to subject-based publish/subscribe systems, there are many, many other systems that may predate even Miski, such as mailing lists, group chatrooms, and message-oriented middleware such as MQSeries/MQ, Tibco, and so on. A quick glance at the cited references found quite a few about forwarding messages to relevant subscribers (although I didn't find any where the subscription is for a user).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, it's important to realize that the claim has many requirements other than following posts. The first claim is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for device-independent point to multipoint communication, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving from a first computing device of a first user a selection of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one or more endpoints for receiving update messages;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving, from the first computing device, a request to follow a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; second user;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; designating, by a computer processor, the first user as a follower of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the second user in response to the request, wherein designating the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first user comprises configuring an account of the first user to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reference update messages broadcasted by the second user;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving, from a computing device of the second user, a broadcast&#xD;&#xA;&gt; request to broadcast an update message in a first format, wherein the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; update message lacks identification of the first user as an intended&#xD;&#xA;&gt; recipient, and wherein the update message includes an identification&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the second user as a sender of the update message;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; identifying, by the computer processor, a plurality of followers of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the second user in response to the broadcast request, wherein the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first user is among the plurality of followers;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; determining addressing information of each of the plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; followers, wherein the addressing information of the first user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identifies the endpoints for receiving messages;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; applying, for each of the plurality of followers, rules to the update&#xD;&#xA;&gt; message based on the addressing information;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; translating the update message into an appropriate format for each of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the endpoints; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; broadcasting the update message to each of the endpoints in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; appropriate format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, the claim is not only about following users and broadcasting posts to followers, but also about &quot;applying rules&quot; based on &quot;addressing information&quot; to those posts and &quot;translating&quot; them to &quot;appropriate formats&quot; based on the devices associated with the followers. (Plenty of prior art around for those aspects as well, including in the cited references, but the combination of *all* these aspects is what made the claim novel and non-obvious. Conversely, one must perform *all* the elements in the claim to infringe.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7251" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3533" RevisionGUID="707ed476-aaaf-47fe-b72d-7297ae39c05b" CreationDate="2013-03-22T03:16:31.100" UserId="3416" Comment="More or less standard title format" Text="CALL FOR PRIOR ART: (Twitter) &quot;Device independent message distribution platform&quot; (8401009)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3533" RevisionGUID="558b8280-d084-4bdb-b20a-7111d132053c" CreationDate="2013-03-22T03:34:46.657" UserId="3416" Comment="include a fuller description of the patent" Text="This is the patent that describes the basic mechanics and functionality of Twitter, summarized as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Users exist in the system (implicitly identifiable, although the claims do not explicitly mention this)&#xD;&#xA; - One user (the &quot;first&quot; user) can &quot;follow&quot; another user (the &quot;second&quot; user).&#xD;&#xA; - The &quot;second&quot; user can post a message. The message is not posted &quot;to&quot; anyone, it is just posted.&#xD;&#xA; - All followers of the second user receive the posted message.&#xD;&#xA; - The first user can choose from a set of possible methods for receiving messages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim does contain more steps than that, but one could consider those extra steps to be &quot;obvious&quot; implementation details. Such as, if the first user tells the system who they wish to follow, the system records that fact. And when the second user posts a message, the system looks up the list of all users previously recorded as following that user so it knows who to send copies of the message to. And so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes I am primarily asking this question so I can answer it, but others can join in if they want to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly relevant prior art: http://web.archive.org/web/20010223204516/http://miski.sourceforge.net/miski-white-paper.html.&#xD;&#xA;This describes a somewhat similar messaging system with follower/following mechanics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that Feb 2001 is not only earlier than the application date for 8401009, it is also earlier than all but 2 of the patents in the &quot;Referenced&quot; list (and those two don't have anything to do with &quot;follower/following&quot;, as far as I can tell).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3546" RevisionGUID="9695ecae-287e-48da-935e-df2311b9b9bc" CreationDate="2013-03-22T04:39:06.533" UserId="3424" Text="Even though Bottle Cap Necklaces have a patent, can individuals still make the item and sell it for profit legally?&#xD;&#xA;I have a friend who has started her own jewelry business and I would like to buy bottlecap necklaces from her but I was told by someone else that she shouldn't sell them because of this patent. Can anyone clear it up for me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7254" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3546" RevisionGUID="9695ecae-287e-48da-935e-df2311b9b9bc" CreationDate="2013-03-22T04:39:06.533" UserId="3424" Text="Bottle Cap Necklace Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7255" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3546" RevisionGUID="9695ecae-287e-48da-935e-df2311b9b9bc" CreationDate="2013-03-22T04:39:06.533" UserId="3424" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3548" RevisionGUID="d2b6ea4b-a3af-4b7b-9f86-5039f87c0568" CreationDate="2013-03-22T18:10:26.837" UserId="3076" Text="This might be what you are looking for: [bottle cap jewelry ][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5860297" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3549" RevisionGUID="ee9e1539-7bf9-4a13-a48f-3ad4c957ad08" CreationDate="2013-03-22T18:44:36.410" UserId="3426" Text="What George is probably saying is that you can sell them, because if anyone complains, that patent could be invalidated by the older patent which George has linked." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3533" RevisionGUID="a0aaed31-8e10-4f3b-9ed5-4cc6302c3ac5" CreationDate="2013-03-22T23:47:57.867" UserId="1767" Comment="Reformatted to conform to http://bit.ly/100YMCN" Text="&lt;em&gt;This is a recently issued patent from Twitter&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Device independent message distribution platform][5]&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Device independent message distribution platform&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This recently issued patent describes the basic mechanics and functionality of Twitter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC PATENT DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Patent Number:** 8,401,009&#xD;&#xA; - **Priority Number:** US2008177589&#xD;&#xA; - **Issue Date:** March 19, 2013&#xD;&#xA; - **Priority Date:** July 22, 2008&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee:** Twitter, Inc. &#xD;&#xA; - **Inventor:** Dorsey Jack, San Francisco&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PATENT OVERVIEW:** This is the patent that describes the basic mechanics and functionality of Twitter, summarized as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A system comprised of users&#xD;&#xA; - One user (the &quot;first&quot; user) can &quot;follow&quot; another user (the &quot;second&quot; user).&#xD;&#xA; - The &quot;second&quot; user can post a message. The message is not posted &quot;to&quot; anyone, it is just posted.&#xD;&#xA; - All followers of the second user receive the posted message.&#xD;&#xA; - The first user can choose from a set of possible methods for receiving messages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim contains more steps than that, but one could consider those extra steps to be &quot;obvious&quot; implementation details. Such as, if the first user tells the system whom they wish to follow, the system records that fact. And when the second user posts a message, the system looks up the list of all users previously recorded as following that user so it knows who to send copies of the message to. And so on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 requires, specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for device-independent point to multipoint communication, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Receiving** from a first computing device of a first user a selection of one or more endpoints for receiving update messages;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Receiving**, from the first computing device, a request to follow a second user;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Designating**, by a computer processor, the first user as a follower of the second user in response to the request, wherein designating the first user comprises configuring an account of the first user to reference update messages broadcasted by the second user;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Receiving**, from a computing device of the second user, a broadcast request to broadcast an update message in a first format, wherein the update message lacks identification of the first user as an intended recipient, and wherein the update message includes an identification of the second user as a sender of the update message;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Identifying**, by the computer processor, a plurality of followers of the second user in response to the broadcast request, wherein the first user is among the plurality of followers;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Determining** addressing information of each of the plurality of followers, wherein the addressing information of the first user identifies the endpoints for receiving messages;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Applying**, for each of the plurality of followers, rules to the update message based on the addressing information;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Translating** the update message into an appropriate format for each of the endpoints; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Broadcasting** the update message to each of the endpoints in the appropriate format.&#xD;&#xA;An additive manufacturing system for printing a chocolate confection, the additive &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS:** This patent covers the basic functionality of a Twitter-like service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**.  We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one.  This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. &#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on  submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us8401009b1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US8401009B1/US08401009-20130319-D00001.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7267" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3533" RevisionGUID="a0aaed31-8e10-4f3b-9ed5-4cc6302c3ac5" CreationDate="2013-03-22T23:47:57.867" UserId="1767" Comment="Reformatted to conform to http://bit.ly/100YMCN" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us8401009&gt;&lt;twitter&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3533" RevisionGUID="f84fdc02-b350-4354-8444-351beb633be7" CreationDate="2013-03-23T00:40:56.833" UserId="1767" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="&lt;em&gt;This is a recently issued patent from Twitter&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Device independent message distribution platform][5]&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Device independent message distribution platform&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This recently issued patent describes the basic mechanics and functionality of Twitter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC PATENT DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Patent Number:** [8,401,009][3]&#xD;&#xA; - **Priority Number:** US2008177589&#xD;&#xA; - **Issue Date:** March 19, 2013&#xD;&#xA; - **Priority Date:** July 22, 2008 (provisional filed July 23, 2007)&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee:** Twitter, Inc. &#xD;&#xA; - **Inventor:** Dorsey Jack, San Francisco&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PATENT OVERVIEW:** This is the patent that describes the basic mechanics and functionality of Twitter, summarized as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A system comprised of users&#xD;&#xA; - One user (the &quot;first&quot; user) can &quot;follow&quot; another user (the &quot;second&quot; user).&#xD;&#xA; - The &quot;second&quot; user can post a message. The message is not posted &quot;to&quot; anyone, it is just posted.&#xD;&#xA; - All followers of the second user receive the posted message.&#xD;&#xA; - The first user can choose from a set of possible methods for receiving messages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim contains more steps than that, but one could consider those extra steps to be &quot;obvious&quot; implementation details. Such as, if the first user tells the system whom they wish to follow, the system records that fact. And when the second user posts a message, the system looks up the list of all users previously recorded as following that user so it knows who to send copies of the message to. And so on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 requires, specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for device-independent point to multipoint communication, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Receiving** from a first computing device of a first user a selection of one or more endpoints for receiving update messages;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Receiving**, from the first computing device, a request to follow a second user;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Designating**, by a computer processor, the first user as a follower of the second user in response to the request, wherein designating the first user comprises configuring an account of the first user to reference update messages broadcasted by the second user;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Receiving**, from a computing device of the second user, a broadcast request to broadcast an update message in a first format, wherein the update message lacks identification of the first user as an intended recipient, and wherein the update message includes an identification of the second user as a sender of the update message;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Identifying**, by the computer processor, a plurality of followers of the second user in response to the broadcast request, wherein the first user is among the plurality of followers;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Determining** addressing information of each of the plurality of followers, wherein the addressing information of the first user identifies the endpoints for receiving messages;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Applying**, for each of the plurality of followers, rules to the update message based on the addressing information;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Translating** the update message into an appropriate format for each of the endpoints; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Broadcasting** the update message to each of the endpoints in the appropriate format.&#xD;&#xA;An additive manufacturing system for printing a chocolate confection, the additive &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS:** This patent covers the basic functionality of a Twitter-like service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**.  We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one.  This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. &#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on  submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us8401009b1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US8401009B1/US08401009-20130319-D00001.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3533" RevisionGUID="ad7eda29-f6de-4a2e-9cc6-972c8574455b" CreationDate="2013-03-23T01:23:08.087" UserId="3076" Comment="Fixed inventor name, changed characterization of claim 1 to method. Removed concept that some steps might not matter." Text="&lt;em&gt;This is a recently issued patent from Twitter&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Device independent message distribution platform][5]&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Device independent message distribution platform&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This recently issued patent describes the basic mechanics and functionality of Twitter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC PATENT DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Patent Number:** [8,401,009][3]&#xD;&#xA; - **Priority Number:** US2008177589&#xD;&#xA; - **Issue Date:** March 19, 2013&#xD;&#xA; - **Priority Date:** July 22, 2008 (provisional filed July 23, 2007)&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee:** Twitter, Inc. &#xD;&#xA; - **Inventor:** Jack Dorsey, San Francisco&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PATENT OVERVIEW:** This is the patent that describes the basic mechanics and functionality of Twitter, summarized roughly as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A method of communicating amoung users &#xD;&#xA; - One user (the &quot;first&quot; user) can &quot;follow&quot; another user (the &quot;second&quot; user).&#xD;&#xA; - The &quot;second&quot; user can post a message. The message is not posted &quot;to&quot; anyone, it is just posted.&#xD;&#xA; - All followers of the second user receive the posted message.&#xD;&#xA; - The first user can choose from a set of possible methods for receiving messages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim contains more steps than that, Such as, if the first user tells the system whom they wish to follow, the system records that fact. And when the second user posts a message, the system looks up the list of all users previously recorded as following that user so it knows who to send copies of the message to. And so on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 requires, specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for device-independent point to multipoint communication, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Receiving** from a first computing device of a first user a selection of one or more endpoints for receiving update messages;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Receiving**, from the first computing device, a request to follow a second user;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Designating**, by a computer processor, the first user as a follower of the second user in response to the request, wherein designating the first user comprises configuring an account of the first user to reference update messages broadcasted by the second user;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Receiving**, from a computing device of the second user, a broadcast request to broadcast an update message in a first format, wherein the update message lacks identification of the first user as an intended recipient, and wherein the update message includes an identification of the second user as a sender of the update message;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Identifying**, by the computer processor, a plurality of followers of the second user in response to the broadcast request, wherein the first user is among the plurality of followers;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Determining** addressing information of each of the plurality of followers, wherein the addressing information of the first user identifies the endpoints for receiving messages;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Applying**, for each of the plurality of followers, rules to the update message based on the addressing information;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Translating** the update message into an appropriate format for each of the endpoints; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Broadcasting** the update message to each of the endpoints in the appropriate format.&#xD;&#xA;An additive manufacturing system for printing a chocolate confection, the additive &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS:** This patent covers the basic functionality of a Twitter-like service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**.  We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one.  This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. &#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on  submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us8401009b1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US8401009B1/US08401009-20130319-D00001.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3551" RevisionGUID="761e81cc-0f1c-474b-aebf-df07a90dae61" CreationDate="2013-03-23T01:35:31.547" UserId="3416" Text="&lt;a href=&quot;http://web.archive.org/web/20010223204516/http://miski.sourceforge.net/miski-white-paper.html&quot;&gt;Miski: A White Paper&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This describes a somewhat similar messaging system with follower/following mechanics. Note that Feb 2001 is not only earlier than the application date for 8401009, it is also earlier than all but 2 of the patents in the &quot;Referenced&quot; list and those two don't have anything to do with &quot;follower/following&quot;. The reason I assert priority over the other references is to point out that one can determine its relevance as prior art without reading all the other references dated later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To match Miski with the Twitter-like system defined in the patent's first claim, one must translate or relate concepts as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The patent's &quot;first user&quot; is the *subscribing user* in the description of Miski (which I also referred to as the &quot;second user&quot; at one point).&#xD;&#xA;* The patent's &quot;second user&quot; is the *posting user* in the description of Miski (which I also referred to as the &quot;first user&quot; in some places).&#xD;&#xA;* There are no &quot;subjects&quot; in the patent. Miski is equivalent in functionality to Twitter if everyone has a default subject called &quot;Everything&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;* In the Miski description, I suggested that a message always consists of a URL which points to the content. As with the patent, actual delivery of the message is by whatever means is agreed between the subscriber and the system.&#xD;&#xA;* Within the 9 steps detailed in the patent's first claim, the Miski description does not explicitly list steps 5 to 9 as separate steps, but it does clearly state that a message is delivered from poster to poster's server to subscriber's server to subscriber, as a consequence of the subscriber subscribing to the poster and the poster then posting a message. At the time of writing, I would have regarded the detailed computation steps required as fairly &quot;obvious&quot; (but I could discuss this in further detail if desired).&#xD;&#xA;* With Miski I described a system of usernames consisting of unique name within a given domain plus a domain name, with a similar structure to email addresses. The patent claims do not seem to mention assignment of IDs at all, although it is hard to imagine how it could be implemented without IDs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3551" RevisionGUID="11da30da-d823-4161-8124-d50cc15f8c51" CreationDate="2013-03-23T01:44:27.697" UserId="3416" Comment="minor edits" Text="&lt;a href=&quot;http://web.archive.org/web/20010223204516/http://miski.sourceforge.net/miski-white-paper.html&quot;&gt;Miski: A White Paper&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This describes a somewhat similar messaging system with follower/following mechanics. Note that Feb 2001 is not only earlier than the application date for 8401009, it is also earlier than all but two of the patents in the &quot;Referenced&quot; list, and those two don't have anything to do with &quot;follower/following&quot;. The reason I assert priority over the other references is to point out that one can determine the relevance of Miski as prior art without reading all the other references dated later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To match Miski with the Twitter-like system defined in the patent's first claim, one must translate or relate concepts as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The patent's &quot;first user&quot; is the *subscribing user* in the description of Miski (which I also referred to as the &quot;second user&quot; at one point).&#xD;&#xA;* The patent's &quot;second user&quot; is the *posting user* in the description of Miski (which I also referred to as the &quot;first user&quot; in some places).&#xD;&#xA;* There are no &quot;subjects&quot; in the patent. Miski is equivalent in functionality to Twitter if everyone has a default subject called &quot;Everything&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;* In the Miski description, I suggested that a message always consists of a URL which points to the content. As with the patent, actual delivery of the message is by whatever means is agreed between the subscriber and the system.&#xD;&#xA;* Within the 9 steps detailed in the patent's first claim, the Miski description does not explicitly list steps 5 to 9 as separate steps, but it does clearly state that a message is delivered from poster to poster's server to subscriber's server to subscriber, as a consequence of the subscriber subscribing to the poster and the poster then posting a message. At the time of writing, I would have regarded the detailed computation steps required as fairly &quot;obvious&quot; (but I could discuss this in further detail if desired).&#xD;&#xA;* With Miski I described a system of usernames consisting of unique name within a given domain plus a domain name, with a similar structure to email addresses. The patent claims do not seem to mention assignment of IDs at all, although it is hard to imagine how it could be implemented without IDs.&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Reposting&quot; is like &quot;retweeting&quot; (but there is no &quot;retweeting&quot; in the patent anyway).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To assist with reading the Miski document, so that anyone can skip those parts not relevant to the issue of prior art, I have identified three selections within the document that contain all the prior art for this patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* From &quot;A brief summary of the features that define the Miski system is as follows -&quot; to &quot;The headers include a web URL pointing to message bodies for those messages for which the receiving users decide they want to receive the full contents.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* From &quot;The following scenario demonstrates the basic features of the system- &quot; to &quot;Her web browser retrieves the message contents from Fred's server. &quot;&#xD;&#xA;* The section under the heading &quot;Delivery Methods&quot; (which ends &quot;as a moderated chat system.&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3533" RevisionGUID="e9e3eb39-99be-42d1-9cd5-6b8ba22ce22a" CreationDate="2013-03-23T01:55:20.840" UserId="3076" Comment="Removed extraneous left-over sentence about 3d chocolate" Text="&lt;em&gt;This is a recently issued patent from Twitter&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Device independent message distribution platform][5]&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Device independent message distribution platform&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This recently issued patent describes the basic mechanics and functionality of Twitter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC PATENT DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Patent Number:** [8,401,009][3]&#xD;&#xA; - **Priority Number:** US2008177589&#xD;&#xA; - **Issue Date:** March 19, 2013&#xD;&#xA; - **Priority Date:** July 22, 2008 (provisional filed July 23, 2007)&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee:** Twitter, Inc. &#xD;&#xA; - **Inventor:** Jack Dorsey, San Francisco&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PATENT OVERVIEW:** This is the patent that describes the basic mechanics and functionality of Twitter, summarized roughly as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A method of communicating amoung users &#xD;&#xA; - One user (the &quot;first&quot; user) can &quot;follow&quot; another user (the &quot;second&quot; user).&#xD;&#xA; - The &quot;second&quot; user can post a message. The message is not posted &quot;to&quot; anyone, it is just posted.&#xD;&#xA; - All followers of the second user receive the posted message.&#xD;&#xA; - The first user can choose from a set of possible methods for receiving messages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim contains more steps such as, if the first user tells the system whom they wish to follow, the system records that fact. And when the second user posts a message, the system looks up the list of all users previously recorded as following that user so it knows who to send copies of the message to. And so on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 requires, specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for device-independent point to multipoint communication, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Receiving** from a first computing device of a first user a selection of one or more endpoints for receiving update messages;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Receiving**, from the first computing device, a request to follow a second user;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Designating**, by a computer processor, the first user as a follower of the second user in response to the request, wherein designating the first user comprises configuring an account of the first user to reference update messages broadcasted by the second user;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Receiving**, from a computing device of the second user, a broadcast request to broadcast an update message in a first format, wherein the update message lacks identification of the first user as an intended recipient, and wherein the update message includes an identification of the second user as a sender of the update message;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Identifying**, by the computer processor, a plurality of followers of the second user in response to the broadcast request, wherein the first user is among the plurality of followers;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Determining** addressing information of each of the plurality of followers, wherein the addressing information of the first user identifies the endpoints for receiving messages;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Applying**, for each of the plurality of followers, rules to the update message based on the addressing information;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Translating** the update message into an appropriate format for each of the endpoints; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Broadcasting** the update message to each of the endpoints in the appropriate format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other claims are for the computer system that does this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS:** This patent covers the basic functionality of a Twitter-like service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**.  We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one.  This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. &#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on  submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us8401009b1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US8401009B1/US08401009-20130319-D00001.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3551" RevisionGUID="27f6d81f-d2dd-4eb4-a1d5-c6e7b3323ae1" CreationDate="2013-03-23T01:58:28.213" UserId="3416" Comment="tidy up relationships &amp; concept translations" Text="&lt;a href=&quot;http://web.archive.org/web/20010223204516/http://miski.sourceforge.net/miski-white-paper.html&quot;&gt;Miski: A White Paper&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This document, which originally existed as a documentation web page for an unimplemented project on SourceForge, now only exists as a series of snapshots on Wayback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The paper describes a messaging system with follower/following mechanics, very similar to that described in the independent claims of the patent. Note that Feb 2001 is not only earlier than the application date for 8401009, it is also earlier than all but two of the patents in the &quot;Referenced&quot; list, and those two don't have anything to do with &quot;follower/following&quot;. The reason I assert priority over the other references is to point out that one can determine the relevance of Miski as prior art without reading all the other references dated later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To match Miski with the Twitter-like system defined in the patent's first claim, one must translate or relate concepts as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The patent's &quot;first user&quot; is the *subscribing user* in the Miski document (which I also referred to as the &quot;second user&quot; at one point).&#xD;&#xA;* The patent's &quot;second user&quot; is the *posting user* in the Miski document (which I also referred to as the &quot;first user&quot; in some places).&#xD;&#xA;* There are no &quot;subjects&quot; in the patent. Miski would be equivalent in functionality to Twitter if everyone had a default subject called &quot;Everything&quot; (this scenario is not considered in the Miski document).&#xD;&#xA;* In the Miski document, I suggested that a message always consists of a URL which points to the content. As with the patent, actual delivery of the message is by whatever means is agreed between the subscriber and the system.&#xD;&#xA;* Within the 9 steps detailed in the patent's first claim, the Miski document does not explicitly list steps 5 to 9 as separate steps, but it does clearly state that a message is delivered from poster to poster's server to subscriber's server to subscriber, as a consequence of the subscriber subscribing to the poster and the poster then posting a message. At the time of writing, I would have regarded the detailed computation steps required as fairly &quot;obvious&quot; (but I could discuss this in further detail if desired).&#xD;&#xA;* In the Miski document I described a system of usernames consisting of unique name within a given domain plus a domain name, with a similar structure to email addresses. The patent claims do not seem to mention assignment of IDs at all, although it is hard to imagine how a Twitter-like system could be implemented without explicit IDs.&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Reposting&quot; is like &quot;retweeting&quot; (but there is no &quot;retweeting&quot; in the patent anyway, so that concept is not relevant to the prior art issue).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To assist with reading the Miski document, so that anyone can skip those parts not relevant to the issue of prior art, I have identified three selections within the document that contain all the prior art for this patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* From &quot;A brief summary of the features that define the Miski system is as follows -&quot; to &quot;The headers include a web URL pointing to message bodies for those messages for which the receiving users decide they want to receive the full contents.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* From &quot;The following scenario demonstrates the basic features of the system- &quot; to &quot;Her web browser retrieves the message contents from Fred's server. &quot;&#xD;&#xA;* The section under the heading &quot;Delivery Methods&quot; (which ends &quot;as a moderated chat system.&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3551" RevisionGUID="a1936aec-9766-40b1-8cf8-0c4e5bcb138c" CreationDate="2013-03-23T02:08:49.013" UserId="3416" Comment="minor edits" Text="&lt;a href=&quot;http://web.archive.org/web/20010223204516/http://miski.sourceforge.net/miski-white-paper.html&quot;&gt;Miski: A White Paper&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This document, which originally existed as a documentation web page for an unimplemented project on SourceForge, now only exists as a series of snapshots on Wayback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The document describes a messaging system with follower/following mechanics, very similar to that described in the independent claims of the patent. Note that Feb 2001 is not only earlier than the application date for 8401009, it is also earlier than all but two of the patents in the &quot;Referenced&quot; list, and those two don't have anything to do with &quot;follower/following&quot;. The reason I assert priority over the other references is to point out that one can determine the relevance of Miski as prior art without reading all the other references dated later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To match Miski with the Twitter-like system defined in the patent's first claim, one must translate or relate concepts as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The patent's &quot;first user&quot; is the *subscribing user* in the Miski document (which I also referred to as the &quot;second user&quot; at one point).&#xD;&#xA;* The patent's &quot;second user&quot; is the *posting user* in the Miski document (which I also referred to as the &quot;first user&quot; in some places).&#xD;&#xA;* There are no &quot;subjects&quot; in the patent. Miski would be equivalent in functionality to Twitter if everyone had a default subject called &quot;Everything&quot; (this scenario is not considered in the Miski document, but the users of an actual implementation of Miski would always be able to choose to define such a subject within their own subject hierarchy).&#xD;&#xA;* In the Miski document, I suggested that a message always consists of a URL which points to the content. As with the patent, actual delivery of the message is by whatever means is agreed between the subscriber and the system.&#xD;&#xA;* Within the 9 steps detailed in the patent's first claim, the Miski document does not explicitly list steps 5 to 9 as separate steps, but it does clearly state that a message is delivered from poster to poster's server to subscriber's server to subscriber, as a consequence of the subscriber subscribing to the poster and the poster then posting a message. At the time of writing, I would have regarded the detailed computation steps required as fairly &quot;obvious&quot; (but I could discuss this in further detail if desired).&#xD;&#xA;* In the Miski document I described a system of unique IDs, where each ID consists of a unique name within a given domain plus a domain name, with a similar structure to that of email addresses. The patent claims do not seem to mention assignment of IDs at all, although it is hard to imagine how a Twitter-like system could be implemented without explicit IDs.&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Reposting&quot; is like &quot;retweeting&quot; (but there is no &quot;retweeting&quot; in the patent anyway, so that concept is not relevant to the prior art issue).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To assist with reading the Miski document, so that anyone can skip those parts not relevant to the issue of prior art, I have identified three selections within the document that contain all the prior art for this patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* From &quot;A brief summary of the features that define the Miski system is as follows -&quot; to &quot;The headers include a web URL pointing to message bodies for those messages for which the receiving users decide they want to receive the full contents.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* From &quot;The following scenario demonstrates the basic features of the system- &quot; to &quot;Her web browser retrieves the message contents from Fred's server. &quot;&#xD;&#xA;* The section under the heading &quot;Delivery Methods&quot; (which ends &quot;as a moderated chat system.&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3533" RevisionGUID="97c77fe2-5eff-4575-919c-f48c6d42affd" CreationDate="2013-03-23T02:19:50.783" UserId="3076" Comment="Added second inventor's name" Text="&lt;em&gt;This is a recently issued patent from Twitter&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Device independent message distribution platform][5]&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Device independent message distribution platform&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This recently issued patent describes the basic mechanics and functionality of Twitter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC PATENT DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Patent Number:** [8,401,009][3]&#xD;&#xA; - **Priority Number:** US2008177589&#xD;&#xA; - **Issue Date:** March 19, 2013&#xD;&#xA; - **Priority Date:** July 22, 2008 (provisional filed July 23, 2007)&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee:** Twitter, Inc. &#xD;&#xA; - **Inventor:** Jack Dorsey, San Francisco and Christopher Isaac Stone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PATENT OVERVIEW:** This is the patent that describes the basic mechanics and functionality of Twitter, summarized roughly as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A method of communicating amoung users &#xD;&#xA; - One user (the &quot;first&quot; user) can &quot;follow&quot; another user (the &quot;second&quot; user).&#xD;&#xA; - The &quot;second&quot; user can post a message. The message is not posted &quot;to&quot; anyone, it is just posted.&#xD;&#xA; - All followers of the second user receive the posted message.&#xD;&#xA; - The first user can choose from a set of possible methods for receiving messages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim contains more steps such as, if the first user tells the system whom they wish to follow, the system records that fact. And when the second user posts a message, the system looks up the list of all users previously recorded as following that user so it knows who to send copies of the message to. And so on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 requires, specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for device-independent point to multipoint communication, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Receiving** from a first computing device of a first user a selection of one or more endpoints for receiving update messages;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Receiving**, from the first computing device, a request to follow a second user;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Designating**, by a computer processor, the first user as a follower of the second user in response to the request, wherein designating the first user comprises configuring an account of the first user to reference update messages broadcasted by the second user;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Receiving**, from a computing device of the second user, a broadcast request to broadcast an update message in a first format, wherein the update message lacks identification of the first user as an intended recipient, and wherein the update message includes an identification of the second user as a sender of the update message;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Identifying**, by the computer processor, a plurality of followers of the second user in response to the broadcast request, wherein the first user is among the plurality of followers;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Determining** addressing information of each of the plurality of followers, wherein the addressing information of the first user identifies the endpoints for receiving messages;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Applying**, for each of the plurality of followers, rules to the update message based on the addressing information;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Translating** the update message into an appropriate format for each of the endpoints; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Broadcasting** the update message to each of the endpoints in the appropriate format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other claims are for the computer system that does this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS:** This patent covers the basic functionality of a Twitter-like service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**.  We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one.  This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. &#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on  submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us8401009b1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US8401009B1/US08401009-20130319-D00001.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3533" RevisionGUID="6b5def21-6184-46f6-8f57-1d83babb883c" CreationDate="2013-03-23T02:22:04.713" UserId="3416" Comment="typo &quot;amoung&quot;" Text="&lt;em&gt;This is a recently issued patent from Twitter&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Device independent message distribution platform][5]&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Device independent message distribution platform&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This recently issued patent describes the basic mechanics and functionality of Twitter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC PATENT DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Patent Number:** [8,401,009][3]&#xD;&#xA; - **Priority Number:** US2008177589&#xD;&#xA; - **Issue Date:** March 19, 2013&#xD;&#xA; - **Priority Date:** July 22, 2008 (provisional filed July 23, 2007)&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee:** Twitter, Inc. &#xD;&#xA; - **Inventor:** Jack Dorsey, San Francisco and Christopher Isaac Stone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PATENT OVERVIEW:** This is the patent that describes the basic mechanics and functionality of Twitter, summarized roughly as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A method of communicating among users &#xD;&#xA; - One user (the &quot;first&quot; user) can &quot;follow&quot; another user (the &quot;second&quot; user).&#xD;&#xA; - The &quot;second&quot; user can post a message. The message is not posted &quot;to&quot; anyone, it is just posted.&#xD;&#xA; - All followers of the second user receive the posted message.&#xD;&#xA; - The first user can choose from a set of possible methods for receiving messages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim contains more steps such as, if the first user tells the system whom they wish to follow, the system records that fact. And when the second user posts a message, the system looks up the list of all users previously recorded as following that user so it knows who to send copies of the message to. And so on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 requires, specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for device-independent point to multipoint communication, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Receiving** from a first computing device of a first user a selection of one or more endpoints for receiving update messages;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Receiving**, from the first computing device, a request to follow a second user;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Designating**, by a computer processor, the first user as a follower of the second user in response to the request, wherein designating the first user comprises configuring an account of the first user to reference update messages broadcasted by the second user;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Receiving**, from a computing device of the second user, a broadcast request to broadcast an update message in a first format, wherein the update message lacks identification of the first user as an intended recipient, and wherein the update message includes an identification of the second user as a sender of the update message;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Identifying**, by the computer processor, a plurality of followers of the second user in response to the broadcast request, wherein the first user is among the plurality of followers;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Determining** addressing information of each of the plurality of followers, wherein the addressing information of the first user identifies the endpoints for receiving messages;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Applying**, for each of the plurality of followers, rules to the update message based on the addressing information;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Translating** the update message into an appropriate format for each of the endpoints; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Broadcasting** the update message to each of the endpoints in the appropriate format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other claims are for the computer system that does this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS:** This patent covers the basic functionality of a Twitter-like service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**.  We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one.  This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. &#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on  submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us8401009b1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US8401009B1/US08401009-20130319-D00001.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7278" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3542" RevisionGUID="5f81ccdd-552d-49e0-954e-628ed5492e67" CreationDate="2013-03-23T06:51:06.143" UserId="3076" Comment="Edited title" Text="Which Claims Are Alledged To Be Infringed By Facebook Causing Rembrandt Social Media To Sue For Infringement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3542" RevisionGUID="5f81ccdd-552d-49e0-954e-628ed5492e67" CreationDate="2013-03-23T06:51:06.143" UserId="3076" Comment="Edited title" Text="Quite confused as to which claims might be violated by Facebook and AddThis.com, causing them to get sued last month. Reference: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fish--richardson-files-patent-infringement-lawsuit-for-rembrandt-social-media-in-virginia-against-facebook-add-this-inc-189859931.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3553" RevisionGUID="f9a1dcc2-51a9-4416-8c2f-4a51d79e78f4" CreationDate="2013-03-24T20:53:23.853" UserId="3431" Text="One piece of prior art to this one (non-cylindrical feedstock) is here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://blog.reprap.org/2009/03/drink-bottle-feedstock.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;by me...; the blog post is about rectangular cross-section feedstock&#xD;&#xA;(cut from a drink bottle, but it would obviously work with any source&#xD;&#xA;of a rectangular shape).  It also priorartizes (can that be a word?)&#xD;&#xA;the separate idea of folding the thin rectangular feedstock before it goes into the head.  This makes it stiffer (think corrugated cardboard), but allows it so be stored in a more flexible form.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3554" RevisionGUID="8407fbd1-941a-4609-b474-1c1cf26cbc2d" CreationDate="2013-03-24T21:34:20.727" UserId="3432" Text="Printing with chocolate is described on this wiki page: http://reprap.org/wiki/Chocolate_Extrusion . According to the history view of that page it is older than a year." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3555" RevisionGUID="d7aa28cf-95b5-4e32-9ada-567fb98b3665" CreationDate="2013-03-25T01:46:16.787" UserId="3433" Text="Chocolate Extruder (February 28, 2011):&#xD;&#xA;http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:6756&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIFkw5RNXqQ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chocolate Extruder (July 23, 2011):&#xD;&#xA;http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:10278&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chocolate Extruder (October 8, 2011):&#xD;&#xA;http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:14421&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chocolate Extruder (October 11, 2011):&#xD;&#xA;http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:12430&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chocolate Extruder (February 7, 2012):&#xD;&#xA;http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:17216&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chocolate Cooler for 3D printed Chocolate:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:19354&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chocolate Pump for 3d Printing:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:18933&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could keep going..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3556" RevisionGUID="cb9f7e69-6314-4573-9ef3-6b12a4643140" CreationDate="2013-03-25T08:08:49.243" UserId="3434" Text="Sorry did not notice the PA cutoff date...&#xD;&#xA;************&#xD;&#xA;I chatted about that maybe 2 years ago on IRC #reprap.  If there's a log and it is usable I could search for it (nick Action68).  &#xD;&#xA;The issue rose when I tried to print with PMMA.  I used sheet acrylic and cut it to slices with a laser cutter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3557" RevisionGUID="2db6e676-aa68-4d2f-8ac6-1bf796172ddf" CreationDate="2013-03-25T09:23:55.783" UserId="3435" Text="It seems the improve answer function did not work. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this article from 1993 describes the use of a chamber and gasses in the DTM Sinterstation 2000:&#xD;&#xA;http://utwired.engr.utexas.edu/lff/symposium/proceedingsArchive/pubs/Manuscripts/1993/1993-11-Forderhase.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3559" RevisionGUID="0e080956-d1cf-4e6d-9f9f-b63395f58759" CreationDate="2013-03-25T15:15:39.123" UserId="3359" Text="How about US Patent No. 6,389,455 (1998 filing)?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Col. 8:4 references corporate accounts where the regional manager can be on the receiving end of sale rep communications.  All contacts go through a dotbounce hub so the message is not sent to anyone. Rules of the forward impact formatting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3560" RevisionGUID="0cd54910-eb0c-4ce1-b7e7-78234d3aa92e" CreationDate="2013-03-25T16:41:28.970" UserId="3359" Text="I would ask for prior art, but I'm more curious how close you think this and what the consensus on inequitable conduct is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;U.S. Patent No. 8,282,155 filed in 2009 and claiming priority to 2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PALL&amp;RefSrch=yes&amp;Query=PN/8283155&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inventors are listed as:Holmes; Elizabeth A. (Palo Alto, CA), Roy; Shaunak (San Mateo, CA), Howard; John (Saratoga, CA), Wang; Chengwang (Palo Alto, CA), Gibbons; Ian (Portola Valley, CA), Kemp; Timothy M. (San Jose, CA), Qi; Shize Daniel (Arcadia, CA).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 of the patent states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A two-way communication system for detecting an analyte in a bodily fluid from a subject, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) a reader assembly comprising a programmable processor that is operably linked to a communication assembly; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) an external device configured to transmit a protocol to the communication assembly; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c) a test device configured to be inserted into the reader assembly, said test device comprising: i) a sample collection unit configured for collecting a sample of bodily fluid suspected to contain an analyte; ii) an assay assembly containing reactants that react with said sample of bodily fluid based on the protocol transmitted from said external device to yield a detectable signal indicative of the presence and/or concentration of said analyte; and iii) an identifier that is configured to provide the identity of said test device and is also configured to trigger the transmission of said protocol that is selected based on said identifier; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;wherein the programmable processor of the reader assembly is configured to receive said protocol from said external device, wherein said protocol in turn effects (1) a reaction in said assay assembly for generating said signal, and (2) selection of a detection method for detecting said signal, and wherein said reader further comprises a detection assembly for detecting said signal which is transmitted via said communication assembly to said external device.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now for the reference by Ian Gibbons one of the named inventor.  It is not of record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;U.S. Patent No. 4,756,884&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=4756884.PN.&amp;OS=PN/4756884&amp;RS=PN/4756884&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;This invention provides devices and methods, where the devices rely upon capillaries, chambers, and orifices to pump fluids; to control measurement of fluids, reaction times, and mixing of reagents; and to determine a detectable signal. By varying the path through which the fluid flows, one can provide for a variety of activities, such as mixing, incubating and detecting. The methods may involve the binding of homologous members of a specific binding pair, resulting in complex formation. The complex formation can provide for a variety of events which can be detected by instrumentation or visual means. Alternatively, the methods may involve chemical reactions, for example, the detection of glucose or serum enzymes, which result in a detectable change in the sample medium. Since the devices rely upon capillaries and other chambers to control movement of fluids, accurate control of the dimensions of the internal chambers is essential. The fabrication techniques described later provide this accurate control.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The analytes of interest are widely varied depending upon the purpose of the assay and the source. Analytes may include small organic molecules, such as drugs, hormones, steroids, neurotransmitters, growth factors, commercial chemicals, degradation products, drugs of abuse, metabolites, catabolites, etc. Large organic molecules may be determined, such as nucleic acids, proteins, polysaccharides, or the like. Aggregations of molecules may also be of interest, particularly naturally-occurring aggregations such as viroids, viruses, cells, both prokaryotic and eukaryotic, including unicellular microorganisms, mammalian cells such as lymphocytes, epithelial cells, neoplastic cells, and the like.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which would also raise the plethra of Biotack Inc. 501k filings -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.510kdecisions.com/applications/index.cfm/fuseaction/list/applicant/BIOTRACK%2C%20INC./index.cfm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also makes one wonder about the other Biotrack patents such as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EP0397424A3 (Ian Gibbons) (&quot;A clinical analytical system, comprising (1) an analytical cartridge (10) comprising at least two sample containing means (20, 40) in which analytical reactions take place, wherein (a) each of the sample containing means contains reagent means wherein (i) at least one of the reagent means is present in only one of the sample containing means, (ii) all analyses are relevant to a single medical evaluation, (iii) each of the analyses requires no more than 150 µl of sample, and (iv) all reactions required for the analyses occur in the cartridge, and (b) the cartridge (10) is formed from a plastic housing having dimensions no larger than 1 x 6 x 8 cm; and (2) an analytical instrument (100) comprising (a) registration means (110) for retaining the analytical cartridge in the instrument; (b) detector means (210) for detecting results of the analyses; (c) message means (120) for providing an alphanumeric message to a user of the instrument; (d) verification means (220) for verifying proper operation of at least one step of each of the analyses; (e) control means (200) for processing electronic information provided by the detector means and the verification means and relaying the information to the message means; the analytical instrument being no larger than 15 x 20 x 25 cm, the instrument reporting results of the analyses in no more than about 10 minutes.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EP0395384A3 (&quot;A system for customizing the output of a clinical analysis instrument is disclosed, in which unique codes contained on a cartridge insertable into the analytical cartridge location of the instrument (or a different location in some embodiments) are utilized for customization, for example, to establish the language in which the prompts will be presented to the user or the units of measurement which will be displayed.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume knowledge and intent, thoughts on IC?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7299" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3560" RevisionGUID="0cd54910-eb0c-4ce1-b7e7-78234d3aa92e" CreationDate="2013-03-25T16:41:28.970" UserId="3359" Text="Inequitable Conduct? Theranos U.S. Patent No. 8,283,155 (Elizabeth Holmes)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7300" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3560" RevisionGUID="0cd54910-eb0c-4ce1-b7e7-78234d3aa92e" CreationDate="2013-03-25T16:41:28.970" UserId="3359" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;inequitable&gt;&lt;conduct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3536" RevisionGUID="e9e70ae6-b05d-4ae4-ae7e-c91f8c78b829" CreationDate="2013-03-25T16:56:16.350" UserId="3076" Comment="Typo" Text="This answer addresses the first question about patenting abstract ideas. Between the Supreme Court, the various judges on Federal Circuit and the appeals board at the USPTO this area is a vague and somewhat abstract mess. Generally speaking it comes down to exactly how it is claimed. Claim wording is dissected and argued over minutely. (But to illustrate the indefiniteness of the law, there is also a doctrine of form over substance. And another principle that says it ok to ignore claim limitations that are &quot;mere after-solution actions&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Skipping over mountains of complexities and angels dancing on pins, if a computer is required as part of the claimed system or if a computer is required to perform the steps of the method then it can be seen as not an abstract idea. If it could be performed completely in your head it is an abstract idea. At one time there was a bright line &quot;machine-or-transformation&quot; test. At another time there was a &quot;tangible and useful result&quot; test. Not that these were bright lines but they were better than the Supreme Court's essentially &quot;I know it when I see it&quot; test.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, this can have claims that can be patentable subject matter if written correctly. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3494" RevisionGUID="100e9c9c-66fb-4d41-a641-50735f1ce1b1" CreationDate="2013-03-25T23:19:29.380" UserId="1767" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="&lt;em&gt;This call for prior art is part of the [EFF][1]'s effort to keep 3D printing open. Read about the initiative [here][2], and check out [Google Patents][3] or the [USPTO][4] for full details about this particular application.&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Process for producing three-dimensionally shaped object and device for producing same][5]&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Process for Producing Three-dimensionally Shaped Object and Device for Producing Same&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application relates to 3D printing using laser sintering, a process capable of better resolution than traditional hobbyist 3D printing using thermoplastic extrusion, where the object is built in a chamber with a localized gas flow to capture fumes generated by the laser melting the powder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC APPLICATION DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number:** 13/503,217&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** US20120251378 A1&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Panasonic Corporation &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date:** Prior Art **predating** October 21, 2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least April 4, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**APPLICATION OVERVIEW:** This application claims the use of a chamber with a localized gas flow in laser sintering 3D printing. The 3D object is built in the chamber, and the localized gas flow captures the fumes resulting from the laser melting the powder in the process of building each layer of the object.  If the fumes are not captured, they may interfere with the laser’s beam.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS:** The idea of a localized gas flow is not a new one, and is an obvious solution to the problem of fumes interfering with a laser beam. The open source community has begun to use laser sintering 3D printing methods, which promise of better resolution and a new variety of materials. This type of patent, which covers both the gas capture method and any devices using this method, could block a wide range of inventive activity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**.  We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one.  This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes effective prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][7], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][8], and the [Ask Patents][9] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][10] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/join-effs-efforts-keep-3d-printing-open&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120251378&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20120251378&amp;OS=20120251378&amp;RS=20120251378&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/WBTmz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/ask?source=3dask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3495" RevisionGUID="f2bd548a-4496-4f0a-ad45-149c7f4d448d" CreationDate="2013-03-25T23:20:02.150" UserId="1767" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="&lt;em&gt;This call for prior art is part of the [EFF][1]'s effort to keep 3D printing open. Read about the initiative [here][2], and check out [Google Patents][3] or the [USPTO][4] for full details about this particular application.&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Ribbon Filament and Assembly for Use in Extrusion-based Digital Manufacturing Systems&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application relates to 3D printing with a flattened, rectangular filament shaped like a ribbon instead of a cylindrical filament, taking advantage of the “insight” that larger surface area results in faster melting of print material. (Think fettuccine versus spaghetti.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC APPLICATION DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number:** 13/530,191&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** US20120258190 A1&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Stratasys, Inc. &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date:** Prior Art **predating** September 30, 2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until At Least April 11, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**APPLICATION OVERVIEW:** This application claims the use of a ribbon-shaped build material for use in 3D printing. The build material is shaped like ribbon rather than a cylinder and put through a ribbon liquefier rather than a cylindrical liquefier.  The ribbon shape allows the build material to melt faster and reduces build times.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS:** This patent is about using a basic, well-known scientific principle and applying it in an obvious way to 3D printing technology to improve melting and print speed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**.  We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one.  This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][7], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][8], and the [Ask Patents][9] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][10] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/join-effs-efforts-keep-3d-printing-open&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120258190&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20120258190&amp;OS=20120258190&amp;RS=20120258190&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/05h0n.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/ask?source=3dask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3493" RevisionGUID="f83c58e1-e3ba-48f4-8ed8-3ebe6745e659" CreationDate="2013-03-25T23:20:27.230" UserId="1767" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="&lt;em&gt;This call for prior art is part of the [EFF][1]'s effort to keep 3D printing open. Read about the initiative [here][2], and check out [Google Patents][3] or the [USPTO][4] for full details about this particular application.&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Additive manufacturing system and method for printing customized chocolate confections][5]&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Additive Manufacturing System and Method for Printing Customized Chocolate Confections&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application claims that 3D printing with chocolate is sufficiently inventive to receive a patent, paving the way for every thermoplastic material to be covered by its own patent when used for 3D printing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC APPLICATION DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number:** 13/432424&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** US20120251688 A1&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Stratasys, Inc. &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date:** Prior Art **predating** March 30, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until At Least April 4, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**APPLICATION OVERVIEW:** This application claims the use of chocolate in extrusion-based 3D printing. The chocolate is held in a heated reservoir.  When printing begins, the chocolate is pumped from the reservoir to the print head, while still being heated to maintain its temperature and tempered state.  The print head then extrudes the chocolate material to build the 3D object.  Unused chocolate in the print head is then sent back to the reservoir and heated again.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An additive manufacturing system for printing a chocolate confection, the additive manufacturing system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;at least one controller configured to receive instructions for printing the chocolate confection, and further configured to relay commands relating to the received instructions;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a platen;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a recirculation loop configured to circulate a flow of a chocolate material, and further configured to maintain a temper of the chocolate material; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a print head in signal communication with the at least one controller, the print head being configured to receive at least a portion of the chocolate material from the recirculation loop, and further configured to extrude and deposit the chocolate material onto the platen to print at least a portion of the chocolate confection based on the commands from the at least one controller.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS:** Printing with chocolate is wonderful, but this isn’t just about chocolate. There is a vast array of thermoplastic materials that can be used in 3D printing, and it should not be possible to get an exclusive patent on each new material that is used in conjunction with well-known technology. The use of a recirculation loop (sending unused print material back to the reservoir) is also an obvious idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**.  We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one.  This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][7], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][8], and the [Ask Patents][9] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on  submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/join-effs-efforts-keep-3d-printing-open&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120251688&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20120251688&amp;OS=20120251688&amp;RS=20120251688&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/v4YzF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/ask?source=3dask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3562" RevisionGUID="88da6413-c507-4481-976d-38efa76e1269" CreationDate="2013-03-26T01:43:21.290" UserId="3441" Text="How can this be patentable(Publication number: US 2009/0188322 A1)? Based on its design it would have to defy laws of physics in order for it to accurately do what it says it will do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7310" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3562" RevisionGUID="88da6413-c507-4481-976d-38efa76e1269" CreationDate="2013-03-26T01:43:21.290" UserId="3441" Text="How could something that would have to defy laws of physics in order to do what it claims be patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7311" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3562" RevisionGUID="88da6413-c507-4481-976d-38efa76e1269" CreationDate="2013-03-26T01:43:21.290" UserId="3441" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7312" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3562" RevisionGUID="927d7b29-fc19-427f-a89f-5fe2e92d6f93" CreationDate="2013-03-26T02:56:44.153" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;us20090188322&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3559" RevisionGUID="310d622b-1417-498a-b43f-e51d17b5340e" CreationDate="2013-03-26T13:13:42.160" UserId="3359" Comment="added 1213 characters in body" Text="How about US Patent No. 6,389,455 (1998 filing)?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Col. 8:4 references corporate accounts where the regional manager can be on the receiving end of sale rep communications.  All contacts go through a dotbounce hub so the message is not sent to anyone. Rules of the forward impact formatting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those that did not read the '009 patent -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Disclosed is a system (and/or method) that includes, for example, a routing engine that receives a message from any of various entry points, including **e-mail**, .... The routing engine determines the identities of the destination users to receive the message, possibly by expanding destination groups. The routing engine determines the endpoints on which the destination users wish to receive the message, the endpoints can be one or more of **e-mail**,.... The destination endpoints are independent of the source entry points, and the message sender does not need to have knowledge of the endpoints, or endpoint-specific user addresses.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The '009 is premised on the belief that as of its filing -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Additionally, there is no general method of sending a message to multiple users who may be receiving the same message using different devices or interfaces. For example, a user may want to send a message to three SMS recipients (all using different cell phone service providers), two e-mail recipients, and a web interface recipient.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hate to tell you but that is what the '455 patent is.  The big question is who is Meyer Cordless LLC?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3559" RevisionGUID="cfc6b4f5-792d-4217-8896-166254a343ac" CreationDate="2013-03-26T13:21:27.450" UserId="3359" Comment="added 253 characters in body" Text="How about US Patent No. 6,389,455 (1998 filing)?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Col. 8:4 references corporate accounts where the regional manager can be on the receiving end of sale rep communications.  All contacts go through a dotbounce hub so the message is not sent to anyone. Rules of the forward impact formatting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those that did not read the '009 patent -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Disclosed is a system (and/or method) that includes, for example, a routing engine that receives a message from any of various entry points, including **e-mail**, .... The routing engine determines the identities of the destination users to receive the message, possibly by expanding destination groups. The routing engine determines the endpoints on which the destination users wish to receive the message, the endpoints can be one or more of **e-mail**,.... The destination endpoints are independent of the source entry points, and the message sender does not need to have knowledge of the endpoints, or endpoint-specific user addresses.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The '009 is premised on the belief that as of its filing -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Additionally, there is no general method of sending a message to multiple users who may be receiving the same message using different devices or interfaces. For example, a user may want to send a message to three SMS recipients (all using different cell phone service providers), two e-mail recipients, and a web interface recipient.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hate to tell you but that is what the '455 patent is.  The big question is who is Meyer Cordless LLC?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__&#xD;&#xA;Edit - answered my own question - Looks like it is affiliated somehow with IV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kJPfdZL-WgQJ:www.plainsite.org/flashlight/index.html%3Fid%3D3245967+&amp;cd=4&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us&amp;client=firefox-a" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="1f12a00f-e2e6-4247-9e92-87f565b60fae" CreationDate="2013-03-26T15:59:30.380" UserId="3447" Text="&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Scale factors for visual presentations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **App Number**: [13/230445][1]  &#xD;&#xA; - **Publication Number**: [US 2013/0063492 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA; - **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: 09/12/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application generates and display graphical elements based on *pixel density.* The invention selects a *scale factor* from a *scale factor set* that is within the *range* of the pixel density.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of generating, using a device having a processor, a presentation comprising elements to be displayed on a display component, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - executing on the processor instructions configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - identify a ***pixel density*** of the display component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - for respective elements of the presentation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - from a ***scale factor set***, select a ***scale factor*** having a ***pixel density range*** including the pixel density of the display component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - request the element to generate a scaled representation using the scale factor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - generate the presentation comprising the scaled representations of the elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample figure** - [Fig. 1][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application is similar to other resolution-independent scaling applications and patents, such as this ['224 &quot;User-Interface Design&quot;][4] patent or this [scaling][5] application. It appears this particular application is a rehash of a well-known idea that is already being implemented in the industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was published before 09/12/2011 that discusses (1) scale factor; (2) scale factor set; and (3) pixel density range in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][7], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][8], and the [Ask Patents][9] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][10] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US20130063492A1/US20130063492A1-20130314-D00001.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8130224?printsec=abstract&amp;dq=8130224&amp;ei=h75RUYiAH4fT0gHmlIDwBQ#v=onepage&amp;q=8130224&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20080030425?printsec=abstract&amp;dq=20080030425&amp;ei=L8VRUcGcIsrL0wG30YHoDw#v=onepage&amp;q=20080030425&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7321" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="1f12a00f-e2e6-4247-9e92-87f565b60fae" CreationDate="2013-03-26T15:59:30.380" UserId="3447" Text="CALL FOR PRIOR ART: Scaling based on pixel density" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7322" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="1f12a00f-e2e6-4247-9e92-87f565b60fae" CreationDate="2013-03-26T15:59:30.380" UserId="3447" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20130063492&gt;&lt;scaling&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="68bd37c2-fbdf-4ca6-b15d-41268f55164b" CreationDate="2013-03-26T16:09:57.770" UserId="3447" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="**TITLE: Scale factors for visual presentations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **App Number**: [13/230445][1]  &#xD;&#xA; - **Publication Number**: [US 2013/0063492 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA; - **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: 09/12/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application generates and display graphical elements based on *pixel density.* The invention selects a *scale factor* from a *scale factor set* that is within the *range* of the pixel density.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of generating, using a device having a processor, a presentation comprising elements to be displayed on a display component, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - executing on the processor instructions configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - identify a ***pixel density*** of the display component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - for respective elements of the presentation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - from a ***scale factor set***, select a ***scale factor*** having a ***pixel density range*** including the pixel density of the display component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - request the element to generate a scaled representation using the scale factor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - generate the presentation comprising the scaled representations of the elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample figure** - [Fig. 1][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application is similar to other resolution-independent scaling applications and patents, such as this ['224 &quot;User-Interface Design&quot;][4] patent or this [scaling][5] application. It appears this particular application is a rehash of a well-known idea that is already being implemented in the industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was published before 09/12/2011 that discusses (1) scale factor; (2) scale factor set; and (3) pixel density range in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][7], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][8], and the [Ask Patents][9] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][10] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US20130063492A1/US20130063492A1-20130314-D00001.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8130224?printsec=abstract&amp;dq=8130224&amp;ei=h75RUYiAH4fT0gHmlIDwBQ#v=onepage&amp;q=8130224&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20080030425?printsec=abstract&amp;dq=20080030425&amp;ei=L8VRUcGcIsrL0wG30YHoDw#v=onepage&amp;q=20080030425&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7324" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="68bd37c2-fbdf-4ca6-b15d-41268f55164b" CreationDate="2013-03-26T16:09:57.770" UserId="3447" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="CALL FOR PRIOR ART: (Microsoft) Scaling based on pixel density" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="e5f1067a-8b52-429c-913a-3080a430d039" CreationDate="2013-03-26T16:17:20.480" UserId="3447" Comment="deleted 165 characters in body" Text="**TITLE: Scale factors for visual presentations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **App Number**: [13/230445][1]  &#xD;&#xA; - **Publication Number**: [US 2013/0063492 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA; - **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: 09/12/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application generates and display graphical elements based on *pixel density.* The invention selects a *scale factor* from a *scale factor set* that is within the *range* of the pixel density.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of generating, using a device having a processor, a presentation comprising elements to be displayed on a display component, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - executing on the processor instructions configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - identify a ***pixel density*** of the display component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - for respective elements of the presentation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - from a ***scale factor set***, select a ***scale factor*** having a ***pixel density range*** including the pixel density of the display component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - request the element to generate a scaled representation using the scale factor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - generate the presentation comprising the scaled representations of the elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample figure** - [Fig. 1][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application is similar to other resolution-independent scaling applications, patents, and implementations carried out in the industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was published before 09/12/2011 that discusses (1) scale factor; (2) scale factor set; and (3) pixel density range in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][7], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][8], and the [Ask Patents][9] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][10] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US20130063492A1/US20130063492A1-20130314-D00001.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8130224?printsec=abstract&amp;dq=8130224&amp;ei=h75RUYiAH4fT0gHmlIDwBQ#v=onepage&amp;q=8130224&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20080030425?printsec=abstract&amp;dq=20080030425&amp;ei=L8VRUcGcIsrL0wG30YHoDw#v=onepage&amp;q=20080030425&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3567" RevisionGUID="ce510da4-992b-4105-a0a9-6513222c4c78" CreationDate="2013-03-26T16:32:37.017" UserId="3076" Text="Not an answer, but an attempt to save the time of people looking for answers. The following have already been presented to the USPTO by the applicant so &quot;finding&quot; them will not add anything.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 7689908 2010-03-30 Yan,et al.  &#xD;&#xA;2 7689583 2010-03-30 Bozich, et al.  &#xD;&#xA;3 7180531 2007-02-20 Gery, et al.  &#xD;&#xA;4 6549214 2003-04-15 Patel, et al.  &#xD;&#xA;5 6213653 2001-04-10 Borg, et al.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 20080065668 A1 2008-03-13 Spence, et al.  &#xD;&#xA;2 20080030425 A1 2008-02-07 Fullerton, et al.  &#xD;&#xA;3 20050012723 A1 2005-01-20 Pallakoff, Matt.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Overview of Resolution Independence&quot;, Retrieved at http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;UserExperience/Conceptual/HiDPIOverview/HiDPIConceptslHiDPIConcepts.html, Retrieved Date: June 7, 2011, &#xD;&#xA;Pages 7." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3559" RevisionGUID="b2521150-e35d-46a9-a90f-99ed9c712887" CreationDate="2013-03-26T17:02:56.343" UserId="3359" Comment="added 821 characters in body" Text="How about US Patent No. 6,389,455 (1998 filing)?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Col. 8:4 references corporate accounts where the regional manager can be on the receiving end of sale rep communications.  All contacts go through a dotbounce hub so the message is not sent to anyone. Rules of the forward impact formatting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those that did not read the '009 patent -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Disclosed is a system (and/or method) that includes, for example, a routing engine that receives a message from any of various entry points, including **e-mail**, .... The routing engine determines the identities of the destination users to receive the message, possibly by expanding destination groups. The routing engine determines the endpoints on which the destination users wish to receive the message, the endpoints can be one or more of **e-mail**,.... The destination endpoints are independent of the source entry points, and the message sender does not need to have knowledge of the endpoints, or endpoint-specific user addresses.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The '009 is premised on the belief that as of its filing -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Additionally, there is no general method of sending a message to multiple users who may be receiving the same message using different devices or interfaces. For example, a user may want to send a message to three SMS recipients (all using different cell phone service providers), two e-mail recipients, and a web interface recipient.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hate to tell you but that is what the '455 patent is.  The big question is who is Meyer Cordless LLC?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__&#xD;&#xA;Edit - answered my own question - Looks like it is affiliated somehow with IV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kJPfdZL-WgQJ:www.plainsite.org/flashlight/index.html%3Fid%3D3245967+&amp;cd=4&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us&amp;client=firefox-a&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__&#xD;&#xA;EDIT - We've overcome the &quot;'009 isn't directed to email&quot; and are now on the &quot;receiver choosing&quot; is different, well to the extent you think &quot;receiver choosing&quot; is in the '009 claim -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'455 discloses the receiver controlling the flow of the email - Non-sender notifies and controls routing of the incoming message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'455 - &quot;For example, a user who is a frequent flier on a particular airline may wish to receive airborne e-mails care of the airborne e-mail service provider. **Such airborne e-mail service provider** notifies the bounce system of the presence of a particular User and inform the bounce system of the applicable routing address and duration of the validity of such routing address.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there is a particular element in the '009 claim that is lacking, point it out. Please reference the claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3568" RevisionGUID="55f36efb-64b6-4ee8-8f20-9f9a8f0a9f37" CreationDate="2013-03-26T18:03:22.740" UserId="2072" Text="This sounds like the issue addressed by the Federal Circuit in *Newman v. Quigg*, 877 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1989).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That case originated from the PTO based on Section 101 and 112 rejections asserting that the invention violated one of the laws of thermodynamics.  The PTO stated that the claimed device was a &quot;perpetual motion machine&quot;, and that perpetual motion is impossible for it violates either the first or second law of thermodynamics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The case proceeded from the PTO to federal district court, where the question was referred to a special master.  Initial testing appeared to confirm that the invention created more energy than put into it, in violation of the first law of thermodynamics.  Testing was then referred to the National Bureau of Standards which found that the system did not in fact create more energy than it consumed.  The inventor appealed these findings to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Judge Newman, writing for the Court, held &quot;[w]hile it is not a requirement of patentability that an inventor correctly set forth, or even know, how or why the invention works, neither is the patent applicant relieved of the requirement of teaching how to achieve the claimed result, even if the theory of operation is not correctly explained or even understood.&quot; (citations omitted).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This case has been interpreted to leave open the possibility of inventions working on unexplained principles.  However, the law may not be so permissive as it once was, and this case may also be interpreted to demonstrate the uphill battle an inventor would have to prove that such an invention is both operable and adequately described.  There is at least one aspect of this that may have been changed (intentionally or not) by recent amendments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="08a04744-ef3f-453b-a275-85ca8e1492c7" CreationDate="2013-03-26T20:55:28.973" UserId="1767" Comment="Formatting update" Text="**TITLE: Scale factors for visual presentations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/230445][1]  &#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 2013/0063492 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application generates and display graphical elements based on *pixel density.* The invention selects a *scale factor* from a *scale factor set* that is within the *range* of the pixel density.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of generating, using a device having a processor, a presentation comprising elements to be displayed on a display component, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - executing on the processor instructions configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - identify a ***pixel density*** of the display component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - for respective elements of the presentation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - from a ***scale factor set***, select a ***scale factor*** having a ***pixel density range*** including the pixel density of the display component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - request the element to generate a scaled representation using the scale factor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - generate the presentation comprising the scaled representations of the elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample figure** - ![Fig. 1][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application is similar to other resolution-independent scaling applications, patents, and implementations carried out in the industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was published before 09/12/2011 that discusses (1) scale factor; (2) scale factor set; and (3) pixel density range in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][7], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][8], and the [Ask Patents][9] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][10] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US20130063492A1/US20130063492A1-20130314-D00001.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8130224?printsec=abstract&amp;dq=8130224&amp;ei=h75RUYiAH4fT0gHmlIDwBQ#v=onepage&amp;q=8130224&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20080030425?printsec=abstract&amp;dq=20080030425&amp;ei=L8VRUcGcIsrL0wG30YHoDw#v=onepage&amp;q=20080030425&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3567" RevisionGUID="74dbe6e5-3535-49d4-aff6-e06274519588" CreationDate="2013-03-26T22:13:16.910" UserId="3076" Comment="Fix html" Text="Not an answer, but an attempt to save the time of people looking for answers. The following have already been presented to the USPTO by the applicant so &quot;finding&quot; them will not add anything.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 7689908 2010-03-30 Yan,et al.  &#xD;&#xA;2 7689583 2010-03-30 Bozich, et al.  &#xD;&#xA;3 7180531 2007-02-20 Gery, et al.  &#xD;&#xA;4 6549214 2003-04-15 Patel, et al.  &#xD;&#xA;5 6213653 2001-04-10 Borg, et al.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 20080065668 A1 2008-03-13 Spence, et al.  &#xD;&#xA;2 20080030425 A1 2008-02-07 Fullerton, et al.  &#xD;&#xA;3 20050012723 A1 2005-01-20 Pallakoff, Matt.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Overview of Resolution Independence&quot;, Retrieved at http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/HiDPIOverview/HiDPIConceptslHiDPIConcepts.html, Retrieved Date: June 7, 2011, &#xD;&#xA;Pages 7." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3567" RevisionGUID="c2a9fee0-14a0-44ae-9ae5-8a183b2526bb" CreationDate="2013-03-26T22:24:48.490" UserId="1767" Comment="Added links to prior art cited by applicant" Text="Not an answer, but an attempt to save the time of people looking for answers. The following have already been presented to the USPTO by the applicant so &quot;finding&quot; them will not add anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Issued Patents**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 [7689908][1] 2010-03-30 Yan,et al.  &#xD;&#xA;2 [7689583][2] 2010-03-30 Bozich, et al.  &#xD;&#xA;3 [7180531][3] 2007-02-20 Gery, et al.  &#xD;&#xA;4 [6549214][4] 2003-04-15 Patel, et al.  &#xD;&#xA;5 [6213653][5] 2001-04-10 Borg, et al.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Patent Applications**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 [20080065668][6] A1 2008-03-13 Spence, et al.  &#xD;&#xA;2 [20080030425][7] A1 2008-02-07 Fullerton, et al.  &#xD;&#xA;3 [20050012723][8] A1 2005-01-20 Pallakoff, Matt.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Non-Patent Literature**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Overview of Resolution Independence&quot;, Retrieved at http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/HiDPIOverview/HiDPIConceptslHiDPIConcepts.html, Retrieved Date: June 7, 2011, &#xD;&#xA;Pages 7.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7689908&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7689583&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7180531&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6549214&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6213653&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[6]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20080065668&#xD;&#xA;[7]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20080030425&#xD;&#xA;[8]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20050012723" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3569" RevisionGUID="4a982fc2-2c6e-4ed5-9c09-7bf376a62ac4" CreationDate="2013-03-26T22:34:07.017" UserId="11" Text="&quot;Writing DPI-Aware Win32 Applications&quot;, an article by Ryan Haveson and Ken Sykes, published by Microsoft and dated September 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the terminology is different; Pixel Density is referred to as DPI (dots per inch, where a dot is a pixel)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="ae1fddb5-79be-4f9b-970f-af5fcb44fa6b" CreationDate="2013-03-26T22:35:50.803" UserId="1767" Comment="Formatting" Text="**TITLE: Scale factors for visual presentations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/230445][1]  &#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 2013/0063492 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application generates and display graphical elements based on *pixel density.* The invention selects a *scale factor* from a *scale factor set* that is within the *range* of the pixel density.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of generating, using a device having a processor, a presentation comprising elements to be displayed on a display component, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - executing on the processor instructions configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - identify a ***pixel density*** of the display component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - for respective elements of the presentation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - from a ***scale factor set***, select a ***scale factor*** having a ***pixel density range*** including the pixel density of the display component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - request the element to generate a scaled representation using the scale factor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - generate the presentation comprising the scaled representations of the elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample figure** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/WgDnr.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application is similar to other resolution-independent scaling applications, patents, and implementations carried out in the industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 09/12/2011** that discusses (1) scale factor; (2) scale factor set; and (3) pixel density range in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][5]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][6], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][7], and the [Ask Patents][8] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3569" RevisionGUID="9a9686fb-a97e-4d59-a90e-1fc807a80b98" CreationDate="2013-03-26T23:08:25.080" UserId="1767" Comment="Added semi-permanent home for the PDF referred to in this answer.  " Text="&quot;[Writing DPI-Aware Win32 Applications][1]&quot;, an article by Ryan Haveson and Ken Sykes, published by Microsoft and dated **September 2008**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the terminology is different; Pixel Density is referred to as DPI (dots per inch, where a dot is a pixel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/132533533/Writing-DPI-Aware-Applications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3571" RevisionGUID="9ea356a0-72b0-4f62-8b5c-893af0aa412f" CreationDate="2013-03-27T00:56:31.570" UserId="3451" Text="Not sure if this is exactly relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The BBC Micro had a graphics scaling system way back in 1982. Page 137 of this [user guide][1] states that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The ‘origin’ is point 0,0 and is at the bottom left of the screen. Top&#xD;&#xA;&gt; right is 1279,1023&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;implying a resolution of 1280x1024, but that was way beyond what was practical at the time - the real resolutions were 640x256, 320x256 and 160x256 (on the previous page).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://regregex.bbcmicro.net/BPlusUserGuide-1.07.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3572" RevisionGUID="f92496e3-6e11-44ce-83b1-e50ba0545b3d" CreationDate="2013-03-27T05:24:34.757" UserId="3454" Text="The process of plastic welding (quite related to 3D printing) has used plastic welding&#xD;&#xA;ribbon that is a flat tape for many years.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The companies from NZ have used it longest.  Here's a web site for feed stock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.plasticweldingtools.co.nz/Default.aspx?TabID=44221&amp;categoryid=2038&amp;BrandID=0&amp;langID=0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.newequipment.com/Main/Products/Round-Triangular-and-Flat-Plastic-Welding-Rod-20097.aspx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.protechnology.com/documents/URweldingribboninsert.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3573" RevisionGUID="5645065c-0607-4ce6-b5c3-751bd16e3ce6" CreationDate="2013-03-27T05:37:01.993" UserId="3454" Text="How about this video?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the ribbon extrusion, one may point out that plastic welding has used &#xD;&#xA;non-round or ribbon shaped materials for many years (see this video from 2010: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvV9a3lEe2g). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3574" RevisionGUID="4af10aee-f240-4587-9d74-63f879bb0e37" CreationDate="2013-03-27T05:42:32.607" UserId="3454" Text="For the plastic sintering, one might argue that plastics and metals have similar &#xD;&#xA;oxidation issues.   The creation of either a vaccuum or inert atmosphere for selective metal sintering is a must and is covered by multiple patents&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(something like: US Patent 4992233).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sintering metal powder in inert and/or reducing atmosphere has been found to result in a hard porous metal structure without the use of sintering aids. The oxidation resistance of the structure can be enhanced by the firing process comprised of the following steps: oxidation, reduction, and then inert gas sintering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent number: 4992233&#xD;&#xA;Filing date: Jul 15, 1988&#xD;&#xA;Issue date: Feb 12, 1991&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3575" RevisionGUID="dff45303-2fe6-499b-868e-6060403426aa" CreationDate="2013-03-27T05:49:13.207" UserId="3454" Text="The Fab@Home group had a Wiki which had pictures dated in the range of Spring 2007.   The&#xD;&#xA;Wiki is gone.   Perhaps someone could contact the Fab@home group and ask." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3577" RevisionGUID="a362064b-3033-4f23-8e55-77c7f96aded6" CreationDate="2013-03-27T19:16:26.660" UserId="3447" Text="**TITLE**: Computer-Readable Storage Medium, Information Processing System, And Information Processing Method &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **App Number**: [13/028,329][1]&#xD;&#xA; - **Publication Number**: [US 2012/0146993 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: Nintendo Co., Ltd. &#xD;&#xA; - **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: *predating* December 09, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This invention sets the transparency of a virtual object based on the distance between the viewpoint and the virtual object in a virtual environment. Note: transparency in this context could be interpreted to mean *fading*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a display&#xD;&#xA;&gt; control program which is executed by a computer of a display control&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparatus that displays a predetermined virtual space on a display&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparatus capable of stereoscopic display, the display control program&#xD;&#xA;&gt; causing the computer to function as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - object placement means for placing a predetermined object in the virtual space;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ***transparency degree setting means*** for, in accordance with a distance specified between (1) the **predetermined object** placed in the virtual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; space, and (2) a **viewpoint position** based on the position of a virtual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; camera used for virtually shooting the virtual space, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; setting the degree of transparency of a part or the entirety of the predetermined&#xD;&#xA;&gt; object such that **the longer the distance is, the higher the degree of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transparency** is; (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - image generation means for generating an image for a right eye and an image for a left eye by shooting the virtual space with a right&#xD;&#xA;&gt; virtual camera and a left virtual camera, respectively, so that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; predetermined object, which is included in each of the image for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; right eye and the image for a left eye, has the degree of transparency&#xD;&#xA;&gt; set by the transparency degree setting means; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - display control means for displaying the image for a right eye and the image for a left eye generated by the image generation means, on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the display apparatus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample Figure**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS**: Object transparency based on distance between a viewpoint and an object appears to have been done before, such as in the area ray tracing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION**: Have you seen anything (published before December 09, 2010) that describes the ***transparency degree setting means*** in the manner recited in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][5]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][6], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][7], and the [Ask Patents][8] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120146993?dq=20120146993&amp;ei=TD9TUYr2IeH20gGfm4CACA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120146993?printsec=abstract&amp;dq=20120146993&amp;ei=TD9TUYr2IeH20gGfm4CACA#v=onepage&amp;q=20120146993&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/2IAAr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/FqHGI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7351" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3577" RevisionGUID="a362064b-3033-4f23-8e55-77c7f96aded6" CreationDate="2013-03-27T19:16:26.660" UserId="3447" Text="CALL FOR PRIOR ART: (Nintendo) Object transparency based on distance in virtual environment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7352" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3577" RevisionGUID="a362064b-3033-4f23-8e55-77c7f96aded6" CreationDate="2013-03-27T19:16:26.660" UserId="3447" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20120146993&gt;&lt;three-dimension&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3577" RevisionGUID="528303c4-6514-48cb-b6ca-353bb129be3b" CreationDate="2013-03-27T19:28:10.543" UserId="3447" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="**TITLE**: Computer-Readable Storage Medium, Information Processing System, And Information Processing Method &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **App Number**: [13/028,329][1]&#xD;&#xA; - **Publication Number**: [US 2012/0146993 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: Nintendo Co., Ltd. &#xD;&#xA; - **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: *predating* December 09, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This invention sets the transparency of a virtual object based on the distance between the viewpoint and the virtual object in a virtual environment. Note: transparency in this context could be interpreted to mean several related concepts, such as fading and alpha level adjusting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a display&#xD;&#xA;&gt; control program which is executed by a computer of a display control&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparatus that displays a predetermined virtual space on a display&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparatus capable of stereoscopic display, the display control program&#xD;&#xA;&gt; causing the computer to function as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - object placement means for placing a predetermined object in the virtual space;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ***transparency degree setting means*** for, in accordance with a distance specified between (1) the **predetermined object** placed in the virtual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; space, and (2) a **viewpoint position** based on the position of a virtual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; camera used for virtually shooting the virtual space, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; setting the degree of transparency of a part or the entirety of the predetermined&#xD;&#xA;&gt; object such that **the longer the distance is, the higher the degree of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transparency** is; (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - image generation means for generating an image for a right eye and an image for a left eye by shooting the virtual space with a right&#xD;&#xA;&gt; virtual camera and a left virtual camera, respectively, so that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; predetermined object, which is included in each of the image for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; right eye and the image for a left eye, has the degree of transparency&#xD;&#xA;&gt; set by the transparency degree setting means; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - display control means for displaying the image for a right eye and the image for a left eye generated by the image generation means, on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the display apparatus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample Figure**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS**: Object transparency based on distance between a viewpoint and an object appears to have been done before, such as in the area ray tracing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION**: Have you seen anything (published before December 09, 2010) that describes the ***transparency degree setting means*** in the manner recited in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][5]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][6], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][7], and the [Ask Patents][8] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120146993?dq=20120146993&amp;ei=TD9TUYr2IeH20gGfm4CACA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120146993?printsec=abstract&amp;dq=20120146993&amp;ei=TD9TUYr2IeH20gGfm4CACA#v=onepage&amp;q=20120146993&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/2IAAr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/FqHGI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3577" RevisionGUID="4ba861d9-d995-4d8a-9abf-4bc545c1a8fe" CreationDate="2013-03-27T19:34:20.473" UserId="3447" Comment="corrected spelling" Text="**TITLE**: Computer-Readable Storage Medium, Information Processing System, And Information Processing Method &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **App Number**: [13/028,329][1]&#xD;&#xA; - **Publication Number**: [US 2012/0146993 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: Nintendo Co., Ltd. &#xD;&#xA; - **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: *predating* December 09, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This invention sets the transparency of a virtual object based on the distance between the viewpoint and the virtual object in a virtual environment. Note: transparency in this context could be interpreted to mean several related concepts, such as fading and alpha level adjusting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a display&#xD;&#xA;&gt; control program which is executed by a computer of a display control&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparatus that displays a predetermined virtual space on a display&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparatus capable of stereoscopic display, the display control program&#xD;&#xA;&gt; causing the computer to function as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - object placement means for placing a predetermined object in the virtual space;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ***transparency degree setting means*** for, in accordance with a distance specified between (1) the **predetermined object** placed in the virtual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; space, and (2) a **viewpoint position** based on the position of a virtual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; camera used for virtually shooting the virtual space, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; setting the degree of transparency of a part or the entirety of the predetermined&#xD;&#xA;&gt; object such that **the longer the distance is, the higher the degree of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transparency** is; (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - image generation means for generating an image for a right eye and an image for a left eye by shooting the virtual space with a right&#xD;&#xA;&gt; virtual camera and a left virtual camera, respectively, so that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; predetermined object, which is included in each of the image for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; right eye and the image for a left eye, has the degree of transparency&#xD;&#xA;&gt; set by the transparency degree setting means; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - display control means for displaying the image for a right eye and the image for a left eye generated by the image generation means, on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the display apparatus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample Figure**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS**: Object transparency based on distance between a viewpoint and an object appears to have been done before, such as in the area of ray tracing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION**: Have you seen anything (published before December 09, 2010) that describes the ***transparency degree setting means*** in the manner recited in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][5]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][6], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][7], and the [Ask Patents][8] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120146993?dq=20120146993&amp;ei=TD9TUYr2IeH20gGfm4CACA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120146993?printsec=abstract&amp;dq=20120146993&amp;ei=TD9TUYr2IeH20gGfm4CACA#v=onepage&amp;q=20120146993&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/2IAAr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/FqHGI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3569" RevisionGUID="2a7cbab6-c57f-41a8-849a-34fb7b233418" CreationDate="2013-03-27T19:58:59.667" UserId="11" Comment="added evidence that this prior art discloses scaling sets (under a different name)" Text="&quot;[Writing DPI-Aware Win32 Applications][1]&quot;, an article by Ryan Haveson and Ken Sykes, published by Microsoft and dated **September 2008**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the terminology is different; Pixel Density is referred to as DPI (dots per inch, where a dot is a pixel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice on page 15, the sections &quot;Multiple Resolution Support&quot; and &quot;Closest Fit&quot;, appears to disclose what 13/230445 calls &quot;scaling sets.&quot; Vis.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The multiple resolution support technique requires that you provide your graphics at multiple resolutions so that you have a version that renders well at for each targeted DPI setting, such as 96, 120, 144, and 192. In this case, these values are equivalent to 100%, 125%, 150%, and 200% of the baseline DPI setting of 96. At run&#xD;&#xA;time, your application’s logic first determines the&#xD;&#xA;correct DPI scaling factor, and then uses it to determine which resolution of the graphics to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, if the current custom DPI setting is 132 and you have provided multiple resolution graphics for 96, 120, and 144 DPI, you would first load the graphic that has slightly greater resolution to the current DPI. In this case, you would first load the 144 DPI version of the graphic. You would then scale it down to render well at 132 DPI.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/132533533/Writing-DPI-Aware-Applications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3577" RevisionGUID="fe0060ec-cd45-4217-a3d1-3b9efcc2a7fd" CreationDate="2013-03-28T03:35:04.407" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 26 characters in body" Text="**TITLE**: Computer-Readable Storage Medium, Information Processing System, And Information Processing Method &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **App Number**: [13/028,329][1]&#xD;&#xA; - **Publication Number**: [US 2012/0146993 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: Nintendo Co., Ltd. &#xD;&#xA; - **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: *predating* December 09, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This invention sets the transparency of a virtual object based on the distance between the viewpoint and the virtual object in a virtual environment. Note: transparency in this context could be interpreted to mean several related concepts, such as fading and alpha level adjusting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a display&#xD;&#xA;&gt; control program which is executed by a computer of a display control&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparatus that displays a predetermined virtual space on a display&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparatus capable of stereoscopic display, the display control program&#xD;&#xA;&gt; causing the computer to function as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - object placement means for placing a predetermined object in the virtual space;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ***transparency degree setting means*** for, in accordance with a distance specified between (1) the **predetermined object** placed in the virtual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; space, and (2) a **viewpoint position** based on the position of a virtual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; camera used for virtually shooting the virtual space, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; setting the degree of transparency of a part or the entirety of the predetermined&#xD;&#xA;&gt; object such that **the longer the distance is, the higher the degree of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transparency** is; (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - image generation means for generating an image for a right eye and an image for a left eye by shooting the virtual space with a right&#xD;&#xA;&gt; virtual camera and a left virtual camera, respectively, so that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; predetermined object, which is included in each of the image for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; right eye and the image for a left eye, has the degree of transparency&#xD;&#xA;&gt; set by the transparency degree setting means; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - display control means for displaying the image for a right eye and the image for a left eye generated by the image generation means, on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the display apparatus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample Figure**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS**: Object transparency based on distance between a viewpoint and an object appears to have been done before, such as in the area of ray tracing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION**: Have you seen anything (published before December 09, 2010) that describes the ***transparency degree setting means*** in the manner recited in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][5]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][6], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][7], and the [Ask Patents][8] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120146993?dq=20120146993&amp;ei=TD9TUYr2IeH20gGfm4CACA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120146993?printsec=abstract&amp;dq=20120146993&amp;ei=TD9TUYr2IeH20gGfm4CACA#v=onepage&amp;q=20120146993&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/2IAAr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/FqHGI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3577" RevisionGUID="43ff1995-2b8d-488c-8b50-f5d75389e56b" CreationDate="2013-03-28T03:41:19.913" UserId="3076" Comment="Emphasis on left eye / right eye aspect " Text="**TITLE**: Computer-Readable Storage Medium, Information Processing System, And Information Processing Method &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **App Number**: [13/028,329][1]&#xD;&#xA; - **Publication Number**: [US 2012/0146993 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: Nintendo Co., Ltd. &#xD;&#xA; - **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: *predating* December 09, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This invention sets the transparency of a virtual object based on the distance between the viewpoint and the virtual object in a virtual environment generating both left eye and right eye images. Note: transparency in this context could be interpreted to mean several related concepts, such as fading and alpha level adjusting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a display&#xD;&#xA;&gt; control program which is executed by a computer of a display control&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparatus that displays a predetermined virtual space on a display&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparatus capable of stereoscopic display, the display control program&#xD;&#xA;&gt; causing the computer to function as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - object placement means for placing a predetermined object in the virtual space;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ***transparency degree setting means*** for, in accordance with a distance specified between (1) the **predetermined object** placed in the virtual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; space, and (2) a **viewpoint position** based on the position of a virtual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; camera used for virtually shooting the virtual space, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; setting the degree of transparency of a part or the entirety of the predetermined&#xD;&#xA;&gt; object such that **the longer the distance is, the higher the degree of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transparency** is; (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - image generation means for generating **an image for a right eye and an image for a left eye** by shooting the virtual space with a right&#xD;&#xA;&gt; virtual camera and a left virtual camera, respectively, so that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; predetermined object, which is included in each of the image for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; right eye and the image for a left eye, has the degree of transparency&#xD;&#xA;&gt; set by the transparency degree setting means; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - display control means for displaying the image for a right eye and the image for a left eye generated by the image generation means, on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the display apparatus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample Figure**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS**: Object transparency based on distance between a viewpoint and an object appears to have been done before, such as in the area of ray tracing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION**: Have you seen anything (published before December 09, 2010) that describes the ***transparency degree setting means*** in the manner recited in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][5]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][6], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][7], and the [Ask Patents][8] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120146993?dq=20120146993&amp;ei=TD9TUYr2IeH20gGfm4CACA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120146993?printsec=abstract&amp;dq=20120146993&amp;ei=TD9TUYr2IeH20gGfm4CACA#v=onepage&amp;q=20120146993&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/2IAAr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/FqHGI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3577" RevisionGUID="515d35c3-a763-4d37-9555-bbd925489d91" CreationDate="2013-03-28T03:49:51.180" UserId="3076" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="**TITLE**: Computer-Readable Storage Medium, Information Processing System, And Information Processing Method &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **App Number**: [13/028,329][1]&#xD;&#xA; - **Publication Number**: [US 2012/0146993 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: Nintendo Co., Ltd. &#xD;&#xA; - **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: *predating* December 09, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This invention sets the transparency of a virtual object based on the distance between the viewpoint and the virtual object in a virtual environment generating both left eye and right eye images. Note: transparency in this context could be interpreted to mean several related concepts, such as fading and alpha level adjusting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** (as filed) is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a display&#xD;&#xA;&gt; control program which is executed by a computer of a display control&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparatus that displays a predetermined virtual space on a display&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparatus capable of stereoscopic display, the display control program&#xD;&#xA;&gt; causing the computer to function as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - object placement means for placing a predetermined object in the virtual space;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ***transparency degree setting means*** for, in accordance with a distance specified between (1) the **predetermined object** placed in the virtual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; space, and (2) a **viewpoint position** based on the position of a virtual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; camera used for virtually shooting the virtual space, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; setting the degree of transparency of a part or the entirety of the predetermined&#xD;&#xA;&gt; object such that **the longer the distance is, the higher the degree of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transparency** is; (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - image generation means for generating **an image for a right eye and an image for a left eye** by shooting the virtual space with a right&#xD;&#xA;&gt; virtual camera and a left virtual camera, respectively, so that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; predetermined object, which is included in each of the image for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; right eye and the image for a left eye, has the degree of transparency&#xD;&#xA;&gt; set by the transparency degree setting means; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - display control means for displaying the image for a right eye and the image for a left eye generated by the image generation means, on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the display apparatus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample Figure**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS**: Object transparency based on distance between a viewpoint and an object appears to have been done before, such as in the area of ray tracing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION**: Have you seen anything (published before December 09, 2010) that describes the ***transparency degree setting means*** in the manner recited in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][5]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][6], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][7], and the [Ask Patents][8] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120146993?dq=20120146993&amp;ei=TD9TUYr2IeH20gGfm4CACA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120146993?printsec=abstract&amp;dq=20120146993&amp;ei=TD9TUYr2IeH20gGfm4CACA#v=onepage&amp;q=20120146993&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/2IAAr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/FqHGI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3562" RevisionGUID="2b8d74a4-a3a9-43ed-b60f-04fa5b0cca7d" CreationDate="2013-03-28T13:00:44.757" UserId="1259" Comment="link" Text="How can this be patentable (Publication number: [US 2009/0188322 A1][1])? Based on its design it would have to defy laws of physics in order for it to accurately do what it says it will do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20090188322" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3580" RevisionGUID="8431a07e-d5e8-4760-b300-db5a7f77bd43" CreationDate="2013-03-28T13:45:19.907" UserId="3109" Text="I filed a patent application a month ago. Now I found a simpler way of doing very similar thing to what I had described, basically eliminating one of the main 3 blocks of the invention. So I'm going to file another patent application claiming priority to the first one.  My disclosure was characterized as a preferred embodiment with multiple alternatives for the various aspects of the invention. I wonder what's the best approach to introduce this added matter: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- describe it as another alternative to one of the aspects of the invention. One of the blocks is optional, that will involve some small changes elsewhere to get similar results, not exactly the same.&#xD;&#xA;- describe it as a separate new embodiment of the invention. All is the same as the preferred embodiment with exception of the removed block, small changes elsewhere, and slightly different outcome.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any advantage to one or another? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I wonder, if what the invention does is similar but different, at what point would a that become a new invention? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7370" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3580" RevisionGUID="8431a07e-d5e8-4760-b300-db5a7f77bd43" CreationDate="2013-03-28T13:45:19.907" UserId="3109" Text="patent continuation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7371" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3580" RevisionGUID="8431a07e-d5e8-4760-b300-db5a7f77bd43" CreationDate="2013-03-28T13:45:19.907" UserId="3109" Text="&lt;drafting&gt;&lt;continuation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3581" RevisionGUID="a3a13c5a-4886-44eb-84c7-e145c42ca36c" CreationDate="2013-03-28T13:57:02.593" UserId="3447" Text="I'm not sure what your specific question is. Please point out what you think is the problem in the claim section, that would be helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why? To quote the late Judge Giles S. Rich, because &quot;the name of the game is the **claim**.&quot; The claims provide notice to the public as to the technology which is “fenced off” or protected from infringement. Apart from the claims, the specification, including the drawings, serve to satisfy various legal requirements. See [35 USC § 112][1] and [MPEP 608][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you go to the USPTO's [Public PAIR][3] and enter the application number, it will show you the prosecution history. It appears that USPTO has entered a final rejection of the application in November 2012. You should read the final rejection Office Action, in case you are curious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/112&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3584" RevisionGUID="50557a57-0867-43bc-9a15-9a417a68e74f" CreationDate="2013-03-28T16:11:01.547" UserId="1500" Text="Well, for one, your US patent was abandoned as of 2004 for failure to pay maintenance fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can verify this yourself on PAIR: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also check maintenance fee payments here: https://ramps.uspto.gov/eram/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you believe your patent was infringed prior to 2004, you will have to enforce it yourself. Due to intervening time, however, you may find it difficult to find a contingency attorney." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3585" RevisionGUID="aa9edd3a-a94f-4bbc-ad45-ae383bada004" CreationDate="2013-03-28T17:17:39.713" UserId="3076" Text="Calling something a variation on an embodiment vs calling something a different embodiment is not likely to make a real difference. The important thing would be to get **all** of theses different ways to do it with their slightly different outcomes on paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The issue of something being a different &quot;invention&quot;, technically, will be how the examiner (I am assuming this is a US patent law question) sees it in a restriction requirement that they might issue. They could say two embodiments were two species of an invention or could call them two inventions. In the rest of the world they have the &quot;unity of invention&quot; principle that they use to decide if two things belong together or not but the US it is more arbitrary. However none of that is a first-order issue when you are drafting the application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3586" RevisionGUID="c348420d-8233-40a9-b121-97a7915df472" CreationDate="2013-03-28T21:52:57.210" UserId="3465" Text="There is nothing new about recirculating chocolate in a tempered state, the concept is a standard part of tempering machines that are used to hand fill moulds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the electronics and print head stuff sounds like basic extrusion printing, nothing new here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3585" RevisionGUID="13ab2057-56c7-4ccc-ac4e-6f3427a35815" CreationDate="2013-03-28T23:42:19.593" UserId="3076" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Calling something a variation on an embodiment vs calling something a different embodiment is not likely to make a real difference. The important thing would be to get **all** of these different ways to do it with their slightly different outcomes on paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The issue of something being a different &quot;invention&quot;, technically, will be how the examiner (I am assuming this is a US patent law question) sees it in a restriction requirement that they might issue. They could say that two embodiments were two species of an invention or could call them two inventions. In the rest of the world they have the &quot;unity of invention&quot; principle that they use to decide if two things belong together or not but for the US it is more arbitrary. However none of that is a first-order issue when you are drafting the application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3587" RevisionGUID="be5f4b0c-a0f1-4493-a0ae-2426899648ac" CreationDate="2013-03-29T01:08:57.440" UserId="3467" Text="Laser deposition video from April 22, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jns8acbluZY" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3588" RevisionGUID="a06576ad-f309-4697-b93a-68d0a80b1644" CreationDate="2013-03-29T14:56:08.060" UserId="3474" Text="I can't think of a way of making it clearer than above. Would this patent for cystic fibrosis suscptible transgenic mice apply in th UK i.e. prevent a similiar patent from being granted in the UK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7390" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3588" RevisionGUID="a06576ad-f309-4697-b93a-68d0a80b1644" CreationDate="2013-03-29T14:56:08.060" UserId="3474" Text="Does patent us7514593 apply in the UK?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7391" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3588" RevisionGUID="a06576ad-f309-4697-b93a-68d0a80b1644" CreationDate="2013-03-29T14:56:08.060" UserId="3474" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;uk&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7392" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3588" RevisionGUID="8e4786fa-8374-4b71-bc4b-f31ba9ccffb8" CreationDate="2013-03-29T16:06:59.487" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;uk&gt;&lt;us7514593&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3589" RevisionGUID="22a47c84-d92f-4603-966c-22ae8b997d22" CreationDate="2013-03-29T17:18:43.263" UserId="3076" Text="Actually the title is ambiguous but the body of your question is more specific. You did make it clearer. Patent rights are territorial so no US patent &quot;applies&quot; in the U.K. for purposes of alleging infringement. On the other hand, the U.K. and every other patent office wants to only grant patents for things that are novel on a world-wide basis, particularly in terms of publications and patents. So any journal article, patent, published patent application, etc. on a world wide basis that predates an application &quot;applies&quot; to be used against it. (This is a simplification in that the rules of what can and can't be used vary and can be arcane.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick search did not turn up a UK or EPO counterpart to this patent. Separately, the UK does allow this type of subject matter to be patented but, for example, Canada famously does not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3590" RevisionGUID="1e17eb88-c1ee-4d31-a030-ad3fc9c47138" CreationDate="2013-03-29T18:22:28.840" UserId="3477" Text="Python's axiom library allows migrations between different schema versions and will allow multiple different schemas to co-exist prior to upgrade. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://divmod.readthedocs.org/en/latest/products/axiom/axiom-why-axiom.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Future-Proof&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Axiom applications can keep running while they’re being upgraded from one schema to another (with a partial dataset available). Upgrades are handled automatically, and the code for upgrading can be kept separate from your application code. You can even write upgraders which involve complex relationships between multiple rows." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3591" RevisionGUID="e131b9b9-9217-4353-aad9-b5b7274810fa" CreationDate="2013-03-29T18:41:11.573" UserId="1767" Text="![Johnson &amp; Johnson logo][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application attempts to patent the method of applying **cold** analgesics to a sore muscle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Method and Composition for Treating Pain**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/235947][1]  &#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130072575 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Johnson &amp; Johnson, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 9, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 21, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application relates to the method of treating pain by applying any **cold** analgesic. The main independent claim, if allowed, would cover the method of treating pain in a person by applying a cooled, unspecified analgesic to the region of pain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of treating pain by topical application of an analgesic composition to the skin of a patient comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - placing an analgesic composition in an environment with a temperature of less than 10° Centigrade,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - keeping said analgesic composition in said environment for a period of time sufficient to reduce the temperature of said composition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - removing said composition from said environment, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - applying said composition topically to the region of pain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 09/9/2011** that discusses (1) cooling an analgesic; (2) applying the cooled analgesic to region of pain; (3) cooled analgesics in gel, soft solid, liquid, cream, ointment or aerosol form (taken from claim 5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][5], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][6], and the [Ask Patents][7] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][8] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130072575&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130072575&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/XQQ1qm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7396" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3591" RevisionGUID="e131b9b9-9217-4353-aad9-b5b7274810fa" CreationDate="2013-03-29T18:41:11.573" UserId="1767" Text="CALL FOR PRIOR ART: Applying Cold Analgesic “Method and Composition for Treating Pain” (13/235947)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7397" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3591" RevisionGUID="e131b9b9-9217-4353-aad9-b5b7274810fa" CreationDate="2013-03-29T18:41:11.573" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20130072575&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3591" RevisionGUID="712b92d0-a9cc-48e5-aefb-4a09a03bcfc7" CreationDate="2013-03-29T19:41:12.917" UserId="1767" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="![Johnson &amp; Johnson logo][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application attempts to patent the method of applying **cold** analgesics to a sore muscle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Method and Composition for Treating Pain**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/235947][1]  &#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130072575 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Johnson &amp; Johnson, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 19, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 21, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application relates to the method of treating pain by applying any **cold** analgesic. The main independent claim, if allowed, would cover the method of treating pain in a person by applying a cooled, unspecified analgesic to the region of pain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of treating pain by topical application of an analgesic composition to the skin of a patient comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - placing an analgesic composition in an environment with a temperature of less than 10° Centigrade,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - keeping said analgesic composition in said environment for a period of time sufficient to reduce the temperature of said composition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - removing said composition from said environment, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - applying said composition topically to the region of pain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 09/19/2011** that discusses (1) cooling an analgesic; (2) applying the cooled analgesic to region of pain; (3) cooled analgesics in gel, soft solid, liquid, cream, ointment or aerosol form (taken from claim 5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][5], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][6], and the [Ask Patents][7] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][8] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130072575&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130072575&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/XQQ1qm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3592" RevisionGUID="0128f32a-5f98-4923-a84d-6fafd73885bd" CreationDate="2013-03-29T19:57:17.267" UserId="3478" Text="If one were to have information concerning a patent application that would refute the claim of no prior art (goes to originality), is there a process and/or obligation to submit this information to the USPTO in order to affect the granting to the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7400" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3592" RevisionGUID="0128f32a-5f98-4923-a84d-6fafd73885bd" CreationDate="2013-03-29T19:57:17.267" UserId="3478" Text="Can one file a patent application amicus brief to protest granting of the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7401" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3592" RevisionGUID="0128f32a-5f98-4923-a84d-6fafd73885bd" CreationDate="2013-03-29T19:57:17.267" UserId="3478" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7402" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3395" RevisionGUID="3823869e-4830-42cd-9bf1-5dd6c662a6aa" CreationDate="2013-03-29T20:09:37.633" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;america-invents-act&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3593" RevisionGUID="9dbee75f-5067-4e1d-824f-036fb9ae4474" CreationDate="2013-03-29T20:23:41.363" UserId="3076" Text="There is an obligation if you are the inventor, the attorney or agent involved with the case or or are otherwise involved with the patenting effort. That duty is discharged by filing a document in the case called an Information Disclosure Statement. The duty extends until the patent is granted or goes abandoned. Those people need to submit any publications and inform the PTO of any actions (put on sale longer than 1yr before filing, etc.) that are relevant to patentability. Also anything they know of that tends to contradict a position they have taken in the prosecution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Applicants are never going to say &quot;there is no prior art&quot;. For one reason the term prior art just means everything that is fair game to look at. If it is generally in the same field or is generally aimed at the same problem and it is dated before the application, it is available as prior art. (Simplified) One can never know the totality of what might be out there so the idea that a document refutes a statement that &quot;nothing is out there&quot; is not going to happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More practically, yes, there are ways for 3rd parties to submit documents and a short analysis as to their relevance to the USPTO. This site was set up to facilitate that process. Under the new patent laws there is a time window in the course of most applications for this - for free up to 3 documents. Failing that, there are new, expensive, post-grant opposition procedures." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3396" RevisionGUID="5cfd6f46-a587-4bb9-a2f1-2c474dff9b33" CreationDate="2013-03-29T20:29:16.113" UserId="3076" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="**This was a pre March 16, 2013 answer. The question specifically stated that it was a late Feb. 2013 question. Now it is no longer valid**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Move fast.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the AIA first-to-file is not yet in effect, B's patent is certainly under the &quot;old&quot; , current law. If A moves quickly he can get in an application by March 15th under the old law also. That application could be made by editing the content of B's application to the extent needed to only include inventions actually made by A.  Under  35 U.S.C. 135   Interferences, the applicant A can suggest an interference with B's issued patent as long as (as per 135(b)) A's application is  filed within a year of B's publication or patenting.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This timing situation could be the case if B's patent was issued less than a year ago and B's application had a non-publication request or if B's application went through the system much more quickly than usual - under a prioritized or accelerated examination, for example. In the normal course of events,  if B's patent recently issued,  it is likely to  have been published longer than a year ago. That would prevent an interference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the interference  proceeding A and B would provide evidence of date of conception and diligence to reduction-to-practice and A may be able to prevail and get the patent or A and B might reach a settlement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course this system will be a thing of the past in several years when no pre f-2-f applications are in the pipeline. Under the new scheme, interference is replaced by derivation proceedings. Proving you were first will not be the direct issue but rather proving the other person got it from you rather than inventing it themselves. Does not apply to the facts of the hypothetical question since it refers to a recently issued patent as of late Feb. 2013." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3395" RevisionGUID="0ceb7795-d2a7-4aaf-b07d-afadb0393c10" CreationDate="2013-03-29T20:32:02.587" UserId="3076" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="What might inventor A do  if a recently granted patent to person B was, in all its details, the same as something A previously invented well before B's  filing and could prove the complete history of that invention, and A had not yet filed anything **and it was late February 2013?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3591" RevisionGUID="c3709a07-0559-4495-af9d-06506118505e" CreationDate="2013-03-29T20:35:10.207" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 20 characters in body" Text="![Johnson &amp; Johnson logo][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application attempts to patent the method of applying **cold** analgesics to a sore muscle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Method and Composition for Treating Pain**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/235947][1]  &#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130072575 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Johnson &amp; Johnson, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 19, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 21, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application relates to the method of treating pain by applying any **cold** analgesic. The main independent claim, if allowed, would cover the method of treating pain in a person by applying a cooled, unspecified analgesic to the region of pain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of treating pain by topical application of an analgesic composition to the skin of a patient comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - placing an analgesic composition in an environment with a temperature of less than 10° Centigrade,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - keeping said analgesic composition in said environment for a period of time sufficient to reduce the temperature of said composition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - removing said composition from said environment, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - applying said composition topically to the region of pain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 09/19/2011** that discusses (1) cooling an analgesic; (2) applying the cooled analgesic to region of pain; (3) cooled analgesics in gel, soft solid, liquid, cream, ointment or aerosol form (taken from claim 5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][5], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][6], and the [Ask Patents][7] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][8] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130072575&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130072575&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/XQQ1qm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3591" RevisionGUID="53e2e4d2-38b8-418a-8445-20f4540ca660" CreationDate="2013-03-29T20:47:06.333" UserId="3076" Comment="Clarify characterization of claims" Text="![Johnson &amp; Johnson logo][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application attempts to patent the method of applying **cold** analgesics, that are **cold by virtue of being stored in a cold place**, to a sore muscle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Method and Composition for Treating Pain**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/235947][1]  &#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130072575 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Johnson &amp; Johnson, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 19, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 21, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application relates to the method of treating pain by applying any **cold** analgesic. The main independent claim, if allowed, would cover the method of treating pain in a person by applying a cooled, unspecified analgesic to the region of pain. It requires the substance to have been placed in a cold place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of treating pain by topical application of an analgesic composition to the skin of a patient comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - placing an analgesic composition in an environment with a temperature of less than 10° Centigrade,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - keeping said analgesic composition in said environment for a period of time sufficient to reduce the temperature of said composition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - removing said composition from said environment, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - applying said composition topically to the region of pain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 09/19/2011** that discusses (1) cooling an analgesic; (2) applying the cooled analgesic to region of pain; (3) cooled analgesics in gel, soft solid, liquid, cream, ointment or aerosol form (taken from claim 5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][5], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][6], and the [Ask Patents][7] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][8] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130072575&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130072575&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/XQQ1qm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3593" RevisionGUID="fba9cee8-56a1-4081-9c87-dbe31778005c" CreationDate="2013-03-29T22:02:09.107" UserId="3076" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="There is an obligation if you are the inventor, the attorney or agent involved with the case or or are otherwise involved with the patenting effort. That duty is discharged by filing a document in the case called an Information Disclosure Statement. The duty extends until the patent is granted or goes abandoned. Those people need to submit any publications and inform the PTO of any actions (put on sale longer than 1yr before filing, etc.) that are relevant to patentability. Also anything they know of that tends to contradict a position they have taken in the prosecution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Applicants are never going to say &quot;there is no prior art&quot;. For one reason the term prior art just means everything that is fair game to look at. If it is generally in the same field or is generally aimed at the same problem and it is dated before the application, it is available as prior art. (Simplified) One can never know the totality of what might be out there so the idea that a document refutes a statement that &quot;nothing is out there&quot; is not going to happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More practically, yes, there are ways for 3rd parties to submit documents and a short analysis as to their relevance to the USPTO. This site was set up to facilitate that process. It is not a real opposition process just a way to get something in front of the examiner in a timely fashion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Under the new patent laws there is a time window in the course of most applications for this - for free up to 3 documents. Failing that, there are new, expensive, post-grant opposition procedures." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7409" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3592" RevisionGUID="749e758c-834b-4eaf-8d65-123e7bc9a376" CreationDate="2013-03-30T03:11:45.517" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3593" RevisionGUID="e8735db1-85bb-4bb4-b588-46807ee0dfe7" CreationDate="2013-03-30T03:20:08.370" UserId="3076" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="There is an obligation if you are the inventor, the attorney or agent involved with the case or or are otherwise involved with the patenting effort. That duty is discharged by filing a document in the case called an Information Disclosure Statement. The duty extends until the patent is granted or goes abandoned. Those people need to submit any publications and inform the PTO of any actions (put on sale longer than 1 yr before filing, etc.) that are relevant to patentability. Also anything they know of that tends to contradict a position they have taken in the prosecution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Applicants are never going to say &quot;there is no prior art&quot;. For one reason the term prior art just means everything that is fair game to look at. If it is generally in the same field or is generally aimed at the same problem and it is dated before the application, it is available as prior art. (Simplified) One can never know the totality of what might be out there so the idea that a document refutes a statement that &quot;nothing is out there&quot; is not going to happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More practically, yes, there are ways for 3rd parties to submit documents and a short analysis as to their relevance to the USPTO. It can't be a full brief. This site was set up to facilitate that process. It is not a real opposition process just a way to get something in front of the examiner in a timely fashion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Under the new patent laws there is a time window in the course of most applications for this - for free up to 3 documents. Failing that, there are new, expensive, post-grant opposition procedures." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7411" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="3594" RevisionGUID="e2f33a4f-5c92-4e7c-831f-4209e98657ed" CreationDate="2013-03-30T03:27:48.020" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/14956/does-the-us-only-patent-on-the-four-bar-linkage-horst-link-suspension-affect-p" />
  <row Id="7412" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="3595" RevisionGUID="e1d1fcf0-4111-45ec-befd-2bb8c3088cc3" CreationDate="2013-03-30T03:27:48.020" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/14956/does-the-us-only-patent-on-the-four-bar-linkage-horst-link-suspension-affect-p/15010#15010" />
  <row Id="7413" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="3596" RevisionGUID="eca25743-fb9e-4241-b565-9b6783ad443f" CreationDate="2013-03-30T03:27:48.020" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/14956/does-the-us-only-patent-on-the-four-bar-linkage-horst-link-suspension-affect-p/15012#15012" />
  <row Id="7414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3595" RevisionGUID="b96a4a3c-c369-41ac-af7f-a92019544d00" CreationDate="2013-03-28T18:39:44.857" UserDisplayName="DWGKNZ" Text="My understanding was that a patent prevented a reseller from importing but not an individual however this may just be actually what happens rather than the legal context. However it seems that there is less than a month to go on the patent&#xD;&#xA;[so-its-less-than-1-month-until-horst-link-patent-expires][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://forums.mtbr.com/bike-frame-discussion/so-its-less-than-1-month-until-horst-link-patent-expires-846261.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3596" RevisionGUID="177146c0-255e-47ac-97e7-74dc1f53cb6b" CreationDate="2013-03-28T22:52:20.827" UserId="3479" UserDisplayName="jm2" Text="&gt; The patent for the four bar linkage (perhaps better known as the Horst&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Link) as a bicycle suspension platform is only applicable in the US&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and not Canada, Europe, or other countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is true, but the [Horst Link patent][1] is not far from its expiration. [According to Wikipedia][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &quot;For applications that were pending on and for patents that were still&#xD;&#xA;      in force on June 8, 1995, the patent term is either 17 years from the&#xD;&#xA;      issue date or 20 years from the filing date of the earliest U.S. or&#xD;&#xA;      international (PCT) application to which priority is claimed&#xD;&#xA;      (excluding provisional applications), the longer term applying.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Horst link patent was filed on September 9th, 1994 and issued on April 23rd, 1996. So best case for Specialized, the patent will expire September 9th, 2014. &#xD;&#xA;However, the patent that was granted was a continuation of a patent filed January 21, 1993, and that abandoned patent was a &quot;continuation-in-part&quot; of a patent filed one year earlier to the day. If either of those earlier patents are considered the earliest filing date then The longer of the two terms outlined above would be 17 years after the date of April 23, 1996. That means that the patent would expire the 23rd of next month (April 23rd, 2013). I'm not a patent lawyer, but I would imagine that if Specialized has any grounds to argue that the earlier filings are irrelevant and that the 1994 filing date is the earliest that should be considered, they will do so in court.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; How does this affect the design of bikes ridden in the US compared to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; countries where it is not patented?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is the Horst link more popular elsewhere, or does the patent not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; restrict the availability of bikes equipped with Horst Link?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many designs that closely resemble the Horst Linkage but are different enough to avoid patent infringement exist. The classic example is the &quot;faux bar&quot; linkage (as opposed to Horst four bar linkage). The faux bar linkage moves the pivot on the rear of the bike off of the chainstay and onto the seatstay. Among others, [Kona][3] and [Scott][4] use this design and argue that it works as well if not better than the classic four bar linkage. Some companies license the FSR (Horst link) design from Specialized as well, perhaps the most well known of which is [Titus][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that designs that would infringe on the Horst Link patent exist in abundance overseas. For instance, that is why Scott entered the US market with hardtails but did not bring their full suspension bikes over until recent years when they switched to a faux bar design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Am I allowed to import a bike with Horst link suspension into the US,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or would I be breaching the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a manufacturer/company overseas was selling patent protected goods to US consumers they could be held liable and the goods could be [confiscated by customs][6]. For transactions between individuals you would be unlikely to encounter any issues. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said, I'm no patent attorney, so take this answer with a grain of salt. I would love to get some eyes from [patents.stackexchange.com][7] on this question and answer to ensure that everything I've said here is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents?id=WLMbAAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=drawing&amp;zoom=4#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.konaworld.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.scott-sports.com/us/en/category/bike/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.titusti.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://corporate.findlaw.com/intellectual-property/u-s-customs-and-protection-of-intellectual-property-rights.html#Customs&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3594" RevisionGUID="cddbe6b3-dd83-4fcf-9981-c642e20afb44" CreationDate="2013-03-25T17:29:01.383" UserId="3480" UserDisplayName="user1049697" Text="The patent for the four bar linkage (perhaps better known as the Horst Link) as a bicycle suspension platform is only applicable in the US and not Canada, Europe, or other countries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does this affect the design of bikes ridden in the US compared to countries where it is not patented? Is the Horst link more popular elsewhere, or does the patent not restrict the availability of bikes equipped with Horst Link? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I allowed to import a bike with Horst link suspension into the US, or would I be breaching the patent? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7417" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3594" RevisionGUID="cddbe6b3-dd83-4fcf-9981-c642e20afb44" CreationDate="2013-03-25T17:29:01.383" UserId="3480" UserDisplayName="user1049697" Text="Does the US Only patent on the four bar linkage (Horst link) suspension affect popular mountain bikes in the US?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7418" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3594" RevisionGUID="cddbe6b3-dd83-4fcf-9981-c642e20afb44" CreationDate="2013-03-25T17:29:01.383" UserId="3480" UserDisplayName="user1049697" Text="&lt;untagged&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3594" RevisionGUID="3bd453f9-d6a9-408f-ab96-758a25646ef5" CreationDate="2013-03-30T12:45:44.707" UserId="3480" Comment="Added another question at the end, plus tags." Text="The patent for the four bar linkage (perhaps better known as the Horst Link) as a bicycle suspension platform is only applicable in the US and not Canada, Europe, or other countries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does this affect the design of bikes ridden in the US compared to countries where it is not patented? Is the Horst link more popular elsewhere, or does the patent not restrict the availability of bikes equipped with Horst Link? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I allowed to import a bike with Horst link suspension into the US, or would I be breaching the patent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a reason for the patent only existing in the US, i.e. is it a business decision by the patent holder, or is it a difference in the patent systems that only makes the invention patentable in the US, but nowhere else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7420" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3594" RevisionGUID="3bd453f9-d6a9-408f-ab96-758a25646ef5" CreationDate="2013-03-30T12:45:44.707" UserId="3480" Comment="Added another question at the end, plus tags." Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;untagged&gt;&lt;bicycles&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3597" RevisionGUID="985c74f5-19dc-4042-a700-f77120bc65a7" CreationDate="2013-03-30T16:18:40.850" UserId="3076" Text="All patent laws are territorial limited and generally require separate applications to be filed in each country one wants protection in. There is no such thing as a world-wide patent. The U.S. is the largest market thet one could tie up with a single patent and represents a big chunk of the world so a US-only patent strategy can make sense. Yes, the patent laws differ from location to location and some subject matter that is patentable in one place is not in others. Mechanical utility inventions are patentable everywhere. It is  business methods, medical diagnostics, transgenic mice, etc. that are controversial. One way the differing laws keeps many US inventions as US-only is that we have had a one year grace period where something can be used publically and even sold before an application is filed. In most of the rest of the world showing something publically before filing somewhere kills all chance of patenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3597" RevisionGUID="a55be050-67ae-479d-ab5d-fd4b79c989b6" CreationDate="2013-03-30T17:13:25.147" UserId="3076" Comment="added 627 characters in body" Text="All patent laws are territorial limited and generally require separate applications to be filed in each country one wants protection in. There is no such thing as a world-wide patent. The U.S. is the largest market thet one could tie up with a single patent and represents a big chunk of the world so a US-only patent strategy can make sense. Yes, the patent laws differ from location to location and some subject matter that is patentable in one place is not in others. Mechanical utility inventions are patentable everywhere. It is  business methods, medical diagnostics, transgenic mice, etc. that are controversial. One way the differing laws keeps many US inventions as US-only is that we have had a one year grace period where something can be used publically and even sold before an application is filed. In most of the rest of the world showing something publically before filing somewhere kills all chance of patenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent gives its owner the right to exclude others from making, selling, offering for sale, importing and using. In practice it would be worth going after an individual but the law applies the same to a dealer or an individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an issue called &quot;patent exhaustion&quot; that is going to the Supreme Court soon. They just decided a case on copyright exhaustion. Case was about text books printed and sold out of the US under license from the copyright holder. Was the copyright exhausted? Or could the copyright holder keep them out of the US?  They said the publisher got paid once and couldn't control the resale. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3597" RevisionGUID="7e7cea97-7937-4dd9-a92a-e7146fa76803" CreationDate="2013-03-30T17:35:27.490" UserId="3076" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="All patent laws are territorial limited and generally require separate applications to be filed in each country one wants protection in. There is no such thing as a world-wide patent. The U.S. is the largest market that one could tie up with a single patent and represents a big chunk of the world so a US-only patent strategy can make sense. Yes, the patent laws differ from location to location and some subject matter that is patentable in one place is not in others. Mechanical utility inventions are patentable everywhere. It is  business methods, medical diagnostics, transgenic mice, etc. that are controversial. One way the differing laws keeps many US inventions as US-only is that we have had a one year grace period where something can be used publically and even sold up to a year before an application is filed. In most of the rest of the world showing something publically before filing somewhere kills all chance of patenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent gives its owner the right to exclude others from making, selling, offering for sale, importing and using. In practice it would not be worth going after an individual but the law applies the same to a dealer or an individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an issue called &quot;patent exhaustion&quot; that is going to the Supreme Court soon. They just decided a case on copyright exhaustion. That case was about text books printed and sold out of the US under license from the copyright holder. Was the copyright exhausted? Or could the copyright holder keep those books out of the US?  They said the publisher got paid once and couldn't control the resale by and end-user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3597" RevisionGUID="f6e6bc96-9f6a-4973-af93-cec326377e02" CreationDate="2013-03-30T17:48:00.367" UserId="3076" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="All patent laws are territorially limited and generally require separate applications to be filed in each country one wants protection in. There is no such thing as a world-wide patent. The U.S. is the largest market that one could tie up with a single patent and represents a big chunk of the world so a US-only patent strategy can make sense. Yes, the patent laws differ from location to location and some subject matter that is patentable in one place is not in others. Mechanical utility inventions are patentable everywhere. It is  business methods, medical diagnostics, transgenic mice, etc. that are controversial. One way the differing laws keeps many US inventions as US-only is that we have had a one year grace period where something can be used publically and even sold up to a year before an application is filed. In most of the rest of the world showing something publically before filing somewhere kills all chance of patenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent gives its owner the right to exclude others from making, selling, offering for sale, importing and using. In practice it would not be worth going after an individual but the law applies the same to a dealer or an individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an issue (probably not directly relevant) called &quot;patent exhaustion&quot; that is going to the Supreme Court soon. They just decided a case on copyright exhaustion. That case was about text books printed and sold out of the US under license from the copyright holder. Was the copyright exhausted? Or could the copyright holder keep those books out of the US?  They said the publisher got paid once and couldn't control the resale by an end-user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3456" RevisionGUID="50b22d05-3e70-4bc6-bd8c-7560d6717b91" CreationDate="2013-03-30T21:49:19.497" UserId="2072" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Yes.  This patent issued on July 8, 2008--almost four years prior to the decision you cite, provided in all its glory here:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1150.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is one thing to identify an issue, and quite another to determine its significance. A more interesting question is what would happen if this patent were litigated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim one of your patent appears below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of determining the presence of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in a subject, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; measuring the amount of ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1) in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a sample of cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) or blood from a subject at a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; time within and up to seven days after occurrence of a suspected TBI;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and, comparing the amount of UCH-L1 in said sample with the amount of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; UCH-L1 in a respective sample from an uninjured subject wherein a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; higher amount of UCH-L1 in the subject sample relative to the amount&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in a CSF or blood sample from the uninjured subject is indicative of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; TBI in the subject suspected of having the TBI.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, it is difficult to overlook the similarity between the correlations relating to concentration, here and in *Mayo v. Prometheus*. However, there are important differences. For one, *Mayo* could be construed narrowly to apply only to the specific claimed phenomenon relating to the relationship between concentration and efficacy.  Also, here it is possible that dependent claim 3 requiring a separation of blood plasma might otherwise move the claim within the purview of 35 U.S.C. 101, as the physical screening steps did in *Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics, Inc.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot would depend on the district judge presiding over the trial.  It may not be possible to predict the outcome at the trial level, but some district judges might be inclined to interpret *Mayo* narrowly.  On appeal, however, it is likely that at least some of the judges would be looking for an opportunity to temper the effect of *Mayo* as it did in *Myriad*.  This particular patent claim might present an interesting opportunity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This body of law is far from settled.  The uncertainty in any litigation should be strong motivation for both sides to settle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3597" RevisionGUID="3b8c0aab-3922-459c-a7e6-797b69fa9785" CreationDate="2013-03-31T20:51:12.773" UserId="3076" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="All patent laws are territorially limited and generally require separate applications to be filed in each country one wants protection in. There is no such thing as a world-wide patent. (There is the PCT **application** that is almost world-wide but does not result in a single world-wide **patent**.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The U.S. is the largest market that one could tie up with a single patent and represents a big chunk of the world so a US-only patent strategy can make sense. Yes, the patent laws differ from location to location and some subject matter that is patentable in one place is not in others. Mechanical utility inventions are patentable everywhere. It is  business methods, medical diagnostics, transgenic mice, etc. that are controversial. One way the differing laws keeps many US inventions as US-only is that we have had a one year grace period where something can be used publically and even sold up to a year before an application is filed. In most of the rest of the world showing something publically before filing somewhere kills all chance of patenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent gives its owner the right to exclude others from making, selling, offering for sale, importing and using. In practice it would not be worth going after an individual but the law applies the same to a dealer or an individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an issue (probably not directly relevant) called &quot;patent exhaustion&quot; that is going to the Supreme Court soon. They just decided a case on copyright exhaustion. That case was about text books printed and sold out of the US under license from the copyright holder. Was the copyright exhausted? Or could the copyright holder keep those books out of the US?  They said the publisher got paid once and couldn't control the resale by an end-user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2062" RevisionGUID="69117d93-751b-474d-8c99-26260f4b9fab" CreationDate="2013-03-31T22:02:41.627" UserId="3076" Comment="added f-t-f caveat and removed 1 year thing" Text="&gt; **Caveat - this is a pre-first-to-file answer. Things changed March 16, 2013**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll go ahead and address 1) whether you can use other media that describe your invention like a patent, and 2) whether you can use other media to invalidate someone else's patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other media as a patent&#xD;&#xA;======================&#xD;&#xA;Other media cannot be used as a patent. You cannot sue anyone for patent infringement unless you have a patent, regardless of when you made the invention, how valuable it is, or how much money you spent on it. One must apply for a patent through the USPTO to get any protection under the patent statute. This is in contrast to copyright, where one need not file anything with the government in order to have rights in one's creation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other media to invalidate patent&#xD;&#xA;====&#xD;&#xA;First, 102(f) requires that one applying for a patent actually invented the invention. If the other guy really did just read your publication and went to the patent office with it, the patent should be invalid under 102(f). However, that might be hard (and costly) to prove.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, 102(a) says that if you published the material before he invented it, then his patent is invalid. This is also problematic, because it involves determining when he came up with the invention. However, if he didn't really invent it, he'll have a hard time coming up with proof that he invented it before the publication came out.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Under the old patent law (signed September 2011 but this provision goes into effect March 16th, 2013), if you and someone else invented the same invention in the same time frame, the first to invent would receive the patent. However, under the new law, if someone else legitimately invented the same invention after you invented it, but before you published anything about it or filed for a patent, then he would receive the patent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3599" RevisionGUID="82415381-8abc-4a10-ac9b-5e1d4cda3bd9" CreationDate="2013-04-01T01:35:16.603" UserDisplayName="user3487" Text="I invented something a couple of years ago, and made a working prototype and posted it on my blog. I also spoke about it publicly and brought it to an exposition. Lately, I've been thinking of selling it, and when searching to see if any similar products were available, I found a US patent application for something very similar. My blog post and the exposition clearly pre-dates it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent application has a few extra features, but the basic idea is the same, and some of the extra features were suggested by commentors on my blog (which I think makes them obvious). What should I do? Is there a way I can submit prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7430" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3599" RevisionGUID="82415381-8abc-4a10-ac9b-5e1d4cda3bd9" CreationDate="2013-04-01T01:35:16.603" UserDisplayName="user3487" Text="I have prior art for a pending patent. What should I do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7431" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3599" RevisionGUID="82415381-8abc-4a10-ac9b-5e1d4cda3bd9" CreationDate="2013-04-01T01:35:16.603" UserDisplayName="user3487" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3600" RevisionGUID="9d43a7a8-62fe-4266-bffc-cee411134502" CreationDate="2013-04-01T02:14:29.100" UserId="3076" Text="Under the new AIA patent law there is a window of time that starts after an application is published (has already occurred or you would have been able to see it) and ends either 6 months later or when the first rejection has been issued by the patent office. Would also end in the unlikely case that there was a notice of allowance issued before either of those triggers. There is info on how to do it on this site's faqs and [here at the USPTO site.][1] Up to three previously published documents can be submitted and there is a limit to any accompanying text on why the documents are relevant. More documents can be submitted for a small fee but the showing of it in public, itself, can not be submitted.The submission can be done anonymously if you have it done via a USPTO registered practitioner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To see if a rejection has been issued in the case you can look the application up in the [USPTO's Public PAIR.][2]  It has an unforgiving user interface that requires you to set a radio button selecting the kind of number you are giving it. If the number looks like it starts with a year, it is a publication number. Just use the number, no &quot;US&quot; in front of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are past the window you might consider posting all the information at Ask Patents. If the owner of any granted patent goes after someone for infringement a reasonable search might turn up the tagged info you posted here and help someone defend themselves., properly tagged&#xD;&#xA;. You might also get users commenting on how relevant the documents might actually be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/faqs-preissuance-submissions.jsp#heading-2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3602" RevisionGUID="cbcf7798-f864-486c-b975-dc764047026a" CreationDate="2013-04-01T09:59:50.393" UserId="3489" Text="According to Dropbox: &quot;You can get extra space by inviting your friends to try out Dropbox. If a friend uses your invitation to sign up for an account you will receive bonus space.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;This means that Dropbox uses a method for providing a customizable reward service that include monitoring user activity associated with a web site, comparing user activity to conditional rules and determining whether to generate a reward from an operator rewards based on satisfaction of the conditional rules.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7437" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3602" RevisionGUID="cbcf7798-f864-486c-b975-dc764047026a" CreationDate="2013-04-01T09:59:50.393" UserId="3489" Text="Doesn't this method already exists in sites that like Dropbox?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7438" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3602" RevisionGUID="cbcf7798-f864-486c-b975-dc764047026a" CreationDate="2013-04-01T09:59:50.393" UserId="3489" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;us20120232971&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3600" RevisionGUID="c3fb7309-9132-428f-b5df-f95187a4a699" CreationDate="2013-04-01T17:18:40.813" UserId="3076" Comment="Typo" Text="Under the new AIA patent law there is a window of time that starts after an application is published (has already occurred or you would have been able to see it) and ends either 6 months later or when the first rejection has been issued by the patent office. Would also end in the unlikely case that there was a notice of allowance issued before either of those triggers. There is info on how to do it on this site's faqs and [here at the USPTO site.][1] Up to three previously published documents can be submitted and there is a limit to any accompanying text on why the documents are relevant. More documents can be submitted for a small fee but the showing of it in public, itself, can not be submitted.The submission can be done anonymously if you have it done via a USPTO registered practitioner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To see if a rejection has been issued in the case you can look the application up in the [USPTO's Public PAIR.][2]  It has an unforgiving user interface that requires you to set a radio button selecting the kind of number you are giving it. If the number looks like it starts with a year, it is a publication number. Just use the number, no &quot;US&quot; in front of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are past the window you might consider posting all the information at Ask Patents. If the owner of any granted patent goes after someone for infringement a reasonable search might turn up the tagged info you posted here and help someone defend themselves.&#xD;&#xA;You might also get users commenting on how relevant the documents might actually be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/faqs-preissuance-submissions.jsp#heading-2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3603" RevisionGUID="42ebeeec-5b7b-4310-9728-b353db0a8a0f" CreationDate="2013-04-01T17:35:11.560" UserId="3076" Text="This application received a non final rejection as being anticipated by [On Line Loyalty Program US2006/0074755 ][1]. It is probably more on target than Dropbox. It also had issues with non eligible subject matter and vagueness. A response to that rejection was submitted in March. This all can be seen at USPTO's public PAIR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20060074755" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3604" RevisionGUID="6f755cb9-6060-4f56-a6ce-f15a7bb5ae89" CreationDate="2013-04-01T18:56:56.140" UserId="3491" Text="If I were to make a product for the xbox 720 or ps4 (a controller), would I be infringing on this patent (US20090205878) since both new consoles contain touchpads on the controller?  Is this patent licensed out to anyone currently (I'm guessing yes if these controllers are already in development).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US20090205878?dq=touchpad+game+controller&amp;ei=i4hYUcOVAvG50QH0qICYCw" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7443" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3604" RevisionGUID="6f755cb9-6060-4f56-a6ce-f15a7bb5ae89" CreationDate="2013-04-01T18:56:56.140" UserId="3491" Text="Would any 3rd party accessory makers for the new xbox and ps4 be infringing this patent (US20090205878)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7444" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3604" RevisionGUID="6f755cb9-6060-4f56-a6ce-f15a7bb5ae89" CreationDate="2013-04-01T18:56:56.140" UserId="3491" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3604" RevisionGUID="b74cff70-06c0-4852-a7da-fb8d8d4d0843" CreationDate="2013-04-01T21:07:00.160" UserId="1259" Comment="linkie and tags" Text="If I were to make a product for the xbox 720 or ps4 (a controller), would I be infringing on this patent ([US20090205878][1]) since both new consoles contain touchpads on the controller?  Is this patent licensed out to anyone currently (I'm guessing yes if these controllers are already in development).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20090205878" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7446" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3604" RevisionGUID="b74cff70-06c0-4852-a7da-fb8d8d4d0843" CreationDate="2013-04-01T21:07:00.160" UserId="1259" Comment="linkie and tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;us20090205878&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3605" RevisionGUID="02a4e00c-3026-4b62-aa8e-fda57ddac3df" CreationDate="2013-04-01T21:20:35.037" UserId="3076" Text="This is not an issued patent, it is the publication of a patent application. In this case the application has not yet resulted in a patent. It received a &quot;finale rejection&quot; in Nov. 2012. (Final doesn't mean final - they can keep fighting by paying more money)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3605" RevisionGUID="cef057e3-cafd-4f82-8666-f6ab9b38625c" CreationDate="2013-04-01T22:08:57.903" UserId="3076" Comment="Bolding spellng" Text="This is **not an issued patent**, it is the publication of a **patent application**. In this case the application has not yet resulted in a patent. It received a &quot;final rejection&quot; in Nov. 2012. (Final doesn't mean final - they can keep fighting by paying more money)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3600" RevisionGUID="ae0c3ba7-5a26-4164-9531-489b963f7203" CreationDate="2013-04-01T22:11:00.037" UserId="3076" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="Under the new AIA patent law there is a window of time that starts after an application is published (has already occurred or you would have been able to see it) and ends either 6 months later or when the first rejection has been issued by the patent office. Would also end in the unlikely case that there was a notice of allowance issued before either of those triggers. There is info on how to do it on this site's faqs and [here at the USPTO site.][1] Up to three previously published documents can be submitted and there is a limit to any accompanying text on why the documents are relevant. More documents can be submitted for a small fee but the showing of it in public, itself, can not be submitted.The submission can be done anonymously if you have it done via a USPTO registered practitioner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To see if a rejection has been issued in the case you can look the application up in the [USPTO's Public PAIR.][2]  It has an unforgiving user interface that requires you to set a radio button selecting the kind of number you are giving it. If the number looks like it starts with a year, it is a publication number. Just use the number, no &quot;US&quot; in front of it and no &quot;/&quot; between the year and the rest of the number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are past the window you might consider posting all the information at Ask Patents. If the owner of any granted patent goes after someone for infringement a reasonable search might turn up the tagged info you posted here and help someone defend themselves.&#xD;&#xA;You might also get users commenting on how relevant the documents might actually be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/faqs-preissuance-submissions.jsp#heading-2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3603" RevisionGUID="1760b9cf-7249-4846-83d4-475a5c2268d4" CreationDate="2013-04-01T22:12:59.497" UserId="3076" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="This application received a non final rejection as being anticipated by [On Line Loyalty Program US2006/0074755 ][1]. It is probably more on target than Dropbox. The application you mention also had issues with non eligible subject matter and vagueness. A response to that rejection was submitted in March. This all can be seen at USPTO's public PAIR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20060074755" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3605" RevisionGUID="d28248c3-262a-4d88-a9bd-356109b0aa9e" CreationDate="2013-04-01T22:46:17.793" UserId="3076" Comment="added 170 characters in body" Text="This is **not an issued patent**, it is the publication of a **patent application**. Publications start with a Number that looks like a year; for last many years patents have a number that in the millions. Applications may or may not result in patents. In this case the application has not (yet) resulted in a patent. It received a &quot;final rejection&quot; in Nov. 2012. (Final doesn't mean final - they can keep fighting by paying more money)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3605" RevisionGUID="19dc12c8-2aff-4d56-9724-69ea434da10d" CreationDate="2013-04-01T22:52:34.647" UserId="3076" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="This is **not an issued patent**, it is the publication of a patent **application**. Publications start with a number that looks like a year; for the last many years patents have a number that is in the millions. Applications may or may not result in patents. In this case the application has not (yet) resulted in a patent. It received a &quot;final rejection&quot; in Nov. 2012. (Final doesn't mean final - they can keep fighting by paying more money)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3610" RevisionGUID="b7552923-480e-46e7-a2f0-7ac91a8dd651" CreationDate="2013-04-02T19:12:45.370" UserId="3345" Text="What are the different scenarios while claiming royalties?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Patent1 was filed in year 2002 with priority from another year 2000 US application. Patent1 got granted in year 2007. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does royalties vary for ProductA if it was launched in &#xD;&#xA;1) year 2001&#xD;&#xA;2) year 2003&#xD;&#xA;3) year 2008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, How is price fixed? On profit or on revenue? Any examples to support these questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7488" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3610" RevisionGUID="b7552923-480e-46e7-a2f0-7ac91a8dd651" CreationDate="2013-04-02T19:12:45.370" UserId="3345" Text="Infringement Royalties" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7489" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3610" RevisionGUID="b7552923-480e-46e7-a2f0-7ac91a8dd651" CreationDate="2013-04-02T19:12:45.370" UserId="3345" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;royalty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3610" RevisionGUID="bcceeaaa-42f6-4d90-8b2e-472c17df697e" CreationDate="2013-04-02T19:25:54.250" UserId="1767" Comment="Changes to clarify the question (which is a otherwise interesting)" Text="I have a question about different scenarios while claiming royalties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hypothetical situation: US Patent #1 was filed in 2002 and granted in 2007. Its priority dates back to 2000 from a US patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume Product A infringes Patent #1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using established royalty analysis, how would the royalty **base** vary for Product A if Product A were launched in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Year 2001&#xD;&#xA; 2. Year 2003&#xD;&#xA; 3. Year 2008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a related topic, how is the royalty **rate** determined? Would it be based on profit or on revenue of Product A during the relevant time period?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any examples or references to support the answers would be appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7492" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3610" RevisionGUID="bcceeaaa-42f6-4d90-8b2e-472c17df697e" CreationDate="2013-04-02T19:25:54.250" UserId="1767" Comment="Changes to clarify the question (which is a otherwise interesting)" Text="Establishing Base and Rate for Infringement Royalties" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3611" RevisionGUID="645355d8-962d-4a1f-bdc4-49444a1f5306" CreationDate="2013-04-02T23:20:48.250" UserId="3076" Text="A partial answer. If company X's product was launched in 2001 and person Y's application was filed in 2002 then the product would be prior art to the application (unless the inventor can swear behind the 2001 shipment date) and no patent should have been granted and if granted might be invalidated. Getting past that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously person Y can only expect to extract a royalty after the patent is granted in 2007. At the time it issues the patent holder and company can mutually agree to a license agreement covering all aspects of their relationship past and future. Or the company could immediate stop shipping eliminating future liability. If the patent owner goes after the company at time T there will be three time periods to discuss. One issue is what the company should pay on things shipped from the granting of the patent to time T. The other is whether or not the company can continue to ship past time T and if so with what restrictions and at what royalty or other business arrangement. Third, if the application was published before grant and if the claims in the published application are close enough to the final allowed claims and the company was put on notice, then the patent owner may be entitled to a reasonable &quot;back royalty&quot; for things shipped between the publication of the application and the issuance of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Numerical royalties are argued about and mutually agreed on or set by a judge/jury and will vary by industry, by jury, and by how important the patented aspect was to the purchasers of the item.   Caveat - I am a patent agent and not a patent attorney. This question is outside the domain I am licensed to advise people upon in the case of a specific, actual fact pattern of an interested party." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3611" RevisionGUID="799da9a8-818c-49e2-ba23-ca2b12ad0564" CreationDate="2013-04-02T23:38:05.003" UserId="3076" Comment="added 629 characters in body" Text="A partial answer. If company X's product was launched in 2001 and person Y's application was filed in 2002 then the product would be prior art to the application (unless the inventor can swear behind the 2001 shipment date) and no patent should have been granted in the first place and if granted might be invalidated. Getting past that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously person Y can only expect to extract a royalty after the patent is granted in 2007. At the time it issues the patent holder and company can mutually agree to a business agreement covering all aspects of their relationship past and future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or the company could immediate stop shipping eliminating future liability. If the patent owner goes after the company at time T there will be three time periods to discuss. One issue is what the company should pay on things shipped from the granting of the patent to time T. The other is whether or not the company can continue to ship past time T and if so with what restrictions and at what royalty or other business arrangement. Third, if the application was published before grant and if the claims in the published application are close enough to the final allowed claims and the company was put on notice, then the patent owner may be entitled to a reasonable &quot;back royalty&quot; for things shipped between the publication of the application and the issuance of the patent. [Article about a specific case regarding provisional rights to &quot;back royalties&quot;.][1] (**not at all related to a provisional application**) If there was no publication before the grant in 2007 or the claims were even moderately amended, then when the shipments started is irrelevant. Assuming Shipments stop at time T the only payments due the patent holder would be what shipped from 2007 to whenever push came to shove to time T.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Numerical royalties are argued about and mutually agreed on by the parties often with horse trading. if they go to court it is most likly set by a jury and will vary by industry, by jury, and by how important the patented aspect was to the motovation of purchasers to buy the item.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caveat - I am a patent agent and not a patent attorney. This question is outside the domain I am licensed/registered to advise people upon in the case of a specific, actual fact pattern of an interested party.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/09/provisional-r-1.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3611" RevisionGUID="e0607d29-aac1-498f-890e-6d13842f7baa" CreationDate="2013-04-03T00:57:09.650" UserId="3076" Comment="added 369 characters in body" Text="A partial answer. If company X's product was launched in 2001 and person Y's application was filed in 2002 then the product would be prior art to the application (unless the inventor can swear behind the 2001 shipment date) and no patent should have been granted in the first place and if granted might be invalidated. Getting past that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously person Y can only expect to extract a royalty after the patent is granted in 2007. At the time it issues the patent holder and company can mutually agree to a business agreement covering all aspects of their relationship past and future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or the company could immediate stop shipping eliminating future liability. If the patent owner goes after the company at time T there will be three time periods to discuss. One issue is what the company should pay on things shipped from the granting of the patent to time T. The other is whether or not the company can continue to ship past time T and if so with what restrictions and at what royalty or other business arrangement. Third, if the application was published before grant and if the claims in the published application are close enough to the final allowed claims and the company was put on notice, then the patent owner may be entitled to a reasonable &quot;back royalty&quot; for things shipped between the publication of the application and the issuance of the patent. [Article about a specific case regarding provisional rights to &quot;back royalties&quot;.][1] (**not at all related to a provisional application**) If there was no publication before the grant in 2007 or the claims were even moderately amended, then when the shipments started is irrelevant. Assuming Shipments stop at time T the only payments due the patent holder would be what shipped from 2007 to whenever push came to shove to time T.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Numerical royalties are argued about and mutually agreed on by the parties often with horse trading. if they go to court it is most likly set by a jury and will vary by industry, by jury, and by how important the patented aspect was to the motovation of purchasers to buy the item.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is resolved between the parties the business relationship might not even involve a royalty. Could be a patent cross-license, lump sum, fixed dollar amount per unit, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However a base and a rate do get argued about. Should a royalty for a car transmission sold in a car be 10% or the value of the transmission or 0.5% of the wholesale price of the car? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caveat - I am a patent agent and not a patent attorney. This question is outside the domain I am licensed/registered to advise people upon in the case of a specific, actual fact pattern of an interested party.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/09/provisional-r-1.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3611" RevisionGUID="f8120754-2d9d-438a-aa2d-ea9db57255c7" CreationDate="2013-04-03T01:21:52.543" UserId="3076" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="A partial answer. If company X's product was launched in 2001 and person Y's application was filed in 2002 then the product would be prior art to the application (unless the inventor can swear behind the 2001 shipment date) and no patent should have been granted in the first place and if granted might be invalidated. Getting past that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously person Y can only expect to extract a royalty after the patent is granted in 2007. At the time it issues the patent holder and company can negotiate and mutually agree to a business arrangement covering all aspects of their relationship and past and future shipments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or the company could immediate stop shipping eliminating future liability. If the patent owner goes after the company at time T there will be three time periods to discuss. One issue is what the company should pay on things shipped from the granting of the patent to time T. The other is whether or not the company can continue to ship past time T at all and if so with what restrictions and at what royalty or other business arrangement. Third, if the application was published before grant and if the claims in the published application are close enough to the final allowed claims and the company was put on notice, then the patent owner may be entitled to a reasonable &quot;back royalty&quot; for things shipped between the publication of the application and the issuance of the patent. [Article about a specific case regarding provisional rights to &quot;back royalties&quot;.][1] (**not at all related to a provisional application**) If there was no publication before the grant in 2007 or the claims were even moderately amended, then when the shipments started is irrelevant. Assuming Shipments stop at time T the only payments due the patent holder would be what shipped from 2007 to whenever push came to shove to time T.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Numerical royalties are argued about and mutually agreed on by the parties often with horse trading. if they go to court it is most likly set by a jury and will vary by industry, by jury, and by how important the patented aspect was to the motovation of purchasers to buy the item.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is resolved between the parties the business relationship might not even involve a royalty. Could be a patent cross-license, lump sum, fixed dollar amount per unit, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However a base and a rate do get argued about. Should a royalty for a car transmission sold in a car be 10% or the value of the transmission or 0.5% of the wholesale price of the car? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caveat - I am a patent agent and not a patent attorney. This question is outside the domain I am licensed/registered to advise people upon in the case of a specific, actual fact pattern of an interested party.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/09/provisional-r-1.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3611" RevisionGUID="83e38dab-dd4a-4971-a384-c51de81cab1a" CreationDate="2013-04-03T01:43:31.033" UserId="3076" Comment="added 126 characters in body" Text="A partial answer. Infringement is covered in [35 USC § 271 - Infringement of patent.  ][1]If company X's product was launched in 2001 and person Y's application was filed in 2002 then the product would be prior art to the application (unless the inventor can swear behind the 2001 shipment date) and no patent should have been granted in the first place and if granted might be invalidated. Getting past that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously person Y can only expect to extract a royalty after the patent is granted in 2007. At the time it issues the patent holder and company can negotiate and mutually agree to a business arrangement covering all aspects of their relationship and past and future shipments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or the company could immediate stop shipping eliminating future liability. If the patent owner goes after the company at time T there will be three time periods to discuss. One issue is what the company should pay on things shipped from the granting of the patent to time T. The other is whether or not the company can continue to ship past time T at all and if so with what restrictions and at what royalty or other business arrangement. Third, if the application was published before grant and if the claims in the published application are close enough to the final allowed claims and the company was put on notice, then the patent owner may be entitled to a reasonable &quot;back royalty&quot; for things shipped between the publication of the application and the issuance of the patent. [Article about a specific case regarding provisional rights to &quot;back royalties&quot;.][2] (**not at all related to a provisional application**) If there was no publication before the grant in 2007 or the claims were even moderately amended, then when the shipments started is irrelevant. Assuming Shipments stop at time T the only payments due the patent holder would be what shipped from 2007 to whenever push came to shove to time T.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Numerical royalties are argued about and mutually agreed on by the parties often with horse trading. If they go to court it is most likly set by a jury and will vary by industry, by jury, and by how important the patented aspect was to the motovation of purchasers to buy the item.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is resolved between the parties the business relationship might not even involve a royalty. Could be a patent cross-license, lump sum, fixed dollar amount per unit, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However a base and a rate do get argued about. Should a royalty for a car transmission sold in a car be 10% or the value of the transmission or 0.5% of the wholesale price of the car? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caveat - I am a patent agent and not a patent attorney. This question is outside the domain I am licensed/registered to advise people upon in the case of a specific, actual fact pattern of an interested party.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/09/provisional-r-1.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3611" RevisionGUID="2ccb0b37-fef4-41fd-b72d-b2a718d6ce76" CreationDate="2013-04-03T03:02:17.337" UserId="3076" Comment="Anne link re date picker MS" Text="A partial answer. Infringement is covered in [35 USC § 271 - Infringement of patent.  ][1]If company X's product was launched in 2001 and person Y's application was filed in 2002 then the product would be prior art to the application (unless the inventor can swear behind the 2001 shipment date) and no patent should have been granted in the first place and if granted might be invalidated. Getting past that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously person Y can only expect to extract a royalty after the patent is granted in 2007. At the time it issues the patent holder and company can negotiate and mutually agree to a business arrangement covering all aspects of their relationship and past and future shipments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or the company could immediate stop shipping eliminating future liability. If the patent owner goes after the company at time T there will be three time periods to discuss. One issue is what the company should pay on things shipped from the granting of the patent to time T. The other is whether or not the company can continue to ship past time T at all and if so with what restrictions and at what royalty or other business arrangement. Third, if the application was published before grant and if the claims in the published application are close enough to the final allowed claims and the company was put on notice, then the patent owner may be entitled to a reasonable &quot;back royalty&quot; for things shipped between the publication of the application and the issuance of the patent. [Article about a specific case regarding provisional rights to &quot;back royalties&quot;.][2] (**not at all related to a provisional application**) If there was no publication before the grant in 2007 or the claims were even moderately amended, then when the shipments started is irrelevant. Assuming Shipments stop at time T the only payments due the patent holder would be what shipped from 2007 to time T. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The law requires a judgement that is at least as much as a &quot;reasonable royalty&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Numerical royalties are argued about and mutually agreed on by the parties often with horse trading. If they go to court it is most likly set by a jury and will vary by industry, by jury, and by how important the patented aspect was to the motovation of purchasers to buy the item.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is resolved between the parties the business relationship might not even involve a royalty. Could be a patent cross-license, lump sum, fixed dollar amount per unit, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However a base and a rate do get argued about. Should a royalty for a car transmission sold in a car be 10% or the value of the transmission or 0.5% of the wholesale price of the car? See [this Patently-O post] [3] regarding Microsoft and its date picker function.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caveat - I am a patent agent and not a patent attorney. This question is outside the domain I am licensed/registered to advise people upon in the case of a specific, actual fact pattern of an interested party.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/09/provisional-r-1.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/09/lucent-v-gateway-microsoft-fed-cir-2009-lucents-patent-in-suit-claims-was-filed-in-1986-and-generally-focuses-on-using.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3611" RevisionGUID="387e03ad-fedc-4ffd-b3a0-6246e36074e0" CreationDate="2013-04-03T03:07:45.407" UserId="3076" Comment="edited body; added 155 characters in body" Text="A partial answer. Infringement is covered in [35 USC § 271 - Infringement of patent.  ][1]If company X's product was launched in 2001 and person Y's application was filed in 2002 then the product would be prior art to the application (unless the inventor can swear behind the 2001 shipment date) and no patent should have been granted in the first place and if granted might be invalidated. Getting past that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously person Y can only expect to extract a royalty after the patent is granted in 2007. At the time it issues the patent holder and company can negotiate and mutually agree to a business arrangement covering all aspects of their relationship and past and future shipments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or the company could immediate stop shipping eliminating future liability. If the patent owner goes after the company at time T there will be three time periods to discuss. One issue is what the company should pay on things shipped from the granting of the patent to time T. The other is whether or not the company can continue to ship past time T at all and if so with what restrictions and at what royalty or other business arrangement. Third, if the application was published before grant and if the claims in the published application are close enough to the final allowed claims and the company was put on notice, then the patent owner may be entitled to a reasonable &quot;back royalty&quot; for things shipped between the publication of the application and the issuance of the patent. [Article about a specific case regarding provisional rights to &quot;back royalties&quot;.][2] (**not at all related to a provisional application**) If there was no publication before the grant in 2007 or the claims were even moderately amended, then when the shipments started is irrelevant. Assuming Shipments stop at time T the only payments due the patent holder would be what shipped from 2007 to time T. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The law requires a judgement that is at least as much as a &quot;reasonable royalty&quot;. Often times the argument that there should be a &quot;disgorging of profits&quot; is heard. Then there is the possibility of treble damages for willful infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Numerical royalties are argued about and mutually agreed on by the parties often with horse trading. If they go to court it is most likly set by a jury and will vary by industry, by jury, and by how important the patented aspect was to the motivation of purchasers to buy the item.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is resolved between the parties the business relationship might not even involve a royalty. Could be a patent cross-license, lump sum, fixed dollar amount per unit, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However a base and a rate do get argued about. Should a royalty for a car transmission sold in a car be 10% or the value of the transmission or 0.5% of the wholesale price of the car? See [this Patently-O post] [3] regarding Microsoft and its date picker function.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caveat - I am a patent agent and not a patent attorney. This question is outside the domain I am licensed/registered to advise people upon in the case of a specific, actual fact pattern of an interested party.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/09/provisional-r-1.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/09/lucent-v-gateway-microsoft-fed-cir-2009-lucents-patent-in-suit-claims-was-filed-in-1986-and-generally-focuses-on-using.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3600" RevisionGUID="ebeadd40-5a31-4886-8118-18a172f71e48" CreationDate="2013-04-03T03:11:55.390" UserId="3076" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Under the new AIA patent law there is a window of time that starts after an application is published (has already occurred or you would not have been able to see it) and ends either 6 months later or when the first rejection has been issued by the patent office. Would also end in the unlikely case that there was a notice of allowance issued before either of those triggers. There is info on how to do it on this site's faqs and [here at the USPTO site.][1] Up to three previously published documents can be submitted and there is a limit to any accompanying text on why the documents are relevant. More documents can be submitted for a small fee but the showing of it in public, itself, can not be submitted.The submission can be done anonymously if you have it done via a USPTO registered practitioner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To see if a rejection has been issued in the case you can look the application up in the [USPTO's Public PAIR.][2]  It has an unforgiving user interface that requires you to set a radio button selecting the kind of number you are giving it. If the number looks like it starts with a year, it is a publication number. Just use the number, no &quot;US&quot; in front of it and no &quot;/&quot; between the year and the rest of the number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are past the window you might consider posting all the information at Ask Patents. If the owner of any granted patent goes after someone for infringement a reasonable search might turn up the tagged info you posted here and help someone defend themselves.&#xD;&#xA;You might also get users commenting on how relevant the documents might actually be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/faqs-preissuance-submissions.jsp#heading-2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7501" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3610" RevisionGUID="db015bc0-48ca-455a-9ce9-95ce15172515" CreationDate="2013-04-03T04:55:28.857" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/319312171907575809" />
  <row Id="7502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3600" RevisionGUID="feaa78be-3cea-40a0-a5be-d612872e4a79" CreationDate="2013-04-03T06:48:59.553" UserId="3076" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="Under the new AIA patent law there is a window of time that starts after an application is published (has already occurred or you would not have been able to see it) and ends either 6 months later or when the first rejection has been issued by the patent office, whichever happens layer. The window would also end in the unlikely case that there was a notice of allowance issued before either of those triggers. There is info on how to do it on this site's faqs and [here at the USPTO site.][1] Up to three previously **published documents** can be submitted and there is a limit to any accompanying text on why the documents are relevant. More published documents can be submitted for a small fee but evidence of demonstration or use in public, itself, can not be submitted. The document submission can be done anonymously if you have it done via a USPTO registered practitioner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To see if a rejection has been issued in the case you can look the application up in the [USPTO's Public PAIR.][2]  It has an unforgiving user interface that requires you to set a radio button selecting the kind of number you are giving it. If the number looks like it starts with a year, it is a publication number. Just use the number, no &quot;US&quot; in front of it and no &quot;/&quot; between the year and the rest of the number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are past the window you might consider posting all the information at Ask Patents. If the owner of any granted patent goes after someone for infringement a reasonable search might turn up the tagged info you posted here and help someone defend themselves.&#xD;&#xA;You might also get users commenting on how relevant the documents might actually be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/faqs-preissuance-submissions.jsp#heading-2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3612" RevisionGUID="5cfa5a63-0b14-43aa-b626-cfad4b77794e" CreationDate="2013-04-03T09:09:08.110" UserId="3511" Text="Does it matter if the analgesic in question would or would not still be an analgesic if it were not cold? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gel ice packs for treating sports injuries have been around a very long time (see eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_compression_therapy which includes some references dated back to 1998)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3611" RevisionGUID="36ab0bd0-f04a-4055-be7a-1237afa53233" CreationDate="2013-04-03T17:31:08.067" UserId="3076" Comment="Typo" Text="A partial answer. Infringement is covered in [35 USC § 271 - Infringement of patent.  ][1]If company X's product was launched in 2001 and person Y's application was filed in 2002 then the product would be prior art to the application (unless the inventor can swear behind the 2001 shipment date) and no patent should have been granted in the first place and if granted might be invalidated. Getting past that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously person Y can only expect to extract a royalty after the patent is granted in 2007. At the time it issues the patent holder and company can negotiate and mutually agree to a business arrangement covering all aspects of their relationship and past and future shipments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or the company could immediate stop shipping eliminating future liability. If the patent owner goes after the company at time T there will be three time periods to discuss. One issue is what the company should pay on things shipped from the granting of the patent to time T. The other is whether or not the company can continue to ship past time T at all and if so with what restrictions and at what royalty or other business arrangement. Third, if the application was published before grant and if the claims in the published application are close enough to the final allowed claims and the company was put on notice, then the patent owner may be entitled to a reasonable &quot;back royalty&quot; for things shipped between the publication of the application and the issuance of the patent. [Article about a specific case regarding provisional rights to &quot;back royalties&quot;.][2] (**not at all related to a provisional application**) If there was no publication before the grant in 2007 or the claims were even moderately amended, then when the shipments started is irrelevant. Assuming Shipments stop at time T the only payments due the patent holder would be what shipped from 2007 to time T. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The law requires a judgement that is at least as much as a &quot;reasonable royalty&quot;. Often times the argument that there should be a &quot;disgorging of profits&quot; is heard. Then there is the possibility of treble damages for willful infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Numerical royalties are argued about and mutually agreed on by the parties often with horse trading. If they go to court it is most likly set by a jury and will vary by industry, by jury, and by how important the patented aspect was to the motivation of purchasers to buy the item.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is resolved between the parties the business relationship might not even involve a royalty. Could be a patent cross-license, lump sum, fixed dollar amount per unit, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However a base and a rate do get argued about. Should a royalty for a car transmission sold in a car be 10% of the value of the transmission or 0.5% of the wholesale price of the car? See [this Patently-O post] [3] regarding Microsoft and its date picker function.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caveat - I am a patent agent and not a patent attorney. This question is outside the domain I am licensed/registered to advise people upon in the case of a specific, actual fact pattern of an interested party.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/09/provisional-r-1.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/09/lucent-v-gateway-microsoft-fed-cir-2009-lucents-patent-in-suit-claims-was-filed-in-1986-and-generally-focuses-on-using.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3611" RevisionGUID="d21386b6-d88f-435e-87da-db8ecebdacb8" CreationDate="2013-04-03T17:40:37.557" UserId="3076" Comment="Fix error in prior art discussion . Typo" Text="A partial answer. Infringement is covered in [35 USC § 271 - Infringement of patent.  ][1] If the product shipped in 2001 it might or might not be qualified as prior art to the 2002 patent application. If the 2000 priority filing was complete enough it would predate the 2001 shipment Nd that shipment would not be prior art. The burden would be on the applicant to point out where in the priority document the relevant information was presented and that it met the criteria for written description. [my orig. sentence on this topic was in error since I did not take the priority document into consideration]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously person Y can only expect to extract a royalty after the patent is granted in 2007. At the time it issues the patent holder and company can negotiate and mutually agree to a business arrangement covering all aspects of their relationship and past and future shipments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or the company could immediate stop shipping eliminating future liability. If the patent owner goes after the company at time T there will be three time periods to discuss. One issue is what the company should pay on things shipped from the granting of the patent to time T. The other is whether or not the company can continue to ship past time T at all and if so with what restrictions and at what royalty or other business arrangement. Third, if the application was published before grant and if the claims in the published application are close enough to the final allowed claims and the company was put on notice, then the patent owner may be entitled to a reasonable &quot;back royalty&quot; for things shipped between the publication of the application and the issuance of the patent. [Article about a specific case regarding provisional rights to &quot;back royalties&quot;.][2] (**not at all related to a provisional application**) If there was no publication before the grant in 2007 or the claims were even moderately amended, then when the shipments started is irrelevant. Assuming Shipments stop at time T the only payments due the patent holder would be what shipped from 2007 to time T. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The law requires a judgement that is at least as much as a &quot;reasonable royalty&quot;. Often times the argument that there should be a &quot;disgorging of profits&quot; is heard. Then there is the possibility of treble damages for willful infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Numerical royalties are argued about and mutually agreed on by the parties often with horse trading. If they go to court it is most likly set by a jury and will vary by industry, by jury, and by how important the patented aspect was to the motivation of purchasers to buy the item.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is resolved between the parties the business relationship might not even involve a royalty. Could be a patent cross-license, lump sum, fixed dollar amount per unit, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However a base and a rate do get argued about. Should a royalty for a car transmission sold in a car be 10% of the value of the transmission or 0.5% of the wholesale price of the car? See [this Patently-O post] [3] regarding Microsoft and its date picker function.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caveat - I am a patent agent and not a patent attorney. This question is outside the domain I am licensed/registered to advise people upon in the case of a specific, actual fact pattern of an interested party.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/09/provisional-r-1.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/09/lucent-v-gateway-microsoft-fed-cir-2009-lucents-patent-in-suit-claims-was-filed-in-1986-and-generally-focuses-on-using.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3611" RevisionGUID="93b3210c-4eda-4ab3-bf90-fd9fd0735c38" CreationDate="2013-04-03T18:14:11.753" UserId="3076" Comment="Typo" Text="A partial answer. Infringement is covered in [35 USC § 271 - Infringement of patent.  ][1] If the product shipped in 2001 it might or might not be qualified as prior art to the 2002 patent application. If the 2000 priority filing was complete enough it would predate the 2001 shipment and therefore that shipment would not be prior art. The burden would be on the applicant to point out where in the priority document the relevant information was presented and that it met the criteria for written description. [my orig. sentence on this topic was in error since I did not take the priority document into consideration]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously person Y can only expect to extract a royalty after the patent is granted in 2007. At the time it issues the patent holder and company can negotiate and mutually agree to a business arrangement covering all aspects of their relationship and past and future shipments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or the company could immediate stop shipping eliminating future liability. If the patent owner goes after the company at time T there will be three time periods to discuss. One issue is what the company should pay on things shipped from the granting of the patent to time T. The other is whether or not the company can continue to ship past time T at all and if so with what restrictions and at what royalty or other business arrangement. Third, if the application was published before grant and if the claims in the published application are close enough to the final allowed claims and the company was put on notice, then the patent owner may be entitled to a reasonable &quot;back royalty&quot; for things shipped between the publication of the application and the issuance of the patent. [Article about a specific case regarding provisional rights to &quot;back royalties&quot;.][2] (**not at all related to a provisional application**) If there was no publication before the grant in 2007 or the claims were even moderately amended, then when the shipments started is irrelevant. Assuming Shipments stop at time T the only payments due the patent holder would be what shipped from 2007 to time T. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The law requires a judgement that is at least as much as a &quot;reasonable royalty&quot;. Often times the argument that there should be a &quot;disgorging of profits&quot; is heard. Then there is the possibility of treble damages for willful infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Numerical royalties are argued about and mutually agreed on by the parties often with horse trading. If they go to court it is most likly set by a jury and will vary by industry, by jury, and by how important the patented aspect was to the motivation of purchasers to buy the item.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is resolved between the parties the business relationship might not even involve a royalty. Could be a patent cross-license, lump sum, fixed dollar amount per unit, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However a base and a rate do get argued about. Should a royalty for a car transmission sold in a car be 10% of the value of the transmission or 0.5% of the wholesale price of the car? See [this Patently-O post] [3] regarding Microsoft and its date picker function.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caveat - I am a patent agent and not a patent attorney. This question is outside the domain I am licensed/registered to advise people upon in the case of a specific, actual fact pattern of an interested party.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/09/provisional-r-1.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/09/lucent-v-gateway-microsoft-fed-cir-2009-lucents-patent-in-suit-claims-was-filed-in-1986-and-generally-focuses-on-using.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3614" RevisionGUID="86dfec76-9235-49a6-8b86-ad6b41cfb36d" CreationDate="2013-04-03T20:33:30.443" UserId="3521" Text="I think I've found an interesting related patent in [Methods and systems for displaying media in a scaled manner and/or orientation][1] issued in 2007. There's a number of references to layout related to scale factors &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; laying out said images and text at a virtual pixel resolution using layout pixel sizes for said images and text, so as to assign a horizontal and vertical virtual position in said layout to each of said images and each portion of a string of text displayed on a given line;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; images and text in said displayed portion of the layout are shown at pixel coordinates that correspond to the positions of said images and text in the layout, as scaled down by said scale factor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There isn't however a direct mention of density so I'm not sure if it's enough. I'm using http://searcher.io to locate related filed patents, I'd be happy to share the generated report if others would like to look through it as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7287220 &quot;Methods and systems for displaying media in a scaled manner and/or orientation&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3615" RevisionGUID="0c345ce7-8a62-4aaa-96ac-953b37d69fe3" CreationDate="2013-04-03T21:09:10.560" UserId="3522" Text="I am curious if the US Patent Office has ruled on whether or not this patent is even valid.  There was a patent dispute supposedly filed by the International Virtual Tour Photography Association ([http://ivrpa.org/patent][1]), and the dispute was backed by several industry players.  Apparently, the patent should have never been approved because there was a large and sufficient amount of previous work that was documented over the years showing this technology in full use by the general public prior to the patent approval.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ivrpa.org/patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7513" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3615" RevisionGUID="0c345ce7-8a62-4aaa-96ac-953b37d69fe3" CreationDate="2013-04-03T21:09:10.560" UserId="3522" Text="Is this patent valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7514" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3615" RevisionGUID="0c345ce7-8a62-4aaa-96ac-953b37d69fe3" CreationDate="2013-04-03T21:09:10.560" UserId="3522" Text="&lt;invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7515" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="3615" RevisionGUID="4475c8ee-83be-4f8e-a4dd-2354a4f3d1c6" CreationDate="2013-04-03T21:14:20.890" UserId="1" Comment="4" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7516" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3615" RevisionGUID="b564c550-50c1-40be-abbf-e5bcac1ccff6" CreationDate="2013-04-03T21:15:30.033" UserId="1" Comment="edited title" Text="How to tell if a patent has been deemed invalid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3591" RevisionGUID="f3bef3d4-3eee-4ad0-a47a-7e82a5e874e1" CreationDate="2013-04-03T21:23:30.677" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 66 characters in body" Text="![Johnson &amp; Johnson logo][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application attempts to patent the method of applying **cold** analgesics, that are **cold by virtue of being stored in a cold place**, to a sore muscle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Method and Composition for Treating Pain**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/235947][1]  &#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130072575 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Johnson &amp; Johnson, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 19, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 21, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application relates to the method of treating pain by applying any **cold** analgesic. The main independent claim, if allowed, would cover the method of treating pain in a person by applying a cooled, unspecified analgesic to the region of pain. It requires the substance to have been placed in a cold place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of treating pain by topical application of an analgesic composition to the skin of a patient comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - placing an analgesic composition in an environment with a temperature of less than 10° Centigrade,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - keeping said analgesic composition in said environment for a period of time sufficient to reduce the temperature of said composition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - removing said composition from said environment, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - applying said composition topically to the region of pain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 09/19/2011** that discusses (1) cooling an analgesic; (2) applying the cooled analgesic to region of pain; (3) cooled analgesics in gel, soft solid, liquid, cream, ointment or aerosol form (taken from claim 5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][7] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][8] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130072575&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130072575&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/XQQ1qm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="61e94305-bb2d-4b41-96ea-0618ebba07d6" CreationDate="2013-04-03T21:24:32.353" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 67 characters in body" Text="**TITLE: Scale factors for visual presentations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/230445][1]  &#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 2013/0063492 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application generates and display graphical elements based on *pixel density.* The invention selects a *scale factor* from a *scale factor set* that is within the *range* of the pixel density.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of generating, using a device having a processor, a presentation comprising elements to be displayed on a display component, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - executing on the processor instructions configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - identify a ***pixel density*** of the display component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - for respective elements of the presentation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - from a ***scale factor set***, select a ***scale factor*** having a ***pixel density range*** including the pixel density of the display component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - request the element to generate a scaled representation using the scale factor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - generate the presentation comprising the scaled representations of the elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample figure** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/WgDnr.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application is similar to other resolution-independent scaling applications, patents, and implementations carried out in the industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 09/12/2011** that discusses (1) scale factor; (2) scale factor set; and (3) pixel density range in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][5]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][8] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3577" RevisionGUID="f53d7c65-b4d0-46aa-adc0-96c3329150d6" CreationDate="2013-04-03T21:25:25.217" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 67 characters in body" Text="**TITLE**: Computer-Readable Storage Medium, Information Processing System, And Information Processing Method &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **App Number**: [13/028,329][1]&#xD;&#xA; - **Publication Number**: [US 2012/0146993 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: Nintendo Co., Ltd. &#xD;&#xA; - **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: *predating* December 09, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This invention sets the transparency of a virtual object based on the distance between the viewpoint and the virtual object in a virtual environment generating both left eye and right eye images. Note: transparency in this context could be interpreted to mean several related concepts, such as fading and alpha level adjusting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** (as filed) is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a display&#xD;&#xA;&gt; control program which is executed by a computer of a display control&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparatus that displays a predetermined virtual space on a display&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparatus capable of stereoscopic display, the display control program&#xD;&#xA;&gt; causing the computer to function as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - object placement means for placing a predetermined object in the virtual space;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ***transparency degree setting means*** for, in accordance with a distance specified between (1) the **predetermined object** placed in the virtual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; space, and (2) a **viewpoint position** based on the position of a virtual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; camera used for virtually shooting the virtual space, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; setting the degree of transparency of a part or the entirety of the predetermined&#xD;&#xA;&gt; object such that **the longer the distance is, the higher the degree of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transparency** is; (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - image generation means for generating **an image for a right eye and an image for a left eye** by shooting the virtual space with a right&#xD;&#xA;&gt; virtual camera and a left virtual camera, respectively, so that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; predetermined object, which is included in each of the image for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; right eye and the image for a left eye, has the degree of transparency&#xD;&#xA;&gt; set by the transparency degree setting means; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - display control means for displaying the image for a right eye and the image for a left eye generated by the image generation means, on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the display apparatus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample Figure**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS**: Object transparency based on distance between a viewpoint and an object appears to have been done before, such as in the area of ray tracing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION**: Have you seen anything (published before December 09, 2010) that describes the ***transparency degree setting means*** in the manner recited in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][5]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][8] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120146993?dq=20120146993&amp;ei=TD9TUYr2IeH20gGfm4CACA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120146993?printsec=abstract&amp;dq=20120146993&amp;ei=TD9TUYr2IeH20gGfm4CACA#v=onepage&amp;q=20120146993&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/2IAAr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/FqHGI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7521" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3615" RevisionGUID="b38e7a32-974b-420c-af57-0754633362ac" CreationDate="2013-04-03T22:45:58.417" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="How to tell if the 6,754,400 patent has been deemed invalid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7522" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3615" RevisionGUID="b38e7a32-974b-420c-af57-0754633362ac" CreationDate="2013-04-03T22:45:58.417" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;us6754400&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7523" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="3615" RevisionGUID="754adc3e-90be-412d-ab58-dda6c0123787" CreationDate="2013-04-03T23:41:52.577" UserId="1767" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3076,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George White&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1767,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Micah Siegel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3616" RevisionGUID="3e61dd35-0d8f-498c-9ce8-6ed6361184d1" CreationDate="2013-04-03T23:58:00.950" UserId="3523" Text="In [The Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic][1] the player have the option to choose on the light or dark side. Each side has its own morality code and to stay on your choise you must keep its code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not just a pointing system becouse there are rewards specifically tailored to the each side, in other to progress on the dark side the player must undergo a different code than the one he must by going on the light side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this point is a little different from the other games becouse there is efectivelly two paths to choose, the &quot;right&quot; thing to do depends on which path you're going, it is not just a measure on how good or bad you are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_Knights_of_the_Old_Republic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3617" RevisionGUID="f7635dc5-56fc-4650-89dc-4a7c0b45d837" CreationDate="2013-04-04T00:09:07.947" UserId="3524" Text="I've seen this before; Girafa sued Yahoo and Google on a similar patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=www.google.com/patents/US6864904.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the patent has an earlier provisional filing in December 1999 which would beat these folks' date.  Basically the &quot;commercial suppliers&quot; in this patent would be anyone selling someone on the Internet back in 1999; the Girafa patent talks about serving up a website thumbnail with the search results, so that the user could see immediately which result went with what image." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3618" RevisionGUID="c37dfbda-7369-4314-9a6c-50e2cf05bbd5" CreationDate="2013-04-04T00:42:07.857" UserId="3076" Text="As documented at the site the link in your question points to, this was a subject of large push-back. There was a re-examinaion process started that is still pending and it looks like the one law suit has been stayed waiting for the result of the re-exam.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This can be looked up and followed in the USPTO public PAIR. The reexam serial # is 90/011,974 and two of the dates things have happened are:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; 01-10-2012	 Notice of Reexam Published in Official Gazette&#xD;&#xA;And the last thing in the case was a response by the patent holder&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;12-03-2012	 Response after Non-Final Action&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7527" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3577" RevisionGUID="dfa8fd3e-69b2-4402-8fc1-42f6aa397ded" CreationDate="2013-04-04T01:55:37.547" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/319629296710852608" />
  <row Id="7531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3620" RevisionGUID="7744ab80-a678-4963-9d98-19e9bd82a0bb" CreationDate="2013-04-04T06:21:26.127" UserId="3527" Text="Andrea Rossi, an American citizen displaced in Italy due to the lack of patent approval by the US patent office has developed what is known as the E-Cat or Hot-Cat. His patent issued by the Italian patent office describes the same effect and he uses a variation of similar materials including Nickel powder. His process has been scrutinized by a scientific third party review board that recently announced positive results with proof beyond any reasonable doubt that a Low Energy Nuclear Reaction exists when placed in the same conditions as mentioned in the Patent in question. My question to Ask-Patents is: Has this Patent under question been issued and approved? If the patent under question has been approved,  noting that Andrea Rossi's original patent applied for through the US patent office was denied due to Quote: &quot;&quot;the description of the device was based on &quot;general statements and speculations&quot; and citing &quot;numerous deficiencies in both the description and in the evidence provided to support its feasibility&quot; as well as incompatibilities with &quot;generally accepted laws of physics and established theories.&quot;&quot;;  Has the US Patent office changed it's view point on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions? If so, would this be considered an unjust issuance of the patent under question? Or is your stand point that Rossi failed to describe his patent in an acceptable manner?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7532" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3620" RevisionGUID="7744ab80-a678-4963-9d98-19e9bd82a0bb" CreationDate="2013-04-04T06:21:26.127" UserId="3527" Text="This patent is very similar to the already applied for an Italian patent by Andrea Rossi. Is this a conflict?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7533" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3620" RevisionGUID="7744ab80-a678-4963-9d98-19e9bd82a0bb" CreationDate="2013-04-04T06:21:26.127" UserId="3527" Text="&lt;us20130019855&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3621" RevisionGUID="27c4e01f-bf6f-4706-bd20-d66a6b9023e4" CreationDate="2013-04-04T07:13:33.953" UserId="3076" Text="This is an application for a cold fusion method, **not a granted patent**. Even if weren't cold fusion is hard to take an application seriously that has a one paragraph specification, no drawings and claims that do not meet the basic standards as to form. I do not know anything about Andrea Rossi but it hard to imagine any patent office issuing a cold fusion patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3621" RevisionGUID="08f58d88-86b1-4faa-8459-87a6abe6e17d" CreationDate="2013-04-04T07:20:35.543" UserId="3076" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="This is an **application** for a cold fusion method, **not a granted patent**. It is likely to be rejected using similar wording to what you quote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if weren't cold fusion is hard to take an application seriously that has a one paragraph specification, no drawings and claims that do not meet the basic standards as to form. I do not know anything about Andrea Rossi but I do not believe any patent office with examination would grant a cold fusion patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3623" RevisionGUID="25c664da-8266-4c09-8116-bbde9087dade" CreationDate="2013-04-04T14:52:05.680" UserId="3535" Text="&quot;the longer the distance is, the higher the degree of transparency&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Isn't this just saying &quot;We want to take coding for fog and and patent making the numbers go down instead of up with distance&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Would that fail for obviousness?&#xD;&#xA;Might also investigate prior art for the treatment of mirrors.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3624" RevisionGUID="bac6d6e4-1cd2-4752-a408-0974c10aeab4" CreationDate="2013-04-04T14:54:10.013" UserId="3532" Text="In the series of Geneforge games by Spiderweb Software, there are multiple ideologies (not just two, and not entirely mutually exclusive) that the player can subscribe to, having in-game effects (generally in how people who follow that ideology treat you).  Additionally, it is possible to pretend to follow one ideology in order to gain some advantage, and then betray them to follow some other ideology, though there is no *need* to fake the opponents ideology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Escape Velocity series by Spiderweb Software, particularly Escape Velocity Nova, there are a number of groups that roughly correspond to ideologies that a player can gain reputation with, and there are cases where winning the game along certain paths requires emulating the ideology of an opposing side long enough to acquire high reputation and then betraying them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given what I see of the patent, I suspect that it may still be too specific for those to be true prior art, but they seem to at least be pertinent to the discussion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3627" RevisionGUID="737872d7-5bbd-4cfd-8241-60baeca2e986" CreationDate="2013-04-04T19:12:19.453" UserId="3541" Text="For the given circumstances:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference filed on Jan. 1, 2010.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;PCT Application filed on Feb. 1, 2010.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;US National Stage claiming priority to the PCT Application filed on Mar. 1, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference was cited in the course of prosecution of the US National Stage entry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've looked at Rule 131 antedating and don't see any reason I couldn't antedate Reference. A link to the MPEP is provided here for quick resolution:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s715.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for your help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7549" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3627" RevisionGUID="737872d7-5bbd-4cfd-8241-60baeca2e986" CreationDate="2013-04-04T19:12:19.453" UserId="3541" Text="Rule 131 Antedating for a National Stage application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7550" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3627" RevisionGUID="737872d7-5bbd-4cfd-8241-60baeca2e986" CreationDate="2013-04-04T19:12:19.453" UserId="3541" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3628" RevisionGUID="f73e0867-e38c-44ab-a08d-7438f8750f4c" CreationDate="2013-04-04T20:46:02.237" UserId="3542" Text="Possibly useful: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BRUSH as a Walkthrough System for Architectural Models&#xD;&#xA;International Business Machines Corporation. Research Division, Bengt-Olaf Schneider, Paul Borrel, Jai Menon, Josh Mittleman, Jarek Rossignac&#xD;&#xA;1994&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-642-87825-1_29&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://books.google.com/books/about/BRUSH_as_a_Walkthrough_System_for_Archit.html?id=ryIsHwAACAAJ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This system displayed large 3D models by dividing the scene into objects and pre-computing a triangulated representation of each object at each of several resolutions.  A resolution was chosen based on the virtual distance from the viewport to the object, with the goal that each triangle on the screen would cover approximately the same number of pixels.  So this was a system that used pixel resolution to choose among representations of objects to maintain consistent information content per pixel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3629" RevisionGUID="8a816519-12b1-43c0-b288-37584cf97c13" CreationDate="2013-04-04T21:17:24.063" UserId="1967" Text="Scale drawing is a mathematical algorithm. People have been drawing things to scale based on the physical size of the display medium since ancient times. The diagrams above mention &quot;PIXELS/INCH.&quot; This quantity is more commonly denoted DPI or &quot;Dots Per Inch.&quot; The &quot;Dots&quot; refer to dots of ink on a piece of paper, and it is still called DPI on computer screens for historical reasons, because the concepts pre-dates electronic displays. DPI scaling is used in print typography to ensure, for example, that a 12 point font appears the same size when it is printed by different printers. Typography is hundreds of years old and is related to the spread of the printing press which revolutionized the world. The &quot;pixel&quot;  (and font &quot;point&quot;) used in computer displays today is historically related to the &quot;dots&quot; of printers, which have existed since before the invention of the computer. See [Point_(typography)][1] for more details. Furthermore, technical drawings must be drawn to scale to be useful, and the mathematical technique behind it is well known, obvious and pretty much identical to the scaling of images on a screen based on the screen's pixel density. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these patents really legally enforceable? If Microsoft sold the patent, a patent troll would buy it and try to extort people for doing simple mathematical calculations involving &quot;pixels/dots per inch&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_%28typography%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3629" RevisionGUID="5ec4da16-1006-4169-83c3-817cdbe460e4" CreationDate="2013-04-04T21:23:38.750" UserId="1967" Comment="added 177 characters in body" Text="Scale drawing is a mathematical algorithm. People have been drawing things to scale based on the physical size of the display medium since ancient times. The diagrams above mention &quot;PIXELS/INCH.&quot; This quantity is more commonly denoted DPI or &quot;Dots Per Inch.&quot; The &quot;Dots&quot; refer to dots of ink on a piece of paper, and it is still called DPI on computer screens for historical reasons, because the concepts pre-dates electronic displays. DPI scaling is used in print typography to ensure, for example, that a 12 point font appears the same size when it is printed by different printers. Typography is hundreds of years old and is related to the spread of the printing press which revolutionized the world. The &quot;pixel&quot;  (and font &quot;point&quot;) used in computer displays today is historically related to the &quot;dots&quot; of printers, which have existed since before the invention of the computer. See [Point_(typography)][1] for more details. Furthermore, technical drawings must be drawn to scale to be useful, and the mathematical technique behind it is well known, obvious and pretty much identical to the scaling of images on a screen based on the screen's pixel density. Furthermore, all computer software involving rendering of fonts would have to use the same calculations involving pixels per inch (DPI), scaling factors and generating graphics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these patents really legally enforceable? If Microsoft sold the patent, a patent troll would buy it and try to extort people for doing simple mathematical calculations involving &quot;pixels/dots per inch&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_%28typography%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3630" RevisionGUID="33b4b845-11a6-4994-88fd-8e78d0788e2b" CreationDate="2013-04-04T22:37:18.833" UserId="3076" Text="I do not see any distinction between antedating a reference on a &quot;regular&quot; 35 USC national application and a 35 USC 371 national stage application. There is an MPEP page that covers the differences In these types of utility applications are treated. [MPEP 1896][1] It does not included anything indicating that 102(a) is viewed differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For people who are not up on all the ins and outs of U.S patent law let me say this all again in &quot;English&quot;. A national application is a non-provisional utility application filed directly with the USPTO. The applicant could be from any country. A national **stage** application is an application that was initially filed as a PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) patent application. A PCT application can be filed by anyone from any country and is usually filed &quot;international&quot; by sending it to the home patent office of the applicants country of residence labeled at a PCT application, but can be sent directly to the International Bureau in Geneva. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While there is no such thing as an granted international patent, the PCT process is a way to simultaneously file an application in some 140+ jurisdictions with one set of paperwork in one fell swoop. When you file a PCT application, unless you opt out of specific countries, you are filing a US application, a German application, an Egyptian application, etc. Now there is no such thing as a free lunch. The &quot;applications&quot; in all those places will die by a deadline, unless via an opt in (and pay money) occurs in each place you ultimately really want to continue. Then the applications are pretty much treated as per local laws. At the time you opt in to a country you at not filing. The filing was the PCT application. You are just &quot;entering the national stage&quot; in that country. In US patent law section 111 governs a regular application and 371 governs applications that get into the US patent system via the PCT process. There are some small differences in how they are dealt with due to details of the Treaty. However, the requirements for patentability are not different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original question had to do the with the case that prior art is cited by the examiner and the date of the reference is before the filing date but after the inventor actually invented and reduced the invention to practice. The way the inventor does that is by submitting a section 131 affidavit. In that submission there is a sworn statement from the inventor and preferably witnesses. And also supporting documents. It is called swearing behind the reference. The party who may have written the reference in question is not involved. If the examiner is convinced then the reference is excluded as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course under the AIA first to file law in effect for things filed March 16 2013 or later, swearing behind goes away. It no longer matters when you invented it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the old law if you convince the examiner you get the reference taken away but it is a dangerous way to get past a reference because it created a potential vulnerability to the patent that my be re-visited in court some day. Patent Law is deep anD subtle and convoluted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1896.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3630" RevisionGUID="a93c9f6b-0cdb-40a2-91d4-9431c34d1349" CreationDate="2013-04-04T23:04:43.920" UserId="3076" Comment="Bolding, typos" Text="I do not see any distinction between antedating a reference on a &quot;regular&quot; 35 USC national application and a 35 USC 371 national stage application. There is an MPEP page that covers the differences In how these types of utility applications are treated. [MPEP 1896][1] It does not included anything indicating that 102(a) is viewed differently. And I'm sure the overall criteria for basic patentability couldn't be different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Explaining the &quot;Patentese&quot; of the question and the answer**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For people who are not up on all the ins and outs of U.S patent law let me say this all again in &quot;English&quot;.  A national application is a non-provisional utility application filed directly with the USPTO. The applicant could be from any country. A national **stage** application is an application that was initially filed as a PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) patent application. A PCT application can be filed by anyone from any country and is usually filed &quot;internationally&quot; by sending it to the home patent office of the applicant's country of residence labeled at a PCT application, but can be sent directly to the International Bureau in Geneva. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While there is no such thing as a granted international patent, the PCT process is a way to simultaneously file an **application** in some 140+ jurisdictions with one set of paperwork in one fell swoop. When you file a PCT application, unless you opt out of specific countries, you are filing a US application, a German application, an Egyptian application, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sounds great and it is great but there is no such thing as a free lunch. The &quot;applications&quot; in all those places will die by a deadline, unless an opt in (and pay money) occurs in each place you ultimately really want to continue. Then the applications are pretty much treated as per local laws. At the time you opt in to a country you are not doing a filing. The filing was the PCT application. You are just &quot;entering the national stage&quot; of that application in that country. In the US patent law section 111 governs a regular application and 371 governs applications that get into the US patent system via the PCT process. There are some small differences in how they are dealt with due to details of the Treaty. However, the requirements for patentability are not different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original question had to do the with the case that prior art is cited by the examiner and the date of the reference is before the filing date but after the inventor actually invented and reduced the invention to practice. The way the inventor does that is by submitting a section 131 affidavit. In that submission there is a sworn statement from the inventor and preferably witnesses. And also supporting documents. It is called swearing behind the reference. The party who may have written the reference in question is not involved. If the examiner is convinced then the reference is excluded as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course under the AIA first to file law in effect for things filed March 16 2013 or later, swearing behind goes away. It no longer matters when you invented it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the old law if you convince the examiner you get the reference taken away but it is a dangerous way to get past a reference because it creates a potential vulnerability to the patent that my be re-visited in court some day. Patent Law is deep and subtle and sometimes convoluted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1896.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3630" RevisionGUID="432b66df-6ce3-489f-bfaf-e2d14ecb3f48" CreationDate="2013-04-04T23:20:33.093" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 51 characters in body" Text="On-topic as a question about U.S. patent law and procedures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not see any distinction between antedating a reference on a &quot;regular&quot; 35 USC 111 national application and a 35 USC 371 national stage application. There is an MPEP page that covers the differences in how these types of utility applications are treated. [MPEP 1896][1] It does not included anything indicating that 102(a) is viewed differently. And I'm sure the overall criteria for basic patentability couldn't be different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Explaining the &quot;Patentese&quot; of the question and the answer**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For people who are not up on all the ins and outs of U.S. patent law let me say this all again in &quot;English&quot;.  A national application is a non-provisional utility application filed directly with the USPTO. The applicant could be from any country. A national **stage** application is an application that was initially filed as a PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) patent application. A PCT application can be filed by anyone from any country and is usually filed &quot;internationally&quot; by sending it to the home patent office of the applicant's country of residence labeled as a PCT application, but can be sent directly to the International Bureau in Geneva. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While there is no such thing as a granted international patent, the PCT process is a way to simultaneously file an **application** in some 140+ jurisdictions with one set of paperwork in one fell swoop. When you file a PCT application, unless you opt out of specific countries, you are filing a US application, a German application, an Egyptian application, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sounds great and it is great but there is no such thing as a free lunch. The &quot;applications&quot; in all those places will die by a deadline, unless an opt in (and pay money) occurs in each place you ultimately really want to continue. Then the applications are pretty much treated as per local laws. At the time you opt in to a country you are not doing a filing. The filing was the PCT application. You are just &quot;entering the national stage&quot; of that application in that country. In the US patent law section 111 governs a regular application and 371 governs applications that get into the US patent system via the PCT process. There are some small differences in how they are dealt with due to details of the Treaty. However, the requirements for patentability are not different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original question had to do the with the case that prior art is cited by the examiner and the date of the reference is before the filing date but after the inventor actually invented and reduced the invention to practice. The way the inventor does that is by submitting a section 131 affidavit. In that submission there is a sworn statement from the inventor and preferably witnesses. And also supporting documents. It is called swearing behind the reference. The party who may have written the reference in question is not involved. If the examiner is convinced then the reference is excluded as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course under the AIA first to file law in effect for things filed March 16 2013 or later, swearing behind goes away. It no longer matters when you invented it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the old law if you convince the examiner you get the reference taken away but it is a dangerous way to get past a reference because it creates a potential vulnerability to the patent that may be re-visited in court some day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1896.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3630" RevisionGUID="fe232bd6-900e-4802-8dd6-bc82a6e9432d" CreationDate="2013-04-04T23:29:32.800" UserId="3076" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="On-topic as a question about U.S. patent law and procedures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not see any distinction between antedating a reference on a &quot;regular&quot; 35 USC 111 national application and a 35 USC 371 national stage application. There is an MPEP page that covers the differences in how these types of utility applications are treated. [MPEP 1896][1] It does not included anything indicating that 102(a) is viewed differently. And I'm sure the overall criteria for basic patentability couldn't be different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Explaining the &quot;Patentese&quot; of the question and the answer**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For people who are not up on all the ins and outs of U.S. patent law let me say this all again in &quot;English&quot;.  A national application is a non-provisional utility application filed directly with the USPTO. The applicant could be from any country. A national **stage** application is an application that was initially filed as a PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) patent application. A PCT application can be filed by anyone from any country and is usually filed &quot;internationally&quot; by sending it to the home patent office of the applicant's country of residence labeled as a PCT application, but can be sent directly to the International Bureau in Geneva. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While there is no such thing as a granted international patent, the PCT process is a way to simultaneously file an **application** in some 140+ jurisdictions with one set of paperwork in one fell swoop. When you file a PCT application, unless you opt out of specific countries, you are filing a US application, a German application, an Egyptian application, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sounds great and it is great but there is no such thing as a free lunch. The &quot;applications&quot; in all those places will die by a deadline, unless an opt in (and pay money) occurs in each place you ultimately really want to continue. Then the applications are pretty much treated as per local laws. At the time you opt in to a country you are not doing a filing. The filing was the PCT application. You are just &quot;entering the national stage&quot; of that application in that country. In the US patent law section 111 governs a regular application and 371 governs applications that get into the US patent system via the PCT process. There are some small differences in how they are dealt with due to details of the Treaty. However, the requirements for patentability are not different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original question had to do the with the case that prior art is cited by the examiner and the date of the reference is before the filing date but after the inventor actually invented and reduced the invention to practice. A way the inventor ca try to deal with that is by submitting a section 131 affidavit. In that submission there is a sworn statement from the inventor and preferably witnesses. And also supporting documents. It is called swearing behind the reference. The party who may have written the reference in question is not involved. If the examiner is convinced then the reference is excluded as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course under the AIA first to file law in effect for things filed March 16 2013 or later, swearing behind goes away. It no longer matters when you invented it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the old law if you convince the examiner you get the reference taken away but it is a dangerous way to get past a reference because it creates a potential vulnerability to the patent that may be re-visited in court some day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1896.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3627" RevisionGUID="ecfbba88-8527-4f20-a922-ecef052cfe21" CreationDate="2013-04-05T00:08:57.123" UserId="1767" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text="For the given circumstances:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference filed on Jan. 1, 2010.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;PCT Application filed on Feb. 1, 2010.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;US National Stage claiming priority to the PCT Application filed on Mar. 1, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference was cited in the course of prosecution of the US National Stage entry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've looked at Rule 131 antedating and don't see any reason I couldn't antedate Reference. A link to the MPEP is provided here for quick resolution:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s715.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is whether the US Nat'l App can use Rule 131 to antedate the Reference.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for your help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3630" RevisionGUID="2d97052d-8445-4909-93fd-89dd138be1e1" CreationDate="2013-04-05T02:22:09.903" UserId="3076" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="On-topic as a question about U.S. patent law and procedures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not see any distinction between antedating a reference on a &quot;regular&quot; 35 USC 111 national application and a 35 USC 371 national stage application. There is an MPEP page that covers the differences in how these types of utility applications are treated. [MPEP 1896][1] It does not included anything indicating that 102(a) is viewed differently. And I'm sure the overall criteria for basic patentability couldn't be different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Explaining the &quot;Patentese&quot; of the question and the answer**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For people who are not up on all the ins and outs of U.S. patent law let me say this all again in &quot;English&quot;.  A national application is a non-provisional utility application filed directly with the USPTO. The applicant could be from any country. A national **stage** application is an application that was initially filed as a PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) patent application. A PCT application can be filed by anyone from any country and is usually filed &quot;internationally&quot; by sending it to the home patent office of the applicant's country of residence labeled as a PCT application, but can be sent directly to the International Bureau in Geneva. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While there is no such thing as a granted international patent, the PCT process is a way to simultaneously file an **application** in some 140+ jurisdictions with one set of paperwork in one fell swoop. When you file a PCT application, unless you opt out of specific countries, you are filing a US application, a German application, an Egyptian application, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sounds great and it is great but there is no such thing as a free lunch. The &quot;applications&quot; in all those places will die by a deadline, unless an opt in (and pay money) occurs in each place you ultimately really want to continue. Then the applications are pretty much treated as per local laws. At the time you opt in to a country you are not doing a filing. The filing was the PCT application. You are just &quot;entering the national stage&quot; of that application in that country. In the US patent law section 111 governs a regular application and 371 governs applications that get into the US patent system via the PCT process. There are some small differences in how they are dealt with due to details of the Treaty. However, the requirements for patentability are not different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original question had to do the with the case that prior art is cited by the examiner and the date of the reference is before the filing date but after the inventor actually invented and reduced the invention to practice. A way the inventor ca try to deal with that is by submitting a section 131 affidavit. In that submission there is a sworn statement from the inventor and preferably witnesses. And also supporting documents. It is called swearing behind the reference. The party who may have written the reference in question is not involved. If the examiner is convinced then the reference is excluded as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course under the AIA first to file law in effect for things filed March 16 2013 or later, swearing behind goes away. It no longer matters when you invented it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As explained above, under the old law if you convince the examiner you get the reference taken away but it is a dangerous way to get past a reference because it creates a potential vulnerability to the patent that may be re-visited in court some day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1896.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3631" RevisionGUID="9c8f2172-0e42-41e3-bbb7-9ed387280ee0" CreationDate="2013-04-05T07:26:32.547" UserId="3545" Text="I am a college student, I want to know why there is a structure change of US applied patent around 1985?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been analyzing all the datas of US applied patent from 1963-2011, then I found out there is a structure change around 1985.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone knows what happened to the patent at that time? Or any law influenced? Why there is a dip?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7567" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3631" RevisionGUID="9c8f2172-0e42-41e3-bbb7-9ed387280ee0" CreationDate="2013-04-05T07:26:32.547" UserId="3545" Text="What is the reason of the structure change of U.S. applied patent during 1963-2011?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7568" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3631" RevisionGUID="9c8f2172-0e42-41e3-bbb7-9ed387280ee0" CreationDate="2013-04-05T07:26:32.547" UserId="3545" Text="&lt;structurechange&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7578" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3631" RevisionGUID="447d64aa-ea07-4dd4-9458-354ae7d5a397" CreationDate="2013-04-05T14:16:12.873" UserId="1259" Comment="corrected tags" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7579" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3627" RevisionGUID="16456208-07af-4291-8d0d-695592942b42" CreationDate="2013-04-05T14:17:16.223" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3634" RevisionGUID="2805832c-54de-44a9-8f18-9aa8e82ad1ec" CreationDate="2013-04-05T15:20:47.370" UserId="3076" Text="In the early '80 there was a concern that patents were not. Being enforced with enough uniformity and there was a general feeling that patents were lossing their value. In response the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982 gave one court the responsibility all patent appeals in order to build expertise and increase uniformity in interpretations in this complex area of law.  Not sure what data you are looking at with a dip, but that was a structural change in the system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3634" RevisionGUID="e2feea75-9fc3-4c8a-8642-046e204d1396" CreationDate="2013-04-05T15:34:14.250" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="In the early '80 there was a concern that patents were not being enforced with enough uniformity and there was a general feeling that patents were decreasing in value. In response the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982 gave one court the responsibility all patent appeals in order to build expertise and increase uniformity in interpretations in this complex area of law.  Not sure what data you are looking at with a dip, but that was a structural change in the system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3634" RevisionGUID="85df1e99-f88e-4c02-b751-936eaa65d59c" CreationDate="2013-04-05T15:40:37.920" UserId="3076" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="In the early '80 there was a concern that patents were not being enforced with enough uniformity and there was a general feeling that patents were decreasing in value. In response the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982 gave one court the responsibility for all patent appeals in order to build expertise and increase uniformity in interpretations in this complex area of law.  Not sure what data you are looking at with a dip, but that was a structural change in the system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3630" RevisionGUID="929e3ecd-1bcf-4dc6-8236-ae514d13982d" CreationDate="2013-04-05T17:04:08.573" UserId="3076" Comment="bolded, moved paragraph" Text="On-topic as a question about U.S. patent law and procedures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not see any distinction between antedating a reference on a &quot;regular&quot; 35 USC 111 national application and a 35 USC 371 national stage application. There is an MPEP page that covers the differences in how these types of utility applications are treated. [MPEP 1896][1] It does not included anything indicating that 102(a) is viewed differently. And I'm sure the overall criteria for basic patentability couldn't be different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Explaining the &quot;Patentese&quot; of the question and the answer**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For people who are not up on all the ins and outs of U.S. patent law let me say this all again in &quot;English&quot;.  A national application is a non-provisional utility application filed directly with the USPTO. The applicant could be from any country. A national **stage** application is an application that was initially filed as a PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) patent application. A PCT application can be filed by anyone from any country and is usually filed &quot;internationally&quot; by sending it to the home patent office of the applicant's country of residence labeled as a PCT application, but can be sent directly to the International Bureau in Geneva. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While there is no such thing as a granted international patent, the PCT process is a way to simultaneously file an **application** in some 140+ jurisdictions with one set of paperwork in one fell swoop. When you file a PCT application, unless you opt out of specific countries, you are filing a US application, a German application, an Egyptian application, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sounds great and it is great but there is no such thing as a free lunch. The &quot;applications&quot; in all those places will die by a deadline, unless an opt in (and pay money) occurs in each place you ultimately really want to continue. Then the applications are pretty much treated as per local laws. At the time you opt in to a country you are not doing a filing. The filing was the PCT application. You are just &quot;entering the national stage&quot; of that application in that country. In the US patent law section 111 governs a regular application and 371 governs applications that get into the US patent system via the PCT process. There are some small differences in how they are dealt with due to details of the Treaty. However, the requirements for patentability are not different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original question had to do the with the case that prior art is cited by the examiner and the date of the reference is before the filing date but after the inventor actually invented and reduced the invention to practice. A way the inventor can try to deal with that is by submitting a section 131 affidavit. In that submission there is a sworn statement from the inventor and preferably from witnesses, also supporting documents, establishing a date of reduction-to-practice that is before the date of the reference. It is called &quot;swearing behind&quot; the reference. The party who may have written the reference in question is not involved. If the examiner is convinced then the reference is excluded as prior art. The USPTO does not do any independent investigation of the facts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As explained above, if you convince the examiner you get the reference taken away. However it is a dangerous way to get past a reference because it creates a potential vulnerability to the patent that may be re-visited in court some day where there will be another side doing investigations, taking sworn depositions, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Of course under the AIA first to file law in effect for things filed March 16 2013 or later, swearing behind goes away. For those applications it no longer matters when you invented it.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1896.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3635" RevisionGUID="a3e7a4f5-7c10-4087-9451-301768e2d549" CreationDate="2013-04-05T21:00:16.547" UserId="3550" Text="A company has patentable inventions it is concerned about getting locked out of.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They don’t want to file patents, necessarily, but they do want to create some good strong prior art that a) they can rely upon in case someone else down the line tries to patent the inventions and come after them; and b) is likely to be easily found by the examiner if someone files an application on the invention after their publication.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The assumption is that these inventions are likely to end up in standards at some point in the future, but the Company wants to make record of the prior art before the standards process starts.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new procedures the USPTO adopted re: third party submission of prior art are on a per-patent-pending basis, which is a more overhead than makes sense in their industry.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any other good way to ensure prior art will show up in an examiner's search other than filing for a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7587" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3635" RevisionGUID="a3e7a4f5-7c10-4087-9451-301768e2d549" CreationDate="2013-04-05T21:00:16.547" UserId="3550" Text="How Can an Inventor Create Good Strong Prior Art For the Future Without Filing Patent Applications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7588" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3635" RevisionGUID="a3e7a4f5-7c10-4087-9451-301768e2d549" CreationDate="2013-04-05T21:00:16.547" UserId="3550" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2137" RevisionGUID="130012c2-9b6b-406e-9de1-ce7e6653db72" CreationDate="2013-04-05T21:16:17.350" UserId="1259" Comment="links added" Text="There are two services that are specifically designed to help in this situation: Research Disclosures ([www.researchdisclosure.com][1]) and IP.com ([http://ip.com/publish/][2]). Both of these charge a publication fee, but they are definitely searched by patent examiners doing novelty searches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.researchdisclosure.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ip.com/publish/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7590" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="3635" RevisionGUID="e1d17460-c088-4d92-b57c-e588a9bc84af" CreationDate="2013-04-05T22:30:22.330" UserId="1767" Comment="1" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[2086],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1767,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Micah Siegel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3638" RevisionGUID="5e680214-1bce-400f-95c5-06d379b33667" CreationDate="2013-04-06T16:29:19.570" UserId="3554" Text="George White provided a concise response that should serve as a general guide to similar questions. It would be nice for this board to have routine responses distilled out, perhaps in a decision-tree format... George's well thought out answer could serve as the appropriate process step for patent on invention granted, re-exam started, resource links. This will undoubtedly come up repeatedly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue of validity of patents, particularly of how well the USPTO has reviewed prior art, judged what is obvious to someone versed in the art or otherwise uniquely patentable  is ground for much discussion.  No patent system can become perfect. Patents of questionable merits exist. The task often is to understand how the 'system' works on paper and also in real practice and then determine how you/your company works within it. This starts from understanding your own capabilities, willingness to pursue the alternative IPR strategies including defensive/pre-emptive patent strategies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3618" RevisionGUID="07b45ec0-cb9c-4485-94c0-c6d990acff78" CreationDate="2013-04-06T17:10:18.073" UserId="3076" Comment="added 330 characters in body" Text="As documented at the site the link in your question points to, this was a subject of large push-back. There was a re-examinaion process started that is still pending and it looks like the one law suit has been stayed waiting for the result of the re-exam.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This can be looked up and followed in the [USPTO Public PAIR][1]. If you up an application or patenting PAIR there is a continuity tab that will give you information and links to it related parent and child applications. A reexamination proceeding gets is own serial number that the system uses like an application number.The reexam serial # in this case is 90/011,974 and two of the dates things have happened are:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; 01-10-2012	 Notice of Reexam Published in Official Gazette&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;And the last thing in the case was a response by the patent holder:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;12-03-2012	 Response after Non-Final Action&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2062" RevisionGUID="3e633068-c36f-4b43-a46b-52d1721026be" CreationDate="2013-04-06T18:12:01.260" UserId="1114" Comment="fixed the date for when the new law took effect" Text="I'll go ahead and address 1) whether you can use other media that describe your invention like a patent, and 2) whether you can use other media to invalidate someone else's patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the law has changed effective March 16, 2013. See&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other media as a patent&#xD;&#xA;======================&#xD;&#xA;Other media cannot be used as a patent. You cannot sue anyone for patent infringement unless you have a patent, regardless of when you made the invention, how valuable it is, or how much money you spent on it. One must apply for a patent through the USPTO to get any protection under the patent statute. This is in contrast to copyright, where one need not file anything with the government in order to have rights in one's creation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other media to invalidate patent&#xD;&#xA;====&#xD;&#xA;First, 102(f) requires that one applying for a patent actually invented the invention. If the other guy really did just read your publication and went to the patent office with it, the patent should be invalid under 102(f). However, that might be hard (and costly) to prove.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, 102(a) says that if you published the material before he invented it, then his patent is invalid. This is also problematic, because it involves determining when he came up with the invention. However, if he didn't really invent it, he'll have a hard time coming up with proof that he invented it before the publication came out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third, if your publication came over a year before he filed for a patent, it's invalid. No need to determine when it was purportedly invented. This is the easiest way to invalidate a patent since it requires little investigation for evidence (you'd only need to show evidence that the publication was published when you said it was). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For applications after March 15th, 2013&#xD;&#xA;====================&#xD;&#xA;Under the old patent law, if you and someone else invented the same invention in the same time frame, the first to invent would receive the patent. However, under the new law, which took effect on March 16, 2013, if someone else legitimately invented the same invention after you invented it, but before you published anything about it or filed for a patent, then he would receive the patent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2062" RevisionGUID="b433a84b-3aa8-4174-8f84-c383ee5183c8" CreationDate="2013-04-06T19:00:27.513" UserId="3076" Comment="Added aia FTC warning" Text="I'll go ahead and address 1) whether you can use other media that describe your invention like a patent, and 2) whether you can use other media to invalidate someone else's patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note that the law has changed to first-to-file effective March 16,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2013. Most of the below is a **pre-F2F answer**. However it is still a good answer for applications filed before that date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other media as a patent&#xD;&#xA;======================&#xD;&#xA;Other media cannot be used as a patent. You cannot sue anyone for patent infringement unless you have a patent, regardless of when you made the invention, how valuable it is, or how much money you spent on it. One must apply for a patent through the USPTO to get any protection under the patent statute. This is in contrast to copyright, where one need not file anything with the government in order to have rights in one's creation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other media to invalidate patent&#xD;&#xA;====&#xD;&#xA;First, 102(f) requires that one applying for a patent actually invented the invention. If the other guy really did just read your publication and went to the patent office with it, the patent should be invalid under 102(f). However, that might be hard (and costly) to prove.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, 102(a) says that if you published the material before he invented it, then his patent is invalid. This is also problematic, because it involves determining when he came up with the invention. However, if he didn't really invent it, he'll have a hard time coming up with proof that he invented it before the publication came out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third, if your publication came over a year before he filed for a patent, it's invalid. No need to determine when it was purportedly invented. This is the easiest way to invalidate a patent since it requires little investigation for evidence (you'd only need to show evidence that the publication was published when you said it was). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For applications after March 15th, 2013&#xD;&#xA;====================&#xD;&#xA;Under the old patent law, if you and someone else invented the same invention in the same time frame, the first to invent would receive the patent. However, under the new law, which took effect on March 16, 2013, if someone else legitimately invented the same invention after you invented it, but before you published anything about it or filed for a patent, then he would receive the patent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3639" RevisionGUID="88aab625-ea27-4fd9-b689-16f9848cde92" CreationDate="2013-04-06T20:03:08.933" UserId="3555" Text="I have a product that is tubular but looks different and is pieced together to fit in skin tube and secured with a gripper. Used for restoring foreskin, am I infringing on this patent? Has this patent expired since issued before 1995?Patent is 5344396 filled 08/13/1992 and issued 09/06/1994." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7607" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3639" RevisionGUID="88aab625-ea27-4fd9-b689-16f9848cde92" CreationDate="2013-04-06T20:03:08.933" UserId="3555" Text="infringement on someones patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7608" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3639" RevisionGUID="88aab625-ea27-4fd9-b689-16f9848cde92" CreationDate="2013-04-06T20:03:08.933" UserId="3555" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7609" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3374" RevisionGUID="c4c5dbcb-8ac7-4d4f-8d4b-09c236d8c6cc" CreationDate="2013-04-06T20:23:47.283" UserId="3076" />
  <row Id="7610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3374" RevisionGUID="c4c5dbcb-8ac7-4d4f-8d4b-09c236d8c6cc" CreationDate="2013-04-06T20:23:47.283" UserId="3076" Comment="Added mention of priority documents." Text="Answering my own question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What applications are covered under the new rules?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first issue is which applications are dealt with under the old laws and which will be dealt with under the new laws. Two easy categories are:  (1) Non provisional applications filed before March 16 - they are treated under the old system. And (2) applications filed on or after that date that do not make any priority or benefit claim to any application filed before that date - they are treated under the new system. &#xD;&#xA;More difficult are transitional applications.  Transitional applications have an actual filing date on or after March 16 but claim priority to or the benefit of an application filed before that date. If every claim in a transitional application has full support in priority applications filed before March 16 then the application is treated under the old system. If any claim ever existed  in a transitional application that was not supported by a pre-f-2-f  application then the whole application is treated under the new law. That means that  a f-2-f application can't be made into a f-2-i application by canceling claims. &#xD;&#xA;In practice many transitional applications will be non provisional applications filed between March 16 2013 and March 15 2014 that claim the benefit of a provisional application filed before March 16 2013. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are the new rules?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than explain the differences, which requires a clear understanding of the old laws/rules, I'm primarily  going to explain the new system - it is considerably simpler ( not necessarily  better, fairer, etc.) than the old. This all boils down to what falls into the domain of  prior art for an application. On Ask Patents we often use the term prior art as a short hand for &quot;prior art that can knock out a patent or patent application.&quot; Prior art, properly, is the entire body of information that is allowed to be considered in evaluating the patentability of a specific patent document. Whether or not something  is prior art to application X is significantly a question of timing. In some sense it needs to come before the thing it is being used against. In the U.S.,  35 USC section 102, and court cases interpreting  it, tell us if something qualifies or does not qualify to be used against an application based on that application's effective filing date, priority date and sufficiently of priority filings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new 102 is laid out very logically. 102(**a**) says you are entitled to a patent unless the same thing was previously done,  as evidenced in one of the listed ways. And 102(**b**) has the exceptions to that list in 102(**a**). There is additional parallelism in that 102(b) **1** has the exceptions to 102(a) **1**  while 102(b) **2** has the exceptions to 102(a) **2**. The types of prior art defined in 102(a) and (b) 1 have to do with information actually potentially available to the public before the effective filing date.  In contrast, the documents covered by 102(a) and (b) 2 involve information that, while in a patent document submitted before the effective filing date, do not become public until after that  date. This is sometimes called secret prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be used against a claim in a patent application under the new rules? Under 102(a)1 it is anything, by anyone, anywhere in the world, described in a &quot;printed publication&quot; or issued patent, or on public sale or in public use or otherwise available to the public anywhere in the world as of the day before the effective filing date of the specific claim in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exceptions to this (as seen in 102(b) 1) are:  (A)  it was done by the inventor or by someone who got the information from the inventor within a year of the filing. This the one year grace period applied to your own activities.  The trap is that someone inspired by your disclosure can then publish something different but related and it will be prior art to you. (B) the publication, public use, etc. was preceded by an essentially  identical disclosure by the inventor or by someone who got it from the inventor.  If the inventor, for example, publishes an article and a 3rd party afterward published essentially the same information, the inventor can still later file and have the 3rd party's article discounted as prior art under this exception without needing to show that the 3rd party derived it from the inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides the actually public information of 102(a) 1, the secret information under 102(a) 2 can also be used against a patent application. This is a very specific category of information. It includes things described in a patent application filed (anywhere in the world) before the one in question's effective filing date but only  if that patent application either eventually issues as a patent anywhere in the world OR eventually is published as a &quot;U.S.&quot; application. The quotes around U.S. are because it includes not only things published by the USPTO's publication  department but all PCT applications on a world-wide basis that designate the United States. Since the default PCT application form designates ALL member states, that is pretty much all PCT applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exceptions to 102(a)**2** are in 102(b)**2**. In (A) the exception is if it is from the same inventor. The inventorship of the earlier application can't include anyone who is not also an applicant on the later application for this exception to apply. (B) the patent or published application was preceded by an essentially  identical disclosure by the inventor. (C) at the time of the effective filing date the applications were commonly owned or obligated to be commonly assigned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other provisions in 102 and 103**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;102c defines what commonly owned means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;102d defines what effective filing date means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;103 says that everything admittable  under 102 can be used in an obviousness analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How does this apply to finding prIor art for purposes of reducing the number of bad software patents?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No longer does 102 say &quot;in the U.S.&quot;  - one thing that does is open up sales and use outside of the U.S. as prior art - Unfortunately for the goals of Ask Patents, the AIA provisions for 3rd party submission only allows printed publications and patents to be submitted and, if dated before the effective filing date, they were already allowable on a worldwide basis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in the category of secret prior art - information existing in patent applications that were filed but not published as of the effective date - a potentially large new category of prior art will exist under F-2-F. Rather than only PCT applications that became &quot;real&quot; U.S. applications counting as of their date of becoming real  (published in English, fees paid to U.S. , etc.) - essentially all PCT applications will count as of their earliest priority date - independent of the country that the priority filing was made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To see section 102 old and new, clean and marked up [see this page at bitlaw.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To download the final rules follow [this to PatentlyO][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc-after-america-invents-act/102.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/02/final-rules-on-first-to-file-regime.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3640" RevisionGUID="70d3e332-cecd-4dc8-890e-871c489e2ded" CreationDate="2013-04-07T00:09:49.450" UserId="3558" Text="I am looking at Patent US 8,261,972, and I am trying to figure out what exactly makes this worthy of a patent. It seems to be asserting a claim that it has a novel invention by putting a QR code on a package. The patent talks about the type of packaging, the purpose, etc...but it seems to just be printing a QR code to link to a webpage on a phone? Does making a claim for specific purpose of packaging and barcoding make it patentable, could I then patent a QR code on the packaging of another product? If so, would the patent holder of the mentioned patent be able to make a claim against me or would my patent somehow be unique? It would seem the specific use case is not worthy of a patent on its own. What exactly makes this novel and patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7612" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3640" RevisionGUID="70d3e332-cecd-4dc8-890e-871c489e2ded" CreationDate="2013-04-07T00:09:49.450" UserId="3558" Text="QR code on a specific labeling? US 8,261,972" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7613" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3640" RevisionGUID="70d3e332-cecd-4dc8-890e-871c489e2ded" CreationDate="2013-04-07T00:09:49.450" UserId="3558" Text="&lt;us8261972&gt;&lt;qr-code&gt;&lt;packaging&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3640" RevisionGUID="38e9007c-cbd0-4aaf-86c7-add970fe82b3" CreationDate="2013-04-07T06:32:01.750" UserId="3076" Comment="Added claim 1" Text="I am looking at Patent US 8,261,972, and I am trying to figure out what exactly makes this worthy of a patent. It seems to be asserting a claim that it has a novel invention by putting a QR code on a package. The patent talks about the type of packaging, the purpose, etc...but it seems to just be printing a QR code to link to a webpage on a phone? Does making a claim for specific purpose of packaging and barcoding make it patentable, could I then patent a QR code on the packaging of another product? If so, would the patent holder of the mentioned patent be able to make a claim against me or would my patent somehow be unique? It would seem the specific use case is not worthy of a patent on its own. What exactly makes this novel and patentable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;A cross promotional product, product sample, container, or packaging comprising a cross promotional, scan-able uniform resource locator (URL)-internet directing two dimensional code linking to a website or web page including cross promotional information about: (i) one or more cross promotional products or services; or (ii) one or more cross-promotional products or materials related to said one or more cross promotional products or services, said cross promotional product, product sample, container, or packaging comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(a) said cross promotional scan-able URL internet directing two dimensional code associated with a substrate having one or more surfaces, said URL directing two dimensional code linked to a website or webpage address including cross promotional information about cross-promotional products or services, said scan-able two dimensional code provided with, labeled on, printed on, lasered on, affixed to, molded in, or embossed on at least one surface of said substrate; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(b) one or more of said cross promotional products, cross promotional product samples, cross promotional containers, or cross promotional packaging provided with said substrate, said URL internet directed two-dimensional code provided in a removable or non-removable printed area, sheet, wipe, vial, pouch, packet, patch, container, or pad associated with, or affixed to, at least a portion of a surface of the substrate;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;wherein said cross promotional products, cross promotional product samples, cross promotional containers, or cross promotional packaging are provided with one product or service selected from the group consisting of a first product and information material about a first service,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;wherein the cross-promotional product or service is not the same particular product or service as said first product or said first service." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3641" RevisionGUID="b1115e48-5f05-40e9-9288-9e821f4a718c" CreationDate="2013-04-07T07:17:50.360" UserId="3076" Text="From looking quickly at the file history in USPTO public PAIR the QR code linking to a cross promotion of a product distinct from the product the QR code is on seems important to the claims. A system, for example, with a QR code painted on a parking spot that one used with a smart phone to pay for an hour of parking in that spot would be &quot;a QR code that linked to a URL&quot; but as a system might have been unique and patentable at some point in time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3641" RevisionGUID="682bde81-cdd7-48bb-9525-a785320b1c53" CreationDate="2013-04-07T07:36:04.783" UserId="3076" Comment="added 255 characters in body" Text="From looking quickly at the file history in USPTO public PAIR the QR code linking to a cross promotion of a product distinct from the product the QR code is on seems important to the claims. It **is** a particular way to use a QR code on a product. To infringe this patent a system would need to have everything that is specified in a claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure there are many other particular ways to use a QR code to make something out of the ordinary. A system, for example, with a QR code painted on a curb that one used with a smart phone to pay for an hour of parking in that spot would be &quot;a QR code that linked to a URL&quot; but as total a system might have been unique and patentable at some point in time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3639" RevisionGUID="8d38e033-d6cd-45dd-999f-0f708e568062" CreationDate="2013-04-07T13:36:20.133" UserId="1259" Comment="tags link" Text="I have a product that is tubular but looks different and is pieced together to fit in skin tube and secured with a gripper. Used for restoring foreskin, am I infringing on this patent? Has this patent expired since issued before 1995? Patent is [5344396][1] filed 08/13/1992 and issued 09/06/1994.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us5344396" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7621" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3639" RevisionGUID="8d38e033-d6cd-45dd-999f-0f708e568062" CreationDate="2013-04-07T13:36:20.133" UserId="1259" Comment="tags link" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;us5344396&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3641" RevisionGUID="1713d703-292a-4dd5-b5ec-942a2e3f436a" CreationDate="2013-04-07T18:59:55.417" UserId="3076" Comment="Added - not earth shattering" Text="From looking quickly at the file history in USPTO public PAIR the QR code linking to a cross promotion of a product distinct from the product the QR code is on seems important to the claims. It **is** a particular way to use a QR code on a product. To infringe this patent a system would need to have everything that is specified in a claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure there are many other particular ways to use a QR code to make something out of the ordinary. A system, for example, with a QR code painted on a curb that one used with a smart phone to pay for an hour of parking in that spot would be &quot;a QR code that linked to a URL&quot; but as total a system might have been unique and patentable at some point in time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, novel does not mean earth-shattering it means new. To patent something it must be new, not obvious and useful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7634" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3639" RevisionGUID="105d211c-2dc0-45ee-adbe-54cc73f4e14c" CreationDate="2013-04-08T05:46:37.727" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Does my product infringe on patent 5,344,396?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3645" RevisionGUID="2244d23d-033d-473f-a8d3-25a4f4e0c1ea" CreationDate="2013-04-08T14:15:06.127" UserId="3564" Text="I'm a start-up and I want to patent my products or apps and post it on the google play and app store.I already ask my friend who took law she said that my app should &amp; can be patented.I don't live either in U.S or U.K. I only know how to patent my apps in our place.How can I protect my apps outside of my country?How much does it cost to patent an idea on their country?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7637" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3645" RevisionGUID="2244d23d-033d-473f-a8d3-25a4f4e0c1ea" CreationDate="2013-04-08T14:15:06.127" UserId="3564" Text="Patent teritorial limitation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7638" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3645" RevisionGUID="2244d23d-033d-473f-a8d3-25a4f4e0c1ea" CreationDate="2013-04-08T14:15:06.127" UserId="3564" Text="&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3646" RevisionGUID="7e344696-5aa5-4365-94fe-b5eb0489e7ae" CreationDate="2013-04-08T14:37:46.813" UserId="3566" Text="I had this idea and was almost ready to develop the application when i found this patent,US 20080140650, which covers most of things I have thought of. &#xD;&#xA;Has this idea been implemented or is it just stuck as an idea as of now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7640" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3646" RevisionGUID="7e344696-5aa5-4365-94fe-b5eb0489e7ae" CreationDate="2013-04-08T14:37:46.813" UserId="3566" Text="Has application been developed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7641" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3646" RevisionGUID="7e344696-5aa5-4365-94fe-b5eb0489e7ae" CreationDate="2013-04-08T14:37:46.813" UserId="3566" Text="&lt;us20080140650&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3647" RevisionGUID="f1c3196c-b945-4168-a0e8-028ec411ff7e" CreationDate="2013-04-08T15:10:23.957" UserId="3567" Text="Is this the patent that the patent troll Lodsys LLC is using to go after small iOS developers who take advantage of Apple's in-app purchase functionality?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7643" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3647" RevisionGUID="f1c3196c-b945-4168-a0e8-028ec411ff7e" CreationDate="2013-04-08T15:10:23.957" UserId="3567" Text="Is this the patent that Lodsys is using to go after small iOS developers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7644" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3647" RevisionGUID="f1c3196c-b945-4168-a0e8-028ec411ff7e" CreationDate="2013-04-08T15:10:23.957" UserId="3567" Text="&lt;litigation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3648" RevisionGUID="e40ca260-b80d-44ed-9136-3e3d25977931" CreationDate="2013-04-08T15:56:48.500" UserId="3447" Text="Your cited patent application has been granted as patent # [US 8,108,414 B2][1]. Take a look at the set of features in claim 1, for example, of the granted patent, as they are different from the application's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless challenged and found to be invalid, the '414 patent is presumably valid. You should talk to a patent attorney to determine whether there is a claim infringement issue related to your application idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8108414" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3649" RevisionGUID="7497b3b6-95e3-417c-838c-05c3ab862ff3" CreationDate="2013-04-08T16:16:50.460" UserId="3447" Text="If you are looking for international coverage, there are several options, including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Filing in a specific country or countries. Check out [35 U.S.C. 119][2], if you plan to file in the U.S.&#xD;&#xA; - Filing a [Patent Cooperation Treaty][1] (PCT) application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer doesn't cover all options and each option provides you with a different filing date. As always, talk to a patent professional in your targeted country or countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Cooperation_Treaty&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/119" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3650" RevisionGUID="86eacaca-95d3-49fe-9cf4-2590fd330911" CreationDate="2013-04-08T17:03:21.143" UserId="3076" Text="Also, you do not need to be a resident of the US or other country to file there. By international treaties a country can't treat domestic applicants different from foreign applicants. In the US an initial filing can be done in any language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3647" RevisionGUID="f7b9d2d2-6f2b-4e7f-8754-4175491dd712" CreationDate="2013-04-08T18:29:41.710" UserId="7" Comment="Edited question so that it makes sense in the absence of patent specifics provided by the op" Text="What patents are being used by the patent troll Lodsys LLC to go after small iOS developers who take advantage of Apple's in-app purchase functionality?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7654" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3647" RevisionGUID="f7b9d2d2-6f2b-4e7f-8754-4175491dd712" CreationDate="2013-04-08T18:29:41.710" UserId="7" Comment="Edited question so that it makes sense in the absence of patent specifics provided by the op" Text="What patents are being used by Lodsys to go after small iOS developers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7655" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3647" RevisionGUID="f7b9d2d2-6f2b-4e7f-8754-4175491dd712" CreationDate="2013-04-08T18:29:41.710" UserId="7" Comment="Edited question so that it makes sense in the absence of patent specifics provided by the op" Text="&lt;litigation&gt;&lt;us7222078&gt;&lt;us7620565&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3645" RevisionGUID="0ecec6f3-ce7e-42f2-ba65-093a1004d485" CreationDate="2013-04-08T18:31:07.450" UserId="1" Comment="added 12 characters in body; edited title" Text="I'm a start-up and I want to patent my products or apps and post it on the google play and app store. I already asked my friend who took law. She said that my app should and can be patented. I don't live either in U.S or U.K. I only know how to patent my apps in my country. How can I protect my apps outside of my country? How much does it cost to patent an idea in another country?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7657" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3645" RevisionGUID="0ecec6f3-ce7e-42f2-ba65-093a1004d485" CreationDate="2013-04-08T18:31:07.450" UserId="1" Comment="added 12 characters in body; edited title" Text="Patenting Products in Other Countries" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3651" RevisionGUID="1075533b-5632-4278-8a66-8192834ddaf6" CreationDate="2013-04-08T18:35:26.513" UserId="7" Text="According to [Ars Technica][1], Lodsys has filed a lawsuit claiming that charter.com, lampsplus.com, corbisimages.com and shop.nordstrom.com infringe upon the following two patents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Methods and systems for gathering information from units of a commodity across a network ([US7222078][2])&#xD;&#xA;- Customer-based product design module ([US7620565][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, Lodsys has filed further lawsuits against mobile gaming companies including Gameloft and Gamevil, citing patent infringement on those same two patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/patent-troll-lodsys-sues-10-mobile-game-makers-despite-apples-intervention/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7222078&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7620565" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7659" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3647" RevisionGUID="8cda3dd6-add4-4078-b5c6-ac34a6cae9f5" CreationDate="2013-04-08T18:36:50.083" UserId="7" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;litigation&gt;&lt;us7222078&gt;&lt;us7620565&gt;&lt;lodsys&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3652" RevisionGUID="aa432fef-dcd8-4726-bfba-47d0e67551c4" CreationDate="2013-04-08T20:08:50.290" UserId="1481" Text="A patent only gives its owner the right to exclude others from using or making an invention.  Applying for a similar patent is not _patent infringement_.  So, for example, if you patented bread, I can still _patent_ a peanut butter and jelly sandwich--I'm just not allowed to make or use one with bread.  So now if either of us want to make a PB&amp;J, one of us has to get permission from the other (I need your permission to use bread and you need my permission to make the whole sandwich).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3646" RevisionGUID="3c593d7b-0bca-4d46-a9d1-f0cfa744a62f" CreationDate="2013-04-08T21:58:26.803" UserId="1259" Comment="tag link" Text="I had this idea and was almost ready to develop the application when i found this patent, US 20080140650, which covers most of things I have thought of. &#xD;&#xA;Has this idea been implemented or is it just stuck as an idea as of now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7662" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3646" RevisionGUID="3c593d7b-0bca-4d46-a9d1-f0cfa744a62f" CreationDate="2013-04-08T21:58:26.803" UserId="1259" Comment="tag link" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20080140650&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="64d8e612-0b80-4d7a-be36-9d1c1a72af40" CreationDate="2013-04-09T16:21:23.590" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="**TITLE: Scale factors for visual presentations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/230445][1]  &#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 2013/0063492 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application generates and display graphical elements based on *pixel density.* The invention selects a *scale factor* from a *scale factor set* that is within the *range* of the pixel density.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of generating, using a device having a processor, a presentation comprising elements to be displayed on a display component, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - executing on the processor instructions configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - identify a ***pixel density*** of the display component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - for respective elements of the presentation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - from a ***scale factor set***, select a ***scale factor*** having a ***pixel density range*** including the pixel density of the display component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - request the element to generate a scaled representation using the scale factor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - generate the presentation comprising the scaled representations of the elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample figure** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/WgDnr.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application is similar to other resolution-independent scaling applications, patents, and implementations carried out in the industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 09/12/2011** that discusses (1) scale factor; (2) scale factor set; and (3) pixel density range in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][5]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][8] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="e367a1bc-c660-4e9e-a3dd-0dc4568e9a00" CreationDate="2013-04-09T16:35:36.953" UserId="1767" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="  **TITLE: Scale factors for visual presentations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/230445][1]  &#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 2013/0063492 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application generates and display graphical elements based on *pixel density.* The invention selects a *scale factor* from a *scale factor set* that is within the *range* of the pixel density.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of generating, using a device having a processor, a presentation comprising elements to be displayed on a display component, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - executing on the processor instructions configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - identify a ***pixel density*** of the display component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - for respective elements of the presentation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - from a ***scale factor set***, select a ***scale factor*** having a ***pixel density range*** including the pixel density of the display component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - request the element to generate a scaled representation using the scale factor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - generate the presentation comprising the scaled representations of the elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample figure** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/WgDnr.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application is similar to other resolution-independent scaling applications, patents, and implementations carried out in the industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 09/12/2011** that discusses (1) scale factor; (2) scale factor set; and (3) pixel density range in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][5]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][8] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3577" RevisionGUID="fa80b2da-3d51-442e-bbca-6459757bde35" CreationDate="2013-04-09T16:36:16.953" UserId="1767" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="  **TITLE**: Computer-Readable Storage Medium, Information Processing System, And Information Processing Method &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **App Number**: [13/028,329][1]&#xD;&#xA; - **Publication Number**: [US 2012/0146993 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: Nintendo Co., Ltd. &#xD;&#xA; - **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: *predating* December 09, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This invention sets the transparency of a virtual object based on the distance between the viewpoint and the virtual object in a virtual environment generating both left eye and right eye images. Note: transparency in this context could be interpreted to mean several related concepts, such as fading and alpha level adjusting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** (as filed) is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a display&#xD;&#xA;&gt; control program which is executed by a computer of a display control&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparatus that displays a predetermined virtual space on a display&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparatus capable of stereoscopic display, the display control program&#xD;&#xA;&gt; causing the computer to function as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - object placement means for placing a predetermined object in the virtual space;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ***transparency degree setting means*** for, in accordance with a distance specified between (1) the **predetermined object** placed in the virtual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; space, and (2) a **viewpoint position** based on the position of a virtual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; camera used for virtually shooting the virtual space, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; setting the degree of transparency of a part or the entirety of the predetermined&#xD;&#xA;&gt; object such that **the longer the distance is, the higher the degree of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transparency** is; (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - image generation means for generating **an image for a right eye and an image for a left eye** by shooting the virtual space with a right&#xD;&#xA;&gt; virtual camera and a left virtual camera, respectively, so that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; predetermined object, which is included in each of the image for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; right eye and the image for a left eye, has the degree of transparency&#xD;&#xA;&gt; set by the transparency degree setting means; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - display control means for displaying the image for a right eye and the image for a left eye generated by the image generation means, on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the display apparatus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample Figure**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS**: Object transparency based on distance between a viewpoint and an object appears to have been done before, such as in the area of ray tracing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION**: Have you seen anything (published before December 09, 2010) that describes the ***transparency degree setting means*** in the manner recited in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][5]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][8] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120146993?dq=20120146993&amp;ei=TD9TUYr2IeH20gGfm4CACA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120146993?printsec=abstract&amp;dq=20120146993&amp;ei=TD9TUYr2IeH20gGfm4CACA#v=onepage&amp;q=20120146993&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/2IAAr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/FqHGI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3495" RevisionGUID="12a53156-dd13-4616-88bb-ffc08144b060" CreationDate="2013-04-09T16:38:05.473" UserId="1767" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="  &lt;em&gt;This call for prior art is part of the [EFF][1]'s effort to keep 3D printing open. Read about the initiative [here][2], and check out [Google Patents][3] or the [USPTO][4] for full details about this particular application.&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Ribbon Filament and Assembly for Use in Extrusion-based Digital Manufacturing Systems&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application relates to 3D printing with a flattened, rectangular filament shaped like a ribbon instead of a cylindrical filament, taking advantage of the “insight” that larger surface area results in faster melting of print material. (Think fettuccine versus spaghetti.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC APPLICATION DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number:** 13/530,191&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** US20120258190 A1&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Stratasys, Inc. &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date:** Prior Art **predating** September 30, 2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until At Least April 11, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**APPLICATION OVERVIEW:** This application claims the use of a ribbon-shaped build material for use in 3D printing. The build material is shaped like ribbon rather than a cylinder and put through a ribbon liquefier rather than a cylindrical liquefier.  The ribbon shape allows the build material to melt faster and reduces build times.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS:** This patent is about using a basic, well-known scientific principle and applying it in an obvious way to 3D printing technology to improve melting and print speed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**.  We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one.  This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][7], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][8], and the [Ask Patents][9] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][10] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/join-effs-efforts-keep-3d-printing-open&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120258190&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20120258190&amp;OS=20120258190&amp;RS=20120258190&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/05h0n.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/ask?source=3dask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3656" RevisionGUID="e0afe95a-d9b5-4c32-8b87-b8b74624dbb2" CreationDate="2013-04-09T21:30:42.303" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3657" RevisionGUID="11851f7d-7ebb-4ddc-b2c9-dc4a4422d2bc" CreationDate="2013-04-09T21:30:42.303" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3656" RevisionGUID="42da8992-d2c2-4f87-9449-a802b6c10891" CreationDate="2013-04-10T02:15:49.883" UserId="3577" Comment="added 188 characters in body" Text="I am willing to answer questions on this and tell you its history, thats if i can get past this very complex system, it was easier inventing it that navigating this web site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;JB Summers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7682" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3656" RevisionGUID="42da8992-d2c2-4f87-9449-a802b6c10891" CreationDate="2013-04-10T02:15:49.883" Comment="Proposed by 3577 approved by 1767 edit id of 340" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3657" RevisionGUID="fda440ff-26be-43cf-8b11-ac133f405faa" CreationDate="2013-04-10T02:16:01.557" UserId="3577" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="I am the inventor and willing to help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7684" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3657" RevisionGUID="fda440ff-26be-43cf-8b11-ac133f405faa" CreationDate="2013-04-10T02:16:01.557" Comment="Proposed by 3577 approved by 1767 edit id of 341" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3658" RevisionGUID="ac0e8067-1962-4e94-b0c7-7572a8448615" CreationDate="2013-04-10T10:34:41.740" UserId="3564" Text="The http://creativecommons.org/ offers licenses can I use this one for my products?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My product is a kind of subscription apps that stores a data on the cloud.I can't decide yet if I am going to release it publicly because some company may cloned my apps and copy its functionality. I'm planning also to install my apps on each of my trusted customers but I'm worrying cause some company also may copy my apps using a sync tools and I'm afraid they would find out that it's not patented yet or it doesn't have special licenses.What steps should I make to protect my products temporarily?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7686" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3658" RevisionGUID="ac0e8067-1962-4e94-b0c7-7572a8448615" CreationDate="2013-04-10T10:34:41.740" UserId="3564" Text="Can I temporary release my product in public without patenting it first do I need licences?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7687" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3658" RevisionGUID="ac0e8067-1962-4e94-b0c7-7572a8448615" CreationDate="2013-04-10T10:34:41.740" UserId="3564" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3659" RevisionGUID="be216af2-41af-44c7-b3ad-da2576fb0318" CreationDate="2013-04-10T14:42:38.740" UserId="3447" Text="Here's something for you to consider: [35 U.S.C. 102][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under 102(a), you cannot obtain a patent if the claimed invention was &quot;patented, described in a printed publication, or in **public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public** before the effective filing date.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several exceptions to this rule, however. One of them is 102(b)(1), which provides a 1-year time period to file after disclosure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Public disclosure can help to establish ownership of the invention, but you must be careful in doing so or you risk losing the ability to obtain a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent/IP law is complicated. This is not legal advice. Take this information with a grain of salt, as it is not complete and may not be applicable, and consult a patent attorney before you do anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3659" RevisionGUID="8da077e4-b29c-4aaa-b8d6-2262fd6b8069" CreationDate="2013-04-10T14:49:49.217" UserId="3447" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Here's something for you to consider: [35 U.S.C. 102][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under 102(a), you cannot obtain a patent if the claimed invention was &quot;patented, described in a printed publication, or in **public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public** before the effective filing date.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several exceptions to this rule, however. One of them is 102(b)(1), which provides a 1-year time period to file after disclosure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Public disclosure can help establish ownership of the invention, but you must be careful in doing so or you risk losing the ability to obtain a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent/IP law is complicated. This is not legal advice. Take this information with a grain of salt, as it is not complete and may not be applicable, and consult a patent attorney before you do anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3660" RevisionGUID="d991e3ed-9f35-4a60-84d1-4c788ad3a916" CreationDate="2013-04-10T15:15:32.620" UserId="3076" Text="To clarify, there is not usually any reason to wait until you actually get a patent (might take 3 years). But it may be important to wait until you have applied for a patent, assuming something about your product is new and non- obvious. The part of the law quoted in another answer is wording that has only been in effect for about a month. You might keep that in might as you continue to research this topic. Books and most articles the web are explaining the &quot;old&quot; system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3658" RevisionGUID="a0b01f42-7cc3-45cf-90b4-b805cf62d899" CreationDate="2013-04-10T17:11:36.283" UserId="1767" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="The http://creativecommons.org/ offers licenses.  Can I use this one for my products?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My product is a subscription app that stores a data in the cloud.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't decide whether to release it publicly.  Another company may clone my app and copy its functionality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also planning to install my app on each of my trusted customers.  I'm concerned that another company may copy my app using a sync tool and then find out that it's not patented or doesn't have special licenses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What steps should I make to protect my products temporarily?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7692" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3658" RevisionGUID="a0b01f42-7cc3-45cf-90b4-b805cf62d899" CreationDate="2013-04-10T17:11:36.283" UserId="1767" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="Can I release my product without patenting it and if so do I need special terms in my license to users?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3659" RevisionGUID="ea008cb7-33d0-4501-9fd1-a1761a7c0537" CreationDate="2013-04-10T19:09:16.597" UserId="3447" Comment="added 193 characters in body" Text="Here's something for you to consider: [35 U.S.C. 102][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under 102(a), you cannot obtain a patent if the claimed invention was &quot;patented, described in a printed publication, or in **public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public** before the effective filing date.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several exceptions to this rule, however. One of them is 102(b)(1), which provides a 1-year time period to file after disclosure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Public disclosure can help establish ownership of the invention, but you must be careful in doing so or you risk losing the ability to obtain a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent/IP law is complicated. This is not legal advice. Take this information with a grain of salt, as it is not complete and may not be applicable, and consult a patent attorney before you do anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: This [previous post][2] also has responses that you might find useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/282/should-i-patent-my-idea-before-posting-it-on-the-internet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3661" RevisionGUID="c204523f-29ac-40d9-95c6-8150aeee12ed" CreationDate="2013-04-10T20:20:22.387" UserId="998" Text="Good Question Gabmon.  You asked about quick protection for your app prior to release. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My answer here focuses on legal questions. Successful protection of software often relies on both legal rights and practical steps.  I lock the door of my house even though the law says I don't need to and someone trespassing could be jailed.  In the same way, you may be able to use some sort of DRM / Compiling / Etc. to block folks from cloning your system.  Of course, that approach only goes so far and will not deter motivated parties. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Copyright**: This forum is focused on patent law, but you should be aware that software code is also protected by copyright.  Copyright protection is simple because it is created as soon as you save the file on your hard drive.  You may want to include a copyright notice, such as &quot;Copyright Gabmon 2013.&quot;  The notice is not actually required but will remind some folks not to copy. If your code is valuable, then you'll probably want to register your copyright with the [US Copyright Office][1]. A good source of knowledge on registering a copyright for software is available here.  [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ61.pdf][2].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Copyright is somewhat narrower than patent law because it does not protect your functional idea but rather only the written expression of the software code.  However, this seems to  addresses the concerns that you have of someone who may &quot;clone my app.&quot;  Copyright would not protect you against someone who figures out how your app works and then completely rewrites the code without copying any of the code. (Note - there are some caveats here, but this is roughly the law). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the prevalence of creative-commons licenses, the default rule for copyrighted works continues to be that the rights-holder does not want his work copied. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Patent**: On the patent side, you only have protection once you have filed a patent application and that application has been examined and issued as a patent.  You may have a non-obvious idea that is patentable and current best practices in the industry are to file for patent protection prior to any public release.  It is possible for you to file your patent application within one year of the public release. However that approach lends itself to a variety of problems, including evidentiary (he-said she-said) problems.  If you wait more than one-year then you entirely lose the ability to obtain patent protection. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Contract**: If you are doing a release to only a small group of individuals, it would be possible to get them to sign (click-through) a contract where they promise not to clone your work or to share it with anyone else.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Temporary Protection**: (1) You have copyright protection in the software, and you might want to go ahead and register that copyright; (2) If you think you can get a patent, you may want to file prior to public release. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.copyright.gov/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ61.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3662" RevisionGUID="55d84149-4e34-4cca-8d3d-bedd5a9c5fac" CreationDate="2013-04-10T22:23:08.290" UserId="3374" Text="This AT&amp;T patent seems VERY similar, although maybe too new: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Interactive community of interest profile][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US 7970111 B2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ABSTRACT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for generating and working with communities of interests is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disclosed. In various forms, the present system allows multiple users&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sharing common interests to interact with each other seamlessly, seek&#xD;&#xA;&gt; out times when each is available, and other such convenience&#xD;&#xA;&gt; functions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Disclosure: found by pasting claims on [Searcher.io][2], a patent search tool I'm involved with*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7970111&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://searcher.io" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3663" RevisionGUID="fbfa99c7-b1ee-4c63-a46b-0a0f6a616a4a" CreationDate="2013-04-10T22:28:43.377" UserId="3374" Text="Another interesting older patent, overlapping with claim 1, and also filed in September 2006 (social network birth date?):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Systems and methods for discovering, creating, using, and managing social network circuits][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US 7801971 B1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ABSTRACT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A social network circuit includes two or more members of a social&#xD;&#xA;&gt; network in live communication with one another. Systems and methods of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; administering social network circuits include computing devices&#xD;&#xA;&gt; configured to determine the existence and extent of social network&#xD;&#xA;&gt; circuits. Client applications associated with computing devices used&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by each member may be configured to provide one or more servers with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; session data indicating the existence of live communication links.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Based on the session data, the server(s) may track one or more social&#xD;&#xA;&gt; network circuits. Data representing the circuits may be provided to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the clients in the circuits. Clients may selectively participate in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; social network circuits based on user- and system-provided parameters.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, a subset of social network users in active communication&#xD;&#xA;&gt; may be further divided into a particular social network circuit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; devoted to a particular topic of discussion. Users may participate in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; multiple social network circuits at any given time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Disclosure: found by pasting claims on [Searcher.io][2], a patent search tool I'm involved with*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7801971&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://searcher.io/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3666" RevisionGUID="7acf7a58-f9d6-4619-9064-77d8e9c57cae" CreationDate="2013-04-11T00:53:19.457" UserId="3413" Text="At least for now...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if so, would you recommend it? what are the downsides of it? (other than missing a big market)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(**Note:** [seems like][1] bwin.com chose this way (3rd column). It is a huge poker and betting site here in Europe.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bwin.com/en/registration" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7703" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3666" RevisionGUID="7acf7a58-f9d6-4619-9064-77d8e9c57cae" CreationDate="2013-04-11T00:53:19.457" UserId="3413" Text="Is it a good idea to avoid software patent issues by simply disallowing americans to use my product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7704" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3666" RevisionGUID="7acf7a58-f9d6-4619-9064-77d8e9c57cae" CreationDate="2013-04-11T00:53:19.457" UserId="3413" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3667" RevisionGUID="f07c2e5f-10a1-4463-9c34-766bacd612e2" CreationDate="2013-04-11T08:11:32.343" UserId="3588" Text="How can I tell regarding a USPTO published application (that does not appear to be granted) whether is has been rejected by the USPTO or rather may still become granted? I am seeing a published application several years old, and would like to determine whether it may still get granted or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7706" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3667" RevisionGUID="f07c2e5f-10a1-4463-9c34-766bacd612e2" CreationDate="2013-04-11T08:11:32.343" UserId="3588" Text="How to determine the status of an application that wasn't granted" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7707" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3667" RevisionGUID="f07c2e5f-10a1-4463-9c34-766bacd612e2" CreationDate="2013-04-11T08:11:32.343" UserId="3588" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3668" RevisionGUID="f35aabd0-bd27-48ca-a721-20524cccd2a9" CreationDate="2013-04-11T13:31:21.930" UserId="3447" Text="You can check a patent application's status and prosecution history by going to the USPTO's [Public PAIR][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3330" RevisionGUID="903e9f63-5f00-467d-a689-2ef3aeb9e2af" CreationDate="2013-04-11T20:54:02.643" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="No, it has not. Its status, available on public PAIR, is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Status:	 Docketed New Case - Ready for Examination&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has not been searched or examined yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO has a web accessible system call PAIR (patent application information retrieval). Via [Public PAIR][1] one can look up the status of a published patent application. If it is from mid 2003 or later, it possible to see all of the documents in the file including the back-and-forth between the applicant and the examiner. There is also a continuity tab. This will show parent and child applications that, themselves, may have resulted in issued patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PAIR is not very user-friendly. Do not have commas in the number. If you search by publication number be sure to set radio button to that option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3670" RevisionGUID="e176299a-a26d-4fe8-ad5e-e6c5b855f964" CreationDate="2013-04-12T01:09:06.010" UserId="3594" Text="This patent seems odd .. it is patenting an idea, which i thought was not possible .. since this company does not make the simulation engine, and they did not make the internet, what are they patenting? They seem to be trying to sue others for making web based circuit simulation systems, however they have created no part of the system .. why was this patent issued? it is too general i think and invalid" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7717" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3670" RevisionGUID="e176299a-a26d-4fe8-ad5e-e6c5b855f964" CreationDate="2013-04-12T01:09:06.010" UserId="3594" Text="Odd patent - too general?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7718" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3670" RevisionGUID="e176299a-a26d-4fe8-ad5e-e6c5b855f964" CreationDate="2013-04-12T01:09:06.010" UserId="3594" Text="&lt;communications-electrical&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3671" RevisionGUID="925492cf-cb52-44ec-96c8-9e1221c20342" CreationDate="2013-04-12T02:37:24.173" UserId="3595" Text="This patent application refers to using Vetiver grass roots for cooling screens. Seems strange to attempt to patent this use as Vetiver roots have been used for this purpose for millennia in India, and the knowledge has been in the public domain for centuries.  Patently unpatentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7720" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3671" RevisionGUID="925492cf-cb52-44ec-96c8-9e1221c20342" CreationDate="2013-04-12T02:37:24.173" UserId="3595" Text="Publication number	US20130047644 A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7721" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3671" RevisionGUID="925492cf-cb52-44ec-96c8-9e1221c20342" CreationDate="2013-04-12T02:37:24.173" UserId="3595" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7722" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3671" RevisionGUID="17473cf8-e577-4d05-b49e-a1f3d5719f0a" CreationDate="2013-04-12T03:41:30.610" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;us20130047644&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7724" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3670" RevisionGUID="bb08e735-5218-4497-a0a5-bbef1d5110af" CreationDate="2013-04-12T12:10:03.690" UserId="1259" Comment="tag" Text="&lt;communications-electrical&gt;&lt;us6530065&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7725" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3671" RevisionGUID="d992a858-1146-41fb-964d-148da5af20d9" CreationDate="2013-04-12T12:18:47.017" UserId="1259" Comment="link" Text="This patent application [US20130047644 A1][1] refers to using Vetiver grass roots for cooling screens. Seems strange to attempt to patent this use as Vetiver roots have been used for this purpose for millennia in India, and the knowledge has been in the public domain for centuries.  Patently unpatentable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130047644" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7726" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3670" RevisionGUID="1e5e4d36-cd99-42df-9e73-8c4233c7ff80" CreationDate="2013-04-12T12:23:13.940" UserId="1259" Comment="title corrected" Text="Odd patent - too general? Circuit simulator US6530065" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3670" RevisionGUID="bee7abd7-fcb3-410e-8b7a-d701aee29563" CreationDate="2013-04-12T15:19:53.630" UserId="1" Comment="added 347 characters in body" Text="This patent seems odd .. it is patenting an idea, which i thought was not possible .. since this company does not make the simulation engine, and they did not make the internet, what are they patenting? They seem to be trying to sue others for making web based circuit simulation systems, however they have created no part of the system .. why was this patent issued? it is too general i think and invalid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;here is the link&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6530065&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it seems to be a patent to protect any sort of server client system that simulates circuits .. but if someone sets up a circuit simulation system with open source software .. can they really prevent it just because it is a server client system? seems like an unenforceable patent " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3670" RevisionGUID="779dfd3b-2f26-409a-a74d-ff3cbebe3fe2" CreationDate="2013-04-12T16:42:34.230" UserId="3076" Comment="Added claim 1" Text="This patent seems odd .. it is patenting an idea, which i thought was not possible .. since this company does not make the simulation engine, and they did not make the internet, what are they patenting? They seem to be trying to sue others for making web based circuit simulation systems, however they have created no part of the system .. why was this patent issued? it is too general i think and invalid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;here is the link&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6530065&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it seems to be a patent to protect any sort of server client system that simulates circuits .. but if someone sets up a circuit simulation system with open source software .. can they really prevent it just because it is a server client system? seems like an unenforceable patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Claim 1:  1. A method for simulating a circuit in a client-server environment, wherein a network couples at least one client computer to a server computer, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;at the client computer, presenting a visual display, wherein the visual display includes a visual depiction of a particular circuit having two or more components, and wherein at least one of the depicted components is linked to one or more user interface controls for receiving user input to change component characteristic data for the depicted component;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;providing executable code to the client computer from the server computer;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;at the server computer, generating simulation data that represents one or more characteristics of a signal that would be generated in the particular circuit during operation of the particular circuit;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;sending the simulation data over the network from the server computer to the client computer;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;at the client computer, generating a first simulation display based on the simulation data for operation of the particular circuit;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;receiving user input at the client computer; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;at the client computer and without requesting additional simulation data from the server computer, generating a second simulation display based on the simulation data, wherein the second simulation display displays the simulation data differently than the first simulation display, and wherein the second simulation display is generated in response to the user input and in response to executing by the client computer the executable code." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7730" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3671" RevisionGUID="5674f601-03a5-4b32-85aa-8567b325e5de" CreationDate="2013-04-12T17:23:16.407" UserId="11" Comment="edited title" Text="Using vetiver grass roots for cooling screens" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3674" RevisionGUID="06707c43-be97-4da3-9d31-ef58ebbf4c97" CreationDate="2013-04-12T17:40:09.327" UserId="3076" Text="This is not an attempt to patent an idea. An idea would be &quot;it would be good to have a client/server circuit simulation system with an efficient partitioning between what the client does and what the server does.&quot; This patent describes particular ways to do this so it is more than an idea. Also it is irrelevant that the inventor does or does not have a product on the marker. It may even be that some earlier patent could prevent the owner of this patent from producing this system. An alleged infringer using an open source simulation egine would not be relevant as to infringement of this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, was it novel and non-obvious at the time it was filed? To get to an informed opinion on that one would need to do a search. And also to understand what the claims are cruelly claiming. Claim 1, for example, requires code to be sent from the server to the client. It also requires a way for the user to make an input at the client that changes what is displayed regarding a simulation run without needing to go back to the server. Was all of this new on the date of filing? It would take a careful parsing of the claims and a search to answer that question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3674" RevisionGUID="7f41f016-7d84-4704-9a47-8af37244a283" CreationDate="2013-04-12T18:45:20.820" UserId="3076" Comment="Typos" Text="This is not an attempt to patent an idea. An idea would be &quot;it would be good to have a client/server circuit simulation system with an efficient partitioning between what the client does and what the server does.&quot; This patent describes particular ways to do this so it is more than an idea. Also it is irrelevant that the inventor does or does not have a product on the market. It may even be that some earlier patent could prevent the owner of this patent from producing this system. An alleged infringer using an open source simulation egine would not be relevant as to infringement of this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, was it novel and non-obvious at the time it was filed? To get to an informed opinion on that one would need to do a search. And also to understand what the claims are actually  claiming. Claim 1, for example, requires code to be sent from the server to the client. It also requires a way for the user to make an input at the client that changes what is displayed regarding a simulation run without needing to go back to the server. Was all of this new on the date of filing? It would take a careful parsing of the claims and a search to answer that question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3675" RevisionGUID="25faefed-5dcc-4d46-bbd7-5ef3fedec13e" CreationDate="2013-04-12T19:17:07.467" UserId="3603" Text="How do I alert the Patent Office that the application describes a device that was published over 20 years ago and was on the market up until 1994?  In-other-words, it is not novel!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7737" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3675" RevisionGUID="25faefed-5dcc-4d46-bbd7-5ef3fedec13e" CreationDate="2013-04-12T19:17:07.467" UserId="3603" Text="How do I report a application that is not novel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7738" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3675" RevisionGUID="25faefed-5dcc-4d46-bbd7-5ef3fedec13e" CreationDate="2013-04-12T19:17:07.467" UserId="3603" Text="&lt;us20120226189&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3676" RevisionGUID="74660a12-238d-4caa-846b-314ce87d22c9" CreationDate="2013-04-12T19:56:33.500" UserId="3076" Text="It looks like you are in the time window for free submission of up to three published documents to the USPTO. How to do this is the FAQs and more than a couple of past answers.[ Uspto page on third party pre issuance submissions][1]&#xD;&#xA;Before doing that you might want to look up the record of the case in Uspto public PAIR. Right now it shows that the case is not yet docketed. Looking the image file wrapper you can see the things that the applicant made the examiner aware of already. Not infrequently there are posters who think they have the silver bullet to kill an application but it turns out the claims in the application went quite a bit beyond the prior art. Claims can be hard to dissect. I recommend posting the substance of what you know about and why you see it as covering what the claims claim. You can post it as an answer to your own question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/patents.jsp#heading-7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7740" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3675" RevisionGUID="f6838ffe-0eec-47c6-b9c0-7cad73ff5021" CreationDate="2013-04-12T20:23:36.980" UserId="1259" Comment="tag" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20120226189&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3677" RevisionGUID="5de3e188-132b-4954-aa53-1eb5519df858" CreationDate="2013-04-12T20:46:36.217" UserId="3604" Text="I recently investigate this issue for our product.  Two good summaries I found on this new law are at [wikipedia][1] and [Thomas Law][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The “America Invents Act“ has a new provisions that changes the US from a “First to Invent” country to a “First to File.” for patent applications filed on or after March 16, 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding (I am not a lawyer) is the filing buys you a year to get formal patents (design or utility) prepared and filed.  In my are of the country, a provisional patent would cost me around $5800, about half of which is credited back if we follow through with design or utility patents, although filing a utility and design patent are cheaper (at the firm I queried) if you jump right in feet first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know the consequence of abandoning a patent application (i.e. if you start cheap and find you can't follow through with the right materials), but first-to-file seems to me to make the protection of one's ideas easier to manage, since you don't bear the burden of proving when you first came up with the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least it allows one to file for the patent just before releasing the product on the market to lock in one's claim, while allowing a person a year to do the harder part of documenting the details for the actual patent.  Of course, if you document your source code and application design while developing the product, you should have what you need for the patent process at the time of release.  If not, you might want to buy that year to prevent a delayed launch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_Invents_Act&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://thomasazlaw.com/2011/10/first-to-file-vs-first-to-invent/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="28" RevisionGUID="512c29e5-7059-48c1-bda7-626bb8011a90" CreationDate="2013-04-12T21:51:04.590" UserId="3252" Comment="Add a needed preposition." Text="&quot;Copyleft&quot; is a specific application of [copyright law][1] (restricting the license to use copyrighted material by requiring that those obtaining it must also redistribute it for free / under specified terms).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any work under &quot;copyleft&quot; is protected by copyright law (thanks to [The Berne Convention][2] copyright is &quot;automatic&quot; in most of the world), and those copyright protections are what allow the author to dictate the terms under which the copyrighted work is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I'm aware there is no Berne Convention equivalent in patent law: in order for you to have patent protection and the ability to dictate how your invention is used (by licensing the patent for it to impose Copyleft-style requirements on those using it) you *must* file for (and receive) a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the sort of &quot;keeping information free&quot; protection the Copyleft folks would seek *is* inherent in US Patent Law and most other patent systems -- it is known as [Prior Art][3].  &#xD;&#xA;In its most simplistic definition (cribbed from Wikipedia):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Prior art …, in most systems of patent law, constitutes all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality. If an invention has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you have designed and publicly released something patentable (and can document the date of such a release to the satisfaction of the patent authorities) you can seek to invalidate any subsequent patent claims on the grounds that prior art exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7743" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="28" RevisionGUID="512c29e5-7059-48c1-bda7-626bb8011a90" CreationDate="2013-04-12T21:51:04.590" Comment="Proposed by 3252 approved by 1259, 1767 edit id of 342" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="34" RevisionGUID="6c50df9d-fa6d-40f6-90a4-afce63051c22" CreationDate="2013-04-12T21:51:54.110" UserId="3252" Comment="Improve flow of answer." Text="There is not a direct analog to &quot;copyleft&quot; (informal but widely recognized term) in the world of patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned by the two previous answers, if your sole concern is ensuring that no one else can patent your invention, then public disclosure of the invention is probably your best course of action. However, you would want to make that disclosure as widespread as you are capable of doing so that patent examiners are readily able to find your invention to show it as prior art against anyone that attempts to file for a patent on your invention. Simply posting it to your blog is probably not going to cut it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You ideally would want to get it published in some sort of widespread journal with a large distribution, and publicize your invention like crazy so that there are multiple venues through which an examiner would run into your invention. Of course, that course of action is not always feasible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7745" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="34" RevisionGUID="6c50df9d-fa6d-40f6-90a4-afce63051c22" CreationDate="2013-04-12T21:51:54.110" Comment="Proposed by 3252 approved by 1259, 1767 edit id of 343" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3678" RevisionGUID="d582a3e8-fc0f-4f77-8342-862cc41d6dce" CreationDate="2013-04-12T22:15:59.660" UserId="3585" Text="A provisional patent is a good choice before releasing the app to public. Under the new AIA, a micro-entity gets 75% off of regular USPTO official fees, including fees for filing, search, examination, issue and maintenance, etc. So, the official fees are minimal. However, attorney's fee for a provisional application ranges widely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3679" RevisionGUID="698061b0-35f1-4582-9aab-ab5538c54a81" CreationDate="2013-04-12T23:56:13.240" UserId="3605" Text="I believe that prior art for this would be Prior art for this would appear to be OpenGL. [*Any version* of OpenGL.][1] Yes, even OpenGL 1.0, published in 1994. Let's take these in order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - object placement means for placing a predetermined object in the virtual space;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, OpenGL can be used to do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ***transparency degree setting means*** for, in accordance with a distance specified between (1) the **predetermined object** placed in the virtual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; space, and (2) a **viewpoint position** based on the position of a virtual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; camera used for virtually shooting the virtual space, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; setting the degree of transparency of a part or the entirety of the predetermined&#xD;&#xA;&gt; object such that **the longer the distance is, the higher the degree of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transparency** is; (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even ignoring shader-based techniques, OpenGL's fixed-function fog is perfectly capable of this. It's simply a matter of setting the fog color alpha to a value other than 1 and turning on blending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The code would look something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    glFogi(GL_FOG_MODE, GL_LINEAR);&#xD;&#xA;    glFogf(GL_FOG_START, 0.8f);&#xD;&#xA;    glFogf(GL_FOG_END, 1.0f);&#xD;&#xA;    GLfloat fogColor[4] = {0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f};&#xD;&#xA;    glFogfv(GL_FOG_COLOR, fogColor);&#xD;&#xA;    glBlendFunc(GL_ONE, GL_ONE_MINUS_SRC_ALPHA); //Pre-multiplied transparency&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will fade the object based on the distance from the virtual camera in the virtual space. The degree of transparency of part of the object will indeed be such that &quot;the longer the distance is, the higher the degree of transparency&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This code would work on [OpenGL 1.0 (PDF)][2]. Obviously, shaders could do the same thing, but having it as an *explicit feature* of the API makes this more relevant as prior art. These six lines, written in 1994, do what Nintendo is claiming to patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - image generation means for generating **an image for a right eye and an image for a left eye** by shooting the virtual space with a right&#xD;&#xA;&gt; virtual camera and a left virtual camera, respectively, so that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; predetermined object, which is included in each of the image for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; right eye and the image for a left eye, has the degree of transparency&#xD;&#xA;&gt; set by the transparency degree setting means; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - display control means for displaying the image for a right eye and the image for a left eye generated by the image generation means, on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the display apparatus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OpenGL has supported stereoscopic rendering from day one. Every version of OpenGL has had separate back and front buffers for left and right eyes (`GL_BACK_LEFT`, `GL_FRONT_LEFT`, `GL_BACK_RIGHT`, `GL_FRONT_RIGHT`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, only professional hardware exposes stereoscopic rendering through OpenGL. But the API can do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.opengl.org/registry/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.opengl.org/registry/doc/glspec10.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3670" RevisionGUID="bbf65ed6-f741-4988-aabd-5b6d7a0dd1c9" CreationDate="2013-04-13T03:39:02.227" UserId="3594" Comment="added comment at bottom ... " Text="This patent seems odd .. it is patenting an idea, which i thought was not possible .. since this company does not make the simulation engine, and they did not make the internet, what are they patenting? They seem to be trying to sue others for making web based circuit simulation systems, however they have created no part of the system .. why was this patent issued? it is too general i think and invalid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;here is the link&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6530065&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it seems to be a patent to protect any sort of server client system that simulates circuits .. but if someone sets up a circuit simulation system with open source software .. can they really prevent it just because it is a server client system? seems like an unenforceable patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Claim 1:  1. A method for simulating a circuit in a client-server environment, wherein a network couples at least one client computer to a server computer, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;at the client computer, presenting a visual display, wherein the visual display includes a visual depiction of a particular circuit having two or more components, and wherein at least one of the depicted components is linked to one or more user interface controls for receiving user input to change component characteristic data for the depicted component;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;providing executable code to the client computer from the server computer;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;at the server computer, generating simulation data that represents one or more characteristics of a signal that would be generated in the particular circuit during operation of the particular circuit;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;sending the simulation data over the network from the server computer to the client computer;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;at the client computer, generating a first simulation display based on the simulation data for operation of the particular circuit;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;receiving user input at the client computer; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;at the client computer and without requesting additional simulation data from the server computer, generating a second simulation display based on the simulation data, wherein the second simulation display displays the simulation data differently than the first simulation display, and wherein the second simulation display is generated in response to the user input and in response to executing by the client computer the executable code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ok let's just look at claim 1 ... suppose another system simulates circuits and produces data and displays, exactly as written in the claim ... the problem i have is, these other systems use open source software for every piece of the system ... and certainly they cannot patent server client systems in general .. so again, what in fact they are patenting is simply the idea, of using a server to run a simulation program (any simulation program) to produce simulation data, and sending that to a client for display ... but since this patent holder has no claim on the simulation engines, and no claim on client/server systems in general .. the only thing they presume to have claim on is the idea of using a client/server system for the purpose of circuit simulation, using ANY simulator, and ANY server, and ANY client code, etc ... again, my point is this is way too general and I cant see how this is valid ... this claim 1 above does NOT in fact point to any specific implementation .. isnt that a problem for the claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3674" RevisionGUID="a73e33a3-27ce-46df-80fe-37fd530fbcdf" CreationDate="2013-04-13T06:49:24.640" UserId="3076" Comment="Add mention of a step that may be the key to patentability." Text="This is not an attempt to patent an idea. An idea would be &quot;it would be good to have a client/server circuit simulation system with an efficient partitioning between what the client does and what the server does.&quot; This patent describes particular ways to do this so it is more than an idea. Also it is irrelevant that the inventor does or does not have a product on the market. It may even be that some earlier patent could prevent the owner of this patent from producing this system. An alleged infringer using an open source simulation engine would not be relevant as to infringement of this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, was it novel and non-obvious at the time it was filed? It looks to me that the step:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;. . . the client computer and **without requesting additional simulation data from the server computer**, generating a second simulation display based on the simulation data, wherein the second simulation display displays the simulation data differently than the first simulation display . . .&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;may contain the key element of novelty. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get to an informed opinion on the novelty one would need to do a search. And also to understand what the claims are actually  claiming. Claim 1, for example, requires code to be sent from the server to the client. It also requires a way for the user to make an input at the client that changes what is displayed regarding a simulation run without needing to go back to the server. Was all of this new on the date of filing? It would take a careful parsing of the claims and a search to answer that question. Also, in order to build a system that doesn't infringe this particular claim, just make any change to the displayed data require getting information from the server." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3674" RevisionGUID="12a1d152-fff8-4d35-a924-0b6570e6412d" CreationDate="2013-04-14T16:28:21.297" UserId="3076" Comment="Clarified that patent can't monopolize what is old or obvious." Text="This is not an attempt to patent an idea. An idea would be &quot;it would be good to have a client/server circuit simulation system with an efficient partitioning between what the client does and what the server does.&quot; This patent describes particular ways to do this so it is more than an idea. Also it is irrelevant that the inventor does or does not have a product on the market. It may even be that some earlier patent could prevent the owner of this patent from producing this system. An alleged infringer using an open source simulation engine would not be relevant as to infringement of this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, was it novel and non-obvious at the time it was filed? It looks to me that the step:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;. . . the client computer and **without requesting additional simulation data from the server computer**, generating a second simulation display based on the simulation data, wherein the second simulation display displays the simulation data differently than the first simulation display . . .&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;may contain the key element of novelty. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get to an informed opinion on the novelty one would need to do a search. And also to understand what the claims are actually  claiming. Claim 1, for example, requires code to be sent from the server to the client. It also requires a way for the user to make an input at the client that changes what is displayed regarding a simulation run without needing to go back to the server. Was all of this new on the date of filing? It would take a careful parsing of the claims and a search to answer that question. Also, in order to build a system that doesn't infringe this particular claim, just make any change to the displayed data require getting information from the server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:  If you take a system that is old or obvious and add a twist that makes the whole thing patentable, the only thing you have a monopoly on is a version with the twist. **The old thing isn't captured by the patent.** If the twist is bells and whistles that do not provide any particular value in the eyes of the users/customers then you have a patent that has not much value." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3682" RevisionGUID="35e4fd67-b77d-450e-a9a6-79c3fb54d028" CreationDate="2013-04-15T19:26:42.457" UserId="3447" Text="**Information**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **App Number**: 13/297,604&#xD;&#xA; - **Publication Number**: [US 20120120094 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: Nintendo Co., Ltd.&#xD;&#xA; - **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: predating November 17, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: A confetti-like download progress animation, wherein the color(s) of the confetti pieces are based on the colors of the image or portion of the loading/downloading image.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** recites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a reception&#xD;&#xA;&gt; status display program executed by a computer of an information&#xD;&#xA;&gt; processing apparatus for displaying a reception status of a series of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data transmitted thereto, the computer-readable storage medium having&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stored therein the reception status display program causing the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computer to function as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a reception section configured to receive the series of data&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transmitted thereto;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a corresponding image display section configured to display, in a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stepwise manner, a corresponding image, which is an image&#xD;&#xA;&gt; corresponding to the series of data, in a predetermined region in a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; screen, in accordance with a progression of reception of the series of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an object moving section configured to continuously generate, **outside**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the predetermined region, movement objects &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - (1) each having a color&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selected from component colors of the corresponding image and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - (2) move&#xD;&#xA;&gt; each movement object toward the predetermined region, during the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reception of the series of data by the reception section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample Figures**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS**: This download progress animation builds on the normal download progress bars seen in virtually all operating systems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***QUESTION***: Have you seen anything that was published before November 17, 2010 that describes claim 1, especially the features of the object moving section?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][5] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][6] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120120094?pg=PA6&amp;dq=20120120094&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=cExsUZHbGLOG0QGRz4HQBA&amp;ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/R6Y5F.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/S5CjV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7759" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3682" RevisionGUID="35e4fd67-b77d-450e-a9a6-79c3fb54d028" CreationDate="2013-04-15T19:26:42.457" UserId="3447" Text="CALL FOR PRIOR ART: (Nintendo) Download progress animation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7760" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3682" RevisionGUID="35e4fd67-b77d-450e-a9a6-79c3fb54d028" CreationDate="2013-04-15T19:26:42.457" UserId="3447" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;animation&gt;&lt;us20120120094&gt;&lt;color&gt;&lt;intensity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3683" RevisionGUID="a58003df-2dd9-4f92-a7d5-0f7c972972b3" CreationDate="2013-04-16T20:06:33.907" UserId="252" Text="This is a general question regarding patent applications. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that these are published weekly and you can search individual patent applications via PAIR. Is there a compiled list of all the applications that have been published for that week? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7776" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3683" RevisionGUID="a58003df-2dd9-4f92-a7d5-0f7c972972b3" CreationDate="2013-04-16T20:06:33.907" UserId="252" Text="Searching Patent Applications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7777" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3683" RevisionGUID="a58003df-2dd9-4f92-a7d5-0f7c972972b3" CreationDate="2013-04-16T20:06:33.907" UserId="252" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3684" RevisionGUID="fe2492f7-71a7-4db0-8214-e579de5d1e3b" CreationDate="2013-04-16T20:29:03.337" UserId="3621" Text="&lt;b&gt;Information&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;App Number&lt;/b&gt;: 13/586,057&lt;/li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Publication Number&lt;/b&gt;: US 20130055357 A1&lt;/li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Assignee&lt;/b&gt;: Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Prior Art Cutoff Date&lt;/b&gt;: predating August 15, 2010&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Summary&lt;/b&gt;: A personal information server provides personal information about an individual to a third-party only when authorized by the individual through use of a previously authenticated computing device. The personal information server authenticates both the computing device used by the third-party to access the personal data and the device used by the individual to grant or deny such access using highly secure digital fingerprints of each. The individual can allow the third-party multiple instances of access to the personal information within restrictions specified by the individual. Other advantages also arise from large-scale tracking of which devices access and control personal information of many people--particularly with respect to identifying and preventing fraud and identity theft.&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Claim 1&lt;/b&gt; recites:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;A method for controlling access to personal information about an individual, the method comprising: receiving data from a third-party device through a computer network that represents a request for the personal information about the individual and that includes a digital fingerprint of the third-party device; sending data representing notification of the request for the personal information of the individual to the individual; receiving authorization data that indicates whether the individual intends to grant the request for the personal information of the individual and a digital fingerprint of a device from which the authorization data is sent; and upon a condition in which both (i) the authorization data indicates that the individual intends to grant the request for the personal information of the individual and (ii) the digital fingerprint of the authorization data matches a digital fingerprint of at least one predetermined authorized device, sending the personal information to the third-party device.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Claim 11&lt;/b&gt; recites:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;A computer system comprising: at least one processor; a computer readable medium that is operatively coupled to the processor; network access circuitry that is operatively coupled to the processor; and personal information server logic (i) that executes in the processor from the computer readable medium and (ii) that, when executed by the processor, causes the computer to control access to personal information about an individual by at least: receiving data from a third-party device through a computer network that represents a request for the personal information about the individual and that includes a digital fingerprint of the third-party device; sending data representing notification of the request for the personal information of the individual to the individual; receiving authorization data that indicates whether the individual intends to grant the request for the personal information of the individual and a digital fingerprint of a device from which the authorization data is sent; and upon a condition in which both (i) the authorization data indicates that the individual intends to grant the request for the personal information of the individual and (ii) the digital fingerprint of the authorization data matches a digital fingerprint of at least one predetermined authorized device, sending the personal information to the third-party device.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Sample Figures&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure 0][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure 1][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure 2][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure 3][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure 4][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure 5][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;WHY IT MATTERS&lt;/b&gt;: The primary claim to uniqueness of the personal information server described in this application relates to the ability of the individual to fully control who has access to the personal information.&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;QUESTION&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt;: Have you seen anything that was published before August 15, 2010 that describes claim 1 or claim 11, especially a personal information server that gives an individual full control over what other entities have access to personal information about the individual?&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][7]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][8] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7780" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3684" RevisionGUID="fe2492f7-71a7-4db0-8214-e579de5d1e3b" CreationDate="2013-04-16T20:29:03.337" UserId="3621" Text="CALL FOR PRIOR ART: (Uniloc) Personal Control of Personal Information" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7781" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3684" RevisionGUID="fe2492f7-71a7-4db0-8214-e579de5d1e3b" CreationDate="2013-04-16T20:29:03.337" UserId="3621" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20130055357&gt;&lt;personal&gt;&lt;information&gt;&lt;server&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3684" RevisionGUID="172798e5-7c8a-4ce3-ba83-310815d3353c" CreationDate="2013-04-16T20:32:56.680" UserId="1767" Comment="Added images at request of poster due to 10 reputation minimum to post images." Text="&lt;b&gt;Information&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;App Number&lt;/b&gt;: 13/586,057&lt;/li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Publication Number&lt;/b&gt;: US 20130055357 A1&lt;/li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Assignee&lt;/b&gt;: Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Prior Art Cutoff Date&lt;/b&gt;: predating August 15, 2010&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Summary&lt;/b&gt;: A personal information server provides personal information about an individual to a third-party only when authorized by the individual through use of a previously authenticated computing device. The personal information server authenticates both the computing device used by the third-party to access the personal data and the device used by the individual to grant or deny such access using highly secure digital fingerprints of each. The individual can allow the third-party multiple instances of access to the personal information within restrictions specified by the individual. Other advantages also arise from large-scale tracking of which devices access and control personal information of many people--particularly with respect to identifying and preventing fraud and identity theft.&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Claim 1&lt;/b&gt; recites:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;A method for controlling access to personal information about an individual, the method comprising: receiving data from a third-party device through a computer network that represents a request for the personal information about the individual and that includes a digital fingerprint of the third-party device; sending data representing notification of the request for the personal information of the individual to the individual; receiving authorization data that indicates whether the individual intends to grant the request for the personal information of the individual and a digital fingerprint of a device from which the authorization data is sent; and upon a condition in which both (i) the authorization data indicates that the individual intends to grant the request for the personal information of the individual and (ii) the digital fingerprint of the authorization data matches a digital fingerprint of at least one predetermined authorized device, sending the personal information to the third-party device.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Claim 11&lt;/b&gt; recites:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;A computer system comprising: at least one processor; a computer readable medium that is operatively coupled to the processor; network access circuitry that is operatively coupled to the processor; and personal information server logic (i) that executes in the processor from the computer readable medium and (ii) that, when executed by the processor, causes the computer to control access to personal information about an individual by at least: receiving data from a third-party device through a computer network that represents a request for the personal information about the individual and that includes a digital fingerprint of the third-party device; sending data representing notification of the request for the personal information of the individual to the individual; receiving authorization data that indicates whether the individual intends to grant the request for the personal information of the individual and a digital fingerprint of a device from which the authorization data is sent; and upon a condition in which both (i) the authorization data indicates that the individual intends to grant the request for the personal information of the individual and (ii) the digital fingerprint of the authorization data matches a digital fingerprint of at least one predetermined authorized device, sending the personal information to the third-party device.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Sample Figures&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure 0][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure 1][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure 2][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure 3][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure 4][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure 5][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;WHY IT MATTERS&lt;/b&gt;: The primary claim to uniqueness of the personal information server described in this application relates to the ability of the individual to fully control who has access to the personal information.&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;QUESTION&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt;: Have you seen anything that was published before August 15, 2010 that describes claim 1 or claim 11, especially a personal information server that gives an individual full control over what other entities have access to personal information about the individual?&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][7]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][8] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/DLCHb.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/kR4vsm.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/zB272.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/bs7ja.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/MPrOu.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/l0wno.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3685" RevisionGUID="b52f6824-832d-4ce6-b519-efb21a78c7e1" CreationDate="2013-04-16T21:27:59.280" UserId="1259" Text="There is a third-party-site that does offer a RSS feed of weekly updates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Freshpatents.com][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.freshpatents.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3686" RevisionGUID="44f35245-1b67-46bf-9790-d9dd258eab26" CreationDate="2013-04-16T22:43:34.483" UserId="3076" Text="The USPTO publishes the [Patent Gazette][1] every Tuesday. It lists the patents that were issued and lists reexaminations granted, expired patents, etc. However, I do not think it lists published applications. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/news/og/patent_og/index.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3687" RevisionGUID="98c324f5-0d6c-4fde-a442-f79c20c950d0" CreationDate="2013-04-16T23:12:45.163" UserId="1083" Text="I want to file a  Utility patent with the USPTO that will be globally recognized. How and where do I get started? Can I file it online?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7786" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3687" RevisionGUID="98c324f5-0d6c-4fde-a442-f79c20c950d0" CreationDate="2013-04-16T23:12:45.163" UserId="1083" Text="Internationally recognized patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7787" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3687" RevisionGUID="98c324f5-0d6c-4fde-a442-f79c20c950d0" CreationDate="2013-04-16T23:12:45.163" UserId="1083" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;utility&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3688" RevisionGUID="df87ff8c-c0fb-41f6-94ea-544aa8c76856" CreationDate="2013-04-16T23:55:55.600" UserId="3621" Text="It's fairly easy to do your own search.  First, go to the &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;[USPTO database of published applications][1]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt;.  Next, enter a search string specifying a start and stop date.  For the week of April 8, 2013 to April 12, 2013, that would look like this:  &lt;b&gt;PD/4/8/2013-&gt;4/12/2013&lt;/b&gt;.  That will give you a listing (in groups of 50) of all of the applications published that week.  If you want to narrow that list down by classification and/or subclassification add the following:  &lt;b&gt;AND CCL/cla/sub&lt;/b&gt;, where cla is the class code, and, if you want to go to the subclass level, sub is the subclassification code.  For example, CCL/726/35 would be Information Security/Theft Protection.  You can find classification and subclassification codes &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;[here][2]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/selectnumwithtitle.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3690" RevisionGUID="6e31ca7f-af79-4b12-8abc-ed4946d26f99" CreationDate="2013-04-17T00:53:02.720" UserId="3076" Text="If by &quot;globally recognized&quot; you mean that it will turn up in a patent search done most anywhere, then I would ask the USPTO for early publication and make sure the abstract has all the keywords someone would use in looking for it. If you mean a &quot;globally enforceable&quot; patent right, there is no such thing. Each county's courts can enforce their patents, under their laws, on what is done within their boarders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is such a thing as an international **application** for a patent. It is called a PCT application and one does file it in one's own country's patent office. It is a way to simultaneously initiate an application in 140+ locations. At a set later time, you actually have to decide which places you are really going into, pay more money per location and deal with the patent office and patent laws in each of those countries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3691" RevisionGUID="0e6069b7-6442-473a-b49b-94d7266b54cb" CreationDate="2013-04-17T10:10:35.027" UserId="3623" Text="What will part 12 in the drawing say about the designs? (in the patent US20040213428)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I use same design on the part but with an other angel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best regards,&#xD;&#xA;Peter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7797" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3691" RevisionGUID="0e6069b7-6442-473a-b49b-94d7266b54cb" CreationDate="2013-04-17T10:10:35.027" UserId="3623" Text="design on the patent US20040213428" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7798" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3691" RevisionGUID="0e6069b7-6442-473a-b49b-94d7266b54cb" CreationDate="2013-04-17T10:10:35.027" UserId="3623" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3691" RevisionGUID="d9d18b0c-7d18-428a-80e6-9e7db37be3f3" CreationDate="2013-04-17T12:51:59.510" UserId="1259" Comment="tag linkie removed signature, typo fix" Text="What will part 12 in the drawing say about the designs? (in the patent [US20040213428][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I use same design on the part but with an other angle?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20040213428" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7800" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3691" RevisionGUID="d9d18b0c-7d18-428a-80e6-9e7db37be3f3" CreationDate="2013-04-17T12:51:59.510" UserId="1259" Comment="tag linkie removed signature, typo fix" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;us20040213428&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3690" RevisionGUID="39237391-afdd-4572-a22a-b01a8b604751" CreationDate="2013-04-17T12:56:54.720" UserId="1259" Comment="typo" Text="If by &quot;globally recognized&quot; you mean that it will turn up in a patent search done most anywhere, then I would ask the USPTO for early publication and make sure the abstract has all the keywords someone would use in looking for it. If you mean a &quot;globally enforceable&quot; patent right, there is no such thing. Each county's courts can enforce their patents, under their laws, on what is done within their borders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is such a thing as an international **application** for a patent. It is called a PCT application and one does file it in one's own country's patent office. It is a way to simultaneously initiate an application in 140+ locations. At a set later time, you actually have to decide which places you are really going into, pay more money per location and deal with the patent office and patent laws in each of those countries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3692" RevisionGUID="e3df5c09-b72a-4958-ac3f-cf465fcb12a6" CreationDate="2013-04-17T15:38:18.407" UserId="3076" Text="One of the purposes of the patent system is for others to learn from what an inventor has laid out. However, what aspects of the teachings of a patent document are and are not fair game can be difficult to determine. In this case the document you referenced is an application for a patent, not a patent. As such it would not stop anyone from  doing anything. The first step is to look it up in some patent database to see if it was resulted in a patent. Checking USPTO PAIR I see that it produced an issued patent 7,072,483. The claims of that patent defined a set of things you can't do. That is the easy part. Has the rest of what the application taught been dedicated to the public? Maybe. If there are continuation applications on file or other counterparts in existence those may have additional claims beyond this patent. Also, the fact that this patent may not claim something doesn't mean it is necessarily fair game. Some other patent by the same or different inventors may cover it. Being outside the scope of one patent's claims does not mean something is outside the scope of all patents' claims.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3693" RevisionGUID="1d1e52e3-8b82-444f-901e-02855293d246" CreationDate="2013-04-17T17:24:48.063" UserId="3622" Text="**TITLE: Interactive Try-On Platform for Eyeglasses** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	Patent Number: US 7,016,824 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	Assignee: Geometrix, Inc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	Prior Art Cutoff Date: predating February 6, 2001&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** Techniques and systems that provide interactions between a 3D representation of a selected pair of glasses and a fully-textured 3D face model are disclosed. According to one embodiment, an interactive platform is displayed to allow a user to select a pair of glasses and try the selected glasses on a user-provided 3D face model. The interactions provided in the platform include spatial adjustments of the glasses around the face model, various perspective views of the 3D face with the glasses on and other cosmetic alternations to the selected glasses. According to one application, when the user finishes the try-on process, the information about the glasses can be transmitted to a business that can subsequently produce a pair of customized glasses for the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1 is:**&#xD;&#xA;A method for commercializing pairs of eyeglasses over a network, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	providing an interactive platform that can be displayed on a computing device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	requesting a 3D face model from a user to be used in the interactive platform;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	determining characteristics of the 3D face model with respect to a 3D reference frame;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	retrieving a 3D representation of a pair of eyeglasses when a request identifying the pair of eyeglasses is received over the network; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	placing the 3D representation of the glasses onto a default position with respect to the 3D face model in accordance with the characteristics thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample Figure**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;INSERT FIGURE HERE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Reasons for Allowance**&#xD;&#xA;The following is an excerpt of the Examiner's Statement of Reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The instant application is directed to a non-obvious improvement over the invention described in U.S. Patent No. 5,983,201 to Fay, the improvement comprising a method for commercializing pairs of eyeglasses over a network, wherein a 3D face model is requested by a user via an interactive platform, characteristics of a 3D face model are determined with respect to a 3D reference frame, and a 3D representation of a pair of eyeglasses is· retrieved and placed onto a default position with respect to the 3D face model. This patentable distinction is included in each of the independent claims, nos. 1, 12, 22, 25 and 29. **The art of record, either individually or in combination, fails to teach, suggest, or render obvious the useful, concrete and tangible &lt;method for commercializing pairs of eyeglasses over a network by inputting characteristics of a 3D face model with respect to a 3D reference frame, and placing the resulting 3D representation onto a default position with respect to the 3D face model&gt;** having the corresponding structure which is disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof at least at page 7, line 19 through page 32, line 17, and Figures 1-9. In view of the foregoing, the claims of the present application are found to be patentable over the prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Representative Prior Art**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following is a list of prior art that we are already aware of (in addition to the prior art identified on the face of this patent under the References Cited):  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;WO 01/11886 A1, WO 97/29441 A1, US 5,175,806, EP 1 011 006, AU 1 334 097, JP 9-145324, WO 95/04975, US 6,034,698, WO 86/05374, JP 10-283455, KR 2001-0008011, and “Automatic construction of 3D human face models based on 2D images”, PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON IMAGE PROCESSING (ICIP) LAUSANNE, 16-19 September 1996, pp. 467-470. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything (published before February 6, 2001) that describes the providing a 3D representation of the glasses onto a default position with respect to the 3D face model in the manner recited in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][2]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents community][3] has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to post your own request for prior art if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/eW2xP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7804" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3693" RevisionGUID="1d1e52e3-8b82-444f-901e-02855293d246" CreationDate="2013-04-17T17:24:48.063" UserId="3622" Text="CALL FOR PRIOR ART: Interactive 3D Platform for Eyeglasses/Clothing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7805" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3693" RevisionGUID="1d1e52e3-8b82-444f-901e-02855293d246" CreationDate="2013-04-17T17:24:48.063" UserId="3622" Text="&lt;7016824&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7806" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3693" RevisionGUID="9be1e8d6-2721-4e39-9096-973bc4c3fa85" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:16:08.557" UserId="7" Comment="Formatting &amp; image" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Interactive Try-On Platform for Eyeglasses&quot;** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This issued patent relates to a method by which a consumer can submit a 3D model of his/her face to generate a visualization of how a pair of eyeglasses may fit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BASIC PATENT DATA:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Patent Number:** US 7,016,824 &#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Geometrix, Inc. &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date:** Prior art must predate February 6, 2001&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PATENT ABSTRACT:** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Techniques and systems that provide interactions between a 3D representation of a selected pair of glasses and a fully-textured 3D face model are disclosed. According to one embodiment, an interactive platform is displayed to allow a user to select a pair of glasses and try the selected glasses on a user-provided 3D face model. The interactions provided in the platform include spatial adjustments of the glasses around the face model, various perspective views of the 3D face with the glasses on and other cosmetic alternations to the selected glasses. According to one application, when the user finishes the try-on process, the information about the glasses can be transmitted to a business that can subsequently produce a pair of customized glasses for the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1:**&#xD;&#xA;A method for commercializing pairs of eyeglasses over a network, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- providing an interactive platform that can be displayed on a computing device;&#xD;&#xA;- requesting a 3D face model from a user to be used in the interactive platform;&#xD;&#xA;- determining characteristics of the 3D face model with respect to a 3D reference frame;&#xD;&#xA;- retrieving a 3D representation of a pair of eyeglasses when a request identifying the pair of eyeglasses is received over the network; and&#xD;&#xA;- placing the 3D representation of the glasses onto a default position with respect to the 3D face model in accordance with the characteristics thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**REASON FOR ALLOWANCE:** The following is an excerpt of the Examiner's Statement of Reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The instant application is directed to a non-obvious improvement over the invention described in [U.S. Patent No. 5,983,201][2] to Fay, the improvement comprising a method for commercializing pairs of eyeglasses over a network, wherein a 3D face model is requested by a user via an interactive platform, characteristics of a 3D face model are determined with respect to a 3D reference frame, and a 3D representation of a pair of eyeglasses is retrieved and placed onto a default position with respect to the 3D face model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR ART:** The following is a list of prior art that we are already aware of (in addition to the prior art identified on the face of this patent under the References Cited):  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. WO 01/11886 A1&#xD;&#xA;2. WO 97/29441 A1&#xD;&#xA;3. US 5,175,806 &#xD;&#xA;4. EP 1 011 006 &#xD;&#xA;5. AU 1 334 097&#xD;&#xA;6. JP 9-145324&#xD;&#xA;7. WO 95/04975&#xD;&#xA;8. US 6,034,698&#xD;&#xA;9. WO 86/05374&#xD;&#xA;10. JP 10-283455&#xD;&#xA;11. KR 2001-0008011&#xD;&#xA;12. “Automatic construction of 3D human face models based on 2D images”, PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON IMAGE PROCESSING (ICIP) LAUSANNE, 16-19 September 1996, pp. 467-470. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything (published before February 6, 2001) that describes providing a 3D representation of the glasses onto a default position with respect to the 3D face model in the manner recited in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer** below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual, but please create separate answers for each one so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][3]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents community][4] has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office. If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to post your own request for prior art if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/hfUvD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5983201&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7807" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3693" RevisionGUID="9be1e8d6-2721-4e39-9096-973bc4c3fa85" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:16:08.557" UserId="7" Comment="Formatting &amp; image" Text="CALL FOR PRIOR ART: Interactive 3D Platform for Fitting Eyeglasses/Clothing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7808" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3693" RevisionGUID="9be1e8d6-2721-4e39-9096-973bc4c3fa85" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:16:08.557" UserId="7" Comment="Formatting &amp; image" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us7016824&gt;&lt;us5983201&gt;&lt;eyeglasses&gt;&lt;class-705&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7809" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3693" RevisionGUID="7e1a2e43-be9a-4ca7-8621-ab17244672aa" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:35:15.447" UserId="3622" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Interactive Try-On Platform for Eyeglasses&quot;** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This issued patent relates to a method by which a consumer can submit a 3D model of his/her face to generate a visualization of how a pair of eyeglasses may fit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BASIC PATENT DATA:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Patent Number:** [US 7,016,824][2] &#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Geometrix, Inc. &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date:** Prior art must predate February 6, 2001&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PATENT ABSTRACT:** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Techniques and systems that provide interactions between a 3D representation of a selected pair of glasses and a fully-textured 3D face model are disclosed. According to one embodiment, an interactive platform is displayed to allow a user to select a pair of glasses and try the selected glasses on a user-provided 3D face model. The interactions provided in the platform include spatial adjustments of the glasses around the face model, various perspective views of the 3D face with the glasses on and other cosmetic alternations to the selected glasses. According to one application, when the user finishes the try-on process, the information about the glasses can be transmitted to a business that can subsequently produce a pair of customized glasses for the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1:**&#xD;&#xA;A method for commercializing pairs of eyeglasses over a network, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- providing an interactive platform that can be displayed on a computing device;&#xD;&#xA;- requesting a 3D face model from a user to be used in the interactive platform;&#xD;&#xA;- determining characteristics of the 3D face model with respect to a 3D reference frame;&#xD;&#xA;- retrieving a 3D representation of a pair of eyeglasses when a request identifying the pair of eyeglasses is received over the network; and&#xD;&#xA;- placing the 3D representation of the glasses onto a default position with respect to the 3D face model in accordance with the characteristics thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**REASON FOR ALLOWANCE:** The following is an excerpt of the Examiner's Statement of Reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The instant application is directed to a non-obvious improvement over the invention described in [U.S. Patent No. 5,983,201][3] to Fay, the improvement comprising a method for commercializing pairs of eyeglasses over a network, wherein a 3D face model is requested by a user via an interactive platform, characteristics of a 3D face model are determined with respect to a 3D reference frame, and a 3D representation of a pair of eyeglasses is retrieved and placed onto a default position with respect to the 3D face model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR ART:** The following is a list of prior art that we are already aware of (in addition to the prior art identified on the face of this patent under the References Cited):  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. WO 01/11886 A1&#xD;&#xA;2. WO 97/29441 A1&#xD;&#xA;3. US 5,175,806 &#xD;&#xA;4. EP 1 011 006 &#xD;&#xA;5. AU 1 334 097&#xD;&#xA;6. JP 9-145324&#xD;&#xA;7. WO 95/04975&#xD;&#xA;8. US 6,034,698&#xD;&#xA;9. WO 86/05374&#xD;&#xA;10. JP 10-283455&#xD;&#xA;11. KR 2001-0008011&#xD;&#xA;12. “Automatic construction of 3D human face models based on 2D images”, PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON IMAGE PROCESSING (ICIP) LAUSANNE, 16-19 September 1996, pp. 467-470. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything (published before February 6, 2001) that describes providing a 3D representation of the glasses onto a default position with respect to the 3D face model in the manner recited in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer** below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual, but please create separate answers for each one so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents community][5] has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office. If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to post your own request for prior art if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/hfUvD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7016824?pg=PA9&amp;dq=7,016,824&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=BOtuUbPEDcTviQKWzoGIBg&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5983201&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7810" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3684" RevisionGUID="e024aeae-cabc-4c5c-95c9-ef7fb8143624" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:40:52.053" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20130055357&gt;&lt;personal&gt;&lt;information&gt;&lt;server&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7811" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3682" RevisionGUID="8fdfa3de-8da3-47a4-9c1b-42307b61f658" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:41:18.650" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;animation&gt;&lt;us20120120094&gt;&lt;color&gt;&lt;intensity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7812" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3591" RevisionGUID="b04fd7f0-a262-4bd0-bf0b-5ad7c5195283" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:42:04.153" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20130072575&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7813" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3577" RevisionGUID="d3b77a70-744c-4c14-86d7-d1e9f6e201f1" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:42:25.967" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20120146993&gt;&lt;three-dimension&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7814" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="33afef20-d228-49ba-a2a1-fc0a1889352c" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:42:46.967" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20130063492&gt;&lt;scaling&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7815" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3533" RevisionGUID="9cb5c420-1af7-45c7-9347-20b4218f3de2" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:43:09.233" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us8401009&gt;&lt;twitter&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7816" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1917" RevisionGUID="43da3ad4-837c-4b89-b7ec-22263442c628" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:44:34.410" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;facebook&gt;&lt;us7853881&gt;&lt;yammer&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7817" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1901" RevisionGUID="08f41699-b38d-44a9-97e9-f32e647c5fdf" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:44:49.240" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;facebook&gt;&lt;us6628314&gt;&lt;google&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7818" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="812" RevisionGUID="6c955cc5-0203-4aa5-96f9-2bbb523cf8fa" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:45:10.240" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;apple&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;d668263&gt;&lt;itunes&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7819" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="743" RevisionGUID="6a3d5491-8ae6-435d-8c64-75888054500f" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:45:32.900" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;apple&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us8086604&gt;&lt;us20120166477&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7820" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="722" RevisionGUID="0a74dbc4-1f63-4136-acbe-1990e12257ff" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:45:49.320" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;chemistry&gt;&lt;us7404278&gt;&lt;package-making&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7821" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="699" RevisionGUID="a0b61fd4-a197-4414-8ba7-fb7c0cd46c96" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:46:11.823" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;data-processing-database&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;us8086604&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7822" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="628" RevisionGUID="8b7de3db-9a37-43cc-8dca-09828cd59d68" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:46:35.120" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;data-processing-financial&gt;&lt;us7353199&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7823" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="611" RevisionGUID="353e72c3-a4bb-443e-a614-48a021994dc5" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:46:48.967" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;data-processing-interface&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;us20100251120&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7824" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="548" RevisionGUID="0134640e-af15-4f8b-9e24-f34d6c496d6c" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:47:05.217" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;computer-graphics&gt;&lt;us6396482&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7825" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="542" RevisionGUID="2d785c66-c6c0-4ab2-9329-3db7992e7637" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:47:17.217" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;data-processing-financial&gt;&lt;computers-support&gt;&lt;us5715314&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7826" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="535" RevisionGUID="6ff81842-2972-4a90-ad20-5439aae17cb0" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:47:32.093" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;data-processing-interface&gt;&lt;us8276057&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7827" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="501" RevisionGUID="669d65ce-b2dc-4502-ba66-06e84eeffe08" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:47:59.047" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20120240097&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7828" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="517" RevisionGUID="a5420f1d-e36a-41d1-8bd6-27fe38581d44" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:48:18.533" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;data-processing-financial&gt;&lt;business-methods&gt;&lt;us20040172327&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7829" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="c2ad38ed-1c31-4b74-ab0f-11c845bc816e" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:48:41.643" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;gas-separation-processes&gt;&lt;chemistry&gt;&lt;us8114195&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7830" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="3e466be6-82e5-4005-b0bf-01419ee89816" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:48:53.457" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;data-processing-database&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;us5937402&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7831" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="454" RevisionGUID="61ac3121-5a3f-453b-bf71-e49d61a1469d" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:49:05.927" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;computer-graphics&gt;&lt;us20040201595&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7832" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="28469ea5-b167-44a8-b8f8-e52dc83ad45c" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:49:34.380" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;data-processing-interface&gt;&lt;us20110314371&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7833" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="341387a7-3ef3-41c0-abb9-89fb211ed2bb" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:49:55.290" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;computer-graphics&gt;&lt;data-processing-interface&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;android&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7834" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="201" RevisionGUID="f9cf6252-5559-4d85-9ad5-f7ffa709b14e" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:50:08.867" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us8082501&gt;&lt;us7493558&gt;&lt;us7945856&gt;&lt;us7181690&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7835" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="193" RevisionGUID="e453c554-b614-4a30-811e-29a5691f9f58" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:50:23.213" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;data-processing-database&gt;&lt;us20120016857&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7836" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="152" RevisionGUID="83b448a0-a16d-42d6-baa3-aaa25a0dcd8e" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:50:36.073" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20120207901&gt;&lt;consumer-food&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7837" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="34772717-89f1-4df0-bdb6-4e8f717749e4" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:51:03.963" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20120225162&gt;&lt;food-production&gt;&lt;health&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7838" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="137" RevisionGUID="c1857f52-f447-4e31-9d22-739c0f1c5905" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:51:18.433" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20120226962&gt;&lt;error-detection&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3694" RevisionGUID="0d7e5f7a-5b8f-4929-ac11-a877f46f44e4" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:55:46.670" UserId="1767" Comment="added 328 characters in body" Text="There is only one type of questions on which to use the [tag:prior-art] tag:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Prior Art Searches:** Any time you are soliciting help in searching for examples of prior art for a given US Patent application or US Patent.  Please follow the format suggested in this answer: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/a/146/1767" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3695" RevisionGUID="c60bfdf5-c7ca-491c-9dfe-c6bec6c8ef53" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:55:46.670" UserId="1767" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="For REQUESTING PRIOR ART on SPECIFIC US PATENT APPLICATIONS OR ISSUED US PATENTS.  No general discussion of what constitutes prior art or the USPTO rules related to prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="150" RevisionGUID="0dcea134-0c7a-47bc-a038-45656bf2eb9c" CreationDate="2013-04-17T19:00:28.027" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 164 characters in body; added 4 characters in body" Text="There is one type of question on which to use the [tag:prior-art] tag:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Prior Art Clarification:** Questions that are clarifying what constitutes valid prior art (such as [Can a YouTube video be submitted as prior art?](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/16/can-a-youtube-video-be-submitted-as-prior-art)) or USPTO rules related to prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When requesting prior art for a particular US Patent Application or US Patent please use [tag:prior-art-request] tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="151" RevisionGUID="1a50330b-052d-4311-8514-51aa5f8c3277" CreationDate="2013-04-17T19:00:28.027" UserId="1767" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="For questions relating to the USPTO rules related to prior art or what constitute prior art.  For REQUESTS FOR PRIOR ART please use the [prior-art-request] tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3695" RevisionGUID="d4f3b8f0-c681-44d7-94e2-65fd8ea7ec3d" CreationDate="2013-04-17T19:01:32.640" UserId="1767" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="For REQUESTING PRIOR ART on SPECIFIC US PATENT APPLICATIONS OR ISSUED US PATENTS please us [tag:prior-art-requests].  No general discussion of what constitutes prior art or the USPTO rules related to prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3694" RevisionGUID="e067669a-949f-4d49-8e2b-0fe074c25054" CreationDate="2013-04-17T19:01:46.203" UserId="1767" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="There is only one type of questions on which to use the [tag:prior-art-request] tag:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Prior Art Searches:** Any time you are soliciting help in searching for examples of prior art for a given US Patent application or US Patent.  Please follow the format suggested in this answer: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/a/146/1767" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3696" RevisionGUID="983e0ebe-cf61-47ea-b0f9-66ccd05e7086" CreationDate="2013-04-17T19:49:24.893" UserId="3627" Text="I once see this patent from google:&#xD;&#xA;http://books.google.com/patents/USD663234?hl=zh-CN&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later found that it is very similar to the one in Tibetan Museum:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.nipic.com/show/1/67/7836720k514b09ae.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, I doubt if &quot;US D663234 S1&quot; is a valid patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frank&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7847" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3696" RevisionGUID="983e0ebe-cf61-47ea-b0f9-66ccd05e7086" CreationDate="2013-04-17T19:49:24.893" UserId="3627" Text="Doubt if &quot;US D663234 S1&quot; is a valid patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7848" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3696" RevisionGUID="983e0ebe-cf61-47ea-b0f9-66ccd05e7086" CreationDate="2013-04-17T19:49:24.893" UserId="3627" Text="&lt;invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3696" RevisionGUID="b3e1bb85-68dd-46c5-91e7-e5efb72b2e05" CreationDate="2013-04-17T20:34:07.643" UserId="7" Comment="Copyedited, embedded links" Text="I came across this design patent in Google: [&quot;Reiki ornament&quot; (US D663234 S1)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I realized it describes a design that is very similar to [this artifact][2], which is on display at a Tibetan museum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can this ancient object be used to invalidate the design patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.ga/patents/USD663234&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.nipic.com/show/1/67/7836720k514b09ae.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7850" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3696" RevisionGUID="b3e1bb85-68dd-46c5-91e7-e5efb72b2e05" CreationDate="2013-04-17T20:34:07.643" UserId="7" Comment="Copyedited, embedded links" Text="Is this prior art for &quot;Reiki ornament&quot; (US D663234 S1)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7851" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3696" RevisionGUID="b3e1bb85-68dd-46c5-91e7-e5efb72b2e05" CreationDate="2013-04-17T20:34:07.643" UserId="7" Comment="Copyedited, embedded links" Text="&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;usd663234&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7852" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3693" RevisionGUID="f960c80f-4cd9-4d90-a5f2-fb4ee5f8468f" CreationDate="2013-04-17T22:56:35.403" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/324657670965579776" />
  <row Id="7862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3577" RevisionGUID="e0ed2efe-01c2-42ec-a40f-6b041e0e926a" CreationDate="2013-04-18T16:32:08.440" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="   **TITLE**: Computer-Readable Storage Medium, Information Processing System, And Information Processing Method &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **App Number**: [13/028,329][1]&#xD;&#xA; - **Publication Number**: [US 2012/0146993 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: Nintendo Co., Ltd. &#xD;&#xA; - **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: *predating* December 09, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This invention sets the transparency of a virtual object based on the distance between the viewpoint and the virtual object in a virtual environment generating both left eye and right eye images. Note: transparency in this context could be interpreted to mean several related concepts, such as fading and alpha level adjusting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** (as filed) is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a display&#xD;&#xA;&gt; control program which is executed by a computer of a display control&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparatus that displays a predetermined virtual space on a display&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparatus capable of stereoscopic display, the display control program&#xD;&#xA;&gt; causing the computer to function as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - object placement means for placing a predetermined object in the virtual space;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ***transparency degree setting means*** for, in accordance with a distance specified between (1) the **predetermined object** placed in the virtual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; space, and (2) a **viewpoint position** based on the position of a virtual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; camera used for virtually shooting the virtual space, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; setting the degree of transparency of a part or the entirety of the predetermined&#xD;&#xA;&gt; object such that **the longer the distance is, the higher the degree of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transparency** is; (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - image generation means for generating **an image for a right eye and an image for a left eye** by shooting the virtual space with a right&#xD;&#xA;&gt; virtual camera and a left virtual camera, respectively, so that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; predetermined object, which is included in each of the image for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; right eye and the image for a left eye, has the degree of transparency&#xD;&#xA;&gt; set by the transparency degree setting means; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - display control means for displaying the image for a right eye and the image for a left eye generated by the image generation means, on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the display apparatus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample Figure**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS**: Object transparency based on distance between a viewpoint and an object appears to have been done before, such as in the area of ray tracing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION**: Have you seen anything (published before December 09, 2010) that describes the ***transparency degree setting means*** in the manner recited in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][5]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][8] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120146993?dq=20120146993&amp;ei=TD9TUYr2IeH20gGfm4CACA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120146993?printsec=abstract&amp;dq=20120146993&amp;ei=TD9TUYr2IeH20gGfm4CACA#v=onepage&amp;q=20120146993&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/2IAAr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/FqHGI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="969d2724-6fbb-4f95-a873-d46add2f5a5b" CreationDate="2013-04-18T16:33:13.273" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="   **TITLE: Scale factors for visual presentations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/230445][1]  &#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 2013/0063492 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application generates and display graphical elements based on *pixel density.* The invention selects a *scale factor* from a *scale factor set* that is within the *range* of the pixel density.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of generating, using a device having a processor, a presentation comprising elements to be displayed on a display component, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - executing on the processor instructions configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - identify a ***pixel density*** of the display component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - for respective elements of the presentation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - from a ***scale factor set***, select a ***scale factor*** having a ***pixel density range*** including the pixel density of the display component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - request the element to generate a scaled representation using the scale factor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - generate the presentation comprising the scaled representations of the elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample figure** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/WgDnr.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application is similar to other resolution-independent scaling applications, patents, and implementations carried out in the industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 09/12/2011** that discusses (1) scale factor; (2) scale factor set; and (3) pixel density range in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][5]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][8] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3695" RevisionGUID="7565ee87-0e96-4b75-b32c-96972d49c9d5" CreationDate="2013-04-19T00:29:03.997" UserId="1767" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="This tag [tag:prior-art-requests] is for REQUESTING PRIOR ART on SPECIFIC US PATENT APPLICATIONS OR ISSUED US PATENTS.  Please do not use this tag for general discussion of what constitutes prior art or the USPTO rules related to prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3700" RevisionGUID="c6d701ae-9174-4da7-823e-d3e0e48bc440" CreationDate="2013-04-19T10:48:38.163" UserId="1458" Text="I have a query. When i searched the patent 6034101 on google patent it shown the detail but when i clicked on the link to see this patent on USPTO, IT Mentioned that   the term &quot;WITHDRAWN&quot; only. What does that means??? also a WITHDRAWN patent can also be searched on uspto.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PALL&amp;RefSrch=yes&amp;Query=PN/6034101&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6034101" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7870" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3700" RevisionGUID="c6d701ae-9174-4da7-823e-d3e0e48bc440" CreationDate="2013-04-19T10:48:38.163" UserId="1458" Text="US6034101 - query" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7871" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3700" RevisionGUID="c6d701ae-9174-4da7-823e-d3e0e48bc440" CreationDate="2013-04-19T10:48:38.163" UserId="1458" Text="&lt;us6034101&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3701" RevisionGUID="ea7e8cc5-17b5-4549-8186-161fb8078c8a" CreationDate="2013-04-19T13:06:23.290" UserId="3359" Text="You may want to try US 6,457,007. Published as JPH0798669  (A) ― 1995-04-11. There are two related JP applications - just need to translate them.  If you think there is something missing, you may want to look at related filings by the inventors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;When the table location extraction unit 33 in this Embodiment 13 receives a table access statement 255 or 256 in which the physical database name holding the table 100 to be accessed is directly designated, the extraction unit deletes the designation of the physical database name from the table access statement 255 or 256 held in the statement buffer 6, creates a statement 257 or 258, and informs the table location inquiry unit 36 of the physical database 1 (DB_a or DB_b) which is designated in the statement 255 or 256 as an access object.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A distributed database management system includes a communication network, at least a terminal device including an application program execution unit connected to the communication network, a plurality of information processors connected to the communication network, a plurality of physical databases installed in at least one of the information processors, at least a logical database grouping a plurality of the, physical databases, the logical database being defined by logical database information stored in at least one of the terminal device and the plurality of information processors, at least a table stored in at least one of the physical databases, and a table location searching unit installed in at least one of the terminal device and the plurality of information processors, for searching a table stored in at least one of the physical databases based on the logical database information, the table being requested to access on a logical database, from the application program execution unit.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3702" RevisionGUID="cc503cdb-7553-4130-8592-14544546f75f" CreationDate="2013-04-19T14:22:10.163" UserId="3639" Text="It seems there are several companies downloading and analyzing free text generated by users, especially in social media- networks, some even applied for patents.&#xD;&#xA;Is an automated method to read and understand the text have any potential to become an IP of a person/ company? form what i read so far, computed method copying a process done by humans as well (like calculus) is not patenable. &#xD;&#xA;i found at list 2 applications trying to patent such ability: US20120089616 A1, US20120036080 A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;appreciate your clarification on that matter,&#xD;&#xA;Thanks, &#xD;&#xA;L.Epstein" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7874" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3702" RevisionGUID="cc503cdb-7553-4130-8592-14544546f75f" CreationDate="2013-04-19T14:22:10.163" UserId="3639" Text="patentability of internet users jargon-textual analysis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7875" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3702" RevisionGUID="cc503cdb-7553-4130-8592-14544546f75f" CreationDate="2013-04-19T14:22:10.163" UserId="3639" Text="&lt;method&gt;&lt;system&gt;&lt;internet&gt;&lt;analyzing&gt;&lt;posts&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3702" RevisionGUID="48cf33b8-4840-4b4c-abd8-f13f0bfaa264" CreationDate="2013-04-19T16:55:23.133" UserId="1" Comment="added 385 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="It seems there are several companies downloading and analyzing free text generated by users, especially in social media networks. Some have even applied for patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is an automated method to read and understand the text have any potential to become intellectual properly a person or company? Form what I've read so far, computerized methods for copying a process also done by humans (like calculus) is not patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found at list of two applications trying to patent such methods: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US20120089616 A1 &amp;mdash; System and method for detecting personal experience event reports from user gernerated internet content](http://www.google.com/patents/US20120089616)&#xD;&#xA; - [US20120036080 A1 &amp;mdash; Method and system for tracking online social interactions](http://www.google.com/patents/US20120036080?pg=PA8&amp;dq=US+20120036080+A1&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=8XVxUZr8MpGq8ASXu4EQ&amp;ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would appreciate your clarification on this matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7879" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3702" RevisionGUID="48cf33b8-4840-4b4c-abd8-f13f0bfaa264" CreationDate="2013-04-19T16:55:23.133" UserId="1" Comment="added 385 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Patentability of Textual Analysis on Internet User Texts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7880" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3702" RevisionGUID="48cf33b8-4840-4b4c-abd8-f13f0bfaa264" CreationDate="2013-04-19T16:55:23.133" UserId="1" Comment="added 385 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;text-analysis&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7881" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3700" RevisionGUID="3ee4ec5f-3b73-4b05-b3bd-007aa913bddc" CreationDate="2013-04-19T18:49:16.677" UserId="1767" Comment="Fixed formatting and clarified question" Text="Google Patents shows the details of US6034101 &quot;Dosage form and method for administering drug.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, on the USPTO website the same patent is listed as &quot;WITHDRAWN&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not familiar with the term &quot;Withdrawn&quot;.  What are the common circumstances under which a patent would be withdrawn and is this done by the applicant or by the USPTO?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [USPTO Search for US603410][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Google Search for US603410][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PALL&amp;RefSrch=yes&amp;Query=PN/6034101&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6034101&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7882" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3700" RevisionGUID="3ee4ec5f-3b73-4b05-b3bd-007aa913bddc" CreationDate="2013-04-19T18:49:16.677" UserId="1767" Comment="Fixed formatting and clarified question" Text="What is a &quot;Withdrawn&quot; Patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3702" RevisionGUID="873359e0-f000-49b5-a4bf-5b0d57fe453e" CreationDate="2013-04-19T18:52:52.343" UserId="1767" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="It seems there are several companies downloading and analyzing free text generated by users, especially in social media networks. Some have even applied for patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is an automated method to read and understand text generated by users patentable? From what I've read so far, computerized methods for copying a process also done by humans (like calculus) are not patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a list of two applications trying to patent such methods: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US20120089616 A1 &amp;mdash; System and method for detecting personal experience event reports from user gernerated internet content](http://www.google.com/patents/US20120089616)&#xD;&#xA; - [US20120036080 A1 &amp;mdash; Method and system for tracking online social interactions](http://www.google.com/patents/US20120036080?pg=PA8&amp;dq=US+20120036080+A1&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=8XVxUZr8MpGq8ASXu4EQ&amp;ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would appreciate clarification on which aspects (if any) of this general method might be patentable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3703" RevisionGUID="8650e376-a13e-4fb3-8947-e80b5252ed66" CreationDate="2013-04-19T19:16:53.247" UserId="3076" Text="It may be related to case where a court invalidated a different patent for the same treatment by the same company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; May 03, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ALZA Corp. v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2010)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    By Andrew Williams --&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA; Last week, in ALZA Corp. v. Andrx Pharms., LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware's decision that ALZA's patent related to treating Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (&quot;ADHD&quot;) was invalid for lack of enablement.  ALZA markets the drug Concerta® for the treatment of ADHD, which releases methylphenidate after ingestion at an ascending rate over an extended period of time.  Methylphenidate is the same active ingredient as found in Ritalin®.  However, because Ritalin® is an immediate-release formulation, it had to be administered two to three times a day.  And, as many of the patients that took Ritalin® were children, at least one of these doses had to be administered during the school day.  As a result, there was a desire to create a once-a-day method of treating ADHD by developing a sustained or controlled-release dosage form, also known as an extended-release formulation.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ALZA undertook to create such a dosage form.  It discovered after a series of clinical trials that MPH plasma concentrations that had ascending patterns had greater efficacy than when concentrations were constant.  ALZA was able to use this information to develop a safe and effective once-a-day extended release oral dosage form.  Subsequently, ALZA obtained U.S. Patent No. 6,919,373 (&quot;the '373 patent&quot;), whose only independent claim reads:  &quot;A method for treating ADD or ADHD comprising administering a dosage form comprising methylphenidate that provides a release of methylphenidate at an ascending release rate over an extending period of time.&quot;  ALZA spent most of its effort developing an osmotic dosage form, and therefore the '373 patent specification focused on adapting osmotic systems to create ascending release dosage forms.  However, the '373 patent did mention non-osmotic dosage forms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7885" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3702" RevisionGUID="55e3740e-15cc-453f-8760-e8e2f2539d47" CreationDate="2013-04-19T19:29:41.877" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;text-analysis&gt;&lt;us20120089616&gt;&lt;us20120036080&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3704" RevisionGUID="599192b8-e382-452a-9045-ada300809dd5" CreationDate="2013-04-20T01:03:12.393" UserId="3076" Text="Part of the answer is in the substance of the invention and part of the answer is in the specific approach to claim wording. The hard and fast rule is that something wholly abstract can't be patented. The hard part is defining abstract. It said that a method that can be performed in a human mind is abstract. Claim one in the'616 application as filed mentions a computer but I think it is un-artfully written. It says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method, implementable on a computing device, for detecting personal experience event reports from user generated content on the Internet, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;filtering a collection of Internet posts to include only said Internet posts containing personal experience terms; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;further filtering said filtered Internet posts by removing said Internet posts with non-personal experience terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;. . . implement**able** on a computer&quot; is most likely to be rejected for not requiring a computer for all instances of the claimed method. If it were &quot;implemented on computer having a processor and  memory&quot; it might pass muster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim one on the the other application doesn't even mention a computer at all.&#xD;&#xA;Of course the applicant can recover by amending to positively require a computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then the substance comes in. Without doing a search I would say the claim 1s are quite broad and there is likely good prior art. However, both of the applications are well written and extensive. There is much detail to fall back on in narrower clams as they progress through the system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3704" RevisionGUID="ee8bb426-a9e2-4aff-bfd3-bd95d07dd873" CreationDate="2013-04-20T01:10:18.250" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Part of the answer is in the substance of the invention and part of the answer is in the specific approach to claim wording. The hard and fast rule is that something wholly abstract can't be patented. The hard part is defining abstract. It said that a method that can be performed in a human mind is abstract. Claim one in the'616 application as filed mentions a computer but I think it is un-artfully written. It says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method, implementable on a computing device, for detecting personal experience event reports from user generated content on the Internet, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;filtering a collection of Internet posts to include only said Internet posts containing personal experience terms; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;further filtering said filtered Internet posts by removing said Internet posts with non-personal experience terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;. . . implement**able** on a computer&quot; is most likely to be rejected for not requiring a computer for all instances of the claimed method. If it were &quot;implemented on computer having a processor and  memory&quot; it might pass muster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim one on the the other application doesn't even mention a computer at all.&#xD;&#xA;Of course the applicant can recover by amending to positively require a computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then the substance comes in. Without doing a search I would say the claim 1s are quite broad and there is likely good prior art. However, both of the applications are well written and extensive. There is much detail to fall back on in narrowing clams as they progress through the system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3704" RevisionGUID="102fe9aa-e3ed-4ff2-8467-b547bf866dd9" CreationDate="2013-04-20T01:21:54.170" UserId="3076" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="Part of the answer is in the substance of the invention and part of the answer is in the specific approach to claim wording. The hard and fast rule is that something wholly abstract can't be patented. The hard part is defining &quot;abstract&quot;. It is said that a method that can be completely performed in a human mind is abstract. Claim 1 in the '616 application, as published, mentions a computer but I think it is un-artfully written. It says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method, implementable on a computing device, for detecting personal experience event reports from user generated content on the Internet, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;filtering a collection of Internet posts to include only said Internet posts containing personal experience terms; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;further filtering said filtered Internet posts by removing said Internet posts with non-personal experience terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;. . . implement**able** on a computer&quot; is most likely to be rejected for not requiring a computer for all instances of the claimed method. If it were &quot;implemented on computer having a processor and  memory&quot; it might pass muster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim one on the the other application doesn't even mention a computer at all.&#xD;&#xA;Of course the applicant can recover by amending to positively require a computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then the substance comes in. Without doing a search I would say the claim 1s are quite broad and there is likely good prior art. However, both of the applications are well written and extensive. There is much detail to fall back on in narrowing clams as they progress through the system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3704" RevisionGUID="ebfcae39-d6ac-48d4-b635-0825624f6cfb" CreationDate="2013-04-20T01:37:35.323" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Part of the answer is in the substance of the invention and part of the answer is in the specific approach to claim wording. The hard and fast rule is that something wholly abstract can't be patented. The hard part is defining &quot;abstract&quot;. It is said that a method that can be completely performed in a human mind is abstract. Claim 1 in the '616 application, as published, mentions a computer but I think it is un-artfully written. It says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method, implementable on a computing device, for detecting personal experience event reports from user generated content on the Internet, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;filtering a collection of Internet posts to include only said Internet posts containing personal experience terms; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;further filtering said filtered Internet posts by removing said Internet posts with non-personal experience terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;. . . implement**able** on a computer&quot; is most likely to be rejected for not requiring a computer for all instances of the claimed method. If it were &quot;implemented on computer having a processor and  memory&quot; it might pass muster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim one on the other application doesn't even mention a computer at all.&#xD;&#xA;Of course the applicant can recover by amending to positively require a computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then the substance comes in. Without doing a search I would say the claim 1s are quite broad and there is likely good prior art. However, both of the applications are well written and extensive. There is much detail to fall back on in narrowing clams as they progress through the system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3704" RevisionGUID="59604b3c-7cbf-4ba8-8835-48b021653fdc" CreationDate="2013-04-20T05:06:31.763" UserId="3076" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="Part of the answer is in the substance of the invention and part of the answer is in the specific approach to claim wording. The hard and fast rule is that something wholly abstract can't be patented. The difficult part is defining &quot;abstract&quot;. It is said that a method that can be completely performed in a human mind is abstract. If a computer is required, it might not be abstract. Claim 1 in the '616 application, as published, mentions a computer but I think it is un-artfully written. It says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method, implementable on a computing device, for detecting personal experience event reports from user generated content on the Internet, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;filtering a collection of Internet posts to include only said Internet posts containing personal experience terms; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;further filtering said filtered Internet posts by removing said Internet posts with non-personal experience terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;. . . implement**able** on a computer&quot; is most likely to be rejected for not requiring a computer for all instances of the claimed method. If it were &quot;implemented on computer having a processor and  memory&quot; it might pass muster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim one on the other application doesn't even mention a computer at all.&#xD;&#xA;Of course the applicant can recover by amending to positively require a computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then the substance comes in. Without doing a search I would say the claim 1s are quite broad and there is likely good prior art. However, both of the applications are well written and extensive. There is much detail to fall back on in narrowing clams as they progress through the system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3706" RevisionGUID="8eed44df-6b81-4d0d-b60d-6846bda2f3da" CreationDate="2013-04-20T22:04:23.807" UserId="3644" Text="William Steele made a patent application for some sort of polar coordinates 3d printer:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/wjsteele/ultra-bot-3d-printer/posts/362886&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How could I find this patent application so I can show prior art?.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have a RepRap public mailing list and we believe we talked about this concept before the patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the patent application is not granted yet I can't find it searching for his name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is really a trivial patent that if granted will be very harmful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7895" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3706" RevisionGUID="8eed44df-6b81-4d0d-b60d-6846bda2f3da" CreationDate="2013-04-20T22:04:23.807" UserId="3644" Text="CALL FOR PRIOR ART:polar coordinates 3d printer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7896" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3706" RevisionGUID="8eed44df-6b81-4d0d-b60d-6846bda2f3da" CreationDate="2013-04-20T22:04:23.807" UserId="3644" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3707" RevisionGUID="a8da4ab3-e526-4c3d-aacb-fe97addd6d34" CreationDate="2013-04-21T02:17:53.317" UserId="3413" Text="Technically *someone* has to check the suspected software code, to see if it infringes a specific patent. But&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What if the suspect claims, that it is his companys own trade secret?&#xD;&#xA;   are trade secrets in any way respected? in other words any trade&#xD;&#xA;   secrets can be tricked out from its owner, by accusing him of a&#xD;&#xA;   random patent infringement?&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - What happens if the suspect refuses to provide her source code?&#xD;&#xA;   Someone starts decompiling the executable, or the suspect is&#xD;&#xA;   automatically declared as an infringer? Source code losses have&#xD;&#xA;   happened to people who are not criminals. &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - What if the suspected company refuses to provide any form of its&#xD;&#xA;   product(service)? In this case can the suspected company effectively defend&#xD;&#xA;   itself from the prosecution?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions highlight the knowlegdge I lack to understand the process of the patent-infringement-lawsuits. (Please let me not to reference unsuccessful search queries. I really tried to search)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7898" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3707" RevisionGUID="a8da4ab3-e526-4c3d-aacb-fe97addd6d34" CreationDate="2013-04-21T02:17:53.317" UserId="3413" Text="General knowledge on how software patent-infringement lawsuits are evaluated" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7899" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3707" RevisionGUID="a8da4ab3-e526-4c3d-aacb-fe97addd6d34" CreationDate="2013-04-21T02:17:53.317" UserId="3413" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3708" RevisionGUID="734ad39e-3279-46de-af58-4877b54bf885" CreationDate="2013-04-22T02:03:10.663" UserId="1335" Text="Pre-emptive disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US, before you can bring a lawsuit, there is something called &quot;Rule 11&quot; that must be overcome. Rule 11 sort of says that you need to have some evidence or reasonable belief to support your case before you can file a lawsuit. (This is a broad generalization and may not apply to all cases and all jurisdictions.) This is to prevent frivolous lawsuits [1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of patent lawsuits, it often means that you may need to have proof that somebody is infringing, or a reasonable explanation of why you think, *before* you can file a lawsuit. In case of some products where implementation details are not openly available, this may seem like a Catch-22 situation, but rule 11 is a relatively low bar, and it may be possible to satisfy it without solid proof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the upshot is, typically a plaintiff may have to do infringement analysis *before* filing a lawsuit to, amongst other things, satisfy Rule 11. This applies to all kinds of patents, not only software. Often, instead of actual proof, the public comments of the alleged infringer (or an employee thereof) may provide sufficient basis. Once the lawsuit is in progress, however, there is a process called &quot;discovery&quot; which takes place, in which the attorneys of both sides demand access (which the other side is legally required to satisfy) to *all* material that may be relevant, including not only the source code / schematics / design docs / diagrams, but also emails, logs, internal memos, documentation, and all manner of communication related to the allegedly infringing product(s). As mentioned in the comments above, access to this may be restricted to protect trade secrets and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, what do you do *before* the lawsuit is filed and you need to do some sort of infringement analysis? Since you asked about software, let me talk about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, the code may be open source, for example, Linux or Android, which *may* make things somewhat easier. Even with access to the source, it is surprisingly difficult to show infringement. One example is &quot;divided infringement&quot;, where two or more parties act together to perform all the steps in a claim. This is a very common occurrence in today's &quot;cloud&quot;-based world. (Or, in non-marketingspeak, a client/server setup where some of the steps are performed on the client and the rest on the server.) Until a recent case shook things up, this did not count as actual infringement. Or alternatively, where some steps are performed by the open-source software the rest by a third-party, closed-source driver which is opaque to the casual observer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another problem is, even with access to source code, having to convince a lay jury that the technical mumbo-jumbo, that is called &quot;source code&quot;, actually does what this other kind of technical mumbo-jumbo, that are the patent claims, which *look* like English, describes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, even without access to the source code itself, there are several possible ways to do infringement analysis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Many patents cover aspects of the product that is readily observable, such as UI aspects or behavior of the software. Infringement can be shown simply by executing the software. (Apple's &quot;slide-to-unlock&quot; and &quot;over-scroll bounce&quot; patents that they used against Samsung are a good example of this.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If the product is available as an executable, decompiling it and examining the assembly may be needed to show infringement. This means you literally have to reverse-engineer the software. This is, of course, quite difficult, and may be even more difficult to hold up in court. Even for languages like Java, which (if not obfuscated) decompile to code that is very much like the source, it may be difficult to show infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If the patent claims include network communication or protocols, it may be possible to show infringement by executing the software and running a packet sniffer to collect traces of packets being sent and received. Correlating those packets with changes in the behavior of the software may show infringement of the method. This is similarly difficult, and may be even more so if communications are encrypted. Sometimes, claims cover wireless communication methods, modulations or protocols, which means you need specialized (and expensive!) equipment, and the (equally expensive) experts to operate them, to capture signals in order to detect infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. If the allegedly infringing software is hidden away on a server and provided as a service, you could try providing various inputs and observing the corresponding outputs, and try to show that this would only be possible if the service implemented the method of the claim. This, as you might guess, is also extremely difficult, and may in fact be impossible when the patented method covers such a narrow aspect of the service that the effects of the patented method in the outputs are negligible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. If you're lucky, somebody has already reverse-engineered the software in question, and has provided a write-up or, even better, an open-source alternative (or client, in the case of services) for you to examine. This is rare, but happens more frequently than you'd imagine. The open source world is rife with projects -- that somebody wrote to scratch their own itch -- which emulate, and are highly compatible with (and hence a very good approximation of), the original closed-source software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many, many more types of software-based inventions, and as many ways to analyze the products for infringement. The list above is just to give you an idea of some possible methods. Contrary to what people may assume, it is actually very difficult to prove infringement of most patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you think about this, it explains pretty well why there is a furor about &quot;software&quot; patents in the press these days. The patents that are easiest to prove infringement for happen to be patents that cover readily-observable aspects of software, such as those covering GUI elements (Apple's slide-to-unlock, over-scroll bounce-back) and high-level software behavior (Amazon's one-click), *because they are easy to prove infringement of*, and consequently, those are the patents that are asserted in patent disputes. There are undoubtedly much lower-level, technically in-depth patents that *are* being infringed, but which would be difficult to try in court in front of a lay jury, and hence are not asserted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about it: would you rather try to prove infringement to a lay jury of Apple's over-scroll bounce-back patent [2] -- something you can demonstrate to them by simply *using* the allegedly infringing device in front of them -- or Samsung's patent about the length fields in packets [3], which could only be explained by providing an abstract technical explanation of wireless communication protocols, packets, networking and message fragmenting? Considering this, the outcome of the Apple v. Samsung dispute is hardly a surprise. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So of course, the patents that show up in tech media are the ones that are asserted, and it is no wonder that the patents being asserted are mostly high-level patents that can be easily shown to be infringing, which people decry as &quot;obvious&quot;. Well, *of course* they are &quot;obvious&quot; (though *not* in the patent law sense), simply because they are easily *observable* and hence easy to show infringement for. However, that does not necessarily mean they are &quot;obvious&quot; in the *patent-law sense*, which has a very specific meaning that has nothing to do with how apparent it is or how apparently easy it is to implement. Similarly, these patents may also be &quot;trivial&quot; to implement, but triviality is (rightfully) not a requirement for patents: the RSA patent is pretty trivial to implement [4], but, by all accounts, was not obvious at the time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation&#xD;&#xA;2. http://www.google.com/patents/US7469381&#xD;&#xA;3. http://www.google.com/patents/US7675941&#xD;&#xA;4. 4-line Python RSA program, http://www.cypherspace.org/rsa/python.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3708" RevisionGUID="1f6b4668-9241-4f9b-acb5-636a0d6a7ce0" CreationDate="2013-04-22T02:34:15.177" UserId="1335" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="Pre-emptive disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US, before you can bring a lawsuit, there is something called &quot;Rule 11&quot; that must be overcome. Rule 11 sort of says that you need to have some evidence or reasonable belief to support your case before you can file a lawsuit. (This is a broad generalization and may not apply to all cases and all jurisdictions.) This is to prevent frivolous lawsuits [1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of patent lawsuits, it often means that you may need to have proof that somebody is infringing, or a reasonable explanation of why you think, *before* you can file a lawsuit. In case of some products where implementation details are not openly available, this may seem like a Catch-22 situation, but rule 11 is a relatively low bar, and it may be possible to satisfy it without solid proof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the upshot is, typically a plaintiff may have to do infringement analysis *before* filing a lawsuit to, amongst other things, satisfy Rule 11. This applies to all kinds of patents, not only software. Often, instead of actual proof, the public comments of the alleged infringer (or an employee thereof) may provide sufficient basis. Once the lawsuit is in progress, however, there is a process called &quot;discovery&quot; which takes place, in which the attorneys of both sides demand access (which the other side is legally required to satisfy) to *all* material that may be relevant, including not only the source code / schematics / design docs / diagrams, but also emails, logs, internal memos, documentation, and all manner of communication related to the allegedly infringing product(s). As mentioned in the comments above, access to this may be restricted to protect trade secrets and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, what do you do *before* the lawsuit is filed and you need to do some sort of infringement analysis? Since you asked about software, let me talk about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, the code may be open source, for example, Linux or Android, which *may* make things somewhat easier. Even with access to the source, it is surprisingly difficult to show infringement. One example is &quot;divided infringement&quot;, where two or more parties act together to perform all the steps in a claim. This is a very common occurrence in today's &quot;cloud&quot;-based world. (Or, in non-marketingspeak, a client/server setup where some of the steps are performed on the client and the rest on the server.) Until a recent case shook things up, this did not count as actual infringement. Alternatively, it is also difficult when when some steps are performed by the open-source software and the rest by a third-party, closed-source driver which is opaque to the casual observer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another problem is, even with access to source code, having to convince a lay jury that the technical mumbo-jumbo, that is called &quot;source code&quot;, actually does what this other kind of technical mumbo-jumbo, that are called &quot;patent claims&quot; -- which *look* like English -- describes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, even without access to the source code itself, there are several possible ways to do infringement analysis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Many patents cover aspects of the product that is readily observable, such as UI aspects or behavior of the software. Infringement can be shown simply by executing the software. (Apple's &quot;slide-to-unlock&quot; and &quot;over-scroll bounce&quot; patents that they used against Samsung are a good example of this.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If the product is available as an executable, decompiling it and examining the assembly may be needed to show infringement. This means you literally have to reverse-engineer the software. This is, of course, quite difficult, and may be even more difficult to hold up in court. Even for languages like Java, which (if not obfuscated) decompile to code that is very much like the original source, it may be difficult to show infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If the patent claims include network communication or protocols, it may be possible to show infringement by executing the software and running a packet sniffer to collect traces of packets being sent and received. Correlating those packets with changes in the behavior of the software may show infringement of the method. This is similarly difficult, and may be even more so if communications are encrypted. Sometimes, claims cover wireless communication methods, modulations or protocols, which means you need specialized (and expensive!) equipment, and the (even more expensive!) experts to operate them, to capture signals in order to detect infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. If the allegedly infringing software is hidden away on a server and provided as a service, you could try providing various inputs and observing the corresponding outputs, and try to show that this would only be possible if the service implemented the method of the claim. This, as you might guess, is also extremely difficult, and may in fact be impossible when the patented method covers such a narrow aspect of the service that the effects of the patented method in the outputs are negligible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. If you're lucky, somebody has already reverse-engineered the software in question, and has provided a write-up or, even better, an open-source alternative (or client, in the case of services) for you to examine. This is rare, but happens more frequently than you'd imagine. The open source world is rife with projects -- that somebody wrote to scratch their own itch -- which emulate, and are highly compatible with (and hence a very good approximation of), the original closed-source software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many, many more types of software-based inventions, and as many ways to analyze the products for infringement. The list above is just to give you an idea of some possible methods. Contrary to what people may assume, it is actually very difficult to prove infringement of most patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you think about this, it explains pretty well why there is a furor about &quot;software&quot; patents in the press these days. The patents that are easiest to prove infringement for happen to be patents that cover readily-observable aspects of software, such as those covering GUI elements (Apple's slide-to-unlock, over-scroll bounce-back) and high-level software behavior (Amazon's one-click), *because they are easy to prove infringement of*, and consequently, those are the patents that are asserted in patent disputes. There are undoubtedly much lower-level, technically in-depth patents that *are* being infringed, but which would be difficult to try in court in front of a lay jury, and hence are not asserted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about it: would you rather try to prove infringement to a lay jury of Apple's over-scroll bounce-back patent [2] -- something you can demonstrate to them by simply *using* the allegedly infringing device in front of them -- or Samsung's patent about the length fields in packets [3], which could only be explained by providing an abstract technical explanation of wireless communication protocols, packets, networking and message fragmenting? Considering this, the outcome of the Apple v. Samsung dispute is hardly a surprise. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So of course, the patents that show up in tech media are the ones that are asserted, and it is no wonder that the patents being asserted are mostly high-level patents that can be easily shown to be infringing, which people decry as &quot;obvious&quot;. Well, *of course* they are &quot;obvious&quot; (though *not* in the patent law sense), simply because they are easily *observable* and hence easy to show infringement for. However, that does not necessarily mean they are &quot;obvious&quot; in the *patent-law sense*, which has a very specific meaning that has nothing to do with how apparent it is or how apparently easy it is to implement. Similarly, these patents may also be &quot;trivial&quot; to implement, but triviality is (rightfully) not a requirement for patents: the RSA patent is pretty trivial to implement [4], but, by all accounts, was not obvious at the time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation&#xD;&#xA;2. http://www.google.com/patents/US7469381&#xD;&#xA;3. http://www.google.com/patents/US7675941&#xD;&#xA;4. 4-line Python RSA program, http://www.cypherspace.org/rsa/python.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3708" RevisionGUID="3a60c229-5d64-43cc-b20c-1974a4d87c0e" CreationDate="2013-04-23T01:22:25.037" UserId="1335" Comment="Added note about SEO as an example of reverse-engineering algorithms hidden behind a service." Text="Pre-emptive disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US, before you can bring a lawsuit, there is something called &quot;Rule 11&quot; that must be overcome. Rule 11 sort of says that you need to have some evidence or reasonable belief to support your case before you can file a lawsuit. (This is a broad generalization and may not apply to all cases and all jurisdictions.) This is to prevent frivolous lawsuits [1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of patent lawsuits, it often means that you may need to have proof that somebody is infringing, or a reasonable explanation of why you think, *before* you can file a lawsuit. In case of some products where implementation details are not openly available, this may seem like a Catch-22 situation, but rule 11 is a relatively low bar, and it may be possible to satisfy it without solid proof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the upshot is, typically a plaintiff may have to do infringement analysis *before* filing a lawsuit to, amongst other things, satisfy Rule 11. This applies to all kinds of patents, not only software. Often, instead of actual proof, the public comments of the alleged infringer (or an employee thereof) may provide sufficient basis. Once the lawsuit is in progress, however, there is a process called &quot;discovery&quot; which takes place, in which the attorneys of both sides demand access (which the other side is legally required to satisfy) to *all* material that may be relevant, including not only the source code / schematics / design docs / diagrams, but also emails, logs, internal memos, documentation, and all manner of communication related to the allegedly infringing product(s). As mentioned in the comments above, access to this may be restricted to protect trade secrets and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, what do you do *before* the lawsuit is filed and you need to do some sort of infringement analysis? Since you asked about software, let me talk about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, the code may be open source, for example, Linux or Android, which *may* make things somewhat easier. Even with access to the source, it is surprisingly difficult to show infringement. One example is &quot;divided infringement&quot;, where two or more parties act together to perform all the steps in a claim. This is a very common occurrence in today's &quot;cloud&quot;-based world. (Or, in non-marketingspeak, a client/server setup where some of the steps are performed on the client and the rest on the server.) Until a recent case shook things up, this did not count as actual infringement. Alternatively, it is also difficult when when some steps are performed by the open-source software and the rest by a third-party, closed-source driver which is opaque to the casual observer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another problem is, even with access to source code, having to convince a lay jury that the technical mumbo-jumbo, that is called &quot;source code&quot;, actually does what this other kind of technical mumbo-jumbo, that are called &quot;patent claims&quot; -- which *look* like English -- describes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, even without access to the source code itself, there are several possible ways to do infringement analysis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Many patents cover aspects of the product that is readily observable, such as UI aspects or behavior of the software. Infringement can be shown simply by executing the software. (Apple's &quot;slide-to-unlock&quot; and &quot;over-scroll bounce&quot; patents that they used against Samsung are a good example of this.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If the product is available as an executable, decompiling it and examining the assembly may be needed to show infringement. This means you literally have to reverse-engineer the software. This is, of course, quite difficult, and may be even more difficult to hold up in court. Even for languages like Java, which (if not obfuscated) decompile to code that is very much like the original source, it may be difficult to show infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If the patent claims include network communication or protocols, it may be possible to show infringement by executing the software and running a packet sniffer to collect traces of packets being sent and received. Correlating those packets with changes in the behavior of the software may show infringement of the method. This is similarly difficult, and may be even more so if communications are encrypted. Sometimes, claims cover wireless communication methods, modulations or protocols, which means you need specialized (and expensive!) equipment, and the (even more expensive!) experts to operate them, to capture signals in order to detect infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. If the allegedly infringing software is hidden away on a server and provided as a service, you could try providing various inputs and observing the corresponding outputs, and try to show that this would only be possible if the service implemented the method of the claim. This, as you might guess, is also extremely difficult, and may in fact be impossible when the patented method covers such a narrow aspect of the service that the effects of the patented method in the outputs are negligible. However, a good example of this method, which is actually done on a daily basis, is &quot;Search Engine Optimization&quot;, which is essentially reverse-engineering of Google's algorithm-du-jour to manipulate a given website's search ranking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. If you're lucky, somebody has already reverse-engineered the software in question, and has provided a write-up or, even better, an open-source alternative (or client, in the case of services) for you to examine. This is rare, but happens more frequently than you'd imagine. The open source world is rife with projects -- that somebody wrote to scratch their own itch -- which emulate, and are highly compatible with (and hence a very good approximation of), the original closed-source software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many, many more types of software-based inventions, and as many ways to analyze the products for infringement. The list above is just to give you an idea of some possible methods. Contrary to what people may assume, it is actually very difficult to prove infringement of most patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you think about this, it explains pretty well why there is a furor about &quot;software&quot; patents in the press these days. The patents that are easiest to prove infringement for happen to be patents that cover readily-observable aspects of software, such as those covering GUI elements (Apple's slide-to-unlock, over-scroll bounce-back) and high-level software behavior (Amazon's one-click), *because they are easy to prove infringement of*, and consequently, those are the patents that are asserted in patent disputes. There are undoubtedly much lower-level, technically in-depth patents that *are* being infringed, but which would be difficult to try in court in front of a lay jury, and hence are not asserted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about it: would you rather try to prove infringement to a lay jury of Apple's over-scroll bounce-back patent [2] -- something you can demonstrate to them by simply *using* the allegedly infringing device in front of them -- or Samsung's patent about the length fields in packets [3], which could only be explained by providing an abstract technical explanation of wireless communication protocols, packets, networking and message fragmenting? Considering this, the outcome of the Apple v. Samsung dispute is hardly a surprise. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So of course, the patents that show up in tech media are the ones that are asserted, and it is no wonder that the patents being asserted are mostly high-level patents that can be easily shown to be infringing, which people decry as &quot;obvious&quot;. Well, *of course* they are &quot;obvious&quot; (though *not* in the patent law sense), simply because they are easily *observable* and hence easy to show infringement for. However, that does not necessarily mean they are &quot;obvious&quot; in the *patent-law sense*, which has a very specific meaning that has nothing to do with how apparent it is or how apparently easy it is to implement. Similarly, these patents may also be &quot;trivial&quot; to implement, but triviality is (rightfully) not a requirement for patents: the RSA patent is pretty trivial to implement [4], but, by all accounts, was not obvious at the time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation&#xD;&#xA;2. http://www.google.com/patents/US7469381&#xD;&#xA;3. http://www.google.com/patents/US7675941&#xD;&#xA;4. 4-line Python RSA program, http://www.cypherspace.org/rsa/python.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3370" RevisionGUID="7ac1737f-eef1-4518-beaa-eb1c74765cfe" CreationDate="2013-04-23T05:45:21.093" UserId="1767" Comment="Clarified actors." Text="Assume an inventor A has no patent, just published proof that he created the Invention.  Assume a second individual B copies the Invention and files for a US patent on the Invention.  Does A have any means of gaining financial compensation for his stolen design despite having no patent on the Invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3386" RevisionGUID="b1a3d5ca-4f03-44b3-9ced-65e6969d1d9a" CreationDate="2013-04-23T16:11:26.687" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 91 characters in body" Text="Does anybody have more information about the inventor for patent application US20120276518?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7925" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3386" RevisionGUID="b1a3d5ca-4f03-44b3-9ced-65e6969d1d9a" CreationDate="2013-04-23T16:11:26.687" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 91 characters in body" Text="Does anybody have more information about this inventor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3711" RevisionGUID="fa8a9b9b-098c-42f3-80b5-e6861784db0b" CreationDate="2013-04-23T20:17:17.583" UserId="1698" Text="Suppose you own a patent with claims that may be infringed through, at least in part, software. You think some company, call them Acme, infringes at least one of your patent claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US, you are required to perform a reasonable investigation into Acme's products and services to make the claim that Acme infringes your patent. Because source code MAY be necessary to prove one way or the other that Acme does or does not infringe, you will most likely not be completely sure of infringement, only reasonably sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During discovery, you will ask the federal judge to allow you, through your attorneys and experts, to review the source code, so the infringement case can be decided on the facts and not on supposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Acme will claim that its source code is a trade secret and will ask the judge to restrict both how the source code is produced (in a locked room with no recording devices or network access) and to whom the code is produced (basically, attorneys and experts only, who all agree to maintain the trade secret nature of the code under the supervisory authority of the court).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Acme will most likely provide the wrong (or incomplete) source code the first few times, until the judge issues sanctions against Acme for failure to produce responsive documents (the source code). Acme will be driving up the cost of the litigation for its own purposes. (Sad but true in many cases that I have seen). In rare situations, usually where Acme knows it does not infringe, Acme will provide just a relevant snip of the source code to prove non-infringement early on and tell you to go away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no reason to decompile the executables in the US, for failure to provide the source code as requested would be enough for the judge to grant summary judgement against Acme, or, more likely, tell the jury that they are to assume that the source code infringes as a sanction against Acme for their failure to produce. These are choices that Acme makes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The situation you suggest about tricking Acme out of their trade secrets is more likely to occur in trade secret litigation. Suppose a programmer moves from your company to Acme. You think the programmer took some trade secret source code to Acme, who is now using it in a new product. You sue Acme for theft of trade secrets and several other related causes of action, in either state or federal court based on the circumstances. You and Acme will quickly get into a fight over trade secrets. Acme will demand that you provide a detailed description of all trade secrets that Acme is accused of taking. You will demand that Acme provide the court with a detailed list and history of all of their trade secrets before you provide the detailed list of the trade secrets you claim have been taken. It can be a real chicken-and-the-egg problem in terms of fairness to both sides." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3712" RevisionGUID="5efdd8e8-7342-432f-b909-37808c86cff5" CreationDate="2013-04-23T20:37:51.357" UserId="1698" Text="Before the AIA became law, the inventors were presumed to own the rights to the patent. Now, after the AIA, the applicants are presumed to own the rights to the patent. Those presumption can be rebutted. An assignee is nothing more than a patent owner who has gained rights from the inventors.  In the US, the right to sue for infringement requires that the plaintiff hold substantially all of the rights to the patent. So an exclusive licensee can usually sue without involving the patent owner, but other types of licensees are required to include the patent owner in the lawsuit as plaintiffs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3713" RevisionGUID="052be9be-dbf0-456a-9b25-60b5d4118b4a" CreationDate="2013-04-23T22:45:33.010" UserId="3657" Text="us20120073952&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic idea here is to distill the cutting fluid in a low/free oxygen/nitrogen environment.  Settle, vaporize (safely), and condense.  This is possible with any homogeneous fluid.  I don't see here where there is anything novel.  Crack it (heat, pressure, or chemical), filter it, or distill it.  These are the &quot;common&quot; ways of separation.  Anything within this fails novelty.  What did the patent office see in this that is novel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7929" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3713" RevisionGUID="052be9be-dbf0-456a-9b25-60b5d4118b4a" CreationDate="2013-04-23T22:45:33.010" UserId="3657" Text="What about novelty requirement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7930" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3713" RevisionGUID="052be9be-dbf0-456a-9b25-60b5d4118b4a" CreationDate="2013-04-23T22:45:33.010" UserId="3657" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7931" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3713" RevisionGUID="9592dfcf-ff3b-45c2-863b-20befc553737" CreationDate="2013-04-23T23:19:31.450" UserId="3076" Comment="Add tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;us20120073952&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3714" RevisionGUID="af606bdd-18d5-4d38-838a-c8451388b14a" CreationDate="2013-04-23T23:34:31.300" UserId="1767" Text="You can read the file history of a US patent or published US Patent application on [Public Pair][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent examiner issued a notice of allowance (&quot;NOA&quot;) for this patent on 4/15/13 following an interview with the inventor(s) by telephone.  The text from the examiner's NOA is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The claimed invention is directed to providing a method for recycling cutting fluid, which can be processed with a high recycling rate of cutting fluid.  See page 2, lines 15-17, of the specification.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The claimed invention specifically provides a method for recycling cutting fluid comprises a step of &quot;separation,&quot; by preparing and oxidizing a cutting fluid of silicon including a silicon mixture and a cutting fluid at 150C to 350C in a container, to obtain a vaporized cutting fluid and a silicon slurry; and a step of &quot;recycling,&quot; by condensing the vaporized cutting fluid to obtain a recycled cutting fluid.  See page 3, lines 2-7 of the specification.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No such combination of methodprocess is disclosed or suggested in the cited references of record.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus, the subject matter of claims 1-5 is neither disclosed by the prior art nor is obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The claims are deemed allowable over the prior of record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not familiar with technology described in this patent.  So I can't speak to whether the invention as described is obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if the invention is in fact obvious then **this is a good example of why we need to submit prior art to the USPTO within six months after a patent application is published**.  Under the America Invents Act the patent examiner is allowed to consider any prior art we submit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[AskPatents.com][2] was designed to facilitate the submission of prior art to the patent office during the patent prosecution process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the patent is issued it is presumed valid and a re-examination is much more difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7933" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3713" RevisionGUID="944446f1-2901-4ff0-b65b-fadd7db511e0" CreationDate="2013-04-23T23:39:57.950" UserId="1767" Comment="added 78 characters in body; edited title" Text="&quot;Method for recycling cutting fluid&quot;. US20120073952&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic idea here is to distill the cutting fluid in a low/free oxygen/nitrogen environment.  Settle, vaporize (safely), and condense.  This is possible with any homogeneous fluid.  I don't see here where there is anything novel.  Crack it (heat, pressure, or chemical), filter it, or distill it.  These are the &quot;common&quot; ways of separation.  Anything within this would seem to fail the novelty criteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What did the patent office see in this application that is novel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7934" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3713" RevisionGUID="944446f1-2901-4ff0-b65b-fadd7db511e0" CreationDate="2013-04-23T23:39:57.950" UserId="1767" Comment="added 78 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why did the patent office allow US20120073952-Method for recycling cutting fluid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3714" RevisionGUID="457fd848-3229-489d-ae96-58ca2d74a0eb" CreationDate="2013-04-23T23:47:58.593" UserId="1767" Comment="added 262 characters in body" Text="You can read the file history of a US patent or published US Patent application on [Public Pair][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent examiner issued a notice of allowance (&quot;NOA&quot;) for this patent on 4/15/13 following an interview with the inventor(s) by telephone.  The text from the examiner's NOA is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The claimed invention is directed to providing a method for recycling cutting fluid, which can be processed with a high recycling rate of cutting fluid.  See page 2, lines 15-17, of the specification.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The claimed invention specifically provides a method for recycling cutting fluid comprises a step of &quot;separation,&quot; by preparing and oxidizing a cutting fluid of silicon including a silicon mixture and a cutting fluid at 150C to 350C in a container, to obtain a vaporized cutting fluid and a silicon slurry; and a step of &quot;recycling,&quot; by condensing the vaporized cutting fluid to obtain a recycled cutting fluid.  See page 3, lines 2-7 of the specification.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No such combination of methodprocess is disclosed or suggested in the cited references of record.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus, the subject matter of claims 1-5 is neither disclosed by the prior art nor is obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The claims are deemed allowable over the prior of record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicant disclosed as prior-art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Patents 5,693,596, 6,932,855, 5,795,400, 6,821,437 and no non-patent documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner cited as prior-art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Patents 5,795,400, 8,029,756, US patent application 2010/0061913 and no non-patent documents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not familiar with technology described in this patent.  So I can't speak to whether the invention as described is obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if the invention is in fact obvious then **this is a good example of why we need to submit prior art to the USPTO within six months after a patent application is published**.  Under the America Invents Act the patent examiner is allowed to consider any prior art we submit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[AskPatents.com][2] was designed to facilitate the submission of prior art to the patent office during the patent prosecution process.  Any interested party can post a [Request for Prior Art][3] (&quot;RFPA&quot;) on Ask Patents.  The interested party is encouraged to answer his own question with any prior art he can cite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once a patent is issued it is presumed valid and a re-examination is much more difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/a/146/1767" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3714" RevisionGUID="412809cf-c83e-4061-9317-d0700019f62e" CreationDate="2013-04-23T23:59:27.047" UserId="1767" Comment="added 262 characters in body" Text="You can read the file history of a US patent or published US Patent application on [Public Pair][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent examiner issued a notice of allowance (&quot;NOA&quot;) for this patent on 4/15/13 following an interview with the inventor(s) by telephone.  The text from the examiner's NOA is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The claimed invention is directed to providing a method for recycling cutting fluid, which can be processed with a high recycling rate of cutting fluid.  See page 2, lines 15-17, of the specification.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The claimed invention specifically provides a method for recycling cutting fluid comprises a step of &quot;separation,&quot; by preparing and oxidizing a cutting fluid of silicon including a silicon mixture and a cutting fluid at 150C to 350C in a container, to obtain a vaporized cutting fluid and a silicon slurry; and a step of &quot;recycling,&quot; by condensing the vaporized cutting fluid to obtain a recycled cutting fluid.  See page 3, lines 2-7 of the specification.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No such combination of methodprocess is disclosed or suggested in the cited references of record.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus, the subject matter of claims 1-5 is neither disclosed by the prior art nor is obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The claims are deemed allowable over the prior of record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicant disclosed as prior-art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Patents [5,693,596][4], [6,932,855][5], [5,795,400][6], [6,821,437][7] and no non-patent documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner cited as prior-art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Patents [5,795,400][6], [8,029,756][8], US patent application 2010/0061913 and no non-patent documents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not familiar with technology described in this patent.  So I can't speak to whether the invention as described is obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if the invention is in fact obvious then **this is a good example of why we need to submit prior art to the USPTO within six months after a patent application is published**.  Under the America Invents Act the patent examiner is allowed to consider any prior art we submit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[AskPatents.com][2] was designed to facilitate the submission of prior art to the patent office during the patent prosecution process.  Any interested party can post a [Request for Prior Art][3] (&quot;RFPA&quot;) on Ask Patents.  The interested party is encouraged to answer his own question with any prior art he can cite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once a patent is issued it is presumed valid and a re-examination is much more difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/a/146/1767&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5693596&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6932855&#xD;&#xA;[6]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5795400&#xD;&#xA;[7]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6821437&#xD;&#xA;[8]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8029756&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3715" RevisionGUID="a8c243bc-8b41-4777-be37-370718f49c15" CreationDate="2013-04-24T00:09:12.253" UserId="3076" Text="**edit: See other answer - It was posted while I was writing my answer. It is more complete.** I'm up voting it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The number you reference is an application publication number, not a patent number. That means, from only what you were looking at, nothing was granted. If you look the case up in the USPTO's public PAIR it got a notice of allowance in mid April 2013 - today that is last week. The only rejections it looks like it got were of wording, not substance. The examiner cited three documents as the closest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5795400&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8029656&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2010/0061913&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3713" RevisionGUID="2ee25b15-fa8d-4f90-ad4c-dbb048ab21ae" CreationDate="2013-04-24T12:54:22.830" UserId="1259" Comment="linkie" Text="&quot;Method for recycling cutting fluid&quot;. [US20120073952][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic idea here is to distill the cutting fluid in a low/free oxygen/nitrogen environment.  Settle, vaporize (safely), and condense.  This is possible with any homogeneous fluid.  I don't see here where there is anything novel.  Crack it (heat, pressure, or chemical), filter it, or distill it.  These are the &quot;common&quot; ways of separation.  Anything within this would seem to fail the novelty criteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What did the patent office see in this application that is novel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120073952" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3716" RevisionGUID="3e4d508c-829d-4a2f-9659-e986ac92881d" CreationDate="2013-04-24T14:18:43.250" UserId="3662" Text="See this link to find other inventions from the same guy.&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?compact=false&amp;ST=advanced&amp;IN=Archie+Gillis&amp;locale=fr_EP&amp;DB=EPODOC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3717" RevisionGUID="77c8df98-2df3-418f-adc1-ab0c6e828ab5" CreationDate="2013-04-24T16:38:54.947" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3718" RevisionGUID="8d00423f-c349-42d4-a3ae-de0c6a3de9ca" CreationDate="2013-04-24T16:38:54.947" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3719" RevisionGUID="51e5db8e-d20c-4891-b2a2-49dbf7d75022" CreationDate="2013-04-24T16:48:26.080" UserId="3662" Text="According to the USPTO register the applicant failed to pay the issue fee. Therefore this patent will never be granted. But the applicant filed a bunch of other cases deriving from the same subject (one very recently). See my copy and paste from the register :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;09/070,666 filed on 04-30-1998 which is Abandoned claims the benefit of 08/910,593&#xD;&#xA;09/253,317 filed on 02-19-1999 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/910,593&#xD;&#xA;09/802,709 filed on 03-08-2001 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/910,593&#xD;&#xA;10/639,355 filed on 08-12-2003 which is Patented claims the benefit of 08/910,593&#xD;&#xA;10/639,914 filed on 08-12-2003 which is Abandoned claims the benefit of 08/910,593&#xD;&#xA;12/581,699 filed on 10-19-2009 which is Pending claims the benefit of 08/910,593&#xD;&#xA;13/800,869 filed on - which is Pending claims the benefit of 08/910,593&#xD;&#xA;13/801,000 filed on **03-13-2013** which is Pending claims the benefit of 08/910,593&#xD;&#xA;10/638,977 filed on 08-12-2003 which is Pending claims the benefit of 08/910,593  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7943" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3718" RevisionGUID="98bc4d63-4049-427c-91c6-0cb5549a11c3" CreationDate="2013-04-24T17:11:41.050" UserId="3662" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="Maintenance of patents is the payment of fees to maintain the right in force." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7944" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3718" RevisionGUID="98bc4d63-4049-427c-91c6-0cb5549a11c3" CreationDate="2013-04-24T17:11:41.050" Comment="Proposed by 3662 approved by 1767 edit id of 347" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3720" RevisionGUID="75644342-cbf8-4489-8d6b-98c4175d50b0" CreationDate="2013-04-24T22:01:54.423" UserId="3665" Text="There might be some information / photos on the chocolate printer built at Fotango (now defunct) in 2004 using lego bricks with various additional tubing / syringes. It was successfully demonstrated by James A. Duncan at O'Reilly Foo Camp in 2004.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It did manage to get slashdotted in '04, there may still be the original videos / photos / design around ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/04/09/10/1221251/3d-chocolate-printer-made-from-legos &#xD;&#xA;See http://ibiblio.org/pjones/blog/make-the-mookbagazine/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7946" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3493" RevisionGUID="eb8af899-c654-43aa-871a-7100a7555a08" CreationDate="2013-04-24T23:14:03.337" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;3d-printing&gt;&lt;stratasys&gt;&lt;us20120251688&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3721" RevisionGUID="810d5b36-c904-400c-9364-0c485256bf03" CreationDate="2013-04-25T00:04:56.067" UserId="3666" Text="What is the best method to request use of a patented technology for use in a specific project? Is it possible to develop a simple agreement for a specific project or is it necessay to enter into a general technology licensing/royalty agreement, provided the patent holder is willing. Also who do you contact? I'm interesting in using font recognition software in the development of a mobile and desktop application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7948" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3721" RevisionGUID="810d5b36-c904-400c-9364-0c485256bf03" CreationDate="2013-04-25T00:04:56.067" UserId="3666" Text="How to use patented technology" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7949" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3721" RevisionGUID="810d5b36-c904-400c-9364-0c485256bf03" CreationDate="2013-04-25T00:04:56.067" UserId="3666" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3722" RevisionGUID="b4868669-af90-49af-b91e-ec23984c9281" CreationDate="2013-04-25T00:25:13.940" UserId="3076" Text="If you are writing your own font recognition software and you plan to use a technique that you know is patented you could talk to the patent owner. The USPTO has a [recordation office][1] you can use to try to see if the patent has been assigned. Also on Google patents there is a link that takes you to the recordation database. If it is not in the assignment records you can contact the inventors. Looking up the patent in Public PAIR (lots of info in other answers) and looking at some the first filed paperwork (ADS, Declarations) should get you contact info. If PAIR shows an attorney or agent was involved they can probably get you in touch with the inventors or assignee. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent owner can refuse to license or can request/negotiate any deal they and you agree to. You might be able to get a field-of-use exclusive for your particular case. That would not only keep you kosher but make it harder for others who come along later to copy you - if the patent is that critical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However if you are getting the software commercially, the vendor of that software should warrant that it either does not infringe anything or that they have licensed all rights needed. Also they might indemnify you.&#xD;&#xA;Do you already know of a specific patent that might be at issue? Have you got qualified advice dissecting what the claims do and don't cover? Unless it is clear that you will be stepping on it, most people would just go for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3722" RevisionGUID="1bbe392e-513e-4a2a-9d9f-f87fa5a34896" CreationDate="2013-04-25T01:12:56.017" UserId="3076" Comment="formatting " Text="If you are writing your own font recognition software and you plan to use a technique that you know is patented you could talk to the patent owner. The USPTO has a [recordation office][1] you can use to try to see if the patent has been assigned. Also on Google patents there is a link that takes you to the recordation database. If it is not in the assignment records you can contact the inventors. Looking up the patent in Public PAIR (lots of info in other answers) and looking at some the first filed paperwork (ADS, Declarations) should get you contact info. If PAIR shows an attorney or agent was involved they can probably get you in touch with the inventors or assignee. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent owner can refuse to license or can request/negotiate any deal they and you agree to. You might be able to get a field-of-use exclusive for your particular case. That would not only keep you kosher but make it harder for others who come along later to copy you - if the patent is that critical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However if you are getting the software commercially, the vendor of that software should warrant that it either does not infringe anything or that they have licensed all rights needed. Also they might indemnify you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you already know of a specific patent that might be at issue? Have you got qualified advice dissecting what the claims do and don't cover? Unless it is clear that you will be stepping on something, most people would just go for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3722" RevisionGUID="02017e3a-b7a2-46e9-887b-7b9ddf5e5cb1" CreationDate="2013-04-25T02:31:12.800" UserId="3076" Comment="Comment re on or off topic" Text="Edit: I am considering this on-topic by virtue of it asking, broadly, about the U.S. patent system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are writing your own font recognition software and you plan to use a technique that you know is patented you could talk to the patent owner. The USPTO has a [recordation office][1] you can use to try to see if the patent has been assigned. Also on Google patents there is a link that takes you to the recordation database. If it is not in the assignment records you can contact the inventors. Looking up the patent in Public PAIR (lots of info in other answers) and looking at some the first filed paperwork (ADS, Declarations) should get you contact info. If PAIR shows an attorney or agent was involved they can probably get you in touch with the inventors or assignee. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent owner can refuse to license or can request/negotiate any deal they and you agree to. You might be able to get a field-of-use exclusive for your particular case. That would not only keep you kosher but make it harder for others who come along later to copy you - if the patent is that critical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However if you are getting the software commercially, the vendor of that software should warrant that it either does not infringe anything or that they have licensed all rights needed. Also they might indemnify you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you already know of a specific patent that might be at issue? Have you got qualified advice dissecting what the claims do and don't cover? Unless it is clear that you will be stepping on something, most people would just go for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7953" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3721" RevisionGUID="7cb3c96a-cebe-4324-9cd1-07794f77ed57" CreationDate="2013-04-25T12:21:38.223" UserId="1259" Comment="tag, reworded question so it fits within topic" Text="How to request use of a patented technology?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7954" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3721" RevisionGUID="7cb3c96a-cebe-4324-9cd1-07794f77ed57" CreationDate="2013-04-25T12:21:38.223" UserId="1259" Comment="tag, reworded question so it fits within topic" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3723" RevisionGUID="c9cc9ff8-7baa-4bb0-9313-d49a4fffce85" CreationDate="2013-04-25T16:23:44.180" UserId="3669" Text="RE:  US 20060112899 A1 - I'm developing a similar product, not specifically for pet care use.  Would this be viewed as a totally separate and legally patentable product, since it would be more all-purpose?  Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7956" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3723" RevisionGUID="c9cc9ff8-7baa-4bb0-9313-d49a4fffce85" CreationDate="2013-04-25T16:23:44.180" UserId="3669" Text="Would a vinegar wipe for non-pet use be an infringement on this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7957" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3723" RevisionGUID="c9cc9ff8-7baa-4bb0-9313-d49a4fffce85" CreationDate="2013-04-25T16:23:44.180" UserId="3669" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;usa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3722" RevisionGUID="147d099e-a121-4dd5-a3ab-aa457f056c74" CreationDate="2013-04-25T16:35:59.210" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 103 characters in body" Text="If you are writing your own font recognition software and you plan to use a technique that you know is patented you could talk to the patent owner. The USPTO has a [recordation office][1] you can use to try to see if the patent has been assigned. Also on Google patents there is a link that takes you to the recordation database. If it is not in the assignment records you can contact the inventors. Looking up the patent in Public PAIR (lots of info in other answers) and looking at some the first filed paperwork (ADS, Declarations) should get you contact info. If PAIR shows an attorney or agent was involved they can probably get you in touch with the inventors or assignee. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent owner can refuse to license or can request/negotiate any deal they and you agree to. You might be able to get a field-of-use exclusive for your particular case. That would not only keep you kosher but make it harder for others who come along later to copy you - if the patent is that critical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However if you are getting the software commercially, the vendor of that software should warrant that it either does not infringe anything or that they have licensed all rights needed. Also they might indemnify you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you already know of a specific patent that might be at issue? Have you got qualified advice dissecting what the claims do and don't cover? Unless it is clear that you will be stepping on something, most people would just go for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7959" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3723" RevisionGUID="e1d2c404-e60f-4159-ad70-374dab269682" CreationDate="2013-04-25T18:54:16.437" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;us20060112899&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3724" RevisionGUID="44a476e3-c82c-4764-ba52-5b257724f0c1" CreationDate="2013-04-25T19:10:54.127" UserId="3076" Text="The patent document you referenced is **not a patent**. It is a publication of an application for a patent. If you look it up in the USPTO public PAIR database you will see that after its initial rejection (almost all applications get an initial rejection) the applicant made no response in the required 6 month period. Therefore the application went abandoned. The examiner cited US 5639532 against it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally (but imprecisely), a patent might cover a thing, a method of making the thing or a method of using the thing. If someone patented a type of wipe (a thing) a different use for the wipe still requires a patented wipe. The new use might be separately patentable but to carry out the new use one would have to get a patented wipe. Addressing another aspect of your question - what makes it have a wider use? If it just that you explain how to use it more broadly, you have not invented a new thing. If making it more broadly useful means making it structurally different, then is the structural difference that might make your design patentable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3724" RevisionGUID="dcd2ab36-8a87-47d9-9f58-f11a47763232" CreationDate="2013-04-25T19:21:54.043" UserId="3076" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="The patent document you referenced is **not a patent**. It is a publication of an application for a patent. If you look it up in the USPTO public PAIR database you will see that after its initial rejection (almost all applications get an initial rejection) the applicant made no response in the required 6 month period. Therefore the application went abandoned. The examiner cited US 5639532 against it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally (but imprecisely), a patent might cover a thing, a method of making the thing or a method of using the thing. If someone patented a type of wipe (a thing) a different use for the wipe still requires a patented wipe. The new use might be separately patentable but to carry out the new use one would have to get a patented wipe. Addressing another aspect of your question - what makes it have a wider use? If it just that you explain how to use it more broadly, you have not invented a new thing. If making it more broadly useful means making it structurally different, then it is the structural difference that might make your design patentable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3723" RevisionGUID="cdde5948-f4ea-4e4f-b2f8-ce969c394733" CreationDate="2013-04-25T20:36:15.240" UserId="1259" Comment="tags linkie" Text="RE:  [US 20060112899 A1][1] - I'm developing a similar product, not specifically for pet care use.  Would this be viewed as a totally separate and legally patentable product, since it would be more all-purpose?  Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20060112899" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7963" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3723" RevisionGUID="cdde5948-f4ea-4e4f-b2f8-ce969c394733" CreationDate="2013-04-25T20:36:15.240" UserId="1259" Comment="tags linkie" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;us20060112899&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3726" RevisionGUID="48f13f45-1fef-4ead-851f-ac1358206360" CreationDate="2013-04-26T11:07:59.657" UserId="3680" Text="There is a growing concern in the open-source 3-D printing community that broad patent claims on materials for 3-D printing may hamper the open-source 3-D printing community's ability to innovate. Thingiverse published a relatively simple algorithm as a defensive publication of prior art to help identify obvious materials for 3-D printing here: http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:73427 (I'll paste it below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears to me to more or less cover every conceivable 3-D printing (additive manufacturing) material. Is this an effective defensive publication of prior art by the obvious clause? Are all 3-D printing material patents ideas that can be generated by the algorithm void after April 13, 2013 when it was published? What about the ones that came before?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to use the algorithm:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Variables and definitions:&#xD;&#xA;@ = “All of the preceding materials and”&#xD;&#xA;&amp; = “All combinations of all possible mol fractions of the above” (e.g. [1] chemicals a+b, a+c, a+b+c, etc. until all combinations have been reached over the set up to N+M and [2] all fractions so that compound [a&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;][b&lt;sub&gt;1-x&lt;/sub&gt;] would be stepped through from x=0 to 1 under all percentages)&#xD;&#xA;N = the total number of natural chemicals and compounds including the entire set of elements in the periodic table&#xD;&#xA;M = the total number of man-made chemicals. This includes, but is not limited to, the entire CAS REGISTRY (https://www.cas.org/content/chemical-substances), which is the most authoritative collection of disclosed chemical substance information, containing more than 71 million organic and inorganic substances and 64 million sequences.&#xD;&#xA;Functional agent = any chemical species that provides some form of beneficial property of the 3-D printing material. For example this includes (but is not limited to) species to improve rheological properties, melting temperature, setting time, hydrodynamics (e.g. hydrophobicity, hydrophillicity, etc.) electromagnetic properties (e.g. phosphorescence, color, light transmission, reflection and refraction etc.), chemical properties (e.g. reactivity, smell, catalytic activity, etc.), mechanical properties (e.g. strength, flexibility, stiffness, fracture toughness, etc.), thermal properties (e.g. thermal conductivity, thermoluminescence, etc.), magnetic properties, and electrical properties, etc. (For other material properties see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_materials_properties )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Copy and pasted from Thingiverse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Materials capable of being used as 3-D printed feedstock include:&#xD;&#xA;1. Known natural chemicals and compounds including all organic and inorganic substances&#xD;&#xA;       2. @ &amp; from 1 to N&#xD;&#xA;       3. @ known man-made chemicals, compounds, and metamaterials including all organic and inorganic substances&#xD;&#xA;       4. @ &amp; from 1 to M&#xD;&#xA;       5. @ &amp; from 1 to NM&#xD;&#xA;       6. @ &amp; where 1 to NM acts as a functional agent&#xD;&#xA;       7. @ &amp; where any natural or manmade material is controlled for size from 1 Angstrom to 1 m in dimension (e.g. to account for any&#xD;&#xA;    size    related physical or chemical property change as is well&#xD;&#xA;    established    at the nanoscale)&#xD;&#xA;       8. @ &amp; any arrangement of the combinations (e.g. superlattices, metamaterials, core in shell quantum dots, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;       9. @ &amp; where a nanoscale collection of atoms (e.g. nanocrystal, quantum dot, nanotube, nanocolum, etc.) is used as a functional&#xD;&#xA;    agent    or filler&#xD;&#xA;       10. @ &amp; where the shape of the collection of atoms is altered to adjust properties (thus all geometric shapes, and all known complex &#xD;&#xA;    shapes capable of being generated by a mathematical algorithm (e.g. &#xD;&#xA;    fractals))&#xD;&#xA;       11. @ &amp; where the surfaces (both internal voids or external surfaces) are adjusted (e.g. roughening) to adjust properties.&#xD;&#xA;       12. @ &amp; at any temperature from 0 K to infinity (or any sequence or combination of temperature)&#xD;&#xA;       13. @ &amp; at any pressure from 0 bar to infinity (or any sequence or combination of pressure)&#xD;&#xA;       14. @ &amp; printed in any environmental medium [NM] (meaning that some 3-D printing materials may need to be used under vacuum, under&#xD;&#xA;    water,    etc.)&#xD;&#xA;       15. @ &amp; printed with the assistance of electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength.&#xD;&#xA;       16. @ &amp; printed with the assistance of any solvent from N or M or combination of the above.&#xD;&#xA;       17. @ &amp; for any physical orientation of the chemical species.&#xD;&#xA;       18. @ &amp; for any N or M or combination that acts as a catalyst during the printing process.&#xD;&#xA;       19. @ &amp; for any field catalyzed reaction (e.g. magnetic).&#xD;&#xA;       20. @ any order of the above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7969" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3726" RevisionGUID="48f13f45-1fef-4ead-851f-ac1358206360" CreationDate="2013-04-26T11:07:59.657" UserId="3680" Text="Can 3-D Printing Materials be Patented After an Algorithm for Making Them is Published?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7970" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3726" RevisionGUID="48f13f45-1fef-4ead-851f-ac1358206360" CreationDate="2013-04-26T11:07:59.657" UserId="3680" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;3d-printing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3727" RevisionGUID="62c22e51-ad6e-4896-b690-a339782e6b6b" CreationDate="2013-04-26T12:18:42.757" UserId="2072" Text="In my opinion, it is unlikely that this design patent would be invalid in view of the artifact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Design patent claims are construed very narrowly for purposes of infringement and novelty analysis.  A number of patented designs are inspired by old or ancient artwork." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3728" RevisionGUID="7adc5a9c-a202-4842-bb2c-be0b4e64aa02" CreationDate="2013-04-26T14:31:36.090" UserId="3076" Text="No. This is a universal &quot;shotgun&quot; method of determining if any of an unlimited number of materials are suitable when used in any of an unlimited number of ways. It does not anticipate any particular class of material, teach a way of using that material or make it obvious that any particular material will or won't work. Can I anticipate all cancer cures by an analogous method? How about all future inventions? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7973" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3728" RevisionGUID="531defa9-323a-4f05-9073-168a65434c9f" CreationDate="2013-04-26T14:53:58.717" UserId="3076" Comment="added 161 characters in body" Text="No. This is a universal &quot;shotgun&quot; method of determining if any of an unlimited number of materials are suitable when used in any of an unlimited number of ways. It does not anticipate any particular class of material, teach a way of using that material or make it obvious that any particular material will or won't work. Can I anticipate all cancer cures by an analogous method? How about all future inventions?  Patents get rejected because &quot;it has already been done&quot; or it is obvious in light of some prior teaching. This doesn't teach that anything in particular works. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3728" RevisionGUID="71fb4080-8091-472e-987b-54413bf3b87d" CreationDate="2013-04-26T16:08:30.123" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1400 characters in body" Text="Yes they can still be patented. This is a universal &quot;shotgun&quot; method of determining if any of an unlimited number of materials are suitable when used in any of an unlimited number of ways. It does not anticipate any particular class of material, teach a way of using that material or make it obvious that any particular material will or won't work. Can I anticipate all cancer cures by an analogous method? How about all future inventions?  Patents get rejected because &quot;it has already been done&quot; or it is obvious in light of some prior teaching. This doesn't teach that anything in particular works. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One, very simplified, way to look at the social contract of the patent system's ideals is that when an inventor teaches us something practical that the world did not already know we give the inventor a time-limited exclusive over that teaching. The statement you have above doesn't teach us anything. When someone later discovers a particular mix of materials in just the right proportions used just the right way makes a low cost, strong compound with optimal properties in some domain, they have added to the world's knowledge. The statement that an infinite number of things might work doesn't anticipate that invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding reducing the number of combinations, there are many cases in material science where a small change in proportions or the process of combining elements results in an &quot;unexpected result&quot;. If you say try everything in every proportion of three elements and maybe something useful will come out of it, that doesn't anticipate the particular formula that produces the unexpected result. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand if a particular material is known and one of the elements is from a small family of elements with a particular property known to be at work, someone coming up with a alternate material by substituting the element from a small number of &quot;obvious to try&quot; related elements, might be deemed un-patentable by reason of obviousness." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3728" RevisionGUID="0f1d003e-3aa2-4fe3-883d-5d4019e6f8d0" CreationDate="2013-04-26T16:26:12.823" UserId="3076" Comment="Monkey example" Text="Yes they can still be patented. This is a universal &quot;shotgun&quot; method of determining if any of an unlimited number of materials are suitable when used in any of an unlimited number of ways. It does not anticipate any particular class of material, teach a way of using that material or make it obvious that any particular material will or won't work. Can I anticipate all cancer cures by an analogous method? How about all future inventions?  Patents get rejected because &quot;it has already been done&quot; or it is obvious in light of some prior teaching. This doesn't teach that anything in particular works. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One, very simplified, way to look at the social contract of the patent system's ideals is that when an inventor teaches us something practical that the world did not already know we give the inventor a time-limited exclusive over that teaching. The statement you have above doesn't teach us anything. When someone later discovers a particular mix of materials in just the right proportions used just the right way makes a low cost, strong compound with optimal properties in some domain, they have added to the world's knowledge. The statement that an infinite number of things might work doesn't anticipate that invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding reducing the number of combinations, there are many cases in material science where a small change in proportions or the process of combining elements results in an &quot;unexpected result&quot;. If you say try everything in every proportion of three elements and maybe something useful will come out of it, that doesn't anticipate the particular formula that produces the unexpected result. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand if a particular material is known and one of the elements is from a small family of elements with a particular property known to be at work, someone coming up with a alternate material by substituting the element from a small number of &quot;obvious to try&quot; related elements, might be deemed un-patentable by reason of obviousness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A billion monkeys can type for a billion years on a billion keyboards. Just saying if we that did that we will generate some novel patent applications doesn't anticipate any patent aplication." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3730" RevisionGUID="4e5a915f-1f74-4cb6-9308-02f8f2a8df4f" CreationDate="2013-04-26T17:32:25.710" UserId="3683" Text="How's this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/EP1123036A4?cl=en&amp;dq=eyeglasses+face+model+try-on+3d+representation+selected+pair&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=y7h6UazLBabq0AGxmYDoBA&amp;ved=0CB8Q6AEwAQ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ABSTRACT  &#xD;&#xA;An interactive eyewear selection system comprising a video camera (18), and digitizing system (24) for acquiring a digital image of a person's face, including the temple areas of the face; an eyeglass frame database (16) for storing digital eyeglass frame images; an automated interface for selecting an eyeglass frame image from the frames database, the image containing frame temple portions; a digital processing system (38) for automatically superimposing the selected frame image on the image of the person's face, in a composite image, such that the frame appears to be worn naturally on the person's face, and the frame temple portions are shown at the temple areas of the face; and a display device (26) for displaying the digital image of the person's face, and for displaying the composite image." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3732" RevisionGUID="b7746fc8-5166-485f-8642-16eba156a262" CreationDate="2013-04-26T21:52:55.497" UserId="391" Text="Paper dolls were the original representation of a human + fashion item. Some of them were 3D as well. http://www.opdag.com/History.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the opdag.com site has copyright dates that precede the critical date of the patent in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason to combine 3D models such as those from The Sims (published Feb. 2000) with paper dolls would be obvious to anyone in the fashion industry." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3734" RevisionGUID="24f5d3a4-8eb9-4bd9-afae-26d969b71e79" CreationDate="2013-04-27T03:34:27.323" UserId="3686" Text="US patent application 13/501,392, filed on Oct 12, 2010 and [published](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=20120246195.PGNR.) on Sep 27, 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that the main claim is simply to be able to refer to a latitude/longitude point through a unique identifier, which in turn is persisted in a database of entities for later fetching via “computing devices”. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that this covers any technology which stores locations with a primary key in a database. This is incredibly common and would likely apply to many products like Google Places, Yelp, or Foursquare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It really boggles my mind that somebody would file a patent for this (as I can think of so many existing products that operate in this manner) and was hoping to see what you guys thought in terms of potential prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7991" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3734" RevisionGUID="24f5d3a4-8eb9-4bd9-afae-26d969b71e79" CreationDate="2013-04-27T03:34:27.323" UserId="3686" Text="Prior Art for a Database of Geographic Locations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7992" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3734" RevisionGUID="24f5d3a4-8eb9-4bd9-afae-26d969b71e79" CreationDate="2013-04-27T03:34:27.323" UserId="3686" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7994" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3734" RevisionGUID="eb7cce4a-6ee3-4700-b65c-2e9a6209c726" CreationDate="2013-04-27T06:44:43.277" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20120246195&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3735" RevisionGUID="2d059b07-ca80-4c1a-a25e-09b7b29fc69d" CreationDate="2013-04-27T06:59:52.153" UserId="3076" Text="It has received a non-final rejection in Feb. 2013. The primary reference cited against it is [WO 2007/050884, Anderson.][1] This reference was originally brought to the examiner's attention by the applicant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2007050884&amp;recNum=1&amp;docAn=US2006041994&amp;queryString=ALLNUM:%28WO/%202007/050884%29&amp;maxRec=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3735" RevisionGUID="08b2860d-362e-4372-8d2a-ce72f1f08a23" CreationDate="2013-04-27T07:17:32.103" UserId="3076" Comment="added 154 characters in body" Text="It has received a non-final rejection in Feb. 2013. The primary reference cited against it is [WO 2007/050884, Anderson.][1] This reference was originally brought to the examiner's attention by the applicant. That application is a PCT application and its claims were seen as anticipated by [US 6523116, Berman.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2007050884&amp;recNum=1&amp;docAn=US2006041994&amp;queryString=ALLNUM:%28WO/%202007/050884%29&amp;maxRec=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6523116" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3736" RevisionGUID="601dfd61-9d88-4f32-a389-3d12edc87183" CreationDate="2013-04-27T19:23:31.553" UserId="1335" Text="For non-patent prior art, a company called whereonearth [1] did *exactly* around 2003 or so. They had a database with globally unique WOEIDs (&quot;Where On Earth ID&quot;s) [2] assigned to geographic locations and points of interests, and you could look up a location/POI using a WOEID, or get a list of WOEIDs for a given location. What they did completely anticipates not only the (tentative) independent claim, but pretty much all the dependent claims as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know when it was established, but it was bought out by Yahoo! in 2005. If &quot;WOEID&quot;s sound familiar, it's because Yahoo!'s geo API uses WOEIDs to uniquely identify locations points of interests [3]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whereonearth&#xD;&#xA;2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WOEID&#xD;&#xA;3. http://developer.yahoo.com/geo/geoplanet/guide/concepts.html#woeids" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3739" RevisionGUID="e9c69863-2a03-4728-9658-d5a034154d2f" CreationDate="2013-04-29T16:21:37.857" UserId="3699" Text="I found this patent &lt;http://www.google.com/patents/EP2155766A1?cl=en&gt; while looking at Ru mediators. I also found the paper below;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;http://lbms03.cityu.edu.hk/theses/abt/mphil-bch-b22687452a.pdf&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The paper above was published 3 months before the filing date, does this invalidate the patent? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8011" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3739" RevisionGUID="e9c69863-2a03-4728-9658-d5a034154d2f" CreationDate="2013-04-29T16:21:37.857" UserId="3699" Text="how does this paper published in April 2008 3 months before the filing date affect the claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8012" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3739" RevisionGUID="e9c69863-2a03-4728-9658-d5a034154d2f" CreationDate="2013-04-29T16:21:37.857" UserId="3699" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3740" RevisionGUID="f0fc9333-3a5f-4980-911a-b24d340ab24d" CreationDate="2013-04-29T16:48:32.300" UserId="3076" Text="The patent document you cite is an application, not a granted European patent. The U.S. counterpart is 2011/0262950. It received a non final rejection that was responded to in April 2013. I do not see the paper you cite listed by the applicant or the examiner but there is a paper by Chen et al in 1985 in Inorganic Chemistry used to reject many of the claims. I found this information in the publicly available database - USPTO Public PAIR. I do not know enough chemistry to comment on the substance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8014" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3739" RevisionGUID="1d9cf1bd-389f-49dd-8834-6c0e925c3d8a" CreationDate="2013-04-29T17:01:33.257" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;ep2155766a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3740" RevisionGUID="1c775e68-ab2b-494f-8485-5586f8eb2ecc" CreationDate="2013-04-29T17:21:24.357" UserId="1767" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="The patent document you cite is an application, not a granted European patent. The U.S. counterpart is [2011/0262950][1]. It received a non final rejection that was responded to in April 2013. I do not see the paper you cite listed by the applicant or the examiner but there is a paper by Chen et al in 1985 in Inorganic Chemistry used to reject many of the claims. I found this information in the publicly available database - [USPTO Public PAIR][2]. I do not know enough chemistry to comment on the substance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110262950&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3741" RevisionGUID="6d38d5d3-ff4e-4e7f-a191-6770e179531c" CreationDate="2013-04-30T19:33:22.107" UserId="3705" Text="How many patents does Oracle Corporation has (including all daughter companies, like Sun Microsystems etc)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And is there any recent patenting policy, I was only able to find 1994th patent policy statement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8021" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3741" RevisionGUID="6d38d5d3-ff4e-4e7f-a191-6770e179531c" CreationDate="2013-04-30T19:33:22.107" UserId="3705" Text="How many patents does Oracle Corporation own (including all aquired companies)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8022" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3741" RevisionGUID="6d38d5d3-ff4e-4e7f-a191-6770e179531c" CreationDate="2013-04-30T19:33:22.107" UserId="3705" Text="&lt;patent-search&gt;&lt;oracle&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3742" RevisionGUID="20dee4c8-45d9-4747-a603-16329c0a85d3" CreationDate="2013-04-30T22:05:24.583" UserId="3076" Text="How complete a list are you looking for? It isn't too hard to search patent databases by assignee. It is also not too hard to get the names of major subsidiaries. However the assgnee in the database is the orignial assignee only. A patent may have been bought and sold ten times but on its face still has the **original assignee** as of the day the issue fee was paid. It is very hard to track down patents that a company may have bought from others or have may that they have an exclusive license. Worse, not every assignment is recorded with the patent office and often even major manufacturers have off-shore patent holding companies with names that do not help identify the real owner without a lot of leg work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8025" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3741" RevisionGUID="c3f3d173-dcc6-45dd-a2d6-e70a2378175d" CreationDate="2013-04-30T23:28:56.183" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="How many patents does Oracle Corporation own (including all acquired companies)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3744" RevisionGUID="582a8dd9-3575-469e-957c-cb439c3cca68" CreationDate="2013-04-30T23:40:59.527" UserId="1767" Text="##Issued US Patents Assigned to Oracle (and top 14 subsidiaries):##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;           Assignee                   Estimated Issued US Patents&#xD;&#xA;    1.     Sun Microsystems                                 7,467&#xD;&#xA;    2.     Oracle                                           4,207&#xD;&#xA;    3.     Storage Technologies Corp                          740&#xD;&#xA;    4.     BEA Systems                                        433&#xD;&#xA;    5.     Siebel Systems                                     258&#xD;&#xA;    6.     Hyperion Solutions                                  28&#xD;&#xA;    7.     Pillar Data Systems                                 24&#xD;&#xA;    8.     Art Technology Group                                18&#xD;&#xA;    9.     Endeca Technologies                                 14&#xD;&#xA;    10.    Agile Software Corp                                 12&#xD;&#xA;    11.    Peoplesoft                                          11&#xD;&#xA;    12.    Imation Corp                                        11&#xD;&#xA;    13.    RightNow Tech                                       10&#xD;&#xA;    14.    Storage Technology Corp                             10&#xD;&#xA;    15.    SealedMedia                                          7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Limiting to Publication date from 1994-2013" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3744" RevisionGUID="fac0c989-ecf0-4688-bcb1-5c637c0c3f89" CreationDate="2013-04-30T23:48:49.450" UserId="1767" Comment="added 217 characters in body" Text="##Issued US Patents Assigned to Oracle (and top 14 subsidiaries):##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;           Assignee                   Estimated Issued US Patents&#xD;&#xA;    1.     Sun Microsystems                                 7,467&#xD;&#xA;    2.     Oracle                                           4,207&#xD;&#xA;    3.     Storage Technologies Corp                          740&#xD;&#xA;    4.     BEA Systems                                        433&#xD;&#xA;    5.     Siebel Systems                                     258&#xD;&#xA;    6.     Hyperion Solutions                                  28&#xD;&#xA;    7.     Pillar Data Systems                                 24&#xD;&#xA;    8.     Art Technology Group                                18&#xD;&#xA;    9.     Endeca Technologies                                 14&#xD;&#xA;    10.    Agile Software Corp                                 12&#xD;&#xA;    11.    Peoplesoft                                          11&#xD;&#xA;    12.    Imation Corp                                        11&#xD;&#xA;    13.    RightNow Tech                                       10&#xD;&#xA;    14.    Storage Technology Corp                             10&#xD;&#xA;    15.    SealedMedia                                          7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Limiting to Publication date from 1994-2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As George White suggests in another answer, this list excludes: patents licensed to Oracle, patents held in holding companies controlled by Oracle but not obviously affiliated with Oracle and patents purchased by Oracle where assignment was not registered with the USPTO." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3745" RevisionGUID="08b6a194-edd7-481a-8970-c9e1e94ef105" CreationDate="2013-05-01T02:36:49.457" UserId="3710" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to find information for a report analyzing the Ford Vs. Selden case at the turn of the 20th century. I can find a lot of brief case summaries, but I cannot find anything that specifies what exact claims Selden believed Ford violated in his patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the patent for your information:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US549160?p…" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8034" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3745" RevisionGUID="08b6a194-edd7-481a-8970-c9e1e94ef105" CreationDate="2013-05-01T02:36:49.457" UserId="3710" Text="Which patent claims did George Selden believe Henry Ford violated?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8035" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3745" RevisionGUID="08b6a194-edd7-481a-8970-c9e1e94ef105" CreationDate="2013-05-01T02:36:49.457" UserId="3710" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;inventor-declaration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3735" RevisionGUID="47d5eee6-c5c0-4509-833d-ec2021c5e6ac" CreationDate="2013-05-01T03:36:23.337" UserId="3076" Comment="Expanded to cover question in a comment added links" Text="It has received a non-final rejection in Feb. 2013. The primary reference cited against it is [WO 2007/050884, Anderson.][1] This reference was originally brought to the examiner's attention by the applicant. That application is a PCT application and its claims were seen as anticipated by [US 6523116, Berman.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;General info on following a case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To follow a U.S. case go to [USPTO Public PAIR][3]. After getting past the Capcha enter either the application number (13/501392 in this case) or publication number 20120246195. Set the radio button to tell it what kind of number you entered. Mind the format examples. For applications filed in the last 10 years or so you will see a tab labeled Image File Wrapper. It has all of the back and forth between applicant and examiner. In this application's case the window for third party published document submission is past. It is the later of 6 months from publication - it looks we are a month past that date - or the mailing of the first office action on the merits. That has already happened also.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To follow PCT applications (they start with WO) go to the WIPO [PatentScope][4] database and enter the publication number. It can also be fussy about format. One of the tabs there is &quot;Documents&quot;. It is like the image file wrapper but some things are only provided to the public a month or two after they are sent to the applicant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2007050884&amp;recNum=1&amp;docAn=US2006041994&amp;queryString=ALLNUM:%28WO/%202007/050884%29&amp;maxRec=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6523116&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3745" RevisionGUID="98630be5-f9b6-4cfd-b1b1-a88d17b7657a" CreationDate="2013-05-01T12:29:37.353" UserId="1259" Comment="linkie tag" Text="I'm trying to find information for a report analyzing the Ford Vs. Selden case at the turn of the 20th century. I can find a lot of brief case summaries, but I cannot find anything that specifies what exact claims Selden believed Ford violated in his patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the patent for your information: [US549160][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US549160" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8038" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3745" RevisionGUID="98630be5-f9b6-4cfd-b1b1-a88d17b7657a" CreationDate="2013-05-01T12:29:37.353" UserId="1259" Comment="linkie tag" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;inventor-declaration&gt;&lt;us549160&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3741" RevisionGUID="1ea03ce3-3d6d-4dcb-89fe-040986650638" CreationDate="2013-05-01T12:33:04.490" UserId="1259" Comment="typos, grammer" Text="How many patents does Oracle Corporation own (including all subsidiaries, like Sun Microsystems etc)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And is there any recent patenting policy, I was only able to find 1994th patent policy statement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3746" RevisionGUID="d4b176a1-4505-406c-9a17-c9b32986da06" CreationDate="2013-05-01T15:52:43.933" UserId="3712" Text="British Telecom recently announced that they intend to assert patents they hold covering the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) needed to connected a SIP-based system (like Asterisk) to the PSTN (traditional phone) system. They have launched a [licensing program][1] and campaign, trying mainly to scare small companies into paying up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The asserted patents are listed in the link. What prior art can be found to invalidate these?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.btplc.com/Innovation/Licensing/Patentlicensingprogrammes/SIPTrunking/index.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8041" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3746" RevisionGUID="d4b176a1-4505-406c-9a17-c9b32986da06" CreationDate="2013-05-01T15:52:43.933" UserId="3712" Text="Prior Art on the patents asserted against SIP by BT" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8042" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3746" RevisionGUID="d4b176a1-4505-406c-9a17-c9b32986da06" CreationDate="2013-05-01T15:52:43.933" UserId="3712" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3747" RevisionGUID="8abdbd52-bcec-4455-943e-246734980121" CreationDate="2013-05-01T20:04:12.363" UserId="3076" Text="The link has a handful of patents listed. The boilerplate agreement linked from that page has an exhibit C with **99 patents** listed. Just to hire a search firm to study all of those and try to find published documents that anticipate or tend to show obviousness for them  would cost way more than the $50k BT wants for a fully paid up license. Maybe most of them are irrevevant &quot;upon inspection&quot; and the task can be narrowed. Ask Pantents might be a good forum for experts in the VoIP world to come together to divide and possibly win." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8044" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3746" RevisionGUID="ce2835e5-22d6-4305-9279-f591669a8e81" CreationDate="2013-05-01T20:33:20.063" UserId="3076" Comment="Added two tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us6266535&gt;&lt;us6052372&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3746" RevisionGUID="ce2835e5-22d6-4305-9279-f591669a8e81" CreationDate="2013-05-01T20:33:20.063" UserId="3076" Comment="Added two tags" Text="British Telecom recently announced that they intend to assert patents they hold covering the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) needed to connected a SIP-based system (like Asterisk) to the PSTN (traditional phone) system. They have launched a [licensing program][1] and campaign, trying mainly to scare small companies into paying up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the patents are listed in the link. What prior art can be found to invalidate these?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.btplc.com/Innovation/Licensing/Patentlicensingprogrammes/SIPTrunking/index.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3747" RevisionGUID="5a300559-eacd-4937-97b8-bb0e58753dd6" CreationDate="2013-05-02T13:03:48.780" UserId="1259" Comment="typos" Text="The link has a handful of patents listed. The boilerplate agreement linked from that page has an exhibit C with **99 patents** listed. Just to hire a search firm to study all of those and try to find published documents that anticipate or tend to show obviousness for them  would cost way more than the $50k BT wants for a fully paid up license. Maybe most of them are irrelevant &quot;upon inspection&quot; and the task can be narrowed. Ask Patents might be a good forum for experts in the VoIP world to come together to divide and possibly win." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3747" RevisionGUID="1f9e7df8-6b26-4e79-82f7-d3804505ce08" CreationDate="2013-05-02T18:24:32.510" UserId="3076" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="The link has a handful of patents listed. The boilerplate agreement linked from that page has an exhibit C with **99 patents** listed. Just to hire a search firm to study all of those and try to find published documents that anticipate or tend to show obviousness for them  would cost way more than the $50k BT wants for a fully paid up license. Maybe most of them are irrelevant &quot;upon inspection&quot; and the task can be narrowed. Ask Patents might be a good forum for experts in the VoIP world to come together to divide the problem up and possibly win." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3264" RevisionGUID="0745b58b-8379-474f-8a43-aa6a78530e89" CreationDate="2013-05-02T22:57:41.137" UserId="3076" Comment="added 410 characters in body" Text="Cheapest is to write as complete a description as you can, include drawings that the text makes reference to and then fill out [a provisional application cover sheet][1]. Either mail it all to the USPTO or file it electronically using [EFS-Web][2]  I suppose the fastest is to do the above but use whatever description you already have created - maybe a PowerPoint presentation. **Of course these approaches may not be the most effective.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be **most effective** I would definitely get advice from a US registered patent practitioner. Although it is said that provisional applications have few formal requiremnts, if it ever actually comes into play as something you are relying upon, the sufficiency of its content will be judged under 35 USC section 112, exactly by the same criteria the content of a &quot;regular&quot; patent is judged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having it drafted and filed by a professional is highly recommended.(yes, I am one) Someone that works as a solo practitioner or in a small practice might be more oriented to cost-sensitive inventors.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/forms/ProvisionalSB.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/index.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3750" RevisionGUID="cfbcdd57-71ee-4a19-ae7f-252e3999b3ce" CreationDate="2013-05-02T23:35:19.053" UserId="3719" Text="I have been designing a Role-Playing Game engine that allows the game to be played via table-top, card-game, board-game, or even converted to a MUD/Video game seamlessly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been working on this project for 12 years...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The core of the game will be in 3 books(like Dungeons &amp; Dragons). What parts of this can I patent, if anything?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that if something ever come of it, companies will start coping my system and equations for combat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2007 I showed a unfinished version of the game design to an &quot;idea&quot; company. They seemed very enthusiastic about it, offered to hire staff to finish for me, and was only gonna give me 7% in royalties. I backed out because I wanted to finish the design myself(i'm picking about my design). After that they harassed me for about year about partnering with them. For only 7% royalties, that was kind of a turn-off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FYI, I know nothing about the patent system or it's process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8057" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3750" RevisionGUID="cfbcdd57-71ee-4a19-ae7f-252e3999b3ce" CreationDate="2013-05-02T23:35:19.053" UserId="3719" Text="What Can I Patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8058" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3750" RevisionGUID="cfbcdd57-71ee-4a19-ae7f-252e3999b3ce" CreationDate="2013-05-02T23:35:19.053" UserId="3719" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8059" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3751" RevisionGUID="6350aa91-3320-4c1a-8936-7492ef66ed7a" CreationDate="2013-05-03T03:36:11.137" UserId="3076" Text="If the disclosure in 2007 was **not** under an understanding of confidentiality you have lost all ability to patent whatever you disclosed at that time. Although it changed somewhat in March, the U.S. does have a one-year grace period from public knowledge to first filing. After that year it is too late. What qualifies as publicly known? From the USPTO: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   “Known or Used” Means Publicly Known or Used&#xD;&#xA;“The statutory language ‘known or used by others in this country’ (35 U.S.C. § 102(a)), means knowledge or use which is accessible to the public.” Carellav. Starlight Archery, 804 F.2d 135, 231 USPQ 644 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The knowledge or use is accessible to the public if there has been no deliberate attempt to keep it secret. W. L. Gore &amp; Assoc. v.Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It only takes one person who is under no confidentially agreement to be publicly known. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever is still eligible might be claimed in a patent application. Is something about the game engine new and not obvious? The characters, worlds, story lines are not patentable but could be protectable by copyright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 7% sounds pretty good." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3750" RevisionGUID="0e2955aa-0306-4f0a-a0ca-4e3ce03e5dd4" CreationDate="2013-05-03T12:44:39.660" UserId="1259" Comment="typo and tag" Text="I have been designing a Role-Playing Game engine that allows the game to be played via table-top, card-game, board-game, or even converted to a MUD/Video game seamlessly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been working on this project for 12 years...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The core of the game will be in 3 books(like Dungeons &amp; Dragons). What parts of this can I patent, if anything?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that if something ever come of it, companies will start copying my system and equations for combat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2007 I showed a unfinished version of the game design to an &quot;idea&quot; company. They seemed very enthusiastic about it, offered to hire staff to finish for me, and was only gonna give me 7% in royalties. I backed out because I wanted to finish the design myself(i'm picking about my design). After that they harassed me for about year about partnering with them. For only 7% royalties, that was kind of a turn-off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FYI, I know nothing about the patent system or it's process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8065" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3750" RevisionGUID="0e2955aa-0306-4f0a-a0ca-4e3ce03e5dd4" CreationDate="2013-05-03T12:44:39.660" UserId="1259" Comment="typo and tag" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;design-games&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8067" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3751" RevisionGUID="e239cbcd-f4d3-493d-b4d6-ce0f2f0dc80a" CreationDate="2013-05-03T16:18:32.373" UserId="3076" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="If the disclosure in 2007 was **not** under an understanding of confidentiality you have lost all ability to patent whatever you disclosed at that time. Although it changed somewhat in March, the U.S. does have a one-year grace period from public knowledge to first filing. After that year it is too late. What qualifies as publicly known? From the USPTO: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   “Known or Used” Means Publicly Known or Used&#xD;&#xA;“The statutory language ‘known or used by others in this country’ (35 U.S.C. § 102(a)), means knowledge or use which is accessible to the public.” Carellav. Starlight Archery, 804 F.2d 135, 231 USPQ 644 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The knowledge or use is accessible to the public if there has been no deliberate attempt to keep it secret. W. L. Gore &amp; Assoc. v.Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It only takes one person who is under no confidentially agreement to be publicly known. And the AIA removed &quot;in this country&quot; so it is worldwide now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever is still eligible might be claimed in a patent application. Is something about the game engine new and not obvious? The characters, worlds, story lines are not patentable but could be protectable by copyright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 7% sounds pretty good." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3734" RevisionGUID="b07f5c43-fa13-4559-b1df-e00facacdb28" CreationDate="2013-05-03T16:28:32.510" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="US patent application 13/501,392, filed on Oct 12, 2010 and [published](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=20120246195.PGNR.) on Sep 27, 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that the main claim is simply to be able to refer to a latitude/longitude point through a unique identifier, which in turn is persisted in a database of entities for later fetching via “computing devices”.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that this covers any technology which stores locations with a primary key in a database. This is incredibly common and would likely apply to many products like Google Places, Yelp, or Foursquare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It really boggles my mind that somebody would file a patent for this (as I can think of so many existing products that operate in this manner) and was hoping to see what you guys thought in terms of potential prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8070" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3693" RevisionGUID="326db35b-bf05-4c98-b7f3-27bad914a559" CreationDate="2013-05-03T16:28:56.760" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Interactive Try-On Platform for Eyeglasses&quot;** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This issued patent relates to a method by which a consumer can submit a 3D model of his/her face to generate a visualization of how a pair of eyeglasses may fit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BASIC PATENT DATA:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Patent Number:** [US 7,016,824][2] &#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Geometrix, Inc. &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date:** Prior art must predate February 6, 2001&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PATENT ABSTRACT:**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Techniques and systems that provide interactions between a 3D representation of a selected pair of glasses and a fully-textured 3D face model are disclosed. According to one embodiment, an interactive platform is displayed to allow a user to select a pair of glasses and try the selected glasses on a user-provided 3D face model. The interactions provided in the platform include spatial adjustments of the glasses around the face model, various perspective views of the 3D face with the glasses on and other cosmetic alternations to the selected glasses. According to one application, when the user finishes the try-on process, the information about the glasses can be transmitted to a business that can subsequently produce a pair of customized glasses for the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1:**&#xD;&#xA;A method for commercializing pairs of eyeglasses over a network, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- providing an interactive platform that can be displayed on a computing device;&#xD;&#xA;- requesting a 3D face model from a user to be used in the interactive platform;&#xD;&#xA;- determining characteristics of the 3D face model with respect to a 3D reference frame;&#xD;&#xA;- retrieving a 3D representation of a pair of eyeglasses when a request identifying the pair of eyeglasses is received over the network; and&#xD;&#xA;- placing the 3D representation of the glasses onto a default position with respect to the 3D face model in accordance with the characteristics thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**REASON FOR ALLOWANCE:** The following is an excerpt of the Examiner's Statement of Reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The instant application is directed to a non-obvious improvement over the invention described in [U.S. Patent No. 5,983,201][3] to Fay, the improvement comprising a method for commercializing pairs of eyeglasses over a network, wherein a 3D face model is requested by a user via an interactive platform, characteristics of a 3D face model are determined with respect to a 3D reference frame, and a 3D representation of a pair of eyeglasses is retrieved and placed onto a default position with respect to the 3D face model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR ART:** The following is a list of prior art that we are already aware of (in addition to the prior art identified on the face of this patent under the References Cited):  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. WO 01/11886 A1&#xD;&#xA;2. WO 97/29441 A1&#xD;&#xA;3. US 5,175,806 &#xD;&#xA;4. EP 1 011 006 &#xD;&#xA;5. AU 1 334 097&#xD;&#xA;6. JP 9-145324&#xD;&#xA;7. WO 95/04975&#xD;&#xA;8. US 6,034,698&#xD;&#xA;9. WO 86/05374&#xD;&#xA;10. JP 10-283455&#xD;&#xA;11. KR 2001-0008011&#xD;&#xA;12. “Automatic construction of 3D human face models based on 2D images”, PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON IMAGE PROCESSING (ICIP) LAUSANNE, 16-19 September 1996, pp. 467-470. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything (published before February 6, 2001) that describes providing a 3D representation of the glasses onto a default position with respect to the 3D face model in the manner recited in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer** below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual, but please create separate answers for each one so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents community][5] has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office. If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to post your own request for prior art if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/hfUvD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7016824?pg=PA9&amp;dq=7,016,824&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=BOtuUbPEDcTviQKWzoGIBg&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5983201&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3628" RevisionGUID="0e0eee08-58c7-4234-b947-56951be7a13c" CreationDate="2013-05-03T16:29:14.560" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Possibly useful: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BRUSH as a Walkthrough System for Architectural Models&#xD;&#xA;International Business Machines Corporation. Research Division, Bengt-Olaf Schneider, Paul Borrel, Jai Menon, Josh Mittleman, Jarek Rossignac&#xD;&#xA;1994&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-642-87825-1_29&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://books.google.com/books/about /BRUSH_as_a_Walkthrough_System_for_Archit.html?id=ryIsHwAACAAJ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This system displayed large 3D models by dividing the scene into objects and pre-computing a triangulated representation of each object at each of several resolutions.  A resolution was chosen based on the virtual distance from the viewport to the object, with the goal that each triangle on the screen would cover approximately the same number of pixels.  So this was a system that used pixel resolution to choose among representations of objects to maintain consistent information content per pixel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8077" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="3754" RevisionGUID="92efda7a-adcd-4df3-ad5a-0c8b5f771513" CreationDate="2013-05-06T01:42:02.423" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/197121/can-saas-paas-iaas-be-patented" />
  <row Id="8078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3754" RevisionGUID="802e6e1b-adcf-4d32-9bf5-17068c814323" CreationDate="2013-05-06T01:31:33.780" UserId="3730" UserDisplayName="TicketMonster" Text="Please note: here I'm talking strictly about US Patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried reading up on software and patents and still am not quite &quot;getting&quot; how the two are related, and when a software system *can* be patented, and when it *cannot*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For one, source code is copryrightable regardless of whether or not it can be patented - this much I get (sourcecode is a work of art).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for a patent to be approved, three major criteria must be met:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * It must be novel&#xD;&#xA; * It must be non-obvious&#xD;&#xA; * It must be useful&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, when it comes to software and algorithms, these lines seem to get very blurry, and I'm not sure why. It seems to me that, based on these criteria, anytime someone writes a new type of software that the world has never before seen (i.e. MySpace for social networking, the first firewall, the first public cloud, etc.) that they would be patent candidates. But that doesn't seem to be the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I ask: why isn't a SaaS/PaaS/IaaS patentable as a novel/non-obvious/useful concept? When the first instances of these ideas sprung up, they were novel, non-obvious (no one had thought of them before!) and of course, very useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And ditto for specific instances of these ideas/services. For example, with IaaS, why can't Amazon patent their EC2/AWS IaaS? Thanks for any clarity here!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8079" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3754" RevisionGUID="802e6e1b-adcf-4d32-9bf5-17068c814323" CreationDate="2013-05-06T01:31:33.780" UserId="3730" UserDisplayName="TicketMonster" Text="Can SaaS, PaaS, IaaS be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8080" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3754" RevisionGUID="802e6e1b-adcf-4d32-9bf5-17068c814323" CreationDate="2013-05-06T01:31:33.780" UserId="3730" UserDisplayName="TicketMonster" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8082" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3754" RevisionGUID="6669b51f-8f47-48e2-853d-89411c60a51e" CreationDate="2013-05-06T12:36:58.123" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3628" RevisionGUID="d8b78b6f-3d84-4c31-95b6-2507b52900a8" CreationDate="2013-05-06T12:38:04.767" UserId="1259" Comment="broken linkie fixed" Text="Possibly useful: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BRUSH as a Walkthrough System for Architectural Models&#xD;&#xA;International Business Machines Corporation. Research Division, Bengt-Olaf Schneider, Paul Borrel, Jai Menon, Josh Mittleman, Jarek Rossignac&#xD;&#xA;1994&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-642-87825-1_29&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://books.google.com/books/about/BRUSH_as_a_Walkthrough_System_for_Archit.html?id=ryIsHwAACAAJ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This system displayed large 3D models by dividing the scene into objects and pre-computing a triangulated representation of each object at each of several resolutions.  A resolution was chosen based on the virtual distance from the viewport to the object, with the goal that each triangle on the screen would cover approximately the same number of pixels.  So this was a system that used pixel resolution to choose among representations of objects to maintain consistent information content per pixel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3756" RevisionGUID="6a33ef76-55d9-4c43-8ed6-3daae2218b2d" CreationDate="2013-05-06T16:06:09.663" UserId="3076" Text="This is a confusing area with gray areas and seemly contradictory court rulings. In a recent Supreme Court case - not about software - one of the justices said &quot;patent law is full of uneasy compromises&quot;. Of course there are many people who think software implemented inventions are inherently wrong. Others would say if a hardware based Walkman can be patented why not a software based MP3 player. The dividing line between an upatentable formula/abstract idea and a software implemented patentable invention is blurry. One important criteria is having the claim wording require a physical machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The things you listed were new, useful and probably nonobvious at one time. A whole system may he to ill-defined to be patented as a whole, but important aspects certainly are patentable and patented. See [AWS IBM patent][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8281307" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3756" RevisionGUID="e5615a02-3a7e-45cc-89bf-1abd618b6a75" CreationDate="2013-05-06T16:13:38.447" UserId="3076" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="This can be a confusing and controversial topic with gray areas and seemly contradictory court rulings. In a recent Supreme Court case - not about software - one of the justices said &quot;patent law is full of uneasy compromises&quot;. Of course there are many people who think software implemented inventions are inherently wrong. Others would say if a hardware based Walkman can be patented why not a software based MP3 player. The dividing line between an upatentable formula/abstract idea and a software implemented patentable invention can be hard to get solid agreement on. One important criteria is having the claim wording require a physical machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The things you listed were new, useful and probably nonobvious at one time. A whole system may be too ill-defined to be patented as a whole, but important aspects certainly are patentable and patented. See [AWS IBM patent][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8281307" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8089" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3754" RevisionGUID="a3b0cbff-9397-411c-b2f0-7f8f6f8abafd" CreationDate="2013-05-06T16:57:36.700" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/331452700585754624" />
  <row Id="8092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3758" RevisionGUID="927d573e-ad62-4f07-8e76-3120283f5862" CreationDate="2013-05-06T17:47:26.400" UserId="3076" Text="A very simple answer is by comparables, like real estate. Or net present value of a proven income producing ability, like a fully rented out apartment building, in the case of a patent with an existing, diverse royalty stream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; And (in my opinion) it is good to have a liquid market in patents. An inventor may not be in an optimum position to exploit his or her invention but still deserves a way to get value for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3756" RevisionGUID="64c72d4f-46c7-45ef-a9a5-f4d92f80edc6" CreationDate="2013-05-06T21:15:58.667" UserId="3076" Comment="added 287 characters in body" Text="This can be a confusing and controversial topic with gray areas and seemly contradictory court rulings. In a recent Supreme Court case - not about software - one of the justices said &quot;patent law is full of uneasy compromises&quot;. Of course there are many people who think any patents on software implemented inventions are inherently wrong. Others would say if a hardware based Walkman can be patented why not a software based MP3 player. That position is closer to the state of the law and your logic would be agreed with by most patent professionals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the dividing line between an upatentable formula/abstract idea and a software implemented patentable invention can be hard to get solid agreement on. One important factor is having the claim wording require a physical machine. This can reduce the argument that the claimed invention is something that &quot;can be wholly carried out in ones mind&quot; - which would make it abstract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The things you listed were new, useful and probably nonobvious at one time. A large system may be too ill-defined to be patented as a whole, but important aspects certainly are patentable and patented. See [AWS IBM patent][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8281307" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3756" RevisionGUID="306f9e67-f312-4dac-b041-9aabc5537a3e" CreationDate="2013-05-06T22:12:52.477" UserId="3076" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="This can be a confusing and controversial topic with gray areas and seemly contradictory court rulings. In a recent Supreme Court case - not about software - one of the justices said &quot;patent law is full of uneasy compromises&quot;. Of course there are many people who think any patents on software implemented inventions are inherently wrong. Others would say if a hardware based Walkman can be patented why not a software based MP3 player. That position is closer to the state of the law and your logic would be agreed with by most patent professionals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the dividing line between an upatentable formula/abstract idea and a software implemented patentable invention can be hard to get solid agreement on. One important factor is having the claim wording require a physical machine. This can reduce the argument that the claimed invention is something that &quot;can be wholly carried out in ones mind&quot; - which would make it abstract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The things you listed were new, useful and probably nonobvious at one time. A large system may be too ill-defined to be patented as a whole, but important aspects certainly are patentable and patented. See [AWS IBM patent][1]. And a  [firewall patent filed in 1994][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8281307&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5623601" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3736" RevisionGUID="f4ba8416-6fd1-444f-ba83-af74af798cde" CreationDate="2013-05-07T05:02:38.667" UserId="1335" Comment="Missed a word." Text="For non-patent prior art, a company called whereonearth [1] did *exactly* this around 2003 or so. They had a database with globally unique WOEIDs (&quot;Where On Earth ID&quot;s) [2] assigned to geographic locations and points of interests, and you could look up a location/POI using a WOEID, or get a list of WOEIDs for a given location. What they did completely anticipates not only the (tentative) independent claim, but pretty much all the dependent claims as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know when it was established, but it was bought out by Yahoo! in 2005. If &quot;WOEID&quot;s sound familiar, it's because Yahoo!'s geo API uses WOEIDs to uniquely identify locations points of interests [3]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whereonearth&#xD;&#xA;2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WOEID&#xD;&#xA;3. http://developer.yahoo.com/geo/geoplanet/guide/concepts.html#woeids" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3761" RevisionGUID="93443c10-f781-471f-968c-4c2c7948a290" CreationDate="2013-05-07T11:04:38.360" UserId="3738" Text="If a Patent claims more than one &quot;Item&quot;, say Item A, Item B, Item C etc...&#xD;&#xA;and if it can be proved that say Item A, has been offered and sold to a commercial entity,&#xD;&#xA;can the Patent be invalidated in its totality, or only Item A is invalidated?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8101" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3761" RevisionGUID="93443c10-f781-471f-968c-4c2c7948a290" CreationDate="2013-05-07T11:04:38.360" UserId="3738" Text="Patent Invalidation in part or totally" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8102" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3761" RevisionGUID="93443c10-f781-471f-968c-4c2c7948a290" CreationDate="2013-05-07T11:04:38.360" UserId="3738" Text="&lt;invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3762" RevisionGUID="d478fd39-b067-4bba-a83d-b004037af421" CreationDate="2013-05-07T11:19:25.177" UserId="3739" Text="If your only goal is to obtain a (so-called) priority date which can be used to claim priority from in later patent applications (to be filed directly in any country where protection is needed, or indirectly, via the PCT system) then you can even file a patent application without payment of any official fees. Such a filing can be achieved at the European Patent Office, and many of the national patent offices in European countries.&#xD;&#xA;Filing of such an application can be done by anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for such a filing to be effective, i.e. to provide sufficient basis for a later priority claim, should still be as complete as possible and certainly should provide all information that a skilled person would need to repeat the invention (i.e. it should fulfill the enablement requirement). Since drafting of patent applications is difficult and should be done with the utmost care - also the drafting of such a 'provisional application'- it is strongly adviced to seek the help or advice of a patent agent or patent attorney. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3763" RevisionGUID="3ac9c6d5-5b4e-4ee0-b737-5a04f0564f99" CreationDate="2013-05-07T13:39:24.883" UserId="1067" Text="I think I made a mistake about a month ago and disclosed an idea that I had to a colleague.  I'm in the process of taking the idea to market, but it hasn't gone public yet.  I wasn't planning on patenting it, but it very well might be patentable.  Can the person that I disclosed the idea to patent it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8105" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3763" RevisionGUID="3ac9c6d5-5b4e-4ee0-b737-5a04f0564f99" CreationDate="2013-05-07T13:39:24.883" UserId="1067" Text="Stolen Idea Patented" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8106" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3763" RevisionGUID="3ac9c6d5-5b4e-4ee0-b737-5a04f0564f99" CreationDate="2013-05-07T13:39:24.883" UserId="1067" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3765" RevisionGUID="0191d97c-3796-4cda-97d3-20599088dd74" CreationDate="2013-05-07T20:26:07.733" UserId="3076" Text="Ron's answer is basically correct. The part of a patent that might or might not be infringed is a claim. It is also a claim that might or might not be found invalid. As an example, a patent could have 20 or more claims, most of which are narrowed versions of a small handful of key, independent claims. One of the reasons for having a claim set with increasingly narrow claims is that the broader the claim the more susceptible to being found invalid due to something coming to light after the patent was granted. From the inventors point of view, the narrow claims stake out a fall-back position. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only quibble with Ron's answer is that both independent and dependent claims can be invalidated, possibly leaving other independent and/or dependent claims still enforceable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3766" RevisionGUID="5e780cae-1501-4a5b-b969-661696234e16" CreationDate="2013-05-07T20:56:16.023" UserId="3742" Text="**Information**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Patent Number: 7,687,886**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**App Number: 11/153,078**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Assignee: MicroLink Devices, Inc.**&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;**Prior Art Cutoff Date: predating June 14, 2005**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** Patent discloses, among other things, an HBT with two collectors with different doping in order to increase on-state breakdown voltage.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Looking for prior art that discloses using a double collector structure with varying doping levels to achieve the breakdown voltages at the current densities shown in Fig. 5 of the patent (Not the Standard InGaP).**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8117" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3766" RevisionGUID="5e780cae-1501-4a5b-b969-661696234e16" CreationDate="2013-05-07T20:56:16.023" UserId="3742" Text="CALL FOR PRIOR ART: GaAs HBTs in RF Amplifiers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8118" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3766" RevisionGUID="5e780cae-1501-4a5b-b969-661696234e16" CreationDate="2013-05-07T20:56:16.023" UserId="3742" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3767" RevisionGUID="573ee09d-e7f4-4d82-9fe0-81dd02e04143" CreationDate="2013-05-07T21:23:12.657" UserId="758" Text="At least in the US, part of filing a patent application involves an [oath/declaration](http://www.uspto.gov/forms/sb0001.pdf), which includes a provision such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I hereby declare that: [...] I believe the inventor(s) named below to be the original and first inventor(s) of the subject matter which is claimed and for which a patent is sought on the invention titled: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Filing such a claim if he knew it to be false (i.e., knew that he was not the original and first inventor of the subject matter) would not only invalidate his application, but is *probably*&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; illegal in itself, and could be subject to prosecution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some provisions to allow (for example) a patent application to be filed if the inventor dies before filing the paperwork, but it doesn't sound like those would apply here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. But note that here I'm assuming US law. I suppose in some countries 1) you might not have to submit such a declaration, or 2) that knowingly lying on such a declaration might not violate any laws. Either of those would surprise me at least a little though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3768" RevisionGUID="fb19fb88-372b-4a39-8b01-6de9a00f5b34" CreationDate="2013-05-07T22:26:04.847" UserId="758" Text="Trying to patent something as general as social networking or software as a service is difficult due to prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just for example, Control Data provided the Plato system as a service back starting the early 1970s. Control Data owned and operated the hardware at their locations. Clients licensed access to the hardware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Iaas and PaaS have probably been around even longer. In the 1960s (or so) computers were expensive enough that it was fairly common for a company to buy a computer with the expectation of selling usage of the computer to other companies. Some operating systems provided direct support for this. For example, Control Data's Network Operating System (NOS) included a &quot;Remote Batch Facility&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plato also included social networking capabilities such as message boards, chatting, screen sharing, multi-player games and email.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, it's certainly true that these were quite primitive in many ways. Bandwidth, resolution, etc., were quite limited. Just for example, the Plato terminals had a resolution of only 512x512 in black and white (well, black and orange). That limits the pictures you can display, but once you have 512x512 in B&amp;W, going to full color at much higher resolution isn't exactly a major leap. Likewise, its inputs were keyboard and a touch screen. Again, the touch screen was quite low resolution (4x4 grid) -- but that's still enough to give the basic idea, and render inclusion of touch screens with higher resolutions fairly obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, Saas/Paas/IaaS, social networking, etc., you'd have to find *much* narrower areas to consider. Specifically, you'd need to find areas that were truly novel inventions, not just obvious improvements of features that have been around since the 1960s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to say PaaS/SaaS/IaaS/Facebook, don't involve any new inventions. My guess is they probably do. Nonetheless, those inventions are likely to cover only fairly specific aspects of what they do, not an overall idea like social networking itself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3770" RevisionGUID="061761be-1adb-4e2c-9e0a-55c437bac471" CreationDate="2013-05-08T03:34:53.667" UserId="3076" Text="As another answer says, only an actual inventor or someone an actual inventor has assigned their rights to can legally file in the U.S. since the AIA went into effect the declaration has been changed to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I believe that I am the original inventor or an original joint inventor of a claimed invention in the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the disclosure would not be considered confidential it did start a one year clock on when you can file. Also, as mentioned, if you both file and he files first you need to prove he derived it from you. Maybe worse, he can invent something different, inspired by what he leaned from you.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8126" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3766" RevisionGUID="3a6bfa64-c112-44e3-ba84-b48f5c1204e2" CreationDate="2013-05-08T03:53:56.403" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us7&gt;&lt;us7687886&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3772" RevisionGUID="78499b66-5266-4ea4-932c-1e459c63972b" CreationDate="2013-05-08T14:43:55.857" UserId="3747" Text="I would like to own this patent but have no idea how to go about redeeming this patent.&#xD;&#xA;Who will I need to contact in order to purchase the patent. It appears to be inactive.&#xD;&#xA;Charlie" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8133" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3772" RevisionGUID="78499b66-5266-4ea4-932c-1e459c63972b" CreationDate="2013-05-08T14:43:55.857" UserId="3747" Text="Patent purchase" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8134" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3772" RevisionGUID="78499b66-5266-4ea4-932c-1e459c63972b" CreationDate="2013-05-08T14:43:55.857" UserId="3747" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3766" RevisionGUID="23eb56fa-a121-415e-893d-bb5332e361ac" CreationDate="2013-05-08T14:45:35.040" UserId="1259" Comment="tag linkie" Text="**Information**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Patent Number: [7,687,886][1]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**App Number: 11/153,078**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Assignee: MicroLink Devices, Inc.**&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;**Prior Art Cutoff Date: predating June 14, 2005**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** Patent discloses, among other things, an HBT with two collectors with different doping in order to increase on-state breakdown voltage.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Looking for prior art that discloses using a double collector structure with varying doping levels to achieve the breakdown voltages at the current densities shown in Fig. 5 of the patent (Not the Standard InGaP).**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us7687886" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8136" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3766" RevisionGUID="23eb56fa-a121-415e-893d-bb5332e361ac" CreationDate="2013-05-08T14:45:35.040" UserId="1259" Comment="tag linkie" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us7687886&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8137" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3763" RevisionGUID="4b28be91-d970-4191-ae9d-64dbac00293f" CreationDate="2013-05-08T14:50:58.383" UserId="1259" Comment="tag" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8141" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3772" RevisionGUID="f3b3a53b-e3a5-42a0-b5f4-87bbcc7613da" CreationDate="2013-05-08T16:15:06.373" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;uspublication&gt;&lt;number&gt;&lt;us6550709&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3774" RevisionGUID="9e17f9ce-012d-4cc9-bcf2-6b01cd5d115f" CreationDate="2013-05-08T16:26:48.890" UserId="3076" Text="I am not sure what you mean by &quot;inactive&quot;. This patent expired in 2011 due to nonpayment of the 7 1/2 year maintenance fee. It is conceivable that the owner could petition to revive it on the basis that the nonpayment was unavoidable or inadvertent. After 2 years that might not fly. In any case, a third party (you) cannot come along and get rights to it by &quot;redeeming&quot; it from the patent office the way someone might buy abandoned land by paying the back property taxes. Theoretically, the owner could get it revived and then sell it to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2121" RevisionGUID="d4dad106-ef86-4d58-b9c2-498bb38f843b" CreationDate="2013-05-08T23:19:11.213" UserId="1500" Comment="added 735 characters in body" Text="A US court (sorry not knowledgeable about EU antitrust) may impose (F)RAND licensing if the holder of the patent typically licenses the patents under a (F)RAND scheme but blows the ND (non-discriminatory) part .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if Phillips typically licenses all its DVD patents under (F)RAND terms to DVD reader manufacturers, but then suddenly decides to charge Apple 100% more to make their own DVD reader drives, a court may force Phillips to license those patents to Apple under terms that are less discriminatory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a gross simplification, but hopefully it's helpful. US courts don't force FRAND terms out of the blue. A patent, at it's heart, is a right to exclude and forcing a company to license that right (when they have made no commitment to do so) isn't part of the patent bargain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This (quick scan by me) [looks like a great overview of current (F)RAND policy and pretty up to date with recent litigation/regulation][1].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[update] &#xD;&#xA;DOJ just released a position paper on these licensing schemes yesterday. Interesting reading: http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/290994.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Another update for posterity...] &#xD;&#xA;On April 25, 2013, Judge James Robart in the Western District of Washington [issued an 207-page decision][2] that marks the first time a federal judge has tried to define what constitutes a fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) royalty rate for standard-essential patents. The decision provides a rigorous factual and legal analysis for determining a FRAND rate by modifying the factors traditionally used to determine reasonable royalty calculations in patent infringement suits and adapting that framework for the circumstances presented by patents that are essential to industry standards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20120221074826486&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.arentfox.com/sites/default/files/MicrosoftMotorolaDecisionApril-25-2013.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3775" RevisionGUID="6960fd24-2a49-4b33-923b-d77c1ff173da" CreationDate="2013-05-09T00:55:29.940" UserId="3752" Text="Let's say a small software developer simply does not have enough money to pay the extreme costs of a patent infringement lawsuit (in the U.S.). What happens in this case? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Situation B: Let's assume the software is developed by a limited liability company owned and directed by the developer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Situation C: Let's assume the software developer (or company) is located in the European Union. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the questions is what happens in the above situations where the developer (or the developing company) has not enough financial resources to pay the high costs of the lawsuit? What are the consequences?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8146" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3775" RevisionGUID="6960fd24-2a49-4b33-923b-d77c1ff173da" CreationDate="2013-05-09T00:55:29.940" UserId="3752" Text="What happens if someone cannot pay litigation costs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8147" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3775" RevisionGUID="6960fd24-2a49-4b33-923b-d77c1ff173da" CreationDate="2013-05-09T00:55:29.940" UserId="3752" Text="&lt;litigation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3776" RevisionGUID="be72f18a-984c-48f4-9777-b71a2e0b31db" CreationDate="2013-05-09T06:54:05.157" UserId="3076" Text="It's not 100% clear to me from the question which side of the dispute the small developer finds themselves on. If they are the inventor/patentee and a large company is blatantly making tons of money infringing the patent, the small developer might find a law firm to take the case on contingency. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or they might work out a deal with an NPE to buy the patent but grant them back a paid up license. The developer might get a chunk of money and a % of what the NPE can make from the patent. This can be a very legitimate role for an NPE; collect and bundle individual patents from diverse small fry and go after an industry giant who is ripping them all off thinking they are too small to do anything about it. Others have different views of NPEs, of course." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3777" RevisionGUID="0812d38c-eace-490f-b351-a2b28bf2f33d" CreationDate="2013-05-09T10:27:39.617" UserId="3738" Text="If a patent has been APPLIED FOR, but NOT AWARDED (yet?), how can one find out the Date of Application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8150" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3777" RevisionGUID="0812d38c-eace-490f-b351-a2b28bf2f33d" CreationDate="2013-05-09T10:27:39.617" UserId="3738" Text="Date when Patent is applied for" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8151" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3777" RevisionGUID="0812d38c-eace-490f-b351-a2b28bf2f33d" CreationDate="2013-05-09T10:27:39.617" UserId="3738" Text="&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3778" RevisionGUID="d72e810a-a2ec-4372-9bb2-e4145171439c" CreationDate="2013-05-09T12:53:19.363" UserId="1259" Text="The &quot;Application Date&quot; on the patent application (on [Google patent search][1]) shows the date the paperwork was accepted by the Patent Office. However, the effective &quot;priority&quot; date may be further in the past - especially if the application is a continuation of a previously filed application. This priority date may not be obvious, and a convoluted parent application path can (often by intent) confuse things even more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3779" RevisionGUID="326eba59-6e5f-4630-b3ef-0c39ac327a41" CreationDate="2013-05-09T13:12:25.747" UserId="1259" Text="On the other side of the coin - if your EU company is facing a lawsuit due to their product allegedly infringing on a US patent. The cheaper alternative offered by the (nearly all) NPE/patent-trolls is to settle for a &quot;lesser than legal costs&quot; amount. This saves litigation costs and time - and unfortunately many big companies just pay up the small amount (for them) and make the headache go away. This gives the NPE/trolls cash in their pockets to continue the cycle, switching corporate shells along the way by transferring assignments of patents back and forth. Defending against an infringement suit is extremely difficult and absurdly expensive, the NPE/trolls know that and it costs so little to spray a hundred lawsuits around - something will stick. And even if the NPE/trolls lose a case, they simply fold up that corporate tent and come up with a new entity to transfer assignment and repeat their actions. There is little or no recourse for the non-infringers (who win a case). Once accused of infringement you pay either way, might as well pay the lesser amount and take a business write-off." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3781" RevisionGUID="c5901758-d3e0-4173-8ae0-d1123a275a36" CreationDate="2013-05-09T15:44:25.073" UserId="1779" Text="Instructions for an application in the United States:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Go to [USPTO's Public PAIR][1]&#xD;&#xA; 2. Search for the application by Application Number.  Note that since the application hasn't yet been granted as a patent, then the application file may not be open for public inspection yet, and it won't show up in Public PAIR.&#xD;&#xA; 3. On the &quot;Application Data&quot; tab, the &quot;Filing or 371(c) Date&quot; tells you what date the application was actually filed with the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA; 4. If you're trying to find prior art against the application, then you need to look at the continuity data.  So on the &quot;Continuity Data&quot; tab, the &quot;Parent Continuity Data&quot; will tell you how far back the application has priority.  If the application claims priority to a Provisional application or has a Continuation-in-Part anywhere in the continuity chain, then determining the effective filing date of the claims can get kind of hairy and is best left to the attorneys and patent examiners.  But if your document was published before any of the listed dates, then you're pretty safe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3777" RevisionGUID="2832b23e-8bc8-42e6-a64c-4af1dd7a7318" CreationDate="2013-05-09T16:54:59.493" UserId="1767" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="If a US patent has been APPLIED FOR, but NOT AWARDED (yet?), how can one find out the Date of Application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8159" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3777" RevisionGUID="2832b23e-8bc8-42e6-a64c-4af1dd7a7318" CreationDate="2013-05-09T16:54:59.493" UserId="1767" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="How to Determine Date of Application for US Patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3775" RevisionGUID="566c122f-1368-4586-8860-cc3b124f0a83" CreationDate="2013-05-09T20:07:31.433" UserId="-1" Comment="improve question quality" Text="Let's say a small software developer simply does not have enough money to pay the extreme costs of a patent infringement lawsuit (e.g. he is sued by a NPE in the U.S.). What happens in this case? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Situation B: Let's assume the software is developed by a limited liability company owned and directed by the developer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Situation C: Let's assume the software developer (or company) is located in the European Union. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the questions is what happens in the above situations where the developer (or the developing company) has not enough financial resources to pay the high costs of the lawsuit? What are the consequences?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8162" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3775" RevisionGUID="566c122f-1368-4586-8860-cc3b124f0a83" CreationDate="2013-05-09T20:07:31.433" UserId="-1" Comment="improve question quality" Text="What happens if a developer cannot pay the litigation costs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8163" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3775" RevisionGUID="566c122f-1368-4586-8860-cc3b124f0a83" CreationDate="2013-05-09T20:07:31.433" Comment="Proposed by 84.0.46.202|3f057c22-302e-4390-a09d-63aa1b13efb1 approved by 1767 edit id of 348" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3775" RevisionGUID="ba17ef4c-8109-4f8d-b8d6-e697ffc773d8" CreationDate="2013-05-09T20:52:17.637" UserId="3076" Comment="I removed an edit - restoring it to the original (ambiguous) questioned that I answered. " Text="Let's say a small software developer simply does not have enough money to pay the extreme costs of a patent infringement lawsuit. What happens in this case? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Situation B: Let's assume the software is developed by a limited liability company owned and directed by the developer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Situation C: Let's assume the software developer (or company) is located in the European Union. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the questions is what happens in the above situations where the developer (or the developing company) has not enough financial resources to pay the high costs of the lawsuit? What are the consequences?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3782" RevisionGUID="63f81341-0e71-4a2e-87b4-32f34468bad3" CreationDate="2013-05-09T21:59:45.533" UserId="3759" Text="Lands End used a virtual model system from [My Virtual Model][1] as early as 1998 (see [press coverage][2]). The app let customers try on clothes on a 3D model of themselves. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://myvirtualmodel.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=lands%20end%201998%20virtual%20model&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&amp;client=firefox-nightly&amp;channel=fflb" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3784" RevisionGUID="882eb119-dfe5-4389-8a75-2185250d0ef3" CreationDate="2013-05-10T11:50:14.967" UserId="3109" Text="I filed a patent(provisional) a couple of months ago. The disclosure consist of two parts: 50% description of an underlying technology, and 50% a specific application of this technology. I haven't filed the claims yet. My initial plan is to file claims for the specific application of this technology (that is the real novelty), but not sure whether to claim for the technology itself as I'm aware of similar things, not exactly the same though. I thought to postpone this decision until I get proper advice. I guess I can always file narrow claims for the underlying technology, if that made any sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I want to file another patent for a different invention that shares the same underlying technology with the first one. The disclosure is again 50% underlying technology and 50% new application. My initial plan is the same as with the first one, in some months time I'll file claims for the specific invention but I'd like to leave open the possibility of claiming the underlying technology if that makes strategic sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions are, can the second patent claim priority of the first patent, based on the fact that the disclosure is 50% the same (the underlying technology), even if the inventions are very different? If I claim priority but then later on I don't file claims for the underlying technology would that priority claim be a problem? and finally, can priority claims be added or removed by the claimant after first filing? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8171" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3784" RevisionGUID="882eb119-dfe5-4389-8a75-2185250d0ef3" CreationDate="2013-05-10T11:50:14.967" UserId="3109" Text="Claiming priority or not" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8172" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3784" RevisionGUID="882eb119-dfe5-4389-8a75-2185250d0ef3" CreationDate="2013-05-10T11:50:14.967" UserId="3109" Text="&lt;priority&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3786" RevisionGUID="2d495876-c660-4fa7-a5a1-e7eaaa5d119d" CreationDate="2013-05-10T17:23:09.570" UserId="3076" Text="You should get proper advice for your specific situation. This answer is a &quot;how the system works&quot; explanation, not a solution for your case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the second filing you are planning to do will also be a provisional application then it can not claim the benefit of the earlier filing. Provisonal applications stand alone and can not get priority from anything else. However there is no requirement for a one-to-one correspondence between provisonal and non-provisonal applications. Except in rare cases, provisionals are not literally &quot;converted&quot; to become a non-provisonal. Rather a distinct non-provisonal application is filed that claims the benefit of one or more provsional applications. And a single provsional can provide benefit to multiple non-provisionals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You do not get in trouble for stating that a non-provisonal claims the benefit of a provisonal based on the subject matter of the provsional not being claimed in the provisional. It works the other way around. Claims in the non-provisonal that turn out to be fully supported by the provisonal get the benefit of the earlier date. Claims not fully supported do not get the benefit of the earlier date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, priority claims cam be changed without any special consideration up to four months after the filing on the provisional application OR sixteen months after the provisionals filing date. If the non-provisional was filed, as many are, on the very last day, then these two times are the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3786" RevisionGUID="21482251-ddbe-44fa-b867-9913dbf5e7f4" CreationDate="2013-05-11T03:05:19.440" UserId="3076" Comment="edited body" Text="You should get proper advice for your specific situation. This answer is a &quot;how the system works&quot; explanation, not a solution for your case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the second filing you are planning to do will also be a provisional application then it can not claim the benefit of the earlier filing. Provisonal applications stand alone and can not get priority from anything else. However there is no requirement for a one-to-one correspondence between provisonal and non-provisonal applications. Except in rare cases, provisionals are not literally &quot;converted&quot; to become a non-provisonal. Rather a distinct non-provisonal application is filed that claims the benefit of one or more provsional applications. And a single provsional can provide benefit to multiple non-provisionals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You do not get in trouble for stating that a non-provisonal claims the benefit of a provisonal based on the subject matter of the provsional not being claimed in the provisional. It works the other way around. Claims in the non-provisonal that turn out to be fully supported by the provisonal get the benefit of the earlier date. Claims not fully supported do not get the benefit of the earlier date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, priority claims can be changed without any special consideration up to four months after the filing on the provisional application OR sixteen months after the provisionals filing date. If the non-provisional was filed, as many are, on the very last day, then these two times are the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3786" RevisionGUID="508e0e76-53e4-458f-8ea0-2862eefc47c3" CreationDate="2013-05-11T06:39:53.877" UserId="3076" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="You should get proper advice for your specific situation. This answer is a &quot;how the system works&quot; explanation, not a solution for your case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the second filing you are planning to do will also be a provisional application then it can not claim the benefit of the earlier filing. Provisonal applications stand alone and can not get priority from anything else. However there is no requirement for a one-to-one correspondence between provisonal and non-provisonal applications. Except in rare cases, provisionals are not literally &quot;converted&quot; to become a non-provisonal. Rather a distinct non-provisonal application is filed that claims the benefit of one or more provsional applications. And a single provsional can provide benefit to multiple non-provisionals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You do not get in trouble for stating that a non-provisonal claims the benefit of a provisonal based on the subject matter of the provsional not being claimed in the provisional. It works the other way around. Claims in the non-provisonal that turn out to be fully supported by the provisonal get the benefit of the earlier date. Claims not fully supported do not get the benefit of the earlier date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, priority claims can be changed without any special consideration up to four months after the filing of the non-provisional application OR sixteen months after the provisional's filing date. If the non-provisional was filed, as many are, on the very last day, then these two times are the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8218" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="3790" RevisionGUID="12c43db4-1aed-4f5f-b065-ac41f1183d65" CreationDate="2013-05-11T15:35:07.820" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64227/did-kaner-patent-the-lightscribe-procedure-to-synthesize-graphene" />
  <row Id="8219" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="3791" RevisionGUID="0cb5905e-4b84-4084-896e-18cbd1ec86ed" CreationDate="2013-05-11T15:35:07.820" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64227/did-kaner-patent-the-lightscribe-procedure-to-synthesize-graphene/64228#64228" />
  <row Id="8220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3791" RevisionGUID="d6f3325a-1098-43d9-b231-5e5582ab6c21" CreationDate="2013-05-11T15:02:12.267" UserId="3775" UserDisplayName="TMOTTM" Text="Yes they did: United States Patent Application 61/606,637" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3790" RevisionGUID="4a9fee4e-5002-4082-9a36-1af9de837f44" CreationDate="2013-05-11T14:54:47.150" UserId="3775" UserDisplayName="TMOTTM" Text="They describe the procedure in [Science][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did they patent the method? I can't find anything on Kaners Google Scholar page, but maybe somebody knows more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, can we start a business and sell graphene based on their method?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6074/1326.short" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8222" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3790" RevisionGUID="4a9fee4e-5002-4082-9a36-1af9de837f44" CreationDate="2013-05-11T14:54:47.150" UserId="3775" UserDisplayName="TMOTTM" Text="Did Kaner patent the LightScribe procedure to synthesize graphene?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8223" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3790" RevisionGUID="4a9fee4e-5002-4082-9a36-1af9de837f44" CreationDate="2013-05-11T14:54:47.150" UserId="3775" UserDisplayName="TMOTTM" Text="&lt;untagged&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3792" RevisionGUID="c178a458-a6f8-48a8-886b-ed15800a9046" CreationDate="2013-05-12T10:46:27.540" UserId="3770" Text="I'am Noob out here. &#xD;&#xA;But can anyone help me out with a simple query that can i use a Open-Source Software and Open-Source Hardware like Raspberry PI and Arduino to make a system with a software and Patent it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8225" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3792" RevisionGUID="c178a458-a6f8-48a8-886b-ed15800a9046" CreationDate="2013-05-12T10:46:27.540" UserId="3770" Text="Can Patents and Open Source Co-exist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8226" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3792" RevisionGUID="c178a458-a6f8-48a8-886b-ed15800a9046" CreationDate="2013-05-12T10:46:27.540" UserId="3770" Text="&lt;opensource&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8227" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3792" RevisionGUID="891fded9-9cba-4a74-b8fe-25c35c81ce6c" CreationDate="2013-05-12T13:15:06.077" UserId="1259" Comment="tag" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;opensource&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3793" RevisionGUID="f971d502-6ed2-4249-99f0-606e2605c7d0" CreationDate="2013-05-12T16:42:45.183" UserId="3076" Text="If you came up with something new and non-obvious and useful and claimed in a way that is not abstract, you could certainly apply for and maybe get an issued patent even though your initial protype  was created from open source components. The open source licenses you operated under might require you to make the source code available. Entirely separate would be your right to try to stop people from making, selling, using, etc. a system that infringed your patent indepent of how they implemented it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some future open source license might try to stop this by having FRAND provisions. I do not know how effective this might be." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3793" RevisionGUID="1a055e58-c804-4e52-b740-1bf41cf2caae" CreationDate="2013-05-12T17:01:56.373" UserId="3076" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="If you came up with something new and non-obvious and useful and claimed it in a way that is not abstract, you could certainly apply for and maybe get an issued patent even though your implementation was created from open source components.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the open source licenses you operated under might require you to make the source code available, entirely separate would be your right to try to stop people from making, selling, using, etc. a system that infringed your patent, independent of how they implemented it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some future open source license might try to stop this by having FRAND provisions. I do not know how effective that might be." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3795" RevisionGUID="43805ec2-6af8-40f2-b006-ae2c4154a884" CreationDate="2013-05-12T18:02:43.880" UserId="3772" Text="So, I have an idea and I wish to patent but as of today I can't put it to any actual use.&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to patent in that way for the sole purpose of preventing someone else from patenting it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8234" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3795" RevisionGUID="43805ec2-6af8-40f2-b006-ae2c4154a884" CreationDate="2013-05-12T18:02:43.880" UserId="3772" Text="Is is allowed to patent an idea and not put it in actual practice?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8235" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3795" RevisionGUID="43805ec2-6af8-40f2-b006-ae2c4154a884" CreationDate="2013-05-12T18:02:43.880" UserId="3772" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3796" RevisionGUID="0b038a07-c7eb-46b2-82c1-b330392cb29f" CreationDate="2013-05-12T20:19:41.210" UserId="3076" Text="Absolutely, although less absolutely after some court cases in the last few years. In fact a patent does **not give you the right to do anything.**. It **only** provides the right to exclude others. You might invent an improved lawn mower but it might be seen as a variation of a already patented basic lawn mower. Or you might invent a super sonic jet but realistically only be able to get it to reality by a license deal with Boeing or Airbus. And you might first have to try to stop them if they don't cut a deal with you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3797" RevisionGUID="901456c9-5cd9-4ec3-a48a-215a8a1242f7" CreationDate="2013-05-13T01:36:25.277" UserId="1767" Text="I was under the impression that the FILE HISTORY for a US Patent Applications appears contemporaneously with the publication of the application by USPTO.  Is this correct and if not, when are US Application file histories supposed to appear in Public PAIR?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many US Patent Applications appear to be published but do not appear in [Public PAIR][1] (at least I can't find them).  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US20130110640A1][2] Apparatus and Methods for an Application Process and Data Analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Application is available on [FreshPatents.com][3] and is also available on [Google Patents][2].  But when searching [Public PAIR][1] it seems to be missing when searching by Application Number or Publication Number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: when does the FILE HISTORY for a US Patent Application or US Patents appear in Public PAIR?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130110640&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20130502ptan20130110640.php&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8239" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3797" RevisionGUID="901456c9-5cd9-4ec3-a48a-215a8a1242f7" CreationDate="2013-05-13T01:36:25.277" UserId="1767" Text="When do file histories for US Patent Applications appear in Public PAIR?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8240" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3797" RevisionGUID="901456c9-5cd9-4ec3-a48a-215a8a1242f7" CreationDate="2013-05-13T01:36:25.277" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;pair&gt;&lt;file-history&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8241" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3797" RevisionGUID="df993ddd-3b92-4aa4-8419-9e9c707ffad4" CreationDate="2013-05-13T01:55:43.733" UserId="1767" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="I was under the impression that the FILE HISTORY for a US Patent Applications appears on Public Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) contemporaneously with the publication of the application by USPTO.  Is this correct and if not, when are US Application file histories supposed to appear in Public PAIR?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many US Patent Applications appear to be published but do not appear in [Public PAIR][1] (at least I can't find them).  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US20130110640A1][2] Apparatus and Methods for an Application Process and Data Analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Application is available on [FreshPatents.com][3] and is also available on [Google Patents][2].  But when searching [Public PAIR][1] it seems to be missing when searching by Application Number or Publication Number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: when does the FILE HISTORY for a US Patent Application or a US Patent appear in Public PAIR?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130110640&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20130502ptan20130110640.php&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3792" RevisionGUID="79b76288-0109-49cc-b1f2-4bca78184c9a" CreationDate="2013-05-13T02:51:52.800" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 35 characters in body" Text="Can anyone help me out with a simple query that can i use a Open-Source Software and Open-Source Hardware like Raspberry PI and Arduino to make a system with a software and Patent it?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3798" RevisionGUID="be5b7363-e309-44ef-bd57-a595c2d6ffe1" CreationDate="2013-05-13T03:37:05.763" UserId="3076" Text="I believe you are correct that an application is available on public PAIR as soon as it publishes. In the case of an unpublished application that was granted, it would be when it was issued. Just now I looked the example application up successfully both ways. I'm sure you are aware, PAIR is sensitive to the format of its input numbers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it happens to you again I would call the USPTO Electronic Business Center. They are open until midnight EST." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3798" RevisionGUID="711c504e-a563-4367-938d-5bd1dfa8fc7c" CreationDate="2013-05-13T03:44:11.087" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 268 characters in body" Text="I looked the example application up successfully both ways, just now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it happens to you again I would call the USPTO Electronic Business Center. They are open until midnight EST." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8248" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3766" RevisionGUID="c0ac1852-4806-41a8-aac3-d13b75461812" CreationDate="2013-05-13T10:58:29.750" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/333899041052168194" />
  <row Id="8249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3800" RevisionGUID="50461854-17d1-4b33-af83-768dd9dbeef8" CreationDate="2013-05-13T13:04:44.693" UserId="1259" Text="What GW said essentially covers it. Getting a patent identifies you as the inventor and prevents others from profiting from your invention (during the validity of its fees-paid lifetime, about 20 years). In most cases, there is some intent of the inventor for using the invention, at least to cover the cost of the patent process and maintenance fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is it possible to patent in that way for the sole purpose of preventing someone else from patenting it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To simply block OTHERS from patenting the same invention, a cheaper alternative may be to release a defensive publication. Making the invention public this way will prevent others from getting a patent on the exact same thing - but will also allow anyone to simply profit from it since you do not have a patent on it either." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8250" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3795" RevisionGUID="15755110-2507-4980-bf1f-02494ba8056e" CreationDate="2013-05-13T13:05:30.113" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;defensive-publications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8251" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3790" RevisionGUID="8de976d7-a6ad-4bdc-b19c-ac738b99a31b" CreationDate="2013-05-13T13:14:51.590" UserId="1259" Comment="tag" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3692" RevisionGUID="7c5f3acd-5a8d-41a2-9960-ce692a2600e2" CreationDate="2013-05-13T16:06:29.510" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="One of the purposes of the patent system is for others to learn from what an inventor has laid out. However, what aspects of the teachings of a patent document are and are not fair game can be difficult to determine. In this case the document you referenced is an application for a patent, not a patent. As such it would not stop anyone from  doing anything. The first step is to look it up in some patent database to see if it resulted in a patent. Checking USPTO PAIR I see that it produced an issued patent 7,072,483. The claims of that patent define a set of things you can't do. That is the easy part. Has the rest of what the application taught been dedicated to the public? Maybe. If there are continuation applications on file or other counterparts in existence those may have additional claims beyond this patent. Also, the fact that this patent may not claim something doesn't mean it is necessarily fair game. Some other patent by the same or different inventors may cover it. Being outside the scope of one patent's claims does not mean something is outside the scope of all patents' claims.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3170" RevisionGUID="3757d34e-86d6-470d-b31b-ec3b6ac7121d" CreationDate="2013-05-13T16:56:55.730" UserId="1767" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Prior Art related to a US Patent Application (&quot;Requests for Prior Art&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;US patent law or the patent approval process&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;How to interpret a specific patent claim&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3171" RevisionGUID="f8b69ae6-0243-491d-8bf0-234d9eaea116" CreationDate="2013-05-13T16:58:31.940" UserId="1767" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Trademarks, copyrights, litigation or anything not directly related to US patents&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Questions which are primarily opinion-based&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Questions with many possible answers or questions which would require an extremely long answer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="792ce16a-d92b-4d9e-ae8d-2c61dcd4e854" CreationDate="2013-05-13T17:08:44.647" UserId="1767" Comment="added 400 characters in body; deleted 39 characters in body; deleted 1 characters in body" Text="$SiteName is a collaboratively edited Q&amp;amp;A platform for patent experts, inventors and citizens who wish to participate in the US patent process. &#xA;&#xA;**The primary purpase of $SiteName is to help individuals:**&#xA;&#xA;1.  **Solicit help to find Prior Art for US Patent Applications**&#xA;2.  **Get answers to hard questions about specific patent claims**&#xA;3.  **Ask questions about the US patent system or process**&#xA;&#xA;Any individual is free to post a **&quot;Request for Prior Art&quot;** for a US Patent Application.  Prior Art found on $SiteName will be presented to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).&#xA;&#xA;As a community we believe that identifying overly-broad patent applications and presenting relevant Prior Art to the USPTO will result in fewer patents being issued with overly-broad or obvious claims.&#xA;&#xA;$SiteName was designed in collaboration with the USPTO and Peer To Patent, whose efforts empowering citizens to help find prior art inspired the crowdsourced approach you see here. We also worked with Google to leverage the power of Google Patents Search and their new Prior Art Finder Tool.&#xA;        " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5" RevisionGUID="965e733e-9248-4711-967e-4240283bed09" CreationDate="2013-05-13T17:14:53.137" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="The **3 types of questions** you can ask here are those about:&#xA;&#xA;1. **Prior art for a US patent application**, whether anyone knows of any that might exist, or whether something you’ve found would qualify&#xA;&#xA;2. **US patent law** or the patent approval process&#xA;&#xA;3. **Specific aspects or interpretations** of a particular patent claim&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Before asking, please [look around](/search) to see if your question or a similar question has already been asked. And, remember, it’s OK to [ask and answer your own question](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/07/its-ok-to-ask-and-answer-your-own-questions/).&#xA;&#xA;If you have a question about the site itself, please ask it in [meta](http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15" RevisionGUID="a5b222ef-2561-456a-b736-c4f04e096053" CreationDate="2013-05-13T17:19:35.123" UserId="1767" Comment="added 237 characters in body" Text="### Some _good_ example questions:&#xA;&#xA;**… About specific examples of prior art:**&#xA;&#xA;*Important: All prior art questions must show that you have put in effort to find and understand the prior art that you are looking for. Questions like, “US8675309 - any prior art out there?” will be closed unless they also include details of what you’re looking for, or what you’ve already done to search.*&#xA;&#xA;- &quot;CALL FOR PRIOR ART: Have you seen anything (published before December 09, 2010) that describes the transparency degree setting in this US Patent Application from Nintendo?&quot;&#xA;- &quot;CALL FOR PRIOR ART: Have you seen anything (published before September 12, 2011) that discusses (1) scale factors; (2) scale factor sets; AND (3) pixel density range in the manner described in this US Patent Application from Microsoft?&#xA;- “There must be prior art for US20120093958. I have done Google ArtFinder &#xA;  and Keyword Searches at the USPTO. Where can I find it?”&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;**… About the US Patent Process:**&#xA;&#xA;- “What is the difference between a disclosure document and a provisional application?”&#xA;- “Are there guidelines to determine what makes a patent obvious?”&#xA;- “Can a YouTube video qualify as prior art?”&#xA;&#xA;**… About specific patents or applications:**&#xA;&#xA;- “What is the key inventive step of US5640541?”&#xA;- “How is US493841\. not an obvious improvement upon US3306512?”&#xA;- “What is novel about the invention described in application US20120093958?”&#xA;- “Why does claim 1 of US493841\. say the invention is ‘edible’ if it is later &#xA;  described as being made of “webbed” or “laminated” paper?”&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6" RevisionGUID="e2cc88eb-a2be-4e57-99d5-2551427892ba" CreationDate="2013-05-13T17:22:19.037" UserId="1767" Comment="added 273 characters in body; added 37 characters in body" Text="**Search for similar questions**.  Use the site search feature to make sure no one has already asked a similar question. If you’re asking about a specific patent, you can see any other questions about that patent by doing a tag search. Tag search format simply has brackets surrounding the tag name, like this: [US3141592]&#xA;&#xA;**Base the form of your question on a the model question**.  For example, requests for prior art for a patent application should follow the form of RFPAs as closely as possible, as explained here:  [What should an ideal prior art request look like][1]&#xA;&#xA;**Show the community you’ve thought about it**.  Tell us what you already know in the body of your question. When you post a new question, other users, including civilian experts and those at the USPTO, will see your question and hopefully attempt to provide good answers. The more you can do to include relevant details such as patent numbers, publication numbers, links to prior art, and links to patents and applications at Google Patents, the more likely it is that others will be able to help you.&#xA;&#xA;Additionally, **questions about specific patents** or applications **should be tagged with the relevant patent number** (for approved patents) or publication number (for applications). See [“How do I use tag?”](#tag-use) for more.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/1767" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3801" RevisionGUID="7eccf07d-43b0-4c66-9b91-b8efcc5b5f8f" CreationDate="2013-05-13T20:04:33.933" UserId="3777" Text="How can I tell when U.S. Patent 7,055,282 B2 expires?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8261" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3801" RevisionGUID="7eccf07d-43b0-4c66-9b91-b8efcc5b5f8f" CreationDate="2013-05-13T20:04:33.933" UserId="3777" Text="What is the lifetime of U.S. Patent 7,055,282 B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8262" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3801" RevisionGUID="7eccf07d-43b0-4c66-9b91-b8efcc5b5f8f" CreationDate="2013-05-13T20:04:33.933" UserId="3777" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3801" RevisionGUID="d4f9d4c1-13d0-4830-b10e-413e35bab5fc" CreationDate="2013-05-13T21:31:40.887" UserId="1259" Comment="linkie" Text="How can I tell when U.S. Patent [7,055,282 B2][1] expires?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us7055282B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3802" RevisionGUID="6c2bb4e0-0a62-4ec4-a885-b6a23249b133" CreationDate="2013-05-13T21:35:12.240" UserId="1259" Text="The USPTO Public Pair site states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Filing or 371(c) Date:	 08-11-2004&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Issue Date of Patent:	 06-06-2006&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and also&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Total PTA Adjustments:	 162&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So 20 years +162 days from 08/11/2004 is my best guess. (unless it falls under the old rules, sorry I have no idea about lifetime under the old rules)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8265" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3802" RevisionGUID="ea75a80b-0fec-424e-b7ac-05695defed56" CreationDate="2013-05-13T21:40:23.963" UserId="1259" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="The USPTO Public Pair site states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Filing or 371(c) Date:	 08-11-2004&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Issue Date of Patent:	 06-06-2006&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and also&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Total PTA Adjustments:	 162&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So 20 years +162 days from 08/11/2004 is my best guess. (unless it falls under the old rules, sorry I have no idea about lifetime under the old rules). Basically a decade to go, give or take some years, not in the immediate future." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6" RevisionGUID="fd2a4268-09f0-4e86-a5a7-61d9f0651a9f" CreationDate="2013-05-14T04:39:13.967" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; deleted 30 characters in body" Text="**Search for similar questions**.  Use the site search feature to make sure no one has already asked a similar question. If you’re asking about a specific patent, you can see any other questions about that patent by doing a tag search. Tag search format simply has brackets surrounding the tag name, like this: [US3141592]&#xA;&#xA;**Use a model question**.  For example, requests for prior art for a patent application should follow the form of RFPAs as closely as possible, as explained here:  [What should an ideal prior art request look like][1]&#xA;&#xA;**Show the community you’ve thought about it**.  Tell us what you already know in the body of your question. When you post a new question, other users, including civilian experts and those at the USPTO, will see your question and hopefully attempt to provide good answers. The more you can do to include relevant details such as patent numbers, publication numbers, links to prior art, and links to patents and applications at Google Patents, the more likely it is that others will be able to help you.&#xA;&#xA;Additionally, **questions about specific patents** or applications **should be tagged with the relevant patent number** (for approved patents) or publication number (for applications). See [“How do I use tag?”](#tag-use) for more.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/1767" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3802" RevisionGUID="390870ab-8fe2-42ea-9474-132504f08113" CreationDate="2013-05-14T13:08:52.107" UserId="1259" Comment="edited with how-to find" Text="You can find the patent status and validity on the [USPTO Public Pair site][1]. Enter the patent number (without the US, or B2). The &quot;Patent Term Adjustments&quot; tab shows the applicable dates, in this case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Filing or 371(c) Date:	 08-11-2004&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Issue Date of Patent:	 06-06-2006&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and also&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Total PTA Adjustments:	 162&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As this is an &quot;old&quot; application, it falls under the old rules which gave back days for USPTO caused delays (in some cases).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So 20 years +162 days from 08/11/2004 is my best guess. Basically a decade more to go, give or take some years, not in the immediate future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3801" RevisionGUID="350e1f52-14e3-4493-85c4-ca6817097c21" CreationDate="2013-05-14T14:54:12.633" UserId="1" Comment="added 60 characters in body; edited title" Text="How do you determine the lifetime of a patent? For example, how can I tell when U.S. Patent [7,055,282 B2][1] expires?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us7055282B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8270" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3801" RevisionGUID="350e1f52-14e3-4493-85c4-ca6817097c21" CreationDate="2013-05-14T14:54:12.633" UserId="1" Comment="added 60 characters in body; edited title" Text="How do you determine the patent expiration date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8271" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3801" RevisionGUID="1068cd41-deff-4ac8-b4b6-e7aeed9c9be7" CreationDate="2013-05-14T15:46:38.627" UserId="1" Comment="edited title" Text="How do you determine a patent's expiration date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3803" RevisionGUID="48406abd-f5e3-46df-83f0-159bed07a564" CreationDate="2013-05-14T20:34:44.007" UserId="3076" Text="Patent term&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the  Uruguay round of GATT in 1994 the U. S. agreed to change the term of utility and plant applications from 17 years from grant to 20 years from filing.  This took effect for applications filed on or after June 8, 1995&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it is more complicated than that. Applications that were in-force on that date or filed before that date get the greater of 17 years from grant and 20 years from filing. Applications filed on or after it, nominally get 20 years from filing. But what counts as &quot;filing&quot;?. To determine if an application is pre- or post Uruguay its actual filing  date is used. So a continuation application filed June 8th  1995 that fully gets priority from a U.S. non provisonal application filed well before that date, is nonetheless a post-Uruguay application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; An application that is a continuation or divisional application and therefore refers back to claim priority of an earlier application will start its 20 years counting from the earliest application in that chain. A U.S. provisional application or a foreign application isn't included in that chain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I said that the 20 years is the &quot;nominal&quot; term. The actual term can be affected by many things. One is terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer is used by a patent owner to agree that a patent will automatically terminate when a related patent terminates. This is to prevent so-called &quot;non-statutory double patenting&quot;.  Also a court can declare a patent invalid or unenforceable and the USPTO can, in a reexamination or other post-grant proceeding, declare one or all claims as being rejected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The change from 17 years after issue to 20 years from filing was intended to not make a significant change to the average patent term. If a patent took three years from filing to grant, the actual term would come out about the same under either system. However, it is possible that the patent office might take longer than three years. To compensate for this, utility and plant  patents issued from applications filed after May 29, 2000 can have days added on to their term by &quot;patent term adjustment&quot;. The number of days the USPTO calculated for this is on the face of the issued patent (note: the USPTO's initial method of calculating this has been challenged in the courts and the USPTO has lost, so the number on the face of the patent may or may not be correct.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For patents resulting from applications filed between June 8th 1995 and May 29th 2000 there is a different system called &quot;patent term extension&quot; ( not to be confused with an entirely different scheme also called &quot;patent term extention&quot; related to delays through the FDA). Under the non-FDA related PTE, the term of a patent is extended to compensate for delays caused by a secrecy order, an appeal that the patentee won or an interference. This is limited to five years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To compensate for delays through the FDA processes a patent owner can apply for patent term extension when it gets a go-ahead from the FDA to compensate for the product not being marketable until that process concludes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last factor is maintainer fees.  All  utility patents resulting from applications filed after December 12 1980 require payment of maintenance  fees to stay in-force.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [USPTO  has a page on term calculation where a term calculator ][1]can be found. Elsewhere [patents that asked for and received PTE are listed.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/patent_term_calculator.jsp#heading-1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/foia_rr/resources/patents/pte.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3803" RevisionGUID="932585f8-5f13-45f8-becc-d7900a9da584" CreationDate="2013-05-14T21:41:37.503" UserId="3076" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="Patent term &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- slip to the end for a link to download a calculator from the USPTO.--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the  Uruguay round of GATT in 1994 the U. S. agreed to change the term of utility and plant applications from 17 years from grant to 20 years from filing.  This took effect for applications filed on or after June 8, 1995&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it is more complicated than that. Applications that were in-force on that date or filed before that date get the greater of 17 years from grant and 20 years from filing. Applications filed on or after it, nominally get 20 years from filing. But what counts as &quot;filing&quot;?. To determine if an application is pre- or post Uruguay its actual filing  date is used. So a continuation application filed June 8th  1995 that fully gets priority from a U.S. non provisonal application filed well before that date, is nonetheless a post-Uruguay application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; An application that is a continuation or divisional application and therefore refers back to claim priority of an earlier application will start its 20 years counting from the earliest application in that chain. A U.S. provisional application or a foreign application isn't included in that chain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I said that the 20 years is the &quot;nominal&quot; term. The actual term can be affected by many things. One is terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer is used by a patent owner to agree that a patent will automatically terminate when a related patent terminates. This is to prevent so-called &quot;non-statutory double patenting&quot;.  Also a court can declare a patent invalid or unenforceable and the USPTO can, in a reexamination or other post-grant proceeding, declare one or all claims as being rejected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The change from 17 years after issue to 20 years from filing was intended to not make a significant change to the average patent term. If a patent took three years from filing to grant, the actual term would come out about the same under either system. However, it is possible that the patent office might take longer than three years. To compensate for this, utility and plant  patents issued from applications filed after May 29, 2000 can have days added on to their term by &quot;patent term adjustment&quot;. The number of days the USPTO calculated for this is on the face of the issued patent (note: the USPTO's initial method of calculating this has been challenged in the courts and the USPTO has lost, so the number on the face of the patent may or may not be correct.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For patents resulting from applications filed between June 8th 1995 and May 29th 2000 there is a different system called &quot;patent term extension&quot; ( not to be confused with an entirely different scheme also called &quot;patent term extention&quot; related to delays through the FDA). Under the non-FDA related PTE, the term of a patent is extended to compensate for delays caused by a secrecy order, an appeal that the patentee won or an interference. This is limited to five years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To compensate for delays through the FDA processes a patent owner can apply for patent term extension when it gets a go-ahead from the FDA to compensate for the product not being marketable until that process concludes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last factor is maintainer fees.  All  utility patents resulting from applications filed after December 12 1980 require payment of maintenance  fees to stay in-force.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [USPTO  has a page on term calculation where a term calculator ][1]can be found. Elsewhere [patents that asked for and received PTE are listed.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/patent_term_calculator.jsp#heading-1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/foia_rr/resources/patents/pte.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3803" RevisionGUID="cf8a5f03-71e5-4437-bbd0-96edd99c9cfa" CreationDate="2013-05-14T21:53:34.560" UserId="3076" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Patent term &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- skip to the end for a link to download a term calculator from the USPTO.--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the  Uruguay round of GATT in 1994 the U. S. agreed to change the term of utility and plant applications from 17 years from grant to 20 years from filing.  This took effect for applications filed on or after June 8, 1995&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it is more complicated than that. Applications that were in-force on that date or filed before that date get the greater of 17 years from grant and 20 years from filing. Applications filed on or after it, nominally get 20 years from filing. But what counts as &quot;filing&quot;?. To determine if an application is pre- or post Uruguay its actual filing  date is used. So a continuation application filed June 8th  1995 that fully gets priority from a U.S. non provisonal application filed well before that date, is nonetheless a post-Uruguay application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; An application that is a continuation or divisional application and therefore refers back to claim priority of an earlier application will start its 20 years counting from the earliest application in that chain. A U.S. provisional application or a foreign application isn't included in that chain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I said that the 20 years is the &quot;nominal&quot; term. The actual term can be affected by many things. One is terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer is used by a patent owner to agree that a patent will automatically terminate when a related patent terminates. This is to prevent so-called &quot;non-statutory double patenting&quot;.  Also a court can declare a patent invalid or unenforceable and the USPTO can, in a reexamination or other post-grant proceeding, declare one or all claims as being rejected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The change from 17 years after issue to 20 years from filing was intended to not make a significant change to the average patent term. If a patent took three years from filing to grant, the actual term would come out about the same under either system. However, it is possible that the patent office might take longer than three years. To compensate for this, utility and plant  patents issued from applications filed after May 29, 2000 can have days added on to their term by &quot;patent term adjustment&quot;. The number of days the USPTO calculated for this is on the face of the issued patent (note: the USPTO's initial method of calculating this has been challenged in the courts and the USPTO has lost, so the number on the face of the patent may or may not be correct.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For patents resulting from applications filed between June 8th 1995 and May 29th 2000 there is a different system called &quot;patent term extension&quot; ( not to be confused with an entirely different scheme also called &quot;patent term extention&quot; related to delays through the FDA). Under the non-FDA related PTE, the term of a patent is extended to compensate for delays caused by a secrecy order, an appeal that the patentee won or an interference. This is limited to five years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To compensate for delays through the FDA processes a patent owner can apply for patent term extension when it gets a go-ahead from the FDA to compensate for the product not being marketable until that process concludes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last factor is maintainer fees.  All  utility patents resulting from applications filed after December 12 1980 require payment of maintenance  fees to stay in-force.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [USPTO  has a page on term calculation where a term calculator ][1]can be found. Elsewhere [patents that asked for and received PTE are listed.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/patent_term_calculator.jsp#heading-1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/foia_rr/resources/patents/pte.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3803" RevisionGUID="55d7737a-8495-4b5c-8df8-60fa8546a08b" CreationDate="2013-05-15T05:49:27.643" UserId="3076" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Patent term &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- skip to the end for a link to download a term calculator from the USPTO.--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the  Uruguay round of GATT in 1994 the U. S. agreed to change the term of utility and plant applications from 17 years from grant to 20 years from filing.  This took effect for applications filed on or after June 8, 1995&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it is more complicated than that. Applications that were in-force on that date or filed before that date get the **greater** of 17 years from grant and 20 years from filing. Applications filed on or after it get 20 (nominally) years from filing. But what counts as &quot;filing&quot;?. To determine if an application is pre- or post Uruguay its actual filing  date is used. So a continuation application filed June 8th  1995 that fully gets priority from a U.S. non provisonal application filed well before that date, is nonetheless a post-Uruguay application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; An application that is a continuation or divisional application and therefore refers back to claim priority of an earlier application will start its 20 years counting from the earliest application in that chain. A U.S. provisional application or a foreign application isn't included in that chain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I said that the 20 years is the &quot;nominal&quot; term. The actual term can be affected by many things. One is terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer is used by a patent owner to agree that a patent will automatically terminate when a related patent terminates. This is to prevent so-called &quot;non-statutory double patenting&quot;.  Also a court can declare a patent invalid or unenforceable and the USPTO can, in a reexamination or other post-grant proceeding, declare one or all claims as being rejected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The change from 17 years after issue to 20 years from filing was intended to not make a significant change to the average patent term. If a patent took three years from filing to grant, the actual term would come out about the same under either system. However, it is possible that the patent office might take longer than three years. To compensate for this, utility and plant  patents issued from applications filed after May 29, 2000 can have days added on to their term by &quot;patent term adjustment&quot;. The number of days the USPTO calculated for this is on the face of the issued patent (note: the USPTO's initial method of calculating this has been challenged in the courts and the USPTO has lost, so the number on the face of the patent may or may not be correct.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For patents resulting from applications filed between June 8th 1995 and May 29th 2000 there is a different system called &quot;patent term extension&quot; ( not to be confused with an entirely different scheme also called &quot;patent term extention&quot; related to delays through the FDA). Under the non-FDA related PTE, the term of a patent is extended to compensate for delays caused by a secrecy order, an appeal that the patentee won or an interference. This is limited to five years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To compensate for delays through the FDA processes a patent owner can apply for patent term extension when it gets a go-ahead from the FDA to compensate for the product not being marketable until that process concludes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last factor is maintainer fees.  All  utility patents resulting from applications filed after December 12 1980 require payment of maintenance  fees to stay in-force.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [USPTO  has a page on term calculation where a term calculator ][1]can be found. Elsewhere [patents that asked for and received PTE are listed.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/patent_term_calculator.jsp#heading-1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/foia_rr/resources/patents/pte.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3807" RevisionGUID="258b2965-2ab4-43b0-92fe-4327a1577b02" CreationDate="2013-05-15T20:08:42.063" UserId="3787" Text="I have seen many patents related to use of herbs in medicines, like some homemade remedy for cough syrup etc. A large number of such remedies are already listed in many ancient medical books, one being Ayurveda in India, dating back to 300 BC. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly, the book and the remedies are the part of archeological heritage of a country and comes under public domain. So, shouldn't the patent for such remedy be Invalid? If yes, then how one can challenge such issued patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8292" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3807" RevisionGUID="258b2965-2ab4-43b0-92fe-4327a1577b02" CreationDate="2013-05-15T20:08:42.063" UserId="3787" Text="If a patent is listed in an ancient book, can It still be a valid patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8293" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3807" RevisionGUID="258b2965-2ab4-43b0-92fe-4327a1577b02" CreationDate="2013-05-15T20:08:42.063" UserId="3787" Text="&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;public-domain&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3807" RevisionGUID="a095bdad-c311-4b34-ad60-5d24d8437147" CreationDate="2013-05-16T13:25:44.990" UserId="1259" Comment="grammer, caps, tags" Text="I have seen many patents related to use of herbs in medicines, like some homemade remedy for cough syrup etc. A large number of such remedies are already listed in many ancient medical books, one being Ayurveda in India, dating back to 300 BC. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly, the book and the remedies are the part of archaeological heritage of a country and comes under public domain. So, shouldn't the patent for such remedy be invalidated? If yes, then how one can challenge such issued patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8295" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3807" RevisionGUID="a095bdad-c311-4b34-ad60-5d24d8437147" CreationDate="2013-05-16T13:25:44.990" UserId="1259" Comment="grammer, caps, tags" Text="If a medicine is listed in an ancient book, can it still be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8296" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3807" RevisionGUID="a095bdad-c311-4b34-ad60-5d24d8437147" CreationDate="2013-05-16T13:25:44.990" UserId="1259" Comment="grammer, caps, tags" Text="&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;public-domain&gt;&lt;medicine&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3810" RevisionGUID="46d3c3e3-fc5e-430e-a5a4-57b546a4c530" CreationDate="2013-05-16T17:52:14.123" UserId="3076" Text="In theory anything &quot;published&quot; anywhere at anytime on the past is fair game as prior art. In general this issue is called &quot;Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property&quot; and is current, omportant toic in the IP community. This is a link to a discussion at WIPO on it wipo.int/pressroom/en/briefs/tk_ip.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents that might fall under this category may be very deserved due to a specific active ingredient being identified and purified." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3810" RevisionGUID="9c1d0cc5-2f01-42d0-b8e7-1ab2d4a13955" CreationDate="2013-05-16T17:58:02.623" UserId="3076" Comment="added 203 characters in body" Text="In theory anything &quot;published&quot; anywhere at anytime in the past is fair game as prior art. This issue is called &quot;Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property&quot; and is a current, important topic in the IP community. This is a link to a discussion at WIPO on it [here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents that might fall under this category may be very deserved due to a specific active ingredient being identified and purified. Granted patents are subject to reexamination and other USPTO procedures that a third party can initiate. This can be expensive and might be done defensively if and when a particular patent was asserted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://wipo.int/pressroom/en/briefs/tk_ip.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3810" RevisionGUID="1fe5fe97-c5e2-4e6c-bf87-87d08b1164be" CreationDate="2013-05-16T19:24:29.390" UserId="3076" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="In theory anything &quot;published&quot; anywhere at anytime in the past is fair game as prior art. The particular issue you bring up is called &quot;Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property&quot; and is a current, important topic in the IP community. This is a link to a discussion at WIPO on it [here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents that might fall under this category may be very deserved due to a specific active ingredient being identified and purified. Granted patents are subject to reexamination and other USPTO procedures that a third party can initiate. This can be expensive and might be done defensively if and when a particular patent was asserted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://wipo.int/pressroom/en/briefs/tk_ip.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3810" RevisionGUID="43cd56d7-de1f-4376-bc9a-3ea293dc7d1d" CreationDate="2013-05-16T19:43:51.023" UserId="3076" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="In theory anything &quot;published&quot; anywhere at anytime in the past is fair game as prior art. The particular issue you bring up is called &quot;Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property&quot; and is a current, important topic in the IP community. This is a link to a discussion at WIPO on it [here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents that might fall under this category may be very deserved due to a specific active ingredient being identified and purified. If you think a particular patent is not properly granted, patents are subject to reexamination and other USPTO procedures that a third party can initiate. This can be expensive and might be done defensively if and when a particular patent was asserted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://wipo.int/pressroom/en/briefs/tk_ip.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3812" RevisionGUID="1ff9160a-6c54-4f56-9e45-f40239a22eea" CreationDate="2013-05-17T03:44:41.577" UserId="1335" Text="Funnily enough, a few months ago I stumbled upon a very detailed account of Selden, his work, his patents and legal battles against his competitors:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.kcstudio.com/selden.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Selden is another historical figure that some contemporary articles like to paint as a historical example of a &quot;patent troll&quot;, but this account suggests otherwise. He does seem to be one of the earlier practitioner of &quot;submarine&quot; patents, although, if this account is accurate, he was so far ahead of his time that in his case it seems justified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a fascinating read and has lots of old photos and newspaper clippings to go with the narrative. Although I haven't taken the time to verify its accuracy, it generally seems to gel with most of the document and photographic evidence included.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3813" RevisionGUID="a2b0bd19-a0b0-4fe0-9f66-2c279997de1a" CreationDate="2013-05-17T06:47:58.817" UserId="3796" Text="A patent is a very strategic legal document. The skill in drafting a patent results in broad, enforceable rights that encompass a wide range of variations to your invention. What this means is that someone can’t change a bolt, dimension, or other small design feature and get away with stealing your invention. A patent is initially drafted with very broad legal rights (claims). The USPTO will make us narrow these rights in the prosecution phase. This “over claiming” and then narrowing is known as prosecution and ensures that you receive the absolute broadest, strongest, and valuable rights possible. If there were no prosecution then it means you could have had stronger rights than you actually received. Keep in mind that having a patent is not what matters; rather, having a strong, enforceable patent that cannot be easily stolen is what matters. A weak patent may turn out to offer minimal to no actual rights or value.&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;[patent attorneys][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.inventionprotectionlaw.com/services-and-fees/nonprovisional-utility-patent/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3813" RevisionGUID="45461242-f883-4289-b225-c8ae94ac17f3" CreationDate="2013-05-17T12:30:16.817" UserId="1259" Comment="blatant self promotion link deleted, un-bolded text" Text="A patent is a very strategic legal document. The skill in drafting a patent results in broad, enforceable rights that encompass a wide range of variations to your invention. What this means is that someone can’t change a bolt, dimension, or other small design feature and get away with stealing your invention. A patent is initially drafted with very broad legal rights (claims). The USPTO will make us narrow these rights in the prosecution phase. This “over claiming” and then narrowing is known as prosecution and ensures that you receive the absolute broadest, strongest, and valuable rights possible. If there were no prosecution then it means you could have had stronger rights than you actually received. Keep in mind that having a patent is not what matters; rather, having a strong, enforceable patent that cannot be easily stolen is what matters. A weak patent may turn out to offer minimal to no actual rights or value.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3814" RevisionGUID="fe54497e-c2ca-4832-a5da-857d51a5bf14" CreationDate="2013-05-17T17:43:56.717" UserId="3801" Text="If I understand the wording of patent US7889927 correctly, a patent was granted for a Chinese input method that uses the components of the characters themselves.  The &quot;Background of the Invention&quot; section claims that &quot;No search method exists for a situation where a user does not already know the pronunciation or radical of a Chinese character.&quot;  Clearly the submitter of the patent application and the Patent Office reviewers were not aware of the then state-of-the-art of Chinese input methods in Asian countries or conveniently chose to ignore it.  The patent was applied for in 2005.  However, Chinese input methods based solely on the components of the characters predated input methods based on pronunciation and are still widely used in Asia today.  Two of the more popular methods are the Cangjie input method invented in 1976 and the Wubi input method invented in 1981. Both of these input methods are based on the components of their character and their location within it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I missing something?  Does prior art have to be widely known within the US itself?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8318" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3814" RevisionGUID="fe54497e-c2ca-4832-a5da-857d51a5bf14" CreationDate="2013-05-17T17:43:56.717" UserId="3801" Text="Patent US7889927 seems faulty; plenty of prior art exists" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8319" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3814" RevisionGUID="fe54497e-c2ca-4832-a5da-857d51a5bf14" CreationDate="2013-05-17T17:43:56.717" UserId="3801" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8320" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3814" RevisionGUID="b21a6e3b-b44f-412b-8565-edc219aa3fe4" CreationDate="2013-05-17T18:01:59.450" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us7889927&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3814" RevisionGUID="82c471e6-1dee-47bf-8b9f-beb5979c1ce8" CreationDate="2013-05-17T18:14:21.213" UserId="3076" Comment="Added claim 1" Text="If I understand the wording of patent US7889927 correctly, a patent was granted for a Chinese input method that uses the components of the characters themselves.  The &quot;Background of the Invention&quot; section claims that &quot;No search method exists for a situation where a user does not already know the pronunciation or radical of a Chinese character.&quot;  Clearly the submitter of the patent application and the Patent Office reviewers were not aware of the then state-of-the-art of Chinese input methods in Asian countries or conveniently chose to ignore it.  The patent was applied for in 2005.  However, Chinese input methods based solely on the components of the characters predated input methods based on pronunciation and are still widely used in Asia today.  Two of the more popular methods are the Cangjie input method invented in 1976 and the Wubi input method invented in 1981. Both of these input methods are based on the components of their character and their location within it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A Chinese Character search method for selecting a desired Chinese character from a plurality of pre-stored Chinese characters based upon incomplete identification of the desired Chinese character, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(a) inputting a notation corresponding to a known reference Chinese character containing at least a first component part in common with said desired Chinese character;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(b) searching the pre-stored Chinese characters based on the notation to find said known reference Chinese character;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(c) breaking said known reference Chinese character into a plurality of component parts that comprise said first component part and displaying said component parts; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;d) selecting at least said first component part and then searching again the pre-stored Chinese characters based on at least said first component part to find at least one candidate for selecting the desired Chinese character from the plurality of pre-stored Chinese characters based upon the incomplete identification of the desired Chinese character.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I missing something?  Does prior art have to be widely known within the US itself?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3815" RevisionGUID="d0744b8a-d4ed-4c87-a9cf-16f1c672b7b1" CreationDate="2013-05-17T18:38:28.357" UserId="3076" Text="An applicant's statement that no one has ever done something before is not given any weight by the examiner. It is also not recommended in application drafting. I would imagine it can have the opposite effect and spur an examiner to prove the applicant wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I read claim 1, the user first enters a reference character that has a component in common with the character to be ultimately selected. The initial character is displayed with its components separately selectable. The user selects the component they had in mind as the common component and then a choice of characters with that component are displayed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user is not entering a code signifying a component." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3815" RevisionGUID="f71a9813-aebc-4d5a-9342-2019f8e24936" CreationDate="2013-05-17T18:44:01.880" UserId="3076" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="An applicant's statement that no one has ever done something before is not given any weight by the examiner. It is also not recommended in application drafting. I would imagine it can have the opposite effect and spur an examiner to prove the applicant wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I read claim 1, the user first enters a reference character that has a component in common with the character to be ultimately input. The initial character is displayed with its components separately selectable. The user selects the component they had in mind as the common component and then a choice of characters with that component are displayed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user is not entering codes signifying each of the components." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3815" RevisionGUID="bd50619d-a536-4fd3-8659-21488a240483" CreationDate="2013-05-17T18:50:30.617" UserId="3076" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="An applicant's statement that no one has ever done something before is not given any weight by the examiner. It is also not recommended in application drafting. I would imagine it can have the opposite effect and spur an examiner to prove the applicant wrong. The claims get narrowed as the patent is examined but the wording of the specifications is not generally amended in a corresponding way, so a patent can easily end up with broad statements in the background section that are out of line with the claims that get allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I read claim 1, the user first enters a reference character that has a component in common with the character to be ultimately input. The initial character is displayed with its components separately selectable. The user selects the component they had in mind as the common component and then a choice of characters with that component are displayed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user is not entering codes signifying each of the components." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3815" RevisionGUID="24e475a2-4296-4997-a94f-a195ce999433" CreationDate="2013-05-17T23:05:14.200" UserId="3076" Comment="added 429 characters in body" Text="An applicant's statement that no one has ever done something before is not given any weight by the examiner. It is also not recommended in application drafting. I would imagine it can have the opposite effect and spur an examiner to prove the applicant wrong. The claims get narrowed as the patent is examined but the wording of the specifications is not generally amended in a corresponding way, so a patent can easily end up with broad statements in the background section that are out of line with the claims that get allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I read claim 1, the user first enters a code of a **reference character** that has a component in common with the character to be ultimately input. The initial refernce character is displayed with its components separately selectable. The user selects the component they had in mind as the common component and then a choice of characters with that component are displayed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user is not entering codes signifying each of the components of a desired character.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the last part of the question - anything in a printed publication on a world-wide basis is fair game. For information not published or patented but just &quot;known&quot;, it was restricted to &quot;known in this country&quot; until the AIA law. Now known anywhere is the standard. In this case I imagine there were user manuals of the methods you mentioned so they would be considered published." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3815" RevisionGUID="2ef65bb1-8ba6-4c61-98b0-a28b5287a191" CreationDate="2013-05-18T05:50:46.857" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="An applicant's statement that no one has ever done something before is not given any weight by the examiner. It is also not recommended in application drafting. I would imagine it can have the opposite effect and spur an examiner to prove the applicant wrong. The claims get narrowed as the patent is examined but the wording of the specifications is not generally amended in a corresponding way, so a patent can easily end up with broad statements in the background section that are out of line with the claims that get allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I read claim 1, the user first enters a code of a **reference character** that has a component in common with the character to be ultimately input. The initial reference character is displayed with its components separately selectable. The user selects the component they had in mind as the common component and then a choice of characters with that component are displayed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user is not entering codes signifying each of the components of a desired character.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the last part of the question - anything in a printed publication on a world-wide basis is fair game. For information not published or patented but just &quot;known&quot;, it was restricted to &quot;known in this country&quot; until the AIA law. Now known anywhere is the standard. In this case I imagine there were user manuals of the methods you mentioned so they would be considered published." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3814" RevisionGUID="6e76e62b-1a59-4b9f-9a23-2df0332baf77" CreationDate="2013-05-18T13:08:45.357" UserId="1259" Comment="linkie" Text="If I understand the wording of patent [US7889927][1] correctly, a patent was granted for a Chinese input method that uses the components of the characters themselves.  The &quot;Background of the Invention&quot; section claims that &quot;No search method exists for a situation where a user does not already know the pronunciation or radical of a Chinese character.&quot;  Clearly the submitter of the patent application and the Patent Office reviewers were not aware of the then state-of-the-art of Chinese input methods in Asian countries or conveniently chose to ignore it.  The patent was applied for in 2005.  However, Chinese input methods based solely on the components of the characters predated input methods based on pronunciation and are still widely used in Asia today.  Two of the more popular methods are the Cangjie input method invented in 1976 and the Wubi input method invented in 1981. Both of these input methods are based on the components of their character and their location within it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A Chinese Character search method for selecting a desired Chinese character from a plurality of pre-stored Chinese characters based upon incomplete identification of the desired Chinese character, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(a) inputting a notation corresponding to a known reference Chinese character containing at least a first component part in common with said desired Chinese character;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(b) searching the pre-stored Chinese characters based on the notation to find said known reference Chinese character;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(c) breaking said known reference Chinese character into a plurality of component parts that comprise said first component part and displaying said component parts; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;d) selecting at least said first component part and then searching again the pre-stored Chinese characters based on at least said first component part to find at least one candidate for selecting the desired Chinese character from the plurality of pre-stored Chinese characters based upon the incomplete identification of the desired Chinese character.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I missing something?  Does prior art have to be widely known within the US itself?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7889927" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3815" RevisionGUID="df42b9a5-54f9-4445-b8d2-e6c062dc9101" CreationDate="2013-05-18T19:03:33.310" UserId="3076" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="An applicant's statement that no one has ever done something before is not given any weight by the examiner. It is also not recommended in application drafting. I would imagine it can have the opposite effect and spur an examiner to prove the applicant wrong. The claims frequently get narrowed as the patent is examined but the wording of the specifications is not generally amended in a corresponding way, so a patent can easily end up with broad statements in the background section that are out of line with the claims that get allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I read claim 1, the user first enters a code of a **reference character** that has a component in common with the character to be ultimately input. The initial reference character is displayed with its components separately selectable. The user selects the component they had in mind as the common component and then a choice of characters with that component are displayed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user is not entering codes signifying each of the components of a desired character.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the last part of the question - anything in a &quot;printed publication&quot; on a world-wide basis is fair game. For information not published or patented but just &quot;known&quot;, it was restricted to &quot;known in this country&quot; until the AIA changes to the U.S. patent law. Now, known anywhere is the standard. In this case I imagine there were user manuals for the methods you mentioned so they would be considered published." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3817" RevisionGUID="ce2e2801-b584-4043-b708-3ec305dfd751" CreationDate="2013-05-19T02:26:11.877" UserId="3804" Text="If you file a provisional patent purely to try and protect yourself, wouldn't that document the &quot;invention&quot; sufficient as such to be considered prior art? And if prior art is a valid defense, is it necessary to even file a full patent?  In other words...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is a provisional patent as prior art a sufficient defense from someone else who might assert theirs for the same &quot;invention&quot;, provided your provisional filing was filed first?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8334" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3817" RevisionGUID="ce2e2801-b584-4043-b708-3ec305dfd751" CreationDate="2013-05-19T02:26:11.877" UserId="3804" Text="Is a Provisional Patent As Prior Art Sufficient Defense?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8335" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3817" RevisionGUID="ce2e2801-b584-4043-b708-3ec305dfd751" CreationDate="2013-05-19T02:26:11.877" UserId="3804" Text="&lt;defensive-publications&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3818" RevisionGUID="1142252c-72c5-4230-b4de-4346554ebf06" CreationDate="2013-05-19T04:15:37.043" UserId="3076" Text="Documenting an invention in a way that never sees the light of day does not create prior art. A provisional application (it is **not** any kind of a patent, just an application) is not &quot;published&quot; and, if not followed up by a non-provisional application, never does see the light of day. If you are interested in a defensive publication you would want something that an examiner is likely to see that keeps others from getting a patent in the first place. Having ammunition in your back pocket that might be used in an invalidity defense in case you are sued just changes the probability of who wins in an expensive future legal action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3818" RevisionGUID="dfc5870b-a50a-41e5-a38d-6d8f064fb786" CreationDate="2013-05-19T06:43:57.200" UserId="3076" Comment="added 257 characters in body" Text="Documenting an invention in a way that never sees the light of day does not create prior art. A provisional application (it is **not** any kind of a patent, just an application) is not &quot;published&quot; and, if not followed up by a non-provisional application, never does see the light of day. If you are interested in a defensive publication you would want something that an examiner is likely to see that keeps others from getting a patent in the first place. Having ammunition in your back pocket that might be used in an invalidity defense in case you are sued just changes the probability of who wins in an expensive future legal action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do follow through and file a nonprovisional that cites the provisional and that application gets published or becomes a patent then the provisional will be prior art. (One of the few board of appeals cases that is prescedential - ex parte Yamaguchi)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3820" RevisionGUID="18ed027f-0f83-4645-9ac0-13e08417949e" CreationDate="2013-05-19T15:04:07.333" UserId="3806" Text="Except from the fact that the claims are narrower in the Airbus patent, there doesn't seem to be any new element over the original &quot;aircraft with driven wheel(s)&quot; patent from 1995. This patent itself cites relevant patents from 1961 and 1962, so some prior art is now in the public domain. The Airbus patent is very broad regarding the power transmission medium, which can be anything but a direct shaft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Operation from either the APU or the main engines was disclosed, both being air breathing turbine engines. Power transmission via hydraulics and electrical systems was disclosed, and the remaining possibilities don't seem very practical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last claims may give a hint, but a jet engine on which thrust and accessory power extraction can be independently set is not new either. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8344" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3820" RevisionGUID="18ed027f-0f83-4645-9ac0-13e08417949e" CreationDate="2013-05-19T15:04:07.333" UserId="3806" Text="How is this application different from Greenlite's 1995 PCT/EP1995/001527 (WO1995029094 A1)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8345" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3820" RevisionGUID="18ed027f-0f83-4645-9ac0-13e08417949e" CreationDate="2013-05-19T15:04:07.333" UserId="3806" Text="&lt;ep2548802a2&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3820" RevisionGUID="7b087d06-5e6b-425f-86ce-3806547b1eda" CreationDate="2013-05-20T05:54:08.793" UserId="3076" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="Except from the fact that the claims are narrower in the Airbus patent, there doesn't seem to be any new element over the original &quot;aircraft with driven wheel(s)&quot; patent from 1995. This patent itself cites relevant patents from 1961 and 1962, so some prior art is now in the public domain. The Airbus patent is very broad regarding the power transmission medium, which can be anything but a direct shaft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Operation from either the APU or the main engines was disclosed, both being air breathing turbine engines. Power transmission via hydraulics and electrical systems was disclosed, and the remaining possibilities don't seem very practical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last claims may give a hint, but a jet engine on which thrust and accessory power extraction can be independently set is not new either. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[wo1995029094][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/WO1995029094" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3820" RevisionGUID="f7a108e1-76a7-4424-af26-93d48233c57b" CreationDate="2013-05-20T06:06:40.213" UserId="3076" Comment="Added link" Text="Except from the fact that the claims are narrower in the Airbus patent, there doesn't seem to be any new element over the original &quot;aircraft with driven wheel(s)&quot; patent from 1995. This patent itself cites relevant patents from 1961 and 1962, so some prior art is now in the public domain. The Airbus patent is very broad regarding the power transmission medium, which can be anything but a direct shaft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Operation from either the APU or the main engines was disclosed, both being air breathing turbine engines. Power transmission via hydraulics and electrical systems was disclosed, and the remaining possibilities don't seem very practical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last claims may give a hint, but a jet engine on which thrust and accessory power extraction can be independently set is not new either. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[wo1995029094 Greenlite][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/WO1995029094" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3818" RevisionGUID="359d965e-b483-43ed-9515-cfbdf29edce8" CreationDate="2013-05-20T16:38:59.077" UserId="3076" Comment="Typo" Text="Documenting an invention in a way that never sees the light of day does not create prior art. A provisional application (it is **not** any kind of a patent, just an application) is not &quot;published&quot; and, if not followed up by a non-provisional application, never does see the light of day. If you are interested in a defensive publication you would want something that an examiner is likely to see that keeps others from getting a patent in the first place. Having ammunition in your back pocket that might be used in an invalidity defense in case you are sued just changes the probability of who wins in an expensive future legal action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do follow through and file a nonprovisional that cites the provisional and that application gets published or becomes a patent then the provisional will be prior art. (One of the few board of appeals cases that is precedential - ex parte Yamaguchi)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3823" RevisionGUID="428e5882-3ea8-4956-bb5d-a0821607079d" CreationDate="2013-05-21T00:21:08.697" UserId="3810" Text="Am I infringing on patents if I were to sell a product that I made from off the shelf components which are already patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8360" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3823" RevisionGUID="428e5882-3ea8-4956-bb5d-a0821607079d" CreationDate="2013-05-21T00:21:08.697" UserId="3810" Text="Product made of off the shelf components" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8361" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3823" RevisionGUID="428e5882-3ea8-4956-bb5d-a0821607079d" CreationDate="2013-05-21T00:21:08.697" UserId="3810" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3824" RevisionGUID="8db1758c-5094-4d23-bb42-137f88754cd7" CreationDate="2013-05-21T01:26:58.580" UserId="3076" Text="The patent status of the components is not at all likely to play a role in the analysis. Have you put them together to implement a patented thing? If so, you have made a patented apparatus. I saw a picture a few years ago of the first working prototype of the super soaker. It was cut pieces of PVC tubing, an empty 1 liter coke bottle and lots of parts from a hardware store. New things are often made of old things put together in a new way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8363" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="3825" RevisionGUID="9c2995a8-24a5-4811-96ee-e43f684b564d" CreationDate="2013-05-21T06:17:40.063" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/36236/what-parts-of-bouncy-castle-are-affected-by-patents" />
  <row Id="8364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3825" RevisionGUID="90e40da4-800f-486e-b48e-8ab0a638f63f" CreationDate="2013-05-21T01:14:42.727" UserId="3814" UserDisplayName="makerofthings7" Text="Given that Bouncy Castle is an Open Source project, it's entirely possible that the contents contains implementations protected by various patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Since it's possible for the patent holder to sue the company that made it (assuming they are collecting revenue from it) and the end user of such software, what aspects of the software are &quot;known safe&quot; or &quot;known unsafe&quot; with regard to unencumbered use by patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Example**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many authenticated [encryption modes for Block Ciphers][1] are protected by various patents.  Examples of such modes are XCBC, IACBC, IAPM, OCB, EAX, CWC, CCM, and GCM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Up until January 2013, [OCB mode had a restricted license][2] for commercial implementations,  and in theory could have put them at risk of a lawsuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though the OCB mode IP license has been relaxed somewhat, it's still important to know which implementations are safe and unsafe for general use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_cipher_modes_of_operation&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/license.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8365" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3825" RevisionGUID="90e40da4-800f-486e-b48e-8ab0a638f63f" CreationDate="2013-05-21T01:14:42.727" UserId="3814" UserDisplayName="makerofthings7" Text="What parts of Bouncy Castle are affected by patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8366" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3825" RevisionGUID="90e40da4-800f-486e-b48e-8ab0a638f63f" CreationDate="2013-05-21T01:14:42.727" UserId="3814" UserDisplayName="makerofthings7" Text="&lt;opensource&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3827" RevisionGUID="3f984c9d-6864-4b5a-b0f1-d8fd241a4868" CreationDate="2013-05-21T08:30:43.530" UserId="3811" Text="My grandfather created a mobile self-storage business in San Diego in the early 80s.  Although the concept is very big now (like Door-to-Door), at the time he had not heard of anyone else doing something similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He was told there was no way to patent the idea, so he never tried.  I would have thought he could file a `utility patent` on the process of moving a fully loaded storage room (trucks, cranes, trailers, weight distribution, loading ramps, and every other piece he worked out) and effectively had rights to the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Assuming* I'm right, is there any recourse 30 years later on the missed patent opportunity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8371" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3827" RevisionGUID="3f984c9d-6864-4b5a-b0f1-d8fd241a4868" CreationDate="2013-05-21T08:30:43.530" UserId="3811" Text="Can a missed patent opportunity be made up" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8372" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3827" RevisionGUID="3f984c9d-6864-4b5a-b0f1-d8fd241a4868" CreationDate="2013-05-21T08:30:43.530" UserId="3811" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8373" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3825" RevisionGUID="e4c233fa-960c-41bc-bef4-206656be4699" CreationDate="2013-05-21T11:10:23.183" UserId="3814" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;opensource&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3828" RevisionGUID="8e1d690c-5d88-4b26-86c7-50403d8a30de" CreationDate="2013-05-21T13:00:36.540" UserId="1259" Text="Thirty years later - absolutely none. Given the lifetime of a patent is ~20 years, it would have expired by now, in any case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3829" RevisionGUID="c06c0400-9b1c-4fcc-8048-4ab987bf5840" CreationDate="2013-05-21T14:35:02.547" UserId="3815" Text="A patent on a &quot;cooler&quot; is covering a wider spectrum of products. There are numerous cooler companies. Would they be commiting infringement on this patent just by making a cooler? Or perhaps the difference comes in when the different companies make coolers a different way or feature different designs on the cooler. Would it be considered safe to use several patented materials to make a new cooler that is not on the market and patent and/or sell such a item?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8376" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3829" RevisionGUID="c06c0400-9b1c-4fcc-8048-4ab987bf5840" CreationDate="2013-05-21T14:35:02.547" UserId="3815" Text="What would technically be considered infringement on this patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8377" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3829" RevisionGUID="c06c0400-9b1c-4fcc-8048-4ab987bf5840" CreationDate="2013-05-21T14:35:02.547" UserId="3815" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3829" RevisionGUID="64b2e1ea-288b-48cc-9522-42af4cb873f6" CreationDate="2013-05-21T15:08:21.090" UserId="3815" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="A patent on a &quot;cooler&quot; is covering a wider spectrum of products. There are numerous cooler companies. Would they be commiting infringement on this patent just by making a cooler? Or perhaps the difference comes in when the different companies make coolers a different way or feature different designs on the cooler. Would it be considered safe to use several patented materials to make a new cooler that is not on the market and patent and/or sell such a item?&#xD;&#xA;US 8327659 B2 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8381" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3829" RevisionGUID="bea77dc5-920c-4b25-aa89-da8c6180c514" CreationDate="2013-05-21T15:47:51.197" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;us8327659&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3830" RevisionGUID="ae782726-f069-4025-a5c7-90cd911b1956" CreationDate="2013-05-21T17:13:01.643" UserId="3816" Text="Levi's had a system in 1999 that created a 3-D model of your body, and then suggested jeans that would fit you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/1999/08/21268&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps, based on your measurements, the system provided a virtual representation to you of how the jeans would fit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3831" RevisionGUID="87e76b3b-fab8-4ed8-bdb2-14000307a0c6" CreationDate="2013-05-21T17:27:51.527" UserId="3817" Text="US 5930769 A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication date: Jul 27, 1999&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;System and method for fashion shopping&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ABSTRACT&#xD;&#xA;The present invention provides a method of manual fashion shopping and method for electronic fashion shopping by a customer using a programmed computer, CD-ROM, television, Internet or other electronic medium such as video. The method comprises receiving personal information from the customer; selecting a body type and fashion category based on the personal information; selecting fashions from a plurality of clothes items based on the body type and fashion category; outputting a plurality of fashion data based on the selected fashions; and receiving selection information from the customer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3829" RevisionGUID="f40d8f7d-4e2c-4c42-9116-58a65fa0a0a8" CreationDate="2013-05-21T20:00:15.217" UserId="3076" Comment="added claim 1" Text="A patent on a &quot;cooler&quot; is covering a wider spectrum of products. There are numerous cooler companies. Would they be commiting infringement on this patent just by making a cooler? Or perhaps the difference comes in when the different companies make coolers a different way or feature different designs on the cooler. Would it be considered safe to use several patented materials to make a new cooler that is not on the market and patent and/or sell such a item?&#xD;&#xA;US 8327659 B2 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  An **insulated cooler** comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a **main cooler body having multiple side walls and a bottom wall** forming a product container with a top opening;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a lid constructed and arranged for selectively covering the top opening;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;at least two of said multiple side walls being adjacent to each other, and each of said adjacent side walls having a design zone thereon; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a **design panel system** having an inner side design portion overlaying the side wall design zone and an outer side portion comprising **a protective shielding cover** for the inner side design portion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3832" RevisionGUID="badbdb35-8eb8-4692-8219-6093e28c4da1" CreationDate="2013-05-21T20:12:05.010" UserId="3076" Text="Although what this patent claims may not be spectacularly clever, it only covers specific coolers with &quot;display panels&quot; as it defines them. Looking just at claim 1, it needs to be a cooler and it needs to have an place on one inner sidewall with a protective shielding cover to put a design under. If I understand the question, making it from &quot;patented materials&quot; doesn't affect the situation one way or the other. They are not claiming specific designs that might be in the design panel system. Please edit the question or add a comment if I have misunderstood the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3833" RevisionGUID="ba169dc1-9e42-4923-b0f4-ccec9a874b08" CreationDate="2013-05-21T20:31:14.683" UserId="1767" Text="**HELP SAVE AMERICAN INDUSTRY** - This application seeks to patent an online escort service.  If issued it could have dramatic negative effect on innovation in the world’s oldest profession.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Online Dating System**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  A method and system for balancing the supply of desirable users with the demand by other users to date them in an online dating system is provided. The method includes enabling a first user to make an offer to pay or to be paid a compensation for having a date with a second user. The offer made by the first user is transmitted to the second user. The second user responds to the first user by accepting, rejecting or making a counter offer. The first user and the second user are allowed to communicate only after any one of the users accepts an offer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110731 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Lead Wey / [Seeking Arrangements, Inc.][3]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Oct 26, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for balancing supply of and demand for dating desirable users in an online dating system, the method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving from a first user an offer to pay, or to be paid, a compensation to have a date with a second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transmitting said offer to said second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving a response from said second user to either accept, or reject, said offer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. allowing the two users to communicate only after said offer is accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Give me $100 and I'll date you!** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/grT6Y.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 10/26/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (1) offers to pay; or (2) offers to be paid for “dating desirable users” in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] if you know of another questionable US Patent Application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Help protect American Industry!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/grT6Y.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130110731&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.seekingarrangement.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8387" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3833" RevisionGUID="ba169dc1-9e42-4923-b0f4-ccec9a874b08" CreationDate="2013-05-21T20:31:14.683" UserId="1767" Text="ONLINE ESCORT SERVICE Patent Application - RFPA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8388" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3833" RevisionGUID="ba169dc1-9e42-4923-b0f4-ccec9a874b08" CreationDate="2013-05-21T20:31:14.683" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us2013011073&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3832" RevisionGUID="56b6340d-de51-4d1b-bf09-9e16b7af7e0d" CreationDate="2013-05-21T20:33:31.490" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="Although what this patent claims may not be spectacularly clever, it only covers specific coolers with &quot;display panels&quot; as it defines them. Looking just at claim 1, it needs to be a cooler and it needs to have a display panel on one inner sidewall with a protective shielding cover. If I understand the question, making it from &quot;patented materials&quot; doesn't affect the situation one way or the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are not claiming specific designs that might be in the design panel system. Please edit the question or add a comment if I have misunderstood the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3834" RevisionGUID="55a71f55-22b4-4b61-b6dc-4724a8d7058a" CreationDate="2013-05-21T20:38:09.367" UserDisplayName="user3819" Text="I have a jewelry design that is simply 3 interlocking solid silver rings that can be used as a baby's teething ring.  I have been told that I am in infringement of design patent d579373..which is 3 hollow silver circular tubes linked together and sold as a baby's teething ring.   It is possible that a design as simple as 2 or 3 interlocking rings can be patented...and anything made using 3 interlocking circles is considered infringement?   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8391" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3834" RevisionGUID="55a71f55-22b4-4b61-b6dc-4724a8d7058a" CreationDate="2013-05-21T20:38:09.367" UserDisplayName="user3819" Text="design patent d579373 - patent infringement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8392" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3834" RevisionGUID="55a71f55-22b4-4b61-b6dc-4724a8d7058a" CreationDate="2013-05-21T20:38:09.367" UserDisplayName="user3819" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8393" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3833" RevisionGUID="57e421ce-8322-42cc-9f69-08fa3b5fa06d" CreationDate="2013-05-21T20:39:14.287" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 82 characters in body" Text="**HELP SAVE AMERICAN INDUSTRY** - This application seeks to patent an online escort service.  If issued it could have dramatic, negative effect on innovation in the world’s oldest profession.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Online Dating System**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  A method and system for balancing the supply of desirable users with the demand by other users to date them in an online dating system is provided. The method includes enabling a first user to make an offer to pay or to be paid a compensation for having a date with a second user. The offer made by the first user is transmitted to the second user. The second user responds to the first user by accepting, rejecting or making a counter offer. The first user and the second user are allowed to communicate only after any one of the users accepts an offer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110731 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Seeking Arrangements, Inc.][3]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Oct 26, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for balancing supply of and demand for dating desirable users in an online dating system, the method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving from a first user an offer to pay, or to be paid, a compensation to have a date with a second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transmitting said offer to said second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving a response from said second user to either accept, or reject, said offer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. allowing the two users to communicate only after said offer is accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Give me $100 and I'll date you!** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/grT6Y.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 10/26/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (1) **offers to pay**; or&#xD;&#xA; (2) **offers to be paid** for **dating desirable users** in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Help protect American Industry!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/grT6Y.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130110731&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.seekingarrangement.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3833" RevisionGUID="afe6ab93-d8ed-4b71-bd94-b91831fb2400" CreationDate="2013-05-21T20:45:52.920" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="**HELP SAVE AMERICAN INDUSTRY** - This application seeks to patent an online escort service.  If issued it could have dramatic, negative effect on innovation in the world’s oldest profession.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Online Dating System**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  A method and system for balancing the supply of desirable users with the demand by other users to date them in an online dating system is provided. The method includes enabling a first user to make an offer to pay or to be paid a compensation for having a date with a second user. The offer made by the first user is transmitted to the second user. The second user responds to the first user by accepting, rejecting or making a counter offer. The first user and the second user are allowed to communicate only after any one of the users accepts an offer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110731 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Seeking Arrangements, Inc.][3]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Oct 26, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for balancing supply of and demand for dating desirable users in an online dating system, the method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving from a first user an offer to pay, or to be paid, a compensation to have a date with a second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transmitting said offer to said second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving a response from said second user to either accept, or reject, said offer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. allowing the two users to communicate only after said offer is accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Give me $100 and I'll date you!** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/grT6Y.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 10/26/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (1) **offers to pay**; or&#xD;&#xA; (2) **offers to be paid** for **dating desirable users** in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Help protect American Industry!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/grT6Y.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130110731&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.seekingarrangement.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8395" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3833" RevisionGUID="afe6ab93-d8ed-4b71-bd94-b91831fb2400" CreationDate="2013-05-21T20:45:52.920" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20130110731&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3833" RevisionGUID="d5fd935a-f6f2-4bcf-8de1-9cef0c1b1dc3" CreationDate="2013-05-21T20:58:34.203" UserId="1767" Comment="added 246 characters in body" Text="**HELP SAVE AMERICAN INDUSTRY AND THE WORLD'S OLDEST PROFESSION** - This application seeks to patent an online escort service.  According to the [inventor][6], “I had trouble finding dates when I was at MIT primarily because of the high male to female ratio, as well as my lack of social skills...The social problems I faced...eventually led me to (invent this technology).” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Online Dating System**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  A method and system for balancing the supply of desirable users with the demand by other users to date them in an online dating system is provided. The method includes enabling a first user to make an offer to pay or to be paid a compensation for having a date with a second user. The offer made by the first user is transmitted to the second user. The second user responds to the first user by accepting, rejecting or making a counter offer. The first user and the second user are allowed to communicate only after any one of the users accepts an offer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110731 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Seeking Arrangements, Inc.][3]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Oct 26, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for balancing supply of and demand for dating desirable users in an online dating system, the method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving from a first user an offer to pay, or to be paid, a compensation to have a date with a second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transmitting said offer to said second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving a response from said second user to either accept, or reject, said offer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. allowing the two users to communicate only after said offer is accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Give me $100 and I'll date you!** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/grT6Y.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 10/26/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (1) **offers to pay**; or&#xD;&#xA; (2) **offers to be paid** for **dating desirable users** in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Help protect American Industry!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/grT6Y.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130110731&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.seekingarrangement.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N34/normandin.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8397" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3833" RevisionGUID="d5fd935a-f6f2-4bcf-8de1-9cef0c1b1dc3" CreationDate="2013-05-21T20:58:34.203" UserId="1767" Comment="added 246 characters in body" Text="ONLINE ESCORT SERVICE Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3833" RevisionGUID="276bb862-5c05-4ba6-bb9c-cafd6a7be002" CreationDate="2013-05-21T21:06:55.710" UserId="1767" Comment="added 246 characters in body" Text="**HELP SAVE AMERICAN INDUSTRY AND THE WORLD'S OLDEST PROFESSION** - This application seeks to patent an online escort service.  According to the [inventor][6], “I had trouble finding dates when I was at MIT primarily because of the high male to female ratio, as well as my lack of social skills...The social problems I faced...eventually led me to (invent this technology).” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Online Dating System**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  A method and system for balancing the supply of desirable users with the demand by other users to date them in an online dating system is provided. The method includes enabling a first user to make an offer to pay or to be paid a compensation for having a date with a second user. The offer made by the first user is transmitted to the second user. The second user responds to the first user by accepting, rejecting or making a counter offer. The first user and the second user are allowed to communicate only after any one of the users accepts an offer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110731 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Seeking Arrangements, Inc.][3]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Oct 26, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for balancing supply of and demand for dating desirable users in an online dating system, the method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving from a first user an offer to pay, or to be paid, a compensation to have a date with a second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transmitting said offer to said second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving a response from said second user to either accept, or reject, said offer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. allowing the two users to communicate only after said offer is accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claims 7, 12 and 15** specify further that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Compensation** could be selected from a group consisting of money, points, gifts and credits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Users could provide **review or rating** corresponding to the other user whom they have dated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The terms or conditions of the &quot;date&quot; could be **negotiated**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specification notes that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Invention should not be limited to the types of software operating system, web-server software, database software, software development language, server or client hardware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Give me $100 and I'll date you!** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/grT6Y.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 10/26/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (1) **offers to pay**; or&#xD;&#xA; (2) **offers to be paid** for **dating desirable users** in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Help protect American Industry!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/grT6Y.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130110731&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.seekingarrangement.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N34/normandin.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3835" RevisionGUID="1653631d-a1b0-466f-bd24-b17106c3e88e" CreationDate="2013-05-21T21:16:47.237" UserId="3076" Text="A quick google search found the website www.whatisyourprice.com that offers at least a very similar service. Whois says the web site was registered in 2004. I have not checked the wayback machine.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![icann record of whatisyourprice][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ctrWs.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8401" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3833" RevisionGUID="df68981e-ebb9-4260-81aa-22036cfaf6cf" CreationDate="2013-05-21T21:23:13.673" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20130110731&gt;&lt;escort-service&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3835" RevisionGUID="dbdcf662-bd48-4821-9a6a-358969a3540a" CreationDate="2013-05-21T22:05:54.057" UserId="3076" Comment="Added parenthetical" Text="A quick google search found the website www.whatisyourprice.com that offers at least a very similar service (and seems more dignified about it than the inventor's site). Whois says the web site was registered in 2004. I have not checked the wayback machine.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![icann record of whatisyourprice][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ctrWs.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3834" RevisionGUID="0fedc01b-865a-45f8-85c1-f7a215c905a2" CreationDate="2013-05-21T22:08:21.067" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="I have a jewelry design that is simply 3 interlocking solid silver rings that can be used as a baby's teething ring.  I have been told that I am in infringement of design patent d579373 ..which is 3 hollow silver circular tubes linked together and sold as a baby's teething ring.   It is possible that a design as simple as 2 or 3 interlocking rings can be patented...and anything made using 3 interlocking circles is considered infringement?   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8404" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3834" RevisionGUID="0fedc01b-865a-45f8-85c1-f7a215c905a2" CreationDate="2013-05-21T22:08:21.067" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;usd579373&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3833" RevisionGUID="d6f7c770-02e8-4097-9616-3f40b21e8cfd" CreationDate="2013-05-21T22:37:42.560" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="**HELP SAVE AMERICAN INDUSTRY AND THE WORLD'S OLDEST PROFESSION** - This application seeks to patent an online escort service.  According to the [inventor][6], “I had trouble finding dates when I was at MIT primarily because of the high male to female ratio, as well as my lack of social skills...The social problems I faced...eventually led me to (invent this technology).” &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Online Dating System**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  A method and system for balancing the supply of desirable users with the demand by other users to date them in an online dating system is provided. The method includes enabling a first user to make an offer to pay or to be paid a compensation for having a date with a second user. The offer made by the first user is transmitted to the second user. The second user responds to the first user by accepting, rejecting or making a counter offer. The first user and the second user are allowed to communicate only after any one of the users accepts an offer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110731 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Seeking Arrangements, Inc.][3]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Oct 26, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for balancing supply of and demand for dating desirable users in an online dating system, the method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving from a first user an offer to pay, or to be paid, a compensation to have a date with a second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transmitting said offer to said second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving a response from said second user to either accept, or reject, said offer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. allowing the two users to communicate only after said offer is accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claims 7, 12 and 15** specify further that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Compensation** could be selected from a group consisting of money, points, gifts and credits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Users could provide **review or rating** corresponding to the other user whom they have dated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The terms or conditions of the &quot;date&quot; could be **negotiated**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specification notes that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Invention should not be limited to the types of software operating system, web-server software, database software, software development language, server or client hardware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Give me $100 and I'll date you!** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/grT6Y.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 10/26/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (1) **offers to pay**; or&#xD;&#xA; (2) **offers to be paid** for **dating desirable users** in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Help protect American Industry!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/grT6Y.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130110731&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.seekingarrangement.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N34/normandin.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3824" RevisionGUID="a7cccd22-3c22-41e7-9b07-e6427982aa52" CreationDate="2013-05-22T00:02:26.520" UserId="3076" Comment="Added image of inventor and proto" Text="The patent status of the components is not at all likely to play a role in the analysis. Have you put them together to implement a patented thing? If so, you have made a patented apparatus. I saw a picture a few years ago of the first working prototype of the super soaker. It was cut pieces of PVC tubing, an empty 2 liter coke bottle and lots of parts from a hardware store. New things are often made of old things put together in a new way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![inventor Johnson and his prototype][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/6e6mD.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3837" RevisionGUID="63bafe1a-1ecc-449b-9a1f-cb6d6accacaa" CreationDate="2013-05-22T04:07:32.627" UserId="3821" Text="Has anyone done good analysis on the Nokia patents that they claim cover WebM?  I would like an idea of how seriously we should take Nokia's threat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Groklaw did [some analysis][1] that reduced their 64 patents worldwide down to a dozen US patents. [This][2] post (in the comments of the Groklaw post) lays out the independent claims of each patent.  Most look obvious or redundant, but I can't tell given my lack of video encoding experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130324162902177&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&amp;sid=20130324162902177&amp;title=Listing%20Independent%20Claims%20per%20Patent&amp;type=article&amp;order=&amp;hideanonymous=0&amp;pid=1037020#c1038325" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8408" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3837" RevisionGUID="63bafe1a-1ecc-449b-9a1f-cb6d6accacaa" CreationDate="2013-05-22T04:07:32.627" UserId="3821" Text="Nokia and Webm patent analysis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8409" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3837" RevisionGUID="63bafe1a-1ecc-449b-9a1f-cb6d6accacaa" CreationDate="2013-05-22T04:07:32.627" UserId="3821" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;video&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3837" RevisionGUID="fc82c471-dbee-47e2-84b3-d0528a6f7dca" CreationDate="2013-05-22T05:50:30.187" UserId="3076" Comment="Added text of an example claim and tag" Text="Has anyone done good analysis on the Nokia patents that they claim cover WebM?  I would like an idea of how seriously we should take Nokia's threat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Groklaw did [some analysis][1] that reduced their 64 patents worldwide down to a dozen US patents. [This][2] post (in the comments of the Groklaw post) lays out the independent claims of each patent.  Most look obvious or redundant, but I can't tell given my lack of video encoding experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130324162902177&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&amp;sid=20130324162902177&amp;title=Listing%20Independent%20Claims%20per%20Patent&amp;type=article&amp;order=&amp;hideanonymous=0&amp;pid=1037020#c1038325&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is claim 1 of an example patent in the group.(US6504873)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of filtering a received digital video picture, in which said digital video picture comprises video blocks, each video block comprising a certain amount of individual video pixels, each video pixel having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, and in which video picture a first video block and a second video block located adjacent to the first video block define a boundary therebetween, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;selecting a first video pixel from the first video block in such a way that the first video pixel is located at the boundary in the first video block to obtain a first boundary video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;selecting a second video pixel from the second video block in such a way that the second video pixel is located at the boundary in the second video block to obtain a second boundary video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;selecting a first reference video pixel in the first video block and a second reference video pixel in the second video block, the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being other than the first boundary video pixel and the second boundary video pixel and the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being placed closer to a central portion of each of said video blocks than the respective boundary video pixel, in such a way that the reference video pixels and the boundary video pixels are situated on a straight line, the straight line being transverse to the boundary, drawn from the first reference video pixel to the second reference video pixel, wherein the first and the second boundary video pixels are located between the first and the second reference video pixels on the straight line,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;defining a linear equation, using the numerical values of the reference video pixels, the linear equation giving as a solution a numerical reference value to each boundary video pixel on said straight line and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;filtering at least one boundary video pixel by adjusting the numerical value of the at least one boundary video pixel towards the reference value of the at least one boundary video pixel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8411" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3837" RevisionGUID="fc82c471-dbee-47e2-84b3-d0528a6f7dca" CreationDate="2013-05-22T05:50:30.187" UserId="3076" Comment="Added text of an example claim and tag" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;us6504873&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3829" RevisionGUID="4d285b9e-9eb7-4474-a7b2-c7d3ff2c58ea" CreationDate="2013-05-22T13:39:00.193" UserId="1259" Comment="typo, title, formatting, linkie" Text="A patent on a &quot;cooler&quot; is covering a wider spectrum of products. There are numerous cooler companies. Would they be committing infringement on this patent just by making a cooler? Or perhaps the difference comes in when the different companies make coolers a different way or feature different designs on the cooler. Would it be considered safe to use several patented materials to make a new cooler that is not on the market and patent and/or sell such a item?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US 8327659 B2][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Claim 1:**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;An **insulated cooler** comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a **main cooler body having multiple side walls and a bottom wall** forming a product container with a top opening;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a lid constructed and arranged for selectively covering the top opening;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;at least two of said multiple side walls being adjacent to each other, and each of said adjacent side walls having a design zone thereon; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a **design panel system** having an inner side design portion overlaying the side wall design zone and an outer side portion comprising **a protective shielding cover** for the inner side design portion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8327659" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8413" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3829" RevisionGUID="4d285b9e-9eb7-4474-a7b2-c7d3ff2c58ea" CreationDate="2013-05-22T13:39:00.193" UserId="1259" Comment="typo, title, formatting, linkie" Text="What would be considered infringement on patent US 8327659 B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8414" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3834" RevisionGUID="de1b83a7-f7d5-478b-97fe-9e64a6bf8b33" CreationDate="2013-05-22T13:40:50.560" UserId="1259" Comment="tag" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;usd579373&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3837" RevisionGUID="7b43ceed-bff9-4285-b962-326cc72a2996" CreationDate="2013-05-22T13:47:49.070" UserId="1259" Comment="linkie" Text="Has anyone done good analysis on the Nokia patents that they claim cover WebM?  I would like an idea of how seriously we should take Nokia's threat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Groklaw did [some analysis][1] that reduced their 64 patents worldwide down to a dozen US patents. [This][2] post (in the comments of the Groklaw post) lays out the independent claims of each patent.  Most look obvious or redundant, but I can't tell given my lack of video encoding experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is claim 1 of an example patent in the group.([US6504873][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of filtering a received digital video picture, in which said digital video picture comprises video blocks, each video block comprising a certain amount of individual video pixels, each video pixel having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, and in which video picture a first video block and a second video block located adjacent to the first video block define a boundary therebetween, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;selecting a first video pixel from the first video block in such a way that the first video pixel is located at the boundary in the first video block to obtain a first boundary video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;selecting a second video pixel from the second video block in such a way that the second video pixel is located at the boundary in the second video block to obtain a second boundary video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;selecting a first reference video pixel in the first video block and a second reference video pixel in the second video block, the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being other than the first boundary video pixel and the second boundary video pixel and the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being placed closer to a central portion of each of said video blocks than the respective boundary video pixel, in such a way that the reference video pixels and the boundary video pixels are situated on a straight line, the straight line being transverse to the boundary, drawn from the first reference video pixel to the second reference video pixel, wherein the first and the second boundary video pixels are located between the first and the second reference video pixels on the straight line,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;defining a linear equation, using the numerical values of the reference video pixels, the linear equation giving as a solution a numerical reference value to each boundary video pixel on said straight line and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;filtering at least one boundary video pixel by adjusting the numerical value of the at least one boundary video pixel towards the reference value of the at least one boundary video pixel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130324162902177&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&amp;sid=20130324162902177&amp;title=Listing%20Independent%20Claims%20per%20Patent&amp;type=article&amp;order=&amp;hideanonymous=0&amp;pid=1037020#c1038325&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6504873" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3835" RevisionGUID="88ac2bcb-5447-48f6-a628-71b29aabb131" CreationDate="2013-05-22T15:55:14.980" UserId="3076" Comment="Fixed to cite correct website" Text="EDITed: orig. answer had misspelled domain name- thanks Ron.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick google search found the website **www.whatsyourprice.com**that offers at least a very similar service (and seems more dignified about it than the inventor's site). Whois says the web site was registered in 1999.I have not checked the wayback machine.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;icann record of whatsyourprice.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/DY1vQ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3835" RevisionGUID="f1fb79b2-4345-4189-b857-3ad2c76edaae" CreationDate="2013-05-22T16:22:35.127" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="EDITed: orig. answer had misspelled domain name- thanks Ron.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick google search found the website **www.whatsyourprice.com** that offers at least a very similar service (and seems more dignified about it than the inventor's site). Whois says the web site was registered in 1999.I have not checked the wayback machine.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;icann record of whatsyourprice.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/DY1vQ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3835" RevisionGUID="383851dc-ab64-4c33-89b6-5664f4e4340e" CreationDate="2013-05-22T18:09:19.547" UserId="3076" Comment="added 187 characters in body" Text="EDITed: orig. answer had misspelled domain name- thanks Ron.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick google search found the website **www.whatsyourprice.com** that offers at least a very similar service (and seems more dignified about it than the inventor's site). Whois says the web site was registered in 1999.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site is by the inventor also. The first wayback machine capture with the current type of comtent is April 2. 2011. So it was before filing but since it was his own work it falls within the 1 year grace period.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;icann record of whatsyourprice.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/DY1vQ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3839" RevisionGUID="9dd3eaca-ef26-4d2c-82a8-f965b4afa133" CreationDate="2013-05-23T09:34:16.030" UserId="601" Text="uspto.gov publish statistics quarterly, but the numbers are averaged from all industries and fields. I am trying to figure out whats chances a software patent had in 2011/2012 to go through a ex parte reexamination and come out with all its claims intact. Looking at reexamination certificates issued for 2011/09/30 -&gt; 2012/09/30 as published by USPTO, I can see that about 12% of the certifications had all their claimed confirmed during that time frame, however, is that number the same for software patents specifically?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8427" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3839" RevisionGUID="9dd3eaca-ef26-4d2c-82a8-f965b4afa133" CreationDate="2013-05-23T09:34:16.030" UserId="601" Text="Is there ex parte reexamination statistics narrowed to software patents only?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8428" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3839" RevisionGUID="9dd3eaca-ef26-4d2c-82a8-f965b4afa133" CreationDate="2013-05-23T09:34:16.030" UserId="601" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;reexamination&gt;&lt;statistics&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3841" RevisionGUID="d5e24b3c-d1d0-4c2e-893e-e7b3ee2e979c" CreationDate="2013-05-23T20:43:10.990" UserId="3076" Text="Not a direct answer, but the former head of the USPTO gave a comprehensive speech about the state of examination of software patents late last year. It does touch on reexam.&#xD;&#xA;[Dave Kappos on Software patent examination][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/news/speeches/2012/kappos_CAP.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3842" RevisionGUID="1062891b-d277-4cdb-8591-93a1972e9696" CreationDate="2013-05-24T04:24:57.943" UserId="3827" Text="I am the actual inventor for patent no. US20020144536.  The listed inventors are a fraud.  I have all the original drawings, designs, development pictures, and testing reports.  What can I do about not being recorded as the inventor?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scott Calderone&#xD;&#xA;scott.calderone@kemira.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8435" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3842" RevisionGUID="1062891b-d277-4cdb-8591-93a1972e9696" CreationDate="2013-05-24T04:24:57.943" UserId="3827" Text="I am the actual inventor for a patent. What can I do about not being recorded as the inventor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8436" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3842" RevisionGUID="1062891b-d277-4cdb-8591-93a1972e9696" CreationDate="2013-05-24T04:24:57.943" UserId="3827" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8437" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3842" RevisionGUID="0dc49eac-8b48-41db-a638-a258e5059322" CreationDate="2013-05-24T05:30:39.593" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;us20020144536&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3843" RevisionGUID="0c3af065-ccbc-4f77-82c2-25df6a11bf97" CreationDate="2013-05-24T05:39:58.023" UserId="3076" Text="Scott, for better or worse, the application you cite did issue as as U.S. Patent and then expired in 2011 for maintenance fee non-payment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From USPTO Public PAIR database&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Application Number:	 09/826,555&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;	&#xD;&#xA;Filing or 371 (c) Date: 04-05-2001&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Status:	 Patent Expired Due to NonPayment of Maintenance Fees Under 37 CFR 1.362&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Status Date:	 08-29-2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I am a registered patent agent, I am not an attorney. I imagine you may have some case against whoever has wronged you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3845" RevisionGUID="b0bd802b-18cf-41c8-b50c-105b11acac80" CreationDate="2013-05-24T08:34:15.593" UserId="3830" Text="Assume there is a patent that has a claim for a method, the method comprising 5 steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Step 1&#xD;&#xA;- Step 2&#xD;&#xA;- Step 3&#xD;&#xA;- Step 4&#xD;&#xA;- Step 5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If I drop Step 5 and use a method consisting of Steps 1 through 4, do I infringe this patent?&#xD;&#xA;2. Can I patent the method consisting of Steps 1-4 (assuming it is not already patented or otherwise published explicitly)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8443" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3845" RevisionGUID="b0bd802b-18cf-41c8-b50c-105b11acac80" CreationDate="2013-05-24T08:34:15.593" UserId="3830" Text="If a patent claims a method, is a subset of the method's steps also covered?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8444" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3845" RevisionGUID="b0bd802b-18cf-41c8-b50c-105b11acac80" CreationDate="2013-05-24T08:34:15.593" UserId="3830" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3842" RevisionGUID="15dfccb5-1887-4c88-a82c-31e1c2c2637c" CreationDate="2013-05-24T16:32:44.870" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 47 characters in body" Text="I am the actual inventor for patent no. US20020144536.  The listed inventors are a fraud.  I have all the original drawings, designs, development pictures, and testing reports.  What can I do about not being recorded as the inventor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3843" RevisionGUID="90f23e9b-b727-4313-9394-33a169157b3b" CreationDate="2013-05-24T18:17:44.363" UserId="3076" Comment="added patent number" Text="Scott, for better or worse, the application you cite did issue as as U.S. Patent US6598457 and then expired in 2011 for non-payment of maintenance fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From USPTO Public PAIR database&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Application Number:	 09/826,555&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;	&#xD;&#xA;Filing or 371 (c) Date: 04-05-2001&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Status:	 Patent Expired Due to NonPayment of Maintenance Fees Under 37 CFR 1.362&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Status Date:	 08-29-2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I am a registered patent agent, I am not an attorney. I imagine you may have some case against whoever has wronged you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3846" RevisionGUID="54bf68fb-acd2-4199-b851-a96b35433083" CreationDate="2013-05-24T19:58:51.030" UserId="3197" Text="I have a question relating to whether an imported product made in a foreign country by a patented method, before the method was patented, would be prior art to the method patent.  That's a mouthful, so below I've provided a hypothetical and accompanying 3 questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume the following facts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I own a patent on a method of making widgets filed in 2000;&#xD;&#xA;- I also own a patent on the system used to make the widgets filed in 2000;&#xD;&#xA;- A competitor practiced the method and used the system in a foreign country in 1998;&#xD;&#xA;- The competitor did not publish any documents relating to the method or system;&#xD;&#xA;- However, the competitor imported and sold a widget in the US in 1999;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Is the use of the method prior art?  I believe the answer is &quot;NO.&quot; [35 U.S.C. 102(b) - &quot;use in this country&quot;)]&#xD;&#xA;2.  Is the use of the system prior art?  Same as #1&#xD;&#xA;3.  Is the sale of the widget in the US prior art to either of the patents?  I believe the answer is &quot;NO,&quot; because there is no teaching of the method or system.  The widget would, however, be prior art to a patent on the actual product.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any thoughts on questions 1-3? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very much for any input!&#xD;&#xA;-Kyle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8450" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3846" RevisionGUID="54bf68fb-acd2-4199-b851-a96b35433083" CreationDate="2013-05-24T19:58:51.030" UserId="3197" Text="Is Imported Product Made in Foreign Country Prior art to US Method Patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8451" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3846" RevisionGUID="54bf68fb-acd2-4199-b851-a96b35433083" CreationDate="2013-05-24T19:58:51.030" UserId="3197" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;validity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3847" RevisionGUID="3f83fb73-6941-4913-8a76-046e82e3710b" CreationDate="2013-05-24T20:03:20.617" UserId="3832" Text="I need to write a patent request, is there any formal structure to follow?&#xD;&#xA; My patent aimed on a programming script for a new security method." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8453" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3847" RevisionGUID="3f83fb73-6941-4913-8a76-046e82e3710b" CreationDate="2013-05-24T20:03:20.617" UserId="3832" Text="What is the formal structure to write a patent request?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8454" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3847" RevisionGUID="3f83fb73-6941-4913-8a76-046e82e3710b" CreationDate="2013-05-24T20:03:20.617" UserId="3832" Text="&lt;writing&gt;&lt;programming-tools&gt;&lt;written-description&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3848" RevisionGUID="c4776efb-1850-4517-84c1-1a6eb8c36fde" CreationDate="2013-05-24T20:24:18.503" UserId="758" Text="To infringe a method claim, you need to carry out all the steps outlined for the method. Carrying out only 4 out of 5 steps should not qualify as infringement (unless you carried out some other fifth step that was considered equivalent to their fifth step, of something on that order).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether you'd be able to patent or not would depend. The patent wouldn't necessary be prior art that would automatically prevent patenting your 4-step method. At the same time, I can see where the PTO might consider it fairly obvious, especially if there were any mention of the fifth step being optional, or that you could get a useful result after the fourth step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Infringing a patent requires that you do everything (or produce an apparatus that can do everything, etc.) in at least one independent claim of the patent. Despite that, if the patent specification mentions something, it can act as prior art that prevents later patenting, even if that something isn't directly embodied in any of the patent claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3850" RevisionGUID="fbf17751-ac95-416a-9289-56e764e673a7" CreationDate="2013-05-24T22:00:28.580" UserId="3076" Text="Sounds like a question from the patent bar exam! Pre AIA F-t-F, anything outside the US had to be a publication or patent. &quot;Known in this country&quot; let in public knowledge in the U.S. even if not published. This is the law for something with an effective filing date before March 15, 2013. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is on or after that date, the &quot;known in this country&quot; is now changed essentially to &quot;known anywhere&quot;. And, under the old law at least, it was clear that known to the public could be just **one** person who was not under a duty of confidentiality. So if the US application in question is post AIA F-t-F the distinction could be: is the process kept as a secret by the foreign producer or does it just not happen to be published but the employees who know the process  could tell their neighbor without breaking an understanding with the company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Importing a product made with the process, itself, shouldn't be prior art for the process. If there was a way to deduce the process from analyzing the product there would be an argument that the product sitting on U.S. soil &quot;taught&quot; the process." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3850" RevisionGUID="a5f13ffb-6b91-4c37-bbe0-8c2fe23e0e62" CreationDate="2013-05-25T00:44:54.833" UserId="3076" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="Sounds like a question from the patent bar exam! Pre AIA F-t-F, anything outside the US had to be a publication or patent in order to be deemed prior art. The phrase in the law &quot;or known in this country&quot; let public knowledge in the U.S. be prior art even if not published. There was also sold or offered for sale - all only in the US. This is the law for something with an effective filing date before March 15, 2013. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is on or after that date, the &quot;known in this country&quot; is now changed essentially to &quot;known anywhere&quot;. And, under the old law at least, it was clear that known to the public could be just **one** person who was not under a duty of confidentiality. So if the US application in question is post AIA F-t-F the distinction could be: is the process kept as a secret by the foreign producer or does it just not happen to be published but the employees who know the process  could tell their neighbor without breaking an understanding with the company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Importing a product made with the process, itself, shouldn't be prior art for the process. If there was a way to deduce the process from analyzing the product there would be an argument that the product sitting on U.S. soil &quot;taught&quot; the process." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3850" RevisionGUID="20cac731-5a95-4105-91e6-2118efc11209" CreationDate="2013-05-25T02:47:40.727" UserId="3076" Comment="added MPEP quote" Text="Sounds like a question from the new patent bar exam that will be out soon! Pre AIA F-t-F, anything outside the US had to be a publication or patent in order to be deemed prior art. The phrase in the law &quot;or known in this country&quot; let public knowledge in the U.S. be prior art even if not published. There was also sold or offered for sale - all only in the US. This is the law for something with an effective filing date before March 15, 2013. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is on or after that date, the &quot;known in this country&quot; is now changed (there is an &quot;old&quot; section 102 you quoted from and now a &quot;new&quot; 102) essentially to &quot;known anywhere&quot;. And, under the old law at least, it was clear that known to the public could be just **one** person who was not under a duty of confidentiality. So if the US application in question is post AIA F-t-F the distinction could be: is the process kept as a secret by the foreign producer or does it just not happen to be published but the employees who know the process  could tell their neighbor without breaking an understanding with the company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Importing a product made with the process, itself, shouldn't be prior art for the process. If there was a way to deduce the process from analyzing the product there would be an argument that the product sitting on U.S. soil &quot;taught&quot; the process. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see, from section 2132 of the Manual for Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “The nonsecret use of a claimed process in the usual course of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; producing articles for commercial purposes is a public use.” But a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; secret use of the process coupled with the sale of the product does&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not result in a public use of the process unless the public could&#xD;&#xA;&gt; learn the claimed process by examining the product. Therefore, secret&#xD;&#xA;&gt; use of a process by another, even if the product is commercially sold,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cannot result in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) if an examination&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the product would not reveal the process. Id.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3850" RevisionGUID="e6785023-88b4-4768-9ba4-7018942344cf" CreationDate="2013-05-25T05:17:03.580" UserId="3076" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="Sounds like a question from the new patent bar exam that will be out soon! Pre AIA F-t-F, anything outside the US had to be a publication or patent in order to be deemed prior art. The phrase in the law &quot;or known in this country&quot; let public knowledge in the U.S. be prior art even if not published. There was also sold or offered for sale - all only in the US. This is the law for something with an effective filing date before March 15, 2013. That is what would apply to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If an applicatio was named or after that date, the &quot;known in this country&quot; is now changed (there is an &quot;old&quot; section 102 you quoted from and now a &quot;new&quot; 102) essentially to &quot;known anywhere&quot;. And, under the old law at least, it was clear that known to the public could be just **one** person who was not under a duty of confidentiality. So if the US application in question is post AIA F-t-F the distinction could be: is the process kept as a secret by the foreign producer or does it just not happen to be published but the employees who know the process  could tell their neighbor without breaking an understanding with the company. Again, this is not applicable to your 2000 application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Importing a product made with the process, itself, shouldn't be prior art for the process. If there was a way to deduce the process from analyzing the product there would be an argument that the product sitting on U.S. soil &quot;taught&quot; the process. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see, from section 2132 of the Manual for Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “The nonsecret use of a claimed process in the usual course of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; producing articles for commercial purposes is a public use.” But a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; secret use of the process coupled with the sale of the product does&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not result in a public use of the process unless the public could&#xD;&#xA;&gt; learn the claimed process by examining the product. Therefore, secret&#xD;&#xA;&gt; use of a process by another, even if the product is commercially sold,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cannot result in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) if an examination&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the product would not reveal the process. Id.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3852" RevisionGUID="60ea3531-0867-4b00-8a78-cd8d46ad1f65" CreationDate="2013-05-25T14:23:01.437" UserId="3835" Text="If you see patent 20110286205 and 20110237152 you see patents for a near identical product.. save for minor differences in text and images.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a nuisance patent to boost the ego of the authors or am I missing something?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8469" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3852" RevisionGUID="60ea3531-0867-4b00-8a78-cd8d46ad1f65" CreationDate="2013-05-25T14:23:01.437" UserId="3835" Text="Duplicate Patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8470" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3852" RevisionGUID="60ea3531-0867-4b00-8a78-cd8d46ad1f65" CreationDate="2013-05-25T14:23:01.437" UserId="3835" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3852" RevisionGUID="9c2a9f84-ccd6-4d3b-ae6a-927986e59953" CreationDate="2013-05-25T14:30:05.607" UserId="3835" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="If you see patent 20110286205 and 20110237152 you see patents for a near identical product.. save for minor differences in text and images.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a nuisance patent to boost the ego of the authors or am I missing something?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: here's an image  from textdiff.com http://i.imgur.com/jdafsEo.jpg to show how similar the text is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8473" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3852" RevisionGUID="9bcb7491-ab92-4ed4-8e00-26e18b263f05" CreationDate="2013-05-25T18:42:10.877" UserId="3076" Comment="added tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;us20110286205&gt;&lt;us20110237152&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3853" RevisionGUID="2038f1d9-fc81-4349-9a5c-5d92dde1260f" CreationDate="2013-05-25T18:52:30.597" UserId="3076" Text="They are **not patents**. They are applications submitted to try to get a granted patent. By looking in the USPTO Public PAIR database I see that they were both rejected and both went abandoned. There are many reasons to file similar applications. Sometimes something was accidentally left out and since &quot;new matter&quot; can't be added once an application is filed you might need to file an another application just a short time later. Also there are many continuation applications and divisional applications with identical content except for the claims. This can happen because the initial application covered too much ground to be considered at the same time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3854" RevisionGUID="aba222c5-34dc-41e0-8b0c-b5523a0c034c" CreationDate="2013-05-25T19:32:18.413" UserId="3838" Text="It's not that simple. The statistics only account for three situations. 1. All clams lost. 2. No claims lost. At least one claim amended. There are no statistics for at least one claim surviving,but in my experience it would be about 50%. Software claims don't get any special treatment. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3853" RevisionGUID="8113ced6-07a1-4290-9dcc-8f1d12999376" CreationDate="2013-05-25T23:34:48.770" UserId="3076" Comment="added 276 characters in body" Text="They are **not patents**. They are applications submitted to try to get a granted patent and are by the same inventors. By looking in the USPTO Public PAIR database I see that they were both rejected and both went abandoned. It isn't clear why they filed both. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many reasons to file similar applications. Sometimes something was accidentally left out and since &quot;new matter&quot; can't be added once an application is filed you might need to file another application just a short time later. Also there are many continuation applications and divisional applications with identical content except for the claims. This can happen because the initial application covered too much ground to be considered at the same time. In order to file under the new prioritized, accelerated, pay-to-go-fast option you need to request it at the time of filing. If you have already filed and then decide to go &quot;track I&quot; you would need to refile." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3853" RevisionGUID="38ae38d6-df40-4d3c-9cb4-77ca21c1a249" CreationDate="2013-05-26T00:32:52.633" UserId="3076" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="They are **not patents**. They are applications submitted to try to get a granted patent and are by the same inventors. By looking in the USPTO Public PAIR database I see that they were both rejected and both went abandoned. It isn't clear why they filed two similare applications..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many reasons to file similar applications. Sometimes something was accidentally left out and since &quot;new matter&quot; can't be added once an application is filed you might need to file another application just a short time later. Also there are many continuation applications and divisional applications with identical content except for the claims. This can happen because the initial application covered too much ground to be considered at the same time. In order to file under the new prioritized, accelerated, pay-to-go-fast option you need to request it at the time of filing. If you have already filed and then decide to go &quot;track I&quot; you would need to refile." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3853" RevisionGUID="6e599724-9842-410f-b4e2-b4115ea1e5a2" CreationDate="2013-05-26T01:36:09.010" UserId="3076" Comment="Added added example and clarification." Text="They are **not patents**. They are applications submitted to try to get a granted patent and are by the same inventors. By looking in the USPTO Public PAIR database I see that they were both rejected and both went abandoned. It isn't clear why they filed two similar applications in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many reasons to file similar applications. Sometimes something was accidentally left out and since &quot;new matter&quot; can't be added once an application is filed you might need to file another application just a short time later to fix it. Also there are many continuation applications and divisional applications with identical content to their parent application except for the claims. This can happen because the initial application covered too much ground to be considered at the same time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to file under the new prioritized, accelerated, pay-to-go-fast AIA option you need to request it at the time of filing. If you have already filed and then decide to go &quot;track I&quot; you would need to refile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes a long specification is written to describe a complex system and then multiple applications are filed for different aspects of the system. The claims would be dirrected to the specific aspect and inventors might be the same, overlapping, or enirely distinct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3850" RevisionGUID="c0c71e03-1745-471d-98e5-f66fd62813b5" CreationDate="2013-05-26T01:39:48.133" UserId="3076" Comment="Spelling" Text="Sounds like a question from the new patent bar exam that will be out soon! Pre AIA F-t-F, anything outside the US had to be a publication or patent in order to be deemed prior art. The phrase in the law &quot;or known in this country&quot; let public knowledge in the U.S. be prior art even if not published. There was also sold or offered for sale - all only in the US. This is the law for something with an effective filing date before March 15, 2013. That is what would apply to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If an application was filed on or after that date, the &quot;known in this country&quot; is now changed (there is an &quot;old&quot; section 102 you quoted from and now a &quot;new&quot; 102) essentially to &quot;known anywhere&quot;. And, under the old law at least, it was clear that known to the public could be just **one** person who was not under a duty of confidentiality. So if the US application in question is post AIA F-t-F the distinction could be: is the process kept as a secret by the foreign producer or does it just not happen to be published but the employees who know the process  could tell their neighbor without breaking an understanding with the company. Again, this is not applicable to your 2000 application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Importing a product made with the process, itself, shouldn't be prior art for the process. If there was a way to deduce the process from analyzing the product there would be an argument that the product sitting on U.S. soil &quot;taught&quot; the process. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see, from section 2132 of the Manual for Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “The nonsecret use of a claimed process in the usual course of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; producing articles for commercial purposes is a public use.” But a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; secret use of the process coupled with the sale of the product does&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not result in a public use of the process unless the public could&#xD;&#xA;&gt; learn the claimed process by examining the product. Therefore, secret&#xD;&#xA;&gt; use of a process by another, even if the product is commercially sold,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cannot result in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) if an examination&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the product would not reveal the process. Id.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3854" RevisionGUID="a621588b-de72-4fce-8f43-0f397b6118a4" CreationDate="2013-05-26T11:39:33.350" UserId="1259" Comment="numbering clarified" Text="It's not that simple. The statistics only account for three situations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All clams lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. No claims lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. At least one claim amended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are no statistics for at least one claim surviving,but in my experience it would be about 50%. Software claims don't get any special treatment. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3855" RevisionGUID="46ae6f6b-153a-4bea-91d4-97ca3caef9ce" CreationDate="2013-05-26T17:02:08.847" UserId="3840" Text="this design has been created by Brion Gysin and Ian Sommerville in the 1960s... you did NOT invent neither the contraption, nor (even less) the &quot;ornamental design&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8482" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3855" RevisionGUID="46ae6f6b-153a-4bea-91d4-97ca3caef9ce" CreationDate="2013-05-26T17:02:08.847" UserId="3840" Text="this is a design from the 1960s by Gysin &amp; Sommerville" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8483" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3855" RevisionGUID="46ae6f6b-153a-4bea-91d4-97ca3caef9ce" CreationDate="2013-05-26T17:02:08.847" UserId="3840" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;usd675368&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3856" RevisionGUID="0ef66016-702e-4b90-9d42-08022ee9cf93" CreationDate="2013-05-27T01:04:52.683" UserId="3076" Text="The examiner was made aware of at least some of Gysin's work by an IDS (Information Disclosure Statement) filed by the applicant. Here is one page of the 5 page IDS from the image file wrapper at USPTO Public PAIR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/FZD3X.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3857" RevisionGUID="5f035d4e-d529-4db5-b8a8-89b28e91634e" CreationDate="2013-05-27T03:59:48.910" UserId="531" Text="Patent 7363309, &quot;Method and system for portable and desktop computing devices to allow searching, identification and display of items in a collection&quot; seems to be a dangerous patent. Programmers do this kind of thing regularly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure how to ask this question properly, but it seems that prior art would be easy to find." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8486" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3857" RevisionGUID="5f035d4e-d529-4db5-b8a8-89b28e91634e" CreationDate="2013-05-27T03:59:48.910" UserId="531" Text="Prior art for patent 7363309" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8487" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3857" RevisionGUID="5f035d4e-d529-4db5-b8a8-89b28e91634e" CreationDate="2013-05-27T03:59:48.910" UserId="531" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8491" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3857" RevisionGUID="ef55f59f-b4ba-42a6-af03-c13d1af5109d" CreationDate="2013-05-27T05:16:48.937" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us7363309&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3857" RevisionGUID="dce04e95-975f-4bf9-8d24-45b2087bd549" CreationDate="2013-05-27T05:23:47.633" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag added claim 1" Text="Patent 7363309, &quot;Method and system for portable and desktop computing devices to allow searching, identification and display of items in a collection&quot; seems to be a dangerous patent. Programmers do this kind of thing regularly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure how to ask this question properly, but it seems that prior art would be easy to find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A field-useable guide in the form of a portable computer device for identifying natural items observed by a user from a collection of natural items, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a housing for the portable computer device, the housing containing a programmed microprocessor, data storage, a display screen and a user input,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;means in the microprocessor and data storage for displaying to the user a series of selectable attributes which vary among natural items in the collection of natural items, each attribute having one or more data types in which a plurality of values for the attribute are stored in the data storage,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;the values for the series of selectable attributes being in a plurality of the following data types stored in the storage for presentation to the user in a search conducted by the user:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(a) descriptive text,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(b) number values,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(c) color images of natural items in the collection of natural items,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(d) sounds produced by natural items, in the case of a group of animals as the collection of natural items,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(e) moving pictures of natural items, in the case of animals as the natural items of the collection,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(f) color samples for matching to a feature of an observed natural item of a collection of natural items,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(g) silhouettes representative of groups of natural items within a collection of natural items, and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;search means associated with the microprocessor for enabling and prompting the user, on the display screen, to perform a step-by-step elimination search to identify a natural item observed in the field by selecting one of said attributes, reviewing the various values presented by the portable computer device as possible values under the subject selected attribute for the natural item observed in the field, then selecting one said value for the selected attribute, then selecting another of said attributes, reviewing the values presented as possible values for said another selected attribute and selecting one of the values, and continuing the stepwise elimination search to further reduce the number of possible natural items in the natural items of the collection, the search means progressively eliminating non-matches from a list of possible natural items in the natural items of the collection,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;and including elimination means associated with the microprocessor for eliminating further said attributes which become irrelevant or redundant after selection by a user of a particular value for a said attribute, and further including means associated with the microprocessor for eliminating certain of the values under particular said attributes which values become irrelevant or redundant as choices due to prior selection of particular aid values under one or more previously selected said attributes,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;whereby the elimination means, in the step-by-step elimination search, assures against a null result of the search." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3859" RevisionGUID="f42953c7-b567-409e-b458-e8616a4d10e7" CreationDate="2013-05-27T06:18:34.607" UserId="3842" Text="Perpetual energy, to my understanding, is not allowed to be patented - so why this one? It seems to claim a motor that requires no electricity to run. Instead, it uses a magnet formation to create a faux force...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, believe it or not, I know a few things about this. The primary reason why this isn't technically free energy is because of the Gaussian diffusion that occurs when a magnet is in a constant state of repulsion. In essence, this patent exists, but does not fully function as described. You'd need to reinstate the fields by replacing the magnets, or introducing them to a much more powerful electromagnet - one that requires more energy than such a device could supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could I be wrong? Could this really be free energy? Or is it simply a waste of information?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8494" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3859" RevisionGUID="f42953c7-b567-409e-b458-e8616a4d10e7" CreationDate="2013-05-27T06:18:34.607" UserId="3842" Text="So... This is a patent for free energy? Or am I missing something here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8495" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3859" RevisionGUID="f42953c7-b567-409e-b458-e8616a4d10e7" CreationDate="2013-05-27T06:18:34.607" UserId="3842" Text="&lt;us4151431&gt;&lt;free&gt;&lt;energy&gt;&lt;magnet&gt;&lt;motor&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3859" RevisionGUID="38b971f1-1f33-4865-9f99-d3d364e3b806" CreationDate="2013-05-27T13:58:46.437" UserId="1259" Comment="tags linkie" Text="Perpetual energy, to my understanding, is not allowed to be patented - so why this one? It seems to claim a motor that requires no electricity to run. Instead, it uses a magnet formation to create a faux force [US4151431][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, believe it or not, I know a few things about this. The primary reason why this isn't technically free energy is because of the Gaussian diffusion that occurs when a magnet is in a constant state of repulsion. In essence, this patent exists, but does not fully function as described. You'd need to reinstate the fields by replacing the magnets, or introducing them to a much more powerful electromagnet - one that requires more energy than such a device could supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could I be wrong? Could this really be free energy? Or is it simply a waste of information?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us4151431" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8497" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3859" RevisionGUID="38b971f1-1f33-4865-9f99-d3d364e3b806" CreationDate="2013-05-27T13:58:46.437" UserId="1259" Comment="tags linkie" Text="&lt;us4151431&gt;&lt;magnet&gt;&lt;motor&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3860" RevisionGUID="bb403178-9d5e-440f-91b9-81bd235adfb6" CreationDate="2013-05-27T14:02:21.713" UserId="3847" Text="Avocado tree called Lamb/Hass&#xD;&#xA;US PP9753 P&#xD;&#xA;Is this a 20 or 25 year protection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8499" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3860" RevisionGUID="bb403178-9d5e-440f-91b9-81bd235adfb6" CreationDate="2013-05-27T14:02:21.713" UserId="3847" Text="How long is this plant patent protection 20 or 25 years" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8500" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3860" RevisionGUID="bb403178-9d5e-440f-91b9-81bd235adfb6" CreationDate="2013-05-27T14:02:21.713" UserId="3847" Text="&lt;lamb&gt;&lt;hass&gt;&lt;avocado&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8501" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3855" RevisionGUID="57b95b8e-2804-4122-890b-37853e2deb92" CreationDate="2013-05-27T14:08:23.597" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;usd675368&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3857" RevisionGUID="4e50cce3-40c5-49c8-86cb-5da5c5f2655f" CreationDate="2013-05-27T14:14:17.460" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="Patent [US7363309][1], &quot;Method and system for portable and desktop computing devices to allow searching, identification and display of items in a collection&quot; seems to be a dangerous patent. Programmers do this kind of thing regularly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure how to ask this question properly, but it seems that prior art would be easy to find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A field-useable guide in the form of a portable computer device for identifying natural items observed by a user from a collection of natural items, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a housing for the portable computer device, the housing containing a programmed microprocessor, data storage, a display screen and a user input,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;means in the microprocessor and data storage for displaying to the user a series of selectable attributes which vary among natural items in the collection of natural items, each attribute having one or more data types in which a plurality of values for the attribute are stored in the data storage,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;the values for the series of selectable attributes being in a plurality of the following data types stored in the storage for presentation to the user in a search conducted by the user:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(a) descriptive text,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(b) number values,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(c) color images of natural items in the collection of natural items,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(d) sounds produced by natural items, in the case of a group of animals as the collection of natural items,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(e) moving pictures of natural items, in the case of animals as the natural items of the collection,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(f) color samples for matching to a feature of an observed natural item of a collection of natural items,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(g) silhouettes representative of groups of natural items within a collection of natural items, and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;search means associated with the microprocessor for enabling and prompting the user, on the display screen, to perform a step-by-step elimination search to identify a natural item observed in the field by selecting one of said attributes, reviewing the various values presented by the portable computer device as possible values under the subject selected attribute for the natural item observed in the field, then selecting one said value for the selected attribute, then selecting another of said attributes, reviewing the values presented as possible values for said another selected attribute and selecting one of the values, and continuing the stepwise elimination search to further reduce the number of possible natural items in the natural items of the collection, the search means progressively eliminating non-matches from a list of possible natural items in the natural items of the collection,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;and including elimination means associated with the microprocessor for eliminating further said attributes which become irrelevant or redundant after selection by a user of a particular value for a said attribute, and further including means associated with the microprocessor for eliminating certain of the values under particular said attributes which values become irrelevant or redundant as choices due to prior selection of particular aid values under one or more previously selected said attributes,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;whereby the elimination means, in the step-by-step elimination search, assures against a null result of the search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us7363309" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8503" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3857" RevisionGUID="4e50cce3-40c5-49c8-86cb-5da5c5f2655f" CreationDate="2013-05-27T14:14:17.460" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="Prior art for patent US7363309" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3860" RevisionGUID="7c537213-9f01-4099-96b6-b72d6ed9f953" CreationDate="2013-05-27T14:17:58.020" UserId="1259" Comment="tags linkie title clarified" Text="Avocado tree called Lamb/Hass plant patent [USPP9753P][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a 20 or 25 year protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/USPP9753P" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8505" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3860" RevisionGUID="7c537213-9f01-4099-96b6-b72d6ed9f953" CreationDate="2013-05-27T14:17:58.020" UserId="1259" Comment="tags linkie title clarified" Text="How long is this plant patent protection USPP9753P, 20 or 25 years" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8506" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3860" RevisionGUID="7c537213-9f01-4099-96b6-b72d6ed9f953" CreationDate="2013-05-27T14:17:58.020" UserId="1259" Comment="tags linkie title clarified" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;plant-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3861" RevisionGUID="314c51ba-9fc5-4e5f-ad32-0eadf2586617" CreationDate="2013-05-27T15:30:21.780" UserId="3076" Text="Plant patents have a term of 20 years from application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3861" RevisionGUID="0b30902d-2c20-4725-86d1-4227c8604b25" CreationDate="2013-05-27T16:27:41.940" UserId="3076" Comment="added 161 characters in body" Text="Plant patents, like utility patents, have a term of 20 years from application. This was filed one day before the GATT change went into effect so it gets the longer of 20 years from application or 17 years from grant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8510" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3270" RevisionGUID="8bbeecb8-d985-471e-94b3-87fab79753d6" CreationDate="2013-05-27T16:29:14.477" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;usd661296&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3843" RevisionGUID="b09973bc-d33e-453d-9720-558209748820" CreationDate="2013-05-27T19:43:37.053" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Scott, for better or worse, the application you cite did issue as as U.S. Patent US6598457 and then expired in 2011 for non-payment of maintenance fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From USPTO Public PAIR database&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Application Number:	 09/826,555&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;	&#xD;&#xA;Filing or 371 (c) Date: 04-05-2001&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Status:	 Patent Expired Due to NonPayment of Maintenance Fees Under 37 CFR 1.362&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Status Date:	 08-29-2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I am a registered patent agent, I am not an attorney. I imagine you may have some case against whomever has wronged you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3862" RevisionGUID="50e1a638-be76-40f9-aca1-7db043efca43" CreationDate="2013-05-28T00:48:48.010" UserId="1335" Text="Based on a quick read, the claims seem to be related to a mobile field guide device for identifying wildlife (&quot;natural items&quot; -- the patent seems to be focused on birds), by narrowing down a list of candidate &quot;natural items&quot; by interactively filtering the list based on attributes selected by the user (&quot;step-by-step elimination&quot;), along with the added limitation that the process must return at least one search result (&quot;assures against a null result&quot;). In addition, the claim specifically calls out the types of data that constitute attributes of the wildlife -- &quot;descriptive text&quot;, &quot;color images&quot;, &quot;silhouettes&quot;, etc. as identified by points (a) - (g).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's pretty specific, and very far removed from the kind of thing programmers do regularly. (Well, at least I don't; But then I'm also not writing birdwatching apps.) I suspect you assumed the scope of the patent was defined by its title rather than the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing relevant prior art would be found in the area of field guides, paper-based as well as electronic, for birdwatchers and other wildlife identification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3863" RevisionGUID="f6f092fe-862d-45ca-b411-e78371f8386e" CreationDate="2013-05-28T01:25:53.870" UserId="1335" Text="One big problem with such a question is that there is no such thing as &quot;software patents&quot;. Software *itself* is not patentable, it is what the software *does* or is *used* to do -- the method -- that is patented. Software may be used to implement the whole invention (many data processing patents) or only one component of the invention (e.g. Diehr [1].) Many would not even consider Diehr to be a software patent, despite it being considered part of the &quot;patent eligibility trilogy&quot; [2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of categories and sub-categories (&quot;art units&quot;) that patents are classified as, and you could try to carve out &quot;software patents&quot; based on some of the relevant categories, but that is still not going to be a very rough way of doing so. This is because art units are organized based on the field the invention relates to, rather than *how* the invention is implemented. Software simply happens to be how inventions could be implemented. As a very inaccurate example, a &quot;security/authentication&quot; art unit could encompass software methods such as the RSA algorithm as well as hardware solutions such as RSA tokens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, one of the biggest shortcomings of many early research papers that try to analyze software patents (especially from authors such as Bessen, etc.) is that they are based on very inaccurate classification methods, such as PTO and EPO classifications. As such any conclusions are far from reliable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can guess why the PTO won't even *attempt* to try to provide such statistics for &quot;software patents&quot;: nobody, least of all the Supreme Court, seems to be able to concretely define what a non-abstract software patent is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_v._Diehr&#xD;&#xA;2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent-eligibility_trilogy#The_algorithm_exception_and_the_patent-eligibility_trilogy&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3863" RevisionGUID="661db023-5f1d-4765-a5f0-639fa7577b85" CreationDate="2013-05-28T03:36:06.110" UserId="1767" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="One big problem with such a question is that there is no such thing as &quot;software patents&quot;. Software *itself* is not patentable, it is what the software *does* or is *used* to do -- the method -- that is patented. Software may be used to implement the whole invention (many data processing patents) or only one component of the invention (e.g. [Diehr][1].) Many would not even consider Diehr to be a software patent, despite it being considered part of the [&quot;patent eligibility trilogy&quot;][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of categories and sub-categories (&quot;art units&quot;) that patents are classified as, and you could try to carve out &quot;software patents&quot; based on some of the relevant categories, but that is still not going to be a very rough way of doing so. This is because art units are organized based on the field the invention relates to, rather than *how* the invention is implemented. Software simply happens to be how inventions could be implemented. As a very inaccurate example, a &quot;security/authentication&quot; art unit could encompass software methods such as the RSA algorithm as well as hardware solutions such as RSA tokens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, one of the biggest shortcomings of many early research papers that try to analyze software patents (especially from authors such as Bessen, etc.) is that they are based on very inaccurate classification methods, such as PTO and EPO classifications. As such any conclusions are far from reliable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can guess why the PTO won't even *attempt* to try to provide such statistics for &quot;software patents&quot;: nobody, least of all the Supreme Court, seems to be able to concretely define what a non-abstract software patent is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_v._Diehr&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent-eligibility_trilogy#The_algorithm_exception_and_the_patent-eligibility_trilogy&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3866" RevisionGUID="4f5f4239-8607-4523-a025-a1c201812b07" CreationDate="2013-05-28T12:47:47.837" UserId="2072" Text="If you bring this question to an attorney, you will most likely be asked what you wish to accomplish.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are seeking compensation, the attorney might ask whether you could show any damages or prove that you were intentionally excluded as an inventor.  The ability of the patentee to pay any settlement or judgment also sounds like a relevant consideration.  While failure to pay the maintenance fee on the patent is not conclusive of this, it may suggest a lack of interest in the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are seeking only to have your name included, then you might want to ask how much it will cost you.  You may also want to question how the Patent Office will reflect any change if you are successful.  A certificate of correction may not be worth it to you if you have to pay for the filings yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3867" RevisionGUID="3b2f10cd-9c12-4974-9871-2982fb1f2cca" CreationDate="2013-05-28T13:07:51.680" UserId="2072" Text="Try copyrighting your formulae and considering one or more design patents for any artwork or graphic design.  You would probably want to have valid trademark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for negotiating any license, you should probably consider consulting an attorney.  Do not be surprised if the company develops a variation of your work based on your disclosure to them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8526" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3860" RevisionGUID="5be2add6-cc15-488d-b7f6-957e083d227c" CreationDate="2013-05-28T14:28:03.293" UserId="1259" Comment="tag again" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;plant-patent&gt;&lt;uspp9753p&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3868" RevisionGUID="fbcb0f0c-c3ad-420f-8edf-7cc71fcd42c7" CreationDate="2013-05-28T15:10:14.790" UserId="2072" Text="As Mr. White points out, on June 8, 1995, GATT was enacted ultimately changing the term for plant patents to 20 years from filing.  To cover the transition, Congress made a special exception for patents that issued in the six-month period after the enactment (June 8, 1995) or that issued from an application that was filed before June 8, 1995. These patents have a term that is the greater of the 20-year term from filing or 17 years from issuance.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of general interest is this patent-term calculator:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/patent_term_calculator.jsp&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plant patents should not be confused with Plant Variety Protection Act certificates.&#xD;&#xA;Prior to the 1994 amendments, the original Plant Variety Protection Act (1970) provided 18 years of protection for non-woody plants. However, applications submitted prior to April 4, 1995 (effective amendment date) may be re-submitted in order to secure the extended term of protection provided by the amendments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3871" RevisionGUID="58bb0ad0-32e0-48c9-975f-f190d0238a84" CreationDate="2013-05-28T17:05:56.933" UserId="3855" Text="I have recently been interested in creating a &quot;better&quot; solution for transporting bikes within a vehicle, specifically an SUV. Without getting into details, I believe that I have designed a completely universal bike rack which would fit any SUV on the market today. It seems that someone had the same idea and has build/patented a design, that being said I have a few questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, Google says the patent number is ep1582406a1. If you put this into google search you can see the document I have been viewing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent number does not register in the US patent database, what does this mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent valid in the US even though it was filed in Germany?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My product is different in design but similar in function, should I be concerned?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for the help,&#xD;&#xA;Alan" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8536" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3871" RevisionGUID="58bb0ad0-32e0-48c9-975f-f190d0238a84" CreationDate="2013-05-28T17:05:56.933" UserId="3855" Text="SUV bike rack questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8537" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3871" RevisionGUID="58bb0ad0-32e0-48c9-975f-f190d0238a84" CreationDate="2013-05-28T17:05:56.933" UserId="3855" Text="&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3872" RevisionGUID="b4ea67ab-3cbf-4e8f-942c-e3da21ea9fe1" CreationDate="2013-05-28T17:21:57.430" UserId="3856" Text="I've received a Notice of Allowance for claims contained in an examiner's amendment. The claims aren't exactly as I'd want them, but I feel my options are limited.  I know I can file a continuation before issuance, but I also heard that some type of formal response to the amendment should be filed.  Can anyone elaborate on what this response should look like?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8539" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3872" RevisionGUID="b4ea67ab-3cbf-4e8f-942c-e3da21ea9fe1" CreationDate="2013-05-28T17:21:57.430" UserId="3856" Text="Formal response after examiner's amendment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8540" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3872" RevisionGUID="b4ea67ab-3cbf-4e8f-942c-e3da21ea9fe1" CreationDate="2013-05-28T17:21:57.430" UserId="3856" Text="&lt;process&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3873" RevisionGUID="f4914a77-13cc-48c4-96fb-c464da3e05b2" CreationDate="2013-05-28T17:22:37.767" UserId="3076" Text="Patents are territorial. Only a granted and still in-force US patent can be used to stop you making, selling, using, offering for sale or importing in the US." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3874" RevisionGUID="72d8130a-1c6f-4920-aa21-0d8985f11936" CreationDate="2013-05-28T18:02:00.777" UserId="3076" Text="If the changes you want would be considered by the examiner as not affecting patentability you could use a rule 312 amendment. What seems off is that sually an examiner's amendment is only made after getting your Ok.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3875" RevisionGUID="2c5eb818-08ee-4d4b-8930-e2f0cc64840e" CreationDate="2013-05-28T19:13:30.863" UserId="3857" Text="How come this patent was granted , when the same/similar item have a patent in 1914 # US1267052??&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8544" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3875" RevisionGUID="2c5eb818-08ee-4d4b-8930-e2f0cc64840e" CreationDate="2013-05-28T19:13:30.863" UserId="3857" Text="Money clip bottle opener US 6851147 B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8545" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3875" RevisionGUID="2c5eb818-08ee-4d4b-8930-e2f0cc64840e" CreationDate="2013-05-28T19:13:30.863" UserId="3857" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8546" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3875" RevisionGUID="340e10d0-2131-45b2-abae-8a0529e0bcdd" CreationDate="2013-05-28T20:12:49.057" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;us6851147&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8547" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3875" RevisionGUID="16ebd809-51f9-4aa2-aeea-74a7c6353440" CreationDate="2013-05-28T20:18:32.880" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;us6851147&gt;&lt;us1267052&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3876" RevisionGUID="f413dec9-8d34-4c0e-a2a7-9c4e8e09132d" CreationDate="2013-05-28T20:25:09.627" UserId="3076" Text="That patent was known to the applicant who, in turn, made it known to the examiner in an IDS filed with the application. It did not make the examiner's top 5 or 6 similar things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From IDS seen in PAIR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/L3aIc.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3877" RevisionGUID="07a6b4c7-3411-4547-ba9b-fdf3766695cd" CreationDate="2013-05-28T21:22:28.563" UserId="1767" Text="George beat me to the answer here.  He is correct (as usual).  Only granted and in-force US patents could be used to stop you in the US from making, using or selling a product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There appears to be no [US Family Member][1] of [ep1582406a1][2]. However, [ep1582406a1][2] could constitute prior art for any patent applications you might file on your invention in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, according to [Espacenet][3], patent [ep1582406a1][4] is [&quot;deemed to be withdrawn&quot;][5] as of 2011, presumably due to the applicant not having paid maintenance fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][6]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_family&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/EP1582406A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/EP1582406A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/a_iii_11_3_4.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/XKerS.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/icM5f.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3880" RevisionGUID="0aeb8d21-7b1b-478b-87fe-4bb0e9116548" CreationDate="2013-05-29T05:46:33.320" UserId="3692" Text="I've received a letter from USPTO telling that the patent application contains two distinct groups of claims: 1-13, and 14. The examiner marked all 14 claims as &quot;restricted&quot;, and now I'm unsure how to proceed. &#xD;&#xA;Here are the options I'm thinking about:&#xD;&#xA;  1. Dispute this&#xD;&#xA;  2. Delete claim 14&#xD;&#xA;  3. Reorganize claims.&#xD;&#xA;  4. File two separate patents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I strongly feel that all 14 claims belong to the same patent. But fighting with the examiner might be futile, and getting rid of claim 14 would be the easiest option.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Any constructive advice on how to deal with the situation and what are the trade-offs of options 1-4 is appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks,&#xD;&#xA;Evgeni&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8557" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3880" RevisionGUID="0aeb8d21-7b1b-478b-87fe-4bb0e9116548" CreationDate="2013-05-29T05:46:33.320" UserId="3692" Text="How to proceed with claims restriction/election" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8558" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3880" RevisionGUID="0aeb8d21-7b1b-478b-87fe-4bb0e9116548" CreationDate="2013-05-29T05:46:33.320" UserId="3692" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;restricted&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3882" RevisionGUID="25c2aa05-0d88-453e-b9cd-a087d362ab83" CreationDate="2013-05-29T13:10:03.367" UserId="2072" Text="Evgeni,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider electing the first group, claims 1-13 as this group likely represents the most important aspects of your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to dispute the restriction requirement, you may include language something like &quot;Applicant elects Group 1 corresponding to claims 1-13, with traverse.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you must provide specific reasons why you think the two claim groups are a single invention.  Otherwise, it is probably not a good idea to traverse.  You can defer your decision to pursue the non-elected claim until the end of prosecution.  No need to cancel the claim right now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traversing rarely succeeds and your recourse is a costly petition--compared to prosecuting the non-elected claims in a separate application.  Also, if you do not traverse, you can proceed by telephoning the Examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may wish to see the posts here for more information:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.patentexpress.com/free-legal-advice/to-traverse-or-not-to-traverse-restriction_295573.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3871" RevisionGUID="80c043c6-dc42-4d14-8a6a-d81a32e55b58" CreationDate="2013-05-29T13:39:08.890" UserId="1259" Comment="tags linkie" Text="I have recently been interested in creating a &quot;better&quot; solution for transporting bikes within a vehicle, specifically an SUV. Without getting into details, I believe that I have designed a completely universal bike rack which would fit any SUV on the market today. It seems that someone had the same idea and has build/patented a design, that being said I have a few questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, Google says the patent number is [ep1582406a1][1]. If you put this into google search you can see the document I have been viewing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent number does not register in the US patent database, what does this mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent valid in the US even though it was filed in Germany?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My product is different in design but similar in function, should I be concerned?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for the help,&#xD;&#xA;Alan&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/ep1582406a1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8564" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3871" RevisionGUID="80c043c6-dc42-4d14-8a6a-d81a32e55b58" CreationDate="2013-05-29T13:39:08.890" UserId="1259" Comment="tags linkie" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;ep1582406a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8565" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3880" RevisionGUID="870f7830-7aa4-4997-9a68-459fa5facc0f" CreationDate="2013-05-29T13:43:28.593" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;restricted-claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8566" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3872" RevisionGUID="6413ed6b-8020-4b04-bb55-1d8a8315fe09" CreationDate="2013-05-29T13:44:26.347" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;process&gt;&lt;claim-amendment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3874" RevisionGUID="121597e2-ed28-4c16-85ec-415a8222705f" CreationDate="2013-05-30T04:00:06.790" UserId="3076" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="If the changes you want would be considered by the examiner as not affecting patentability you could use a rule 312 amendment. What seems off is that usually  an examiner's amendment is only made after getting your Ok.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3876" RevisionGUID="ca049a4b-f96b-4d14-af95-407b87fc1c15" CreationDate="2013-05-30T05:26:13.123" UserId="3076" Comment="added 347 characters in body" Text="That patent was known to the applicant who, in turn, made it known to the examiner in an IDS filed with the application. It did not make the examiner's top 5 or 6 similar things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To add more meat to this answer, the newer patent claims a money clip where the **bend** itself is the bottle opener. The older patent does not teach that. Yes they are both bottle opener/money clips but create that combination in distinct ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From IDS seen in PAIR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/L3aIc.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3884" RevisionGUID="97fa49fc-162e-45e1-be59-9dc3d93c0ab6" CreationDate="2013-05-30T17:29:17.447" UserId="3622" Text="This issued patent relates to a system for distributing serial episodes of media content over the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BASIC PATENT DATA:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	Patent Number: [US 8,112,504][1]&#xD;&#xA;-	Assignee: Personal Audio, LLC&#xD;&#xA;-	Prior Art Cutoff Date: Prior art must predate October 2, 1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PATENT SUMMARY:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent generally relates to a system whereby a server provides media content to client devices over the Internet. On the server, the provider maintains a “compilation file,” which is essentially a list of available media files. The compilation file generally includes the URL for each available media file in a series and may also include descriptive text. This compilation file may be static, such as a simple web page with links to each available file to which new files are added, or may be customized for a particular user, perhaps only showing them content from feeds to which they have subscribed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claim that has been asserted against podcasters to date is Claim 31. This claim is agnostic as to the media type representing “episodes.” It can be images, text, video, or audio. Prior art can involve any media format. Some dependent claims specifically require audio, however, so prior art of that type is especially useful.&#xD;&#xA;Claim 31: Apparatus for disseminating a series of episodes represented by media files via the Internet as said episodes become available, said apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more data storage servers,&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more communication interfaces connected to the Internet for receiving requests received from remotely located client devices, and for responding to each given one of said requests by downloading a data file identified by a URL specified by said given one of said requests to the requesting client device,&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more processors coupled to said one or more data storage servers and to said one or more communications interfaces for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +	storing one or more media files representing each episode as said one or more media files become available, each of said one or more media files being stored at a storage location specified by a unique episode URL;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +   from time to time, as new episodes represented in said series of episodes become available, storing an updated version of a compilation file in one of said one or more data storage servers at a storage location identified by a predetermined URL, said updated version of said compilation file containing attribute data describing currently available episodes in said series of episodes, said attribute data for each given one of said currently available episodes including displayable text describing said given one of said currently available episodes and one or more episode URLs specifying the storage locations of one or more corresponding media files representing said given one of said episodes; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +	employing one of said one or more communication interfaces to:&#xD;&#xA;        +	(a) receive a request from a requesting client device for the updated version of said compilation file located at said predetermined URL;&#xD;&#xA;        +	(b) download said updated version of said compilation file to said requesting client device; and&#xD;&#xA;        +	(c) thereafter receive and respond to a request from said requesting client device for one or more media files identified by one or more corresponding episode URLs included in the attribute data contained in said updated version of said compilation files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR ART:** Examples of prior art include the prior art identified on the face of the patent and Deb Kumar Roy (June 1995), NewsComm: A Hand-Held Interface for Interactive Access to Structured Audio, available at http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/60444/33214083.pdf?sequence=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen any additional prior art (published before Octtober 2, 1996) that describes a system like the one in Claim 31? &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;We are interested in any prior art that describes accessing a series of media files organized as episodes, tracks, installments, or the like, through the use of “compilation” data that (a) available to be downloaded by a client device, and (b) updated to describe the media files that are currently available. We are particularly interested in prior art where this “compilation” data includes both URLs for the individual media files, and some other displayable text describing each available episode/track/installment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do know prior art, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual, but please create separate answers for each one so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][2]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents community][3] has chosen your prior art as a candidate to submit to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office. If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to post your own request for prior art if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8112504&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8573" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3884" RevisionGUID="97fa49fc-162e-45e1-be59-9dc3d93c0ab6" CreationDate="2013-05-30T17:29:17.447" UserId="3622" Text="CALL FOR PRIOR ART: System for Disseminating Media Content Representing Episodes in a Serialized Sequence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8574" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3884" RevisionGUID="97fa49fc-162e-45e1-be59-9dc3d93c0ab6" CreationDate="2013-05-30T17:29:17.447" UserId="3622" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us8112504&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3884" RevisionGUID="899ff207-40af-4fd0-9eb9-07f1ac40c45d" CreationDate="2013-05-30T17:35:22.610" UserId="3622" Comment="added 244 characters in body" Text="*This call for prior art is part of [EFF][1]'s effort to bust a patent being asserted against Podcasting. Read more about the initiative [here][2].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This issued patent relates to a system for distributing serial episodes of media content over the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BASIC PATENT DATA:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	Patent Number: [US 8,112,504][3]&#xD;&#xA;-	Assignee: Personal Audio, LLC&#xD;&#xA;-	Prior Art Cutoff Date: Prior art must predate October 2, 1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PATENT SUMMARY:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent generally relates to a system whereby a server provides media content to client devices over the Internet. On the server, the provider maintains a “compilation file,” which is essentially a list of available media files. The compilation file generally includes the URL for each available media file in a series and may also include descriptive text. This compilation file may be static, such as a simple web page with links to each available file to which new files are added, or may be customized for a particular user, perhaps only showing them content from feeds to which they have subscribed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claim that has been asserted against podcasters to date is Claim 31. This claim is agnostic as to the media type representing “episodes.” It can be images, text, video, or audio. Prior art can involve any media format. Some dependent claims specifically require audio, however, so prior art of that type is especially useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 31:** Apparatus for disseminating a series of episodes represented by media files via the Internet as said episodes become available, said apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more data storage servers,&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more communication interfaces connected to the Internet for receiving requests received from remotely located client devices, and for responding to each given one of said requests by downloading a data file identified by a URL specified by said given one of said requests to the requesting client device,&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more processors coupled to said one or more data storage servers and to said one or more communications interfaces for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +	storing one or more media files representing each episode as said one or more media files become available, each of said one or more media files being stored at a storage location specified by a unique episode URL;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +   from time to time, as new episodes represented in said series of episodes become available, storing an updated version of a compilation file in one of said one or more data storage servers at a storage location identified by a predetermined URL, said updated version of said compilation file containing attribute data describing currently available episodes in said series of episodes, said attribute data for each given one of said currently available episodes including displayable text describing said given one of said currently available episodes and one or more episode URLs specifying the storage locations of one or more corresponding media files representing said given one of said episodes; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +	employing one of said one or more communication interfaces to:&#xD;&#xA;        +	(a) receive a request from a requesting client device for the updated version of said compilation file located at said predetermined URL;&#xD;&#xA;        +	(b) download said updated version of said compilation file to said requesting client device; and&#xD;&#xA;        +	(c) thereafter receive and respond to a request from said requesting client device for one or more media files identified by one or more corresponding episode URLs included in the attribute data contained in said updated version of said compilation files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR ART:** Examples of prior art include the prior art identified on the face of the patent and Deb Kumar Roy (June 1995), NewsComm: A Hand-Held Interface for Interactive Access to Structured Audio, available at http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/60444/33214083.pdf?sequence=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen any additional prior art (published before Octtober 2, 1996) that describes a system like the one in Claim 31? &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;We are interested in any prior art that describes accessing a series of media files organized as episodes, tracks, installments, or the like, through the use of “compilation” data that (a) available to be downloaded by a client device, and (b) updated to describe the media files that are currently available. We are particularly interested in prior art where this “compilation” data includes both URLs for the individual media files, and some other displayable text describing each available episode/track/installment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do know prior art, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual, but please create separate answers for each one so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents community][5] has chosen your prior art as a candidate to submit to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office. If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to post your own request for prior art if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/help-save-podcasting&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8112504&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3884" RevisionGUID="5d4ab327-ef3e-42b6-a746-a2a786f7758b" CreationDate="2013-05-30T18:33:57.307" UserId="3622" Comment="edited body" Text="*This call for prior art is part of [EFF][1]'s effort to bust a patent being asserted against podcasting. Read more about the initiative [here][2].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This issued patent relates to a system for distributing serial episodes of media content over the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BASIC PATENT DATA:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	Patent Number: [US 8,112,504][3]&#xD;&#xA;-	Assignee: Personal Audio, LLC&#xD;&#xA;-	Prior Art Cutoff Date: Prior art must predate October 2, 1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PATENT SUMMARY:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent generally relates to a system whereby a server provides media content to client devices over the Internet. On the server, the provider maintains a “compilation file,” which is essentially a list of available media files. The compilation file generally includes the URL for each available media file in a series and may also include descriptive text. This compilation file may be static, such as a simple web page with links to each available file to which new files are added, or may be customized for a particular user, perhaps only showing them content from feeds to which they have subscribed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claim that has been asserted against podcasters to date is Claim 31. This claim is agnostic as to the media type representing “episodes.” It can be images, text, video, or audio. Prior art can involve any media format. Some dependent claims specifically require audio, however, so prior art of that type is especially useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 31:** Apparatus for disseminating a series of episodes represented by media files via the Internet as said episodes become available, said apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more data storage servers,&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more communication interfaces connected to the Internet for receiving requests received from remotely located client devices, and for responding to each given one of said requests by downloading a data file identified by a URL specified by said given one of said requests to the requesting client device,&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more processors coupled to said one or more data storage servers and to said one or more communications interfaces for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +	storing one or more media files representing each episode as said one or more media files become available, each of said one or more media files being stored at a storage location specified by a unique episode URL;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +   from time to time, as new episodes represented in said series of episodes become available, storing an updated version of a compilation file in one of said one or more data storage servers at a storage location identified by a predetermined URL, said updated version of said compilation file containing attribute data describing currently available episodes in said series of episodes, said attribute data for each given one of said currently available episodes including displayable text describing said given one of said currently available episodes and one or more episode URLs specifying the storage locations of one or more corresponding media files representing said given one of said episodes; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +	employing one of said one or more communication interfaces to:&#xD;&#xA;        +	(a) receive a request from a requesting client device for the updated version of said compilation file located at said predetermined URL;&#xD;&#xA;        +	(b) download said updated version of said compilation file to said requesting client device; and&#xD;&#xA;        +	(c) thereafter receive and respond to a request from said requesting client device for one or more media files identified by one or more corresponding episode URLs included in the attribute data contained in said updated version of said compilation files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR ART:** Examples of prior art include the prior art identified on the face of the patent and Deb Kumar Roy (June 1995), NewsComm: A Hand-Held Interface for Interactive Access to Structured Audio, available at http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/60444/33214083.pdf?sequence=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen any additional prior art (published before Octtober 2, 1996) that describes a system like the one in Claim 31? &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;We are interested in any prior art that describes accessing a series of media files organized as episodes, tracks, installments, or the like, through the use of “compilation” data that (a) available to be downloaded by a client device, and (b) updated to describe the media files that are currently available. We are particularly interested in prior art where this “compilation” data includes both URLs for the individual media files, and some other displayable text describing each available episode/track/installment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do know prior art, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual, but please create separate answers for each one so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents community][5] has chosen your prior art as a candidate to submit to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office. If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to post your own request for prior art if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/help-save-podcasting&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8112504&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8579" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3884" RevisionGUID="5665dfa2-7bc2-41a9-9264-e0f60e91a72f" CreationDate="2013-05-30T19:14:45.803" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="&lt;us8112504&gt;&lt;prior-art-request-patents&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8580" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3857" RevisionGUID="9c911340-15c0-42e7-ac68-8f37d220da9d" CreationDate="2013-05-30T19:15:43.930" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;us7363309&gt;&lt;prior-art-request-patents&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3885" RevisionGUID="16f37815-3bea-4600-9106-a19cd3ccf03d" CreationDate="2013-05-30T19:18:03.427" UserId="3866" Text="The first thing that comes to mind is 2600's &quot;Off The Hook&quot; which, looking at the archive, dates to 1988.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[  http://www.2600.com/offthehook/archive_ra.html  ]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3886" RevisionGUID="ec43dfdd-d4c9-42f6-9804-a0f674e99c80" CreationDate="2013-05-30T19:23:37.183" UserId="3867" Text="I found this concerning M-Bone : http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/08/business/business-technology-peering-out-a-real-time-window.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dated feb 1995. I hope it can help.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8583" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3884" RevisionGUID="779176e3-4391-49cf-bcec-72d76804fd0e" CreationDate="2013-05-30T19:24:27.873" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us8112504&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8584" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3857" RevisionGUID="41da8758-1dee-4b8f-b866-1f5478c561d1" CreationDate="2013-05-30T19:24:54.983" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us7363309&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3884" RevisionGUID="5f0bba4b-8c48-4d63-ad5e-43c0f7e99e2b" CreationDate="2013-05-30T19:29:29.390" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text=" *This call for prior art is part of [EFF][1]'s effort to bust a patent being asserted against podcasting. Read more about the initiative [here][2].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This issued patent relates to a system for distributing serial episodes of media content over the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BASIC PATENT DATA:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	Patent Number: [US 8,112,504][3]&#xD;&#xA;-	Assignee: Personal Audio, LLC&#xD;&#xA;-	Prior Art Cutoff Date: Prior art must predate October 2, 1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PATENT SUMMARY:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent generally relates to a system whereby a server provides media content to client devices over the Internet. On the server, the provider maintains a “compilation file,” which is essentially a list of available media files. The compilation file generally includes the URL for each available media file in a series and may also include descriptive text. This compilation file may be static, such as a simple web page with links to each available file to which new files are added, or may be customized for a particular user, perhaps only showing them content from feeds to which they have subscribed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claim that has been asserted against podcasters to date is Claim 31. This claim is agnostic as to the media type representing “episodes.” It can be images, text, video, or audio. Prior art can involve any media format. Some dependent claims specifically require audio, however, so prior art of that type is especially useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 31:** Apparatus for disseminating a series of episodes represented by media files via the Internet as said episodes become available, said apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more data storage servers,&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more communication interfaces connected to the Internet for receiving requests received from remotely located client devices, and for responding to each given one of said requests by downloading a data file identified by a URL specified by said given one of said requests to the requesting client device,&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more processors coupled to said one or more data storage servers and to said one or more communications interfaces for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +	storing one or more media files representing each episode as said one or more media files become available, each of said one or more media files being stored at a storage location specified by a unique episode URL;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +   from time to time, as new episodes represented in said series of episodes become available, storing an updated version of a compilation file in one of said one or more data storage servers at a storage location identified by a predetermined URL, said updated version of said compilation file containing attribute data describing currently available episodes in said series of episodes, said attribute data for each given one of said currently available episodes including displayable text describing said given one of said currently available episodes and one or more episode URLs specifying the storage locations of one or more corresponding media files representing said given one of said episodes; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +	employing one of said one or more communication interfaces to:&#xD;&#xA;        +	(a) receive a request from a requesting client device for the updated version of said compilation file located at said predetermined URL;&#xD;&#xA;        +	(b) download said updated version of said compilation file to said requesting client device; and&#xD;&#xA;        +	(c) thereafter receive and respond to a request from said requesting client device for one or more media files identified by one or more corresponding episode URLs included in the attribute data contained in said updated version of said compilation files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR ART:** Examples of prior art include the prior art identified on the face of the patent and Deb Kumar Roy (June 1995), NewsComm: A Hand-Held Interface for Interactive Access to Structured Audio, available at http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/60444/33214083.pdf?sequence=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen any additional prior art (published before Octtober 2, 1996) that describes a system like the one in Claim 31? &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;We are interested in any prior art that describes accessing a series of media files organized as episodes, tracks, installments, or the like, through the use of “compilation” data that (a) available to be downloaded by a client device, and (b) updated to describe the media files that are currently available. We are particularly interested in prior art where this “compilation” data includes both URLs for the individual media files, and some other displayable text describing each available episode/track/installment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do know prior art, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual, but please create separate answers for each one so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents community][5] has chosen your prior art as a candidate to submit to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office. If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to post your own request for prior art if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/help-save-podcasting&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8112504&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3885" RevisionGUID="64dbeb6c-022f-4d77-9668-7817ac61b017" CreationDate="2013-05-30T19:36:15.730" UserId="3866" Comment="OOps.  One submission per response.  Sorry!" Text="The first thing that comes to mind is 2600's &quot;Off The Hook&quot; which, looking at the archive, dates to 1988.&#xD;&#xA;[  http://www.2600.com/offthehook/archive_ra.html  ]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3887" RevisionGUID="17697eab-fc1e-4c3c-a7be-76628a4f740f" CreationDate="2013-05-30T19:38:10.707" UserId="3866" Text="&#xD;&#xA;There seems to a variety of potentially useful records here:&#xD;&#xA;[  http://museum.media.org/radio/  ]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3884" RevisionGUID="b6bee2e3-c3bf-4a8f-925b-902be41b223f" CreationDate="2013-05-30T19:42:07.190" UserId="1767" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text=" *This call for prior art is part of [EFF][1]'s effort to bust a patent being asserted against podcasting. Read more about the initiative [here][2]. Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [here][5]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This issued patent relates to a system for distributing serial episodes of media content over the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BASIC PATENT DATA:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	Patent Number: [US 8,112,504][3]&#xD;&#xA;-	Assignee: Personal Audio, LLC&#xD;&#xA;-	Prior Art Cutoff Date: Prior art must predate October 2, 1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PATENT SUMMARY:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent generally relates to a system whereby a server provides media content to client devices over the Internet. On the server, the provider maintains a “compilation file,” which is essentially a list of available media files. The compilation file generally includes the URL for each available media file in a series and may also include descriptive text. This compilation file may be static, such as a simple web page with links to each available file to which new files are added, or may be customized for a particular user, perhaps only showing them content from feeds to which they have subscribed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claim that has been asserted against podcasters to date is Claim 31. This claim is agnostic as to the media type representing “episodes.” It can be images, text, video, or audio. Prior art can involve any media format. Some dependent claims specifically require audio, however, so prior art of that type is especially useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 31:** Apparatus for disseminating a series of episodes represented by media files via the Internet as said episodes become available, said apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more data storage servers,&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more communication interfaces connected to the Internet for receiving requests received from remotely located client devices, and for responding to each given one of said requests by downloading a data file identified by a URL specified by said given one of said requests to the requesting client device,&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more processors coupled to said one or more data storage servers and to said one or more communications interfaces for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +	storing one or more media files representing each episode as said one or more media files become available, each of said one or more media files being stored at a storage location specified by a unique episode URL;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +   from time to time, as new episodes represented in said series of episodes become available, storing an updated version of a compilation file in one of said one or more data storage servers at a storage location identified by a predetermined URL, said updated version of said compilation file containing attribute data describing currently available episodes in said series of episodes, said attribute data for each given one of said currently available episodes including displayable text describing said given one of said currently available episodes and one or more episode URLs specifying the storage locations of one or more corresponding media files representing said given one of said episodes; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +	employing one of said one or more communication interfaces to:&#xD;&#xA;        +	(a) receive a request from a requesting client device for the updated version of said compilation file located at said predetermined URL;&#xD;&#xA;        +	(b) download said updated version of said compilation file to said requesting client device; and&#xD;&#xA;        +	(c) thereafter receive and respond to a request from said requesting client device for one or more media files identified by one or more corresponding episode URLs included in the attribute data contained in said updated version of said compilation files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR ART:** Examples of prior art include the prior art identified on the face of the patent and Deb Kumar Roy (June 1995), NewsComm: A Hand-Held Interface for Interactive Access to Structured Audio, available at http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/60444/33214083.pdf?sequence=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen any additional prior art (published before Octtober 2, 1996) that describes a system like the one in Claim 31? &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;We are interested in any prior art that describes accessing a series of media files organized as episodes, tracks, installments, or the like, through the use of “compilation” data that (a) available to be downloaded by a client device, and (b) updated to describe the media files that are currently available. We are particularly interested in prior art where this “compilation” data includes both URLs for the individual media files, and some other displayable text describing each available episode/track/installment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do know prior art, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual, but please create separate answers for each one so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents community][5] has chosen your prior art as a candidate to submit to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office. If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to post your own request for prior art if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/help-save-podcasting&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8112504&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3888" RevisionGUID="fb60adf8-4f4e-40da-aa39-c9f211e301ae" CreationDate="2013-05-30T19:56:01.513" UserId="3868" Text="http://www.isi.edu/div7/publication_files/rs-92-293.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a link that I found describing an early &quot;audiocast&quot; from 1992 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3889" RevisionGUID="95afab0f-af15-4e65-b6e4-e04594bf9141" CreationDate="2013-05-30T20:30:11.667" UserId="3870" Text="News websites. Eposodic news articles including images. HTML pages are multi-media files &amp; they are downloaded to your machine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3890" RevisionGUID="618fb0c5-e585-473c-9aaa-a28e470ce5d8" CreationDate="2013-05-30T20:41:28.827" UserId="3871" Text="1998 - &quot;AND the article is about podcasting before podcasting was cool or even existed. In fact, few schools in the world were online at the time that these kids and I produced a digital radio show on the World Wide Web.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;http://stager.tv/blog/?p=577&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3891" RevisionGUID="287ac97b-bd0f-463b-b70e-37b8057f421f" CreationDate="2013-05-30T20:42:57.883" UserId="1767" Text="**HELP SAVE STREAMING RADIO** - This application seeks to patent a system for discovering new radio stations online! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][5]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System And Method For Internet Radio Station Program Discovery**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A service for discovering Internet radio station programs. A list of Internet radio station programs is obtained. Each program on the list is categorized by mapping a topic to a program using a content classifier. User can discover new programs of interest from the list of programs based on the categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110502 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Lemi Technology, LLC&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** November, 2008&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Note**: This application is a [continuation][2] of US Patent  [8,359,192][3]. The applicant is attempting to “improve” the claims with this child patent by writing new (evidently broader) claims while retaining the original 2008 priority date.  So prior art should predate November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each an every step below::&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining a plurality of Internet radio station programs;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. For each Internet radio station program of the plurality of Internet radio station programs, dynamically categorizing the Internet radio station program by mapping a dynamically identified topic of the Internet radio station program to a content classifier;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Enabling a user to discover an Internet radio station program of interest from the plurality of Internet radio station programs based on the dynamic categorizations for the plurality of Internet radio station programs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of internet radio station programs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. “Dynamically categorizing” this list of programs by mapping a “dynamically identified topic” to a content classifier; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  Allowing the user to discover programs from the list based on the “dynamic categorization” (presumably created by the classifier)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specification notes that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - In one embodiment…the discovery service performs speech-to-text conversion and natural language processing on the audio content of the radio station program to identify one or more topics of the radio station program. The discovery service then maps the one or more topics to an ontology or similar taxonomy…in order to identify one or more topics of the radio station program.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Internet Radio Station program discovery service&quot; flow chart from the Applicant** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/wagCM.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;300&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Nov, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of nternet radio station programs; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **dynamically categorizing** this list of programs by mapping a **dynamically identified topic** to a **content classifier**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Help Protect Streaming Radio from Patent Trolls!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130110502&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8359192&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8593" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3891" RevisionGUID="287ac97b-bd0f-463b-b70e-37b8057f421f" CreationDate="2013-05-30T20:42:57.883" UserId="1767" Text="INTERNET RADIO STATION PROGRAM DISCOVERY Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8594" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3891" RevisionGUID="287ac97b-bd0f-463b-b70e-37b8057f421f" CreationDate="2013-05-30T20:42:57.883" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;internet-radio&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8595" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3884" RevisionGUID="d8acebda-9725-4b20-8653-d87eddb4b88e" CreationDate="2013-05-30T20:46:46.240" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="DISSEMINATING MEDIA CONTENT REPRESENTING EPISODES Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3892" RevisionGUID="8f587ebe-fd94-4aff-a7c1-cd4fbde199a0" CreationDate="2013-05-30T20:47:41.600" UserId="3872" Text="Try getting in touch with whoever produced Sci-Fi Channel's Seeing Ear Theatre: &#xD;&#xA;http://timespast.ning.com/profiles/blogs/sci-fi-channel-s-seeing-ear-theater&#xD;&#xA;http://www.sffaudio.com/?p=19883&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe they were first publishing in 1997, but they most likely got the idea from somewhere else and started work before then. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3884" RevisionGUID="d8acebda-9725-4b20-8653-d87eddb4b88e" CreationDate="2013-05-30T20:46:46.240" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text=" *This call for prior art is part of [EFF][1]'s effort to bust a patent being asserted against podcasting. Read more about the initiative [here][2]. Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][5]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This issued patent relates to a system for distributing serial episodes of media content over the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BASIC PATENT DATA:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	Patent Number: [US 8,112,504][3]&#xD;&#xA;-	Assignee: Personal Audio, LLC&#xD;&#xA;-	Prior Art Cutoff Date: Prior art must predate October 2, 1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PATENT SUMMARY:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent generally relates to a system whereby a server provides media content to client devices over the Internet. On the server, the provider maintains a “compilation file,” which is essentially a list of available media files. The compilation file generally includes the URL for each available media file in a series and may also include descriptive text. This compilation file may be static, such as a simple web page with links to each available file to which new files are added, or may be customized for a particular user, perhaps only showing them content from feeds to which they have subscribed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claim that has been asserted against podcasters to date is Claim 31. This claim is agnostic as to the media type representing “episodes.” It can be images, text, video, or audio. Prior art can involve any media format. Some dependent claims specifically require audio, however, so prior art of that type is especially useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 31:** Apparatus for disseminating a series of episodes represented by media files via the Internet as said episodes become available, said apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more data storage servers,&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more communication interfaces connected to the Internet for receiving requests received from remotely located client devices, and for responding to each given one of said requests by downloading a data file identified by a URL specified by said given one of said requests to the requesting client device,&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more processors coupled to said one or more data storage servers and to said one or more communications interfaces for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +	storing one or more media files representing each episode as said one or more media files become available, each of said one or more media files being stored at a storage location specified by a unique episode URL;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +   from time to time, as new episodes represented in said series of episodes become available, storing an updated version of a compilation file in one of said one or more data storage servers at a storage location identified by a predetermined URL, said updated version of said compilation file containing attribute data describing currently available episodes in said series of episodes, said attribute data for each given one of said currently available episodes including displayable text describing said given one of said currently available episodes and one or more episode URLs specifying the storage locations of one or more corresponding media files representing said given one of said episodes; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +	employing one of said one or more communication interfaces to:&#xD;&#xA;        +	(a) receive a request from a requesting client device for the updated version of said compilation file located at said predetermined URL;&#xD;&#xA;        +	(b) download said updated version of said compilation file to said requesting client device; and&#xD;&#xA;        +	(c) thereafter receive and respond to a request from said requesting client device for one or more media files identified by one or more corresponding episode URLs included in the attribute data contained in said updated version of said compilation files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR ART:** Examples of prior art include the prior art identified on the face of the patent and Deb Kumar Roy (June 1995), NewsComm: A Hand-Held Interface for Interactive Access to Structured Audio, available at http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/60444/33214083.pdf?sequence=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen any additional prior art (published before Octtober 2, 1996) that describes a system like the one in Claim 31? &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;We are interested in any prior art that describes accessing a series of media files organized as episodes, tracks, installments, or the like, through the use of “compilation” data that (a) available to be downloaded by a client device, and (b) updated to describe the media files that are currently available. We are particularly interested in prior art where this “compilation” data includes both URLs for the individual media files, and some other displayable text describing each available episode/track/installment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do know prior art, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual, but please create separate answers for each one so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents community][5] has chosen your prior art as a candidate to submit to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office. If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to post your own request for prior art if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/help-save-podcasting&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8112504&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3891" RevisionGUID="5d50a6d4-2683-40a3-b48a-2ca097fe218c" CreationDate="2013-05-30T20:48:54.560" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **HELP SAVE STREAMING RADIO** - This application seeks to patent a system for discovering new radio stations and podcasts online! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][5]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System And Method For Internet Radio Station Program Discovery**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A service for discovering Internet radio station programs. A list of Internet radio station programs is obtained. Each program on the list is categorized by mapping a topic to a program using a content classifier. User can discover new programs of interest from the list of programs based on the categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110502 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Lemi Technology, LLC&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** November, 2008&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Note**: This application is a [continuation][2] of US Patent  [8,359,192][3]. The applicant is attempting to “improve” the claims with this child patent by writing new (evidently broader) claims while retaining the original 2008 priority date.  So prior art should predate November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each an every step below::&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining a plurality of Internet radio station programs;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. For each Internet radio station program of the plurality of Internet radio station programs, dynamically categorizing the Internet radio station program by mapping a dynamically identified topic of the Internet radio station program to a content classifier;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Enabling a user to discover an Internet radio station program of interest from the plurality of Internet radio station programs based on the dynamic categorizations for the plurality of Internet radio station programs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of internet radio station programs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. “Dynamically categorizing” this list of programs by mapping a “dynamically identified topic” to a content classifier; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  Allowing the user to discover programs from the list based on the “dynamic categorization” (presumably created by the classifier)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specification notes that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - In one embodiment…the discovery service performs speech-to-text conversion and natural language processing on the audio content of the radio station program to identify one or more topics of the radio station program. The discovery service then maps the one or more topics to an ontology or similar taxonomy…in order to identify one or more topics of the radio station program.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Internet Radio Station program discovery service&quot; flow chart from the Applicant** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/wagCM.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;300&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Nov, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of nternet radio station programs; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **dynamically categorizing** this list of programs by mapping a **dynamically identified topic** to a **content classifier**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Help Protect Streaming Radio from Patent Trolls!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130110502&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8359192&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8599" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3884" RevisionGUID="77b2abcd-f32e-497d-ae1a-98dd93ef9879" CreationDate="2013-05-30T20:55:15.397" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="DISSEMINATING MEDIA CONTENT REPRESENTING EPISODES Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3891" RevisionGUID="07335e66-2491-45c7-a79d-1b16e7587c71" CreationDate="2013-05-30T20:55:33.757" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **HELP SAVE STREAMING RADIO** - This application seeks to patent a system for discovering new radio stations and podcasts online! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][5]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System And Method For Internet Radio Station Program Discovery**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A service for discovering Internet radio station programs. A list of Internet radio station programs is obtained. Each program on the list is categorized by mapping a topic to a program using a content classifier. User can discover new programs of interest from the list of programs based on the categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110502 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Lemi Technology, LLC&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** November, 2008&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Note**: This application is a [continuation][2] of US Patent  [8,359,192][3]. The applicant is attempting to “improve” the claims with this child patent by writing new (evidently broader) claims while retaining the original 2008 priority date.  So prior art should predate November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each an every step below::&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining a plurality of Internet radio station programs;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. For each Internet radio station program of the plurality of Internet radio station programs, dynamically categorizing the Internet radio station program by mapping a dynamically identified topic of the Internet radio station program to a content classifier;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Enabling a user to discover an Internet radio station program of interest from the plurality of Internet radio station programs based on the dynamic categorizations for the plurality of Internet radio station programs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of internet radio station programs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. “Dynamically categorizing” this list of programs by mapping a “dynamically identified topic” to a content classifier; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  Allowing the user to discover programs from the list based on the “dynamic categorization” (presumably created by the classifier)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specification notes that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - In one embodiment…the discovery service performs speech-to-text conversion and natural language processing on the audio content of the radio station program to identify one or more topics of the radio station program. The discovery service then maps the one or more topics to an ontology or similar taxonomy…in order to identify one or more topics of the radio station program.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Internet Radio Station program discovery service&quot; flow chart from the Applicant** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/wagCM.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;300&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Nov, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of nternet radio station programs; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **dynamically categorizing** this list of programs by mapping a **dynamically identified topic** to a **content classifier**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Help Protect Streaming Radio from Patent Trolls!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130110502&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8359192&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3884" RevisionGUID="b77ff056-0e28-400f-b851-e3a9da8381d5" CreationDate="2013-05-30T21:04:49.513" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  *This call for prior art is part of [EFF][1]'s effort to bust a patent being asserted against podcasting. Read more about the initiative [here][2]. Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][5]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This issued patent relates to a system for distributing serial episodes of media content over the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BASIC PATENT DATA:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	Patent Number: [US 8,112,504][3]&#xD;&#xA;-	Assignee: Personal Audio, LLC&#xD;&#xA;-	Prior Art Cutoff Date: Prior art must predate October 2, 1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PATENT SUMMARY:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent generally relates to a system whereby a server provides media content to client devices over the Internet. On the server, the provider maintains a “compilation file,” which is essentially a list of available media files. The compilation file generally includes the URL for each available media file in a series and may also include descriptive text. This compilation file may be static, such as a simple web page with links to each available file to which new files are added, or may be customized for a particular user, perhaps only showing them content from feeds to which they have subscribed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claim that has been asserted against podcasters to date is Claim 31. This claim is agnostic as to the media type representing “episodes.” It can be images, text, video, or audio. Prior art can involve any media format. Some dependent claims specifically require audio, however, so prior art of that type is especially useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 31:** Apparatus for disseminating a series of episodes represented by media files via the Internet as said episodes become available, said apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more data storage servers,&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more communication interfaces connected to the Internet for receiving requests received from remotely located client devices, and for responding to each given one of said requests by downloading a data file identified by a URL specified by said given one of said requests to the requesting client device,&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more processors coupled to said one or more data storage servers and to said one or more communications interfaces for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +	storing one or more media files representing each episode as said one or more media files become available, each of said one or more media files being stored at a storage location specified by a unique episode URL;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +   from time to time, as new episodes represented in said series of episodes become available, storing an updated version of a compilation file in one of said one or more data storage servers at a storage location identified by a predetermined URL, said updated version of said compilation file containing attribute data describing currently available episodes in said series of episodes, said attribute data for each given one of said currently available episodes including displayable text describing said given one of said currently available episodes and one or more episode URLs specifying the storage locations of one or more corresponding media files representing said given one of said episodes; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +	employing one of said one or more communication interfaces to:&#xD;&#xA;        +	(a) receive a request from a requesting client device for the updated version of said compilation file located at said predetermined URL;&#xD;&#xA;        +	(b) download said updated version of said compilation file to said requesting client device; and&#xD;&#xA;        +	(c) thereafter receive and respond to a request from said requesting client device for one or more media files identified by one or more corresponding episode URLs included in the attribute data contained in said updated version of said compilation files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR ART:** Examples of prior art include the prior art identified on the face of the patent and Deb Kumar Roy (June 1995), NewsComm: A Hand-Held Interface for Interactive Access to Structured Audio, available at http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/60444/33214083.pdf?sequence=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen any additional prior art (published before Octtober 2, 1996) that describes a system like the one in Claim 31? &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;We are interested in any prior art that describes accessing a series of media files organized as episodes, tracks, installments, or the like, through the use of “compilation” data that (a) available to be downloaded by a client device, and (b) updated to describe the media files that are currently available. We are particularly interested in prior art where this “compilation” data includes both URLs for the individual media files, and some other displayable text describing each available episode/track/installment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do know prior art, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual, but please create separate answers for each one so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents community][5] has chosen your prior art as a candidate to submit to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office. If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to post your own request for prior art if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/help-save-podcasting&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8112504&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3891" RevisionGUID="43f079da-1150-406b-9e05-8cec9e769ed2" CreationDate="2013-05-30T21:05:01.590" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="   **HELP SAVE STREAMING RADIO** - This application seeks to patent a system for discovering new radio stations and podcasts online! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][5]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System And Method For Internet Radio Station Program Discovery**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A service for discovering Internet radio station programs. A list of Internet radio station programs is obtained. Each program on the list is categorized by mapping a topic to a program using a content classifier. User can discover new programs of interest from the list of programs based on the categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110502 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Lemi Technology, LLC&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** November, 2008&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Note**: This application is a [continuation][2] of US Patent  [8,359,192][3]. The applicant is attempting to “improve” the claims with this child patent by writing new (evidently broader) claims while retaining the original 2008 priority date.  So prior art should predate November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each an every step below::&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining a plurality of Internet radio station programs;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. For each Internet radio station program of the plurality of Internet radio station programs, dynamically categorizing the Internet radio station program by mapping a dynamically identified topic of the Internet radio station program to a content classifier;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Enabling a user to discover an Internet radio station program of interest from the plurality of Internet radio station programs based on the dynamic categorizations for the plurality of Internet radio station programs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of internet radio station programs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. “Dynamically categorizing” this list of programs by mapping a “dynamically identified topic” to a content classifier; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  Allowing the user to discover programs from the list based on the “dynamic categorization” (presumably created by the classifier)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specification notes that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - In one embodiment…the discovery service performs speech-to-text conversion and natural language processing on the audio content of the radio station program to identify one or more topics of the radio station program. The discovery service then maps the one or more topics to an ontology or similar taxonomy…in order to identify one or more topics of the radio station program.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Internet Radio Station program discovery service&quot; flow chart from the Applicant** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/wagCM.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;300&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Nov, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of nternet radio station programs; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **dynamically categorizing** this list of programs by mapping a **dynamically identified topic** to a **content classifier**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Help Protect Streaming Radio from Patent Trolls!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130110502&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8359192&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3894" RevisionGUID="96ef0d72-19ab-4ef0-88ef-886d999a5948" CreationDate="2013-05-30T21:10:29.310" UserId="3875" Text="Wouldn't Carl Malamud's Internet Talk Radio be considered the earliest form of podcasting? Or would podcasting not be just an extension of Malamud's system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3895" RevisionGUID="9d24afb7-9f9b-4acd-9015-39db63b8294b" CreationDate="2013-05-30T21:13:30.750" UserId="3876" Text="I hope some of these might help:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent for &quot;A credit card size portable system comprises a bubble memory for storage serially of digital data, especially of sound analogue signal which has been digitally encoded&quot;: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=4667088&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First Internet audiocast:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.isi.edu/div7/publication_files/rs-92-293.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Audio Highway Personal Audio Player from '96:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2023689_2023681_2023609,00.html&#xD;&#xA;http://www.deseretnews.com/article/536358/UTAH-FIRM-HUGS-SPOTLIGHT-AT-LV-ELECTRONICS-SHOW.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MBone info: http://www.webstart.com/jed/papers/HRM/references/mbone-av.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From 1994 - Aerosmith received national press coverage in July when it claimed to have created the first single to be available exclusively on line. But a service called the Internet Underground Music Archive had already made some 75 songs available only on the Internet:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/22/arts/rolling-stones-live-on-internet-both-a-big-deal-and-a-little-deal.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And from 1996 - In early October, 1996, the first &quot;virtual&quot; Mechanics of Materials class at the University of Missouri-Rolla had its audio and class notes broadcast over the Internet from the Basic Engineering Lecture Hall:&#xD;&#xA;http://technologyinterface.nmsu.edu/winter97/multimedia/mm-htm1.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3895" RevisionGUID="d6601d0d-9281-4d2f-867a-e78aa52bad77" CreationDate="2013-05-30T21:26:28.967" UserId="3876" Comment="added additional link" Text="I hope some of these might help:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT - Also just saw this - &quot;I created my own page and added a link to an FTP site in Denmark that hosted a sound collection among other things. I wanted to see if the NeXT and Tim’s WWW browser would be able to pass the sound to a player. I think it did, but I really can’t remember if it did.&quot;: http://ibiblio.org/pjones/blog/the-story-behind-the-hypertext-91-demo-page-and-unc-and-me/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent for &quot;A credit card size portable system comprises a bubble memory for storage serially of digital data, especially of sound analogue signal which has been digitally encoded&quot;: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=4667088&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First Internet audiocast:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.isi.edu/div7/publication_files/rs-92-293.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Audio Highway Personal Audio Player from '96:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2023689_2023681_2023609,00.html&#xD;&#xA;http://www.deseretnews.com/article/536358/UTAH-FIRM-HUGS-SPOTLIGHT-AT-LV-ELECTRONICS-SHOW.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MBone info: http://www.webstart.com/jed/papers/HRM/references/mbone-av.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From 1994 - Aerosmith received national press coverage in July when it claimed to have created the first single to be available exclusively on line. But a service called the Internet Underground Music Archive had already made some 75 songs available only on the Internet:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/22/arts/rolling-stones-live-on-internet-both-a-big-deal-and-a-little-deal.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And from 1996 - In early October, 1996, the first &quot;virtual&quot; Mechanics of Materials class at the University of Missouri-Rolla had its audio and class notes broadcast over the Internet from the Basic Engineering Lecture Hall:&#xD;&#xA;http://technologyinterface.nmsu.edu/winter97/multimedia/mm-htm1.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3896" RevisionGUID="ae756ea3-e7d4-4d23-a47c-f4321586ded3" CreationDate="2013-05-30T21:29:13.857" UserId="3877" Text="The [Internet Underground Music Archive][1] is clear prior art in the terms you describe here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Underground_Music_Archive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3897" RevisionGUID="b7316f07-5428-476b-b081-e3c650b411d7" CreationDate="2013-05-30T21:43:35.517" UserId="3880" Text="Published in 1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[CBC Radio on the Internet: An Experiment in Convergence](http://www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/viewArticle/926)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Andrew S. Patrick, Alex Black, Thomas E. Whalen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abstract:  &#xD;&#xA;An experimental trial was conducted to determine: (1) if there was any demand for regular radio programming distributed as digital audio files over the Internet, (2) if the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) was willing to distribute programming in this format, and (3) what implications such a service would have for the corporation. Both sample and regular radio programs were digitized using computer sound equipment and made available via FTP, Gopher, and World Wide Web. Analysis of the traffic logs and a review of the comments submitted by users showed a very high demand (possibly all that was possible with this trial configuration) and a keen interest in the service. CBC has decided to adopt the trial and start a permanent service on the Internet. The trial identified a number of issues that will have to be addressed for this service, including archival storage, copyright, royalties, production changes, and electronic commerce opportunities.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3898" RevisionGUID="6f868cc3-4569-4519-a6ac-10eb296c2a0f" CreationDate="2013-05-30T21:56:40.287" UserId="3881" Text="At Kalvos &amp; Damian's New Music Bazaar http://kalvos.org/ we began offering multiple examples of musical material on our website, organized by composer, in 1994.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our earliest files were Midi; these probably don't count, but they date to 3/14/94.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The oldest audio file still available on our site is dated 11/9/1995 in TrueSpeech format. Examples in MP2 format were posted on 3/5/96 and RealAudio the next day on 3/6/1996.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Our earliest full show episodes in RA format were 7/6/97 and mp3 format on 11/1/98.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dennis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3899" RevisionGUID="4357a2c5-9828-4df2-978b-2fe7e775ac82" CreationDate="2013-05-30T22:48:21.860" UserId="3883" Text="Broadcast.com comes to mind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A large number of radio shows, including Art Bell (see coasttocoastam.com) would archive many broadcasts of his show there for future replay over the intenet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3897" RevisionGUID="e83ccb35-b55e-4341-a82a-5c0caae4e1a1" CreationDate="2013-05-30T22:55:42.007" UserId="-1" Comment="added an edit" Text="Published in 1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[CBC Radio on the Internet: An Experiment in Convergence](http://www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/viewArticle/926)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Andrew S. Patrick, Alex Black, Thomas E. Whalen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abstract:  &#xD;&#xA;An experimental trial was conducted to determine: (1) if there was any demand for regular radio programming distributed as digital audio files over the Internet, (2) if the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) was willing to distribute programming in this format, and (3) what implications such a service would have for the corporation. Both sample and regular radio programs were digitized using computer sound equipment and made available via FTP, Gopher, and World Wide Web. Analysis of the traffic logs and a review of the comments submitted by users showed a very high demand (possibly all that was possible with this trial configuration) and a keen interest in the service. CBC has decided to adopt the trial and start a permanent service on the Internet. The trial identified a number of issues that will have to be addressed for this service, including archival storage, copyright, royalties, production changes, and electronic commerce opportunities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Yes this paper reports on work we did in 1994 and describes most of the features of the claim. -- Contact me for details: Andrew@andrewpatrick.ca&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8615" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3897" RevisionGUID="e83ccb35-b55e-4341-a82a-5c0caae4e1a1" CreationDate="2013-05-30T22:55:42.007" Comment="Proposed by 76.10.180.31|e6e0ed32-4837-4306-a9b4-4b6665832f90 approved by 3880 edit id of 349" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3900" RevisionGUID="41c99363-23d9-4696-b4e6-b641a5ad7170" CreationDate="2013-05-30T22:58:31.253" UserId="3884" Text="USENET is full of examples of prior art as listed. Especially alt.internet.talk-radio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!searchin/alt.internet.talk-radio/$20files$20download$20audio|sort:date&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a post about some serious downloadable files used for the  Internet&#xD;&#xA;     Multicasting Service!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Copied below is the disseminated FAQ on the Internet from 1995. Probably searching on keywords in this file will get you further back. Google rocks for loading up USENET to google groups. Accessed this file at the above link by me (deanne taylor) @ 7pm on May 30 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google link to the  Internet  Multicasting Service FAQ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!searchin/alt.internet.talk-radio/$20files$20download$20audio|sort:date/alt.internet.talk-radio/QNg5hDcCtIk/ReHieUvr3QwJ&#xD;&#xA;          &#xD;&#xA;Text pasted below:                                                                                                                                                   &#xD;&#xA;Path: nntp.gmd.de!stern.fokus.gmd.de!ceres.fokus.gmd.de!zib-berlin.de!irz401!fauern!cs.tu-berlin.de!informatik.unibremen.de!nordwest.pop.de!news.hamburg.pop.de!news.gun.de!uunet!panix!news.mathworks.com!news.duke.edu!newsfeed1.peachnet.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!uc!news.service.uci.edu!afm.long-beach.va.gov!user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From: amaruy...@pop.long-beach.va.gov (Arthur Maruyama)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Newsgroups: alt.internet.talk-radio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subject: FAQ for alt.internet.talk-radio (17 KBs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 09:27:09 -0800&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Organization: VAMC Long Beach&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lines: 451&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Message-ID: &lt;amaruyama-2303950927090001@afm.long-beach.va.gov&gt;&#xD;&#xA;NNTP-Posting-Host: afm.long-beach.va.gov&#xD;&#xA;X-Newsreader: Value-Added NewsWatcher 2.0b24.0+&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From: i...@radio.com (Automatic Response)&#xD;&#xA;Errors-To: postmas...@radio.com&#xD;&#xA;Reply-To: postmas...@radio.com&#xD;&#xA;Subject: FAQ on the Internet Multicasting Service&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;            FAQ for the Internet Multicasting Service&#xD;&#xA;            =========================================&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are looking for information on the SEC EDGAR system,&#xD;&#xA;send mail to m...@town.hall.org and put the word HELP in the&#xD;&#xA;body of your message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tired of that last subtle twist in &quot;alt.ascii.the-letter-a&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you find that com-priv has the information content of a free&#xD;&#xA;real estate seminar at your local Holiday Inn?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking for an alternative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     You've found it in this FAQ about the Internet&#xD;&#xA;     Multicasting Service!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's an FAQ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     An exchange of information cleverly patterned as a Socratic&#xD;&#xA;     dialogue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Huh?  What's a Socratic dialogue?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     A set of Frequently Asked Questions and their answers. &#xD;&#xA;     Socrates was a famous philosopher in ancient Greece.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;So what's with the dead Greek and what does that have to do with&#xD;&#xA;cyberspace?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Just in case you are intimidated by modern computer&#xD;&#xA;     technology, we want to put you at ease.  Compared to a dead&#xD;&#xA;     Greek, we're *all* Unix experts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Enough! **What *is* the Internet Multicasting Service?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     We're the first station in cyberspace, a source of news and&#xD;&#xA;     information for the Internet community.  We run two&#xD;&#xA;     channels: Internet Talk Radio is a science and technology&#xD;&#xA;     channel and the Internet Town Hall is devoted to public&#xD;&#xA;     affairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     The Internet Multicasting Service is a non-profit&#xD;&#xA;     corporation located in the National Press Building.  We're&#xD;&#xA;     right next to all the other members of the press, like the&#xD;&#xA;     Kansas City Star and the Arkansas Gazette.  They're not too&#xD;&#xA;     sure exactly what we do, but as long as the rent gets paid&#xD;&#xA;     they leave us alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Station in cyberspace&quot;?  Get real!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     No, really.  We run a &quot;radio&quot; station, publishing sound&#xD;&#xA;     files which you listen to on your personal computer.  You&#xD;&#xA;     know that funny sound your Mac makes when you start it up,&#xD;&#xA;     quacking like a duck or talking like Bart Simpson?  Think of&#xD;&#xA;     our programs as a very long version of that duck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gee, aren't the files big?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Well, our programming is published in a sound format called&#xD;&#xA;     Pulse Code Modulation, which is 8000 samples per second with&#xD;&#xA;     each sample being 8 bits.  Those 8 bits are encoded with mu-&#xD;&#xA;     law encoding (which is a logarithmic encoding that fits 14&#xD;&#xA;     bits of information into 8 bits but you didn't want to know&#xD;&#xA;     that).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     What this all means is that an hour of programming is 30&#xD;&#xA;     Megabytes.  We'll typically publish anywhere from 30 minutes&#xD;&#xA;     to 90 minutes of programming per day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh my!  Do you mean to tell me that you expect me to download 45&#xD;&#xA;megabytes of data?  Are you nuts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously, how do I get the files to my computer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     The easiest way is to use your computer on the Internet.  We&#xD;&#xA;     put the files onto UUNET which acts as a main distribution&#xD;&#xA;     point for large regional networks around the world, such as&#xD;&#xA;     IIJ in Japan, NASA, EUnet in Europe, and many others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     If you are a UUNET customer, you simply use anonymous ftp to&#xD;&#xA;     ftp.uu.net.  If you belong to some other network, you'll&#xD;&#xA;     look for the files on your local file server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My regional server doesn't have the files.  Is there some other&#xD;&#xA;way to find them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     We maintain a list of known anonymous FTP sites around the&#xD;&#xA;     world.  There may be many others (do an Archie search on one&#xD;&#xA;     of our file names and see if you recognize any of the&#xD;&#xA;     servers).  To get the known anonymous FTP sites list, send&#xD;&#xA;     mail to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      si...@radio.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if I just found a new site which isn't on the list?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Tell us about it!  Send us mail at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      sites-requ...@radio.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if I'm not on the Internet.  Can I get the files from&#xD;&#xA;CompuServe?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Whew.  That would be a bit tough!  You're welcome to try and&#xD;&#xA;     use an FTP to mail gateway, but this isn't something we'd&#xD;&#xA;     want to do on our weekend.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm on the Internet, but I dial into my interactive account on a&#xD;&#xA;300 baud modem.  Can I get the files?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Sure.  Just use Kermit, Xmodem, or something else.  Of&#xD;&#xA;     course, it will take approximately 222 hours to download a&#xD;&#xA;     1-hour program.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are you, a wise guy?  I've got one of those whizbang fancy&#xD;&#xA;modems with 32bis and lots of features.  How about that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     That makes more sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a better way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Well, in the ideal world, your network manager on your&#xD;&#xA;     neighborhood or corporate LAN sucks the files in every night&#xD;&#xA;     and puts them on a file server on your local Ethernet.  If&#xD;&#xA;     you're connected at 10 million bits per second, a 30&#xD;&#xA;     megabyte file doesn't seem quite as bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     We realize this makes it tough on the home user, but&#xD;&#xA;     eventually we'll all have ISDN, cable TV, or some other&#xD;&#xA;     miracle giving us decent bandwidth into the home.  Until&#xD;&#xA;     then, the Internet Multicasting Service is trying to figure&#xD;&#xA;     out what it means to be a cyberstation.  You can't please&#xD;&#xA;     all the people all of the time, but we hope to address the&#xD;&#xA;     information needs of at least part of the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, we've got the files.  Now, how do I display them on my&#xD;&#xA;screen?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     This is radio.  You don't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, I mean how do you see them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Ah, you mean &quot;do you publish transcripts?&quot;  The answer is no&#xD;&#xA;     and the reason is that would increase our production costs&#xD;&#xA;     dramatically.  However, that doesn't mean that we think that&#xD;&#xA;     ASCII is unimportant.  A real cyberstation needs to employ&#xD;&#xA;     all data types and multiple distribution techniques.  For&#xD;&#xA;     our &quot;radio&quot; metaphor, however, we just do audio files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I play the files on my Sun?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     If you are running SunOS 4.1.3 or later, simply pick&#xD;&#xA;     the AudioTool from your OpenWindows menu.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Or, use the &quot;play&quot; command.  You can usually find that&#xD;&#xA;     in /usr/demo/SOUND (or any other place your demo&#xD;&#xA;     directory has been placed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     You can play the files directly, or use a tool like &#xD;&#xA;     NCSA Mosaic for X or Gopher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I play the files on my SGI Indigo or Indy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Use the sfplay(1) utility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I play the files on my NeXT?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     The Sun .au format is almost identical to the NeXT .snd&#xD;&#xA;     format.  Use your standard sound playing utilities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I play the files on Ultrix?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     AudioFile was developed by DEC's Cambridge Research &#xD;&#xA;     Laboratory.  Supports a variety of audio devices, a&#xD;&#xA;     programming API and library, and some core and&#xD;&#xA;     contributed applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     AudioFile is available for anonymous FTP from:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;          ftp://crl.dec.com/pub/DEC/AF/&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;How do I play the files on my PC?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     The source files are in the Sun .au format, which is&#xD;&#xA;     almost identical to the PC .wav format.  If you use&#xD;&#xA;     SOX, you can easily convert the files to a .wav file&#xD;&#xA;     and play them using any of your standard sound&#xD;&#xA;     utilities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Another approach is to bring the native files straight&#xD;&#xA;     down (no conversion) and use the amazing Windows Play&#xD;&#xA;     Anything (WPLANY) program available in multiple locations.&#xD;&#xA;     This is the default Mosaic audio viewer, so you might&#xD;&#xA;     already have it.  Otherwise:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;          ftp://ftp.ncsa.uiuc.edu/PC/Mosaic/viewers/&#xD;&#xA;          ftp://gatekeeper.dec.com/.3/net/infosys/mosaic/Windows/viewers/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I play your files on the Macintosh?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     The native sound format for the Mac is the .aiff&#xD;&#xA;     format. You can convert the files to .aiff format using&#xD;&#xA;     a variety of tools.  You can convert the file on a Unix&#xD;&#xA;     machine using the SoX program.  Or, you can do the same&#xD;&#xA;     thing on your Mac using UUTool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     UUTool is available in the /util/compression directory&#xD;&#xA;     on the host mac.archive.umich.edu.  The files are also&#xD;&#xA;     mirrored in the following places:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      ftp://wuarchive.wustl.edu/mirrors/archive.umich.edu/mac/&#xD;&#xA;      ftp://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/packages/mac/umich/&#xD;&#xA;      ftp://archie.au/micros/mac/umich/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     To play the files, you can use a variety of tools that&#xD;&#xA;     play .aiff files.  A good place to look is in the&#xD;&#xA;     following directory:&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;         ftp://mac.archive.umich.edu/mac/sound/soundutil/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I wanna play the file on my Mac in the native format with&#xD;&#xA;my existing Internet tools.  How do I do that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     You really want lots of things!  OK ... you want a&#xD;&#xA;     u-law playing program.  NCSA Mosaic for Macintosh and &#xD;&#xA;     the latest Turbogopher all have the ability to call the &#xD;&#xA;     u-law playing program.  You can find the package in the &#xD;&#xA;     usual places, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;          ftp://mac.archive.umich.edu/mac/sound/soundutil/ulaw1.4.cpt.hqx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     If you want to play the files straight on your Mac,&#xD;&#xA;     we recommend Rod Kennedy's SoundMachine program:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;          ftp://sumex-aim.stanford.edu/info-mac/snd/util/sound-machine-10.hqx&#xD;&#xA;          ftp://ftp.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Mac/Mosaic/Helpers/SoundMachine.sit.hqx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I convert the files to other formats?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Sure.  Use the famous SoX program, available for Unix and&#xD;&#xA;     DOS platforms from ftp.cwi.nl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other ways of doing lots of compression to the data?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Of course.  Try the following software:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   ftp://svr-ftp.eng.cam.ac.uk/comp.speech/sources/shorten.tar.Z&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     The same directory also contains G711_G721_G723.tar.Z for the CCITT&#xD;&#xA;     standard ADPCM compression and celp_3.2a.tar.Z for the Federal&#xD;&#xA;     Standard 1016 4800 bps CELP Voice Coder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other ways to play the files?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Sure!  Do whatever you want!  Lots of neat things you can&#xD;&#xA;     do.  For example, its simple to download the program to your&#xD;&#xA;     MAC Powerbook or Sparcbook and put the computer on the seat&#xD;&#xA;     next to you on the ride home.  Expensive radio, but where&#xD;&#xA;     else would you hear such great programming?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Lots of other things have been done.  One guy spools the&#xD;&#xA;     data into the company voicemail system.  Several&#xD;&#xA;     corporations run little automatic radio stations, either&#xD;&#xA;     using IP multicasting (check out ftp://isi.edu/mbone/faq.txt) or&#xD;&#xA;     at the Ethernet level (look for the radio and tuner programs&#xD;&#xA;     on ftp.cwi.nl).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to be a scholar.  How do I learn more about sound?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     The ultimate source for Sound is the AudioFormats FAQ&#xD;&#xA;     maintained by the good people at CWI in the&#xD;&#xA;     Netherlands.  You can find lots of good stuff in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      ftp://ftp.cwi.nl/pub/audio/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why don't you publish the files in MAC format?  How come you&#xD;&#xA;don't compress the files?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Well, we could.  But, think about this.  In our first&#xD;&#xA;     season, we published about 1.5 Gigabytes of files in four&#xD;&#xA;     months.  We think our steady-state rate is going to be about&#xD;&#xA;     300 Mbytes per week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     If we publish in both the PCM and MAC formats, we would&#xD;&#xA;     double (at least) the amount of data on the network.  There&#xD;&#xA;     is an old rule in networks which basically says that if you&#xD;&#xA;     have to play with your data (e.g., fragment it), you should&#xD;&#xA;     do so at the last possible hop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     We want network managers to bring the files in and *then* do&#xD;&#xA;     the conversions locally, publishing in whatever formats are&#xD;&#xA;     appropriate for the next hop.  If you have lots of MAC&#xD;&#xA;     users, maybe you produce .aiff files.  If you have lots of&#xD;&#xA;     users using UUCP with 9600 bps modems, maybe you convert to&#xD;&#xA;     GSM or some other low-volume format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Enough of this technical mumbo-jumbo.  What can I hear?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Our flagship show on Internet Talk Radio is &quot;Geek of the&#xD;&#xA;     Week&quot; featuring in-depth interviews with members of the&#xD;&#xA;     technical community.  We've talked to all sorts of famous&#xD;&#xA;     engineers about topics such as the next generation of&#xD;&#xA;     TCP/IP, resource discovery protocols, network security, and&#xD;&#xA;     how to put toasters on the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I order audiocassettes of &quot;Geek of the Week&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Of course.  O'Reilly &amp; Associates has issued their new&#xD;&#xA;     ORAudio line of audiocassettes.  Send mail to au...@ora.com&#xD;&#xA;     and they'll tell you all about it.  You can also get&#xD;&#xA;     information from them through gopher space or through their&#xD;&#xA;     whiz-bang, hypertext, multimedia magazine, the Global&#xD;&#xA;     Network Navigator (i...@gnn.com).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is &quot;Geek of the Week&quot; your only show?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Au contraire.  We also syndicate two radio shows from the&#xD;&#xA;     public radio world.  TechNation: Americans and Technology&#xD;&#xA;     features great interviews by Dr. Moira Gunn, a former rocket&#xD;&#xA;     scientist at NASA.  SOUNDPRINT is an NPR show that features&#xD;&#xA;     thoughtful looks at important topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     We also carry occasional specials.  In October and November&#xD;&#xA;     of 1993, for example, we're really pleased to carry &quot;Hell's&#xD;&#xA;     Bells: A Radio History of the Telephone.&quot;  This series&#xD;&#xA;     consists of 8 half-hour programs and is one of the best&#xD;&#xA;     radio programs we've ever heard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about the Internet Town Hall channel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     We have our own broadcast booth in the National Press Club,&#xD;&#xA;     joining C-SPAN and National Public Radio as the official&#xD;&#xA;     licensees for the National Press Club Luncheon series. &#xD;&#xA;     Speakers ranging from Miss Manners to Yassar Arafat to the&#xD;&#xA;     Dalai Lama appear on this series.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you pay for all this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     We use a public radio-like model of short, tasteful&#xD;&#xA;     acknowledgements for our underwriters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Underwriters?  Don't you mean ads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Call them what you will.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are ads legal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     You must be referring to the Appropriate Use Policy (AUP) on&#xD;&#xA;     NSFNET or other networks.  No problem!  Turns out that the&#xD;&#xA;     AUP is a rational thing and, since our radio shows feature&#xD;&#xA;     informative, educational material, we fit right into the&#xD;&#xA;     policies of government and research networks.  Of course,&#xD;&#xA;     Bart Simpson might not, but we're not a Fox affiliate.  Yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People actually pay to advertise on this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Don't be snide.  We reach 100,000 people in 30 countries. &#xD;&#xA;     If you're looking for a tasteful alternative to FooWorld, we&#xD;&#xA;     actually have better demographics than most of the trade&#xD;&#xA;     press!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     We've had quite good support so far.  Sun Microsystems and&#xD;&#xA;     O'Reilly &amp; Associates started it off.  (Thanks, guys!) &#xD;&#xA;     UUNET Technologies and MFS Datanet are providing us with a&#xD;&#xA;     10 Mbps Internet feed.  Beame &amp; Whiteside provides us with&#xD;&#xA;     TCP/IP software for our PC systems.  Lots of other&#xD;&#xA;     organizations are eager to support the first station in&#xD;&#xA;     cyberspace.  If you have excess money you want to dispose&#xD;&#xA;     of, send mail to c...@radio.com.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any restrictions on what I can do with the files?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Well, you can't take our ads out and put your own in and&#xD;&#xA;     resell the files.  We would not be pleased.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Basically, we'll allow you to copy the files as many times&#xD;&#xA;     as you want to as many people so long as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      1) money doesn't change hands; and &#xD;&#xA;      2) you don't alter the data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I get more information?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     To get this faq, send mail to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      i...@radio.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     To subscribe/unsubscribe to/from the announcements list, send mail to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Majord...@radio.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     with the following message contents (note that Majordomo ignores&#xD;&#xA;     subject lines):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   subscribe announce [address]&#xD;&#xA;         or&#xD;&#xA;   unsubscribe announce&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     The [address] portion is optional and can be used if you wish to &#xD;&#xA;     receive the announcements at an email address other than the one&#xD;&#xA;     from which you are subscribing.  The [] characters indicate this&#xD;&#xA;     value is optional and should NOT appear in the text of the request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     For a list of known FTP sites, send mail to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      si...@radio.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     To talk to a human, send mail to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      questi...@radio.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What else does the Internet Multicasting Service do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     The radio station seems to be working out well, so we&#xD;&#xA;     decided to work with Dr. Marshall T. Rose of Dover Beach&#xD;&#xA;     Consulting to help start a new kind of telephone company. &#xD;&#xA;     For more information, send mail to:&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;      tpc-...@town.hall.org&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     We also occasionally pull cheap stunts, like the time we&#xD;&#xA;     linked up National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation:&#xD;&#xA;     Science Friday to the Internet for an hour of live national&#xD;&#xA;     radio.  If you're on the announcements list, you'll hear&#xD;&#xA;     about these special events as they occur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I start my own radio station?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     You bet!  &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;     Since we're a non-profit, we're encouraging anybody else to &#xD;&#xA;     get into the brand new field of desktop broadcasting.  No&#xD;&#xA;     secrets or proprietary software here!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=&#xD;&#xA;The above is straight from IMS' ftp (town.hall.org).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Arthur F. Maruyama             amaruy...@pop.long-beach.va.gov&#xD;&#xA;     Gardena/Long Beach, CA         deynco...@aol.com (most often)&#xD;&#xA;SCA: Christopher Leyland D'Eyncourt 73654,16 (CIS mail only)&#xD;&#xA;     Barony of Lyondemere, Caid&#xD;&#xA;PGP 2.6 key via request or server,or finger first address&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3901" RevisionGUID="e309b69c-3bff-4584-8388-e21b7e93ae9e" CreationDate="2013-05-30T23:03:07.740" UserId="3886" Text="Miller Brewing launched their MGDTapRoom website in 1994 as a monthly lifestyle site. Wayback machine provides an archive back to 1996, but the PastTap button shows previous month by month editions: http://web.archive.org/web/19961111045903/http://www.mgdtaproom.com/mgd-past.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The old www.reddog.com site launched in 1995 as an episodic journey down Route 66 which include audio, video and animations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3900" RevisionGUID="639217ce-33c3-4e3c-9beb-f92a2cdd0d11" CreationDate="2013-05-30T23:07:17.583" UserId="3884" Comment="deleted 17725 characters in body" Text="USENET is full of examples of prior art as listed. Especially alt.internet.talk-radio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!searchin/alt.internet.talk-radio/$20files$20download$20audio|sort:date&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a post about some serious downloadable files used for the  Internet&#xD;&#xA;     Multicasting Service!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Copied below is the disseminated FAQ on the Internet from 1995. Probably searching on keywords in this file will get you further back. Google rocks for loading up USENET to google groups. Accessed this file at the above link by me  @ 7pm on May 30 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google link to the  Internet  Multicasting Service FAQ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!searchin/alt.internet.talk-radio/$20files$20download$20audio|sort:date/alt.internet.talk-radio/QNg5hDcCtIk/ReHieUvr3QwJ&#xD;&#xA;          &#xD;&#xA;There's also this posting from  March 4, 1995:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!searchin/alt.internet.talk-radio/episodes|sort:date/alt.internet.talk-radio/y1iLj9Jq3Mk/K777QKGpRsQJ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which describes a website where you can get episode lists and download episodes of some popular programs.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately the wayback machine only goes back to Dec 1996 at town.hall.org:&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/19961223103237/http://town.hall.org/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but they clearly have older radio station programs and episodes on that list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like some users here have posted their paper, though, that looks pretty good." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8619" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3891" RevisionGUID="c63ceb64-fcbd-4ebd-af0a-d12c90d4a697" CreationDate="2013-05-30T23:20:47.683" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;internet-radio&gt;&lt;us20130110502&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8620" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3884" RevisionGUID="486231ff-87d2-4699-98ef-4ed43eadb076" CreationDate="2013-05-30T23:22:11.423" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us8112504&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8621" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3833" RevisionGUID="156116d9-cb0b-4bf6-af35-eeecdde95a7f" CreationDate="2013-05-30T23:22:43.050" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20130110731&gt;&lt;escort-service&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8622" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3693" RevisionGUID="a511b4f1-444e-4403-a878-d7498a33153f" CreationDate="2013-05-30T23:23:36.163" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us7016824&gt;&lt;us5983201&gt;&lt;eyeglasses&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8623" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3766" RevisionGUID="ab29d40f-b6cc-4a58-9793-4a421e03f687" CreationDate="2013-05-30T23:24:04.883" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;us7687886&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8624" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3684" RevisionGUID="9170fbee-5a14-4f15-8408-bbcf843ef5ea" CreationDate="2013-05-30T23:24:45.137" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130055357&gt;&lt;personal&gt;&lt;server&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8625" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="f84a6587-fbb1-496e-8563-7ac663321937" CreationDate="2013-05-30T23:25:01.827" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130063492&gt;&lt;scaling&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3902" RevisionGUID="2329d55d-7fb4-4310-8a54-8efe7b53539b" CreationDate="2013-05-30T23:25:10.783" UserId="3887" Text="Billboard Magazine from April 1995, describing a podcasting system for RealAudio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://books.google.com/books?id=7wsEAAAAMBAJ&amp;pg=PA3&amp;dq=internet+radio+on+demand&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=hd6nUYvmGKXH0gGmm4HgBw&amp;ved=0CFQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&amp;q=internet%20radio%20on%20demand&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8627" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3577" RevisionGUID="87f8f8c2-e780-4738-ab73-bab80a373f10" CreationDate="2013-05-30T23:25:20.290" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20120146993&gt;&lt;three-dimension&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8628" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3493" RevisionGUID="d8a26de1-ca42-43cd-9e41-1ab1989d9218" CreationDate="2013-05-30T23:25:43.103" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;3d-printing&gt;&lt;stratasys&gt;&lt;us20120251688&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3903" RevisionGUID="61851dc0-1963-48d1-a2fc-6697a1f3c271" CreationDate="2013-05-30T23:25:50.660" UserId="3888" Text="http://town.hall.org/radio/formats.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://town.hall.org/radio/CFP/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://podcast-marketing.com/internet-talk-radio-2/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://museum.media.org/radio/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's pretty obvious that Personal Audio LLC is full of you-know-what." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8630" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3495" RevisionGUID="054c4d3e-861e-4ef1-8d60-0a64238a0b4a" CreationDate="2013-05-30T23:25:58.143" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;3d-printing&gt;&lt;stratasys&gt;&lt;us20120258190&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8631" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3494" RevisionGUID="ed26c7b2-4bd2-402c-bf63-5e5be998459e" CreationDate="2013-05-30T23:26:11.847" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;3d-printing&gt;&lt;panasonic&gt;&lt;us20120251378&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3884" RevisionGUID="09fe4196-b924-4a13-bc48-ace088f390d7" CreationDate="2013-05-30T23:27:12.733" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="*This call for prior art is part of [EFF][1]'s effort to bust a patent being asserted against podcasting. Read more about the initiative [here][2]. Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][5]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This issued patent relates to a system for distributing serial episodes of media content over the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BASIC PATENT DATA:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	Patent Number: [US 8,112,504][3]&#xD;&#xA;-	Assignee: Personal Audio, LLC&#xD;&#xA;-	Prior Art Cutoff Date: Prior art must predate October 2, 1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PATENT SUMMARY:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent generally relates to a system whereby a server provides media content to client devices over the Internet. On the server, the provider maintains a “compilation file,” which is essentially a list of available media files. The compilation file generally includes the URL for each available media file in a series and may also include descriptive text. This compilation file may be static, such as a simple web page with links to each available file to which new files are added, or may be customized for a particular user, perhaps only showing them content from feeds to which they have subscribed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claim that has been asserted against podcasters to date is Claim 31. This claim is agnostic as to the media type representing “episodes.” It can be images, text, video, or audio. Prior art can involve any media format. Some dependent claims specifically require audio, however, so prior art of that type is especially useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 31:** Apparatus for disseminating a series of episodes represented by media files via the Internet as said episodes become available, said apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more data storage servers,&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more communication interfaces connected to the Internet for receiving requests received from remotely located client devices, and for responding to each given one of said requests by downloading a data file identified by a URL specified by said given one of said requests to the requesting client device,&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more processors coupled to said one or more data storage servers and to said one or more communications interfaces for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +	storing one or more media files representing each episode as said one or more media files become available, each of said one or more media files being stored at a storage location specified by a unique episode URL;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +   from time to time, as new episodes represented in said series of episodes become available, storing an updated version of a compilation file in one of said one or more data storage servers at a storage location identified by a predetermined URL, said updated version of said compilation file containing attribute data describing currently available episodes in said series of episodes, said attribute data for each given one of said currently available episodes including displayable text describing said given one of said currently available episodes and one or more episode URLs specifying the storage locations of one or more corresponding media files representing said given one of said episodes; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +	employing one of said one or more communication interfaces to:&#xD;&#xA;        +	(a) receive a request from a requesting client device for the updated version of said compilation file located at said predetermined URL;&#xD;&#xA;        +	(b) download said updated version of said compilation file to said requesting client device; and&#xD;&#xA;        +	(c) thereafter receive and respond to a request from said requesting client device for one or more media files identified by one or more corresponding episode URLs included in the attribute data contained in said updated version of said compilation files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR ART:** Examples of prior art include the prior art identified on the face of the patent and Deb Kumar Roy (June 1995), NewsComm: A Hand-Held Interface for Interactive Access to Structured Audio, available at http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/60444/33214083.pdf?sequence=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen any additional prior art (published before Octtober 2, 1996) that describes a system like the one in Claim 31? &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;We are interested in any prior art that describes accessing a series of media files organized as episodes, tracks, installments, or the like, through the use of “compilation” data that (a) available to be downloaded by a client device, and (b) updated to describe the media files that are currently available. We are particularly interested in prior art where this “compilation” data includes both URLs for the individual media files, and some other displayable text describing each available episode/track/installment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do know prior art, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual, but please create separate answers for each one so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents community][5] has chosen your prior art as a candidate to submit to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office. If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to post your own request for prior art if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/help-save-podcasting&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8112504&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3891" RevisionGUID="d199145a-6252-4d47-b07d-57b5c0707dec" CreationDate="2013-05-30T23:27:52.423" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text=" **HELP SAVE STREAMING RADIO** - This application seeks to patent a system for discovering new radio stations and podcasts online! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][5]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System And Method For Internet Radio Station Program Discovery**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A service for discovering Internet radio station programs. A list of Internet radio station programs is obtained. Each program on the list is categorized by mapping a topic to a program using a content classifier. User can discover new programs of interest from the list of programs based on the categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110502 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Lemi Technology, LLC&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** November, 2008&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Note**: This application is a [continuation][2] of US Patent  [8,359,192][3]. The applicant is attempting to “improve” the claims with this child patent by writing new (evidently broader) claims while retaining the original 2008 priority date.  So prior art should predate November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each an every step below::&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining a plurality of Internet radio station programs;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. For each Internet radio station program of the plurality of Internet radio station programs, dynamically categorizing the Internet radio station program by mapping a dynamically identified topic of the Internet radio station program to a content classifier;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Enabling a user to discover an Internet radio station program of interest from the plurality of Internet radio station programs based on the dynamic categorizations for the plurality of Internet radio station programs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of internet radio station programs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. “Dynamically categorizing” this list of programs by mapping a “dynamically identified topic” to a content classifier; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  Allowing the user to discover programs from the list based on the “dynamic categorization” (presumably created by the classifier)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specification notes that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - In one embodiment…the discovery service performs speech-to-text conversion and natural language processing on the audio content of the radio station program to identify one or more topics of the radio station program. The discovery service then maps the one or more topics to an ontology or similar taxonomy…in order to identify one or more topics of the radio station program.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Internet Radio Station program discovery service&quot; flow chart from the Applicant** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/wagCM.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;300&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Nov, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of nternet radio station programs; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **dynamically categorizing** this list of programs by mapping a **dynamically identified topic** to a **content classifier**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Help Protect Streaming Radio from Patent Trolls!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130110502&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8359192&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3833" RevisionGUID="14a94734-9a28-4226-beb7-020f369d68ca" CreationDate="2013-05-30T23:28:07.597" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **HELP SAVE AMERICAN INDUSTRY AND THE WORLD'S OLDEST PROFESSION** - This application seeks to patent an online escort service.  According to the [inventor][6], “I had trouble finding dates when I was at MIT primarily because of the high male to female ratio, as well as my lack of social skills...The social problems I faced...eventually led me to (invent this technology).” &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Online Dating System**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  A method and system for balancing the supply of desirable users with the demand by other users to date them in an online dating system is provided. The method includes enabling a first user to make an offer to pay or to be paid a compensation for having a date with a second user. The offer made by the first user is transmitted to the second user. The second user responds to the first user by accepting, rejecting or making a counter offer. The first user and the second user are allowed to communicate only after any one of the users accepts an offer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110731 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Seeking Arrangements, Inc.][3]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Oct 26, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for balancing supply of and demand for dating desirable users in an online dating system, the method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving from a first user an offer to pay, or to be paid, a compensation to have a date with a second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transmitting said offer to said second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving a response from said second user to either accept, or reject, said offer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. allowing the two users to communicate only after said offer is accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claims 7, 12 and 15** specify further that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Compensation** could be selected from a group consisting of money, points, gifts and credits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Users could provide **review or rating** corresponding to the other user whom they have dated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The terms or conditions of the &quot;date&quot; could be **negotiated**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specification notes that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Invention should not be limited to the types of software operating system, web-server software, database software, software development language, server or client hardware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Give me $100 and I'll date you!** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/grT6Y.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 10/26/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (1) **offers to pay**; or&#xD;&#xA; (2) **offers to be paid** for **dating desirable users** in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Help protect American Industry!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/grT6Y.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130110731&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.seekingarrangement.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N34/normandin.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3833" RevisionGUID="f23c191b-7697-4db3-84bc-66e0764dbd20" CreationDate="2013-05-30T23:39:38.173" UserId="1767" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text=" **HELP SAVE AMERICAN INDUSTRY AND THE WORLD'S OLDEST PROFESSION** - This application seeks to patent an online escort service.  According to the [inventor][6], “I had trouble finding dates when I was at MIT primarily because of the high male to female ratio, as well as my lack of social skills...The social problems I faced...eventually led me to (invent this technology).” &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Online Dating System**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  A method and system for balancing the supply of desirable users with the demand by other users to date them in an online dating system is provided. The method includes enabling a first user to make an offer to pay or to be paid a compensation for having a date with a second user. The offer made by the first user is transmitted to the second user. The second user responds to the first user by accepting, rejecting or making a counter offer. The first user and the second user are allowed to communicate only after any one of the users accepts an offer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110731 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Seeking Arrangements, Inc.][3]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Oct 26, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for balancing supply of and demand for dating desirable users in an online dating system, the method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving from a first user an offer to pay, or to be paid, a compensation to have a date with a second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transmitting said offer to said second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving a response from said second user to either accept, or reject, said offer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. allowing the two users to communicate only after said offer is accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claims 7, 12 and 15** specify further that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Compensation** could be selected from a group consisting of money, points, gifts and credits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Users could provide **review or rating** corresponding to the other user whom they have dated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The terms or conditions of the &quot;date&quot; could be **negotiated**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specification notes that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Invention should not be limited to the types of software operating system, web-server software, database software, software development language, server or client hardware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Give me $100 and I'll date you!** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/grT6Y.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 10/26/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (1) **offers to pay**; or&#xD;&#xA; (2) **offers to be paid** for **dating desirable users** in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Help protect American Industry!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/grT6Y.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130110731&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.seekingarrangement.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N34/normandin.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3891" RevisionGUID="f34250f4-fb0c-4de1-b8e2-aeed0df9e5d5" CreationDate="2013-05-30T23:40:10.987" UserId="1767" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text=" **HELP SAVE STREAMING RADIO** - This application seeks to patent a system for discovering new radio stations and podcasts online! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][5]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System And Method For Internet Radio Station Program Discovery**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A service for discovering Internet radio station programs. A list of Internet radio station programs is obtained. Each program on the list is categorized by mapping a topic to a program using a content classifier. User can discover new programs of interest from the list of programs based on the categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110502 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Lemi Technology, LLC&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** November, 2008&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Note**: This application is a [continuation][2] of US Patent  [8,359,192][3]. The applicant is attempting to “improve” the claims with this child patent by writing new (evidently broader) claims while retaining the original 2008 priority date.  So prior art should predate November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each an every step below::&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining a plurality of Internet radio station programs;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. For each Internet radio station program of the plurality of Internet radio station programs, dynamically categorizing the Internet radio station program by mapping a dynamically identified topic of the Internet radio station program to a content classifier;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Enabling a user to discover an Internet radio station program of interest from the plurality of Internet radio station programs based on the dynamic categorizations for the plurality of Internet radio station programs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of internet radio station programs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. “Dynamically categorizing” this list of programs by mapping a “dynamically identified topic” to a content classifier; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  Allowing the user to discover programs from the list based on the “dynamic categorization” (presumably created by the classifier)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specification notes that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - In one embodiment…the discovery service performs speech-to-text conversion and natural language processing on the audio content of the radio station program to identify one or more topics of the radio station program. The discovery service then maps the one or more topics to an ontology or similar taxonomy…in order to identify one or more topics of the radio station program.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Internet Radio Station program discovery service&quot; flow chart from the Applicant** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/wagCM.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;300&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Nov, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of nternet radio station programs; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **dynamically categorizing** this list of programs by mapping a **dynamically identified topic** to a **content classifier**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Help Protect Streaming Radio from Patent Trolls!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130110502&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8359192&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3884" RevisionGUID="65d525b9-8150-4d22-a139-0422a4a7e797" CreationDate="2013-05-30T23:40:39.457" UserId="1767" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="*This call for prior art is part of [EFF][1]'s effort to bust a patent being asserted against podcasting. Read more about the initiative [here][2]. Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][5]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This issued patent relates to a system for distributing serial episodes of media content over the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BASIC PATENT DATA:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	Patent Number: [US 8,112,504][3]&#xD;&#xA;-	Assignee: Personal Audio, LLC&#xD;&#xA;-	Prior Art Cutoff Date: Prior art must predate October 2, 1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PATENT SUMMARY:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent generally relates to a system whereby a server provides media content to client devices over the Internet. On the server, the provider maintains a “compilation file,” which is essentially a list of available media files. The compilation file generally includes the URL for each available media file in a series and may also include descriptive text. This compilation file may be static, such as a simple web page with links to each available file to which new files are added, or may be customized for a particular user, perhaps only showing them content from feeds to which they have subscribed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claim that has been asserted against podcasters to date is Claim 31. This claim is agnostic as to the media type representing “episodes.” It can be images, text, video, or audio. Prior art can involve any media format. Some dependent claims specifically require audio, however, so prior art of that type is especially useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 31:** Apparatus for disseminating a series of episodes represented by media files via the Internet as said episodes become available, said apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more data storage servers,&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more communication interfaces connected to the Internet for receiving requests received from remotely located client devices, and for responding to each given one of said requests by downloading a data file identified by a URL specified by said given one of said requests to the requesting client device,&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more processors coupled to said one or more data storage servers and to said one or more communications interfaces for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +	storing one or more media files representing each episode as said one or more media files become available, each of said one or more media files being stored at a storage location specified by a unique episode URL;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +   from time to time, as new episodes represented in said series of episodes become available, storing an updated version of a compilation file in one of said one or more data storage servers at a storage location identified by a predetermined URL, said updated version of said compilation file containing attribute data describing currently available episodes in said series of episodes, said attribute data for each given one of said currently available episodes including displayable text describing said given one of said currently available episodes and one or more episode URLs specifying the storage locations of one or more corresponding media files representing said given one of said episodes; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +	employing one of said one or more communication interfaces to:&#xD;&#xA;        +	(a) receive a request from a requesting client device for the updated version of said compilation file located at said predetermined URL;&#xD;&#xA;        +	(b) download said updated version of said compilation file to said requesting client device; and&#xD;&#xA;        +	(c) thereafter receive and respond to a request from said requesting client device for one or more media files identified by one or more corresponding episode URLs included in the attribute data contained in said updated version of said compilation files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR ART:** Examples of prior art include the prior art identified on the face of the patent and Deb Kumar Roy (June 1995), NewsComm: A Hand-Held Interface for Interactive Access to Structured Audio, available at http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/60444/33214083.pdf?sequence=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen any additional prior art (published before Octtober 2, 1996) that describes a system like the one in Claim 31? &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;We are interested in any prior art that describes accessing a series of media files organized as episodes, tracks, installments, or the like, through the use of “compilation” data that (a) available to be downloaded by a client device, and (b) updated to describe the media files that are currently available. We are particularly interested in prior art where this “compilation” data includes both URLs for the individual media files, and some other displayable text describing each available episode/track/installment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do know prior art, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual, but please create separate answers for each one so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents community][5] has chosen your prior art as a candidate to submit to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office. If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to post your own request for prior art if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/help-save-podcasting&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8112504&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3684" RevisionGUID="5de329ce-69f1-4bdf-87ea-57d68fe140c7" CreationDate="2013-05-30T23:41:07.350" UserId="1767" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="&lt;b&gt;Information&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;App Number&lt;/b&gt;: 13/586,057&lt;/li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Publication Number&lt;/b&gt;: US 20130055357 A1&lt;/li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Assignee&lt;/b&gt;: Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Prior Art Cutoff Date&lt;/b&gt;: predating August 15, 2010&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Summary&lt;/b&gt;: A personal information server provides personal information about an individual to a third-party only when authorized by the individual through use of a previously authenticated computing device. The personal information server authenticates both the computing device used by the third-party to access the personal data and the device used by the individual to grant or deny such access using highly secure digital fingerprints of each. The individual can allow the third-party multiple instances of access to the personal information within restrictions specified by the individual. Other advantages also arise from large-scale tracking of which devices access and control personal information of many people--particularly with respect to identifying and preventing fraud and identity theft.&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Claim 1&lt;/b&gt; recites:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;A method for controlling access to personal information about an individual, the method comprising: receiving data from a third-party device through a computer network that represents a request for the personal information about the individual and that includes a digital fingerprint of the third-party device; sending data representing notification of the request for the personal information of the individual to the individual; receiving authorization data that indicates whether the individual intends to grant the request for the personal information of the individual and a digital fingerprint of a device from which the authorization data is sent; and upon a condition in which both (i) the authorization data indicates that the individual intends to grant the request for the personal information of the individual and (ii) the digital fingerprint of the authorization data matches a digital fingerprint of at least one predetermined authorized device, sending the personal information to the third-party device.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Claim 11&lt;/b&gt; recites:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;A computer system comprising: at least one processor; a computer readable medium that is operatively coupled to the processor; network access circuitry that is operatively coupled to the processor; and personal information server logic (i) that executes in the processor from the computer readable medium and (ii) that, when executed by the processor, causes the computer to control access to personal information about an individual by at least: receiving data from a third-party device through a computer network that represents a request for the personal information about the individual and that includes a digital fingerprint of the third-party device; sending data representing notification of the request for the personal information of the individual to the individual; receiving authorization data that indicates whether the individual intends to grant the request for the personal information of the individual and a digital fingerprint of a device from which the authorization data is sent; and upon a condition in which both (i) the authorization data indicates that the individual intends to grant the request for the personal information of the individual and (ii) the digital fingerprint of the authorization data matches a digital fingerprint of at least one predetermined authorized device, sending the personal information to the third-party device.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Sample Figures&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure 0][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure 1][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure 2][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure 3][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure 4][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure 5][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;WHY IT MATTERS&lt;/b&gt;: The primary claim to uniqueness of the personal information server described in this application relates to the ability of the individual to fully control who has access to the personal information.&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;QUESTION&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt;: Have you seen anything that was published before August 15, 2010 that describes claim 1 or claim 11, especially a personal information server that gives an individual full control over what other entities have access to personal information about the individual?&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][7]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][8] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/DLCHb.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/kR4vsm.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/zB272.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/bs7ja.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/MPrOu.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/l0wno.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="3e36b48b-bf09-41e2-9829-7a20009204e9" CreationDate="2013-05-30T23:41:44.273" UserId="1767" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="   **TITLE: Scale factors for visual presentations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/230445][1]  &#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 2013/0063492 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application generates and display graphical elements based on *pixel density.* The invention selects a *scale factor* from a *scale factor set* that is within the *range* of the pixel density.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of generating, using a device having a processor, a presentation comprising elements to be displayed on a display component, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - executing on the processor instructions configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - identify a ***pixel density*** of the display component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - for respective elements of the presentation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - from a ***scale factor set***, select a ***scale factor*** having a ***pixel density range*** including the pixel density of the display component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - request the element to generate a scaled representation using the scale factor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - generate the presentation comprising the scaled representations of the elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample figure** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/WgDnr.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application is similar to other resolution-independent scaling applications, patents, and implementations carried out in the industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 09/12/2011** that discusses (1) scale factor; (2) scale factor set; and (3) pixel density range in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][5]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][8] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3904" RevisionGUID="9f002ef1-f171-4bbf-a75a-1d7f74311efa" CreationDate="2013-05-30T23:44:22.213" UserId="3889" Text="While I don't have any specific instances of prior art I do have a suggestion.  For this particular instance you might want to look at educational institutions.  Many of these were using the internet way before the mass influx, as it were, and I am sure there would be quite a few examples of prior art a la podcasting or something similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll ask around some of the engineering/IT instructors to see if they have anything they can point to and post again if I find anything." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3905" RevisionGUID="a339f3d7-a7c8-41f6-8564-34d4b2d44851" CreationDate="2013-05-30T23:47:16.540" UserId="3890" Text="Back in 1995 we founded Precept Software (a California corporation) to develop video distribution systems for the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As part of our product we had a &quot;program guide&quot; that aggregated content information - some from SD announcements on the mbone, others from scheduled content, others from recorded content.  This presented a web page that a user could access to cause the launch of a video viewer on his/her computer to see that content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really don't remember the details; much design and coding of the program guide was done by Valerie Lasker.  However, I do have copies of the product software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure of the date when the program guide part was done - it was close to the issue date of the patent in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the SD protocol on the mbone was very much in operation in 1994 and it formed an index of content, although at that time not much content was episodic, although things like IETF meetings could be considered &quot;episodes&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, RealAudio was mentioned and this, too, if I remember right had an index that one could browse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steve Casner (Packet Design) and Carl Malamud probably have useful information as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simon Hacket (Internode) did an &quot;internet juke box&quot; back in the very early 1990's - well before the patent date - it consisted of an online CD player (with about 100 disks).  One could browse the content (i.e. there was an index of the content) and cause selected disks to be played over the mbone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am Karl Auerbach, my contact is karl@cavebear.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3891" RevisionGUID="02f1c51a-2378-4b55-9d0d-90d4cd1e7663" CreationDate="2013-05-31T00:10:22.713" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **HELP SAVE STREAMING RADIO** - This application seeks to patent a system for discovering new radio stations and podcasts online! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][5]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System And Method For Internet Radio Station Program Discovery**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A service for discovering Internet radio station programs. A list of Internet radio station programs is obtained. Each program on the list is categorized by mapping a topic to a program using a content classifier. User can discover new programs of interest from the list of programs based on the categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110502 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Lemi Technology, LLC&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** November, 2008&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Note**: This application is a [continuation][2] of US Patent  [8,359,192][3]. The applicant is attempting to “improve” the claims with this child patent by writing new (evidently broader) claims while retaining the original 2008 priority date.  So prior art should predate November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each an every step below::&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining a plurality of Internet radio station programs;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. For each Internet radio station program of the plurality of Internet radio station programs, dynamically categorizing the Internet radio station program by mapping a dynamically identified topic of the Internet radio station program to a content classifier;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Enabling a user to discover an Internet radio station program of interest from the plurality of Internet radio station programs based on the dynamic categorizations for the plurality of Internet radio station programs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of internet radio station programs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. “Dynamically categorizing” this list of programs by mapping a “dynamically identified topic” to a content classifier; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  Allowing the user to discover programs from the list based on the “dynamic categorization” (presumably created by the classifier)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specification notes that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - In one embodiment…the discovery service performs speech-to-text conversion and natural language processing on the audio content of the radio station program to identify one or more topics of the radio station program. The discovery service then maps the one or more topics to an ontology or similar taxonomy…in order to identify one or more topics of the radio station program.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Internet Radio Station program discovery service&quot; flow chart from the Applicant** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/wagCM.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;300&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Nov, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of nternet radio station programs; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **dynamically categorizing** this list of programs by mapping a **dynamically identified topic** to a **content classifier**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Help Protect Streaming Radio from Patent Trolls!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130110502&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8359192&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3906" RevisionGUID="79538081-59a7-47fd-b6b7-5e2de89c018e" CreationDate="2013-05-31T00:18:20.117" UserId="3892" Text="WinPlay3 allowed for internet streaming and you could use M3U files saved locally as a &quot;playlist&quot; with direct links to the mp3 files you were going to play.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20040818092820/www.rjamorim.com/rrw/winplay3.html&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20080619002511/www.sonicspot.com/winplay/winplay.html&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinPlay3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3907" RevisionGUID="59670adb-8f72-445a-ace6-2a4a21816535" CreationDate="2013-05-31T00:21:52.323" UserId="3891" Text="It would also seem that any number of List-serv systems for transferring links, newsletters, and serialized media would fit the bill for prior art in this instance. Not to mention the mechanisms for streaming media presented by RealPlayer as early as 1995 would seem to include significant portions of the patent. With weekly shows such as Ask Dr. Science and many others that were syndicated using RealPlayer and other streaming services early on, prior art must exist with one of the early radio shows. I would also point out The Spot (http://www.thespot.com) which according to wikipedia was created in 1995. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spot" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3908" RevisionGUID="c82aa82a-0b5e-4104-8a4b-86d00d6bac29" CreationDate="2013-05-31T00:50:37.137" UserId="3895" Text="Seems similar to Internet Talk Radio/Geek of the Week (Carl Malamud, 1993, files for each episode with unique URLs). Not sure if this is the original domain, but here is the one I found. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://town.hall.org/radio/Geek/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3909" RevisionGUID="ced0b720-ff96-4279-a727-6ca908c439fe" CreationDate="2013-05-31T01:53:22.340" UserId="3896" Text="&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US5442390&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A system for interactively viewing a selected one of a plurality of videos...the video data representing time sequenced image signals and audio signals for play-back on a viewing device, a communications network for transmitting the video data..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3910" RevisionGUID="57fb570b-2612-4a33-a8e7-8d9cc8d9f6c5" CreationDate="2013-05-31T02:05:13.487" UserId="3898" Text="It seems like the FTP (File Transfer Protocol) might be a good prior art example against this patent on files being transferred between computers over the internet. The date of the below document is Oct 1985. This FTP process that was created almost 10 years before this soon to be disputed podcasting patent had features and technical functions that are almost identical to how podcasting works.  The basics are ordered files being either manually or automatically being transferred over the internet between computer type devices with storage capabilities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See link below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc959&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The objectives of FTP are 1) to promote sharing of files (computer programs and/or data), 2) to encourage indirect or implicit (via programs) use of remote computers, 3) to shield a user from variations in file storage systems among hosts, and 4) to transfer data reliably and efficiently.  FTP, though usable directly by a user at a terminal, is designed mainly for use by programs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Definition of a &quot;File&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An ordered set of computer data (including programs), of arbitrary length, uniquely identified by a pathname.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;record&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A sequential file may be structured as a number of contiguous parts called records.  Record structures are supported by FTP but a file need not have record structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;server-DTP&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The data transfer process, in its normal &quot;active&quot; state, establishes the data connection with the &quot;listening&quot; data port.  It sets up parameters for transfer and storage, and transfers data on command from its PI.  The DTP can be placed in a &quot;passive&quot; state to listen for, rather than initiate a connection on the data port.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;server-FTP process&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A process or set of processes which perform the function of file transfer in cooperation with a user-FTP process and, possibly, another server.  The functions consist of a protocol         interpreter (PI) and a data transfer process (DTP).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is Rob Greenlee: rob at robgreenlee dotcom&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3911" RevisionGUID="b3dd9114-e4dc-4299-85b4-63632acbc2b2" CreationDate="2013-05-31T02:13:07.007" UserId="3899" Text="While not specifically for audio (or podcasting), The PointCast Network was founded in 1992 and launched its beta software Feb 13, 1996. It provided news, sports, weather, etc using 'push' technology to keep the feed fresh and up-to-date. More information can be found at the Wikipedia article: &#xD;&#xA; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PointCast_%28dotcom%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3912" RevisionGUID="bb201991-67db-429d-9e97-e3bfaf8b5d86" CreationDate="2013-05-31T03:39:40.683" UserId="3902" Text="I hate it when my freely-redistributable ideas get patented. Happy to be deposed about how I invented this well before the putative patentee/thief. This CDROM has already been used as prior art to break another stupid patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    [nelson@desk ~]$ ls -l /home/nelson/packet-driver-cdrom&#xD;&#xA;    -r-xr-xr-x   1 nelson root           545 Dec 20  1993 00_index.txt&#xD;&#xA;    [nelson@desk ~]$ grep -i crynwr.wav /home/nelson/packet-driver-cdrom/drivers/pktd11/manifest.doc&#xD;&#xA;    CRYNWR.WAV    .WAV audio file of a native Welsh speaker pronouncing Crynwr.&#xD;&#xA;    [nelson@desk ~]$ find packet-driver-cdrom/ -name crynwr.wav&#xD;&#xA;    packet-driver-cdrom/drivers/pktd11/crynwr.wav&#xD;&#xA;    [nelson@desk ~]$ grep -i crynwr.wav /home/nelson/packet-driver-cdrom/drivers/pktd11/manifest.doc&#xD;&#xA;    CRYNWR.WAV    .WAV audio file of a native Welsh speaker pronouncing Crynwr.&#xD;&#xA;    [nelson@desk ~]$ ls -l /home/nelson/packet-driver-cdrom/drivers/pktd11/manifest.doc&#xD;&#xA;    -r-xr-xr-x  1 nelson root 10687 Nov  9  1993 /home/nelson/packet-driver-cdrom/drivers/pktd11/manifest.doc&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3913" RevisionGUID="4ddb1d45-4580-45f0-80ca-4613b777b7ce" CreationDate="2013-05-31T04:03:00.793" UserId="3904" Text="Art Bell's Coast to Coast radio program was available to download from broadcast.com. The files are Real Audio and have unique URLs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure how far back it goes. This link begins in May of 1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/19990421011429/http://ww2.broadcast.com/artbell/archive96.html#may96" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3914" RevisionGUID="35e567a1-5523-436e-86f9-52ed3d63d663" CreationDate="2013-05-31T04:11:18.623" UserId="3903" Text="In 1900, the U.S. Patent Office granted Tesla patents 645,576 and 649,621, the fundamental design of the Tesla coils, on March 20 and May 15. The invention of these coils led directly to the invention of radio. Through the 1950's regularly scheduled shows or broadcasts were made available to listeners via episodic programs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The encapsulation of this scheduled audio program within a computer system is **&quot;obvious to those skilled in the art.&quot;** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, scheduled fetching of files and creating an index of those files over the internet was present within **every** web based search engine including AltaVista, HotBot &amp; Lycos. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3915" RevisionGUID="d8d148cb-8766-406a-abfd-05f55f3b71ac" CreationDate="2013-05-31T06:08:29.833" UserId="3905" Text="Cu-SeeMe (1993) was a multi-media video conferencing system that provided one-to-many, a several-to-several, or a several-to-many conference depending on user needs and hardware capabilities. Here's the Cu-SeeMe Cookbook&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.cadvision.com/blanchas/education/cu-seeme/cuseeme.txt&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3899" RevisionGUID="542b388d-675d-4a3e-89ad-19aa10428d73" CreationDate="2013-05-31T07:17:57.393" UserId="-1" Comment="Adding more detail about broadcast.com and RealAudio " Text="Broadcast.com comes to mind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Broadcast.com used the RealAudio player to embed into web pages streaming audio.  It was used in a variety of different ways to disseminate sound files.  According to Wikipedia the original launch date of RealAudio was April, 1995.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Broadcast.com had a large assortment of programs indexed and listed in a number of ways to allow user selection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A large number of radio shows, including Art Bell (see coasttocoastam.com) would archive many broadcasts of his show there for future replay over the intenet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8654" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3899" RevisionGUID="542b388d-675d-4a3e-89ad-19aa10428d73" CreationDate="2013-05-31T07:17:57.393" Comment="Proposed by 68.88.72.68|684ec93c-03dc-45ee-9b35-b7548b62bc29 approved by 1767 edit id of 352" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3910" RevisionGUID="364f4bb1-bb84-4d6d-9841-67e7d5ee7222" CreationDate="2013-05-31T07:18:06.533" UserId="3906" Comment="No signatures, please - the usercard does that" Text="It seems like the FTP (File Transfer Protocol) might be a good prior art example against this patent on files being transferred between computers over the internet. The date of the below document is Oct 1985. This FTP process that was created almost 10 years before this soon to be disputed podcasting patent had features and technical functions that are almost identical to how podcasting works.  The basics are ordered files being either manually or automatically being transferred over the internet between computer type devices with storage capabilities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See link below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc959&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The objectives of FTP are 1) to promote sharing of files (computer programs and/or data), 2) to encourage indirect or implicit (via programs) use of remote computers, 3) to shield a user from variations in file storage systems among hosts, and 4) to transfer data reliably and efficiently.  FTP, though usable directly by a user at a terminal, is designed mainly for use by programs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Definition of a &quot;File&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An ordered set of computer data (including programs), of arbitrary length, uniquely identified by a pathname.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;record&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A sequential file may be structured as a number of contiguous parts called records.  Record structures are supported by FTP but a file need not have record structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;server-DTP&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The data transfer process, in its normal &quot;active&quot; state, establishes the data connection with the &quot;listening&quot; data port.  It sets up parameters for transfer and storage, and transfers data on command from its PI.  The DTP can be placed in a &quot;passive&quot; state to listen for, rather than initiate a connection on the data port.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;server-FTP process&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A process or set of processes which perform the function of file transfer in cooperation with a user-FTP process and, possibly, another server.  The functions consist of a protocol         interpreter (PI) and a data transfer process (DTP)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8656" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3910" RevisionGUID="364f4bb1-bb84-4d6d-9841-67e7d5ee7222" CreationDate="2013-05-31T07:18:06.533" Comment="Proposed by 3906 approved by 1767 edit id of 351" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3911" RevisionGUID="f4e95585-e960-4a7e-8d7d-6700459f8718" CreationDate="2013-05-31T07:18:11.813" UserId="-1" Comment="added info on subscription features of the service" Text="While not specifically for audio (or podcasting), The PointCast Network was founded in 1992 and launched its beta software Feb 13, 1996. It provided news, sports, weather, etc using 'push' technology to keep the feed fresh and up-to-date. More information can be found at the Wikipedia article: &#xD;&#xA; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PointCast_%28dotcom%29&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The PointCast system specifically allowed users to subscribe to channels of information that would then be played back at a later point in time. The data was fetched from different service providers and was fetched via URL's. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8658" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3911" RevisionGUID="f4e95585-e960-4a7e-8d7d-6700459f8718" CreationDate="2013-05-31T07:18:11.813" Comment="Proposed by 173.76.231.206|1fc61198-7162-4dc5-9d68-2bf942caa741 approved by 1767 edit id of 350" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3916" RevisionGUID="91afc8d4-141e-407e-950f-a75e712b49f6" CreationDate="2013-05-31T07:55:44.150" UserId="3907" Text="What about one of the episodic / serial ASCII / ANSI / art / &quot;Demo Scene&quot; newsletters that were were part of the &quot;BBS&quot; culture? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They frequently included music audio, but even Text was listed above as one of the formats in the patent. Here is a page with links to the monthly installments of ACID, I believe it included visuals and music. Dated 1995:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.acid.org/archives/archives.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a page with URLs to these files, which can be downloaded to a client device (your computer?) dated 1995.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another good index of various art packs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://artscene.textfiles.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example here is the yearly and monthly &quot;packs&quot; from Ice Art. Also included Text, Art and Music, starting in 1992. Either this page existed back then, or there would have been an index page linking to each of the packs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://artscene.textfiles.com/ice/icepacks/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More about Artpack and the &quot;Computer Art Scene&quot; if someone has some more time to do some digging:&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_art_scene#Underground_status&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Artscene_groups&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8685" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3910" RevisionGUID="b673d11e-7c9d-4e78-acb0-204def0c77e9" CreationDate="2013-05-31T07:55:44.150" UserId="3907" />
  <row Id="8687" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3912" RevisionGUID="4c609ec6-bbaa-498c-ab30-f90005eb1b3c" CreationDate="2013-05-31T07:55:44.150" UserId="3907" />
  <row Id="8691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3917" RevisionGUID="1fb2a64b-2c0e-41eb-a8f1-bfa612c849a9" CreationDate="2013-05-31T08:03:01.927" UserId="3907" Text="Wouldn't Gopher count? It would be a page with links to content, I'm sure you could find a Gopher page (were they called pages?) with links to audio files (were they called links?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or for that matter, just a web page could semantically match the patent language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After all, its the page (or gopher page) is an index with URLs that can be &quot;downloaded to a client device&quot; (your computer)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3918" RevisionGUID="ef6a023b-7f2a-4250-958c-1e3e3a89f24b" CreationDate="2013-05-31T09:00:16.587" UserId="3908" Text="There were many electronic journals online before 1996 - if any of them had a &quot;latest articles&quot; page that described each article and had a direct download link to a file (eg PDF or PostScript, possibly HTML) for each article, that would seem to fit the description of this claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possible candidates include the [Theory and Applications of Categories][1], which started publishing online in 1995; the Internet Archive has [a capture from January 1997][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.tac.mta.ca/tac/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://web.archive.org/web/19970115173047/http://www.tac.mta.ca/tac/articles.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3919" RevisionGUID="cd4049c5-b0c3-4116-886e-ee46b1e4a0ef" CreationDate="2013-05-31T12:50:51.567" UserId="3911" Text="A quick Google search revealed that MP3 as a file format was patented in Germany in 1989, and the US in Nov 1996.  http://inventors.about.com/od/mstartinventions/a/MPThree.htm  This is interesting only because of what it was developed for, namely Digital Audio Broadcasting specifically over phone lines.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the DAB standard was used primarily for digital radio broadcasting in Europe, a direct and easy link from digital radio broadcasting technology to internet technology could be made given the stated purpose of MP3s by its developer to, &quot;quality transmit of [digital] audio over phone lines,&quot; since most internet connections were phone line based at the time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh well, it isn't much, but good luck,&#xD;&#xA;Ben " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3884" RevisionGUID="520551ab-bc04-4e8e-b991-dd6bbecff425" CreationDate="2013-05-31T13:22:55.803" UserId="1259" Comment="typo" Text="*This call for prior art is part of [EFF][1]'s effort to bust a patent being asserted against podcasting. Read more about the initiative [here][2]. Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][5]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This issued patent relates to a system for distributing serial episodes of media content over the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BASIC PATENT DATA:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	Patent Number: [US 8,112,504][3]&#xD;&#xA;-	Assignee: Personal Audio, LLC&#xD;&#xA;-	Prior Art Cutoff Date: Prior art must predate October 2, 1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PATENT SUMMARY:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent generally relates to a system whereby a server provides media content to client devices over the Internet. On the server, the provider maintains a “compilation file,” which is essentially a list of available media files. The compilation file generally includes the URL for each available media file in a series and may also include descriptive text. This compilation file may be static, such as a simple web page with links to each available file to which new files are added, or may be customized for a particular user, perhaps only showing them content from feeds to which they have subscribed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claim that has been asserted against podcasters to date is Claim 31. This claim is agnostic as to the media type representing “episodes.” It can be images, text, video, or audio. Prior art can involve any media format. Some dependent claims specifically require audio, however, so prior art of that type is especially useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 31:** Apparatus for disseminating a series of episodes represented by media files via the Internet as said episodes become available, said apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more data storage servers,&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more communication interfaces connected to the Internet for receiving requests received from remotely located client devices, and for responding to each given one of said requests by downloading a data file identified by a URL specified by said given one of said requests to the requesting client device,&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more processors coupled to said one or more data storage servers and to said one or more communications interfaces for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +	storing one or more media files representing each episode as said one or more media files become available, each of said one or more media files being stored at a storage location specified by a unique episode URL;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +   from time to time, as new episodes represented in said series of episodes become available, storing an updated version of a compilation file in one of said one or more data storage servers at a storage location identified by a predetermined URL, said updated version of said compilation file containing attribute data describing currently available episodes in said series of episodes, said attribute data for each given one of said currently available episodes including displayable text describing said given one of said currently available episodes and one or more episode URLs specifying the storage locations of one or more corresponding media files representing said given one of said episodes; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +	employing one of said one or more communication interfaces to:&#xD;&#xA;        +	(a) receive a request from a requesting client device for the updated version of said compilation file located at said predetermined URL;&#xD;&#xA;        +	(b) download said updated version of said compilation file to said requesting client device; and&#xD;&#xA;        +	(c) thereafter receive and respond to a request from said requesting client device for one or more media files identified by one or more corresponding episode URLs included in the attribute data contained in said updated version of said compilation files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR ART:** Examples of prior art include the prior art identified on the face of the patent and Deb Kumar Roy (June 1995), NewsComm: A Hand-Held Interface for Interactive Access to Structured Audio, available at http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/60444/33214083.pdf?sequence=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen any additional prior art (published before October 2, 1996) that describes a system like the one in Claim 31? &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;We are interested in any prior art that describes accessing a series of media files organized as episodes, tracks, installments, or the like, through the use of “compilation” data that (a) available to be downloaded by a client device, and (b) updated to describe the media files that are currently available. We are particularly interested in prior art where this “compilation” data includes both URLs for the individual media files, and some other displayable text describing each available episode/track/installment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do know prior art, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual, but please create separate answers for each one so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents community][5] has chosen your prior art as a candidate to submit to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office. If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to post your own request for prior art if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/help-save-podcasting&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8112504&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3920" RevisionGUID="9c89203c-f5fb-42f7-b4e3-f3e5178825cb" CreationDate="2013-05-31T14:11:18.887" UserId="3913" Text="Is Patent [us5930362][1] weak because it has only 2 independent claims that specifically reference DH. Could this patent be circumvented by computing something that is not specifically DH but could be transformed into DH in the consumer node - for example, flip every 3rd bit; or split it into two parts. This patent is a demonstration of the sort of general operations that are taught in undergraduate computer science classes. When a general operation is specifically applied to a particular technology field, does it qualify for a patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5930362" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8700" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3920" RevisionGUID="9c89203c-f5fb-42f7-b4e3-f3e5178825cb" CreationDate="2013-05-31T14:11:18.887" UserId="3913" Text="Weak and obvious patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8701" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3920" RevisionGUID="9c89203c-f5fb-42f7-b4e3-f3e5178825cb" CreationDate="2013-05-31T14:11:18.887" UserId="3913" Text="&lt;non-obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3923" RevisionGUID="4793df72-1f58-4977-b0b2-34a49fc2efe9" CreationDate="2013-05-31T14:33:55.313" UserId="3916" Text="It's chicken cartilage, you can just buy the chicken bones, boil the hell out of them, eat all the cartilage and drink the liquid and it will work just as well if not better.  Harward medical school needed a way to patent it because you can not patent a natural product thus they reworded it to make it patentable.  In my culture &quot;Russian&quot; we make this kind of soup on regular basis, especially for the elderly and hardly anyone has arthritis problems." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3933" RevisionGUID="954284c0-e24b-4ac5-8e80-8201525420f0" CreationDate="2013-05-31T16:08:04.560" UserId="3919" Text="How about software tutorials that contained video. Eg &quot;new feature in _______&quot; although this may or my not not have called back to a server.&#xD;&#xA;Or any type of automated software update system that gives users the choice to update or not. It seems that this is more general which may make specific file type &quot;obvious&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3905" RevisionGUID="8eb4f298-5d45-4d39-9037-34dce3c6553a" CreationDate="2013-05-31T17:43:54.010" UserId="355" Comment="no need to sign each post - just place your email in your profile and people can find you from that page." Text="Back in 1995 we founded Precept Software (a California corporation) to develop video distribution systems for the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As part of our product we had a &quot;program guide&quot; that aggregated content information - some from SD announcements on the mbone, others from scheduled content, others from recorded content.  This presented a web page that a user could access to cause the launch of a video viewer on his/her computer to see that content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really don't remember the details; much design and coding of the program guide was done by Valerie Lasker.  However, I do have copies of the product software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure of the date when the program guide part was done - it was close to the issue date of the patent in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the SD protocol on the mbone was very much in operation in 1994 and it formed an index of content, although at that time not much content was episodic, although things like IETF meetings could be considered &quot;episodes&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, RealAudio was mentioned and this, too, if I remember right had an index that one could browse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steve Casner (Packet Design) and Carl Malamud probably have useful information as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simon Hacket (Internode) did an &quot;internet juke box&quot; back in the very early 1990's - well before the patent date - it consisted of an online CD player (with about 100 disks).  One could browse the content (i.e. there was an index of the content) and cause selected disks to be played over the mbone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3934" RevisionGUID="f81ab189-cdf1-4a88-add5-ee41bcfe49e5" CreationDate="2013-05-31T19:12:49.987" UserId="3921" Text="I am uncertain if this covers the criteria you're looking for, but Penn Jillette's old show comes to mind, and fits the requested dates:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_Radio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8730" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3920" RevisionGUID="676c5007-51ec-4e4a-b8de-f42144724da5" CreationDate="2013-05-31T19:36:31.190" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;us5930362&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3935" RevisionGUID="adbdcd12-1252-434f-9bb1-3e510254163d" CreationDate="2013-05-31T19:42:18.450" UserId="3923" Text="Radio station automation and traffic management is essentially the same thing, except the 'player' is the transmitter.   The nature of the interface and storage is essentially the same.  See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audicom, from 1989, with a screen display that looks familiar to any of the early-generation desktop music players.  It has the added prior-art bonus of using lossily-compressed data files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3936" RevisionGUID="c7c07ef5-3177-4036-9f21-b180aa11f467" CreationDate="2013-05-31T20:21:11.497" UserId="3076" Text="I would agree that taking the plain meaning of the claim wording, it is DH specific. If calculating DH with a bit somewhere flip requires a) calculate DH b) flip bit, then I would say you have calculated DH in the process and fulfilid that claim requirement. For the storing step, I imagine most people would think storing a value X as the compliment of X and upon retreival restoring it to X is equal to storing X. If your application does not require DH for interoperability you could use something else. Or just do not precompute a chunk of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the second part of the question, there are many people who would not see applying a known technique to a new application as patentable and many that would.  There is no bright line and like many things in patenting it is case by case examiner by examiner and judge by judge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3937" RevisionGUID="cf6a1394-ae2c-4ea2-b623-8fdbd062f698" CreationDate="2013-05-31T20:59:17.600" UserId="3925" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Liquid Audio was formed in 1995/1996 - and their patents bought by Microsoft in 2002 to fight another patent battle.  &#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_Audio&#xD;&#xA;http://articles.latimes.com/2002/oct/01/business/fi-liquid1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Online audio distribution system.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3938" RevisionGUID="f152c584-cc97-4d80-a7f3-0eda79fc40bd" CreationDate="2013-05-31T23:32:59.147" UserId="3926" Text="http://www.gutenberg.org/ has been disseminating distinct 'episodes' of specific collections or series of books and other documents in the public domain as they become available since back when the 'Internet' was still 'ARPANET'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Project Gutenberg began in 1971 when Michael Hart was given an operator's account with $100,000,000 of computer time in it by the operators of the Xerox Sigma V mainframe at the Materials Research Lab at the University of Illinois.&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;An hour and 47 minutes later, he announced that the greatest value created by computers would not be computing, but would be the storage, retrieval, and searching of what was stored in our libraries.&#xD;&#xA;He then proceeded to type in the &quot;Declaration of Independence&quot; and tried to send it to everyone on the networks ... which can only be described today as a not so narrow miss at creating an early version of what was later called the &quot;Internet Virus.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not audio, but I hope this is pertinent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3939" RevisionGUID="c0b83d3d-dabb-4806-98aa-33ece159045b" CreationDate="2013-05-31T23:42:49.910" UserId="3927" Text="This 1995 work is an automatic system for archiving news broadcasts, searching them by text, and playing them back on demand. It seems to hit most of the claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://mi.eng.cam.ac.uk/research/Projects/vmr/mm95.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;published as &quot;Automatic Content-Based Retrieval of Broadcast News &quot;&#xD;&#xA;in Proceedings ACM Multimedia 95, &#xD;&#xA;November 5-9, 1995 San Francisco, California&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3940" RevisionGUID="a87e26fd-c59b-4033-a10e-38673c55f0a4" CreationDate="2013-06-01T00:18:01.167" UserId="3928" Text="*RTÉ To Everywhere* was a project started in 1994 to distribute news broadcasts from Ireland to ex-pats around the world. Two broadcasts a day were made available via ftp, initially in *.au format, with a week's worth available at any given time. There were mirror sites in the UK, Sweden, the US and Australia. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further information at http://chien-noir.com/rte.html. Looks like the Sunsite UNC mirror is still up, a snapshot of 11/29/1995, ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/languages/gaelic/Rte/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3941" RevisionGUID="f670327f-267a-4cd7-82fc-4d240592bd12" CreationDate="2013-06-01T01:30:46.103" UserId="3929" Text="The paper from *The Journal of the Audio Engineering Society* called [The Digital Audio Processing Station][1] cited as prior art date back 1986, not 1996.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is understood that it is most likely a typo. It might also indicates that the examiners did overlook the &quot;prior art&quot; section since it is an obvious mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5264" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3891" RevisionGUID="af640419-8a3d-4935-8d57-f3b96dcb8c33" CreationDate="2013-06-01T05:43:25.133" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="   **HELP SAVE STREAMING RADIO** - This application seeks to patent a system for discovering new radio stations and podcasts online! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][5]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System And Method For Internet Radio Station Program Discovery**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A service for discovering Internet radio station programs. A list of Internet radio station programs is obtained. Each program on the list is categorized by mapping a topic to a program using a content classifier. User can discover new programs of interest from the list of programs based on the categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110502 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Lemi Technology, LLC&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** November, 2008&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Note**: This application is a [continuation][2] of US Patent  [8,359,192][3]. The applicant is attempting to “improve” the claims with this child patent by writing new (evidently broader) claims while retaining the original 2008 priority date.  So prior art should predate November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each an every step below::&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining a plurality of Internet radio station programs;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. For each Internet radio station program of the plurality of Internet radio station programs, dynamically categorizing the Internet radio station program by mapping a dynamically identified topic of the Internet radio station program to a content classifier;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Enabling a user to discover an Internet radio station program of interest from the plurality of Internet radio station programs based on the dynamic categorizations for the plurality of Internet radio station programs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of internet radio station programs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. “Dynamically categorizing” this list of programs by mapping a “dynamically identified topic” to a content classifier; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  Allowing the user to discover programs from the list based on the “dynamic categorization” (presumably created by the classifier)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specification notes that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - In one embodiment…the discovery service performs speech-to-text conversion and natural language processing on the audio content of the radio station program to identify one or more topics of the radio station program. The discovery service then maps the one or more topics to an ontology or similar taxonomy…in order to identify one or more topics of the radio station program.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Internet Radio Station program discovery service&quot; flow chart from the Applicant** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/wagCM.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;300&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Nov, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of nternet radio station programs; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **dynamically categorizing** this list of programs by mapping a **dynamically identified topic** to a **content classifier**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Help Protect Streaming Radio from Patent Trolls!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130110502&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8359192&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3936" RevisionGUID="19ddea7a-e9de-4d35-82eb-4458eb28aadf" CreationDate="2013-06-01T06:21:35.757" UserId="3076" Comment="Typo" Text="I would agree that taking the plain meaning of the claim wording, it is DH specific. If calculating DH with a bit somewhere flipped  requires a) calculate DH, then b) flip a bit, then I would say you have calculated DH in the process and fulfilid that claim requirement. For the storing step, I imagine most people would think storing a value X as the compliment of X and upon retreival restoring it to X is equal to storing X. If your application does not require DH for interoperability you could use something else. Or just do not precompute a chunk of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the second part of the question, there are many people who would not see applying a known technique to a new application as patentable and many that would.  There is no bright line and like many things in patenting it is case by case examiner by examiner and judge by judge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3942" RevisionGUID="e0919fe0-a67e-4e94-837e-c337b608cf99" CreationDate="2013-06-01T06:31:43.750" UserId="3931" Text="For a few decades, [Glenn Hauser](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Hauser) of Enid, OK, USA, has been distributing [World of Radio](http://www.worldofradio.com/) audio weekly via the 'net.  The current audio archive, [going back to 2005 is here](http://www.worldofradio.com/audiomid.html) (oldest episode there is #1282).  The show is a review of international broadcasting, primarily shortwave.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a former DX-er, I remember grabbing real player audio files from his site (pre-RSS) back in the mid '90s.  An email to him might produce more definite, pre-1996-10-02 information.  Contact info for him is on the main WOR page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wayback Machine's [earliest crawl was on 2001-10-22](http://web.archive.org/web/20011022011431/http://www.worldofradio.com/audiomid.html) and that copied page shows downloadable episodes #1096 to #1101, dates 2001-09-12 forward to 2001-10-17, in .rm format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3943" RevisionGUID="14b4d73e-cef4-4de5-8875-76313a5bbc6b" CreationDate="2013-06-01T07:59:41.087" UserId="3076" Text="I did a little searching and found a patent that does not seem to have been cited in this or the parent application. It categorizes text into topics and mentions it being fed by a speech-to-text converter. It mentions radio but not Internet radio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US618531 - Topic indexing method][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This invention generally relates to automatically relating a story to a number of topics. Herein “story” is defined to include any article of information that may be presented to the inventive method, usually from a stored file. More particularly, the present invention relates to automatically indexing and associating stories to a concurrent number of topics ranging from broad to very detailed topics. The present invention is particularly well suited to be combined with voice to text converters, optical readers, and fax encoded data wherein the story (text) is automatically indexed to one or more topics or categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6185531" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3944" RevisionGUID="5884869f-8fcb-4451-8f26-ce419d24dae7" CreationDate="2013-06-01T09:26:37.537" UserId="3933" Text="Does this patent only cover the US or will it relate to similar systems worldwide?&#xD;&#xA;at what date will this current patent expire?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8750" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3944" RevisionGUID="5884869f-8fcb-4451-8f26-ce419d24dae7" CreationDate="2013-06-01T09:26:37.537" UserId="3933" Text="location aware ads us20130046636" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8751" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3944" RevisionGUID="5884869f-8fcb-4451-8f26-ce419d24dae7" CreationDate="2013-06-01T09:26:37.537" UserId="3933" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8752" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3944" RevisionGUID="504b06ab-ed3f-4e6f-8a62-cc06b8650955" CreationDate="2013-06-01T16:38:17.980" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;us20130046636&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3945" RevisionGUID="e9b92fb7-f284-49c2-9ce4-23465d64d9b2" CreationDate="2013-06-01T16:54:16.770" UserId="3076" Text="This is a publication of a patent **application** not a granted patent. They are formatted the same but in the upper right hand corner is says Publication No. Rather than Patent No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking this up in the USPTO Public PAIR database, this application has not yet been examined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents are territorial. A US patent can only be enforced in US Federal Court. Often an inventor files counterpart applications in multiple countries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3945" RevisionGUID="eb682833-9371-447b-80b2-2f43267e53c8" CreationDate="2013-06-01T17:03:00.270" UserId="3076" Comment="Typo" Text="This is a publication of a patent **application** not a granted patent. They are formatted the same but in the upper right hand corner is says Publication No. rather than Patent No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking this up in the USPTO Public PAIR database, this application has not yet been examined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents are territorial. A US patent can only be enforced in US Federal Court. Often an inventor files counterpart applications in multiple countries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8755" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3920" RevisionGUID="d7b35ed0-6e64-4393-9e6f-3fb9fe5654c8" CreationDate="2013-06-01T18:51:40.977" UserId="1259" Comment="title clarified" Text="Weak and obvious patent US5930362" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3900" RevisionGUID="2ff5d009-7cf6-4df2-a482-32ebe3646cb7" CreationDate="2013-06-01T18:56:57.713" UserId="1259" Comment="Fixed links the auto-format was truncating at the dollar signs" Text="USENET is full of examples of prior art as listed. Especially alt.internet.talk-radio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!searchin/alt.internet.talk-radio/$20files$20download$20audio|sort:date][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a post about some serious downloadable files used for the  Internet&#xD;&#xA;     Multicasting Service!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Copied below is the disseminated FAQ on the Internet from 1995. Probably searching on keywords in this file will get you further back. Google rocks for loading up USENET to google groups. Accessed this file at the above link by me  @ 7pm on May 30 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google link to the  Internet  Multicasting Service FAQ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!searchin/alt.internet.talk-radio/$20files$20download$20audio|sort:date/alt.internet.talk-radio/QNg5hDcCtIk/ReHieUvr3QwJ][2]&#xD;&#xA;          &#xD;&#xA;There's also this posting from  March 4, 1995:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!searchin/alt.internet.talk-radio/episodes|sort:date/alt.internet.talk-radio/y1iLj9Jq3Mk/K777QKGpRsQJ][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which describes a website where you can get episode lists and download episodes of some popular programs.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately the wayback machine only goes back to Dec 1996 at town.hall.org:&#xD;&#xA;[http://web.archive.org/web/19961223103237/http://town.hall.org/][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but they clearly have older radio station programs and episodes on that list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like some users here have posted their paper, though, that looks pretty good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!searchin/alt.internet.talk-radio/$20files$20download$20audio%7Csort:date&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!searchin/alt.internet.talk-radio/$20files$20download$20audio%7Csort:date/alt.internet.talk-radio/QNg5hDcCtIk/ReHieUvr3QwJ&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!searchin/alt.internet.talk-radio/episodes%7Csort:date/alt.internet.talk-radio/y1iLj9Jq3Mk/K777QKGpRsQJ&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://web.archive.org/web/19961223103237/http://town.hall.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3946" RevisionGUID="419ce8c8-e7b7-4033-a2b2-ff23ddfa1264" CreationDate="2013-06-02T01:48:00.107" UserId="3937" Text="In 1986 Jeff Harrow of Digital Equipment Corporation started the beginning of &quot;the rapidly changing face of computing&quot;, a series of technology reports that would become one of the first if not the first multi media webcast.  I don't remember exactly when he started making audio files of these web casts available for download but I am pretty sure it was prior to 1992.  I used to listen to them when I worked at Digital Equipment Corp in the early 1990's.  See question 2 at : http://crnano.org/interview.harrow.htm. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3947" RevisionGUID="97b3fc37-a610-4ea0-804c-ebc97331887e" CreationDate="2013-06-02T10:19:31.350" UserId="3940" Text="What about the M3U format? I think that serves as the compilation file, and supported URLs. Fraunhofer's first MP3 player used it. I don't know of a specific case of it being hosted and used in the method described but the folks there, or at winamp may have the concise examples you need." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3949" RevisionGUID="f505e727-8e4a-4738-b38a-88ed1094d3ff" CreationDate="2013-06-02T15:55:01.523" UserId="3943" Text="I worked on this product which consisted of a local database on CDROM and a connected website. The site augmented the CDROM title and allowed the user to search for and download audio clips for music.  The application ran on macs and pc's and would request new content from the server.  The user could click a button to download and listen to the audio clip.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The music match website itself might be sufficient. User could browser music titles and listen to audio samples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link below is from an oct 10th 1996 press release. Obviously, the product was developed and operational well before the 2nd of October. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Billboard+and+Creative+Multimedia+release+music+resource+and+buyer's...-a018753114&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a quote from the above link showing the online component. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Billboard Music Guide CD-ROM directly links to Creative Multimedia's entertainment website, MusicMatch (URL: musicmatch.com), where users can search or browse a music database containing 165,000 albums. MusicMatch features an electronic retail component, so users can buy albums and music-related items." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3950" RevisionGUID="40f1cfdb-e041-48d4-b256-4728e3f5d728" CreationDate="2013-06-02T17:43:53.970" UserId="3945" Text="**2010:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://hacktastico.com/2010/12/09/a-taste-of-whats-to-come/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example use: http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~ece549/spring12/team10/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Others on the web:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:18017&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.thingiverse.com/image:111667&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://chocedge.com/product_list.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.chocolateprints.com.au/main/page_products_chocolates_chocolography.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIFi8but3Vw&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3951" RevisionGUID="be9f1880-f97b-45ea-a5da-72b10d42e34b" CreationDate="2013-06-02T19:19:01.070" UserId="3946" Text="Although I do not have an actual example, but when my Grandfather became blind in the early 90's a disability group gave him recordings of specific articles, magazines and books at his request.  I am unsure of the actual organization, we live in Minnesota, but that should definitely show the obviousness of this patent.  I'm sure they were doing this for some time before even the 90's to assist blind people throughout the country." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3952" RevisionGUID="70ad80d9-4b55-4268-a8e9-e2e6bbbf047f" CreationDate="2013-06-02T22:12:20.460" UserId="3948" Text="I'm a &quot;micro entity&quot; and I'm considering patenting my idea myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that the language of the patent application is very special, eg. no limiting language should be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some patent applications I see some texts that aren't part of the invention's description, rather, they aim to make sure that none of the language or terms used can be considered as limiting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: can I simply copy such generic texts from another inventor's application, and use them in my application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The foregoing is merely illustrative of the principles of this invention and various modifications can be made by those skilled in the art without departing from the scope and spirit of the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art that methods involved in the present invention may be embodied in a computer program product that includes a computer usable and/or readable medium. For example, such a computer usable medium may consist of a read only memory device, such as a CD ROM disk or conventional ROM devices, or a random access memory, such as a hard drive device or a computer diskette, or flash memory device having a computer readable program code stored thereon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is understood that the various features, elements, or processes of the foregoing figures and description are interchangeable or combinable to realize or practice the invention describe herein. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the invention can be practiced by other than the described embodiments, which are presented for purposes of illustration rather than of limitation, and the invention is limited only by the claims which follow.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8772" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3952" RevisionGUID="70ad80d9-4b55-4268-a8e9-e2e6bbbf047f" CreationDate="2013-06-02T22:12:20.460" UserId="3948" Text="Can I copy texts from other applications into my application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8773" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3952" RevisionGUID="70ad80d9-4b55-4268-a8e9-e2e6bbbf047f" CreationDate="2013-06-02T22:12:20.460" UserId="3948" Text="&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;text-analysis&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3953" RevisionGUID="bffc1956-72ed-4e40-a25e-00c4c166547f" CreationDate="2013-06-02T22:46:03.850" UserId="3076" Text="Yes - you can use the boilerplate paragraphs. It won't hurt you but is unlikely to help you much. If you get a judge who thinks you &quot;only get what the inventor actually invented&quot; it doesn't add anything specific to the disclosure to enlarge the scope of what the judge decides you &quot;invented&quot;. If you get a judge who thinks you get what the claims say (the correct position in my opinion) you are home free without the boilerplate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Better to add, after describing each element of the invention &quot; . . . or it could be made of wood, or plaster of paris; it could be made in a unitary fashion or it could be made of constituent elements of varying compositions.. . . &quot;. One of your examples is like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Or add: &quot;the handle and the base could be distinct elements or the base can have a shape allowing it to also be the handle.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some places you do need to be specific, in others you need to be general. I highly recommend studying David Patterson's book Patent it yourself. I also recommend after reading it to **not** then actually do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Writing a reasonable patent application is hard and the pitfalls are many even for someone who has studied patent law and procedures." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3953" RevisionGUID="b13f0749-046c-4e0a-9e59-8d7ff734de01" CreationDate="2013-06-02T23:35:06.203" UserId="3076" Comment="Clarification  &amp; typos" Text="Yes - you can use the boilerplate paragraphs. They likely won't hurt you but are unlikely to help you much. If you get a judge who thinks you &quot;only get what the inventor actually invented&quot; it doesn't add anything specific to the disclosure to enlarge the scope of what the judge decides you &quot;actually invented&quot;. If you get a judge who thinks you get what the claims say (the correct position in my opinion) you are home free even without the boilerplate, assuming everything else in your application is solid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Better to add, after describing each element of the invention, something like: &quot; . . . or it could be made of wood, or plaster of paris; it could be made in a unitary fashion or it could be made of constituent elements of varying compositions.. . . &quot;. Your second example is along these lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or add something like: &quot;the handle and the base could be distinct elements or the base can have a shape allowing it to also be the handle.&quot; These variations take thought about what the core of your invention is and how it could be embodied other than how you are initially envisioning it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mention that the language of a patent application is very special. True, and the question you are now posing is the least of it. In some places you do need to be specific, in others you need to be general. I highly recommend studying David Patterson's book Patent it yourself. I also recommend after reading it to **not** then actually do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Writing a reasonable patent application is hard and the pitfalls are many even for someone who has studied patent law and procedures." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3954" RevisionGUID="54d8125e-4ff7-46ee-87dc-20181735d182" CreationDate="2013-06-03T02:03:53.297" UserId="3948" Text="To make sure the Background section of my application conveys the novelty of my idea, can I provide an exemplary use case scenario within the Background section?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without it, I feel that the examiner could have the impression that the idea isn't novel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8781" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3954" RevisionGUID="54d8125e-4ff7-46ee-87dc-20181735d182" CreationDate="2013-06-03T02:03:53.297" UserId="3948" Text="Can I use examples in the Background section?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8782" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3954" RevisionGUID="54d8125e-4ff7-46ee-87dc-20181735d182" CreationDate="2013-06-03T02:03:53.297" UserId="3948" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;background&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3955" RevisionGUID="522198a6-99d2-4017-87a0-848ad7adec81" CreationDate="2013-06-03T03:26:32.113" UserId="3076" Text="A section labeled &quot;Background&quot; is customary but not strictly required. Background means background. Such a section is about the state of the world **before** your invention and does not mention or even hint at your solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a dangerous section because since it is background, therefore past and relevant. Anything in it might be interpreted as being &quot;admitted prior art&quot;. Prior art just means things that are allowed to be used against you. To be prior art something must meet certain criteria in terms of dates, was it really a publication, was it really potentially accessible by the public, is it in the same or an analogous art? Or if **you say** it is prior art then it is prior art meaning it is usable against you even if it would otherwise not qualify as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Background sections set up the problem and discuss previous solutions. When the reader is finished with it they should understand the problem, think it is a real problem and be wondering how the heck you are solving it! If your background telegraphs your solution as they read it, then your solution will seem obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other problems with background sections include characterizing a specific reference as not covering something that it turns out it does cover. Then you are mis-directing the examiner &quot;don't bother with XYZ, it doesn't deal with bird cages, only large animal cages.&quot; But you missed the mention of an interesting ostrich cage. If you dis someone else's solution you may inadvertently be limiting your invention. &quot;ABC is a horrible  solution because it has only one hinge.&quot; Your examples have two hinges which you think is best but you get a broad claim through that says &quot;one or more hinges&quot;. Someone builds your idea but has come up with a really long or strong single hinge. Your claim reads on it - you've got them! But you deprecated something as being horrible due to having one hinge. It is easy for a judge to say that something you think is horrible certainly doesn't fall under any of your claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;In the detailed description section you should give examples of how your thing is used. A concern is that make clear whether or not you are describing something you have actually done or something that should work but you haven't tried.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3955" RevisionGUID="f03c848c-6888-4828-92c3-4ad2f25149a3" CreationDate="2013-06-03T03:32:40.280" UserId="3076" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="A section labeled &quot;Background&quot; is customary but not strictly required. Background means background. Such a section is about the state of the world **before** your invention and does not mention or even hint at your solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a dangerous section because since it is background, therefore past and relevant. Anything in it might be interpreted as being &quot;admitted prior art&quot;. Prior art just means things that are allowed to be used against you. To be prior art something must meet certain criteria in terms of dates, was it really a publication, was it really potentially accessible by the public, is it in the same or an analogous art? Or if **you say** it is prior art then it is prior art meaning it is usable against you even if it would otherwise not qualify as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Background sections set up the problem and discuss previous solutions. When the reader is finished with it they should understand the problem, think it is a real problem and be wondering how the heck you are solving it! If your background telegraphs your solution as they read it, then your solution will seem obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other problems with background sections include characterizing a specific reference as not covering something that it turns out it does cover. Then you are mis-directing the examiner &quot;don't bother with XYZ, it doesn't deal with bird cages, only large animal cages.&quot; But you missed the mention of an interesting ostrich cage. If you dis someone else's solution you may inadvertently be limiting your invention. &quot;ABC is a horrible  solution because it has only one hinge.&quot; Your examples have two hinges which you think is best but you get a broad claim through that says &quot;one or more hinges&quot;. Someone builds your idea but has come up with a really long or strong single hinge. Your claim reads on it - you've got them! But you deprecated something as being horrible due to having one hinge. It is easy for a judge to say that something you think is horrible certainly doesn't fall under any of your claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;In the detailed description section you should give examples of how your thing is used. A concern is that you make clear whether or not you are describing something you have actually done or something that should work but you haven't tried.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3955" RevisionGUID="09a79e7a-b4cf-4193-9b1e-769262035b54" CreationDate="2013-06-03T06:17:29.017" UserId="3076" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="A section labeled &quot;Background&quot; is customary but not strictly required. Background means background. Such a section is about the state of the world **before** your invention and does not mention or even hint at your solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a dangerous section because since by the definition of background it is presumed to be in the past and relevant. Anything in it might be interpreted as being &quot;admitted prior art&quot;. Prior art just means things that are allowed to be used against you. To be prior art something must meet certain criteria in terms of dates, was it really a publication, was it really potentially accessible by the public, is it in the same or an analogous art? Or if **you say** it is prior art then it is prior art meaning it is usable against you even if it would otherwise not qualify as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Background sections set up the problem and discuss previous solutions. When the reader is finished with it they should understand the problem, think it is a real problem and be wondering how the heck you are solving it! If your background telegraphs your solution as they read it, then your solution will seem obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other problems with background sections include characterizing a specific reference as not covering something that it turns out it does cover. Then you are mis-directing the examiner &quot;don't bother with XYZ, it doesn't deal with bird cages, only large animal cages.&quot; But you missed the mention of an interesting ostrich cage. If you dis someone else's solution you may inadvertently be limiting your invention. &quot;ABC is a horrible  solution because it has only one hinge.&quot; Your examples have two hinges which you think is best but you get a broad claim through that says &quot;one or more hinges&quot;. Someone builds your idea but has come up with a really long or strong single hinge. Your claim reads on it - you've got them! But you deprecated something as being horrible due to having one hinge. It is easy for a judge to say that something you think is horrible certainly doesn't fall under any of your claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;In the detailed description section you should give examples of how your thing is used. A concern is that you make clear whether or not you are describing something you have actually done or something that should work but you haven't tried.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3936" RevisionGUID="5bef8784-26c4-44dd-a2f1-b1a3409b3b69" CreationDate="2013-06-03T07:11:18.500" UserId="3076" Comment="Typos" Text="I would agree that taking the plain meaning of the claim wording, it is DH specific. If calculating DH with a bit somewhere flipped  requires first: a) calculate DH, then b) flip a bit, then I would say you have calculated DH in the process and fulfilled that claim requirement. For the storing step, I imagine most people would think storing a value X as the compliment of X and upon retreival restoring it to X is equal to storing X. If your application does not require DH for interoperability you could use something else. Or just do not precompute a chunk of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the second part of the question, there are many people who would not see applying a known technique to a new application as patentable and many that would.  There is no bright line and like many things in patenting it is case by case examiner by examiner and judge by judge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3956" RevisionGUID="c8ae323a-8c58-40c1-8731-3c2bdeecbf3a" CreationDate="2013-06-03T08:25:57.967" UserId="3953" Text="The website http://www.twatech.org/ began operation on Monday, October 10, 2005 and was dedicated to releasing audio podcasts submitted by the community. The site had a rss feed and tried to release shows each week day. The shownotes included links, and additional information to support the podcast. The site rebranded and continued as hackerpublicradio.org." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3957" RevisionGUID="06b5dbb4-a073-4677-8150-634f6f02072f" CreationDate="2013-06-03T08:34:21.210" UserId="3953" Text="Binary Revolution (http://www.binrev.com/forums/index.php/files/category/3-binary-revolution-radio/) ran from July 8, 2003 to Feb 01 2010 03:02 PM. As well as streaming live, their shows live but also released their shows as a mp3 file for download after the show. The shows were released with show notes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The shows and textfiles are archived here http://audio.textfiles.com/shows/binrev/ " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3958" RevisionGUID="d017144f-2a65-4df4-84cf-dec7c9ad327c" CreationDate="2013-06-03T08:36:53.333" UserId="3953" Text="The Linux Link Tech Show (http://tllts.org/) have been releasing shows since September 24, 2003 and have been releasing their chat logs from IRC along with the shows that contain links to images and other media." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3959" RevisionGUID="5e841f13-d5b4-4473-9634-35d25ebfc4da" CreationDate="2013-06-03T08:40:50.290" UserId="3953" Text="LugRadio was a linux news show that began podcasting in 26 Feb 2004, and stopped regular releases on 19th July 2008. (http://lugradio.org/episodes/#episode1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their shows contained segments that often had recurring themes and all their shows had detailed show notes containing links." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3891" RevisionGUID="3ff6f5c9-0948-4f07-adb0-0bacd0bed8a6" CreationDate="2013-06-03T13:56:26.500" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body; deleted 3 characters in body" Text=" **HELP SAVE STREAMING RADIO** - This application seeks to patent a system for discovering new radio stations and podcasts online! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][5]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System And Method For Internet Radio Station Program Discovery**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A service for discovering Internet radio station programs. A list of Internet radio station programs is obtained. Each program on the list is categorized by mapping a topic to a program using a content classifier. User can discover new programs of interest from the list of programs based on the categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110502 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Lemi Technology, LLC&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** November, 2008&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Note**: This application is a [continuation][2] of US Patent  [8,359,192][3]. The applicant is attempting to “improve” the claims with this child patent by writing new (evidently broader) claims while retaining the original 2008 priority date.  So prior art should predate November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each an every step below::&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining a plurality of Internet radio station programs;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. For each Internet radio station program of the plurality of Internet radio station programs, dynamically categorizing the Internet radio station program by mapping a dynamically identified topic of the Internet radio station program to a content classifier;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Enabling a user to discover an Internet radio station program of interest from the plurality of Internet radio station programs based on the dynamic categorizations for the plurality of Internet radio station programs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of internet radio station programs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. “Dynamically categorizing” this list of programs by mapping a “dynamically identified topic” to a content classifier; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  Allowing the user to discover programs from the list based on the “dynamic categorization” (presumably created by the classifier)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specification notes that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - In one embodiment…the discovery service performs speech-to-text conversion and natural language processing on the audio content of the radio station program to identify one or more topics of the radio station program. The discovery service then maps the one or more topics to an ontology or similar taxonomy…in order to identify one or more topics of the radio station program.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Internet Radio Station program discovery service&quot; flow chart from the Applicant** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/wagCM.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;300&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Nov, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of nternet radio station programs; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **dynamically categorizing** this list of programs by mapping a **dynamically identified topic** to a **content classifier**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Help Protect Streaming Radio from Patent Trolls!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130110502&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8359192&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3961" RevisionGUID="c9184c51-beed-4228-a3da-33d28104f4f3" CreationDate="2013-06-03T16:08:49.613" UserId="3956" Text="Serial and non-serial release from Ray Bradbury in various audio formats:&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Bradbury_bibliography#Audio_releases dated as early as 1958" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3962" RevisionGUID="52c7071b-0c2a-45bd-b89d-d6b3f2f84111" CreationDate="2013-06-03T17:08:41.953" UserId="3957" Text="I purchased tapes of a Daily Radio Segment &quot;The Daily Feed&quot; in 1993, 1994, 1995 &amp; 1996. These were tapes with recorded episodes in sequential order. Year end tapes were available since at least 1986. &#xD;&#xA;http://www.dailyfeed.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3963" RevisionGUID="0f27d5dc-1f58-44e9-8716-e8ce58718979" CreationDate="2013-06-03T17:09:17.927" UserId="3958" Text="The invention flexi-discs may have some bearing on this case. They are periodic-media disseminated via magazines as either supplemental or showcase material: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexi_disc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3943" RevisionGUID="f9792fa8-f531-420a-a85d-aaa9298a953d" CreationDate="2013-06-03T17:23:25.167" UserId="3076" Comment="Added dates" Text="I did a little searching and found a patent that does not seem to have been cited in this or the parent application. It categorizes text into topics and mentions it being fed by a speech-to-text converter. It mentions radio but not Internet radio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US618531 - Topic indexing method][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication date	Feb 6, 2001&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Filing date	Jan 9, 1998&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;Priority date	Jan 9, 1997&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This invention generally relates to automatically relating a story to a number of topics. Herein “story” is defined to include any article of information that may be presented to the inventive method, usually from a stored file. More particularly, the present invention relates to automatically indexing and associating stories to a concurrent number of topics ranging from broad to very detailed topics. The present invention is particularly well suited to be combined with voice to text converters, optical readers, and fax encoded data wherein the story (text) is automatically indexed to one or more topics or categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6185531" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3911" RevisionGUID="3e432d0d-75af-498d-ad1c-0d917d92b5c9" CreationDate="2013-06-03T17:42:50.537" UserId="-1" Comment="Adding a page where a list of pre-1997 push clients and info can be found." Text="While not specifically for audio (or podcasting), The PointCast Network was founded in 1992 and launched its beta software Feb 13, 1996. It provided news, sports, weather, etc using 'push' technology to keep the feed fresh and up-to-date. More information can be found at the Wikipedia article: &#xD;&#xA; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PointCast_%28dotcom%29&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The PointCast system specifically allowed users to subscribe to channels of information that would then be played back at a later point in time. The data was fetched from different service providers and was fetched via URL's. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Additional Info for Pointcast and other &quot;push&quot; technologies prior to 1997:]&#xD;&#xA;I found this info at http://www.berghel.net/publications/push/push.php - at the bottom of the archived page there is a list of then-current push clients for capturing news, music, and social commentary. Refer to the bottom of the page for a list of the clients and their underlying technologies. Hope this helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8814" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3911" RevisionGUID="3e432d0d-75af-498d-ad1c-0d917d92b5c9" CreationDate="2013-06-03T17:42:50.537" Comment="Proposed by 12.36.234.33|c1f01227-e8a0-4945-91c1-9ff4938bae56 approved by 1767 edit id of 353" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3695" RevisionGUID="7e969667-4958-4d15-bc43-0bbd70ea4abd" CreationDate="2013-06-03T20:13:47.177" UserId="7" Comment="Simplified messaging" Text="Use this tag for questions that target patents and patent applications for a community-powered prior art hunt." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8863" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3695" RevisionGUID="7e969667-4958-4d15-bc43-0bbd70ea4abd" CreationDate="2013-06-03T20:13:47.177" Comment="Proposed by 7 approved by 1767 edit id of 354" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8864" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3920" RevisionGUID="e24b5401-503e-41c3-b26c-47cd79a11cf4" CreationDate="2013-06-03T20:48:11.043" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Is Patent US5930362 weak or obvious?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3936" RevisionGUID="d9676e88-9569-4bb6-9474-84f50980f99c" CreationDate="2013-06-03T23:12:23.530" UserId="3076" Comment="Clarify " Text="I would agree that taking the plain meaning of the claim wording, it is DH specific. If calculating DH with a bit somewhere flipped  requires first: a) calculate DH, then b) flip a bit, then I would say you have calculated DH in the process and fulfilled that claim requirement. For the storing step, I imagine most people would think storing a value X as the compliment of X and upon retreival restoring it to X is equal to storing X. If your application does not require DH for interoperability you could use something else. Or just do not precompute a chunk of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the second part of the question, there are many people who would not see applying a known technique to a new application as patentable and many that would.  There is no bright line and like many things in patenting, it depends. It is case by case, examiner by examiner and judge by judge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3694" RevisionGUID="4fc5db63-794d-4a1a-8fb0-8bd1eb313e71" CreationDate="2013-06-04T00:37:20.900" UserId="1767" Comment="added 154 characters in body" Text="There is only one type of questions on which to use the [tag:prior-art-request] tag:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Prior Art Searches:** Any time you are soliciting help in searching for examples of prior art for a given US Patent application or US Patent.  Please follow the format suggested in this answer: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/a/146/1767&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **US Patent Applications** also should be tagged with [tag:pre-grant]&#xD;&#xA; - **US Patents** also should be tagged with [tag:post-grant]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3964" RevisionGUID="05fa7ee5-3403-4f27-a5f1-d8be531ba108" CreationDate="2013-06-04T02:34:59.233" UserId="3961" Text="Here are a few other patents that might  help.     US Patent 5,557,541 was filed in 1994.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I worked for the company in 1997.  Company was audiohighway.com.  It went out of business.  You can look them up on waybackmachine.com. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I think the patents/assets are owned by Sony now.  I still have connections to the founder on this start-up who can confirm the patents,etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever, hope this helps.  If not, sorry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;^ 5,557,541: Apparatus for subscription and on-demand audio programming&#xD;&#xA;^ 5,572,442: System for distributing subscription and on-demand audio programming&#xD;&#xA;^ 5,841,979: Enhanced delivery of audio data&#xD;&#xA;^ 6,549,942: Enhanced delivery of audio data for portable playback; and 5,914,941: Portable information storage/playback apparatus having a data interface." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3964" RevisionGUID="f9529193-22c6-45eb-b8ab-a809c43b0a0b" CreationDate="2013-06-04T03:06:59.727" UserId="3076" Comment="Added link" Text="Here are a few other patents that might  help.     [US Patent 5,557,541][1] was filed in 1994.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I worked for the company in 1997.  Company was audiohighway.com.  It went out of business.  You can look them up on waybackmachine.com. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I think the patents/assets are owned by Sony now.  I still have connections to the founder on this start-up who can confirm the patents,etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever, hope this helps.  If not, sorry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;^ 5,557,541: Apparatus for subscription and on-demand audio programming&#xD;&#xA;^ 5,572,442: System for distributing subscription and on-demand audio programming&#xD;&#xA;^ 5,841,979: Enhanced delivery of audio data&#xD;&#xA;^ 6,549,942: Enhanced delivery of audio data for portable playback; and 5,914,941: Portable information storage/playback apparatus having a data interface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5557541" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3965" RevisionGUID="af2cd4d3-abae-471e-99f7-cba6f3af6557" CreationDate="2013-06-04T10:17:37.660" UserId="3964" Text="On the Amiga from 1985 there were the Fish Disks, a series of disks that contained shareware:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://fish.back2roots.org/#FishDisks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These disks were published in a series and distributed over Bulletin Boards.  There was a version called Frozen Fish specifically for publishing to BBS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://fish.back2roots.org/#FrozenFish&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These disks contained many types of media, included animations and music." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3966" RevisionGUID="62fd9b8f-2146-4268-9fa2-077f0b68ec02" CreationDate="2013-06-04T13:24:55.043" UserId="3965" Text="The internet exists because servers supply media to clients across a network. That was the original intention of DARPA, and Sir GB Lee when the internet was created. Their work far predates any claims made in the patent assertion above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3695" RevisionGUID="d189503d-d019-4b46-9e0d-ebd2dd871cca" CreationDate="2013-06-04T15:10:03.433" UserId="7" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body" Text="Use this tag to designate questions that seek prior art for patents and patent applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8873" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3695" RevisionGUID="d189503d-d019-4b46-9e0d-ebd2dd871cca" CreationDate="2013-06-04T15:10:03.433" Comment="Proposed by 7 approved by 1 edit id of 355" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3967" RevisionGUID="4c2d07aa-dcaf-45f3-85e1-617ff02051ad" CreationDate="2013-06-04T17:35:47.590" UserId="758" Text="I think here the doctrine of equivalents needs to be kept in mind. Under the doctrine of equivalents, a patent claim can be read to cover not only what is literally specified in the claim proper, but also &quot;reasonable equivalents thereof&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind, let's consider your proposed workarounds. First, changing the bit pattern in some predictable fashion so the stored bit pattern differs from what was computed, but the computed pattern can later be restored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, this should be considered equivalent. Just for example, most disk drives use some sort of RLL encoding, in which N bits of input actually expand to M bits stored on disk (M&gt;N) with some specified limitations on the bit patterns (basically that you have bit transitions at some minimum interval). As such, the simple process of (for example) storing and retrieving the value `0` on a disk drive involves changing the original bit pattern to some other bit pattern, in which the pattern stored on disk will have at least some bits set. As such, flipping some bits is not substantially different from what we expect to happen in even the most straightforward implementation of the patent precisely as written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same basic idea applies to splitting the data up and later combining it. The patent specifies storage in a database. In October 1996 (priority date of the patent) a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that storing data in a database could include using such technologies as disk striping or other forms of RAID that split the data up, store pieces on separate disks, and later combine those pieces back into a single stream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For that matter, using RAID 5, you'd get both effects at once -- given N disks in RAID 5, the original data is split between N-1 disks, and the N&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; disk stores the XOR of the other disks. If any one disk fails, the original data can be retrieved from the remaining N-1 disks. Even without a failure, the data would be split up and then put back together during retrieval, and if one of the other disks had failed, the last part of the data is created by XORing the available data together, so the bits produced as output are not (necessarily) the same as what is stored on any disk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bottom line: a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized both of your proposed workarounds as falling within the scope of the claims. In fact, after rereading what I've written, I'm half-tempted to do some editing to remove reference to the doctrine of equivalents -- the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that both your proposed workarounds would probably qualify as literal infringement. There's probably no need to involve the doctrine of equivalents at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3968" RevisionGUID="34f2ec0a-1854-452d-b509-9474790ec1c2" CreationDate="2013-06-04T18:14:42.290" UserId="758" Text="First the usual caveat: I'm going to mention a few bits of law here that are almost certainly specific to the US. It almost certainly doesn't apply at all outside the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is really more of an extended comment on George's (excellent, IMO) answer, than a complete answer in itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, your first example is (IMO) almost completely meaningless, at least as far as affecting what a court is likely to decide about your patent. It's simply stating what's essentially a fact of patent law, already well known to any judge who's at all competent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Giving more specific alternatives in the specification, such as in your second example, can have considerably more effect. This is especially true if your claim is written as a means + function limitation (wording like &quot;means for X&quot;). The supreme court has ruled that such a limitation is so general that it cannot/should not be taken literally as covering any possible means for carrying out the specified `X`. Rather, it is to be treated as a reference to the specification, and those means cited in the specification for doing `X`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, if you have a claim limitation like &quot;means for storing data&quot;, and the only storage listed in your specification is a hard disk drive, then the proper reading of the claim is that &quot;means for storing data&quot; that should be treated as literally meaning &quot;a hard disk drive.&quot; On the other hand, if your specification lists alternatives such as &quot;hard disk, ROM, Flash, or CD-ROM&quot;, then the literal meaning of &quot;means for storage&quot; would be &quot;hard disk, ROM, Flash, or CD-ROM&quot;, within the scope of that patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By contrast, an apparatus claim that included (for example) &quot;a data storage device&quot; as a limitation should *not* be limited in the same way. In such a case, it would (probably&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;) be proper to construe any of the above storage devices as falling within the literal meaning of &quot;a storage device&quot;, even if the only storage device cited in the specification was a hard disk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I should add that the patent specification is also properly treated as a source of definitions of terms used in the claims, if the meaning of those terms is not clear from the claims themselves. As such, if a claim uses a term that would not have been known to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, then it's perfectly correct to look to the specification to see if the specification defines that term -- and if so, the definition within the specification should prevail over definitions from external sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;1. &quot;probably&quot; hinting at the possibility that it depends on the subject area of the patent. For example, if the patent were about individual cells in a DRAM chip, &quot;data storage device&quot; might mean something like &quot;a capacitor&quot;.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3969" RevisionGUID="b499b2aa-0c9b-43f0-a07c-01d92f22c89c" CreationDate="2013-06-04T18:17:28.687" UserId="3967" Text="How about magazines on tape for the blind and visually impaired?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The National Talking Express is a monthly stereo tape magazine for the blind and visually impaired. It was launched in 1979 and was the first tape magazine in the UK to go stereo. It has a national and international membership.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://blindreaders.info/audiobks.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3968" RevisionGUID="37874c84-95dc-4d75-8bda-947b10b7320c" CreationDate="2013-06-04T18:23:28.383" UserId="758" Comment="added 852 characters in body" Text="First the usual caveat: I'm going to mention a few bits of law here that are almost certainly specific to the US. It almost certainly doesn't apply at all outside the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, your first example is (IMO) almost completely meaningless, at least as far as affecting what a court is likely to decide about your patent. It's simply stating what's essentially a fact of patent law, already well known to any judge who's at all competent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Giving more specific alternatives in the specification, such as in your second example, can have considerably more effect. This is especially true if your claim is written as a means + function limitation (wording like &quot;means for X&quot;). The supreme court has ruled that such a limitation is so general that it cannot/should not be taken literally as covering any possible means for carrying out the specified `X`. Rather, it is to be treated as a reference to the specification, and those means cited in the specification for doing `X`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, if you have a claim limitation like &quot;means for storing data&quot;, and the only storage listed in your specification is a hard disk drive, then the proper reading of the claim is that &quot;means for storing data&quot; that should be treated as literally meaning &quot;a hard disk drive.&quot; On the other hand, if your specification lists alternatives such as &quot;hard disk, ROM, Flash, or CD-ROM&quot;, then the literal meaning of &quot;means for storage&quot; would be &quot;hard disk, ROM, Flash, or CD-ROM&quot;, within the scope of that patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By contrast, an apparatus claim that included (for example) &quot;a data storage device&quot; as a limitation should *not* be limited in the same way. In such a case, it would (probably&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;) be proper to construe any of the above storage devices as falling within the literal meaning of &quot;a storage device&quot;, even if the only storage device cited in the specification was a hard disk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I should add that the patent specification is also properly treated as a source of definitions of terms used in the claims, if the meaning of those terms is not clear from the claims themselves. As such, if a claim uses a term that would not have been known to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, then it's perfectly correct to look to the specification to see if the specification defines that term -- and if so, the definition within the specification should prevail over definitions from external sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should probably also add that it's not always obvious whether a limitation is really a means+function limitation or not. For example, a few years ago there was a case where a claim used the phrase (going from memory here) &quot;perforating means&quot;. Based on the subject matter, it was pretty clear that this really referred to something like &quot;perforations&quot;, not something like &quot;a machine for producing perforations.&quot; In any case, the patent specification cited not only perforations, but a number of other methods of weakening material along a line to provide a place that was easy to tear. The case went (at least) as far as the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with the only real disagreement being over whether &quot;perforating means&quot; qualified as a means+function limitation or not. Even within the CAFC, the decision on that wasn't unanimous. They decided it was a means+function limitation, but Judge Rader wrote a dissenting opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;1. &quot;probably&quot; hinting at the possibility that it depends on the subject area of the patent. For example, if the patent were about individual cells in a DRAM chip, &quot;data storage device&quot; might mean something like &quot;a capacitor&quot;.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3968" RevisionGUID="dd8b2762-af53-427e-9303-3feff5edcaaf" CreationDate="2013-06-04T18:30:05.600" UserId="758" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="First the usual caveat: I'm going to mention a few bits of law here that are almost certainly specific to the US. It almost certainly doesn't apply at all outside the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, your first example is almost completely meaningless, at least as far as affecting what a court is likely to decide about your patent. It's simply stating what's essentially a fact of patent law, already well known to any judge who's at all competent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Giving more specific alternatives in the specification, such as in your second example, can have considerably more effect. This is especially true if your claim is written as a means + function limitation (wording like &quot;means for X&quot;). The supreme court has ruled that such a limitation is so general that it cannot/should not be taken literally as covering any possible means for carrying out the specified `X`. Rather, it is to be treated as a reference to the specification, and those means cited in the specification for doing `X`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, if you have a claim limitation like &quot;means for storing data&quot;, and the only storage listed in your specification is a hard disk drive, then the proper reading of the claim is that &quot;means for storing data&quot; that should be treated as literally meaning &quot;a hard disk drive.&quot; On the other hand, if your specification lists alternatives such as &quot;hard disk, ROM, Flash, or CD-ROM&quot;, then the literal meaning of &quot;means for storing data&quot; would be &quot;hard disk, ROM, Flash, or CD-ROM&quot;, within the scope of that patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By contrast, an apparatus claim that included (for example) &quot;a data storage device&quot; as a limitation should *not* be limited in the same way. In such a case, it would (probably&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;) be proper to construe any of the above storage devices as falling within the literal meaning of &quot;a storage device&quot;, even if the only storage device cited in the specification was a hard disk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I should add that the patent specification is also properly treated as a source of definitions of terms used in the claims, if the meaning of those terms is not clear from the claims themselves. As such, if a claim uses a term that would not have been known to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, then it's perfectly correct to look to the specification to see if the specification defines that term -- and if so, the definition within the specification should prevail over definitions from external sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should probably also add that it's not always obvious whether a limitation is really a means+function limitation or not. For example, a few years ago there was a case where a claim used the phrase (going from memory here) &quot;perforating means&quot;. Based on the subject matter, it was pretty clear that this really referred to something like &quot;perforations&quot;, not something like &quot;a machine for producing perforations.&quot; In any case, the patent specification cited not only perforations, but a number of other methods of weakening material along a line to provide a place that was easy to tear. The case went (at least) as far as the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with the only real disagreement being over whether &quot;perforating means&quot; qualified as a means+function limitation or not. Even within the CAFC, the decision on that wasn't unanimous. They decided it was a means+function limitation, but Judge Rader wrote a dissenting opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;1. &quot;probably&quot; hinting at the possibility that it depends on the subject area of the patent. For example, if the patent were about individual cells in a DRAM chip, &quot;data storage device&quot; might mean something like &quot;a capacitor&quot;.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3970" RevisionGUID="a5653af4-d8ff-4218-b45d-56cc3734374b" CreationDate="2013-06-04T20:14:21.127" UserId="3446" Text="Kerbango which launched back in 2000 was the first Internet Radio appliance to my knowledge the systems of discovery and tracking of Internet Radio were launched with the company and most of the application and methods were considered obvious to the product team thus becoming part of the public domain as they didn't have enough capital to file for all of the potential patents in the early space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The company was purchased by 3Com just prior to the Dot Com bust - 3Com eventually sold the technology to Apple where it currently is still found behind itunes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The CTO is Carl Hewitt (yes formerly of Apple) - still lives in the San Jose area - Most of what I have read of this patent is a rehash of the same methods used in 2000 for Kerbango - much is documented and found on the [Wayback Machine][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://web.archive.org/web/20000510011457/http://www.kerbango.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8880" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3891" RevisionGUID="fd197525-46e3-449b-9d63-46b274bda8af" CreationDate="2013-06-04T21:12:33.263" UserId="3076" Comment="added claim 2 wording" Text=" **HELP SAVE STREAMING RADIO** - This application seeks to patent a system for discovering new radio stations and podcasts online! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][5]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System And Method For Internet Radio Station Program Discovery**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A service for discovering Internet radio station programs. A list of Internet radio station programs is obtained. Each program on the list is categorized by mapping a topic to a program using a content classifier. User can discover new programs of interest from the list of programs based on the categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110502 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Lemi Technology, LLC&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** November, 2008&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Note**: This application is a [continuation][2] of US Patent  [8,359,192][3]. The applicant is attempting to “improve” the claims with this child patent by writing new (evidently broader) claims while retaining the original 2008 priority date.  So prior art should predate November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each an every step below::&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining a plurality of Internet radio station programs;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. For each Internet radio station program of the plurality of Internet radio station programs, dynamically categorizing the Internet radio station program by mapping a dynamically identified topic of the Internet radio station program to a content classifier;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Enabling a user to discover an Internet radio station program of interest from the plurality of Internet radio station programs based on the dynamic categorizations for the plurality of Internet radio station programs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of internet radio station programs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. “Dynamically categorizing” this list of programs by mapping a “dynamically identified topic” to a content classifier; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  Allowing the user to discover programs from the list based on the “dynamic categorization” (presumably created by the classifier)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The method of claim 1 wherein dynamically categorizing the Internet radio station program comprises:performing **speech-to-text conversion on audio content** of the Internet radio station program; and dynamically categorizing the Internet radio station program based on results of the speech-to-text conversion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specification notes that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - In one embodiment…the discovery service performs speech-to-text conversion and natural language processing on the audio content of the radio station program to identify one or more topics of the radio station program. The discovery service then maps the one or more topics to an ontology or similar taxonomy…in order to identify one or more topics of the radio station program.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Internet Radio Station program discovery service&quot; flow chart from the Applicant** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/wagCM.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;300&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Nov, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of nternet radio station programs; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **dynamically categorizing** this list of programs by mapping a **dynamically identified topic** to a **content classifier**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Help Protect Streaming Radio from Patent Trolls!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130110502&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8359192" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3971" RevisionGUID="1e27a70f-1b84-485b-9f0c-4d57d3434e4f" CreationDate="2013-06-04T21:53:59.000" UserId="3968" Text="http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/us-patent-office-declares-steve-jobs.html&#xD;&#xA;This news is from 2012/12 and order was made on 2012/10, but application status is still &quot;grant&quot;. Anyone know the current status of the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8882" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3971" RevisionGUID="1e27a70f-1b84-485b-9f0c-4d57d3434e4f" CreationDate="2013-06-04T21:53:59.000" UserId="3968" Text="Is this patent still valid regardless of invalidated order?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8883" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3971" RevisionGUID="1e27a70f-1b84-485b-9f0c-4d57d3434e4f" CreationDate="2013-06-04T21:53:59.000" UserId="3968" Text="&lt;us7479949&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3972" RevisionGUID="1d73911f-ca7a-4dc5-a36c-921884665204" CreationDate="2013-06-05T00:19:14.480" UserId="1767" Text="Minime,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's a good question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent was subject to re-exam and all claims were rejected.  My reading of the file history is that the patent is not currently valid.  George White or others on the AskPatents site may be able to provide more color on the prosecution history, which seems to be convoluted involving multiple re-exams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an interesting example of how to use the [Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR)][1] system to find the FILE HISTORY for a US Patent.  Re-exams are represented in a non-intuitive but consistent way in that system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First visit [PAIR][2].  Once you get past the CAPTCHA you'll see this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that you must select the Patent Number Radio Box and you must use only the numerical patent number without any commas or other characters, i.e. &quot;7479949&quot;.  The [PAIR][4] interface is ridiculously unforgiving...  There is also a byzantine distinction between a **Patent Number**, a **Publication Number**, and a **Control Number** or **Application Number**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Search PAIR by **Patent Number** for issued patents [tag:post-grant] and by **Publication Number** for patent applications [tag:pre-grant]. But we digress...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From here you can see on the highlighted red boxes that  it is indeed a &quot;Patented Case&quot; (in this case, as opposed to a Patent Application).  You can also see that Steve P. Jobs (Palo Alto, CA) is the First inventor.  Finally you can see the tab **Continuity Data**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Click on **Continuity Data** tab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][6]&#xD;&#xA;This tab refers to other members of the same [Patent Family][7], in particular [Continuations][8] of the subject patent.  From here you can see the Parents and Children of the subject patent.  For example, you can see that the entire patent family [Claims Priority][9] to the inventions described in a US Provisional Patent Application filed by Steve Jobs 9/6/2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also see the Children of this subject patent.  Here is where it gets weird. The USPTO represents re-examination proceedings as if they were children of the subject patent.  You can see here the re-examination proceeding referred to in [the article] you cited above as child application number 90/012,308, which is pending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you click through to that child &quot;patent application&quot; (actually the re-examination) you get a screen like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see that this &quot;patent application&quot; is of the type &quot;Re-Examination&quot;, its status is waiting for an Examiner Action following a Non-Final Action (in this case, the claims were rejected but we'll see that next).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Click on **Image File Wrapper** to dig into the detailed discussion between Apple's attorneys and the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wow, that's a lot of dialog between the USPTO and Apple!  But you can see on 12-03-2012 as indicated the result of the Re-Examination.  This is the same date referenced in your article.  Apple has the right to continue arguing with the USPTO (as long as it continues to pay additional fees) but for now this is where the patent stands:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Click through to the document **Reexam - Non-Final Action**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this PDF file you will see the current status of the Re-Examination for Patent 7,479,949, which is that all claims have been rejected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not easy to navigate the PAIR system but worth learning if only to see the detailed arguments between the applicant and the examiner.  Examiners often spend a lot of time and effort analyzing applications. It's a tough job!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/EgoYz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/PfLg8.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/YXfIX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_family&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_application#Priority_claim&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/q1gTl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Ov5E6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/3KD53.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8885" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3971" RevisionGUID="d5137cec-53aa-4c19-8dbf-3767d0f5757b" CreationDate="2013-06-05T00:20:07.403" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;reexamination&gt;&lt;us7479949&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3972" RevisionGUID="be35fe4f-3161-453f-ab51-8f9d202a6329" CreationDate="2013-06-05T00:24:26.547" UserId="1767" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="Minime,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's a good question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent was subject to re-exam and all claims were rejected.  My reading of the file history is that the patent is not currently valid.  George White or others on the AskPatents site may be able to provide more color on the prosecution history, which seems to be convoluted involving multiple re-exams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an interesting example of how to use the [Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR)][1] system to find the FILE HISTORY for a US Patent.  Re-exams are represented in a non-intuitive but consistent way in that system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First visit [PAIR][2].  Once you get past the CAPTCHA you'll see this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that you must select the Patent Number Radio Box and you must use only the numerical patent number without any commas or other characters, i.e. &quot;7479949&quot;.  The [PAIR][4] interface is ridiculously unforgiving...  There is also a byzantine distinction between a **Patent Number**, a **Publication Number**, and a **Control Number** or **Application Number**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Search PAIR by **Patent Number** for issued patents [tag:post-grant] and by **Publication Number** for patent applications [tag:pre-grant]. But we digress...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From here you can see on the highlighted red boxes that  it is indeed a &quot;Patented Case&quot; (in this case, as opposed to a Patent Application).  You can also see that Steve P. Jobs (Palo Alto, CA) is the First inventor.  Finally you can see the tab **Continuity Data**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Click on **Continuity Data** tab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][6]&#xD;&#xA;This tab refers to other members of the same [Patent Family][7], in particular [Continuations][8] of the subject patent.  From here you can see the Parents and Children of the subject patent.  For example, you can see that the entire patent family [Claims Priority][9] to the inventions described in a US Provisional Patent Application filed by Steve Jobs 9/6/2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also see the Children of this subject patent.  Here is where it gets weird. The USPTO represents re-examination proceedings as if they were children of the subject patent.  You can see here the re-examination proceeding referred to in [the fosspatents article][13] you cited above as child application number 90/012,308, which is pending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you click through to that child &quot;patent application&quot; (actually the re-examination) you get a screen like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see that this &quot;patent application&quot; is of the type &quot;Re-Examination&quot;, its status is waiting for an Examiner Action following a Non-Final Action (in this case, the claims were rejected but we'll see that next).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Click on **Image File Wrapper** to dig into the detailed discussion between Apple's attorneys and the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wow, that's a lot of dialog between the USPTO and Apple!  But you can see on 12-03-2012 as indicated the result of the Re-Examination.  This is the same date referenced in your article.  Apple has the right to continue arguing with the USPTO (as long as it continues to pay additional fees) but for now this is where the patent stands:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Click through to the document **Reexam - Non-Final Action**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this PDF file you will see the current status of the Re-Examination for Patent 7,479,949, which is that all claims have been rejected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not easy to navigate the PAIR system but worth learning if only to see the detailed arguments between the applicant and the examiner.  Examiners often spend a lot of time and effort analyzing applications. It's a tough job!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/EgoYz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/PfLg8.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/YXfIX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_family&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_application#Priority_claim&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/q1gTl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Ov5E6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/3KD53.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/us-patent-office-declares-steve-jobs.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3973" RevisionGUID="1476abd2-580a-4b64-9bde-55e650c2d504" CreationDate="2013-06-05T01:58:56.783" UserId="3970" Text="&quot;The Spot&quot; was an episodic online &quot;soap opera&quot; that featured text entries, photos and videos.  It launched in the summer of 1995.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spot][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spot" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3974" RevisionGUID="61163f3d-fae9-4da8-844a-4e597039e010" CreationDate="2013-06-05T02:00:06.637" UserId="3969" Text="Since this is media-type-agnostic, could this claim be applied to webcomics? It specifies episodes... I'm thinking of the long-running episodic strip 'Kevin and Kell' (http://www.kevinandkell.com), launched September 3 1995." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3971" RevisionGUID="171a4508-8ed0-45b0-842b-2aa26bdbc669" CreationDate="2013-06-05T07:24:40.420" UserId="3076" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited title" Text="http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/us-patent-office-declares-steve-jobs.html&#xD;&#xA;This news is from 2012/12 and the action was made on 2012/10, but application status is still &quot;grant&quot;. Anyone know the current status of the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8890" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3971" RevisionGUID="171a4508-8ed0-45b0-842b-2aa26bdbc669" CreationDate="2013-06-05T07:24:40.420" UserId="3076" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is this patent still valid and in force?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3975" RevisionGUID="1a697b5d-0ccd-4e71-be66-1ce22c3786a4" CreationDate="2013-06-05T11:06:04.103" UserId="3971" Text="In &quot;The Real Frank Zappa Book&quot; chapter 19, Frank proposed a system for the delivery of music, digitally, over phone or cable lines, to the home, for storage on consumer devices, INCLUDING SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES, content to be determined via electronic catalog, which sounds substantially identical to the patent described here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is found on pp 337 - 340 of the hardcover, which was published in 1989 (and Frank's dedication, presumably the last thing written, is dated August 23, 1988 06:39:37). At that early date, I'd call that both novel and non-obvious." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3976" RevisionGUID="51358970-7cb4-43d9-883b-61ad8f1e78df" CreationDate="2013-06-05T12:05:16.273" UserId="3973" Text="  The patent seems to be intended to cover re-scaling selected elements (like folder icons) so that the layout appears the same under different resolutions (i.e., when I increase the resolution of my screen, the icons don't all shrink and move up and to the left, or worse, rearrange themselves when I decrease the resolution.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;The presentation therefore includes elements with approximately the same visual dimensions on different display components, regardless of the sizes, pixel dimensions, and/or pixel densities of the display components.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Is this patent application really that limited?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3977" RevisionGUID="c2cb51c9-0f8c-4f77-b890-99e4724dc34c" CreationDate="2013-06-05T12:26:06.990" UserId="3973" Text="[Agree with usenet as prior art for distributing information.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent is very specific; most current systems (like iTunes) don't I think use &quot;a [single &quot;index&quot; -Ed] file placed in a predetermined download file directory assigned a [predetermined -Ed] filename...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The file 145 is placed in a predetermined FTP download file directory and assigned a filename known to the player 103. At a time determined by player 103 monitoring the time of day clock 106, a dial up connection is established via the service provider 121 and the Internet to the FTP server 125 and the download compilation 145 is transferred to the program data store 107 in the player 103.&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3975" RevisionGUID="3ccd8c0e-3af0-4dda-863c-fd9465513ab0" CreationDate="2013-06-05T13:06:58.623" UserId="1259" Comment="link to google books preview added" Text="In &quot;The Real Frank Zappa Book&quot; chapter 19, Frank proposed a system for the delivery of music, digitally, over phone or cable lines, to the home, for storage on consumer devices, INCLUDING SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES, content to be determined via electronic catalog, which sounds substantially identical to the patent described here. (Google books [preview link][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is found on pp 337 - 340 of the hardcover, which was published in 1989 (and Frank's dedication, presumably the last thing written, is dated August 23, 1988 06:39:37). At that early date, I'd call that both novel and non-obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://books.google.com/books?id=FB0O_HCpBy0C&amp;pg=PA284&amp;dq=The%20Real%20Frank%20Zappa%20Book&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=PjevUaOiB5TJ4APN84CgBA&amp;ved=0CEMQuwUwAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=The%20Real%20Frank%20Zappa%20Book&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3979" RevisionGUID="c78926f7-fd2c-43d6-a90c-ed133afd5a16" CreationDate="2013-06-05T13:14:48.010" UserId="3975" Text="Internet CNN Newsroom, described in IEEE proceedings, May 1995.&#xD;&#xA;Abstract is here:&#xD;&#xA;http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&amp;arnumber=484938&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D484938" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3980" RevisionGUID="99baa579-35ab-4344-9c8c-607310430a49" CreationDate="2013-06-05T14:16:09.103" UserId="3359" Text="Can you find better prior art for US Patent No. 7,635,594?  Certainly the one of the inventors, Elizabeth Holmes, failed to disclose her own prior publication which is a 102(a) reference, but can you find better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication number	US7635594 B2&#xD;&#xA;Publication date	Dec 22, 2009&#xD;&#xA;Filing date	Mar 24, 2006&#xD;&#xA;Priority date	May 9, 2005&#xD;&#xA;Inventors	Ian Gibbons, Elizabeth A. Holmes, John Howard, Timothy M. Kemp, Shize Daniel Qi, Shaunak Roy, Chengwang Wang&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PALL&amp;RefSrch=yes&amp;Query=PN/7635594&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;v.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;International Publication Number WO 2005/025413&#xD;&#xA;International Publication Date March 24, 2005&#xD;&#xA;Inventors     Elizabeth Holmes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/WO2005025413A3?cl=en&amp;dq=WO+2005/025413&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=KkavUcvQJ7O54AOMpIGoAw&amp;ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MPEP Section 2132 - The term “others” in 35 U.S.C. 102(a) refers to any entity which is different from the inventive entity. The entity need only differ by one person to be “by others.” This holds true for all types of references eligible as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) including publications as well as public knowledge and use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 of US Patent No. 7,635,594	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1. A two-way communication system for monitoring an analyte in a bodily fluid from a subject, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;a) an external device configured to transmit a protocol to a reader assembly;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*WO 2005/025413 - p. 8, Lines 8-10 “Additionally, the exemplary device contains transmitters for a personal area network 5 &amp;6 and transmission pathways for communication between 10 the PAN and a hand-held computer monitor 15 or external computer network 16.”*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b) a fluidic device configured to be inserted into the reader assembly, said fluidic device comprising:  (i) a sample collection unit configured for collecting a sample of bodily fluid that contains an analyte; (ii) an assay assembly containing reactants that react with said sample of bodily fluid based on the protocol transmitted from said external device to yield a detectable signal indicative of the concentration of said analyte present in said bodily fluid; and (iii) an identifier that is configured to provide the identity of said fluidic device and is also configured to trigger the transmission of said protocol;**&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;*WO 2005/025413 &#xD;&#xA;Figure 1 – item 9&#xD;&#xA;P. 1, Lines 12-17  “a biometric recognition device capable of comparing the physical parameter data with an analyte interaction profile; a therapeutic agent. releasing device capable of controlling release of the therapeutic agent from the 15 reservoirs; an interface device capable of facilitating communications between the microarray scanning device, biometric recognition device and the therapeutic agent releasing device; and an energy source to power the medical device.”&#xD;&#xA;P. 6, Lines 33-34 “the medical device has&#xD;&#xA;at least one disposable assay device”&#xD;&#xA;P. 7, Lines 3-5 “In a further embodiment, the assay device and assay reader device are in optical communication with one another. In yet a further embodiment there are a plurality of disposable assay devices fitted in a single assay reader device.”&#xD;&#xA;P. 12, Lines 26-29 “Most preferably, the concentration and/or identity of target analyte molecules in the blood is measured directly on the patch and such information can then be transmitted to internal or external data storage systems.”*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**c) the reader assembly configured for two-way communication with the external device, said reader assembly comprising a programmable processor configured to receive said protocol from said external device, wherein said protocol in turn effects a reaction in said assay assembly for generating said detectable signal, wherein said reader further comprises a detection assembly for detecting said detectable signal, and a communication assembly for transmitting said detected signal to said external device, and wherein the external device is configured to (i) compare said concentration of said analyte detected with a reference concentration of said analyte stored in a database, and (ii) generate a subsequent reaction protocol based on said comparison in order to effect a subsequent reaction on a fluidic device for monitoring said analtye.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*WO 2005/025413	P. 14, Lines 18-21 “as well as a non-disposable component having a microarray scanning device and the ability to transmit results of an analyte interaction with a bioactive agent on a microarray to a biorecognition device, preferably by&#xD;&#xA;wireless communications, e.g., by Bluetooth® (assay reader device)(see FIG. 5).”&#xD;&#xA;P. 19, Lines 20-25 “The microarray is the portion of the inventive devices that facilitates an interaction between an analyte and a bioactive agent. It its most basic embodiment, a &quot;microarray'' as defined herein may constitute. any surface e.g. the wall of a micro fluidic channel, covered or functionalized by a bioactive agent such that a microarray scanning device can detect interactions between a bioactive agent and an analyte.”*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8900" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3980" RevisionGUID="99baa579-35ab-4344-9c8c-607310430a49" CreationDate="2013-06-05T14:16:09.103" UserId="3359" Text="PRIOR ART: US PAT NO. 7,635,594 - Theranos - Elizabeth Holmes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8901" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3980" RevisionGUID="99baa579-35ab-4344-9c8c-607310430a49" CreationDate="2013-06-05T14:16:09.103" UserId="3359" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;inequitable&gt;&lt;conduct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3979" RevisionGUID="940ac989-f343-47c2-812f-e1fca49cebc1" CreationDate="2013-06-05T14:16:42.707" UserId="3975" Comment="added 295 characters in body" Text="Internet CNN Newsroom, for distribution of daily video content, described in IEEE proceedings, May 1995.&#xD;&#xA;http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&amp;arnumber=484938&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D484938&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CBC Radio on the internet study, Q1 1996, wherein experimental internet data was collected to measure potential demand for &quot;regular radio programming distributed as digital files over the internet&quot;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/viewArticle/926&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3975" RevisionGUID="16e681d4-cde0-4c9c-9b76-3abe0d7f2ed8" CreationDate="2013-06-05T15:47:05.360" UserId="-1" Comment="Link to Google Books preview set to correct page" Text="In &quot;The Real Frank Zappa Book&quot; chapter 19, Frank proposed a system for the delivery of music, digitally, over phone or cable lines, to the home, for storage on consumer devices, INCLUDING SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES, content to be determined via electronic catalog, which sounds substantially identical to the patent described here. (Google books [preview link][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is found on pp 337 - 340 of the hardcover, which was published in 1989 (and Frank's dedication, presumably the last thing written, is dated August 23, 1988 06:39:37). At that early date, I'd call that both novel and non-obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://books.google.com/books?id=FB0O_HCpBy0C&amp;pg=PA337&amp;lpg=PA284&amp;dq=The+Real+Frank+Zappa+Book" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8905" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3975" RevisionGUID="16e681d4-cde0-4c9c-9b76-3abe0d7f2ed8" CreationDate="2013-06-05T15:47:05.360" Comment="Proposed by 108.50.188.162|4ed7b8a0-03b8-44f6-80d8-3f4a34396f92 approved by 1 edit id of 356" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3981" RevisionGUID="c4815b7c-2198-4180-bd1c-352fd4543dd3" CreationDate="2013-06-05T18:59:35.200" UserId="3977" Text="I've been using a site called wayback machine (http://archive.org/web/web.php).  Unfortunately it only goes back to November 6, 1996 for this site&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/19961102145105/http://www.dojo.ie/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But at that point it already had over 300 music samples to download.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your looking for the guy who started it, here's his linked in page.  He says he started it in 1994.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://ie.linkedin.com/in/radiobriangreene" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3982" RevisionGUID="e527c373-6fd6-49ea-9fc2-24044bdf3eda" CreationDate="2013-06-05T19:02:33.743" UserId="3977" Text="Also, using wayback machine, I was able to go to a website I made in 1999 called music monkey.  It was a snapshot at that time of music links on the internet.  There may be links to other sites in here that predate Oct 1996.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/19981201223802/http://www.musicmonkey.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3983" RevisionGUID="f12c3606-784e-4cb1-a03b-03ad1f9619f1" CreationDate="2013-06-05T19:07:24.880" UserId="3978" Text="NASA has had the &quot;Astronomy Picture of the Day&quot; site since 1995. The index contains a list of links to articles that is updated as new articles are added." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3972" RevisionGUID="2579efab-389a-463b-b30e-e3d1e5890656" CreationDate="2013-06-05T19:15:16.280" UserId="1767" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="Minime,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's a good question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent was subject to re-exam and all claims stand rejected in a non-final office action.  George White or others on the AskPatents site may be able to provide more color on the prosecution history, which seems to be convoluted involving multiple re-exams, as well as the enforceability of a patent during re-exam proceedings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an interesting example of how to use the [Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR)][1] system to find the FILE HISTORY for a US Patent.  Re-exams are represented in a non-intuitive but consistent way in that system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First visit [PAIR][2].  Once you get past the CAPTCHA you'll see this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that you must select the Patent Number Radio Box and you must use only the numerical patent number without any commas or other characters, i.e. &quot;7479949&quot;.  The [PAIR][4] interface is ridiculously unforgiving...  There is also a byzantine distinction between a **Patent Number**, a **Publication Number**, and a **Control Number** or **Application Number**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Search PAIR by **Patent Number** for issued patents [tag:post-grant] and by **Publication Number** for patent applications [tag:pre-grant]. But we digress...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From here you can see on the highlighted red boxes that  it is indeed a &quot;Patented Case&quot; (in this case, as opposed to a Patent Application).  You can also see that Steve P. Jobs (Palo Alto, CA) is the First inventor.  Finally you can see the tab **Continuity Data**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Click on **Continuity Data** tab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][6]&#xD;&#xA;This tab refers to other members of the same [Patent Family][7], in particular [Continuations][8] of the subject patent.  From here you can see the Parents and Children of the subject patent.  For example, you can see that the entire patent family [Claims Priority][9] to the inventions described in a US Provisional Patent Application filed by Steve Jobs 9/6/2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also see the Children of this subject patent.  Here is where it gets weird. The USPTO represents re-examination proceedings as if they were children of the subject patent.  You can see here the re-examination proceeding referred to in [the fosspatents article][13] you cited above as child application number 90/012,308, which is pending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you click through to that child &quot;patent application&quot; (actually the re-examination) you get a screen like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see that this &quot;patent application&quot; is of the type &quot;Re-Examination&quot;, its status is waiting for an Examiner Action following a Non-Final Action (in this case, the claims stand rejected but we'll see that next).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Click on **Image File Wrapper** to dig into the detailed discussion between Apple's attorneys and the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wow, that's a lot of dialog between the USPTO and Apple!  But you can see on 12-03-2012 as indicated the result of the Re-Examination.  This is the same date referenced in your article.  Apple has the right to continue arguing with the USPTO (as long as it continues to pay additional fees) but for now this is where the patent stands:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Click through to the document **Reexam - Non-Final Action**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this PDF file you will see the current status of the Re-Examination for Patent 7,479,949, which is that all claims have been rejected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not easy to navigate the PAIR system but worth learning if only to see the detailed arguments between the applicant and the examiner.  Examiners often spend a lot of time and effort analyzing applications. It's a tough job!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/EgoYz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/PfLg8.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/YXfIX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_family&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_application#Priority_claim&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/q1gTl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Ov5E6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/3KD53.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/us-patent-office-declares-steve-jobs.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8910" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3972" RevisionGUID="7a226e0b-4c09-46d9-b5df-b1920f2573a7" CreationDate="2013-06-05T19:22:30.917" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Minime,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's a good question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent was subject to re-exam and all claims stand rejected in a non-final office action.  George White or others on the AskPatents site may be able to provide more color on the prosecution history, which seems to be convoluted involving multiple re-exams, as well as the enforceability of a patent during re-exam proceedings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an interesting example of how to use the [Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR)][1] system to find the FILE HISTORY for a US Patent.  Re-exams are represented in a non-intuitive but consistent way in that system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First visit [PAIR][2].  Once you get past the CAPTCHA you'll see this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that you must select the Patent Number Radio Box and you must use only the numerical patent number without any commas or other characters, i.e. &quot;7479949&quot;.  The [PAIR][4] interface is ridiculously unforgiving...  There is also a byzantine distinction between a **Patent Number**, a **Publication Number**, and a **Control Number** or **Application Number**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Search PAIR by **Patent Number** for issued patents [tag:post-grant] and by **Publication Number** for patent applications [tag:pre-grant]. But we digress...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From here you can see on the highlighted red boxes that  it is indeed a &quot;Patented Case&quot; (in this case, as opposed to a Patent Application).  You can also see that Steve P. Jobs (Palo Alto, CA) is the First inventor.  Finally you can see the tab **Continuity Data**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Click on **Continuity Data** tab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][6]&#xD;&#xA;This tab refers to other members of the same [Patent Family][7], in particular [Continuations][8] of the subject patent.  From here you can see the Parents and Children of the subject patent.  For example, you can see that the entire patent family [Claims Priority][9] to the inventions described in a US Provisional Patent Application filed by Steve Jobs 9/6/2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also see the Children of this subject patent.  Here is where it gets weird. The USPTO represents re-examination proceedings as if they were children of the subject patent.  You can see here the re-examination proceeding referred to in [the fosspatents article][13] you cited above as child application number 90/012,308, which is pending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you click through to that child &quot;patent application&quot; (actually the re-examination) you get a screen like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see that this &quot;patent application&quot; is of the type &quot;Re-Examination&quot;, its status is waiting for an Examiner Action following a Non-Final Action (in this case, the claims stand rejected but we'll see that next).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Click on **Image File Wrapper** to dig into the detailed discussion between Apple's attorneys and the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wow, that's a lot of dialog between the USPTO and Apple!  But you can see on 12-03-2012 as indicated the result of the Re-Examination.  This is the same date referenced in your article.  Apple has the right to continue arguing with the USPTO (as long as it continues to pay additional fees) but for now this is where the patent stands:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Click through to the document **Reexam - Non-Final Action**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this PDF file you will see the current status of the Re-Examination for Patent 7,479,949, which is that all claims stand rejected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not easy to navigate the PAIR system but worth learning if only to see the detailed arguments between the applicant and the examiner.  Examiners often spend a lot of time and effort analyzing applications. It's a tough job!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/EgoYz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/PfLg8.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/YXfIX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_family&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_application#Priority_claim&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/q1gTl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Ov5E6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/3KD53.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/us-patent-office-declares-steve-jobs.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3886" RevisionGUID="75adf08d-afd7-40fb-bb57-661819f00c6e" CreationDate="2013-06-05T19:23:27.263" UserId="-1" Comment="I added a more detailed summary and the author of the piece." Text="I found this concerning M-Bone : http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/08/business/business-technology-peering-out-a-real-time-window.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By Peter H. Lewis. Dated February 8, 1995.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This article is primarily about M-Bone and the beginnings of live streaming internet radio. The interesting part of the article is the last paragraph about Internet Multicasting's &quot;Geek of the Week&quot; program. &quot;The program, in which technical experts wax rhapsodic about protocols and bandwidth and other geeky subjects, is still available only as audio files that computer users fetch one by one.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8912" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3886" RevisionGUID="75adf08d-afd7-40fb-bb57-661819f00c6e" CreationDate="2013-06-05T19:23:27.263" Comment="Proposed by 184.13.124.180|60c4aff1-95f8-4836-bb87-c968008111e9 approved by 1767 edit id of 357" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8913" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3971" RevisionGUID="16a50266-d84e-40d4-9da6-a3bbe17f62eb" CreationDate="2013-06-05T19:56:42.907" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;reexamination&gt;&lt;us7479949&gt;&lt;pair&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3984" RevisionGUID="f7327002-c656-4e43-a76a-35dde7dcc2b0" CreationDate="2013-06-05T20:00:42.320" UserId="1767" Text="[PAIR][1] is a publicly-available online database at USPTO. The PAIR system tracks patent applications and holds a record of the written dialog between patent applicants and the patent examiners who are evaluating their applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tag [tag:pair] is for questions about using PAIR and effective prior art search techniques using the PAIR system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3985" RevisionGUID="c3b5c0cd-0b74-4af0-864b-fc2050937c1b" CreationDate="2013-06-05T20:00:42.320" UserId="1767" Text="Questions related to the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system at USPTO" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3891" RevisionGUID="78633a47-fbc8-4f87-91b1-32473a5b329e" CreationDate="2013-06-05T20:37:03.473" UserId="1767" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text=" **HELP SAVE STREAMING RADIO** - This application seeks to patent a system for discovering new radio stations and podcasts online! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Nov, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of Internet radio station programs; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **dynamically categorizing** this list of programs by mapping a **dynamically identified topic** to a **content classifier**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System And Method For Internet Radio Station Program Discovery**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A service for discovering Internet radio station programs. A list of Internet radio station programs is obtained. Each program on the list is categorized by mapping a topic to a program using a content classifier. User can discover new programs of interest from the list of programs based on the categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110502 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Lemi Technology, LLC&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** November, 2008&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Note**: This application is a [continuation][2] of US Patent  [8,359,192][3]. The applicant is attempting to “improve” the claims with this child patent by writing new (evidently broader) claims while retaining the original 2008 priority date.  So prior art should predate November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each an every step below::&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining a plurality of Internet radio station programs;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. For each Internet radio station program of the plurality of Internet radio station programs, dynamically categorizing the Internet radio station program by mapping a dynamically identified topic of the Internet radio station program to a content classifier;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Enabling a user to discover an Internet radio station program of interest from the plurality of Internet radio station programs based on the dynamic categorizations for the plurality of Internet radio station programs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of internet radio station programs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. “Dynamically categorizing” this list of programs by mapping a “dynamically identified topic” to a content classifier; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  Allowing the user to discover programs from the list based on the “dynamic categorization” (presumably created by the classifier)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The method of claim 1 wherein dynamically categorizing the Internet radio station program comprises:performing **speech-to-text conversion on audio content** of the Internet radio station program; and dynamically categorizing the Internet radio station program based on results of the speech-to-text conversion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specification notes that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - In one embodiment…the discovery service performs **speech-to-text conversion** and natural language processing on the audio content of the radio station program to identify one or more topics of the radio station program. The discovery service then maps the one or more topics to an ontology or similar taxonomy…in order to identify one or more topics of the radio station program.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Internet Radio Station program discovery service&quot; flow chart from the Applicant** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/wagCM.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;300&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130110502&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8359192" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3891" RevisionGUID="fb23cc3c-99fa-45d6-b9f4-b6e7342e63aa" CreationDate="2013-06-05T21:13:09.403" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 239 characters in body" Text=" **HELP SAVE STREAMING RADIO** - This application seeks to patent a system for discovering new radio stations and podcasts online! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Nov, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of Internet radio station programs; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **dynamically categorizing** this list of programs by mapping a **dynamically identified topic** to a **content classifier**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **speech-to-text conversion** on audio content. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System And Method For Internet Radio Station Program Discovery**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A service for discovering Internet radio station programs. A list of Internet radio station programs is obtained. Each program on the list is categorized by mapping a topic to a program using a content classifier. User can discover new programs of interest from the list of programs based on the categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110502 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Lemi Technology, LLC&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** November, 2008&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Note**: This application is a [continuation][2] of US Patent  [8,359,192][3]. The applicant is attempting to “improve” the claims with this child patent by writing new (evidently broader) claims while retaining the original 2008 priority date.  So prior art should predate November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining a plurality of Internet radio station programs;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. For each Internet radio station program of the plurality of Internet radio station programs, dynamically categorizing the Internet radio station program by mapping a dynamically identified topic of the Internet radio station program to a content classifier;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Enabling a user to discover an Internet radio station program of interest from the plurality of Internet radio station programs based on the dynamic categorizations for the plurality of Internet radio station programs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of internet radio station programs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. “Dynamically categorizing” this list of programs by mapping a “dynamically identified topic” to a content classifier; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  Allowing the user to discover programs from the list based on the “dynamic categorization” (presumably created by the classifier)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and including **speech-to-text conversion** to categorize the radio station programs. Extra credit would include systems that do all of the steps above and also involve speech-to-text conversion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Internet Radio Station program discovery service&quot; flow chart from the Applicant** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/wagCM.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;300&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130110502&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8359192" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3986" RevisionGUID="22f3f8b7-7454-40a9-b20c-6263d9abe214" CreationDate="2013-06-05T22:24:30.580" UserId="3588" Text="BACKGROUND:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like many guys but a minority altogether, I'm able to pretty much put together the bulk of a patent application in my field myself. Unlike many newbies, it's not because I underestimate the necessary knowledge and skills, nor do I underestimate the cost of errors, but because I've learned the topic thoroughly and had some good and bad experience in doing so, which I've learned from. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I believe, is that an optimal way to go, given sufficient comprehensive knowledge, is to put together the entire thing, and then pass it along to a patent attorney for important *editing* and *finalization*. In this vein of thought, the patent attorney is one who knows how to put the final touch that surfaces any judgement errors, removes all plain mistakes, ensures the holistic quality of the application, maximizes clarity, and thus maximizes prospects of the patent application being granted, a very important role requiring a lot of experience and knowledge. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This juxtaposes by the way, with the other approach of 'interview me and write it', which I find significantly less efficient as it tends to consume an order of magnitude more attorney time, and tends to arrive at a final result which tends less to maximize the roles or communication between 'inventor' and patent attorney (unless it's in a large corporate setting where attorneys really have the time and incentive). What I would look for, is an attorney that is an ace in getting an already extremely cooked application draft, maxing out its prospects like a strategist and a pro, rather than spending their rigor on the basics thus arriving drained and too intellectually entrenched at the final touches of finalization with a mindset of just sending out the bills and waiting for the next one in line. This has just been a backgrounder into what application process I'm looking into as opposed to some other modes of operation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- END OF BACKGROUND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question is, what's the best way to pick an attorneys office for your patent application draft under that mindset. I have been led to believe that like patent examiners in the USPTO, patent attorney offices, and patent attorneys, at least excelling firms and excellent individuals respectively, tend to have specialties. And of course, I'd find much more value in my patent application being worked on for submission by a professional who's specialized in the areas of my application. I.e. spent ~50% of their professional work on applications similar to mine. (Given the volume of patent applications being submitted I believe there's obvious room for this sort of specialization). It also by the way, would mean that they work more quickly, as they know the area so well before they even started working on your application, and can focus on mostly optimizing. I'd also have a much better discussion with them, and we'd all have more fun while I'm more productive. *Ultimately I assume &#xD;&#xA;this would increase the application's prospects of being ultimately granted in my case.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How can I find firms and individuals who specialize in my application's area? costs are not a concern as it is granted they'll need less time for my application and I assume I'll be paying more per hour than I would otherwise. This question is all about quality not about saving a few dollars.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8919" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3986" RevisionGUID="22f3f8b7-7454-40a9-b20c-6263d9abe214" CreationDate="2013-06-05T22:24:30.580" UserId="3588" Text="What is a good way to locate a U.S. patent attorneys office that specializes in a given area within a field" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8920" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3986" RevisionGUID="22f3f8b7-7454-40a9-b20c-6263d9abe214" CreationDate="2013-06-05T22:24:30.580" UserId="3588" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;attorney&gt;&lt;internet&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3987" RevisionGUID="c142446f-7eed-49d1-b1b0-1779dad4692a" CreationDate="2013-06-05T22:26:45.567" UserId="3979" Text="from: http://www.joybubblesthemovie.com/synopsis.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;During the last thirteen years of his life, before passing away from congestive heart failure in the summer of 2007, Joybubbles hosted a radio program called 'Stories and Stuff,' on his answering machine. He updated the show weekly, and made the recording available to anyone who called the number +1 206-FEELING. Joybubbles loved to tell stories about his imaginary friends, telephones, eternal childhood, and sensual pleasures he enjoyed, like the smell of chlorinated swimming pools, eating gooey angel food cake, and listening to the sound of venetian blinds fluttering in the wind.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://audio.textfiles.com/shows/storiesandstuff/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.radiolab.org/2012/feb/20/long-distance/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3986" RevisionGUID="23e1f443-fd79-4628-a273-fd4150267a66" CreationDate="2013-06-05T22:30:25.320" UserId="3588" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="BACKGROUND:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like many guys but a minority altogether, I'm able to pretty much put together the bulk of a patent application in my field myself. Unlike many newbies, it's not because I underestimate the necessary knowledge and skills, nor do I underestimate the cost of errors, but because I've learned the topic thoroughly and had some good and bad experience in doing so, that I've learned from. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I believe, is that an optimal way to go, given sufficient comprehensive knowledge, is to put together the entire thing, and then pass it along to a patent attorney for important *editing* and *finalization*. In this vein of thought, the patent attorney is one who knows how to put the final touch that surfaces any judgement errors, removes all plain mistakes, ensures the holistic quality of the application, maximizes clarity, and thus maximizes prospects of the patent application being granted, a very important role requiring a lot of experience and knowledge. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This juxtaposes by the way, with the other approach of 'interview me and write it', which I find significantly less efficient as it tends to consume an order of magnitude more attorney time, and tends to arrive at a final result which tends less to maximize the roles or communication between 'inventor' and patent attorney (unless it's in a large corporate setting where attorneys really have the time and incentive). What I would look for, is an attorney that is an ace in getting an already extremely cooked application draft, maxing out its prospects like a strategist and a pro, rather than spending their rigor on the basics thus arriving drained and too intellectually entrenched at the final touches of finalization with a mindset of just sending out the bills and waiting for the next one in line. This has just been a backgrounder into what application process I'm looking into as opposed to some other modes of operation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- END OF BACKGROUND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question is, what's the best way to pick an attorneys office for your patent application draft under that mindset. I have been led to believe that like patent examiners in the USPTO, patent attorney offices, and patent attorneys, at least excelling firms and excellent individuals respectively, tend to have specialties. And of course, I'd find much more value in my patent application being worked on for submission by a professional who's specialized in the areas of my application. I.e. spent ~50% of their professional work on applications similar to mine. (Given the volume of patent applications being submitted I believe there's obvious room for this sort of specialization). It also by the way, would mean that they work more quickly, as they know the area so well before they even started working on your application, and can focus on mostly optimizing. I'd also have a much better discussion with them, and we'd all have more fun while I'm more productive. *Ultimately I assume &#xD;&#xA;this would increase the application's prospects of being ultimately granted.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How can I find firms and individuals who specialize in my application's area? costs are not a concern as it is granted they'll need less time for my application and I assume I'll be paying more per hour than I would otherwise. This question is all about quality not about saving a few dollars.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8923" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3986" RevisionGUID="23e1f443-fd79-4628-a273-fd4150267a66" CreationDate="2013-06-05T22:30:25.320" UserId="3588" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="What is a good way to locate (and choose) a U.S. patent attorneys office that specializes in a given area within a field" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3986" RevisionGUID="2fd1eaf1-5de8-49c2-82a9-7f27bdf1d91a" CreationDate="2013-06-05T22:38:22.753" UserId="3588" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="BACKGROUND:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like many guys but a minority altogether, I'm able to pretty much put together the bulk and entirety of a patent application draft in my field myself (the field being information technology, Internet applications, etc). Unlike many newbies, it's not because I underestimate the necessary knowledge and skills, nor do I underestimate the cost of errors, but because I've learned the topic thoroughly and had some good and bad experience in doing so, that I've learned from. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I believe, is that an optimal way to go, given sufficient comprehensive knowledge, is to put together the entire thing, and then pass it along to a patent attorney for important *editing* and *finalization*. In this vein of thought, the patent attorney is one who knows how to put the final touch that surfaces any judgement errors, removes all plain mistakes, ensures the holistic quality of the application, maximizes clarity, and thus maximizes prospects of the patent application being granted, a very important role requiring a lot of experience and knowledge. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This juxtaposes by the way, with the other approach of 'interview me and write it', which I find significantly less efficient as it tends to consume an order of magnitude more attorney time, and tends to arrive at a final result which tends less to maximize the roles or communication between 'inventor' and patent attorney (unless it's in a large corporate setting where attorneys really have the time and incentive). What I would look for, is an attorney that is an ace in getting an already extremely cooked application draft, maxing out its prospects like a strategic auditor, rather than spending their rigor on the basics thus arriving drained and too intellectually entrenched at the final touches of finalization, sometimes with a mindset of just sending out the bills and waiting for the next one in line. This has just been a backgrounder into what application process I'm looking into as opposed to some other modes of operation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- END OF BACKGROUND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question is, what's the best way to pick an attorneys office for your patent application draft under that mindset. I have been led to believe that like patent examiners in the USPTO, patent attorney offices, and patent attorneys, at least excelling firms and excellent individuals respectively, tend to have specialties. And of course, I'd find much more value in my patent application being worked on for submission by a professional who's specialized in the areas of my application. I.e. spent ~50% of their professional work on applications similar to mine. (Given the volume of patent applications being submitted I believe there's obvious room for this sort of specialization). It also by the way, would mean that they work more quickly, as they know the area so well before they even started working on your application, and can focus on mostly optimizing. I'd also have a much better discussion with them, and we'd all have more fun while I'm more productive. *Ultimately I assume &#xD;&#xA;this would increase the application's prospects of being ultimately granted.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How can I find firms and individuals who specialize in my application's area? costs are not a concern as it is granted they'll need less time for my application and I assume I'll be paying more per hour than I would otherwise. This question is all about quality not about saving a few dollars.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3986" RevisionGUID="af9e4d8e-9a6b-46ae-90f5-243ebe7bbab1" CreationDate="2013-06-05T22:52:03.240" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 2780 characters in body" Text="What's the best way to find specific patent firms and individual attorneys who specialize in the **technology area** of my application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the best patent attorneys tend to have specialties. My assumption is that a specialist in my technology field would work more quickly, I'd all have more fun working with him or her, and the resulting applications would be more likely to be granted by the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm interested in highest quality, not lowest cost. I usually write the initial draft of the specification and look to a patent attorney for important *editing* and *finalization* of the patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3988" RevisionGUID="34565693-a333-4347-91c8-51108333d501" CreationDate="2013-06-06T01:23:47.783" UserId="3980" Text="I'm pretty sure my grandmother, who was blind, used a service like this in the early 90's - but the only thing I could find was this company:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.blindskills.com/2012_Spring_Sample1.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They might know of other organizations for the blind who provided audio services." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3989" RevisionGUID="b6140c2c-4eb9-4e27-8eff-8233f4c09068" CreationDate="2013-06-06T02:08:12.033" UserId="3500" Text="Seeing that your profile says you're in Palo Alto and affiliated with Stanford, I think you could probably find a good patent attorney just by driving up and down Page Mill Road, or asking some of your colleagues. But perhaps you were looking for something more?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One approach is to look at successfully asserted or widely-licensed patents in your field and see what firm, attorney, or agent, prosecuted those patents.  The theory behind this approach is that a well written patent is one that is not easily invalidated when it is asserted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe your metric is speed of issuance?  In that case, you might be able to pay for a service (or create your own tools) that compares application date with issue date for patents that are of interest to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm hard pressed to think of other quantifiable ways of measuring quality, but if you're experienced with patents you might simply look through a handful of patents in your area and contact the attorneys who worked on the ones you like." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3972" RevisionGUID="cf6cc4b3-f65d-416f-962d-94f61b752582" CreationDate="2013-06-06T04:03:42.933" UserId="1767" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Minime,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's a good question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent was subject to re-exam and all claims stand rejected in a non-final office action.  George White or others on the AskPatents site may be able to provide more color on the the enforceability of a patent during re-exam proceedings as well as the prosecution history of this patent, which seems to be convoluted and involves multiple re-exams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an interesting example of how to use the [Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR)][1] system to find the FILE HISTORY for a US Patent.  Re-exams are represented in a non-intuitive but consistent way in that system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First visit [PAIR][2].  Once you get past the CAPTCHA you'll see this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that you must select the Patent Number Radio Box and you must use only the numerical patent number without any commas or other characters, i.e. &quot;7479949&quot;.  The [PAIR][4] interface is ridiculously unforgiving...  There is also a byzantine distinction between a **Patent Number**, a **Publication Number**, and a **Control Number** or **Application Number**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Search PAIR by **Patent Number** for issued patents [tag:post-grant] and by **Publication Number** for patent applications [tag:pre-grant]. But we digress...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From here you can see on the highlighted red boxes that  it is indeed a &quot;Patented Case&quot; (in this case, as opposed to a Patent Application).  You can also see that Steve P. Jobs (Palo Alto, CA) is the First inventor.  Finally you can see the tab **Continuity Data**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Click on **Continuity Data** tab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][6]&#xD;&#xA;This tab refers to other members of the same [Patent Family][7], in particular [Continuations][8] of the subject patent.  From here you can see the Parents and Children of the subject patent.  For example, you can see that the entire patent family [Claims Priority][9] to the inventions described in a US Provisional Patent Application filed by Steve Jobs 9/6/2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also see the Children of this subject patent.  Here is where it gets weird. The USPTO represents re-examination proceedings as if they were children of the subject patent.  You can see here the re-examination proceeding referred to in [the fosspatents article][13] you cited above as child application number 90/012,308, which is pending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you click through to that child &quot;patent application&quot; (actually the re-examination) you get a screen like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see that this &quot;patent application&quot; is of the type &quot;Re-Examination&quot;, its status is waiting for an Examiner Action following a Non-Final Action (in this case, the claims stand rejected but we'll see that next).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Click on **Image File Wrapper** to dig into the detailed discussion between Apple's attorneys and the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wow, that's a lot of dialog between the USPTO and Apple!  But you can see on 12-03-2012 as indicated the result of the Re-Examination.  This is the same date referenced in your article.  Apple has the right to continue arguing with the USPTO (as long as it continues to pay additional fees) but for now this is where the patent stands:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Click through to the document **Reexam - Non-Final Action**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this PDF file you will see the current status of the Re-Examination for Patent 7,479,949, which is that all claims stand rejected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not easy to navigate the PAIR system but worth learning if only to see the detailed arguments between the applicant and the examiner.  Examiners often spend a lot of time and effort analyzing applications. It's a tough job!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/EgoYz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/PfLg8.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/YXfIX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_family&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_application#Priority_claim&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/q1gTl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Ov5E6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/3KD53.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/us-patent-office-declares-steve-jobs.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3990" RevisionGUID="b111b2a8-34dd-42fb-b309-37f6b8a60781" CreationDate="2013-06-06T04:28:19.680" UserId="3981" Text="Broadcast.com was started in 1995 by Mark Cuban. Does that fall under this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, probably not going far back enough - but I was involved in a radio program in Dallas from 1998 to 2000 that broadcast on the radio, TV and shared audio and video versions of the program online. The servers are no longer there but The Wayback Machine has a cache of the site from 1999 - http://web.archive.org/web/19991014012947/http://www.lighthouse21.com/real.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3991" RevisionGUID="f686160d-8a20-4513-85fa-8eae1896a374" CreationDate="2013-06-06T05:55:04.897" UserId="3076" Text="**Patent No.: [US 7,720,835 B2**][1] &lt;p&gt; **Systems and methods for consumer-generated media reputation management**&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Filed: May 7, 2007&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Prior Publication Data&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;US 2007/0294281 Al Dec. 20, 2007&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;col 1 ln 59-63 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As used herein, the term &quot;Content&quot; refers to media that resides on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CGM sites. **CGM** is often text, but **includes** audio files and streams&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (podcasts, mp3, streamcasts, **Internet radio**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;col 10 ln 44-49&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In one embodiment, **TruCast is designed to determine, with a high&#xD;&#xA;&gt; degree of confidence, the conceptual relevance of a given piece of CGM&#xD;&#xA;&gt; content to a &quot;topic&quot;** or concept space. Topics can be of any breadth&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (&quot;War&quot; is just as sufficient a topic as &quot;2002 Chevy Silverado Extended&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cab Door Hinge Bolt Rust&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;col 12 ln 56-60&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; TruCast, in one embodiment can leverage Optical Character Recognition&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (OCR) image to text conversion, Fast-Fourier Transform (FFT) and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Granular Synthesis (GS) **analysis based speech-to-text conversion**, as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; well as Hierarchical Temporal Memory (HTM) processing. This&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comparison, and the resultant threshold filtered probability that a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; given post is relevant to a given topic allows TruCast, in one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; embodiment, to assign this meta-information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;col 11 ln 62-67&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Topics and keyphrases are created by users (455) in the Topic Manager&#xD;&#xA;&gt; panel (460) within the VI. **Once a new topic and keyphrase is created**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; this information is **transmitted to the indexing system** (465) which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; begins to examine all incoming data for matches against this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; keyphrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is **54 pages of specification and 40 sheets of drawings**. If there is anything else needed it is probably in here somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7720835" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3992" RevisionGUID="11c1fd38-d447-4603-891e-63b0612f9fd1" CreationDate="2013-06-06T10:45:30.827" UserId="3983" Text="I have a customer whom wants to issue a small tag card with magnetic stripe &amp; the card size in 66 x 40 mm.  It is non-payment card and just a loyalty membership card.  Only membership number will be encoded in track 2 and the number is just used for linking to loyalty system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For US Patent US6471127 B2, this loyalty membership tag card (small tag card) seems falling into the size range!  Will this loyalty membership card be claimed by the inventor?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your early reply will be very appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best regards,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ali Chen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8932" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3992" RevisionGUID="11c1fd38-d447-4603-891e-63b0612f9fd1" CreationDate="2013-06-06T10:45:30.827" UserId="3983" Text="Small Tag Card (smaller than ISO card size)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8933" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3992" RevisionGUID="11c1fd38-d447-4603-891e-63b0612f9fd1" CreationDate="2013-06-06T10:45:30.827" UserId="3983" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3993" RevisionGUID="263d20c8-a39f-454b-897f-9e25281f9b15" CreationDate="2013-06-06T12:33:42.933" UserId="3985" Text="As a computer science and information systems major, I find this patent laughable.  This &quot;invention&quot; basically describes the protocols for requesting and delivering -ANY- files stored on the Internet that occur in sequence or &quot;episodic&quot; format, including blogs, podcasts, software updates, driver updates and security updates.  I would consider broaden your &quot;prior art&quot; search into those areas as well. If that applies, and I think it does, then your &quot;prior art&quot; extends all the way back to ARPAnet and the original dialup BBS networks that hosted episodic news articles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to specific art, I am aware of a specific example of this concept that is available that predates the patent - the &quot;Cambridge Digital Interactive Television Trial&quot;, one of the first video-on-demand (VOD) efforts, dates back to September of 1994.  This predates the claimant's patent by more than two years and was the subject of a published press release on March 30th, 1995 (text of release accessed from http://acorn.chriswhy.co.uk/docs/Acorn/PR/Cambridge_Consumers_move_into_21st_Century_with_interactive_TV.txt ).  I suspect this shoots the claimant's patent out of the proverbial waters on the grounds of both obviousness and non-originality." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3994" RevisionGUID="fdc28c72-bb44-41c2-96cc-2bbc0599771d" CreationDate="2013-06-06T13:15:21.370" UserId="3986" Text="Does anyone know who filed the  Swiftkey (TouchType Ltd) or Summly (the firm brought by Yahoo for $30 MM)... Both companies are based in London, so I guess it will be a London firm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8936" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3994" RevisionGUID="fdc28c72-bb44-41c2-96cc-2bbc0599771d" CreationDate="2013-06-06T13:15:21.370" UserId="3986" Text="Which patent attorney filed the swiftkey (TouchType Ltd) or summly patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8937" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3994" RevisionGUID="fdc28c72-bb44-41c2-96cc-2bbc0599771d" CreationDate="2013-06-06T13:15:21.370" UserId="3986" Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3995" RevisionGUID="ee84acfb-523c-4506-8525-9cd3e5b26b98" CreationDate="2013-06-06T15:19:55.330" UserId="3987" Text="Check out Carl Malamud.  He seems to be worthy of some interest.  Keywords to search are Carl Malamud, Internet Multicasting Service.  Hope this helps guys!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Internet radio was pioneered by Carl Malamud. In 1993, Malamud launched &quot;Internet Talk Radio&quot; which was the &quot;first computer-radio talk show, each week interviewing a computer expert.&quot;.[3][4] The first Internet concert was broadcast on June 24, 1993 by the band Severe Tire Damage[5][6]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_radio#US_royalty_controversy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;arl Malamud (born 1959) is a technologist, author, and public domain advocate, known for his foundation public.resource.org. He was the founder of the Internet Multicasting Service. During his time with this group, he was responsible for creating the first Internet radio station,[1] for putting the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's EDGAR database on-line,[2] and for creating the Internet 1996 World Exposition.[3]&#xD;&#xA;Malamud is the author of eight books, including Exploring the Internet and A World's Fair.[4][5] He was a visiting professor at the MIT Media Laboratory and was the former chairman of the Internet Software Consortium. He also was the co-founder of Invisible Worlds, was a fellow at the Center for American Progress, and was a board member of the non-profit Mozilla Foundation.[6][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Malamud&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3995" RevisionGUID="07b8e4f8-02f1-4f12-8eed-2e6b1a7d6854" CreationDate="2013-06-06T15:38:16.447" UserId="3987" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text="Check out Carl Malamud.  He seems to be worthy of some interest.  Keywords to search are Carl Malamud, Internet Multicasting Service.  Hope this helps guys!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Internet radio was pioneered by Carl Malamud. In 1993, Malamud launched &quot;Internet Talk Radio&quot; which was the &quot;first computer-radio talk show, each week interviewing a computer expert.&quot;.[3][4] The first Internet concert was broadcast on June 24, 1993 by the band Severe Tire Damage[5][6]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_radio#US_royalty_controversy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;arl Malamud (born 1959) is a technologist, author, and public domain advocate, known for his foundation public.resource.org. He was the founder of the Internet Multicasting Service. During his time with this group, he was responsible for creating the first Internet radio station,[1] for putting the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's EDGAR database on-line,[2] and for creating the Internet 1996 World Exposition.[3]&#xD;&#xA;Malamud is the author of eight books, including Exploring the Internet and A World's Fair.[4][5] He was a visiting professor at the MIT Media Laboratory and was the former chairman of the Internet Software Consortium. He also was the co-founder of Invisible Worlds, was a fellow at the Center for American Progress, and was a board member of the non-profit Mozilla Foundation.[6][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Malamud&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1993, The Computer Chronicles, The Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://youtu.be/HyZAbr7Xwrs -&gt; 17:00 forward&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3992" RevisionGUID="d9fee3c9-2a2b-4619-85db-feeb672568a7" CreationDate="2013-06-06T16:37:18.253" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 73 characters in body" Text="I have a customer whom wants to issue a small tag card with magnetic stripe &amp; the card size in 66 x 40 mm.  It is non-payment card and just a loyalty membership card.  Only membership number will be encoded in track 2 and the number is just used for linking to loyalty system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For US Patent US6471127 B2, this loyalty membership tag card (small tag card) seems falling into the size range!  Will this loyalty membership card be claimed by the inventor?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8941" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3992" RevisionGUID="f3dae0ad-9a8d-4c0c-9bd2-892472056ec6" CreationDate="2013-06-06T18:19:19.553" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;us6471127&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3992" RevisionGUID="f3dae0ad-9a8d-4c0c-9bd2-892472056ec6" CreationDate="2013-06-06T18:19:19.553" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="I have a customer who wants to issue a small tag card with magnetic stripe. The card size in 66 x 40 mm.  It is not a payment card, just a loyalty membership card.  Only a membership number will be encoded in track 2 and this number is only used for linking the card to a loyalty system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding US Patent US6471127 B2, the proposed loyalty membership tag card (small tag card) seems to fall into the size range described in this patent.  As described above, would my customer's proposed loyalty membership card fall within the scope of the claims of the '127 patent?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8943" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3992" RevisionGUID="f3dae0ad-9a8d-4c0c-9bd2-892472056ec6" CreationDate="2013-06-06T18:19:19.553" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="Small Tag Card (smaller than ISO card) - would product infringe US6471127?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3996" RevisionGUID="4383bc08-a798-4b70-b360-c65bcd10f221" CreationDate="2013-06-06T19:21:08.190" UserId="3991" Text="Back in 1994-97 almost every college kid at USC had an internet radio station via realNetworks (or a previous incarnation of them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally did 3 shows on my website.  However I have no records or files remaining, so this is anecdotal evidence at best.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3992" RevisionGUID="269483a8-8bd3-4bc4-a218-044c30034de1" CreationDate="2013-06-06T21:17:45.817" UserId="1767" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I have a customer who wants to issue a small tag card with a magnetic stripe. The card size is 66 x 40 mm.  It is not a payment card, just a loyalty membership card.  Only a membership number will be encoded in track 2 and this number is only used for linking the card to a loyalty system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding US Patent US6471127 B2, the proposed loyalty membership tag card (small tag card) seems to fall into the size range described in this patent.  As described above, would my customer's proposed loyalty membership card fall within the scope of the claims of the '127 patent?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3999" RevisionGUID="72f0ef84-30db-423d-a0c9-9b4917d21ee4" CreationDate="2013-06-06T21:52:28.967" UserId="3993" Text="May 15, 1992&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Communications architecture and buffer for distributing information services&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US 5341474&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US5341474&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A store-and-forward architecture which stores and distributes information programs to subscribers includes: information warehouses which archive information programs and dispense information programs in segments to central offices in bursts; central offices which manage subscriber's requests for service and buffer segments of information programs for delivery to subscribers in real-time under the subscriber's interactive control; and customer premises equipment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4001" RevisionGUID="ca7e0283-8cc5-4e84-998f-be9dfb4d5949" CreationDate="2013-06-06T23:06:19.380" UserId="3076" Text="My best advice is to ask other inventors you know. Also, the top person in town is very unlikely to edit and finalize patent applications written by the inventor. It's like the mechanic's sign: $50/hour,  $60 if you watch, $80 if you help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4003" RevisionGUID="efa6db75-aece-4294-8dd3-d6c5a41b9289" CreationDate="2013-06-07T01:07:06.887" UserId="3076" Text="The question probably is too specific to be of general interest. So this is a &quot;teach you how to fish&quot; answer, not a &quot;hand you a fish&quot; answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Get the publication number. I did it by reading about the history of Swiftkey to get the founder's names, then used google patent(advanced)assuming that one or both were among the inventors. They were so I got hits on several applications. I put one of those application numbers into USPTO Public PAIR and its complete history was accessible. A way that might get you the answer if it was a solo practioner or if you just wanted the law firm's identity is the &quot;legal representative&quot; tab. If you need to see the name of the person who signed the application, you'll need drill down to look at an initial transmittal letter or application data sheet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3992" RevisionGUID="3d6e9b78-ee1c-4279-85b2-e07359dd6e71" CreationDate="2013-06-07T03:20:26.453" UserId="3076" Comment="Added claim wording" Text="I have a customer who wants to issue a small tag card with a magnetic stripe. The card size is 66 x 40 mm.  It is not a payment card, just a loyalty membership card.  Only a membership number will be encoded in track 2 and this number is only used for linking the card to a loyalty system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding US Patent US6471127 B2, the proposed loyalty membership tag card (small tag card) seems to fall into the size range described in this patent.  As described above, would my customer's proposed loyalty membership card fall within the scope of the claims of the '127 patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A data card comprising a first face, a second face, and a magnetic stripe comprising stored encoded data, wherein the dimensions of the card are in the range of about 1 inch by about 1 inch to about 1⅞ inches by about 3 inches, and the lengthwise dimension of the magnetic stripe is in the range of about 1 inch to about 3 inches, and wherein the encoded data can be read by a magnetic stripe reader configured to read magnetic stripes compliant with ISO/IEC 7811.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 20&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A data card comprising a first face, a second face, and a magnetic stripe comprising stored encoded data, wherein the largest dimension of the card is about 2{fraction (9/16)} inches, and the lengthwise dimension of the magnetic stripe is in the range of about 1 inch to about 2{fraction (9/16)} inches, and wherein the encoded data can be read by a magnetic stripe reader configured to read magnetic stripes compliant with ISO/IEC 7811.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 39&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A data card comprising a first face, a second face, an angled edge, and a magnetic stripe comprising stored encoded data, wherein the largest dimension of the card is in the range of about 1⅞ inches to about 3 inches, and the lengthwise dimension of the magnetic stripe is in the range of about 1 inch to about 3 inches, and wherein the encoded data can be read by a magnetic stripe reader configured to read magnetic stripes compliant with ISO/IEC 7811.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4005" RevisionGUID="5bf5c72e-29bb-4ac7-b286-09116e4650b4" CreationDate="2013-06-07T03:29:47.393" UserId="3076" Text="The trick in this patent seems to be having the full format of standard information on a mag stripe that is too short. They do it with a higher density of bits/inch. I think what makes the claims anything at all is the requirement of being readable with a standard ISO7811 reader and an interpretation of that as requiring a full format of data. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would think twice before making anything like it without getting real advice from an attorney." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8970" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4003" RevisionGUID="83170555-f57c-4856-b070-a65e280449bf" CreationDate="2013-06-07T05:40:02.367" UserId="3076" Comment="Corrected name of tab" Text="The question probably is too specific to be of general interest. So this is a &quot;teach you how to fish&quot; answer, not a &quot;hand you a fish&quot; answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Get the publication number. I did it by reading about the history of Swiftkey to get the founder's names, then used google patent(advanced)assuming that one or both were among the inventors. They were so I got hits on several applications. I put one of those application numbers into USPTO Public PAIR and its complete history was accessible. A way that might get you the answer if it was a solo practioner or if you just wanted the law firm's identity is the &quot;Address &amp; Attorney/Agent&quot; tab. If you need to see the name of the person who signed the application, you'll need drill down to look at an initial transmittal letter or application data sheet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8971" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3980" RevisionGUID="fd35143a-e412-46d9-96ad-9b7e7205cab1" CreationDate="2013-06-07T05:50:55.980" UserId="3076" Comment="Corrected tag, added tag" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;inequitable-conduct&gt;&lt;us7635594&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4006" RevisionGUID="98317732-664c-49a8-9535-c6f2d332c1ed" CreationDate="2013-06-07T07:47:31.233" UserId="3076" Text="Trying to find something closer than anything considered by the examiner on an application with a large number of cited documents and a very long prosecution history is a huge undertaking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, one of the documents **listed on an IDS** is a US2005/0100937 (item 4 below) is listed in google patents as **a counterpart to WO 2005/025413**. So it was cited by the applicants, mooting the bulk of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/rxdHs.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8973" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3980" RevisionGUID="88e68a24-01bd-4529-a1af-0c10d8f1999f" CreationDate="2013-06-07T17:25:01.220" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us7635594&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3980" RevisionGUID="b13e163d-7318-4775-a42e-2041579e884b" CreationDate="2013-06-07T17:40:51.483" UserId="1767" Comment="Simplified request and removed references to inequitable conduct, which were statements not questions." Text="Looking for prior art for US Patent No. [7,635,594][1] which predates **May, 2005**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication number [US7635594 B2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication date - Dec 22, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Filing date - Mar 24, 2006&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Priority date - May 9, 2005&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 of US Patent No. 7,635,594:	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A two-way communication system for monitoring an analyte in a bodily fluid from a subject, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an external device configured to transmit a protocol to a reader assembly;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a fluidic device configured to be inserted into the reader assembly, said fluidic device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a sample collection unit configured for collecting a sample of bodily fluid that contains an analyte&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an assay assembly containing reactants that react with said sample of bodily fluid based on the protocol transmitted from said external device to yield a detectable signal indicative of the concentration of said analyte present in said bodily fluid; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an identifier that is configured to provide the identity of said fluidic device and is also configured to trigger the transmission of said protocol;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7635594?pg=PA1&amp;dq=7,635,594" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4006" RevisionGUID="0d6e9a59-4734-4649-8f3b-f753640efdba" CreationDate="2013-06-07T17:55:17.847" UserId="3076" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="Trying to find something closer than anything considered by the examiner on an application with a large number of cited documents and a very long prosecution history is a huge undertaking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, one of the documents **listed on an IDS** is a US2005/0100937 (item 4 below) is listed in google patents as **a counterpart to WO 2005/025413**. So it was cited by the applicants.( mooting the bulk of the question as originally posted)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/rxdHs.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3980" RevisionGUID="678dacdf-ba67-461a-b6c0-faded8b13004" CreationDate="2013-06-07T19:20:13.577" UserId="3359" Comment="added 213 characters in body" Text="Looking for prior art for US Patent No. [7,635,594][1] which predates **May, 2005**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication number [US7635594 B2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication date - Dec 22, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Filing date - Mar 24, 2006&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Priority date - May 9, 2005&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 of US Patent No. 7,635,594:	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A two-way communication system for monitoring an analyte in a bodily fluid from a subject, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an external device configured to transmit a protocol to a reader assembly;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a fluidic device configured to be inserted into the reader assembly, said fluidic device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a sample collection unit configured for collecting a sample of bodily fluid that contains an analyte&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an assay assembly containing reactants that react with said sample of bodily fluid based on the protocol transmitted from said external device to yield a detectable signal indicative of the concentration of said analyte present in said bodily fluid; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an identifier that is configured to provide the identity of said fluidic device and is also configured to trigger the transmission of said protocol;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7635594?pg=PA1&amp;dq=7,635,594&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;______________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I question whether it is appropriate for an &quot;editor&quot; to edit anything having to do with patent and/or companies the &quot;editor's&quot; employer is associated with or holds an interest in.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9002" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="3980" RevisionGUID="37616d7a-bdc8-4b63-8ab5-1b59ec2d3a26" CreationDate="2013-06-07T19:21:00.533" UserId="3359" Comment="Rollback to [b13e163d-7318-4775-a42e-2041579e884b]" Text="Looking for prior art for US Patent No. [7,635,594][1] which predates **May, 2005**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication number [US7635594 B2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication date - Dec 22, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Filing date - Mar 24, 2006&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Priority date - May 9, 2005&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 of US Patent No. 7,635,594:	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A two-way communication system for monitoring an analyte in a bodily fluid from a subject, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an external device configured to transmit a protocol to a reader assembly;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a fluidic device configured to be inserted into the reader assembly, said fluidic device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a sample collection unit configured for collecting a sample of bodily fluid that contains an analyte&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an assay assembly containing reactants that react with said sample of bodily fluid based on the protocol transmitted from said external device to yield a detectable signal indicative of the concentration of said analyte present in said bodily fluid; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an identifier that is configured to provide the identity of said fluidic device and is also configured to trigger the transmission of said protocol;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7635594?pg=PA1&amp;dq=7,635,594" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4007" RevisionGUID="15d7eb82-625e-472f-a608-ccac2b48c2a1" CreationDate="2013-06-07T20:10:06.817" UserId="4000" Text="Article titled &quot;Birth of BMAG,&quot; published Spring 1994 in [BMUG](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Macintosh_Users_Group) newsletter, which I have in my possession.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article describes an electronically published magazine called BMAG, with multiple issues, the first of which was published in 1993. Issues would be uploaded to the BMUG BBS, users could view the list of magazine issues in the file listing, and users could download the ones they chose." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9005" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3980" RevisionGUID="12e0e93a-6594-41de-90b5-93f56185114a" CreationDate="2013-06-07T22:43:28.723" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;us7635594&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4009" RevisionGUID="166c569e-35d7-47bb-a856-8121e6295279" CreationDate="2013-06-08T11:00:00.360" UserId="4004" Text="Is it for all of the world or only for USA? What kind of troubles can I face in case if I start business related to this patent in another country?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9008" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4009" RevisionGUID="166c569e-35d7-47bb-a856-8121e6295279" CreationDate="2013-06-08T11:00:00.360" UserId="4004" Text="Can I use it abroad?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9009" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4009" RevisionGUID="166c569e-35d7-47bb-a856-8121e6295279" CreationDate="2013-06-08T11:00:00.360" UserId="4004" Text="&lt;us6610337&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9010" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4009" RevisionGUID="ce9fed13-d578-4683-890c-020879eaac1d" CreationDate="2013-06-08T11:23:28.097" UserId="1259" Comment="title clarified, tags" Text="Can I use patent US6610337 abroad?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9011" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4009" RevisionGUID="ce9fed13-d578-4683-890c-020879eaac1d" CreationDate="2013-06-08T11:23:28.097" UserId="1259" Comment="title clarified, tags" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;us6610337&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4010" RevisionGUID="b81a9b18-7914-4f9f-9f55-15db2a09eb84" CreationDate="2013-06-08T11:31:06.203" UserId="1259" Text="This patent is US issued which means it covers the US only. However, the inventor may have also patented it in other countries which would then cover their respective territories. In addition, there may be child or parent applications which may have been issued separate patents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10/650,912 filed on 08-28-2003 which is Abandoned claims the benefit of 10/334,827&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particular US patent seems to have expired:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patent Expired Due to NonPayment of Maintenance Fees Under 37 CFR 1.362; 09-26-2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some cases the inventor can pay the fees and get it resurrected again." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9013" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3494" RevisionGUID="3776ff02-b093-4ff4-9885-d0de3cd8a0a8" CreationDate="2013-06-08T14:23:18.577" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;3d-printing&gt;&lt;panasonic&gt;&lt;us20120251378&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4011" RevisionGUID="951418d7-b9f5-4c8c-a583-c1be9ac6dce9" CreationDate="2013-06-08T15:09:37.997" UserId="4005" Text="Volokh, Eugene Cheap speech and what it will do;  Emerging Media Technology and the First Amendment.  Yale Law Journal ISSN: 0044-0094  May 1, 1995  Pg. 1805-1850 Vol. 104 No. N7 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Section on Music &amp; The Electronic Music Dabase - Dealing W/ Information Overload - Custom Mix Cable Radio describes something very similar to the podcasts I listen to where music is curated along a specific genre line &amp; placed on the web for consumption.  It suggests downloading it to your computer &amp; burning to a disc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4012" RevisionGUID="5ec68a32-274d-49fd-a410-af469e2a1724" CreationDate="2013-06-08T15:14:20.177" UserId="4005" Text="Braun, Jenifer.  &quot;What a tangled Web they weave.&quot;  The Star-Ledger (Newark, New Jersey).  September 22, 1996 Sunday &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Describes episodic web soap operas. The format is not *specifically* audio content, but includes episodic audio content.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4013" RevisionGUID="f9b3da6d-9eb4-4a84-b9f5-70e4453f6e7c" CreationDate="2013-06-08T15:18:52.370" UserId="4005" Text="Beauchamp, Lane.  &quot;Get spanqued!; It may be the Net's first daily talk show. Whatever, its hosts promise a bit of fun&quot;   Kansas City Star July 6, 1996   SECTION: FYI; Pg E5; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Spanq! - the version with the &quot;q&quot; - makes its debut Monday on the Web and is being touted as the first daily talk show created exclusively for the Internet.  It will be a cleverly packaged, three-minute audio update on what's new or interesting on the Web.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very similar to a lot of tech podcasts today.  But it wasn't archived.  Only available for streaming *that* day.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4014" RevisionGUID="3f2a20b4-8005-45a0-bcbf-8c58f4179b49" CreationDate="2013-06-08T15:56:45.963" UserId="4006" Text="Chaosradio is available online monthly since January 1996 (in German).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the Archive: http://chaosradio.ccc.de/chaosradio.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9021" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4009" RevisionGUID="ce52b551-7ba6-44dc-8bf3-ab45e837e72f" CreationDate="2013-06-09T01:49:53.367" UserId="1" Comment="1" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[3436],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4016" RevisionGUID="c08a8bad-7bf1-4e74-b2bd-ae298156db9b" CreationDate="2013-06-09T04:27:55.890" UserId="4009" Text="Krugozor was doing something like this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://nnm.ru/blogs/rosseforp/krugozor_51982/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4017" RevisionGUID="0ee521a1-327f-4db2-90f7-87dfbd4637d0" CreationDate="2013-06-09T08:31:26.713" UserId="226" Text="From what I know, I can legally protect my software source code from being used elsewhere (even in a modified form), with an appropriate software license. This requires no long legal process; I just have to include the license in a few places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first glance this process seems sound to me; I don't see a need for a patent because it seems to accomplish the same thing via a longer process. On thinking a bit more, it is evident that licensing and patents are different&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, but I'm unclear on how. Could someone explain this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. This may be a bit broad. In such a case it is OK if the scope is limited to software only.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9025" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4017" RevisionGUID="0ee521a1-327f-4db2-90f7-87dfbd4637d0" CreationDate="2013-06-09T08:31:26.713" UserId="226" Text="What is the difference between a license and a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9026" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4017" RevisionGUID="0ee521a1-327f-4db2-90f7-87dfbd4637d0" CreationDate="2013-06-09T08:31:26.713" UserId="226" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4018" RevisionGUID="f4c7b706-a7b0-4d55-955f-1099e2fcf688" CreationDate="2013-06-09T17:10:58.720" UserId="3076" Text="When you provide a license you are giving someone particular rights to something you own. First you need to own something before you have anything to licence to others. In the context of your question you are licensing your copyright. Copyright is automatic as soon as some writes of draws something original. It only covers that particular &quot;expression&quot; and derivative works. It does not cover functionality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents **do** cover functionality. Patent rights can also be licensed. Your copyright does not protect you from an independently developed implementation but a patent might. There are those who think &quot;software patents&quot; should not exist and rely on copyrights alone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4018" RevisionGUID="fef4aab8-7f1f-427e-8aba-60b4c000f941" CreationDate="2013-06-10T05:46:17.433" UserId="3076" Comment="Typos" Text="When you provide a license you are giving someone particular rights to something you own. First you need to own something before you have anything to licence to others. In the context of your question you are licensing your copyright. Copyright is automatic as soon as someone writes or draws something original. It only covers that particular &quot;expression&quot; and derivative works. It does not cover functionality or ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents **do** cover functionality. Patent rights can also be licensed. Your copyright does not protect you from an independently developed implementation but a patent might. There are those who think &quot;software patents&quot; should not exist and the industry should rely on copyrights alone" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4019" RevisionGUID="efcda7ff-8a15-4c67-985e-75106e5fa053" CreationDate="2013-06-10T09:58:39.740" UserId="4015" Text="The following patent documents might help. There are four of them with their priority dates mentioned. You should consult you patent attorneys to obtain the full text and claims of these patent/patent applications from respective offices. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**KR20020014602:** (18-08-2000)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abstract- PURPOSE: An electronic commerce system for glasses through an image is provided to manage information necessary for glasses sale and information on customers in database, and to mix images of three-dimensional glasses using the information, so as to provide a service capable of selecting glasses with reality. CONSTITUTION: If a user is connected, whether the user is registered as a member is checked from member information management data(S102). If registered, a pre-registered face of the user is displayed in three-dimensional(S104). The user selects items and glasses(S106,S108). Glasses for selection interwork with a glasses DB(66). After mixing images, glasses selection points are assigned(S110). Whether to purchase the selected glasses is decided(S112). Personal information, produced character information and the glasses selection points are stored in a member information management DB(S114). Displayed specification for the selected glasses and the glasses selection points may be printed. And pressing a return key ends the steps&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(JP2002014305)** - 28-06-2000&#xD;&#xA;PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To provide a system to support users so as to enable the users to easily select the spectacles meeting the users liking, a server 2 used in this system and a support apparatus. &#xD;&#xA;SOLUTION: The server 2 and a user terminal 3 are connected through a communication network 1. The server 2 includes a first data base 18 in which the designs of the respective parts of the spectacles are stored and a second data base in which the histories of the users are stored. If there is an access from the user terminal, the server sends the designs of the respective parts of the spectacles and the face image of the user. The selection of the desired designs is carried out at the user terminal and the face image and the spectacle image are synthesized and are displayed in a display section. If the user likes the spectacles, the user places an order. The ordering data is sent to the server and is forwarded to a manufacturer terminal. The manufacturer assembles the respective ordered parts and sends the assembly to the user. The user is able to rapidly purchase the desired spectacles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(KR20010097951)** 27-04-2000&#xD;&#xA;Abstract: PURPOSE: A system and a method for buying glasses based on the Internet is provided to enable a user to directly buy glasses suitable for his/her face features, hair styles, or fashion styles.&#xD;&#xA;CONSTITUTION: A client(100) inputs information for buying wanted glasses. A web server(300) is connected to the client through the Internet,(200) and provides relational information corresponding to the inputted information of the client. A distribution center(400) receives order information provided through the Internet from the web server and delivers the purchased glasses to a user of the client. A face selecting part selects face type conforming with the user's face image. A hair style selecting part selects hair style conforming with the user's hair style. A fashion style selecting part selects fashion style conforming with the user's fashion style. A control part analyzes the face type, the hair style, and the fashion style selected by the face selecting part, the hair style selecting part and the fashion style selecting part and provides corresponding glasses. A glasses selecting part selects a pair of wanted glasses among the glasses provided by the control part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(WO9729441)**  06-02-1996&#xD;&#xA;A system and method for the automation of every step of the commercial activity of an optical shop (virtual optical shop) is provided, comprising an imaging apparatus, a computer unit (operating program, image memories, data memories, A/D and D/A converters), a display apparatus, a communication apparatus and an assembling machine. The image of the face of the customer is picked up by the imaging apparatus. According to the customer's cosmetic preferences and the features of the image of his face, the operating program presents a showcase with suggestions of best fit eyewear products (spectacles frames and lenses, and color contact lenses). From the suggested showcase, the customer is able to try on and compare eyewear products on the image of his face. Once an eyewear product is chosen, the purchase order may be confirmed, and the computer unit, connected to an assembling machine through a communication program and apparatus, provides immediate assembling and delivery of the chosen eyewear product(s). The virtual optical shop, may be reached through the Internet by the customer, allowing him to go through the whole process from his home personal computer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4020" RevisionGUID="a390434b-95b4-4de8-b77c-4831fe792b93" CreationDate="2013-06-10T17:26:50.183" UserId="1746" Text="I have been [reading][1] that it can be possible to file [Design Patent(s)][2] and Copyright applications on top of non-provisional utility filings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my understanding (I am an engineer so please bear with me :) that means on top of filing an application with claims covering how the guts of my application works (non-provisional or utility) I can now protect the look and feel of how I present the application to users (Graphical User Interface). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If these assumptions are correct, what is the difference between a Design Patent and a Copyright - specifically relating to protecting User Interfaces?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.designingforhumans.com/idsa/2013/04/the-past-present-future-of-user-interface-design-patents.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.designingforhumans.com/idsa/2012/12/patent-skills-for-user-experience-design.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9031" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4020" RevisionGUID="a390434b-95b4-4de8-b77c-4831fe792b93" CreationDate="2013-06-10T17:26:50.183" UserId="1746" Text="Protecting a User Interface: Design Patent and/or Copyright" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9032" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4020" RevisionGUID="a390434b-95b4-4de8-b77c-4831fe792b93" CreationDate="2013-06-10T17:26:50.183" UserId="1746" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4020" RevisionGUID="ea007ceb-2c0c-4210-8f4c-50f84d591bf2" CreationDate="2013-06-10T19:59:33.787" UserId="1746" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="I have been [reading][1] that it is possible to file [Design Patent(s)][2] and Copyright applications on top of non-provisional utility filings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my understanding (I am an engineer so please bear with me :) that means on top of filing an application with claims covering how the guts of my application works (non-provisional or utility) I can now protect the look and feel of how I present the application to users (Graphical User Interface). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If these assumptions are correct, what is the difference between a Design Patent and a Copyright - specifically relating to protecting User Interfaces?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.designingforhumans.com/idsa/2013/04/the-past-present-future-of-user-interface-design-patents.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.designingforhumans.com/idsa/2012/12/patent-skills-for-user-experience-design.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4021" RevisionGUID="b7354e5f-7451-40a7-ab6b-0fbe251cd585" CreationDate="2013-06-11T09:44:44.900" UserId="4017" Text="Arutz Sheva - Israel National Radio began its internet presence in 1995. We were one of the first live streaming internet stations in the world. Real Audio used us as a Beta tester. The following is archives pages from 1997 showing what we then called &quot;on demand audio&quot; which were recorded radio shows uploaded on the site.&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/19980201015049/http://www.virtual.co.il/news/news/arutz7/sound/#English&#xD;&#xA;For more old pages click here:&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/19980315000000*/http://a7.org&#xD;&#xA;To contact us today click here:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.israelnationalradio.com&#xD;&#xA;I remember back in 2005 when we first heard the term &quot;podcasting&quot; and I said, &quot;don't we already do that?&quot; We changed our &quot;on demand audio&quot; links to &quot;podcast&quot; links to match up with the times." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4028" RevisionGUID="988617d3-411e-46cc-91d6-47d5293575bf" CreationDate="2013-06-11T21:32:39.930" UserId="4025" Text="Is patent US 8011122 B2, a Novelty Video Device and Method, valid or could this patent be circumvented? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my understanding the underlying components and software could be completely different than what this company, Americhip, is using in their products. For example, one can not simply patent a television as the underlying components are unique and that is why there are multiple television suppliers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my eyes this patent is for a video module attached to a piece of card stock, which I feel should not be patentable as the description is so general and there are so many different ways to go about doing this. Is there any way to circumvent the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any knowledge would be greatly appreciated, as you can see I do not know much about patents. Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9057" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4028" RevisionGUID="988617d3-411e-46cc-91d6-47d5293575bf" CreationDate="2013-06-11T21:32:39.930" UserId="4025" Text="Is this patent valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9058" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4028" RevisionGUID="988617d3-411e-46cc-91d6-47d5293575bf" CreationDate="2013-06-11T21:32:39.930" UserId="4025" Text="&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;method&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9059" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4029" RevisionGUID="15a2838e-0195-405a-bdca-2db1e250e241" CreationDate="2013-06-11T22:18:44.617" UserId="4026" Text="WFMU Radio was offering MP3s and sound bites of their radio programs from very early on... but the way back machine only has it starting in 1997:&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/19970629060648/http://www.wfmu.org/sounds.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9060" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4028" RevisionGUID="e1ba8c59-d2d5-47fd-84ae-c2f9b92d5676" CreationDate="2013-06-11T22:26:04.133" UserId="3076" Comment="Edited title and added tab" Text="Is this patent strong?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9061" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4028" RevisionGUID="e1ba8c59-d2d5-47fd-84ae-c2f9b92d5676" CreationDate="2013-06-11T22:26:04.133" UserId="3076" Comment="Edited title and added tab" Text="&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;method&gt;&lt;us8011122&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4028" RevisionGUID="e1ba8c59-d2d5-47fd-84ae-c2f9b92d5676" CreationDate="2013-06-11T22:26:04.133" UserId="3076" Comment="Edited title and added tab" Text="Is patent US 8011122 B2, a Novelty Video Device and Method, valid or could this patent be circumvented? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my understanding the underlying components and software could be completely different than what this company, Americhip, is using in their products. For example, one can not simply patent a television as the underlying components are unique and that is why there are multiple television suppliers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my eyes this patent is for a video module attached to a piece of card stock, which I feel should not be patentable as the description is so general and there are so many different ways to go about doing this. Is there any way to circumvent the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any knowledge would be greatly appreciated, as you can see I do not know much about patents. Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;at least a first page and a second page that are movable between a closed position and an open position;&#xD;&#xA;wherein the second page comprises an electronic module having a circuit, the electronic module comprising:&#xD;&#xA;at least one chip for storing data and for controlling the electronic module;&#xD;&#xA;a video screen in data communication with the at least one chip;&#xD;&#xA;a slide tongue extending from the first page to the second page, wherein movement of the first page from the closed position to the open position moves the slide tongue and closes the electronic module circuit such that a first video is shown on the video screen;&#xD;&#xA;at least first and second push button switches in electrical communication with the chip mounted on the second page, wherein closing of the first push button switch causes a second video to be played on the video screen and closing of the second push button switch causes a third video to be played on the video screen, wherein the first, second and third videos are stored on the chip contemporaneously." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4030" RevisionGUID="c7b5fb3f-a790-4944-89e3-f26e15b56c61" CreationDate="2013-06-11T22:34:58.273" UserId="3076" Text="Off hand it looks like all the claims require a &quot;switch&quot; to determine when a page is turned in order to know what page the reader is on. You might try to design around it by coming up with a way that doesn't use a switch. Very basically, it is the claim words that define what they say is theirs. Generally to get in trouble you need all of the elements they have in a particular claim for that claim to &quot;read on&quot; your thing. If you are planning to do this commercially I'd get real advice from a patent attorney." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4028" RevisionGUID="76b7f703-30fe-4c13-9c1e-ce52624274fd" CreationDate="2013-06-11T22:53:44.857" UserId="1767" Comment="Removed opinion about novelty of patent and focused on question related to invent-around.  Also, fixed layout of claim." Text="Is patent US 8011122 B2, a Novelty Video Device and Method, valid or could this patent be circumvented? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my understanding the underlying components and software could be completely different from what the Assiognee company, Americhip, is using in its products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my reading this patent is for a video module attached to a piece of card stock. The description seems very general. Is there any way to circumvent the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any knowledge would be greatly appreciated, as you can see I do not know much about patents. Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; An apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at least a first page and a second page that are movable between a closed position and an open position;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein the second page comprises an electronic module having a circuit, the electronic module comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - at least one chip for storing data and for controlling the electronic module;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a video screen in data communication with the at least one chip;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a slide tongue extending from the first page to the second page, wherein movement of the first page from the closed position to the open position moves the slide tongue and closes the electronic module circuit such that a first video is shown on the video screen;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - at least first and second push button switches in electrical communication with the chip mounted on the second page, wherein closing of the first push button switch causes a second video to be played on the video screen and closing of the second push button switch causes a third video to be played on the video screen, wherein the first, second and third videos are stored on the chip contemporaneously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Novelty Video Device and Method 8011122][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/gsuAq.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9065" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4028" RevisionGUID="76b7f703-30fe-4c13-9c1e-ce52624274fd" CreationDate="2013-06-11T22:53:44.857" UserId="1767" Comment="Removed opinion about novelty of patent and focused on question related to invent-around.  Also, fixed layout of claim." Text="Is this patent strong - Novelty video device and method - 8011122" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4028" RevisionGUID="a58c4586-6257-4d06-8ea3-7dadeb9f890d" CreationDate="2013-06-11T23:12:12.840" UserId="1767" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Is patent US 8011122 B2, a Novelty Video Device and Method, valid or could this patent be easily circumvented? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my understanding the underlying components and software could be completely different from what the Assiognee company, Americhip, is using in its products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my reading this patent is for a video module attached to a piece of card stock. The description seems very general. Is there any way to circumvent the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any knowledge would be greatly appreciated, as you can see I do not know much about patents. Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; An apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at least a first page and a second page that are movable between a closed position and an open position;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein the second page comprises an electronic module having a circuit, the electronic module comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - at least one chip for storing data and for controlling the electronic module;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a video screen in data communication with the at least one chip;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a slide tongue extending from the first page to the second page, wherein movement of the first page from the closed position to the open position moves the slide tongue and closes the electronic module circuit such that a first video is shown on the video screen;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - at least first and second push button switches in electrical communication with the chip mounted on the second page, wherein closing of the first push button switch causes a second video to be played on the video screen and closing of the second push button switch causes a third video to be played on the video screen, wherein the first, second and third videos are stored on the chip contemporaneously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Novelty Video Device and Method 8011122][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/gsuAq.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9067" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4030" RevisionGUID="899b0b72-58cb-4f63-b90c-be5321c92bda" CreationDate="2013-06-11T23:42:02.993" UserId="3076" Comment="added 256 characters in body" Text="Off hand, it looks like all the claims require a &quot;switch&quot; to determine when a page is turned in order to know what page the reader is on. You might try to design around it by coming up with a way that doesn't use a switch. I put switch in quotations because a study of the specification would be needed to understand how broadly they are using that term. For example, would RFID sensing be a switch? Or under the doctrine of equivalents might it be substituted for a switch?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very basically, it is the claim words that define what they say is theirs. Generally to get in trouble you need all of the elements they have in a particular claim for that claim to &quot;read on&quot; your thing. If you are planning to do this commercially I'd get real advice from a patent attorney." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9068" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4028" RevisionGUID="ada310af-d7e1-4420-b7b0-f6aa02a00cbb" CreationDate="2013-06-11T23:42:29.823" UserId="3076" Comment="edited title" Text="Is this patent strong?- Novelty video device and method - 8011122" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4031" RevisionGUID="6dd59866-0ab1-44de-a869-e158b0ec8824" CreationDate="2013-06-12T00:56:01.187" UserId="4028" Text="http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?FT=D&amp;date=20001005&amp;DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;CC=KR&amp;NR=20000059236A&amp;KC=A&amp;ND=6&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://ip.com/patfam/en/19679663&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;METHOD FOR PUTTING VARIOUS OBJECTS ON CUSTOMER PHOTO IMAGE WITH USE OF 3D FACE OR BODY MODELLING&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Inventor: CHO KYONG SIK [KR]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Applicant: CHO KYONG SIK [KR]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;CPC:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;IPC: G06F19/00 (IPC1-7):G06F17/60&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Publication info: KR20000059236 (A) 2000-10-05&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Priority date: 2000-07-24&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PURPOSE: A method for combining a customer photo image with various objects is provided to put the photo image on a 3D modelling, send the combined image over the internet, and put coloured makeup, glasses, a wig or other accessaries on the combined image in order to offer an environment similar to a real world.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;CONSTITUTION: A method for combining a customer photo image with various objects comprises the steps of accessing a site server over the internet at a user personal computer(S100), performing a member subscription process at the site server(S101), sending a photo image of a user face or a body(S102), putting the sent image on a 3D modelling, storing the image in a database by various object types such as an eye, a nose, a neck, a hair and so on, storing URLs of the objects in a data processor(S104), the server calling the user to send a necessary image if a sent photo does not satisfy(S105), the user trying to put various kinds of the commodities on the photo image(S106), selecting a commodity appropriate for the user himself or herself(S107) and purchasing the commodity(S108).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's compare to Claim 1 of patent 7,016,824:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interactive platform: &quot;the user trying to put various kinds of the commodities on the photo image&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Computing device: &quot;at a user personal computer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3D face model: &quot;putting the sent image on a 3D modelling&quot;; not clear if 3D model is derived from image or by some other means (need to read full translated patent to determine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Characteristics with respect to reference frame: not mentioned explicitly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3D representation of eyeglasses: implicit with &quot;putting the sent image on a 3D modelling&quot;; doesn't make sense to 3D model user image and not &quot;commodities&quot; including &quot;glasses&quot; since why would you 3D model if you were just combining images in 2D?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;request over the network: &quot;accessing a site server over the Internet&quot; which of course is a network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;placing 3D representation onto default position: &quot;put...glasses...on the combined image&quot;; not clear whether there is a default or whether the user manually puts them on (need to read full translated patent to determine).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9070" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4031" RevisionGUID="534de4c5-3710-4569-85b1-10e394e62d18" CreationDate="2013-06-12T01:22:23.727" UserId="4028" Comment="added 428 characters in body" Text="http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?FT=D&amp;date=20001005&amp;DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;CC=KR&amp;NR=20000059236A&amp;KC=A&amp;ND=6&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://ip.com/patfam/en/19679663&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;METHOD FOR PUTTING VARIOUS OBJECTS ON CUSTOMER PHOTO IMAGE WITH USE OF 3D FACE OR BODY MODELLING&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Inventor: CHO KYONG SIK [KR]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Applicant: CHO KYONG SIK [KR]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;CPC:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;IPC: G06F19/00 (IPC1-7):G06F17/60&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Publication info: KR20000059236 (A) 2000-10-05&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Priority date: 2000-07-24&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PURPOSE: A method for combining a customer photo image with various objects is provided to put the photo image on a 3D modelling, send the combined image over the internet, and put coloured makeup, glasses, a wig or other accessaries on the combined image in order to offer an environment similar to a real world.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;CONSTITUTION: A method for combining a customer photo image with various objects comprises the steps of accessing a site server over the internet at a user personal computer(S100), performing a member subscription process at the site server(S101), sending a photo image of a user face or a body(S102), putting the sent image on a 3D modelling, storing the image in a database by various object types such as an eye, a nose, a neck, a hair and so on, storing URLs of the objects in a data processor(S104), the server calling the user to send a necessary image if a sent photo does not satisfy(S105), the user trying to put various kinds of the commodities on the photo image(S106), selecting a commodity appropriate for the user himself or herself(S107) and purchasing the commodity(S108).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's compare to Claim 1 of patent 7,016,824:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interactive platform: &quot;the user trying to put various kinds of the commodities on the photo image&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Computing device: &quot;at a user personal computer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3D face model: &quot;putting the sent image on a 3D modelling&quot;; not clear if 3D model is derived from image or by some other means (need to read full translated patent to determine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Characteristics with respect to reference frame: not mentioned explicitly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3D representation of eyeglasses: implicit with &quot;putting the sent image on a 3D modelling&quot;; doesn't make sense to 3D model user image and not &quot;commodities&quot; including &quot;glasses&quot; since why would you 3D model if you were just combining images in 2D?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;request over the network: &quot;accessing a site server over the Internet&quot; which of course is a network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;placing 3D representation onto default position: &quot;put...glasses...on the combined image&quot;; not clear whether there is a default or whether the user manually puts them on (need to read full translated patent to determine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Go to the Korean patent search website:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.kipris.or.kr/enghome/main.jsp&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;and search for patent (application) 1020000042548&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;You will find that the patent I listed above was rejected, so perhaps published just means that the application was published, but the patent was not registered (accepted), but a published application is still prior art.  You should be able to see the full text and diagrams of the patent though it is in Korean." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4031" RevisionGUID="32f6676f-01b6-4d85-8090-8f79738be1f9" CreationDate="2013-06-12T02:13:38.090" UserId="4028" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?FT=D&amp;date=20001005&amp;DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;CC=KR&amp;NR=20000059236A&amp;KC=A&amp;ND=6&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://ip.com/patfam/en/19679663&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;METHOD FOR PUTTING VARIOUS OBJECTS ON CUSTOMER PHOTO IMAGE WITH USE OF 3D FACE OR BODY MODELLING&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Inventor: CHO KYONG SIK [KR]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Applicant: CHO KYONG SIK [KR]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;CPC:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;IPC: G06F19/00 (IPC1-7):G06F17/60&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Publication info: KR20000059236 (A) 2000-10-05&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Priority date: 2000-07-24&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PURPOSE: A method for combining a customer photo image with various objects is provided to put the photo image on a 3D modelling, send the combined image over the internet, and put coloured makeup, glasses, a wig or other accessaries on the combined image in order to offer an environment similar to a real world.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;CONSTITUTION: A method for combining a customer photo image with various objects comprises the steps of accessing a site server over the internet at a user personal computer(S100), performing a member subscription process at the site server(S101), sending a photo image of a user face or a body(S102), putting the sent image on a 3D modelling, storing the image in a database by various object types such as an eye, a nose, a neck, a hair and so on, storing URLs of the objects in a data processor(S104), the server calling the user to send a necessary image if a sent photo does not satisfy(S105), the user trying to put various kinds of the commodities on the photo image(S106), selecting a commodity appropriate for the user himself or herself(S107) and purchasing the commodity(S108).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's compare to Claim 1 of patent 7,016,824:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interactive platform: &quot;the user trying to put various kinds of the commodities on the photo image&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Computing device: &quot;at a user personal computer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3D face model: &quot;putting the sent image on a 3D modelling, storing the image in a database by various object types such as an eye, a nose, a neck, a hair and so on&quot;; not clear if 3D model is derived from image or by some other means (need to read full translated patent to determine), but it's clearly referring to the face.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Characteristics with respect to reference frame: not mentioned explicitly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3D representation of eyeglasses: implicit with &quot;putting the sent image on a 3D modelling&quot;; doesn't make sense to 3D model user image and not &quot;commodities&quot; including &quot;glasses&quot; since why would you 3D model if you were just combining images in 2D?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;request over the network: &quot;accessing a site server over the Internet&quot; which of course is a network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;placing 3D representation onto default position: &quot;put...glasses...on the combined image&quot;; not clear whether there is a default or whether the user manually puts them on (need to read full translated patent to determine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Go to the Korean patent search website:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.kipris.or.kr/enghome/main.jsp&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;and search for patent (application) 1020000042548&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;You will find that the patent I listed above was rejected, so perhaps published just means that the application was published, but the patent was not registered (accepted), but a published application is still prior art.  You should be able to see the full text and diagrams of the patent though it is in Korean." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4031" RevisionGUID="a2962e49-974b-4055-bd8a-125f9e55fc52" CreationDate="2013-06-12T04:37:45.920" UserId="4028" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?FT=D&amp;date=20001005&amp;DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;CC=KR&amp;NR=20000059236A&amp;KC=A&amp;ND=6&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://ip.com/patfam/en/19679663&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;METHOD FOR PUTTING VARIOUS OBJECTS ON CUSTOMER PHOTO IMAGE WITH USE OF 3D FACE OR BODY MODELLING&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Inventor: CHO KYONG SIK [KR]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Applicant: CHO KYONG SIK [KR]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;CPC:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;IPC: G06F19/00 (IPC1-7):G06F17/60&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Publication info: KR20000059236 (A) 2000-10-05&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Priority date: 2000-07-24&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PURPOSE: A method for combining a customer photo image with various objects is provided to put the photo image on a 3D modelling, send the combined image over the internet, and put coloured makeup, glasses, a wig or other accessaries on the combined image in order to offer an environment similar to a real world.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;CONSTITUTION: A method for combining a customer photo image with various objects comprises the steps of accessing a site server over the internet at a user personal computer(S100), performing a member subscription process at the site server(S101), sending a photo image of a user face or a body(S102), putting the sent image on a 3D modelling, storing the image in a database by various object types such as an eye, a nose, a neck, a hair and so on, storing URLs of the objects in a data processor(S104), the server calling the user to send a necessary image if a sent photo does not satisfy(S105), the user trying to put various kinds of the commodities on the photo image(S106), selecting a commodity appropriate for the user himself or herself(S107) and purchasing the commodity(S108).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's compare to Claim 1 of patent 7,016,824:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interactive platform: &quot;the user trying to put various kinds of the commodities on the photo image&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Computing device: &quot;at a user personal computer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3D face model: &quot;putting the sent image on a 3D modelling, storing the image in a database by various object types such as an eye, a nose, a neck, a hair and so on&quot;; not clear if 3D model is derived from image or by some other means (need to read full translated patent to determine), but it's clearly referring to the face.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Characteristics with respect to 3D reference frame: not mentioned explicitly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3D representation of eyeglasses: implicit with &quot;putting the sent image on a 3D modelling&quot;; doesn't make sense to 3D model user image and not &quot;commodities&quot; including &quot;glasses&quot; since why would you 3D model if you were just combining images in 2D?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;request over the network: &quot;accessing a site server over the Internet&quot; which of course is a network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;placing 3D representation onto default position: &quot;put...glasses...on the combined image&quot;; not clear whether there is a default or whether the user manually puts them on (need to read full translated patent to determine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Go to the Korean patent search website:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.kipris.or.kr/enghome/main.jsp&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;and search for patent (application) 1020000042548&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;You will find that the patent I listed above was rejected, so perhaps published just means that the application was published, but the patent was not registered (accepted), but a published application is still prior art.  You should be able to see the full text and diagrams of the patent though it is in Korean." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9074" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4031" RevisionGUID="6b7d764c-1944-4b45-9ba0-1baab8cecabb" CreationDate="2013-06-12T15:57:27.517" UserId="4028" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?FT=D&amp;date=20001005&amp;DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;CC=KR&amp;NR=20000059236A&amp;KC=A&amp;ND=6&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://ip.com/patfam/en/19679663&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;METHOD FOR PUTTING VARIOUS OBJECTS ON CUSTOMER PHOTO IMAGE WITH USE OF 3D FACE OR BODY MODELLING&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Inventor: CHO KYONG SIK [KR]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Applicant: CHO KYONG SIK [KR]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;CPC:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;IPC: G06F19/00 (IPC1-7):G06F17/60&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Publication info:** KR20000059236 (A) **2000-10-05**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Priority date: 2000-07-24&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PURPOSE: A method for combining a customer photo image with various objects is provided to put the photo image on a 3D modelling, send the combined image over the internet, and put coloured makeup, glasses, a wig or other accessaries on the combined image in order to offer an environment similar to a real world.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;CONSTITUTION: A method for combining a customer photo image with various objects comprises the steps of accessing a site server over the internet at a user personal computer(S100), performing a member subscription process at the site server(S101), sending a photo image of a user face or a body(S102), putting the sent image on a 3D modelling, storing the image in a database by various object types such as an eye, a nose, a neck, a hair and so on, storing URLs of the objects in a data processor(S104), the server calling the user to send a necessary image if a sent photo does not satisfy(S105), the user trying to put various kinds of the commodities on the photo image(S106), selecting a commodity appropriate for the user himself or herself(S107) and purchasing the commodity(S108).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's compare to Claim 1 of patent 7,016,824:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interactive platform: &quot;the user trying to put various kinds of the commodities on the photo image&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Computing device: &quot;at a user personal computer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3D face model: &quot;putting the sent image on a 3D modelling, storing the image in a database by various object types such as an eye, a nose, a neck, a hair and so on&quot;; not clear if 3D model is derived from image or by some other means (need to read full translated patent to determine), but it's clearly referring to the face.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Characteristics with respect to 3D reference frame: not mentioned explicitly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3D representation of eyeglasses: implicit with &quot;putting the sent image on a 3D modelling&quot;; doesn't make sense to 3D model user image and not &quot;commodities&quot; including &quot;glasses&quot; since why would you 3D model if you were just combining images in 2D?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;request over the network: &quot;accessing a site server over the Internet&quot; which of course is a network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;placing 3D representation onto default position: &quot;put...glasses...on the combined image&quot;; not clear whether there is a default or whether the user manually puts them on (need to read full translated patent to determine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Go to the Korean patent search website:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.kipris.or.kr/enghome/main.jsp&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;and search for patent (application) 1020000042548&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;You will find that the patent I listed above was rejected, so perhaps published just means that the application was published, but the patent was not registered (accepted), but a published application is still prior art.  You should be able to see the full text and diagrams of the patent though it is in Korean." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4033" RevisionGUID="0ce83985-3f80-40ca-bd1d-bbf56afcf2cf" CreationDate="2013-06-12T19:16:00.177" UserId="1767" Text=" **HELP SAVE MOBILE SEARCH** - This application seeks to patent a system for finding open stores which are located near a user at the time of a search! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before October, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a **search request** from a mobile user that includes both the **current time** AND the **location** of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying businesses which are **currently open** and **located near ** the user; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Returning a search result page indicating a subset of businesses as currently open.&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses estimated **travel time** to estimate whether the business is “close enough” to the user. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: INDICATING LOCATION STATUS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method searching for currently open businesses from a mobile device.   The user’s device sends a search query, the current time and its location.  A search is performed based on the user’s search query.  A subset of results is selected based on operating hours of the business, current time, and travel time from the device location to the business.  The search results which are returned indicate which businesses are “currently open”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110822 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** October, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below::&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a query from a user device, a current time, and a location for the user device; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying results responsive to the query, the results including one or more business results that are each associated with a business location and operating hours; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting a subset of the business results as open results based on the operating hours of the business results, the current time, and travel times from the device location to the respective business locations; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Providing data for a search engine results page that designates the subset of business results as open results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A user’s device sends user’s search query, current time and its location&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Businesses, their associated locations and business hours are identified from the query&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  A few items from this list are selected based on whether the businesses are currently open and the user is close enough to get to them before they close&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. A subset of businesses which are open is passed along to a search engine to return results (which presumably could return a list or a map).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and including **travel time** from the user’s device to the business to determine whether user will make it to the business before it closes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Show restaurants open now”** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/xLvPq.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130110822&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9080" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4033" RevisionGUID="0ce83985-3f80-40ca-bd1d-bbf56afcf2cf" CreationDate="2013-06-12T19:16:00.177" UserId="1767" Text="INDICATING LOCATION STATUS Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9081" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4033" RevisionGUID="0ce83985-3f80-40ca-bd1d-bbf56afcf2cf" CreationDate="2013-06-12T19:16:00.177" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130110822&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4033" RevisionGUID="e336e70d-5500-4133-9a0c-aacd2e745918" CreationDate="2013-06-12T19:22:35.390" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **HELP SAVE MOBILE SEARCH** - This application seeks to patent a system for finding open stores which are located near a user at the time of a search! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before October, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a **search request** from a mobile user that includes both the **current time** AND the **location** of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying businesses which are **currently open** and **located near** the user; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Returning a search result page indicating a subset of businesses as currently open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses estimated **travel time** to estimate whether the business is “close enough” to the user. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: INDICATING LOCATION STATUS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method searching for currently open businesses from a mobile device.   The user’s device sends a search query, the current time and its location.  A search is performed based on the user’s search query.  A subset of results is selected based on operating hours of the business, current time, and travel time from the device location to the business.  The search results which are returned indicate which businesses are “currently open”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110822 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** October, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below::&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a query from a user device, a current time, and a location for the user device; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying results responsive to the query, the results including one or more business results that are each associated with a business location and operating hours; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting a subset of the business results as open results based on the operating hours of the business results, the current time, and travel times from the device location to the respective business locations; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Providing data for a search engine results page that designates the subset of business results as open results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A user’s device sends user’s search query, current time and its location&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Businesses, their associated locations and business hours are identified from the query&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  A few items from this list are selected based on whether the businesses are currently open and the user is close enough to get to them before they close&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. A subset of businesses which are open is passed along to a search engine to return results (which presumably could return a list or a map).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and including **travel time** from the user’s device to the business to determine whether user will make it to the business before it closes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Show restaurants open now”** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/xLvPq.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130110822&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9083" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4033" RevisionGUID="e336e70d-5500-4133-9a0c-aacd2e745918" CreationDate="2013-06-12T19:22:35.390" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130110822&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4034" RevisionGUID="f42ddb8b-4618-4319-92c7-15349d12875d" CreationDate="2013-06-13T04:03:08.320" UserId="3948" Text="My software implemented process invention includes three entities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The first business entity providing the data&#xD;&#xA; 2. A second business entity requesting the data&#xD;&#xA; 3. A user, whose data is requested&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can actually narrow this down such that the user isn't involved in the process, but none of the business entities can be eliminated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: will competitors be able to circumvent the patent by divided infringement?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9085" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4034" RevisionGUID="f42ddb8b-4618-4319-92c7-15349d12875d" CreationDate="2013-06-13T04:03:08.320" UserId="3948" Text="Divided patent infringement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9086" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4034" RevisionGUID="f42ddb8b-4618-4319-92c7-15349d12875d" CreationDate="2013-06-13T04:03:08.320" UserId="3948" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4035" RevisionGUID="f86a2501-7298-4df4-ada3-a085877733fe" CreationDate="2013-06-13T05:45:35.613" UserId="3076" Text="This is usually solvable by claiming techniques. For readers unfamiliar with the problem: for a person/company/other entity to directly infringe a method claim in a patent that entity needs to do **all of the steps** that are positively recited in some claim. If it is a system claim one entity has to deploy, make, or etc. **all** of the elements of the system claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very often there are multiple &quot;actors&quot; involved in a method. For one entity to be responsible for &quot;A client **requesting** a data packet and then a server **sending** a packet&quot; requires the client and server being owned or operated by a common entity. Often the client and server are separately owned or could be to get around the claim. So instead, write &quot;a client **requesting** a packet from a server and then the client **receiving** a packet sent by a server&quot;. The server is inferentially claimed; it is not &quot;positively recited&quot;. Both of the actual required actions - requesting and receiving, are done by the client.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be rewritten so only the server's actions are positively recited. Many well thought out claim sets have a claim of the client's actions, a claim of the server's actions and another of the user's actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will this work for you? &quot;A method of determining a person's hair color comprising (a)transmitting an individual's identity to a remote hair-color server; (b)receiving a data transmission from the hair-color server, the data including a code representing the hair color that the individual had previously supplied to the server.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4035" RevisionGUID="2f750235-13ec-4db4-bec6-6fd2961c0ba5" CreationDate="2013-06-13T07:03:06.430" UserId="3076" Comment="added 279 characters in body" Text="This is usually solvable by claiming techniques. For readers unfamiliar with the problem: for a person/company/other entity to directly infringe a method claim in a patent that entity needs to do **all of the steps** that are positively recited in some claim. If it is a system claim one entity has to deploy, make, or etc. **all** of the elements of the system claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very often there are multiple &quot;actors&quot; involved in a method. For one entity to be responsible for &quot;A client **requesting** a data packet and then a server **sending** a packet&quot; requires the client and server being owned or operated by a common entity. Often the client and server are separately owned or could be to get around the claim. So instead, write &quot;a client **requesting** a packet from a server and then the client **receiving** a packet sent by a server&quot;. The server is inferentially claimed; it is not &quot;positively recited&quot;. Both of the actual required actions - requesting and receiving, are done by the client.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be rewritten so only the server's actions are positively recited. Many well thought out claim sets have a claim of the client's actions, a claim of the server's actions and another of the user's actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will this work for you? &quot;A method of determining a person's hair color comprising (a)transmitting an individual's identity to a remote hair-color server; (b)receiving a data transmission from the hair-color server, the data including a code representing the hair color that the individual had previously supplied to the server.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For next level of strategy -- think about which actor you would rather be able to go after. Does one end have more money? Is one part of it something that could be out of the US but the customer and benefit are in the US? Is infringement easier to detect or prove at one end?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4038" RevisionGUID="8dbb1c30-7836-4be1-ab67-ce56388746be" CreationDate="2013-06-13T16:55:29.157" UserId="4045" Text="The radio comedy group Firesign Theatere did a &quot;Great Internet Broadcast&quot; in May 1996.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.radiofreeoz.com/?s=1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, according to Wikipedia, in 1996 Firesign Theatere member Peter Bergman &quot;began placing radio-show-like comedy sound bites on his own Internet-based comedy radio station, www.rfo.net. 'The show will be the Internet's funny bone,' Bergman said.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Firesign_Theatre#Other_projects&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, the Wikipedia link to the article confirming this is dead. But it later became the Radio Free Oz podcast." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4033" RevisionGUID="0c06b44e-27aa-4d11-a95b-00c1e875b623" CreationDate="2013-06-13T18:03:40.700" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **HELP SAVE MOBILE SEARCH** - This application seeks to patent a system for finding open stores which are located near a user at the time of a search! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before October, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a **search request** from a mobile user that includes both the **current time** AND the **location** of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying businesses which are **currently open** and **located near** the user; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Returning a search result page indicating a subset of businesses as currently open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses estimated **travel time** to estimate whether the business is “close enough” to the user. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: INDICATING LOCATION STATUS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method searching for currently open businesses from a mobile device.   The user’s device sends a search query, the current time and its location.  A search is performed based on the user’s search query.  A subset of results is selected based on operating hours of the business, current time, and travel time from the device location to the business.  The search results which are returned indicate which businesses are “currently open”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110822 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** October, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below::&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a query from a user device, a current time, and a location for the user device; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying results responsive to the query, the results including one or more business results that are each associated with a business location and operating hours; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting a subset of the business results as open results based on the operating hours of the business results, the current time, and travel times from the device location to the respective business locations; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Providing data for a search engine results page that designates the subset of business results as open results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A user’s device sends user’s search query, current time and its location&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Businesses, their associated locations and business hours are identified from the query&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  A few items from this list are selected based on whether the businesses are currently open and the user is close enough to get to them before they close&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. A subset of businesses which are open is passed along to a search engine to return results (which presumably could return a list or a map).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and including **travel time** from the user’s device to the business to determine whether user will make it to the business before it closes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Show restaurants open now”** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/xLvPq.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130110822&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4033" RevisionGUID="d56e925c-8acf-4eec-b537-a1050618f579" CreationDate="2013-06-13T20:25:28.067" UserId="1767" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="  **HELP SAVE MOBILE SEARCH** - This application seeks to patent a system for finding open stores which are located near a user at the time of a search! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before October, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a **search request** from a mobile user that includes both the **current time** AND the **location** of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying businesses which are **currently open** and **located near** the user; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Returning a search result page indicating a subset of businesses as currently open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses estimated **travel time** to estimate whether the business is “close enough” to the user. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: INDICATING LOCATION STATUS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of searching for currently open businesses from a mobile device.   The user’s device sends a search query, the current time and its location.  A search is performed based on the user’s search query.  A subset of results is selected based on operating hours of the business, current time, and travel time from the device location to the business.  The search results which are returned indicate which businesses are “currently open”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110822 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** October, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below::&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a query from a user device, a current time, and a location for the user device; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying results responsive to the query, the results including one or more business results that are each associated with a business location and operating hours; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting a subset of the business results as open results based on the operating hours of the business results, the current time, and travel times from the device location to the respective business locations; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Providing data for a search engine results page that designates the subset of business results as open results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A user’s device sends user’s search query, current time and its location&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Businesses, their associated locations and business hours are identified from the query&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  A few items from this list are selected based on whether the businesses are currently open and the user is close enough to get to them before they close&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. A subset of businesses which are open is passed along to a search engine to return results (which presumably could return a list or a map).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and including **travel time** from the user’s device to the business to determine whether user will make it to the business before it closes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Show restaurants open now”** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/xLvPq.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130110822&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4039" RevisionGUID="40ad258e-cfec-4f18-9a8e-d5c8362d3a06" CreationDate="2013-06-13T20:46:35.477" UserId="4041" Text="I basically am trying to achieve a search for patents and/or entities (that own patents) containing some specific keywords.  However, I would like to exclude a few entities from the search by using the ANDNOT Boolean condition specifier. Is there a free tool or database available to achieve this purpose?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9103" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4039" RevisionGUID="40ad258e-cfec-4f18-9a8e-d5c8362d3a06" CreationDate="2013-06-13T20:46:35.477" UserId="4041" Text="Online tool / database for finding entities by entering search keywords" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9104" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4039" RevisionGUID="40ad258e-cfec-4f18-9a8e-d5c8362d3a06" CreationDate="2013-06-13T20:46:35.477" UserId="4041" Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;patent-search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4041" RevisionGUID="1bf65fc6-d4ce-410e-a9a4-52746840083a" CreationDate="2013-06-14T07:23:10.163" UserId="4047" Text="I feel a bit silly for adding anything since most of what I've found has already been mentioned. However since I can't uplink, which is also silly because how can you build support if people just finding this can't vote for things they think are relevant, I figured I'd add my 2 cents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that Carl Malamud's Internet Talk Radio, that other's have mentioned, is the most applicable, since it started in 1993 and was episodic in that he interviewed Computer Experts each week, meaning the content was similar.  Additionally, as cited in Wikipedia, the content had to be downloaded to listen to it.  I didn't see the following site mentioned.  It's an effort to &quot;rescue&quot; the content from Internet Talk Radio.&#xD;&#xA;http://museum.media.org/radio/&#xD;&#xA;Here is the Wikipedia article about &quot;Internet Talk Radio&quot;.  While there are no citations an experienced lawyer could likely find more legitimate info about this.&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_talk_radio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even Wikipedia's &quot;History of Podcasting&quot; cites earlier references to people doing &quot;podcasting&quot; prior to Personal Audio's patent.&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_podcasting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to that I do wonder if an argument could be made that if the Patent office issued patents later that were similar in description and scope, that that in itself would make the patent invalid, or at least not arguable in court.  I came across the following patents, issued later, that basically describe the same type of device.  If they were issued, one could argue that Personal Audio's patent was not unique.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US7933171&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US5481509&#xD;&#xA;http://www.patentlens.net/patentlens/patents.html?patnums=US_8090130&amp;returnTo=quick.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I couldn't find a patent for the Personal Jukebox, developed by Compaq back in 1999, someone with more skill in Patent searches might find something. While it doesn't pre-date this patent, the fact that the US Patent Office gave a patent for something like this, after the Personal Audio patent, might be arguable.&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Jukebox&#xD;&#xA;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/19/how_hp_invented_the_market/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Things become even more interesting when you look at Personal Audio specifically.  I'm no patent attorney but according to a Patent search while this patent technically goes back to 1996, the documentation says it wasn't filed until March of 2009 and wasn't even published until Feb 2012.  Again, I don't know the ins and outs of Patent Law but as a layman...sure I can say I came up with something on a certain date, but if I don't file for that idea until almost 13 years later...My Loss!&#xD;&#xA;www.google.com/patents/US8112504&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On top of those details, Personal Audio filed a separate Patent for pretty much the exact same thing.  Again I'm not a patent attorney, just a user, so if my interpretation is off...I apologize.  But then it seems like these Patent Trolls interpret things in their own way too.  It's &quot;priority date&quot;, which I'm guessing is the date of conception is almost two years later the same as the filing date.  But it's Publish Date is almost a year before the Publish date of the Patent that is being used to sue podcasters.&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/EP2290972A2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Personal Audio could essentially sue itself for Patent infringement, at least based on my interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On top of all of that...Personal Audio doesn't even claim to have a Patent on Podcasting until 2/7/2012, as evidenced in their own Press Release.  So it's not like they were contacting Podcasters prior to that saying... &quot;You might infringe on this patent when it's finally published, but we did say we invented it back in 1996 and Submitted it in 2009.  But...be careful, just in case.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;http://personalaudio.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/2012-12-30-Podcasting-Patent-Issued-Press-Release1.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Patent System definitely needs and overhaul.  I personally have thought, should I patent this idea and become a patent troll when someone else actually makes or work, or pay someone to make it work.  IMHO, unless the technology has been demonstrated in at least a very minimal way, it should not be approved by the Patent Office.  Something to think about...at one point Marijuana Growers were patenting their &quot;variety&quot; of marijuana plant.  Then someone noticed and was like...Whoa!  Those were all invalidated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything said here... https://defendinnovation.org/ Pretty much says it all.  Number 4 in particular.  If I can prove that my code isn't exactly the same as someone else's code, then I'm not infringing.  And if there is no code from the Patent owner...Oh well.  Having worked for a software company, I know we come up with the code for a certain function.  We don't go through all the patent records and try to make some abstract idea work.  No one has time for that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4042" RevisionGUID="443ca854-2944-44e2-84e5-2815e416def0" CreationDate="2013-06-14T10:54:13.827" UserId="4044" Text="Would it be possible, from a legal point of view, to create a software license that would prevent someone from patenting any part of software (source code) released under that license?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there are some licenses, like Apache 2.0 and MPL, that void the license for licensees if they try to pursue any patent infringements against the licensor. But it is a bit different, because it still doesn't prevent someone from trying to raise a patent for the software released under that license. But the lack of licenses that would prevent that makes me think that there must be something that makes creating such a license difficult, if not impossible, because I don't believe it's only me who has got such idea in mind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9110" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4042" RevisionGUID="443ca854-2944-44e2-84e5-2815e416def0" CreationDate="2013-06-14T10:54:13.827" UserId="4044" Text="A license that prevents raising a software patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9111" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4042" RevisionGUID="443ca854-2944-44e2-84e5-2815e416def0" CreationDate="2013-06-14T10:54:13.827" UserId="4044" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;opensource&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4043" RevisionGUID="cbc0193a-6e57-4199-b514-42716c0f0477" CreationDate="2013-06-14T11:18:35.317" UserId="4050" Text="we have done a process which has been already done around 50 years ago &amp; is patented in US. We have just modified the process with no new invention done. we have just make the process just by introducing technology. Can it be patented in India?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9113" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4043" RevisionGUID="cbc0193a-6e57-4199-b514-42716c0f0477" CreationDate="2013-06-14T11:18:35.317" UserId="4050" Text="modified process of known process can be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9114" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4043" RevisionGUID="cbc0193a-6e57-4199-b514-42716c0f0477" CreationDate="2013-06-14T11:18:35.317" UserId="4050" Text="&lt;process&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4044" RevisionGUID="f080918b-9a04-4b60-9b78-26002c5374a6" CreationDate="2013-06-14T12:29:42.947" UserId="4051" Text="A lot of rackmount server case are equipped with hot-swappable tray. &#xD;&#xA;Rackmount case brand might have different design of hot-swappable tray but the mechanical engineering can be actually or almost the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you design your own rackmount server case for business, is hot-swappable licence required?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9116" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4044" RevisionGUID="f080918b-9a04-4b60-9b78-26002c5374a6" CreationDate="2013-06-14T12:29:42.947" UserId="4051" Text="Hot Swap Tray patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9117" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4044" RevisionGUID="f080918b-9a04-4b60-9b78-26002c5374a6" CreationDate="2013-06-14T12:29:42.947" UserId="4051" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4045" RevisionGUID="b7e03aa5-672b-4f63-8cc2-ddafc49d7d2c" CreationDate="2013-06-14T13:10:16.400" UserId="1259" Text="While this site is mainly for patent applications in the US, I'm sure the presence of a US patent will prevent you from patenting the same thing elsewhere, even India." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4046" RevisionGUID="a3f6577c-ecdc-4090-b736-b0f2c6dd486d" CreationDate="2013-06-14T13:13:59.590" UserId="1259" Text="&quot;Software&quot; itself cannot be patented. The method, machine, or way it does things - can be patented. If the method is &quot;know&quot; via the open source licenses you mention, it may qualify as prior art and thus prevent anyone from patenting a thing that uses those components; or it may violate the terms of use of the open source software which may prohibit such patenting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4045" RevisionGUID="c0820271-68a7-431f-80de-8c58a3628689" CreationDate="2013-06-14T13:18:49.070" UserId="1259" Comment="clarified" Text="While this site is mainly for patent applications in the US, I'm sure the presence of a US patent will prevent you from patenting the same thing elsewhere, even India. If the changes made are considerable enough to call it a new &quot;thing&quot;, then perhaps - but you did say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We have just modified the process with no new invention done" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4044" RevisionGUID="e4b46676-36bf-40ad-953b-437b170c5971" CreationDate="2013-06-14T14:16:26.767" UserId="4051" Comment="added 376 characters in body" Text="A lot of rackmount server case are equipped with hot-swappable tray. &#xD;&#xA;Rackmount case brand might have different design of hot-swappable tray but the mechanical engineering can be actually or almost the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no experience with engineering and the prototype will probably be built by Manufacturer in China. The engineer will come up with the the locking mechanism design somehow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the locking mechanism has to be different that is not patented? but the tray design will be quite different. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US8243435&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US20100309621&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4042" RevisionGUID="210e7f58-e155-443f-9201-c34e5dd37624" CreationDate="2013-06-14T14:29:42.793" UserId="4044" Comment="added 606 characters in body" Text="Would it be possible, from a legal point of view, to create a software license that would prevent someone from patenting any part of software (source code) released under that license?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there are some licenses, like Apache 2.0 and MPL, that void the license for licensees if they try to pursue any patent infringements against the licensor. But it is a bit different, because it still doesn't prevent someone from trying to raise a patent for the software released under that license. But the lack of licenses that would prevent that makes me think that there must be something that makes creating such a license difficult, if not impossible, because I don't believe it's only me who has got such idea in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** I know the software itself can't be patented, only the way the algorithm in that software resolves a specific problem. I use 'software' as a generic term because there is no way of knowing what kind of patent someone can see and can attempt to register based on that software. Say the software may be resolving a specific problem in a new way and the author may not even know about that, yet someone else, maybe knowing the domain better, may see the novelty and try to steal the idea and patent it. Is it possible to prevent that from happening only by wording the license in a specific way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4047" RevisionGUID="e048cfaa-9e87-4240-813c-3e58eda1c068" CreationDate="2013-06-14T14:59:06.240" UserId="4053" Text="Massively Multiplayer Online Games (MMOGs) could be argued to be episodic in nature, as publishers would distribute patches and updates via the internet, often adding new content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the earliest examples of an MMOG is Meridian 59, which was publishing updates via the internet as early as 1995, according to [their official website.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.meridian59.com/about-early-history.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4048" RevisionGUID="5b0b852b-b0e5-455d-b455-9d836c9cc18f" CreationDate="2013-06-14T17:05:18.237" UserId="3076" Text="It's all about the claims. If all of the claims require an A, a B and a specific lock design C  and you build an X a Y and a C you haven't made something that falls within the words of the claim. But if one of the claims **only** includes the lock then you can't make that lock." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4049" RevisionGUID="5215aec9-273a-4d64-818d-b3bb3bb32fa6" CreationDate="2013-06-14T17:09:39.330" UserId="3076" Text="You say &quot;modified&quot; but with no &quot;invention&quot;. How do you judge if your modification is or is not inventive? Small modifications can have large, unexpected consequences. And large modifications can be not new or obvious. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4050" RevisionGUID="ed786fd5-028f-427d-81c7-dc0162559620" CreationDate="2013-06-14T21:20:02.680" UserId="4054" Text="There is a paper published by Robert Jensen in the July/August 1993 edition of Academe Magazine entitled &quot;The Technology of the Future is Already Here&quot; which describes professors being able to reach students all over the world with audiovisual presentations among other things.  The paper specifically mentions the internet as a means." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9137" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4044" RevisionGUID="3f583c4c-672b-4939-bf7c-ce2468ee3ed6" CreationDate="2013-06-15T12:28:33.913" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;us8243435&gt;&lt;us20100309621&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3891" RevisionGUID="b9e74a16-44d9-4740-8af3-079f7d524b12" CreationDate="2013-06-15T18:35:52.123" UserId="1767" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text=" **HELP SAVE STREAMING RADIO** - This application seeks to patent a system for discovering new radio stations and podcasts online! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Nov, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of Internet radio station programs; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **dynamically categorizing** this list of programs by mapping a **dynamically identified topic** to a **content classifier**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **speech-to-text conversion** on audio content. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System And Method For Internet Radio Station Program Discovery**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A service for discovering Internet radio station programs. A list of Internet radio station programs is obtained. Each program on the list is categorized by mapping a topic to a program using a content classifier. User can discover new programs of interest from the list of programs based on the categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110502 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Lemi Technology, LLC&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** November, 2008&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Note**: This application is a [continuation][3] of US Patent  [8,359,192][6]. The applicant is attempting to “improve” the claims with this child patent by writing new (evidently broader) claims while retaining the original 2008 priority date.  So prior art should predate November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining a plurality of Internet radio station programs;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. For each Internet radio station program of the plurality of Internet radio station programs, dynamically categorizing the Internet radio station program by mapping a dynamically identified topic of the Internet radio station program to a content classifier;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Enabling a user to discover an Internet radio station program of interest from the plurality of Internet radio station programs based on the dynamic categorizations for the plurality of Internet radio station programs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of internet radio station programs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. “Dynamically categorizing” this list of programs by mapping a “dynamically identified topic” to a content classifier; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  Allowing the user to discover programs from the list based on the “dynamic categorization” (presumably created by the classifier)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and including **speech-to-text conversion** to categorize the radio station programs. Extra credit would include systems that do all of the steps above and also involve speech-to-text conversion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Internet Radio Station program discovery service&quot; flow chart from the Applicant** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/wagCM.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;300&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130110502&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;[6]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8359192?dq=8,359,192&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8359192" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4054" RevisionGUID="2589f788-d1fd-4155-9631-4f64e7d72169" CreationDate="2013-06-15T18:56:12.723" UserId="4057" Text="At audionet.com we categorized radio stations ,shows,networks ,all content we hosted . we had news sports etc. We had source, host,all types if meta data for categories.&#xD;&#xA;In 1998 for broadcast.com we added index.broadcast.com   it indexed all the meta data and where we were able to do speech to text, the actual transcripts of the content. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any consumer could go to the site and search for any word or term. We used indexing technology from media site.com I believe it was" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4055" RevisionGUID="cd436e95-1b5d-4f2d-b68e-0fc6a7f2a1d8" CreationDate="2013-06-15T21:27:51.167" UserId="1767" Text=" **HELP SAVE MOBILE PURCHASES** - This application from Apple seeks to patent a method for purchasing a product in a store using a smartphone! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Nov, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Using a mobile device to obtain a **product identifier** of a product in a store (e.g., a UPC code); and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. On a mobile device, receiving the **product price** from a server; transmitting a **purchase request** to a server; and receiving a **purchase confirmation** from a server;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **an image taken by the camera on the device** to determine the product identifier (e.g. a UPC code or any other product identifier). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PURCHASING A PRODUCT IN A STORE USING A MOBILE DEVICE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for purchasing a product in a store using a mobile phone. The user’s mobile phone sends a **product identifier** for a product offered for sale in a store to a server somewhere.  The mobile phone receives **product information** including the price of the product from the server.  The mobile phone sends a **purchase request** including digital credentials (of any kind) to identify the user.  The mobile device **receives a confirmation** from the server and presents a confirmation to the user that the product has been purchased.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130110678 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Apple, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** November, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for purchasing a product by a customer operating a customer mobile device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining, by the customer mobile device, a product identifier for a product offered for sale in a store;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Transmitting, by the customer mobile device, the product identifier to a store server associated with the store;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving, by the customer mobile device, product information from the store server, the product information including a price of the product;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Presenting to the customer, by the customer mobile device, at least some of the received product information, including the price of the product;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Receiving, by the customer mobile device, customer purchasing input, the customer purchasing input including a digital credential for the customer, the digital credential being usable to access a user account record that stores financial account information for a financial account of the customer, the user account record being maintained at an account data server;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Transmitting, by the customer mobile device, a purchase request to the store server, the purchase request including the digital credential, wherein the store server uses the digital credential to obtain the financial account information and uses the financial account information to charge the price of the product to the financial account of the customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Receiving, by the customer mobile device, a purchase confirmation from the store server, the purchase confirmation indicating that the product has been purchased by the customer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. Presenting to the customer, by the customer mobile device, a confirmation message confirming that the purchase transaction for the product has successfully completed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Using a phone to obtain a product identifier (e.g. a UPC code) identifying a product in a store&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Phone sends the product identifier to a server&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Phone receives information about the product identified, including the price&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Phone displays price of product to the user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Customer indicates intent to purchase and provides user information&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Phone sends the purchase request to the server&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Phone receives confirmation of purchase; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. Phone confirms product has been purchased with the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the November, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and including **camera phone** to capture an image of the product identifier (presumably rather than having the user type it in). Extra credit would include systems that do all of the steps above and also involve a cameraphone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Welcome to Our Store&quot; screen shots from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/NT8to.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130110678?dq=us20130110678&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9142" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4055" RevisionGUID="cd436e95-1b5d-4f2d-b68e-0fc6a7f2a1d8" CreationDate="2013-06-15T21:27:51.167" UserId="1767" Text="PURCHASING A PRODUCT IN A STORE USING A MOBILE DEVICE Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9143" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4055" RevisionGUID="cd436e95-1b5d-4f2d-b68e-0fc6a7f2a1d8" CreationDate="2013-06-15T21:27:51.167" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;mobile-phone&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4056" RevisionGUID="698be7c1-f00a-4310-8054-8ef9ca468e8e" CreationDate="2013-06-15T21:53:29.327" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;strong&gt;Ask Patents&lt;/strong&gt; is a question and answer site for people interested in improving and participating in the patent system. It's built and run &lt;em&gt;by you&lt;/em&gt; as part of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Stack Exchange&lt;/a&gt; network of Q&amp;amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to find Prior Art on dangerous and overly broad US Patent Applications **before** they become issued Patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9148" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4055" RevisionGUID="0eda1340-3e15-4a47-8b77-f8439b878003" CreationDate="2013-06-15T22:09:27.063" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4057" RevisionGUID="d346a098-500e-44c0-96f7-3b2e2b513223" CreationDate="2013-06-15T22:24:17.913" UserId="3076" Text="**Complete integrated self-checkout system and method&#xD;&#xA;[US 6507279][1], June 6, 2003**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems seminal in that over 50 later patents cite it. I do not see it on the IDS already submitted by Apple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From abstract&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An integrated self-checkout system and method incorporates  . . .  and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pricing to be directed to a specific individual. The customer uses&#xD;&#xA;&gt; either a cell phone or . . . when in the store, which displays prices&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and/or advertisements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;From detailed description&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The system can further have the following subsystems. Article&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identification subsystem, such as RFID, bar code scanner or other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mechanism to identify articles selected by the member for purchase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually completing the sale is mentioned but in much detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6507279" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4033" RevisionGUID="02f8fbc9-cf11-49c4-83ab-539ea63bc566" CreationDate="2013-06-15T22:49:03.873" UserId="1767" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="  **HELP SAVE MOBILE SEARCH** - This application from Google seeks to patent a system for finding open stores which are located near a user at the time of a search! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before October, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a **search request** from a mobile user that includes both the **current time** AND the **location** of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying businesses which are **currently open** and **located near** the user; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Returning a search result page indicating a subset of businesses as currently open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses estimated **travel time** to estimate whether the business is “close enough” to the user. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: INDICATING LOCATION STATUS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of searching for currently open businesses from a mobile device.   The user’s device sends a search query, the current time and its location.  A search is performed based on the user’s search query.  A subset of results is selected based on operating hours of the business, current time, and travel time from the device location to the business.  The search results which are returned indicate which businesses are “currently open”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110822 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** October, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below::&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a query from a user device, a current time, and a location for the user device; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying results responsive to the query, the results including one or more business results that are each associated with a business location and operating hours; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting a subset of the business results as open results based on the operating hours of the business results, the current time, and travel times from the device location to the respective business locations; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Providing data for a search engine results page that designates the subset of business results as open results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A user’s device sends user’s search query, current time and its location&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Businesses, their associated locations and business hours are identified from the query&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  A few items from this list are selected based on whether the businesses are currently open and the user is close enough to get to them before they close&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. A subset of businesses which are open is passed along to a search engine to return results (which presumably could return a list or a map).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and including **travel time** from the user’s device to the business to determine whether user will make it to the business before it closes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Show restaurants open now”** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/xLvPq.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130110822&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9151" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4055" RevisionGUID="bfe589ba-1a30-4bf3-857a-56c8c441b4c5" CreationDate="2013-06-15T22:49:34.093" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;us20130110678&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4058" RevisionGUID="490477e4-7cf0-4610-a1c5-a402bf55d84e" CreationDate="2013-06-15T23:00:43.760" UserId="4058" Text="In 2001 a Space Odyssey, Chapter 9 (p. 55 of the 1984 reprint):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;he would plug his foolscap-sized newspad into the ship's information circuit and scan the latest reports from Earth. . .&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This likely fits within their definition and was originally published in 1968." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4058" RevisionGUID="85886cc0-85bb-4ff4-be3e-eff2994612c0" CreationDate="2013-06-15T23:07:02.020" UserId="4058" Comment="added 248 characters in body" Text="In 2001 a Space Odyssey, Chapter 9 (p. 55 of the 1984 reprint):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;he would plug his foolscap-sized newspad into the ship's information circuit and scan the latest reports from Earth. . .he quickly searched the headlines and noted the items that interested him&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This likely fits within their definition and was originally published in 1968. While this example does not incorporate the concept of audio or moving video media, it is an example of media and the automatically updated list of current episodes/articles." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4057" RevisionGUID="4120474b-e91b-4db8-910d-74550f5f7b48" CreationDate="2013-06-16T00:22:00.467" UserId="3076" Comment="Added &quot;not&quot;" Text="**Complete integrated self-checkout system and method&#xD;&#xA;[US 6507279][1], June 6, 2003**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems seminal in that over 50 later patents cite it. I do not see it on the IDS already submitted by Apple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From abstract&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An integrated self-checkout system and method incorporates  . . .  and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pricing to be directed to a specific individual. The customer uses&#xD;&#xA;&gt; either a cell phone or . . . when in the store, which displays prices&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and/or advertisements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;From detailed description&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The system can further have the following subsystems. Article&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identification subsystem, such as RFID, bar code scanner or other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mechanism to identify articles selected by the member for purchase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually completing the sale is mentioned but **not** in much detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6507279" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4055" RevisionGUID="93ef844b-3e98-4556-9f44-7daa4cf796e4" CreationDate="2013-06-16T05:05:03.117" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **HELP SAVE MOBILE PURCHASES** - This application from Apple seeks to patent a method for purchasing a product in a store using a smartphone! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Nov, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Using a mobile device to obtain a **product identifier** of a product in a store (e.g., a UPC code); and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. On a mobile device, receiving the **product price** from a server; transmitting a **purchase request** to a server; and receiving a **purchase confirmation** from a server;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **an image taken by the camera on the device** to determine the product identifier (e.g. a UPC code or any other product identifier). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PURCHASING A PRODUCT IN A STORE USING A MOBILE DEVICE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for purchasing a product in a store using a mobile phone. The user’s mobile phone sends a **product identifier** for a product offered for sale in a store to a server somewhere.  The mobile phone receives **product information** including the price of the product from the server.  The mobile phone sends a **purchase request** including digital credentials (of any kind) to identify the user.  The mobile device **receives a confirmation** from the server and presents a confirmation to the user that the product has been purchased.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130110678 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Apple, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** November, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for purchasing a product by a customer operating a customer mobile device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining, by the customer mobile device, a product identifier for a product offered for sale in a store;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Transmitting, by the customer mobile device, the product identifier to a store server associated with the store;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving, by the customer mobile device, product information from the store server, the product information including a price of the product;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Presenting to the customer, by the customer mobile device, at least some of the received product information, including the price of the product;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Receiving, by the customer mobile device, customer purchasing input, the customer purchasing input including a digital credential for the customer, the digital credential being usable to access a user account record that stores financial account information for a financial account of the customer, the user account record being maintained at an account data server;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Transmitting, by the customer mobile device, a purchase request to the store server, the purchase request including the digital credential, wherein the store server uses the digital credential to obtain the financial account information and uses the financial account information to charge the price of the product to the financial account of the customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Receiving, by the customer mobile device, a purchase confirmation from the store server, the purchase confirmation indicating that the product has been purchased by the customer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. Presenting to the customer, by the customer mobile device, a confirmation message confirming that the purchase transaction for the product has successfully completed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Using a phone to obtain a product identifier (e.g. a UPC code) identifying a product in a store&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Phone sends the product identifier to a server&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Phone receives information about the product identified, including the price&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Phone displays price of product to the user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Customer indicates intent to purchase and provides user information&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Phone sends the purchase request to the server&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Phone receives confirmation of purchase; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. Phone confirms product has been purchased with the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the November, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and including **camera phone** to capture an image of the product identifier (presumably rather than having the user type it in). Extra credit would include systems that do all of the steps above and also involve a cameraphone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Welcome to Our Store&quot; screen shots from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/NT8to.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130110678?dq=us20130110678&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3891" RevisionGUID="e5783203-e9fd-4262-b9be-9fb57ac7151e" CreationDate="2013-06-16T05:05:32.150" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **HELP SAVE STREAMING RADIO** - This application seeks to patent a system for discovering new radio stations and podcasts online! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Nov, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of Internet radio station programs; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **dynamically categorizing** this list of programs by mapping a **dynamically identified topic** to a **content classifier**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **speech-to-text conversion** on audio content. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System And Method For Internet Radio Station Program Discovery**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A service for discovering Internet radio station programs. A list of Internet radio station programs is obtained. Each program on the list is categorized by mapping a topic to a program using a content classifier. User can discover new programs of interest from the list of programs based on the categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110502 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Lemi Technology, LLC&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** November, 2008&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Note**: This application is a [continuation][3] of US Patent  [8,359,192][6]. The applicant is attempting to “improve” the claims with this child patent by writing new (evidently broader) claims while retaining the original 2008 priority date.  So prior art should predate November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining a plurality of Internet radio station programs;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. For each Internet radio station program of the plurality of Internet radio station programs, dynamically categorizing the Internet radio station program by mapping a dynamically identified topic of the Internet radio station program to a content classifier;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Enabling a user to discover an Internet radio station program of interest from the plurality of Internet radio station programs based on the dynamic categorizations for the plurality of Internet radio station programs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of internet radio station programs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. “Dynamically categorizing” this list of programs by mapping a “dynamically identified topic” to a content classifier; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  Allowing the user to discover programs from the list based on the “dynamic categorization” (presumably created by the classifier)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and including **speech-to-text conversion** to categorize the radio station programs. Extra credit would include systems that do all of the steps above and also involve speech-to-text conversion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Internet Radio Station program discovery service&quot; flow chart from the Applicant** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/wagCM.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;300&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130110502&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;[6]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8359192?dq=8,359,192&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8359192" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4061" RevisionGUID="2e7b4936-c778-4086-a844-965591602877" CreationDate="2013-06-16T17:43:47.333" UserId="1335" Text="US Patent 8229458 (and it's related patent US8364171 and continuation applications such as 20130073454, that share most of the spec) appears to teach a substantial portion of the claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - US Patent 8229458 &#xD;&#xA; - Earliest related publication: Jul 24, 2012 (as US20080248815 A1)&#xD;&#xA; - Priority Date: Apr 8, 2007 &#xD;&#xA; - Filing Date: Mar 16, 2008 &#xD;&#xA; - http://www.google.com/patents/US8229458&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paragraph [0366] substantially teaches most elements of the claim: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In determining the top search results or in configuring the information displayed on the screen, the hours of operation of the businesses may be considered. For purposes of illustration and without limitation, if the user is driving down a road at 10:00 PM and performs a search (either at a stop light or via a voice command while moving), the top results are relevant businesses along the path that are currently open as determined by known hours of operation that are posted on the internet or stored in a database. Therefore, businesses that close at 5:00 PM are not included in the top results, or if they are included in the top results they are near the bottom of the top results or otherwise weighted appropriately (e.g., to reflect that the business is not currently open). Furthermore, hours of operation are taken into consideration when sending targeted content to a mobile device so that a user is not directed to a business location before or after business hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many more references methods using &quot;hours of operation&quot; in the spec. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only element that seems not to be *directly* taught is determining &quot;travel times from the device location to the respective business locations&quot;. However, there are several snippets in this reference that suggest that &quot;travel time&quot; would be a useful consideration, such as the following in paragraph [0363]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Based upon the speed of the user, it may further be determined whether the user is in a car, walking, or stationary. The mobile device may behave differently or targeted content may be delivered to the user based upon their speed. If the user is moving slowly, many elements of targeted content associated with the nearby area are sent to the mobile device or retrieved from the memory of the mobile device. If the user is moving faster (For purposes of illustration and without limitation, if they are in a car, on a motorcycle, on a high speed train, etc.) then targeted content associated with businesses in a wider area are sent to the user or retrieved from the memory of the mobile device. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And paragraphs [0006] -[0007] from the background section:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is significant benefit provided by methods and systems that provide search results and targeted content based upon the current course of the user instead of simply the radial distance from the user. There is also significant benefit provided by methods and systems that provide up-to-date cartographic information. For purposes of illustration and without limitation, when a car is traveling north there may be a gas station one mile south but it is better to remain on course and visit a different gas station three miles ahead of the current location and along the desired route. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Significant benefit is provided by a content targeting methods and systems usable with mobile devices that not only search for results closest to the current location of the mobile device, but also take into account other information in order to provide more useful results for the user. The methods and systems analyze current or historical locations, speeds, headings of the mobile device, or combinations thereof, as recorded by the device, by a remote system, or both, and deliver search result information, including content from advertisers interested in targeting consumers in the areas the consumer typically travels.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize TSM is no longer a sufficient test, but this is a clear example of suggestion and motivation to compute travel times, and I'm sure there will be no dearth of references about computing &quot;travel times&quot; to raise an obviousness-type rejection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4061" RevisionGUID="01c61fc3-c7b6-44dd-80c9-54f967c5650c" CreationDate="2013-06-16T17:49:53.187" UserId="1335" Comment="Better explained the cited reference." Text="US Patent 8229458 (and it's related patent US8364171 and continuation applications such as 20130073454, that share most of the spec) appears to teach a substantial portion of the claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - US Patent 8229458 &#xD;&#xA; - Earliest related publication: Jul 24, 2012 (as US20080248815 A1)&#xD;&#xA; - Priority Date: Apr 8, 2007 &#xD;&#xA; - Filing Date: Mar 16, 2008 &#xD;&#xA; - http://www.google.com/patents/US8229458&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reference discusses in great detail the aspects of receiving location-based queries from a device and returning content related to that location, including businesses in the area. The key point of novelty of Google's patent application appears to revolve around operating hours of businesses, and paragraph [0366] clearly teaches that element of the claim: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In determining the top search results or in configuring the information displayed on the screen, the hours of operation of the businesses may be considered. For purposes of illustration and without limitation, if the user is driving down a road at 10:00 PM and performs a search (either at a stop light or via a voice command while moving), the top results are relevant businesses along the path that are currently open as determined by known hours of operation that are posted on the internet or stored in a database. Therefore, businesses that close at 5:00 PM are not included in the top results, or if they are included in the top results they are near the bottom of the top results or otherwise weighted appropriately (e.g., to reflect that the business is not currently open). Furthermore, hours of operation are taken into consideration when sending targeted content to a mobile device so that a user is not directed to a business location before or after business hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many more references methods using &quot;hours of operation&quot; in the spec. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only element that seems not to be *directly* taught is determining &quot;travel times from the device location to the respective business locations&quot;. However, there are several snippets in this reference that suggest that &quot;travel time&quot; would be a useful consideration, such as the following in paragraph [0363]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Based upon the speed of the user, it may further be determined whether the user is in a car, walking, or stationary. The mobile device may behave differently or targeted content may be delivered to the user based upon their speed. If the user is moving slowly, many elements of targeted content associated with the nearby area are sent to the mobile device or retrieved from the memory of the mobile device. If the user is moving faster (For purposes of illustration and without limitation, if they are in a car, on a motorcycle, on a high speed train, etc.) then targeted content associated with businesses in a wider area are sent to the user or retrieved from the memory of the mobile device. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And paragraphs [0006] -[0007] from the background section:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is significant benefit provided by methods and systems that provide search results and targeted content based upon the current course of the user instead of simply the radial distance from the user. There is also significant benefit provided by methods and systems that provide up-to-date cartographic information. For purposes of illustration and without limitation, when a car is traveling north there may be a gas station one mile south but it is better to remain on course and visit a different gas station three miles ahead of the current location and along the desired route. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Significant benefit is provided by a content targeting methods and systems usable with mobile devices that not only search for results closest to the current location of the mobile device, but also take into account other information in order to provide more useful results for the user. The methods and systems analyze current or historical locations, speeds, headings of the mobile device, or combinations thereof, as recorded by the device, by a remote system, or both, and deliver search result information, including content from advertisers interested in targeting consumers in the areas the consumer typically travels.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize TSM is no longer a sufficient test, but this is a clear example of suggestion and motivation to compute travel times, and I'm sure there will be no dearth of references about computing &quot;travel times&quot; to raise an obviousness-type rejection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4062" RevisionGUID="7ff05e55-e582-4676-bfb6-c31efbb73d54" CreationDate="2013-06-16T18:42:38.390" UserId="1335" Text="As you said, Bouncy Castle contains many different implementations, some of which may be patented. For example, from personal use, I know Bouncy Castle includes some ECC methods and curves that could be covered by various [patents](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECC_patents). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, since BC contains so many implementations, it's a very open-ended (and difficult to answer with certainty) question to ask which parts of it are covered by patents. The better way to go about it would be to look at each specific crypto method you want to use, and check if *that* is patented. If it turns out to be patented, it won't matter if you're using BC or any other library to implement it, because any unlicensed use would still be infringing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if your method of interest is *not* patented, it *might* be safe to use that specific method, despite the inclusion of other potentially patented methods in the library. The theory is that since you are not using those other methods, you should not have to license them. The problem is, if you distribute the library along with a product, and that library contains patented methods that you do not use, an argument could still be made that you are distributing a product infringing patented methods, since infringement covers &quot;using, making or selling&quot; (and distribution falls under making or selling). I personally wouldn't buy that argument, but it has not been tested in court as far as I know, so it's a bit of a gray area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The safe bet here would be to ensure the methods you want to use are not patented, and using a tool (such as [ClassDep](http://river.apache.org/doc/api/com/sun/jini/tool/ClassDep.html), maybe?) to prune out unused classes and dependencies so that your final jar does not contain any potentially infringing components. This is slightly more difficult for a library like BC because it uses a lot of [reflection](http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/reflect/) to instantiate the necessary classes, but it should be tractable with some trial-and-error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if you are never distributing the library (e.g. using it internally on your servers), you should be fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4063" RevisionGUID="8830be47-9505-4574-a3b5-0c840e6f81e1" CreationDate="2013-06-16T19:02:34.640" UserId="1335" Text="Here's a patent application that was published in Jan 2010 that seems very relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US 20100015975 A1 - &quot;Profile service for sharing rights-enabled mobile profiles&quot;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US20100015975&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  In general, each user defines a user profile and associated access rights, where the user profile and access rights are stored by or accessible to a profile service. When a voice session, or call, is initiated between a first and second user, a device of the first user requests a profile of the second user from the profile service. In response, the profile service determines whether the first user has been granted access rights to the user profile of the second user. If so, the profile service provides the user profile of the second user, or a portion thereof, to the device of the first user according to the access rights of the first user, and the user profile is presented to the first user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one does not appear to disclose &quot;digital fingerprinting&quot; of devices, but fingerprinting of devices is an old topic, so there must be some pretty early references for that which could be combined with this one for a 103-type rejection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4064" RevisionGUID="f99e1d6a-7f56-4015-a58f-88b9a5126bcb" CreationDate="2013-06-17T14:32:00.713" UserId="3990" Text="Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents HERE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTION - Have you seen anything that was published before August, 2010 that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A capacitor with a 3 dimensional electrode made of sintered material &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: Sintered Capacitor Electrode Including a 3-Dimensional Framework&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summary: [Translated from Legalese into English] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication Number: US 20130041420 A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assignee: Gregory Sherwood&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior Art Date: Seeking prior Art predating August, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Open for Challenge at USPTO: Open through October 1, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: This application has an August, 2011 priority date, so prior art should preferably predate August, 2010 but art prior to June, 2011 can be used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 requires each an every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An apparatus, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. a capacitor case sealed to retain electrolyte;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. at least one electrode disposed in the capacitor case, the at least one electrode comprising a sintered portion disposed on a current collector formed of a framework defining cells extending to three axes;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. a conductor coupled to the current collector in electrical communication with the sintered portion, the conductor sealingly extending through the capacitor case to a terminal disposed on an exterior of the capacitor case with the terminal in electrical communication with the sintered portion;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. a second electrode disposed in the capacitor case;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. a separator disposed between the electrode and the second electrode; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. a second terminal disposed on the exterior of the capacitor case and in electrical communication with the second electrode, wherein the terminal and the second terminal electrically are isolated from one another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A sealed capacitor with electrolyte inside a case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. A 3D electrode made of sintered material as part of the capacitor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. A wire or other conductor that connects the inside of the capacitor to a terminal on the ouside of the case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Another electrode inside the case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. That second electrode isolated from the first one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Another terminal on the outside of the case, electrically coupled to the second electrode, but isolated from the first terminal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to August, 2010. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is good prior art? Please see our FAQ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to post your own request for prior art on other questionable US Patent Applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9170" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4064" RevisionGUID="f99e1d6a-7f56-4015-a58f-88b9a5126bcb" CreationDate="2013-06-17T14:32:00.713" UserId="3990" Text="SINTERED CAPACITOR ELECTRODE INCLUDING A 3-DIMENSIONAL FRAMEWORK Patent Application PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9171" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4064" RevisionGUID="f99e1d6a-7f56-4015-a58f-88b9a5126bcb" CreationDate="2013-06-17T14:32:00.713" UserId="3990" Text="&lt;1prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9181" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4064" RevisionGUID="55fcb8d7-8c54-44c0-9dfc-d957a8729428" CreationDate="2013-06-17T17:16:17.550" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130041420&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4064" RevisionGUID="135fcfb5-67e1-4dc1-8be6-edcf6479fdf7" CreationDate="2013-06-17T17:31:45.797" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTION - Have you seen anything that was **published before August, 2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A capacitor with a **3 dimensional electrode** made of **sintered material** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Sintered Capacitor Electrode Including a 3-Dimensional Framework**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This patent relates generally to sintered electrodes including a 3-Dimensional (“3D”) framework with specific applications to batteries in medical devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130041420 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Gregory Sherwood&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** August, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge** at USPTO: Open through October 1, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Note**: This application has an August, 2011 priority date, so prior art should preferably predate August, 2010 but art **prior to June, 2011 can also be used**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each an every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An apparatus, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a capacitor case sealed to retain electrolyte;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. at least one electrode disposed in the capacitor case, the at least one electrode comprising a sintered portion disposed on a current collector formed of a framework defining cells extending to three axes;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a conductor coupled to the current collector in electrical communication with the sintered portion, the conductor sealingly extending through the capacitor case to a terminal disposed on an exterior of the capacitor case with the terminal in electrical communication with the sintered portion;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. a second electrode disposed in the capacitor case;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. a separator disposed between the electrode and the second electrode; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. a second terminal disposed on the exterior of the capacitor case and in electrical communication with the second electrode, wherein the terminal and the second terminal electrically are isolated from one another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A sealed capacitor with electrolyte inside a case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A 3D electrode made of sintered material as part of the capacitor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A wire or other conductor that connects the inside of the capacitor to a terminal on the ouside of the case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Another electrode inside the case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. That second electrode isolated from the first one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Another terminal on the outside of the case, electrically coupled to the second electrode, but isolated from the first terminal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to August, 2010. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Schematic of Medical System including Sintered Capacitor from the Applicant.**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/9Rdb5.png&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130041420&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9183" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4064" RevisionGUID="135fcfb5-67e1-4dc1-8be6-edcf6479fdf7" CreationDate="2013-06-17T17:31:45.797" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="SINTERED CAPACITOR ELECTRODE Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4064" RevisionGUID="e52c2db3-55a3-43e2-a180-f0e6d8ff40fc" CreationDate="2013-06-17T18:23:13.687" UserId="3076" Comment="Claim 1 is a thing not a method" Text="Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTION - Have you seen anything that was **published before August, 2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A capacitor with a **3 dimensional electrode** made of **sintered material** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Sintered Capacitor Electrode Including a 3-Dimensional Framework**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This patent relates generally to sintered electrodes including a 3-Dimensional (“3D”) framework with specific applications to batteries in medical devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130041420 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Gregory Sherwood&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** August, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge** at USPTO: Open through October 1, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Note**: This application has an August, 2011 priority date, so prior art should preferably predate August, 2010 but art **prior to June, 2011 can also be used**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An apparatus, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a capacitor case sealed to retain electrolyte;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. at least one electrode disposed in the capacitor case, the at least one electrode comprising a sintered portion disposed on a current collector formed of a framework defining cells extending to three axes;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a conductor coupled to the current collector in electrical communication with the sintered portion, the conductor sealingly extending through the capacitor case to a terminal disposed on an exterior of the capacitor case with the terminal in electrical communication with the sintered portion;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. a second electrode disposed in the capacitor case;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. a separator disposed between the electrode and the second electrode; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. a second terminal disposed on the exterior of the capacitor case and in electrical communication with the second electrode, wherein the terminal and the second terminal electrically are isolated from one another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A sealed capacitor with electrolyte inside a case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A 3D electrode made of sintered material as part of the capacitor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A wire or other conductor that connects the inside of the capacitor to a terminal on the ouside of the case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Another (2nd) electrode inside the case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. That second electrode isolated from the first one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Another terminal on the outside of the case, electrically coupled to the second electrode, but isolated from the first terminal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a device that had each and every one of these elements prior to August, 2010. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Schematic of Medical System including Sintered Capacitor from the Applicant.**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/9Rdb5.png&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130041420&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4065" RevisionGUID="e8c38658-203d-4892-8e19-92706bd361a3" CreationDate="2013-06-17T22:42:46.120" UserId="4064" Text="They're not audio, but webcomics seem to fit the bill otherwise. Webcomics typically have individual pages for each comic as well as an archive page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webcomic#Early_webcomics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.tcj.com/the-history-of-webcomics/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of webcomics series started before 1996 are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Argon Zark http://www.zark.com/front/about.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where The Buffalo Roam http://www.shadowculture.com/wtbr/site.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dr. Fun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Fun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;T.H.E. Fox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.H.E._Fox&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blogging also seems to me to be an example of prior art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://nymag.com/news/media/15971/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_blogging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4065" RevisionGUID="357d2a30-063e-4d48-ad7a-138c79a7f9ee" CreationDate="2013-06-17T23:19:15.463" UserId="4064" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="They're not audio, but webcomics seem to fit the bill otherwise. Webcomics typically have individual pages for each comic as well as an archive page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webcomic#Early_webcomics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.tcj.com/the-history-of-webcomics/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of webcomics series started before 1996 are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Argon Zark http://www.zark.com/front/about.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where The Buffalo Roam http://www.shadowculture.com/wtbr/site.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dr. Fun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Fun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;T.H.E. Fox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.H.E._Fox&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blogging also seems to me to be an example of prior art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://nymag.com/news/media/15971/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_blogging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the first bloggers appears to have been Justin Hall who started his blog in 1994 http://links.net/re/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4064" RevisionGUID="1a5d1299-31a4-4af7-9c35-7b30663f3ee0" CreationDate="2013-06-18T00:14:05.547" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTION - Have you seen anything that was **published before August, 2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A capacitor with a **3 dimensional electrode** made of **sintered material** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Sintered Capacitor Electrode Including a 3-Dimensional Framework**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This patent relates generally to sintered electrodes including a 3-Dimensional (“3D”) framework with specific applications to batteries in medical devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130041420 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Gregory Sherwood&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** August, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge** at USPTO: Open through October 1, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Note**: This application has an August, 2011 priority date, so prior art should preferably predate August, 2010 but art **prior to June, 2011 can also be used**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An apparatus, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a capacitor case sealed to retain electrolyte;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. at least one electrode disposed in the capacitor case, the at least one electrode comprising a sintered portion disposed on a current collector formed of a framework defining cells extending to three axes;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a conductor coupled to the current collector in electrical communication with the sintered portion, the conductor sealingly extending through the capacitor case to a terminal disposed on an exterior of the capacitor case with the terminal in electrical communication with the sintered portion;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. a second electrode disposed in the capacitor case;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. a separator disposed between the electrode and the second electrode; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. a second terminal disposed on the exterior of the capacitor case and in electrical communication with the second electrode, wherein the terminal and the second terminal electrically are isolated from one another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A sealed capacitor with electrolyte inside a case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A 3D electrode made of sintered material as part of the capacitor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A wire or other conductor that connects the inside of the capacitor to a terminal on the ouside of the case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Another (2nd) electrode inside the case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. That second electrode isolated from the first one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Another terminal on the outside of the case, electrically coupled to the second electrode, but isolated from the first terminal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a device that had each and every one of these elements prior to August, 2010. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Schematic of Medical System including Sintered Capacitor from the Applicant.**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/9Rdb5.png&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130041420&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4033" RevisionGUID="7d54d705-3b93-461b-885f-5f920aba17c2" CreationDate="2013-06-18T00:14:25.267" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="   **HELP SAVE MOBILE SEARCH** - This application from Google seeks to patent a system for finding open stores which are located near a user at the time of a search! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before October, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a **search request** from a mobile user that includes both the **current time** AND the **location** of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying businesses which are **currently open** and **located near** the user; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Returning a search result page indicating a subset of businesses as currently open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses estimated **travel time** to estimate whether the business is “close enough” to the user. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: INDICATING LOCATION STATUS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of searching for currently open businesses from a mobile device.   The user’s device sends a search query, the current time and its location.  A search is performed based on the user’s search query.  A subset of results is selected based on operating hours of the business, current time, and travel time from the device location to the business.  The search results which are returned indicate which businesses are “currently open”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110822 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** October, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below::&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a query from a user device, a current time, and a location for the user device; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying results responsive to the query, the results including one or more business results that are each associated with a business location and operating hours; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting a subset of the business results as open results based on the operating hours of the business results, the current time, and travel times from the device location to the respective business locations; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Providing data for a search engine results page that designates the subset of business results as open results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A user’s device sends user’s search query, current time and its location&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Businesses, their associated locations and business hours are identified from the query&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  A few items from this list are selected based on whether the businesses are currently open and the user is close enough to get to them before they close&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. A subset of businesses which are open is passed along to a search engine to return results (which presumably could return a list or a map).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and including **travel time** from the user’s device to the business to determine whether user will make it to the business before it closes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Show restaurants open now”** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/xLvPq.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130110822&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4066" RevisionGUID="7b117b40-3c10-420a-bf51-4138cef79103" CreationDate="2013-06-18T04:58:38.687" UserId="4065" Text="Published 01-01-1996 by the Santa Clara Computer and High technology Law Journal:&#xD;&#xA;Dissemination of Digitzed Music on the Internet: A Challenge to the Copyright Act&#xD;&#xA;http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1197&amp;context=chtlj&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beginning on page 106:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;C. The Technology of Digital Dissemination In Use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This section examines two independent on-line services that specialize in providing computer users with digitized music: The Independent Underground Music Archive and the Cerberus Celestial&#xD;&#xA;Jukebox. Although both of these services make only authorized use of&#xD;&#xA;the music they disseminate, the methods they use, and the success they&#xD;&#xA;have achieved, foreshadow the potential for copyright infringement on&#xD;&#xA;the Internet. Their success also illustrates the potential positive aspects of digital dissemination if copyrighted works can be protected&#xD;&#xA;on-line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. The Internet Underground Music Archive&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;In November 1993, two computer science majors at University of&#xD;&#xA;California at Santa Cruz founded the Internet Underground Music&#xD;&#xA;Archive (IUMA). The two students took $20,000 in personal savings and set up the free, on-line digitized music dissemination system,&#xD;&#xA;which allows unknown bands to have their music heard around the&#xD;&#xA;world via the Intemet. In addition to placing digitized demo tapes of&#xD;&#xA;the bands on-line, the IUMA allows the artists to place graphics and&#xD;&#xA;text on the Internet. The system also provides access to statistics&#xD;&#xA;showing how many times a band's material has been downloaded.6&#xD;&#xA;1&#xD;&#xA;The IUMA, which allows computer users to access the music on-line&#xD;&#xA;free-of-charge, relies on donations from the participating bands to&#xD;&#xA;keep the service going.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Archive.org has a collection of files from IUMA. Example link:&#xD;&#xA;http://archive.org/details/iuma-straight_roots" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4066" RevisionGUID="23636c99-5837-4135-b4f8-265cd385bc00" CreationDate="2013-06-18T05:07:12.397" UserId="4065" Comment="Typo correction" Text="Published 01-01-1996 by the Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal:&#xD;&#xA;Dissemination of Digitzed Music on the Internet: A Challenge to the Copyright Act&#xD;&#xA;http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1197&amp;context=chtlj&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beginning on page 106:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;C. The Technology of Digital Dissemination In Use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This section examines two independent on-line services that specialize in providing computer users with digitized music: The Independent Underground Music Archive and the Cerberus Celestial&#xD;&#xA;Jukebox. Although both of these services make only authorized use of&#xD;&#xA;the music they disseminate, the methods they use, and the success they&#xD;&#xA;have achieved, foreshadow the potential for copyright infringement on&#xD;&#xA;the Internet. Their success also illustrates the potential positive aspects of digital dissemination if copyrighted works can be protected&#xD;&#xA;on-line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. The Internet Underground Music Archive&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;In November 1993, two computer science majors at University of&#xD;&#xA;California at Santa Cruz founded the Internet Underground Music&#xD;&#xA;Archive (IUMA). The two students took $20,000 in personal savings and set up the free, on-line digitized music dissemination system,&#xD;&#xA;which allows unknown bands to have their music heard around the&#xD;&#xA;world via the Intemet. In addition to placing digitized demo tapes of&#xD;&#xA;the bands on-line, the IUMA allows the artists to place graphics and&#xD;&#xA;text on the Internet. The system also provides access to statistics&#xD;&#xA;showing how many times a band's material has been downloaded.6&#xD;&#xA;1&#xD;&#xA;The IUMA, which allows computer users to access the music on-line&#xD;&#xA;free-of-charge, relies on donations from the participating bands to&#xD;&#xA;keep the service going.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Archive.org has a collection of files from IUMA. Example link:&#xD;&#xA;http://archive.org/details/iuma-straight_roots" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4068" RevisionGUID="981d0d7d-4c63-44b5-b8c8-706ff0c7b580" CreationDate="2013-06-18T14:05:53.200" UserId="4068" Text="methods for determining a master speaker and using the master speaker to evaluate other speakers. Did Dynaudio Air do this? How about in live sound any beamforming PA's have automatic setup and calibration based on one of the particualr speakers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9197" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4068" RevisionGUID="981d0d7d-4c63-44b5-b8c8-706ff0c7b580" CreationDate="2013-06-18T14:05:53.200" UserId="4068" Text="determining distance between plurality of loudspeakers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9198" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4068" RevisionGUID="981d0d7d-4c63-44b5-b8c8-706ff0c7b580" CreationDate="2013-06-18T14:05:53.200" UserId="4068" Text="&lt;us20120148075&gt;&lt;creative-labs&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4064" RevisionGUID="add3c414-2116-4172-bf44-69d6944735ff" CreationDate="2013-06-18T22:31:29.147" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTION - Have you seen anything that was **published before August, 2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A capacitor with a **3 dimensional electrode** made of **sintered material** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Sintered Capacitor Electrode Including a 3-Dimensional Framework**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This patent relates generally to sintered electrodes including a 3-Dimensional (“3D”) framework with specific applications to batteries in medical devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130041420 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Gregory Sherwood&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** August, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge** at USPTO: Open through October 1, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Note**: This application has an August, 2011 priority date, so prior art should preferably predate August, 2010 but art **prior to June, 2011 can also be used**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An apparatus, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a capacitor case sealed to retain electrolyte;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. at least one electrode disposed in the capacitor case, the at least one electrode comprising a sintered portion disposed on a current collector formed of a framework defining cells extending to three axes;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a conductor coupled to the current collector in electrical communication with the sintered portion, the conductor sealingly extending through the capacitor case to a terminal disposed on an exterior of the capacitor case with the terminal in electrical communication with the sintered portion;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. a second electrode disposed in the capacitor case;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. a separator disposed between the electrode and the second electrode; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. a second terminal disposed on the exterior of the capacitor case and in electrical communication with the second electrode, wherein the terminal and the second terminal electrically are isolated from one another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A sealed capacitor with electrolyte inside a case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A 3D electrode made of sintered material as part of the capacitor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A wire or other conductor that connects the inside of the capacitor to a terminal on the ouside of the case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Another (2nd) electrode inside the case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. That second electrode isolated from the first one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Another terminal on the outside of the case, electrically coupled to the second electrode, but isolated from the first terminal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a device that had each and every one of these elements prior to August, 2010. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Schematic of Medical System including Sintered Capacitor from the Applicant.**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/9Rdb5.png&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130041420&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3884" RevisionGUID="bbbfb1b3-7d4f-49a0-8453-12ea5cce888b" CreationDate="2013-06-18T22:31:46.993" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" *This call for prior art is part of [EFF][1]'s effort to bust a patent being asserted against podcasting. Read more about the initiative [here][2]. Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][5]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This issued patent relates to a system for distributing serial episodes of media content over the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BASIC PATENT DATA:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	Patent Number: [US 8,112,504][3]&#xD;&#xA;-	Assignee: Personal Audio, LLC&#xD;&#xA;-	Prior Art Cutoff Date: Prior art must predate October 2, 1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PATENT SUMMARY:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent generally relates to a system whereby a server provides media content to client devices over the Internet. On the server, the provider maintains a “compilation file,” which is essentially a list of available media files. The compilation file generally includes the URL for each available media file in a series and may also include descriptive text. This compilation file may be static, such as a simple web page with links to each available file to which new files are added, or may be customized for a particular user, perhaps only showing them content from feeds to which they have subscribed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claim that has been asserted against podcasters to date is Claim 31. This claim is agnostic as to the media type representing “episodes.” It can be images, text, video, or audio. Prior art can involve any media format. Some dependent claims specifically require audio, however, so prior art of that type is especially useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 31:** Apparatus for disseminating a series of episodes represented by media files via the Internet as said episodes become available, said apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more data storage servers,&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more communication interfaces connected to the Internet for receiving requests received from remotely located client devices, and for responding to each given one of said requests by downloading a data file identified by a URL specified by said given one of said requests to the requesting client device,&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more processors coupled to said one or more data storage servers and to said one or more communications interfaces for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +	storing one or more media files representing each episode as said one or more media files become available, each of said one or more media files being stored at a storage location specified by a unique episode URL;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +   from time to time, as new episodes represented in said series of episodes become available, storing an updated version of a compilation file in one of said one or more data storage servers at a storage location identified by a predetermined URL, said updated version of said compilation file containing attribute data describing currently available episodes in said series of episodes, said attribute data for each given one of said currently available episodes including displayable text describing said given one of said currently available episodes and one or more episode URLs specifying the storage locations of one or more corresponding media files representing said given one of said episodes; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +	employing one of said one or more communication interfaces to:&#xD;&#xA;        +	(a) receive a request from a requesting client device for the updated version of said compilation file located at said predetermined URL;&#xD;&#xA;        +	(b) download said updated version of said compilation file to said requesting client device; and&#xD;&#xA;        +	(c) thereafter receive and respond to a request from said requesting client device for one or more media files identified by one or more corresponding episode URLs included in the attribute data contained in said updated version of said compilation files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR ART:** Examples of prior art include the prior art identified on the face of the patent and Deb Kumar Roy (June 1995), NewsComm: A Hand-Held Interface for Interactive Access to Structured Audio, available at http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/60444/33214083.pdf?sequence=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen any additional prior art (published before October 2, 1996) that describes a system like the one in Claim 31? &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;We are interested in any prior art that describes accessing a series of media files organized as episodes, tracks, installments, or the like, through the use of “compilation” data that (a) available to be downloaded by a client device, and (b) updated to describe the media files that are currently available. We are particularly interested in prior art where this “compilation” data includes both URLs for the individual media files, and some other displayable text describing each available episode/track/installment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do know prior art, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual, but please create separate answers for each one so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents community][5] has chosen your prior art as a candidate to submit to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office. If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to post your own request for prior art if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/help-save-podcasting&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8112504&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4033" RevisionGUID="871e4942-1c8e-4d40-8af0-56506255bf4d" CreationDate="2013-06-18T22:31:58.930" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="    **HELP SAVE MOBILE SEARCH** - This application from Google seeks to patent a system for finding open stores which are located near a user at the time of a search! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before October, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a **search request** from a mobile user that includes both the **current time** AND the **location** of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying businesses which are **currently open** and **located near** the user; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Returning a search result page indicating a subset of businesses as currently open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses estimated **travel time** to estimate whether the business is “close enough” to the user. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: INDICATING LOCATION STATUS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of searching for currently open businesses from a mobile device.   The user’s device sends a search query, the current time and its location.  A search is performed based on the user’s search query.  A subset of results is selected based on operating hours of the business, current time, and travel time from the device location to the business.  The search results which are returned indicate which businesses are “currently open”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110822 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** October, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below::&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a query from a user device, a current time, and a location for the user device; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying results responsive to the query, the results including one or more business results that are each associated with a business location and operating hours; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting a subset of the business results as open results based on the operating hours of the business results, the current time, and travel times from the device location to the respective business locations; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Providing data for a search engine results page that designates the subset of business results as open results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A user’s device sends user’s search query, current time and its location&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Businesses, their associated locations and business hours are identified from the query&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  A few items from this list are selected based on whether the businesses are currently open and the user is close enough to get to them before they close&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. A subset of businesses which are open is passed along to a search engine to return results (which presumably could return a list or a map).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and including **travel time** from the user’s device to the business to determine whether user will make it to the business before it closes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Show restaurants open now”** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/xLvPq.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130110822&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4068" RevisionGUID="77bdac4c-3c2b-419f-826d-7904e3b361c7" CreationDate="2013-06-18T23:55:41.193" UserId="1767" Comment="added 3831 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="  **HELP SAVE HOME AUDIO** - This application from Creative Labs seeks to patent the general idea of optimizing audio output in a multi-speaker audio systems! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Comparing performance characteristics among multiple speakers; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Designating a **master speaker** with or without manual intervention; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Including a **bi-directional transceiver** on each speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND where the **performance characteristics** of each speaker are determined by ALSO uses frequency response, maximum sound level, gain, or speaker location, OR where the master speaker contains a microphone as well as speaker&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**HINT** - Did Dynaudio Air do this? Did any PA's in livesound have automatic setup and calibration based on one of the particular speakers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: METHOD FOR OPTIMIZING REPRODUCTION OF AUDIO SIGNALS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for optimizing audio output in a multi-speaker audio system.  The multi-speaker audio system includes a number of speakers, each of which contains a **bi-directional transceiver**.  The **performance characteristics** of each speaker is measured. The characteristics are compared with one another. One speaker is designated a **master speaker**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20120148075 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Creative Labs, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for optimizing reproduction of audio signals from an apparatus for audio reproduction with the apparatus for audio reproduction having a variable number of speakers, the method including:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining performance characteristics of each of the variable number of speakers;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Comparing performance characteristics of each of the variable number of speakers with each other; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Designating a master speaker from the variable number of speakers either with or without manual intervention;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Wherein each of the variable number of speakers includes a bi-directional transceiver.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. The **performance characteristics** of each speaker is measured. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The performance characteristics are compared with one another.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. One speaker is designated a **master speaker**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Each speaker in the system contains a **bi-directional transceiver**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and and where **performance characteristics** of each speaker are determined by frequency response, maximum sound level, gain, or speaker location. Extra credit would include systems that do all of the steps above and also involve a one of these methods of measuring performance characteristic of the speakers in the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A &quot;schematic diagram&quot; of each speaker from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/eoBIP.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20120148075&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9211" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4068" RevisionGUID="77bdac4c-3c2b-419f-826d-7904e3b361c7" CreationDate="2013-06-18T23:55:41.193" UserId="1767" Comment="added 3831 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="DETERMINING DISTANCE IN MULTI-SPEAKER AUDIO SYSTEMS Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9212" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4068" RevisionGUID="77bdac4c-3c2b-419f-826d-7904e3b361c7" CreationDate="2013-06-18T23:55:41.193" UserId="1767" Comment="added 3831 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20120148075&gt;&lt;creative-labs&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4071" RevisionGUID="527f00ca-4296-4461-b2a7-b00c93aea860" CreationDate="2013-06-19T13:56:45.397" UserId="4068" Text="what is the best/oldest self calibrating speaker network/system, I like dynaudio AIR but it is inadequatly disclosed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9214" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4071" RevisionGUID="527f00ca-4296-4461-b2a7-b00c93aea860" CreationDate="2013-06-19T13:56:45.397" UserId="4068" Text="Self calibrating speaker system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9215" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4071" RevisionGUID="527f00ca-4296-4461-b2a7-b00c93aea860" CreationDate="2013-06-19T13:56:45.397" UserId="4068" Text="&lt;us20130051572&gt;&lt;speaker-calibration&gt;&lt;speaker-network&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9216" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4071" RevisionGUID="381c6a16-6845-46dc-bf4d-36cbcc202968" CreationDate="2013-06-19T14:30:52.573" UserId="1" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1259,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ron J.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4073" RevisionGUID="7efcf468-f6d5-4442-a614-59fa7958e1e5" CreationDate="2013-06-19T18:21:25.530" UserId="4075" Text="There is a basic device existing (simple mechanic) as prior art and I made two innovations on it, part C and part D. I want to patent it in such a way that if somebody is using either one of these innovations, or both together, on the basic device, will infringe my patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to write claims in the following way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a. part A&#xD;&#xA;b. part B&#xD;&#xA;c. part C&#xD;&#xA;2. The device of claim 1 further comprising a part D.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. A device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a. part A&#xD;&#xA;b. part B&#xD;&#xA;c. part D&#xD;&#xA;4. The device of claim 3 further comprising a part C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that when I initially filled my application, due to lack of experience, I wrote my both main claims actually the same, just different wording, **namely A, B, C, further comprising D,** as in claim 1 above.&#xD;&#xA;Due to OA received (obviousness rejection-objection which I should be able to overcome) I have now the chance to change claims. Is such a change in the second main claim, as presented above, now allowed? What will be Examiner's reaction to such a change? Will he need/want to make further patent search?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help would be appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9223" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4073" RevisionGUID="7efcf468-f6d5-4442-a614-59fa7958e1e5" CreationDate="2013-06-19T18:21:25.530" UserId="4075" Text="Such change of claim in OA allowed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9224" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4073" RevisionGUID="7efcf468-f6d5-4442-a614-59fa7958e1e5" CreationDate="2013-06-19T18:21:25.530" UserId="4075" Text="&lt;claim-amendment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4073" RevisionGUID="dced6a00-b427-431a-a2f8-c76eb8f8dffc" CreationDate="2013-06-19T18:37:08.500" UserId="4075" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="There is a basic device existing (simple mechanic) as prior art and I made two innovations on it, part C and part D. I want to patent it in such a way that if somebody is using either one of these innovations, or both together, on the basic device, will infringe my patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to write claims in the following way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A device comprising:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a. part A&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;b. part B&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;c. part C&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. The device of claim 1 further comprising a part D.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. A device comprising:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a. part A&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;b. part B&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;c. part D&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;4. The device of claim 3 further comprising a part C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that when I initially filled my application, due to lack of experience, I wrote my both main claims actually the same, just different wording, **namely A, B, C, further comprising D,** as in claim 1 above.&#xD;&#xA;Due to OA received (obviousness rejection-objection which I should be able to overcome) I have now the chance to change claims. Is such a change in the second main claim, as presented above, now allowed? What will be Examiner's reaction to such a change? Will he need/want to make further patent search?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help would be appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4074" RevisionGUID="e3c1166b-482e-4b22-b539-024cdb2a5e1f" CreationDate="2013-06-19T19:19:01.843" UserId="3076" Text="This might be &quot;too local&quot; a question and borderline off topic. You can certainly amend and there is no reason it should be taken particularly unfavorably by the examiner. Almost any amendment can be cited as a reason for a new search and in this case you would be presenting a particular combination of limitations for the first time. Amending in this way will allow the next OA to be final. (Final doesn't mean final, just final until you send more money.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4054" RevisionGUID="5b384885-8cbf-4452-b7fa-75cf920e1694" CreationDate="2013-06-19T22:35:12.647" UserId="6" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="At audionet.com we categorized radio stations, shows, networks, all content we hosted. We had news, sports, etc. We had source, host, all types if meta data for categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 1998 for broadcast.com we added index.broadcast.com. It indexed all the meta data and where we were able to do speech to text, the actual transcripts of the content. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any consumer could go to the site and search for any word or term. We used indexing technology from mediasite.com, I believe it was." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4074" RevisionGUID="a47fd680-2ac4-4acf-b048-a9aa44c3f3ea" CreationDate="2013-06-20T00:38:11.167" UserId="1767" Comment="Community managers at StackOverflow have told me that Meta-comments about the question embedded in the answer probably unnecessary (will still be viewed by the author even after that portion is deleted)." Text="You can certainly amend and there is no reason it should be taken particularly unfavorably by the examiner. Almost any amendment can be cited as a reason for a new search and in this case you would be presenting a particular combination of limitations for the first time. Amending in this way will allow the next OA to be final. (Final doesn't mean final, just final until you send more money.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4071" RevisionGUID="4152244f-6a4f-4cb4-9708-42507f70f8bc" CreationDate="2013-06-20T01:01:45.603" UserId="1767" Comment="REFORMATTED question as Prior-Art-Request.  While it appeared the requester was discussing specific inventions it turns out this is actually a request for prior art. " Text="**HELP SAVE HOME AUDIO** - This application from Creative Labs seeks to patent the general idea of a self-calibrating audio systems! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining **physical features** around speakers and calibrating at least one of the speakers; where&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **Physical features** are determined by sending a test signal from the speaker and calibrating the speakers based on the test signal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**HINT** - Haven’t self-calibrating speaker systems or networks been around for a while?  Did Dynaudio AIR do this? Can you help find evidence that Dynaudio AIR or any other system did this prior to Dec 2010?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: SELF-CALIBRATING SPEAKER SYSTEMS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for optimizing audio output in a multi-speaker audio system.  The multi-speaker audio system includes a number of speakers.  The system measures **physical features** of at least one of the speakers is measured by sending an audio test signal from the speaker to the The **physical features** are characteristics are compared with one another. One speaker is designated a **master speaker**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20120148075 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Creative Labs, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A calibration method for calibrating a variable number of speakers, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining **physical features** around a location of each of the variable number of speakers and calibrating at least one of the variable number of speakers;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Wherein the **physical features** around a location of each of the variable number of speakers are determinable by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Transmitting an instruction signal, the instruction signal being transmittable from a device which is indicative of listener location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Communicating a **test signal** based on the instruction signal, the **test signal** being communicable from at least one of the variable number of speakers to the device; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Receiving and processing the **test signal** by the device in a manner so as to produce **calibration signals**, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Wherein the **calibration signals** are communicable from the device to at least one of the variable number of speakers so as to calibrate at least one of the variable number of speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for calibrating audio speakers; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining physical features of the audio speakers using an audio test signal from at least one of the speakers;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Using the physical features which have been determined to calibrate at least one of the speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already - haven’t self-calibrating speaker systems or networks been around for a while?  Did Dynaudio AIR do this? Can you help find evidence that Dynaudio AIR or any other system did this prior to Dec 2010?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The method of  self-calibrating speaker systems from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Hrc3R.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130051572&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9238" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4071" RevisionGUID="4152244f-6a4f-4cb4-9708-42507f70f8bc" CreationDate="2013-06-20T01:01:45.603" UserId="1767" Comment="REFORMATTED question as Prior-Art-Request.  While it appeared the requester was discussing specific inventions it turns out this is actually a request for prior art. " Text="SELF-CALIBRATING SPEAKER SYSTEMS Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9239" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4071" RevisionGUID="4152244f-6a4f-4cb4-9708-42507f70f8bc" CreationDate="2013-06-20T01:01:45.603" UserId="1767" Comment="REFORMATTED question as Prior-Art-Request.  While it appeared the requester was discussing specific inventions it turns out this is actually a request for prior art. " Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130051572&gt;&lt;speaker-calibration&gt;&lt;speaker-network&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9240" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="4071" RevisionGUID="b9477ba4-4c73-401c-b945-b63cc5c9bb17" CreationDate="2013-06-20T01:02:42.890" UserId="1767" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1767,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Micah Siegel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9241" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4071" RevisionGUID="9c4c3138-ce87-4deb-89ac-5e253e24c82d" CreationDate="2013-06-20T01:07:02.657" UserId="1767" Comment="edited body" Text="**HELP SAVE HOME AUDIO** - This application from Creative Labs seeks to patent the general idea of a self-calibrating audio systems! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining **physical features** around speakers and calibrating at least one of the speakers; where&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **Physical features** are determined by sending a test signal from the speaker and calibrating the speakers based on the test signal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**HINT** - Haven’t self-calibrating speaker systems or networks been around for a while?  Did Dynaudio AIR do this? Can you help find evidence that Dynaudio AIR or any other system did this prior to Dec 2010?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: SELF-CALIBRATING SPEAKER SYSTEMS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalish into English] A method for calibrating multi-speaker audio system wherein an audio test signal is sent from a speaker and the test signal is used to measure a **physical features** of the speaker.  This **physical feature** (for example, volume) is used to calibrate the speaker.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20120148075 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Creative Labs, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A calibration method for calibrating a variable number of speakers, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining **physical features** around a location of each of the variable number of speakers and calibrating at least one of the variable number of speakers;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Wherein the **physical features** around a location of each of the variable number of speakers are determinable by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Transmitting an instruction signal, the instruction signal being transmittable from a device which is indicative of listener location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Communicating a **test signal** based on the instruction signal, the **test signal** being communicable from at least one of the variable number of speakers to the device; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Receiving and processing the **test signal** by the device in a manner so as to produce **calibration signals**, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Wherein the **calibration signals** are communicable from the device to at least one of the variable number of speakers so as to calibrate at least one of the variable number of speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for calibrating audio speakers; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining physical features of the audio speakers using an audio test signal from at least one of the speakers;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Using the physical features which have been determined to calibrate at least one of the speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already - haven’t self-calibrating speaker systems or networks been around for a while?  Did Dynaudio AIR do this? Can you help find evidence that Dynaudio AIR or any other system did this prior to Dec 2010?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The method of  self-calibrating speaker systems from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Hrc3R.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130051572&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4071" RevisionGUID="dde7e7c4-150d-4c75-8bb9-8bca096c1045" CreationDate="2013-06-20T01:16:44.270" UserId="1767" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="**HELP SAVE HOME AUDIO** - This application from Creative Labs seeks to patent the general idea of a self-calibrating audio systems! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.... [HERE!][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining **physical features** around speakers and calibrating at least one of the speakers; where&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **Physical features** are determined by sending a test signal from the speaker and calibrating the speakers based on the test signal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**HINT** - Haven’t self-calibrating speaker systems or networks been around for a while?  Did Dynaudio AIR do this? Can you help find evidence that Dynaudio AIR or any other system did this prior to Dec 2010?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: SELF-CALIBRATING SPEAKER SYSTEMS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalish into English] A method for calibrating multi-speaker audio system wherein an audio test signal is sent from a speaker and the test signal is used to measure a **physical features** of the speaker.  This **physical feature** (for example, volume) is used to calibrate the speaker.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20120148075 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Creative Labs, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A calibration method for calibrating a variable number of speakers, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining **physical features** around a location of each of the variable number of speakers and calibrating at least one of the variable number of speakers;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Wherein the **physical features** around a location of each of the variable number of speakers are determinable by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Transmitting an instruction signal, the instruction signal being transmittable from a device which is indicative of listener location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Communicating a **test signal** based on the instruction signal, the **test signal** being communicable from at least one of the variable number of speakers to the device; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Receiving and processing the **test signal** by the device in a manner so as to produce **calibration signals**, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Wherein the **calibration signals** are communicable from the device to at least one of the variable number of speakers so as to calibrate at least one of the variable number of speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for calibrating audio speakers; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining physical features of the audio speakers using an audio test signal from at least one of the speakers;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Using the physical features which have been determined to calibrate at least one of the speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already - haven’t self-calibrating speaker systems or networks been around for a while?  Did Dynaudio AIR do this? Can you help find evidence that Dynaudio AIR or any other system did this prior to Dec 2010?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The method of  self-calibrating speaker systems from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Hrc3R.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130051572&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4071" RevisionGUID="5dd22604-400f-484c-b2eb-ab46744238b5" CreationDate="2013-06-20T01:28:03.673" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="**HELP SAVE HOME AUDIO** - This application from Creative Labs seeks to patent the general idea of a self-calibrating audio systems! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.... [HERE!][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining **physical features** around speakers and calibrating at least one of the speakers; where&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **Physical features** are determined by sending a test signal from the speaker and calibrating the speakers based on the test signal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**HINT** - Haven’t self-calibrating speaker systems or networks been around for a while?  Did Dynaudio AIR do this? Can you help find evidence that Dynaudio AIR or any other system did this prior to Dec 2010?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: SELF-CALIBRATING SPEAKER SYSTEMS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalish into English] A method for calibrating multi-speaker audio system wherein an audio test signal is sent from a speaker and the test signal is used to measure a **physical features** of the speaker.  This **physical feature** (for example, volume) is used to calibrate the speaker.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130051572 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Creative Labs, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A calibration method for calibrating a variable number of speakers, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining **physical features** around a location of each of the variable number of speakers and calibrating at least one of the variable number of speakers;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Wherein the **physical features** around a location of each of the variable number of speakers are determinable by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Transmitting an instruction signal, the instruction signal being transmittable from a device which is indicative of listener location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Communicating a **test signal** based on the instruction signal, the **test signal** being communicable from at least one of the variable number of speakers to the device; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Receiving and processing the **test signal** by the device in a manner so as to produce **calibration signals**, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Wherein the **calibration signals** are communicable from the device to at least one of the variable number of speakers so as to calibrate at least one of the variable number of speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for calibrating audio speakers; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining physical features of the audio speakers using an audio test signal from at least one of the speakers;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Using the physical features which have been determined to calibrate at least one of the speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already - haven’t self-calibrating speaker systems or networks been around for a while?  Did Dynaudio AIR do this? Can you help find evidence that Dynaudio AIR or any other system did this prior to Dec 2010?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The method of  self-calibrating speaker systems from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Hrc3R.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130051572&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4077" RevisionGUID="1d589f90-73a7-4ba0-8146-98105bcb0a2b" CreationDate="2013-06-20T18:42:04.140" UserId="4080" Text="Agree with an above poster, this collection is very interesting:&#xD;&#xA;http://museum.media.org/radio/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The collection is rooted in broadcasts which are identified as being streamed on the Internet, but, it is logical that many of these would have also provided downloads.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Followed a link on that page here:&#xD;&#xA;http://town.hall.org/radio/HellsBells/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This &quot;press release&quot; from Thu, 23 Sep 1993, shows that this is an 8 part series, and lists the name of a downloadable audio file:&#xD;&#xA;http://seclists.org/interesting-people/1993/Sep/98&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Internet Wayback Machine confirms these were available for download from the page at the first link during and/or before 1999, would be great to figure out if that page had changed since 1996:&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/19990219121409/http://town.hall.org/radio/HellsBells/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4078" RevisionGUID="1af185ae-f6f2-491b-8b2b-8678f31e4b5f" CreationDate="2013-06-20T19:11:20.563" UserId="4081" Text="I currently work for a company being sued by a patent troll.  We have a lawyer and a bunch of middle-men.  I don't really get to talk to the lawyer.  After tons of digging, I found prior art that existed before the patent was filed.  50+ companies are being sued for infringing upon this patent.  What does our attorney need to do now once I give him proof of prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9246" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4078" RevisionGUID="1af185ae-f6f2-491b-8b2b-8678f31e4b5f" CreationDate="2013-06-20T19:11:20.563" UserId="4081" Text="How to invalidate a patent with prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9247" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4078" RevisionGUID="1af185ae-f6f2-491b-8b2b-8678f31e4b5f" CreationDate="2013-06-20T19:11:20.563" UserId="4081" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4079" RevisionGUID="5c9d8612-609e-4882-9ce9-babd8831684b" CreationDate="2013-06-20T19:28:41.247" UserId="3076" Text="I'm sure the attorney can figure out what to do with it depending on how on-target it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is prior art and then is **good** prior art. From previous postings on Ask Patents you can see that many things people originally think are killer prior art turn out to be something the patentee long ago informed the examiner of or have otherwise been fully considered during the prosecution of the application. Unless you have a fair amout of experience reading patent claims it is hard to tell how on-target what you find might be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Companies can be very tight-lipped about their litigation strategy, even with employees not directly involved in the case. I imagine you can just make sure the people handling the case are aware of what you found." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4080" RevisionGUID="e764904a-3d6f-402f-9f3b-cbeb65811839" CreationDate="2013-06-20T19:37:15.847" UserId="687" Text="You can't file a patent if you aren't the inventor. So you don't have to worry about somebody else who didn't write the software, who sees the software and then tries to file a patent for some algorithm in the software. That would be patent fraud.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4079" RevisionGUID="7eb10b99-a0c7-49b8-8a2d-61316535dd58" CreationDate="2013-06-20T20:33:19.037" UserId="3076" Comment="Typo" Text="I'm sure the attorney can figure out what to do with it depending on how on-target it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is prior art and then is **good** prior art. From previous postings on Ask Patents you can see that many things people originally think are killer prior art turn out to be something the patentee long ago informed the examiner of or have otherwise been fully considered during the prosecution of the application. Unless you have a fair amount of experience reading patent claims it is hard to tell how on-target what you find might be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Companies can be very tight-lipped about their litigation strategy, even with employees not directly involved in the case. I imagine you can just make sure the people handling the case are aware of what you found." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4082" RevisionGUID="26da91e1-e8a2-4c50-a629-08b8aad7736a" CreationDate="2013-06-20T23:37:22.950" UserId="3363" Text="**HELP SAVE MESH NETWORKING** —This application from General Electric seeks to patent a system for extending the range of communication for low rate wireless mesh networks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was **published before June 27, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A low-rate wireless mesh network that uses several directional antennas (communication nodes including: directional wSIM, any directional wireless sensor interface) to extend the range of wireless communication between devices; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A method of assembling such a network; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	A sensor and controller connected to such a mesh network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT ---** &#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses one or more omnidirectional antennas.&#xD;&#xA;	A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses a memory device connected to a processor. &#xD;&#xA;	A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses two adjacent directional antennas with opposite polatrization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ENHANCING WIRELESS MESH NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for increasing the range of communication between devices in low-rate wireless mesh networks by using multiple directional antennas (for example directional wSIM or any directional wireless sensor interface device).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Publication Number:** &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/ask&quot;&gt;US 20120326927 A1&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Assignee:** General Electric Oil and Gas &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Prior Art Date:** June 27, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Open for Challenge at USPTO: open until _June 27, 2013_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A wireless mesh network comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	At least one data collection device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A plurality of directional antennas operatively coupled to each other and to said at least one data collection device,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Wherein said wireless mesh network is configured to transmit information with a data rate of approximately 250 Kilobits per second (Kbits/sec) or less, and at a frequency of approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz) or less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	At least one device that collects data input from any kind of sensor or user input interface (including, for example, a microcontroller programmed to collect, store and process input from sensors, user interfaces such as touch screens or keyboards, or GPS); AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Multiple mesh nodes using directional radio antennas configured in such a way that they are connected in communication with each other and with the device described in (1); AND &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	The mesh network is configured to transmit information with a low-data rate, using either the Zigbee® specification, the WirelessHART™ standard, or any low-rate specification, standard or protocol based on IEEE standard 802.15.4™ [a data rate of approximately 250 Kilobits per second (250Kbits/sec) or less, at a frequency of approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz) or less].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 15** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A monitoring system comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	At least one sensor measurement device; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	At least one data collection device; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	A wireless mesh network coupled to said at least one data collection device and said at least one sensor measurement device, said wireless mesh network comprising a plurality of directional antennas operatively coupled to each other and to said at least one data collection device, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Wherein, said wireless mesh network is configured to transmit information with a data rate of approximate 250 Kilobits per second (Kbits/sec) or less, and at a frequency of approximately 2.4 GigaHertz (GHz) or less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	At least one sensor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	At least one device that collects data input from any kind of sensor or user input interface (including, for example, a microcontroller programmed to collect, store and process input from sensors, user interfaces such as touch screens or keyboards, or GPS); AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Multiple mesh nodes using directional antennas configured such that the nodes are connected in communication with each other, the sensor, and the data collection device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	The mesh network is configured to transmit information with a low-data rate, using either the Zigbee® specification, the WirelessHART™ standard, or any low-rate specification, standard or protocol based on IEEE standard 802.15.4™ [a data rate of approximately 250 Kilobits per second (250Kbits/sec) or less, at a frequency of approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz) or less].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You’re probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet these criteria already...&#xD;&#xA;Separately, the applicant is claiming:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	A method and system using all of the elements described above and including multiple omnidirectional antennas;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	A data collection device composed of any memory device coupled to a processor, where the memory device includes programmed instructions to the processor to transmit data through the network.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	An arrangement of antennas where the first directional antenna is positioned in communications range of a first omnidirectional antenna; and a second directional antenna position in communications range of a second omnidirectional antenna.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_What is good prior art? Please see our &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt;_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&quot;&gt;post your own prior art&lt;/a&gt; on other questionable US patent applications._" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9256" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4082" RevisionGUID="26da91e1-e8a2-4c50-a629-08b8aad7736a" CreationDate="2013-06-20T23:37:22.950" UserId="3363" Text="APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ENHANCING WIRELESS MESH NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS Patent Application – PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9257" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4082" RevisionGUID="26da91e1-e8a2-4c50-a629-08b8aad7736a" CreationDate="2013-06-20T23:37:22.950" UserId="3363" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;mesh-networking&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4082" RevisionGUID="a99fea9e-f4f0-470a-9bd9-cddbc82f0f2a" CreationDate="2013-06-20T23:58:48.337" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag fixed link and fixed assignee name" Text="**HELP SAVE MESH NETWORKING** —This application from General Electric seeks to patent a system for extending the range of communication for low rate wireless mesh networks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was **published before June 27, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A low-rate wireless mesh network that uses several directional antennas (communication nodes including: directional wSIM, any directional wireless sensor interface) to extend the range of wireless communication between devices; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A method of assembling such a network; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	A sensor and controller connected to such a mesh network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT ---** &#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses one or more omnidirectional antennas.&#xD;&#xA;	A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses a memory device connected to a processor. &#xD;&#xA;	A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses two adjacent directional antennas with opposite polatrization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ENHANCING WIRELESS MESH NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for increasing the range of communication between devices in low-rate wireless mesh networks by using multiple directional antennas (for example directional wSIM or any directional wireless sensor interface device).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Publication Number:** [US 2012/0326927][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Assignee:** General Electric&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Prior Art Date:** June 27, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Open for Challenge at USPTO: open until _June 27, 2013_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A wireless mesh network comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	At least one data collection device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A plurality of directional antennas operatively coupled to each other and to said at least one data collection device,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Wherein said wireless mesh network is configured to transmit information with a data rate of approximately 250 Kilobits per second (Kbits/sec) or less, and at a frequency of approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz) or less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	At least one device that collects data input from any kind of sensor or user input interface (including, for example, a microcontroller programmed to collect, store and process input from sensors, user interfaces such as touch screens or keyboards, or GPS); AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Multiple mesh nodes using directional radio antennas configured in such a way that they are connected in communication with each other and with the device described in (1); AND &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	The mesh network is configured to transmit information with a low-data rate, using either the Zigbee® specification, the WirelessHART™ standard, or any low-rate specification, standard or protocol based on IEEE standard 802.15.4™ [a data rate of approximately 250 Kilobits per second (250Kbits/sec) or less, at a frequency of approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz) or less].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 15** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A monitoring system comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	At least one sensor measurement device; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	At least one data collection device; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	A wireless mesh network coupled to said at least one data collection device and said at least one sensor measurement device, said wireless mesh network comprising a plurality of directional antennas operatively coupled to each other and to said at least one data collection device, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Wherein, said wireless mesh network is configured to transmit information with a data rate of approximate 250 Kilobits per second (Kbits/sec) or less, and at a frequency of approximately 2.4 GigaHertz (GHz) or less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	At least one sensor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	At least one device that collects data input from any kind of sensor or user input interface (including, for example, a microcontroller programmed to collect, store and process input from sensors, user interfaces such as touch screens or keyboards, or GPS); AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Multiple mesh nodes using directional antennas configured such that the nodes are connected in communication with each other, the sensor, and the data collection device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	The mesh network is configured to transmit information with a low-data rate, using either the Zigbee® specification, the WirelessHART™ standard, or any low-rate specification, standard or protocol based on IEEE standard 802.15.4™ [a data rate of approximately 250 Kilobits per second (250Kbits/sec) or less, at a frequency of approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz) or less].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You’re probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet these criteria already...&#xD;&#xA;Separately, the applicant is claiming:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	A method and system using all of the elements described above and including multiple omnidirectional antennas;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	A data collection device composed of any memory device coupled to a processor, where the memory device includes programmed instructions to the processor to transmit data through the network.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	An arrangement of antennas where the first directional antenna is positioned in communications range of a first omnidirectional antenna; and a second directional antenna position in communications range of a second omnidirectional antenna.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_What is good prior art? Please see our &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt;_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&quot;&gt;post your own prior art&lt;/a&gt; on other questionable US patent applications._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120326927" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9259" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4082" RevisionGUID="a99fea9e-f4f0-470a-9bd9-cddbc82f0f2a" CreationDate="2013-06-20T23:58:48.337" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag fixed link and fixed assignee name" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;mesh-networking&gt;&lt;20120326927&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4082" RevisionGUID="2c863365-263e-4040-afe7-3c05e9d420f2" CreationDate="2013-06-21T11:57:05.423" UserId="-1" Comment="Corrected spelling, fixed grammar, simplified the text, edited for consistency" Text="**HELP SAVE MESH NETWORKING** —This application from General Electric seeks to patent a system for extending the range of communication for low rate wireless mesh networks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was **published before June 27, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A low-rate wireless mesh network that uses several directional antennas (communication nodes including: directional wSIM, any directional wireless sensor interface) to extend the range of wireless communication between devices; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A method of assembling such a network; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	A sensor and controller connected to such a mesh network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT ---** &#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses one or more omnidirectional antennas.&#xD;&#xA;	A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses a memory device connected to a processor. &#xD;&#xA;	A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses two adjacent directional antennas with opposite polarization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ENHANCING WIRELESS MESH NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for increasing the range of communication between devices in low-rate wireless mesh networks by using multiple directional antennas (for example directional wSIM or any directional wireless sensor interface device).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Publication Number:** [US 2012/0326927][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Assignee:** General Electric&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Prior Art Date:** June 27, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Open for Challenge at USPTO: open until _June 27, 2013_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A wireless mesh network comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	At least one data collection device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A plurality of directional antennas operatively coupled to each other and to said at least one data collection device,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Wherein said wireless mesh network is configured to transmit information with a data rate of approximately 250 Kilobits per second (Kbits/sec) or less, and at a frequency of approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz) or less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	At least one device that collects data input from any kind of sensor or user input interface (including, for example, a microcontroller programmed to collect, store and process input from sensors, user interfaces such as touch screens or keyboards, or GPS); AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Multiple mesh nodes using directional radio antennas configured in such a way that they are in communication with each other and with the device described in (1); AND &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	The mesh network is configured to transmit information with a low-data rate, using either the Zigbee® specification, the WirelessHART™ standard, or any low-rate specification, standard or protocol based on IEEE standard 802.15.4™ [a data rate of approximately 250 Kilobits per second (250Kbits/sec) or less, at a frequency of approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz) or less].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 15** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A monitoring system comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	At least one sensor measurement device; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	At least one data collection device; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	A wireless mesh network coupled to said at least one data collection device and said at least one sensor measurement device, said wireless mesh network comprising a plurality of directional antennas operatively coupled to each other and to said at least one data collection device, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Wherein, said wireless mesh network is configured to transmit information with a data rate of approximate 250 Kilobits per second (Kbits/sec) or less, and at a frequency of approximately 2.4 GigaHertz (GHz) or less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	At least one sensor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	At least one device that collects data input from any kind of sensor or user input interface (including, for example, a microcontroller programmed to collect, store and process input from sensors, or user interfaces such as touch screens or keyboards, or GPS); AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Multiple mesh nodes using directional antennas configured such that the nodes are in communication with each other, the sensor, and the data collection device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	The mesh network is configured to transmit information with a low-data rate, using either the Zigbee® specification, the WirelessHART™ standard, or any low-rate specification, standard or protocol based on IEEE standard 802.15.4™ [a data rate of approximately 250 Kilobits per second (250Kbits/sec) or less, at a frequency of approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz) or less].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You’re probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet these criteria already...&#xD;&#xA;Separately, the applicant is claiming:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	A method and system using all of the elements described above and including multiple omnidirectional antennas;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	A data collection device composed of any memory device coupled to a processor, where the memory device includes programmed instructions to the processor to transmit data through the network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	An arrangement of antennas where the first directional antenna is positioned within range of a first omnidirectional antenna; and a second directional antenna positioned within range of a second omnidirectional antenna.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_What is good prior art? Please see our &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt;_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&quot;&gt;post your own prior art&lt;/a&gt; on other questionable US patent applications._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120326927" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9261" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4082" RevisionGUID="2c863365-263e-4040-afe7-3c05e9d420f2" CreationDate="2013-06-21T11:57:05.423" Comment="Proposed by 75.67.10.147|13afe710-930b-49a2-9b97-cac19181e959 approved by 3076, 1 edit id of 358" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9262" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4082" RevisionGUID="6a33c086-148a-46b5-94a5-bb0b5f9cb95e" CreationDate="2013-06-21T13:21:04.327" UserId="1259" Comment="tags corrected" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;mesh-networking&gt;&lt;wireless&gt;&lt;us20120326927&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4084" RevisionGUID="e5a065c7-8011-4ae3-9abc-1fa78f4f197b" CreationDate="2013-06-21T15:07:39.000" UserId="4086" Text="To add to PB Tom's great answer: Wired published an article on push technologies in March of '97. They profiled PointCast, Castanet, and Freeloader, all of which were attempting to distribute rich media to end-users. It may be worth looking at IP assigned and licensed to those entities (USPTO assignment database: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/?db=pat).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original article can be found here. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.03/ff_push_pr.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4086" RevisionGUID="a6e7bbd6-0fb1-4af1-b0c5-06a0710fabfb" CreationDate="2013-06-21T16:59:29.343" UserId="3363" Text="**HELP SAVE MESH NETWORKING** —This application from Cisco seeks to patent a technique for authenticating devices seeking to join a mesh network. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was **published before July 6, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     A device **sending an authentication packet** to an authenticated device in the mesh network (through one or more hops); &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     The authenticated device **encapsulating** the authentication packet in **Layer 3 packets** for transmission over an **Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel** to an authenticator device; OR&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;3.     The authenticated device **receiving an authentication packet** that is encapsulated in Layer 3 packets from the authenticator, **decapsulating** the authentication packet, and **transmitting** it over the mesh network to the device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT ---**&#xD;&#xA;        	A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the authentication message is sent as a **Layer 2** message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses the **IEEE 802.1X standard**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the packets are transmitted **wirelessly**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO encapsulates the packet in **Universal Datagram Protocol (UDP)** Packets OR **Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)** Packets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the authenticator device forwards a **group mesh key** to the device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: ADAPTING EXTENSIBLE AUTHENTICATION PROTOCOL FOR LAYER 3 MESH NETWORKS**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** [Translated from Legalese into English] A method and apparatus for authenticating devices in a mesh network by routing authentication packets through the mesh network, over an IP tunnel, and to an authenticator device.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;•	**Publication Number:** &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US20130014217&quot;&gt;US 20130014217 A1&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Assignee:** Cisco&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Prior Art Date:** July 6, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Open for Challenge at USPTO: open at least through &lt;i&gt;July 10, 2013&lt;/i&gt;**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     At an authenticated device in a network, receiving an authentication packet sent over the network from a device that is seeking authentication; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     Encapsulating the authentication packet for transmission in Layer 3 packets over an Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel to an authenticator device associated in the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     A mesh node that wants access to the network sends an authentication message (this message can be sent, for example, as a Layer 2 or Layer 3 message) over the network to an already authenticated mesh node; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     The receiving mesh node encapsulates the message in Layer 3 packets and sends it to an authenticator over an Internet Protocol (IP) network connection.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 10** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     An authenticated device in a network, receiving an authentication packet that is encapsulated in Layer 3 packets from an authenticator device over an Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     Decapsulating the authentication packet from the Layer 3 packets and transmitting the authentication packet over the network to a device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     The authenticator sends an authentication message in Layer 3 packets over an IP network connection to an already authenticated mesh node; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     The authenticated mesh node decapsulates the authentication message from the Layer 3 packets and sends the message back over the network to the node that requested access.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 13** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;An apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     A transceiver unit configured to transmit and receive signals over a network; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     A processor coupled to the transceiver unit, the processor configured to, for an authentication packet received from a device that is seeking authentication in the network, encapsulate the authentication packet for transmission in Layer 3 packets over an Internet protocol (IP) tunnel to an authenticator device associated in the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     A wireless device that can receive an authentication message from another device and encapsulate that message into Layer 3 packets to be sent to an authenticator over an IP network connection.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 20** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;One or more computer readable storage media encoded with software comprising computer executable instructions and when software is executed operable to:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     For an authentication packet received from a device that is seeking authentication in a network, encapsulate the authentication packet for transmission in layer 3 packets over an Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel to an authenticator device associated in the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     Any memory device that stores software instructions for a controller to encapsulate messages in Layer 3 packets to be sent to an authenticator over an IP network connection.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 24** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The computer readable storage media of claim 20, and further comprising instructions that are operable to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.     For an authentication packet encapsulated in Layer 3 packets received from the authenticator device over the IP tunnel, decapsulate the authentication packet from the Layer 3 packets and to control a transceiver unit to transmit the authentication packet to the device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     Any memory device that stores software instructions for a controller to decapsulate authentication messages from the Layer 3 packets and transmit them to the node seeking access to the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Separately,** the applicant is claiming a method where the authenticator transmits a **group mesh key** to the device seeking access, where the key is known only to authenticated devices, and where all packets not encrypted with the mesh key and not part of the authentication negotiation are **dropped** by nodes in the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;What is good prior art? Please see our &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&quot;&gt;post your own prior art&lt;/a&gt; on other questionable US patent applications.&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9274" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4086" RevisionGUID="a6e7bbd6-0fb1-4af1-b0c5-06a0710fabfb" CreationDate="2013-06-21T16:59:29.343" UserId="3363" Text="ADAPTING EXTENSIBLE AUTHENTICATION PROTOCOL FOR LAYER 3 MESH NETWORKS Patent Application – PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9275" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4086" RevisionGUID="a6e7bbd6-0fb1-4af1-b0c5-06a0710fabfb" CreationDate="2013-06-21T16:59:29.343" UserId="3363" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;mesh-networking&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4086" RevisionGUID="d4929877-cc68-4022-8774-b9d1c7b5a97d" CreationDate="2013-06-21T17:13:22.283" UserId="3363" Comment="added 160 characters in body" Text="**HELP SAVE MESH NETWORKING** —This application from Cisco seeks to patent a technique for authenticating devices seeking to join a mesh network. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was **published before July 6, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     A device **sending an authentication packet** to an authenticated device in the mesh network (through one or more hops); &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     The authenticated device **encapsulating** the authentication packet in **Layer 3 packets** for transmission over an **Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel** to an authenticator device; OR&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;3.     The authenticated device **receiving an authentication packet** that is encapsulated in Layer 3 packets from the authenticator, **decapsulating** the authentication packet, and **transmitting** it over the mesh network to the device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT ---**&#xD;&#xA;        	A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the authentication message is sent as a **Layer 2** message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses the **IEEE 802.1X standard**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the packets are transmitted **wirelessly**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO encapsulates the packet in **Universal Datagram Protocol (UDP)** Packets OR **Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)** Packets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the authenticator device forwards a **group mesh key** to the device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: ADAPTING EXTENSIBLE AUTHENTICATION PROTOCOL FOR LAYER 3 MESH NETWORKS**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** [Translated from Legalese into English] A method and apparatus for authenticating devices in a mesh network by routing authentication packets through the mesh network, over an IP tunnel, and to an authenticator device.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;•	**Publication Number:** &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US20130014217&quot;&gt;US 20130014217 A1&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Assignee:** Cisco&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Prior Art Date:** July 6, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Open for Challenge at USPTO: open at least through &lt;i&gt;July 10, 2013&lt;/i&gt;**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     At an authenticated device in a network, receiving an authentication packet sent over the network from a device that is seeking authentication; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     Encapsulating the authentication packet for transmission in Layer 3 packets over an Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel to an authenticator device associated in the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     A mesh node that wants access to the network sends an authentication message (this message can be sent, for example, as a Layer 2 or Layer 3 message) over the network to an already authenticated mesh node; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     The receiving mesh node encapsulates the message in Layer 3 packets and sends it to an authenticator over an Internet Protocol (IP) network connection.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 10** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     An authenticated device in a network, receiving an authentication packet that is encapsulated in Layer 3 packets from an authenticator device over an Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     Decapsulating the authentication packet from the Layer 3 packets and transmitting the authentication packet over the network to a device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     The authenticator sends an authentication message in Layer 3 packets over an IP network connection to an already authenticated mesh node; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     The authenticated mesh node decapsulates the authentication message from the Layer 3 packets and sends the message back over the network to the node that requested access.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 13** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;An apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     A transceiver unit configured to transmit and receive signals over a network; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     A processor coupled to the transceiver unit, the processor configured to, for an authentication packet received from a device that is seeking authentication in the network, encapsulate the authentication packet for transmission in Layer 3 packets over an Internet protocol (IP) tunnel to an authenticator device associated in the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     A wireless device that can receive an authentication message from another device and encapsulate that message into Layer 3 packets to be sent to an authenticator over an IP network connection.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 20** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;One or more computer readable storage media encoded with software comprising computer executable instructions and when software is executed operable to:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     For an authentication packet received from a device that is seeking authentication in a network, encapsulate the authentication packet for transmission in layer 3 packets over an Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel to an authenticator device associated in the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     Any memory device that stores software instructions for a controller to encapsulate messages in Layer 3 packets to be sent to an authenticator over an IP network connection.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 24** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The computer readable storage media of claim 20, and further comprising instructions that are operable to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.     For an authentication packet encapsulated in Layer 3 packets received from the authenticator device over the IP tunnel, decapsulate the authentication packet from the Layer 3 packets and to control a transceiver unit to transmit the authentication packet to the device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     Any memory device that stores software instructions for a controller to decapsulate authentication messages from the Layer 3 packets and transmit them to the node seeking access to the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Separately,** the applicant is claiming a method where the authenticator transmits a **group mesh key** to the device seeking access, where the key is known only to authenticated devices, and where all packets not encrypted with the mesh key and not part of the authentication negotiation are **dropped** by nodes in the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;What is good prior art? Please see our &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&quot;&gt;post your own prior art&lt;/a&gt; on other questionable US patent applications.&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/851CF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/UVGON.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4087" RevisionGUID="a249b3c2-79e1-4419-bf9d-849efe389b53" CreationDate="2013-06-21T17:18:37.603" UserId="3363" Text="**HELP SAVE MESH NETWORKING** — This application from Schlage seeks to patent a secure gateway between a mesh network and an IP network, and a lock device connected through the mesh network. Because mesh networks often use protocols that don’t work well with IP clients, it’s important to have a secure bridge that allows web browsers and other traditional IP clients to use mesh network based systems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was published before **May 27, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A **gateway** device for transmitting signals between an IP network and a radio frequency mesh network that uses a **secure data connection** to communicate with the IP network; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A gateway device that meets all of the criteria above where the gateway is configured to **enroll a lock device** in the mesh network; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	A method for **synchronizing** the gateway device described above with **a lock device.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT ---** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND that was published BEFORE **December 31, 2007** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses a **secure socket layer protocol** to implement the secure data connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND where the gateway is configured to enroll an **additional device that is not a lock** in the mesh network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the logic and memory unit **translates** between the mesh and IP network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: MESH NETWORK SECURITY SYSTEM GATEWAY AND METHOD**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** [Translated from Legalese into English] A secure data connection gateway between an IP or computer network and a radio-frequency mesh network, with a power supply, that could allow for web browsers and other traditional IP client software to control or use a mesh network. Separately, the applicant is claiming a method of enrolling a lock device in the mesh network and synchronizing it with the gateway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Publication Number:** &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US20130014219&quot;&gt;US 20130014219 A1&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Assignee:** Schlage&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;•	**Prior Art Date:** May 27, 2008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Open for Challenge at USPTO: open through at least *July 10, 2013***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gateway for transmitting signals between a computer network and a radio-frequency mesh network, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A housing;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A radio-frequency transceiver for communicating with the radio-frequency mesh network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	An Internet Protocol transceiver, operatively coupled to the radio frequency transceiver, for communicating with the computer network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	A power supply; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	A logic and memory unit configured to communicate with the computer network using a secure data connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gateway device with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A housing; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A radio frequency transceiver and IP transceiver in communication with each other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	A power supply; AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Any logic and memory device that can communicate with the IP or computer network through a secure data connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 9** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gateway for transmitting signals between a computer network and a radio-frequency mesh network, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A housing;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A radio-frequency transceiver for communicating with the radio-frequency mesh network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	An Internet Protocol transceiver, operatively coupled to the radio-frequency transceiver, for communicating with the computer network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	A power supply; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	A logic and memory unit configured to enroll devices into the radio-frequency mesh network, at least one of the devices being a radio-frequency mesh network lock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gateway device with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A housing; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A radio frequency transceiver and IP transceiver in communication with each other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	A power supply; AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Any logic and memory device that can add nodes to the mesh network, where at least one of those nodes is a lock device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 14** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A method of synchronizing a radio-frequency mesh network lock device with a mesh network gateway, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Positioning the gateway adjacent to the lock device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	Initiating synchronization procedures on the lock device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Initiating synchronization procedures on the gateway;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Exchanging identifying information between the gateway and the lock device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	Indicating that synchronization is successfully completed at the gateway;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.	Increasing radio signal power of a lock device transceiver associated with the lock device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.	Adding the lock device to a list stored in the gateway of devices that make-up the radio-frequency mesh network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A process where the lock an the gateway are synchronized by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Placing the lock and gateway next to each other; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	Entering a security code into the lock device (or otherwise initiating a synchronization procedure);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Pressing a button on the gateway (or otherwise initiating a synchronization procedure);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Transmitting the security code (or other identifying information) between the gateway and the lock;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	Increasing the amount of power going to the lock’s transceiver; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.	Enrolling the lock device in the network. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][1]![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;What is good prior art? Please see our &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&quot;&gt;post your own prior art&lt;/a&gt; on other questionable US patent applications.&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/6WC9e.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Q01fI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9278" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4087" RevisionGUID="a249b3c2-79e1-4419-bf9d-849efe389b53" CreationDate="2013-06-21T17:18:37.603" UserId="3363" Text="MESH NETWORK GATEWAY AND SECURITY SYSTEM Patent Application – PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9279" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4087" RevisionGUID="a249b3c2-79e1-4419-bf9d-849efe389b53" CreationDate="2013-06-21T17:18:37.603" UserId="3363" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;mesh-networking&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4087" RevisionGUID="c156153b-c4e5-4030-af3a-b104f3f6c28e" CreationDate="2013-06-21T17:29:51.117" UserId="3363" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="**HELP SAVE MESH NETWORKING** — This application from Schlage seeks to patent a secure gateway between a mesh network and an IP network, and a lock device connected through the mesh network. Because mesh networks often use protocols that don’t work well with IP clients, it’s important to have a secure bridge that allows web browsers and other traditional IP clients to use mesh network based systems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was published before **May 27, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A **gateway** device for transmitting signals between an IP network and a radio frequency mesh network that uses a **secure data connection** to communicate with the IP network; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A gateway device that meets all of the criteria above where the gateway is configured to **enroll a lock device** in the mesh network; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	A method for **synchronizing** the gateway device described above with **a lock device.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT ---** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND that was published BEFORE **December 31, 2007.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses a **secure socket layer protocol** to implement the secure data connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND where the gateway is configured to enroll an **additional device that is not a lock** in the mesh network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the logic and memory unit **translates** between the mesh and IP network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: MESH NETWORK SECURITY SYSTEM GATEWAY AND METHOD**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** [Translated from Legalese into English] A secure data connection gateway between an IP or computer network and a radio-frequency mesh network, with a power supply, that could allow for web browsers and other traditional IP client software to control or use a mesh network. Separately, the applicant is claiming a method of enrolling a lock device in the mesh network and synchronizing it with the gateway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Publication Number:** &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US20130014219&quot;&gt;US 20130014219 A1&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Assignee:** Schlage&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;•	**Prior Art Date:** May 27, 2008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Open for Challenge at USPTO: open through at least *July 10, 2013***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gateway for transmitting signals between a computer network and a radio-frequency mesh network, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A housing;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A radio-frequency transceiver for communicating with the radio-frequency mesh network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	An Internet Protocol transceiver, operatively coupled to the radio frequency transceiver, for communicating with the computer network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	A power supply; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	A logic and memory unit configured to communicate with the computer network using a secure data connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gateway device with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A housing; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A radio frequency transceiver and IP transceiver in communication with each other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	A power supply; AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Any logic and memory device that can communicate with the IP or computer network through a secure data connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 9** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gateway for transmitting signals between a computer network and a radio-frequency mesh network, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A housing;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A radio-frequency transceiver for communicating with the radio-frequency mesh network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	An Internet Protocol transceiver, operatively coupled to the radio-frequency transceiver, for communicating with the computer network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	A power supply; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	A logic and memory unit configured to enroll devices into the radio-frequency mesh network, at least one of the devices being a radio-frequency mesh network lock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gateway device with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A housing; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A radio frequency transceiver and IP transceiver in communication with each other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	A power supply; AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Any logic and memory device that can add nodes to the mesh network, where at least one of those nodes is a lock device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 14** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A method of synchronizing a radio-frequency mesh network lock device with a mesh network gateway, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Positioning the gateway adjacent to the lock device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	Initiating synchronization procedures on the lock device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Initiating synchronization procedures on the gateway;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Exchanging identifying information between the gateway and the lock device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	Indicating that synchronization is successfully completed at the gateway;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.	Increasing radio signal power of a lock device transceiver associated with the lock device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.	Adding the lock device to a list stored in the gateway of devices that make-up the radio-frequency mesh network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A process where the lock an the gateway are synchronized by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Placing the lock and gateway next to each other; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	Entering a security code into the lock device (or otherwise initiating a synchronization procedure);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Pressing a button on the gateway (or otherwise initiating a synchronization procedure);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Transmitting the security code (or other identifying information) between the gateway and the lock;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	Increasing the amount of power going to the lock’s transceiver; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.	Enrolling the lock device in the network. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][1]![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;What is good prior art? Please see our &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&quot;&gt;post your own prior art&lt;/a&gt; on other questionable US patent applications.&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/6WC9e.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Q01fI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4087" RevisionGUID="95025abe-019d-4702-a2b8-c6294c3c07e1" CreationDate="2013-06-21T18:17:13.807" UserId="1767" Comment="added 166 characters in body; edited tags" Text="**HELP SAVE MESH NETWORKING** — This application from Schlage seeks to patent a secure gateway between a mesh network and an IP network, and a lock device connected through the mesh network. Because mesh networks often use protocols that don’t work well with IP clients, it’s important to have a secure bridge that allows web browsers and other traditional IP clients to use mesh network based systems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.... [HERE!][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was published before **May 27, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A **gateway** device for transmitting signals between an IP network and a radio frequency mesh network that uses a **secure data connection** to communicate with the IP network; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A gateway device that meets all of the criteria above where the gateway is configured to **enroll a lock device** in the mesh network; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	A method for **synchronizing** the gateway device described above with **a lock device.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT ---** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND that was published BEFORE **December 31, 2007.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses a **secure socket layer protocol** to implement the secure data connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND where the gateway is configured to enroll an **additional device that is not a lock** in the mesh network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the logic and memory unit **translates** between the mesh and IP network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: MESH NETWORK SECURITY SYSTEM GATEWAY AND METHOD**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** [Translated from Legalese into English] A secure data connection gateway between an IP or computer network and a radio-frequency mesh network, with a power supply, that could allow for web browsers and other traditional IP client software to control or use a mesh network. Separately, the applicant is claiming a method of enrolling a lock device in the mesh network and synchronizing it with the gateway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Publication Number:** &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US20130014219&quot;&gt;US 20130014219 A1&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Assignee:** Schlage&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;•	**Prior Art Date:** May 27, 2008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Open for Challenge at USPTO: open through at least *July 10, 2013***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gateway for transmitting signals between a computer network and a radio-frequency mesh network, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A housing;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A radio-frequency transceiver for communicating with the radio-frequency mesh network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	An Internet Protocol transceiver, operatively coupled to the radio frequency transceiver, for communicating with the computer network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	A power supply; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	A logic and memory unit configured to communicate with the computer network using a secure data connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gateway device with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A housing; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A radio frequency transceiver and IP transceiver in communication with each other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	A power supply; AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Any logic and memory device that can communicate with the IP or computer network through a secure data connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 9** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gateway for transmitting signals between a computer network and a radio-frequency mesh network, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A housing;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A radio-frequency transceiver for communicating with the radio-frequency mesh network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	An Internet Protocol transceiver, operatively coupled to the radio-frequency transceiver, for communicating with the computer network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	A power supply; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	A logic and memory unit configured to enroll devices into the radio-frequency mesh network, at least one of the devices being a radio-frequency mesh network lock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gateway device with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A housing; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A radio frequency transceiver and IP transceiver in communication with each other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	A power supply; AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Any logic and memory device that can add nodes to the mesh network, where at least one of those nodes is a lock device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 14** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A method of synchronizing a radio-frequency mesh network lock device with a mesh network gateway, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Positioning the gateway adjacent to the lock device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	Initiating synchronization procedures on the lock device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Initiating synchronization procedures on the gateway;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Exchanging identifying information between the gateway and the lock device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	Indicating that synchronization is successfully completed at the gateway;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.	Increasing radio signal power of a lock device transceiver associated with the lock device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.	Adding the lock device to a list stored in the gateway of devices that make-up the radio-frequency mesh network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A process where the lock an the gateway are synchronized by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Placing the lock and gateway next to each other; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	Entering a security code into the lock device (or otherwise initiating a synchronization procedure);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Pressing a button on the gateway (or otherwise initiating a synchronization procedure);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Transmitting the security code (or other identifying information) between the gateway and the lock;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	Increasing the amount of power going to the lock’s transceiver; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.	Enrolling the lock device in the network. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][1]![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;What is good prior art? Please see our &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&quot;&gt;post your own prior art&lt;/a&gt; on other questionable US patent applications.&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/6WC9e.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Q01fI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4086" RevisionGUID="4eebfdea-c04b-404a-b557-f8b0d6795e7a" CreationDate="2013-06-21T18:18:07.107" UserId="1767" Comment="added 167 characters in body" Text="**HELP SAVE MESH NETWORKING** —This application from Cisco seeks to patent a technique for authenticating devices seeking to join a mesh network. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.... [HERE!][3]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was **published before July 6, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     A device **sending an authentication packet** to an authenticated device in the mesh network (through one or more hops); &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     The authenticated device **encapsulating** the authentication packet in **Layer 3 packets** for transmission over an **Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel** to an authenticator device; OR&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;3.     The authenticated device **receiving an authentication packet** that is encapsulated in Layer 3 packets from the authenticator, **decapsulating** the authentication packet, and **transmitting** it over the mesh network to the device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT ---**&#xD;&#xA;        	A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the authentication message is sent as a **Layer 2** message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses the **IEEE 802.1X standard**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the packets are transmitted **wirelessly**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO encapsulates the packet in **Universal Datagram Protocol (UDP)** Packets OR **Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)** Packets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the authenticator device forwards a **group mesh key** to the device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: ADAPTING EXTENSIBLE AUTHENTICATION PROTOCOL FOR LAYER 3 MESH NETWORKS**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** [Translated from Legalese into English] A method and apparatus for authenticating devices in a mesh network by routing authentication packets through the mesh network, over an IP tunnel, and to an authenticator device.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;•	**Publication Number:** &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US20130014217&quot;&gt;US 20130014217 A1&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Assignee:** Cisco&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Prior Art Date:** July 6, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Open for Challenge at USPTO: open at least through &lt;i&gt;July 10, 2013&lt;/i&gt;**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     At an authenticated device in a network, receiving an authentication packet sent over the network from a device that is seeking authentication; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     Encapsulating the authentication packet for transmission in Layer 3 packets over an Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel to an authenticator device associated in the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     A mesh node that wants access to the network sends an authentication message (this message can be sent, for example, as a Layer 2 or Layer 3 message) over the network to an already authenticated mesh node; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     The receiving mesh node encapsulates the message in Layer 3 packets and sends it to an authenticator over an Internet Protocol (IP) network connection.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 10** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     An authenticated device in a network, receiving an authentication packet that is encapsulated in Layer 3 packets from an authenticator device over an Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     Decapsulating the authentication packet from the Layer 3 packets and transmitting the authentication packet over the network to a device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     The authenticator sends an authentication message in Layer 3 packets over an IP network connection to an already authenticated mesh node; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     The authenticated mesh node decapsulates the authentication message from the Layer 3 packets and sends the message back over the network to the node that requested access.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 13** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;An apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     A transceiver unit configured to transmit and receive signals over a network; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     A processor coupled to the transceiver unit, the processor configured to, for an authentication packet received from a device that is seeking authentication in the network, encapsulate the authentication packet for transmission in Layer 3 packets over an Internet protocol (IP) tunnel to an authenticator device associated in the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     A wireless device that can receive an authentication message from another device and encapsulate that message into Layer 3 packets to be sent to an authenticator over an IP network connection.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 20** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;One or more computer readable storage media encoded with software comprising computer executable instructions and when software is executed operable to:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     For an authentication packet received from a device that is seeking authentication in a network, encapsulate the authentication packet for transmission in layer 3 packets over an Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel to an authenticator device associated in the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     Any memory device that stores software instructions for a controller to encapsulate messages in Layer 3 packets to be sent to an authenticator over an IP network connection.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 24** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The computer readable storage media of claim 20, and further comprising instructions that are operable to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.     For an authentication packet encapsulated in Layer 3 packets received from the authenticator device over the IP tunnel, decapsulate the authentication packet from the Layer 3 packets and to control a transceiver unit to transmit the authentication packet to the device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     Any memory device that stores software instructions for a controller to decapsulate authentication messages from the Layer 3 packets and transmit them to the node seeking access to the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Separately,** the applicant is claiming a method where the authenticator transmits a **group mesh key** to the device seeking access, where the key is known only to authenticated devices, and where all packets not encrypted with the mesh key and not part of the authentication negotiation are **dropped** by nodes in the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;What is good prior art? Please see our &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&quot;&gt;post your own prior art&lt;/a&gt; on other questionable US patent applications.&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/851CF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/UVGON.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9283" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4086" RevisionGUID="4eebfdea-c04b-404a-b557-f8b0d6795e7a" CreationDate="2013-06-21T18:18:07.107" UserId="1767" Comment="added 167 characters in body" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;mesh-networking&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9284" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4087" RevisionGUID="95025abe-019d-4702-a2b8-c6294c3c07e1" CreationDate="2013-06-21T18:17:13.807" UserId="1767" Comment="added 166 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;mesh-networking&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9285" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4082" RevisionGUID="bd87dd33-01f0-41f5-bd68-dfdfbe3c8745" CreationDate="2013-06-21T18:21:54.560" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;mesh-networking&gt;&lt;wireless&gt;&lt;us20120326927&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4082" RevisionGUID="bd87dd33-01f0-41f5-bd68-dfdfbe3c8745" CreationDate="2013-06-21T18:21:54.560" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="**HELP SAVE MESH NETWORKING** —This application from General Electric seeks to patent a system for extending the range of communication for low rate wireless mesh networks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.... [HERE!][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was **published before June 27, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A low-rate wireless mesh network that uses several directional antennas (communication nodes including: directional wSIM, any directional wireless sensor interface) to extend the range of wireless communication between devices; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A method of assembling such a network; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	A sensor and controller connected to such a mesh network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT ---** &#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses one or more omnidirectional antennas.&#xD;&#xA;	A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses a memory device connected to a processor. &#xD;&#xA;	A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses two adjacent directional antennas with opposite polarization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ENHANCING WIRELESS MESH NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for increasing the range of communication between devices in low-rate wireless mesh networks by using multiple directional antennas (for example directional wSIM or any directional wireless sensor interface device).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Publication Number:** [US 2012/0326927][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Assignee:** General Electric&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Prior Art Date:** June 27, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Open for Challenge at USPTO: open until _June 27, 2013_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A wireless mesh network comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	At least one data collection device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A plurality of directional antennas operatively coupled to each other and to said at least one data collection device,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Wherein said wireless mesh network is configured to transmit information with a data rate of approximately 250 Kilobits per second (Kbits/sec) or less, and at a frequency of approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz) or less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	At least one device that collects data input from any kind of sensor or user input interface (including, for example, a microcontroller programmed to collect, store and process input from sensors, user interfaces such as touch screens or keyboards, or GPS); AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Multiple mesh nodes using directional radio antennas configured in such a way that they are in communication with each other and with the device described in (1); AND &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	The mesh network is configured to transmit information with a low-data rate, using either the Zigbee® specification, the WirelessHART™ standard, or any low-rate specification, standard or protocol based on IEEE standard 802.15.4™ [a data rate of approximately 250 Kilobits per second (250Kbits/sec) or less, at a frequency of approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz) or less].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 15** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A monitoring system comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	At least one sensor measurement device; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	At least one data collection device; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	A wireless mesh network coupled to said at least one data collection device and said at least one sensor measurement device, said wireless mesh network comprising a plurality of directional antennas operatively coupled to each other and to said at least one data collection device, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Wherein, said wireless mesh network is configured to transmit information with a data rate of approximate 250 Kilobits per second (Kbits/sec) or less, and at a frequency of approximately 2.4 GigaHertz (GHz) or less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	At least one sensor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	At least one device that collects data input from any kind of sensor or user input interface (including, for example, a microcontroller programmed to collect, store and process input from sensors, or user interfaces such as touch screens or keyboards, or GPS); AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Multiple mesh nodes using directional antennas configured such that the nodes are in communication with each other, the sensor, and the data collection device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	The mesh network is configured to transmit information with a low-data rate, using either the Zigbee® specification, the WirelessHART™ standard, or any low-rate specification, standard or protocol based on IEEE standard 802.15.4™ [a data rate of approximately 250 Kilobits per second (250Kbits/sec) or less, at a frequency of approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz) or less].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You’re probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet these criteria already...&#xD;&#xA;Separately, the applicant is claiming:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	A method and system using all of the elements described above and including multiple omnidirectional antennas;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	A data collection device composed of any memory device coupled to a processor, where the memory device includes programmed instructions to the processor to transmit data through the network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	An arrangement of antennas where the first directional antenna is positioned within range of a first omnidirectional antenna; and a second directional antenna positioned within range of a second omnidirectional antenna.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_What is good prior art? Please see our &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt;_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own prior art][2] on other questionable US patent applications._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120326927&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9287" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4087" RevisionGUID="45382850-166e-44ad-875e-23de22238a66" CreationDate="2013-06-21T18:36:14.547" UserId="1767" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]; edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;mesh-networking&gt;&lt;us20130014219&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9288" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4086" RevisionGUID="edb3271e-d1e7-471d-aea3-0665ff1d8c61" CreationDate="2013-06-21T18:37:04.577" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;mesh-networking&gt;&lt;us20130014217&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4071" RevisionGUID="802f0823-4f11-49b5-aea8-faad3f4fe169" CreationDate="2013-06-21T18:41:06.273" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **HELP SAVE HOME AUDIO** - This application from Creative Labs seeks to patent the general idea of a self-calibrating audio systems! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.... [HERE!][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining **physical features** around speakers and calibrating at least one of the speakers; where&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **Physical features** are determined by sending a test signal from the speaker and calibrating the speakers based on the test signal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**HINT** - Haven’t self-calibrating speaker systems or networks been around for a while?  Did Dynaudio AIR do this? Can you help find evidence that Dynaudio AIR or any other system did this prior to Dec 2010?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: SELF-CALIBRATING SPEAKER SYSTEMS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalish into English] A method for calibrating multi-speaker audio system wherein an audio test signal is sent from a speaker and the test signal is used to measure a **physical features** of the speaker.  This **physical feature** (for example, volume) is used to calibrate the speaker.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130051572 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Creative Labs, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A calibration method for calibrating a variable number of speakers, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining **physical features** around a location of each of the variable number of speakers and calibrating at least one of the variable number of speakers;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Wherein the **physical features** around a location of each of the variable number of speakers are determinable by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Transmitting an instruction signal, the instruction signal being transmittable from a device which is indicative of listener location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Communicating a **test signal** based on the instruction signal, the **test signal** being communicable from at least one of the variable number of speakers to the device; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Receiving and processing the **test signal** by the device in a manner so as to produce **calibration signals**, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Wherein the **calibration signals** are communicable from the device to at least one of the variable number of speakers so as to calibrate at least one of the variable number of speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for calibrating audio speakers; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining physical features of the audio speakers using an audio test signal from at least one of the speakers;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Using the physical features which have been determined to calibrate at least one of the speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already - haven’t self-calibrating speaker systems or networks been around for a while?  Did Dynaudio AIR do this? Can you help find evidence that Dynaudio AIR or any other system did this prior to Dec 2010?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The method of  self-calibrating speaker systems from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Hrc3R.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130051572&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4071" RevisionGUID="21079b10-ea1b-49f6-9e10-5ca985ded8d7" CreationDate="2013-06-21T18:51:55.280" UserId="1767" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text=" **HELP SAVE HOME AUDIO** - This application from Creative Labs seeks to patent the general idea of a self-calibrating audio systems! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.... [HERE!][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining **physical features** around speakers and calibrating at least one of the speakers; where&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **Physical features** are determined by sending a test signal from the speaker and calibrating the speakers based on the test signal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**HINT** - Haven’t self-calibrating speaker systems or networks been around for a while?  Did Dynaudio AIR do this? Can you help find evidence that Dynaudio AIR or any other system did this prior to Dec 2010?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: SELF-CALIBRATING SPEAKER SYSTEMS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalish into English] A method for calibrating multi-speaker audio system wherein an audio test signal is sent from a speaker and the test signal is used to measure a **physical features** of the speaker.  This **physical feature** (for example, volume) is used to calibrate the speaker.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130051572 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Creative Labs, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A calibration method for calibrating a variable number of speakers, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining **physical features** around a location of each of the variable number of speakers and calibrating at least one of the variable number of speakers;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Wherein the **physical features** around a location of each of the variable number of speakers are determinable by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Transmitting an instruction signal, the instruction signal being transmittable from a device which is indicative of listener location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Communicating a **test signal** based on the instruction signal, the **test signal** being communicable from at least one of the variable number of speakers to the device; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Receiving and processing the **test signal** by the device in a manner so as to produce **calibration signals**, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Wherein the **calibration signals** are communicable from the device to at least one of the variable number of speakers so as to calibrate at least one of the variable number of speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for calibrating audio speakers; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining physical features of the audio speakers using an audio test signal from at least one of the speakers;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Using the physical features which have been determined to calibrate at least one of the speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already - haven’t self-calibrating speaker systems or networks been around for a while?  Did Dynaudio AIR do this? Can you help find evidence that Dynaudio AIR or any other system did this prior to Dec 2010?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The method of  self-calibrating speaker systems from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Hrc3R.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130051572&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4086" RevisionGUID="82e47372-f7d6-46c8-8e6b-34f75e9c70bb" CreationDate="2013-06-21T18:52:34.083" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 63 characters in body" Text="**HELP SAVE MESH NETWORKING** —This application from Cisco seeks to patent a technique for authenticating devices seeking to join a mesh network. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.... [HERE!][3]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was **published before July 6, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     A device **sending an authentication packet** to an authenticated device in the mesh network (through one or more hops); &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     The authenticated device **encapsulating** the authentication packet in **Layer 3 packets** for transmission over an **Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel** to an authenticator device; OR&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;3.     The authenticated device **receiving an authentication packet** that is encapsulated in Layer 3 packets from the authenticator, **decapsulating** the authentication packet, and **transmitting** it over the mesh network to the device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT ---**&#xD;&#xA;        	A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the authentication message is sent as a **Layer 2** message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses the **IEEE 802.1X standard**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the packets are transmitted **wirelessly**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO encapsulates the packet in **Universal Datagram Protocol (UDP)** Packets OR **Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)** Packets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the authenticator device forwards a **group mesh key** to the device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: ADAPTING EXTENSIBLE AUTHENTICATION PROTOCOL FOR LAYER 3 MESH NETWORKS**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** [Translated from Legalese into English] A method and apparatus for authenticating devices in a mesh network by routing authentication packets through the mesh network, over an IP tunnel, and to an authenticator device.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;•	**Publication Number:** &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US20130014217&quot;&gt;US 20130014217 A1&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Assignee:** Cisco&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Prior Art Date:** July 6, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Open for Challenge at USPTO: open at least through &lt;i&gt;July 10, 2013&lt;/i&gt;**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     At an authenticated device in a network, receiving an authentication packet sent over the network from a device that is seeking authentication; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     Encapsulating the authentication packet for transmission in Layer 3 packets over an Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel to an authenticator device associated in the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     A mesh node that wants access to the network sends an authentication message (this message can be sent, for example, as a Layer 2 or Layer 3 message) over the network to an already authenticated mesh node; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     The receiving mesh node encapsulates the message in Layer 3 packets and sends it to an authenticator over an Internet Protocol (IP) network connection.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 10** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     An authenticated device in a network, receiving an authentication packet that is encapsulated in Layer 3 packets from an authenticator device over an Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     Decapsulating the authentication packet from the Layer 3 packets and transmitting the authentication packet over the network to a device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     The authenticator sends an authentication message in Layer 3 packets over an IP network connection to an already authenticated mesh node; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     The authenticated mesh node decapsulates the authentication message from the Layer 3 packets and sends the message back over the network to the node that requested access.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 13** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;An apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     A transceiver unit configured to transmit and receive signals over a network; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     A processor coupled to the transceiver unit, the processor configured to, for an authentication packet received from a device that is seeking authentication in the network, encapsulate the authentication packet for transmission in Layer 3 packets over an Internet protocol (IP) tunnel to an authenticator device associated in the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     A wireless device that can receive an authentication message from another device and encapsulate that message into Layer 3 packets to be sent to an authenticator over an IP network connection.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 20** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;One or more computer readable storage media encoded with software comprising computer executable instructions and when software is executed operable to:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     For an authentication packet received from a device that is seeking authentication in a network, encapsulate the authentication packet for transmission in layer 3 packets over an Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel to an authenticator device associated in the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     Any memory device that stores software instructions for a controller to encapsulate messages in Layer 3 packets to be sent to an authenticator over an IP network connection.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 24** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The computer readable storage media of claim 20, and further comprising instructions that are operable to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.     For an authentication packet encapsulated in Layer 3 packets received from the authenticator device over the IP tunnel, decapsulate the authentication packet from the Layer 3 packets and to control a transceiver unit to transmit the authentication packet to the device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     Any memory device that stores software instructions for a controller to decapsulate authentication messages from the Layer 3 packets and transmit them to the node seeking access to the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Separately,** the applicant is claiming a method where the authenticator transmits a **group mesh key** to the device seeking access, where the key is known only to authenticated devices, and where all packets not encrypted with the mesh key and not part of the authentication negotiation are **dropped** by nodes in the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;What is good prior art? Please see our &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own prior art][3] on other questionable US patent applications.&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/851CF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/UVGON.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4087" RevisionGUID="70cc114a-5bea-4a53-8173-40ed7993948f" CreationDate="2013-06-21T18:53:24.773" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 63 characters in body" Text="**HELP SAVE MESH NETWORKING** — This application from Schlage seeks to patent a secure gateway between a mesh network and an IP network, and a lock device connected through the mesh network. Because mesh networks often use protocols that don’t work well with IP clients, it’s important to have a secure bridge that allows web browsers and other traditional IP clients to use mesh network based systems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.... [HERE!][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was published before **May 27, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.	A **gateway** device for transmitting signals between an IP network and a radio frequency mesh network that uses a **secure data connection** to communicate with the IP network; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.	A gateway device that meets all of the criteria above where the gateway is configured to **enroll a lock device** in the mesh network; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.	A method for **synchronizing** the gateway device described above with **a lock device.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT ---** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND that was published BEFORE **December 31, 2007.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses a **secure socket layer protocol** to implement the secure data connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND where the gateway is configured to enroll an **additional device that is not a lock** in the mesh network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the logic and memory unit **translates** between the mesh and IP network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: MESH NETWORK SECURITY SYSTEM GATEWAY AND METHOD**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** [Translated from Legalish into English] A secure data connection gateway between an IP or computer network and a radio-frequency mesh network, with a power supply, that could allow for web browsers and other traditional IP client software to control or use a mesh network. Separately, the applicant is claiming a method of enrolling a lock device in the mesh network and synchronizing it with the gateway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Publication Number:** &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US20130014219&quot;&gt;US 20130014219 A1&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Assignee:** Schlage&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;•	**Prior Art Date:** May 27, 2008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Open for Challenge at USPTO: open through at least *July 10, 2013***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gateway for transmitting signals between a computer network and a radio-frequency mesh network, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A housing;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A radio-frequency transceiver for communicating with the radio-frequency mesh network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	An Internet Protocol transceiver, operatively coupled to the radio frequency transceiver, for communicating with the computer network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	A power supply; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	A logic and memory unit configured to communicate with the computer network using a secure data connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A gateway device with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.	A housing; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.	A radio frequency transceiver and IP transceiver in communication with each other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.	A power supply; AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4.	Any logic and memory device that can communicate with the IP or computer network through a secure data connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 9** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gateway for transmitting signals between a computer network and a radio-frequency mesh network, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A housing;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A radio-frequency transceiver for communicating with the radio-frequency mesh network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	An Internet Protocol transceiver, operatively coupled to the radio-frequency transceiver, for communicating with the computer network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	A power supply; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	A logic and memory unit configured to enroll devices into the radio-frequency mesh network, at least one of the devices being a radio-frequency mesh network lock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gateway device with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A housing; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A radio frequency transceiver and IP transceiver in communication with each other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	A power supply; AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Any logic and memory device that can add nodes to the mesh network, where at least one of those nodes is a lock device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 14** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A method of synchronizing a radio-frequency mesh network lock device with a mesh network gateway, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Positioning the gateway adjacent to the lock device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	Initiating synchronization procedures on the lock device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Initiating synchronization procedures on the gateway;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Exchanging identifying information between the gateway and the lock device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	Indicating that synchronization is successfully completed at the gateway;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.	Increasing radio signal power of a lock device transceiver associated with the lock device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.	Adding the lock device to a list stored in the gateway of devices that make-up the radio-frequency mesh network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A process where the lock an the gateway are synchronized by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.	Placing the lock and gateway next to each other; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.	Entering a security code into the lock device (or otherwise initiating a synchronization procedure);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.	Pressing a button on the gateway (or otherwise initiating a synchronization procedure);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4.	Transmitting the security code (or other identifying information) between the gateway and the lock;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5.	Increasing the amount of power going to the lock’s transceiver; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6.	Enrolling the lock device in the network. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][1]![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;What is good prior art? Please see our &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post prior art you know about][3] on other questionable US patent applications.&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/6WC9e.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Q01fI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4082" RevisionGUID="d349f716-9c43-4df8-9f9a-f4ade0e912f5" CreationDate="2013-06-21T18:53:47.120" UserId="1767" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="**HELP SAVE MESH NETWORKING** —This application from General Electric seeks to patent a system for extending the range of communication for low rate wireless mesh networks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.... [HERE!][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was **published before June 27, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.	A low-rate wireless mesh network that uses several directional antennas (communication nodes including: directional wSIM, any directional wireless sensor interface) to extend the range of wireless communication between devices; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.	A method of assembling such a network; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.	A sensor and controller connected to such a mesh network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT ---** &#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses one or more omnidirectional antennas.&#xD;&#xA;	A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses a memory device connected to a processor. &#xD;&#xA;	A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses two adjacent directional antennas with opposite polarization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ENHANCING WIRELESS MESH NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** [Translated from Legalish into English] A system for increasing the range of communication between devices in low-rate wireless mesh networks by using multiple directional antennas (for example directional wSIM or any directional wireless sensor interface device).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Publication Number:** [US 2012/0326927][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Assignee:** General Electric&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Prior Art Date:** June 27, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Open for Challenge at USPTO: open until _June 27, 2013_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A wireless mesh network comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	At least one data collection device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A plurality of directional antennas operatively coupled to each other and to said at least one data collection device,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Wherein said wireless mesh network is configured to transmit information with a data rate of approximately 250 Kilobits per second (Kbits/sec) or less, and at a frequency of approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz) or less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	At least one device that collects data input from any kind of sensor or user input interface (including, for example, a microcontroller programmed to collect, store and process input from sensors, user interfaces such as touch screens or keyboards, or GPS); AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Multiple mesh nodes using directional radio antennas configured in such a way that they are in communication with each other and with the device described in (1); AND &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	The mesh network is configured to transmit information with a low-data rate, using either the Zigbee® specification, the WirelessHART™ standard, or any low-rate specification, standard or protocol based on IEEE standard 802.15.4™ [a data rate of approximately 250 Kilobits per second (250Kbits/sec) or less, at a frequency of approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz) or less].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 15** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A monitoring system comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	At least one sensor measurement device; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	At least one data collection device; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	A wireless mesh network coupled to said at least one data collection device and said at least one sensor measurement device, said wireless mesh network comprising a plurality of directional antennas operatively coupled to each other and to said at least one data collection device, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Wherein, said wireless mesh network is configured to transmit information with a data rate of approximate 250 Kilobits per second (Kbits/sec) or less, and at a frequency of approximately 2.4 GigaHertz (GHz) or less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.	At least one sensor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.	At least one device that collects data input from any kind of sensor or user input interface (including, for example, a microcontroller programmed to collect, store and process input from sensors, or user interfaces such as touch screens or keyboards, or GPS); AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.	Multiple mesh nodes using directional antennas configured such that the nodes are in communication with each other, the sensor, and the data collection device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4.	The mesh network is configured to transmit information with a low-data rate, using either the Zigbee® specification, the WirelessHART™ standard, or any low-rate specification, standard or protocol based on IEEE standard 802.15.4™ [a data rate of approximately 250 Kilobits per second (250Kbits/sec) or less, at a frequency of approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz) or less].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You’re probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet these criteria already...&#xD;&#xA;Separately, the applicant is claiming:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	A method and system using all of the elements described above and including multiple omnidirectional antennas;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	A data collection device composed of any memory device coupled to a processor, where the memory device includes programmed instructions to the processor to transmit data through the network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	An arrangement of antennas where the first directional antenna is positioned within range of a first omnidirectional antenna; and a second directional antenna positioned within range of a second omnidirectional antenna.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_What is good prior art? Please see our &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt;_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post prior art you know about][2] on other questionable US patent applications._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120326927&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4086" RevisionGUID="4a477e00-d8fd-4a25-a513-9000eb874fab" CreationDate="2013-06-21T19:00:05.243" UserId="1767" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="**HELP SAVE MESH NETWORKING** —This application from Cisco seeks to patent a technique for authenticating devices seeking to join a mesh network. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.... [HERE!][3]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was **published before July 6, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     A device **sending an authentication packet** to an authenticated device in the mesh network (through one or more hops); &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.     The authenticated device **encapsulating** the authentication packet in **Layer 3 packets** for transmission over an **Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel** to an authenticator device; OR&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.     The authenticated device **receiving an authentication packet** that is encapsulated in Layer 3 packets from the authenticator, **decapsulating** the authentication packet, and **transmitting** it over the mesh network to the device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT ---**&#xD;&#xA;        	A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the authentication message is sent as a **Layer 2** message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses the **IEEE 802.1X standard**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the packets are transmitted **wirelessly**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO encapsulates the packet in **Universal Datagram Protocol (UDP)** Packets OR **Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)** Packets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the authenticator device forwards a **group mesh key** to the device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: ADAPTING EXTENSIBLE AUTHENTICATION PROTOCOL FOR LAYER 3 MESH NETWORKS**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** [Translated from Legalish into English] A method and apparatus for authenticating devices in a mesh network by routing authentication packets through the mesh network, over an IP tunnel, and to an authenticator device.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;•	**Publication Number:** &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US20130014217&quot;&gt;US 20130014217 A1&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Assignee:** Cisco&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Prior Art Date:** July 6, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Open for Challenge at USPTO: open at least through &lt;i&gt;July 10, 2013&lt;/i&gt;**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     At an authenticated device in a network, receiving an authentication packet sent over the network from a device that is seeking authentication; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     Encapsulating the authentication packet for transmission in Layer 3 packets over an Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel to an authenticator device associated in the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     A mesh node that wants access to the network sends an authentication message (this message can be sent, for example, as a Layer 2 or Layer 3 message) over the network to an already authenticated mesh node; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.     The receiving mesh node encapsulates the message in Layer 3 packets and sends it to an authenticator over an Internet Protocol (IP) network connection.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 10** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     An authenticated device in a network, receiving an authentication packet that is encapsulated in Layer 3 packets from an authenticator device over an Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     Decapsulating the authentication packet from the Layer 3 packets and transmitting the authentication packet over the network to a device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     The authenticator sends an authentication message in Layer 3 packets over an IP network connection to an already authenticated mesh node; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.     The authenticated mesh node decapsulates the authentication message from the Layer 3 packets and sends the message back over the network to the node that requested access.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 13** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;An apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     A transceiver unit configured to transmit and receive signals over a network; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     A processor coupled to the transceiver unit, the processor configured to, for an authentication packet received from a device that is seeking authentication in the network, encapsulate the authentication packet for transmission in Layer 3 packets over an Internet protocol (IP) tunnel to an authenticator device associated in the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     A wireless device that can receive an authentication message from another device and encapsulate that message into Layer 3 packets to be sent to an authenticator over an IP network connection.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 20** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;One or more computer readable storage media encoded with software comprising computer executable instructions and when software is executed operable to:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     For an authentication packet received from a device that is seeking authentication in a network, encapsulate the authentication packet for transmission in layer 3 packets over an Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel to an authenticator device associated in the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     Any memory device that stores software instructions for a controller to encapsulate messages in Layer 3 packets to be sent to an authenticator over an IP network connection.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 24** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The computer readable storage media of claim 20, and further comprising instructions that are operable to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.     For an authentication packet encapsulated in Layer 3 packets received from the authenticator device over the IP tunnel, decapsulate the authentication packet from the Layer 3 packets and to control a transceiver unit to transmit the authentication packet to the device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     Any memory device that stores software instructions for a controller to decapsulate authentication messages from the Layer 3 packets and transmit them to the node seeking access to the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Separately,** the applicant is claiming a method where the authenticator transmits a **group mesh key** to the device seeking access, where the key is known only to authenticated devices, and where all packets not encrypted with the mesh key and not part of the authentication negotiation are **dropped** by nodes in the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;What is good prior art? Please see our &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post prior art you know about][3] on other questionable US patent applications.&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/851CF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/UVGON.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4082" RevisionGUID="b07e45a2-6700-40bc-a19a-e178a8ec2697" CreationDate="2013-06-21T19:19:11.373" UserId="1767" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="**HELP SAVE MESH NETWORKING** —This application from General Electric seeks to patent a system for extending the range of communication for low rate wireless mesh networks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.... [HERE!][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was **published before June 27, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.	A low-rate wireless mesh network that uses several directional antennas (communication nodes including: directional wSIM, any directional wireless sensor interface) to extend the range of wireless communication between devices; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.	A method of assembling such a network; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.	A sensor and controller connected to such a mesh network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT ---** &#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses one or more omnidirectional antennas.&#xD;&#xA;	A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses a memory device connected to a processor. &#xD;&#xA;	A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses two adjacent directional antennas with opposite polarization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ENHANCING WIRELESS MESH NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** [Translated from Legalish into English] A system for increasing the range of communication between devices in low-rate wireless mesh networks by using multiple directional antennas (for example directional wSIM or any directional wireless sensor interface device).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Publication Number:** [US 2012/0326927][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Assignee:** General Electric&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Prior Art Date:** June 27, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Open for Challenge at USPTO: open until _June 27, 2013_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A wireless mesh network comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	At least one data collection device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A plurality of directional antennas operatively coupled to each other and to said at least one data collection device,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Wherein said wireless mesh network is configured to transmit information with a data rate of approximately 250 Kilobits per second (Kbits/sec) or less, and at a frequency of approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz) or less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.	At least one device that collects data input from any kind of sensor or user input interface (including, for example, a microcontroller programmed to collect, store and process input from sensors, user interfaces such as touch screens or keyboards, or GPS); AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.	Multiple mesh nodes using directional radio antennas configured in such a way that they are in communication with each other and with the device described in (1); AND &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.	The mesh network is configured to transmit information with a low-data rate, using either the Zigbee® specification, the WirelessHART™ standard, or any low-rate specification, standard or protocol based on IEEE standard 802.15.4™ [a data rate of approximately 250 Kilobits per second (250Kbits/sec) or less, at a frequency of approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz) or less].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 15** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A monitoring system comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	At least one sensor measurement device; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	At least one data collection device; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	A wireless mesh network coupled to said at least one data collection device and said at least one sensor measurement device, said wireless mesh network comprising a plurality of directional antennas operatively coupled to each other and to said at least one data collection device, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Wherein, said wireless mesh network is configured to transmit information with a data rate of approximate 250 Kilobits per second (Kbits/sec) or less, and at a frequency of approximately 2.4 GigaHertz (GHz) or less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.	At least one sensor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.	At least one device that collects data input from any kind of sensor or user input interface (including, for example, a microcontroller programmed to collect, store and process input from sensors, or user interfaces such as touch screens or keyboards, or GPS); AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.	Multiple mesh nodes using directional antennas configured such that the nodes are in communication with each other, the sensor, and the data collection device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4.	The mesh network is configured to transmit information with a low-data rate, using either the Zigbee® specification, the WirelessHART™ standard, or any low-rate specification, standard or protocol based on IEEE standard 802.15.4™ [a data rate of approximately 250 Kilobits per second (250Kbits/sec) or less, at a frequency of approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz) or less].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You’re probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet these criteria already...&#xD;&#xA;Separately, the applicant is claiming:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	A method and system using all of the elements described above and including multiple omnidirectional antennas;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	A data collection device composed of any memory device coupled to a processor, where the memory device includes programmed instructions to the processor to transmit data through the network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	An arrangement of antennas where the first directional antenna is positioned within range of a first omnidirectional antenna; and a second directional antenna positioned within range of a second omnidirectional antenna.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_What is good prior art? Please see our &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt;_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post prior art you know about][2] on other questionable US patent applications._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120326927&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4087" RevisionGUID="15622879-339a-42bc-8a3e-4dc081536c82" CreationDate="2013-06-21T19:20:18.737" UserId="1767" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="**HELP SAVE MESH NETWORKING** — This application from Schlage seeks to patent a secure gateway between a mesh network and an IP network, and a lock device connected through the mesh network. Because mesh networks often use protocols that don’t work well with IP clients, it’s important to have a secure bridge that allows web browsers and other traditional IP clients to use mesh network based systems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.... [HERE!][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was published before **May 27, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.	A **gateway** device for transmitting signals between an IP network and a radio frequency mesh network that uses a **secure data connection** to communicate with the IP network; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.	A gateway device that meets all of the criteria above where the gateway is configured to **enroll a lock device** in the mesh network; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.	A method for **synchronizing** the gateway device described above with **a lock device.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT ---** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND that was published BEFORE **December 31, 2007.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses a **secure socket layer protocol** to implement the secure data connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND where the gateway is configured to enroll an **additional device that is not a lock** in the mesh network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the logic and memory unit **translates** between the mesh and IP network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: MESH NETWORK SECURITY SYSTEM GATEWAY AND METHOD**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** [Translated from Legalish into English] A secure data connection gateway between an IP or computer network and a radio-frequency mesh network, with a power supply, that could allow for web browsers and other traditional IP client software to control or use a mesh network. Separately, the applicant is claiming a method of enrolling a lock device in the mesh network and synchronizing it with the gateway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Publication Number:** &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US20130014219&quot;&gt;US 20130014219 A1&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Assignee:** Schlage&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;•	**Prior Art Date:** May 27, 2008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Open for Challenge at USPTO: open through at least *July 10, 2013***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gateway for transmitting signals between a computer network and a radio-frequency mesh network, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A housing;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A radio-frequency transceiver for communicating with the radio-frequency mesh network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	An Internet Protocol transceiver, operatively coupled to the radio frequency transceiver, for communicating with the computer network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	A power supply; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	A logic and memory unit configured to communicate with the computer network using a secure data connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A gateway device with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.	A housing; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.	A radio frequency transceiver and IP transceiver in communication with each other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.	A power supply; AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4.	Any logic and memory device that can communicate with the IP or computer network through a secure data connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 9** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gateway for transmitting signals between a computer network and a radio-frequency mesh network, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A housing;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A radio-frequency transceiver for communicating with the radio-frequency mesh network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	An Internet Protocol transceiver, operatively coupled to the radio-frequency transceiver, for communicating with the computer network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	A power supply; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	A logic and memory unit configured to enroll devices into the radio-frequency mesh network, at least one of the devices being a radio-frequency mesh network lock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gateway device with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A housing; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A radio frequency transceiver and IP transceiver in communication with each other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	A power supply; AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Any logic and memory device that can add nodes to the mesh network, where at least one of those nodes is a lock device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 14** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A method of synchronizing a radio-frequency mesh network lock device with a mesh network gateway, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Positioning the gateway adjacent to the lock device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	Initiating synchronization procedures on the lock device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Initiating synchronization procedures on the gateway;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Exchanging identifying information between the gateway and the lock device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	Indicating that synchronization is successfully completed at the gateway;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.	Increasing radio signal power of a lock device transceiver associated with the lock device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.	Adding the lock device to a list stored in the gateway of devices that make-up the radio-frequency mesh network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A process where the lock an the gateway are synchronized by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.	Placing the lock and gateway next to each other; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.	Entering a security code into the lock device (or otherwise initiating a synchronization procedure);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.	Pressing a button on the gateway (or otherwise initiating a synchronization procedure);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4.	Transmitting the security code (or other identifying information) between the gateway and the lock;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5.	Increasing the amount of power going to the lock’s transceiver; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6.	Enrolling the lock device in the network. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][1]![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;What is good prior art? Please see our &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post prior art you know about][3] on other questionable US patent applications.&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/6WC9e.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Q01fI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9297" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4082" RevisionGUID="b43f483e-d221-4c26-ac34-f44e0e4974b5" CreationDate="2013-06-21T19:59:57.423" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/348168431209676800" />
  <row Id="9298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4088" RevisionGUID="0353dd09-33b9-44a5-bf63-fd179ebcbb99" CreationDate="2013-06-21T20:18:30.160" UserId="4090" Text="Waterloo Wireless was a local group from around 2002 in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada set up to implement a mesh network. They held a couple of antenna workshops; I do remember discussing plans for, and creating directional antennas and omni-directional antennas, but I'm not sure if they discussed multiple antennas.  At any rate, the technology was 'obvious to a practitioner skilled in the art'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Waterloo Wireless no longer exists, but I'm still in contact with some of the participants. There is a link to their site through Archive.org: http://web.archive.org/web/20020928173111/http://www.waterloowireless.org/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20021012085158/http://www.waterloowireless.org/otherwireless.html lists many other organizations and projects for wireless and mesh networks in Canada.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--Bob Jonkman&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;bjonkman@sobac.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4090" RevisionGUID="29299b6d-d11e-4088-9358-d8a2690e1103" CreationDate="2013-06-21T21:53:03.647" UserId="4092" Text="In [wlan slovenija](http://wlan-si.net/en/), open wireless network of Slovenia, we are using sensors attached to routers for quite some time now. But we are using WiFi to communicate between our network devices in the mesh network. We use multiple types of antennas. And we do use tools to help us deploy such networks. I am not sure if all this is of any help, but still I am listing here some references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Already in 2010 we were organizing the [workshop on how to attach sensors to WRT54GL routers](http://dev.wlan-si.net/ticket/812) and prepared some [instructions](http://dev.wlan-si.net/wiki/Modifications/SimpleThermometer) for that. We have [data collected from this sensor node](https://nodes.wlan-si.net/node/kozolec/) since 2010. Data is collected on a central server over the mesh network through our [node database system, nodewacher](http://dev.wlan-si.net/wiki/Nodewatcher). It regularly connects to each node and downloads sensor data. This same system is also used when deploying new nodes to ease configuration of such nodes. So the node is a WiFi mesh node running Linux, which has on it some scripts which publish sensor data over HTTP, and this data is then collected by nodewatcher over the network into a central location and nicely drawn on graphs. In 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course our network could run also on speeds of 250kbit/s or less, but we are running it on a higher speed. Why exactly running at slower speed is innovative to be patentable is beyond me. :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4090" RevisionGUID="44782cad-4e31-4e95-9838-0894b2d6f510" CreationDate="2013-06-21T22:03:26.097" UserId="4092" Comment="added 231 characters in body" Text="In [wlan slovenija](http://wlan-si.net/en/), open wireless network of Slovenia, we are using sensors attached to routers for quite some time now. But we are using WiFi to communicate between our network devices in the mesh network. We use multiple types of antennas. And we do use tools to help us deploy such networks. I am not sure if all this is of any help, but still I am listing here some references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Already in 2010 we were organizing the [workshop on how to attach sensors to WRT54GL routers](http://dev.wlan-si.net/ticket/812) and prepared some [instructions](http://dev.wlan-si.net/wiki/Modifications/SimpleThermometer) for that. We have [data collected from this sensor node](https://nodes.wlan-si.net/node/kozolec/) since 2010. Data is collected on a central server over the mesh network through our [node database system, nodewacher](http://dev.wlan-si.net/wiki/Nodewatcher). It regularly connects to each node and downloads sensor data. This same system is also used when deploying new nodes to ease configuration of such nodes. So the node is a WiFi mesh node running Linux, which has on it some scripts which publish sensor data over HTTP, and this data is then collected by nodewatcher over the network into a central location and nicely drawn on graphs. In 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2009 we also deployed a node [powered by solar panel](http://grow.wlan-si.net/wiki/Tocke/Solar) which was then [sending its power measurements](https://nodes.wlan-si.net/node/solar/) to our central server to draw the graphs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course our network could run also on speeds of 250kbit/s or less, but we are running it on a higher speed. Why exactly running at slower speed is innovative to be patentable is beyond me. :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4091" RevisionGUID="ba0219f1-dc67-41da-b32b-63edebfd7c65" CreationDate="2013-06-21T22:43:25.873" UserId="4092" Text="In [wlan slovenija](http://wlan-si.net/en), open wireless network of Slovenia, we helped in 2010 a high-school student for his project of [monitoring the doors with the WiFi router](http://dev.wlan-si.net/ticket/826). He competed with this project on one or two competitions for high-school projects. The idea was that you use WiFi router which you connect with a circuit to the sensor which monitors if the doors are locked or not. Then you can connect to the network with eg. your smart devices and check if the doors are locked or not. The project was not a really a complete success, but he did some things and in [his presentation](http://dev.wlan-si.net/raw-attachment/ticket/826/PIP%20predstavitev_TAPRAVA.pdf) he does research also other possibilities of such system: using it to control things in the house, like lights." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4092" RevisionGUID="1ad4e685-4790-407c-9e4c-472277caecdb" CreationDate="2013-06-21T22:59:55.083" UserId="4092" Text="I think anybody who would combine IEEE 802.1X authentication with [BATMAN](http://www.open-mesh.org/projects/batman-adv/wiki/wiki) routing protocol would be close to this. :-) BATMAN encapsulates all packages into L3 packages to create an illusion of a L2 network. So anything you send over the BATMAN is in some way encapsulate. So if you send normal RADIUS/IEEE 802.1X packet over the mesh protocol, this would be it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9307" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4071" RevisionGUID="b6a02d0c-92f4-433c-abfd-265476cf37b5" CreationDate="2013-06-21T23:17:11.427" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130051572&gt;&lt;speaker-calibration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4093" RevisionGUID="e7be6693-db99-4ccf-b69c-3dd5891d3ea1" CreationDate="2013-06-21T23:37:30.187" UserId="4094" Text="It's australia, but I don't care...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20060118025328/http://www.wafreenet.org/?page=network" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4094" RevisionGUID="c3c45145-ecf1-4679-8572-15ff42a4f4a7" CreationDate="2013-06-21T23:48:22.433" UserId="4095" Text="In terms of establishing that the claims are &quot;obvious to a skilled practioner&quot; and &quot;anticipated by the existing art&quot; (does that apply in the US patent system?), see the about page for the Serval Project which is essentially unchanged since late 2010:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.servalproject.org/about/how-it-works&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There we talk about, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The second is a permanent system for remote areas that requires no infrastructure and creates a mesh-based phone network between Wi-Fi enabled mobile phones, and eventually specially designed mobile phones that can operate on other unlicensed frequencies, called Batphone. The two systems can also be combined.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This summarises our plans to combine various radios on different bands, and connect together different kinds of mesh devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also recall our early discussions for air-dropped units that were to have been large egg-shaped devices with multiple directional antennae that would use low-bit-rate long range links to find each other, and then turn their antennae to point to each other.  We drew some diagrams at the time, but I am not sure that I can find them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile, looking through what material we do still have for anything else." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4095" RevisionGUID="c7ab5b58-92cb-4c3c-81b2-a7744b3a42ec" CreationDate="2013-06-22T00:13:35.920" UserId="4095" Text="At least from early 2011 the Serval Project anticipated a full overlay mesh network, which we have since implemented (github.com/servalproject/serval-dna).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a brief snippet pre-July 2011 where I mention the overlay mesh network:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/serval-project-developers/Fu9eXx2A9Q4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some further discussion can be found in the following, which I began writing prior to July 2011, but the copy below is a version from after the prior-art date.  Search for &quot;overlay&quot; for overlay over UDP and over wireless networks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://developer.servalproject.org/files/CWN_Chapter_Serval.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the content is useful, poke me and I will dig deeper to try to find earlier drafts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paul." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4096" RevisionGUID="09f37aeb-adbe-4b32-b3e5-745e9e515190" CreationDate="2013-06-22T00:17:41.467" UserId="4095" Text="I can provide an email conversation from may 2011 that includes the following further evidence that we were planning to do overlay mesh networking prior to July 2011:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Hello,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently we use BATMAN because it was easy for us to do so, and gets&#xD;&#xA;us off the ground.&#xD;&#xA;However, we have plans to move to something more custom as a user-land&#xD;&#xA;mesh overlay so that it doesn't matter what the underlying system is&#xD;&#xA;using. It also allows us to solve the problem of limited IPv4 space&#xD;&#xA;and the use and reuse of private IP address ranges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4095" RevisionGUID="55763f77-b5f1-4fdc-9361-e19278887088" CreationDate="2013-06-22T00:21:49.903" UserId="4095" Comment="Added more information and confirmed existence of a draft old enough to qualify as prior-art " Text="At least from early 2011 the Serval Project anticipated a full overlay mesh network, which we have since implemented (github.com/servalproject/serval-dna).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a brief snippet pre-July 2011 where I mention the overlay mesh network:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/serval-project-developers/Fu9eXx2A9Q4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some further discussion can be found in the following, which I began writing prior to July 2011, but the copy below is a version from after the prior-art date.  Search for &quot;overlay&quot; for overlay over UDP and over wireless networks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://developer.servalproject.org/files/CWN_Chapter_Serval.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the content is useful, poke me and I will dig deeper to try to find earlier drafts.&#xD;&#xA;Update: I have found a draft that I emailed to someone on 12Jun2011. It is incomplete, but does mention the overlay mesh. Let me know if you want the email, and we can seek permission from the other party to the conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you will also note in the document, the mesh design outlined uses public keys as network identifiers (&quot;SID&quot;s), and so almost every packet is effectively an authentication/authenticated packet.  By targetting mobile phones it is obvious that the application is wireless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paul." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4097" RevisionGUID="8f4c09aa-7ac5-4af6-a06c-f567f73b7748" CreationDate="2013-06-22T01:43:02.310" UserId="4096" Text="This paper: &#xD;&#xA;http://www.ece.gatech.edu/research/GNAN/archive/2006/wimesh06.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems to meet a number of the criteria, IMO. Clearly, the the process of providing a gateway into the wireless mesh is central to the paper. TCP(IP) is used as a typical example of a FIFO protocol. And, under Security (Part III Section D), the discussion of encryption assumes that 'breaking cryptographic keys' would be the typical activity of an attacker of the mesh entry points which implies the presence of protocol that uses key exchange, like SSL does." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4098" RevisionGUID="bc7c14bf-b755-4842-a006-413f1b5d908f" CreationDate="2013-06-22T02:42:22.230" UserId="4097" Text="Looking for evidence that people were transmitting email and files over radio waves in a many-to-many broadcast fashion in the early 1980s? Your keywords are &quot;Packet Radio&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Need to nail it down as part of a &quot;network&quot;? Several northern-Canadian FidoNet nodes were packet radio-only. All the evidence I've found suggests that the Canadian zone administrators didn't share this information with their USA counterparts, probably because they enjoy annoying the Americans who insisted that every node have a published phone number. FidoNet wasn't the only ad hoc network in the '80s with wireless nodes, but it's one of the best documented. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peter Anderson at http://www.cmns.sfu.ca/ has archives from Vancouver's early packet radio community. You may find volunteers to dig through the boxes by contacting at SFPIRG." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4099" RevisionGUID="4ee92a8d-2065-47f7-848e-71e707156600" CreationDate="2013-06-22T03:08:37.620" UserId="4095" Text="Wi-Fi tethering with WEP or any other Wi-Fi security on a cellular phone meets the criteria of &quot;A gateway device for transmitting signals between an IP network and a radio frequency network that uses a secure data connection to communicate with the IP network;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, the cell phone mediates between a radio frequency network, and a potentially secure Wi-Fi network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only difference then is applying the same idea to mesh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes applying the same to mesh networks as being obvious to a skilled practitioner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4100" RevisionGUID="7780b30a-70d7-46db-8908-e4cd15b9298a" CreationDate="2013-06-22T17:37:53.773" UserId="4099" Text="The University of Cambridge (UK) &lt;b&gt;HIPERNET (HIgh PERformance NETworked multimedia for distributed language training)&lt;/b&gt; experiment appears to hit most if not all of the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to this page: &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.langcen.cam.ac.uk/develop/res_dev.php?c=10   &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;the experiment was run in Michaelmas term 1995 (about a year before the cutoff for invalidating this patent). Selected quotes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The HIPERNET project had the twin goals of developing an integrated networked multimedia system for distributed language training across the University departments and colleges, and assessing the performance of the multimedia network and the suitability of the training application throught the effective use of the system by representative users from the University. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;With servers and ATM switching equipment based at the Language Centre workstations were installed in Lab 3 of the Centre as well as at Churchill College and in the Language Unit of the Engineering Department, by using previously unused fibre on the Granta Backbone.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Student user trials were held during Michaelmas term 1995. Users had access to the BBC multimedia course French Means Business by Anny King, with an associated multimedia dictionary. Video and audio clips were available to the users...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this project:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Enabled on-demand retrieval of audio clips by clients across a network from a server&#xD;&#xA;- Was about a year before the cutoff&#xD;&#xA;- Was presumably episodic as the audio clips related to installments of a language course (I have not been able to check this last point so far)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4100" RevisionGUID="40a36bd2-023c-42be-a583-d9275a2a4c2b" CreationDate="2013-06-22T17:54:29.210" UserId="4099" Comment="add link to news item" Text="The University of Cambridge (UK) &lt;b&gt;HIPERNET (HIgh PERformance NETworked multimedia for distributed language training)&lt;/b&gt; experiment appears to hit most if not all of the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to this page: &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.langcen.cam.ac.uk/develop/res_dev.php?c=10   &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;the experiment was run in Michaelmas term 1995 (about a year before the cutoff for invalidating this patent). Selected quotes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The HIPERNET project had the twin goals of developing an integrated networked multimedia system for distributed language training across the University departments and colleges, and assessing the performance of the multimedia network and the suitability of the training application throught the effective use of the system by representative users from the University. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;With servers and ATM switching equipment based at the Language Centre workstations were installed in Lab 3 of the Centre as well as at Churchill College and in the Language Unit of the Engineering Department, by using previously unused fibre on the Granta Backbone.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Student user trials were held during Michaelmas term 1995. Users had access to the BBC multimedia course French Means Business by Anny King, with an associated multimedia dictionary. Video and audio clips were available to the users...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this project:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Enabled on-demand retrieval of audio clips by clients across a network from a server&#xD;&#xA;- Was about a year before the cutoff&#xD;&#xA;- Was presumably episodic as the audio clips related to installments of a language course (I have not been able to check this last point so far)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a January 1996 report about the project: http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/newsletter/1996/jan/update.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4101" RevisionGUID="944e17fc-c9ef-4909-a670-544760cf6015" CreationDate="2013-06-22T19:13:56.283" UserId="4099" Text="From November 96 (but with strong reason to believe it was up for several months beforehand, see discussion below), the &lt;b&gt;&quot;Front Porch Forum&quot; news page on KUOW 94.9 Public Radio:&lt;/b&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/19961109024722/http://www.kuow.org/fporchf/fpfleads.htm&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;appears to match all claims in the patent. Furthermore it does so in a way identical to modern podcasting. It contains for some of the news stories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Episodic audio files (news reports) in RealAudio format&#xD;&#xA;* URLs (the links to the RA files, displayed as an &quot;RA&quot; gif image to the right of the story summary)&#xD;&#xA;* The page appears to have been periodically updated to contain links to the latest reports&#xD;&#xA;* Additional displayable text describes each report. In fact, that text also links to a complete transcript of the audio file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about dates? The page is from Nov 96, one month after the cutoff, so it seems reasonable to assume it could have been up for at least a month prior to being captured by archive.org.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More precisely, the transcript for the news story &quot;Front Porch Forum Poll Results&quot; (a story with an RA file attached on Front Porch Forum): &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/19961109025135/http://www.kuow.org/news/poll2.htm &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;is dated 4/26/96. This does not prove that the system of URLs/links to RA files, RA files, and accompanying text was published before Oct 1996 but it makes it seem considerably more likely. Perhaps the station could confirm?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4102" RevisionGUID="3f80cefa-f34f-46ed-9b44-17bb905e3149" CreationDate="2013-06-22T20:18:51.083" UserId="4099" Text="From at least June 13, 1996, the &lt;b&gt;Oyez Supreme Court multimedia archive&lt;/b&gt; provides an exact match for the patent claims. The project was originally hosted at Northwestern University. April 2nd 1997 is the earliest archived page: &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/19970402082452/http://oyez.at.nwu.edu/oyez.html &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;However, this CNET report from June 1996:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://news.cnet.com/CDA-rejected-in-landmark-ruling---page-5/2009-1023_3-214448-5.html&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;indicates that the Oyez project had been operating as an indexed archive of downloadable episodic audio content since at least mid 1996:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;An archive of RealAudio files of Supreme Court oral arguments and opinions can be heard at Northwestern University's [Academic Technologies Department](http://oyez.at.nwu.edu/oyez.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The project still exists but is now hosted at Chicago-Kent University: http://www.oyez.org/about&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The project as it was in the version archived in April 1997 (which appears to be consistent with the CNET description in June 1996) matches the claims in the patent in the following ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Downloadable RealAudio files (of US Supreme Court oral arguments) are indexed by date.&#xD;&#xA;* The content was episodic: as new Supreme Court cases were heard, new RA files were added to the index.&#xD;&#xA;* The content contained URLs pointing to the audio content (as an RA graphical logo and an &quot;Oral Arguments&quot; text link)&#xD;&#xA;* Each audio file had accompanying text describing its content (a text description of the Supreme Court case)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example of the above system can be seen at this April 1997 archived page:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/19970402083126/http://oyez.at.nwu.edu/cases/94-926/&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4103" RevisionGUID="e25dd784-bb53-4961-8e1c-651900d5f82b" CreationDate="2013-06-22T23:23:09.613" UserId="4100" Text="Back in 2004-2005, I worked for a company (now defunct) called MeshTel, part of the Idealab family of companies in Pasadena, CA. We were granted US patent 7,626,966 (Ad hoc wireless communication system). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The system operated in the 900MHz ISM band at a fairly low datarate, definitely 1Mbit or below, but I cannot recall whether we were below 250Kbit. To extend range (or conserve power) our system was designed to automatically (ad hoc) use intervening nodes in the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During development, we frequently connected our system to a computer, which contained a data collection device to maintain logs of sensor data (mainly radio metadata) to improve our algoritms and design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although our system used omnidirectional antennas, it seems obvious to me (and would have in 2005) that fixed-position nodes could benefit from directional antennas. Our system was intended for mobile nodes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4104" RevisionGUID="68c378b2-ab75-48d0-b467-744af6d7a698" CreationDate="2013-06-23T03:16:48.893" UserId="4099" Text="This 1994 news report by the UK's Independent newspaper describes &lt;b&gt;exhibits by Compton's New Media and Prodigy at the 1994 CES Show&lt;/b&gt; which match some or all of the patent claims well before the patent date: &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/indybest/gadgets-tech/computers-hollywood-joins-the-interactive-revolution-steve-homer-reports-from-chicago-on-the-future-of-home-entertainment-1410888.html &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compton's New Media:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Compton's New Media recently announced it was working with Intel on a device that would allow users to access CD-roms over a cable television system. The initial offering will allow users to access 150 titles at normal CD-rom speeds. This means that after purchasing a simple device which links the cable television outlet to the back of your computer, you would be able to nip into the study and play a CD-rom game and then, if little Hannah wanted to know when Mozart was born, you could just nip into an encyclopedia disc and find out. Cookery, language and many other types of disc could be stored on the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Another development on display could even develop into a video service for the personal computer. A company called Sigma Designs has come up with a card you can put inside your computer that will allow television-like pictures to be read from CD-rom discs. Store a couple of movies on Compton's service and you have videos-on-demand for your computer. However, that is only available if you have a cable operator delivering the service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prodigy:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But another US company, Prodigy, is offering an information service available to any computer user in the US with a telephone line and a modem. Using a modem you can get access to the latest news and various other services. It is extremely easy to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At the end of last year Prodigy introduced pictures on the service. At the Consumer Electronics Show, it launched a new facility. &lt;i&gt;You can now dial in and listen to news reports. At present the service is basic and you have to download a file and then play it back. However, it was still quite impressive to be at the show and listen to a breathless commentator announce that Stefan Edberg had just been knocked out of Wimbledon.&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, the Prodigy system:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Enabled download of episodic audio files from a central server by a remote client&#xD;&#xA;* Presumably had descriptions accompanying the audio files&#xD;&#xA;* It was not internet-based so would not have had URLs&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4105" RevisionGUID="dd3094b8-7c29-49c6-9310-32077fcadd9c" CreationDate="2013-06-23T03:36:38.760" UserId="4103" Text="The XO-1 laptop[1], from One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) would seem to be prior art.  This laptop featured mesh networking [2], with traffic hopping from one laptop to the other.  Meshing was done using the 802.11s protocol, though the OLPC's XO-1 implementation predated the ratification of the standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An XO-1 could connect to a WiFi router, and use the WiFi router to bridge between the mesh network and an IP network, such as the Internet.  The neighbourhood screen of the XO-1 would show any accessible access points.  The user could click on a displayed node and be prompted for a password.  Once a password was entered, authentication would be completed and mesh traffic could then flow to/from the IP network.  All this is documented on the OLPC wiki [3].  The section relevant to this patent was written before 27th December 2007 [4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once connected, users could also use ssh to connect over the mesh to an ssh client/server on the IP network [5], again written before the end of 2007.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] http://laptop.org/en/laptop/hardware/index.shtml&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2] http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Mesh_Network_Details&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3] http://wiki.laptop.org&#xD;&#xA;/go/Simplified_user_guide#Connecting_your_XO_to_the_network&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[4] http://wiki.laptop.org/index.php?title=Simplified_user_guide&amp;oldid=89301#Connecting_your_XO_to_the_network&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[5] http://wiki.laptop.org/index.php?title=Developers/Setup&amp;oldid=88499#SSH_Access" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4106" RevisionGUID="1ef1a685-7dfb-4194-b08d-886f7797b653" CreationDate="2013-06-23T03:51:51.293" UserId="4099" Text="From Oct 18th 1996 (but with persuasive evidence the service had been running for at least the 16 days prior to that in order to predate this patent), the &lt;b&gt;Hollywood.com interactive video website&lt;/b&gt; was an online index of downloadable episodic multimedia content with accompanying textual information which provides an exact match for all claims in the patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Episodic multimedia content (movie clips) was available for download (in .hqx, .mov and .avi formats). Episodic as the index of available clips was periodically updated. &#xD;&#xA;* Additional text on the download page described the content of the download: the clips for each movie were categorized under subheadings and additional links lead to pages containing movie stills and notes&#xD;&#xA;* URLs for the individual movie files were included via the links which point to the movie files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Service homepage from Oct 19th 1996:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/19961018082912/http://www.hollywood.com/ &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clicking the &quot;Video&quot; link in the top right leads to the &quot;Video clips&quot; page from Nov 22nd 1996:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/19961122231534/http://hollywood.com/movies/video.html&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the movie pages have not been archived but a few have. The below two examples were archived Oct 18th 1996 but feature a 1995 copyright statement: &lt;i&gt;&quot;Copyright © 1995 Hollywood Online Inc.&quot;&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* All Dogs Go to Heaven 2: http://web.archive.org/web/19961018122329/http://www.hollywood.com/movies/alldogs/video/vsalldogs.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The American President: http://web.archive.org/web/19961018133333/http://www.hollywood.com/movies/american/video/vsamerican.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Evidence for predating the patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The 1995 copyright date on the above pages&#xD;&#xA;* An April 1, 1996 news report by the Press Of Atlantic City which states: &quot;Http://www.hollywood.com has graphics, movie clips and reviews&quot;  See http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=AC&amp;p_theme=ac&amp;p_action=search&amp;p_maxdocs=200&amp;p_topdoc=1&amp;p_text_direct-0=0EAEAC21A5B0E912&amp;p_field_direct-0=document_id&amp;p_perpage=10&amp;p_sort=YMD_date:D&amp;s_trackval=GooglePM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4107" RevisionGUID="34a587a8-f997-4b64-bf9a-9ce3cbd17d4f" CreationDate="2013-06-23T03:56:03.973" UserId="4103" Text="This page about the OLPC OX-1 laptop[1], dating from 2008, describes a mesh network with directional antennas.  See point #11 under the heading &quot;WiFi Power Save mode&quot;.  To quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;11. While I am at it, directional antennae for the outermost nodes could dramatically enhance both range and power consumption. Item 9 above suggests that a high proportion of homes that would be &quot;just out of range&quot; could become &quot;just within range&quot; if they are able to point a directional antenna inwards. (Nodes closer to the school portal cannot use directional antenna because they need to relay traffic in other directions). &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This quote talks about nodes relying traffic, and the rest of the page, and other pages on the OLPC XO-1 laptop [2], make it abundantly clear that the directional antennas are being discussed in the context of a mesh network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, the XO-1 allows a the mesh network to be rate limited to any desirable value, so it satisfies the criteria of 250kbit/s or less [3].  The referenced document talks about &quot;connection rate limiting &quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] http://wiki.laptop.org/index.php?title=Talk:XO-1/Software_specification&amp;oldid=130524&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2] http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Mesh_Network_Details&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3] http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_Bitfrost#P_NET:_network_policy_protection" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4106" RevisionGUID="278f1387-62f4-421a-a295-0b8bf50d6651" CreationDate="2013-06-23T04:05:02.250" UserId="4099" Comment="fixed link (formatting here doesn't seem to like Http capitalized however that's how it was in the original report)" Text="From Oct 18th 1996 (but with persuasive evidence the service had been running for at least the 16 days prior to that in order to predate this patent), the &lt;b&gt;Hollywood.com interactive video website&lt;/b&gt; was an online index of downloadable episodic multimedia content with accompanying textual information which provides an exact match for all claims in the patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Episodic multimedia content (movie clips) was available for download (in .hqx, .mov and .avi formats). Episodic as the index of available clips was periodically updated. &#xD;&#xA;* Additional text on the download page described the content of the download: the clips for each movie were categorized under subheadings and additional links lead to pages containing movie stills and notes&#xD;&#xA;* URLs for the individual movie files were included via the links which point to the movie files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Service homepage from Oct 19th 1996:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/19961018082912/http://www.hollywood.com/ &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clicking the &quot;Video&quot; link in the top right leads to the &quot;Video clips&quot; page from Nov 22nd 1996:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/19961122231534/http://hollywood.com/movies/video.html&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the movie pages have not been archived but a few have. The below two examples were archived Oct 18th 1996 but feature a 1995 copyright statement: &lt;i&gt;&quot;Copyright © 1995 Hollywood Online Inc.&quot;&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* All Dogs Go to Heaven 2: http://web.archive.org/web/19961018122329/http://www.hollywood.com/movies/alldogs/video/vsalldogs.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The American President: http://web.archive.org/web/19961018133333/http://www.hollywood.com/movies/american/video/vsamerican.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Evidence for predating the patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The 1995 copyright date on the above pages&#xD;&#xA;* An April 1, 1996 news report by the Press Of Atlantic City which states: &quot;http://www.hollywood.com has graphics, movie clips and reviews&quot;  See http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=AC&amp;p_theme=ac&amp;p_action=search&amp;p_maxdocs=200&amp;p_topdoc=1&amp;p_text_direct-0=0EAEAC21A5B0E912&amp;p_field_direct-0=document_id&amp;p_perpage=10&amp;p_sort=YMD_date:D&amp;s_trackval=GooglePM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4107" RevisionGUID="8a93396b-574d-4dd7-9f34-f1247a62e6c8" CreationDate="2013-06-23T04:07:25.997" UserId="4103" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="This page about the OLPC OX-1 laptop[1], dating from 2008, describes a mesh network with directional antennas.  See point #11 under the heading &quot;WiFi Power Save mode&quot;.  To quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;11. While I am at it, directional antennae for the outermost nodes could dramatically enhance both range and power consumption. Item 9 above suggests that a high proportion of homes that would be &quot;just out of range&quot; could become &quot;just within range&quot; if they are able to point a directional antenna inwards. (Nodes closer to the school portal cannot use directional antenna because they need to relay traffic in other directions). &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This quote talks about nodes relying traffic, and the rest of the page, and other pages on the OLPC XO-1 laptop [2], make it abundantly clear that the directional antennas are being discussed in the context of a mesh network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, the XO-1 allows a the mesh network to be rate limited to any desirable value, so it satisfies the criteria of 250kbit/s or less [3].  The referenced document talks about &quot;connection rate limiting &quot;.  The OX-1's mesh network was operating at 2.4GHz [4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] http://wiki.laptop.org/index.php?title=Talk:XO-1/Software_specification&amp;oldid=130524&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2] http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Mesh_Network_Details&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3] http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_Bitfrost#P_NET:_network_policy_protection&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[4] http://laptop.org/en/laptop/hardware/specs.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4107" RevisionGUID="0095c1c5-c177-473b-8a61-0c5a2e176a75" CreationDate="2013-06-23T04:17:54.823" UserId="4103" Comment="added 227 characters in body" Text="This page about the OLPC OX-1 laptop[1], dating from 2008, describes a mesh network with directional antennas.  See point #11 under the heading &quot;WiFi Power Save mode&quot;.  To quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;11. While I am at it, directional antennae for the outermost nodes could dramatically enhance both range and power consumption. Item 9 above suggests that a high proportion of homes that would be &quot;just out of range&quot; could become &quot;just within range&quot; if they are able to point a directional antenna inwards. (Nodes closer to the school portal cannot use directional antenna because they need to relay traffic in other directions). &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This quote talks about nodes relying traffic, and the rest of the page, and other pages on the OLPC XO-1 laptop [2], make it abundantly clear that the directional antennas are being discussed in the context of a mesh network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, the XO-1 allows a the mesh network to be rate limited to any desirable value, so it satisfies the criteria of 250kbit/s or less [3].  The referenced document talks about &quot;connection rate limiting &quot;.  The OX-1's mesh network was operating at 2.4GHz [4].  The XO-1 also includes sensors, such as a microphone and video camera.  The XO-1 distance measurement activity shows that it is a mesh connected measurement device [5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] http://wiki.laptop.org/index.php?title=Talk:XO-1/Software_specification&amp;oldid=130524&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2] http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Mesh_Network_Details&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3] http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_Bitfrost#P_NET:_network_policy_protection&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[4] http://laptop.org/en/laptop/hardware/specs.shtml&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[5] http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Acoustic_Tape_Measure&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4107" RevisionGUID="169b6a1e-8475-4681-a8de-e96440476803" CreationDate="2013-06-23T04:56:02.313" UserId="4103" Comment="added 210 characters in body" Text="This page about the OLPC OX-1 laptop[1], dating from 2008, describes a mesh network with directional antennas.  See point #11 under the heading &quot;WiFi Power Save mode&quot;.  To quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;11. While I am at it, directional antennae for the outermost nodes could dramatically enhance both range and power consumption. Item 9 above suggests that a high proportion of homes that would be &quot;just out of range&quot; could become &quot;just within range&quot; if they are able to point a directional antenna inwards. (Nodes closer to the school portal cannot use directional antenna because they need to relay traffic in other directions). &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This quote talks about nodes relying traffic, and the rest of the page, and other pages on the OLPC XO-1 laptop [2], make it abundantly clear that the directional antennas are being discussed in the context of a mesh network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, the XO-1 allows a the mesh network to be rate limited to any desirable value, so it satisfies the criteria of 250kbit/s or less [3].  The referenced document talks about &quot;connection rate limiting &quot;.  The OX-1's mesh network was operating at 2.4GHz [4].  The XO-1 also includes sensors, such as a microphone and video camera.  The XO-1 distance measurement activity shows that it is a mesh connected measurement device [5].  The chat and record activities also use the mesh network to connect sensors and measuring devices between nodes [6,7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] http://wiki.laptop.org/index.php?title=Talk:XO-1/Software_specification&amp;oldid=130524&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2] http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Mesh_Network_Details&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3] http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_Bitfrost#P_NET:_network_policy_protection&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[4] http://laptop.org/en/laptop/hardware/specs.shtml&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[5] http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Acoustic_Tape_Measure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[6] http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Chat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[7] http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Record#Collaboration" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4110" RevisionGUID="d26fcf3a-5199-4551-a414-ff412e875160" CreationDate="2013-06-23T09:42:05.487" UserId="4106" Text="The PASER protocol, the first version of which has been sumbitted for publication in April 2011 and has been published in August 2011 - see http://www.paser.info/publications.html (Publication number 9), meets all three points listed above and the authenticator device forwards a group mesh key to the device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kind regards&#xD;&#xA;Mohamad" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4111" RevisionGUID="a5b1203b-6a9c-4f39-84d7-d616b6faec77" CreationDate="2013-06-23T10:45:51.960" UserId="4107" Text="Oh boy this is vague but still worth something. An NYT article from June 12th 2011 that [mentions antennas][1] included in the Commotion wireless project sponsored by New America foundation and the US Department of State.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The group’s suitcase project will rely on a version of “mesh network” technology, which can&#xD;&#xA;transform devices like cellphones or personal computers to create an invisible wireless web&#xD;&#xA;without a centralized hub. In other words, a voice, picture or e-mail message could hop&#xD;&#xA;directly between the modified wireless devices — each one acting as a mini cell “tower” and&#xD;&#xA;phone — and bypass the official network...the suitcase would include small wireless antennas, which could&#xD;&#xA;increase the area of coverage; a laptop to administer the system; thumb drives and CDs to&#xD;&#xA;spread the software to more devices and encrypt the communications; and other components&#xD;&#xA;like Ethernet cables.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Commotion wireless press page. https://commotionwireless.net/press&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://commotionwireless.net/files/U.S.%20Underwrites%20Internet%20Detour%20Around%20Censors.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4107" RevisionGUID="fb9067be-b112-4e52-89bc-a05bd90fb000" CreationDate="2013-06-23T11:03:53.763" UserId="4103" Comment="spelling" Text="This page about the OLPC OX-1 laptop[1], dating from 2008, describes a mesh network with directional antennas.  See point #11 under the heading &quot;WiFi Power Save mode&quot;.  To quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;11. While I am at it, directional antennae for the outermost nodes could dramatically enhance both range and power consumption. Item 9 above suggests that a high proportion of homes that would be &quot;just out of range&quot; could become &quot;just within range&quot; if they are able to point a directional antenna inwards. (Nodes closer to the school portal cannot use directional antenna because they need to relay traffic in other directions). &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This quote talks about nodes relaying traffic, and the rest of the page, and other pages on the OLPC XO-1 laptop [2], make it abundantly clear that the directional antennas are being discussed in the context of a mesh network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, the XO-1 allows a the mesh network to be rate limited to any desirable value, so it satisfies the criteria of 250kbit/s or less [3].  The referenced document talks about &quot;connection rate limiting &quot;.  The OX-1's mesh network was operating at 2.4GHz [4].  The XO-1 also includes sensors, such as a microphone and video camera.  The XO-1 distance measurement activity shows that it is a mesh connected measurement device [5].  The chat and record activities also use the mesh network to connect sensors and measuring devices between nodes [6,7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] http://wiki.laptop.org/index.php?title=Talk:XO-1/Software_specification&amp;oldid=130524&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2] http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Mesh_Network_Details&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3] http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_Bitfrost#P_NET:_network_policy_protection&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[4] http://laptop.org/en/laptop/hardware/specs.shtml&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[5] http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Acoustic_Tape_Measure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[6] http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Chat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[7] http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Record#Collaboration" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4114" RevisionGUID="1e99fe75-ead6-4ca7-a170-6e7653e24997" CreationDate="2013-06-23T20:08:32.673" UserId="4112" Text="Since the PASER authentication messages contain IP addresses and information from higher ISO/OSI layers (see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sbeiti-karp-paser-00), it should be traceable that these messages will be encapsulated in IP messages (see for example the implementation details herer´http://www.omnet-workshop.org/2013/uploads/slides/OMNeT-Workshop2013-SP-6.pdf). I hope that his argumentation can help.&#xD;&#xA;Best regards &#xD;&#xA;Mohamad&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4114" RevisionGUID="435c2ef9-4382-4fc4-a9b3-328f1bb9a82c" CreationDate="2013-06-23T20:14:46.593" UserId="4112" Comment="edited body" Text="Since the PASER authentication messages contain IP addresses and information from higher ISO/OSI layers (see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sbeiti-karp-paser-00), it should be traceable that these messages will be encapsulated in IP messages (see for example the implementation details here´http://www.omnet-workshop.org/2013/uploads/slides/OMNeT-Workshop2013-SP-6.pdf). I hope that this argumentation can help.&#xD;&#xA;Best regards &#xD;&#xA;Mohamad&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4115" RevisionGUID="e809daa7-2566-48db-b51f-c665ca5b781c" CreationDate="2013-06-24T05:27:44.497" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4116" RevisionGUID="03c36071-7e16-4e23-9f7a-d44cfac149a1" CreationDate="2013-06-24T05:27:44.497" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4117" RevisionGUID="784428e1-b709-4281-b876-dc58add8e32c" CreationDate="2013-06-24T13:29:13.650" UserId="4117" Text="Search Wireless Mesh Networks on Google Scholar, or any online journal repository and you'll have academic research dating back over a decade&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&amp;q=wireless+mesh+network&amp;btnG=&amp;as_sdt=1%2C22 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4115" RevisionGUID="5a5c6018-bcb6-4b9e-87fb-0bc6d4c5c9e9" CreationDate="2013-06-24T15:26:38.100" UserId="1841" Comment="added 429 characters in body" Text="Mesh networking is an approach to networking that uses peer-to-peer routing and avoids the need for an ISP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Current activity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mesh networking is the subject of an EFF drive to defeat weak, newly filed patents by finding any prior art.  See [Mesh Networking, Good. Overbroad Patents, Bad. Help Us Protect Mesh Networking.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/mesh-networking-good-overbroad-patents-bad" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9355" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4115" RevisionGUID="5a5c6018-bcb6-4b9e-87fb-0bc6d4c5c9e9" CreationDate="2013-06-24T15:26:38.100" Comment="Proposed by 1841 approved by 1767 edit id of 359" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4116" RevisionGUID="272fdfd7-7116-4754-b9b6-af6c77267ad0" CreationDate="2013-06-24T15:26:45.520" UserId="1841" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="Mesh networking is an approach to networking that uses peer-to-peer routing and avoids the need for an ISP." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9357" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4116" RevisionGUID="272fdfd7-7116-4754-b9b6-af6c77267ad0" CreationDate="2013-06-24T15:26:45.520" Comment="Proposed by 1841 approved by 1767 edit id of 360" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4118" RevisionGUID="82dc2f7f-e5d0-4391-a7c4-0cb6f42a1b38" CreationDate="2013-06-24T18:49:53.320" UserId="199" Text="I think this about covers it. There is even a video that shows each part of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://mashable.com/2010/10/27/aislebuyer/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9359" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4118" RevisionGUID="f5cfc33c-d132-4a8a-aadc-81edcd5d1404" CreationDate="2013-06-24T19:52:20.487" UserId="1259" Comment="filled in details from the provided link that seem relevant" Text="I think this about covers it. There is even a video that shows each part of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://mashable.com/2010/10/27/aislebuyer/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Article dated: Oct 27, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; AisleBuyer believes it can make the in-store experience more like its online counterpart. Its recently launched iPhone app enables customers to ***scan product bar codes*** for further information, reviews, and coupons. They can ***add items to their carts as they shop*** and ***check out with a click*** before they leave the store.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The app draws its ***data from the store's website***, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(the App creators website does not exist any more, however the listed CEO's Twitter page is linked http://twitter.com/andrewparadise and may be a good direct source for further info." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4118" RevisionGUID="a4c6f5a1-972d-40e6-9f05-87e70a7e0c4e" CreationDate="2013-06-24T20:03:42.123" UserId="199" Comment="added 144 characters in body" Text="I think this about covers it. There is even a video that shows each part of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://mashable.com/2010/10/27/aislebuyer/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Article dated: Oct 27, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; AisleBuyer believes it can make the in-store experience more like its online counterpart. Its recently launched iPhone app enables customers to ***scan product bar codes*** for further information, reviews, and coupons. They can ***add items to their carts as they shop*** and ***check out with a click*** before they leave the store.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The app draws its ***data from the store's website***, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(the App creators website does not exist any more, however the listed CEO's Twitter page is linked http://twitter.com/andrewparadise and may be a good direct source for further info.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a link to the internet archive for the site from December of 2010:&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20101208070301/http://aislebuyer.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9361" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4068" RevisionGUID="bf9d16e1-2ed0-4512-9015-f28710b85292" CreationDate="2013-06-24T20:38:03.223" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20120148075&gt;&lt;creative-labs&gt;&lt;speaker-calibration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4119" RevisionGUID="3092283d-71d0-4e22-af30-8367e9160612" CreationDate="2013-06-24T20:40:19.867" UserId="4119" Text="https://www.google.com/patents/US8364183?dq=sms+reply+android&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=0abIUcGvLYOKjALGoICAAQ&amp;ved=0CEkQ6AEwAw &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is auto-response texting app.  The diagrams only show a blackberry being used does this mean that someone can patent this same process for another phone?  Also does how the code was written to accomplish this matter? different programming language? Different way of completing it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is any mobile app that does this feature subject to being sued by the owner of this patent? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9363" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4119" RevisionGUID="3092283d-71d0-4e22-af30-8367e9160612" CreationDate="2013-06-24T20:40:19.867" UserId="4119" Text="patent US8364183 B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9364" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4119" RevisionGUID="3092283d-71d0-4e22-af30-8367e9160612" CreationDate="2013-06-24T20:40:19.867" UserId="4119" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4119" RevisionGUID="043bc4e8-f058-4fbe-b3b5-2b85c8ac5ba7" CreationDate="2013-06-24T20:51:04.303" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 39 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="US8364183 is an **auto-response** texting app. (Title - “I am driving/busy” automatic response system for mobile phones)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The diagrams in this patent only show a Blackberry being used.  Does this mean that someone can patent this same process for another phone?  Also does how the code was written to accomplish this matter? Different programming language? Different way of completing it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does any mobile app that does this feature infringe on this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9366" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4119" RevisionGUID="043bc4e8-f058-4fbe-b3b5-2b85c8ac5ba7" CreationDate="2013-06-24T20:51:04.303" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 39 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Breadth of claims in “I am driving/busy” automatic response system for mobile phones (US8364183)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9367" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4119" RevisionGUID="043bc4e8-f058-4fbe-b3b5-2b85c8ac5ba7" CreationDate="2013-06-24T20:51:04.303" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 39 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;us8364183&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4119" RevisionGUID="7f610bf3-ad57-401a-88f6-fa3c60931557" CreationDate="2013-06-24T22:20:13.800" UserId="3076" Comment="Added claim 1 and claim 3" Text="US8364183 is an **auto-response** texting app. (Title - “I am driving/busy” automatic response system for mobile phones)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The diagrams in this patent only show a Blackberry being used.  Does this mean that someone can patent this same process for another phone?  Also does how the code was written to accomplish this matter? Different programming language? Different way of completing it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does any mobile app that does this feature infringe on this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A conventional cell phone apparatus which has been modified to add a software application or which has had the operating system or other software installed by the manufacturer of said cell phone apparatus modified such that said software application which has been added or said operating system or other software installed by said manufacturer of said cell phone apparatus is structured to control said cell phone to respond to the touch or press by a user of said cell phone apparatus of one or more Busy keys in a predetermined sequence, each of said Busy keys being a key or switch which has been added to said cell phone or to a keypad of said cell phone or each of said one or more Busy keys being a touch sensitive area which has been added to an area of a screen or page displayed on a touchscreen display of said cell phone apparatus and displayed on said touchscreen display with an indication of the function which will be invoked if that area is touched, or a touch sensitive area which has been added to the visual depiction of a keypad on said touchscreen display of said cell phone apparatus, said software application which has been added to said cell phone apparatus or said operating system of said cell phone apparatus or said other software installed by said manufacture of said cell phone apparatus controlling said cell phone apparatus to automatically respond to the touch or press of a said one or more Busy keys in said predetermined sequence in response to an incoming text message so as to send a predetermined text message to the sender of said text message just received, via the Short Message Service Data Channel on which said incoming text message was received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 3, a method claim is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A process carried out on a cell phone comprising the steps:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;A) receiving an incoming Short Message Service text message or an incoming cellular phone call;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;B) detecting a push of a Busy key on said cell phone and sending that event to an operating system of said cell phone with a request to send to a Busy application program on said cell phone the time of the Busy key push;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;C) sending a function call to a Busy application program on said cell phone with the time of the Busy key push;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;D) launching said Busy application program on said phone when said function call in step C is sent and starting a timer and incrementing a count of the number of pushes of said Busy key;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;E) determining if said Busy key was pushed X time in Y seconds;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;F) if said Busy key was pushed X times in Y seconds, determining if a text message was received just before said Busy key was pushed or was received while said Busy key was being pushed, and, if so, automatically selecting the text message received just before the Busy key was pushed or which was received while said Busy key was being pushed and automatically sending a pre-typed text message to the sender of said text message without any further interaction with said user of said cell phone; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;G) if said Busy key was pushed X times in Y seconds while an incoming cellular telephone call was ringing the ringtone of said cell phone, automatically answering said incoming cell phone call and playing a pre-recorded audio message to said caller." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4119" RevisionGUID="1645a2ef-d37f-4669-a2a9-d6366bd9acb3" CreationDate="2013-06-24T22:26:16.043" UserId="1767" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="US8364183 is an **auto-response** texting app. (Title - “I am driving/busy” automatic response system for mobile phones)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The diagrams in this patent only show a Blackberry being used.  Does this mean that someone can patent this same process for another phone?  Also does how the code was written to accomplish this matter? Different programming language? Different way of completing it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does any mobile app that does this feature infringe on this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A conventional cell phone apparatus which has been modified to add a software application or which has had the operating system or other software installed by the manufacturer of said cell phone apparatus modified such that said software application which has been added or said operating system or other software installed by said manufacturer of said cell phone apparatus is structured to control said cell phone to respond to the touch or press by a user of said cell phone apparatus of one or more Busy keys in a predetermined sequence, each of said Busy keys being a key or switch which has been added to said cell phone or to a keypad of said cell phone or each of said one or more Busy keys being a touch sensitive area which has been added to an area of a screen or page displayed on a touchscreen display of said cell phone apparatus and displayed on said touchscreen display with an indication of the function which will be invoked if that area is touched, or a touch sensitive area which has been added to the visual depiction of a keypad on said touchscreen display of said cell phone apparatus, said software application which has been added to said cell phone apparatus or said operating system of said cell phone apparatus or said other software installed by said manufacture of said cell phone apparatus controlling said cell phone apparatus to automatically respond to the touch or press of a said one or more Busy keys in said predetermined sequence in response to an incoming text message so as to send a predetermined text message to the sender of said text message just received, via the Short Message Service Data Channel on which said incoming text message was received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 3, a method claim is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A process carried out on a cell phone comprising the steps:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A process carried out on a cell phone comprising the steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving an incoming Short Message Service text message or an incoming cellular phone call;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Detecting a push of a Busy key on said cell phone and sending that event to an operating system of said cell phone with a request to send to a Busy application program on said cell phone the time of the Busy key push;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Sending a function call to a Busy application program on said cell phone with the time of the Busy key push;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Launching said Busy application program on said phone when said function call in step C is sent and starting a timer and incrementing a count of the number of pushes of said Busy key;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Determining if said Busy key was pushed X time in Y seconds;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. If said Busy key was pushed X times in Y seconds, Determining if a text message was received just before said Busy key was pushed or was received while said Busy key was being pushed, and, if so, automatically selecting the text message received just before the Busy key was pushed or which was received while said Busy key was being pushed and automatically sending a pre-typed text message to the sender of said text message without any further interaction with said user of said cell phone; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. If said Busy key was pushed X times in Y seconds while an incoming cellular telephone call was ringing the ringtone of said cell phone, automatically Answering said incoming cell phone call and playing a pre-recorded audio message to said caller." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4121" RevisionGUID="7d42c108-ca70-49ec-837a-4a1b2a8b6181" CreationDate="2013-06-24T22:33:16.880" UserId="3076" Text="You have two questions. One is &quot;can other people patent this with something other than a Blackberry?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, a patent application that came after this would need to be non-obvious in light of this. I would guess doing the exact same thing with phone not mentioned or drawn in the application would be obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second question is what does it take to infringe this. To directly infringe any patent one needs to either make, sell, use, offer for sale a thing defined in a claim of a patent OR to carry out all of the steps of a method claim. It all comes down to the claim. That is easy. What is hard is determining what the words of a claim cover.  One clear principle is the &quot;all elements&quot; principle. To directly infringe a claim one must have/do ALL of the elements of at least one claim" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4123" RevisionGUID="827e67dd-0ca2-4139-a9f3-c23734001cfc" CreationDate="2013-06-25T15:23:12.830" UserId="4124" Text="http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=971777&#xD;&#xA;The above article predates the patent US5576880.  I sent this article to the inventor of US5576880 prior to his filing of this patent.  He submitted this patent application on the paper and failed to notify the patent office of this prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9379" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4123" RevisionGUID="827e67dd-0ca2-4139-a9f3-c23734001cfc" CreationDate="2013-06-25T15:23:12.830" UserId="4124" Text="Is this fraud on the patent office?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9380" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4123" RevisionGUID="827e67dd-0ca2-4139-a9f3-c23734001cfc" CreationDate="2013-06-25T15:23:12.830" UserId="4124" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4124" RevisionGUID="5cae0ddb-3c39-477e-a8cd-25e22a53a596" CreationDate="2013-06-25T15:58:29.933" UserId="4124" Text="The other answers address submitting prior art before the patent is allowed.  &#xD;&#xA;Additionally, you can submit prior art after the patent issues anytime during the life of the patent.  If it is relevant, the patent office will attach the submitted prior art to the official file on the patent.  Anyone needing to defend themselves against assertion of the patent will download the file and get a copy of this submitted prior art.&#xD;&#xA;see http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2202.html&#xD;&#xA;  It could prove valuable, should someone want to have the patent reexamined." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4125" RevisionGUID="2966ae74-8518-4ab9-a7de-1e394762ceae" CreationDate="2013-06-25T16:08:01.373" UserId="3652" Text="[Audyssey Laboratories][1] has a technology called [MultEQ][2] that they've been integrating into home and professional theaters for several years. Not sure if that's exactly what you're looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.audyssey.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.audyssey.com/audio-technology/multeq" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="8ab69c6e-c09f-4747-8bc0-2db1838587a7" CreationDate="2013-06-25T16:16:07.593" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="   **TITLE: Scale factors for visual presentations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130063492 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/230445][1]  &#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application generates and display graphical elements based on *pixel density.* The invention selects a *scale factor* from a *scale factor set* that is within the *range* of the pixel density.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of generating, using a device having a processor, a presentation comprising elements to be displayed on a display component, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - executing on the processor instructions configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - identify a ***pixel density*** of the display component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - for respective elements of the presentation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - from a ***scale factor set***, select a ***scale factor*** having a ***pixel density range*** including the pixel density of the display component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - request the element to generate a scaled representation using the scale factor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - generate the presentation comprising the scaled representations of the elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample figure** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/WgDnr.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application is similar to other resolution-independent scaling applications, patents, and implementations carried out in the industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 09/12/2011** that discusses (1) scale factor; (2) scale factor set; and (3) pixel density range in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][5]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][8] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9384" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4123" RevisionGUID="ee4d0473-a41b-46e1-afe8-b4b65f16fb4a" CreationDate="2013-06-25T16:20:03.403" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us5576880&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9385" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4123" RevisionGUID="64150651-8c0d-4f0e-a5d9-df0a6ca006f5" CreationDate="2013-06-25T17:39:04.607" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="I have evidence of inequitable conduct for an issued US Patent - What are my options?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9386" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4123" RevisionGUID="64150651-8c0d-4f0e-a5d9-df0a6ca006f5" CreationDate="2013-06-25T17:39:04.607" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us5576880&gt;&lt;inequitable-conduct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4126" RevisionGUID="65ffa32e-4c21-45f2-a3ad-01d96d709604" CreationDate="2013-06-25T22:49:32.057" UserId="4126" Text="What exactly is the patent FOR on the following items?  I see no notice of color, finish, size, materials, assembly method, etc. &#xD;&#xA;D652759 (Pendant-Slit Pupil), &#xD;&#xA;D683254 (Pendant-Round Pupil), &#xD;&#xA;D682730 (Pendant Oblong Pupil), &#xD;&#xA;D653151 (Plug-Slit Pupil), &#xD;&#xA;D670191 (Plug-Round Pupil), &#xD;&#xA;D674719 (Plug-Oblong Pupil), &#xD;&#xA;D662005 (French-Slit Pupil), &#xD;&#xA;D671439 (French-Round Pupil), &#xD;&#xA;D665693 (French-Oblong Pupil), &#xD;&#xA;D674720 (Post-Oblong Pupil), &#xD;&#xA;D672681 (Post-Slit Pupil)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9388" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4126" RevisionGUID="65ffa32e-4c21-45f2-a3ad-01d96d709604" CreationDate="2013-06-25T22:49:32.057" UserId="4126" Text="What exactly is the patent on?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9389" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4126" RevisionGUID="65ffa32e-4c21-45f2-a3ad-01d96d709604" CreationDate="2013-06-25T22:49:32.057" UserId="4126" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;description&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4127" RevisionGUID="496beb3d-4737-4c81-bb42-b815fead5f16" CreationDate="2013-06-26T00:17:25.830" UserId="3076" Text="Inequitable conduct is primarily a defense to an infringment accusation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One option you have is to submit that paper under 35 USC 301.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 35 U.S.C. 301  Citation of prior art and written statements. (Sept. 16, 2012)&#xD;&#xA;(a) IN GENERAL.—Any person at any time may cite to the Office in writing—&#xD;&#xA;(1) prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which that person believes to have a bearing on the patent ability of any claim of a particular patent; or&#xD;&#xA;(2) statements of the patent owner filed in a proceeding before a Federal court or the Office in which the patent owner took a position on the scope of any claim of a particular patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would not be able to say that you know the person had access to the paper in advance or allege inequitable conduct. But the paper would be sitting in the file as something that might be looked at for its pure prior art value in the case of reexamination, reissue or litigation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or under 35 USC 302 you can file requesting ex parte reexamination based on that document's pure prior art value. The least that would cost is $3,000 in USPTO fees assuming the requestor qualifies as a micro entity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or you could file an inter party review or a post-grant review under the new AIA procedures. I do not believe that either inequitable conduct or untruthful declaration of inventorship can be raised in either of these, more expensive procedures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, your tagged posting here at Ask Patents might be seen by a future infringement defendant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9391" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4126" RevisionGUID="bd6d387b-baa4-4d4e-8797-5a77bed18fed" CreationDate="2013-06-26T00:19:58.603" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tags" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;description&gt;&lt;usd674720&gt;&lt;usd652759&gt;&lt;usd670191&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4128" RevisionGUID="8effc191-f746-4c0b-83b1-f65d876cbfc3" CreationDate="2013-06-26T00:48:46.187" UserId="4128" Text="The focus of my investigation was in part inspired by Greg Gronholm's information at http://thepatentpodcast.com/the-new-podcast-patent-being-asserted-by-personal-audio/ . I was focusing on Claim 31 of US Patent 8,112,504; I believe that the evidence below undermines this claim and speaks to the invalidity of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my searching, I found that the television program [&quot;Computer Chronicles&quot;] [1] has a [1995] [6] episode about the Internet [[2], [3]]. In it, there is a window into relevant pre-&quot;Podcast Patent&quot; Internet functionality:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Circa 1995, at least, there was the &quot;Internet Underground Music Archive&quot; (IUMA)[[4]]. The aforementioned 'Chronicles' episode displays an IUMA webpage, including what appears to be audio/media content that would qualify as &quot;serialized&quot; or &quot;episodic&quot;[[5]]. (YouTube video, 6'5&quot;-6'10&quot;.) The specific webpage (&quot;data file&quot;) displayed was a specific URL that was updated with additional [media] content. This &quot;data file&quot; was requested by the client device -- by way of the PC user's Internet browser. Each &quot;episode&quot; depicted includes a brief text description, and is represented by a unique URL embedded in the HTML source. Refreshing the page or navigating to the page at a later time is a means of &quot;employing one of said one or more communication interfaces to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;(a) receive a request from a requesting client device for the updated version of said compilation file located at said predetermined URL;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;(b) download said updated version of said compilation file to said requesting client device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;(c) thereafter receive and respond to a request from said requesting client device for one or more media files identified by one or more corresponding episode URLs included in the attribute data contained in said updated version of said compilation files&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above (a), (b), and (c) all characterize Internet browser behavior that preceded the temporal/chronological basis of US Patent 8,112,504.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particular episode of Computer Chronicles also depicts a playlist (4'34&quot;) [[7]].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://archive.org/details/computerchronicles&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://archive.org/details/CC1232_internet&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XluovrUA6Bk&#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=365s&#xD;&#xA;[5]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=370s&#xD;&#xA;[6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=1615s&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=273s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4129" RevisionGUID="045d8de6-0c2a-4c8e-88de-2468787b2244" CreationDate="2013-06-26T00:57:06.167" UserId="3076" Text="Usually when we think of a patent we are thinking of a **utility patent**. They cover the function of something. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are all **design patents**. Design patents only cover the ornamental aspects of a item of manufacture. Ornamental can mean shape, texture, finish, color, printed material, patterns, reflectivity, translucency, etc. In many cases, as in the ones of these I have looked at, only the shape and a decorative pattern are shown and claimed. There are some design patents that say &quot;in one embodiment the back is shiny&quot; or &quot;the back and front are in contrasting colors&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What something is made of and how it is made are complete non-issues in design patents. Just what it looks like is at issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4128" RevisionGUID="52d38359-bd25-4ff8-9116-19c2a49bdc8c" CreationDate="2013-06-26T01:51:39.133" UserId="4128" Comment="Made citation links explicit, to accommodate printing" Text="The focus of my investigation was in part inspired by Greg Gronholm's information at http://thepatentpodcast.com/the-new-podcast-patent-being-asserted-by-personal-audio/ . I was focusing on Claim 31 of US Patent 8,112,504; I believe that the evidence below undermines this claim and speaks to the invalidity of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my searching, I found that the television program [&quot;Computer Chronicles&quot;] [1] has a [1995] [6] episode about the Internet [[2], [3]]. In it, there is a window into relevant pre-&quot;Podcast Patent&quot; Internet functionality:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Circa 1995, at least, there was the &quot;Internet Underground Music Archive&quot; (IUMA)[[4]]. The aforementioned 'Chronicles' episode displays an IUMA webpage, including what appears to be audio/media content that would qualify as &quot;serialized&quot; or &quot;episodic&quot;[[5]]. (YouTube video, 6'5&quot;-6'10&quot;.) The specific webpage (&quot;data file&quot;) displayed was a specific URL that was updated with additional [media] content. This &quot;data file&quot; was requested by the client device -- by way of the PC user's Internet browser. Each &quot;episode&quot; depicted includes a brief text description, and is represented by a unique URL embedded in the HTML source. Refreshing the page or navigating to the page at a later time is a means of &quot;employing one of said one or more communication interfaces to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;(a) receive a request from a requesting client device for the updated version of said compilation file located at said predetermined URL;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;(b) download said updated version of said compilation file to said requesting client device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;(c) thereafter receive and respond to a request from said requesting client device for one or more media files identified by one or more corresponding episode URLs included in the attribute data contained in said updated version of said compilation files&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above (a), (b), and (c) all characterize Internet browser behavior that preceded the temporal/chronological basis of US Patent 8,112,504.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particular episode of Computer Chronicles also depicts a playlist (4'34&quot;) [[7]].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For printing convenience, here are the explicit links for the citations above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: http://archive.org/details/computerchronicles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2: http://archive.org/details/CC1232_internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XluovrUA6Bk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=365s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=370s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=1615s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=273s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://archive.org/details/computerchronicles&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://archive.org/details/CC1232_internet&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XluovrUA6Bk&#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=365s&#xD;&#xA;[5]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=370s&#xD;&#xA;[6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=1615s&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=273s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4131" RevisionGUID="2e22189f-20a1-4b93-a695-543d9621634a" CreationDate="2013-06-26T02:07:17.747" UserId="4130" Text="As a non-lawyer who knows little about patents, I'll risk putting my two cents in here.  What's the difference between a system that creates a &quot;compilation list&quot; on a server and streams music in digital data form out to clients, and an enterprise print queue that streams digital data in the form of print jobs out to client printers scattered around an organization?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4132" RevisionGUID="788ee225-4871-4c91-b15f-637867a7e6e3" CreationDate="2013-06-26T02:15:18.173" UserId="4130" Text="Remember the jukebox system they used to have in diners in the 50s and 60s?  There was a client terminal at each booth and a server that held the records.  When people would enter their selection in the booth, it would be stored at the central jukebox, er, the music server, and the selections would be played throughout the diner in the order they were entered.  Sounds like a playlist to me!  Maybe Seeburg or one of the other jukebox manufacturers has an actual patent on this that might serve to vitiate this patent claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4128" RevisionGUID="a4f6f87f-2ce7-46a8-a7e1-dc07ca772e79" CreationDate="2013-06-26T03:11:44.180" UserId="4128" Comment="Added link to relevant Internet Archive IUMA page, prompted by user3877's answer." Text="The focus of my investigation was in part inspired by Greg Gronholm's information at http://thepatentpodcast.com/the-new-podcast-patent-being-asserted-by-personal-audio/ . I was focusing on Claim 31 of US Patent 8,112,504; I believe that the evidence below undermines this claim and speaks to the invalidity of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my searching, I found that the television program [&quot;Computer Chronicles&quot;] [1] has a [1995] [6] episode about the Internet [[2], [3]]. In it, there is a window into relevant pre-&quot;Podcast Patent&quot; Internet functionality:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Circa 1995, at least, there was the &quot;Internet Underground Music Archive&quot; (IUMA)[[4]]. The aforementioned 'Chronicles' episode displays an IUMA webpage, including what appears to be audio/media content that would qualify as &quot;serialized&quot; or &quot;episodic&quot;[[5]]. (YouTube video, 6'5&quot;-6'10&quot;.) The specific webpage (&quot;data file&quot;) displayed was a specific URL that was updated with additional [media] content. This &quot;data file&quot; was requested by the client device -- by way of the PC user's Internet browser. Each &quot;episode&quot; depicted includes a brief text description, and is represented by a unique URL embedded in the HTML source. Refreshing the page or navigating to the page at a later time is a means of &quot;employing one of said one or more communication interfaces to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;(a) receive a request from a requesting client device for the updated version of said compilation file located at said predetermined URL;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;(b) download said updated version of said compilation file to said requesting client device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;(c) thereafter receive and respond to a request from said requesting client device for one or more media files identified by one or more corresponding episode URLs included in the attribute data contained in said updated version of said compilation files&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above (a), (b), and (c) all characterize Internet browser behavior that preceded the temporal/chronological basis of US Patent 8,112,504, and therefore speaks to the patent's invalidity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A representative, relevant portion of the IUMA is preserved with the Internet Archive's &quot;Wayback Machine&quot;: http://web.archive.org/web/19961219061839/http://www.iuma.com/IUMA-2.0/olas/new/ .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particular episode of Computer Chronicles also depicts a playlist (4'34&quot;) [[7]].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For printing convenience, here are the explicit links for the citations above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: http://archive.org/details/computerchronicles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2: http://archive.org/details/CC1232_internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XluovrUA6Bk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=365s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=370s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=1615s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=273s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://archive.org/details/computerchronicles&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://archive.org/details/CC1232_internet&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XluovrUA6Bk&#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=365s&#xD;&#xA;[5]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=370s&#xD;&#xA;[6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=1615s&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=273s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4128" RevisionGUID="142d5b55-49fb-4cac-a7d4-c1e705fb51b8" CreationDate="2013-06-26T14:12:26.430" UserId="4132" Comment="Added link to podcast episode related to referenced post on my website. I can be reached at greg.gronholm@gmail.com or at my cell 404 two10 4one52 if you have any thoughts or comments on the episode or post. thanks, Greg" Text="The focus of my investigation was in part inspired by Greg Gronholm's information at http://thepatentpodcast.com/the-new-podcast-patent-being-asserted-by-personal-audio/ . I was focusing on Claim 31 of US Patent 8,112,504; I believe that the evidence below undermines this claim and speaks to the invalidity of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mr. Gronholm also has a podcast episode laying out an invality discussion of this patent at http://thepatentpodcast.com/how-to-help-invalidate-the-personal-audio-podcast-patent/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my searching, I found that the television program [&quot;Computer Chronicles&quot;] [1] has a [1995] [6] episode about the Internet [[2], [3]]. In it, there is a window into relevant pre-&quot;Podcast Patent&quot; Internet functionality:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Circa 1995, at least, there was the &quot;Internet Underground Music Archive&quot; (IUMA)[[4]]. The aforementioned 'Chronicles' episode displays an IUMA webpage, including what appears to be audio/media content that would qualify as &quot;serialized&quot; or &quot;episodic&quot;[[5]]. (YouTube video, 6'5&quot;-6'10&quot;.) The specific webpage (&quot;data file&quot;) displayed was a specific URL that was updated with additional [media] content. This &quot;data file&quot; was requested by the client device -- by way of the PC user's Internet browser. Each &quot;episode&quot; depicted includes a brief text description, and is represented by a unique URL embedded in the HTML source. Refreshing the page or navigating to the page at a later time is a means of &quot;employing one of said one or more communication interfaces to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;(a) receive a request from a requesting client device for the updated version of said compilation file located at said predetermined URL;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;(b) download said updated version of said compilation file to said requesting client device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;(c) thereafter receive and respond to a request from said requesting client device for one or more media files identified by one or more corresponding episode URLs included in the attribute data contained in said updated version of said compilation files&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above (a), (b), and (c) all characterize Internet browser behavior that preceded the temporal/chronological basis of US Patent 8,112,504, and therefore speaks to the patent's invalidity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A representative, relevant portion of the IUMA is preserved with the Internet Archive's &quot;Wayback Machine&quot;: http://web.archive.org/web/19961219061839/http://www.iuma.com/IUMA-2.0/olas/new/ .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particular episode of Computer Chronicles also depicts a playlist (4'34&quot;) [[7]].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For printing convenience, here are the explicit links for the citations above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: http://archive.org/details/computerchronicles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2: http://archive.org/details/CC1232_internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XluovrUA6Bk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=365s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=370s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=1615s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=273s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://archive.org/details/computerchronicles&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://archive.org/details/CC1232_internet&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XluovrUA6Bk&#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=365s&#xD;&#xA;[5]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=370s&#xD;&#xA;[6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=1615s&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=273s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9403" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4128" RevisionGUID="142d5b55-49fb-4cac-a7d4-c1e705fb51b8" CreationDate="2013-06-26T14:12:26.430" Comment="Proposed by 4132 approved by 1767 edit id of 361" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4128" RevisionGUID="fdc8c0e6-593a-4424-940a-37f6ef1699cb" CreationDate="2013-06-26T15:41:22.427" UserId="4128" Comment="Corrected typo of &quot;invalidity&quot; with Mr. Gronholm's edit" Text="The focus of my investigation was in part inspired by Greg Gronholm's information at http://thepatentpodcast.com/the-new-podcast-patent-being-asserted-by-personal-audio/ . I was focusing on Claim 31 of US Patent 8,112,504; I believe that the evidence below undermines this claim and speaks to the invalidity of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mr. Gronholm also has a podcast episode laying out an invalidity discussion of this patent at http://thepatentpodcast.com/how-to-help-invalidate-the-personal-audio-podcast-patent/ .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my searching, I found that the television program [&quot;Computer Chronicles&quot;] [1] has a [1995] [6] episode about the Internet [[2], [3]]. In it, there is a window into relevant pre-&quot;Podcast Patent&quot; Internet functionality:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Circa 1995, at least, there was the &quot;Internet Underground Music Archive&quot; (IUMA)[[4]]. The aforementioned 'Chronicles' episode displays an IUMA webpage, including what appears to be audio/media content that would qualify as &quot;serialized&quot; or &quot;episodic&quot;[[5]]. (YouTube video, 6'5&quot;-6'10&quot;.) The specific webpage (&quot;data file&quot;) displayed was a specific URL that was updated with additional [media] content. This &quot;data file&quot; was requested by the client device -- by way of the PC user's Internet browser. Each &quot;episode&quot; depicted includes a brief text description, and is represented by a unique URL embedded in the HTML source. Refreshing the page or navigating to the page at a later time is a means of &quot;employing one of said one or more communication interfaces to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;(a) receive a request from a requesting client device for the updated version of said compilation file located at said predetermined URL;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;(b) download said updated version of said compilation file to said requesting client device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;(c) thereafter receive and respond to a request from said requesting client device for one or more media files identified by one or more corresponding episode URLs included in the attribute data contained in said updated version of said compilation files&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above (a), (b), and (c) all characterize Internet browser behavior that preceded the temporal/chronological basis of US Patent 8,112,504, and therefore speaks to the patent's invalidity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A representative, relevant portion of the IUMA is preserved with the Internet Archive's &quot;Wayback Machine&quot;: http://web.archive.org/web/19961219061839/http://www.iuma.com/IUMA-2.0/olas/new/ .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particular episode of Computer Chronicles also depicts a playlist (4'34&quot;) [[7]].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For printing convenience, here are the explicit links for the citations above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: http://archive.org/details/computerchronicles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2: http://archive.org/details/CC1232_internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XluovrUA6Bk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=365s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=370s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=1615s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=273s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://archive.org/details/computerchronicles&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://archive.org/details/CC1232_internet&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XluovrUA6Bk&#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=365s&#xD;&#xA;[5]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=370s&#xD;&#xA;[6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=1615s&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=XluovrUA6Bk#t=273s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4134" RevisionGUID="8f27732d-b877-48b4-ae13-f1015106d84c" CreationDate="2013-06-26T19:55:10.353" UserId="4136" Text="I am looking to make an improvement on a product already in place. Is it crucial to build a mock up of what I am proposing? How specific do I need to be with my improvement idea? Do I need to include the exact placement of certain parts or simply propose the idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9410" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4134" RevisionGUID="8f27732d-b877-48b4-ae13-f1015106d84c" CreationDate="2013-06-26T19:55:10.353" UserId="4136" Text="Should I build a mock up of the imrpovement I am looking to patent before filing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9411" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4134" RevisionGUID="8f27732d-b877-48b4-ae13-f1015106d84c" CreationDate="2013-06-26T19:55:10.353" UserId="4136" Text="&lt;design&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4135" RevisionGUID="bc50f5dc-6ff9-4ae4-93a9-7817a00b5aeb" CreationDate="2013-06-26T21:55:25.383" UserId="3076" Text="Having a working model is not required. But you do need to explain how to make and use your invention. There may be more than ne exact structure that will work but you need to explain at least one way in enough detail that it is clear what you ate describing and that it probably works. Do you need to make a working model to convince yourself it will work? Definitely do not say you are  &quot;proposing an idea&quot; in a patent application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4135" RevisionGUID="6bf94383-0bbc-4b94-9e69-e3419885e003" CreationDate="2013-06-27T13:44:18.920" UserId="1259" Comment="typos" Text="Having a working model is not required. But you do need to explain how to make and use your invention. There may be more than one exact structure that will work but you need to explain at least one way in enough detail that it is clear what you are describing and that it probably works. Do you need to make a working model to convince yourself it will work? Definitely do not say you are &quot;proposing an idea&quot; in a patent application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9426" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4134" RevisionGUID="bef22563-cd18-48ff-8e3d-8ca945a4f1b8" CreationDate="2013-06-27T13:45:57.567" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;design&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4106" RevisionGUID="5d980c47-e8d1-4755-90af-7d11c6f47d7b" CreationDate="2013-06-27T14:10:44.007" UserId="4099" Comment="cite arizona star 1995 article" Text="From Oct 18th 1996 (but with persuasive evidence the service had been running for at least the 16 days prior to that in order to predate this patent), the &lt;b&gt;Hollywood.com interactive video website&lt;/b&gt; was an online index of downloadable episodic multimedia content with accompanying textual information which provides an exact match for all claims in the patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Episodic multimedia content (movie clips) was available for download (in .hqx, .mov and .avi formats). Episodic as the index of available clips was periodically updated. &#xD;&#xA;* Additional text on the download page described the content of the download: the clips for each movie were categorized under subheadings and additional links lead to pages containing movie stills and notes&#xD;&#xA;* URLs for the individual movie files were included via the links which point to the movie files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Service homepage from Oct 19th 1996:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/19961018082912/http://www.hollywood.com/ &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clicking the &quot;Video&quot; link in the top right leads to the &quot;Video clips&quot; page from Nov 22nd 1996:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/19961122231534/http://hollywood.com/movies/video.html&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the movie pages have not been archived but a few have. The below two examples were archived Oct 18th 1996 but feature a 1995 copyright statement: &lt;i&gt;&quot;Copyright © 1995 Hollywood Online Inc.&quot;&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* All Dogs Go to Heaven 2: http://web.archive.org/web/19961018122329/http://www.hollywood.com/movies/alldogs/video/vsalldogs.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The American President: http://web.archive.org/web/19961018133333/http://www.hollywood.com/movies/american/video/vsamerican.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Evidence for predating the patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The 1995 copyright date on the above pages&#xD;&#xA;* An April 1, 1996 news report by the Press Of Atlantic City which states: &quot;http://www.hollywood.com has graphics, movie clips and reviews&quot;  See http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=AC&amp;p_theme=ac&amp;p_action=search&amp;p_maxdocs=200&amp;p_topdoc=1&amp;p_text_direct-0=0EAEAC21A5B0E912&amp;p_field_direct-0=document_id&amp;p_perpage=10&amp;p_sort=YMD_date:D&amp;s_trackval=GooglePM&#xD;&#xA;* The Arizona Daily Star - Aug 18, 1995: &quot;StarNet: Hollywood Online Trailers lets you preview &quot;http://www.hollywood.com/trailers/baby/baby.html&quot; ``The Baby-Sitters Club'' and lots more via photos, video clips, ...&quot; See http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=ADSB&amp;s_site=azstarnet&amp;f_site=azstarnet&amp;f_sitename=Arizona+Daily+Star%2C+The+%28AZ%29&amp;p_multi=ADSB&amp;p_theme=gannett&amp;p_action=search&amp;p_maxdocs=200&amp;p_topdoc=1&amp;p_text_direct-0=0EACE5DF904326FC&amp;p_field_direct-0=document_id&amp;p_perpage=10&amp;p_sort=YMD_date:D&amp;s_trackval=GooglePM&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4071" RevisionGUID="aa116c5a-2695-48dc-aa16-0e64802aa76f" CreationDate="2013-06-27T15:47:49.633" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **HELP SAVE HOME AUDIO** - This application from Creative Labs seeks to patent the general idea of a self-calibrating audio systems! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.... [HERE!][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining **physical features** around speakers and calibrating at least one of the speakers; where&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **Physical features** are determined by sending a test signal from the speaker and calibrating the speakers based on the test signal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**HINT** - Haven’t self-calibrating speaker systems or networks been around for a while?  Did Dynaudio AIR do this? Can you help find evidence that Dynaudio AIR or any other system did this prior to Dec 2010?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: SELF-CALIBRATING SPEAKER SYSTEMS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalish into English] A method for calibrating multi-speaker audio system wherein an audio test signal is sent from a speaker and the test signal is used to measure a **physical features** of the speaker.  This **physical feature** (for example, volume) is used to calibrate the speaker.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130051572 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Creative Labs, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A calibration method for calibrating a variable number of speakers, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining **physical features** around a location of each of the variable number of speakers and calibrating at least one of the variable number of speakers;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Wherein the **physical features** around a location of each of the variable number of speakers are determinable by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Transmitting an instruction signal, the instruction signal being transmittable from a device which is indicative of listener location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Communicating a **test signal** based on the instruction signal, the **test signal** being communicable from at least one of the variable number of speakers to the device; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Receiving and processing the **test signal** by the device in a manner so as to produce **calibration signals**, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Wherein the **calibration signals** are communicable from the device to at least one of the variable number of speakers so as to calibrate at least one of the variable number of speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for calibrating audio speakers; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining physical features of the audio speakers using an audio test signal from at least one of the speakers;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Using the physical features which have been determined to calibrate at least one of the speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already - haven’t self-calibrating speaker systems or networks been around for a while?  Did Dynaudio AIR do this? Can you help find evidence that Dynaudio AIR or any other system did this prior to Dec 2010?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The method of  self-calibrating speaker systems from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Hrc3R.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130051572&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4068" RevisionGUID="5f9fa62f-84a8-4f10-abb3-b8f552ce6994" CreationDate="2013-06-27T15:48:21.483" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="   **HELP SAVE HOME AUDIO** - This application from Creative Labs seeks to patent the general idea of optimizing audio output in a multi-speaker audio systems! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Comparing performance characteristics among multiple speakers; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Designating a **master speaker** with or without manual intervention; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Including a **bi-directional transceiver** on each speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND where the **performance characteristics** of each speaker are determined by ALSO uses frequency response, maximum sound level, gain, or speaker location, OR where the master speaker contains a microphone as well as speaker&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**HINT** - Did Dynaudio Air do this? Did any PA's in livesound have automatic setup and calibration based on one of the particular speakers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: METHOD FOR OPTIMIZING REPRODUCTION OF AUDIO SIGNALS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for optimizing audio output in a multi-speaker audio system.  The multi-speaker audio system includes a number of speakers, each of which contains a **bi-directional transceiver**.  The **performance characteristics** of each speaker is measured. The characteristics are compared with one another. One speaker is designated a **master speaker**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20120148075 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Creative Labs, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for optimizing reproduction of audio signals from an apparatus for audio reproduction with the apparatus for audio reproduction having a variable number of speakers, the method including:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining performance characteristics of each of the variable number of speakers;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Comparing performance characteristics of each of the variable number of speakers with each other; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Designating a master speaker from the variable number of speakers either with or without manual intervention;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Wherein each of the variable number of speakers includes a bi-directional transceiver.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. The **performance characteristics** of each speaker is measured. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The performance characteristics are compared with one another.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. One speaker is designated a **master speaker**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Each speaker in the system contains a **bi-directional transceiver**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and and where **performance characteristics** of each speaker are determined by frequency response, maximum sound level, gain, or speaker location. Extra credit would include systems that do all of the steps above and also involve a one of these methods of measuring performance characteristic of the speakers in the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A &quot;schematic diagram&quot; of each speaker from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/eoBIP.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20120148075&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3593" RevisionGUID="db2e6697-ab8f-44c0-86ed-6c500698827c" CreationDate="2013-06-28T05:07:46.790" UserId="3076" Comment="Clarified and added info re section 301" Text="There is an obligation of disclouser and candor if you are the inventor, the attorney or agent involved with the case or or are otherwise involved with the patenting effort. Those people have to provide the USPTO with anything that they know that would tend to cast a negative light on patentability or that contradict a position that has been taken by the applicants with the patent office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That duty is discharged by filing a document in the case called an Information Disclosure Statement. People on the inventing/patenting team can discharge their duty by bringing whatever it is to an inventor. The duty extends until the patent is granted or goes abandoned. Those people need to submit any publications and inform the PTO of any actions (put on sale longer than 1 yr before filing, etc.) that are relevant to patentability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Applicants are never going to say &quot;there is no prior art&quot;. For one reason the term prior art just means everything that is fair game to look at. If it is generally in the same field or is generally aimed at the same problem and it is dated before the application, it is available as prior art. (Simplified) One can never know the totality of what might be out there so the idea that a document refutes a statement that &quot;nothing is out there&quot; is not going to happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More practically, yes, there are ways for 3rd parties to submit documents and a short analysis as to their relevance to the USPTO. It can't be a full brief. This site was set up to facilitate that process. It is not a real opposition process just a way to get something in front of the examiner in a timely fashion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Under the new patent laws there is a time window in the course of most applications for this - for free up to 3 documents. Failing that, there are new, but expensive, post-grant opposition procedures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also an ability to send something at any time under [35 USC 301.][1] Things that come in under that section of the law are put in the file but not necessarily looked at by the examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2205.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9444" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4134" RevisionGUID="b113f711-2022-4b9b-95db-2c1503b38cf6" CreationDate="2013-06-28T05:09:59.580" UserId="3076" Comment="Typo in title" Text="Should I build a mock up of the improvement I am looking to patent before filing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3593" RevisionGUID="b52a3ce7-69ea-49e5-a3cc-7c7de77d3e37" CreationDate="2013-06-28T05:14:33.067" UserId="3076" Comment="Clarified and added info re section 301" Text="There is an obligation of disclouser and candor if you are the inventor, the attorney or agent involved with the case or or are otherwise involved with the patenting effort. Those people have to provide the USPTO with anything that they know that would tend to cast a negative light on patentability or that contradict a position that has been taken by the applicants with the patent office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That duty is discharged by filing a document in the case called an Information Disclosure Statement. People on the inventing/patenting team can discharge their duty by bringing whatever it is to an inventor. The duty extends until the patent is granted or goes abandoned. Those people need to submit any publications and inform the PTO of any actions (put on sale longer than 1 yr before filing, etc.) that are relevant to patentability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Applicants are never going to say &quot;there is no prior art&quot;. For one reason the term prior art just means everything that is fair game to look at. If it is generally in the same field or is generally aimed at the same problem and it is dated before the application, it is available as prior art. (Simplified) One can never know the totality of what might be out there so the idea that a document refutes a statement that &quot;nothing is out there&quot; is not going to happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More practically, yes, there are ways for 3rd parties to submit documents and a short analysis as to their relevance to the USPTO. It can't be a full brief. But this does not extend to a &quot;brief&quot;. Some ways of getting information in allow only the document and others also allow a short explanation of the relevance of a document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site was set up to facilitate that process. It is not a real opposition process just a way to get something in front of the examiner in a timely fashion.&#xD;&#xA;Under the new patent laws there is a time window in the course of most applications for this - for free up to 3 documents. Failing that, there are new, but expensive, post-grant opposition procedures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also an ability to send something at any time under [35 USC 301.][1] Things that come in under that section of the law are put in the file but not necessarily looked at by the examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2205.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4068" RevisionGUID="957522f7-1bc1-412d-aaf4-901473acb0ce" CreationDate="2013-06-28T18:04:01.553" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **HELP SAVE HOME AUDIO** - This application from Creative Labs seeks to patent the general idea of optimizing audio output in a multi-speaker audio systems! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Comparing performance characteristics among multiple speakers; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Designating a **master speaker** with or without manual intervention; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Including a **bi-directional transceiver** on each speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND where the **performance characteristics** of each speaker are determined by ALSO uses frequency response, maximum sound level, gain, or speaker location, OR where the master speaker contains a microphone as well as speaker&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**HINT** - Did Dynaudio Air do this? Did any PA's in livesound have automatic setup and calibration based on one of the particular speakers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: METHOD FOR OPTIMIZING REPRODUCTION OF AUDIO SIGNALS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for optimizing audio output in a multi-speaker audio system.  The multi-speaker audio system includes a number of speakers, each of which contains a **bi-directional transceiver**.  The **performance characteristics** of each speaker is measured. The characteristics are compared with one another. One speaker is designated a **master speaker**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20120148075 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Creative Labs, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for optimizing reproduction of audio signals from an apparatus for audio reproduction with the apparatus for audio reproduction having a variable number of speakers, the method including:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining performance characteristics of each of the variable number of speakers;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Comparing performance characteristics of each of the variable number of speakers with each other; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Designating a master speaker from the variable number of speakers either with or without manual intervention;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Wherein each of the variable number of speakers includes a bi-directional transceiver.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. The **performance characteristics** of each speaker is measured. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The performance characteristics are compared with one another.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. One speaker is designated a **master speaker**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Each speaker in the system contains a **bi-directional transceiver**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and and where **performance characteristics** of each speaker are determined by frequency response, maximum sound level, gain, or speaker location. Extra credit would include systems that do all of the steps above and also involve a one of these methods of measuring performance characteristic of the speakers in the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A &quot;schematic diagram&quot; of each speaker from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/eoBIP.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20120148075&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4071" RevisionGUID="d1dc0ed0-a140-4abf-97a1-b642e2ffd165" CreationDate="2013-06-28T18:04:38.867" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **HELP SAVE HOME AUDIO** - This application from Creative Labs seeks to patent the general idea of a self-calibrating audio systems! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.... [HERE!][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining **physical features** around speakers and calibrating at least one of the speakers; where&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **Physical features** are determined by sending a test signal from the speaker and calibrating the speakers based on the test signal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**HINT** - Haven’t self-calibrating speaker systems or networks been around for a while?  Did Dynaudio AIR do this? Can you help find evidence that Dynaudio AIR or any other system did this prior to Dec 2010?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: SELF-CALIBRATING SPEAKER SYSTEMS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalish into English] A method for calibrating multi-speaker audio system wherein an audio test signal is sent from a speaker and the test signal is used to measure a **physical features** of the speaker.  This **physical feature** (for example, volume) is used to calibrate the speaker.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130051572 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Creative Labs, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A calibration method for calibrating a variable number of speakers, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining **physical features** around a location of each of the variable number of speakers and calibrating at least one of the variable number of speakers;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Wherein the **physical features** around a location of each of the variable number of speakers are determinable by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Transmitting an instruction signal, the instruction signal being transmittable from a device which is indicative of listener location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Communicating a **test signal** based on the instruction signal, the **test signal** being communicable from at least one of the variable number of speakers to the device; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Receiving and processing the **test signal** by the device in a manner so as to produce **calibration signals**, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Wherein the **calibration signals** are communicable from the device to at least one of the variable number of speakers so as to calibrate at least one of the variable number of speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for calibrating audio speakers; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining physical features of the audio speakers using an audio test signal from at least one of the speakers;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Using the physical features which have been determined to calibrate at least one of the speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already - haven’t self-calibrating speaker systems or networks been around for a while?  Did Dynaudio AIR do this? Can you help find evidence that Dynaudio AIR or any other system did this prior to Dec 2010?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The method of  self-calibrating speaker systems from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Hrc3R.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130051572&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4057" RevisionGUID="b2f12a43-f13f-40a2-87e3-d7cb5d7eefa8" CreationDate="2013-06-28T18:05:07.887" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **Complete integrated self-checkout system and method&#xD;&#xA;[US 6507279][1], June 6, 2003**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems seminal in that over 50 later patents cite it. I do not see it on the IDS already submitted by Apple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From abstract&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An integrated self-checkout system and method incorporates  . . .  and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pricing to be directed to a specific individual. The customer uses&#xD;&#xA;&gt; either a cell phone or . . . when in the store, which displays prices&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and/or advertisements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;From detailed description&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The system can further have the following subsystems. Article&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identification subsystem, such as RFID, bar code scanner or other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mechanism to identify articles selected by the member for purchase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually completing the sale is mentioned but **not** in much detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6507279" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4144" RevisionGUID="b9d11fb7-b30f-4b09-97d1-b9e6a00bd3ad" CreationDate="2013-06-29T04:19:20.350" UserId="3814" Text="Microsoft published their UProve technology to an open source license; however they mention that they can't guarantee that the technology does not infringe on other patents not covered by Microsoft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What known patents can cause an issue for implementors of UProve technology?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it matter if UProve is configured to exclusively rely on &quot;Subgroups&quot; versus the patent minefield of ECC?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9459" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4144" RevisionGUID="b9d11fb7-b30f-4b09-97d1-b9e6a00bd3ad" CreationDate="2013-06-29T04:19:20.350" UserId="3814" Text="What aspects of Microsoft's UProve technology is patented by others?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9460" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4144" RevisionGUID="b9d11fb7-b30f-4b09-97d1-b9e6a00bd3ad" CreationDate="2013-06-29T04:19:20.350" UserId="3814" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;opensource&gt;&lt;encryption&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4145" RevisionGUID="fb82e424-50da-4372-9d63-204ec31f70cf" CreationDate="2013-06-29T07:38:05.257" UserId="4099" Text="&lt;b&gt;The world's very first website at CERN&lt;/b&gt;, by the inventors of the web, included a downloadable sound file from at latest 1992. (As well as being a partial example of prior art, as a particularly historic website this could serve as a useful talking point for those debating the patent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site was recently reconstructed by CERN, as reported at http://first-website.web.cern.ch/blog/first-url-active-once-more  The article states the copy of the site they used is from 1992, although earlier copies may exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the page containing the sound file: &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/WhatIs.html &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;and the sound file was located at: &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/Talks/YesWeCan.snd &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;However the file itself has not been uploaded as part of the site reconstruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this first-ever website hits some but not all of the patent claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Downloadable audio content from a server&#xD;&#xA;* A URL pointing to the audio content&#xD;&#xA;* Extra text describing the content:  &quot;HyperMedia is a term used for hypertext which is not constrained to be text: it can include graphics, video and sound , for example.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it was not episodic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4145" RevisionGUID="af318e7e-2763-47e8-aa3a-28fa7c09f308" CreationDate="2013-06-29T07:46:09.787" UserId="4099" Comment="formatting" Text="&lt;b&gt;The world's very first website at CERN&lt;/b&gt;, by the inventors of the web, included a downloadable sound file from at latest 1992. (As well as being a partial example of prior art, as a particularly historic website this could serve as a useful talking point for those debating the patent). The site was recently reconstructed by CERN, as reported at http://first-website.web.cern.ch/blog/first-url-active-once-more  The article states the copy of the site they used is from 1992, although earlier copies may exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the page containing the sound file: &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/WhatIs.html &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;and the sound file was located at: &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/Talks/YesWeCan.snd &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The file itself has not been uploaded as part of the site reconstruction, however a working copy is mirrored at http://w3.infologie.co/WWW/Talks/YesWeCan.snd &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The index at http://w3.infologie.co/WWW/Talks/ shows a datestamp of 1994-Mar-15 for the mirrored copy. The file contains an English male voice (Tim Berners Lee?) saying &quot;Yes, we can even make the text talk about itself&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this first-ever website hits some but not all of the patent claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Downloadable audio content from a server&#xD;&#xA;* A URL pointing to the audio content&#xD;&#xA;* Extra text describing the content:  &quot;HyperMedia is a term used for hypertext which is not constrained to be text: it can include graphics, video and sound , for example.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it was not episodic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4146" RevisionGUID="db70ea1a-fd15-4537-a6c5-6008a129f15f" CreationDate="2013-06-30T03:29:51.250" UserId="1335" Text="I am not a lawyer, so take the following with an appropriate dosage of salt: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand it, you cannot copyright a user interface, as determined in [Apple v. Microsoft][1], primarily because it has a functional aspect. You can, however, file a design patent on your GUI. According to [Wikipedia][2], copyright only applies if the protected design has no functional/practical utility:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The copyrighted artistic expression must either have no substantial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; practical utility (e.g. a statue) or be separable from the useful&#xD;&#xA;&gt; substrate (e.g. picture on a coffee mug).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Design patents, on the other hand, cover the ornamental aspects of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; functional items from being infringed. One does not have to show that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the infringing item was copied from the original. Thus a design that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was arrived at independently can still infringe a design patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, however, that design patents are extremely narrow, and a design patent will cover only the *exact* or almost exact appearance of that GUI, down to the smallest graphical minutiae of the GUI elements. One can potentially avoid infringing a design patent simply by changing dimensions, text content and/or relative placements of GUI elements. Infringing design patents of any practical intricacy through independent invention is rather improbable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, Apple learnt an important lesson from its loss against Microsoft, the repercussions of which can be seen in its IP strategy today. For instance, instead of relying only on design patents, it also protected various functional aspects of the UI with utility patents, such as the over-scroll bounceback and touch input heuristics. These cover the technical aspects that *enable the functioning and behavior* of the GUI rather than its *appearance*. Hence, if your GUI includes, for instance, any custom elements whose functionality or behavior is novel and non-obvious, that may be eligible for utility patent protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent#Copyrights" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4146" RevisionGUID="387a1267-0e39-4059-a226-acce957650a7" CreationDate="2013-06-30T03:36:21.417" UserId="1335" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="I am not a lawyer, so take the following with an appropriate dosage of salt: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand it, you cannot copyright a user interface, as determined in [Apple v. Microsoft][1], primarily because it has a functional aspect, specifically: enabling users to interact with a computer. You can, however, file a design patent on your GUI. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Wikipedia][2], copyright only applies if the protected design has no functional/practical utility, which is where design patents step in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The copyrighted artistic expression must either have no substantial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; practical utility (e.g. a statue) or be separable from the useful&#xD;&#xA;&gt; substrate (e.g. picture on a coffee mug).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Design patents, on the other hand, cover the ornamental aspects of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; functional items from being infringed. One does not have to show that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the infringing item was copied from the original. Thus a design that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was arrived at independently can still infringe a design patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, however, that design patents are extremely narrow, and a design patent will cover only the *exact* or almost exact appearance of that GUI, down to the smallest graphical minutiae of the GUI elements. One can potentially avoid infringing a design patent simply by changing dimensions, text content and/or relative placements of GUI elements. Infringing design patents of any practical intricacy through independent invention is rather improbable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, Apple learnt an important lesson from its loss against Microsoft, the repercussions of which can be seen in its IP strategy today. For instance, instead of relying only on design patents, it also protected various functional aspects of the UI with utility patents, such as the over-scroll bounceback and touch input heuristics. These cover the technical aspects that *enable the functioning and behavior* of the GUI rather than its *appearance*. Hence, if your GUI includes, for instance, any custom elements whose functionality or behavior is novel and non-obvious, that may be eligible for utility patent protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent#Copyrights" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4149" RevisionGUID="c74a9a53-3dfe-468c-9f33-c4e882052a27" CreationDate="2013-07-01T20:56:55.673" UserId="4158" Text="I would like to contact the patent holder(issuer) to discuss the patent but I don't know how to find him. I have done extensive Google search and found a few phone numbers that lead to the same name and location but only one number works and it has not been answered for the past week that I have tried. What is the best way to reach the patent holder?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9476" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4149" RevisionGUID="c74a9a53-3dfe-468c-9f33-c4e882052a27" CreationDate="2013-07-01T20:56:55.673" UserId="4158" Text="How do I reach the patent holder?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9477" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4149" RevisionGUID="c74a9a53-3dfe-468c-9f33-c4e882052a27" CreationDate="2013-07-01T20:56:55.673" UserId="4158" Text="&lt;wo2008070594a3&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4150" RevisionGUID="07fd1094-8b21-4451-ac5e-55209e0492fe" CreationDate="2013-07-02T01:03:34.130" UserId="4161" Text="If you want to go WAY BACK then John Giorno's Dial A Poem, 1969 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dial-A-Poem. The first of the 'dial up for spoken word/poetry' - the subscription being the phone number, the delivery mechanism the line, the device is the phone. As a delivery system it seems FAR closer to podcasting than sending tapes in the mail!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tim (Radio Clash Podcast, since 2004 - you'll take my podcast over my dead body, Personal Audio!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4151" RevisionGUID="d8b26cf8-2196-43cd-b15b-26e89af66f8a" CreationDate="2013-07-02T04:31:29.647" UserId="3076" Text="The US application that relates to this is **not** a granted patent. By way of teaching you how to fish rather than giving you a fish: You can go to the USPTO Public PAIR web site and the US application number you can look this up. You will find that the US application has gone abandoned for lack of a timely response. If you still need to reach the inventors it looks there is a name address and phone number for the patent practitioner he hired." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3695" RevisionGUID="c6951a94-c003-4746-9281-ae2e804e776a" CreationDate="2013-07-02T08:16:42.503" UserId="7" Comment="People are landing on this tag page. The tag description should helpfully describe what the tag means, and the nature of the questions affixed with it." Text="Questions that seek evidence of prior art for granted patents and pending patent applications. If you're familiar with any of the ideas represented by the patents &amp; applications featured in a question with this tag, please submit prior art by answering the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9484" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3695" RevisionGUID="c6951a94-c003-4746-9281-ae2e804e776a" CreationDate="2013-07-02T08:16:42.503" Comment="Proposed by 7 approved by 1767 edit id of 362" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4154" RevisionGUID="a81b7e10-7397-4021-84f4-3cf345628341" CreationDate="2013-07-02T12:28:40.677" UserId="4168" Text="The repolarap looks the same&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://builders.reprap.org/2010/01/repolarap-calibration-thoughts.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;kind regs,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wouter&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4156" RevisionGUID="9f3f35bc-c7af-4ba3-aaf5-898ce413521d" CreationDate="2013-07-02T18:29:52.357" UserId="4170" Text="I am certainly not an attorney, but two examples of possible defenses come to mind, which might bear investigating:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a Wikipedia link to some of the earliest webcasting efforts, all prior to 1996:&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_radio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, you might want to seek out Danni Ashe, owner of the website danni.com. Although adult in nature, they streamed original content, and I believe people could also go through archival content. She has been on the web since 1995.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading the patent, it seems to be a patent for a player, and not applicable to most podcasts, as podcasts do have a &quot;fast-forward&quot; feature, but it is not accurate in relation to skipping &quot;announcements&quot; (commercials), as highlighted in the patent description. As a podcaster who receives no monetary compensation for my efforts, but does it for the love of entertaining a small audience, I wish you the best going forward, and thank you for fighting the good fight. Sincerely, Rick Bailey-Host www.stfushow.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4151" RevisionGUID="a00f0a42-46be-461d-a513-02ef123239ca" CreationDate="2013-07-03T03:58:27.793" UserId="3076" Comment="Missing word" Text="The US application that relates to this is **not** a granted patent. By way of teaching you how to fish rather than giving you a fish: You can go to the USPTO Public PAIR web site and with the US application number you can look this up. You will find that the US application has gone abandoned for lack of a timely response. If you still need to reach the inventors it looks there is a name address and phone number for the patent practitioner he hired." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4161" RevisionGUID="093e9a77-3380-41e4-84dc-c8c027dc21cd" CreationDate="2013-07-03T11:49:26.423" UserId="4176" Text="This question may sound like a newbie.Yeah , but I really have no freaking clue about it .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I share my idea on blog and make it under creativecommons licence .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Which will be editable by others.(They can extend , by giving proper credits)&#xD;&#xA;2. They should give me credits.&#xD;&#xA;3. Commercial use it possible for it.(Given proper credits)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Query here is , can there be any case where someone can file patent based on my creativecommons licence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks ,&#xD;&#xA;C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9509" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4161" RevisionGUID="093e9a77-3380-41e4-84dc-c8c027dc21cd" CreationDate="2013-07-03T11:49:26.423" UserId="4176" Text="creative commons for idea on a web page" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9510" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4161" RevisionGUID="093e9a77-3380-41e4-84dc-c8c027dc21cd" CreationDate="2013-07-03T11:49:26.423" UserId="4176" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;creative-commons&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4161" RevisionGUID="e1ec4112-5e7f-4c0e-a8ee-66d95aa45aa6" CreationDate="2013-07-03T13:17:27.510" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 231 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can a third party file a patent based on a idea I have listed on my blog and made public under a creative commons license?  Are improvements to the idea patentable if the original idea was published by me under a creative commons license?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9512" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4161" RevisionGUID="e1ec4112-5e7f-4c0e-a8ee-66d95aa45aa6" CreationDate="2013-07-03T13:17:27.510" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 231 characters in body; edited title" Text="3rd party filing a patent based on an idea posted to my blog" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4162" RevisionGUID="6ea35e70-2ba3-4405-9828-28e45f1e205f" CreationDate="2013-07-03T13:35:04.767" UserId="4177" Text="This question might be better asked at avvo.com, where you could get in contact with a local intellectual property attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer you're likely to get there, is that anyone can file a patent based on anything.  Indeed, the third party may even be able to *obtain a patent* based on your idea, though there are procedures you can undertake in hopes of preventing that outcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Improvements to an idea typically are patentable, if the combination of the improvement with the original idea is &quot;non-obvious.&quot;  Relevant law is 35 USC 102-103, which you can find at law.cornell.edu. A big caveat is that if the idea is &quot;abstract,&quot; i.e., not perceived as sufficiently &quot;technological,&quot; then it (and the improvement) may not be patentable.  35 USC 101.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Creative commons license doesn't have any impact on patentability - it's your prior disclosure of the idea that limits whether a patent can be obtained.  Whether CCL would affect *enforceability* of a patent based on the open-sourced idea, is a question sometimes kicked around but not yet definitively answered.  The closest relevant law (that I know of) is Jacobsen v Katzer, which is well-described on wikipedia among many other places." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4163" RevisionGUID="554205f1-3aca-460c-a918-189abb1bb56b" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" Text="If memory serves Mad Magazine 40 years ago included small vinyl record he in magazine. May want to contact giz wiz twit " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9545" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4163" RevisionGUID="fe377c79-ce53-4cb3-983e-2eb1c4928d4f" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9546" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3884" RevisionGUID="06ee33b7-618b-40ad-97e3-7f801e7ce1b9" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9547" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3885" RevisionGUID="5560aca9-e8f1-4e91-8df4-c3e35801dc3e" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9548" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3886" RevisionGUID="bb07e718-238f-4484-b6ce-7441ab7cd9ec" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9549" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3887" RevisionGUID="f4287ca9-c100-43c2-b076-efb6384d2d2c" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9550" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3888" RevisionGUID="84c3c497-afec-4958-8884-06e39a12487f" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9551" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3889" RevisionGUID="efbb8c78-4291-4be6-873c-a6e1121dbe2b" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9552" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3890" RevisionGUID="c48afd4d-eb6a-40c5-972f-93aa4d9aedb1" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9553" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3892" RevisionGUID="a935c99b-b3b4-4027-b0a6-2f59b59a35f6" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9554" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3894" RevisionGUID="0b1101e1-aec5-4e64-8027-daa0de8e3505" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9555" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3895" RevisionGUID="218af67a-4971-4153-b7df-31c0f512c780" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9556" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3896" RevisionGUID="e8839e6b-161e-4895-a6fe-27908f120f6e" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9557" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3897" RevisionGUID="6023d218-3922-491c-92ac-4093a6f88152" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9558" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3898" RevisionGUID="ce8d8fb4-8d31-4a1f-8d0c-ee9721053092" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9559" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3899" RevisionGUID="363ebd47-5357-410c-aee3-7b2fb05c819c" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9560" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3900" RevisionGUID="bc7fe799-4e60-416b-bfd9-e9be527fe665" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9561" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3901" RevisionGUID="189bee75-6342-4c75-9f06-04479074b6b1" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9562" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3902" RevisionGUID="c09a7003-4259-4b62-834d-7f4e31855781" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9563" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3903" RevisionGUID="9c2f2625-0ff1-4f2c-adbb-13675423e2c4" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9564" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3904" RevisionGUID="a7cd3982-1895-4669-9a41-1469251b1f7c" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9565" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3905" RevisionGUID="f8b7f7e4-1689-48e2-9ee9-ffc6bf0d8ae2" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9566" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3906" RevisionGUID="91ff3676-3f99-4f29-b9b3-7b395c362e75" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9567" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3907" RevisionGUID="1778a664-36c1-41f1-95c9-2d29dd4019e8" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9568" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3908" RevisionGUID="2b93da18-4ae6-44a9-92a7-3b5ca8bdda18" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9569" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3909" RevisionGUID="add57d9f-a548-4d43-a201-c1f2cd32e2bc" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9570" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3911" RevisionGUID="bc9019b4-277e-42c2-87b6-82bc09f81092" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9571" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3913" RevisionGUID="df1d431b-cf7d-4629-a35c-d290df703523" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9572" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3914" RevisionGUID="62b13061-6c38-4a43-974a-808b3f821b76" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9573" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3915" RevisionGUID="1bf8cfa2-e429-4250-8dbb-d0756bc63e00" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9574" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3916" RevisionGUID="f1c45bfa-7cda-4091-8254-e05fb4fc1057" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9575" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3917" RevisionGUID="a9bd2d42-8e50-4d02-93e6-5644f00a3c56" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9576" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3918" RevisionGUID="7720ccdd-c57e-4f99-a683-1a5000fefbd5" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9577" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3919" RevisionGUID="7096703b-f703-4d06-bcd2-24b4f5d242fa" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9578" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3933" RevisionGUID="690007d6-32a9-421e-ac3c-fac24945555d" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9579" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3934" RevisionGUID="c7096411-900c-4d85-93db-7eec95ec2e58" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9580" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3935" RevisionGUID="1042a3fc-73b3-4b81-b5d9-6cc7cc487b85" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9581" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3937" RevisionGUID="a7946a19-3aa3-4cb2-9e15-17c31052e143" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9582" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3938" RevisionGUID="98fb1813-4832-451c-b96e-88a418f7cd36" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9583" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3939" RevisionGUID="ab539ac3-e9c5-4203-b737-f6dcbe76ad17" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9584" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3940" RevisionGUID="ab8fe040-6ef9-469e-a2fc-9239faf058b9" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9585" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3941" RevisionGUID="3e882575-b8c2-4cb4-b48f-9fbb215fd9eb" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9586" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3942" RevisionGUID="67dd168c-f0c5-4d83-93dc-fadff6c2663c" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9587" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3946" RevisionGUID="90fcc090-3832-489b-b036-feb0e2c382b8" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9588" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3947" RevisionGUID="b771525a-4232-4e34-aa13-01bd0767ceff" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9589" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3949" RevisionGUID="1de203f4-6c3f-47bf-b446-9637d7ad4efe" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9590" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3951" RevisionGUID="79b60f99-90e7-402f-a7b9-4e7d5bc68d0e" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9591" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3956" RevisionGUID="795ad057-17d6-4aa7-910a-0bcc0a237523" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9592" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3957" RevisionGUID="a7de9fec-ee89-45b2-ae1c-c838e8d69e52" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9593" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3958" RevisionGUID="8874d67f-2aec-4067-93a7-12bc670b8726" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9594" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3959" RevisionGUID="1f2528e4-2148-42bf-b7d2-c45372143f27" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9595" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3961" RevisionGUID="cd646932-f4a0-477e-8a6f-048b4890f3ad" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9596" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3962" RevisionGUID="baebd40c-3364-4a7f-8f55-270003172acc" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9597" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3963" RevisionGUID="2692424f-0929-4857-afc9-2fe5140a5630" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9598" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3964" RevisionGUID="16cb5bd7-b830-4e54-8e02-ce08b6c89b46" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9599" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3965" RevisionGUID="d142a78a-4814-4017-aa8f-143a8dcffc64" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9600" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3966" RevisionGUID="7f63cbf1-b9f8-4589-8eaf-ab8c80593d6b" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9601" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3969" RevisionGUID="bfd6728c-219b-4cd9-8574-ce4d4ce25dca" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9602" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3973" RevisionGUID="fe238c7c-5dbb-4b98-8b1b-66503e7fa2c2" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9603" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3974" RevisionGUID="7f14a941-e745-4a9a-a454-1e23117c93ff" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9604" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3975" RevisionGUID="f3fe2a07-50a1-4d3f-941f-c0faccc1c6ae" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9605" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3977" RevisionGUID="f603fa82-33c9-4efa-929f-66a11e318791" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9606" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3979" RevisionGUID="89f3c8af-6be9-4e5e-a640-e6b0e93ec3c7" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9607" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3981" RevisionGUID="ff2c4eeb-5236-450e-ba5e-2f77518ebd2b" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9608" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3982" RevisionGUID="048bfee6-f696-4cb0-a5cd-bc8de457d7c0" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9609" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3983" RevisionGUID="fd4a0cdf-d3c1-4625-96d3-865fb64b4424" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9610" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3987" RevisionGUID="a585823e-d5b3-40e2-aa44-e23e82ff4d70" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9611" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3988" RevisionGUID="d521c9f6-201f-4364-bdcc-16503791321b" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9612" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3993" RevisionGUID="7d4a44dd-64e9-4d21-a542-9d330ae3e368" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9613" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3995" RevisionGUID="3872c297-fe95-4c5a-b56a-a2a1fa5565ba" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9614" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3999" RevisionGUID="30b9b91d-f697-4edb-91d8-b1fe8f408fcd" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9615" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4007" RevisionGUID="fc71b6c8-e4cb-4e36-a2ee-0a4772486787" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9617" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4011" RevisionGUID="c0d5ab19-8ab8-49e4-bbc4-7167372d8f9f" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9618" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4012" RevisionGUID="cb0bc34c-109e-4a24-85f9-2323b6a44aa7" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9619" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4013" RevisionGUID="1627317d-2c6d-497c-85cc-851898b0563d" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9620" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4014" RevisionGUID="9bec2399-2ae8-4e87-bf6e-e0d0eed42594" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9621" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4016" RevisionGUID="b4857ea5-5b4d-4956-b7b8-9cfaf25dbec7" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9622" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4021" RevisionGUID="eb27a439-ba16-4d3a-b7af-0611a2c79f00" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9623" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4029" RevisionGUID="4ac0756c-3ce8-4b44-8d8c-85305c6e5e98" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9624" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4038" RevisionGUID="fca890bb-f525-41df-bc41-6a9b9bc09419" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9625" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4041" RevisionGUID="ceb23936-e5c1-4649-b303-844c0c98ff13" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9626" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4047" RevisionGUID="deb78b63-1ba6-4b05-85ce-3b7be05bb02c" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9627" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4050" RevisionGUID="429d8977-8355-4890-835d-5178081619a8" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9628" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4058" RevisionGUID="1872efe1-f950-44e7-8b02-dbbd626fea31" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9629" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4065" RevisionGUID="d8823258-bddd-48d9-a816-c856d2bc64cf" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9630" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4066" RevisionGUID="80c38571-cc75-4a8b-a415-6538a8c6dc61" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9631" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4077" RevisionGUID="a39a342f-d2af-4e21-a13a-a9f3ef2efd34" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9632" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4084" RevisionGUID="8feea7a4-7f9b-496a-8034-a0b100eb4df4" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9633" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4100" RevisionGUID="4f7307f3-30aa-4c8c-be0e-80832a3b2239" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9634" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4101" RevisionGUID="189588a1-97be-43d5-8cf6-587998ac2a05" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9635" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4102" RevisionGUID="e9c0390c-b1de-4956-8848-2ee9af2c222e" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9636" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4104" RevisionGUID="1c556851-5aa6-43ef-a74c-af77e7aaad30" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9637" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4106" RevisionGUID="55fc0f29-c11a-4d2d-998d-2f7423ef3869" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9638" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4128" RevisionGUID="b1a6b107-b87a-49a3-b5ac-a377bb2e98b8" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9640" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4131" RevisionGUID="e5dfbbd2-bd3f-424d-b84a-97032abf55e3" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9641" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4132" RevisionGUID="f12bd7cb-ca8b-4c42-bcc7-159400057d92" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9642" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4145" RevisionGUID="81d3a79d-6686-4d09-bb91-b4106bfad3b0" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9643" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4150" RevisionGUID="f1cca9d5-73e6-4a39-9c19-1d515919e0a2" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9644" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4156" RevisionGUID="ab790031-f8e6-4af1-ab84-d7a0779c244f" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:14:32.953" UserId="4179" />
  <row Id="9645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4163" RevisionGUID="c1cee2ff-cbb2-4748-8d53-52991c415845" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:21:01.720" UserId="4179" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="If memory serves Mad Magazine 40 years ago included small vinyl record in some issues of their magazine. May want to contact giz wiz twit network Eddie debartolo. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4164" RevisionGUID="9ece3ee9-acf8-45a2-b514-b784dc0e4504" CreationDate="2013-07-04T01:12:23.933" UserId="4180" Text="I have a project for a product concept that is only at its genesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before to go any further, I thought it would be wise first to know what options I had to protect my idea before to manufacture it and commercialize it. Let me put it this way. Let's say my concept is the Crocs shoes and that it doesn't exist yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mind to be copied however, I don't want another company to block my idea by patenting it right after I launched it. How unfair would that be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I patent it I will be protected but fighting against the copy is a very hard work that takes a full time job and most importantly, costs a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A strategy I'd rather be inclined to go for would be to let the idea open, patent free, fighting to be the number one in the distribution of my brand and make copies of my own brand (no counterfeit) to conquer the masses. Nobody can protect it but anybody can produce it. Why putting so much energy in defending an idea where the globalization makes it even harder when you can turn this energy to your advantage by using the globalization to spin a web. In other words, being a conqueror rather than a defender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to have your opinion about this strategy and also a possible list of alternatives that you think would be a good compromise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks a lot in advance for all your suggestions and opinions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9647" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4164" RevisionGUID="9ece3ee9-acf8-45a2-b514-b784dc0e4504" CreationDate="2013-07-04T01:12:23.933" UserId="4180" Text="Best compromise to protect a product concept when putting into market" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9648" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4164" RevisionGUID="9ece3ee9-acf8-45a2-b514-b784dc0e4504" CreationDate="2013-07-04T01:12:23.933" UserId="4180" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;design&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4163" RevisionGUID="36d9e5fc-e32e-4a65-bff0-0c05d953b5ac" CreationDate="2013-07-04T04:46:08.070" UserId="4179" Comment="added 335 characters in body" Text="If memory serves Mad Magazine 40 years ago included small vinyl record in some issues of their magazine. May want to contact giz wiz twit network Eddie debartolo. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: June 1973&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mad Magazine Presents: Gall in the Family Fare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iowCW6s7HMc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It came as Flexi-Disc 7 in. soft vinyl as a part of the magazine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_(magazine)#Recordings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's subscription, and it's episodic in nature (it's a magazine on LP, and in 1996, CD)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4165" RevisionGUID="265b0de3-045e-4483-99b9-9ecb086e4e75" CreationDate="2013-07-04T05:34:46.313" UserId="3076" Text="Taking the portion of this post that might be seen as question about the patent system:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;You can disclose your ideas, designs and product plan details in various ways to try to make them readily findable by patent examiners doing searches. One defensive publication site is IP.com. It is fee based. But the best way to have a high probability of a patent examiner finding your defensive publications when examining someone else's application is to actually file them as (full) patent applications requesting early publication. You can expressly abandon the application and never risk getting a patent yourself. Of course each of your applications will have filing fees (about $700) and early publication will cost $300 more. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do not make your disclosure &quot;findable&quot; enough a patent could be granted to someone else that shouldn't have been. It will be presumed valid and take work and money to try to neutralize it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if you have a breakthrough idea, many people will probably come with valuable improvements that are seen as non-obvious over your original concept. They will be be able to get solid  patents on those improvements and, if people prefer the improved versions, your vision will be significantly diluted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4165" RevisionGUID="f49e2f52-26e2-4717-a665-9a3e2dd3de8c" CreationDate="2013-07-04T06:26:25.387" UserId="3076" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="Taking the portion of this post that might be seen as question about the patent system:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;You can disclose your ideas, designs and product plan details in various ways to try to make them readily findable by patent examiners doing searches. One defensive publication site is IP.com. It is fee based. But the best way to have a high probability of a patent examiner finding your defensive publications when examining someone else's application is to actually file them as (full) patent applications requesting early publication. You can expressly abandon the application and never risk getting a patent yourself. Of course each of your applications will have filing fees (about $700) and early publication will cost $300 more. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do not make your disclosure &quot;findable&quot; enough a patent could be granted to someone else that shouldn't have been. It will be presumed valid and take work and money to try to neutralize it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if you have a breakthrough idea, many people will probably come with valuable improvements that are seen as non-obvious over your original concept. They will be be able to get solid  patents on those improvements and, if people prefer the improved versions, your vision of enabling a completely open marketplace will be significantly diluted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4164" RevisionGUID="ae4253e0-df25-4d0c-955a-73947e85881b" CreationDate="2013-07-04T06:52:49.693" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 828 characters in body; edited title" Text="I have an idea for a new product but I have not yet manufactured or commercialized it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am concerned that another company could block me from selling my product by **filing for a patent on my idea** right after I launch my product.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, would publishing the idea prior to releasing the product prevent another company from patenting the idea ahead of me?  I'm not interested in a getting a patent myself, simply preventing another company from blocking me on my own idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are my options?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9653" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4164" RevisionGUID="ae4253e0-df25-4d0c-955a-73947e85881b" CreationDate="2013-07-04T06:52:49.693" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 828 characters in body; edited title" Text="Should I publish my idea prior to releasing a product to prevent a competitor from filing a blocking patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9658" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4164" RevisionGUID="6f584411-3551-454f-8d69-77bc6b67d33b" CreationDate="2013-07-04T14:27:19.227" UserId="1259" Comment="added blocking-patent tag, seems appropriate" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;design&gt;&lt;blocking-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4165" RevisionGUID="e551d194-47bb-408d-936d-b01a8004eb28" CreationDate="2013-07-04T17:22:18.633" UserId="3076" Comment="Restated for a beginner" Text="You can disclose your ideas, designs and product plan details in various ways to try to make them readily findable by patent examiners doing searches. One defensive publication site is IP.com. It is fee based. But the best way to have a high probability of a patent examiner finding your defensive publications when examining someone else's application is to actually file them as (full) patent applications requesting early publication. You can expressly abandon the application and never risk getting a patent yourself. Of course each of your applications will have filing fees (about $700) and early publication will cost $300 more. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do not make your disclosure &quot;findable&quot; enough a patent could be granted to someone else that shouldn't have been. It will be presumed valid and take work and money to try to neutralize it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if you have a breakthrough idea, many people will probably come with valuable improvements that are seen as non-obvious over your original concept. They will be be able to get solid  patents on those improvements and, if people prefer the improved versions, your vision of enabling a completely open marketplace will be significantly diluted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clarification (simplified and therefore not 100% precise)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone can file a patent application on anything but if they are not the actual inventor they shouldn't get a patent. And even if they did truley think of it themselves, they should not get a patent if the things they are claiming as their own are something that has been already done or written about. They also shouldn't get a patent if they are claiming things that are obvious based on what has already been done or written about. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the patent examination process is imperfect and not **everything** similar that has been done before will come to light in the USPTO searching. (That is a prime motivation for the existence of this site.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if you do not want a patent but also do not want your invention, and obvious variations of it, patented by anyone else you need to be as sure as you can that your contributions are not just &quot;out there in the public domain&quot; but written about in detail somewhere that the patent examiners will be looking. Even if your product is on the market and you have a web site that does not mean the examiner of someone else's application will stumble across it. TO BE CONTINUED.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4165" RevisionGUID="783bf634-d444-41da-b9e6-a597a209e335" CreationDate="2013-07-04T18:13:11.027" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1239 characters in body" Text="You can disclose your ideas, designs and product plan details in various ways to try to make them readily findable by patent examiners doing searches. One defensive publication site is IP.com. It is fee based. But the best way to have a high probability of a patent examiner finding your defensive publications when examining someone else's application is to actually file them as (full) patent applications requesting early publication. You can expressly abandon the application and never risk getting a patent yourself. Of course each of your applications will have filing fees (about $700) and early publication will cost $300 more. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do not make your disclosure &quot;findable&quot; enough a patent could be granted to someone else that shouldn't have been. It will be presumed valid and take work and money to try to neutralize it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if you have a breakthrough idea, many people will probably come with valuable improvements that are seen as non-obvious over your original concept. They will be be able to get solid  patents on those improvements and, if people prefer the improved versions, your vision of enabling a completely open marketplace will be significantly diluted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clarification (simplified and therefore not 100% precise)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone can file a patent application on anything but if they are not the actual inventor they shouldn't get a patent. And even if they did truley think of it themselves, they should not get a patent if the things they are claiming as their own are something that has been already done or written about. They also shouldn't get a patent if they are claiming things that are obvious based on what has already been done or written about. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the patent examination process is imperfect and not **everything** similar that has been done before will come to light in the USPTO searching. (That is a prime motivation for the existence of this site.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if you do not want a patent but also do not want your invention, and obvious variations of it, patented by anyone else you need to be as sure as you can that your contributions are not just &quot;out there in the public domain&quot; but written about in detail somewhere that the patent examiners will be looking. Even if your product is on the market and you have a web site that does not mean the examiner of someone else's application will stumble across it. If they don't, the other person could get a patent on exactly your thing or on a variation on your thing that is obvious in light of your work. This is all separate from the issue of the other person knowingly ripping you off or innocently indecently inventing. The patent exam action process has no real way to look into that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now someone has an issued patent and all patents are legally &quot;born valid&quot;. That means the burden of proof that their patent was incorrectly granted is on you or whoever else is in the marketplace. Even though you don't want a patent you can still get caught up in the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is all motivation for you to publish your ideas, designs and teachings in a way that a patent examiner is very very likely to come across them in their searching. The beat way to do that is to actually file a patent application. After it is published by the USPTO it should be found by an examiner preventing your idea and obvious various of it from being patented by someone else. Since you do not actually want a patent you can abandon the application and it will remain in all the patent document databases as a published application but you will not have the costs of actually pursuing to the point of getting a patent. TO BE CONTINUED.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4165" RevisionGUID="c8d3ec9e-b6a1-4cfb-96d1-89bab2038e67" CreationDate="2013-07-04T18:33:31.893" UserId="3076" Comment="Added a simpler explanation" Text="You can disclose your ideas, designs and product plan details in various ways to try to make them readily findable by patent examiners doing searches. One defensive publication site is IP.com. It is fee based. But the best way to have a high probability of a patent examiner finding your defensive publications when examining someone else's application is to actually file them as (full) patent applications requesting early publication. You can expressly abandon the application and never risk getting a patent yourself. Of course each of your applications will have filing fees (about $700) and early publication will cost $300 more. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do not make your disclosure &quot;findable&quot; enough a patent could be granted to someone else that shouldn't have been. It will be presumed valid and take work and money to try to neutralize it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if you have a breakthrough idea, many people will probably come with valuable improvements that are seen as non-obvious over your original concept. They will be be able to get solid  patents on those improvements and, if people prefer the improved versions, your vision of enabling a completely open marketplace will be significantly diluted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clarification (simplified and therefore not 100% precise)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone can file a patent application on anything but if they are not the actual inventor they shouldn't get a patent. And even if they did truly think of it themselves, they should not get a patent if the things they are claiming as their own are something that has been already done or written about. They also shouldn't get a patent if they are claiming things that are obvious based on what has already been done or written about. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the patent examination process is imperfect and not **everything** similar that has been done before will come to light in the USPTO searching. (That is a prime motivation for the existence of this site.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if you do not want a patent but also do not want your invention, and obvious variations of it, patented by anyone else you need to be as sure as you can that your contributions are not just &quot;out there in the public domain&quot; but written about in detail somewhere that the patent examiners will be looking. Even if your product is on the market and you have a web site that does not mean the examiner of someone else's application will stumble across it. If they don't, the other person could get a patent on exactly your thing or on a variation on your thing that is obvious in light of your work. This is all separate from the issue of the other person knowingly ripping you off or innocently indecently inventing. The patent exam action process has no real way to look into that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now someone has an issued patent and all patents are legally &quot;born valid&quot;. That means the burden of proof that their patent was incorrectly granted is on you or whoever else is in the marketplace. Even though you don't want a patent you can still get caught up in the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is all motivation for you to publish your ideas, designs and teachings in a way that a patent examiner is very, very likely to come across them in their searching. The beat way to do that is to actually file a patent application. After it is published by the USPTO it should be found by a future examiner, preventing your idea and obvious various of it from being patented by someone else. Since you do not actually want a patent you can abandon the application and it will remain in all the patent document databases as a published application but you will not have the costs of actually pursuing to the point of getting a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However that does not prevent people from getting legit patents on **non-obvious** extensions, variations, improvements of your idea. That would not stop you from making and selling your original idea but could prevent you from evolving your product (that is why it is a &quot;blocking&quot; patent) in a way that responds to customer needs but is not technically obvious from your original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make a broad region of variations obvious you will want to not just ship your product but somewhere publish a document that covers as many variations as you ca think of now. Then to get a legit patent someone needs something non-obvious in light of your writings not just in light of the product itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4150" RevisionGUID="38599936-ed5b-45af-bc0e-d3fc28c384cc" CreationDate="2013-07-04T18:38:25.397" UserId="3076" Comment="Removed signature" Text="If you want to go WAY BACK then John Giorno's Dial A Poem, 1969 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dial-A-Poem. The first of the 'dial up for spoken word/poetry' - the subscription being the phone number, the delivery mechanism the line, the device is the phone. As a delivery system it seems FAR closer to podcasting than sending tapes in the mail!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4171" RevisionGUID="f3eb0526-a09a-4a0d-a874-50a704b93308" CreationDate="2013-07-06T10:41:14.403" UserId="4099" Text="&lt;b&gt;An aside in a 1986 Usenet post to net.music.synth&lt;/b&gt; about &quot;Audio Data Reduction Techniques&quot; covers many of the claims in the patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Applications for compressed audio on nonmechanical media certainly&#xD;&#xA;exist (e.g. in toys), and I would not be surprised to learn that music&#xD;&#xA;distributors soon might download compressed audio to digital jukeboxes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this 1986 comment suggests:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Audio stored on central servers (implied)&#xD;&#xA;* The audio is compressed&#xD;&#xA;* The audio is episodic (given the term &quot;music distributors&quot; and the fact the proposal is about jukeboxes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However the proposal does not mention URLs, or additional descriptive text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See https://groups.google.com/d/msg/net.music.synth/2FJEnQNF3bY/vEvkQK9gPQQJ&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9680" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4171" RevisionGUID="eef68303-e9e6-4bf0-b1d8-430e0e7769f9" CreationDate="2013-07-06T10:41:14.403" UserId="4099" />
  <row Id="9681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4172" RevisionGUID="4fff6c63-8038-4464-a588-fb2df0c26a9e" CreationDate="2013-07-06T10:53:14.807" UserId="4099" Text="&lt;b&gt;A 1991 posting to newsgroup misc.handicap on &quot;audio readers&quot;&lt;/b&gt; states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This same newspaper is starting an online service where anyone could call the newspaper's computer and download whatever they would like to read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The system described therefore covers downloading episodic audio content from a remote server. (Given the early date, presumably via direct modem connection to the remote server). Without further information on the system, it is not possible to say how the audio content was indexed and whether it had accompanying text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.handicap/NKjlMLsUsZQ/XJCDoSIx0EcJ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9682" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4172" RevisionGUID="c4dc6b32-ede7-4d5c-bb3f-611edf010d0c" CreationDate="2013-07-06T10:53:14.807" UserId="4099" />
  <row Id="9683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4173" RevisionGUID="31a25d88-c05b-47db-92c2-b1c88ee0e7ca" CreationDate="2013-07-06T11:02:56.843" UserId="4099" Text="&lt;b&gt;A May 1995 announcement in newsgroup rec.music.celtic&lt;/b&gt; on &quot;Mulligans Bar Amsterdam music list&quot; provides an exact match to the patent claims from more than a year before filing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mulligans Irish Music Bar in Amsterdam is now on the Net with their&#xD;&#xA;monthly music list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt; URL:http://www.nikhefk.nikhef.nl/~keeshu/mulligans/mulmonth.html&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From this page you can download audio samples (AIFC) of several of the&#xD;&#xA;perfoming musicians/groups.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Audio content was downloadable from a remote server&#xD;&#xA;* A system of URLs on that server indexed said content&#xD;&#xA;* Accompanying descriptive text about the bands was provided&#xD;&#xA;* The page was a &quot;monthly music list&quot; describing each month's performers, so the audio content was episodic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.celtic/H6g22fnMNKo&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9684" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4173" RevisionGUID="6882fbd8-5ba5-4be5-b01e-101520748e9c" CreationDate="2013-07-06T11:02:56.843" UserId="4099" />
  <row Id="9693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4177" RevisionGUID="40d2113e-802d-474a-bd1d-5169afd9e7e6" CreationDate="2013-07-07T13:31:02.127" UserId="4192" Text="My grandfather, Norbert R. Hahn, holds a patent dated 8/20/40 for the mascara brush.  Other information, Des. 122,019.  Can someone help me locate more information regarding this patent?  I hold the actual patent and prototype.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9694" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4177" RevisionGUID="40d2113e-802d-474a-bd1d-5169afd9e7e6" CreationDate="2013-07-07T13:31:02.127" UserId="4192" Text="Patent DES. 122,019 8/20/40" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9695" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4177" RevisionGUID="40d2113e-802d-474a-bd1d-5169afd9e7e6" CreationDate="2013-07-07T13:31:02.127" UserId="4192" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4180" RevisionGUID="6a602fef-ae13-423d-b937-3ecb63784471" CreationDate="2013-07-07T15:16:37.800" UserDisplayName="user4194" Text="Let's say John applied for a patent in Germany on Jul 7, 2012, but did not apply for a patent of the same invention, that is, a patent which John could claim priority, in the US until Jul 7, 2013. Now, the German patent application is going to be published on Jan 7, 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this situation, if Bob, who has independently invented what is same as the invention disclosed in John's German patent application, applies for a patent in the US with his own invention, within Jan 7, 2014, is Bob's application patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9703" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4180" RevisionGUID="6a602fef-ae13-423d-b937-3ecb63784471" CreationDate="2013-07-07T15:16:37.800" UserDisplayName="user4194" Text="Is it possible to apply for a patent, if same invention was applied in other country by other but not applied for this country?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9704" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4180" RevisionGUID="6a602fef-ae13-423d-b937-3ecb63784471" CreationDate="2013-07-07T15:16:37.800" UserDisplayName="user4194" Text="&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;foreign&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4181" RevisionGUID="474adf8a-a606-4f67-a0ad-5c4ddf154dc4" CreationDate="2013-07-07T17:19:00.187" UserId="427" Text="The wording of this patent leaves me to believe that any location aware game would be infringing, such as [Global Outbreak][1] or even [Geocaching][2].  Is this the case or am I interpreting this patent too broadly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.redrobot.globaloutbreak&amp;hl=en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.geocaching.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9710" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4181" RevisionGUID="474adf8a-a606-4f67-a0ad-5c4ddf154dc4" CreationDate="2013-07-07T17:19:00.187" UserId="427" Text="Would this patent cover all location aware games?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9711" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4181" RevisionGUID="474adf8a-a606-4f67-a0ad-5c4ddf154dc4" CreationDate="2013-07-07T17:19:00.187" UserId="427" Text="&lt;us20070087828&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4182" RevisionGUID="73ba6a13-d5db-4f5f-94a4-329a6feb2dc6" CreationDate="2013-07-07T17:47:14.003" UserId="3359" Text="To what extent is a photographed disclosure to the Deputy Secretary of Defense public?  And what would you consider to be public?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, see the attached photo from the Secretary of Defense taken while visiting Theranos.  The device on the table is clearly public.  The original photo can certainly be enlarged.  What would you consider to be public?  To the extent the disclosure is limited to the picture, is it the reduced version on Flickr or the original his res version?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does your company limit what employees can photograph?  Or as practitioners do you ask for copies of photographs now that all phones have cameras? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.flickr.com/photos/depsecdef/8660144172/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9713" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4182" RevisionGUID="73ba6a13-d5db-4f5f-94a4-329a6feb2dc6" CreationDate="2013-07-07T17:47:14.003" UserId="3359" Text="Disclosure to Goverment as a &quot;public&quot; disclosure? Theranos and Deputy Secretary of Defense" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9714" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4182" RevisionGUID="73ba6a13-d5db-4f5f-94a4-329a6feb2dc6" CreationDate="2013-07-07T17:47:14.003" UserId="3359" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;public-domain&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4183" RevisionGUID="459713cf-64dc-4a32-b79f-9295bd10d5b2" CreationDate="2013-07-07T18:35:59.643" UserId="3076" Text="It is for **a** mascara brush not **the** mascara brush. Specifically, as a design patent, it is for the design or &quot;look&quot; pictured. &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An earlier design of a mascar brush is [D109634][2]. You can see the patent you referenced on google patents [Norbert Halm][3]. If you are interested it should be possible to order a copy of all of the correspondence between the applicant and the USPTO.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/0O9Nq.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/USD109634&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/USD122019" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4184" RevisionGUID="1621c511-d5ea-4dfa-bd9c-07150d60c520" CreationDate="2013-07-07T19:31:14.450" UserId="3076" Text="A question for the new post-AIA patent bar exam?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, Bob should not get a patent. Under the post-AIA, post March 15th 2013, section 102(a)(2) the fact that the filing date of John's preceded Bob's makes John's patent prior art to Bob's even though John's was not filed in the US. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the old section 102(e) that was in effect for applications  filed on or after March 16 2012, foreign filings did not get a 102(e) date, only US filings (and PCT filings at a the time they where translated into English and the US national stage entry fees where paid)got a 102(e) priority date. However, pre-AIA, an interference might be declared between John's US application and Bob's. Under 102(g)(1) the issue would be Bob's **invention date**, not his filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Separately, if you were trying to concoct a hypothetical where John missed his Paris 1 year priority date you need to make John's US filing date July 8th 2013. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above answer may or may not be 100% correct. I did not check to see what dates might be weekends or federal holidays. You can read about this specifically on page 63 of [UNDERSTANDING THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR PATENTING][1] in an issue of the AIPLA Quarterly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/armitage_pdf.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4184" RevisionGUID="cbffeda7-c5b2-4480-9755-8235fbad53b5" CreationDate="2013-07-07T19:38:04.223" UserId="3076" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="A question for the new post-AIA patent bar exam?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, Bob should not get a patent. Under the post-AIA, post March 15th 2013, section 102(a)(2) the fact that the filing date of John's preceded Bob's makes John's patent prior art to Bob's even though John's was not filed in the US. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the old section 102(e) that was in effect for applications  filed on or after March 16 2012, foreign filings did not get a 102(e) date, only US filings (and PCT filings at a the time they where translated into English and the US national stage entry fees where paid)got a 102(e) priority date. However, pre-AIA, an interference might be declared between John's US application and Bob's. Under 102(g)(1) the issue would be Bob's **invention date**, not his filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Separately, if you were trying to concoct a hypothetical where John missed his Paris 1 year priority date you need to make John's US filing date July 8th 2013. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The un-asked part of this answer that imagines a pre-AIA scenario might not be 100% correct. I was taking the opportunity to demonstrate that patent law is deep, subtle and arcane. You can read about new 102(a)(1) vs old 102(e) + 102(g)(1) specifically on page 63 of [UNDERSTANDING THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR PATENTING][1] in a 2012 issue of the AIPLA Quarterly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/armitage_pdf.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4185" RevisionGUID="fb66b5ed-017b-46c5-9fc1-27e5a2ba51d9" CreationDate="2013-07-07T19:48:03.230" UserId="3076" Text="The question isn't &quot;disclosed to the government&quot;. Submitting to the USPTO is literally disclosing to the government. Working under confidentiality as a government contractor might involve disclosing to the government.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who might be in a photo would not be relevant. What is relevant is whether or not something ready for patenting was offered for sale, was explained, was used, was entirely under the control of the inventor, was under an understanding of confidentiality. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4185" RevisionGUID="90935d97-c1b2-4cbc-b365-5f10e341ecee" CreationDate="2013-07-07T20:06:49.960" UserId="3076" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="The question isn't &quot;disclosed to the government&quot;. Submitting to the USPTO is literally disclosing to the government. Working under confidentiality as a government contractor might involve disclosing to the government.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who might be in a photo would not be relevant. What is relevant is whether or not something ready for patenting was offered for sale, was explained, was used, was entirely under the control of the inventor, was under an understanding of confidentiality., etc. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4186" RevisionGUID="10fa34e5-b476-410a-b76e-7fa39345e900" CreationDate="2013-07-07T22:14:32.747" UserId="1777" Text="The scope of this patent application actually covers (at least) ALL computer games. While the independent claims mention &quot;location aware games&quot; in their category, no corresponding features are found in the claims themselves. Claim 1 only recites moving &quot;virtual effects&quot; to &quot;locations&quot; on the GAMEBOARD using, among other things, a mouse. In effect, this is anticipated by every video game known. The same appears to be true for the other independent claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No patent has been granted, BTW. USPTO PAIR states &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4181" RevisionGUID="2103c070-c9d2-44f1-92a1-56d87a3e8fc8" CreationDate="2013-07-08T01:47:52.420" UserId="3076" Comment="changed to be clear it is a question about an application - not about a patent." Text="The wording of this patent application leaves me to believe that any location aware game would be doing what it claims, such as [Global Outbreak][1] or even [Geocaching][2].  Is this the case or am I interpreting this patent too broadly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.redrobot.globaloutbreak&amp;hl=en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.geocaching.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9722" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4181" RevisionGUID="2103c070-c9d2-44f1-92a1-56d87a3e8fc8" CreationDate="2013-07-08T01:47:52.420" UserId="3076" Comment="changed to be clear it is a question about an application - not about a patent." Text="Would this patent application over all location aware games?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9723" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4181" RevisionGUID="d08ae0e3-e769-444c-be90-354b80104a79" CreationDate="2013-07-08T02:54:31.357" UserId="427" Comment="Fixing the typo injected into the title" Text="Would this patent application cover all location aware games?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4181" RevisionGUID="2dd057d9-d14b-4369-8333-52b2746ff9af" CreationDate="2013-07-08T10:51:06.623" UserId="1767" Comment="Added detail on proposed independent claim." Text="**Title** Computer system for creating and playing location aware games&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Publication number** US20070087828 A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The wording of this patent application: [US20070087828][3] leads me to believe that any location aware game would be doing what it claims, such as [Global Outbreak][1] or even [Geocaching][2].  Is this the case or am I interpreting this patent too broadly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first independent claim of [US20070087828][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Computer system for creating and playing location aware games comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - computing device with display;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - plurality of virtual effects having size and interaction rules;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a user interface to permit a user to select and view a gameboard based off of an inputted location and assign virtual effects to locations within the gameboard;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a storage means for storing said gameboard and said plurality of virtual effects;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a second user interface to permit a user to view said gameboard and said plurality of virtual effects while playing a game;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a controller to control the location of one or more virtual effects during game play based on input from at least one of the following: a computer mouse, a screen stylus and a location receiver;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a timing device used by the controller to establish cadence of play.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.redrobot.globaloutbreak&amp;hl=en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.geocaching.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20070087828" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4182" RevisionGUID="3b1fbcc7-dccc-4146-aee6-cccd3a544571" CreationDate="2013-07-08T11:00:03.313" UserId="1767" Comment="Edited to focus on the public-disclosure aspect of the question and remove the open-ended portions" Text="Is a photograph showing a senior government official, for example, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, viewing a prototype considered evidence of &quot;public disclosure to the government&quot; which would preclude the subsequent filing of a patent on the prototype?  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9730" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4182" RevisionGUID="3b1fbcc7-dccc-4146-aee6-cccd3a544571" CreationDate="2013-07-08T11:00:03.313" UserId="1767" Comment="Edited to focus on the public-disclosure aspect of the question and remove the open-ended portions" Text="Is Disclosure to a Senior Government Official a &quot;Public Disclosure&quot; of an Invention in the US" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4055" RevisionGUID="7e4485ff-e76e-4fb9-a089-399413f25242" CreationDate="2013-07-08T13:03:15.983" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **HELP SAVE MOBILE PURCHASES** - This application from Apple seeks to patent a method for purchasing a product in a store using a smartphone! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Nov, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Using a mobile device to obtain a **product identifier** of a product in a store (e.g., a UPC code); and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. On a mobile device, receiving the **product price** from a server; transmitting a **purchase request** to a server; and receiving a **purchase confirmation** from a server;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **an image taken by the camera on the device** to determine the product identifier (e.g. a UPC code or any other product identifier). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PURCHASING A PRODUCT IN A STORE USING A MOBILE DEVICE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for purchasing a product in a store using a mobile phone. The user’s mobile phone sends a **product identifier** for a product offered for sale in a store to a server somewhere.  The mobile phone receives **product information** including the price of the product from the server.  The mobile phone sends a **purchase request** including digital credentials (of any kind) to identify the user.  The mobile device **receives a confirmation** from the server and presents a confirmation to the user that the product has been purchased.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110678 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Apple, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** November, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for purchasing a product by a customer operating a customer mobile device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining, by the customer mobile device, a product identifier for a product offered for sale in a store;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Transmitting, by the customer mobile device, the product identifier to a store server associated with the store;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving, by the customer mobile device, product information from the store server, the product information including a price of the product;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Presenting to the customer, by the customer mobile device, at least some of the received product information, including the price of the product;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Receiving, by the customer mobile device, customer purchasing input, the customer purchasing input including a digital credential for the customer, the digital credential being usable to access a user account record that stores financial account information for a financial account of the customer, the user account record being maintained at an account data server;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Transmitting, by the customer mobile device, a purchase request to the store server, the purchase request including the digital credential, wherein the store server uses the digital credential to obtain the financial account information and uses the financial account information to charge the price of the product to the financial account of the customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Receiving, by the customer mobile device, a purchase confirmation from the store server, the purchase confirmation indicating that the product has been purchased by the customer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. Presenting to the customer, by the customer mobile device, a confirmation message confirming that the purchase transaction for the product has successfully completed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Using a phone to obtain a product identifier (e.g. a UPC code) identifying a product in a store&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Phone sends the product identifier to a server&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Phone receives information about the product identified, including the price&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Phone displays price of product to the user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Customer indicates intent to purchase and provides user information&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Phone sends the purchase request to the server&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Phone receives confirmation of purchase; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. Phone confirms product has been purchased with the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the November, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and including **camera phone** to capture an image of the product identifier (presumably rather than having the user type it in). Extra credit would include systems that do all of the steps above and also involve a cameraphone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Welcome to Our Store&quot; screen shots from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/NT8to.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130110678?dq=us20130110678&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4071" RevisionGUID="50179941-64cd-47e6-8342-48e51b03757d" CreationDate="2013-07-08T14:29:41.740" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **HELP SAVE HOME AUDIO** - This application from Creative Labs seeks to patent the general idea of a self-calibrating audio systems! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.... [HERE!][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining **physical features** around speakers and calibrating at least one of the speakers; where&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **Physical features** are determined by sending a test signal from the speaker and calibrating the speakers based on the test signal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**HINT** - Haven’t self-calibrating speaker systems or networks been around for a while?  Did Dynaudio AIR do this? Can you help find evidence that Dynaudio AIR or any other system did this prior to Dec 2010?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: SELF-CALIBRATING SPEAKER SYSTEMS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalish into English] A method for calibrating multi-speaker audio system wherein an audio test signal is sent from a speaker and the test signal is used to measure a **physical features** of the speaker.  This **physical feature** (for example, volume) is used to calibrate the speaker.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130051572 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Creative Labs, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A calibration method for calibrating a variable number of speakers, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining **physical features** around a location of each of the variable number of speakers and calibrating at least one of the variable number of speakers;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Wherein the **physical features** around a location of each of the variable number of speakers are determinable by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Transmitting an instruction signal, the instruction signal being transmittable from a device which is indicative of listener location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Communicating a **test signal** based on the instruction signal, the **test signal** being communicable from at least one of the variable number of speakers to the device; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Receiving and processing the **test signal** by the device in a manner so as to produce **calibration signals**, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Wherein the **calibration signals** are communicable from the device to at least one of the variable number of speakers so as to calibrate at least one of the variable number of speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for calibrating audio speakers; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining physical features of the audio speakers using an audio test signal from at least one of the speakers;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Using the physical features which have been determined to calibrate at least one of the speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already - haven’t self-calibrating speaker systems or networks been around for a while?  Did Dynaudio AIR do this? Can you help find evidence that Dynaudio AIR or any other system did this prior to Dec 2010?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The method of  self-calibrating speaker systems from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Hrc3R.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130051572&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4068" RevisionGUID="3c627b39-e26f-434f-accc-8f0f5ff97a6f" CreationDate="2013-07-08T14:32:34.097" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **HELP SAVE HOME AUDIO** - This application from Creative Labs seeks to patent the general idea of optimizing audio output in a multi-speaker audio systems! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Comparing performance characteristics among multiple speakers; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Designating a **master speaker** with or without manual intervention; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Including a **bi-directional transceiver** on each speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND where the **performance characteristics** of each speaker are determined by ALSO uses frequency response, maximum sound level, gain, or speaker location, OR where the master speaker contains a microphone as well as speaker&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**HINT** - Did Dynaudio Air do this? Did any PA's in livesound have automatic setup and calibration based on one of the particular speakers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: METHOD FOR OPTIMIZING REPRODUCTION OF AUDIO SIGNALS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for optimizing audio output in a multi-speaker audio system.  The multi-speaker audio system includes a number of speakers, each of which contains a **bi-directional transceiver**.  The **performance characteristics** of each speaker is measured. The characteristics are compared with one another. One speaker is designated a **master speaker**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120148075 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Creative Labs, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for optimizing reproduction of audio signals from an apparatus for audio reproduction with the apparatus for audio reproduction having a variable number of speakers, the method including:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining performance characteristics of each of the variable number of speakers;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Comparing performance characteristics of each of the variable number of speakers with each other; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Designating a master speaker from the variable number of speakers either with or without manual intervention;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Wherein each of the variable number of speakers includes a bi-directional transceiver.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. The **performance characteristics** of each speaker is measured. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The performance characteristics are compared with one another.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. One speaker is designated a **master speaker**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Each speaker in the system contains a **bi-directional transceiver**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and and where **performance characteristics** of each speaker are determined by frequency response, maximum sound level, gain, or speaker location. Extra credit would include systems that do all of the steps above and also involve a one of these methods of measuring performance characteristic of the speakers in the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A &quot;schematic diagram&quot; of each speaker from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/eoBIP.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20120148075&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4188" RevisionGUID="5dd0c98a-0af9-44de-85fb-96a96cb6e811" CreationDate="2013-07-08T15:30:34.780" UserId="4198" Text="If an improvement patent is granted, could the original patent prevent utilization of the improvement patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, could a square wheel patent prevent utilization of a round wheel patent? Or could a round wheel patent prevent a rubberized-wheel patent? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9735" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4188" RevisionGUID="5dd0c98a-0af9-44de-85fb-96a96cb6e811" CreationDate="2013-07-08T15:30:34.780" UserId="4198" Text="Improvement patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9736" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4188" RevisionGUID="5dd0c98a-0af9-44de-85fb-96a96cb6e811" CreationDate="2013-07-08T15:30:34.780" UserId="4198" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4188" RevisionGUID="948f25b2-24af-4f56-a991-5bbf06751bb6" CreationDate="2013-07-08T15:59:30.520" UserId="1767" Comment="added 244 characters in body; edited title" Text="Assume there is an &quot;original&quot; patent on an invention and a subsequent inventor files a patent on an improvement to the original patent.  If the &quot;improvement&quot; patent is granted, could the &quot;original patent&quot; prevent someone from using the &quot;improvement&quot; patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, could a patent on the square wheel (the &quot;original patent&quot;) prevent the use of a round wheel patent (the &quot;improvement patent)? Or could a round wheel patent (the &quot;original&quot; patent) prevent a rubberized-wheel patent (the &quot;improvement&quot;)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9738" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4188" RevisionGUID="948f25b2-24af-4f56-a991-5bbf06751bb6" CreationDate="2013-07-08T15:59:30.520" UserId="1767" Comment="added 244 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can an &quot;original&quot; patent be used to block an invention which utilizes an &quot;improvement&quot; patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9739" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4188" RevisionGUID="071e3725-18ac-404d-891c-1a8edae88108" CreationDate="2013-07-08T16:07:48.483" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Can an &quot;original&quot; patent be used to block an invention which utilizes an improvement to the original patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4190" RevisionGUID="8102a48c-5548-4712-959a-95d36c4a960d" CreationDate="2013-07-08T18:19:16.643" UserId="4199" Text="Is there a mechanism for the public to participate on the examination process of a patent under examination?  More specifically, is there a mechanism, for a person or for a company, to submit objection to a patent under examination by the USPTO once the patent is published and is considered to be not new or not obvious by the third party (person or company)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9747" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4190" RevisionGUID="8102a48c-5548-4712-959a-95d36c4a960d" CreationDate="2013-07-08T18:19:16.643" UserId="4199" Text="Participation on examination process" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9748" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4190" RevisionGUID="8102a48c-5548-4712-959a-95d36c4a960d" CreationDate="2013-07-08T18:19:16.643" UserId="4199" Text="&lt;process&gt;&lt;examination&gt;&lt;public&gt;&lt;objection&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4191" RevisionGUID="91e13831-b1be-4684-bec4-6d88703cff5e" CreationDate="2013-07-08T18:25:16.933" UserId="3076" Text="Yes. And the answer is the same in the case of the improvement being patented or the impovement not being patented. The only issue is can you read a claim in the original patent as covering the improved version. Some improvements solve the problem a different way. Some improvements eleimate a part required in the original. In those cases the improved version, patented or not, might not fall under the claims of the original." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4192" RevisionGUID="519c78a0-ba06-409f-834e-82f3dd139225" CreationDate="2013-07-08T18:48:23.260" UserId="1767" Text="As revised by the **America Invents Act** (AIA), [35 U.S.C. § 122(e)][1] expands the opportunity for third-party pre-issuance submissions in patent cases. Anyone is permitted to submit published documents ('printed publications') that are relevant to the examination of a pending application along with a concise explanation of the importance of the documents submitted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The AIA provides the general standards for preissuance submissions of patents, published patent applications, or other printed publications in patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preissuance submissions may be filed by any member of the public, including private persons and corporate entities such as [AskPatents][3].  The only limitation is that the third party may not be the applicant or any individual who has a duty to disclose information with respect to the application under [37 C.F.R. § 1.56][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Requirements - submissions may be done anonymously and electronically, but must include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A list identifying the items being submitted; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a concise description of the relevance of each item listed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a legible copy of each non-U.S. patent document listed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. an English language translation of any non-English language item listed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. a statement by the party making the submission that the submission complies with the statute and the rule; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. the required fee ($0 if fewer than three-documents submitted).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the Examiner raises a rejection in view of the submitted document, only the applicant, not the third party, can respond.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The good news is that [AskPatents][3] was created specifically to facilitate the submission of pre-issuance submissions to the USPTO.  Any interested party on AskPatents can create a [prior-art-request][3] on a US Patent Application.  Users submit prior art. The best prior art is vetted and submitted to the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To create a prior-art-request** on AskPatents, [users should follow the prior art request format][4] and submit a question on [AskPatents][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://usptopost-grant.com/35-usc-%C2%A7-122/&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.56&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/1767&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/questions/47/what-should-an-ideal-prior-art-request-look-like" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4192" RevisionGUID="4de21549-e3f2-4f64-bf6d-b7c4dd9be119" CreationDate="2013-07-08T18:54:16.257" UserId="1767" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="As revised by the **America Invents Act** (AIA), [35 U.S.C. § 122(e)][1] expands the opportunity for third-party pre-issuance submissions in patent cases. Anyone is permitted to submit published documents ('printed publications') that are relevant to the examination of a pending application along with a concise explanation of the importance of the documents submitted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The AIA provides the general standards for preissuance submissions of patents, published patent applications, or other printed publications in patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preissuance submissions may be filed by any member of the public, including private persons and corporate entities such as [AskPatents][3].  The only limitation is that the third party may not be the applicant or any individual who has a duty to disclose information with respect to the application under [37 C.F.R. § 1.56][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Requirements - [submissions may be done anonymously and electronically][5], but must include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A list identifying the items being submitted; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a concise description of the relevance of each item listed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a legible copy of each non-U.S. patent document listed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. an English language translation of any non-English language item listed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. a statement by the party making the submission that the submission complies with the statute and the rule; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. the required fee ($0 if fewer than three-documents submitted).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the Examiner raises a rejection in view of the submitted document, only the applicant, not the third party, can respond.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The good news is that [AskPatents][3] was created specifically to facilitate the submission of pre-issuance submissions to the USPTO.  Any interested user on AskPatents can create a [prior-art-request][3] on a US Patent Application.  Other users submit proposed prior art. After a suitable period to solicit prior art, the best prior art is vetted and submitted to the USPTO by the AskPatents community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To create a prior-art-request** on AskPatents, [users should follow the prior art request format][4] and submit a prior art request on [AskPatents][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Current Prior Art Requests on AskPatents**][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**How to Submit a Prior Art Request**][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://usptopost-grant.com/35-usc-%C2%A7-122/&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.56&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/1767&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/independent/eye/201210/inventorseye_advice.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9752" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4190" RevisionGUID="9726bab7-3d54-44f9-ad52-d6fd29271dbc" CreationDate="2013-07-08T18:57:54.950" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="How Can an Individual Participate in the Examination Process for US Patent Applications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4192" RevisionGUID="562ef50d-df89-40a5-915a-adf1c88b2313" CreationDate="2013-07-08T19:01:55.357" UserId="1767" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="As revised by the **America Invents Act** (AIA), [35 U.S.C. § 122(e)][1] expands the opportunity for third-party pre-issuance submissions in US patent cases. Anyone is permitted to submit published documents ('printed publications') that are relevant to the examination of a pending application along with a concise explanation of the importance of the documents submitted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The AIA provides the general standards for preissuance submissions of patents, published patent applications, or other printed publications in patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preissuance submissions may be filed by any member of the public, including private persons and corporate entities such as [AskPatents][3].  The only limitation is that the third party may not be the applicant or any individual who has a duty to disclose information with respect to the application under [37 C.F.R. § 1.56][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Requirements - [submissions may be done anonymously and electronically][5], but must include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A list identifying the items being submitted; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a concise description of the relevance of each item listed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a legible copy of each non-U.S. patent document listed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. an English language translation of any non-English language item listed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. a statement by the party making the submission that the submission complies with the statute and the rule; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. the required fee ($0 if fewer than three-documents submitted).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the Examiner raises a rejection in view of the submitted document, only the applicant, not the third party, can respond.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The good news is that [AskPatents][3] was created specifically to facilitate the submission of pre-issuance submissions to the USPTO.  Any interested user on AskPatents can create a [prior-art-request][3] on a US Patent Application.  Other users submit proposed prior art. After a suitable period to solicit exemplary prior art, the best prior art is vetted by volunteer lawyers and submitted to the USPTO by the AskPatents community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To create a prior-art-request**, [any user can follow the prior art request format][4] and submit a prior art request on [AskPatents][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Current Prior Art Requests on AskPatents**][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**How to Submit a Prior Art Request**][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://usptopost-grant.com/35-usc-%C2%A7-122/&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.56&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/1767&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/independent/eye/201210/inventorseye_advice.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9754" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4190" RevisionGUID="750f169a-0653-4812-bad1-d2a7f8d038ed" CreationDate="2013-07-08T19:08:12.607" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="How can an individual participate in the examination process for US Patent Applications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9755" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4192" RevisionGUID="85b2c31d-6271-48d8-9439-a2a4525398d1" CreationDate="2013-07-08T19:10:59.717" UserId="1767" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="**To create a prior-art-request**, [any user can follow the prior art request format][4] and ask the AskPatents community for help finding prior art on a US Patent Application on [AskPatents][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Current Prior Art Requests on AskPatents**][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**How to Submit a Prior Art Request**][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As revised by the **America Invents Act** (AIA), [35 U.S.C. § 122(e)][1] expands the opportunity for third-party pre-issuance submissions in US patent cases. Anyone is permitted to submit published documents ('printed publications') that are relevant to the examination of a pending application along with a concise explanation of the importance of the documents submitted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The AIA provides the general standards for preissuance submissions of patents, published patent applications, or other printed publications in patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preissuance submissions may be filed by any member of the public, including private persons and corporate entities such as [AskPatents][3].  The only limitation is that the third party may not be the applicant or any individual who has a duty to disclose information with respect to the application under [37 C.F.R. § 1.56][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Requirements - [submissions may be done anonymously and electronically][5], but must include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A list identifying the items being submitted; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a concise description of the relevance of each item listed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a legible copy of each non-U.S. patent document listed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. an English language translation of any non-English language item listed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. a statement by the party making the submission that the submission complies with the statute and the rule; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. the required fee ($0 if fewer than three-documents submitted).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the Examiner raises a rejection in view of the submitted document, only the applicant, not the third party, can respond.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The good news is that [AskPatents][3] was created specifically to facilitate the submission of pre-issuance submissions to the USPTO.  Any interested user on AskPatents can create a [prior-art-request][3] on a US Patent Application.  Other users submit proposed prior art. After a suitable period to solicit exemplary prior art, the best prior art is vetted by volunteer lawyers and submitted to the USPTO by the AskPatents community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://usptopost-grant.com/35-usc-%C2%A7-122/&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.56&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/1767&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/independent/eye/201210/inventorseye_advice.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4193" RevisionGUID="1705f63b-da5a-4846-9ac6-3837ef3d682c" CreationDate="2013-07-08T19:27:22.593" UserId="3076" Text="There is a new, but very limited way, for 3rd parties to participate. In fact this site, Ask Patents, was created as a way leverage &quot;the crowd&quot; to use this new feature of the AIA changes to patent law. Third parties can only participate by submitting prior art documents and brief explanations of their relevance during a particular time window. Please see the FAQs for details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9757" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4177" RevisionGUID="ce547260-a9c6-4638-a238-79cff7425bfa" CreationDate="2013-07-08T19:36:57.983" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 102 characters in body" Text="My grandfather, Norbert R. Hahn, holds a patent dated 8/20/40 for the mascara brush.  Other information, Des. 122,019.  Can someone help me locate more information regarding this patent?  I hold the actual patent and prototype.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9758" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4193" RevisionGUID="0c93d156-6d2a-4906-ade6-1678dae6018f" CreationDate="2013-07-08T19:41:13.233" UserId="3076" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="There is a new, but very limited way, for 3rd parties to participate. In fact this site, Ask Patents, was created as a way leverage &quot;the crowd&quot; to use this new feature of the AIA changes to patent law. Third parties can only participate by submitting prior art documents and brief explanations of their relevance during a particular time window. Please see the much more complete answer by Micah." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4183" RevisionGUID="3fb954ea-ccfa-46f9-8390-a351d85d2b3e" CreationDate="2013-07-08T19:42:38.943" UserId="3076" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="It is for **a** mascara brush not **the** mascara brush. Specifically, as a design patent, it is for the design or &quot;look&quot; pictured. &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An earlier design of a mascar brush is [D109634][2]. You can see the patent you referenced on google patents here: [Norbert Halm][3]. If you are interested it should be possible to order a copy of all of the correspondence between the applicant and the USPTO.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/0O9Nq.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/USD109634&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/USD122019" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9760" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3695" RevisionGUID="56c7f7f2-240e-4f3d-b121-9985f05b8f23" CreationDate="2013-07-09T18:49:25.207" UserId="1767" Comment="added 121 characters in body; added 5 characters in body; deleted 1 characters in body; deleted 4 characters in body; deleted 32 characters in body" Text="Help kill bad patent applications by providing evidence of prior art. Making a difference is often as simple as using Google to find Non-Patent Literature relevant to a pending application.  If you're familiar with the ideas represented by the patents &amp; applications featured in a question with this tag, please submit prior art by answering the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3694" RevisionGUID="eaf4441a-045d-45b2-8e64-f01db6008b40" CreationDate="2013-07-09T18:50:28.477" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 26 characters in body" Text="Questions on which to use the [tag:prior-art-request] tag:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Prior Art Searches:** Any time you are soliciting help in searching for examples of prior art for a given US Patent application or US Patent.  Please follow the format suggested in this answer: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/a/146/1767&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **US Patent Applications** also should be tagged with [tag:pre-grant]&#xD;&#xA; - **US Patents** also should be tagged with [tag:post-grant]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4185" RevisionGUID="547b73a1-b277-4a84-87f1-92abc61e66f9" CreationDate="2013-07-10T02:57:03.903" UserId="3076" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="The relevant question isn't was something &quot;disclosed to the government&quot;. Submitting to the USPTO is literally disclosing to the government. Working under confidentiality as a government contractor might involve disclosing to the government.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who might be in a photo would not be relevant. What is relevant is whether or not something ready for patenting was offered for sale, was explained, was used, was entirely under the control of the inventor, was under an understanding of confidentiality, etc. A photo wouldn't usually provide much in site to those issues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4185" RevisionGUID="5f830b0c-e385-40bf-bed5-3f84b6f5079a" CreationDate="2013-07-10T03:05:30.063" UserId="3076" Comment="Clarify" Text="The relevant question isn't: Was something &quot;disclosed to the government&quot;? Submitting to the USPTO is literally disclosing to the government. Working under confidentiality as a government contractor might involve disclosing to the government.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who might be documented in a photo as sitting at a table with whom would also not be particularly relevant. What is relevant is whether or not something ready for patenting was offered for sale, was explained, was &quot;used&quot;, was entirely under the control of the inventor, was an experimental use, was demonstrated under an understanding of confidentiality, etc. A photo wouldn't usually provide much insight to those issues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4055" RevisionGUID="3a40906f-e0f9-46f1-8900-088704e978c3" CreationDate="2013-07-10T09:58:37.617" UserId="1767" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="  **HELP SAVE MOBILE PURCHASES** - This application from Apple seeks to patent a method for purchasing a product in a store using a smartphone! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Nov, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Using a mobile device to obtain a **product identifier** of a product in a store (e.g., a UPC code); and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. On a mobile device, receiving the **product price** from a server; transmitting a **purchase request** to a server; and receiving a **purchase confirmation** from a server;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **an image taken by the camera on the device** to determine the product identifier (e.g. a UPC code or any other product identifier). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PURCHASING A PRODUCT IN A STORE USING A MOBILE DEVICE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for purchasing a product in a store using a mobile phone. The user’s mobile phone sends a **product identifier** for a product offered for sale in a store to a server somewhere.  The mobile phone receives **product information** including the price of the product from the server.  The mobile phone sends a **purchase request** including digital credentials (of any kind) to identify the user.  The mobile device **receives a confirmation** from the server and presents a confirmation to the user that the product has been purchased.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110678 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/555,753 &#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Apple, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** November, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for purchasing a product by a customer operating a customer mobile device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining, by the customer mobile device, a product identifier for a product offered for sale in a store;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Transmitting, by the customer mobile device, the product identifier to a store server associated with the store;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving, by the customer mobile device, product information from the store server, the product information including a price of the product;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Presenting to the customer, by the customer mobile device, at least some of the received product information, including the price of the product;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Receiving, by the customer mobile device, customer purchasing input, the customer purchasing input including a digital credential for the customer, the digital credential being usable to access a user account record that stores financial account information for a financial account of the customer, the user account record being maintained at an account data server;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Transmitting, by the customer mobile device, a purchase request to the store server, the purchase request including the digital credential, wherein the store server uses the digital credential to obtain the financial account information and uses the financial account information to charge the price of the product to the financial account of the customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Receiving, by the customer mobile device, a purchase confirmation from the store server, the purchase confirmation indicating that the product has been purchased by the customer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. Presenting to the customer, by the customer mobile device, a confirmation message confirming that the purchase transaction for the product has successfully completed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Using a phone to obtain a product identifier (e.g. a UPC code) identifying a product in a store&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Phone sends the product identifier to a server&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Phone receives information about the product identified, including the price&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Phone displays price of product to the user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Customer indicates intent to purchase and provides user information&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Phone sends the purchase request to the server&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Phone receives confirmation of purchase; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. Phone confirms product has been purchased with the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the November, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and including **camera phone** to capture an image of the product identifier (presumably rather than having the user type it in). Extra credit would include systems that do all of the steps above and also involve a cameraphone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Welcome to Our Store&quot; screen shots from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/NT8to.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130110678?dq=us20130110678&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4055" RevisionGUID="c5b3962b-3d1c-479d-8b75-824ead1d5e09" CreationDate="2013-07-10T11:13:46.133" UserId="1767" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="  **HELP SAVE MOBILE PURCHASES** - This application from Apple seeks to patent a method for purchasing a product in a store using a smartphone! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Nov, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Using a mobile device to obtain a **product identifier** of a product in a store (e.g., a UPC code); and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. On a mobile device, receiving the **product price** from a server; transmitting a **purchase request** to a server; and receiving a **purchase confirmation** from a server;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **an image taken by the camera on the device** to determine the product identifier (e.g. a UPC code or any other product identifier). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PURCHASING A PRODUCT IN A STORE USING A MOBILE DEVICE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for purchasing a product in a store using a mobile phone. The user’s mobile phone sends a **product identifier** for a product offered for sale in a store to a server somewhere.  The mobile phone receives **product information** including the price of the product from the server.  The mobile phone sends a **purchase request** including digital credentials (of any kind) to identify the user.  The mobile device **receives a confirmation** from the server and presents a confirmation to the user that the product has been purchased.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110678 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/555,753 &#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Apple, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** November, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for purchasing a product by a customer operating a customer mobile device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining, by the customer mobile device, a product identifier for a product offered for sale in a store;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Transmitting, by the customer mobile device, the product identifier to a store server associated with the store;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving, by the customer mobile device, product information from the store server, the product information including a price of the product;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Presenting to the customer, by the customer mobile device, at least some of the received product information, including the price of the product;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Receiving, by the customer mobile device, customer purchasing input, the customer purchasing input including a digital credential for the customer, the digital credential being usable to access a user account record that stores financial account information for a financial account of the customer, the user account record being maintained at an account data server;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Transmitting, by the customer mobile device, a purchase request to the store server, the purchase request including the digital credential, wherein the store server uses the digital credential to obtain the financial account information and uses the financial account information to charge the price of the product to the financial account of the customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Receiving, by the customer mobile device, a purchase confirmation from the store server, the purchase confirmation indicating that the product has been purchased by the customer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. Presenting to the customer, by the customer mobile device, a confirmation message confirming that the purchase transaction for the product has successfully completed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Using a phone to obtain a product identifier (e.g. a UPC code) identifying a product in a store&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Phone sends the product identifier to a server&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Phone receives information about the product identified, including the price&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Phone displays price of product to the user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Customer indicates intent to purchase and provides user information&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Phone sends the purchase request to the server&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Phone receives confirmation of purchase; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. Phone confirms product has been purchased with the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the November, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and including **camera phone** to capture an image of the product identifier (presumably rather than having the user type it in). Extra credit would include systems that do all of the steps above and also involve a cameraphone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Welcome to Our Store&quot; screen shots from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/NT8to.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130110678?dq=us20130110678&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4194" RevisionGUID="f8f06edd-ac42-443a-9acc-cfab9d2772e6" CreationDate="2013-07-11T14:18:19.033" UserId="4205" Text="I don't see a substantial difference between this part and a standard banana jack.  For example - http://www.alliedelec.com/search/productdetail.aspx?SKU=70209775.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of this part is to act as an insulator around a banana socket.  But these have been around for decades." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9777" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4194" RevisionGUID="f8f06edd-ac42-443a-9acc-cfab9d2772e6" CreationDate="2013-07-11T14:18:19.033" UserId="4205" Text="Significant Prior Art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9778" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4194" RevisionGUID="f8f06edd-ac42-443a-9acc-cfab9d2772e6" CreationDate="2013-07-11T14:18:19.033" UserId="4205" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;usd651568&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4195" RevisionGUID="93c52154-dfa5-4877-8b8b-4eae2df6f85d" CreationDate="2013-07-11T15:22:00.190" UserId="3076" Text="This is a **design patent**. Design patents are **not for inventions**, but for a unique look or styling. Relevant prior art would be a female connector that looked like this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4194" RevisionGUID="5f8f4d80-6bfb-4e70-b58b-9387059a2141" CreationDate="2013-07-11T18:02:45.807" UserId="1767" Comment="added 268 characters in body" Text="I don't see a substantial difference between this part and a standard banana jack.  For example - http://www.alliedelec.com/search/productdetail.aspx?SKU=70209775.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Versus [USD651568][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of this part is to act as an insulator around a banana socket.  But these have been around for decades.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How was this patent issued?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/HIJZ1.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/usd651568&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/gviW1.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9786" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4194" RevisionGUID="25c762e3-5a7b-46cb-8759-479baeb4b76e" CreationDate="2013-07-11T18:14:34.480" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="How was this patent issued over the prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3695" RevisionGUID="808e1ba3-ca2e-4ccd-910b-31f3ab3058a4" CreationDate="2013-07-12T14:17:55.297" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Help kill bad patent applications by providing evidence of prior art. Making a difference is as simple as using Google to find literature relevant to a pending application.  If you're familiar with the ideas represented by the patents &amp; applications featured in a question with this tag, please submit prior art by answering the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4033" RevisionGUID="95596841-3d80-4c26-b294-30cbdca37716" CreationDate="2013-07-12T14:36:24.553" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="   **HELP SAVE MOBILE SEARCH** - This application from Google seeks to patent a system for finding open stores which are located near a user at the time of a search! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before October, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a **search request** from a mobile user that includes both the **current time** AND the **location** of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying businesses which are **currently open** and **located near** the user; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Returning a search result page indicating a subset of businesses as currently open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses estimated **travel time** to estimate whether the business is “close enough” to the user. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: INDICATING LOCATION STATUS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of searching for currently open businesses from a mobile device.   The user’s device sends a search query, the current time and its location.  A search is performed based on the user’s search query.  A subset of results is selected based on operating hours of the business, current time, and travel time from the device location to the business.  The search results which are returned indicate which businesses are “currently open”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110822 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** October, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below::&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a query from a user device, a current time, and a location for the user device; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying results responsive to the query, the results including one or more business results that are each associated with a business location and operating hours; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting a subset of the business results as open results based on the operating hours of the business results, the current time, and travel times from the device location to the respective business locations; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Providing data for a search engine results page that designates the subset of business results as open results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A user’s device sends user’s search query, current time and its location&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Businesses, their associated locations and business hours are identified from the query&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  A few items from this list are selected based on whether the businesses are currently open and the user is close enough to get to them before they close&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. A subset of businesses which are open is passed along to a search engine to return results (which presumably could return a list or a map).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and including **travel time** from the user’s device to the business to determine whether user will make it to the business before it closes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Show restaurants open now”** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/xLvPq.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130110822&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4199" RevisionGUID="6a86bfc0-32a0-4119-b5d8-afb474c2bf8b" CreationDate="2013-07-12T17:43:33.980" UserId="4208" Text="From 1994-1997 former and (then) future California Governor Jerry Brown was hosting a weekly radio program called &quot;[We The People][1]&quot;.  I was involved with the show and [distributing it][2] in RealAudio format online at the beginning of October, 1996.  The Internet Archive Wayback Machine cuts off [show listings][3] at February 1997 but I have copies of the first broadcasts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wtp.org/bios/jerrybio.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://web.archive.org/web/19980628220048/http://www.wtp.org/radio/ra-notes.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://web.archive.org/web/19980628221518/http://www.wtp.org/cgi-bin/perl/radiocal.pl?month=02&amp;year=1997&amp;textonly=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9801" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4199" RevisionGUID="88fe3030-4ac9-44a3-b271-9f1a931855c9" CreationDate="2013-07-12T17:43:33.980" UserId="4208" />
  <row Id="9803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4200" RevisionGUID="ef0009e5-dccd-4eb7-8f75-14e1808347b0" CreationDate="2013-07-13T07:53:02.630" UserId="764" Text="In a recent case Montasanto sued a farmer over replanting soybeans and reusing their seeds and breeding them for up to eight generations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [judges reasons were all valid](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/business/monsanto-victorious-in-genetic-seed-case.html) and I understand Monasanto's [justification](http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's fundamentally illegal to Patent dangerous inventions, eg a Safe that's a Bomb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we know these products monopolize our food resources and Bayers products destroy our [planets natural mechanism for growing and harvesting food](http://www.bayer-kills-bees.com/), isn't that dangerous to the survival of mankind?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whats next? the CEO of Nestle saying [that water is not a human right and should be privatised](http://www.trueactivist.com/nestle-ceo-water-is-not-a-human-right-should-be-privatized/)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Would it be possible to use this defense to invalidate their Patents? particularly the insecticides?** *not so much the breeding*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Rr7m4.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9804" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4200" RevisionGUID="ef0009e5-dccd-4eb7-8f75-14e1808347b0" CreationDate="2013-07-13T07:53:02.630" UserId="764" Text="Should Monsanto &amp; Bayer Corp be able to Patent seeds and insecticides that kill bee's?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9805" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4200" RevisionGUID="ef0009e5-dccd-4eb7-8f75-14e1808347b0" CreationDate="2013-07-13T07:53:02.630" UserId="764" Text="&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;plant-patent&gt;&lt;moral&gt;&lt;dangerous&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4201" RevisionGUID="2af77787-0c1b-4830-87d3-4c47fb27ae23" CreationDate="2013-07-13T08:11:03.410" UserId="3076" Text="Having a patent does **not** give someone the right to actually make the patented item. It only gives them the right to try to stop others from making it. If you think something is harmful and no one should be doing it, that is not a patent issue. If company A has a patent and there is nothing in their way of making it, company A **only** can do it. All things being equal, without the patent **anyone** could make it. I don't that helps anything, from your perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4201" RevisionGUID="b5fcfebf-ae2e-4901-afcb-06208e1d03a6" CreationDate="2013-07-13T08:16:19.440" UserId="764" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Having a patent does **not** give someone the right to actually make the patented item. It only gives them the right to try to stop others from making it. If you think something is harmful and no one should be doing it, that is not a patent issue. If company A has a patent and there is nothing in their way of making it, company A **only** can do it. All things being equal, without the patent **anyone** could make it. I don't think that helps anything, from your perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4203" RevisionGUID="6bd5bf65-6204-4e1b-a4f5-fddf4c25387b" CreationDate="2013-07-14T00:44:28.023" UserId="4211" Text="From &quot;[http://golang.org/PATENTS][1]&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Additional IP Rights Grant (Patents)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;This implementation&quot; means the copyrightable works distributed by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Google as part of the Go project.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Google hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; import, transfer and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of this implementation of Go, where such license applies only to those&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent claims, both currently owned or controlled by Google and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; acquired in the future, licensable by Google that are necessarily&#xD;&#xA;&gt; infringed by this implementation of Go. This grant does not include&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims that would be infringed only as a consequence of further&#xD;&#xA;&gt; modification of this implementation. If you or your agent or exclusive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; licensee institute or order or agree to the institution of patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in a lawsuit) alleging that this implementation of Go or any code&#xD;&#xA;&gt; incorporated within this implementation of Go constitutes direct or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; contributory patentinfringement, or inducement of patent infringement,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; then any patent rights granted to you under this License for this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; implementation of Go shall terminate as of the date such litigation is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; filed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you allowed to reimplement the Go programming language by Google under this license?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://golang.org/PATENTS" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9813" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4203" RevisionGUID="6bd5bf65-6204-4e1b-a4f5-fddf4c25387b" CreationDate="2013-07-14T00:44:28.023" UserId="4211" Text="Am I allowed to reimplement the Go programming language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9814" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4203" RevisionGUID="6bd5bf65-6204-4e1b-a4f5-fddf4c25387b" CreationDate="2013-07-14T00:44:28.023" UserId="4211" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9815" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4200" RevisionGUID="90839bb7-6b65-4537-ae08-9b6c7aacc405" CreationDate="2013-07-14T03:30:01.280" UserId="3076" Comment="edited title" Text="In U.S. patent law is" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4200" RevisionGUID="d682a4a1-ed94-4536-adba-4e8f240ac784" CreationDate="2013-07-14T03:37:01.523" UserId="3076" Comment="edited title" Text="Is it clear that no patent should be granted for somthing illegal or dangerous eg a Safe that's a Bomb?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people think GMO crops hurt the planet in a way that is dangerous to the survival of mankind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be possible to use this line of thought to defend against an infringement suit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9817" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4200" RevisionGUID="d682a4a1-ed94-4536-adba-4e8f240ac784" CreationDate="2013-07-14T03:37:01.523" UserId="3076" Comment="edited title" Text="In U.S. patent law, are things that are inherently dangerous, illegal, hurting the planet, or &quot;immoral&quot; nonetheless patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4201" RevisionGUID="9aaf1f3b-441f-4993-b88d-4686ae1e432c" CreationDate="2013-07-14T04:56:52.203" UserId="3076" Comment="Moved comment to answer" Text="Having a patent does **not** give someone the right to actually make the patented item. It only gives them the right to try to stop others from making it. If you think something is harmful and no one should be doing it, that is not a patent issue. If company A has a patent and there is nothing in their way of making it, company A **only** can do it. All things being equal, without the patent **anyone** could make it. I don't think that helps anything, from your perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At one time the USPTO wouldn't grant patents for gambling machines under the theory they were immoral. Nothing in the law gave them the right to decide what was moral and after a court case the practice was ended. In Europe there are provisions in patent law regarding withholding patents from things that &quot;violate public morality&quot;. In my opinion that is a mistake because it is so vague and capable of misuse and changing with politics. In the US if is not a nuclear weapon, cloning a human, or a human hybrid, its fine. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9819" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4200" RevisionGUID="62945483-b7bf-4a5e-b29a-ae93daf52814" CreationDate="2013-07-14T06:25:21.573" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;moral&gt;&lt;dangerous&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4201" RevisionGUID="85d2791d-5915-4f09-9696-b1c3cd7ae477" CreationDate="2013-07-14T06:44:00.567" UserId="3076" Comment="added 178 characters in body" Text="Having a patent does **not** give someone the right to actually make the patented item. It only gives them the right to try to stop others from making it. If you think something is harmful and no one should be doing it, that is not a patent issue. If company A has a patent and there is nothing in their way of making it, company A **only** can do it. All things being equal, without the patent **anyone** could make it. I don't think that helps anything, from your perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding using this in a **defense**, no. And it is a somewhat illogical question in that the infringer would actually be doing the &quot;bad&quot; thing to wind up needing a defense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At one time the USPTO wouldn't grant patents for gambling machines under the theory they were immoral. Nothing in the law gave them the right to decide what was moral and after a court case the practice was ended. In Europe there are provisions in patent law regarding withholding patents from things that &quot;violate public morality&quot;. In my opinion that is a mistake because it is so vague and capable of misuse and changing with politics. In the US if is not a nuclear weapon, cloning a human, or a human hybrid, its fine. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4204" RevisionGUID="8f42e417-7357-4282-9c3d-8a7e17bcb192" CreationDate="2013-07-14T23:22:24.400" UserId="3076" Text="As a layman, I read the document to grant rights to modify (and etc.) **this implementation**. I don't see this document as saying anything about anything that isn't this implementation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4207" RevisionGUID="2bb84f44-0bcb-4046-9fc9-44ef63801cbb" CreationDate="2013-07-15T12:45:56.377" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE DATING** - This application from [Zoosk][6] seeks to patent the idea of finding other people who are nearby and compatible with you online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Finding **location information** about users on a dating site; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Finding **compatible users** to a target user, based on any characteristic defined by the target user (for example, age, gender, height, interests, etc.); and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing information about these compatible users to the target user based on the **location information** of the compatible users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Identifying Nearby, Compatible Users**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of online dating which uses location information and compatibility, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;receiving location information from a bunch of users, getting a **compatibility preference** for one of the users, and finding other users **near that user** who are **compatible** with that user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130145288 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/706,182&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Zoosk, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 5, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 6, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying location information of at least one first user to a second user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving location information from a plurality of third users comprising the at least one first user, and from the second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving from the second user information indicating at least one preference for a plurality of characteristics of other users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving from each of the plurality of third users information comprising a plurality of characteristics of that user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Selecting the at least one first user from the plurality of third users responsive to the current locations of the plurality of third users and the second user, the preference of the second user and the characteristics of the plurality of the third users; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the second user information responsive to the location information of the at least one first user selected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of showing location information about users to another user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Collecting **LOCATION INFORMATION** from a bunch of users, for example, their zip codes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. One user expresses a “preference for a characteristic” about those users, for example, “I only want to meet guys who are taller than 5’11””&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Other users provide (or have provided) information about that characteristic, for example, “I’m a guy and I am six feet tall”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Identifying a subset of the users who meet the characteristic, for example, “all male users who are taller than 5’11”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the first user location information about the subset of users who are compatible with them, for example, “See here on this map are guys who are taller than 5’11” and who are LOCATED near you.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December 5, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Identifying and notifying users of nearby potential matches - Flowchart&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/GUpwM.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130145288?dq=US20130145288A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.zoosk.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9831" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4207" RevisionGUID="2bb84f44-0bcb-4046-9fc9-44ef63801cbb" CreationDate="2013-07-15T12:45:56.377" UserId="1767" Text="Online Dating - Identifying Nearby, Compatible Users (Zoosk) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9832" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4207" RevisionGUID="2bb84f44-0bcb-4046-9fc9-44ef63801cbb" CreationDate="2013-07-15T12:45:56.377" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;us20130145288&gt;&lt;online-dating&gt;&lt;zoosk&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4207" RevisionGUID="e1992c57-f015-4d3d-8550-d60a92553c5e" CreationDate="2013-07-15T13:30:44.223" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE DATING** - This application from [Zoosk][6] seeks to patent the idea of finding other people who are nearby and compatible with you online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Finding **location information** about users on a dating site; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Finding **compatible users** to a target user, based on any characteristic defined by the target user (for example, age, gender, height, interests, etc.); and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing information about these compatible users to the target user based on the **location information** of the compatible users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Identifying Nearby, Compatible Users**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of online dating which uses location information and compatibility, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;receiving location information from a bunch of users, getting a **compatibility preference** for one of the users, and finding other users **near that user** who are **compatible** with that user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130145288 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/706,182&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Zoosk, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 5, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 6, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying location information of at least one first user to a second user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving location information from a plurality of third users comprising the at least one first user, and from the second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving from the second user information indicating at least one preference for a plurality of characteristics of other users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving from each of the plurality of third users information comprising a plurality of characteristics of that user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Selecting the at least one first user from the plurality of third users responsive to the current locations of the plurality of third users and the second user, the preference of the second user and the characteristics of the plurality of the third users; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the second user information responsive to the location information of the at least one first user selected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of showing location information about users to another user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Collecting **LOCATION INFORMATION** from a bunch of users, for example, their zip codes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. One user expresses a “preference for a characteristic” about those users, for example, “I only want to meet guys who are taller than 5’11””&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Other users provide (or have provided) information about that characteristic, for example, “I’m a guy and I am six feet tall”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Identifying a subset of the users who meet the characteristic, for example, “all male users who are taller than 5’11”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the first user location information about the subset of users who are compatible with them, for example, “See here on this map are guys who are taller than 5’11” and who are LOCATED near you.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December 5, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Identifying and notifying users of nearby potential matches - Flowchart&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/GUpwM.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130145288?dq=US20130145288A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.zoosk.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9834" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4207" RevisionGUID="e1992c57-f015-4d3d-8550-d60a92553c5e" CreationDate="2013-07-15T13:30:44.223" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130145288&gt;&lt;online-dating&gt;&lt;zoosk&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4207" RevisionGUID="d86c06a2-4291-4b7a-b4c4-1a46b61677dd" CreationDate="2013-07-15T15:05:03.217" UserId="1767" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE DATING** - This application from [Zoosk][6] seeks to patent the idea of finding other people who are nearby and compatible with you online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Finding **location information** about users on a dating site; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Finding **compatible users** to a target user, based on any characteristic defined by the target user (for example, age, gender, height, interests, etc.); and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing information about these compatible users to the target user based on the **location information** of the compatible users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Identifying Nearby, Compatible Users**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of online dating which uses location information and compatibility, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;receiving location information from a bunch of users, getting a **compatibility preference** for one of the users, and finding other users **near that user** who are **compatible** with that user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130145288 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/706,182&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Zoosk, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 5, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 6, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying location information of at least one first user to a second user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving location information from a plurality of third users comprising the at least one first user, and from the second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving from the second user information indicating at least one preference for a plurality of characteristics of other users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving from each of the plurality of third users information comprising a plurality of characteristics of that user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Selecting the at least one first user from the plurality of third users responsive to the current locations of the plurality of third users and the second user, the preference of the second user and the characteristics of the plurality of the third users; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the second user information responsive to the location information of the at least one first user selected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of showing location information about users to another user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Collecting **LOCATION INFORMATION** from a bunch of users, for example, their zip codes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. One user expresses a “preference for a characteristic” about those users, for example, “I only want to meet guys who are taller than 5’11””&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Other users provide (or have provided) information about that characteristic, for example, “I’m a guy and I am six feet tall”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Identifying a subset of the users who meet the characteristic, for example, “all male users who are taller than 5’11”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the first user location information about the subset of users who are compatible with them, for example, “See here on this map are guys who are taller than 5’11” and who are LOCATED near you.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December 5, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Identifying and notifying users of nearby potential matches - Flowchart&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/GUpwM.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130145288?dq=US20130145288A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.zoosk.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4208" RevisionGUID="5fff4c74-58a4-4e1c-bbeb-c0826de9562b" CreationDate="2013-07-15T17:53:36.667" UserId="4217" Text="I want to know if the maintenance fee's have been current and if specialty window coverings still have claim to us6796360 patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9837" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4208" RevisionGUID="5fff4c74-58a4-4e1c-bbeb-c0826de9562b" CreationDate="2013-07-15T17:53:36.667" UserId="4217" Text="Is us 6796360 b2 patent still in effect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9838" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4208" RevisionGUID="5fff4c74-58a4-4e1c-bbeb-c0826de9562b" CreationDate="2013-07-15T17:53:36.667" UserId="4217" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4209" RevisionGUID="eb306a8b-a51e-4d1f-aba9-7fcf4ef1cf4e" CreationDate="2013-07-15T18:35:27.683" UserId="1767" Text="[US6796360][1] was filed and has a priority date of: **Feb 25, 2003**  The original life of the patent would have been 20 years from Feb 25, 2003 or **Feb 25, 2023**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim of '360 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A tension shade comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A headrail supporting a window covering;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A bottom rail operatively connected to the window covering;&#xD;&#xA;at least one tension cord extending from the headrail and operatively connected to the bottom rail;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. At least one tensioner connected to the tension cord and configured to be releasably secured to a structure;&#xD;&#xA;the tensioner including...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a first component having an engagement surface and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a second component having a second engagement surface;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a portion of the first component interfering with a portion of the second component inhibiting the first and second components from separating,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the first and second components having a first position wherein the first engagement surface and the second engagement surface are spaced apart a predetermined distance sufficient to frictionally engage a portion of the tension cord,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the first component being movable within the second component from the first position to a second fully engaged position clamping the tension cord between the first and second engagement surfaces. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Public Pair][2] the patent was issued **May 20, 2004**.  It **expired** due to non-payment of maintenance fees on **Oct, 27, 2008**.  So long as it is expired the patent is no longer current and in force.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which can also be seen on [Google Patents][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not clear what is meant by &quot;if speciality window coverings still have claim to us6796360 patent&quot;.  However, if the question is whether a third party should worry about the owner of the '360 preventing the manufacture or sale of products which infringe the '360 patent, the answer is **NO** (unless and until the patent is revived).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll leave it to other participants on [Ask Patents][5] to opine on whether the '360 patent could in principle be revived by payment of the overdue maintenance fees 5 years after patent has expired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6796360?pg=PA8&amp;dq=6796360&#xD;&#xA;  [2]:  http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3971/is-this-patent-still-valid-and-in-force/3972#3972&#xD;&#xA;  [3]:  http://i.stack.imgur.com/2mQa0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]:  http://i.stack.imgur.com/3cSHH.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]:  http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9843" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4208" RevisionGUID="8c7011b1-6be2-4821-bfbd-b4cf4074e700" CreationDate="2013-07-15T18:38:04.753" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;us6796360&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9844" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4208" RevisionGUID="8c7011b1-6be2-4821-bfbd-b4cf4074e700" CreationDate="2013-07-15T18:38:04.753" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="Is US6796360 &quot;Shade Tensioner&quot; Patent still in effect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4207" RevisionGUID="a54d85a7-0d65-4dd7-828d-7aee96d24778" CreationDate="2013-07-15T18:39:26.557" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE DATING** - This application from [Zoosk][6] seeks to patent the idea of finding other people who are nearby and compatible with you online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Finding **location information** about users on a dating site; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Finding **compatible users** to a target user, based on any characteristic defined by the target user (for example, age, gender, height, interests, etc.); and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing information about these compatible users to the target user based on the **location information** of the compatible users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Identifying Nearby, Compatible Users**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of online dating which uses location information and compatibility, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;receiving location information from a bunch of users, getting a **compatibility preference** for one of the users, and finding other users **near that user** who are **compatible** with that user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130145288 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/706,182&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Zoosk, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 5, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 6, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying location information of at least one first user to a second user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving location information from a plurality of third users comprising the at least one first user, and from the second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving from the second user information indicating at least one preference for a plurality of characteristics of other users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving from each of the plurality of third users information comprising a plurality of characteristics of that user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Selecting the at least one first user from the plurality of third users responsive to the current locations of the plurality of third users and the second user, the preference of the second user and the characteristics of the plurality of the third users; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the second user information responsive to the location information of the at least one first user selected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of showing location information about users to another user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Collecting **LOCATION INFORMATION** from a bunch of users, for example, their zip codes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. One user expresses a “preference for a characteristic” about those users, for example, “I only want to meet guys who are taller than 5’11””&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Other users provide (or have provided) information about that characteristic, for example, “I’m a guy and I am six feet tall”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Identifying a subset of the users who meet the characteristic, for example, “all male users who are taller than 5’11”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the first user location information about the subset of users who are compatible with them, for example, “See here on this map are guys who are taller than 5’11” and who are LOCATED near you.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December 5, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Identifying and notifying users of nearby potential matches - Flowchart&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/GUpwM.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130145288?dq=US20130145288A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.zoosk.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4208" RevisionGUID="35661d11-3bc3-4c27-9ad2-918c1e5fb59d" CreationDate="2013-07-15T18:46:03.403" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="I want to know if the maintenance fees are current and if specialty window coverings still have claim to us6796360 patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4209" RevisionGUID="60a37e4a-6a2c-41ab-b2ca-a7c02ae6c314" CreationDate="2013-07-15T18:47:02.440" UserId="1767" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="[US6796360][1] was filed and has a priority date of: **Feb 25, 2003**  The original life of the patent would have been 20 years from Feb 25, 2003 or **Feb 25, 2023**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim of '360 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A tension shade comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A headrail supporting a window covering;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A bottom rail operatively connected to the window covering;&#xD;&#xA;at least one tension cord extending from the headrail and operatively connected to the bottom rail;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. At least one tensioner connected to the tension cord and configured to be releasably secured to a structure;&#xD;&#xA;the tensioner including...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a first component having an engagement surface and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a second component having a second engagement surface;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a portion of the first component interfering with a portion of the second component inhibiting the first and second components from separating,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the first and second components having a first position wherein the first engagement surface and the second engagement surface are spaced apart a predetermined distance sufficient to frictionally engage a portion of the tension cord,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the first component being movable within the second component from the first position to a second fully engaged position clamping the tension cord between the first and second engagement surfaces. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Public Pair][2] the patent was issued **May 20, 2004**.  It **expired** due to non-payment of maintenance fees on **Oct, 27, 2008**.  So long as it is expired **the patent is no longer current and is no longer in force**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which can also be seen on [Google Patents][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not clear what is meant by &quot;if speciality window coverings still have claim to us6796360 patent&quot;.  However, if the question is whether a third party should worry about the owner of the '360 preventing the manufacture or sale of products which infringe the '360 patent, the answer is **NO** (unless and until the patent is revived).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll leave it to other participants on [Ask Patents][5] to opine on whether the '360 patent could in principle be revived by payment of the overdue maintenance fees 5 years after patent has expired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6796360?pg=PA8&amp;dq=6796360&#xD;&#xA;  [2]:  http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3971/is-this-patent-still-valid-and-in-force/3972#3972&#xD;&#xA;  [3]:  http://i.stack.imgur.com/2mQa0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]:  http://i.stack.imgur.com/3cSHH.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]:  http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4211" RevisionGUID="0313b0c4-2037-49e4-a50d-326524a09265" CreationDate="2013-07-15T21:05:24.977" UserId="3671" Text="there was a patent in 1998 that is exactly this technology...a sphere of different fluids &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concentric fluid acoustic transponder&#xD;&#xA;US 5822272 A" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9850" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4211" RevisionGUID="0313b0c4-2037-49e4-a50d-326524a09265" CreationDate="2013-07-15T21:05:24.977" UserId="3671" Text="Is this patent a copy of previous work?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9851" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4211" RevisionGUID="0313b0c4-2037-49e4-a50d-326524a09265" CreationDate="2013-07-15T21:05:24.977" UserId="3671" Text="&lt;wo2012101423a2&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9852" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4211" RevisionGUID="10fd426e-9847-466c-8bc6-a0fc2328a037" CreationDate="2013-07-15T21:33:30.977" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag  added claim 1" Text="&lt;wo2012101423a2&gt;&lt;us5822272&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4211" RevisionGUID="10fd426e-9847-466c-8bc6-a0fc2328a037" CreationDate="2013-07-15T21:33:30.977" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag  added claim 1" Text="there was a patent in 1998 that is exactly this technology...a sphere of different fluids &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concentric fluid acoustic transponder&#xD;&#xA;US 5822272 A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is claim 1 of the current PCT application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of identifying and locating an underwater acoustic reflector having a shell surrounding a core wherein an incident acoustic wave may be partially reflected by the front of the reflector and partially pass into the core to be reflected from the shell at the rear of the reflector by acoustically interrogating an underwater search area in which such an acoustic reflector may be present characterised in that it includes one or more of the steps of: identifying objects that apparently reflect the acoustic interrogation with a double echo, measuring the separation of the two echoes and comparing those measurements with anticipated measurements for underwater acoustic reflectors that may be present in the search area, and accepting or rejecting the reflected acoustic wave as potentially including the echo from the front of such an acoustic reflector and the echo from the shell at the rear of the reflector; measuring the target strength of the echoes in a double echo received from an object and rejecting the object as one of interest if the target strength in the first echo of a double echo exceeds that of the second echo; measuring the total target strength of an echo from an object, the object being rejected as being a potential underwater acoustic reflector of interest if the target strength is less than a predetermined minimum; measuring the acoustic width of an object and comparing that with the acoustic width of known acoustic reflectors, the object being rejected as being potentially an underwater acoustic reflector of interest if the acoustic width is not that of a known underwater acoustic reflector; measuring the frequency response of an object, the object being accepted or rejected as being potentially an acoustic reflector of interest if the frequency response corresponds to the known frequency response of such an underwater reflector; and measuring the phase response of an object, the object being accepted or rejected as potentially an underwater acoustic reflector of interest if the phase response corresponds to the known phase response of such an underwater acoustic reflector." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4212" RevisionGUID="29907ab9-ad5e-4af2-b686-6ed17b6e4e23" CreationDate="2013-07-15T23:28:54.433" UserId="2029" Text="[I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's surprising to see something like this being submitted. This sounds like the definition of the &quot;social discovery app&quot;. I had done some research on it as I was working in that field for a while. I believe a bunch of them currently use this algorithm (Highlight, Banjo, Skout, Blendr, Badoo, Glancee are the big ones but there are plenty of others) and have been doing so for years. I also believe the mobile version of certain dating sites also do this (okcupid mobile/match.com mobile/plenty of fish mobile). Basically you enter your information and the kind of people you are looking for and it just finds mutual matches nearby based on your phone's GPS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope you can get this resolved!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4213" RevisionGUID="136a04ca-cbe1-45a8-984c-62aaaef59cb7" CreationDate="2013-07-16T03:20:04.297" UserId="3076" Text="Not my field, but they look **very** different.The older document uses concentric spheres filled with liquids having different audio propagation characterizes to make an audio lens. In extreme contrast to that the newer document has a shell (no complete sphere needed) as its target. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4214" RevisionGUID="c7bee726-142b-4595-9321-15bbec1a680a" CreationDate="2013-07-16T13:29:33.590" UserId="1259" Text="I'm not sure if this would be exact prior art, but [Foursquare][1] as described on [Wikipedia][2] (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Foursquare is a **location-based social networking website** for mobile devices, such as smartphones. Users &quot;check in&quot; at venues using a mobile website, text messaging or a device-specific application by selecting from a list of venues the application locates nearby. **Location is based on GPS hardware in the mobile device or network location** provided by the application. Each check-in awards the user points and sometimes &quot;badges&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The service was **created in 2009** by Dennis Crowley and Naveen Selvadurai. Crowley had **previously founded the similar project Dodgeball** as his graduate thesis project in the Interactive Telecommunications Program (ITP) at New York University. **Google bought Dodgeball in 2005** and shut it down in 2009, replacing it with Google Latitude. Dodgeball user interactions were based on SMS technology, rather than an application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Foursquare is the **second iteration of the same idea**, that people can use mobile devices to interact with their environment. As of April 2012, the company reported it had 20 million registered users. The company was expected to pass 750 million check-ins before the end of June 2011, with an average of about 3 million check-ins per day. **Male and female users are equally represented** and also 50 percent of users are outside the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.foursquare.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foursquare" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4215" RevisionGUID="afa6f394-a1f8-4628-afab-e5e407670e78" CreationDate="2013-07-16T14:11:18.283" UserId="4223" Text="I've searched up and down for the patent owners contact info but found nothing. How do I reach out to Marcus Dominic Gonzalez  the patent owner to discuss the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9864" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4215" RevisionGUID="afa6f394-a1f8-4628-afab-e5e407670e78" CreationDate="2013-07-16T14:11:18.283" UserId="4223" Text="Contact info for Marcus Dominic Gonzalez" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9865" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4215" RevisionGUID="afa6f394-a1f8-4628-afab-e5e407670e78" CreationDate="2013-07-16T14:11:18.283" UserId="4223" Text="&lt;us20110056000&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4207" RevisionGUID="e1f3f86e-81e1-45dd-84c1-886ca4d5e61c" CreationDate="2013-07-16T14:18:28.233" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE DATING** - This application from [Zoosk][6] seeks to patent the idea of finding other people who are nearby and compatible with you online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Finding **location information** about users on a dating site; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Finding **compatible users** to a target user, based on any characteristic defined by the target user (for example, age, gender, height, interests, etc.); and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing information about these compatible users to the target user based on the **location information** of the compatible users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Identifying Nearby, Compatible Users**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of online dating which uses location information and compatibility, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;receiving location information from a bunch of users, getting a **compatibility preference** for one of the users, and finding other users **near that user** who are **compatible** with that user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130145288 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/706,182&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Zoosk, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 5, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 6, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying location information of at least one first user to a second user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving location information from a plurality of third users comprising the at least one first user, and from the second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving from the second user information indicating at least one preference for a plurality of characteristics of other users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving from each of the plurality of third users information comprising a plurality of characteristics of that user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Selecting the at least one first user from the plurality of third users responsive to the current locations of the plurality of third users and the second user, the preference of the second user and the characteristics of the plurality of the third users; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the second user information responsive to the location information of the at least one first user selected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of showing location information about users to another user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Collecting **LOCATION INFORMATION** from a bunch of users, for example, their zip codes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. One user expresses a “preference for a characteristic” about those users, for example, “I only want to meet guys who are taller than 5’11””&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Other users provide (or have provided) information about that characteristic, for example, “I’m a guy and I am six feet tall”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Identifying a subset of the users who meet the characteristic, for example, “all male users who are taller than 5’11”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the first user location information about the subset of users who are compatible with them, for example, “See here on this map are guys who are taller than 5’11” and who are LOCATED near you.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December 5, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Identifying and notifying users of nearby potential matches - Flowchart&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/GUpwM.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130145288?dq=US20130145288A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.zoosk.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4216" RevisionGUID="4cbf578f-912e-4e03-92c3-237b01e3bbf2" CreationDate="2013-07-16T14:23:15.407" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE GAME PROMOTION** - This application from [Gree][6] seeks to patent the idea of cross-promotion of games in an online community, in other words promoting one game from within another game! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before June, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Promoting **a 2nd game** from a **2nd game maker** to users of **a 1st game** from a **1st game maker**; where &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Users of **a 2nd game** have previously been promoted another game by the **1st game maker**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Basically, any kind of cross-game promotion between game makers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses a **social graph**, **game level**, **game score** to determine whether to promote a game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Cross-promotion of games**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Displaying cross-game promotions among different game makers, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;promoting a **2nd game** to users running a **1st game** where other users of the **2nd game** have previously been promoted the **1st game**, basically trading promotion between two game makers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151342 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/530,067&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Gree, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** June 21, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;A method for cross-promotion of games, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Transmitting, to a server, an indication that the first video game is running on the local computing device, wherein the first video game is made by the first game maker; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving, from the server, an instruction to display a second message on the local computing device,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the second message promotes a second game maker,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the second message is received if a first message has been previously transmitted from the server to a remote computing device and has been previously displayed on the remote computing device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Displaying, on the local computing device, the second message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of cross-promotion of games, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A **local computer** (desktop or mobile) tells the server that it is running a **1st game**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The server gives the **local computer** instructions to display a **promotion** for a **2nd game**, where&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Other local computers have previously received instructions to promote the **1st game**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The local computer displays the promotion for the **2nd game**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the June, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above AND ALSO uses a **social graph**, **game level**, **game score** to determine whether to promote a game.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Online Gaming Cross-Promotion&quot; screen shots from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/LpuQ9.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151342?dq=US20130151342A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.gree-corp.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9868" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4216" RevisionGUID="4cbf578f-912e-4e03-92c3-237b01e3bbf2" CreationDate="2013-07-16T14:23:15.407" UserId="1767" Text="Cross-Promotion of Online Games (Gree) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9869" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4216" RevisionGUID="4cbf578f-912e-4e03-92c3-237b01e3bbf2" CreationDate="2013-07-16T14:23:15.407" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;video-games&gt;&lt;us20130151342&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4217" RevisionGUID="349e0586-40f4-48f1-9704-2bf0ae5f2637" CreationDate="2013-07-16T14:38:38.387" UserId="1767" Text="[US20110056000][1] is a **Patent Application**, not an issued patent.  It received a **Final Rejection** on Oct 12, 2012.  It was subsequently abandoned by the applicant for failure to respond to the **Final Rejection** on June 2, 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting public resource and the way any user can see all of this information is through [Public Pair][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good primer on [using Public Pair can be found in this answer][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current status of US20110056000 can be seen here.  Note the status **&quot;Abandoned - Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot;**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Status of US20110056000][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you are still interested in getting in touch with the applicant you can see his contact information on the applicant information form submitted with the patent application in September, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Information about the Applicant of US20110056000][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20110056000&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3972/1767&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/sa6NY.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Fkz8A.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4207" RevisionGUID="ddde5fca-2a6a-4843-81d2-90f412a9931a" CreationDate="2013-07-16T14:40:35.587" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE DATING** - This application from [Zoosk][6] seeks to patent the idea of finding other people who are nearby and compatible with you online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Finding **location information** about users on a dating site; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Finding **compatible users** to a target user, based on any characteristic defined by the target user (for example, age, gender, height, interests, etc.); and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing information about these compatible users to the target user based on the **location information** of the compatible users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Identifying Nearby, Compatible Users**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of online dating which uses location information and compatibility, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;receiving location information from a bunch of users, getting a **compatibility preference** for one of the users, and finding other users **near that user** who are **compatible** with that user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130145288 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/706,182&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Zoosk, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 5, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 6, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying location information of at least one first user to a second user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving location information from a plurality of third users comprising the at least one first user, and from the second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving from the second user information indicating at least one preference for a plurality of characteristics of other users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving from each of the plurality of third users information comprising a plurality of characteristics of that user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Selecting the at least one first user from the plurality of third users responsive to the current locations of the plurality of third users and the second user, the preference of the second user and the characteristics of the plurality of the third users; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the second user information responsive to the location information of the at least one first user selected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of showing location information about users to another user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Collecting **LOCATION INFORMATION** from a bunch of users, for example, their zip codes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. One user expresses a “preference for a characteristic” about those users, for example, “I only want to meet guys who are taller than 5’11””&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Other users provide (or have provided) information about that characteristic, for example, “I’m a guy and I am six feet tall”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Identifying a subset of the users who meet the characteristic, for example, “all male users who are taller than 5’11”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the first user location information about the subset of users who are compatible with them, for example, “See here on this map are guys who are taller than 5’11” and who are LOCATED near you.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December 5, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Identifying and notifying users of nearby potential matches - Flowchart&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/GUpwM.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130145288?dq=US20130145288A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.zoosk.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4216" RevisionGUID="1111885e-0306-4e33-a978-78a2dad480a1" CreationDate="2013-07-16T14:40:50.190" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE GAME PROMOTION** - This application from [Gree][6] seeks to patent the idea of cross-promotion of games in an online community, in other words promoting one game from within another game! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before June, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Promoting **a 2nd game** from a **2nd game maker** to users of **a 1st game** from a **1st game maker**; where &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Users of **a 2nd game** have previously been promoted another game by the **1st game maker**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Basically, any kind of cross-game promotion between game makers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses a **social graph**, **game level**, **game score** to determine whether to promote a game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Cross-promotion of games**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Displaying cross-game promotions among different game makers, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;promoting a **2nd game** to users running a **1st game** where other users of the **2nd game** have previously been promoted the **1st game**, basically trading promotion between two game makers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151342 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/530,067&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Gree, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** June 21, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;A method for cross-promotion of games, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Transmitting, to a server, an indication that the first video game is running on the local computing device, wherein the first video game is made by the first game maker; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving, from the server, an instruction to display a second message on the local computing device,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the second message promotes a second game maker,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the second message is received if a first message has been previously transmitted from the server to a remote computing device and has been previously displayed on the remote computing device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Displaying, on the local computing device, the second message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of cross-promotion of games, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A **local computer** (desktop or mobile) tells the server that it is running a **1st game**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The server gives the **local computer** instructions to display a **promotion** for a **2nd game**, where&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Other local computers have previously received instructions to promote the **1st game**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The local computer displays the promotion for the **2nd game**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the June, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above AND ALSO uses a **social graph**, **game level**, **game score** to determine whether to promote a game.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Online Gaming Cross-Promotion&quot; screen shots from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/LpuQ9.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151342?dq=US20130151342A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.gree-corp.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9873" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4216" RevisionGUID="49e49552-f002-4923-95f9-ebf620ba23c4" CreationDate="2013-07-16T14:46:58.717" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Online Games - Cross-Promotion of Games (Gree) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4218" RevisionGUID="d13dbf17-80fc-4709-954d-26436e342650" CreationDate="2013-07-16T18:37:29.797" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE ADVERTISING** - This application from [Facebook][6] seeks to patent the idea of... suggesting changes to your advertising campaign based on the performance of your current campaign! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Measuring the performance** of an initial online advertisement; AND &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Suggesting changes to **targeting criteria** an advertiser might use to increase its performance;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **click-through rate**, **conversion rate** or **brand lift rate** as a measurement of performance of the advertisement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Adjusting an Advertising Campaign**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of adjusting an online advertisement which uses click-through-rate, conversion rate, brand-lift rate or any other measurement of an initial advertisement to suggest new targeting criteria to the advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151332 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/316,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Facebook, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 10, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, at a **publishing system from an advertiser**, data for an **advertising campaign** comprising an initial ad and **targeting criteria** defining an initial **target group** for receiving the initial ad;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Providing the **initial ad** for display to a plurality of users in a plurality of segments of the initial target group;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining, by the publishing system, a value of an **advertising metric** for a first one of the plurality of segments based on the display of the initial ad to the users of the first segment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Based on the value of the advertising metric, determining by the publishing system **a suggestion** for the advertiser to modify the **targeting criteria** to **remove** the first segment from the targeting criteria to be used for the initial ad; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Sending the suggestion from the publishing system to the advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of suggesting adjustments to an advertising campaign, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving an initial advertisement and proposed targeting criteria from an advertiser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Displaying the initial advertisement to the target group using the targeting crtieria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Measuring something (anything!) about the performance of the initial advertisement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Suggesting that the advertiser modify the targeting criteria to narrow which members of the target group see the advertisement.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and using **click-through rate**, **conversion rate** or **brand lift rate** as a measurement of performance of the advertisement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Modifying ad campaign based on the performance of the ad&quot;** from Figures of Application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/MlviX.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151332?dq=US20130151332A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.facebook.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9875" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4218" RevisionGUID="d13dbf17-80fc-4709-954d-26436e342650" CreationDate="2013-07-16T18:37:29.797" UserId="1767" Text="Online Advertising - Assisted Adjustment of an Advertising Campaign (Facebook) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9876" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4218" RevisionGUID="d13dbf17-80fc-4709-954d-26436e342650" CreationDate="2013-07-16T18:37:29.797" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;facebook&gt;&lt;us20130151332&gt;&lt;online-advertising&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9877" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3495" RevisionGUID="ee54c6cd-0360-447c-b9f8-e675e75a7504" CreationDate="2013-07-16T21:19:18.270" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;3d-printing&gt;&lt;stratasys&gt;&lt;us20120258190&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4207" RevisionGUID="d5857b82-6ebb-45c2-a2e4-456127e630c5" CreationDate="2013-07-16T21:19:38.027" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE DATING** - This application from [Zoosk][6] seeks to patent the idea of finding other people who are nearby and compatible with you online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Finding **location information** about users on a dating site; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Finding **compatible users** to a target user, based on any characteristic defined by the target user (for example, age, gender, height, interests, etc.); and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing information about these compatible users to the target user based on the **location information** of the compatible users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Identifying Nearby, Compatible Users**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of online dating which uses location information and compatibility, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;receiving location information from a bunch of users, getting a **compatibility preference** for one of the users, and finding other users **near that user** who are **compatible** with that user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130145288 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/706,182&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Zoosk, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 5, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 6, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying location information of at least one first user to a second user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving location information from a plurality of third users comprising the at least one first user, and from the second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving from the second user information indicating at least one preference for a plurality of characteristics of other users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving from each of the plurality of third users information comprising a plurality of characteristics of that user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Selecting the at least one first user from the plurality of third users responsive to the current locations of the plurality of third users and the second user, the preference of the second user and the characteristics of the plurality of the third users; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the second user information responsive to the location information of the at least one first user selected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of showing location information about users to another user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Collecting **LOCATION INFORMATION** from a bunch of users, for example, their zip codes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. One user expresses a “preference for a characteristic” about those users, for example, “I only want to meet guys who are taller than 5’11””&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Other users provide (or have provided) information about that characteristic, for example, “I’m a guy and I am six feet tall”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Identifying a subset of the users who meet the characteristic, for example, “all male users who are taller than 5’11”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the first user location information about the subset of users who are compatible with them, for example, “See here on this map are guys who are taller than 5’11” and who are LOCATED near you.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December 5, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Identifying and notifying users of nearby potential matches - Flowchart&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/GUpwM.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130145288?dq=US20130145288A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.zoosk.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4216" RevisionGUID="0d8ee558-88dd-4bf4-ab6e-9a4b2fcf1251" CreationDate="2013-07-16T21:19:54.713" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE GAME PROMOTION** - This application from [Gree][6] seeks to patent the idea of cross-promotion of games in an online community, in other words promoting one game from within another game! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before June, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Promoting **a 2nd game** from a **2nd game maker** to users of **a 1st game** from a **1st game maker**; where &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Users of **a 2nd game** have previously been promoted another game by the **1st game maker**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Basically, any kind of cross-game promotion between game makers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses a **social graph**, **game level**, **game score** to determine whether to promote a game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Cross-promotion of games**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Displaying cross-game promotions among different game makers, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;promoting a **2nd game** to users running a **1st game** where other users of the **2nd game** have previously been promoted the **1st game**, basically trading promotion between two game makers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151342 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/530,067&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Gree, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** June 21, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;A method for cross-promotion of games, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Transmitting, to a server, an indication that the first video game is running on the local computing device, wherein the first video game is made by the first game maker; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving, from the server, an instruction to display a second message on the local computing device,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the second message promotes a second game maker,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the second message is received if a first message has been previously transmitted from the server to a remote computing device and has been previously displayed on the remote computing device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Displaying, on the local computing device, the second message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of cross-promotion of games, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A **local computer** (desktop or mobile) tells the server that it is running a **1st game**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The server gives the **local computer** instructions to display a **promotion** for a **2nd game**, where&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Other local computers have previously received instructions to promote the **1st game**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The local computer displays the promotion for the **2nd game**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the June, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above AND ALSO uses a **social graph**, **game level**, **game score** to determine whether to promote a game.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Online Gaming Cross-Promotion&quot; screen shots from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/LpuQ9.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151342?dq=US20130151342A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.gree-corp.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9880" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4218" RevisionGUID="df325c70-a950-4a30-8dc3-75b19ac3f959" CreationDate="2013-07-16T21:20:09.360" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE ADVERTISING** - This application from [Facebook][6] seeks to patent the idea of... suggesting changes to your advertising campaign based on the performance of your current campaign! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Measuring the performance** of an initial online advertisement; AND &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Suggesting changes to **targeting criteria** an advertiser might use to increase its performance;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **click-through rate**, **conversion rate** or **brand lift rate** as a measurement of performance of the advertisement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Adjusting an Advertising Campaign**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of adjusting an online advertisement which uses click-through-rate, conversion rate, brand-lift rate or any other measurement of an initial advertisement to suggest new targeting criteria to the advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151332 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/316,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Facebook, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 10, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, at a **publishing system from an advertiser**, data for an **advertising campaign** comprising an initial ad and **targeting criteria** defining an initial **target group** for receiving the initial ad;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Providing the **initial ad** for display to a plurality of users in a plurality of segments of the initial target group;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining, by the publishing system, a value of an **advertising metric** for a first one of the plurality of segments based on the display of the initial ad to the users of the first segment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Based on the value of the advertising metric, determining by the publishing system **a suggestion** for the advertiser to modify the **targeting criteria** to **remove** the first segment from the targeting criteria to be used for the initial ad; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Sending the suggestion from the publishing system to the advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of suggesting adjustments to an advertising campaign, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving an initial advertisement and proposed targeting criteria from an advertiser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Displaying the initial advertisement to the target group using the targeting crtieria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Measuring something (anything!) about the performance of the initial advertisement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Suggesting that the advertiser modify the targeting criteria to narrow which members of the target group see the advertisement.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and using **click-through rate**, **conversion rate** or **brand lift rate** as a measurement of performance of the advertisement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Modifying ad campaign based on the performance of the ad&quot;** from Figures of Application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/MlviX.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151332?dq=US20130151332A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.facebook.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4219" RevisionGUID="bd5df9ad-e2c3-4d14-b6c1-0697c6436bc0" CreationDate="2013-07-16T23:38:02.847" UserId="4227" Text="How would I find the a patent? I'm curious, because I plan on developing an RPG in the vein of that sort of battle system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9882" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4219" RevisionGUID="bd5df9ad-e2c3-4d14-b6c1-0697c6436bc0" CreationDate="2013-07-16T23:38:02.847" UserId="4227" Text="Is the Linear Motion Battle System (used in the Tales series by Namco Bandai) patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9883" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4219" RevisionGUID="bd5df9ad-e2c3-4d14-b6c1-0697c6436bc0" CreationDate="2013-07-16T23:38:02.847" UserId="4227" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4220" RevisionGUID="0a3290ed-d5a6-4385-89ea-d13a3ad541a3" CreationDate="2013-07-17T00:55:18.227" UserId="4229" Text="All were released before December 5th 2011:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://mashable.com/2011/07/11/okcupid-location-mobile-app/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Uses location and interests to present matches that are close to you and have a high matching score. It provides the other users location as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.sonar.me/welcome&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Uses location, interests, and Facebook friends to present 'interesting people' nearby that match. It provides the other users location as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.skout.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also uses location and interests to present matches that are close to you. It provides the other users location as well.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4221" RevisionGUID="1b5845e5-7686-4e22-9a9d-ee7d673a3941" CreationDate="2013-07-17T05:56:06.010" UserId="4230" Text="us20110234383 appears to be nothing more than a patent for placing a foam spacer on the RFID tag to keep it away from the body of the runner. These have been in use for as long as I can remember since RFID tags do not operate when directly placed in contact with an object that absorbs RF such as the human body or metal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, this blog post made within days of the application date http://rfidtiming.com/tech-talk-the-great-spacer-debate/ explains the problem and the solution that this patent filer is claiming to have invented. At the time of the blog post, the solution of using a foam spacer (explicitly noted in claim 64) was not new or novel. The post is notable in that it was explaining the problem that was known to anybody skilled in the art and the solution that was by then the accepted practice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note http://www.schreiner-group.com/3/company/press-room/schreiner-logidata/rfid-foam-label/ is a product with a press-release date of Aug-2010, a year before the application date. A simple google search for &quot;rfid tag foam spacer&quot; will return a number of products going back 5+ years before the application date. The problem was well known and the solution well implemented before 2011. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9886" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4221" RevisionGUID="1b5845e5-7686-4e22-9a9d-ee7d673a3941" CreationDate="2013-07-17T05:56:06.010" UserId="4230" Text="us20110234383 appears to be the common foam spacer commonly used on all RFID based timing tags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9887" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4221" RevisionGUID="1b5845e5-7686-4e22-9a9d-ee7d673a3941" CreationDate="2013-07-17T05:56:06.010" UserId="4230" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4222" RevisionGUID="f4a1c427-94e2-4606-bc1d-a49b9c55b93b" CreationDate="2013-07-17T10:21:31.360" UserId="1767" Text="A few comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The question is whether the &quot;linear motion battle system&quot; you intend to build infringes any issued US Patents.  These could be owned by Namco Bandai or other companies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Because modern technology is complex, determining infringement is complex. If you are concerned that patents may have been issued on the linear motion battle system which you intend to build, you should have a prior art search done by a [patent agent (or a patent attorney)][45] before building it. The goal would be to determine whether you need to invent around any specific patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. A number of [active contributors to Ask Patents][46] are patent agents or patent attorneys who do prior art searches on a regular basis.  You should feel free to reach out any of them directly to discuss your project.  Most would give a quick initial consultation for free to discuss fees and scope of work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. That said, here is a list of recent issued patents assigned to Namco Bandai which involve linear motion.  You can use Google Patent search to read these patents. You would want to pay particular attention to the claims of the patents, not the title or the abstract, to determine what invention specifically has been claimed by Namco.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**44 Recent US Patents assigned to Namco related to Linear Motion**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US8262477B2][1]	Information storage medium, game device, and method of controlling game device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US8210941B2][2]	Medium position detection device, display device, game device and token game device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US8142277B2][3]	Program, game system, and movement control method for assisting a user to position a game object&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7922584B2][4]	Image generation method and information storage medium with program for video game in which operation of the controller beyond a predetermined angle causes a character to attack&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7918729B2][5]	Program product, image generation system, and image generation method&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7881521B2][6]	Rotational image generation method, program, and information storage medium and virtual camera&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7796132B1][7]	Image generation system and program&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7724255B2][8]	Program, information storage medium, and image generation system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7722450B2][9]	Game system, program, and information storage medium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7710419B2][10]	Program, information storage medium, and image generation system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7566273B2][11]	Game system and image generating method&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7367887B2][12]	Game apparatus, storage medium, and computer program that adjust level of game difficulty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7341188B2][13]	Position detection system, game system, and control method for position detection system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7312804B2][14]	Program product, image generation method and image generation system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7281981B2][15]	Image generation method, program, and information storage medium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7129945B2][16]	Image generation method, program and information storage medium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7116334B2][17]	Game system and image creating method&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7088366B2][18]	Image generation method, program, and information storage medium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7091972B2][19]	Image generation of shadows utilizing a modifier volume gap region&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7046242B2][20]	Game system, program and image generating method&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7042463B2][21]	Image generating system and program&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7014562B2][22]	Video game machine and after-image display method of video game machine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7015908B2][23]	Image generation system and information storage medium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6927777B2][24]	Image generating system and program&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6891534B2][25]	Method, apparatus, storage medium, program, and program product for generating image data of virtual space&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6890261B2][26]	Game system, program and image generation method&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6850242B1][27]	Image generating system and program&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6828969B2][28]	Game system, program and image generating method&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6798402B1][29]	Received-light pattern detection apparatus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6795082B2][30]	Image generation system, program and image generation method&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6749514B1][31]	Game system and information storage medium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6663491B2][32]	Game apparatus, storage medium and computer program that adjust tempo of sound&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6642917B1][33]	Sign perception system, game system, and computer-readable recording medium having game program recorded thereon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6537153B2][34]	Game system, program and image generating method&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6448970B1][35]	Image generation apparatus for causing movement of moving body based on flow data for a fluid set on a course, and information storage medium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6388667B1][36]	Image generation device and information storage medium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6320988B1][37]	Skeleton model shape transformation method, image synthesizing apparatus, and information storage medium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6206783B1][38]	Control input device and game system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6139473A][39]	Action input device for simulator, and simulator using the same&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US5997303A][40]	Rotary sliding device and a simulator using the same&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US5704837A][41]	Video game steering system causing translation, rotation and curvilinear motion on the object&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US5723802A][42]	Music instrument which generates a rhythm EKG&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US5707060A][43]	Medal dropping game machine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US5598516A][44]	Image synthesizing system and video game apparatus using the same&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US8262477B2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US8210941B2&#xD;&#xA;  [3]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US8142277B2&#xD;&#xA;  [4]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7922584B2&#xD;&#xA;  [5]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7918729B2&#xD;&#xA;  [6]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7881521B2&#xD;&#xA;  [7]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7796132B1&#xD;&#xA;  [8]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7724255B2&#xD;&#xA;  [9]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7722450B2&#xD;&#xA;  [10]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7710419B2&#xD;&#xA;  [11]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7566273B2&#xD;&#xA;  [12]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7367887B2&#xD;&#xA;  [13]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7341188B2&#xD;&#xA;  [14]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7312804B2&#xD;&#xA;  [15]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7281981B2&#xD;&#xA;  [16]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7129945B2&#xD;&#xA;  [17]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7116334B2&#xD;&#xA;  [18]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7088366B2&#xD;&#xA;  [19]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7091972B2&#xD;&#xA;  [20]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7046242B2&#xD;&#xA;  [21]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7042463B2&#xD;&#xA;  [22]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7014562B2&#xD;&#xA;  [23]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7015908B2&#xD;&#xA;  [24]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6927777B2&#xD;&#xA;  [25]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6891534B2&#xD;&#xA;  [26]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6890261B2&#xD;&#xA;  [27]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6850242B1&#xD;&#xA;  [28]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6828969B2&#xD;&#xA;  [29]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6798402B1&#xD;&#xA;  [30]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6795082B2&#xD;&#xA;  [31]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6749514B1&#xD;&#xA;  [32]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6663491B2&#xD;&#xA;  [33]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6642917B1&#xD;&#xA;  [34]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6537153B2&#xD;&#xA;  [35]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6448970B1&#xD;&#xA;  [36]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6388667B1&#xD;&#xA;  [37]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6320988B1&#xD;&#xA;  [38]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6206783B1&#xD;&#xA;  [39]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6139473A&#xD;&#xA;  [40]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US5997303A&#xD;&#xA;  [41]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US5704837A&#xD;&#xA;  [42]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US5723802A&#xD;&#xA;  [43]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US5707060A&#xD;&#xA;  [44]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US5598516A&#xD;&#xA;  [45]:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_attorney#United_States&#xD;&#xA;  [46]:  http://patents.stackexchange.com/users?tab=reputation&amp;filter=all" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9889" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4221" RevisionGUID="3b5d5cec-d9cf-497a-8a52-fc15dd8a4c51" CreationDate="2013-07-17T10:32:31.150" UserId="1767" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1767,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Micah Siegel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4216" RevisionGUID="ef156c27-c117-4afc-b4de-8ee4f6a29d8b" CreationDate="2013-07-17T10:33:54.480" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="   **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE GAME PROMOTION** - This application from [Gree][6] seeks to patent the idea of cross-promotion of games in an online community, in other words promoting one game from within another game! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before June, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Promoting **a 2nd game** from a **2nd game maker** to users of **a 1st game** from a **1st game maker**; where &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Users of **a 2nd game** have previously been promoted another game by the **1st game maker**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Basically, any kind of cross-game promotion between game makers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses a **social graph**, **game level**, **game score** to determine whether to promote a game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Cross-promotion of games**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Displaying cross-game promotions among different game makers, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;promoting a **2nd game** to users running a **1st game** where other users of the **2nd game** have previously been promoted the **1st game**, basically trading promotion between two game makers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151342 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/530,067&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Gree, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** June 21, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;A method for cross-promotion of games, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Transmitting, to a server, an indication that the first video game is running on the local computing device, wherein the first video game is made by the first game maker; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving, from the server, an instruction to display a second message on the local computing device,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the second message promotes a second game maker,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the second message is received if a first message has been previously transmitted from the server to a remote computing device and has been previously displayed on the remote computing device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Displaying, on the local computing device, the second message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of cross-promotion of games, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A **local computer** (desktop or mobile) tells the server that it is running a **1st game**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The server gives the **local computer** instructions to display a **promotion** for a **2nd game**, where&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Other local computers have previously received instructions to promote the **1st game**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The local computer displays the promotion for the **2nd game**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the June, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above AND ALSO uses a **social graph**, **game level**, **game score** to determine whether to promote a game.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Online Gaming Cross-Promotion&quot; screen shots from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/LpuQ9.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151342?dq=US20130151342A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.gree-corp.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4218" RevisionGUID="38cd1c45-8dd1-4189-b8db-caf86e039687" CreationDate="2013-07-17T10:34:11.407" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE ADVERTISING** - This application from [Facebook][6] seeks to patent the idea of... suggesting changes to your advertising campaign based on the performance of your current campaign! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Measuring the performance** of an initial online advertisement; AND &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Suggesting changes to **targeting criteria** an advertiser might use to increase its performance;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **click-through rate**, **conversion rate** or **brand lift rate** as a measurement of performance of the advertisement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Adjusting an Advertising Campaign**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of adjusting an online advertisement which uses click-through-rate, conversion rate, brand-lift rate or any other measurement of an initial advertisement to suggest new targeting criteria to the advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151332 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/316,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Facebook, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 10, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, at a **publishing system from an advertiser**, data for an **advertising campaign** comprising an initial ad and **targeting criteria** defining an initial **target group** for receiving the initial ad;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Providing the **initial ad** for display to a plurality of users in a plurality of segments of the initial target group;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining, by the publishing system, a value of an **advertising metric** for a first one of the plurality of segments based on the display of the initial ad to the users of the first segment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Based on the value of the advertising metric, determining by the publishing system **a suggestion** for the advertiser to modify the **targeting criteria** to **remove** the first segment from the targeting criteria to be used for the initial ad; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Sending the suggestion from the publishing system to the advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of suggesting adjustments to an advertising campaign, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving an initial advertisement and proposed targeting criteria from an advertiser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Displaying the initial advertisement to the target group using the targeting crtieria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Measuring something (anything!) about the performance of the initial advertisement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Suggesting that the advertiser modify the targeting criteria to narrow which members of the target group see the advertisement.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and using **click-through rate**, **conversion rate** or **brand lift rate** as a measurement of performance of the advertisement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Modifying ad campaign based on the performance of the ad&quot;** from Figures of Application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/MlviX.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151332?dq=US20130151332A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.facebook.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4207" RevisionGUID="4fb844db-1997-45cd-8252-346350b514d0" CreationDate="2013-07-17T10:34:26.660" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE DATING** - This application from [Zoosk][6] seeks to patent the idea of finding other people who are nearby and compatible with you online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Finding **location information** about users on a dating site; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Finding **compatible users** to a target user, based on any characteristic defined by the target user (for example, age, gender, height, interests, etc.); and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing information about these compatible users to the target user based on the **location information** of the compatible users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Identifying Nearby, Compatible Users**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of online dating which uses location information and compatibility, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;receiving location information from a bunch of users, getting a **compatibility preference** for one of the users, and finding other users **near that user** who are **compatible** with that user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130145288 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/706,182&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Zoosk, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 5, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 6, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying location information of at least one first user to a second user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving location information from a plurality of third users comprising the at least one first user, and from the second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving from the second user information indicating at least one preference for a plurality of characteristics of other users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving from each of the plurality of third users information comprising a plurality of characteristics of that user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Selecting the at least one first user from the plurality of third users responsive to the current locations of the plurality of third users and the second user, the preference of the second user and the characteristics of the plurality of the third users; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the second user information responsive to the location information of the at least one first user selected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of showing location information about users to another user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Collecting **LOCATION INFORMATION** from a bunch of users, for example, their zip codes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. One user expresses a “preference for a characteristic” about those users, for example, “I only want to meet guys who are taller than 5’11””&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Other users provide (or have provided) information about that characteristic, for example, “I’m a guy and I am six feet tall”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Identifying a subset of the users who meet the characteristic, for example, “all male users who are taller than 5’11”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the first user location information about the subset of users who are compatible with them, for example, “See here on this map are guys who are taller than 5’11” and who are LOCATED near you.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December 5, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Identifying and notifying users of nearby potential matches - Flowchart&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/GUpwM.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130145288?dq=US20130145288A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.zoosk.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4223" RevisionGUID="3ab38a26-a869-410c-9801-9d68e707ed7b" CreationDate="2013-07-17T13:20:12.820" UserId="4231" Text="Patent us20090013028&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This concept has already been developed by MIT in 1996 per The Filament Chip: http://www.media.mit.edu/pia/Research/Filament/index.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent should be invalidated since the concept is in the public domain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you think?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9894" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4223" RevisionGUID="3ab38a26-a869-410c-9801-9d68e707ed7b" CreationDate="2013-07-17T13:20:12.820" UserId="4231" Text="Invalid Patent Since Concept is Already in Public Domain" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9895" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4223" RevisionGUID="3ab38a26-a869-410c-9801-9d68e707ed7b" CreationDate="2013-07-17T13:20:12.820" UserId="4231" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;usa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9896" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4223" RevisionGUID="2c5b4d03-1abd-45dc-ba5c-3a4c920f48b5" CreationDate="2013-07-17T14:56:46.720" UserId="3076" Comment="Addedctag; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20090013028&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4224" RevisionGUID="059fbd34-5df9-449a-84ca-f7190da77751" CreationDate="2013-07-17T15:13:21.710" UserId="3076" Text="This is an **application** not and issued patent. Application numbers start with something that looks like a year while US patents are numbered sequentially and now are in the 8 millions. The full history and status of published application from mid 2003 on are available to public access on the site USPTO Public PAIR. It shows that the application is currently on appeal to the appeals board and that the claims have been amended.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9898" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4223" RevisionGUID="64975f9f-1b3c-4b67-a22a-5479f99e6125" CreationDate="2013-07-17T15:58:22.547" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;us20090013028&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4224" RevisionGUID="696d2721-6e49-40f6-a4af-2df15d692b23" CreationDate="2013-07-17T16:33:30.793" UserId="3076" Comment="added 305 characters in body" Text="This is an **application** not and issued patent. Application numbers start with something that looks like a year while US patents are numbered sequentially and now are in the 8 millions. The full history and status of published application from mid 2003 on are available to public access on the site USPTO Public PAIR. It shows that the application is currently on appeal to the appeals board and that the claims have been amended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't read the file wrapper to see what has been cited against it but I agree with you that this seems old. In 2008 PC Magazine had an article on the [10 greats hacks of all time ][1]that covered several coke machines on the Internet dating from 1991.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2330368,00.asp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9900" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4223" RevisionGUID="054d08ef-8e72-465d-a2f8-c6e907123131" CreationDate="2013-07-17T20:07:34.603" UserId="3076" Comment="edited title" Text="Invalid Patent Since Concept is Already in Public Domain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4225" RevisionGUID="89e434db-7fd3-4e18-ac6f-ba57e5f98a6e" CreationDate="2013-07-17T21:12:48.720" UserId="4221" Text="This essay uploaded 5/11 describes an age filter in Grindr:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.scribd.com/doc/54824671/Grindr-s-produsage-of-sexualization-genderization-and-technosocial-produsages-of-Grindr" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4224" RevisionGUID="42ef0461-ccd4-47ac-8d0b-d344483b197e" CreationDate="2013-07-17T22:00:41.767" UserId="3076" Comment="Typo and clear" Text="This is an **application** not an issued patent. Application numbers start with something that looks like a year while US patents are numbered sequentially and now are in the 8 millions. The full history and status of published application from mid 2003 on are available to public access on the site [USPTO Public PAIR][1]. It shows that the application has been rejected multiple times and is currently waiting for the appeals board to rule on it. I also see that the claims have been amended since it was published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't read the file wrapper to see what has been cited against it but I agree with you that this seems old. In 2008 PC Magazine had an article on the [10 greats hacks of all time ][2]that covered several coke machines on the Internet dating from 1991.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2330368,00.asp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3524" RevisionGUID="41821f13-9ebf-4379-a737-2d2a97483dda" CreationDate="2013-07-18T08:38:42.657" UserId="1767" Comment="added 129 characters in body; edited title" Text="&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US6163785&quot;&gt;US Patent 6163785&lt;/a&gt; controls text/translations in separate documents within a CSL Constrained Source Language model, applied to generate translations that require no post-editing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US20110097693&quot;&gt;US Patent Application 20110097693&lt;/a&gt;, combines text/translation within a single editable text, while controlling delineation and pairing of &quot;chunks&quot; in both text and translation, meant to be edited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15384569/etc/12925732.pdf contains divergent opinions on the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US20110097693&quot;&gt;US Patent Application 20110097693&lt;/a&gt; is a step toward text/translation chunk/alignment controls in one editable text as shown here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIbvJck5JdM and further specified in 13842249.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US6163785&quot;&gt;US Patent 6163785&lt;/a&gt; truly prior art inherently able to control text/translation chunk/alignment within a single editable document? Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9908" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3524" RevisionGUID="41821f13-9ebf-4379-a737-2d2a97483dda" CreationDate="2013-07-18T08:38:42.657" UserId="1767" Comment="added 129 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is US Patent 6163785 prior art for US Patent Application 20110097693" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4216" RevisionGUID="5f8cdde9-fe1d-4e82-8c0e-366fc3f97109" CreationDate="2013-07-18T12:12:27.543" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE GAME PROMOTION** - This application from [Gree][6] seeks to patent the idea of cross-promotion of games in an online community, in other words promoting one game from within another game! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before June, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Promoting **a 2nd game** from a **2nd game maker** to users of **a 1st game** from a **1st game maker**; where &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Users of **a 2nd game** have previously been promoted another game by the **1st game maker**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Basically, any kind of cross-game promotion between game makers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses a **social graph**, **game level**, **game score** to determine whether to promote a game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Cross-promotion of games**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Displaying cross-game promotions among different game makers, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;promoting a **2nd game** to users running a **1st game** where other users of the **2nd game** have previously been promoted the **1st game**, basically trading promotion between two game makers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151342 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/530,067&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Gree, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** June 21, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;A method for cross-promotion of games, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Transmitting, to a server, an indication that the first video game is running on the local computing device, wherein the first video game is made by the first game maker; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving, from the server, an instruction to display a second message on the local computing device,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the second message promotes a second game maker,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the second message is received if a first message has been previously transmitted from the server to a remote computing device and has been previously displayed on the remote computing device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Displaying, on the local computing device, the second message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of cross-promotion of games, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A **local computer** (desktop or mobile) tells the server that it is running a **1st game**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The server gives the **local computer** instructions to display a **promotion** for a **2nd game**, where&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Other local computers have previously received instructions to promote the **1st game**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The local computer displays the promotion for the **2nd game**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the June, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above AND ALSO uses a **social graph**, **game level**, **game score** to determine whether to promote a game.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Online Gaming Cross-Promotion&quot; screen shots from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/LpuQ9.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151342?dq=US20130151342A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.gree-corp.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4218" RevisionGUID="cecfc0a3-92b2-4065-8df5-62d37efbbe8a" CreationDate="2013-07-18T12:12:40.047" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="   **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE ADVERTISING** - This application from [Facebook][6] seeks to patent the idea of... suggesting changes to your advertising campaign based on the performance of your current campaign! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Measuring the performance** of an initial online advertisement; AND &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Suggesting changes to **targeting criteria** an advertiser might use to increase its performance;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **click-through rate**, **conversion rate** or **brand lift rate** as a measurement of performance of the advertisement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Adjusting an Advertising Campaign**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of adjusting an online advertisement which uses click-through-rate, conversion rate, brand-lift rate or any other measurement of an initial advertisement to suggest new targeting criteria to the advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151332 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/316,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Facebook, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 10, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, at a **publishing system from an advertiser**, data for an **advertising campaign** comprising an initial ad and **targeting criteria** defining an initial **target group** for receiving the initial ad;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Providing the **initial ad** for display to a plurality of users in a plurality of segments of the initial target group;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining, by the publishing system, a value of an **advertising metric** for a first one of the plurality of segments based on the display of the initial ad to the users of the first segment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Based on the value of the advertising metric, determining by the publishing system **a suggestion** for the advertiser to modify the **targeting criteria** to **remove** the first segment from the targeting criteria to be used for the initial ad; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Sending the suggestion from the publishing system to the advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of suggesting adjustments to an advertising campaign, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving an initial advertisement and proposed targeting criteria from an advertiser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Displaying the initial advertisement to the target group using the targeting crtieria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Measuring something (anything!) about the performance of the initial advertisement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Suggesting that the advertiser modify the targeting criteria to narrow which members of the target group see the advertisement.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and using **click-through rate**, **conversion rate** or **brand lift rate** as a measurement of performance of the advertisement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Modifying ad campaign based on the performance of the ad&quot;** from Figures of Application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/MlviX.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151332?dq=US20130151332A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.facebook.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4207" RevisionGUID="ea24d80a-69e7-4497-bfe8-57a4d04d6f31" CreationDate="2013-07-18T12:12:54.613" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE DATING** - This application from [Zoosk][6] seeks to patent the idea of finding other people who are nearby and compatible with you online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Finding **location information** about users on a dating site; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Finding **compatible users** to a target user, based on any characteristic defined by the target user (for example, age, gender, height, interests, etc.); and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing information about these compatible users to the target user based on the **location information** of the compatible users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Identifying Nearby, Compatible Users**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of online dating which uses location information and compatibility, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;receiving location information from a bunch of users, getting a **compatibility preference** for one of the users, and finding other users **near that user** who are **compatible** with that user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130145288 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/706,182&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Zoosk, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 5, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 6, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying location information of at least one first user to a second user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving location information from a plurality of third users comprising the at least one first user, and from the second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving from the second user information indicating at least one preference for a plurality of characteristics of other users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving from each of the plurality of third users information comprising a plurality of characteristics of that user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Selecting the at least one first user from the plurality of third users responsive to the current locations of the plurality of third users and the second user, the preference of the second user and the characteristics of the plurality of the third users; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the second user information responsive to the location information of the at least one first user selected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of showing location information about users to another user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Collecting **LOCATION INFORMATION** from a bunch of users, for example, their zip codes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. One user expresses a “preference for a characteristic” about those users, for example, “I only want to meet guys who are taller than 5’11””&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Other users provide (or have provided) information about that characteristic, for example, “I’m a guy and I am six feet tall”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Identifying a subset of the users who meet the characteristic, for example, “all male users who are taller than 5’11”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the first user location information about the subset of users who are compatible with them, for example, “See here on this map are guys who are taller than 5’11” and who are LOCATED near you.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December 5, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Identifying and notifying users of nearby potential matches - Flowchart&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/GUpwM.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130145288?dq=US20130145288A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.zoosk.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4228" RevisionGUID="6d3cc8a1-0b5f-4a61-8734-d3d658daeee3" CreationDate="2013-07-18T14:40:34.133" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON E-READERS** - This application from [Qualcomm][6] seeks to patent the idea of... detecting the user’s reading speed and controlling an electronic display! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Determining a reading speed** of a user; AND &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **Automatically advancing text** on a display based on reading speed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses modification of **brightness**, **contrast**, **font size**, or **resolution** to draw the user’s attention outside the user’s current **area of interest** (basically, to move the eye toward the next chunk of text). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: ELECTRONIC READER DISPLAY CONTROL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of using **reading speed** of a user to advance text within an electronic display.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130152014 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/323,338&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Qualcomm, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying text on a mobile display device, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining a **reading pane** of a display screen operatively coupled with the **mobile display device**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Presenting **text** to a user in the reading pane;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining a **reading speed** of the user based on **user input**; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Automatically **advancing the text** within the reading pane based on the determined reading speed of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying text on a mobile device, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a **reading pane** on the screen;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Displaying text in the reading pane;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Using input from the user to determine the **reading speed** of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Advancing the text within the reading pane based on the reading speed of the user.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and using modification of **brightness**, **contrast**, **font size**, or **resolution** to draw the user’s attention outside the user’s current **area of interest** (basically, to move the eye toward the next portion of text to be read). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Automatic Scroll on Mobile Device&quot; screen shots from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/XvAkC.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130152014?dq=US20130152014A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.qualcomm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9917" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4228" RevisionGUID="6d3cc8a1-0b5f-4a61-8734-d3d658daeee3" CreationDate="2013-07-18T14:40:34.133" UserId="1767" Text="E-Readers - Reader Speed Controlling Electronic Display (Qualcomm) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9918" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4228" RevisionGUID="6d3cc8a1-0b5f-4a61-8734-d3d658daeee3" CreationDate="2013-07-18T14:40:34.133" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130152014&gt;&lt;qualcomm&gt;&lt;e-reader&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4229" RevisionGUID="c9530a4d-b312-4a29-8127-3eede96f78fd" CreationDate="2013-07-18T15:22:00.763" UserId="3076" Text="There are many types of searches. A novelty search, for example, looks for publications of any kind from any place and time that would show that your great idea is not new and non-obvious. You do that to gauge if your idea might be patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if you are planning to build a product and are concerned about infringing someone else's patent, you would do a freedom to operate search. Only the claims of issued and in-force patents in the countries you plan to sell into are relevant. But, in a freedom to operate search, it isn't only the clever part of your product plans that are at issue. You could invent a car that flys and its tire treads can infringe a Firestone tread pattern utility patent. Of course, switching to non-infringing tires later is easier than redesigning the core of a product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although no particular license is required for any searching, people who are serious about freedom to operate searches often want an accompanying opinion that you are clear to make and ship. Only an attorney can provide that since it essentially predicts you having a good outcome if you end up on court. They, rightly, charge a lot for that &quot;insurance policy&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4229" RevisionGUID="85b84f01-f384-4488-a9df-e712533ff3a2" CreationDate="2013-07-18T15:46:24.057" UserId="3076" Comment="edited body" Text="There are many types of searches. A novelty search, for example, looks for publications of any kind from any place and time that would show that your great idea is not new and non-obvious. You do that to gauge if your idea might be patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if you are planning to build a product and are concerned about infringing someone else's patent, you would do a freedom to operate search. Only the claims of issued and in-force patents in the countries you plan to sell into are relevant. But, in a freedom to operate search, it isn't only the clever part of your product plans that are at issue. You could invent a car that flys and its tire treads can infringe a Firestone tread pattern utility patent. Of course, switching to non-infringing tires later is easier than redesigning the core of a product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although no particular license is required for any searching, people who are serious about freedom to operate searches often want an accompanying opinion that you are clear to make and ship. Only an attorney can provide that since it essentially predicts you having a good outcome if you end up in court. They, rightly, charge a lot for that &quot;insurance policy&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4216" RevisionGUID="ae83f55e-a0c9-4a8b-b936-8ffd0e02773c" CreationDate="2013-07-18T18:27:44.557" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE GAME PROMOTION** - This application from [Gree][6] seeks to patent the idea of cross-promotion of games in an online community, in other words promoting one game from within another game! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before June, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Promoting **a 2nd game** from a **2nd game maker** to users of **a 1st game** from a **1st game maker**; where &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Users of **a 2nd game** have previously been promoted another game by the **1st game maker**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Basically, any kind of cross-game promotion between game makers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses a **social graph**, **game level**, **game score** to determine whether to promote a game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Cross-promotion of games**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Displaying cross-game promotions among different game makers, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;promoting a **2nd game** to users running a **1st game** where other users of the **2nd game** have previously been promoted the **1st game**, basically trading promotion between two game makers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151342 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/530,067&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Gree, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** June 21, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;A method for cross-promotion of games, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Transmitting, to a server, an indication that the first video game is running on the local computing device, wherein the first video game is made by the first game maker; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving, from the server, an instruction to display a second message on the local computing device,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the second message promotes a second game maker,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the second message is received if a first message has been previously transmitted from the server to a remote computing device and has been previously displayed on the remote computing device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Displaying, on the local computing device, the second message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of cross-promotion of games, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A **local computer** (desktop or mobile) tells the server that it is running a **1st game**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The server gives the **local computer** instructions to display a **promotion** for a **2nd game**, where&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Other local computers have previously received instructions to promote the **1st game**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The local computer displays the promotion for the **2nd game**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the June, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above AND ALSO uses a **social graph**, **game level**, **game score** to determine whether to promote a game.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Online Gaming Cross-Promotion&quot; screen shots from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/LpuQ9.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151342?dq=US20130151342A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.gree-corp.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4218" RevisionGUID="5ad6b8d5-e720-4d3d-842d-95b106ddf315" CreationDate="2013-07-18T18:27:59.400" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE ADVERTISING** - This application from [Facebook][6] seeks to patent the idea of... suggesting changes to your advertising campaign based on the performance of your current campaign! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Measuring the performance** of an initial online advertisement; AND &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Suggesting changes to **targeting criteria** an advertiser might use to increase its performance;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **click-through rate**, **conversion rate** or **brand lift rate** as a measurement of performance of the advertisement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Adjusting an Advertising Campaign**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of adjusting an online advertisement which uses click-through-rate, conversion rate, brand-lift rate or any other measurement of an initial advertisement to suggest new targeting criteria to the advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151332 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/316,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Facebook, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 10, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, at a **publishing system from an advertiser**, data for an **advertising campaign** comprising an initial ad and **targeting criteria** defining an initial **target group** for receiving the initial ad;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Providing the **initial ad** for display to a plurality of users in a plurality of segments of the initial target group;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining, by the publishing system, a value of an **advertising metric** for a first one of the plurality of segments based on the display of the initial ad to the users of the first segment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Based on the value of the advertising metric, determining by the publishing system **a suggestion** for the advertiser to modify the **targeting criteria** to **remove** the first segment from the targeting criteria to be used for the initial ad; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Sending the suggestion from the publishing system to the advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of suggesting adjustments to an advertising campaign, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving an initial advertisement and proposed targeting criteria from an advertiser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Displaying the initial advertisement to the target group using the targeting crtieria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Measuring something (anything!) about the performance of the initial advertisement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Suggesting that the advertiser modify the targeting criteria to narrow which members of the target group see the advertisement.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and using **click-through rate**, **conversion rate** or **brand lift rate** as a measurement of performance of the advertisement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Modifying ad campaign based on the performance of the ad&quot;** from Figures of Application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/MlviX.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151332?dq=US20130151332A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.facebook.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4207" RevisionGUID="891967d1-0b9e-4451-a982-142e35e94825" CreationDate="2013-07-18T18:28:15.127" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE DATING** - This application from [Zoosk][6] seeks to patent the idea of finding other people who are nearby and compatible with you online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Finding **location information** about users on a dating site; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Finding **compatible users** to a target user, based on any characteristic defined by the target user (for example, age, gender, height, interests, etc.); and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing information about these compatible users to the target user based on the **location information** of the compatible users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Identifying Nearby, Compatible Users**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of online dating which uses location information and compatibility, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;receiving location information from a bunch of users, getting a **compatibility preference** for one of the users, and finding other users **near that user** who are **compatible** with that user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130145288 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/706,182&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Zoosk, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 5, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 6, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying location information of at least one first user to a second user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving location information from a plurality of third users comprising the at least one first user, and from the second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving from the second user information indicating at least one preference for a plurality of characteristics of other users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving from each of the plurality of third users information comprising a plurality of characteristics of that user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Selecting the at least one first user from the plurality of third users responsive to the current locations of the plurality of third users and the second user, the preference of the second user and the characteristics of the plurality of the third users; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the second user information responsive to the location information of the at least one first user selected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of showing location information about users to another user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Collecting **LOCATION INFORMATION** from a bunch of users, for example, their zip codes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. One user expresses a “preference for a characteristic” about those users, for example, “I only want to meet guys who are taller than 5’11””&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Other users provide (or have provided) information about that characteristic, for example, “I’m a guy and I am six feet tall”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Identifying a subset of the users who meet the characteristic, for example, “all male users who are taller than 5’11”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the first user location information about the subset of users who are compatible with them, for example, “See here on this map are guys who are taller than 5’11” and who are LOCATED near you.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December 5, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Identifying and notifying users of nearby potential matches - Flowchart&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/GUpwM.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130145288?dq=US20130145288A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.zoosk.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4228" RevisionGUID="f9a76c52-cc8d-44f6-b346-57bcdfb40cfa" CreationDate="2013-07-18T18:28:29.517" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON E-READERS** - This application from [Qualcomm][6] seeks to patent the idea of... detecting the user’s reading speed and controlling an electronic display! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Determining a reading speed** of a user; AND &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **Automatically advancing text** on a display based on reading speed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses modification of **brightness**, **contrast**, **font size**, or **resolution** to draw the user’s attention outside the user’s current **area of interest** (basically, to move the eye toward the next chunk of text). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: ELECTRONIC READER DISPLAY CONTROL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of using **reading speed** of a user to advance text within an electronic display.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130152014 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/323,338&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Qualcomm, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying text on a mobile display device, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining a **reading pane** of a display screen operatively coupled with the **mobile display device**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Presenting **text** to a user in the reading pane;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining a **reading speed** of the user based on **user input**; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Automatically **advancing the text** within the reading pane based on the determined reading speed of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying text on a mobile device, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a **reading pane** on the screen;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Displaying text in the reading pane;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Using input from the user to determine the **reading speed** of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Advancing the text within the reading pane based on the reading speed of the user.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and using modification of **brightness**, **contrast**, **font size**, or **resolution** to draw the user’s attention outside the user’s current **area of interest** (basically, to move the eye toward the next portion of text to be read). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Automatic Scroll on Mobile Device&quot; screen shots from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/XvAkC.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130152014?dq=US20130152014A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.qualcomm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3694" RevisionGUID="719b751e-7c52-4f88-8cb7-d9df79567315" CreationDate="2013-07-18T18:29:48.430" UserId="1767" Comment="added 348 characters in body; deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Help **kill bad patent applications by providing evidence of prior art**. Making a difference is as simple as using Google to find literature relevant to a pending application.  If you're familiar with the ideas represented by the patents &amp; applications featured in a question with this tag, please submit prior art by answering the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions on which to use the [tag:prior-art-request] tag:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Prior Art Searches:** Any time you are soliciting help in searching for examples of prior art for a given US Patent application or US Patent.  Please follow the format suggested in this answer: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/a/146/1767&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **US Patent Applications** also should be tagged with [tag:pre-grant]&#xD;&#xA; - **US Patents** also should be tagged with [tag:post-grant]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4231" RevisionGUID="717443a0-0bc1-41d3-b1f4-2bca92ac0786" CreationDate="2013-07-18T23:21:37.887" UserId="3076" Text="At least since Adobe Reader 7 in 2005 there has been an autoscroll feature for the disabled. The speed of the autoscroll is controlled by hitting 1-9 for ten different rates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Link][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Screenshot &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/accessibility/reader/pdfs/reader7_accessibility.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/dsBxV.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4232" RevisionGUID="fb67f0fc-e1dc-4cfd-a608-f7675934f566" CreationDate="2013-07-19T09:58:01.667" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ONLINE CALENDARS** - This application from [HTC][6] seeks to patent the idea of... calendar reminders based on location! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Aug 22, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating **EVENT REMINDERS** for a user; where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **EVENT REMINDERS** are based on **TRAVEL TIME** to a next event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **GPS**, **Traffic conditions**, **Walking time** to estimate travel time, or involves **contacting another individual** when it appears you will be late to a meeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: METHOD FOR REMINDING CALENDAR SCHEDULE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method in which a reminding message is provided in advance to a user according to the distance between the location of the user’s previous event and the location of an upcoming event, so that the user will not be late for the upcoming event.  Basically a standard iPhone reminder of “Your meeting with David Kappos will occur in {X} minutes”, where {X} is calculated in part by how long will be required for you to get to the event”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151143 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/761,161&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [HTC Corporation][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating August 22, 2008**&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for creating a calendar reminder, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Setting a first schedule and a first **location** of a first event in a calendar;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Obtaining first positioning information of a **current location** of the mobile apparatus during the first event according to the first schedule, and storing the first positioning information as event positioning information of the first location; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Retrieving the event positioning information for reminding the calendar schedule when the first location is set in a next event.d&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for creating a calendar reminder, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a 1st event on a calendar;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Using the current location of the user as the location of the 1st event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Creating a reminder for the next event based on the location of the next event and location of the 1st event.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the August, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and AND ALSO uses **GPS**, **Traffic conditions**, **Walking time** to estimate travel time, or involves **contacting another individual** when it appears you will be late to a meeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A method of creating event reminders&quot; screen shots from HTC**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/7X5oi.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151143?dq=US+20130151143+A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.htc.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9932" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4232" RevisionGUID="fb67f0fc-e1dc-4cfd-a608-f7675934f566" CreationDate="2013-07-19T09:58:01.667" UserId="1767" Text="Online Calendars - Event Reminders Based on Travel Time (HTC) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9933" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4232" RevisionGUID="fb67f0fc-e1dc-4cfd-a608-f7675934f566" CreationDate="2013-07-19T09:58:01.667" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130151143a1&gt;&lt;calendar&gt;&lt;htc&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9934" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4232" RevisionGUID="b391c68f-6660-4946-aceb-e2ac95d589f9" CreationDate="2013-07-19T10:07:04.857" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="E-Calendars - Event Reminders Based on Travel Time (HTC) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4232" RevisionGUID="b391c68f-6660-4946-aceb-e2ac95d589f9" CreationDate="2013-07-19T10:07:04.857" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ELECTRONIC CALENDARS** - This application from [HTC][6] seeks to patent the idea of... calendar reminders based on location! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Aug 22, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating **EVENT REMINDERS** for a user; where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **EVENT REMINDERS** are based on **TRAVEL TIME** to a next event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **GPS**, **Traffic conditions**, **Walking time** to estimate travel time, or involves **contacting another individual** when it appears you will be late to a meeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: METHOD FOR REMINDING CALENDAR SCHEDULE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method in which a reminding message is provided in advance to a user according to the distance between the location of the user’s previous event and the location of an upcoming event, so that the user will not be late for the upcoming event.  Basically a standard iPhone reminder of “Your meeting with David Kappos will occur in {X} minutes”, where {X} is calculated in part by how long will be required for you to get to the event”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151143 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/761,161&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [HTC Corporation][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating August 22, 2008**&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for creating a calendar reminder, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Setting a first schedule and a first **location** of a first event in a calendar;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Obtaining first positioning information of a **current location** of the mobile apparatus during the first event according to the first schedule, and storing the first positioning information as event positioning information of the first location; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Retrieving the event positioning information for reminding the calendar schedule when the first location is set in a next event.d&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for creating a calendar reminder, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a 1st event on a calendar;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Using the current location of the user as the location of the 1st event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Creating a reminder for the next event based on the location of the next event and location of the 1st event.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the August, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and AND ALSO uses **GPS**, **Traffic conditions**, **Walking time** to estimate travel time, or involves **contacting another individual** when it appears you will be late to a meeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A method of creating event reminders&quot; screen shots from HTC**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/7X5oi.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151143?dq=US+20130151143+A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.htc.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4233" RevisionGUID="362a2014-4edb-4b33-8871-2097a50b1645" CreationDate="2013-07-19T11:27:46.330" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON DISPLAYING ICONS** - This application from [Samsung][6] seeks to patent the idea of... changing icon appearance based on their frequency of use! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 9, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Storing **FREQUENCY OF USE** of icons on a screen; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Modifying the **APPEARANCE OF AN ICON** based on its **FREQUENCY OF USE**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO modifies **ICON SIZE** or **ICON SPACING** based on frequency of use of an **ICON**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: CHANGING ICONS BASED ON FREQUENCY OF USE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of displaying icons on a screen which involves displaying multiple icons, storing the frequency of use of each icon, and modifying how the icons appear based on their frequency of use.  Yes, the applicant wants to patent **any kind of modification** to icons based on **frequency of use**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130152017 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/674,833&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Samsung Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 9, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for creating a graphic user interface (GUI), comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying a **plurality of icons** on a screen;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Storing a **frequency of use** of each of the icons displayed on the screen; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Changing an **external appearance** of at least one **icon** on the screen from among the plurality of icons **to reflect the frequency of use** of the at least one icon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for modifying icons displayed on a screen, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying multiple icons;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Storing the **frequency of use** of each icon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. **Changing the appearance** of at least one icon based on **frequency of use** of that icon.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and AND ALSO modifies **ICON SIZE** or **ICON SPACING** based on **frequency of use** of an **icon**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A method of resizing icons based on frequency of use&quot; screen shots from Samsung**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/vWn0G.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130152017?dq=US20130152017+A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.samsung.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9937" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4233" RevisionGUID="362a2014-4edb-4b33-8871-2097a50b1645" CreationDate="2013-07-19T11:27:46.330" UserId="1767" Text="User Interface - Changing icon appearance based on frequency of use (Samsung) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9938" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4233" RevisionGUID="362a2014-4edb-4b33-8871-2097a50b1645" CreationDate="2013-07-19T11:27:46.330" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;user-interface&gt;&lt;samsung&gt;&lt;us20130152017a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4233" RevisionGUID="c83f3a7e-93bc-4b01-9e6f-c51b99534f39" CreationDate="2013-07-19T11:33:05.933" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON DISPLAYING ICONS** - This application from [Samsung][6] seeks to patent the idea of... changing icon appearance based on their frequency of use! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 9, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Storing **FREQUENCY OF USE** of icons on a screen; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Modifying the **APPEARANCE OF AN ICON** based on its **FREQUENCY OF USE**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO modifies **ICON SIZE** or **ICON SPACING** based on frequency of use of an **ICON**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: CHANGING ICONS BASED ON FREQUENCY OF USE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of displaying icons on a screen which involves displaying multiple icons, storing the frequency of use of each icon, and modifying how the icons appear based on their frequency of use.  Yes, the applicant wants to patent **any kind of modification** to icons based on **frequency of use**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130152017 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/674,833&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Samsung Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 9, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for creating a graphic user interface (GUI), comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying a **plurality of icons** on a screen;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Storing a **frequency of use** of each of the icons displayed on the screen; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Changing an **external appearance** of at least one **icon** on the screen from among the plurality of icons **to reflect the frequency of use** of the at least one icon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for modifying icons displayed on a screen, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying multiple icons;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Storing the **frequency of use** of each icon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. **Changing the appearance** of at least one icon based on **frequency of use** of that icon.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and AND ALSO modifies **ICON SIZE** or **ICON SPACING** based on **frequency of use** of an **icon**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A method of resizing icons based on frequency of use&quot; screen shots from Samsung**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/vWn0G.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130152017?dq=US20130152017+A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.samsung.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9940" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4055" RevisionGUID="538d4ce4-efd7-4c33-a515-50fe2512815e" CreationDate="2013-07-19T12:17:38.613" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;us20130110678&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4216" RevisionGUID="7e45c5ee-67c3-4bd8-bf73-53fcc28da6a5" CreationDate="2013-07-19T12:17:53.583" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE GAME PROMOTION** - This application from [Gree][6] seeks to patent the idea of cross-promotion of games in an online community, in other words promoting one game from within another game! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before June, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Promoting **a 2nd game** from a **2nd game maker** to users of **a 1st game** from a **1st game maker**; where &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Users of **a 2nd game** have previously been promoted another game by the **1st game maker**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Basically, any kind of cross-game promotion between game makers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses a **social graph**, **game level**, **game score** to determine whether to promote a game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Cross-promotion of games**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Displaying cross-game promotions among different game makers, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;promoting a **2nd game** to users running a **1st game** where other users of the **2nd game** have previously been promoted the **1st game**, basically trading promotion between two game makers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151342 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/530,067&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Gree, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** June 21, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;A method for cross-promotion of games, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Transmitting, to a server, an indication that the first video game is running on the local computing device, wherein the first video game is made by the first game maker; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving, from the server, an instruction to display a second message on the local computing device,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the second message promotes a second game maker,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the second message is received if a first message has been previously transmitted from the server to a remote computing device and has been previously displayed on the remote computing device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Displaying, on the local computing device, the second message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of cross-promotion of games, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A **local computer** (desktop or mobile) tells the server that it is running a **1st game**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The server gives the **local computer** instructions to display a **promotion** for a **2nd game**, where&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Other local computers have previously received instructions to promote the **1st game**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The local computer displays the promotion for the **2nd game**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the June, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above AND ALSO uses a **social graph**, **game level**, **game score** to determine whether to promote a game.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Online Gaming Cross-Promotion&quot; screen shots from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/LpuQ9.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151342?dq=US20130151342A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.gree-corp.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4218" RevisionGUID="793412fa-3962-45d7-9284-baa4852ccd00" CreationDate="2013-07-19T12:18:08.250" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE ADVERTISING** - This application from [Facebook][6] seeks to patent the idea of... suggesting changes to your advertising campaign based on the performance of your current campaign! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Measuring the performance** of an initial online advertisement; AND &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Suggesting changes to **targeting criteria** an advertiser might use to increase its performance;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **click-through rate**, **conversion rate** or **brand lift rate** as a measurement of performance of the advertisement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Adjusting an Advertising Campaign**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of adjusting an online advertisement which uses click-through-rate, conversion rate, brand-lift rate or any other measurement of an initial advertisement to suggest new targeting criteria to the advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151332 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/316,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Facebook, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 10, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, at a **publishing system from an advertiser**, data for an **advertising campaign** comprising an initial ad and **targeting criteria** defining an initial **target group** for receiving the initial ad;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Providing the **initial ad** for display to a plurality of users in a plurality of segments of the initial target group;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining, by the publishing system, a value of an **advertising metric** for a first one of the plurality of segments based on the display of the initial ad to the users of the first segment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Based on the value of the advertising metric, determining by the publishing system **a suggestion** for the advertiser to modify the **targeting criteria** to **remove** the first segment from the targeting criteria to be used for the initial ad; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Sending the suggestion from the publishing system to the advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of suggesting adjustments to an advertising campaign, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving an initial advertisement and proposed targeting criteria from an advertiser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Displaying the initial advertisement to the target group using the targeting crtieria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Measuring something (anything!) about the performance of the initial advertisement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Suggesting that the advertiser modify the targeting criteria to narrow which members of the target group see the advertisement.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and using **click-through rate**, **conversion rate** or **brand lift rate** as a measurement of performance of the advertisement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Modifying ad campaign based on the performance of the ad&quot;** from Figures of Application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/MlviX.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151332?dq=US20130151332A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.facebook.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9943" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4207" RevisionGUID="ad2b4945-aecf-450e-b06b-44db0bac388b" CreationDate="2013-07-19T12:18:22.493" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE DATING** - This application from [Zoosk][6] seeks to patent the idea of finding other people who are nearby and compatible with you online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Finding **location information** about users on a dating site; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Finding **compatible users** to a target user, based on any characteristic defined by the target user (for example, age, gender, height, interests, etc.); and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing information about these compatible users to the target user based on the **location information** of the compatible users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Identifying Nearby, Compatible Users**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of online dating which uses location information and compatibility, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;receiving location information from a bunch of users, getting a **compatibility preference** for one of the users, and finding other users **near that user** who are **compatible** with that user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130145288 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/706,182&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Zoosk, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 5, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 6, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying location information of at least one first user to a second user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving location information from a plurality of third users comprising the at least one first user, and from the second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving from the second user information indicating at least one preference for a plurality of characteristics of other users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving from each of the plurality of third users information comprising a plurality of characteristics of that user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Selecting the at least one first user from the plurality of third users responsive to the current locations of the plurality of third users and the second user, the preference of the second user and the characteristics of the plurality of the third users; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the second user information responsive to the location information of the at least one first user selected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of showing location information about users to another user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Collecting **LOCATION INFORMATION** from a bunch of users, for example, their zip codes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. One user expresses a “preference for a characteristic” about those users, for example, “I only want to meet guys who are taller than 5’11””&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Other users provide (or have provided) information about that characteristic, for example, “I’m a guy and I am six feet tall”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Identifying a subset of the users who meet the characteristic, for example, “all male users who are taller than 5’11”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the first user location information about the subset of users who are compatible with them, for example, “See here on this map are guys who are taller than 5’11” and who are LOCATED near you.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December 5, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Identifying and notifying users of nearby potential matches - Flowchart&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/GUpwM.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130145288?dq=US20130145288A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.zoosk.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4228" RevisionGUID="9c0cab5e-3065-402e-aa4f-88b06a1cf242" CreationDate="2013-07-19T12:18:39.933" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON E-READERS** - This application from [Qualcomm][6] seeks to patent the idea of... detecting the user’s reading speed and controlling an electronic display! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Determining a reading speed** of a user; AND &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **Automatically advancing text** on a display based on reading speed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses modification of **brightness**, **contrast**, **font size**, or **resolution** to draw the user’s attention outside the user’s current **area of interest** (basically, to move the eye toward the next chunk of text). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: ELECTRONIC READER DISPLAY CONTROL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of using **reading speed** of a user to advance text within an electronic display.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130152014 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/323,338&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Qualcomm, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying text on a mobile display device, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining a **reading pane** of a display screen operatively coupled with the **mobile display device**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Presenting **text** to a user in the reading pane;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining a **reading speed** of the user based on **user input**; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Automatically **advancing the text** within the reading pane based on the determined reading speed of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying text on a mobile device, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a **reading pane** on the screen;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Displaying text in the reading pane;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Using input from the user to determine the **reading speed** of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Advancing the text within the reading pane based on the reading speed of the user.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and using modification of **brightness**, **contrast**, **font size**, or **resolution** to draw the user’s attention outside the user’s current **area of interest** (basically, to move the eye toward the next portion of text to be read). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Automatic Scroll on Mobile Device&quot; screen shots from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/XvAkC.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130152014?dq=US20130152014A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.qualcomm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4232" RevisionGUID="605836b8-4957-44ae-a6eb-c7365dc70838" CreationDate="2013-07-19T12:18:55.350" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ELECTRONIC CALENDARS** - This application from [HTC][6] seeks to patent the idea of... calendar reminders based on location! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Aug 22, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating **EVENT REMINDERS** for a user; where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **EVENT REMINDERS** are based on **TRAVEL TIME** to a next event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **GPS**, **Traffic conditions**, **Walking time** to estimate travel time, or involves **contacting another individual** when it appears you will be late to a meeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: METHOD FOR REMINDING CALENDAR SCHEDULE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method in which a reminding message is provided in advance to a user according to the distance between the location of the user’s previous event and the location of an upcoming event, so that the user will not be late for the upcoming event.  Basically a standard iPhone reminder of “Your meeting with David Kappos will occur in {X} minutes”, where {X} is calculated in part by how long will be required for you to get to the event”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151143 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/761,161&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [HTC Corporation][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating August 22, 2008**&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for creating a calendar reminder, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Setting a first schedule and a first **location** of a first event in a calendar;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Obtaining first positioning information of a **current location** of the mobile apparatus during the first event according to the first schedule, and storing the first positioning information as event positioning information of the first location; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Retrieving the event positioning information for reminding the calendar schedule when the first location is set in a next event.d&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for creating a calendar reminder, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a 1st event on a calendar;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Using the current location of the user as the location of the 1st event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Creating a reminder for the next event based on the location of the next event and location of the 1st event.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the August, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and AND ALSO uses **GPS**, **Traffic conditions**, **Walking time** to estimate travel time, or involves **contacting another individual** when it appears you will be late to a meeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A method of creating event reminders&quot; screen shots from HTC**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/7X5oi.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151143?dq=US+20130151143+A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.htc.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9946" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4233" RevisionGUID="2959b1f1-14e6-4cd5-8584-ae9de76dea99" CreationDate="2013-07-19T12:19:17.320" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON DISPLAYING ICONS** - This application from [Samsung][6] seeks to patent the idea of... changing icon appearance based on their frequency of use! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 9, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Storing **FREQUENCY OF USE** of icons on a screen; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Modifying the **APPEARANCE OF AN ICON** based on its **FREQUENCY OF USE**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO modifies **ICON SIZE** or **ICON SPACING** based on frequency of use of an **ICON**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: CHANGING ICONS BASED ON FREQUENCY OF USE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of displaying icons on a screen which involves displaying multiple icons, storing the frequency of use of each icon, and modifying how the icons appear based on their frequency of use.  Yes, the applicant wants to patent **any kind of modification** to icons based on **frequency of use**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130152017 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/674,833&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Samsung Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 9, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for creating a graphic user interface (GUI), comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying a **plurality of icons** on a screen;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Storing a **frequency of use** of each of the icons displayed on the screen; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Changing an **external appearance** of at least one **icon** on the screen from among the plurality of icons **to reflect the frequency of use** of the at least one icon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for modifying icons displayed on a screen, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying multiple icons;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Storing the **frequency of use** of each icon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. **Changing the appearance** of at least one icon based on **frequency of use** of that icon.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and AND ALSO modifies **ICON SIZE** or **ICON SPACING** based on **frequency of use** of an **icon**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A method of resizing icons based on frequency of use&quot; screen shots from Samsung**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/vWn0G.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130152017?dq=US20130152017+A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.samsung.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4233" RevisionGUID="ff171efe-67fc-4cce-9f51-99321bebb1e2" CreationDate="2013-07-19T16:13:39.547" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON DISPLAYING ICONS** - This application from [Samsung][6] seeks to patent the idea of... changing icon appearance based on their frequency of use! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 9, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Storing **FREQUENCY OF USE** of screen icons; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Modifying the **APPEARANCE OF AN ICON** based on its **FREQUENCY OF USE**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO modifies **ICON SIZE** or **ICON SPACING** based on frequency of use of an **ICON**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: CHANGING ICONS BASED ON FREQUENCY OF USE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of displaying icons on a screen which involves displaying multiple icons, storing the frequency of use of each icon, and modifying how the icons appear based on their frequency of use.  Yes, the applicant wants to patent **any kind of modification** to icons based on **frequency of use**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130152017 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/674,833&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Samsung Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 9, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for creating a graphic user interface (GUI), comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying a **plurality of icons** on a screen;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Storing a **frequency of use** of each of the icons displayed on the screen; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Changing an **external appearance** of at least one **icon** on the screen from among the plurality of icons **to reflect the frequency of use** of the at least one icon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for modifying icons displayed on a screen, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying multiple icons;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Storing the **frequency of use** of each icon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. **Changing the appearance** of at least one icon based on **frequency of use** of that icon.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and AND ALSO modifies **ICON SIZE** or **ICON SPACING** based on **frequency of use** of an **icon**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A method of resizing icons based on frequency of use&quot; screen shots from Samsung**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/vWn0G.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130152017?dq=US20130152017+A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.samsung.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4235" RevisionGUID="f54d4a79-a641-4c13-bea1-4d9a40092de8" CreationDate="2013-07-19T23:52:26.727" UserId="3076" Text="**Method and system for scheduling appointment according to real-time information**&#xD;&#xA;EP 1378842 A2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Publication date	Jan  7, 2004&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Filing date	        Jun 12, 2002&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Priority date	Sep  5, 2001&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;May not be dead-on but it has appointments, reminders and location and ETA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paragraph 7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The apparatus also includes components and program logic to acquire and/or obtain real-time information/data and adapt the real-time information/data to augment one or more event-based appointments. The real-time information may include information such as, by way of example, geographical location, proximity location (e.g., proximity to other devices), traffic conditions, weather conditions, time, and the like. The apparatus can then use the acquired real-time information or event to augment the event-based appointments.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; claim 4&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The method of Claim 1 further comprising:&#xD;&#xA;determining movement parameters of the electronic scheduler (814); determining an estimated time of arrival at an event-based appointment location (816) using the movement parameters, the event based appointment location being dependent an the appointment; and **notifying a target of the event-based appointment if the estimated time of arrival is beyond an appointment time** associated with the event-based appointment(824)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9963" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4232" RevisionGUID="cc640c80-fbc0-4f42-9433-890e699d21e7" CreationDate="2013-07-20T06:58:25.007" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ELECTRONIC CALENDARS** - This application from [HTC][6] seeks to patent the idea of... calendar reminders based on location! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Aug 22, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating **EVENT REMINDERS** for a user; where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **EVENT REMINDERS** are based on **TRAVEL TIME** to a next event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **GPS**, **Traffic conditions**, **Walking time** to estimate travel time, or involves **contacting another individual** when it appears you will be late to a meeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: METHOD FOR REMINDING CALENDAR SCHEDULE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method in which a reminding message is provided in advance to a user according to the distance between the location of the user’s previous event and the location of an upcoming event, so that the user will not be late for the upcoming event.  Basically a standard iPhone reminder of “Your meeting with David Kappos will occur in {X} minutes”, where {X} is calculated in part by how long will be required for you to get to the event”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151143 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/761,161&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [HTC Corporation][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating August 22, 2008**&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for creating a calendar reminder, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Setting a first schedule and a first **location** of a first event in a calendar;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Obtaining first positioning information of a **current location** of the mobile apparatus during the first event according to the first schedule, and storing the first positioning information as event positioning information of the first location; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Retrieving the event positioning information for reminding the calendar schedule when the first location is set in a next event.d&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for creating a calendar reminder, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a 1st event on a calendar;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Using the current location of the user as the location of the 1st event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Creating a reminder for the next event based on the location of the next event and location of the 1st event.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the August, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and AND ALSO uses **GPS**, **Traffic conditions**, **Walking time** to estimate travel time, or involves **contacting another individual** when it appears you will be late to a meeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A method of creating event reminders&quot; screen shots from HTC**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/7X5oi.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151143?dq=US+20130151143+A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.htc.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4233" RevisionGUID="75569f54-865a-42bf-9f79-45513184122b" CreationDate="2013-07-20T06:58:38.697" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON DISPLAYING ICONS** - This application from [Samsung][6] seeks to patent the idea of... changing icon appearance based on their frequency of use! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 9, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Storing **FREQUENCY OF USE** of screen icons; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Modifying the **APPEARANCE OF AN ICON** based on its **FREQUENCY OF USE**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO modifies **ICON SIZE** or **ICON SPACING** based on frequency of use of an **ICON**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: CHANGING ICONS BASED ON FREQUENCY OF USE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of displaying icons on a screen which involves displaying multiple icons, storing the frequency of use of each icon, and modifying how the icons appear based on their frequency of use.  Yes, the applicant wants to patent **any kind of modification** to icons based on **frequency of use**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130152017 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/674,833&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Samsung Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 9, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for creating a graphic user interface (GUI), comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying a **plurality of icons** on a screen;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Storing a **frequency of use** of each of the icons displayed on the screen; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Changing an **external appearance** of at least one **icon** on the screen from among the plurality of icons **to reflect the frequency of use** of the at least one icon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for modifying icons displayed on a screen, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying multiple icons;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Storing the **frequency of use** of each icon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. **Changing the appearance** of at least one icon based on **frequency of use** of that icon.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and AND ALSO modifies **ICON SIZE** or **ICON SPACING** based on **frequency of use** of an **icon**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A method of resizing icons based on frequency of use&quot; screen shots from Samsung**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/vWn0G.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130152017?dq=US20130152017+A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.samsung.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4207" RevisionGUID="44a8c650-d6a8-40b4-a757-2fee113546f2" CreationDate="2013-07-20T06:59:06.000" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE DATING** - This application from [Zoosk][6] seeks to patent the idea of finding other people who are nearby and compatible with you online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Finding **location information** about users on a dating site; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Finding **compatible users** to a target user, based on any characteristic defined by the target user (for example, age, gender, height, interests, etc.); and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing information about these compatible users to the target user based on the **location information** of the compatible users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Identifying Nearby, Compatible Users**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of online dating which uses location information and compatibility, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;receiving location information from a bunch of users, getting a **compatibility preference** for one of the users, and finding other users **near that user** who are **compatible** with that user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130145288 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/706,182&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Zoosk, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 5, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 6, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying location information of at least one first user to a second user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving location information from a plurality of third users comprising the at least one first user, and from the second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving from the second user information indicating at least one preference for a plurality of characteristics of other users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving from each of the plurality of third users information comprising a plurality of characteristics of that user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Selecting the at least one first user from the plurality of third users responsive to the current locations of the plurality of third users and the second user, the preference of the second user and the characteristics of the plurality of the third users; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the second user information responsive to the location information of the at least one first user selected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of showing location information about users to another user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Collecting **LOCATION INFORMATION** from a bunch of users, for example, their zip codes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. One user expresses a “preference for a characteristic” about those users, for example, “I only want to meet guys who are taller than 5’11””&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Other users provide (or have provided) information about that characteristic, for example, “I’m a guy and I am six feet tall”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Identifying a subset of the users who meet the characteristic, for example, “all male users who are taller than 5’11”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the first user location information about the subset of users who are compatible with them, for example, “See here on this map are guys who are taller than 5’11” and who are LOCATED near you.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December 5, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Identifying and notifying users of nearby potential matches - Flowchart&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/GUpwM.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130145288?dq=US20130145288A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.zoosk.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4216" RevisionGUID="fdb93cfd-9d36-41bd-8079-d08b04c1f5db" CreationDate="2013-07-20T06:59:20.627" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE GAME PROMOTION** - This application from [Gree][6] seeks to patent the idea of cross-promotion of games in an online community, in other words promoting one game from within another game! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before June, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Promoting **a 2nd game** from a **2nd game maker** to users of **a 1st game** from a **1st game maker**; where &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Users of **a 2nd game** have previously been promoted another game by the **1st game maker**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Basically, any kind of cross-game promotion between game makers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses a **social graph**, **game level**, **game score** to determine whether to promote a game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Cross-promotion of games**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Displaying cross-game promotions among different game makers, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;promoting a **2nd game** to users running a **1st game** where other users of the **2nd game** have previously been promoted the **1st game**, basically trading promotion between two game makers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151342 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/530,067&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Gree, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** June 21, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;A method for cross-promotion of games, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Transmitting, to a server, an indication that the first video game is running on the local computing device, wherein the first video game is made by the first game maker; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving, from the server, an instruction to display a second message on the local computing device,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the second message promotes a second game maker,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the second message is received if a first message has been previously transmitted from the server to a remote computing device and has been previously displayed on the remote computing device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Displaying, on the local computing device, the second message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of cross-promotion of games, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A **local computer** (desktop or mobile) tells the server that it is running a **1st game**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The server gives the **local computer** instructions to display a **promotion** for a **2nd game**, where&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Other local computers have previously received instructions to promote the **1st game**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The local computer displays the promotion for the **2nd game**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the June, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above AND ALSO uses a **social graph**, **game level**, **game score** to determine whether to promote a game.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Online Gaming Cross-Promotion&quot; screen shots from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/LpuQ9.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151342?dq=US20130151342A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.gree-corp.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4218" RevisionGUID="4fbfccff-4f96-45f2-a4fd-03d0c59afa3f" CreationDate="2013-07-20T20:43:36.127" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE ADVERTISING** - This application from [Facebook][6] seeks to patent the idea of... suggesting changes to your advertising campaign based on the performance of your current campaign! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Measuring the performance** of an initial online advertisement; AND &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Suggesting changes to **targeting criteria** an advertiser might use to increase its performance;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **click-through rate**, **conversion rate** or **brand lift rate** as a measurement of performance of the advertisement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Adjusting an Advertising Campaign**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of adjusting an online advertisement which uses click-through-rate, conversion rate, brand-lift rate or any other measurement of an initial advertisement to suggest new targeting criteria to the advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151332 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/316,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Facebook, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 10, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, at a **publishing system from an advertiser**, data for an **advertising campaign** comprising an initial ad and **targeting criteria** defining an initial **target group** for receiving the initial ad;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Providing the **initial ad** for display to a plurality of users in a plurality of segments of the initial target group;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining, by the publishing system, a value of an **advertising metric** for a first one of the plurality of segments based on the display of the initial ad to the users of the first segment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Based on the value of the advertising metric, determining by the publishing system **a suggestion** for the advertiser to modify the **targeting criteria** to **remove** the first segment from the targeting criteria to be used for the initial ad; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Sending the suggestion from the publishing system to the advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of suggesting adjustments to an advertising campaign, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving an initial advertisement and proposed targeting criteria from an advertiser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Displaying the initial advertisement to the target group using the targeting crtieria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Measuring something (anything!) about the performance of the initial advertisement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Suggesting that the advertiser modify the targeting criteria to narrow which members of the target group see the advertisement.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and using **click-through rate**, **conversion rate** or **brand lift rate** as a measurement of performance of the advertisement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Modifying ad campaign based on the performance of the ad&quot;** from Figures of Application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/MlviX.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151332?dq=US20130151332A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.facebook.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4232" RevisionGUID="4f0f7c14-e80e-465b-9a18-2952718d9ad8" CreationDate="2013-07-20T20:43:50.410" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ELECTRONIC CALENDARS** - This application from [HTC][6] seeks to patent the idea of... calendar reminders based on location! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Aug 22, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating **EVENT REMINDERS** for a user; where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **EVENT REMINDERS** are based on **TRAVEL TIME** to a next event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **GPS**, **Traffic conditions**, **Walking time** to estimate travel time, or involves **contacting another individual** when it appears you will be late to a meeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: METHOD FOR REMINDING CALENDAR SCHEDULE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method in which a reminding message is provided in advance to a user according to the distance between the location of the user’s previous event and the location of an upcoming event, so that the user will not be late for the upcoming event.  Basically a standard iPhone reminder of “Your meeting with David Kappos will occur in {X} minutes”, where {X} is calculated in part by how long will be required for you to get to the event”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151143 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/761,161&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [HTC Corporation][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating August 22, 2008**&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for creating a calendar reminder, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Setting a first schedule and a first **location** of a first event in a calendar;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Obtaining first positioning information of a **current location** of the mobile apparatus during the first event according to the first schedule, and storing the first positioning information as event positioning information of the first location; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Retrieving the event positioning information for reminding the calendar schedule when the first location is set in a next event.d&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for creating a calendar reminder, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a 1st event on a calendar;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Using the current location of the user as the location of the 1st event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Creating a reminder for the next event based on the location of the next event and location of the 1st event.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the August, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and AND ALSO uses **GPS**, **Traffic conditions**, **Walking time** to estimate travel time, or involves **contacting another individual** when it appears you will be late to a meeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A method of creating event reminders&quot; screen shots from HTC**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/7X5oi.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151143?dq=US+20130151143+A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.htc.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4233" RevisionGUID="d3842fdc-0cc3-4269-bfdd-c7a546a873ae" CreationDate="2013-07-20T20:44:07.033" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON DISPLAYING ICONS** - This application from [Samsung][6] seeks to patent the idea of... changing icon appearance based on their frequency of use! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 9, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Storing **FREQUENCY OF USE** of screen icons; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Modifying the **APPEARANCE OF AN ICON** based on its **FREQUENCY OF USE**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO modifies **ICON SIZE** or **ICON SPACING** based on frequency of use of an **ICON**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: CHANGING ICONS BASED ON FREQUENCY OF USE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of displaying icons on a screen which involves displaying multiple icons, storing the frequency of use of each icon, and modifying how the icons appear based on their frequency of use.  Yes, the applicant wants to patent **any kind of modification** to icons based on **frequency of use**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130152017 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/674,833&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Samsung Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 9, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for creating a graphic user interface (GUI), comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying a **plurality of icons** on a screen;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Storing a **frequency of use** of each of the icons displayed on the screen; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Changing an **external appearance** of at least one **icon** on the screen from among the plurality of icons **to reflect the frequency of use** of the at least one icon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for modifying icons displayed on a screen, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying multiple icons;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Storing the **frequency of use** of each icon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. **Changing the appearance** of at least one icon based on **frequency of use** of that icon.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and AND ALSO modifies **ICON SIZE** or **ICON SPACING** based on **frequency of use** of an **icon**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A method of resizing icons based on frequency of use&quot; screen shots from Samsung**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/vWn0G.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130152017?dq=US20130152017+A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.samsung.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4207" RevisionGUID="d91671ef-b62c-4aa8-89dc-ca0170d2c70f" CreationDate="2013-07-20T20:44:32.850" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE DATING** - This application from [Zoosk][6] seeks to patent the idea of finding other people who are nearby and compatible with you online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Finding **location information** about users on a dating site; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Finding **compatible users** to a target user, based on any characteristic defined by the target user (for example, age, gender, height, interests, etc.); and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing information about these compatible users to the target user based on the **location information** of the compatible users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Identifying Nearby, Compatible Users**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of online dating which uses location information and compatibility, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;receiving location information from a bunch of users, getting a **compatibility preference** for one of the users, and finding other users **near that user** who are **compatible** with that user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130145288 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/706,182&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Zoosk, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 5, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 6, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying location information of at least one first user to a second user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving location information from a plurality of third users comprising the at least one first user, and from the second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving from the second user information indicating at least one preference for a plurality of characteristics of other users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving from each of the plurality of third users information comprising a plurality of characteristics of that user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Selecting the at least one first user from the plurality of third users responsive to the current locations of the plurality of third users and the second user, the preference of the second user and the characteristics of the plurality of the third users; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the second user information responsive to the location information of the at least one first user selected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of showing location information about users to another user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Collecting **LOCATION INFORMATION** from a bunch of users, for example, their zip codes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. One user expresses a “preference for a characteristic” about those users, for example, “I only want to meet guys who are taller than 5’11””&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Other users provide (or have provided) information about that characteristic, for example, “I’m a guy and I am six feet tall”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Identifying a subset of the users who meet the characteristic, for example, “all male users who are taller than 5’11”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the first user location information about the subset of users who are compatible with them, for example, “See here on this map are guys who are taller than 5’11” and who are LOCATED near you.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December 5, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Identifying and notifying users of nearby potential matches - Flowchart&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/GUpwM.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130145288?dq=US20130145288A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.zoosk.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4216" RevisionGUID="3d01dac2-e6c8-4c64-a893-5e87b8721e90" CreationDate="2013-07-20T20:44:50.773" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE GAME PROMOTION** - This application from [Gree][6] seeks to patent the idea of cross-promotion of games in an online community, in other words promoting one game from within another game! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before June, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Promoting **a 2nd game** from a **2nd game maker** to users of **a 1st game** from a **1st game maker**; where &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Users of **a 2nd game** have previously been promoted another game by the **1st game maker**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Basically, any kind of cross-game promotion between game makers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses a **social graph**, **game level**, **game score** to determine whether to promote a game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Cross-promotion of games**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Displaying cross-game promotions among different game makers, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;promoting a **2nd game** to users running a **1st game** where other users of the **2nd game** have previously been promoted the **1st game**, basically trading promotion between two game makers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151342 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/530,067&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Gree, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** June 21, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;A method for cross-promotion of games, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Transmitting, to a server, an indication that the first video game is running on the local computing device, wherein the first video game is made by the first game maker; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving, from the server, an instruction to display a second message on the local computing device,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the second message promotes a second game maker,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the second message is received if a first message has been previously transmitted from the server to a remote computing device and has been previously displayed on the remote computing device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Displaying, on the local computing device, the second message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of cross-promotion of games, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A **local computer** (desktop or mobile) tells the server that it is running a **1st game**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The server gives the **local computer** instructions to display a **promotion** for a **2nd game**, where&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Other local computers have previously received instructions to promote the **1st game**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The local computer displays the promotion for the **2nd game**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the June, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above AND ALSO uses a **social graph**, **game level**, **game score** to determine whether to promote a game.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Online Gaming Cross-Promotion&quot; screen shots from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/LpuQ9.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151342?dq=US20130151342A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.gree-corp.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4228" RevisionGUID="426a12ef-e95b-4884-8e11-8629211c8655" CreationDate="2013-07-20T20:45:08.710" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON E-READERS** - This application from [Qualcomm][6] seeks to patent the idea of... detecting the user’s reading speed and controlling an electronic display! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Determining a reading speed** of a user; AND &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **Automatically advancing text** on a display based on reading speed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses modification of **brightness**, **contrast**, **font size**, or **resolution** to draw the user’s attention outside the user’s current **area of interest** (basically, to move the eye toward the next chunk of text). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: ELECTRONIC READER DISPLAY CONTROL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of using **reading speed** of a user to advance text within an electronic display.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130152014 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/323,338&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Qualcomm, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying text on a mobile display device, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining a **reading pane** of a display screen operatively coupled with the **mobile display device**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Presenting **text** to a user in the reading pane;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining a **reading speed** of the user based on **user input**; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Automatically **advancing the text** within the reading pane based on the determined reading speed of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying text on a mobile device, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a **reading pane** on the screen;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Displaying text in the reading pane;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Using input from the user to determine the **reading speed** of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Advancing the text within the reading pane based on the reading speed of the user.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and using modification of **brightness**, **contrast**, **font size**, or **resolution** to draw the user’s attention outside the user’s current **area of interest** (basically, to move the eye toward the next portion of text to be read). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Automatic Scroll on Mobile Device&quot; screen shots from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/XvAkC.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130152014?dq=US20130152014A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.qualcomm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4241" RevisionGUID="14b7829a-d62c-4100-866c-909539322b1b" CreationDate="2013-07-21T22:03:22.597" UserId="4246" Text="I am a student and I don't have enough money (not even nearly enough) to file a patent. I strongly believe in my idea and therefor I would give and do anything in my power to secure this patent. I have a couple of questions though: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I am from the EU, can I file a worldwide patent in my country ? &#xD;&#xA;- What are the benefits of hiring a patent attorney ? I have huge trust issues and I would rather do this on my own. &#xD;&#xA;- What are the chances of my patent being rejected ? I know this it is hard to assess the probability on a specific basis, but what are general rejection percentages ? &#xD;&#xA;- Would a bank (EU) give me a credit in order to file this particular patent ? &#xD;&#xA;- Is it correct that it would cost me 15-25k USD to file this patent in its entirety ? &#xD;&#xA;- How long does it take for the patent to take effect (in general) from the initial filing to successfully being granted ?  &#xD;&#xA;- Let's say I would not patent my idea and roll it out myself. What is the likeliness of big players crushing me like the cockroach I am ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There already are very similar (software-)'products' on the market. Is it likely that they are going to accept it if my idea is different in its nuances but these define and make the software unique ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9986" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4241" RevisionGUID="14b7829a-d62c-4100-866c-909539322b1b" CreationDate="2013-07-21T22:03:22.597" UserId="4246" Text="Software patenting questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9987" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4241" RevisionGUID="14b7829a-d62c-4100-866c-909539322b1b" CreationDate="2013-07-21T22:03:22.597" UserId="4246" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4242" RevisionGUID="974c24fd-c698-4e53-a09a-0cf4f225bd6f" CreationDate="2013-07-22T05:47:36.723" UserId="3076" Text="First, if you are from the EU you should be able (administratively ) file an EPO applivation on-line for 115 euros according to their [step by step instructions][1]. There are more costs between that and getting enforceable patent rights but the fees to take the first step aren't bad. Also anyone in the world can file a U.S. provisional application on-line for $130. That fee can be cut in half if you qualify as a micro-entity. Writing and filing yourself is a big job that will require you to learn a lot and, particularly for a software idea, is still not likely to come out very well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The benefit of a patent attorney is to greatly increase the chance something good comes out of this. Patent practitioners meet someone who thinks they have a billion dollar idea every week but know that taking any idea to fruition is hard work with no guarantee of success. Most inventors spend their time trying to convince a doubting world they have something great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Software related patents can be particularly hard to get allowed and can be vulnerable to layer being declared too abstract to have been patented in the first place. The allowance rate if done professionally is probably around 40%. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the U.S. a bank might give you a loan against an issued patent with a proved royalty stream. Not to file a patent unless there was some good collateral put up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use a professional it could cost you that much to go through the whole process of getting a patent issued. Price-sensitive inventors who shop around can probably get that down to 8-12k USD. Of course you can spend the money and not ever get the patent. To go into multiple countries will multiply the costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.epo.org/applying/basics.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4242" RevisionGUID="889e3e3a-bded-4098-8643-18e019cd8de3" CreationDate="2013-07-22T05:55:02.050" UserId="3076" Comment="added 555 characters in body" Text="First, if you are from the EU you should be able (administratively ) file an EPO applivation on-line for 115 euros according to their [step by step instructions][1]. There are more costs between that and getting enforceable patent rights but the fees to take the first step aren't bad. Also anyone in the world can file a U.S. provisional application on-line for $130. That fee can be cut in half if you qualify as a micro-entity. Writing and filing yourself is a big job that will require you to learn a lot and, particularly for a software idea, is still not likely to come out very well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The benefit of a patent attorney is to greatly increase the chance something good comes out of this. Patent practitioners meet someone who thinks they have a billion dollar idea every week but know that taking any idea to fruition is hard work with no guarantee of success. Most inventors spend their time trying to convince a doubting world they have something great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Software related patents can be particularly hard to get allowed and can be vulnerable to layer being declared too abstract to have been patented in the first place. The allowance rate if done professionally is probably around 40%. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the U.S. a bank might give you a loan against an issued patent with a proved royalty stream. Not to file a patent unless there was some good collateral put up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use a professional it could cost you that much to go through the whole process of getting a patent issued. Price-sensitive inventors who shop around can probably get that down to 8-12k USD. Of course you can spend the money and not ever get the patent. To go into multiple countries will multiply the costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO has a goal to get the typical time from application to issue to **come down to three years**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a great idea for a product that can be developed by you a few friends why not go for it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if the last part was asking if patent offices will see the nuanced differences or if consumers will appreciate the differences and switch to your system. I'd worry about the consumers. But from both sides of the patent debate what is &quot;obvious&quot; compared with what has been done is one of the hardest things to get a good grip on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.epo.org/applying/basics.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4218" RevisionGUID="463dfc8f-5c9f-4e3c-b375-bf751ca1494a" CreationDate="2013-07-22T06:04:08.967" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE ADVERTISING** - This application from [Facebook][6] seeks to patent the idea of... suggesting changes to your advertising campaign based on the performance of your current campaign! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Measuring the performance** of an initial online advertisement; AND &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Suggesting changes to **targeting criteria** an advertiser might use to increase its performance;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **click-through rate**, **conversion rate** or **brand lift rate** as a measurement of performance of the advertisement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Adjusting an Advertising Campaign**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of adjusting an online advertisement which uses click-through-rate, conversion rate, brand-lift rate or any other measurement of an initial advertisement to suggest new targeting criteria to the advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151332 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/316,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Facebook, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 10, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, at a **publishing system from an advertiser**, data for an **advertising campaign** comprising an initial ad and **targeting criteria** defining an initial **target group** for receiving the initial ad;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Providing the **initial ad** for display to a plurality of users in a plurality of segments of the initial target group;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining, by the publishing system, a value of an **advertising metric** for a first one of the plurality of segments based on the display of the initial ad to the users of the first segment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Based on the value of the advertising metric, determining by the publishing system **a suggestion** for the advertiser to modify the **targeting criteria** to **remove** the first segment from the targeting criteria to be used for the initial ad; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Sending the suggestion from the publishing system to the advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of suggesting adjustments to an advertising campaign, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving an initial advertisement and proposed targeting criteria from an advertiser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Displaying the initial advertisement to the target group using the targeting crtieria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Measuring something (anything!) about the performance of the initial advertisement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Suggesting that the advertiser modify the targeting criteria to narrow which members of the target group see the advertisement.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and using **click-through rate**, **conversion rate** or **brand lift rate** as a measurement of performance of the advertisement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Modifying ad campaign based on the performance of the ad&quot;** from Figures of Application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/MlviX.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151332?dq=US20130151332A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.facebook.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4232" RevisionGUID="40800a34-ff53-41a6-bfc7-cc019ae1c376" CreationDate="2013-07-22T06:04:31.810" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ELECTRONIC CALENDARS** - This application from [HTC][6] seeks to patent the idea of... calendar reminders based on location! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Aug 22, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating **EVENT REMINDERS** for a user; where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **EVENT REMINDERS** are based on **TRAVEL TIME** to a next event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **GPS**, **Traffic conditions**, **Walking time** to estimate travel time, or involves **contacting another individual** when it appears you will be late to a meeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: METHOD FOR REMINDING CALENDAR SCHEDULE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method in which a reminding message is provided in advance to a user according to the distance between the location of the user’s previous event and the location of an upcoming event, so that the user will not be late for the upcoming event.  Basically a standard iPhone reminder of “Your meeting with David Kappos will occur in {X} minutes”, where {X} is calculated in part by how long will be required for you to get to the event”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151143 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/761,161&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [HTC Corporation][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating August 22, 2008**&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for creating a calendar reminder, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Setting a first schedule and a first **location** of a first event in a calendar;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Obtaining first positioning information of a **current location** of the mobile apparatus during the first event according to the first schedule, and storing the first positioning information as event positioning information of the first location; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Retrieving the event positioning information for reminding the calendar schedule when the first location is set in a next event.d&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for creating a calendar reminder, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a 1st event on a calendar;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Using the current location of the user as the location of the 1st event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Creating a reminder for the next event based on the location of the next event and location of the 1st event.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the August, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and AND ALSO uses **GPS**, **Traffic conditions**, **Walking time** to estimate travel time, or involves **contacting another individual** when it appears you will be late to a meeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A method of creating event reminders&quot; screen shots from HTC**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/7X5oi.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151143?dq=US+20130151143+A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.htc.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4233" RevisionGUID="fb6f647e-50e3-41c5-adbf-189116a04671" CreationDate="2013-07-22T06:05:06.203" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON DISPLAYING ICONS** - This application from [Samsung][6] seeks to patent the idea of... changing icon appearance based on their frequency of use! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 9, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Storing **FREQUENCY OF USE** of screen icons; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Modifying the **APPEARANCE OF AN ICON** based on its **FREQUENCY OF USE**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO modifies **ICON SIZE** or **ICON SPACING** based on frequency of use of an **ICON**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: CHANGING ICONS BASED ON FREQUENCY OF USE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of displaying icons on a screen which involves displaying multiple icons, storing the frequency of use of each icon, and modifying how the icons appear based on their frequency of use.  Yes, the applicant wants to patent **any kind of modification** to icons based on **frequency of use**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130152017 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/674,833&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Samsung Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 9, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for creating a graphic user interface (GUI), comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying a **plurality of icons** on a screen;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Storing a **frequency of use** of each of the icons displayed on the screen; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Changing an **external appearance** of at least one **icon** on the screen from among the plurality of icons **to reflect the frequency of use** of the at least one icon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for modifying icons displayed on a screen, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying multiple icons;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Storing the **frequency of use** of each icon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. **Changing the appearance** of at least one icon based on **frequency of use** of that icon.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and AND ALSO modifies **ICON SIZE** or **ICON SPACING** based on **frequency of use** of an **icon**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A method of resizing icons based on frequency of use&quot; screen shots from Samsung**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/vWn0G.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130152017?dq=US20130152017+A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.samsung.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9993" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4207" RevisionGUID="6bbfc801-bf9a-4b8d-a3dc-6ace9ad6a8f6" CreationDate="2013-07-22T06:05:31.597" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE DATING** - This application from [Zoosk][6] seeks to patent the idea of finding other people who are nearby and compatible with you online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Finding **location information** about users on a dating site; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Finding **compatible users** to a target user, based on any characteristic defined by the target user (for example, age, gender, height, interests, etc.); and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing information about these compatible users to the target user based on the **location information** of the compatible users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Identifying Nearby, Compatible Users**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of online dating which uses location information and compatibility, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;receiving location information from a bunch of users, getting a **compatibility preference** for one of the users, and finding other users **near that user** who are **compatible** with that user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130145288 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/706,182&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Zoosk, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 5, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 6, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying location information of at least one first user to a second user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving location information from a plurality of third users comprising the at least one first user, and from the second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving from the second user information indicating at least one preference for a plurality of characteristics of other users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving from each of the plurality of third users information comprising a plurality of characteristics of that user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Selecting the at least one first user from the plurality of third users responsive to the current locations of the plurality of third users and the second user, the preference of the second user and the characteristics of the plurality of the third users; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the second user information responsive to the location information of the at least one first user selected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of showing location information about users to another user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Collecting **LOCATION INFORMATION** from a bunch of users, for example, their zip codes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. One user expresses a “preference for a characteristic” about those users, for example, “I only want to meet guys who are taller than 5’11””&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Other users provide (or have provided) information about that characteristic, for example, “I’m a guy and I am six feet tall”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Identifying a subset of the users who meet the characteristic, for example, “all male users who are taller than 5’11”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the first user location information about the subset of users who are compatible with them, for example, “See here on this map are guys who are taller than 5’11” and who are LOCATED near you.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December 5, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Identifying and notifying users of nearby potential matches - Flowchart&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/GUpwM.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130145288?dq=US20130145288A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.zoosk.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4216" RevisionGUID="2f7ed075-ea4c-49e5-887e-aed613687b6b" CreationDate="2013-07-22T06:06:28.740" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE GAME PROMOTION** - This application from [Gree][6] seeks to patent the idea of cross-promotion of games in an online community, in other words promoting one game from within another game! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before June, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Promoting **a 2nd game** from a **2nd game maker** to users of **a 1st game** from a **1st game maker**; where &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Users of **a 2nd game** have previously been promoted another game by the **1st game maker**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Basically, any kind of cross-game promotion between game makers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses a **social graph**, **game level**, **game score** to determine whether to promote a game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Cross-promotion of games**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Displaying cross-game promotions among different game makers, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;promoting a **2nd game** to users running a **1st game** where other users of the **2nd game** have previously been promoted the **1st game**, basically trading promotion between two game makers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151342 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/530,067&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Gree, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** June 21, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;A method for cross-promotion of games, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Transmitting, to a server, an indication that the first video game is running on the local computing device, wherein the first video game is made by the first game maker; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving, from the server, an instruction to display a second message on the local computing device,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the second message promotes a second game maker,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the second message is received if a first message has been previously transmitted from the server to a remote computing device and has been previously displayed on the remote computing device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Displaying, on the local computing device, the second message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of cross-promotion of games, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A **local computer** (desktop or mobile) tells the server that it is running a **1st game**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The server gives the **local computer** instructions to display a **promotion** for a **2nd game**, where&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Other local computers have previously received instructions to promote the **1st game**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The local computer displays the promotion for the **2nd game**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the June, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above AND ALSO uses a **social graph**, **game level**, **game score** to determine whether to promote a game.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Online Gaming Cross-Promotion&quot; screen shots from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/LpuQ9.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151342?dq=US20130151342A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.gree-corp.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4228" RevisionGUID="cdcc08ce-8ebb-454b-a928-5e90008951c1" CreationDate="2013-07-22T06:06:57.807" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON E-READERS** - This application from [Qualcomm][6] seeks to patent the idea of... detecting the user’s reading speed and controlling an electronic display! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Determining a reading speed** of a user; AND &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **Automatically advancing text** on a display based on reading speed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses modification of **brightness**, **contrast**, **font size**, or **resolution** to draw the user’s attention outside the user’s current **area of interest** (basically, to move the eye toward the next chunk of text). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: ELECTRONIC READER DISPLAY CONTROL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of using **reading speed** of a user to advance text within an electronic display.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130152014 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/323,338&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Qualcomm, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying text on a mobile display device, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining a **reading pane** of a display screen operatively coupled with the **mobile display device**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Presenting **text** to a user in the reading pane;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining a **reading speed** of the user based on **user input**; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Automatically **advancing the text** within the reading pane based on the determined reading speed of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying text on a mobile device, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a **reading pane** on the screen;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Displaying text in the reading pane;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Using input from the user to determine the **reading speed** of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Advancing the text within the reading pane based on the reading speed of the user.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and using modification of **brightness**, **contrast**, **font size**, or **resolution** to draw the user’s attention outside the user’s current **area of interest** (basically, to move the eye toward the next portion of text to be read). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Automatic Scroll on Mobile Device&quot; screen shots from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/XvAkC.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130152014?dq=US20130152014A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.qualcomm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4243" RevisionGUID="2824281b-d24e-48f4-95dd-f2c4fd8ac98c" CreationDate="2013-07-22T11:50:23.170" UserDisplayName="user4249" Text="It is great to hear from an innovator! I feel I've been in your shoes and hence can answer your questions. Each of your bullet points has a heading here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## EU / worldwide patents ##&#xD;&#xA;No, you cannot file a worldwide patent _in_ your country. The general idea is that every country has its own patent system, and you need to file in every country where you do want patent protection. This may not make much practical difference for you, as naturally you can file in every nation you want without ever leaving your country. But it does mean that each application is separate and incurs separate fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The EU is, as so often, a special case in that it is indeed possible to apply for EU-wide patent protection in just a single EU country, and this is not significantly more expensive than filing for patent protection only for your own country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Worldwide patent protection is often, despite what you may think, not required. The patent protects against using something. That usually includes commercial use. So even if some rogue state hosts a business refusing to honor your foreign patent, they will typically only be legally allowed to do so in their own little country. As soon as they sell their service or products to the US or the EU, you can sue them (or their importer or reseller) there, even if you only have patent protection in the US or only in the EU. In fact, &quot;selling&quot; is not even necessary, but then you may have to find a way to put a price tag on the damages done that convinces a court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Patent attorney ##&#xD;&#xA;Technically, you do not need a patent attorney to file a patent; all this person would do is, essentially, to avoid beginner's mistakes. He will have more experience in doing all the things you should do anyways, and probably already have. In particular, I'm thinking about patent research (has the idea or aspects of it already been patented or published?) and formulating your claims. The details here determine just what is protected, how defensible the patent is in court, and what chances you have to salvage some claims if others are found invalid or you choose not to defend them in court. I suppose there is a chance that a patent attorney might also be able to help, at least with contacts, towards monetizing your patent (assuming you are willing to consider giving licenses).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Rejection percentages ##&#xD;&#xA;Sorry, I don't know. It happens; historically, patents for perpetuum mobiles have been consistently denied. In recent decades, however, you'll easily find people expressing concern that many patents have been granted for ideas that clearly cannot work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience, policies can be surprisingly well predicted by simply considering the incentives. Both the EU and the US have moved to financially incentivise their patent offices for granting patents, but not, as far as I know, for rejecting them or analyzing how granted patents stand up in court (which for valuable patents is usually the real test). Go figure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My best guess is that save for obvious defects, such as a similar idea already being known or your application not conforming to some formal requirements or failing to address what is novel and useful about your idea, your chances of rejection are remote. You may take additional comfort in knowing that you would be the source of this financial incentive to grant patents: If you chose not to hire a patent attorney, your expenses will be lower for a rejected patent application than for a successful one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Bank credit ##&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if a bank in the EU would be willing to finance your patent. There's only one way to find out: Inquire!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect banks would want the following:&#xD;&#xA;    1. A business plan detailing how and when you expect to recoup your expenses plus a profit. This could be from using your patent (but then the credit will presumably be for the business as a whole), or from a plan to sell or license use of your invention (which, again, could be seen as a business where the actual patent is merely an important part of a bigger operation).&#xD;&#xA;    2. Collateral. Banks, despite often curious about your intentions, are so risk adverse, they may well decide not to take a risk regarding the success of your patent venture. So they'll ask you what property or other assets (parents' ?) you're willing to (partially) bet on your success.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may be better off getting funded by an investor. If you figure out how to attract one, let me know for my own ideas!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Total cost ##&#xD;&#xA;If you do not hire a patent attorney and do not pay yourself for your time and effort, expect to incur fees around 1 kUSD for each of the EU and the US per granted patent, not counting increasing costs for keeping the patent after five years or so. If you hire an attorney, I suppose it really depends on the actual workload your application requires. Ask! I think the figure you mentioned may well be sufficient for both a EU and a US patent application using a patent attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please appreciate that a patent is essentially a title. Depending on your intentions and other market participants, there is a certain danger that using it involves disputes, which can mean costly lawsuits, either to bring competitors to respect your patent and licensing terms, or to prevent someone else from having your patent declared invalid by court. Sadly I have no way &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Time to get a patent granted ##&#xD;&#xA;It generally takes too long. It is rather frequent for a patent to not be granted within the first 12 months of the application. Sometimes applicants seem to want to drag out the process themselves, though. Under certain conditions, you can retroactively change details of your application without changing the formal initial application dare used to decide priority. If an applicant cares more about how long to extend the patent protection in the end rather than what date the patent is formally granted, this can be advantageous. It also may allow clever legal departments to have their company file a patent before they have completely worked out all relevant aspects of what they have invented---ask your patent lawyer if ever you want to optimize to this point yourself. This is an area where knowing how to write patent claims widely to the point of being almost unacceptably broad comes in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be great to get patents granted in under a year, because I believe there is a one-year grace period for you to decide in what other countries to seek patent protection besides the one where you initially applied. But please seek another source for this (patent attorney?) because I am unsure about the details; maybe this deadline only starts ticking when the patent is granted, not when you initially file for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Idea theft by corporations ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The likelihood of your idea being stolen depends on many things. Only if you can be seen as successful or solve a problem plaguing others, there is a chance they will even want to. And only if they can easily replicate your invention can they copy it rather than be inventive themselves. So depending on whether your invention is some magic under the hood or something self-evident, and if its effect is something the big players even care to notice, the answer can range all the way from no chance at all to very likely indeed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite whatever worries you may have in this regard, and despite not knowing any details of your invention, let me try to encourage you to take a much broader view. If you can come up with one great invention, you will be very useful and valuable in lots of areas. If your idea is great enough to be stolen, and not stolen by just anyone but by the big players, this could be your greatest personal breakthrough ever, towards getting future ideas funded or landing a great job. Not necessarily with a company that prefers stealing your idea rather than asking you to consult and license them in this regard, but certainly elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that it probably would not seem like an adequate compensation for what must feel like the prospect of being cheated out of something that should be yours. Yet sadly, despite your expectations being the very justification for our patent laws, reality of it just doesn't necessarily conform to the spirit of the law or one's likely views as an innovator. Being right isn't always sufficient to get the entire cake, so unless you have the legal and financial muscle to fight a corporation, you may have to settle to somehow sharing, negotiating, or otherwise live with it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9997" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4243" RevisionGUID="9f095de1-dfb7-4c9d-9823-1e3c6f9e5a33" CreationDate="2013-07-22T12:17:56.673" UserDisplayName="user4249" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body" Text="It is great to hear from an innovator! I feel I've been in your shoes and hence can answer your questions. Each of your bullet points has a heading here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## EU / worldwide patents ##&#xD;&#xA;No, you cannot file a worldwide patent _in_ your country. The general idea is that every country has its own patent system, and you need to file in every country where you do want patent protection. This may not make much practical difference for you, as naturally you can file in every nation you want without ever leaving your country. But it does mean that each application is separate and incurs separate fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The EU is, as so often, a special case in that it is indeed possible to apply for EU-wide patent protection in just a single EU country, and this is not significantly more expensive than filing for patent protection only for your own country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Worldwide patent protection is often, despite what you may think, not required. The patent protects against using something. That usually includes commercial use. So even if some rogue state hosts a business refusing to honor your foreign patent, they will typically only be legally allowed to do so in their own little country. As soon as they sell their service or products to the US or the EU, you can sue them (or their importer or reseller) there, even if you only have patent protection in the US or only in the EU. In fact, &quot;selling&quot; is not even necessary, but then you may have to find a way to put a price tag on the damages done that convinces a court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Patent attorney ##&#xD;&#xA;Technically, you do not need a patent attorney to file a patent; all this person would do is, essentially, to avoid beginner's mistakes. He will have more experience in doing all the things you should do anyways, and probably already have. In particular, I'm thinking about patent research (has the idea or aspects of it already been patented or published?) and formulating your claims. The details here determine just what is protected, how defensible the patent is in court, and what chances you have to salvage some claims if others are found invalid or you choose not to defend them in court. I suppose there is a chance that a patent attorney might also be able to help, at least with contacts, towards monetizing your patent (assuming you are willing to consider giving licenses).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Rejection percentages ##&#xD;&#xA;Sorry, I don't know. It happens; historically, patents for perpetuum mobiles have been consistently denied. In recent decades, however, you'll easily find people expressing concern that many patents have been granted for ideas that clearly cannot work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience, policies can be surprisingly well predicted by simply considering the incentives. Both the EU and the US have moved to financially incentivise their patent offices for granting patents, but not, as far as I know, for rejecting them or analyzing how granted patents stand up in court (which for valuable patents is usually the real test). Go figure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My best guess is that save for obvious defects, such as a similar idea already being known or your application not conforming to some formal requirements or failing to address what is novel and useful about your idea, your chances of rejection are remote. You may take additional comfort in knowing that you would be the source of this financial incentive to grant patents: If you chose not to hire a patent attorney, your expenses will be lower for a rejected patent application than for a successful one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Bank credit ##&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if a bank in the EU would be willing to finance your patent. There's only one way to find out: Inquire!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect banks would want the following:&#xD;&#xA;    1. A business plan detailing how and when you expect to recoup your expenses plus a profit. This could be from using your patent (but then the credit will presumably be for the business as a whole), or from a plan to sell or license use of your invention (which, again, could be seen as a business where the actual patent is merely an important part of a bigger operation).&#xD;&#xA;    2. Collateral. Banks, despite often curious about your intentions, are so risk adverse, they may well decide not to take a risk regarding the success of your patent venture. So they'll ask you what property or other assets (parents' ?) you're willing to (partially) bet on your success.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may be better off getting funded by an investor. If you figure out how to attract one, let me know for my own ideas!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Total cost ##&#xD;&#xA;If you do not hire a patent attorney and do not pay yourself for your time and effort, expect to incur fees around 1 kUSD for each of the EU and the US per granted patent, not counting increasing costs for keeping the patent after five years or so. If you hire an attorney, I suppose it really depends on the actual workload your application requires. Ask! I think the figure you mentioned may well be sufficient for both a EU and a US patent application using a patent attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please appreciate that a patent is essentially a title. Depending on your intentions and other market participants, there is a certain danger that using it involves disputes, which can mean costly lawsuits, either to bring competitors to respect your patent and licensing terms, or to prevent someone else from having your patent declared invalid by court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Time to get a patent granted ##&#xD;&#xA;It generally takes too long. It is rather frequent for a patent to not be granted within the first 12 months of the application. Sometimes applicants seem to want to drag out the process themselves, though. Under certain conditions, you can retroactively change details of your application without changing the formal initial application dare used to decide priority. If an applicant cares more about how long to extend the patent protection in the end rather than what date the patent is formally granted, this can be advantageous. It also may allow clever legal departments to have their company file a patent before they have completely worked out all relevant aspects of what they have invented---ask your patent lawyer if ever you want to optimize to this point yourself. This is an area where knowing how to write patent claims widely to the point of being almost unacceptably broad comes in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be great to get patents granted in under a year, because I believe there is a one-year grace period for you to decide in what other countries to seek patent protection besides the one where you initially applied. But please seek another source for this (patent attorney?) because I am unsure about the details; maybe this deadline only starts ticking when the patent is granted, not when you initially file for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Idea theft by corporations ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The likelihood of your idea being stolen depends on many things. Only if you can be seen as successful or solve a problem plaguing others, there is a chance they will even want to. And only if they can easily replicate your invention can they copy it rather than be inventive themselves. So depending on whether your invention is some magic under the hood or something self-evident, and if its effect is something the big players even care to notice, the answer can range all the way from no chance at all to very likely indeed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite whatever worries you may have in this regard, and despite not knowing any details of your invention, let me try to encourage you to take a much broader view. If you can come up with one great invention, you will be very useful and valuable in lots of areas. If your idea is great enough to be stolen, and not stolen by just anyone but by the big players, this could be your greatest personal breakthrough ever, towards getting future ideas funded or landing a great job. Not necessarily with a company that prefers stealing your idea rather than asking you to consult and license them in this regard, but certainly elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that it probably would not seem like an adequate compensation for what must feel like the prospect of being cheated out of something that should be yours. Yet sadly, despite your expectations being the very justification for our patent laws, the reality of it just doesn't necessarily conform to the spirit of the law or one's likely views as an innovator. Being right isn't always sufficient to get the entire cake, so unless you have the legal and financial muscle to fight a corporation, you may have to settle for sharing, negotiating, or otherwise living with it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4244" RevisionGUID="bbec6ea7-b273-4df2-a07a-40a5e2dbf4dc" CreationDate="2013-07-22T15:29:50.877" UserId="4256" Text="isn't that basically a tag cloud? as the tags get more popular they become bigger. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4228" RevisionGUID="e1fdcc34-ca78-4748-a7e5-026359ea7618" CreationDate="2013-07-22T15:39:02.640" UserId="1767" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON E-READERS** - This application from [Qualcomm][6] seeks to patent the idea of... detecting the user’s reading speed and controlling an electronic display! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Determining a reading speed** of a user; AND &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **Automatically advancing text** on a display based on reading speed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses modification of **brightness**, **contrast**, **font size**, or **resolution** to draw the user’s attention outside the user’s current **area of interest** (basically, to move the eye toward the next chunk of text). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: ELECTRONIC READER DISPLAY CONTROL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of using **reading speed** of a user to advance text within an electronic display.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130152014 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/323,338&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Qualcomm, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying text on a mobile display device, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining a **reading pane** of a display screen operatively coupled with the **mobile display device**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Presenting **text** to a user in the reading pane;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining a **reading speed** of the user based on **user input**; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Automatically **advancing the text** within the reading pane based on the determined reading speed of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying text on a mobile device, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a **reading pane** on the screen;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Displaying text in the reading pane;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Using input from the user to determine the **reading speed** of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Advancing the text within the reading pane based on the reading speed of the user.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and using modification of **brightness**, **contrast**, **font size**, or **resolution** to draw the user’s attention outside the user’s current **area of interest** (basically, to move the eye toward the next portion of text to be read). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Automatic Scroll on Mobile Device&quot; screen shots from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/XvAkC.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130152014?dq=US20130152014A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.qualcomm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4216" RevisionGUID="1ef58f79-d118-423f-840a-60374a85e315" CreationDate="2013-07-22T15:40:02.660" UserId="1767" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE GAME PROMOTION** - This application from [Gree][6] seeks to patent the idea of cross-promotion of games in an online community, in other words promoting one game from within another game! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before June, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Promoting **a 2nd game** from a **2nd game maker** to users of **a 1st game** from a **1st game maker**; where &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Users of **a 2nd game** have previously been promoted another game by the **1st game maker**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Basically, any kind of cross-game promotion between game makers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses a **social graph**, **game level**, **game score** to determine whether to promote a game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Cross-promotion of games**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Displaying cross-game promotions among different game makers, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;promoting a **2nd game** to users running a **1st game** where other users of the **2nd game** have previously been promoted the **1st game**, basically trading promotion between two game makers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151342 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/530,067&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Gree, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** June 21, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;A method for cross-promotion of games, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Transmitting, to a server, an indication that the first video game is running on the local computing device, wherein the first video game is made by the first game maker; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving, from the server, an instruction to display a second message on the local computing device,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the second message promotes a second game maker,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the second message is received if a first message has been previously transmitted from the server to a remote computing device and has been previously displayed on the remote computing device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Displaying, on the local computing device, the second message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of cross-promotion of games, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A **local computer** (desktop or mobile) tells the server that it is running a **1st game**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The server gives the **local computer** instructions to display a **promotion** for a **2nd game**, where&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Other local computers have previously received instructions to promote the **1st game**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The local computer displays the promotion for the **2nd game**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the June, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above AND ALSO uses a **social graph**, **game level**, **game score** to determine whether to promote a game.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Online Gaming Cross-Promotion&quot; screen shots from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/LpuQ9.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151342?dq=US20130151342A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.gree-corp.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10002" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4207" RevisionGUID="ed0a7f87-3b18-4b28-8f32-30beae8cbb64" CreationDate="2013-07-22T15:40:46.037" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE DATING** - This application from [Zoosk][6] seeks to patent the idea of finding other people who are nearby and compatible with you online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Finding **location information** about users on a dating site; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Finding **compatible users** to a target user, based on any characteristic defined by the target user (for example, age, gender, height, interests, etc.); and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing information about these compatible users to the target user based on the **location information** of the compatible users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Identifying Nearby, Compatible Users**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of online dating which uses location information and compatibility, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;receiving location information from a bunch of users, getting a **compatibility preference** for one of the users, and finding other users **near that user** who are **compatible** with that user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130145288 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/706,182&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Zoosk, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 5, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 6, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying location information of at least one first user to a second user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving location information from a plurality of third users comprising the at least one first user, and from the second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving from the second user information indicating at least one preference for a plurality of characteristics of other users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving from each of the plurality of third users information comprising a plurality of characteristics of that user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Selecting the at least one first user from the plurality of third users responsive to the current locations of the plurality of third users and the second user, the preference of the second user and the characteristics of the plurality of the third users; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the second user information responsive to the location information of the at least one first user selected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of showing location information about users to another user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Collecting **LOCATION INFORMATION** from a bunch of users, for example, their zip codes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. One user expresses a “preference for a characteristic” about those users, for example, “I only want to meet guys who are taller than 5’11””&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Other users provide (or have provided) information about that characteristic, for example, “I’m a guy and I am six feet tall”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Identifying a subset of the users who meet the characteristic, for example, “all male users who are taller than 5’11”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the first user location information about the subset of users who are compatible with them, for example, “See here on this map are guys who are taller than 5’11” and who are LOCATED near you.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December 5, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Identifying and notifying users of nearby potential matches - Flowchart&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/GUpwM.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130145288?dq=US20130145288A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.zoosk.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4232" RevisionGUID="3eb84485-04dc-4fc5-bb26-716758d9a0d7" CreationDate="2013-07-22T15:41:08.180" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ELECTRONIC CALENDARS** - This application from [HTC][6] seeks to patent the idea of... calendar reminders based on location! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Aug 22, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating **EVENT REMINDERS** for a user; where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **EVENT REMINDERS** are based on **TRAVEL TIME** to a next event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **GPS**, **Traffic conditions**, **Walking time** to estimate travel time, or involves **contacting another individual** when it appears you will be late to a meeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: METHOD FOR REMINDING CALENDAR SCHEDULE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method in which a reminding message is provided in advance to a user according to the distance between the location of the user’s previous event and the location of an upcoming event, so that the user will not be late for the upcoming event.  Basically a standard iPhone reminder of “Your meeting with David Kappos will occur in {X} minutes”, where {X} is calculated in part by how long will be required for you to get to the event”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151143 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/761,161&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [HTC Corporation][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating August 22, 2008**&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for creating a calendar reminder, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Setting a first schedule and a first **location** of a first event in a calendar;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Obtaining first positioning information of a **current location** of the mobile apparatus during the first event according to the first schedule, and storing the first positioning information as event positioning information of the first location; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Retrieving the event positioning information for reminding the calendar schedule when the first location is set in a next event.d&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for creating a calendar reminder, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a 1st event on a calendar;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Using the current location of the user as the location of the 1st event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Creating a reminder for the next event based on the location of the next event and location of the 1st event.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the August, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and AND ALSO uses **GPS**, **Traffic conditions**, **Walking time** to estimate travel time, or involves **contacting another individual** when it appears you will be late to a meeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A method of creating event reminders&quot; screen shots from HTC**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/7X5oi.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151143?dq=US+20130151143+A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.htc.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4218" RevisionGUID="a37f240f-911f-4a22-8b62-7b585e50f310" CreationDate="2013-07-22T15:41:25.117" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE ADVERTISING** - This application from [Facebook][6] seeks to patent the idea of... suggesting changes to your advertising campaign based on the performance of your current campaign! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Measuring the performance** of an initial online advertisement; AND &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Suggesting changes to **targeting criteria** an advertiser might use to increase its performance;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **click-through rate**, **conversion rate** or **brand lift rate** as a measurement of performance of the advertisement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Adjusting an Advertising Campaign**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of adjusting an online advertisement which uses click-through-rate, conversion rate, brand-lift rate or any other measurement of an initial advertisement to suggest new targeting criteria to the advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151332 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/316,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Facebook, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 10, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, at a **publishing system from an advertiser**, data for an **advertising campaign** comprising an initial ad and **targeting criteria** defining an initial **target group** for receiving the initial ad;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Providing the **initial ad** for display to a plurality of users in a plurality of segments of the initial target group;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining, by the publishing system, a value of an **advertising metric** for a first one of the plurality of segments based on the display of the initial ad to the users of the first segment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Based on the value of the advertising metric, determining by the publishing system **a suggestion** for the advertiser to modify the **targeting criteria** to **remove** the first segment from the targeting criteria to be used for the initial ad; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Sending the suggestion from the publishing system to the advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of suggesting adjustments to an advertising campaign, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving an initial advertisement and proposed targeting criteria from an advertiser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Displaying the initial advertisement to the target group using the targeting crtieria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Measuring something (anything!) about the performance of the initial advertisement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Suggesting that the advertiser modify the targeting criteria to narrow which members of the target group see the advertisement.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and using **click-through rate**, **conversion rate** or **brand lift rate** as a measurement of performance of the advertisement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Modifying ad campaign based on the performance of the ad&quot;** from Figures of Application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/MlviX.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151332?dq=US20130151332A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.facebook.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4245" RevisionGUID="5db39cf2-0d5d-4e44-9851-8d4d56697b1b" CreationDate="2013-07-22T15:42:51.173" UserId="4262" Text="It's likely going to depend on exactly what you want to reimplement and how.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you're going to attempt a 'clean room' implementation of the language using only the API documentation, the most notable recent example actually comes from Google themselves when they reimplemented the Java APIs for Android/Dalvik: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_v._Google" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4246" RevisionGUID="af9fb007-7966-4a81-baa3-3e48437a6212" CreationDate="2013-07-22T15:47:11.580" UserId="4265" Text="A list of recently used applications is probably enough to invalidate this patent.&#xD;&#xA;It essentially displays the frequency of use of an application.&#xD;&#xA;If it's unfrequently used, it will fall out of the list. If it's frequently used it will be included. Exclusion/inclusion in the list is the same as changing appearence as visible/invisible is a change in appearence as far I can tell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, Windows XP released in 2001 has one of these list." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4247" RevisionGUID="f73bed00-37b5-40cb-8506-ae073a32a4e9" CreationDate="2013-07-22T15:47:21.233" UserId="4264" Text="Tag cloud was my first thought too, although the typical tag cloud isn't based on the number of times click on an item in the cloud, rather the number of times the keyword appears somewhere (in the article, website, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although, I did find this implementation of a tag cloud (http://www.solspace.com/docs/tag/cloud/) that does provide that functionality:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Furthermore, the tag cloud can be weighted through different methods, such as how many entries are assigned to them, **or how many times they've been clicked**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The change log for that (http://www.solspace.com/docs/tag/change_log/) references 'clicks' in 2011, but its not entirely clear when the feature was implemented.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4248" RevisionGUID="f60a9ed6-c079-422a-ba7a-903c48e3ac53" CreationDate="2013-07-22T15:53:08.687" UserId="4278" Text="I personally wrote software to do this sometime in 2008/2009. The only extant link I can find to it is here:&#xD;&#xA;http://mac.softpedia.com/get/Internet-Utilities/Smart-Calendar-Reminders.shtml&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this was helpful, I could try and dig up more evidence for the specific date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4249" RevisionGUID="79362b3a-071b-40f2-9a23-d8a541a40f90" CreationDate="2013-07-22T15:55:38.207" UserId="11" Text="Microsoft Excel 2000 did this. [Source](http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/excel-help/customizing-excel-menus-and-toolbars-HA001044863.aspx):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Excel short menus show the most popular commands. You can always get to the rest of the commands by clicking the chevron at the bottom of a menu to display the full menu. As you continue to use Excel, frequently used commands move to the short menus and unused commands move to the full menus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Displaying a plurality of icons&quot; -- In Excel 2000, each menu item consisted of an icon and text describing the icon. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Storing the frequency of use...&quot; -- Yep, Excel did that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Changing an external appearance of at least one icon on the screen from among the plurality of icons to reflect the frequency of use of the at least one icon.&quot; -- Excel moved the icons to the &quot;short menus,&quot; thus changing their position on the screen so that they appeared sooner. Although you could argue that the icons had the same appearance, just in a different position, the next step to actually modifying the physical appearance of the icon itself to make it more prominent in some way other than position should be obvious.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4250" RevisionGUID="0e73d9d7-d5a1-4539-9318-d0e01a9f4084" CreationDate="2013-07-22T15:57:36.403" UserId="4279" Text="The Source engine has support for fading &quot;props&quot;, 3d models in levels, based on the distance. See the BaseFadeProp section of https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Prop_static for an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has publicly released support for stereographic rendering since earlier this year. This by the use of the Oculus devkit. The free to play game &quot;Team Fortress 2&quot; is a concrete example of these both features being used together." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4251" RevisionGUID="a0c63969-35c2-481a-9d1a-7004aa912321" CreationDate="2013-07-22T15:59:37.047" UserId="4284" Text="**A Study of Location-Based Reminders&#xD;&#xA;on Mobile Phones**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;September 2005&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=132415&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Our findings from a twoweek deployment of Place-Its help validate that location-based reminders can be&#xD;&#xA;useful even with coarse location-sensing capabilities. Notably, location was widely&#xD;&#xA;used as a cue for other contextual information" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4252" RevisionGUID="6522ebab-c6bd-40c7-a420-d15e9c10e99b" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:01:35.060" UserId="4267" Text="More generally, this goes under the name &quot;adaptive user interfaces&quot;, i.e., user interfaces that adapt automatically to the user as opposed to &quot;adaptable user interfaces&quot;. One example from 2004 ([1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As it learns more about the user’s behavior, SUPPLE adapts the contents of the dynamic sections of each window. The dynamic content may include duplication of functionality which exists elsewhere in the UI (e.g., adding widgets for controlling two-sided printing on the main print dialog window) or navigational shortcuts in the form of buttons or hyperlinks that take the user to a different part of the UI that normally would require several&#xD;&#xA;clicks on links, tabs, buttons, menus, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that's even more general than Excel 2000 menus implementation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://raphaelhoffmann.com/publications/gajos-uist-04.pdf&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4253" RevisionGUID="512a190e-a85e-4d18-904c-c5988550c8d3" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:04:56.717" UserId="4299" Text="Wouldn't this be considered a TreeMap? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_map with Frequency of use as its value?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4254" RevisionGUID="45f4742f-974f-4cd6-addd-67f143d4e46c" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:05:53.500" UserId="4288" Text="OpenFeint did this in 2009. In fact, the OpenFeint logo is being used in Fig 1 of the patent application. Their business model was cross-promotion of games; they were acquired by GREE in April 2011 for ~100 million. So if there was no prior art before June 2011, GREE would have no reason to have acquired the company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference: industry press article on OpenFeint, April 2009. http://techcrunch.com/2009/04/17/indie-iphone-app-developers-rallying-around-openfeint/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Article on the acquisition, including the briefing from OpenFeint (dated April 21, 2011):&#xD;&#xA;http://www.148apps.com/news/breaking-openfeint-acquired/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4255" RevisionGUID="e03e5ec5-0beb-4827-8f74-52632a1727f4" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:06:02.530" UserId="4304" Text="Do these help?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**http://www.ppcevolution.com/mikespecial/ - Dec 2010**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;This top-of-the-line Adwords management software automatically adjusts your Adwords campaigns to make them profitable by decreasing or pausing traffic to keywords losing you money, while increasing traffic to keywords making you money – all on complete autopilot!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And related:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**http://ezinearticles.com/?Four-Steps-to-Automatic-PPC-Management-With-PPC-Evolution!&amp;id=2465769 - Jun 12, 2009**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the website: &quot;... Let's say you are spending $500/month and making $1000/month with your AdWords campaigns. Once you set it up (only minutes) the software automatically increases or decreases your keyword bids and budget to make every keyword either more profitable or less costly.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4256" RevisionGUID="b7de0769-54bd-4b21-a780-09b8904213c3" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:09:09.787" UserId="4256" Text="I could swear I've played games where you can only buy, say, 10 of the same item, after you've bought 10 the icon becomes greyed out. Can't think of a specific game though, but isn't that &quot;changing appearance of icon based on frequency of usage&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4257" RevisionGUID="606294f1-8cc3-406b-84b3-aac544b5996a" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:10:29.767" UserId="4301" Text="Possible prior art:&#xD;&#xA;   - http://www.google.com/patents/US5386478&#xD;&#xA;   - http://www.google.com/patents/US4458362&#xD;&#xA;   - http://www.google.com/patents/US4739513&#xD;&#xA;   - http://www.google.com/patents/US6111957" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4258" RevisionGUID="837b14f4-0a94-430f-acd0-d6f5da9994c1" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:13:21.333" UserId="4313" Text="Tesco, in Korea had this QR Code based shopping in Subways. &#xD;&#xA;Telegraph report dated June 20122&#xD;&#xA;http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/mobile-phones/8601147/Tesco-builds-virtual-shops-for-Korean-commuters.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Youtube video of the same dated Jun 2011  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGaVFRzTTP4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4259" RevisionGUID="aa93dd04-ea53-4e2b-ac64-ced79420f1df" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:14:52.917" UserId="4315" Text="1999: General prior art on &quot;progress indicators&quot;: http://www.mit.edu/~jtidwell/language/progress_indicator.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relating to using animations: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Animation is often used to good effect in this pattern; motion draws&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the user's attention, and its cessation implies a new relaxed, stable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; state of being (&quot;the process is done, so you can relax now&quot;).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4260" RevisionGUID="23ac46d2-e413-4a7e-becf-2ac071089f98" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:15:14.570" UserId="4301" Text="Published in 2001:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A multi-channel surround sound system and method is described that allows automatic and independent calibration and adjustment of the frequency, amplitude and time response of each channel of the surround sound system.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US20010038702" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4261" RevisionGUID="00056a46-1c92-4598-8104-690a7117a430" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:15:51.403" UserId="4317" Text="The second worst thing that can happen is that you do not defend against a lawsuit in the US and this will allow the patent holder to obtain an injunction, forcing you (*and* your customers) not to use the offending system in the US. If you are not dependent on US revenues, this is actually an attractive option, but be aware that this can be a barrier to entry into the US for years to come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Absolutely the worst option is if you have US revenues to protect and then engage a US patent lawyer to defend you. He/she will explain to you that it will cost you $1.5 million to take it to court. If you win, you will have gained nothing other than ability to continue operating in the US (but will not be able to recover any of your costs). If you lose, you will have to pay (modest) damages (determined by a formula relating to the revenue) (plus, of course, your own legal fees). If you settle, you will have a bitter taste in your mouth for settling with what appears to be a common scam. As you may discern, I speak from bitter experience (and we chose the 3rd option, as we had US revenues to defend)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4262" RevisionGUID="19be6db5-bc62-4b90-bf32-c208ba7dfc13" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:17:15.360" UserId="4311" Text="Isn't this how a lot of games do LOD swapping, to cross-fade between a complex object and a simpler mesh (or texture billboard) as it got further from the camera? The earliest case I can clearly remember is the foliage in DICE's &quot;Battlefield 1942&quot; (published in 2002), but I'm sure there must be others." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4263" RevisionGUID="09c9669e-dce8-436d-b9d8-8a2746e22718" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:18:58.023" UserId="4319" Text="Here is a link to the &quot;[Dynamic Search Ads][1]&quot; from google. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This product uses &quot;ads are answers&quot; to allow a customer to refine targeting criteria for an ad campaign.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from the article &#xD;&#xA;&quot;you get full reporting on searches that generated clicks, destination pages that matched ads, ad headlines that were generated, as well as average CPC, clicks, and conversions&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://adwords.blogspot.com/2011/10/introducing-dynamic-search-ads-beta.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4264" RevisionGUID="bb9235e4-da00-4852-9d47-fb05ebdee3a3" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:19:06.260" UserId="4298" Text="This seems to me like just a special case of the already established feedback loop in enterpreneurship (and more specifically in the marketing business) - having an objective, scientific process of measuring the success of some method you are trying and improving it based on the feedback. This is very thoroughly examined as [the lean startup methodology][1] in [a book by Eric Ries][2] published in September 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://theleanstartup.com/principles&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.amazon.com/The-Lean-Startup-Entrepreneurs-Continuous/dp/0307887898" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4242" RevisionGUID="a49aa4db-2509-4428-a5af-4240532f78f2" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:21:40.430" UserId="3076" Comment="Added to answer in response to comment" Text="First, if you are from the EU you should be able (administratively ) file an EPO application on-line for 115 euros according to their [step by step instructions][1]. There are more costs between that and getting enforceable patent rights but the fees to take the first step aren't bad. Also anyone in the world can file a U.S. provisional application on-line for $130. That fee can be cut in half if you qualify as a micro-entity. Writing and filing yourself is a big job that will require you to learn a lot and, particularly for a software idea, is still not likely to come out very well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The benefit of a patent attorney is to greatly increase the chance something good comes out of this. Patent practitioners meet someone who thinks they have a billion dollar idea every week but know that taking any idea to fruition is hard work with no guarantee of success. Most inventors spend their time trying to convince a doubting world they have something great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Software related patents can be particularly hard to get allowed and can be vulnerable to layer being declared too abstract to have been patented in the first place. The allowance rate if done professionally is probably around 40%. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the U.S. a bank might give you a loan against an issued patent with a proved royalty stream. Not to file a patent unless there was some good collateral put up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use a professional it could cost you that much to go through the whole process of getting a patent issued. Price-sensitive inventors who shop around can probably get that down to 8-12k USD. Of course you can spend the money and not ever get the patent. To go into multiple countries will multiply the costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO has a goal to get the typical time from application to issue to **come down to three years**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a great idea for a product that can be developed by you a few friends why not go for it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if the last part was asking if patent offices will see the nuanced differences or if consumers will appreciate the differences and switch to your system. I'd worry about the consumers. But from both sides of the patent debate what is &quot;obvious&quot; compared with what has been done is one of the hardest things to get a good grip on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.epo.org/applying/basics.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**appended**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding &quot;world wide&quot; patent applications: This is a confusing topic. While there is essentially a world wide (147 country) patent **application** there is not a world wide **patent**. The WIPO via the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) has a mechanism to file, from your country, an single application that holds your place in 147 countries and, with enough money and work, could result in an enforceable issued patent in any of those places you latter choose to take the next steps in.&#xD;&#xA;It is expensive. Most people look for the biggest market they can address with the most enforceable rights and just go into one or two places directly without using the PCT process. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actual cost of filing fees in the U.S.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fees are 50% off for a small entity (less than 500 employees) and are now 75% off if you qualify as a &quot;micro entity&quot;. Initial filing of a non-provisonal utility application is $730 for small entities, $365 for micro. When it gets initially rejected, as almost all application do, there is no fee to reply as long as it is within 3 months. If and when you get a notice of allowance the issue fee is $890 or 495 for micro. The un-discountable publication fee is $300.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In answer to a question in a comment, I am a USPTO registered practioner who is **not* also an attorney. That makes me a patent agent. Same rights, duties and privileges at the USPTO but no power to be involved in any court related matters. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding doing it yourself:&#xD;&#xA;When I passed the all-day patent bar exam that has a 50% pass rate five years ago a senior colleague contradicted me and said &quot;after three year of doing this you will know what you are doing&quot;' paused then added &quot;because you are so quick at learning&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4259" RevisionGUID="15ed8b3b-0e55-4753-bb5a-7f7b0cddee4f" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:22:17.130" UserId="4315" Comment="added 285 characters in body" Text="**1999**: General prior art on &quot;progress indicators&quot;: http://www.mit.edu/~jtidwell/language/progress_indicator.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relating to using animations: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Animation is often used to good effect in this pattern; motion draws&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the user's attention, and its cessation implies a new relaxed, stable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; state of being (&quot;the process is done, so you can relax now&quot;).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2006**: Animated picture bar progress component: http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/14094/An-animated-progressbar-control-with-many-extras&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;... you can define if and how the current step gets a little extra animation, and some more properties influencing the animations.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4265" RevisionGUID="4da9b26a-b130-4b91-937f-d41b973f3ae6" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:25:58.977" UserId="4314" Text="This has been the *modus operandi* of every flash games web site for many many years, which is where I would look for prior art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take for example &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kongregate.com/games/jarofed/symbiosis-greenland&quot;&gt;kongregate.com&lt;/a&gt; : this is a web site which does not make most (perhaps *any*?) of the games which it provides; it is not principally in the role of being a game maker. Instead, when you load the web site (thus telling the server that you are downloading the first game, which runs automatically) the site also recommends other games based on that same title, and displays them underneath the game that is being played. Those games are not generally made by the same person who made the first game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure how you would perform an historical &quot;snapshot&quot; of this, but here's an idea: The Internet Archive has crawled (downloaded and stored for later use)  images of how Kongregate.com worked from 2005 on. Just to take 2007 as an example, a crawl shows &lt;a href=&quot;http://web.archive.org/web/20070215075901/http://www.kongregate.com/games/SeanCooper/boxhead-more-rooms&quot;&gt;this game&lt;/a&gt;, while beneath it are promotions for several &quot;recommended games&quot; which were not made by that same game developer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4266" RevisionGUID="065f234c-2566-4316-a6a2-344c613de131" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:27:50.673" UserId="4310" Text="My biggest fear is that all the really valuable and very broad patents that qualify as crap have been granted, and we're merely in the midst of the &quot;long tail&quot; of patent applications. How can we fix the problem of the 30,000+ patents that have the potential of ruining startups? Is there a speedy, non-lawyer-required way of killing companies' patents by proving they're obvious or that they already exist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10030" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4266" RevisionGUID="065f234c-2566-4316-a6a2-344c613de131" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:27:50.673" UserId="4310" Text="Is it possible to quickly kill existing patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10031" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4266" RevisionGUID="065f234c-2566-4316-a6a2-344c613de131" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:27:50.673" UserId="4310" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4267" RevisionGUID="dde3efd3-d314-4625-b8e2-a125b99bce32" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:29:24.747" UserId="4329" Text="Ridiculous.  There have been SDKs for doing in-game advertising for other games since 2005 at least.  Double Fusion was one of many companies doing this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.develop-online.net/news/28399/New-Double-Fusion-tech-puts-game-ads-in-existing-titles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adscape and Massive Incorporated created similar SDKs in the same time frame.  Here's a huge list of prior art that should kill this patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://notesnews2007.blogspot.com/2007/10/adscape-media-patents.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4246" RevisionGUID="cbf482bb-19fc-4b36-af91-0b36fd38821a" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:30:59.720" UserId="4265" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="A list of recently used applications is probably enough to invalidate this patent application.&#xD;&#xA;It essentially displays the frequency of use of an application.&#xD;&#xA;If it's unfrequently used, it will fall out of the list. If it's frequently used it will be included. Exclusion/inclusion in the list is the same as changing appearence as visible/invisible is a change in appearence as far I can tell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, Windows XP released in 2001 has one of these list." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4268" RevisionGUID="891dd815-2213-4995-a5f7-dd226ecfea2f" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:33:06.110" UserId="4332" Text="How is this different than the grainy step by step downloads of large image files in web browsers? Near as I can tell, you could tell the progress based on how many of the pixels (which are the same color as the target download) had shown up and how much of the image was still missing. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4269" RevisionGUID="4598a087-2855-4a3d-97de-258443ddb1a4" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:36:13.580" UserId="4336" Text="Possibly this At&amp;T viewtron video (from around 1985/1986 I think) is useful. It shows online shopping, including entering quantity and making payment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=o6DVBPmo4Co#t=172s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, this article apparently from IEEE ‘Annals of the History of Computing.’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.aldricharchive.com/downloads/anhc-33-4-anec-aldrich.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which specially mentions a system in operation in 1984 that used a 'shopping basket' (uk synonym for a shopping cart)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly useful?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4270" RevisionGUID="24db5a29-60a5-4db1-958f-040cdf570e49" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:37:09.807" UserId="4314" Text="Re &quot;a display apparatus capable of stereoscopic display&quot;, my first guess at where you can find prior art is the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Boy&quot;&gt;Virtual Boy&lt;/a&gt; game console, but I am not familiar with whether people could tune the brightness of the LEDs to give a sense of &quot;depth&quot; to the background. If somebody could recall a game which did this, then that would be a stellar example that the effect has been done since the late 1990s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia also kindly offers a &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stereoscopic_video_games&quot;&gt;list of stereoscopic video games&lt;/a&gt; to examine for the effect. Is anyone familiar with any of these? Did any of them tweak luminance or transparency to make things appear more distant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4271" RevisionGUID="48cacf11-bdee-40e3-9b33-e620007a6f9e" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:40:15.667" UserId="310" Text="A recent cross game promotion by EA for games developed by two different developers:&#xD;&#xA;http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/dragon-age-2/1145400p1.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4272" RevisionGUID="f7a8f2de-2f10-4624-bae3-bb175390537f" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:41:16.127" UserId="4337" Text="Wikipedia contains a page on Tag Cloud:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tag_cloud&amp;oldid=14843923&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from June 7, 2005.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the Patent Application:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Modifying the APPEARANCE OF AN ICON based on its FREQUENCY OF USE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the Wikipedia article:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the more commonly used tags are displayed with a larger font or stronger emphasis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this implies the storage of storing the frequency of use and then modifying the appearance of a link based on that frequency." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4273" RevisionGUID="756d3822-d98b-43db-91fc-ab3ecfd3caa1" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:41:29.530" UserId="4329" Text="This is a pop fly if you know your image formats.  Take for example the Progressive JPEG format, which is originally from ISO/IEC 10918, which dates to 1994:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/fdd/fdd000017.shtml&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This shows early pixels in a blocky format while the image continues to download.  Progressive JPEGs weren't original either, they were probably inspired by interlaced GIFs and a whole host of other progressive &quot;confetti&quot; formats.  All these formats date to the 1990s:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlacing_(bitmaps)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4274" RevisionGUID="fd6ce176-647a-4cd7-bd67-cf477896515f" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:42:09.283" UserId="4342" Text="Genelec are offering this technology under the name of &quot;AutoCal&quot;; There's a human-readable explanation on a subpage on the Genelec website [1]. The product is mentioned in at least two press releases before December 2010 [2][3]. Also, on Youtube there is a video explaining the usage of their AutoCal System, which also clearly predates December 2010 [4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [1] http://www.genelec.com/learning-center/key-technologies/dsp-monitoring-systems/autocal/&#xD;&#xA;- [2] http://www.genelec.com/documents///news/Genelec_Peabody.doc&#xD;&#xA;- [3] http://www.genelec.com/documents///news/Genelec_EricSilver.doc&#xD;&#xA;- [4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwKxptMKbn8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4242" RevisionGUID="7d31d712-9166-4fb6-a814-39d1b45d9fa0" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:44:14.977" UserId="3076" Comment="Added to answer in response to comment" Text="First, if you are from the EU you should be able (administratively ) file an EPO application on-line for 115 euros according to their [step by step instructions][1]. There are more costs between that and getting enforceable patent rights but the fees to take the first step aren't bad. Also anyone in the world can file a U.S. provisional application on-line for $130. That fee can be cut in half if you qualify as a micro-entity. Writing and filing yourself is a big job that will require you to learn a lot and, particularly for a software idea, is still not likely to come out very well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The benefit of a patent attorney is to greatly increase the chance something good comes out of this. Patent practitioners meet someone who thinks they have a billion dollar idea every week but know that taking any idea to fruition is hard work with no guarantee of success. Most inventors spend their time trying to convince a doubting world they have something great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Software related patents can be particularly hard to get allowed and can be vulnerable to layer being declared too abstract to have been patented in the first place. The allowance rate if done professionally is probably around 40%. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the U.S. a bank might give you a loan against an issued patent with a proved royalty stream. Not to file a patent unless there was some good collateral put up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use a professional it could cost you that much to go through the whole process of getting a patent issued. Price-sensitive inventors who shop around can probably get that down to 8-12k USD. Of course you can spend the money and not ever get the patent. To go into multiple countries will multiply the costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO has a goal to get the typical time from application to issue to **come down to three years**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a great idea for a product that can be developed by you a few friends why not go for it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if the last part was asking if patent offices will see the nuanced differences or if consumers will appreciate the differences and switch to your system. I'd worry about the consumers. But from both sides of the patent debate what is &quot;obvious&quot; compared with what has been done is one of the hardest things to get a good grip on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.epo.org/applying/basics.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**appended**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding &quot;world wide&quot; patent applications: This is a confusing topic. While there is essentially a world wide (147 country) patent **application** there is not a world wide **patent**. The WIPO via the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) has a mechanism to file, from your country, an single application that holds your place in 147 countries and, with enough money and work, could result in an enforceable issued patent in any of those places you latter choose to take the next steps in.&#xD;&#xA;It is expensive. Most people look for the biggest market they can address with the most enforceable rights and just go into one or two places directly without using the PCT process. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actual cost of filing fees in the U.S.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fees are 50% off for a small entity (less than 500 employees) and are now 75% off if you qualify as a &quot;micro entity&quot;. Initial filing of a non-provisonal utility application is $730 for small entities, $365 for micro. When it gets initially rejected, as almost all application do, there is no fee to reply as long as it is within 3 months. If and when you get a notice of allowance the issue fee is $890 or 495 for micro. The un-discountable publication fee is $300.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In answer to a question in a comment, I am a USPTO registered practioner who is *not* also an attorney. That makes me a patent agent. Same rights, duties and privileges at the USPTO but no power to be involved in any court related matters. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding doing it yourself:&#xD;&#xA;When five years ago I passed the all-day patent bar exam that has a 50% pass rate  a senior colleague congratulated me and said &quot;after three year of doing this you will know what you are doing&quot;, he paused then added &quot;because you are so quick at learning&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4270" RevisionGUID="b4f3e9ab-a6f3-42c3-aa69-8ff2a2d8b006" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:44:20.610" UserId="4314" Comment="added an example which gets close to what the prior art demands" Text="Re &quot;a display apparatus capable of stereoscopic display&quot;, my first guess at where you can find prior art is the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Boy&quot;&gt;Virtual Boy&lt;/a&gt; game console, but I am not familiar with whether people could tune the brightness of the LEDs to give a sense of &quot;depth&quot; to the background. If somebody could recall a game which did this, then that would be a stellar example that the effect has been done since the late 1990s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia also kindly offers a &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stereoscopic_video_games&quot;&gt;list of stereoscopic video games&lt;/a&gt; to examine for the effect. Is anyone familiar with any of these? Did any of them tweak luminance or transparency to make things appear more distant?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**: tunnels in &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_%28video_game%29&quot;&gt;Descent (1995)&lt;/a&gt;, like &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/descent/screenshots/gameShotId,3467/&quot;&gt;this screenshot&lt;/a&gt; shows, were darkened based on how far away they were. Descent was a stereoscopic game." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4275" RevisionGUID="11b0c8a3-c941-4595-af99-3d19511df8b3" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:44:52.397" UserId="4324" Text="[Crazyegg](http://www.crazyegg.com/#.) does exactly this. It (1) stores frequency of use of icons on a webpage and (2) changes their appearance to reflect it, with a frequency of use heatmap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Heatma.ps](https://heatma.ps) also does this but for Android apps instead of webpages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4267" RevisionGUID="8a7e367e-8a00-467f-91a3-5ce4f51d1ad3" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:45:44.300" UserId="4329" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="Ridiculous.  There have been SDKs for doing in-game advertising for other games since 2005 at least.  Double Fusion was one of many companies doing this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.develop-online.net/news/28399/New-Double-Fusion-tech-puts-game-ads-in-existing-titles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adscape and Massive Incorporated created similar SDKs in the same time frame.  Here's a huge list of prior art that should kill this patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://notesnews2007.blogspot.com/2007/10/adscape-media-patents.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh and hey, check this ancient site for BiDamic, which turned into Adscape.  &quot;Bidamic’s patent pending solution allows for dynamic advertising in video games, making permanent one-time ad placement in games obsolete.&quot;  Copyright 2002, bitches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20050208120452/http://www.bidamic.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4276" RevisionGUID="458e01cb-dc69-42dc-b562-79b4a05e029a" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:47:47.090" UserId="310" Text="Applifier has done this by linking and promoting newly launched games from already established games. Here applifier is a third party linking the new games and old games developed by different publishers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.bbgsite.com/socialgames/content/2010-09-13/applifier_reaches_55m_users_for_social_game_cross_promotion.shtml&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.applifier.com/how-it-works/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4269" RevisionGUID="9583a005-056f-412a-80a4-f15f5ec597ae" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:47:58.980" UserId="4336" Comment="added 889 characters in body" Text="Possibly this At&amp;T viewtron video (from around 1985/1986 I think) is useful. It shows online shopping, including entering quantity and making payment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=o6DVBPmo4Co#t=172s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Effects of Information Technology on Financial Services Systems (Washington, D. C.: U.S.&#xD;&#xA;Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-CIT-202, September 1984).&#xD;&#xA;http://ota-cdn.fas.org/reports/8411.pdf &#xD;&#xA;(page 130) describes &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Viewtron subscribers will also&#xD;&#xA;be able to order J. C. Penney catalog merchandise by using a direct link to J. C. Penney computers in Atlanta. They will receive online order confirmation upon completion of their&#xD;&#xA;order. If the requested item is not available&#xD;&#xA;in the color requested, the J. C. Penney computer will offer the Viewtron subscriber other&#xD;&#xA;color possibilities. The J. C. Penney catalog&#xD;&#xA;inventory system is immediately and automatically updated. In addition to processing the&#xD;&#xA;catalog order, the gateway to J. C. Penney will&#xD;&#xA;also provide for credit authorization for the J.&#xD;&#xA;C. Penney card, as well as for VISA and Mastercard. &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, this article apparently from IEEE ‘Annals of the History of Computing.’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.aldricharchive.com/downloads/anhc-33-4-anec-aldrich.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which specially mentions a system in operation in 1984 that used a 'shopping basket' (uk synonym for a shopping cart)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly useful?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4267" RevisionGUID="c8db310f-97b3-41b3-a331-0420658697e5" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:51:04.527" UserId="4329" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="Ridiculous.  There have been SDKs for doing in-game advertising for other games since 2005 at least.  Double Fusion was one of many companies doing this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.develop-online.net/news/28399/New-Double-Fusion-tech-puts-game-ads-in-existing-titles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adscape and Massive Incorporated created similar SDKs in the same time frame.  Here's a huge list of prior art that should kill this patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://notesnews2007.blogspot.com/2007/10/adscape-media-patents.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh and hey, check this ancient site for BiDamic, which turned into Adscape.  &quot;Bidamic’s patent pending solution allows for dynamic advertising in video games, making permanent one-time ad placement in games obsolete... The customization features of Adverplay allow for ad campaigns that can be tailored to demographic, location, genre, time of deployment and more.&quot;  Copyright 2002, bitches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20050208120452/http://www.bidamic.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Die patent die!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4277" RevisionGUID="6452f70a-4dfb-4abe-b9d1-5790f783b569" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:51:29.297" UserId="4346" Text="Many forum softwares use this kind of concept. It changes default thread icon to &quot;hot thread&quot; icon when there is larger thread activity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just take a look at the footer here : http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/32/beginners-questions/. Thread icons change color to red for &quot;hot threads&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4269" RevisionGUID="cffd014f-4c1e-437e-8a8d-fc7f1449964b" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:54:19.790" UserId="4336" Comment="added 218 characters in body" Text="Possibly this At&amp;T viewtron video (from around 1985/1986 I think) is useful. It shows online shopping, including entering quantity and making payment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=o6DVBPmo4Co#t=172s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Effects of Information Technology on Financial Services Systems (Washington, D. C.: U.S.&#xD;&#xA;Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-CIT-202, September 1984).&#xD;&#xA;http://ota-cdn.fas.org/reports/8411.pdf &#xD;&#xA;(page 130) describes &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Viewtron subscribers will also&#xD;&#xA;be able to order J. C. Penney catalog merchandise by using a direct link to J. C. Penney computers in Atlanta. They will receive online order confirmation upon completion of their&#xD;&#xA;order. If the requested item is not available&#xD;&#xA;in the color requested, the J. C. Penney computer will offer the Viewtron subscriber other&#xD;&#xA;color possibilities. The J. C. Penney catalog&#xD;&#xA;inventory system is immediately and automatically updated. In addition to processing the&#xD;&#xA;catalog order, the gateway to J. C. Penney will&#xD;&#xA;also provide for credit authorization for the J.&#xD;&#xA;C. Penney card, as well as for VISA and Mastercard. &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, this article apparently from IEEE ‘Annals of the History of Computing.’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.aldricharchive.com/downloads/anhc-33-4-anec-aldrich.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which specially mentions a system in operation in 1984 that used a 'shopping basket' (uk synonym for a shopping cart)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, there is this video of the Telaction system from about 1989-1990, showing a shopping cart quite clearly, although by telephone:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=n-vctzDHAf4#t=330s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Described in more detail in this chicago tribune article:&#xD;&#xA;http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-10-16/entertainment/8703180526_1_basic-cable-package-viewers-home-shopping&#xD;&#xA;Possibly useful?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4278" RevisionGUID="7502ecdf-735a-44e4-940c-2fec0506610c" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:55:35.597" UserId="4349" Text="Apple has some patents in that way. The writing scheme has a generalist approach that can overlap the current patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer user interface is provided which allows a user to adjust&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the size of icons based upon a user's preference or based upon a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; characteristic of the objects that the icons represent. When the icon&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sizing is performed according to a user preference, a relative sizing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scheme or an **arbitrary icon sizing scheme can be employed to variably&#xD;&#xA;&gt; size icons. Providing the ability to size icons in such a manner&#xD;&#xA;&gt; allows users to represent a user's categorization of object&#xD;&#xA;&gt; importance, for example.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.google.com/patents/US8429562&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.google.com/patents/US7216304&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.google.com/patents/US20070079255&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.google.com/patents/US20070209022&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4279" RevisionGUID="dceb409d-0b9d-4282-8823-f7786812e7a6" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:57:04.143" UserId="2003" Text="To me this sounds like Digital Room Correction (DRC), which is commonly used to calibrate for speakers and/or the room. My reading of the claim is that &quot;determining physical features&quot; refers to determining acoustic properties (i.e. the impulse response) of the room around the speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Digital Room Correction is a vast field. But to name one product that fits the bill, how about Juice Audiolens. There is an introduction here that steps through the whole process of capturing and calibrating a speaker system: (see navagation links on the left)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.juicehifi.com/show.asp?page=goxpage00000013.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Juice Audiolens has been around since before 2010. For example here is an editorial mentioning a review for version 3.0 in 2008: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2677" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10052" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4267" RevisionGUID="d8e6cc45-2bd7-4c56-b68b-13349596387a" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:58:24.847" UserId="4329" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Ridiculous.  There have been SDKs for doing in-game advertising for other games since 2005 at least.  Double Fusion was one of many companies doing this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.develop-online.net/news/28399/New-Double-Fusion-tech-puts-game-ads-in-existing-titles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adscape and Massive Incorporated created similar SDKs in the same time frame.  Here's a huge list of prior art that should kill this patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://notesnews2007.blogspot.com/2007/10/adscape-media-patents.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh and hey, check this ancient site for BiDamic, which turned into Adscape.  &quot;Bidamic’s patent pending solution allows for dynamic advertising in video games, making permanent one-time ad placement in games obsolete... The customization features of Adverplay allow for ad campaigns that can be tailored to demographic, location, genre, time of deployment and more.&quot;  Copyright 2002.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20050208120452/http://www.bidamic.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4267" RevisionGUID="f7ca8d86-6867-4847-9746-d57d7480867e" CreationDate="2013-07-22T17:04:02.667" UserId="4329" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Ridiculous.  There have been SDKs for doing in-game advertising for other games since 2005 at least.  Double Fusion was one of many companies doing this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.develop-online.net/news/28399/New-Double-Fusion-tech-puts-game-ads-in-existing-titles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adscape and Massive Incorporated created similar SDKs in the same time frame.  Here's a huge list of prior art that should kill this patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://notesnews2007.blogspot.com/2007/10/adscape-media-patents.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh and hey, check this ancient site for BiDamic, which turned into Adscape.  &quot;Bidamic’s patent pending solution allows for dynamic advertising in video games, making permanent one-time ad placement in games obsolete... The customization features of Adverplay allow for ad campaigns that can be tailored to demographic, location, genre, time of deployment and more.&quot;  Copyright 2002.  There's your social graph element of claim 2, which should knock out the rest of the dependent claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20050208120452/http://www.bidamic.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4263" RevisionGUID="5cade8d9-2a25-4b0a-80f1-95a052a228be" CreationDate="2013-07-22T17:08:48.780" UserId="4319" Comment="added 271 characters in body" Text="Here is a link to the &quot;[Dynamic Search Ads][1]&quot; from google. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This product uses &quot;ads are answers&quot; to allow a customer to refine targeting criteria for an ad campaign.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from the article &#xD;&#xA;&quot;you get full reporting on searches that generated clicks, destination pages that matched ads, ad headlines that were generated, as well as average CPC, clicks, and conversions&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10055" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="4277" RevisionGUID="777dece8-4f16-4968-a042-5b62b4b95372" CreationDate="2013-07-22T17:11:01.960" UserId="4346" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4346,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Marcin Doliwa&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10056" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="4277" RevisionGUID="ab964c1a-9b2c-461c-9921-fb450bf652c1" CreationDate="2013-07-22T17:11:20.400" UserId="4346" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4346,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Marcin Doliwa&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4280" RevisionGUID="26d36f6d-37b2-4ec1-8765-5155ff1a9ba3" CreationDate="2013-07-22T17:14:46.853" UserId="142" Text="My Onkyo TX-SR506 which I purchased in 2007 has this feature:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;http://www.uk.onkyo.com/downloads/1/1/7/5/6/21492808_f100945615.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See &quot;First Time Setup&quot; on page 36:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;With the supplied calibrated microphone, Audyssey 2EQ &#xD;&#xA;automatically determines the number of speakers connected, their size for purposes of bass management, optimum crossover frequencies to the subwoofer (if present), and distances from the primary listening position. Audyssey 2EQ then removes the distortion caused by room acoustics by capturing room acoustical problems over the listening area in both the frequency and time domain. The result is clear, well-balanced sound for everyone. Enabling Audyssey 2EQ allows you to also use Audyssey Dynamic EQ, which maintains the proper &#xD;&#xA;octave-to-octave balance at any volume level.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4263" RevisionGUID="06f472cf-1658-43f4-a7a9-024b200247a8" CreationDate="2013-07-22T17:18:30.633" UserId="4319" Comment="added 181 characters in body" Text="Here is a link to the &quot;[Dynamic Search Ads][1]&quot; from google which is designed to respond to current search behavior and self-adjust. In addition it offs tracking and reporting facilities to monitor keyword campaign metrics so adjustments to targeting can be made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This product uses &quot;ads are answers&quot; to allow a customer to refine targeting criteria for an ad campaign.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from the article &#xD;&#xA;&quot;you get full reporting on searches that generated clicks, destination pages that matched ads, ad headlines that were generated, as well as average CPC, clicks, and conversions&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the documentation for the conversion tracking tools in Google's display advertising suite. Where they specifically mention &quot;it's easy to adjust your bids and targeting to get the most bang for your buck.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/ads/displaynetwork/manage-your-ads/measure-track.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/ads/innovations/dynamicsearchads.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4263" RevisionGUID="2fcb4b30-3ab7-4635-a636-8ef1dedd84b1" CreationDate="2013-07-22T17:37:26.993" UserId="4319" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Here is a link to the &quot;[Dynamic Search Ads][1]&quot; from google which is designed to respond to current search behavior and self-adjust. In addition it offers tracking and reporting facilities to monitor keyword campaign metrics so adjustments to targeting can be made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This product uses &quot;ads are answers&quot; to allow a customer to refine targeting criteria for an ad campaign.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from the article &#xD;&#xA;&quot;you get full reporting on searches that generated clicks, destination pages that matched ads, ad headlines that were generated, as well as average CPC, clicks, and conversions&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the documentation for the conversion tracking tools in Google's display advertising suite. Where they specifically mention &quot;it's easy to adjust your bids and targeting to get the most bang for your buck.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/ads/displaynetwork/manage-your-ads/measure-track.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/ads/innovations/dynamicsearchads.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4281" RevisionGUID="75cd8e49-e1d8-404f-9f61-17aa64094c12" CreationDate="2013-07-22T17:38:50.853" UserId="4366" Text="My idea was to create an online system which allows defendants which are accused of patent infringement to find other defendants in the same situation, being sued or threatened to be sued. This would allow several defendants to combine resources and take down some of the patent trolls. Perhaps it could be an addition to this awesome website!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crowdfunding and crowdresearching patent invalidation suits can really put a dent in the patent trolling industry." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4282" RevisionGUID="1d694772-cc5a-4438-b559-adf3fabba687" CreationDate="2013-07-22T17:43:28.737" UserId="4377" Text="I purchased an Onkyo TX-SR604 in 2007 with an Auto Calibration feature called &quot;Audyssey 2EQ&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It did require an external microphone be attached, and the calibration to be initiated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://reviews.cnet.com/av-receivers/onkyo-tx-sr604-black/4505-6466_7-32008415.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4282" RevisionGUID="be8a3cfc-a447-4ddd-8aef-1bb8308a4197" CreationDate="2013-07-22T17:53:10.413" UserId="4377" Comment="Added Link and comments about User Manual" Text="I purchased an Onkyo TX-SR604 in 2007 with an Auto Calibration feature called &quot;Audyssey 2EQ&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It did require an external microphone be attached, and the calibration to be initiated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://reviews.cnet.com/av-receivers/onkyo-tx-sr604-black/4505-6466_7-32008415.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Official Users Manual with original Copyright Year of 2006&#xD;&#xA;http://filedepot.onkyousa.com/Files/own_manuals/TX-SR604_674_En.pdf?CFID=2679429&#xD;&#xA;Page 38 Starts the description of Auto Calibration." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="550" RevisionGUID="59055bde-4b14-45de-8fac-a2feedaca97b" CreationDate="2013-07-22T17:53:22.260" UserId="4310" Comment="fixed link" Text="Intershop claims to be the first online store, [WikiPedia][1] puts the date at 1995 but their own site claims they started doing it in 1992:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.intershop.com/company-profile.html&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  In the early days, **e-commerce websites were restricted to shopping functionality**, but it soon became possible to map complex sales and procurement processes. Customer expectations grew as technology progressed. As an industry pioneer, Intershop has been driving and supporting the **development of online retailing since 1992** and thus possesses unparalleled e-commerce experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;a call to them for historic records may prove fruitful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, a PRNewswire article dated Jan 3 1994 (which predates this filing date)&#xD;&#xA;[http://www.thefreelibrary.com/APPLE+COMPUTER'S+eWORLD+TO+CHANGE+THE+SHAPE+OF+ONLINE+SERVICES-a014665738][2]&#xD;&#xA;specifically mentions the new Apple eWorld which included:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Marketplace for purchasing products and services&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;online through their device(s). Presumably there was an online store, but someone is going to have to dig around to see when/if Apple did indeed &quot;sell products OR services&quot; online&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intershop_Communications&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/APPLE+COMPUTER%27S+eWORLD+TO+CHANGE+THE+SHAPE+OF+ONLINE+SERVICES-a014665738" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10065" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="550" RevisionGUID="59055bde-4b14-45de-8fac-a2feedaca97b" CreationDate="2013-07-22T17:53:22.260" Comment="Proposed by 4310 approved by 3076, 1767 edit id of 367" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10066" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3577" RevisionGUID="5b34ecab-5670-4aff-b656-48a0bb5d2731" CreationDate="2013-07-22T17:59:48.680" UserId="4311" Comment="Added computer-graphics tag" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;computer-graphics&gt;&lt;us20120146993&gt;&lt;three-dimension&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10067" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3577" RevisionGUID="5b34ecab-5670-4aff-b656-48a0bb5d2731" CreationDate="2013-07-22T17:59:48.680" Comment="Proposed by 4311 approved by 3076, 1767 edit id of 366" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4283" RevisionGUID="9b09f58c-aa43-4035-98a1-d744adbf65a1" CreationDate="2013-07-22T18:04:55.683" UserId="4377" Text="The following is quoted from the Onkyo TX-604 Users Manual with a copyright date of 2006&#xD;&#xA;Page 38&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://filedepot.onkyousa.com/Files/own_manuals/TX-SR604_674_En.pdf?CFID=2679429][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With the supplied speaker setup microphone, the  Audyssey2EQ function&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can measure the number of  speakers connected, their sizes, crossover&#xD;&#xA;&gt; frequencies,  and the distance from each speaker to the listening&#xD;&#xA;&gt; position and calculate the optimal speaker settings for your &#xD;&#xA;&gt; listening environment automatically. Before using this function,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; connect and position all of  your speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://filedepot.onkyousa.com/Files/own_manuals/TX-SR604_674_En.pdf?CFID=2679429" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4284" RevisionGUID="a7445597-9324-44ac-b755-e0719baec787" CreationDate="2013-07-22T18:05:06.203" UserId="4383" Text="I specifically remember buying CDs in 1992/1993 from cdconnection.com. You'd 'telnet cdconnection.com', be presented with a search interface, and could search for and select CDs. Once you were done selecting, you'd submit your payment information and they'd mail you the CDs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I no longer have access to the mail account I used at the time, but I'm pretty sure they sent mail messages with order information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just mailed cdconnection.com to see if they'd be able to clarify." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4285" RevisionGUID="34639a80-12dd-4bea-9272-2aed5af23129" CreationDate="2013-07-22T18:06:23.337" UserId="4387" Text="How can I become part of a patent if someone has the same idea. Do I have to buy the idea from them?&#xD;&#xA;Or is it possible to move forward with the person who has created the same idea?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10071" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4285" RevisionGUID="34639a80-12dd-4bea-9272-2aed5af23129" CreationDate="2013-07-22T18:06:23.337" UserId="4387" Text="I had the same idea and even created a test product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10072" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4285" RevisionGUID="34639a80-12dd-4bea-9272-2aed5af23129" CreationDate="2013-07-22T18:06:23.337" UserId="4387" Text="&lt;us8167224&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4286" RevisionGUID="d830091e-4c50-4794-b7b3-a3ea91836e0e" CreationDate="2013-07-22T18:08:25.473" UserId="4389" Text="There were a few BBS sites that had a cart and checkout system. Finding pictures of these is proving to be difficult.  The GEnie main menu from 1993 shows #7 MH Books had one and #8 LASERCRAZE had one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Genie_login_420.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4287" RevisionGUID="e98f0495-8bf0-417c-b181-aa205a5a0fe2" CreationDate="2013-07-22T18:10:25.483" UserId="4392" Text="OK Cupid has been doing location based search since the mid-2000s. It wasn't based on mobile GPS coordinates, but it did search for people within the area you specified, and ordered them based on a combination of their declared location (which presumably was recorded as latitude and longitude), the declared location of the user, and the compatibility rating between the two users." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4288" RevisionGUID="122415cb-b5bf-4a44-8232-030ad52f5a6f" CreationDate="2013-07-22T18:15:23.817" UserId="4394" Text="Amazon's App?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nov 2010&#xD;&#xA;http://www.clickz.com/clickz/news/1899820/amazon-goes-store-sales-barcode-scanner-app-video&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Using the app consumers can scan a product barcode, photograph a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; product, or say its name into their handset to access instant pricing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information. They can then purchase the item through Amazon's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one-click ordering system within the app. The company says the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; offering is designed to give consumers an easy way to access online&#xD;&#xA;&gt; alternatives when shopping in-store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jan 2011&#xD;&#xA;http://downloadsquad.switched.com/2011/01/27/amazon-uk-launches-android-app-with-barcode-scanning-and-1-click/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You can also scan barcodes when you're in a shop, and the app will&#xD;&#xA;&gt; show you how much each item costs on Amazon. Making a purchase is a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; painless, 1-click process from both Amazon and Marketplace seller&#xD;&#xA;&gt; listings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4289" RevisionGUID="2a8eaefd-3d3d-42d2-8581-d4db5facc20c" CreationDate="2013-07-22T18:18:03.677" UserId="4374" Text="Blender's Mist feature uses this technique, and it is documented [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;That page is marked as modified in 2011, but the history goes back earlier; for example grabbing [this page][2] at random from the history (25 September 2009) stills explains the same technique:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mist can greatly enhance the illusion of depth in your rendering. To&#xD;&#xA;&gt; create mist, Blender makes objects farther away more transparent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (decreasing their Alpha value) so that they mix more of the the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; background color with the object color. With Mist enabled, the further&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the object is away from the camera the less it's alpha value will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Doc:2.4/Manual/World/Mist&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://wiki.blender.org/index.php?title=Doc:2.4/Manual/World/Mist&amp;oldid=84716" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4290" RevisionGUID="028c42c4-f85d-476f-bd7f-41ecd59ac1ce" CreationDate="2013-07-22T18:19:01.270" UserId="4395" Text="Charles stack had the first online bookstore and pre-dated Amazon.com by three years. His website was at http://www.books.com and was called &quot;Bookstacks Unlimited&quot;[0]. Unfortunately I can't find any information that describes the implementation of his system. However, it's possible that he may be able to provide more detailed information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea of using a customer's computer to place an order with the vendor's computer system, and to have that vendor manage a &quot;shopping cart&quot; that represents that customer's order in a database, is a fundamental idea that underpins almost all shopping systems in place. It would be difficult to implement such a system while still avoiding the management of the shopping cart, I would be very much surprised if the online shopping components of CompuServe, Delphi, AOL and Prodigy did not function in the same way; CompuServ's solution (&quot;The Electronic Mall&quot;) debuted in 1984.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[0] http://www.sbnonline.com/2002/07/visionary-in-obscurity-charles-stack-operates-in-two-business-communities-151-cleveland-and-the-internet-151-and-isn-146-t-well-known-in-either-this-time-around-that-146-s-going-to-change-he-hopes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-commerce" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4289" RevisionGUID="3cdddc81-a8f1-4362-9199-01d2bdef622d" CreationDate="2013-07-22T18:35:55.057" UserId="4374" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="I believe prior art is very clearly shown by Blender's Mist feature, which uses this technique and is documented [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;That page is marked as modified in 2011, but the history goes back earlier; for example grabbing [this page][2] at random from the history (25 September 2009) stills explains the same technique:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mist can greatly enhance the illusion of depth in your rendering. To&#xD;&#xA;&gt; create mist, Blender makes objects farther away more transparent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (decreasing their Alpha value) so that they mix more of the the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; background color with the object color. With Mist enabled, the further&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the object is away from the camera the less it's alpha value will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Doc:2.4/Manual/World/Mist&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://wiki.blender.org/index.php?title=Doc:2.4/Manual/World/Mist&amp;oldid=84716" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4291" RevisionGUID="350f6d4b-8b86-4a2d-89db-8190e316d4ec" CreationDate="2013-07-22T18:42:08.913" UserId="4391" Text="There are many existing implementations of this idea as mentioned above but this is one of those patent applications which should not be approved even if there is not a single existing implementation. There is not a single seminal idea in this application. Let's evaluate some of the ideas proposed as *new* in this application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Identifying users by location is not a new idea. Look at [HTML5 geolocation API][1]. Allowing this patent to go through will affect countless existing and new apps that depend on user location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Classifying users or any object based on certain characteristics is not new either. There are many algorithms that do this. Here's the first one that showed up through google search. It describes how to [classify twitter users][2] based on their characteristics. Allowing this patent to go will kill any further innovation in developing advanced techniques in machine learning or prediction to classify users based on their characteristics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Last new idea in the patent application talks about showing good matches. This is such a  universal technique that I don't even want to talk about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only objective behind this patent application is to prevent any other developer from creating a similar application. Approving this will result in reduced competition and reduced innovation. Zoosk should compete on the brilliance of its execution and not on the complexity of it's patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dev.w3.org/geo/api/spec-source.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;ved=0CC8QFjAA&amp;url=http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM11/paper/download/2886/3262&amp;ei=O3ntUaiSO8morgGU9YDABQ&amp;usg=AFQjCNEXdrelWFd_y-1oMIn06kRIx8spdQ&amp;sig2=IBUJm9jxXCei22Gy9vwYlw&amp;bvm=bv.49478099,d.aWM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4292" RevisionGUID="4184a1de-3873-4765-818f-9fa3324a79b3" CreationDate="2013-07-22T19:00:10.220" UserId="4410" Text="[Cross-Game Promotion for Aion and Guild Wars Announced][1], Aug 25, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Aion Wings Site][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/73349&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.guildwars.com/aion/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4293" RevisionGUID="f5893ee7-3507-45d0-b175-da960b634458" CreationDate="2013-07-22T19:04:09.337" UserId="4412" Text="B&amp;O Beolab 5 did this in 2005: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Product page: http://www.bang-olufsen.com/da/sound/loudspeakers/beolab-5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Audio Critic review which explains how the Beolab 5 works in detail: http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&amp;articleId=34&amp;blogId=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4033" RevisionGUID="fec9d1bc-b6f4-4d85-887b-0846be7c769b" CreationDate="2013-07-22T19:13:49.283" UserId="1767" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text=" **HELP SAVE MOBILE SEARCH** - This application from Google seeks to patent a system for finding open stores which are located near a user at the time of a search! 10 minutes of your time can narrow US Patent Applications.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before October, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a **search request** from a mobile user that includes both the **current time** AND the **location** of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying businesses which are **currently open** and **located near** the user; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Returning a search result page indicating a subset of businesses as currently open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses estimated **travel time** to estimate whether the business is “close enough” to the user. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: INDICATING LOCATION STATUS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of searching for currently open businesses from a mobile device.   The user’s device sends a search query, the current time and its location.  A search is performed based on the user’s search query.  A subset of results is selected based on operating hours of the business, current time, and travel time from the device location to the business.  The search results which are returned indicate which businesses are “currently open”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110822 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** October, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below::&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a query from a user device, a current time, and a location for the user device; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying results responsive to the query, the results including one or more business results that are each associated with a business location and operating hours; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting a subset of the business results as open results based on the operating hours of the business results, the current time, and travel times from the device location to the respective business locations; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Providing data for a search engine results page that designates the subset of business results as open results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A user’s device sends user’s search query, current time and its location&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Businesses, their associated locations and business hours are identified from the query&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  A few items from this list are selected based on whether the businesses are currently open and the user is close enough to get to them before they close&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. A subset of businesses which are open is passed along to a search engine to return results (which presumably could return a list or a map).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and including **travel time** from the user’s device to the business to determine whether user will make it to the business before it closes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Show restaurants open now”** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/xLvPq.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130110822&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4294" RevisionGUID="5317e7ab-6392-4be2-8ab9-805ef163fc04" CreationDate="2013-07-22T19:15:34.020" UserId="4419" Text="This technology has been on the market since at least 2007 from multiple vendors.  Yamaha calls it YPAO." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4295" RevisionGUID="a4940ea1-06d2-4e8f-8858-4a39a49d5535" CreationDate="2013-07-22T19:15:33.907" UserId="4420" Text="Virtual Vineyards (which later became Wine.com -- cofounders Robert Olson &amp; Harry Max) designed various online shopping/shopping cart elements in ~1993-4-5. Robert and Harry are both on LinkedIn, should be able to reach them that way for prior art evidence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4228" RevisionGUID="52cd0ffd-9f49-4a06-896d-69122e76620a" CreationDate="2013-07-22T19:16:39.257" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON E-READERS** - This application from [Qualcomm][6] seeks to patent the idea of... detecting the user’s reading speed and controlling an electronic display! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Determining a reading speed** of a user; AND &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **Automatically advancing text** on a display based on reading speed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses modification of **brightness**, **contrast**, **font size**, or **resolution** to draw the user’s attention outside the user’s current **area of interest** (basically, to move the eye toward the next chunk of text). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: ELECTRONIC READER DISPLAY CONTROL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of using **reading speed** of a user to advance text within an electronic display.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130152014 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/323,338&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Qualcomm, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying text on a mobile display device, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining a **reading pane** of a display screen operatively coupled with the **mobile display device**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Presenting **text** to a user in the reading pane;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining a **reading speed** of the user based on **user input**; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Automatically **advancing the text** within the reading pane based on the determined reading speed of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying text on a mobile device, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a **reading pane** on the screen;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Displaying text in the reading pane;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Using input from the user to determine the **reading speed** of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Advancing the text within the reading pane based on the reading speed of the user.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and using modification of **brightness**, **contrast**, **font size**, or **resolution** to draw the user’s attention outside the user’s current **area of interest** (basically, to move the eye toward the next portion of text to be read). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Automatic Scroll on Mobile Device&quot; screen shots from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/XvAkC.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130152014?dq=US20130152014A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.qualcomm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10087" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="4221" RevisionGUID="cb727225-11a4-4241-bb74-c9ce8d9e1233" CreationDate="2013-07-22T19:18:13.457" UserId="1767" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3076,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George White&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1767,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Micah Siegel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4221" RevisionGUID="bcda9be5-e026-4682-acc4-967c863110c9" CreationDate="2013-07-22T19:25:55.630" UserId="1767" Comment="added 743 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON RFID Spacers** - This application seeks to patent the idea of... RFID spacers! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything else that was **published before Jan, 2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[us20110234383][1] appears to be nothing more than **a patent for placing a foam spacer on the RFID tag to keep it away from the body of the runner**. These have been in use for as long as I can remember since RFID tags do not operate when directly placed in contact with an object that absorbs RF such as the human body or metal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, this blog post made within days of the application date http://rfidtiming.com/tech-talk-the-great-spacer-debate/ explains the problem and the solution that this patent filer is claiming to have invented. At the time of the blog post, the solution of using a foam spacer (explicitly noted in claim 64) was not new or novel. The post is notable in that it was explaining the problem that was known to anybody skilled in the art and the solution that was by then the accepted practice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note http://www.schreiner-group.com/3/company/press-room/schreiner-logidata/rfid-foam-label/ is a product with a press-release date of Aug-2010, a year before the application date. A simple google search for &quot;rfid tag foam spacer&quot; will return a number of products going back 5+ years before the application date. The problem was well known and the solution well implemented before 2011. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]:  http://www.google.com/patents/US20110234383&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10090" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4221" RevisionGUID="bcda9be5-e026-4682-acc4-967c863110c9" CreationDate="2013-07-22T19:25:55.630" UserId="1767" Comment="added 743 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="RFID - Foam spacers used in timing tags - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10091" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4221" RevisionGUID="bcda9be5-e026-4682-acc4-967c863110c9" CreationDate="2013-07-22T19:25:55.630" UserId="1767" Comment="added 743 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20110234383&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4296" RevisionGUID="5556492b-5bae-4b20-937c-2ab2ea0c4192" CreationDate="2013-07-22T19:27:02.893" UserId="4414" Text="James has a good point, I think. I've been using Audyssey MultEQ for a while and their technology dates back to 2002:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://audyssey.com/about/company-timeline and &#xD;&#xA;http://audyssey.com/audio-technology/faq#faq_multeq&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The differences to the patent in question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Audyssey brings a separate microphone because it wants to measure your listening position, not what the sound is at the speakers. Building the microphone into the speaker is IMHO obvious for the sake of simplicity, but probably won't get good results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Audyssey does not designate one speaker as master (whatever that means) but identifies appropriate cross-over frequencies and speaker dimensions (small, large) for appropriate control of 2.1-7.1 systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I still think this would be good prior art. Probably even patented, too, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4297" RevisionGUID="e1127b40-1db6-4213-a027-adc9a80c1e87" CreationDate="2013-07-22T19:28:40.157" UserId="4425" Text="http://www.techhive.com/article/122590/article.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar system tried out in boston area in 2005." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4298" RevisionGUID="5322e031-36a7-4e4b-af1f-7884985588ed" CreationDate="2013-07-22T19:31:06.310" UserId="4420" Text="IANAL but this seems bogus. The metal bottle cap was invented in the late 1800s; the discarded tops have been used ever since for a bunch of different secondary uses.  Some clown filed a patent in 1996 for using the cap in jewelry design....there's got to be a zillion examples of prior art (I'm not a collector but have seen many examples of bottle tops in old &quot;naive&quot; jewelry in antiques stores). Best info on historical uses would come from antiques dealers, or there might be some printed resources as well.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a link that describes patents vs copyrights for jewelry &amp; why jewelry patents are pretty rare. Legitimate jewelry designers sometimes use patents (more often copyright) to protect full designs. Trying to get a patent in the year 1996 (a full century after the invention of the bottle cap) for their blanket use in any-and-all jewelry design seems pretty ridiculous. YMMV&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.jewelrypatents.com/  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4299" RevisionGUID="b2aad7e7-1df3-4168-84f6-c2eebef94f4d" CreationDate="2013-07-22T19:32:35.830" UserId="4429" Text="Reading the docs I'm reminded of the Novell Netware products from many years ago. They used coax cables which used signals that fit the description to send IPX packages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in the late 1980s this already existed, where the 'device' could be anything to a simple Windows PC that had the drivers for Netware installed as well as a TCP-IP stack.&#xD;&#xA;See the IPX/SPX and the Netware wikipedia pages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3891" RevisionGUID="c8627dd2-e148-4349-adcc-b9e87cc2717e" CreationDate="2013-07-22T19:39:14.037" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="**HELP SAVE STREAMING RADIO** - This application seeks to patent a system for discovering new radio stations and podcasts online! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Nov, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of Internet radio station programs; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **dynamically categorizing** this list of programs by mapping a **dynamically identified topic** to a **content classifier**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **speech-to-text conversion** on audio content. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System And Method For Internet Radio Station Program Discovery**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A service for discovering Internet radio station programs. A list of Internet radio station programs is obtained. Each program on the list is categorized by mapping a topic to a program using a content classifier. User can discover new programs of interest from the list of programs based on the categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110502 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Lemi Technology, LLC&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** November, 2008&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Note**: This application is a [continuation][3] of US Patent  [8,359,192][6]. The applicant is attempting to “improve” the claims with this child patent by writing new (evidently broader) claims while retaining the original 2008 priority date.  So prior art should predate November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining a plurality of Internet radio station programs;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. For each Internet radio station program of the plurality of Internet radio station programs, dynamically categorizing the Internet radio station program by mapping a dynamically identified topic of the Internet radio station program to a content classifier;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Enabling a user to discover an Internet radio station program of interest from the plurality of Internet radio station programs based on the dynamic categorizations for the plurality of Internet radio station programs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of internet radio station programs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. “Dynamically categorizing” this list of programs by mapping a “dynamically identified topic” to a content classifier; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  Allowing the user to discover programs from the list based on the “dynamic categorization” (presumably created by the classifier)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and including **speech-to-text conversion** to categorize the radio station programs. Extra credit would include systems that do all of the steps above and also involve speech-to-text conversion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Internet Radio Station program discovery service&quot; flow chart from the Applicant** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/wagCM.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;300&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130110502&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;[6]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8359192?dq=8,359,192&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8359192" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3694" RevisionGUID="8bded583-2ba3-4b85-8d47-1efc76b0f49b" CreationDate="2013-07-22T19:40:48.437" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 59 characters in body; edited body; added 17 characters in body; added 34 characters in body" Text="Help **kill bad patent applications by providing evidence of prior art**. Making a difference is as simple as using Google to find literature relevant to a pending application.  10 minutes of your time can kill a bad patent. Please submit prior art as answers below and follow [@AskPatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) for a feed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions on which to use the [tag:prior-art-request] tag:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Prior Art Searches:** Any time you are soliciting help in searching for examples of prior art for a given US Patent application or US Patent.  Please follow the format suggested in this answer: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/a/146/1767&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **US Patent Applications** also should be tagged with [tag:pre-grant]&#xD;&#xA; - **US Patents** also should be tagged with [tag:post-grant]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3695" RevisionGUID="e12d999d-0481-44bc-889b-7e3a8203298e" CreationDate="2013-07-22T19:40:48.437" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 134 characters in body" Text="Help kill bad patent applications by providing evidence of prior art. Making a difference is as simple as using Google to find literature relevant to a pending application.  Follow @AskPatents for a feed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4300" RevisionGUID="4f228557-fb9a-43a2-a365-cdc4cf07080c" CreationDate="2013-07-22T19:45:38.917" UserId="4414" Text="The authorization of data and access permissions seems very close to OpenID/OAuth which have been around since about 2005:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OAuth and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenID&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those systems allow to share data between your profile and any third party and implement control of which parts. I remember Google's implementation of OAuth using this for a long time already." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3833" RevisionGUID="82da48b5-d14b-42dc-b97f-d93820fe0444" CreationDate="2013-07-22T19:47:42.677" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **HELP SAVE AMERICAN INDUSTRY AND THE WORLD'S OLDEST PROFESSION** - This application seeks to patent an online escort service.  According to the [inventor][6], “I had trouble finding dates when I was at MIT primarily because of the high male to female ratio, as well as my lack of social skills...The social problems I faced...eventually led me to (invent this technology).” 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Online Dating System**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  A method and system for balancing the supply of desirable users with the demand by other users to date them in an online dating system is provided. The method includes enabling a first user to make an offer to pay or to be paid a compensation for having a date with a second user. The offer made by the first user is transmitted to the second user. The second user responds to the first user by accepting, rejecting or making a counter offer. The first user and the second user are allowed to communicate only after any one of the users accepts an offer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110731 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Seeking Arrangements, Inc.][3]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Oct 26, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for balancing supply of and demand for dating desirable users in an online dating system, the method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving from a first user an offer to pay, or to be paid, a compensation to have a date with a second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transmitting said offer to said second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving a response from said second user to either accept, or reject, said offer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. allowing the two users to communicate only after said offer is accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claims 7, 12 and 15** specify further that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Compensation** could be selected from a group consisting of money, points, gifts and credits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Users could provide **review or rating** corresponding to the other user whom they have dated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The terms or conditions of the &quot;date&quot; could be **negotiated**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specification notes that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Invention should not be limited to the types of software operating system, web-server software, database software, software development language, server or client hardware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Give me $100 and I'll date you!** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/grT6Y.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 10/26/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (1) **offers to pay**; or&#xD;&#xA; (2) **offers to be paid** for **dating desirable users** in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Help protect American Industry!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/grT6Y.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130110731&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.seekingarrangement.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N34/normandin.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4301" RevisionGUID="55783b1e-51aa-43b4-87e5-a43fb074a001" CreationDate="2013-07-22T19:55:02.397" UserId="4437" Text="I am not sure whether &quot;locating for application-specific data&quot; can be patentable. This sounds like inventing a wheel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Systems and methods for locating application specific data US 20130166517 A1)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10102" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4301" RevisionGUID="55783b1e-51aa-43b4-87e5-a43fb074a001" CreationDate="2013-07-22T19:55:02.397" UserId="4437" Text="Locating data specific for application is not an invention" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10103" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4301" RevisionGUID="55783b1e-51aa-43b4-87e5-a43fb074a001" CreationDate="2013-07-22T19:55:02.397" UserId="4437" Text="&lt;non-obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4302" RevisionGUID="d5d3fbb9-53ae-4da7-a6ab-0452f2d5d743" CreationDate="2013-07-22T20:03:46.027" UserId="4431" Text="I wonder if IBM's patent titled &quot;System for ordering items using an electronic catalogue&quot; (US 5319542 A) @ http://www.google.com/patents/US5319542 already claims to implement this. There's no mention of &quot;shopping cart,&quot; but Amazon's patent (http://www.google.com/patents/US7512548) references IBM's. IBM filed their patent on September 27, 1990, while Amazon did theirs on October 8, 1999." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4303" RevisionGUID="ce20aa85-4a38-436b-ad4a-788beb293bd7" CreationDate="2013-07-22T20:04:56.427" UserId="4414" Text="Zope, as an open source application server has been around since 1996. zope.org was operated in the manner described above (read-only access to anonymous users, (free) registration that allowed you to put documents, files, even code, on the central server). If that sounds interesting I can do some digging to get a specific statement from the original authors what was actually there in early 1999." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10106" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="628" RevisionGUID="1a1693a6-daec-4b1b-a143-7ac0721f393e" CreationDate="2013-07-22T20:15:13.507" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;data-processing-financial&gt;&lt;us7353199&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4284" RevisionGUID="04bbfe4d-521a-4a29-a1a1-fe175bc3bd8d" CreationDate="2013-07-22T20:20:27.087" UserId="4383" Comment="added 274 characters in body" Text="I specifically remember buying CDs in 1992/1993 from cdconnection.com. You'd 'telnet cdconnection.com', be presented with a search interface, and could search for and select CDs. Once you were done selecting, you'd submit your payment information and they'd mail you the CDs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I no longer have access to the mail account I used at the time, but I'm pretty sure they sent mail messages with order information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just mailed cdconnection.com to see if they'd be able to clarify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: Unfortunately, though cdconnection has their pre-2000 telnet version's source archived, it would be very difficult to resurrect it for viewing. They did confirm that they had a &quot;shopping basket&quot; and then the checkout step allowed payment by check or credit card." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3591" RevisionGUID="a8c40023-503b-46e8-92de-bee5fd719ec2" CreationDate="2013-07-22T20:20:30.810" UserId="1767" Comment="added 169 characters in body" Text="![Johnson &amp; Johnson logo][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application attempts to patent the method of applying **cold** analgesics, that are **cold by virtue of being stored in a cold place**, to a sore muscle. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Method and Composition for Treating Pain**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/235947][1]  &#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130072575 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Johnson &amp; Johnson, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 19, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 21, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application relates to the method of treating pain by applying any **cold** analgesic. The main independent claim, if allowed, would cover the method of treating pain in a person by applying a cooled, unspecified analgesic to the region of pain. It requires the substance to have been placed in a cold place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of treating pain by topical application of an analgesic composition to the skin of a patient comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - placing an analgesic composition in an environment with a temperature of less than 10° Centigrade,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - keeping said analgesic composition in said environment for a period of time sufficient to reduce the temperature of said composition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - removing said composition from said environment, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - applying said composition topically to the region of pain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 09/19/2011** that discusses (1) cooling an analgesic; (2) applying the cooled analgesic to region of pain; (3) cooled analgesics in gel, soft solid, liquid, cream, ointment or aerosol form (taken from claim 5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][7] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][8] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130072575&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130072575&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/XQQ1qm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4221" RevisionGUID="fe5cca9f-84f9-4ce1-b589-ba0cc7a4c57f" CreationDate="2013-07-22T20:21:29.613" UserId="1767" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON RFID Spacers** - This application seeks to patent the idea of... RFID spacers! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything else that was **published before Jan, 2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[us20110234383][1] appears to be nothing more than **a patent for placing a foam spacer on the RFID tag to keep it away from the body of the runner**. These have been in use for as long as I can remember since RFID tags do not operate when directly placed in contact with an object that absorbs RF such as the human body or metal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, this blog post made within days of the application date http://rfidtiming.com/tech-talk-the-great-spacer-debate/ explains the problem and the solution that this patent filer is claiming to have invented. At the time of the blog post, the solution of using a foam spacer (explicitly noted in claim 64) was not new or novel. The post is notable in that it was explaining the problem that was known to anybody skilled in the art and the solution that was by then the accepted practice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note http://www.schreiner-group.com/3/company/press-room/schreiner-logidata/rfid-foam-label/ is a product with a press-release date of Aug-2010, a year before the application date. A simple google search for &quot;rfid tag foam spacer&quot; will return a number of products going back 5+ years before the application date. The problem was well known and the solution well implemented before 2011. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]:  http://www.google.com/patents/US20110234383&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4228" RevisionGUID="8301bc22-8f8d-41a2-9170-08e9adb0e668" CreationDate="2013-07-22T20:22:48.697" UserId="1767" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON E-READERS** - This application from [Qualcomm][6] seeks to patent the idea of... detecting the user’s reading speed and controlling an electronic display! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Determining a reading speed** of a user; AND &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **Automatically advancing text** on a display based on reading speed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses modification of **brightness**, **contrast**, **font size**, or **resolution** to draw the user’s attention outside the user’s current **area of interest** (basically, to move the eye toward the next chunk of text). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: ELECTRONIC READER DISPLAY CONTROL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of using **reading speed** of a user to advance text within an electronic display.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130152014 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/323,338&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Qualcomm, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying text on a mobile display device, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining a **reading pane** of a display screen operatively coupled with the **mobile display device**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Presenting **text** to a user in the reading pane;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining a **reading speed** of the user based on **user input**; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Automatically **advancing the text** within the reading pane based on the determined reading speed of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying text on a mobile device, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a **reading pane** on the screen;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Displaying text in the reading pane;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Using input from the user to determine the **reading speed** of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Advancing the text within the reading pane based on the reading speed of the user.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and using modification of **brightness**, **contrast**, **font size**, or **resolution** to draw the user’s attention outside the user’s current **area of interest** (basically, to move the eye toward the next portion of text to be read). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Automatic Scroll on Mobile Device&quot; screen shots from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/XvAkC.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130152014?dq=US20130152014A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.qualcomm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4033" RevisionGUID="ff0a5b0f-4be9-49e8-8ee1-1c0851d929b2" CreationDate="2013-07-22T20:23:22.320" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **HELP SAVE MOBILE SEARCH** - This application from Google seeks to patent a system for finding open stores which are located near a user at the time of a search! 10 minutes of your time can narrow US Patent Applications.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before October, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a **search request** from a mobile user that includes both the **current time** AND the **location** of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying businesses which are **currently open** and **located near** the user; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Returning a search result page indicating a subset of businesses as currently open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses estimated **travel time** to estimate whether the business is “close enough” to the user. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: INDICATING LOCATION STATUS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of searching for currently open businesses from a mobile device.   The user’s device sends a search query, the current time and its location.  A search is performed based on the user’s search query.  A subset of results is selected based on operating hours of the business, current time, and travel time from the device location to the business.  The search results which are returned indicate which businesses are “currently open”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110822 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** October, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below::&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a query from a user device, a current time, and a location for the user device; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying results responsive to the query, the results including one or more business results that are each associated with a business location and operating hours; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting a subset of the business results as open results based on the operating hours of the business results, the current time, and travel times from the device location to the respective business locations; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Providing data for a search engine results page that designates the subset of business results as open results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A user’s device sends user’s search query, current time and its location&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Businesses, their associated locations and business hours are identified from the query&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  A few items from this list are selected based on whether the businesses are currently open and the user is close enough to get to them before they close&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. A subset of businesses which are open is passed along to a search engine to return results (which presumably could return a list or a map).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and including **travel time** from the user’s device to the business to determine whether user will make it to the business before it closes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Show restaurants open now”** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/xLvPq.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130110822&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4259" RevisionGUID="a21027d0-55d4-4d22-9660-e14b3cc776a1" CreationDate="2013-07-22T20:34:36.780" UserId="4315" Comment="Added 2005 reference." Text="**1999**: General prior art on &quot;progress indicators&quot;: http://www.mit.edu/~jtidwell/language/progress_indicator.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relating to using animations: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Animation is often used to good effect in this pattern; motion draws&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the user's attention, and its cessation implies a new relaxed, stable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; state of being (&quot;the process is done, so you can relax now&quot;).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2006**: Animated picture bar progress component: http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/14094/An-animated-progressbar-control-with-many-extras&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;... you can define if and how the current step gets a little extra animation, and some more properties influencing the animations.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2005**: Example of adding animation to show file download progress in Flash. http://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/reference/actionscript/2/help.html?content=00000428.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;You might also create an animation that changes as the file loads.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4304" RevisionGUID="0b71c5a2-4547-4472-bcf7-7e8fc857aef2" CreationDate="2013-07-22T20:53:58.510" UserId="897" Text="Here's an interesting paper from 2010: [Speeding pointing in tiled widgets][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a study on how to do dynamic resizing in response to cursor movements, but the &quot;Future Work&quot; section has this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We are in the process of exploring variants of expansion&#xD;&#xA;strategies to determine promising approaches to endpoint fa-&#xD;&#xA;cilitation with expanding targets. While the KEP is currently&#xD;&#xA;not sufficiently accurate, it may be possible to increase the&#xD;&#xA;reliability of the KEP by combining its probabilities with ad-&#xD;&#xA;ditional information. For example, histories of command us-&#xD;&#xA;age or user task modeling could allow the calculation of set&#xD;&#xA;of priors on the underlying interface widgets. This would&#xD;&#xA;allow the KEP to identify the maximally likely target within&#xD;&#xA;a candidate set using two independent probability distribu-&#xD;&#xA;tions – one from command use and one from motion kine-&#xD;&#xA;matics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(KEP is a specific target prediction algorithm in the paper)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=2&amp;ved=0CDcQFjAB&amp;url=http://hci.uwaterloo.ca/sites/default/files/p229-ruiz.pdf&amp;ei=UpntUdbDJ8HBhAfe2oD4Ag&amp;usg=AFQjCNFXcRvKtml9ryC1WQPFwrXb4NfjEA&amp;sig2=LCl77MgRqfD_y48qQxSXRQ&amp;bvm=bv.49478099,d.ZG4&amp;cad=rja &quot;Speeding pointing in tiled widgets&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4305" RevisionGUID="e9e694b1-5d74-4ee1-97c0-0bb8018b3398" CreationDate="2013-07-22T20:59:23.243" UserId="4450" Text="Here's a reference to a paper published in 1975 studying the effects of ice massage on localized skin, specifically titled &quot;The cooling, analgesic, and rewarming effects of ice massage on localized skin&quot;: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1088989" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4306" RevisionGUID="eeba551d-8339-4c64-9f60-c547f96c7f8a" CreationDate="2013-07-22T21:01:25.580" UserId="4451" Text="This article published Jun 15th 2011 specifically mentions cooling analgesics before application for massage therapy.&#xD;&#xA;http://blog.1massagestore.com/2011/06/15/topical-analgesics-biofreeze/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4307" RevisionGUID="ad5ab476-abd7-4adb-aa90-c8c26b82d0ce" CreationDate="2013-07-22T21:21:10.060" UserId="4454" Text="I'm pretty sure that most if not all of the following &quot;metal mount&quot; RFID tags provide prior art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&quot;SmartMark Durable RFID Tags and Labels&quot;][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, see this tag/product (PDF from 2009):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Part Number: WF-SM-22, Size: 4&quot; x 1.375&quot; x .1875&quot;][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the claims mention, &quot;...spaced apart distance between a surface of the user body and the mounting substrate of between about 0.125 inches and about 0.5 inches.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;(it really is quite repetitive to a silly degree)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That product/PDF example appears to be an RFID tag using an adhesive foam backing providing a spacing of 0.1875 inches (which is precisely within the claimed distance).  The patent application appears to describe that very product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://web.archive.org/web/20090518183332/http://www.fricknet.com/smartmark/technical/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://web.archive.org/liveweb/http://www.fricknet.com/smartmark/technical/pdfs/WF-SM-22.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4308" RevisionGUID="4b01da22-cbab-4f17-b57e-a58780359706" CreationDate="2013-07-22T21:23:20.863" UserId="4463" Text="Not just Excel, Word as well, probably the whole office suite. Just replace 'icon' with 'menu item', and it describes the behaviour of the menus in Office since version 2000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now how is an icon different from a menu item? Both are areas on the screen that can be selected to activate a function. With Office 2007 the menus were rearranged and transformed into ribbons, which are in fact rows full of icons. So icons and menu items are basicly the same concept, just a newer version of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4309" RevisionGUID="a7990322-711d-47d0-b2de-c07b983f9d92" CreationDate="2013-07-22T21:25:16.397" UserId="4465" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This paper shows how to combine colour, position and alpha in any way you want:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Projective alpha colour, Eurographics Conference 2006, Vol 25 number 3, pp. 557-566 Author Philip Willis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4310" RevisionGUID="95bd69c1-94d5-4f12-bc5b-0718cb514b64" CreationDate="2013-07-22T21:27:15.417" UserId="4465" Text="This paper shows various ways of modifying colour etc by combining colour, position and alpha:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“ARTcams: Attributed Rational Tensor Cameras”,&#xD;&#xA;Chuan Li, Peter Hall and Philip Willis&#xD;&#xA;Proc. Computational Aesthetics in Graphics, Visualization, and Imaging,&#xD;&#xA;pp. 73-81, 2009. O. Deussen and P. Hall (Editors&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4311" RevisionGUID="064df44b-3857-45f9-bb07-d4df3753911a" CreationDate="2013-07-22T21:27:44.823" UserId="4463" Text="BBS (bulletin board systems), reachable with analog modem via phone lines, had this concept decades ago, in the era of the Apple ][&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;New users had a download limit and could write only to some discussion boards, registered users could download more and write everywhere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4312" RevisionGUID="b4f5a939-d776-4938-b202-65e5005c0565" CreationDate="2013-07-22T21:29:54.417" UserId="4465" Text="This shows how to calculate fog/mist with distance, such that objects merge with the background the further away you go:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Visual simulation of atmospheric haze”, P J Willis, Computer Graphics Forum, 6, 1, Jan 1987, pp 35-43." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4313" RevisionGUID="3ea790a8-7abe-4f84-8ef5-557e8969ace2" CreationDate="2013-07-22T22:01:20.730" UserId="4480" Text="**Magic Carpet** by Bullfrog used the same technique in **1994** to hide the limited rendering-powers of penguin pcs... It was a cool way to make the more distant scenery disappear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found the following [review][1] from 1994:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.edge-online.com/review/magic-carpet-review/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4314" RevisionGUID="a65b3aad-03c6-4ac8-950e-5b91c3498a25" CreationDate="2013-07-22T22:03:37.733" UserId="4477" Text="There was an idea just for that to be implemented in Ubuntu. It was written down in 2010. The original web site doesn't work, but there is a Google Cached version: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iRTDbzbkXWoJ:brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/25263/+" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4315" RevisionGUID="fe37fa52-0266-4104-8cbe-072edae3d6e9" CreationDate="2013-07-22T22:07:05.890" UserId="4477" Text="Also look at this research article: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00126652 (&quot;Design and evaluation of an adaptive icon toolbar&quot; published in 1996). In the abstract we see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This paper describes the decision-making algorithm implemented in the bar. **It also describes the bar's self-adaptive behavior of displaying the frequency of each icon's use through the icon's size**. Finally, we present some encouraging preliminary results of evaluations by users. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4316" RevisionGUID="d1c799a8-5b8e-4fc8-8434-2fc25d552062" CreationDate="2013-07-22T22:08:28.357" UserId="4474" Text="In Swedish patent law, there's a clear statement that for an application to be approved, the solution that it provides can't be &quot;obvious to an industry professional&quot;. Meaning that, given the state of technology at the point of application, if the solution could be expected by any professional of the field — it is not valid. Is there equal or similar statements in US patent law?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10126" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4316" RevisionGUID="d1c799a8-5b8e-4fc8-8434-2fc25d552062" CreationDate="2013-07-22T22:08:28.357" UserId="4474" Text="Does the US patent laws limit patent applications on &quot;obviousness to a professional&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10127" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4316" RevisionGUID="d1c799a8-5b8e-4fc8-8434-2fc25d552062" CreationDate="2013-07-22T22:08:28.357" UserId="4474" Text="&lt;usa&gt;&lt;obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4317" RevisionGUID="cac44d75-cbed-4695-a8cf-425d9bae2c7c" CreationDate="2013-07-22T22:16:19.317" UserId="4488" Text="Well, I used this technique in a project described on [my website][1].  Since I haven't published any papers about this project, I'm not sure it counts (and frankly the &quot;fake fog transparency&quot; trick never struck me as novel since I was, myself, copying it from numerous earlier examples even then in 2004), but the web does represent a historical record of sorts.  At least, it establishes that this technique is quite old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.keithwiley.com/software/MayanForestSimulation.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4318" RevisionGUID="409a2be7-fe3f-4be3-bb5f-5c1e924ed166" CreationDate="2013-07-22T22:19:17.637" UserId="4490" Text="John Eargle at JBL published a white paper about Room Mode Correction in 2003&#xD;&#xA;http://www.jblpro.com/BackOffice/ProductAttachments/White%20Papers.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4319" RevisionGUID="9d3953c8-e383-47fe-8f5f-8da9d09399dc" CreationDate="2013-07-22T22:23:41.613" UserId="4492" Text="Isn't this basically what blogs, forums and all kinds of stuff has got since forever? You get restricted access (not allowed to post comments) until you register, and get full access (can post comments)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4320" RevisionGUID="4d107cc2-d8ba-42bf-95cc-15a54b1c405f" CreationDate="2013-07-22T22:23:58.953" UserId="4487" Text="**Patent:** [U.S. Patent No. 6,330,592](http://www.google.com/patents/US6330592)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** Have you seen anything published **before Dec. 5, 1998** that discusses: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Tracking visitor interests according to what content they access&#xD;&#xA;2. Categorizing dynamically-generated content according to categories of interests&#xD;&#xA;3. Caching dynamically-generated content and serving cached versions to subsequent users who exhibit those interests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10132" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4320" RevisionGUID="4d107cc2-d8ba-42bf-95cc-15a54b1c405f" CreationDate="2013-07-22T22:23:58.953" UserId="4487" Text="PRIOR ART REQUEST—Caching dynamically-generated websites" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10133" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4320" RevisionGUID="4d107cc2-d8ba-42bf-95cc-15a54b1c405f" CreationDate="2013-07-22T22:23:58.953" UserId="4487" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4313" RevisionGUID="73c2ee38-bc83-4ed9-92f1-8daef8be9afb" CreationDate="2013-07-22T22:27:18.780" UserId="3605" Comment="Added quote from the article, chest in case it goes offline." Text="**Magic Carpet** by Bullfrog used the same technique in **1994** to hide the limited rendering-powers of penguin pcs... It was a cool way to make the more distant scenery disappear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found the following [review][1] from 1994:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The texture-mapped polygons are expertly depth cued and shade off into a beautiful mist effect in the near distance – this not only softens the whole view, making it more realistic...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.edge-online.com/review/magic-carpet-review/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10135" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4313" RevisionGUID="73c2ee38-bc83-4ed9-92f1-8daef8be9afb" CreationDate="2013-07-22T22:27:18.780" Comment="Proposed by 3605 approved by 11 edit id of 370" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4321" RevisionGUID="eb1bcb8f-78bf-4f28-86a8-9d6747784e11" CreationDate="2013-07-22T22:27:57.953" UserId="4494" Text="The technique of fading an object based on distance has been used in videogames and 3d applications for decades. See the &quot;LOD Blending&quot; section of the Wikipedia article on &quot;Popping (computer graphics)&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popping_(computer_graphics)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4322" RevisionGUID="2eb138ea-007d-474d-a7cf-c0dfc752d59f" CreationDate="2013-07-22T22:30:03.650" UserId="4496" Text="I'd wager that if you sat and watched [Pretty Loaded][1] for long enough you'd find a loading animation that does precisely what they're describing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://prettyloaded.com/ &quot;Pretty Loaded&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4320" RevisionGUID="fc88b452-7c38-488f-80ec-9896c73e691a" CreationDate="2013-07-22T22:37:33.780" UserId="4487" Comment="added 2595 characters in body" Text="**Patent:** [U.S. Patent No. 6,330,592](http://www.google.com/patents/US6330592)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** Have you seen anything published **before Dec. 5, 1998** that discusses: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Tracking visitor interests according to what content they access&#xD;&#xA;2. Categorizing dynamically-generated content according to categories of interests&#xD;&#xA;3. Caching dynamically-generated content and serving cached versions to subsequent users who exhibit those interests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 is representative and claims &quot;A method of customizing a web site, said method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. labeling content of the web site;&#xD;&#xA;2. when at least one visitor accesses the content of a web site, registering the labeled accessed content in a personalized data file;&#xD;&#xA;4. storing the data file for the at least one visitor;&#xD;&#xA;5. generating at least one pre-customized display for a first visitor;&#xD;&#xA;6. caching the at least one pre-customized displays on the server computer;&#xD;&#xA;7. displaying the at least one pre-customized display to the first visitor;&#xD;&#xA;8. analyzing the data file of a second visitor and associating the second visitor with the at least one pre-customized display, wherein analyzing is performed after generating; and&#xD;&#xA;9. displaying the at least one pre-customized display to the second visitor, wherein the at least one pre-customized display is not regenerated before displaying the at least one pre-customized display to the second visitor.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Pre-customized display**&quot; means *pre-associated with some category or other means of tracking visitor interests*. The rest is all **fairly close to plain English**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Claim 11&#xD;&#xA;Claim 11 is probably the broadest; and so the easiest to find prior art for. It claims &quot;A computer readable memory that can direct a web site server computer to function in a specified manner, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. visitor files stored in said computer memory of said web site server computer;&#xD;&#xA;2. pre-customized web content items stored in said computer memory of said web site server computer; and&#xD;&#xA;3. executable instructions stored in said computer memory of said web site server computer, said executable instructions including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    a. instructions to access an existing visitor file for a visitor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    b. instructions to review data in existing visitor file to determine visitor preferences; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    c. instructions, based on said visitor preferences, to provide pre-customized files to visitor.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Term that need clarification:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **visitor file**: A file on the server that tracks visitor preferences and interests.&#xD;&#xA;- **web content item**: The spec has defined this very broadly, encompassing &quot;Any item that can be accessed and viewed by a visitor, such as an entire web page, a component of a web page, an insertion into a web page or a graphic link.  Web Content Items can be defined through a markup language, including, but not limited to, HTML.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- **pre-customized**: means the same thing it did in Claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Ideally, prior art will embody each of the limitations (list items) for one of the claims above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4324" RevisionGUID="4df04d54-6255-4b21-bed5-b90062d855fe" CreationDate="2013-07-22T22:45:11.227" UserId="4482" Text="This sounds like the Chip Authentication Program (CAP):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Authentication_Program&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use CAP when I purchase things on the internet. When I click the &quot;buy&quot; button on a web site, the third party (eg Amazon) sends a request for my personal information to my bank; the bank sends me a notification of the request in my browser window; I am required to respond with a 4 digit confirmation code to indicate that i intend to grant the request for my personal information; the autorization code includes a digital fingerprint from the hardware device shown in the wikipedia article; the bank acts upon that information and may send my personal information to the third party and withdraw funds from my account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The personal information controlled by the CAP system includes but is not limited to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - whether i have sufficient funds to purchase the item(s)&#xD;&#xA; - my full name and other identifying information&#xD;&#xA; - my address&#xD;&#xA; - information for taxation purposes (eg national insurance number)&#xD;&#xA; - information for fraud and identity theft prevention purposes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4325" RevisionGUID="fb2bebe7-37e4-42a4-8862-3d32c63c4fc9" CreationDate="2013-07-22T22:50:46.170" UserId="4510" Text="Minecraft added its [initial test support on 2009-08-13 for anaglyph 3D][1] ([anaglyph 3D][2] is a form of [stereoscopic 3D][3], as per the claims), and the fog that fades objects out as their distance from the camera increases predates at least 2009-05-20, since [an option to modify the distance the fog is at was added on that date][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This YouTube video][5] of Minecraft, dated 2009-12-24, clearly demonstrates both the fog that fades objects to different degrees as their distance from the camera changes, as well as the anaglyph 3D feature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.minecraftwiki.net/wiki/Version_history/Classic#Survival_Mode_Test&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaglyph_3D&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy#Color_anaglyph_systems&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.minecraftwiki.net/wiki/Version_history/Classic#Prior_updates&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sctlcf8qPA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4326" RevisionGUID="81ff879a-94ec-44c9-8f09-1f54c90db8ec" CreationDate="2013-07-22T22:57:58.043" UserId="4487" Text="Yes. [35 U.S.C § 103](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/103), known as the **nonobviousness** provision, provides that &quot;[a] patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained . . . if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that **the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious** before the effective filing date of the claimed invention **to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.** Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Effectively what this means is that even if your exact invention didn't appear in a single piece of prior art, if the prior art contained all the individual elements and there would have been **some reason** for a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to combine them, then the invention is invalid for obviousness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [*KSR v. Teleflex*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSR_v._Teleflex), [550 U.S. 398](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1350.ZO.html) (2007), a landmark Supreme Court opinion on when an invention may be deemed &quot;obvious.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4327" RevisionGUID="e54057e5-d903-4d19-bbc8-1e9c5c4eb26a" CreationDate="2013-07-22T23:07:33.910" UserId="4485" Text="Slashdot was doing all of this in June/September 1997.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) you could post to a thread&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) comment threads are organized by the article. the article into groups&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) not sure of the cacheing strategy. there could have been caching in apache, in the apache CGI module, in CGI.pm or the web app code itself. Would have to go into the code to see that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Sorry, it looks like I go this answer in before the Request was complete&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4328" RevisionGUID="aeda4675-b668-48e4-b0cd-07daad0d7983" CreationDate="2013-07-22T23:27:21.307" UserId="4521" Text="&quot;Improving Web Server Performance by Caching Dynamic Data&quot; (with Jim Challenger). In Proceedings of the USENIX 1997 Symposium on Internet Technologies and Systems (USITS '97), Monterey, CA, December 1997." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4329" RevisionGUID="ed039e93-40b1-46fa-83b4-635d9f7ac2e5" CreationDate="2013-07-22T23:29:01.647" UserId="4522" Text="My Sony DVD player w/ surround sound also does this.  I've had it for more than 3 years, and the prior year's model also did this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4330" RevisionGUID="c449b54e-14cc-4d3b-b7bf-7c668451d209" CreationDate="2013-07-22T23:31:51.113" UserId="4359" Text="The essence of the claim seems to be that an image is slowly assembled, as an analogous process to another download that's occurring in the background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Creative progress indicators of this sort have been around for a *very* long time. Often they are used with games, where they are called [loading screens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loading_screen). I suspect that searches under that keyword would be fruitful. TVTropes also has a long list of [examples](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LoadingScreen).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the modern era, games are loaded from the network and are very large, so sometimes the wait for a game to start can be long. I assume this is Nintendo's interest in the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, game designers faced similar problems in the 1980s. Here's the [loading screen for the Commodore 64 game Sanxion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=1VDm1nE5ViI#at=91), released in 1986. Music is played and the artwork is slowly drawn on screen while the data loads from tape. There are many other examples of Commodore 64 loading screens on YouTube. A publisher called Ocean was notable for using slowly-loading pictures as loading screens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a few more recent examples which are even closer to what Nintendo is claiming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Java ReversiFX applet](http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/guides/jweb/customizeRIALoadingExperience.html) uses flipping board tiles to indicate download progress. I believe this example existed much earlier (maybe 2006), but the docs on Oracle's website definitely date from no later than January 2010. They refer to Java SE release 18, which was released on January 18, 2010. [according to Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history#Java_6_updates).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [SVG connect the dots](http://www.datemill.com/playground/turtle/turtle_full.svg) progress indicator does not have a date specified, but it appears to have been last modified on June 15th, 2010. I tried to find the website proprietor, maybe he will respond here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4331" RevisionGUID="b5ee4544-014b-4b25-91c9-9792ad6cbb8b" CreationDate="2013-07-22T23:48:12.767" UserId="4529" Text="The way-back-machine at [http://archive.org][1] should be able to provide examples of web sites that had registered content prior to 1999.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archive.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4332" RevisionGUID="3f973313-ad17-4f52-b6ce-9be0217bb554" CreationDate="2013-07-23T00:00:48.440" UserId="4485" Text="Firefox v1.0 had middle-click autoscroll where the scroll speed was determined by the distance you moved your mouse from where you middle-clicked. Here is a bug in regards to the feature from 2004:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=247260&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4333" RevisionGUID="e5f334fd-25c6-427a-a9de-bde59ed75a7c" CreationDate="2013-07-23T00:14:58.643" UserId="4537" Text="Instapaper Pro for iPhone added automatic text scrolling in 2008 based on input received from a sensor measuring device orientation. There is a video demo of the feature from 2008 on [YouTube][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3717E_AQfI" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4334" RevisionGUID="003366a8-c9d6-4958-9118-32c88271eecb" CreationDate="2013-07-23T00:17:42.957" UserId="4541" Text="Palm Reader Handbook (http://www.hpwebos.com/us/support/handbooks/F03/PalmReader_F03_ENG.pdf) is showing on page 16 an Auto-Scroll feature. Copyright on the document is 2000-2002&#xD;&#xA;There is also an existing patent by Autodesk on proportional auto-scrolling : http://www.google.com/patents/US5528260 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4335" RevisionGUID="9b897c91-1146-4c49-8b1c-e1645967edbd" CreationDate="2013-07-23T00:26:27.153" UserId="4450" Text="The foremost example would be Toplink for Smalltalk and Java, now owned by Oracle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://books.google.com/books?id=ko5KTfIHjasC&amp;lpg=PA6&amp;ots=nya4WfXH0A&amp;dq=smalltalk%20orm&amp;pg=PA6#v=onepage&amp;q=smalltalk%20orm&amp;f=false &#xD;&#xA; - http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/history-of-toplink-101111.html&#xD;&#xA; - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TopLink" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4336" RevisionGUID="4f0906e1-5cce-445f-ab5f-d2716d3e47c7" CreationDate="2013-07-23T00:42:31.043" UserId="4552" Text="Several Bose home theater systems use &quot;ADAPTiQ&quot;.  A person wears a special headset with a microphone and sits in one of various room locations, then the system generates a series of tones from each speaker that is received by the user's microphone and adjustments are made to the speaker response.  This has been around for a decade or so.  It was in the Lifestyle 28 system, available since 2002 or so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.bose.com/popup/tech_details/pop_adaptiq_page2.jsp&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose_5.1_home_entertainment_systems#AdaptIQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4337" RevisionGUID="7ea05d43-02bc-4d28-b189-652d53d13dd5" CreationDate="2013-07-23T00:43:37.290" UserId="4485" Text="Sun Microsystems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Provisional U.S. Patent Application No. 60/068,415, entitled “System and Method for Mapping Between Objects and Databases,” filed on Dec. 22, 1997&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US6360223" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4338" RevisionGUID="c69fd40b-acb9-4f06-9677-a79d7db3b15e" CreationDate="2013-07-23T00:47:07.160" UserId="4554" Text="None of these are really patentable. While Twitter created a brilliant product with brilliant execution, it was a blending of two already-existing ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Blogging with followers lists &#xD;&#xA; 2. Broadcast SMS with distribution lists&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *blogging with followers lists*, the blogging platform [LiveJournal](http://livejournal.com) had almost all of these features, almost from its inception, in [1999](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LiveJournal). It began as another blogging platform but rapidly became about the network of users who &quot;followed&quot; each others' blogs. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *broadcast SMS with distribution lists*, there were many similar services that predated Twitter. Some of them were explicitly for social sharing, like [Dodgeball (2005)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodgeball_(service)). You can also find a description of a system created by Microsoft Research in 2005 (http://research.microsoft.com/~counts/pubs/slam_jcscw_leisure2.doc)‎  that allowed for the creation of such distribution lists. To be honest, you can probably find all kinds of papers and products by just searching for &quot;group SMS text 200x&quot; and replace X with a digit; that's what I did. It was a hot area of research at the time, and many group SMS services were sprouting up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Point by point, here we go:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of communicating among users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, pretty much everything on the Internet is. But these systems described above are very much like Twitter, used primarily for self-expression, and sharing with one's friends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One user (the &quot;first&quot; user) can &quot;follow&quot; another user (the &quot;second&quot; user).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiveJournal had that, although it was typically called &quot;friending&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;second&quot; user can post a message. The message is not posted &quot;to&quot; anyone, it is just posted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiveJournal qualifies. While one could read the LiveJournal of a user as if it was a blog, that was just *one* way of consuming the stream of messages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; All followers of the second user receive the posted message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The notion of 'receive' is a little bit fuzzy here. Even on Twitter, users do not necessarily receive the message. Instead, they have an account which is configured to 'follow' certain Twitter accounts, and their devices may request a time slice across all the accounts they are following. When Twitter is used in that way, it's exactly analogous to LiveJournal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in its earliest form, Twitter also automatically pushed messages out to SMS, which LiveJournal did not do. To find an analog you have to look to the group SMS distribution systems I referred to above. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The first user can choose from a set of possible methods for receiving messages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiveJournal had that early on. One primarily read through the web, but an API as well as RSS feeds were added, and soon clients for many different platforms appeared.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4339" RevisionGUID="a4acb0c3-8dac-46c5-bd4e-a314aa9c2fb6" CreationDate="2013-07-23T00:48:52.413" UserId="4556" Text="That patent talks about recovering data pertaining to an application, like looking for and recovering Microsoft word documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recuva (https://www.piriform.com/recuva) a free tool for recovering data has been doing this for years, as have many others." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4340" RevisionGUID="edb0e1eb-c696-4098-be0b-b583e90a5fd3" CreationDate="2013-07-23T00:50:12.933" UserId="4557" Text="The patent requires a novel improvement on prior art, and I must say that while working on Ingres in the 70's, the &quot;improved&quot; capabilities on an RDBMS specified in the claims do not qualify as &quot;novel&quot;.  This says to me that if you combind &quot;object oriented&quot; programming techniques (80's technology) with a relational database management system (70's technology), then you have something new in 2013.  Not in my world." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4338" RevisionGUID="1d86de90-9885-4f51-88e7-79496d2243e8" CreationDate="2013-07-23T00:55:51.127" UserId="4554" Comment="clarified how slicing works" Text="None of these are really patentable. While Twitter created a brilliant product with brilliant execution, it was a blending of two already-existing ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Blogging with followers lists &#xD;&#xA; 2. Broadcast SMS with distribution lists&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *blogging with followers lists*, the blogging platform [LiveJournal](http://livejournal.com) had almost all of these features, almost from its inception, in [1999](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LiveJournal). It began as another blogging platform but rapidly became about the network of users who &quot;followed&quot; each others' blogs. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *broadcast SMS with distribution lists*, there were many similar services that predated Twitter. Some of them were explicitly for social sharing, like [Dodgeball (2005)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodgeball_(service)). You can also find a description of a system created by Microsoft Research in 2005 (http://research.microsoft.com/~counts/pubs/slam_jcscw_leisure2.doc)‎  that allowed for the creation of such distribution lists. To be honest, you can probably find all kinds of papers and products by just searching for &quot;group SMS text 200x&quot; and replace X with a digit; that's what I did. It was a hot area of research at the time, and many group SMS services were sprouting up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Point by point, here we go:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of communicating among users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, pretty much everything on the Internet is. But these systems described above are very much like Twitter, used primarily for self-expression, and sharing with one's friends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One user (the &quot;first&quot; user) can &quot;follow&quot; another user (the &quot;second&quot; user).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiveJournal had that, although it was typically called &quot;friending&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;second&quot; user can post a message. The message is not posted &quot;to&quot; anyone, it is just posted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiveJournal qualifies. While one could read the LiveJournal of a user as if it was a blog, that was just *one* way of consuming the stream of messages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; All followers of the second user receive the posted message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The notion of 'receive' is a little bit fuzzy here. Even on Twitter, users do not necessarily receive the message. Instead, they have an account which is configured to 'follow' certain Twitter accounts, and their devices may request portions of the chronologically-ordered combined stream. When Twitter is used in that way, it's exactly analogous to LiveJournal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in its earliest form, Twitter also instantly pushed messages out to SMS, which LiveJournal did not do. To find an analog you have to look to the group SMS distribution systems I referred to above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The first user can choose from a set of possible methods for receiving messages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiveJournal had that early on. One primarily read through the web, but an API as well as RSS feeds were added, and soon clients for many different platforms appeared.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4338" RevisionGUID="0e9b59ef-cb60-480b-9647-dc07a42dfa8d" CreationDate="2013-07-23T01:02:05.290" UserId="4554" Comment="clarified how twitter blends products" Text="None of these are really patentable. While Twitter created a brilliant product with brilliant execution, it was a blending of two already-existing ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Blogging with followers lists &#xD;&#xA; 2. Broadcast SMS with distribution lists&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The innovation here was not technical innovation so much, but in product design. In previous broadcast SMS systems, one had to manually define a list. With Twitter, it was defined by the other users who followed you. And the blogging sites which had a concept of 'followers' typically focused on long-form diary entries, unsuitable for Twitter's vision of a stream of instant, short messages, shareable to mobile devices. But great product design, however praiseworthy, doesn't deserve a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *blogging with followers lists*, the blogging platform [LiveJournal](http://livejournal.com) had almost all of these features, almost from its inception, in [1999](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LiveJournal). It began as another blogging platform but rapidly became about the network of users who &quot;followed&quot; each others' blogs. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *broadcast SMS with distribution lists*, there were many similar services that predated Twitter. Some of them were explicitly for social sharing, like [Dodgeball (2005)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodgeball_(service)). You can also find a description of a system created by Microsoft Research in 2005 (http://research.microsoft.com/~counts/pubs/slam_jcscw_leisure2.doc)‎  that allowed for the creation of such distribution lists. To be honest, you can probably find all kinds of papers and products by just searching for &quot;group SMS text 200x&quot; and replace X with a digit; that's what I did. It was a hot area of research at the time, and many group SMS services were sprouting up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Point by point, here we go:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of communicating among users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, pretty much everything on the Internet is. But these systems described above are very much like Twitter, used primarily for self-expression, and sharing with one's friends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One user (the &quot;first&quot; user) can &quot;follow&quot; another user (the &quot;second&quot; user).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiveJournal had that, although it was typically called &quot;friending&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;second&quot; user can post a message. The message is not posted &quot;to&quot; anyone, it is just posted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiveJournal qualifies. While one could read the LiveJournal of a user as if it was a blog, that was just *one* way of consuming the stream of messages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; All followers of the second user receive the posted message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The notion of 'receive' is a little bit fuzzy here. Even on Twitter, users do not necessarily receive the message. Instead, they have an account which is configured to 'follow' certain Twitter accounts, and their devices may request portions of the chronologically-ordered combined stream. When Twitter is used in that way, it's exactly analogous to LiveJournal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in its earliest form, Twitter also instantly pushed messages out to SMS, which LiveJournal did not do. To find an analog you have to look to the group SMS distribution systems I referred to above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The first user can choose from a set of possible methods for receiving messages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiveJournal had that early on. One primarily read through the web, but an API as well as RSS feeds were added, and soon clients for many different platforms appeared." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4341" RevisionGUID="40f1635e-fb91-4a08-aed1-f191c1cb4931" CreationDate="2013-07-23T01:05:11.747" UserId="4561" Text="DEQX is another example of this technology. They have been around since at least 2004 and they are different from some of the above as they process the signal between the preamp and amp. The claim gets a little confusing when and where the correction is done. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.stereophile.com/news/042604deqx/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4342" RevisionGUID="5622fa26-f86d-408d-8e75-6b26257146d7" CreationDate="2013-07-23T01:07:50.047" UserId="4562" Text="Here's a link to a paper written in 1993 about Open Database Connectivity (ODBC) which was the defacto standard for accessing databases within Object-Oriented code.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.openlinksw.com/info/docs/odbcwhp/mtarc/#The%20Generic%20ODBC%20Driver&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can clearly see numerous references to objects accessing databases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4344" RevisionGUID="d85a86e1-d549-44b3-9402-c9c5d339d1c4" CreationDate="2013-07-23T01:12:50.160" UserId="4559" Text="The French system MiniTel included &quot;on line&quot; purchases. I believe at its inception in the late 70's bus tickets could be purchased.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/06/minitel-frances-precursor-to-the-web-to-go-dark-on-june-30/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4345" RevisionGUID="64422188-4330-4a3c-b3ab-631312904d58" CreationDate="2013-07-23T01:14:50.457" UserId="4564" Text="This is a marginal improvement over the old &quot;animal game&quot; dating to at least 1973 and evolved successively since then.  In fact, the 1973 version learns from its failures.  The key idea is a stored list of questions that will divide the search space with every answer.  The new one above has added pictures and other media than text questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://pdp-11.trailing-edge.com/rsts11/rsts-11-013 - see animal.bas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4346" RevisionGUID="0f214d73-3df7-48ce-b2bf-3fb7f727f40d" CreationDate="2013-07-23T01:19:53.183" UserId="4565" Text="HTTP State Management Mechanism by David M. Kristol of AT&amp;T Bell Laboratories and Lou Montulli of Netscape Communications Corp from February 1997&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2109.txt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This memo explains the creation of cookies to track users and gives examples of usage including &quot;a magazine browsing system, in which a user's previous reading affects which offerings are presented.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4347" RevisionGUID="7fdbf31c-314f-43ee-8414-2f111fc8889c" CreationDate="2013-07-23T01:21:39.893" UserId="4566" Text="WP-Cumulus is a WordPress plugin that uses this basic concept to render a rotatable sphere of tags from blog posts. Here is a description and demo dating from 2008:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.roytanck.com/2008/03/06/wordpress-plugin-wp-cumulus-flash-based-tag-cloud/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4344" RevisionGUID="ca5fad3e-fee4-470a-82ea-ac5d93b47328" CreationDate="2013-07-23T01:30:58.447" UserId="4559" Comment="Another link that references online-purchases." Text="The French system MiniTel included &quot;on line&quot; purchases. I believe at its inception in the late 70's train tickets could be purchased.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=3720&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/06/minitel-frances-precursor-to-the-web-to-go-dark-on-june-30/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/preserving-“web-web”-minitel-history-danger-being-lost" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4301" RevisionGUID="fd3d4eb0-8944-4b91-b28e-74166cf6cc2c" CreationDate="2013-07-23T01:37:42.647" UserId="4479" Comment="tag added to reflect prior art request" Text="I am not sure whether &quot;locating for application-specific data&quot; can be patentable. This sounds like inventing a wheel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Systems and methods for locating application specific data [US 20130166517 A1](http://www.google.com/patents/US20130166517)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10170" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4301" RevisionGUID="fd3d4eb0-8944-4b91-b28e-74166cf6cc2c" CreationDate="2013-07-23T01:37:42.647" UserId="4479" Comment="tag added to reflect prior art request" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10171" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4301" RevisionGUID="fd3d4eb0-8944-4b91-b28e-74166cf6cc2c" CreationDate="2013-07-23T01:37:42.647" Comment="Proposed by 4479 approved by 1 edit id of 369" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10172" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3533" RevisionGUID="7ca0e5df-6e0f-4816-8d3b-20b8d1adde10" CreationDate="2013-07-23T01:38:01.190" UserId="4460" Comment="Should be able to find this question if your expertise is SMS" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us8401009&gt;&lt;twitter&gt;&lt;sms&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10173" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3533" RevisionGUID="7ca0e5df-6e0f-4816-8d3b-20b8d1adde10" CreationDate="2013-07-23T01:38:01.190" Comment="Proposed by 4460 approved by 1 edit id of 368" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4348" RevisionGUID="e66cdb3e-4505-4ac7-aad4-f411bfb6c71e" CreationDate="2013-07-23T01:44:10.643" UserId="4571" Text="This link provides detail on a product matching this description that was marketed in March of 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/lookup.cfm?setid=c52d4d06-b8df-479c-ab4b-dce88ae49c9d" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4349" RevisionGUID="16d13bc0-885f-4c96-bc44-524bd259ae5e" CreationDate="2013-07-23T01:47:28.457" UserId="4472" Text="The OpenGL Programming Guide, 5th edition (published in 2006), describes use of &quot;fog&quot; in great detail between pages 261 and 271. It begins:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Computer images sometimes seem unrealistically sharp and well defined. Antialiasing makes an object appear more realistic by smoothing its edges. Additionally, you can make an entire image appear more natural by adding *fog*, which makes objects fade into the distance...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When fog is enabled, objects that are farther from the viewpoint begin to fade into the fog color.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding specific implementations, I'm sure most modern game engines support both 3D/stereoscopic rendering and fog (see the Late 2000's section here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_first-person_shooter_engines). If any do (and I'm sure some if not most or all do), then that would constitute prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Silent Hill looks like a specific game that supports both 3D rendering and fog -- this would constitute prior art: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Hill" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4350" RevisionGUID="4f54ec69-47e3-4f69-b2c4-8af803ead6ec" CreationDate="2013-07-23T01:50:26.087" UserId="4574" Text="This pharmacology text has a section on analgesic drugs and there is specifically a section on &quot;TRP channels--thermal sensation and pain&quot; that may apply in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rang and Dale's Pharmacology,  H P Rang, M M Dale, J M Ritter, R J Flower, and G Henderson Chapter 41 &quot;Analgesic drugs&quot;, pages 503-524. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This text is currently in it's seventh edition and the section on temperature quotes the following work from 2007 on the use of cool sensation and low temperature sensitive nerve cells for pain reduction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fleetwood-Walker et al, 2007. Fleetwood-Walker S.M., Proudfoot C.W.J., Garry E.M.,et al: Cold comfort pharm. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2007; 28: 621-628&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;doi:10.1016/j.tips.2007.10.007&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4349" RevisionGUID="8cac9e74-d4a1-46cd-af5c-ef9e115f2772" CreationDate="2013-07-23T01:52:38.993" UserId="4472" Comment="deleted 473 characters in body" Text="The OpenGL Programming Guide, 5th edition (published in 2006), describes use of &quot;fog&quot; in great detail between pages 261 and 271. It begins:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Computer images sometimes seem unrealistically sharp and well defined. Antialiasing makes an object appear more realistic by smoothing its edges. Additionally, you can make an entire image appear more natural by adding *fog*, which makes objects fade into the distance...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When fog is enabled, objects that are farther from the viewpoint begin to fade into the fog color." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4351" RevisionGUID="d2240618-10a0-4455-b695-992b38a2da43" CreationDate="2013-07-23T01:53:11.747" UserId="4575" Text="One of the challenges of patents like this is to take a generic idea and locate specific prior art.  For this example,  ZigBee will be used as the specific wireless mesh technology.  Some information about it is here: http://www.zigbee.org/About/UnderstandingZigBee.aspx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People were thinking about connecting security devices (a lock is a security device) through gateways from ZigBee networks to IP networks for awhile now.  Here is a presentation about ZigBee (wireless mesh) gateways from 2004:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.zigbee.org/zigbee/en/events/documents/sensorsexpo/7-sensors-expo-kinney.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Slide 11 says &quot; For example: A ZigBee security device is preconfigured to connect to a web service&#xD;&#xA;through a gateway.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At an IEEE conference in 2007, the concept was suggested for health care monitoring:&#xD;&#xA;http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICCE.2007.341319&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Digi has been selling Zigbee to IP gateways which support SSL connections (security on the IP side) for awhile: http://www.digi.com/pdf/ds_connectportx2se.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A press release from Feb. 8th, 2008 (which is older than this prior art date) announces it: http://www.digi.com/news/pressrelease?prid=429 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, Kwikset is even selling a ZigBee enabled door lock right now:  http://www.kwikset.com/Products/Details/Electronic-Locks/912TNL-TRL-ZBC4-11P-SMT.aspx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the synching portion of this claim - this is how most BlueTooth devices work.  A quick search for &quot;Secure Simple Pairing&quot; will find numerous hits for prior art.  Here is a white paper from 2006 that explains the process in detail :&#xD;&#xA;http://mclean-linsky.net/joel/cv/Simple%20Pairing_WP_V10r00.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.zigbee.org/About/UnderstandingZigBee.aspx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4352" RevisionGUID="026af692-e1bc-4443-9932-9a82fdcb138a" CreationDate="2013-07-23T01:54:09.440" UserId="4472" Text="Silent Hill: Downpour looks like a specific 3D game that supports both stereoscopic rendering and fog -- this would constitute prior art: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Hill:_Downpour. This game was built using Unreal Engine, which uses OpenGL and DirectX for rendering -- prior art can be named anywhere in that chain, I think." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4353" RevisionGUID="0191554d-9229-419a-a368-77456d773243" CreationDate="2013-07-23T01:56:23.640" UserId="4571" Text="A marketing guide by CTIA from 2009 gives detail on how to use this technology to market:&#xD;&#xA;http://files.ctia.org/pdf/CTIA_Final_Code_Scan_Mktg_Guide.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4354" RevisionGUID="f31f2e86-a7ee-4024-a84b-a717b0224674" CreationDate="2013-07-23T02:07:12.340" UserId="4366" Text="If they are willing to work with you, then you can be co-inventors and share filing fees, etc. Otherwise, you can both file at the same time, and the one that can prove earlier claim date would get the patent. If the other person has already filed for a patent, then you are out of luck, unless you have some very good proof that you started to develop and test the idea before the other person came up with it. It all depends on the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can, of course, purchase the patent from them, but anyone can do that. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4352" RevisionGUID="feb5bd9a-9a88-4886-afb0-5e55d17b492d" CreationDate="2013-07-23T02:25:54.987" UserId="4472" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="*Silent Hill: Downpour* (2012) is an implementation that supports both stereoscopic rendering and fog, which constitutes prior art: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Hill:_Downpour. This game was built using Unreal Engine, which uses OpenGL and DirectX for rendering." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4355" RevisionGUID="506f8e28-0ea4-441a-823c-9c01fdc67eef" CreationDate="2013-07-23T02:30:27.460" UserId="4582" Text="The game [Midi Maze][1] from 1989 for the Atari ST would have a claim for prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The guys at [www.midimaze.de][2] know alot more about the gameplay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIDI_Maze&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.midimaze.de/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3679" RevisionGUID="a1a5273d-14db-4460-9fea-561439b9af93" CreationDate="2013-07-23T02:30:57.337" UserId="-1" Comment="remove repeat of self" Text="Prior art for this would appear to be OpenGL. [*Any version* of OpenGL.][1] Yes, even OpenGL 1.0, published in 1994. Let's take these in order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - object placement means for placing a predetermined object in the virtual space;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, OpenGL can be used to do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ***transparency degree setting means*** for, in accordance with a distance specified between (1) the **predetermined object** placed in the virtual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; space, and (2) a **viewpoint position** based on the position of a virtual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; camera used for virtually shooting the virtual space, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; setting the degree of transparency of a part or the entirety of the predetermined&#xD;&#xA;&gt; object such that **the longer the distance is, the higher the degree of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transparency** is; (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even ignoring shader-based techniques, OpenGL's fixed-function fog is perfectly capable of this. It's simply a matter of setting the fog color alpha to a value other than 1 and turning on blending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The code would look something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    glFogi(GL_FOG_MODE, GL_LINEAR);&#xD;&#xA;    glFogf(GL_FOG_START, 0.8f);&#xD;&#xA;    glFogf(GL_FOG_END, 1.0f);&#xD;&#xA;    GLfloat fogColor[4] = {0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f};&#xD;&#xA;    glFogfv(GL_FOG_COLOR, fogColor);&#xD;&#xA;    glBlendFunc(GL_ONE, GL_ONE_MINUS_SRC_ALPHA); //Pre-multiplied transparency&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will fade the object based on the distance from the virtual camera in the virtual space. The degree of transparency of part of the object will indeed be such that &quot;the longer the distance is, the higher the degree of transparency&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This code would work on [OpenGL 1.0 (PDF)][2]. Obviously, shaders could do the same thing, but having it as an *explicit feature* of the API makes this more relevant as prior art. These six lines, written in 1994, do what Nintendo is claiming to patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - image generation means for generating **an image for a right eye and an image for a left eye** by shooting the virtual space with a right&#xD;&#xA;&gt; virtual camera and a left virtual camera, respectively, so that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; predetermined object, which is included in each of the image for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; right eye and the image for a left eye, has the degree of transparency&#xD;&#xA;&gt; set by the transparency degree setting means; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - display control means for displaying the image for a right eye and the image for a left eye generated by the image generation means, on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the display apparatus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OpenGL has supported stereoscopic rendering from day one. Every version of OpenGL has had separate back and front buffers for left and right eyes (`GL_BACK_LEFT`, `GL_FRONT_LEFT`, `GL_BACK_RIGHT`, `GL_FRONT_RIGHT`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, only professional hardware exposes stereoscopic rendering through OpenGL. But the API can do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.opengl.org/registry/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.opengl.org/registry/doc/glspec10.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10185" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3679" RevisionGUID="a1a5273d-14db-4460-9fea-561439b9af93" CreationDate="2013-07-23T02:30:57.337" Comment="Proposed by 71.182.225.219|fb2efbb6-f3bb-4687-a33c-a7aacbff91b3 approved by 3605 edit id of 371" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4356" RevisionGUID="b7a8c79f-d294-4909-98d6-d3405b7208d9" CreationDate="2013-07-23T02:37:23.977" UserId="4575" Text="ZigBee is a wireless mesh specification that has been around awhile.  Please take a look at the ZigBee Security presentations.  Here is one from 2005:&#xD;&#xA;https://docs.zigbee.org/zigbee-docs/dcn/05/docs-05-3411-00-00mg-3559-053411r000zb-members-zigbee-security-layer-technical-overview-pdf.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That presentation touches on the authentication of devices in the mesh network using the Trust Center.  It also discusses encryption at different network layers for packet transmission, and how to handle the case where the Trust Center has to send a packet through a different mesh router to reach the end device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4357" RevisionGUID="f8c9e699-2b24-4662-9449-aa18e9002c5b" CreationDate="2013-07-23T02:45:41.683" UserId="4586" Text="US patent 6595417 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Published Jul 22, 2003&#xD;&#xA;Filing date	May 17, 2002&#xD;&#xA;Priority date	Jun 26, 1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A system and method for an information system for use by customers in a retail shopping environment are provided. The system includes a host computer and a portable terminal for use by a customer. The portable terminal is located within a retail environment and interacts with the host computer to access product information. A customer enters a request for product information via an input device. The portable terminal then transmits the customer request and receives the product information from the host computer. A processor is employed for generating a request or query related to the received product information; and both the product information and additional query information is then displayed to the customer.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4352" RevisionGUID="fa3436ef-7a9c-4f14-8bf9-7ecb424910fc" CreationDate="2013-07-23T03:17:20.123" UserId="4472" Comment="added 165 characters in body" Text="*Silent Hill: Downpour* (2012) is an implementation that supports both stereoscopic rendering and fog, which constitutes prior art: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Hill:_Downpour. This game was built using Unreal Engine, which uses OpenGL and DirectX for rendering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This video is taken from the game. Fog (distance-based object transparency changes) is clearly visible at about 15:00 and 19:00: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0CzZbXjlVk" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4352" RevisionGUID="d8cf4b37-6525-4af9-8753-1ccc51976451" CreationDate="2013-07-23T03:40:42.603" UserId="4472" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body" Text="*Silent Hill: Downpour* (2012) is an implementation that supports both stereoscopic rendering and fog, which constitutes prior art: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Hill:_Downpour. This game was built using Unreal Engine, which uses OpenGL and DirectX for rendering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This video is taken from the game. Fog (distance-based object transparency changes) is clearly visible at the beginning: http://youtu.be/nbEI4B_rmiU" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4338" RevisionGUID="5ae72f3f-1f88-4fe3-b3b0-cf6b2e6c967c" CreationDate="2013-07-23T04:12:33.107" UserId="4554" Comment="added more detail about other services" Text="None of these are really patentable. While Twitter created a brilliant product with brilliant execution, it was a blending of two already-existing ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Blogging with followers lists &#xD;&#xA; 2. Broadcast SMS with distribution lists&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The innovation here was not technical innovation so much, but in product design. In previous broadcast SMS systems, one had to manually define a list. With Twitter, it was defined by the other users who followed you. And the blogging sites which had a concept of 'followers' typically focused on long-form diary entries, unsuitable for Twitter's vision of a stream of instant, short messages, shareable to mobile devices. But great product design, however praiseworthy, doesn't deserve a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *blogging with followers lists*, the blogging platform [LiveJournal](http://livejournal.com) had almost all of these features, almost from its inception, in [1999](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LiveJournal). It began as another blogging platform but rapidly became about the network of users who &quot;followed&quot; each others' blogs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiveJournal is not well-known today, but in the early 2000s it was one of the leading social networks, especially for teens and young people. It even briefly appears in the movie *The Social Network*, since the real-life Mark Zuckerberg was a user before he created Facebook.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *broadcast SMS with distribution lists*, there were many similar services that predated Twitter. Some of them were explicitly for social sharing, like [Dodgeball (founded 2000)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodgeball_(service)). You can also find a description of a system created by Microsoft Research in 2005 (http://research.microsoft.com/~counts/pubs/slam_jcscw_leisure2.doc)‎  that allowed for the creation of such distribution lists on mobile devices. Other sites like 3Jam and Yahoo's experimental service MixD offered similar services in the mid-2000s, contemporaneous with early Twitter (http://www.minger.net/2006/11/30/yahoo-launches-group-sms-service-mixd/). To be honest, you can probably find all kinds of papers and products by just searching for &quot;group SMS text 200x&quot; and replace X with a digit; that's what I did. It was a hot area of research at the time, and many group SMS services were sprouting up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Point by point, here we go:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of communicating among users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, pretty much everything on the Internet is. But these systems described above are very much like Twitter, used primarily for self-expression, and sharing with one's friends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One user (the &quot;first&quot; user) can &quot;follow&quot; another user (the &quot;second&quot; user).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiveJournal had that, although it was typically called &quot;friending&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;second&quot; user can post a message. The message is not posted &quot;to&quot; anyone, it is just posted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiveJournal qualifies. While one could read the LiveJournal of a user as if it was a blog, that was just *one* way of consuming the stream of messages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; All followers of the second user receive the posted message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The notion of 'receive' is a little bit fuzzy here. Even on Twitter, users do not necessarily receive the message. Instead, they have an account which is configured to 'follow' certain Twitter accounts, and their devices may request portions of the chronologically-ordered combined stream. When Twitter is used in that way, through its web interface, it's analogous to LiveJournal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in its earliest form, Twitter also instantly pushed messages out to SMS, which LiveJournal did not do. To find an analog you have to look to the group SMS distribution systems I referred to above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The first user can choose from a set of possible methods for receiving messages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiveJournal had that early on. One primarily read through the web, but an API as well as RSS feeds were added, and soon clients for many different platforms appeared." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4359" RevisionGUID="00ed6aa6-7185-4b52-83cd-b61df642e722" CreationDate="2013-07-23T04:35:30.403" UserId="4554" Text="Some of this patent's claims also hinge on the fact that a Tweet is processed and pushed out to multiple transports (email, SMS, web, IM...) and users may consume these messages with multiple clients. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least one open-source system had these capabilities for almost a decade prior: [XMPP](http://xmpp.org/), the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol, also known as &quot;Jabber&quot;. XMPP was created in roughly 1999, and IETF standards were produced in 2004 (http://xmpp.org/xmpp-protocols/rfcs/). There have been many implementations of XMPP servers over the years, especially when interoperability was a concern. Until [recently](http://www.zdnet.com/google-moves-away-from-the-xmpp-open-messaging-standard-7000015918/) the chat system within Google's Gmail, Hangouts, and Talk system interoperated with other chat systems via XMPP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly, XMPP's communication model is very different from Twitter. XMPP is based on person-to-person instant messaging, although a variant of the protocol could be used for [chat rooms](http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html). XMPP has no notion of blogging and passive reception, aka the &quot;message without a recipient&quot; model that Twitter touts as its unique feature. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I only mention this system to make it plain that interoperating with many different kinds of transports, and pushing messages out to them, or consuming messages from them, is not a unique feature of Twitter. The inclusion in the patent of these claims (along with a complicated diagram) does not clarify matters for the examiner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4359" RevisionGUID="f79678f6-00c9-4a72-a3b6-6b9400e7b211" CreationDate="2013-07-23T04:42:46.443" UserId="4554" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="Some of this patent's claims also hinge on the fact that a Tweet is processed and pushed out to multiple transports (email, SMS, web, IM...) and users may consume these messages with multiple clients. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least one open-source system had these capabilities for almost a decade prior: [XMPP](http://xmpp.org/), the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol, also known as &quot;Jabber&quot;. XMPP was created in roughly 1999, and IETF standards were produced in 2004 (http://xmpp.org/xmpp-protocols/rfcs/). There have been many implementations of XMPP servers over the years, especially when interoperability was a concern. Until [recently](http://www.zdnet.com/google-moves-away-from-the-xmpp-open-messaging-standard-7000015918/) the chat system within Google's Gmail, Hangouts, and Talk system interoperated with other chat systems via XMPP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly, XMPP's communication model is very different from Twitter. XMPP is based on person-to-person instant messaging, although a variant of the protocol could be used for [chat rooms](http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html). XMPP has no notion of blogging and passive reception, aka the &quot;message without a recipient&quot; model that Twitter touts as its unique feature. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I only mention this system to make it plain that these claims are not unique to Twitter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - defining a person as an 'end point', with a unique address.&#xD;&#xA; - sending a message out to multiple 'end points', aka people&#xD;&#xA; - these end-pointy people receiving these messages by quite different transports (email, IM, web...), possibly instantly, or possibly much later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inclusion in the patent of these claims (along with a diagram for every possible service) does not clarify matters for the examiner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4360" RevisionGUID="6a85193d-e706-4e13-9c59-29b3cfe77624" CreationDate="2013-07-23T04:46:07.513" UserId="4585" Text="While founded in 1999, it would be interesting to see some of the prior art that might come from Linden Labs and the founder Philip Rosedale.  As I recall when the company was founded it was based off some ideas and projects that had originated from his college days down in San Diego.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if we want to discuss some of the earliest prior art that uses virtual reality and user perspective and client/server architecture then I think that Maze War is a very strong candidate.  With origins going back to 1973, I believe among other things it was also the first person shooter in existence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The wikipedia article makes for an interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maze_War&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I'm not terribly good at reading patents, looking at the abstract of 8,082,501 seems to perfectly describe Maze Wars as I remember it from my early days at the high school Mac lab.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4359" RevisionGUID="c3362a0e-a74c-4096-858b-6999d92d5ec0" CreationDate="2013-07-23T04:52:06.923" UserId="4554" Comment="added 206 characters in body" Text="Some of this patent's claims also hinge on the fact that a Tweet is processed and pushed out to multiple transports (email, SMS, web, IM...) and users may consume these messages with multiple clients. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least one open-source system had these capabilities for almost a decade prior: [XMPP](http://xmpp.org/), the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol, also known as &quot;Jabber&quot;. XMPP was created in roughly 1999, and IETF standards were produced in 2004 (http://xmpp.org/xmpp-protocols/rfcs/). There have been many implementations of XMPP servers over the years, especially when interoperability was a concern. Until [recently](http://www.zdnet.com/google-moves-away-from-the-xmpp-open-messaging-standard-7000015918/) the chat system within Google's Gmail, Hangouts, and Talk system interoperated with other chat systems via XMPP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly, XMPP's communication model is very different from Twitter. XMPP is based on person-to-person instant messaging, although a variant of the protocol could be used for [chat rooms](http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html). XMPP has no notion of blogging and passive reception, aka the &quot;message without a recipient&quot; model that Twitter touts as its unique feature. XMPP is an XML-based protocol, designed to 'tunnel' over anything that can handle a long burst of text. Twitter is not a protocol at all, but a single service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I only mention this system to make it plain that these claims are not unique to Twitter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - defining a person as an 'end point', with a unique address. In Twitter, a unique account is conventionally represented with the &quot;at&quot; sign, like @jack for Jack Dorsey. In XMPP, the form is similar to an email address, someone@example.com.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - sending a message out to multiple 'end points', aka people&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - these end-pointy people receiving these messages by quite different transports (email, IM, SMS, web...), possibly instantly, or possibly much later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4361" RevisionGUID="ab336208-27cf-4543-b8ac-62dbe0c5973b" CreationDate="2013-07-23T04:52:21.597" UserId="4613" Text="Would something like this satisfy?  http://www.amazon.com/baby/dp/B001DD23XU&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also http://books.google.com/books?id=Vy0inY0a8EgC&amp;pg=PA206&amp;lpg=PA206&amp;dq=electronic+field+guide+palm+pilot&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=4f1J9K_C7v&amp;sig=PM4JOUIL0vQMdC9iz57UmtPJCzc&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=_wnuUZ3HG_Xl4APy2IGoAw&amp;ved=0CEYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&amp;q=electronic%20field%20guide%20palm%20pilot&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or maybe http://www.amazon.com/QUESTIONS-ELECTRONIC-GAME-Colors-Vary/dp/B000IVENWW" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4338" RevisionGUID="9fb08b94-a642-4e79-9d09-fcdfc083d2b4" CreationDate="2013-07-23T04:57:33.447" UserId="4554" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="None of these are really patentable. While Twitter created a brilliant product with brilliant execution, it was a blending of two already-existing ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Blogging with followers lists &#xD;&#xA; 2. Broadcast SMS with distribution lists&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The innovation here was not technical innovation so much, but in product design. In previous broadcast SMS systems, one had to manually define a list. With Twitter, it was defined by the other users who followed you. And the blogging sites which had a concept of 'followers' typically focused on long-form diary entries, unsuitable for Twitter's vision of a stream of instant, short messages, shareable to mobile devices. But great product design, however praiseworthy, doesn't deserve a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *blogging with followers lists*, the blogging platform [LiveJournal](http://livejournal.com) had almost all of these features, almost from its inception, in [1999](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LiveJournal). It began as another blogging platform but rapidly became about the network of users who &quot;followed&quot; each others' blogs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiveJournal is not well-known today, but in the early 2000s it was one of the leading social networks, especially for teens and young people. It even briefly appears in the movie *The Social Network*, since the real-life Mark Zuckerberg was a user before he created Facebook.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *broadcast SMS with distribution lists*, there were many similar services that predated Twitter. Some of them were explicitly for social sharing, like [Dodgeball (founded 2000)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodgeball_(service)). You can also find a description of a system created by Microsoft Research in 2005 (http://research.microsoft.com/~counts/pubs/slam_jcscw_leisure2.doc)‎  that allowed for the creation of such distribution lists on mobile devices. Other sites like 3Jam and Yahoo's experimental service MixD offered similar services in the mid-2000s, contemporaneous with early Twitter (http://www.minger.net/2006/11/30/yahoo-launches-group-sms-service-mixd/). To be honest, you can probably find all kinds of papers and products by just searching for &quot;group SMS text 200x&quot; and replace X with a digit; that's what I did. It was a hot area of research at the time, and many group SMS services were sprouting up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Point by point, here we go:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of communicating among users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, pretty much everything on the Internet is. But these systems described above are very much like Twitter, used primarily for self-expression, and sharing with one's friends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One user (the &quot;first&quot; user) can &quot;follow&quot; another user (the &quot;second&quot; user).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiveJournal had that, although it was typically called &quot;friending&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;second&quot; user can post a message. The message is not posted &quot;to&quot; anyone, it is just posted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiveJournal qualifies. While one could read the LiveJournal of a user as if it was a blog, that was just *one* way of consuming the stream of messages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; All followers of the second user receive the posted message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The notion of 'receive' is a little bit fuzzy here. Even on Twitter, users do not necessarily receive the message. Instead, they have an account which is configured to 'follow' certain Twitter accounts, and their devices may request portions of the chronologically-ordered combined stream. When Twitter is used in that way, through its web interface, it's analogous to LiveJournal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in its earliest form, Twitter also instantly pushed messages out to SMS and continues to provide similar alerts to with its mobile apps. LiveJournal never did anything like that. To find an analog you have to look to the group SMS distribution systems I referred to above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The first user can choose from a set of possible methods for receiving messages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiveJournal had that early on. One primarily read through the web, but an API as well as RSS feeds were added, and soon clients for many different platforms appeared." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4362" RevisionGUID="3abec567-7672-4e15-b468-a001e122443a" CreationDate="2013-07-23T05:06:22.307" UserId="4619" Text="Sounds exactly like &quot;soft particles&quot; where particles are made more transparent based on their distance in the scene from the camera.  Here's NVidia's demo for this from 2007 for DirectX: http://developer.download.nvidia.com/whitepapers/2007/SDK10/SoftParticles_hi.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4359" RevisionGUID="45796933-2569-4a8e-81a5-1d0a89dc8c52" CreationDate="2013-07-23T05:15:24.513" UserId="4554" Comment="deleted 32 characters in body" Text="Some of this patent's claims also hinge on the fact that a Tweet is processed and pushed out to multiple transports (email, SMS, web, IM...) and users may consume these messages with multiple clients. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least one open-source system had these capabilities for almost a decade prior: [XMPP](http://xmpp.org/), the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol, also known as &quot;Jabber&quot;. XMPP was created in roughly 1999, and IETF standards were produced in 2004 (http://xmpp.org/xmpp-protocols/rfcs/). There have been many implementations of XMPP servers over the years, especially when interoperability was a concern. Until [recently](http://www.zdnet.com/google-moves-away-from-the-xmpp-open-messaging-standard-7000015918/) the chat system within Google's Gmail, Hangouts, and Talk system interoperated with other chat systems via XMPP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly, XMPP's communication model is very different from Twitter. XMPP is based on person-to-person instant messaging, although a variant of the protocol could be used for [chat rooms](http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html). XMPP has no notion of blogging and passive reception, aka the &quot;message without a recipient&quot; model that Twitter touts as its unique feature. XMPP is an XML-based protocol, designed to 'tunnel' over anything that can handle a long burst of text. Twitter is not a protocol at all, but a single service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I only mention this system to make it plain that these claims are not unique to Twitter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - defining a person as an 'end point', with a unique address. In Twitter, a unique account is conventionally represented with the &quot;at&quot; sign, like @jack for Jack Dorsey. In XMPP, the form is similar to an email address, someone@example.com.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - sending a message out to multiple 'end points', aka people&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - messages are routed to these end-pointy people depending on what transport they are using (email, IM, SMS, web...)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4363" RevisionGUID="0808c813-fe59-4e79-811a-b769bfb69e98" CreationDate="2013-07-23T05:24:05.407" UserId="4626" Text="This looks similar to Patent US6361438 B1, Video game transparency control system for images. The patent is owned by Konami.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6361438&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4364" RevisionGUID="b22834d9-74bb-44c0-91e2-6bc1fa25703d" CreationDate="2013-07-23T05:37:16.543" UserId="4627" Text="Project Athena of the Canadian Audio Research Consortium, did research and prototyping of dynamic room correction for loudspeakers back around 1992.   Floyd Toole, Peter Schuck, Marc Bonneville, Sean Olive, Eric Verrault et al.  Consortium members included PSB, Bryston, Paradigm and others." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4365" RevisionGUID="04f5af9b-274f-492b-b6d4-51959d17e59b" CreationDate="2013-07-23T06:01:54.693" UserId="4631" Text="Toplink is a very good answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote an object/relational mapper for Java in 1996, and sold it to an early application server vendor, Novera. That product was shipped through 2000. The company was bought by Mercator, Inc., (nee Turnkey Systems, Inc.), which I believe was then bought by IBM. I could dig up documentation if that would help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another one that blows away this patent is Persistence Software: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_Software. In fact, I remember being temporarily spooked by one of their patents on the topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4366" RevisionGUID="1dea7ee2-563d-49d6-8909-ea1531e3c128" CreationDate="2013-07-23T06:05:08.207" UserId="4585" Text="When I used to play football, the jars of Icy Hot were stored in a little mini-fridge.  Which at some point I believe the people at Chattem Labs figured out and they of course created something called &quot;Icy Hot Chill Stick&quot; some time later.  I believe the chill stick specific product has been around since at least 2009:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MANUFACTURER:CHATTEM LABS &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;INDICATIONS:For the temporary relief of minor arthritis pain, muscle pain and other everyday pain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;INGREDIENTS:Active Ingredients:Per container: Methyl Salicylate (30), Methol (10 )Inactive Ingredients:Ceresin, Cyclomethicone, Hydrogenated Castor Oil, Microcrystalline Wax, Paraffin, PEG-150 Distearate, Propylene Glycol, Stearic Acid, Stearyl Alcohol &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DIRECTIONS:**For enhanced pain relief at home, store in a refrigerator**. Rub ICY HOT Chill Stick firmly, in a circular motion, over painful joints and muscles. Repeat as necessary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4367" RevisionGUID="cb038a46-1d5c-4371-b301-7644569cf81a" CreationDate="2013-07-23T06:06:29.260" UserId="4634" Text="A successive process of elimination using the attributes of a collection of images is the basis of the board game &quot;Guess Who?&quot; which has been sold by Milton Bradley since 1979. In this game players try to identify a selected face in a collection, by questioning each other about facial attributes and eliminating faces from the collection based on the answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/4143/guess-who&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guess_Who%3F&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;plurality&quot; in the patent application seems to be an attempt to obfuscate the simple concept of a &quot;list&quot;. Searching lists based on characteristics of items in the list is a common programming practice, central to every database application in existence. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4368" RevisionGUID="ae3b3f0e-2feb-4ba2-8400-9b3887047315" CreationDate="2013-07-23T06:14:25.050" UserId="4626" Text="An analgesic is anything that is used to relieve pain. Ice has been used to treat pain for at least since the 1800s. In other words, ice is an analgesic, which is cold, and it is applied to treat pain. It meets all the criteria for this patent. There have been many, many studies on the effects of ice as an analgesic. Here are just a few of them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bugaj R. The cooling, analgesic, and rewarming effects of ice massage on localized skin. Phys Ther. 1975 Jan;55(1):11-9.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Barnard D. The effects of extreme cold on sensory nerves. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1980 May; 62(3):180-7.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bini G, Cruccu G, Hagbarth KE, Schady W, Torebjork E. Analgesic effect of vibration and cooling on pain induced by intraneural electrical stimulation. Pain 1984 Mar; 18(3): 239-48.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ernst E, Fialka V. Ice freezes pain? A review of the clinical effectiveness of analgesic cold therapy. J Pain Symptom Manage 1994 Jan ; 9(1) : 56-9.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bleakley C, McDonough S, MacAuley D. The Use of Ice in the Treatment of Acute Soft-Tissue Injury. A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2004, Volume 32, Pages 251-261." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4369" RevisionGUID="71f8985e-763c-419c-8795-df4dc5a2a0a6" CreationDate="2013-07-23T06:34:31.503" UserId="818" Text="This patent refers to an implementation of a &quot;visually weighted list&quot;. The most common implementation of a visually weighted list is a &quot;tag cloud&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Human-Computer Interaction - INTERACT 2009: 12th IFIP TC 13 International Conference, Uppsala, Sweden, August 24-28, 2009,][1] discussed the concept, in reference to a tag cloud implementation of such a list in detail on PG 819.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;A tag cloud is a visual depiction of words, called tags, which is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; typically used to describe the contents of a web service. It consists&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of a visually weighted list of tags arranged in a certain layout. Tags&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are usually hyperlinks in form of single words that lead to a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; collection of more elaborated issues. The weight corresponding to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their relevance or popularity within a context is charactized by one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or more visual features for each word, such as font size, color,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; intensity, position or a combination of such features. The most used&#xD;&#xA;&gt; layout strategy is alphabetical sorting of tags, but other principles&#xD;&#xA;&gt; such as importance based-or spatially optimized have been proposed and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; used. Recently semantic layouts, i.e. the clustering and display of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tags according to their semantic relatedness, have attracted a lot of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; attention. Tag clouds have been for various tasks such as searching,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; browsing, recognizing and impression formation about a subject.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I interpret this patent to be a different implementation of a visually weighted list, that adjusts size and spacing of icons, instead of text based on popularity within the context of how many times they are used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=_lugQXXLGlQC&amp;pg=PA819&amp;lpg=PA819&amp;dq=%22visually%20weighted%20list%22%20in%20visual%20design&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ffhG16pI2P&amp;sig=vQKtu7bUtCKizX_trvKva-OXgOI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=nhvuUfaRJO6QiQefvYHgAQ&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=%22visually%20weighted%20list%22%20in%20visual%20design&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4370" RevisionGUID="8170330a-d929-4404-b7a7-d404a8879cd6" CreationDate="2013-07-23T06:46:51.257" UserId="4648" Text="Deep Relief is a topical analgesic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the Deep Relief web site http://www.deeprelief.ca/en/pages/painFAQs.html it says 'For best results and an extra cold sensation, store Deep Relief Ice Cold Pain Relief Gel in the refrigerator.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick check on Archive.org shows this was there on 7 January 2011 http://web.archive.org/web/20110107003222/http://www.deeprelief.ca/en/pages/painFAQs.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4371" RevisionGUID="50262737-2e08-444d-91a1-6e72cdf5736e" CreationDate="2013-07-23T06:48:55.390" UserId="4647" Text="The [Pioneer VSX-AX5Ai-S](http://www.pioneer.eu/eur/products/archive/VSX-AX5i-S/page.html) receiver released 2003 had auto surround sound setup via microphone.&#xD;&#xA;Page 13 of the [manual](http://docs.pioneer.eu/Manuals/VSX_AX5I_S_ARB7286_manual/GetPDF.ashx) issued 01/07/2003:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If setting up your surround sound speakers seems like it's going to be an involved task you only need to use this&#xD;&#xA;&gt;quick, automatic method, known as the MCACC system, to achieve good surround sound. You'll need to hook up the&#xD;&#xA;&gt;microphone so that the receiver can hear and judge the distance, size, sound character and sound pressure level of&#xD;&#xA;&gt;the speakers and thus know what settings to make.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2004 the updated [VSX-AX5Ai-S](http://www.pioneer.eu/eur/products/archive/VSX-AX5Ai-S/page.html) could also display the audio calibration data with the [Advanced MCACC PC Display Software](http://www.pioneer.eu/eur/download.jsp?dir=/files/brochures/04_MCACC&amp;filename=MCACC_AX5_EN.pdf&amp;method=attachment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Graph of calibration data](http://i.imgur.com/wQ1SIBp.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;* [1st part of calibration data in a spreadsheet](http://i.imgur.com/cyttAla.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;* [2nd part of calibration data in a spreadsheet](http://i.imgur.com/vP0Zt8L.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4372" RevisionGUID="32e8c124-00db-4e9b-baa7-71d3e4fa8791" CreationDate="2013-07-23T06:56:37.743" UserId="4635" Text="In addition to the myriad of programs that already do this (http://pcsupport.about.com/od/filerecovery/tp/free-file-recovery-programs.htm), here is a website explaining the exact process that the patent claims to have invented (which, according to archive.org, was written in 2002):&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ntfs.com/disk-scan.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also fails under the &quot;non-obvious&quot; requirement.  When searching a filesystem for application-specific deleted files, the first thing a programmer would do is search for data patterns that identify said application, and then validate what is found to determine if it's really what is being sought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This also appears to already be patented: https://www.google.com/patents/US20100257146" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4373" RevisionGUID="f318239b-0f01-478b-8e44-013592d52bd8" CreationDate="2013-07-23T07:15:05.207" UserId="4653" Text="These claims read like the feature list of the [Enterprise Objects Framework](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_Objects_Framework) introduced by Next in 1994, as part of their software development platform written in Objective-C. It was also part of their WebObjects web development platform, introduced in 1996. In 1999 they released a Java version of WebObjects, including EOF translated to Java. Here is an [EOF manual](http://developer.apple.com/legacy/library/documentation/LegacyTechnologies/WebObjects/WebObjects_4.0/System/Documentation/Developer/EnterpriseObjects/Guide/EOFDevGuide.pdf) published in 1998." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4374" RevisionGUID="a20a97c4-e7f3-480b-b224-d767163ca887" CreationDate="2013-07-23T07:16:04.957" UserId="3076" Text="No, there is no way that is quick and inexpensive. Patents are presumed valid and the least difficult way to knock one down is an parte reexamination. Anyone can file a request based on submitting published documents and an explanation as to how they apply to which claims, and $6000. The patent office gets 3 months to decide if there is a &quot;significant new question of patentablity&quot;. If not you get your $6000 back. If so, they proceed to examine it again, but with &quot;special dispatch&quot;. At the end a reexamination certificate is issued that might say everything is fine, some claims are changed, some or all claims are gone. The requestor does not get to participate after sending it in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No lawyer is technically required. You could draw it up yourself, or you can use a registered practitioner. That includes patent attorneys and patent agents. If one were actually spending $6000 in USPTO fees, another few thousand to get it done professionally seems wise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4375" RevisionGUID="e16bde17-7625-47ae-a086-7d29af3d94fb" CreationDate="2013-07-23T07:21:01.627" UserId="4655" Text="Windows 7 start menu changes ordering of items based on the frequency of their use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4376" RevisionGUID="5fdb6f9b-3ffa-4ac4-b59e-2b671ffc3619" CreationDate="2013-07-23T07:44:37.633" UserId="4663" Text="I recall seeing a Pioneer in-car head unit offer automated calibration the late 1990s, however I can't find the original item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there's a similar one from Blaupunkt mentioned in 2001.&#xD;&#xA;http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=2015498&amp;postcount=13&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They use a microphone attached to the receiver in order to handle the automatic calibration." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4377" RevisionGUID="2417e437-97bc-40be-949f-c16a25f10d7f" CreationDate="2013-07-23T08:05:21.713" UserId="4666" Text="This patent is an obvious application of the &quot;publish-subscribe&quot; pattern. An earlier implementation of this pattern was the usenet system in 1979 which allowed messages to be posted (published) to newsgroups without any predetermined recipient. Other users were able to follow (subscribe) to newsgroups so that the newsnet client software could track which messages they had previously read. A more detailed explanation of publish-subscribe and usenet can be found simply by Googling those terms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4378" RevisionGUID="7329b362-548c-42a7-853a-fa276eb56f13" CreationDate="2013-07-23T08:08:22.530" UserId="4485" Text="At least the majority of the claims here were covered by Norton Utilities v1.0 in 1982. UnErase/FileFix specifically. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton_Utilities#1.0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4379" RevisionGUID="46a777ba-b2e7-4510-809e-5818e2a1cf7d" CreationDate="2013-07-23T08:30:17.510" UserId="4672" Text="To add to Mr. White's answer, there is also inter partes reexamination, in which you can actively participate in the process.  Cost is higher, and each new submission requires additional fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, &quot;another few thousand to get it done professionally&quot; is a bit low. :-)  I suppose you *could* find someone to do the filing for cheap, but really, to do it professionally, you're talking five figures, and not necessarily low five figures." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4380" RevisionGUID="968eefe1-8890-443b-bd84-b6c992ef016d" CreationDate="2013-07-23T08:39:13.650" UserId="4675" Text="Consumer Reports's Consumerist.com described how to buy from Sears' online in-store pickup while standing in the Sears store...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://consumerist.com/2011/07/21/its-cheaper-to-order-online-while-standing-in-sears-than-to-shop-at-sears/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4381" RevisionGUID="7448f5e6-5a63-4ae1-92a5-fe4fa3787c70" CreationDate="2013-07-23T08:50:29.620" UserId="4676" Text="Behringer has similar features in their ultra-drive pro, which has been out for at least 5, if not 10 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially connect a microphone and it automatically corrects for phasing, equalization, and delay to the microphone using test signals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DAK Industries was selling an equalizer - the BSR EQ-3000 back in the mid 80's with a condenser mike.   The Equalizer would provide a pink noise source and then automatically adjust the equalization to match based on what was heard by the condenser microphone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4382" RevisionGUID="2ee60978-26ff-49fc-9304-107f5d88ea94" CreationDate="2013-07-23T09:03:42.430" UserId="4485" Text="I do like the IRC reference from carmogy. I do believe however that the BBS is quite directly related here. For me this patent just sounds like a message board with presence awareness. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From Wikipedia MajorBBS article:][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MBBS software was known for fostering online communities and an interactive online experience where users were able to interact with each other via Teleconference (chat rooms) and multiplayer games. This flexibility spawned a small industry of Independent Software Vendors (ISV) who began developing MBBS add-ons, which ranged from shopping malls (what would now be called shopping cart software) to online role playing games.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior art is not as old as IRC, but MajorBBS is from 1986, so still quite old enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_BBS" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4382" RevisionGUID="c10c38bd-b325-4f58-9b70-27f80eadcc4f" CreationDate="2013-07-23T09:09:23.827" UserId="4485" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="I do like the IRC reference from carmogy. I do believe however that the BBS is quite directly related here. For me this patent just sounds like a message board with presence awareness. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From Wikipedia MajorBBS article:][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MBBS software was known for fostering online communities and an interactive online experience where users were able to interact with each other via Teleconference (chat rooms) and multiplayer games. This flexibility spawned a small industry of Independent Software Vendors (ISV) who began developing MBBS add-ons, which ranged from shopping malls (what would now be called shopping cart software) to online role playing games.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior art is not as old as IRC, but MajorBBS is from 1986, so still quite old enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: just realized IRC didn't come until 1988, so this is even prior to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_BBS" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4383" RevisionGUID="ebc0c62c-ff3a-4006-b2e1-790aad14a032" CreationDate="2013-07-23T09:32:31.970" UserId="4685" Text="A Commercial Object Oriented Database available before 1999.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A summery can be found here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://burks.bton.ac.uk/burks/pcinfo/progdocs/oofaq/s8d03.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We had the manuals lying around a couple of years ago. Probably still have in storage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4385" RevisionGUID="23b3140e-7034-4e5a-8513-e04a65795a95" CreationDate="2013-07-23T09:52:08.047" UserId="4672" Text="Bogdan's answer used to be somewhat true in the U.S., but the U.S. is now a first-to-file (really, more like first-to-disclose) system, thanks to the Obama administration's Anti-Inventors Act (AIA).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would need to be able to show that you had published the idea prior to the application being filed.  Website postings and the like can be used as long as you can prove a date by which they were available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All patent systems share this in common: they grant a limited-time monopoly IN EXCHANGE FOR public disclosure of the invention -- so that others can learn from, improve upon, and use the invention (maybe only after your patent expires, but still).  Doing something at home, without ever having publicized it, doesn't count as public disclosure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4387" RevisionGUID="33a3abcb-d154-45dd-b905-26d28260abf9" CreationDate="2013-07-23T10:10:38.607" UserId="4689" Text="The BBC was providing a transcription service (also an early example of ecommerce) via FTP in September 1994 (http://support.bbc.co.uk/support/history.html). Presumably this provided a list of files, updated regularly, which users could download." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10234" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4387" RevisionGUID="10b4356c-633d-4f02-8e26-ba40ddd2de96" CreationDate="2013-07-23T10:10:38.607" UserId="4689" />
  <row Id="10235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4388" RevisionGUID="e5ef0881-22b9-4fc8-ab49-807d9808d231" CreationDate="2013-07-23T11:22:36.330" UserId="4695" Text="[Article (dated 2006 December 7th)](http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/receivers/yamaha-RX-Z9/auto-set-up-and-ypao-configuration) about receiver with Yamaha's YPAO specifically mentions speaker distance checks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4313" RevisionGUID="b6428dc3-3125-46ba-8668-bb868ac95c3e" CreationDate="2013-07-23T11:29:53.987" UserId="4480" Comment="edited body" Text="**Magic Carpet** by Bullfrog used the same technique in **1994** to hide the limited rendering-powers of Pentium pcs... It was a cool way to make the more distant scenery disappear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found the following [review][1] from 1994:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The texture-mapped polygons are expertly depth cued and shade off into a beautiful mist effect in the near distance – this not only softens the whole view, making it more realistic...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.edge-online.com/review/magic-carpet-review/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4389" RevisionGUID="0652ac17-0620-4eb8-816b-63acd0f75c22" CreationDate="2013-07-23T11:39:05.233" UserId="4710" Text="The (then) Borland (today: Embarcadero) Delphi programming language &amp; RAD development environment has been accessing databases with objects since at least 1995.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Delphi is both the name of an the &quot;Object Pascal&quot; programming language and a RAD Object Oriented Integrated Development Environment, which since it's first version provided objects for interacting with tables, queries and or views in a relational databases.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original 1995 version Delphi 1.0 client/server based objects (TTable, TQuery, TDataset, TDatabase, TSession) serves as sufficient prior art to for the claims in question, however the  &quot;Midas&quot; (now &quot;Datasnap&quot;) multi-tier technology that was released around 1997 with the advent of Delphi 3.0 provides additional prior art should there be quibbles with the former.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I submit the following comments in response to the claims above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for enabling an object oriented user application to access a relational database having one or more physical tables segmented into rows and columns, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally Delphi's database components since version 1.0 has had this exact goal, of allowing an object oriented user application to access a relational database.  In particular, the TTable (1 physical table or view) or TQuery (1 or more tables or views) are therefore 2 concrete classes providing access to an underlying relational database and therefore direct prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; defining a logical table comprising a subset of columns from at least&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one of the one or more physical tables; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both TQuery and TTable instances define logical tables for use in a Delphi application and so serve as prior art here as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; designating one column of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; logical table as a logical primary key column; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First note that in general, keys need not be single column, so the claim here is oddly limiting for something that is supposed to be for general use and expanding the state of the art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nonetheless, Delphi supports several ways of defining both single and multi-part keys for its data access objects that serves as direct prior art here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concrete examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) TField objects (which are contained in TQuery/TTable etc) support (at least) the TField.ProviderFlags property (e.g. property &quot;pfInKey&quot;) which allows one to specify that a particular TField is a key field for the containing logical table object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) TTable components (amongst others) can additionally store both field and index definitions which imply whether a field is part of a logical primary key or not: TTable.IndexDefs for example contains a list of index definitions, each index definition has several properties, including the list of fields making up the index, and properties to specify various aspects of the index, including whether it defines a primary key (Index.Options include enumerated value ixPrimary)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Midas TClientDataset similarly is a completely logical dataset class that allows a user to define field, field properties (including key specification) as well as having an IndexDefs property that can define logical indexes and primary key, and which can be used to access data from a back-end relational database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forming a normalized&#xD;&#xA;&gt; relational schema object representing the logical table; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The term &quot;relational schema&quot; usually refers to a database schema, which usually includes multiple tables (or relations), so this statement referring to a singular &quot;logical table&quot; whilst simultaneously referring to a &quot;normalized relational schema&quot; seems on it's face confused and at best poorly worded.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe the author meant &quot;relation schema&quot;, where &quot;relation&quot; is a formal name for what we would otherwise call a table, and the &quot;relation schema&quot; is then informally the description of the structure of the table (rows, columns) and so on.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, as mentioned before, any of the many TDataset descendant object included in Delphi, and in particular TTable, TQuery and TClientDataset serves as prior art as objects representing a logical table (relation) in a Delphi application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more on this apparent confusion of terminology, see:&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_schema&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_schema&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relation_schema&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generating,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; responsive to the normalized relational schema object, one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; object classes associated with the normalized relational schema&#xD;&#xA;&gt; object; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of the work done by the Delphi environment is to generate instances of TQuery, TTable, TClientDataset and so on, and to populate these objects with the attendant field definitions, index definitions, keys and so on, or to allow the developer to specify these manually by hand if so desired.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These objects form part of a so called datamodule object, which itself is an instance of the TDatamodule class.  Delphi allows one define relationships between various &quot;TDataset&quot; objects (TDataset being the ancestor of several of the classes previously mentioned and so being a collective term for any Delphi application &quot;logical table&quot;), thereby establishing relationships between the logical objects and thus effectively a relational schema.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The TDatamodule then is prior art for the &quot;relational schema object&quot;, and whether it is normalized or not depends on the developer and how he/she designs the logical tables in question, but suffice it to say that a normalized form is supported if desired. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and employing an object of an object class including the one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or more object classes associated with the normalized relational&#xD;&#xA;&gt; schema object and a respective corresponding logical primary key value&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to access data in the at least one of the physical tables in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; relational database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a concrete prior art example: A TClientdataset class instance named &quot;cdsCustomer&quot;, housed with other TClientDatasets (say &quot;cdsOrder&quot; with a master-detail relationship with cdsCustomer) in a TDatamodule instance, with a suitably defined primary key field &amp; index on the &quot;CustomerId&quot; logical field (together with suitable supporting Midas backend) will all the Delphi application containing this clientdataset to retrieve data in a back-end relational database table called say &quot;tblCustomers&quot;, locate a specific CustomerID in the logical table, modify values in the logical table (without at that point having any link with the back-end) and eventually sync the update back to the database. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, this claim describes nothing more than what Delphi's object access classes have already been providing since at least 1995.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Delphi release dates: http://delphi.wikia.com/wiki/Delphi_Release_Dates&#xD;&#xA;Delphi Developers guide (c) 1995 Borland: http://portal.aauj.edu/portal_resources/downloads/database/delphi_database_application_developers_book.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10238" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4389" RevisionGUID="117357bc-8e42-4f9f-bb5b-188d382cbfb5" CreationDate="2013-07-23T11:44:41.667" UserId="4710" Comment="grammar corrections, layout fixes" Text="The (then) Borland (today: Embarcadero) Delphi programming language &amp; RAD development environment has been accessing databases with objects since at least 1995.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Delphi is both the name of an the &quot;Object Pascal&quot; programming language and a RAD Object Oriented Integrated Development Environment, which since it's first version provided objects for interacting with tables, queries and or views in a relational databases.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original 1995 version Delphi 1.0 client/server based objects (TTable, TQuery, TDataset, TDatabase, TSession) serves as sufficient prior art to for the claims in question, however the  &quot;Midas&quot; (now &quot;Datasnap&quot;) multi-tier technology that was released around 1997 with the advent of Delphi 3.0 provides additional prior art should there be quibbles with the former.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I submit the following comments in response to the claims above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for enabling an object oriented user application to access a relational database having one or more physical tables segmented into rows and columns, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally Delphi's database components since version 1.0 has had this exact goal, of allowing an object oriented user application to access a relational database.  In particular, the TTable (1 physical table or view) or TQuery (1 or more tables or views) are therefore 2 concrete classes providing access to an underlying relational database and therefore direct prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; defining a logical table comprising a subset of columns from at least&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one of the one or more physical tables; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both TQuery and TTable instances define logical tables for use in a Delphi application and so serve as prior art here as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; designating one column of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; logical table as a logical primary key column; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First note that in general, keys need not be single column, so the claim here is oddly limiting for something that is supposed to be for general use and expanding the state of the art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nonetheless, Delphi supports several ways of defining both single and multi-part keys for its data access objects that serves as direct prior art here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concrete examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) TField objects (which are contained in TQuery/TTable etc) support (at least) the TField.ProviderFlags property (e.g. property &quot;pfInKey&quot;) which allows one to specify that a particular TField is a key field for the containing logical table object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) TTable components (amongst others) can additionally store both field and index definitions which imply whether a field is part of a logical primary key or not: TTable.IndexDefs for example contains a list of index definitions, each index definition has several properties, including the list of fields making up the index, and properties to specify various aspects of the index, including whether it defines a primary key (Index.Options include enumerated value ixPrimary)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Midas TClientDataset similarly is a completely logical dataset class that allows a user to define field, field properties (including key specification) as well as having an IndexDefs property that can define logical indexes and primary key, and which can be used to access data from a back-end relational database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forming a normalized&#xD;&#xA;&gt; relational schema object representing the logical table; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The term &quot;relational schema&quot; usually refers to a database schema, which usually includes multiple tables (or relations), so this statement referring to a singular &quot;logical table&quot; whilst simultaneously referring to a &quot;normalized relational schema&quot; seems on it's face confused and at best poorly worded.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe the author meant &quot;relation schema&quot;, where &quot;relation&quot; is a formal name for what we would otherwise call a table, and the &quot;relation schema&quot; is then informally the description of the structure of the table (rows, columns) and so on.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, as mentioned before, any of the many TDataset descendant object included in Delphi, and in particular TTable, TQuery and TClientDataset serves as prior art as objects representing a logical table (relation) in a Delphi application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more on this apparent confusion of terminology, see:&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_schema&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_schema&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relation_schema&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generating,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; responsive to the normalized relational schema object, one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; object classes associated with the normalized relational schema&#xD;&#xA;&gt; object; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of the work done by the Delphi environment is to generate instances of TQuery, TTable, TClientDataset and so on, and to populate these objects with the attendant field definitions, index definitions, keys and so on, or to allow the developer to specify these manually by hand if so desired.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These objects form part of a so called datamodule object, which itself is an instance of the TDatamodule class.  Delphi allows one to define relationships between various &quot;TDataset&quot; objects (TDataset being the ancestor of several of the classes previously mentioned and so being a collective term for any Delphi application &quot;logical table&quot;), thereby establishing relationships between the logical objects and thus effectively a relational schema.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The TDatamodule then is prior art for the &quot;relational schema object&quot;, and whether it is normalized or not depends on the developer and how he/she designs the logical tables in question, but suffice it to say that a normalized form is supported if desired. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and employing an object of an object class including the one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or more object classes associated with the normalized relational&#xD;&#xA;&gt; schema object and a respective corresponding logical primary key value&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to access data in the at least one of the physical tables in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; relational database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a concrete prior art example: A TClientdataset class instance named &quot;cdsCustomer&quot;, housed with other TClientDatasets (say &quot;cdsOrder&quot; with a master-detail relationship with cdsCustomer) in a TDatamodule instance, with a suitably defined primary key field &amp; index on the &quot;CustomerId&quot; logical field (together with suitable supporting Midas backend) will allow the Delphi application containing this clientdataset to retrieve data in a back-end relational database table called say &quot;tblCustomers&quot;, locate a specific CustomerID in the logical table, modify values in the logical table (without at that point having any link with the back-end) and eventually sync the update back to the database. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, this claim describes nothing more than what Delphi's object access classes have already been providing since at least 1995.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Delphi release dates: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://delphi.wikia.com/wiki/Delphi_Release_Dates&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Delphi Developers guide (c) 1995 Borland: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://portal.aauj.edu/portal_resources/downloads/database/delphi_database_application_developers_book.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4390" RevisionGUID="d24afd21-cad4-4211-8cb4-054d71b24a2d" CreationDate="2013-07-23T11:54:50.803" UserId="4715" Text="I'd be interested in prior art for this patent - seems absurdly broad to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10240" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4390" RevisionGUID="d24afd21-cad4-4211-8cb4-054d71b24a2d" CreationDate="2013-07-23T11:54:50.803" UserId="4715" Text="Prior Art Request: Patent US7089266 (Computer systems and methods for the query and visualization of multidimensional databases)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10241" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4390" RevisionGUID="d24afd21-cad4-4211-8cb4-054d71b24a2d" CreationDate="2013-07-23T11:54:50.803" UserId="4715" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4391" RevisionGUID="efcddd7e-4ed6-4ae3-b86d-892cbe6b92a3" CreationDate="2013-07-23T12:23:41.507" UserId="4485" Text="Crystal Reports has been able to query and generate tables/graphs from OLAP cubes for a long time. I'm not sure when the feature was introduced, but here is a review which discusses the feature from June 10, 2005&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Crystal-Clear Winner: Report Writer Is Tops](http://www.crn.com/reviews/applications-os/164301546/crystal-clear-winner-report-writer-is-tops.htm)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10243" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4390" RevisionGUID="6be7cc66-8a79-435e-a481-29d8169dd8cb" CreationDate="2013-07-23T12:24:10.547" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us7089266&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4391" RevisionGUID="e393660b-848e-432c-a4be-d7958abbaaf6" CreationDate="2013-07-23T12:30:20.330" UserId="4485" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="Crystal Reports has been able to query and generate tables/graphs from OLAP cubes for a long time. I'm not sure when the feature was introduced, but here is [a review which discusses the feature from June 10, 2005](http://www.crn.com/reviews/applications-os/164301546/crystal-clear-winner-report-writer-is-tops.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lotus Improv introduced the [Pivot Table](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pivot_Table) in 1991&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [CrossTab Analysis and Reporting](https://www.google.com/patents/US5915257) (1994) patent already exists." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4392" RevisionGUID="5b28df54-25ec-4753-83c9-17862a787032" CreationDate="2013-07-23T12:32:45.980" UserId="4728" Text="I work for UAHuntsville in contract for US Army in support of their APATS effort. We have been using the changing of displays images to denote conditions for motor vehicles for some time.  This patent request is &quot;obvious to anyone&quot; forget to those of the profession.  The USTPO should deny this application because this is Standard Operating Procedure for programming.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4301" RevisionGUID="2f0831d9-4fe8-443a-9464-25692d30f0d7" CreationDate="2013-07-23T12:38:31.613" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="I am not sure whether &quot;locating for application-specific data&quot; can be patentable. This sounds like inventing a wheel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Systems and methods for locating application specific data [US 20130166517 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130166517" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10247" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4301" RevisionGUID="2f0831d9-4fe8-443a-9464-25692d30f0d7" CreationDate="2013-07-23T12:38:31.613" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;us20130166517&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4357" RevisionGUID="86e2b1d1-b115-439a-8a6c-55aa37ed7793" CreationDate="2013-07-23T12:51:13.700" UserId="1259" Comment="linkie" Text="[US patent 6595417][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Published Jul 22, 2003&#xD;&#xA;Filing date	May 17, 2002&#xD;&#xA;Priority date	Jun 26, 1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A system and method for an information system for use by customers in a retail shopping environment are provided. The system includes a host computer and a portable terminal for use by a customer. The portable terminal is located within a retail environment and interacts with the host computer to access product information. A customer enters a request for product information via an input device. The portable terminal then transmits the customer request and receives the product information from the host computer. A processor is employed for generating a request or query related to the received product information; and both the product information and additional query information is then displayed to the customer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us6595417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4258" RevisionGUID="200f7e78-e5ab-479a-b24f-fec957864ba8" CreationDate="2013-07-23T12:56:36.063" UserId="1259" Comment="typo in year" Text="Tesco, in Korea had this QR Code based shopping in Subways. &#xD;&#xA;Telegraph report dated June 2012&#xD;&#xA;http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/mobile-phones/8601147/Tesco-builds-virtual-shops-for-Korean-commuters.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Youtube video of the same dated Jun 2011  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGaVFRzTTP4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4391" RevisionGUID="d1c27b77-1c8b-44e7-88cc-d12aa145c627" CreationDate="2013-07-23T13:02:33.870" UserId="4485" Comment="added 253 characters in body" Text="Crystal Reports has been able to query and generate tables/graphs from OLAP cubes for a long time. I'm not sure when the feature was introduced, but here is [a review which discusses the feature from June 10, 2005](http://www.crn.com/reviews/applications-os/164301546/crystal-clear-winner-report-writer-is-tops.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lotus Improv introduced the [Pivot Table](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pivot_Table) in 1991&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [CrossTab Analysis and Reporting](https://www.google.com/patents/US5915257) (1994) patent already exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Worst case, you could accomplish all of this with Office '97. Perhaps just with the MS Access Query Designer, and depending on how &quot;graphic&quot; you want to get, use Excel. The &quot;graphics&quot; as described here are just dynamic tables, not even charts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10252" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4390" RevisionGUID="495ff7c4-1733-4d48-8522-82cbabacaa60" CreationDate="2013-07-23T13:05:12.283" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;us7089266&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10253" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4301" RevisionGUID="c87d70ed-19ab-4e73-b5e8-c677a8dee043" CreationDate="2013-07-23T13:05:56.380" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;us20130166517&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4393" RevisionGUID="cf623930-2027-4428-8f21-80ba2db799e7" CreationDate="2013-07-23T13:14:24.750" UserId="4743" Text="In basic HTML any image or icon which is also a hyperlink will be rendered with a coloured border (usually blue). When the frequency of use of that link increases from zero (ie it is clicked once) the border colour changes (usually to purple)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4394" RevisionGUID="d8465d52-1fb8-4816-b06e-6bb5b70005ca" CreationDate="2013-07-23T13:25:27.503" UserId="4748" Text="From 1984 http://www.retrogames.co.uk/more/on/details/019229&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/21727/Birdwatch/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It isn't really a game as such.  We used to use this when I was in primary school on the BBC Micro computer, before 1988 (before my sister was born).  The application would ask you to record how many of what sort of bird you saw.  Kind of a simple datalogging application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4395" RevisionGUID="1c2930d9-a684-491b-b567-8c6063cb554f" CreationDate="2013-07-23T13:27:50.317" UserId="4745" Text="I've been a software developer for 10 years and every time I create a program the user interface looks different because the structure of the data is different. Applying algebraic expressions to data is not new, spreadsheets have always done this. Applying hierarchical structures to data is both common and common sense. Using tuples to store data is not new in fact it's rather irrelevant what type and/or combination of data structures are chosen to solve a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Creating a user interface specific to the problem you are trying to solve is what every computer program does. If their user interface is distinctive (as every tends to be the case in user interfaces designed to handle complex data) then it should be covered under copyright not patent. As noted in the previous citing of prior work, using tables, graphs, pivot tables and graphical elements to reference data in a user interface is not a novel invention, just a unsurprising combination of techniques common in the industry." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4396" RevisionGUID="e50e3e44-383d-4c35-9011-7fdf33effdd4" CreationDate="2013-07-23T13:32:44.747" UserId="4750" Text="RedLaser owned by eBay does all of this I believe: http://redlaser.com/application/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4397" RevisionGUID="d652c170-35a7-4e5a-9e58-3d932001b75d" CreationDate="2013-07-23T13:42:08.980" UserId="4748" Text="What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetWars&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was bundled with Novell Netware systems.  It let 4 players fly around in 3d space and shoot each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; NetWars was an IPX-based 3D vector-graphics computer game released by Novell in 1993 for DOS to demonstrate NetWare capabilities. It was written by Edward Hill, one of Novell's engineers in its European Development Centre (EDC) in Hungerford, UK. Development had started in 1989." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4399" RevisionGUID="1e796e6c-f5f0-46c6-abf7-e0fdd3d5008f" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:01:12.680" UserId="4769" Text="There is a book from before the PC age that describes how to manually do something that could be done with software.  A number of websites describe how to do this manually still, though apparently no one has written the program.  Is automating a thoroughly described analogue process patentable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, is just moving an idea into the computer world original enough?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would guess not, but some granted patents seem far sketchier.  (And I'd like to be able to retire someday or at least go ahead and let people start using this.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10262" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4399" RevisionGUID="1e796e6c-f5f0-46c6-abf7-e0fdd3d5008f" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:01:12.680" UserId="4769" Text="Would software automating a manual process described in an old book be invalidated because the book is prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10263" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4399" RevisionGUID="1e796e6c-f5f0-46c6-abf7-e0fdd3d5008f" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:01:12.680" UserId="4769" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4337" RevisionGUID="ce102a9a-94a6-46d1-95aa-40941cdec364" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:02:03.130" UserId="4485" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="Sun Microsystems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Provisional U.S. Patent Application No. 60/068,415, entitled “System and Method for Mapping Between Objects and Databases,” filed on Dec. 22, 1997&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US6360223&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Too late. US5937402A filed Jun 19, 1997. This is not prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4400" RevisionGUID="8b4c21dd-30bf-45d7-9916-b9393095c9ed" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:13:13.127" UserId="4777" Text="Google Now already does this, it tells you that you should leave home now to reach a scheduled meeting in x minutes based on live public transportation or traffic conditions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4401" RevisionGUID="5ea00a86-076f-4eee-8620-9829a2ee7a9d" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:15:59.500" UserId="4778" Text="I registered a website early 2011 &quot;payformy.info&quot; (http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=payformy.info) and was speaking to investors in 2010 about the same concept in 2010, prior to this filing. Does this help in any way?&#xD;&#xA;Steph van Schalkwyk" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4402" RevisionGUID="244045f4-43f3-48a5-856c-5aeb2bdd6ce8" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:18:12.617" UserId="4777" Text="Perhaps not as relevant as other examples, but it sounds like something [Google Goggles][1] could do. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.apps.unveil&amp;hl=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4403" RevisionGUID="66fe1810-3669-4311-bc19-37a382f800e7" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:18:43.303" UserId="4778" Text="We used spacers on front axles of trucks to identify them entering a weighbridge. This was in 1990 onwards. I'll see if I have a photograph. Also contact Hennie Visser at OptoAfrica.co.za." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4404" RevisionGUID="07f37bf1-7cf2-4309-b538-d12a73392187" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:19:22.413" UserId="4349" Text="I'm still looking for patents before this date but just to contribute, maybe would be good to send the findings of the current Prior Art Request also to the patents listed below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These ones are related to the topic and the findings can be reused:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [US 20130153655 A1][1]: Self service retail check out using smart phone (filed Dec 15, 2011)&#xD;&#xA;- [WO 2012158133 A1][2]: METHODS FOR CONDUCTING ELECTRONIC PAYMENT TRANSACTIONS, WITH SCANNABLE CODES (filed May 13, 2011)&#xD;&#xA;- [WO 2012151163 A1][3] (from Ebay): Barcode checkout at point of sale (filed Apr 27, 2012)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope to help with this related patents. Please correct me if there is a more appropriate place to send this kind of related information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130153655&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/WO2012158133&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2012151163A1?cl=enhttp://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=20120284130.PGNR." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4405" RevisionGUID="539c8196-5098-4875-989d-034d94f2c1ac" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:20:36.737" UserId="4779" Text="Also the Perl DBI-Modules (first released on Oct 12 1994 according to http://search.cpan.org/dist/DBI/Changes#ANCIENT_HISTORY ) are an example of an object-relational access mechanism that predates that patent by five years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4390" RevisionGUID="d0b01150-eca6-41de-9511-de696fa58f02" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:22:05.913" UserId="4752" Comment="added link to googe patents" Text="I'd be interested in prior art for this patent - seems absurdly broad to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US7089266][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7089266" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10274" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4390" RevisionGUID="d0b01150-eca6-41de-9511-de696fa58f02" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:22:05.913" Comment="Proposed by 4752 approved by 1 edit id of 373" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4385" RevisionGUID="1a1cfef2-c48b-4387-81b8-743a97020831" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:22:40.430" UserId="-1" Comment="Removed political screed and fixed minor typos" Text="Bogdan's answer used to be somewhat true in the U.S., but the U.S. is now a first-to-file (really, more like first-to-disclose) system, thanks to the America Invents Act (AIA).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would need to be able to show that you had published the idea prior to the application being filed. Website postings and the like can be used as long as you can prove a date by which they were available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All patent systems share this in common: they grant a limited-time monopoly IN EXCHANGE FOR public disclosure of the invention---so that others can learn from, improve upon, and use the invention (maybe only after your patent expires, but still).  Doing something at home, without ever having publicized it, doesn't count as public disclosure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10276" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4385" RevisionGUID="1a1cfef2-c48b-4387-81b8-743a97020831" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:22:40.430" Comment="Proposed by 212.118.224.148|f70ecbf7-0843-40b7-b872-20764a67b0a8 approved by 1 edit id of 372" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4406" RevisionGUID="132890f8-93e0-4486-9af0-b846add9277b" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:24:02.483" UserId="4777" Text="I know this is far newer than the patent but [Cloudflare's Railgun][1] does dynamic content caching. Maybe deeper researching of their topic or asking them could yield some of the inspiration for the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.cloudflare.com/cacheing-the-uncacheable-cloudflares-railgun-73454" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4407" RevisionGUID="558cc480-654a-49a6-9eb2-5320baeadc0c" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:31:56.980" UserId="4485" Text="Texas Instruments (Jun 29, 1993)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&quot;O-R gateway: a system for connecting object-oriented application programs and relational databases&quot; ](https://www.google.com/patents/US5504885)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The TI patent specifies SQL mapping of objects to RDBS. us5937402 makes an emphasis on &quot;rules&quot;, but that just seems to me more generic. You could define these &quot;rules&quot; in SQL or any other arbitrary language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the TI patent, all the Object to Relational code goes through explicit compilation phases, and in us5937402 this is not expressed, perhaps not required by these &quot;rules&quot;, but this seems to me to be just a logical iteration of the TI concept.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3857" RevisionGUID="07fa4610-fc17-4797-ba8d-0add24a78cbd" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:35:22.807" UserId="1767" Comment="Fixed some aspects of formatting RFPA" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ELECTRONIC COLLECTION OF ITEMS** - This patent claims the idea of... an electronic collection of items! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 3, 2003** that discusses the elements described in the claim below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: COMPUTING DEVICE FOR SEARCHING, IDENTIFYING, AND DISPLAYING ITEMS IN A COLLECTION**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent **[US7363309][1]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Method and system for portable and desktop computing devices to allow searching, identification and display of items in a collection&quot; seems to be a dangerous patent. Programmers do this kind of thing regularly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A field-useable guide in the form of a portable computer device for identifying natural items observed by a user from a collection of natural items, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a housing for the portable computer device, the housing containing a programmed microprocessor, data storage, a display screen and a user input,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - means in the microprocessor and data storage for displaying to the user a series of selectable attributes which vary among natural items in the collection of natural items, each attribute having one or more data types in which a plurality of values for the attribute are stored in the data storage, the values for the series of selectable attributes being in a plurality of the following data types stored in the storage for presentation to the user in a search conducted by the user:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(a) descriptive text,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(b) number values,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(c) color images of natural items in the collection of natural items,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(d) sounds produced by natural items, in the case of a group of animals as the collection of natural items,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(e) moving pictures of natural items, in the case of animals as the natural items of the collection,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(f) color samples for matching to a feature of an observed natural item of a collection of natural items,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(g) silhouettes representative of groups of natural items within a collection of natural items, and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - search means associated with the microprocessor for enabling and prompting the user, on the display screen, to perform a step-by-step elimination search to identify a natural item observed in the field by selecting one of said attributes, reviewing the various values presented by the portable computer device as possible values under the subject selected attribute for the natural item observed in the field, then selecting one said value for the selected attribute, then selecting another of said attributes, reviewing the values presented as possible values for said another selected attribute and selecting one of the values, and continuing the stepwise elimination search to further reduce the number of possible natural items in the natural items of the collection, the search means progressively eliminating non-matches from a list of possible natural items in the natural items of the collection,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;and including elimination means associated with the microprocessor for eliminating further said attributes which become irrelevant or redundant after selection by a user of a particular value for a said attribute, and further including means associated with the microprocessor for eliminating certain of the values under particular said attributes which values become irrelevant or redundant as choices due to prior selection of particular aid values under one or more previously selected said attributes,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;whereby the elimination means, in the step-by-step elimination search, assures against a null result of the search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us7363309" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10282" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3857" RevisionGUID="07fa4610-fc17-4797-ba8d-0add24a78cbd" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:35:22.807" UserId="1767" Comment="Fixed some aspects of formatting RFPA" Text="Electronic Collections - Searching, identifying and displaying items in a collection - Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10283" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3857" RevisionGUID="07fa4610-fc17-4797-ba8d-0add24a78cbd" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:35:22.807" UserId="1767" Comment="Fixed some aspects of formatting RFPA" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;us7363309&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4408" RevisionGUID="52141b3f-36b5-4e04-91fa-2ba4b7e8f612" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:37:36.223" UserId="4788" Text="I thought this was litigated and these were invalidated for obviousness and prior art:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/2011-1009.Opinion.1-17-2013.1.PDF&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SUMMARY&#xD;&#xA;The claims in suit of the ’314 and ’492 patents are&#xD;&#xA;invalid for obviousness over the CompuServe Mall system.&#xD;&#xA;The claims of the ’639 patent are invalid for obviousness&#xD;&#xA;over Johnson in view of additional prior art, and&#xD;&#xA;the other evidence presented. The judgments of validity&#xD;&#xA;are reversed, and therefore the judgments of infringement&#xD;&#xA;and damages are vacated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="0ef49714-bb00-4c30-a45a-7838c05d50bf" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:38:29.910" UserId="1767" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&#xD;&#xA;DataTern has Patent No. [5,937,402](http://www.google.com/patents/US5937402) on using objects to access a relational database. The patent was issued in 1999, and obviously people were using objects to access databases since the 80's.&#xD;&#xA;Basically, any software written in the past 15 years that access a database is likely violating this patent. This is true for Microsoft technologies, Java, SAP, etc. Here is its claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1\. A method for enabling an object oriented user application to access a relational database having one or more physical tables segmented into rows and columns, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * defining a logical table comprising a subset of columns from at least one of the one or more physical tables;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * designating one column of the logical table as a logical primary key column;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * forming a normalized relational schema object representing the logical table;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * generating, responsive to the normalized relational schema object, one or more object classes associated with the normalized relational schema object; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * employing an object of an object class including the one or more object classes associated with the normalized relational schema object and a respective corresponding logical primary key value to access data in the at least one of the physical tables in the relational database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for prior art that shows programmers used objects to access databases long before 1999." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10286" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="0ef49714-bb00-4c30-a45a-7838c05d50bf" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:38:29.910" UserId="1767" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Relational Database - Using Objects to Access A Relational Database (DataTern) - Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10287" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="0ef49714-bb00-4c30-a45a-7838c05d50bf" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:38:29.910" UserId="1767" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;data-processing-database&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;us5937402&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4399" RevisionGUID="7f799e8e-1e2e-46d2-b8c6-98f7ee75686a" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:43:37.900" UserId="15" Comment="Removed excess language, refined question" Text="There is a book from before the PC age that describes how to manually do something that could be done with software.  A number of websites describe how to do this manually still, though apparently no one has written the program.  Is automating a thoroughly described analogue process patentable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, is just moving an idea into the computer world original enough?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4390" RevisionGUID="93146e3d-566a-4a35-939f-e80080256590" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:47:13.863" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1191 characters in body; edited title" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON DATABASE VISUALIZATION** - This issued patent seeks to patent the idea of... detecting the user’s reading speed and controlling an electronic display! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent: **[US7089266][1]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Title: **Computer systems and methods for the query and visualization of multidimensional databases**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd be interested in prior art for this patent - seems absurdly broad to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before June, 2003** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for producing graphics comprising::&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. determining a hierarchical structure of a first database;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. constructing a visual table, comprised of a plurality of panes, by providing a specification that is in a language based on the hierarchical structure of the first database;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. querying the first database to retrieve a set of tuples in accordance with said specification;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. associating a subset of said set of tuples with a pane in said plurality of panes; and.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. encoding a tuple in said subset of tuples in said pane as a graphical mark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7089266" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10290" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4390" RevisionGUID="93146e3d-566a-4a35-939f-e80080256590" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:47:13.863" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1191 characters in body; edited title" Text="Database Visualization - Query and Visualization of Multidimensional Databases - Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4409" RevisionGUID="a4f5b192-afe2-49e1-937e-d055800403cd" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:50:53.253" UserId="4776" Text="Published at least as early as March 1, 1996: &quot;This paper...describes the bar's self-adaptive behavior of **displaying the frequency of each icon's use through the icon's size**.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Debevc, M., Meyer, B., Donlagic, D., &amp; Svecko, R. (1996). Design and evaluation of an adaptive icon toolbar. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 6, 1-21   &#xD;&#xA;http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00126652&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full article is behind a paywall.  The abstract explicitly teaches the &quot;displaying&quot; step and the &quot;changing&quot; step.  It does not explicitly teach the &quot;storing&quot; step, but the full article may. In any event, storing of values is inherent to sorting them, especially when expecting to sort the values again when they change. When prior art anticipates a claim except that it is silent as to an inherent characteristic, it may be used in a rejection under both 35 USC 102 and 103 (a &quot;102/103&quot; rejection).  *In re Best*, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977).  Thus, even if the full article does not explicitly teach the &quot;storing&quot; step, the abstract alone should be enough to reject claim 1 of the '833 application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="542" RevisionGUID="f70ec104-7186-4629-b80a-bb629c722d2b" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:56:07.273" UserId="1767" Comment="added 490 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON NETWORK SALES SYSTEMS** - This issued patent seeks to patent the idea of... using a computer to add items to a shopping cart! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent: **[US Patent No. 5,715,314](http://www.google.com/patents/US5715314)** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Title: **Network Sales System**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summary: Claims systems and methods that allow a buyer to purchase products online using a computer(!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before October, 1994** that covers each and every element in the system below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 34 describes a network-based sales system in which the buyer adds items to a “shopping cart” that is maintained in the seller’s online database and then receives a message to purchase the products.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 34. A network-based sales system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- at least one buyer computer for operation by a user desiring to buy products;&#xD;&#xA;-    at least one shopping cart computer; and&#xD;&#xA;-    a shopping cart database connected to said shopping cart computer;&#xD;&#xA;    said buyer computer and said shopping cart computer being interconnected by a computer network;&#xD;&#xA;-    said buyer computer being programmed to receive a plurality of requests from a user to add a plurality of respective products to a shopping cart in said shopping cart database, and, in response to said requests to add said products, to send a plurality of respective shopping cart messages to said shopping cart computer each of which comprises a product identifier identifying one of said plurality of products;&#xD;&#xA;-    said shopping cart computer being programmed to receive said plurality of shopping cart messages, to modify said shopping cart in said shopping cart database to reflect said plurality of requests to add said plurality of products to said shopping cart, and to cause a payment message associated with said shopping cart to be created; and&#xD;&#xA;-    said buyer computer being programmed to receive a request from said user to purchase said plurality of products added to said shopping cart and to cause said payment message to be activated to initiate a payment transaction for said plurality of products added to said shopping cart;&#xD;&#xA;-    said shopping cart being a stored representation of a collection of products, said shopping cart database being a database of stored representations of collections of products, and said shopping cart computer being a computer that modifies said stored representations of collections of products in said database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The priority date of the patent is October 24, 1994.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any prior art that describes using a computer to add items to a shopping cart via a computer network and then purchasing the products?  We are particularly interested in sources that describe how the shopping cart feature operated and how the payment message, if any, was sent to the buyer.  Any information about online shopping systems from the early 1990's would be helpful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10293" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="542" RevisionGUID="f70ec104-7186-4629-b80a-bb629c722d2b" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:56:07.273" UserId="1767" Comment="added 490 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Online Shopping - Network Sales System - Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10294" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="542" RevisionGUID="f70ec104-7186-4629-b80a-bb629c722d2b" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:56:07.273" UserId="1767" Comment="added 490 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;data-processing-financial&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;computers-support&gt;&lt;us5715314&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4410" RevisionGUID="05c1b1ad-99ea-44ca-81c5-e09a09177de3" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:02:54.360" UserId="4768" Text="I [found this PDF][1] title `Time and Location Based Reminder System` from the BVDU College of Engineering in Pune, India which looks like it was published in 2009. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The very last reference in the paper is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sohn T., Li. K. Lee, G. Smit, I. Scott J. Griswold, W. (205). Place - its Location - Based Reminders on Mobile Phones, Proc. Intl. Conf. on Ub.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bvucoepune.edu.in/pdf%27s/Research%20and%20Publication/Research%20Publications_2008-09/National%20Conference_2008-09/Time%20And%20Location%20Mr%20PR%20Devale.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4232" RevisionGUID="78cc1e59-27d6-43f8-99b4-fac0adec7c44" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:05:07.163" UserId="1767" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ELECTRONIC CALENDARS** - This application from [HTC][6] seeks to patent the idea of... calendar reminders based on location! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on Twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Aug 22, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating **EVENT REMINDERS** for a user; where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **EVENT REMINDERS** are based on **TRAVEL TIME** to a next event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **GPS**, **Traffic conditions**, **Walking time** to estimate travel time, or involves **contacting another individual** when it appears you will be late to a meeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: METHOD FOR REMINDING CALENDAR SCHEDULE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method in which a reminding message is provided in advance to a user according to the distance between the location of the user’s previous event and the location of an upcoming event, so that the user will not be late for the upcoming event.  Basically a standard iPhone reminder of “Your meeting with David Kappos will occur in {X} minutes”, where {X} is calculated in part by how long will be required for you to get to the event”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151143 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/761,161&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [HTC Corporation][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating August 22, 2008**&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for creating a calendar reminder, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Setting a first schedule and a first **location** of a first event in a calendar;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Obtaining first positioning information of a **current location** of the mobile apparatus during the first event according to the first schedule, and storing the first positioning information as event positioning information of the first location; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Retrieving the event positioning information for reminding the calendar schedule when the first location is set in a next event.d&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for creating a calendar reminder, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a 1st event on a calendar;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Using the current location of the user as the location of the 1st event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Creating a reminder for the next event based on the location of the next event and location of the 1st event.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the August, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and AND ALSO uses **GPS**, **Traffic conditions**, **Walking time** to estimate travel time, or involves **contacting another individual** when it appears you will be late to a meeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A method of creating event reminders&quot; screen shots from HTC**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/7X5oi.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151143?dq=US+20130151143+A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.htc.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4411" RevisionGUID="9adc9a94-7b41-4076-87bb-67d9ad2a3dbf" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:08:38.633" UserId="4806" Text="**Smart reminders**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Abstract*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Systems and methods for scheduling appointment reminders are based on multiple conditions including estimated travel time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see http://www.google.com/patents/US7925525&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Publication number	US7925525 B2&#xD;&#xA;- Publication type	Grant&#xD;&#xA;- Application number	US 11/089,870&#xD;&#xA;- Publication date	Apr 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- Filing date	Mar 25, 2005&#xD;&#xA;- Priority date	Mar 25, 2005&#xD;&#xA;- Also published as	US20060218029, US20110148632&#xD;&#xA;- Inventors	Peter G. Chin&#xD;&#xA;- Original Assignee	Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4412" RevisionGUID="91f85d54-35e2-4535-af1c-b7a7e0c5ce4d" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:12:34.980" UserId="4810" Text="Perhaps going to the original source project at the University may provide calls to the prior art needed.  Here is the first named inventor Chris Stolte's old Stanford web site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://graphics.stanford.edu/~cstolte/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly the diagrams from the patent in question look identical to what is shown in detail in a project at Stanford called &quot;Polaris.&quot;  Conveniently he describes the novel features and even states they don't think there is much new here except how the data is visually presented in the UI.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim #1 seems to be the meat of the patent claims.  It claims the systems queries a relational database, multi-sheet spreadsheet (hierarchical structure), constructs a UI table, and then shows the user multiple rows and columns of the data as a &quot;graphical mark&quot; aggregation in a new table/row type UI.  Optionally you can create tabs of data which they refer to as &quot;layers.&quot;  Basically instead of aggregating data via a pivot table and showing numbers this system will instead show icons in a position in a box on the UI.  You can see this visualization in this screen shot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://graphics.stanford.edu/projects/polaris/interface_full.gif&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might sort of recognize such a graph and wonder where you have seen it before.  I did and then it occurred to me it is a scatter plot matrix graph which is used very widely in financial analysis and the scientific community but probably not so much in business.  SAS Institute's software supports this kind of visualization and has for years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://support.sas.com/documentation/cdl/en/grstatproc/62603/HTML/default/viewer.htm#a003155769.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And SAS even supports an OLAP interface to Microsoft Excel.&#xD;&#xA;http://support.sas.com/documentation/cdl/en/whatsnew/64209/HTML/default/viewer.htm#amowhatsnew51.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further claims go on to state you can make changes to the color, size, shape, and symbol used which they previously called a &quot;graphical mark.&quot;  Nothing novel about that.  With further claims of using algebraic expressions to filter the data.  They can't be doing anything new much here since the data manipulation is going most likely be limited to what SQL and the OLAP or DBMS system can support.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stanford Polaris Project&#xD;&#xA;http://graphics.stanford.edu/projects/polaris/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following text is directly from the Stanford site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Over the last several years, we have been developing Polaris, an interface for exploring large multi-dimensional databases that extends the well-known Pivot Table interface first popularized by Microsoft Excel. The novel features of Polaris include an interface for constructing visual specifications of table-based graphical displays and the ability to generate a precise set of relational queries from the visual specifications. The visual specification can be rapidly and incrementally developed, giving the analyst visual feedback as they construct complex queries and visualizations.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Polaris interface is simple and expressive because it is built on top of a formalism for describing table-based graphical representations of relational databases. Specifications in this language are compiled by our interpreter into a set of efficient queries and drawing operations to generate displays.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4413" RevisionGUID="d98ec757-6c32-4afe-814e-80d3121aa95b" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:17:10.953" UserId="4806" Text="Steve Jobs internal demo of NeXTSTEP 3 (from 1992) demonstrating -- among other things -- writing an object oriented application interacting with a database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Database specific part is around 25 minutes in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gveTy4EmNyk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4414" RevisionGUID="e0a46e9e-f082-4d9d-9b91-b8f0187353c5" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:18:39.820" UserId="4816" Text="the att merlin pbx phone system did this in the 80's. You pushed a button, and the merlin phone on your desk made an escalating set of beeps in ever higher pitch, to calibrate the speakerphone. I'd bet that att has a patent on this, as merlin was designed in the shadows, if not during, divestiture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look for a manual for the att merlin bis in 88 or therebouts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4232" RevisionGUID="7c24310d-78f2-40e6-8a07-4eff9325ab9d" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:19:54.807" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ELECTRONIC CALENDARS** - This application from [HTC][6] seeks to patent the idea of... calendar reminders based on location! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on Twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Aug 22, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating **EVENT REMINDERS** for a user; where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **EVENT REMINDERS** are based on **TRAVEL TIME** to a next event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **GPS**, **Traffic conditions**, **Walking time** to estimate travel time, or involves **contacting another individual** when it appears you will be late to a meeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: METHOD FOR REMINDING CALENDAR SCHEDULE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method in which a reminding message is provided in advance to a user according to the distance between the location of the user’s previous event and the location of an upcoming event, so that the user will not be late for the upcoming event.  Basically a standard iPhone reminder of “Your meeting with David Kappos will occur in {X} minutes”, where {X} is calculated in part by how long will be required for you to get to the event”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151143 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/761,161&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [HTC Corporation][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating August 22, 2008**&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for creating a calendar reminder, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Setting a first schedule and a first **location** of a first event in a calendar;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Obtaining first positioning information of a **current location** of the mobile apparatus during the first event according to the first schedule, and storing the first positioning information as event positioning information of the first location; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Retrieving the event positioning information for reminding the calendar schedule when the first location is set in a next event.d&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for creating a calendar reminder, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a 1st event on a calendar;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Using the current location of the user as the location of the 1st event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Creating a reminder for the next event based on the location of the next event and location of the 1st event.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the August, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and AND ALSO uses **GPS**, **Traffic conditions**, **Walking time** to estimate travel time, or involves **contacting another individual** when it appears you will be late to a meeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A method of creating event reminders&quot; screen shots from HTC**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/7X5oi.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151143?dq=US+20130151143+A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.htc.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4320" RevisionGUID="1a3efb5a-d448-4721-adc9-df6d4b54ad98" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:25:39.880" UserId="16" Comment="test edit #2" Text="**Patent:** [U.S. Patent No. 6,330,592](http://www.google.com/patents/US6330592)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** Have you seen anything published **before Dec. 5, 1998** that discusses: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Tracking visitor interests according to what content they access&#xD;&#xA;2. Categorizing dynamically-generated content according to categories of interests&#xD;&#xA;3. Caching dynamically-generated content and serving cached versions to subsequent users who exhibit those interests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 is representative and claims &quot;A method of customizing a web site, said method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. labeling content of the web site;&#xD;&#xA;2. when at least one visitor accesses the content of a web site, registering the labeled accessed content in a personalized data file;&#xD;&#xA;4. storing the data file for the at least one visitor;&#xD;&#xA;5. generating at least one pre-customized display for a first visitor;&#xD;&#xA;6. caching the at least one pre-customized displays on the server computer;&#xD;&#xA;7. displaying the at least one pre-customized display to the first visitor;&#xD;&#xA;8. analyzing the data file of a second visitor and associating the second visitor with the at least one pre-customized display, wherein analyzing is performed after generating; and&#xD;&#xA;9. displaying the at least one pre-customized display to the second visitor, wherein the at least one pre-customized display is not regenerated before displaying the at least one pre-customized display to the second visitor.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Pre-customized display**&quot; means *pre-associated with some category or other means of tracking visitor interests*. The rest is all **fairly close to plain English**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Claim 11&#xD;&#xA;Claim 11 is probably the broadest; and so the easiest to find prior art for. It claims &quot;A computer readable memory that can direct a web site server computer to function in a specified manner, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. visitor files stored in said computer memory of said web site server computer;&#xD;&#xA;2. pre-customized web content items stored in said computer memory of said web site server computer; and&#xD;&#xA;3. executable instructions stored in said computer memory of said web site server computer, said executable instructions including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    a. instructions to access an existing visitor file for a visitor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    b. instructions to review data in existing visitor file to determine visitor preferences; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    c. instructions, based on said visitor preferences, to provide pre-customized files to visitor.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Term that need clarification:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **visitor file**: A file on the server that tracks visitor preferences and interests.&#xD;&#xA;- **web content item**: The spec has defined this very broadly, encompassing &quot;Any item that can be accessed and viewed by a visitor, such as an entire web page, a component of a web page, an insertion into a web page or a graphic link.  Web Content Items can be defined through a markup language, including, but not limited to, HTML.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- **pre-customized**: means the same thing it did in Claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ideally, prior art will embody each of the limitations (list items) for one of the claims above.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4415" RevisionGUID="f582f1a1-37ed-47ff-906a-1de2680b63e8" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:26:04.457" UserId="3503" Text="Loads on this. I'm quite sure I've seen pictures in a 10 year old phd thesis with a foam spaced RFID tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Existing EU Patent [EP 2206077 B1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In embodiments, the spacer material comprises (consists essentially of or even, consists of) a foam, such as a polymethacrylimide foam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This white paper][2] from 2009:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One solution used in the past has been to reduce the effects of interference by adding a “spacer” made from high air-content material such as foam. Spacers are typically 5 mm thick or more, and they separate the RFID tag from the interfering material with enough distance to mitigate the disruption of the electromagnetic field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This Paper][3] (pdf published 2007)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We tested three different ways of improving the performance of RFID.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1) Using a spacer between the transponder and metal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Since all concern is due to the metal being in background of the transponder, its distance from the metal is increased by introducing a 10 mm thick Perspex® spacer between them. It is indeed found that there is a huge improvement in performance of RFID&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/EP2206077B1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.danbygroup.com/uploads/docs/RFID_Tag_On-Metal_Technology_WhitePaper.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://cogentee.coventry.ac.uk/~jamesb/publications/IEEE-WCNC2007-arora.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4416" RevisionGUID="0c259231-8c1e-4b30-9f1a-4948c8ba2382" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:27:49.317" UserId="4806" Text="BOSE ADAPTiQ System&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does the ADAPTiQ audio calibration system work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Measures&#xD;&#xA;The system evaluates your room's acoustics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Adjusts&#xD;&#xA;Then it **automatically customizes the sound** to fit your room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Optimizes&#xD;&#xA;You enjoy performance customized to your room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.bose.com/popup/tech_details/pop_adaptiq_page1.jsp&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure when this was first used, but here's some folks discussing it back in 2004&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/general-av-discussions/3894-bose-adaptiq-enters-room-calibration-arena.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4418" RevisionGUID="4695075d-ac50-4953-83e3-fe155eeecc1f" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:35:05.157" UserId="4785" Text="It seems one of the authors (Jonathan Hui) submitted the idea underlying the patent to a IEEE working group prior to filing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Email from May 5, 2011][1] - links to a &quot;presentation in the WNG session for a call for 802.1X support&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [presentation][2] by Jonathan Hui and Wei Hong of Cisco System is also dated May 5, 2011, title: &quot;Problem statement and Call to action for supporting 802.1x over 802.15.4&quot;, submitted to IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Slide 8 of the presentation pretty much wraps up the patent. It is virtually identical to fig. 3 of the patent. There is the joining device (supplicant), EAPOLAN (EAPoL over 15.4), authenticated device (enforcement point), IP Tunnel (EAPoL Tunnel over IP), Field Area Router (Authenticator), and Authentication Server&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lowpan/current/msg03367.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: &#xD;&#xA;https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/11/15-11-0400-00-wng0-802-1x-over-802-15-4.ppt" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4419" RevisionGUID="b1ed2bfd-2184-4a7f-8be6-e567fb16e996" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:35:12.437" UserId="4763" Text="This patent seems like the natural (to me) extension of Expect to a GUI--and I'm guessing it wasn't the first time that principle was applied.  It seems like it covers any sort of remote programmatic interaction with a machine too, which sure seems broad to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the patent itself: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&amp;r=2&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PTXT&amp;S1=7,870,504&amp;OS=7,870,504&amp;RS=7,870,504" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10309" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4419" RevisionGUID="b1ed2bfd-2184-4a7f-8be6-e567fb16e996" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:35:12.437" UserId="4763" Text="Prior art for patent #7,870,504 for controlling a remote computer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10310" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4419" RevisionGUID="b1ed2bfd-2184-4a7f-8be6-e567fb16e996" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:35:12.437" UserId="4763" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10311" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4419" RevisionGUID="967a69b9-eace-49d3-a1a4-c1698e7d3f0f" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:37:52.413" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us7870504&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4420" RevisionGUID="ef0a4793-ed26-4edb-8092-e461563f46b7" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:39:57.940" UserId="4826" Text="Status indicators like perhaps those in Big Brother and other tools used for the network operations center (NOC) space are likely candidates to express this kind of behavior. Process control systems overall like to show current status and indicate flow volumes or energy expended in various eye-catching ways. I don't believe I saw an exact match of this in the early 80's in process control systems I worked on, but there were several competing systems at that time that used character graphics to support their status display rendering repertoire; some of the characters were programmable and icon-like in behavior." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4421" RevisionGUID="9bcd2849-7441-4a18-8b62-28bebc9e814e" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:40:21.143" UserId="4827" Text="An over-broad patent attempting to patent all dynamic selection of caller id's when used in any-type of call center. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__QUESTION__ Have you seen anything published prior __October 20, 2005__ discussing selecting, replacing, or choosing the best caller id for a particular communication, especially when the caller id is selected, replaced or choosen based on other crieteria (such as the destination number or other information known about the person being called). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Title: System and method for modifying communication information (mci)__&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Summary:__ A system for sending a call where the caller id is selected based on known information about the caller (either geographic or otherwise).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - __Publication Number:__ [US20130070918 A1](https://www.google.com/patents/US20130070918?dq=Nobelbiz&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=6J3uUaSPC4WSiAKQiYHADw&amp;ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - __Publication Type:__ Application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - __Application Number:__ US 13/676,546&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - __Assignee:__ [NobelBiz](http://www.nobelbiz.com) / See their labors here: [Justia](http://www.justia.com/search.py?cx=001017683474852908061%3Aoct7h3tcday&amp;q=nobelbiz&amp;cof=FORID%3A11)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Seeking prior art pre October 20, 2005&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 11. A system for handling an outbound call from a call originator to a call target, the &gt; system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a database storing a plurality of outgoing telephone numbers, each outgoing telephone number having one of two or more area codes; and&#xD;&#xA;an information processor controlled by the call originator and configured to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a) process a trigger comprising at least an area code of a telephone number of the call target;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b) select from the database a telephone number from the plurality of outgoing telephone numbers where the selected telephone number has at least an area code the same as the area code of the telephone number of the call target;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; c) set caller identification data of the outbound call to the selected telephone number; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  d) transmit the caller identification data to the call target in connection with the outbound call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me this seems like basically a look up table for caller id's based on some parameters. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10314" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4421" RevisionGUID="9bcd2849-7441-4a18-8b62-28bebc9e814e" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:40:21.143" UserId="4827" Text="Caller ID Selection -- Prior Art Request" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10315" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4421" RevisionGUID="9bcd2849-7441-4a18-8b62-28bebc9e814e" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:40:21.143" UserId="4827" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;telecommunications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="fa5d2b10-3834-4f58-ba8a-e7d657029e0e" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:40:54.503" UserId="4806" Text="&gt; AOLserver allows caching of dynamic content...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This appears to be from 1996.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://aolserver.am.net/docs/2.3/tadp-ch5.htm#13855" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10319" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4320" RevisionGUID="42dbfdb2-e51b-41b9-8682-6a63007d1766" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:47:14.207" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;us6330592&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4320" RevisionGUID="42dbfdb2-e51b-41b9-8682-6a63007d1766" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:47:14.207" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON CUSTOMIZING A WEBSITE** - This issued patent seeks to patent the idea of... building a user profile by watching user behavior on a website! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on Twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Patent:** [U.S. Patent No. 6,330,592](http://www.google.com/patents/US6330592)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** Have you seen anything published **before Dec. 5, 1998** that discusses: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Tracking visitor interests according to what content they access&#xD;&#xA;2. Categorizing dynamically-generated content according to categories of interests&#xD;&#xA;3. Caching dynamically-generated content and serving cached versions to subsequent users who exhibit those interests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 is representative and claims &quot;A method of customizing a web site, said method comprising&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. labeling content of the web site;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. when at least one visitor accesses the content of a web site, registering the labeled accessed content in a personalized data file;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. storing the data file for the at least one visitor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. generating at least one pre-customized display for a first visitor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. caching the at least one pre-customized displays on the server computer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. displaying the at least one pre-customized display to the first visitor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. analyzing the data file of a second visitor and associating the second visitor with the at least one pre-customized display, wherein analyzing is performed after generating; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. displaying the at least one pre-customized display to the second visitor, wherein the at least one pre-customized display is not regenerated before displaying the at least one pre-customized display to the second visitor.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**SPECIAL NOTE:** &quot;**Pre-customized display**&quot; means **pre-associated with some category or other means of tracking visitor interests**. The rest is all **fairly close to plain English**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Claim 11&#xD;&#xA;Claim 11 is probably the broadest; and so the easiest to find prior art for. It claims &quot;A computer readable memory that can direct a web site server computer to function in a specified manner, comprising&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. visitor files stored in said computer memory of said web site server computer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. pre-customized web content items stored in said computer memory of said web site server computer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. executable instructions stored in said computer memory of said web site server computer, said executable instructions including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    a. instructions to access an existing visitor file for a visitor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    b. instructions to review data in existing visitor file to determine visitor preferences; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    c. instructions, based on said visitor preferences, to provide pre-customized files to visitor.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**SPECIAL NOTE** Term that need clarification:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **visitor file**: A file on the server that tracks visitor preferences and interests.&#xD;&#xA;- **web content item**: The spec has defined this very broadly, encompassing &quot;Any item that can be accessed and viewed by a visitor, such as an entire web page, a component of a web page, an insertion into a web page or a graphic link.  Web Content Items can be defined through a markup language, including, but not limited to, HTML.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- **pre-customized**: means the same thing it did in Claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Ideally, prior art will embody each of the limitations (list items) for one of the claims above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA; [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4423" RevisionGUID="8831d3f2-40f7-4347-bfc2-4e2085cb01b2" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:49:38.417" UserId="4834" Text="The IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing paper &quot;**Position Calibration of Microphones and Loudspeakers in Distributed**&quot; Computing Platforms by *Raykar, Kozintsev and Lienhart* describes the same technique in a very slightly different, more general context of a group of laptops in a room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/labs/cvl/pirl/vikas/publications/raykar_IEEETSAP_2005.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4424" RevisionGUID="8f5e104f-b4cb-4042-85a7-9fff9c6200cb" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:50:19.013" UserId="3076" Text="This is a particular way of accomplishing the remote monitoring of the contents of a GUI interface involving the remote system analyzing the **bit map image** of the system being monitored. I think other systems get a much higher level representation of the screen and don't need to do pattern matching to know what is going on at the other end." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10323" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4320" RevisionGUID="42dbfdb2-e51b-41b9-8682-6a63007d1766" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:47:14.207" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="Website Customization - Caching dynamically-generated websites - Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST—" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4425" RevisionGUID="30954379-2d75-4290-a0fb-145e101ea4c1" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:53:35.420" UserId="4837" Text="The GPL software PhotoRec does just about everything mentioned in the software patent: http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/PhotoRec , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhotoRec&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PhotoRec looks at the raw data on disk.  For example, if it sees a JPEG (certain application) header, it looks around nearby -- possibly scanning past a comment -- for the end of the header, actual photo data, and footer.  It then recovers the files.  PhotoRec also does similar things for other files types, has user-selectable options, and can scan free space on a disk (patent: &quot;marked as being available for storing new data&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The public domain software Foremost and its successor Scalpel, are similar:  http://foremost.sourceforge.net/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea of allowing the data to be slightly off and letting the user determine a threshold of similarity is a very common technique going by many names such as &quot;fuzzy hashing/searching&quot; (http://computer-forensics.sans.org/summit-archives/2010/eu-digital-forensics-incident-response-summit-jesse-kornblum-beyond-fuzzy-hashing.pdf).  It is implemented by most virus-scanning software at a low level -- see http://www.google.com/patents/us7284273 which specifically uses the term &quot;number of allowed mismatches.&quot;  In the virus-scan scenario, &quot;desired applications&quot; are executable files, and vulnerable applications such as Word scripting language interpreters, etc.  Virus scanners often let you decide where to search and how strict they operate.  They often scan raw memory which is a form of &quot;suitable data storage&quot; which has space &quot;marked as available for new data&quot; as mentioned in the patent, as well as files on disk." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4426" RevisionGUID="833a7439-a199-4d32-bff4-32214de00830" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:54:38.903" UserId="4840" Text="This patent reminded me of when people screen-scrape video games and remotely play them...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.joystiq.com/2009/08/13/computer-script-plays-super-mario-world-by-itself/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4427" RevisionGUID="b00be402-ab3b-4497-875d-22acf027c2d4" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:55:41.977" UserId="4835" Text="This (broad) patent seems to be VNC, originally released by ORL in 1998.  Information about this can be found in IEEE Internet Computing Volume 2, Number 1, a pdf of which can be found http://www.qandr.org/files/vnc-ieee.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="517e3b13-d238-4925-88f7-ff7cec19bbf5" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:55:57.573" UserId="4806" Comment="added 257 characters in body" Text="&gt; AOLserver allows caching of dynamic content...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This appears to be from 1996.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://aolserver.am.net/docs/2.3/tadp-ch5.htm#13855&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CGI::Cache - Perl extension to help cache output of time-intensive CGI&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scripts so that subsequent visits to such scripts will not cost as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; much time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from 1998/06/18&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://metacpan.org/module/BROCSEIB/CGI-Cache-0.99/Cache.pm&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4428" RevisionGUID="f6d2d1f3-fb91-4a0d-9c21-a1bac8c41787" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:57:12.147" UserId="4845" Text="The JBL MSC1 Monitor System Controller with Room Mode Correction has done this prior to 2011.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.jblpro.com/MSC1/MSC1_Overview.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The JBL LSR4300 has the Room Mode Correction feature and has been shipping prior to 2008.  The following spec sheet is dated 2008.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.jblpro.com/BackOffice/ProductAttachments/LSR4300brochurelow.pdf &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This spec sheet is Copyright 2006 with the Room Mode Correction.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.jblpro.com/BackOffice/ProductAttachments/LSR4312SP[1].pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4429" RevisionGUID="65c9e10c-839e-4dc9-8265-df8d8e9d6460" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:59:17.037" UserId="4848" Text="As User4816 points our above for AT&amp;T phones, Avaya analog phones do this too.  The 8410, for example, manual says &quot;When you reset the speakerphone on your voice terminal, you hear a set of tones as the speakerphone performs an acoustic test of the environment. When the tones stop, your speakerphone has finished adjusting itself for optimal performance and is ready for use.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(http://www.manualslib.com/manual/212650/Avaya-Definity-8410.html?page=37#manual)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The manual is dated June 1997." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4430" RevisionGUID="26650b4d-8e0e-4d08-936c-d7bdb7b23bbb" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:59:33.653" UserId="4849" Text="It is hard to follow all of the claims, but I think Timbuktu invalidates a bunch of them in the 1980s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbuktu_%28software%29  Also, PCAnywahere from Norton, and McAfee had one as well who's name escapes me.  These all came to prominence in the 90s so well within the scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going through the Wikipida List of RD software by year may be able to knock out a lot more.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_remote_desktop_software" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4421" RevisionGUID="c87d2300-fb71-44e4-977f-f258dbba8bb6" CreationDate="2013-07-23T16:02:29.750" UserId="1767" Comment="added 505 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="E-Readers - Reader Speed Controlling Electronic Display (Qualcomm) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An over-broad, ALLOWED patent attempting to patent all dynamic selection of caller id's when used in any-type of call center. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__QUESTION__ Have you seen anything published prior __October 20, 2005__ discussing selecting, replacing, or choosing the best caller id for a particular communication, especially when the caller id is selected, replaced or choosen based on other crieteria (such as the destination number or other information known about the person being called). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Title: System and method for modifying communication information (mci)__&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Summary:__ A system for sending a call where the caller id is selected based on known information about the caller (either geographic or otherwise).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - __Publication Number:__ [US 20130070918 A1](https://www.google.com/patents/US20130070918?dq=Nobelbiz&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=6J3uUaSPC4WSiAKQiYHADw&amp;ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - __Publication Type:__ Allowed Patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - __Application Number:__ US 13/676,546&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - __Assignee:__ [NobelBiz](http://www.nobelbiz.com) / See their labors here: [Justia](http://www.justia.com/search.py?cx=001017683474852908061%3Aoct7h3tcday&amp;q=nobelbiz&amp;cof=FORID%3A11)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Seeking prior art pre October 20, 2005&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 11. A system for handling an outbound call from a call originator to a call target, the &gt; system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a database storing a plurality of outgoing telephone numbers, each outgoing telephone number having one of two or more area codes; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an information processor controlled by the call originator and configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a. process a trigger comprising at least an area code of a telephone number of the call target;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b. select from the database a telephone number from the plurality of outgoing telephone numbers where the selected telephone number has at least an area code the same as the area code of the telephone number of the call target;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; c. set caller identification data of the outbound call to the selected telephone number; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; d. transmit the caller identification data to the call target in connection with the outbound call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me this seems like basically a look up table for caller id's based on some parameters. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the patent has been [allowed][2] by USPTO.  Under the AIA it is not be possible to submit prior art under the pre-grant process used by Ask Patents.  Prior art which is found below would need to submitted under the six-month post-grant process.  (This could be done by a company or an individual.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Allowed patent application][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/OCl6c.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.patentexpress.com/patent-drafting-video/what-is-notice-of-allowance_55_5.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10332" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4421" RevisionGUID="c87d2300-fb71-44e4-977f-f258dbba8bb6" CreationDate="2013-07-23T16:02:29.750" UserId="1767" Comment="added 505 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Caller ID Selection (NobelBiz) - Allowed Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10333" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4421" RevisionGUID="c87d2300-fb71-44e4-977f-f258dbba8bb6" CreationDate="2013-07-23T16:02:29.750" UserId="1767" Comment="added 505 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;telecommunications&gt;&lt;us20130070918&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4431" RevisionGUID="6ea2658f-b8a8-4e0a-b9f9-1253479819ae" CreationDate="2013-07-23T16:09:18.047" UserId="4511" Text="Lodsys has [four patents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lodsys#Patents):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - U.S. Patent [5,999,908](http://www.google.com/patents/US5999908) (The &quot;908&quot; patent) &quot;Customer-based product&#xD;&#xA;   design module&quot; &#xD;&#xA; - U.S. Patent [7,133,834](http://www.google.com/patents/US7133834) (The &quot;834&quot; patent) &quot;Product Value Information Interchange Server&quot; &#xD;&#xA; - U.S. Patent [7,222,078](http://www.google.com/patents/US7222078) (The &quot;078&quot; patent) &quot;Methods and Systems for Gathering Information from Units of a Commodity Across a Network&quot; &#xD;&#xA; - U.S. Patent [7,620,565](http://www.google.com/patents/US7620565) (The&#xD;&#xA;   &quot;565&quot; patent) &quot;Customer-based product design module&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4432" RevisionGUID="e94f0f56-1451-48ce-95b5-4cb6f9412a67" CreationDate="2013-07-23T16:12:22.080" UserId="4855" Text="Automatic corrective loudspeaker equalization has been available in the professional audio industry since at least 1989 from Peavey Electronics Corporation. Here is a manual for a product called the CEQ 28.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.peavey.com/assets/literature/manuals/80301183.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The CEQ 28 is a stand alone single channel equalizer that is microprocessor controlled. You can connect a microphone to this device and have it automatically equalize the loudspeaker's response in the room according to the room's environment. The method to do this is described on page 19 of the above PDF. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the original dbx DriveRack PA provided a similar feature in the early 2000's, but I have been unable to find a date when it was introduced. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10336" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4320" RevisionGUID="95cd3845-24d3-42a0-89e6-4445243a7e5f" CreationDate="2013-07-23T16:12:44.687" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Website Customization — Caching dynamically-generated websites — Issued Patent — PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4433" RevisionGUID="ed5ce45c-1793-4503-ab3d-92ffdf0e5d14" CreationDate="2013-07-23T16:17:18.707" UserId="4859" Text="The EQ1 (or if the spelling is &quot;EQ One&quot;, who know after all these years) AFAIK did this back in 1985/86. Maybe less automatic, but still the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not like this claimed &quot;invention&quot; allows both gain response curves and sub-microsecond delays on every frequency from 20 to 40kHz - that would _potentially_ be an invention, but as I have now listed it here, it's forever prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This &quot;patent&quot; seems to be more like a crappy auto-EQ any moron with a mic, sampler, DSP (or even just an A/D) and a 2 day course in BASIC could do. Maybe 2 days experience with BASIC is too much." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4434" RevisionGUID="27650dd4-1c4a-45b3-970f-aecbe06fb894" CreationDate="2013-07-23T16:18:50.013" UserId="4849" Text="If you take &quot;mesh&quot; out of the equation, and just look at security and encryption over wireless, it make the &quot;mesh&quot; portion an obvious extension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Microsoft has &quot;**A Mechanism for Communication-Efficient Broadcast Encryption Over Wireless Ad Hoc Networks**&quot; at http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=102087&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A forum discussion from 2005 &quot;**VPN over WiFi: How Much of a Security Risk?**&quot; might help as well. http://www.wirelessforums.org/alt-computer-security/vpn-over-wifi-how-much-security-risk-4610.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4419" RevisionGUID="13de809e-cd7b-42c3-bc21-889bc1ceb173" CreationDate="2013-07-23T16:19:32.730" UserId="1767" Comment="added 2147 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON COMPUTER MONITORING** - This issued patent seeks to patent the idea of... controlling a remote computer! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on Twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent seems like the natural (to me) extension of Expect to a GUI--and I'm guessing it wasn't the first time that principle was applied.  It seems like it covers any sort of remote programmatic interaction with a machine too, which sure seems broad to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Patent**: **[7,870,504][1]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title** Method for monitoring a graphical user interface on a second computer display from a first computer &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for using a first computer system to remotely monitor and interact with the operation of a second computer system through a graphical user interface of said second computer system, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a bitmap image of said second computer system graphical user interface at said first computer system;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. searching said bitmap image of said second computer system graphical user interface for a first graphical element contained within and comprising less than said bitmap image through an automated execution of said first computer system commands;&#xD;&#xA;responsive to said receiving step and results of said searching step, generating a user peripheral input device input action within said second computer system graphical user interface as interpreted by said second computer by automatically creating and passing a signal through a communications channel from said first computer system to said second computer system graphical user interface;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. monitoring said bitmap image of said second computer system graphical user interface automatically from said first computer system for an expected second graphical element contained within and comprising less than said bitmap image within a predetermined time interval; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. signaling a failure at said first computer system if said predetermined time interval elapses without detecting said expected second graphical element&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]:  http://www.google.com/patents/us7870504&#xD;&#xA; [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA; [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10340" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4419" RevisionGUID="13de809e-cd7b-42c3-bc21-889bc1ceb173" CreationDate="2013-07-23T16:19:32.730" UserId="1767" Comment="added 2147 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Computer monitoring — controlling a remote computer — Issued Patent — PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10341" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4419" RevisionGUID="13de809e-cd7b-42c3-bc21-889bc1ceb173" CreationDate="2013-07-23T16:19:32.730" UserId="1767" Comment="added 2147 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;us7870504&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4435" RevisionGUID="895fd3b0-1e22-456a-8ab0-38ccc5c02de7" CreationDate="2013-07-23T16:26:48.887" UserId="4862" Text="I refer you to the GUIDE TO TAKING THE WRITTEN TEST FOR ENTRY-LEVEL TELEPHONE OPERATOR SERIES, published by the New York State Department of Civil Services, Albany NY, dated 1999.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.monroecounty.gov/p/dhr-guide-operator.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On page 4, the section entitled &quot;Using a Directory&quot; states &quot;You will be provided with a telephone directory and a list of changes, and you will be asked to incorporate name and/or room changes into the directory. You will be asked to answer questions such as those that would be asked by callers about the information contained in the directory listing.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Directory is a list of names, room numbers, and extensions.  The List of Changes In Effect Today states temporary modifications to the Directory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sample question asks, &quot;Given the directory and list of changes shown, to which of the following extensions should a call for Mark Evans be directed?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That seems very similar to the process of selecting an outbound caller ID based on the phone number of the target." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4436" RevisionGUID="99d7913b-6248-4b8a-b31a-de5cc44b597b" CreationDate="2013-07-23T16:34:27.710" UserId="4868" Text="Apple's dock icons could be said to be already using this technology, which would constitute prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on activity, dock icons can be &quot;badged&quot; with a number. This badging changes the appearance. The number might indicate pending activities (such as incoming email), or other things. The important part is &quot;other things&quot;, because what the number represents is entirely up to the programmer of a particular application. I have no doubt that some programs alter the badge number based on &quot;frequency of use&quot;. I do not know of a specific example but it should not be too hard to find one.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4437" RevisionGUID="af4e130f-b8da-4f55-8dea-ef50e984e36f" CreationDate="2013-07-23T16:41:14.203" UserId="4862" Text="The Squid open-source HTTP proxy seems to offer a similar functionality...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Squid is a fully-featured HTTP/1.0 proxy which is almost (but not quite - we're getting there!) a fully-featured HTTP/1.1 proxy. Squid offers a rich access control, authorization and logging environment to develop web proxy and content serving applications. Squid offers a rich set of traffic optimization options, most of which are enabled by default for simpler installation and high performance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where did Squid come from?&#xD;&#xA;Squid is based on the Harvest Cache Daemon developed in the early 1990's.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.squid-cache.org/Intro/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Harvest Cache&#xD;&#xA;A Heirarchical Internet Object Cache suited to HTTP&#xD;&#xA;http://grahammitchell.com/harvest/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...As a result, there has been an attempt to retrofit caches for internet information system servers like the popular CERN proxy-http cache. One recently developed cache which deserves further examination is the Harvest cache, which boasts improved performance of an order of magnitude over the CERN cache and even over popular http daemons like Netscape's Netsite and NCSA's 1.4 httpd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Harvest cache is a heirarchical &quot;internet object&quot; proxy-cache developed jointly by researchers at USC and the University of Colorado in Boulder in the latter part of 1995.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4438" RevisionGUID="ed67237e-c94f-4e4f-a8f6-4a6fbb8c9d6b" CreationDate="2013-07-23T16:44:31.417" UserId="4878" Text="There is an industry leading test automation product that has been doing this for at least 10 years.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.testplant.com/eggplant/testing-tools/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4439" RevisionGUID="846b0620-fd5f-4a48-ada2-ad3f19b6c4fb" CreationDate="2013-07-23T16:48:32.693" UserId="4880" Text="This is also similar to http://www.bostonsoftwaresystems.com/Products/Boston-WorkStation, although it operates remotely rather than running on the same computer as the software that is being automated.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4440" RevisionGUID="13ed6492-e30a-493b-a46c-a6d0bebe0fb1" CreationDate="2013-07-23T16:55:04.353" UserId="4869" Text="Clipper 5.x (1990 through and Clipper VO (Dec 1995) were object-oriented RDBMS languages. While the &quot;OO-ness&quot; of Clipper 5.0 is debated, that of Clipper VO is not. That said, the concepts introduced by Clipper 5.0 may qualify as prior art.  http://www.thocp.net/software/languages/clipper.htm &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another relevant branch is Ingres-Postgres-Illustra. Illustra (both a company and product name) was formed in 1991-92 and will be able to demonstrate prior art at least that far back. &#xD;&#xA;http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/PostgreSQL/&#xD;&#xA;http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/Informix/informix.illustra_information_asset_management.102653331.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cheers,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eli." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4441" RevisionGUID="d656ec02-c248-4c73-bba9-f01fa5971e73" CreationDate="2013-07-23T17:00:28.900" UserId="4886" Text="I would suggest Looking at X-windows as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-windows&#xD;&#xA;This has been around since 1984.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4442" RevisionGUID="2677dfaf-320a-4de1-8a63-c77a7f64858c" CreationDate="2013-07-23T17:00:47.137" UserId="4885" Text="Somebody already mentioned [Commotion Wireless][1], but I thought that linking to their [first substantial source code commit on 10 December 2010][2] at Github would provide corroborating evidence that they'd begun work on this project prior to the date on the patent filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://commotionwireless.net/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://github.com/opentechinstitute/commotion-openwrt/commit/cbecde5e0d04aa2da018c349af8b9d66af68bef8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4443" RevisionGUID="1e8fc584-53b2-4a10-b242-492e06dbfba9" CreationDate="2013-07-23T17:06:12.847" UserId="4881" Text="A double space has historically been used as a way to indicate the end of a sentence, and is not a novel new user input method:&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_spacing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was used in both manual typesetting and typewriters.  I still type that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A pair of consecutive spaces has no other grammatical meaning in the English language (common or not, that I know of).  Therefore, if a user types two spaces in a row, it is nothing more than spelling/grammar correction if the software responds by adding the missing period and capitalizing the following word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether the software is also set to adapt to a single-space convention by removing the extra space is an issue of writing style correction, no different than if a word processor is set to correct a state abbreviation from N.Y. to NY.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Unfortunately, this website refuses to display my double spaces.  I swear they are here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4444" RevisionGUID="a9073052-a44b-4181-a51a-e2121acb9e0f" CreationDate="2013-07-23T17:09:52.773" UserId="4892" Text="Blood sugar monitors would seem to fit into this category.  Put a bit of blood onto the test strip, insert test strip into monitor, and get your feedback instantly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would one of the oxygen sensors that gets put over your fingernail (reads optically) fit this as well?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4410" RevisionGUID="0a2aece1-f0eb-49ae-adf5-0955208d5fd6" CreationDate="2013-07-23T17:11:37.617" UserId="4768" Comment="Added TimeSpot to answer" Text="I [found this PDF][1] title `Time and Location Based Reminder System` from the BVDU College of Engineering in Pune, India which looks like it was published in 2009. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The very last reference in the paper is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sohn T., Li. K. Lee, G. Smit, I. Scott J. Griswold, W. (205). Place - its Location - Based Reminders on Mobile Phones, Proc. Intl. Conf. on Ub.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[TimeSpot][2] is about location based alerts. For example not alerting you that you have a meeting when you are at said meeting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bvucoepune.edu.in/pdf%27s/Research%20and%20Publication/Research%20Publications_2008-09/National%20Conference_2008-09/Time%20And%20Location%20Mr%20PR%20Devale.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://annarouben.com/papers/TimeSpot_final_report.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4445" RevisionGUID="51f9f7c5-f5ed-49c8-a877-695ba8bf874f" CreationDate="2013-07-23T17:13:52.040" UserId="4894" Text="*Persistence software: bridging object-oriented programming and relational databases*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Building object oriented applications which access relational&#xD;&#xA;data introduces a number of technical issues for developers&#xD;&#xA;who are making the transition to C++. We describe these&#xD;&#xA;issues and discuss how we have addressed them in&#xD;&#xA;Persistence, an application development tool that uses an&#xD;&#xA;automatic code generator to merge C++ applications with&#xD;&#xA;relational data. We use client-side caching to provide the&#xD;&#xA;application program with efficient access to the data.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Published in:&#xD;&#xA;· Proceeding&#xD;&#xA;SIGMOD '93 Proceedings of the 1993 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data&#xD;&#xA;Pages 523-528 &#xD;&#xA;ACM New York, NY, USA ©1993 &#xD;&#xA;ISBN:0-89791-592-5 doi&gt;10.1145/170035.171541&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;· Newsletter&#xD;&#xA;ACM SIGMOD Record&#xD;&#xA;Volume 22 Issue 2, June 1, 1993 &#xD;&#xA;Pages 523-528 &#xD;&#xA;ACM New York, NY, USA &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ftp://db.stanford.edu/pub/public_html/keller/1993/sigmod-93-persistence-demo.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4446" RevisionGUID="ecb409af-fbf6-408a-859e-1ab1e661033b" CreationDate="2013-07-23T17:15:22.660" UserId="4895" Text="I'm having trouble deciding whether this is too broad or actually too narrow to be worth attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You take the bitmap of computer 2's screen and send it to computer 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You search the bitmap on computer 1 for a given graphical element (without displaying the bitmap!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first computer then sends a UI event to the second computer and waits for graphical confirmation, flagging an error on computer 1 if said graphical confirmation is not found within a specified time interval.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Isn't this a case of taking a few well-established techniques and chaining them together? That can't possible be patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4447" RevisionGUID="299f5ca9-89e2-4ca4-817f-7dc54211ed0a" CreationDate="2013-07-23T17:18:01.973" UserId="4897" Text="In 2007, the WiLDNet group at Berkeley published a paper using Wi-Fi with directional antennas (multiple antennas per site) to create a long-distance (extended range) wireless network. They call it &quot;high-throughput&quot; but in reality it essentially meets your low rate specs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/nsdi07/tech/full_papers/patra/patra.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2009, UCLA published a paper that used a mesh sensor networks to achieve long-range links. http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~clay/PDF/Martin_Lukac_Paper2.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This 2004 survey may also prove useful: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389128604003457&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4448" RevisionGUID="d08677a0-2544-43cc-8e58-226d5cc0889e" CreationDate="2013-07-23T17:21:15.583" UserId="4485" Text="I don't agree that this is overly broad. I also don't think this is simply VNC or other remote desktop tools. Those don't do bitmap analysis/pattern recognition on a remote PC.  This sounds very specific to testing, and a poor way to do it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leading solutions in this field typically run an agent on the test target, and access the UI API directly rather than relying on image recognition techniques which are far more complicated and probably less reliable.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4418" RevisionGUID="2d09464e-4424-4416-9e15-70e489e2c7ab" CreationDate="2013-07-23T17:27:54.793" UserId="4785" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="It seems one of the authors (Jonathan Hui) submitted the idea underlying the patent to a IEEE working group prior to filing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Email from May 5, 2011][1] - links to a &quot;presentation in the WNG session for a call for 802.1X support&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [presentation][2] is by Jonathan Hui and Wei Hong of Cisco System, uploaded to mentor.ieee.org, dated May 5, 2011. Title: &quot;Problem statement and Call to action for supporting 802.1x over 802.15.4&quot;, submitted to IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Slide 8 of the presentation pretty much wraps up the patent. It is virtually identical to fig. 3 of the patent. There is the joining device (supplicant), EAPOLAN (EAPoL over 15.4), authenticated device (enforcement point), IP Tunnel (EAPoL Tunnel over IP), Field Area Router (Authenticator), and Authentication Server&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lowpan/current/msg03367.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: &#xD;&#xA;https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/11/15-11-0400-00-wng0-802-1x-over-802-15-4.ppt" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4449" RevisionGUID="cda84c55-010f-4ede-9d06-5cd0e84fe525" CreationDate="2013-07-23T17:28:29.820" UserId="4901" Text="[US Patent Number 8,291,381][1] - Call stack parsing in multiple runtime environments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If multiple processes are sharing a call stack, but are running on different runtime environments (architectures, etc.) their call stack frames will be different. Here, Microsoft proposes a debugger that asks each process if it made the frame at a given address. If it did, ask it to describe the frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking for prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8291381" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10359" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4449" RevisionGUID="cda84c55-010f-4ede-9d06-5cd0e84fe525" CreationDate="2013-07-23T17:28:29.820" UserId="4901" Text="Prior art? Call stack parsing in multiple runtime environments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10360" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4449" RevisionGUID="cda84c55-010f-4ede-9d06-5cd0e84fe525" CreationDate="2013-07-23T17:28:29.820" UserId="4901" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4448" RevisionGUID="24f68563-1572-4d82-936d-6aee6f8d9f3f" CreationDate="2013-07-23T17:28:35.500" UserId="4485" Comment="added 201 characters in body" Text="I don't agree that this is overly broad. I also don't think this is simply VNC or other remote desktop tools. Those don't do bitmap analysis/pattern recognition on a remote PC.  This sounds very specific to testing, and a poor way to do it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leading solutions in this field typically run an agent on the test target, and access the UI API directly rather than relying on bitmap pattern recognition techniques which are far more complicated and probably less reliable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this were about using the host UI API to interact with the monitored system, I would agree this is like Expect for the UI, and there are many old and well established systems to do so. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4450" RevisionGUID="c63c13e6-8eec-444e-bd39-6645619ff8b6" CreationDate="2013-07-23T17:30:24.913" UserId="4885" Text="An additional piece of prior art: [Project Byzantium][1] (a working group of [HacDC][2]) started work on a live distribution of Linux called Byzantium Linux on 26 February 2011 which seems to fit some of the criteria of this patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A method of assembling a network to extend the range of wireless communication between devices.  This project had a web-based control panel (initial commit dated [2011-05-31][3]) and now uses an automatic configuration daemon (initial commit dated [2012-11-06][4], which automates the node assembly and configuration process of the control panel).&#xD;&#xA; - At least one device that collects data input from any kind of sensor or user input interface.  Byzantium Linux allows users sitting at console to use the mesh for communication in addition to providing network access for mobile devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the first substantial commit to the source code repository on [26 February 2011][5].  The first development sprint was documented and published on [15 March 2011][6], but actually took place over the weekend of 25 February 2011 when two mesh networks running two pre-existing mesh routing protocols (Babel and BATMAN-adv) were constructed and tested with the usual network troubleshooting tools (tcpdump, ping, traceroute) and functional tests (SSH from node to node, HTTP from node to node).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Full disclaimer: I am one of the core developers of this project.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://project-byzantium.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://hacdc.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://github.com/Byzantium/Byzantium/commit/44ca8f83261f6a09da6a098c57ed863a0c8f9ad6#control_panel&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://github.com/Byzantium/Byzantium/commit/cbb616311b574c4217c4a0367c2bdc0aaba23782#byzantium_configd.py&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://github.com/Byzantium/Byzantium/commit/1a8a572be04bebe7e1c3de92a7df10b3b9f4ab61&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://drwho.virtadpt.net/archive/2011/03/15/project-byzantium-sprint-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4451" RevisionGUID="4736bc36-f68a-46ec-b74a-f0a309dd86c1" CreationDate="2013-07-23T17:30:27.927" UserId="4903" Text="Wordperfect back in the day on 80x24 DOS used to do this I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also remember some old 1980s word processors on the apple II that used to behave this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Need to find some references..&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4452" RevisionGUID="65600f8d-c73c-4570-99e0-a7091bad3b33" CreationDate="2013-07-23T17:35:23.887" UserId="4885" Text="This may not help, either, but the mesh routing protocol OLSR (Open Link State Routing) was published as [RFC 3626][1] by the IETF in October of 2003.  The first substantial commit to olsrd's source code repository was on [2004-09-07][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3626.txt&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://olsr.org/git/?p=olsrd.git;a=commit;h=7a5d8ded932fadcc1be8c029f96f1a165a709c60" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4453" RevisionGUID="0a143a1c-ee5f-4390-b27b-4d0590edac85" CreationDate="2013-07-23T17:40:25.197" UserId="3076" Text="A raging debate among the judges at the court that hears all patent appeals cases. Right now it depends on the details and on which three judges you get on your panel when it goes to appeal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4454" RevisionGUID="e67a54fb-9ebb-4343-9053-8beaeba4a740" CreationDate="2013-07-23T17:40:25.560" UserId="4885" Text="One more mesh routing protocol, which I think fits the description of &quot;programmed instructions to the processor to transmit data through the network&quot;: [Babel][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the Babel mesh routing protocol wasn't introduced as an RFC to the IETF until [April of 2011][2], the first release of the codebase (v0.1) was published on [2007-08-22][3] and the first substantial commit to their source code repository was on [2007-04-19][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr/~jch/software/babel/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6126&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://git.wifi.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr/?p=babeld.git;a=blob;f=CHANGES#l394&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://github.com/jech/babeld/commit/b54949cbebec6b2754f0c4cd0ac84590637c6419" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4455" RevisionGUID="ffd51909-313c-429a-a423-f80eef9821b7" CreationDate="2013-07-23T17:42:00.177" UserId="4485" Text="Emacs has a feature  for that [(sentence-end-double-space)](http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Sentences.html). I have to look to see if I can find when it was introduced." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4456" RevisionGUID="386e94a7-9e10-4715-82e3-b7c57cb983ae" CreationDate="2013-07-23T17:43:02.527" UserId="4906" Text="The closest implementation to something like this I can think of is something like AutoIT - http://www.autoitscript.com/site/autoit/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, it doesn't use bitmaps. Using bitmaps for something like this would be stupid, and as far as I know, nobody has done the 'screen scrape and comparison' for general control.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest thing I can think of to implementing the patent has been possible for a long time; this use case would meet the patents definition: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Have a script run on system A through SSH to automatically update an asset (eg. a web page)&#xD;&#xA;2) Monitor said asset from system A using eg. VNC or RDP and automatically capture data &#xD;&#xA;3) On system A, perform comparative analysis of said content&#xD;&#xA;4) update system B from system A using script in #1 based on determination of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#4 is where the juice is, as in the patent. Screen scraping and doing something useful with the results that isn't highly specific is Hard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would not be surprised if this method has been used in online game bots to get around anti-botting methods, or in Captcha-cracking attempts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4457" RevisionGUID="ee0810fb-be63-45a5-be77-5d971c0fb925" CreationDate="2013-07-23T17:57:56.300" UserId="4857" Text="Seems like something Asterisk has had for a long time. Found two PDFs from 2004 which describe the feature called &quot;Call Routing&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.junghanns.net/downloads/Asterisk.pdf&#xD;&#xA;http://meetings.ripe.net/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-eof-enum-asterisk.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Extension matching for area codes is describe here, history goes back to 2004:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/page_history.php?page_id=1113&amp;preview=6 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A discussion about MySQL Database queries to fetch numbers (August 2005):&#xD;&#xA;http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/2005-August/014336.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Custom MySQL Database queries from the PBX (Jan 2005):&#xD;&#xA;http://www.asteriskguru.com/archives/asterisk-dev-shared-asterisk-pbx-for-multiple-companies-vt45388.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To implement the patent using Asterisk:&#xD;&#xA;Point a: Use a Asterisk dialplan to match area codes&#xD;&#xA;Point b: Use MySQL plugin to write custom queries&#xD;&#xA;Point c&amp;d: Use database result in the dialplain" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4458" RevisionGUID="a689b199-0294-4bf3-9ce3-abec09bd6cef" CreationDate="2013-07-23T18:01:08.630" UserId="4914" Text="Broad language, current independent claim listed here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. One or more computer storage memory having stored thereon a data structure, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;at least one schematic language statement comprising a statement of schema;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;at least one data transformation statement of a transformation language, the at least one data transformation statement comprising a data transformation declaration comprising one or mathematic functions whose processing results in generation of a data instance conforming to the schema;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;at least one rule statement of a rule language, the at least one rule statement comprising a data rule with regard to validity of data in the data instance conforming to the schema; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the data structure structured so as to be validated, without reference to an external source, as being correct with respect to executing the data transformation statement and the at least one rule statement of the data structure to perform a management task&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;wherein the data structure comprises a single document which can be commonly serialized, and each of the schematic language, the transformation language and the rule language has an ability to process the others of the language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10371" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4458" RevisionGUID="a689b199-0294-4bf3-9ce3-abec09bd6cef" CreationDate="2013-07-23T18:01:08.630" UserId="4914" Text="Prior Art Request against pending Microsoft App US 2009-0327301 A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10372" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4458" RevisionGUID="a689b199-0294-4bf3-9ce3-abec09bd6cef" CreationDate="2013-07-23T18:01:08.630" UserId="4914" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4459" RevisionGUID="701adf96-6bbd-4c4f-9423-5350b92a556a" CreationDate="2013-07-23T18:13:00.380" UserId="4916" Text="Didn't SMIL handle this back in the late 90's? I remember Real Networks promoting this heavily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://service.real.com/help/library/guides/realone/ProductionGuide/HTML/htmfiles/smilintr.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Time and control a presentation.&#xD;&#xA;SMIL provides powerful timing features that let you easily manage your presentation's timeline. You can keep clips rigidly synchronized, for example, or start an audio clip playing at 2.5 seconds into its internal timeline without changing the encoded clip.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4460" RevisionGUID="635c6ba9-2ce9-4752-9daf-38448d99b8e1" CreationDate="2013-07-23T18:27:15.120" UserId="4919" Text="&#xD;&#xA;It would seem to me that this is obvious based on simple graphics programs from the 1990s over X11.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;X11 handles the machine to machine communication.  The graphics software searches and handles the bitmap.  X11 itself is a bitmapped GUI interface when used over a network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System  (1984)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.handmadesw.com/Products/Alchemy_Administrator.htm  (pre-2000)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xv_%28software%29  (pre-1994)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4461" RevisionGUID="cd61208a-5183-4b57-9aa3-4bd84c83e90c" CreationDate="2013-07-23T18:31:38.427" UserId="4923" Text="http://www.patentgenius.com/assignee/MetricomInc.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Metricom created the ricochet wireless network, mesh networks, quite a few things related to this patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4462" RevisionGUID="3f216abf-9926-40ef-9f67-5e2d5cf7c055" CreationDate="2013-07-23T18:42:54.347" UserId="4857" Text="GUI Capture and replay testing using bitmaps is mentioned here as problematic(1997):&#xD;&#xA;http://www.imbus.de/forschung/pie-gui-test/how-to-automate-testing-of-graphical-user-interfaces/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Model based GUI Testing (Apr 15, 2003):&#xD;&#xA;Uses bitmaps if no other option is available&#xD;&#xA;http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.3983&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Automated Testing of SAS System GUI Applications (From SUGI22 conference in 1997 but google says 2002): Actually uses image comparison&#xD;&#xA;http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi22/APPDEVEL/PAPER10.PDF&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Code from the paper:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    /* Read the test result and baseline images. */&#xD;&#xA;    testname=’grtest1’;&#xD;&#xA;    pic=’graph1’;&#xD;&#xA;    call send(imgtest,’_read_catalog_’,&#xD;&#xA;    ’testlib.’||tstname||’.’||trim(pic));&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    call send(imgbase,’_read_catalog_’,&#xD;&#xA;    ’baselib.’||tstname||’.’||trim(pic));&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    /* Compare the images using _DIFF_IMAGE_. */&#xD;&#xA;    call send (imgdiff,’_diff_image_’,imgbase,imgtest);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    /* Check return code, and output appropriate message.*/&#xD;&#xA;    rc=sysrc();&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    if rc=0 then&#xD;&#xA;        put ’Images compared identically:’ testname pic;&#xD;&#xA;    else&#xD;&#xA;        put ’Images had differences:’ testname pic;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Testing on a remote machine is done in link 2. Testing using bitmaps and steps is done by link 3. So I think there is some prior art showing all techniques" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4290" RevisionGUID="9e8098e4-4a3c-4cd5-ae2e-5b7d5998711b" CreationDate="2013-07-23T18:42:59.373" UserId="4395" Comment="Fixed grammar" Text="Charles stack had the first online bookstore and pre-dated Amazon.com by three years. His website was at http://www.books.com and was called &quot;Bookstacks Unlimited&quot;[0]. Unfortunately I can't find any information that describes the implementation of his system. However, it's possible that he may be able to provide more detailed information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea of using a customer's computer to place an order with the vendor's computer system, and to have that vendor manage a &quot;shopping cart&quot; that represents that customer's order in a database, is a fundamental idea that underpins almost all shopping systems. It would be difficult to implement such a system while still avoiding the management of the shopping cart, I would be very much surprised if the online shopping components of CompuServe, Delphi, AOL and Prodigy did not function in the same way; CompuServ's solution (&quot;The Electronic Mall&quot;) debuted in 1984. Unfortunately, details on the implementations of these systems is also scarce, I couldn't find any concrete descriptions of how these e-commerce solutions functioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[0] http://www.sbnonline.com/2002/07/visionary-in-obscurity-charles-stack-operates-in-two-business-communities-151-cleveland-and-the-internet-151-and-isn-146-t-well-known-in-either-this-time-around-that-146-s-going-to-change-he-hopes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-commerce" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4463" RevisionGUID="f3bb6bdf-13a0-4286-8a1e-1f44e8d01af9" CreationDate="2013-07-23T18:49:29.947" UserId="4922" Text="I'd like to offer the combination of two British sources as prior art, if that is helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First is the &quot;Reader's Digest Family Health Guide&quot;, first edition, published London **1972**, p.566 (part of the First Aid Emergencies section):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Burns and scalds - What to do**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1: Relieve the pain and minimise the possibility of shock by holding the burnt area in cool, slowly running water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is accompanied by a clear illustration captioned &quot;Hold a burn under running cold water.&quot;  A very clear and concise description, in plain language (rather than the medical jargon of &quot;topically&quot; and &quot;analgesic&quot;), of the essence of the method described in the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One detail remains - what temperature is typical for tap water in Britain?  Mains water spends a lot of time underground, so we can assume that it adopts roughly the same temperature as the surrounding earth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick Google gives me this: &quot;[...the ground temperature shows seasonal fluctuations to depths of about 15 m where the temperature is approximately equal to the mean annual air temperature(8 - 11° C in the UK).][1]&quot;  Therefore, at least some of the time, tap water used for first-aid will have been chilled by earth **below 10°C** before use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bgs.ac.uk/reference/gshp/gshp_report.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4464" RevisionGUID="acec3834-44e9-4bb0-a40f-be21838a318e" CreationDate="2013-07-23T18:49:48.353" UserId="4929" Text="Wouldn't this describe just about any sqlldr control file that has data to load embedded in it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4463" RevisionGUID="fccd6b3e-e5c4-48f3-bc3b-610800305186" CreationDate="2013-07-23T18:59:05.160" UserId="4922" Comment="added 389 characters in body" Text="I'd like to offer the combination of two British sources as prior art, if that is helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First is the &quot;Reader's Digest Family Health Guide&quot;, first edition, published London **1972**, p.566 (part of the First Aid Emergencies section):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Burns and scalds - What to do**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1: Relieve the pain and minimise the possibility of shock by holding the burnt area in cool, slowly running water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is accompanied by a clear illustration captioned &quot;Hold a burn under running cold water.&quot;  A very clear and concise description, in plain language (rather than the medical jargon of &quot;topically&quot; and &quot;analgesic&quot;), of the essence of the method described in the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One detail remains - what temperature is typical for tap water in Britain?  Mains water spends a lot of time underground, so we can assume that it adopts roughly the same temperature as the surrounding earth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick Google gives me this: &quot;[...the ground temperature shows seasonal fluctuations to depths of about 15 m where the temperature is approximately equal to the mean annual air temperature(8 - 11° C in the UK).][1]&quot;  Therefore, at least some of the time, tap water used for first-aid will have been chilled by earth **below 10°C** before use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another page in the same book, p.209 which is part of the glossary, has a short paragraph under the entry for Analgesic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from drugs, there are simple treatments that can have an analgesic effect.  A hot-water bottle, an electric blanket or a warm bath is useful for relieving muscular aches.  **An ice bag or cold compress** may relieve the discomfort of a bruise or sprain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bgs.ac.uk/reference/gshp/gshp_report.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4465" RevisionGUID="ee0de6cc-3fd6-44bf-afee-6776aedfbddc" CreationDate="2013-07-23T19:07:33.370" UserId="4930" Text="Columbia Masterworks, now held by Sony, used a very similar logo on their 78 RPM records for a number of years. The following images have examples, visible at the top center of each image. While I have no hard release dates for these, the 78 fell out of common usage by around 1950, so they clearly predate Apple. (As this is my first post and I have little reputation, here are some links; more available there.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.78rpmcommunity.com/groups/photo/view/group_id/2/photo_id/1716&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.78rpmcommunity.com/groups/photo/view/group_id/2/photo_id/1704" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4466" RevisionGUID="604d9003-5c2d-44e5-b211-34ea52f900be" CreationDate="2013-07-23T19:17:22.113" UserId="4485" Text="I agree with @user4857 that this is mostly just standard call center functionality (ala Asterix), however this falls short for aspects C &amp; D. Here the patent outlines what is commonly known as [Caller ID Spoofing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caller_ID_spoofing) to set the caller ID to the number of the callee (that it appears he has called himself). The technique to accomplish this was first (as far as I know) published in [2600 Magazine in the Spring 2003 edition Page 6](http://www.scribd.com/doc/57826497/2600-The-Hacker-Quarterly-Volume-20-Number-1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4467" RevisionGUID="ab2a75cf-5082-4f1c-beb5-a193fa860438" CreationDate="2013-07-23T19:25:37.770" UserId="4928" Text="First post! Found this place from /.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From as early as 2007: http://www.macrogoblin.com/Featured_Bots/Bot_LotRO_Fighting_Healer_Master.aspx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that for comparison's sake, the Tank can be considered the First Computer and the Healer can be considered Second Computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Healer's Healthbar Pixel #1: When health is low it will trigger the LIGHT HEAL routine. By default it does this when Green Value is below 100 at this pixel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This is a Fighting Healer that is meant to autofollow your tank. The healer plays on a second computer, and you play the tank yourself on the main computer. The Healer is controlled through your Local Area Network (LAN) by the Host computer, which is your main computer where the tank is being played.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;All pixels are read from your Tank's game window. So, everything is really being done on the host's side (Main Computer). Commands that you want your healer to do are sent through the Network live from routines on the host.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the First Computer scans a 1x1 bitmap (pixel) from graphical display of the Second Computer, and if it finds that the pixel is no longer green (failure condition, as the pixel fails to be green), it will activate failure routine (cast heal spell).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This type of manipulation is common with bots that operate in a multiboxing environment, especially for buddy bots like the one described here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4468" RevisionGUID="472f5fad-715d-4ec0-913b-4ebc506f6bb2" CreationDate="2013-07-23T19:27:29.660" UserId="4935" Text="RTSP (Real Time Streaming Protocol) RFC2326 April 1998&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2326.txt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Time_Streaming_Protocol&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;component of PLAY command, example from above wikipedia entry&#xD;&#xA;RTP-Info: url=rtsp://example.com/media.mp4/streamid=0;seq=9810092;rtptime=3450012&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4469" RevisionGUID="4f170066-7bac-43a8-96cf-a4a7efef250d" CreationDate="2013-07-23T19:39:48.457" UserId="4941" Text="System and Method for Buying and Selling Portions of a Composite good in an Electronic Marketplace - Described herein is an improved system and method for buying and selling portions of a composite good in an electronic marketplace. One method and system comprise communicating to a buyer a first good post associated with a seller, and communicating to a seller a “want to buy” post from the buyer, wherein the “want to buy” post is for a second good different from, but associated with, the first good. Another system and method comprise displaying online a want to buy post from a buyer, for a first good, and communicating to a buyer a seller offer for a second good, associated with the first good." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10386" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4469" RevisionGUID="4f170066-7bac-43a8-96cf-a4a7efef250d" CreationDate="2013-07-23T19:39:48.457" UserId="4941" Text="Prior Art Request against PartingOut.com Patent Application Number: 20120030046" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10387" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4469" RevisionGUID="4f170066-7bac-43a8-96cf-a4a7efef250d" CreationDate="2013-07-23T19:39:48.457" UserId="4941" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4470" RevisionGUID="e11adfb0-b46a-44ed-9a2e-d87671adf322" CreationDate="2013-07-23T19:53:15.457" UserId="4931" Text="**The first example of a LBS dating service using these claims was from ~1998 in the Japanese product Lovegety;** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lovegety For add'l detail on how Lovegety works: http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/1998/06/12899 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This was expanded upon by many companies since that time, including but not limited to:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OkCupid, 3/5/2004: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OkCupid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;add'l detail for how OkCupid works: http://www.switched.com/2011/02/02/okcupid-has-got-the-magic-touch/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Skout, 1/22/2009: http://www.prweb.com/releases/skout/dating/prweb1882114.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;add'l detail for how Skout works: http://www.onlinepersonalswatch.com/news/2009/01/christopher-wiklund-ceo-skoutcom.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;StreetSpark, 12/09: http://mashable.com/2010/05/11/streetspark/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;add'l info on Streetspark: http://www.crunchbase.com/company/streetspark&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**All four of these examples meet all of the above patent application's claims, and I can provide more if needed. In addition, StreetSpark meets the additional qualifications requested for extra credit.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4472" RevisionGUID="9bc27a57-57c2-4b7b-89a0-7ae4ef550e18" CreationDate="2013-07-23T19:56:50.967" UserId="4485" Text="I do believe this is about Microsoft's MOM or SMS, which are some of many [Configuration Management Tools](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Configuration_management)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In simple english, you create a policy/script (i.e. turn off feature X, install software package Y), apply the policy to 1 or more computers, and an agent on the computer will ensure that the policy is enforced/executed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It covers a subset of the aspects of [ISO/IEC 20000-1:2005](http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber=51986). First version published in 2005, but link is to latest 2011 version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[CFEngine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFEngine) goes all the way back to 1993, but I am not so sure how that system works. Under the broad definition of this patent, I think it must apply, but I am not familiar with the tool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Puppet](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppet_(software)) one of the first really full featured ones, was released in 2005, and works pretty much as described here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4470" RevisionGUID="eb9fc3e4-62af-491a-84be-ce2629b3eb27" CreationDate="2013-07-23T19:59:08.413" UserId="4931" Comment="Improved formatting, and expanded phrasing." Text="**The first example of a LBS dating service using these claims was from ~1998 in the Japanese product Lovegety;** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lovegety For add'l detail on how Lovegety works: http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/1998/06/12899 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This was expanded upon by many companies since that time, including but not limited to:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OkCupid, 3/5/2004: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OkCupid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;add'l detail for how OkCupid works: http://www.switched.com/2011/02/02/okcupid-has-got-the-magic-touch/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Skout, 1/22/2009: http://www.prweb.com/releases/skout/dating/prweb1882114.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;add'l detail for how Skout works: http://www.onlinepersonalswatch.com/news/2009/01/christopher-wiklund-ceo-skoutcom.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;StreetSpark, ~12/2009: http://mashable.com/2010/05/11/streetspark/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;add'l info on Streetspark: http://www.crunchbase.com/company/streetspark&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**All four of these examples meet all of the above patent application's claims, and I can provide more examples if needed. In addition, the StreetSpark example meets the additional qualifications requested for extra credit.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4473" RevisionGUID="4faeaeeb-bcd5-48d5-9577-2fcead9ab8af" CreationDate="2013-07-23T20:01:58.823" UserId="4947" Text="Possibly eShop, which was ultimately bought by Microsoft:&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EShop&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4474" RevisionGUID="ec2b3567-6346-4a2b-83c8-1c8f8cdf889b" CreationDate="2013-07-23T20:08:23.143" UserId="4948" Text="Actor from the Whitewater Resource Group was an OO language that provided classes for accessing database content. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This http://books.google.com/books?id=LjwEAAAAMBAJ&amp;pg=PT86#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false, InfoWorld article dating back to October 1990 describes the features of version 3 of Actor, including a mention of ISAM type of data access. Note, everything in Actor was an object/class.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also here is a paper from Naval Post Graduate School from June 1988 that Prototyping Visual Database Interface by Object-Oriented Language. The prototype described in the paper used the Actor language as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=12&amp;ved=0CC8QFjABOAo&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dtic.mil%2Fdtic%2Ftr%2Ffulltext%2Fu2%2Fa200820.pdf&amp;ei=CODuUeTwIoLjiAKynoGwDA&amp;usg=AFQjCNHvoSlIEGFkoIQ-hWME_i0layd5Dg&amp;sig2=xFctPC6xB-kGHtLHtV7Tog&amp;bvm=bv.49641647,d.cGE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4470" RevisionGUID="161dcc67-69b5-4040-922a-45c99b1177d6" CreationDate="2013-07-23T20:10:13.827" UserId="4931" Comment="Additional references for StreetSpark" Text="**The first example of a LBS dating service using these claims was from ~1998 in the Japanese product Lovegety;** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lovegety For add'l detail on how Lovegety works: http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/1998/06/12899 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This was expanded upon by many companies since that time, including but not limited to:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OkCupid, 3/5/2004: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OkCupid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;add'l detail for how OkCupid works: http://www.switched.com/2011/02/02/okcupid-has-got-the-magic-touch/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Skout, 1/22/2009: http://www.prweb.com/releases/skout/dating/prweb1882114.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;add'l detail for how Skout works: http://www.onlinepersonalswatch.com/news/2009/01/christopher-wiklund-ceo-skoutcom.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;StreetSpark, ~12/2009: http://mashable.com/2010/05/11/streetspark/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;add'l info on Streetspark: http://www.crunchbase.com/company/streetspark&#xD;&#xA;http://stylecaster.com/streetspark-future-online-dating/&#xD;&#xA;http://londonist.com/2010/09/london_dating_battle_of_the_apps.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**All four of these examples meet all of the above patent application's claims, and I can provide more examples if needed. In addition, the StreetSpark example meets the additional qualifications requested for extra credit.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4476" RevisionGUID="9058e5c3-f9cb-4fad-a948-d75cb636f252" CreationDate="2013-07-23T20:13:47.520" UserId="4349" Text="It really looks like the [Sikuli][1] project.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sikuli Script automates anything you see on the screen. It uses image&#xD;&#xA;&gt; recognition to identify and control GUI components. It is useful when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there is no easy access to a GUI's internal or source code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have two academic papers that can be useful to represent Prior Art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Sikuli: Using GUI Screenshots for Search and Automation, UIST 2009][2].&#xD;&#xA; - [GUI Testing Using Computer Vision, CHI 2010][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, some academic references:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - L. S. Zettlemoyer and R. St. Amant. A visual medium for programmatic control of interactive applications. In CHI ’99, pages 199–206, New York, NY, USA, 1999. ACM.&#xD;&#xA; - T. Ostrand, A. Anodide, H. Foster, and T. Goradia. A visual test development environment for GUI systems. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes, 23(2):82–92, 1998.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sikuli.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://groups.csail.mit.edu/uid/projects/sikuli/sikuli-uist2009.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://groups.csail.mit.edu/uid/projects/sikuli/sikuli-chi2010.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4477" RevisionGUID="a3cac991-dc0f-4bf0-806a-b3578da451c9" CreationDate="2013-07-23T20:15:33.070" UserId="4862" Text="I think he's saying:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;METHOD ONE&#xD;&#xA;Seller: 'I have a car for sale'&#xD;&#xA;Buyer: 'I want to buy a tire'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;METHOD TWO&#xD;&#xA;Buyer: 'I want to buy a tire'&#xD;&#xA;Seller: 'I have a car for sale'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is patentable?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4478" RevisionGUID="a054c944-e068-4274-8ce5-c3c4a45f3f5b" CreationDate="2013-07-23T20:16:07.937" UserId="4949" Text="Sounds alot like Craigslist to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4479" RevisionGUID="6596c539-41fc-4a7b-aece-d6f36cd9b431" CreationDate="2013-07-23T21:07:28.507" UserId="4862" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Microsoft has a history of doing this...consider Microsoft's C# language as a 'schematic' of Java:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.harding.edu/fmccown/java_csharp_comparison.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'at least one schematic language statement...'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Constructed languages are categorized as either a priori languages or a posteriori languages. The grammar and vocabulary of the former are created from scratch, either by the author's imagination or by computation; the latter possess a grammar and vocabulary derived from natural language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In turn, a posteriori languages are divided into schematic languages, in which a natural or partly natural vocabulary is altered to fit pre-established rules, and naturalistic languages, in which a natural vocabulary retains its normal sound and appearance. While Esperanto is generally considered schematic, Interlingua is viewed as naturalistic.&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructed_language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Autonomous (schematic) languages [are languages] in which grammar is a priori but vocabulary is a posteriori, like Esperanto or, to some extent, Volapük.'&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_posteriori_%28languages%29&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this is a Microsoft patent, I assume the language in question is a programming language rather than a spoken language.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'...comprising a statement of schema...'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found this article discussing XML Schema:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'XML Schema is poised to play a central role in the future of XML processing, especially in Web services where it serves as one of the fundamental pillars that higher levels of abstraction are built upon. This article describes how to use the XML Schema definition language in more detail.'&#xD;&#xA;March 2003, http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa468557.aspx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'...at least one data transformation statement of a transformation language...'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'A transformation language is a computer language designed to transform some input text in a certain formal language into a modified output text that meets some specific goal....  There are a number of XML transformation languages. These include XSLT, XQuery, STX, FXT, XDuce, CDuce, HaXml, XMLambda, and FleXML.'&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like Microsoft is trying to patent it's own implementation of an XML-like language.  It's 'schematic' in that it follows the syntax (grammar) of an existing language but uses a vocabulary (keywords) that is different from the existing language.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10403" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4469" RevisionGUID="dbf5508a-404d-4e16-b6fc-cb8a6d6dcf9d" CreationDate="2013-07-23T21:10:05.437" UserId="4940" Comment="Added patent number as a tag. That way google patent search redirects here when you press &quot;discuss this&quot; button on google" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20120030046&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10404" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4469" RevisionGUID="dbf5508a-404d-4e16-b6fc-cb8a6d6dcf9d" CreationDate="2013-07-23T21:10:05.437" Comment="Proposed by 4940 approved by 1767 edit id of 375" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4458" RevisionGUID="fbb49d0a-fc68-4f08-9346-5e7e10295efc" CreationDate="2013-07-23T21:10:32.233" UserId="4440" Comment="Added link to patent application; blockquoted text from patent; formatting blockquoted text" Text="Broad language, current independent claim listed in [Distributed Configuration Management Using Constitutional Documents][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. One or more computer storage memory having stored thereon a data structure, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;        at least one schematic language statement comprising a statement of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; schema;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;        at least one data transformation statement of a transformation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; language, the at least one data transformation statement comprising a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data transformation declaration comprising one or mathematic functions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whose processing results in generation of a data instance conforming&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the schema;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;        at least one rule statement of a rule language, the at least one rule&#xD;&#xA;&gt; statement comprising a data rule with regard to validity of data in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the data instance conforming to the schema; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;        the data structure structured so as to be validated, without reference&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to an external source, as being correct with respect to executing the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data transformation statement and the at least one rule statement of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the data structure to perform a management task&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;        wherein the data structure comprises a single document which can be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; commonly serialized, and each of the schematic language, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transformation language and the rule language has an ability to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; process the others of the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant dates: Filed June 26, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20090327301" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10406" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4458" RevisionGUID="fbb49d0a-fc68-4f08-9346-5e7e10295efc" CreationDate="2013-07-23T21:10:32.233" Comment="Proposed by 4440 approved by 1767 edit id of 374" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4480" RevisionGUID="46314f2f-396d-4b8c-9129-1b13ab691a11" CreationDate="2013-07-23T21:21:04.917" UserId="4785" Text="I found &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A. Nasipuri, K. Li; A directionality based location discovery scheme for wireless sensor networks, Proceedings of the 1st ACM international workshop on Wireless sensor networks and applications, 2002][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;In this work, we present a localization technique by which&#xD;&#xA;the sensor nodes determine their position with respect to a&#xD;&#xA;set of fixed beacon nodes that are capable of covering the&#xD;&#xA;entire network area by powerful directional wireless trans-&#xD;&#xA;missions.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - wireless sensor network&#xD;&#xA; - several directional antennae&#xD;&#xA; - 2002&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately the directional antennae or not connected to a single data collection device. But they arguably are &quot;operatively coupled&quot; since they together acheive the localisation function.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope it helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=570754&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4458" RevisionGUID="9516bf18-d7d5-407d-bcfe-fa518b26fdda" CreationDate="2013-07-23T21:31:13.587" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1495 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON NETWORK CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of... creating a policy script and ensuring the policy is enforced! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Broad language, current independent claim listed in [Distributed Configuration Management Using Constitutional Documents][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** June 26, 2008&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** CLOSED&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20090327301 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. One or more computer storage memory having stored thereon a data structure, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - at least one schematic language statement comprising a statement of schema;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - at least one data transformation statement of a transformation language, the at least one data transformation statement comprising a data transformation declaration comprising one or mathematic functions whose processing results in generation of a data instance conforming to the schema;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - at least one rule statement of a rule language, the at least one rule statement comprising a data rule with regard to validity of data in the data instance conforming to the schema; and the data structure structured so as to be validated, without reference to an external source, as being correct with respect to executing the data transformation statement and the at least one rule statement of the data structure to perform a management task&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;        wherein the data structure comprises a single document which can be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; commonly serialized, and each of the schematic language, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transformation language and the rule language has an ability to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; process the others of the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NOTE** according to [Public Pair][2] this patent received a **Final Rejection** on 3/13/2013. However, Microsoft has filed a [Request for Continued Examination][3] and revised the claims.  The claim listed above is as currently revised by Microsoft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the AIA it appears not to be possible to submit prior art under the pre-grant process used by Ask Patents.  Prior art which is found below would need to submitted under the six-month post-grant process.  (This could be done by a company or an individual.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20090327301&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3972/1767&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application#Request_for_continued_examination&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10409" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4458" RevisionGUID="9516bf18-d7d5-407d-bcfe-fa518b26fdda" CreationDate="2013-07-23T21:31:13.587" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1495 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Network Configuration Management Documents (Microsoft) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10410" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4458" RevisionGUID="9516bf18-d7d5-407d-bcfe-fa518b26fdda" CreationDate="2013-07-23T21:31:13.587" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1495 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20090327301a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4482" RevisionGUID="7731b96e-11ed-4ac6-bb8d-b4df5f6ef060" CreationDate="2013-07-23T21:33:08.327" UserId="4960" Text="The report from the 2007 W3C Workshop on Video in the Web outlines the following:&#xD;&#xA;[[&#xD;&#xA;5.1 Temporal Addressing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Movie tape&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Temporal addressing provides the ability to reference a time point, or a segment of time, in video and audio content: a normal play time (or time offset), a framed-based time, or an absolute time. It allows the media player to jump to the specified time or frame, or only to play a segment of file. RFC 2326 (RTSP) defines the notion of normal play time, the stream absolute position relative to the beginning of the video. SMPTE time codes (SMPTE 12M-1999 Television, Audio and Film — Time and Control Code) defines the notion of frame-level accuracy. Absolute time uses UTC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Temporal addressing approaches in SMIL, MPEG-7, MPEG-21 and temporal URI.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both SMIL and MPEG-7 require an indirection: one needs to get the XML description containing the temporal information before fetching the video content. It should be noted, thought it was not mentioned at the Workshop, that even HTML 5 includes the notion of time offset and time segment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, the MPEG-21 and Temporal URI approaches rely on defining a URI syntax and thus don't rely on an additional XML description. However, these approaches also have limitations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    They lack the ability to represent complex fragments, especially when combining temporal and spatial addressing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    When using the fragment identifier component syntax of a URI, it is dependent on the media type of the retrieved representation (see section 3.5, Fragment, RFC 3986). For example, the MPEG-21 URI syntax is tied to the MPEG container. Thus, it would be difficult to apply one generic fragment identifier to the existing video or audio codecs.&#xD;&#xA;]]&#xD;&#xA;http://www.w3.org/2007/08/video/report.html#Temporal_Addressing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also &quot;Identifying Spatial and Temporal Media&#xD;&#xA;Fragments on the Web&quot; (position paper for the 2007 workshop):&#xD;&#xA;http://www.w3.org/2007/08/video/positions/Troncy.pdf&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4469" RevisionGUID="0951a9bd-add5-4706-9f24-d1c7486e73dd" CreationDate="2013-07-23T21:39:16.167" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1751 characters in body; edited title" Text="10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent Application: [US 20120030046 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Title: **Buying and Selling Portions of a Composite good in an Electronic Marketplace**&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;Priority Date: Seeking **public disclosure** of Prior Art prior to **Jul 27, 2010**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;System and Method for Buying and Selling Portions of a Composite good in an Electronic Marketplace - Described herein is an improved system and method for buying and selling portions of a composite good in an electronic marketplace. One method and system comprise communicating to a buyer a first good post associated with a seller, and communicating to a seller a “want to buy” post from the buyer, wherein the “want to buy” post is for a second good different from, but associated with, the first good. Another system and method comprise displaying online a want to buy post from a buyer, for a first good, and communicating to a buyer a seller offer for a second good, associated with the first good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for buying and selling a portion of a composite good in an electronic marketplace comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - providing an application operable by a buyer and a seller over a network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - receiving a want-to-sell post for a composite good by said seller using said application over said network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - writing said want-to-sell post to a first memory space accessible to buyer over said network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - receiving a want-to-buy post for a portion of said composite good by said buyer using said application over said network; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - writing said want-to-buy post to a second memory space accessible to said seller over said network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NOTE** according to [Public Pair][2] this patent received a **Final Rejection** on 3/13/2013. It is possible for the applicant to file a [Request for Continued Examination][3] and revise the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the AIA it appears not to be possible to submit prior art under the pre-grant process used by Ask Patents for this application.  Prior art which is found below would need to submitted under the six-month post-grant process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120030046&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3972/1767&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application#Request_for_continued_examination&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10414" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4469" RevisionGUID="0951a9bd-add5-4706-9f24-d1c7486e73dd" CreationDate="2013-07-23T21:39:16.167" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1751 characters in body; edited title" Text="Electronic Marketplace - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10415" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4082" RevisionGUID="5148022b-4a5e-4ec4-a8db-6311f97f156c" CreationDate="2013-07-23T21:44:48.330" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Enhancing Wireless Mesh Networking (GE) - Patent Application – PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4421" RevisionGUID="8e8580ad-9917-407e-b891-8bfa0a1d8158" CreationDate="2013-07-23T21:46:09.757" UserId="1767" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="An over-broad, ALLOWED patent attempting to patent all dynamic selection of caller id's when used in any-type of call center. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__QUESTION__ Have you seen anything published prior __October 20, 2005__ discussing selecting, replacing, or choosing the best caller id for a particular communication, especially when the caller id is selected, replaced or choosen based on other crieteria (such as the destination number or other information known about the person being called). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Title: System and method for modifying communication information (mci)__&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Summary:__ A system for sending a call where the caller id is selected based on known information about the caller (either geographic or otherwise).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - __Publication Number:__ [US 20130070918 A1](https://www.google.com/patents/US20130070918?dq=Nobelbiz&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=6J3uUaSPC4WSiAKQiYHADw&amp;ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - __Publication Type:__ Allowed Patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - __Application Number:__ US 13/676,546&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - __Assignee:__ [NobelBiz](http://www.nobelbiz.com) / See their labors here: [Justia](http://www.justia.com/search.py?cx=001017683474852908061%3Aoct7h3tcday&amp;q=nobelbiz&amp;cof=FORID%3A11)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Seeking prior art pre October 20, 2005&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 11. A system for handling an outbound call from a call originator to a call target, the &gt; system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a database storing a plurality of outgoing telephone numbers, each outgoing telephone number having one of two or more area codes; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an information processor controlled by the call originator and configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a. process a trigger comprising at least an area code of a telephone number of the call target;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b. select from the database a telephone number from the plurality of outgoing telephone numbers where the selected telephone number has at least an area code the same as the area code of the telephone number of the call target;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; c. set caller identification data of the outbound call to the selected telephone number; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; d. transmit the caller identification data to the call target in connection with the outbound call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me this seems like basically a look up table for caller id's based on some parameters. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the patent has been [allowed][2] by USPTO.  Under the AIA it is not be possible to submit prior art under the pre-grant process used by Ask Patents.  Prior art which is found below would need to submitted under the six-month post-grant process or the ex-parte rexamination process.  (This could be done by a company or an individual.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Allowed patent application][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/OCl6c.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.patentexpress.com/patent-drafting-video/what-is-notice-of-allowance_55_5.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10417" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4086" RevisionGUID="068f2b99-9b6e-47d8-9d68-427ee2ec51d6" CreationDate="2013-07-23T21:51:40.513" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Extensible Authentication Protocol for Layer 3 Mesh Networks - Patent Application – PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10418" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4086" RevisionGUID="068f2b99-9b6e-47d8-9d68-427ee2ec51d6" CreationDate="2013-07-23T21:51:40.513" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="**HELP SAVE MESH NETWORKING** —This application from Cisco seeks to patent a technique for authenticating devices seeking to join a mesh network. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was **published before July 6, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     A device **sending an authentication packet** to an authenticated device in the mesh network (through one or more hops); &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.     The authenticated device **encapsulating** the authentication packet in **Layer 3 packets** for transmission over an **Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel** to an authenticator device; OR&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.     The authenticated device **receiving an authentication packet** that is encapsulated in Layer 3 packets from the authenticator, **decapsulating** the authentication packet, and **transmitting** it over the mesh network to the device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT ---**&#xD;&#xA;        	A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the authentication message is sent as a **Layer 2** message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses the **IEEE 802.1X standard**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the packets are transmitted **wirelessly**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO encapsulates the packet in **Universal Datagram Protocol (UDP)** Packets OR **Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)** Packets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the authenticator device forwards a **group mesh key** to the device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: ADAPTING EXTENSIBLE AUTHENTICATION PROTOCOL FOR LAYER 3 MESH NETWORKS**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** [Translated from Legalish into English] A method and apparatus for authenticating devices in a mesh network by routing authentication packets through the mesh network, over an IP tunnel, and to an authenticator device.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;•	**Publication Number:** &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US20130014217&quot;&gt;US 20130014217 A1&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Assignee:** Cisco&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Prior Art Date:** July 6, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Open for Challenge at USPTO: open at least through &lt;i&gt;July 10, 2013&lt;/i&gt;**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     At an authenticated device in a network, receiving an authentication packet sent over the network from a device that is seeking authentication; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     Encapsulating the authentication packet for transmission in Layer 3 packets over an Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel to an authenticator device associated in the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     A mesh node that wants access to the network sends an authentication message (this message can be sent, for example, as a Layer 2 or Layer 3 message) over the network to an already authenticated mesh node; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.     The receiving mesh node encapsulates the message in Layer 3 packets and sends it to an authenticator over an Internet Protocol (IP) network connection.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 10** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     An authenticated device in a network, receiving an authentication packet that is encapsulated in Layer 3 packets from an authenticator device over an Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     Decapsulating the authentication packet from the Layer 3 packets and transmitting the authentication packet over the network to a device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     The authenticator sends an authentication message in Layer 3 packets over an IP network connection to an already authenticated mesh node; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.     The authenticated mesh node decapsulates the authentication message from the Layer 3 packets and sends the message back over the network to the node that requested access.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 13** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;An apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     A transceiver unit configured to transmit and receive signals over a network; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     A processor coupled to the transceiver unit, the processor configured to, for an authentication packet received from a device that is seeking authentication in the network, encapsulate the authentication packet for transmission in Layer 3 packets over an Internet protocol (IP) tunnel to an authenticator device associated in the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     A wireless device that can receive an authentication message from another device and encapsulate that message into Layer 3 packets to be sent to an authenticator over an IP network connection.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 20** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;One or more computer readable storage media encoded with software comprising computer executable instructions and when software is executed operable to:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     For an authentication packet received from a device that is seeking authentication in a network, encapsulate the authentication packet for transmission in layer 3 packets over an Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel to an authenticator device associated in the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     Any memory device that stores software instructions for a controller to encapsulate messages in Layer 3 packets to be sent to an authenticator over an IP network connection.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 24** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The computer readable storage media of claim 20, and further comprising instructions that are operable to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.     For an authentication packet encapsulated in Layer 3 packets received from the authenticator device over the IP tunnel, decapsulate the authentication packet from the Layer 3 packets and to control a transceiver unit to transmit the authentication packet to the device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     Any memory device that stores software instructions for a controller to decapsulate authentication messages from the Layer 3 packets and transmit them to the node seeking access to the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Separately,** the applicant is claiming a method where the authenticator transmits a **group mesh key** to the device seeking access, where the key is known only to authenticated devices, and where all packets not encrypted with the mesh key and not part of the authentication negotiation are **dropped** by nodes in the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;What is good prior art? Please see our &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post prior art you know about][3] on other questionable US patent applications.&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/851CF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/UVGON.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4301" RevisionGUID="231fdf5c-fff3-4b5d-92c7-61a44285dfad" CreationDate="2013-07-23T22:02:20.040" UserId="1767" Comment="Update to add detail, conform to current RFPA template" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON LOCATING DATA ON A COMPUTER** - This application seeks to patent the idea of... locating data for applications on a computer! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure whether &quot;locating for application-specific data&quot; can be patentable. This sounds like inventing a wheel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Patent:  **[US 20130166517 A1][1]**&#xD;&#xA;- **Title**: **Systems and methods for locating application specific data**&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 12, 2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 27, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A system for locating for application-specific data comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - at least one data storage device, having unidentified data stored therein;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - at least one processor operatively coupled to the at least one data storage device, the at least one processor configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (i) access unidentified data from at least one data storage device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (ii) examine the unidentified data to detect at least one application-specific data pattern associated with at least one application;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (iii) for each detected application-specific data pattern, execute an application-specific validation process to determine whether the unidentified data includes valid data associated with a corresponding application; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (iv) if it is determined that the unidentified data includes valid data associated with the corresponding application, then recover the valid data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130166517&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10420" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4301" RevisionGUID="231fdf5c-fff3-4b5d-92c7-61a44285dfad" CreationDate="2013-07-23T22:02:20.040" UserId="1767" Comment="Update to add detail, conform to current RFPA template" Text="Locating data specific for application - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4483" RevisionGUID="4d7a6c9e-ea1f-4514-a4bc-067d874448a6" CreationDate="2013-07-23T22:03:38.387" UserId="4964" Text="1) [us5600789](http://www.google.com/patents/us5600789), FIG. 15 (1992)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Automated GUI testing in which machine 1 executes a test which monitors and controls a GUI running on machine 2.  Looks pretty solid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) [us5634002](http://www.google.com/patents/us5634002)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Citations on front page look helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) [US 2002/0029259](http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPATAPP9910778) (1991)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least the key features, if not all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) [User Interface Softbots](http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/bitstream/1840.16/2132/1/etd.pdf) (Sept 2003)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;This thesis focuses on the concept of ibots, interface agents that interact with software applications through the graphical user interface, in the same way that human users do.  As a part of this work, we intend to develop a system that supports the control of an application through its graphical user interface, bypassing its API.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other literature is cited in the thesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) EP0890898 &quot;Screen remote control with periodic bitmap image comparison and transmission&quot; (1999)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6) http://www.itaas.com/company/documents/ecs_support/6.pdf (2000)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Content Validation.  Apart from how a WebSite responds dynamically, the content should be checkable either exactly or approximately. Here are some ways that content validation could be accomplished:&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;Selected Images/Fragments.  The tester should have the option to rubber band sections of an image and require that the selection image match later during a subsequent rendition of it. This ought to be possible for several images or image fragments.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4485" RevisionGUID="dd02acbf-03b1-460e-bfce-222807c53582" CreationDate="2013-07-23T22:09:34.307" UserId="4967" Text="Dating DNA was the first dating app for the iPhone.  They had the first dating web app and also the first dating app using Apple's SDK and put into the App Store.  They have had (and published) what they called &quot;Match Radar&quot; WELL before 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found Dating DNA's press release from clear back in Feb 2009 about their Match Radar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.prweb.com/releases/2009/02/prweb2020374.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HEADLINE READ:  Dating DNA's &quot;Match Radar&quot; Alerts iPhone Users of Compatible Singles Nearby&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SUBLINE READ:  Dating DNA Launches Free Dating App for Apple's iPhone with &quot;Match Radar&quot; and &quot;Compatibility Thresholds.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4455" RevisionGUID="f1a15d67-5b06-46ea-8320-b04e55ec29de" CreationDate="2013-07-23T22:15:42.633" UserId="4485" Comment="added 644 characters in body" Text="Emacs has a feature for that (sentence-end-double-space). I checked out the sources from 1994 and this option was in fact there at that time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happens when two spaces are encountered is configurable by the user, a period is not specified. It is however obvious by the name of the option that it signifies that the sentence has ended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the [EMACS manual](http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Sentences.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the value is nil, the default, then Emacs computes sentence ends according to various criteria such as the value of sentence-end-double-space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here is prior art for ending a sentence when two spaces are encountered, and the reference from @Jaydles shows that there is prior art for what happens when a sentence is started. This patent is just a combination of these two features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4486" RevisionGUID="6cccba52-3719-4a21-99ec-fc2ba6295e8a" CreationDate="2013-07-23T22:20:34.483" UserId="4969" Text="These claims are too broad. They would cover the functionality of HP's iLO, RILOE, and RIB products, that have been commercially available for more than 15 years. Other vendors also offer remote management hardware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All such solutions collect remote system video, presents it through a webpage or application, and captures mouse/keyboard movements which are provided up to the SUT." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="548" RevisionGUID="51b396d1-598d-44c5-910f-01e380fda19c" CreationDate="2013-07-23T22:23:08.700" UserId="1767" Comment="added 729 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON USER INTERFACE** - This patent from [RIM][6] claims the idea of... doubletap spacebar to insert periods and capitalize! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US Patent No. 6,396,482][1] - Hand-held electronic device with a keyboard optimized for use with the thumbs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking for prior art related to **claim 16**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of inputting characters into a mobile device having a keyboard and a display, the keyboard including a plurality of character keys and a space bar, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- (A) inputting a first set of characters into the mobile device using the keyboard, wherein the first set of characters comprise a first sentence; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- (B) selecting the space bar of the keyboard twice in succession and (1) displaying a period symbol (.) after the first sentence, and (2) instructing the mobile device to capitalize the next character input using the keyboard; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- (C) inputting a second set of characters into the mobile device using the keyboard, wherein the second set of characters comprise a second sentence, and wherein the first character in the second set of characters is automatically capitalized by the mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the patent has a filing date of **Jun 25, 1999**, so any relevant art must have been published before this date. This patent has been assigned to RIM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, this claim is directed to the familiar feature on modern smartphones of double tapping the spacebar at the end of a sentence to automatically insert a period. Additionally, the next character typed will be automatically capitalized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents?id=dmYLAAAAEBAJ&amp;zoom=4&amp;pg=PA1#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.qualcomm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10428" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="548" RevisionGUID="51b396d1-598d-44c5-910f-01e380fda19c" CreationDate="2013-07-23T22:23:08.700" UserId="1767" Comment="added 729 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Double tap spacebar to insert period and capitalize next character (RIM) - Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10429" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="548" RevisionGUID="51b396d1-598d-44c5-910f-01e380fda19c" CreationDate="2013-07-23T22:23:08.700" UserId="1767" Comment="added 729 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;computer-graphics&gt;&lt;us6396482&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="611" RevisionGUID="907d4f26-c1bc-4b3b-9f61-b52927f5cd79" CreationDate="2013-07-23T22:26:40.887" UserId="1767" Comment="added 354 characters in body; edited title" Text="US Patent No. [2010/0251120](http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20100930ptan20100251120.php) (filed 2009-03-26, [USPTO link](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=20100251120.PGNR.)) seems basically to be &quot;using a URL to link to a given part of a video&quot;. The key claim is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -  receiving from a first user interface a first input from a first user specifying a first particular instant in a video other than a beginning of the video;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - in response to the first input, generating by one or more computer systems first data for inclusion in a link to the video, the first data representing the first particular instant in the video and being operable automatically to direct playback of the video at a second user interface to start at the first particular instant in the video in response to a second user selecting the link at the second user interface;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and communicating the first data to a link generator for inclusion in the link to the video&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or in human speak, something to generate links like [blah#t=43s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ#t=43s)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(plus later, claim 12, that must then be processed by the system, and a lot of minor dependent claims about all of the above, etc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there doesn't seem to be anything particularly non-obvious about this, given that URLs are *designed* to convey context about a resource. Conveying time as part of a URL does *not* seem any kind of invention. Can anyone think of prior art for this? Perhaps for audio, if video is elusive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that under the AIA **it is not be possible for Ask Patents to submit prior art under the pre-grant process used by Ask Patents** due to the window having closed. Prior art which is found below would need to submitted under the six-month post-grant process or the ex-parte rexamination process. (This could be done by a company or an individual.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10431" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="611" RevisionGUID="907d4f26-c1bc-4b3b-9f61-b52927f5cd79" CreationDate="2013-07-23T22:26:40.887" UserId="1767" Comment="added 354 characters in body; edited title" Text="URL pointing to time of video (Google) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10432" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="611" RevisionGUID="907d4f26-c1bc-4b3b-9f61-b52927f5cd79" CreationDate="2013-07-23T22:26:40.887" UserId="1767" Comment="added 354 characters in body; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;data-processing-interface&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;us20100251120&gt;&lt;google&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4487" RevisionGUID="3cf40f5d-659b-4167-b967-cc08e22148a1" CreationDate="2013-07-23T22:44:59.577" UserId="4485" Text="It seems to me that US5778372 could be simply described as a web browser loading a web page with a background element on the body tag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The background tag was introduced in the HTML3.0 spec. The following is a quote from [a draft dated 28th March 1995](http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/html3.txt)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   BACKGROUND &#xD;&#xA;       This can be used to specify a URI for an image tile to cover the&#xD;&#xA;       document background." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4488" RevisionGUID="d5a23dbe-3f78-4e4d-872e-5951b89fbcf7" CreationDate="2013-07-23T22:54:03.467" UserId="4931" Text="While I couldn't find the patent myself, it is indeed possible to search patent applications by name. If you go to the USPTO Patent Application Full-Text and Image Database (AppFT)  website here, http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html, you can search their full text and image database which is specifically for pending applications. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: searching is not as straight forward as one might think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to search for the applicant's full name, you should format your query as follows: last name-first name-initial.  Using the Boolean Search Page to search for an inventor named John E. Doe, you should enter Doe-John-E in the Term 1 text entry box and select the Inventor Name field from the drop-down menu. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you prefer to use the advanced Search Page, http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm, to search for an inventor named John E. Doe, enter IN/Doe-John-E in the Query box. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In either case, if you are unsure of the exact name, you can also truncate in the following ways:  Doe-$ or Doe-John$ or Doe-J$, etc. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4489" RevisionGUID="3c499a4f-7b4d-4e42-836d-cb355835fd51" CreationDate="2013-07-23T22:57:26.043" UserId="4974" Text="A while back I worked for a startup producing online learning and video conferencing recording systems. One of the features of the system was linking forum comments to specific points in a video. My colleagues have a patent for it, which is now owned by Cisco.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US8363084&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/pdf/dewstow-poster.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4490" RevisionGUID="6c694dcc-7ebc-4ee8-a5dc-651f200018dc" CreationDate="2013-07-23T23:32:47.183" UserId="4485" Text="According to the [Wikipedia page for the plant](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysopogon_zizanioides#In-house_use), there is a reference to cooling uses in the book [CRC Handbook of alternative cash crops](http://www.amazon.com/CRC-Handbook-Alternative-Cash-Crops/dp/0849336201) published in 1993. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not own this book, so I can not personally verify the claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10437" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3671" RevisionGUID="b1616a57-20a2-48e8-9ffd-4b41805fdb68" CreationDate="2013-07-23T23:37:36.663" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/AskPatents/status/359819617155284992" />
  <row Id="10438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4491" RevisionGUID="27a42054-0ea3-44b3-aeb7-80a666d11f0a" CreationDate="2013-07-23T23:43:09.033" UserId="4976" Text="Does a software implementation count as prior art and sufficient proof to invalidate a patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it matter whether the implementation was closed-source, open-source or public-domain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10439" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4491" RevisionGUID="27a42054-0ea3-44b3-aeb7-80a666d11f0a" CreationDate="2013-07-23T23:43:09.033" UserId="4976" Text="Does a software implementation count as prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10440" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4491" RevisionGUID="27a42054-0ea3-44b3-aeb7-80a666d11f0a" CreationDate="2013-07-23T23:43:09.033" UserId="4976" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4492" RevisionGUID="25086fc8-eb3a-4f23-8903-af9f5eddb6c6" CreationDate="2013-07-23T23:53:06.127" UserId="4931" Text="I see on many threads here references to there being prior art, and then &quot;good&quot; prior art. After searching at length through many threads on this site, and even turning to the internet at large and even the USPTO website, I've found precious very few guidelines, best practices, how-tos, descriptions, etc. of what defines &quot;good&quot; or &quot;strong&quot; prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What resources, best practices, guidelines, how-tos, guides, or even simply advice could you provide that would educate me well on providing better or more solid prior art references?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10442" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4492" RevisionGUID="25086fc8-eb3a-4f23-8903-af9f5eddb6c6" CreationDate="2013-07-23T23:53:06.127" UserId="4931" Text="How can I make certain that prior art I find for submission is &quot;good prior art&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10443" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4492" RevisionGUID="25086fc8-eb3a-4f23-8903-af9f5eddb6c6" CreationDate="2013-07-23T23:53:06.127" UserId="4931" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;best-practices&gt;&lt;guidelines&gt;&lt;resources&gt;&lt;advice&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4493" RevisionGUID="3be43db9-7408-47ee-9455-e7bfb80dc644" CreationDate="2013-07-24T01:01:49.250" UserId="4989" Text="The Input Method Editor (IME) for the Japanese language in Microsoft Windows available in, as far as I know, Microsoft Windows 2000 onwards transforms characters entered in Hiragana into Kanji when the space bar is pressed once (i.e.) type Hiragana characters, press the space bar and you get Kanji.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone skilled in the art ......" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4494" RevisionGUID="41a11bbb-b9e4-4286-bd16-221fd48a2b28" CreationDate="2013-07-24T01:05:35.430" UserId="4966" Text="Creating a URL to the USPTO's published applications is ugly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, if you have a number of publications, one work-around is to create the links in the format required by the USPTO by using Excel functions and macros. A list of publication numbers can be placed in a first column, while portions of the constant 'boilerplate' text is placed in a second column, interspersed with references to the first column (in this case, 3 times).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, grabbing the USPTO's URL after typing in an arbitrary publication number (20010000044) yields;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220010000044%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20010000044&amp;RS=DN/20010000044  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to create equivalent links for a series of publications, place the publication numbers in column A (say, starting with row 1). In cell B1, insert the following;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; =&quot;http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%22&quot;&amp;A1&amp;&quot;%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/&quot;&amp;A1&amp;&quot;&amp;RS=DN/&quot;&amp;A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above string is identical to the copied URL except that an equal sign has been prepended, the three sections of boiler plate text have been surrounded by quotation marks, and where the publication number once existed (3 places), it has been replaced with &amp;A1&amp; (or &amp;A1 at the very end of the string).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What this mess does is create a text string which consists of the verbatim material contained in quotation marks, interspersed with the number found in cell A1 (3 times). The ampersands contained outside of the quotation marks are used by Excel to stitch the verbatim text and referenced cell together into a single text string.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, use the Macro editor to create a routine which converts the text string into a hyperlink. A somewhat outdated (2008) set of instructions on how to do this can be found at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.jerryleventer.com/excel-tutorial-how-to-convert-plain-text-links-into-hyperlinks/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you've gone to the trouble of creating cell B1, you can copy it and then paste to all cells in column 'B' for which you have a publication number in column 'A' of the same row.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, using the Macro, you can convert all the populated cells of column 'B' to hyperlinks. There are ways to incrementally improve this. For example, the three sections of boilerplate text can be stored in individual cells and referenced using 'absolute' references. Also, aliases can be created to hide the strings complexity, and/or, the column width can be minimized. The table of patents and publications, with their hyperlinks can then be copied into Word documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same approach can be used for patents. It is admittedly BUTT UGLY (as is public PAIR's requirement to deal with Captcha every few minutes, but that's another topic)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4495" RevisionGUID="7aa37b5c-d4ab-470c-bf4f-abc8dcfc28f0" CreationDate="2013-07-24T02:07:41.780" UserId="1085" Text="The answer is &quot;it depends&quot;.  However, if the source code was publicly available, it would almost certainly count as Prior Art and should be brought to the attention of the examiner or PTO." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4496" RevisionGUID="828bff47-0a6d-49f9-95cc-430c62aa4ad3" CreationDate="2013-07-24T02:44:27.157" UserId="4996" Text="Some work I did on patent [#6,584,080 Wireless burstable communications repeater][1] granted in 2003 covered most of this territory, around 2.4GHz and targeting variable (but usually higher) speeds.  Directional plus omnidirectional antenna mixes to extend the network outward into remote spots, putting a processor and data collection device in there, this stuff was barely state of the art in 1999 when that was filed.  The sensors collecting data were actually parts of the network QoS system.  I pointed out in there that you can run the concept at multiple speeds, only specifically mentioning the popular at the time 1 and 2MB/s versions though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6584080" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4497" RevisionGUID="c6af48b1-a488-4bd3-83ee-a881b23aa2eb" CreationDate="2013-07-24T04:39:00.450" UserId="3076" Text="Especially in the earlier days of Ask Patents many posts used &quot;prior art&quot; as synonymous with &quot;killer prior art that would completely show a patent document to not be new&quot;. Technically &quot;A is prior art to B&quot; just means that A is allowed to be used against B. To qualify under this correct, and low, hurdle A needs to meet a timing criteria, an &quot;available to the public&quot; or &quot;published&quot; criteria, and might need to meet a technology field criteria. The arcane rules that split the hairs of what is in and what is out are set by statue and by precedent or &quot;judge made&quot; law. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anything published anywhere anytime in any language can be prior art. Something written down and put in a drawer is not published and therefore not prior art to anything. The Gutenberg bible can be prior art your inventors notebook kept in your garage can't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crudely, A can't be prior art to B unless A came before B. However, if the inventor of B says A is prior art on the record, then it is &quot;admitted prior art&quot; even if it would not otherwise actually qualify. In terms of technology field, prior art must be from the same or an analogous art. Or be from any field but address the same problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now what is &quot;good&quot; prior art? Patents and patent applications typically have multiple claims. You can think of each claim as a mini-patent in that they are individually rejected or allowed. And individually found valid or invalid, and  likewise individually infringed or not infringed.  Among the several requirements for patentalbity, the territory defined within the bounds of a claim must be new and non-obvious. Prior art is used to show that a claim is not new or it is obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not too hard to be new. A claim says it covers a device that includes a widget connected to a large thingy on a base with a flat bottom. It is shown to be not new if anything that minimally fits that description has been &quot;taught&quot; in a prior art qualifying document. I say minimally because the prior art might have also described the device has having a spherical widget or specified that the device also has an antenna. It still does have a widget connected to a larger thingy on a base with a flat bottom. If the bottom weren't flat it would not show the claim as old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one **single document** describes a device with all the elements of the claim and the device has all of the specified interconnects or other relationships between the elements in the claim then we say that document &quot;anticipates&quot; the claim. Meaning the claimed territory has at least some region that is not new. No allowance for that claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the examiner can't find a single prior art document that describes everything the claim claims they look for prior art that contains most of what the claim encompasses. The claim is an X connected to a Y with a Z on top. The examiner can only find something with an X connected to a Y with a W on top. It does not prove the claimed invention old. So the examiner finds something that says in that field W and Z are known to have similar properties or they find something else with no X but it has a Y with a Z on top. They argue that it would be obvious (they need actual logic here) to combine the two to get the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That does not make the claimed invention not new. It makes it obvious. Unlike some posters, the examiner can't wave their hands and say it seems obvious to them. They need two or more documents that, between them, have all of the elements of the claim and then need some logic as to why the problem at hand or &quot;market forces&quot; would drive someone of &quot;ordinary skill in the art&quot; to put them together to achieve the claimed invention. Of course this is inherently subjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been talking about individual claims. Prior art that shows claim 1 to be old or obvious may not show claim 10 as old or obvious. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4498" RevisionGUID="4f59cb8a-563c-47ea-b186-18b735769cbb" CreationDate="2013-07-24T04:48:32.253" UserId="5006" Text="There is also some scientific work published long before 1999, directly dealing with OO access to relational databases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary;jsessionid=B515570C9EC28AF96459B3B92533A38F?doi=10.1.1.48.5695&#xD;&#xA; - http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=162911 (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.8.6980&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4499" RevisionGUID="ce991cd8-9288-4e5f-bf70-1d8cd459a66e" CreationDate="2013-07-24T05:08:07.730" UserId="5009" Text="http://patents.justia.com/patent/6907471&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sharing objects over a network for something like computer games, surely there is prior art for this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Data is shared over a network, having a plurality of network-connected terminals, each including a visual display processor, storage and memory. The memory is configured to store program instructions for equipping objects stored therein with attributes and for managing the duplication of the objects. The processor is configurable by the program instructions to perform the steps of equipping an object with attributes at a first of the network terminals; at a second of the network terminals, matching the object attributes of the first terminal with the attributes of an object amongst all of the objects stored in the second terminal; duplicating the object from the second terminal to the first terminal; at the first terminal, accessing data in the duplicated object using locally executed object instructions; and maintaining data consistency between the duplicated objects.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10451" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4499" RevisionGUID="ce991cd8-9288-4e5f-bf70-1d8cd459a66e" CreationDate="2013-07-24T05:08:07.730" UserId="5009" Text="Equipping data objects with attributes and managing duplication of same for data sharing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10452" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4499" RevisionGUID="ce991cd8-9288-4e5f-bf70-1d8cd459a66e" CreationDate="2013-07-24T05:08:07.730" UserId="5009" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10453" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4499" RevisionGUID="74c9fd9c-0c49-461a-9181-7a65d5e082db" CreationDate="2013-07-24T05:13:08.233" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us6907471&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4374" RevisionGUID="e8390dbf-dc69-4b76-9377-2506dd604123" CreationDate="2013-07-24T05:15:40.260" UserId="3076" Comment="Typo that changed the meaning " Text="No, there is no way that is quick and inexpensive. Patents are presumed valid and the least difficult way to knock one down is an ex parte reexamination. Anyone can file a request based on submitting published documents and an explanation as to how they apply to which claims, and $6000. The patent office gets 3 months to decide if there is a &quot;significant new question of patentablity&quot;. If not you get your $6000 back. If so, they proceed to examine it again, but with &quot;special dispatch&quot;. At the end a reexamination certificate is issued that might say everything is fine, some claims are changed, some or all claims are gone. The requestor does not get to participate after sending it in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No lawyer is technically required. You could draw it up yourself, or you can use a registered practitioner. That includes patent attorneys and patent agents. If one were actually spending $6000 in USPTO fees, another few thousand to get it done professionally seems wise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4500" RevisionGUID="5ff618bf-b842-4ddd-baa1-11f8414c54f5" CreationDate="2013-07-24T05:23:30.123" UserId="5011" Text="I think that this should count as prior art...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.raywenderlich.com/15916/how-to-synchronize-core-data-with-a-web-service-part-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4501" RevisionGUID="8ebae063-1fb4-4722-8fe5-73e1e9cae7a7" CreationDate="2013-07-24T06:05:28.267" UserId="3500" Text="There's a case called [Lockwood v. American Airlines](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5169185223383348562&amp;q=107+f.3d+1565&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The money paragraph follows.  TL;DR? If the claims of the patent are taught by the public aspects of the system, then you're likely to invalidate.  If the claims recite implementation detail is not publicly accessible, then you might still be able to invalidate, but this case is not on point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If a device was &quot;known or used by others&quot; in this country before the date of invention or if it was &quot;in public use&quot; in this country more than one year before the date of application, it qualifies as prior art. See 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (b) (1994). Lockwood attempts to preclude summary judgment by pointing to record testimony that one skilled in the art would not be able to build and practice the claimed invention without access to the secret aspects of SABRE. However, it is the claims that define a patented invention. See Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1064 (Fed.Cir.1988). As we have concluded earlier in this opinion, American's public use of the high-level aspects of the SABRE system was enough to place the claimed features of the '359 patent in the public's possession. See In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 1567-68, 31 USPQ2d 1817, 1823 (Fed.Cir.1994) (&quot;Beyond this `in public use or on sale' finding, there is no requirement for an enablement-type inquiry.&quot;). Lockwood cannot negate this by evidence showing that other, unclaimed aspects of the SABRE system were not publicly available. Moreover, the '359 patent itself does not disclose the level of detail that Lockwood would have us require of the prior art. For these reasons, Lockwood fails to show a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4502" RevisionGUID="88c63d6a-817d-4bf6-8d0d-4f6fe35372ef" CreationDate="2013-07-24T06:40:01.787" UserId="5015" Text="I have a great idea,  &#xD;&#xA;I would like to protect it, but I don't have the budget for a patent attorney at the moment. &#xD;&#xA;I was thinking to do it by my own. &#xD;&#xA;I wanted to know if I try my best to define the invention to it's tiniest details, and make anyone who's trained in that field (computer applicaitons) - capable of creating the invention, then I might have some basis for the non-provisional patent within this year.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent attorneys charge for a provisional patent filing as much as they do for a non-provisional patent where I live (non-US), so the costs are quite high.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How bad can this be if I go through an already filed patent and making matches to my own invention?&#xD;&#xA;Is this that stupid an idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10458" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4502" RevisionGUID="88c63d6a-817d-4bf6-8d0d-4f6fe35372ef" CreationDate="2013-07-24T06:40:01.787" UserId="5015" Text="Filing a Provisional Patent by myself" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10459" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4502" RevisionGUID="88c63d6a-817d-4bf6-8d0d-4f6fe35372ef" CreationDate="2013-07-24T06:40:01.787" UserId="5015" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4503" RevisionGUID="57f08339-57ae-4f22-b33e-5b8ed0a4cfa0" CreationDate="2013-07-24T06:47:30.143" UserId="4485" Text="This is written so broadly that I think you could show prior art several ways&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) [CVS (1990)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrent_Versions_System) or other version control system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) [rsync (1996)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rsync) or other network file synchronization tool. Maybe even UUCP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or more in line with what I think the implied intent is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) [Maze War (1973)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maze_War) - first multiclient game where you can see your opponents on a minimap&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) [Doom (December 10, 1993)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_(video_game)) - if nothing else, this definitely fits the bill &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4504" RevisionGUID="5a7cb4f7-3441-449f-b728-d62f185ef563" CreationDate="2013-07-24T07:01:12.050" UserId="5018" Text="&quot;Network File System (NFS) is a distributed file system protocol originally developed by Sun Microsystems in 1984, allowing a user on a client computer to access files over a network in a manner similar to how local storage is accessed.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_File_System&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NFS provides the necessary functionality to synchronize file attributes across multiple terminals as described in the patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NFS v4 was described in a RFC in 2000 and is clearly a superset of the functionality described in this patent. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10462" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4502" RevisionGUID="dfe25ec4-455c-4d3c-abb8-3fcc282382d9" CreationDate="2013-07-24T07:08:28.410" UserId="5015" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4504" RevisionGUID="25f410c9-cf3f-486f-879b-cf99d8ea96e5" CreationDate="2013-07-24T07:09:32.993" UserId="5018" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="&quot;Network File System (NFS) is a distributed file system protocol originally developed by Sun Microsystems in 1984, allowing a user on a client computer to access files over a network in a manner similar to how local storage is accessed.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_File_System&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NFS provides the necessary functionality to synchronize file attributes across multiple terminals as described in the patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NFS v4 was described in RFC 3010 (Shepler et al, Dec 2000) and is clearly a superset of the functionality described in this patent. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4505" RevisionGUID="5c95a55f-3c3a-4ef8-9792-4544c362d211" CreationDate="2013-07-24T07:36:11.983" UserId="5024" Text="*&quot;In February 2014, key patents that currently prevent competition in the market for the most advanced and functional 3D printers will expire, says Duann Scott, design evangelist at 3D printing company Shapeways.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*These patents cover a technology known as “laser sintering,” the lowest-cost 3D printing technology. Because of its high resolution in all three dimensions, laser sintering can produce goods that can be sold as finished products.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: http://qz.com/106483/3d-printing-will-explode-in-2014-thanks-to-the-expiration-of-key-patents/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone could shed light on which patents those are exactly, it would be great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10465" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4505" RevisionGUID="5c95a55f-3c3a-4ef8-9792-4544c362d211" CreationDate="2013-07-24T07:36:11.983" UserId="5024" Text="What SLS (selective laser sintering) 3D printing patents are expiring in 2014?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10466" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4505" RevisionGUID="5c95a55f-3c3a-4ef8-9792-4544c362d211" CreationDate="2013-07-24T07:36:11.983" UserId="5024" Text="&lt;3d-printing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4506" RevisionGUID="b8ee8e58-8307-415f-a78b-133d69cc3c71" CreationDate="2013-07-24T08:39:47.473" UserId="5028" Text="There's &quot;freifunk&quot; an open mesh networking implementation. Their first release was in 2004 (http://wiki.freifunk.net/Freifunk_Firmware unfortunately in german). It has included openvpn to (optionally) securely transmit data over IP in a secured manner from early on since it was built on openwrt's white russian release.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's http://ipkg.berlin.freifunk.net/ChangeLog (partially in german though) and it discusses openvpn being included in an 2005-Dec-23 release candidate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4507" RevisionGUID="194345b2-e656-4ed6-afc6-ac0d9dbabda9" CreationDate="2013-07-24T08:59:05.837" UserId="5028" Text="I'd like to make the somewhat absurd proposition that a bottle of beer actually perfectly perfectly fits the description of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's obviously been known for a long time than ethanol acts as an analgesic (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3362554 ...) and that storing beer in a fridge is considered a good idea got to be documented somewhere publicly as well even if it's not considered obvious." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4508" RevisionGUID="409928a8-7ea9-443e-9d38-e769366fb6c3" CreationDate="2013-07-24T09:31:06.303" UserId="5032" Text="US patent application 2220110228919 ([USPTO link](http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220110228919%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20110228919&amp;RS=DN/20110228919)) seems to be trying to patent an on/off switch for DTMF audio on telephone networks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key claims are these (effectively the first three):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. A telephone call processor for processing telephone calls comprising voice signals and data signals, the call processor comprising a first telephone interface and a second telephone interface, the call processor being operable in a first mode and in a second mode, wherein:&#xD;&#xA;- in the first mode, the call processor is adapted to receive voice signals and data signals at the first telephone interface and to transmit voice signals and data signals to the second telephone interface;&#xD;&#xA;- and in the second mode, the call processor is adapted to receive voice signals and data signals at the first telephone interface, to block data signals from being transmitted to the second telephone interface and optionally to transmit voice signals to the second telephone interface. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 95. The call processor of claim 1, wherein the data signals comprise at least one of audio tones and DTMF (dial-tone multi-frequency) audio tones. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;96. The call processor of claim 1 further adapted to switch between first and second modes in response to receiving a mode-switching data signal at the first or at the second telephone interface. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application itself describes how this approach can restrict credit card information being sent by a customer from reaching the ears of the call center agent. It therefore stops call center agents from stealing card data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The concept of stopping call center staff from accessing sensitive data transmitted by DTMF is not new. One example is Van Volkenburgh's application from 2003 [Device and method for concealing customer information from a customer service representative](http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=5&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=%22van+volkenburgh%22&amp;OS=%22van+volkenburgh%22&amp;RS=%22van+volkenburgh%22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The concept of blocking DTMF tones is not new either, as shown by Didier Filhol's application of 1998 [Telephone dialling modification accessory, e.g. to ensure use of specific service provider, has off-hook detector actuating unit to filter out DTMF signals and generate replacement signals as necessary](http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=FR&amp;NR=2783992A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;date=20000331&amp;DB=EPODOC&amp;locale=en_EP#)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, to my layman's mind, don't the claims in the 2220110228919 application above mean &quot;sometimes DTMF tones are allowed to come through to the call center agent, and sometimes they are switched off&quot;? In other words, _it's an on/off switch_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current application states a UK reference date of May 9, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Question:&lt;/b&gt; Does anybody have any prior art for this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10470" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4508" RevisionGUID="409928a8-7ea9-443e-9d38-e769366fb6c3" CreationDate="2013-07-24T09:31:06.303" UserId="5032" Text="Secure telephone-based payments - Patent application - Prior art request" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10471" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4508" RevisionGUID="409928a8-7ea9-443e-9d38-e769366fb6c3" CreationDate="2013-07-24T09:31:06.303" UserId="5032" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;dtmf&gt;&lt;call-center&gt;&lt;pci-dss&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4510" RevisionGUID="714a66de-cb78-464b-ae8b-3f0608305eba" CreationDate="2013-07-24T09:47:37.753" UserId="5033" Text="Even if it's a recent thing SwiftKey keyboard on Android does that. Double tap on the spacebar will insert a period and next word will be capitalized.&#xD;&#xA;[See FAQ here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://support.swiftkey.net/knowledgebase/articles/9073-does-swiftkey-replace-double-spaces-with-a-period-" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10478" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4499" RevisionGUID="a38edb24-492e-4e1e-8ee4-5ce4f33e1e9a" CreationDate="2013-07-24T11:17:17.070" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;us6907471&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4511" RevisionGUID="0d952444-ca3b-4573-82d3-d6601971aa43" CreationDate="2013-07-24T11:17:52.983" UserId="3345" Text="Is it possible to do search class numbers based on the title/text/description relating the class. On EPO and WIPO yiu can search for classes based on text search. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find any such feature on USPTO. Number search is only available with USPTO." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10480" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4511" RevisionGUID="0d952444-ca3b-4573-82d3-d6601971aa43" CreationDate="2013-07-24T11:17:52.983" UserId="3345" Text="How to do USC Class Title seach on USPTO" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10481" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4511" RevisionGUID="0d952444-ca3b-4573-82d3-d6601971aa43" CreationDate="2013-07-24T11:17:52.983" UserId="3345" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;us-class&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4512" RevisionGUID="e9fa8415-9d63-42ac-8b93-726567df674f" CreationDate="2013-07-24T11:27:09.743" UserId="5038" Text="I think one should focus on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•placing an analgesic composition in an environment with a temperature of less than 10° Centigrade,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•keeping said analgesic composition in said environment for a period of time sufficient to reduce the temperature of said composition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every time a user of ointment has left their analgesic in a room, car, or had the analgesic during a winter's hike in their backpack has performed the full method upon&#xD;&#xA;using the analgesic in said room, car or other environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note the word 'reducing'in the second sentence. This means that putting a 30C tube of analgesic for 10 seconds in a room of 9.9C, thus cooling the tube of analgesic by for instance 1 nanoKelvin has performed the first part of the method. This opens other routes of attack against the extremely broad scope of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, this claim has way too broad scope but that was intended. Look at the first dependent claims too as those are fallbacks and will be narrower in scope. From reading the patent one can discern what the applicant(s) most likely wanted to protect. The extremely broad claim is just a tactic to protect as much as possible in case the examiner is sleeping or does not have enough time to thoroughly read the patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4513" RevisionGUID="7d211dd5-7ae0-4731-9bb4-dca96f24bfd1" CreationDate="2013-07-24T11:29:57.817" UserId="5038" Text="Look at the classification here. You can download the pdf and search in this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/selectnumwithtitle.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore you can use the uspto advanced search and use the operater ccl/ (current classification):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4514" RevisionGUID="8d8ee88a-5df3-4d36-8082-aae5ca5b4817" CreationDate="2013-07-24T11:34:48.243" UserId="5038" Text="This is totally bogus: if you call the provider of your telephone or your bank and a computer answers your call you are almost in this situation. What could be 'innovative'is the fact that both voice recognition and button pushes (DTMF) are used in one system, but I highly doubt this..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10485" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4508" RevisionGUID="49fe7c54-c048-4434-ab96-b7eb2f30f188" CreationDate="2013-07-24T12:20:24.133" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;dtmf&gt;&lt;call-center&gt;&lt;pci-dss&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10486" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4449" RevisionGUID="4b58e241-c9c9-41c3-b41b-03c191b565d1" CreationDate="2013-07-24T12:38:32.093" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4515" RevisionGUID="e2dffe35-1212-429c-8803-ab56a7440a6a" CreationDate="2013-07-24T12:39:19.973" UserId="5044" Text="A paper published in 1993 describes this process: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=171541&amp;dl=ACM&amp;coll=DL&amp;CFID=349550071&amp;CFTOKEN=88660538&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(PDF of paper available at: http://pdf.aminer.org/000/599/026/persistence_software_bridging_object_oriented_programming_and_relational_databases.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sample C++ code is included in the paper:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    void demonstratePersistenceMethods()&#xD;&#xA;    {&#xD;&#xA;        // Login to the database&#xD;&#xA;        ROMS::connect(“scott”,”tiger”);&#xD;&#xA;        // Create new persistent department&#xD;&#xA;        Department * currDept = new Department(&quot;Sales&quot;,&quot;Building 1&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;        // Create new employee, assign to department&#xD;&#xA;        Employee * emp = new Employee(&quot;Jensen&quot;, currDept);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        // Read department with key = &quot;Systems&quot;&#xD;&#xA;        Department * existingDept = Department::queryKey(&quot;Systems&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;        // Read all employees who work in Systems dept&#xD;&#xA;        Employee_Cltn * systemsEmpSet = existingDept-&gt;getEmployees();&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        // Update employee relationship (also maintains ref integrity)&#xD;&#xA;        emp-&gt;setWorksIn(existingDept);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        // Delete Sales dept from database (also checks delete constraints)&#xD;&#xA;        currDept-&gt;remove();&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent also appears very close to a patent filed Mar 22nd 1995 ([5499371 - Method and apparatus for automatic generation of object oriented code for mapping relational data to objects][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, a paper published in Communications of the ACM in April 1988 describes mapping from an OO heirarchy to relational databases to objects in detail (although mostly a manual process for determining the structure to tables should take):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://sims.monash.edu.au/subjects/ims2501/seminars/oomodelling.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5499371" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4516" RevisionGUID="3be1ddf8-0aa6-4c76-8182-3191a5f6a420" CreationDate="2013-07-24T12:41:11.293" UserId="4922" Text="It's probably worth looking into Mac debuggers from the PowerPC era.  The first models (6100, 7100 and 8100) were released in 1994, and the last PowerPC product lines were replaced by Intel-based equivalents by the end of 2006, both before the priority date (2007) of this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PowerMacs routinely ran old 68K code under emulation in the same process as native PowerPC code - indeed, for some time a good deal of the underlying operating system remained in 68K, running underneath otherwise fully native PowerPC applications.  The first OS version shipped with them was System 7.1.2, a minimally fixed-up version of the existing System 7.1 with just enough PowerPC code to make the whole thing work.  Other companies might quite reasonably have made a major revision to the OS when changing the CPU under it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mac debuggers were therefore routinely designed to cope with both native PowerPC and emulated 68K code simultaneously.  To do this, they needed to be able to interpret the two very different calling conventions used by the two architectures (68K put arguments on the stack, PowerPC passed them in registers), and possibly even hook into the 68K emulator to determine the state of the emulated CPU.  There was also at least one third-party replacement for the 68K emulator which was meant to improve emulation performance, and debuggers needed to continue to work with that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two debugging environments I remember using are MacsBug (by Apple themselves), and CodeWarrior.  There was also MPW, but I never used that and I don't know whether it had it's own debugger, rather than relying on MacsBug.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4517" RevisionGUID="e2ed745a-4f2a-4658-9f56-3163bd1a2173" CreationDate="2013-07-24T12:41:21.370" UserId="5039" Text="Hitting the spacebar twice in succession to do something other than print 2 spaces was used in a Frontier Elite flight plan generator:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PYYBOEzBwNsJ:www.planetmic.com/orbit/ferfp.htm+&amp;cd=8&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=uk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.planetmic.com/orbit/ferfp.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Version release date: 08-28-96&#xD;&#xA;Author: Mic J. Healey mic@planetmic.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Title Screen comes on for about 5 seconds and then the program&#xD;&#xA;&gt; starts. If you would like to express past the title screen you can do&#xD;&#xA;&gt; so by hitting the Space Bar. Please don't use the Enter Key as this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; will be taken by the basic program later as a data input for the Code&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Generation Number; the Enter Key having a value of zero. However, if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you want radom code sequence 0, knock yourself. Pressing the space bar&#xD;&#xA;&gt; twice quickly, expresses the loop through the title screen.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4519" RevisionGUID="6a5239ef-9773-4376-aadf-2d41f7aad96f" CreationDate="2013-07-24T13:07:18.280" UserId="4585" Text="Back in 1996 when I was taking college courses we used SmallTalk (IBM?) and PowerBuilder for some of the coursework.  These were both highly object oriented and used objects to represent databases, tables and queries.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From documentation in 2000, but this is with version 5.5 and as I recall we used something very similar in 1996.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?subtype=ca&amp;infotype=an&amp;appname=iSource&amp;supplier=897&amp;letternum=ENUS200-275&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;VisualAge Smalltalk Advanced Database Feature Version 5.5: This feature is a thin Smalltalk layer on the most commonly used native UDB capabilities that allow you to enhance DB2 applications for speed. For applications that must perform complex database access with a time delimited window, the Advanced Database Feature provides, in some cases, up to two times the speed of standard VisualAge Smalltalk CLI drivers for key operations.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4449" RevisionGUID="f0ace702-5e3b-4c5f-8dc4-869c02c4d294" CreationDate="2013-07-24T13:12:35.090" UserId="4901" Comment="deleted 66 characters in body" Text="[US Patent Number 8,291,381][1] - Call stack parsing in multiple runtime environments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If multiple runtimes are sharing a call stack, their call stack frames may be different. Here, Microsoft proposes a debugger that asks each runtime/process if it made the frame at a given address. If it did, ask it to describe the frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking for prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8291381" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4520" RevisionGUID="1b2f3b63-57ed-4ae7-88e7-eadaaee7db16" CreationDate="2013-07-24T13:30:18.120" UserId="5047" Text="Try these below. &#xD;&#xA;The cellphone system is a mobile radio-frequency mesh network....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]&#xD;&#xA;A method for connection roaming a Mobile Node (MN) to a Network GateWay (NGW) for providing secure data path using Internet Protocol (IP) security procedure. Also Mobile IP (MIP) is required for providing mobility to the user, when the MN moves from one sub-network to another. However, when the Home Address of the network is not known, a cyclic interdependency is observed between the IP Security (Ipsec) procedures and MIP procedures. If the home address of the MN is not known initially during the procedure, IPsec Security Associations (SA's) are formed between the MN and NGW such that only MIP packets are passed through. &#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&amp;II=10&amp;ND=3&amp;adjacent=true&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;FT=D&amp;date=20080911&amp;CC=US&amp;NR=2008219224A1&amp;KC=A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]&#xD;&#xA;The invention relates to mobility management of an Internet-type protocol traffic in a mobile communications system. At least one mobile exchange (DXT1, DXT2) in the mobile communications system is arranged to operate as a gateway which interfaces (router 1) the mobile communications system with external data networks. All the mobile exchanges (DXT1, DXT2) are arranged to use a user identity and a data equipment identity for identifying each mobile host and to use an identity of the mobile exchange currently serving the mobile host for defining the location of the mobile host. Each mobile host is dynamically or permanently allocated an IP address which is bound to the user identity, the data equipment identity and the location information of the respective mobile host. The use of the user identity and the data terminal identity provide a unique identification for the mobile host without any relation to the IP network. Also the location information is independent of the IP network. As a consequence, the mobile exchanges are able to route IP datagrams having the allocated IP address from a gateway exchange (DXT1) to the serving exchange (DXT2) according to the location information and further to the respective mobile host according to the user identity and the data equipment identity bound to the IP address by using a mobile network specific routing method instead of mobile IP tunnelling.&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&amp;II=0&amp;ND=3&amp;adjacent=true&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;FT=D&amp;date=20100302&amp;CC=US&amp;NR=7672288B1&amp;KC=B1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3]&#xD;&#xA;A secure communication method for allowing a mobile host (1) to communicate with a correspondent host (4) over a Virtual Private network. The method comprises negotiating one or more Security Associations (SAs) between the mobile host (1) and a correspondent host (4) of a Virtual Private Network (VPN). Subsequently, a communication is initiated between the mobile host (1) and a Security Gateway (SG) (3) and an authentication certificate sent to the SG (3), the certificate containing at least the identity of a SA which will be used for subsequent communication between the mobile host (1) and a Security Gateway (SG) (3) and the correspondent host (4). Data packets can then be sent from the mobile host (1) to the correspondent host (4) using the identified SA, via the SG (3). However, the data packets are forwarded by the SG (3) to the correspondent host (4) only if they are authenticated by the SG (3).&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&amp;II=1&amp;ND=3&amp;adjacent=true&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;FT=D&amp;date=20010726&amp;CC=WO&amp;NR=0154379A1&amp;KC=A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[4]&#xD;&#xA;A method, apparatus and system provide a seamless, secure roaming solution. Embodiments of the present invention enable secure transmission of IP packets across enterprise security gateways. According to one embodiment, a mobile node on an external network may register with an external home agent using an external home address. The mobile node may also establish a secure path to the security gateway using the external home address and an internal home address. The mobile node may thereafter use the secure path to correspond with nodes on the external network. In other embodiments, the mobile node may use this secure path to register with an internal home agent on a home network, using the internal home address. The mobile node may then correspond with nodes on the home network via the secure path.&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&amp;II=5&amp;ND=3&amp;adjacent=true&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;FT=D&amp;date=20040624&amp;CC=US&amp;NR=2004120328A1&amp;KC=A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[5]&#xD;&#xA;A wireless data network process and system is provided including a mobile node with a wireless transceiver, a serving GPRS support node (SGPRS) a radio access network and a gateway GPRS including a packet gateway node (PGN) with an internet connection. The PGN acts as a mobile IP home agent (HA) with authentication of a MN handled by the GPRS/UMTS network before the PGN ever sees data traffic to establish a Mobile IP authentication key. An unauthenticated key exchange method such as Diffie-Hellman, the MVQ protocol or its one-pass variant (without certificates), or the Key Exchange Algorithm can be used to establish the shared key. The process may include performing a key exchange between the MN and the PGN via radio waves, the GPRS support node and the connection to establish a shared secret key and to establish an IPsec Security Association (SA) between the MN and the PGN. A hash of the key is performed at the PGN to obtain an authentication value for use in a Mobile IP protocol and using a security parameters index obtained from the SA as the Mobile IP for identifying the MN for authentication purposes. A Mobile IP registration request is sent from the MN to a Home Agent (HA) hosted in the PGN using the authentication value established. The Mobile IP registration request is received at the PGN. The message is authenticated using the authentication value and sending a Mobile IP registration reply to the MN.&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&amp;II=2&amp;ND=3&amp;adjacent=true&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;FT=D&amp;date=20030213&amp;CC=US&amp;NR=2003031151A1&amp;KC=A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4521" RevisionGUID="89905b32-c44d-4aaf-aed1-c922a4e67ee6" CreationDate="2013-07-24T13:33:40.697" UserId="5044" Text="This appears a very common object-synchronisation issue, solved many years before this patent.  I remember JavaSpaces being built on this - basically you can add an object into the &quot;JavaSpace&quot;, and other processes (from a network, for example) can access this object and modify it etc., thus having synchronised versions of the object.  Maybe this patent is deemed different as it has different copies of the object on each machine (?) - this is tenuous as any implementation of what I've just described would need to do this in some way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;JavaSpaces as described on Wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; JavaSpaces is a service specification providing a distributed object&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exchange and coordination mechanism (which may or may not be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; persistent) for Java objects. It is used to store the distributed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; system state and implement distributed algorithms. In a JavaSpace, all&#xD;&#xA;&gt; communication partners (peers) communicate and coordinate by sharing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure when JavaSpaces was released, but it's at least 1999.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="566" RevisionGUID="84bd6710-eaa1-4d48-8b81-27caa9f06e90" CreationDate="2013-07-24T14:18:54.627" UserId="14" Comment="Added edit linking to other answer." Text="**At a minimum, I'd think they do not have a valid claim to the auto capitalization.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't found anything on the auto-insertion of the period, but the claim for autocapitalization documented in claims 16(B)2, which is getting ready to capitalize the next string, and 16(C), which describes actually doing so, appears to have prior art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Apple Newton][1], which was launched in developed in 1987 and discontinued in 1998, included autocapitalization of sentences, as documented [here][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now,  this auto-capitalization was not triggered by a double space; it appears to have been triggered by the insertion of a period.  But it seems that one could easily conclude that once there's art for a period-triggered capitalization, adding capitalization after a double-space triggered period isn't novel - the same period is triggering it, and only the way the period was generated seems new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: And... see @NickHildebrant's answer [here](http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/4455/14) which appears to have found prior art for a program recognizing a sentence end based on a double space. I wonder if anyone's currently paying BlackBerry to license this one - might be in their interest to file a post-grant challenge...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_%28platform%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://support.apple.com/kb/TA29815?viewlocale=en_US&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/mueDB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4523" RevisionGUID="8132da61-6f15-4fdb-a5d9-e56fecd0a9b9" CreationDate="2013-07-24T14:35:09.497" UserId="4978" Text="MeetMoi (meetmoi.com) has been in operation since 2006.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The service is based on using your current location, asking for the type of person you're looking to meet (based on demographics such as gender, age range, etc), then identifying people nearby who meet those criteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the current version at www.meetmoi.com.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a page from the Internet Archive, from 2008, with a very clear demo  overview of the service on the home page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20081217205604/http://www.meetmoi.com/welcome&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's another page from 2008 with a &quot;How it Works&quot; overview:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20081103052949/http://www.meetmoi.com/howitworks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4524" RevisionGUID="0584fabc-ca65-4421-bfe7-1805e4d65314" CreationDate="2013-07-24T14:36:21.880" UserId="5056" Text="DTrace could be interesting here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="59192cbb-bf7d-4879-a0c5-dda9f2cb5e62" CreationDate="2013-07-24T14:42:55.273" UserId="300" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="I was wondering whether there was sufficient prior art for some of the patents that Microsoft is using in (what I consider) strong-arming Android manufacturers? Most of those seem to have been resolved under NDA, but here's some information from the [Barnes &amp; Noble case][1] and the just-completed [Motorola case in Germany][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [#US7,411,582](http://www.google.com/patents/US7411582): &quot;Soft input panel system and method&quot;, Issued Aug 12, 2008&#xD;&#xA; - [#US6,891,551](http://www.google.com/patents/US6891551): “Selection handles in editing electronic documents.” Issued May 10, 2005&#xD;&#xA; - [#US5,778,372](http://www.google.com/patents/US5778372): “Remote retrieval and display management of electronic document with incorporated images.” Issued July 7, 1998.&#xD;&#xA; - [#US6,957,233](http://www.google.com/patents/US6957233): “Method and apparatus for capturing and rendering annotations for non-modifiable electronic content.” Issued Oct. 18, 2005.&#xD;&#xA; - [#US7,411,582][4]: &quot;Soft input panel system and method.&quot; Issue date: Aug 12, 2008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.geekwire.com/2012/microsoft-barnes-noble/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/20/microsoft-wins-third-injunction-motorola-software-patent/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7411582" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4525" RevisionGUID="f4377a3a-b3a5-41ff-8bcf-a1e07dfdbfb7" CreationDate="2013-07-24T14:43:26.040" UserId="5047" Text="http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&amp;II=9&amp;ND=3&amp;adjacent=true&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;FT=D&amp;date=19981103&amp;CC=US&amp;NR=5832379A&amp;KC=A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A cellular communications system is provided have both satellite nodes and surface nodes for providing mobile cellular communications services for a plurality of mobile user units. The surface and satellite nodes are fully integrated by a network controller for providing service over large areas. In the alternative, each user unit includes link control means permitting the user unit to designate the mode of communications, either satellite node communications or ground node communications. In addition, multiple beam, relatively high gain antennas are disposed in the satellite nodes to establish satellite cells having enough gain in the satellite part of the system such that a user unit need only comprise a small, mobile handset with a non-directional antenna for communications with both ground nodes and satellite nodes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1998&#xD;&#xA;Also, look at the diagram at the above link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The linked patent has: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -- multiple omni-directional and directional antennae in the same system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -- a sensor (voice microphone) on a cellular communications device (cellphone)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -- the mobile cellphone converts the analog signal from the microphone into digital data, and processes this data using a processor. [This is how the digital cellphone system works].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -- the cellphone collects multiple analog signals from the microphone into batches of data before transmitting them to the network. This means it utilises short term storage using a memory device coupled to a processor. [This is how the digital cellphone system works].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -- The processor includes programmed instructions to transmit data through the cellphone company's network.[This is how the digital cellphone system works].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -- It complies with the speed and frequency requirements:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;configured to transmit information with a data rate of approximately 250 Kilobits per second (Kbits/sec) or less, and at a frequency of approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz) or less.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Older cellphones transmit their data using data rates around 12Kbits/sec to 24Kbits/sec. This complies with the &quot;..or less&quot; part of the &quot;250 Kilobits per second&quot; bandwidth requirement.&#xD;&#xA;Even newer voice+data cellphones usually don't exceed 250 Kbits/sec.&#xD;&#xA;Cellphone frequencies are typically 800 MHz, 900 Mhz, 1200 MHz, 2100 MHz. All of these comply with the &quot;..or less&quot; part of the &quot;2.4 Gigahertz&quot; frequency requirement. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4517" RevisionGUID="381f342c-1aae-42be-af9a-ce3372c45b4a" CreationDate="2013-07-24T14:50:49.310" UserId="5039" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Hitting the spacebar twice in succession to do something other than print 2 spaces was used in 1996 in a Frontier Elite flight plan generator:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PYYBOEzBwNsJ:www.planetmic.com/orbit/ferfp.htm+&amp;cd=8&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=uk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.planetmic.com/orbit/ferfp.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Version release date: 08-28-96&#xD;&#xA;Author: Mic J. Healey mic@planetmic.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Title Screen comes on for about 5 seconds and then the program&#xD;&#xA;&gt; starts. If you would like to express past the title screen you can do&#xD;&#xA;&gt; so by hitting the Space Bar. Please don't use the Enter Key as this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; will be taken by the basic program later as a data input for the Code&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Generation Number; the Enter Key having a value of zero. However, if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you want radom code sequence 0, knock yourself. Pressing the space bar&#xD;&#xA;&gt; twice quickly, expresses the loop through the title screen.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10505" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4449" RevisionGUID="71f63dbe-b925-40d4-a539-164773ffea99" CreationDate="2013-07-24T15:20:31.007" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Call stack parsing in multiple runtime environments - Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4526" RevisionGUID="7a5e337b-6127-41b8-9a29-7da2b0c8f97c" CreationDate="2013-07-24T15:22:42.810" UserId="5055" Text="USPTO already found the following prior art in their international search report:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [US 2010/0293047 A1 (Schwartz et al.)](http://www.google.com/patents/US20100293047) (filed 14.05.2010)&#xD;&#xA;- [US 7,406,434 B1 (Chang et al.)](http://www.google.com/patents/US7406434) (filed 17.12.2001)&#xD;&#xA;- [US 2011/0040611 A1 (Simmons et al.)](http://www.google.com/patents/US20110040611) (filed 13.08.2010)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just thought of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [US20080046317 A1 (Christianson et al.)](http://www.google.com/patents/US20080046317) (filed 21.08)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Christianson's goal seems similar to those in '332, i.e. to maximize the efficacity of a marketing message. Christianson broadcasts surveys and not ads, but everything else is there and we argue that an ad is just a minimal case for the survey optimization problem Christianson tries to solve, and '332 solution would seem obvious to a skilled in the art from Christianson's teaching.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Christianson's method comprises:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Receiving, at a publishing system from an advertiser, data for an advertising campaign comprising an initial ad (*creating at least one marketing message corresponding to the promotional item* [claim 1]) and targeting criteria (*impression criteria* [claim 1]) defining an initial target group (*selecting a target market group to market the promotional item* [claim 1]) for receiving the initial ad;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Providing the initial ad for display to a plurality of users (*developing a communication plan to communicate the at least one marketing message to a subset of the target market group* [claim 1]) in a plurality of segments (*the marketer may select one or more target market groups in which to market the promotional item* [0027]) of the initial target group;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    We argue that what Christianson calls target groups covers what '332 calls segments of target group based on the following definition from Christianson:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    *The target market group is a group of potential consumers with at least one similar socio-demographic characteristic, such as, for example, age, sex, income, geographic location, or educational attainment.* [0027]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    and various explanations of what segments are in '332 such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    *In one embodiment, only attribute values within the group defined by the initial targeting criteria are considered. For example, if the initial targeting criteria limit the target group to females in general, or to females over age 30 located in the western United States, statistics are not tracked for __segments__ containing males. In other embodiments, statistics may be tracked for segments with attribute values falling outside of the initial targeting criteria, as well.* [0039]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Determining, by the publishing system, a value of an advertising metric for a first one of the plurality of segments based on the display of the initial ad to the users of the first segment (*analyzing the results received from the testing, wherein analyzing the results comprises calculating at least one score for the marketing message* [claim 1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Based on the value of the advertising metric, determining by the publishing system a suggestion for the advertiser to modify the targeting criteria to remove the first segment from the targeting criteria to be used for the initial ad; (*Similar comparisons may be viewed for other socio-demographic factors, such as income, location, education, race, etc. In this way, a more comprehensive picture of the marketing message's ability to generate WOM among and between certain subsets of a social group may be provided.* [0084]) and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    We argue that suggesting to remove a group is not a technical feature and is obvious in view of Christianson&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Sending the suggestion from the publishing system to the advertiser. (*data is analyzed and reported back to the marketer* [0012, 0013 and 0014])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10507" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4499" RevisionGUID="9064c2c4-a625-4878-bed9-1e36a89ff1d5" CreationDate="2013-07-24T15:23:25.847" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title; edited title" Text="Managing duplication of data objects with attributes - Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4527" RevisionGUID="da6e643e-3996-425f-9dcb-d3c818a5bb10" CreationDate="2013-07-24T16:18:28.967" UserId="5047" Text="The claims are visible in this paper from Japan (in English) from 2003:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.jsap.or.jp/jsapi/Pdf/Number08/04_InvitedReviewPaper.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Search for 'sinter'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;esp. page 5 discusses various sintering materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The paper is about ceramic capacitors, which have a 3D structure with many electrodes arranged in a 3D pattern (see Figure 3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These also discuss sintered electrodes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2004]  &#xD;&#xA;http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/WO2004093106&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2009]   &#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US20110149475&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US7423863&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;frm=1&amp;source=web&amp;cd=10&amp;ved=0CHwQFjAJ&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.co.uk%2Fpatents%2Fdownload%2F3299326_SOLID_ELECTROLYTIC_CAPACITOR_WIT.pdf%3Fid%3Dm9tbAAAAEBAJ%26output%3Dpdf%26sig%3DACfU3U0z_WdFl_07e3BVhIoT4QISEvvGaA%26source%3Dgbs_overview_r%26cad%3D0&amp;ei=K-7vUYyUBsnVswaBnoGYDw&amp;usg=AFQjCNFkmUvf-CnuIvgOZqXcvZUQMH0g6w&amp;sig2=boO-m0ITOYkfXeOMnnpV2A&amp;bvm=bv.49641647,d.Yms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that MLC (Multi-layer ceramic) capacitors are inherently 3D because they have multiple stacked layers which are connected to the electrodes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you need something that isn't an MLC, but that has a more 'traditional' electrolyte, and discusses 3D electrodes, look at page 195 here:&#xD;&#xA;http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6gjGZfE0rnEC&amp;pg=PA195&amp;lpg=PA195&amp;dq=sinter+electrode+capacitor&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=6lc28INtqB&amp;sig=oXhXNdehgAfsECLQsaUVwMOP4Lg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=mvbvUcqDCsSatAbj2YBY&amp;ved=0CGwQ6AEwCDgU#v=onepage&amp;q=sinter%20electrode%20capacitor&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [from 1997].&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4528" RevisionGUID="ae6a0d7b-43c8-4847-a86e-fc5f9bf71749" CreationDate="2013-07-24T16:20:19.923" UserId="5067" Text="Isn't that essentially a wet electrolyte tantalum capacitor? A Vishay datasheet dated 2003-09-01: http://www.vishay.com/docs/40021/wtintro.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4529" RevisionGUID="d7bc99a2-6d54-4e26-a28b-b0d69add4df0" CreationDate="2013-07-24T17:58:38.677" UserId="5078" Text="Looks like a patent on Usenet, which was established in 1980.  Usenet provides a huge list of topics of interest, to a social network of subscribers, provides &quot;pages&quot; (i.e. articles) to subscribers based on their interests (Interactor zone), handles almost every type of content, and is carried over the internet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4530" RevisionGUID="cf8d3288-62f3-416d-ac15-03ce85c68b46" CreationDate="2013-07-24T18:24:36.550" UserId="5080" Text="This describes a technique that's already widely used in SSD (Solid State Drive) FTL (Flash Translation Layer) software.  There are many academic papers from the last ten years that describe segregating hot data from cold data (&quot;dynamic&quot; vs &quot;static&quot;), and storing them in different regions of flash inside a solid state drive.  If I do a google search for &quot;FTL hot cold&quot; and start following the citations for the papers I find the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An Efficient Management Scheme for Large-Scale Flash-Memory Storage Systems (Chang &amp; Kuo, 2004) http://www.cis.nctu.edu.tw/~lpchang/papers/ACM_SAC2004.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efﬁcient Identiﬁcation of Hot Data for Flash Memory Storage Systems (Hseih, Chang, &amp; Kuo, 2006) http://www.cis.nctu.edu.tw/~lpchang/papers/tos_hot.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure there are more; this is only what I found in 5 minutes of searching." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10515" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4501" RevisionGUID="d2da2cbb-67b9-4119-a333-28a2c805c22a" CreationDate="2013-07-24T18:40:25.970" UserId="3500" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="There's a case called [Lockwood v. American Airlines](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5169185223383348562&amp;q=107+f.3d+1565&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The money paragraph follows.  TL;DR? If the claims of the patent are taught by the public aspects of the system, then you're likely to invalidate.  If the claims recite implementation detail that is not publicly accessible from the system, then you might still be able to invalidate, but this case is not on point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If a device was &quot;known or used by others&quot; in this country before the date of invention or if it was &quot;in public use&quot; in this country more than one year before the date of application, it qualifies as prior art. See 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (b) (1994). Lockwood attempts to preclude summary judgment by pointing to record testimony that one skilled in the art would not be able to build and practice the claimed invention without access to the secret aspects of SABRE. However, it is the claims that define a patented invention. See Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1064 (Fed.Cir.1988). As we have concluded earlier in this opinion, American's public use of the high-level aspects of the SABRE system was enough to place the claimed features of the '359 patent in the public's possession. See In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 1567-68, 31 USPQ2d 1817, 1823 (Fed.Cir.1994) (&quot;Beyond this `in public use or on sale' finding, there is no requirement for an enablement-type inquiry.&quot;). Lockwood cannot negate this by evidence showing that other, unclaimed aspects of the SABRE system were not publicly available. Moreover, the '359 patent itself does not disclose the level of detail that Lockwood would have us require of the prior art. For these reasons, Lockwood fails to show a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4531" RevisionGUID="afcd4575-684a-4f5c-81b6-c3324f308059" CreationDate="2013-07-24T18:43:01.140" UserId="5081" Text="Oracle Coherence is a distributed object cache and does exactly what the patent describes (and more).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tangosol Coherence 1.0 was released on 28th of December 2001, but they had been working on it for some time and had almost certainly created a prototype by the time of this patent.  Tangosol and Coherence is now owned by Oracle, who may be keen to help quash this patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4532" RevisionGUID="060a59b6-d4f6-4282-8f58-4395839db367" CreationDate="2013-07-24T19:36:54.097" UserId="5071" Text="This sounds like what TCP does to ensure that packets get received. This is way old. (May 1974?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_Control_Protocol&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Due to network congestion, traffic load balancing, or other unpredictable network behavior, IP packets can be lost, duplicated, or delivered out of order. TCP detects these problems, requests retransmission of lost data, rearranges out-of-order data, and even helps minimize network congestion to reduce the occurrence of the other problems. Once the TCP receiver has reassembled the sequence of octets originally transmitted, it passes them to the receiving application. Thus, TCP abstracts the application's communication from the underlying networking details.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4533" RevisionGUID="05bbc644-a21c-4a49-8de5-311a77a7453a" CreationDate="2013-07-24T20:10:36.437" UserId="5086" Text="Fellow students at my college had an online conferencing system dating back to around 1980 called CB.  The second version called connect was available in the early 80's and allowed multiple 'chat rooms', the ability to store/retrieve user profiles and other information.  The current incarnation is lily with even more features.  I think that connect and/or lily meet some or all of the requirements for prior art.  There was a brief system called clover created when connect was given 30 days to get off university computing.  The latest version of the server is now a sourceforge project, http://sourceforge.net/projects/lilycore/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4534" RevisionGUID="89907f51-b528-408b-9006-e10425bc9a8b" CreationDate="2013-07-24T20:14:12.733" UserId="3076" Text="Recently the US and EPO adopted a new merged classification system CPC. I would use the [EPO's CPC page][1] to keyword search for classes and then use those classes in a US search by CPC classification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?FT=D&amp;date=19450606&amp;DB=&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;CC=GB&amp;NR=569723A&amp;KC=A&amp;ND=5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4535" RevisionGUID="23fc4572-a02f-4396-a098-3dfe201331a1" CreationDate="2013-07-24T20:24:44.867" UserId="5086" Text="I am not a database person nor have I used many, however I have been aware of them for a long time.  The following might include prior art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;software released in 1876:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multics_Relational_Data_Store&#xD;&#xA;http://web.mit.edu/multics-history/source/Multics/doc/info_segments/mrds.info&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional reverences can be found by google for multics mrds&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4536" RevisionGUID="fc54cc30-38d9-45c3-be6c-14ea47347552" CreationDate="2013-07-24T21:46:22.997" UserId="5092" Text="The Nokia telephones as least as far back as 1995 had this feature while texting. Double-pressing the space character would insert a period and capitalize the first letter of the next word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was a feature of the T9 predictive text input system, as documented here in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T9_(predictive_text)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4537" RevisionGUID="402a234b-7398-443b-a553-c0eade6a8a6f" CreationDate="2013-07-24T21:53:02.990" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ONLINE SEARCH** - This application from [Yahoo][6] seeks to patent the idea of... user editing search results for themselves and other users! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 19, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Accepting **USER EDITS** to **SEARCH RESULTS**; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Modifying the **SEARCH RESULTS PAGE** based on its **USER EDITS** with a **DRAG AND DROP** interface;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves user edits applying **GLOBALLY** to other users’ search results pages, **REMOVING DUPLICATE RESULTS** or a **DRAG AND DROP INTERFACE** to proposed user edits to search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: EDITORIAL CURATION OF SEARCH RESULTS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of modifying search results pages based on user edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159222 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/330,405&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 19, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for editorial curation of search results, comprising steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; using a processor device configured to perform:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a search results page rendered in response to a search query;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. receiving user edits comprising changes to objects in the search results page; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. applying the user edits to the search results page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for curating search results using a computer, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a search results page in response to a search query&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving user edits to objects in the search results page; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Applying the user edits to the search results page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming user edits applying **GLOBALLY** to other users’ search results pages, **REMOVING DUPLICATE RESULTS** or a **DRAG AND DROP INTERFACE** to proposed user edits to search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Drag and Drop User Curated Search Results Pages from Yahoo!**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/JCCnb.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130159222&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10523" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4537" RevisionGUID="402a234b-7398-443b-a553-c0eade6a8a6f" CreationDate="2013-07-24T21:53:02.990" UserId="1767" Text="Online Search - User Curated Search Result Pages (Yahoo) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10524" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4537" RevisionGUID="402a234b-7398-443b-a553-c0eade6a8a6f" CreationDate="2013-07-24T21:53:02.990" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130159222&gt;&lt;yahoo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4537" RevisionGUID="2a19fdb9-4b49-4c54-9800-f99802b93cd6" CreationDate="2013-07-24T22:27:54.917" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ONLINE SEARCH** - This application from [Yahoo!][6] seeks to patent the idea of... user editing search results for themselves and other users! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 19, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Accepting **USER EDITS** to **SEARCH RESULTS**; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Modifying the **SEARCH RESULTS PAGE** based on its **USER EDITS** with a **DRAG AND DROP** interface;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves user edits applying **GLOBALLY** to other users’ search results pages, **REMOVING DUPLICATE RESULTS** or a **DRAG AND DROP INTERFACE** to proposed user edits to search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: EDITORIAL CURATION OF SEARCH RESULTS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of modifying search results pages based on user edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159222 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/330,405&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 19, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for editorial curation of search results, comprising steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; using a processor device configured to perform:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a search results page rendered in response to a search query;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. receiving user edits comprising changes to objects in the search results page; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. applying the user edits to the search results page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for curating search results using a computer, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a search results page in response to a search query&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving user edits to objects in the search results page; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Applying the user edits to the search results page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming user edits applying **GLOBALLY** to other users’ search results pages, **REMOVING DUPLICATE RESULTS** or a **DRAG AND DROP INTERFACE** to proposed user edits to search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Drag and Drop User Curated Search Results Pages from Yahoo!**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/JCCnb.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130159222&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10526" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4537" RevisionGUID="2a19fdb9-4b49-4c54-9800-f99802b93cd6" CreationDate="2013-07-24T22:27:54.917" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Online Search - User Curated Search Result Pages (Yahoo!) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4538" RevisionGUID="6a319394-5506-4e6f-9401-1bc909574bc1" CreationDate="2013-07-24T22:51:57.030" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON PROMOTION WITH DIGITAL CONTENT** - This application from [eBay][6] seeks to patent the idea of... providing digital content to users to visit a physical store! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 21, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Offering **digital content** to a user as a promotion to visit a **physical store**; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Checks whether the user visits the **physical store** and then provides the **digital content** to the user?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves **providing free e-Books**, **loyalty programs**, or **requiring** user to purchase something at the store to get the digital content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: DIGITAL CONTENT PROVIDED TO A USER A PHYSICAL LOCATION**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of providing digital content to users as an incentive to get them to visit a physical store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130166369 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/333,170&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: eBay, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 21, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 27, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing a promotion to a user to do commerce at a physical location, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. offering a right to a particular piece of digital content to the user as an incentive to a commercial transaction that occurs at least partly at the physical location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. discerning that the user is located at the physical location; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. in response to the discerning, interacting with the user to provide the digital content to the user on a mobile device associated with the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing promotion to a user to buy something at a physical store, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Offering the **digital content** to the user an incentive to visit a physical store&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Recognizing the user is at the **physical store**; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing the digital content to the user on a mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming **providing free e-Books**, **loyalty programs**, or **requiring** user to purchase something at the store to get the digital content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Showing a user at a physical location receiving digital content&quot; from eBay**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/tJABr.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130166369&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ebay.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10528" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4538" RevisionGUID="6a319394-5506-4e6f-9401-1bc909574bc1" CreationDate="2013-07-24T22:51:57.030" UserId="1767" Text="Geo-Location - Providing Digital Content as Promotion for Check-In (eBay) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10529" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4538" RevisionGUID="6a319394-5506-4e6f-9401-1bc909574bc1" CreationDate="2013-07-24T22:51:57.030" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130166369&gt;&lt;ebay&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4539" RevisionGUID="e6dc95b9-cfb1-4c25-a3a9-c16d1681543c" CreationDate="2013-07-24T22:54:21.357" UserId="5094" Text="Well, Google's SearchWiki from November 2008 absolutely accepts user edits to search results.  Here's the GoogleBlog write-up:  http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/searchwiki-make-search-your-own.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also a really close match in the article &quot;Reranking and Classifying Search Results Exhaustively Based on Edit-and-Propagate Operations&quot; by T. Yamamoto, et al. in the *Database and Expert Systems Applications: 20th International Conference DEXA 2009 Proceedings*.  It describes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The interaction between our system and the user is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  The user inputs a query to our system&#xD;&#xA;2.  The system sends the query to a search engine&#xD;&#xA;3.  The system receives results from the search engine and presents them to the user&#xD;&#xA;4.  The user browses the search results.&#xD;&#xA;5.  The user uses the following three operations as necessary.&#xD;&#xA;     a.   Delete and emphasis operations proposed in [1] to improve accuracy of the high ranked search results&#xD;&#xA;     b.  Drag-and-drop operation to classify the search results&#xD;&#xA;     c.  Adding a new query to the system to gather other search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After classifying an adequate number of search results, the user can check the classified or non-classified search results easily and obtains the desired information.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4540" RevisionGUID="1b4bf989-24d2-4c1f-98f1-3e1295c5ed2d" CreationDate="2013-07-24T23:56:44.967" UserId="5097" Text="This was being done in 2010 as seen in NY Times article below as well as others via foursquare and facebook places:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/business/smallbusiness/07sbiz.html?pagewanted=all (Oct. 2010)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.empowermm.com/blog1/social-media/make-the-most-out-of-check-in-promotions/ (Oct. 2011)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/the-future-of-geolocation-what-is-coming/ (April 2011)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.turnerpr.com/blog/2010/07/battle-of-the-geolocation-all-stars/ (June 2010)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The digital content would be coupons or specials delivered by email, interactive digital maps, digital badges or pins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The broad number of hits returned in 2010 for a &quot;geolocation promotion&quot; query shows that the idea is both obvious and not novel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A graphic in this article from 2009 describes using geolocation in connection with retail promotions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://mashable.com/2009/12/25/foursquare-gowalla/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4541" RevisionGUID="71baa501-21e6-4d77-a030-72ab2e5d9e5c" CreationDate="2013-07-25T00:02:40.563" UserId="5104" Text="Meyer Sound has been doing self-calibrating speakers since introducing SpeakerSense in the 70s. &#xD;&#xA;http://www.meyersound.com/products/technology/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g.&#xD;&#xA;Loudspeaker System with Feedback Control for Improved Bandwidth and Distortion Reduction&#xD;&#xA;US Patent:	6,584,204&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4542" RevisionGUID="4c9822d7-641e-489c-a54c-4da437945068" CreationDate="2013-07-25T00:13:55.747" UserId="5101" Text="The First International Backgammon Server (1992), in conjunction with the FIBS/W windows application, which provided a graphical user interface for the FIBS server (1994?, but definitely prior to 1995).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am the author of FIBS/W, last updated in 1995, not sure of the original release date -- probably 1994. Definitely possible to find substantiating evidence for first existence of FIBS/W prior to 1995, if that's necessary. See http://www.fibs.com/connecting.html for proof of the last update date (1995).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also the CyberArts Inc. games servers, which date to 1995 or 1996 (not sure), and provided considerably more evolved user interfaces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Citing for FIBS/W windows client, when connect to the FIBS backgammon server. Definitely constitutes prior art for Claim 1. Also possibly claim 17 as well, depending on how &quot;content page&quot; is interpreted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accessing by a first user a first real-time social network comprising&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a community of members having a specific predetermined common&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interest, the first real-time social network being within an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interactor zone that includes one or a logical collection of related&#xD;&#xA;&gt; real-time social networks the first user accessing the first real-time social network using an interactor client application that allows the first user to communicate in real-time with other online users who are members of said first or another one of said real-time social networks;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initial connection to the FIBS server via FIBS/W provides a list of connected users, and a chat area to to communicate with anyone who's connected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; displaying in real-time to the first user identities of other users&#xD;&#xA;&gt; who are online at the time and who are members of the first or another&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one of said real-time social networks within said interactor zone and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; who choose to be identifiable; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The FIBS/W client provides a list of users who aare online when connecting. Uses can chat with each other, or invite other users to play matches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; enabling using the interactor client application real-time interaction&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by the first user with said selected ones of said other online users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once connected, FIBS/W users can invite other users to play a game or match of backgammon. Users go to a &quot;room&quot; where they play a graphically rendered backgammon game. Users can elect to watch (and comment on) matches in progress. All in &quot;realtime&quot;, of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 17:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;quote&gt;which meet predetermined criteria established by the first user,&lt;/quote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The FIBS server assigns ratings based on the history of won and lost games and matches. FIBS/W user can choose to view only players with a selected range of ratings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said displaying comprising displaying content pages being accessed by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said other users who choose to be identifiable&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure what's meant by &quot;pages of content&quot; here. FIBS/W allows users to join the session of a match in progress, in order to watch and/or comment on the game in progress, in a chat window associated with the game board. If a &quot;match in progress&quot; constitutes a &quot;content page&quot;, then FIBS, and FIBS/W hit claim 17 as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, the FIBS server provided basic user profile information, which could be displayed as a &quot;content page&quot; within the FIBS/W backgammon client.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4542" RevisionGUID="69aaa8af-57f2-4b2c-8313-f6130efb72ca" CreationDate="2013-07-25T00:19:44.647" UserId="5101" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="The First International Backgammon Server (1992), in conjunction with the FIBS/W windows application, which provided a graphical user interface for the FIBS server (1994?, but definitely prior to 1995).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am the author of FIBS/W, last updated in 1995, not sure of the original release date -- probably 1994. Definitely possible to find substantiating evidence for first existence of FIBS/W prior to 1995, if that's necessary. See http://www.fibs.com/connecting.html for proof of the last update date (1995).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also the CyberArts Inc. games servers, which date to 1995 or 1996 (not sure), and provided considerably more evolved user interfaces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Citing for FIBS/W windows client, when connect to the FIBS backgammon server. Definitely constitutes prior art for Claim 1. Also possibly claim 17 as well, depending on how &quot;content page&quot; is interpreted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accessing by a first user a first real-time social network comprising&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a community of members having a specific predetermined common&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interest, the first real-time social network being within an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interactor zone that includes one or a logical collection of related&#xD;&#xA;&gt; real-time social networks the first user accessing the first real-time social network using an interactor client application that allows the first user to communicate in real-time with other online users who are members of said first or another one of said real-time social networks;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initial connection to the FIBS server via FIBS/W provides a list of connected users, and a chat area to to communicate with anyone who's connected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; displaying in real-time to the first user identities of other users&#xD;&#xA;&gt; who are online at the time and who are members of the first or another&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one of said real-time social networks within said interactor zone and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; who choose to be identifiable; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The FIBS/W client provides a list of users who aare online when connecting. Uses can chat with each other, or invite other users to play matches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; enabling using the interactor client application real-time interaction&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by the first user with said selected ones of said other online users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once connected, FIBS/W users can invite other users to play a game or match of backgammon. Users go to a &quot;room&quot; where they play a graphically rendered backgammon game. Users can elect to watch (and comment on) matches in progress. All in &quot;realtime&quot;, of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 17:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which meet predetermined criteria established by the first user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The FIBS server assigns ratings based on the history of won and lost games and matches. FIBS/W users can choose to view only players within a selected range of ratings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said displaying comprising displaying content pages being accessed by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said other users who choose to be identifiable&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure what's meant by &quot;pages of content&quot; here. FIBS/W allows users to join the session of a match in progress, in order to watch and/or comment on the game in progress, in a chat window associated with the game board. If a &quot;match in progress&quot; constitutes a &quot;content page&quot;, then FIBS, and FIBS/W hit claim 17 as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, the FIBS server provided basic user profile information, which could be displayed as a &quot;content page&quot; within the FIBS/W backgammon client.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4543" RevisionGUID="f0c30e0f-668b-4fed-a8c8-2af04d0e8351" CreationDate="2013-07-25T01:09:27.917" UserId="5020" Text="I realise there are several better answers already, but I wanted to add that this is commonly called *A/B testing* (although the term is not specific to advertisements, more often related to online content in general).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Wikipedia page for A/B testing][1] suggests that &quot;Amazon pioneered its use within e-commerce space&quot;, and references [http://www.grokdotcom.com/2008/02/26/amazon-shopping-cart/][2], which is a description of how the Amazon &quot;add to cart&quot; button evolved in response to user reactions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A/B_testing&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.grokdotcom.com/2008/02/26/amazon-shopping-cart/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4544" RevisionGUID="7710c8b0-4dcd-4812-b50a-2bbbb2c88c96" CreationDate="2013-07-25T04:28:25.363" UserId="5113" Text="yes it will be a prior art see other sections of 102" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4545" RevisionGUID="803f3320-af8a-4e16-a3fe-64603da6d39c" CreationDate="2013-07-25T05:36:37.990" UserId="5114" Text="I'm surprised no one has looked *outside of dating* yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the patent describes is essentially a location-based recommendation system using a user's preference model (traditionally, but not limited to, a Bayesian model):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. the obtaining of a starting location in a geometrical space&#xD;&#xA; 2. the obtaining of a set of *association*, *nearness*, or *similarity* criteria, with optional weights and ordering priority&#xD;&#xA; 3. the application of any of a multitude of public domain nearest-neighbour, clustering, and/or associative-score algorithms to produce a set of results with a compounded *relevance ranking* that can then be used to display a filtered and ordered subset to the user (e.g. the Bayesian model, or basically any other preference-based ranking model)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some specific applications that use the above three methods include web search engines, library and journal search engines (predating web search), route-finding applications, point-of-interest finding applications (e.g. in consumer GPS devices), product recommendation engines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Overall, the patent is claiming a subset of what is already in the public domain: location-based recommendation systems**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. [Building and evaluating a location-based service&#xD;&#xA;recommendation system with a preference adjustment mechanism - Kuo et. al, 2009][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*From the abstract:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In this paper, we integrate the application of LBS with recommendation technologies to present a location-based service recommendation model (LBSRM) and design a prototype system to simulate and measure the validity of LBSRM. Due to the accumulation and variation of preference, in the recommendation model we conduct an adaptive method including long-term and short-term preference adjustment to enhance the result of  recommendation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Or in plain English:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In this paper, we combine a location-based-service with a preference-based recommendation system, and present a prototype system design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Diagram on page 4*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Process diagram][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or sequentially: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Obtain location from user&#xD;&#xA;2. Filter the set of all results into a a *plurality of results* within a maximum distance from the original user's location&#xD;&#xA;3. Compute the rank of each result in the filtered set based on the user's preferences (e.g. *compute the compatibility score*)&#xD;&#xA;4. Display the filtered results ordered based on the computed rank&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sclab.yonsei.ac.kr/courses/11mobile/11mobile.files/paper/12.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/qbx4O.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4538" RevisionGUID="2274fe75-922f-46ef-aec1-5b3057ac8bf3" CreationDate="2013-07-25T08:21:42.617" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON PROMOTION WITH DIGITAL CONTENT** - This application from [eBay][6] seeks to patent the idea of... providing digital content to users to visit a physical store! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 21, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Offering **digital content** to a user as a promotion to visit a **physical store**; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Checks whether the user visits the **physical store** and then provides the **digital content** to the user?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves **providing free e-Books**, **loyalty programs**, or **requiring** user to purchase something at the store to get the digital content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: DIGITAL CONTENT PROVIDED TO A USER A PHYSICAL LOCATION**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of providing digital content to users as an incentive to get them to visit a physical store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130166369 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/333,170&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: eBay, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 21, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 27, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing a promotion to a user to do commerce at a physical location, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. offering a right to a particular piece of digital content to the user as an incentive to a commercial transaction that occurs at least partly at the physical location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. discerning that the user is located at the physical location; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. in response to the discerning, interacting with the user to provide the digital content to the user on a mobile device associated with the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing promotion to a user to buy something at a physical store, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Offering the **digital content** to the user an incentive to visit a physical store&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Recognizing the user is at the **physical store**; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing the digital content to the user on a mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming **providing free e-Books**, **loyalty programs**, or **requiring** user to purchase something at the store to get the digital content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Showing a user at a physical location receiving digital content&quot; from eBay**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/tJABr.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130166369&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ebay.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4537" RevisionGUID="1b44b082-e54f-4670-8cbc-0974bb190285" CreationDate="2013-07-25T08:22:04.947" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ONLINE SEARCH** - This application from [Yahoo!][6] seeks to patent the idea of... user editing search results for themselves and other users! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 19, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Accepting **USER EDITS** to **SEARCH RESULTS**; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Modifying the **SEARCH RESULTS PAGE** based on its **USER EDITS** with a **DRAG AND DROP** interface;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves user edits applying **GLOBALLY** to other users’ search results pages, **REMOVING DUPLICATE RESULTS** or a **DRAG AND DROP INTERFACE** to proposed user edits to search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: EDITORIAL CURATION OF SEARCH RESULTS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of modifying search results pages based on user edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159222 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/330,405&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 19, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for editorial curation of search results, comprising steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; using a processor device configured to perform:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a search results page rendered in response to a search query;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. receiving user edits comprising changes to objects in the search results page; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. applying the user edits to the search results page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for curating search results using a computer, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a search results page in response to a search query&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving user edits to objects in the search results page; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Applying the user edits to the search results page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming user edits applying **GLOBALLY** to other users’ search results pages, **REMOVING DUPLICATE RESULTS** or a **DRAG AND DROP INTERFACE** to proposed user edits to search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Drag and Drop User Curated Search Results Pages from Yahoo!**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/JCCnb.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130159222&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4087" RevisionGUID="d2308669-8c74-4266-8159-efe0b0bd8fd3" CreationDate="2013-07-25T08:24:06.823" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **HELP SAVE MESH NETWORKING** — This application from Schlage seeks to patent a secure gateway between a mesh network and an IP network, and a lock device connected through the mesh network. Because mesh networks often use protocols that don’t work well with IP clients, it’s important to have a secure bridge that allows web browsers and other traditional IP clients to use mesh network based systems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.... [HERE!][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was published before **May 27, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.	A **gateway** device for transmitting signals between an IP network and a radio frequency mesh network that uses a **secure data connection** to communicate with the IP network; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.	A gateway device that meets all of the criteria above where the gateway is configured to **enroll a lock device** in the mesh network; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.	A method for **synchronizing** the gateway device described above with **a lock device.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT ---** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND that was published BEFORE **December 31, 2007.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses a **secure socket layer protocol** to implement the secure data connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND where the gateway is configured to enroll an **additional device that is not a lock** in the mesh network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the logic and memory unit **translates** between the mesh and IP network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: MESH NETWORK SECURITY SYSTEM GATEWAY AND METHOD**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** [Translated from Legalish into English] A secure data connection gateway between an IP or computer network and a radio-frequency mesh network, with a power supply, that could allow for web browsers and other traditional IP client software to control or use a mesh network. Separately, the applicant is claiming a method of enrolling a lock device in the mesh network and synchronizing it with the gateway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Publication Number:** &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US20130014219&quot;&gt;US 20130014219 A1&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Assignee:** Schlage&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;•	**Prior Art Date:** May 27, 2008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Open for Challenge at USPTO: open through at least *July 10, 2013***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gateway for transmitting signals between a computer network and a radio-frequency mesh network, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A housing;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A radio-frequency transceiver for communicating with the radio-frequency mesh network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	An Internet Protocol transceiver, operatively coupled to the radio frequency transceiver, for communicating with the computer network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	A power supply; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	A logic and memory unit configured to communicate with the computer network using a secure data connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A gateway device with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.	A housing; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.	A radio frequency transceiver and IP transceiver in communication with each other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.	A power supply; AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4.	Any logic and memory device that can communicate with the IP or computer network through a secure data connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 9** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gateway for transmitting signals between a computer network and a radio-frequency mesh network, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A housing;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A radio-frequency transceiver for communicating with the radio-frequency mesh network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	An Internet Protocol transceiver, operatively coupled to the radio-frequency transceiver, for communicating with the computer network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	A power supply; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	A logic and memory unit configured to enroll devices into the radio-frequency mesh network, at least one of the devices being a radio-frequency mesh network lock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gateway device with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A housing; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A radio frequency transceiver and IP transceiver in communication with each other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	A power supply; AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Any logic and memory device that can add nodes to the mesh network, where at least one of those nodes is a lock device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 14** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A method of synchronizing a radio-frequency mesh network lock device with a mesh network gateway, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Positioning the gateway adjacent to the lock device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	Initiating synchronization procedures on the lock device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Initiating synchronization procedures on the gateway;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Exchanging identifying information between the gateway and the lock device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	Indicating that synchronization is successfully completed at the gateway;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.	Increasing radio signal power of a lock device transceiver associated with the lock device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.	Adding the lock device to a list stored in the gateway of devices that make-up the radio-frequency mesh network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A process where the lock an the gateway are synchronized by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.	Placing the lock and gateway next to each other; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.	Entering a security code into the lock device (or otherwise initiating a synchronization procedure);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.	Pressing a button on the gateway (or otherwise initiating a synchronization procedure);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4.	Transmitting the security code (or other identifying information) between the gateway and the lock;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5.	Increasing the amount of power going to the lock’s transceiver; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6.	Enrolling the lock device in the network. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][1]![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;What is good prior art? Please see our &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post prior art you know about][3] on other questionable US patent applications.&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/6WC9e.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Q01fI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4546" RevisionGUID="d33c33d5-9a84-493f-8d08-7bbc7a17d25d" CreationDate="2013-07-25T08:36:03.353" UserId="5055" Text="For reference, examination severely narrowed this patent application before it was granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 as originally filed was quite broad. USPTO found quite good prior art with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [US 2006/0212844 A1](http://www.google.com/patents/US20060212844) Goldin et al. (filed 18.03.2005, actually another Microsoft patent application)&#xD;&#xA;- [The Open The Open Runtime Platform: a ﬂexible high-performance managed runtime environment](http://www.ittc.ku.edu/~kulkarni/teaching/archieve/EECS800-Spring-2008/ORP.pdf), Ciernak et al., (published 22.02.2005)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examiner's argument against claim 1 as originally filed was that Goldin teaches all of claim 1 except *requesting the at least one runtime to claim the first call stack frame*, which would be obvious based on Ciernak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applicant denied this with an argument that stack frames in Ciernak were within a **wrapper**, which is indeed one way to make each runtime able to identify their own stack frames. Eventually, Examiner suggested amendments to claim 1 by adding the limitation where each runtime has a **stack frame map** which is used to determine if they should claim the stack frame. In other words, each runtime maintain a list of all stack frame. This makes perfectly sense, is probably obvious and/or ineffective, yet it is indeed supported by the description and not found in Ciernak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we can find prior art on this very feature (and actually more of Claim 1) in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [US 7,350,194 B1](http://www.google.com/patents/US7350194) Alpern (filed 10.05.2002)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our argument is two-fold: (a) Alpern teaches that virtual machine maintains a list of routines and arguments (stack frames) and (b) the notion of *stack frame map* does refer to any additional technical feature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alpern describes a system with a centralized debugger for distributed virtual machines, where the code of one virtual machine may invoke code in another virtual machine, and thus we have a single stack. In some embodiments, each virtual machine maintains a list of routines and arguments on the stack:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*In other examples, the debug request message is a request to execute a single step, or a request to list all loaded classes, or a **request to list the routines on the stack**, or a request to list the IDs of the variable objects associated with each routine on the stack.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack frame maps are not (technically) defined in the specification but by their usage, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*These memory addresses are recorded in a call stack frame map*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Each runtime may consult its call stack frame map*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are additionally pictured and referenced as 172, 174, 176 in figure 7 (below) and as 182, 184 and 186 in [figure 5B](http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US8291381B2/US08291381-20121016-D00006.png).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Stack frame maps as 172, 174, 176 in Figure 7](http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US8291381B2/US08291381-20121016-D00008.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applicant actually agrees that the notion of _stack frame map_ is vague and does not refer to any specific technical feature (e.g. a hash map with a O(1) amortized access time), based on the following extract of the description:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*However, it will be appreciated that those having ordinary skill in the art may devise a number of variations in runtime identification and claiming of call stack frames that utilize the techniques described herein.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4508" RevisionGUID="2e2f4600-4e76-4a7c-bb55-20c20329c6e9" CreationDate="2013-07-25T10:09:37.700" UserId="5032" Comment="Added wording on call recording systems" Text="US patent application 2220110228919 ([USPTO link](http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220110228919%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20110228919&amp;RS=DN/20110228919)) seems to be trying to patent an on/off switch for DTMF audio on telephone networks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key claims are these (effectively the first three):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. A telephone call processor for processing telephone calls comprising voice signals and data signals, the call processor comprising a first telephone interface and a second telephone interface, the call processor being operable in a first mode and in a second mode, wherein:&#xD;&#xA;- in the first mode, the call processor is adapted to receive voice signals and data signals at the first telephone interface and to transmit voice signals and data signals to the second telephone interface;&#xD;&#xA;- and in the second mode, the call processor is adapted to receive voice signals and data signals at the first telephone interface, to block data signals from being transmitted to the second telephone interface and optionally to transmit voice signals to the second telephone interface. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 95. The call processor of claim 1, wherein the data signals comprise at least one of audio tones and DTMF (dial-tone multi-frequency) audio tones. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;96. The call processor of claim 1 further adapted to switch between first and second modes in response to receiving a mode-switching data signal at the first or at the second telephone interface. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application itself describes how this approach can restrict credit card information being sent by a customer from reaching the ears of the call center agent, or the call recording systems operating in the call center. It therefore stops call center staff from stealing card data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The concept of stopping call center staff from accessing sensitive data transmitted by DTMF is not new. One example is Van Volkenburgh's application from 2003 [Device and method for concealing customer information from a customer service representative](http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=5&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=%22van+volkenburgh%22&amp;OS=%22van+volkenburgh%22&amp;RS=%22van+volkenburgh%22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The concept of blocking DTMF tones is not new either, as shown by Didier Filhol's application of 1998 [Telephone dialling modification accessory, e.g. to ensure use of specific service provider, has off-hook detector actuating unit to filter out DTMF signals and generate replacement signals as necessary](http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=FR&amp;NR=2783992A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;date=20000331&amp;DB=EPODOC&amp;locale=en_EP#)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, to my layman's mind, don't the claims in the 2220110228919 application above mean &quot;sometimes DTMF tones are allowed to come through to the call center agent, and sometimes they are switched off&quot;? In other words, _it's an on/off switch_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current application states a UK reference date of May 9, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Question:&lt;/b&gt; Does anybody have any prior art for this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4547" RevisionGUID="9f2c394d-c1f7-476d-a263-2bd82173137d" CreationDate="2013-07-25T12:22:25.243" UserId="5135" Text="This article from November 2007 describes Google testing user-editing of search results through Google Experimental Search:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://searchengineland.com/google-likedont-like-move-results-up-hide-them-or-suggest-your-own-12797&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4548" RevisionGUID="7d19e87a-6f2a-4dc0-97d2-5205af2e86a8" CreationDate="2013-07-25T12:49:56.817" UserId="5055" Text="Examination has not begun, USPTO hasn't conducted search yet (or published search results) and therefore claims have not been amended by applicant in response to what will probably be a non-final rejection as first USPTO action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, a very quick search reveals the following prior art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [US 8,099,406](http://www.google.com/patents/US8099406) Lee (filed 03.01.2011)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All elements of Claim 1 are predated by Lee, which teaches a method for editorial curation of search results (*Method for human editing of information in search results* [title]), comprising steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- using a processor device configured to perform: receiving a search results page rendered in response to a search query; (*result items may be returned as a result of the search.* [abstract])&#xD;&#xA;- receiving user edits comprising changes to objects in the search results page; (*The user may enter new human edited information for some of the result items.* [abstract])&#xD;&#xA;- and applying the user edits to the search results page. (*The new human edited information may be displayed when other users search and view some of the result items at a later time* [abstract]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lee was granted, but granted Claim 1 is much narrower." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4549" RevisionGUID="b9e79965-93d8-491a-ae27-b5e478d956d0" CreationDate="2013-07-25T13:05:53.997" UserId="5071" Text="This isn't exactly the same, but similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nintendo's spotpass feature has digital benefits for visiting physical locations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotpass" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4550" RevisionGUID="337c9d6d-c68d-4c5d-bfa7-2d2fc7e00fe6" CreationDate="2013-07-25T13:56:07.137" UserId="5139" Text="http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220120323664%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20120323664&amp;RS=DN/20120323664&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apple's Passbook Patent (&quot;INTEGRATED COUPON STORAGE, DISCOVERY, AND REDEMPTION SYSTEM&quot;) claims seem to cover very similar ground based on proximity to a physical location and digital distribution of offers or promotional 'coupons' you may or may not already have requested. Section [0040] specifically covers loyalty/rewards programs and 'offered' deals that may not have been directly requested by the user or given to the user prior to them arriving at the physical location." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4551" RevisionGUID="132f8113-3e22-4ab4-bee3-5e7dd9a933a3" CreationDate="2013-07-25T13:57:23.937" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON DYNAMIC EMAIL NOTIFICATION** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of... email which changes appearance dynamically based on an external event! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 15, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A external system which sends **EVENT SIGNALS** to an email server; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. an email server which modifies the appearance of email messages based on the external **EVENT SIGNALS**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves event signals such as: **CHANGING MEMBERSHIP IN A GROUP**,  and dynamic updates such as **CREATING CALENDAR EVENT** &#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: DYNAMIC CONTROL OF EMAIL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of modifying search results pages based on user edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159426 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/327,240&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corp.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 15, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of controlling an electronic message system, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving at a messaging service in the electronic message system, an event signal relating to an event external to the messaging service, the event signal being received from an **external system** which is separate from the **messaging service**; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying one or more electronic messages within the electronic message system based on the **event signal** received and triggering a **dynamic update** to the identified electronic messages in response to receipt of the event signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing an external signal to an email service:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving an **event signal** (e.g. community response to a particular message, the location of one or more users, or a change in membership of a group.); and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Triggering a **dynamic update** (e.g. displaying in a different manner or the message being delivered or deleted, a calendar event being created or destroyed) in response to the **event signal**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming event signals such as: **CHANGING MEMBERSHIP IN A GROUP**,  and **dynamic updates* such as **CREATING CALENDAR EVENT** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method of controlling an electronic message system from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/lvihZ.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159426?dq=US20130159426A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10549" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4551" RevisionGUID="132f8113-3e22-4ab4-bee3-5e7dd9a933a3" CreationDate="2013-07-25T13:57:23.937" UserId="1767" Text="Email Notification - Dyanamic Control of Email (Microsoft) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10550" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4551" RevisionGUID="132f8113-3e22-4ab4-bee3-5e7dd9a933a3" CreationDate="2013-07-25T13:57:23.937" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;us20130159426&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4552" RevisionGUID="036ace55-d1e5-4407-9f33-a597066285dc" CreationDate="2013-07-25T14:00:27.050" UserId="4349" Text="I found this something: looks like a more generic patent filed in **Feb 16, 2001**. See the claim highlight below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [WO2001061671A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claims :&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *1. A method of providing competitive advertisements to a mobile communication device comprising: determining a geographic location of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said mobile communication device;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2001061671A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4551" RevisionGUID="3c3ca813-0143-4623-9547-d8a68cc9b134" CreationDate="2013-07-25T14:03:28.057" UserId="1767" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON DYNAMIC EMAIL NOTIFICATION** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of... email which changes appearance dynamically based on an external event! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 15, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A external system which sends **EVENT SIGNALS** to an email server; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. an email server which modifies the appearance of email messages based on the external **EVENT SIGNALS**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves event signals such as: **CHANGING MEMBERSHIP IN A GROUP**,  and dynamic updates such as **CREATING CALENDAR EVENT** &#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: DYNAMIC CONTROL OF EMAIL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of modifying the appearance of email or creating or deleting a calendar event based on an external event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159426 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/327,240&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corp.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 15, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of controlling an electronic message system, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving at a messaging service in the electronic message system, an event signal relating to an event external to the messaging service, the event signal being received from an **external system** which is separate from the **messaging service**; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying one or more electronic messages within the electronic message system based on the **event signal** received and triggering a **dynamic update** to the identified electronic messages in response to receipt of the event signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing an external signal to an email service:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving an **event signal** (e.g. community response to a particular message, the location of one or more users, or a change in membership of a group.); and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Triggering a **dynamic update** (e.g. displaying in a different manner or the message being delivered or deleted, a calendar event being created or destroyed) in response to the **event signal**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming event signals such as: **CHANGING MEMBERSHIP IN A GROUP**,  and dynamic updates such as **CREATING/DELETING CALENDAR EVENT** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method of controlling an electronic message system from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/lvihZ.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159426?dq=US20130159426A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4553" RevisionGUID="84a09ce2-33fc-4132-a6be-f345bc2b77ac" CreationDate="2013-07-25T14:24:24.517" UserId="5142" Text="Anyone who set up a cron job to have sendmail send a message has done number 1, and if the message is changed by just about anything it satisfies #2 also.  Below is a forum post with instructions on how to set up the cron job from 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/236467-50-cron-sendmail" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4554" RevisionGUID="9a88a43b-afae-414e-86f0-96fca2e0343f" CreationDate="2013-07-25T14:34:49.843" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON FILTERING TWITTER FEEDS FROM BUSINESS CONTACTS** - This application from [Salesforce.com][6] seeks to patent the idea of... filtering feeds associated with your business contacts and displaying the filtered feed on a computer! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 15, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of **FILTERING BUSINESS CONTACTS**; aggregating twitter feeds from the filtered contacts; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Searching within the **FILTERED TWITTER FEED**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO enables the user to **CONTACT** members of the filtered network feed.&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: DYNAMIC CONTROL OF EMAIL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalish into English] A method of filtering your contacts, receiving feeds from the filtered contacts, and (optionally) contacting some of the contacts. For example, a system outputs the twitter feeds from the data center managers that mention a competitor's specific product and (optionally) allowing you to contact some of these data center managers to say, “Hey! buy my product instead”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159434 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/558,577&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Salesforce, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Aug 18, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for viewing a contact network feed in a business directory environment, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Searching, based on a user specified search, a business directory to determine contacts;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying network feeds associated with the contacts;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Outputting the network feeds;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Filtering, based on a user specified filter, the network feeds to determine filtered network feeds; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Outputting the filtered network feeds to a display device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for filtering (e.g., twitter) feeds, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Searching a business directory to find a subset of your contacts; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying network feeds associated with the contacts and getting the feed data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Creating a filtered network feed based on the network feeds and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying the filtered network feed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Aug, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming enabling the user to **CONTACT** members of the filtered network feed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Viewing a network feed in a business directory environment” from Salesforce**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/99FJx.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159434?dq=US20130159434A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.salesforce.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10555" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4554" RevisionGUID="9a88a43b-afae-414e-86f0-96fca2e0343f" CreationDate="2013-07-25T14:34:49.843" UserId="1767" Text="Busines Networking - Filtering Twitter Feeds (Salesforce) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10556" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4554" RevisionGUID="9a88a43b-afae-414e-86f0-96fca2e0343f" CreationDate="2013-07-25T14:34:49.843" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;prior-art-fequest&gt;&lt;us20130159434&gt;&lt;salesforce&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4555" RevisionGUID="8a23029a-3513-4aeb-8905-318983fae72d" CreationDate="2013-07-25T14:41:23.307" UserId="5145" Text="Lotus Notes has external event trigger services with full access to mail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/domhelp/v8r0/index.jsp?topic=%2Fcom.ibm.designer.domino.main.doc%2FH_TRIGGERING_AN_AGENT_ON_AN_EVENT_STEPS.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10558" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4554" RevisionGUID="0741f022-f21a-41dd-be9c-7e89c3b28f9c" CreationDate="2013-07-25T14:42:05.843" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Business Networking - Filtering Twitter Feeds (Salesforce) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4556" RevisionGUID="0c9c069e-aa11-44f6-a5db-6d9db267dd7c" CreationDate="2013-07-25T14:44:12.063" UserId="5146" Text="Here's a post from 2009, detailing the action of receiving a message and making a change to a calendar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.zimbra.com/forums/administrators/29014-there-email-calendar-gateway-procmail-script-out-there.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4557" RevisionGUID="2f25b805-a61d-4fea-bdbe-81423e1ac562" CreationDate="2013-07-25T15:03:19.513" UserId="4922" Text="The IMAP4 protocol is described by [RFC1730][1], published **December 1994**.  IMAP4 is commonly used to access e-mail inboxes today, having mostly replaced the much simpler POP3 in that role.  However, IMAP4 is more than just a message retrieval protocol - it is essentially a document storage and filing facility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most pertinently, the following quoted section seems to cover the functionality described in the patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5.2.    Mailbox Size and Message Status Updates&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    At any time, a server can send data that the client did not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; request.    Sometimes, such behavior is required.  For example, agents&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other than    the server may add messages to the mailbox (e.g. new&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mail delivery),    change the flags of message in the mailbox (e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; simultaneous access    to the same mailbox by multiple agents), or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; even remove messages from    the mailbox.  A server MUST send mailbox&#xD;&#xA;&gt; size updates automatically    if a mailbox size change is observed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; during the processing of a    command.  A server SHOULD send message&#xD;&#xA;&gt; flag updates automatically,    without requiring the client to request&#xD;&#xA;&gt; such updates explicitly.    Special rules exist for server&#xD;&#xA;&gt; notification of a client about the    removal of messages to prevent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; synchronization errors; see the    description of the EXPUNGE response&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for more details.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Regardless of what implementation decisions a client may take on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; remembering data from the server, a client implementation MUST record &#xD;&#xA;&gt; mailbox size updates.  It MUST NOT assume that any command after&#xD;&#xA;&gt; initial mailbox selection will return the size of the mailbox.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is relevant because message flags are (and have for a long time been) commonly interpreted by e-mail clients as a prompt to **display a message in a different colour**, for example to highlight it as urgent.  The specification also strongly hints at the likelihood of the flag update being performed by &quot;agents&quot; besides the IMAP4 server; this would not normally be a function of a Mail Delivery Agent, so that could only be an agent **outside the messaging system**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1730.txt" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10561" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4558" RevisionGUID="039af85c-7c51-4b65-8682-d363e6a6eda4" CreationDate="2013-07-25T15:49:31.860" UserId="3076" Text="If you don't have a viable alternative and you are wiling put in the work, why not. I would recommend the well known book: Patent it yourself, by David Pressman and the less well known book by Ronald Slusky: Invention Analysis and Claiming. Although provisional applications do not need claims, seeing the thinking behind claims should help you with understanding the heart of what patents are about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at a couple of issued patents in your field so you don't model it to closely on an outlier. Good luck." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4559" RevisionGUID="bd94d709-c97b-4d82-9c47-b5b1637f63c4" CreationDate="2013-07-25T16:19:27.553" UserId="4377" Text="I'm having some trouble finding an authoritative source, (paywall for specifications). &#xD;&#xA;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Services_Digital_Network][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The opening lines of the Wikipedia page for ISDN are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) is a set of communication standards for simultaneous digital transmission of voice, video, data, and other network services over the traditional circuits of the public switched telephone network. It was first defined in 1988 in the CCITT red book.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Q.931 Specification (ISDN standard Protocol) from 1988 [http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Q.931-198811-S/en][2] (English) Starting on Page 13 shows that the many of the 'Message Content' types may optionally use 'information describing tones' to control the **Signal**. &#xD;&#xA;This would be the same as a DTMF tone being used to control how data is sent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Services_Digital_Network&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Q.931-198811-S/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4545" RevisionGUID="41e1954a-a5f0-4a34-b7be-b94165bf0098" CreationDate="2013-07-25T16:29:07.850" UserId="5114" Comment="&quot;Bayesian model&quot; was being unnecessarily wordy, where any model applies." Text="I'm surprised no one has looked *outside of dating* yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the patent describes is essentially a location-based recommendation system using a user's preference-based ranking model:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. the obtaining of a starting location in a geometrical space&#xD;&#xA; 2. the obtaining of a set of *association*, *nearness*, or *similarity* criteria, with optional weights and ordering priority&#xD;&#xA; 3. the application of any of a multitude of public domain nearest-neighbour, clustering, and/or associative-score algorithms to produce a set of results with a compounded *relevance ranking* that can then be used to display a filtered and ordered subset to the user (e.g. the preference-based ranking model)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some specific applications that use the above three methods include web search engines, library and journal search engines (predating web search), route-finding applications, point-of-interest finding applications (e.g. in consumer GPS devices), product recommendation engines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Overall, the patent is claiming a subset of what is already in the public domain: location-based recommendation systems**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. [Building and evaluating a location-based service&#xD;&#xA;recommendation system with a preference adjustment mechanism - Kuo et. al, 2009][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*From the abstract:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In this paper, we integrate the application of LBS with recommendation technologies to present a location-based service recommendation model (LBSRM) and design a prototype system to simulate and measure the validity of LBSRM. Due to the accumulation and variation of preference, in the recommendation model we conduct an adaptive method including long-term and short-term preference adjustment to enhance the result of  recommendation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Or in plain English:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In this paper, we combine a location-based-service with a preference-based recommendation system, and present a prototype system design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Diagram on page 4*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Process diagram][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or sequentially: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Obtain location from user&#xD;&#xA;2. Filter the set of all results into a a *plurality of results* within a maximum distance from the original user's location&#xD;&#xA;3. Compute the rank of each result in the filtered set based on the user's preferences (e.g. *compute the compatibility score*)&#xD;&#xA;4. Display the filtered results ordered based on the computed rank&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sclab.yonsei.ac.kr/courses/11mobile/11mobile.files/paper/12.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/qbx4O.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4560" RevisionGUID="01a2e18d-ea89-418f-ba50-b59fdef8ea9f" CreationDate="2013-07-25T17:02:05.590" UserId="5134" Text="I've read that anyone can request a post-grant patent review (assuming you have the money to cover the administrative costs) for as long as a patent is enforceable but I can't find any information on how long the review process takes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10565" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4560" RevisionGUID="01a2e18d-ea89-418f-ba50-b59fdef8ea9f" CreationDate="2013-07-25T17:02:05.590" UserId="5134" Text="How long does the post-grant patent review process take?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10566" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4560" RevisionGUID="01a2e18d-ea89-418f-ba50-b59fdef8ea9f" CreationDate="2013-07-25T17:02:05.590" UserId="5134" Text="&lt;post-grant-review&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4552" RevisionGUID="02150161-624c-464e-a5fd-9ba8d602af50" CreationDate="2013-07-25T17:13:49.090" UserId="4349" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="I found something: looks like a more generic patent filed in **Feb 16, 2001**. See the claim highlight below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [WO2001061671A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claims :&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *1. A method of providing competitive advertisements to a mobile communication device comprising: determining a geographic location of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said mobile communication device;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2001061671A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4561" RevisionGUID="d0d1aae9-5782-4bf4-af6d-abd2cd1d5885" CreationDate="2013-07-25T17:36:42.853" UserId="4349" Text="The patent [US7761464][1] and [US20070294225A1][2], filed in **Jun 19, 2006**. It is clear to see that it is a valid Prior Art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The summary of the patent is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The claimed subject matter provides systems and/or methods that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; facilitate diversifying search results to improve searching and/or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; personalized searching.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there is an specific topic to discuss the &quot;*personalization component*&quot; that looks like this Prior Art Request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the set of results can be enhanced since the returned results can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; relate to the original query in addition to various reformulations of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the query. Although not depicted, it is contemplated that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; diversified results can be provided to a personalization component&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (e.g., **the personalization component** 202 of FIG. 2); thus, a subset of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the diversified results can be provided to a user, the diversified&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **results can be reorder**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7761464&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20070294225" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4289" RevisionGUID="3172aa19-2d30-4c29-9972-4ed1e26b30d2" CreationDate="2013-07-25T17:39:26.537" UserId="4374" Comment="Expanded to include other parts of claim" Text="Addressing the &quot;**transparency degree setting means**&quot; issue: I believe prior art is very clearly shown by Blender's Mist feature, which uses this technique and is documented [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;That page is marked as modified in 2011, but the history goes back earlier; the use of adjusting transparency based on the distance is first mentioned [in this version of the page][2] from the history (published 4 September 2007):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mist can greatly enhance the illusion of depth in your rendering. To&#xD;&#xA;&gt; create mist, Blender makes objects farther away more transparent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (decreasing their Alpha value) so that they mix more of the the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; background color with the object color. With Mist enabled, the further&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the object is away from the camera the less it's alpha value will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This directly equates to &quot;**the longer the distance is, the higher the degree of transparency is**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addressing the issue of generating &quot;**an image for a right eye and an image for the left eye**&quot;: The same software (Blender) also has a plugin that does exactly this, by shooting the virtual space with a right and a left virtual camera.  The plugin is described on [this page][3].  Relevant illustration from the page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Separate cameras for left and right eyes][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last bullet point (&quot;display control means for displaying the image...&quot;) is also addressed on the same page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You can use Blenders Node Editor to control the left and right camera&#xD;&#xA;&gt; render results and combine them to a Side-by-Side, Interlaced or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anaglyph image&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that the first point in the claim (&quot;object placement means for placing a predetermined object in the virtual space&quot;) is obvious, but for completeness this is described in Blender's documentation [here][5]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Each object has a center or origin point. The location of this point&#xD;&#xA;&gt; determines where the object is located in 3D space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Doc:2.4/Manual/World/Mist&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://wiki.blender.org/index.php?title=Doc:2.4/Manual/World/Mist&amp;oldid=84716&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.noeol.de/s3d/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/q2hOO.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Doc:2.6/Manual/Modeling/Objects" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4562" RevisionGUID="0cbddfd9-62f4-4964-b665-2cf5c442acba" CreationDate="2013-07-25T18:32:55.727" UserId="4931" Text="Assuming you are talking about Post-Grant Patent Review as was newly introduced in the AIA, 35 U.S.C. §§ 321-329, there isn't a specific time frame for the review process; this page explains it fairly simply: http://www.postgrantproceedings.com/patent_modification/post_grant_review.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it is similar to a litigation in a sense, in that once you file the request for a PGR, there's a 3 month period in which the patent owner can provide a preliminary response. Once the USPTO authorizes a PGR (after the three month period, IF that is, they decide there's enough evidence to say that &quot;more likely than not&quot; there is one or more claims that are unpatentable), then the patent owner and the petitioner go back and forth with evidence, motions to amend the patent, stays, mergers, estoppel, settlements, terminations, etc. just like a traditional litigation in most respects." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4562" RevisionGUID="869f9880-aae2-479b-bc14-183ca3bfeb46" CreationDate="2013-07-25T18:49:54.710" UserId="4931" Comment="Additional information which may be helpful" Text="Assuming you are talking about Post-Grant Patent Review as was newly introduced in the AIA, 35 U.S.C. §§ 321-329, there isn't a specific time frame for the review process; this page explains it fairly simply: http://www.postgrantproceedings.com/patent_modification/post_grant_review.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it is similar to a litigation in a sense, in that once you file the request for a PGR, there's a 3 month period in which the patent owner can provide a preliminary response. Once the USPTO authorizes a PGR (after the three month period, IF that is, they decide there's enough evidence to say that &quot;more likely than not&quot; there is one or more claims that are unpatentable), then the patent owner and the petitioner go back and forth with evidence, motions to amend the patent, stays, mergers, estoppel, settlements, terminations, etc. just like a traditional litigation in most respects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main difference here is that the Patent Owner is not allowed to introduce new material to the patent, or expand its scope during the proceedings, so the likelyhood of the &quot;litigation&quot; being drawn out forever is lower than it would be with traditional litigation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also worth noting that it is much more difficult to be granted a PGR than say, an IPR, which has a lower standard for granting an IPR proceeding &quot;due to some of the issues that can be raised in PGR, such as enablement and § 101 invention issues, that may require development through discovery.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4563" RevisionGUID="7e44cf27-f1d2-4c5f-a04b-fba30ddcf62c" CreationDate="2013-07-25T18:58:52.810" UserId="5111" Text="In January, 2011, Edgar Online was [issued][1] patent [US7877678][2], which is essentially a patent on an excel plugin. &#xD;&#xA;I know that prior art exists, as I've used similar excel plugins for years, including Bloomberg's and FactSet's excel plugins. The fact that Edgar Online's patent is XBRL-based does not make it patentable, in my view.&#xD;&#xA;I am not a patent expert, so I invite someone with more knowledge of patents to investigate this patent further (as well as the myriad of other XBRL patents, including [this one][3] by RR Donnelley, which seems to incorporate Edgar Online's, and [this one][4] by Rivet Software).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background on the patent and prior art:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edgar Online was issued patent US7877678, which is essentially a patent on an excel plugin. To my knowledge, Microsoft has allowed external excel plugins since Excel was introduced way back when. These plugins populate a spreadsheet with financial data (though their plugins predate XBRL, it is financial data nonetheless and the end-user wouldn't notice the difference). The claim by Edgar Online (now RR Donnelly) is that since the data fed to the Excel plugin is XBRL, that essentially makes the plugin patentable. Whether or not the backend is the actual XBRL file, a database, or a webservice makes no difference, in my view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background on XBRL:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;XBRL is a way for companies to render financial data (e.g. it's essentially a company's annual report in XML format, for instance, [here's][6] Google's financials in XBRL format). XBRL is quickly becoming a worldwide standard. The U.S. Securities &amp; Exchange Commission (the SEC) recently required all public companies to report their financial data in text and XBRL formats. The U.S. taxpayer has spent a large amount of taxpayer money for the SEC to plan and implement XBRL. Because of it's complexity, early software providers have filed lots of [patents][5]. Don't let the shear number of patents fool you: **XBRL is an open standard and is simply a complex form of XML, which is also an open format.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background of Edgar Online/RR Donnelley:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In August, 2012 RR Donnelly bought Edgar Online. Edgar Online and RR Donnelly each (from very early on) enable companies to turn ordinary financial data into &quot;tagged&quot; XBRL data and file that report with the SEC. RR Donnelly, Edgar Online, Rivet Software, among others, charge a lot for this service.&#xD;&#xA;On the other side is the rendering of the financial data. Edgar Online also provides financial data for customers and rendering of financial data (and they charge a hefty price). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether it's the creation or rendering of the XBRL data, these companies have a huge incentive to file as many patents as possible to protect their revenue streams. The entire purpose of the SEC implementing XBRL data was to bring the cost of financial data down and let average Joe Investor have access to interactive data for a low (or $0) cost. These (ridiculous) patents [stand in the way][7] of that goal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/edgar-online-awarded-us-patent-for-a-system-and-method-for-rendering-financial-data-115002619.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7877678?dq=7,877,678&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=N2_xUZPlBoXy9gSQx4HoDA&amp;ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8468442?dq=7,877,678&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=Q1_xUeKlNYbo8wTu44HwCw&amp;ved=0CD0Q6AEwAQ&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7822769?pg=PA7&amp;dq=7,822,769&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=K3HxUfHvK4zu8AT6o4DYAg&amp;ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=pts&amp;hl=en&amp;q=xbrl&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000128877613000030/goog-20130331.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://irwebreport.com/20110203/patent-edgar-online-xbrl-spreadsheets/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10573" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4563" RevisionGUID="7e44cf27-f1d2-4c5f-a04b-fba30ddcf62c" CreationDate="2013-07-25T18:58:52.810" UserId="5111" Text="Anyone want to help with getting rid of these ridiculous XBRL patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10574" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4563" RevisionGUID="7e44cf27-f1d2-4c5f-a04b-fba30ddcf62c" CreationDate="2013-07-25T18:58:52.810" UserId="5111" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10575" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4563" RevisionGUID="737963eb-b8b6-4909-ba39-8dccfd9750a5" CreationDate="2013-07-25T19:04:21.223" UserId="5111" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;us7877678&gt;&lt;us8468442&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4563" RevisionGUID="737963eb-b8b6-4909-ba39-8dccfd9750a5" CreationDate="2013-07-25T19:04:21.223" UserId="5111" Comment="edited tags" Text="In January, 2011, Edgar Online was [issued][1] patent [US7877678][2], which is essentially a patent on an excel plugin. &#xD;&#xA;I know that prior art exists, as I've used similar excel plugins for years, including Bloomberg's and FactSet's excel plugins. The fact that Edgar Online's patent is XBRL-based does not make it patentable, in my view.&#xD;&#xA;I am not a patent expert, so I invite someone with more knowledge of patents to investigate this patent further (as well as the myriad of other XBRL patents, including [this one][3] by RR Donnelley, which seems to incorporate Edgar Online's, and [this one][4] by Rivet Software).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background on the patent and prior art:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edgar Online was issued patent US7877678, which is essentially a patent on an excel plugin. To my knowledge, Microsoft has allowed external excel plugins since Excel was introduced way back when. These plugins populate a spreadsheet with financial data (though their plugins predate XBRL, it is financial data nonetheless and the end-user wouldn't notice the difference). The claim by Edgar Online (now RR Donnelly) is that since the data fed to the Excel plugin is XBRL, that essentially makes the plugin patentable. Whether or not the backend is the actual XBRL file, a database, or a webservice makes no difference, in my view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background on XBRL:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;XBRL is a way for companies to render financial data (e.g. it's essentially a company's annual report in XML format, for instance, [here's][6] Google's financials in XBRL format). XBRL is quickly becoming a worldwide standard. The U.S. Securities &amp; Exchange Commission (the SEC) recently required all public companies to report their financial data in text and XBRL formats. The U.S. taxpayer has spent a large amount of taxpayer money for the SEC to plan and implement XBRL. Because of it's complexity, early software providers have filed lots of [patents][5]. Don't let the shear number of patents fool you: **XBRL is an open standard and is simply a complex form of XML, which is also an open format.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background of Edgar Online/RR Donnelley:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In August, 2012 RR Donnelly bought Edgar Online. Edgar Online and RR Donnelly each (from very early on) enable companies to turn ordinary financial data into &quot;tagged&quot; XBRL data and file that report with the SEC. RR Donnelly, Edgar Online, Rivet Software, among others, charge a lot for this service.&#xD;&#xA;On the other side is the rendering of the financial data. Edgar Online also provides financial data for customers and rendering of financial data (and they charge a hefty price). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether it's the creation or rendering of the XBRL data, these companies have a huge incentive to file as many patents as possible to protect their revenue streams. The entire purpose of the SEC implementing XBRL data was to bring down the cost of financial data and let average Joe Investor have access to interactive data for a low (or $0) cost. These (ridiculous) patents [stand in the way][7] of that goal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/edgar-online-awarded-us-patent-for-a-system-and-method-for-rendering-financial-data-115002619.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7877678?dq=7,877,678&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=N2_xUZPlBoXy9gSQx4HoDA&amp;ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8468442?dq=7,877,678&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=Q1_xUeKlNYbo8wTu44HwCw&amp;ved=0CD0Q6AEwAQ&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7822769?pg=PA7&amp;dq=7,822,769&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=K3HxUfHvK4zu8AT6o4DYAg&amp;ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=pts&amp;hl=en&amp;q=xbrl&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000128877613000030/goog-20130331.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://irwebreport.com/20110203/patent-edgar-online-xbrl-spreadsheets/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10578" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4563" RevisionGUID="33e054b6-4418-4431-af20-a7fc7c701eb7" CreationDate="2013-07-25T20:05:13.987" UserId="5111" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us7877678&gt;&lt;us8468442&gt;&lt;xbrl&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10579" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4554" RevisionGUID="85ef26cd-11ea-4707-8871-c6eb67400ed4" CreationDate="2013-07-25T20:06:48.233" UserId="5134" Comment="fixed typo in tag" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130159434&gt;&lt;salesforce&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10580" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4554" RevisionGUID="85ef26cd-11ea-4707-8871-c6eb67400ed4" CreationDate="2013-07-25T20:06:48.233" Comment="Proposed by 5134 approved by 1 edit id of 376" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4564" RevisionGUID="3b1caa3c-669c-4fc1-8c0c-dd88293b3860" CreationDate="2013-07-25T20:15:12.383" UserId="5163" Text="The Clipper third-party community had a product called Object DB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CA-Clipper class library. (Princeton MICRAN introduces ObjectDB 1.1) (Brief Article) (Product Announcement)&#xD;&#xA;Data Based Advisor | June 01, 1994 | Copyright&#xD;&#xA;ObjectDB 1.1 is an upgrade that includes autoincrement fields, triggers, virtual columns, domains, and more. Features extended support for handling non-object DB files. Can pull in and manipulate tables on-the-fly. Supports declarative referential integrity, network-independent multi-user transaction processing, crash recoverability, automatic concurrency control, and multi-context table access. Price is $199." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10582" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4563" RevisionGUID="a833461a-6653-4193-8cd1-199f50b46a48" CreationDate="2013-07-25T20:46:57.173" UserId="5111" Comment="edited title" Text="How do we get rid of these ridiculous XBRL patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4565" RevisionGUID="8f1da5cf-8dfa-436d-a410-76c446b6b771" CreationDate="2013-07-25T20:54:05.683" UserId="5071" Text="Windows Phone 7 had this integrated into the OS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Windows Phone 7 was announced on February 15, 2010, and released publicly on November 8, 2010.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Phone) I believe the announcement said &quot;deep twitter integration&quot;, and probably demonstrated it, but I don't remember for sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In WP7, on the people hub, under &quot;what's new&quot;, it would get a list of all twitter updates for all of your contacts, and group them in order of release, and you could tap on the text, which would give you a means to retweet, or you could tap on the name, which would open up that contact in your phone, and you could call them, send a twitter message, or a text, or other communication means (like a facebook message)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe you could &quot;filter&quot; this list also, by creating a group of people for similar contacts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10585" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4563" RevisionGUID="b795e0d1-b687-4b6d-bf80-d05a8bdea895" CreationDate="2013-07-25T21:39:14.320" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;us7877678&gt;&lt;us8468442&gt;&lt;xbrl&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10586" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4563" RevisionGUID="b795e0d1-b687-4b6d-bf80-d05a8bdea895" CreationDate="2013-07-25T21:39:14.320" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="XBRL - Issued Patents - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4563" RevisionGUID="f18a1714-9151-4da6-8dce-175c4914bf56" CreationDate="2013-07-25T22:38:04.020" UserId="5111" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="In January, 2011, Edgar Online was [issued][1] patent [US7877678][2], which is essentially a patent on an excel plugin. &#xD;&#xA;I know that prior art exists, as I've used similar excel plugins for years, including Bloomberg's and FactSet's excel plugins. The fact that Edgar Online's patent is XBRL-based does not make it patentable, in my view.&#xD;&#xA;I am not a patent expert, so I invite someone with more knowledge of patents to investigate this patent further (as well as the myriad of other XBRL patents, including [this one][3] by RR Donnelley, which incorporates Edgar Online's and seems to try to broaden the patent beyond an Excel plugin, and [this one][4] by Rivet Software). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background on the patent and prior art:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edgar Online was issued patent US7877678, which is essentially a patent on an excel plugin. To my knowledge, Microsoft has allowed external excel plugins since Excel was introduced way back when. These plugins populate a spreadsheet with financial data (though their plugins predate XBRL, it is financial data nonetheless and the end-user wouldn't notice the difference). The claim by Edgar Online (now RR Donnelly) is that since the data fed to the Excel plugin is XBRL, that essentially makes the plugin patentable. Whether or not the backend is the actual XBRL file, a database, or a webservice makes no difference, in my view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background on XBRL:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;XBRL is a way for companies to render financial data (e.g. it's essentially a company's annual report in XML format, for instance, [here's][6] Google's financials in XBRL format). XBRL is quickly becoming a worldwide standard. The U.S. Securities &amp; Exchange Commission (the SEC) recently required all public companies to report their financial data in text and XBRL formats. The U.S. taxpayer has spent a large amount of taxpayer money for the SEC to plan and implement XBRL. Because of it's complexity, early software providers have filed lots of [patents][5]. Don't let the shear number of patents fool you: **XBRL is an open standard and is simply a complex form of XML, which is also an open format.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background of Edgar Online/RR Donnelley:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In August, 2012 RR Donnelly bought Edgar Online. Edgar Online and RR Donnelly each (from very early on) enable companies to turn ordinary financial data into &quot;tagged&quot; XBRL data and file that report with the SEC. RR Donnelly, Edgar Online, Rivet Software, among others, charge a lot for this service.&#xD;&#xA;On the other side is the rendering of the financial data. Edgar Online also provides financial data for customers and rendering of financial data (and they charge a hefty price). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether it's the creation or rendering of the XBRL data, these companies have a huge incentive to file as many patents as possible to protect their revenue streams. The entire purpose of the SEC implementing XBRL data was to bring down the cost of financial data and let average Joe Investor have access to interactive data for a low (or $0) cost. These (ridiculous) patents [stand in the way][7] of that goal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/edgar-online-awarded-us-patent-for-a-system-and-method-for-rendering-financial-data-115002619.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7877678?dq=7,877,678&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=N2_xUZPlBoXy9gSQx4HoDA&amp;ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8468442?dq=7,877,678&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=Q1_xUeKlNYbo8wTu44HwCw&amp;ved=0CD0Q6AEwAQ&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7822769?pg=PA7&amp;dq=7,822,769&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=K3HxUfHvK4zu8AT6o4DYAg&amp;ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=pts&amp;hl=en&amp;q=xbrl&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000128877613000030/goog-20130331.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://irwebreport.com/20110203/patent-edgar-online-xbrl-spreadsheets/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4567" RevisionGUID="9423d512-5238-4791-b865-3df38c79bc44" CreationDate="2013-07-26T00:33:57.617" UserId="5170" Text="Not sure if it helps, but my old company Axcelis developed a very popular Excel plug-in that many used for financial analysis. It was called &quot;Evolver&quot;, and it was featured in The New York Times, Newsweek and Popular Science over 20 years ago. It remains a popular program, now owned and marketed by Palisade (www.palisade.com). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4568" RevisionGUID="1d8b1235-6d2f-4743-ad4a-40fceab11956" CreationDate="2013-07-26T00:40:36.580" UserId="5171" Text="Xinba 2.0 Reader and Analyzer is the prior art you're looking for, I believe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's an Excel plugin, created by Hitachi America's XBRL Business Unit.  [Business announcement](http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20061204005407/en/Hitachi-America-Ltd.-XBRL-Business-Unit-Introduces) is **December 04, 2006**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wayback machine searches show the following for **February 6, 2007**, [a Xinba PDF brochure](http://web.archive.org/web/20071213165811/http://www.hitachi.us/supportingdocs/forbus/XBRL/Xinba_Brochure_06302005.pdf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent claims include (#25):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- send a request to a financial data service provider for financial data, using the at least one function call;&#xD;&#xA;  receive a response to the request for the financial data from the financial data service provider, wherein the response is an XML file comprising an Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) instance document and XBRL taxonomy information; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the brochure, Xinba seems to cover that well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It provides end users the capability to **consume XBRL** 2.0a and 2.1 compliant financial information directly into Microsoft Excel by accessing taxonomies and&#xD;&#xA;instances **stored locally, over the network, or via Web Services on the Internet**. With Xinba TM, end users can perform examination and analysis on XBRL financial data and generate customized financial reports&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4127" RevisionGUID="00b18af2-a42c-404f-83f1-ddd10958c936" CreationDate="2013-07-26T00:50:51.047" UserId="3076" Comment="Error in micro entity treatment" Text="Inequitable conduct is primarily a defense to an infringment accusation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One option you have is to submit that paper under 35 USC 301.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 35 U.S.C. 301  Citation of prior art and written statements. (Sept. 16, 2012)&#xD;&#xA;(a) IN GENERAL.—Any person at any time may cite to the Office in writing—&#xD;&#xA;(1) prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which that person believes to have a bearing on the patent ability of any claim of a particular patent; or&#xD;&#xA;(2) statements of the patent owner filed in a proceeding before a Federal court or the Office in which the patent owner took a position on the scope of any claim of a particular patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would not be able to say that you know the person had access to the paper in advance or allege inequitable conduct. But the paper would be sitting in the file as something that might be looked at for its pure prior art value in the case of reexamination, reissue or litigation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or under 35 USC 302 you can file requesting ex parte reexamination based on that document's pure prior art value. The least that would cost is $6000 in USPTO fees assuming the requestor qualifies as a small entity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or you could file an inter party review or a post-grant review under the new AIA procedures. I do not believe that either inequitable conduct or untruthful declaration of inventorship can be raised in either of these, more expensive procedures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, your tagged posting here at Ask Patents might be seen by a future infringement defendant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4563" RevisionGUID="06c25c92-2377-40cd-ae66-68b719414ebb" CreationDate="2013-07-26T01:29:04.817" UserId="5111" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="In January, 2011, Edgar Online was [issued][1] patent [US7877678][2], which is essentially a patent on an excel plugin. &#xD;&#xA;I know that prior art exists, as I've used similar excel plugins for years, including Bloomberg's and FactSet's excel plugins. The fact that Edgar Online's patent is XBRL-based does not make it patentable, in my view.&#xD;&#xA;I am not a patent expert, so I invite someone with more knowledge of patents to investigate this patent further (as well as the myriad of other XBRL patents, including [this one][3] by RR Donnelley, which incorporates Edgar Online's and seems to try to broaden the patent beyond an Excel plugin, and [this one][4] by Rivet Software). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background on the patent and prior art:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edgar Online was issued patent US7877678, which is essentially a patent on an excel plugin. To my knowledge, Microsoft has allowed external excel plugins since Excel was introduced way back when. These plugins populate a spreadsheet with financial data (though their plugins predate XBRL, it is financial data nonetheless and the end-user wouldn't notice the difference). The claim by Edgar Online (now RR Donnelly) is that since the data fed to the Excel plugin is XBRL, that essentially makes the plugin patentable. Whether or not the backend is the actual XBRL file, a database, or a webservice makes no difference, in my view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background on XBRL:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;XBRL is a way for companies to render financial data (e.g. it's essentially a company's annual report in XML format, for instance, [here's][6] Google's financials in XBRL format). XBRL is quickly becoming a worldwide standard. The U.S. Securities &amp; Exchange Commission (the SEC) recently required all public companies to report their financial data in XBRL format. The U.S. taxpayer has spent a large amount of taxpayer money for the SEC to plan and implement XBRL. Because of it's complexity, early software providers have filed lots of [patents][5]. Don't let the shear number of patents fool you: **XBRL is an open standard and is simply a complex form of XML, which is also an open format.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background of Edgar Online/RR Donnelley:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In August, 2012 RR Donnelly bought Edgar Online. Edgar Online and RR Donnelly each (from very early on) enable companies to turn ordinary financial data into &quot;tagged&quot; XBRL data and file that report with the SEC. RR Donnelly, Edgar Online, Rivet Software, among others, charge a lot for this service.&#xD;&#xA;On the other side is the rendering of the financial data. Edgar Online (and many others) also provides financial data for customers and rendering of financial data (and they charge a hefty price). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether it's the creation or rendering of the XBRL data, these companies have a huge incentive to file as many patents as possible to protect their revenue streams. The entire purpose of the SEC implementing XBRL data was to bring down the cost of financial data and let average Joe Investor have access to interactive data for a low (or $0) cost. These (ridiculous) patents [stand in the way][7] of that goal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/edgar-online-awarded-us-patent-for-a-system-and-method-for-rendering-financial-data-115002619.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7877678?dq=7,877,678&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=N2_xUZPlBoXy9gSQx4HoDA&amp;ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8468442?dq=7,877,678&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=Q1_xUeKlNYbo8wTu44HwCw&amp;ved=0CD0Q6AEwAQ&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7822769?pg=PA7&amp;dq=7,822,769&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=K3HxUfHvK4zu8AT6o4DYAg&amp;ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=pts&amp;hl=en&amp;q=xbrl&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000128877613000030/goog-20130331.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://irwebreport.com/20110203/patent-edgar-online-xbrl-spreadsheets/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4569" RevisionGUID="da8adebc-ba61-424d-8ef2-39e095408d49" CreationDate="2013-07-26T04:58:52.977" UserId="5176" Text="This company is utilizing different variations of a well known phenomenon. Their other patents, granted and pending, regarding binaural sound reproduction should really be challenged but this one in particular.  Here is an example of prior art which has even been deployed on DSP hardware in 2002. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://old.iem.at/Members/noisternig/science/msc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10598" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4569" RevisionGUID="da8adebc-ba61-424d-8ef2-39e095408d49" CreationDate="2013-07-26T04:58:52.977" UserId="5176" Text="Something similar has been done in 2002 as an msc thesis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10599" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4569" RevisionGUID="da8adebc-ba61-424d-8ef2-39e095408d49" CreationDate="2013-07-26T04:58:52.977" UserId="5176" Text="&lt;wo2006024850a2&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10607" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4569" RevisionGUID="0d4a1bf7-a30a-4472-9665-a03f64fb5d25" CreationDate="2013-07-26T08:32:18.590" UserId="1767" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1767,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Micah Siegel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10609" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4126" RevisionGUID="3751c317-19d2-465f-97ab-b22ba2fd8685" CreationDate="2013-07-26T08:40:24.170" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title; edited title" Text="Design Patents- What exactly are these patents on?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10621" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1942" RevisionGUID="a099546b-4b62-4c84-8d99-2fd1f0446118" CreationDate="2013-07-26T12:49:40.433" UserId="5187" Comment="Retag prior-art -&gt; prior-art-request" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;data-processing-software&gt;&lt;us8261231&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10622" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1942" RevisionGUID="a099546b-4b62-4c84-8d99-2fd1f0446118" CreationDate="2013-07-26T12:49:40.433" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 1844 edit id of 385" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4554" RevisionGUID="9819f4db-f3cc-45c4-a841-23f78ad9cc5c" CreationDate="2013-07-26T13:34:44.437" UserId="5055" Comment="Contacts is confusing, and claim 1 as well as the specification does not imply searching system user's contacts but a large business directory (e.g. a CRM database)" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON FILTERING TWITTER FEEDS FROM BUSINESS CONTACTS** - This application from [Salesforce.com][6] seeks to patent the idea of... filtering feeds associated with individuals in a business directory matching a search query (e.g. data managers) and displaying the filtered feed on a computer! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 15, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of **FILTERING BUSINESS CONTACTS**; aggregating twitter feeds from the filtered contacts; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Searching within the **FILTERED TWITTER FEED**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO enables the user to **CONTACT** members of the filtered network feed.&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: DYNAMIC CONTROL OF EMAIL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalish into English] A method of filtering your contacts, receiving feeds from the filtered contacts, and (optionally) contacting some of the contacts. For example, a system outputs the twitter feeds from the data center managers that mention a competitor's specific product and (optionally) allowing you to contact some of these data center managers to say, “Hey! buy my product instead”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159434 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/558,577&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Salesforce, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Aug 18, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for viewing a contact network feed in a business directory environment, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Searching, based on a user specified search, a business directory to determine contacts;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying network feeds associated with the contacts;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Outputting the network feeds;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Filtering, based on a user specified filter, the network feeds to determine filtered network feeds; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Outputting the filtered network feeds to a display device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for filtering (e.g., twitter) feeds, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Searching a business directory to find individuals (potential contacts); and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying network feeds associated with these individuals and getting the feed data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Creating a filtered network feed based on the network feeds and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying the filtered network feed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Aug, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming enabling the user to **CONTACT** members of the filtered network feed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Viewing a network feed in a business directory environment” from Salesforce**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/99FJx.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159434?dq=US20130159434A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.salesforce.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10627" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4554" RevisionGUID="9819f4db-f3cc-45c4-a841-23f78ad9cc5c" CreationDate="2013-07-26T13:34:44.437" Comment="Proposed by 5055 approved by 1767 edit id of 395" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4569" RevisionGUID="74e1e04a-47b2-4879-a368-bb3009184126" CreationDate="2013-07-26T13:34:50.877" UserId="5176" Comment="Reworded question so that it is in accordance with forum guidelines." Text="As the title suggests, how are the claims of this patent application novel and not obvious?  It appears that there is a whole body of work in applied acoustical engineering which deals with exactly this phenomena. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are just some examples of prior art which looks as though they could invalidate this application: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://old.iem.at/Members/noisternig/science/msc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://interface.cipic.ucdavis.edu/sound/research.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/publications/rendering-localized-spatial-audio-virtual-auditory-space-0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10629" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4569" RevisionGUID="74e1e04a-47b2-4879-a368-bb3009184126" CreationDate="2013-07-26T13:34:50.877" UserId="5176" Comment="Reworded question so that it is in accordance with forum guidelines." Text="What is novel about the invention described in application wo2006024850a2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10630" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="107" RevisionGUID="49c37767-b8e1-4ab4-93b3-4a6b5cd4b553" CreationDate="2013-07-26T13:35:13.597" UserId="5187" Comment="Retag prior-art -&gt; prior-art-request" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;amusement-devices-games&gt;&lt;us20120223477&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10631" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="107" RevisionGUID="49c37767-b8e1-4ab4-93b3-4a6b5cd4b553" CreationDate="2013-07-26T13:35:13.597" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 1767 edit id of 390" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10632" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="119" RevisionGUID="e1cfdeb4-244a-4256-a094-f1d12f500812" CreationDate="2013-07-26T13:35:31.847" UserId="5187" Comment="Retag prior-art -&gt; prior-art-request" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;data-processing-vehicles&gt;&lt;us20120226390&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10633" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="119" RevisionGUID="e1cfdeb4-244a-4256-a094-f1d12f500812" CreationDate="2013-07-26T13:35:31.847" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 1767 edit id of 392" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10635" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="119" RevisionGUID="0655de08-f50b-4f42-92b1-dd911bfa51e3" CreationDate="2013-07-26T13:46:21.080" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Timeline Display for Vehicle Fleet Management - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10636" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="107" RevisionGUID="b0bf162d-981e-4fd1-bd32-5ef897170ed9" CreationDate="2013-07-26T13:48:49.873" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Amusement Game - Dice that return independent variables or a random color - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4554" RevisionGUID="b44fb4ae-cb05-4f02-84a8-cdac0b09bc9b" CreationDate="2013-07-26T13:52:05.760" UserId="1767" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON FILTERING TWITTER FEEDS FROM BUSINESS CONTACTS** - This application from [Salesforce.com][6] seeks to patent the idea of... filtering feeds associated with individuals in a business directory matching a search query (e.g. data managers) and displaying the filtered feed on a computer! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 15, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of **FILTERING BUSINESS CONTACTS**; aggregating twitter feeds from the filtered contacts; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Searching within the **FILTERED TWITTER FEED**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO enables the user to **CONTACT** members of the filtered network feed.&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: DYNAMIC CONTROL OF EMAIL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalish into English] A method of filtering your contacts, receiving feeds from the filtered contacts, and (optionally) contacting some of the contacts. For example, a system outputs the twitter feeds from the data center managers that mention a competitor's specific product and (optionally) allowing you to contact some of these data center managers to say, “Hey! buy my product instead”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159434 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/558,577&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Salesforce, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Aug 18, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for viewing a contact network feed in a business directory environment, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Searching, based on a user specified search, a business directory to determine contacts;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying network feeds associated with the contacts;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Outputting the network feeds;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Filtering, based on a user specified filter, the network feeds to determine filtered network feeds; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Outputting the filtered network feeds to a display device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for filtering (e.g., twitter) feeds, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Searching a business directory to find individuals (potential contacts); and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying network feeds associated with these individuals and getting the feed data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Creating a filtered network feed based on the network feeds and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying the filtered network feed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Aug, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming enabling the user to **CONTACT** members of the filtered network feed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Viewing a network feed in a business directory environment” from Salesforce**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/99FJx.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159434?dq=US20130159434A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.salesforce.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4537" RevisionGUID="0121646f-dfe7-4928-ada8-a249abe88d4b" CreationDate="2013-07-26T13:52:34.013" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ONLINE SEARCH** - This application from [Yahoo!][6] seeks to patent the idea of... user editing search results for themselves and other users! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 19, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Accepting **USER EDITS** to **SEARCH RESULTS**; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Modifying the **SEARCH RESULTS PAGE** based on its **USER EDITS** with a **DRAG AND DROP** interface;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves user edits applying **GLOBALLY** to other users’ search results pages, **REMOVING DUPLICATE RESULTS** or a **DRAG AND DROP INTERFACE** to proposed user edits to search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: EDITORIAL CURATION OF SEARCH RESULTS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of modifying search results pages based on user edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159222 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/330,405&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 19, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for editorial curation of search results, comprising steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; using a processor device configured to perform:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a search results page rendered in response to a search query;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. receiving user edits comprising changes to objects in the search results page; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. applying the user edits to the search results page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for curating search results using a computer, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a search results page in response to a search query&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving user edits to objects in the search results page; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Applying the user edits to the search results page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming user edits applying **GLOBALLY** to other users’ search results pages, **REMOVING DUPLICATE RESULTS** or a **DRAG AND DROP INTERFACE** to proposed user edits to search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Drag and Drop User Curated Search Results Pages from Yahoo!**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/JCCnb.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130159222&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4551" RevisionGUID="7b548aa1-3239-46d0-bfaa-56e5586cd920" CreationDate="2013-07-26T13:53:03.280" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body; edited title" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON DYNAMIC EMAIL NOTIFICATION** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of... email which changes appearance dynamically based on an external event! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 15, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A external system which sends **EVENT SIGNALS** to an email server; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. an email server which modifies the appearance of email messages based on the external **EVENT SIGNALS**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves event signals such as: **CHANGING MEMBERSHIP IN A GROUP**,  and dynamic updates such as **CREATING CALENDAR EVENT** &#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: DYNAMIC CONTROL OF EMAIL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of modifying the appearance of email or creating or deleting a calendar event based on an external event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159426 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/327,240&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corp.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 15, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of controlling an electronic message system, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving at a messaging service in the electronic message system, an event signal relating to an event external to the messaging service, the event signal being received from an **external system** which is separate from the **messaging service**; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying one or more electronic messages within the electronic message system based on the **event signal** received and triggering a **dynamic update** to the identified electronic messages in response to receipt of the event signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing an external signal to an email service:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving an **event signal** (e.g. community response to a particular message, the location of one or more users, or a change in membership of a group.); and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Triggering a **dynamic update** (e.g. displaying in a different manner or the message being delivered or deleted, a calendar event being created or destroyed) in response to the **event signal**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming event signals such as: **CHANGING MEMBERSHIP IN A GROUP**,  and dynamic updates such as **CREATING/DELETING CALENDAR EVENT** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method of controlling an electronic message system from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/lvihZ.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159426?dq=US20130159426A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4218" RevisionGUID="6eb6289e-f879-417d-afed-7409d0f2153c" CreationDate="2013-07-26T13:53:37.720" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE ADVERTISING** - This application from [Facebook][6] seeks to patent the idea of... suggesting changes to your advertising campaign based on the performance of your current campaign! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Measuring the performance** of an initial online advertisement; AND &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Suggesting changes to **targeting criteria** an advertiser might use to increase its performance;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **click-through rate**, **conversion rate** or **brand lift rate** as a measurement of performance of the advertisement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Adjusting an Advertising Campaign**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of adjusting an online advertisement which uses click-through-rate, conversion rate, brand-lift rate or any other measurement of an initial advertisement to suggest new targeting criteria to the advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151332 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/316,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Facebook, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 10, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, at a **publishing system from an advertiser**, data for an **advertising campaign** comprising an initial ad and **targeting criteria** defining an initial **target group** for receiving the initial ad;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Providing the **initial ad** for display to a plurality of users in a plurality of segments of the initial target group;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining, by the publishing system, a value of an **advertising metric** for a first one of the plurality of segments based on the display of the initial ad to the users of the first segment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Based on the value of the advertising metric, determining by the publishing system **a suggestion** for the advertiser to modify the **targeting criteria** to **remove** the first segment from the targeting criteria to be used for the initial ad; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Sending the suggestion from the publishing system to the advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of suggesting adjustments to an advertising campaign, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving an initial advertisement and proposed targeting criteria from an advertiser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Displaying the initial advertisement to the target group using the targeting crtieria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Measuring something (anything!) about the performance of the initial advertisement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Suggesting that the advertiser modify the targeting criteria to narrow which members of the target group see the advertisement.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and using **click-through rate**, **conversion rate** or **brand lift rate** as a measurement of performance of the advertisement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Modifying ad campaign based on the performance of the ad&quot;** from Figures of Application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/MlviX.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151332?dq=US20130151332A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.facebook.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4082" RevisionGUID="afb82924-97b0-4877-818f-342c431f7b2a" CreationDate="2013-07-26T13:54:27.630" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **HELP SAVE MESH NETWORKING** —This application from General Electric seeks to patent a system for extending the range of communication for low rate wireless mesh networks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.... [HERE!][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was **published before June 27, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.	A low-rate wireless mesh network that uses several directional antennas (communication nodes including: directional wSIM, any directional wireless sensor interface) to extend the range of wireless communication between devices; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.	A method of assembling such a network; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.	A sensor and controller connected to such a mesh network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT ---** &#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses one or more omnidirectional antennas.&#xD;&#xA;	A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses a memory device connected to a processor. &#xD;&#xA;	A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses two adjacent directional antennas with opposite polarization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ENHANCING WIRELESS MESH NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** [Translated from Legalish into English] A system for increasing the range of communication between devices in low-rate wireless mesh networks by using multiple directional antennas (for example directional wSIM or any directional wireless sensor interface device).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Publication Number:** [US 2012/0326927][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Assignee:** General Electric&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Prior Art Date:** June 27, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Open for Challenge at USPTO: open until _June 27, 2013_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A wireless mesh network comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	At least one data collection device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A plurality of directional antennas operatively coupled to each other and to said at least one data collection device,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Wherein said wireless mesh network is configured to transmit information with a data rate of approximately 250 Kilobits per second (Kbits/sec) or less, and at a frequency of approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz) or less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.	At least one device that collects data input from any kind of sensor or user input interface (including, for example, a microcontroller programmed to collect, store and process input from sensors, user interfaces such as touch screens or keyboards, or GPS); AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.	Multiple mesh nodes using directional radio antennas configured in such a way that they are in communication with each other and with the device described in (1); AND &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.	The mesh network is configured to transmit information with a low-data rate, using either the Zigbee® specification, the WirelessHART™ standard, or any low-rate specification, standard or protocol based on IEEE standard 802.15.4™ [a data rate of approximately 250 Kilobits per second (250Kbits/sec) or less, at a frequency of approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz) or less].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 15** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A monitoring system comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	At least one sensor measurement device; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	At least one data collection device; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	A wireless mesh network coupled to said at least one data collection device and said at least one sensor measurement device, said wireless mesh network comprising a plurality of directional antennas operatively coupled to each other and to said at least one data collection device, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Wherein, said wireless mesh network is configured to transmit information with a data rate of approximate 250 Kilobits per second (Kbits/sec) or less, and at a frequency of approximately 2.4 GigaHertz (GHz) or less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.	At least one sensor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.	At least one device that collects data input from any kind of sensor or user input interface (including, for example, a microcontroller programmed to collect, store and process input from sensors, or user interfaces such as touch screens or keyboards, or GPS); AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.	Multiple mesh nodes using directional antennas configured such that the nodes are in communication with each other, the sensor, and the data collection device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4.	The mesh network is configured to transmit information with a low-data rate, using either the Zigbee® specification, the WirelessHART™ standard, or any low-rate specification, standard or protocol based on IEEE standard 802.15.4™ [a data rate of approximately 250 Kilobits per second (250Kbits/sec) or less, at a frequency of approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz) or less].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You’re probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet these criteria already...&#xD;&#xA;Separately, the applicant is claiming:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	A method and system using all of the elements described above and including multiple omnidirectional antennas;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	A data collection device composed of any memory device coupled to a processor, where the memory device includes programmed instructions to the processor to transmit data through the network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	An arrangement of antennas where the first directional antenna is positioned within range of a first omnidirectional antenna; and a second directional antenna positioned within range of a second omnidirectional antenna.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_What is good prior art? Please see our &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt;_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post prior art you know about][2] on other questionable US patent applications._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120326927&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10643" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4551" RevisionGUID="7b548aa1-3239-46d0-bfaa-56e5586cd920" CreationDate="2013-07-26T13:53:03.280" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body; edited title" Text="Email Notification - Dynamic Control of Email (Microsoft) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10648" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1940" RevisionGUID="b7ccb7cd-2012-431f-9231-ae9f5429f631" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:18:34.950" UserId="5187" Comment="Retag prior-art -&gt; prior-art-request, remove page-turning, add design-patent, apple" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;animation&gt;&lt;usd670713&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10649" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1940" RevisionGUID="b7ccb7cd-2012-431f-9231-ae9f5429f631" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:18:34.950" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 1259, 1767 edit id of 386" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10650" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="131" RevisionGUID="0a051346-1601-4526-9841-85ed685a7654" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:18:53.560" UserId="5187" Comment="Retag prior-art -&gt; prior-art-request" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20120222191&gt;&lt;apparel&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10651" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="131" RevisionGUID="0a051346-1601-4526-9841-85ed685a7654" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:18:53.560" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 1259, 1767 edit id of 394" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10652" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1981" RevisionGUID="6d016090-a099-460c-9d10-61524baef359" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:19:14.233" UserId="5187" Comment="Retag prior-art -&gt; prior-art-request" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;drug-ingredients&gt;&lt;medicine&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10653" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1981" RevisionGUID="6d016090-a099-460c-9d10-61524baef359" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:19:14.233" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 1259, 1767 edit id of 383" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10654" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1991" RevisionGUID="f0bb3084-1bf7-47c3-a7f6-1fc42e960596" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:19:27.500" UserId="5187" Comment="Retag prior-art -&gt; prior-art-request" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;data-processing-financial&gt;&lt;us6981007&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10655" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1991" RevisionGUID="f0bb3084-1bf7-47c3-a7f6-1fc42e960596" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:19:27.500" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 1259, 1767 edit id of 382" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10656" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3318" RevisionGUID="cb1858c3-06da-4746-89f4-3a24c6bfc791" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:19:37.123" UserId="5187" Comment="Retag prior-art -&gt; prior-art-request" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20100009006&gt;&lt;us8361511&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10657" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3318" RevisionGUID="cb1858c3-06da-4746-89f4-3a24c6bfc791" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:19:37.123" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 1259, 1767 edit id of 381" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10658" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="4c9201bd-9417-4f05-859c-c37b5af59652" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:19:49.737" UserId="5187" Comment="Retag prior-art -&gt; prior-art-request" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;data-processing-database&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;us20120226658&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10659" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="4c9201bd-9417-4f05-859c-c37b5af59652" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:19:49.737" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 1259, 1767 edit id of 391" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10660" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1966" RevisionGUID="14291567-ddd2-452a-82fa-d42634728e74" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:19:55.987" UserId="5187" Comment="Retag prior-art -&gt; prior-art-reqeust" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20110242130&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10661" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1966" RevisionGUID="14291567-ddd2-452a-82fa-d42634728e74" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:19:55.987" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 1259, 1767 edit id of 384" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10662" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="1f82fcc1-6b9b-41b2-a25c-120dcaf3bd9e" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:20:15.800" UserId="5187" Comment="Retag prior-art -&gt; prior-art-request" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;data-processing-financial&gt;&lt;us20120226507&gt;&lt;healthcare&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10663" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="1f82fcc1-6b9b-41b2-a25c-120dcaf3bd9e" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:20:15.800" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 1259, 1767 edit id of 393" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10666" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1927" RevisionGUID="6a286b90-55b9-467a-b7fd-8b6114b4cc44" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:21:12.757" UserId="5187" Comment="Retag prior-art -&gt; prior-art-request" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;passwords&gt;&lt;authentication&gt;&lt;20120284783&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10667" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1927" RevisionGUID="6a286b90-55b9-467a-b7fd-8b6114b4cc44" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:21:12.757" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 1259, 1767 edit id of 387" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10668" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="79" RevisionGUID="dbebd653-53a6-4c35-b8a2-3da0b5e4d1ad" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:21:22.023" UserId="5187" Comment="Retag prior-art -&gt; prior-art-request" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;video-games&gt;&lt;amusement-devices-games&gt;&lt;us20120052930&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10669" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="79" RevisionGUID="dbebd653-53a6-4c35-b8a2-3da0b5e4d1ad" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:21:22.023" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 1259, 1767 edit id of 389" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10670" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1922" RevisionGUID="0055c937-4cea-4194-9c1d-5a25db18b54e" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:21:45.353" UserId="5187" Comment="Retag prior-art -&gt; prior-art-request" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;data-processing-language&gt;&lt;us20120253817&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10671" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1922" RevisionGUID="0055c937-4cea-4194-9c1d-5a25db18b54e" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:21:45.353" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 1259, 1767 edit id of 388" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10672" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4194" RevisionGUID="0b077af7-d19c-4df0-a0c8-90b70fd70a6e" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:21:51.510" UserId="5187" Comment="Add tag [design-patent]" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;usd651568&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10673" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4194" RevisionGUID="0b077af7-d19c-4df0-a0c8-90b70fd70a6e" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:21:51.510" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 1259, 1767 edit id of 379" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10674" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3560" RevisionGUID="dce1dbd7-4663-450d-ba18-14234c876360" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:21:59.353" UserId="5187" Comment="Join tags inequitable and conduct" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;inequitable-conduct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10675" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3560" RevisionGUID="dce1dbd7-4663-450d-ba18-14234c876360" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:21:59.353" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 1259, 1767 edit id of 380" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10676" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3560" RevisionGUID="b6d7ffac-9352-4711-af4b-2e21420c1c8d" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:24:55.570" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Inequitable Conduct? Theranos U.S. Patent No. 8,283,155" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4087" RevisionGUID="2e7629b1-6d25-4040-9a57-6b3ec9dd21b1" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:26:00.150" UserId="1767" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text=" **HELP SAVE MESH NETWORKING** — This application from Schlage seeks to patent a secure gateway between a mesh network and an IP network, and a lock device connected through the mesh network. Because mesh networks often use protocols that don’t work well with IP clients, it’s important to have a secure bridge that allows web browsers and other traditional IP clients to use mesh network based systems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.... [HERE!][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was published before **May 27, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.	A **gateway** device for transmitting signals between an IP network and a radio frequency mesh network that uses a **secure data connection** to communicate with the IP network; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.	A gateway device that meets all of the criteria above where the gateway is configured to **enroll a lock device** in the mesh network; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.	A method for **synchronizing** the gateway device described above with **a lock device.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT ---** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND that was published BEFORE **December 31, 2007.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses a **secure socket layer protocol** to implement the secure data connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND where the gateway is configured to enroll an **additional device that is not a lock** in the mesh network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the logic and memory unit **translates** between the mesh and IP network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: MESH NETWORK SECURITY SYSTEM GATEWAY AND METHOD**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** [Translated from Legalish into English] A secure data connection gateway between an IP or computer network and a radio-frequency mesh network, with a power supply, that could allow for web browsers and other traditional IP client software to control or use a mesh network. Separately, the applicant is claiming a method of enrolling a lock device in the mesh network and synchronizing it with the gateway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Publication Number:** &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US20130014219&quot;&gt;US 20130014219 A1&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Assignee:** Schlage&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;•	**Prior Art Date:** May 27, 2008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Open for Challenge at USPTO: open through at least *July 10, 2013***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gateway for transmitting signals between a computer network and a radio-frequency mesh network, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A housing;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A radio-frequency transceiver for communicating with the radio-frequency mesh network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	An Internet Protocol transceiver, operatively coupled to the radio frequency transceiver, for communicating with the computer network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	A power supply; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	A logic and memory unit configured to communicate with the computer network using a secure data connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A gateway device with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.	A housing; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.	A radio frequency transceiver and IP transceiver in communication with each other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.	A power supply; AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4.	Any logic and memory device that can communicate with the IP or computer network through a secure data connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 9** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gateway for transmitting signals between a computer network and a radio-frequency mesh network, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A housing;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A radio-frequency transceiver for communicating with the radio-frequency mesh network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	An Internet Protocol transceiver, operatively coupled to the radio-frequency transceiver, for communicating with the computer network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	A power supply; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	A logic and memory unit configured to enroll devices into the radio-frequency mesh network, at least one of the devices being a radio-frequency mesh network lock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gateway device with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A housing; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A radio frequency transceiver and IP transceiver in communication with each other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	A power supply; AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Any logic and memory device that can add nodes to the mesh network, where at least one of those nodes is a lock device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 14** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A method of synchronizing a radio-frequency mesh network lock device with a mesh network gateway, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Positioning the gateway adjacent to the lock device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	Initiating synchronization procedures on the lock device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Initiating synchronization procedures on the gateway;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Exchanging identifying information between the gateway and the lock device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	Indicating that synchronization is successfully completed at the gateway;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.	Increasing radio signal power of a lock device transceiver associated with the lock device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.	Adding the lock device to a list stored in the gateway of devices that make-up the radio-frequency mesh network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A process where the lock an the gateway are synchronized by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.	Placing the lock and gateway next to each other; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.	Entering a security code into the lock device (or otherwise initiating a synchronization procedure);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.	Pressing a button on the gateway (or otherwise initiating a synchronization procedure);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4.	Transmitting the security code (or other identifying information) between the gateway and the lock;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5.	Increasing the amount of power going to the lock’s transceiver; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6.	Enrolling the lock device in the network. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][1]![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;What is good prior art? Please see our &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post prior art you know about][3] on other questionable US patent applications.&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/6WC9e.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Q01fI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4232" RevisionGUID="386cb01d-33ba-4d0d-856a-0500f45a98a1" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:26:35.450" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ELECTRONIC CALENDARS** - This application from [HTC][6] seeks to patent the idea of... calendar reminders based on location! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on Twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Aug 22, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating **EVENT REMINDERS** for a user; where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **EVENT REMINDERS** are based on **TRAVEL TIME** to a next event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **GPS**, **Traffic conditions**, **Walking time** to estimate travel time, or involves **contacting another individual** when it appears you will be late to a meeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: METHOD FOR REMINDING CALENDAR SCHEDULE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method in which a reminding message is provided in advance to a user according to the distance between the location of the user’s previous event and the location of an upcoming event, so that the user will not be late for the upcoming event.  Basically a standard iPhone reminder of “Your meeting with David Kappos will occur in {X} minutes”, where {X} is calculated in part by how long will be required for you to get to the event”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151143 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/761,161&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [HTC Corporation][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating August 22, 2008**&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for creating a calendar reminder, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Setting a first schedule and a first **location** of a first event in a calendar;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Obtaining first positioning information of a **current location** of the mobile apparatus during the first event according to the first schedule, and storing the first positioning information as event positioning information of the first location; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Retrieving the event positioning information for reminding the calendar schedule when the first location is set in a next event.d&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for creating a calendar reminder, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a 1st event on a calendar;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Using the current location of the user as the location of the 1st event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Creating a reminder for the next event based on the location of the next event and location of the 1st event.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the August, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and AND ALSO uses **GPS**, **Traffic conditions**, **Walking time** to estimate travel time, or involves **contacting another individual** when it appears you will be late to a meeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A method of creating event reminders&quot; screen shots from HTC**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/7X5oi.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151143?dq=US+20130151143+A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.htc.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4086" RevisionGUID="3a05bda6-191e-442f-b9fb-37f53036ca65" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:26:50.403" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **HELP SAVE MESH NETWORKING** —This application from Cisco seeks to patent a technique for authenticating devices seeking to join a mesh network. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was **published before July 6, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     A device **sending an authentication packet** to an authenticated device in the mesh network (through one or more hops); &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.     The authenticated device **encapsulating** the authentication packet in **Layer 3 packets** for transmission over an **Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel** to an authenticator device; OR&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.     The authenticated device **receiving an authentication packet** that is encapsulated in Layer 3 packets from the authenticator, **decapsulating** the authentication packet, and **transmitting** it over the mesh network to the device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT ---**&#xD;&#xA;        	A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the authentication message is sent as a **Layer 2** message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses the **IEEE 802.1X standard**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the packets are transmitted **wirelessly**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO encapsulates the packet in **Universal Datagram Protocol (UDP)** Packets OR **Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)** Packets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the authenticator device forwards a **group mesh key** to the device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: ADAPTING EXTENSIBLE AUTHENTICATION PROTOCOL FOR LAYER 3 MESH NETWORKS**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** [Translated from Legalish into English] A method and apparatus for authenticating devices in a mesh network by routing authentication packets through the mesh network, over an IP tunnel, and to an authenticator device.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;•	**Publication Number:** &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US20130014217&quot;&gt;US 20130014217 A1&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Assignee:** Cisco&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Prior Art Date:** July 6, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Open for Challenge at USPTO: open at least through &lt;i&gt;July 10, 2013&lt;/i&gt;**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     At an authenticated device in a network, receiving an authentication packet sent over the network from a device that is seeking authentication; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     Encapsulating the authentication packet for transmission in Layer 3 packets over an Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel to an authenticator device associated in the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     A mesh node that wants access to the network sends an authentication message (this message can be sent, for example, as a Layer 2 or Layer 3 message) over the network to an already authenticated mesh node; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.     The receiving mesh node encapsulates the message in Layer 3 packets and sends it to an authenticator over an Internet Protocol (IP) network connection.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 10** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     An authenticated device in a network, receiving an authentication packet that is encapsulated in Layer 3 packets from an authenticator device over an Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     Decapsulating the authentication packet from the Layer 3 packets and transmitting the authentication packet over the network to a device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     The authenticator sends an authentication message in Layer 3 packets over an IP network connection to an already authenticated mesh node; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.     The authenticated mesh node decapsulates the authentication message from the Layer 3 packets and sends the message back over the network to the node that requested access.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 13** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;An apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     A transceiver unit configured to transmit and receive signals over a network; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     A processor coupled to the transceiver unit, the processor configured to, for an authentication packet received from a device that is seeking authentication in the network, encapsulate the authentication packet for transmission in Layer 3 packets over an Internet protocol (IP) tunnel to an authenticator device associated in the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     A wireless device that can receive an authentication message from another device and encapsulate that message into Layer 3 packets to be sent to an authenticator over an IP network connection.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 20** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;One or more computer readable storage media encoded with software comprising computer executable instructions and when software is executed operable to:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     For an authentication packet received from a device that is seeking authentication in a network, encapsulate the authentication packet for transmission in layer 3 packets over an Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel to an authenticator device associated in the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     Any memory device that stores software instructions for a controller to encapsulate messages in Layer 3 packets to be sent to an authenticator over an IP network connection.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 24** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The computer readable storage media of claim 20, and further comprising instructions that are operable to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.     For an authentication packet encapsulated in Layer 3 packets received from the authenticator device over the IP tunnel, decapsulate the authentication packet from the Layer 3 packets and to control a transceiver unit to transmit the authentication packet to the device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     Any memory device that stores software instructions for a controller to decapsulate authentication messages from the Layer 3 packets and transmit them to the node seeking access to the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Separately,** the applicant is claiming a method where the authenticator transmits a **group mesh key** to the device seeking access, where the key is known only to authenticated devices, and where all packets not encrypted with the mesh key and not part of the authentication negotiation are **dropped** by nodes in the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;What is good prior art? Please see our &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post prior art you know about][3] on other questionable US patent applications.&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/851CF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/UVGON.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4301" RevisionGUID="8277d991-0cc1-4122-926d-7eb58d4e7629" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:27:06.720" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON LOCATING DATA ON A COMPUTER** - This application seeks to patent the idea of... locating data for applications on a computer! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure whether &quot;locating for application-specific data&quot; can be patentable. This sounds like inventing a wheel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Patent:  **[US 20130166517 A1][1]**&#xD;&#xA;- **Title**: **Systems and methods for locating application specific data**&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 12, 2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 27, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A system for locating for application-specific data comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - at least one data storage device, having unidentified data stored therein;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - at least one processor operatively coupled to the at least one data storage device, the at least one processor configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (i) access unidentified data from at least one data storage device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (ii) examine the unidentified data to detect at least one application-specific data pattern associated with at least one application;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (iii) for each detected application-specific data pattern, execute an application-specific validation process to determine whether the unidentified data includes valid data associated with a corresponding application; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (iv) if it is determined that the unidentified data includes valid data associated with the corresponding application, then recover the valid data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130166517&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4538" RevisionGUID="c10c18d4-4245-4bac-9e13-f8ef4b724bc8" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:27:24.767" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON PROMOTION WITH DIGITAL CONTENT** - This application from [eBay][6] seeks to patent the idea of... providing digital content to users to visit a physical store! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 21, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Offering **digital content** to a user as a promotion to visit a **physical store**; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Checks whether the user visits the **physical store** and then provides the **digital content** to the user?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves **providing free e-Books**, **loyalty programs**, or **requiring** user to purchase something at the store to get the digital content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: DIGITAL CONTENT PROVIDED TO A USER A PHYSICAL LOCATION**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of providing digital content to users as an incentive to get them to visit a physical store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130166369 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/333,170&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: eBay, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 21, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 27, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing a promotion to a user to do commerce at a physical location, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. offering a right to a particular piece of digital content to the user as an incentive to a commercial transaction that occurs at least partly at the physical location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. discerning that the user is located at the physical location; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. in response to the discerning, interacting with the user to provide the digital content to the user on a mobile device associated with the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing promotion to a user to buy something at a physical store, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Offering the **digital content** to the user an incentive to visit a physical store&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Recognizing the user is at the **physical store**; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing the digital content to the user on a mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming **providing free e-Books**, **loyalty programs**, or **requiring** user to purchase something at the store to get the digital content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Showing a user at a physical location receiving digital content&quot; from eBay**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/tJABr.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130166369&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ebay.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4554" RevisionGUID="ab795caf-894f-4ad3-b4c6-944540af5e4c" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:27:38.987" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON FILTERING TWITTER FEEDS FROM BUSINESS CONTACTS** - This application from [Salesforce.com][6] seeks to patent the idea of... filtering feeds associated with individuals in a business directory matching a search query (e.g. data managers) and displaying the filtered feed on a computer! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 15, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of **FILTERING BUSINESS CONTACTS**; aggregating twitter feeds from the filtered contacts; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Searching within the **FILTERED TWITTER FEED**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO enables the user to **CONTACT** members of the filtered network feed.&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: DYNAMIC CONTROL OF EMAIL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalish into English] A method of filtering your contacts, receiving feeds from the filtered contacts, and (optionally) contacting some of the contacts. For example, a system outputs the twitter feeds from the data center managers that mention a competitor's specific product and (optionally) allowing you to contact some of these data center managers to say, “Hey! buy my product instead”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159434 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/558,577&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Salesforce, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Aug 18, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for viewing a contact network feed in a business directory environment, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Searching, based on a user specified search, a business directory to determine contacts;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying network feeds associated with the contacts;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Outputting the network feeds;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Filtering, based on a user specified filter, the network feeds to determine filtered network feeds; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Outputting the filtered network feeds to a display device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for filtering (e.g., twitter) feeds, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Searching a business directory to find individuals (potential contacts); and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying network feeds associated with these individuals and getting the feed data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Creating a filtered network feed based on the network feeds and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying the filtered network feed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Aug, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming enabling the user to **CONTACT** members of the filtered network feed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Viewing a network feed in a business directory environment” from Salesforce**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/99FJx.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159434?dq=US20130159434A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.salesforce.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4537" RevisionGUID="2867965e-61c7-479e-a94b-474d2aeadc6e" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:27:52.877" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ONLINE SEARCH** - This application from [Yahoo!][6] seeks to patent the idea of... user editing search results for themselves and other users! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 19, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Accepting **USER EDITS** to **SEARCH RESULTS**; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Modifying the **SEARCH RESULTS PAGE** based on its **USER EDITS** with a **DRAG AND DROP** interface;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves user edits applying **GLOBALLY** to other users’ search results pages, **REMOVING DUPLICATE RESULTS** or a **DRAG AND DROP INTERFACE** to proposed user edits to search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: EDITORIAL CURATION OF SEARCH RESULTS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of modifying search results pages based on user edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159222 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/330,405&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 19, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for editorial curation of search results, comprising steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; using a processor device configured to perform:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a search results page rendered in response to a search query;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. receiving user edits comprising changes to objects in the search results page; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. applying the user edits to the search results page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for curating search results using a computer, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a search results page in response to a search query&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving user edits to objects in the search results page; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Applying the user edits to the search results page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming user edits applying **GLOBALLY** to other users’ search results pages, **REMOVING DUPLICATE RESULTS** or a **DRAG AND DROP INTERFACE** to proposed user edits to search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Drag and Drop User Curated Search Results Pages from Yahoo!**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/JCCnb.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130159222&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4551" RevisionGUID="faa8461f-2535-4624-9933-b986cc27eeb9" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:28:05.363" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON DYNAMIC EMAIL NOTIFICATION** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of... email which changes appearance dynamically based on an external event! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 15, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A external system which sends **EVENT SIGNALS** to an email server; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. an email server which modifies the appearance of email messages based on the external **EVENT SIGNALS**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves event signals such as: **CHANGING MEMBERSHIP IN A GROUP**,  and dynamic updates such as **CREATING CALENDAR EVENT** &#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: DYNAMIC CONTROL OF EMAIL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of modifying the appearance of email or creating or deleting a calendar event based on an external event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159426 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/327,240&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corp.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 15, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of controlling an electronic message system, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving at a messaging service in the electronic message system, an event signal relating to an event external to the messaging service, the event signal being received from an **external system** which is separate from the **messaging service**; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying one or more electronic messages within the electronic message system based on the **event signal** received and triggering a **dynamic update** to the identified electronic messages in response to receipt of the event signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing an external signal to an email service:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving an **event signal** (e.g. community response to a particular message, the location of one or more users, or a change in membership of a group.); and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Triggering a **dynamic update** (e.g. displaying in a different manner or the message being delivered or deleted, a calendar event being created or destroyed) in response to the **event signal**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming event signals such as: **CHANGING MEMBERSHIP IN A GROUP**,  and dynamic updates such as **CREATING/DELETING CALENDAR EVENT** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method of controlling an electronic message system from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/lvihZ.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159426?dq=US20130159426A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4218" RevisionGUID="f77a8d25-c5fe-4aed-a7c8-fcf9374a7541" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:28:16.160" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE ADVERTISING** - This application from [Facebook][6] seeks to patent the idea of... suggesting changes to your advertising campaign based on the performance of your current campaign! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Measuring the performance** of an initial online advertisement; AND &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Suggesting changes to **targeting criteria** an advertiser might use to increase its performance;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **click-through rate**, **conversion rate** or **brand lift rate** as a measurement of performance of the advertisement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Adjusting an Advertising Campaign**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of adjusting an online advertisement which uses click-through-rate, conversion rate, brand-lift rate or any other measurement of an initial advertisement to suggest new targeting criteria to the advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151332 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/316,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Facebook, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 10, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, at a **publishing system from an advertiser**, data for an **advertising campaign** comprising an initial ad and **targeting criteria** defining an initial **target group** for receiving the initial ad;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Providing the **initial ad** for display to a plurality of users in a plurality of segments of the initial target group;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining, by the publishing system, a value of an **advertising metric** for a first one of the plurality of segments based on the display of the initial ad to the users of the first segment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Based on the value of the advertising metric, determining by the publishing system **a suggestion** for the advertiser to modify the **targeting criteria** to **remove** the first segment from the targeting criteria to be used for the initial ad; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Sending the suggestion from the publishing system to the advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of suggesting adjustments to an advertising campaign, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving an initial advertisement and proposed targeting criteria from an advertiser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Displaying the initial advertisement to the target group using the targeting crtieria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Measuring something (anything!) about the performance of the initial advertisement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Suggesting that the advertiser modify the targeting criteria to narrow which members of the target group see the advertisement.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and using **click-through rate**, **conversion rate** or **brand lift rate** as a measurement of performance of the advertisement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Modifying ad campaign based on the performance of the ad&quot;** from Figures of Application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/MlviX.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151332?dq=US20130151332A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.facebook.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10686" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="133" RevisionGUID="e6574ecc-81c2-4358-9c45-439ecc996c1a" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:33:46.667" UserId="5187" Comment="Retag prior-art -&gt; prior-art-request" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;data-processing-vehicles&gt;&lt;us20120226392&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10687" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="133" RevisionGUID="e6574ecc-81c2-4358-9c45-439ecc996c1a" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:33:46.667" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 19 edit id of 397" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10688" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="221" RevisionGUID="b04844c2-6140-48a7-a632-3634f00cc281" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:33:57.027" UserId="5187" Comment="Retag prior-art -&gt; prior-art-request" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;data-processing-software&gt;&lt;us20120227028&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10689" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="221" RevisionGUID="b04844c2-6140-48a7-a632-3634f00cc281" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:33:57.027" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 19 edit id of 396" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4554" RevisionGUID="5df7b74a-bab2-4b02-94df-2f3b17db2217" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:46:08.140" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON FILTERING TWITTER FEEDS FROM BUSINESS CONTACTS** - This application from [Salesforce.com][6] seeks to patent the idea of... filtering feeds associated with individuals in a business directory matching a search query (e.g. data managers) and displaying the filtered feed on a computer! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 15, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of **FILTERING BUSINESS CONTACTS**; aggregating twitter feeds from the filtered contacts; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Searching within the **FILTERED TWITTER FEED**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO enables the user to **CONTACT** members of the filtered network feed.&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: DYNAMIC CONTROL OF EMAIL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalish into English] A method of filtering your contacts, receiving feeds from the filtered contacts, and (optionally) contacting some of the contacts. For example, a system outputs the twitter feeds from the data center managers that mention a competitor's specific product and (optionally) allowing you to contact some of these data center managers to say, “Hey! buy my product instead”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159434 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/558,577&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Salesforce, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Aug 18, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for viewing a contact network feed in a business directory environment, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Searching, based on a user specified search, a business directory to determine contacts;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying network feeds associated with the contacts;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Outputting the network feeds;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Filtering, based on a user specified filter, the network feeds to determine filtered network feeds; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Outputting the filtered network feeds to a display device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for filtering (e.g., twitter) feeds, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Searching a business directory to find individuals (potential contacts); and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying network feeds associated with these individuals and getting the feed data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Creating a filtered network feed based on the network feeds and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying the filtered network feed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Aug, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming enabling the user to **CONTACT** members of the filtered network feed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Viewing a network feed in a business directory environment” from Salesforce**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/99FJx.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159434?dq=US20130159434A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.salesforce.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4569" RevisionGUID="edd7d755-12fa-4d0c-b0e2-cfc11a62e3ed" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:49:12.387" UserId="5176" Comment="Changed title to reflect the patent and not its application, also description of patent claims were added" Text="**TITLE**: Personalized headphone virtualization&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** A method for a listener to experience the sound of virtual loudspeakers over headphones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Publication Number:** [US7936887][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Application Number:** EP1787494 A2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is claimed in the patent is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An audio system for personalized virtualization of a set of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; loudspeakers in a pair of headphones, the system comprising: an audio&#xD;&#xA;&gt; input interface for receiving a loudspeaker input signal; a speaker&#xD;&#xA;&gt; output interface for driving each of a set of loudspeakers with an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; audio signal; a headphone output interface for driving a pair of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; headphones with an audio signal; a microphone input interface for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving response signals from one or more microphones positionable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; near each ear of a listener; a head tracking system for detecting an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; orientation of a listener's head; an excitation signal generator&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coupled to the speaker output interface, wherein when the audio system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is in a personalized measurement mode, the excitation signal generator&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is configured to provide excitation signals to the speaker output&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interface for driving one or more of the loudspeakers to generate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; audio responses at a location near each of a listener's ears; a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; measurement module coupled to the microphone input interface to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receive signals from the microphone input interface for the audio&#xD;&#xA;&gt; responses, the measurement module configured to generate personalized&#xD;&#xA;&gt; response functions for the audio responses for a plurality of head&#xD;&#xA;&gt; orientations, and associate each personalized response function with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; particular loudspeaker, a particular ear, and a particular head&#xD;&#xA;&gt; orientation of the listener; and a virtualizer coupled to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; headphone output interface, wherein when the audio system is in a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; normal mode, the virtualizer is configured to transform the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; loudspeaker input signal using a set of response functions that is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; based on one or more sets of the plurality of personalized response&#xD;&#xA;&gt; functions, and provide the transformed loudspeaker input signal to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; headphone output interface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wouldn't the authors claims most likely be regarded as obvious and overbearing to experts in the field? &#xD;&#xA;Here are just some examples of prior art which utilize all of the inventors claims: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://old.iem.at/Members/noisternig/science/msc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://interface.cipic.ucdavis.edu/sound/research.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/publications/rendering-localized-spatial-audio-virtual-auditory-space-0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7936887" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10695" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4569" RevisionGUID="edd7d755-12fa-4d0c-b0e2-cfc11a62e3ed" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:49:12.387" UserId="5176" Comment="Changed title to reflect the patent and not its application, also description of patent claims were added" Text="What is novel about the invention described in patent US7936887 B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10696" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4569" RevisionGUID="edd7d755-12fa-4d0c-b0e2-cfc11a62e3ed" CreationDate="2013-07-26T14:49:12.387" UserId="5176" Comment="Changed title to reflect the patent and not its application, also description of patent claims were added" Text="&lt;wo2006024850a2&gt;&lt;us7936887&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4569" RevisionGUID="94774f7f-f2f4-42d6-a7ad-8b2fb8886ce0" CreationDate="2013-07-26T15:16:12.627" UserId="1767" Comment="added 421 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE**: Personalized headphone virtualization&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** A method for a listener to experience the sound of virtual loudspeakers over headphones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Publication Number:** [US7936887][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Priority Date:** Sep 1, 2004&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is claimed in the patent is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An audio system for personalized virtualization of a set of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; loudspeakers in a pair of headphones, the system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. an audio input interface for receiving a loudspeaker input signal;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a speaker output interface for driving each of a set of loudspeakers with an audio signal;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a headphone output interface for driving a pair of headphones with an audio signal; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. a microphone input interface for receiving response signals from one or more microphones positionable near each ear of a listener;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. a head tracking system for detecting an orientation of a listener's head;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. an excitation signal generator coupled to the speaker output interface, wherein when the audio system is in a personalized measurement mode, the excitation signal generator is configured to provide excitation signals to the speaker output interface for driving one or more of the loudspeakers to generate audio responses at a location near each of a listener's ears; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. a measurement module coupled to the microphone input interface to receive signals from the microphone input interface for the audio responses, the measurement module configured to generate personalized response functions for the audio responses for a plurality of head orientations, and associate each personalized response function with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; particular loudspeaker, a particular ear, and a particular head orientation of the listener; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. a virtualizer coupled to the headphone output interface, wherein when the audio system is in a normal mode, the virtualizer is configured to transform the loudspeaker input signal using a set of response functions that is based on one or more sets of the plurality of personalized response functions, and provide the transformed loudspeaker input signal to the headphone output interface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some sample prior art: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://old.iem.at/Members/noisternig/science/msc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://interface.cipic.ucdavis.edu/sound/research.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/publications/rendering-localized-spatial-audio-virtual-auditory-space-0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you help find more?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7936887&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10698" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4569" RevisionGUID="94774f7f-f2f4-42d6-a7ad-8b2fb8886ce0" CreationDate="2013-07-26T15:16:12.627" UserId="1767" Comment="added 421 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Virtual Loudspeakers over Headphones using Head Tracking- Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10699" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4569" RevisionGUID="94774f7f-f2f4-42d6-a7ad-8b2fb8886ce0" CreationDate="2013-07-26T15:16:12.627" UserId="1767" Comment="added 421 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;wo2006024850a2&gt;&lt;us7936887&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10700" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="4569" RevisionGUID="927bd205-c438-4128-8035-3a10ff59a88e" CreationDate="2013-07-26T15:16:25.893" UserId="1767" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1767,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Micah Siegel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="9a96b0b3-8ea6-4b18-950f-3217142cee19" CreationDate="2013-07-26T15:21:39.507" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON PREDICTING USER BEHAVIOR** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...automatically predicting actions a user is likely to take in response to receiving data! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 15, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of **MONITORING USER ACTION** in response to **INCOMING DATA FOR A USER**; determining a **PATTERN OF USER ACTIONS**; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Predicting the **USER’S ACTION**  in response to his receiving **NEW INCOMING DATA**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses a **SEED MODEL** to make predictions for new users, to utilize **OTHER USER BEHAVIOR** for existing and new users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PREDICTION OF USER RESPONSE TO RECEIVED DATA**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of detecting when a user receives new data, monitoring what the user does in response the the data, and building a model of the user’s future behavior, and predicting the user’s action in response to new incoming data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159220 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/326,877&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 15, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method executed for predicting user actions in response to receiving incoming data, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. detecting incoming data from a data source for a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. monitoring the user's actions in response to receiving the incoming data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining a pattern of user actions in response to the received incoming data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. detecting new incoming data from a data source; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. predicting the user's action in response to receiving the new incoming data based on the pattern of user actions, an incoming data context and an incoming data content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 19** gives insight into what Microsoft claims to have invented with more specificity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 19. {A method, comprising}:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. detecting incoming data from a data source for a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. extracting one or more features of the incoming data utilizing a feature extractor component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. enabling a sensor component to continuously detect the user's actions in response to receiving the incoming data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. uploading detected user action information from the sensor component and extracted feature information from the feature extractor component to an actions processor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. enabling the actions processor to combine, store, and organize the information from the sensor component and the feature extractor component into a user action database, wherein the user action database includes a list of past actions the user has taken in response to receiving data having one or more features;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6.  determining a pattern of user actions in response to the received incoming data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. detecting new incoming data from a data source; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. predicting the user's action in response to receiving the new incoming data based on the pattern of user actions, an incoming data context and an incoming data content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method predicting user actions comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Detecting that user has received some new data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Monitoring what the user does in response to the data; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Extracting patterns of user action in response to the new data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Predicting the user’s action based on the previous pattern of user actions and the incoming data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 15, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using a **SEED MODEL** to make predictions for new users, to utilize **OTHER USER BEHAVIOR** for existing and new users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Cloud-based system for observing and predicting user actions” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/pmGRz.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159220?dq=US20130159220A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10702" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="9a96b0b3-8ea6-4b18-950f-3217142cee19" CreationDate="2013-07-26T15:21:39.507" UserId="1767" Text="Data Modeling - Predicting User Behavior (Microsoft) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10703" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="9a96b0b3-8ea6-4b18-950f-3217142cee19" CreationDate="2013-07-26T15:21:39.507" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;us20130159220&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4578" RevisionGUID="8eb7a5d8-a780-4c83-950e-a89aeb227e86" CreationDate="2013-07-26T15:27:48.793" UserId="4485" Text="I can not find exactly which lecture it was, however Professor Andrew Ng of Stanford shows an example of a project of this very nature in his machine learning course. If I remember correctly, the machine learning algorithm discussed learned to identify the center lane, and the right curb using a camera. The system then actuated the wheel to stay in the middle. I believe there was an alarm which warned that the AI was going to give up and relinquish control to the driver. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also believe this project significantly predates any of the commercial attempts noted here. If I remember correctly the learning algorithm was written in Fortran :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full course is available on ITunes Univerity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://itunes.apple.com/us/course/machine-learning/id495053006&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Professor Ng's Page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://online.stanford.edu/instructors/andrew-ng&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10705" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="598" RevisionGUID="c6f5c303-b079-4012-89bc-748a6e68cf37" CreationDate="2013-07-26T15:34:16.570" UserId="5187" Comment="Retag prior-art -&gt; prior-art-request" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;data-processing-database&gt;&lt;us7945544&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10706" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="598" RevisionGUID="c6f5c303-b079-4012-89bc-748a6e68cf37" CreationDate="2013-07-26T15:34:16.570" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 1472 edit id of 398" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4579" RevisionGUID="266b1e18-87b6-4076-ae94-f64b727d2c67" CreationDate="2013-07-26T15:57:20.713" UserId="4479" Text="Dated from April 2011, a method that plays [rock-paper-scissor](http://thurj.org/blog/2011/04/2030/) :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The method:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Detecting that user has received some new data (aka last response to the previous challenge)&#xD;&#xA;* Monitoring what the user does in response to the data (aka observing the response to the new challenge)&#xD;&#xA;* Extracting patterns of user action in response to the new data (aka observed specific sequences of moves)&#xD;&#xA;* Predicting the user’s action based on the previous pattern of user actions and the incoming data (that's exactly the point of the algorithm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, concerning **seed model** that's exactly what has been done in the present case to have a good &quot;default&quot; behavior. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, it looks to me as a quasi-identical setup, just declined for rock-paper-scissors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4580" RevisionGUID="84e1f8ec-1b3e-4349-a243-8b745e1dcadd" CreationDate="2013-07-26T16:02:53.867" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON PREDICTING ADVERTISER KEYWORD PERFORMANCE** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...predicting keyword performance for an advertiser by how the keyword has performed for similar advertisers! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 27, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of predicting **KEYWORD PERFORMANCE** for an advertiser who has not previously bid on the keyword; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying **SIMILAR ADVERTISERS** and using that to predict the performance expected from the subject keyword;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **EUCLIDIAN DISTANCE BETWEEN ATTRIBUTES BETWEEN ADVERTISERS** to estimate similarity between advertisers; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **CATEGORY**, **QUALITY SCORE**, **PAY-PER-CLICK**, **BID**, **ADVERTISER VERTICAL**, **GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION**, **DAY-TARGETING**, **DAY-PARTING**, **KEYWORDS IN COMMON** to estimate the performance expected from the keyword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PREDICTION OF USER RESPONSE TO RECEIVED DATA**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Within an online advertising system, a method of predicting keyword performance for an advertiser who has not previously bid on a keyword by identifying a similar advertiser who has used the same keyword and using the keyword’s previous performance to provide an expected result for the current advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130166371 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/337,709&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 27, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 27, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; {A METHOD} for predicting advertiser **keyword performance indicator** values, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a keyword from a first advertiser, whereinthe first advertiser has **not previously bid on the keyword**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying at least one other **advertiser that is similar** to the first advertiser and has previously bid on the keyword; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  calculating at least one predicted **performance indicator value** for the keyword for the first advertiser based upon at least one established performance indicator value of the keyword for the at least one other advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for detecting expected keyword performance for an advertiser, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a keyword from the advertiser which the advertiser has not previously bid on; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a 2nd advertiser similar to the advertiser; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Predicting the performance of the keyword (based on any metric) for the subject advertiser based on the performance of the keyword for the similar advertiser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 15, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a **EUCLIDIAN DISTANCE BETWEEN ATTRIBUTES BETWEEN ADVERTISERS** to estimate similarity between advertisers; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **CATEGORY**, **QUALITY SCORE**, **PAY-PER-CLICK**, **BID**, **ADVERTISER VERTICAL**, **GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION**, **DAY-TARGETING**, **DAY-PARTING**, **KEYWORDS IN COMMON** to estimate the performance expected from the keyword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Predicting advertiser keyword performance indicator values” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Ib77Z.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130166371?dq=US20130166371A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10709" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4580" RevisionGUID="84e1f8ec-1b3e-4349-a243-8b745e1dcadd" CreationDate="2013-07-26T16:02:53.867" UserId="1767" Text="Online advertising - Predicting Keyword Performance - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10710" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4580" RevisionGUID="84e1f8ec-1b3e-4349-a243-8b745e1dcadd" CreationDate="2013-07-26T16:02:53.867" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;online-advertising&gt;&lt;us20130166371&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4581" RevisionGUID="7aeb7475-8a25-4711-b6dd-9edbafe93796" CreationDate="2013-07-26T16:08:00.003" UserId="5203" Text="http://rtei.org/blog/2011/12/29/the-effect-of-university-monopoly-licensing-in-3d-printing/&#xD;&#xA;has a nice summary of the patents in the field and the impact on development and application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10712" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4580" RevisionGUID="39423b88-e44f-4cf6-ac83-a61c2cba9020" CreationDate="2013-07-26T16:09:29.190" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Online advertising - Predicting Keyword Performance (Microsoft) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="d4a89e5a-1a3d-4da8-99b1-7a988f8e23a5" CreationDate="2013-07-26T16:09:45.800" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON PREDICTING USER BEHAVIOR** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...automatically predicting actions a user is likely to take in response to receiving data! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 15, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of **MONITORING USER ACTION** in response to **INCOMING DATA FOR A USER**; determining a **PATTERN OF USER ACTIONS**; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Predicting the **USER’S ACTION**  in response to his receiving **NEW INCOMING DATA**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses a **SEED MODEL** to make predictions for new users, to utilize **OTHER USER BEHAVIOR** for existing and new users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PREDICTION OF USER RESPONSE TO RECEIVED DATA**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of detecting when a user receives new data, monitoring what the user does in response the the data, and building a model of the user’s future behavior, and predicting the user’s action in response to new incoming data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159220 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/326,877&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 15, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method executed for predicting user actions in response to receiving incoming data, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. detecting incoming data from a data source for a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. monitoring the user's actions in response to receiving the incoming data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining a pattern of user actions in response to the received incoming data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. detecting new incoming data from a data source; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. predicting the user's action in response to receiving the new incoming data based on the pattern of user actions, an incoming data context and an incoming data content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 19** gives insight into what Microsoft claims to have invented with more specificity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 19. {A method, comprising}:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. detecting incoming data from a data source for a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. extracting one or more features of the incoming data utilizing a feature extractor component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. enabling a sensor component to continuously detect the user's actions in response to receiving the incoming data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. uploading detected user action information from the sensor component and extracted feature information from the feature extractor component to an actions processor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. enabling the actions processor to combine, store, and organize the information from the sensor component and the feature extractor component into a user action database, wherein the user action database includes a list of past actions the user has taken in response to receiving data having one or more features;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6.  determining a pattern of user actions in response to the received incoming data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. detecting new incoming data from a data source; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. predicting the user's action in response to receiving the new incoming data based on the pattern of user actions, an incoming data context and an incoming data content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method predicting user actions comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Detecting that user has received some new data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Monitoring what the user does in response to the data; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Extracting patterns of user action in response to the new data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Predicting the user’s action based on the previous pattern of user actions and the incoming data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 15, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using a **SEED MODEL** to make predictions for new users, to utilize **OTHER USER BEHAVIOR** for existing and new users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Cloud-based system for observing and predicting user actions” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/pmGRz.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159220?dq=US20130159220A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4582" RevisionGUID="57073c74-6cf9-45eb-afe1-6c2411b03091" CreationDate="2013-07-26T16:11:10.617" UserId="5201" Text="From my limited understanding of the patent system, if I were to invent something but I didn't file for a patent, then someone else could still patent my idea. If I want to keep my invention open, is there a way to release it straight into the public domain which keeps anyone else from filing a patent on it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there's licenses like GPL and BSD but I always assumed that was for copyright and not patents. Could that also be used for patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10715" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4582" RevisionGUID="57073c74-6cf9-45eb-afe1-6c2411b03091" CreationDate="2013-07-26T16:11:10.617" UserId="5201" Text="Availibility to the public domain" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10716" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4582" RevisionGUID="57073c74-6cf9-45eb-afe1-6c2411b03091" CreationDate="2013-07-26T16:11:10.617" UserId="5201" Text="&lt;public-domain&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4583" RevisionGUID="f7e2d75f-ab8a-413c-9b2f-e7dab8e8dcdf" CreationDate="2013-07-26T16:38:39.377" UserId="3076" Text="With GPL etc. you are saying &quot;I **do** claim my copyright rights and having claimed them I now give anyone who abides by the following rules the right to do the following things with the material I have copyrighted&quot;. The nearest equlivient with an invention would be to actually apply for and get a patent and then declare that you were offering a no-cost license to you patent rights to all comers who agreed to abide by your rules of openness, sharing, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More practically, you would &quot;publish&quot; your work. There are other posts here about this but all that is required is that you get a full disclosure out in the public in a way that it is considered published under the patent rules and, to be of real value, is somewhere that a future patent examiner is likely to be looking. In that case you are not constraining improvements to also be open or inventors to give away their production diagrams, as in the analogy with copy left." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4584" RevisionGUID="a0aa20cb-740f-4cd8-91df-50bf3c9b10d1" CreationDate="2013-07-26T17:14:21.773" UserId="4922" Text="Comparing hashes is the basis of the standard UNIX password authentication system.  This was not included in the very first versions of UNIX, but it is described in detail in [a paper][1] dated **April 3, 1978**, and must therefore have been implemented prior to that date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The UNIX system was first implemented with a password file that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; contained the actual passwords of all the users, and for that reason&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the password file had to be heavily protected against being either&#xD;&#xA;&gt; read or written. Although historically, this had been the technique&#xD;&#xA;&gt; used for remote-access systems, it was completely unsatisfactory for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; several reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The obvious solution is to arrange that the passwords not appear in the system &#xD;&#xA;&gt; at all, and it is not difficult to decide that this can be done by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; encrypting each user’s password, putting only the encrypted form in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the password file, and throwing away his original password (the one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that he typed in). When the user later tries to log in to the system,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the password that he types is encrypted and compared with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; encrypted version in the password file. If the two match, his login&#xD;&#xA;&gt; attempt is accepted. Such a scheme was first described in [3,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; p.91ff.]. It also seemed advisable to devise a system in which neither&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the password file nor the password program itself needed to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; protected against being read by anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; All that was needed to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; implement these ideas was to find a means of encryption that was very&#xD;&#xA;&gt; difficult to invert, even when the encryption program is available.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Most of the standard encryption methods used (in the past) for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; encryption of messages are rather easy to invert. A convenient and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rather good encryption program happened to exist on the system at the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; time; it simulated the M-209 cipher machine [4] used by the U.S. Army&#xD;&#xA;&gt; during World War II. It turned out that the M-209 program was usable,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but with a given key, the ciphers produced by this program are trivial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to invert. It is a much more difficult matter to find out the key&#xD;&#xA;&gt; given the cleartext input and the enciphered output of the program.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Therefore, the password was used not as the text to be encrypted but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as the key, and a constant was encrypted using this key. The encrypted&#xD;&#xA;&gt; result was entered into the password file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern cryptographic parlance, this describes a *trapdoor function*, better known as a **hash**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/passwd.ps" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4585" RevisionGUID="b53eb003-8bcc-4cbe-bd55-f4157c215239" CreationDate="2013-07-26T17:24:41.943" UserId="4485" Text="[Benyon, David. &quot;Accommodating individual differences through an adaptive user interface.&quot; HUMAN FACTORS IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 10 (1993).](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.3619&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Computer systems can monitor the&#xD;&#xA;interaction at a level of detail unavailable to other artefacts. If the system is&#xD;&#xA;supplied with a suitable theory of interaction and how interaction can be&#xD;&#xA;improved, the computer is in a position to change its functioning, its&#xD;&#xA;structure or the representations provided at the interface to better match&#xD;&#xA;the preferences, needs and desires of the users. The computer can adapt&#xD;&#xA;itself to individuals or groups of users" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4585" RevisionGUID="dcce0c0f-06e7-479e-a960-49342f45ed3a" CreationDate="2013-07-26T17:32:26.160" UserId="4485" Comment="added 194 characters in body" Text="[Benyon, David. &quot;Accommodating individual differences through an adaptive user interface.&quot; HUMAN FACTORS IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 10 (1993).](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.3619&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Computer systems can monitor the&#xD;&#xA;interaction at a level of detail unavailable to other artefacts. If the system is&#xD;&#xA;supplied with a suitable theory of interaction and how interaction can be&#xD;&#xA;improved, the computer is in a position to change its functioning, its&#xD;&#xA;structure or the representations provided at the interface to better match&#xD;&#xA;the preferences, needs and desires of the users. The computer can adapt&#xD;&#xA;itself to individuals or groups of users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here also is a paper from 2008 with other seemingly good references regarding user mouse tracking on a web page. Probably more directly relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1390462" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4586" RevisionGUID="bb747b98-c87b-453f-94ab-4563b69ca7cf" CreationDate="2013-07-26T17:36:06.453" UserId="5205" Text="4 years ago Domino's launched the &quot;pizza tracker&quot;.  It has since then said &quot;Patent Pending&quot; on the tracker image.  Is this actually patent pending?  Any chance they would actually get the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://i.stack.imgur.com/vJOhc.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10722" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4586" RevisionGUID="bb747b98-c87b-453f-94ab-4563b69ca7cf" CreationDate="2013-07-26T17:36:06.453" UserId="5205" Text="Is the Domino's Pizza Tracker actually patent pending?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10723" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4586" RevisionGUID="bb747b98-c87b-453f-94ab-4563b69ca7cf" CreationDate="2013-07-26T17:36:06.453" UserId="5205" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;patent-pending&gt;&lt;consumer-food&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4585" RevisionGUID="e92c1e94-99c1-4bb7-89fc-41bdfb686710" CreationDate="2013-07-26T17:37:53.307" UserId="4485" Comment="added 194 characters in body" Text="[Benyon, David. &quot;Accommodating individual differences through an adaptive user interface.&quot; HUMAN FACTORS IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 10 (1993).](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.3619&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Computer systems can monitor the&#xD;&#xA;interaction at a level of detail unavailable to other artefacts. If the system is&#xD;&#xA;supplied with a suitable theory of interaction and how interaction can be&#xD;&#xA;improved, the computer is in a position to change its functioning, its&#xD;&#xA;structure or the representations provided at the interface to better match&#xD;&#xA;the preferences, needs and desires of the users. The computer can adapt&#xD;&#xA;itself to individuals or groups of users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also:&#xD;&#xA;[Exploring mouse movements for inferring query intent (2008)](http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1390462)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We explore the potential of a complementary, more sensitive signal -mouse movements- in providing insights into the intent behind a web search query&#xD;&#xA;Here also is a paper from 2008 with other seemingly good references regarding user mouse tracking on a web page. Probably more directly relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also: [WWW '06 Proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web 203-212](http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1135811&amp;CFID=235996350&amp;CFTOKEN=84577776)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In this paper, we investigate how detailed tracking of user interaction can be monitored using standard web technologies. Our motivation is to enable implicit interaction and to ease usability evaluation of web applications outside the lab. To obtain meaningful statements on how users interact with a web application, the collected information needs to be more detailed and fine-grained than that provided by classical log files" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10725" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1954" RevisionGUID="91323f1f-f518-4a97-b015-7e6014d87da5" CreationDate="2013-07-26T17:42:26.210" UserId="1018" Comment="added 141 characters in body" Text="[cracklib](http://sourceforge.net/projects/cracklib/), which has been on Sourceforge since February 9, 2005 (and which evidently is much older -  a README [from 1997](http://web.archive.org/web/20041101050507/http://www.crypticide.com/users/alecm/security/cracklib,2.7.txt) is on the Archive - Thanks, Chromatix!) implements a password validation algorithm that uses a dictionary, patterns, and several other heuristics to reject passwords deemed &quot;not secure enough,&quot; based on configured rules. It does not use a scoring system, and merely accepts or rejects a password based on its low entropy or use of common words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, KDE's KPasswordDialog [added a password strength meter](http://web.archive.org/web/20050425210930/http://cvs-digest.org/index.php?issue=nov52004) on November 1, 2004, and the changelog and mailing list traffic at the time reference earlier work by Mozilla. The meter uses a dictionary and other heuristics to assign a score to an input password." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4587" RevisionGUID="b5042243-73ec-4f9a-91bb-db1204ccb2c5" CreationDate="2013-07-26T18:30:51.110" UserId="5071" Text="Technically, if you invent something before anyone else, then no one else should be able to get a patent on it. If someone else does get a patent, because they missed your prior art, the presence of your prior art should invalidate their patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The simplest thing to do would be to release your work, like public domain, or GPL, and make it very public, so that a subsequent patent wouldn't be granted / valid." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4588" RevisionGUID="b81ec93b-07ba-4fb9-9565-b3bd1aee7a57" CreationDate="2013-07-26T19:41:26.157" UserId="5208" Text="I have been writing systems that do this since around 1999. Various papers describing these, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dron, J., Boyne, C., &amp; Mitchell, R. (2001). Footpaths in the Stuff Swamp. Paper presented at the WebNet 2001, Orlando, Florida.&#xD;&#xA;Describes how topic tags grow and shrink according to number of clicks. But these were words, not icons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dron, J. (2005). Epimethean Information Systems: harnessing the power of The Collective in e-learning. International Journal of Information Technology and Management, 4(4), 392-404. &#xD;&#xA;(at http://inderscience.metapress.com/content/m500trq0ebr0w5wg/) describes how icons representing websites and buildings grow and shrink according to number of clicks. Includes a screenshot showing this in action. The wording that describes this is:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A representation of overall site popularity is provided by making the virtual buildings larger or smaller depending on relative frequency of visits. &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A search on stigmergy or social navigation should reveal dozens of others from me and from other people.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4588" RevisionGUID="44981fb9-12ef-41fd-b7d2-9a02aecd6598" CreationDate="2013-07-26T19:48:05.327" UserId="5208" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I have been writing systems that do this since around 1999. Various papers describing these, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dron, J., Boyne, C., &amp; Mitchell, R. (2001). Footpaths in the Stuff Swamp. Paper presented at the WebNet 2001, Orlando, Florida.&#xD;&#xA;Describes how topic tags grow and shrink according to number of clicks. But these were words, not icons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dron, J. (2005). Epimethean Information Systems: harnessing the power of The Collective in e-learning. International Journal of Information Technology and Management, 4(4), 392-404. &#xD;&#xA;(at http://inderscience.metapress.com/content/m500trq0ebr0w5wg/) describes how icons representing websites as iconic buildings grow and shrink according to number of clicks. Includes a screenshot showing this in action. The wording that describes this is:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A representation of overall site popularity is provided by making the virtual buildings larger or smaller depending on relative frequency of visits. &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A search on stigmergy or social navigation should reveal dozens of others from me and from other people.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4583" RevisionGUID="c1490b9f-a28b-4045-a30a-b67788f8fb93" CreationDate="2013-07-26T19:50:00.110" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="With GPL etc. you are saying &quot;I **do** claim my copyright rights and having claimed them I now give anyone who abides by the following rules the right to do the following things with the material I have copyrighted&quot;. The nearest equivalent  with an invention would be to actually apply for and get a patent and then declare that you were offering a no-cost license to your patent rights to all comers who agreed to abide by your rules of openness, sharing, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More practically, you would &quot;publish&quot; your work. There are other posts here about this but all that is required is that you get a full disclosure out in the public in a way that it is considered published under the patent rules and, to be of real value, is somewhere that a future patent examiner is likely to be looking. In that case you are not constraining improvements to also be open or inventors to give away their production diagrams, as in the analogy with copy left." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4589" RevisionGUID="c3e8df03-5394-42fa-b32b-b65cc1ecc9e3" CreationDate="2013-07-26T19:59:46.977" UserId="4479" Text="Back in 2005, [Rollyo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollyo) was capable of supporting a selection of RSS feeds (instead of twitter feeds) and then providing search, in other words _filter based on keyword_, within this listing of feeds. The selection of feeds could be saved as a &quot;filtered&quot; search." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10731" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1902" RevisionGUID="aeee10d1-26df-49dd-b687-d104c41208c0" CreationDate="2013-07-26T20:22:47.660" UserId="5187" Comment="Retag prior-art -&gt; prior-art-request" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;data-processing-language&gt;&lt;us6513002&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10732" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1902" RevisionGUID="aeee10d1-26df-49dd-b687-d104c41208c0" CreationDate="2013-07-26T20:22:47.660" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 3076, 1 edit id of 402" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="524" RevisionGUID="f245737e-0767-489a-97cb-a65a2eed6c1d" CreationDate="2013-07-26T20:22:53.053" UserId="5187" Comment="Retag infringement -&gt; patent-infringement, formatting" Text="Just have a simple question, the ATB system (Active Time Battle) from Final Fantasy has been patent in the past (i think 1992 on july). I am interested in making a turn based game based on the Charge Time System which is virtually a gauge filling up (using the speed value of the unit) until you reach 100 then the unit can act but nobody else can interfert the action of the unit. I am building an internal list from this to simulate turns of each units so i can see when units are actually playing.. then if the speed attribute change the list is updated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the info on the patent found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gameplay_of_Final_Fantasy : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A major departure from this system came in Final Fantasy IV, when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hiroyuki Ito introduced the &quot;Active Time Battle&quot; (ATB) system,[7]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; where the time-keeping mechanism does not stop whilst the play selects&#xD;&#xA;&gt; commands.[8] Square filed a Japanese patent application related to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ATB system on July 16, 1991 and a corresponding US application on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; March 16, 1992. One Japanese patent (JP2794230) and two US patents&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (US5390937 and US5649862)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my main question is : **Is my system an infrigement of this patent?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would love also some answers on this in the answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Is the Charge Time System from Final Fantasy patented  &#xD;&#xA;  2. What is the Active Time System patent about? It is the mechanic? or the carbridge system which the ATS is based on?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10734" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="524" RevisionGUID="f245737e-0767-489a-97cb-a65a2eed6c1d" CreationDate="2013-07-26T20:22:53.053" UserId="5187" Comment="Retag infringement -&gt; patent-infringement, formatting" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;video-games&gt;&lt;amusement-devices-games&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10735" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="524" RevisionGUID="f245737e-0767-489a-97cb-a65a2eed6c1d" CreationDate="2013-07-26T20:22:53.053" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 3076, 1 edit id of 409" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10736" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3823" RevisionGUID="a4ed8148-fda0-48f9-8ffb-4b31b594be01" CreationDate="2013-07-26T20:22:57.473" UserId="5187" Comment="Retag infringement -&gt; patent-infringement" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10737" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3823" RevisionGUID="a4ed8148-fda0-48f9-8ffb-4b31b594be01" CreationDate="2013-07-26T20:22:57.473" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 3076, 1 edit id of 404" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10738" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="714" RevisionGUID="5c6f365b-9502-4927-8de7-67c1dbb37eb0" CreationDate="2013-07-26T20:23:03.130" UserId="5187" Comment="Retag prior-art -&gt; prior-art-request" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;chemistry-microbiology&gt;&lt;drug-ingredients&gt;&lt;us6025327&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10739" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="714" RevisionGUID="5c6f365b-9502-4927-8de7-67c1dbb37eb0" CreationDate="2013-07-26T20:23:03.130" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 3076, 1 edit id of 399" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10740" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="27" RevisionGUID="8df481b7-7049-45fb-8f24-25d7c78a1b22" CreationDate="2013-07-26T20:23:06.630" UserId="5187" Comment="Retag infringement -&gt; patent-infringement" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;litigation&gt;&lt;independent-inventor&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10741" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="27" RevisionGUID="8df481b7-7049-45fb-8f24-25d7c78a1b22" CreationDate="2013-07-26T20:23:06.630" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 3076, 1 edit id of 411" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10742" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="48" RevisionGUID="e15858fc-29b3-4f70-ad75-6a4a63c245e4" CreationDate="2013-07-26T20:23:10.663" UserId="5187" Comment="Retag infringement -&gt; patent-infringement" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;usa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10743" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="48" RevisionGUID="e15858fc-29b3-4f70-ad75-6a4a63c245e4" CreationDate="2013-07-26T20:23:10.663" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 3076, 1 edit id of 410" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10744" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="772" RevisionGUID="184e9fcb-0340-4a13-93e7-e1c8b0409b30" CreationDate="2013-07-26T20:23:13.677" UserId="5187" Comment="Retag prior-art -&gt; prior-art-request" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;data-processing-language&gt;&lt;us20110054890&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10745" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="772" RevisionGUID="184e9fcb-0340-4a13-93e7-e1c8b0409b30" CreationDate="2013-07-26T20:23:13.677" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 3076, 1 edit id of 401" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10746" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="738" RevisionGUID="c9e4be44-0401-4d7d-bafe-80d40aa67a74" CreationDate="2013-07-26T20:23:17.600" UserId="5187" Comment="Retag prior-art -&gt; prior-art-request" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;data-processing-database&gt;&lt;us7028023&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10747" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="738" RevisionGUID="c9e4be44-0401-4d7d-bafe-80d40aa67a74" CreationDate="2013-07-26T20:23:17.600" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 3076, 1 edit id of 400" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10748" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3442" RevisionGUID="8f0c64fd-ba61-4912-853e-3185f9ed7820" CreationDate="2013-07-26T20:23:27.837" UserId="5187" Comment="Remove tag infringement" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10749" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3442" RevisionGUID="8f0c64fd-ba61-4912-853e-3185f9ed7820" CreationDate="2013-07-26T20:23:27.837" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 3076, 1 edit id of 405" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10750" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2126" RevisionGUID="32709751-0514-473d-a005-57d0bcc61377" CreationDate="2013-07-26T20:23:30.350" UserId="5187" Comment="Retag infringement -&gt; patent-infringement" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;us7445677&gt;&lt;us8216392&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10751" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2126" RevisionGUID="32709751-0514-473d-a005-57d0bcc61377" CreationDate="2013-07-26T20:23:30.350" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 3076, 1 edit id of 407" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10752" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3239" RevisionGUID="7f7adddd-b950-44cc-ae5e-e7b1abd7fd30" CreationDate="2013-07-26T20:23:35.447" UserId="5187" Comment="Retag infringement -&gt; patent-infringement" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;specification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10753" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3239" RevisionGUID="7f7adddd-b950-44cc-ae5e-e7b1abd7fd30" CreationDate="2013-07-26T20:23:35.447" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 3076, 1 edit id of 406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10754" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="753" RevisionGUID="cef15e2e-ea70-4c1a-922a-4564e9766e37" CreationDate="2013-07-26T20:23:39.947" UserId="5187" Comment="Retag infringement -&gt; patent-infringement" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10755" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="753" RevisionGUID="cef15e2e-ea70-4c1a-922a-4564e9766e37" CreationDate="2013-07-26T20:23:39.947" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 3076, 1 edit id of 408" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10756" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3954" RevisionGUID="3a1c7437-f881-4b95-9707-7f5806561b94" CreationDate="2013-07-26T20:23:44.413" UserId="5187" Comment="Add application tag" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;background&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10757" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3954" RevisionGUID="3a1c7437-f881-4b95-9707-7f5806561b94" CreationDate="2013-07-26T20:23:44.413" Comment="Proposed by 5187 approved by 3076, 1 edit id of 403" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10758" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4554" RevisionGUID="1cad629b-33f2-4163-bcac-cd208ef0243e" CreationDate="2013-07-26T21:01:16.700" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON FILTERING TWITTER FEEDS FROM BUSINESS CONTACTS** - This application from [Salesforce.com][6] seeks to patent the idea of... filtering feeds associated with individuals in a business directory matching a search query (e.g. data managers) and displaying the filtered feed on a computer! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 15, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of **FILTERING BUSINESS CONTACTS**; aggregating twitter feeds from the filtered contacts; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Searching within the **FILTERED TWITTER FEED**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO enables the user to **CONTACT** members of the filtered network feed.&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: DYNAMIC CONTROL OF EMAIL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalish into English] A method of filtering your contacts, receiving feeds from the filtered contacts, and (optionally) contacting some of the contacts. For example, a system outputs the twitter feeds from the data center managers that mention a competitor's specific product and (optionally) allowing you to contact some of these data center managers to say, “Hey! buy my product instead”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159434 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/558,577&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Salesforce, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Aug 18, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for viewing a contact network feed in a business directory environment, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Searching, based on a user specified search, a business directory to determine contacts;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying network feeds associated with the contacts;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Outputting the network feeds;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Filtering, based on a user specified filter, the network feeds to determine filtered network feeds; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Outputting the filtered network feeds to a display device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for filtering (e.g., twitter) feeds, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Searching a business directory to find individuals (potential contacts); and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying network feeds associated with these individuals and getting the feed data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Creating a filtered network feed based on the network feeds and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying the filtered network feed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Aug, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming enabling the user to **CONTACT** members of the filtered network feed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Viewing a network feed in a business directory environment” from Salesforce**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/99FJx.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159434?dq=US20130159434A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.salesforce.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4233" RevisionGUID="927a4911-9a43-4eb0-abd0-3fd9390d5c2f" CreationDate="2013-07-26T21:01:34.577" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON DISPLAYING ICONS** - This application from [Samsung][6] seeks to patent the idea of... changing icon appearance based on their frequency of use! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 9, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Storing **FREQUENCY OF USE** of screen icons; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Modifying the **APPEARANCE OF AN ICON** based on its **FREQUENCY OF USE**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO modifies **ICON SIZE** or **ICON SPACING** based on frequency of use of an **ICON**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: CHANGING ICONS BASED ON FREQUENCY OF USE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of displaying icons on a screen which involves displaying multiple icons, storing the frequency of use of each icon, and modifying how the icons appear based on their frequency of use.  Yes, the applicant wants to patent **any kind of modification** to icons based on **frequency of use**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130152017 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/674,833&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Samsung Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 9, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for creating a graphic user interface (GUI), comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying a **plurality of icons** on a screen;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Storing a **frequency of use** of each of the icons displayed on the screen; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Changing an **external appearance** of at least one **icon** on the screen from among the plurality of icons **to reflect the frequency of use** of the at least one icon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for modifying icons displayed on a screen, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying multiple icons;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Storing the **frequency of use** of each icon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. **Changing the appearance** of at least one icon based on **frequency of use** of that icon.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and AND ALSO modifies **ICON SIZE** or **ICON SPACING** based on **frequency of use** of an **icon**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A method of resizing icons based on frequency of use&quot; screen shots from Samsung**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/vWn0G.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130152017?dq=US20130152017+A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.samsung.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10760" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="4723c708-e85d-46ab-ae00-c3185929a799" CreationDate="2013-07-26T21:01:48.610" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON PREDICTING USER BEHAVIOR** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...automatically predicting actions a user is likely to take in response to receiving data! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 15, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of **MONITORING USER ACTION** in response to **INCOMING DATA FOR A USER**; determining a **PATTERN OF USER ACTIONS**; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Predicting the **USER’S ACTION**  in response to his receiving **NEW INCOMING DATA**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses a **SEED MODEL** to make predictions for new users, to utilize **OTHER USER BEHAVIOR** for existing and new users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PREDICTION OF USER RESPONSE TO RECEIVED DATA**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of detecting when a user receives new data, monitoring what the user does in response the the data, and building a model of the user’s future behavior, and predicting the user’s action in response to new incoming data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159220 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/326,877&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 15, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method executed for predicting user actions in response to receiving incoming data, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. detecting incoming data from a data source for a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. monitoring the user's actions in response to receiving the incoming data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining a pattern of user actions in response to the received incoming data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. detecting new incoming data from a data source; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. predicting the user's action in response to receiving the new incoming data based on the pattern of user actions, an incoming data context and an incoming data content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 19** gives insight into what Microsoft claims to have invented with more specificity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 19. {A method, comprising}:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. detecting incoming data from a data source for a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. extracting one or more features of the incoming data utilizing a feature extractor component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. enabling a sensor component to continuously detect the user's actions in response to receiving the incoming data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. uploading detected user action information from the sensor component and extracted feature information from the feature extractor component to an actions processor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. enabling the actions processor to combine, store, and organize the information from the sensor component and the feature extractor component into a user action database, wherein the user action database includes a list of past actions the user has taken in response to receiving data having one or more features;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6.  determining a pattern of user actions in response to the received incoming data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. detecting new incoming data from a data source; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. predicting the user's action in response to receiving the new incoming data based on the pattern of user actions, an incoming data context and an incoming data content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method predicting user actions comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Detecting that user has received some new data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Monitoring what the user does in response to the data; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Extracting patterns of user action in response to the new data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Predicting the user’s action based on the previous pattern of user actions and the incoming data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 15, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using a **SEED MODEL** to make predictions for new users, to utilize **OTHER USER BEHAVIOR** for existing and new users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Cloud-based system for observing and predicting user actions” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/pmGRz.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159220?dq=US20130159220A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4580" RevisionGUID="9b3c290b-6f44-4a42-acb0-85c77c3469c1" CreationDate="2013-07-26T21:02:18.660" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON PREDICTING ADVERTISER KEYWORD PERFORMANCE** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...predicting keyword performance for an advertiser by how the keyword has performed for similar advertisers! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 27, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of predicting **KEYWORD PERFORMANCE** for an advertiser who has not previously bid on the keyword; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying **SIMILAR ADVERTISERS** and using that to predict the performance expected from the subject keyword;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **EUCLIDIAN DISTANCE BETWEEN ATTRIBUTES BETWEEN ADVERTISERS** to estimate similarity between advertisers; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **CATEGORY**, **QUALITY SCORE**, **PAY-PER-CLICK**, **BID**, **ADVERTISER VERTICAL**, **GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION**, **DAY-TARGETING**, **DAY-PARTING**, **KEYWORDS IN COMMON** to estimate the performance expected from the keyword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PREDICTION OF USER RESPONSE TO RECEIVED DATA**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Within an online advertising system, a method of predicting keyword performance for an advertiser who has not previously bid on a keyword by identifying a similar advertiser who has used the same keyword and using the keyword’s previous performance to provide an expected result for the current advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130166371 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/337,709&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 27, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 27, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; {A METHOD} for predicting advertiser **keyword performance indicator** values, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a keyword from a first advertiser, whereinthe first advertiser has **not previously bid on the keyword**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying at least one other **advertiser that is similar** to the first advertiser and has previously bid on the keyword; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  calculating at least one predicted **performance indicator value** for the keyword for the first advertiser based upon at least one established performance indicator value of the keyword for the at least one other advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for detecting expected keyword performance for an advertiser, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a keyword from the advertiser which the advertiser has not previously bid on; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a 2nd advertiser similar to the advertiser; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Predicting the performance of the keyword (based on any metric) for the subject advertiser based on the performance of the keyword for the similar advertiser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 15, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a **EUCLIDIAN DISTANCE BETWEEN ATTRIBUTES BETWEEN ADVERTISERS** to estimate similarity between advertisers; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **CATEGORY**, **QUALITY SCORE**, **PAY-PER-CLICK**, **BID**, **ADVERTISER VERTICAL**, **GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION**, **DAY-TARGETING**, **DAY-PARTING**, **KEYWORDS IN COMMON** to estimate the performance expected from the keyword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Predicting advertiser keyword performance indicator values” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Ib77Z.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130166371?dq=US20130166371A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4590" RevisionGUID="3f7c02ec-5ca0-4e21-a561-8ad7cfbc0103" CreationDate="2013-07-26T21:03:47.117" UserId="4922" Text="This structure could be used not only as a linked list, but also as a binary tree.  Most naive implementations of a binary tree use a pair of child pointers like this, and sometimes also a parent pointer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more direct example which satisfies the claim would be a **circular double-linked list**.  In this case the &quot;first sequence&quot; would be the forward traversal of the list, and the &quot;second sequence&quot; would be the reverse traversal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found such a structure quite easily in [**Linux 2.0**][1] from **1996**, as part of **struct vm_area_struct** which is defined in **include/linux/mm.h**.  Specifically, the **vm_next_share** and **vm_prev_share** pointers are used to form a circular double-linked list which keeps track of shared memory pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same structure also contains other pointers which are used to keep track of a straight single-linked list and a binary tree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.0/linux-2.0.tar.xz" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4551" RevisionGUID="1a1acbd3-919a-4373-8581-4a740d97cc9e" CreationDate="2013-07-26T21:04:20.433" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON DYNAMIC EMAIL NOTIFICATION** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of... email which changes appearance dynamically based on an external event! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 15, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A external system which sends **EVENT SIGNALS** to an email server; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. an email server which modifies the appearance of email messages based on the external **EVENT SIGNALS**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves event signals such as: **CHANGING MEMBERSHIP IN A GROUP**,  and dynamic updates such as **CREATING CALENDAR EVENT** &#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: DYNAMIC CONTROL OF EMAIL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of modifying the appearance of email or creating or deleting a calendar event based on an external event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159426 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/327,240&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corp.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 15, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of controlling an electronic message system, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving at a messaging service in the electronic message system, an event signal relating to an event external to the messaging service, the event signal being received from an **external system** which is separate from the **messaging service**; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying one or more electronic messages within the electronic message system based on the **event signal** received and triggering a **dynamic update** to the identified electronic messages in response to receipt of the event signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing an external signal to an email service:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving an **event signal** (e.g. community response to a particular message, the location of one or more users, or a change in membership of a group.); and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Triggering a **dynamic update** (e.g. displaying in a different manner or the message being delivered or deleted, a calendar event being created or destroyed) in response to the **event signal**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming event signals such as: **CHANGING MEMBERSHIP IN A GROUP**,  and dynamic updates such as **CREATING/DELETING CALENDAR EVENT** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method of controlling an electronic message system from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/lvihZ.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159426?dq=US20130159426A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4537" RevisionGUID="a3b32e89-d257-4dcf-8f25-21c5d2156bd5" CreationDate="2013-07-26T21:05:08.233" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ONLINE SEARCH** - This application from [Yahoo!][6] seeks to patent the idea of... user editing search results for themselves and other users! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 19, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Accepting **USER EDITS** to **SEARCH RESULTS**; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Modifying the **SEARCH RESULTS PAGE** based on its **USER EDITS** with a **DRAG AND DROP** interface;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves user edits applying **GLOBALLY** to other users’ search results pages, **REMOVING DUPLICATE RESULTS** or a **DRAG AND DROP INTERFACE** to proposed user edits to search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: EDITORIAL CURATION OF SEARCH RESULTS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of modifying search results pages based on user edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159222 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/330,405&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 19, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for editorial curation of search results, comprising steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; using a processor device configured to perform:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a search results page rendered in response to a search query;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. receiving user edits comprising changes to objects in the search results page; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. applying the user edits to the search results page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for curating search results using a computer, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a search results page in response to a search query&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving user edits to objects in the search results page; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Applying the user edits to the search results page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming user edits applying **GLOBALLY** to other users’ search results pages, **REMOVING DUPLICATE RESULTS** or a **DRAG AND DROP INTERFACE** to proposed user edits to search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Drag and Drop User Curated Search Results Pages from Yahoo!**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/JCCnb.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130159222&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4591" RevisionGUID="78afdf3c-c689-4ad5-b2f5-902b85b29d23" CreationDate="2013-07-26T22:39:47.283" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON TRANSLATING USER MESSAGES** - This application from [Nhn Corporation][6] seeks to patent the idea of...automatically translating IM messages from one language to another! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 21, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Translating IM messages automatically in a messaging application;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO does the translation in **REAL-TIME** or uses **PUSH NOTIFICATION**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: TRANSLATING USER MESSAGES**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Within a messaging application, translating received messages from a 1st language and displaying them in a 2nd language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130166275 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/550,467&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Nhn Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 21, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 27, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing an interpretation service using a messaging application, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a message of a first language in a conversation session provided by the messaging application in a terminal;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Translating the message of the first language into a message of a second language; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing the message of the second language in the conversation session.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for translating IM messages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a message in a 1st language in a conversation session&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Translating the message into a 2nd language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Displaying the message in a 2nd language in the same conversation session&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 21, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming translation in **REAL-TIME**, using **PUSH NOTIFICATION**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Translation bots being added in an instant messaging service” from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/1Aoks.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130166275?dq=US20130166275A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.nhncorp.com/nhn/index.nhn" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10766" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4591" RevisionGUID="78afdf3c-c689-4ad5-b2f5-902b85b29d23" CreationDate="2013-07-26T22:39:47.283" UserId="1767" Text="Machine Translation - Translating IM messages in real time (Nhn Corporation) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10767" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4591" RevisionGUID="78afdf3c-c689-4ad5-b2f5-902b85b29d23" CreationDate="2013-07-26T22:39:47.283" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130166275&gt;&lt;nhn&gt;&lt;translation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4592" RevisionGUID="035fb8f5-8a26-4c7f-9e99-b663ed0bfc80" CreationDate="2013-07-26T22:58:31.513" UserId="5212" Text="This patent relates to inline translation of SMS messages. 2003. [Patent US7272406][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is SMS vs. the generic term &quot;IM&quot; enough to invalidate this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7272406 &quot;SMS translation&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4593" RevisionGUID="43a41bcd-1c75-4f3d-9bfe-63d607ed5201" CreationDate="2013-07-27T02:07:07.380" UserId="5171" Text="I think I've found prior art.  Specifically, an instant messaging tool which can automatically translate the sent message from one language to another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is it?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[QQ International](http://www.imqq.com/), which is an &quot;easy to use messenger which focuses on connecting people in China while constantly putting the most useful China-related information into users hands.&quot;  It contains a translation feature which will translate a sender's message into a second language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**When was it published?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [translation feature](http://web.archive.org/web/20110816184217/http://help.imqq.com/help_10_10/?s=10&amp;q=10) shows up in the manual on **Aug 16, 2011** in the Wayback Machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The app itself appears in the Wayback machine on August 1, 2010, but does not appear to contain the translation feature at this time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What, specifically, did it do first?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will automatically translate a sender's message from one language to another before sending it to another party, assuming the user chooses &quot;Translate and send message simultaneously&quot; in the settings. It'll translate it manually too, if you want to click a button (unsurprisingly, &quot;Translate&quot;) or hit a keystroke (ALT-E).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Displayed languages](http://web.archive.org/web/20110816184217im_/http://static.imqq.com/publish/help/9.10.2.png) include:  Chinese Simplified -&gt; English, English -&gt; Chinese Simplified, English -&gt; Japanese, English -&gt; French, English -&gt; German, Chinese Simplified -&gt; Russian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;although there is a mention of more than &quot;50 languages&quot;, no others are specifically listed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Does it cover the specific points asked for?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Receiving a message of a first language in a conversation session provided by the messaging application in a terminal  (&quot;Receiving a message in a 1st language in a conversation session&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.  The key here is that the sender can send their text in two languages in one shot - the first language, and the second (translated) language.  They do this by turning on the &quot;Attach original text using translated comment&quot; setting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Translating the message of the first language into a message of a second language; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.  As mentioned before, this is done on the sender's end, either automatically with another setting or manually via a keystroke/button press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing the message of the second language in the conversation session.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.  The second (translated) part of the message is also sent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; EXTRA CREDIT - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO does the translation in REAL-TIME or uses PUSH NOTIFICATION.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turning on the &quot;Translate and send message simultaneously&quot; would achieve the real-time translation desired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think a case can be made for push technology as well, considering that it implements the concept of [groups](http://web.archive.org/web/20110817194700/http://help.imqq.com/help_07_02/?s=7&amp;q=2).  You join a group - the &quot;subscription&quot; part of push technology, similar to a channel  After being confirmed, you're then in, and then receiving messages from other members of the group.  When any member of the group sends a message, it's pushed to your client application.  It is very likely that the messages hit a central server, rather than peer-to-peer, but I do not know for sure.  Any member of that group could then use the translation feature to send their text in the first and second languages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4594" RevisionGUID="8285f6b2-336d-4b18-b656-697cab17bed8" CreationDate="2013-07-27T04:17:30.680" UserId="5217" Text="Palm OS had a system-wide search that would call each program's main function with an argument to do a search (typed in a text field in a search dialog). The call to main was on the stack of the search system without even fully launching each application. Each program could display the results that it chose based on its own search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Mykland, Robert. *Palm OS Programming from the Groud Up*. Osboure/McGraw-Hill: Berkeley, 2000, pgs. 313 to 321)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4595" RevisionGUID="a175e342-42b6-4409-8de7-63eb79d3a44a" CreationDate="2013-07-27T04:18:22.830" UserId="5218" Text="I'm looking at patent [US 20120084131 A1][1].  I can't help but think that this is covered by [EP 2460126 A1][2] which appears to be an almost identical system for identifying a shop rather than for looking up a url from a unique code.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm interested as to how valid either of these patents are as it seems to me that acoustic data transmission has been around for ages as DTMF.  The only real difference between this and DTMF is the high frequency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second patent does seem to have some prior art identified at the bottom of the google patents page ([This][3] and [this][4]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know how valid either of the original patents actually are?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120084131?pg=PA1&amp;dq=patrick%20bergel&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=qkfzUfmwMojOhAfkl4HgCA&amp;ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP2460126A1?cl=en&amp;dq=shopkick&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=yUfzUYiDNtOFhQeouYGIBg&amp;ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&amp;arnumber=1495392&amp;url=http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1495392&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-39653-6_25" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10773" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4595" RevisionGUID="a175e342-42b6-4409-8de7-63eb79d3a44a" CreationDate="2013-07-27T04:18:22.830" UserId="5218" Text="How valid is US 20120084131 A1 or EP 2460126 A1?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10774" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4595" RevisionGUID="a175e342-42b6-4409-8de7-63eb79d3a44a" CreationDate="2013-07-27T04:18:22.830" UserId="5218" Text="&lt;us20120084131&gt;&lt;ep2460126a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4597" RevisionGUID="40f816cd-73f8-44e1-93b7-7c5984fcf3f4" CreationDate="2013-07-27T06:43:35.730" UserId="3076" Text="These are not &quot;valid&quot; at all. They are **applications** for a patent, **not** granted patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10780" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4597" RevisionGUID="2d49e228-8f72-4a81-bd98-c43129befbcc" CreationDate="2013-07-27T06:57:09.577" UserId="3076" Comment="added 155 characters in body" Text="These are not &quot;valid&quot; at all. They are **applications** for a patent, **not** granted patents. Application publications in the US start with a number that looks like a year and issued patents are sequentially numbered and are now in the 8 millions. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4597" RevisionGUID="880141d1-e286-4fd8-a74b-e33a308a4bb6" CreationDate="2013-07-27T07:02:54.193" UserId="3076" Comment="added 155 characters in body" Text="These are not &quot;valid&quot; at all. They are **applications** for a patent, **not** granted patents. Application publications in the US start with a number that looks like a year and issued patents are sequentially numbered and are now in the 8 millions. Google patents makes this easier to see than looking at the PDF of the actual document. Look at the upper right hand corners of these pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US application you mention: ![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example actual patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uFYta.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/pL75l.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4597" RevisionGUID="dd462e16-28ab-407c-b05d-cb9d7e208585" CreationDate="2013-07-27T07:26:47.813" UserId="3076" Comment="added 309 characters in body" Text="These are not &quot;valid&quot; at all. They are **applications** for a patent, **not** granted patents. Application publications in the US start with a number that looks like a year and issued patents are sequentially numbered and are now in the 8 millions. Google patents makes this easier to see than looking at the PDF of the actual document. Look at the upper right hand corners of these pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US application you mention: ![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example actual patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the substance, the USPTO site Public PAIR shows that this application has not yet been examined. The file also has a page in it submitted by the applicant that lists things they are telling the patent office about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uFYta.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/JoLXs.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/pL75l.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4598" RevisionGUID="c827c680-6525-4527-a83c-39d8cc31fbc1" CreationDate="2013-07-27T08:27:34.540" UserId="5224" Text="There is a work from 2004 (with screenshots). See related works too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nair, R., Shiroor, K. and Godfrey, J. “BuzzTrans: Evaluation of a Translating Instant Messenger Client”. In Proceedings of IHCI 2004. http://www.rahulnair.net/buzztrans.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.64.5255&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    A method for translating IM messages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        Receiving a message in a 1st language in a conversation session&#xD;&#xA;Same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        Translating the message into a 2nd language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        Displaying the message in a 2nd language in the same conversation session&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The both translated and original messages are displayed.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4601" RevisionGUID="b138edb6-0ba7-4e6d-bfae-ad568d9c76fe" CreationDate="2013-07-27T09:40:57.857" UserId="5226" Text="Windows NT since at least Windows 2000 has had search system built in that includes a plugin system so new types of documents can be indexed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee805985(v=vs.85).aspx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was not on by default and has an interface the looked like a web search results but it worked." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10789" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4580" RevisionGUID="2f424f18-c720-40cc-ad79-e3e0d60193a2" CreationDate="2013-07-27T10:33:22.827" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON PREDICTING ADVERTISER KEYWORD PERFORMANCE** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...predicting keyword performance for an advertiser by how the keyword has performed for similar advertisers! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 27, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of predicting **KEYWORD PERFORMANCE** for an advertiser who has not previously bid on the keyword; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying **SIMILAR ADVERTISERS** and using that to predict the performance expected from the subject keyword;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **EUCLIDIAN DISTANCE BETWEEN ATTRIBUTES BETWEEN ADVERTISERS** to estimate similarity between advertisers; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **CATEGORY**, **QUALITY SCORE**, **PAY-PER-CLICK**, **BID**, **ADVERTISER VERTICAL**, **GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION**, **DAY-TARGETING**, **DAY-PARTING**, **KEYWORDS IN COMMON** to estimate the performance expected from the keyword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PREDICTION OF USER RESPONSE TO RECEIVED DATA**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Within an online advertising system, a method of predicting keyword performance for an advertiser who has not previously bid on a keyword by identifying a similar advertiser who has used the same keyword and using the keyword’s previous performance to provide an expected result for the current advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130166371 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/337,709&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 27, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 27, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; {A METHOD} for predicting advertiser **keyword performance indicator** values, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a keyword from a first advertiser, whereinthe first advertiser has **not previously bid on the keyword**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying at least one other **advertiser that is similar** to the first advertiser and has previously bid on the keyword; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  calculating at least one predicted **performance indicator value** for the keyword for the first advertiser based upon at least one established performance indicator value of the keyword for the at least one other advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for detecting expected keyword performance for an advertiser, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a keyword from the advertiser which the advertiser has not previously bid on; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a 2nd advertiser similar to the advertiser; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Predicting the performance of the keyword (based on any metric) for the subject advertiser based on the performance of the keyword for the similar advertiser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 15, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a **EUCLIDIAN DISTANCE BETWEEN ATTRIBUTES BETWEEN ADVERTISERS** to estimate similarity between advertisers; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **CATEGORY**, **QUALITY SCORE**, **PAY-PER-CLICK**, **BID**, **ADVERTISER VERTICAL**, **GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION**, **DAY-TARGETING**, **DAY-PARTING**, **KEYWORDS IN COMMON** to estimate the performance expected from the keyword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Predicting advertiser keyword performance indicator values” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Ib77Z.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130166371?dq=US20130166371A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4554" RevisionGUID="877001fd-3d42-403a-bc24-ba3fe7848a6a" CreationDate="2013-07-27T10:33:52.627" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON FILTERING TWITTER FEEDS FROM BUSINESS CONTACTS** - This application from [Salesforce.com][6] seeks to patent the idea of... filtering feeds associated with individuals in a business directory matching a search query (e.g. data managers) and displaying the filtered feed on a computer! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 15, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of **FILTERING BUSINESS CONTACTS**; aggregating twitter feeds from the filtered contacts; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Searching within the **FILTERED TWITTER FEED**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO enables the user to **CONTACT** members of the filtered network feed.&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: DYNAMIC CONTROL OF EMAIL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalish into English] A method of filtering your contacts, receiving feeds from the filtered contacts, and (optionally) contacting some of the contacts. For example, a system outputs the twitter feeds from the data center managers that mention a competitor's specific product and (optionally) allowing you to contact some of these data center managers to say, “Hey! buy my product instead”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159434 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/558,577&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Salesforce, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Aug 18, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for viewing a contact network feed in a business directory environment, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Searching, based on a user specified search, a business directory to determine contacts;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying network feeds associated with the contacts;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Outputting the network feeds;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Filtering, based on a user specified filter, the network feeds to determine filtered network feeds; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Outputting the filtered network feeds to a display device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for filtering (e.g., twitter) feeds, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Searching a business directory to find individuals (potential contacts); and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying network feeds associated with these individuals and getting the feed data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Creating a filtered network feed based on the network feeds and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying the filtered network feed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Aug, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming enabling the user to **CONTACT** members of the filtered network feed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Viewing a network feed in a business directory environment” from Salesforce**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/99FJx.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159434?dq=US20130159434A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.salesforce.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4554" RevisionGUID="d6f0b51e-c22c-4f59-8c93-35fb6945a306" CreationDate="2013-07-27T12:22:55.253" UserId="1767" Comment="added 29 characters in body; edited body; added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON FILTERING TWITTER FEEDS FROM BUSINESS CONTACTS** - This application from [Salesforce.com][6] seeks to patent the idea of... filtering feeds associated with individuals in a business directory matching a search query (e.g. data managers) and displaying the filtered feed on a computer! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Aug 18, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of **FILTERING BUSINESS CONTACTS**; aggregating twitter feeds from the filtered contacts; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Searching within the **FILTERED TWITTER FEED**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO enables the user to **CONTACT** members of the filtered network feed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: VIEWING A CONTACT NETWORK FEED IN A BUSINESS DIRECTORY**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalish into English] A method of filtering individuals, receiving feeds from the filtered individuals, and (optionally) contacting some of the contacts. For example, a system outputs the twitter feeds from the data center managers that mention a competitor's specific product and (optionally) allowing you to contact some of these data center managers to say, “Hey! buy my product instead”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159434 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/558,577&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Salesforce, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Aug 18, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for viewing a contact network feed in a business directory environment, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Searching, based on a user specified search, a business directory to determine contacts;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying network feeds associated with the contacts;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Outputting the network feeds;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Filtering, based on a user specified filter, the network feeds to determine filtered network feeds; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Outputting the filtered network feeds to a display device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for filtering (e.g., twitter) feeds, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Searching a business directory to find individuals (potential contacts); and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying network feeds associated with these individuals and getting the feed data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Creating a filtered network feed based on the network feeds and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying the filtered network feed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Aug, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming enabling the user to **CONTACT** members of the filtered network feed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Viewing a network feed in a business directory environment” from Salesforce**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/99FJx.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159434?dq=US20130159434A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.salesforce.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4554" RevisionGUID="a8bf9221-d4a1-45a1-9b62-5f328c8efcad" CreationDate="2013-07-27T12:28:09.150" UserId="1767" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON FILTERING TWITTER FEEDS FROM BUSINESS CONTACTS** - This application from [Salesforce.com][6] seeks to patent the idea of... filtering feeds associated with individuals in a business directory matching a search query (e.g. data managers) and displaying the filtered feed on a computer! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Aug 18, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of **FILTERING BUSINESS CONTACTS**; aggregating twitter feeds from the filtered contacts; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Searching within the **FILTERED TWITTER FEED**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO enables the user to **CONTACT** members of the filtered network feed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: VIEWING A CONTACT NETWORK FEED IN A BUSINESS DIRECTORY**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalish into English] A method of filtering individuals, receiving feeds from the filtered individuals, and (optionally) contacting some of the individuals, who may or may be preexisting contacts. For example, a system outputs the twitter feeds from the data center managers that mention a competitor's specific product and (optionally) allowing you to contact some of these data center managers to say, “Hey! buy my product instead”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159434 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/558,577&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Salesforce, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Aug 18, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for viewing a contact network feed in a business directory environment, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Searching, based on a user specified search, a business directory to determine contacts;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying network feeds associated with the contacts;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Outputting the network feeds;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Filtering, based on a user specified filter, the network feeds to determine filtered network feeds; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Outputting the filtered network feeds to a display device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for filtering (e.g., twitter) feeds, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Searching a business directory to find individuals (potential contacts); and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying network feeds associated with these individuals and getting the feed data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Creating a filtered network feed based on the network feeds and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying the filtered network feed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Aug, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming enabling the user to **CONTACT** members of the filtered network feed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Viewing a network feed in a business directory environment” from Salesforce**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/99FJx.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159434?dq=US20130159434A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.salesforce.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4580" RevisionGUID="fcd15a27-e0d2-42bb-ba74-d688bc425f37" CreationDate="2013-07-27T12:31:40.837" UserId="1767" Comment="edited body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON PREDICTING ADVERTISER KEYWORD PERFORMANCE** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...predicting keyword performance for an advertiser by how the keyword has performed for similar advertisers! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 27, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of predicting **KEYWORD PERFORMANCE** for an advertiser who has not previously bid on the keyword; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying **SIMILAR ADVERTISERS** and using that to predict the performance expected from the subject keyword;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **EUCLIDIAN DISTANCE BETWEEN ATTRIBUTES BETWEEN ADVERTISERS** to estimate similarity between advertisers; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **CATEGORY**, **QUALITY SCORE**, **PAY-PER-CLICK**, **BID**, **ADVERTISER VERTICAL**, **GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION**, **DAY-TARGETING**, **DAY-PARTING**, **KEYWORDS IN COMMON** to estimate the performance expected from the keyword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PREDICTION OF USER RESPONSE TO RECEIVED DATA**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Within an online advertising system, a method of predicting keyword performance for an advertiser who has not previously bid on a keyword by identifying a similar advertiser who has used the same keyword and using the keyword’s previous performance to provide an expected result for the current advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130166371 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/337,709&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 27, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 27, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; {A METHOD} for predicting advertiser **keyword performance indicator** values, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a keyword from a first advertiser, whereinthe first advertiser has **not previously bid on the keyword**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying at least one other **advertiser that is similar** to the first advertiser and has previously bid on the keyword; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  calculating at least one predicted **performance indicator value** for the keyword for the first advertiser based upon at least one established performance indicator value of the keyword for the at least one other advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for detecting expected keyword performance for an advertiser, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving from the advertiser a keyword which the advertiser has not previously bid on; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a 2nd advertiser similar to the advertiser; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Predicting the performance of the keyword (based on any metric) for the subject advertiser based on the performance of the keyword for the similar advertiser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 15, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a **EUCLIDIAN DISTANCE BETWEEN ATTRIBUTES BETWEEN ADVERTISERS** to estimate similarity between advertisers; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **CATEGORY**, **QUALITY SCORE**, **PAY-PER-CLICK**, **BID**, **ADVERTISER VERTICAL**, **GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION**, **DAY-TARGETING**, **DAY-PARTING**, **KEYWORDS IN COMMON** to estimate the performance expected from the keyword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Predicting advertiser keyword performance indicator values” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Ib77Z.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130166371?dq=US20130166371A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4597" RevisionGUID="f0ad2ffe-cdf9-4e76-b1ab-8b4912debc45" CreationDate="2013-07-27T15:20:12.043" UserId="5055" Comment="Fixed placement of figures. Added details from what can be found on registers, including granted US patent for the EP application mentioned in the question." Text="These are not &quot;valid&quot; at all. They are **applications** for a patent, **not** granted patents. Application publications in the US start with a number that looks like a year and issued patents are sequentially numbered and are now in the 8 millions. Google patents makes this easier to see than looking at the PDF of the actual document. Look at the upper right hand corners of these pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US application you mention: ![Screenshot of mentioned US Application on Google Patents][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example actual patent: ![Screenshot of a granted US patent on Google Patents][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the history of both the patent applications you mention, and especially published examination and prosecution documents of patents of their families, you will see that plenty of prior art was already found. Both cases are interesting to understand how an application may become a **valid, granted patent**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US 20120084131 A1&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the substance, the USPTO site Public PAIR shows that this application has not yet been examined. The file also has a page in it submitted by the applicant that lists things they are telling the patent office about, and in particular of references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Screenshot of IDS in USPTO Public Pair for mentioned US Application][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason why the applicant of the US application submitted this information to the USPTO is because other offices told them about this prior art and under US patent law, they have to disclose this kind of data to help the USPTO. Initially, the patent was filed in the UK on October 1 2010 and in the US in November 19 2010. Google doesn't mention it, but you can find about this on the USPTO website where you will see what is the priority document(s), in this case a UK patent application. Then, the applicant filed for a PCT (international) request, which you can see on Google by clicking the WO2012042276A2 link, then you can see the application at the EPO (EP Register and Espacenet) and you will see they eventually designated the EP region during the national phase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the USPTO did not begin search and examination, the UK office as part of the initial filing and the EP office, which was designated by the applicant for the international search, did. Both offices expressed some form of opinion on the validity of the applications as they were submitted to them. Since the application is now public, you can read scanned copies of these opinions from the [GB register](http://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2484140) and the [EP register](https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP11773522&amp;lng=en&amp;tab=main).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EP 2460126 A1&#xD;&#xA;-------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, you can read [documents on the procedure of the second patent application](https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP10804847&amp;lng=en&amp;tab=doclist) you mentioned by clicking the &quot;EP Register&quot; link on the Google Page. In this case, the applicant originally filed several US patent applications, then a PCT request at the USPTO which performed the international search and expressed the (non-binding) opinion that this was not novel, and then a competitor submitted (more) prior art documents and also an opinion to the European Office. Applicant amended the claims in response to this. The next step for the application you mention is for the EPO to examine the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, while this application is **not valid** (yet) **in Europe**, you can see on the EP register website that there is a **granted, valid patent** in the patent family: US Patent 8,489,112. You can find it on [USPTO Public Pair](http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair) and it was granted on July 16, 2013. The corresponding application [US20110028160](https://www.google.com/patents/US20110028160) can be found on Google Patents but claim 1 was narrowed as part of the procedure (Google doesn't show the granted patent yet). If you believe it is still extremely broad, please feel free to post a new question on this US patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uFYta.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/JoLXs.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/pL75l.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10795" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4597" RevisionGUID="f0ad2ffe-cdf9-4e76-b1ab-8b4912debc45" CreationDate="2013-07-27T15:20:12.043" Comment="Proposed by 5055 approved by 1767 edit id of 413" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4595" RevisionGUID="08195bb4-5ab2-44e8-8cd9-24485671db70" CreationDate="2013-07-27T15:25:15.173" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body" Text="I'm looking at patents [US 20120084131 A1][1] and [EP 2460126 A1][2], which appear to be almost identical systems for identifying a shop rather than for looking up a url from a unique code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these issued patents?  Are they patent applications?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that acoustic data transmission has been around for ages as DTMF.  The only real difference between this and DTMF is the high frequency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second patent does seem to have some prior art identified at the bottom of the google patents page ([This][3] and [this][4]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are the original patents [US 20120084131 A1][1] and [EP 2460126 A1][2] currently valid and in force in the U.S.?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120084131?pg=PA1&amp;dq=patrick%20bergel&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=qkfzUfmwMojOhAfkl4HgCA&amp;ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP2460126A1?cl=en&amp;dq=shopkick&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=yUfzUYiDNtOFhQeouYGIBg&amp;ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&amp;arnumber=1495392&amp;url=http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1495392&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-39653-6_25" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10804" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4595" RevisionGUID="08195bb4-5ab2-44e8-8cd9-24485671db70" CreationDate="2013-07-27T15:25:15.173" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body" Text="Are these two patents currently valid: US 20120084131 A1 or EP 2460126 A1?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4602" RevisionGUID="85553dad-6858-4b0b-9df5-44d93d647760" CreationDate="2013-07-27T16:26:34.083" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON AUDIO SEARCHING BY KEYWORD** - This application from [Electronics And Telecommunications Research Institute (Korea)][6] seeks to patent the idea of...indexing recording conversation with keywords for search! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 20, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Recording conversations and indexing them with keywords which can be searched;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **MORPHEMES**, **ONTOLOGIES** or **END-POINT DETECTION** (EDP).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: METHOD FOR PROVIDING CONTENTS ABOUT CONVERSATION**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Recording an audio conversation, indexing it with search keywords, searching the conversation by the search keywords.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159003 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/592,615&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Electronics And Telecommunications Research Institute (Korea)&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 20, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of providing contents about conversation, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a voice information collecting step of collecting voice information from conversation between a user and another person;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a keyword creating control step of creating search keywords by using the collected voice information; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a contents providing control step of searching contents by using the created search keywords, and providing the searched contents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for indexing audio conversations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Recording a conversation between a user and another person&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Creating search keywords from the recorded conversation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Allowing user to search the audio conversation based on the keyword and returning search results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 20, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using **MORPHEMES**, **ONTOLOGIES** or **END-POINT DETECTION** (EDP)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Providing contents about conversation” from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/FbVEw.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159003?dq=US20130159003A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronics_and_Telecommunications_Research_Institute" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10807" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4602" RevisionGUID="85553dad-6858-4b0b-9df5-44d93d647760" CreationDate="2013-07-27T16:26:34.083" UserId="1767" Text="Audio Search - Searching Conversations by Keyword - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10808" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4602" RevisionGUID="85553dad-6858-4b0b-9df5-44d93d647760" CreationDate="2013-07-27T16:26:34.083" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130159003&gt;&lt;speech-recognition&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4603" RevisionGUID="0a1d0ce2-4919-4819-a598-dad083aed1d9" CreationDate="2013-07-27T16:34:35.790" UserId="4482" Text="I believe that good prior art for the real-time translation of instant messages with push notification is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US20030125927&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Title:** Method and system for translating instant messages&#xD;&#xA; - **Publication Number:** US 20030125927 A1&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee:** Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA; - **Filing Date: Dec 28, 2001**&#xD;&#xA; - **Publication Date:** Jul 3, 2003&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1. A method for **translating instant messages** exchanged between two or more devices over a network by one or more users that communicate in **different languages**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 13. A system for providing **real-time** communication over a network between two or more devices to support **multiple languages**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue would seem to be the **push notification** part. The earlier patent is quite broad and almost certainly encompasses a translation bot and/or push notification:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [0029] Referring again to FIG. 4, the content translation module 154&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is shown as being at a network address xxx.yyy.zzz, and located at a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; location separate from that of the source device 142 and destination&#xD;&#xA;&gt; device 144. However, the invention is not limited to this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; configuration. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; content translation module 154 may be located within the same network&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as the source or destination device, such as within an intranet or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; network cluster having the same domain in or network location as the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; source and destination devices. FIG. 3 provides only one example of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; network configuration suitable for practicing the invention. *Any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; network configuration that allows for the operation of the content&#xD;&#xA;&gt; translation module 154 is within the scope of the invention*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Furthermore, any means by which messages can be translated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dynamically—interactively during the session—and without extra effort&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on the part of the user, is within the scope of the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would argue that push notification means that a message is sent to the receiver without an initiating request from the receiver. The original patent covers this exactly. The message originates from the sender and is sent to the receiver without any request from the receiver, whether via a &quot;Dll&quot; or &quot;server farm or network cluster configuration&quot; or any other intermediate means." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10810" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4602" RevisionGUID="c6555efa-f9a9-4799-967d-4eb1be4d2add" CreationDate="2013-07-27T16:35:00.323" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Speech Recognition - Searching Conversations by Keyword - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4602" RevisionGUID="c6555efa-f9a9-4799-967d-4eb1be4d2add" CreationDate="2013-07-27T16:35:00.323" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON AUDIO SEARCHING BY KEYWORD** - This application from [Electronics And Telecommunications Research Institute (Korea)][6] seeks to patent the idea of...indexing recording conversation with keywords for search! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 20, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Recording conversations and indexing them with keywords which can be searched;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **MORPHEMES**, **ONTOLOGIES** or **END-POINT DETECTION** (EDP).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: METHOD FOR PROVIDING CONTENTS ABOUT CONVERSATION**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Recording an audio conversation, indexing it with search keywords, searching the conversation by the search keywords.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159003 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/592,615&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Electronics And Telecommunications Research Institute (Korea)&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 20, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of providing contents about conversation, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a voice information collecting step of collecting voice information from conversation between a user and another person;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a keyword creating control step of creating search keywords by using the collected voice information; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a contents providing control step of searching contents by using the created search keywords, and providing the searched contents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for indexing audio conversations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Recording a conversation between a user and another person&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Creating search keywords from the recorded conversation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Allowing user to search the audio conversation based on the keyword and returning search results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 20, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using **MORPHEMES**, **ONTOLOGIES** or **END-POINT DETECTION** (EDP)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Providing contents about conversation” from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/FbVEw.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159003?dq=US20130159003A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronics_and_Telecommunications_Research_Institute" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4604" RevisionGUID="f265774c-0186-4cdd-89a3-a69003092998" CreationDate="2013-07-27T16:43:10.450" UserId="5232" Text="Just take a look at the tweetbot app it has all of these features, or any other twitter client made in the last 3 years. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4605" RevisionGUID="c466bca3-e9af-4866-bce2-6170965526fa" CreationDate="2013-07-27T17:30:50.610" UserId="5233" Text="Paper on keyword search of spoken conversations from 2005.&#xD;&#xA;http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/H/H05/H05-1119.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SEARCHING THE AUDIO NOTEBOOK:&#xD;&#xA;KEYWORD SEARCH IN RECORDED CONVERSATIONS&#xD;&#xA;Peng Yu, Kaijiang Chen, Lie Lu, and Frank Seide&#xD;&#xA;Microsoft Research Asia, 5F Beijing Sigma Center, 49 Zhichun Rd., 100080 Beijing, P.R.C.&#xD;&#xA;{rogeryu,kaijchen,llu,fseide}@microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from&#xD;&#xA;Proceedings of Human Language Technology Conference and Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language&#xD;&#xA;Processing (HLT/EMNLP), pages 947–954, Vancouver, October 2005. &#xD;&#xA;c 2005 Association for Computational Linguistics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4606" RevisionGUID="c3066af6-99f0-443c-bb44-d0d136a31d2e" CreationDate="2013-07-27T18:20:10.313" UserId="4440" Text="There was a company called Pluggd that did something similar for podcasts back in 2006. Here's an article from Wired that describes in layman's terms what they did:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2006/12/72326&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article mentions that the technology was &quot;patent pending&quot; at that time, so it may be worth digging through the Pluggd patents to understand their technology better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4607" RevisionGUID="1b1530ae-fd03-4ab3-b955-8884f00d9cdd" CreationDate="2013-07-27T21:51:41.587" UserId="4479" Text="Back in 2005, AT&amp;T was already publishing paper about text mining the [speech-to-text transcripts of call centers](http://www2.research.att.com/~volinsky/papers/ieee_dm.pdf). The process goes actually much further than just _plain_ indexing for search, because it attempts later stage, more complicated processing, such as sort of de-duplication of the redundant content. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4608" RevisionGUID="7565cf20-ec0d-4b0a-92d7-e314105cf134" CreationDate="2013-07-27T22:41:39.957" UserId="4930" Text="If I'm reading this right, this is a system which can measure how listener head position affects sound received at the ears (or, more properly, a set of microphones very near the ears), then reproduce those effects in a pair of headphones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The manner in which head position affects the sound a listener hears has been studied for at least eighty years. In 1933, AT&amp;T had a dummy head named Oscar at the Chicago World's Fair that allowed fair-goers to hear what it heard; it attracted a great deal of attention, and similar models were used for years to research the way that the ears and head affect the sound an individual perceives. This gets you 1-2 and 4-7.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From http://www.sony.net/Products/vpt/overview/index.html, about halfway down the page (bolding mine):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When a human-shaped microphone called a dummy-head microphone is used to record 2-channel stereo sound, the sound reproduced does not remain within the listener's head (the sound image is not established in a &quot;fixed position in the head&quot;), bringing an enhanced sense of a live presence. This technology is called binaural recording/reproduction*5. Recognizig the potential of this technology, Sony continued research and development in this area.&#xD;&#xA;In parallel, Sony made a number of proprietary technological developments.&#xD;&#xA;Among them was a signal processing technology that incorporates the head-related transfer function (HRTF), which indicates the characteristics from the sound source to the listener's ears, **using digital signal processing and head-tracking technology***6. As a result, **in 1994**, we introduced a first-of-its-kind innovative headphone system VIP-1000 (&quot;Virtualphones&quot;) that gives the listener the sense that he/she can hear two front L,R speakers, even from a regular 2-channel stereo source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link to note 6 describes a gyroscopic system contained within the headphones. This gets you 3 and 8, after a fashion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here are the various components of the system described. What I'm not seeing is all of them combined into one system. I suspect that at some point in developing their headphones, Sony had to have built such a system to check their results, but without having a backlog of industry magazines to root through from that era, I have no evidence of prior publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully this will at least be able to point you in a direction for further research." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4609" RevisionGUID="3f920bc6-2050-45f0-8ff7-291bb0acbb5e" CreationDate="2013-07-28T05:12:37.840" UserId="2003" Text="In the 1990s Lake DSP developed and marketed a commercial solution for performing head-tracking stabilised spatialisation/auralisation. The DSP processor was called the Heuron. It was used for virtual reality and architectural auralization. Although I don't have a specific reference to someone placing virtual &quot;speakers&quot; with the Heuron, it would have been trivial. Certainly placing virtual sources to map stereo to an ambisonic B-format soundfield is an obvious technique.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the head-tracked part, here's a quote from a 1996 paper from Lake:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;a new method recently developed at Lake for processing the B-format signals for playback over headphones, with head-tracking used to maintain a stable acoustic field around the listener, even as the listener's head turns&quot; [1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lake may well hold a patent on this too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] McGrath, D.S.; Reilly, A., &quot;Creation, Manipulation and Playback of Soundfields with the Huron Digital Audio Convolution Workstation,&quot; Signal Processing and Its Applications, 1996. ISSPA 96., Fourth International Symposium on , vol.1, no., pp.288,291, 30-30 Aug. 1996&#xD;&#xA;URL: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&amp;arnumber=615735&amp;isnumber=13406&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4610" RevisionGUID="33e319f9-b293-4ca1-950d-2951ebef158e" CreationDate="2013-07-28T05:34:55.073" UserId="2003" Text="Another potential example of prior art is given in Wirth's classic textbook &quot;Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs&quot; (1976). In section 4.4.3 a data structure for topological sorting is described, wherein a list of nodes is maintained using next pointers, and an additional (&quot;secondary&quot;) link provides the ability to traverse the nodes according to a partial order. This is on page 182 of my print edition. In a more recent pdf the same example is given on page 124: http://www.ethoberon.ethz.ch/WirthPubl/AD.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3593" RevisionGUID="c6f5cdbd-0601-4331-9d95-fd301574cf9c" CreationDate="2013-07-28T06:13:32.013" UserId="3076" Comment="Typo" Text="There is an obligation of disclosure and candor if you are the inventor, the attorney or agent involved with the case or or are otherwise involved with the patenting effort. Those people have to provide the USPTO with anything that they know that would tend to cast a negative light on patentability or that contradict a position that has been taken by the applicants with the patent office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That duty is discharged by filing a document in the case called an Information Disclosure Statement. People on the inventing/patenting team can discharge their duty by bringing whatever it is to an inventor. The duty extends until the patent is granted or goes abandoned. Those people need to submit any publications and inform the PTO of any actions (put on sale longer than 1 yr before filing, etc.) that are relevant to patentability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Applicants are never going to say &quot;there is no prior art&quot;. For one reason the term prior art just means everything that is fair game to look at. If it is generally in the same field or is generally aimed at the same problem and it is dated before the application, it is available as prior art. (Simplified) One can never know the totality of what might be out there so the idea that a document refutes a statement that &quot;nothing is out there&quot; is not going to happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More practically, yes, there are ways for 3rd parties to submit documents and a short analysis as to their relevance to the USPTO. It can't be a full brief. But this does not extend to a &quot;brief&quot;. Some ways of getting information in allow only the document and others also allow a short explanation of the relevance of a document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site was set up to facilitate that process. It is not a real opposition process just a way to get something in front of the examiner in a timely fashion.&#xD;&#xA;Under the new patent laws there is a time window in the course of most applications for this - for free up to 3 documents. Failing that, there are new, but expensive, post-grant opposition procedures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also an ability to send something at any time under [35 USC 301.][1] Things that come in under that section of the law are put in the file but not necessarily looked at by the examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2205.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4611" RevisionGUID="c2c35719-b686-4b2f-b301-b98ea0a91e12" CreationDate="2013-07-28T06:29:46.107" UserId="4959" Text="Isn't [Ask Patents][1] the kind of site that offers that kind of information (prior art that can refute a patent). As Joel elucidated in [&quot;Victory Lap for Ask Patents&quot;][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Got 15 minutes? Go to Ask Patents right now, and see if one of these&#xD;&#xA;&gt; RFPAs covers a topic you know something about, and post any examples&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you can find. They’re hidden in plain view; most of the prior art you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; need for software patents can be found on Google. Happy hunting!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;15 minutes of Google-hunting would actually help refute a patent that already has had prior art associated with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2013/07/22.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4612" RevisionGUID="75878238-757f-4d51-b388-b5e3a9d1736a" CreationDate="2013-07-28T06:44:30.203" UserId="4959" Text="As answered by Joannes Vermorel above, see: [Adobe SearchCenter+ Adds Keyword Performance Predictive Analytics][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Adobe Systems Incorporated (Nasdaq:ADBE) today announced that Adobe®&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SearchCenter+, a comprehensive search marketing management system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; within the Adobe Online Marketing Suite, has added keyword performance&#xD;&#xA;&gt; predictive analytics through a partnering agreement with OptiMine&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Software, Inc. This agreement will enable search marketers to achieve&#xD;&#xA;&gt; significant increases in paid search performance (i.e. higher return&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on ad spend, increased leads, higher conversion rates, increased&#xD;&#xA;&gt; revenue, greater profit per keyword, etc.). Tests done with search&#xD;&#xA;&gt; marketers using OptiMine’s keyword modeling have shown improved&#xD;&#xA;&gt; performance of 25 percent or more.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/201109/090711AdobeSearchCenterAddsKeywordPerformancePredictiveAnalytics.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4613" RevisionGUID="a1e080e0-82a8-499e-9fe1-d3888a192c65" CreationDate="2013-07-28T06:55:10.607" UserId="4959" Text="There's very good discussion here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100315/0058408555.shtml - one of the comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Jim Vitek says on his LinkedIn profile that he is one of the named&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inventors. Yet there's nothing on the PTO search site - I'm a patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; practitioner, and I looked. Assuming a provisional was filed in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; January 2008, and an application filed in January 2009, then under the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 18-month rule, this application should be published in a few months,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; after which we'll be able to see what exactly was claimed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you might need to search for the USPTO Patent # so you can know the updates on this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4613" RevisionGUID="22872739-6c76-44a7-b70c-f20bbe81bfe5" CreationDate="2013-07-28T07:02:44.610" UserId="4959" Comment="added found links pertaining patent in discussion" Text="There's very good discussion here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100315/0058408555.shtml - one of the comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Jim Vitek says on his LinkedIn profile that he is one of the named&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inventors. Yet there's nothing on the PTO search site - I'm a patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; practitioner, and I looked. Assuming a provisional was filed in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; January 2008, and an application filed in January 2009, then under the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 18-month rule, this application should be published in a few months,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; after which we'll be able to see what exactly was claimed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you might need to search for the USPTO Patent # so you can know the updates on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE: Found it: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2001054478A2 and http://www.google.com/patents/US20030065565 you can ask for an update via:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/WO2001054478A2 and&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/US20030065565" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4614" RevisionGUID="19cd196b-9d35-4def-8a11-fd937c53a010" CreationDate="2013-07-28T09:12:19.340" UserId="5246" Text="The TED site uses the same idea long before Dec 9, 2011. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ted.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have various filters to resize the images by - most viewed, most commented, most popular this month..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4616" RevisionGUID="1bf6fba3-24e6-4573-b1d3-33243e73e0ec" CreationDate="2013-07-28T13:37:58.827" UserId="5055" Text="The following paper (2009) **predates Claim 1** as well as other elements from the claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- WaterCooler: exploring an organization through enterprise social media, Brzozowski, *Proceedings of the ACM 2009 international conference on Supporting group work*&#xD;&#xA;Pages 219-228 ACM New York, NY, USA, 2009 [[PDF](http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/scl/papers/watercooler/group2009/group2009watercooler.pdf), [ACM Library](http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1531706)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brzozowski teaches:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A method for viewing a contact network feed in a business directory environment, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Searching, based on a user specified search (Figure 1, *Users can also search for keywords or people* [4.1.2]), a business directory to determine contacts (*It then extracts employees’ names from the free-text author ﬁeld and maps them into the company LDAP directory, which provides data on their organization, location, management chain, job function, and contact information.* [4.1]) ;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Identifying network feeds associated with the contacts; (*We started by aggregating RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds from social media servers across the company [...] WaterCooler associates posts with [...] author* [4.1], *WaterCooler cross-references post authors with the employee directory, providing ﬁlters by person, organizational unit, and job function.* [4.1.1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Outputting the network feeds (figure 2);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Filtering, based on a user specified filter, the network feeds to determine filtered network feeds; and ([4.1.2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Outputting the filtered network feeds to a display device. (figure 5 with search box)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, Watercooler allows you to **contact authors of the filtered feeds**, thus teaching other limitations of claim 11.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf figure 3, you can obviously click on the e-mail and other contact information, as well as *People used the wiki in parallel with the standard emergency phone trees to let colleagues know they were OK, and to offer shelter to displaced employees.* [4.1.3]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4608" RevisionGUID="6e06aa23-7f9d-4552-b7d8-64ca2c79ce75" CreationDate="2013-07-28T14:18:24.027" UserId="4930" Comment="Found a few more examples and added them at the bottom." Text="If I'm reading this right, this is a system which can measure how listener head position affects sound received at the ears (or, more properly, a set of microphones very near the ears), then reproduce those effects in a pair of headphones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The manner in which head position affects the sound a listener hears has been studied for at least eighty years. In 1933, AT&amp;T had a dummy head named Oscar at the Chicago World's Fair that allowed fair-goers to hear what it heard; it attracted a great deal of attention, and similar models were used for years to research the way that the ears and head affect the sound an individual perceives. This gets you 1-2 and 4-7.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From http://www.sony.net/Products/vpt/overview/index.html, about halfway down the page (bolding mine):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When a human-shaped microphone called a dummy-head microphone is used to record 2-channel stereo sound, the sound reproduced does not remain within the listener's head (the sound image is not established in a &quot;fixed position in the head&quot;), bringing an enhanced sense of a live presence. This technology is called binaural recording/reproduction*5. Recognizig the potential of this technology, Sony continued research and development in this area.&#xD;&#xA;In parallel, Sony made a number of proprietary technological developments.&#xD;&#xA;Among them was a signal processing technology that incorporates the head-related transfer function (HRTF), which indicates the characteristics from the sound source to the listener's ears, **using digital signal processing and head-tracking technology***6. As a result, **in 1994**, we introduced a first-of-its-kind innovative headphone system VIP-1000 (&quot;Virtualphones&quot;) that gives the listener the sense that he/she can hear two front L,R speakers, even from a regular 2-channel stereo source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link to note 6 describes a gyroscopic system contained within the headphones. This gets you 3 and 8, after a fashion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here are the various components of the system described. What I'm not seeing is all of them combined into one system. I suspect that at some point in developing their headphones, Sony had to have built such a system to check their results, but without having a backlog of industry magazines to root through from that era, I have no evidence of prior publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully this will at least be able to point you in a direction for further research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--Edit: You may want to take a look at [US6738479](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=6738479.PN.&amp;OS=PN/6738479&amp;RS=PN/6738479). It appears to have a number of similarities to the above patent, though it uses loudspeakers rather than headphones for the second stage reproduction, and deals with a single sound source rather than a stereo source. Also look at [this paper](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=52&amp;cad=rja&amp;ved=0CDMQFjABODI&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2F505606.pbworks.com%2Ff%2FHRTF.pdf&amp;ei=hCf1UbXwGsG8qQHQlYHQAQ&amp;usg=AFQjCNEJcKno6nCaIBczqUMPuaWql5EoUg&amp;sig2=koVAJ4QHiTgIZTXjMNLmVg&amp;bvm=bv.49784469,d.aWM), which describes the system given in this patent in 2001." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4535" RevisionGUID="527590bf-2efb-4196-b81a-d7319d1673e9" CreationDate="2013-07-28T20:40:16.370" UserId="5163" Comment="Changed year from 1876 to 1976" Text="I am not a database person nor have I used many, however I have been aware of them for a long time.  The following might include prior art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;software was released in 1976:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multics_Relational_Data_Store&#xD;&#xA;http://web.mit.edu/multics-history/source/Multics/doc/info_segments/mrds.info&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional reverences can be found by google for multics mrds&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10833" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4535" RevisionGUID="527590bf-2efb-4196-b81a-d7319d1673e9" CreationDate="2013-07-28T20:40:16.370" Comment="Proposed by 5163 approved by 3076, 1767 edit id of 414" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4618" RevisionGUID="48c1088a-ab46-4118-9358-db7cb7d882f1" CreationDate="2013-07-29T04:42:40.207" UserId="5261" Text="The PACSL: Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special Collections Libraries (http://pacscl.org/about) implemented something very similar starting in 1998:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From their web page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Finding Aids Project including EAD training, digitization of existing finding aids, and establishment of a **unified search interface (1998-ongoing)**;&#xD;&#xA; 2. the creation of a Collaborative Online Public Access Catalog for those member libraries without individual OPACs (1997-ongoing);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. its Initiative for the 1990s I and II cataloging and access projects (1991-96);&#xD;&#xA;the PACSCL Name Authority Project (1991-94);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Museum Loan Program for auction and booksellers catalogs (1990-93);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The PACSL software allows through an unified interface to locate a wide variety of documents based on user-defined input.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They provide the user-input to a wide variety of heuristics (one per type of document and area of research) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4619" RevisionGUID="f80d24f4-1d3e-4c22-b34e-7beb439c5874" CreationDate="2013-07-29T06:46:15.617" UserId="4672" Text="In all three cases, the company is selling the product in the U.S., and so can be sued in U.S. courts for infringing the U.S. patent.  In the second case, the reseller would most likely also be named as a defendant in the lawsuit.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4620" RevisionGUID="78ea895b-aba9-4f51-b5d2-8c59bc0cf42e" CreationDate="2013-07-29T08:53:35.850" UserId="5264" Text="I think that any prior art on user predictive analytics can match the request.&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I think that Search completion (like Google search completion) is probably exactly that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Systems and methods for joint analytics on user level and network level data of a communications network&#xD;&#xA;US 8447269 B2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Embodiments utilize joint analytics to generate patterns and rules concerning the content and services accessed by a user, when they are accessed, and how they are accessed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Contextual prediction of user words and user actions&#xD;&#xA;WO 2005036413 A8][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The invention concerns user entry of information into a system with an input device (12). A scheme is provided in which an entire word that a user wants to enter is predicted, and shown a display (10), after the user enters a specific symbol, such as a space character. If the user presses an ambiguous key thereafter, rather than accept the prediction, the selection list is reordered. The invention can also make predictions on context such as the person to whom the message is sent, the person writing the message, the day of the week, the time of the week, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Action Prediction and Identification Temporal User Behavior&#xD;&#xA;US 20120123993 A1][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  From the mined temporal-based user actions, future actions can be predicted. Certain implementations include providing information and/or services based on the predicted future actions. Some implementations, include providing relevant information, services, and/or goods regarding the predicted future action&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8447269?dq=user%20analytics&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=hij2UZaoBqmEygG3jIHICg&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CEIQ6AEwAg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2005036413A8?cl=en&amp;dq=user%20action%20prediction&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=zin2UdugH-_lygHX0oDQCg&amp;ved=0CEIQ6AEwAg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120123993?dq=user%20action%20prediction&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=zin2UdugH-_lygHX0oDQCg&amp;ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3874" RevisionGUID="d5bbc1a6-782b-43d5-b932-d2cca86d932d" CreationDate="2013-07-29T09:51:23.160" UserId="5055" Comment="Add link to rule 312." Text="If the changes you want would be considered by the examiner as not affecting patentability you could use a [rule 312](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e326304) amendment. What seems off is that usually  an examiner's amendment is only made after getting your Ok.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10841" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3874" RevisionGUID="d5bbc1a6-782b-43d5-b932-d2cca86d932d" CreationDate="2013-07-29T09:51:23.160" Comment="Proposed by 5055 approved by 1767 edit id of 416" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4580" RevisionGUID="b1e690cd-9be8-4494-a84c-f067cf6c9243" CreationDate="2013-07-29T09:53:46.653" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON PREDICTING ADVERTISER KEYWORD PERFORMANCE** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...predicting keyword performance for an advertiser by how the keyword has performed for similar advertisers! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 27, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of predicting **KEYWORD PERFORMANCE** for an advertiser who has not previously bid on the keyword; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying **SIMILAR ADVERTISERS** and using that to predict the performance expected from the subject keyword;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **EUCLIDIAN DISTANCE BETWEEN ATTRIBUTES BETWEEN ADVERTISERS** to estimate similarity between advertisers; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **CATEGORY**, **QUALITY SCORE**, **PAY-PER-CLICK**, **BID**, **ADVERTISER VERTICAL**, **GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION**, **DAY-TARGETING**, **DAY-PARTING**, **KEYWORDS IN COMMON** to estimate the performance expected from the keyword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PREDICTION OF USER RESPONSE TO RECEIVED DATA**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Within an online advertising system, a method of predicting keyword performance for an advertiser who has not previously bid on a keyword by identifying a similar advertiser who has used the same keyword and using the keyword’s previous performance to provide an expected result for the current advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130166371 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/337,709&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 27, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 27, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; {A METHOD} for predicting advertiser **keyword performance indicator** values, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a keyword from a first advertiser, whereinthe first advertiser has **not previously bid on the keyword**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying at least one other **advertiser that is similar** to the first advertiser and has previously bid on the keyword; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  calculating at least one predicted **performance indicator value** for the keyword for the first advertiser based upon at least one established performance indicator value of the keyword for the at least one other advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for detecting expected keyword performance for an advertiser, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving from the advertiser a keyword which the advertiser has not previously bid on; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a 2nd advertiser similar to the advertiser; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Predicting the performance of the keyword (based on any metric) for the subject advertiser based on the performance of the keyword for the similar advertiser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 15, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a **EUCLIDIAN DISTANCE BETWEEN ATTRIBUTES BETWEEN ADVERTISERS** to estimate similarity between advertisers; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **CATEGORY**, **QUALITY SCORE**, **PAY-PER-CLICK**, **BID**, **ADVERTISER VERTICAL**, **GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION**, **DAY-TARGETING**, **DAY-PARTING**, **KEYWORDS IN COMMON** to estimate the performance expected from the keyword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Predicting advertiser keyword performance indicator values” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Ib77Z.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130166371?dq=US20130166371A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4602" RevisionGUID="bd13a437-1163-4788-94d9-a23e04082cbc" CreationDate="2013-07-29T09:54:15.577" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON AUDIO SEARCHING BY KEYWORD** - This application from [Electronics And Telecommunications Research Institute (Korea)][6] seeks to patent the idea of...indexing recording conversation with keywords for search! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 20, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Recording conversations and indexing them with keywords which can be searched;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **MORPHEMES**, **ONTOLOGIES** or **END-POINT DETECTION** (EDP).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: METHOD FOR PROVIDING CONTENTS ABOUT CONVERSATION**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Recording an audio conversation, indexing it with search keywords, searching the conversation by the search keywords.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159003 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/592,615&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Electronics And Telecommunications Research Institute (Korea)&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 20, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of providing contents about conversation, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a voice information collecting step of collecting voice information from conversation between a user and another person;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a keyword creating control step of creating search keywords by using the collected voice information; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a contents providing control step of searching contents by using the created search keywords, and providing the searched contents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for indexing audio conversations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Recording a conversation between a user and another person&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Creating search keywords from the recorded conversation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Allowing user to search the audio conversation based on the keyword and returning search results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 20, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using **MORPHEMES**, **ONTOLOGIES** or **END-POINT DETECTION** (EDP)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Providing contents about conversation” from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/FbVEw.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159003?dq=US20130159003A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronics_and_Telecommunications_Research_Institute" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4551" RevisionGUID="bca47441-6a69-4910-ad51-c4b9955a8e03" CreationDate="2013-07-29T09:54:29.767" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON DYNAMIC EMAIL NOTIFICATION** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of... email which changes appearance dynamically based on an external event! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 15, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A external system which sends **EVENT SIGNALS** to an email server; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. an email server which modifies the appearance of email messages based on the external **EVENT SIGNALS**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves event signals such as: **CHANGING MEMBERSHIP IN A GROUP**,  and dynamic updates such as **CREATING CALENDAR EVENT** &#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: DYNAMIC CONTROL OF EMAIL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of modifying the appearance of email or creating or deleting a calendar event based on an external event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159426 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/327,240&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corp.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 15, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of controlling an electronic message system, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving at a messaging service in the electronic message system, an event signal relating to an event external to the messaging service, the event signal being received from an **external system** which is separate from the **messaging service**; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying one or more electronic messages within the electronic message system based on the **event signal** received and triggering a **dynamic update** to the identified electronic messages in response to receipt of the event signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing an external signal to an email service:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving an **event signal** (e.g. community response to a particular message, the location of one or more users, or a change in membership of a group.); and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Triggering a **dynamic update** (e.g. displaying in a different manner or the message being delivered or deleted, a calendar event being created or destroyed) in response to the **event signal**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming event signals such as: **CHANGING MEMBERSHIP IN A GROUP**,  and dynamic updates such as **CREATING/DELETING CALENDAR EVENT** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method of controlling an electronic message system from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/lvihZ.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159426?dq=US20130159426A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4218" RevisionGUID="c9852f0d-f8a0-4303-b57d-10b5979f586b" CreationDate="2013-07-29T09:55:06.580" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE ADVERTISING** - This application from [Facebook][6] seeks to patent the idea of... suggesting changes to your advertising campaign based on the performance of your current campaign! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Measuring the performance** of an initial online advertisement; AND &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Suggesting changes to **targeting criteria** an advertiser might use to increase its performance;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **click-through rate**, **conversion rate** or **brand lift rate** as a measurement of performance of the advertisement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Adjusting an Advertising Campaign**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of adjusting an online advertisement which uses click-through-rate, conversion rate, brand-lift rate or any other measurement of an initial advertisement to suggest new targeting criteria to the advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151332 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/316,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Facebook, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 10, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, at a **publishing system from an advertiser**, data for an **advertising campaign** comprising an initial ad and **targeting criteria** defining an initial **target group** for receiving the initial ad;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Providing the **initial ad** for display to a plurality of users in a plurality of segments of the initial target group;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining, by the publishing system, a value of an **advertising metric** for a first one of the plurality of segments based on the display of the initial ad to the users of the first segment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Based on the value of the advertising metric, determining by the publishing system **a suggestion** for the advertiser to modify the **targeting criteria** to **remove** the first segment from the targeting criteria to be used for the initial ad; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Sending the suggestion from the publishing system to the advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of suggesting adjustments to an advertising campaign, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving an initial advertisement and proposed targeting criteria from an advertiser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Displaying the initial advertisement to the target group using the targeting crtieria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Measuring something (anything!) about the performance of the initial advertisement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Suggesting that the advertiser modify the targeting criteria to narrow which members of the target group see the advertisement.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and using **click-through rate**, **conversion rate** or **brand lift rate** as a measurement of performance of the advertisement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Modifying ad campaign based on the performance of the ad&quot;** from Figures of Application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/MlviX.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151332?dq=US20130151332A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.facebook.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4086" RevisionGUID="c7041dd4-009a-4bfd-a7c2-50296ff4d0ab" CreationDate="2013-07-29T09:55:26.770" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **HELP SAVE MESH NETWORKING** —This application from Cisco seeks to patent a technique for authenticating devices seeking to join a mesh network. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was **published before July 6, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     A device **sending an authentication packet** to an authenticated device in the mesh network (through one or more hops); &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.     The authenticated device **encapsulating** the authentication packet in **Layer 3 packets** for transmission over an **Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel** to an authenticator device; OR&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.     The authenticated device **receiving an authentication packet** that is encapsulated in Layer 3 packets from the authenticator, **decapsulating** the authentication packet, and **transmitting** it over the mesh network to the device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT ---**&#xD;&#xA;        	A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the authentication message is sent as a **Layer 2** message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses the **IEEE 802.1X standard**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the packets are transmitted **wirelessly**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO encapsulates the packet in **Universal Datagram Protocol (UDP)** Packets OR **Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)** Packets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the authenticator device forwards a **group mesh key** to the device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: ADAPTING EXTENSIBLE AUTHENTICATION PROTOCOL FOR LAYER 3 MESH NETWORKS**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** [Translated from Legalish into English] A method and apparatus for authenticating devices in a mesh network by routing authentication packets through the mesh network, over an IP tunnel, and to an authenticator device.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;•	**Publication Number:** &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US20130014217&quot;&gt;US 20130014217 A1&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Assignee:** Cisco&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Prior Art Date:** July 6, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Open for Challenge at USPTO: open at least through &lt;i&gt;July 10, 2013&lt;/i&gt;**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     At an authenticated device in a network, receiving an authentication packet sent over the network from a device that is seeking authentication; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     Encapsulating the authentication packet for transmission in Layer 3 packets over an Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel to an authenticator device associated in the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     A mesh node that wants access to the network sends an authentication message (this message can be sent, for example, as a Layer 2 or Layer 3 message) over the network to an already authenticated mesh node; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.     The receiving mesh node encapsulates the message in Layer 3 packets and sends it to an authenticator over an Internet Protocol (IP) network connection.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 10** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     An authenticated device in a network, receiving an authentication packet that is encapsulated in Layer 3 packets from an authenticator device over an Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     Decapsulating the authentication packet from the Layer 3 packets and transmitting the authentication packet over the network to a device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     The authenticator sends an authentication message in Layer 3 packets over an IP network connection to an already authenticated mesh node; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.     The authenticated mesh node decapsulates the authentication message from the Layer 3 packets and sends the message back over the network to the node that requested access.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 13** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;An apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     A transceiver unit configured to transmit and receive signals over a network; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     A processor coupled to the transceiver unit, the processor configured to, for an authentication packet received from a device that is seeking authentication in the network, encapsulate the authentication packet for transmission in Layer 3 packets over an Internet protocol (IP) tunnel to an authenticator device associated in the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     A wireless device that can receive an authentication message from another device and encapsulate that message into Layer 3 packets to be sent to an authenticator over an IP network connection.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 20** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;One or more computer readable storage media encoded with software comprising computer executable instructions and when software is executed operable to:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     For an authentication packet received from a device that is seeking authentication in a network, encapsulate the authentication packet for transmission in layer 3 packets over an Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel to an authenticator device associated in the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     Any memory device that stores software instructions for a controller to encapsulate messages in Layer 3 packets to be sent to an authenticator over an IP network connection.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 24** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The computer readable storage media of claim 20, and further comprising instructions that are operable to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.     For an authentication packet encapsulated in Layer 3 packets received from the authenticator device over the IP tunnel, decapsulate the authentication packet from the Layer 3 packets and to control a transceiver unit to transmit the authentication packet to the device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     Any memory device that stores software instructions for a controller to decapsulate authentication messages from the Layer 3 packets and transmit them to the node seeking access to the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Separately,** the applicant is claiming a method where the authenticator transmits a **group mesh key** to the device seeking access, where the key is known only to authenticated devices, and where all packets not encrypted with the mesh key and not part of the authentication negotiation are **dropped** by nodes in the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;What is good prior art? Please see our &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post prior art you know about][3] on other questionable US patent applications.&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/851CF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/UVGON.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4538" RevisionGUID="2cc758f4-90e5-40c4-8a16-7b45592c3a6e" CreationDate="2013-07-29T09:55:47.600" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON PROMOTION WITH DIGITAL CONTENT** - This application from [eBay][6] seeks to patent the idea of... providing digital content to users to visit a physical store! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 21, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Offering **digital content** to a user as a promotion to visit a **physical store**; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Checks whether the user visits the **physical store** and then provides the **digital content** to the user?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves **providing free e-Books**, **loyalty programs**, or **requiring** user to purchase something at the store to get the digital content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: DIGITAL CONTENT PROVIDED TO A USER A PHYSICAL LOCATION**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of providing digital content to users as an incentive to get them to visit a physical store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130166369 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/333,170&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: eBay, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 21, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 27, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing a promotion to a user to do commerce at a physical location, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. offering a right to a particular piece of digital content to the user as an incentive to a commercial transaction that occurs at least partly at the physical location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. discerning that the user is located at the physical location; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. in response to the discerning, interacting with the user to provide the digital content to the user on a mobile device associated with the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing promotion to a user to buy something at a physical store, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Offering the **digital content** to the user an incentive to visit a physical store&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Recognizing the user is at the **physical store**; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing the digital content to the user on a mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming **providing free e-Books**, **loyalty programs**, or **requiring** user to purchase something at the store to get the digital content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Showing a user at a physical location receiving digital content&quot; from eBay**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/tJABr.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130166369&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ebay.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4621" RevisionGUID="bd1ee487-f936-4846-a234-53df4ed8c194" CreationDate="2013-07-29T11:47:31.707" UserId="3345" Text="US patent 6,188,756 (‘756) -- “Efficient communication through networks.” This patent describes routing a communication between a calling party and a called party through a central control location, selecting the “best” path based on a particular criterion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim for which is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of use of a communication network, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) receiving a calling party access number and a called party access&#xD;&#xA;&gt; number at a control location;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) determininng which service providers service connections between&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said calling party access number and said called party access number;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) comparing said service providers based on criteria;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (d) selecting appropriate ones of said service providers that satisfy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said criteria as a result of the step of comparing;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (e) instructing said selected service providers to provide service&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between said connections for establishing contact between said calling&#xD;&#xA;&gt; party access number and said called party access number;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (f) receiving a status signal at said control location indicating if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said called party access number is available for taking an incoming&#xD;&#xA;&gt; communication;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (g) if said status signal indicates an available status, initiating a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first communication from said control location to said called party&#xD;&#xA;&gt; access number and a second communication from said control location to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said calling party access number;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (h) bridging said first and second communications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you seen anything that was published before October 11th, 1994 that discusses claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][5]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][8] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10849" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4621" RevisionGUID="bd1ee487-f936-4846-a234-53df4ed8c194" CreationDate="2013-07-29T11:47:31.707" UserId="3345" Text="CALL FOR PRIOR ART: Efficient communication through networks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10850" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4621" RevisionGUID="bd1ee487-f936-4846-a234-53df4ed8c194" CreationDate="2013-07-29T11:47:31.707" UserId="3345" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;us6188756&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10851" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4621" RevisionGUID="4e2d78ca-8a51-4778-a674-3770eb67e989" CreationDate="2013-07-29T12:18:27.390" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Efficient communication through networks - Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4621" RevisionGUID="d93af79f-14d4-4b19-b54e-f034ec8cbfaa" CreationDate="2013-07-29T12:37:27.310" UserId="1767" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="US patent 6,188,756 (‘756) -- “Efficient communication through networks.” This patent describes routing a communication between a calling party and a called party through a central control location, selecting the “best” path based on a particular criterion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim for which is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of use of a communication network, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) receiving a calling party access number and a called party access&#xD;&#xA;&gt; number at a control location;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) determininng which service providers service connections between&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said calling party access number and said called party access number;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) comparing said service providers based on criteria;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (d) selecting appropriate ones of said service providers that satisfy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said criteria as a result of the step of comparing;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (e) instructing said selected service providers to provide service&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between said connections for establishing contact between said calling&#xD;&#xA;&gt; party access number and said called party access number;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (f) receiving a status signal at said control location indicating if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said called party access number is available for taking an incoming&#xD;&#xA;&gt; communication;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (g) if said status signal indicates an available status, initiating a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first communication from said control location to said called party&#xD;&#xA;&gt; access number and a second communication from said control location to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said calling party access number;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (h) bridging said first and second communications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you seen anything that was **published before October 11th, 1994** that discusses claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][5]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][8] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4622" RevisionGUID="62a52cff-721c-4151-86df-520cc2f28f75" CreationDate="2013-07-29T13:47:32.837" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON SOCIAL NETWORKING** - This application from [Renren (China)][6] seeks to patent the idea of...initiating social network services between two users based on contact information! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 20, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Initiating a “social networking service” between a first and second user based on the contact information of the second user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **PHYSICAL BUSINESS CARDS** to identify the 2nd user contact information (i.e. when you hand someone a business card at a conference), or social networking services such as a **FRIEND INVITING MESSAGE** or an **INVITATION TO AN EVENT** .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PROCESSING USER CONTACT INFORMATION**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for “processing user contact information” comprising: You provide contact information about another user and a server initiates a “social networking service” between you and that user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159435 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/607,532&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Renren, Inc. (China)&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 20, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for processing user contact information, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. obtaining, at a user equipment of a first user, contact information associated with a second user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. initiating a social networking service SNS operation between the first user and the second user based on the contact information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for connecting users in a social network:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. First user provides contact information about a second user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Initiating a “social networking service” (e.g. a friend request, event invitation, etc.) between the first user and the second user based on the contact information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 20, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using **PHYSICAL BUSINESS CARDS** to identify the 2nd user contact information (i.e. when you hand someone a business card at a conference)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Providing contents about conversation” from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/C6IBv.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159435?dq=US20130159435A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renren" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10854" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4622" RevisionGUID="62a52cff-721c-4151-86df-520cc2f28f75" CreationDate="2013-07-29T13:47:32.837" UserId="1767" Text="Social Networking - Processing User Contact Information (Renren) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10855" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4622" RevisionGUID="62a52cff-721c-4151-86df-520cc2f28f75" CreationDate="2013-07-29T13:47:32.837" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130159435&gt;&lt;social-networking&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10856" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4622" RevisionGUID="c5129839-cbdc-446d-9e99-fe9882d18c0b" CreationDate="2013-07-29T13:52:56.953" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130159435&gt;&lt;social-networking&gt;&lt;renren&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4623" RevisionGUID="76db9ca0-7bd1-4c15-853d-6e83a3799c32" CreationDate="2013-07-29T13:59:10.030" UserId="5274" Text="The Routing Informatino Protocol (RIP) [1] that is used to analyze a distribution network, cope with change and find the best routes seems close. The original specification [2] for the protocol itself is from 1988.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I suppose the Romans already chose the faster runners over the slower runners when delivering messages, which qualifies for half the points in the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routing_Information_Protocol  &#xD;&#xA;[2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1058" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4622" RevisionGUID="1483f70f-9731-4215-8878-61ebcc61581e" CreationDate="2013-07-29T14:49:57.910" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON SOCIAL NETWORKING** - This application from [Renren (China)][6] seeks to patent the idea of...initiating social network services between two users based on contact information! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 20, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Initiating a “social networking service” between a first and second user based on the contact information of the second user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **PHYSICAL BUSINESS CARDS** to identify the 2nd user contact information (i.e. when you hand someone a business card at a conference), or social networking services such as a **FRIEND INVITING MESSAGE** or an **INVITATION TO AN EVENT** .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PROCESSING USER CONTACT INFORMATION**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for “processing user contact information” comprising: You provide contact information about another user and a server initiates a “social networking service” between you and that user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159435 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/607,532&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Renren, Inc. (China)&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 20, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for processing user contact information, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. obtaining, at a user equipment of a first user, contact information associated with a second user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. initiating a social networking service SNS operation between the first user and the second user based on the contact information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for connecting users in a social network:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. First user provides contact information about a second user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Initiating a “social networking service” (e.g. a friend request, event invitation, etc.) between the first user and the second user based on the contact information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 20, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using **PHYSICAL BUSINESS CARDS** to identify the 2nd user contact information (i.e. when you hand someone a business card at a conference)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Processing User Contact Information” from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/C6IBv.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159435?dq=US20130159435A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renren" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4624" RevisionGUID="51d12c19-dbd9-4cb5-8e90-572ee52af498" CreationDate="2013-07-29T15:46:13.347" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON AUTOMOTIVE NETWORKING** - This application from [Lear Corporation][6] seeks to patent the idea of...a gateway from the Internet to a vehicle! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 15, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - embedding an **HTTP request** in a **[CAN][7] bus-compatible message** and transmitting the CAN bus-compatible message onto a CAN bus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO is compatible with **Ethernet** or communicates with a **Server**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: INTERNET TO VEHICLE GATEWAY AND CONTROL SYSTEM**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A which translates from HTTP to the standard vehicle bus: controller area network ([CAN bus][7]) and a controller on the vehicle which responds to the HTTP request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159435 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/712,293&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Lear Corporation &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 15, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A control system for a vehicle, the control system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a gateway controller configured to embed an HTTP request in a CAN bus-compatible message and transmit the CAN bus-compatible message onto a CAN bus; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a remote controller configured to receive the CAN bus-compatible message from the CAN bus, extract the HTTP request from the CAN bus-compatible message, and create an HTTP response to the HTTP request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A vehicle control system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A gateway from the Internet (HTTP) to a vehicle (CAN bus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A controller on the vehicle which receives CAN bus, extracts HTTP request and creates an HTTP response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 15, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using gateway which ALSO is compatible with **Ethernet** or communicates with a **Server**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Controllers communicate through a CAN bus in a vehicle and connected through a gateway controller with an Ethernet network” from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/mXpEO.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;300&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159435?dq=US20130159435A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.lear.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN_bus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10860" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4624" RevisionGUID="51d12c19-dbd9-4cb5-8e90-572ee52af498" CreationDate="2013-07-29T15:46:13.347" UserId="1767" Text="Vehicle Networking - CAN bus to HTTP Gateway (Lear) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10861" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4624" RevisionGUID="51d12c19-dbd9-4cb5-8e90-572ee52af498" CreationDate="2013-07-29T15:46:13.347" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;data-processing-vehicles&gt;&lt;us201301595861a1&gt;&lt;lear&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4622" RevisionGUID="0fdb6b1c-451a-484c-a09f-e70a3dd0c286" CreationDate="2013-07-29T15:48:22.980" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON SOCIAL NETWORKING** - This application from [Renren (China)][6] seeks to patent the idea of...initiating social network services between two users based on contact information! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 20, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Initiating a “social networking service” between a first and second user based on the contact information of the second user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **PHYSICAL BUSINESS CARDS** to identify the 2nd user contact information (i.e. when you hand someone a business card at a conference), or social networking services such as a **FRIEND INVITING MESSAGE** or an **INVITATION TO AN EVENT** .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PROCESSING USER CONTACT INFORMATION**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for “processing user contact information” comprising: You provide contact information about another user and a server initiates a “social networking service” between you and that user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159435 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/607,532&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Renren, Inc. (China)&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 20, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for processing user contact information, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. obtaining, at a user equipment of a first user, contact information associated with a second user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. initiating a social networking service SNS operation between the first user and the second user based on the contact information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for connecting users in a social network:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. First user provides contact information about a second user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Initiating a “social networking service” (e.g. a friend request, event invitation, etc.) between the first user and the second user based on the contact information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 20, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using **PHYSICAL BUSINESS CARDS** to identify the 2nd user contact information (i.e. when you hand someone a business card at a conference)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Processing User Contact Information” from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/C6IBv.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159435?dq=US20130159435A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renren" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4624" RevisionGUID="83631df4-5a10-4dd8-a69c-d471a63db97d" CreationDate="2013-07-29T16:02:06.477" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON IN-FLIGHT/IN-CAR NETWORKING** - This application from [Lear Corporation][6] seeks to patent the idea of...a gateway from the Internet to a vehicle! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 15, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - embedding an **HTTP request** in a **[CAN][7] bus-compatible message** and transmitting the CAN bus-compatible message onto a CAN bus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO is compatible with **Ethernet** or communicates with a **Server**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: INTERNET TO VEHICLE GATEWAY AND CONTROL SYSTEM**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A which translates from HTTP to the standard vehicle bus: controller area network ([CAN bus][7]) and a controller on the vehicle which responds to the HTTP request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159435 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/712,293&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Lear Corporation &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 15, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A control system for a vehicle, the control system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a gateway controller configured to embed an HTTP request in a CAN bus-compatible message and transmit the CAN bus-compatible message onto a CAN bus; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a remote controller configured to receive the CAN bus-compatible message from the CAN bus, extract the HTTP request from the CAN bus-compatible message, and create an HTTP response to the HTTP request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A vehicle control system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A gateway from the Internet (HTTP) to a vehicle (CAN bus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A controller on the vehicle which receives CAN bus, extracts HTTP request and creates an HTTP response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 15, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using gateway which ALSO is compatible with **Ethernet** or communicates with a **Server**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Controllers communicate through a CAN bus in a vehicle and connected through a gateway controller with an Ethernet network” from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/mXpEO.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;300&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159435?dq=US20130159435A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.lear.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN_bus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10864" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4624" RevisionGUID="83631df4-5a10-4dd8-a69c-d471a63db97d" CreationDate="2013-07-29T16:02:06.477" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Vehicle Networking - HTTP to CAN Bus Gateway (Lear) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4625" RevisionGUID="6aba0b54-8da1-4048-b5bf-d4b08b02d060" CreationDate="2013-07-29T19:11:55.467" UserId="5044" Text=" 1. In 2002 the following paper (A publisher/subscriber architecture supporting interoperability of the CAN bus and the internet) was published:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Paper/2055842&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The paper specifically describes a CAN bus, a gateway, and the internet &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. There is also a 2009 paper (Bringing Best Practices from Web Development Into the Vehicle):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/5787722/bringing-best-practices-from-web-development-into-the-vehicle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This describes an http wrapper around the CAN bus so http messages can be sent to the vehicle, translated down then issued to (for example) the ecu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4626" RevisionGUID="1c946f9e-79f4-4989-a5db-8d471b323202" CreationDate="2013-07-29T20:02:47.800" UserId="5284" Text="NEPOMUK, From 2006-01-01 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Networked environment for personal ontology-based management of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unified knowledge&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NEPOMUK is designed to search files, calendar, contacts, messages, ID3 tags from MP3's (music meta data), and EXIF-data from graphic images (photos).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/79390_en.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also: http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ontologies/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the file specification part at http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ontologies/nfo/:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; NEPOMUK File Ontology (NFO) intends to provide vocabulary to express&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information extracted from various sources. They include files, pieces&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of sotware and remote hosts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since 4.9.1, the KDE project uses Heuristics in their NEPOMUK implementation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/kdelibs/nepomuk-core/repository/revisions/ead226c9571a15da8d7a92810f5c4afd35bf9de8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the next book also mentions NEPOMUK and its use of heuristics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=7&amp;cad=rja&amp;ved=0CGcQFjAG&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Fcontent%2Fpdf%2F10.1007%252F978-3-642-02121-3_66&amp;ei=jcn2UYj9M8SlPdPIgdgC&amp;usg=AFQjCNF_bFbfmgwMjO7TkCbrxcDV5LuOnQ&amp;bvm=bv.49784469,d.ZWU&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least, some of the researches listed on the EU-page can tell all about prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4627" RevisionGUID="9ac788be-7596-45b9-897b-bb3f73dd8a3b" CreationDate="2013-07-29T20:30:51.560" UserDisplayName="user5285" Text="Technician Ted (1984) had a loading screen with animated characters walking around, and a progress meter. Here's a video:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb8t9eUL8iU&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not that this may matter (IANAL, but...); the key &quot;differentiating&quot; feature of this patent appears to be the color-matched icon which is carried around the world. Although we can knock out entire classes of &quot;loading screen patents&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example would be Joe Blade 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QrK1uH75zk (1988) which let you play a pacman game while loading from tape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Namco also owns one on playing Galaga while loading).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4628" RevisionGUID="16f5ed85-6b83-463b-90c7-846720dad74b" CreationDate="2013-07-29T20:47:48.653" UserId="5274" Text="Both Parship.de and okCupid.com have you fill out a complex survey about yourself including contact information, but also much more on a semi-optional basis, and then use statistics to figure out who is your best match, and you then have the option of contacting the suggested participants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are obviously dating sites (which is a subset of social networking), and quite successful at that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Parship has been launched in 2001, okcupid in 2004 according to Wikipedia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, Facebook does this too: It suggests people according to their contact information. If you put in your school info, it will offer other people who went to school there. While I can't put a solid date on that feature, it's been around since nearly the very beginning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3682" RevisionGUID="07337d2b-4118-4827-bff1-5b4fc7ea1c55" CreationDate="2013-07-29T21:39:25.003" UserId="1767" Comment="added 30 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="**Information**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **App Number**: 13/297,604&#xD;&#xA; - **Publication Number**: [US 20120120094 A1][1] - Patent Allowed May 15, 2013&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: Nintendo Co., Ltd.&#xD;&#xA; - **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: predating November 17, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: A confetti-like download progress animation, wherein the color(s) of the confetti pieces are based on the colors of the image or portion of the loading/downloading image.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** recites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a reception&#xD;&#xA;&gt; status display program executed by a computer of an information&#xD;&#xA;&gt; processing apparatus for displaying a reception status of a series of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data transmitted thereto, the computer-readable storage medium having&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stored therein the reception status display program causing the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computer to function as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a reception section configured to receive the series of data&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transmitted thereto;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a corresponding image display section configured to display, in a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stepwise manner, a corresponding image, which is an image&#xD;&#xA;&gt; corresponding to the series of data, in a predetermined region in a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; screen, in accordance with a progression of reception of the series of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an object moving section configured to continuously generate, **outside**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the predetermined region, movement objects &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - (1) each having a color&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selected from component colors of the corresponding image and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - (2) move&#xD;&#xA;&gt; each movement object toward the predetermined region, during the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reception of the series of data by the reception section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample Figures**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS**: This download progress animation builds on the normal download progress bars seen in virtually all operating systems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***QUESTION***: Have you seen anything that was published before November 17, 2010 that describes claim 1, especially the features of the object moving section?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][5] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][6] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120120094?pg=PA6&amp;dq=20120120094&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=cExsUZHbGLOG0QGRz4HQBA&amp;ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/R6Y5F.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/S5CjV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10870" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3682" RevisionGUID="07337d2b-4118-4827-bff1-5b4fc7ea1c55" CreationDate="2013-07-29T21:39:25.003" UserId="1767" Comment="added 30 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Download progress animation (Nintendo) - Allowed Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10871" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3682" RevisionGUID="07337d2b-4118-4827-bff1-5b4fc7ea1c55" CreationDate="2013-07-29T21:39:25.003" UserId="1767" Comment="added 30 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;animation&gt;&lt;us20120120094&gt;&lt;nintendo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4629" RevisionGUID="f1b7bcb1-829e-4d03-9b4f-148564d7d633" CreationDate="2013-07-29T23:09:18.763" UserId="5287" Text="Facebook's &quot;People you may know&quot; - 2008" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4632" RevisionGUID="d8e63c94-0adc-4bc4-8f61-07e66366de54" CreationDate="2013-07-30T03:59:21.807" UserId="5055" Text="Patents are state-granted monopolies for a limited time in exchange for providing the community (public domain) all elements allowing it to reproduce the invention (especially after the monopoly lapses).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This principle has three consequences that makes building *at least* a prototype **desirable** before filing a formal patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- in most international patent laws, patents must satistify the [**industrial applicability**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_applicability) requirement. If something is wrong in your description and just wouldn't work, the patent could be denied. In US patent law, there is the more or less equivalent principle of [**utility**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_(patent)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the description must be concrete and detailed enough to allow skilled in the art to reproduce the invention. This is the [**sufficiency of disclosure**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufficiency_of_disclosure) principle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- part of the game of patents is to obtain a monopoly as large as possible with broad claims. Building your prototype will help you realize the exact perimeter of the difficulties (the technical problem your invention solves) as well as possible other ways to solve them. It is important to cover those as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Timing** might drive you to skip the actual implementation of the invention. Yet several mechanisms exist to handle this including provisional applications in the US. Also, typically, since an invention can be improved while being patented (as the inventor is exploiting a working implementation), mechanisms exist to cover these improvements (divisional applications). The golden rule of timing is to not publically disclose how the invention works before filing (there are national variants here including in the US). Yet if a demo reveals too much, it might means the invention lacks an inventive step. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent agents and attorneys are specialized in finding the proper minimal disclosure and the proper balance between vague conceptualization and implementation. Cf [George White](http://patents.stackexchange.com/users/3076/george-white)'s warning about &quot;proposing an idea&quot; in his reply.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4633" RevisionGUID="d8ea9541-22dc-4b0a-9a33-9e0318732be5" CreationDate="2013-07-30T09:50:35.697" UserId="5300" Text="This all sounds awfully familiar to *inverse reinforcement learning*, where the (technical) goal is to construct a reward function from observations of how a user responds to incoming data. This reward function can then be used (with ordinary reinforcement learning or dynamic programming) to make predictions about what the actions of new user would be. See, e.g., [Ng &amp; Russell, (2000)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ai.stanford.edu/~ang/papers/icml00-irl.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4621" RevisionGUID="8efc9426-f893-4508-9509-5631e3bb6db7" CreationDate="2013-07-30T16:04:55.697" UserId="3345" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="US patent 6,188,756 (‘756) -- “Efficient communication through networks.” This patent describes routing a communication between a calling party and a called party through a central control location, selecting the “best” path based on a particular criterion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim for which is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of use of a communication network, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) receiving a calling party access number and a called party access&#xD;&#xA;&gt; number at a control location;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) determininng which service providers service connections between&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said calling party access number and said called party access number;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) comparing said service providers based on criteria;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (d) selecting appropriate ones of said service providers that satisfy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said criteria as a result of the step of comparing;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (e) instructing said selected service providers to provide service&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between said connections for establishing contact between said calling&#xD;&#xA;&gt; party access number and said called party access number;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (f) **receiving a status signal at said control location indicating if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said called party access number is available for taking an incoming&#xD;&#xA;&gt; communication;**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (g) if said status signal indicates an available status, initiating a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first communication from said control location to said called party&#xD;&#xA;&gt; access number and a second communication from said control location to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said calling party access number;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (h) bridging said first and second communications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you seen anything that was **published before October 11th, 1994** that discusses claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][5]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][8] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4634" RevisionGUID="d587f267-ac8e-437a-8fdc-ddac30eae26e" CreationDate="2013-07-30T17:33:00.993" UserId="4519" Text="Re: specifically the business card claim, it appears that scanR had a business card scanning system that interacted with Plaxo in 2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://blog.scanr.com/scanr_blog/2006/08/scanr_and_plaxo.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would establish a system where:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Person A receives a business card from Person B &#xD;&#xA; 2. Person A scans the business card using the scanR service &#xD;&#xA; 3. The scanR service automatically synchronizes with Plaxo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm unsure if Plaxo satisfies Claim 1's definition of social networking. Plaxo has operated its service under several different models. However, if it does, then the scanR + Plaxo system would (a) share the same mechanism and (b) solve the same problem as Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4635" RevisionGUID="3f0061c7-55d4-4da0-bcb0-62415c1e1972" CreationDate="2013-07-30T19:08:31.333" UserId="5314" Text="If I create &quot;awesome swiss knife widget v1&quot; then I own the copyright to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If another company starts manufacturing it, they are infringing on my copyright and I can stop them from making it or come to a settlement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, why should I spend all that time and money and apply for a patent to protect my creation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am only talking about tangible items like hardware.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10886" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4635" RevisionGUID="3f0061c7-55d4-4da0-bcb0-62415c1e1972" CreationDate="2013-07-30T19:08:31.333" UserId="5314" Text="copyright vs patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10887" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4635" RevisionGUID="3f0061c7-55d4-4da0-bcb0-62415c1e1972" CreationDate="2013-07-30T19:08:31.333" UserId="5314" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4636" RevisionGUID="c02187f8-92a4-4c4f-ab38-ebc534e87227" CreationDate="2013-07-30T19:16:44.243" UserId="5314" Text="There are some patents out there that are very basic and most trivial. Can I patent and/or manufacture a product that builds on a patented product (I don't own the &quot;basic&quot; patent)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, there are a lot of patented power supply strips that turn off devices based on a &quot;master&quot; device's power draw (your computer peripherals switch off if the &quot;master&quot; computer goes into standby).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to build &quot;smart remote&quot; power supply strips that not only does the above **but also** can be configured over WiFi and household remote control (so that you can turn your power-hungry fax machine on/off remotely or while watching TV)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I build my version of &quot;smart remote&quot; power supply strips am I infringing on the existing patented power supply strips?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10889" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4636" RevisionGUID="c02187f8-92a4-4c4f-ab38-ebc534e87227" CreationDate="2013-07-30T19:16:44.243" UserId="5314" Text="Releasing modified versions of pateneted products" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10890" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4636" RevisionGUID="c02187f8-92a4-4c4f-ab38-ebc534e87227" CreationDate="2013-07-30T19:16:44.243" UserId="5314" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4637" RevisionGUID="703d1c07-3411-4e5e-b667-d12a48e918bf" CreationDate="2013-07-30T19:49:05.890" UserId="5315" Text="**Title: System and method for computer-aided technician dispatch and communication**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Patent No.: 6,990,458&#xD;&#xA; - Assignee: CSG Systems, Inc.&#xD;&#xA; - Prior art cutoff: Prior art predating Aug 28, 1997&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** Patent number 6,990,458 claims software for assigning technicians to jobs based on factors including technician skill and the skill required by each job. The claimed method displays the status of assigned jobs, along with an indication of whether any jobs remain unassigned. Dependent claims add elements such as displaying job locations and technician locations on a map, and using a numerical factor to quantify the skill required by a job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 7:** A method for handling a plurality of unassigned service requests, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - receiving the plurality of service requests which are upon receipt are unassigned;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - using programming for the purpose of assigning to each of the plurality of unassigned service requests one or more of a plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technicians as a function of &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - at least **a skill level of each of the plurality of technicians**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - **considering a skill level required** by each of the plurality of unassigned service requests,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - considering prior service requests assigned to each of the plurality of technicians via the programming, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - and an amount of time to complete each of the plurality of unassigned service requests;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - **displaying an indication if one or more of the plurality of unassigned service requests remain unassigned** as a result of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; processing performed via the programming;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - **and displaying an indication of a status of one or more service requests** that have been assigned to at least one technician via the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; programming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bonus--Dependent Claims 8-10:** Claims 8-10 add the elements of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Displaying the location of assigned jobs on a map;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Representing the job difficulty using a &quot;points&quot; score;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Displaying the location of the technicians on a map.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Request:** Do you know of any prior art systems or references from **before 8/28/97** that satisfy the skill and display elements? How about the &quot;bonus&quot; claims involving using a map as part of the display, or numerically scoring the difficulty of a job?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10892" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4637" RevisionGUID="703d1c07-3411-4e5e-b667-d12a48e918bf" CreationDate="2013-07-30T19:49:05.890" UserId="5315" Text="PRIOR ART REQUEST: Software for assigning technicians to jobs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10893" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4637" RevisionGUID="703d1c07-3411-4e5e-b667-d12a48e918bf" CreationDate="2013-07-30T19:49:05.890" UserId="5315" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;us6990458&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4638" RevisionGUID="f240aefb-1d67-4ab2-9428-082f5a302cbd" CreationDate="2013-07-30T20:12:20.380" UserId="3076" Text="Copyrights protect &quot;expressions&quot;, not ideas. Your data sheet can be copyright protected, and your user manual, your photos and videos of your great thing also. The name could be protected by trademark. If someone makes the same knife and called it something else and writes there own ads and takes their own pictures you have no protection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4639" RevisionGUID="61a0b341-02c9-4bf5-9124-ee71ab2dd346" CreationDate="2013-07-30T20:18:33.637" UserId="3076" Text="Getting a patent issued on your improved widget doesn't affect the rights of someone who has a patent on the basic widget. So yes, you may very well infringe something if this is an area thick with granted, in-force patents.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4635" RevisionGUID="63605393-ffd3-4e12-ab82-aba0e7e04abb" CreationDate="2013-07-30T20:27:51.917" UserId="1767" Comment="added 92 characters in body; edited title" Text="Assume I create a &quot;Swiss knife widget v1.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I own a &quot;copyright&quot; on the widget?  What does a copyright protect?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming I do have a copyright on the widget, if another company copies my widget exactly and starts manufacturing it, can I stop them from making it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, do I also need to apply for a a patent to protect my creation?  What is the difference between a copyright and a patent in the US?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am only talking about tangible items like hardware.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10897" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4635" RevisionGUID="63605393-ffd3-4e12-ab82-aba0e7e04abb" CreationDate="2013-07-30T20:27:51.917" UserId="1767" Comment="added 92 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the difference between a US copyright and US patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4636" RevisionGUID="39bc866a-1e76-4355-b73a-ea4238f79ce9" CreationDate="2013-07-30T20:29:51.403" UserId="1767" Comment="added 20 characters in body; edited title" Text="Assume there are some patents out there that seem to be fundamental and almost trivial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I patent and/or manufacture a product that builds on a patented product (I don't own the &quot;basic&quot; patent)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, there are a lot of patented power supply strips that turn off devices based on a &quot;master&quot; device's power draw (your computer peripherals switch off if the &quot;master&quot; computer goes into standby).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to build &quot;smart remote&quot; power supply strips that not only does the above **but also** can be configured over WiFi and household remote control (so that you can turn your power-hungry fax machine on/off remotely or while watching TV)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I build my version of &quot;smart remote&quot; power supply strips am I infringing on the existing patented power supply strips?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10899" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4636" RevisionGUID="39bc866a-1e76-4355-b73a-ea4238f79ce9" CreationDate="2013-07-30T20:29:51.403" UserId="1767" Comment="added 20 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can I release a modified version of a patented product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4637" RevisionGUID="dc27e1cd-f92e-4e35-933b-4979bebfbdb6" CreationDate="2013-07-30T20:32:11.613" UserId="1767" Comment="Minor formatting changes. Nice job writing up the prior art request @user5135!" Text="**Title: System and method for computer-aided technician dispatch and communication**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Patent No.: 6,990,458&#xD;&#xA; - Assignee: CSG Systems, Inc.&#xD;&#xA; - Prior art cutoff: Prior art predating **Aug 28, 1997**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** Patent number 6,990,458 claims software for assigning technicians to jobs based on factors including technician skill and the skill required by each job. The claimed method displays the status of assigned jobs, along with an indication of whether any jobs remain unassigned. Dependent claims add elements such as displaying job locations and technician locations on a map, and using a numerical factor to quantify the skill required by a job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 7:** A method for handling a plurality of unassigned service requests, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - receiving the plurality of service requests which are upon receipt are unassigned;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - using programming for the purpose of assigning to each of the plurality of unassigned service requests one or more of a plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technicians as a function of &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - at least **a skill level of each of the plurality of technicians**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - **considering a skill level required** by each of the plurality of unassigned service requests,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - considering prior service requests assigned to each of the plurality of technicians via the programming, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - and an amount of time to complete each of the plurality of unassigned service requests;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - **displaying an indication if one or more of the plurality of unassigned service requests remain unassigned** as a result of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; processing performed via the programming;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - **and displaying an indication of a status of one or more service requests** that have been assigned to at least one technician via the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; programming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bonus--Dependent Claims 8-10:** Claims 8-10 add the elements of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Displaying the location of assigned jobs on a map;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Representing the job difficulty using a &quot;points&quot; score;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Displaying the location of the technicians on a map.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Request:** Do you know of any prior art systems or references from **before 8/28/97** that satisfy the skill and display elements? How about the &quot;bonus&quot; claims involving using a map as part of the display, or numerically scoring the difficulty of a job?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10901" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4637" RevisionGUID="dc27e1cd-f92e-4e35-933b-4979bebfbdb6" CreationDate="2013-07-30T20:32:11.613" UserId="1767" Comment="Minor formatting changes. Nice job writing up the prior art request @user5135!" Text="Software for assigning technicians to jobs - Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4640" RevisionGUID="0a47e789-2e4e-4a2d-98bd-7680eca9dfad" CreationDate="2013-07-30T20:48:11.687" UserId="5317" Text="Patent US8144070 protects the IP concerning the portable Yagi-Uda antenna product called SuperAntenna Model YP-3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is this product has been in production, public disclosure, at least one full year before the priority date and well before any application date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doesn't this make the product it's own Prior Art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10903" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4640" RevisionGUID="0a47e789-2e4e-4a2d-98bd-7680eca9dfad" CreationDate="2013-07-30T20:48:11.687" UserId="5317" Text="Production of patented product predates the product's patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10904" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4640" RevisionGUID="0a47e789-2e4e-4a2d-98bd-7680eca9dfad" CreationDate="2013-07-30T20:48:11.687" UserId="5317" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;priority&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4637" RevisionGUID="1c2db13c-4f05-4a18-b7c1-9ec0c0dc9140" CreationDate="2013-07-30T20:59:26.947" UserId="5315" Comment="edited body" Text="**Title: System and method for computer-aided technician dispatch and communication**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Patent No.: 6,990,458&#xD;&#xA; - Assignee: CSG Systems, Inc.&#xD;&#xA; - Prior art cutoff: Prior art predating **Aug 28, 1996**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** Patent number 6,990,458 claims software for assigning technicians to jobs based on factors including technician skill and the skill required by each job. The claimed method displays the status of assigned jobs, along with an indication of whether any jobs remain unassigned. Dependent claims add elements such as displaying job locations and technician locations on a map, and using a numerical factor to quantify the skill required by a job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 7:** A method for handling a plurality of unassigned service requests, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - receiving the plurality of service requests which are upon receipt are unassigned;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - using programming for the purpose of assigning to each of the plurality of unassigned service requests one or more of a plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technicians as a function of &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - at least **a skill level of each of the plurality of technicians**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - **considering a skill level required** by each of the plurality of unassigned service requests,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - considering prior service requests assigned to each of the plurality of technicians via the programming, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - and an amount of time to complete each of the plurality of unassigned service requests;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - **displaying an indication if one or more of the plurality of unassigned service requests remain unassigned** as a result of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; processing performed via the programming;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - **and displaying an indication of a status of one or more service requests** that have been assigned to at least one technician via the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; programming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bonus--Dependent Claims 8-10:** Claims 8-10 add the elements of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Displaying the location of assigned jobs on a map;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Representing the job difficulty using a &quot;points&quot; score;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Displaying the location of the technicians on a map.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Request:** Do you know of any prior art systems or references from **before 8/28/96** that satisfy the skill and display elements? How about the &quot;bonus&quot; claims involving using a map as part of the display, or numerically scoring the difficulty of a job?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10906" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4640" RevisionGUID="9b2edeee-cb4b-47d6-b778-871b56db788b" CreationDate="2013-07-30T21:36:22.743" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;us8144070&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4638" RevisionGUID="0bf471de-291f-47a5-a76b-d6e03b36abd6" CreationDate="2013-07-30T21:53:20.020" UserId="3076" Comment="added 302 characters in body" Text="Copyrights protect &quot;expressions&quot;, not ideas. Your data sheet can be copyright protected, and your user manual, your photos and videos of your great thing also. The name could be protected by trademark. If someone makes the same knife and called it something else and writes there own ads and takes their own pictures you have no protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not all works of &quot;authorship&quot; are copyrightable subject matter. Is the knife a statue ?&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a form of patent called a design patent that does cover the &quot;look&quot; of an article of manufacture. It has to be a novel and non obvious look.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/YEboQ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4641" RevisionGUID="a3c3535c-e1f3-4c79-8258-4d5e516be123" CreationDate="2013-07-30T23:17:59.190" UserId="5320" Text="Regarding bonus claim 8, &#xD;&#xA;http://www.tieonline.com/job_ads_list.cfm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shows the location of jobs on a map that are available for teaching at different grade levels (Elementary, Grade 1-3, High School, etc).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that isn't precisely the same, the leap from available jobs on a map to assigned jobs seems pretty obvious." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4642" RevisionGUID="be96ebbc-6408-4b1d-b299-b806bf8a7c3c" CreationDate="2013-07-30T23:29:13.873" UserId="4485" Text="This sounds like a TokenRing - Ethernet bridge. I used to buy them from Nortel in 1995ish, though I imagine they we some years older&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Bridging is a method of communicating between devices at OSI layer&#xD;&#xA;2, the data link layer. A bridge connects two networks together and&#xD;&#xA;acts as a traffic director. If traffic is destined to the other&#xD;&#xA;network, the bridge allows the traffic to pass. If the traffic is&#xD;&#xA;local to a single network, the bridge does not pass the traffic&#xD;&#xA;unnecessarily to the other connected network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The bridge makes this determination based on the Media Access&#xD;&#xA;Control (MAC) address of the workstations on the network. The bridge&#xD;&#xA;keeps an updated list of everyone active on the network, and uses&#xD;&#xA;this list to direct traffic from one network to another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Read more: http://stason.org/TULARC/networking/lans-token-ring/3-2-What-is-used-to-convert-between-Ethernet-and-Token-Ring.html#.UfhLe2RUr4A#ixzz2aZgL4GiA&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10910" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4642" RevisionGUID="de865750-0aa5-4723-8e6d-7b9a3d37ac8f" CreationDate="2013-07-30T23:41:04.980" UserId="4485" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="This sounds like a TokenRing - Ethernet bridge. I used to buy them from Nortel in 1995ish, though I imagine they were some years older.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Bridging is a method of communicating between devices at OSI layer&#xD;&#xA;2, the data link layer. A bridge connects two networks together and&#xD;&#xA;acts as a traffic director. If traffic is destined to the other&#xD;&#xA;network, the bridge allows the traffic to pass. If the traffic is&#xD;&#xA;local to a single network, the bridge does not pass the traffic&#xD;&#xA;unnecessarily to the other connected network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The bridge makes this determination based on the Media Access&#xD;&#xA;Control (MAC) address of the workstations on the network. The bridge&#xD;&#xA;keeps an updated list of everyone active on the network, and uses&#xD;&#xA;this list to direct traffic from one network to another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Read more: http://stason.org/TULARC/networking/lans-token-ring/3-2-What-is-used-to-convert-between-Ethernet-and-Token-Ring.html#.UfhLe2RUr4A#ixzz2aZgL4GiA&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4643" RevisionGUID="a39e40c5-5bcb-4152-b53d-fc5640ce633f" CreationDate="2013-07-30T23:58:11.047" UserId="4485" Text="Remedy was created in 1992. BMC bought them in 2002. As far as I know, this is exactly the focus of that tool since it was created. I didn't actually use it then, so I can not say for sure that the tool did all of these things in 1996.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMC_Remedy_Action_Request_System&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, Supportworks is listed in Wikipedia as released in 1994. I am not familiar with this tool, but it is in the class of tools which did this sort of thing (which was not something new in 1996)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supportworks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4644" RevisionGUID="25df2780-90be-4f8a-84e7-b220ce29e8d8" CreationDate="2013-07-31T00:04:54.463" UserId="4485" Text="[Facebook Expands Its Reach with Address Book Import](http://mashable.com/2010/06/09/facebook-email-contacts/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This feature did make quite a few headlines at the time do to it's security implications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, as @davidhfe points out, business card scanners / OCR has been available for quite some time, usually paired with a digital address book of some sort (Outlook)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4644" RevisionGUID="c2176a6f-0aae-4ea2-be79-9e88bed25a6a" CreationDate="2013-07-31T00:13:02.587" UserId="4485" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="[Facebook Expands Its Reach with Address Book Import (2010-06-09)](http://mashable.com/2010/06/09/facebook-email-contacts/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This feature did make quite a few headlines at the time do to it's security implications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, as @davidhfe points out, business card scanners / OCR has been available for quite some time, usually paired with a digital address book of some sort (Outlook)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4645" RevisionGUID="6984c6be-f94f-4639-9505-0d99fadd6671" CreationDate="2013-07-31T00:34:15.260" UserId="4485" Text="This also sounds like what is called [&quot;Automated Callback&quot; in Federal Standard 1037C](http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/fs-1037c.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Date of Publication: August 7, 1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's too late, but I bet the NTIA didn't invent the idea. They don't cite any references :(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;automatic callback: A service feature that permits a user, when encountering a busy condition, to instruct the system to retain the called and calling numbers and to establish the call when there is an available line. Note 1: Automatic callback may be implemented in the terminal, in the switching system, or shared between them. Note 2: Automatic callback is not the same as camp-on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Wikipedia page for Automated Callback](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_callback) lists several systems which implemented the feature, but no dates or citations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4645" RevisionGUID="61f23389-95f0-4828-8c06-2bb30e47fb41" CreationDate="2013-07-31T00:46:50.627" UserId="4485" Comment="added 152 characters in body" Text="This also sounds like what is called [&quot;Automated Callback&quot; in Federal Standard 1037C](http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/fs-1037c.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Date of Publication: August 7, 1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's too late, but I bet the NTIA didn't invent the idea. They don't cite any references :(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;automatic callback: A service feature that permits a user, when encountering a busy condition, to instruct the system to retain the called and calling numbers and to establish the call when there is an available line. Note 1: Automatic callback may be implemented in the terminal, in the switching system, or shared between them. Note 2: Automatic callback is not the same as camp-on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Wikipedia page for Automated Callback](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_callback) lists several systems which implemented the feature, but no dates or citations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;edit: this assumes the automatic callback feature is implemented in the PBX which then satisfies the other parts of the claim regarding provider routing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4646" RevisionGUID="32f7c9ec-9eaf-4909-ad5d-39e7388bbff5" CreationDate="2013-07-31T02:55:34.643" UserId="3076" Text="A product being made and sold by the inventor/applicant more than a year before the earliest filing is definitely good prior art to a patent claiming features of the product. In this particular case can you post a answer to your own question providing a copy of a document or link that shows it being on sale before May of 2009?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4647" RevisionGUID="10463bab-4fcb-4852-8bc8-af352d31f026" CreationDate="2013-07-31T04:41:26.550" UserId="5275" Text="&gt; Nokia launches online NFC store&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; By Heather McLean Email Heather McLean | July 22nd, 2011 A new online&#xD;&#xA;&gt; service is designed to make it easy for businesses to begin using NFC&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by providing smart posters and business cards that enable customers to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'like' a retailer on Facebook, follow it on Twitter and check in on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Foursquare as well as a range of other tag reading solutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[NFC World][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nfcworld.com/2011/07/22/38729/nokia-launches-online-nfc-store/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4648" RevisionGUID="14ba997e-758e-4679-9c1e-92b29fc0fa89" CreationDate="2013-07-31T05:32:01.680" UserId="4919" Text="CA-NETMAN which was in wide use prior to the cutoff date had implemented many if not all of these features in their software as shown in claim 7.  It was run on IBM mainframes with MVS.  There is scant prior art on the net today regarding the help desk software state at this time, but I found a good literature search section from an US Army review of help desk systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a268157.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CA-NETMAN is available today in a current version, but CA might help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ca.com/us/products/detail/ca-netman.aspx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ftp://mf.cai.com/pub/netman/mvs/r49/pibs/GI67398.TXT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4624" RevisionGUID="a667c926-fede-4393-b44b-7ab7d326ebd4" CreationDate="2013-07-31T09:53:16.813" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON IN-FLIGHT/IN-CAR NETWORKING** - This application from [Lear Corporation][6] seeks to patent the idea of...a gateway from the Internet to a vehicle! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 15, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - embedding an **HTTP request** in a **[CAN][7] bus-compatible message** and transmitting the CAN bus-compatible message onto a CAN bus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO is compatible with **Ethernet** or communicates with a **Server**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: INTERNET TO VEHICLE GATEWAY AND CONTROL SYSTEM**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A which translates from HTTP to the standard vehicle bus: controller area network ([CAN bus][7]) and a controller on the vehicle which responds to the HTTP request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159435 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/712,293&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Lear Corporation &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 15, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A control system for a vehicle, the control system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a gateway controller configured to embed an HTTP request in a CAN bus-compatible message and transmit the CAN bus-compatible message onto a CAN bus; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a remote controller configured to receive the CAN bus-compatible message from the CAN bus, extract the HTTP request from the CAN bus-compatible message, and create an HTTP response to the HTTP request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A vehicle control system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A gateway from the Internet (HTTP) to a vehicle (CAN bus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A controller on the vehicle which receives CAN bus, extracts HTTP request and creates an HTTP response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 15, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using gateway which ALSO is compatible with **Ethernet** or communicates with a **Server**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Controllers communicate through a CAN bus in a vehicle and connected through a gateway controller with an Ethernet network” from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/mXpEO.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;300&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159435?dq=US20130159435A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.lear.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN_bus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4580" RevisionGUID="c5f4c09d-5900-42fa-b4cc-f783089a3683" CreationDate="2013-07-31T09:57:23.560" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON PREDICTING ADVERTISER KEYWORD PERFORMANCE** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...predicting keyword performance for an advertiser by how the keyword has performed for similar advertisers! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 27, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of predicting **KEYWORD PERFORMANCE** for an advertiser who has not previously bid on the keyword; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying **SIMILAR ADVERTISERS** and using that to predict the performance expected from the subject keyword;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **EUCLIDIAN DISTANCE BETWEEN ATTRIBUTES BETWEEN ADVERTISERS** to estimate similarity between advertisers; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **CATEGORY**, **QUALITY SCORE**, **PAY-PER-CLICK**, **BID**, **ADVERTISER VERTICAL**, **GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION**, **DAY-TARGETING**, **DAY-PARTING**, **KEYWORDS IN COMMON** to estimate the performance expected from the keyword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PREDICTION OF USER RESPONSE TO RECEIVED DATA**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Within an online advertising system, a method of predicting keyword performance for an advertiser who has not previously bid on a keyword by identifying a similar advertiser who has used the same keyword and using the keyword’s previous performance to provide an expected result for the current advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130166371 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/337,709&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 27, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 27, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; {A METHOD} for predicting advertiser **keyword performance indicator** values, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a keyword from a first advertiser, whereinthe first advertiser has **not previously bid on the keyword**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying at least one other **advertiser that is similar** to the first advertiser and has previously bid on the keyword; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  calculating at least one predicted **performance indicator value** for the keyword for the first advertiser based upon at least one established performance indicator value of the keyword for the at least one other advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for detecting expected keyword performance for an advertiser, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving from the advertiser a keyword which the advertiser has not previously bid on; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a 2nd advertiser similar to the advertiser; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Predicting the performance of the keyword (based on any metric) for the subject advertiser based on the performance of the keyword for the similar advertiser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 15, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a **EUCLIDIAN DISTANCE BETWEEN ATTRIBUTES BETWEEN ADVERTISERS** to estimate similarity between advertisers; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **CATEGORY**, **QUALITY SCORE**, **PAY-PER-CLICK**, **BID**, **ADVERTISER VERTICAL**, **GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION**, **DAY-TARGETING**, **DAY-PARTING**, **KEYWORDS IN COMMON** to estimate the performance expected from the keyword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Predicting advertiser keyword performance indicator values” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Ib77Z.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130166371?dq=US20130166371A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4649" RevisionGUID="b969ebc2-cc0b-4c93-8f2e-fe31e66bfb29" CreationDate="2013-07-31T10:29:32.390" UserId="5327" Text="Patent No 5350471 A for  process of cross link Lamination Films has given patent in year 1993 now in 2013 this patent will automatically expire as it completing 20 years. Is this patent can be re patent?   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10922" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4649" RevisionGUID="b969ebc2-cc0b-4c93-8f2e-fe31e66bfb29" CreationDate="2013-07-31T10:29:32.390" UserId="5327" Text="Can Patent be re patent after expier Like Patent No - Us 5350471 A for Cross Link Lamination Films" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10923" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4649" RevisionGUID="b969ebc2-cc0b-4c93-8f2e-fe31e66bfb29" CreationDate="2013-07-31T10:29:32.390" UserId="5327" Text="&lt;process&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4650" RevisionGUID="a5b311c7-87a9-4652-9900-68ad93594faa" CreationDate="2013-07-31T10:33:38.733" UserId="5328" Text="Google has a patent service (if you don't already know).  Here are some example URLs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.google.com/patents/US1&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.google.com/patents/US99&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.google.com/patents/US101&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.google.com/patents/US43211&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can type pretty much any number they've gotten to, that they've used so far.  However I can't find anything on patent 100.  Why?  What is it?  I also can't find it on a regular search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;404 Not Found http://www.google.com/patents/US100 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10925" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4650" RevisionGUID="a5b311c7-87a9-4652-9900-68ad93594faa" CreationDate="2013-07-31T10:33:38.733" UserId="5328" Text="What is Patent #100? Are all numbers used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10926" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4650" RevisionGUID="a5b311c7-87a9-4652-9900-68ad93594faa" CreationDate="2013-07-31T10:33:38.733" UserId="5328" Text="&lt;usa&gt;&lt;history&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4649" RevisionGUID="bb49d25f-1382-4415-a624-8f96429feb5b" CreationDate="2013-07-31T12:03:09.647" UserId="1259" Comment="grammer, typos, links, tags" Text="Patent No [US5350471][1] &quot;Production of cross-laminated film from tube&quot; was given patent in year 1993 now in 2013 this patent will automatically expire as it completing 20 years. Can this patent be re-patented?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5350471" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10928" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4649" RevisionGUID="bb49d25f-1382-4415-a624-8f96429feb5b" CreationDate="2013-07-31T12:03:09.647" UserId="1259" Comment="grammer, typos, links, tags" Text="Can Patent US 5350471 be re-patented after expiration?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10929" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4649" RevisionGUID="bb49d25f-1382-4415-a624-8f96429feb5b" CreationDate="2013-07-31T12:03:09.647" UserId="1259" Comment="grammer, typos, links, tags" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;us5350471&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4651" RevisionGUID="801463f9-c877-4aae-8280-651097a35999" CreationDate="2013-07-31T12:12:09.680" UserId="5055" Text="According to http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/issuyear.htm:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The current patent numbering system began with a patent issued on July 13, 1836. Prior to that date, 9,957 patents had been issued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These 9,957 patents before patent [US1](http://google.com/patents/US1) include the first U.S. patent, which was numbered [X1](http://google.com/patents/USX1) or X000001. It was granted on July 31, 1790 to [Samuel Hopkins](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Hopkins_(inventor)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still from http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/issuyear.htm:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some numbers within a series may be unused. Therefore, the number of patents granted during a year cannot be determined by simply subtracting the number of the first patent issued in one year from the number of the first patent issued in the next year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I guess there is no patent #100 in the current numbering system. There doesn't seem to be one either in the previous numbering system. Patents 100 and X100 cannot be found from [USPTO full-page images database](http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/patimg.htm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Experience shows that you can get a 404 from Google Patents while an application already exists and can be found elsewhere (USPTO Public Pair, Espacenet...), probably because of database updates." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4652" RevisionGUID="57f28890-8cae-4dcd-b8d1-1f9c0600b119" CreationDate="2013-07-31T12:20:58.107" UserId="1259" Text="A patent cannot be &quot;re-patented&quot; once it has completed its lifespan. The actual expiration date may be different from exactly 20 years, processing time and/or other extensions to its term may be applicable. The [USPTO Public PAIR][1] site will provide more details about a specific patent. Note that other patents may exist, or may be filed later, based on some or all of the same claims or methods that this patent holds. The exact same claims of a published patent become &quot;Prior Art&quot; which should, in effect, prevent later patents from making the same claims - however, sometimes clever lawyer-speak can obfuscate claims and it could slip by the USPTO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also end up with families of patents with minor differences in claims, which would appear to result in the same end product or method. A good way to track these is by using the original &quot;application number&quot; and following it through the PAIR site to find any other derivative patents based upon it, as well as off the patent itself. Searching by the inventors' name(s) can also turn up other applications/patents which may be similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4640" RevisionGUID="6d102847-beda-4136-a764-39b2888d438c" CreationDate="2013-07-31T12:23:58.867" UserId="-1" Comment="Added evidence of prior art." Text="Patent US8144070 protects the IP concerning the portable Yagi-Uda antenna product called SuperAntenna Model YP-3...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  http://newsuperantenna.com/YP3-SuperBeam-Portable-Yagi-Antenna/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is this product has been in production (public disclosure?) from at least one full year before the priority date and well before any patent application date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Advertisements for this product exist in the April 2008 issue of QST Magazine (page 144) which suggests public disclosure on or well before March 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reviews of this product exist as early as May 2008...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/7540?page=3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a manual for the patented design with dates of September 9, 2008 including a drawing (Page 4) with a date of April 18, 2008...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  http://www.mydarc.de/dk7zb/portabel/test_yp3.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  http://www.mydarc.de/dk7zb/portabel/YP-3/Super_Antennas_YAGI_Manual.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does manufacturing of this product over a year before first patent filing make this Yagi Antenna Idea it's own Prior Art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent valid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How did the inventor's consul willingly allow public domain prior art into the patent process?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10933" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4640" RevisionGUID="6d102847-beda-4136-a764-39b2888d438c" CreationDate="2013-07-31T12:23:58.867" Comment="Proposed by 76.104.6.172|e7f8a6ba-eaf3-4fe1-9f65-ffda352143d8 approved by 3076, 5317 edit id of 417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="c5120c37-4817-4832-a948-9cc563be723e" CreationDate="2013-07-31T14:13:07.163" UserId="4919" Text="NASA actually did this in the early to mid 2000's with a 757 &quot;Aries&quot; flying lab aircraft.  A FIOA request to Langley will turn up some of the design documents.   Ask for aft cockpit as well as ARIES and 757.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://foia.larc.nasa.gov/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/757.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the 737 documents from NASA might be relevant too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4216.pdf&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="7638761a-0c4d-4ac5-834c-bb8afa2049a0" CreationDate="2013-07-31T14:18:56.347" UserId="4919" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="NASA actually did this in the early to mid 2000's with a 757 &quot;Aries&quot; flying lab aircraft.  A FIOA request to Langley will turn up some of the design documents.   Ask for aft cockpit as well as ARIES and 757.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.cs.odu.edu/~mln/ltrs-pdfs/NASA-aiaa-2002-5822.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://foia.larc.nasa.gov/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/757.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the 737 documents from NASA might be relevant too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4216.pdf&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4655" RevisionGUID="d76e78a0-64f4-4bc3-ac45-76871c5d9be1" CreationDate="2013-07-31T15:38:01.423" UserId="5331" Text="Is claim 1 a claim to a floor module that contains all three of the subsequent aspects? Or is this patent claiming a module that includes at least one of these aspects? The aspects that I refer to are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;an energy generating module configured to convert a movement of at least a part of the energy generating module into electrical energy, said energy generating module including an electric generator;&#xD;&#xA;an interface module, configured to support a moving person, wherein a force applied by the moving person to said interface module causes a displacement of at least a part of the interface module, said displacement causing said movement of at least the part of the energy generating module; and&#xD;&#xA;a lighting installation in the floor module, wherein said lighting installation is electrically coupled to the electric generator and is configured to illuminate the interface module and/or the moving person.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10940" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4655" RevisionGUID="d76e78a0-64f4-4bc3-ac45-76871c5d9be1" CreationDate="2013-07-31T15:38:01.423" UserId="5331" Text="Question about Claim 1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10941" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4655" RevisionGUID="d76e78a0-64f4-4bc3-ac45-76871c5d9be1" CreationDate="2013-07-31T15:38:01.423" UserId="5331" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4646" RevisionGUID="6ac2f685-9804-4583-b480-d82689d5f182" CreationDate="2013-07-31T15:55:51.213" UserId="3076" Comment="added 188 characters in body" Text="A product being made and sold by the inventor/applicant more than a year before the earliest filing is definitely good prior art to a patent claiming features of the product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inventor's patent agent did file an IDS form (below) making the examiner aware of some things they knew about. A product instruction manual published before the year grace period should also have been included. Unless the claims are all targeted to a new feature introduced after May 2008 it is hard to see how this was done properly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10943" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4655" RevisionGUID="bc6003f6-fbf1-4f8f-be63-165c103e1255" CreationDate="2013-07-31T16:01:39.173" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4652" RevisionGUID="dab6c4f4-334b-43f8-92a4-edaa1bebdc59" CreationDate="2013-07-31T16:08:21.917" UserId="3076" Comment="Clarified that not only claims are prior art but the whole content of any publication." Text="A patent cannot be &quot;re-patented&quot; once it has completed its lifespan. The actual expiration date may be different from exactly 20 years, processing time and/or other extensions to its term may be applicable. The [USPTO Public PAIR][1] site will provide more details about a specific patent. Note that other patents may exist, or may be filed later, based on some or all of the same claims or methods that this patent holds. The entire text and drawings of a published patent become &quot;Prior Art&quot; which should, in effect, prevent later patents from making claims that are &quot;taught&quot; in that document. There is also a prohibition on double patenting - however, sometimes clever lawyer-speak can obfuscate claims and it could slip by the USPTO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also end up with families of patents with minor differences in claims, which would appear to result in the same end product or method. A good way to track these is by using the original &quot;application number&quot; and following it through the PAIR site to find any other derivative patents based upon it, as well as off the patent itself. Searching by the inventors' name(s) can also turn up other applications/patents which may be similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4652" RevisionGUID="ee7ff3a0-85ff-49e4-9149-5f3100be2e65" CreationDate="2013-07-31T16:14:08.250" UserId="3076" Comment="Clarified that not only claims are prior art but the whole content of any publication." Text="A patent cannot be &quot;re-patented&quot; once it has completed its lifespan. Patents are granted to inventors of new things. Once published, whatever the patent describes is &quot;old&quot; from then on. The actual expiration date may be different from exactly 20 years, processing time and/or other extensions to its term may be applicable. The [USPTO Public PAIR][1] site will provide more details about a specific patent. Note that other patents may exist, or may be filed later, based on some or all of the same technology described in this patent. The entire text and drawings of a published patent become &quot;Prior Art&quot; which should, in effect, prevent later patents from making claims that are &quot;taught&quot; in that document. There is also a prohibition on double patenting - however, sometimes clever lawyer-speak can obfuscate claims and it could slip by the USPTO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also end up with families of patents with minor differences in claims, which would appear to cover the same end product or method. A good way to track these is by using the original &quot;application number&quot; and following it through the PAIR site to find any other derivative patents based upon it, as well as off the patent itself. Searching by the inventors' name(s) can also turn up other applications/patents which may be similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10946" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4638" RevisionGUID="519a2054-1fb3-4c57-9664-070fa9a549bc" CreationDate="2013-07-31T16:24:11.973" UserId="3076" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="Copyrights protect &quot;expressions&quot; of works of authorship, not ideas or product designs. Your data sheet can be copyright protected, and your user manual, your photos and videos of your great thing also. The name could be protected by trademark. If someone makes the same knife and called it something else and writes their own ads and takes their own pictures you have no protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not all works of &quot;authorship&quot; are copyrightable subject matter. Is the knife a statue ?&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a form of patent called a design patent that does cover the &quot;look&quot; of an article of manufacture. It has to be a novel and non obvious look.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/YEboQ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10950" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4655" RevisionGUID="d980780c-81e5-4ce8-ad7b-57236c95bb50" CreationDate="2013-07-31T17:09:14.380" UserId="7" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;us8283794&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4657" RevisionGUID="ed49bf1e-0fea-4719-a9a1-de8fed7bed57" CreationDate="2013-07-31T17:31:22.147" UserId="5335" Text="This is totally bogus. I wrote similar software in 1979-1980 to assign teaching assistants to Chemistry courses at Purdue University ... similar specifications:  take into account the TA's prior experience teaching the class, take into account the TA's class schedule, etc. There is absolutely nothing &quot;unique&quot; about their claim. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4655" RevisionGUID="2aecc93b-6c33-46a3-a470-fa68aee0b73d" CreationDate="2013-07-31T21:09:33.223" UserId="3076" Comment="Small formatting change" Text="Is claim 1 a claim to a floor module that contains all three of the subsequent aspects? Or is this patent claiming a module that includes at least one of these aspects? The aspects that I refer to are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;an energy generating module configured to convert a movement of at least a part of the energy generating module into electrical energy, said energy generating module including an electric generator;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;an interface module, configured to support a moving person, wherein a force applied by the moving person to said interface module causes a displacement of at least a part of the interface module, said displacement causing said movement of at least the part of the energy generating module; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;a lighting installation in the floor module, wherein said lighting installation is electrically coupled to the electric generator and is configured to illuminate the interface module and/or the moving person.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4658" RevisionGUID="d6f9d52e-cc01-4380-8233-17edce6600eb" CreationDate="2013-07-31T21:19:12.903" UserId="3076" Text="All three elements must be present for **that** claim to &quot;read on&quot; a product. It is the all elements rule. On the other hand, if another independent claim only required two of those three elements then this second hypothetical claim could be infringed by a less complete product. There is also a doctrine or equivalents that says that an element might be replaced with a structure that does not meet the letter that accomplishes the same thing the same way and still infringe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="fc985825-2ed5-4a50-9179-d685baab3795" CreationDate="2013-07-31T23:06:19.363" UserId="5339" Text="In March, 2012, all of the UHF Gen2 RFID chip manufacturers agreed to support Multi-vendor Chip-based Serialization (MCS), a voluntary implementation of a GS1 guideline for encoding 96-bit Serialized Global Trade Identification Numbers (SGTIN-96) into UHF Gen2 RFID tags. See:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.rfidjournal.com/articles/view?9369&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In June 2013, ADASA and Accelerate Ventures claimed that the GS1 guideline uses US 8,228,198. See:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130606005357/en/Accelerate-Ventures-ADASA-Join-Forces&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does MCS use 8228198? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10955" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="fc985825-2ed5-4a50-9179-d685baab3795" CreationDate="2013-07-31T23:06:19.363" UserId="5339" Text="Does the GS1 MCS industry guideline use US patent 8228198?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10956" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="fc985825-2ed5-4a50-9179-d685baab3795" CreationDate="2013-07-31T23:06:19.363" UserId="5339" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4660" RevisionGUID="800bf552-a3d2-46e1-8549-2e827b5643de" CreationDate="2013-07-31T23:39:05.217" UserId="5340" Text="No. The GS1 MCS industry guideline does not use US patent 8228198&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/D1ZAK.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4640" RevisionGUID="b36e563f-5b55-4f58-949a-bc8a8e41b748" CreationDate="2013-08-01T02:02:53.947" UserId="5317" Comment="added 382 characters in body" Text="Patent US8144070 protects the IP concerning the portable Yagi-Uda antenna product called SuperAntenna Model YP-3...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  http://newsuperantenna.com/YP3-SuperBeam-Portable-Yagi-Antenna/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is this product has been in production (public disclosure?) from at least one full year before the priority date and well before any patent application date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Advertisements for this product exist in the April 2008 issue of QST Magazine (page 144) which suggests public disclosure on or well before May 2008.  Here is a pic of this ad...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  http://www.hamradio.me/rdn/Superantenna_YP3_April_2008_Ad.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reviews of this product exist as early as May 2008...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/7540?page=3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a manual for the patented design with dates of September 9, 2008 including a drawing (Page 4) with a date of April 18, 2008...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  http://www.mydarc.de/dk7zb/portabel/test_yp3.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  http://www.mydarc.de/dk7zb/portabel/YP-3/Super_Antennas_YAGI_Manual.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does manufacturing of this product over a year before first patent filing make this Yagi Antenna Idea it's own Prior Art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does revealing the design via a simple advertisement before May 1, 2008 constitute public disclosure in the US?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does selling the product to anyone before May 1, 2008 constitute public disclosure in the US?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about countries without the 12 month rule?  The antenna was certainly in full manufacture well before the May 1, 2009 date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for any help clarifying the above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4661" RevisionGUID="d766033e-f91b-48ad-b84f-420270c8cafc" CreationDate="2013-08-01T05:25:34.507" UserId="5341" Text="LabVIEW (National Instruments) has methods to create user interface components directly out of the programming environment. You can right click on any data wire and create a user interface component that correspond to the data object. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4646" RevisionGUID="64ff1699-6a2a-4d8e-84e3-d3513243f915" CreationDate="2013-08-01T05:43:51.333" UserId="3076" Comment="added 397 characters in body" Text="A product being made and sold by the inventor/applicant more than a year before the earliest filing is definitely good prior art to a patent claiming features of the product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inventor's patent agent did file an IDS form (below) making the examiner aware of some things they knew about. A product instruction manual published before the year grace period should also have been included. Unless the claims are all targeted to a new feature introduced after May 2008 it is hard to see how this was done properly.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The year clock of the grace period can be started by an offer for sale even if no sale is made as long as the product is ready for patenting at that time. This assumes that the version of the product actually had the feature being covered in a claim. In this case claim 1 is directed to a physical adjustability to account plate a variety of wavelengths and the general &quot;knock down&quot; design." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4660" RevisionGUID="ef132cf9-2c53-4bd8-b082-50d6f5518983" CreationDate="2013-08-01T05:51:00.993" UserId="-1" Comment="Adding image" Text="The attached image explains why MCS does not use US patent 8228198&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/HiAz0.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10963" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4660" RevisionGUID="ef132cf9-2c53-4bd8-b082-50d6f5518983" CreationDate="2013-08-01T05:51:00.993" Comment="Proposed by 24.18.228.33|f364ca7c-2826-42c0-b44e-5e3254a7f281 approved by 1767 edit id of 418" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4646" RevisionGUID="60e3fff7-fd22-4e1c-a4ea-7373fdc106a5" CreationDate="2013-08-01T05:56:02.583" UserId="3076" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="A product being made and sold by the inventor/applicant more than a year before the earliest filing is definitely good prior art to a patent claiming features of the product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inventor's patent agent did file an IDS form (below) making the examiner aware of some things they knew about. A product instruction manual published before the year grace period should also have been included. Unless the claims are all targeted to a new feature introduced after May 2008 it is hard to see how this was done properly.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The year clock of the grace period can be started by an offer for sale even if no sale is made as long as the product is ready for patenting at that time. This assumes that the version of the product actually had the feature being covered in a claim. In this case claim 1 is directed to a physical adjustability to account plate a variety of wavelengths and the general &quot;knock down&quot; design.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;However an enabling disclosure like the product review is easier to use as proof." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4646" RevisionGUID="73a8ba92-11ab-48a9-855c-7566867574ac" CreationDate="2013-08-01T06:12:35.600" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="A product being made and sold by the inventor/applicant more than a year before the earliest filing is definitely good prior art to a patent claiming features of the product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inventor's patent agent did file an IDS form (below) making the examiner aware of some things they knew about. A product instruction manual published before the year grace period should also have been included. Unless the claims are all targeted to a new feature introduced after May 2008 it is hard to see how this was done properly.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The year clock of the grace period can be started by an offer for sale even if no sale is made as long as the product is ready for patenting at that time. This assumes that the version of the product actually had the feature being covered in a claim. In this case claim 1 is directed to a physical adjustability to support a variety of wavelengths and the general &quot;knock down&quot; design.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;However an enabling disclosure like the product review is easier to use as proof." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4662" RevisionGUID="947b2a89-0493-4c4c-b832-28912f802e4d" CreationDate="2013-08-01T10:10:18.653" UserId="5344" Text="Relates to USPTO Filing 20090055833 - &quot;System and Method for performance monitoring.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PTXT&amp;s1=20090055833&amp;OS=20090055833&amp;RS=20090055833 - valid through 15.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I come with two questions;&#xD;&#xA;First, it would seem to me substantial prior art exists to 1994. However, this patent obfuscates and applies supposedly proprietary methods heavily to attempt to create a new patent able process out of software elements.&#xD;&#xA;To wit; the alleged patent details a methodology for logging relevant performance data to a specified database and mechanical interface. It's really a very cut and dry and buttered patent to my eyes, but that's all things IBM..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question two, to wit, the first blush of this tells me that this is not a new or novel patent - simply a formalization of something which was commonplace for any sort of performance monitoring (host-based or agent-based) for the era. &#xD;&#xA;To the extent that this patent is painfully overbroad in a dangerous fashion: &#xD;&#xA;Claim 1: A method for monitoring a computer software system by reading log records written by said software system to determine performance of said software system relative to response time to end users, comprising: adjustably tuning performance evaluation bias by a computer software monitoring system between processor and memory consumption; responsive to said bias, monitoring performance of said computer software system with respect to transaction time parameters including said response time to end users; and receiving from a user a first tuning parameter for allocating memory for said monitoring performance and a second tuning parameter for specifying a time out value for in-flight units of work; wherein a in-flight unit of work is timed-out if a in-transit time for the in-flight unit of work exceeds the time out value to prevent a single unit of work from having a high impact on the monitored transaction time parameters. &#xD;&#xA;LAYMAN: By reading logs, we apply math to come up with a performance number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. A system for monitoring a computer software system by reading log records written by said software system to determine performance of said software system relative to response time to end users, comprising: a non-transitory computer usable medium having computer readable program code logic comprising: a first user actuated tuning knob for allocating space in memory for performance monitoring; a second user actuated tuning knob for a specifying a time out value for in-flight units of work; and a transaction monitor responsive to said first and second user actuated tuning knobs for accumulating one or more transaction time parameters for a plurality of said in-flight units of work, wherein a in-flight unit of work is timed-out if a in-transit time for the in-flight unit of work exceeds the time out value to prevent a single unit of work from having a high impact on the transaction time parameters. &#xD;&#xA;**LAYMAN:** This says plainly that data storage and even processing is handled on an external server to the one being actively monitored. One which has no purpose but to analyze this specific data and present results to user.&#xD;&#xA;3. A program storage device readable by a machine, tangibly embodying a program of instructions executable by a machine to perform method steps for monitoring a computer software system by reading log records written by said software system to determine performance of said software system relative to response time to end users, said method comprising: adjustably tuning performance evaluation bias between processor and memory consumption; responsive to said bias, monitoring performance of said computer software system with respect to transaction time parameters; and receiving from a user a first tuning parameter for allocating memory for said monitoring performance and a second tuning parameter for specifying a time out value for in-flight units of work; wherein a in-flight unit of work is timed-out if a in-transit time for the in-flight unit of work exceeds the time out value to prevent a single unit of work from having a high impact on the monitored transaction time parameters.&#xD;&#xA;**LAYMAN**: This would seem to describe yet another independent computer which does nothing but parse these logs, these inputs, and then provide to the end user or manager numbers derived through this method. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, it looks like a cobbled together performance monitor for the purposes of scheduler operations. I'm not good at reading patents, even after taking classes, so maybe I'm missing something here? This seems extremely broad - to the extent where anyone doing any sort of performance monitoring using a similar system (virtually all of them) is in violation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is Prior Art available, or another similar sample which was determined as overbroad?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10968" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4662" RevisionGUID="947b2a89-0493-4c4c-b832-28912f802e4d" CreationDate="2013-08-01T10:10:18.653" UserId="5344" Text="Prior art of performance monitoring using software to build schedulers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10969" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4662" RevisionGUID="947b2a89-0493-4c4c-b832-28912f802e4d" CreationDate="2013-08-01T10:10:18.653" UserId="5344" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;ibm&gt;&lt;performance&gt;&lt;monitoring&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10970" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4662" RevisionGUID="d34487d9-c9e8-4fba-a45c-0d0bdd4518bf" CreationDate="2013-08-01T12:08:01.640" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;ibm&gt;&lt;us20090055833&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4663" RevisionGUID="320424ee-b136-4239-8a12-e060af0c7cbb" CreationDate="2013-08-01T15:03:18.900" UserId="5346" Text="This is a very common pattern and should absolutely not be patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can refute the root claim from this patent by demonstrating two prior arts:  Microsoft's own Visual C++ debugger and the game file editor for my own open-source video game.  I present both because they accomplish the claims of this patent in two different ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [VS Debugger Example Image][1] from Visual C++ 6.0 (circa 1998).  Discussion refers to the &quot;Watch 1&quot; panel.&#xD;&#xA; - [Image from my game editor][2] and [its source code, published 2010][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A computer-readable non-transitory storage medium configured with data and with instructions that when executed by at least one processor causes the processor(s) to perform a process for &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is filler text to say that it runs on a computer that saves its data &amp; code on a hard drive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;utilizing an instance of an object type in a graphical programming environment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be obvious that the debugger has instances of object types in its GUI.  In the game editor screenshot, you see the objects listed on the left in bold, with their properties indented.  Properties in both examples can be other objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;the instance having at least one field defined by the object type, each field of the instance having a name and capable of being assigned a value,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All fields in the debugger are defined by the object type.  The &quot;Name&quot; and &quot;Value&quot; columns declare the name and value of a field (row) within an object.  In the game editor, the name is to the left on a line with white background, and its value is to the right in gray text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the process comprising the steps of receiving a selection that identifies the instance of the object type;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clicking the object accomplishes this in both examples.  By expanding an object, you select the instance of the object type whose fields you want to examine or edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; automatically determining what fields are defined for the object type instance;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The debugger does this using metadata from the compiler (&quot;program database&quot;, aka [PDB files][4]).  Alternatively, the game editor does this using a mechanism in the source code itself.  Each object has a standard interface to query for its defined fields.  Details of the implementation can be found in the open-source code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; automatically generating an instance data population user interface in the graphical programming environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The debugger populates the &quot;Locals&quot; list view with variables automatically when a breakpoint is hit by the executing program.  The game editor populates its list on program start.  It takes a static root object, queries for its sub-objects, and adds those into the list.  It repeats the process for each of the objects it just added until it reaches objects with no sub-objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and displaying at least the following in the user interface: the name of each field that is defined for the object type instance, and a currently assigned value for each field that currently has an assigned value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is again the &quot;Name&quot; and &quot;Value&quot; columns in the Visual C++ debugger, where each row is a field and an expandable block with a + next to it is an object type instance.  In the game editor, the expandable blocks with a + on the left are object type instances, and the fields are either other object type instances or white lines.  The white lines are again left-aligned bold text for the name, and right-aligned truncated gray text for the value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are, in fact, many more examples of visual debuggers other than Visual C++ that can counter these claims equally, but I chose Visual C++ because it was a Microsoft product, and presumably the Inventors would have been quite aware of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that all the other claims derive from claim 1, it should be unnecessary to refute the further claims.  Still, I believe they could all be easily invalidated by these two examples of prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://visualddk.sysprogs.org/screenshots/dbg1.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/YUsAr.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://sourceforge.net/projects/evidyon/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/yd4f8bd1(v=vs.71).aspx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4664" RevisionGUID="d3c8edf3-c3bc-4f94-b569-c824b9771d0f" CreationDate="2013-08-01T15:19:58.373" UserId="5347" Text="I know for certain of prior art: see &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;SAE J 1939 Over Real Time Ethernet: The Future of Heavy Duty Vehicle Networks&quot;&#xD;&#xA;doi:10.4271/2012-01-1988&#xD;&#xA;Author: Massimiliano Ruggeri of IMAMOTER C.N.R. – Institute for Agricultural and&#xD;&#xA;Earthmoving Machines, National Research Council of Italy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and references therein, such as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Fellmeth, P. “CAN-based tractor agricultural implement&#xD;&#xA;communication ISO11783”. 2003-09. http://www.cancia.org.&#xD;&#xA;2. Ole, Peters, Peters, Pickel, Nicolai, Tarasinski, Real Time&#xD;&#xA;Ethernet for Tractor Implement Communication, 68&#xD;&#xA;Internationale Tagunng Landtechnik, 27, 28 October 2010 -&#xD;&#xA;Braunsweig, VDI - Verlag Dusseldorf, 2010 ISSN&#xD;&#xA;0083-5560, pagg. 285-292.&#xD;&#xA;3. Decotignie, J. D. “Ethernet-based real-time and industrial&#xD;&#xA;communications”, Proc. IEEE, vol. 93, p.1102, 2005.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will call this page to Prof. Ruggeri's attention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4665" RevisionGUID="b580dcd8-8203-4bc4-8874-2a6da63e6525" CreationDate="2013-08-01T16:12:45.953" UserId="3076" Text="One thing missed is that the specifc document you point to is not a patent at all. it is an application for a patent. This application did result in three patents including US8181160. You can look up its history in [USPTO Public PAIR.][1]The entire back-and-forth between the applicant and the examiner are there as well as all the things the applicant and the examiner knew of as potentially relevant prior art are listed. A quick look at the image file wrapper shows the claims were rejected and correspondingly narrowed/clarified three times between the claims in the initial application and the granted claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the basics of patent reading are that the finally granted claims define what the examiner agreed was new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4666" RevisionGUID="0f37f705-f529-41dd-92b4-26311d009689" CreationDate="2013-08-01T16:54:14.027" UserId="5349" Text="Dear Lear Corporation I'm Massimiliano Ruggeri, a Researcher of the National Research Council of Italy. We are working on Embedding CAN on a Ethernet communication and vice versa since 2008.&#xD;&#xA;We work both on wireless over WI-FI to synchronize vehicles and to perform fleet management and on Wired Ethernet for in-machine communication. We also designed and published several papers on a CAN/Ethernet Gateway design and testing and we also implemented it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can refer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Wireless Communication Protocol for Agricultural Machines Synchronization and Fleet Management, Alfredo Revenaz, Massimiliano Ruggeri, Massimo Martelli, IEEE-ISIE 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Low Latency WI-FI Real-Time Protocol for Agricultural Machines Synchronization Using Linux RT Kernel, Alfredo Revenaz, Massimiliano Ruggeri, Velio Tralli, IEEE-ISIE 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Improvements of Determinism in WI-FI Real-Time Protocol for Agricultural Machine Clusters, Massimiliano Ruggeri, Giorgio Malaguti, Massimo Martelli, IEEE-ISIE 2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) Dian M.; Malaguti G.; Ruggeri M. A Real-Time Wireless Protocol Proposal for Remote Agricultural Machine Control in 7Th FPNI Phd Symposium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) Ruggeri M., Malaguti G., Dian M., Quasi Isochronous Wireless Communication Protocol for Co-Operative Heavy-Duty Vehicle Clusters in 12th European Conference of the ISTVS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6) Malaguti G.; Dian M.; Ruggeri M., Real Time Distributed Control on Machines Over Quasi Deterministic Ethernet in 7Th FPNI Phd Symposium On Fluid Power&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7) Ruggeri M.; Malaguti G.; Dian. M., Real Time Ethernet for Heavy-Duty Vehicle Powertrain Control in 12th European Conference of the ISTVS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8) Ruggeri M.; Malaguti G.; Dian M., SAE J 1939 Over Real Time Ethernet: The Future Of Heavy Duty Vehicle Networks in SAE 2012 Commercial Vehicle Engineering Congress, Rosemont, Illinois, USA, October 2-3, 2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9)  Ferraresi C.; Dian M.; Malaguti G.; Ruggeri M., Isobus Over Ethernet: A First Implementation in 7Th FPNI Phd Symposium On Fluid Power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The CAN message Vs TCP/UDP/IP message under HTTP is well explained in the paper 1), and in the other papers the analysis is performed on specific CAN networks for heavy-duty and for Agricultural vehicles, where international standards set a lot of requirements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In the ISO TC 023/SC 19/WG 5 a new standard for wireless communication on this target is under development. Please refer to the Convener Prof. Daan Goense (daan.goense@wur.nl)&#xD;&#xA;- In the ISO TC 023/SC 19/WG 1 a task force is working on the same argument for wired communication. Please refer to the Convener Jaap van Bergeijk (jacob.vanbergeijk@agcocorp.com)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please feel free to contact me for any questions: m.ruggeri@imamoter.cnr.it, massimiliano.ruggeri@cnr.it, massimiliano.ruggeri@unife.it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4667" RevisionGUID="609107cc-cf73-461e-9e4b-ad92675f7c9a" CreationDate="2013-08-01T17:55:57.090" UserId="3363" Text="This patent application filed by Stratasys claims to invent the concept of printing seamless 3D objects by hiding layer path endpoints inside the object’s visible outer surface. Letting this patent issue in its current form could allow Stratasys to prevent anyone else from printing 3D objects with the claimed features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BASIC APPLICATION DATA:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Title:  “Seam concealment for three-dimensional models” Application&#xD;&#xA; - Number:  13/707,884  &#xD;&#xA; - Publication Number:  US 2013-0095303 A1&#xD;&#xA; - Assignee:  Stratasys, Inc. &#xD;&#xA; - Priority Date:  **September 23, 2009** (prior&#xD;&#xA;   art must predate this) &#xD;&#xA; - Availability for Challenge:  Open until at&#xD;&#xA;   least **October 18, 2013**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**APPLICATION OVERVIEW:**  This patent application from Stratasys seeks to patent 3D-printed objects with hidden seams. Specifically, the application claims to invent the concept of printing 3D objects in such a way that layers endpoints (or at least one endpoint on at least one layer) terminate inside each layer’s outer perimeter, as opposed to having the endpoints meet at a point visible from the exterior of the object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS:**  This is a very broad patent application with the potential to exclude many people from doing what they are already doing. We believe this technique has been in use for a long time. But belief is not enough. We need PROOF that this type of technique was used in 3D printing before September 23, 2009. That’s where you come in!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was published before September 23, 2009 that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Printing 3D objects (with a 3D printer) in a way that hides at least one layer path endpoint inside the outer surface of that layer so that seams will be minimized or eliminated from view?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT ---**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO describes how far the endpoint or endpoints terminate inside the inner region of the layer, specifically whether that distance is between 50% and 200% of the road width (the width of the layer path).&#xD;&#xA; - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO describes different patterns for how the endpoints terminate inside the layer’s inner region such as in the following images: &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A three-dimensional object&#xD;&#xA;- built with an extrusion-based digital manufacturing system (i.e., 3D&#xD;&#xA;   printer),&#xD;&#xA;- the three-dimension object comprising a plurality of layers of an&#xD;&#xA;   extruded material,&#xD;&#xA;- wherein at least one of the layers comprises:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. a perimeter of the extruded material, &#xD;&#xA;2. the perimeter comprising a start point and a stop point; and&#xD;&#xA;3. an interior region of the layer defined by the perimeter, &#xD;&#xA;4. wherein at least one of the start point and the stop point is located within the interior region of the layer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/vsnGc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/slobH.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/HleD5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/cp7px.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/2qwHZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/bIKrt.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10976" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4667" RevisionGUID="609107cc-cf73-461e-9e4b-ad92675f7c9a" CreationDate="2013-08-01T17:55:57.090" UserId="3363" Text="CALL FOR PRIOR ART: 3D Printing Application “Seam concealment for three-dimensional models” (13/707,884)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10977" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4667" RevisionGUID="609107cc-cf73-461e-9e4b-ad92675f7c9a" CreationDate="2013-08-01T17:55:57.090" UserId="3363" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;3d-printing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4667" RevisionGUID="331e24e7-7362-465c-a069-0f4a4bc49de9" CreationDate="2013-08-01T18:55:27.540" UserId="5055" Comment="Add link to patent on Google Patents" Text="This patent application filed by Stratasys claims to invent the concept of printing seamless 3D objects by hiding layer path endpoints inside the object’s visible outer surface. Letting this patent issue in its current form could allow Stratasys to prevent anyone else from printing 3D objects with the claimed features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BASIC APPLICATION DATA:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Title:  “Seam concealment for three-dimensional models” Application&#xD;&#xA; - Number:  13/707,884  &#xD;&#xA; - Publication Number:  [US 2013-0095303 A1](http://www.google.com/patents/US20130095303)&#xD;&#xA; - Assignee:  Stratasys, Inc. &#xD;&#xA; - Priority Date:  **September 23, 2009** (prior&#xD;&#xA;   art must predate this) &#xD;&#xA; - Availability for Challenge:  Open until at&#xD;&#xA;   least **October 18, 2013**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**APPLICATION OVERVIEW:**  This patent application from Stratasys seeks to patent 3D-printed objects with hidden seams. Specifically, the application claims to invent the concept of printing 3D objects in such a way that layers endpoints (or at least one endpoint on at least one layer) terminate inside each layer’s outer perimeter, as opposed to having the endpoints meet at a point visible from the exterior of the object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS:**  This is a very broad patent application with the potential to exclude many people from doing what they are already doing. We believe this technique has been in use for a long time. But belief is not enough. We need PROOF that this type of technique was used in 3D printing before September 23, 2009. That’s where you come in!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was published before September 23, 2009 that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Printing 3D objects (with a 3D printer) in a way that hides at least one layer path endpoint inside the outer surface of that layer so that seams will be minimized or eliminated from view?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT ---**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO describes how far the endpoint or endpoints terminate inside the inner region of the layer, specifically whether that distance is between 50% and 200% of the road width (the width of the layer path).&#xD;&#xA; - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO describes different patterns for how the endpoints terminate inside the layer’s inner region such as in the following images: &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A three-dimensional object&#xD;&#xA;- built with an extrusion-based digital manufacturing system (i.e., 3D&#xD;&#xA;   printer),&#xD;&#xA;- the three-dimension object comprising a plurality of layers of an&#xD;&#xA;   extruded material,&#xD;&#xA;- wherein at least one of the layers comprises:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. a perimeter of the extruded material, &#xD;&#xA;2. the perimeter comprising a start point and a stop point; and&#xD;&#xA;3. an interior region of the layer defined by the perimeter, &#xD;&#xA;4. wherein at least one of the start point and the stop point is located within the interior region of the layer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/vsnGc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/slobH.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/HleD5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/cp7px.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/2qwHZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/bIKrt.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10979" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4667" RevisionGUID="331e24e7-7362-465c-a069-0f4a4bc49de9" CreationDate="2013-08-01T18:55:27.540" UserId="5055" Comment="Add link to patent on Google Patents" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;3d-printing&gt;&lt;us20130095303&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10980" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4667" RevisionGUID="331e24e7-7362-465c-a069-0f4a4bc49de9" CreationDate="2013-08-01T18:55:27.540" Comment="Proposed by 5055 approved by 1767 edit id of 419" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4667" RevisionGUID="410cc29a-9817-4cce-a23d-2d87d2c47321" CreationDate="2013-08-01T19:00:22.330" UserId="1767" Comment="added 76 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="This patent application filed by [Stratasys][7] claims to invent the concept of **printing seamless 3D objects** by hiding layer path endpoints inside the object’s visible outer surface. Letting this patent issue in its current form could allow Stratasys to prevent anyone else from printing 3D objects with the claimed features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BASIC APPLICATION DATA:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Title:  “Seam concealment for three-dimensional models” Application&#xD;&#xA; - Number:  13/707,884  &#xD;&#xA; - Publication Number:  [US 2013-0095303 A1](http://www.google.com/patents/US20130095303)&#xD;&#xA; - Assignee:  Stratasys, Inc. &#xD;&#xA; - Priority Date:  **September 23, 2009** (prior&#xD;&#xA;   art must predate this) &#xD;&#xA; - Availability for Challenge:  Open until at&#xD;&#xA;   least **October 18, 2013**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**APPLICATION OVERVIEW:**  This patent application from Stratasys seeks to patent 3D-printed objects with hidden seams. Specifically, the application claims to invent the concept of printing 3D objects in such a way that layers endpoints (or at least one endpoint on at least one layer) terminate inside each layer’s outer perimeter, as opposed to having the endpoints meet at a point visible from the exterior of the object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS:**  This is a very broad patent application with the potential to exclude many people from doing what they are already doing. We believe this technique has been in use for a long time. But belief is not enough. We need PROOF that this type of technique was used in 3D printing before September 23, 2009. That’s where you come in!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was published before September 23, 2009 that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Printing 3D objects (with a 3D printer) in a way that **hides at least one layer path endpoint inside the outer surface of that layer** so that **seams will be minimized** or eliminated from view?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT ---**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO describes how far the **endpoint or endpoints terminate** inside the inner region of the layer, specifically whether that distance is between 50% and 200% of the road width (the width of the layer path).&#xD;&#xA; - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO describes **different patterns for how the endpoints terminate** inside the layer’s inner region such as in the following images: &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A three-dimensional object:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. built with an extrusion-based digital manufacturing system (i.e., 3D&#xD;&#xA;   printer),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the three-dimension object comprising a plurality of layers of an&#xD;&#xA;   extruded material,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. wherein at least one of the layers comprises:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a perimeter of the extruded material, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the perimeter comprising a start point and a stop point; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an interior region of the layer defined by the perimeter, wherein at least one of the start point and the stop point is located within the interior region of the layer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/vsnGc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/slobH.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/HleD5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/cp7px.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/2qwHZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/bIKrt.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.stratasys.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10982" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4667" RevisionGUID="410cc29a-9817-4cce-a23d-2d87d2c47321" CreationDate="2013-08-01T19:00:22.330" UserId="1767" Comment="added 76 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="3D Printing - Seam Concealment for 3D Models - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10983" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4667" RevisionGUID="410cc29a-9817-4cce-a23d-2d87d2c47321" CreationDate="2013-08-01T19:00:22.330" UserId="1767" Comment="added 76 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;3d-printing&gt;&lt;us20130095303&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4662" RevisionGUID="f2dc3a80-8ab2-4a09-8881-13641ebcaf9d" CreationDate="2013-08-01T19:05:42.240" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Relates to [Patent Application 20090055833 - &quot;System and Method for performance monitoring.&quot;][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I come with two questions;&#xD;&#xA;First, it would seem to me substantial prior art exists to 1994. However, this patent obfuscates and applies supposedly proprietary methods heavily to attempt to create a new patent able process out of software elements.&#xD;&#xA;To wit; the alleged patent details a methodology for logging relevant performance data to a specified database and mechanical interface. It's really a very cut and dry and buttered patent to my eyes, but that's all things IBM..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question two, to wit, the first blush of this tells me that this is not a new or novel patent - simply a formalization of something which was commonplace for any sort of performance monitoring (host-based or agent-based) for the era. &#xD;&#xA;To the extent that this patent is painfully overbroad in a dangerous fashion: &#xD;&#xA;Claim 1: A method for monitoring a computer software system by reading log records written by said software system to determine performance of said software system relative to response time to end users, comprising: adjustably tuning performance evaluation bias by a computer software monitoring system between processor and memory consumption; responsive to said bias, monitoring performance of said computer software system with respect to transaction time parameters including said response time to end users; and receiving from a user a first tuning parameter for allocating memory for said monitoring performance and a second tuning parameter for specifying a time out value for in-flight units of work; wherein a in-flight unit of work is timed-out if a in-transit time for the in-flight unit of work exceeds the time out value to prevent a single unit of work from having a high impact on the monitored transaction time parameters. &#xD;&#xA;LAYMAN: By reading logs, we apply math to come up with a performance number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. A system for monitoring a computer software system by reading log records written by said software system to determine performance of said software system relative to response time to end users, comprising: a non-transitory computer usable medium having computer readable program code logic comprising: a first user actuated tuning knob for allocating space in memory for performance monitoring; a second user actuated tuning knob for a specifying a time out value for in-flight units of work; and a transaction monitor responsive to said first and second user actuated tuning knobs for accumulating one or more transaction time parameters for a plurality of said in-flight units of work, wherein a in-flight unit of work is timed-out if a in-transit time for the in-flight unit of work exceeds the time out value to prevent a single unit of work from having a high impact on the transaction time parameters. &#xD;&#xA;**LAYMAN:** This says plainly that data storage and even processing is handled on an external server to the one being actively monitored. One which has no purpose but to analyze this specific data and present results to user.&#xD;&#xA;3. A program storage device readable by a machine, tangibly embodying a program of instructions executable by a machine to perform method steps for monitoring a computer software system by reading log records written by said software system to determine performance of said software system relative to response time to end users, said method comprising: adjustably tuning performance evaluation bias between processor and memory consumption; responsive to said bias, monitoring performance of said computer software system with respect to transaction time parameters; and receiving from a user a first tuning parameter for allocating memory for said monitoring performance and a second tuning parameter for specifying a time out value for in-flight units of work; wherein a in-flight unit of work is timed-out if a in-transit time for the in-flight unit of work exceeds the time out value to prevent a single unit of work from having a high impact on the monitored transaction time parameters.&#xD;&#xA;**LAYMAN**: This would seem to describe yet another independent computer which does nothing but parse these logs, these inputs, and then provide to the end user or manager numbers derived through this method. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, it looks like a cobbled together performance monitor for the purposes of scheduler operations. I'm not good at reading patents, even after taking classes, so maybe I'm missing something here? This seems extremely broad - to the extent where anyone doing any sort of performance monitoring using a similar system (virtually all of them) is in violation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is Prior Art available, or another similar sample which was determined as overbroad?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PTXT&amp;s1=20090055833&amp;OS=20090055833&amp;RS=20090055833" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4668" RevisionGUID="d1190422-9e61-472e-bced-02a01a7d8353" CreationDate="2013-08-01T21:26:14.827" UserId="5353" Text="An overbroad patent for **&quot;Policy Enforcement&quot;** was granted to [Hewlett-Packard][1] July 20, 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It heavily constrains commercial exploitation of research done in the **Semantic Web/Semantic Web Services** community from 2001-2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8498959.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art Date: Seeking prior art predating **November 28, 2009**&#xD;&#xA; - Publication Number: [8498959][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://hp.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8498959" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10986" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4668" RevisionGUID="d1190422-9e61-472e-bced-02a01a7d8353" CreationDate="2013-08-01T21:26:14.827" UserId="5353" Text="Policy Enforcement (Hewlett Packard) - Prior Art Request" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10987" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4668" RevisionGUID="d1190422-9e61-472e-bced-02a01a7d8353" CreationDate="2013-08-01T21:26:14.827" UserId="5353" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;semantic-web&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4668" RevisionGUID="e10e01d0-ad5c-472c-a129-3790878d430b" CreationDate="2013-08-01T21:31:59.907" UserId="5353" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="An overbroad patent for **&quot;Policy Enforcement&quot;** was granted to [Hewlett-Packard][1] July 20, 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;It heavily constrains commercial exploitation of research done in the **Semantic Web/Semantic Web Services** community from 2001-2009.&quot; - [Martin Hepp][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8498959.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art Date: Seeking prior art predating **November 28, 2009**&#xD;&#xA; - Publication Number: [8498959][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2013Jul/0143.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://hp.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.heppnetz.de/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8498959" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4668" RevisionGUID="5b422b61-b8d0-44be-850c-9455017a274f" CreationDate="2013-08-01T21:57:08.190" UserId="1767" Comment="added 65 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="An overbroad patent for **&quot;Policy Enforcement&quot;** was granted to [Hewlett-Packard][1] July 20, 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;It heavily constrains commercial exploitation of research done in the **Semantic Web/Semantic Web Services** community from 2001-2009.&quot; - [Martin Hepp][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US8498959 &quot;Policy Enforcement&quot;][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art Date: Seeking prior art predating **November 28, 2009**&#xD;&#xA; - Patent Number: [8498959][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why [New HP patent could be a barrier to semantic web services adoption][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://hp.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.heppnetz.de/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8498959&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2013Jul/0143.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10990" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4668" RevisionGUID="5b422b61-b8d0-44be-850c-9455017a274f" CreationDate="2013-08-01T21:57:08.190" UserId="1767" Comment="added 65 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Semantic Web - Policy Enforcement (Hewlett Packard) - Issued Patent - Prior Art Request" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10991" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4668" RevisionGUID="5b422b61-b8d0-44be-850c-9455017a274f" CreationDate="2013-08-01T21:57:08.190" UserId="1767" Comment="added 65 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;semantic-web&gt;&lt;us8498959&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4665" RevisionGUID="6c0a7124-5e46-4359-81b6-d51c06e05b81" CreationDate="2013-08-02T00:05:54.203" UserId="3076" Comment="Added link" Text="One thing missed is that the specifc document you point to is not a patent at all. It is an application for a patent. This application did result in three patents including [US8181160][1]. You can look up its history in [USPTO Public PAIR.][2]The entire back-and-forth between the applicant and the examiner are there as well as all the things the applicant and the examiner knew of as potentially relevant prior art are listed. A quick look at the image file wrapper shows the claims were rejected and correspondingly narrowed/clarified three times between the claims in the initial application and the granted claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the basics of patent reading are that the finally granted claims define what the examiner agreed was new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8181160&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10993" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4665" RevisionGUID="65292196-dd51-4f87-89c0-838242ee86fd" CreationDate="2013-08-02T00:11:17.610" UserId="3076" Comment="Added link" Text="One thing missed is that the specifc document you point to is not a patent at all. It is an application for a patent. This application did result in three patents including [US8181160][1]. As mentioned in other answers at Ask Patents, PAIR has an unforgiving user interface. Look at the examples it shows for number formats and use the radio buttons to tell it what kind of a number you are giving it. The &quot;application number&quot; 2009/123456 is the publication number of the application, not the application number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can look up its history in [USPTO Public PAIR.][2]The entire back-and-forth between the applicant and the examiner are there as well as all the things the applicant and the examiner knew of as potentially relevant prior art are listed. A quick look at the image file wrapper shows the claims were rejected and correspondingly narrowed/clarified three times between the claims in the initial application and the granted claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the basics of patent reading are that the finally granted claims define what the examiner agreed was new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8181160&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4646" RevisionGUID="63525775-21cb-4c46-870f-63bc7759972d" CreationDate="2013-08-02T01:13:44.587" UserId="3076" Comment="Added image of ids" Text="A product being made and sold by the inventor/applicant more than a year before the earliest filing is definitely good prior art to a patent claiming features of the product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inventor's patent agent did file an IDS form (below) making the examiner aware of some things they knew about. A product instruction manual published before the year grace period should also have been included. Unless the claims are all targeted to a new feature introduced after May 2008 it is hard to see how this was done properly.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The year clock of the grace period can be started by an offer for sale even if no sale is made as long as the product is ready for patenting at that time. This assumes that the version of the product actually had the feature being covered in a claim. In this case claim 1 is directed to a physical adjustability to support a variety of wavelengths and the general &quot;knock down&quot; design.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;However an enabling disclosure like the product review is easier to use as proof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/eCcRw.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="074e4353-7fe7-427a-8cd3-b216baca7785" CreationDate="2013-08-02T02:40:01.400" UserId="5357" Text="https://www.google.com/patents/US20110078554&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;USPG PUBLICATION 20110078554&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior art request for claim 1. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10996" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="074e4353-7fe7-427a-8cd3-b216baca7785" CreationDate="2013-08-02T02:40:01.400" UserId="5357" Text="Prior Art for (Microsoft) Webpage entity extraction through joint understanding of page structures and sentences" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10997" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="074e4353-7fe7-427a-8cd3-b216baca7785" CreationDate="2013-08-02T02:40:01.400" UserId="5357" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="3baa4d4f-3df0-49e9-b083-45b21dfad88a" CreationDate="2013-08-02T04:06:02.147" UserId="1767" Comment="updated with more info for prior art request" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ANALYZING A WEBPAGE** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...extracting information blocks from a webpage based on text and visual layout! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Webpage extraction through page structure and sentences**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for extracting entities in a webpage using a **text understanding component** and a **visual layout extraction&quot; component**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110078554 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 12/569,912&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Sep 30, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A system comprising, a framework that processes a webpage to understand one or more entities of the webpage, the framework including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a text understanding component and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component providing text-related data to the structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the structure understanding component using the text-related data and visual layout features of the webpage to produce a labeled block,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component using the labeled block to understand text of the one or more entities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for processing a webpage, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A text understanding component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A visual layout (&quot;structure&quot;) understanding component; where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The text component provides data to the visual layout component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The visual layout component produces a labeled block based on the visual layout and the text; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. The text understanding component uses the labeled block to &quot;understand&quot; the text of an entity on the webpage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Predicting the performance of the keyword (based on any metric) for the subject advertiser based on the performance of the keyword for the similar advertiser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Sep 30, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A natural language processing framework for labeling webpages” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/V9vSS.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110078554&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10999" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="3baa4d4f-3df0-49e9-b083-45b21dfad88a" CreationDate="2013-08-02T04:06:02.147" UserId="1767" Comment="updated with more info for prior art request" Text="Webpage Extraction - Using Visual Structure and Text Analysis to Label Blocks (Microsoft) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11000" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="3baa4d4f-3df0-49e9-b083-45b21dfad88a" CreationDate="2013-08-02T04:06:02.147" UserId="1767" Comment="updated with more info for prior art request" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;websites&gt;&lt;us20110078554&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="74b10e07-b94d-4623-8700-a15320d84ca1" CreationDate="2013-08-02T04:35:22.550" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 166 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ANALYZING A WEBPAGE** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...extracting information blocks from a webpage based on text and visual layout! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Webpage extraction through page structure and sentences**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for extracting entities in a webpage using a **text understanding component** and a **visual layout extraction&quot; component**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110078554 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 12/569,912&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Sep 30, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A system comprising, a framework that processes a webpage to understand one or more entities of the webpage, the framework including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a text understanding component and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component providing text-related data to the structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the structure understanding component using the text-related data and visual layout features of the webpage to produce a labeled block,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component using the labeled block to understand text of the one or more entities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for processing a webpage, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A text understanding component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A visual layout (&quot;structure&quot;) understanding component; where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The text component provides data to the visual layout component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The visual layout component produces a labeled block based on the visual layout and the text; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. The text understanding component uses the labeled block to &quot;understand&quot; the text of an entity on the webpage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Sep 30, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A natural language processing framework for labeling webpages” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/V9vSS.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110078554&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11002" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="74b10e07-b94d-4623-8700-a15320d84ca1" CreationDate="2013-08-02T04:35:22.550" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 166 characters in body" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;websites&gt;&lt;us20110078554&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4670" RevisionGUID="4125c64b-bdaa-4dae-92d7-e9942f720ae7" CreationDate="2013-08-02T05:06:03.003" UserId="3432" Text="I contributed to a project on github github: https://github.com/reprappro/host which is about an implementation of a slicer in java.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it contains code that allows to do what this patent claims: &#xD;&#xA;The file PolygonList.java contains this at line 1204: https://github.com/reprappro/host/blob/master/src/org/reprap/geometry/polygons/PolygonList.java#L1204 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    /**&#xD;&#xA;     * This assumes that the RrPolygonList for which it is called is all the closed outline&#xD;&#xA;     * polygons, and that hatching is their infill hatch. It goes through the outlines&#xD;&#xA;     * and the hatch modifying both so that that outlines actually start and end half-way&#xD;&#xA;     * along a hatch line (that half of the hatch line being deleted). When the outlines&#xD;&#xA;     * are then printed, they start and end in the middle of a solid area, thus minimising dribble.&#xD;&#xA;     *&#xD;&#xA;     * The outline polygons are re-ordered before the start so that their first point is&#xD;&#xA;     * the most extreme one in the current hatch direction.&#xD;&#xA;     *&#xD;&#xA;     * Only hatches and outlines whose physical extruders match are altered.&#xD;&#xA;     *&#xD;&#xA;     * @param hatching&#xD;&#xA;     * @param lc&#xD;&#xA;     */&#xD;&#xA;     public void middleStarts(PolygonList hatching, LayerRules lc, BooleanGridList slice)&#xD;&#xA;     {&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The implementation changes the outline (what is to be printed on the perimeter) so that it starts and ends within the interior region of the layer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The github repository has its first commit dated at Sep 03, 2010. But within the git repository there is a svn repository checked in, so I was able to extract from that .svn repository these log messages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    r3199 | adrian-bowyer | 2009-07-24 23:35:26 +0200 (Fr, 24 Jul 2009) | 1 line&#xD;&#xA;    More work on code to start and end outline polygons in the middle of solid areas to minimise dribble.&#xD;&#xA;    ------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    r3196 | adrian-bowyer | 2009-07-24 00:58:27 +0200 (Fr, 24 Jul 2009) | 1 line&#xD;&#xA;    Started adding code to start and end outline polygons in the middle of solid areas to minimise dribble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this would predate the date of the patent claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4671" RevisionGUID="961ce911-83a7-4ea6-b8b8-5c5da10d307d" CreationDate="2013-08-02T05:49:30.607" UserId="4857" Text="First there is Optical Character Recognition http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_character_recognition, which analyses printed text and looks for visual structures (columns, tables) to produce a digital version of the book or translate a pdf to plain text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To label parts of a text as a business, person or city you can refer to techniques suchs as Geotagging. An example is http://www.maproomblog.com/2009/05/yahoo_placemaker.php from May 2009. This service analyses a piece of text for reference to locations and returns a set of cities and there likelyhood of being mentioned. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tagging of other tags in a text is describe in 2006 http://viget.com/extend/tagging-text-automatically. This article mentions another service of Yahoo and one called TagThe.net&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course there is the scientific field of text mining which exists since 1980. &#xD;&#xA;http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_mining &#xD;&#xA;There are lots of books/papers on this topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion OCR handles point 1 to 4 and 5 is just text mining" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4672" RevisionGUID="4a0e0d49-0aed-4be3-b9f1-549163f9113c" CreationDate="2013-08-02T07:13:54.473" UserId="5358" Text="I am thinking of designing a particular phone case. My question is normally what is the process between the design stage up to pitching the design? Is it simply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Design product&#xD;&#xA;Get a patent on design&#xD;&#xA;Pitch design to company&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also how much does a patent cost in £?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11006" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4672" RevisionGUID="4a0e0d49-0aed-4be3-b9f1-549163f9113c" CreationDate="2013-08-02T07:13:54.473" UserId="5358" Text="When to get a patent after designing a product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11007" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4672" RevisionGUID="4a0e0d49-0aed-4be3-b9f1-549163f9113c" CreationDate="2013-08-02T07:13:54.473" UserId="5358" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4673" RevisionGUID="65811d88-65e8-42c4-9053-f97de377fd54" CreationDate="2013-08-02T07:30:17.883" UserId="3076" Text="Design, initiate some form of protection, then pitch - would be my recommendation. The protection may not need to be a patent application and you certainly don't need to wait for a patent to issue. The protection for a phone case might be trademark, design registration or could be a patent application if there are unique functional aspects. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4674" RevisionGUID="1cb8dcb0-da0c-4219-b003-9a94e6d425f6" CreationDate="2013-08-02T12:35:23.667" UserId="5071" Text="While I think that [user4857's answer](http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/4671/5071) on Text Mining is good, I think it could be said that most text mining services qualify for 1-5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I think it's quite clear that [Web Mining](http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/4671/5071) does cover it quite completely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Particularly, I'm thinking about those pages that give you custom ads that highlight certain words in the webpages you visit. I can't think of any of those pages offhand, mostly because I don't like pages like that, but they qualify. They even put up a popup on the text to help the user understand (or purchase) the text in question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="c4979f6a-654c-4ab4-90f5-7905d164db33" CreationDate="2013-08-02T13:37:46.273" UserId="5055" Comment="Updated claim 1 wording to the current version (29-04-2013)" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ANALYZING A WEBPAGE** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...extracting information blocks from a webpage based on text and visual layout! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Webpage extraction through page structure and sentences**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for extracting entities in a webpage using a **text understanding component** and a **visual layout extraction&quot; component**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110078554 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 12/569,912&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Sep 30, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. In a computing environment, a system comprising, at least one processor, a memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and including components comprising, a framework configured to process a webpage to understand one or more entities of the webpage, the framework including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a text understanding component and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to provide text-related data to the structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the structure understanding component configured to use the text-related data and visual layout features of the webpage to produce a labeled block,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to use the labeled block to understand text of the one or more entities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for processing a webpage, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A text understanding component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A visual layout (&quot;structure&quot;) understanding component; where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The text component provides data to the visual layout component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The visual layout component produces a labeled block based on the visual layout and the text; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. The text understanding component uses the labeled block to &quot;understand&quot; the text of an entity on the webpage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Sep 30, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A natural language processing framework for labeling webpages” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/V9vSS.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110078554&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11011" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="c4979f6a-654c-4ab4-90f5-7905d164db33" CreationDate="2013-08-02T13:37:46.273" Comment="Proposed by 5055 approved by 1767 edit id of 420" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4675" RevisionGUID="c59257c8-c7fc-46e0-ab48-1fa1764dec69" CreationDate="2013-08-02T13:49:13.147" UserId="5360" Text="Source: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&amp;r=60&amp;p=2&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=(20130801.PD.+AND+Microsoft.AS.)&amp;OS=PD/20130801+AND+AN/Microsoft&amp;RS=(PD/20130801+AND+AN/Microsoft)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A method for inviting a potential player to participate in a multiplayer game with a user, the multiplayer game displayed by a display of a user head-mounted display device, comprising: receiving user voice data from the user; determining that the user voice data is an invitation to participate in the multiplayer game; receiving eye-tracking information, depth information, facial recognition information, potential player head-mounted display device information, and/or potential player voice data; associating the invitation with the potential player using the eye-tracking information, the depth information, the facial recognition information, the potential player head-mounted display device information, and/or the potential player voice data; matching a potential player account with the potential player; receiving an acceptance response from the potential player; and joining the potential player account with a user account associated with the user in participating in the multiplayer game. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The method for inviting a potential player to participate in a multiplayer game of claim 1, wherein the multiplayer game is an active multiplayer game in which the user is currently participating. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The method for inviting a potential player to participate in a multiplayer game of claim 1, wherein the depth information comprises a measured depth of an interaction space in which the user and the potential player are located, further comprising: using the depth information to select a suggested multiplayer game that is physically compatible with the measured depth of the interaction space; and suggesting to the user the suggested multiplayer game. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The method for inviting a potential player to participate in a multiplayer game of claim 1, further comprising displaying via the display of the user head-mounted display device an indicator adjacent to the potential player showing a potential player availability and/or an invitation status. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. The method for inviting a potential player to participate in a multiplayer game of claim 1, further comprising displaying via the display of the user head-mounted display device potential player profile information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. The method for inviting a potential player to participate in a multiplayer game of claim 5, wherein the potential player profile information includes a name, a user ID, a game achievement level, and/or game interests. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. The method for inviting a potential player to participate in a multiplayer game of claim 1, further comprising matching the potential player account with the potential player using the facial recognition information, the potential player head-mounted display device information, and/or the potential player voice data. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. The method for inviting a potential player to participate in a multiplayer game of claim 1, wherein the acceptance response comprises the potential player voice data and/or a gesture performed by the potential player. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9. The method for inviting a potential player to participate in a multiplayer game of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the user voice data is a command to exit the multiplayer game; and removing the user account from participation in the multiplayer game. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10. A multiplayer game invitation system including a user head-mounted display device having a display, the user head-mounted display device operatively connected to a computing device, the multiplayer game invitation system comprising: a potential player invitation program executed by a processor of the computing device, the potential player invitation program configured to: receive user voice data from a user; determine that the user voice data is an invitation to participate in a multiplayer game; receive eye-tracking information, depth information, facial recognition information, potential player head-mounted display device information, and/or potential player voice data; associate the invitation with a potential player using the eye-tracking information, the depth information, the facial recognition information, the potential player head-mounted display device information, and/or the potential player voice data; match a potential player account with the potential player; receive an acceptance response from the potential player; and join the potential player account with a user account associated with the user in participating in the multiplayer game. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;11. The multiplayer game invitation system of claim 10, wherein the potential player invitation program is further configured to display via the display of the user head-mounted display device a list of one or more multiplayer games available to the user and the potential player. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12. The multiplayer game invitation system of claim 10, wherein the depth information comprises a measured depth of an interaction space in which the user and the potential player are located, and the potential player invitation program is further configured to: use the depth information to select a suggested multiplayer game that is physically compatible with the measured depth of the interaction space; and suggest to the user the suggested multiplayer game. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;13. The multiplayer game invitation system of claim 10, wherein the potential player invitation program is further configured to display via the display of the user head-mounted display device an indicator adjacent to the potential player showing a potential player availability and/or an invitation status. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;14. The multiplayer game invitation system of claim 10, wherein the potential player invitation program is further configured to display via the display of the user head-mounted display device potential player profile information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;15. The multiplayer game invitation system of claim 10, wherein the potential player invitation program is further configured to: display via the display of the user head-mounted display device an image corresponding to an active multiplayer game in which a currently-participating potential player is participating; determine that the user voice data is a request to join in participating in the active multiplayer game; receive the acceptance response from the currently-participating potential player; and join the user account with a currently-participating potential player account in participating in the active multiplayer game. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;16. The multiplayer game invitation system of claim 10, wherein the potential player invitation program is further configured to match the potential player account with the potential player using the facial recognition information, the potential player head-mounted display device information, and/or the potential player voice data. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;17. The multiplayer game invitation system of claim 10, wherein the acceptance response comprises the potential player voice data and/or a gesture performed by the potential player. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;18. The multiplayer game invitation system of claim 10, wherein the potential player invitation program is further configured to: determine that the user voice data is a command to exit the multiplayer game; and remove the user account from participation in the multiplayer game. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;19. A computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions stored thereon and executable by a computing device to enable a user to invite a potential player to participate in a multiplayer game with the user, the instructions being executable to: receive user voice data from the user; determine that the user voice data is an invitation to participate in a multiplayer game; receive eye-tracking information, depth information, facial recognition information, potential player head-mounted display device information, and/or potential player voice data; associate the invitation with the potential player using the eye-tracking information, the depth information, the facial recognition information, the potential player head-mounted display device information, and/or the potential player voice data; match a potential player account with the potential player; receive an acceptance response from the potential player; and join the potential player account with a user account associated with the user in participating in the multiplayer game. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;20. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 19, wherein the depth information comprises a measured depth in an interaction space in which the user and the potential player are located, and the instructions are executable by the computing device to: use the depth information to select a suggested multiplayer game that is physically compatible with the measured depth of the interaction space; and suggest to the user the suggested multiplayer game." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11013" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4675" RevisionGUID="c59257c8-c7fc-46e0-ab48-1fa1764dec69" CreationDate="2013-08-02T13:49:13.147" UserId="5360" Text="Microsoft's &quot;MULTIPLAYER GAMING WITH HEAD-MOUNTED DISPLAY&quot; AR patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11014" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4675" RevisionGUID="c59257c8-c7fc-46e0-ab48-1fa1764dec69" CreationDate="2013-08-02T13:49:13.147" UserId="5360" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;ar&gt;&lt;head-mounted-display&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4675" RevisionGUID="7d9036bb-7b50-4cbf-a1e8-8209bbbc3d6a" CreationDate="2013-08-02T14:13:12.483" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 5899 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="US Patent Application: [US 20130196757 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Multiplayer Gaming with Head-Mounted Display**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of inviting other playes to join you in a multiplayer game on head-mounted display (e.g. Google Glass).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130196757 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/361,798&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Microsoft, Inc.][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Jan 30, 2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Jan 30, 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Inviting users to multiplayer games with head-mounted display” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/qdtbi.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A method for inviting a potential player to participate in a multiplayer game with a user, the multiplayer game displayed by a display of a user head-mounted display device, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving user voice data from the user; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining that the user voice data is an invitation to participate in the multiplayer game;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving eye-tracking information, depth information, facial recognition information, potential player head-mounted display device information, and/or potential player voice data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. associating the invitation with the potential player using the eye-tracking information, the depth information, the facial recognition information, the potential player head-mounted display device information, and/or the potential player voice data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. matching a potential player account with the potential player;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. receiving an acceptance response from the potential player; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. joining the potential player account with a user account associated with the user in participating in the multiplayer game. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for inviting a potential player to participate in a multiplayer game which is displayed on a head-mounted display (e.g. two users using Google Glass):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. First user invites a second user to a multiplayer game with his voice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Recognizing the second player using face recognition, voice, device information, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Matching a player account with the second user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving an acceptance to play from the second user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Letting the two accounts participate in the multiplayer game together&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]:  http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20130196757.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20130196757RS=DN/20130196757&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11016" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4675" RevisionGUID="7d9036bb-7b50-4cbf-a1e8-8209bbbc3d6a" CreationDate="2013-08-02T14:13:12.483" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 5899 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Multiplayer Gaming with Head-Mounted Display (Microsoft) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11017" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4675" RevisionGUID="7d9036bb-7b50-4cbf-a1e8-8209bbbc3d6a" CreationDate="2013-08-02T14:13:12.483" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 5899 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;us20110078554&gt;&lt;head-mounted-display&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="ac80c9e6-a01c-489f-97d6-d2dd5b80250d" CreationDate="2013-08-02T14:19:56.527" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ANALYZING A WEBPAGE** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...extracting information blocks from a webpage based on text and visual layout! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Webpage extraction through page structure and sentences**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for extracting entities in a webpage using a **text understanding component** and a **visual layout extraction&quot; component**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110078554 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 12/569,912&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Sep 30, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. In a computing environment, a system comprising, at least one processor, a memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and including components comprising, a framework configured to process a webpage to understand one or more entities of the webpage, the framework including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a text understanding component and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to provide text-related data to the structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the structure understanding component configured to use the text-related data and visual layout features of the webpage to produce a labeled block,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to use the labeled block to understand text of the one or more entities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for processing a webpage, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A text understanding component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A visual layout (&quot;structure&quot;) understanding component; where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The text component provides data to the visual layout component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The visual layout component produces a labeled block based on the visual layout and the text; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. The text understanding component uses the labeled block to &quot;understand&quot; the text of an entity on the webpage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Sep 30, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A natural language processing framework for labeling webpages” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/V9vSS.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110078554&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4663" RevisionGUID="201c652a-5f5a-47e1-8a79-d8acd1cfcc26" CreationDate="2013-08-02T14:43:02.127" UserId="5346" Comment="Removed incorrect statement about invalidating claims" Text="This is a very common pattern and should absolutely not be patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can refute the root claim from this patent by demonstrating two prior arts:  Microsoft's own Visual C++ debugger and the game file editor for my own open-source video game.  I present both because they accomplish the claims of this patent in two different ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [VS Debugger Example Image][1] from Visual C++ 6.0 (circa 1998).  Discussion refers to the &quot;Watch 1&quot; panel.&#xD;&#xA; - [Image from my game editor][2] and [its source code, published 2010][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A computer-readable non-transitory storage medium configured with data and with instructions that when executed by at least one processor causes the processor(s) to perform a process for &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is filler text to say that it runs on a computer that saves its data &amp; code on a hard drive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;utilizing an instance of an object type in a graphical programming environment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be obvious that the debugger has instances of object types in its GUI.  In the game editor screenshot, you see the objects listed on the left in bold, with their properties indented.  Properties in both examples can be other objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;the instance having at least one field defined by the object type, each field of the instance having a name and capable of being assigned a value,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All fields in the debugger are defined by the object type.  The &quot;Name&quot; and &quot;Value&quot; columns declare the name and value of a field (row) within an object.  In the game editor, the name is to the left on a line with white background, and its value is to the right in gray text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the process comprising the steps of receiving a selection that identifies the instance of the object type;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clicking the object accomplishes this in both examples.  By expanding an object, you select the instance of the object type whose fields you want to examine or edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; automatically determining what fields are defined for the object type instance;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The debugger does this using metadata from the compiler (&quot;program database&quot;, aka [PDB files][4]).  Alternatively, the game editor does this using a mechanism in the source code itself.  Each object has a standard interface to query for its defined fields.  Details of the implementation can be found in the open-source code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; automatically generating an instance data population user interface in the graphical programming environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The debugger populates the &quot;Locals&quot; list view with variables automatically when a breakpoint is hit by the executing program.  The game editor populates its list on program start.  It takes a static root object, queries for its sub-objects, and adds those into the list.  It repeats the process for each of the objects it just added until it reaches objects with no sub-objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and displaying at least the following in the user interface: the name of each field that is defined for the object type instance, and a currently assigned value for each field that currently has an assigned value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is again the &quot;Name&quot; and &quot;Value&quot; columns in the Visual C++ debugger, where each row is a field and an expandable block with a + next to it is an object type instance.  In the game editor, the expandable blocks with a + on the left are object type instances, and the fields are either other object type instances or white lines.  The white lines are again left-aligned bold text for the name, and right-aligned truncated gray text for the value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are, in fact, many more examples of visual debuggers other than Visual C++ that can counter these claims equally, but I chose Visual C++ because it was a Microsoft product, and presumably the Inventors would have been quite aware of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe all claims could all be easily invalidated by these two examples of prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://visualddk.sysprogs.org/screenshots/dbg1.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/YUsAr.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://sourceforge.net/projects/evidyon/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/yd4f8bd1(v=vs.71).aspx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="ec222e3b-c2bf-426d-af19-006ea81f7161" CreationDate="2013-08-02T14:47:34.330" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ANALYZING A WEBPAGE** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...extracting information blocks from a webpage based on text and visual layout! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Webpage extraction through page structure and sentences**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for extracting entities in a webpage using a **text understanding component** and a **visual layout extraction&quot; component**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110078554 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 12/569,912&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Sep 30, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. In a computing environment, a system comprising, at least one processor, a memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and including components comprising, a framework configured to process a webpage to understand one or more entities of the webpage, the framework including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a text understanding component and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to provide text-related data to the structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the structure understanding component configured to use the text-related data and visual layout features of the webpage to produce a labeled block,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to use the labeled block to understand text of the one or more entities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for processing a webpage, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A text understanding component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A visual layout (&quot;structure&quot;) understanding component; where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The text component provides data to the visual layout component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The visual layout component produces a labeled block based on the visual layout and the text; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. The text understanding component uses the labeled block to &quot;understand&quot; the text of an entity on the webpage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Sep 30, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A natural language processing framework for labeling webpages” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/V9vSS.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110078554&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4675" RevisionGUID="f78835d8-b96d-4ffb-805a-73c8a3588b2d" CreationDate="2013-08-02T18:16:55.100" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" US Patent Application: [US 20130196757 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Multiplayer Gaming with Head-Mounted Display**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of inviting other playes to join you in a multiplayer game on head-mounted display (e.g. Google Glass).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130196757 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/361,798&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Microsoft, Inc.][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Jan 30, 2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Jan 30, 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Inviting users to multiplayer games with head-mounted display” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/qdtbi.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A method for inviting a potential player to participate in a multiplayer game with a user, the multiplayer game displayed by a display of a user head-mounted display device, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving user voice data from the user; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining that the user voice data is an invitation to participate in the multiplayer game;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving eye-tracking information, depth information, facial recognition information, potential player head-mounted display device information, and/or potential player voice data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. associating the invitation with the potential player using the eye-tracking information, the depth information, the facial recognition information, the potential player head-mounted display device information, and/or the potential player voice data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. matching a potential player account with the potential player;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. receiving an acceptance response from the potential player; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. joining the potential player account with a user account associated with the user in participating in the multiplayer game. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for inviting a potential player to participate in a multiplayer game which is displayed on a head-mounted display (e.g. two users using Google Glass):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. First user invites a second user to a multiplayer game with his voice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Recognizing the second player using face recognition, voice, device information, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Matching a player account with the second user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving an acceptance to play from the second user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Letting the two accounts participate in the multiplayer game together&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]:  http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20130196757.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20130196757RS=DN/20130196757&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="60e9d9cc-8080-4316-a247-e98965bd9dc4" CreationDate="2013-08-02T18:17:05.603" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ANALYZING A WEBPAGE** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...extracting information blocks from a webpage based on text and visual layout! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Webpage extraction through page structure and sentences**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for extracting entities in a webpage using a **text understanding component** and a **visual layout extraction&quot; component**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110078554 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 12/569,912&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Sep 30, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. In a computing environment, a system comprising, at least one processor, a memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and including components comprising, a framework configured to process a webpage to understand one or more entities of the webpage, the framework including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a text understanding component and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to provide text-related data to the structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the structure understanding component configured to use the text-related data and visual layout features of the webpage to produce a labeled block,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to use the labeled block to understand text of the one or more entities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for processing a webpage, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A text understanding component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A visual layout (&quot;structure&quot;) understanding component; where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The text component provides data to the visual layout component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The visual layout component produces a labeled block based on the visual layout and the text; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. The text understanding component uses the labeled block to &quot;understand&quot; the text of an entity on the webpage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Sep 30, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A natural language processing framework for labeling webpages” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/V9vSS.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110078554&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4338" RevisionGUID="2abd2701-aef2-4280-be60-49edc5fb1019" CreationDate="2013-08-02T20:52:14.730" UserId="4554" Comment="added some notes about Evan &quot;Rabble&quot; Henshaw-Plath and TXTmob" Text="None of these are really patentable. While Twitter created a brilliant product with brilliant execution, it was a blending of two already-existing ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Blogging with followers lists &#xD;&#xA; 2. Broadcast SMS with distribution lists&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The innovation here was not technical innovation so much, but in product design. In previous broadcast SMS systems, one had to manually define a list. With Twitter, it was defined by the other users who followed you. And the blogging sites which had a concept of 'followers' typically focused on long-form diary entries, unsuitable for Twitter's vision of a stream of instant, short messages, shareable to mobile devices. But great product design, however praiseworthy, doesn't deserve a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *blogging with followers lists*, the blogging platform [LiveJournal](http://livejournal.com) had almost all of these features, almost from its inception, in [1999](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LiveJournal). It began as another blogging platform but rapidly became about the network of users who &quot;followed&quot; each others' blogs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiveJournal is not well-known today, but in the early 2000s it was one of the leading social networks, especially for teens and young people. It even briefly appears in the movie *The Social Network*, since the real-life Mark Zuckerberg was a user before he created Facebook.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *broadcast SMS with distribution lists*, there were many similar services that predated Twitter. Some of them were explicitly for social sharing, like [Dodgeball (founded 2000)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodgeball_(service)). You can also find a description of a system created by Microsoft Research in 2005 (http://research.microsoft.com/~counts/pubs/slam_jcscw_leisure2.doc)‎  that allowed for the creation of such distribution lists on mobile devices. Other sites like 3Jam and Yahoo's experimental service MixD offered similar services in the mid-2000s, contemporaneous with early Twitter (http://www.minger.net/2006/11/30/yahoo-launches-group-sms-service-mixd/). To be honest, you can probably find all kinds of papers and products by just searching for &quot;group SMS text 200x&quot; and replace X with a digit; that's what I did. It was a hot area of research at the time, and many group SMS services were sprouting up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Point by point, here we go:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of communicating among users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, pretty much everything on the Internet is. But these systems described above are very much like Twitter, used primarily for self-expression, and sharing with one's friends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One user (the &quot;first&quot; user) can &quot;follow&quot; another user (the &quot;second&quot; user).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiveJournal had that, although it was typically called &quot;friending&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;second&quot; user can post a message. The message is not posted &quot;to&quot; anyone, it is just posted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiveJournal qualifies. While one could read the LiveJournal of a user as if it was a blog, that was just *one* way of consuming the stream of messages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; All followers of the second user receive the posted message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The notion of 'receive' is a little bit fuzzy here. Even on Twitter, users do not necessarily receive the message. Instead, they have an account which is configured to 'follow' certain Twitter accounts, and their devices may request portions of the chronologically-ordered combined stream. When Twitter is used in that way, through its web interface, it's analogous to LiveJournal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in its earliest form, Twitter also instantly pushed messages out to SMS and continues to provide similar alerts to with its mobile apps. LiveJournal never did anything like that. To find an analog you have to look to the group SMS distribution systems I referred to above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The first user can choose from a set of possible methods for receiving messages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiveJournal had that early on. One primarily read through the web, but an API as well as RSS feeds were added, and soon clients for many different platforms appeared.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: One of the creators of Twitter, Evan &quot;Rabble&quot; Henshaw-Plath, recently talked about the origins of Twitter at the [OHM 2013](http://ohm2013.org) conference. He confirmed that the idea for Twitter was born with experimental group text messaging services, in particular, [TXTmob](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TXTMob), which was used for protest actions during the 2004 US Elections. In his talk, Henshaw-Plath also mentioned the old unix protocol [finger](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_protocol) and the social model derived from sites like Facebook.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Henshaw-Plath also related the same story about TXTmob in comments to a chapter of a book about Twitter. Those comments seem to be removed from the site today, but they are still available on the Internet Archive's [cached copy from 2009](http://web.archive.org/web/20090623032756/http://www.140characters.com/2009/01/30/how-twitter-was-born/). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4338" RevisionGUID="96ea563f-775e-4f1b-a29f-7f560fb525c1" CreationDate="2013-08-02T20:58:57.557" UserId="4554" Comment="added some notes about Evan &quot;Rabble&quot; Henshaw-Plath and TXTmob" Text="None of these are really patentable. While Twitter created a brilliant product with brilliant execution, it was a blending of two already-existing ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Blogging with followers lists &#xD;&#xA; 2. SMS with distribution lists&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the creators of Twitter, Evan &quot;Rabble&quot; Henshaw-Plath, confirmed as much in a recent talk given at the [OHM 2013](http://ohm2013.org) conference, on August 2, 2013, where he named many precedents for Twitter as direct influences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The innovation here was not technical innovation so much, but in product design. In previous broadcast SMS systems, one had to manually define a list. With Twitter, it was defined by the other users who followed you. And the blogging sites which had a concept of 'followers' typically focused on long-form diary entries, unsuitable for Twitter's vision of a stream of instant, short messages, shareable to mobile devices. But great product design, however praiseworthy, doesn't deserve a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *blogging with followers lists*, Henshaw-Plath named Facebook. But I would go back a bit further, to the blogging platform [LiveJournal](http://livejournal.com), which had almost all of these features, almost from its inception, in [1999](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LiveJournal). It began as another blogging platform but rapidly became about the network of users who &quot;followed&quot; each others' blogs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiveJournal is not well-known today, but in the early 2000s it was one of the leading social networks, especially for teens and young people. It even briefly appears in the movie *The Social Network*, since the real-life Mark Zuckerberg was a user before he created Facebook.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *SMS with distribution lists*, there were many similar services that predated Twitter. Some of them were explicitly for social sharing, like [Dodgeball (founded 2000)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodgeball_(service)). Henshaw-Plath cited [TXTmob](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TXTMob), which was used for protest actions during the 2004 US Elections, as one of the major inspirations for Twitter. Henshaw-Plath also related the same story about TXTmob in comments to a chapter of a book about Twitter. Those comments seem to be removed from the site today, but they are still available on the Internet Archive's [cached copy from 2009](http://web.archive.org/web/20090623032756/http://www.140characters.com/2009/01/30/how-twitter-was-born/). You can also find a description of a system created by Microsoft Research in 2005 (http://research.microsoft.com/~counts/pubs/slam_jcscw_leisure2.doc)‎  that allowed for the creation of such distribution lists on mobile devices. Other sites like 3Jam and Yahoo's experimental service MixD offered similar services in the mid-2000s, contemporaneous with early Twitter (http://www.minger.net/2006/11/30/yahoo-launches-group-sms-service-mixd/). To be honest, you can probably find all kinds of papers and products by just searching for &quot;group SMS text 200x&quot; and replace X with a digit. It was a hot area of research at the time, and many group SMS services were sprouting up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Point by point, here we go:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of communicating among users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, pretty much everything on the Internet is. But these systems described above are very much like Twitter, used primarily for self-expression, and sharing with one's friends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One user (the &quot;first&quot; user) can &quot;follow&quot; another user (the &quot;second&quot; user).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiveJournal had that, although it was typically called &quot;friending&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;second&quot; user can post a message. The message is not posted &quot;to&quot; anyone, it is just posted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiveJournal qualifies. While one could read the LiveJournal of a user as if it was a blog, that was just *one* way of consuming the stream of messages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; All followers of the second user receive the posted message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The notion of 'receive' is a little bit fuzzy here. Even on Twitter, users do not necessarily receive the message. Instead, they have an account which is configured to 'follow' certain Twitter accounts, and their devices may request portions of the chronologically-ordered combined stream. When Twitter is used in that way, through its web interface, it's analogous to LiveJournal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in its earliest form, Twitter also instantly pushed messages out to SMS and continues to provide similar alerts to with its mobile apps. LiveJournal never did anything like that. To find an analog you have to look to the group SMS distribution systems I referred to above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The first user can choose from a set of possible methods for receiving messages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiveJournal had that early on. One primarily read through the web, but an API as well as RSS feeds were added, and soon clients for many different platforms appeared.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4680" RevisionGUID="03cbda67-a841-4dff-a363-f5a630ce6763" CreationDate="2013-08-02T23:02:36.070" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Wireless Audio** - This application from [Logitech][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Forwarding a media stream from a first media output device to a second media output device! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/25/2011** that discusses:																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sharing a media stream between two media devices																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses terminates the first media stream when it is transferred to a second media device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: EASY SHARING OF WIRELESS AUDIO SIGNALS**																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A user commands (with voice, button, gesture, anything) a first media output device (e.g. an iPhone) to stream to a second media output device (e.g. a TV)																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130117693 A1][2]																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/567,203																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Logitech																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/25/2011																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/5/2013																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method comprising:																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving, at a first media output device, streaming media from a media source device;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. receiving, at the first media output device, a command by motion or voice to share the streaming media with a second media output device; and																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. initiating, by the first media output device, sharing of the streaming media between the first media output device and the second media output device.																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Streaming media to a media output device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving a command to transfer the streaming media to a second media output device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Streaming the media from the first media output device to the second media output device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/25/2011																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO where the first media output stream is terminated when it is streaming to a second media device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;----------																			&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;easy sharing of media from one media output device from a first user to a media output device of a second userfrom the Applicant&quot;**																			&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/SUsfP.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;----------																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;----------																			&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant																			&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130117693?dq=US20130117693A1																			&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art																			&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant																			&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.logitech.com																																				" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11045" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4680" RevisionGUID="03cbda67-a841-4dff-a363-f5a630ce6763" CreationDate="2013-08-02T23:02:36.070" UserId="1767" Text="Wireless Audio - Easy sharing of wireless audio signals (Logitech) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11046" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4680" RevisionGUID="03cbda67-a841-4dff-a363-f5a630ce6763" CreationDate="2013-08-02T23:02:36.070" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130117693&gt;&lt;logitech&gt;&lt;wireless-audio&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4681" RevisionGUID="32442b81-2e2e-4eee-a6f2-449d8ea80778" CreationDate="2013-08-03T01:51:05.047" UserId="4959" Text="This looks like it was preceded by http://www.google.com/patents/WO2006133764A8 &quot;A method for establishing a paired connection between media devices&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ABSTRACT** &#xD;&#xA;&gt;A method for establishing a paired connection between first and second media devices &gt;across a network includes transmitting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a first information message across the network including an identifier&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that includes a request to pair the first and second media devices.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When a second information message is received from the second media&#xD;&#xA;&gt; device within a first predetermined time period, the first device&#xD;&#xA;&gt; retrieves an identifier of the second device and transmits a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; confirmation message across the network including the device&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identifiers. A paired connection between the media devices is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; completed after a corresponding confirmation message from the second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; device is received within a second predetermined time period.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4682" RevisionGUID="47c75864-ad6e-4b89-8870-28e25a9ba6ff" CreationDate="2013-08-03T01:58:10.463" UserId="4959" Text="This might have been anticipated by https://www.google.com/patents/US8464312 &quot;Integrated network policy enforcement&quot; :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;**ABSTRACT** A method and system for integrating network policy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; enforcement into an existing network infrastructure comprises a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; communications bus that links expert policy devices, such as intrusion&#xD;&#xA;&gt; prevention devices, with one or more connection points. The connection&#xD;&#xA;&gt; points are network devices that are equipped with enforcement logic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for receiving reports of events via a published interface on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; communications bus about the existing network infrastructure from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; either the policy devices or the connection points themselves, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; enforcing policy at the connection points by generating an action in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; response to the reported events, including actions to block traffic,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; remediate devices, limit bandwidth, and the like, until the reported&#xD;&#xA;&gt; event has been addressed in a manner that ensures the security of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; existing network infrastructure.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and https://www.google.com/patents/WO2006070054A1 &quot;Method and system for policy enforcement in a communication system&quot; :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;**ABSTRACT** The present invention discloses a method for smart buffering&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for a policy resolution and policy enforcement system. The invention&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can be applied to a communication system with one or several available&#xD;&#xA;&gt; communication network(s). The trigger events and policy actions form&#xD;&#xA;&gt; input and output buffers to be processed in the invention. Causal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; relationships between the trigger events and policy actions are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stored. Priorities can be set to the trigger events and policy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; actions. Sorting is made according to priorities. The buffer data can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be scheduled, in other words delayed, in order to rationalize the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; policy management. The buffer data is combined if several trigger&#xD;&#xA;&gt; events affect the same target or quantity. The buffer data is filtered&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the last step in order to simplify chained trigger events. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; trigger events of filtered input buffer are sent to the policy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; resolution mechanism and the policy actions of filtered output buffer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are sent to the policy action enforcement.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4683" RevisionGUID="92229a2b-59a7-42ea-ac9f-21548cb70334" CreationDate="2013-08-03T02:02:09.980" UserId="4959" Text="This might have been anticipated by https://www.google.com/patents/WO2010141870A1 &quot;3d video processor integrated with head mounted display&quot; :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;**ABSTRACT** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A 3-D stereo video device that includes a headset housing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that incorporates a 3-D video processor chip, video display driver&#xD;&#xA;&gt; circuitry, micro-displays and optics such that the only required&#xD;&#xA;&gt; external component is a joystick or other user input device. By&#xD;&#xA;&gt; utilizing a direct digital video interface between the video processor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chip and the video driver chip, the need for video signal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; encoder/decoders, digital to analog converters, video up-converters&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and other similar complicated circuitry to handle remotely generated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; analog video signals are eliminated. The design not only saves cost&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but also allows for a higher resolution, higher frame-rate video&#xD;&#xA;&gt; presentations than previous designs.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from the **BACKGROUND**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Head-mounted displays are sometimes used in products such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electronic games. For example, a game known as i-Combat™ from a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; company called Radica Games and a product such as the Virtual Boy™&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from Nintendo date from the mid- 1990's time-frame. These games used&#xD;&#xA;&gt; low quality displays of varying types implemented, for example, with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Light Emitting Diode (LED) technology and an oscillating mirror system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to present the image. These devices also had various types of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; connected controllers and game cartridge interfaces.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4684" RevisionGUID="bbd790f7-2e74-4c5b-a618-a6372d055f6b" CreationDate="2013-08-03T02:06:48.437" UserId="4959" Text="This might have been anticipated by https://www.google.com/patents/WO2003077284A2 &quot;Heterojunction bipolar transistor having thinned base-collector depletion region&quot; :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;**ABSTRACT** A heterojunction bipolar transistor includes a substrate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (101) that supports an emitter layer (103), a base layer (105) and a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; collector layer (104). The collector layer is made thin, in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; combination with a reduction in a base-collector area in order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reduce capacitance, and is made from a wide band gap material that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exhibits a high breakdown voltage. Preferably the collector layer is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an intrinsic semiconductor material, such as intrinsic InGaP having a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thickness of about 90 nm. The collector is thinned to reduce the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; probability of scattering, enabling electrons to be accelerated to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; higher kinetic energies due to an electrical field applied to a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; base-collector depletion region and one present in a base-collector&#xD;&#xA;&gt; junction.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4685" RevisionGUID="80349460-b27f-45d8-9104-94eb9653f58f" CreationDate="2013-08-03T02:09:59.510" UserId="4959" Text="Your interlocking rings might have been anticipated also by https://www.google.com/patents/US6484536 &quot;Interlocking Rings&quot; :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;**ABSTRACT** An item of jewelry preferably in the form of a ring having a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first ring portion mechanically interconnected to a second ring&#xD;&#xA;&gt; portion. Preferably each ring portion includes a plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; alternating radially inward linking segments and radially outward&#xD;&#xA;&gt; linking segments. The radially inward linking segments include a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; groove which mates with a tongue formation on the radially outward&#xD;&#xA;&gt; linking segments.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from the **DESCRIPTION**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;**TECHNICAL FIELD** The present invention is generally directed to an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interlocking connection for two or more components of an item of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; jewelry, and more particularly to an interlocking connection for two&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or more ring portions which are combined into a single finished ring.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4686" RevisionGUID="9f9a02b6-23c9-4ee0-9d00-f23c2504c4f2" CreationDate="2013-08-03T02:12:57.927" UserId="4959" Text="Try http://google.com/patents (and use Google-fu) - as George White commented however, that patent might have been brought and sold several times at your time of search" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4687" RevisionGUID="e24908f9-ae50-4d60-9c5f-0eb654b19348" CreationDate="2013-08-03T02:19:56.987" UserId="4959" Text="This might have been anticipated by https://www.google.com/patents/EP0714587A1 &quot;A method for determining whether to intra code a video block&quot; :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;**ABSTRACT**   Whether to encode a present video block of an incoming&#xD;&#xA;&gt; video frame, i.e., intra code, or whether to encode the difference&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between the present video block of the incoming frame and a best match&#xD;&#xA;&gt; video block from a previously store video frame, i.e., non-intra code,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is determined in a video compression system (100). First, the present&#xD;&#xA;&gt; video block is divided into a predetermined number of sub blocks&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (301). Then, an average pixel value is calculated for each sub block&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (302) and used along with the individual pixel values of the sub block&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to determine sub block deviations (303). The sub block deviations are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; used to compute a present video block deviation (303). The present&#xD;&#xA;&gt; video block deviation is then compared with an error deviation (306)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that is calculated based upon the present video block pixel values and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the best match video block pixel values (305). If the comparison is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; favorable, then the difference between the present video block and the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; best match video block are encoded. If the comparison is unfavorable,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; then the present video block is encoded.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4688" RevisionGUID="18e87c26-ebb2-44b3-946d-fc9ec5e30b21" CreationDate="2013-08-03T04:28:05.647" UserId="4959" Text="The patent you're referring to might have been anticipated by https://www.google.com/patents/EP1877094A1 &quot;Edible film for transmucosal delivery of nutritional supplements&quot; :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;**ABSTRACT**   In one embodiment of the present invention a composition&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is provided comprising a film layer wherein the film layer rapidly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dissolves in an oral cavity and a coating comprising a powder matrix,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein the coating is applied to at least one side of the film layer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and wherein the powder matrix comprises a nutritional supplement, an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adhesive, a bulking agent, a flow agent, and a sweetener.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4658" RevisionGUID="1203a4d3-3f53-4428-a75b-71586d804d94" CreationDate="2013-08-03T05:59:41.140" UserId="3076" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="All three elements must be present for **that** claim to &quot;read on&quot; a product. It is the all elements rule. On the other hand, if another independent claim only required two of those three elements then this second hypothetical claim could be infringed by a less complete product. There is also a doctrine of equivalents that says that an element might be replaced with a structure that is not technically as required by the clsim wording, but that accomplishes the same thing the same way and still infringe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4680" RevisionGUID="9df2f081-ede3-45d7-ad5f-928cbd0fd3ff" CreationDate="2013-08-03T06:01:28.740" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Wireless Audio** - This application from [Logitech][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Forwarding a media stream from a first media output device to a second media output device! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/25/2011** that discusses:																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sharing a media stream between two media devices																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO terminates the first media stream when it is transferred to a second media device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: EASY SHARING OF WIRELESS AUDIO SIGNALS**																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A user commands (with voice, button, gesture, anything) a first media output device (e.g. an iPhone) to stream to a second media output device (e.g. a TV)																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130117693 A1][2]																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/567,203																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Logitech																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/25/2011																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/5/2013																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method comprising:																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving, at a first media output device, streaming media from a media source device;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. receiving, at the first media output device, a command by motion or voice to share the streaming media with a second media output device; and																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. initiating, by the first media output device, sharing of the streaming media between the first media output device and the second media output device.																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Streaming media to a media output device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving a command to transfer the streaming media to a second media output device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Streaming the media from the first media output device to the second media output device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/25/2011																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO where the first media output stream is terminated when it is streaming to a second media device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;----------																			&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;easy sharing of media from one media output device from a first user to a media output device of a second userfrom the Applicant&quot;**																			&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/SUsfP.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;----------																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;----------																			&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant																			&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130117693?dq=US20130117693A1																			&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art																			&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant																			&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.logitech.com																																				" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4690" RevisionGUID="e7be8a0e-2dfb-4802-afd3-167428208b36" CreationDate="2013-08-03T10:01:37.613" UserId="4099" Text="**The official Johnny Mnemonic movie website** from at the latest 2nd May 1995 completely matches all claims in the patent from well over a year before the filing date. It was episodic (content changed daily).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a Usenet post on 2nd May 1995 noting its launch: &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.arts.movies.people/AYtUb_APqiE &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ran across a new WWW page exclusively for Keanu Reeves' upcoming movie&#xD;&#xA;Johnny Mnemonic.. You can download audio/video/still clips from the&#xD;&#xA;movie.. **They change  clips everyday..** .Kinda cool.. you can also download&#xD;&#xA;some sort of Virtual Reality type thing just like in the movie.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earliest copy in the Internet archive is from June 1997:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Main page: http://web.archive.org/web/19970605132823/http://www.spe.sony.com/Pictures/SonyMovies/06jonmnu.html&#xD;&#xA;* Multimedia index: http://web.archive.org/web/19970616214147/http://www.spe.sony.com/Pictures/SonyMovies/07multi.html&#xD;&#xA;* Audio files (.aiff/.wav format): http://web.archive.org/web/19970616235825/http://www.spe.sony.com/Pictures/SonyMovies/12audio5.html&#xD;&#xA;* Movie files (.mov format): http://web.archive.org/web/19970616235811/http://www.spe.sony.com/Pictures/SonyMovies/11video5.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Archive.org has even archived some of the movie and audio clips, for example:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/19970616235811/http://www.spe.sony.com/Pictures/SonyMovies/movs/clip5.MOV&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As well as the statement about episodicity in the usenet post, the site itself made it explicit by stating:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Keep tuning in to see and hear the clips of the day. Collect the whole set of exclusive Johnny media. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11061" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4690" RevisionGUID="bebe6463-987e-404a-8391-fcaccd610566" CreationDate="2013-08-03T10:01:37.613" UserId="4099" />
  <row Id="11062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4691" RevisionGUID="8e3ac226-1e3f-4ab8-ae6b-272f9c78d999" CreationDate="2013-08-03T19:35:01.870" UserId="4338" Text="See this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[SMALL DOSES OF PREDNISOLONE IN THE&#xD;&#xA;MANAGEMENT OF RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS](http://ard.bmj.com/content/23/2/158.full.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from 1964..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11063" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1981" RevisionGUID="dfe79f76-6d1f-4a6c-ab77-718980d78316" CreationDate="2013-08-03T19:51:40.953" UserId="7" Comment="Added patent number to tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;drug-ingredients&gt;&lt;medicine&gt;&lt;us6677326&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4675" RevisionGUID="78494d88-19fa-46b1-a127-208d0648242a" CreationDate="2013-08-03T21:28:33.163" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  US Patent Application: [US 20130196757 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Multiplayer Gaming with Head-Mounted Display**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of inviting other playes to join you in a multiplayer game on head-mounted display (e.g. Google Glass).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130196757 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/361,798&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Microsoft, Inc.][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Jan 30, 2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Jan 30, 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Inviting users to multiplayer games with head-mounted display” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/qdtbi.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A method for inviting a potential player to participate in a multiplayer game with a user, the multiplayer game displayed by a display of a user head-mounted display device, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving user voice data from the user; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining that the user voice data is an invitation to participate in the multiplayer game;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving eye-tracking information, depth information, facial recognition information, potential player head-mounted display device information, and/or potential player voice data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. associating the invitation with the potential player using the eye-tracking information, the depth information, the facial recognition information, the potential player head-mounted display device information, and/or the potential player voice data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. matching a potential player account with the potential player;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. receiving an acceptance response from the potential player; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. joining the potential player account with a user account associated with the user in participating in the multiplayer game. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for inviting a potential player to participate in a multiplayer game which is displayed on a head-mounted display (e.g. two users using Google Glass):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. First user invites a second user to a multiplayer game with his voice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Recognizing the second player using face recognition, voice, device information, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Matching a player account with the second user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving an acceptance to play from the second user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Letting the two accounts participate in the multiplayer game together&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]:  http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20130196757.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20130196757RS=DN/20130196757&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="249e1914-ebb9-4a03-9a9b-47227042bc64" CreationDate="2013-08-03T21:28:52.303" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ANALYZING A WEBPAGE** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...extracting information blocks from a webpage based on text and visual layout! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Webpage extraction through page structure and sentences**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for extracting entities in a webpage using a **text understanding component** and a **visual layout extraction&quot; component**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110078554 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 12/569,912&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Sep 30, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. In a computing environment, a system comprising, at least one processor, a memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and including components comprising, a framework configured to process a webpage to understand one or more entities of the webpage, the framework including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a text understanding component and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to provide text-related data to the structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the structure understanding component configured to use the text-related data and visual layout features of the webpage to produce a labeled block,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to use the labeled block to understand text of the one or more entities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for processing a webpage, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A text understanding component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A visual layout (&quot;structure&quot;) understanding component; where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The text component provides data to the visual layout component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The visual layout component produces a labeled block based on the visual layout and the text; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. The text understanding component uses the labeled block to &quot;understand&quot; the text of an entity on the webpage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Sep 30, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A natural language processing framework for labeling webpages” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/V9vSS.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110078554&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4692" RevisionGUID="58648a2d-ab1d-40a0-ac77-a7a79323b4df" CreationDate="2013-08-03T22:06:47.417" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Recognizing objects in images** - This application from [Sony][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying objects through image process and registering content information about those objects! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Object recognition combined with sensor data (e.g. GPS, Inertial Sensors, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses environmental data (e.g. inertial sensor or GPS) or positional data about the object to be recognized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Recognizing objects in images and environmental data**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A camera-type device which recognizes objects in images and attaches content to the recognized objects, which content could include environmental data (e.g. GPS, orientation of camera, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130124518 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/670,705&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Sony&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/12/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. an object information acquiring unit that acquires object information obtained by performing processing for detecting and identifying an object for image data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a content information registering unit that registers target content information in a database in association with the object information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A device for recogizing objects in images, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a unit that detecting and identifying an object in the image data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a unit that associates content information with the object and registers that in a database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Object recognition involving environmental data.  Examples of environmental data cited by the applicant include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - temperature, atmospheric pressure, and humidity,&#xD;&#xA; - orientation and acceleration,&#xD;&#xA; - proximity,&#xD;&#xA; - illuminance,&#xD;&#xA; - noise, &#xD;&#xA; - date,&#xD;&#xA; - attitude (six axes)&#xD;&#xA; - user's vital data (complexion, body temperature, body mass index (BMI),&#xD;&#xA; - user's operation (commuting, playing golf, having dinner, cleaning, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;an information registration system from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/HHftf.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;700&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130124518?dq=US20130124518A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.sony.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11067" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4692" RevisionGUID="58648a2d-ab1d-40a0-ac77-a7a79323b4df" CreationDate="2013-08-03T22:06:47.417" UserId="1767" Text="Image Registration - Identifying objects in images (Sony) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11068" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4692" RevisionGUID="58648a2d-ab1d-40a0-ac77-a7a79323b4df" CreationDate="2013-08-03T22:06:47.417" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130124518&gt;&lt;sony&gt;&lt;image-processing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4692" RevisionGUID="3e152387-1de3-46b1-b6a6-2734f4c3db5a" CreationDate="2013-08-03T22:24:33.253" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Recognizing objects in images** - This application from [Sony][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying objects through image process and registering content information about those objects! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Object recognition combined with sensor data (e.g. GPS, Inertial Sensors, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses environmental data (e.g. inertial sensor or GPS) or positional data about the object to be recognized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Recognizing objects in images and environmental data**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A camera-type device which recognizes objects in images and attaches content to the recognized objects, which content could include environmental data (e.g. GPS, orientation of camera, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130124518 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/670,705&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Sony&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/12/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. an object information acquiring unit that acquires object information obtained by performing processing for detecting and identifying an object for image data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a content information registering unit that registers target content information in a database in association with the object information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A device for recogizing objects in images, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a unit that detects and identifies an object in the image data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a unit that associates content information with the object and registers that in a database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Object recognition involving environmental data.  Examples of environmental data cited by the applicant include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - temperature, atmospheric pressure, and humidity,&#xD;&#xA; - orientation and acceleration,&#xD;&#xA; - proximity,&#xD;&#xA; - illuminance,&#xD;&#xA; - noise, &#xD;&#xA; - date,&#xD;&#xA; - attitude (six axes)&#xD;&#xA; - user's vital data (complexion, body temperature, body mass index (BMI),&#xD;&#xA; - user's operation (commuting, playing golf, having dinner, cleaning, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;an information registration system from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/HHftf.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130124518?dq=US20130124518A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.sony.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4693" RevisionGUID="808d6e6e-4fa8-4b41-8dbb-827319c916c4" CreationDate="2013-08-04T02:21:09.543" UserId="5381" Text="University of Calgary reported, in July 2011, on &quot;AUTOMATED URBAN FEATURES CLASSIFICATION AND RECOGNITION FROM COMBINED RGB/LIDAR DATA&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ucalgary.ca/engo_webdocs/NES/11.20345_HassanEid.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4693" RevisionGUID="d467a5df-5668-4a9d-b6ff-26555162ec77" CreationDate="2013-08-04T02:27:36.493" UserId="5381" Comment="added 831 characters in body" Text="University of Calgary reported, in July 2011, on &quot;AUTOMATED URBAN FEATURES CLASSIFICATION AND RECOGNITION FROM COMBINED RGB/LIDAR DATA&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ucalgary.ca/engo_webdocs/NES/11.20345_HassanEid.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a doctoral thesis by Hassan Elsaid Elhifnawy Eid. Quoting from the abstract: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;Although a Red, Green and Blue (RGB) image provides rich semantic information for different features, it is difficult to extract and separate features which share similar texture properties. The data provided by a LIght Detection And Ranging (LIDAR) system contain dense spatial information for terrain and non-terrain objects, but feature extraction poses difficulties in separating different features sharing the same height information. The thesis objective is to introduce an automated urban classification technique using combined semantic and spatial information leading to the ability to extract different features efficiently.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using GPS in stead of LIDAR seems to me a trivial extension to this idea..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4694" RevisionGUID="c99919a5-4f42-4df1-8891-adae7ac9be54" CreationDate="2013-08-04T02:57:26.067" UserId="4099" Text="**America's Army: Special Forces (Overmatch)** from 2007 with TrackIR headset support and voice activation control (VAC) provides at least a partial match. According to this 2007 review: http://www.ausgamers.com/files/details/html/30505&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Voice Activation Control&#xD;&#xA;VAC enables players to use the America's Army voice recognitions system to issue commo commands and initiate actions. **Now players have the ability to speak the radio command they want rather than cycling through menus.** You can also map any key to a voice command to customize your AA experience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; TrackIR Headset Support&#xD;&#xA;Support for the TrackIR Virtual Reality Headset has been improved. Players with this hardware can now use the system in the HMMWV for enhanced gameplay. (TrackIR hardware required.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A complete listing of command mappings for VAC is here:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://archive.forum.americasarmy.com/viewtopic.php?t=263918 &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It includes the command Choose Team:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &lt; P PROPNAME=&quot;SELECTTEAM&quot;&gt;Choose Team&lt; P&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This suggests that VAC combined with the headset could be used to choose a team member, thereby inviting them to the game, which matches the patent claim. Further input from someone familiar with the game and these accessories would be needed.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4694" RevisionGUID="c7de1fea-cef6-4bf2-98a5-adcaf2244bce" CreationDate="2013-08-04T04:17:16.387" UserId="4099" Comment="formatting" Text="**America's Army: Special Forces (Overmatch)** from 2007 with TrackIR headset support and voice activation control (VAC) provides at least a partial match. According to this 2007 review: http://www.ausgamers.com/files/details/html/30505&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Voice Activation Control&#xD;&#xA;VAC enables players to use the America's Army voice recognitions system to issue commo commands and initiate actions. **Now players have the ability to speak the radio command they want rather than cycling through menus.** You can also map any key to a voice command to customize your AA experience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; TrackIR Headset Support&#xD;&#xA;Support for the TrackIR Virtual Reality Headset has been improved. Players with this hardware can now use the system in the HMMWV for enhanced gameplay. (TrackIR hardware required.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A complete listing of command mappings for VAC is here:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://archive.forum.americasarmy.com/viewtopic.php?t=263918 &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It includes the command Choose Team:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &lt;P PROPNAME=&quot;SELECTTEAM&quot;&gt;Choose Team&lt;/P&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This suggests that VAC combined with the headset could be used to choose a team member, thereby inviting them to the game, which matches the patent claim. Further input from someone familiar with the game and these accessories would be needed.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4695" RevisionGUID="58fa85fc-3907-42ec-856b-fbbb6e9465e9" CreationDate="2013-08-04T09:34:08.103" UserId="4099" Text="**MODIFICATION OF SOCIAL NETWORKS VIA DESIGN CODES - Jason A. Cox et al** is an IBM patent with priority date Aug 6, 2008: &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents?id=HyDMAAAAEBAJ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It specifically covers importing a contact from a physical business card to a list of contacts in a social network:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [0020]&#xD;&#xA;The following are several exemplary scenarios&#xD;&#xA;based on method 300. In a first exemplary scenario, a user&#xD;&#xA;meets an acquaintance when they are seated next to each other&#xD;&#xA;on an airplane flight. It turns out that the user and the new&#xD;&#xA;acquaintance are both very enthusiastic about a famous&#xD;&#xA;singer. Furthermore, the acquaintance happens to be the&#xD;&#xA;famous singer’s personal exercise trainer. **Before the user and&#xD;&#xA;the acquaintance proceed to their separate destinations after&#xD;&#xA;the flight, the user scans the acquaintances’ design code from&#xD;&#xA;a business card using a cell phone camera and allows it to&#xD;&#xA;“morph” (i.e., modify) the user’s design code according to&#xD;&#xA;method 300 described above. When the user reviews the&#xD;&#xA;user’s social network later, the user notices that the new&#xD;&#xA; acquaintances social contact data is connected to the user’s&#xD;&#xA;social contact data** (e.g., which was the binding point speci&#xD;&#xA;fied by the user) and, as a result, is also connected to the&#xD;&#xA;famous singer’s social contact data via the acquaintances’&#xD;&#xA;social network, which was inserted during the morph. There&#xD;&#xA;fore, the user can now take pride in being only two degrees of&#xD;&#xA;separation from the famous singer in the user’s social net&#xD;&#xA;work.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4695" RevisionGUID="62437889-1f65-41ff-83ff-f263512dea92" CreationDate="2013-08-04T09:40:13.643" UserId="4099" Comment="formatting" Text="**An IBM patent with priority date Aug 6, 2008 specifically covers importing a contact from a physical business card to a list of contacts in a social network:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MODIFICATION OF SOCIAL NETWORKS VIA DESIGN CODES - Jason A. Cox et al &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents?id=HyDMAAAAEBAJ &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;From the patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [0020]&#xD;&#xA;The following are several exemplary scenarios&#xD;&#xA;based on method 300. In a first exemplary scenario, a user&#xD;&#xA;meets an acquaintance when they are seated next to each other&#xD;&#xA;on an airplane flight. It turns out that the user and the new&#xD;&#xA;acquaintance are both very enthusiastic about a famous&#xD;&#xA;singer. Furthermore, the acquaintance happens to be the&#xD;&#xA;famous singer’s personal exercise trainer. **Before the user and&#xD;&#xA;the acquaintance proceed to their separate destinations after&#xD;&#xA;the flight, the user scans the acquaintances’ design code from&#xD;&#xA;a business card using a cell phone camera and allows it to&#xD;&#xA;“morph” (i.e., modify) the user’s design code according to&#xD;&#xA;method 300 described above. When the user reviews the&#xD;&#xA;user’s social network later, the user notices that the new&#xD;&#xA; acquaintances social contact data is connected to the user’s&#xD;&#xA;social contact data** (e.g., which was the binding point&#xD;&#xA;speci fied by the user) and, as a result, is also connected to the&#xD;&#xA;famous singer’s social contact data via the acquaintances’&#xD;&#xA;social network, which was inserted during the morph. Therefore,&#xD;&#xA;the user can now take pride in being only two degrees of&#xD;&#xA;separation from the famous singer in the user’s social net&#xD;&#xA;work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Method 300 consists of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* START&#xD;&#xA;* RECEIVE AN UPDATE TO AT LEAST ONE SOCIAL NETWORK MAP ENCODED IN A DESIGN CODE&#xD;&#xA;* MODIFY THE SOCIAL NETWORK MAP BY INSERTING OR DELETING SOCIAL CONTACT DATA&#xD;&#xA;* REGENERATE THE DESIGN CODE TO INCLUDE THE MODIFIED SOCIAL NETWORK MAP&#xD;&#xA;* END&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4696" RevisionGUID="85818766-414c-49eb-8fee-e16aea69aeac" CreationDate="2013-08-04T17:47:51.240" UserId="5055" Text="For reference, excellent prior art was mentioned during examination so far including scientific papers by the same authors. This was probably eased by the fact that this patent application is based on a scientific paper published by the same authors in October 2009, and closest prior art used by examiner was actually provided by applicant as part of the IDS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examination has started and the prosecution is currently focused on the first step of the process (what the application calls *bi-directional*). The method they propose **starts with identifying interesting bits** in the web page using entity recognition techniques, and then they focus on those parts using structure detection techniques, and finally they extract the entities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following prior art dating 2005 actually includes this first step:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Krüpl, B.; Herzog, M.; and Gatterbauer, W. 2005. Using visual cues for extraction of tabular data from arbitrary HTML documents. In Poster Proc. WWW’05, 1000–1001. ACM. [[PDF](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.94.7698&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, Krüpl et al. tries to solve a similar problem (identifying tabular data in web pages) and teaches:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a text understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **the text understanding component configured to provide text-related data to the structure understanding component**, (*We employ Named Entity Recognizers (NERs) [2] to find interesting text nodes on a given page* [section 3]);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the structure understanding component configured to use the text-related data and visual layout features of the webpage to produce a labeled block [section 4.2 &quot;Detection algorithm&quot;],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the text understanding component configured to use the labeled block to understand text of the one or more entities [section 4.3 &quot;Table detection&quot;].&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3837" RevisionGUID="aa130ac2-e7ea-4ab1-bd6d-9e44fc38b050" CreationDate="2013-08-05T00:12:04.010" UserId="3821" Comment="added 456 characters in body" Text="Has anyone done good analysis on the Nokia patents that they claim cover WebM?  I would like an idea of how seriously we should take Nokia's threat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Groklaw did [some analysis][1] that reduced their 64 patents worldwide down to a dozen US patents. [This][2] post (in the comments of the Groklaw post) lays out the independent claims of each patent.  Most look obvious or redundant, but I can't tell given my lack of video encoding experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is claim 1 of an example patent in the group.([US6504873][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TL;DR Averaging pixels in video subblocks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A method of filtering a received digital video picture, in which said digital video picture comprises video blocks, each video block comprising a certain amount of individual video pixels each video pixel having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, and in which video picture a first video block and a second video block located adjacent to the first video block define a boundary therebetween, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subdividing a frame into a numbered grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;selecting a first video pixel from the first video block in such a way that the first video pixel is located at the boundary in the first video block to obtain a first boundary video pixel selecting a second video pixel from the second video block in such a way that the second video pixel is located at the boundary in the second video block to obtain a second boundary video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Select adjacent &quot;boundary&quot; pixels (-1,1) that are in different sub-squares.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;selecting a first reference video pixel in the first video block and a second reference video pixel in the second video block, the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being other than the first boundary video pixel and the second boundary video pixel and the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being placed closer to a central portion of each of said video blocks than the respective boundary video pixel, in such a way that the reference video pixels and the boundary video pixels are situated on a straight line, the straight line being transverse to the boundary, drawn from the first reference video pixel to the second reference video pixel, wherein the first and the second boundary video pixels are located between the first and the second reference video pixels on the straight line,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Select neighbor pixels (-2,2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;defining a linear equation, using the numerical values of the reference video pixels, the linear equation giving as a solution a numerical reference value to each boundary video pixel on said straight line&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Figure out an equation that will take the neighbor pixels and produce the boundary pixels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;filtering at least one boundary video pixel by adjusting the numerical value of the at least one boundary video pixel towards the reference value of the at least one boundary video pixel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Averaging the boundary pixels using above equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;of the at least one&quot; makes this a nonsensical statement but software patents are nonsensical anyway, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130324162902177&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&amp;sid=20130324162902177&amp;title=Listing%20Independent%20Claims%20per%20Patent&amp;type=article&amp;order=&amp;hideanonymous=0&amp;pid=1037020#c1038325&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6504873" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4697" RevisionGUID="0c900411-3bb6-46a4-b6c6-c0552867982a" CreationDate="2013-08-05T00:24:41.167" UserId="5388" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON BALANCING WEB TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION** - This application from Microsoft weeks to patent the idea of using multiple load balancers with a shared virtual IP address to distribute website traffic loads.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: LOAD BALANCING ACROSS LAYER-2 DOMAINS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** The present application relates to network configurations and specifically to scalable load balancing network configurations. One implementation includes an external client coupled to a scalable load balancing system. The scalable load balancing system includes a load balancing layer that is configured to encapsulate individual incoming packets of a packet flow from the external client. The load balancing layer is further configured to route the incoming packets to target devices on the system. The target devices can span multiple IP subnets. The incoming packets can pass through one or more load balancers of the load balancing layer before reaching individual target devices. Individual target devices can be configured to route at least some outgoing packets of the packet flow to the external client without passing through any of the one or more load balancers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Translated from legalese:* Microsoft is attempting to patent a system that comprises multiple load balancing servers that share a common virtual IP address that use a consistent hashing algorithm and IP-in-IP tunneling to distribute incoming traffic to a larger set of application servers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Publication Number:** [WO2010138936 A3][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Application Number:** WO/2010/138936&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Assignee:** Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prior Art Date:** Seeking Prior Art predating May 28, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are multiple claims in the patent, all of which appear to be common features of existing load balancing and routing products. It's unclear to me whether the claim is over all of the below features, or only when they are all used in combination. The features are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Equal-cost multi path routing to multiple load balancing servers that share a common IP address. Also known as &quot;anycast&quot; routing.&#xD;&#xA;- Use of a consistent hashing algorithm on a load balancing server to deterministically choose a destination server for any given incoming packet. &#xD;&#xA;- Encapsulation of incoming packets via IP-in-IP tunneling when forwarding to the application server.&#xD;&#xA;- The ability of the application server to respond directly to the client, using the original VIP IP address seen in the encapsulated packet as a source address. Also known as Layer 3 Direct Server Return.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be documentation of a system that supports any or all of the above features dating prior to May 28, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/WO2010138936&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11079" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4697" RevisionGUID="0c900411-3bb6-46a4-b6c6-c0552867982a" CreationDate="2013-08-05T00:24:41.167" UserId="5388" Text="PRIOR ART REQUEST - Hash-based Load Balancing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11080" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4697" RevisionGUID="0c900411-3bb6-46a4-b6c6-c0552867982a" CreationDate="2013-08-05T00:24:41.167" UserId="5388" Text="&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;scaling&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3837" RevisionGUID="83f9475a-5a82-4c75-a80e-61cdfdc3271a" CreationDate="2013-08-05T00:38:57.580" UserId="3821" Comment="Added 10 and 13.  Formatted everything " Text="Has anyone done good analysis on the Nokia patents that they claim cover WebM?  I would like an idea of how seriously we should take Nokia's threat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Groklaw did [some analysis][1] that reduced their 64 patents worldwide down to a dozen US patents. [This][2] post (in the comments of the Groklaw post) lays out the independent claims of each patent.  Most look obvious or redundant, but I can't tell given my lack of video encoding experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is claim 1 of an example patent in the group.([US6504873][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 1 A method of filtering a received digital video picture #&#xD;&#xA;## TL;DR Video filter that averages edge pixels on adjacent sub-blocks. ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in which said digital video picture comprises video blocks, each video block comprising a certain amount of individual video pixels each video pixel having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, and in which video picture a first video block and a second video block located adjacent to the first video block define a boundary therebetween, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subdividing a frame into a numbered grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;selecting a first video pixel from the first video block in such a way that the first video pixel is located at the boundary in the first video block to obtain a first boundary video pixel selecting a second video pixel from the second video block in such a way that the second video pixel is located at the boundary in the second video block to obtain a second boundary video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Select adjacent &quot;boundary&quot; pixels (-1,1) that are in different sub-squares.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;selecting a first reference video pixel in the first video block and a second reference video pixel in the second video block, the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being other than the first boundary video pixel and the second boundary video pixel and the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being placed closer to a central portion of each of said video blocks than the respective boundary video pixel, in such a way that the reference video pixels and the boundary video pixels are situated on a straight line, the straight line being transverse to the boundary, drawn from the first reference video pixel to the second reference video pixel, wherein the first and the second boundary video pixels are located between the first and the second reference video pixels on the straight line,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Select neighbor pixels (-2,2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;defining a linear equation, using the numerical values of the reference video pixels, the linear equation giving as a solution a numerical reference value to each boundary video pixel on said straight line&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Figure out an equation (which is math, and not patentable) that will take the neighbor pixels and produce the boundary pixels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;filtering at least one boundary video pixel by adjusting the numerical value of the at least one boundary video pixel towards the reference value of the at least one boundary video pixel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Averaging the boundary pixels using above equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;of the at least one&quot; makes this a nonsensical statement but software patents are nonsensical anyway, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 10 A terminal device for filtering a received digital video picture, #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  which said digital video picture comprises video blocks, each video block comprises a certain amount of individual video pixels, each video pixel having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, in which video picture a first video block and a second video block located adjacent the first video block define a boundary therebetween, and the terminal device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for selecting a first video pixel from the first video block in such a way that the first video pixel is located at the boundary in the first video block to obtain a first boundary video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for selecting a second video pixel from the second video block in such a way that the second video pixel is located at the boundary in the second video block to obtain a second boundary video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for selecting a first reference video pixel in the first video block and a second reference video pixel in the second video block, the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being other than the first boundary video pixel and the second boundary video pixel and the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being placed closer to a central portion of each of said video blocks than the respective boundary video pixel, in such a way that the reference video pixels and the boundary video pixels are situated on a straight line, the straight line being transverse to the boundary, drawn from the first reference video pixel to the second reference video pixel, wherein the first and the second boundary video pixels are located between the first and the second reference video pixels on the straight line,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for defining a linear equation using the numerical values of the reference video pixels, the linear equation giving as a solution a numerical reference value to each boundary video pixel on said straight line, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for filtering at least one boundary video pixel by adjusting the numerical value of the at least one boundary video pixel towards the reference value of the at least one boundary video pixel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; 11 A terminal device according to the claim 10, wherein the receiver terminal comprises receiving means for receiving the video picture via a mobile communication network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &gt; 12 A filtering method according to claim 10, wherein the reference value of each boundary video pixel is computed as a function of the location of the boundary video pixel on the straight line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 13. A method of filtering a received video picture, in which #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a digital video picture is received, the video picture comprising video blocks, each video block comprising a certain amount of individual video pixels, each video pixel having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, and in which video picture a first video block and a second video block located adjacent the first video block define a boundary therebetween,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a first video pixel from the first video block and a second video pixel from a second video block are selected in such a way that they are adjacent each other on the opposite sides of the boundary, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the first video pixel and the second video pixel are filtered, wherein&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a first reference video pixel is selected in the first video block and a second reference video pixel is selected in the second video block in such a way that the first reference pixel, the first video pixel, the second video pixel and the second reference pixel are situated on a straight line, perpendicular to the boundary, drawn from the first reference video pixel to the second reference video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a linear equation is defined, the linear equation giving as a solution a numerical reference value to each pixel on said straight line as a function of the location of the pixel on said straight line, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the filtering is performed by adjusting the numerical value of the first video pixel towards its reference value, and by adjusting the numerical value of the second video pixel towards its reference value, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; further wherein a decision on whether the filtering method is used or not and for which video pixels the filtering is used is done on basis of activity inside the first video block, activity inside the second video block and activity at the boundary between the first video block and the second video block, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein, the decision is based on the following equation IF activityINactivityEDGEMQUANT	AND	activityINTHRESHOLDIN TRUE &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  in which&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; activityIN is the variance inside the video block one and the video block two,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; activityEDGE is the variance over the edge between the adjacent video block one and video block two, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; THRESHOLDIN is a Threshold value, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MQUANT is a quantizer value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 14 A method of filtering a received digital video picture #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in which said digital video picture is coded into video blocks, each video block comprising a certain amount of individual video pixels, each of said video pixels having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, and in which video picture, a first video block is located adjacent to a second video block to define a boundary therebetween, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selecting a first reference video pixel in the first video block and a second reference video pixel in the second video block, the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being displaced away from said boundary towards a central portion of each of said video blocks, said reference video pixels defining a straight line of video pixels transverse to said boundary, between said first reference video pixel and said second reference video pixel, wherein said straight line includes at least a first and a second adjustment video pixel located between the first and the second reference video pixels and said boundary;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; defining a linear equation representing a video pixel value reference ine transverse to said boundary, said linear equation defined relative to the change in pixel values from said first reference pixel in said first video block to said second reference pixel in said second video block;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adjusting the numerical value of said at least first and second adjustment video pixels towards said pixel value reference line according to the position of said at least first and second adjustment video pixels from said boundary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130324162902177&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&amp;sid=20130324162902177&amp;title=Listing%20Independent%20Claims%20per%20Patent&amp;type=article&amp;order=&amp;hideanonymous=0&amp;pid=1037020#c1038325&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6504873" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11082" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3837" RevisionGUID="83f9475a-5a82-4c75-a80e-61cdfdc3271a" CreationDate="2013-08-05T00:38:57.580" UserId="3821" Comment="Added 10 and 13.  Formatted everything " Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;us6504873&gt;&lt;webm&gt;&lt;nokia&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11083" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3837" RevisionGUID="650c3cc4-c417-495c-9953-c0dd3d8546dd" CreationDate="2013-08-05T00:52:21.183" UserId="3821" Comment="Added 10 and 13.  Formatted everything, changed title." Text="Filtering based on activities inside the video blocks and at their boundary US6504873" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3837" RevisionGUID="650c3cc4-c417-495c-9953-c0dd3d8546dd" CreationDate="2013-08-05T00:52:21.183" UserId="3821" Comment="Added 10 and 13.  Formatted everything, changed title." Text="Has anyone done good analysis on the Nokia patents that they claim cover WebM?  I would like an idea of how seriously we should take Nokia's threat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Groklaw did [some analysis][1] that reduced their 64 patents worldwide down to a dozen US patents. [This][2] post (in the comments of the Groklaw post) lays out the independent claims of each patent.  Most look obvious or redundant, but I can't tell given my lack of video encoding experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is claim 1 of an example patent in the group.([US6504873][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 1 A method of filtering a received digital video picture #&#xD;&#xA;## TL;DR Video filter that averages edge pixels on adjacent sub-blocks. ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in which said digital video picture comprises video blocks, each video block comprising a certain amount of individual video pixels each video pixel having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, and in which video picture a first video block and a second video block located adjacent to the first video block define a boundary therebetween, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subdividing a frame into a numbered grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;selecting a first video pixel from the first video block in such a way that the first video pixel is located at the boundary in the first video block to obtain a first boundary video pixel selecting a second video pixel from the second video block in such a way that the second video pixel is located at the boundary in the second video block to obtain a second boundary video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Select adjacent &quot;boundary&quot; pixels (-1,1) that are in different sub-squares.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;selecting a first reference video pixel in the first video block and a second reference video pixel in the second video block, the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being other than the first boundary video pixel and the second boundary video pixel and the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being placed closer to a central portion of each of said video blocks than the respective boundary video pixel, in such a way that the reference video pixels and the boundary video pixels are situated on a straight line, the straight line being transverse to the boundary, drawn from the first reference video pixel to the second reference video pixel, wherein the first and the second boundary video pixels are located between the first and the second reference video pixels on the straight line,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Select neighbor pixels (-2,2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;defining a linear equation, using the numerical values of the reference video pixels, the linear equation giving as a solution a numerical reference value to each boundary video pixel on said straight line&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Figure out an equation that will take the neighbor pixels and produce the boundary pixels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;filtering at least one boundary video pixel by adjusting the numerical value of the at least one boundary video pixel towards the reference value of the at least one boundary video pixel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Averaging the boundary pixels using above equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;of the at least one&quot; makes this a nonsensical statement but software patents are nonsensical anyway, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 10 A terminal device for filtering a received digital video picture, #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  which said digital video picture comprises video blocks, each video block comprises a certain amount of individual video pixels, each video pixel having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, in which video picture a first video block and a second video block located adjacent the first video block define a boundary therebetween, and the terminal device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for selecting a first video pixel from the first video block in such a way that the first video pixel is located at the boundary in the first video block to obtain a first boundary video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for selecting a second video pixel from the second video block in such a way that the second video pixel is located at the boundary in the second video block to obtain a second boundary video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for selecting a first reference video pixel in the first video block and a second reference video pixel in the second video block, the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being other than the first boundary video pixel and the second boundary video pixel and the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being placed closer to a central portion of each of said video blocks than the respective boundary video pixel, in such a way that the reference video pixels and the boundary video pixels are situated on a straight line, the straight line being transverse to the boundary, drawn from the first reference video pixel to the second reference video pixel, wherein the first and the second boundary video pixels are located between the first and the second reference video pixels on the straight line,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for defining a linear equation using the numerical values of the reference video pixels, the linear equation giving as a solution a numerical reference value to each boundary video pixel on said straight line, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for filtering at least one boundary video pixel by adjusting the numerical value of the at least one boundary video pixel towards the reference value of the at least one boundary video pixel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; 11 A terminal device according to the claim 10, wherein the receiver terminal comprises receiving means for receiving the video picture via a mobile communication network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &gt; 12 A filtering method according to claim 10, wherein the reference value of each boundary video pixel is computed as a function of the location of the boundary video pixel on the straight line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 13. A method of filtering a received video picture, in which #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a digital video picture is received, the video picture comprising video blocks, each video block comprising a certain amount of individual video pixels, each video pixel having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, and in which video picture a first video block and a second video block located adjacent the first video block define a boundary therebetween,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a first video pixel from the first video block and a second video pixel from a second video block are selected in such a way that they are adjacent each other on the opposite sides of the boundary, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the first video pixel and the second video pixel are filtered, wherein&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a first reference video pixel is selected in the first video block and a second reference video pixel is selected in the second video block in such a way that the first reference pixel, the first video pixel, the second video pixel and the second reference pixel are situated on a straight line, perpendicular to the boundary, drawn from the first reference video pixel to the second reference video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a linear equation is defined, the linear equation giving as a solution a numerical reference value to each pixel on said straight line as a function of the location of the pixel on said straight line, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the filtering is performed by adjusting the numerical value of the first video pixel towards its reference value, and by adjusting the numerical value of the second video pixel towards its reference value, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; further wherein a decision on whether the filtering method is used or not and for which video pixels the filtering is used is done on basis of activity inside the first video block, activity inside the second video block and activity at the boundary between the first video block and the second video block, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein, the decision is based on the following equation IF activityINactivityEDGEMQUANT	AND	activityINTHRESHOLDIN TRUE &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  in which&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; activityIN is the variance inside the video block one and the video block two,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; activityEDGE is the variance over the edge between the adjacent video block one and video block two, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; THRESHOLDIN is a Threshold value, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MQUANT is a quantizer value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 14 A method of filtering a received digital video picture #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in which said digital video picture is coded into video blocks, each video block comprising a certain amount of individual video pixels, each of said video pixels having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, and in which video picture, a first video block is located adjacent to a second video block to define a boundary therebetween, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selecting a first reference video pixel in the first video block and a second reference video pixel in the second video block, the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being displaced away from said boundary towards a central portion of each of said video blocks, said reference video pixels defining a straight line of video pixels transverse to said boundary, between said first reference video pixel and said second reference video pixel, wherein said straight line includes at least a first and a second adjustment video pixel located between the first and the second reference video pixels and said boundary;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; defining a linear equation representing a video pixel value reference ine transverse to said boundary, said linear equation defined relative to the change in pixel values from said first reference pixel in said first video block to said second reference pixel in said second video block;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adjusting the numerical value of said at least first and second adjustment video pixels towards said pixel value reference line according to the position of said at least first and second adjustment video pixels from said boundary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130324162902177&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&amp;sid=20130324162902177&amp;title=Listing%20Independent%20Claims%20per%20Patent&amp;type=article&amp;order=&amp;hideanonymous=0&amp;pid=1037020#c1038325&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6504873" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4698" RevisionGUID="9e7b0d8e-3e50-420e-8c1f-15deaef8ac64" CreationDate="2013-08-05T01:43:14.047" UserId="2029" Text="I believe linkedin.com has been using this system for a few years. Basically if a user is not on linkedin you can enter his e-mail address (or allow linkedin to pick up his e-mail address from your hotmail/gmail address book), and then linkedin will send him a notification message asking him to join. Others have mentioned facebook and online dating sites which are also correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4697" RevisionGUID="ea7b2513-beb5-473e-ad99-b7780a46ece8" CreationDate="2013-08-05T03:30:44.720" UserId="1767" Comment="Changed to refer to US Family member of the application in question (international patents outside the scope of the site).  Hopefully this helps." Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON BALANCING WEB TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION** - This patent from Microsoft seeks to patent the idea of using multiple load balancers with a shared virtual IP address to distribute website traffic loads.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: LOAD BALANCING ACROSS LAYER-2 DOMAINS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** The present application relates to network configurations and specifically to scalable load balancing network configurations. One implementation includes an external client coupled to a scalable load balancing system. The scalable load balancing system includes a load balancing layer that is configured to encapsulate individual incoming packets of a packet flow from the external client. The load balancing layer is further configured to route the incoming packets to target devices on the system. The target devices can span multiple IP subnets. The incoming packets can pass through one or more load balancers of the load balancing layer before reaching individual target devices. Individual target devices can be configured to route at least some outgoing packets of the packet flow to the external client without passing through any of the one or more load balancers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Translated from legalese:* Microsoft is attempting to patent a system that comprises multiple load balancing servers that share a common virtual IP address that use a consistent hashing algorithm and IP-in-IP tunneling to distribute incoming traffic to a larger set of application servers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** [US Patent 8,416,692][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Related Family Member:** [Patent Application WO2010138936 A3][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date:** Seeking Prior Art predating May 28, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are multiple claims in the patent, all of which appear to be common features of existing load balancing and routing products. It's unclear to me whether the claim is over all of the below features, or only when they are all used in combination. The features are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Equal-cost multi path routing to multiple load balancing servers that share a common IP address. Also known as &quot;anycast&quot; routing.&#xD;&#xA;- Use of a consistent hashing algorithm on a load balancing server to deterministically choose a destination server for any given incoming packet. &#xD;&#xA;- Encapsulation of incoming packets via IP-in-IP tunneling when forwarding to the application server.&#xD;&#xA;- The ability of the application server to respond directly to the client, using the original VIP IP address seen in the encapsulated packet as a source address. Also known as Layer 3 Direct Server Return.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be documentation of a system that supports any or all of the above features dating prior to May 28, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8416692&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2010138936A3?cl=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11088" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4697" RevisionGUID="ea7b2513-beb5-473e-ad99-b7780a46ece8" CreationDate="2013-08-05T03:30:44.720" UserId="1767" Comment="Changed to refer to US Family member of the application in question (international patents outside the scope of the site).  Hopefully this helps." Text="Hash-based Load Balancing (Microsoft) - Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11089" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4697" RevisionGUID="ea7b2513-beb5-473e-ad99-b7780a46ece8" CreationDate="2013-08-05T03:30:44.720" UserId="1767" Comment="Changed to refer to US Family member of the application in question (international patents outside the scope of the site).  Hopefully this helps." Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;scaling&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="01a12092-82e0-4c10-8502-c04d5779c2d9" CreationDate="2013-08-05T03:34:02.407" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ANALYZING A WEBPAGE** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...extracting information blocks from a webpage based on text and visual layout! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Webpage extraction through page structure and sentences**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for extracting entities in a webpage using a **text understanding component** and a **visual layout extraction&quot; component**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110078554 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 12/569,912&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Sep 30, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. In a computing environment, a system comprising, at least one processor, a memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and including components comprising, a framework configured to process a webpage to understand one or more entities of the webpage, the framework including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a text understanding component and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to provide text-related data to the structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the structure understanding component configured to use the text-related data and visual layout features of the webpage to produce a labeled block,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to use the labeled block to understand text of the one or more entities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for processing a webpage, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A text understanding component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A visual layout (&quot;structure&quot;) understanding component; where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The text component provides data to the visual layout component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The visual layout component produces a labeled block based on the visual layout and the text; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. The text understanding component uses the labeled block to &quot;understand&quot; the text of an entity on the webpage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Sep 30, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A natural language processing framework for labeling webpages” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/V9vSS.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110078554&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11091" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4697" RevisionGUID="0b89b276-dabd-4b85-bb8d-7f96d5501874" CreationDate="2013-08-05T03:42:45.690" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag to patent" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;us8416692&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4699" RevisionGUID="f699ee5e-9d53-422f-86ee-e694c1de139f" CreationDate="2013-08-05T03:55:36.270" UserId="3076" Text="Not an answer but I hope it is helpful - the applicant made the examiner aware of several patent documents and many more journal articles regarding load balancing. They are listed on the front page of the US granted patent. Presumably you are looking for prior art **not** on this list that is more targeted than anything that is already known to the examiner. Documents already considered by the examiner are still fair game if you can identify specific things in the the examiner missed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a full history of the back-and-forth between the applicant and the examiner the whole history can be looked up on the USPTO Private PAIR site. This is one of the pages of the IDS:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/9Elex.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4701" RevisionGUID="156c6cb1-c944-45de-83c4-365e57a78484" CreationDate="2013-08-05T04:49:03.463" UserId="5055" Text="I am looking for a clarification ideally for both USPTO and EPO procedures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- applicant could (must for US) bring new prior art anytime during prosecution until grant (through IDS for US);&#xD;&#xA;- EPO and the USPTO could only bring new prior art during search, before the first office action, and new prior art could be dismissed by applicant;&#xD;&#xA;- third parties in the US could only submit prior art during a limited time window (under 37 CFR 1.290). For EP, there is the 9 months post-grant opposition period, and third parties can also submit remarks...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet I am confused after a discussion here,  and definitely not a patent agent or attorney with the actual expertise. Could anyone clarify this including how Ask Patents can help? How can a third party bring new prior art in each phases of the grant process?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11097" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4701" RevisionGUID="156c6cb1-c944-45de-83c4-365e57a78484" CreationDate="2013-08-05T04:49:03.463" UserId="5055" Text="When can new prior art be brought during prosecution? How can we help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11098" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4701" RevisionGUID="156c6cb1-c944-45de-83c4-365e57a78484" CreationDate="2013-08-05T04:49:03.463" UserId="5055" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;examination&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11100" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4701" RevisionGUID="7023c1c2-8111-4a44-add3-e7602668fe6e" CreationDate="2013-08-05T07:05:34.273" UserId="5055" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;examination&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4702" RevisionGUID="c26a50ce-2d54-468e-b1a3-ddb3c4123b55" CreationDate="2013-08-05T08:01:05.787" UserId="5393" Text="This overly broad patent claims methods of storing bitcoin public and private keys on a physical device (a paper wallet), and claims methods of protecting value stored on a physical device using tamper-resistant features." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11102" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4702" RevisionGUID="c26a50ce-2d54-468e-b1a3-ddb3c4123b55" CreationDate="2013-08-05T08:01:05.787" UserId="5393" Text="Patent 20130166455 -- Bitcoin paper wallet and tamper resistant methods-- PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11103" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4702" RevisionGUID="c26a50ce-2d54-468e-b1a3-ddb3c4123b55" CreationDate="2013-08-05T08:01:05.787" UserId="5393" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4702" RevisionGUID="0d3afdef-8fab-429b-9316-8d7cb7ff7292" CreationDate="2013-08-05T08:07:01.487" UserId="5393" Comment="Fixed and clarified patent application number and title" Text="Patent Application 20130166455&#xD;&#xA;Creating And Using Digital Currency&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This overly broad patent claims methods of storing bitcoin public and private keys on a physical device (a paper wallet), and claims methods of protecting value stored on a physical device using tamper-resistant features." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11105" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4702" RevisionGUID="0d3afdef-8fab-429b-9316-8d7cb7ff7292" CreationDate="2013-08-05T08:07:01.487" UserId="5393" Comment="Fixed and clarified patent application number and title" Text="Patent Application 20130166455 Creating And Using Digital Currency -- PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4703" RevisionGUID="bb7089cf-21f6-4afc-9c2e-418fd22ee6b1" CreationDate="2013-08-05T08:22:04.727" UserId="4582" Text="In the mmorpg [Eve Online][1] there have been numerous examples of this patents description being enacted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is one of the more infamous examples from 2005... [The Heist][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve_Online&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://truestories.eveonline.com/ideas/1025-guiding-hand-social-clubs-uqs-contract-or-the-heist-where-mirial-and-ubiqua-seraph-have-a-bad-day" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11107" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4702" RevisionGUID="90f2babe-b704-46bb-ab3f-07ae88ecc863" CreationDate="2013-08-05T11:03:36.317" UserId="5055" Comment="Tag question" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;us20130166455&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4702" RevisionGUID="7738eb75-bcf1-4525-b954-488f2be4f148" CreationDate="2013-08-05T11:23:39.357" UserId="5055" Comment="Use boiler plate and include claim 1." Text="This **overly broad patent application** claims methods of storing bitcoin public and private keys on a physical device (a paper wallet), and claims methods of protecting value stored on a physical device using tamper-resistant features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the patent application was filed with Bitcoins in mind and especially to cover [BitBills](http://www.bitbills.com/) cards, claims are much broader and there probably is plenty of prior art for all the claims. This patent application was covered in [Bitcoin Magazine](http://bitcoinmagazine.com/bitbillss-patent-will-patents-hinder-bitcoins-evolution/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: CREATING AND USING DIGITAL CURRENCY**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** Among other things, a physical device carries value and can be physically delivered in a transaction. The physical device includes a representation of the value carried by the physical device. The representation is usable to transfer the value from the physical device to a digital domain. A security feature can change from a state indicating that the value carried by the physical device has not been compromised to a state indicating that the value carried by the physical device may have been compromised. The change in state is detectable, the representation of the value carried by the physical device being inaccessible except in a manner that causes the security feature to change state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Translated from legalese:* Applicant tries to patent a paper wallets or smart card containing some monetary value that can be invalidated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** [US 20130166455 A1](http://www.google.com/patents/US20130166455)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number:** US 13/336,779&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Douglas Feigelson (inventor) from [BitBills](http://www.bitbills.com/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date:** Seeking Prior Art predating Dec 23, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An apparatus comprising a physical device that carries value and can be physically delivered in a transaction, the physical device comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a representation of the value carried by the physical device, the representation being usable to transfer the value from the physical device to a digital domain, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a security feature that can change from a state indicating that the value carried by the physical device has not been compromised to a state indicating that the value carried by the physical device may have been compromised, the change in state being detectable,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the representation of the value carried by the physical device being inaccessible except in a manner that causes the security feature to change state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A smart card or paper wallet with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A monetary value that can be transferred out from the paper wallet **to a digital domain**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A security feature determining if the value on the paper wallet was compromised (withdrawn)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A mechanism to trigger the security feature when the value is transferred out (to prevent double-spending)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to Dec 23, 2011. The **to a digital domain** part is probably the tricky part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ](http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant) on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11109" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4702" RevisionGUID="7738eb75-bcf1-4525-b954-488f2be4f148" CreationDate="2013-08-05T11:23:39.357" UserId="5055" Comment="Use boiler plate and include claim 1." Text="Paper Wallet - Creating And Using Digital Currency - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4661" RevisionGUID="d7b3be55-e075-4872-aa4a-227dd4d782a5" CreationDate="2013-08-05T12:17:29.683" UserId="1259" Comment="link added from OP comment" Text="[LabVIEW (National Instruments)][1] has methods to create user interface components directly out of the programming environment. You can right click on any data wire and create a user interface component that correspond to the data object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dynsys.uml.edu/tutorials/MATLAB_Simulink_LabVIEW/LabVIEW_Doc/Labview_getting_started022805.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4704" RevisionGUID="22d8ba54-9592-4489-ac5b-5e6408ffcbfd" CreationDate="2013-08-05T13:46:18.420" UserId="5396" Text="I did some work about 2002-03 which is described in one of the deliverables for the EU-funded SWAD-E research project (http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/pdf/11.2b.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This work includes use of RDF technologies to set access controls on a Cisco IOS router, which appears to correspond to the first primary claim of the patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An enforcement system for enforcing policies with regard to service requests comprising a processor-readable, non-transient medium storing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; code representing instructions that when executed at a processor cause&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the processor to implement: a plurality of enforcer agents adapted to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; enforce policies; at least one explorer agent adapted to evaluate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; policy enforcement capabilities available to the enforcement system;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and a policy decision point adapted to identify the policies that need&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to be enforced for a service request and to pass this information to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at least one enforcer agent to enforce the identified policies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was also an Internet draft published about 2004-05 that talked about using RDF in a network management control layer: see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-atarashi-netconfmodel-architecture-00.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4704" RevisionGUID="a44f0aee-f539-468a-8cd6-2c8271ca8050" CreationDate="2013-08-05T13:54:40.843" UserId="5396" Comment="added 175 characters in body" Text="I did some work about 2002-03 which is described in one of the deliverables for the EU-funded SWAD-E research project (http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/pdf/11.2b.pdf &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ninebynine.org/SWAD-E/Scenario-HomeNetwork/HomeNetworkConfig.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This work includes use of RDF technologies to set access controls on a Cisco IOS router, which appears to correspond to the first primary claim of the patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An enforcement system for enforcing policies with regard to service requests comprising a processor-readable, non-transient medium storing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; code representing instructions that when executed at a processor cause&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the processor to implement: a plurality of enforcer agents adapted to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; enforce policies; at least one explorer agent adapted to evaluate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; policy enforcement capabilities available to the enforcement system;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and a policy decision point adapted to identify the policies that need&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to be enforced for a service request and to pass this information to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at least one enforcer agent to enforce the identified policies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were also Internet drafts published about this time and soon after that mentioned using RDF in a network management control layer: see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-atarashi-netconfmodel-architecture-00 and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-atarashi-xmlconf-architecture-00.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4705" RevisionGUID="d46448fd-e15d-4cf1-b334-05345e1aa839" CreationDate="2013-08-05T14:44:14.260" UserId="4479" Text="Pointed out by some folks on Reddit, [Bitaddress.org](https://www.bitaddress.org) had already in **November 6th 2011**, a bitcoin-address-to-paper conversion mechanism as illustrated by the [source code on GitHub](https://github.com/pointbiz/bitaddress.org/blob/122036feaa37f29db087fa2b1b8ca84d245d0d9d/bitaddress.org.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have an explicit **Bitcoin paper wallet**. In particular, QR codes were already provided, aka providing a direct support for transmission from the physical (aka paper) medium to a digital domain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4705" RevisionGUID="9fe0e631-3cbc-489c-98f3-3507d2778d79" CreationDate="2013-08-05T15:59:27.493" UserId="4479" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="Pointed out by some folks on Reddit, [Bitaddress.org](https://www.bitaddress.org) had already in **November 6th 2011**, a bitcoin-address-to-paper conversion mechanism as illustrated by the [source code on GitHub](https://github.com/pointbiz/bitaddress.org/blob/122036feaa37f29db087fa2b1b8ca84d245d0d9d/bitaddress.org.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have an explicit **Bitcoin paper wallet**. In particular, QR codes were already provided, aka providing a direct support for transmission from the physical (aka paper) medium to a digital domain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11121" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4702" RevisionGUID="9380dca6-b1e0-4197-a06c-2226db4dfd4f" CreationDate="2013-08-05T16:32:24.677" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130166455&gt;&lt;bitcoin&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4707" RevisionGUID="e9b398c1-0324-4115-a5fc-3a148c4fab29" CreationDate="2013-08-05T16:42:31.863" UserId="5401" Text="SAP is trying to patent Makefiles and other build systems that combine a platform-independent configuration file with platform-specific templates to create platform-specific build systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Jan, 2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Creating a platform-specific Makefile by combining a platform-independent Makefile and a platform-specific template Makefile?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Unified Software Build System**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130198717 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: SAP&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** January 2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Feb 1, 2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below::&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving the unified build system configuration file in a computer system, the unified build system configuration file comprising at least one platform-independent build system configuration&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Generating, using the computer system, at least one platform-specific build system configuration from the at least one platform-independent build system configuration&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting at least one template for the unified build system configuration file, the template selected from among templates corresponding to each of multiple platforms&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generating the one or more build system build files for at least one of the multiple platforms using the platform-specific build system configuration and the selected template; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Providing the generated one or more build system build files in response to the unified build system configuration file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of internet radio station programs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. “Dynamically categorizing” this list of programs by mapping a “dynamically identified topic” to a content classifier; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  Allowing the user to discover programs from the list based on the “dynamic categorization” (presumably created by the classifier)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://google.com/patents/US20130198717&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11123" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4707" RevisionGUID="e9b398c1-0324-4115-a5fc-3a148c4fab29" CreationDate="2013-08-05T16:42:31.863" UserId="5401" Text="Unified Software Build System - Patent Application (SAP) - Prior Art Request" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11124" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4707" RevisionGUID="e9b398c1-0324-4115-a5fc-3a148c4fab29" CreationDate="2013-08-05T16:42:31.863" UserId="5401" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130198717&gt;&lt;build-systems&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4708" RevisionGUID="d9f0bd41-86b8-4dd6-a628-34a1e4d5c7b3" CreationDate="2013-08-05T17:12:34.093" UserId="5355" Text="In the US, the AIA amended the rules to allow third parties to submit prior art during prosecution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third parties can submit prior art by the later of: &#xD;&#xA;1) within 6 months of publication of the application; or &#xD;&#xA;2) before the first Office Action.&#xD;&#xA;If for some reason there is a Notice of Allowance earlier than the above, the submission must be made before then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Submission of prior art may be anonymous but there is a filing fee for each 10 references ($180).  The fee is waived if there are three or fewer references submitted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4707" RevisionGUID="3b6b6d4a-1565-4cd5-b1d9-0ab84bae0c5d" CreationDate="2013-08-05T17:37:31.227" UserId="1767" Comment="added 365 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON SOFTWARE BUILD SYSTEMS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SAP is trying to patent... Makefiles and other build systems that combine a platform-independent configuration file with platform-specific templates to create platform-specific build systems. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Jan, 2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Creating a platform-specific Makefile by combining a platform-independent Makefile and a platform-specific template Makefile?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Unified Software Build System**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130198717 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: SAP&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** January 2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Feb 1, 2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below::&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving the unified build system configuration file in a computer system, the unified build system configuration file comprising at least one platform-independent build system configuration&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Generating, using the computer system, at least one platform-specific build system configuration from the at least one platform-independent build system configuration&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting at least one template for the unified build system configuration file, the template selected from among templates corresponding to each of multiple platforms&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generating the one or more build system build files for at least one of the multiple platforms using the platform-specific build system configuration and the selected template; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Providing the generated one or more build system build files in response to the unified build system configuration file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of internet radio station programs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. “Dynamically categorizing” this list of programs by mapping a “dynamically identified topic” to a content classifier; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  Allowing the user to discover programs from the list based on the “dynamic categorization” (presumably created by the classifier)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://google.com/patents/US20130198717&#xD;&#xA; [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11127" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4707" RevisionGUID="3b6b6d4a-1565-4cd5-b1d9-0ab84bae0c5d" CreationDate="2013-08-05T17:37:31.227" UserId="1767" Comment="added 365 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Unified Software Build System (SAP) - Patent Application - Prior Art Request" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11128" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4707" RevisionGUID="3b6b6d4a-1565-4cd5-b1d9-0ab84bae0c5d" CreationDate="2013-08-05T17:37:31.227" UserId="1767" Comment="added 365 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130198717&gt;&lt;build-systems&gt;&lt;sap&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4709" RevisionGUID="ff79079a-5da9-494b-ba09-5bbfcc48685f" CreationDate="2013-08-05T19:53:44.537" UserId="5401" Text="I believe that the [`imake` tool](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imake) used for over a decade to build X11 did this with Makefiles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an [old O’Reilly book](http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9781565922266.do) about `imake` that would substantiate this in more detail, but the [`imake` FAQ](http://www.snake.net/software/imake-stuff/imake-faq.html) from **1997** says right at the top:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **What is imake? How does it work?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; imake is a Makefile-generator that is intended to make it easier to develop software portably for multiple systems. … Machine-dependencies are specified explicitly in a set of configuration files. Instead of writing a Makefile, you write an Imakefile, which is a machine-independent description of what targets you want to build. This way your description file doesn't need to change when you build your software on different systems. imake reads the Imakefile and combines the specifications in it with the proper machine dependencies from the configuration files to write a Makefile tailored for a specific system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After applying the dictionary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* build system configuration file = Makefile&#xD;&#xA;* unified build system configuration file = Imakefile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this seems to be exactly the claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4710" RevisionGUID="20bcc73d-4f99-4907-98e9-cf3c2348de5c" CreationDate="2013-08-05T19:55:29.973" UserId="5408" Text="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Points nails it on all three claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Digital domain: The points only have value within the scope of Microsoft's online apps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Security feature: The cards have a scratch-off area containing a PIN code you need to enter to redeem them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Double-Spend mechanism: Points are tracked at a central server, which prevents points on a card being spent twice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4711" RevisionGUID="2f0b01b5-b64a-4329-b3e2-b7dd93cdc942" CreationDate="2013-08-05T22:14:58.910" UserId="5410" Text="If a patent is filed in country X for a technology that has been existent in country Y for a few years, can they be approved? If yes, say Company A from country X has secured the patent and Company B comes along and &quot;copies&quot; it, Company A sues, is there any defense Company B can provide for themself?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11132" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4711" RevisionGUID="2f0b01b5-b64a-4329-b3e2-b7dd93cdc942" CreationDate="2013-08-05T22:14:58.910" UserId="5410" Text="Patent's Approval" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11133" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4711" RevisionGUID="2f0b01b5-b64a-4329-b3e2-b7dd93cdc942" CreationDate="2013-08-05T22:14:58.910" UserId="5410" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4712" RevisionGUID="79719a97-4ac9-46eb-b62b-341259aba79b" CreationDate="2013-08-06T00:05:23.823" UserId="3076" Text="&quot;The technology exists&quot; isn't 100% clear. If it has been available to the public in country X or if documents explaining it have been published in country X in any language, then it can not be legitimately  patented by another in country Y. On the other hand, the technology might exist in X and even in country Y but if it is kept a secret everywhere then it can't stop anyone who later invents it themselves from patenting it in either country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Available to the public, published and kept in secret are all things that a chapter in a book could be written about and do vary from country to country. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also &quot;company A from country X has secured a patent&quot; is not 100% clear. Patents are territorial.If A has a patent in country X and B copies it and makes it, sells it and uses it only in country Y there is no way B gets in trouble over the patent in country X. Of course there are nuances to all of this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4713" RevisionGUID="f396da08-f207-488a-ac3f-acfadf47afc1" CreationDate="2013-08-06T00:15:55.440" UserId="3076" Text="It is slight more complicated. Third parties can also submit documents &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules are all in a document called the MPEP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MPEP 2204    Time for Filing Prior Art Citation [R-7]&#xD;&#xA;Citations of prior art may be filed “at any time” under 35 U.S.C. 301. However, this period has been defined by rule (37 CFR 1.501(a)) to be “any time during the period of enforceability of a patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trick is this rule doesn't say anything about anyone at the USPTO looking at the documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also there is a long standing rule that allows for a &quot;protest&quot; **before** the application is published. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.291    Protests by the public against pending applications.&#xD;&#xA;(a) A protest may be filed by a member of the public against a pending application, and it will be matched with the application file if it adequately identifies the patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This never did much since it can't be used after the application is published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the 9 month after grant time period. One, it is only applicable to first to file AIA patents of which there is currently one one granted. Two it is not a &quot;send stuff in&quot; thing. It is a very expensive very formal quasi-judicial proceeding." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4713" RevisionGUID="19fd6065-08e3-455e-9b6c-d42adeb86781" CreationDate="2013-08-06T00:28:12.310" UserId="3076" Comment="added 183 characters in body" Text="To address the breadth if the question (US only) is slightly more complicated. The AIA provisions are in  rule 37 CFR 1.290. There are other rules that relate to this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules are all in a document called the MPEP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MPEP 2204    Time for Filing Prior Art Citation [R-7]&#xD;&#xA;Citations of prior art may be filed “at any time” under 35 U.S.C. 301. However, this period has been defined by rule (37 CFR 1.501(a)) to be “any time during the period of enforceability of a patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This a different and older provision, the trick is this rule doesn't say anything about anyone at the USPTO looking at the documents. It still can be valuable to have it in the file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also there is a long standing rule that allows for a &quot;protest&quot; **before** the application is published. It might be used by someone the applicant threatened with an application on file as patent-pending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.291    Protests by the public against pending applications.&#xD;&#xA;(a) A protest may be filed by a member of the public against a pending application, and it will be matched with the application file if it adequately identifies the patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This never did much since it can't be used after the application is published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the 9 month after grant time period. One, the Post Grant Review available in that time window  is only applicable to first to file AIA patents of which there is currently one one granted. Two it is not a &quot;send stuff in&quot; thing. It is a very expensive very formal quasi-judicial proceeding." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4713" RevisionGUID="72d5ef04-b300-467e-ae12-0c75c05f511d" CreationDate="2013-08-06T03:13:11.747" UserId="3076" Comment="edited body" Text="To address the breadth of the question (US only) is slightly more complicated. The AIA provisions are in  rule 37 CFR 1.290. There are other rules that relate to this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules are all in a document called the MPEP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MPEP 2204    Time for Filing Prior Art Citation [R-7]&#xD;&#xA;Citations of prior art may be filed “at any time” under 35 U.S.C. 301. However, this period has been defined by rule (37 CFR 1.501(a)) to be “any time during the period of enforceability of a patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This a different and older provision, the trick is this rule doesn't say anything about anyone at the USPTO looking at the documents. It still can be valuable to have it in the file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also there is a long standing rule that allows for a &quot;protest&quot; **before** the application is published. It might be used by someone the applicant threatened with an application on file as patent-pending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.291    Protests by the public against pending applications.&#xD;&#xA;(a) A protest may be filed by a member of the public against a pending application, and it will be matched with the application file if it adequately identifies the patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This never did much since it can't be used after the application is published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the 9 month after grant time period. One, the Post Grant Review available in that time window  is only applicable to first to file AIA patents of which there is currently one one granted. Two it is not a &quot;send stuff in&quot; thing. It is a very expensive very formal quasi-judicial proceeding." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4713" RevisionGUID="ae343e61-cbf2-49bc-9ec9-ec7461c30e54" CreationDate="2013-08-06T03:23:33.457" UserId="3076" Comment="edited body" Text="To address the breadth of the question (US only) is slightly more complicated. The AIA provisions are in  rule 37 CFR 1.290. There are other rules that relate to this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules are all in a document called the MPEP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MPEP 2204    Time for Filing Prior Art Citation [R-7]&#xD;&#xA;Citations of prior art may be filed “at any time” under 35 U.S.C. 301. However, this period has been defined by rule (37 CFR 1.501(a)) to be “any time during the period of enforceability of a patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This a different and older provision, the trick is this rule doesn't say anything about anyone at the USPTO looking at the documents. It still can be valuable to have it in the file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also there is a long standing rule that allows for a &quot;protest&quot; **before** the application is published. It might be used by someone the applicant threatened with an application on file as patent-pending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.291    Protests by the public against pending applications.&#xD;&#xA;(a) A protest may be filed by a member of the public against a pending application, and it will be matched with the application file if it adequately identifies the patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This never did much since it can't be used after the application is published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding other portions of the question: the phrase &quot;bring prior art&quot; is a little unclear. The examiner can search multiple times and issue multiple office actions rejecting the application on various grounds related to new references they find or new arguments they formulate. It is technically possible for an allowed application awaiting payment of the issue fee to be pulled back in the examination and give a new rejection. They are only supposed to do a new search when the applicant has made an amendment that necessitates it. In the normal course of events in the US the second rejection is nominally a &quot;final&quot; rejection but it is only final for the money you have paid them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicant and everyone associated with filing and pursuing the application have a duty to disclose anything they know or become aware of that would tend have a negative light on the patentability  or contradict a position they have taken. This continues until the day of issue. Regarding the applicant &quot;dismissing&quot; a prior art reference: they either need to show that due to dates or being from a &quot;non-analogous&quot; field it does not qualify as prior art or argue that it does not have all the elements of a claim, or amend one or more claims, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the 9 month after grant time period. One, the Post Grant Review available in that time window  is only applicable to first to file AIA patents of which there is currently one one granted. Two it is not a &quot;send stuff in&quot; thing. It is a very expensive very formal quasi-judicial proceeding." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4702" RevisionGUID="4ac60c2d-6bc0-46d3-a8f1-a5facbe018f5" CreationDate="2013-08-06T03:59:16.510" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" This **overly broad patent application** claims methods of storing bitcoin public and private keys on a physical device (a paper wallet), and claims methods of protecting value stored on a physical device using tamper-resistant features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the patent application was filed with Bitcoins in mind and especially to cover [BitBills](http://www.bitbills.com/) cards, claims are much broader and there probably is plenty of prior art for all the claims. This patent application was covered in [Bitcoin Magazine](http://bitcoinmagazine.com/bitbillss-patent-will-patents-hinder-bitcoins-evolution/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: CREATING AND USING DIGITAL CURRENCY**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** Among other things, a physical device carries value and can be physically delivered in a transaction. The physical device includes a representation of the value carried by the physical device. The representation is usable to transfer the value from the physical device to a digital domain. A security feature can change from a state indicating that the value carried by the physical device has not been compromised to a state indicating that the value carried by the physical device may have been compromised. The change in state is detectable, the representation of the value carried by the physical device being inaccessible except in a manner that causes the security feature to change state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Translated from legalese:* Applicant tries to patent a paper wallets or smart card containing some monetary value that can be invalidated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** [US 20130166455 A1](http://www.google.com/patents/US20130166455)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number:** US 13/336,779&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Douglas Feigelson (inventor) from [BitBills](http://www.bitbills.com/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date:** Seeking Prior Art predating Dec 23, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An apparatus comprising a physical device that carries value and can be physically delivered in a transaction, the physical device comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a representation of the value carried by the physical device, the representation being usable to transfer the value from the physical device to a digital domain, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a security feature that can change from a state indicating that the value carried by the physical device has not been compromised to a state indicating that the value carried by the physical device may have been compromised, the change in state being detectable,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the representation of the value carried by the physical device being inaccessible except in a manner that causes the security feature to change state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A smart card or paper wallet with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A monetary value that can be transferred out from the paper wallet **to a digital domain**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A security feature determining if the value on the paper wallet was compromised (withdrawn)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A mechanism to trigger the security feature when the value is transferred out (to prevent double-spending)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to Dec 23, 2011. The **to a digital domain** part is probably the tricky part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ](http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant) on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4707" RevisionGUID="5418a090-6969-4835-9fe7-67cc80a8df5b" CreationDate="2013-08-06T03:59:43.497" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON SOFTWARE BUILD SYSTEMS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SAP is trying to patent... Makefiles and other build systems that combine a platform-independent configuration file with platform-specific templates to create platform-specific build systems. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Jan, 2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Creating a platform-specific Makefile by combining a platform-independent Makefile and a platform-specific template Makefile?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Unified Software Build System**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130198717 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: SAP&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** January 2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Feb 1, 2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below::&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving the unified build system configuration file in a computer system, the unified build system configuration file comprising at least one platform-independent build system configuration&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Generating, using the computer system, at least one platform-specific build system configuration from the at least one platform-independent build system configuration&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting at least one template for the unified build system configuration file, the template selected from among templates corresponding to each of multiple platforms&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generating the one or more build system build files for at least one of the multiple platforms using the platform-specific build system configuration and the selected template; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Providing the generated one or more build system build files in response to the unified build system configuration file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of internet radio station programs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. “Dynamically categorizing” this list of programs by mapping a “dynamically identified topic” to a content classifier; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  Allowing the user to discover programs from the list based on the “dynamic categorization” (presumably created by the classifier)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://google.com/patents/US20130198717&#xD;&#xA; [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="ec6bc982-92a4-4207-825d-186caff86483" CreationDate="2013-08-06T04:00:19.967" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ANALYZING A WEBPAGE** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...extracting information blocks from a webpage based on text and visual layout! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Webpage extraction through page structure and sentences**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for extracting entities in a webpage using a **text understanding component** and a **visual layout extraction&quot; component**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110078554 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 12/569,912&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Sep 30, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. In a computing environment, a system comprising, at least one processor, a memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and including components comprising, a framework configured to process a webpage to understand one or more entities of the webpage, the framework including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a text understanding component and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to provide text-related data to the structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the structure understanding component configured to use the text-related data and visual layout features of the webpage to produce a labeled block,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to use the labeled block to understand text of the one or more entities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for processing a webpage, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A text understanding component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A visual layout (&quot;structure&quot;) understanding component; where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The text component provides data to the visual layout component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The visual layout component produces a labeled block based on the visual layout and the text; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. The text understanding component uses the labeled block to &quot;understand&quot; the text of an entity on the webpage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Sep 30, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A natural language processing framework for labeling webpages” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/V9vSS.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110078554&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4692" RevisionGUID="c6d1b51b-4564-4acd-b52d-e85254a96f1f" CreationDate="2013-08-06T04:01:45.130" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Recognizing objects in images** - This application from [Sony][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying objects through image process and registering content information about those objects! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Object recognition combined with sensor data (e.g. GPS, Inertial Sensors, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses environmental data (e.g. inertial sensor or GPS) or positional data about the object to be recognized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Recognizing objects in images and environmental data**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A camera-type device which recognizes objects in images and attaches content to the recognized objects, which content could include environmental data (e.g. GPS, orientation of camera, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130124518 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/670,705&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Sony&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/12/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. an object information acquiring unit that acquires object information obtained by performing processing for detecting and identifying an object for image data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a content information registering unit that registers target content information in a database in association with the object information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A device for recogizing objects in images, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a unit that detects and identifies an object in the image data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a unit that associates content information with the object and registers that in a database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Object recognition involving environmental data.  Examples of environmental data cited by the applicant include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - temperature, atmospheric pressure, and humidity,&#xD;&#xA; - orientation and acceleration,&#xD;&#xA; - proximity,&#xD;&#xA; - illuminance,&#xD;&#xA; - noise, &#xD;&#xA; - date,&#xD;&#xA; - attitude (six axes)&#xD;&#xA; - user's vital data (complexion, body temperature, body mass index (BMI),&#xD;&#xA; - user's operation (commuting, playing golf, having dinner, cleaning, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;an information registration system from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/HHftf.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130124518?dq=US20130124518A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.sony.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4680" RevisionGUID="83e2ab77-f27b-4ed0-810f-20d867ed7d6e" CreationDate="2013-08-06T04:04:13.187" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Wireless Audio** - This application from [Logitech][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Forwarding a media stream from a first media output device to a second media output device! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/25/2011** that discusses:																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sharing a media stream between two media devices																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO terminates the first media stream when it is transferred to a second media device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: EASY SHARING OF WIRELESS AUDIO SIGNALS**																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A user commands (with voice, button, gesture, anything) a first media output device (e.g. an iPhone) to stream to a second media output device (e.g. a TV)																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130117693 A1][2]																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/567,203																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Logitech																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/25/2011																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/5/2013																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method comprising:																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving, at a first media output device, streaming media from a media source device;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. receiving, at the first media output device, a command by motion or voice to share the streaming media with a second media output device; and																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. initiating, by the first media output device, sharing of the streaming media between the first media output device and the second media output device.																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Streaming media to a media output device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving a command to transfer the streaming media to a second media output device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Streaming the media from the first media output device to the second media output device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/25/2011																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO where the first media output stream is terminated when it is streaming to a second media device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;----------																			&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;easy sharing of media from one media output device from a first user to a media output device of a second userfrom the Applicant&quot;**																			&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/SUsfP.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;----------																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;----------																			&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant																			&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130117693?dq=US20130117693A1																			&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art																			&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant																			&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.logitech.com																																				" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4714" RevisionGUID="4fed2a62-80dc-4b35-ab31-f7d8916a7d0a" CreationDate="2013-08-06T04:30:52.953" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON an advertising unit consisting of a content feed** - This application from [Outbrain][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Creating a content feed and using it as an advertising unit! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/18/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Content feeds used as an advertising unit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO classifies content so as to create an advertising unit around a specific topic (e.g. Golfing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Advertising content with a content feed on a specific topic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Creating an advertising unit consisting of a content feed from content which is frequently changing and on a specific topic (e.g. a Golfing advertising unit consisting of Golfing content)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130132191 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/676,471&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Outbrain&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/18/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving data indicating a data feed to use to create a feed-based advertisement to represent content, that is to be advertised, of a content provider;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. receiving the data feed that is associated with the content to be advertised;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. generating, by a server computer the feed-based advertisement using one or more data elements associated with an item in the data feed; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. providing the feed-based advertisement to a user device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a data feed of content from a content provider who wishes to advertise its content&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Creating a feed-based advertisement unit based on the data feed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Sending the feed-based advertisement to a user (presumably to display on his device)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/18/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming categorizing the content to create advertising feeds around specific topics (e.g golfing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;providing feed-based advertisements using a data feed.from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/q0zPQ.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132191?dq=US20130132191A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.outbrain.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11147" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4714" RevisionGUID="4fed2a62-80dc-4b35-ab31-f7d8916a7d0a" CreationDate="2013-08-06T04:30:52.953" UserId="1767" Text="Content Feed - Advertising content with a feed (Outbrain) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11148" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4714" RevisionGUID="4fed2a62-80dc-4b35-ab31-f7d8916a7d0a" CreationDate="2013-08-06T04:30:52.953" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;online-advertising&gt;&lt;us20130132191&gt;&lt;outbrain&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4692" RevisionGUID="c121041f-dfdc-4c57-a9eb-afd654ca2f7e" CreationDate="2013-08-06T04:44:35.840" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Recognizing objects in images** - This application from [Sony][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying objects through image process and registering content information about those objects! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Object recognition combined with sensor data (e.g. GPS, Inertial Sensors, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses environmental data (e.g. inertial sensor or GPS) or positional data about the object to be recognized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Recognizing objects in images and environmental data**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A camera-type device which recognizes objects in images and attaches content to the recognized objects, which content could include environmental data (e.g. GPS, orientation of camera, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130124518 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/670,705&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Sony&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/12/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. an object information acquiring unit that acquires object information obtained by performing processing for detecting and identifying an object for image data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a content information registering unit that registers target content information in a database in association with the object information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A device for recogizing objects in images, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a unit that detects and identifies an object in the image data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a unit that associates content information with the object and registers that in a database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Object recognition involving environmental data.  Examples of environmental data cited by the applicant include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - temperature, atmospheric pressure, and humidity,&#xD;&#xA; - orientation and acceleration,&#xD;&#xA; - proximity,&#xD;&#xA; - illuminance,&#xD;&#xA; - noise, &#xD;&#xA; - date,&#xD;&#xA; - attitude (six axes)&#xD;&#xA; - user's vital data (complexion, body temperature, body mass index (BMI),&#xD;&#xA; - user's operation (commuting, playing golf, having dinner, cleaning, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;an information registration system from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/HHftf.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130124518?dq=US20130124518A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.sony.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="9118fbbc-74e2-433e-899e-3b33c87de747" CreationDate="2013-08-06T04:44:59.980" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ANALYZING A WEBPAGE** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...extracting information blocks from a webpage based on text and visual layout! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Webpage extraction through page structure and sentences**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for extracting entities in a webpage using a **text understanding component** and a **visual layout extraction&quot; component**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110078554 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 12/569,912&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Sep 30, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. In a computing environment, a system comprising, at least one processor, a memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and including components comprising, a framework configured to process a webpage to understand one or more entities of the webpage, the framework including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a text understanding component and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to provide text-related data to the structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the structure understanding component configured to use the text-related data and visual layout features of the webpage to produce a labeled block,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to use the labeled block to understand text of the one or more entities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for processing a webpage, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A text understanding component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A visual layout (&quot;structure&quot;) understanding component; where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The text component provides data to the visual layout component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The visual layout component produces a labeled block based on the visual layout and the text; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. The text understanding component uses the labeled block to &quot;understand&quot; the text of an entity on the webpage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Sep 30, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A natural language processing framework for labeling webpages” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/V9vSS.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110078554&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4680" RevisionGUID="5a5c2f95-381c-4cfc-aa17-e412b21fc0e5" CreationDate="2013-08-06T04:45:23.217" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Wireless Audio** - This application from [Logitech][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Forwarding a media stream from a first media output device to a second media output device! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/25/2011** that discusses:																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sharing a media stream between two media devices																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO terminates the first media stream when it is transferred to a second media device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: EASY SHARING OF WIRELESS AUDIO SIGNALS**																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A user commands (with voice, button, gesture, anything) a first media output device (e.g. an iPhone) to stream to a second media output device (e.g. a TV)																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130117693 A1][2]																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/567,203																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Logitech																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/25/2011																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/5/2013																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method comprising:																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving, at a first media output device, streaming media from a media source device;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. receiving, at the first media output device, a command by motion or voice to share the streaming media with a second media output device; and																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. initiating, by the first media output device, sharing of the streaming media between the first media output device and the second media output device.																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Streaming media to a media output device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving a command to transfer the streaming media to a second media output device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Streaming the media from the first media output device to the second media output device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/25/2011																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO where the first media output stream is terminated when it is streaming to a second media device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;----------																			&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;easy sharing of media from one media output device from a first user to a media output device of a second userfrom the Applicant&quot;**																			&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/SUsfP.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;----------																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;----------																			&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant																			&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130117693?dq=US20130117693A1																			&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art																			&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant																			&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.logitech.com																																				" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4714" RevisionGUID="f2908a1d-2642-42fd-835a-f17fd559625d" CreationDate="2013-08-06T04:45:47.830" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON an advertising unit consisting of a content feed** - This application from [Outbrain][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Creating a content feed and using it as an advertising unit! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/18/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Content feeds used as an advertising unit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO classifies content so as to create an advertising unit around a specific topic (e.g. Golfing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Advertising content with a content feed on a specific topic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Creating an advertising unit consisting of a content feed from content which is frequently changing and on a specific topic (e.g. a Golfing advertising unit consisting of Golfing content)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130132191 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/676,471&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Outbrain&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/18/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving data indicating a data feed to use to create a feed-based advertisement to represent content, that is to be advertised, of a content provider;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. receiving the data feed that is associated with the content to be advertised;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. generating, by a server computer the feed-based advertisement using one or more data elements associated with an item in the data feed; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. providing the feed-based advertisement to a user device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a data feed of content from a content provider who wishes to advertise its content&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Creating a feed-based advertisement unit based on the data feed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Sending the feed-based advertisement to a user (presumably to display on his device)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/18/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming categorizing the content to create advertising feeds around specific topics (e.g golfing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;providing feed-based advertisements using a data feed.from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/q0zPQ.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132191?dq=US20130132191A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.outbrain.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4715" RevisionGUID="58debaee-f73f-4cc5-af94-db4b9a722192" CreationDate="2013-08-06T05:08:29.093" UserId="4482" Text="Here is a build system that: uses platform-independent build files; generates platform-specific build files for multiple platforms; and is template based.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://www.bakefile.org][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Bakefile is cross-platform, cross-compiler native makefiles generator.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It takes compiler-independent description of build tasks as input and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generates native makefile (autoconf's Makefile.in, Visual C++ project,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bcc makefile etc.)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example platform-independent build file:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &lt;exe id=&quot;foo&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      &lt;app-type&gt;gui&lt;/app-type&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      &lt;sources&gt;foo.c bar.c&lt;/sources&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &lt;/exe&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following command line would generate a platform-specific build file for Microsoft Visual C++ on Windows for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    bakefile -fmsvs2008prj file.bkl &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example of a platform-specific template is the &quot;dll&quot; template that applies only to Microsoft Windows. Further information on templates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://www.bakefile.org/doc/ch05.html#cmd.template][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally a publication from **July 26, 2005** mentioning bakefile:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://my.safaribooksonline.com/book/programming/0131473816][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bakefile.org&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.bakefile.org/doc/ch03.html#concept.template&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.bakefile.org/doc/ch05.html#cmd.template&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://my.safaribooksonline.com/book/programming/0131473816" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4717" RevisionGUID="3b4fc903-7fc8-468b-8868-cc30c984a6bb" CreationDate="2013-08-06T09:43:33.353" UserId="5414" Text="This sounds almost exactly like [Casascius physical bitcoins][1], which were first released in September 2011.  Each coin contains a Bitcoin private key protected by a tamper-evident hologram sticker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Casascius_physical_bitcoins " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4715" RevisionGUID="2bd74a73-3570-4d31-bb19-ea52135f28fc" CreationDate="2013-08-06T13:44:40.590" UserId="4482" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="Here is a build system that: uses platform-independent build files; generates platform-specific build files for multiple platforms; **and** is template based.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://www.bakefile.org][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Bakefile is cross-platform, cross-compiler native makefiles generator.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It takes compiler-independent description of build tasks as input and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generates native makefile (autoconf's Makefile.in, Visual C++ project,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bcc makefile etc.)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example of a platform-independent build file:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &lt;exe id=&quot;foo&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      &lt;app-type&gt;gui&lt;/app-type&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      &lt;sources&gt;foo.c bar.c&lt;/sources&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &lt;/exe&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following command line would generate a platform-specific build file for Microsoft Visual C++ on Windows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    bakefile -fmsvs2008prj file.bkl &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above example uses the &quot;exe&quot; template, which in turn uses platform-specific templates to implement executables differently on Windows, Mac, Linux etc. Further information on templates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://www.bakefile.org/doc/ch05.html#cmd.template][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally a publication from **July 26, 2005** mentioning bakefile:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://my.safaribooksonline.com/book/programming/0131473816][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bakefile.org&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.bakefile.org/doc/ch03.html#concept.template&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.bakefile.org/doc/ch05.html#cmd.template&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://my.safaribooksonline.com/book/programming/0131473816" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4715" RevisionGUID="2e1415cb-95d4-4e1f-9c11-6529f64d75a6" CreationDate="2013-08-06T13:54:14.130" UserId="4482" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="Here is a build system that: uses platform-independent build files; generates platform-specific build files for multiple platforms; **and** is template based.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://www.bakefile.org][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Bakefile is cross-platform, cross-compiler native makefiles generator.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It takes compiler-independent description of build tasks as input and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generates native makefile (autoconf's Makefile.in, Visual C++ project,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bcc makefile etc.)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example of a platform-independent build file:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &lt;exe id=&quot;foo&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      &lt;app-type&gt;gui&lt;/app-type&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      &lt;sources&gt;foo.c bar.c&lt;/sources&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &lt;/exe&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following command line would generate a platform-specific build file for Microsoft Visual C++ on Windows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    bakefile -fmsvs2008prj file.bkl &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or for Macintosh:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    bakefile -fxcode2 file.bkl &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above example uses the &quot;exe&quot; template, which in turn uses platform-specific templates to implement executables differently on Windows, Mac, Linux etc. Further information on templates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://www.bakefile.org/doc/ch05.html#cmd.template][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally a publication from **July 26, 2005** mentioning bakefile:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://my.safaribooksonline.com/book/programming/0131473816][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bakefile.org&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.bakefile.org/doc/ch05.html#cmd.template&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://my.safaribooksonline.com/book/programming/0131473816" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4707" RevisionGUID="2014800a-21c0-4c15-a5e6-cb4155967149" CreationDate="2013-08-06T14:59:41.537" UserId="5401" Comment="Remove copy-and-paste error" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON SOFTWARE BUILD SYSTEMS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SAP is trying to patent... Makefiles and other build systems that combine a platform-independent configuration file with platform-specific templates to create platform-specific build systems. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Jan, 2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Creating a platform-specific Makefile by combining a platform-independent Makefile and a platform-specific template Makefile?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Unified Software Build System**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130198717 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: SAP&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** January 2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Feb 1, 2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below::&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving the unified build system configuration file in a computer system, the unified build system configuration file comprising at least one platform-independent build system configuration&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Generating, using the computer system, at least one platform-specific build system configuration from the at least one platform-independent build system configuration&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting at least one template for the unified build system configuration file, the template selected from among templates corresponding to each of multiple platforms&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generating the one or more build system build files for at least one of the multiple platforms using the platform-specific build system configuration and the selected template; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Providing the generated one or more build system build files in response to the unified build system configuration file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is already pretty much in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://google.com/patents/US20130198717&#xD;&#xA; [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4718" RevisionGUID="00e8230f-522b-4d36-a109-a853baa91548" CreationDate="2013-08-06T15:46:09.773" UserId="4856" Text="In 2008, the Internet Content Syndication Council (http://www.internetcontentsyndication.org/) published a white paper entitled &quot;Content Creation and Distribution in an Expanding Internet Universe&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.internetcontentsyndication.org/downloads/whitepapers/content_creation.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Point 1 (of the plain english) is embodied by the idea of &quot;Internet Content Syndication&quot;; defined as &quot;The controlled placement of the same content on multiple partnering Internet destinations&quot; (page 1). The &quot;Internet destination&quot; is receiving a feed of content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Point 3 (plain english again), could be covered by a number of existing technologies, one of which is RSS (Rich Site Summary or Really Simple Syndication: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS). RSS is mention by the white paper specifically in an example from page 10: &quot;RSS is a potentially powerful way for advertisers to aggregate a targeted audience because of the self-selected nature of the system. For example, an automotive company can place ads on a feed for auto news or car care, knowing that the users who select the feed are likely to be car enthusiasts.&quot; Here we not only see the content delivery technology, RSS, but also the targeted (by content) nature of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Point 2 (english) seems to intend for a middle man of some sort to add advertising to an existing content stream, not at the origination of the stream which Internet Content Syndication is focused on. However, the white paper takes for granted that this is an obvious consequence, as seen on page 10 as part of the previously stated example: &quot;However, only the advertisements &#xD;&#xA;on the originating Web site are within a fully controlled environment. Unless ads are also available on the feed reader sites (which is a separate media buy for the advertiser), the impressions are only served when the feed is clicked on.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is my first response to a prior-art request, so I would greatly appreciate any constructive criticism. Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4719" RevisionGUID="91d8e167-bc19-4291-bbec-9f3b6f2b4abf" CreationDate="2013-08-06T17:51:23.983" UserId="4338" Text="Breaking down the four bullets you highlighted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Equal-cost multi path routing to multiple load balancing servers that share a common IP address. Also known as &quot;anycast&quot; routing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This [Amazon EC2 Article from 2008](http://aws.amazon.com/articles/1639) explains how to setup two HAProxy servers with heartbeat - basically meaning if one fails it can take the other one's IP address - which is essentially sharing a common IP address.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use of a consistent hashing algorithm on a load balancing server to deterministically choose a destination server for any given incoming packet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Using &quot;ip hash&quot; load balancing with src-mac on the Ciscos](http://communities.vmware.com/thread/120716?start=0&amp;tstart=0) from 2008.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Encapsulation of incoming packets via IP-in-IP tunneling when forwarding to the application server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is this not the definition of what [iptables](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iptables) does?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ability of the application server to respond directly to the client, using the original VIP IP address seen in the encapsulated packet as a source address. Also known as Layer 3 Direct Server Return.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**IPTables does this too, I believe**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4720" RevisionGUID="4eabbce4-1e36-414a-89a2-3353eacae8c1" CreationDate="2013-08-06T18:28:17.133" UserId="5419" Text="Looking for the current status of this patent.&#xD;&#xA;Is it still valid?&#xD;&#xA;Who holds the rights to it, or who owns it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11166" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4720" RevisionGUID="4eabbce4-1e36-414a-89a2-3353eacae8c1" CreationDate="2013-08-06T18:28:17.133" UserId="5419" Text="Current status US 4132029" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11167" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4720" RevisionGUID="4eabbce4-1e36-414a-89a2-3353eacae8c1" CreationDate="2013-08-06T18:28:17.133" UserId="5419" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11168" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4720" RevisionGUID="85042fbb-64ff-4732-8c45-25d1221683a1" CreationDate="2013-08-06T18:45:34.970" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;us4132029&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4721" RevisionGUID="47246c50-b976-4ea0-a834-86d2d91dc7cc" CreationDate="2013-08-06T18:54:00.830" UserId="3076" Text="It can sometimes be complicated to calculate when a particular patent will expire. Not is this case. It was issued in 1979 and at that time patents expired 17 years after being granted. It has been expired for over 15 years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4722" RevisionGUID="b3a2e0a7-03b8-4a27-bb54-b8051c68522c" CreationDate="2013-08-06T18:54:05.750" UserId="1767" Text="Here is how to check on the status of a US Patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The first place to look is Google Patents: [US4132029][1]&#xD;&#xA;2. The second place to look is the [Public Pair][2] system at USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject patent [US4132029][3] was issued Jan 2, 1979:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Public Pair you can also see that the patent was issued on Jan 2, 1979.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For older applications (filed prior to Jun 8, 1995), the term of the patent was generally **[17 years from the date of issuance][6]** (or 20 years from the earliest priority date, whichever is later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the subject **patent is expired**.  No patent rights to own and the invention is now in the public domain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4132029?dq=4132029&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/3797/1767&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4132029?dq=4132029&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/HkWTk.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/5mMf5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4723" RevisionGUID="5d4a400f-debc-4f5e-bbec-b378d4cdad49" CreationDate="2013-08-06T20:08:32.780" UserId="5420" Text="Apple's AirPlay technolgoy/branding (September 1, 2010) seems to fit the bill. One can stream audio/visual streams, for example youtube/netflix/etc to iphone/ipad to appletv. I have been unfortunately unable to find a document detailing everything, but I have identified some apple patents that may apply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [GESTURE VISUALIZATION AND SHARING BETWEEN ELECTRONIC DEVICES][1] (April 12, 2011)&#xD;&#xA; - [system for allowing a media player to transfer digital audio to an accessory][2] (Jun 27, 2006)&#xD;&#xA; - [Methods and apparatuses for transferring streaming multimedia...within a network][3] (Feb 15, 2006)&#xD;&#xA; - [Method and apparatus for assisting with playback of remotely stored media files][4] (May 19, 2005)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220120262379%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20120262379&amp;RS=DN/20120262379&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7895378?dq=media%20streaming%20devices%20inassignee:%22Apple%20Inc.%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=pVABUrScBoOBygGj1oGgBw&amp;ved=0CGsQ6AEwCDhG&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7653685?dq=media%20streaming%20devices%20inassignee:%22Apple%20Inc.%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=e1ABUsCoCYrXyAGn2YEg&amp;ved=0CGQQ6AEwBzgy&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220050108320%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20050108320&amp;RS=DN/20050108320" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4726" RevisionGUID="c614776c-3377-4826-8583-b24acf287d9d" CreationDate="2013-08-06T23:49:09.830" UserId="5423" Text="Cmake [ http://www.cmake.org/ ] is a cross-platform system for building makefiles from templates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoting their site: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;CMake is used to control the software compilation process using simple platform and compiler independent configuration files. CMake generates native makefiles and workspaces that can be used in the compiler environment of your choice.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11180" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4184" RevisionGUID="976cfa44-7209-4293-9e4b-6c724c417862" CreationDate="2013-08-07T00:08:52.670" UserId="3076" />
  <row Id="11181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4184" RevisionGUID="976cfa44-7209-4293-9e4b-6c724c417862" CreationDate="2013-08-07T00:08:52.670" UserId="3076" Comment="Clarification " Text="A question for the new post-AIA patent bar exam?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, Bob should not get a patent. Under the post-AIA, post March 15th 2013, section 102(a)(2) the fact that the filing date of John's preceded Bob's makes John's patent prior art to Bob's even though John's was not filed in the US but only because he later did file in the US getting priority from the German application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the old section 102(e) that was in effect for applications  filed on or after March 16 2012, foreign filings did not get a 102(e) date, only US filings (and PCT filings at a the time they where translated into English and the US national stage entry fees where paid)got a 102(e) priority date. However, pre-AIA, an interference might be declared between John's US application and Bob's. Under 102(g)(1) the issue would be Bob's **invention date**, not his filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Separately, if you were trying to concoct a hypothetical where John missed his Paris 1 year priority date you need to make John's US filing date July 8th 2013. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The un-asked part of this answer that imagines a pre-AIA scenario might not be 100% correct. I was taking the opportunity to demonstrate that patent law is deep, subtle and arcane. You can read about new 102(a)(1) vs old 102(e) + 102(g)(1) specifically on page 63 of [UNDERSTANDING THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR PATENTING][1] in a 2012 issue of the AIPLA Quarterly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/armitage_pdf.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4721" RevisionGUID="60156869-6eb7-46a8-9298-9ca1cc7235b0" CreationDate="2013-08-07T00:18:32.160" UserId="3076" Comment="edited body" Text="It can sometimes be complicated to calculate when a particular patent will expire. Not in this case. It was issued in 1979 and at that time patents expired 17 years after being granted. It has been expired for over 15 years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4680" RevisionGUID="90210adc-9b93-4f28-9971-6698414027d8" CreationDate="2013-08-07T00:29:48.460" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Wireless Audio** - This application from [Logitech][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Forwarding a media stream from a first media output device to a second media output device! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/25/2011** that discusses:																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sharing a media stream between two media devices																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO terminates the first media stream when it is transferred to a second media device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: EASY SHARING OF WIRELESS AUDIO SIGNALS**																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A user commands (with voice, button, gesture, anything) a first media output device (e.g. an iPhone) to stream to a second media output device (e.g. a TV)																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130117693 A1][2]																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/567,203																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Logitech																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/25/2011																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/5/2013																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method comprising:																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving, at a first media output device, streaming media from a media source device;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. receiving, at the first media output device, a command by motion or voice to share the streaming media with a second media output device; and																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. initiating, by the first media output device, sharing of the streaming media between the first media output device and the second media output device.																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Streaming media to a media output device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving a command to transfer the streaming media to a second media output device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Streaming the media from the first media output device to the second media output device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/25/2011																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO where the first media output stream is terminated when it is streaming to a second media device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;----------																			&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;easy sharing of media from one media output device from a first user to a media output device of a second userfrom the Applicant&quot;**																			&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/SUsfP.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;----------																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;----------																			&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant																			&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130117693?dq=US20130117693A1																			&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art																			&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant																			&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.logitech.com																																				" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4714" RevisionGUID="2a94b35d-0bda-40a1-afd4-4fb028986546" CreationDate="2013-08-07T00:30:09.883" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON an advertising unit consisting of a content feed** - This application from [Outbrain][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Creating a content feed and using it as an advertising unit! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/18/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Content feeds used as an advertising unit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO classifies content so as to create an advertising unit around a specific topic (e.g. Golfing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Advertising content with a content feed on a specific topic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Creating an advertising unit consisting of a content feed from content which is frequently changing and on a specific topic (e.g. a Golfing advertising unit consisting of Golfing content)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130132191 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/676,471&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Outbrain&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/18/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving data indicating a data feed to use to create a feed-based advertisement to represent content, that is to be advertised, of a content provider;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. receiving the data feed that is associated with the content to be advertised;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. generating, by a server computer the feed-based advertisement using one or more data elements associated with an item in the data feed; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. providing the feed-based advertisement to a user device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a data feed of content from a content provider who wishes to advertise its content&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Creating a feed-based advertisement unit based on the data feed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Sending the feed-based advertisement to a user (presumably to display on his device)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/18/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming categorizing the content to create advertising feeds around specific topics (e.g golfing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;providing feed-based advertisements using a data feed.from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/q0zPQ.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132191?dq=US20130132191A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.outbrain.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="eac1beb6-4120-40b2-a18b-651701ff4832" CreationDate="2013-08-07T00:30:26.793" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ANALYZING A WEBPAGE** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...extracting information blocks from a webpage based on text and visual layout! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Webpage extraction through page structure and sentences**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for extracting entities in a webpage using a **text understanding component** and a **visual layout extraction&quot; component**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110078554 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 12/569,912&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Sep 30, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. In a computing environment, a system comprising, at least one processor, a memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and including components comprising, a framework configured to process a webpage to understand one or more entities of the webpage, the framework including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a text understanding component and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to provide text-related data to the structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the structure understanding component configured to use the text-related data and visual layout features of the webpage to produce a labeled block,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to use the labeled block to understand text of the one or more entities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for processing a webpage, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A text understanding component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A visual layout (&quot;structure&quot;) understanding component; where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The text component provides data to the visual layout component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The visual layout component produces a labeled block based on the visual layout and the text; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. The text understanding component uses the labeled block to &quot;understand&quot; the text of an entity on the webpage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Sep 30, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A natural language processing framework for labeling webpages” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/V9vSS.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110078554&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4727" RevisionGUID="7da612e8-9e20-485c-860d-5e63c4b2f080" CreationDate="2013-08-07T00:38:48.217" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON online video advertisements** - This application from [Yahoo!][6] seeks to patent the idea of...stopping a video advertisement on one browser tab and resuming the video advertisement within another browser tab! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/20/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - starting and resuming a video advertisements across tabs during browsing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO records the current time of play so as to resume at exactly the same place in the video advertisement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Seemless online video advertisement during browsing**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Online video advertisement during browsing - ad unit on first web page is paused when user sends request for second web page.  On loading second web page the video advertisement resumes in the same time time during video&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130132211 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/300,583&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo!&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/20/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method of providing seamless online video advertisements, the computer-implemented method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. rendering a video advertisement on a first web page in a first tab;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. recording current time of play constantly during the rendering of the video advertisement;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving a request for a second web page in the first tab from a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. unloading the first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. loading the second web page in the first tab;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. retrieving the current time of play stored corresponding to the unloading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. resume the rendering of the video advertisement on the second web page based on the current time of play retrieved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing seamless online video ads, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Playing video ad in first web apge&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Recording current time of video while playing it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving request for second web page and loading second web page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Resume playing video ad in second web page at same time video was stopped in first web page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/20/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming recording the stop time of the video so as to resume in the same place during browsing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;providing seemless online video advertisements from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zBFVoxZ.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132211?dq=US20130132211A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11187" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4727" RevisionGUID="7da612e8-9e20-485c-860d-5e63c4b2f080" CreationDate="2013-08-07T00:38:48.217" UserId="1767" Text="Online Video - Seamless Ads While Browsing (Yahoo!) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11188" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4727" RevisionGUID="7da612e8-9e20-485c-860d-5e63c4b2f080" CreationDate="2013-08-07T00:38:48.217" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;online-advertising&gt;&lt;yahoo&gt;&lt;us20130132211&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4727" RevisionGUID="70a76880-dabf-47cc-aea0-750f6b3230d0" CreationDate="2013-08-07T04:20:15.730" UserId="1767" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON online video advertisements** - This application from [Yahoo!][6] seeks to patent the idea of...stopping a video advertisement on one browser tab and resuming the video advertisement within another browser tab! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/20/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - starting and resuming a video advertisements across tabs during browsing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO records the current time of play so as to resume at exactly the same place in the video advertisement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Seemless online video advertisement during browsing**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Online video advertisement during browsing - ad unit on first web page is paused when user sends request for second web page.  On loading second web page the video advertisement resumes in the same time time during video&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130132211 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/300,583&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo!&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/20/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method of providing seamless online video advertisements, the computer-implemented method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. rendering a video advertisement on a first web page in a first tab;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. recording current time of play constantly during the rendering of the video advertisement;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving a request for a second web page in the first tab from a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. unloading the first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. loading the second web page in the first tab;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. retrieving the current time of play stored corresponding to the unloading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. resume the rendering of the video advertisement on the second web page based on the current time of play retrieved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing seamless online video ads, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Playing video ad in first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Recording current time of video while playing the video;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving request for second web page and loading second web page; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Resume playing video ad in second web page at same time video was stopped in first web page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/20/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming recording the stop time of the video so as to resume in the same place during browsing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;providing seemless online video advertisements from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zBFVoxZ.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132211?dq=US20130132211A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4728" RevisionGUID="9bb1b055-27b4-44c2-8d5e-6045138714da" CreationDate="2013-08-07T04:38:17.963" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Online shopping for clothes with input from your friends** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...Getting feedback from your friends on clothes and outfit while you shop online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/18/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Social feedback on clothes or outfits while shopping online&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves a **virtual mannequin**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Online shopping for clothes with feedback from your friends**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] First user shopping for clothes online.  Second user presented same item. First user picks the item as part of an outfit.  Second user provides a comment which is presented to both first and second users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130132240 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/300,421&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/18/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for online shopping in an online shopping system, the method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. providing a first user interface identifying an item of apparel for presentation to a first user; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. providing a second user interface identifying the item of apparel for presentation to a second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving from the first user an indication to associate the item of apparel with an outfit; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. receiving from the second user a comment regarding at least one of the outfit and the item of apparel; and interfaces such that the comment and outfit are viewable by the first user and the second user.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. providing the comment and the outfit for presentation in the first and second user &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for shopping online for clothes, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. First and second users are shown an item of apparel (e.g. sneakers)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. First user associates the item of apparel with an outfit (e.g. a tuxedo)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Second user comments on the item and the outfit (&quot;hey, those sneakers look great with that blue tuxedo!&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Comment is provided to first and second user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/18/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming displaying the clothes on a **virtual mannequin**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Online shopping with integrated social experience from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/WA4GVfT.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130132240&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11192" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4728" RevisionGUID="9bb1b055-27b4-44c2-8d5e-6045138714da" CreationDate="2013-08-07T04:38:17.963" UserId="1767" Text="Online Shopping - Social Feedback on Clothing - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11193" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4728" RevisionGUID="9bb1b055-27b4-44c2-8d5e-6045138714da" CreationDate="2013-08-07T04:38:17.963" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130132240&gt;&lt;online-shopping&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4727" RevisionGUID="0732ef5d-b60c-4450-931f-75dad973be3b" CreationDate="2013-08-07T04:43:54.470" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON online video advertisements** - This application from [Yahoo!][6] seeks to patent the idea of...stopping a video advertisement on one browser tab and resuming the video advertisement within another browser tab! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/20/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - starting and resuming a video advertisements across tabs during browsing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO records the current time of play so as to resume at exactly the same place in the video advertisement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Seemless online video advertisement during browsing**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Online video advertisement during browsing - ad unit on first web page is paused when user sends request for second web page.  On loading second web page the video advertisement resumes in the same time time during video&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130132211 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/300,583&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo!&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/20/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method of providing seamless online video advertisements, the computer-implemented method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. rendering a video advertisement on a first web page in a first tab;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. recording current time of play constantly during the rendering of the video advertisement;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving a request for a second web page in the first tab from a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. unloading the first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. loading the second web page in the first tab;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. retrieving the current time of play stored corresponding to the unloading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. resume the rendering of the video advertisement on the second web page based on the current time of play retrieved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing seamless online video ads, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Playing video ad in first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Recording current time of video while playing the video;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving request for second web page and loading second web page; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Resume playing video ad in second web page at same time video was stopped in first web page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/20/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming recording the stop time of the video so as to resume in the same place during browsing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;providing seemless online video advertisements from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zBFVoxZ.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132211?dq=US20130132211A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4723" RevisionGUID="c7347a0c-69f4-4e9e-9753-6b2cc1b5f3f3" CreationDate="2013-08-07T12:12:03.813" UserId="1259" Comment="typos fixed" Text="Apple's AirPlay technology/branding (September 1, 2010) seems to fit the bill. One can stream audio/visual streams, for example YouTube/NetFlix/etc to iPhone/iPad to AppleTV. Unfortunately I have been unable to find a document detailing everything, but I have identified some Apple patents that may apply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [GESTURE VISUALIZATION AND SHARING BETWEEN ELECTRONIC DEVICES][1] (April 12, 2011)&#xD;&#xA; - [system for allowing a media player to transfer digital audio to an accessory][2] (Jun 27, 2006)&#xD;&#xA; - [Methods and apparatuses for transferring streaming multimedia...within a network][3] (Feb 15, 2006)&#xD;&#xA; - [Method and apparatus for assisting with playback of remotely stored media files][4] (May 19, 2005)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220120262379%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20120262379&amp;RS=DN/20120262379&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7895378?dq=media%20streaming%20devices%20inassignee:%22Apple%20Inc.%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=pVABUrScBoOBygGj1oGgBw&amp;ved=0CGsQ6AEwCDhG&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7653685?dq=media%20streaming%20devices%20inassignee:%22Apple%20Inc.%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=e1ABUsCoCYrXyAGn2YEg&amp;ved=0CGQQ6AEwBzgy&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220050108320%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20050108320&amp;RS=DN/20050108320" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4729" RevisionGUID="b794a56a-e253-4e45-8577-27bd763b6083" CreationDate="2013-08-07T12:24:03.657" UserId="5425" Text="Scalloped wing leading edges are found naturally on hump back whales which use them for all the reasons described in this patent. Is this not considered prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11197" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4729" RevisionGUID="b794a56a-e253-4e45-8577-27bd763b6083" CreationDate="2013-08-07T12:24:03.657" UserId="5425" Text="Is this valid as it is naturally occurring?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11198" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4729" RevisionGUID="b794a56a-e253-4e45-8577-27bd763b6083" CreationDate="2013-08-07T12:24:03.657" UserId="5425" Text="&lt;us6431498&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4730" RevisionGUID="181a861c-29e2-4bb8-a021-a2b7b079aea3" CreationDate="2013-08-07T13:45:53.963" UserId="4338" Text="[This article from January 2011](http://mashable.com/2011/01/10/fashion-advice-sites/) lists &quot;4 Online Platforms for Personalized Style Advice&quot; each of which do this to some extent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even more importantly, I think [Apple patented this in 2009](http://www.google.com/patents/US20100191770), no?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4731" RevisionGUID="5bf237be-0f96-4dce-a1d6-f28ad1a95a38" CreationDate="2013-08-07T14:24:41.250" UserId="4099" Text="The technique of consistent hashing was invented by Karger et al in their famous 1997 paper, &quot;Consistent hashing and random trees: distributed caching protocols for relieving hot spots on the World Wide Web&quot;: &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=258660 &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://thor.cs.ucsb.edu/~ravenben/papers/coreos/kll+97.pdf &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It is to them that the claim of novelty and non-obviousness belongs. The &quot;Use of a consistent hashing algorithm&quot; claim in this the patent is an obvious and non-novel extension of their pioneering work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The authors directly anticipate the &quot;Use of a consistent hashing algorithm&quot; claim in their conclusions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This&#xD;&#xA;paper&#xD;&#xA;has&#xD;&#xA;focused&#xD;&#xA;on&#xD;&#xA;one&#xD;&#xA;particular&#xD;&#xA;caching&#xD;&#xA;problem—that&#xD;&#xA;of&#xD;&#xA;handling&#xD;&#xA;read&#xD;&#xA;requests&#xD;&#xA;on&#xD;&#xA;the&#xD;&#xA;Web.&#xD;&#xA;We&#xD;&#xA;believe&#xD;&#xA;the&#xD;&#xA;ideas&#xD;&#xA;have&#xD;&#xA;broader&#xD;&#xA;applicability.&#xD;&#xA;In&#xD;&#xA;particular&#xD;&#xA;,&#xD;&#xA;consistent&#xD;&#xA;hashing&#xD;&#xA;may&#xD;&#xA;be&#xD;&#xA;a&#xD;&#xA;useful&#xD;&#xA;tool&#xD;&#xA;for&#xD;&#xA;**distributing&#xD;&#xA;information&#xD;&#xA;from&#xD;&#xA;name&#xD;&#xA;servers&#xD;&#xA;such&#xD;&#xA;as&#xD;&#xA;DNS&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;label&#xD;&#xA;servers&#xD;&#xA;such&#xD;&#xA;as&#xD;&#xA;PICS&#xD;&#xA;in&#xD;&#xA;a&#xD;&#xA;load-balanced&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;fault-&#xD;&#xA;tolerant&#xD;&#xA;fashion.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So load balancing server requests with consistent hashing was proposed in this 1997 paper. I find it curious that this very easy-to-find paper was not mentioned in the prior art section on the patent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4732" RevisionGUID="7d617f32-9aad-4d80-b711-61abde668fae" CreationDate="2013-08-07T14:28:26.190" UserId="5420" Text="This is somewhat similar to another prior art request on Ask Patents: [URL pointing to time of video][1].  The answers there may be applicable for some of the claims here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/611/url-pointing-to-time-of-video-google-patent-application-prior-art-request" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4731" RevisionGUID="7ea7aaf2-8628-456e-9ae0-94b3c5ab0078" CreationDate="2013-08-07T14:29:50.443" UserId="4099" Comment="grammar" Text="The technique of consistent hashing was invented by Karger et al in their famous 1997 paper, &quot;Consistent hashing and random trees: distributed caching protocols for relieving hot spots on the World Wide Web&quot;: &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=258660 &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://thor.cs.ucsb.edu/~ravenben/papers/coreos/kll+97.pdf &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It is to them that the claim of novelty and non-obviousness belongs. The &quot;Use of a consistent hashing algorithm&quot; claim in this patent is an obvious and non-novel repetition of their pioneering work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The authors directly anticipate the &quot;Use of a consistent hashing algorithm&quot; claim in their conclusions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This&#xD;&#xA;paper&#xD;&#xA;has&#xD;&#xA;focused&#xD;&#xA;on&#xD;&#xA;one&#xD;&#xA;particular&#xD;&#xA;caching&#xD;&#xA;problem—that&#xD;&#xA;of&#xD;&#xA;handling&#xD;&#xA;read&#xD;&#xA;requests&#xD;&#xA;on&#xD;&#xA;the&#xD;&#xA;Web.&#xD;&#xA;We&#xD;&#xA;believe&#xD;&#xA;the&#xD;&#xA;ideas&#xD;&#xA;have&#xD;&#xA;broader&#xD;&#xA;applicability.&#xD;&#xA;In&#xD;&#xA;particular&#xD;&#xA;,&#xD;&#xA;consistent&#xD;&#xA;hashing&#xD;&#xA;may&#xD;&#xA;be&#xD;&#xA;a&#xD;&#xA;useful&#xD;&#xA;tool&#xD;&#xA;for&#xD;&#xA;**distributing&#xD;&#xA;information&#xD;&#xA;from&#xD;&#xA;name&#xD;&#xA;servers&#xD;&#xA;such&#xD;&#xA;as&#xD;&#xA;DNS&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;label&#xD;&#xA;servers&#xD;&#xA;such&#xD;&#xA;as&#xD;&#xA;PICS&#xD;&#xA;in&#xD;&#xA;a&#xD;&#xA;load-balanced&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;fault-&#xD;&#xA;tolerant&#xD;&#xA;fashion.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So load balancing server requests with consistent hashing was proposed in this 1997 paper. I find it curious that this very easy-to-find paper was not mentioned in the prior art section on the patent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4733" RevisionGUID="af04323d-2568-47ab-8c21-3fed150a6346" CreationDate="2013-08-07T15:51:13.920" UserId="5420" Text="Thinking on this some more, a video ad is just streaming video media.  With that in mind, netflix has had a resume play feature since at least January 2011 (second google search result was people [talking about it][1] it on a forum in January 2011).  So in netflix's case, while not automatic, you can watch a video on one device, pause/exit, come back in on a different device, and resume where you left off at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is of course no reason why a user could not load netflix up in one tab, start watching, pause, load up netflix in a second tab, resume watching.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/2721078?start=0&amp;tstart=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4734" RevisionGUID="bf1540e8-48ec-4418-b69c-265507b23d7e" CreationDate="2013-08-07T16:33:43.313" UserId="4099" Text="The open-source embeddable **Enhanced XSPF Player With Autoresume Support** has offered this exact functionality for any webpage (advertising or not) since at least Nov 2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.boutell.com/xspf/ &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Earliest archive.org copy (Nov 2006): &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20061110053321/http://www.boutell.com/xspf/ &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The implementation of the auto-resume feature in XSPF is described as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This player stores the player's current track and playback position in a Flash cookie. When the user moves between pages, the player goes away, of course. But the player on the new page will see the cookie and pick up where the first player left off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This appears to exactly match the technique described in claim 1 of the patent. The only difference is that Boutell's invention in 2006 was applicable to any webpage for any purpose, not just for advertising, and that he didn't attempt to patent it as far as I know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4734" RevisionGUID="1e3e1e4d-f580-4137-a05f-e3aab4ad523e" CreationDate="2013-08-07T16:39:29.773" UserId="4099" Comment="remove superfluous comment" Text="The open-source embeddable **Enhanced XSPF Player With Autoresume Support** has offered this exact functionality for any webpage (advertising or not) since at least Nov 2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.boutell.com/xspf/ &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Earliest archive.org copy (Nov 2006): &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20061110053321/http://www.boutell.com/xspf/ &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The implementation of the auto-resume feature in XSPF is described as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This player stores the player's current track and playback position in a Flash cookie. When the user moves between pages, the player goes away, of course. But the player on the new page will see the cookie and pick up where the first player left off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This appears to exactly match the technique described in claim 1 of the patent. The only difference is that Boutell's invention in 2006 was applicable to any webpage for any purpose, not just for advertising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4734" RevisionGUID="856e58dc-8da8-4135-bed6-6f2dfd7b0e7e" CreationDate="2013-08-07T16:44:48.407" UserId="4099" Comment="oops it only plays audio" Text="The open-source embeddable **Enhanced XSPF Player With Autoresume Support** has offered this exact functionality for music only for any webpage since at least Nov 2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.boutell.com/xspf/ &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Earliest archive.org copy (Nov 2006): &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20061110053321/http://www.boutell.com/xspf/ &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The implementation of the auto-resume feature in XSPF is described as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This player stores the player's current track and playback position in a Flash cookie. When the user moves between pages, the player goes away, of course. But the player on the new page will see the cookie and pick up where the first player left off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This appears to exactly match the technique described in claim 1 of the patent. However, the player is for audio not video.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4735" RevisionGUID="6363fdd7-95ff-4a50-a638-709ed34eb822" CreationDate="2013-08-07T17:17:13.497" UserId="5428" Text="Is this patent Lapsed?  if so does that mean that a self propelled stroller if invented/ actually created/sold would not be in violation of patent laws?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11208" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4735" RevisionGUID="6363fdd7-95ff-4a50-a638-709ed34eb822" CreationDate="2013-08-07T17:17:13.497" UserId="5428" Text="What is meant by Lapsed? What concepts may still be protected in this Patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11209" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4735" RevisionGUID="6363fdd7-95ff-4a50-a638-709ed34eb822" CreationDate="2013-08-07T17:17:13.497" UserId="5428" Text="&lt;us6148942&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4735" RevisionGUID="5723b1f4-117b-4e8b-8563-50e7399c9b39" CreationDate="2013-08-07T17:31:53.680" UserId="1767" Comment="Added detail to make question more teachable for other useres" Text="[US6148942 &quot;Infant stroller safely propelled by DC electronic motor&quot;][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Google Patents][2] the 6148942 patent is status **Lapsed** and according to [Public PAIR][3] its status is **Expired** as of 2008. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Google Patents** - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Public PAIR** -&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does that mean that a self propelled stroller as described in the claims if actually created/sold by third party would not infringe on the subject patent?  What would be required for the the assignee to revive this patent, or is it too late for the assignee to recover his rights?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us6148942&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us6148942&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ma4AD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/JOtiI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11211" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4735" RevisionGUID="5723b1f4-117b-4e8b-8563-50e7399c9b39" CreationDate="2013-08-07T17:31:53.680" UserId="1767" Comment="Added detail to make question more teachable for other useres" Text="What is a &quot;Lapsed Patent&quot; and which concepts (if any) may still be protected by this Patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3837" RevisionGUID="052178d6-25e0-4fe3-8b27-f4d80f3384ff" CreationDate="2013-08-07T17:31:56.367" UserId="3821" Comment="deleted 200 characters in body" Text="Analysis of a Nokia patent ([US6504873][3]) which they claim WebM infringes upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Groklaw did [some analysis][1] that reduced their 64 patents worldwide down to a dozen US patents. [This][2] post (in the comments of the Groklaw post) lays out the independent claims of each patent.  Most look obvious or redundant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 1 A method of filtering a received digital video picture #&#xD;&#xA;## TL;DR Video filter that averages edge pixels on adjacent sub-blocks. ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in which said digital video picture comprises video blocks, each video block comprising a certain amount of individual video pixels each video pixel having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, and in which video picture a first video block and a second video block located adjacent to the first video block define a boundary therebetween, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subdividing a frame into a numbered grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;selecting a first video pixel from the first video block in such a way that the first video pixel is located at the boundary in the first video block to obtain a first boundary video pixel selecting a second video pixel from the second video block in such a way that the second video pixel is located at the boundary in the second video block to obtain a second boundary video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Select adjacent &quot;boundary&quot; pixels (-1,1) that are in different sub-squares.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;selecting a first reference video pixel in the first video block and a second reference video pixel in the second video block, the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being other than the first boundary video pixel and the second boundary video pixel and the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being placed closer to a central portion of each of said video blocks than the respective boundary video pixel, in such a way that the reference video pixels and the boundary video pixels are situated on a straight line, the straight line being transverse to the boundary, drawn from the first reference video pixel to the second reference video pixel, wherein the first and the second boundary video pixels are located between the first and the second reference video pixels on the straight line,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Select neighbor pixels (-2,2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;defining a linear equation, using the numerical values of the reference video pixels, the linear equation giving as a solution a numerical reference value to each boundary video pixel on said straight line&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Figure out an equation that will take the neighbor pixels and produce the boundary pixels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;filtering at least one boundary video pixel by adjusting the numerical value of the at least one boundary video pixel towards the reference value of the at least one boundary video pixel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Averaging the boundary pixels using above equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;of the at least one&quot; makes this a nonsensical statement but software patents are nonsensical anyway, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 10 A terminal device for filtering a received digital video picture, #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  which said digital video picture comprises video blocks, each video block comprises a certain amount of individual video pixels, each video pixel having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, in which video picture a first video block and a second video block located adjacent the first video block define a boundary therebetween, and the terminal device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for selecting a first video pixel from the first video block in such a way that the first video pixel is located at the boundary in the first video block to obtain a first boundary video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for selecting a second video pixel from the second video block in such a way that the second video pixel is located at the boundary in the second video block to obtain a second boundary video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for selecting a first reference video pixel in the first video block and a second reference video pixel in the second video block, the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being other than the first boundary video pixel and the second boundary video pixel and the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being placed closer to a central portion of each of said video blocks than the respective boundary video pixel, in such a way that the reference video pixels and the boundary video pixels are situated on a straight line, the straight line being transverse to the boundary, drawn from the first reference video pixel to the second reference video pixel, wherein the first and the second boundary video pixels are located between the first and the second reference video pixels on the straight line,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for defining a linear equation using the numerical values of the reference video pixels, the linear equation giving as a solution a numerical reference value to each boundary video pixel on said straight line, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for filtering at least one boundary video pixel by adjusting the numerical value of the at least one boundary video pixel towards the reference value of the at least one boundary video pixel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; 11 A terminal device according to the claim 10, wherein the receiver terminal comprises receiving means for receiving the video picture via a mobile communication network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &gt; 12 A filtering method according to claim 10, wherein the reference value of each boundary video pixel is computed as a function of the location of the boundary video pixel on the straight line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 13. A method of filtering a received video picture, in which #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a digital video picture is received, the video picture comprising video blocks, each video block comprising a certain amount of individual video pixels, each video pixel having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, and in which video picture a first video block and a second video block located adjacent the first video block define a boundary therebetween,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a first video pixel from the first video block and a second video pixel from a second video block are selected in such a way that they are adjacent each other on the opposite sides of the boundary, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the first video pixel and the second video pixel are filtered, wherein&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a first reference video pixel is selected in the first video block and a second reference video pixel is selected in the second video block in such a way that the first reference pixel, the first video pixel, the second video pixel and the second reference pixel are situated on a straight line, perpendicular to the boundary, drawn from the first reference video pixel to the second reference video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a linear equation is defined, the linear equation giving as a solution a numerical reference value to each pixel on said straight line as a function of the location of the pixel on said straight line, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the filtering is performed by adjusting the numerical value of the first video pixel towards its reference value, and by adjusting the numerical value of the second video pixel towards its reference value, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; further wherein a decision on whether the filtering method is used or not and for which video pixels the filtering is used is done on basis of activity inside the first video block, activity inside the second video block and activity at the boundary between the first video block and the second video block, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein, the decision is based on the following equation IF activityINactivityEDGEMQUANT	AND	activityINTHRESHOLDIN TRUE &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  in which&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; activityIN is the variance inside the video block one and the video block two,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; activityEDGE is the variance over the edge between the adjacent video block one and video block two, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; THRESHOLDIN is a Threshold value, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MQUANT is a quantizer value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 14 A method of filtering a received digital video picture #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in which said digital video picture is coded into video blocks, each video block comprising a certain amount of individual video pixels, each of said video pixels having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, and in which video picture, a first video block is located adjacent to a second video block to define a boundary therebetween, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selecting a first reference video pixel in the first video block and a second reference video pixel in the second video block, the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being displaced away from said boundary towards a central portion of each of said video blocks, said reference video pixels defining a straight line of video pixels transverse to said boundary, between said first reference video pixel and said second reference video pixel, wherein said straight line includes at least a first and a second adjustment video pixel located between the first and the second reference video pixels and said boundary;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; defining a linear equation representing a video pixel value reference ine transverse to said boundary, said linear equation defined relative to the change in pixel values from said first reference pixel in said first video block to said second reference pixel in said second video block;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adjusting the numerical value of said at least first and second adjustment video pixels towards said pixel value reference line according to the position of said at least first and second adjustment video pixels from said boundary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130324162902177&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&amp;sid=20130324162902177&amp;title=Listing%20Independent%20Claims%20per%20Patent&amp;type=article&amp;order=&amp;hideanonymous=0&amp;pid=1037020#c1038325&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6504873" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4736" RevisionGUID="3db30e4d-74b4-455d-b677-13959c9be7f7" CreationDate="2013-08-07T18:01:14.663" UserId="3076" Text="A patent that has expired due to non-payment of maintenance fees can theoretically be revived by its owner by petition to the USPTO. The grounds are &quot;unavoidable&quot; and &quot;unintentional&quot;. The criteria for establishing that it was unavoidable are a high bar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (from 37 [C.F.R. 1.378 ][1] ) 3)  a showing that the delay was unavoidable since reasonable care was taken to ensure that the maintenance fee would be paid timely and that the petition was filed promptly after the patentee was notified of, or otherwise became aware of, the expiration of the patent. The showing must enumerate the steps taken to ensure timely payment of the maintenance fee, the date and the manner in which patentee became aware of the expiration of the patent, and the steps taken to file the petition promptly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unintentional is much easier to satisfy, at least initially to the USPTO. However the same CFR 1.378 says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Any petition to accept an unintentionally delayed payment of a maintenance fee filed under paragraph (a) of this section must be filed **within twenty-four months** after the six-month grace period . . . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the inventor is no longer living, the patent rights were most likely part of his estate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The net of this is it seems very unlikely this could be revived. Even if it was revived, anyone who started production while it was expired may have &quot;intervening rights&quot; that would allow them to continue what they were doing.  Of course this patent being dead doesn't mean there are not other patents that might cover the specific embodiments it describes or other aspects of something you might make.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2590.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4737" RevisionGUID="8e05581b-a4c6-483f-bc36-fdf2bd4f0754" CreationDate="2013-08-07T18:02:27.180" UserId="5055" Text="**Lapsed** patents are patents that expired because the maintenance fee was not paid in due time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maintenance fees on US patents are due 3.5, 7.5 and 11.5 years after grant of the patent (in many other countries, they are due every year and are called *annuities*). US patents maintenance fees cannot be paid more than 6 months before the due date. They can be paid for an additional six months after the due date with a surcharge (this actually is a provision of the Paris Convention).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO provides a [web application](https://ramps.uspto.gov/eram/patentMaintFees.do) to view the payment windows for each maintenance fee. In this specific case:&#xD;&#xA;![Maintenance Fees](http://i.imgur.com/e598Rr2.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same application (and Public Pair) shows that the second maintenance fee (8th year) was not paid. Hence the lapse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, lapsed patents can **be revived under certain conditions**. Usually, including in the U.S., patents can only be revived if the proprietor convincingly argues that payment delay was unintentional or unavoidable. There is a specific time window of 24 months after the close date (in this case 11/21/2010) for filing such a petition, and Public Pair shows that none was filed for this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that patents are often grouped in families, with continuations or extensions in other countries. An applicant may let a patent lapse and abandon a patent to save on maintenance fees, while protection could be granted through other patents of the same family." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11215" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4735" RevisionGUID="c12d576a-3f27-4016-a8e3-8330e6c97607" CreationDate="2013-08-07T18:45:43.987" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;us6148942&gt;&lt;lapsed-patent&gt;&lt;expired-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4714" RevisionGUID="4ae2b89e-f316-4559-9f5f-d09eefffcf32" CreationDate="2013-08-07T19:25:59.043" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON an advertising unit consisting of a content feed** - This application from [Outbrain][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Creating a content feed and using it as an advertising unit! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/18/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Content feeds used as an advertising unit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO classifies content so as to create an advertising unit around a specific topic (e.g. Golfing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Advertising content with a content feed on a specific topic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Creating an advertising unit consisting of a content feed from content which is frequently changing and on a specific topic (e.g. a Golfing advertising unit consisting of Golfing content)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130132191 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/676,471&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Outbrain&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/18/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving data indicating a data feed to use to create a feed-based advertisement to represent content, that is to be advertised, of a content provider;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. receiving the data feed that is associated with the content to be advertised;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. generating, by a server computer the feed-based advertisement using one or more data elements associated with an item in the data feed; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. providing the feed-based advertisement to a user device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a data feed of content from a content provider who wishes to advertise its content&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Creating a feed-based advertisement unit based on the data feed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Sending the feed-based advertisement to a user (presumably to display on his device)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/18/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming categorizing the content to create advertising feeds around specific topics (e.g golfing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;providing feed-based advertisements using a data feed.from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/q0zPQ.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132191?dq=US20130132191A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.outbrain.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4680" RevisionGUID="e34517b2-eef9-4c31-b326-e80b85dae72d" CreationDate="2013-08-07T19:26:21.500" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Wireless Audio** - This application from [Logitech][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Forwarding a media stream from a first media output device to a second media output device! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/25/2011** that discusses:																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sharing a media stream between two media devices																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO terminates the first media stream when it is transferred to a second media device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: EASY SHARING OF WIRELESS AUDIO SIGNALS**																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A user commands (with voice, button, gesture, anything) a first media output device (e.g. an iPhone) to stream to a second media output device (e.g. a TV)																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130117693 A1][2]																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/567,203																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Logitech																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/25/2011																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/5/2013																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method comprising:																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving, at a first media output device, streaming media from a media source device;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. receiving, at the first media output device, a command by motion or voice to share the streaming media with a second media output device; and																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. initiating, by the first media output device, sharing of the streaming media between the first media output device and the second media output device.																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Streaming media to a media output device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving a command to transfer the streaming media to a second media output device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Streaming the media from the first media output device to the second media output device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/25/2011																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO where the first media output stream is terminated when it is streaming to a second media device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;----------																			&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;easy sharing of media from one media output device from a first user to a media output device of a second userfrom the Applicant&quot;**																			&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/SUsfP.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;----------																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;----------																			&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant																			&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130117693?dq=US20130117693A1																			&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art																			&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant																			&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.logitech.com																																				" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="2191858f-4cad-4a25-94c6-515d407882ff" CreationDate="2013-08-07T19:26:36.297" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ANALYZING A WEBPAGE** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...extracting information blocks from a webpage based on text and visual layout! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Webpage extraction through page structure and sentences**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for extracting entities in a webpage using a **text understanding component** and a **visual layout extraction&quot; component**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110078554 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 12/569,912&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Sep 30, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. In a computing environment, a system comprising, at least one processor, a memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and including components comprising, a framework configured to process a webpage to understand one or more entities of the webpage, the framework including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a text understanding component and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to provide text-related data to the structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the structure understanding component configured to use the text-related data and visual layout features of the webpage to produce a labeled block,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to use the labeled block to understand text of the one or more entities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for processing a webpage, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A text understanding component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A visual layout (&quot;structure&quot;) understanding component; where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The text component provides data to the visual layout component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The visual layout component produces a labeled block based on the visual layout and the text; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. The text understanding component uses the labeled block to &quot;understand&quot; the text of an entity on the webpage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Sep 30, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A natural language processing framework for labeling webpages” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/V9vSS.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110078554&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4728" RevisionGUID="c457ae4b-202c-4f65-9d87-24d71dce3d5f" CreationDate="2013-08-07T19:26:47.733" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Online shopping for clothes with input from your friends** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...Getting feedback from your friends on clothes and outfit while you shop online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/18/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Social feedback on clothes or outfits while shopping online&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves a **virtual mannequin**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Online shopping for clothes with feedback from your friends**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] First user shopping for clothes online.  Second user presented same item. First user picks the item as part of an outfit.  Second user provides a comment which is presented to both first and second users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130132240 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/300,421&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/18/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for online shopping in an online shopping system, the method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. providing a first user interface identifying an item of apparel for presentation to a first user; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. providing a second user interface identifying the item of apparel for presentation to a second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving from the first user an indication to associate the item of apparel with an outfit; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. receiving from the second user a comment regarding at least one of the outfit and the item of apparel; and interfaces such that the comment and outfit are viewable by the first user and the second user.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. providing the comment and the outfit for presentation in the first and second user &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for shopping online for clothes, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. First and second users are shown an item of apparel (e.g. sneakers)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. First user associates the item of apparel with an outfit (e.g. a tuxedo)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Second user comments on the item and the outfit (&quot;hey, those sneakers look great with that blue tuxedo!&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Comment is provided to first and second user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/18/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming displaying the clothes on a **virtual mannequin**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Online shopping with integrated social experience from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/WA4GVfT.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130132240&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4727" RevisionGUID="cdd681bd-846a-409a-bafb-bf77a2b57487" CreationDate="2013-08-07T19:27:23.783" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON online video advertisements** - This application from [Yahoo!][6] seeks to patent the idea of...stopping a video advertisement on one browser tab and resuming the video advertisement within another browser tab! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/20/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - starting and resuming a video advertisements across tabs during browsing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO records the current time of play so as to resume at exactly the same place in the video advertisement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Seemless online video advertisement during browsing**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Online video advertisement during browsing - ad unit on first web page is paused when user sends request for second web page.  On loading second web page the video advertisement resumes in the same time time during video&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130132211 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/300,583&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo!&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/20/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method of providing seamless online video advertisements, the computer-implemented method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. rendering a video advertisement on a first web page in a first tab;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. recording current time of play constantly during the rendering of the video advertisement;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving a request for a second web page in the first tab from a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. unloading the first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. loading the second web page in the first tab;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. retrieving the current time of play stored corresponding to the unloading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. resume the rendering of the video advertisement on the second web page based on the current time of play retrieved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing seamless online video ads, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Playing video ad in first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Recording current time of video while playing the video;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving request for second web page and loading second web page; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Resume playing video ad in second web page at same time video was stopped in first web page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/20/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming recording the stop time of the video so as to resume in the same place during browsing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;providing seemless online video advertisements from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zBFVoxZ.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132211?dq=US20130132211A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4299" RevisionGUID="e56b49b2-7cc4-4107-af44-430610346273" CreationDate="2013-08-07T21:16:13.413" UserId="5055" Comment="Add links to mentioned Wikipedia pages" Text="Reading the docs I'm reminded of the Novell Netware products from many years ago. They used coax cables which used signals that fit the description to send IPX packages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in the late 1980s this already existed, where the 'device' could be anything to a simple Windows PC that had the drivers for Netware installed as well as a TCP-IP stack.&#xD;&#xA;See the [IPX/SPX](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPX/SPX) and the [Netware](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netware) wikipedia pages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4498" RevisionGUID="6a8a1da8-b5ac-4f2b-b416-2f57d02fb524" CreationDate="2013-08-07T21:18:55.580" UserId="5055" Comment="Added titles and dates of papers" Text="There is also some scientific work published long before 1999, directly dealing with OO access to relational databases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ramanathan, Providing Object-Oriented Access to a Relational Database, 1994 [[PDF](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary;jsessionid=B515570C9EC28AF96459B3B92533A38F?doi=10.1.1.48.5695)]&#xD;&#xA; - Sutherland&#xD;&#xA; et al., The Hybrid Object-Relational Architecture (Hora), 1993, [ACM](http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=162911) [[PDF](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.8.6980&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4738" RevisionGUID="ebc67763-9457-4876-9528-4f51b8d9e40f" CreationDate="2013-08-07T21:35:12.793" UserId="5431" Text="The concept of terminating seams in the inside has been used when manufacturing clothing for centuries. Applying this to 3D printing is not an inventive step and is an obvious application to anyone trained in the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare the drawings in the patent with cross-sections of sewing seams of various forms, in particular the &quot;French Seam.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.moores-sew.com/blog/pillowcase-with-decorative-cuff/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see prior patents EP 0855148 A2 and US 6497934 B1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/EP0855148A2?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6497934&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vik :v)&#xD;&#xA;http://diamondage.co.nz" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3837" RevisionGUID="0d0e3b89-dad6-41de-8148-dc6f516ff9fd" CreationDate="2013-08-07T21:45:49.760" UserId="3821" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="Analysis of a Nokia patent ([US6504873][3]) which they claim WebM infringes upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Groklaw did [some analysis][1] that reduced their 64 patents worldwide down to a dozen US patents. [This][2] post (in the comments of the Groklaw post) lays out the independent claims of each patent.  Most look obvious or redundant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 1 A method of filtering a received digital video picture #&#xD;&#xA;## TL;DR Video filter that averages pixels on the edge of adjacent video sub-blocks. ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in which said digital video picture comprises video blocks, each video block comprising a certain amount of individual video pixels each video pixel having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, and in which video picture a first video block and a second video block located adjacent to the first video block define a boundary therebetween, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subdividing a frame into a numbered grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;selecting a first video pixel from the first video block in such a way that the first video pixel is located at the boundary in the first video block to obtain a first boundary video pixel selecting a second video pixel from the second video block in such a way that the second video pixel is located at the boundary in the second video block to obtain a second boundary video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Select adjacent &quot;boundary&quot; pixels (-1,1) that are in different sub-squares.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;selecting a first reference video pixel in the first video block and a second reference video pixel in the second video block, the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being other than the first boundary video pixel and the second boundary video pixel and the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being placed closer to a central portion of each of said video blocks than the respective boundary video pixel, in such a way that the reference video pixels and the boundary video pixels are situated on a straight line, the straight line being transverse to the boundary, drawn from the first reference video pixel to the second reference video pixel, wherein the first and the second boundary video pixels are located between the first and the second reference video pixels on the straight line,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Select neighbor pixels (-2,2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;defining a linear equation, using the numerical values of the reference video pixels, the linear equation giving as a solution a numerical reference value to each boundary video pixel on said straight line&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Figure out an equation that will take the neighbor pixels and produce the boundary pixels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;filtering at least one boundary video pixel by adjusting the numerical value of the at least one boundary video pixel towards the reference value of the at least one boundary video pixel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Averaging the boundary pixels using above equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;of the at least one&quot; makes this a nonsensical statement but software patents are nonsensical anyway, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 10 A terminal device for filtering a received digital video picture, #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  which said digital video picture comprises video blocks, each video block comprises a certain amount of individual video pixels, each video pixel having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, in which video picture a first video block and a second video block located adjacent the first video block define a boundary therebetween, and the terminal device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for selecting a first video pixel from the first video block in such a way that the first video pixel is located at the boundary in the first video block to obtain a first boundary video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for selecting a second video pixel from the second video block in such a way that the second video pixel is located at the boundary in the second video block to obtain a second boundary video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for selecting a first reference video pixel in the first video block and a second reference video pixel in the second video block, the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being other than the first boundary video pixel and the second boundary video pixel and the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being placed closer to a central portion of each of said video blocks than the respective boundary video pixel, in such a way that the reference video pixels and the boundary video pixels are situated on a straight line, the straight line being transverse to the boundary, drawn from the first reference video pixel to the second reference video pixel, wherein the first and the second boundary video pixels are located between the first and the second reference video pixels on the straight line,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for defining a linear equation using the numerical values of the reference video pixels, the linear equation giving as a solution a numerical reference value to each boundary video pixel on said straight line, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for filtering at least one boundary video pixel by adjusting the numerical value of the at least one boundary video pixel towards the reference value of the at least one boundary video pixel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; 11 A terminal device according to the claim 10, wherein the receiver terminal comprises receiving means for receiving the video picture via a mobile communication network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &gt; 12 A filtering method according to claim 10, wherein the reference value of each boundary video pixel is computed as a function of the location of the boundary video pixel on the straight line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 13. A method of filtering a received video picture, in which #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a digital video picture is received, the video picture comprising video blocks, each video block comprising a certain amount of individual video pixels, each video pixel having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, and in which video picture a first video block and a second video block located adjacent the first video block define a boundary therebetween,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a first video pixel from the first video block and a second video pixel from a second video block are selected in such a way that they are adjacent each other on the opposite sides of the boundary, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the first video pixel and the second video pixel are filtered, wherein&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a first reference video pixel is selected in the first video block and a second reference video pixel is selected in the second video block in such a way that the first reference pixel, the first video pixel, the second video pixel and the second reference pixel are situated on a straight line, perpendicular to the boundary, drawn from the first reference video pixel to the second reference video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a linear equation is defined, the linear equation giving as a solution a numerical reference value to each pixel on said straight line as a function of the location of the pixel on said straight line, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the filtering is performed by adjusting the numerical value of the first video pixel towards its reference value, and by adjusting the numerical value of the second video pixel towards its reference value, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; further wherein a decision on whether the filtering method is used or not and for which video pixels the filtering is used is done on basis of activity inside the first video block, activity inside the second video block and activity at the boundary between the first video block and the second video block, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein, the decision is based on the following equation IF activityINactivityEDGEMQUANT	AND	activityINTHRESHOLDIN TRUE &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  in which&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; activityIN is the variance inside the video block one and the video block two,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; activityEDGE is the variance over the edge between the adjacent video block one and video block two, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; THRESHOLDIN is a Threshold value, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MQUANT is a quantizer value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 14 A method of filtering a received digital video picture #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in which said digital video picture is coded into video blocks, each video block comprising a certain amount of individual video pixels, each of said video pixels having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, and in which video picture, a first video block is located adjacent to a second video block to define a boundary therebetween, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selecting a first reference video pixel in the first video block and a second reference video pixel in the second video block, the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being displaced away from said boundary towards a central portion of each of said video blocks, said reference video pixels defining a straight line of video pixels transverse to said boundary, between said first reference video pixel and said second reference video pixel, wherein said straight line includes at least a first and a second adjustment video pixel located between the first and the second reference video pixels and said boundary;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; defining a linear equation representing a video pixel value reference ine transverse to said boundary, said linear equation defined relative to the change in pixel values from said first reference pixel in said first video block to said second reference pixel in said second video block;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adjusting the numerical value of said at least first and second adjustment video pixels towards said pixel value reference line according to the position of said at least first and second adjustment video pixels from said boundary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130324162902177&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&amp;sid=20130324162902177&amp;title=Listing%20Independent%20Claims%20per%20Patent&amp;type=article&amp;order=&amp;hideanonymous=0&amp;pid=1037020#c1038325&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6504873" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11225" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="f974a5d7-aa49-49f5-a214-17c82944cb48" CreationDate="2013-08-07T21:56:05.040" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;us20130063492&gt;&lt;scaling&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3837" RevisionGUID="75ea40c6-d3cb-46e1-9fde-9603dcddcdd0" CreationDate="2013-08-07T22:11:44.247" UserId="3821" Comment="Killed other claims." Text="Analysis of a Nokia patent ([US6504873][3]) which they claim WebM infringes upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Groklaw did [some analysis][1] that reduced their 64 patents worldwide down to a dozen US patents. [This][2] post (in the comments of the Groklaw post) lays out the independent claims of each patent.  Most look obvious or redundant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 1 A method of filtering a received digital video picture #&#xD;&#xA;## TL;DR Video filter that averages pixels on the edge of adjacent video sub-blocks. ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in which said digital video picture comprises video blocks, each video block comprising a certain amount of individual video pixels each video pixel having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, and in which video picture a first video block and a second video block located adjacent to the first video block define a boundary therebetween, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frames of the video are subdivided into a grid and given a number. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;selecting a first video pixel from the first video block in such a way that the first video pixel is located at the boundary in the first video block to obtain a first boundary video pixel selecting a second video pixel from the second video block in such a way that the second video pixel is located at the boundary in the second video block to obtain a second boundary video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pixels in different sub-squares are adjacent &quot;boundary&quot; pixels. If the boundary is 0 then those pixels would be at -1,1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;selecting a first reference video pixel in the first video block and a second reference video pixel in the second video block, the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being other than the first boundary video pixel and the second boundary video pixel and the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being placed closer to a central portion of each of said video blocks than the respective boundary video pixel, in such a way that the reference video pixels and the boundary video pixels are situated on a straight line, the straight line being transverse to the boundary, drawn from the first reference video pixel to the second reference video pixel, wherein the first and the second boundary video pixels are located between the first and the second reference video pixels on the straight line,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Select neighbor pixels (-2,2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;defining a linear equation, using the numerical values of the reference video pixels, the linear equation giving as a solution a numerical reference value to each boundary video pixel on said straight line&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Figure out an equation that will take the neighbor pixels and produce the boundary pixels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;filtering at least one boundary video pixel by adjusting the numerical value of the at least one boundary video pixel towards the reference value of the at least one boundary video pixel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Averaging the boundary pixels using above equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;of the at least one&quot; makes this a nonsensical statement but software patents are nonsensical anyway, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 10 A terminal device for filtering a received digital video picture, #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One sentence: A device that implements the filter in claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  which said digital video picture comprises video blocks, each video block comprises a certain amount of individual video pixels, each video pixel having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, in which video picture a first video block and a second video block located adjacent the first video block define a boundary therebetween, and the terminal device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A device which filters video. Frames of the video are subdivided into a grid and given a number. Pixels in different sub-squares are adjacent &quot;boundary&quot; pixels. If the boundary is 0 then those pixels would be at -1,1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for selecting a first video pixel from the first video block in such a way that the first video pixel is located at the boundary in the first video block to obtain a first boundary video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for selecting a second video pixel from the second video block in such a way that the second video pixel is located at the boundary in the second video block to obtain a second boundary video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for selecting a first reference video pixel in the first video block and a second reference video pixel in the second video block, the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being other than the first boundary video pixel and the second boundary video pixel and the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being placed closer to a central portion of each of said video blocks than the respective boundary video pixel, in such a way that the reference video pixels and the boundary video pixels are situated on a straight line, the straight line being transverse to the boundary, drawn from the first reference video pixel to the second reference video pixel, wherein the first and the second boundary video pixels are located between the first and the second reference video pixels on the straight line,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for defining a linear equation using the numerical values of the reference video pixels, the linear equation giving as a solution a numerical reference value to each boundary video pixel on said straight line, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for filtering at least one boundary video pixel by adjusting the numerical value of the at least one boundary video pixel towards the reference value of the at least one boundary video pixel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; 11 A terminal device according to the claim 10, wherein the receiver terminal comprises receiving means for receiving the video picture via a mobile communication network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A *mobile* device that implements the filter in claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &gt; 12 A filtering method according to claim 10, wherein the reference value of each boundary video pixel is computed as a function of the location of the boundary video pixel on the straight line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 13. A method of filtering a received video picture, in which #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The filter in claim 1 is used based on the activity in the pixels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a digital video picture is received, the video picture comprising video blocks, each video block comprising a certain amount of individual video pixels, each video pixel having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, and in which video picture a first video block and a second video block located adjacent the first video block define a boundary therebetween,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a first video pixel from the first video block and a second video pixel from a second video block are selected in such a way that they are adjacent each other on the opposite sides of the boundary, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the first video pixel and the second video pixel are filtered, wherein&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a first reference video pixel is selected in the first video block and a second reference video pixel is selected in the second video block in such a way that the first reference pixel, the first video pixel, the second video pixel and the second reference pixel are situated on a straight line, perpendicular to the boundary, drawn from the first reference video pixel to the second reference video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a linear equation is defined, the linear equation giving as a solution a numerical reference value to each pixel on said straight line as a function of the location of the pixel on said straight line, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the filtering is performed by adjusting the numerical value of the first video pixel towards its reference value, and by adjusting the numerical value of the second video pixel towards its reference value, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; further wherein a decision on whether the filtering method is used or not and for which video pixels the filtering is used is done on basis of activity inside the first video block, activity inside the second video block and activity at the boundary between the first video block and the second video block, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein, the decision is based on the following equation IF activityINactivityEDGEMQUANT	AND	activityINTHRESHOLDIN TRUE &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  in which&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; activityIN is the variance inside the video block one and the video block two,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; activityEDGE is the variance over the edge between the adjacent video block one and video block two, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; THRESHOLDIN is a Threshold value, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MQUANT is a quantizer value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 14 A method of filtering a received digital video picture #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applying the filter from claim one but towards more central pixels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in which said digital video picture is coded into video blocks, each video block comprising a certain amount of individual video pixels, each of said video pixels having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, and in which video picture, a first video block is located adjacent to a second video block to define a boundary therebetween, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selecting a first reference video pixel in the first video block and a second reference video pixel in the second video block, the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being displaced away from said boundary towards a central portion of each of said video blocks, said reference video pixels defining a straight line of video pixels transverse to said boundary, between said first reference video pixel and said second reference video pixel, wherein said straight line includes at least a first and a second adjustment video pixel located between the first and the second reference video pixels and said boundary;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; defining a linear equation representing a video pixel value reference ine transverse to said boundary, said linear equation defined relative to the change in pixel values from said first reference pixel in said first video block to said second reference pixel in said second video block;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adjusting the numerical value of said at least first and second adjustment video pixels towards said pixel value reference line according to the position of said at least first and second adjustment video pixels from said boundary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130324162902177&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&amp;sid=20130324162902177&amp;title=Listing%20Independent%20Claims%20per%20Patent&amp;type=article&amp;order=&amp;hideanonymous=0&amp;pid=1037020#c1038325&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6504873" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="28f331e3-ec86-4c3b-a0d6-2194a2d652e1" CreationDate="2013-08-07T22:40:15.707" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ANALYZING A WEBPAGE** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...extracting information blocks from a webpage based on text and visual layout! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Webpage extraction through page structure and sentences**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for extracting entities in a webpage using a **text understanding component** and a **visual layout extraction&quot; component**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110078554 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 12/569,912&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Sep 30, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. In a computing environment, a system comprising, at least one processor, a memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and including components comprising, a framework configured to process a webpage to understand one or more entities of the webpage, the framework including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a text understanding component and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to provide text-related data to the structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the structure understanding component configured to use the text-related data and visual layout features of the webpage to produce a labeled block,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to use the labeled block to understand text of the one or more entities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for processing a webpage, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A text understanding component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A visual layout (&quot;structure&quot;) understanding component; where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The text component provides data to the visual layout component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The visual layout component produces a labeled block based on the visual layout and the text; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. The text understanding component uses the labeled block to &quot;understand&quot; the text of an entity on the webpage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Sep 30, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A natural language processing framework for labeling webpages” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/V9vSS.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110078554&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4728" RevisionGUID="be4af94c-10d0-4026-b6a7-334348c41b08" CreationDate="2013-08-07T22:40:31.740" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Online shopping for clothes with input from your friends** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...Getting feedback from your friends on clothes and outfit while you shop online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/18/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Social feedback on clothes or outfits while shopping online&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves a **virtual mannequin**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Online shopping for clothes with feedback from your friends**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] First user shopping for clothes online.  Second user presented same item. First user picks the item as part of an outfit.  Second user provides a comment which is presented to both first and second users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130132240 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/300,421&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/18/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for online shopping in an online shopping system, the method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. providing a first user interface identifying an item of apparel for presentation to a first user; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. providing a second user interface identifying the item of apparel for presentation to a second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving from the first user an indication to associate the item of apparel with an outfit; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. receiving from the second user a comment regarding at least one of the outfit and the item of apparel; and interfaces such that the comment and outfit are viewable by the first user and the second user.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. providing the comment and the outfit for presentation in the first and second user &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for shopping online for clothes, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. First and second users are shown an item of apparel (e.g. sneakers)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. First user associates the item of apparel with an outfit (e.g. a tuxedo)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Second user comments on the item and the outfit (&quot;hey, those sneakers look great with that blue tuxedo!&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Comment is provided to first and second user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/18/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming displaying the clothes on a **virtual mannequin**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Online shopping with integrated social experience from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/WA4GVfT.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130132240&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4737" RevisionGUID="23d0abf3-d213-4112-951e-87852134f79e" CreationDate="2013-08-07T23:06:51.270" UserId="5055" Comment="Fix approximation on time limit noticed by @GeorgeWhite" Text="**Lapsed** patents are patents that expired because the maintenance fee was not paid in due time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maintenance fees on US patents are due 3.5, 7.5 and 11.5 years after grant of the patent (in many other countries, they are due every year and are called *annuities*). US patents maintenance fees cannot be paid more than 6 months before the due date. They can be paid for an additional six months after the due date with a surcharge (this actually is a provision of the Paris Convention).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO provides a [web application](https://ramps.uspto.gov/eram/patentMaintFees.do) to view the payment windows for each maintenance fee. In this specific case:&#xD;&#xA;![Maintenance Fees](http://i.imgur.com/e598Rr2.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same application (and Public Pair) shows that the second maintenance fee (8th year) was not paid. Hence the lapse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, lapsed patents can **be revived under certain conditions**. Usually, including in the U.S., patents can only be revived if the proprietor convincingly argues that payment delay was unintentional or unavoidable. In the first case (unintentional), there is a specific time window of 24 months after the close date (in this case 11/21/2010) for filing such a petition, and Public Pair shows that none was filed for this patent. There is no time limit for the unavoidable reason, but it's much harder to argue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that patents are often grouped in families, with continuations or extensions in other countries. An applicant may let a patent lapse and abandon a patent to save on maintenance fees, while protection could be granted through other patents of the same family." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4739" RevisionGUID="6a47db43-6133-4745-a8bc-467da663e009" CreationDate="2013-08-07T23:11:51.933" UserId="5433" Text="The patent is a very exact description of automake &amp; autoconf toolchain:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/autoconf.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Autoconf is an extensible package of M4 macros that produce shell scripts to automatically configure software source code packages. These scripts can adapt the packages to many kinds of UNIX-like systems without manual user intervention. Autoconf creates a configuration script for a package from a template file that lists the operating system features that the package can use, in the form of M4 macro calls. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Producing configuration scripts using Autoconf requires GNU M4. You should install GNU M4 (at least version 1.4.6, although 1.4.13 or later is recommended) before configuring Autoconf, so that Autoconf's configure script can find it. The configuration scripts produced by Autoconf are self-contained, so their users do not need to have Autoconf (or GNU M4)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4740" RevisionGUID="f7b48c12-bb93-43b6-b812-ef3d5b403373" CreationDate="2013-08-07T23:13:45.503" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON classifying mobile users based on who they call in a network** - This application from [Ericsson][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Social network analysis applied to mobile phones...Keep [PRISM][7] free of patent licenses!  10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/24/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Social network analysis to classify individuals in a community based on who they communicate with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves demographic information about users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Social network analysis on cell phone calling networks to segment users**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] First user shopping for clothes online.  Second user presented same item. First user picks the item as part of an outfit.  Second user provides a comment which is presented to both first and second users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130138479 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/699,796&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/24/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for classifying a new mobile user in a communication network based on demographics associated with the new mobile user, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Representing, for a sample set of mobile users, each mobile user in the sample set by a node and mobile usage between two nodes by an edge connecting the two nodes;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Forming one or more communities of nodes;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identifying a plurality of demographic subunits by splitting each of the one or more communities;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining one or more structural properties associated with each of the plurality of subunits;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Mapping the one or more structural properties to demographics of the plurality of subunits; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Classifying the new mobile user based on the determined structural properties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for classifying a new user in a communication network, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a graph structure with users as nodes and edges as communication between users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Forming communities of nodes (using any clustering technique)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Looking for correlation between demographic features of groups of nodes (e.g. rich, white, parent, etc…) and structural features of same groups of nodes (all communicate with one another, for example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Classifying a new user based on these structural features (i.e. who he talk to)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/24/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming segmenting customers based on **standard clustering algorithms** applied to a social graph&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Determining and presenting demographics of mobile users in a communication network from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/R2i0mp3.png&quot; width=&quot;350&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130132240&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ericsson.com/us&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11232" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4740" RevisionGUID="f7b48c12-bb93-43b6-b812-ef3d5b403373" CreationDate="2013-08-07T23:13:45.503" UserId="1767" Text="Patenting PRISM - Classifying Mobile Users Based on Social Analysis of Who calls Whom (Ericsson) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11233" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4740" RevisionGUID="f7b48c12-bb93-43b6-b812-ef3d5b403373" CreationDate="2013-08-07T23:13:45.503" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;social-networking&gt;&lt;us20130138479&gt;&lt;ericsson&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4740" RevisionGUID="9507b6f1-a147-43f9-84a6-0f74cd2594c2" CreationDate="2013-08-07T23:24:15.257" UserId="1767" Comment="edited body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON classifying mobile users based on who they call in a network** - This application from [Ericsson][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Social network analysis applied to mobile phones...Keep [PRISM][7] free of patent licenses!  10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/24/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Social network analysis to classify individuals in a community based on who they communicate with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves demographic information about users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Social network analysis on cell phone calling networks to segment users**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] First user shopping for clothes online.  Second user presented same item. First user picks the item as part of an outfit.  Second user provides a comment which is presented to both first and second users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130138479 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/699,796&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/24/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for classifying a new mobile user in a communication network based on demographics associated with the new mobile user, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Representing, for a sample set of mobile users, each mobile user in the sample set by a node and mobile usage between two nodes by an edge connecting the two nodes;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Forming one or more communities of nodes;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identifying a plurality of demographic subunits by splitting each of the one or more communities;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining one or more structural properties associated with each of the plurality of subunits;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Mapping the one or more structural properties to demographics of the plurality of subunits; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Classifying the new mobile user based on the determined structural properties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for classifying a new user in a communication network, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a graph structure with users as nodes and edges as communication between users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Forming communities of nodes (using any clustering technique)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Looking for correlation between demographic features of groups of nodes (e.g. rich, white, parent, etc…) and structural features of same groups of nodes (all communicate with one another, for example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Classifying a new user based on these structural features (i.e. who he talk to)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/24/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming segmenting customers based on **standard clustering algorithms** applied to a social graph&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Determining and presenting demographics of mobile users in a communication network from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/R2i0mp3.png&quot; width=&quot;350&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130138479&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ericsson.com/us&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4741" RevisionGUID="d6f58311-9947-49a3-ac26-ab0360375d72" CreationDate="2013-08-07T23:53:23.887" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT on managing online distribution based on location** - This application from [Google][6] seeks to patent the idea of...managing content distribution based on geographic limitations! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2009** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Returning a search results query that only shows content which can be distributed in a location selected by the searcher&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves publishers reviewing distribution locations of content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Publisher review of proposed geo-targeted content**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] a method by which publisher can review proposed geo-targeted content items to determine whether the content items include any offensive material, whether the content items are composed in an acceptable format, or whether the content items should be approved or disapproved for any other reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130138487 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/513,325&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for managing content distribution, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving content information regarding content items for distribution and how the content items are to be distributed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving publication information regarding locations where content items are to be distributed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Updating, by at least one processor based on the received content information and publication information, a searchable data structure that relates the content information and the publisher information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving a search query regarding content items that are related to at least one location where content is to be distributed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Retrieving, by at least one processor from the data structure, content information responsive to the search query; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Transmitting content information responsive to the search query to enable review of the content information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of managing content distribution, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving information on where and how content is to be distributed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Updating a searchable data structure that relates content to publisher information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving a search query for content items which can be distributed in a location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Retrieving information about the content which can be distributed in that location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Transmitting information about that content (presumably to a publisher) for review&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming publishers reviewing distribution locations of content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A process for managing content distribution from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zQleEpH.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;350&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130138487?dq=US20130138487A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.google.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11236" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4741" RevisionGUID="d6f58311-9947-49a3-ac26-ab0360375d72" CreationDate="2013-08-07T23:53:23.887" UserId="1767" Text="Online Content - Distributing content based on location (Google) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11237" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4741" RevisionGUID="d6f58311-9947-49a3-ac26-ab0360375d72" CreationDate="2013-08-07T23:53:23.887" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;online-advertising&gt;&lt;google&gt;&lt;us20130138487&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11238" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4741" RevisionGUID="b58861fa-bda0-484d-af21-668c540aa8cc" CreationDate="2013-08-08T00:01:30.513" UserId="1767" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT on managing online distribution based on location** - This application from [Google][6] seeks to patent the idea of...managing content distribution based on geographic limitations! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2009** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Returning a search results query that only shows content which can be distributed in a location selected by the searcher&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves publishers reviewing distribution locations of content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Publisher review of proposed geo-targeted content**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] a method by which publisher can review proposed geo-targeted content items to determine whether the content items include any offensive material, whether the content items are composed in an acceptable format, or whether the content items should be approved or disapproved for any other reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130138487 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/513,325&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for managing content distribution, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving content information regarding content items for distribution and how the content items are to be distributed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving publication information regarding locations where content items are to be distributed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Updating, by at least one processor based on the received content information and publication information, a searchable data structure that relates the content information and the publisher information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving a search query regarding content items that are related to at least one location where content is to be distributed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Retrieving, by at least one processor from the data structure, content information responsive to the search query; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Transmitting content information responsive to the search query to enable review of the content information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of managing content distribution, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving information on where and how content is to be distributed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Updating a searchable data structure that relates content to publisher information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving a search query for content items which can be distributed in a location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Retrieving information about the content which can be distributed in that location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Transmitting information about that content (presumably to a publisher) for review&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming publishers reviewing distribution locations of content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A process for managing content distribution from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zQleEpH.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;350&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130138487?dq=US20130138487A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.google.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4740" RevisionGUID="87b8566a-1c5c-4eee-8e9c-aad22c0636d3" CreationDate="2013-08-08T01:17:08.417" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 203 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON classifying mobile users based on who they call in a network** - This application from [Ericsson][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Social network analysis applied to mobile phones...Keep [PRISM][7] free of patent licenses!  10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/24/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Social network analysis to classify individuals in a community based on who they communicate with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves demographic information about users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Social network analysis on cell phone calling networks to segment users**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130138479 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/699,796&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/24/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for classifying a new mobile user in a communication network based on demographics associated with the new mobile user, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Representing, for a sample set of mobile users, each mobile user in the sample set by a node and mobile usage between two nodes by an edge connecting the two nodes;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Forming one or more communities of nodes;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identifying a plurality of demographic subunits by splitting each of the one or more communities;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining one or more structural properties associated with each of the plurality of subunits;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Mapping the one or more structural properties to demographics of the plurality of subunits; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Classifying the new mobile user based on the determined structural properties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for classifying a new user in a communication network, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a graph structure with users as nodes and edges as communication between users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Forming communities of nodes (using any clustering technique)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Looking for correlation between demographic features of groups of nodes (e.g. rich, white, parent, etc…) and structural features of same groups of nodes (all communicate with one another, for example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Classifying a new user based on these structural features (i.e. who he talk to)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/24/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming segmenting customers based on **standard clustering algorithms** applied to a social graph&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Determining and presenting demographics of mobile users in a communication network from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/R2i0mp3.png&quot; width=&quot;350&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130138479&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ericsson.com/us&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4743" RevisionGUID="cc5b1805-7f41-4a47-afcf-ffc5cd80b1b2" CreationDate="2013-08-08T04:44:36.697" UserId="4099" Text="**The technique of auto-resuming video playback across page loads was invented, publicly described, and successfully implemented by users of the embeddable JWPlayer in 2009**, well before the filing date. See &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;player to resume play position on refresh?&quot;* &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.longtailvideo.com/support/forums/jw-player/javascript-interaction/10131/player-to-resume-play-position-on-refresh/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original poster &quot;Sophie&quot; asks about applying the technique to audio playback:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am interested in creating an mp3 player which does something similar to the one mentioned in this topic...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I need the player to remember the playing state, playing position, track number playing and volume by using a cookie, and then to reload those from the cookie whenever the person moves from page to page or refreshes the page on the website so the music playing would be almost seamless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However user &quot;Lost&quot; chooses to use a video to demonstrate the technique:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; OK, somebody test it and tell me what's broken.&#xD;&#xA;      http://willswonders.myip.org:8074/Simple_ChocolateChipCookies.html&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Just copy the page source from Simple_ChocolateChipCookies.html and adjust to your player version, *video file*, image, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User &quot;Seynna&quot; confirmed that user &quot;Lost&quot; had sucessfully implemented the technique:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;hey lost, that seems to work really well...how do you set it up?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, the technique of auto-resume for videos described in claim 1 is not patentable. The specific application of it to advertisements is obvious to any reasonably skilled person working in this area.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4743" RevisionGUID="1d5bfc0d-2873-498f-9caa-e3beb0650d5e" CreationDate="2013-08-08T09:48:26.607" UserId="4099" Comment="found the sample code in another thread on that forum" Text="**The technique of auto-resuming video playback across page loads was invented, publicly described, and successfully implemented by users of the embeddable JWPlayer in 2009**, well before the filing date. See &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;player to resume play position on refresh?&quot;* &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.longtailvideo.com/support/forums/jw-player/javascript-interaction/10131/player-to-resume-play-position-on-refresh/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original poster &quot;Sophie&quot; asks about applying the technique to audio playback:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am interested in creating an mp3 player which does something similar to the one mentioned in this topic...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I need the player to remember the playing state, playing position, track number playing and volume by using a cookie, and then to reload those from the cookie whenever the person moves from page to page or refreshes the page on the website so the music playing would be almost seamless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However user &quot;Lost&quot; chooses to use a video to demonstrate the technique:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; OK, somebody test it and tell me what's broken.&#xD;&#xA;      http://willswonders.myip.org:8074/Simple_ChocolateChipCookies.html&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Just copy the page source from Simple_ChocolateChipCookies.html and adjust to your player version, *video file*, image, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User &quot;Seynna&quot; confirmed that user &quot;Lost&quot; had sucessfully implemented the technique:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;hey lost, that seems to work really well...how do you set it up?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sample code (Simple_ChocolateChipCookies.html) is not in archive.org. But a later thread on the same forums reproduces the code: see posting by user &quot;noone&quot; on Tue, 2010-12-14 13:23 (still well before the patent date): &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.longtailvideo.com/support/forums/jw-player/javascript-interaction/6611/how-to-continue-playing-from-where-it-stops/ &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, the technique of auto-resume for videos described in claim 1 is not patentable. The specific application of it to advertisements is obvious to any reasonably skilled person working in this area.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4744" RevisionGUID="15b5a8dc-befd-4a86-8a82-7a6a990d613e" CreationDate="2013-08-08T12:53:08.217" UserId="5438" Text="In 2003 the PTO started and provided patent file histories on the PAIR electronic Image File Wrapper site. However the Non-Patent Lit (NPL) documents are not available due to copyright issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also the older patent file wrappers/histories are not yet available on the PAIR system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NPL and older patent file histories can be obtained from vendors such as Digital Patent Services www.dpsfiles.com, DPS Files www.uspatentfiles.com.   &#xD;&#xA;DPS Files has same day service at reasonable cost." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4741" RevisionGUID="672a0e8d-f648-40cf-8b65-99404dbb9fca" CreationDate="2013-08-08T15:08:03.750" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT on managing online distribution based on location** - This application from [Google][6] seeks to patent the idea of...managing content distribution based on geographic limitations! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2009** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Returning a search results query that only shows content which can be distributed in a location selected by the searcher&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves publishers reviewing distribution locations of content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Publisher review of proposed geo-targeted content**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] a method by which publisher can review proposed geo-targeted content items to determine whether the content items include any offensive material, whether the content items are composed in an acceptable format, or whether the content items should be approved or disapproved for any other reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130138487 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/513,325&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for managing content distribution, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving content information regarding content items for distribution and how the content items are to be distributed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving publication information regarding locations where content items are to be distributed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Updating, by at least one processor based on the received content information and publication information, a searchable data structure that relates the content information and the publisher information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving a search query regarding content items that are related to at least one location where content is to be distributed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Retrieving, by at least one processor from the data structure, content information responsive to the search query; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Transmitting content information responsive to the search query to enable review of the content information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of managing content distribution, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving information on where and how content is to be distributed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Updating a searchable data structure that relates content to publisher information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving a search query for content items which can be distributed in a location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Retrieving information about the content which can be distributed in that location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Transmitting information about that content (presumably to a publisher) for review&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming publishers reviewing distribution locations of content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A process for managing content distribution from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zQleEpH.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;350&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130138487?dq=US20130138487A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.google.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4740" RevisionGUID="a74b7f59-2568-426b-ac0a-78b618ac8ecf" CreationDate="2013-08-08T15:08:27.343" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON classifying mobile users based on who they call in a network** - This application from [Ericsson][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Social network analysis applied to mobile phones...Keep [PRISM][7] free of patent licenses!  10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/24/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Social network analysis to classify individuals in a community based on who they communicate with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves demographic information about users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Social network analysis on cell phone calling networks to segment users**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130138479 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/699,796&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/24/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for classifying a new mobile user in a communication network based on demographics associated with the new mobile user, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Representing, for a sample set of mobile users, each mobile user in the sample set by a node and mobile usage between two nodes by an edge connecting the two nodes;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Forming one or more communities of nodes;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identifying a plurality of demographic subunits by splitting each of the one or more communities;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining one or more structural properties associated with each of the plurality of subunits;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Mapping the one or more structural properties to demographics of the plurality of subunits; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Classifying the new mobile user based on the determined structural properties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for classifying a new user in a communication network, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a graph structure with users as nodes and edges as communication between users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Forming communities of nodes (using any clustering technique)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Looking for correlation between demographic features of groups of nodes (e.g. rich, white, parent, etc…) and structural features of same groups of nodes (all communicate with one another, for example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Classifying a new user based on these structural features (i.e. who he talk to)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/24/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming segmenting customers based on **standard clustering algorithms** applied to a social graph&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Determining and presenting demographics of mobile users in a communication network from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/R2i0mp3.png&quot; width=&quot;350&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130138479&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ericsson.com/us&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4670" RevisionGUID="2886c579-d909-4bf5-bfb8-be7b07a30d13" CreationDate="2013-08-08T17:01:32.673" UserId="3432" Comment="added link to sourceforge project" Text="I contributed to a project on github github: https://github.com/reprappro/host which is about an implementation of a slicer in java.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it contains code that allows to do what this patent claims: &#xD;&#xA;The file PolygonList.java contains this at line 1204: https://github.com/reprappro/host/blob/master/src/org/reprap/geometry/polygons/PolygonList.java#L1204 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    /**&#xD;&#xA;     * This assumes that the RrPolygonList for which it is called is all the closed outline&#xD;&#xA;     * polygons, and that hatching is their infill hatch. It goes through the outlines&#xD;&#xA;     * and the hatch modifying both so that that outlines actually start and end half-way&#xD;&#xA;     * along a hatch line (that half of the hatch line being deleted). When the outlines&#xD;&#xA;     * are then printed, they start and end in the middle of a solid area, thus minimising dribble.&#xD;&#xA;     *&#xD;&#xA;     * The outline polygons are re-ordered before the start so that their first point is&#xD;&#xA;     * the most extreme one in the current hatch direction.&#xD;&#xA;     *&#xD;&#xA;     * Only hatches and outlines whose physical extruders match are altered.&#xD;&#xA;     *&#xD;&#xA;     * @param hatching&#xD;&#xA;     * @param lc&#xD;&#xA;     */&#xD;&#xA;     public void middleStarts(PolygonList hatching, LayerRules lc, BooleanGridList slice)&#xD;&#xA;     {&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The implementation changes the outline (what is to be printed on the perimeter) so that it starts and ends within the interior region of the layer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The github repository has its first commit dated at Sep 03, 2010. But within the git repository there is a svn repository checked in, so I was able to extract from that .svn repository these log messages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    r3199 | adrian-bowyer | 2009-07-24 23:35:26 +0200 (Fr, 24 Jul 2009) | 1 line&#xD;&#xA;    More work on code to start and end outline polygons in the middle of solid areas to minimise dribble.&#xD;&#xA;    ------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    r3196 | adrian-bowyer | 2009-07-24 00:58:27 +0200 (Fr, 24 Jul 2009) | 1 line&#xD;&#xA;    Started adding code to start and end outline polygons in the middle of solid areas to minimise dribble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this would predate the date of the patent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: The svn repository (http://sourceforge.net/projects/reprap/) is publicly available at sourceforge since 2006-02-09. And here is the link to the commit r3196 from the above log: http://sourceforge.net/p/reprap/code/3196/ So this implementation has clearly been published before the patent claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4729" RevisionGUID="e45d51a9-ce80-4635-9821-5ee8a8d362bf" CreationDate="2013-08-08T20:46:18.843" UserId="5425" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="Scalloped wing leading edges are found naturally on hump back whales which use them for all the reasons described in this patent. Is this not considered prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6431498" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4741" RevisionGUID="b0d89bff-b085-4dc5-8ef5-84da268cefda" CreationDate="2013-08-08T21:57:58.867" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT on managing online distribution based on location** - This application from [Google][6] seeks to patent the idea of...managing content distribution based on geographic limitations! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2009** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Returning a search results query that only shows content which can be distributed in a location selected by the searcher&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves publishers reviewing distribution locations of content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Publisher review of proposed geo-targeted content**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] a method by which publisher can review proposed geo-targeted content items to determine whether the content items include any offensive material, whether the content items are composed in an acceptable format, or whether the content items should be approved or disapproved for any other reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130138487 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/513,325&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for managing content distribution, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving content information regarding content items for distribution and how the content items are to be distributed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving publication information regarding locations where content items are to be distributed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Updating, by at least one processor based on the received content information and publication information, a searchable data structure that relates the content information and the publisher information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving a search query regarding content items that are related to at least one location where content is to be distributed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Retrieving, by at least one processor from the data structure, content information responsive to the search query; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Transmitting content information responsive to the search query to enable review of the content information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of managing content distribution, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving information on where and how content is to be distributed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Updating a searchable data structure that relates content to publisher information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving a search query for content items which can be distributed in a location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Retrieving information about the content which can be distributed in that location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Transmitting information about that content (presumably to a publisher) for review&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming publishers reviewing distribution locations of content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A process for managing content distribution from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zQleEpH.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;350&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130138487?dq=US20130138487A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.google.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4740" RevisionGUID="705709c3-3d50-414b-a6b3-e0d4be5ee180" CreationDate="2013-08-08T21:58:19.840" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON classifying mobile users based on who they call in a network** - This application from [Ericsson][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Social network analysis applied to mobile phones...Keep [PRISM][7] free of patent licenses!  10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/24/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Social network analysis to classify individuals in a community based on who they communicate with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves demographic information about users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Social network analysis on cell phone calling networks to segment users**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130138479 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/699,796&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/24/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for classifying a new mobile user in a communication network based on demographics associated with the new mobile user, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Representing, for a sample set of mobile users, each mobile user in the sample set by a node and mobile usage between two nodes by an edge connecting the two nodes;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Forming one or more communities of nodes;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identifying a plurality of demographic subunits by splitting each of the one or more communities;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining one or more structural properties associated with each of the plurality of subunits;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Mapping the one or more structural properties to demographics of the plurality of subunits; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Classifying the new mobile user based on the determined structural properties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for classifying a new user in a communication network, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a graph structure with users as nodes and edges as communication between users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Forming communities of nodes (using any clustering technique)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Looking for correlation between demographic features of groups of nodes (e.g. rich, white, parent, etc…) and structural features of same groups of nodes (all communicate with one another, for example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Classifying a new user based on these structural features (i.e. who he talk to)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/24/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming segmenting customers based on **standard clustering algorithms** applied to a social graph&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Determining and presenting demographics of mobile users in a communication network from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/R2i0mp3.png&quot; width=&quot;350&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130138479&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ericsson.com/us&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="075b1a23-2cbd-4626-97bd-1dccf4f8ea92" CreationDate="2013-08-08T21:58:57.700" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ANALYZING A WEBPAGE** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...extracting information blocks from a webpage based on text and visual layout! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Webpage extraction through page structure and sentences**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for extracting entities in a webpage using a **text understanding component** and a **visual layout extraction&quot; component**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110078554 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 12/569,912&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Sep 30, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. In a computing environment, a system comprising, at least one processor, a memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and including components comprising, a framework configured to process a webpage to understand one or more entities of the webpage, the framework including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a text understanding component and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to provide text-related data to the structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the structure understanding component configured to use the text-related data and visual layout features of the webpage to produce a labeled block,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to use the labeled block to understand text of the one or more entities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for processing a webpage, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A text understanding component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A visual layout (&quot;structure&quot;) understanding component; where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The text component provides data to the visual layout component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The visual layout component produces a labeled block based on the visual layout and the text; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. The text understanding component uses the labeled block to &quot;understand&quot; the text of an entity on the webpage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Sep 30, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A natural language processing framework for labeling webpages” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/V9vSS.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110078554&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4745" RevisionGUID="57d4627f-ea82-467f-b133-a21873d27561" CreationDate="2013-08-08T22:05:47.350" UserId="5370" Text="AppleInsider reports http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/08/apples-audio-hyperlink-tech-can-control-devices-with-inaudible-sonic-pulses about recent US patent application #20130204413 from Apple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the application, Apple show how to embed some textual information (hyperlink) into the sound stream. This information can be added as meta information of the audio file or embedded into the sound, interleaving with normal audio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the application and its &quot;A&quot; claims:&#xD;&#xA;http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&amp;r=3&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=(20130808.PD.+AND+700%2F94.CCLS.)&amp;OS=pd/8/8/2013+and+ccl/700/94&amp;RS=(PD/20130808+AND+CCL/700/94)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  A non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising: computer code to cause an audio stream to playback on an electronic device; computer code to traverse a hyperlink encoded with the audio stream to a destination object during playback of the audio stream; and computer code to perform an activity corresponding to the destination object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising: computer code to receive a request to insert a hyperlink in an audio stream; computer code to generate a hyperlink indicator responsive to the request; computer code to generate a hyperlink information; and computer code to encode the hyperlink indicator with the audio stream. &#xD;&#xA;1. A non-transitory storage medium on which is stored encoded audio information, wherein the audio information comprises: a hyperlink indicator that indicates that a hyperlink is encoded with the audio information; and a hyperlink information element that provides information describing the hyperlink. &#xD;&#xA;1. An apparatus, comprising: a programmable control device; a memory coupled to the programmable control device, wherein instructions are stored in the memory, the instructions causing the programmable control device to: recognize a hyperlink indicator encoded with an audio stream processed by the programmable control device; decode a hyperlink information associated with the hyperlink indicator; and traverse the hyperlink described by the hyperlink information. &#xD;&#xA;1. A method of inserting an audio hyperlink into an audio stream, comprising: encoding a hyperlink indicator with the audio stream; and encoding a hyperlink information with the audio stream with the hyperlink indicator, wherein the hyperlink information provides information for a programmable control device to access a destination object. &#xD;&#xA;1.  A method of using a hyperlink encoded into an audio stream, comprising: playing the audio stream on an electronic device; decoding a hyperlink information associated with a hyperlink indicator encoded with the audio stream; accessing and performing a destination object identified by the hyperlink information; suspending playing the audio stream upon performing accessing the destination object; and resuming playing the audio stream upon completion of performing the destination object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that some of claims were implemented before 2012.. Adding metadata to audio file as separate stream, hiding metadata in the sound stream, recognition of metadata from audio signal. So, prior acts are welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11256" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4745" RevisionGUID="57d4627f-ea82-467f-b133-a21873d27561" CreationDate="2013-08-08T22:05:47.350" UserId="5370" Text="Audio hyperlinks by apple" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11257" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4745" RevisionGUID="57d4627f-ea82-467f-b133-a21873d27561" CreationDate="2013-08-08T22:05:47.350" UserId="5370" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;apple&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4745" RevisionGUID="a99874f7-0ebb-4d26-b81e-148c4fd611b0" CreationDate="2013-08-08T22:13:16.167" UserId="5370" Comment="added 19 characters in body; edited tags" Text="AppleInsider reports http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/08/apples-audio-hyperlink-tech-can-control-devices-with-inaudible-sonic-pulses about recent US patent application #20130204413 from Apple (priority of 2012).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the application, Apple show how to embed some textual information (hyperlink) into the sound stream. This information can be added as meta information of the audio file or embedded into the sound, interleaving with normal audio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the application and its &quot;A&quot; claims:&#xD;&#xA;http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&amp;r=3&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=(20130808.PD.+AND+700%2F94.CCLS.)&amp;OS=pd/8/8/2013+and+ccl/700/94&amp;RS=(PD/20130808+AND+CCL/700/94)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  A non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising: computer code to cause an audio stream to playback on an electronic device; computer code to traverse a hyperlink encoded with the audio stream to a destination object during playback of the audio stream; and computer code to perform an activity corresponding to the destination object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising: computer code to receive a request to insert a hyperlink in an audio stream; computer code to generate a hyperlink indicator responsive to the request; computer code to generate a hyperlink information; and computer code to encode the hyperlink indicator with the audio stream. &#xD;&#xA;1. A non-transitory storage medium on which is stored encoded audio information, wherein the audio information comprises: a hyperlink indicator that indicates that a hyperlink is encoded with the audio information; and a hyperlink information element that provides information describing the hyperlink. &#xD;&#xA;1. An apparatus, comprising: a programmable control device; a memory coupled to the programmable control device, wherein instructions are stored in the memory, the instructions causing the programmable control device to: recognize a hyperlink indicator encoded with an audio stream processed by the programmable control device; decode a hyperlink information associated with the hyperlink indicator; and traverse the hyperlink described by the hyperlink information. &#xD;&#xA;1. A method of inserting an audio hyperlink into an audio stream, comprising: encoding a hyperlink indicator with the audio stream; and encoding a hyperlink information with the audio stream with the hyperlink indicator, wherein the hyperlink information provides information for a programmable control device to access a destination object. &#xD;&#xA;1.  A method of using a hyperlink encoded into an audio stream, comprising: playing the audio stream on an electronic device; decoding a hyperlink information associated with a hyperlink indicator encoded with the audio stream; accessing and performing a destination object identified by the hyperlink information; suspending playing the audio stream upon performing accessing the destination object; and resuming playing the audio stream upon completion of performing the destination object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that some of claims were implemented before 2012.. Adding metadata to audio file as separate stream, hiding metadata in the sound stream, recognition of metadata from audio signal. So, prior acts are welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11259" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4745" RevisionGUID="a99874f7-0ebb-4d26-b81e-148c4fd611b0" CreationDate="2013-08-08T22:13:16.167" UserId="5370" Comment="added 19 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;apple&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4746" RevisionGUID="31c402fa-9919-40d8-840d-2174c1d0e5ab" CreationDate="2013-08-08T22:26:49.450" UserId="5441" Text="Microsoft had a core library in the mid-90's built on com objects intended to access databases through ODBC or other means.  Here's an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://iprodeveloper.com/development/using-vb-40s-dao-access-as400-data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4745" RevisionGUID="28eee85c-5f50-4ea1-a7a8-1a0f070c96e5" CreationDate="2013-08-08T22:36:51.287" UserId="1767" Comment="Fixed formatting to conform with prior art request template" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON embedding hyperlinks into audio signals** - This application from [Apple][6] seeks to patent the idea of...putting textual information into sound streams!  10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/7/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Embedding textual information (e.g. a hyperlink) into a sound stream. The information could be added as meta information to the audio file or it could be embedded into the sound, interleaved with normal audio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [AppleInsider](http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/08/apples-audio-hyperlink-tech-can-control-devices-with-inaudible-sonic-pulses)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves demographic information about users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Audio Hyperlinking**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130204413 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/368,129&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  Apple, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/8/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Computer code to cause an audio stream to playback on an electronic device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Computer code to traverse a hyperlink encoded with the audio stream to a destination object during playback of the audio stream; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Computer code to perform an activity corresponding to the destination object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer program, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Code to to play an audio stream&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Code to follow a hyperlink encoded with the audio stream to a destination object (e.g. a webpage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Code to perform an activity corresponding to the destination object (e.g. display the webpage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming encoding the hyperlink so that it is **inaudible** or so that it is **audible** to listeners and where the metadata is a **link** or where it contains *information about the audio stream**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that some of claims were implemented before 2012.. Adding metadata to an audio file as a separate stream, hiding metadata in the sound stream, recognition of metadata from audio signal. So, **prior art is welcome**...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&amp;r=3&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=(20130808.PD.+AND+700%2F94.CCLS.)&amp;OS=pd/8/8/2013+and+ccl/700/94&amp;RS=(PD/20130808+AND+CCL/700/94)&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.apple.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11262" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4745" RevisionGUID="28eee85c-5f50-4ea1-a7a8-1a0f070c96e5" CreationDate="2013-08-08T22:36:51.287" UserId="1767" Comment="Fixed formatting to conform with prior art request template" Text="Audio Encoding - Audio Hyperlinks (Apple) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11263" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4745" RevisionGUID="28eee85c-5f50-4ea1-a7a8-1a0f070c96e5" CreationDate="2013-08-08T22:36:51.287" UserId="1767" Comment="Fixed formatting to conform with prior art request template" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;us20130204413&gt;&lt;audio&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4745" RevisionGUID="20a24f32-eaf0-4c51-bb89-f53d52880050" CreationDate="2013-08-08T22:43:21.173" UserId="1767" Comment="Fixed formatting to conform with prior art request template" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON embedding hyperlinks into audio signals** - This application from [Apple][6] seeks to patent the idea of...putting textual information into sound streams!  10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/7/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Embedding textual information (e.g. a hyperlink) into a sound stream. The information could be added as meta information to the audio file or it could be embedded into the sound, interleaved with normal audio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [AppleInsider](http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/08/apples-audio-hyperlink-tech-can-control-devices-with-inaudible-sonic-pulses)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves demographic information about users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Audio Hyperlinking**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130204413 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/368,129&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  Apple, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/8/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Computer code to cause an audio stream to playback on an electronic device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Computer code to traverse a hyperlink encoded with the audio stream to a destination object during playback of the audio stream; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Computer code to perform an activity corresponding to the destination object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer program, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Code to to play an audio stream&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Code to follow a hyperlink encoded with the audio stream to a destination object (e.g. a webpage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Code to perform an activity corresponding to the destination object (e.g. display the webpage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming encoding the hyperlink so that it is **inaudible** or so that it is **audible** to listeners and where the metadata is a **link** or where it contains *information about the audio stream**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that some of claims were implemented before 2012.. Adding metadata to an audio file as a separate stream, hiding metadata in the sound stream, recognition of metadata from audio signal. So, **prior art is welcome**...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Audio Hyperlink from one audio track to another&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/IJl4S.jpg&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&amp;r=3&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=(20130808.PD.+AND+700%2F94.CCLS.)&amp;OS=pd/8/8/2013+and+ccl/700/94&amp;RS=(PD/20130808+AND+CCL/700/94)&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.apple.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4747" RevisionGUID="acd9005f-5564-4b2e-b15c-c05e5c5b6997" CreationDate="2013-08-08T23:08:48.950" UserId="5442" Text="How about [this][1] patent aplication?  It specifies a video signal (but suggests embedding the watermark on the audio track), so I don't know if this would qualify as prior art.  The patent was filed on Apr 19, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another aspect of the invention is a method for using a watermark that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; has been encoded into a video signal **or in an audio track accompanying&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the video signal.** The watermark conveys information about a video&#xD;&#xA;&gt; object in the video signal. **The method decodes the information from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the watermark, receives a user selection of the video object, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; executes an action associated with the information about the video&#xD;&#xA;&gt; object.** **One example of an action is to retrieve a web site associated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with the video object via the watermark. The watermark may include a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; direct (e.g., URL or network address) or indirect link (e.g., object&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identifier) to the web site.** In the latter case, the object identifier&#xD;&#xA;&gt; may be used to look up a corresponding action, such as issuing a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; request to a web server at a desired URL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110194730" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4745" RevisionGUID="ca933bee-4e71-4e47-b82b-58eeccc6b61e" CreationDate="2013-08-08T23:32:23.610" UserId="3076" Comment="Reduced hyperbole introduced by AP templat" Text="**A PATENT APPLICATION ON embedding hyperlinks into audio signals** - This application from [Apple][6] seeks to patent the idea of...putting hypertextual information into sound streams. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/7/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Embedding textual information (e.g. a hyperlink) into a sound stream. The information could be added as meta information to the audio file or it could be embedded into the sound, interleaved with normal audio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [AppleInsider](http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/08/apples-audio-hyperlink-tech-can-control-devices-with-inaudible-sonic-pulses)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves demographic information about users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Audio Hyperlinking**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130204413 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/368,129&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  Apple, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/8/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Computer code to cause an audio stream to playback on an electronic device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Computer code to traverse a hyperlink encoded with the audio stream to a destination object during playback of the audio stream; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Computer code to perform an activity corresponding to the destination object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer program, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Code to to play an audio stream&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Code to follow a hyperlink encoded with the audio stream to a destination object (e.g. a webpage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Code to perform an activity corresponding to the destination object (e.g. display the webpage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming encoding the hyperlink so that it is **inaudible** or so that it is **audible** to listeners and where the metadata is a **link** or where it contains *information about the audio stream**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that some of claims were implemented before 2012.. Adding metadata to an audio file as a separate stream, hiding metadata in the sound stream, recognition of metadata from audio signal. So, **prior art is welcome**...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Audio Hyperlink from one audio track to another&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/IJl4S.jpg&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&amp;r=3&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=(20130808.PD.+AND+700%2F94.CCLS.)&amp;OS=pd/8/8/2013+and+ccl/700/94&amp;RS=(PD/20130808+AND+CCL/700/94)&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.apple.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4745" RevisionGUID="09f19a82-d3aa-4943-b823-9eed1eb72393" CreationDate="2013-08-08T23:53:10.133" UserId="1767" Comment="added 137 characters in body" Text="**A PATENT APPLICATION ON embedding hyperlinks into audio signals** - This application from [Apple][6] seeks to patent the idea of...putting hypertextual information into sound streams. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/7/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Embedding textual information (e.g. a hyperlink) into a sound stream. The information could be added as meta information to the audio file or it could be embedded into the sound, interleaved with normal audio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [AppleInsider](http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/08/apples-audio-hyperlink-tech-can-control-devices-with-inaudible-sonic-pulses)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves embedding a hyperlink so that it is inaudible or so that it is audible to listeners and where the metadata is a link or where it contains information about the audio stream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Audio Hyperlinking**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130204413 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/368,129&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  Apple, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/8/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Computer code to cause an audio stream to playback on an electronic device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Computer code to traverse a hyperlink encoded with the audio stream to a destination object during playback of the audio stream; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Computer code to perform an activity corresponding to the destination object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer program, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Code to to play an audio stream&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Code to follow a hyperlink encoded with the audio stream to a destination object (e.g. a webpage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Code to perform an activity corresponding to the destination object (e.g. display the webpage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming encoding the hyperlink so that it is **inaudible** or so that it is **audible** to listeners and where the metadata is a **link** or where it contains *information about the audio stream**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that some of claims were implemented before 2012.. Adding metadata to an audio file as a separate stream, hiding metadata in the sound stream, recognition of metadata from audio signal. So, **prior art is welcome**...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Audio Hyperlink from one audio track to another&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/IJl4S.jpg&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&amp;r=3&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=(20130808.PD.+AND+700%2F94.CCLS.)&amp;OS=pd/8/8/2013+and+ccl/700/94&amp;RS=(PD/20130808+AND+CCL/700/94)&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.apple.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4748" RevisionGUID="fbe70d55-7904-4316-a40a-ddafff7c972a" CreationDate="2013-08-09T00:22:39.097" UserId="1767" Text="Patent Application: [US 20030110516 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication Date: 	**Jun 12, 2003**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Title: **System and method for embedding data in broadcast**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assignee: **Sony Corporation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system and method for conveying information **pertaining to broadcast content** such that the system is robust and stripping or blocking data is rendered relatively difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A broadcast component encodes the content with a **digital watermark** or embeds an icon or other visibly or **audibly transparent object** (e.g., audio jingle) in the content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A TV or radio that has a microprocessor **decodes the content** to retrieve the watermark or analyzes the image/jingle to **determine an ID**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Using the ID a database is accessed to **retrieve information pertaining to broadcast content**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Alternatively, the watermark may represent the actual data itself. The information can include, e.g., **Web site hyperlinks**, and/or UPC codes, and/or advertising data. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any claim elements missing from this one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20030110516" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4749" RevisionGUID="f0ecf4dc-61bd-405e-909c-8710bf3e3b87" CreationDate="2013-08-09T03:02:41.930" UserId="4099" Text="**Moving messages between Outlook folders based on external events generated by the UPS shipper program** was described no later than Oct 2009 by an anonymous contributor to the Thunderbird planning wiki:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;https://wiki.mozilla.org/Talk:Thunderbird:2.0_Product_Planning#Establish_a_standard_COM.2FOLE_interface_for_automation_from_external_programs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  For example, message sorting into folders based on business rules, and **triggered by external events, like shipping system updates.** This external approach also seems to limit the impact that individual application changes have to system operation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Example of what I do now: Outlook launches an external Windows app (order manager) with every new message (via Rules Wizard). The external order manager app uses msoutl9.olb type library imported as components into Borland C++. This app opens the inbox and reads the new messages, looking for order confirmations sent from a website. The order confirmations are XML attachments and are processed into a MySQL database. The emails are sorted into folders based on order number, for easy retrieval later if needed. The UPS shipper program exports data into the same MySQL database. **The order manager program scans the shipping tables for tracking numbers as orders come in,** or when an operator tells it to update. Once the orders are in shipment status the order manager generates email messages in the outlook drafts folder and then sends them. This has the added benefit of archiving both inbound and outbound emails for each order within the outlook folders. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the purpose of this invention (a Windows app which communicated with Outlook via Outlook Automation) was to generate emails to customers telling them at their order had dispatched, once UPS had assigned a tracking number to the shipment. The incoming order confirmation email was then archived. The invention took two inputs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) Email order confirmations from the website which customers order through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) Tracking numbers from the UPS shipper program (presumably UPS WorldShip).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So input b) was an external event sent to the Outlook email client from the UPS shipper program [covering claim 1 of the patent]. The event was mediated through the MySQL tables which were accessed by both the UPS shipper program and the invention. The event caused the corresponding order confirmation email to be identified in the Outlook message store and archived. [covering claim 2 of the patent]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This invention therefore appears to invalidate both claims of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4749" RevisionGUID="4271a982-8d41-4b97-bb7e-1056c512c453" CreationDate="2013-08-09T03:08:46.877" UserId="4099" Comment="claim numbering" Text="**Moving messages between Outlook folders based on external events generated by the UPS shipper program** was described on 31st March 2007 by anonymous contributor &quot;Tech43&quot; to the Thunderbird planning wiki:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://wiki.mozilla.org/Talk:Thunderbird:2.0_Product_Planning#Establish_a_standard_COM.2FOLE_interface_for_automation_from_external_programs. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* Diff: https://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=Talk%3AThunderbird%3A2.0_Product_Planning&amp;diff=53594&amp;oldid=52078&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  For example, message sorting into folders based on business rules, and **triggered by external events, like shipping system updates.** This external approach also seems to limit the impact that individual application changes have to system operation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Example of what I do now: Outlook launches an external Windows app (order manager) with every new message (via Rules Wizard). The external order manager app uses msoutl9.olb type library imported as components into Borland C++. This app opens the inbox and reads the new messages, looking for order confirmations sent from a website. The order confirmations are XML attachments and are processed into a MySQL database. The emails are sorted into folders based on order number, for easy retrieval later if needed. The UPS shipper program exports data into the same MySQL database. **The order manager program scans the shipping tables for tracking numbers as orders come in,** or when an operator tells it to update. Once the orders are in shipment status the order manager generates email messages in the outlook drafts folder and then sends them. This has the added benefit of archiving both inbound and outbound emails for each order within the outlook folders. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the purpose of this invention (a Windows app which communicated with Outlook via Outlook COM components) was to generate emails to customers telling them at their order had dispatched, once UPS had assigned a tracking number to the shipment. The incoming order confirmation email was then archived. The invention took two inputs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) Email order confirmations from the website which customers order through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) Tracking numbers from the UPS shipper program (presumably UPS WorldShip).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So input b) was an external event sent to the Outlook email client from the UPS shipper program [covering claim 1.1 of the patent]. The event was mediated through the MySQL tables which were accessed by both the UPS shipper program and the invention. The event caused the corresponding order confirmation email to be identified in the Outlook message store and archived. [covering claim 1.2 of the patent]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This invention therefore appears to invalidate both claims of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4749" RevisionGUID="9ce5f649-6565-4e50-bee9-8fa3374a8c4e" CreationDate="2013-08-09T03:14:22.180" UserId="4099" Comment="grammar" Text="**Moving messages between Outlook folders based on external events generated by the UPS shipper program** was described on 31st March 2007 by anonymous contributor &quot;Tech43&quot; to the Thunderbird planning wiki:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://wiki.mozilla.org/Talk:Thunderbird:2.0_Product_Planning#Establish_a_standard_COM.2FOLE_interface_for_automation_from_external_programs. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* Diff: https://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=Talk%3AThunderbird%3A2.0_Product_Planning&amp;diff=53594&amp;oldid=52078&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  For example, message sorting into folders based on business rules, and **triggered by external events, like shipping system updates.** This external approach also seems to limit the impact that individual application changes have to system operation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Example of what I do now: Outlook launches an external Windows app (order manager) with every new message (via Rules Wizard). The external order manager app uses msoutl9.olb type library imported as components into Borland C++. This app opens the inbox and reads the new messages, looking for order confirmations sent from a website. The order confirmations are XML attachments and are processed into a MySQL database. The emails are sorted into folders based on order number, for easy retrieval later if needed. The UPS shipper program exports data into the same MySQL database. **The order manager program scans the shipping tables for tracking numbers as orders come in,** or when an operator tells it to update. Once the orders are in shipment status the order manager generates email messages in the outlook drafts folder and then sends them. This has the added benefit of archiving both inbound and outbound emails for each order within the outlook folders. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the purpose of this invention (a Windows app which communicated with Outlook via Outlook COM components) was to generate emails to customers telling them their order had dispatched, once UPS had assigned a tracking number to the shipment. The incoming order confirmation email was then archived. The invention took two inputs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) Email order confirmations from the website which customers order through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) Tracking numbers from the UPS shipper program (presumably UPS WorldShip).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So input b) was an external event sent to the Outlook email client from the UPS shipper program [covering claim 1.1 of the patent]. The event was mediated through the MySQL tables which were accessed by both the UPS shipper program and the invention. The event caused the corresponding order confirmation email to be identified in the Outlook message store and archived. [covering claim 1.2 of the patent]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This invention therefore appears to invalidate both claims of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4749" RevisionGUID="4e763802-a924-4ab2-86e9-5d9e5e22fc1c" CreationDate="2013-08-09T03:19:44.433" UserId="4099" Comment="oops got the sequence wrong in the first draft" Text="**Moving messages between Outlook folders based on external events generated by the UPS shipper program** was described on 31st March 2007 by anonymous contributor &quot;Tech43&quot; to the Thunderbird planning wiki:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://wiki.mozilla.org/Talk:Thunderbird:2.0_Product_Planning#Establish_a_standard_COM.2FOLE_interface_for_automation_from_external_programs. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* Diff: https://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=Talk%3AThunderbird%3A2.0_Product_Planning&amp;diff=53594&amp;oldid=52078&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  For example, message sorting into folders based on business rules, and **triggered by external events, like shipping system updates.** This external approach also seems to limit the impact that individual application changes have to system operation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Example of what I do now: Outlook launches an external Windows app (order manager) with every new message (via Rules Wizard). The external order manager app uses msoutl9.olb type library imported as components into Borland C++. This app opens the inbox and reads the new messages, looking for order confirmations sent from a website. The order confirmations are XML attachments and are processed into a MySQL database. The emails are sorted into folders based on order number, for easy retrieval later if needed. The UPS shipper program exports data into the same MySQL database. **The order manager program scans the shipping tables for tracking numbers as orders come in,** or when an operator tells it to update. Once the orders are in shipment status the order manager generates email messages in the outlook drafts folder and then sends them. This has the added benefit of archiving both inbound and outbound emails for each order within the outlook folders. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the purpose of this invention (a Windows app which communicated with Outlook via Outlook COM components) was to generate emails to customers telling them their order had dispatched, once UPS had assigned a tracking number to the shipment. The invention took two inputs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) Email order confirmations from the website which customers order through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) Tracking numbers from the UPS shipper program (presumably UPS WorldShip).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So input b) was an external event sent to the Outlook email client from the UPS shipper program [covering claim 1.1 of the patent]. The event was mediated through the MySQL tables which were accessed by both the UPS shipper program and the invention. The event caused the dispatch of a &quot;Your order has shipped&quot; email to the customer, which was then archived in the same folder as the incoming order confirmation email. [covering claim 1.2 of the patent]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This invention therefore appears to invalidate both claims of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4748" RevisionGUID="e4e301bc-c747-4fb5-a9a9-cbd49438a0a9" CreationDate="2013-08-09T03:33:10.290" UserId="1767" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Patent Application: [US 20030110516 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication Date: 	**Jun 12, 2003**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Title: **System and method for embedding data in broadcast**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assignee: **Sony Corporation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system and method for conveying information **pertaining to broadcast content** such that the system is robust and stripping or blocking data is rendered relatively difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A broadcast component encodes the content with a **digital watermark** or embeds an icon or other visibly or **audibly transparent object** (e.g., audio jingle) in the content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A TV or radio that has a microprocessor **decodes the content** to retrieve the watermark or analyzes the image/jingle to **determine an ID**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Using the ID a database is accessed to **retrieve information pertaining to broadcast content**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Alternatively, the watermark may represent the actual data itself. The information can include, e.g., **Web site hyperlinks**, and/or UPC codes, and/or advertising data. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any claim elements missing from this one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20030110516" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4750" RevisionGUID="95dbf834-06bc-4245-848a-7b1870afcc81" CreationDate="2013-08-09T03:41:23.800" UserId="1767" Text="Issued Patent US [6411725][1]&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication Date: **Jun 25, 2002**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Priority Date: **Jul 27, 1995**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Title: **Watermark Enabled Video Objects**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assignee: **Digimarc Corporation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Watermarks in video signals or the accompanying **audio track** are used to **associate** video **objects** in a video sequence **with object specific actions or information**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A video object refers to a spatial and temporal portion of a video signal that depicts a recognizable object, such as a character, prop, graphic, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Each frame of a video signal may have one or more video objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The **auxiliary information is embedded** in video or **audio signals** using “steganographic” methods, such as digital watermarks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By **encoding object specific information** into video or an accompanying audio track, the watermarks transform video objects into “watermark enabled” video objects that provide **information, actions or links** to additional information or actions **during playback** of a video or audio-visual program.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A similar concept may be applied to audio objects, i.e. portions of audio that are attributable to a particular speaker, character, instrument, artist, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 9:&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for using a watermark that has been encoded into a video signal, where the watermark conveys information about a video object in the video signal, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. decoding the information from the watermark;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. receiving a user selection of the video object; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. executing an action associated with the information about the video object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the specification&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another aspect of the invention is a method for using a watermark that has been encoded into a video signal or **in an audio track** accompanying the video signal. The watermark conveys **information about** a video object in the video signal. The **method decodes the information from the watermark, receives a user selection of the video object, and executes an action associated with the information about the video object.** One example of an action is to **retrieve a web site associated with the video object via the watermark. The **watermark may include a direct (e.g., URL or network address) or indirect link (e.g., object identifier) to the web site**. In the latter case, the object identifier may be used to look up a corresponding action, such as issuing a request to a web server at a desired URL. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6411725?dq=6411725" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4751" RevisionGUID="7e4beecc-8bb2-4351-a3ff-f80bc745c5fc" CreationDate="2013-08-09T04:12:35.450" UserId="4752" Text="First think that comes to my mind is simply soundcloud.com. I'm unable to reaserch their blog now as I write from an iphone but they had a feature to tag audio position and add a cent since forever (as a user so I think demographic also applies here)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4752" RevisionGUID="3aba97e8-7f0c-4933-a59b-d49dcbb17189" CreationDate="2013-08-09T06:24:32.817" UserId="5446" Text="Isn't this application trying to get a patent on half/partial carries?  This technique has been used in many microprocessor since the early 70's...  Also, the application has this jewel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;One conventional algorithm for performing BCD calculations involves processing the addition on a nibble-by-nibble basis (a nibble is made up of four binary bits), starting with the least significant nibble (corresponding to the least significant decimal digit), and proceeding to the most significant nibble one nibble at a time.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is not even true for many of simplest 8-bit processors available.  Take the venerable 8051 for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mov a, bcd_x ; load a two nibble bcd number&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;add a, bcd_y ; add another two nibble bcd number&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;daa ; The decimal adjust instruction that uses the half carry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mov bcd_r, a ; The two nibble result is stored in bcd_r, with carry indicating overflow&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11289" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4752" RevisionGUID="3aba97e8-7f0c-4933-a59b-d49dcbb17189" CreationDate="2013-08-09T06:24:32.817" UserId="5446" Text="20100030834: Performing A Binary Coded Decimal (BCD) Calculation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11290" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4752" RevisionGUID="3aba97e8-7f0c-4933-a59b-d49dcbb17189" CreationDate="2013-08-09T06:24:32.817" UserId="5446" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4753" RevisionGUID="1a3668d1-cc9a-4d87-89cc-21a33678ebcd" CreationDate="2013-08-09T12:14:06.440" UserId="4099" Text="From way back in 1996, **European patent EP1049320: &quot;Initiating a link between computers based on the decoding of an address steganographically embedded in an audio object&quot;**, appears a complete match for the claims in the current application:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1049320.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 1 and 2 of EP1049320 are particularly relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of initiating access from a first computer (1004) to a second computer (1002) via a data communications medium, which method is characterized by: at the first computer (1004), decoding steganographically embedded address information from audio data (1006), **said data representing sampled audio information rather than ancillary information such as header data**; and initiating a link to the second computer (1002) using the address information decoded from the audio data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A method according to Claim 1 wherein the address information comprises a URL address. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike patents US20110194730, US 20030110516 A1, and US 6411725, this patent specifically refers to embedding a &quot;hyperlink&quot; in the audio object (rather than a &quot;watermark&quot;), and refers to that hyperlink being in the form of a URL. It also specifically refers to making the hyperlink inaudible (via steganography).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would appear to completely anticipate and invalidate these claims by Apple in this patent application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* claims 2 and 3&#xD;&#xA;* the additional claim of &quot;encoding the hyperlink so that it is inaudible&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4753" RevisionGUID="b7720ae6-3b10-41f6-af55-abc197d5b4ff" CreationDate="2013-08-09T12:19:13.227" UserId="4099" Comment="claim numbering" Text="From way back in 1996, **European patent EP1049320: &quot;Initiating a link between computers based on the decoding of an address steganographically embedded in an audio object&quot;**, appears a complete match for the claims in the current application:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1049320.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 1 and 2 of EP1049320 are particularly relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of initiating access from a first computer (1004) to a second computer (1002) via a data communications medium, which method is characterized by: at the first computer (1004), decoding steganographically embedded address information from audio data (1006), **said data representing sampled audio information rather than ancillary information such as header data**; and initiating a link to the second computer (1002) using the address information decoded from the audio data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A method according to Claim 1 wherein the address information comprises a URL address. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike patents US20110194730, US 20030110516 A1, and US 6411725, this patent specifically refers to embedding a &quot;hyperlink&quot; in the audio object (rather than a &quot;watermark&quot;), and refers to that hyperlink being in the form of a URL. It also specifically refers to making the hyperlink inaudible (via steganography).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would appear to completely anticipate and invalidate these claims by Apple in this patent application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* claims 1.2 and 1.3&#xD;&#xA;* the additional claim of &quot;encoding the hyperlink so that it is inaudible&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4752" RevisionGUID="382dec20-3e05-4aed-ad19-914683f7a331" CreationDate="2013-08-09T12:29:24.473" UserId="1259" Comment="tag linkie" Text="Isn't this application [US20100030834][1] trying to get a patent on half/partial carries?  This technique has been used in many microprocessor since the early 70's...  Also, the application has this jewel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;One conventional algorithm for performing BCD calculations involves processing the addition on a nibble-by-nibble basis (a nibble is made up of four binary bits), starting with the least significant nibble (corresponding to the least significant decimal digit), and proceeding to the most significant nibble one nibble at a time.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is not even true for many of simplest 8-bit processors available.  Take the venerable 8051 for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mov a, bcd_x ; load a two nibble bcd number&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;add a, bcd_y ; add another two nibble bcd number&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;daa ; The decimal adjust instruction that uses the half carry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mov bcd_r, a ; The two nibble result is stored in bcd_r, with carry indicating overflow&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://google.com/patents/us20100030834" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11294" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4752" RevisionGUID="382dec20-3e05-4aed-ad19-914683f7a331" CreationDate="2013-08-09T12:29:24.473" UserId="1259" Comment="tag linkie" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20100030834&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4753" RevisionGUID="8aebf938-7a1c-412a-92d9-62347b71b5ed" CreationDate="2013-08-09T12:30:24.677" UserId="4099" Comment="actually **audible** hyperlinks are not mentioned in EP1049320" Text="From way back in 1996, **European patent EP1049320: &quot;Initiating a link between computers based on the decoding of an address steganographically embedded in an audio object&quot;**, appears an almost complete match for the claims in the current application:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1049320.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 1 and 2 of EP1049320 are particularly relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of initiating access from a first computer (1004) to a second computer (1002) via a data communications medium, which method is characterized by: at the first computer (1004), decoding steganographically embedded address information from audio data (1006), **said data representing sampled audio information rather than ancillary information such as header data**; and initiating a link to the second computer (1002) using the address information decoded from the audio data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A method according to Claim 1 wherein the address information comprises a URL address. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike patents US20110194730, US 20030110516 A1, and US 6411725, this patent specifically refers to embedding a &quot;hyperlink&quot; in the audio object (rather than a &quot;watermark&quot;), and refers to that hyperlink being in the form of a URL. It also specifically refers to making the hyperlink inaudible (via steganography).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The section &quot;Towards Steganography Proper and the Use of this Technology in Passing More Complex Messages or Information&quot; discusses embedding information about the audio stream using the same technique.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would appear to completely anticipate and invalidate these claims by Apple in this patent application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* claims 1.2 and 1.3&#xD;&#xA;* the additional claim of &quot;encoding the hyperlink so that it is inaudible&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;* the additional claim of where the metadata &quot;contains information about the audio stream&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However the claim of &quot;encoding the hyperlink so it is audible&quot; does **not** appear to be covered by EP1049320." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4753" RevisionGUID="ede06d11-4a24-48bd-897a-860527eb95dd" CreationDate="2013-08-09T12:37:29.640" UserId="4099" Comment="delete assertion:  I misread the &quot;Towards Steganography&quot; section" Text="From way back in 1996, **European patent EP1049320: &quot;Initiating a link between computers based on the decoding of an address steganographically embedded in an audio object&quot;**, appears an almost complete match for the claims in the current application:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1049320.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 1 and 2 of EP1049320 are particularly relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of initiating access from a first computer (1004) to a second computer (1002) via a data communications medium, which method is characterized by: at the first computer (1004), decoding steganographically embedded address information from audio data (1006), **said data representing sampled audio information rather than ancillary information such as header data**; and initiating a link to the second computer (1002) using the address information decoded from the audio data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A method according to Claim 1 wherein the address information comprises a URL address. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike patents US20110194730, US 20030110516 A1, and US 6411725, this patent specifically refers to embedding a &quot;hyperlink&quot; in the audio object (rather than a &quot;watermark&quot;), and refers to that hyperlink being in the form of a URL. It also specifically refers to making the hyperlink inaudible (via steganography).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would appear to completely anticipate and invalidate these claims by Apple in this patent application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* claims 1.2 and 1.3&#xD;&#xA;* the additional claim of &quot;encoding the hyperlink so that it is inaudible&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;* the additional claim of where the metadata &quot;contains information about the audio stream&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However the claim of &quot;encoding the hyperlink so it is audible&quot; does **not** appear to be covered by EP1049320." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4753" RevisionGUID="1cdafbfc-c211-4085-af89-0e2f3a294086" CreationDate="2013-08-09T12:44:50.497" UserId="4099" Comment="on further reflection/reading, EP1049320 does appear to cover the whole Apple application " Text="From way back in 1996, **European patent EP1049320: &quot;Initiating a link between computers based on the decoding of an address steganographically embedded in an audio object&quot;**, appears a complete match for the claims in the current application:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1049320.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 1, 2, 11 and 14 of EP1049320 are particularly relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *1. A method of initiating access from a first computer (1004) to a second computer (1002) via a data communications medium, which method is characterized by: at the first computer (1004), decoding steganographically embedded address information from audio data (1006), **said data representing sampled audio information rather than ancillary information such as header data**; and initiating a link to the second computer (1002) using the address information decoded from the audio data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *2. A method according to Claim 1 wherein the address information comprises a URL address. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *11. A method according to Claim 10 further comprising including in the audio data object (1006) a human-perceptible indicium (1012) for indicating the presence of the steganographically encoded address information in the object (1006). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *14. A method according to any one of Claims 10 to 13 in which the data object (1006) further includes an icon presentable to a user in audio or visual form, the icon being indicative of the presence of steganographically encoded address information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike patents US20110194730, US 20030110516 A1, and US 6411725, this patent specifically refers to embedding a &quot;hyperlink&quot; in the audio object (rather than a &quot;watermark&quot;), and refers to that hyperlink being in the form of a URL. It also specifically refers to making the hyperlink inaudible (via steganography).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would appear to completely anticipate and invalidate these claims by Apple in this patent application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* claims 1.2 and 1.3&#xD;&#xA;* the additional claim of &quot;encoding the hyperlink so that it is inaudible&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;* the additional claim of &quot;encoding the hyperlink so that it is audible&quot; (via EP1049320 claim 11, &quot;including in the audio data object (1006) a human-perceptible indicium...&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;* the additional claim of where the metadata &quot;contains information about the audio stream&quot; (since EP1049320 claim 14 proposes including an icon in the audio stream whose purpose is to provide information about the stream -- i.e. that it contains a link).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4754" RevisionGUID="070235d1-f017-4a4f-9bb2-92de48eb08fd" CreationDate="2013-08-09T13:26:20.110" UserId="5448" Text="See: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fundamentals of database systems (2nd ed.)&#xD;&#xA;Authors: 	Ramez Elmasri 	Univ. of Texas, Arlington&#xD;&#xA;	Shamkant B. Navathe 	Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta&#xD;&#xA;Publication:&#xD;&#xA;· Book 	&#xD;&#xA;Fundamentals of database systems (2nd ed.)&#xD;&#xA;Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Co., Inc. Redwood City, CA, USA ©1994&#xD;&#xA;ISBN:0-8053-1748-1 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chapter 22, Page 688 shows a sample object oriented class accessing its data from a relational database. Published 1994. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4757" RevisionGUID="08395997-32a9-45fd-b4f7-7ac9299aff24" CreationDate="2013-08-09T17:24:47.010" UserId="5450" Text="Lodsys have been using this patent to sue app developers for damages relating to the use of In-App Purchases. According to [this site][2], the patent expired 6th August 2013 due to a terminal disclaimer linked to [another patent they hold][3]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the expiration date correct? If it is, does this mean any new app that uses the In-App Purchase method is not infringing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google Patents US 7,222,078][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US7222078&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US5999908&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://aeonlaw.com/in-app-purchase-patent/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11306" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4757" RevisionGUID="08395997-32a9-45fd-b4f7-7ac9299aff24" CreationDate="2013-08-09T17:24:47.010" UserId="5450" Text="When does US Patent 7,222,078 expire?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11307" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4757" RevisionGUID="08395997-32a9-45fd-b4f7-7ac9299aff24" CreationDate="2013-08-09T17:24:47.010" UserId="5450" Text="&lt;us7222078&gt;&lt;lodsys&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4760" RevisionGUID="44c1b97f-192a-410b-a0e2-1b946f49adb1" CreationDate="2013-08-09T19:49:04.607" UserId="3821" Text="# 1 an improvement of a method for motion compensated prediction of the current video frame #&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In a method of operating on a video sequence, said video sequence being formed of at least a current video frame and a reference video frame, the current video frame comprising at least one first neighboring segment and a second neighboring segment, an improvement of a method for motion compensated prediction of the current video frame comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;retrieving a previously stored first motion field model, said first motion field model being a model of a first motion vector field describing the displacements of pixels in the first neighboring segment with respect to pixels in the reference video frame;&#xD;&#xA;determining a second motion vector field describing displacements of pixels in the second neighboring segment of the current video frame with respect to pixels in the reference video frame;&#xD;&#xA;modeling said second motion vector field using a motion model to form a second motion field model;&#xD;&#xA;approximating said second motion field model on the basis of said first motion field model to form a prediction field model;&#xD;&#xA;comparing said second motion field model with said prediction field model and forming a refinement field model, said refinement field model representing the difference between said second motion field model and said prediction field model;&#xD;&#xA;constructing an alternative:model representation of said second motion field model by making a summation of said prediction field model and said refinement field model;&#xD;&#xA;calculating a first cost function wherein said first cost function includes a measure of a first image distortion incurred and a measure of a first amount of data required when using said second motion field model;&#xD;&#xA;calculating a second cost function wherein said second cost function includes a measure of a second image distortion incurred and a measure of a second amount of data required when using said alternative model representation of said second motion field;&#xD;&#xA;comparing said first and second cost functions and determining which of said first and second cost functions has a smaller absolute value; and&#xD;&#xA;choosing that alternate one of said second motion field model and said alternative model representation of said second motion vector field associated with said smaller absolute value to indicate a chosen motion field model and storing said chosen motion field model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 25 A method of encoding a video sequence comprising a plurality of video frames #&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;forming a first motion field model for a segment of a current video frame of the video sequence using motion-compensated prediction with respect to a previously-encoded frame of the video sequence;&#xD;&#xA;forming a prediction motion field model for the segment of the current video frame based on a motion field model determined for an adjacent previously-encoded segment of the current frame;&#xD;&#xA;determining a difference between the first motion field model for the segment and the prediction motion field model for the segment to obtain refinement information for the segment;&#xD;&#xA;defining a second motion field model for the segment of the current frame as a combination of the prediction motion field model and the refinement information;&#xD;&#xA;calculating a cost function for the first and respectively the second motion field model, the cost function for a given one of the first and second motion field models taking into account both the amount of information required to represent the motion field model and the amount of image distortion introduced by using the motion field model to encode said segment of the current frame;&#xD;&#xA;choosing either the first motion field model or the second motion field model as the motion field model for the segment based at least in part on the calculated cost functions for the first and respectively the second motion field model; and&#xD;&#xA;encoding the segment of the current frame using the chosen motion field model to form encoded information for the segment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 41 A video encoder for encoding a video sequence comprising a plurality of video frames #&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said video encoder comprising:&#xD;&#xA;means for forming a first motion field model for a segment of a current video frame of the video sequence using motion-compensated prediction with respect to a previously-encoded frame of the video sequence;&#xD;&#xA;means for forming a prediction motion field model for the segment of the current video frame based on a motion field model determined for an adjacent previously-encoded segment of the current frame;&#xD;&#xA;means for determining a difference between the first motion field model for the segment and the prediction motion field model for the segment to obtain refinement information for the segment;&#xD;&#xA;means for defining a second motion field model for the segment of the current frame as a combination of the prediction motion field model and the refinement information;&#xD;&#xA;means for calculating a cost function for the first and respectively the second motion field model, the cost function for a given one of the first and second motion field models taking into account both the amount of information required to represent the motion field model and the amount of image distortion introduced by using the motion field model to encode said segment of the current frame;&#xD;&#xA;means for choosing either the first motion field model or the second motion field model as the motion field model for the segment based at least in part on the calculated cost functions for the first and respectively the second motion field model; and&#xD;&#xA;means for encoding the segment of the current frame using the chosen motion field model to form encoded information for the segment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11321" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4760" RevisionGUID="44c1b97f-192a-410b-a0e2-1b946f49adb1" CreationDate="2013-08-09T19:49:04.607" UserId="3821" Text="Forming a compressed motion vector field utilizing predictive motion coding 6735249" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11322" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4760" RevisionGUID="44c1b97f-192a-410b-a0e2-1b946f49adb1" CreationDate="2013-08-09T19:49:04.607" UserId="3821" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;webm&gt;&lt;nokia&gt;&lt;us6735249&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11323" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3837" RevisionGUID="245cff6f-d4ca-465f-a2be-5605d98a6c52" CreationDate="2013-08-09T19:50:37.410" UserId="3821" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;webm&gt;&lt;nokia&gt;&lt;us6504873&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3837" RevisionGUID="0b2e86ff-f184-458e-b925-e7d05c75d49c" CreationDate="2013-08-09T22:57:59.757" UserId="1767" Comment="added 23 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Seeking Prior Art on Nokia patent [US6504873][3]&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Analysis of a Nokia patent ([US6504873][3]) which they claim WebM infringes upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Groklaw did [some analysis][1] that reduced their 64 patents worldwide down to a dozen US patents. [This][2] post (in the comments of the Groklaw post) lays out the independent claims of each patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 1 A method of filtering a received digital video picture #&#xD;&#xA;## TL;DR Video filter that averages pixels on the edge of adjacent video sub-blocks. ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in which said digital video picture comprises video blocks, each video block comprising a certain amount of individual video pixels each video pixel having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, and in which video picture a first video block and a second video block located adjacent to the first video block define a boundary therebetween, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frames of the video are subdivided into a grid and given a number. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;selecting a first video pixel from the first video block in such a way that the first video pixel is located at the boundary in the first video block to obtain a first boundary video pixel selecting a second video pixel from the second video block in such a way that the second video pixel is located at the boundary in the second video block to obtain a second boundary video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pixels in different sub-squares are adjacent &quot;boundary&quot; pixels. If the boundary is 0 then those pixels would be at -1,1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;selecting a first reference video pixel in the first video block and a second reference video pixel in the second video block, the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being other than the first boundary video pixel and the second boundary video pixel and the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being placed closer to a central portion of each of said video blocks than the respective boundary video pixel, in such a way that the reference video pixels and the boundary video pixels are situated on a straight line, the straight line being transverse to the boundary, drawn from the first reference video pixel to the second reference video pixel, wherein the first and the second boundary video pixels are located between the first and the second reference video pixels on the straight line,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Select neighbor pixels (-2,2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;defining a linear equation, using the numerical values of the reference video pixels, the linear equation giving as a solution a numerical reference value to each boundary video pixel on said straight line&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Figure out an equation that will take the neighbor pixels and produce the boundary pixels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;filtering at least one boundary video pixel by adjusting the numerical value of the at least one boundary video pixel towards the reference value of the at least one boundary video pixel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Averaging the boundary pixels using above equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;of the at least one&quot; makes this a nonsensical statement but software patents are nonsensical anyway, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 10 A terminal device for filtering a received digital video picture, #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One sentence: A device that implements the filter in claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  which said digital video picture comprises video blocks, each video block comprises a certain amount of individual video pixels, each video pixel having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, in which video picture a first video block and a second video block located adjacent the first video block define a boundary therebetween, and the terminal device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A device which filters video. Frames of the video are subdivided into a grid and given a number. Pixels in different sub-squares are adjacent &quot;boundary&quot; pixels. If the boundary is 0 then those pixels would be at -1,1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for selecting a first video pixel from the first video block in such a way that the first video pixel is located at the boundary in the first video block to obtain a first boundary video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for selecting a second video pixel from the second video block in such a way that the second video pixel is located at the boundary in the second video block to obtain a second boundary video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for selecting a first reference video pixel in the first video block and a second reference video pixel in the second video block, the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being other than the first boundary video pixel and the second boundary video pixel and the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being placed closer to a central portion of each of said video blocks than the respective boundary video pixel, in such a way that the reference video pixels and the boundary video pixels are situated on a straight line, the straight line being transverse to the boundary, drawn from the first reference video pixel to the second reference video pixel, wherein the first and the second boundary video pixels are located between the first and the second reference video pixels on the straight line,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for defining a linear equation using the numerical values of the reference video pixels, the linear equation giving as a solution a numerical reference value to each boundary video pixel on said straight line, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for filtering at least one boundary video pixel by adjusting the numerical value of the at least one boundary video pixel towards the reference value of the at least one boundary video pixel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; 11 A terminal device according to the claim 10, wherein the receiver terminal comprises receiving means for receiving the video picture via a mobile communication network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A *mobile* device that implements the filter in claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &gt; 12 A filtering method according to claim 10, wherein the reference value of each boundary video pixel is computed as a function of the location of the boundary video pixel on the straight line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 13. A method of filtering a received video picture, in which #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The filter in claim 1 is used based on the activity in the pixels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a digital video picture is received, the video picture comprising video blocks, each video block comprising a certain amount of individual video pixels, each video pixel having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, and in which video picture a first video block and a second video block located adjacent the first video block define a boundary therebetween,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a first video pixel from the first video block and a second video pixel from a second video block are selected in such a way that they are adjacent each other on the opposite sides of the boundary, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the first video pixel and the second video pixel are filtered, wherein&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a first reference video pixel is selected in the first video block and a second reference video pixel is selected in the second video block in such a way that the first reference pixel, the first video pixel, the second video pixel and the second reference pixel are situated on a straight line, perpendicular to the boundary, drawn from the first reference video pixel to the second reference video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a linear equation is defined, the linear equation giving as a solution a numerical reference value to each pixel on said straight line as a function of the location of the pixel on said straight line, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the filtering is performed by adjusting the numerical value of the first video pixel towards its reference value, and by adjusting the numerical value of the second video pixel towards its reference value, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; further wherein a decision on whether the filtering method is used or not and for which video pixels the filtering is used is done on basis of activity inside the first video block, activity inside the second video block and activity at the boundary between the first video block and the second video block, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein, the decision is based on the following equation IF activityINactivityEDGEMQUANT	AND	activityINTHRESHOLDIN TRUE &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  in which&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; activityIN is the variance inside the video block one and the video block two,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; activityEDGE is the variance over the edge between the adjacent video block one and video block two, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; THRESHOLDIN is a Threshold value, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MQUANT is a quantizer value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 14 A method of filtering a received digital video picture #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applying the filter from claim one but towards more central pixels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in which said digital video picture is coded into video blocks, each video block comprising a certain amount of individual video pixels, each of said video pixels having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, and in which video picture, a first video block is located adjacent to a second video block to define a boundary therebetween, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selecting a first reference video pixel in the first video block and a second reference video pixel in the second video block, the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being displaced away from said boundary towards a central portion of each of said video blocks, said reference video pixels defining a straight line of video pixels transverse to said boundary, between said first reference video pixel and said second reference video pixel, wherein said straight line includes at least a first and a second adjustment video pixel located between the first and the second reference video pixels and said boundary;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; defining a linear equation representing a video pixel value reference ine transverse to said boundary, said linear equation defined relative to the change in pixel values from said first reference pixel in said first video block to said second reference pixel in said second video block;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adjusting the numerical value of said at least first and second adjustment video pixels towards said pixel value reference line according to the position of said at least first and second adjustment video pixels from said boundary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130324162902177&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&amp;sid=20130324162902177&amp;title=Listing%20Independent%20Claims%20per%20Patent&amp;type=article&amp;order=&amp;hideanonymous=0&amp;pid=1037020#c1038325&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6504873" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11325" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3837" RevisionGUID="0b2e86ff-f184-458e-b925-e7d05c75d49c" CreationDate="2013-08-09T22:57:59.757" UserId="1767" Comment="added 23 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Video Encoding - Filtering Based on Activities Inside Video Blocks (Nokia) - Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11326" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3837" RevisionGUID="0b2e86ff-f184-458e-b925-e7d05c75d49c" CreationDate="2013-08-09T22:57:59.757" UserId="1767" Comment="added 23 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;nokia&gt;&lt;us6504873&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4760" RevisionGUID="ae74a403-88a1-4598-a8b0-1fb3ca493aeb" CreationDate="2013-08-09T23:04:00.893" UserId="1767" Comment="added 293 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Seeking Prior Art on Nokia patent [US6735249][3]&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Priority Date**:  Seeking Prior Art from before **Aug 11, 1999**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** Improvement of a method for motion compensated prediction of the current video frame &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In a method of operating on a video sequence, said video sequence being formed of at least a current video frame and a reference video frame, the current video frame comprising at least one first neighboring segment and a second neighboring segment, an improvement of a method for motion compensated prediction of the current video frame comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Retrieving a previously stored first motion field model, said first motion field model being a model of a first motion vector field describing the displacements of pixels in the first neighboring segment with respect to pixels in the reference video frame;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining a second motion vector field describing displacements of pixels in the second neighboring segment of the current video frame with respect to pixels in the reference video frame;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. modeling said second motion vector field using a motion model to form a second motion field model;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. approximating said second motion field model on the basis of said first motion field model to form a prediction field model;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. comparing said second motion field model with said prediction field model and forming a refinement field model, said refinement field model representing the difference between said second motion field model and said prediction field model;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. constructing an alternative:model representation of said second motion field model by making a summation of said prediction field model and said refinement field model;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. calculating a first cost function wherein said first cost function includes a measure of a first image distortion incurred and a measure of a first amount of data required when using said second motion field model;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. calculating a second cost function wherein said second cost function includes a measure of a second image distortion incurred and a measure of a second amount of data required when using said alternative model representation of said second motion field;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9. comparing said first and second cost functions and determining which of said first and second cost functions has a smaller absolute value; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10. choosing that alternate one of said second motion field model and said alternative model representation of said second motion vector field associated with said smaller absolute value to indicate a chosen motion field model and storing said chosen motion field model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 25**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of encoding a video sequence comprising a plurality of video frames said method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. forming a first motion field model for a segment of a current video frame of the video sequence using motion-compensated prediction with respect to a previously-encoded frame of the video sequence;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. forming a prediction motion field model for the segment of the current video frame based on a motion field model determined for an adjacent previously-encoded segment of the current frame;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining a difference between the first motion field model for the segment and the prediction motion field model for the segment to obtain refinement information for the segment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. defining a second motion field model for the segment of the current frame as a combination of the prediction motion field model and the refinement information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. calculating a cost function for the first and respectively the second motion field model, the cost function for a given one of the first and second motion field models taking into account both the amount of information required to represent the motion field model and the amount of image distortion introduced by using the motion field model to encode said segment of the current frame;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. choosing either the first motion field model or the second motion field model as the motion field model for the segment based at least in part on the calculated cost functions for the first and respectively the second motion field model; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. encoding the segment of the current frame using the chosen motion field model to form encoded information for the segment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 45**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A video encoder for encoding a video sequence comprising a plurality of video frames,  said video encoder comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. means for forming a first motion field model for a segment of a current video frame of the video sequence using motion-compensated prediction with respect to a previously-encoded frame of the video sequence;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. means for forming a prediction motion field model for the segment of the current video frame based on a motion field model determined for an adjacent previously-encoded segment of the current frame;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. means for determining a difference between the first motion field model for the segment and the prediction motion field model for the segment to obtain refinement information for the segment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. means for defining a second motion field model for the segment of the current frame as a combination of the prediction motion field model and the refinement information;&#xD;&#xA;means for calculating a cost function for the first and respectively the second motion field model, the cost function for a given one of the first and second motion field models taking into account both the amount of information required to represent the motion field model and the amount of image distortion introduced by using the motion field model to encode said segment of the current frame;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. means for choosing either the first motion field model or the second motion field model as the motion field model for the segment based at least in part on the calculated cost functions for the first and respectively the second motion field model; and&#xD;&#xA;means for encoding the segment of the current frame using the chosen motion field model to form encoded information for the segment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6735249?dq=6735249" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11328" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4760" RevisionGUID="ae74a403-88a1-4598-a8b0-1fb3ca493aeb" CreationDate="2013-08-09T23:04:00.893" UserId="1767" Comment="added 293 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Video Encoding - Compressed motion vector field utilizing predictive motion coding (Nokia) - Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11329" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4760" RevisionGUID="ae74a403-88a1-4598-a8b0-1fb3ca493aeb" CreationDate="2013-08-09T23:04:00.893" UserId="1767" Comment="added 293 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;nokia&gt;&lt;us6735249&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3837" RevisionGUID="afedaf45-d33c-4d15-a258-6481736d43b1" CreationDate="2013-08-09T23:05:22.930" UserId="1767" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="Seeking Prior Art on Nokia patent [US6504873][3]&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Priority Date**:  Seeking Prior Art from before **Jun 13, 1997**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Analysis of a Nokia patent ([US6504873][3]) which they claim WebM infringes upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Groklaw did [some analysis][1] that reduced their 64 patents worldwide down to a dozen US patents. [This][2] post (in the comments of the Groklaw post) lays out the independent claims of each patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 1 A method of filtering a received digital video picture #&#xD;&#xA;## TL;DR Video filter that averages pixels on the edge of adjacent video sub-blocks. ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in which said digital video picture comprises video blocks, each video block comprising a certain amount of individual video pixels each video pixel having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, and in which video picture a first video block and a second video block located adjacent to the first video block define a boundary therebetween, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frames of the video are subdivided into a grid and given a number. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;selecting a first video pixel from the first video block in such a way that the first video pixel is located at the boundary in the first video block to obtain a first boundary video pixel selecting a second video pixel from the second video block in such a way that the second video pixel is located at the boundary in the second video block to obtain a second boundary video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pixels in different sub-squares are adjacent &quot;boundary&quot; pixels. If the boundary is 0 then those pixels would be at -1,1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;selecting a first reference video pixel in the first video block and a second reference video pixel in the second video block, the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being other than the first boundary video pixel and the second boundary video pixel and the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being placed closer to a central portion of each of said video blocks than the respective boundary video pixel, in such a way that the reference video pixels and the boundary video pixels are situated on a straight line, the straight line being transverse to the boundary, drawn from the first reference video pixel to the second reference video pixel, wherein the first and the second boundary video pixels are located between the first and the second reference video pixels on the straight line,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Select neighbor pixels (-2,2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;defining a linear equation, using the numerical values of the reference video pixels, the linear equation giving as a solution a numerical reference value to each boundary video pixel on said straight line&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Figure out an equation that will take the neighbor pixels and produce the boundary pixels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;filtering at least one boundary video pixel by adjusting the numerical value of the at least one boundary video pixel towards the reference value of the at least one boundary video pixel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Averaging the boundary pixels using above equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;of the at least one&quot; makes this a nonsensical statement but software patents are nonsensical anyway, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 10 A terminal device for filtering a received digital video picture, #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One sentence: A device that implements the filter in claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  which said digital video picture comprises video blocks, each video block comprises a certain amount of individual video pixels, each video pixel having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, in which video picture a first video block and a second video block located adjacent the first video block define a boundary therebetween, and the terminal device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A device which filters video. Frames of the video are subdivided into a grid and given a number. Pixels in different sub-squares are adjacent &quot;boundary&quot; pixels. If the boundary is 0 then those pixels would be at -1,1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for selecting a first video pixel from the first video block in such a way that the first video pixel is located at the boundary in the first video block to obtain a first boundary video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for selecting a second video pixel from the second video block in such a way that the second video pixel is located at the boundary in the second video block to obtain a second boundary video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for selecting a first reference video pixel in the first video block and a second reference video pixel in the second video block, the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being other than the first boundary video pixel and the second boundary video pixel and the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being placed closer to a central portion of each of said video blocks than the respective boundary video pixel, in such a way that the reference video pixels and the boundary video pixels are situated on a straight line, the straight line being transverse to the boundary, drawn from the first reference video pixel to the second reference video pixel, wherein the first and the second boundary video pixels are located between the first and the second reference video pixels on the straight line,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for defining a linear equation using the numerical values of the reference video pixels, the linear equation giving as a solution a numerical reference value to each boundary video pixel on said straight line, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for filtering at least one boundary video pixel by adjusting the numerical value of the at least one boundary video pixel towards the reference value of the at least one boundary video pixel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; 11 A terminal device according to the claim 10, wherein the receiver terminal comprises receiving means for receiving the video picture via a mobile communication network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A *mobile* device that implements the filter in claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &gt; 12 A filtering method according to claim 10, wherein the reference value of each boundary video pixel is computed as a function of the location of the boundary video pixel on the straight line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 13. A method of filtering a received video picture, in which #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The filter in claim 1 is used based on the activity in the pixels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a digital video picture is received, the video picture comprising video blocks, each video block comprising a certain amount of individual video pixels, each video pixel having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, and in which video picture a first video block and a second video block located adjacent the first video block define a boundary therebetween,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a first video pixel from the first video block and a second video pixel from a second video block are selected in such a way that they are adjacent each other on the opposite sides of the boundary, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the first video pixel and the second video pixel are filtered, wherein&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a first reference video pixel is selected in the first video block and a second reference video pixel is selected in the second video block in such a way that the first reference pixel, the first video pixel, the second video pixel and the second reference pixel are situated on a straight line, perpendicular to the boundary, drawn from the first reference video pixel to the second reference video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a linear equation is defined, the linear equation giving as a solution a numerical reference value to each pixel on said straight line as a function of the location of the pixel on said straight line, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the filtering is performed by adjusting the numerical value of the first video pixel towards its reference value, and by adjusting the numerical value of the second video pixel towards its reference value, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; further wherein a decision on whether the filtering method is used or not and for which video pixels the filtering is used is done on basis of activity inside the first video block, activity inside the second video block and activity at the boundary between the first video block and the second video block, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein, the decision is based on the following equation IF activityINactivityEDGEMQUANT	AND	activityINTHRESHOLDIN TRUE &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  in which&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; activityIN is the variance inside the video block one and the video block two,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; activityEDGE is the variance over the edge between the adjacent video block one and video block two, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; THRESHOLDIN is a Threshold value, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MQUANT is a quantizer value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 14 A method of filtering a received digital video picture #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applying the filter from claim one but towards more central pixels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in which said digital video picture is coded into video blocks, each video block comprising a certain amount of individual video pixels, each of said video pixels having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, and in which video picture, a first video block is located adjacent to a second video block to define a boundary therebetween, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selecting a first reference video pixel in the first video block and a second reference video pixel in the second video block, the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being displaced away from said boundary towards a central portion of each of said video blocks, said reference video pixels defining a straight line of video pixels transverse to said boundary, between said first reference video pixel and said second reference video pixel, wherein said straight line includes at least a first and a second adjustment video pixel located between the first and the second reference video pixels and said boundary;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; defining a linear equation representing a video pixel value reference ine transverse to said boundary, said linear equation defined relative to the change in pixel values from said first reference pixel in said first video block to said second reference pixel in said second video block;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adjusting the numerical value of said at least first and second adjustment video pixels towards said pixel value reference line according to the position of said at least first and second adjustment video pixels from said boundary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130324162902177&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&amp;sid=20130324162902177&amp;title=Listing%20Independent%20Claims%20per%20Patent&amp;type=article&amp;order=&amp;hideanonymous=0&amp;pid=1037020#c1038325&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6504873" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4752" RevisionGUID="198fa007-d8ff-4414-b5d3-22c113295d74" CreationDate="2013-08-09T23:23:03.893" UserId="1767" Comment="added 131 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Seeking Prior Art on US Patent [US 2010030834][1]&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Priority Date**:  Seeking Prior Art from before **Aug 1, 2008**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Isn't this application [US 20100030834][1] trying to get a patent on half/partial carries?  This technique has been used in many microprocessor since the early 70's...  Also, the application has this jewel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;One conventional algorithm for performing BCD calculations involves processing the addition on a nibble-by-nibble basis (a nibble is made up of four binary bits), starting with the least significant nibble (corresponding to the least significant decimal digit), and proceeding to the most significant nibble one nibble at a time.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is not even true for many of simplest 8-bit processors available.  Take the venerable 8051 for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mov a, bcd_x ; load a two nibble bcd number&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;add a, bcd_y ; add another two nibble bcd number&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;daa ; The decimal adjust instruction that uses the half carry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mov bcd_r, a ; The two nibble result is stored in bcd_r, with carry indicating overflow&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://google.com/patents/us20100030834" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11336" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4752" RevisionGUID="198fa007-d8ff-4414-b5d3-22c113295d74" CreationDate="2013-08-09T23:23:03.893" UserId="1767" Comment="added 131 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Binary Coded Decimal (BCD) Calculation - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11337" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4752" RevisionGUID="198fa007-d8ff-4414-b5d3-22c113295d74" CreationDate="2013-08-09T23:23:03.893" UserId="1767" Comment="added 131 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;us20100030834&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4757" RevisionGUID="85c764cd-3850-47b4-8d89-6a93e75c07d7" CreationDate="2013-08-09T23:26:29.020" UserId="5450" Comment="edited body" Text="Lodsys have been using this patent to sue app developers for damages relating to the use of In-App Purchases. According to [this site][2], the patent expired 6th August 2012 due to a terminal disclaimer linked to [another patent they hold][3]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the expiration date correct? If it is, does this mean any new app that uses the In-App Purchase method is not infringing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google Patents US 7,222,078][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US7222078&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US5999908&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://aeonlaw.com/in-app-purchase-patent/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4761" RevisionGUID="0deefe7e-7dc8-45a9-81f9-bbd7ad7819e2" CreationDate="2013-08-09T23:37:12.280" UserId="1767" Text="[US 2010030834][1]&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Title:  &quot;Performing A Binary Coded Decimal (BCD) Calculation&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that according to [Public PAIR][2] the patent was allowed by USPTO on July 19, 2013. Under the AIA it is not be possible to submit prior art under the pre-grant process used by Ask Patents. Prior art which is found below would need to submitted under the six-month post-grant process or the ex-parte rexamination process. (This could be done by a company or an individual.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is very important to look at the [**Claims**][8] of the Patent rather than Abstract or the Title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the claims which were allowed **are substantially narrower** than the claims listed on the [Google Patent page][1] for this application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the allowed Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Currently Amended) A method of performing a binary-coded decimal (BCD) addition, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, in a process, first and second values on which the BCD addition is to be performed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Adding the first value to sequence of constant digits to produce a modified first value;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Adding the modified first value and the second value to produce a sum having BCD digits;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining which of the BCD digits of the sum is not associated with a carry, wherein the determining comprises performing an operation on the modified first value, the second value, and the sum, and using a result of the operation to identify which of the BCD digits of the sum is not associated with a carry;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Storing a carry resulting from the adding of the modified first value and the second value in a flag register of the processor, where the carry stored in the flag register is a value to be transferred to a next most significant BCD digit; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Using the carry stored in the flag register to compute a result of the BCD addition; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Subtracting corresponding constant digits from BCD digits of the result of the BCD addition for those BCD digits of the result that are not associated with a carry as identified by the determining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see this on [Public Pair][4].  I recommend you search by the Publication Number &quot;US 20100030834 A1&quot; not by the Application Number.  You'll want to look at the [&quot;Image File Wrapper&quot;][7] section of the record:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://google.com/patents/us20100030834&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/z3MnB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/1JBPG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/RXvf6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.ehow.com/about_6192310_patent-file-wrapper_.html&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.danshapiro.com/blog/2010/09/how-to-read-a-patent-in-60-second/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4762" RevisionGUID="aea0b88c-058e-4cec-ad94-24c12502c414" CreationDate="2013-08-10T03:17:18.553" UserId="5455" Text="Why do the patents on google patents contain 's1' after the patent number&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g.,&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/USD678656&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;USPTO doesn't seem to have S1:&#xD;&#xA;http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=D678656.PN.&amp;OS=PN/D678656&amp;RS=PN/D678656&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11342" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4762" RevisionGUID="aea0b88c-058e-4cec-ad94-24c12502c414" CreationDate="2013-08-10T03:17:18.553" UserId="5455" Text="why do google patents contain s1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11343" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4762" RevisionGUID="aea0b88c-058e-4cec-ad94-24c12502c414" CreationDate="2013-08-10T03:17:18.553" UserId="5455" Text="&lt;number&gt;&lt;usd678656&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4763" RevisionGUID="2d3807cf-7775-4014-b21d-f8926c8b3e9f" CreationDate="2013-08-10T03:26:34.470" UserId="5455" Text="Why does the google patent site show fewer drawings than listed in the patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see this has 9 images of drawings:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/USD678656&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while the actual patent has much more - 21:&#xD;&#xA;http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=D678656.PN.&amp;OS=PN/D678656&amp;RS=PN/D678656" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11345" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4763" RevisionGUID="2d3807cf-7775-4014-b21d-f8926c8b3e9f" CreationDate="2013-08-10T03:26:34.470" UserId="5455" Text="patent has more drawings than images shown on google" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11346" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4763" RevisionGUID="2d3807cf-7775-4014-b21d-f8926c8b3e9f" CreationDate="2013-08-10T03:26:34.470" UserId="5455" Text="&lt;specification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4764" RevisionGUID="384ad2a7-5f13-4d0c-beaf-8c81d1f122d8" CreationDate="2013-08-10T04:44:37.770" UserId="5456" Text="In addition to what Paul described above, Avrim Blum and Tom Mitchell, both at CMU, used similar techniques to extract data from web pages.  Their work is first described in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Blum, A., Mitchell, T. Combining labeled and unlabeled data with co-training. COLT: Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Learning Theory, Morgan Kaufmann, 1998, p. 92-100.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This paper does not explicitly mention using visual layout features, but they did later use such features in their work at FlipDog, where they extracted resumes and job listings from web pages in order to populate a new job finder site.  I recall this from a talk I attended in 2000, and the technology is described in this 2005 article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Andrew McCallum. 2005. Information Extraction: Distilling Structured Data from Unstructured Text. Queue 3, 9 (November 2005), 48-57.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1181&amp;context=compsci&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1105664.1105679" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4765" RevisionGUID="67530c6f-cad0-477a-a0e0-efe9ec7b9ecd" CreationDate="2013-08-10T07:45:18.053" UserId="5457" Text="Sonic notify's app in the App Store has the same function and was first launched in November 2011. &#xD;&#xA;https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/sonic-experiences/id482951704?mt=8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4767" RevisionGUID="ee7b1ef5-5dfa-4191-82fe-53c4e6fb6b04" CreationDate="2013-08-10T15:30:04.863" UserId="4338" Text="This sure looks a lot like MPEG-1 video compression which was a publicly available standard in 1991. [Here's the spec](http://cutebugs.net/files/mpeg-drafts/11172-3.pdf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MPEG-1 included some of the following (text copied from [Wikipedia's MPEG-1 Article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-1#Frame.2Fpicture.2Fblock_types)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*P-frames exist to improve compression by exploiting the temporal (over time) redundancy in a video. P-frames store only the difference in image from the frame (either an I-frame or P-frame) immediately preceding it (this reference frame is also called the anchor frame).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it looks like Claim 1 is just choosing the better of two P-frames. This is actually done in MPEG-1 (and other codecs) automatically and/or manually by altering the bitrate/quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 25 and 45 appear to be little more than weak extrapolations of Claim 1 regarding selecting results and creating them. For this I believe looking at any video editing software that offered multiple &quot;Save As...&quot; or &quot;Export As...&quot; formatting options will suffice. Adobe Premiere has done this since 1991..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4760" RevisionGUID="7bbc4454-40aa-4520-ae8a-14ef705c0e91" CreationDate="2013-08-10T16:55:17.007" UserId="3821" Comment="Translated into plain english." Text="Seeking Prior Art on Nokia patent [US6735249][3]&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Priority Date**:  Seeking Prior Art from before **Aug 11, 1999**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** Improvement of a method for motion compensated prediction of the current video frame &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In a method of operating on a video sequence, said video sequence being formed of at least a current video frame and a reference video frame, the current video frame comprising at least one first neighboring segment and a second neighboring segment, an improvement of a method for motion compensated prediction of the current video frame comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Improving compression between two &quot;video frames&quot; by looking at how pixels move.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Retrieving a previously stored first motion field model, said first motion field model being a model of a first motion vector field describing the displacements of pixels in the first neighboring segment with respect to pixels in the reference video frame;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at how the pixels moved in a specific location in the frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining a second motion vector field describing displacements of pixels in the second neighboring segment of the current video frame with respect to pixels in the reference video frame;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at how the pixels moved in a neighboring location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. modeling said second motion vector field using a motion model to form a second motion field model;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. approximating said second motion field model on the basis of said first motion field model to form a prediction field model;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare how the pixels in the first area moved to how pixels in the neighboring location moved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. comparing said second motion field model with said prediction field model and forming a refinement field model, said refinement field model representing the difference between said second motion field model and said prediction field model;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Figure out the difference between how pixels moved in the two locations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. constructing an alternative:model representation of said second motion field model by making a summation of said prediction field model and said refinement field model;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. calculating a first cost function wherein said first cost function includes a measure of a first image distortion incurred and a measure of a first amount of data required when using said second motion field model;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. calculating a second cost function wherein said second cost function includes a measure of a second image distortion incurred and a measure of a second amount of data required when using said alternative model representation of said second motion field;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9. comparing said first and second cost functions and determining which of said first and second cost functions has a smaller absolute value; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10. choosing that alternate one of said second motion field model and said alternative model representation of said second motion vector field associated with said smaller absolute value to indicate a chosen motion field model and storing said chosen motion field model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Figure out if storing the how pixels moved in both locations is smaller than storing the difference between how they moved. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 25**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same compression of pixel movement information but storing the difference frames instead of between segments within a frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of encoding a video sequence comprising a plurality of video frames said method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. forming a first motion field model for a segment of a current video frame of the video sequence using motion-compensated prediction with respect to a previously-encoded frame of the video sequence;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. forming a prediction motion field model for the segment of the current video frame based on a motion field model determined for an adjacent previously-encoded segment of the current frame;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining a difference between the first motion field model for the segment and the prediction motion field model for the segment to obtain refinement information for the segment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. defining a second motion field model for the segment of the current frame as a combination of the prediction motion field model and the refinement information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. calculating a cost function for the first and respectively the second motion field model, the cost function for a given one of the first and second motion field models taking into account both the amount of information required to represent the motion field model and the amount of image distortion introduced by using the motion field model to encode said segment of the current frame;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. choosing either the first motion field model or the second motion field model as the motion field model for the segment based at least in part on the calculated cost functions for the first and respectively the second motion field model; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. encoding the segment of the current frame using the chosen motion field model to form encoded information for the segment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 45**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A video encoder that uses the two compression schemes above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A video encoder for encoding a video sequence comprising a plurality of video frames,  said video encoder comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. means for forming a first motion field model for a segment of a current video frame of the video sequence using motion-compensated prediction with respect to a previously-encoded frame of the video sequence;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. means for forming a prediction motion field model for the segment of the current video frame based on a motion field model determined for an adjacent previously-encoded segment of the current frame;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. means for determining a difference between the first motion field model for the segment and the prediction motion field model for the segment to obtain refinement information for the segment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. means for defining a second motion field model for the segment of the current frame as a combination of the prediction motion field model and the refinement information;&#xD;&#xA;means for calculating a cost function for the first and respectively the second motion field model, the cost function for a given one of the first and second motion field models taking into account both the amount of information required to represent the motion field model and the amount of image distortion introduced by using the motion field model to encode said segment of the current frame;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. means for choosing either the first motion field model or the second motion field model as the motion field model for the segment based at least in part on the calculated cost functions for the first and respectively the second motion field model; and&#xD;&#xA;means for encoding the segment of the current frame using the chosen motion field model to form encoded information for the segment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6735249?dq=6735249" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4767" RevisionGUID="91738144-e805-489b-a1f9-7f0da518f1ef" CreationDate="2013-08-10T17:45:56.557" UserId="3821" Comment="Added fractal encoding reference" Text="This sure looks a lot like MPEG-1 video compression which was a publicly available standard in 1991. [Here's the spec](http://cutebugs.net/files/mpeg-drafts/11172-3.pdf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MPEG-1 included some of the following (text copied from [Wikipedia's MPEG-1 Article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-1#Frame.2Fpicture.2Fblock_types)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*P-frames exist to improve compression by exploiting the temporal (over time) redundancy in a video. P-frames store only the difference in image from the frame (either an I-frame or P-frame) immediately preceding it (this reference frame is also called the anchor frame).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it looks like Claim 1 just segments a P-frame and calculates a diff.  Claim 25 extrapolates the segmentation to two P-frames.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Fractal encoding](http://www.google.com/patents/US4941193) predates this &quot;video segmentation&quot; patent by over a decade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;45 appear to be little more than weak extrapolations of the other two regarding selecting results and creating them. For this I believe looking at any video editing software that offered multiple &quot;Save As...&quot; or &quot;Export As...&quot; formatting options will suffice. Adobe Premiere has done this since 1991..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11356" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4767" RevisionGUID="91738144-e805-489b-a1f9-7f0da518f1ef" CreationDate="2013-08-10T17:45:56.557" Comment="Proposed by 3821 approved by 4338 edit id of 421" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11357" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4760" RevisionGUID="23942093-cd53-45cb-8376-e432ad97f915" CreationDate="2013-08-10T19:59:04.390" UserId="3821" Comment="added webm tag" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;us6735249&gt;&lt;webm&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11358" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3837" RevisionGUID="a74b0421-9899-4397-957c-b5dd12e62873" CreationDate="2013-08-10T20:01:08.960" UserId="3821" Comment="added webm tag, cleaned title" Text="Filtering Based on Activities Inside Video Blocks (Nokia) - Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11359" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3837" RevisionGUID="a74b0421-9899-4397-957c-b5dd12e62873" CreationDate="2013-08-10T20:01:08.960" UserId="3821" Comment="added webm tag, cleaned title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;webm&gt;&lt;us6504873&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4768" RevisionGUID="65523919-ee51-4456-b671-0f9374623ea1" CreationDate="2013-08-10T21:05:37.543" UserId="3821" Text="&gt; 1 A method of decoding encoded information representative of a video sequence, said video sequence comprising a plurality of video frames, said decoding method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A video decoder&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;receiving encoded information representative of a segment of a current frame of said video sequence;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that receives a part of a frame,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;identifying a coding mode of the encoded information, the coding mode being one of at least a first coding mode and a second coding mode; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;identifies the encoding type,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;reconstructing the segment of the current frame of the video sequence;&#xD;&#xA;wherein the reconstructing step is performed using a first motion field model derived using motion compensated prediction with respect to a previously-encoded frame of the video sequence if the identified coding mode is the first coding mode; and&#xD;&#xA;wherein the reconstructing step is performed using a second motion field model based on a motion field model determined for an adjacent previously-encoded segment of the current frame if the identified coding mode is the second coding mode.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and decodes based on information from the previous frame or a segment of the current frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  2 The method according to claim 1, further comprising the step of forming a prediction motion field model for the segment based on the motion field model determined for the adjacent previously-encoded segment of the current frame.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  3 The method according to claim 2, wherein the prediction motion field model is formed by projecting the motion field model determined for the adjacent previously-encoded segment from the adjacent previously-encoded segment into the segment being reconstructed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  4 The method according to claim 2, wherein the second motion field model is formed as a combination of the prediction motion field model and a refinement motion field model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  5 The method according to claim 4, wherein the refinement motion field model represents a difference between the first motion field model and the prediction motion field model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  6 The method according to claim 4, wherein in the second coding mode the encoded information representative of the segment of the current frame comprises motion coefficient information representative of the refinement motion field model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  7 The method according to claim 6, wherein the motion coefficient information comprises an indication of a non-zero coefficient pattern and at least one non-zero coefficient value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  8 The method according to claim 2, wherein in the second coding mode the encoded information representative of the segment of the current frame comprises an indication of the adjacent previously-encoded segment whose motion field model is to be used to form the prediction motion field model for the segment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  9 The method according to claim 8, wherein the indication of the adjacent previously-encoded segment comprises information about the position of the adjacent previously-encoded segment with respect to the segment being reconstructed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  10 The method according to claim 8, wherein the indication of the adjacent previously-encoded segment comprises information about a sub-segment within the adjacent previously encoded segment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  11 The method according to claim 1, wherein in the first coding mode the encoded information representative of the segment of the current frame comprises motion coefficient information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  12 The method according to claim 11, wherein the motion coefficient information comprises an indication of a non-zero coefficient pattern and at least one non-zero coefficient value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 13 A video decoder for decoding encoded information representative of a video sequence, said video sequence comprising a plurality of video frames, said decoder including:&#xD;&#xA;an input for receiving encoded information representative of a segment of a current frame of the video sequence; means for identifying a coding mode of the encoded information, the coding mode being one of at least a first coding mode and a second coding mode;&#xD;&#xA;means for reconstructing the segment of the current frame of the video sequence using a first motion field model derived using motion compensated prediction with respect to a previously-encoded frame of the video sequence if the identified coding mode is the first coding mode; and means for reconstructing the segment of the current frame of the video sequence using a second motion field model based on a motion field model determined for an adjacent previously-encoded segment of the current frame if the identified coding mode is the second coding mode.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A video codec that implements the compression in claim 1.  How this is independent is beyond me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; 14 The video decoder according to claim 13, arranged to form a prediction motion field model for the segment from the motion field model determined for the adjacent previously-encoded segment of the current frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  15 The video decoder according to claim 14, arranged to form the prediction motion field model by projecting the motion field model determined, for the adjacent previously-encoded segment from the adjacent previously-encoded segment into the segment being reconstructed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  16 The A video decoder according to claim 14, arranged to form the second motion field model as a combination of the prediction motion field model and a refinement motion field model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  17 The video decoder according to claim 16, wherein the refinement motion field model represents a difference between the first motion field model and said prediction motion field model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  18 The video decoder according to claim 16, wherein in the second coding mode said decoder is arranged to decode the encoded information representative of the segment of the current frame to recover motion coefficient information representative of the refinement motion field model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  19 The video decoder according to claim 13, wherein in said first coding mode said decoder is arranged to decode the encoded information representative of the segment of the current frame to recover motion coefficient information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  20 The video decoder according to claim 13, wherein in the second coding mode said decoder is arranged to decode the encoded information representative of the segment of the current frame to recover an indication of the adjacent previously-encoded segment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  21 The video decoder according to claim 20, wherein the indication of the adjacent previously-encoded segment, comprises information about the position of the adjacent previously-encoded segment with respect to the segment being reconstructed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  22 The video decoder according to claim 20, wherein the indication of the adjacent previously-encoded segment comprises information about a sub-segment within the adjacent previously-encoded segment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  23 The video decoder according to claim 20, wherein in the second coding mode the means for reconstructing the segment of the current frame is arranged to derive the prediction motion field model from the motion field model for the indicated adjacent previously-encoded segment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  24 The video decoder according to claim 23, wherein in the second coding mode the means for reconstructing the segment of the current frame is further arranged to reconstruct the segment of the current frame by combining the prediction motion field model with the refinement motion field model.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11361" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4768" RevisionGUID="65523919-ee51-4456-b671-0f9374623ea1" CreationDate="2013-08-10T21:05:37.543" UserId="3821" Text="Compressed motion vector field utilizing predictive motion coding - Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11362" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4768" RevisionGUID="65523919-ee51-4456-b671-0f9374623ea1" CreationDate="2013-08-10T21:05:37.543" UserId="3821" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;webm&gt;&lt;us7149251&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4768" RevisionGUID="1a698d25-b267-423c-984b-0702e58b0694" CreationDate="2013-08-10T21:17:09.087" UserId="3821" Comment="Improved formatting" Text="Seeking Prior Art on Nokia patent [US7149251](http://www.google.com/patents/US7149251?dq=patent++7149251&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=MHFPUfL9C_je4APc8YGgDA&amp;ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Priority Date**:  Seeking Prior Art from before **Aug 11, 1999**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** Decoding information representative of a video sequence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1 A method of decoding encoded information representative of a video sequence, said video sequence comprising a plurality of video frames, said decoding method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A video decoder&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;receiving encoded information representative of a segment of a current frame of said video sequence;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that receives a part of a frame,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;identifying a coding mode of the encoded information, the coding mode being one of at least a first coding mode and a second coding mode; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;identifies the encoding type,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;reconstructing the segment of the current frame of the video sequence;&#xD;&#xA;wherein the reconstructing step is performed using a first motion field model derived using motion compensated prediction with respect to a previously-encoded frame of the video sequence if the identified coding mode is the first coding mode; and&#xD;&#xA;wherein the reconstructing step is performed using a second motion field model based on a motion field model determined for an adjacent previously-encoded segment of the current frame if the identified coding mode is the second coding mode.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and decodes based on information from the previous frame or a segment of the current frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  2 The method according to claim 1, further comprising the step of forming a prediction motion field model for the segment based on the motion field model determined for the adjacent previously-encoded segment of the current frame.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  3 The method according to claim 2, wherein the prediction motion field model is formed by projecting the motion field model determined for the adjacent previously-encoded segment from the adjacent previously-encoded segment into the segment being reconstructed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  4 The method according to claim 2, wherein the second motion field model is formed as a combination of the prediction motion field model and a refinement motion field model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  5 The method according to claim 4, wherein the refinement motion field model represents a difference between the first motion field model and the prediction motion field model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  6 The method according to claim 4, wherein in the second coding mode the encoded information representative of the segment of the current frame comprises motion coefficient information representative of the refinement motion field model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  7 The method according to claim 6, wherein the motion coefficient information comprises an indication of a non-zero coefficient pattern and at least one non-zero coefficient value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  8 The method according to claim 2, wherein in the second coding mode the encoded information representative of the segment of the current frame comprises an indication of the adjacent previously-encoded segment whose motion field model is to be used to form the prediction motion field model for the segment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  9 The method according to claim 8, wherein the indication of the adjacent previously-encoded segment comprises information about the position of the adjacent previously-encoded segment with respect to the segment being reconstructed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  10 The method according to claim 8, wherein the indication of the adjacent previously-encoded segment comprises information about a sub-segment within the adjacent previously encoded segment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  11 The method according to claim 1, wherein in the first coding mode the encoded information representative of the segment of the current frame comprises motion coefficient information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  12 The method according to claim 11, wherein the motion coefficient information comprises an indication of a non-zero coefficient pattern and at least one non-zero coefficient value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 2** A video codec that implements the compression in claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 13 A video decoder for decoding encoded information representative of a video sequence, said video sequence comprising a plurality of video frames, said decoder including:&#xD;&#xA;an input for receiving encoded information representative of a segment of a current frame of the video sequence; means for identifying a coding mode of the encoded information, the coding mode being one of at least a first coding mode and a second coding mode;&#xD;&#xA;means for reconstructing the segment of the current frame of the video sequence using a first motion field model derived using motion compensated prediction with respect to a previously-encoded frame of the video sequence if the identified coding mode is the first coding mode; and means for reconstructing the segment of the current frame of the video sequence using a second motion field model based on a motion field model determined for an adjacent previously-encoded segment of the current frame if the identified coding mode is the second coding mode.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; 14 The video decoder according to claim 13, arranged to form a prediction motion field model for the segment from the motion field model determined for the adjacent previously-encoded segment of the current frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  15 The video decoder according to claim 14, arranged to form the prediction motion field model by projecting the motion field model determined, for the adjacent previously-encoded segment from the adjacent previously-encoded segment into the segment being reconstructed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  16 The A video decoder according to claim 14, arranged to form the second motion field model as a combination of the prediction motion field model and a refinement motion field model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  17 The video decoder according to claim 16, wherein the refinement motion field model represents a difference between the first motion field model and said prediction motion field model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  18 The video decoder according to claim 16, wherein in the second coding mode said decoder is arranged to decode the encoded information representative of the segment of the current frame to recover motion coefficient information representative of the refinement motion field model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  19 The video decoder according to claim 13, wherein in said first coding mode said decoder is arranged to decode the encoded information representative of the segment of the current frame to recover motion coefficient information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  20 The video decoder according to claim 13, wherein in the second coding mode said decoder is arranged to decode the encoded information representative of the segment of the current frame to recover an indication of the adjacent previously-encoded segment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  21 The video decoder according to claim 20, wherein the indication of the adjacent previously-encoded segment, comprises information about the position of the adjacent previously-encoded segment with respect to the segment being reconstructed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  22 The video decoder according to claim 20, wherein the indication of the adjacent previously-encoded segment comprises information about a sub-segment within the adjacent previously-encoded segment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  23 The video decoder according to claim 20, wherein in the second coding mode the means for reconstructing the segment of the current frame is arranged to derive the prediction motion field model from the motion field model for the indicated adjacent previously-encoded segment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  24 The video decoder according to claim 23, wherein in the second coding mode the means for reconstructing the segment of the current frame is further arranged to reconstruct the segment of the current frame by combining the prediction motion field model with the refinement motion field model.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3837" RevisionGUID="501893f2-5e6d-4907-833d-d526a078900e" CreationDate="2013-08-10T22:37:08.677" UserId="3821" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="Seeking Prior Art on Nokia patent [US6504873][3]&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Priority Date**:  Seeking Prior Art from before **Jun 13, 1997**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Analysis of a Nokia patent ([US6504873][3]) which they claim WebM infringes upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Groklaw did [some analysis][1] that reduced their 64 patents worldwide down to a dozen US patents. [This][2] post (in the comments of the Groklaw post) lays out the independent claims of each patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 1 A method of filtering a received digital video picture #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## TL;DR Upscaling filter that averages pixels on the edge of adjacent video sub-blocks based on activity in screen. ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in which said digital video picture comprises video blocks, each video block comprising a certain amount of individual video pixels each video pixel having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, and in which video picture a first video block and a second video block located adjacent to the first video block define a boundary therebetween, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frames of the video are subdivided into a grid and given a number. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;selecting a first video pixel from the first video block in such a way that the first video pixel is located at the boundary in the first video block to obtain a first boundary video pixel selecting a second video pixel from the second video block in such a way that the second video pixel is located at the boundary in the second video block to obtain a second boundary video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pixels in different sub-squares are adjacent &quot;boundary&quot; pixels. If the boundary is 0 then those pixels would be at -1,1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;selecting a first reference video pixel in the first video block and a second reference video pixel in the second video block, the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being other than the first boundary video pixel and the second boundary video pixel and the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being placed closer to a central portion of each of said video blocks than the respective boundary video pixel, in such a way that the reference video pixels and the boundary video pixels are situated on a straight line, the straight line being transverse to the boundary, drawn from the first reference video pixel to the second reference video pixel, wherein the first and the second boundary video pixels are located between the first and the second reference video pixels on the straight line,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Select neighbor pixels (-2,2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;defining a linear equation, using the numerical values of the reference video pixels, the linear equation giving as a solution a numerical reference value to each boundary video pixel on said straight line&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Figure out an equation that will take the neighbor pixels and produce the boundary pixels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;filtering at least one boundary video pixel by adjusting the numerical value of the at least one boundary video pixel towards the reference value of the at least one boundary video pixel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Averaging the boundary pixels using above equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;of the at least one&quot; makes this a nonsensical statement but software patents are nonsensical anyway, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 10 A terminal device for filtering a received digital video picture, #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One sentence: A device that implements the filter in claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  which said digital video picture comprises video blocks, each video block comprises a certain amount of individual video pixels, each video pixel having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, in which video picture a first video block and a second video block located adjacent the first video block define a boundary therebetween, and the terminal device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A device which filters video. Frames of the video are subdivided into a grid and given a number. Pixels in different sub-squares are adjacent &quot;boundary&quot; pixels. If the boundary is 0 then those pixels would be at -1,1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for selecting a first video pixel from the first video block in such a way that the first video pixel is located at the boundary in the first video block to obtain a first boundary video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for selecting a second video pixel from the second video block in such a way that the second video pixel is located at the boundary in the second video block to obtain a second boundary video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for selecting a first reference video pixel in the first video block and a second reference video pixel in the second video block, the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being other than the first boundary video pixel and the second boundary video pixel and the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being placed closer to a central portion of each of said video blocks than the respective boundary video pixel, in such a way that the reference video pixels and the boundary video pixels are situated on a straight line, the straight line being transverse to the boundary, drawn from the first reference video pixel to the second reference video pixel, wherein the first and the second boundary video pixels are located between the first and the second reference video pixels on the straight line,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for defining a linear equation using the numerical values of the reference video pixels, the linear equation giving as a solution a numerical reference value to each boundary video pixel on said straight line, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for filtering at least one boundary video pixel by adjusting the numerical value of the at least one boundary video pixel towards the reference value of the at least one boundary video pixel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; 11 A terminal device according to the claim 10, wherein the receiver terminal comprises receiving means for receiving the video picture via a mobile communication network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A *mobile* device that implements the filter in claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &gt; 12 A filtering method according to claim 10, wherein the reference value of each boundary video pixel is computed as a function of the location of the boundary video pixel on the straight line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 13. A method of filtering a received video picture, in which #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The filter in claim 1 is used based on the activity in the pixels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a digital video picture is received, the video picture comprising video blocks, each video block comprising a certain amount of individual video pixels, each video pixel having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, and in which video picture a first video block and a second video block located adjacent the first video block define a boundary therebetween,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a first video pixel from the first video block and a second video pixel from a second video block are selected in such a way that they are adjacent each other on the opposite sides of the boundary, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the first video pixel and the second video pixel are filtered, wherein&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a first reference video pixel is selected in the first video block and a second reference video pixel is selected in the second video block in such a way that the first reference pixel, the first video pixel, the second video pixel and the second reference pixel are situated on a straight line, perpendicular to the boundary, drawn from the first reference video pixel to the second reference video pixel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a linear equation is defined, the linear equation giving as a solution a numerical reference value to each pixel on said straight line as a function of the location of the pixel on said straight line, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the filtering is performed by adjusting the numerical value of the first video pixel towards its reference value, and by adjusting the numerical value of the second video pixel towards its reference value, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; further wherein a decision on whether the filtering method is used or not and for which video pixels the filtering is used is done on basis of activity inside the first video block, activity inside the second video block and activity at the boundary between the first video block and the second video block, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein, the decision is based on the following equation IF activityINactivityEDGEMQUANT	AND	activityINTHRESHOLDIN TRUE &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  in which&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; activityIN is the variance inside the video block one and the video block two,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; activityEDGE is the variance over the edge between the adjacent video block one and video block two, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; THRESHOLDIN is a Threshold value, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MQUANT is a quantizer value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 14 A method of filtering a received digital video picture #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applying the filter from claim one but towards more central pixels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in which said digital video picture is coded into video blocks, each video block comprising a certain amount of individual video pixels, each of said video pixels having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, and in which video picture, a first video block is located adjacent to a second video block to define a boundary therebetween, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selecting a first reference video pixel in the first video block and a second reference video pixel in the second video block, the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being displaced away from said boundary towards a central portion of each of said video blocks, said reference video pixels defining a straight line of video pixels transverse to said boundary, between said first reference video pixel and said second reference video pixel, wherein said straight line includes at least a first and a second adjustment video pixel located between the first and the second reference video pixels and said boundary;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; defining a linear equation representing a video pixel value reference ine transverse to said boundary, said linear equation defined relative to the change in pixel values from said first reference pixel in said first video block to said second reference pixel in said second video block;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adjusting the numerical value of said at least first and second adjustment video pixels towards said pixel value reference line according to the position of said at least first and second adjustment video pixels from said boundary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130324162902177&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&amp;sid=20130324162902177&amp;title=Listing%20Independent%20Claims%20per%20Patent&amp;type=article&amp;order=&amp;hideanonymous=0&amp;pid=1037020#c1038325&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6504873" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4760" RevisionGUID="bf69507b-e6d7-49f3-aa4f-954ce6d170b1" CreationDate="2013-08-11T00:33:10.810" UserId="3821" Comment="added summary" Text="Seeking Prior Art on Nokia patent [US6735249][3]&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This simply describes using two obvious techniques (motion compression and fractal encoding) at the same time.  Both had been around for over a decade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Priority Date**:  Seeking Prior Art from before **Aug 11, 1999**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** Improvement of a method for motion compensated prediction of the current video frame &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In a method of operating on a video sequence, said video sequence being formed of at least a current video frame and a reference video frame, the current video frame comprising at least one first neighboring segment and a second neighboring segment, an improvement of a method for motion compensated prediction of the current video frame comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Improving compression between two &quot;video frames&quot; by looking at how pixels move.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Retrieving a previously stored first motion field model, said first motion field model being a model of a first motion vector field describing the displacements of pixels in the first neighboring segment with respect to pixels in the reference video frame;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at how the pixels moved in a specific location in the frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining a second motion vector field describing displacements of pixels in the second neighboring segment of the current video frame with respect to pixels in the reference video frame;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at how the pixels moved in a neighboring location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. modeling said second motion vector field using a motion model to form a second motion field model;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. approximating said second motion field model on the basis of said first motion field model to form a prediction field model;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare how the pixels in the first area moved to how pixels in the neighboring location moved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. comparing said second motion field model with said prediction field model and forming a refinement field model, said refinement field model representing the difference between said second motion field model and said prediction field model;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Figure out the difference between how pixels moved in the two locations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. constructing an alternative:model representation of said second motion field model by making a summation of said prediction field model and said refinement field model;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. calculating a first cost function wherein said first cost function includes a measure of a first image distortion incurred and a measure of a first amount of data required when using said second motion field model;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. calculating a second cost function wherein said second cost function includes a measure of a second image distortion incurred and a measure of a second amount of data required when using said alternative model representation of said second motion field;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9. comparing said first and second cost functions and determining which of said first and second cost functions has a smaller absolute value; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10. choosing that alternate one of said second motion field model and said alternative model representation of said second motion vector field associated with said smaller absolute value to indicate a chosen motion field model and storing said chosen motion field model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Figure out if storing the how pixels moved in both locations is smaller than storing the difference between how they moved. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 25**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same compression of pixel movement information but storing the difference frames instead of between segments within a frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of encoding a video sequence comprising a plurality of video frames said method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. forming a first motion field model for a segment of a current video frame of the video sequence using motion-compensated prediction with respect to a previously-encoded frame of the video sequence;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. forming a prediction motion field model for the segment of the current video frame based on a motion field model determined for an adjacent previously-encoded segment of the current frame;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining a difference between the first motion field model for the segment and the prediction motion field model for the segment to obtain refinement information for the segment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. defining a second motion field model for the segment of the current frame as a combination of the prediction motion field model and the refinement information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. calculating a cost function for the first and respectively the second motion field model, the cost function for a given one of the first and second motion field models taking into account both the amount of information required to represent the motion field model and the amount of image distortion introduced by using the motion field model to encode said segment of the current frame;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. choosing either the first motion field model or the second motion field model as the motion field model for the segment based at least in part on the calculated cost functions for the first and respectively the second motion field model; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. encoding the segment of the current frame using the chosen motion field model to form encoded information for the segment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 45**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A video encoder that uses the two compression schemes above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A video encoder for encoding a video sequence comprising a plurality of video frames,  said video encoder comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. means for forming a first motion field model for a segment of a current video frame of the video sequence using motion-compensated prediction with respect to a previously-encoded frame of the video sequence;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. means for forming a prediction motion field model for the segment of the current video frame based on a motion field model determined for an adjacent previously-encoded segment of the current frame;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. means for determining a difference between the first motion field model for the segment and the prediction motion field model for the segment to obtain refinement information for the segment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. means for defining a second motion field model for the segment of the current frame as a combination of the prediction motion field model and the refinement information;&#xD;&#xA;means for calculating a cost function for the first and respectively the second motion field model, the cost function for a given one of the first and second motion field models taking into account both the amount of information required to represent the motion field model and the amount of image distortion introduced by using the motion field model to encode said segment of the current frame;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. means for choosing either the first motion field model or the second motion field model as the motion field model for the segment based at least in part on the calculated cost functions for the first and respectively the second motion field model; and&#xD;&#xA;means for encoding the segment of the current frame using the chosen motion field model to form encoded information for the segment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6735249?dq=6735249" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4769" RevisionGUID="1bbca08d-7a20-4418-bfdd-5756cb453ec6" CreationDate="2013-08-11T03:11:39.640" UserId="3076" Text="It is only on the end of design patent numbers. The letters after a patent number are a publication kind code. There is an international standard [WIPO ST.16][1] for them but it seems to be special-cased in its use in various countries. That standard and a page on the USPTO web site says design patent publications in the US have a kind code of S. I found one other document that shows S1 or S but it looks to me that S is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see on a google page explaining the format of their XML information that the kind field is two characters and that S1 is for deign patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/standards/en/pdf/03-16-01.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/C9lz6.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4769" RevisionGUID="67babaf4-b869-4b43-8ce4-69a912cb249c" CreationDate="2013-08-11T03:16:54.880" UserId="3076" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="It is only on the end of design patent numbers. The letters after a patent number are a publication kind code. There is an international standard [WIPO ST.16][1] for them but it seems to be special-cased in its use in various countries. That standard and a page on the USPTO web site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;says design patent publications in the US have a kind code of S. I found one other document that shows S1 or S but it looks to me that S is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see on a google page explaining the format of their XML information that the **kind field is two characters** and that S1 is for design patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/standards/en/pdf/03-16-01.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/770ul.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/C9lz6.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4745" RevisionGUID="6f0d08b1-f2d9-4b45-900d-f5abe295a3fa" CreationDate="2013-08-11T04:02:20.870" UserId="5370" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="**A PATENT APPLICATION ON embedding hyperlinks into audio signals** - This application from [Apple][6] seeks to patent the idea of...putting hypertextual information into sound streams. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/7/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Embedding textual information (e.g. a hyperlink) into a sound stream. The information could be added as meta information to the audio file or it could be embedded into the sound, interleaved with normal audio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [AppleInsider](http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/08/apples-audio-hyperlink-tech-can-control-devices-with-inaudible-sonic-pulses)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves embedding a hyperlink so that it is inaudible or so that it is audible to listeners and where the metadata is a link or where it contains information about the audio stream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Audio Hyperlinking**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130204413 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/368,129&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  Apple, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/8/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Computer code to cause an audio stream to playback on an electronic device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Computer code to traverse a hyperlink encoded with the audio stream to a destination object during playback of the audio stream; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Computer code to perform an activity corresponding to the destination object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer program, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Code to to play an audio stream&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Code to follow a hyperlink encoded with the audio stream to a destination object (e.g. a webpage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Code to perform an activity corresponding to the destination object (e.g. display the webpage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming encoding the hyperlink so that it is **inaudible** or so that it is **audible** to listeners and where the metadata is a **link** or where it contains *information about the audio stream**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that some of claims were implemented before 2012.. Adding metadata to an audio file as a separate stream, hiding metadata in the sound stream, recognition of metadata from audio signal. So, **prior art is welcome**...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Audio Hyperlink from one audio track to another&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/IJl4S.jpg&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS I'm not sure if I will be able to send information of found prior arts to patent office, so I ask you to send this to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&amp;r=3&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=(20130808.PD.+AND+700%2F94.CCLS.)&amp;OS=pd/8/8/2013+and+ccl/700/94&amp;RS=(PD/20130808+AND+CCL/700/94)&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.apple.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4770" RevisionGUID="716ded93-605e-482c-b3e4-764b9572841a" CreationDate="2013-08-11T18:50:12.317" UserId="5462" Text="is the Examiner aware of the prior art on diffraction range finders in the publication list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;http://www.3dewitt.com/2/patent02.html&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11370" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4770" RevisionGUID="716ded93-605e-482c-b3e4-764b9572841a" CreationDate="2013-08-11T18:50:12.317" UserId="5462" Text="Prior Art to Application WO 2012063463 A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11371" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4770" RevisionGUID="716ded93-605e-482c-b3e4-764b9572841a" CreationDate="2013-08-11T18:50:12.317" UserId="5462" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4687" RevisionGUID="1556c63d-5b98-4b95-af4a-aff1e36a985d" CreationDate="2013-08-11T19:35:45.000" UserId="3821" Comment="Added activity reference" Text="This might have been anticipated by this Motorola patent EP0714587A1 [A method for determining whether to intra code a video block](https://www.google.com/patents/EP0714587A1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;**ABSTRACT**   Whether to encode a present video block of an incoming&#xD;&#xA;&gt; video frame, i.e., intra code, or whether to encode the difference&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between the present video block of the incoming frame and a best match&#xD;&#xA;&gt; video block from a previously store video frame, i.e., non-intra code,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is determined in a video compression system (100). First, the present&#xD;&#xA;&gt; video block is divided into a predetermined number of sub blocks&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (301). Then, an average pixel value is calculated for each sub block&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (302) and **used along with the individual pixel values of the sub block&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to determine sub block deviations** (303). The sub block deviations are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; used to compute a present video block deviation (303). The present&#xD;&#xA;&gt; video block deviation is then compared with an error deviation (306)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that is calculated based upon the present video block pixel values and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the best match video block pixel values (305). If the comparison is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; favorable, then the difference between the present video block and the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; best match video block are encoded. If the comparison is unfavorable,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; then the present video block is encoded.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It totally busts the second independent claim:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The sub block deviations may preferably be sent to the rate controller 114 to be used for rate control 310. The rate controller uses the sub block deviations as a measure of the spatial activity within a sub block. By using the sub block deviations from the intra/non-intra determiner 113, the rate controller 114 does not have to recalculate a spatial activity measure. **Based on the spatial activity and other factors, the level of quantization used by the quantizer 103 is determined**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11377" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4687" RevisionGUID="1556c63d-5b98-4b95-af4a-aff1e36a985d" CreationDate="2013-08-11T19:35:45.000" Comment="Proposed by 3821 approved by 3076, 1767 edit id of 422" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11378" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4770" RevisionGUID="4dd70b3e-2d68-4755-9658-fee6ca3a3e92" CreationDate="2013-08-11T19:38:54.683" UserId="1767" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1767,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Micah Siegel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11379" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4770" RevisionGUID="17b6e172-6ca8-4008-80da-de4215e45d9d" CreationDate="2013-08-11T20:25:31.253" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag added corresponding  US application number to title" Text="Prior Art to US Application 20120281086 (also published as WO 2012063463 A1)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11380" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4770" RevisionGUID="17b6e172-6ca8-4008-80da-de4215e45d9d" CreationDate="2013-08-11T20:25:31.253" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag added corresponding  US application number to title" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20120281086&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4770" RevisionGUID="b3564318-4d23-4824-88ec-ee11506f5e86" CreationDate="2013-08-11T21:00:59.743" UserId="1767" Comment="added 4036 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="is the Examiner aware of the prior art on diffraction range finders in the publication list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;http://www.3dewitt.com/2/patent02.html&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taken from the [Prior Art Request Template](http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/a/146/1767).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If another user (or the original poster) could complete for US20120281086 it would be very helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**HELP SAVE [INDUSTRY THREATENED BY OVERLY BROAD APPLICATION IN QUESTION]** - This application from [Assignee name] seeks to patent [quick, sensational description of invention described by application]! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent application before it becomes a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before {Priority Date}** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - [Description of stated invention, in plain English *note: include more than 1 bullet if multi-step process is essential to invention*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question -- one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Include a reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO {extra detail of stated invention that appears tangentially essential to idea}. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: **Distance measurement apparatus and distance measurement method**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [A multi-sentence description of the invention described in the patent application translated into plain old English. Feel free to borrow liberally from the application's Abstract.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US US20120281086][5]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Nov 9, 2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** through [Final Challenge Date *note: this date is typically as soon as six months after the publication date, but sometimes earlier and sometimes later. See [here][2] for more info.]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [First claim intro, verbatim from application *note: common first claim intros include &quot;A method ... comprising,&quot; &quot;A method ... wherein,&quot; &quot;A system comprising,&quot; and similar constructions.*]: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. [First step of claim 1 in stated invention, verbatim from application]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. [Second step of claim 1 in stated invention, verbatim from application]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. [Third step of claim 1 in stated invention, verbatim from application *note: there may more or less than 3 steps in ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. [First step of claim 1 translated into plain old English]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. [Second step of claim 1 translated into plain old English]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. [Third step of claim 1 translated into plain old English]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to [Priority Date].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and including [extra detail provided in Extra Credit section].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Image *note: this is where you may choose to upload a diagram taken from the patent application. We recommend uploading an image that is eye-catching, and quickly communicates the essence of the invention described in the patent application.*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ](http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request) on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/posts/146/edit&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120281086&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120281086&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11382" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4770" RevisionGUID="b3564318-4d23-4824-88ec-ee11506f5e86" CreationDate="2013-08-11T21:00:59.743" UserId="1767" Comment="added 4036 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Distance Measurement from Multiple Images - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11383" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4770" RevisionGUID="b3564318-4d23-4824-88ec-ee11506f5e86" CreationDate="2013-08-11T21:00:59.743" UserId="1767" Comment="added 4036 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20120281086&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11384" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="4770" RevisionGUID="67821a43-a4a7-4b4a-857d-aab1839ca024" CreationDate="2013-08-11T21:02:30.343" UserId="1767" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3076,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George White&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1767,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Micah Siegel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4761" RevisionGUID="df9a765b-300d-465f-afed-b3d3a71237f0" CreationDate="2013-08-11T22:57:26.457" UserId="3076" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="[US 2010030834][1]&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Title:  &quot;Performing A Binary Coded Decimal (BCD) Calculation&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that according to [Public PAIR][2] the patent was allowed by USPTO on July 19, 2013. Under the AIA it is not be possible to submit prior art under the pre-grant process used by Ask Patents. Prior art which is found below would need to submitted in a petition for a post-grant review during a 9 month window or in an ex-parte rexamination process or in an interpartes review (This could be done by a company or an individual but all the options are expensive.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is very important to look at the [**Claims**][8] of the Patent rather than Abstract or the Title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the claims which were allowed **are substantially narrower** than the claims listed on the [Google Patent page][1] for this application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the allowed Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Currently Amended) A method of performing a binary-coded decimal (BCD) addition, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, in a process, first and second values on which the BCD addition is to be performed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Adding the first value to sequence of constant digits to produce a modified first value;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Adding the modified first value and the second value to produce a sum having BCD digits;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining which of the BCD digits of the sum is not associated with a carry, wherein the determining comprises performing an operation on the modified first value, the second value, and the sum, and using a result of the operation to identify which of the BCD digits of the sum is not associated with a carry;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Storing a carry resulting from the adding of the modified first value and the second value in a flag register of the processor, where the carry stored in the flag register is a value to be transferred to a next most significant BCD digit; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Using the carry stored in the flag register to compute a result of the BCD addition; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Subtracting corresponding constant digits from BCD digits of the result of the BCD addition for those BCD digits of the result that are not associated with a carry as identified by the determining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see this on [Public Pair][4].  I recommend you search by the Publication Number &quot;US 20100030834 A1&quot; not by the Application Number.  You'll want to look at the [&quot;Image File Wrapper&quot;][7] section of the record:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://google.com/patents/us20100030834&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/z3MnB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/1JBPG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/RXvf6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.ehow.com/about_6192310_patent-file-wrapper_.html&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.danshapiro.com/blog/2010/09/how-to-read-a-patent-in-60-second/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4772" RevisionGUID="db4abc91-969b-4f0d-a9cc-6bf7ee51ecff" CreationDate="2013-08-12T12:42:27.807" UserId="5470" Text="This patent cites Knuth-Plass as a prior art, but doesn't seem to specify how it varies. It must do since this patent was approved, but what is the difference? Is is a difference in implementation only or is is a bigger difference that affects the outcome?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11390" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4772" RevisionGUID="db4abc91-969b-4f0d-a9cc-6bf7ee51ecff" CreationDate="2013-08-12T12:42:27.807" UserId="5470" Text="What is the difference between this and the Knuth-Plass algorithm?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11391" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4772" RevisionGUID="db4abc91-969b-4f0d-a9cc-6bf7ee51ecff" CreationDate="2013-08-12T12:42:27.807" UserId="5470" Text="&lt;us6510441&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4773" RevisionGUID="953f7dde-8033-4216-95e0-29edf6903293" CreationDate="2013-08-12T15:39:00.897" UserId="3076" Text="The background says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As discussed in Donald E. Knuth and Michael F. Plass's article entitled “Breaking Paragraph Into Lines,” Software-Practice and Experience, Vol II, pp. 1119-1184 (1981), optimal line breaks may be selected by considering all feasible line breaks for one paragraph. The articles describes a method that **evaluates all combinations of line breaks for a given paragraph** and selects an optimal set of line breaks for the paragraph. This method was designed to operate in a batch-processing environment on a mainframe or minicomputer and not in an interactive environment of modem personal computers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the summary of their invention the applicants say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Among the advantages of the invention are the following. The invention determines optimal line breaks in a paragraph by considering feasible line breaks **for a portion of the paragraph** covering multiple lines. The invention requires less memory space and processing time even for a long paragraph because only a portion of the paragraph at a time is analyzed to determine optimal line breaks. This is particularly important when processing a long paragraph since possible combinations of line breaks grow exponentially for a linear increase of feasible line breaks. The invention therefore is advantageous in a real-time editing environment with memory, processing resource and time constraints.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11393" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4773" RevisionGUID="2417d439-2729-4bb3-950c-b234f4c1669a" CreationDate="2013-08-12T16:05:23.010" UserId="3076" Comment="added 408 characters in body" Text="The background says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As discussed in Donald E. Knuth and Michael F. Plass's article entitled “Breaking Paragraph Into Lines,” Software-Practice and Experience, Vol II, pp. 1119-1184 (1981), optimal line breaks may be selected by considering all feasible line breaks for one paragraph. The articles describes a method that **evaluates all combinations of line breaks for a given paragraph** and selects an optimal set of line breaks for the paragraph. This method was designed to operate in a batch-processing environment on a mainframe or minicomputer and not in an interactive environment of modem personal computers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the summary of their invention the applicants say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Among the advantages of the invention are the following. The invention determines optimal line breaks in a paragraph by considering feasible line breaks **for a portion of the paragraph** covering multiple lines. The invention requires less memory space and processing time even for a long paragraph because only a portion of the paragraph at a time is analyzed to determine optimal line breaks. This is particularly important when processing a long paragraph since possible combinations of line breaks grow exponentially for a linear increase of feasible line breaks. The invention therefore is advantageous in a real-time editing environment with memory, processing resource and time constraints.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For patentability of a method, the actual claimed steps would be looked at for novelty and non-obviousness. The end result being the same or different than a known method is not directly relevant. Also, there is a usefulness requirement to get a patent. Useful does not mean better, just useful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the inventors do think they have a better method in terms of memory usage and execution time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4773" RevisionGUID="4295c871-ef04-4abb-b955-26821880d8ff" CreationDate="2013-08-12T16:22:01.333" UserId="3076" Comment="added 121 characters in body" Text="This method looks at a moving window of lines rather than requiring the entire paragraph to be considered as a whole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The background says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As discussed in Donald E. Knuth and Michael F. Plass's article entitled “Breaking Paragraph Into Lines,” Software-Practice and Experience, Vol II, pp. 1119-1184 (1981), optimal line breaks may be selected by considering all feasible line breaks for one paragraph. The articles describes a method that **evaluates all combinations of line breaks for a given paragraph** and selects an optimal set of line breaks for the paragraph. This method was designed to operate in a batch-processing environment on a mainframe or minicomputer and not in an interactive environment of modem personal computers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the summary of their invention the applicants say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Among the advantages of the invention are the following. The invention determines optimal line breaks in a paragraph by considering feasible line breaks **for a portion of the paragraph** covering multiple lines. The invention requires less memory space and processing time even for a long paragraph because only a portion of the paragraph at a time is analyzed to determine optimal line breaks. This is particularly important when processing a long paragraph since possible combinations of line breaks grow exponentially for a linear increase of feasible line breaks. The invention therefore is advantageous in a real-time editing environment with memory, processing resource and time constraints.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For patentability of a method, the actual claimed steps would be looked at for novelty and non-obviousness. The end result being the same or different than a known method is not directly relevant. Also, there is a usefulness requirement to get a patent. Useful does not mean better, just useful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the inventors do think they have a better method in terms of memory usage and execution time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4775" RevisionGUID="8e2bc968-0ce6-4bb6-87e0-6598084227e5" CreationDate="2013-08-12T21:17:25.047" UserId="5236" Text="Here's a reference to an implementation of Layer 3 DSR (although not referred to by that name), via the same IP-in-IP tunneling mechanism that the patent describes; there are also alternative L3DSR techniques not mentioned in this patent. This has been a feature of the Linux kernel's LVS subsystem since 2003.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ultramonkey.org/papers/lvs_tutorial/html/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4776" RevisionGUID="8acb293e-c820-4ca7-a2f4-a5c6a9f2e4ac" CreationDate="2013-08-12T22:08:51.580" UserId="4922" Text="First, allow me to express my sheer astonishment that BCD is still even slightly relevant in the 21st century.  This appears to be a pure software algorithm designed to work around the fact that modern CPUs no longer include BCD related instructions; for example, AMD64 drops the AAA, AAD, AAM and AAS instructions that were present in x86, and reuses their opcodes for other (much more widely useful) purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent is, as usual, very difficult to read for the purposes of understanding the algorithm embodied in it, so rather than provide prior art here, I will simply describe the algorithm more clearly for computer people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    // Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;    uint32_t bcdAdd(uint32_t a, uint32_t b)&#xD;&#xA;    {&#xD;&#xA;        // Claim 2 - ensures that digit-to-digit carries occur.&#xD;&#xA;        a += 0x66666666;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        // Claim 3&#xD;&#xA;        uint32_t s = a + b;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        // Claim 4 - determine where digit-to-digit carries occurred.&#xD;&#xA;        // I couldn't quickly understand how the patentee did it, so&#xD;&#xA;        // I'm doing it the obvious way instead.  This leaves a flag&#xD;&#xA;        // in the high bit of each nybble, indicating whether a carry&#xD;&#xA;        // did not occur out of that nybble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        uint32_t c = ~((a | b) &amp; ~s) &amp; 0x88888888;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        // Claim 5 - there are potentially several ways to obtain the&#xD;&#xA;        // overall carry, but this one is easiest in pure C.  In pure&#xD;&#xA;        // assembly, the carry is trivially obtained during the step&#xD;&#xA;        // above for Claim 3, eg. using ADC instead of ADD.&#xD;&#xA;        // Claim 6 is then simply carrying into the next set of digits,&#xD;&#xA;        // which is an obvious and trivial step once you have the carry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        bool carry = (~c) &gt;&gt; 31;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        // Claim 7 - adjust only the digits that didn't carry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        s -= (c &gt;&gt; 3) * 6;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        return s;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is worth noting that I only had to read the claims and think for a couple of minutes to determine what the &quot;adjustment constant&quot; and the remaining details of the algorithm were.  I consider it highly likely that some competent computer scientist has done so before me, *without* the benefit of the patent claims.  The trick, of course, is figuring out who and when.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did spot a disingenuous comment in the Description of the patent, suggesting that BCD &quot;allows for faster decimal calculations in electronic devices.&quot;  Since the above code would compile to roughly a dozen instructions (depending on the CPU involved) for a simple addition, and would have execution time comparable to a multiply on conventional binary numbers, this claim is laughable.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4776" RevisionGUID="b6c4e7b8-0362-4c01-abe3-e1184f7c514d" CreationDate="2013-08-12T22:18:20.477" UserId="4922" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="First, allow me to express my sheer astonishment that BCD is still even slightly relevant in the 21st century.  This appears to be a pure software algorithm designed to work around the fact that modern CPUs no longer include BCD related instructions; for example, AMD64 drops the AAA, AAD, AAM and AAS instructions that were present in x86, and reuses their opcodes for other (much more widely useful) purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent is, as usual, very difficult to read for the purposes of understanding the algorithm embodied in it, so rather than provide prior art here, I will simply describe the algorithm more clearly for computer people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: these are the amended claims a described by another answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    // Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;    uint32_t bcdAdd(uint32_t a, uint32_t b)&#xD;&#xA;    {&#xD;&#xA;        // Claim 2 - ensures that digit-to-digit carries occur.&#xD;&#xA;        a += 0x66666666;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        // Claim 3&#xD;&#xA;        uint32_t s = a + b;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        // Claim 4 - determine where digit-to-digit carries occurred.&#xD;&#xA;        // I couldn't quickly understand how the patentee did it, so&#xD;&#xA;        // I'm doing it the obvious way instead.  This leaves a flag&#xD;&#xA;        // in the high bit of each nybble, indicating whether a carry&#xD;&#xA;        // did not occur out of that nybble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        uint32_t c = ~((a | b) &amp; ~s) &amp; 0x88888888;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        // Claim 5 - there are potentially several ways to obtain the&#xD;&#xA;        // overall carry, but this one is easiest in pure C.  In pure&#xD;&#xA;        // assembly, the carry is trivially obtained during the step&#xD;&#xA;        // above for Claim 3, eg. using ADC instead of ADD.&#xD;&#xA;        // Claim 6 is then simply carrying into the next set of digits,&#xD;&#xA;        // which is an obvious and trivial step once you have the carry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        bool carry = (~c) &gt;&gt; 31;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        // Claim 7 - adjust only the digits that didn't carry.&#xD;&#xA;        // The below code is equivalent to s -= (c &gt;&gt; 3) * 6 but is faster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        s -= (c &gt;&gt; 1) + (c &gt;&gt; 2);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        return s;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is worth noting that I only had to read the claims and think for a couple of minutes to determine what the &quot;adjustment constant&quot; and the remaining details of the algorithm were.  I consider it highly likely that some competent computer scientist has done so before me, *without* the benefit of the patent claims.  The trick, of course, is figuring out who and when.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did spot a disingenuous comment in the Description of the patent, suggesting that BCD &quot;allows for faster decimal calculations in electronic devices.&quot;  Since the above code would compile to roughly a dozen instructions (depending on the CPU involved) for a simple addition, and would have execution time comparable to a multiply on conventional binary numbers, this claim is laughable.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4777" RevisionGUID="77a1dcd9-c476-4023-9a98-6f03de4a0b55" CreationDate="2013-08-12T23:00:08.147" UserId="4922" Text="XFree86 (**last release in 2008**) included different sets of bitmap fonts for 75dpi and 100dpi operation; the former was intended for low-resolution displays, and the latter for high-resolution (for the time) displays.  This functionality was most likely present since X11R4 in **1989**, but possibly even earlier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More recent versions of X11 servers (such as the current X.org server) have extended this to fully variable screen-dpi support which is communicated to the external font renderer (usually FreeType).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also noteworthy is **QuickDraw GX**, first released in **January 1995**, which implemented resolution-independent rendering on the Macintosh.  This was mostly meant to allow rendering to a low-resolution screen and a high-resolution printer using the same commands.  It didn't work as well as it should have, but the idea was definitely there, and was explicitly a feature of QuickDraw GX in contrast to ordinary QuickDraw.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4778" RevisionGUID="8ef0922f-63f5-4192-adc1-3eaf0b00f850" CreationDate="2013-08-12T23:43:55.687" UserId="4922" Text="I have in my possession a copy of *Computer Power and Human Reason* by Joseph Weizenbaum, first published in **1976** although my copy is from a 1993 reprint of a 1984 edition - the edition apparently only adding a fresh preface.  ISBN 0-14-017911-9.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On page 194 he introduces as &quot;current research&quot; (presumably for the mid-1970s) a &quot;hand-eye machine&quot; (ie. a simple robot) built by MIT's AI Lab.  This was evidently capable of recognising (and then manipulating) objects with simple geometric shapes, such as boxes and pyramids, and determining their colour.  That, by itself, takes care of Step 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Step 2 is also covered because the robot maintains a database of information about the objects it recognises, including their location and the manipulations the robot has done on them.  The following quotes from pp. 194-5 illustrate this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It can be questioned about the current configurations of blocks on the table, about the events that have gone on during the discussion, and to a limited extent about its reasoning.  It can be told simple facts which are added to its store of knowledge for use in later reasoning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Human:** Find a block which is taller than the one you are holding and put it into the box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Robot:** By &quot;it,&quot; I assume you mean the block which is taller than the one I am holding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **H:** OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **R:** (The hand sets down the block it is holding and picks up a taller one.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **H:** What does the box contain?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **R:** The blue pyramid and the blue box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **H:** What is the pyramid supported by?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **R:** The box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **H:** Why did you clear off [the red] cube?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **R:** To put it on a large green cube.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **H:** Why did you do that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **R:** To stack up the red cube, a large red block, and a large green cube.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **H:** Why did you do that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **R:** Because you asked me to.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4761" RevisionGUID="25a0de2f-0554-4164-bde7-cc4c19131c03" CreationDate="2013-08-13T03:31:00.727" UserId="3076" Comment="added 569 characters in body" Text="[US 2010030834][1]&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Title:  &quot;Performing A Binary Coded Decimal (BCD) Calculation&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that according to [Public PAIR][2] the patent was allowed by USPTO on July 19, 2013. Under the AIA it is not be possible to submit prior art under the pre-grant process used by Ask Patents. Prior art which is found below can be easily submitted anytime after grant under [37 C.F.R. 1.501 Citation of prior art in patent files][3] however it will not be looked at by the USPTO unless something else happens. If you want something considered by the USPTO rather than just put in the file, you could submit an ex-parte reexamination request. For a business method patent or for a patent from an application filed after March 15, 2013 one can a petition for a [post-grant review][4] during a 9 month window or after that can petition for  an [interpartes review][5] (These could be done by a company or an individual but all the options are expensive and the PGR and IPR are quasi-litigation proceedings before the board.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is very important to look at the [**Claims**][7] of the Patent rather than Abstract or the Title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the claims which were allowed **are substantially narrower** than the claims listed on the [Google Patent page][8] for this application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the allowed Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Currently Amended) A method of performing a binary-coded decimal (BCD) addition, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, in a process, first and second values on which the BCD addition is to be performed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Adding the first value to sequence of constant digits to produce a modified first value;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Adding the modified first value and the second value to produce a sum having BCD digits;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining which of the BCD digits of the sum is not associated with a carry, wherein the determining comprises performing an operation on the modified first value, the second value, and the sum, and using a result of the operation to identify which of the BCD digits of the sum is not associated with a carry;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Storing a carry resulting from the adding of the modified first value and the second value in a flag register of the processor, where the carry stored in the flag register is a value to be transferred to a next most significant BCD digit; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Using the carry stored in the flag register to compute a result of the BCD addition; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Subtracting corresponding constant digits from BCD digits of the result of the BCD addition for those BCD digits of the result that are not associated with a carry as identified by the determining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see this on [Public Pair][9].  I recommend you search by the Publication Number &quot;US 20100030834 A1&quot; not by the Application Number.  You'll want to look at the [&quot;Image File Wrapper&quot;][10] section of the record:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][11]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://google.com/patents/us20100030834&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2202.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/faqs_post_grant_review.jsp&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/faqs_inter_partes_review.jsp&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/z3MnB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.danshapiro.com/blog/2010/09/how-to-read-a-patent-in-60-second/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://google.com/patents/us20100030834&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.ehow.com/about_6192310_patent-file-wrapper_.html&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/1JBPG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/RXvf6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4780" RevisionGUID="f34b76e9-83b9-4efe-af80-634ba1c6eb06" CreationDate="2013-08-13T05:06:05.607" UserId="5474" Text="United States Patent Application 20060217110  -  Filed March 25, 2005&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Prioritizing the display of non-intrusive content on a mobile communication device][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Advertisements** and the timing of the display thereof on **tickers** of mobile devices are selected based on activity of the mobile devices and bids made by advertisers. **Advertisers define conditions of the mobile devices that are to trigger the display of particular advertisements**...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CLAIM 13. In a mobile communication system, a method of receiving and processing advertisement campaign information from an advertiser such that **advertisements can be displayed on tickers of mobile devices** operating in the mobile communication system, comprising: receiving, from the advertiser, one or more of: **parameter specification data** that specifies at least one parameter associated with target mobile devices or target mobile users that is to be used to select a particular advertisement for display on a ticker of a selected mobile device; and event specification data that specifies at least one event associated with target mobile devices or target mobile users that is to be used to trigger the display of the particular advertisement on the ticker; and storing said one or more of the parameter specification data and the event specification data for later use in selecting an advertisement and the time at which the selected advertisement is to be displayed on the ticker. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CLAIM 20. The method of claim 13, wherein the parameter specification data specifies parameters that include one or more of: a location of the mobile device; a time of day of operation of the mobile device; software currently residing on the mobile; the **user's purchase history; content that the user has subscribed to or purchased; demographic information relating to a user of the mobile device; and preferences expressed by the user of the mobile device.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220060217110%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20060217110&amp;RS=DN/20060217110" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4781" RevisionGUID="7b42fe3a-3cd0-4f3f-b1c6-35ee30d2dc36" CreationDate="2013-08-13T07:06:47.913" UserId="5341" Text="Insteon developed a wireless home mesh network in 2005&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insteon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2006:&#xD;&#xA;http://electronicdesign.com/embedded/refresh-insteon-technology&#xD;&#xA;INSTEON devices to perform as a controller, responder,or repeater, sending, receiving, or relaying messages, respectively. &#xD;&#xA;On the design side, the technology also involves software, USB and RS-232 connectivity, with Ethernet capabilities for interfacing to a LAN and the Internet on the not-too-distant horizon. Development kits and a prototyping module are available, which include membership in the INSTEON development alliance and provide access to the development forum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found only v2 of the Insteon Details manual published in 2013 which mentions the control of locks:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.insteon.com/pdf/Insteondetails.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be v1 available on SCRIBD from 2005 but I don't have a subscription: http://www.scribd.com/doc/58860137/insteondetails  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4772" RevisionGUID="e50532aa-e2e0-4da8-aad5-ce4927e78e51" CreationDate="2013-08-13T12:07:43.840" UserId="1259" Comment="title, tags, linkie" Text="[This patent][1] cites Knuth-Plass as a prior art, but doesn't seem to specify how it varies. It must do since this patent was approved, but what is the difference? Is is a difference in implementation only or is is a bigger difference that affects the outcome?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://google.com/patents/us6510441" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11414" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4772" RevisionGUID="e50532aa-e2e0-4da8-aad5-ce4927e78e51" CreationDate="2013-08-13T12:07:43.840" UserId="1259" Comment="title, tags, linkie" Text="What is the difference between US6510441 and the Knuth-Plass algorithm?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11415" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4772" RevisionGUID="e50532aa-e2e0-4da8-aad5-ce4927e78e51" CreationDate="2013-08-13T12:07:43.840" UserId="1259" Comment="title, tags, linkie" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us6510441&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="a0977a2d-ab0f-44ce-9923-db23cf6c30ab" CreationDate="2013-08-13T20:53:14.440" UserId="4545" Text="**A PATENT APPLICATION ON updating apps on mobile devices to restricted &quot;dummy&quot; apps**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A management system for apps on mobile devices where apps are updated to dummy apps that, when invoked, destroy the respective apps' sensitive data.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the company email app on your personal phone (your company has a Bring Your Own Device Policy) is &quot;updated&quot; to a new version. Then, when you launch that app, it will delete all the company email on your device and present a &quot;YOU'RE FIRED&quot; message instead of an inbox view. Another example would be having version 1.0 of a game updated to a limited trial of version 2.0 that deletes your old save file on first being run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System and Method for Remote Management of Applications Downloaded to a Personal Portable Wireless Appliance** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20110145932 A1]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/975,145&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  Appcentral, Inc./Good &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for downloading and monitoring applications, programs and data structures to a personal portable appliance coupled to a server via a network configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;0. determine that the appliance is connected; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. generating a connection request from the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. authenticating the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. determining that one or more applications must be updated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. receiving at least one updated application comprising a dummy application such that when the application is invoked the data structures of the previous application are manipulated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. modifying the functionality of the application; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. offering the user one or more indications that the application is restricted or limited. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11434" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="a0977a2d-ab0f-44ce-9923-db23cf6c30ab" CreationDate="2013-08-13T20:53:14.440" UserId="4545" Text="Updating apps on mobile phone to restricted &quot;dummy&quot; versions - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11435" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="a0977a2d-ab0f-44ce-9923-db23cf6c30ab" CreationDate="2013-08-13T20:53:14.440" UserId="4545" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;us20110145932&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="36f03464-f7fe-4107-a8b0-81901573ae68" CreationDate="2013-08-13T21:32:13.987" UserId="1767" Comment="Awesome prior art request! Made some modifications." Text="**A PATENT APPLICATION ON updating apps on mobile devices to restricted &quot;dummy&quot; apps** This application from [Good][6] seeks to patent the idea of...deleting sensitive information on a device by creating dummy apps. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A management system for apps on mobile devices where apps are updated to dummy apps that, when invoked, destroy the respective apps' sensitive data.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your company has as &quot;Brig Your Own Device&quot; policy.  The company email app on your personal phone is &quot;updated&quot; to a new version. Then, when you launch that app, it will delete all the company email on your device and present a &quot;YOU'RE FIRED&quot; message instead of an inbox view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Another example would be having version 1.0 of a game updated to a limited trial of version 2.0 that deletes your old save file on first being run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System and Method for Remote Management of Applications Downloaded to a Personal Portable Wireless Appliance** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110145932 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/975,145&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  Appcentral, Inc./ [Good Technologies][2] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for downloading and monitoring applications, programs and data structures to a personal portable appliance coupled to a server via a network configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;0. determine that the appliance is connected; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. generating a connection request from the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. authenticating the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. determining that one or more applications must be updated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. receiving at least one updated application comprising a dummy application such that when the application is invoked the data structures of the previous application are manipulated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. modifying the functionality of the application; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. offering the user one or more indications that the application is restricted or limited. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A diagram of the application management system&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NhpR6yB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110145932?dq=US20110145932&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.good.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11437" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="36f03464-f7fe-4107-a8b0-81901573ae68" CreationDate="2013-08-13T21:32:13.987" UserId="1767" Comment="Awesome prior art request! Made some modifications." Text="Updating apps on mobile phone to destroy sensitive data (Good) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11438" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="3591" RevisionGUID="0f87183d-efea-4f40-9dc0-456a9216600f" CreationDate="2013-08-13T21:39:49.600" UserId="16" Comment="4" />
  <row Id="11439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="3e11ad7c-957d-46ae-b54a-e101acab99b8" CreationDate="2013-08-13T23:03:54.300" UserId="1767" Comment="edited body" Text="**A PATENT APPLICATION ON updating apps on mobile devices to restricted &quot;dummy&quot; apps** This application from [Good Technologies][2] seeks to patent the idea of...deleting sensitive information on a device by creating dummy apps. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A management system for apps on mobile devices where apps are updated to dummy apps that, when invoked, destroy the respective apps' sensitive data.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your company has as &quot;Brig Your Own Device&quot; policy.  The company email app on your personal phone is &quot;updated&quot; to a new version. Then, when you launch that app, it will delete all the company email on your device and present a &quot;YOU'RE FIRED&quot; message instead of an inbox view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Another example would be having version 1.0 of a game updated to a limited trial of version 2.0 that deletes your old save file on first being run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System and Method for Remote Management of Applications Downloaded to a Personal Portable Wireless Appliance** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110145932 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/975,145&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  Appcentral, Inc./ [Good Technologies][2] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for downloading and monitoring applications, programs and data structures to a personal portable appliance coupled to a server via a network configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;0. determine that the appliance is connected; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. generating a connection request from the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. authenticating the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. determining that one or more applications must be updated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. receiving at least one updated application comprising a dummy application such that when the application is invoked the data structures of the previous application are manipulated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. modifying the functionality of the application; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. offering the user one or more indications that the application is restricted or limited. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A diagram of the application management system&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NhpR6yB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110145932?dq=US20110145932&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.good.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4785" RevisionGUID="c4ed3b14-f33f-4229-a5fa-344ca547b666" CreationDate="2013-08-13T23:42:16.710" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Navigation device with alternative route calculation** - This application from [TomTom][6] seeks to patent the idea of...calculating routes to a destination and providing a navigation instruction together with alternative navigation instruction! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/13/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - providing alternate routes to a driver without the driver being required to request a calculation of an alternative route&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO displays multiple potential navigation routes simultaneously&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Navigation device with alternate route calculation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A navigation device that calculates multiple routes for a driver and displays them simultaneously (without the driver being required to request a different route)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130173159 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/822,791&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: TomTom&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/13/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/31/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A navigation device, the navigation device operable to calculate routes to one or more destinations,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  the device further operable to provide a navigation instruction together with&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  an alternative navigation instruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A navigation device which calculates routes to destination (or multiple destinations), which:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Provides navigation instructions; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Provides instructions on alternative routes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/13/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming publishers reviewing distribution locations of content&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Providing multiple routes to a driver&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/GeJlCmH.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130173159?dq=US20130173159A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.tomtom.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11441" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4785" RevisionGUID="c4ed3b14-f33f-4229-a5fa-344ca547b666" CreationDate="2013-08-13T23:42:16.710" UserId="1767" Text="Turn-by-Turn Directions - Providing Alternate Routes to a Driver (TomTom) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11442" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4785" RevisionGUID="c4ed3b14-f33f-4229-a5fa-344ca547b666" CreationDate="2013-08-13T23:42:16.710" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;gps&gt;&lt;us20130173159a1&gt;&lt;tomtom&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4785" RevisionGUID="1bf6b7e2-2f68-4b58-a5d0-4fd985e6cfc4" CreationDate="2013-08-13T23:47:27.073" UserId="1767" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Navigation device with alternative route calculation** - This application from [TomTom][6] seeks to patent the idea of...calculating routes to a destination and providing a navigation instruction together with alternative navigation instruction! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/13/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - providing alternate routes to a driver without the driver being required to request a calculation of an alternative route&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO displays multiple potential navigation routes simultaneously&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Navigation device with alternate route calculation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A navigation device that calculates multiple routes for a driver and displays them simultaneously (without the driver being required to request a different route)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130173159 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/822,791&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: TomTom&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/13/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/31/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A navigation device, the navigation device operable to calculate routes to one or more destinations,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  the device further operable to provide a navigation instruction together with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  an alternative navigation instruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A navigation device which calculates routes to destination (or multiple destinations), which:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Provides navigation instructions; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Provides instructions on alternative routes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/13/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming publishers reviewing distribution locations of content&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Providing multiple routes to a driver&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/GeJlCmH.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130173159?dq=US20130173159A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.tomtom.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11444" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="700202c7-c1e2-4a61-8183-1d24a625ba37" CreationDate="2013-08-13T23:48:01.983" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20110145932&gt;&lt;goodtechnologies&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4785" RevisionGUID="94ec513e-558b-4c3f-a91a-ddb600a12511" CreationDate="2013-08-14T00:05:42.350" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body; added 2 characters in body; added 6 characters in body; deleted 1 characters in body; edited body; added 30 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON a navigation device with alternative route calculation** - This application from [TomTom][6] seeks to patent the idea of...providing a navigation instruction together with alternative navigation instructions to a destination! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/13/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - providing alternate routes to a driver without the driver being required to request a calculation of an alternative route&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO displays multiple potential navigation routes simultaneously&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Navigation device with alternate route calculation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A navigation device that calculates multiple routes for a driver and displays them simultaneously (without the driver being required to request a different route)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130173159 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/822,791&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: TomTom&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/13/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/31/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A navigation device, the navigation device operable to calculate routes to one or more destinations,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.  the device further operable to provide a navigation instruction together with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. an alternative navigation instruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A navigation device which calculates routes to destination (or multiple destinations), which:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. provides navigation instructions; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. provides instructions on alternative routes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/13/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming displaying multiple routes simultaneously without the driver requesting a &quot;re-route&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Providing multiple routes to a driver&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/GeJlCmH.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130173159?dq=US20130173159A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.tomtom.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11446" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="5ae62b37-8c80-461f-bfac-b3d710862e3b" CreationDate="2013-08-14T01:14:56.363" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Updating apps on mobile phone to destroy sensitive data (Good Technologies) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4786" RevisionGUID="98fc680b-56ba-4177-b7d3-5f79512dace1" CreationDate="2013-08-14T01:34:50.153" UserId="5145" Text="Kindle drm supports remote wiping and app function replacement. Eg from 2009: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html?_r=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4787" RevisionGUID="7b2ab007-39da-4f2f-b074-c05a807c7f1f" CreationDate="2013-08-14T02:49:41.570" UserId="818" Text="This functionality has existed in the iPhone since launch. It was confirmed in a [wall street journal interview][1] with Steve Jobs on 11 Aug 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apple raised hackles in computer-privacy and security circles when an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; independent engineer discovered code inside the iPhone that suggested&#xD;&#xA;&gt; iPhones routinely check an Apple Web site that could, in theory&#xD;&#xA;&gt; trigger the removal of the undesirable software from the devices.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mr. Jobs confirmed such a capability exists, but argued that Apple&#xD;&#xA;&gt; needs it in case it inadvertently allows a malicious program -- one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that stole users' personal data, for example -- to be distributed to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; iPhones through the App Store. &quot;Hopefully we never have to pull that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lever, but we would be irresponsible not to have a lever like that to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pull,&quot; he says.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121842341491928977.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4787" RevisionGUID="14b810c3-4f58-496e-b8f8-b240ec0d4ea9" CreationDate="2013-08-14T02:55:53.140" UserId="818" Comment="added 183 characters in body" Text="This functionality has existed in the iPhone since launch. It was confirmed in a [wall street journal interview][1] with Steve Jobs on 11 Aug 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apple raised hackles in computer-privacy and security circles when an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; independent engineer discovered code inside the iPhone that suggested&#xD;&#xA;&gt; iPhones routinely check an Apple Web site that could, in theory&#xD;&#xA;&gt; trigger the removal of the undesirable software from the devices.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mr. Jobs confirmed such a capability exists, but argued that Apple&#xD;&#xA;&gt; needs it in case it inadvertently allows a malicious program -- one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that stole users' personal data, for example -- to be distributed to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; iPhones through the App Store. &quot;Hopefully we never have to pull that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lever, but we would be irresponsible not to have a lever like that to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pull,&quot; he says.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent also would need to address the existing patent from [Microsoft US 7516478 B2 &#xD;&#xA; Remote management of mobile devices][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121842341491928977.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7516478" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4789" RevisionGUID="ef17eda2-29db-4bfd-a945-f1bb2bbb105f" CreationDate="2013-08-14T12:28:57.233" UserId="4694" Text="My 2006 Infiniti G35 Coupe had a navigation system that provided both of the features shown in the claims. It showed a map with different colored lines for the fastest and shortest routes along with another for a route with no freeways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure the owner's manual gives details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="fdec871c-71d6-411b-ad02-2167f7a2f8cf" CreationDate="2013-08-14T13:20:03.787" UserId="14" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="**A PATENT APPLICATION ON updating apps on mobile devices to restricted &quot;dummy&quot; apps** This application from [Good Technologies][2] seeks to patent the idea of...deleting sensitive information on a device by creating dummy apps. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A management system for apps on mobile devices where apps are updated to dummy apps that, when invoked, destroy the respective apps' sensitive data.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your company has as &quot;Bring Your Own Device&quot; policy.  The company email app on your personal phone is &quot;updated&quot; to a new version. Then, when you launch that app, it will delete all the company email on your device and present a &quot;YOU'RE FIRED&quot; message instead of an inbox view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Another example would be having version 1.0 of a game updated to a limited trial of version 2.0 that deletes your old save file on first being run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System and Method for Remote Management of Applications Downloaded to a Personal Portable Wireless Appliance** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110145932 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/975,145&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  Appcentral, Inc./ [Good Technologies][2] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for downloading and monitoring applications, programs and data structures to a personal portable appliance coupled to a server via a network configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;0. determine that the appliance is connected; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. generating a connection request from the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. authenticating the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. determining that one or more applications must be updated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. receiving at least one updated application comprising a dummy application such that when the application is invoked the data structures of the previous application are manipulated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. modifying the functionality of the application; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. offering the user one or more indications that the application is restricted or limited. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A diagram of the application management system&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NhpR6yB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110145932?dq=US20110145932&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.good.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="509057dd-283b-473e-b2c2-ed290bffee1d" CreationDate="2013-08-14T14:03:00.413" UserId="4545" Comment="Clarified continuation-in-part status and highlighted differences between the invention and well-known prior art. " Text="**A PATENT APPLICATION ON updating apps on mobile devices to restricted &quot;dummy&quot; apps** This application from [Good Technologies][2] seeks to patent the idea of...deleting sensitive information on a device by creating dummy apps. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A management system for apps on mobile devices where apps are updated to dummy apps that, when invoked, destroy the respective apps' sensitive data.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your company has as &quot;Bring Your Own Device&quot; policy.  The company email app on your personal phone is &quot;updated&quot; to a new version. Then, when you launch that app, it will delete all the company email on your device and present a &quot;YOU'RE FIRED&quot; message instead of an inbox view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Another example would be having version 1.0 of a game updated to a limited trial of version 2.0 that encrypts your old save file on first being run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that standard mobile app management/mobile device management platforms do not necessarily anticipate the invention. That is, **remote deletion of an application and/or data is not sufficient to meet the claim limitations**. It's critical that the prior art disclose updating/modifying the app to a restricted functionality &quot;dummy&quot; version and for the updated app to itself delete/modify the existing data upon being run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System and Method for Remote Management of Applications Downloaded to a Personal Portable Wireless Appliance** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110145932 A1][0]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/975,145&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  [Appcentral, Inc.][1] / [Good Technologies][2] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for downloading and monitoring applications, programs and data structures to a personal portable appliance coupled to a server via a network configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;0. determine that the appliance is connected; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. generating a connection request from the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. authenticating the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. determining that one or more applications must be updated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. receiving at least one updated application comprising a dummy application such that when the application is invoked the data structures of the previous application are manipulated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. modifying the functionality of the application; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. offering the user one or more indications that the application is restricted or limited. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010. (Please note that although that this patent application is a continuation-in-part of earlier-filed parent cases, the claimed invention is not supported by the disclosure of the parent cases, rendering the actual filing date the effective filing date.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A diagram of the application management system&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NhpR6yB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [0]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110145932?dq=US20110145932&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.appcentral.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.good.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4785" RevisionGUID="6e9e0811-03d6-4e14-8f82-148875a01f0c" CreationDate="2013-08-14T18:36:47.140" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON a navigation device with alternative route calculation** - This application from [TomTom][6] seeks to patent the idea of...providing a navigation instruction together with alternative navigation instructions to a destination! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/13/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - providing alternate routes to a driver without the driver being required to request a calculation of an alternative route&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO displays multiple potential navigation routes simultaneously&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Navigation device with alternate route calculation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A navigation device that calculates multiple routes for a driver and displays them simultaneously (without the driver being required to request a different route)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130173159 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/822,791&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: TomTom&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/13/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/31/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A navigation device, the navigation device operable to calculate routes to one or more destinations,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.  the device further operable to provide a navigation instruction together with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. an alternative navigation instruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A navigation device which calculates routes to destination (or multiple destinations), which:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. provides navigation instructions; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. provides instructions on alternative routes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/13/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming displaying multiple routes simultaneously without the driver requesting a &quot;re-route&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Providing multiple routes to a driver&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/GeJlCmH.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130173159?dq=US20130173159A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.tomtom.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="f5059124-36d9-43c8-94e0-1d7c70a735b1" CreationDate="2013-08-14T18:36:59.473" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **A PATENT APPLICATION ON updating apps on mobile devices to restricted &quot;dummy&quot; apps** This application from [Good Technologies][2] seeks to patent the idea of...deleting sensitive information on a device by creating dummy apps. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A management system for apps on mobile devices where apps are updated to dummy apps that, when invoked, destroy the respective apps' sensitive data.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your company has as &quot;Bring Your Own Device&quot; policy.  The company email app on your personal phone is &quot;updated&quot; to a new version. Then, when you launch that app, it will delete all the company email on your device and present a &quot;YOU'RE FIRED&quot; message instead of an inbox view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Another example would be having version 1.0 of a game updated to a limited trial of version 2.0 that encrypts your old save file on first being run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that standard mobile app management/mobile device management platforms do not necessarily anticipate the invention. That is, **remote deletion of an application and/or data is not sufficient to meet the claim limitations**. It's critical that the prior art disclose updating/modifying the app to a restricted functionality &quot;dummy&quot; version and for the updated app to itself delete/modify the existing data upon being run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System and Method for Remote Management of Applications Downloaded to a Personal Portable Wireless Appliance** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110145932 A1][0]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/975,145&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  [Appcentral, Inc.][1] / [Good Technologies][2] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for downloading and monitoring applications, programs and data structures to a personal portable appliance coupled to a server via a network configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;0. determine that the appliance is connected; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. generating a connection request from the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. authenticating the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. determining that one or more applications must be updated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. receiving at least one updated application comprising a dummy application such that when the application is invoked the data structures of the previous application are manipulated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. modifying the functionality of the application; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. offering the user one or more indications that the application is restricted or limited. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010. (Please note that although that this patent application is a continuation-in-part of earlier-filed parent cases, the claimed invention is not supported by the disclosure of the parent cases, rendering the actual filing date the effective filing date.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A diagram of the application management system&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NhpR6yB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [0]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110145932?dq=US20110145932&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.appcentral.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.good.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4790" RevisionGUID="3a04d872-bd37-4918-9fb1-79e67b61d787" CreationDate="2013-08-15T01:16:50.993" UserId="4922" Text="The claims do not seem to be restricted to the case where a *specific* user has this occur, eg. the case of an employee being fired.  They would also cover the case where all users of the app experience the same effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In principle therefore, *any* system with an automatic-update infrastructure (which happens to run on a &quot;personal portable device&quot; (which, as far as I'm concerned, includes a standard PC laptop) is therefore capable of this functionality.  It would be interesting to unearth cases where this has actually happened on various Linux distributions, Windows 98 and later, MacOS X, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did find one well-known case so far where this seems to have happened, namely the [PlayStation 3 crippling event][1] between **March-April 2010**.  The problems are that the PS3 is not a &quot;personal portable device&quot;, and Sony did as little as possible to inform users about the removed functionality, rather than advertising it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hard to tell, but the [Windows Vista anti-piracy measures][2] from **2006** might qualify, as long as a PC laptop counts as an appropriate device.  I forget, however, whether that is implemented via the software-update mechanism or whether it is built-in upon install.  If not Vista, then perhaps the anti-piracy measures for Windows XP qualify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ecnmag.com/blogs/2010/04/sony-removes-ps3-linux-support&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217820,00.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4791" RevisionGUID="c8994c02-87c4-45b9-b157-fd7c2328979d" CreationDate="2013-08-15T01:45:59.527" UserId="5491" Text="The google maps website made any laptop a device that did this in 2009.  It showed multiple routes, and gave navigation instructions for each route.  This blog post announced the feature on May 22, 2009:&#xD;&#xA;http://google-latlong.blogspot.com/2009/05/would-you-like-some-extra-suggestions.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The screenshot in the announcement shows a map with multiple routes calculated, times and distances for each route, and navigation instructions for the selected route." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4792" RevisionGUID="bfebf402-ff21-4192-9173-bc4d22f476f0" CreationDate="2013-08-15T03:15:35.533" UserId="4922" Text="This sounds like it would have been done during the dot-com era, when there was a boom in multinational e-commerce websites.  It's really hard to be specific about it though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm thinking of is an e-commerce site which guesses the user's location by their IP address or a Web browser setting, and when they land on the generic front page, **automatically redirects** them to a page customised for their country.  Such customisations would include translations into the local language and conversions of prices into local currency, and sometimes differences in the variety of products offered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google does that sort of thing to set the language of their front page today.  Did they do that before 2009?  Yes - I moved to Finland in **2006** without learning Finnish first, and one of the first things I was confronted with was Google in Finnish - going to `http://google.com/` would redirect me automatically to `http://google.fi/`, which not only provided all Google content in Finnish, but preferred Finnish-language sites for search results.  To get Google in English, I had to visit `http://google.co.uk/` - they have since added a cookie-based language preference option for that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4793" RevisionGUID="42c9c06d-dff9-4401-a408-dc5a2234df39" CreationDate="2013-08-15T03:37:16.950" UserId="5492" Text="I think that [this article][1] may be a good start.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Couldn't find a document backing it up but the post is from 9/18/07 and clearly reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sprint and Microsoft Debut Location-Aware Local Search&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;...The GPS location-aware that's going to automatically figure out what city you mean when you're searching for &quot;Sushi Restaurants&quot; isn't actual GPS—it's cellphone tower-based triangulation—but that's more than enough to figure out what city you're in. They're also introducing Tellme by Mobile, which is a voice interface to local searches, but since it's not a native Windows Mobile app, it may be slightly less stable and/or pleasing to use than the Live Search. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gizmodo.com/301049/sprint-and-microsoft-debut-location+aware-local-search" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4793" RevisionGUID="5261860f-ce9c-4cd3-999b-ab439562c162" CreationDate="2013-08-15T03:49:22.380" UserId="5492" Comment="added 749 characters in body" Text="I think that [this article][1] may be a good start.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Couldn't find a document backing it up but the post is from 9/18/07 and clearly reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sprint and Microsoft Debut Location-Aware Local Search&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;...The GPS location-aware that's going to automatically figure out what city you mean when you're searching for &quot;Sushi Restaurants&quot; isn't actual GPS—it's cellphone tower-based triangulation—but that's more than enough to figure out what city you're in. They're also introducing Tellme by Mobile, which is a voice interface to local searches, but since it's not a native Windows Mobile app, it may be slightly less stable and/or pleasing to use than the Live Search. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the [publication][2] on the Microsoft site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;With the enhanced mobile search service launching today, Sprint customers can now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Use Sprint’s built-in GPS capabilities to automatically find local businesses and listings nearby quickly and easily without needing to manually enter location information. The new GPS-enabled search allows customers to give permission to let their phone automatically identify their location to return nearby business search results, such as the closest gas station, pizza place or movie theater – all by simply typing in or, on select phones, speaking the name or category of business for which they are searching.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gizmodo.com/301049/sprint-and-microsoft-debut-location+aware-local-search&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2007/Sep07/09-18SprintMobileSearchPR.aspx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4794" RevisionGUID="b467bc67-9c70-4155-8c62-0edd035bf309" CreationDate="2013-08-15T03:57:48.077" UserId="4914" Text="Seeking Prior Art Submission for 2013-0031458 A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application tries to patent pretty much hyperlocal content delivery by merely stating details of common clustering techniques used with user geolocation data. It appears to be Bing Local Search" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11468" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4794" RevisionGUID="b467bc67-9c70-4155-8c62-0edd035bf309" CreationDate="2013-08-15T03:57:48.077" UserId="4914" Text="Microsoft trying to patent hyperlocal data" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11469" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4794" RevisionGUID="b467bc67-9c70-4155-8c62-0edd035bf309" CreationDate="2013-08-15T03:57:48.077" UserId="4914" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11470" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4794" RevisionGUID="b31eb38f-f8ef-4fda-a0c3-a36194fb0a83" CreationDate="2013-08-15T04:16:18.713" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20130031458&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11471" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4794" RevisionGUID="04218578-9706-48d7-92c0-c325bcd557ae" CreationDate="2013-08-15T04:24:56.587" UserId="1767" Comment="5" />
  <row Id="11472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4789" RevisionGUID="f9f1d94b-9f31-4d6c-9813-a67811a4c023" CreationDate="2013-08-15T05:25:21.157" UserId="3076" Comment="Added image from manual" Text="My 2006 Infiniti G35 Coupe had a navigation system that provided both of the features shown in the claims. It showed a map with different colored lines for the fastest and shortest routes along with another for a route with no freeways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit&#xD;&#xA;I found this in page 5-3 of 1008 Nav user manual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ZGYJ7.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4789" RevisionGUID="9fff5235-8428-495d-8466-c4aaffe7a9d2" CreationDate="2013-08-15T05:44:57.703" UserId="3076" Comment="Added link" Text="My 2006 Infiniti G35 Coupe had a navigation system that provided both of the features shown in the claims. It showed a map with different colored lines for the fastest and shortest routes along with another for a route with no freeways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit&#xD;&#xA;I found this in page 5-3 of [2008 C35 Nav user manual.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://owners.infinitiusa.com/iowners/content/manualsandguides/G_Sedan/2008/2008-Infiniti-06IT-Navi.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ZGYJ7.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4795" RevisionGUID="0352f03a-4ea7-4035-9cf1-7218775b51f7" CreationDate="2013-08-15T09:49:16.080" UserId="5496" Text="A Pokedex&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Said device describes a system which performed all of the mentioned steps: in (1) detecting and identifying an object in an image through a camera or other electromagnetic sensor system along with (2) registering target objects to a database and providing environmental data (such as location, sound, time, and vital data)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This prior art has appeared in several different forms as it was widely featured in various media in the Pokemon franchise including software, books, and television.  Broadcast of a television show in the United States featuring said prior art occurred no later September 9, 1998 with other forms of media also extant before 11/14/2011. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4794" RevisionGUID="5910cadb-8396-4506-9bc4-daa903a3176d" CreationDate="2013-08-15T15:42:09.957" UserId="4914" Comment="added 2187 characters in body" Text="Seeking Prior Art Submission for 2013-0031458 A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application tries to patent pretty much hyperlocal content delivery by merely stating details of common clustering techniques used with user geolocation data. It appears to be Bing Local Search&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some claims in question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;A system comprising&#xD;&#xA;-a reference acquisition component that obtains a first indicator associated with a first web page document &#xD;&#xA;-a classification type component that determines a classification type of the first web page document, based on the first indicator and a first content of the first web page document;&#xD;&#xA;-an attention geography component that determines a group of first attention geography items associated with the first web page document ;&#xD;&#xA;-a content geography component that determines a group of first content geography items associated with the first web page document; &#xD;&#xA;-and a hyperlocal classifier that determines, via a device processor, whether the first web page document includes a first hyperlocal content page document, based on the group of the first attention geography items and the group of the first content geography items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 6:&#xD;&#xA;The system of claim 1, further comprising: a posting crawler component that obtains a plurality of first posted items associated with the first web page document, based on initiating a plurality of first web page retrieval visits to the first web page document&#xD;&#xA;-and a posting locale determination component that determines a first locale associated with the plurality of first posted items based on geographic attributes associated with the obtained plurality of first posted items associated with the first web page document. ;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 7:&#xD;&#xA;The system of claim 6, further comprising: a document transformation component that updates a first annotated document item associated with the first web page document via annotations based on the obtained plurality of first posted items associated with the first web page document. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 8:&#xD;&#xA;The system of claim 7, further comprising: an ngram component that obtains tokens based on text included in the plurality of first posted items associated with the first web page document, and determines ranking values of obtained tokens based on term frequency values and document frequency values. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, we're talking about things like Yelp, but I believe Yelp has joined with Microsoft for this product. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need to beat July 27, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that there are Google results that are delivered like this, that utilize well-known clustering techniques and user geolocation- but a technical document specifying that can be hard to find." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4796" RevisionGUID="c8fadae8-0708-442c-969e-7781cc55108f" CreationDate="2013-08-15T16:52:13.920" UserId="3076" Text="The direct answer to the question is yes, the USPTO has been made aware by the applicant of at least two of  your (Ditto's - OP) patents. They are listed on an Information Disclosure Statement that is on file in the case. The full case file wrapper can be looked at using USPTO Public PAIR. From that site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/yLybp.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4770" RevisionGUID="dfc154f7-c49b-477f-8b0b-d4571ee3fd58" CreationDate="2013-08-15T19:29:00.647" UserId="3076" Comment="Added claim 14 wording" Text="is the Examiner aware of the prior art on diffraction range finders in the publication list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;http://www.3dewitt.com/2/patent02.html&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taken from the [Prior Art Request Template](http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/a/146/1767).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If another user (or the original poster) could complete for US20120281086 it would be very helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**HELP SAVE [INDUSTRY THREATENED BY OVERLY BROAD APPLICATION IN QUESTION]** - This application from [Assignee name] seeks to patent [quick, sensational description of invention described by application]! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent application before it becomes a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before {Priority Date}** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - [Description of stated invention, in plain English *note: include more than 1 bullet if multi-step process is essential to invention*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question -- one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Include a reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO {extra detail of stated invention that appears tangentially essential to idea}. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: **Distance measurement apparatus and distance measurement method**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [A multi-sentence description of the invention described in the patent application translated into plain old English. Feel free to borrow liberally from the application's Abstract.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US US20120281086][5]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Nov 9, 2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** through [Final Challenge Date *note: this date is typically as soon as six months after the publication date, but sometimes earlier and sometimes later. See [here][2] for more info.]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 14 requires each and every aspect of the following claim wording.**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&#xD;&#xA; (1-13 were canceled before the application was published, there are two other independent not claims)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A distance measurement apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a) an imaging device which captures an image;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b) a diffractive optical device which has a curved surface and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; diffracts a subject image; &lt;p&gt; c) an optical system which forms, on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said imaging device, the image from the subject image diffracted by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said diffractive optical device; and &lt;p&gt; d) a distance measurement&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unit configured to measure a distance to a subject using the image&#xD;&#xA;&gt; captured by said imaging device, wherein said distance measurement&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unit is configured to measure the distance to the subject based on an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interval between diffraction figures of the subject image which are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; created by said diffractive optical device, the interval being on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; image captured by said imaging device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. [First device  of claim 1 translated into plain old English]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. [Second step of claim 1 translated into plain old English]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. [Third step of claim 1 translated into plain old English]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to [Priority Date].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and including [extra detail provided in Extra Credit section].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Image *note: this is where you may choose to upload a diagram taken from the patent application. We recommend uploading an image that is eye-catching, and quickly communicates the essence of the invention described in the patent application.*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ](http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request) on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/posts/146/edit&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120281086&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120281086&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4770" RevisionGUID="995051a4-ab8b-4437-9f88-27594dfee901" CreationDate="2013-08-15T19:35:05.257" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="is the Examiner aware of the prior art on diffraction range finders in the publication list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;http://www.3dewitt.com/2/patent02.html&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taken from the [Prior Art Request Template](http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/a/146/1767).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If another user (or the original poster) could complete for US20120281086 it would be very helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**HELP SAVE [INDUSTRY THREATENED BY OVERLY BROAD APPLICATION IN QUESTION]** - This application from [Assignee name] seeks to patent [quick, sensational description of invention described by application]! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent application before it becomes a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before {Priority Date}** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - [Description of stated invention, in plain English *note: include more than 1 bullet if multi-step process is essential to invention*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question -- one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Include a reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO {extra detail of stated invention that appears tangentially essential to idea}. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: **Distance measurement apparatus and distance measurement method**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [A multi-sentence description of the invention described in the patent application translated into plain old English. Feel free to borrow liberally from the application's Abstract.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US US20120281086][5]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Nov 9, 2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** through [Final Challenge Date *note: this date is typically as soon as six months after the publication date, but sometimes earlier and sometimes later. See [here][2] for more info.]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 14 requires each and every aspect of the following claim wording.**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA; (1-13 were canceled before the application was published, there are two other independent claims.)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A distance measurement apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a) an imaging device which captures an image;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b) a diffractive optical device which has a curved surface and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; diffracts a subject image; &lt;p&gt; c) an optical system which forms, on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said imaging device, the image from the subject image diffracted by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said diffractive optical device; and &lt;p&gt; d) a distance measurement&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unit configured to measure a distance to a subject using the image&#xD;&#xA;&gt; captured by said imaging device, wherein said distance measurement&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unit is configured to measure the distance to the subject based on an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interval between diffraction figures of the subject image which are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; created by said diffractive optical device, the interval being on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; image captured by said imaging device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. [First device  of claim 1 translated into plain old English]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. [Second step of claim 1 translated into plain old English]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. [Third step of claim 1 translated into plain old English]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to [Priority Date].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and including [extra detail provided in Extra Credit section].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Image *note: this is where you may choose to upload a diagram taken from the patent application. We recommend uploading an image that is eye-catching, and quickly communicates the essence of the invention described in the patent application.*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ](http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request) on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/posts/146/edit&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120281086&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120281086&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4797" RevisionGUID="022d1d3c-78c5-4538-91d8-e3993ca04422" CreationDate="2013-08-15T19:58:48.147" UserId="5500" Text="Swedish Institute of Computer Science developed a virtual avatar-based environment, starting in 1991.  The earliest report I can find regarding the work is from 1993:  http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.17.2571" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4798" RevisionGUID="0ff7808b-bb49-46d3-bddd-e258fcf5fa16" CreationDate="2013-08-16T07:24:15.650" UserId="5341" Text="Please share the link to the original patent text. I have no clue what a &quot;reference acquisition component&quot; is. I am sorry that you have to read this and make sense out of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4799" RevisionGUID="fc25430a-e3f6-499c-aa1a-3694953ce934" CreationDate="2013-08-16T14:24:18.187" UserId="4099" Text="**US Patent US 20060073820 A1: Method and apparatus for remote control and updating of wireless mobile devices** with priority from Oct 2002 appears a very good match. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US20060073820&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This part of US20060073820's claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; request available updates;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;receive an update catalog for available updates, wherein said updates are selected from the group consisting of discretionary updates and mandatory updates; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and this part of US20060073820's claim 6:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; execute a stub application, said stub application automatically querying a remote source for a full application;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;receive said current application from said remote source;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;automatically install said full application; and&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;automatically execute said full application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;appear to anticipate claims 1.1 to 1.6 of the present filing.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4799" RevisionGUID="9cfb5758-672d-4e11-a681-835dd1f07843" CreationDate="2013-08-16T14:33:38.643" UserId="4099" Comment="formatting" Text="**US Patent US 20060073820 A1: Method and apparatus for remote control and updating of wireless mobile devices** with priority from Oct 2002 appears a very good match. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US20060073820&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This part of US20060073820's claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; request available updates;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;receive an update catalog for available updates, wherein said updates are selected from the group consisting of discretionary updates and mandatory updates; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and this part of US20060073820's claim 6:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; execute a stub application, said stub application automatically querying a remote source for a full application;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;receive said current application from said remote source;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;automatically install said full application; and&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;automatically execute said full application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and this explanation:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Further, in an exemplary embodiment of the present invention, by invoking the update application described below, a user's data (including programs and operating system data) on a wireless mobile device can be updated without the user needing to intervene. &#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Briefly, the update application on the wireless mobile device can update itself, update applications from a remote server, monitor a catalogue of application updates and additions on the server, monitor user activity via a unique device ID and/or other unique identifiers, launch by stub applications asking to be replaced by full applications...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As noted above, the update application may be activated in a number of different ways: (1) It may be launched as a normal stand alone application as to any other application launched on the wireless mobile device. (2) It may be launched by a stub application, with a specific path, to replace the stub application with its intended application (after download and successful install). To the user, they would launch the stub application, see a download in progress screen, followed by the actual application starting up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These claims and explanatory notes together appear to anticipate claims 1.1 to 1.6 of the present filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4799" RevisionGUID="243a6dcc-3b99-4812-9248-0f13e858b7ee" CreationDate="2013-08-16T14:39:41.857" UserId="4099" Comment="wording" Text="**US Patent US 20060073820 A1: Method and apparatus for remote control and updating of wireless mobile devices** with priority from Oct 2002 appears a very good match. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US20060073820&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This part of US20060073820's claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; request available updates;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;receive an update catalog for available updates, wherein said updates are selected from the group consisting of discretionary updates and mandatory updates; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and this part of US20060073820's claim 6:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; execute a stub application, said stub application automatically querying a remote source for a full application;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;receive said current application from said remote source;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;automatically install said full application; and&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;automatically execute said full application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and this explanation:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Further, in an exemplary embodiment of the present invention, by invoking the update application described below, **a user's data (including programs and operating system data) on a wireless mobile device can be updated** without the user needing to intervene. &#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Briefly, the update application on the wireless mobile device can update itself, update applications from a remote server, monitor a catalogue of application updates and additions on the server, monitor user activity via a unique device ID and/or other unique identifiers, launch by stub applications asking to be replaced by full applications...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As noted above, the update application may be activated in a number of different ways: (1) It may be launched as a normal stand alone application as to any other application launched on the wireless mobile device. (2) It may be launched by a stub application, with a specific path, to replace the stub application with its intended application (after download and successful install). To the user, they would launch the stub application, see a download in progress screen, followed by the actual application starting up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US20060073820 patent primarily discusses replacing a &quot;stub application&quot; with a full application. This filing on the other hand discusses replacing a full application with a &quot;dummy application&quot;. (The terms dummy and stub are clearly equivalent in this context). However the US20060073820 patent anticipates such obvious tweaks to the sequence of events and lays claim to them too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...it will be appreciated that while the processes and communication-interactions and the present interaction have been described in a particular order, those of ordinary skill in the art and other will appreciate that other orders of processes and/or communication interactions will also fall within the spirit and scope of the present invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These claims, explanatory notes, and caveats against obvious modifications to the sequence of events, together appear to anticipate and invalidate claims 1.1 to 1.6 of the present filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4799" RevisionGUID="3bf5fc5b-433c-43f7-b582-ef4213d47892" CreationDate="2013-08-16T14:53:17.267" UserId="4099" Comment="highlight" Text="**US Patent US 20060073820 A1: Method and apparatus for remote control and updating of wireless mobile devices** with priority from Oct 2002 appears a very good match. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US20060073820&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This part of US20060073820's claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; request available updates;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;receive an update catalog for available updates, wherein said updates are selected from the group consisting of discretionary updates and mandatory updates; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and this part of US20060073820's claim 6:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; execute a stub application, said stub application automatically querying a remote source for a full application;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;receive said current application from said remote source;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;automatically install said full application; and&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;automatically execute said full application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and this explanation:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Further, in an exemplary embodiment of the present invention, by invoking the update application described below, **a user's data (including programs and operating system data) on a wireless mobile device can be updated** without the user needing to intervene. &#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Briefly, the update application on the wireless mobile device can update itself, update applications from a remote server, monitor a catalogue of application updates and additions on the server, monitor user activity via a unique device ID and/or other unique identifiers, launch by stub applications asking to be replaced by full applications...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **As noted above, the update application may be activated in a number of different ways:** (1) It may be launched as a normal stand alone application as to any other application launched on the wireless mobile device. **(2) It may be launched by a stub application, with a specific path, to replace the stub application with its intended application** (after download and successful install). To the user, they would launch the stub application, see a download in progress screen, followed by the actual application starting up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US20060073820 patent primarily discusses replacing a &quot;stub application&quot; with a full application. This filing on the other hand discusses replacing a full application with a &quot;dummy application&quot;. (The terms dummy and stub are clearly equivalent in this context). However the US20060073820 patent anticipates such obvious tweaks to the sequence of events and lays claim to them too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...it will be appreciated that while the processes and communication-interactions and the present interaction have been described in a particular order, those of ordinary skill in the art and other will appreciate that other orders of processes and/or communication interactions will also fall within the spirit and scope of the present invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These claims, explanatory notes, and caveats against obvious modifications to the sequence of events, together appear to anticipate and invalidate claims 1.1 to 1.6 of the present filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4785" RevisionGUID="ddd72384-b160-408b-8a6f-dcf15f146327" CreationDate="2013-08-16T17:19:39.373" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON a navigation device with alternative route calculation** - This application from [TomTom][6] seeks to patent the idea of...providing a navigation instruction together with alternative navigation instructions to a destination! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/13/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - providing alternate routes to a driver without the driver being required to request a calculation of an alternative route&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO displays multiple potential navigation routes simultaneously&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Navigation device with alternate route calculation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A navigation device that calculates multiple routes for a driver and displays them simultaneously (without the driver being required to request a different route)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130173159 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/822,791&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: TomTom&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/13/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/31/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A navigation device, the navigation device operable to calculate routes to one or more destinations,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.  the device further operable to provide a navigation instruction together with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. an alternative navigation instruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A navigation device which calculates routes to destination (or multiple destinations), which:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. provides navigation instructions; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. provides instructions on alternative routes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/13/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming displaying multiple routes simultaneously without the driver requesting a &quot;re-route&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Providing multiple routes to a driver&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/GeJlCmH.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130173159?dq=US20130173159A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.tomtom.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11492" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="201" RevisionGUID="3a7236be-d974-499b-bf74-10c6ca765f3b" CreationDate="2013-08-16T17:49:39.383" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Enabling Users to Interact in a Virtual Space (Worlds Inc) - Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4801" RevisionGUID="1d6d380b-9857-4419-9718-99d599e4110b" CreationDate="2013-08-16T20:35:35.477" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON cloud-based video editing** - This application from [][6] seeks to patent the idea of...sending large video files to a server and providing **cloud-based applications to edit the video** files! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/23/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Video-editing software as a service run on a cloud-based server&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves segmenting large files into smaller segments so that encoding and delivery can be managed in segments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Databases and web applications for large video files**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for editing and managing large video files by uploading the files to a server and doing editing through web applications&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130132523 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/478,772&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for the acquisition and management of digital files and their display and management through the internet, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. communicating with a plurality of electronic storage devices via the internet;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. copying files from said electronic storage devices;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. storing said files and facilitating the download of said files; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. providing tools for the management of said files, said tools comprising a tool for delivering only a portion of one of said files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for managing and displaying video files on the internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Communicating with more than one storage device (e.g. a laptop or a smartphone)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Copying files from the storage device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Storing files on server(s) on the internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Providing tools to manage video files, including tools to download only a portion of one of the video files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming breaking large files into segments to help with uploading, encoding, and editing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Acquiring, managing and uploading video files from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/8owuaJl.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132523?dq=US20130132523A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11494" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4801" RevisionGUID="1d6d380b-9857-4419-9718-99d599e4110b" CreationDate="2013-08-16T20:35:35.477" UserId="1767" Text="Online Video Storage - Cloud-based tools for uploading and editing video files - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11495" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4801" RevisionGUID="1d6d380b-9857-4419-9718-99d599e4110b" CreationDate="2013-08-16T20:35:35.477" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;us20130132523&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4801" RevisionGUID="97ee95c4-bf27-4cb6-8c45-b451b31af1cd" CreationDate="2013-08-16T20:43:49.117" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON cloud-based video editing** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...sending large video files to a server and providing **cloud-based applications to edit the video** files! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/23/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Video-editing software as a service run on a cloud-based server&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves segmenting large files into smaller segments so that encoding and delivery can be managed in segments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Databases and web applications for large video files**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for editing and managing large video files by uploading the files to a server and doing editing through web applications&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130132523 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/478,772&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for the acquisition and management of digital files and their display and management through the internet, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. communicating with a plurality of electronic storage devices via the internet;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. copying files from said electronic storage devices;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. storing said files and facilitating the download of said files; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. providing tools for the management of said files, said tools comprising a tool for delivering only a portion of one of said files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for managing and displaying video files on the internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Communicating with more than one storage device (e.g. a laptop or a smartphone)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Copying files from the storage device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Storing files on server(s) on the internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Providing tools to manage video files, including tools to download only a portion of one of the video files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming breaking large files into segments to help with uploading, encoding, and editing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Acquiring, managing and uploading video files from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/8owuaJl.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132523?dq=US20130132523A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4801" RevisionGUID="f0b7e621-8779-4650-a274-081d359d3526" CreationDate="2013-08-16T20:49:59.783" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON cloud-based video editing** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...sending large video files to a server and providing **cloud-based applications to edit video** files! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/23/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Video-editing software as a service run on a cloud-based server&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves segmenting large files into smaller segments so that encoding and delivery can be managed in segments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Databases and web applications for large video files**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for editing and managing large video files by uploading the files to a server and doing editing through web applications&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130132523 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/478,772&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for the acquisition and management of digital files and their display and management through the internet, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. communicating with a plurality of electronic storage devices via the internet;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. copying files from said electronic storage devices;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. storing said files and facilitating the download of said files; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. providing tools for the management of said files, said tools comprising a tool for delivering only a portion of one of said files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for managing and displaying video files on the internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Communicating with more than one storage device (e.g. a laptop or a smartphone)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Copying files from the storage device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Storing files on server(s) on the internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Providing tools to manage video files, including tools to download only a portion of one of the video files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming breaking large files into segments to help with uploading, encoding, and editing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Acquiring, managing and uploading video files from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/8owuaJl.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132523?dq=US20130132523A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="9cfb7188-e041-4489-b693-0dcff5edd099" CreationDate="2013-08-16T21:22:09.623" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **A PATENT APPLICATION ON updating apps on mobile devices to restricted &quot;dummy&quot; apps** This application from [Good Technologies][2] seeks to patent the idea of...deleting sensitive information on a device by creating dummy apps. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A management system for apps on mobile devices where apps are updated to dummy apps that, when invoked, destroy the respective apps' sensitive data.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your company has as &quot;Bring Your Own Device&quot; policy.  The company email app on your personal phone is &quot;updated&quot; to a new version. Then, when you launch that app, it will delete all the company email on your device and present a &quot;YOU'RE FIRED&quot; message instead of an inbox view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Another example would be having version 1.0 of a game updated to a limited trial of version 2.0 that encrypts your old save file on first being run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that standard mobile app management/mobile device management platforms do not necessarily anticipate the invention. That is, **remote deletion of an application and/or data is not sufficient to meet the claim limitations**. It's critical that the prior art disclose updating/modifying the app to a restricted functionality &quot;dummy&quot; version and for the updated app to itself delete/modify the existing data upon being run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System and Method for Remote Management of Applications Downloaded to a Personal Portable Wireless Appliance** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110145932 A1][0]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/975,145&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  [Appcentral, Inc.][1] / [Good Technologies][2] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for downloading and monitoring applications, programs and data structures to a personal portable appliance coupled to a server via a network configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;0. determine that the appliance is connected; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. generating a connection request from the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. authenticating the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. determining that one or more applications must be updated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. receiving at least one updated application comprising a dummy application such that when the application is invoked the data structures of the previous application are manipulated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. modifying the functionality of the application; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. offering the user one or more indications that the application is restricted or limited. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010. (Please note that although that this patent application is a continuation-in-part of earlier-filed parent cases, the claimed invention is not supported by the disclosure of the parent cases, rendering the actual filing date the effective filing date.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A diagram of the application management system&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NhpR6yB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [0]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110145932?dq=US20110145932&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.appcentral.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.good.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4785" RevisionGUID="6e82bf28-87f8-42d3-a37b-93e055404559" CreationDate="2013-08-16T21:38:57.027" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON a navigation device with alternative route calculation** - This application from [TomTom][6] seeks to patent the idea of...providing a navigation instruction together with alternative navigation instructions to a destination! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/13/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - providing alternate routes to a driver without the driver being required to request a calculation of an alternative route&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO displays multiple potential navigation routes simultaneously&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Navigation device with alternate route calculation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A navigation device that calculates multiple routes for a driver and displays them simultaneously (without the driver being required to request a different route)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130173159 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/822,791&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: TomTom&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/13/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/31/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A navigation device, the navigation device operable to calculate routes to one or more destinations,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.  the device further operable to provide a navigation instruction together with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. an alternative navigation instruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A navigation device which calculates routes to destination (or multiple destinations), which:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. provides navigation instructions; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. provides instructions on alternative routes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/13/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming displaying multiple routes simultaneously without the driver requesting a &quot;re-route&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Providing multiple routes to a driver&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/GeJlCmH.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130173159?dq=US20130173159A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.tomtom.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4741" RevisionGUID="2eb087e2-8037-4591-8752-fcdaae5c6250" CreationDate="2013-08-16T21:39:36.187" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT on managing online distribution based on location** - This application from [Google][6] seeks to patent the idea of...managing content distribution based on geographic limitations! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2009** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Returning a search results query that only shows content which can be distributed in a location selected by the searcher&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves publishers reviewing distribution locations of content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Publisher review of proposed geo-targeted content**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] a method by which publisher can review proposed geo-targeted content items to determine whether the content items include any offensive material, whether the content items are composed in an acceptable format, or whether the content items should be approved or disapproved for any other reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130138487 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/513,325&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for managing content distribution, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving content information regarding content items for distribution and how the content items are to be distributed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving publication information regarding locations where content items are to be distributed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Updating, by at least one processor based on the received content information and publication information, a searchable data structure that relates the content information and the publisher information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving a search query regarding content items that are related to at least one location where content is to be distributed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Retrieving, by at least one processor from the data structure, content information responsive to the search query; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Transmitting content information responsive to the search query to enable review of the content information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of managing content distribution, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving information on where and how content is to be distributed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Updating a searchable data structure that relates content to publisher information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving a search query for content items which can be distributed in a location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Retrieving information about the content which can be distributed in that location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Transmitting information about that content (presumably to a publisher) for review&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming publishers reviewing distribution locations of content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A process for managing content distribution from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zQleEpH.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;350&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130138487?dq=US20130138487A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.google.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4801" RevisionGUID="991f30a1-710b-4237-9e4c-8b2905d0c8db" CreationDate="2013-08-16T21:39:56.407" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON cloud-based video editing** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...sending large video files to a server and providing **cloud-based applications to edit video** files! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/23/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Video-editing software as a service run on a cloud-based server&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves segmenting large files into smaller segments so that encoding and delivery can be managed in segments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Databases and web applications for large video files**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for editing and managing large video files by uploading the files to a server and doing editing through web applications&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130132523 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/478,772&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for the acquisition and management of digital files and their display and management through the internet, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. communicating with a plurality of electronic storage devices via the internet;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. copying files from said electronic storage devices;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. storing said files and facilitating the download of said files; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. providing tools for the management of said files, said tools comprising a tool for delivering only a portion of one of said files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for managing and displaying video files on the internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Communicating with more than one storage device (e.g. a laptop or a smartphone)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Copying files from the storage device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Storing files on server(s) on the internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Providing tools to manage video files, including tools to download only a portion of one of the video files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming breaking large files into segments to help with uploading, encoding, and editing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Acquiring, managing and uploading video files from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/8owuaJl.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132523?dq=US20130132523A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4802" RevisionGUID="7c80f0ce-8ae3-405f-9d99-c00cb16658a3" CreationDate="2013-08-16T23:04:29.507" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON synchronizing the output of data across devices** - This application from [Accenture][6] seeks to patent the idea of...synchronizing playback of streaming media on multiple devices! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Synchronously outputting media to multiple devices over a network &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves **Synchronous Stream Protocol (SSP)** or where devices can adjust playback speed or skip to keep streams in sync with one another&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Synchronizing playback of media across multiple devices**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for synchronizing output of audio or video streams across multiple devices by adjusting playback speed or skipping frames so as to keep the streams synchronized with one another during playback&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130138778 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/675,846&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Accenture&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for synchronizing output of media data across a plurality of output devices, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. providing a communication network between a media server and the plurality of output devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. synchronously outputting media data files on the plurality of output devices, wherein the media data files are transmitted to the output devices from the media server in form of a data stream over different delivery networks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for synchronizing the output of media (think audio/video) across devices, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Connecting a media server to mulitiple devices across a network&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **synchronously** playing the media over streams across different delivery networks (such as HDMI, fixed wired Ethernet, wireless IP, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A **Synchronous Stream Protocol (SSP)** and adjusting playback speed or skip to keep streams in sync with one another across devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for integrating playback of media across multiple devices from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/j6VDbND.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130138778?dq=US20130138778&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.accenture.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11503" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4802" RevisionGUID="7c80f0ce-8ae3-405f-9d99-c00cb16658a3" CreationDate="2013-08-16T23:04:29.507" UserId="1767" Text="Cloud Storage - Synchronizing output of streaming media data across devices (Accenture) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11504" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4802" RevisionGUID="7c80f0ce-8ae3-405f-9d99-c00cb16658a3" CreationDate="2013-08-16T23:04:29.507" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130138778&gt;&lt;accenture&gt;&lt;streaming&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4803" RevisionGUID="5be3e165-67a0-4ad3-bf60-b768bc47deba" CreationDate="2013-08-16T23:34:47.617" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON detecting &quot;problematic phrases&quot; in a document** - This application from [Google][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Alerting a user when a phrase in a document matches a &quot;problematic phrase&quot; in a database (i.e. phrases with legal or policy issues for the company)! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/30/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Searching for problematic phrases in a document and alerting the user or a third party&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves sending an alert to a third party if there is a match&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Detecting problematic phrases**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for detecting &quot;problematic phrases&quot; in documents and alerting the user when he has entered a problematic phrase.  A problematic phrase is one which has legal implications or is a policy violation for the company&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110748 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/599,731&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 10/29/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of identifying problematic phrases in an electronic document, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. detecting a context of the electronic document;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. capturing a textual phrase entered by a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. comparing the textual phrase against a database of phrases previously identified as having legal implications or violating policy; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. alerting the user via an in-line notification when the textual phrase matches a phrase in the database having legal implications or violating policy, based on the detected context of the electronic document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of identifying problematic phrases in a document, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Detecting a context of the document (e.g. Word file, Spreadsheet file, intended recipient of the document, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Capturing a text phrase entered by the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Comparing the text phrase against a database of problematic phrases (e.g. with legal implications or policy violations)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Alerting the user in-line when he has entered a problematic phrase in a document, based on the context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming sending an alert to a third party if the user enters a problematic phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Project ABC is going to totally *KILL* the company&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/L8yTgFu.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130110748?dq=US20130110748A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.google.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11506" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4803" RevisionGUID="5be3e165-67a0-4ad3-bf60-b768bc47deba" CreationDate="2013-08-16T23:34:47.617" UserId="1767" Text="Policy Violation Checker - Detecting &quot;problematic phrases&quot; in user documents (Google) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11507" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4803" RevisionGUID="5be3e165-67a0-4ad3-bf60-b768bc47deba" CreationDate="2013-08-16T23:34:47.617" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;google&gt;&lt;us20130110731&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11508" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4803" RevisionGUID="b54fd101-1128-43b3-89a9-7c5854945852" CreationDate="2013-08-16T23:41:05.877" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;google&gt;&lt;us20130110748&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11509" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4803" RevisionGUID="b54fd101-1128-43b3-89a9-7c5854945852" CreationDate="2013-08-16T23:41:05.877" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="Document Management - Detecting &quot;problematic phrases&quot; in user documents (Google) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="77ab5b5d-fd8a-45c5-ba8e-ad94e87ef944" CreationDate="2013-08-17T00:05:09.420" UserId="1767" Comment="added 279 characters in body; edited title" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application was Rejected by the US Patent Office!&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to the **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, an overly-broad patent application has been stopped. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to help stop more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **TITLE: Scale factors for visual presentations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130063492 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/230445][3]  &#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application generates and display graphical elements based on *pixel density.* The invention selects a *scale factor* from a *scale factor set* that is within the *range* of the pixel density.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of generating, using a device having a processor, a presentation comprising elements to be displayed on a display component, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - executing on the processor instructions configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - identify a ***pixel density*** of the display component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - for respective elements of the presentation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - from a ***scale factor set***, select a ***scale factor*** having a ***pixel density range*** including the pixel density of the display component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - request the element to generate a scaled representation using the scale factor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - generate the presentation comprising the scaled representations of the elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample figure** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/WgDnr.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application is similar to other resolution-independent scaling applications, patents, and implementations carried out in the industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 09/12/2011** that discusses (1) scale factor; (2) scale factor set; and (3) pixel density range in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][5] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][6] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/h3moa.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11511" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="77ab5b5d-fd8a-45c5-ba8e-ad94e87ef944" CreationDate="2013-08-17T00:05:09.420" UserId="1767" Comment="added 279 characters in body; edited title" Text="Microsoft) Scaling based on pixel density - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11512" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="77ab5b5d-fd8a-45c5-ba8e-ad94e87ef944" CreationDate="2013-08-17T00:05:09.420" UserId="1767" Comment="added 279 characters in body; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;us20130063492&gt;&lt;scaling&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4804" RevisionGUID="cacc413d-e602-434f-8bda-5ccecd481436" CreationDate="2013-08-17T01:03:30.027" UserId="3076" Text="This is article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Smokey: Automatic Recognition of Hostile Messages][1]&#xD;&#xA;a paper presented at AAAI conference in 1997&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;by a Microsoft/MIT AI Lab researcher&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject matter is detecting &quot;flame&quot; emails.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cs.csustan.edu/~mmartin/LDS/Spertus.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ABSTRACT&#xD;&#xA;Abusive messages (flames) can be both a source of&#xD;&#xA;frustration and a waste of time for Internet users. This paper&#xD;&#xA;describes some approaches to flame recognition, including a&#xD;&#xA;prototype system, Smokey. Smokey builds a 47-element&#xD;&#xA;feature vector based on the syntax and semantics of each&#xD;&#xA;sentence, combining the vectors for the sentences within&#xD;&#xA;each message. A training set of 720 messages was used by&#xD;&#xA;Quinlan’s C4.5 decision-tree generator to determine featurebased&#xD;&#xA;rules that were able to correctly categorize 64% of the&#xD;&#xA;flames and 98% of the non-flames in a separate test set of&#xD;&#xA;460 messages. Additional techniques for greater accuracy&#xD;&#xA;and user customization are also discussed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4804" RevisionGUID="a73ef517-ecb2-4c47-9c35-f5420377f447" CreationDate="2013-08-17T01:09:35.547" UserId="3076" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="This is article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Smokey: Automatic Recognition of Hostile Messages][1]&#xD;&#xA;a paper presented at AAAI conference in 1997&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;by Ellen Spertus, a Microsoft/MIT AI Lab researcher&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject matter is detecting &quot;flame&quot; emails.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cs.csustan.edu/~mmartin/LDS/Spertus.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ABSTRACT&#xD;&#xA;Abusive messages (flames) can be both a source of&#xD;&#xA;frustration and a waste of time for Internet users. This paper&#xD;&#xA;describes some approaches to flame recognition, including a&#xD;&#xA;prototype system, Smokey. Smokey builds a 47-element&#xD;&#xA;feature vector based on the syntax and semantics of each&#xD;&#xA;sentence, combining the vectors for the sentences within&#xD;&#xA;each message. A training set of 720 messages was used by&#xD;&#xA;Quinlan’s C4.5 decision-tree generator to determine featurebased&#xD;&#xA;rules that were able to correctly categorize 64% of the&#xD;&#xA;flames and 98% of the non-flames in a separate test set of&#xD;&#xA;460 messages. Additional techniques for greater accuracy&#xD;&#xA;and user customization are also discussed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11515" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="10951874-3cb6-465d-8f54-4f0a8bc2283c" CreationDate="2013-08-17T01:39:37.210" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application was Rejected by the US Patent Office!&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to the **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, an overly-broad patent application has been stopped. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to stop more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **TITLE: Scale factors for visual presentations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130063492 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/230445][3]  &#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application generates and display graphical elements based on *pixel density.* The invention selects a *scale factor* from a *scale factor set* that is within the *range* of the pixel density.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of generating, using a device having a processor, a presentation comprising elements to be displayed on a display component, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - executing on the processor instructions configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - identify a ***pixel density*** of the display component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - for respective elements of the presentation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - from a ***scale factor set***, select a ***scale factor*** having a ***pixel density range*** including the pixel density of the display component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - request the element to generate a scaled representation using the scale factor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - generate the presentation comprising the scaled representations of the elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample figure** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/WgDnr.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application is similar to other resolution-independent scaling applications, patents, and implementations carried out in the industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 09/12/2011** that discusses (1) scale factor; (2) scale factor set; and (3) pixel density range in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][5] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][6] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/h3moa.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4805" RevisionGUID="461e0589-0647-438e-8275-82153076a032" CreationDate="2013-08-17T12:08:38.373" UserId="5002" Text="You might want to check out the Sonos product range.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonos&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, apparently there is already a patent; given the Sonos works across multiple networks I think this is remarkably similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://forums.sonos.com/showthread.php?t=31401&#xD;&#xA;* http://www.pat2pdf.org/pat2pdf/foo.pl?number=8234395&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="edbb93fb-21be-4090-9c8d-83a6535cc77c" CreationDate="2013-08-17T19:33:01.787" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **A PATENT APPLICATION ON updating apps on mobile devices to restricted &quot;dummy&quot; apps** This application from [Good Technologies][2] seeks to patent the idea of...deleting sensitive information on a device by creating dummy apps. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A management system for apps on mobile devices where apps are updated to dummy apps that, when invoked, destroy the respective apps' sensitive data.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your company has as &quot;Bring Your Own Device&quot; policy.  The company email app on your personal phone is &quot;updated&quot; to a new version. Then, when you launch that app, it will delete all the company email on your device and present a &quot;YOU'RE FIRED&quot; message instead of an inbox view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Another example would be having version 1.0 of a game updated to a limited trial of version 2.0 that encrypts your old save file on first being run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that standard mobile app management/mobile device management platforms do not necessarily anticipate the invention. That is, **remote deletion of an application and/or data is not sufficient to meet the claim limitations**. It's critical that the prior art disclose updating/modifying the app to a restricted functionality &quot;dummy&quot; version and for the updated app to itself delete/modify the existing data upon being run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System and Method for Remote Management of Applications Downloaded to a Personal Portable Wireless Appliance** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110145932 A1][0]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/975,145&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  [Appcentral, Inc.][1] / [Good Technologies][2] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for downloading and monitoring applications, programs and data structures to a personal portable appliance coupled to a server via a network configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;0. determine that the appliance is connected; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. generating a connection request from the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. authenticating the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. determining that one or more applications must be updated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. receiving at least one updated application comprising a dummy application such that when the application is invoked the data structures of the previous application are manipulated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. modifying the functionality of the application; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. offering the user one or more indications that the application is restricted or limited. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010. (Please note that although that this patent application is a continuation-in-part of earlier-filed parent cases, the claimed invention is not supported by the disclosure of the parent cases, rendering the actual filing date the effective filing date.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A diagram of the application management system&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NhpR6yB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [0]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110145932?dq=US20110145932&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.appcentral.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.good.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4785" RevisionGUID="e838033e-b171-495e-869f-f1b36f31df4f" CreationDate="2013-08-17T19:33:26.697" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON a navigation device with alternative route calculation** - This application from [TomTom][6] seeks to patent the idea of...providing a navigation instruction together with alternative navigation instructions to a destination! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/13/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - providing alternate routes to a driver without the driver being required to request a calculation of an alternative route&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO displays multiple potential navigation routes simultaneously&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Navigation device with alternate route calculation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A navigation device that calculates multiple routes for a driver and displays them simultaneously (without the driver being required to request a different route)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130173159 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/822,791&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: TomTom&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/13/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/31/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A navigation device, the navigation device operable to calculate routes to one or more destinations,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.  the device further operable to provide a navigation instruction together with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. an alternative navigation instruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A navigation device which calculates routes to destination (or multiple destinations), which:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. provides navigation instructions; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. provides instructions on alternative routes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/13/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming displaying multiple routes simultaneously without the driver requesting a &quot;re-route&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Providing multiple routes to a driver&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/GeJlCmH.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130173159?dq=US20130173159A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.tomtom.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4741" RevisionGUID="e1d0ea39-c09e-4dcf-861d-00c9679189d5" CreationDate="2013-08-17T19:34:03.047" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT on managing online distribution based on location** - This application from [Google][6] seeks to patent the idea of...managing content distribution based on geographic limitations! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2009** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Returning a search results query that only shows content which can be distributed in a location selected by the searcher&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves publishers reviewing distribution locations of content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Publisher review of proposed geo-targeted content**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] a method by which publisher can review proposed geo-targeted content items to determine whether the content items include any offensive material, whether the content items are composed in an acceptable format, or whether the content items should be approved or disapproved for any other reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130138487 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/513,325&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for managing content distribution, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving content information regarding content items for distribution and how the content items are to be distributed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving publication information regarding locations where content items are to be distributed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Updating, by at least one processor based on the received content information and publication information, a searchable data structure that relates the content information and the publisher information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving a search query regarding content items that are related to at least one location where content is to be distributed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Retrieving, by at least one processor from the data structure, content information responsive to the search query; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Transmitting content information responsive to the search query to enable review of the content information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of managing content distribution, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving information on where and how content is to be distributed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Updating a searchable data structure that relates content to publisher information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving a search query for content items which can be distributed in a location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Retrieving information about the content which can be distributed in that location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Transmitting information about that content (presumably to a publisher) for review&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming publishers reviewing distribution locations of content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A process for managing content distribution from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zQleEpH.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;350&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130138487?dq=US20130138487A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.google.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4801" RevisionGUID="17305048-ade2-408c-9e81-f9f679a4d27d" CreationDate="2013-08-17T19:34:31.470" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON cloud-based video editing** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...sending large video files to a server and providing **cloud-based applications to edit video** files! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/23/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Video-editing software as a service run on a cloud-based server&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves segmenting large files into smaller segments so that encoding and delivery can be managed in segments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Databases and web applications for large video files**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for editing and managing large video files by uploading the files to a server and doing editing through web applications&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130132523 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/478,772&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for the acquisition and management of digital files and their display and management through the internet, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. communicating with a plurality of electronic storage devices via the internet;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. copying files from said electronic storage devices;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. storing said files and facilitating the download of said files; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. providing tools for the management of said files, said tools comprising a tool for delivering only a portion of one of said files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for managing and displaying video files on the internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Communicating with more than one storage device (e.g. a laptop or a smartphone)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Copying files from the storage device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Storing files on server(s) on the internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Providing tools to manage video files, including tools to download only a portion of one of the video files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming breaking large files into segments to help with uploading, encoding, and editing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Acquiring, managing and uploading video files from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/8owuaJl.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132523?dq=US20130132523A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4803" RevisionGUID="9b3b03a2-748e-4e01-9aff-aea78c358606" CreationDate="2013-08-17T19:35:10.380" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON detecting &quot;problematic phrases&quot; in a document** - This application from [Google][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Alerting a user when a phrase in a document matches a &quot;problematic phrase&quot; in a database (i.e. phrases with legal or policy issues for the company)! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/30/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Searching for problematic phrases in a document and alerting the user or a third party&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves sending an alert to a third party if there is a match&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Detecting problematic phrases**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for detecting &quot;problematic phrases&quot; in documents and alerting the user when he has entered a problematic phrase.  A problematic phrase is one which has legal implications or is a policy violation for the company&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110748 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/599,731&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 10/29/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of identifying problematic phrases in an electronic document, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. detecting a context of the electronic document;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. capturing a textual phrase entered by a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. comparing the textual phrase against a database of phrases previously identified as having legal implications or violating policy; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. alerting the user via an in-line notification when the textual phrase matches a phrase in the database having legal implications or violating policy, based on the detected context of the electronic document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of identifying problematic phrases in a document, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Detecting a context of the document (e.g. Word file, Spreadsheet file, intended recipient of the document, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Capturing a text phrase entered by the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Comparing the text phrase against a database of problematic phrases (e.g. with legal implications or policy violations)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Alerting the user in-line when he has entered a problematic phrase in a document, based on the context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming sending an alert to a third party if the user enters a problematic phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Project ABC is going to totally *KILL* the company&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/L8yTgFu.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130110748?dq=US20130110748A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.google.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="ed129c60-7347-49a6-b43f-e5847c9c8b3a" CreationDate="2013-08-17T19:35:56.103" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application was Rejected by the US Patent Office!&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to the **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, an overly-broad patent application has been stopped. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to stop more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **TITLE: Scale factors for visual presentations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130063492 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/230445][3]  &#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application generates and display graphical elements based on *pixel density.* The invention selects a *scale factor* from a *scale factor set* that is within the *range* of the pixel density.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of generating, using a device having a processor, a presentation comprising elements to be displayed on a display component, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - executing on the processor instructions configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - identify a ***pixel density*** of the display component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - for respective elements of the presentation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - from a ***scale factor set***, select a ***scale factor*** having a ***pixel density range*** including the pixel density of the display component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - request the element to generate a scaled representation using the scale factor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - generate the presentation comprising the scaled representations of the elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample figure** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/WgDnr.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application is similar to other resolution-independent scaling applications, patents, and implementations carried out in the industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 09/12/2011** that discusses (1) scale factor; (2) scale factor set; and (3) pixel density range in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][5] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][6] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/h3moa.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4802" RevisionGUID="2a0d122b-8c37-4847-98eb-ff36532a7f25" CreationDate="2013-08-17T19:36:21.013" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON synchronizing the output of data across devices** - This application from [Accenture][6] seeks to patent the idea of...synchronizing playback of streaming media on multiple devices! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Synchronously outputting media to multiple devices over a network &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves **Synchronous Stream Protocol (SSP)** or where devices can adjust playback speed or skip to keep streams in sync with one another&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Synchronizing playback of media across multiple devices**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for synchronizing output of audio or video streams across multiple devices by adjusting playback speed or skipping frames so as to keep the streams synchronized with one another during playback&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130138778 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/675,846&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Accenture&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for synchronizing output of media data across a plurality of output devices, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. providing a communication network between a media server and the plurality of output devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. synchronously outputting media data files on the plurality of output devices, wherein the media data files are transmitted to the output devices from the media server in form of a data stream over different delivery networks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for synchronizing the output of media (think audio/video) across devices, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Connecting a media server to mulitiple devices across a network&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **synchronously** playing the media over streams across different delivery networks (such as HDMI, fixed wired Ethernet, wireless IP, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A **Synchronous Stream Protocol (SSP)** and adjusting playback speed or skip to keep streams in sync with one another across devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for integrating playback of media across multiple devices from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/j6VDbND.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130138778?dq=US20130138778&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.accenture.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4809" RevisionGUID="b7b773f0-86d9-4c1c-8bfd-dfab3670b067" CreationDate="2013-08-17T23:36:53.910" UserId="5401" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON EXAMPLE SOURCE CODE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google is trying to patent the generation of client libraries and example&#xD;&#xA;code from API descriptions. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US&#xD;&#xA;patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow&#xD;&#xA;@askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before March, 2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Automatically generating a client library for accessing a given API from a given operating&#xD;&#xA;system using a given programming language, together with sample code&#xD;&#xA;that uses the client library, and making the generated code&#xD;&#xA;available for download from the web?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.&#xD;&#xA;Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers&#xD;&#xA;from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Generate custom client library samples based on a machine readable&#xD;&#xA;API description**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: It’s common for a web application to provide a&#xD;&#xA;programming-language-agnostic HTTP API. It’s also common for web&#xD;&#xA;applications to provide example code for accessing the API from many&#xD;&#xA;different programming languages. Google wants to patent automating this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US8510762 B1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** March 2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Feb 13, 2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://google.com/patents/US8510762&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below::&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method performed by one or more processors, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a request for a client library for an API, the request&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    including an API identifier, a target programming language, and a&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    target operating system platform&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Retrieving a machine-readable description of the API based on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    identifier for the API&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Building a model of the API based on the machine-readable description&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generating an API library source code in the target programming language&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Receiving a sample template for a generic sample application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Expanding the sample template by incorporating a data structure in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    target programming language to generate one or more code samples using&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    the API library source code&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Storing in a unique Web location the generated code samples for later&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    download.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. The server requests a client library for accessing the [Foo][] API&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    using the Bar programming language&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2. The server looks up a description of the Foo API&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  3. The server parses the API description&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  4. The server generates a Bar-programming-language client library for the&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Foo API&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  5. The server looks up sample code for using the Foo API. The patent does&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    not specify if this sample code is in the Bar programming language,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    or in some other format that is then translated to the Bar programming&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    language.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  6. The server generates Bar-language sample code that uses the&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Bar-language client library. It does so by using the impossibly vague&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    procedure of “expanding the sample template by incorporating a data&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    structure in the [Bar] programming language.”&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  7. The server returns a URL of the generated client library and sample&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Foo]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foobar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of&#xD;&#xA;these steps prior to **March, 2012**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you&#xD;&#xA;to [post your own request for prior art][prior-art] on other questionable&#xD;&#xA;US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[FAQ]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;[prior-art]: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/questions/47/how-do-i-write-a-prior-art-request-for-a-u-s-patent-application&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11538" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4809" RevisionGUID="b7b773f0-86d9-4c1c-8bfd-dfab3670b067" CreationDate="2013-08-17T23:36:53.910" UserId="5401" Text="Custom client libraries (Google) - Patent Application - Prior Art Request" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11539" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4809" RevisionGUID="b7b773f0-86d9-4c1c-8bfd-dfab3670b067" CreationDate="2013-08-17T23:36:53.910" UserId="5401" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;google&gt;&lt;us8510762&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11540" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4809" RevisionGUID="121b84e3-0064-42e0-b0c4-af63fa4a67e3" CreationDate="2013-08-17T23:55:58.130" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags; edited title; deleted 7 characters in body" Text="Custom client libraries (Google) - Issued Patent - Prior Art Request" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11541" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4809" RevisionGUID="121b84e3-0064-42e0-b0c4-af63fa4a67e3" CreationDate="2013-08-17T23:55:58.130" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags; edited title; deleted 7 characters in body" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;google&gt;&lt;us8510762&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4809" RevisionGUID="121b84e3-0064-42e0-b0c4-af63fa4a67e3" CreationDate="2013-08-17T23:55:58.130" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags; edited title; deleted 7 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON EXAMPLE SOURCE CODE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google has patented the generation of client libraries and example&#xD;&#xA;code from API descriptions. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US&#xD;&#xA;patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow&#xD;&#xA;@askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before March, 2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Automatically generating a client library for accessing a given API from a given operating&#xD;&#xA;system using a given programming language, together with sample code&#xD;&#xA;that uses the client library, and making the generated code&#xD;&#xA;available for download from the web?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.&#xD;&#xA;Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers&#xD;&#xA;from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Generate custom client library samples based on a machine readable&#xD;&#xA;API description**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: It’s common for a web application to provide a&#xD;&#xA;programming-language-agnostic HTTP API. It’s also common for web&#xD;&#xA;applications to provide example code for accessing the API from many&#xD;&#xA;different programming languages. Google wants to patent automating this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US8510762 B1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** March 2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Feb 13, 2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://google.com/patents/US8510762&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below::&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method performed by one or more processors, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a request for a client library for an API, the request&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    including an API identifier, a target programming language, and a&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    target operating system platform&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Retrieving a machine-readable description of the API based on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    identifier for the API&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Building a model of the API based on the machine-readable description&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generating an API library source code in the target programming language&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Receiving a sample template for a generic sample application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Expanding the sample template by incorporating a data structure in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    target programming language to generate one or more code samples using&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    the API library source code&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Storing in a unique Web location the generated code samples for later&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    download.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. The server requests a client library for accessing the [Foo][] API&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    using the Bar programming language&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2. The server looks up a description of the Foo API&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  3. The server parses the API description&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  4. The server generates a Bar-programming-language client library for the&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Foo API&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  5. The server looks up sample code for using the Foo API. The patent does&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    not specify if this sample code is in the Bar programming language,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    or in some other format that is then translated to the Bar programming&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    language.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  6. The server generates Bar-language sample code that uses the&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Bar-language client library. It does so by using the impossibly vague&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    procedure of “expanding the sample template by incorporating a data&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    structure in the [Bar] programming language.”&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  7. The server returns a URL of the generated client library and sample&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Foo]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foobar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of&#xD;&#xA;these steps prior to **March, 2012**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you&#xD;&#xA;to [post your own request for prior art][prior-art] on other questionable&#xD;&#xA;US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[FAQ]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;[prior-art]: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/questions/47/how-do-i-write-a-prior-art-request-for-a-u-s-patent-application&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11543" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4809" RevisionGUID="8b4fbf18-8026-4f72-bde7-f74e1e325bc6" CreationDate="2013-08-18T00:10:46.600" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Custom client libraries (Google) - Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11544" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="6316eae8-bf9a-4727-92c4-42eefbe392a3" CreationDate="2013-08-18T06:20:14.683" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Scaling based on pixel density (Microsoft) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4810" RevisionGUID="192adbed-0b14-4f0f-bee5-833dba43e7d6" CreationDate="2013-08-18T12:09:36.000" UserId="5519" Text="&#xD;&#xA;This sounds like an electronic, integrated parts catalogs. That have been around forever in defence, mining and other areas where people find replacement parts by using visual properties as filters. There are many situations in industrial environments where terminology or literacy or lack of documentation means this is the most practical way to query a collection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These can also be called exploded parts catalogs. This is one product but there are many more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.multicat.com/multicat-catalogue-building-and-maintenance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Products like this have been available since at least the 1990s, probably earlier." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4811" RevisionGUID="9dc5c677-e96f-4cbb-985a-6d4872fec1de" CreationDate="2013-08-18T14:32:17.050" UserId="4099" Text="From Oct 2000, the **Grass Weed Identification Key** on the Virginia Tech website appears to partially match the claims in the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current site: http://www.ppws.vt.edu/weedindex.htm and &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://web2.ento.vt.edu/servlet/wid?table=grasses &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Earliest copy in Internet archive (Oct 2000):&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20001029190649/http://whizlab.isis.vt.edu/servlet/wid?table=grasses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site consists of an interactive questionnaire, with descriptive text and color images such as is described in US7363309, for identifying grass weeds.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://web2.ento.vt.edu/servlet/wid &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At each stage of the identification process, only options are presented which are relevant given the options selected on previous screens. Again, this matches the claims in US7363309.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if in response to &quot;What type of root system does your weed sample have?&quot; we select:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;a fibrous root system&quot;, the invention asks &quot;At maturity, approximately how wide are the leaf blades on your weed sample?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;tubers&quot;, the invention asks &quot;Does your weed sample have a ligule&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Oct 2000 invention therefore anticipates and invalidates these parts of the claims in US7363309:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; displaying to the user a series of selectable attributes which vary among natural items in the collection of natural items, each attribute having one or more data types in which a plurality of values for the attribute are stored in the data storage, the values for the series of selectable attributes being in a plurality of the following data types stored in the storage for presentation to the user in a search conducted by the user:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) descriptive text, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) color images of natural items in the collection of natural items, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; search means associated with the microprocessor for enabling and prompting the user, on the display screen, to perform a step-by-step elimination search to identify a natural item observed in the field by selecting one of said attributes, ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4811" RevisionGUID="133d1156-dfa8-4767-b815-5b05e3bc4756" CreationDate="2013-08-18T14:39:08.217" UserId="4099" Comment="note about servlet page archiving" Text="From Oct 2000, the **Grass Weed Identification Key** on the Virginia Tech website appears to partially match the claims in the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current site: http://www.ppws.vt.edu/weedindex.htm and &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://web2.ento.vt.edu/servlet/wid?table=grasses &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Earliest copy in Internet archive (Oct 2000):&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20001029190649/http://whizlab.isis.vt.edu/servlet/wid?table=grasses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site consists of an interactive questionnaire, with descriptive text and color images such as is described in US7363309, for identifying grass weeds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not possible to verify every screen in the Oct 2000 site in the internet archive, as servlet-generated pages have not been archived. However the launch page, and its description of the system, linked to above has not changed between Oct 2000 and today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At each stage of the identification process, only options are presented which are relevant given the options selected on previous screens. Again, this matches the claims in US7363309.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if in response to &quot;What type of root system does your weed sample have?&quot; we select:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;a fibrous root system&quot;, the invention asks &quot;At maturity, approximately how wide are the leaf blades on your weed sample?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;tubers&quot;, the invention asks &quot;Does your weed sample have a ligule&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Oct 2000 invention therefore anticipates and invalidates these parts of the claims in US7363309:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; displaying to the user a series of selectable attributes which vary among natural items in the collection of natural items, each attribute having one or more data types in which a plurality of values for the attribute are stored in the data storage, the values for the series of selectable attributes being in a plurality of the following data types stored in the storage for presentation to the user in a search conducted by the user:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) descriptive text, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) color images of natural items in the collection of natural items, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; search means associated with the microprocessor for enabling and prompting the user, on the display screen, to perform a step-by-step elimination search to identify a natural item observed in the field by selecting one of said attributes, ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4811" RevisionGUID="af562fef-3b5b-4463-8e44-a18620a31331" CreationDate="2013-08-18T14:44:27.953" UserId="4099" Comment="formatting" Text="From Oct 2000, the **Grass Weed Identification Key** on the Virginia Tech website appears to partially match the claims in the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current site: http://www.ppws.vt.edu/weedindex.htm and &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://web2.ento.vt.edu/servlet/wid?table=grasses &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Earliest copy in Internet archive (Oct 2000):&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20001029190649/http://whizlab.isis.vt.edu/servlet/wid?table=grasses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site consists of an interactive questionnaire, with descriptive text and color images such as is described in US7363309, for identifying grass weeds. It is not possible to verify every screen in the Oct 2000 site in the internet archive, as servlet-generated pages have not been archived. However the launch page, and its description of the system, linked to above has not changed between Oct 2000 and today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At each stage of the identification process, only options are presented which are relevant given the options selected on previous screens. Again, this matches the claims in US7363309. For example, if in response to &quot;What type of root system does your weed sample have?&quot; we select:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;a fibrous root system&quot;, the invention asks &quot;At maturity, approximately how wide are the leaf blades on your weed sample?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;tubers&quot;, the invention asks &quot;Does your weed sample have a ligule&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Oct 2000 invention therefore anticipates and invalidates these parts of the claims in US7363309:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; displaying to the user a series of selectable attributes which vary among natural items in the collection of natural items, each attribute having one or more data types in which a plurality of values for the attribute are stored in the data storage, the values for the series of selectable attributes being in a plurality of the following data types stored in the storage for presentation to the user in a search conducted by the user:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) descriptive text, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) color images of natural items in the collection of natural items, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; search means associated with the microprocessor for enabling and prompting the user, on the display screen, to perform a step-by-step elimination search to identify a natural item observed in the field by selecting one of said attributes, ...  and continuing the stepwise elimination search to further reduce the number of possible natural items in the natural items of the collection, the search means progressively eliminating non-matches from a list of possible natural items in the natural items of the collection,... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The addition of extra multimedia types in the US7363309 patent are obvious to me, as a person ordinarily skilled in the art. The same applies to encasing the system in a mobile terminal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be interesting to find out if Virgina Tech have access logs from 2003 and earlier which show access from early mobile web devices." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4812" RevisionGUID="a1161ac4-2e8e-4341-9160-6e44fc31da99" CreationDate="2013-08-18T14:53:54.007" UserId="5521" Text="https://bitcoinpaperwallet.com is a fork of Bitaddress which includes a tamper-resistant design (hiding the private key) using tamper-evident stickers. Basically it's the paper equivalent of Casascius coins." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4813" RevisionGUID="e076ccaa-5457-4ca5-b4ec-53fb97a71712" CreationDate="2013-08-18T16:04:17.437" UserId="5524" Text="YouTube video editor and Special:Upload on all MediaWiki installations - www.mediawiki.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4801" RevisionGUID="2d618544-f5cf-4c42-b46b-607baee653f7" CreationDate="2013-08-18T19:56:33.473" UserId="3076" Comment="made the &quot;English&quot; version more accurate to the actual claim 1" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON cloud-based video editing** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...sending large video files to a server and providing **cloud-based applications to edit video** files! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/23/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Video-editing software as a service run on a cloud-based server&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves segmenting large files into smaller segments so that encoding and delivery can be managed in segments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Databases and web applications for large video files**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for editing and managing large video files by uploading the files to a server and doing editing through web applications&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130132523 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/478,772&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for the acquisition and management of digital files and their display and management through the internet, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. communicating with a plurality of electronic storage devices via the internet;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. copying files from said electronic storage devices;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. storing said files and facilitating the download of said files; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. providing tools for the management of said files, said tools comprising a tool for delivering only a portion of one of said files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for managing and displaying video files on the internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Communicating with more than one storage device (e.g. a laptop or a smartphone)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Copying files from the storage device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Storing files on server(s) on the internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Providing tools to manage the files, including tools to download only a portion of one of the files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming breaking large files into segments to help with uploading, encoding, and editing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Acquiring, managing and uploading video files from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/8owuaJl.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132523?dq=US20130132523A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4802" RevisionGUID="de3204a7-5a78-4075-aec4-75489ae2158f" CreationDate="2013-08-19T04:39:55.007" UserId="1767" Comment="edited body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON synchronizing the output of data across devices** - This application from [Accenture][6] seeks to patent the idea of...synchronizing playback of streaming media on multiple devices! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Synchronously outputting media to multiple devices over a network &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves **Synchronous Stream Protocol (SSP)** or where devices can adjust playback speed or skip to keep streams in sync with one another&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Synchronizing playback of media across multiple devices**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for synchronizing output of audio or video streams across multiple devices by adjusting playback speed or skipping frames so as to keep the streams synchronized with one another during playback&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130138778 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/675,846&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Accenture&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for synchronizing output of media data across a plurality of output devices, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. providing a communication network between a media server and the plurality of output devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. synchronously outputting media data files on the plurality of output devices, wherein the media data files are transmitted to the output devices from the media server in form of a data stream over different delivery networks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for synchronizing the output of media (think audio/video) across devices, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Connecting a media server to mulitiple devices across a network&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **synchronously** playing the media over streams across different delivery networks (such as HDMI, fixed wired Ethernet, wireless IP, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A **Synchronous Stream Protocol (SSP)** and adjusting playback speed or skip to keep streams in sync with one another across devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for integrating playback of media across multiple devices from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/j6VDbND.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130138778?dq=US20130138778&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.accenture.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4803" RevisionGUID="c77a0f72-b21f-4175-b4f3-c0e90fc11176" CreationDate="2013-08-19T04:40:21.653" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON detecting &quot;problematic phrases&quot; in a document** - This application from [Google][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Alerting a user when a phrase in a document matches a &quot;problematic phrase&quot; in a database (i.e. phrases with legal or policy issues for the company)! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/30/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Searching for problematic phrases in a document and alerting the user or a third party&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves sending an alert to a third party if there is a match&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Detecting problematic phrases**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for detecting &quot;problematic phrases&quot; in documents and alerting the user when he has entered a problematic phrase.  A problematic phrase is one which has legal implications or is a policy violation for the company&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110748 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/599,731&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 10/29/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of identifying problematic phrases in an electronic document, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. detecting a context of the electronic document;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. capturing a textual phrase entered by a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. comparing the textual phrase against a database of phrases previously identified as having legal implications or violating policy; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. alerting the user via an in-line notification when the textual phrase matches a phrase in the database having legal implications or violating policy, based on the detected context of the electronic document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of identifying problematic phrases in a document, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Detecting a context of the document (e.g. Word file, Spreadsheet file, intended recipient of the document, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Capturing a text phrase entered by the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Comparing the text phrase against a database of problematic phrases (e.g. with legal implications or policy violations)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Alerting the user in-line when he has entered a problematic phrase in a document, based on the context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming sending an alert to a third party if the user enters a problematic phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Project ABC is going to totally *KILL* the company&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/L8yTgFu.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130110748?dq=US20130110748A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.google.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4785" RevisionGUID="0faffaba-5bdc-46be-aa5f-e4c9ff861956" CreationDate="2013-08-19T04:40:47.463" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON a navigation device with alternative route calculation** - This application from [TomTom][6] seeks to patent the idea of...providing a navigation instruction together with alternative navigation instructions to a destination! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/13/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - providing alternate routes to a driver without the driver being required to request a calculation of an alternative route&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO displays multiple potential navigation routes simultaneously&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Navigation device with alternate route calculation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A navigation device that calculates multiple routes for a driver and displays them simultaneously (without the driver being required to request a different route)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130173159 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/822,791&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: TomTom&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/13/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/31/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A navigation device, the navigation device operable to calculate routes to one or more destinations,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.  the device further operable to provide a navigation instruction together with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. an alternative navigation instruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A navigation device which calculates routes to destination (or multiple destinations), which:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. provides navigation instructions; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. provides instructions on alternative routes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/13/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming displaying multiple routes simultaneously without the driver requesting a &quot;re-route&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Providing multiple routes to a driver&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/GeJlCmH.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130173159?dq=US20130173159A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.tomtom.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="fe4658b6-5210-4fae-8f46-b70a37f0e541" CreationDate="2013-08-19T04:41:01.733" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**A PATENT APPLICATION ON updating apps on mobile devices to restricted &quot;dummy&quot; apps** This application from [Good Technologies][2] seeks to patent the idea of...deleting sensitive information on a device by creating dummy apps. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A management system for apps on mobile devices where apps are updated to dummy apps that, when invoked, destroy the respective apps' sensitive data.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your company has as &quot;Bring Your Own Device&quot; policy.  The company email app on your personal phone is &quot;updated&quot; to a new version. Then, when you launch that app, it will delete all the company email on your device and present a &quot;YOU'RE FIRED&quot; message instead of an inbox view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Another example would be having version 1.0 of a game updated to a limited trial of version 2.0 that encrypts your old save file on first being run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that standard mobile app management/mobile device management platforms do not necessarily anticipate the invention. That is, **remote deletion of an application and/or data is not sufficient to meet the claim limitations**. It's critical that the prior art disclose updating/modifying the app to a restricted functionality &quot;dummy&quot; version and for the updated app to itself delete/modify the existing data upon being run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System and Method for Remote Management of Applications Downloaded to a Personal Portable Wireless Appliance** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110145932 A1][0]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/975,145&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  [Appcentral, Inc.][1] / [Good Technologies][2] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for downloading and monitoring applications, programs and data structures to a personal portable appliance coupled to a server via a network configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;0. determine that the appliance is connected; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. generating a connection request from the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. authenticating the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. determining that one or more applications must be updated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. receiving at least one updated application comprising a dummy application such that when the application is invoked the data structures of the previous application are manipulated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. modifying the functionality of the application; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. offering the user one or more indications that the application is restricted or limited. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010. (Please note that although that this patent application is a continuation-in-part of earlier-filed parent cases, the claimed invention is not supported by the disclosure of the parent cases, rendering the actual filing date the effective filing date.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A diagram of the application management system&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NhpR6yB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [0]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110145932?dq=US20110145932&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.appcentral.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.good.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4702" RevisionGUID="e1bbd189-ff65-4b13-a220-40ddd4145a79" CreationDate="2013-08-19T04:42:55.210" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  This **overly broad patent application** claims methods of storing bitcoin public and private keys on a physical device (a paper wallet), and claims methods of protecting value stored on a physical device using tamper-resistant features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the patent application was filed with Bitcoins in mind and especially to cover [BitBills](http://www.bitbills.com/) cards, claims are much broader and there probably is plenty of prior art for all the claims. This patent application was covered in [Bitcoin Magazine](http://bitcoinmagazine.com/bitbillss-patent-will-patents-hinder-bitcoins-evolution/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: CREATING AND USING DIGITAL CURRENCY**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** Among other things, a physical device carries value and can be physically delivered in a transaction. The physical device includes a representation of the value carried by the physical device. The representation is usable to transfer the value from the physical device to a digital domain. A security feature can change from a state indicating that the value carried by the physical device has not been compromised to a state indicating that the value carried by the physical device may have been compromised. The change in state is detectable, the representation of the value carried by the physical device being inaccessible except in a manner that causes the security feature to change state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Translated from legalese:* Applicant tries to patent a paper wallets or smart card containing some monetary value that can be invalidated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** [US 20130166455 A1](http://www.google.com/patents/US20130166455)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number:** US 13/336,779&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Douglas Feigelson (inventor) from [BitBills](http://www.bitbills.com/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date:** Seeking Prior Art predating Dec 23, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An apparatus comprising a physical device that carries value and can be physically delivered in a transaction, the physical device comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a representation of the value carried by the physical device, the representation being usable to transfer the value from the physical device to a digital domain, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a security feature that can change from a state indicating that the value carried by the physical device has not been compromised to a state indicating that the value carried by the physical device may have been compromised, the change in state being detectable,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the representation of the value carried by the physical device being inaccessible except in a manner that causes the security feature to change state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A smart card or paper wallet with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A monetary value that can be transferred out from the paper wallet **to a digital domain**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A security feature determining if the value on the paper wallet was compromised (withdrawn)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A mechanism to trigger the security feature when the value is transferred out (to prevent double-spending)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to Dec 23, 2011. The **to a digital domain** part is probably the tricky part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ](http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant) on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4801" RevisionGUID="12eca1a7-4349-4e09-8c5d-66f030eeb21d" CreationDate="2013-08-19T04:43:12.507" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON cloud-based video editing** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...sending large video files to a server and providing **cloud-based applications to edit video** files! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/23/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Video-editing software as a service run on a cloud-based server&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves segmenting large files into smaller segments so that encoding and delivery can be managed in segments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Databases and web applications for large video files**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for editing and managing large video files by uploading the files to a server and doing editing through web applications&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130132523 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/478,772&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for the acquisition and management of digital files and their display and management through the internet, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. communicating with a plurality of electronic storage devices via the internet;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. copying files from said electronic storage devices;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. storing said files and facilitating the download of said files; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. providing tools for the management of said files, said tools comprising a tool for delivering only a portion of one of said files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for managing and displaying video files on the internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Communicating with more than one storage device (e.g. a laptop or a smartphone)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Copying files from the storage device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Storing files on server(s) on the internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Providing tools to manage the files, including tools to download only a portion of one of the files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming breaking large files into segments to help with uploading, encoding, and editing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Acquiring, managing and uploading video files from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/8owuaJl.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132523?dq=US20130132523A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="4dc922e1-6abf-4771-9869-b83ce82a1be2" CreationDate="2013-08-19T04:43:51.970" UserId="1767" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application was Rejected by the US Patent Office!&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to the **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, an overly-broad patent application has been blocked. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **TITLE: Scale factors for visual presentations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130063492 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/230445][3]  &#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application generates and display graphical elements based on *pixel density.* The invention selects a *scale factor* from a *scale factor set* that is within the *range* of the pixel density.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of generating, using a device having a processor, a presentation comprising elements to be displayed on a display component, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - executing on the processor instructions configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - identify a ***pixel density*** of the display component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - for respective elements of the presentation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - from a ***scale factor set***, select a ***scale factor*** having a ***pixel density range*** including the pixel density of the display component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - request the element to generate a scaled representation using the scale factor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - generate the presentation comprising the scaled representations of the elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample figure** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/WgDnr.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application is similar to other resolution-independent scaling applications, patents, and implementations carried out in the industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 09/12/2011** that discusses (1) scale factor; (2) scale factor set; and (3) pixel density range in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][5] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][6] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/h3moa.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4814" RevisionGUID="f924cc03-5de6-4fef-8fa2-be96bd4882cb" CreationDate="2013-08-19T05:14:38.343" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON transferring data to a server based on user travel plans** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...transferring data in cloud storage system from a data server near a user usual location to a data server near where a user plans to travel! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Moving data between servers based on user travel plans&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves accessing a user's calendar to figure out where he will travel and when&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transferring data between servers based on travel plans of a user**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for moving data between data servers bsaed on travel plans of a user (basically, if the user is traveling somewhere, moving some data from his &quot;home&quot; server to a server which is closer to the location he will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144978 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/309,640&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/3/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. locating a data server near a travel location of a user based on one or more travel plans of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transferring data of the user from a home data server near a home location of the user to the data server near the travel location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of data relocation in a cloud storage environment, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Locating a data server which is physically close to a location of a user based on travel plans of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Transferring data of the user from the home data server to the data server near the travel location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming accessing the user's calendar to figure out where he will travel so data can be moved there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for data relocation in cloud storage environments from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rLnVZ5M.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130144978?dq=US20130144978A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11563" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4814" RevisionGUID="f924cc03-5de6-4fef-8fa2-be96bd4882cb" CreationDate="2013-08-19T05:14:38.343" UserId="1767" Text="Cloud storage - Transferring data to server based on travel plans of a user (IBM) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11564" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4814" RevisionGUID="f924cc03-5de6-4fef-8fa2-be96bd4882cb" CreationDate="2013-08-19T05:14:38.343" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;ibm&gt;&lt;us20130144978&gt;&lt;cloud-storage&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4802" RevisionGUID="66f3e985-fbc4-42ed-8561-a491bb646f18" CreationDate="2013-08-19T06:28:28.107" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON synchronizing the output of data across devices** - This application from [Accenture][6] seeks to patent the idea of...synchronizing playback of streaming media on multiple devices! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Synchronously outputting media to multiple devices over a network &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves **Synchronous Stream Protocol (SSP)** or where devices can adjust playback speed or skip to keep streams in sync with one another&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Synchronizing playback of media across multiple devices**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for synchronizing output of audio or video streams across multiple devices by adjusting playback speed or skipping frames so as to keep the streams synchronized with one another during playback&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130138778 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/675,846&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Accenture&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for synchronizing output of media data across a plurality of output devices, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. providing a communication network between a media server and the plurality of output devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. synchronously outputting media data files on the plurality of output devices, wherein the media data files are transmitted to the output devices from the media server in form of a data stream over different delivery networks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for synchronizing the output of media (think audio/video) across devices, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Connecting a media server to mulitiple devices across a network&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **synchronously** playing the media over streams across different delivery networks (such as HDMI, fixed wired Ethernet, wireless IP, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A **Synchronous Stream Protocol (SSP)** and adjusting playback speed or skip to keep streams in sync with one another across devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for integrating playback of media across multiple devices from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/j6VDbND.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130138778?dq=US20130138778&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.accenture.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4803" RevisionGUID="2e74e5ae-6772-468b-932e-b27b17c0dfa4" CreationDate="2013-08-19T06:28:40.470" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON detecting &quot;problematic phrases&quot; in a document** - This application from [Google][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Alerting a user when a phrase in a document matches a &quot;problematic phrase&quot; in a database (i.e. phrases with legal or policy issues for the company)! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/30/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Searching for problematic phrases in a document and alerting the user or a third party&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves sending an alert to a third party if there is a match&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Detecting problematic phrases**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for detecting &quot;problematic phrases&quot; in documents and alerting the user when he has entered a problematic phrase.  A problematic phrase is one which has legal implications or is a policy violation for the company&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110748 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/599,731&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 10/29/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of identifying problematic phrases in an electronic document, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. detecting a context of the electronic document;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. capturing a textual phrase entered by a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. comparing the textual phrase against a database of phrases previously identified as having legal implications or violating policy; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. alerting the user via an in-line notification when the textual phrase matches a phrase in the database having legal implications or violating policy, based on the detected context of the electronic document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of identifying problematic phrases in a document, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Detecting a context of the document (e.g. Word file, Spreadsheet file, intended recipient of the document, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Capturing a text phrase entered by the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Comparing the text phrase against a database of problematic phrases (e.g. with legal implications or policy violations)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Alerting the user in-line when he has entered a problematic phrase in a document, based on the context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming sending an alert to a third party if the user enters a problematic phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Project ABC is going to totally *KILL* the company&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/L8yTgFu.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130110748?dq=US20130110748A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.google.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4785" RevisionGUID="26507a5f-c66b-49a4-9e66-f19a599569bd" CreationDate="2013-08-19T06:28:50.983" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON a navigation device with alternative route calculation** - This application from [TomTom][6] seeks to patent the idea of...providing a navigation instruction together with alternative navigation instructions to a destination! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/13/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - providing alternate routes to a driver without the driver being required to request a calculation of an alternative route&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO displays multiple potential navigation routes simultaneously&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Navigation device with alternate route calculation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A navigation device that calculates multiple routes for a driver and displays them simultaneously (without the driver being required to request a different route)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130173159 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/822,791&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: TomTom&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/13/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/31/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A navigation device, the navigation device operable to calculate routes to one or more destinations,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.  the device further operable to provide a navigation instruction together with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. an alternative navigation instruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A navigation device which calculates routes to destination (or multiple destinations), which:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. provides navigation instructions; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. provides instructions on alternative routes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/13/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming displaying multiple routes simultaneously without the driver requesting a &quot;re-route&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Providing multiple routes to a driver&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/GeJlCmH.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130173159?dq=US20130173159A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.tomtom.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="38ac52de-57ed-4062-82da-955d294702e8" CreationDate="2013-08-19T06:29:01.657" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **A PATENT APPLICATION ON updating apps on mobile devices to restricted &quot;dummy&quot; apps** This application from [Good Technologies][2] seeks to patent the idea of...deleting sensitive information on a device by creating dummy apps. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A management system for apps on mobile devices where apps are updated to dummy apps that, when invoked, destroy the respective apps' sensitive data.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your company has as &quot;Bring Your Own Device&quot; policy.  The company email app on your personal phone is &quot;updated&quot; to a new version. Then, when you launch that app, it will delete all the company email on your device and present a &quot;YOU'RE FIRED&quot; message instead of an inbox view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Another example would be having version 1.0 of a game updated to a limited trial of version 2.0 that encrypts your old save file on first being run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that standard mobile app management/mobile device management platforms do not necessarily anticipate the invention. That is, **remote deletion of an application and/or data is not sufficient to meet the claim limitations**. It's critical that the prior art disclose updating/modifying the app to a restricted functionality &quot;dummy&quot; version and for the updated app to itself delete/modify the existing data upon being run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System and Method for Remote Management of Applications Downloaded to a Personal Portable Wireless Appliance** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110145932 A1][0]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/975,145&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  [Appcentral, Inc.][1] / [Good Technologies][2] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for downloading and monitoring applications, programs and data structures to a personal portable appliance coupled to a server via a network configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;0. determine that the appliance is connected; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. generating a connection request from the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. authenticating the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. determining that one or more applications must be updated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. receiving at least one updated application comprising a dummy application such that when the application is invoked the data structures of the previous application are manipulated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. modifying the functionality of the application; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. offering the user one or more indications that the application is restricted or limited. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010. (Please note that although that this patent application is a continuation-in-part of earlier-filed parent cases, the claimed invention is not supported by the disclosure of the parent cases, rendering the actual filing date the effective filing date.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A diagram of the application management system&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NhpR6yB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [0]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110145932?dq=US20110145932&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.appcentral.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.good.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4702" RevisionGUID="0889026e-9be8-45af-89b3-a3f1142e80e4" CreationDate="2013-08-19T06:29:15.780" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="This **overly broad patent application** claims methods of storing bitcoin public and private keys on a physical device (a paper wallet), and claims methods of protecting value stored on a physical device using tamper-resistant features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the patent application was filed with Bitcoins in mind and especially to cover [BitBills](http://www.bitbills.com/) cards, claims are much broader and there probably is plenty of prior art for all the claims. This patent application was covered in [Bitcoin Magazine](http://bitcoinmagazine.com/bitbillss-patent-will-patents-hinder-bitcoins-evolution/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: CREATING AND USING DIGITAL CURRENCY**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** Among other things, a physical device carries value and can be physically delivered in a transaction. The physical device includes a representation of the value carried by the physical device. The representation is usable to transfer the value from the physical device to a digital domain. A security feature can change from a state indicating that the value carried by the physical device has not been compromised to a state indicating that the value carried by the physical device may have been compromised. The change in state is detectable, the representation of the value carried by the physical device being inaccessible except in a manner that causes the security feature to change state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Translated from legalese:* Applicant tries to patent a paper wallets or smart card containing some monetary value that can be invalidated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** [US 20130166455 A1](http://www.google.com/patents/US20130166455)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number:** US 13/336,779&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Douglas Feigelson (inventor) from [BitBills](http://www.bitbills.com/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date:** Seeking Prior Art predating Dec 23, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An apparatus comprising a physical device that carries value and can be physically delivered in a transaction, the physical device comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a representation of the value carried by the physical device, the representation being usable to transfer the value from the physical device to a digital domain, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a security feature that can change from a state indicating that the value carried by the physical device has not been compromised to a state indicating that the value carried by the physical device may have been compromised, the change in state being detectable,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the representation of the value carried by the physical device being inaccessible except in a manner that causes the security feature to change state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A smart card or paper wallet with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A monetary value that can be transferred out from the paper wallet **to a digital domain**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A security feature determining if the value on the paper wallet was compromised (withdrawn)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A mechanism to trigger the security feature when the value is transferred out (to prevent double-spending)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to Dec 23, 2011. The **to a digital domain** part is probably the tricky part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ](http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant) on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4801" RevisionGUID="32092bf7-6b73-4060-9379-bf558435222f" CreationDate="2013-08-19T06:29:29.683" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON cloud-based video editing** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...sending large video files to a server and providing **cloud-based applications to edit video** files! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/23/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Video-editing software as a service run on a cloud-based server&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves segmenting large files into smaller segments so that encoding and delivery can be managed in segments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Databases and web applications for large video files**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for editing and managing large video files by uploading the files to a server and doing editing through web applications&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130132523 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/478,772&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for the acquisition and management of digital files and their display and management through the internet, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. communicating with a plurality of electronic storage devices via the internet;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. copying files from said electronic storage devices;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. storing said files and facilitating the download of said files; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. providing tools for the management of said files, said tools comprising a tool for delivering only a portion of one of said files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for managing and displaying video files on the internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Communicating with more than one storage device (e.g. a laptop or a smartphone)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Copying files from the storage device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Storing files on server(s) on the internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Providing tools to manage the files, including tools to download only a portion of one of the files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming breaking large files into segments to help with uploading, encoding, and editing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Acquiring, managing and uploading video files from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/8owuaJl.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132523?dq=US20130132523A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="a6b630c5-a008-45e9-acb2-094e4135916b" CreationDate="2013-08-19T06:29:41.543" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" ![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application was Rejected by the US Patent Office!&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to the **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, an overly-broad patent application has been blocked. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **TITLE: Scale factors for visual presentations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130063492 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/230445][3]  &#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application generates and display graphical elements based on *pixel density.* The invention selects a *scale factor* from a *scale factor set* that is within the *range* of the pixel density.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of generating, using a device having a processor, a presentation comprising elements to be displayed on a display component, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - executing on the processor instructions configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - identify a ***pixel density*** of the display component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - for respective elements of the presentation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - from a ***scale factor set***, select a ***scale factor*** having a ***pixel density range*** including the pixel density of the display component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - request the element to generate a scaled representation using the scale factor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - generate the presentation comprising the scaled representations of the elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample figure** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/WgDnr.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application is similar to other resolution-independent scaling applications, patents, and implementations carried out in the industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 09/12/2011** that discusses (1) scale factor; (2) scale factor set; and (3) pixel density range in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][5] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][6] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/h3moa.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11578" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4814" RevisionGUID="81792fd2-a1e8-4075-8fec-59a046307bf0" CreationDate="2013-08-19T06:29:52.630" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON transferring data to a server based on user travel plans** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...transferring data in cloud storage system from a data server near a user usual location to a data server near where a user plans to travel! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Moving data between servers based on user travel plans&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves accessing a user's calendar to figure out where he will travel and when&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transferring data between servers based on travel plans of a user**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for moving data between data servers bsaed on travel plans of a user (basically, if the user is traveling somewhere, moving some data from his &quot;home&quot; server to a server which is closer to the location he will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144978 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/309,640&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/3/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. locating a data server near a travel location of a user based on one or more travel plans of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transferring data of the user from a home data server near a home location of the user to the data server near the travel location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of data relocation in a cloud storage environment, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Locating a data server which is physically close to a location of a user based on travel plans of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Transferring data of the user from the home data server to the data server near the travel location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming accessing the user's calendar to figure out where he will travel so data can be moved there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for data relocation in cloud storage environments from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rLnVZ5M.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130144978?dq=US20130144978A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="57d6361e-c00f-4520-b4cd-4d52cf68e2e7" CreationDate="2013-08-19T07:33:49.737" UserId="3076" Comment="Correct exaggerated view of the application's state of rejection." Text="**Initially and non-finally - **&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received an **initial non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office that looks like it was at least partially based on Ask Patents contributions! An **initial rejection is part of the typical course of a a patent application.** In this case the applicant has responded back by canceling a claim, amending others and presenting counter argument to others. Also very normal.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to the **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **TITLE: Scale factors for visual presentations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130063492 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/230445][3]  &#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application generates and display graphical elements based on *pixel density.* The invention selects a *scale factor* from a *scale factor set* that is within the *range* of the pixel density.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of generating, using a device having a processor, a presentation comprising elements to be displayed on a display component, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - executing on the processor instructions configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - identify a ***pixel density*** of the display component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - for respective elements of the presentation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - from a ***scale factor set***, select a ***scale factor*** having a ***pixel density range*** including the pixel density of the display component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - request the element to generate a scaled representation using the scale factor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - generate the presentation comprising the scaled representations of the elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample figure** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/WgDnr.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application is similar to other resolution-independent scaling applications, patents, and implementations carried out in the industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 09/12/2011** that discusses (1) scale factor; (2) scale factor set; and (3) pixel density range in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][5] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][6] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/h3moa.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4818" RevisionGUID="bd036cd6-7e2e-405d-9ad6-37d62d6ef2cb" CreationDate="2013-08-19T12:38:56.287" UserId="5533" Text="I have several ideas I want to develop prototypes on, get patent then pitch (license) idea to a manufacturer who has the manufacturing capabilities and distribution to bring product to market.  My question is how do i properly protect my idea.  Do I need a utility patent?  Patent pending what is that?  Provisional patent?  I am ignorant to this subject matter.  I don't think I need a fully blow patent in this case and I don't think I need to wait for one to be issued but I could be wrong.  Anyone out there that can explain the different patents and what your recommendations would be for this case would be much appreciated.  I'm looking for an inexpensive way to get my idea protected then sell to an existing organization to bring to market." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11584" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4818" RevisionGUID="bd036cd6-7e2e-405d-9ad6-37d62d6ef2cb" CreationDate="2013-08-19T12:38:56.287" UserId="5533" Text="What type of patent do I need?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11585" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4818" RevisionGUID="bd036cd6-7e2e-405d-9ad6-37d62d6ef2cb" CreationDate="2013-08-19T12:38:56.287" UserId="5533" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;patent-pending&gt;&lt;royalty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="f488bc9a-bbc6-4bdb-b2fb-5c2132872e50" CreationDate="2013-08-19T14:10:09.533" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 85 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received an **initial non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office that was based on Ask Patents contributions! An **initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.** In this case the applicant has responded back by canceling a claim, amending others and presenting counter argument to others.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to the **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **TITLE: Scale factors for visual presentations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130063492 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/230445][3]  &#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application generates and display graphical elements based on *pixel density.* The invention selects a *scale factor* from a *scale factor set* that is within the *range* of the pixel density.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of generating, using a device having a processor, a presentation comprising elements to be displayed on a display component, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - executing on the processor instructions configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - identify a ***pixel density*** of the display component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - for respective elements of the presentation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - from a ***scale factor set***, select a ***scale factor*** having a ***pixel density range*** including the pixel density of the display component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - request the element to generate a scaled representation using the scale factor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - generate the presentation comprising the scaled representations of the elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample figure** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/WgDnr.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application is similar to other resolution-independent scaling applications, patents, and implementations carried out in the industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 09/12/2011** that discusses (1) scale factor; (2) scale factor set; and (3) pixel density range in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][5] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][6] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/h3moa.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="a2b36501-8add-41fe-bc50-51e63111568a" CreationDate="2013-08-19T14:11:08.473" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**A PATENT APPLICATION ON updating apps on mobile devices to restricted &quot;dummy&quot; apps** This application from [Good Technologies][2] seeks to patent the idea of...deleting sensitive information on a device by creating dummy apps. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A management system for apps on mobile devices where apps are updated to dummy apps that, when invoked, destroy the respective apps' sensitive data.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your company has as &quot;Bring Your Own Device&quot; policy.  The company email app on your personal phone is &quot;updated&quot; to a new version. Then, when you launch that app, it will delete all the company email on your device and present a &quot;YOU'RE FIRED&quot; message instead of an inbox view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Another example would be having version 1.0 of a game updated to a limited trial of version 2.0 that encrypts your old save file on first being run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that standard mobile app management/mobile device management platforms do not necessarily anticipate the invention. That is, **remote deletion of an application and/or data is not sufficient to meet the claim limitations**. It's critical that the prior art disclose updating/modifying the app to a restricted functionality &quot;dummy&quot; version and for the updated app to itself delete/modify the existing data upon being run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System and Method for Remote Management of Applications Downloaded to a Personal Portable Wireless Appliance** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110145932 A1][0]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/975,145&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  [Appcentral, Inc.][1] / [Good Technologies][2] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for downloading and monitoring applications, programs and data structures to a personal portable appliance coupled to a server via a network configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;0. determine that the appliance is connected; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. generating a connection request from the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. authenticating the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. determining that one or more applications must be updated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. receiving at least one updated application comprising a dummy application such that when the application is invoked the data structures of the previous application are manipulated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. modifying the functionality of the application; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. offering the user one or more indications that the application is restricted or limited. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010. (Please note that although that this patent application is a continuation-in-part of earlier-filed parent cases, the claimed invention is not supported by the disclosure of the parent cases, rendering the actual filing date the effective filing date.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A diagram of the application management system&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NhpR6yB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [0]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110145932?dq=US20110145932&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.appcentral.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.good.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4702" RevisionGUID="b3e5f138-c567-42bb-9766-da677a5986e1" CreationDate="2013-08-19T14:11:57.617" UserId="1767" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="This **overly broad patent application** claims methods of storing bitcoin public and private keys on a physical device (a paper wallet), and claims methods of protecting value stored on a physical device using tamper-resistant features.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;While the patent application was filed with Bitcoins in mind and especially to cover [BitBills](http://www.bitbills.com/) cards, claims are much broader and there probably is plenty of prior art for all the claims. This patent application was covered in [Bitcoin Magazine](http://bitcoinmagazine.com/bitbillss-patent-will-patents-hinder-bitcoins-evolution/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: CREATING AND USING DIGITAL CURRENCY**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** Among other things, a physical device carries value and can be physically delivered in a transaction. The physical device includes a representation of the value carried by the physical device. The representation is usable to transfer the value from the physical device to a digital domain. A security feature can change from a state indicating that the value carried by the physical device has not been compromised to a state indicating that the value carried by the physical device may have been compromised. The change in state is detectable, the representation of the value carried by the physical device being inaccessible except in a manner that causes the security feature to change state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Translated from legalese:* Applicant tries to patent a paper wallets or smart card containing some monetary value that can be invalidated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** [US 20130166455 A1](http://www.google.com/patents/US20130166455)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number:** US 13/336,779&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Douglas Feigelson (inventor) from [BitBills](http://www.bitbills.com/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date:** Seeking Prior Art predating Dec 23, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An apparatus comprising a physical device that carries value and can be physically delivered in a transaction, the physical device comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a representation of the value carried by the physical device, the representation being usable to transfer the value from the physical device to a digital domain, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a security feature that can change from a state indicating that the value carried by the physical device has not been compromised to a state indicating that the value carried by the physical device may have been compromised, the change in state being detectable,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the representation of the value carried by the physical device being inaccessible except in a manner that causes the security feature to change state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A smart card or paper wallet with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A monetary value that can be transferred out from the paper wallet **to a digital domain**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A security feature determining if the value on the paper wallet was compromised (withdrawn)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A mechanism to trigger the security feature when the value is transferred out (to prevent double-spending)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to Dec 23, 2011. The **to a digital domain** part is probably the tricky part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ](http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant) on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4801" RevisionGUID="819a3747-39a1-4a19-8d00-ebea90f0bea0" CreationDate="2013-08-19T14:12:37.057" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON cloud-based video editing** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...sending large video files to a server and providing **cloud-based applications to edit video** files! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/23/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Video-editing software as a service run on a cloud-based server&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves segmenting large files into smaller segments so that encoding and delivery can be managed in segments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Databases and web applications for large video files**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for editing and managing large video files by uploading the files to a server and doing editing through web applications&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130132523 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/478,772&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for the acquisition and management of digital files and their display and management through the internet, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. communicating with a plurality of electronic storage devices via the internet;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. copying files from said electronic storage devices;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. storing said files and facilitating the download of said files; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. providing tools for the management of said files, said tools comprising a tool for delivering only a portion of one of said files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for managing and displaying video files on the internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Communicating with more than one storage device (e.g. a laptop or a smartphone)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Copying files from the storage device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Storing files on server(s) on the internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Providing tools to manage the files, including tools to download only a portion of one of the files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming breaking large files into segments to help with uploading, encoding, and editing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Acquiring, managing and uploading video files from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/8owuaJl.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132523?dq=US20130132523A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4814" RevisionGUID="8b6d2692-5492-4293-83e4-334b7cb64601" CreationDate="2013-08-19T14:13:04.980" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON transferring data to a server based on user travel plans** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...transferring data in cloud storage system from a data server near a user usual location to a data server near where a user plans to travel! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2011** that discusses: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Moving data between servers based on user travel plans&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves accessing a user's calendar to figure out where he will travel and when&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transferring data between servers based on travel plans of a user**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for moving data between data servers bsaed on travel plans of a user (basically, if the user is traveling somewhere, moving some data from his &quot;home&quot; server to a server which is closer to the location he will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144978 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/309,640&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/3/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. locating a data server near a travel location of a user based on one or more travel plans of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transferring data of the user from a home data server near a home location of the user to the data server near the travel location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of data relocation in a cloud storage environment, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Locating a data server which is physically close to a location of a user based on travel plans of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Transferring data of the user from the home data server to the data server near the travel location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming accessing the user's calendar to figure out where he will travel so data can be moved there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for data relocation in cloud storage environments from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rLnVZ5M.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130144978?dq=US20130144978A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4819" RevisionGUID="ae8746f2-191b-4d34-9c7e-01c4d0f9f96e" CreationDate="2013-08-19T15:16:02.893" UserId="5071" Text="Microsoft had code that does this same thing with a limited language set (those supported  by .NET), but it wasn't done on a server, it was done in Visual Studio. It's been around since VS 2008 at least, but I'm not sure it's specific enough for this patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4820" RevisionGUID="c888d91d-f876-4dc4-ab9e-a4eef5eb4058" CreationDate="2013-08-19T15:17:51.397" UserId="5071" Text="Word has had autocorrect in it for ages, and it's been used in this manner, I don't know when." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4821" RevisionGUID="8dc0b2c3-c5a8-45df-955e-515150c70ffe" CreationDate="2013-08-19T16:15:05.357" UserId="3076" Text="I think you are asking what kind of patent **application** do you need. The full name of a provsional patent application is a provisional utility application. Besides utility patents there are design patnets that protect the appearance of a product, not the function. &quot;Patent Pending&quot; means there is some patent application of some type on file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can take years for a patent application to be allowed and turn into an issued patnet, if ever, and most products are launched in a patent pending state. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond that we enter an area that is opinion. Some would recommend that a professionally done, fully fleshed out, application be filed before exposing the product. Others, suggest that the perception of ownership is all that is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Protection&quot; can come in the form of copyrights as well as patents. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4822" RevisionGUID="a7354eac-fb10-4c81-8980-12c6007ba82c" CreationDate="2013-08-19T16:39:51.347" UserId="4922" Text="**HTTP/1.1** as described in [RFC 2616][1], published **June 1999**, satisfies all of the steps in the quoted claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The POST command allows a client (often a laptop) to send (copy) a file to the server.  Depending on how the server is configured, that could result in the file being stored on the server.  Many servers are, in fact, configured to do so under certain circumstances, eg. attaching files to a forum post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The GET command allows a client to retrieve files from the server.  An enhancement in HTTP/1.1 over the previous HTTP/1.0 is the following, extracted from Section 9.3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The semantics of the GET method change to a &quot;partial GET&quot; if the&#xD;&#xA;   request message includes a Range header field. A partial GET requests&#xD;&#xA;   that only part of the entity be transferred, as described in section&#xD;&#xA;   14.35. The partial GET method is intended to reduce unnecessary&#xD;&#xA;   network usage by allowing partially-retrieved entities to be&#xD;&#xA;   completed without transferring data already held by the client.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional quotes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10.2.7 206 Partial Content&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   The server has fulfilled the partial GET request for the resource.&#xD;&#xA;   The request MUST have included a Range header field (section 14.35)&#xD;&#xA;   indicating the desired range, [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 14.35.1 Byte Ranges&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   Since all HTTP entities are represented in HTTP messages as sequences&#xD;&#xA;   of bytes, the concept of a byte range is meaningful for any HTTP&#xD;&#xA;   entity. (However, not all clients and servers need to support byte-&#xD;&#xA;   range operations.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4823" RevisionGUID="23759076-20c3-410a-b8a9-e9efedb19b07" CreationDate="2013-08-19T17:15:40.807" UserId="5535" Text="In 'Star Wars Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II', throughout the entire game, a player may make the choice to follow the light side (by avoiding killing neutral NPCs, such as droids and workers) or follow the dark side (by killing them with abandon).  This choice eventually catches up to you and results in one of two endings to the story line, depending on your actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edited to add: it's not just a one-time choice that you make, but an ongoing choice every time you encounter a neutral NPC." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4824" RevisionGUID="c130930b-4d8a-42ed-80bc-acaa5c030f1d" CreationDate="2013-08-19T18:37:20.347" UserId="4922" Text="**PKZIP 2.0**, released in **1993**, added the ability to automatically split Zip archives across multiple files.  (This was also the version which introduced the famous Deflate compression algorithm.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was intended to allow a large archive to be split across multiple floppy disks, but the same technique was commonly used on the Internet in the days of dial-up modems, to minimise the lost time when a modem hung up unexpectedly.  The technique predates the HTTP protocol mentioned in my other answer, and was (and still is) used on Usenet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many other archiving programs also contain splitting functionality, including StuffIt (commonly used on Macintosh) and WinRAR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On UNIX (and Linux) systems, the 'split' and 'cat' programs are included as part of the core system, and can be used to perform this functionality on any file, whether it is an archive or not.  There is also a '**csplit**' program, which tries to break text files more neatly by looking for newlines.  The 'csplit' program appears in the [Single UNIX Specification Issue 2][1], which was published in **1997**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7990989775/xcu/csplit.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="13c82c26-49da-406e-aace-6c594eef4061" CreationDate="2013-08-19T18:50:37.043" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **A PATENT APPLICATION ON updating apps on mobile devices to restricted &quot;dummy&quot; apps** This application from [Good Technologies][2] seeks to patent the idea of...deleting sensitive information on a device by creating dummy apps. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A management system for apps on mobile devices where apps are updated to dummy apps that, when invoked, destroy the respective apps' sensitive data.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your company has as &quot;Bring Your Own Device&quot; policy.  The company email app on your personal phone is &quot;updated&quot; to a new version. Then, when you launch that app, it will delete all the company email on your device and present a &quot;YOU'RE FIRED&quot; message instead of an inbox view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Another example would be having version 1.0 of a game updated to a limited trial of version 2.0 that encrypts your old save file on first being run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that standard mobile app management/mobile device management platforms do not necessarily anticipate the invention. That is, **remote deletion of an application and/or data is not sufficient to meet the claim limitations**. It's critical that the prior art disclose updating/modifying the app to a restricted functionality &quot;dummy&quot; version and for the updated app to itself delete/modify the existing data upon being run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System and Method for Remote Management of Applications Downloaded to a Personal Portable Wireless Appliance** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110145932 A1][0]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/975,145&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  [Appcentral, Inc.][1] / [Good Technologies][2] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for downloading and monitoring applications, programs and data structures to a personal portable appliance coupled to a server via a network configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;0. determine that the appliance is connected; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. generating a connection request from the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. authenticating the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. determining that one or more applications must be updated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. receiving at least one updated application comprising a dummy application such that when the application is invoked the data structures of the previous application are manipulated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. modifying the functionality of the application; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. offering the user one or more indications that the application is restricted or limited. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010. (Please note that although that this patent application is a continuation-in-part of earlier-filed parent cases, the claimed invention is not supported by the disclosure of the parent cases, rendering the actual filing date the effective filing date.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A diagram of the application management system&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NhpR6yB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [0]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110145932?dq=US20110145932&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.appcentral.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.good.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4821" RevisionGUID="e7388369-e65c-4961-9280-e3e19dabb61e" CreationDate="2013-08-19T19:33:29.507" UserId="3076" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="I think you are asking what kind of patent **application** do you need. The full name of a provsional patent application is a provisional utility application. Besides utility patents there are design patnets that protect the appearance of a product, not the function. &quot;Patent Pending&quot; means there is some patent application of some type on file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can take years for a patent application to be allowed and turn into an issued patnet, if ever, and most products are launched in a patent pending state. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond that we enter an area that is opinion. Some would recommend that a professionally done, fully fleshed out, application (either provisional or non- provisional) be filed before exposing the product to anyone outside your team. Others, suggest that the perception of ownership is all that is needed and that might be achieved with a self-written provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Protection&quot; can come in the form of copyrights as well as patents. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4821" RevisionGUID="3bfbafff-a3b7-4003-a159-b4241c1bddef" CreationDate="2013-08-19T20:13:14.860" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="I think you are asking what kind of patent **application** do you need. The full name of a provsional patent application is a provisional utility application. Besides utility patents there are design patnets that protect the appearance of a product, not the function. &quot;Patent Pending&quot; means there is some patent application of some type on file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can take years for a patent application to be allowed and turn into an issued patnet, if ever, and most products are launched in a patent pending state. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond that we enter an area that is opinion. Some would recommend that a professionally done, fully fleshed out, application (either provisional or non- provisional) be filed before exposing the product to anyone outside your team. Others suggest that the perception of ownership is all that is needed and that might be achieved with a self-written provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Protection&quot; can come in the form of copyrights as well as patents. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4825" RevisionGUID="1c8e93a9-f961-4523-8603-9127d241fda7" CreationDate="2013-08-19T20:34:03.467" UserId="5545" Text="The Examiner might tell you there are two separate inventions, in which case you would have to file a divisional application to capture both the ABC and ABD claims.  You may also have to file a terminal disclaimer due to the overlap of the dependent claims.  In either case the Examiner will let you know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please do ensure that the claims you are making are supported by the specification, i.e. you have disclosed that C and D can be used independently and not necessarily together." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4826" RevisionGUID="60bdb847-2e39-4648-a981-2e060f1189fc" CreationDate="2013-08-19T21:32:55.667" UserId="5546" Text="Most keyloggers, monitoring software, software to track computer activities etc provide the same capability in a broad sense --- i.e. it can be used to do what the patent applicant is seeking to patent. &#xD;&#xA;I suspect several such products were in existence prior to 8/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;For example, this product was available June 2011 http://www.spiesonline.net/monitor.shtml&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4821" RevisionGUID="5072d4ff-75a6-4665-ae04-24083f50e89b" CreationDate="2013-08-19T22:37:47.473" UserId="3076" Comment="edited body" Text="I think you are asking what kind of patent **application** do you need. The full name of a provsional patent application is a provisional utility application. Besides utility patents there are design patsnts that protect the appearance of a product, not the function. &quot;Patent Pending&quot; means there is some patent application of some type on file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can take years for a patent application to be allowed and turn into an issued patnet, if ever, and most products are launched in a patent pending state. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond that we enter an area that is opinion. Some would recommend that a professionally done, fully fleshed out, application (either provisional or non- provisional) be filed before exposing the product to anyone outside your team. Others suggest that the perception of ownership is all that is needed and that might be achieved with a self-written provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Protection&quot; can come in the form of copyrights as well as patents. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4827" RevisionGUID="8e503cb9-f580-41a6-a30e-7b47d8ed244e" CreationDate="2013-08-20T01:15:18.330" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON targeting mobile ads based on a map** - This application from [Huyundai][6] seeks to patent the idea of...an advertisement server providing ads to users in a geographic region based on a map! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/15/2009** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - specifying a &quot;region of interest&quot; on a map and targeting ads to users who go there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses time of day or text of the advertisement to decide whether to display ads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transferring data between servers based on travel plans of a user**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system using a map which targets ads based on a region of interest on the map and location of users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130132198 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/618,188&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Huyundai&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/15/2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An advertisement system using an embedded map, the system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A space of interest (SOI) server for generating location based data using an SOI object; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. An advertisement server for providing advertisement content information to an advertisement region of the embedded map using the location based data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An advertisement system which uses an embedded map, comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An &quot;SOI&quot; server which manages location information for the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. An advertisement server which provides ad information to the dedicated advertising region of the embedded map&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/15/2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using time of day or text of advertisement to targeted ads to specific &quot;spaces of interest&quot; on a map&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Embedded map with dedicated advertising region from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/JVo9hvR.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132198?dq=US20130132198A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.hyundaiusa.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11607" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4827" RevisionGUID="8e503cb9-f580-41a6-a30e-7b47d8ed244e" CreationDate="2013-08-20T01:15:18.330" UserId="1767" Text="Mobile Advertising - Targeting ads based on a map (Huyundai) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11608" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4827" RevisionGUID="8e503cb9-f580-41a6-a30e-7b47d8ed244e" CreationDate="2013-08-20T01:15:18.330" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;us20130132198&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4827" RevisionGUID="fcce5b20-b9c1-4edf-b051-b70587b2b988" CreationDate="2013-08-20T01:20:18.903" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON targeting mobile ads based on a map** - This application from [Huyundai][6] seeks to patent the idea of...an advertisement server providing ads to users in a geographic region based on a map! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/15/2009** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - specifying a &quot;region of interest&quot; on a map and targeting ads to users who go there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses time of day or text of the advertisement to decide whether to display ads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Embedded map with dedicated advertising region**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system using a map which targets ads based on a region of interest on the map and location of users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130132198 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/618,188&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Huyundai&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/15/2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An advertisement system using an embedded map, the system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A space of interest (SOI) server for generating location based data using an SOI object; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. An advertisement server for providing advertisement content information to an advertisement region of the embedded map using the location based data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An advertisement system which uses an embedded map, comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An &quot;SOI&quot; server which manages location information for the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. An advertisement server which provides ad information to the dedicated advertising region of the embedded map&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/15/2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using time of day or text of advertisement to targeted ads to specific &quot;spaces of interest&quot; on a map&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Embedded map with dedicated advertising region from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/JVo9hvR.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132198?dq=US20130132198A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.hyundaiusa.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4828" RevisionGUID="a8941c26-fc3b-42f9-b4e8-7f4db0c33b27" CreationDate="2013-08-20T03:30:14.327" UserId="5549" Text="This [Google Adwords blog post][1] from November 21, 2005 describes how to select a region of interest for targeted ads by selecting a location on an embedded map (and defining a radius). Google will then serve targeted ads to users from that region.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://adwords.blogspot.ca/2005/11/use-google-maps-to-target-your.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4829" RevisionGUID="ed8a2c8c-d77c-4dce-95cc-fccdc4411141" CreationDate="2013-08-20T11:27:24.317" UserId="5552" Text="This sounds like it might be very similar to services TokBox offers. As well as allowing synchronous multi-user/device live media streaming they also have the facility to archive media and broadcast it simultaneously or later (again to many users/devices): http://tokbox.com/platform&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia states the OpenTok API was launched in November 2010: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TokBox&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a YouTube video from March 2010 demonstrating a video chat between up to 12 people broadcast to an audience of up to 200: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw5KkNLrSiU" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4830" RevisionGUID="95abefc6-88a4-4c7e-adc0-ae34eee1cc9f" CreationDate="2013-08-20T11:59:38.210" UserId="5552" Text="This sounds similar to a web application firewall. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ModSecurity is such an application that works as a module for Apache web server, and whilst it is intended more as a way to protect systems, than to guide editorial, it does:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - distinguish between text input and documents submitted via HTTP POST and PUT&#xD;&#xA; - detect all user submitted content&#xD;&#xA; - check for 'problematic' words or phrases submitted in documents and forms against a set of rules (that you can also add to, remove or change yourself)&#xD;&#xA; - alert the user via an error message and code&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can configure alerts from ModSecurity as you like. Out of the box it doesn't really explain to the user what is wrong with what they have submitted, but it would be perfectly feasible to display exactly what rule was broken with a little bit of code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.modsecurity.org/documentation/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are articles and books listed from as early as 2003." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="476d5d3a-3d39-4cce-936b-771833aeae65" CreationDate="2013-08-20T15:35:04.827" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **A PATENT APPLICATION ON updating apps on mobile devices to restricted &quot;dummy&quot; apps** This application from [Good Technologies][2] seeks to patent the idea of...deleting sensitive information on a device by creating dummy apps. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents] (https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A management system for apps on mobile devices where apps are updated to dummy apps that, when invoked, destroy the respective apps' sensitive data.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your company has as &quot;Bring Your Own Device&quot; policy.  The company email app on your personal phone is &quot;updated&quot; to a new version. Then, when you launch that app, it will delete all the company email on your device and present a &quot;YOU'RE FIRED&quot; message instead of an inbox view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Another example would be having version 1.0 of a game updated to a limited trial of version 2.0 that encrypts your old save file on first being run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that standard mobile app management/mobile device management platforms do not necessarily anticipate the invention. That is, **remote deletion of an application and/or data is not sufficient to meet the claim limitations**. It's critical that the prior art disclose updating/modifying the app to a restricted functionality &quot;dummy&quot; version and for the updated app to itself delete/modify the existing data upon being run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System and Method for Remote Management of Applications Downloaded to a Personal Portable Wireless Appliance** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110145932 A1][0]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/975,145&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  [Appcentral, Inc.][1] / [Good Technologies][2] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for downloading and monitoring applications, programs and data structures to a personal portable appliance coupled to a server via a network configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;0. determine that the appliance is connected; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. generating a connection request from the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. authenticating the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. determining that one or more applications must be updated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. receiving at least one updated application comprising a dummy application such that when the application is invoked the data structures of the previous application are manipulated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. modifying the functionality of the application; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. offering the user one or more indications that the application is restricted or limited. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010. (Please note that although that this patent application is a continuation-in-part of earlier-filed parent cases, the claimed invention is not supported by the disclosure of the parent cases, rendering the actual filing date the effective filing date.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A diagram of the application management system&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NhpR6yB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [0]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110145932?dq=US20110145932&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.appcentral.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.good.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4831" RevisionGUID="6453a985-6aa4-45f3-a899-e3fe734433c9" CreationDate="2013-08-20T16:42:51.040" UserId="5557" Text="If researchers are prototyping a new type of network protocol, and I use their concepts to implement my own version (my way of doing it, 100% my code, different programming language, etc), are there any copyright or patent implications I should be aware of?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it make a difference if I open-sourced it versus sold as proprietary for profit?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, the researchers have the source code available to download through Github.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm in the USA, if that makes any difference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11616" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4831" RevisionGUID="6453a985-6aa4-45f3-a899-e3fe734433c9" CreationDate="2013-08-20T16:42:51.040" UserId="5557" Text="Is it legal to make my own version of a protocol?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11617" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4831" RevisionGUID="6453a985-6aa4-45f3-a899-e3fe734433c9" CreationDate="2013-08-20T16:42:51.040" UserId="5557" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4832" RevisionGUID="fcd382d8-0440-4004-8498-5206525b44d8" CreationDate="2013-08-20T18:01:32.887" UserId="3076" Text="Writing your own code from scratch can avoid copyright issues, but patents can cover both internal techniques as well as the  &quot;the big picture&quot; of the protocol. Your internal structures and operation may be different from other imlementations but most of the big picture aspects are unavoidable in your case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Organizations that are very serious about producing code provably free of copyright problems use a clean room approach but this doesn't erase patent problems." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4821" RevisionGUID="20a54eca-6747-40cc-a497-05270e290f9b" CreationDate="2013-08-20T18:17:33.517" UserId="4374" Comment="Spelling corrections" Text="I think you are asking what kind of patent **application** do you need. The full name of a provisional patent application is a provisional utility application. Besides utility patents there are design patents that protect the appearance of a product, not the function. &quot;Patent Pending&quot; means there is some patent application of some type on file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can take years for a patent application to be allowed and turn into an issued patent, if ever, and most products are launched in a patent pending state. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond that we enter an area that is opinion. Some would recommend that a professionally done, fully fleshed out, application (either provisional or nonprovisional) be filed before exposing the product to anyone outside your team. Others suggest that the perception of ownership is all that is needed and that might be achieved with a self-written provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Protection&quot; can come in the form of copyrights as well as patents. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11620" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4821" RevisionGUID="20a54eca-6747-40cc-a497-05270e290f9b" CreationDate="2013-08-20T18:17:33.517" Comment="Proposed by 4374 approved by 1767 edit id of 423" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4833" RevisionGUID="65dc4f07-6204-40de-a1f4-d1e8047aea3c" CreationDate="2013-08-20T19:06:46.273" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON collaborative virtual shopping** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...individuals shopping together online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/13/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - individuals shopping together online with multiple shopping carts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves sharing information between users, such as shopping lists, price lists, or item comparisons between users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Collaborative virtual shopping**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for shopping together online.  Users participate in a **collaborative shopping session** using multiple **virtual shopping carts** and share information with one another&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130211953 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/372,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/13/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/11/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for collaborative shopping, comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A plurality of shopping devices interconnected by a network, the shopping devices being used by shoppers in a collaborative shopping session; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A plurality of virtual shopping carts respectively associated with the shopping devices for sharing information on items of interest among the shoppers and enabling the shoppers to collaborate on the shopping&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for shopping together online, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Devices (e.g. computers or smartphones or fancy in-store shopping carts) connected together by a network, used by shoppers in a collaborative shopping session&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Virtual shopping carts associated with each device for sharing information between shoppers (e.g. price lists, shopping lists, comparisons, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/13/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming sharing information between users, such as shopping lists, price lists, or comparisons between shopping cart items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Embedded map with dedicated advertising region from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/nmc2wu8.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130211953&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11622" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4833" RevisionGUID="65dc4f07-6204-40de-a1f4-d1e8047aea3c" CreationDate="2013-08-20T19:06:46.273" UserId="1767" Text="Virtual Shopping Cart - Collaborative shopping using shared virtual shopping cart (IBM) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11623" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4833" RevisionGUID="65dc4f07-6204-40de-a1f4-d1e8047aea3c" CreationDate="2013-08-20T19:06:46.273" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;ibm&gt;&lt;online-shopping&gt;&lt;us20130211953&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4833" RevisionGUID="3241fef1-786b-4a9e-93cf-e5479a463ea3" CreationDate="2013-08-20T19:11:46.687" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON collaborative virtual shopping** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...individuals shopping together online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/13/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - individuals shopping together online with multiple shopping carts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves sharing information between users, such as shopping lists, price lists, or item comparisons between users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Collaborative virtual shopping**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for shopping together online.  Users participate in a **collaborative shopping session** using multiple **virtual shopping carts** and share information with one another&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130211953 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/372,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/13/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/11/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for collaborative shopping, comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A plurality of shopping devices interconnected by a network, the shopping devices being used by shoppers in a collaborative shopping session; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A plurality of virtual shopping carts respectively associated with the shopping devices for sharing information on items of interest among the shoppers and enabling the shoppers to collaborate on the shopping&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for shopping together online, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Devices (e.g. computers or smartphones or fancy in-store shopping carts) connected together by a network, used by shoppers in a collaborative shopping session&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Virtual shopping carts associated with each device for sharing information between shoppers (e.g. price lists, shopping lists, comparisons, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/13/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming sharing information between users, such as shopping lists, price lists, or comparisons between shopping cart items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Collaborative Virtual Shopping from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/nmc2wu8.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130211953&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4834" RevisionGUID="be6f2b50-a9b2-42a2-b321-445c57753678" CreationDate="2013-08-20T19:21:57.217" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Suggesting migration to the cloud** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Suggesting customers use a cloud computer infrastructure...! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/8/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Measuring historical performance data, identifying recurring IT problem which could be mitigated with cloud computing infrastructure and generating customer reports identifying migration to the cloud&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Suggesting cloud migration**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for suggesting a customer use cloud computing… Measuring historical data, identifying recurring IT problems, determing cloud computing could solve the problem, and generating a report&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130205007 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/368,491&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting migration to a cloud computing infrastructure, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. at least one processor analyzing historical incident data of an information technology (IT) environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the at least one processor determining, based on the historical incident data, that a problem is recurring in the IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. the at least one processor determining that the problem can be mitigated in the cloud computing infrastructure; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. the at least one processor generating a report particular to the IT environment, the report identifying a benefit of migrating the IT environment to the cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Analyzing historical IT data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying recurring IT problem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determing problem can be mitigated in cloud computing infrastructure;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generating a report showing the benefits of cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure from the Applicant from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/agiOz4X.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130205007?dq=20130205007&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11626" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4834" RevisionGUID="be6f2b50-a9b2-42a2-b321-445c57753678" CreationDate="2013-08-20T19:21:57.217" UserId="1767" Text="Cloud Computing - Suggesting customers migrate to the cloud (IBM) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11627" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4834" RevisionGUID="be6f2b50-a9b2-42a2-b321-445c57753678" CreationDate="2013-08-20T19:21:57.217" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;ibm&gt;&lt;cloud-storage&gt;&lt;us20130205007&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4835" RevisionGUID="9bee414f-4636-470c-a7bb-f5b68d27f7d3" CreationDate="2013-08-20T19:50:36.663" UserId="5559" Text="The [Waze][1] application for Android and iOS precisely performs both claims 1 and 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Waze provides navigation instructions.  From their home page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Waze is the world's fastest-growing community-based traffic and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; navigation app.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) [Waze presents the user with alternate routes, and will change recommended routing on the fly][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since Waze uses the time you expect to be at a road segment to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; calculate the expected speed on that segment, it cannot use real time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data when you trip time moves into a future time slot. So trips of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more than 30 minutes (and on average more than 15 minutes) will&#xD;&#xA;&gt; include future time slots where current traffic data is not available&#xD;&#xA;&gt; when initially calculated. When you enter a new time slot, real-time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; traffic data may be available which may cause your client to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; recalculate your ETA and reroute you at that point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Waze was created in 2006.][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.waze.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.waze.com/wiki/?title=How_Waze_calculates_routes&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.waze.com/faq/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4838" RevisionGUID="3b28220a-883e-4f2b-bcf5-e521c4ea25f8" CreationDate="2013-08-20T21:42:03.917" UserId="5561" Text="May I point out that &quot;region of interest&quot; could very well be a country. Here is an example from [Admob][1] that states that they can target mobile ads on country (p.44)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3143695/AdMob-iMedia-Agency-Summit-May-2008" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4831" RevisionGUID="30928bbb-20a4-4c3e-86df-9c198aa40fd2" CreationDate="2013-08-20T21:55:09.880" UserId="5557" Comment="added 338 characters in body" Text="If researchers are prototyping a new type of network protocol, and I use their concepts to implement my own version (my way of doing it, 100% my code, different programming language, etc), are there any copyright or patent implications I should be aware of?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it make a difference if I open-sourced it versus sold as proprietary for profit?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, the researchers have the source code available to download through Github.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm in the USA, if that makes any difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I just noticed their README file on Github notes that they use the GNU Lesser General Public License (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html) which was chosen primarily because lots of their code base was ported from another Java project that I guess used it.  I'm thinking that licensing versus patenting is still the issue, no?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11638" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4831" RevisionGUID="4714c7a6-8250-487a-98ee-42fe77229f22" CreationDate="2013-08-20T22:17:20.050" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Are there any patent issues associated with making my own version of a protocol?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4802" RevisionGUID="b7a1ee47-6535-478d-907b-3f9bebff7df5" CreationDate="2013-08-20T23:23:22.530" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON synchronizing the output of data across devices** - This application from [Accenture][6] seeks to patent the idea of...synchronizing playback of streaming media on multiple devices! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Synchronously outputting media to multiple devices over a network &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves **Synchronous Stream Protocol (SSP)** or where devices can adjust playback speed or skip to keep streams in sync with one another&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Synchronizing playback of media across multiple devices**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for synchronizing output of audio or video streams across multiple devices by adjusting playback speed or skipping frames so as to keep the streams synchronized with one another during playback&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130138778 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/675,846&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Accenture&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for synchronizing output of media data across a plurality of output devices, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. providing a communication network between a media server and the plurality of output devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. synchronously outputting media data files on the plurality of output devices, wherein the media data files are transmitted to the output devices from the media server in form of a data stream over different delivery networks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for synchronizing the output of media (think audio/video) across devices, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Connecting a media server to mulitiple devices across a network&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **synchronously** playing the media over streams across different delivery networks (such as HDMI, fixed wired Ethernet, wireless IP, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A **Synchronous Stream Protocol (SSP)** and adjusting playback speed or skip to keep streams in sync with one another across devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for integrating playback of media across multiple devices from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/j6VDbND.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130138778?dq=US20130138778&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.accenture.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4803" RevisionGUID="f01424d8-3c92-44b0-ac12-1bc7b928849a" CreationDate="2013-08-20T23:23:32.900" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON detecting &quot;problematic phrases&quot; in a document** - This application from [Google][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Alerting a user when a phrase in a document matches a &quot;problematic phrase&quot; in a database (i.e. phrases with legal or policy issues for the company)! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/30/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Searching for problematic phrases in a document and alerting the user or a third party&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves sending an alert to a third party if there is a match&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Detecting problematic phrases**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for detecting &quot;problematic phrases&quot; in documents and alerting the user when he has entered a problematic phrase.  A problematic phrase is one which has legal implications or is a policy violation for the company&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110748 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/599,731&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 10/29/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of identifying problematic phrases in an electronic document, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. detecting a context of the electronic document;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. capturing a textual phrase entered by a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. comparing the textual phrase against a database of phrases previously identified as having legal implications or violating policy; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. alerting the user via an in-line notification when the textual phrase matches a phrase in the database having legal implications or violating policy, based on the detected context of the electronic document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of identifying problematic phrases in a document, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Detecting a context of the document (e.g. Word file, Spreadsheet file, intended recipient of the document, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Capturing a text phrase entered by the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Comparing the text phrase against a database of problematic phrases (e.g. with legal implications or policy violations)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Alerting the user in-line when he has entered a problematic phrase in a document, based on the context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming sending an alert to a third party if the user enters a problematic phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Project ABC is going to totally *KILL* the company&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/L8yTgFu.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130110748?dq=US20130110748A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.google.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4814" RevisionGUID="adfb96e4-538e-490d-94f5-a150e1f9d7b4" CreationDate="2013-08-20T23:23:54.777" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON transferring data to a server based on user travel plans** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...transferring data in cloud storage system from a data server near a user usual location to a data server near where a user plans to travel! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2011** that discusses: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Moving data between servers based on user travel plans&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves accessing a user's calendar to figure out where he will travel and when&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transferring data between servers based on travel plans of a user**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for moving data between data servers bsaed on travel plans of a user (basically, if the user is traveling somewhere, moving some data from his &quot;home&quot; server to a server which is closer to the location he will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144978 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/309,640&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/3/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. locating a data server near a travel location of a user based on one or more travel plans of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transferring data of the user from a home data server near a home location of the user to the data server near the travel location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of data relocation in a cloud storage environment, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Locating a data server which is physically close to a location of a user based on travel plans of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Transferring data of the user from the home data server to the data server near the travel location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming accessing the user's calendar to figure out where he will travel so data can be moved there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for data relocation in cloud storage environments from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rLnVZ5M.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130144978?dq=US20130144978A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4833" RevisionGUID="28676322-ab7c-405f-b237-133d87815572" CreationDate="2013-08-20T23:24:12.153" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON collaborative virtual shopping** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...individuals shopping together online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/13/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - individuals shopping together online with multiple shopping carts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves sharing information between users, such as shopping lists, price lists, or item comparisons between users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Collaborative virtual shopping**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for shopping together online.  Users participate in a **collaborative shopping session** using multiple **virtual shopping carts** and share information with one another&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130211953 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/372,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/13/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/11/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for collaborative shopping, comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A plurality of shopping devices interconnected by a network, the shopping devices being used by shoppers in a collaborative shopping session; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A plurality of virtual shopping carts respectively associated with the shopping devices for sharing information on items of interest among the shoppers and enabling the shoppers to collaborate on the shopping&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for shopping together online, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Devices (e.g. computers or smartphones or fancy in-store shopping carts) connected together by a network, used by shoppers in a collaborative shopping session&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Virtual shopping carts associated with each device for sharing information between shoppers (e.g. price lists, shopping lists, comparisons, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/13/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming sharing information between users, such as shopping lists, price lists, or comparisons between shopping cart items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Collaborative Virtual Shopping from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/nmc2wu8.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130211953&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="96abd494-35e4-491c-888d-9ea35c9b0c59" CreationDate="2013-08-20T23:26:08.363" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **A PATENT APPLICATION ON updating apps on mobile devices to restricted &quot;dummy&quot; apps** This application from [Good Technologies][2] seeks to patent the idea of...deleting sensitive information on a device by creating dummy apps. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents] (https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A management system for apps on mobile devices where apps are updated to dummy apps that, when invoked, destroy the respective apps' sensitive data.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your company has as &quot;Bring Your Own Device&quot; policy.  The company email app on your personal phone is &quot;updated&quot; to a new version. Then, when you launch that app, it will delete all the company email on your device and present a &quot;YOU'RE FIRED&quot; message instead of an inbox view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Another example would be having version 1.0 of a game updated to a limited trial of version 2.0 that encrypts your old save file on first being run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that standard mobile app management/mobile device management platforms do not necessarily anticipate the invention. That is, **remote deletion of an application and/or data is not sufficient to meet the claim limitations**. It's critical that the prior art disclose updating/modifying the app to a restricted functionality &quot;dummy&quot; version and for the updated app to itself delete/modify the existing data upon being run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System and Method for Remote Management of Applications Downloaded to a Personal Portable Wireless Appliance** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110145932 A1][0]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/975,145&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  [Appcentral, Inc.][1] / [Good Technologies][2] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for downloading and monitoring applications, programs and data structures to a personal portable appliance coupled to a server via a network configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;0. determine that the appliance is connected; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. generating a connection request from the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. authenticating the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. determining that one or more applications must be updated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. receiving at least one updated application comprising a dummy application such that when the application is invoked the data structures of the previous application are manipulated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. modifying the functionality of the application; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. offering the user one or more indications that the application is restricted or limited. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010. (Please note that although that this patent application is a continuation-in-part of earlier-filed parent cases, the claimed invention is not supported by the disclosure of the parent cases, rendering the actual filing date the effective filing date.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A diagram of the application management system&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NhpR6yB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [0]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110145932?dq=US20110145932&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.appcentral.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.good.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4839" RevisionGUID="97acc367-6a06-4fed-9e9a-b0d4a2dfce85" CreationDate="2013-08-21T03:23:39.403" UserId="5563" Text="This patent says it is lapsed. Was this patent actually issued? It says failure to pay fees.  I looked it up on the US Patent website and it said it could not be found. Can anyone help me here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11647" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4839" RevisionGUID="97acc367-6a06-4fed-9e9a-b0d4a2dfce85" CreationDate="2013-08-21T03:23:39.403" UserId="5563" Text="Patent issued or expired?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11648" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4839" RevisionGUID="97acc367-6a06-4fed-9e9a-b0d4a2dfce85" CreationDate="2013-08-21T03:23:39.403" UserId="5563" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11649" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4839" RevisionGUID="832b764c-cf77-4093-ac93-4bcf5b33d1fb" CreationDate="2013-08-21T04:55:42.250" UserId="1767" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1767,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Micah Siegel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4840" RevisionGUID="b1cbaf83-08ba-4b9f-9503-c9c6c6585968" CreationDate="2013-08-21T12:02:33.803" UserId="5552" Text="This sounds like it's covered by existing online co-buying / social commerce systems. These systems don't offer options to cross over between physical store shopping and online shopping but I guess the issue here is the claim isn't specific enough and doesn't mention that? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that's correct then there was an online offering called Letsbuyit.com that had collaborative shopping over 10 years ago. As a shopper you'd visit the site and say which products you wanted and you'd see how many other people wanted them. The more customers that wanted something the cheaper the price became. I can't find references in English unfortunately, only in German, which dates it to 1999: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letsbuyit.com and http://www.welt.de/print-welt/article590920/Gemeinsam-kaufen-gemeinsam-sparen.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like buyapowa are doing something similar and have been going at least since September 2011:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.buyapowa.biz/ and http://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/sep/29/co-buyer-websites-discounts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They also have a request list that is shared between users that you can add to and vote on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4833" RevisionGUID="db3b07c5-fc9b-4d10-8167-ddb53d22f24c" CreationDate="2013-08-21T17:18:53.873" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON collaborative virtual shopping** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...individuals shopping together online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/13/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - individuals shopping together online with multiple shopping carts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves sharing information between users, such as shopping lists, price lists, or item comparisons between users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Collaborative virtual shopping**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for shopping together online.  Users participate in a **collaborative shopping session** using multiple **virtual shopping carts** and share information with one another&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130211953 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/372,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/13/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/11/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for collaborative shopping, comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A plurality of shopping devices interconnected by a network, the shopping devices being used by shoppers in a collaborative shopping session; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A plurality of virtual shopping carts respectively associated with the shopping devices for sharing information on items of interest among the shoppers and enabling the shoppers to collaborate on the shopping&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for shopping together online, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Devices (e.g. computers or smartphones or fancy in-store shopping carts) connected together by a network, used by shoppers in a collaborative shopping session&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Virtual shopping carts associated with each device for sharing information between shoppers (e.g. price lists, shopping lists, comparisons, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/13/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming sharing information between users, such as shopping lists, price lists, or comparisons between shopping cart items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Collaborative Virtual Shopping from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/nmc2wu8.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130211953&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4814" RevisionGUID="c12b08b6-6565-4a54-b003-6e9ffd12e833" CreationDate="2013-08-21T17:19:05.217" UserId="1767" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON transferring data to a server based on user travel plans** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...transferring data in cloud storage system from a data server near a user usual location to a data server near where a user plans to travel! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2011** that discusses: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Moving data between servers based on user travel plans&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves accessing a user's calendar to figure out where he will travel and when&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transferring data between servers based on travel plans of a user**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for moving data between data servers bsaed on travel plans of a user (basically, if the user is traveling somewhere, moving some data from his &quot;home&quot; server to a server which is closer to the location he will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144978 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/309,640&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/3/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. locating a data server near a travel location of a user based on one or more travel plans of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transferring data of the user from a home data server near a home location of the user to the data server near the travel location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of data relocation in a cloud storage environment, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Locating a data server which is physically close to a location of a user based on travel plans of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Transferring data of the user from the home data server to the data server near the travel location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming accessing the user's calendar to figure out where he will travel so data can be moved there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for data relocation in cloud storage environments from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rLnVZ5M.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130144978?dq=US20130144978A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4803" RevisionGUID="b6363ea5-88fb-4676-955d-5e3427fed1e9" CreationDate="2013-08-21T17:19:29.123" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON detecting &quot;problematic phrases&quot; in a document** - This application from [Google][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Alerting a user when a phrase in a document matches a &quot;problematic phrase&quot; in a database (i.e. phrases with legal or policy issues for the company)! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/30/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Searching for problematic phrases in a document and alerting the user or a third party&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves sending an alert to a third party if there is a match&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Detecting problematic phrases**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for detecting &quot;problematic phrases&quot; in documents and alerting the user when he has entered a problematic phrase.  A problematic phrase is one which has legal implications or is a policy violation for the company&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110748 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/599,731&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 10/29/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of identifying problematic phrases in an electronic document, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. detecting a context of the electronic document;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. capturing a textual phrase entered by a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. comparing the textual phrase against a database of phrases previously identified as having legal implications or violating policy; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. alerting the user via an in-line notification when the textual phrase matches a phrase in the database having legal implications or violating policy, based on the detected context of the electronic document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of identifying problematic phrases in a document, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Detecting a context of the document (e.g. Word file, Spreadsheet file, intended recipient of the document, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Capturing a text phrase entered by the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Comparing the text phrase against a database of problematic phrases (e.g. with legal implications or policy violations)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Alerting the user in-line when he has entered a problematic phrase in a document, based on the context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming sending an alert to a third party if the user enters a problematic phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Project ABC is going to totally *KILL* the company&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/L8yTgFu.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130110748?dq=US20130110748A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.google.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4802" RevisionGUID="9b8d67f4-06a7-4d6e-8eda-f7a980d043f4" CreationDate="2013-08-21T17:19:51.787" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON synchronizing the output of data across devices** - This application from [Accenture][6] seeks to patent the idea of...synchronizing playback of streaming media on multiple devices! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Synchronously outputting media to multiple devices over a network &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves **Synchronous Stream Protocol (SSP)** or where devices can adjust playback speed or skip to keep streams in sync with one another&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Synchronizing playback of media across multiple devices**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for synchronizing output of audio or video streams across multiple devices by adjusting playback speed or skipping frames so as to keep the streams synchronized with one another during playback&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130138778 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/675,846&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Accenture&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for synchronizing output of media data across a plurality of output devices, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. providing a communication network between a media server and the plurality of output devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. synchronously outputting media data files on the plurality of output devices, wherein the media data files are transmitted to the output devices from the media server in form of a data stream over different delivery networks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for synchronizing the output of media (think audio/video) across devices, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Connecting a media server to mulitiple devices across a network&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **synchronously** playing the media over streams across different delivery networks (such as HDMI, fixed wired Ethernet, wireless IP, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A **Synchronous Stream Protocol (SSP)** and adjusting playback speed or skip to keep streams in sync with one another across devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for integrating playback of media across multiple devices from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/j6VDbND.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130138778?dq=US20130138778&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.accenture.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4801" RevisionGUID="1b87f7cd-6318-47a5-ad27-b823adecc221" CreationDate="2013-08-21T17:20:14.943" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON cloud-based video editing** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...sending large video files to a server and providing **cloud-based applications to edit video** files! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/23/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Video-editing software as a service run on a cloud-based server&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves segmenting large files into smaller segments so that encoding and delivery can be managed in segments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Databases and web applications for large video files**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for editing and managing large video files by uploading the files to a server and doing editing through web applications&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130132523 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/478,772&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for the acquisition and management of digital files and their display and management through the internet, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. communicating with a plurality of electronic storage devices via the internet;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. copying files from said electronic storage devices;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. storing said files and facilitating the download of said files; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. providing tools for the management of said files, said tools comprising a tool for delivering only a portion of one of said files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for managing and displaying video files on the internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Communicating with more than one storage device (e.g. a laptop or a smartphone)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Copying files from the storage device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Storing files on server(s) on the internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Providing tools to manage the files, including tools to download only a portion of one of the files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming breaking large files into segments to help with uploading, encoding, and editing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Acquiring, managing and uploading video files from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/8owuaJl.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132523?dq=US20130132523A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4841" RevisionGUID="51c51e0b-350a-496b-8ca0-9ebb7d909ea7" CreationDate="2013-08-21T18:06:44.950" UserId="5565" Text="The good-old  linux sudo command will say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _username_ is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if the user tying to execute the command is not allowed to do so (i.e. Policy Violation), and a mail is sent to the root user (the third party) as well as informing the user trying to do so. Interestingly, the check is done using a file (i.e. checking against a database of phrases). This is not exactly about phrases in a document, but I think the generalization is trivial." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4842" RevisionGUID="2307bae8-3826-4aeb-bd21-e96fb0e0cb38" CreationDate="2013-08-21T18:10:13.367" UserId="5566" Text="There are 4 questions in this post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a bit confused about the claims related to adhesives in this patent about &quot;non-skid absorbent pad&quot; no: US 7249570 B1 &lt;http://www.google.com/patents/US7249570&gt; &#xD;&#xA;It appears that the &quot;adhesive members&quot; and disposable covers for these &quot;adhesive members&quot; are protected so long as the &quot;adhesive members&quot; on the corners of a disposable pet pad. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. Is the above statement correct? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B. Can someone patent the use of adhesives members so long as they are not on the corners?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, this patent was filed by before this patent application about &quot;Bamboo absorbent pet pad&quot; no: US 20120325160 A1 &lt;https://www.google.com/patents/US20120325160&gt;, but the latter patent mentions using adhesives with disposable covers in the product use description. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that this is not part of the claims, but it appears that a licensing of the patent mention earlier in order for this person to produce and sell the pet pad that is described in the patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C. Is that correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I have a general question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;D. Can someone patent the functions/ uses of existing patent in another patent so long as the other patent is being used for a different purpose?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take a completely hypothetical scenario: For example, the pat no US 20120325160 A1 (a bamboo pet pad), let's say that it was used for the purpose of absorbing the oil dripping from car in a mechanic's shop. Is that &quot;patent-able&quot; and would it infringe on the original patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would provide the same function as it does for dogs - but for cars." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11658" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4842" RevisionGUID="2307bae8-3826-4aeb-bd21-e96fb0e0cb38" CreationDate="2013-08-21T18:10:13.367" UserId="5566" Text="What claims related to adhesives are protected in this patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11659" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4842" RevisionGUID="2307bae8-3826-4aeb-bd21-e96fb0e0cb38" CreationDate="2013-08-21T18:10:13.367" UserId="5566" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;us7249570&gt;&lt;us20120325160&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4843" RevisionGUID="8d988650-eb03-4f5d-a2d8-8859ae1961ff" CreationDate="2013-08-21T20:03:08.913" UserId="5567" Text="My 2006 thesis: &quot;Knowledge discovery in corporate email : the compliance bot meets Enron&quot; (http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/37574) has an abstract which begins: &quot;I propose the creation of a real-time compliance &quot;bot&quot; - software to momentarily pause each employee's email at the moment of sending and to electronically assess whether that email is likely to create liability or unanticipated expense for the corporation.&quot;  It has a chapter on the kinds of things to look for - criminal, civil malfeasance, as well as other liability and risk issues and a final chapter which includes a graphic of the sort of warning the bot could display to a user. Is that what you're seeking? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4839" RevisionGUID="401a6839-ee5d-4d22-a463-303f21e9c114" CreationDate="2013-08-21T21:22:40.607" UserId="5563" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="This patent says it is lapsed. Was this patent actually issued? It says failure to pay fees.  I looked it up on the US Patent website and it said it could not be found. Can anyone help me here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent&quot;  US4820036 A" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11666" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4839" RevisionGUID="1c1d3d98-ed82-402d-92f1-3ad4f69c490e" CreationDate="2013-08-21T21:58:23.887" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;us4820036&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11667" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="4839" RevisionGUID="f1b8adb1-619c-4973-bc84-440dd29b28b0" CreationDate="2013-08-21T21:58:28.467" UserId="1767" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1767,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Micah Siegel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4839" RevisionGUID="1c1d3d98-ed82-402d-92f1-3ad4f69c490e" CreationDate="2013-08-21T21:58:23.887" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="[This patent][1] says it is lapsed. Was this patent actually issued? It says failure to pay fees.  I looked it up on the US Patent website and it said it could not be found. Can anyone help me here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Title: Headband for retention of glasses&#xD;&#xA;Patent:  [US4820036 A][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4820036?dq=US4820036" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11669" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4839" RevisionGUID="1c1d3d98-ed82-402d-92f1-3ad4f69c490e" CreationDate="2013-08-21T21:58:23.887" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="Is Patent US4820036 expired?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4845" RevisionGUID="cacd82a3-1200-4363-9cf9-6069449cb94e" CreationDate="2013-08-21T22:19:32.037" UserId="1767" Text="US4820036 is lapsed and expired.  The best place to look this up is on [Google Patents][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Patent lifetime in US][2] prior to 1995 was generally 17 years from date of issuance (after 1995 is generally 20 years from the priority date, or the date of the earliest application to which priority is claimed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent US4820036 was issued in 1989 so it would have **fallen into the public domain in 2006**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Owners of US Patents are required to pay maintenance fees during the term of the patent or the patent lapses before the end of its term.  It looks like this patent lapsed before the end of its term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also look up more detail about the file history for this patent on [Public PAIR][3]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information overall on how to determine remaining patent life for a US Patent see this question: [Patent Lifetime and PAIR][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/cE6D1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/58Dcq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3972/1767" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4803" RevisionGUID="9c855a6d-f562-4eb0-ae8f-075f0d125bfd" CreationDate="2013-08-21T22:24:11.340" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON detecting &quot;problematic phrases&quot; in a document** - This application from [Google][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Alerting a user when a phrase in a document matches a &quot;problematic phrase&quot; in a database (i.e. phrases with legal or policy issues for the company)! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/30/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Searching for problematic phrases in a document and alerting the user or a third party&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves sending an alert to a third party if there is a match&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Detecting problematic phrases**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for detecting &quot;problematic phrases&quot; in documents and alerting the user when he has entered a problematic phrase.  A problematic phrase is one which has legal implications or is a policy violation for the company&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110748 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/599,731&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 10/29/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of identifying problematic phrases in an electronic document, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. detecting a context of the electronic document;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. capturing a textual phrase entered by a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. comparing the textual phrase against a database of phrases previously identified as having legal implications or violating policy; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. alerting the user via an in-line notification when the textual phrase matches a phrase in the database having legal implications or violating policy, based on the detected context of the electronic document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of identifying problematic phrases in a document, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Detecting a context of the document (e.g. Word file, Spreadsheet file, intended recipient of the document, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Capturing a text phrase entered by the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Comparing the text phrase against a database of problematic phrases (e.g. with legal implications or policy violations)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Alerting the user in-line when he has entered a problematic phrase in a document, based on the context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming sending an alert to a third party if the user enters a problematic phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Project ABC is going to totally *KILL* the company&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/L8yTgFu.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130110748?dq=US20130110748A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.google.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4801" RevisionGUID="a75e9248-eecd-4d37-904f-310fdcd7e69f" CreationDate="2013-08-21T22:24:32.700" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON cloud-based video editing** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...sending large video files to a server and providing **cloud-based applications to edit video** files! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/23/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Video-editing software as a service run on a cloud-based server&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves segmenting large files into smaller segments so that encoding and delivery can be managed in segments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Databases and web applications for large video files**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for editing and managing large video files by uploading the files to a server and doing editing through web applications&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130132523 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/478,772&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for the acquisition and management of digital files and their display and management through the internet, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. communicating with a plurality of electronic storage devices via the internet;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. copying files from said electronic storage devices;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. storing said files and facilitating the download of said files; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. providing tools for the management of said files, said tools comprising a tool for delivering only a portion of one of said files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for managing and displaying video files on the internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Communicating with more than one storage device (e.g. a laptop or a smartphone)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Copying files from the storage device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Storing files on server(s) on the internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Providing tools to manage the files, including tools to download only a portion of one of the files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming breaking large files into segments to help with uploading, encoding, and editing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Acquiring, managing and uploading video files from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/8owuaJl.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132523?dq=US20130132523A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4802" RevisionGUID="721453ca-2151-444b-82da-f1851f4c00db" CreationDate="2013-08-21T22:25:08.293" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON synchronizing the output of data across devices** - This application from [Accenture][6] seeks to patent the idea of...synchronizing playback of streaming media on multiple devices! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Synchronously outputting media to multiple devices over a network &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves **Synchronous Stream Protocol (SSP)** or where devices can adjust playback speed or skip to keep streams in sync with one another&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Synchronizing playback of media across multiple devices**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for synchronizing output of audio or video streams across multiple devices by adjusting playback speed or skipping frames so as to keep the streams synchronized with one another during playback&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130138778 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/675,846&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Accenture&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for synchronizing output of media data across a plurality of output devices, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. providing a communication network between a media server and the plurality of output devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. synchronously outputting media data files on the plurality of output devices, wherein the media data files are transmitted to the output devices from the media server in form of a data stream over different delivery networks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for synchronizing the output of media (think audio/video) across devices, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Connecting a media server to mulitiple devices across a network&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **synchronously** playing the media over streams across different delivery networks (such as HDMI, fixed wired Ethernet, wireless IP, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A **Synchronous Stream Protocol (SSP)** and adjusting playback speed or skip to keep streams in sync with one another across devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for integrating playback of media across multiple devices from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/j6VDbND.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130138778?dq=US20130138778&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.accenture.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4814" RevisionGUID="82c52b3e-f720-47ca-a5e4-c7e5ecf23d2f" CreationDate="2013-08-21T22:25:22.330" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON transferring data to a server based on user travel plans** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...transferring data in cloud storage system from a data server near a user usual location to a data server near where a user plans to travel! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2011** that discusses: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Moving data between servers based on user travel plans&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves accessing a user's calendar to figure out where he will travel and when&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transferring data between servers based on travel plans of a user**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for moving data between data servers bsaed on travel plans of a user (basically, if the user is traveling somewhere, moving some data from his &quot;home&quot; server to a server which is closer to the location he will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144978 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/309,640&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/3/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. locating a data server near a travel location of a user based on one or more travel plans of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transferring data of the user from a home data server near a home location of the user to the data server near the travel location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of data relocation in a cloud storage environment, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Locating a data server which is physically close to a location of a user based on travel plans of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Transferring data of the user from the home data server to the data server near the travel location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming accessing the user's calendar to figure out where he will travel so data can be moved there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for data relocation in cloud storage environments from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rLnVZ5M.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130144978?dq=US20130144978A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4833" RevisionGUID="10c8a53e-4313-40dd-860b-9b3e39963380" CreationDate="2013-08-21T22:25:37.603" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON collaborative virtual shopping** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...individuals shopping together online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/13/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - individuals shopping together online with multiple shopping carts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves sharing information between users, such as shopping lists, price lists, or item comparisons between users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Collaborative virtual shopping**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for shopping together online.  Users participate in a **collaborative shopping session** using multiple **virtual shopping carts** and share information with one another&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130211953 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/372,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/13/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/11/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for collaborative shopping, comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A plurality of shopping devices interconnected by a network, the shopping devices being used by shoppers in a collaborative shopping session; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A plurality of virtual shopping carts respectively associated with the shopping devices for sharing information on items of interest among the shoppers and enabling the shoppers to collaborate on the shopping&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for shopping together online, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Devices (e.g. computers or smartphones or fancy in-store shopping carts) connected together by a network, used by shoppers in a collaborative shopping session&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Virtual shopping carts associated with each device for sharing information between shoppers (e.g. price lists, shopping lists, comparisons, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/13/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming sharing information between users, such as shopping lists, price lists, or comparisons between shopping cart items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Collaborative Virtual Shopping from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/nmc2wu8.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130211953&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="08f1ca9c-2ada-4438-a629-fb793d78072c" CreationDate="2013-08-21T22:25:53.467" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="**A PATENT APPLICATION ON updating apps on mobile devices to restricted &quot;dummy&quot; apps** This application from [Good Technologies][2] seeks to patent the idea of...deleting sensitive information on a device by creating dummy apps. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents] (https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A management system for apps on mobile devices where apps are updated to dummy apps that, when invoked, destroy the respective apps' sensitive data.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your company has as &quot;Bring Your Own Device&quot; policy.  The company email app on your personal phone is &quot;updated&quot; to a new version. Then, when you launch that app, it will delete all the company email on your device and present a &quot;YOU'RE FIRED&quot; message instead of an inbox view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Another example would be having version 1.0 of a game updated to a limited trial of version 2.0 that encrypts your old save file on first being run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that standard mobile app management/mobile device management platforms do not necessarily anticipate the invention. That is, **remote deletion of an application and/or data is not sufficient to meet the claim limitations**. It's critical that the prior art disclose updating/modifying the app to a restricted functionality &quot;dummy&quot; version and for the updated app to itself delete/modify the existing data upon being run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System and Method for Remote Management of Applications Downloaded to a Personal Portable Wireless Appliance** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110145932 A1][0]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/975,145&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  [Appcentral, Inc.][1] / [Good Technologies][2] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for downloading and monitoring applications, programs and data structures to a personal portable appliance coupled to a server via a network configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;0. determine that the appliance is connected; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. generating a connection request from the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. authenticating the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. determining that one or more applications must be updated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. receiving at least one updated application comprising a dummy application such that when the application is invoked the data structures of the previous application are manipulated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. modifying the functionality of the application; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. offering the user one or more indications that the application is restricted or limited. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010. (Please note that although that this patent application is a continuation-in-part of earlier-filed parent cases, the claimed invention is not supported by the disclosure of the parent cases, rendering the actual filing date the effective filing date.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A diagram of the application management system&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NhpR6yB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [0]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110145932?dq=US20110145932&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.appcentral.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.good.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4842" RevisionGUID="40359534-76b9-4d8a-b604-f46cf23756d6" CreationDate="2013-08-21T23:22:36.120" UserId="3076" Comment="Added claim 1 wording" Text="There are 4 questions in this post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a bit confused about the claims related to adhesives in this patent about &quot;non-skid absorbent pad&quot; no: US 7249570 B1 &lt;http://www.google.com/patents/US7249570&gt; &#xD;&#xA;It appears that the &quot;adhesive members&quot; and disposable covers for these &quot;adhesive members&quot; are protected so long as the &quot;adhesive members&quot; on the corners of a disposable pet pad. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. Is the above statement correct? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B. Can someone patent the use of adhesives members so long as they are not on the corners?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, this patent was filed by before this patent application about &quot;Bamboo absorbent pet pad&quot; no: US 20120325160 A1 &lt;https://www.google.com/patents/US20120325160&gt;, but the latter patent mentions using adhesives with disposable covers in the product use description. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that this is not part of the claims, but it appears that a licensing of the patent mention earlier in order for this person to produce and sell the pet pad that is described in the patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C. Is that correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I have a general question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;D. Can someone patent the functions/ uses of existing patent in another patent so long as the other patent is being used for a different purpose?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take a completely hypothetical scenario: For example, the pat no US 20120325160 A1 (a bamboo pet pad), let's say that it was used for the purpose of absorbing the oil dripping from car in a mechanic's shop. Is that &quot;patent-able&quot; and would it infringe on the original patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would provide the same function as it does for dogs - but for cars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An apparatus for a non-skid absorbent pad for use by animals, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a) an upper absorbent layer for receiving animal wastes, said absorbent layer having a peripheral edge and a top and bottom surface;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;b) a bottom layer having a top and bottom surface, wherein said bottom layer is impermeable to fluids, wherein said top surface of said bottom layer is contiguous to said bottom surface of said absorbent layer, wherein said bottom layer has a peripheral edge extending beyond said peripheral edge of said absorbent layer, wherein said peripheral edge of said bottom layer extends around and over the whole peripheral edge of said absorbent layer so that a hem is formed contiguous to said top surface of said peripheral edge of said absorbent layer;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;c) a plurality of adhesive members being disposed on said bottom surface of said bottom layer so as to adhere the pad to an underlying supporting surface; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;d) a fragrance layer being disposed between said absorbent layer and said bottom layer for attracting animals, said fragrance layer not extending to an edge of said bottom layer, said hem being colored green simulating grass." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11678" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4827" RevisionGUID="934ad07a-a525-4a30-8ba0-0435e5219bc4" CreationDate="2013-08-21T23:49:47.740" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;us20130132198&gt;&lt;huyundai&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4846" RevisionGUID="0798d09c-57d8-4674-94e2-272ca70389a5" CreationDate="2013-08-22T00:10:54.250" UserId="3076" Text="Generally speaking, to infringe an apparatus claim you would need to make, sell, use or import an apparatus that has **all** of the characteristics required by the claim. So the answer to question A is that your statement is incorrect. The claim requires a fragrance layer, absorbent layer, and a particular hem. The adhesives members themselves, standing alone, are not protected by this claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B. What someone can make without running a foul of this patent and what someone can patent themselves are two entirely different questions that are barely related. That kind of a small change is the sort of thing people do to try to make something similar that does not literally infringe the claim. However, it may be a change that is seen as obvious. But if a small change makes a big difference in function, particularly in a surprising way, it could very well lead to a patentable apparatus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C. I haven't studied the two patents but it often happens that a patented invention, if made, sold, etc. would infringe a different patent by a different inventor. You patent a paper towel dispenser. While that patent is in force, I make a motorized paper towel dispenser. Patented or not, my motorized one may very well have all of the characteristics required by one of your claims. I would need a license from you before I could commercialize my invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;D. The patent in the example is for an **apparatus**. Although the intended use is often mentioned in an apparatus claim, it doesn't govern. I patent a very sturdy back scratcher and you make something exactly like it that is sold as a garden implement. If your garden implement's physical structure falls under my claim wording then you infringe. There are **method** claims that do define a use rather than a structure. In that case it the user who directly infringes, not the manufacturer and the use itself is what matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your hypothetical you could make a larger version of the pet pad and market t for mechanics. If it met the letter of the claim, you would need to license the original patent. If the different application dictated differences in structure then you might also get patents on that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4846" RevisionGUID="00e8416f-a1b0-4ab3-b066-608aee90d0f7" CreationDate="2013-08-22T02:11:41.403" UserId="3076" Comment="added 242 characters in body" Text="Generally speaking, to infringe an apparatus claim you would need to make, sell, use or import an apparatus that has **all** of the characteristics required by the claim. So the answer to question A is that your statement is incorrect. The claim requires a fragrance layer, absorbent layer, and a particular hem. The adhesives members themselves, standing alone, are not protected by this claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B. What someone can make without running a foul of this patent and what someone can patent themselves are two entirely different questions that are barely related. That kind of a small change is the sort of thing people do to try to make something similar that does not literally infringe the claim. However, it may be a change that is seen as obvious so the inventor of that change might not deserve a patent. But if a small change makes a big difference in function, particularly in a surprising way, it could very well lead to a patentable apparatus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C. I haven't studied the two patents but it often happens that a patented invention, if made, sold, etc. would infringe a different patent by a different inventor. You patent a paper towel dispenser. While that patent is in force, I make a motorized paper towel dispenser. Patented or not, my motorized one may very well have all of the characteristics required by one of your claims. I would need a license from you before I could commercialize my invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;D. The patent in the example is for an **apparatus**. Although the intended use is often mentioned in an apparatus claim, it doesn't govern. I patent a very sturdy back scratcher and you make something exactly like it that is sold as a garden implement. If your garden implement's physical structure falls under my claim wording then you infringe. There are **method** claims that do define a use rather than a structure. In that case it the user who directly infringes, not the manufacturer and the use itself is what matters. The step, &quot;put it near your dog&quot; &#xD;&#xA;**is** a different step than &quot;put it under your car&quot; even if the &quot;it&quot; is the same thing. Of course, one method might be obvious in light of the other.&#xD;&#xA;In your hypothetical you could make a larger version of the pet pad and market it for mechanics. If it met the letter of an apparatus claim, you would need to license the original patent. If the different application dictated differences in structure then you might also get patents on that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4848" RevisionGUID="63aa2dc8-5e3a-4486-8e86-36294eb4a6d7" CreationDate="2013-08-22T02:52:16.163" UserId="5511" Text="Claim 3 in US patent 6,415,316 reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;3. The method of claim 1 wherein the diary page is organized according to **at east** one of: by date and by topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the legal consequence of having such a typo &amp;mdash; can this particular claim be enforced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11688" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4848" RevisionGUID="63aa2dc8-5e3a-4486-8e86-36294eb4a6d7" CreationDate="2013-08-22T02:52:16.163" UserId="5511" Text="A typo in a patent claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11689" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4848" RevisionGUID="63aa2dc8-5e3a-4486-8e86-36294eb4a6d7" CreationDate="2013-08-22T02:52:16.163" UserId="5511" Text="&lt;us6415316&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4814" RevisionGUID="5e332cba-d5d2-40c6-8906-af216b8eb0d8" CreationDate="2013-08-22T06:10:42.503" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON transferring data to a server based on user travel plans** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...transferring data in cloud storage system from a data server near a user usual location to a data server near where a user plans to travel! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2011** that discusses: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Moving data between servers based on user travel plans&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves accessing a user's calendar to figure out where he will travel and when&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transferring data between servers based on travel plans of a user**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for moving data between data servers bsaed on travel plans of a user (basically, if the user is traveling somewhere, moving some data from his &quot;home&quot; server to a server which is closer to the location he will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144978 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/309,640&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/3/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. locating a data server near a travel location of a user based on one or more travel plans of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transferring data of the user from a home data server near a home location of the user to the data server near the travel location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of data relocation in a cloud storage environment, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Locating a data server which is physically close to a location of a user based on travel plans of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Transferring data of the user from the home data server to the data server near the travel location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming accessing the user's calendar to figure out where he will travel so data can be moved there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for data relocation in cloud storage environments from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rLnVZ5M.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130144978?dq=US20130144978A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4850" RevisionGUID="567aa98f-0e32-4463-bdb2-0f05cdc0136a" CreationDate="2013-08-22T07:21:22.930" UserId="3076" Text="A obvious error with no question as to what was meant can be corrected by a court in the course of an infringement case. This quote is from case where the Federal Circuit allowed &quot;and&quot; to be added between the two words &quot;detect analyze&quot; in [a case][1] in 2011. But it took an appeal to get this correct (in my opinion) result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is well-settled law that, in a patent infringement suit, a district court may correct an obvious error in a patent claim. I.T.S. Rubber Co. v. Essex Rubber Co., 272 U.S. 429, 442 (1926) (“Essex”). In Novo Industries, we held that “[a] district court can correct a patent only if (1) the correction is not subject to reasonable debate based on consideration of the claim language and the specification and (2) the prosecution history does not suggest a differ- ent interpretation of the claims.” 350 F.3d at 1357. We concluded that the enactment of 35 U.S.C. §§ 254 and 255 did not overrule Essex or deny authority to the district courts to correct a claim in appropriate circumstances. Id. at 1356. In Novo Industries, we declined to make the proposed corrections to the claim at issue because those corrections were substantively significant and required guesswork as to what was intended by the patentee in order to make sense of the patent claim. Id. at 1357.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also fixable by a [reissue proceeding at the USPTO.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1202-1203.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1401.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4850" RevisionGUID="1731ce68-2191-4f06-ac95-4eda17f83450" CreationDate="2013-08-22T07:39:35.743" UserId="3076" Comment="Added mention of certificate of correction and link" Text="A clear-cut enough typo can be fixed by a [certificate of correction][1] from the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A obvious error with no question as to what was meant can be corrected by a court in the course of an infringement case. This quote is from case where the Federal Circuit allowed &quot;and&quot; to be added between the two words &quot;detect analyze&quot; in [a case][2] in 2011. But it took an appeal to get this correct (in my opinion) result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is well-settled law that, in a patent infringement suit, a district court may correct an obvious error in a patent claim. I.T.S. Rubber Co. v. Essex Rubber Co., 272 U.S. 429, 442 (1926) (“Essex”). In Novo Industries, we held that “[a] district court can correct a patent only if (1) the correction is not subject to reasonable debate based on consideration of the claim language and the specification and (2) the prosecution history does not suggest a differ- ent interpretation of the claims.” 350 F.3d at 1357. We concluded that the enactment of 35 U.S.C. §§ 254 and 255 did not overrule Essex or deny authority to the district courts to correct a claim in appropriate circumstances. Id. at 1356. In Novo Industries, we declined to make the proposed corrections to the claim at issue because those corrections were substantively significant and required guesswork as to what was intended by the patentee in order to make sense of the patent claim. Id. at 1357.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also fixable by a [reissue proceeding at the USPTO.][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1481.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1202-1203.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1401.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4851" RevisionGUID="5844f3e8-d575-477d-ba01-0671d636feb8" CreationDate="2013-08-22T15:16:35.003" UserId="5573" Text="The company Kyte had been doing this since 2006.  [As discussed on this page from 12/18/08][1], &quot;Producers&quot; would upload video content created from whatever device they chose, store it on Kyte's servers, and edit the content at [kyte.tv][2]. The  [Kyte Platform page explains][3] how content can not only be uploaded from a computer but could be emailed from a mobile phone as an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Kyte provided a way to communicate with multiple devices, store content uploaded from those devices, provided a means to manage and edit the content and distribute it from servers connected to the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A Tech Crunch article][4] in early 2011 discussed the purchase of Kyte by Kit Digital. It explained how their services were already used in the market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As for Kyte, this company has been around since 2006 and offers a cloud-based publishing platform that enables companies to deliver live and on-demand video experiences to websites, mobile devices and connected TVs. Kyte was acquired as KIT digital plans to leverage Kyte’s proprietary platform and application frameworks to serve KIT’s global client base.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Kyte reported fiscal 2010 revenues of $3.7 million, derived primarily from SaaS platform fees. Kyte adds nearly 100 clients, including CBS, Clear Channel, FOX News, MTV, Walt Disney Company, Nokia, Publicis, Swatch, Oprah Winfrey, and ESPN Europe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://web.archive.org/web/20081218014800/http://www.kyte.com/platform/pg/my_kyte#Advanced_Show_Production_Features&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://web.archive.org/web/20081218055246/http://www.kyte.tv/home/index.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://web.archive.org/web/20081218112246/http://www.kyte.com/platform/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/31/exclusive-kit-digital-acquires-kickapps-kewego-and-kyte-for-77-2-million/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4853" RevisionGUID="0a0d74cf-1258-43da-a3c8-140d5e109cf0" CreationDate="2013-08-22T20:33:12.657" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON self-destructing email** - This application from [AT&amp;T][6] seeks to patent the idea of...electronic mail which deletes itself after a specific period of time has elapsed and warns sender if it recipient is outside the sender's email domain (where self-destruction presumably cannot be assured)! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/9/2002** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - self-destructing email&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO prohibits forwarding or copying the email into another application (such as a word processor) or which warns the sender if it is being sent outside to a recipient outside the sender's email domain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Self-destructing email**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for sending email which identifies a time period after which the email destroys itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159436 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/690,555&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: AT&amp;T&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/9/2002&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/17/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for transmitting self-destructing electronic mail messages comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a request, at an electronic mail server, from a sender to send a self-destructing electronic mail message, the request identifying a time period after which the self-destructing electronic mail message is to be destroyed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. sending a security warning to the sender when an electronic mail address of an intended recipient of the self-destructing electronic mail message is located beyond a home domain of the sender;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. sending the self-destructing electronic mail message to the electronic mail address of the intended recipient in response to input from the sender responsive to the security warning;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4.deleting any instances of the self-destructing electronic mail message that are being stored at the electronic mail server after the sending and after expiration of the time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for sending self-destructing email, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Sender specifies time period after which email self-destructs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Warn sender if recipient email address is outside home domain (where self-destruction presumably cannot be assured)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Send the self-destructing email&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Delete the email after expiration of the time period specified by sender&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/9/2002&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming self-destructing email which is prohibited from being **forwarded** or **copied** into an application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;email which is time-limited from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ao0cGJA.jpg&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/T7xdF.jpg&quot; width=&quot;200&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159436?dq=20130159436&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.att.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11713" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4853" RevisionGUID="0a0d74cf-1258-43da-a3c8-140d5e109cf0" CreationDate="2013-08-22T20:33:12.657" UserId="1767" Text="Email Security - Self-destructing email (AT&amp;T) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11714" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4853" RevisionGUID="0a0d74cf-1258-43da-a3c8-140d5e109cf0" CreationDate="2013-08-22T20:33:12.657" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;att&gt;&lt;us20130159436&gt;&lt;email&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4833" RevisionGUID="15931234-d9e5-4999-b654-5490a7914ef6" CreationDate="2013-08-22T20:50:47.940" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON collaborative virtual shopping** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...individuals shopping together online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/13/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - individuals shopping together online with multiple shopping carts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves sharing information between users, such as shopping lists, price lists, or item comparisons between users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Collaborative virtual shopping**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for shopping together online.  Users participate in a **collaborative shopping session** using multiple **virtual shopping carts** and share information with one another&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130211953 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/372,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/13/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/11/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for collaborative shopping, comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A plurality of shopping devices interconnected by a network, the shopping devices being used by shoppers in a collaborative shopping session; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A plurality of virtual shopping carts respectively associated with the shopping devices for sharing information on items of interest among the shoppers and enabling the shoppers to collaborate on the shopping&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for shopping together online, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Devices (e.g. computers or smartphones or fancy in-store shopping carts) connected together by a network, used by shoppers in a collaborative shopping session&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Virtual shopping carts associated with each device for sharing information between shoppers (e.g. price lists, shopping lists, comparisons, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/13/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming sharing information between users, such as shopping lists, price lists, or comparisons between shopping cart items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Collaborative Virtual Shopping from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/nmc2wu8.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130211953&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4802" RevisionGUID="9de5fd2b-b377-470f-a724-7d59554a5f7a" CreationDate="2013-08-22T20:51:00.337" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON synchronizing the output of data across devices** - This application from [Accenture][6] seeks to patent the idea of...synchronizing playback of streaming media on multiple devices! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Synchronously outputting media to multiple devices over a network &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves **Synchronous Stream Protocol (SSP)** or where devices can adjust playback speed or skip to keep streams in sync with one another&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Synchronizing playback of media across multiple devices**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for synchronizing output of audio or video streams across multiple devices by adjusting playback speed or skipping frames so as to keep the streams synchronized with one another during playback&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130138778 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/675,846&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Accenture&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for synchronizing output of media data across a plurality of output devices, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. providing a communication network between a media server and the plurality of output devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. synchronously outputting media data files on the plurality of output devices, wherein the media data files are transmitted to the output devices from the media server in form of a data stream over different delivery networks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for synchronizing the output of media (think audio/video) across devices, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Connecting a media server to mulitiple devices across a network&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **synchronously** playing the media over streams across different delivery networks (such as HDMI, fixed wired Ethernet, wireless IP, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A **Synchronous Stream Protocol (SSP)** and adjusting playback speed or skip to keep streams in sync with one another across devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for integrating playback of media across multiple devices from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/j6VDbND.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130138778?dq=US20130138778&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.accenture.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4834" RevisionGUID="0811673d-907e-4cbd-910f-e84a2c02c3da" CreationDate="2013-08-22T20:51:15.567" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON suggesting customer migrate to the Cloud** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Suggesting customers use a cloud computer infrastructure...! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/8/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Measuring historical performance data, identifying recurring IT problem which could be mitigated with cloud computing infrastructure and generating customer reports identifying migration to the cloud&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Suggesting cloud migration**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for suggesting a customer use cloud computing… Measuring historical data, identifying recurring IT problems, determing cloud computing could solve the problem, and generating a report&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130205007 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/368,491&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting migration to a cloud computing infrastructure, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. at least one processor analyzing historical incident data of an information technology (IT) environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the at least one processor determining, based on the historical incident data, that a problem is recurring in the IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. the at least one processor determining that the problem can be mitigated in the cloud computing infrastructure; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. the at least one processor generating a report particular to the IT environment, the report identifying a benefit of migrating the IT environment to the cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Analyzing historical IT data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying recurring IT problem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determing problem can be mitigated in cloud computing infrastructure;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generating a report showing the benefits of cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure from the Applicant from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/agiOz4X.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130205007?dq=20130205007&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4814" RevisionGUID="9be36681-05c1-46e5-8d83-510df3b8f000" CreationDate="2013-08-22T20:52:31.827" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON transferring data to a server based on user travel plans** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...transferring data in cloud storage system from a data server near a user usual location to a data server near where a user plans to travel! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2011** that discusses: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Moving data between servers based on user travel plans&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves accessing a user's calendar to figure out where he will travel and when&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transferring data between servers based on travel plans of a user**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for moving data between data servers bsaed on travel plans of a user (basically, if the user is traveling somewhere, moving some data from his &quot;home&quot; server to a server which is closer to the location he will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144978 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/309,640&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/3/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. locating a data server near a travel location of a user based on one or more travel plans of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transferring data of the user from a home data server near a home location of the user to the data server near the travel location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of data relocation in a cloud storage environment, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Locating a data server which is physically close to a location of a user based on travel plans of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Transferring data of the user from the home data server to the data server near the travel location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming accessing the user's calendar to figure out where he will travel so data can be moved there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for data relocation in cloud storage environments from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rLnVZ5M.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130144978?dq=US20130144978A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="d17b00f6-abc2-433b-8f12-ec2a426c6f8e" CreationDate="2013-08-22T20:53:22.533" UserId="1767" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="  **A PATENT APPLICATION ON updating apps on mobile devices to restricted &quot;dummy&quot; apps** This application from [Good Technologies][2] seeks to patent the idea of...deleting sensitive information on a device by creating dummy apps. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents] (https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A management system for apps on mobile devices where apps are updated to dummy apps that, when invoked, destroy the respective apps' sensitive data.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your company has as &quot;Bring Your Own Device&quot; policy.  The company email app on your personal phone is &quot;updated&quot; to a new version. Then, when you launch that app, it will delete all the company email on your device and present a &quot;YOU'RE FIRED&quot; message instead of an inbox view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Another example would be having version 1.0 of a game updated to a limited trial of version 2.0 that encrypts your old save file on first being run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that standard mobile app management/mobile device management platforms do not necessarily anticipate the invention. That is, **remote deletion of an application and/or data is not sufficient to meet the claim limitations**. It's critical that the prior art disclose updating/modifying the app to a restricted functionality &quot;dummy&quot; version and for the updated app to itself delete/modify the existing data upon being run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System and Method for Remote Management of Applications Downloaded to a Personal Portable Wireless Appliance** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110145932 A1][0]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/975,145&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  [Appcentral, Inc.][1] / [Good Technologies][2] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for downloading and monitoring applications, programs and data structures to a personal portable appliance coupled to a server via a network configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;0. determine that the appliance is connected; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. generating a connection request from the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. authenticating the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. determining that one or more applications must be updated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. receiving at least one updated application comprising a dummy application such that when the application is invoked the data structures of the previous application are manipulated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. modifying the functionality of the application; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. offering the user one or more indications that the application is restricted or limited. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010. (Please note that although that this patent application is a continuation-in-part of earlier-filed parent cases, the claimed invention is not supported by the disclosure of the parent cases, rendering the actual filing date the effective filing date.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A diagram of the application management system&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NhpR6yB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [0]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110145932?dq=US20110145932&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.appcentral.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.good.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4853" RevisionGUID="1810fe9f-5ea4-43db-8407-968eebd8b931" CreationDate="2013-08-22T20:53:42.583" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON self-destructing email** - This application from [AT&amp;T][6] seeks to patent the idea of...electronic mail which deletes itself after a specific period of time has elapsed and warns sender if it recipient is outside the sender's email domain (where self-destruction presumably cannot be assured)! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/9/2002** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - self-destructing email&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO prohibits forwarding or copying the email into another application (such as a word processor) or which warns the sender if it is being sent outside to a recipient outside the sender's email domain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Self-destructing email**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for sending email which identifies a time period after which the email destroys itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159436 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/690,555&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: AT&amp;T&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/9/2002&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/17/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for transmitting self-destructing electronic mail messages comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a request, at an electronic mail server, from a sender to send a self-destructing electronic mail message, the request identifying a time period after which the self-destructing electronic mail message is to be destroyed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. sending a security warning to the sender when an electronic mail address of an intended recipient of the self-destructing electronic mail message is located beyond a home domain of the sender;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. sending the self-destructing electronic mail message to the electronic mail address of the intended recipient in response to input from the sender responsive to the security warning;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4.deleting any instances of the self-destructing electronic mail message that are being stored at the electronic mail server after the sending and after expiration of the time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for sending self-destructing email, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Sender specifies time period after which email self-destructs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Warn sender if recipient email address is outside home domain (where self-destruction presumably cannot be assured)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Send the self-destructing email&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Delete the email after expiration of the time period specified by sender&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/9/2002&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming self-destructing email which is prohibited from being **forwarded** or **copied** into an application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;email which is time-limited from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ao0cGJA.jpg&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/T7xdF.jpg&quot; width=&quot;200&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159436?dq=20130159436&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.att.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4854" RevisionGUID="89675a6b-ba94-412e-b1b6-22c79ec1d165" CreationDate="2013-08-22T21:56:06.763" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Away/Available/Busy status** - This application from [Apple][6] seeks to patent the idea of...displaying a status to contacts that would indicate whether you’re available to field a call or not! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/13/2007** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sharing Away/Available/Busy status on a mobile phone along with your location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO takes into account user preferences, determining what information it can share as set by a user, and filtering inbound calls against a phone’s contact list to help preserve privacy before sharing any information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Away/Available/Busy status on a mobile phone**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for displaying contact information about first phone to user of a second phone.  Contact information of user includes Away/Available/Busy status for the user of the first phone and his location.  Main idea is letting user set and forget preferences around just how much status they’re willing to share and with who, and letting the automated system do the rest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130177141 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/785,294&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Apple&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/13/2007&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/7/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a command at an operating system of a first mobile phone for displaying contact information of a remote user having a mobile phone number of a second mobile phone;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. in response to the command, transmitting a request to a remote server from the first mobile phone over a cellular network requesting an operating status of the second mobile phone; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving the operating status of the second mobile phone from the remote server over the cellular network; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. displaying the operating status of the second mobile phone on a display of the first mobile phone as a part of contact information of the remote user associated with the second mobile phone, the operating status including current locality of the second mobile phone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying contact information of a remote user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. User of first phone asks for contact information of user of second phone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. First phone asks remote server for contact information of user of second phone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. First phone receives contact information over a cellular network&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. First phone displays status of second phone (e.g. Away/Available/Busy) and location of second user as part of contact information for the second user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/13/2007&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using user preferences and privacy settings to show Away/Available/Busy selectively&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Away/Available/Busy status on a mobile phone from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Hjkucu1.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159436?dq=20130159436&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.apple.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11722" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4854" RevisionGUID="89675a6b-ba94-412e-b1b6-22c79ec1d165" CreationDate="2013-08-22T21:56:06.763" UserId="1767" Text="Mobile phone - Intelligent Away/Available/Busy status on phones (Apple) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11723" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4854" RevisionGUID="89675a6b-ba94-412e-b1b6-22c79ec1d165" CreationDate="2013-08-22T21:56:06.763" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;mobile-phone&gt;&lt;us20130217364&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4854" RevisionGUID="0aa57f46-468a-4e62-80f3-a46816a49580" CreationDate="2013-08-22T22:12:40.443" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Away/Available/Busy status** - This application from [Apple][6] seeks to patent the idea of...displaying a status to contacts that would indicate whether you’re available to field a call or not! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/13/2007** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sharing Away/Available/Busy status on a mobile phone along with your location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO takes into account user preferences, determining what information it can share as set by a user, or filtering inbound calls against a phone’s contact list to help preserve privacy before sharing any information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Away/Available/Busy status on a mobile phone**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for displaying contact information about a first phone to user of a second phone.  Contact information of user includes Away/Available/Busy status for the user of the first phone and his location.  Main idea is letting user set and forget preferences around just how much status they’re willing to share and with who, and letting the automated system do the rest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130177141 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/785,294&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Apple&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/13/2007&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/7/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a command at an operating system of a first mobile phone for displaying contact information of a remote user having a mobile phone number of a second mobile phone;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. in response to the command, transmitting a request to a remote server from the first mobile phone over a cellular network requesting an operating status of the second mobile phone; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving the operating status of the second mobile phone from the remote server over the cellular network; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. displaying the operating status of the second mobile phone on a display of the first mobile phone as a part of contact information of the remote user associated with the second mobile phone, the operating status including current locality of the second mobile phone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying contact information of a remote user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. User of first phone asks for contact information of user of second phone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. First phone asks remote server for contact information of user of second phone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. First phone receives contact information over a cellular network&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. First phone displays status of second phone (e.g. Away/Available/Busy) and location of second user as part of contact information for the second user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/13/2007&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using user preferences and privacy settings to show Away/Available/Busy selectively&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Away/Available/Busy status on a mobile phone from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Hjkucu1.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159436?dq=20130159436&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.apple.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4855" RevisionGUID="67608c17-4aaa-414c-b55c-f78d5cd666f3" CreationDate="2013-08-23T01:33:21.587" UserId="5580" Text="Well, I can't write a perfect answer, but hopefully this is enough for people to get started:&#xD;&#xA;AIM could display status and selectively block it as far back as 2004.&#xD;&#xA;See http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=278608&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4854" RevisionGUID="b42b1643-a707-4240-9dcf-f334a057aa16" CreationDate="2013-08-23T05:20:15.883" UserId="1767" Comment="added 128 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Away/Available/Busy status** - This application from [Apple][6] seeks to patent the idea of...displaying a status to contacts that would indicate whether you’re available to field a call or not! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/13/2007** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sharing Away/Available/Busy status on a mobile phone along with your location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO takes into account user preferences, determining what information it can share as set by a user, or filtering inbound calls against a phone’s contact list to help preserve privacy before sharing any information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Away/Available/Busy status on a mobile phone**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for displaying contact information about a first phone to user of a second phone.  Contact information of user includes Away/Available/Busy status for the user of the first phone and his location.  Main idea is letting user set and forget preferences around just how much status they’re willing to share and with who, and letting the automated system do the rest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130177141 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/785,294&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Apple&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/13/2007&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/7/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a command at an operating system of a first mobile phone for displaying contact information of a remote user having a mobile phone number of a second mobile phone;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. in response to the command, transmitting a request to a remote server from the first mobile phone over a cellular network requesting an operating status of the second mobile phone; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving the operating status of the second mobile phone from the remote server over the cellular network; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. displaying the operating status of the second mobile phone on a display of the first mobile phone as a part of contact information of the remote user associated with the second mobile phone, the operating status including current locality of the second mobile phone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying contact information of a remote user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. User of first phone asks for contact information of user of second phone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. First phone asks remote server for contact information of user of second phone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. First phone receives contact information over a cellular network&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. First phone displays status of second phone (e.g. Away/Available/Busy) and location of second user as part of contact information for the second user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/13/2007&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using user preferences and privacy settings to show Away/Available/Busy selectively&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Away/Available/Busy status on a mobile phone from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Hjkucu1.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220130217364%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20130217364&amp;RS=DN/20130217364&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.apple.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4856" RevisionGUID="e76f880c-14c4-4762-a7c2-6efbde0de0d5" CreationDate="2013-08-23T08:50:33.510" UserId="3451" Text="Google talk had this at least as far back as 2007, as documented in this blog post: http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2007-12-19-n41.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current documentation (undated): https://support.google.com/chat/answer/172257?hl=en-GB" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="3e295a93-bdc1-4f10-81d3-a63842d091e2" CreationDate="2013-08-23T16:53:14.757" UserId="1767" Comment="added 357 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application was **rejected** by the US Patent Office. &#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;Check out [Google Patents][3] for full details about this particular application.&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method and System for Weight Management&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC APPLICATION DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number:** 13/466661&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** US20120225162 A1&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Scott A. Mann Enterprises Llc &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date:** June 15, 2004&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until March 6, 2013 &#xD;&#xA;- **AIA window:** CLOSED&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**APPLICATION OVERVIEW:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US Patent Application [#20120225162][3] describes a weight management method. I'm reasonably sure the claims below correlate with advice I've seen for *years* in various &quot;women's interest&quot; magazines, in a number of diet books (including Weight Watchers guides), and even the USDA nutrition guide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1.** A method for managing weight, comprising the steps of: eating at least five meals a day with each meal comprising one serving of a vegetable or a fruit, a complex carbohydrate, and a lean protein for a predetermined number of calories per meal at ranges of 25-35% protein, 50-55% carbohydrate, 15-20% fat with a predetermined range of grams of fiber, wherein said predetermined range of calories is about 300 calories or is about 450 calories; losing weight by said eating at least five meals a day; and optimizing body composition by said eating at least five meals a day, [etc.]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**.  We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one.  This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on  submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/h3moa.png&#xD;&#xA; [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20120225162&#xD;&#xA; [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA; [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11730" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="3e295a93-bdc1-4f10-81d3-a63842d091e2" CreationDate="2013-08-23T16:53:14.757" UserId="1767" Comment="added 357 characters in body" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;us20120225162&gt;&lt;food-production&gt;&lt;health&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="611" RevisionGUID="084eb07f-27fe-4a3d-a378-d5cd362612af" CreationDate="2013-08-23T18:16:24.110" UserId="1767" Comment="added 519 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office that was based in part on Ask Patents contributions! An **initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to the **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US Patent No. [2010/0251120](http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20100930ptan20100251120.php) (filed 2009-03-26, [USPTO link](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=20100251120.PGNR.)) seems basically to be &quot;using a URL to link to a given part of a video&quot;. The key claim is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -  receiving from a first user interface a first input from a first user specifying a first particular instant in a video other than a beginning of the video;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - in response to the first input, generating by one or more computer systems first data for inclusion in a link to the video, the first data representing the first particular instant in the video and being operable automatically to direct playback of the video at a second user interface to start at the first particular instant in the video in response to a second user selecting the link at the second user interface;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and communicating the first data to a link generator for inclusion in the link to the video&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or in human speak, something to generate links like [blah#t=43s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ#t=43s)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(plus later, claim 12, that must then be processed by the system, and a lot of minor dependent claims about all of the above, etc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there doesn't seem to be anything particularly non-obvious about this, given that URLs are *designed* to convey context about a resource. Conveying time as part of a URL does *not* seem any kind of invention. Can anyone think of prior art for this? Perhaps for audio, if video is elusive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that under the AIA **it is not be possible for Ask Patents to submit prior art under the pre-grant process used by Ask Patents** due to the window having closed. Prior art which is found below would need to submitted under the six-month post-grant process or the ex-parte rexamination process. (This could be done by a company or an individual.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/h3moa.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11732" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="611" RevisionGUID="084eb07f-27fe-4a3d-a378-d5cd362612af" CreationDate="2013-08-23T18:16:24.110" UserId="1767" Comment="added 519 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;google&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;us20100251120&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="f8c89b39-dc9c-4299-b196-84bbce025187" CreationDate="2013-08-23T18:21:34.233" UserId="3076" Comment="Explained meaning of final rejection" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application was given a &quot;**final rejection**&quot; by the US Patent Office. An applicant has several ways to keep an application in this state alive. They include a request for continuing examination. It just involves paying more fees and responding to the rejection. Appealing the rejection is another avenue. If nothing is done it will go abandoned six months from the final rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the grounds for rejection (can be seen in Public PAIR) are based on things the applicant themselves cited to the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;Check out [Google Patents][3] for full details about this particular application.&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method and System for Weight Management&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC APPLICATION DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number:** 13/466661&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** US20120225162 A1&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Scott A. Mann Enterprises Llc &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date:** June 15, 2004&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until March 6, 2013 &#xD;&#xA;- **AIA window:** CLOSED&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**APPLICATION OVERVIEW:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US Patent Application [#20120225162][3] describes a weight management method. I'm reasonably sure the claims below correlate with advice I've seen for *years* in various &quot;women's interest&quot; magazines, in a number of diet books (including Weight Watchers guides), and even the USDA nutrition guide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1.** A method for managing weight, comprising the steps of: eating at least five meals a day with each meal comprising one serving of a vegetable or a fruit, a complex carbohydrate, and a lean protein for a predetermined number of calories per meal at ranges of 25-35% protein, 50-55% carbohydrate, 15-20% fat with a predetermined range of grams of fiber, wherein said predetermined range of calories is about 300 calories or is about 450 calories; losing weight by said eating at least five meals a day; and optimizing body composition by said eating at least five meals a day, [etc.]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**.  We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one.  This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on  submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/h3moa.png&#xD;&#xA; [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20120225162&#xD;&#xA; [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA; [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4857" RevisionGUID="c689bfec-8ba8-4573-9152-e55a64074292" CreationDate="2013-08-23T18:40:47.800" UserId="5585" Text="Here is a similar idea of email having an expiration date from Outlook 2000: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/196072&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, here's how to prevent the recipient from forwarding email in Outlook 2000: http://windowssecrets.com/forums/showthread.php/13550-prevent-forward-of-specific-e-mail-%28Outlook-2000%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4858" RevisionGUID="7a37a032-70a3-4624-866f-fee1184806c0" CreationDate="2013-08-23T19:38:31.670" UserId="5587" Text="Services similar to BurnNote and PrivNote comprise of:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. the sender specifying the time period after which the elctronic message (not email, albeit something that achieves the same purpose) self-destructs;&#xD;&#xA;2. warning the sender if recipient email address is outside home domain (where self-destruction presumably cannot be assured), i.e., the website HTTPS access system;&#xD;&#xA;3. sending the self-destructing electronic message (well, storing it in a database would've been more appropriate);&#xD;&#xA;4. permanently deleting the message after expiration of the time period specified by the sender;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recognize that this not-even-half-baked answer without citation or sources should rather have been a comment to be pursued by someone who thought they could turn this into an example of 'good' prior art, but I couldn't fit it in one so sorry." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="170287dd-0d16-42be-97c2-607a88c1024b" CreationDate="2013-08-23T21:48:12.397" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **A PATENT APPLICATION ON updating apps on mobile devices to restricted &quot;dummy&quot; apps** This application from [Good Technologies][2] seeks to patent the idea of...deleting sensitive information on a device by creating dummy apps. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents] (https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A management system for apps on mobile devices where apps are updated to dummy apps that, when invoked, destroy the respective apps' sensitive data.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your company has as &quot;Bring Your Own Device&quot; policy.  The company email app on your personal phone is &quot;updated&quot; to a new version. Then, when you launch that app, it will delete all the company email on your device and present a &quot;YOU'RE FIRED&quot; message instead of an inbox view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Another example would be having version 1.0 of a game updated to a limited trial of version 2.0 that encrypts your old save file on first being run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that standard mobile app management/mobile device management platforms do not necessarily anticipate the invention. That is, **remote deletion of an application and/or data is not sufficient to meet the claim limitations**. It's critical that the prior art disclose updating/modifying the app to a restricted functionality &quot;dummy&quot; version and for the updated app to itself delete/modify the existing data upon being run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System and Method for Remote Management of Applications Downloaded to a Personal Portable Wireless Appliance** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110145932 A1][0]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/975,145&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  [Appcentral, Inc.][1] / [Good Technologies][2] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for downloading and monitoring applications, programs and data structures to a personal portable appliance coupled to a server via a network configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;0. determine that the appliance is connected; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. generating a connection request from the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. authenticating the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. determining that one or more applications must be updated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. receiving at least one updated application comprising a dummy application such that when the application is invoked the data structures of the previous application are manipulated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. modifying the functionality of the application; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. offering the user one or more indications that the application is restricted or limited. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010. (Please note that although that this patent application is a continuation-in-part of earlier-filed parent cases, the claimed invention is not supported by the disclosure of the parent cases, rendering the actual filing date the effective filing date.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A diagram of the application management system&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NhpR6yB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [0]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110145932?dq=US20110145932&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.appcentral.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.good.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4799" RevisionGUID="aab6cd03-89b0-48f4-9d9e-184c39cd8512" CreationDate="2013-08-24T04:01:37.807" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **US Patent US 20060073820 A1: Method and apparatus for remote control and updating of wireless mobile devices** with priority from Oct 2002 appears a very good match. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US20060073820&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This part of US20060073820's claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; request available updates;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;receive an update catalog for available updates, wherein said updates are selected from the group consisting of discretionary updates and mandatory updates; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and this part of US20060073820's claim 6:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; execute a stub application, said stub application automatically querying a remote source for a full application;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;receive said current application from said remote source;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;automatically install said full application; and&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;automatically execute said full application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and this explanation:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Further, in an exemplary embodiment of the present invention, by invoking the update application described below, **a user's data (including programs and operating system data) on a wireless mobile device can be updated** without the user needing to intervene. &#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Briefly, the update application on the wireless mobile device can update itself, update applications from a remote server, monitor a catalogue of application updates and additions on the server, monitor user activity via a unique device ID and/or other unique identifiers, launch by stub applications asking to be replaced by full applications...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **As noted above, the update application may be activated in a number of different ways:** (1) It may be launched as a normal stand alone application as to any other application launched on the wireless mobile device. **(2) It may be launched by a stub application, with a specific path, to replace the stub application with its intended application** (after download and successful install). To the user, they would launch the stub application, see a download in progress screen, followed by the actual application starting up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US20060073820 patent primarily discusses replacing a &quot;stub application&quot; with a full application. This filing on the other hand discusses replacing a full application with a &quot;dummy application&quot;. (The terms dummy and stub are clearly equivalent in this context). However the US20060073820 patent anticipates such obvious tweaks to the sequence of events and lays claim to them too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...it will be appreciated that while the processes and communication-interactions and the present interaction have been described in a particular order, those of ordinary skill in the art and other will appreciate that other orders of processes and/or communication interactions will also fall within the spirit and scope of the present invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These claims, explanatory notes, and caveats against obvious modifications to the sequence of events, together appear to anticipate and invalidate claims 1.1 to 1.6 of the present filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4853" RevisionGUID="f9f9a775-f299-4165-b71b-db5154c3556c" CreationDate="2013-08-24T04:02:05.357" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON self-destructing email** - This application from [AT&amp;T][6] seeks to patent the idea of...electronic mail which deletes itself after a specific period of time has elapsed and warns sender if it recipient is outside the sender's email domain (where self-destruction presumably cannot be assured)! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/9/2002** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - self-destructing email&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO prohibits forwarding or copying the email into another application (such as a word processor) or which warns the sender if it is being sent outside to a recipient outside the sender's email domain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Self-destructing email**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for sending email which identifies a time period after which the email destroys itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159436 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/690,555&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: AT&amp;T&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/9/2002&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/17/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for transmitting self-destructing electronic mail messages comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a request, at an electronic mail server, from a sender to send a self-destructing electronic mail message, the request identifying a time period after which the self-destructing electronic mail message is to be destroyed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. sending a security warning to the sender when an electronic mail address of an intended recipient of the self-destructing electronic mail message is located beyond a home domain of the sender;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. sending the self-destructing electronic mail message to the electronic mail address of the intended recipient in response to input from the sender responsive to the security warning;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4.deleting any instances of the self-destructing electronic mail message that are being stored at the electronic mail server after the sending and after expiration of the time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for sending self-destructing email, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Sender specifies time period after which email self-destructs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Warn sender if recipient email address is outside home domain (where self-destruction presumably cannot be assured)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Send the self-destructing email&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Delete the email after expiration of the time period specified by sender&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/9/2002&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming self-destructing email which is prohibited from being **forwarded** or **copied** into an application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;email which is time-limited from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ao0cGJA.jpg&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/T7xdF.jpg&quot; width=&quot;200&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159436?dq=20130159436&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.att.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4853" RevisionGUID="c36f120d-8479-4c86-b9b6-18e31c4c3129" CreationDate="2013-08-24T05:41:21.533" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON self-destructing email** - This application from [AT&amp;T][6] seeks to patent the idea of...electronic mail which deletes itself after a specific period of time has elapsed and warns sender if it recipient is outside the sender's email domain (where self-destruction presumably cannot be assured)! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/9/2002** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - self-destructing email&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO prohibits forwarding or copying the email into another application (such as a word processor) or which warns the sender if it is being sent outside to a recipient outside the sender's email domain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Self-destructing email**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for sending email which identifies a time period after which the email destroys itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159436 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/690,555&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: AT&amp;T&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/9/2002&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/17/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for transmitting self-destructing electronic mail messages comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a request, at an electronic mail server, from a sender to send a self-destructing electronic mail message, the request identifying a time period after which the self-destructing electronic mail message is to be destroyed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. sending a security warning to the sender when an electronic mail address of an intended recipient of the self-destructing electronic mail message is located beyond a home domain of the sender;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. sending the self-destructing electronic mail message to the electronic mail address of the intended recipient in response to input from the sender responsive to the security warning;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4.deleting any instances of the self-destructing electronic mail message that are being stored at the electronic mail server after the sending and after expiration of the time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for sending self-destructing email, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Sender specifies time period after which email self-destructs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Warn sender if recipient email address is outside home domain (where self-destruction presumably cannot be assured)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Send the self-destructing email&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Delete the email after expiration of the time period specified by sender&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/9/2002&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming self-destructing email which is prohibited from being **forwarded** or **copied** into an application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;email which is time-limited from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ao0cGJA.jpg&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/T7xdF.jpg&quot; width=&quot;200&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159436?dq=20130159436&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.att.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="2cd05f01-da42-41a8-9376-2f2fa43828c4" CreationDate="2013-08-24T05:41:46.973" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **A PATENT APPLICATION ON updating apps on mobile devices to restricted &quot;dummy&quot; apps** This application from [Good Technologies][2] seeks to patent the idea of...deleting sensitive information on a device by creating dummy apps. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents] (https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A management system for apps on mobile devices where apps are updated to dummy apps that, when invoked, destroy the respective apps' sensitive data.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your company has as &quot;Bring Your Own Device&quot; policy.  The company email app on your personal phone is &quot;updated&quot; to a new version. Then, when you launch that app, it will delete all the company email on your device and present a &quot;YOU'RE FIRED&quot; message instead of an inbox view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Another example would be having version 1.0 of a game updated to a limited trial of version 2.0 that encrypts your old save file on first being run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that standard mobile app management/mobile device management platforms do not necessarily anticipate the invention. That is, **remote deletion of an application and/or data is not sufficient to meet the claim limitations**. It's critical that the prior art disclose updating/modifying the app to a restricted functionality &quot;dummy&quot; version and for the updated app to itself delete/modify the existing data upon being run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System and Method for Remote Management of Applications Downloaded to a Personal Portable Wireless Appliance** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110145932 A1][0]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/975,145&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  [Appcentral, Inc.][1] / [Good Technologies][2] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for downloading and monitoring applications, programs and data structures to a personal portable appliance coupled to a server via a network configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;0. determine that the appliance is connected; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. generating a connection request from the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. authenticating the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. determining that one or more applications must be updated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. receiving at least one updated application comprising a dummy application such that when the application is invoked the data structures of the previous application are manipulated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. modifying the functionality of the application; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. offering the user one or more indications that the application is restricted or limited. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010. (Please note that although that this patent application is a continuation-in-part of earlier-filed parent cases, the claimed invention is not supported by the disclosure of the parent cases, rendering the actual filing date the effective filing date.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A diagram of the application management system&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NhpR6yB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [0]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110145932?dq=US20110145932&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.appcentral.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.good.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4854" RevisionGUID="3d1d0b0a-363f-4661-99ae-7c49731e6d31" CreationDate="2013-08-24T05:42:23.007" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Away/Available/Busy status** - This application from [Apple][6] seeks to patent the idea of...displaying a status to contacts that would indicate whether you’re available to field a call or not! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/13/2007** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sharing Away/Available/Busy status on a mobile phone along with your location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO takes into account user preferences, determining what information it can share as set by a user, or filtering inbound calls against a phone’s contact list to help preserve privacy before sharing any information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Away/Available/Busy status on a mobile phone**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for displaying contact information about a first phone to user of a second phone.  Contact information of user includes Away/Available/Busy status for the user of the first phone and his location.  Main idea is letting user set and forget preferences around just how much status they’re willing to share and with who, and letting the automated system do the rest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130177141 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/785,294&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Apple&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/13/2007&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/7/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a command at an operating system of a first mobile phone for displaying contact information of a remote user having a mobile phone number of a second mobile phone;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. in response to the command, transmitting a request to a remote server from the first mobile phone over a cellular network requesting an operating status of the second mobile phone; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving the operating status of the second mobile phone from the remote server over the cellular network; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. displaying the operating status of the second mobile phone on a display of the first mobile phone as a part of contact information of the remote user associated with the second mobile phone, the operating status including current locality of the second mobile phone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying contact information of a remote user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. User of first phone asks for contact information of user of second phone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. First phone asks remote server for contact information of user of second phone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. First phone receives contact information over a cellular network&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. First phone displays status of second phone (e.g. Away/Available/Busy) and location of second user as part of contact information for the second user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/13/2007&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using user preferences and privacy settings to show Away/Available/Busy selectively&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Away/Available/Busy status on a mobile phone from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Hjkucu1.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220130217364%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20130217364&amp;RS=DN/20130217364&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.apple.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4859" RevisionGUID="dfc3b5d8-3aa4-4246-b55a-822e5542ee5c" CreationDate="2013-08-24T12:16:29.177" UserId="5590" Text="**QUESTION - Have you seen anything that was published before Apr 13, 2011 that discusses digitally signing of barcodes ? (as opposed to signing documents, images etc)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE:** Authentic barcodes using digital signatures &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Publication Number:** PCT/US2012/032964 https://www.google.com/patents/WO2012142061A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Assignee**: Verisign, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art predating Apr 13, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Open for Challenge at USPTO**: I dont know...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A computer-implemented method of verifying the authenticity of a barcode&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Inputting graphical data representing a barcode pattern into memory&#xD;&#xA; - Translating the graphical data into barcode information according to a standard for translating a particular type of barcode pattern into barcode information&#xD;&#xA; - Extracting a message and a digital signature from the barcode information&#xD;&#xA; - and determining whether the message is authentic by determining whether the digital signature matches the message &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Creating the barcode**:  Signing some text with a private key, then generating a signature of this text, combining both the signature and text and encoding as a barcode. The text may also identify the author/keypair... (so the public key can be known if the validation must support multiple authors/issuers)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Validation**: Scanning a barcode, converting it into a message. Extracting the signature and text and using the associated public key to verify the signature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This link shows the signing/creation process http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US20120308003A1/US20120308003A1-20121206-D00004.png  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2D barcodes, (QR Codes, PDF417, Aztec etc) can encode a lot of text... so can support a digital signature, and therefore the industry standards techniques for signing, encryption and so on can be used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to Apr 13, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already...  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[IATA][2] have published standards for bar coded boarding passes... A document is online at http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/stb/Documents/resolution792-june2010.pdf&#xD;&#xA;in it they mention&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;The Bar Code format also permits an airline to include its own proprietary data, and a digital signature alongside the required Bar Code information&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this count as prior art to this application?  Are there earlier and/or better examples?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/82Nip.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.iata.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11744" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4859" RevisionGUID="dfc3b5d8-3aa4-4246-b55a-822e5542ee5c" CreationDate="2013-08-24T12:16:29.177" UserId="5590" Text="Authentic barcodes using digital signatures, Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11745" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4859" RevisionGUID="dfc3b5d8-3aa4-4246-b55a-822e5542ee5c" CreationDate="2013-08-24T12:16:29.177" UserId="5590" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4859" RevisionGUID="3ad2e8a7-68c5-4298-b2b1-92daa5c65f40" CreationDate="2013-08-24T12:28:07.620" UserId="5590" Comment="deleted 75 characters in body" Text="**QUESTION - Have you seen anything that was published before Apr 13, 2011 that discusses digitally signing of barcodes ? (as opposed to signing documents, images etc)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE:** Authentic barcodes using digital signatures &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Publication Number:** PCT/US2012/032964 https://www.google.com/patents/WO2012142061A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Assignee**: Verisign, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art predating Apr 13, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Open for Challenge at USPTO**: I dont know...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A computer-implemented method of verifying the authenticity of a barcode&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Inputting graphical data representing a barcode pattern into memory&#xD;&#xA; - Translating the graphical data into barcode information according to a standard for translating a particular type of barcode pattern into barcode information&#xD;&#xA; - Extracting a message and a digital signature from the barcode information&#xD;&#xA; - and determining whether the message is authentic by determining whether the digital signature matches the message &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Creating the barcode**:  Signing some text with a private key, then generating a signature of this text, combining both the signature and text and encoding as a barcode. The text may also identify the author/keypair... (so the public key can be known if the validation must support multiple authors/issuers)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Validation**: Scanning a barcode, converting it into a message. Extracting the signature and text and using the associated public key to verify the signature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This link shows the signing/creation process http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US20120308003A1/US20120308003A1-20121206-D00004.png  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2D barcodes, (QR Codes, PDF417, Aztec etc) can encode a lot of text... so can support a digital signature, and therefore the industry standards techniques for signing, encryption and so on can be used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to Apr 13, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already...  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[IATA][2] have published standards for bar coded boarding passes... their Resolution 792 document mentions&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;The Bar Code format also permits an airline to include its own proprietary data, and a digital signature alongside the required Bar Code information&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this count as prior art to this application?  Are there earlier and/or better examples?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/82Nip.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.iata.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4859" RevisionGUID="070b162e-6e3d-43b8-971a-e528b3d5e676" CreationDate="2013-08-24T14:21:36.693" UserId="1767" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="**QUESTION - Have you seen anything that was published before Apr 13, 2011 that discusses digitally signing of barcodes ? (as opposed to signing documents, images etc)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE:** Authentic barcodes using digital signatures &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Publication Number:** [PCT/US2012/032964][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Assignee**: Verisign, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art predating Apr 13, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Open for Challenge at USPTO**: N/A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A computer-implemented method of verifying the authenticity of a barcode&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Inputting graphical data representing a barcode pattern into memory&#xD;&#xA; - Translating the graphical data into barcode information according to a standard for translating a particular type of barcode pattern into barcode information&#xD;&#xA; - Extracting a message and a digital signature from the barcode information&#xD;&#xA; - and determining whether the message is authentic by determining whether the digital signature matches the message &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Creating the barcode**:  Signing some text with a private key, then generating a signature of this text, combining both the signature and text and encoding as a barcode. The text may also identify the author/keypair... (so the public key can be known if the validation must support multiple authors/issuers)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Validation**: Scanning a barcode, converting it into a message. Extracting the signature and text and using the associated public key to verify the signature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This link shows the signing/creation process http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US20120308003A1/US20120308003A1-20121206-D00004.png  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2D barcodes, (QR Codes, PDF417, Aztec etc) can encode a lot of text... so can support a digital signature, and therefore the industry standards techniques for signing, encryption and so on can be used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to Apr 13, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already...  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[IATA][2] have published standards for bar coded boarding passes... their Resolution 792 document mentions&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;The Bar Code format also permits an airline to include its own proprietary data, and a digital signature alongside the required Bar Code information&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this count as prior art to this application?  Are there earlier and/or better examples?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/82Nip.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.iata.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2012142061A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11748" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4859" RevisionGUID="fbefa8bd-406e-4a41-8bec-3daaed581f9e" CreationDate="2013-08-24T14:42:43.513" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Authentic barcodes using digital signatures (Verisign) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4814" RevisionGUID="42a1bd3a-fbf0-4d15-9abb-81c2061f9189" CreationDate="2013-08-24T14:56:40.150" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON transferring data to a server based on user travel plans** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...transferring data in cloud storage system from a data server near a user usual location to a data server near where a user plans to travel! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2011** that discusses: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Moving data between servers based on user travel plans&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves accessing a user's calendar to figure out where he will travel and when&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transferring data between servers based on travel plans of a user**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for moving data between data servers bsaed on travel plans of a user (basically, if the user is traveling somewhere, moving some data from his &quot;home&quot; server to a server which is closer to the location he will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144978 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/309,640&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/3/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. locating a data server near a travel location of a user based on one or more travel plans of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transferring data of the user from a home data server near a home location of the user to the data server near the travel location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of data relocation in a cloud storage environment, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Locating a data server which is physically close to a location of a user based on travel plans of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Transferring data of the user from the home data server to the data server near the travel location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming accessing the user's calendar to figure out where he will travel so data can be moved there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for data relocation in cloud storage environments from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rLnVZ5M.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130144978?dq=US20130144978A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4834" RevisionGUID="81f01545-6990-447a-ab83-a01aa69a03d6" CreationDate="2013-08-24T14:57:04.730" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON suggesting customer migrate to the Cloud** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Suggesting customers use a cloud computer infrastructure...! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/8/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Measuring historical performance data, identifying recurring IT problem which could be mitigated with cloud computing infrastructure and generating customer reports identifying migration to the cloud&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Suggesting cloud migration**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for suggesting a customer use cloud computing… Measuring historical data, identifying recurring IT problems, determing cloud computing could solve the problem, and generating a report&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130205007 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/368,491&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting migration to a cloud computing infrastructure, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. at least one processor analyzing historical incident data of an information technology (IT) environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the at least one processor determining, based on the historical incident data, that a problem is recurring in the IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. the at least one processor determining that the problem can be mitigated in the cloud computing infrastructure; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. the at least one processor generating a report particular to the IT environment, the report identifying a benefit of migrating the IT environment to the cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Analyzing historical IT data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying recurring IT problem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determing problem can be mitigated in cloud computing infrastructure;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generating a report showing the benefits of cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure from the Applicant from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/agiOz4X.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130205007?dq=20130205007&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4860" RevisionGUID="a234d4de-7a02-47d9-a62f-d106ad21189f" CreationDate="2013-08-24T15:03:15.380" UserId="4099" Text="Published in July 2006, patent **US 7072913 B2: &quot;Method, system and computer program for executing hot migrate operation using migration plug-ins&quot;** covers some of the claims in the present filing.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US7072913 &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Selected claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *1. A method for executing a hot migrate operation from a first version of a service using a first data model, to a second version of the service using a second data model that is modified with respect to the first data model, the service comprising a client application, a data manager and a data repository, said method comprising the steps of: &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; installing at least one second version client application;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *4. A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the incremental roll-over process is terminated when all data are migrated to the second version data repository, and thereafter the first migration plug-in is replaced by a null stub.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The accompanying text also states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...the present invention is equally applicable to down-migrate a service (e.g., switching from N version to N−1 version). Such situation may arise for example when a new version appears to be not yet stable and a return to the previous version is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This appears to overlap substantially with claims 5 and 6 in the present filing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*5. receiving at least one updated application comprising a dummy application such that when the application is invoked the data structures of the previous application are manipulated;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*6. modifying the functionality of the application;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4861" RevisionGUID="2caecf64-20e9-4249-a5bb-ed400a6d1114" CreationDate="2013-08-24T15:24:41.833" UserId="5591" Text="Found this (1) text on this site: http://www.it.iastate.edu/services/lync/training&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can't find a start date however, and it is not for a mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1)&#xD;&#xA;How do I use the presence function in OCS?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OCS Presence displays the availability of remote OCS users. You can decide whether to initiate communication with someone via email, voice, IM, video, desktop sharing, or Live Meeting, based upon the contact's availability. Your presence can describe your activity, location, willingness to communicate, and contact information. Various conditions, such as whether the user is in a meeting (busy) from the Outlook calendar or is away from the computer (inactive, then away), cause your presence status to be automatically updated.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4862" RevisionGUID="18f98099-cfe5-48a9-9cda-78b011195863" CreationDate="2013-08-24T15:34:52.567" UserId="4099" Text="From June 2003, the **Microsoft Updater Application Block for .NET** allowed self-updating programs to be written. The framework included post-processors, specifically for the purpose of running transformations against the updated program's data after the updating.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20030701151934/http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnbda/html/updater.asp&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Would you like to develop &quot;self-updating&quot; applications? If so, the Updater Application Block for .NET is for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Updater Application Block is a .NET component that you can use to detect, validate, and download application updates deployed in a central location. By using the Updater Application Block, you can keep desktop applications up to date with little or no user intervention. You can also extend the Updater Application Block to use custom classes for downloading and validating files, performing post-deployment configuration tasks, and controlling the update process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A post-processor is a class that performs any post-deployment configuration tasks that your updated application might require (such as editing registry values, creating message queues, and so on).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steps 3 to 5 in &quot;Updating applications with the Updater Application Block&quot; appear to anticipate and invalidate all claims in the current filing:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *3. The application updater periodically initiates the update process. When this happens, the application updater uses the specified downloader to copy the manifest file for each application specified in the application configuration file to the client. If updates are available, the downloader copies the updated files to a temporary directory on the client.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *4. The application updater loads the specified validator and validates the downloaded files. If the files are valid, they are copied to the appropriate application folder and the configuration file for the application launcher is updated to reflect the new version.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *5. If a post-processor was specified in the manifest, the application updater loads and executes it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from the trivial modification in the present filing of being specifically used to downgrade or delete an application, this Microsoft invention appears to completely invalidate the present patent application.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4862" RevisionGUID="4bd99ec4-935b-4b9c-9af8-9f2fa43f6480" CreationDate="2013-08-24T15:40:48.937" UserId="4099" Comment="formatting" Text="From June 2003, the **Microsoft Updater Application Block for .NET** allowed self-updating programs to be written. The framework included post-processors, specifically for the purpose of running transformations against the updated program's data after the updating.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20030701151934/http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnbda/html/updater.asp&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Would you like to develop &quot;self-updating&quot; applications? If so, the Updater Application Block for .NET is for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Updater Application Block is a .NET component that you can use to detect, validate, and download application updates deployed in a central location. By using the Updater Application Block, you can keep desktop applications up to date with little or no user intervention. You can also extend the Updater Application Block to use custom classes for downloading and validating files, **performing post-deployment configuration tasks,** and controlling the update process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**A post-processor is a class that performs any post-deployment configuration tasks that your updated application might require** (such as editing registry values, creating message queues, and so on).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steps 3 to 5 in &quot;Updating applications with the Updater Application Block&quot; appear to anticipate and invalidate all claims in the current filing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *3. The application updater periodically initiates the update process. When this happens, the application updater uses the specified downloader to copy the manifest file for each application specified in the application configuration file to the client. If updates are available, the downloader copies the updated files to a temporary directory on the client.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *4. The application updater loads the specified validator and validates the downloaded files. If the files are valid, they are copied to the appropriate application folder and the configuration file for the application launcher is updated to reflect the new version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *5. If a post-processor was specified in the manifest, the application updater loads and executes it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from the trivial modification in the present filing of being specifically used to downgrade or delete an application, this Microsoft invention appears to completely invalidate the present patent application.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4864" RevisionGUID="67182455-03d6-4836-bbb9-6f13b015bdde" CreationDate="2013-08-25T06:08:01.120" UserId="5524" Text="The application doesn't explain exactly how an auto-delete would be implemented. For example, this could be done with JavaScript or an extra MIME header such as &quot;Delete-After&quot;. But JavaScript usually gets stripped from incoming email by the client program and/or mail server for security reasons, and there is no such header as &quot;Delete-After&quot; in the [email specification][RFC2822].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Web services for sending auto-delete messages [already exist][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.raymond.cc/blog/message-or-text-that-automatic-deletes-after-viewing/&#xD;&#xA;  [RFC2822]: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2822" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4865" RevisionGUID="df76128c-6b7d-410f-9705-775143a1f4bc" CreationDate="2013-08-25T08:06:42.437" UserId="5597" Text="Hi I am wandering if this patent- US5090167 A still valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11758" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4865" RevisionGUID="df76128c-6b7d-410f-9705-775143a1f4bc" CreationDate="2013-08-25T08:06:42.437" UserId="5597" Text="Is US5090167 A a valid patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11759" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4865" RevisionGUID="df76128c-6b7d-410f-9705-775143a1f4bc" CreationDate="2013-08-25T08:06:42.437" UserId="5597" Text="&lt;validity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4866" RevisionGUID="19f00945-dfbd-442a-901a-f86fccb3b57d" CreationDate="2013-08-25T08:29:48.020" UserId="4099" Text="From way back in August 1999, **the 1on1mail.com service** offered self-destructing email. According to a report by Australia's ABC News at the time:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s47331.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...Global Markets Research, a London-based company, has given its 1on1mail service an added security feature called autoshredder, which allows the user to set the e-mail to delete itself from the recipient's computer a specified amount of time after being opened. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;To make sure the messages arrive safely, the company has designed the 1on1mail package as a secure network within the wider network of the Internet--a &quot;client-based application&quot;. This ensures that the route is always secure, says technical director Steven James.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And to guarantee that the messages self-destruct as planned, the package also prevents recipients from performing certain actions that would undermine security. &quot;You can't just cut and paste out of it, that would be pointless,&quot; says James. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 1999 invention therefore directly anticipates and invalidates claims 1.1, 1.3 and 1.4 of the present filing.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4866" RevisionGUID="0cd79354-1330-4d0e-8160-cd03d9e2f809" CreationDate="2013-08-25T08:36:28.267" UserId="4099" Comment="other news sources" Text="From way back in August 1999, **the 1on1mail.com service** offered self-destructing email. According to a report by Australia's ABC News at the time:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s47331.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...Global Markets Research, a London-based company, has given its 1on1mail service an added security feature called autoshredder, which allows the user to set the e-mail to delete itself from the recipient's computer a specified amount of time after being opened. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;To make sure the messages arrive safely, the company has designed the 1on1mail package as a secure network within the wider network of the Internet--a &quot;client-based application&quot;. This ensures that the route is always secure, says technical director Steven James.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And to guarantee that the messages self-destruct as planned, the package also prevents recipients from performing certain actions that would undermine security. &quot;You can't just cut and paste out of it, that would be pointless,&quot; says James. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 1999 invention was also covered by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Wired news: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1999/08/21452&#xD;&#xA;* BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/430084.stm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 1999 invention therefore directly anticipates and invalidates claims 1.1, 1.3 and 1.4 of the present filing.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4866" RevisionGUID="0d66ad0b-96f9-4eab-b114-5dbf6588bfb9" CreationDate="2013-08-25T08:41:36.880" UserId="4099" Comment="formatting" Text="From way back in August 1999, **the 1on1mail.com service** offered self-destructing email. According to a report by Australia's ABC News at the time:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s47331.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...Global Markets Research, a London-based company, has given its 1on1mail service an added security feature called **autoshredder, which allows the user to set the e-mail to delete itself from the recipient's computer a specified amount of time after being opened.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;To make sure the messages arrive safely, the company has designed the 1on1mail package as a secure network within the wider network of the Internet--a &quot;client-based application&quot;. This ensures that the route is always secure, says technical director Steven James.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And to guarantee that the messages self-destruct as planned, the package also prevents recipients from performing certain actions that would undermine security. &quot;You can't just cut and paste out of it, that would be pointless,&quot; says James. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 1999 invention was also covered by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Wired news: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1999/08/21452&#xD;&#xA;* BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/430084.stm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 1999 invention therefore directly anticipates and invalidates claims 1.1, 1.3 and 1.4 of the present filing.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4867" RevisionGUID="a9a9eb9d-b68f-4ec0-a42e-7b1e5ce849af" CreationDate="2013-08-25T09:11:09.290" UserId="4099" Text="**According to a round-up published by Forbes in September 2000, Disappearing Inc, Zixmail, and Ziplip.com all offered self-destructing email services** from well before the prior art cutoff for the present filing.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.forbes.com/2000/09/12/feat.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disappearing Inc:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In our tests, Disappearing E-mail was easy to use and worked well as long as we were using Microsoft Outlook. One message we sent was set to expire after less than 30 minutes and did in fact expire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zixmail:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As with Disappearing E-mail, the encrypted message is stored on Zixmail servers and expires after the number of days the sender chooses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ziplip.com:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A Web-based mail service, Mountain View, Calif.-based ZipLip.com also offers the option to set the expiration time for secure e-mail. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All three services therefore anticipate and invalidate claims 1.1, 1.3 and 1.4 of the present filing.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4866" RevisionGUID="2066c1f6-8bb5-495a-a577-4c38948d0bd1" CreationDate="2013-08-25T09:17:06.123" UserId="4099" Comment="claim numbering" Text="From way back in August 1999, **the 1on1mail.com service** offered self-destructing email. According to a report by Australia's ABC News at the time:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s47331.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...Global Markets Research, a London-based company, has given its 1on1mail service an added security feature called **autoshredder, which allows the user to set the e-mail to delete itself from the recipient's computer a specified amount of time after being opened.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;To make sure the messages arrive safely, the company has designed the 1on1mail package as a secure network within the wider network of the Internet--a &quot;client-based application&quot;. This ensures that the route is always secure, says technical director Steven James.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And to guarantee that the messages self-destruct as planned, the package also prevents recipients from performing certain actions that would undermine security. &quot;You can't just cut and paste out of it, that would be pointless,&quot; says James. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 1999 invention was also covered by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Wired news: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1999/08/21452&#xD;&#xA;* BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/430084.stm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 1999 invention therefore directly anticipates and invalidates claims 31.1, 31.3 and 31.4 of the present filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The statement by Stephen James that &quot;You can't just cut and paste out of it&quot; also invalidates claim 35 of the present filing (&quot;35. The method of claim 32 wherein the prohibited operation comprises copying contents of the self-destructing electronic mail message into a memory and pasting the contents of the self-destructing electronic message from the memory into a new document.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4867" RevisionGUID="a92cc943-9b2c-4fa5-97ad-441d87716b25" CreationDate="2013-08-25T09:21:15.107" UserId="4099" Comment="claim numbering" Text="**According to a round-up published by Forbes in September 2000, Disappearing Inc, Zixmail, and Ziplip.com all offered self-destructing email services** from well before the prior art cutoff for the present filing.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.forbes.com/2000/09/12/feat.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disappearing Inc:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In our tests, Disappearing E-mail was easy to use and worked well as long as we were using Microsoft Outlook. One message we sent was set to expire after less than 30 minutes and did in fact expire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zixmail:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As with Disappearing E-mail, the encrypted message is stored on Zixmail servers and expires after the number of days the sender chooses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ziplip.com:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A Web-based mail service, Mountain View, Calif.-based ZipLip.com also offers the option to set the expiration time for secure e-mail. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All three services therefore anticipate and invalidate claims 31.1, 31.3 and 31.4 of the present filing.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4868" RevisionGUID="06930f9c-ef47-4276-b43e-421837a72c7b" CreationDate="2013-08-25T11:11:14.943" UserId="5596" Text="&#xD;&#xA;[US7000183][1] is basically patenting the way the web works. It is used to sue random online merchants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help find prior art to stop this patent which should not have been granted in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTION - Can you find anything that was published before Sept 2000 that shows content tailored to the visitor. For example 'based on your recently viewed products' or 'people who bought the products you bought also bought' etc... It can be even broader like information based on the visitor location etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7000183" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11767" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4868" RevisionGUID="06930f9c-ef47-4276-b43e-421837a72c7b" CreationDate="2013-08-25T11:11:14.943" UserId="5596" Text="Method and apparatus for viewer-specific presentation of information PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11768" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4868" RevisionGUID="06930f9c-ef47-4276-b43e-421837a72c7b" CreationDate="2013-08-25T11:11:14.943" UserId="5596" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4869" RevisionGUID="d268c47a-3693-47f3-a71a-96b3210e95ab" CreationDate="2013-08-25T12:52:39.733" UserId="5599" Text="This functionality was part of the Java ME specification (http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=37). When an application was updated or replaced, the data associated could be manipulated or destroyed. In this case, a MIDlet is the term used for the mobile application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From http://docs.oracle.com/javame/config/cldc/ref-impl/midp1.0/jsr037/index.html &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    Published : 19 Sep, 2000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When a MIDlet suite is removed from a platform all the record stores&#xD;&#xA;&gt; associated with its MIDlets will also be removed. These APIs only&#xD;&#xA;&gt; allow the manipulation of the MIDlet suite's own record stores, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; does not provide any mechanism for record sharing between MIDlets in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different MIDlet suites. MIDlets within a MIDlet suite can access each&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other's record stores directly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4870" RevisionGUID="e5c8ff1d-78ed-4e07-a8b0-4a5ce7d3c3af" CreationDate="2013-08-25T13:05:12.517" UserId="5599" Text="This is a fairly common practice in my day to day work. We use the wsdl specification (http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl) to define the api. The client connects and we deliver a pre-build library using whatever is configured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In many environments, the application developer is responsible for building the library, this is both not unique and an obvious increment to an established work-flow.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4865" RevisionGUID="44704888-aa2d-4082-b120-4ad85e5aa422" CreationDate="2013-08-25T13:42:57.223" UserId="1259" Comment="tag and link" Text="Hi I am wondering if this patent- [US5090167A][1] is still valid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://google.com/patents/US5090167" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11772" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4865" RevisionGUID="44704888-aa2d-4082-b120-4ad85e5aa422" CreationDate="2013-08-25T13:42:57.223" UserId="1259" Comment="tag and link" Text="Is US5090167A a valid patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11773" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4865" RevisionGUID="44704888-aa2d-4082-b120-4ad85e5aa422" CreationDate="2013-08-25T13:42:57.223" UserId="1259" Comment="tag and link" Text="&lt;validity&gt;&lt;us5090167&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4868" RevisionGUID="8a8de240-2ea2-4c04-b3fe-2992c53cdb66" CreationDate="2013-08-25T13:48:21.603" UserId="1259" Comment="tag with patenet number" Text="[US7000183][1] is basically patenting the way the web works. It is used to sue random online merchants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help find prior art to stop this patent which should not have been granted in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTION - Can you find anything that was published before Sept 2000 that shows content tailored to the visitor. For example 'based on your recently viewed products' or 'people who bought the products you bought also bought' etc... It can be even broader like information based on the visitor location etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7000183" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11775" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4868" RevisionGUID="8a8de240-2ea2-4c04-b3fe-2992c53cdb66" CreationDate="2013-08-25T13:48:21.603" UserId="1259" Comment="tag with patenet number" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us7000183&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4872" RevisionGUID="3eed5f71-005b-4a18-ab74-3da1ff41dd37" CreationDate="2013-08-25T15:51:16.020" UserId="3076" Text="At the very bottom of the page you have linked to at google patents it says it expired in 2000 due to non-payment of maintanance fees." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11780" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4834" RevisionGUID="4b018b12-5186-4a92-8b6f-d9d73d7842c8" CreationDate="2013-08-25T16:42:12.807" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON suggesting customer migrate to the Cloud** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Suggesting customers use a cloud computer infrastructure...! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/8/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Measuring historical performance data, identifying recurring IT problem which could be mitigated with cloud computing infrastructure and generating customer reports identifying migration to the cloud&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Suggesting cloud migration**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for suggesting a customer use cloud computing… Measuring historical data, identifying recurring IT problems, determing cloud computing could solve the problem, and generating a report&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130205007 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/368,491&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting migration to a cloud computing infrastructure, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. at least one processor analyzing historical incident data of an information technology (IT) environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the at least one processor determining, based on the historical incident data, that a problem is recurring in the IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. the at least one processor determining that the problem can be mitigated in the cloud computing infrastructure; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. the at least one processor generating a report particular to the IT environment, the report identifying a benefit of migrating the IT environment to the cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Analyzing historical IT data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying recurring IT problem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determing problem can be mitigated in cloud computing infrastructure;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generating a report showing the benefits of cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure from the Applicant from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/agiOz4X.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130205007?dq=20130205007&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4814" RevisionGUID="6dede021-b326-4f95-9ca9-75d5a9315596" CreationDate="2013-08-25T16:42:36.030" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON transferring data to a server based on user travel plans** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...transferring data in cloud storage system from a data server near a user usual location to a data server near where a user plans to travel! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2011** that discusses: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Moving data between servers based on user travel plans&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves accessing a user's calendar to figure out where he will travel and when&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transferring data between servers based on travel plans of a user**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for moving data between data servers bsaed on travel plans of a user (basically, if the user is traveling somewhere, moving some data from his &quot;home&quot; server to a server which is closer to the location he will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144978 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/309,640&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/3/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. locating a data server near a travel location of a user based on one or more travel plans of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transferring data of the user from a home data server near a home location of the user to the data server near the travel location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of data relocation in a cloud storage environment, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Locating a data server which is physically close to a location of a user based on travel plans of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Transferring data of the user from the home data server to the data server near the travel location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming accessing the user's calendar to figure out where he will travel so data can be moved there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for data relocation in cloud storage environments from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rLnVZ5M.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130144978?dq=US20130144978A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4874" RevisionGUID="1428e2a2-fce0-4625-8b02-a39bad0aa2ca" CreationDate="2013-08-26T00:59:15.347" UserId="2029" Text="Not sure if that answers your question but Form1 Labs was in the front news of 3D printing recently for infringing on 3D System's 5,597,520 which expires in early 2014. They were sued and I think either settled or the lawsuit is still ongoing (not sure). I believe their printer was SLS-based so that might be one of the patents that is being referred to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4814" RevisionGUID="0157f524-e51c-4f30-b7db-b73039ca4eef" CreationDate="2013-08-26T01:01:35.073" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON transferring data to a server based on user travel plans** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...transferring data in cloud storage system from a data server near a user usual location to a data server near where a user plans to travel! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2011** that discusses: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Moving data between servers based on user travel plans&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves accessing a user's calendar to figure out where he will travel and when&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transferring data between servers based on travel plans of a user**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for moving data between data servers bsaed on travel plans of a user (basically, if the user is traveling somewhere, moving some data from his &quot;home&quot; server to a server which is closer to the location he will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144978 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/309,640&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/3/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. locating a data server near a travel location of a user based on one or more travel plans of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transferring data of the user from a home data server near a home location of the user to the data server near the travel location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of data relocation in a cloud storage environment, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Locating a data server which is physically close to a location of a user based on travel plans of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Transferring data of the user from the home data server to the data server near the travel location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming accessing the user's calendar to figure out where he will travel so data can be moved there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for data relocation in cloud storage environments from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rLnVZ5M.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130144978?dq=US20130144978A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4834" RevisionGUID="466c6fed-ca1d-4677-b029-618071ceaa81" CreationDate="2013-08-26T01:01:54.667" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON suggesting customer migrate to the Cloud** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Suggesting customers use a cloud computer infrastructure...! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/8/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Measuring historical performance data, identifying recurring IT problem which could be mitigated with cloud computing infrastructure and generating customer reports identifying migration to the cloud&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Suggesting cloud migration**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for suggesting a customer use cloud computing… Measuring historical data, identifying recurring IT problems, determing cloud computing could solve the problem, and generating a report&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130205007 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/368,491&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting migration to a cloud computing infrastructure, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. at least one processor analyzing historical incident data of an information technology (IT) environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the at least one processor determining, based on the historical incident data, that a problem is recurring in the IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. the at least one processor determining that the problem can be mitigated in the cloud computing infrastructure; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. the at least one processor generating a report particular to the IT environment, the report identifying a benefit of migrating the IT environment to the cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Analyzing historical IT data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying recurring IT problem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determing problem can be mitigated in cloud computing infrastructure;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generating a report showing the benefits of cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure from the Applicant from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/agiOz4X.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130205007?dq=20130205007&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11789" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4868" RevisionGUID="34a560b6-20dc-4a4b-861d-a9306c730d48" CreationDate="2013-08-26T01:02:17.590" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" [US7000183][1] is basically patenting the way the web works. It is used to sue random online merchants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help find prior art to stop this patent which should not have been granted in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTION - Can you find anything that was published before Sept 2000 that shows content tailored to the visitor. For example 'based on your recently viewed products' or 'people who bought the products you bought also bought' etc... It can be even broader like information based on the visitor location etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7000183" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4875" RevisionGUID="6ba1e108-9734-4086-abb3-bc3cc53aeb24" CreationDate="2013-08-26T05:03:36.687" UserId="5604" Text="http://www.technologyreview.com/view/417529/scientist-finds-pagerank-type-algorithm-from-the-1940s/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to have the same premise as Google's PageRank. Is this enough to invalidate Google's patent on their PageRank algorithm?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11792" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4875" RevisionGUID="6ba1e108-9734-4086-abb3-bc3cc53aeb24" CreationDate="2013-08-26T05:03:36.687" UserId="5604" Text="Is (Google) PageRank invalidated by this econ. paper from 1940s?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11793" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4875" RevisionGUID="6ba1e108-9734-4086-abb3-bc3cc53aeb24" CreationDate="2013-08-26T05:03:36.687" UserId="5604" Text="&lt;google&gt;&lt;algorithms&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11794" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4875" RevisionGUID="f5890190-386f-42a9-870d-03d1e6b200b6" CreationDate="2013-08-26T05:53:32.237" UserId="1767" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1767,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Micah Siegel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4877" RevisionGUID="518c4f21-f1b1-45cb-b57d-5fe030263e02" CreationDate="2013-08-26T11:08:13.507" UserId="5606" Text="I'm writing a piece software. As part of my application I intend to implement a custom file browser (a simple popup window, which allows you to search folders, files etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My intention is to divide this file browser into columns, each of them displaying a folder tree view. The trick is that if a user clicks on a folder, another column is created showing the content of that folder (although it is still possible to expand that folder in the same column it was initially displayed in).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I am afraid of is that this idea might be restricted by some patent (truth to be told this solution is a bit similar to what I came across on Mac OS)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've found Apple's patent: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120185456&#xD;&#xA;but it seems (please correct me if I'm wrong) it only describes how the items should be displayed in what would be a single column in my file viewer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a short part about the column view but as far as I am concerned it explicitly states that columns are used to display a specific *information item's* data and not a deeper level of file hierarchy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary non-hierarchical, column view of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; visual representations of user-oriented information items on a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computer system display. In some implementations, a column view can be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selected using view selector **106**. In column view, visual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; representations in each group can be laid out in a first column. A&#xD;&#xA;&gt; second column can display a preview and other information about a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selected information item. In the example shown, My File **1** is selected&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from group 112 *a*, causing a preview and basic information for My File&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1 to be displayed in the adjacent column in view **103**. Each group **112**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the first column can be vertically scrolled to display additional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; visual representations. In column view, each group can be condensed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; such that the group is limited to a fixed number of rows for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; displaying visual representations of items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have two questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Am I right? Is my idea **not** not prohibited by this patent?&#xD;&#xA;2. How can I check if there are any other patents that could prevent me from implementing my file viewer in the way described above?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11799" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4877" RevisionGUID="518c4f21-f1b1-45cb-b57d-5fe030263e02" CreationDate="2013-08-26T11:08:13.507" UserId="5606" Text="Possible patent infringement when implementing a file viewer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11800" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4877" RevisionGUID="518c4f21-f1b1-45cb-b57d-5fe030263e02" CreationDate="2013-08-26T11:08:13.507" UserId="5606" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;apple&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4877" RevisionGUID="1c9f6ba7-fdcc-4108-99ad-099db450fa08" CreationDate="2013-08-26T12:00:46.253" UserId="5606" Comment="little typo" Text="I'm writing a piece software. As part of my application I intend to implement a custom file browser (a simple popup window, which allows you to search folders, files etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My intention is to divide this file browser into columns, each of them displaying a folder tree view. The trick is that if a user clicks on a folder, another column is created showing the content of that folder (although it is still possible to expand that folder in the same column it was initially displayed in).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I am afraid of is that this idea might be restricted by some patent (truth to be told this solution is a bit similar to what I came across on Mac OS)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've found Apple's patent: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120185456&#xD;&#xA;but it seems (please correct me if I'm wrong) it only describes how the items should be displayed in what would be a single column in my file viewer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a short part about the column view but as far as I am concerned it explicitly states that columns are used to display a specific *information item's* data and not a deeper level of file hierarchy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary non-hierarchical, column view of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; visual representations of user-oriented information items on a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computer system display. In some implementations, a column view can be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selected using view selector **106**. In column view, visual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; representations in each group can be laid out in a first column. A&#xD;&#xA;&gt; second column can display a preview and other information about a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selected information item. In the example shown, My File **1** is selected&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from group 112 *a*, causing a preview and basic information for My File&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1 to be displayed in the adjacent column in view **103**. Each group **112**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the first column can be vertically scrolled to display additional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; visual representations. In column view, each group can be condensed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; such that the group is limited to a fixed number of rows for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; displaying visual representations of items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have two questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Am I right? Is my idea **not** prohibited by this patent?&#xD;&#xA;2. How can I check if there are any other patents that could prevent me from implementing my file viewer in the way described above?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4878" RevisionGUID="76ef1298-0605-4ab6-b252-8502c5ee632b" CreationDate="2013-08-26T12:50:28.963" UserId="5071" Text="phpbb was used as early as June 2000? and had user-specific information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't find a starting time for PHP nuke (but they &quot;finally&quot; got their website October 3 2000), but if it's early enough, it's basically the smoking gun for this patent, IMO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it could be argued that user-specific information was the entire point of PHP (1995)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HoTMaiL as a website had user-specific presentation, but not quite in the same vein as this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heck, any .com with a shopping cart, or things to buy (amazon 1994, ebay 1995) could also qualify as user-specific presentation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4875" RevisionGUID="8342ee57-36db-48a3-a075-e140525143a2" CreationDate="2013-08-26T15:02:28.550" UserId="5604" Comment="added patent number" Text="http://www.technologyreview.com/view/417529/scientist-finds-pagerank-type-algorithm-from-the-1940s/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to have the same premise as Google's PageRank. Is this enough to invalidate Google's patent (US7,269,587) on their PageRank algorithm?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11805" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4875" RevisionGUID="8342ee57-36db-48a3-a075-e140525143a2" CreationDate="2013-08-26T15:02:28.550" UserId="5604" Comment="added patent number" Text="&lt;google&gt;&lt;algorithms&gt;&lt;us7269587&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4879" RevisionGUID="a8398c18-0c89-4d7f-b0f6-e2a3d51d1337" CreationDate="2013-08-26T15:09:28.370" UserId="5612" Text="In further review of this patent, claim 6 states: &quot;A device according to claim 1, characterized in that the horizontal coupling shaft (13) of the two plates (Ai, Bi) of a pair is **rigidly fixed**, by one of its ends, to a first of the plates (Ai) and is connected to the second plate (Bi), by its other end, by means of a ball bearing (22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus the required element from claim 1 of **&quot;mutual rotation of the 2 plates around said shaft**&quot; would be impossible if one of the plates is actually pinned to the shaft that it is supposed to be rotating around.  Claim 1 does not say the 2 plates mutually rotate around an axis, the claim says the 2 plates must mutually rotate around the shaft (&quot;said shaft&quot;).  Claim 6 completely contradicts the language of claim 1, which requires both plates to rotate around the shaft. But this is simple physics, and you cannot have a device (plate, tire, whatever) rotate around a shaft if it is &quot;fixed&quot; (bolted, welded, pinned) **TO** the shaft that it's supposed to be rotating around." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11808" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4875" RevisionGUID="959c9798-fb89-465d-b0fa-25819de9cbf5" CreationDate="2013-08-26T18:11:43.867" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1368 characters in body" Text="Some early versions of PageRank are discussed the [PageRank: Standing on the shoulders of giants][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is whether any of the prior art mentioned in [the article][1] would be sufficient to invalidate [Google's Patent 7,269,587][2] on the PageRank algorithm?&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to have the same premise as Google's PageRank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent: **7,269,587**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inventor: **Larry Page**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assigned to: **Stanford University** (now licensed exclusively to Google)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Priority date: **Jan 10, 1997**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main independent claim is as follows: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A computer implemented method for calculating an importance rank for N linked nodes of a linked database, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - (a) selecting an initial N-dimensional vector p0, wherein each component of p0 represents a probability that a user will start at a given node, wherein each node of the N linked nodes is a computer-readable document containing information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - (b) computing an approximation pn to a steady-state probability p∞, wherein each component of p∞ represents a probability that the user will randomly end up at a particular node after following a number of forward links, in accordance with the equation pn=Anp0, where A is an N×N transition probability matrix having elements A[i][j] representing a probability of moving from node i to node j; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - (c) determining a rank r[k] for a node k from a kth component of pn, wherein r[k] represents an importance of the information contained in node k.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/417529/scientist-finds-pagerank-type-algorithm-from-the-1940s/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7269587?dq=7,269,587" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11809" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="4875" RevisionGUID="f88339c3-47cf-45eb-9e3d-55071f6f88a2" CreationDate="2013-08-26T18:12:18.403" UserId="1767" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1767,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Micah Siegel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4880" RevisionGUID="e53e7656-736d-40d5-8037-ad9351aecfcc" CreationDate="2013-08-26T18:26:59.390" UserId="3076" Text="To show something as &quot;not new&quot; there is no extra weight given to something really old. If it proceeds the priority date by a day, that's enough. If you look at the '567 patent you will see that most of the things mentioned in the article are cited on the face of the patent. That means they were taken into consideration by the examiner. You might note that the author of the article says that Kienberg's work was &quot;just a few years earlier&quot; than Google's. Frm what is cited on thepatnet that seems in error. His paper may have been before their paper but it was after their patent priority filing date. Jan 1997 vs May 1997 from what I see." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4881" RevisionGUID="fe011fa8-c344-4976-8ff9-56133b71555d" CreationDate="2013-08-26T18:29:00.500" UserId="1767" Text="George White nails all of the important points as usual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [US20120185456][4] is a **Patent Application** not a granted patent.  Until and unless it is issued it does not prohibit you from doing anything.  In some sense anyone can **file** a patent application which says anything.  The patent which is allowed may be much narrower than what is described in the specification, and no patent may be allowed at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. According to [Public PAIR][1] the application US20120186456 was issued a non-final rejection by the USPTO and has since gone **abandoned**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. It's not trivial to look for patents which might [read on][3] the implementation of your idea. A specialized search from a patent agent or a patent lawyer would be your best bet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. You need to read the **Patent Claims** to know what exactly the inventor claims to have invented.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3972/1767&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/DS2Uf.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/read-on-term.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120185456?dq=US20120185456" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11812" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4877" RevisionGUID="6684b205-5438-4eb6-bc8b-c710106f0d5d" CreationDate="2013-08-26T18:29:59.963" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;us20120185456&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4881" RevisionGUID="0e21df79-8799-4e8a-bc2e-7ec27c8681f3" CreationDate="2013-08-26T18:40:05.550" UserId="3076" Comment="Mentioned need for attorney for court-related advice/opinion " Text="George White nails all of the important points as usual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [US20120185456][4] is a **Patent Application** not a granted patent.  Until and unless it is issued it does not prohibit you from doing anything.  In some sense anyone can **file** a patent application which says anything.  The patent which is allowed may be much narrower than what is described in the specification, and no patent may be allowed at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. According to [Public PAIR][1] the application US20120186456 was issued a non-final rejection by the USPTO and has since gone **abandoned**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. It's not trivial to look for patents which might [read on][3] the implementation of your idea. A specialized search from a patent agent or a patent lawyer would be your best bet. There are also searching professionals. However the search is accomplished, only an attorney can advise on how what is turned up in the search might affect you in court. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. You need to read the **Patent Claims** to know what exactly the inventor claims to have invented.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3972/1767&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/DS2Uf.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/read-on-term.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120185456?dq=US20120185456" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11817" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4834" RevisionGUID="ea438dd7-0850-4328-bb6b-f1a83c814ab7" CreationDate="2013-08-26T19:04:04.140" UserId="1767" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON suggesting customer migrate to the Cloud** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Suggesting customers use a cloud computer infrastructure...! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/8/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Measuring historical performance data, identifying recurring IT problem which could be mitigated with cloud computing infrastructure and generating customer reports identifying migration to the cloud&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Suggesting cloud migration**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for suggesting a customer use cloud computing… Measuring historical data, identifying recurring IT problems, determing cloud computing could solve the problem, and generating a report&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130205007 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/368,491&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting migration to a cloud computing infrastructure, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. at least one processor analyzing historical incident data of an information technology (IT) environment, the analysis indicating any problems occurring in the IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the at least one processor determining, based on the historical incident data, that a problem is recurring in the IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. the at least one processor determining that the problem can be mitigated in the cloud computing infrastructure; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. the at least one processor generating a report particular to the IT environment, the report identifying a benefit of migrating the IT environment to the cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Analyzing historical IT data and finding problems in the customer's IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying recurring IT problem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determing problem can be mitigated in cloud computing infrastructure;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generating a report showing the benefits of cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure from the Applicant from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/agiOz4X.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130205007?dq=20130205007&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11820" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4868" RevisionGUID="7efb90ef-7da7-41f5-a401-898e18bdf6a2" CreationDate="2013-08-26T19:44:29.943" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;us7000183&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4814" RevisionGUID="a651ff18-cd9f-434a-9d36-24256a5c5f1d" CreationDate="2013-08-26T19:47:04.233" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON transferring data to a server based on user travel plans** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...transferring data in cloud storage system from a data server near a user usual location to a data server near where a user plans to travel! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2011** that discusses: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Moving data between servers based on user travel plans&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves accessing a user's calendar to figure out where he will travel and when&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transferring data between servers based on travel plans of a user**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for moving data between data servers bsaed on travel plans of a user (basically, if the user is traveling somewhere, moving some data from his &quot;home&quot; server to a server which is closer to the location he will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144978 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/309,640&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/3/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. locating a data server near a travel location of a user based on one or more travel plans of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transferring data of the user from a home data server near a home location of the user to the data server near the travel location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of data relocation in a cloud storage environment, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Locating a data server which is physically close to a location of a user based on travel plans of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Transferring data of the user from the home data server to the data server near the travel location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming accessing the user's calendar to figure out where he will travel so data can be moved there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for data relocation in cloud storage environments from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rLnVZ5M.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130144978?dq=US20130144978A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4834" RevisionGUID="8d63169d-f20d-4632-a55a-b7806ce8e97e" CreationDate="2013-08-26T19:47:14.830" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON suggesting customer migrate to the Cloud** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Suggesting customers use a cloud computer infrastructure...! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/8/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Measuring historical performance data, identifying recurring IT problem which could be mitigated with cloud computing infrastructure and generating customer reports identifying migration to the cloud&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Suggesting cloud migration**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for suggesting a customer use cloud computing… Measuring historical data, identifying recurring IT problems, determing cloud computing could solve the problem, and generating a report&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130205007 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/368,491&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting migration to a cloud computing infrastructure, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. at least one processor analyzing historical incident data of an information technology (IT) environment, the analysis indicating any problems occurring in the IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the at least one processor determining, based on the historical incident data, that a problem is recurring in the IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. the at least one processor determining that the problem can be mitigated in the cloud computing infrastructure; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. the at least one processor generating a report particular to the IT environment, the report identifying a benefit of migrating the IT environment to the cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Analyzing historical IT data and finding problems in the customer's IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying recurring IT problem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determing problem can be mitigated in cloud computing infrastructure;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generating a report showing the benefits of cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure from the Applicant from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/agiOz4X.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130205007?dq=20130205007&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4883" RevisionGUID="86a0ef01-a0d4-4519-9de1-c50f52c06f44" CreationDate="2013-08-26T21:36:05.423" UserId="5615" Text="There is much talk about how software patents are deliberately written in an obfuscated manner, as a ploy that contravenes the purpose of the system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that this should weaken a patent, since it hinders the ability of a practitioner to 'learn' from the 'teachings' in the patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does a deliberately murky writing style weaken a patent? I'm looking for case law or journal articles or some other pre-existing, formal precedent (hopefully that will help this question comply with the Stack Exchange guidelines).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11827" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4883" RevisionGUID="86a0ef01-a0d4-4519-9de1-c50f52c06f44" CreationDate="2013-08-26T21:36:05.423" UserId="5615" Text="Does clarity of a patent affect its value?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11828" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4883" RevisionGUID="86a0ef01-a0d4-4519-9de1-c50f52c06f44" CreationDate="2013-08-26T21:36:05.423" UserId="5615" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;validity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11829" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4883" RevisionGUID="773c5110-3cff-4e37-823e-2845c7b55cd4" CreationDate="2013-08-26T21:44:55.143" UserId="6" Comment="8" />
  <row Id="11830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4883" RevisionGUID="4eaa815d-3b52-48f5-9553-ed50acc7067f" CreationDate="2013-08-26T22:25:09.477" UserId="5615" Comment="(Edited in response to Micah's first comment.)" Text="There is much talk about how software patents are deliberately written in an obfuscated manner, as a ploy that contravenes the purpose of the system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that one could argue the following point:&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;* A deliberately murky, obfuscated, or unclear writing style hinders the ability of a practitioner to 'learn' from the 'teachings' in the patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do the legal authorities consider this point to be an issue? Does it affect the patent's defensibility?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking for case law or journal articles or some other pre-existing, formal precedent (hopefully that will help this question comply with the Stack Exchange guidelines).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4884" RevisionGUID="1345d3e0-5533-4697-9062-7d7e6ede7f9f" CreationDate="2013-08-26T22:28:29.057" UserId="3076" Text="I do not think the issue is confined to software. Claim wording that is broad can make a patent strong, but so can claims that are specific and clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a claim, wether hardware or software or mechanical, to be broad it generally must be expressed in an abstract way. A mechanical claim might say something is &quot;an elongated member&quot; rather than a rod or a post or a 2x4. It might say something is &quot;operativly coupled&quot; to something else rather than connected. In patent claims they mean different things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Enough of that kind of wording strung together and it can get hard to picture what is being defined. Much of it comes from court cases that turned on a single word or phrase. Does &quot;one&quot; mean &quot;only one&quot; or does it mean &quot;one or more&quot;? A major case went one way and not the other over &quot;heated to&quot; vs &quot;heated at&quot; even though one produced a ridiculous result of the thing cathing fire. In another case &quot;a portion of X is covered&quot; was interpreted to **not** include &quot;all of X is covered&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;New things like this come up every month and professionals who draft claims need to stay up on it and worry about what words they are writing today will be deemed to mean in ten years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are specific, it is easy for someone to say, &quot;my thing doesn't rotate, it pivots!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Advice claim writers get is to have broad claims written in an abstract manner (not to be confused with trying to claim subject matter that is abstract in its essence). The broad claims are followed by narrower dependent claims that get more specific. Claim 1 says you have an elongated member and claim 2 says &quot;the thing of claim 1 where the elongated member is a 2x4&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clarity and narrowness is great if it hits what the infringer is doing on the head. So a combination of claim styles are desirable. There are those who recommend at least one claim that uses non-standard terminology that was not defined in the specification to &quot;give the litigators somehting that can be argued either way&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also there are &quot;patent words&quot; that we love to use like: arcuate, frangible, moiety, indicia, and frustrum. I think it was George Bernard Shaw who wrote &quot;all professions are a conspiracy against the laity.&quot; And there is some of that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4884" RevisionGUID="bbd23658-34b7-4d06-a2e3-503649be184f" CreationDate="2013-08-26T22:43:15.363" UserId="3076" Comment="added 416 characters in body" Text="I do not think the issue is confined to software. Claim wording that is broad can make a patent strong, but so can claims that are specific and clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a claim, whether hardware or software or mechanical, to be broad it generally must be expressed in an abstract way. A mechanical claim might say something is &quot;an elongated member&quot; rather than a rod or a post or a 2x4. It might say something is &quot;operativly coupled&quot; to something else rather than connected. In patent claims they mean different things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Enough of that kind of wording strung together and it can get hard to picture what is being defined. Much of it comes from court cases that turned on a single word or phrase. Does &quot;one&quot; mean &quot;only one&quot; or does it mean &quot;one or more&quot;? A major case went one way and not the other over &quot;heated to&quot; vs &quot;heated at&quot; even though one produced a ridiculous result of the thing catching fire. In another case &quot;a portion of X is covered&quot; was interpreted to **not** include the case of **all** of X is covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;New things like this come up every month and professionals who draft claims need to stay up on it and worry about what words they are writing today will be deemed to mean in ten years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are specific, it is easy for someone to say, &quot;my thing doesn't rotate, it pivots!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Advice claim writers get is to have broad claims written in an abstract manner (not to be confused with trying to claim subject matter that is abstract in its essence). The broad claims are followed by narrower dependent claims that get more specific. Claim 1 says you have an elongated member and claim 2 says &quot;the thing of claim 1 where the elongated member is a 2x4&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clarity and narrowness is great if it hits what the infringer is doing on the head. So a combination of claim styles are desirable. There are those who recommend at least one claim that uses non-standard terminology that was not defined in the specification to &quot;give the litigators something that can be argued either way&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a patent that covers a lot of ground is valuable for broadness but it is more valuable if it also has fall-back claims that are progressively clearer and narrower in the direction of a commercially important embodiment. That is hard to predict at the time it is written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also there are &quot;patent words&quot; that we love to use like: arcuate, frangible, moiety, indicia, and frustrum. I think it was George Bernard Shaw who wrote &quot;all professions are a conspiracy against the laity.&quot; And there is some of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not software but [here][1] is an article about the Federal Circuit deciding if a claim wording is indefinite. Indefinite claims are invalid - there is a limit to abstractness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4884" RevisionGUID="71d583fe-e65d-4153-804e-3240d0f90069" CreationDate="2013-08-26T22:51:55.113" UserId="3076" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="Two references and some opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not think the issue is confined to software. Claim wording that is broad can make a patent strong, but so can claims that are specific and clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a claim, whether hardware or software or mechanical, to be broad it generally must be expressed in an abstract way. A mechanical claim might say something is &quot;an elongated member&quot; rather than a rod or a post or a 2x4. It might say something is &quot;operativly coupled&quot; to something else rather than connected. In patent claims they mean different things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Enough of that kind of wording strung together and it can get hard to picture what is being defined. Much of it comes from court cases that turned on a single word or phrase. Does &quot;one&quot; mean &quot;only one&quot; or does it mean &quot;one or more&quot;? A major case went one way and not the other over &quot;heated to&quot; vs &quot;heated at&quot; even though one produced a ridiculous result of the thing catching fire. In another case &quot;a portion of X is covered&quot; was interpreted to **not** include the case of **all** of X is covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;New things like this come up every month and professionals who draft claims need to stay up on it and worry about what words they are writing today will be deemed to mean in ten years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are specific, it is easy for someone to say, &quot;my thing doesn't rotate, it pivots!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Advice claim writers get is to have broad claims written in an abstract manner (not to be confused with trying to claim subject matter that is abstract in its essence). The broad claims are followed by narrower dependent claims that get more specific. Claim 1 says you have an elongated member and claim 2 says &quot;the thing of claim 1 where the elongated member is a 2x4&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clarity and narrowness is great if it hits what the infringer is doing on the head. So a combination of claim styles are desirable. There are those who recommend at least one claim that uses non-standard terminology that was not defined in the specification to &quot;give the litigators something that can be argued either way&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a patent that covers a lot of ground is valuable for broadness but it is more valuable if it also has fall-back claims that are progressively clearer and narrower in the direction of a commercially important embodiment. That is hard to predict at the time it is written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an article about broad vs narrow at the WIPO site [here.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also there are &quot;patent words&quot; that we love to use like: arcuate, frangible, moiety, indicia, and frustrum. I think it was George Bernard Shaw who wrote &quot;all professions are a conspiracy against the laity.&quot; And there is some of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not software but [here][2] is an article about the Federal Circuit deciding if a claim wording is indefinite. Indefinite claims are invalid - there is a limit to abstractness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2006/01/article_0007.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.foley.com/federal-circuit-holds-that-patent-indefiniteness-requires-insoluble-ambiguousness-05-02-2013/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4880" RevisionGUID="a30f4b16-9549-4f87-bf54-eaa668867b9d" CreationDate="2013-08-26T23:00:55.807" UserId="3076" Comment="edited body" Text="To show something as &quot;not new&quot; there is no extra weight given to something really old. If it proceeds the priority date by a day, that's enough. If you look at the '587 patent you will see that most of the things mentioned in the article are cited on the face of the patent. That means they were taken into consideration by the examiner. You might note that the author of the article says that Kienberg's work was &quot;just a few years earlier&quot; than Google's. From what is cited on the patnet that seems in error. His paper may have been before their paper but it was after their patent priority filing date. Jan 1997 vs May 1997 from what I see." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4880" RevisionGUID="4fb7c3da-a564-4f7c-b7a9-48090f1fe136" CreationDate="2013-08-26T23:47:23.497" UserId="3076" Comment="added 408 characters in body" Text="To show something as &quot;not new&quot; there is no extra weight given to something really old. If it proceeds the priority date by a day, that's enough. If you look at the '587 patent you will see that most of the things mentioned in the article are cited on the face of the patent. That means they were taken into consideration by the examiner. You might note that the author of the article says that Kienberg's work was &quot;just a few years earlier&quot; than Google's. From what is cited on the patnet that seems in error. His paper may have been before their paper but it was after their patent priority filing date. Jan 1997 vs May 1997 from what I see.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDITED&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To go back to an economics paper on inputs and outputs of goods and services from one region to another that has nothing to do with citations to see something that is also calculated iteratively seems like using hind site. Once you have the page rank invention you can go back and find things that might have hinted at the solution. You can only do that after knowing the solution. Not allowed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4834" RevisionGUID="d1d99cbe-e248-4800-ab1a-ee04508d4ef9" CreationDate="2013-08-27T00:10:06.457" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON suggesting customer migrate to the Cloud** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Suggesting customers use a cloud computer infrastructure...! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/8/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Measuring historical performance data, identifying recurring IT problem which could be mitigated with cloud computing infrastructure and generating customer reports identifying migration to the cloud&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Suggesting cloud migration**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for suggesting a customer use cloud computing… Measuring historical data, identifying recurring IT problems, determing cloud computing could solve the problem, and generating a report&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130205007 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/368,491&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting migration to a cloud computing infrastructure, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. at least one processor analyzing historical incident data of an information technology (IT) environment, the analysis indicating any problems occurring in the IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the at least one processor determining, based on the historical incident data, that a problem is recurring in the IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. the at least one processor determining that the problem can be mitigated in the cloud computing infrastructure; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. the at least one processor generating a report particular to the IT environment, the report identifying a benefit of migrating the IT environment to the cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Analyzing historical IT data and finding problems in the customer's IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying recurring IT problem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determing problem can be mitigated in cloud computing infrastructure;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generating a report showing the benefits of cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure from the Applicant from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/agiOz4X.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130205007?dq=20130205007&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4814" RevisionGUID="8afa2e73-5490-47fa-a2c3-a9da838362ca" CreationDate="2013-08-27T00:10:18.830" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON transferring data to a server based on user travel plans** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...transferring data in cloud storage system from a data server near a user usual location to a data server near where a user plans to travel! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2011** that discusses: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Moving data between servers based on user travel plans&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves accessing a user's calendar to figure out where he will travel and when&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transferring data between servers based on travel plans of a user**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for moving data between data servers bsaed on travel plans of a user (basically, if the user is traveling somewhere, moving some data from his &quot;home&quot; server to a server which is closer to the location he will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144978 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/309,640&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/3/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. locating a data server near a travel location of a user based on one or more travel plans of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transferring data of the user from a home data server near a home location of the user to the data server near the travel location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of data relocation in a cloud storage environment, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Locating a data server which is physically close to a location of a user based on travel plans of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Transferring data of the user from the home data server to the data server near the travel location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming accessing the user's calendar to figure out where he will travel so data can be moved there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for data relocation in cloud storage environments from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rLnVZ5M.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130144978?dq=US20130144978A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11838" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4854" RevisionGUID="28739a7b-a507-446b-b44b-7001daa1804c" CreationDate="2013-08-27T00:10:48.960" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Away/Available/Busy status** - This application from [Apple][6] seeks to patent the idea of...displaying a status to contacts that would indicate whether you’re available to field a call or not! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/13/2007** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sharing Away/Available/Busy status on a mobile phone along with your location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO takes into account user preferences, determining what information it can share as set by a user, or filtering inbound calls against a phone’s contact list to help preserve privacy before sharing any information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Away/Available/Busy status on a mobile phone**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for displaying contact information about a first phone to user of a second phone.  Contact information of user includes Away/Available/Busy status for the user of the first phone and his location.  Main idea is letting user set and forget preferences around just how much status they’re willing to share and with who, and letting the automated system do the rest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130177141 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/785,294&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Apple&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/13/2007&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/7/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a command at an operating system of a first mobile phone for displaying contact information of a remote user having a mobile phone number of a second mobile phone;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. in response to the command, transmitting a request to a remote server from the first mobile phone over a cellular network requesting an operating status of the second mobile phone; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving the operating status of the second mobile phone from the remote server over the cellular network; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. displaying the operating status of the second mobile phone on a display of the first mobile phone as a part of contact information of the remote user associated with the second mobile phone, the operating status including current locality of the second mobile phone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying contact information of a remote user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. User of first phone asks for contact information of user of second phone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. First phone asks remote server for contact information of user of second phone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. First phone receives contact information over a cellular network&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. First phone displays status of second phone (e.g. Away/Available/Busy) and location of second user as part of contact information for the second user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/13/2007&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using user preferences and privacy settings to show Away/Available/Busy selectively&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Away/Available/Busy status on a mobile phone from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Hjkucu1.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220130217364%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20130217364&amp;RS=DN/20130217364&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.apple.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4802" RevisionGUID="8c9aad5f-abe6-4a98-ab97-25e75ef9a32d" CreationDate="2013-08-27T00:11:43.963" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON synchronizing the output of data across devices** - This application from [Accenture][6] seeks to patent the idea of...synchronizing playback of streaming media on multiple devices! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Synchronously outputting media to multiple devices over a network &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves **Synchronous Stream Protocol (SSP)** or where devices can adjust playback speed or skip to keep streams in sync with one another&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Synchronizing playback of media across multiple devices**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for synchronizing output of audio or video streams across multiple devices by adjusting playback speed or skipping frames so as to keep the streams synchronized with one another during playback&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130138778 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/675,846&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Accenture&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for synchronizing output of media data across a plurality of output devices, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. providing a communication network between a media server and the plurality of output devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. synchronously outputting media data files on the plurality of output devices, wherein the media data files are transmitted to the output devices from the media server in form of a data stream over different delivery networks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for synchronizing the output of media (think audio/video) across devices, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Connecting a media server to mulitiple devices across a network&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **synchronously** playing the media over streams across different delivery networks (such as HDMI, fixed wired Ethernet, wireless IP, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A **Synchronous Stream Protocol (SSP)** and adjusting playback speed or skip to keep streams in sync with one another across devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for integrating playback of media across multiple devices from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/j6VDbND.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130138778?dq=US20130138778&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.accenture.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4885" RevisionGUID="0b513c1a-1894-474a-b26d-93ff86977a59" CreationDate="2013-08-27T00:18:45.940" UserId="5618" Text="This is an application of HTTP Cookies[1], first implemented in the Web by Lou Montulli (a famous web programmer) in 1994[2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But web cookies themselves were just an application of &quot;magic cookies&quot; to web browsers, and magic cookies are an essential part of most OSI level 5,6,7 communications (e.g. to implement TCP session-based communications over session-less UDP, or to taylor a device's response depending on the requester's identifying number or &quot;magic cookie&quot;). [3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only thing remotely &quot;novel&quot; about the patent is that they are using cookies to save/retrieve a users's &quot;list of one or more data states in a ranked order of preference for satisfying a request for information for said viewer state&quot;.  A large cookie.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_cookie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/04/technology/04COOK.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3] Google search &quot;tcp magic cookie&quot;: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=tcp+magic+cookie" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="ef826817-5fae-44c7-974a-97c9a8ada804" CreationDate="2013-08-27T01:37:24.770" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON sending product specials or lists of products to a user's cellphone based on user location** - This application from [Givted, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...sending product promotion to user based on location! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/30/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using user's location (and possibly user's fitness data) to send product specials to user's cell phone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO takes into account **user fitness data** or relates to **sporting goods**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: We wish all the best to the startup company Givted behind this patent, but...**should this company go bankrupt this is the sort of patent which ends up in the hands of a patent troll.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: location-based customization and product promotion**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A retail systems that sends a list of specials to a user's phone based on the location of the user or attendance of the user at an event or user's fitness data.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130173389 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/340,870&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Givted, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/31/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. retrieving user information from a device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining a location of a user based on the retrieved user information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. compiling a list of available specials based on the location of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. transmitting the list of available specials to the device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. transmitting a collection of products to the device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this is pretty self-explanatory:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. retrieving user information from a device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining a location of a user based on the retrieved user information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. compiling a list of available specials based on the location of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. transmitting the list of available specials to the device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. transmitting a collection of products to the device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming combining **user fitness data** with location to provide offers to users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Sending product promotions to user based on location from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/S8NyY4D.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130173389?dq=US20130173389A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.givted.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11842" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="ef826817-5fae-44c7-974a-97c9a8ada804" CreationDate="2013-08-27T01:37:24.770" UserId="1767" Text="Mobile ads - Location-based product promotion (Givted, Inc.) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11843" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="ef826817-5fae-44c7-974a-97c9a8ada804" CreationDate="2013-08-27T01:37:24.770" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;online-advertising&gt;&lt;us20130173389&gt;&lt;givted&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4887" RevisionGUID="978c066b-00f3-4019-aa1e-186af472fa8c" CreationDate="2013-08-27T01:54:36.530" UserId="5619" Text="FourSquare has a &quot;Specials&quot; feature, which will display businesses offering discounts near you on a map. It was discussed in this press release on 3/9/11: http://blog.foursquare.com/2011/03/09/a-whole-new-world-of-specials/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding sporting goods, the post also specifically mention Sports Authority running a special through the program." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11846" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="68eb6717-04cf-4415-9f32-8505d586cec1" CreationDate="2013-08-27T04:08:25.373" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Mobile ads - Location-based product promotion (Givted) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4868" RevisionGUID="138ff39b-b15b-49b8-8dc0-06fa39b0f5ed" CreationDate="2013-08-27T05:06:20.573" UserId="3076" Comment="Added claim 1 wordings" Text=" [US7000183][1] is basically patenting the way the web works. It is used to sue random online merchants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help find prior art to stop this patent which should not have been granted in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A computer-implemented method for viewer-specific presentation of information, the method using a computer comprising a CPU, a memory operatively connected to the CPU, and a program stored in the memory and executable by the CPU for presenting information, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;establishing a database of metadata defining a predetermined plurality of viewer states, at least one data state corresponding to each of said plurality of viewer states, a plurality of data types, and a plurality of data elements, each of said data elements being tagged for association with at least one of said data types and one of said data states;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;receiving a request for information from a viewer;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;identifying a respective viewer state associated with said viewer, said respective viewer state being one of said plurality of viewer states;&#xD;&#xA;referencing said database to identify a collection of one or more data states related to said viewer state;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;referencing said database to identify a collection of multiple data types relating to the request for information;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;referencing said database to identify a data element data store storing multiple data elements, each of said multiple data elements being tagged for association with one of said data states and one of said data types;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;selecting viewer-specific data elements from said data store by determining a corresponding data state of each data element in said data store, examining data elements related to each data type, and for each data type selecting a corresponding data element having a corresponding data state that is preferred among said data states corresponding to said viewer state;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;presenting said viewer-specific data elements to said viewer to satisfy said viewer's request for information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTION - Can you find anything that was published before Sept 2000 that shows content tailored to the visitor. For example 'based on your recently viewed products' or 'people who bought the products you bought also bought' etc... It can be even broader like information based on the visitor location etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7000183&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4868" RevisionGUID="4c28ef17-8fb5-4b95-8db0-eb26af003888" CreationDate="2013-08-27T05:13:35.680" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text=" [US7000183][1] is basically patenting the way the web works. It is used to sue random online merchants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help find prior art to stop this patent which should not have been granted in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A computer-implemented method for viewer-specific presentation of information, the method using a computer comprising a CPU, a memory operatively connected to the CPU, and a program stored in the memory and executable by the CPU for presenting information, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;establishing a database of metadata defining a predetermined plurality of viewer states, at least one data state corresponding to each of said plurality of viewer states, a plurality of data types, and a plurality of data elements, each of said data elements being tagged for association with at least one of said data types and one of said data states;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;receiving a request for information from a viewer;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;identifying a respective viewer state associated with said viewer, said respective viewer state being one of said plurality of viewer states;&#xD;&#xA;referencing said database to identify a collection of one or more data states related to said viewer state;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;referencing said database to identify a collection of multiple data types relating to the request for information;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;referencing said database to identify a data element data store storing multiple data elements, each of said multiple data elements being tagged for association with one of said data states and one of said data types;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;selecting viewer-specific data elements from said data store by determining a corresponding data state of each data element in said data store, examining data elements related to each data type, and for each data type selecting a corresponding data element having a corresponding data state that is preferred among said data states corresponding to said viewer state;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;presenting said viewer-specific data elements to said viewer to satisfy said viewer's request for information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTION - Can you find anything that was published before Sept 2000 that shows all of these steps? For example 'based on your recently viewed products' or 'people who bought the products you bought also bought' etc... It can be even broader like information based on the visitor location etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7000183&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4868" RevisionGUID="d51083c6-bf9c-4089-bd33-6c6fdc8dc58f" CreationDate="2013-08-27T05:21:42.273" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text=" [US7000183][1] is basically patenting the way the web works. It is used to sue random online merchants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help find prior art to stop this patent which should not have been granted in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A computer-implemented method for viewer-specific presentation of information, the method using a computer comprising a CPU, a memory operatively connected to the CPU, and a program stored in the memory and executable by the CPU for presenting information, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;establishing a database of metadata defining a predetermined plurality of viewer states, at least one data state corresponding to each of said plurality of viewer states, a plurality of data types, and a plurality of data elements, each of said data elements being tagged for association with at least one of said data types and one of said data states;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;receiving a request for information from a viewer;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;identifying a respective viewer state associated with said viewer, said respective viewer state being one of said plurality of viewer states;&#xD;&#xA;referencing said database to identify a collection of one or more data states related to said viewer state;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;referencing said database to identify a collection of multiple data types relating to the request for information;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;referencing said database to identify a data element data store storing multiple data elements, each of said multiple data elements being tagged for association with one of said data states and one of said data types;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;selecting viewer-specific data elements from said data store by determining a corresponding data state of each data element in said data store, examining data elements related to each data type, and for each data type selecting a corresponding data element having a corresponding data state that is preferred among said data states corresponding to said viewer state;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;presenting said viewer-specific data elements to said viewer to satisfy said viewer's request for information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The face of the patent lists many references that were known to the examiner. To be helpful, a reference would need to be more on target than any of these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTION - Can you find anything that was published before Sept 2000 that shows all of these steps? For example 'based on your recently viewed products' or 'people who bought the products you bought also bought' etc... It can be even broader like information based on the visitor location etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7000183&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/5IDUU.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4888" RevisionGUID="dfbff22a-554e-4efa-9841-88bdca3bc0cb" CreationDate="2013-08-27T05:38:17.350" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON using acceleration sensor to turn on/off GPS receiver on a phone only when it has moved** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...persistent motion tracking on a smartphone by using acceleration sensor to turn on/off GPS receiver! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/30/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using acceleration sensors and GPS sensors together&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO creates profiles of users based on where they are at rest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Using acceleration sensor to turn on/off GPS receiver**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A battery-saving technique of turning on/off the GPS receiver on a phone based on signal from acceleration sensor on phone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130085861 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/629,299&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Scott Dunlop&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 10/1/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A mobile device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a geopositioning receiver configured to determine a geoposition of the mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. an accelerometer configured to determine an acceleration rate of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a processor in communication with the geopositioning receiver and the accelerometer, the processor configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. determine, using the accelerometer, whether the mobile device is in motion based on a duration of movement, an acceleration rate, and/or a velocity, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. engage the geopositioning receiver upon determining that the mobile device is in motion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A mobile device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. GPS receiver&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. An accelerometer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A program which determines whether the mobile devices is in motion and engages the GPS receiver if it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming creating user profiles based on where the phone is at rest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;GPS Receiver and Accelerometer Flowchart from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/3MuCLT9.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130085861?dq=US20130085861A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11851" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4888" RevisionGUID="dfbff22a-554e-4efa-9841-88bdca3bc0cb" CreationDate="2013-08-27T05:38:17.350" UserId="1767" Text="Mobile phones - Turning on/off GPS when phone detects motion - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11852" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4888" RevisionGUID="dfbff22a-554e-4efa-9841-88bdca3bc0cb" CreationDate="2013-08-27T05:38:17.350" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;mobile-phone&gt;&lt;us20130085861&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="bfbf7494-ba6e-41c6-aa6d-5688d877526e" CreationDate="2013-08-27T05:42:46.117" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON sending product specials or lists of products to a user's cellphone based on user location** - This application from [Givted, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...sending product promotion to user based on location! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/30/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using user's location (and possibly user's fitness data) to send product specials to user's cell phone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO takes into account **user fitness data** or relates to **sporting goods**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: We wish all the best to the startup company Givted behind this patent, but...**should this company go bankrupt this is the sort of patent which ends up in the hands of a patent troll.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: location-based customization and product promotion**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A retail systems that sends a list of specials to a user's phone based on the location of the user or attendance of the user at an event or user's fitness data.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130173389 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/340,870&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Givted, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/31/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. retrieving user information from a device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining a location of a user based on the retrieved user information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. compiling a list of available specials based on the location of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. transmitting the list of available specials to the device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. transmitting a collection of products to the device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this is pretty self-explanatory:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. retrieving user information from a device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining a location of a user based on the retrieved user information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. compiling a list of available specials based on the location of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. transmitting the list of available specials to the device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. transmitting a collection of products to the device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming combining **user fitness data** with location to provide offers to users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Sending product promotions to user based on location from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/S8NyY4D.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130173389?dq=US20130173389A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.givted.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4889" RevisionGUID="c0314f9d-bebc-46f9-b74e-b47220229179" CreationDate="2013-08-27T06:22:04.330" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON targeting ads based on distance between potential customer and a store** - This application invented by [a patent attorney][6] seeks to patent the idea of...geo-targeting promotions from stores to potential customers! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/5/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using location between potential customer and a store to target ads to a potential customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO where user and store owner both set radii within which they are willing to receive or send promotional material&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Location-based promotion delivery system**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Delivering mobile promotions to potential customers based on location of user and location of store and respective radii determined by store owner and user for sending or receiving promotions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130179265 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/734,968&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Christopher Winslade (a [patent attorney][6])&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/5/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/7/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing location-based promotions, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. determining a current location of a mobile potential customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. providing the current location of the mobile potential customer to a proprietor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining, based at least in part on information received from the proprietor, whether to communicate a promotional offer to the mobile potential customer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. if it is determined to communicate a promotional offer to the customer, then communicating the promotional offer to the mobile potential customer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing location-based promotions, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine location of potential customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Providing current location of potential customer to a store owner (or automatically based on preferences he has setup in advance)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining whether to send promotional offer to potential customer &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Sending promotional offer to potential customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/5/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming the store owner and the mobile user setting radii within which they are willing to send or receive promotional material&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Communicating promotional content from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/SCaIYmI.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130179265?dq=US20130179265A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.mcandrews-ip.com/profile/cwinslade" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11855" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4889" RevisionGUID="c0314f9d-bebc-46f9-b74e-b47220229179" CreationDate="2013-08-27T06:22:04.330" UserId="1767" Text="Mobile ads - Location-based based promotions - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11856" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4889" RevisionGUID="c0314f9d-bebc-46f9-b74e-b47220229179" CreationDate="2013-08-27T06:22:04.330" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130179265&gt;&lt;geo-target&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11857" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="1cf5a3ee-7765-4d95-9375-44b5ba7d8759" CreationDate="2013-08-27T06:39:17.693" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;online-advertising&gt;&lt;us20130173389&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4888" RevisionGUID="65e3d254-bad2-4740-955f-b57e530e4867" CreationDate="2013-08-27T06:39:28.757" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON using acceleration sensor to turn on/off GPS receiver on a phone only when it has moved** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...persistent motion tracking on a smartphone by using acceleration sensor to turn on/off GPS receiver! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/30/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using acceleration sensors and GPS sensors together&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO creates profiles of users based on where they are at rest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Using acceleration sensor to turn on/off GPS receiver**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A battery-saving technique of turning on/off the GPS receiver on a phone based on signal from acceleration sensor on phone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130085861 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/629,299&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Scott Dunlop&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 10/1/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A mobile device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a geopositioning receiver configured to determine a geoposition of the mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. an accelerometer configured to determine an acceleration rate of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a processor in communication with the geopositioning receiver and the accelerometer, the processor configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. determine, using the accelerometer, whether the mobile device is in motion based on a duration of movement, an acceleration rate, and/or a velocity, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. engage the geopositioning receiver upon determining that the mobile device is in motion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A mobile device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. GPS receiver&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. An accelerometer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A program which determines whether the mobile devices is in motion and engages the GPS receiver if it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming creating user profiles based on where the phone is at rest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;GPS Receiver and Accelerometer Flowchart from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/3MuCLT9.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130085861?dq=US20130085861A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4889" RevisionGUID="f94c6871-9a64-451e-a19a-aa02f5aacf24" CreationDate="2013-08-27T06:39:42.133" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON targeting ads based on distance between potential customer and a store** - This application invented by [a patent attorney][6] seeks to patent the idea of...geo-targeting promotions from stores to potential customers! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/5/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using location between potential customer and a store to target ads to a potential customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO where user and store owner both set radii within which they are willing to receive or send promotional material&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Location-based promotion delivery system**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Delivering mobile promotions to potential customers based on location of user and location of store and respective radii determined by store owner and user for sending or receiving promotions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130179265 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/734,968&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Christopher Winslade (a [patent attorney][6])&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/5/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/7/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing location-based promotions, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. determining a current location of a mobile potential customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. providing the current location of the mobile potential customer to a proprietor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining, based at least in part on information received from the proprietor, whether to communicate a promotional offer to the mobile potential customer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. if it is determined to communicate a promotional offer to the customer, then communicating the promotional offer to the mobile potential customer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing location-based promotions, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine location of potential customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Providing current location of potential customer to a store owner (or automatically based on preferences he has setup in advance)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining whether to send promotional offer to potential customer &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Sending promotional offer to potential customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/5/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming the store owner and the mobile user setting radii within which they are willing to send or receive promotional material&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Communicating promotional content from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/SCaIYmI.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130179265?dq=US20130179265A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.mcandrews-ip.com/profile/cwinslade" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11860" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="c78802e5-5b95-4c2d-a637-eaebebf28b3f" CreationDate="2013-08-27T06:44:45.447" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;online-advertising&gt;&lt;us20130173389&gt;&lt;geo-target&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4888" RevisionGUID="6590f82c-32e8-47aa-9882-c412591d4400" CreationDate="2013-08-27T06:44:55.307" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON using acceleration sensor to turn on/off GPS receiver on a phone only when it has moved** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...persistent motion tracking on a smartphone by using acceleration sensor to turn on/off GPS receiver! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/30/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using acceleration sensors and GPS sensors together&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO creates profiles of users based on where they are at rest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Using acceleration sensor to turn on/off GPS receiver**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A battery-saving technique of turning on/off the GPS receiver on a phone based on signal from acceleration sensor on phone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130085861 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/629,299&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Scott Dunlop&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 10/1/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A mobile device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a geopositioning receiver configured to determine a geoposition of the mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. an accelerometer configured to determine an acceleration rate of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a processor in communication with the geopositioning receiver and the accelerometer, the processor configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. determine, using the accelerometer, whether the mobile device is in motion based on a duration of movement, an acceleration rate, and/or a velocity, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. engage the geopositioning receiver upon determining that the mobile device is in motion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A mobile device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. GPS receiver&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. An accelerometer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A program which determines whether the mobile devices is in motion and engages the GPS receiver if it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming creating user profiles based on where the phone is at rest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;GPS Receiver and Accelerometer Flowchart from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/3MuCLT9.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130085861?dq=US20130085861A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4889" RevisionGUID="19252246-b06d-4d66-81fb-fdbefc914810" CreationDate="2013-08-27T07:39:02.743" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON targeting ads based on distance between potential customer and a store** - This application invented by [a patent attorney][6] seeks to patent the idea of...geo-targeting promotions from stores to potential customers! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/5/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using location between potential customer and a store to target ads to a potential customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO where user and store owner both set radii within which they are willing to receive or send promotional material&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Location-based promotion delivery system**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Delivering mobile promotions to potential customers based on location of user and location of store and respective radii determined by store owner and user for sending or receiving promotions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130179265 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/734,968&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Christopher Winslade (a [patent attorney][6])&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/5/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/7/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing location-based promotions, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. determining a current location of a mobile potential customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. providing the current location of the mobile potential customer to a proprietor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining, based at least in part on information received from the proprietor, whether to communicate a promotional offer to the mobile potential customer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. if it is determined to communicate a promotional offer to the customer, then communicating the promotional offer to the mobile potential customer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing location-based promotions, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine location of potential customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Providing current location of potential customer to a store owner (or automatically based on preferences he has setup in advance)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining whether to send promotional offer to potential customer &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Sending promotional offer to potential customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/5/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming the store owner and the mobile user setting radii within which they are willing to send or receive promotional material&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Communicating promotional content from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/SCaIYmI.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130179265?dq=US20130179265A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.mcandrews-ip.com/profile/cwinslade" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="1f431259-385e-4c89-8456-4f618073d139" CreationDate="2013-08-27T07:39:35.090" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON sending product specials or lists of products to a user's cellphone based on user location** - This application from [Givted, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...sending product promotion to user based on location! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/30/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using user's location (and possibly user's fitness data) to send product specials to user's cell phone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO takes into account **user fitness data** or relates to **sporting goods**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: We wish all the best to the startup company Givted behind this patent, but...**should this company go bankrupt this is the sort of patent which ends up in the hands of a patent troll.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: location-based customization and product promotion**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A retail systems that sends a list of specials to a user's phone based on the location of the user or attendance of the user at an event or user's fitness data.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130173389 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/340,870&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Givted, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/31/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. retrieving user information from a device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining a location of a user based on the retrieved user information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. compiling a list of available specials based on the location of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. transmitting the list of available specials to the device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. transmitting a collection of products to the device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this is pretty self-explanatory:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. retrieving user information from a device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining a location of a user based on the retrieved user information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. compiling a list of available specials based on the location of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. transmitting the list of available specials to the device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. transmitting a collection of products to the device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming combining **user fitness data** with location to provide offers to users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Sending product promotions to user based on location from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/S8NyY4D.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130173389?dq=US20130173389A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.givted.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4888" RevisionGUID="5e5a247d-37ba-4ed6-9dc2-1b87728a3736" CreationDate="2013-08-27T07:40:09.703" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON using acceleration sensor to turn on/off GPS receiver on a phone only when it has moved** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...persistent motion tracking on a smartphone by using acceleration sensor to turn on/off GPS receiver! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/30/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using acceleration sensors and GPS sensors together&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO creates profiles of users based on where they are at rest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Using acceleration sensor to turn on/off GPS receiver**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A battery-saving technique of turning on/off the GPS receiver on a phone based on signal from acceleration sensor on phone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130085861 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/629,299&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Scott Dunlop&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 10/1/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A mobile device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a geopositioning receiver configured to determine a geoposition of the mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. an accelerometer configured to determine an acceleration rate of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a processor in communication with the geopositioning receiver and the accelerometer, the processor configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. determine, using the accelerometer, whether the mobile device is in motion based on a duration of movement, an acceleration rate, and/or a velocity, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. engage the geopositioning receiver upon determining that the mobile device is in motion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A mobile device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. GPS receiver&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. An accelerometer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A program which determines whether the mobile devices is in motion and engages the GPS receiver if it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming creating user profiles based on where the phone is at rest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;GPS Receiver and Accelerometer Flowchart from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/3MuCLT9.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130085861?dq=US20130085861A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11877" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4889" RevisionGUID="8cef4054-f354-4ab9-a92c-b62c789f2902" CreationDate="2013-08-27T14:22:34.550" UserId="4752" Comment="duplicate word" Text="Mobile ads - Location-based promotions - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11878" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4889" RevisionGUID="8cef4054-f354-4ab9-a92c-b62c789f2902" CreationDate="2013-08-27T14:22:34.550" Comment="Proposed by 4752 approved by 1259, 1 edit id of 429" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4889" RevisionGUID="fb19e8a9-337d-4108-9c89-d0a0c48a226d" CreationDate="2013-08-27T15:54:51.883" UserId="1767" Comment="added 115 characters in body; deleted 14 characters in body; added 1 characters in body; deleted 2 characters in body; deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON targeting ads based on distance between potential customer and a store** - This application invented by [a patent attorney][6] seeks to patent the idea of...geo-targeting promotions from stores to potential customers! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/5/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using location between potential customer and a store to target ads to a potential customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO where user and store owner both set radii within which they are willing to receive or send promotional material&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A good example of a spammy patent that (if allowed) will end up being used by patent trolls**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Location-based promotion delivery system**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Delivering mobile promotions to potential customers based on location of user and location of store and respective radii determined by store owner and user for sending or receiving promotions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130179265 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/734,968&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Christopher Winslade (a [patent attorney][6])&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/5/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/7/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing location-based promotions, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. determining a current location of a mobile potential customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. providing the current location of the mobile potential customer to a proprietor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining, based at least in part on information received from the proprietor, whether to communicate a promotional offer to the mobile potential customer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. if it is determined to communicate a promotional offer to the customer, then communicating the promotional offer to the mobile potential customer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing location-based promotions, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine location of potential customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Providing current location of potential customer to a store owner (or automatically based on preferences he has setup in advance)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining whether to send promotional offer to potential customer &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Sending promotional offer to potential customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/5/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming the store owner and the mobile user setting radii within which they are willing to send or receive promotional material&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Communicating promotional content from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/SCaIYmI.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130179265?dq=US20130179265A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.mcandrews-ip.com/profile/cwinslade" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4893" RevisionGUID="a457e3aa-f950-4a8c-9b08-53a134cfaab8" CreationDate="2013-08-27T16:10:35.400" UserId="5596" Text="Is there a public database that show whether a US patent was reexamined or challenged in any other way? If so where is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11881" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4893" RevisionGUID="a457e3aa-f950-4a8c-9b08-53a134cfaab8" CreationDate="2013-08-27T16:10:35.400" UserId="5596" Text="How does one know if a patent was reexamined?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11882" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4893" RevisionGUID="a457e3aa-f950-4a8c-9b08-53a134cfaab8" CreationDate="2013-08-27T16:10:35.400" UserId="5596" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;reexamination&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4894" RevisionGUID="f380d0a0-f2f1-4ede-a630-4cbf8dbbfae9" CreationDate="2013-08-27T16:17:49.837" UserId="235" Text="Extremely obvious idea. Has been a common practice for years, as the fact that this page existed prior to the application date shows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geotargeting&amp;oldid=481865084" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4889" RevisionGUID="c3f5ecc0-f729-4ccf-ad25-c8d5c89d22ab" CreationDate="2013-08-27T17:45:51.883" UserId="1767" Comment="added 122 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON targeting ads based on distance between potential customer and a store** - This application invented by [a patent attorney][6] seeks to patent the idea of...geo-targeting promotions from stores to potential customers! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/5/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using location between potential customer and a store to target ads to a potential customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO where user and store owner both set radii within which they are willing to receive or send promotional material&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A good example of a spammy patent that (if allowed) will end up being used by patent trolls**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Location-based promotion delivery system**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Delivering mobile promotions to potential customers based on location of user and location of store and respective radii determined by store owner and user for sending or receiving promotions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130179265 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/734,968&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Christopher Winslade (a [patent attorney][6])&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/5/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/7/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing location-based promotions, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. determining a current location of a mobile potential customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. providing the current location of the mobile potential customer to a proprietor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining, based at least in part on information received from the proprietor, whether to communicate a promotional offer to the mobile potential customer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. if it is determined to communicate a promotional offer to the customer, then communicating the promotional offer to the mobile potential customer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing location-based promotions, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine location of potential customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Providing current location of potential customer to a store owner (or automatically based on preferences he has setup in advance)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining whether to send promotional offer to potential customer &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Sending promotional offer to potential customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/5/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming the store owner and the mobile user setting radii within which they are willing to send or receive promotional material&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Communicating promotional content from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/SCaIYmI.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130179265?dq=US20130179265A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.mcandrews-ip.com/profile/cwinslade&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130179265" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4888" RevisionGUID="f6841f95-5d71-4655-b8e4-c85c8c6c6603" CreationDate="2013-08-27T18:05:10.530" UserId="1767" Comment="added 122 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON using acceleration sensor to turn on/off GPS receiver on a phone only when it has moved** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...persistent motion tracking on a smartphone by using acceleration sensor to turn on/off GPS receiver! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/30/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using acceleration sensors and GPS sensors together&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO creates profiles of users based on where they are at rest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Using acceleration sensor to turn on/off GPS receiver**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A battery-saving technique of turning on/off the GPS receiver on a phone based on signal from acceleration sensor on phone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130085861 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/629,299&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Scott Dunlop&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 10/1/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A mobile device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a geopositioning receiver configured to determine a geoposition of the mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. an accelerometer configured to determine an acceleration rate of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a processor in communication with the geopositioning receiver and the accelerometer, the processor configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. determine, using the accelerometer, whether the mobile device is in motion based on a duration of movement, an acceleration rate, and/or a velocity, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. engage the geopositioning receiver upon determining that the mobile device is in motion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A mobile device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. GPS receiver&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. An accelerometer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A program which determines whether the mobile devices is in motion and engages the GPS receiver if it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming creating user profiles based on where the phone is at rest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;GPS Receiver and Accelerometer Flowchart from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/3MuCLT9.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130085861?dq=US20130085861A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130085861" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="ff90d834-c2b1-48bc-b351-6cb3dac2307f" CreationDate="2013-08-27T18:06:03.080" UserId="1767" Comment="added 122 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON sending product specials or lists of products to a user's cellphone based on user location** - This application from [Givted, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...sending product promotion to user based on location! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/30/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using user's location (and possibly user's fitness data) to send product specials to user's cell phone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO takes into account **user fitness data** or relates to **sporting goods**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: We wish all the best to the startup company Givted behind this patent, but...**should this company go bankrupt this is the sort of patent which ends up in the hands of a patent troll.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: location-based customization and product promotion**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A retail systems that sends a list of specials to a user's phone based on the location of the user or attendance of the user at an event or user's fitness data.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130173389 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/340,870&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Givted, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/31/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. retrieving user information from a device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining a location of a user based on the retrieved user information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. compiling a list of available specials based on the location of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. transmitting the list of available specials to the device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. transmitting a collection of products to the device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this is pretty self-explanatory:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. retrieving user information from a device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining a location of a user based on the retrieved user information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. compiling a list of available specials based on the location of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. transmitting the list of available specials to the device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. transmitting a collection of products to the device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming combining **user fitness data** with location to provide offers to users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Sending product promotions to user based on location from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/S8NyY4D.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130173389?dq=US20130173389A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.givted.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130173389" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4895" RevisionGUID="c651c805-dc60-45cb-8555-8d2209cad6a5" CreationDate="2013-08-27T18:06:27.733" UserId="5627" Text="This paper entitled [&quot;Energy-efficient rate-adaptive GPS-based positioning for smartphones&quot;](http://www.inf.ed.ac.uk/teaching/courses/cn/papers/raps.pdf) describes using an accelerometer as part of a blended approach to determining when to turn a GPS receiver on and off for power efficiency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Key quote from section 3.1:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;To achieve this goal, RAPS uses a collection of techniques to&#xD;&#xA;cleverly determine when to turn on GPS, and when not to. First, it&#xD;&#xA;uses a duty-cycled accelerometer to efficiently estimate user movement. RAPS detects whether the user is moving or not, and also measures the activity ratio, the fraction of time that the user is in motion between two position updates. The movement detection is&#xD;&#xA;used to prevent RAPS from activating GPS when the user has been stationary. The activity ratio is used to estimate the current velocity based on historical correlations between velocity and activity (see below); this lets RAPS activate GPS only if the estimated uncer-&#xD;&#xA;tainty in position exceeds the accuracy threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The paper's publishing info's on the first page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MobiSys’10,&#xD;&#xA;**June 15–18, 2010**, San Francisco, California, USA.&#xD;&#xA;Copyright **2010** ACM 978-1-60558-985-5/10/06 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4896" RevisionGUID="19890a61-8148-458c-a9f3-769316b2ee32" CreationDate="2013-08-27T18:16:25.603" UserId="5628" Text="Many companies have been talking about or doing this well prior to 2012. For instance, Placecast (http://placecast.net/press/releases.html) had this press release from 2010:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.vscconsulting.com/dev/clients/PressReleases/619/PR-O2_Placecast%20UBERFINAL.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- in which they work with a mobile operator (O2 in the UK in this case) so as to get user position information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- in which they allow advertisers to create geofences. A A geo-fence is a virtual perimeter for a real-world geographic area (wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo-fence)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- in which they determine if user in in the geo-fenced area that an advertiser has created. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If user is in the geofenced area, and has opted into the service, they will be delivered an advertising message via text message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4897" RevisionGUID="ba51ffa1-7780-4e2a-8730-4cb98fdc8dc0" CreationDate="2013-08-27T18:39:36.373" UserId="1767" Text="That's a good question.  In general you can use [Public PAIR][2] to find out a lot of detailed information about issued patents and pending patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good example is this is the touch screen patent by Steve Jobs: [US7479949][14].  The patent was subject to re-exam and all claims stand rejected in a non-final office action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The '949 patent][4] provides an interesting example of how to use the [Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR)][1] system to find the FILE HISTORY for a US Patent.  Re-exams are represented in a non-intuitive but consistent way in that system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First visit [PAIR][2].  Once you get past the CAPTCHA you'll see this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that you must select the Patent Number Radio Box and you must use only the numerical patent number without any commas or other characters, i.e. &quot;7479949&quot;.  The [PAIR][4] interface is ridiculously unforgiving...  There is also a byzantine distinction between a **Patent Number**, a **Publication Number**, and a **Control Number** or **Application Number**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Search PAIR by **Patent Number** for issued patents [tag:post-grant] and by **Publication Number** for patent applications [tag:pre-grant]. But we digress...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From here you can see on the highlighted red boxes that  it is indeed a &quot;Patented Case&quot; (in this case, as opposed to a Patent Application).  You can also see that Steve P. Jobs (Palo Alto, CA) is the First inventor.  Finally you can see the tab **Continuity Data**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Click on **Continuity Data** tab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][6]&#xD;&#xA;This tab refers to other members of the same [Patent Family][7], in particular [Continuations][8] of the subject patent.  From here you can see the Parents and Children of the subject patent.  For example, you can see that the entire patent family [Claims Priority][9] to the inventions described in a US Provisional Patent Application filed by Steve Jobs 9/6/2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also see the Children of this subject patent.  Here is where it gets weird. The USPTO represents re-examination proceedings as if they were children of the subject patent.  You can see here the re-examination proceeding referred to in [this fosspatents article][13] as child application number 90/012,308, which is pending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you click through to that child &quot;patent application&quot; (actually the re-examination) you get a screen like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see that this &quot;patent application&quot; is of the type &quot;Re-Examination&quot;, its status is waiting for an Examiner Action following a Non-Final Action (in this case, the claims stand rejected but we'll see that next).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Click on **Image File Wrapper** to dig into the detailed discussion between Apple's attorneys and the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wow, that's a lot of dialog between the USPTO and Apple!  But you can see on 12-03-2012 as indicated the result of the Re-Examination.  This is the same date referenced in your article.  Apple has the right to continue arguing with the USPTO (as long as it continues to pay additional fees) but for now this is where the patent stands:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Click through to the document **Reexam - Non-Final Action**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this PDF file you will see the current status of the Re-Examination for Patent 7,479,949, which is that all claims stand rejected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not easy to navigate the PAIR system but worth learning if only to see the detailed arguments between the applicant and the examiner.  Examiners often spend a lot of time and effort analyzing applications. It's a tough job!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/EgoYz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/PfLg8.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/YXfIX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_family&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_application#Priority_claim&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/q1gTl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Ov5E6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/3KD53.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/us-patent-office-declares-steve-jobs.html&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7479949?dq=US7479949" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4898" RevisionGUID="94ce52bd-b5bd-4d7d-b680-e644bea86ac0" CreationDate="2013-08-27T19:19:52.730" UserId="5629" Text="http://www.deutsche-telekom-laboratories.com/~kyuhan/papers/MobiSys10Kim.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This paper, written by ... describes use of a method which &quot;uses less power-intensive sensors such as an accelerometer to suppress unnecessary GPS sensing when the user is in static state.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This paper dates back to June of 2010." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4899" RevisionGUID="56db420b-38c1-40b1-b77f-7ecdd274a82d" CreationDate="2013-08-27T20:03:52.947" UserId="3076" Text="Using PAIR, as Micah's detailed answer shows, is definitive and by far the best way to look things like this up. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Not definitive but easy, if it has what you are looking for, is Google patents. It keeps getting better and as of a few months ago has a &quot;Legal Events&quot; section at the end of some patent documents. In the case of the infamous:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Method of swinging on a swing US 6368227 B1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It shows that it had a reexam that left all claims canceled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/PxO2x.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4900" RevisionGUID="4d10f50e-20a7-43e2-98f9-2db894137aa8" CreationDate="2013-08-27T23:09:34.580" UserId="5631" Text="This patent, filed in 2006, may cover the geo-location aspect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Providing advertisements to a computing device based on a predetermined criterion of a wireless access point&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US 8478887 B2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US8478887?dq=wayport+location+based&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=iTAdUvKIHaLCyQHZ_oGgBw&amp;ved=0CGwQ6AEwCA&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4900" RevisionGUID="9fa88f2e-098e-4091-800c-e29503b73cd0" CreationDate="2013-08-27T23:16:36.957" UserId="5631" Comment="added 300 characters in body" Text="These patents, filed in 2001 and 2006, may cover the geo-location aspect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US 6452498 B2&#xD;&#xA;System and method for providing geographic-based advertising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US6452498?dq=wayport+location+based&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=VzIdUp7lK4_YyQGHhIHYBw&amp;ved=0CFYQ6AEwBTgU&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US 8478887 B2&#xD;&#xA;Providing advertisements to a computing device based on a predetermined criterion of a wireless access point&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US8478887?dq=wayport+location+based&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=iTAdUvKIHaLCyQHZ_oGgBw&amp;ved=0CGwQ6AEwCA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disclosure: both were filed by Wayport, Inc, of which I was an employee at the time. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4880" RevisionGUID="f3df9050-3324-4166-bbc6-b9560631cce3" CreationDate="2013-08-28T01:18:26.080" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="To show something as &quot;not new&quot; there is no extra weight given to something really old. If it proceeds the priority date by a day, that's enough. If you look at the '587 patent you will see that most of the things mentioned in the article are cited on the face of the patent. That means they were taken into consideration by the examiner. You might note that the author of the article says that Kienberg's work was &quot;just a few years earlier&quot; than Google's. From what is cited on the patent that seems in error. His paper may have been before their paper but it was after their patent priority filing date. Jan 1997 vs May 1997 from what I see.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDITED&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To go back to an economics paper on inputs and outputs of goods and services from one region to another that has nothing to do with citations and to see something, that like page rank, that is also calculated iteratively seems like using hind sight. Once you have the page rank invention you can go back and find things that might have hinted at the solution. You can only do that after knowing the solution. Not allowed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4902" RevisionGUID="a495e910-eaba-4da6-a43f-fc0ce09a5411" CreationDate="2013-08-28T07:30:18.733" UserId="5455" Text="My mistake - each 'page' can have multiple drawings.  The images on both links show multiple drawings on a single page.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="a74f346d-6c4c-485f-9f3d-8a5ff1eb628e" CreationDate="2013-08-28T07:32:07.790" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON sending product specials or lists of products to a user's cellphone based on user location** - This application from [Givted, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...sending product promotion to user based on location! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/30/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using user's location (and possibly user's fitness data) to send product specials to user's cell phone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO takes into account **user fitness data** or relates to **sporting goods**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: We wish all the best to the startup company Givted behind this patent, but...**should this company go bankrupt this is the sort of patent which ends up in the hands of a patent troll.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: location-based customization and product promotion**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A retail systems that sends a list of specials to a user's phone based on the location of the user or attendance of the user at an event or user's fitness data.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130173389 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/340,870&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Givted, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/31/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. retrieving user information from a device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining a location of a user based on the retrieved user information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. compiling a list of available specials based on the location of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. transmitting the list of available specials to the device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. transmitting a collection of products to the device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this is pretty self-explanatory:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. retrieving user information from a device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining a location of a user based on the retrieved user information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. compiling a list of available specials based on the location of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. transmitting the list of available specials to the device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. transmitting a collection of products to the device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming combining **user fitness data** with location to provide offers to users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Sending product promotions to user based on location from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/S8NyY4D.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130173389?dq=US20130173389A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.givted.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130173389" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4814" RevisionGUID="db5025f7-2d3f-4f27-b502-737af6ecceb4" CreationDate="2013-08-28T07:33:46.047" UserId="1767" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON transferring data to a server based on user travel plans** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...transferring data in cloud storage system from a data server near a user usual location to a data server near where a user plans to travel! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2011** that discusses: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Moving data between servers based on user travel plans&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves accessing a user's calendar to figure out where he will travel and when&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transferring data between servers based on travel plans of a user**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for moving data between data servers bsaed on travel plans of a user (basically, if the user is traveling somewhere, moving some data from his &quot;home&quot; server to a server which is closer to the location he will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144978 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/309,640&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/3/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. locating a data server near a travel location of a user based on one or more travel plans of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transferring data of the user from a home data server near a home location of the user to the data server near the travel location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of data relocation in a cloud storage environment, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Locating a data server which is physically close to a location of a user based on travel plans of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Transferring data of the user from the home data server to the data server near the travel location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming accessing the user's calendar to figure out where he will travel so data can be moved there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for data relocation in cloud storage environments from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rLnVZ5M.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130144978?dq=US20130144978A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130144978" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4834" RevisionGUID="d9eef482-d2a2-45f0-b9d5-885a86706930" CreationDate="2013-08-28T07:34:25.470" UserId="1767" Comment="added 122 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON suggesting customer migrate to the Cloud** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Suggesting customers use a cloud computer infrastructure...! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/8/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Measuring historical performance data, identifying recurring IT problem which could be mitigated with cloud computing infrastructure and generating customer reports identifying migration to the cloud&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Suggesting cloud migration**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for suggesting a customer use cloud computing… Measuring historical data, identifying recurring IT problems, determing cloud computing could solve the problem, and generating a report&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130205007 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/368,491&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting migration to a cloud computing infrastructure, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. at least one processor analyzing historical incident data of an information technology (IT) environment, the analysis indicating any problems occurring in the IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the at least one processor determining, based on the historical incident data, that a problem is recurring in the IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. the at least one processor determining that the problem can be mitigated in the cloud computing infrastructure; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. the at least one processor generating a report particular to the IT environment, the report identifying a benefit of migrating the IT environment to the cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Analyzing historical IT data and finding problems in the customer's IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying recurring IT problem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determing problem can be mitigated in cloud computing infrastructure;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generating a report showing the benefits of cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure from the Applicant from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/agiOz4X.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130205007?dq=20130205007&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130144978" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4903" RevisionGUID="53595ec3-b0e0-4cee-ad7b-4a070fde06b7" CreationDate="2013-08-28T08:32:51.680" UserId="5634" Text="We applied for a very similar patent and our attorney flagged up this one: &#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US20080234935&#xD;&#xA;filed in March 08&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 applies to this patent application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;detecting motion of a device in response to receipt of a signal from a first sensor disposed in said device; and&#xD;&#xA;changing a power state of a second sensor, also disposed in said device, in response to said detecting said motion.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4898" RevisionGUID="69fd05fa-a3da-4251-9669-607ccc0b4d60" CreationDate="2013-08-28T13:20:08.753" UserId="5629" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="http://www.deutsche-telekom-laboratories.com/~kyuhan/papers/MobiSys10Kim.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This paper describes use of a method which &quot;uses less power-intensive sensors such as an accelerometer to suppress unnecessary GPS sensing when the user is in static state.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This paper dates back to June of 2010." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4905" RevisionGUID="a8ddd327-8212-4f08-a6c2-4ae57cde97d2" CreationDate="2013-08-28T13:57:47.490" UserId="5629" Text="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.97.1679&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This document, which dates back to June of 2004 describes a method of using Bluetooth sensors to find a users location and send ads based on that information. The figure below is taken from the document linked above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![B-MAD figure][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/K0cnJ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4906" RevisionGUID="5d4893a9-d14d-4c95-94ad-ab9ea4c31d58" CreationDate="2013-08-28T14:02:11.260" UserId="786" Text="Apple recently filed an application in the US: 20130216740&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[INTERLOCKING FLEXIBLE SEGMENTS FORMED FROM A RIGID MATERIAL](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=20130216740.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20130216740&amp;RS=DN/20130216740)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am confused by the contrasting elements of the description, such as this method of &quot;creating a flexible structure from a rigid material&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In one regard it sounds like a method for taking a solid material sheet and slicing / piecing / processing it in such a way that it becomes a flexible material, like [how a wooden chain is made](http://www.littleshavers.com/chains.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In another regard it sounds like [a technique to produce] a phone case that is variably rigid or flexible based on *something*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the language of this patent typical?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to re-word the question itself, if it can be asked better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11910" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4906" RevisionGUID="5d4893a9-d14d-4c95-94ad-ab9ea4c31d58" CreationDate="2013-08-28T14:02:11.260" UserId="786" Text="What kind of patent is this 'interlocking flexible rigid material'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11911" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4906" RevisionGUID="5d4893a9-d14d-4c95-94ad-ab9ea4c31d58" CreationDate="2013-08-28T14:02:11.260" UserId="786" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;manufacturing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11913" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4906" RevisionGUID="7459c830-69b2-417c-bac3-d7f9268366c6" CreationDate="2013-08-28T15:22:55.453" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag to application" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;manufacturing&gt;&lt;us20130216740&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4907" RevisionGUID="4c9a944a-a3c4-4559-977a-d376d9286752" CreationDate="2013-08-28T15:44:33.367" UserId="3076" Text="This is a picture of a &quot;kerf bend&quot; in wood. Material is removed to make a flexible portion from something inflexible. In Apple's case the geometry is different and more complex.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/btDQP.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4909" RevisionGUID="964bc07f-15fc-40e4-898e-bc200b743a6f" CreationDate="2013-08-28T18:23:09.743" UserId="5639" Text="This patent is obvious-- it is a &quot;living hinge,&quot; with the &quot;unique&quot; aspect that it is &quot;with a laser.&quot;  Such structures are routinely created in plastic mouldings-- hinges on boxes of baby wipes, strain relievers for wires, etc.  This is an obvious extension of such plastic mouldings, but with a laser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See &quot;living hinges&quot; at the bottom of this page: &#xD;&#xA;http://www.solidconcepts.com/resources/dg/injection-molding-design-guidelines/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Strain relief devices, as seen here:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.timbercon.com/assets/Uploads/fiber-optic-glossary/images/strain-relief.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Laser-cut hinges, just like those in Apple's patent application, have been published on the internet before Apple's application date, so Apple's patent shouldn't get approved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a few:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.deferredprocrastination.co.uk/blog/2011/laser-cut-lattice-living-hinges/&#xD;&#xA;http://makezine.com/2011/10/25/plywood-living-hinge-technique-for-laser-cutters/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4910" RevisionGUID="bb42919e-7cf9-4135-a442-add83fe27e04" CreationDate="2013-08-28T18:39:57.920" UserId="786" Text="It's only stupid if you plan to build a proper business plan around this idea and commercialize it.  In that case, your provisional patent may not 'have teeth', and you wasted time and money.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Software patents are exceptionally tricky.  You claims could hold no real weight, if challenged.... which is the only time that really matters.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, if you read enough patents in your target area, you *can* learn enough of &quot;the language of the art&quot; to write a decent provisional application.  For sure, do not file a full patent in **software** without an attorney.  You chance of fail is nearly guaranteed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your business plan will give you the timeline to file.  If you haven't written a business plan then you're putting cart before horse.  But, on the off-chance that you're like me, and invented the magnetic power plug for laptops before Apple did, I'm writing to help you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4911" RevisionGUID="5a2d1aa8-0ef1-46f7-b05f-81f19bca30cf" CreationDate="2013-08-28T20:48:51.073" UserId="5640" Text="Also look at every Screen Sharing conference software...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These apps broadcast a Users Screen + Audio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www4.gotomeeting.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.webex.com/products/web-conferencing.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4814" RevisionGUID="bbbbd612-6777-4412-8616-b60e8375f22b" CreationDate="2013-08-28T21:28:12.123" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON transferring data to a server based on user travel plans** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...transferring data in cloud storage system from a data server near a user usual location to a data server near where a user plans to travel! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2011** that discusses: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Moving data between servers based on user travel plans&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves accessing a user's calendar to figure out where he will travel and when&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transferring data between servers based on travel plans of a user**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for moving data between data servers bsaed on travel plans of a user (basically, if the user is traveling somewhere, moving some data from his &quot;home&quot; server to a server which is closer to the location he will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144978 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/309,640&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/3/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. locating a data server near a travel location of a user based on one or more travel plans of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transferring data of the user from a home data server near a home location of the user to the data server near the travel location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of data relocation in a cloud storage environment, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Locating a data server which is physically close to a location of a user based on travel plans of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Transferring data of the user from the home data server to the data server near the travel location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming accessing the user's calendar to figure out where he will travel so data can be moved there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for data relocation in cloud storage environments from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rLnVZ5M.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130144978?dq=US20130144978A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130144978" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4834" RevisionGUID="c92761ad-2439-4d8d-9ccd-f3718b81d1da" CreationDate="2013-08-28T21:28:33.127" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON suggesting customer migrate to the Cloud** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Suggesting customers use a cloud computer infrastructure...! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/8/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Measuring historical performance data, identifying recurring IT problem which could be mitigated with cloud computing infrastructure and generating customer reports identifying migration to the cloud&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Suggesting cloud migration**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for suggesting a customer use cloud computing… Measuring historical data, identifying recurring IT problems, determing cloud computing could solve the problem, and generating a report&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130205007 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/368,491&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting migration to a cloud computing infrastructure, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. at least one processor analyzing historical incident data of an information technology (IT) environment, the analysis indicating any problems occurring in the IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the at least one processor determining, based on the historical incident data, that a problem is recurring in the IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. the at least one processor determining that the problem can be mitigated in the cloud computing infrastructure; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. the at least one processor generating a report particular to the IT environment, the report identifying a benefit of migrating the IT environment to the cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Analyzing historical IT data and finding problems in the customer's IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying recurring IT problem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determing problem can be mitigated in cloud computing infrastructure;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generating a report showing the benefits of cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure from the Applicant from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/agiOz4X.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130205007?dq=20130205007&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130144978" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4912" RevisionGUID="0c73515b-e6e3-4bf9-9341-b0e95764a40f" CreationDate="2013-08-28T21:29:05.073" UserId="5640" Text="GroupLens wrote an article on recommendation engines back in 1994. &#xD;&#xA;Its exactly like the example you are looking for (Expect thy are referring to news articles):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example 'based on your recently viewed products' or 'people who&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bought the products you bought also bought' etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.53.9351&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=DDC90FE61D3BFDE8DFAAB72E8947D425?doi=10.1.1.53.9351&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4889" RevisionGUID="1699d228-c994-455a-b81f-6ea4dfc68b2c" CreationDate="2013-08-29T00:50:50.200" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON targeting ads based on distance between potential customer and a store** - This application invented by [a patent attorney][6] seeks to patent the idea of...geo-targeting promotions from stores to potential customers! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/5/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using location between potential customer and a store to target ads to a potential customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO where user and store owner both set radii within which they are willing to receive or send promotional material&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A good example of a spammy patent that (if allowed) will end up being used by patent trolls**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Location-based promotion delivery system**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Delivering mobile promotions to potential customers based on location of user and location of store and respective radii determined by store owner and user for sending or receiving promotions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130179265 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/734,968&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Christopher Winslade (a [patent attorney][6])&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/5/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/7/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing location-based promotions, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. determining a current location of a mobile potential customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. providing the current location of the mobile potential customer to a proprietor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining, based at least in part on information received from the proprietor, whether to communicate a promotional offer to the mobile potential customer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. if it is determined to communicate a promotional offer to the customer, then communicating the promotional offer to the mobile potential customer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing location-based promotions, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine location of potential customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Providing current location of potential customer to a store owner (or automatically based on preferences he has setup in advance)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining whether to send promotional offer to potential customer &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Sending promotional offer to potential customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/5/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming the store owner and the mobile user setting radii within which they are willing to send or receive promotional material&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Communicating promotional content from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/SCaIYmI.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130179265?dq=US20130179265A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.mcandrews-ip.com/profile/cwinslade&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130179265" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4889" RevisionGUID="37c63f86-fe87-4599-817f-aecccf6ff518" CreationDate="2013-08-29T05:49:09.010" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON targeting ads based on distance between potential customer and a store** - This application invented by [a patent attorney][6] seeks to patent the idea of...geo-targeting promotions from stores to potential customers! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/5/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using location between potential customer and a store to target ads to a potential customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO where user and store owner both set radii within which they are willing to receive or send promotional material&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A good example of a spammy patent that (if allowed) will end up being used by patent trolls**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Location-based promotion delivery system**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Delivering mobile promotions to potential customers based on location of user and location of store and respective radii determined by store owner and user for sending or receiving promotions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130179265 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/734,968&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Christopher Winslade (a [patent attorney][6])&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/5/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/7/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing location-based promotions, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. determining a current location of a mobile potential customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. providing the current location of the mobile potential customer to a proprietor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining, based at least in part on information received from the proprietor, whether to communicate a promotional offer to the mobile potential customer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. if it is determined to communicate a promotional offer to the customer, then communicating the promotional offer to the mobile potential customer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing location-based promotions, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine location of potential customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Providing current location of potential customer to a store owner (or automatically based on preferences he has setup in advance)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining whether to send promotional offer to potential customer &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Sending promotional offer to potential customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/5/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming the store owner and the mobile user setting radii within which they are willing to send or receive promotional material&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Communicating promotional content from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/SCaIYmI.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130179265?dq=US20130179265A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.mcandrews-ip.com/profile/cwinslade&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130179265" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4834" RevisionGUID="fd8a8bad-c69c-4d12-ac7d-18173a39308d" CreationDate="2013-08-29T05:49:30.167" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON suggesting customer migrate to the Cloud** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Suggesting customers use a cloud computer infrastructure...! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/8/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Measuring historical performance data, identifying recurring IT problem which could be mitigated with cloud computing infrastructure and generating customer reports identifying migration to the cloud&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Suggesting cloud migration**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for suggesting a customer use cloud computing… Measuring historical data, identifying recurring IT problems, determing cloud computing could solve the problem, and generating a report&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130205007 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/368,491&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting migration to a cloud computing infrastructure, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. at least one processor analyzing historical incident data of an information technology (IT) environment, the analysis indicating any problems occurring in the IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the at least one processor determining, based on the historical incident data, that a problem is recurring in the IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. the at least one processor determining that the problem can be mitigated in the cloud computing infrastructure; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. the at least one processor generating a report particular to the IT environment, the report identifying a benefit of migrating the IT environment to the cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Analyzing historical IT data and finding problems in the customer's IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying recurring IT problem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determing problem can be mitigated in cloud computing infrastructure;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generating a report showing the benefits of cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure from the Applicant from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/agiOz4X.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130205007?dq=20130205007&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130144978" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4814" RevisionGUID="fb47d33f-0564-4c90-b19f-d07b8919e8e6" CreationDate="2013-08-29T05:49:41.480" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON transferring data to a server based on user travel plans** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...transferring data in cloud storage system from a data server near a user usual location to a data server near where a user plans to travel! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2011** that discusses: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Moving data between servers based on user travel plans&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves accessing a user's calendar to figure out where he will travel and when&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transferring data between servers based on travel plans of a user**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for moving data between data servers bsaed on travel plans of a user (basically, if the user is traveling somewhere, moving some data from his &quot;home&quot; server to a server which is closer to the location he will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144978 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/309,640&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/3/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. locating a data server near a travel location of a user based on one or more travel plans of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transferring data of the user from a home data server near a home location of the user to the data server near the travel location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of data relocation in a cloud storage environment, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Locating a data server which is physically close to a location of a user based on travel plans of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Transferring data of the user from the home data server to the data server near the travel location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming accessing the user's calendar to figure out where he will travel so data can be moved there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for data relocation in cloud storage environments from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rLnVZ5M.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130144978?dq=US20130144978A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130144978" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4802" RevisionGUID="b87bbbf9-d2ce-4553-8112-d8efe9885cb1" CreationDate="2013-08-29T05:49:54.280" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON synchronizing the output of data across devices** - This application from [Accenture][6] seeks to patent the idea of...synchronizing playback of streaming media on multiple devices! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Synchronously outputting media to multiple devices over a network &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves **Synchronous Stream Protocol (SSP)** or where devices can adjust playback speed or skip to keep streams in sync with one another&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Synchronizing playback of media across multiple devices**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for synchronizing output of audio or video streams across multiple devices by adjusting playback speed or skipping frames so as to keep the streams synchronized with one another during playback&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130138778 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/675,846&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Accenture&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for synchronizing output of media data across a plurality of output devices, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. providing a communication network between a media server and the plurality of output devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. synchronously outputting media data files on the plurality of output devices, wherein the media data files are transmitted to the output devices from the media server in form of a data stream over different delivery networks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for synchronizing the output of media (think audio/video) across devices, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Connecting a media server to mulitiple devices across a network&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **synchronously** playing the media over streams across different delivery networks (such as HDMI, fixed wired Ethernet, wireless IP, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A **Synchronous Stream Protocol (SSP)** and adjusting playback speed or skip to keep streams in sync with one another across devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for integrating playback of media across multiple devices from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/j6VDbND.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130138778?dq=US20130138778&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.accenture.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4913" RevisionGUID="022292bd-058c-4318-b33c-308a2050f105" CreationDate="2013-08-29T20:05:28.210" UserId="5643" Text="The company I worked for, filed 2 provisionals for my invention - I was listed as the sole inventor, and I signed assignment forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those provisionals were converted to full patents, earlier this year, but I **didn't** signed assignment forms, and the company terminated me. So technically do I &quot;own&quot; the patents since I didn't assign the patents? Or does the provisional assignment carry over?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;p.s. my employment letter makes no mention of any IP assignment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11932" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4913" RevisionGUID="022292bd-058c-4318-b33c-308a2050f105" CreationDate="2013-08-29T20:05:28.210" UserId="5643" Text="Provisional Patent Vs Full Patent - assignment to employer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11933" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4913" RevisionGUID="022292bd-058c-4318-b33c-308a2050f105" CreationDate="2013-08-29T20:05:28.210" UserId="5643" Text="&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;employer&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11934" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4913" RevisionGUID="65b76804-411b-4056-b087-30431f4f0ad2" CreationDate="2013-08-29T20:55:20.097" UserId="5643" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;employer&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4914" RevisionGUID="01e08d11-9575-44a0-9dd4-e44d9b993c96" CreationDate="2013-08-29T23:59:30.907" UserId="3076" Text="I'm not an attorney and it sounds like you need one.  If the &quot;full&quot; applications did not add new matter to the provisional's content then signing away one can be signing away both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What state/country you are in will make a difference. A faxtor may be that the new AIA patent law has made it easier for employers to file on your invention without you signing anything. That is for employees with an obligation to assign. Also the papers you signed related to the provisionals might have been more expansive than you think. The documents could have included anything that came from them. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4914" RevisionGUID="a77825e1-9906-4c0c-9d5f-524000c0e3cf" CreationDate="2013-08-30T03:43:23.277" UserId="3076" Comment="added 169 characters in body" Text="I'm not an attorney and it sounds like you need one.  If the &quot;full&quot; applications did not add new matter to the provisional's content then signing away one can be signing away both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What state/country you are in will make a difference. A factor that may be involved is that the new AIA patent law has made it easier for employers to file on your invention without you signing anything. That is for employees with an obligation to assign. Also the papers you signed related to the provisionals might have been more expansive than you think. Signing the documents could have included anything that came from them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is a US application and it has been published you can look the whole record up on USPTO Public PAIR. Who signed what and when." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4916" RevisionGUID="8e5fd32b-41bb-4d2c-a764-ccdd918a9aba" CreationDate="2013-08-30T15:55:09.377" UserId="5573" Text="This [blog post][1] seems to describe something similar.  Published Jan of 2011, the system would create user accounts based on a QRCode, a random shared secret key and the website being accessed. A similar process was used to log on to a website. There is a [working demo][2] linked on the site, along with the research relied on to help build it (most citations are from 2010).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the workflow section, it describes the account creation process. It is quite long so I haven't included it here, but to my slightly-trained eye it seems to fit all of the steps in this claimed patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://corp.galois.com/blog/2011/1/5/quick-authentication-using-mobile-devices-and-qr-codes.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://animate-innovations.com/content/animate-login-demo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11942" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="4917" RevisionGUID="ec43bff6-1b52-4d6e-a47a-342126ae9417" CreationDate="2013-08-30T16:09:30.353" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://answers.onstartups.com/questions/50696/former-employer-patenting-gnu-gpl-ed-algorithm" />
  <row Id="11943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4917" RevisionGUID="ae506d83-6007-45ca-bfcd-5a1b0a08a6bd" CreationDate="2013-08-29T23:43:32.547" UserId="5643" Text="my former employer uses a GNU GPL code-base in their products &amp; ships them, thus blatantly violating GPL. To top it off, they have filed for 2 patents to &quot;protect&quot; this &quot;invention&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can I do to stop the patenting process? I am aware of making USPTO aware of the OSS project. But what else can I do to prevent miscarriage of justice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would love to hear thoughts of some fellow entrepreneurs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know it's self-serving of me to post after my firing, but truth be told I needed that job and had to keep quiet.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11944" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4917" RevisionGUID="ae506d83-6007-45ca-bfcd-5a1b0a08a6bd" CreationDate="2013-08-29T23:43:32.547" UserId="5643" Text="(Former) Employer *Patenting* GNU-gpl-ed algorithm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11945" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4917" RevisionGUID="ae506d83-6007-45ca-bfcd-5a1b0a08a6bd" CreationDate="2013-08-29T23:43:32.547" UserId="5643" Text="&lt;intellectual-property&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4918" RevisionGUID="f5887e50-0fb5-48d3-975e-77a6ba86d7b4" CreationDate="2013-08-30T18:09:55.367" UserId="3076" Text="Ask Patents was specifically created to take advantage of a feature of the new AIA patent law that provides a specific was for the public to inform the USPTO of documents they think are prior art to a pending application. It can be done yourself on line. To preserve your anonymity can be done via a patent practitioner (patent agent or patent attorney). There is a time widow that starts when the application is published. The closing is triggered by a combination of the passage of time (6 months) and the date a first action on the merits is issued by the examiner. Under the AIA program the examiner is required to look at the submitted documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many things can affect patentablity and future validity other than published prior art documents BUT this program is only for prior art documents. Hypothetically, an email written after filing by an applicate saying he &quot;stole&quot; the idea would not be eligible to send in under this program. It is not &quot;published&quot; and it is not something pre-dating the filing that &quot;teaches&quot; the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your specific case the company may be claiming a relatively narrow improvement, twist, or specific application of something that is well known. They may have already put a good list of prior art in front of the examiner in an IDS. If the application has been published you can look all of that up in USPTO Public Pair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It you are an inventor on the patent or were involved in preparing the patent you have a duty of disclosure and candor to the USPTO. That can be discharged by telling what you know to an inventor or to the patent attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not a lawyer (I am a patent agent). It occurs to me that you may also have some legal responsibilities to your previous employer relative to their internal information and you probably do not want to be slandering, libeling, etc. them. In this case everything they are doing may be completely proper but may look bad from where you are standing and with the information and knowledge you have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4918" RevisionGUID="122e1f5f-1c41-4a1a-ab9b-82fa83e2fa4a" CreationDate="2013-08-30T19:38:22.673" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Ask Patents was specifically created to take advantage of a feature of the new AIA patent law that provides a specific ways for the public to inform the USPTO of documents they think are prior art to a pending application. It can be done yourself on line. To preserve your anonymity can be done via a patent practitioner (patent agent or patent attorney). There is a time widow that starts when the application is published. The closing is triggered by a combination of the passage of time (6 months) and the date a first action on the merits is issued by the examiner. Under the AIA program the examiner is required to look at the submitted documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many things can affect patentablity and future validity other than published prior art documents BUT this program is only for prior art documents. Hypothetically, an email written after filing by an applicate saying he &quot;stold&quot; the idea would not be eligible to send in under this program. It is not &quot;published&quot; and it is not something pre-dating the filing that &quot;teaches&quot; the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your specific case the company may be claiming a relatively narrow improvement, twist, or specific application of something that is well known. They may have already put a good list of prior art in front of the examiner in an IDS. If the application has been published you can look all of that up in USPTO Public Pair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It you are an inventor on the patent or were involved in preparing the patent you have a duty of disclosure and candor to the USPTO. That can be discharged by telling what you know to an inventor or to the patent attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not a lawyer (I am a patent agent). It occurs to me that you may also have some legal responsibilities to your previous employer relative to their internal information and you probably do not want to be slandering, libeling, etc. them. In this case everything they are doing may be completely proper but may look bad from where you are standing and with the information and knowledge you have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4919" RevisionGUID="364483da-4eb9-426f-b50e-a1f131b461e2" CreationDate="2013-08-30T23:55:39.630" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON targeting messages to users based on based on distance between user and a location** - This application from [a self-proclaimed &quot;Internet visionary&quot;][6] seeks to patent the idea of...geo-targeting messages to users! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/11/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using location between a user and a location to send messages to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO a radiofrequency tags are used to identify the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Delivering messages to users based on their location**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for delivering ads to users based on location: if user's device is within a predetermined distance of a location, sending the user a message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130179263 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/348,282&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:[a self-proclaimed &quot;Internet visionary&quot;][6] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/7/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for linking a person to a location, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a computer determining that a device of a person is within a predetermined distance of a location, based on data received from the device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the computer identifying the at least one of the person and the device, based on the received data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. the computer associating the at least one of the person and the device with the location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. the computer generating a message based on the association; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. the computer communicating the message to the person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for delivering ads to users based on user's location:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine with user is within predetermined distance of a location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identify the user or device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Associate (presumably in a database) the user with the location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generate a message for the user and send the message to the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Using RFID tags to identify the device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Communicating promotional content from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/BlZj7kI.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130179263?dq=US20130179263A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://gawker.com/5516162/visionary-eric-leebow-thinks-he-invented-the-social-network" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11949" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4919" RevisionGUID="364483da-4eb9-426f-b50e-a1f131b461e2" CreationDate="2013-08-30T23:55:39.630" UserId="1767" Text="Mobile ads - Location-based based messages (from a self-proclaimed &quot;Internet visionary&quot;) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11950" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4919" RevisionGUID="364483da-4eb9-426f-b50e-a1f131b461e2" CreationDate="2013-08-30T23:55:39.630" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;geo-target&gt;&lt;us20130179263&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4918" RevisionGUID="25e30cec-545b-49fb-a2e2-0ca2d2403929" CreationDate="2013-08-31T00:07:47.087" UserId="3076" Comment="Added &quot;later of&quot;" Text="Ask Patents was specifically created to take advantage of a feature of the new AIA patent law that provides a specific ways for the public to inform the USPTO of documents they think are prior art to a pending application. It can be done yourself on line. To preserve your anonymity can be done via a patent practitioner (patent agent or patent attorney). There is a time widow that starts when the application is published. The closing is the later of the day 6 months after publishing and the date a first action on the merits is issued by the examiner. Under the AIA program the examiner is required to look at the submitted documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many things can affect patentablity and future validity other than published prior art documents BUT this program is only for prior art documents. Hypothetically, an email written after filing by an applicate saying he &quot;stold&quot; the idea would not be eligible to send in under this program. It is not &quot;published&quot; and it is not something pre-dating the filing that &quot;teaches&quot; the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your specific case the company may be claiming a relatively narrow improvement, twist, or specific application of something that is well known. They may have already put a good list of prior art in front of the examiner in an IDS. If the application has been published you can look all of that up in USPTO Public Pair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It you are an inventor on the patent or were involved in preparing the patent you have a duty of disclosure and candor to the USPTO. That can be discharged by telling what you know to an inventor or to the patent attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not a lawyer (I am a patent agent). It occurs to me that you may also have some legal responsibilities to your previous employer relative to their internal information and you probably do not want to be slandering, libeling, etc. them. In this case everything they are doing may be completely proper but may look bad from where you are standing and with the information and knowledge you have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4919" RevisionGUID="48d6a028-0a74-4645-9636-c94e8b093ab7" CreationDate="2013-08-31T00:19:26.743" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON targeting messages to users based on based on distance between user and a location** - This application from [a self-proclaimed &quot;Internet visionary&quot;][6] seeks to patent the idea of...geo-targeting messages to users! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/11/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using location between a user and a location to send messages to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO a radiofrequency tags are used to identify the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Delivering messages to users based on their location**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for delivering ads to users based on location: if user's device is within a predetermined distance of a location, sending the user a message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130179263 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/348,282&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:[a self-proclaimed &quot;Internet visionary&quot;][6] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/7/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for linking a person to a location, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a computer determining that a device of a person is within a predetermined distance of a location, based on data received from the device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the computer identifying the at least one of the person and the device, based on the received data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. the computer associating the at least one of the person and the device with the location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. the computer generating a message based on the association; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. the computer communicating the message to the person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for delivering ads to users based on user's location:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine with user is within predetermined distance of a location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identify the user or device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Associate (presumably in a database) the user with the location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generate a message for the user and send the message to the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Using RFID tags to identify the device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Communicating promotional content from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/BlZj7kI.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130179263?dq=US20130179263A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://gawker.com/5516162/visionary-eric-leebow-thinks-he-invented-the-social-network" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4918" RevisionGUID="a36cf05d-1955-40e4-8844-4ea8b660ab62" CreationDate="2013-08-31T02:38:39.560" UserId="3076" Comment="added 214 characters in body" Text="Ask Patents was specifically created to take advantage of a feature of the new AIA patent law that provides a specific ways for the public to inform the USPTO of documents they think are prior art to a pending application. It can be done yourself on line. To preserve your anonymity can be done via a patent practitioner (patent agent or patent attorney). There is a time widow that starts when the application is published. The closing is the later of the day 6 months after publishing and the date a first action on the merits is issued by the examiner. Under the AIA program the examiner is required to look at the submitted documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many things can affect patentablity and future validity other than published prior art documents BUT this program is only for prior art documents. Hypothetically, an email written after filing by an applicate saying he &quot;stold&quot; the idea would not be eligible to send in under this program. It is not &quot;published&quot; and it is not something pre-dating the filing that &quot;teaches&quot; the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your specific case the company may be claiming a relatively narrow improvement, twist, or specific application of something that is well known. They may have already put a good list of prior art in front of the examiner in an IDS. If the application has been published you can look all of that up in USPTO Public Pair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It you are an inventor on the patent or were involved in preparing the patent you have a duty of disclosure and candor to the USPTO. That can be discharged by telling what you know to an inventor or to the patent attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not a lawyer (I am a patent agent). It occurs to me that you may also have some legal responsibilities to your previous employer relative to their internal information and you probably do not want to be slandering, libeling, etc. them. In this case everything they are doing may be completely proper but may look bad from where you are standing and with the information and knowledge you have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; An inventor no longer with the company might be in an awkward position. They have presumably signed a declaration stating that they consider themselves the true inventor and understand the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4919" RevisionGUID="9ec17b05-04f4-4d48-9186-cdb409c21b38" CreationDate="2013-08-31T03:35:58.903" UserId="1767" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON targeting messages to users based on based on distance between user and a location** - This application from [a self-proclaimed &quot;Internet visionary&quot;][6] seeks to patent the idea of...geo-targeting messages to users! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/11/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using location between a user and a location to send messages to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO a radiofrequency tags are used to identify the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Delivering messages to users based on their location**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for delivering ads to users based on location: if user's device is within a predetermined distance of a location, sending the user a message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130179263 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/348,282&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:[a self-proclaimed &quot;Internet visionary&quot;][6] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/7/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for linking a person to a location, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a computer determining that a device of a person is within a predetermined distance of a location, based on data received from the device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the computer identifying the at least one of the person and the device, based on the received data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. the computer associating the at least one of the person and the device with the location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. the computer generating a message based on the association; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. the computer communicating the message to the person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for delivering ads to users based on user's location:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine with user is within predetermined distance of a location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identify the user or device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Associate (presumably in a database) the user with the location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generate a message for the user and send the message to the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Using RFID tags to identify the device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Communicating promotional content from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/BlZj7kI.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130179263?dq=US20130179263A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://gawker.com/5516162/visionary-eric-leebow-thinks-he-invented-the-social-network&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130179263" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4867" RevisionGUID="2b616c2c-0d90-4234-94af-62d2c7bef510" CreationDate="2013-08-31T07:42:03.937" UserId="4099" Comment="modify wording in line with george's comment" Text="**According to a round-up published by Forbes in September 2000, Disappearing Inc, Zixmail, and Ziplip.com all offered self-destructing email services** from well before the prior art cutoff for the present filing.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.forbes.com/2000/09/12/feat.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disappearing Inc:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In our tests, Disappearing E-mail was easy to use and worked well as long as we were using Microsoft Outlook. One message we sent was set to expire after less than 30 minutes and did in fact expire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zixmail:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As with Disappearing E-mail, the encrypted message is stored on Zixmail servers and expires after the number of days the sender chooses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ziplip.com:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A Web-based mail service, Mountain View, Calif.-based ZipLip.com also offers the option to set the expiration time for secure e-mail. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All three services therefore anticipate and invalidate paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 of claim 31 in the present filing.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4866" RevisionGUID="b5f3dc80-ce97-4812-924f-407f8eef4c32" CreationDate="2013-08-31T07:44:19.337" UserId="4099" Comment="modify wording in line with george's comment" Text="From way back in August 1999, **the 1on1mail.com service** offered self-destructing email. According to a report by Australia's ABC News at the time:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s47331.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...Global Markets Research, a London-based company, has given its 1on1mail service an added security feature called **autoshredder, which allows the user to set the e-mail to delete itself from the recipient's computer a specified amount of time after being opened.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;To make sure the messages arrive safely, the company has designed the 1on1mail package as a secure network within the wider network of the Internet--a &quot;client-based application&quot;. This ensures that the route is always secure, says technical director Steven James.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And to guarantee that the messages self-destruct as planned, the package also prevents recipients from performing certain actions that would undermine security. &quot;You can't just cut and paste out of it, that would be pointless,&quot; says James. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 1999 invention was also covered by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Wired news: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1999/08/21452&#xD;&#xA;* BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/430084.stm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 1999 invention therefore directly anticipates and invalidates paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 of claim 31 of the present filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The statement by Stephen James that &quot;You can't just cut and paste out of it&quot; also invalidates claim 35 of the present filing (&quot;35. The method of claim 32 wherein the prohibited operation comprises copying contents of the self-destructing electronic mail message into a memory and pasting the contents of the self-destructing electronic message from the memory into a new document.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4920" RevisionGUID="6a5585a1-6a7e-45b3-b425-f2ede779ae07" CreationDate="2013-08-31T13:09:08.560" UserId="5650" Text="A startup called Doot seems to have implemented location based messages in September of 2011. Does this suffice as prior art? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://thenextweb.com/apps/2011/09/20/doot-is-a-novel-take-on-location-based-messaging-and-commerce-now-available-on-the-iphone/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;...with the Doot app, you’re able to tag a location with a message, or a doot, even when you’re not there.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The feature set in the app actually seems much more extensive than simple messages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Physical gifting is another part of a three-tiered monetization strategy, which also includes virtual gifts and hyperlocal brand engagement, where merchants can use the platform for a number of customer targeting activities.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4869" RevisionGUID="e0498984-8108-4fb8-95d0-0ba399a2bc49" CreationDate="2013-08-31T17:51:29.537" UserId="4099" Comment="improve clarity" Text="This functionality was part of the Java ME specification (http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=37). When an application was updated or replaced, the data associated could be manipulated or destroyed. In this case, a MIDlet is the term used for the mobile application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From http://docs.oracle.com/javame/config/cldc/ref-impl/midp1.0/jsr037/index.html &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    Published : 19 Sep, 2000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When a MIDlet suite is removed from a platform all the record stores&#xD;&#xA;&gt; associated with its MIDlets will also be removed. These APIs only&#xD;&#xA;&gt; allow the manipulation of the MIDlet suite's own record stores, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; does not provide any mechanism for record sharing between MIDlets in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different MIDlet suites. MIDlets within a MIDlet suite can access each&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other's record stores directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A set of slides by Tommy Egeberg from 2006, for his MsC thesis, makes explicit the relevance of the midlet upgrade mechanism to the current patent filing:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.hig.no/content/download/5150/83760/file/Storage%20of%20sensitive%20data%20in%20a%20Java%20enabled%20cell%20phone.ppt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Egeberg teaches the concept of a &quot;Stealing Midlet&quot; which he describes as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Upgrade a previously installed MIDlet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The RMS will not be erased&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Read the stored information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Identical values in the JAD file&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Can be used to inject Trojan code&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Stealing Midlet is therefore identical to the concept of the &quot;dummy app&quot; in the present patent filing: it is a dummy application which overwrites the currently installed app for the sole purpose of accessing and/or manipulating that app's stored data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Egeberg's 2006 invention of a stealing midlet therefore appears to anticipate and invalidate the present filing's claims regarding a dummy app.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11961" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4869" RevisionGUID="e0498984-8108-4fb8-95d0-0ba399a2bc49" CreationDate="2013-08-31T17:51:29.537" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 1259, 3076 edit id of 430" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4867" RevisionGUID="68e3b010-3549-4d6d-b2c1-9edb5b772d3c" CreationDate="2013-08-31T18:07:28.177" UserId="3076" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="**According to a round-up published by Forbes in September 2000, Disappearing Inc, Zixmail, and Ziplip.com all offered self-destructing email services** from well before the prior art cutoff for the present filing.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.forbes.com/2000/09/12/feat.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disappearing Inc:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In our tests, Disappearing E-mail was easy to use and worked well as long as we were using Microsoft Outlook. One message we sent was set to expire after less than 30 minutes and did in fact expire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zixmail:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As with Disappearing E-mail, the encrypted message is stored on Zixmail servers and expires after the number of days the sender chooses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ziplip.com:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A Web-based mail service, Mountain View, Calif.-based ZipLip.com also offers the option to set the expiration time for secure e-mail. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All three services therefore anticipate the limitiations in sections 1, 3 and 4 of claim 31 in the present filing. Missing is the step in section 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4922" RevisionGUID="476eaf20-9f69-446e-a04a-01ff7541fc75" CreationDate="2013-09-01T03:58:49.943" UserId="5655" Text="Is it possible for an Indy developer to self-publish software? Even if you crossed your Is and dotted your Ts, documented prior art for every single idea you were conscious, that at least a dozen patents would end up being infringed upon regardless on the nature of the non-trivial-project, even if you went to court and were found innocent the minimum damage is estimated two million, so you can imagine how vulnerable that makes an independent publisher/developer to trolls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What steps, if any, should an independent developer take in avoiding litigation, it honestly seems impossible at this point. Despite five years of school and 10 years of research, I've decided to stop all further development until I find some answers. For the amount of time/research it takes to be successful, the chance of success is extremely poor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've looked at everything I can imagine, from forming an LLC to finding an expired patent or prior art for every idea, but nothing seems to guarantee that I won't loose my house/car/wife/kids etc... Normally I'd be the type to take a risk, but these odds are nothing short of Blackjack in Vegas using a no-limit credit card with a professional dirty dealer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over eighty million a year in damages to the economy by software patents, it's no wonder there are virtually no small businesses (and thus few jobs) operating in this sphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it even possible for us?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11970" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4922" RevisionGUID="476eaf20-9f69-446e-a04a-01ff7541fc75" CreationDate="2013-09-01T03:58:49.943" UserId="5655" Text="Is it possible for an Indy developer to self-publish software" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11971" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4922" RevisionGUID="476eaf20-9f69-446e-a04a-01ff7541fc75" CreationDate="2013-09-01T03:58:49.943" UserId="5655" Text="&lt;process&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4923" RevisionGUID="7413347b-d999-41d9-8e05-577be4e9c889" CreationDate="2013-09-01T04:22:28.610" UserId="5655" Text="So, in laymen's terms (i'm not a lawyer) if the USPTO approves your patent, you can be sued for infringing another patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does liability fall on the inventor or the person filing (lawyer?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm scared stiff!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4924" RevisionGUID="60b087dd-cde3-44b6-a566-c5a33ddeb51a" CreationDate="2013-09-01T04:49:20.933" UserId="3076" Text="You can incorporate, you can buy patent insurance and they can't really take your wife and kids. The GAO put out a [report][1] this week on the impact of patent litigation that has data showing &quot;trolls&quot; are involved in only about 1/5 of the cases. I think 2 million is an average not a minimum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An opinion: It does sound daunting but software companies are started every day, some small ones grow huge and valuable and to better judge the impact of the number of millions &quot;lost&quot;, it should be viewed as a numerator over the denominator of a 300 billion software industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/657104.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4814" RevisionGUID="bfb6f319-e57a-4bab-b5aa-b9865d795095" CreationDate="2013-09-01T05:02:59.920" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON transferring data to a server based on user travel plans** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...transferring data in cloud storage system from a data server near a user usual location to a data server near where a user plans to travel! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2011** that discusses: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Moving data between servers based on user travel plans&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves accessing a user's calendar to figure out where he will travel and when&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transferring data between servers based on travel plans of a user**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for moving data between data servers bsaed on travel plans of a user (basically, if the user is traveling somewhere, moving some data from his &quot;home&quot; server to a server which is closer to the location he will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144978 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/309,640&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/3/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. locating a data server near a travel location of a user based on one or more travel plans of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transferring data of the user from a home data server near a home location of the user to the data server near the travel location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of data relocation in a cloud storage environment, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Locating a data server which is physically close to a location of a user based on travel plans of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Transferring data of the user from the home data server to the data server near the travel location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming accessing the user's calendar to figure out where he will travel so data can be moved there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for data relocation in cloud storage environments from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rLnVZ5M.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130144978?dq=US20130144978A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130144978" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4834" RevisionGUID="80ed6678-906e-4b3f-a196-b77e738d28cd" CreationDate="2013-09-01T05:03:49.597" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON suggesting customer migrate to the Cloud** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Suggesting customers use a cloud computer infrastructure...! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/8/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Measuring historical performance data, identifying recurring IT problem which could be mitigated with cloud computing infrastructure and generating customer reports identifying migration to the cloud&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Suggesting cloud migration**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for suggesting a customer use cloud computing… Measuring historical data, identifying recurring IT problems, determing cloud computing could solve the problem, and generating a report&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130205007 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/368,491&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting migration to a cloud computing infrastructure, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. at least one processor analyzing historical incident data of an information technology (IT) environment, the analysis indicating any problems occurring in the IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the at least one processor determining, based on the historical incident data, that a problem is recurring in the IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. the at least one processor determining that the problem can be mitigated in the cloud computing infrastructure; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. the at least one processor generating a report particular to the IT environment, the report identifying a benefit of migrating the IT environment to the cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Analyzing historical IT data and finding problems in the customer's IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying recurring IT problem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determing problem can be mitigated in cloud computing infrastructure;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generating a report showing the benefits of cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure from the Applicant from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/agiOz4X.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130205007?dq=20130205007&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130144978" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4924" RevisionGUID="aa3f13a1-4a79-404f-9683-dd5e624d4721" CreationDate="2013-09-01T05:03:55.440" UserId="3076" Comment="added 180 characters in body" Text="&quot;Virtually no small businesses in this sphere&quot;? There are thousands of small software startups. A site I just googled that lists jobs in software startups showed 2000 openings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can incorporate, you can buy patent insurance and they can't really take your wife and kids. The GAO put out a [report][1] this week on the impact of patent litigation that has data showing &quot;trolls&quot; are involved in only about 1/5 of the cases. I think 2 million is an average not a minimum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An opinion: It does sound daunting but software companies are started every day, some small ones grow huge and valuable and to better judge the impact of the number of millions &quot;lost&quot;, it should be viewed as a numerator over the denominator of a 300 billion software industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than trying to establish that everything you are doing is old why not truly innovate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/657104.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4922" RevisionGUID="be994d20-997f-40ac-b655-5780589a35cc" CreationDate="2013-09-01T10:23:34.357" UserId="5655" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="Is it possible for an Indy developer to self-publish software? Even if you crossed your Is and dotted your Ts, documented prior art for every single idea you were conscious, that at least a dozen patents would end up being infringed upon regardless on the nature of the non-trivial-project, even if you went to court and were found innocent the minimum damage is estimated two million, so you can imagine how vulnerable that makes an independent publisher/developer to trolls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What steps, if any, should an independent developer take in avoiding litigation, it honestly seems impossible at this point. Despite five years of school and 10 years of research, I've decided to stop all further development until I find some answers. For the amount of time/research it takes to be successful, the chance of success is extremely poor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've looked at everything I can imagine, from forming an LLC to finding an expired patent or prior art for every idea, but nothing seems to guarantee that I won't loose my house/car/wife/kids etc... Normally I'd be the type to take a risk, but these odds are nothing short of Blackjack in Vegas using a no-limit credit card with a professional dirty dealer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over eighty million (EDIT: BILLION) a year in damages to the economy by trolls alone, it's no wonder there are virtually no small businesses (and thus few jobs) operating in this sphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it even possible for us?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11978" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4922" RevisionGUID="d1918ec0-ebba-4c74-8b51-26a8026cf042" CreationDate="2013-09-01T12:47:32.400" UserId="1259" Comment="tag added" Text="&lt;process&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4834" RevisionGUID="cee858ce-4006-4405-a721-f235761f30f7" CreationDate="2013-09-02T02:39:07.417" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON suggesting customer migrate to the Cloud** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Suggesting customers use a cloud computer infrastructure...! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/8/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Measuring historical performance data, identifying recurring IT problem which could be mitigated with cloud computing infrastructure and generating customer reports identifying migration to the cloud&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Suggesting cloud migration**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for suggesting a customer use cloud computing… Measuring historical data, identifying recurring IT problems, determing cloud computing could solve the problem, and generating a report&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130205007 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/368,491&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting migration to a cloud computing infrastructure, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. at least one processor analyzing historical incident data of an information technology (IT) environment, the analysis indicating any problems occurring in the IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the at least one processor determining, based on the historical incident data, that a problem is recurring in the IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. the at least one processor determining that the problem can be mitigated in the cloud computing infrastructure; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. the at least one processor generating a report particular to the IT environment, the report identifying a benefit of migrating the IT environment to the cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Analyzing historical IT data and finding problems in the customer's IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying recurring IT problem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determing problem can be mitigated in cloud computing infrastructure;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generating a report showing the benefits of cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure from the Applicant from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/agiOz4X.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130205007?dq=20130205007&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130144978" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4814" RevisionGUID="690dc7e1-316f-4ff7-ac28-81116477fe70" CreationDate="2013-09-02T03:28:57.500" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON transferring data to a server based on user travel plans** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...transferring data in cloud storage system from a data server near a user usual location to a data server near where a user plans to travel! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2011** that discusses: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Moving data between servers based on user travel plans&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves accessing a user's calendar to figure out where he will travel and when&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transferring data between servers based on travel plans of a user**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for moving data between data servers bsaed on travel plans of a user (basically, if the user is traveling somewhere, moving some data from his &quot;home&quot; server to a server which is closer to the location he will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144978 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/309,640&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/3/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. locating a data server near a travel location of a user based on one or more travel plans of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transferring data of the user from a home data server near a home location of the user to the data server near the travel location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of data relocation in a cloud storage environment, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Locating a data server which is physically close to a location of a user based on travel plans of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Transferring data of the user from the home data server to the data server near the travel location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming accessing the user's calendar to figure out where he will travel so data can be moved there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for data relocation in cloud storage environments from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rLnVZ5M.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130144978?dq=US20130144978A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130144978" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4834" RevisionGUID="013150f0-435b-43a2-b53d-ca23b990346a" CreationDate="2013-09-02T05:17:06.230" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON suggesting customer migrate to the Cloud** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Suggesting customers use a cloud computer infrastructure...! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/8/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Measuring historical performance data, identifying recurring IT problem which could be mitigated with cloud computing infrastructure and generating customer reports identifying migration to the cloud&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Suggesting cloud migration**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for suggesting a customer use cloud computing… Measuring historical data, identifying recurring IT problems, determing cloud computing could solve the problem, and generating a report&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130205007 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/368,491&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting migration to a cloud computing infrastructure, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. at least one processor analyzing historical incident data of an information technology (IT) environment, the analysis indicating any problems occurring in the IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the at least one processor determining, based on the historical incident data, that a problem is recurring in the IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. the at least one processor determining that the problem can be mitigated in the cloud computing infrastructure; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. the at least one processor generating a report particular to the IT environment, the report identifying a benefit of migrating the IT environment to the cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Analyzing historical IT data and finding problems in the customer's IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying recurring IT problem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determing problem can be mitigated in cloud computing infrastructure;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generating a report showing the benefits of cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure from the Applicant from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/agiOz4X.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130205007?dq=20130205007&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130144978" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4814" RevisionGUID="ed279a3a-7741-4fb7-9179-0752ae09d1b0" CreationDate="2013-09-02T05:17:17.247" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON transferring data to a server based on user travel plans** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...transferring data in cloud storage system from a data server near a user usual location to a data server near where a user plans to travel! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2011** that discusses: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Moving data between servers based on user travel plans&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves accessing a user's calendar to figure out where he will travel and when&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transferring data between servers based on travel plans of a user**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for moving data between data servers bsaed on travel plans of a user (basically, if the user is traveling somewhere, moving some data from his &quot;home&quot; server to a server which is closer to the location he will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144978 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/309,640&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/3/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. locating a data server near a travel location of a user based on one or more travel plans of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transferring data of the user from a home data server near a home location of the user to the data server near the travel location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of data relocation in a cloud storage environment, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Locating a data server which is physically close to a location of a user based on travel plans of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Transferring data of the user from the home data server to the data server near the travel location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming accessing the user's calendar to figure out where he will travel so data can be moved there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for data relocation in cloud storage environments from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rLnVZ5M.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130144978?dq=US20130144978A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130144978" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4925" RevisionGUID="dbd1d1fc-52c2-47cf-b139-812cdfb63bed" CreationDate="2013-09-02T15:38:57.290" UserId="5660" Text="There is tons of prior art in this space. Here are some I could find with a quick search:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US7471946&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/WO2001086918A3 (And it's related US counterpart: https://www.google.com/patents/US20040198396)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/EP1418781A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/EP1738595A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of these also talk about 1) leaving a message associated with a location, and 2) transmitting that message to other devices near or at the location. This patent's claims focuses on only the latter aspect, but those seem to be covered by these references as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recall seeing an application filed circa 2007 that is even more relevant to these claims, but I just can't find it now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4927" RevisionGUID="35f92751-abee-43ec-8204-a641617c71c5" CreationDate="2013-09-02T22:47:02.300" UserId="5662" Text="After doing some more research. The patent us6108955a has expired.  So if that is the case then I should be able to start my company using this system without fear of any legal recourse.  Please tell me if I am wrong" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11988" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4927" RevisionGUID="35f92751-abee-43ec-8204-a641617c71c5" CreationDate="2013-09-02T22:47:02.300" UserId="5662" Text="US6108955 A patent seems to be expired" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11989" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4927" RevisionGUID="35f92751-abee-43ec-8204-a641617c71c5" CreationDate="2013-09-02T22:47:02.300" UserId="5662" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11990" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4927" RevisionGUID="e6bcbd2b-c1e5-4403-95d9-6e877c123a32" CreationDate="2013-09-03T01:01:03.130" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;us6108955&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4928" RevisionGUID="54d85b46-96c3-4485-bd2a-f4e9a9ffbcb0" CreationDate="2013-09-03T01:44:03.650" UserId="5655" Text="For example, lets take a look at all the FUD created by this patent.&#xD;&#xA;http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2009/09/multiple-mmo-developerspublishers-named-in-patent-suit/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems publishing a video game with multiplier features violates this industry-wide patent. So, as an indie game developer, you're restricted to single player only (and another slew of related patents in that area) if you don't want to risk of earning the interest of these specific patent holders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you had truly innovative ideas and were going to do things nobody had done before, multiplayer gaming requires that you &quot;allow players to experience the same digital environments simultaneously.&quot; --Arstechnica&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can see there isn't any straightforward way to license this &quot;technology&quot; meaning this patent alone could literally be the death of an entire industry (indie published multiplayer games).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, this isn't to say &quot;boohoo it's hopeless&quot; but to figure out how it's possible to avoid litigation in the indie game software industry. So, in the spirit of staying positive lets explore our options/solutoins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that this patent could be overturned (but you never know), but when you consider that for indie developers working a full time job, working in their garage in their spare time, R&amp;D, licensing and publishing costs alone are more than they can afford in terms of both time and money. Add legal fees and time spent litigating and there isn't hardly any time/money left to put towards their project. Maybe the &quot;brilliant developer working out of his garage&quot; scenario isn't something society rewards anymore..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just for the sake of some hope in the face of complete despair, let me say this. I think there is somewhat of a solution to be found in the wisdom of picking the right publisher. As such I'm opt to ask, what should a developer look for in a publisher, would the publisher or the developer be held accountable for the infringing a patented &quot;technology&quot;? Should a developer expect a publisher to hold some wealth in software patents? Should he look somewhere else if they don't have any? Any knowledge/advice on the relationship between patent law and picking a publisher would be will within the spirit of this Q&amp;A." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11993" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4928" RevisionGUID="caf8144f-3522-4145-8f1b-affdba8a18f7" CreationDate="2013-09-03T02:04:02.677" UserId="5655" Comment="added 197 characters in body" Text="For example, lets take a look at all the FUD created by this patent.&#xD;&#xA;http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2009/09/multiple-mmo-developerspublishers-named-in-patent-suit/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems publishing a video game with multiplier features violates this industry-wide patent. So, as an indie game developer, you're restricted to single player only (and another slew of related patents in that area) if you don't want to risk of earning the interest of these specific patent holders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you had truly innovative ideas and were going to do things nobody had done before, multiplayer gaming requires that you &quot;allow players to experience the same digital environments simultaneously.&quot; --Arstechnica&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can see there isn't any straightforward way to license this &quot;technology&quot; meaning this patent alone could literally be the death of an entire industry (indie published multiplayer games).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, this isn't to say &quot;boohoo it's hopeless&quot; but to figure out how it's possible to avoid litigation in the indie game software industry. So, in the spirit of staying positive lets explore our options/solutoins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that this patent could be overturned (but you never know), but when you consider that for indie developers working a full time job, working in their garage in their spare time, R&amp;D, licensing and publishing costs alone are more than they can afford in terms of both time and money. Add legal fees and time spent litigating and there isn't hardly any time/money left to put towards their project. Maybe the &quot;brilliant developer working out of his garage&quot; scenario isn't something society rewards anymore..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just for the sake of some hope in the face of complete despair, let me say this. I think there is somewhat of a solution to be found in the wisdom of picking the right publisher. As such I'm opt to ask, what should a developer look for in a publisher, would the publisher or the developer be held accountable for the infringing a patented &quot;technology&quot;? Should a developer expect a publisher to hold some wealth in software patents? Should he look somewhere else if they don't have any? Any knowledge/advice on the relationship between patent law and picking a publisher would be will within the spirit of this Q&amp;A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a lawyer, so any speculation here should be taken as tongue in cheek, an exercise in theory/philosophy, not legal counsel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4929" RevisionGUID="c6b962c2-950d-4cbd-acce-12294093215f" CreationDate="2013-09-03T02:23:28.287" UserId="5663" Text="The YP Mobile App for Android already has this capability" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4930" RevisionGUID="e67befbe-6ee0-4b3d-a697-19a434a76ba8" CreationDate="2013-09-03T02:57:18.563" UserId="5664" Text="Can a patent be filed if it directly involves an illegal substance? For example, this patent: &#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US20130059018&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;THC is an illegal substance under U.S. federal law. I assume patents such as this must be possible since they exist, but where exactly is the line drawn for patents that involve violating a current law?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11996" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4930" RevisionGUID="e67befbe-6ee0-4b3d-a697-19a434a76ba8" CreationDate="2013-09-03T02:57:18.563" UserId="5664" Text="Patent involving illegal substances" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11997" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4930" RevisionGUID="e67befbe-6ee0-4b3d-a697-19a434a76ba8" CreationDate="2013-09-03T02:57:18.563" UserId="5664" Text="&lt;us20130059018&gt;&lt;illegal&gt;&lt;thc&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4928" RevisionGUID="e41de61b-de98-465d-a190-b15127d4fb1b" CreationDate="2013-09-03T04:25:02.453" UserId="5655" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="For example, lets take a look at all the FUD created by this patent.&#xD;&#xA;http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2009/09/multiple-mmo-developerspublishers-named-in-patent-suit/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems publishing a video game with multiplayer features violates this industry-wide patent. So, as an indie game developer, you're restricted to single player only (and another slew of related patents in that area) if you don't want to risk of earning the interest of these specific patent holders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you had truly innovative ideas and were going to do things nobody had done before, multiplayer gaming requires that you &quot;allow players to experience the same digital environments simultaneously.&quot; --Arstechnica&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can see there isn't any straightforward way to license this &quot;technology&quot; meaning this patent alone could literally be the death of an entire industry (indie published multiplayer games).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, this isn't to say &quot;boohoo it's hopeless&quot; but to figure out how it's possible to avoid litigation in the indie game software industry. So, in the spirit of staying positive lets explore our options/solutoins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that this patent could be overturned (but you never know), but when you consider that for indie developers working a full time job, working in their garage in their spare time, R&amp;D, licensing and publishing costs alone are more than they can afford in terms of both time and money. Add legal fees and time spent litigating and there isn't hardly any time/money left to put towards their project. Maybe the &quot;brilliant developer working out of his garage&quot; scenario isn't something society rewards anymore..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just for the sake of some hope in the face of complete despair, let me say this. I think there is somewhat of a solution to be found in the wisdom of picking the right publisher. As such I'm opt to ask, what are some positive characteristics to look for in a publisher, would the publisher or the developer be held accountable for the infringing a patented &quot;technology&quot;? What benefits could be found by expecting a publisher to hold some wealth in software patents? What are the potential downsides if they don't have any? Any knowledge/advice on the relationship between patent law and picking a publisher would be will within the spirit of this Q&amp;A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a lawyer, so any speculation here should be taken as tongue in cheek, an exercise in theory/philosophy, not legal counsel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4928" RevisionGUID="4235c2cf-4f7a-434b-95c8-cf1e182f0bf8" CreationDate="2013-09-03T04:30:49.303" UserId="5655" Comment="edited body" Text="For example, lets take a look at all the FUD created by this patent.&#xD;&#xA;http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2009/09/multiple-mmo-developerspublishers-named-in-patent-suit/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems publishing a video game with multiplayer features violates this industry-wide patent. So, as an indie game developer, you're restricted to single player only (and another slew of related patents in that area) if you don't want to risk of earning the interest of these specific patent holders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you had truly innovative ideas and were going to do things nobody had done before, multiplayer gaming requires that you &quot;allow players to experience the same digital environments simultaneously.&quot; --Arstechnica&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can see there isn't any straightforward way to license this &quot;technology&quot; meaning this patent alone could literally be the death of an entire industry (indie published multiplayer games).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, this isn't to say &quot;boohoo it's hopeless&quot; but to figure out how it's possible to avoid litigation in the indie game software industry. So, in the spirit of staying positive lets explore our options/solutoins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that this patent could be overturned (but you never know), but when you consider that for indie developers working a full time job, working in their garage in their spare time, R&amp;D, licensing and publishing costs alone are more than they can afford in terms of both time and money. Add legal fees and time spent litigating and there isn't hardly any time/money left to put towards their project. Maybe the &quot;brilliant developer working out of his garage&quot; scenario isn't something society rewards anymore..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just for the sake of some hope in the face of complete despair, let me say this. I think there is somewhat of a solution to be found in the wisdom of picking the right publisher. As such I'm opt to ask, what are some positive characteristics to look for in a publisher, would the publisher or the developer be held accountable for the infringing a patented &quot;technology&quot;? What benefits could be found by expecting a publisher to hold some wealth in software patents? What are the potential downsides if they don't have any? Any knowledge/advice on the relationship between patent law and picking a publisher would be well within the spirit of this Q&amp;A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a lawyer, so any speculation here should be taken as tongue in cheek, an exercise in theory/philosophy, not legal counsel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4922" RevisionGUID="817c03eb-1eb0-4d6f-8dd0-19614532aad1" CreationDate="2013-09-03T04:36:52.857" UserId="5655" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Is it possible for an Indy developer to self-publish software? Even if you crossed your Is and dotted your Ts, documented prior art for every single idea you were conscious, that at least a dozen patents would end up being infringed upon regardless on the nature of the non-trivial-project, even if you went to court and were found innocent the minimum damage is estimated two million, so you can imagine how vulnerable that makes an independent publisher/developer to trolls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What steps, if any, should an independent developer take in avoiding litigation, it honestly seems impossible at this point. Despite five years of school and 10 years of research, I've decided to stop all further development until I find some answers. For the amount of time/research it takes to be successful, the chance of success seems extremely poor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've looked at everything I can imagine, from forming an LLC to finding an expired patent or prior art for every idea, but nothing seems to guarantee that I won't loose my house/car/wife/kids etc... Normally I'd be the type to take a risk, but these odds are nothing short of Blackjack in Vegas using a no-limit credit card with a professional dirty dealer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over eighty million (EDIT: BILLION) a year in damages to the economy by trolls alone, it's no wonder there are virtually (EDIT: relatively few) no small businesses (and thus few jobs) operating in this sphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it even possible for us?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4928" RevisionGUID="cf994566-d8d0-41c6-923e-4bbf3673c93e" CreationDate="2013-09-03T04:40:00.353" UserId="5655" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="For example, lets take a look at all the FUD created by this patent.&#xD;&#xA;http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2009/09/multiple-mmo-developerspublishers-named-in-patent-suit/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems publishing a video game with multiplayer features violates this industry-wide patent. So, as an indie game developer, you're restricted to single player only (and another slew of related patents in that area, I'm sure) if you don't want to risk of earning the interest of these specific patent holders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you had truly innovative ideas and were going to do things nobody had done before, multiplayer gaming requires that you &quot;allow players to experience the same digital environments simultaneously.&quot; --Arstechnica&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can see there isn't any straightforward way to license this &quot;technology&quot; meaning this patent alone could literally be the death of an entire industry (indie published multiplayer games).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, this isn't to say &quot;boohoo it's hopeless&quot; but to figure out how it's possible to avoid litigation in the indie game software industry. So, in the spirit of staying positive lets explore our options/solutoins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that this patent could be overturned (but you never know), but when you consider that for indie developers working a full time job, working in their garage in their spare time, R&amp;D, licensing and publishing costs alone are more than they can afford in terms of both time and money. Add legal fees and time spent litigating and there isn't hardly any time/money left to put towards their project. Maybe the &quot;brilliant developer working out of his garage&quot; scenario isn't something society rewards anymore..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just for the sake of some hope in the face of complete despair, let me say this. I think there is somewhat of a solution to be found in the wisdom of picking the right publisher. As such I'm opt to ask, what are some positive characteristics to look for in a publisher, would the publisher or the developer be held accountable for the infringing a patented &quot;technology&quot;? What benefits could be found by expecting a publisher to hold some wealth in software patents? What are the potential downsides if they don't have any? Any knowledge/advice on the relationship between patent law and picking a publisher would be well within the spirit of this Q&amp;A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a lawyer, so any speculation here should be taken as tongue in cheek, an exercise in theory/philosophy, not legal counsel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4931" RevisionGUID="e555b671-b474-48a4-93d7-258ddf3230f3" CreationDate="2013-09-03T05:15:30.007" UserId="3076" Text="It is a widespread misunderstanding that having a patent on something implies you are allowed to make and sell the thing. No, a patent only provides the right to **stop others** from doing something. A patent doesn't imply the government thinks it is a good idea, is legal to possess, works better than existing things, works well. It may not work at all - as long as it seems like it would work on its face. Still, I wouldn't try to patent anything related to atomic weapons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was a time when the USPTO took the position that illegal/immoral things were not patent-eligible although it was never in a statute. This primarily impacted the patentablity of slot machines for decades.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In much of the rest of the world they do have the concept of &quot;contrary to public order and morals&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [EPO rules][1] say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Any invention the commercial exploitation of which would be contrary to &quot;ordre public&quot; or morality is specifically excluded from patentability. The purpose of this is to deny protection to inventions likely to induce riot or public disorder, or to lead to criminal or other generally offensive behaviour (see also F-II, 7.2). Anti-personnel mines are an obvious example. This provision is likely to be invoked only in rare and extreme cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_ii_4_1.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4931" RevisionGUID="2ff819a4-849e-4259-a4d6-f8ec513f25d2" CreationDate="2013-09-03T05:21:57.717" UserId="3076" Comment="added 186 characters in body" Text="Behind the question may be an assumption. It is a widespread misunderstanding that having a patent on something implies you are allowed to make and sell the thing. No, a patent only provides the right to **stop others** from doing something. A patent doesn't imply the government thinks it is a good idea, is legal to possess, works better than existing things, works well. It may not work at all - as long as it seems like it would work on its face. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't find a good reference on this but I think the line is draw at anything related to atomic weapons. But that is because publishing anything on that topic is outlawed and patenting requires publishing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was a time when the USPTO took the position that illegal/immoral things were not patent-eligible although it was never in a statute. This primarily impacted the patentablity of slot machines for decades.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In much of the rest of the world they do have the concept of &quot;contrary to public order and morals&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [EPO rules][1] say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Any invention the commercial exploitation of which would be contrary to &quot;ordre public&quot; or morality is specifically excluded from patentability. The purpose of this is to deny protection to inventions likely to induce riot or public disorder, or to lead to criminal or other generally offensive behaviour (see also F-II, 7.2). Anti-personnel mines are an obvious example. This provision is likely to be invoked only in rare and extreme cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the publication the question started with is not an issued patent, it is a publication for a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_ii_4_1.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4932" RevisionGUID="6e20242e-406e-48e6-874b-43e98faa94ec" CreationDate="2013-09-03T09:00:34.547" UserId="962" Text="[Here's just one example][1] - a question about whether some patent was invalidated during reexamination. [This answer][2] says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This can be looked up and followed in the USPTO Public PAIR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I go to http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair and &quot;search by patent number&quot; and there's lots of data on multiple tabs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where's the data on reexamination in there? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/3615/962&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3618/962" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12005" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4932" RevisionGUID="6e20242e-406e-48e6-874b-43e98faa94ec" CreationDate="2013-09-03T09:00:34.547" UserId="962" Text="Where exactly on USPTO site should I look for reexamination process details?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12006" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4932" RevisionGUID="6e20242e-406e-48e6-874b-43e98faa94ec" CreationDate="2013-09-03T09:00:34.547" UserId="962" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;reexamination&gt;&lt;pair&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4933" RevisionGUID="b1732111-7650-429b-a05b-8da915a69a03" CreationDate="2013-09-03T11:17:40.417" UserId="3697" Text="After a patent has expired anyone may make, use, offer for sale, or sell or import the invention without permission of the patentee, provided that matter covered by other unexpired patents is not used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may be more active patents which have same technology with some modification/addition. You need to be careful of such inventions. For example,  if a patent for a simple shoe has expired, you may freely use it(exact technology) to sell your own shoe freely. However you may not sell a shoe with a shock absorber which may be different active patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4934" RevisionGUID="452ffd1a-11d4-4507-978b-fd806a130eb5" CreationDate="2013-09-03T11:31:01.753" UserId="3697" Text="Did you take a look at [How does one know if a patent was reexamined?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All your answers with graphical illustrations are there.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/4893/how-does-one-know-if-a-patent-was-reexamined" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4935" RevisionGUID="50e72cb0-ecb4-4afa-ad7d-6b76fc54fea0" CreationDate="2013-09-03T13:16:46.867" UserId="962" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Q&amp;A SERVICES** - This application from Nuance Communications, Inc. seeks to patent looking up a corpus of previously asked questions in a Q&amp;A service like Stack Exchange! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent application before it becomes a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 6, 2011** *note: priority dates are typically equivalent to an application's filing date, but not always. See [here](http://www.patentlens.net/daisy/patentlens/2343.html) for more.*] that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for operating a frequently asked questions (FAQ)-based system, the method comprising: training a classifier based on questions stored in the FAQ-based system, each question corresponding to at least one answer; and applying the classifier to a query to return an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question -- one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: **METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR OPERATING A FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)-BASED SYSTEM**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  searches a user generated query in a classifier trained to search a database of questions in a set of FAQs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [20130144890][1]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Nuance Communications, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 6, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 06, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for operating a frequently asked questions (FAQ)-based system, the method comprising: training a classifier based on questions stored in the FAQ-based system, each question corresponding to at least one answer; and applying the classifier to a query to return an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;training&quot; any classifier, including a classifier that requires no training (which can easily be claimed to be &quot;trivial training&quot;) such as one  used in StackExchange engine that runs while the StackExchange user is in progress of formulating their question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to [Priority Date].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ](http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request) on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130144890" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12010" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4935" RevisionGUID="50e72cb0-ecb4-4afa-ad7d-6b76fc54fea0" CreationDate="2013-09-03T13:16:46.867" UserId="962" Text="Q&amp;A services - looking up the corpus of frequently asked questions - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12011" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4935" RevisionGUID="50e72cb0-ecb4-4afa-ad7d-6b76fc54fea0" CreationDate="2013-09-03T13:16:46.867" UserId="962" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130144890&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4935" RevisionGUID="32718549-ccf3-4131-bb5e-9cd3fc993577" CreationDate="2013-09-03T13:26:14.000" UserId="962" Comment="deleted 173 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Q&amp;A SERVICES** - This application from Nuance Communications, Inc. seeks to patent looking up a corpus of previously asked questions in a Q&amp;A service like Stack Exchange! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent application before it becomes a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 6, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for operating a frequently asked questions (FAQ)-based system, the method comprising: training a classifier based on questions stored in the FAQ-based system, each question corresponding to at least one answer; and applying the classifier to a query to return an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question -- one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: **METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR OPERATING A FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)-BASED SYSTEM**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  searches a user generated query in a classifier trained to search a database of questions in a set of FAQs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [20130144890][1]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Nuance Communications, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 6, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 06, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for operating a frequently asked questions (FAQ)-based system, the method comprising: training a classifier based on questions stored in the FAQ-based system, each question corresponding to at least one answer; and applying the classifier to a query to return an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;training&quot; any classifier, including a classifier that requires no training (which can easily be claimed to be &quot;trivial training&quot;) such as one  used in StackExchange engine that runs while the StackExchange user is in progress of formulating their question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to [Priority Date].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ](http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request) on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130144890" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12014" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4843" RevisionGUID="b18b9a1b-4c73-46f6-be45-6e701b03872f" CreationDate="2013-09-03T17:55:27.260" UserId="-1" Comment="Addendum to include additional relevant similarities." Text="My 2006 thesis: &quot;Knowledge discovery in corporate email : the compliance bot meets Enron&quot; (http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/37574) has an abstract which begins: &quot;I propose the creation of a real-time compliance &quot;bot&quot; - software to momentarily pause each employee's email at the moment of sending and to electronically assess whether that email is likely to create liability or unanticipated expense for the corporation.&quot;  It has a chapter on the kinds of things to look for - criminal, civil malfeasance, as well as other liability and risk issues and a final chapter which includes a graphic of the sort of warning the bot could display to a user. Is that what you're seeking? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addendum - I should also have mentioned that the thesis describes the methods for pre-processing/cleansing data and describes and demonstrates how keyword and concept searching could find inappropriate phrases.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12015" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4843" RevisionGUID="b18b9a1b-4c73-46f6-be45-6e701b03872f" CreationDate="2013-09-03T17:55:27.260" Comment="Proposed by 66.108.179.55|665bb1e3-b09a-42e8-ad3d-77777180130b approved by 3076, 1767 edit id of 431" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12016" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4932" RevisionGUID="927f52de-a58d-4544-afc5-dcff550d0988" CreationDate="2013-09-03T17:57:42.380" UserId="1767" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[4893],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1767,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Micah Siegel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4935" RevisionGUID="a540bbfd-351c-47d4-a489-f9cd87fb3f49" CreationDate="2013-09-03T18:03:02.093" UserId="1767" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Q&amp;A SERVICES** - This application from Nuance Communications, Inc. seeks to patent looking up a corpus of previously asked questions in a Q&amp;A service like Stack Exchange! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent application before it becomes a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 6, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for operating a frequently asked questions (FAQ)-based system, the method comprising: training a classifier based on questions stored in the FAQ-based system, each question corresponding to at least one answer; and applying the classifier to a query to return an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question -- one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: **METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR OPERATING A FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)-BASED SYSTEM**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  searches a user generated query in a classifier trained to search a database of questions in a set of FAQs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [20130144890][1]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Nuance Communications, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 6, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 06, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for operating a frequently asked questions (FAQ)-based system, the method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. training a classifier based on questions stored in the FAQ-based system, each question corresponding to at least one answer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. applying the classifier to a query to return an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;training&quot; any classifier, including a classifier that requires no training (which can easily be claimed to be &quot;trivial training&quot;) such as one  used in StackExchange engine that runs while the StackExchange user is in progress of formulating their question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to Dec 6, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ](http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request) on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130144890" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4937" RevisionGUID="26134c60-1cab-4ab3-952d-5c95ae4d866b" CreationDate="2013-09-03T20:20:30.073" UserId="5672" Text="the applicant is a supplier of forensic software, their primary product is a tool to search computer hard disks for artefacts of computer use (internet history primarily).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the functionality in the patent can be seen in many other forensic programs such as Encase, FTK and Netanalysis all these programs have been around for a good while. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4938" RevisionGUID="724f40b7-5dac-4fb4-b4d2-a170391db8d2" CreationDate="2013-09-03T21:59:14.503" UserId="5673" Text="Is patent application US20120260509 A1 obvious given prior art patent US5560106 A?  THey both seem to be trying to accomplish the same thing and given that the prior art was from the early 90's I would think the current patent application would be obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US20120260509 A1 &#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US20120260509?dq=safety+razor+%2B+replaceable+razor+blade&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=D7UkUpqvLue_sATOs4D4Ag&amp;ved=0CDsQ6AEwATgU&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US5560106 A&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US5560106?printsec=drawing&amp;dq=safety+razor&amp;ei=9agyUKzMItKI6AHW4oHABA#v=onepage&amp;q=safety%20razor&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12023" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4938" RevisionGUID="724f40b7-5dac-4fb4-b4d2-a170391db8d2" CreationDate="2013-09-03T21:59:14.503" UserId="5673" Text="Is patent application US20120260509 A1 obvious given prior art patent US5560106 A?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12024" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4938" RevisionGUID="724f40b7-5dac-4fb4-b4d2-a170391db8d2" CreationDate="2013-09-03T21:59:14.503" UserId="5673" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;obvious&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12025" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4938" RevisionGUID="894bbdcd-374e-46d7-a2eb-acc02d59b92f" CreationDate="2013-09-03T22:19:28.853" UserId="1767" Comment="9" />
  <row Id="12026" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4938" RevisionGUID="3f63ed86-3527-4a0d-8d3f-52dc33364ca3" CreationDate="2013-09-03T22:20:30.887" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="US 20120260509 A1 (Gilette) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4939" RevisionGUID="63812758-04db-43eb-a15a-7558527c26bb" CreationDate="2013-09-03T23:01:56.793" UserId="5674" Text="Dear Sirs of Ask Patents Services,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I require your cooperation to inform me if the next patent is active or not U.S. territory to be used in manufacturing and marketing of the device it represents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Umbilical cord ligature device&#xD;&#xA;US 20090292295 A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We look forward to your comments!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very much in advance!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sincerely,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rodolfo Sanchez H." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12028" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4939" RevisionGUID="63812758-04db-43eb-a15a-7558527c26bb" CreationDate="2013-09-03T23:01:56.793" UserId="5674" Text="Indagación sobre uso de patente en USA, para Fabricación y Comercialización?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12029" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4939" RevisionGUID="63812758-04db-43eb-a15a-7558527c26bb" CreationDate="2013-09-03T23:01:56.793" UserId="5674" Text="&lt;usa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4940" RevisionGUID="ec358f1e-8c23-4799-91c2-582c8bca0184" CreationDate="2013-09-03T23:29:35.290" UserId="5675" Text="Does anyone know if US patent 20100316986 A1, &quot;Rubric-based assessment with personalized learning recommendations&quot;, has actually been granted?  The Google link seems to indicate that it is an &quot;application&quot;.  This particular patent, applied for by Microsoft will be burdensome for the entire eLearning industry should they every try to enforce it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12031" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4940" RevisionGUID="ec358f1e-8c23-4799-91c2-582c8bca0184" CreationDate="2013-09-03T23:29:35.290" UserId="5675" Text="Does anyone know if US patent 20100316986 A1, &quot;Rubric-based assessment with personalized learning recommendations&quot;, has actually been granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12032" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4940" RevisionGUID="ec358f1e-8c23-4799-91c2-582c8bca0184" CreationDate="2013-09-03T23:29:35.290" UserId="5675" Text="&lt;us20100316986&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4941" RevisionGUID="82a09353-3436-4362-8470-657349c14df2" CreationDate="2013-09-03T23:43:15.980" UserId="3076" Text="I looked it up in USPTO Public PAIR (see the FAQs to learn how to do this). The current status is &quot;final rejection mailed&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the second &quot;final&quot; rejection. They have narrowed the claims from those that show in the published application you cited. Microsoft can appeal or otherwise keep narrowing, arguing and fighting to get some version through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/UoBso.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4942" RevisionGUID="cbc3ebac-0023-4049-8424-2caabd40c053" CreationDate="2013-09-03T23:51:35.667" UserId="3076" Text="I haven't studied the documents but I do see the new application has very specific claims with ranges of numerical values called out. Much more specific than many claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accomplishing the same thing is not the key to prior art. Many distinct inventions try to solve the same problem but in a different enough way. Roughly speaking, to show something isn't new the prior art needs to &quot;teach&quot; what the claims of the newer document are claiming." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4939" RevisionGUID="7ce34f8c-2b24-4b4a-aff2-51b60a6da50f" CreationDate="2013-09-03T23:53:59.997" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 171 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Does the patent US20090292295A1 prevent manufacture or sale of an umbilical cord ligature device in the US?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Title: Umbilical cord ligature device&#xD;&#xA;Patent: [US 20090292295 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1st Claim**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A device for ligating an umbilical cord, said device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a ligature assembled on the external surface of a ring; wherein,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - by liberating said ligature in one continuous motion while said ring is positioned on an umbilical cord,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - said ligature compresses and closes the umbilical cord thereby assuring hemostasis and preventing fluid leakage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20090292295?dq=US20090292295&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/HLLP7.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12036" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4939" RevisionGUID="7ce34f8c-2b24-4b4a-aff2-51b60a6da50f" CreationDate="2013-09-03T23:53:59.997" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 171 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Is Patent US20090292295A1 valid in the US?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12037" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4939" RevisionGUID="7ce34f8c-2b24-4b4a-aff2-51b60a6da50f" CreationDate="2013-09-03T23:53:59.997" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 171 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;usa&gt;&lt;us20090292295&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4943" RevisionGUID="40d16d58-27b6-47ad-865c-3c821f736edc" CreationDate="2013-09-04T00:05:31.490" UserId="1767" Text="US20090292295 is a **US Patent Application** not an issued Patent.&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;The application has received a **Final Rejection** by the US Patent Office as seen from thes screen shot from [Public PAIR][1] below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicant has modified the claims as follows and paid the USPTO for a **Request for Continued Examination**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A device positionable on an umbilical cord, said device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a ligature assembled on **a substantially smooth** external surface of a **semi** rigid ring having a slit therethrough; wherein,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - by manually twisting said rigid ring **into a helical shape** said ligature is liberated while said ring is positioned on an umbilical cord such that &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - said ligature compresses and closes the umbilical cord assuring hemostasis and preventing fluid leakage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point (prior to allowance) the patent is not enforceable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To learn more about Public PAIR and how to determine whether a patent application is issued see this question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/3971/1767&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/6qyJ5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4943" RevisionGUID="b78a4e87-c2d7-4fba-ba24-9cc3c4b06b79" CreationDate="2013-09-04T00:33:26.217" UserId="3076" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="US20090292295 is a **US Patent Application** not an issued Patent.&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;The application has received a **Final Rejection** by the US Patent Office as seen from thes screen shot from [Public PAIR][1] below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicant has modified the claims as follows and paid the USPTO for a **Request for Continued Examination**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A device positionable on an umbilical cord, said device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a ligature assembled on **a substantially smooth** external surface of a **semi** rigid ring having a slit therethrough; wherein,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - by manually twisting said rigid ring **into a helical shape** said ligature is liberated while said ring is positioned on an umbilical cord such that &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - said ligature compresses and closes the umbilical cord assuring hemostasis and preventing fluid leakage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point (prior to any allowance and grant) this is just an application for a patent is not enforceable unless and until grant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To learn more about Public PAIR and how to determine whether a patent application is issued see this question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/3971/1767&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/6qyJ5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4944" RevisionGUID="4002209b-dcc5-4b26-80df-8aaf9051ca13" CreationDate="2013-09-04T01:06:26.657" UserId="5662" Text="When i look up patent #6108955 on the uspto site it says it is expired due to the maintenance fees not being paid. there is also a list of references cited. They seem to be similar to #6108955 but with slight differences. Do I need to be concerned about those or can I use #6108955 without worrying about infringing on the references cited." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12042" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4944" RevisionGUID="4002209b-dcc5-4b26-80df-8aaf9051ca13" CreationDate="2013-09-04T01:06:26.657" UserId="5662" Text="Patent #6108955 references cited" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12043" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4944" RevisionGUID="4002209b-dcc5-4b26-80df-8aaf9051ca13" CreationDate="2013-09-04T01:06:26.657" UserId="5662" Text="&lt;patent-infringment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4945" RevisionGUID="f45405c5-df8a-4e7b-b944-b0f735b6d884" CreationDate="2013-09-04T01:18:22.967" UserId="3076" Text="I think this was answered in one of your other questions on this topic but yes, whatever you make, sell, offer for sale, use or import can conceivably infringe on any number of patents that may have come before or after the one in question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12051" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4944" RevisionGUID="bc001139-60dd-4078-a9e6-7b75ee9e82d4" CreationDate="2013-09-04T04:28:13.183" UserId="1767" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[4927],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1767,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Micah Siegel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4931" RevisionGUID="61fb9b5a-28e2-4eea-ae7b-91788d9d74d4" CreationDate="2013-09-04T06:30:35.640" UserId="3076" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="Behind the question may be an assumption. It is a widespread misunderstanding that having a patent on something implies you are allowed to make and sell the thing. No, a patent only provides the right to **stop others** from doing something. A patent doesn't imply the government thinks it is a good idea, is legal to possess, works better than existing things, works well. It may not work at all - as long as it seems like it would work on its face. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't find a good reference on this but I think the line is draw at anything related to atomic weapons. But that is because publishing anything on that topic is outlawed and patenting requires publishing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was a time when the USPTO took the position that illegal/immoral things were not patent-eligible although it was never in a statute. This primarily impacted the patentablity of slot machines for decades.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In much of the rest of the world they do have the concept of &quot;contrary to public order and morals&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [EPO rules][1] say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Any invention the commercial exploitation of which would be contrary to &quot;ordre public&quot; or morality is specifically excluded from patentability. The purpose of this is to deny protection to inventions likely to induce riot or public disorder, or to lead to criminal or other generally offensive behaviour (see also F-II, 7.2). Anti-personnel mines are an obvious example. This provision is likely to be invoked only in rare and extreme cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the publication the question started with is not an issued patent, it is a publication of an **application** for a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_ii_4_1.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4947" RevisionGUID="bdb14192-cb23-4d01-8642-2c8570813d82" CreationDate="2013-09-04T06:52:13.533" UserId="5678" Text="Ken Perlin wrote a blog post today: [Pinched again!][1] in which he gives prior art for the &quot;pinch to zoom gesture&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So now it seems that Apple did not, in 2005, invent the “pinch to zoom” gesture that Myron Krueger had already implemented in 1983.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to a recent US Patent and Trademark Office ruling, in fact it was Bran Ferren and Danny Hillis who in 2005 invented the pinch to zoom gesture that Mr. Krueger created thirty years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which invalidates patents 7724242 and 7844915.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.kenperlin.com/?p=13095" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4948" RevisionGUID="d7999d22-4228-4163-9397-810764243de0" CreationDate="2013-09-04T09:16:57.313" UserId="962" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON INVENTORY SYSTEMS** - This application from Wendi Wheaton seeks to patent an inventory system that manages food based on its expiry dates! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent application before it becomes a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Nov 14, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A food inventory system comprising: a microprocessor connected to a data storage device; means for entry and removal of food items or recipes; means for display; assigning a food item a weighted value correlated with the time until food spoilage for said food item; categorizing each food item entered as refrigerator, freezer, or pantry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question -- one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: **Method and Device for Expiration Date Weighted Food Inventory System and Meal Planner**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: manages data on current food supply taking into consideration its expiry dates and provides recommendations for shopping for new food and consuming existing food&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130138656][1]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Wendi Wheaton&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Nov 14, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 30, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A food inventory system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a microprocessor connected to a data storage device;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. means for entry and removal of food items or recipes;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. means for display;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. assigning a food item a weighted value correlated with the time until food spoilage for said food item;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. categorizing each food item entered as refrigerator, freezer, or pantry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; managing supply of food taking into account food expiration date&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This looks like a generic inventory system, just for food. Expiration dates are very common with chemicals, food, fuel, other supplies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to Dec 6, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ](http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request) on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130138656" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12056" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4948" RevisionGUID="d7999d22-4228-4163-9397-810764243de0" CreationDate="2013-09-04T09:16:57.313" UserId="962" Text="Managing food supply taking expiry dates into account - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12057" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4948" RevisionGUID="d7999d22-4228-4163-9397-810764243de0" CreationDate="2013-09-04T09:16:57.313" UserId="962" Text="&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130138656&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4949" RevisionGUID="f22cda52-40a8-40d9-b7c1-a9225be90c66" CreationDate="2013-09-04T11:38:35.333" UserId="5679" Text="Does this patent prevent another party from developing an electronic tactile metronome, or is it just protecting the particular configuration described?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for any clarification" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12059" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4949" RevisionGUID="f22cda52-40a8-40d9-b7c1-a9225be90c66" CreationDate="2013-09-04T11:38:35.333" UserId="5679" Text="Re Tactile metronome US 7268290 B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12060" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4949" RevisionGUID="f22cda52-40a8-40d9-b7c1-a9225be90c66" CreationDate="2013-09-04T11:38:35.333" UserId="5679" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4950" RevisionGUID="2f3a6116-f24c-44de-9a14-e5e0bf7a7625" CreationDate="2013-09-04T11:54:01.827" UserId="962" Text="Suppose I invented some clever way to manufacture transistors and don't disclose it (keep it a trade secret). I start a company and start producing and selling transistors without telling the public how exactly I manufacture them. Every employee and contractor signs an NDA and never discloses my invention to third parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then someone else independently discovers the same way to produce transistors and patents it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now what? Am I now in violation of their patent? How are such cases typically handled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12062" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4950" RevisionGUID="2f3a6116-f24c-44de-9a14-e5e0bf7a7625" CreationDate="2013-09-04T11:54:01.827" UserId="962" Text="What happens if I use some trade secret invention and later someone independently patents it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12063" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4950" RevisionGUID="2f3a6116-f24c-44de-9a14-e5e0bf7a7625" CreationDate="2013-09-04T11:54:01.827" UserId="962" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4951" RevisionGUID="620ffff6-a602-4779-86b7-0ddc0dbc5919" CreationDate="2013-09-04T13:50:59.327" UserId="5680" Text="I have a question about the prior art applicability of earlier-filed later-published applications having a common inventor or a common assignee. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Earlier filed application: Indian Patent application IN2765DEL2009 filed June 30, 2010 and published February 1, 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;International Application WO2013/098829 filed December 30, 2011 and published July 4, 2013 (US is a designated state).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both applications are identical and share the same inventor and the same applicant.  The Earliest application (IN2765DEL2009) was filed 18 months before the International application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming that the Applicant will enter national phase in US, does the Indian Patent application (IN2765DEL2009) qualify as &quot;prior art” in US?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not, how can we prevent this Applicant from obtaining two patents for the same invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;regards," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12065" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4951" RevisionGUID="620ffff6-a602-4779-86b7-0ddc0dbc5919" CreationDate="2013-09-04T13:50:59.327" UserId="5680" Text="prior art applicability of earlier-filed later-published applications having a common inventor or a common assignee" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12066" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4951" RevisionGUID="620ffff6-a602-4779-86b7-0ddc0dbc5919" CreationDate="2013-09-04T13:50:59.327" UserId="5680" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12067" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4938" RevisionGUID="63419fcc-9bfe-4fc1-abc5-3f86805c1c3f" CreationDate="2013-09-04T13:58:29.003" UserId="962" Comment="added quotes and some comparison analysis" Text="Is patent application US20120260509 A1 obvious given prior art patent US5560106 A? They both seem to be trying to accomplish the same thing and given that the prior art was from the early 90's I would think the current patent application would be obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US20120260509 A1][1] claims the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - a. a grip portion** and a connection portion, said connection portion rotating with respect to said grip portion about a rotational axis, said connection portion comprising a docking portion suitable for receiving an optional blade unit, said docking portion being positioned opposite distally away from said grip portion,&#xD;&#xA; - b. wherein the grip portion and the connection portion are rotatably connected by a connection member, and&#xD;&#xA; - i. wherein said handle comprises a static stiffness in a range of about 1.25 N*mm/degree to about 1.45 N*mm/deg, as determined by the Static Stiffness Method defined herein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US5560106 A][2] claims the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A non-motor driven razor comprising a **handle by which the razor can be gripped, handled and manipulated** when shaving hair from an anatomical skin surface, **a razor head having a razor blade mounted thereon for movement of the head and blade solely in a transverse edgewise direction of the blade along the anatomical skin surface in transverse perpendicular relation to hair shafts projecting from the anatomical skin surface**, and **a resilient connection between the razor head and handle**, said resilient connection enabling resilient movement of the razor head in relation to the handle in all directions with resilient resistance to such movement occurring in all directions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like the difference is that the old patent used a flexible connection similar to accordion and the new application uses a joint-like connection that has multiple distinct positions that require some force to switch between them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120260509?dq=safety%20razor%20%2b%20replaceable%20razor%20blade&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=D7UkUpqvLue_sATOs4D4Ag&amp;ved=0CDsQ6AEwATgU&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5560106?printsec=drawing&amp;dq=safety%20razor&amp;ei=9agyUKzMItKI6AHW4oHABA#v=onepage&amp;q=safety%20razor&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12068" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4938" RevisionGUID="63419fcc-9bfe-4fc1-abc5-3f86805c1c3f" CreationDate="2013-09-04T13:58:29.003" Comment="Proposed by 962 approved by 1 edit id of 432" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12069" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4949" RevisionGUID="981976b0-9899-49e7-a081-522572e42dd2" CreationDate="2013-09-04T15:24:45.020" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;us7268290&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4952" RevisionGUID="a3b2ebbb-3cb1-43c2-b35c-5ebaa6696be5" CreationDate="2013-09-04T16:53:07.940" UserId="350" Text="Apple was recently granted patent [8,528,072][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, apparatus, and system for accessing at least a portion of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; device based upon an access input. An access input is received. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; access input includes information for gaining access to one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; functions of the device. A user access mode of the device is changed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from a first access mode to a second access mode based upon at least&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in part on the access input. An application is selected in the device&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in response to changing from the first access mode to the second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; access mode. At least a portion of the output of the selected&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application is provided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It reads like they are talking about having different accounts having access to different apps. Sounds like they are talking about monitoring activities on a mobile device that is already done on a desktop, or other device, which should not deem this activity patentable. (We need to expunge all these &quot;new inventions&quot; that should not be accepted just because it's on a mobile device. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that Android has a way now to manage profiles and only let certain people have access to certain kinds of apps. Even though the original patent was filed in 2010 but again desktops have had functionality for different logins/privileges long before then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe apple is trying to get to the point of where people don't have to enter a password to &quot;log in&quot; to a device. Maybe they want people to use *gestures* to &quot;log in&quot;. That doesn't make it innovative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wanted to see what anyone else thought? This patent was just granted on Tuesday so it is really new. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm&amp;r=3&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PTXT&amp;S1=%28726/17.CCLS.%20AND%2020130903.PD.%29&amp;OS=ccl/726/17%20and%20isd/9/3/2013&amp;RS=%28CCL/726/17%20AND%20ISD/20130903%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12083" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4952" RevisionGUID="a3b2ebbb-3cb1-43c2-b35c-5ebaa6696be5" CreationDate="2013-09-04T16:53:07.940" UserId="350" Text="Apple US Patent 8,528,072 - Method, apparatus and system for access mode control of a device" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12084" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4952" RevisionGUID="a3b2ebbb-3cb1-43c2-b35c-5ebaa6696be5" CreationDate="2013-09-04T16:53:07.940" UserId="350" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4953" RevisionGUID="83f0b52c-33b6-43c4-a2ae-5b5a78b91251" CreationDate="2013-09-04T17:10:10.040" UserId="3076" Text="The claim wording of patents defines the scope. Claim 1 for example says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A tactile metronome for use by a musician, said tactile metronome comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;**a signal generator** for producing an electrical signal according to a desired timing scheme that includes a complex beat pattern that are user definable, said timing scheme being produced by a controller;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;**a tactile transducer** in electrical communication with said signal generator, said tactile transducer being adapted to impart a tactile stimulations to the musician corresponding to the complex beat pattern in response to said electrical signal; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;**a programming interface** to said controller, said programming interface being adapted to enable the user to input a rhythmic pattern to said controller wherein said rhythmic pattern is programmable within the tactile metronome from user selected musical score within said programming interface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these things need to be present and inter-related in the manner specified by the claim in order to infringe this claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12086" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4948" RevisionGUID="6536ce4a-affb-4b29-b537-e14466b46e37" CreationDate="2013-09-04T17:13:34.130" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130138656&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4952" RevisionGUID="e9efa722-9dfd-41c1-bb80-be9740f964cd" CreationDate="2013-09-04T17:16:14.690" UserId="3076" Comment="Added claim 1 added tag removed tag" Text="Apple was recently granted patent [8,528,072][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, apparatus, and system for accessing at least a portion of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; device based upon an access input. An access input is received. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; access input includes information for gaining access to one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; functions of the device. A user access mode of the device is changed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from a first access mode to a second access mode based upon at least&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in part on the access input. An application is selected in the device&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in response to changing from the first access mode to the second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; access mode. At least a portion of the output of the selected&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application is provided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It reads like they are talking about having different accounts having access to different apps. Sounds like they are talking about monitoring activities on a mobile device that is already done on a desktop, or other device, which should not deem this activity patentable. (We need to expunge all these &quot;new inventions&quot; that should not be accepted just because it's on a mobile device. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that Android has a way now to manage profiles and only let certain people have access to certain kinds of apps. Even though the original patent was filed in 2010 but again desktops have had functionality for different logins/privileges long before then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe apple is trying to get to the point of where people don't have to enter a password to &quot;log in&quot; to a device. Maybe they want people to use *gestures* to &quot;log in&quot;. That doesn't make it innovative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wanted to see what anyone else thought? This patent was just granted on Tuesday so it is really new. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for changing the an operational mode of a device, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;receiving a first gesture from a user while the device is in a locked mode, wherein while in the locked mode all applications except an unlocking application are inaccessible to the user, wherein the unlocking application grants access to at least one application that was heretofore inaccessible, wherein the first gesture is associated with a first unlocked mode of the device; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;determining if the first gesture is recognized by the device;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA; changing the operational mode of the device from the locked mode to the first unlocked mode using the unlocking application in response to the first gesture only when the first gesture is recognized, wherein while in the first unlocked mode at least a first application associated with the first gesture becomes accessible; receiving a second gesture from the user while the device is in the first unlocked mode, the second gesture associated with a second unlocked mode of the device; determining if the second gesture is recognized by the device; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;and changing the operational mode of the device from the first unlocked mode to the second unlocked mode in response to the second gesture only when the second gesture is recognized, wherein while in the second unlocked mode at least a second application associated with the second gesture becomes accessible, wherein the first unlocked mode allows access to applications in a first group of applications, the second unlocked mode allows access to applications in a second group of applications, and the first group of applications and the second group of applications are mutually exclusive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm&amp;r=3&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PTXT&amp;S1=%28726/17.CCLS.%20AND%2020130903.PD.%29&amp;OS=ccl/726/17%20and%20isd/9/3/2013&amp;RS=%28CCL/726/17%20AND%20ISD/20130903%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12088" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4952" RevisionGUID="e9efa722-9dfd-41c1-bb80-be9740f964cd" CreationDate="2013-09-04T17:16:14.690" UserId="3076" Comment="Added claim 1 added tag removed tag" Text="&lt;apple&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;us8528072&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4954" RevisionGUID="0e72979b-001f-4652-9549-6671700a11e6" CreationDate="2013-09-04T17:23:32.820" UserId="5683" Text="Window net meeting performed a synchronous output of media (audio/video) to multiple devices on a network and was introduced as an add on for Windows 95.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://radio-weblogs.com/0127028/stories/2003/08/23/aShortHistoryOfMicrosoftAndIpBasedVideoCalling.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4955" RevisionGUID="d3df5d5f-b066-4193-aed3-3cda0787140b" CreationDate="2013-09-04T17:26:45.453" UserId="3076" Text="Claims can be hard to parse for many reasons including the fact that they are required to be a single sentence. But claims are what the inventor and the USPTO regarded as new and protected. People often get up in arms over the abstract or even the title when the claims (roughly, all that counts) are much more restrictive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case I do not see &quot;mobile&quot; in the claim so it could be applicable to a desktop device or mainframe. One gesture unlocks for one set of apps but another gesture unlocks it for a 2nd, **mutually exclusive**, set of apps. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4956" RevisionGUID="362c3891-f813-43f0-a468-ed66c03da6ec" CreationDate="2013-09-04T18:14:56.490" UserId="5683" Text="This technology already existed and was a subject of a research paper in 2011 link below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Research paper -- http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1105/1105.0149.pdf&#xD;&#xA;Referencing a product that did this from 2010 --http://assets1.csc.com/cloud/downloads/PAAS_Solution_Brochure_V5.pdf&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4958" RevisionGUID="2c9660fb-e4b5-43f6-a2e5-d6b158d36389" CreationDate="2013-09-04T19:03:04.293" UserId="5684" Text="I understand Europe/US have relaxed the regulations surrounding computer software patents, whilst the UK remains somewhat rigid. Thus, would it stand that if such an application was rejected in the UK it may still be granted in Europe/US?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12096" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4958" RevisionGUID="2c9660fb-e4b5-43f6-a2e5-d6b158d36389" CreationDate="2013-09-04T19:03:04.293" UserId="5684" Text="Computer Software applications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12097" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4958" RevisionGUID="2c9660fb-e4b5-43f6-a2e5-d6b158d36389" CreationDate="2013-09-04T19:03:04.293" UserId="5684" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;computer&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="2680c2ea-6b1e-4655-a2e0-c8d2927e3dea" CreationDate="2013-09-04T21:21:48.767" UserId="5685" Text="We are looking for prior art to invalidate the frivolous patent describing a &quot;[System and method for facilitating bilateral and multilateral decision-making][1]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent describes an obvious process where by two parties input their preferences and a recommendation is given based on a best fit algorithm. Seems to be rather trivial and broad. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would greatly appreciate any prior art that is relevant to help invalidate this patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8069073" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12100" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="2680c2ea-6b1e-4655-a2e0-c8d2927e3dea" CreationDate="2013-09-04T21:21:48.767" UserId="5685" Text="Prior Art for Business Process Method of Surveying Users for Preferences and Providing Recommendations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12101" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="2680c2ea-6b1e-4655-a2e0-c8d2927e3dea" CreationDate="2013-09-04T21:21:48.767" UserId="5685" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;business-methods&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12102" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="1542b1ba-3ce3-4ed8-888a-b96035c78e35" CreationDate="2013-09-04T21:27:33.603" UserId="1767" Comment="10" />
  <row Id="12103" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="9e9b0ac2-c451-4ee0-85e8-ed3d5bb058d2" CreationDate="2013-09-04T21:45:59.877" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;business-methods&gt;&lt;us8069073&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="a262f122-aedd-4190-a5f9-24c1cee0be9b" CreationDate="2013-09-04T23:00:58.647" UserId="3076" Comment="Clarified that it is issued" Text="We are looking for prior art to invalidate the recently issued patent US8069073 describing a &quot;[System and method for facilitating bilateral and multilateral decision-making][1]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent describes an seemingly obvious process where by two parties input their preferences and a recommendation is given based on a best fit algorithm. Seems to be rather trivial and broad. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would greatly appreciate any prior art that is relevant to help invalidate this patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8069073" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="e2455309-b7fd-4804-b5c3-7642d923ae7b" CreationDate="2013-09-04T23:19:09.523" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1271 characters in body" Text="We are looking for prior art to invalidate the recently issued patent US8069073 describing a &quot;[System and method for facilitating bilateral and multilateral decision-making][1]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent describes an seemingly obvious process where by two parties input their preferences and a recommendation is given based on a best fit algorithm. Seems to be rather trivial and broad. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would greatly appreciate any prior art that is relevant to help invalidate this patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A computer-implemented method for facilitating evaluation, in connection with the procurement or delivery of products or services, in a context of at least one of (i) a financial transaction and (ii) operation of an enterprise, such context involving a first class of parties in a first role and a second class of counterparties in a second role, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;in a first computer process, retrieving first preference data from a first digital storage medium, the first preference data including attribute levels derived from choices made by at least one of the parties in the first class;&#xD;&#xA;in a second computer process, retrieving second preference data from a second digital storage medium, the second preference data including attribute levels derived from choices made by at least one of the counterparties in the second class;&#xD;&#xA;in a third computer process, for a selected party, performing multilateral analyses of the selected party's preference data and the preference data of each of the counterparties, and computing a closeness-of-fit value based thereon; and&#xD;&#xA;in a fourth computer process, using the computed closeness-of-fit values to derive and provide a list matching the selected party and at least one of the counterparties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8069073" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4960" RevisionGUID="218dcc7b-e66a-4272-bbf8-1746a109d295" CreationDate="2013-09-04T23:24:28.607" UserId="5686" Text="Yes, the United States Manual of Patent Examining Procedure requires systematic rejection of perpetual motion machines. &#xD;&#xA;Also, US examiners will issue rejections on the ground that a claimed apparatus violates the laws of physics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="9881d4b8-96bf-4b16-8c82-4986aaa9243b" CreationDate="2013-09-04T23:57:27.853" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" We are looking for prior art to invalidate the recently issued patent US8069073 describing a &quot;[System and method for facilitating bilateral and multilateral decision-making][1]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent describes an seemingly obvious process where by two parties input their preferences and a recommendation is given based on a best fit algorithm. Seems to be rather trivial and broad. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would greatly appreciate any prior art that is relevant to help invalidate this patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A computer-implemented method for facilitating evaluation, in connection with the procurement or delivery of products or services, in a context of at least one of (i) a financial transaction and (ii) operation of an enterprise, such context involving a first class of parties in a first role and a second class of counterparties in a second role, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;in a first computer process, retrieving first preference data from a first digital storage medium, the first preference data including attribute levels derived from choices made by at least one of the parties in the first class;&#xD;&#xA;in a second computer process, retrieving second preference data from a second digital storage medium, the second preference data including attribute levels derived from choices made by at least one of the counterparties in the second class;&#xD;&#xA;in a third computer process, for a selected party, performing multilateral analyses of the selected party's preference data and the preference data of each of the counterparties, and computing a closeness-of-fit value based thereon; and&#xD;&#xA;in a fourth computer process, using the computed closeness-of-fit values to derive and provide a list matching the selected party and at least one of the counterparties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8069073" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4834" RevisionGUID="ec77582d-708f-4c47-9524-4959607403a2" CreationDate="2013-09-04T23:57:40.997" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON suggesting customer migrate to the Cloud** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Suggesting customers use a cloud computer infrastructure...! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/8/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Measuring historical performance data, identifying recurring IT problem which could be mitigated with cloud computing infrastructure and generating customer reports identifying migration to the cloud&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Suggesting cloud migration**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for suggesting a customer use cloud computing… Measuring historical data, identifying recurring IT problems, determing cloud computing could solve the problem, and generating a report&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130205007 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/368,491&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting migration to a cloud computing infrastructure, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. at least one processor analyzing historical incident data of an information technology (IT) environment, the analysis indicating any problems occurring in the IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the at least one processor determining, based on the historical incident data, that a problem is recurring in the IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. the at least one processor determining that the problem can be mitigated in the cloud computing infrastructure; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. the at least one processor generating a report particular to the IT environment, the report identifying a benefit of migrating the IT environment to the cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Analyzing historical IT data and finding problems in the customer's IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying recurring IT problem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determing problem can be mitigated in cloud computing infrastructure;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generating a report showing the benefits of cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure from the Applicant from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/agiOz4X.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130205007?dq=20130205007&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130144978" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4935" RevisionGUID="424305de-e66e-40fd-b75e-47ec4ca7b3d1" CreationDate="2013-09-04T23:58:03.310" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Q&amp;A SERVICES** - This application from Nuance Communications, Inc. seeks to patent looking up a corpus of previously asked questions in a Q&amp;A service like Stack Exchange! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent application before it becomes a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 6, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for operating a frequently asked questions (FAQ)-based system, the method comprising: training a classifier based on questions stored in the FAQ-based system, each question corresponding to at least one answer; and applying the classifier to a query to return an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question -- one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: **METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR OPERATING A FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)-BASED SYSTEM**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  searches a user generated query in a classifier trained to search a database of questions in a set of FAQs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [20130144890][1]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Nuance Communications, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 6, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 06, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for operating a frequently asked questions (FAQ)-based system, the method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. training a classifier based on questions stored in the FAQ-based system, each question corresponding to at least one answer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. applying the classifier to a query to return an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;training&quot; any classifier, including a classifier that requires no training (which can easily be claimed to be &quot;trivial training&quot;) such as one  used in StackExchange engine that runs while the StackExchange user is in progress of formulating their question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to Dec 6, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ](http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request) on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130144890" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4814" RevisionGUID="c4a2ca7d-cb68-480b-8f2c-607c3e94f527" CreationDate="2013-09-04T23:58:21.843" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON transferring data to a server based on user travel plans** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...transferring data in cloud storage system from a data server near a user usual location to a data server near where a user plans to travel! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2011** that discusses: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Moving data between servers based on user travel plans&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves accessing a user's calendar to figure out where he will travel and when&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transferring data between servers based on travel plans of a user**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for moving data between data servers bsaed on travel plans of a user (basically, if the user is traveling somewhere, moving some data from his &quot;home&quot; server to a server which is closer to the location he will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144978 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/309,640&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/3/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. locating a data server near a travel location of a user based on one or more travel plans of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transferring data of the user from a home data server near a home location of the user to the data server near the travel location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of data relocation in a cloud storage environment, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Locating a data server which is physically close to a location of a user based on travel plans of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Transferring data of the user from the home data server to the data server near the travel location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming accessing the user's calendar to figure out where he will travel so data can be moved there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for data relocation in cloud storage environments from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rLnVZ5M.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130144978?dq=US20130144978A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130144978" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4712" RevisionGUID="28ddb7c3-3b48-4cd2-8853-493d72024ffb" CreationDate="2013-09-05T00:43:56.560" UserId="3076" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="&quot;The technology exists&quot; isn't 100% clear. If it has been available to the public in country X or if documents explaining it have been published in country X in any language, then it can not be legitimately  patented by another in country Y. On the other hand, the technology might exist in X and even in country Y but if it is kept a secret everywhere then it can't stop anyone who later invents it themselves from patenting it in either country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Available to the public, published and kept in secret are all things that a chapter in a book could be written about and do vary from country to country. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also &quot;company A from country X has secured a patent&quot; is not 100% clear. Patents are territorial.If A has a patent granted by country X and B copies it and makes it, sells it and uses it **only in country Y** there is no way B gets in trouble over the patent issued by country X. Of course there are nuances to all of this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4960" RevisionGUID="d895612f-ee98-4f7f-aa2b-9317166993c2" CreationDate="2013-09-05T00:50:18.023" UserId="3076" Comment="Clarified that rejection can be proper but no obligation on examiner to catch it." Text="Yes, the United States Manual of Patent Examining Procedure requires systematic rejection of things stating that their utility is that they are perpetual motion machines.  Also, US examiners can issue rejections on the ground that a claimed apparatus violates the laws of physics but are under no obligation to do the math let alone any experiments, simulation etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4962" RevisionGUID="9178a7c1-7b18-4755-83e4-72d7acd6194b" CreationDate="2013-09-05T03:24:28.343" UserId="3076" Text="First, there is nothing unusual or wrong with an inventor getting patents in multiple counties that cover the same subject matter. It is done all the time and is what the PCT system was set up to facilitate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the Paris convention the original Indian patent that was filed longer than a year before the international application shouldn't qualify to provide priority to the international application. But the Indian patent published after the international application was filed so it did not &quot;break novelty&quot; of the international patent. In most places (not the US) that matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US, for the dates involved, we still had a robust 1 year grace period so if the inventors were 100% in common the Indian patent application could have published up to a year before the international application and still not have been prior art in the US. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4963" RevisionGUID="c2c81bba-cdee-4171-81fc-2a9787f77f43" CreationDate="2013-09-05T03:35:01.430" UserId="3076" Text="One place loves it and another rejects it or demands changes in opposite directions - yes!  Every jurisdiction has their own laws and rules, obviously. Defining what a software patent is and how the line is drawn between patent-eligible subject matter and not patent-eligible matter is messy moving in the US and elsewhere. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am involved with a patent on a very prosaic, very tangible thing and it sailed through Australia but may have hit a wall in China." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4919" RevisionGUID="3e007873-4925-49a2-8589-0f436402f97e" CreationDate="2013-09-05T04:18:09.507" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON targeting messages to users based on based on distance between user and a location** - This application from [a self-proclaimed &quot;Internet visionary&quot;][6] seeks to patent the idea of...geo-targeting messages to users! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/11/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using location between a user and a location to send messages to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO a radiofrequency tags are used to identify the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Delivering messages to users based on their location**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for delivering ads to users based on location: if user's device is within a predetermined distance of a location, sending the user a message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130179263 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/348,282&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:[a self-proclaimed &quot;Internet visionary&quot;][6] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/7/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for linking a person to a location, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a computer determining that a device of a person is within a predetermined distance of a location, based on data received from the device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the computer identifying the at least one of the person and the device, based on the received data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. the computer associating the at least one of the person and the device with the location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. the computer generating a message based on the association; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. the computer communicating the message to the person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for delivering ads to users based on user's location:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine with user is within predetermined distance of a location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identify the user or device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Associate (presumably in a database) the user with the location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generate a message for the user and send the message to the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Using RFID tags to identify the device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Communicating promotional content from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/BlZj7kI.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130179263?dq=US20130179263A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://gawker.com/5516162/visionary-eric-leebow-thinks-he-invented-the-social-network&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130179263" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4919" RevisionGUID="c89c8f82-68d8-49b6-8898-693b553ef04a" CreationDate="2013-09-05T07:39:09.283" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON targeting messages to users based on based on distance between user and a location** - This application from [a self-proclaimed &quot;Internet visionary&quot;][6] seeks to patent the idea of...geo-targeting messages to users! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/11/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using location between a user and a location to send messages to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO a radiofrequency tags are used to identify the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Delivering messages to users based on their location**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for delivering ads to users based on location: if user's device is within a predetermined distance of a location, sending the user a message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130179263 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/348,282&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:[a self-proclaimed &quot;Internet visionary&quot;][6] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/7/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for linking a person to a location, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a computer determining that a device of a person is within a predetermined distance of a location, based on data received from the device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the computer identifying the at least one of the person and the device, based on the received data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. the computer associating the at least one of the person and the device with the location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. the computer generating a message based on the association; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. the computer communicating the message to the person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for delivering ads to users based on user's location:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine with user is within predetermined distance of a location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identify the user or device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Associate (presumably in a database) the user with the location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generate a message for the user and send the message to the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Using RFID tags to identify the device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Communicating promotional content from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/BlZj7kI.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130179263?dq=US20130179263A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://gawker.com/5516162/visionary-eric-leebow-thinks-he-invented-the-social-network&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130179263" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12123" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4958" RevisionGUID="afc6317d-95a9-4477-a078-a320d5f31996" CreationDate="2013-09-05T07:45:29.887" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Computer Software patent applications rejected in the UK - Can it still be granted in Europe/US?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4965" RevisionGUID="0a3ec7b0-7d35-4ceb-92bf-2198d503d867" CreationDate="2013-09-05T08:58:25.063" UserId="5690" Text="Not sure if this is what you're looking for, but the Norwegian National Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) streamed the 2010 olympics live. Here is one source (in Norwegian): http://nrkbeta.no/2009/12/17/en-totalopplevelse-fra-ol-2010-paa-nrk-no/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The source doesn't mention it, but IIRC the stream would skip in order to sync, and additionally it was possible to pause and go to any previous point in the stream as well. The article mentions that the Italian company Deltatre was the service provider. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4963" RevisionGUID="3f3a409b-90d0-4e44-aece-b52efb2434c1" CreationDate="2013-09-05T16:25:26.177" UserId="3076" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="One place loves it and another rejects it or demands changes in opposite directions - yes!  Every jurisdiction has their own laws and rules, obviously. Defining what a software patent is and how the line is drawn between patent-eligible subject matter and not patent-eligible matter is messy and a moving target in the US and elsewhere. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am involved with a patent on a very prosaic, very tangible thing and it sailed through Australia but may have hit a wall in China." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="0b3017c8-7c30-425d-8bf1-dcd59582f7c5" CreationDate="2013-09-05T21:01:40.827" UserId="5685" Comment="Added more details and followed the prior art template" Text="AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON that describes a seemingly obvious process where by **two parties input their preferences and a recommendation is given** based on a best fit algorithm. Would greatly help alleviate the burden of defense on dozens of start-ups trying to help consumers with recommendation and matching algorithms.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/23/1999** that would invalidate claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Patent US806907&#xD;&#xA; - Assignee: Dalton Sentry, LLC, Wilmington DE (US)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A computer-implemented method for facilitating evaluation, in connection with the procurement or delivery of products or services, in a context of at least one of (i) a financial transaction and (ii) operation of an enterprise, such context involving a first class of parties in a first role and a second class of counterparties in a second role, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;in a first computer process, retrieving first preference data from a first digital storage medium, the first preference data including attribute levels derived from choices made by at least one of the parties in the first class;&#xD;&#xA;in a second computer process, retrieving second preference data from a second digital storage medium, the second preference data including attribute levels derived from choices made by at least one of the counterparties in the second class;&#xD;&#xA;in a third computer process, for a selected party, performing multilateral analyses of the selected party's preference data and the preference data of each of the counterparties, and computing a closeness-of-fit value based thereon; and&#xD;&#xA;in a fourth computer process, using the computed closeness-of-fit values to derive and provide a list matching the selected party and at least one of the counterparties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8069073" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12132" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="0b3017c8-7c30-425d-8bf1-dcd59582f7c5" CreationDate="2013-09-05T21:01:40.827" UserId="5685" Comment="Added more details and followed the prior art template" Text="Recomdnation &amp; Decision Making - Method of Surveying Users for Preferences and Providing Recommendations (Dalton Sentry) - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12133" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="0b3017c8-7c30-425d-8bf1-dcd59582f7c5" CreationDate="2013-09-05T21:01:40.827" UserId="5685" Comment="Added more details and followed the prior art template" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;business-methods&gt;&lt;us8069073&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4967" RevisionGUID="b1c2ff37-8c4a-4c93-8c72-ce5f6f4c403c" CreationDate="2013-09-05T21:02:17.953" UserId="5697" Text="[Here](http://ahhha.brightidea.com/ct/ct_a_view_idea.bix?c=0C47ED00-A571-4110-B9CB-97EA1D221284&amp;idea_id=D3127FE1-BCA4-41ED-B11C-5E1736F02E9E) is an example of a website where a poster presents the idea of a &quot;Slide Release Buckle + Fire Starter&quot;, dated April 18, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12135" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4967" RevisionGUID="b1c2ff37-8c4a-4c93-8c72-ce5f6f4c403c" CreationDate="2013-09-05T21:02:17.953" UserId="5697" Text="Does THIS prior art invalidate THIS patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12136" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4967" RevisionGUID="b1c2ff37-8c4a-4c93-8c72-ce5f6f4c403c" CreationDate="2013-09-05T21:02:17.953" UserId="5697" Text="&lt;us20130189631&gt;&lt;fire&gt;&lt;starter&gt;&lt;buckle&gt;&lt;firesteel&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12137" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4967" RevisionGUID="3b27e766-7c1e-46fe-b01e-2cf162bf7d89" CreationDate="2013-09-05T21:08:53.410" UserId="1767" Comment="11" />
  <row Id="12138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4967" RevisionGUID="e70be0bd-4379-409d-b1be-d8fc768e2e47" CreationDate="2013-09-05T21:15:04.123" UserId="5697" Comment="Clarification, more details." Text="[Here](http://ahhha.brightidea.com/ct/ct_a_view_idea.bix?c=0C47ED00-A571-4110-B9CB-97EA1D221284&amp;idea_id=D3127FE1-BCA4-41ED-B11C-5E1736F02E9E) is an example of a invention website where a poster presents the idea of a &quot;Slide Release Buckle + Fire Starter&quot;, dated April 18, 2011. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application in question is &quot;Quick-Release Buckle with Fire Starting Components&quot;(Publication Number: [US20130189631 A1](https://www.google.com/patents/US20130189631?dq=fire+starter+buckle&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=x_IoUvb1M8Xd4APO-YCQDQ&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA)) by Michael John MOJICA claiming a priority to the U.S. Provisional Patent application submitted January 19, 2012, whereas claim 1 is as follows &quot;A quick-release buckle with fire starting components...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4967" RevisionGUID="e5490299-bdd4-4173-b597-31b73000c1f3" CreationDate="2013-09-05T21:23:43.453" UserId="5697" Comment="Clarification, more details." Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](http://ahhha.brightidea.com/ct/ct_a_view_idea.bix?c=0C47ED00-A571-4110-B9CB-97EA1D221284&amp;idea_id=D3127FE1-BCA4-41ED-B11C-5E1736F02E9E) is an example of a invention website where a poster presents the idea of a &quot;Slide Release Buckle + Fire Starter&quot;, dated April 18, 2011. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application in question is &quot;Quick-Release Buckle with Fire Starting Components&quot;(Publication Number: [US20130189631 A1](https://www.google.com/patents/US20130189631?dq=fire+starter+buckle&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=x_IoUvb1M8Xd4APO-YCQDQ&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA)) by Michael John MOJICA claiming a priority to the U.S. Provisional Patent application submitted January 19, 2012, whereas claim 1 is as follows &quot;A quick-release buckle with fire starting components...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ZFtho.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4970" RevisionGUID="f44dc7af-f291-40ae-bd42-a715ae767feb" CreationDate="2013-09-05T21:55:04.210" UserId="3076" Text="US20130189631 is not a patent it is an application for a patent. If the person behind the posting is not the inventor of the application and isn't someone who got it from the inventor then it would likely knock out the application. If it was from the inventor then it looks like it was within the 1 year grace period and not be usable as prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12146" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4967" RevisionGUID="054d96b6-4531-432e-9a42-7f73be47e726" CreationDate="2013-09-05T21:55:08.023" UserId="5697" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;us20130189631&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12147" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4967" RevisionGUID="054d96b6-4531-432e-9a42-7f73be47e726" CreationDate="2013-09-05T21:55:08.023" UserId="5697" Comment="edited tags" Text="Does THIS prior art invalidate THIS patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4970" RevisionGUID="0877e4f8-515e-4b1f-8e03-6d6fbb3f61f4" CreationDate="2013-09-05T22:06:28.677" UserId="3076" Comment="added 131 characters in body" Text="US20130189631 is not a patent, &#xD;&#xA;it is an application for a patent. If the person behind the posting is not the inventor of the application and isn't someone who got it from the inventor then it would likely knock out the application. If it was from the inventor then it looks like it was within the 1 year grace period and not usable as prior art. Under the &quot;old&quot; patent law in effect then your own work can't be used against you for a year. Now, under AIA, it is more complicated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4935" RevisionGUID="53eb4137-d260-4afd-8fc3-d0d64804a01b" CreationDate="2013-09-06T06:02:06.180" UserId="3076" Comment="Removed &quot;English translation&quot; of c" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Q&amp;A SERVICES** - This application from Nuance Communications, Inc. seeks to patent looking up a corpus of previously asked questions in a Q&amp;A service like Stack Exchange! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent application before it becomes a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 6, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for operating a frequently asked questions (FAQ)-based system, the method comprising: training a classifier based on questions stored in the FAQ-based system, each question corresponding to at least one answer; and applying the classifier to a query to return an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question -- one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: **METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR OPERATING A FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)-BASED SYSTEM**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  searches a user generated query in a classifier trained to search a database of questions in a set of FAQs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [20130144890][1]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Nuance Communications, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 6, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 06, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for operating a frequently asked questions (FAQ)-based system, the method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. training a classifier based on questions stored in the FAQ-based system, each question corresponding to at least one answer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. applying the classifier to a query to return an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to Dec 6, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ](http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request) on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130144890" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4971" RevisionGUID="ca7dfba0-7cd0-44a4-89d8-62ebb8bcccc9" CreationDate="2013-09-06T09:35:45.650" UserId="5702" Text="Sounds like the sort of algorithm that is used by computer dating agencies, which have been around since 1965: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1965/11/3/operation-match-pif-you-stop-to/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="b29009d7-e165-4a9d-bf7e-280842a16edb" CreationDate="2013-09-06T13:37:28.137" UserId="1259" Comment="typo in title, typo in patent number, link" Text="AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON that describes a seemingly obvious process where by **two parties input their preferences and a recommendation is given** based on a best fit algorithm. Would greatly help alleviate the burden of defense on dozens of start-ups trying to help consumers with recommendation and matching algorithms.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/23/1999** that would invalidate claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Patent [US8069073][1]&#xD;&#xA; - Assignee: Dalton Sentry, LLC, Wilmington DE (US)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A computer-implemented method for facilitating evaluation, in connection with the procurement or delivery of products or services, in a context of at least one of (i) a financial transaction and (ii) operation of an enterprise, such context involving a first class of parties in a first role and a second class of counterparties in a second role, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;in a first computer process, retrieving first preference data from a first digital storage medium, the first preference data including attribute levels derived from choices made by at least one of the parties in the first class;&#xD;&#xA;in a second computer process, retrieving second preference data from a second digital storage medium, the second preference data including attribute levels derived from choices made by at least one of the counterparties in the second class;&#xD;&#xA;in a third computer process, for a selected party, performing multilateral analyses of the selected party's preference data and the preference data of each of the counterparties, and computing a closeness-of-fit value based thereon; and&#xD;&#xA;in a fourth computer process, using the computed closeness-of-fit values to derive and provide a list matching the selected party and at least one of the counterparties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us8069073" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12153" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="b29009d7-e165-4a9d-bf7e-280842a16edb" CreationDate="2013-09-06T13:37:28.137" UserId="1259" Comment="typo in title, typo in patent number, link" Text="Recommendation &amp; Decision Making - Method of Surveying Users for Preferences and Providing Recommendations (Dalton Sentry) - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12154" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="b29009d7-e165-4a9d-bf7e-280842a16edb" CreationDate="2013-09-06T13:37:28.137" UserId="1259" Comment="typo in title, typo in patent number, link" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;us8069073&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4967" RevisionGUID="e6dc669d-5bb8-4ed0-b0c0-a6c4e8af4429" CreationDate="2013-09-06T15:06:19.787" UserId="5697" Comment="grammar" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](http://ahhha.brightidea.com/ct/ct_a_view_idea.bix?c=0C47ED00-A571-4110-B9CB-97EA1D221284&amp;idea_id=D3127FE1-BCA4-41ED-B11C-5E1736F02E9E) is an example of an invention website where a poster presents the idea of a &quot;Slide Release Buckle + Fire Starter&quot;, dated April 18, 2011. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application in question is &quot;Quick-Release Buckle with Fire Starting Components&quot;(Publication Number: [US20130189631 A1](https://www.google.com/patents/US20130189631?dq=fire+starter+buckle&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=x_IoUvb1M8Xd4APO-YCQDQ&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA)) by Michael John MOJICA claiming a priority to the U.S. Provisional Patent application submitted January 19, 2012, whereas claim 1 is as follows &quot;A quick-release buckle with fire starting components...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ZFtho.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4972" RevisionGUID="3e9d4ec3-72ae-43b2-958d-9c1381f7a892" CreationDate="2013-09-06T16:12:05.647" UserId="5590" Text="One possibility is Googles Auto Suggest feature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think of the Google Search Box as the place where a user asks a question (&quot;What are you searching for&quot;?)   and the set of searchs  as the list of questions that Google gets asked...  Google applies a classifier to this search terms and picks the most frequently asked questions to help auto complete your search....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you start typing in your question/search phrase .... and based on history of people searching, google autocompletes/puts up suggestions &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heres a blog from 2008 http://googleblog.blogspot.ie/2008/08/at-loss-for-words.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4973" RevisionGUID="8738a16b-da2b-4eda-bccc-ec7b3979f6b4" CreationDate="2013-09-06T16:16:50.813" UserId="5703" Text="Please be nice, as I've only just discovered Ask Patents, so I'm sure I'm trampling over several established rules, but this concept reminded me of a story I heard on the run-up to Y2K, about Marks &amp; Spencers in the late '90s throwing out food with an expiry date after the year 2000, because their computer system identified it as being almost 100 years old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick Google found me this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.co-intelligence.org/y2k_bkdwnexmpls.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which references this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.co-intelligence.org/Y2K_wheatleyetal.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which in turn references a document called 'United Airlines, Flight Talk Network, February 1998', which I can't find online (although I haven't looked particularly extensively). I'm not sure how important the provenance of the information is, given that the second link above is dated 1998, which obviously pre-dates the patent application, and (I hope) shows that it is not novel, whether or not the actual anecdote is true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relevant passage from the second page is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The calculation problem explains why the computer system at Marks &amp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Spencer department store in London recently destroyed tons of food&#xD;&#xA;&gt; during the process of doing a long term forecast. The computer read&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2002 as 1902. Instead of four more years of shelf life, the computer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; calculated that this food was ninety-six years old. It ordered it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thrown out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully this is enough information, but again, apologies in advance if I've misunderstood the requirements." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4972" RevisionGUID="055ee0c5-25df-42ff-a007-ed7e7e76f09c" CreationDate="2013-09-06T16:57:11.100" UserId="5590" Comment="added 2115 characters in body" Text="One possibility is Googles Auto Suggest feature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think of the Google Search Box as the place where a user asks a question (&quot;What are you searching for&quot;?)   &#xD;&#xA;and the set of searchs that people type into the Google Search Box as the set of Frequently Asked Questions....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With Google Suggest, as you are typing your question it comes back with a list of possible suggestions....  To come up with that list Google applies its own algorithm to pick the list of suggestions it offers from its list of frequently asked questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its a bit 'meta' as Google is in the search business... but I think it describes the process...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heres a blog from 2008 http://googleblog.blogspot.ie/2008/08/at-loss-for-words.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and from https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/106230&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **How autocomplete works**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Where the predictions come from&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As you type, autocomplete predicts and displays queries to choose from. The search queries that you see as part of autocomplete are a reflection of the search activity of all web users and the content of web pages indexed by Google. If you're signed in to your Google Account and have Web History enabled, you might also see search queries from relevant searches that you've done in the past. In addition, Google+ profiles can sometimes appear in autocomplete when you search for a person's name. Apart from the Google+ profiles that may appear, all of the predicted queries that are shown in the drop-down list have been typed previously by Google users or appear on the web.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For certain queries, Google will show separate predictions for just the last few words. Below the word that you're typing in the search box, you'll see a smaller drop-down list containing predictions based only on the last words of your query. While each prediction shown in the drop-down list has been typed before by Google users or appears on the web, the combination of your primary text along with the completion may be unique.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Does Google monitor the autocomplete results?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Autocomplete predictions are algorithmically determined based on a number of factors (including popularity of search terms) without any human intervention. Just like the web, the search queries presented may include silly or strange or surprising terms and phrases. While we always strive to reflect the diversity of content on the web (some good, some objectionable), we also apply a narrow set of removal policies for pornography, violence, hate speech, and terms that are frequently used to find content that infringes copyrights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So from this Google keeps a set of FAQ's... and its clearly adaptive/being trained by new questions being asked and its used to deliver answers...." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4974" RevisionGUID="700e3ff5-cbf7-41d9-b784-cc4143f0fcf1" CreationDate="2013-09-06T19:15:25.733" UserId="4028" Text="An early patent on such computer dating matching with preferences on both sides is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US5963951&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a 10/5/99 publication date and is not cited in the continuation nor the original patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the patent examiner for the 8069073 continuation patent already cited from the original patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6915269&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the following two patents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6272467&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6289340&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;one should look at the patent prosecution history to understand the distinctions that made this patent non-obvious to the examiner, though the cited references had publication dates after the priority date and filing date for the original patent so are not considered to be prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4976" RevisionGUID="8f3f2f9a-2ad5-436b-bd47-28f33298cda5" CreationDate="2013-09-06T19:30:50.873" UserId="4028" Text="An early patent matching a product with a user based on characteristics of each is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US5122952&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a 6/16/92 publication date.  Claim 1 is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. An automated selection system for selecting and matching learning tools that possess developmental values with the individual characteristics of a user that have correspondence to such values comprising:&#xD;&#xA;data entry means for entering user data including user static personal data and dynamic user developmental conditions;&#xD;&#xA;learning tool list means for storing learning tool characterizing data;&#xD;&#xA;means coupled to the data entry means and the learning tool list means for generating a preferred learning tool list by matching the user data to corresponding learning tool characterizing data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent was not cited in either the continuation patent nor the original patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4977" RevisionGUID="fb8a98f2-1e15-42bd-8ec6-54fffc86e438" CreationDate="2013-09-06T19:39:40.753" UserId="4028" Text="An early patent application for expertly matching products, services and consumers is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/WO1998002835A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a 1/22/98 publication date.  This application does not appear to have resulted in a patent, but this application is referenced by other patents, but not by the continuation or original patent in question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4974" RevisionGUID="997ad4b2-64c5-421d-a7f3-81d3efb8569d" CreationDate="2013-09-06T19:40:03.613" UserId="4028" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="An early patent on such computer dating matching with preferences on both sides is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US5963951&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a 10/5/99 publication date and is not cited in the continuation nor the original patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the patent examiner for the 8069073 continuation patent already cited from the original patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6915269&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the following two patents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6272467&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6289340&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;one should look at the patent prosecution history to understand the distinctions that made this patent non-obvious to the examiner, though the cited references had publication dates after the priority date and filing date for the original patent so are not considered to be prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4976" RevisionGUID="d9efd1f1-ff03-4786-a1af-729ef896896c" CreationDate="2013-09-06T20:00:37.770" UserId="4028" Comment="added sentence about distinction between anticipation vs. obviousness" Text="An early patent matching a product with a user based on characteristics of each is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US5122952&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a 6/16/92 publication date.  Claim 1 is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. An automated selection system for selecting and matching learning tools that possess developmental values with the individual characteristics of a user that have correspondence to such values comprising:&#xD;&#xA;data entry means for entering user data including user static personal data and dynamic user developmental conditions;&#xD;&#xA;learning tool list means for storing learning tool characterizing data;&#xD;&#xA;means coupled to the data entry means and the learning tool list means for generating a preferred learning tool list by matching the user data to corresponding learning tool characterizing data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent was not cited in either the continuation patent nor the original patent.  This patent may not be considered prior art for rejection under anticipation unless it teaches every aspect of the claimed invention, but it could still be considered as prior art for rejection under obviousness." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4976" RevisionGUID="b09dddfa-7417-42a8-a4c3-712a72995287" CreationDate="2013-09-06T20:14:07.350" UserId="4028" Comment="added line breaks" Text="An early patent matching a product with a user based on characteristics of each is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US5122952&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a 6/16/92 publication date.  Claim 1 is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. An automated selection system for selecting and matching learning tools that possess developmental values with the individual characteristics of a user that have correspondence to such values comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;data entry means for entering user data including user static personal data and dynamic user developmental conditions;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;learning tool list means for storing learning tool characterizing data;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;means coupled to the data entry means and the learning tool list means for generating a preferred learning tool list by matching the user data to corresponding learning tool characterizing data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent was not cited in either the continuation patent nor the original patent.  This patent may not be considered prior art for rejection under anticipation unless it teaches every aspect of the claimed invention, but it could still be considered as prior art for rejection under obviousness." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="e68cf47c-50ef-47a5-9d05-8fe3ab2c269a" CreationDate="2013-09-06T20:14:28.670" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1492 characters in body" Text="AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON that describes a seemingly obvious process where by **two parties input their preferences and a recommendation is given** based on a best fit algorithm. Would greatly help alleviate the burden of defense on dozens of start-ups trying to help consumers with recommendation and matching algorithms.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/23/1999** that would invalidate claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Patent Number**: [US8069073][1]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: [Dalton Sentry, LLC][2] appears to have no business other than suing 20 operating companies such as TheLadders, Jobvite, FindTheBest, Monster, etc.&#xD;&#xA; - **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 23, 1999&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for facilitating evaluation, in connection with the procurement or delivery of products or services, in a context of at least one of (i) a financial transaction and (ii) operation of an enterprise, such context involving a first class of parties in a first role and a second class of counterparties in a second role, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. in a first computer process, retrieving first preference data from a first digital storage medium, the first preference data including attribute levels derived from choices made by at least one of the parties in the first class;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.  in a second computer process, retrieving second preference data from a second digital storage medium, the second preference data including attribute levels derived from choices made by at least one of the counterparties in the second class;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. in a third computer process, for a selected party, performing **multilateral analyses** of the selected party's **preference data** and the preference data of each of the counterparties, and computing a **closeness-of-fit** value based thereon;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. and in a fourth computer process, using the computed closeness-of-fit values to derive and provide a **list matching the selected party** and at least one of the counterparties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English overview (at a high level, please read original claims to understand the actual patent):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for evaluating parties in a transaction, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Retrieving preference data about individual(s) in a first group, derived in part from choices made by the individuals (e.g. &quot;do you prefer drama or comedy?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Retrieving preference data about individual(s) in a second group, derived in part from choices made by the individual (e.g. &quot;do you prefer sushi or pasta&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. For a selected individual, performing **multi-lateral analysis** (or **conjoint analysis** to determine **closeness-of-fit** between the subject individual and other individuals of either the first or the second party.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Using **closeness-of-fit** to create a list of individuals well-matched to the subject individual (&quot;people like you are well-matched to the following list of people who also prefer comedy and sushi&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Recommendation &amp; Decision Making - Surveying Users for Preferences&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/UebApW2.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[More background about the '073 patent and 20 lawsuits in which it appears][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/qKQ46SN.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us8069073&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/#q=dalton+sentry+llc+lawsuits&amp;safe=off&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://read.bi/1cgdRYa&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12169" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="fe0a08b4-6951-4f81-b4c6-99031fa231bd" CreationDate="2013-09-06T20:16:17.427" UserId="1767" Comment="10" />
  <row Id="12170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="4d28637b-8b0d-4e81-a66e-4accd39ce100" CreationDate="2013-09-06T20:23:19.200" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1492 characters in body" Text="AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON recommendation and decision making that describes a seemingly obvious process where by **two parties input their preferences and a recommendation is given** based on a best fit algorithm. Would greatly help alleviate the burden of defense on dozens of start-ups trying to help consumers with recommendation and matching algorithms.   10 minutes of your time can help stop a troll. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/23/1999** that discusses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; matching individuals based on a fitness function and making recommendations.  Extra credit for **multilateral analysis** or **conjoint analysis** based on user choices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Patent Number**: [US8069073][1]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: [Dalton Sentry, LLC][2] appears to have no business other than suing 20 operating companies such as TheLadders, Jobvite, FindTheBest, Monster, etc.&#xD;&#xA; - **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 23, 1999&#xD;&#xA; - **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for facilitating evaluation, in connection with the procurement or delivery of products or services, in a context of at least one of (i) a financial transaction and (ii) operation of an enterprise, such context involving a first class of parties in a first role and a second class of counterparties in a second role, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. in a first computer process, retrieving first preference data from a first digital storage medium, the first preference data including attribute levels derived from choices made by at least one of the parties in the first class;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.  in a second computer process, retrieving second preference data from a second digital storage medium, the second preference data including attribute levels derived from choices made by at least one of the counterparties in the second class;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. in a third computer process, for a selected party, performing **multilateral analyses** of the selected party's **preference data** and the preference data of each of the counterparties, and computing a **closeness-of-fit** value based thereon;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. and in a fourth computer process, using the computed closeness-of-fit values to derive and provide a **list matching the selected party** and at least one of the counterparties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English overview (at a high level, please read original claims to understand the actual patent):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for evaluating parties in a transaction, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Retrieving preference data about individual(s) in a first group, derived in part from choices made by the individuals (e.g. &quot;do you prefer drama or comedy?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Retrieving preference data about individual(s) in a second group, derived in part from choices made by the individual (e.g. &quot;do you prefer sushi or pasta&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. For a selected individual, performing **multi-lateral analysis** (or **conjoint analysis** to determine **closeness-of-fit** between the subject individual and other individuals of either the first or the second party.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Using **closeness-of-fit** to create a list of individuals well-matched to the subject individual (&quot;people like you are well-matched to the following list of people who also prefer comedy and sushi&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Recommendation &amp; Decision Making - Surveying Users for Preferences&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/UebApW2.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[More background about the '073 patent and 20 lawsuits in which it appears][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/qKQ46SN.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us8069073&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/#q=dalton+sentry+llc+lawsuits&amp;safe=off&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://read.bi/1cgdRYa&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US8069073#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=12%2F23%2F1999&amp;t=1preference%20data.1party.1choices.0facilitating%20evaluation.0retrieving%20party.0bilateral%20and%20multilateral.0utility%20values.0procurement.0financial%20transaction.0digital%20storage%20media." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4974" RevisionGUID="2ab01e08-8c85-49da-9862-0823403fd7cd" CreationDate="2013-09-06T20:38:24.507" UserId="4028" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="An early patent on such computer dating matching with preferences on both sides (see Ben's answer) is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US5963951&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a 10/5/99 publication date and is not cited in the continuation nor the original patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the patent examiner for the 8069073 continuation patent already cited from the original patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6915269&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the following two patents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6272467&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6289340&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;one should look at the patent prosecution history to understand the distinctions that made this patent non-obvious to the examiner, though the cited references had publication dates after the priority date and filing date for the original patent so are not considered to be prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4978" RevisionGUID="d72bdc58-b9db-42b3-9dd7-155b461edbd2" CreationDate="2013-09-06T20:40:03.847" UserId="5707" Text="Delivery.com has had &quot;Group Ordering&quot; since at least November 9th, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=8080951" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4979" RevisionGUID="1f380470-e13d-437c-be82-7b42df8f3845" CreationDate="2013-09-06T20:58:35.460" UserId="4028" Text="Another early patent on date matching is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US5920845&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a 7/6/99 publication date and refers to the following compatibility game patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US5681046&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a 10/28/97 publication date that in the description goes into detail about questions, responses, categories, valuation/ranking, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12174" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="1c60d1d6-4321-41d9-8f10-cbd4dc964ca8" CreationDate="2013-09-06T21:03:57.410" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Recommendation &amp; Decision Making - Surveying Users for Preferences and Providing Recommendations (Dalton Sentry) - Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4980" RevisionGUID="1c0c5b29-a8d6-4fc8-970f-9326ea97986a" CreationDate="2013-09-06T21:13:29.670" UserId="4028" Text="A patent describing matching criteria and algorithms from preferences in a cable programming system is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US5673430&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a publication date of 9/30/97.  The description in the patent goes into details regarding conflicting criteria resolution, value judgment with relative importance of criteria, determining subscriber satisfaction, and other factors and algorithmic techniques.  The techniques of matching people with preferences against products with attributes using computers was not new." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="8bc3b56c-6090-4b35-846e-4fdc71cad271" CreationDate="2013-09-06T21:22:19.083" UserId="1767" Comment="added 817 characters in body; edited tags" Text="![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application was given a &quot;**final rejection**&quot; by the US Patent Office. An applicant has several ways to keep an application in this state alive. They include a request for continuing examination. It just involves paying more fees and responding to the rejection. Appealing the rejection is another avenue. If nothing is done it will go abandoned six months from the final rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the grounds for rejection (can be seen in Public PAIR) are based on scientific publications by the applicants themselves.&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ANALYZING A WEBPAGE** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...extracting information blocks from a webpage based on text and visual layout! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Webpage extraction through page structure and sentences**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for extracting entities in a webpage using a **text understanding component** and a **visual layout extraction&quot; component**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110078554 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 12/569,912&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Sep 30, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. In a computing environment, a system comprising, at least one processor, a memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and including components comprising, a framework configured to process a webpage to understand one or more entities of the webpage, the framework including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a text understanding component and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to provide text-related data to the structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the structure understanding component configured to use the text-related data and visual layout features of the webpage to produce a labeled block,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to use the labeled block to understand text of the one or more entities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for processing a webpage, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A text understanding component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A visual layout (&quot;structure&quot;) understanding component; where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The text component provides data to the visual layout component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The visual layout component produces a labeled block based on the visual layout and the text; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. The text understanding component uses the labeled block to &quot;understand&quot; the text of an entity on the webpage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Sep 30, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A natural language processing framework for labeling webpages” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/V9vSS.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110078554&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/h3moa.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12177" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="8bc3b56c-6090-4b35-846e-4fdc71cad271" CreationDate="2013-09-06T21:22:19.083" UserId="1767" Comment="added 817 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;us20110078554&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4976" RevisionGUID="ed458006-08e8-40c4-811e-70c5bbd87405" CreationDate="2013-09-06T21:26:08.987" UserId="4028" Comment="expanded upon explanation for obviousness (i.e. combining two pieces of prior art)" Text="An early patent matching a product with a user based on characteristics of each is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US5122952&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a 6/16/92 publication date.  Claim 1 is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. An automated selection system for selecting and matching learning tools that possess developmental values with the individual characteristics of a user that have correspondence to such values comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;data entry means for entering user data including user static personal data and dynamic user developmental conditions;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;learning tool list means for storing learning tool characterizing data;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;means coupled to the data entry means and the learning tool list means for generating a preferred learning tool list by matching the user data to corresponding learning tool characterizing data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent was not cited in either the continuation patent nor the original patent.  This patent may not be considered prior art for rejection under anticipation unless it teaches every aspect of the claimed invention, but it could still be considered as prior art for rejection under obviousness, especially when combined with the following patent that was already cited in the original patent in question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US5124911" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4976" RevisionGUID="cba6ee65-ee20-4061-8744-18d9635c3326" CreationDate="2013-09-06T22:48:56.420" UserId="4028" Comment="improved formatting of clauses in claim 1" Text="An early patent matching a product with a user based on characteristics of each is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US5122952&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a 6/16/92 publication date.  Claim 1 is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. An automated selection system for selecting and matching learning tools that possess developmental values with the individual characteristics of a user that have correspondence to such values comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- data entry means for entering user data including user static personal data and dynamic user developmental conditions;&#xD;&#xA;- learning tool list means for storing learning tool characterizing data;&#xD;&#xA;- means coupled to the data entry means and the learning tool list means for generating a preferred learning tool list by matching the user data to corresponding learning tool characterizing data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent was not cited in either the continuation patent nor the original patent.  This patent may not be considered prior art for rejection under anticipation unless it teaches every aspect of the claimed invention, but it could still be considered as prior art for rejection under obviousness, especially when combined with the following patent that was already cited in the original patent in question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US5124911" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4981" RevisionGUID="3ea1104a-5215-448f-a22c-3cb8064015c3" CreationDate="2013-09-06T23:51:23.323" UserId="4028" Text="A patent describing a sophisticated electronic marketplace using consumer and provider personal agents, decision agents, demand agents, using consumer personal preference data and a provider product information database is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.co.in/patents/WO1997026612A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a publication date of 7/24/97.  This patent was not cited in the continuation patents or original patent in question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4982" RevisionGUID="5dd9fe40-05c5-4c77-ba28-28a2272cdccb" CreationDate="2013-09-07T00:34:26.627" UserId="4028" Text="A patent application for getting user preferences and requirement data for a variety of attributes with a decision engine to filter product choices is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/WO1998035297A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with an 8/13/98 publication date.  This was subsequently issued as the following U.S. patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6012051&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but that has a 1/4/00 publication date so the application needs to be used for prior art purposes.  The patent application was not cited in the original or continuation patent in question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4983" RevisionGUID="27552c3c-7270-4952-a1f4-57385425f8aa" CreationDate="2013-09-07T00:48:40.057" UserId="4028" Text="Regarding multilateral analysis or conjoint analysis, there is the following patent application on determining forced choice preferences using hedonic testing (evaluation of individual products on a ballot):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/WO1999012030A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a publication date of 3/11/99 though became a U.S. patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US6623040?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that was published 9/23/03 so the patent application must be used for the purposes of prior art.  This application shows the essential rough equivalency of forced choice (conjoint analysis) techniques compared to attribute scaling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4981" RevisionGUID="2b849bcb-2c18-4e54-aa2f-df19343a2f62" CreationDate="2013-09-07T01:10:20.047" UserId="4028" Comment="Added info on particular relevancy for this patent." Text="A patent describing a sophisticated electronic marketplace using consumer and provider personal agents, decision agents, demand agents, using consumer personal preference data and a provider product information database is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.co.in/patents/WO1997026612A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a publication date of 7/24/97.  This patent was not cited in the continuation patents or original patent in question.  This patent is particularly relevant since it is about matching preferences in both directions.  Providers of products can use demand information to tailor quantity of products with specific attributes and can target advertising only to those interested in relevant products.  Consumers can see only those products that are relevant to them.  It is a true matching of two parties with their respective preferences in a business transactional context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4984" RevisionGUID="df5628ac-9b03-4ac3-b335-17939c956c3a" CreationDate="2013-09-07T01:34:04.807" UserId="4028" Text="Turning to financial markets, we find the following patent application that matches a party and a counterparty based on their respective credit preference data so that they only view relevant orders which can also be matched electronically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.co.in/patents/WO1999019821A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that was published on 4/22/99 but later became the U.S. patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6421653&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but with a publication date of 6/16/02 so the patent application is what needs to be used for prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many other patents in 1999 and earlier regarding matching financial instruments with consumer preferences, but since those are not 2-way preference selections (unlike the above that is 2-way), I will not add those." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4984" RevisionGUID="8fce87e9-6100-4f95-a1ae-fd5f49afa24c" CreationDate="2013-09-07T01:44:13.597" UserId="4028" Comment="added 481 characters in body" Text="Turning to financial markets, we find the following patent application that matches a party and a counterparty based on their respective credit preference data so that they only view relevant orders which can also be matched electronically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.co.in/patents/WO1999019821A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that was published on 4/22/99 but later became the U.S. patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6421653&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but with a publication date of 6/16/02 so the patent application is what needs to be used for prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also the following patent that matches orders but also accounts for the credit limits of both parties:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US5375055&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a publication date of 12/20/94.  There is the following patent regarding multi-party risk management:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/2203279/summary.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a publication date of 6/13/96.  These demonstrate that systems that did best-matching for multiple parties already existed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many other patents in 1999 and earlier regarding matching financial instruments with consumer preferences, but since those are not 2-way preference selections (unlike the above that are 2-way), I will not add those." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4985" RevisionGUID="6beae42c-9dfb-4e71-8832-9ed7dacf2237" CreationDate="2013-09-07T02:42:04.837" UserId="4028" Text="A patent application that describes discrete choice modeling analogous to conjoint analysis where it is used for individually targeting different consumers to receive different offers from a plurality of different vendors:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/WO1999033012A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a publication date of 7/1/99.  This patent application was not cited in the original or continuation patents in question.  In this patent application, financial and demographic information comes from a consumer credit provider while at least one of market research, product and customer information comes from different vendors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4987" RevisionGUID="7499a0e7-47bb-497e-85fe-6647b008c4bc" CreationDate="2013-09-07T03:05:38.817" UserId="4028" Text="A patent about automating multi-party property equity exchange using the specifics of each owner's exchange desires and each property's characteristics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US5500793&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a publication date of 3/19/96.  This patent was not cited in the original or continuation patents in question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="0a62d780-a5f2-4833-92c4-6b3517842130" CreationDate="2013-09-07T06:08:11.587" UserId="3076" Comment="Removed screen shot of news item - there is a link to it and it seemed distracting" Text="AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON that describes a seemingly obvious process where by **two parties input their preferences and a recommendation is given** based on a best fit algorithm. Would greatly help alleviate the burden of defense on dozens of start-ups trying to help consumers with recommendation and matching algorithms.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/23/1999** that would invalidate claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Patent Number**: [US8069073][1]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: [Dalton Sentry, LLC][2] appears to have no business other than suing 20 operating companies such as TheLadders, Jobvite, FindTheBest, Monster, etc.&#xD;&#xA; - **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 23, 1999&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for facilitating evaluation, in connection with the procurement or delivery of products or services, in a context of at least one of (i) a financial transaction and (ii) operation of an enterprise, such context involving a first class of parties in a first role and a second class of counterparties in a second role, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. in a first computer process, retrieving first preference data from a first digital storage medium, the first preference data including attribute levels derived from choices made by at least one of the parties in the first class;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.  in a second computer process, retrieving second preference data from a second digital storage medium, the second preference data including attribute levels derived from choices made by at least one of the counterparties in the second class;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. in a third computer process, for a selected party, performing **multilateral analyses** of the selected party's **preference data** and the preference data of each of the counterparties, and computing a **closeness-of-fit** value based thereon;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. and in a fourth computer process, using the computed closeness-of-fit values to derive and provide a **list matching the selected party** and at least one of the counterparties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English overview (at a high level, please read original claims to understand the actual patent):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for evaluating parties in a transaction, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Retrieving preference data about individual(s) in a first group, derived in part from choices made by the individuals (e.g. &quot;do you prefer drama or comedy?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Retrieving preference data about individual(s) in a second group, derived in part from choices made by the individual (e.g. &quot;do you prefer sushi or pasta&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. For a selected individual, performing **multi-lateral analysis** (or **conjoint analysis** to determine **closeness-of-fit** between the subject individual and other individuals of either the first or the second party.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Using **closeness-of-fit** to create a list of individuals well-matched to the subject individual (&quot;people like you are well-matched to the following list of people who also prefer comedy and sushi&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Recommendation &amp; Decision Making - Surveying Users for Preferences&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/UebApW2.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[More background about the '073 patent and 20 lawsuits in which it appears][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us8069073&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/#q=dalton+sentry+llc+lawsuits&amp;safe=off&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://read.bi/1cgdRYa&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4988" RevisionGUID="9e36b183-9ebe-4c5a-b5ef-2f49a48252ff" CreationDate="2013-09-07T13:55:46.887" UserId="5710" Text="The biggest example I can think of, ironically, is the StackExchange network itself. When asking a question, SE sites automatically suggest similar questions which have answers. The patent seems to cover simply collecting the answer(s) to the similar questions and showing them instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4977" RevisionGUID="9da7816e-f3ec-448c-a754-1916bcc246f1" CreationDate="2013-09-07T18:15:03.223" UserId="4028" Comment="added excerpts from patent" Text="An early patent application for expertly matching products, services and consumers is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/WO1998002835A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a 1/22/98 publication date.  This application does not appear to have resulted in a patent, but this application is referenced by other patents, but not by the continuation or original patent in question.  The following are some excerpts illustrating preference selection by both individuals and those responsible for the products or services:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The means for creating a data profile 41 creates a data profile, based on the characteristics and preferences of the individual, that defines the individual and is used to match the individual. It may comprise, for example, a list of multiple choice questions, answers to the questions, an input/output device, and a means to manipulate data. The list of multiple choice questions elicits the characteristics and preferences of the individual so as to enable the creation of the data profile.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The means for coding codes each product or service with the types of characteristics and preferences for which the product or service is appropriate.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4989" RevisionGUID="b1a9b05a-df7d-4e18-9c6f-be3fc0cbc7f1" CreationDate="2013-09-07T20:01:24.800" UserId="4922" Text="There are, of course, lots of things other than food which require this type of management.  One of the less obvious ones would be **safety critical employees** such as train drivers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typical safety rules on a modern railway require that a given driver spends no more than a few hours continuously in charge of a train, where &quot;continuously&quot; means &quot;without an authorised absence from duty of prescribed (substantial) length&quot;.  Trains are often delayed for any number of reasons, so during or following a disruption event, there are usually a number of drivers operating trains who will not be able to reach their intended changeover point before their hours &quot;expire&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is then necessary to get &quot;fresh&quot; drivers into position to take over these trains, to avoid further disruption being caused by a train, halted on the line, that has nobody available to drive it.  Such disruption would at minimum involve &quot;tipping out&quot; the passengers at the next station, at which point the &quot;expired&quot; driver would be authorised to drive the train to the nearest stabling siding, out of the way.  (The time limits are slightly more relaxed - but only slightly - for trains running otherwise than in service.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Drivers are typically rostered with the aid of a Fatigue Risk Management System, which would have a design very similar to what the patent describes, replacing certain terms specific to the food industry with others specific to drivers of trains.  An [incident investigation report][1] published by the RAIB in **August 2011** indicates that such systems were in common use in the railway industry by the date of the incident, which occurred in **August 2010**.  (The one-year interval between incident and report is typical for all but the most complex investigations.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The task is complicated by the fact that the fresh driver taking over the train must be qualified to drive the particular type of traction, and must also (in some systems) have specific knowledge of the track he is due to drive it over; this is analogous to requiring green peppers for a particular recipe, rather than red meat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closely related to this is the need to perform regular maintenance on railway vehicles, although the deadlines for maintenance are typically &quot;softer&quot; than for working hours.  Computers have kept track of rail vehicle movements and schedules at least since [British Rail introduced TOPS][2] circa 1970; BR TOPS was itself imported via Canada from the Southern Pacific railway, who developed the software in the 1960s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is insufficient to invalidate the patent directly, but it could bolster an obviousness charge against it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/110815_R152011_Shap_Summit.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOPS" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4990" RevisionGUID="d686321f-1d27-4ee6-a548-b930ac46d3a2" CreationDate="2013-09-07T20:18:51.123" UserId="4922" Text="So, a &quot;plurality of shopping devices&quot; (read: ordinary PCs with Web browsers pointed to the e-commerce website), with a &quot;plurality of shopping carts&quot; (read: one shopping cart per PC).  That part is pretty obvious, since it was already the normal mode of e-commerce in the dot-com era.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claim of novelty thus seems to hinge on one PC's shopping cart being visible to the (authorised) user of another PC.  There is no claim that this visibility is in real-time.  It could therefore be covered by a simple &quot;e-mail this cart&quot; function, which certainly also predates this patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only problem is that I can't reliably remember precise which sites I noticed having the feature and when.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4991" RevisionGUID="f8085479-d3c7-4667-8eb0-3ff86025c0ea" CreationDate="2013-09-07T21:07:20.433" UserId="4922" Text="When I arrived in Finland in early 2006, the local trains in the Helsinki area already did this routinely, in the form of automatic announcements when approaching stations.  The Metro line restricts itself to reading out the name of the approaching station, while the mainline commuter trains also announce interchange information when approaching certain junction stations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Announcement example, approximate translation:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Next is Pasila.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Express trains to Tampere and Kouvola, and local trains to Lahti and Riihimäki, leave from Platforms 3 and 4.  Local trains to Tikkurila and Kerava leave from Platform 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two of the stations (Ilmala and Pasila) are sufficiently close together that the announcement point for Pasila for trains *not* stopping at Ilmala is roughly alongside Ilmala - but trains that *do* stop at Ilmala *also* start to play the Pasila announcement while pulling into Ilmala platform.  This is strong evidence that the announcements are triggered at a specific distance from each station, rather than incorporating additional data such as the speed of the train.  As a workaround, the Pasila announcement for stopping trains has a long period of silence at the beginning, so that the announcement is less confusing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's cover the claim step by step:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a computer determining that a device of a person is within a predetermined distance of a location, based on data received from the device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check, based on the above evidence.  I believe it is done using a combination of GPS and wheel-rotation data, but that is not essential.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the computer identifying the at least one of the person and the device, based on the received data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;device&quot; is the moving train that the computer is fitted to, so it is implicitly identified.  Additionally, the computer has been told by the traincrew in advance which stopping pattern the train is due to execute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the computer associating the at least one of the person and the device with the location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the computer generating a message based on the association; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A recorded announcement is selected...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the computer communicating the message to the person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and played back over the internal PA system for the benefit of passengers.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4992" RevisionGUID="243e71d1-7bcc-438d-b76c-349b193a798c" CreationDate="2013-09-07T21:17:47.380" UserId="5712" Text="Patent application US20130132065 Acquiring Accurate Machine Translation --- Prior Art Request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent application outlines translating from a source language to another language with the added feature of presenting a list of word choices to the user to select the more appropriately translated word for words that are ambiguous. &#xD;&#xA;Looking for prior art for the use of user input to decide which translation to use for an ambiguous word.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12201" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4992" RevisionGUID="243e71d1-7bcc-438d-b76c-349b193a798c" CreationDate="2013-09-07T21:17:47.380" UserId="5712" Text="Machine Translation with User Input for Ambiguous Words" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12202" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4992" RevisionGUID="243e71d1-7bcc-438d-b76c-349b193a798c" CreationDate="2013-09-07T21:17:47.380" UserId="5712" Text="&lt;translation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4985" RevisionGUID="cb1f91f3-c355-4801-ba5a-b21898d203ca" CreationDate="2013-09-07T21:59:54.847" UserId="4028" Comment="added quoted section from application" Text="A patent application that describes discrete choice modeling analogous to conjoint analysis where it is used for individually targeting different consumers to receive different offers from a plurality of different vendors:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/WO1999033012A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a publication date of 7/1/99.  This patent application was not cited in the original or continuation patents in question.  In this patent application, financial and demographic information comes from a consumer credit provider while at least one of market research, product and customer information comes from different vendors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Single or multiple variate regression analysis is a powerful statistical technique which enjoys low predictive error and high discrimination. It identifies the combination of characteristics that best predicts specific consumer behavior. The result of the multiple regression analysis is a regression equation, which is a tool used to store and rank customers or prospects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The LOGIT regression, also known as the Rodbard of Probit regression is a type of discrete choice analysis that market researchers use to predict how well a product or service will be received in the market. Analogous in many ways to conjoint analysis, discrete choice analysis differs by having respondents choose one of several product packages or options presented. Discrete choice modeling can be used to answer various marketing questions. It can provide direct predictive estimates of market share for a new or existing product. It can also be used to make estimates of future market demand. Many different data collection techniques can be used to implement a discrete choice model . Examples include mail and telephone surveys.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4993" RevisionGUID="7cac572c-751e-4f25-9cd2-7559f8012b65" CreationDate="2013-09-07T22:06:33.543" UserId="5713" Text="The publication number of the patent in question is WO2001053721 A1. Simply put, has a thruster been built and do the claims in the patent represent reality?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12205" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4993" RevisionGUID="7cac572c-751e-4f25-9cd2-7559f8012b65" CreationDate="2013-09-07T22:06:33.543" UserId="5713" Text="Has a prototype been built to demonstrate the claims made by WO 2001053721 A1?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12206" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4993" RevisionGUID="7cac572c-751e-4f25-9cd2-7559f8012b65" CreationDate="2013-09-07T22:06:33.543" UserId="5713" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4983" RevisionGUID="ae4a3b56-6bb4-4b88-af30-62cc23cda6f0" CreationDate="2013-09-07T22:08:37.080" UserId="4028" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="Regarding multilateral analysis or conjoint analysis, there is the following patent application on determining forced choice preferences using hedonic testing (evaluation of individual products on a ballot):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/WO1999012030A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a publication date of 3/11/99 though became a U.S. patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US6623040?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that was published 9/23/03 so the patent application must be used for the purposes of prior art.  This application shows the essential rough equivalency of forced choice (conjoint analysis) techniques compared to attribute scaling.  It is not directly applicable as prior art and instead may be used to weaken the novelty of forced choice (conjoint analysis) relative to more standard attribute scaling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4985" RevisionGUID="8d932859-dd98-4585-adbf-3c769cbfb810" CreationDate="2013-09-07T22:13:28.710" UserId="4028" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="A patent application that describes discrete choice modeling analogous to conjoint analysis where it is used for individually targeting different consumers to receive different offers from a plurality of different vendors:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/WO1999033012A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a publication date of 7/1/99.  This patent application was not cited in the original or continuation patents in question.  In this patent application, financial and demographic information comes from a consumer credit provider while at least one of market research, product and customer information comes from different vendors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Single or multiple variate regression analysis is a powerful statistical technique which enjoys low predictive error and high discrimination. It identifies the combination of characteristics that best predicts specific consumer behavior. The result of the multiple regression analysis is a regression equation, which is a tool used to store and rank customers or prospects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The LOGIT regression, also known as the Rodbard of Probit regression is a type of discrete choice analysis that market researchers use to predict how well a product or service will be received in the market. Analogous in many ways to conjoint analysis, discrete choice analysis differs by having respondents choose one of several product packages or options presented. Discrete choice modeling can be used to answer various marketing questions. It can provide direct predictive estimates of market share for a new or existing product. It can also be used to make estimates of future market demand. Many different data collection techniques can be used to implement a discrete choice model. Examples include mail and telephone surveys.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12209" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4992" RevisionGUID="a2a1e58d-f4c0-4adf-adb1-e82ba33f2d03" CreationDate="2013-09-07T22:18:52.983" UserId="1767" Comment="12" />
  <row Id="12210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4982" RevisionGUID="2fb8aa25-32ff-469c-af9a-b6822bd63a1d" CreationDate="2013-09-07T22:27:25.607" UserId="4028" Comment="added 1366 characters in body" Text="A patent application for getting user preferences and requirement data for a variety of attributes with a decision engine to filter product choices is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/WO1998035297A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with an 8/13/98 publication date.  This was subsequently issued as the following U.S. patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6012051&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but that has a 1/4/00 publication date so the application needs to be used for prior art purposes.  The patent application was not cited in the original or continuation patent in question.  Part of the summary of the invention follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Thus, the invention includes a user interface which presents a sequence of input prompts to the user to gather preference and requirement data for a plurality of attributes of products in the product domain. A decision engine is coupled to the user interface that filters the product domain to present a set of products according to the gathered preference and requirement data as product choices to the user.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The preference data comprises a variable associated with particular attributes specified by the user to have a degree of relevance to a product choice in the product domain, but not an absolute requirement. The requirement data comprises a variable associated with a particular attribute specified by the user to be required or not required for a product choice in the product domain.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;According to the present invention, the user is guided through the sequence of input prompts in order to assist the user in creating a personal profile of preferences and requirements for products in a particular product domain. The decision engine applies the requirements and the preferences to generate a list of one or more products which meet the requirements specified by the user profile, ranked according to the preferences specified by the user profile to assist the user in making a product choice.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4976" RevisionGUID="f0493af4-a73a-464e-9068-d67332a49ebf" CreationDate="2013-09-07T22:42:16.977" UserId="4028" Comment="added 644 characters in body" Text="An early patent matching a product with a user based on characteristics of each is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US5122952&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a 6/16/92 publication date.  Claim 1 is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. An automated selection system for selecting and matching learning tools that possess developmental values with the individual characteristics of a user that have correspondence to such values comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- data entry means for entering user data including user static personal data and dynamic user developmental conditions;&#xD;&#xA;- learning tool list means for storing learning tool characterizing data;&#xD;&#xA;- means coupled to the data entry means and the learning tool list means for generating a preferred learning tool list by matching the user data to corresponding learning tool characterizing data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent was not cited in either the continuation patent nor the original patent.  This patent may not be considered prior art for rejection under anticipation unless it teaches every aspect of the claimed invention, but it could still be considered as prior art for rejection under obviousness, especially when combined with the following patent that was already cited in the original patent in question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US5124911&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is the oldest patent I found and listed and demonstrates the basic concepts of entering attribute information about objects (learning tools) and characteristics about the individuals who would use those objects and a matching system.  A questionnaire is used.  The matching algorithm is very basic and binary (yes/no fit for each attribute).  One can show a timeline from this patent to later ones in terms of increasing levels of sophistication and narrowing, but where at some point pulling multiple pieces together becomes obvious to those skilled in the art (and the patent in question becomes broader in some ways, which it should not do)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12212" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4993" RevisionGUID="dcd25415-c0aa-42ee-9361-9d4b3c2206de" CreationDate="2013-09-07T22:48:40.533" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;wo2001053721&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4974" RevisionGUID="142504fb-fe2f-4a20-a085-775feecb27f1" CreationDate="2013-09-07T22:54:58.133" UserId="4028" Comment="added 959 characters in body" Text="An early patent on such computer dating matching with preferences on both sides (see Ben's answer) is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US5963951&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a 10/5/99 publication date and is not cited in the continuation nor the original patent.  The preferences are entered through direct selection and not forced choice, but they are done by multiple parties and matches are made through multilateral analysis in that multiple party-to-party comparisons are made and a goodness-of-fit (called &quot;percentage match&quot;) is calculated.  I quote from the patent below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;In the embodiment of this example, the score is determined as follows: if a criterion matches a preference then the score is increased by the weight associated with that criterion. So, e.g., if the user's hair color criterion matches the subscriber's hair color then the score is increased by the weight for that criterion, in this case ten. The same test is applied to the user's information and the subscriber's criterion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When all categories have been compared, the resulting score is divided by the total possible score to determine a percentage match. Note that the total possible score may depend on some of the user's criteria.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the patent examiner for the 8069073 continuation patent already cited from the original patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6915269&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the following two patents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6272467&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6289340&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;one should look at the patent prosecution history to understand the distinctions that made this patent non-obvious to the examiner, though the cited references had publication dates after the priority date and filing date for the original patent so are not considered to be prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4979" RevisionGUID="467193a9-3396-47f3-858b-0df5e8b3111d" CreationDate="2013-09-07T23:04:08.730" UserId="4028" Comment="added 464 characters in body" Text="Another early patent on date matching is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US5920845&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a 7/6/99 publication date.  This patent is about the most basic of user preferences -- a binary yes/no (i.e. would like to date / would not like to date) and is done with multi-lateral pairing the prospective dates do themselves.  It eliminates the one-way selection preference so is the foundation for two-way matching but where the compatibility/preference details are done outside the computer system -- that is, the computer acts as a tally identifying two-way matches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above patent refers to the following compatibility game patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US5681046&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a 10/28/97 publication date that in the description goes into detail about questions, responses, categories, valuation/ranking, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4984" RevisionGUID="596b8112-c515-4557-845f-46a999bbc03a" CreationDate="2013-09-07T23:14:54.647" UserId="4028" Comment="added 2131 characters in body" Text="Turning to financial markets, we find the following patent application that matches a party and a counterparty based on their respective credit preference data so that they only view relevant orders which can also be matched electronically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.co.in/patents/WO1999019821A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that was published on 4/22/99 but later became the U.S. patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6421653&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but with a publication date of 6/16/02 so the patent application is what needs to be used for prior art.  The following is a quote regarding the multi-party preferences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The market information provided to the user is coded with credit preference data generated by referencing the complex credit preferences inputted by each user regarding all possible counterparties. Thus, potential counterparties are then able to identify which orders they are eligible to trade based upon the coded credit preference data.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also the following patent that matches orders but also accounts for the credit limits of both parties:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US5375055&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a publication date of 12/20/94.  It adds a security aspect to this credit data, but again it is added by all parties and used to determine appropriate matches (i.e. ability to trade):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;More particularly, in the preferred embodiment, the sensitive credit limit data indicating how much credit a particular client site is willing to extend to each possible counterparty is maintained only at an access node associated only with that particular client, and only a simple yes/no indication of whether the entity (for example, a trader, a trading floor, or a bank) associated with that particular access node is willing to transact business with a particular counterparty is transmitted to the other nodes of the communication network.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is the following patent regarding multi-party risk management:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/2203279/summary.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a publication date of 6/13/96.  This patent is about the formulation of multi-party risk management contracts so is again about multiple parties entering information and that being matched appropriately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;An ordering party (13) inputs, by a data processing device (51), contract data representing an offered contract in a predetermined phenomenon, the phenomenon having a range of possible outcomes at a time of maturity, and the contract data specifying the same entitlement for each outcome due to the ordering party at maturity and a consideration due to a counterparty. The potential counterparties (14) input, by data processing means (51), registering data relating to the range of possible outcomes for the predetermined phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;An offered contract is priced by data processing apparatus (20) by the steps of calculating a counter consideration from each counterparty's registering data and comparing the ordering party consideration with the calculated counter considerations. A match is made on the basis of the comparison.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These demonstrate that systems that did best-matching for multiple parties already existed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many other patents in 1999 and earlier regarding matching financial instruments with consumer preferences, but since those are not 2-way preference selections (unlike the above that are 2-way), I will not add those." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4994" RevisionGUID="4888a793-468f-47c7-a643-53c99d339d64" CreationDate="2013-09-07T23:16:19.403" UserId="3076" Text="Thanks for the post to Ask Patents. This is a site for asking questions about the US patent system and for seeking help in uncovering prior art on existing US applications and granted patents. It is **not particularly likely** that this post will be seen by the inventor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The document you referenced is an international patent application. From google patent you can see that there is a corresponding US application US20010032522. Looking that up in the USPTO Public PAIR database, this application went abandoned in Oct. 2001 for a lack of a response to an initial rejection and never became an actual patent. For more recent applications, the whole back-and-forth of papers between the applicant and the USPTO are visible on PAIR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application looks like it was written by someone who studied the book &quot;Patent it Yourself&quot; by David Pressman." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4977" RevisionGUID="e56262cf-4f4a-4bc4-8d06-6e17d7925025" CreationDate="2013-09-07T23:17:02.607" UserId="4028" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="An early patent application for expertly matching products, services and consumers is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/WO1998002835A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a 1/22/98 publication date.  This application does not appear to have resulted in a patent, but this application is referenced by other patents, but not by the continuation or original patent in question.  The following are some excerpts illustrating preference selection by both individuals and those responsible for the products or services and indicates that information may be gathered by multiple choice questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The means for creating a data profile 41 creates a data profile, based on the characteristics and preferences of the individual, that defines the individual and is used to match the individual. It may comprise, for example, a list of multiple choice questions, answers to the questions, an input/output device, and a means to manipulate data. The list of multiple choice questions elicits the characteristics and preferences of the individual so as to enable the creation of the data profile.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The means for coding codes each product or service with the types of characteristics and preferences for which the product or service is appropriate.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12218" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4992" RevisionGUID="7c3a45b5-6988-42df-a1af-d9a773610574" CreationDate="2013-09-07T23:18:27.630" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;translation&gt;&lt;us20130132065&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4987" RevisionGUID="fb914f18-1a7a-44cb-9553-c5c307a85dd0" CreationDate="2013-09-07T23:23:05.740" UserId="4028" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="A patent about automating multi-party property equity exchange using the specifics of each owner's exchange desires and each property's characteristics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US5500793&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a publication date of 3/19/96.  This patent was not cited in the original or continuation patents in question.  This is an earlier patent demonstrating multi-party preference selection and matching." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4992" RevisionGUID="902a1f1f-aec9-4500-9cb2-4d44f4acdd4d" CreationDate="2013-09-07T23:26:38.880" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1106 characters in body" Text="Patent application US20130132065 Acquiring Accurate Machine Translation --- Prior Art Request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent application outlines translating from a source language to another language with the added feature of presenting a list of word choices to the user to select the more appropriately translated word for words that are ambiguous. &#xD;&#xA;Looking for prior art for the use of user input to decide which translation to use for an ambiguous word.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clam 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for providing language translation, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;providing a plurality of words in an input language to a computer device;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;evaluating a linguistic structure of the plurality of words in the input language;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;evaluating semantics of the plurality of words in the input language;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;evaluating the plurality of words in the input language using linguistic descriptions of the input language;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;translating the plurality of words in the input language to an expression in an output language;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;identifying at least one word of the plurality of words in the input language that has a syntactic ambiguity or a semantic ambiguity;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;displaying on a user interface two or more options corresponding to two or more meanings associated with said syntactic ambiguity or said semantic ambiguity;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;receiving an indication of selection of one or more of the two or more options corresponding to two or more meanings; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;displaying an indication of the selection of the one or more of the two or more options corresponding to said two or more meanings.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4995" RevisionGUID="5572d479-c81e-49b4-b1cf-ffcc18fdee60" CreationDate="2013-09-07T23:37:45.643" UserId="3076" Text="**Computer-Implemented Method for Use in a Translation System**&#xD;&#xA;US 20070233460 Publication date	Oct 4, 2007&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for use in natural language translation. The method involves attaching pieces of linguistic information to two or more source language elements in a source material in a first natural language. The pieces of linguistic information are matched to one or more predetermined parse rules. Associations are then formed between the two or more source language elements to form terminology candidates, which are then presented to human reviewers. Terminology candidates are subsequently validated by a user, becoming validated terminology which is then translated into a second, different, natural language, becoming translated terminology. The translated terminology can then be loaded into a machine-translation dictionary which can be used during subsequent machine-assisted translations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4992" RevisionGUID="8bf7f6fb-6935-4de9-b0b5-b38053c12e2d" CreationDate="2013-09-07T23:39:46.323" UserId="3076" Comment="Added claim 1 and priority date" Text="Patent application US20130132065 Acquiring Accurate Machine Translation --- Prior Art Request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent application outlines translating from a source language to another language with the added feature of presenting a list of word choices to the user to select the more appropriately translated word for words that are ambiguous. &#xD;&#xA;Looking for prior art for the use of user input to decide which translation to use for an ambiguous word.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its priority date is Nov 17, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for providing language translation, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;providing a plurality of words in an input language to a computer device;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;evaluating a linguistic structure of the plurality of words in the input language;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;evaluating semantics of the plurality of words in the input language;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;evaluating the plurality of words in the input language using linguistic descriptions of the input language;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;translating the plurality of words in the input language to an expression in an output language;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;identifying at least one word of the plurality of words in the input language that has a syntactic ambiguity or a semantic ambiguity;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;displaying on a user interface two or more options corresponding to two or more meanings associated with said syntactic ambiguity or said semantic ambiguity;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;receiving an indication of selection of one or more of the two or more options corresponding to two or more meanings; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;displaying an indication of the selection of the one or more of the two or more options corresponding to said two or more meanings.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4996" RevisionGUID="69bbd880-4893-45af-89dc-0b5c3aeca637" CreationDate="2013-09-07T23:49:42.110" UserId="3076" Text="**Operator-assisted translation system and method for unconstrained source text**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US2002128814&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application in question differs from many other systems by only requiring a user who knows the source language. This application also has that feature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abstract&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The computer-based translation system allows a person having full understanding and competency in a language of an original source text to confirm the meaning of the source text without requiring knowledge of any other language so that data concerning the meaning of the original language text may be used to translate automatically the original text into the other language or other languages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4995" RevisionGUID="789fc94d-5e4b-4fb8-b934-3c8b04680d65" CreationDate="2013-09-07T23:52:24.527" UserId="3076" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="**Computer-Implemented Method for Use in a Translation System**&#xD;&#xA;US 20070233460 Publication date	Oct 4, 2007&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application in question differs from many other systems by only requiring a user who knows the source language. This application also has that feature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for use in natural language translation. The method involves attaching pieces of linguistic information to two or more source language elements in a source material in a first natural language. The pieces of linguistic information are matched to one or more predetermined parse rules. Associations are then formed between the two or more source language elements to form terminology candidates, which are then presented to human reviewers. Terminology candidates are subsequently validated by a user, becoming validated terminology which is then translated into a second, different, natural language, becoming translated terminology. The translated terminology can then be loaded into a machine-translation dictionary which can be used during subsequent machine-assisted translations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4992" RevisionGUID="dac7f925-e852-49c9-94a7-10a9c158f96c" CreationDate="2013-09-08T00:05:27.140" UserId="3076" Comment="Added English version of claim 1" Text="Patent application US20130132065 Acquiring Accurate Machine Translation --- Prior Art Request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent application outlines translating from a source language to another language with the added feature of presenting a list of word choices to the user to select the more appropriately translated word for words that are ambiguous. &#xD;&#xA;Looking for prior art for the use of user input to decide which translation to use for an ambiguous word.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its priority date is Nov 17, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for providing language translation, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;providing a plurality of words in an input language to a computer device;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;evaluating a linguistic structure of the plurality of words in the input language;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;evaluating semantics of the plurality of words in the input language;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;evaluating the plurality of words in the input language using linguistic descriptions of the input language;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;translating the plurality of words in the input language to an expression in an output language;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;identifying at least one word of the plurality of words in the input language that has a syntactic ambiguity or a semantic ambiguity;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;displaying on a user interface two or more options corresponding to two or more meanings associated with said syntactic ambiguity or said semantic ambiguity;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;receiving an indication of selection of one or more of the two or more options corresponding to two or more meanings; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;displaying an indication of the selection of the one or more of the two or more options corresponding to said two or more meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English: a computerized language translation system using steps of linguistic structure analysis and semantic analysis and word translation that resolves ambiguity in the meaning of an input word by displaying  alternative meanings to a human in the input language and using the human selection to proceed with the machine translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4997" RevisionGUID="f800f21a-268e-457f-804e-b228bc143f73" CreationDate="2013-09-08T00:23:37.330" UserId="4028" Text="A patent comparing the pros/cons of rank order vs. forced choice that proposes somewhat of a hybrid approach is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US4908758&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a publication date of 3/13/90.  This shows that a variety of methods were available for determining relative user preferences nearly a decade before the patent in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The primary attack for invalidity against the patent is one of obviousness.  There were already narrower patents and applications available in the prior art describing the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;storing characteristics or attributes of a product or service, storing user preferences, and matching (nearly all examples given)&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;multiple parties storing their attributes and preferences and having bilateral matching (financial markets, property equity exchange, computer dating, etc.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;closeness-of-fit matching algorithms (percentage matching, weighted matches, regression analysis, discrete choice analysis)&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;use of multiple choice questions to elicit the characteristics and preferences of the individuals in the context of matching products and services&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;use of rank order, forced choice, and hybrid techniques to create weighted or ordered preferences in the context of behavioral or social sciences.&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it truly non-obvious and novel and appropriate under patent law to know about the narrow inventions in #2, #3, #4 and #5 above and allow a broader invention that is effectively not narrowed by type of party or market (&quot;financial transaction&quot; or &quot;operation of an enterprise&quot;), is a generic superset of well-known closeness-of-fit matching algorithms (comparing aggregate or measuring distance using generic utility functions applies to almost anything), and is only narrowed by the use of forced choice?  The patent examiner did not cite the patents I listed so this is not a question of fault with the data used in the patent application evaluation, but rather a re-evaluation in light of this prior art showing the state of knowledge by those skilled in the art at that time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4997" RevisionGUID="0cc0fc21-671a-4951-b6fd-cd892726e140" CreationDate="2013-09-08T00:29:30.150" UserId="4028" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="A patent comparing the pros/cons of rank order vs. forced choice that proposes somewhat of a hybrid approach is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US4908758&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a publication date of 3/13/90.  This shows that a variety of methods were available for determining relative user preferences nearly a decade before the patent in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The primary attack for invalidity against the patent is one of obviousness.  There were already narrower patents and applications available in the prior art describing the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;storing characteristics or attributes of a product or service, storing user preferences, and matching (nearly all examples given)&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;multiple parties storing their attributes and preferences and having bilateral matching (financial markets, property equity exchange, computer dating, etc.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;closeness-of-fit matching algorithms (percentage matching, weighted matches, regression analysis, discrete choice analysis)&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;use of multiple choice questions to elicit the characteristics and preferences of the individuals in the context of matching products and services&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;use of rank order, forced choice, and hybrid techniques to create weighted or ordered preferences in the context of behavioral or social sciences.&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it truly non-obvious and novel and appropriate under patent law to know about the narrow inventions in #2, #3, #4 and #5 above and allow a broader invention that is effectively not narrowed by type of party or market (&quot;procurement or delivery of products or services&quot; in a context of &quot;financial transaction&quot; or &quot;operation of an enterprise&quot;), is a generic superset of well-known closeness-of-fit matching algorithms (comparing aggregate or measuring distance using generic utility functions applies to almost anything), and is only narrowed by the use of forced choice (assuming the claim language of &quot;choice&quot; is narrowed to &quot;forced choice&quot; by the description)?  The patent examiner did not cite the patents I listed so this is not a question of fault given the data used in the patent application evaluation, but rather a re-evaluation in light of this prior art showing the state of knowledge by those skilled in the art at that time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4998" RevisionGUID="9c0519f4-7a20-4412-be31-333fef8b9398" CreationDate="2013-09-08T00:37:58.900" UserId="5714" Text="For example, I want to patent &quot;square shape wheel&quot;. How I can check this idea has been patented? Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12229" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4998" RevisionGUID="9c0519f4-7a20-4412-be31-333fef8b9398" CreationDate="2013-09-08T00:37:58.900" UserId="5714" Text="How can I check whether an idea has been patented by someone already?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12230" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4998" RevisionGUID="9c0519f4-7a20-4412-be31-333fef8b9398" CreationDate="2013-09-08T00:37:58.900" UserId="5714" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4997" RevisionGUID="49cb1054-8a82-44f0-a09e-335366cc33d5" CreationDate="2013-09-08T01:19:29.400" UserId="4028" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="A patent comparing the pros/cons of rank order vs. forced choice that proposes somewhat of a hybrid approach is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US4908758&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a publication date of 3/13/90.  This shows that a variety of methods were available for determining relative user preferences nearly a decade before the patent in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The primary attack for invalidity against the patent is one of obviousness.  There were already narrower patents and applications available in the prior art describing the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;storing characteristics or attributes of a product or service, storing user preferences, and matching (nearly all examples given)&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;multiple parties storing their attributes and preferences and having bilateral matching (financial markets, property equity exchange, computer dating, etc.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;closeness-of-fit matching algorithms (percentage matching, weighted matches, regression analysis)&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;use of multiple choice questions and discrete choice to elicit the characteristics and preferences of the individuals in the context of matching products and services&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;use of rank order, forced choice, and hybrid techniques to create weighted or ordered preferences in the context of behavioral or social sciences.&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it truly non-obvious and novel and appropriate under patent law to know about the narrow inventions in #2, #3, #4 and #5 above and allow a broader invention that is effectively not narrowed by type of party or market (&quot;procurement or delivery of products or services&quot; in a context of &quot;financial transaction&quot; or &quot;operation of an enterprise&quot;), is a generic superset of well-known closeness-of-fit matching algorithms (comparing aggregate or measuring distance using generic utility functions applies to almost anything), and is only narrowed by the use of forced choice (assuming the claim language of &quot;choice&quot; is narrowed to &quot;forced choice&quot; by the description)?  The patent examiner did not cite the patents I listed so this is not a question of fault given the data used in the patent application evaluation, but rather a re-evaluation in light of this prior art showing the state of knowledge by those skilled in the art at that time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4974" RevisionGUID="3c680142-7873-412e-9373-303780167b07" CreationDate="2013-09-08T01:55:00.500" UserId="4028" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="An early patent on such computer dating matching with preferences on both sides (see Ben's answer) is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US5963951&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a 10/5/99 publication date and is not cited in the continuation nor the original patent.  The preferences are entered through direct selection and not forced choice, but they are done by multiple parties and matches are made through multiple bilateral analysis in that multiple party-to-party comparisons are made and a goodness-of-fit (called &quot;percentage match&quot;) is calculated.  I quote from the patent below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;In the embodiment of this example, the score is determined as follows: if a criterion matches a preference then the score is increased by the weight associated with that criterion. So, e.g., if the user's hair color criterion matches the subscriber's hair color then the score is increased by the weight for that criterion, in this case ten. The same test is applied to the user's information and the subscriber's criterion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When all categories have been compared, the resulting score is divided by the total possible score to determine a percentage match. Note that the total possible score may depend on some of the user's criteria.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the patent examiner for the 8069073 continuation patent already cited from the original patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6915269&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the following two patents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6272467&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6289340&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;one should look at the patent prosecution history to understand the distinctions that made this patent non-obvious to the examiner, though the cited references had publication dates after the priority date and filing date for the original patent so are not considered to be prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4999" RevisionGUID="19fe0a08-4362-4a72-88a5-36df1ac2aec7" CreationDate="2013-09-08T01:57:41.683" UserId="3076" Text="First, the criteria for patenting your idea is that it be useful, new and not obvious. It could turn out to be proven to be old because someone did patent it. Or maybe someone wrote an article about it. Or there was one for sale in the 1889 Sears catalog. Or someone posted it as a half baked idea at [www.halbakery.com][1] (a real site)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;a patent search&quot; to see if you can get a patent might not just be looking at patents. But it is where you should start, right after just googling it. Squared shaped wheel brings up some interesting things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The easis place to search patnets is also a google site google/patents. It now has US European and international applications and can be free-form searched like goolge. Past that there are books on patnet aearching, and a &quot;zen&quot; to patent searching.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.halfbakery.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12234" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4998" RevisionGUID="7d6f251f-828a-46c2-bdad-581c5e3973b6" CreationDate="2013-09-08T02:05:37.540" UserId="3076" Comment="Edited tag" Text="&lt;patent-search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4974" RevisionGUID="28a6a770-3a4c-4f19-b93e-88984cf52c2e" CreationDate="2013-09-08T03:12:53.217" UserId="4028" Comment="changed &quot;goodness&quot; to &quot;closeness&quot;" Text="An early patent on such computer dating matching with preferences on both sides (see Ben's answer) is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US5963951&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a 10/5/99 publication date and is not cited in the continuation nor the original patent.  The preferences are entered through direct selection and not forced choice, but they are done by multiple parties and matches are made through multiple bilateral analysis in that multiple party-to-party comparisons are made and a closeness-of-fit (called &quot;percentage match&quot;) is calculated.  I quote from the patent below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;In the embodiment of this example, the score is determined as follows: if a criterion matches a preference then the score is increased by the weight associated with that criterion. So, e.g., if the user's hair color criterion matches the subscriber's hair color then the score is increased by the weight for that criterion, in this case ten. The same test is applied to the user's information and the subscriber's criterion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When all categories have been compared, the resulting score is divided by the total possible score to determine a percentage match. Note that the total possible score may depend on some of the user's criteria.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the patent examiner for the 8069073 continuation patent already cited from the original patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6915269&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the following two patents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6272467&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6289340&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;one should look at the patent prosecution history to understand the distinctions that made this patent non-obvious to the examiner, though the cited references had publication dates after the priority date and filing date for the original patent so are not considered to be prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4976" RevisionGUID="affe573a-70a6-42ef-8d7e-7d2b62b19c29" CreationDate="2013-09-08T03:15:11.320" UserId="4028" Comment="not the oldest patent I found anymore so deleting that part of the sentence." Text="An early patent matching a product with a user based on characteristics of each is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US5122952&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a 6/16/92 publication date.  Claim 1 is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. An automated selection system for selecting and matching learning tools that possess developmental values with the individual characteristics of a user that have correspondence to such values comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- data entry means for entering user data including user static personal data and dynamic user developmental conditions;&#xD;&#xA;- learning tool list means for storing learning tool characterizing data;&#xD;&#xA;- means coupled to the data entry means and the learning tool list means for generating a preferred learning tool list by matching the user data to corresponding learning tool characterizing data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent was not cited in either the continuation patent nor the original patent.  This patent may not be considered prior art for rejection under anticipation unless it teaches every aspect of the claimed invention, but it could still be considered as prior art for rejection under obviousness, especially when combined with the following patent that was already cited in the original patent in question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US5124911&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent demonstrates the basic concepts of entering attribute information about objects (learning tools) and characteristics about the individuals who would use those objects and a matching system.  A questionnaire is used.  The matching algorithm is very basic and binary (yes/no fit for each attribute).  One can show a timeline from this patent to later ones in terms of increasing levels of sophistication and narrowing, but where at some point pulling multiple pieces together becomes obvious to those skilled in the art (and the patent in question becomes broader in some ways, which it should not do)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5000" RevisionGUID="9db9afc9-a188-4e47-b6be-6db67a3913e2" CreationDate="2013-09-08T05:08:01.130" UserId="5709" Text="For many years, IBM published a [Technical Disclosure Bulletin][1], that was basically a compilation of the invention disclosures that IBM inventors had submitted to IBM which IBM had chosen not to pursue patents on.  As the Wikipedia article notes, this was basically a defensive move to make sure that no one else would be able to patent these ideas and use them against IBM.  There was a lot of good stuff in there, particularly in the software area before software patents became common in the US.  As an incentive to submit stuff, they gave employees credit for a third of a patent for each disclosure that was published in the Bulletin (1 point for a disclosure, 3 points for an actual patent, and you got special awards when you hit 12 points or higher, if I remember the system right).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that's a historical example of a &quot;PatentLeft&quot; on a fairly big scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Technical_Disclosure_Bulletin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4999" RevisionGUID="b66a01d0-612a-42fb-a095-dee4411ec59e" CreationDate="2013-09-08T05:13:53.010" UserId="3076" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="First, the criteria for patenting your idea is that it be useful, new and not obvious. It could turn out to be proven to be old because someone did patent it. Or maybe someone wrote an article about it. Or there was one for sale in the 1889 Sears catalog. Or someone posted it as a half baked idea at [www.halbakery.com][1] (a real site)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;a patent search&quot; to see if you can get a patent might not just be looking at patents. But it is where you should start, right after just googling it. Squared shaped wheel brings up some interesting things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The easiest place to search patents is also a google site google/patents. It now has US, European and international applications and can be free-form searched like goolge. Past that there are books on patent aearching, and a &quot;zen&quot; to patent searching.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.halfbakery.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4999" RevisionGUID="1cdf2d4c-3a96-4e27-bb0b-a6ec65cb3b78" CreationDate="2013-09-08T05:36:14.283" UserId="3076" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="First, the criteria for patenting your idea is that it be useful, new and not obvious. It could turn out to be proven to be old because someone did patent it. Or maybe someone wrote an article about it. Or there was one for sale in the 1889 Sears catalog. Or someone posted it as a half baked idea at [www.halbakery.com][1] (a real site)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;a patent search&quot; to see if you can get a patent might not just be looking at patents. But it is where you should start, right after just googling it. Squared shaped wheel brings up some interesting things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The easiest place to search patents is also a google site google/patents. It now has US, European and international applications and can be free-form searched like google. Past that there are a couple of books on patent aearching, and a &quot;zen&quot; to patent searching.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.halfbakery.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5001" RevisionGUID="80e80738-5f30-4921-bfa9-1b9ccfea8bc1" CreationDate="2013-09-08T12:33:52.380" UserId="5715" Text="I'm trying to understand the difference between a patent published in europe (or a publication with any [country code][1]) and an EP publication (published in EPO). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;does all European patents get an EP code in the end? what is the flow? how does WIPO fits in?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ep.espacenet.com/help?topic=countrycodes&amp;method=handleHelpTopic&amp;locale=en_ep&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12245" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5001" RevisionGUID="80e80738-5f30-4921-bfa9-1b9ccfea8bc1" CreationDate="2013-09-08T12:33:52.380" UserId="5715" Text="what is the difference between an EP patent (or publication) and a patent published in in Europe?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12246" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5001" RevisionGUID="80e80738-5f30-4921-bfa9-1b9ccfea8bc1" CreationDate="2013-09-08T12:33:52.380" UserId="5715" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;wipo&gt;&lt;epo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4999" RevisionGUID="cf8efccb-66fb-42b0-8ba1-e0be2783237c" CreationDate="2013-09-08T18:18:12.233" UserId="3076" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="First, the criteria for patenting your idea is that it be useful, new and not obvious. It could turn out to be proven to be old because someone did patent it. Or maybe someone wrote an article about it. Or there was one for sale in the 1889 Sears catalog. Or someone posted it as a half baked idea at [www.halbakery.com][1] (a real site)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;a patent search&quot; to see if you can get a patent might not just be looking at patents. But it is where you should start, right after just googling it. Squared shaped wheel brings up some interesting things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The easiest place to search patents is also a google site google/patents. It now has US, European and international applications and can be free-form searched like google. Past that there are a couple of books on patent searching, and for some of those who do it professionally, there can be a &quot;Zen&quot; to patent searching.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.halfbakery.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4997" RevisionGUID="f3d7e8e1-e18f-48d5-90e0-9c1e8d4e6127" CreationDate="2013-09-08T18:41:20.317" UserId="4028" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="A patent comparing the pros/cons of rank order vs. forced choice that proposes somewhat of a hybrid approach is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US4908758&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a publication date of 3/13/90.  This shows that a variety of methods were available for determining relative user preferences nearly a decade before the patent in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The primary attack for invalidity against the patent is one of obviousness.  There were already narrower patents and applications available in the prior art describing the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;storing characteristics or attributes of a product or service, storing user preferences, and matching (nearly all examples given)&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;multiple parties storing their attributes and preferences and having bilateral matching (financial markets, property equity exchange, computer dating, etc.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;closeness-of-fit matching algorithms (percentage matching, weighted matches, regression analysis)&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;use of multiple choice questions and discrete choice to elicit the characteristics and preferences of the individuals in the context of matching parties for delivery of advertisements, products or services&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;use of rank order, forced choice, and hybrid techniques to create weighted or ordered preferences in the context of behavioral or social sciences.&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it truly non-obvious and novel and appropriate under patent law to know about the narrow inventions in #2, #3, #4 and #5 above and allow a broader invention that is effectively not narrowed by type of party or market (&quot;procurement or delivery of products or services&quot; in a context of &quot;financial transaction&quot; or &quot;operation of an enterprise&quot;), is a generic superset of well-known closeness-of-fit matching algorithms (comparing aggregate or measuring distance using generic utility functions applies to almost anything), and is only narrowed by the use of forced choice (assuming the claim language of &quot;choice&quot; is narrowed to &quot;forced choice&quot; by the description)?  The patent examiner did not cite the patents I listed so this is not a question of fault given the data used in the patent application evaluation, but rather a re-evaluation in light of this prior art showing the state of knowledge by those skilled in the art at that time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12250" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5001" RevisionGUID="e670244e-f785-4341-86c2-34c6029a6b88" CreationDate="2013-09-09T00:44:18.407" UserId="3076" Comment="edited title" Text="what is the difference between an EP patent (or publication) and a patent published in Europe?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5001" RevisionGUID="e670244e-f785-4341-86c2-34c6029a6b88" CreationDate="2013-09-09T00:44:18.407" UserId="3076" Comment="edited title" Text="I'm trying to understand the difference between a patent published in europe (or a publication with any [country code][1]) and an EP publication (published in EPO). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do all European patents get an EP code in the end? what is the flow? how does WIPO fits in?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ep.espacenet.com/help?topic=countrycodes&amp;method=handleHelpTopic&amp;locale=en_ep&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5003" RevisionGUID="8ef7e5e9-e92c-4120-8b4d-4ed990655635" CreationDate="2013-09-09T00:56:42.000" UserId="3076" Text="An alternate answer based on an alternative reading of the question - if by saying &quot;in the end&quot; you mean eventually as opposed to the suffix at the end of the number then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The EPO publishes applications filed with it and it publishes patents granted by it. At this moment in time, EP patents are **not enforceable** in any court. An EP patent can be &quot;validated&quot; as a UK patent, DE patent etc. and then be enforceable in the courts of the respective countries. So an EP patent can become a family of per country patents. The reverse is not true. If one files in the UK one gets a UK patent.  An applicate can choose to file three patents in three European countries, fight three examiners operating under different laws and end up with three unrelated patent rights or can file once with the EPO deal with one examination and then pick which European countries to have it rubber stamped in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5004" RevisionGUID="982eaa7f-379d-4250-8ede-c61158bd97d3" CreationDate="2013-09-09T01:37:31.657" UserId="5719" Text="I am not sure if this helps, but that very feature was available in Power Translator (created by Globalink, acquired by :Lernout and Hauspie, and then sold to LEC).  It was a standard feature since at least 1998, maybe earlier.  It became a feasture in their web based version in 2003 or so.  And then Systran had it as a feature in version 10.0 . . .i think . . a bit fuzzy, been a long time.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everyone has always talked about this feature -- caled &quot;interactive disambiguation&quot; -- but no one has really made it work.  Harold Summers wrote an influential article in 1988 -- or thereabouts -- where he described the thing that the paragraph up above is trying to patent.  In fact, Logos (a now defunct MT system implemented this as far back as 1992.  Doesnt seem to be anything new here . ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5003" RevisionGUID="b42327a0-6ef8-43a6-92db-f99e282f9708" CreationDate="2013-09-09T04:40:14.220" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 69 characters in body" Text="Iff by saying &quot;in the end&quot; you mean eventually as opposed to the suffix at the end of the number then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The EPO publishes applications filed with it and it publishes patents granted by it. At this moment in time, EP patents are **not enforceable** in any court. An EP patent can be &quot;validated&quot; as a UK patent, DE patent etc. and then be enforceable in the courts of the respective countries. So an EP patent can become a family of per country patents. The reverse is not true. If one files in the UK one gets a UK patent.  An applicate can choose to file three patents in three European countries, fight three examiners operating under different laws and end up with three unrelated patent rights or can file once with the EPO deal with one examination and then pick which European countries to have it rubber stamped in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5001" RevisionGUID="fe06e40b-7540-4675-8c0e-28b93893a34f" CreationDate="2013-09-09T07:20:18.310" UserId="5715" Comment="added 155 characters in body" Text="I'm trying to understand the difference between a patent published in europe (or a publication with any [country code][1]) and an EP publication (published in EPO). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference between publications starting with EP and publications starting with other country codes (DE, GR etc')? Does publications starting with the country code EP we're first published in one country and then published by the EPO?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ep.espacenet.com/help?topic=countrycodes&amp;method=handleHelpTopic&amp;locale=en_ep&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5005" RevisionGUID="e435c8f4-021a-485e-ade6-672969465a2a" CreationDate="2013-09-09T07:54:38.530" UserId="5055" Text="Patents and patent applications are published with a two-letter code specifying the office that published it. Patents and patent applications with a EP code have been published by the European Patent Office while patents and patent applications with a national code (e.g. DE) have been published by the corresponding national office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like any other office, **the European Patent Office only publishes applications that they received**. As a result, an application filed at a European National Office will not be published with a EP code unless the applicant filed an application for the same invention at the EPO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The set of patents and patent applications covering the same invention is called a patent family. Because the European Patent Organization adds a supranational route, there are many possible scenarios for a patent family to include EP and national members (e.g. DE or GR in your question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Applicant filed an application at a national office (e.g. at DPMA in Germany) and this application is published with the corresponding 2-letter code. This first application provides applicant with the priority date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Applicant filed a PCT application within 18 months, and this application is published by the WIPO (Worldwide International Property Organization) with a WO code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Applicant designated the EPO from the PCT, and this application is published by the EPO with a EP code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Applicant is eventually granted a European patent, published with a EP code. Applicant validates this patent in European national offices. Some of them will actually generate a code, yet this will not yield to a publication, unless the specification is translated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, applicant could first file at the EPO, and the application will be first published with a EP code, then file a PCT and eventually designate a European state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that the European route remains a non-mandatory, yet easier way to obtain patents in member states. One could first file at the DPMA (and the application will be published with a DE code), then file another patent application for the same invention at the INPI, France's national office, and get a FR code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet, several offices actually no longer perform search and delegate it to the EPO. Typically, this is what INPI does. Besides, with Unitary Patents and the Unified Patent Court, that have yet to enter in force, national routes will make less and less sense, except probably to get a cheaper priority date, as national offices have lower filing fees." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5005" RevisionGUID="9f6e02bf-f5a4-4426-bfcc-f22f1bec4cd7" CreationDate="2013-09-09T10:22:22.403" UserId="5055" Comment="Stress that applicants would file at the EPO as it is easier" Text="Patents and patent applications are published with a two-letter code specifying the office that published it. Patents and patent applications with a EP code have been published by the European Patent Office while patents and patent applications with a national code (e.g. DE) have been published by the corresponding national office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like any other office, **the European Patent Office only publishes applications that they received**. As a result, an application filed at a European National Office will not be published with a EP code unless the applicant filed an application for the same invention at the EPO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The set of patents and patent applications covering the same invention is called a patent family. Because the European Patent Organization adds a supranational route, there are many possible scenarios for a patent family to include EP and national members (e.g. DE or GR in your question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Applicant filed an application at a national office (e.g. at DPMA in Germany) and this application is published with the corresponding 2-letter code. This first application provides applicant with the priority date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Applicant filed a PCT application within 18 months, and this application is published by the WIPO (Worldwide International Property Organization) with a WO code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Applicant designated the EPO from the PCT, and this application is published by the EPO with a EP code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Applicant is eventually granted a European patent, published with a EP code. Applicant validates this patent in European national offices. Some of them will actually generate a code, yet this will not yield to a publication, unless the specification is translated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, applicant could first file at the EPO, and the application will be first published with a EP code, then file a PCT and eventually designate a European state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that the European route remains a non-mandatory, yet easier way to obtain patents in member states. Applicants usually prefer to file at the EPO as it is the easiest (and cheapest) route to get a patent in several EPO member countries, as there is a single prosecution, in a single language, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, one could first file at the DPMA (and the application will be published with a DE code), then file another patent application for the same invention at the INPI, France's national office, and get a FR code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet, several offices actually no longer perform search and delegate it to the EPO. Typically, this is what INPI does. Besides, with Unitary Patents and the Unified Patent Court, that have yet to enter in force, national routes will make less and less sense, except probably to get a cheaper priority date, as national offices have lower filing fees." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5003" RevisionGUID="4f2e4cff-1217-4032-a22c-1396cb106106" CreationDate="2013-09-09T15:29:47.367" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="If by saying &quot;in the end&quot; you mean eventually as opposed to the suffix at the end of the number then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The EPO publishes applications filed with it and it publishes patents granted by it. At this moment in time, EP patents are **not enforceable** in any court. An EP patent can be &quot;validated&quot; as a UK patent, DE patent etc. and then be enforceable in the courts of the respective countries. So an EP patent can become a family of per country patents. The reverse is not true. If one files in the UK one gets a UK patent.  An applicate can choose to file three patents in three European countries, fight three examiners operating under different laws and end up with three unrelated patent rights or can file once with the EPO deal with one examination and then pick which European countries to have it rubber stamped in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5007" RevisionGUID="eeaa6251-2b01-4808-88d6-dd86b379bd95" CreationDate="2013-09-09T23:42:59.997" UserId="5720" Text="George, I Hess I have not explained my self clearly.  Many have tried the exact method the patent proposes (thou to be fair, the patent skips the most I,portent steps such as HOW do you select multiple meanings for a word . . .the verb &quot;to be&quot; has, at a conservative count, well over 500 semantic differences depending how it is used). However, the method has proven not commercially viable because it is onerous on the user . . A typical English sentence can have several thousand meanings . . Asking a user to clarify all of them makes for a lousy experience.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tis patent takes an old issue, and proposes no new solution . .it simply describes th dream of interactive disambiguation . . A user interacts with a computer in their source language, the computer presents options, the user chooses the best one and presto!  A perfect translation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It remains the dream.  This patent proposes no new solution or viable method that has not either been already tried, or is too vague to actually try.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5008" RevisionGUID="26ffded8-e5b3-458c-ac62-95b6df48735f" CreationDate="2013-09-09T23:47:53.077" UserId="5721" Text="I would look at the i-stat patents by Imants R. Lauks.  These start in the 1980's-1990's and continue to the present." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5007" RevisionGUID="85cc829e-3c3e-4ec9-b1ee-815a8b29fa25" CreationDate="2013-09-09T23:57:34.143" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body" Text="Many have tried the exact method the patent proposes (though to be fair, the patent skips the most importent steps such as **HOW do you select multiple meanings for a word**).  For example, the verb &quot;to be&quot; has over 500 semantic differences depending how it is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the overall method has proven to be commercially not viable because it is onerous on the user.  A typical English sentence can have several thousand meanings. Asking a user to clarify all of them makes for a lousy experience.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent basicaly takes an old issue, and proposes no new solution.  It simply describes the dream of interactive disambiguation.  A user interacts with a computer in their source language, the computer presents options, the user chooses the best one and presto!  A perfect translation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent proposes no new solutions.  No viable method is enabled by 20130132065 which has not either been tried unsuccessfully, or is too vague to actually try.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5012" RevisionGUID="96190b51-39e6-43e6-9bb4-f0d651612408" CreationDate="2013-09-10T14:13:27.870" UserId="5727" Text="I am new to this forum and patenting and glad to have found this community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kindly could you please help me clarify my doubts on patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If an invention has Novelty and Industrial application but not quite non-obvious, how can such inventions be protected?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If an invention has Novelty and Industrial application but is not considered to have an Inventive step (not an improvement to existing art).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Inventions that satisfy the 3 criterias : Novelty, Non-obviousness, Industrial application. Are they called Utility patents? Or is an Utility patent a patent for inventions that only satisfy 2 of the criterias?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you so much for reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have a nice day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best regards&#xD;&#xA;Richard&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12284" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5012" RevisionGUID="96190b51-39e6-43e6-9bb4-f0d651612408" CreationDate="2013-09-10T14:13:27.870" UserId="5727" Text="Patentability Decision" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12285" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5012" RevisionGUID="96190b51-39e6-43e6-9bb4-f0d651612408" CreationDate="2013-09-10T14:13:27.870" UserId="5727" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5014" RevisionGUID="8b44ba6d-1129-4a7c-ab1a-3ea7b74bfacb" CreationDate="2013-09-10T15:50:26.250" UserId="5728" Text="Sounds a lot like the amazon wishlist. &#xD;&#xA;And I found a lot of articles and blog entries about this amazon feature predating 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.amazon.com/wishlist&#xD;&#xA;You can add text descriptions, for example a URI to an other online shop item, to your wishlist also (&quot;Include items from any website&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5017" RevisionGUID="a1d1f228-73a2-4a9e-a5a2-6f98e9b263b2" CreationDate="2013-09-11T00:27:33.653" UserId="5732" Text="I would like to know the status of Patent wo2013040557a2, specifically the itemized &#xD;&#xA;Example 4: Compassionate use of RNA-engineered CAR T cells.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Was the patent issued?&#xD;&#xA;2. If so, who issued the patent and what documents do/did they review?&#xD;&#xA;3. As far as you know, was this treatment of Compassionate use of RNA-Engineered Car T-Cells used on a patient identified by the applying physicians to have pancreatic cancer? If so, what was the outcome of this trial and is a report available?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12298" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5017" RevisionGUID="a1d1f228-73a2-4a9e-a5a2-6f98e9b263b2" CreationDate="2013-09-11T00:27:33.653" UserId="5732" Text="Follow up on patent: wo2013040557a2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12299" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5017" RevisionGUID="a1d1f228-73a2-4a9e-a5a2-6f98e9b263b2" CreationDate="2013-09-11T00:27:33.653" UserId="5732" Text="&lt;wo2013040557a2&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5018" RevisionGUID="5dc747ee-7e33-43ec-95ab-2f0ae4c3b254" CreationDate="2013-09-11T03:01:31.660" UserId="3076" Text="This document is an international patent application. To become an enforceable patent in any specific country other steps will need to be taken to enter the national stage in chosen locations. At this point that hasn't happened. Below is a screenshot of a page showing the legal startus. It has not gotten very far through the system to date.&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/xku1X.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="027c37fb-1a90-43bf-b347-37baf8ff5d39" CreationDate="2013-09-11T07:54:20.747" UserId="5735" Text="I have a product I would like to patent which is a process to achieve a repair. A similar process has previously been patented and has since lapsed. My patent is an improvement on the previous patent and has 3 distinct areas of improvement. One of these areas is an instructional video to show how to apply the process. &#xD;&#xA;Without the DVD I don’t think the process would be of any use to the greater number of people as it is too difficult to teach the process from written instructions. The previous patent never had the video instructions.&#xD;&#xA;I want to stop someone from using the previous patent with video instructions. &#xD;&#xA;QUESTION Can I protect the video teaching as part of the patent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can answer this question could you PLZ answer in a simple a way as possible for me!&#xD;&#xA;THANKS&#xD;&#xA;John&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12306" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="027c37fb-1a90-43bf-b347-37baf8ff5d39" CreationDate="2013-09-11T07:54:20.747" UserId="5735" Text="INSTRUCTIONAL VIDEO" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12307" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="027c37fb-1a90-43bf-b347-37baf8ff5d39" CreationDate="2013-09-11T07:54:20.747" UserId="5735" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5021" RevisionGUID="945cbbad-cb19-4cfa-9509-caa3e83acd7b" CreationDate="2013-09-11T12:28:49.063" UserId="1259" Text="Without specifics (such as a patent number) this can only be speculative answer. If the prior patented process, expired or not, already provides for use of &quot;DVD instructions&quot; or the use of such instructions is &quot;obvious&quot; enough that someone is already doing so - it could be considered Prior Art. If this is the only improvement over the existing patented process, your invention would be considered anticipated by the prior art and a patent may not be approved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5022" RevisionGUID="487dac79-350e-47fa-bde9-f9e03dd96491" CreationDate="2013-09-11T16:08:39.123" UserId="5737" Text="With regards to synchronized playback: Network-Integrated Multimedia Middleware (NMM) did something of sorts. They seem to employ out-of-band NTP synchronization for playback timestamps. (The patent makes generous mention of NTP sync as well.) See their [Homepage][1] and 2008 [paper][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was immediately thinking of RTP's ([RFC 3550][3]) presentation time, but in the patent's description of SSP, they say (emphasis mine):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The ASP defines a procedure by which an **out of band, low latency** communication mechanism is deployed in a single master slave architecture. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going on to specify that that's UDP and sent from the master (playout) device to the slave (playback) devices. RTP's presentation information is transmitted in a similar fashion, but **in band**. I'll have to leave it up to the examining officer whether such an (IMHO trivial) change merits patenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.motama.com/nmm.html &quot;NMM Homepage&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.motama.com/nmm.html &quot;NMM Homepage&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3550 &quot;RTP RFC3550&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5021" RevisionGUID="2402dba8-2d02-4f29-bdfb-bfc387a45bea" CreationDate="2013-09-11T16:14:11.293" UserId="3076" Comment="Changed anticipated to obvious" Text="Without specifics (such as a patent number) this can only be speculative answer. If the prior patented process, expired or not, already provides for use of &quot;DVD instructions&quot; or the use of such instructions is &quot;obvious&quot; enough that someone is already doing so - it could be considered Prior Art. If this is the only improvement over the existing patented process, your invention would be considered obvious in light of the prior art and a patent may not be approved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5023" RevisionGUID="18dd4215-9e02-4fc3-b29f-b64cd03e9b70" CreationDate="2013-09-11T16:42:00.740" UserId="3076" Text="You say you have three areas of improvemt. I would focus on the other two. As a practical matter if the repair is done as a business the people doing it might not need a video. If it is being done by individuals it might be hard to enforce. This is a subtle area and the answer may not be simple." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5012" RevisionGUID="a66b395c-9d11-46f2-9469-57951bf19d09" CreationDate="2013-09-11T17:13:32.130" UserId="-1" Comment="Cleaned up wording, fixed spelling/grammar, formatted for readability, and made title more descriptive of the question" Text="Kindly could you please help me clarify my doubts on patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   1. If an invention has _novelty_ and _industrial application_ but not quite non-obvious, how can such inventions be protected?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   1. If an invention has _novelty_ and _industrial application_ but is not considered to have an _inventive_ step (not an improvement to existing art).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   1. Are &quot;Utility patents&quot; inventions that satisfy the 3 criteria of _novelty_, _non-obviousness_, and _industrial application_? If not,is an Utility patent a patent for inventions that only satisfy 2 of the criteria?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12315" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5012" RevisionGUID="a66b395c-9d11-46f2-9469-57951bf19d09" CreationDate="2013-09-11T17:13:32.130" UserId="-1" Comment="Cleaned up wording, fixed spelling/grammar, formatted for readability, and made title more descriptive of the question" Text="Patentability for novelty, non-obviousness, and industrial application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12316" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5012" RevisionGUID="a66b395c-9d11-46f2-9469-57951bf19d09" CreationDate="2013-09-11T17:13:32.130" Comment="Proposed by 50.58.26.98|d2acd4ff-6e73-4cc8-947b-4f5abcb886fd approved by 3076, 1767 edit id of 435" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5024" RevisionGUID="2de27d34-3add-4f90-943c-5e3ca799478a" CreationDate="2013-09-11T20:30:17.797" UserId="5738" Text="Is it possible to patent the way folder structure i represented on the screen. In what sense it is patentable since it does not fit into any category but Apple and Microsoft have parts of their interfaces patented (Apple's Cloverflow, for example)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12318" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5024" RevisionGUID="2de27d34-3add-4f90-943c-5e3ca799478a" CreationDate="2013-09-11T20:30:17.797" UserId="5738" Text="Patenting data representation on screen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12319" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5024" RevisionGUID="2de27d34-3add-4f90-943c-5e3ca799478a" CreationDate="2013-09-11T20:30:17.797" UserId="5738" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5025" RevisionGUID="70ff8264-c46c-4321-b2ae-f173591b7cfe" CreationDate="2013-09-11T20:38:51.993" UserId="5739" Text="Here is a Polish company offering location-based advertisements in public transport:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.geoadvert.pl/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They display advertisements in buses equipped with a GPS device." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5026" RevisionGUID="8d0771b2-7ac2-41c2-a0a9-501ff47079dc" CreationDate="2013-09-11T20:51:01.313" UserId="5739" Text="It has some resemblance to regular expressions (let's call it a TEXT description), for which client libraries in various programming languages can be generated automatically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, if a client library can be generated out of some description, this means, that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the description is already a source code (it is machine-readable, in a formal language)&#xD;&#xA; - the genrated code of the client libraries is just what this source code is compiled to (we can also call it an intermediate code).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5027" RevisionGUID="b8adb9ac-ce48-48c3-809e-17e98db14a76" CreationDate="2013-09-12T06:11:14.600" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON synchronizing groups of files from a storage system to a client device** - This application from [Citrix][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Selecting groups of files to copy from a storage system to a client device! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 	Feb 14, 2013** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Selecting groups of files to copy together when synchronizing a client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO scores files based on relevancy to determine whether they should be synchronized as part of a group of files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Synchronizing groups of files to client device**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for synchronizing data between client device and storage system, comprising: selecting a set of files which are **related to a particular file** based on any selection criteria and copying those files to from the storage system to the client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130212067 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/767,510&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Citrix&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 	Feb 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/11/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of synchronizing data between a client device and a storage repository, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Establishing a communications channel between the client device and the storage repository;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. From a storage location for files to be synchronized between the client device and the storage repository, **selecting** a set of files which is related to a particular file based on a set of selection criteria; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. While the communications channel is established, **copying** data of the selected set of files between the client device and the storage repository to synchronize the selected set of files between the client device and the storage repository.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for sychronizing data between a client device and a storage system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Connecting the client device and the storage system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a set of files which is related to a particular file based on **any** selection criteria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Copying the set of files from the storage system to the client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to Derek Piasecki, Juan Rivera&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming scoring files based on relevancy to determine whether they should be synchronized as part of a group of files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Selecting groups of files to synchronize together from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zTHarXn.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130212067?dq=US20130212067&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.citrix.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130212067" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12323" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5027" RevisionGUID="b8adb9ac-ce48-48c3-809e-17e98db14a76" CreationDate="2013-09-12T06:11:14.600" UserId="1767" Text="Synchronizing files - Distributed Storage (Citrix) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12324" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5027" RevisionGUID="b8adb9ac-ce48-48c3-809e-17e98db14a76" CreationDate="2013-09-12T06:11:14.600" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;citrix&gt;&lt;file-storage&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5027" RevisionGUID="2ac6d9a6-1f5c-4088-b64d-2fa01f0e9145" CreationDate="2013-09-12T06:18:18.737" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON synchronizing groups of files from a storage system to a client device** - This application from [Citrix][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Selecting groups of files to copy from a storage system to a client device! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 	Feb 14, 2013** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Selecting groups of files to copy together when synchronizing a client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO scores files based on relevancy to determine whether they should be synchronized as part of a group of files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Synchronizing groups of files to client device**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for synchronizing data between client device and storage system, comprising: selecting a set of files which are **related to a particular file** based on any selection criteria and copying those files to from the storage system to the client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130212067 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/767,510&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Citrix&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 	Feb 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/11/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of synchronizing data between a client device and a storage repository, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Establishing a communications channel between the client device and the storage repository;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. From a storage location for files to be synchronized between the client device and the storage repository, **selecting** a set of files which is related to a particular file based on a set of selection criteria; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. While the communications channel is established, **copying** data of the selected set of files between the client device and the storage repository to synchronize the selected set of files between the client device and the storage repository.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for sychronizing data between a client device and a storage system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Connecting the client device and the storage system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a set of files which is related to a particular file based on **any** selection criteria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Copying the set of files from the storage system to the client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to  Feb 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming scoring files based on relevancy to determine whether they should be synchronized as part of a group of files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Selecting groups of files to synchronize together from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zTHarXn.png&quot; width=&quot;900&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130212067?dq=US20130212067&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.citrix.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130212067" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5027" RevisionGUID="72d17501-7482-4a32-bd20-706ee74f1713" CreationDate="2013-09-12T06:50:05.120" UserId="1767" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON synchronizing groups of files from a storage system to a client device** - This application from [Citrix][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Selecting groups of files to copy from a storage system to a client device! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 	Feb 14, 2013** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Selecting groups of files to copy together when synchronizing a client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO scores files based on relevancy to determine whether they should be synchronized as part of a group of files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Synchronizing groups of files to client device**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for synchronizing data between client device and storage system, comprising: selecting a set of files which are **related to a particular file** based on any selection criteria and copying those files to from the storage system to the client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130212067 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/767,510&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Citrix&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 	Feb 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/11/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of synchronizing data between a client device and a storage repository, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Establishing a communications channel between the client device and the storage repository;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. From a storage location for files to be synchronized between the client device and the storage repository, **selecting** a set of files which is related to a particular file based on a set of selection criteria; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. While the communications channel is established, **copying** data of the selected set of files between the client device and the storage repository to synchronize the selected set of files between the client device and the storage repository.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for sychronizing data between a client device and a storage system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Connecting the client device and the storage system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a set of files which is related to a particular file based on **any** selection criteria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Copying the set of files to/from the storage system to the client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to  Feb 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming scoring files based on relevancy to determine whether they should be synchronized as part of a group of files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Selecting groups of files to synchronize together from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zTHarXn.png&quot; width=&quot;900&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130212067?dq=US20130212067&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.citrix.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130212067" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5028" RevisionGUID="552a9294-d209-4a6b-a28c-a3fc790ccc33" CreationDate="2013-09-12T08:28:24.280" UserId="5737" Text="Although I cannot access the original standard document, I'm pretty certain from the abstract and from what I know about its use, that [UIC 918.3][1] (home printable railway tickets, published 2007, based on Aztec code) also includes a digital signature which would be verified on a (mobile) device differing from the generating device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uic.org/etf/codex/codex-detail.php?langue_fiche=E&amp;codeFiche=918-3 &quot;UIC 918.3&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5027" RevisionGUID="3a26676a-8870-43b7-95f3-58fd6d68a826" CreationDate="2013-09-12T13:03:18.453" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON synchronizing groups of files from a storage system to a client device** - This application from [Citrix][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Selecting groups of files to copy from a storage system to a client device! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 	Feb 14, 2013** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Selecting groups of files to copy together when synchronizing a client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO scores files based on relevancy to determine whether they should be synchronized as part of a group of files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Synchronizing groups of files to client device**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for synchronizing data between client device and storage system, comprising: selecting a set of files which are **related to a particular file** based on any selection criteria and copying those files to from the storage system to the client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130212067 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/767,510&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Citrix&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 	Feb 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/11/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of synchronizing data between a client device and a storage repository, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Establishing a communications channel between the client device and the storage repository;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. From a storage location for files to be synchronized between the client device and the storage repository, **selecting** a set of files which is related to a particular file based on a set of selection criteria; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. While the communications channel is established, **copying** data of the selected set of files between the client device and the storage repository to synchronize the selected set of files between the client device and the storage repository.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for sychronizing data between a client device and a storage system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Connecting the client device and the storage system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a set of files which is related to a particular file based on **any** selection criteria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Copying the set of files to/from the storage system to the client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to  Feb 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming scoring files based on relevancy to determine whether they should be synchronized as part of a group of files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Selecting groups of files to synchronize together from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zTHarXn.png&quot; width=&quot;900&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130212067?dq=US20130212067&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.citrix.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130212067" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5024" RevisionGUID="8cb64f22-5272-4f3c-91f4-cbc7c32b40b3" CreationDate="2013-09-12T15:00:38.220" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Is it possible to patent the way folder structure i represented on the screen. In what sense it is patentable since it does not fit into any category but Apple and Microsoft have parts of their interfaces patented (Apple's Coverflow, for example)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5030" RevisionGUID="9b4205d8-d3ba-4595-8e9d-c5d76187d636" CreationDate="2013-09-12T15:27:37.843" UserId="3076" Text="The statuary classes are compositions of mater, machines, articles of manufacture, process and improvements on those. (35 U.S.C. 101 Inventions patentable) A computer programmed to run particular can be seen as a machine. &quot;A machine for displaying the contents of a flash drive. . .&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A set of steps carried out by a program can be a process, also called a method. &quot;A method of displaying information . . .&quot; is a reasonable preamble to a claim. There is no question that this would be a method. There is a big question as to if it would an &quot;abstract&quot; method, and as such not patentable subject matter by judicial precedents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is your way of displaying folder structure new and unobvious? That is a separate question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5030" RevisionGUID="840b4c10-b5f7-4169-a9b8-03f1d3a7cbc4" CreationDate="2013-09-12T15:37:31.513" UserId="3076" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="The statuary classes are compositions of mater, machines, articles of manufacture, process and improvements on those. (35 U.S.C. 101 Inventions patentable) A computer programmed to do a particular thing can be seen as a machine. &quot;A machine for displaying the contents of a flash drive. . .&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A set of steps carried out by a program can be a process, also called a method. &quot;A method of displaying information . . .&quot; is a reasonable preamble to a claim. There is no question that this would be a method. There is a big question as to if it would an &quot;abstract&quot; method, and as such not patentable subject matter by judicial precedents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is your way of displaying folder structure new and unobvious? That is a separate question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5030" RevisionGUID="12a1487c-112a-4d5c-9322-9dbb5f255133" CreationDate="2013-09-12T16:21:41.583" UserId="3076" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="The statuary classes are compositions of mater, machines, articles of manufacture, process and improvements on those. (35 U.S.C. 101 Inventions patentable) A computer programmed to do a particular thing can be seen as a machine. &quot;A machine for displaying the contents of a flash drive. . .&quot;, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A set of steps carried out by a program can be a process, also called a method. &quot;A method of displaying information . . .&quot; is a reasonable preamble to a claim. There is no question that this would be a method. There is a big question as to if it would be an &quot;abstract&quot; method, and as such not patentable subject matter by judicial precedents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is your way of displaying folder structure new and unobvious? That is a separate question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5027" RevisionGUID="68cf6020-4297-44e3-8d57-053db1f437e6" CreationDate="2013-09-12T18:05:47.913" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON synchronizing groups of files from a storage system to a client device** - This application from [Citrix][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Selecting groups of files to copy from a storage system to a client device! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 	Feb 14, 2013** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Selecting groups of files to copy together when synchronizing a client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO scores files based on relevancy to determine whether they should be synchronized as part of a group of files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Synchronizing groups of files to client device**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for synchronizing data between client device and storage system, comprising: selecting a set of files which are **related to a particular file** based on any selection criteria and copying those files to from the storage system to the client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130212067 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/767,510&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Citrix&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 	Feb 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/11/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of synchronizing data between a client device and a storage repository, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Establishing a communications channel between the client device and the storage repository;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. From a storage location for files to be synchronized between the client device and the storage repository, **selecting** a set of files which is related to a particular file based on a set of selection criteria; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. While the communications channel is established, **copying** data of the selected set of files between the client device and the storage repository to synchronize the selected set of files between the client device and the storage repository.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for sychronizing data between a client device and a storage system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Connecting the client device and the storage system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a set of files which is related to a particular file based on **any** selection criteria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Copying the set of files to/from the storage system to the client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to  Feb 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming scoring files based on relevancy to determine whether they should be synchronized as part of a group of files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Selecting groups of files to synchronize together from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zTHarXn.png&quot; width=&quot;900&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130212067?dq=US20130212067&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.citrix.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130212067" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12339" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5027" RevisionGUID="68cf6020-4297-44e3-8d57-053db1f437e6" CreationDate="2013-09-12T18:05:47.913" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;citrix&gt;&lt;file-storage&gt;&lt;us20130212067&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5031" RevisionGUID="dba1ac5a-36bc-484b-983c-5d09f2c64b07" CreationDate="2013-09-12T19:07:29.693" UserId="421" Text="There's an [old blog post on dropbox.com][1] describing their mobile apps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bullet points hit all the three claims, I think:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Browse files in your Dropbox folder&quot; = &quot;Connecting client device and storage system&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Search through your Dropbox..&quot; = &quot;Selecting a set of files which is related to a particular file based on any selection criteria&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Open images and other media directly through the app / export files to other apps&quot; = &quot;Copying the set of files to/from the storage system to the client device&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there is probably even earlier prior art.  This is just the one I found first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://blog.dropbox.com/2010/09/dropbox-blackberry/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/qdIeR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12341" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5031" RevisionGUID="99260b56-c979-4ee2-9f95-3cdfa1506ee2" CreationDate="2013-09-12T19:13:17.000" UserId="421" Comment="clarify language in summary points" Text="There's an [old blog post on dropbox.com][1] describing their mobile apps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bullet points hit all the three claims, I think:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Browse files in your Dropbox folder&quot; = &quot;Connecting client device and storage system&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Search through your Dropbox..&quot; = &quot;Selecting a set of files which is related to a particular file based on [some] selection criteria&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Open images and other media directly through the app / export files to other apps&quot; = &quot;Copying the set of files to/from the storage system to the client device&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there is probably even earlier prior art.  This is just the one I found first.  I tried to find a self-contained prior art for Rsync, which came out in 1996, but I didn't find one that was so easily lifted as the Dropbox one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://blog.dropbox.com/2010/09/dropbox-blackberry/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/qdIeR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5024" RevisionGUID="60baa869-a0d2-453e-859a-1ef6f385f5fc" CreationDate="2013-09-12T20:08:11.303" UserId="5738" Comment="typo: &quot;i&quot; instead of &quot;is&quot;" Text="Is it possible to patent the way folder structure is represented on the screen. In what sense it is patentable since it does not fit into any category but Apple and Microsoft have parts of their interfaces patented (Apple's Coverflow, for example)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5027" RevisionGUID="54c19d30-5b2d-4ff7-ac03-3ffb0ebc9fcd" CreationDate="2013-09-12T20:36:53.737" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON synchronizing groups of files from a storage system to a client device** - This application from [Citrix][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Selecting groups of files to copy from a storage system to a client device! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 	Feb 14, 2013** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Selecting groups of files to copy together when synchronizing a client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO scores files based on relevancy to determine whether they should be synchronized as part of a group of files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Synchronizing groups of files to client device**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for synchronizing data between client device and storage system, comprising: selecting a set of files which are **related to a particular file** based on any selection criteria and copying those files to from the storage system to the client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130212067 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/767,510&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Citrix&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 	Feb 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/11/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of synchronizing data between a client device and a storage repository, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Establishing a communications channel between the client device and the storage repository;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. From a storage location for files to be synchronized between the client device and the storage repository, **selecting** a set of files which is related to a particular file based on a set of selection criteria; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. While the communications channel is established, **copying** data of the selected set of files between the client device and the storage repository to synchronize the selected set of files between the client device and the storage repository.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for sychronizing data between a client device and a storage system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Connecting the client device and the storage system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a set of files which is related to a particular file based on **any** selection criteria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Copying the set of files to/from the storage system to the client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to  Feb 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming scoring files based on relevancy to determine whether they should be synchronized as part of a group of files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Selecting groups of files to synchronize together from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zTHarXn.png&quot; width=&quot;900&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130212067?dq=US20130212067&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.citrix.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130212067" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5032" RevisionGUID="a12a88ba-6078-4685-a326-d23530084692" CreationDate="2013-09-12T23:52:35.413" UserId="5746" Text="See information on MS Windows briefcase below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://support.microsoft.com/kb/142574&#xD;&#xA;* http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307885&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This functionality was available in Windows 95, 98 and XP.  Note that it mentions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;a set of files&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* laptop is the &quot;client device&quot; for the briefcase&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;storage system&quot; is floppy drive in briefcase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5033" RevisionGUID="0d4913a5-b904-470b-9ff9-0207dc0e632f" CreationDate="2013-09-13T02:04:24.477" UserId="3076" Text="In the US and many other locations the only type of protection is an&quot;invention&quot; patent, called a utility patent. In Germany, China, Australia, Brazil and others there are &quot;real&quot; invention patents and also &quot;petty patents&quot;. In some places these are called a &quot;utility model&quot; vs &quot;invention patent, generating some confusion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These rights are generally easier and quicker to get but offer narrower protection. Both the time length of protection and the extent of protection are less than for full &quot;invention&quot; patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5033" RevisionGUID="39823058-d020-48c1-a714-020d6152334f" CreationDate="2013-09-13T03:43:39.857" UserId="3076" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="In the US and many other locations the only type of protection for the way something works is an &quot;invention&quot; patent, called a utility patent. In Germany, China, Australia, Brazil and others there are &quot;real&quot; invention patents and also &quot;petty patents&quot;. In some places these are called a &quot;utility model&quot; vs &quot;invention patent&quot;, generating some confusion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These rights are generally easier and quicker to get but offer narrower protection. Both the time length of protection and the extent of protection are less than for full &quot;invention&quot; patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5034" RevisionGUID="abb0059c-25e6-442d-ae66-625eeb0401da" CreationDate="2013-09-13T13:43:36.107" UserId="5748" Text="Have you ever heard of SVN? GitHub? that does exactly that....&#xD;&#xA;All the contents of the revision are seen as part of the total, it's all included in the version management.&#xD;&#xA;SVN sees everything in the working copy folder/revision folder on server as a total all in one system.&#xD;&#xA;When files are modified or added or downloaded, it's done by selection criteriea like modified, version number, updater, etc..... so it actually does everything the patent describes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SVN update, connect to storage repository to update local version or svn commit and copy updated files to storage repository&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Select which to update, based on modified status or added status or deleted status&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;upload/copy to the repository&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://subversion.apache.org/docs/release-notes/release-history.html&#xD;&#xA;active since 2000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ftp&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Connect...&#xD;&#xA;select which to upload by clicking on files or giving wildcard criteria(depending on console based or ui based)&#xD;&#xA;Copy to host&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Transfer_Protocol&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;need more?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5035" RevisionGUID="0efdea35-fe42-47a3-b21d-25a24663fc73" CreationDate="2013-09-13T13:55:05.323" UserId="5748" Text="This is a question that has bothered my for some time now.&#xD;&#xA;This question is not about copyright or trademark law, the example would be  a clear violation of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I write a program to simulate the gameboy color game pokemon in a HTML5 based way and I use all original code designed, developed by me without using any code from a 3rd party.&#xD;&#xA;Would it still be subject to any patents nintendo would have on displaying/processing information etc... in the game even though it would be all original self made code with own thought up solutions that have a different or the same way to get to the same result?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12349" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5035" RevisionGUID="0efdea35-fe42-47a3-b21d-25a24663fc73" CreationDate="2013-09-13T13:55:05.323" UserId="5748" Text="If I write a program with all original code, is it still subject to patent law?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12350" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5035" RevisionGUID="0efdea35-fe42-47a3-b21d-25a24663fc73" CreationDate="2013-09-13T13:55:05.323" UserId="5748" Text="&lt;programming-tools&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12351" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5035" RevisionGUID="47d97c7c-62e7-4a5d-b46f-7868277fdb83" CreationDate="2013-09-13T14:20:48.140" UserId="5748" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;user-interface&gt;&lt;programming&gt;&lt;program-design&gt;&lt;display&gt;&lt;program-flow&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5036" RevisionGUID="c76ad142-c256-467f-ae8d-73e0969a1b07" CreationDate="2013-09-13T15:17:58.130" UserId="5055" Text="Nintendo (or any other software manufacturer) can benefit from several forms of intellectual property protection to prevent copies and imitations, including utility patents but also design patents, trademarks and copyright. Besides intellectual property protection, other protections exist including laws against unfair competition or parasitic copying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Utility patents cover inventions. To obtain such a patent, Nintendo will have to file an application and be the **first** to **solve a given problem** in a **non-obvious way** to the skilled of the art. First being understood as based on what is published and disclosed at the time of their filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you reproduce a software (i.e. a game) without access to the source code you might still violate a patent if you solve the same problem and **come up with the same solution**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coming with the same solution could happen because the technical solution invented by the original author was revealed, even without access to the source code. You could have reverse engineered the software, or the solution could simply be revealed by using the original software. Please note that non-obvious solutions often seem obvious when disclosed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coming with the same solution could also happen by chance. Yet **this would also be a violation**. If you came with the same solution independently, it might be easier (in case of a lawsuit) to find prior art and eventually invalidate the patent. Indeed, in such a scenario, it is more likely an obvious solution at the time of filing. But the fact that you came with the same solution is no proof of obviousness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only way to not violate a patent is to come up with **another solution of the problem**. If you knew which patents cover the software, you could engineer your other solution to circumvent the patents claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, as you mention, simulating the gameboy color game Pokemon in HTML5 will likely violate copyright and trademark." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5027" RevisionGUID="5c53c1fd-430e-46ce-a444-d8c76d4aad5e" CreationDate="2013-09-13T15:21:41.773" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON synchronizing groups of files from a storage system to a client device** - This application from [Citrix][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Selecting groups of files to copy from a storage system to a client device! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 	Feb 14, 2013** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Selecting groups of files to copy together when synchronizing a client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO scores files based on relevancy to determine whether they should be synchronized as part of a group of files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Synchronizing groups of files to client device**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for synchronizing data between client device and storage system, comprising: selecting a set of files which are **related to a particular file** based on any selection criteria and copying those files to from the storage system to the client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130212067 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/767,510&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Citrix&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 	Feb 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/11/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of synchronizing data between a client device and a storage repository, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Establishing a communications channel between the client device and the storage repository;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. From a storage location for files to be synchronized between the client device and the storage repository, **selecting** a set of files which is related to a particular file based on a set of selection criteria; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. While the communications channel is established, **copying** data of the selected set of files between the client device and the storage repository to synchronize the selected set of files between the client device and the storage repository.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for sychronizing data between a client device and a storage system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Connecting the client device and the storage system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a set of files which is related to a particular file based on **any** selection criteria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Copying the set of files to/from the storage system to the client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to  Feb 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming scoring files based on relevancy to determine whether they should be synchronized as part of a group of files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Selecting groups of files to synchronize together from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zTHarXn.png&quot; width=&quot;900&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130212067?dq=US20130212067&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.citrix.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130212067" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5037" RevisionGUID="0a7a9dd4-09f6-4301-8d9f-402cc3ac3f6b" CreationDate="2013-09-13T15:34:51.717" UserId="3076" Text="Yes - a very simplified way of thinking about it is that patent laws are set up to cover &quot;what it is and how it works&quot;. Accidental, unknowing, independent invention is *not* a defense for patent infringement and re-implementing something you know is patented is worse. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Designing around* a patent is fine, and in some ways is encouraged. The difference is you have studied the patents in question and find a way to provide the same or similar user benefit without stepping on the exact requirements of any of the patent's claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you suggest is what people do to be free of copyright problems. Copyright (I am a layman with respect to anything but patents) protects a particular expression, not the underlying idea or information. And it protects that expression from being &quot;copied&quot;. If you could prove you accidentally, independently, wrote the exact same thing as something copyrighted (almost impossible) then you are not copying." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5038" RevisionGUID="fdaaa2c2-8ec2-4870-8b40-fda623d07f76" CreationDate="2013-09-13T15:58:58.847" UserId="5749" Text="Google Chrome has the ability to download webpages (files) related to the current one pre-emptively. I think this covers &quot;selecting a set of files which is related to a particular file.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From 2011:&#xD;&#xA;http://blog.chromium.org/2011/06/prerendering-in-chrome.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4960" RevisionGUID="e44ad93b-b781-4813-879b-0aae30000370" CreationDate="2013-09-13T18:31:19.310" UserId="5686" Comment="improved focus of remark" Text="Yes, the United States Manual of Patent Examining Procedure requires systematic rejection of things stating that their utility is that they are perpetual motion machines.  Also, US examiners can issue rejections on the ground that a claimed apparatus violates the laws of physics. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5040" RevisionGUID="5fc250a7-68d4-47bb-92e2-6e9be8d244fa" CreationDate="2013-09-13T23:51:55.200" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON using purchase history to make product recommendations** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...Recommending products to customers based on their online purchase history and their offline purchase history! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/0/1900** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Recommending products based on combining customer online and offline purchase history&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - sending the product recommendation as a geographic map of other customers in a vicinity of the customer who have purchased a similar product&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Product recommendations based on online/offline purchasing history**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for generating a product recommendation based on combining online and in-store purchase history for customer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130204737 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/749,355&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/0/1900&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a request for a product recommendation for a customer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Generating the product recommendation based on a **purchase history** for the customer that comprises in-store purchases from one or more brick and mortar stores and **online purchases** from one or more online stores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for generating product recommendations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Customer requests a product recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Generate product recommendation based on purchase history for same customer using information from both his in-store purchases and his online purchases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/0/1900&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming sending the product recommendation as a geographic map of other customers in a vicinity of the customer who have purchased a similar product&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Combining online and offline purchase history to create product recommendation from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/01E52rr.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130204737&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant &#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130204737" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12364" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5040" RevisionGUID="5fc250a7-68d4-47bb-92e2-6e9be8d244fa" CreationDate="2013-09-13T23:51:55.200" UserId="1767" Text="Online Advertising - Combining Online and Offline Purchases to Create Product Recommendations - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12365" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5040" RevisionGUID="5fc250a7-68d4-47bb-92e2-6e9be8d244fa" CreationDate="2013-09-13T23:51:55.200" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;online-shopping&gt;&lt;us20130204737&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5040" RevisionGUID="7911a619-3ee6-4942-a2f4-e310044f73b0" CreationDate="2013-09-13T23:59:38.887" UserId="1767" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON using purchase history to make product recommendations** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...Recommending products to customers based on their online purchase history and their offline purchase history! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/24/2013** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Recommending products based on combining customer online and offline purchase history&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - sending the product recommendation as a geographic map of other customers in a vicinity of the customer who have purchased a similar product&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Product recommendations based on online/offline purchasing history**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for generating a product recommendation based on combining online and in-store purchase history for customer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130204737 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/749,355&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/24/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a request for a product recommendation for a customer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Generating the product recommendation based on a **purchase history** for the customer that comprises in-store purchases from one or more brick and mortar stores and **online purchases** from one or more online stores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for generating product recommendations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Customer requests a product recommendation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Generate product recommendation based on purchase history for same customer using information from both his in-store purchases and his online purchases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/24/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming sending the product recommendation as a geographic map of other customers in a vicinity of the customer who have purchased a similar product&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Combining online and offline purchase history to create product recommendation from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/01E52rr.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130204737&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant &#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130204737" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5027" RevisionGUID="213363f7-3e7a-4ef8-b322-a7811c567393" CreationDate="2013-09-14T00:08:59.020" UserId="3076" Comment="Added mention of more sophisticated behavior claimed in dependent claims." Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON synchronizing groups of files from a storage system to a client device** - This application from [Citrix][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Selecting groups of files to copy from a storage system to a client device! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 	Feb 14, 2013** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Selecting groups of files to copy together when synchronizing a client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO scores files based on relevancy to determine whether they should be synchronized as part of a group of files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Synchronizing groups of files to client device**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for synchronizing data between client device and storage system, comprising: selecting a set of files which are **related to a particular file** based on any selection criteria and copying those files to from the storage system to the client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130212067 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/767,510&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Citrix&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 	Feb 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/11/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of synchronizing data between a client device and a storage repository, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Establishing a communications channel between the client device and the storage repository;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. From a storage location for files to be synchronized between the client device and the storage repository, **selecting** a set of files which is related to a particular file based on a set of selection criteria; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. While the communications channel is established, **copying** data of the selected set of files between the client device and the storage repository to synchronize the selected set of files between the client device and the storage repository.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for sychronizing data between a client device and a storage system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Connecting the client device and the storage system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a set of files which is related to a particular file based on **any** selection criteria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Copying the set of files to/from the storage system to the client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the features of claim 1 seem old and that claim may be quickly rejected, as the claims get narrower they get closer to what the applicant seems to consider important. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application is about files that are given an *overall figure of merit* that is used to decide what gets automatically moved to the client and in what order or priority. They are trying to solve the problem of having much more stored in the cloud than you want to dedicate space to on the client, but to still have synced copies of things locally,hopefully before you need them, by heuristics predicting your needs based on this overall figure of merit that involves frequency of access and access to things with similar names or in nearby folders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner will not need our help to reject claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to  Feb 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming scoring files based on relevancy to determine whether they should be synchronized as part of a group of files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Selecting groups of files to synchronize together from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zTHarXn.png&quot; width=&quot;900&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130212067?dq=US20130212067&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.citrix.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130212067" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5027" RevisionGUID="64d07e40-d3d9-4090-afbf-970acdebb578" CreationDate="2013-09-14T00:15:34.437" UserId="3076" Comment="Added mention of more sophisticated behavior claimed in dependent claims. Mentioned that claim 1 is low hanging fruit." Text="  **A PATENT APPLICATION WITH SOME OVER-BROAD CLAIMS ON synchronizing groups of files from a storage system to a client device** - This ## Heading ##application from [Citrix][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Selecting groups of files to copy from a storage system to a client device! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 	Feb 14, 2013** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Selecting groups of files to copy together when synchronizing a client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO scores files based on relevancy to determine whether they should be synchronized as part of a group of files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Synchronizing groups of files to client device**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for synchronizing data between client device and storage system, comprising: selecting a set of files which are **related to a particular file** based on any selection criteria and copying those files to from the storage system to the client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130212067 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/767,510&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Citrix&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 	Feb 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/11/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of synchronizing data between a client device and a storage repository, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Establishing a communications channel between the client device and the storage repository;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. From a storage location for files to be synchronized between the client device and the storage repository, **selecting** a set of files which is related to a particular file based on a set of selection criteria; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. While the communications channel is established, **copying** data of the selected set of files between the client device and the storage repository to synchronize the selected set of files between the client device and the storage repository.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for sychronizing data between a client device and a storage system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Connecting the client device and the storage system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a set of files which is related to a particular file based on **any** selection criteria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Copying the set of files to/from the storage system to the client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the features of claim 1 seem old and that claim may be quickly rejected, as the claims get narrower they get closer to what the applicant seems to consider important. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application is about files that are given an *overall figure of merit* that is used to decide what gets automatically moved to the client and in what order or priority. They are trying to solve the problem of having much more stored in the cloud than you want to dedicate space to on the client, but to still have synced copies of things locally,hopefully before you need them, by heuristics predicting your needs based on this overall figure of merit that involves frequency of access and access to things with similar names or in nearby folders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner will not need our help to reject claim 1. See **claim 5**below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A method as in claim 4 wherein providing, for each file of the group of files, the respective overall score includes:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;applying each file relevancy factor of the set of file relevancy factors to each file of the group of files to generate a set of relevancy scores for that file, and&#xD;&#xA;for each file,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA; aggregating the set of relevancy scores for that file to generate an aggregate score as the respective overall score for that file, the selected set of files being distinguished from the remaining files of the group based on the aggregate score generated for each file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to  Feb 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming scoring files based on relevancy to determine whether they should be synchronized as part of a group of files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Selecting groups of files to synchronize together from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zTHarXn.png&quot; width=&quot;900&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130212067?dq=US20130212067&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.citrix.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130212067" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5027" RevisionGUID="881146d7-75e9-4e27-b126-915e53c334d3" CreationDate="2013-09-14T02:01:19.800" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body; deleted 7 characters in body; added 1 characters in body" Text="  **A PATENT APPLICATION WITH SOME OVER-BROAD CLAIMS ON synchronizing groups of files from a storage system to a client device** - This application from [Citrix][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Selecting groups of files to copy from a storage system to a client device! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 	Feb 14, 2013** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Selecting groups of files to copy together when synchronizing a client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO scores files based on relevancy to determine whether they should be synchronized as part of a group of files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Synchronizing groups of files to client device**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for synchronizing data between client device and storage system, comprising: selecting a set of files which are **related to a particular file** based on any selection criteria and copying those files to from the storage system to the client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130212067 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/767,510&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Citrix&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 	Feb 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/11/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of synchronizing data between a client device and a storage repository, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Establishing a communications channel between the client device and the storage repository;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. From a storage location for files to be synchronized between the client device and the storage repository, **selecting** a set of files which is related to a particular file based on a set of selection criteria; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. While the communications channel is established, **copying** data of the selected set of files between the client device and the storage repository to synchronize the selected set of files between the client device and the storage repository.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for sychronizing data between a client device and a storage system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Connecting the client device and the storage system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a set of files which is related to a particular file based on **any** selection criteria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Copying the set of files to/from the storage system to the client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the features of claim 1 seem old and that claim may be quickly rejected, as the claims get narrower they get closer to what the applicant seems to consider important. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application is about files that are given an *overall figure of merit* that is used to decide what gets automatically moved to the client and in what order or priority. They are trying to solve the problem of having much more stored in the cloud than you want to dedicate space to on the client, but to still have synced copies of things locally,hopefully before you need them, by heuristics predicting your needs based on this overall figure of merit that involves frequency of access and access to things with similar names or in nearby folders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner will not need our help to reject Claim 1. See **Claim 5** below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A method as in claim 4 wherein providing, for each file of the group of files, the respective overall score includes:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;applying each file relevancy factor of the set of file relevancy factors to each file of the group of files to generate a set of relevancy scores for that file, and&#xD;&#xA;for each file,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA; aggregating the set of relevancy scores for that file to generate an aggregate score as the respective overall score for that file, the selected set of files being distinguished from the remaining files of the group based on the aggregate score generated for each file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to  Feb 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming scoring files based on relevancy to determine whether they should be synchronized as part of a group of files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Selecting groups of files to synchronize together from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zTHarXn.png&quot; width=&quot;900&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130212067?dq=US20130212067&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.citrix.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130212067" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5040" RevisionGUID="e34a06aa-f77d-4774-ad84-fa5ee5cb72fc" CreationDate="2013-09-14T02:05:30.067" UserId="1767" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON using purchase history to make product recommendations** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...Recommending products to customers based on their online purchase history and their offline purchase history! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/24/2013** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Recommending products based on combining customer online and offline purchase history&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - sending the product recommendation as a geographic map of other customers in a vicinity of the customer who have purchased a similar product&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Product recommendations based on online/offline purchasing history**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for generating a product recommendation based on combining online and in-store purchase history for customer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130204737 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/749,355&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/24/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a request for a product recommendation for a customer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Generating the product recommendation based on a **purchase history** for the customer that comprises in-store purchases from one or more brick and mortar stores and **online purchases** from one or more online stores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for generating product recommendations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Some process requests a product recommendation for a customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Generate product recommendation based on purchase history for same customer using information from both his in-store purchases and his online purchases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/24/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming sending the product recommendation as a geographic map of other customers in a vicinity of the customer who have purchased a similar product&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Combining online and offline purchase history to create product recommendation from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/01E52rr.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130204737&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant &#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130204737" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5041" RevisionGUID="da98f03b-040d-4d97-9576-bedc32918c19" CreationDate="2013-09-14T03:37:59.343" UserId="5752" Text="Patent [5,636,276][1] describes a process for digitally distributing 'music' - it specifically uses that word. Does this mean that the patent applies exclusively to the distribution of music? Would it not apply to video? Or what if the video has music in it? Or what about audio books - those aren't music, but they are audio 'tracks'. Really, it's just a digital package of information, and it could be books, videos, music, pictures, software - anything. How would a court interpret this word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents?id=ue8GAAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=5,636,276&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=oxExTrLlAsLjiALKnqG6Bg&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12373" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5041" RevisionGUID="da98f03b-040d-4d97-9576-bedc32918c19" CreationDate="2013-09-14T03:37:59.343" UserId="5752" Text="A patent specifies 'music', which is really 'packaged digital information', but how would a court interpret it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12374" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5041" RevisionGUID="da98f03b-040d-4d97-9576-bedc32918c19" CreationDate="2013-09-14T03:37:59.343" UserId="5752" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5042" RevisionGUID="c8e72fbf-4ff3-410a-a99e-3605c84a567d" CreationDate="2013-09-14T07:07:05.167" UserId="3076" Text="The core thing the specification and claims talk about is a &quot;music information object&quot;. It is not just a bunch of arbitrary bits in that it is specified to contain music and other things related to that music like rights management code and maybe the score of the music. The specification actually has a short section where it essentially defines what the term music information means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two times in the life of the claims when they are interpreted - during examination and during an infringement case. If an examiner found something just like it but for video or digitized paintings or some other creative work with a &quot;rights management&quot; issue, the examiner could have said &quot;the prior art is for digitized painting and from that it would be obvious to do the same thing with music.&quot;  Also, during exmination the claims are looked at in their broadest reasonable interpretation so arguing that bits were bits could be part of an obviousness rejection argument. This application got past that stage and was granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After grant the claims are looked at differently. The patent owner is unlikely to be able to enforce this against something that is not a &quot;music information object&quot;. Is a video with music a music information obect? That might hinge on the prosecution history. If, during prosecution there was a rejection based on something that was not music related and the applicant got past it by saying &quot;music, by its nature, is really different from everything else&quot; then they are doubly confined to that interpretation later on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5042" RevisionGUID="80ba8c48-e1c7-4302-a1f7-258bbc98c086" CreationDate="2013-09-14T07:15:54.253" UserId="3076" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="The core thing the specification and claims talk about is a &quot;music information object&quot;. It is not just a bunch of arbitrary bits in that it is specified to contain music and other things related to that music like rights management code and maybe the score of the music. The specification actually has a short section where it essentially defines what the term music information means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two times in the life of the claims when they are interpreted - during examination and during an infringement case. If an examiner found something just like it but for video or digitized paintings or some other creative work with a &quot;rights management&quot; issue, the examiner could have said &quot;the prior art is for digitized painting and from that it would be obvious to do the same thing with music.&quot;  Also, during exmination the claims are looked at in their broadest reasonable interpretation so arguing that bits were bits could be part of an obviousness rejection argument. This application got past that stage and was granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After grant the claims are looked at differently. The patent owner is unlikely to be able to enforce this against something that is not a &quot;music information object&quot;. If the inventor thought he could get a patent on any digital representation of a creative work, he should have claimed that. Too late now. Noe s a video with music a music information obect? That might hinge on the prosecution history. If during prosecution there was a rejection based on something that was not music related and the applicant got past it by saying &quot;music, by its nature, is really different from everything else, this invention is only bout music&quot; then they are doubly stuck with that interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4374" RevisionGUID="bd3a94eb-cecd-4e99-86e7-d5ab0feef0cc" CreationDate="2013-09-14T07:17:21.417" UserId="3076" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="No, there is no way that is quick and inexpensive. Patents are presumed valid and the least difficult way to try to knock one down is an ex parte reexamination. Anyone can file a request based on submitting published documents and an explanation as to how they apply to which claims, and $6000. The patent office gets 3 months to decide if there is a &quot;significant new question of patentablity&quot;. If not you get your $6000 back. If so, they proceed to examine it again, but with &quot;special dispatch&quot;. At the end a reexamination certificate is issued that might say everything is fine, some claims are changed, some or all claims are gone. The requestor does not get to participate after sending it in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No lawyer is technically required. You could draw it up yourself, or you can use a registered practitioner. That includes patent attorneys and patent agents. If one were actually spending $6000 in USPTO fees, another few thousand to get it done professionally seems wise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5042" RevisionGUID="cff102dd-a540-4440-b6d3-77f6f733e01b" CreationDate="2013-09-14T07:39:54.433" UserId="3076" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The core thing the specification and claims talk about is a &quot;music information object&quot;. It is not just a bunch of arbitrary bits in that it is specified to contain music and other things related to that music like rights management code and maybe the score of the music. The specification actually has a short section where it essentially defines what the term music information means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two times in the life of the claims when they are interpreted - during examination and during an infringement case. If an examiner found something just like it but for video or digitized paintings or some other creative work with a &quot;rights management&quot; issue, the examiner could have said &quot;the prior art is for digitized painting and from that it would be obvious to do the same thing with music.&quot;  Also, during exmination the claims are looked at in their broadest reasonable interpretation so arguing that bits were bits could be part of an obviousness rejection argument. This application got past that stage and was granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After grant the claims are looked at differently. The patent owner is unlikely to be able to enforce this against something that is not a &quot;music information object&quot;. If the inventor thought he could get a patent on any digital representation of a creative work, he should have claimed that. Too late now. Now, is a video with music a music information obect? That might hinge on the prosecution history. If during prosecution there was a rejection based on something that was not music related and the applicant got past it by saying &quot;music, by its nature, is really different from everything else, this invention is only bout music&quot; then they are doubly stuck with that interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5042" RevisionGUID="8dc7c03f-8ec3-4f06-98db-f40a97c8f236" CreationDate="2013-09-14T07:45:15.643" UserId="3076" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The core thing the specification and claims talk about is a &quot;music information object&quot;. It is not just a bunch of arbitrary bits in that it is specified to contain music and other things related to that music like rights management code and maybe the score of the music. The specification actually has a short section where it essentially defines what the term music information means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two times in the life of the claims when they are interpreted - during examination and during an infringement case. If an examiner found something just like it but for video or digitized paintings or some other creative work with a &quot;rights management&quot; issue, the examiner could have said &quot;the prior art is for digitized painting and from that it would be obvious to do the same thing with music.&quot;  Also, during exmination the claims are looked at in their broadest reasonable interpretation so arguing that bits were bits could be part of an obviousness rejection argument. This application got past that stage and was granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After grant the claims are looked at differently. The patent owner is unlikely to be able to enforce this against something that is not a &quot;music information object&quot;. If the inventor thought he could get a patent on any digital representation of a creative work, he should have claimed that. Too late now. Now, is a video with music a music information obect? That might hinge on the prosecution history. If during prosecution there was a rejection based on something that was not particularly music related and the applicant got past it by saying &quot;music, by its nature, is really different from everything else, this invention is only about music&quot; then they are doubly stuck with that interpretation when they go to enforce it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5043" RevisionGUID="ff11ef05-a91c-4280-bfd9-8cd4f2ec984c" CreationDate="2013-09-14T15:55:22.117" UserId="5753" Text="I need some input regarding Prior Art. I have found some abandoned patents with almost similar invention to a US Patent with number WO2005065109A3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to invalidate the patent by using previous patent from European country since the invention is no longer new anymore, and they were already exist that kind technology in German, French and  Netherlands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please give some advices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Patent number that can be prior art documents are : &#xD;&#xA;- DE 19708178 (German) &#xD;&#xA;- EP 1477326 A1 (Netherland)&#xD;&#xA;- EP 1657676 A2 (French)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12381" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5043" RevisionGUID="ff11ef05-a91c-4280-bfd9-8cd4f2ec984c" CreationDate="2013-09-14T15:55:22.117" UserId="5753" Text="Can abandoned european patents become prior art for a US Patent with number WO2005065109A3?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12382" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5043" RevisionGUID="ff11ef05-a91c-4280-bfd9-8cd4f2ec984c" CreationDate="2013-09-14T15:55:22.117" UserId="5753" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5044" RevisionGUID="3310de84-f7ca-48dc-9b48-b80bad5cd03b" CreationDate="2013-09-14T18:34:27.833" UserId="5752" Text="Patent [5,636,276][1] will be expiring in 2015, assuming my math is correct. The patent, which covers distributing music digitally, has been used very effectively to get royalties from many companies, recently Spotify when it came to the U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My thinking is that if the patent can be used this effectively against large, successful companies, then after it expires it can be used to protect small companies and individuals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine there must be some process that a developer should follow to be sure he or she develops the product such that it can be protected if sued by owners of similar patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would that process be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents?id=ue8GAAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=5,636,276&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=oxExTrLlAsLjiALKnqG6Bg&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12384" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5044" RevisionGUID="3310de84-f7ca-48dc-9b48-b80bad5cd03b" CreationDate="2013-09-14T18:34:27.833" UserId="5752" Text="How to use expired patents when designing a product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12385" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5044" RevisionGUID="3310de84-f7ca-48dc-9b48-b80bad5cd03b" CreationDate="2013-09-14T18:34:27.833" UserId="5752" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5044" RevisionGUID="e21ee00a-768a-4438-b02a-846c83ff6e95" CreationDate="2013-09-14T19:20:49.643" UserId="5752" Comment="added 233 characters in body" Text="Patent [5,636,276][1] will be expiring in 2015, assuming my math is correct. The patent, which covers distributing music digitally, has been used very effectively to get royalties from many companies, recently Spotify when it came to the U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My thinking is that if the patent can be used this effectively against large, successful companies, then after it expires it can be used to protect small companies and individuals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine there must be some process that a developer should follow to be sure he or she develops the product such that it can be protected if sued by owners of similar patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would that process be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I'm not looking for a step-by-step description using this patent (it's just an example), just the requirements that a court would look for when evaluating whether or not the product is properly using a public domain patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents?id=ue8GAAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=5,636,276&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=oxExTrLlAsLjiALKnqG6Bg&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5045" RevisionGUID="2b67b436-f569-4aa1-ade5-38d680ba263a" CreationDate="2013-09-14T21:13:49.593" UserId="1767" Text="This is a **great** question because it elucidates a first principle of US patent law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent owner does **not** have the right to build, make or sell anything.&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A US patent owner has the right **to prevent others** from building, making or selling what is described in the claims of his patent in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to the subject patent [5,636,276][1], after it has expired, the method or systems which are described in the claims of the patent are placed in the public domain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the method or system descrived by '276 does not convey any *protection* from other patents.  For example, other patents might cover elements of the method or system described or&#xD;&#xA;might describe commercially essential improvements to the method to make it practical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;George White and others on Ask Patents probably have an apt example to illustrate the general idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The general principle is that a patent a conveys a negative right to exclude others; when a patent expires it is placed in the public domain and that negative right is discharged.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent does not convey the positive right to build and sell what is described in the specification or the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any number of other negative rights (issued patents which are currently in force) may exist on various elements and improvements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents?id=ue8GAAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=5,636,276&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5045" RevisionGUID="646fdf17-6514-45e4-aa61-2d30371e9df5" CreationDate="2013-09-14T21:19:04.157" UserId="1767" Comment="added 9 characters in body; added 26 characters in body" Text="This is a **great** question because it elucidates a first principle of US patent law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent owner does **not** have the right to build, make or sell anything.&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A US patent owner has the right **to prevent others** from building, making or selling what is described in the claims of his patent in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to the subject patent [5,636,276][1], after it has expired, the method or systems which are described in the claims of the patent are placed in the public domain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, using the method or system described by '276 does not convey any *protection* from other patents.  For example, other patents might cover elements of the method or system described in '276 or&#xD;&#xA;might describe commercially essential improvements to the method of '276 necessary to make it practical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;George White and others on Ask Patents probably have an apt example to illustrate the general idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The general principle is that a patent a conveys a negative right to exclude others; when a patent expires it is placed in the public domain and that negative right is discharged.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent does not convey the positive right to build and sell what is described in the specification or the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any number of other negative rights (issued patents which are currently in force) may exist on various elements and improvements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents?id=ue8GAAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=5,636,276&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5045" RevisionGUID="50fb2f84-c30d-4142-b20e-ca579d74bf9c" CreationDate="2013-09-14T21:37:43.603" UserId="1767" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="This is a **great** question because it elucidates a first principle of US patent law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent owner does **not** have the right to build, make or sell anything.&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A US patent owner has the right **to prevent others** from building, making or selling what is described in the claims of his patent in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to the subject patent [5,636,276][1], after it has expired, the method or systems which are described in the claims of the patent are placed in the public domain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, using the method or system described by '276 does not convey any *protection* from other patents.  For example, other patents might cover elements of the method or system described in '276 or&#xD;&#xA;might describe commercially essential improvements to the method of '276 necessary to make it practical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;George White and others on Ask Patents probably have an apt example to illustrate the general idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The general principle is that a patent only conveys a negative right to exclude others; when a patent expires it is placed in the public domain and that negative right is discharged.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent does not convey the positive right to build and sell what is described in the specification or the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any number of other negative rights (issued patents which are currently in force) may exist on various elements and improvements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents?id=ue8GAAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=5,636,276&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5045" RevisionGUID="f97169b6-3792-47a6-a2eb-00f401916228" CreationDate="2013-09-14T21:46:07.613" UserId="1767" Comment="added 31 characters in body; added 5 characters in body" Text="This is a **great** question because it elucidates a first principle of US patent law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent owner does **not** have the right to build, make or sell anything.&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A US patent owner has the right **to prevent others** from building, making or selling what is described in the claims of his patent in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to the subject patent [5,636,276][1], after it has expired,  **combining** the elements of the claims in order to create the devices which are described in the claims of the '276 patent is placed in the public domain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, using the devices described by '276 does not convey any *protection* from other patents.  For example, other patents might cover elements of the device described in '276 or&#xD;&#xA;might describe commercially essential improvements to the device of '276 necessary to make it practical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;George White and others on Ask Patents probably have an apt example to illustrate the general idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The general principle is that a patent only conveys a negative right to exclude others; when a patent expires it is placed in the public domain and that negative right is discharged.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent does not convey the positive right to build and sell what is described in the specification or the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any number of other negative rights (issued patents which are currently in force) may exist on various elements and improvements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents?id=ue8GAAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=5,636,276&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5045" RevisionGUID="67b455e2-0e31-460e-8e4c-f3b4ebd3b864" CreationDate="2013-09-14T23:34:29.713" UserId="1767" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="This is a **great** question because it elucidates a first principle of US patent law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent does **not** grant its owner the right to build, make or sell anything.&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A US patent owner has the right **to prevent others** from building, making or selling what is described in the claims of his patent in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to the subject patent [5,636,276][1], after it has expired,  **combining** the elements of the claims in order to create the devices which are described in the claims of the '276 patent is placed in the public domain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, using the devices described by '276 does not convey any *protection* from other patents.  For example, other patents might cover elements of the device described in '276 or&#xD;&#xA;might describe commercially essential improvements to the device of '276 necessary to make it practical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;George White and others on Ask Patents probably have an apt example to illustrate the general idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The general principle is that a patent only conveys a negative right to exclude others; when a patent expires it is placed in the public domain and that negative right is discharged.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent does not convey the positive right to build and sell what is described in the specification or the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any number of other negative rights (issued patents which are currently in force) may exist on various elements and improvements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents?id=ue8GAAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=5,636,276&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12392" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5043" RevisionGUID="51b58384-a959-4a19-b3e5-d089a51146bd" CreationDate="2013-09-15T00:13:26.743" UserId="5753" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;wo2005065109a3&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5046" RevisionGUID="1a88b05e-9e42-44eb-98f3-ff6fe5061830" CreationDate="2013-09-15T00:18:19.137" UserId="3076" Text="To add to the excellent answer above from Micah: You get a patent on the clever part of your product idea because that part is novel and non-obvious and useful. But your shipping product is almost always more than the core clever part. All of the other parts of your product are things susceptible to infringing someone else's rights. This is clear in the example of a patented improvement on an existing product. The people making the existing product may have patents on the &quot;base&quot; that you have a clever twist on. You can't make your really clever version without infringing their base device that was patented when it was clever 10 years ago.&#xD;&#xA;You can patent your domestic robot but maybe you can't make and sell one that includes a floor sweeping feature that Roomba owns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another scenario is some boring detail (in comparison to the cool patented core) of your shipping product might infringe something. The way the doors lock on your car that runs on water might be patented. That can be designed out, of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way to see that a patent does not give you the right to make and sell it is to consider other regulations. You can patent a baby crib that is outlawed for not meeting a safety standard. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that major and widespread misconception out of the way I'll get back to **your original question:** Yes - you might try to confine your offering to only features explained in detail in an expired patent and it could provide a degree of a &quot;safe harbor&quot;. Assuming, also, that anything relevant that was patented before its publication has also expired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question a court will have before it is not, do you fall within the expiired patent. That is irrelevant. The question is, do you fall under the patent you are said to have infringed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5045" RevisionGUID="350ef504-2ba1-4a01-ad57-67fca259c9fb" CreationDate="2013-09-15T00:30:27.617" UserId="1767" Comment="added 87 characters in body; deleted 1 characters in body; edited body" Text="This is a **great** question because it elucidates a first principle of US patent law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent does **not** grant its owner the right to build, make or sell anything.&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A US patent owner has the right **to prevent others** from building, making or selling what is described in the claims of his patent in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to the subject patent [5,636,276][1], after it has expired,  **combining** the elements of the claims in order to create the devices which are described in the claims of the '276 patent is placed in the public domain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, using the devices described by '276 does not convey any *protection* from other patents.  For example, other patents might cover elements of the device described in '276 or&#xD;&#xA;might describe commercially essential improvements to the device of '276 necessary to make it practical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;George White and others on Ask Patents probably have an apt example to illustrate the general idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The general principle is that a patent only conveys a negative right to exclude others; when a patent expires it is placed in the public domain and that negative right is discharged.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent does not convey the positive right to build and sell what is described in the specification or the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any number of other negative rights (including issued patents which are currently in force but also including other laws which limit the making and selling of devices) may exist on various elements and improvements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents?id=ue8GAAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=5,636,276&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5045" RevisionGUID="31fb539f-e3da-4001-9d11-b8a5f682c009" CreationDate="2013-09-15T01:09:35.343" UserId="1767" Comment="edited body" Text="This is a **great** question because it elucidates a first principle of US patent law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent does **not** grant its owner the right to build, make or sell anything.&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A US patent owner has the right **to prevent others** from building, making or selling in the US what is described in the claims of his patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to the subject patent [5,636,276][1], after it has expired,  **combining** the elements of the claims in order to create the devices which are described in the claims of the '276 patent is placed in the public domain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, using the devices described by '276 does not convey any *protection* from other patents.  For example, other patents might cover elements of the device described in '276 or&#xD;&#xA;might describe commercially essential improvements to the device of '276 necessary to make it practical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;George White and others on Ask Patents probably have an apt example to illustrate the general idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The general principle is that a patent only conveys a negative right to exclude others; when a patent expires it is placed in the public domain and that negative right is discharged.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent does not convey the positive right to build and sell what is described in the specification or the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any number of other negative rights (including issued patents which are currently in force but also including other laws which limit the making and selling of devices) may exist on various elements and improvements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents?id=ue8GAAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=5,636,276&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5048" RevisionGUID="0c4e653f-e082-404b-aa90-911f0fd9418b" CreationDate="2013-09-15T01:28:31.240" UserId="5749" Text="From the request, it sounds like this is a patent for predictive caching:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;trying to solve the problem of having much more stored in the cloud than you want to dedicate space to on the client&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not an exact match, but hopefully close enough that their claim seems a little more obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In computers, there is a storage trade-off: the hard drive (like the server) has a lot of storage space but is slow to access, and the solid-state drive (like the client) has more limited storage but is fast to access.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Companies have improved this situation by including both types of storage in some computers. A controller analyzes usage patterns to find the data most likely to be needed and caches them on a per-file or per-block basis. This helps use the limited (and expensive!) space on the SSD more efficiently. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A well-known practical example of this is Apple's [Fusion Drive][1], which was [patented in 2011][2], announced publicly on 23 Oct 2012, and released later in 2012. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_Drive&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2011/09/apple-is-working-a-new-hybrid-drive-system-of-their-own.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5049" RevisionGUID="94f99af7-9640-46ae-b461-715a3a6bdf3f" CreationDate="2013-09-15T05:06:09.730" UserId="5757" Text="Patent [WO 1998058321 A1][1] filed in 1998 describes a &quot;Self-destructing document and e-mail messaging system&quot; which &quot;automatically destroys documents or e-mail messages at a predetermined time by attaching a macro or virus to the document or e-mail message.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this qualify as prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO1998058321A1?cl=en&amp;dq=self%20destructing%20email&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=kD41UpyiH7S84AOAjIGoBA&amp;ved=0CE4Q6AEwAw" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5051" RevisionGUID="468215a7-fab0-4ce2-ad9f-b4a186888528" CreationDate="2013-09-15T05:58:15.080" UserId="3076" Text="First, WO2005065109A2 is **not** a U.S. patent number. The two letter designation WO denotes a PCT application. They are administered by WIPO. This PCT application does have a U.S. counterpart application that did result in the granted U.S. 7,212,688. That can be seen by looking up the PCT number in google patents (a new feature as of a few weeks ago). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Published patent applications, in-force patents, expired patents, journal articles, published thesis, etc. can be prior art. The language and country of publication doesn't matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In specific EP1477326 published in Nov.  2004 and US7212688 was filed *earlier*, in Dec. of 2003. That eleimates the '326 document as prior art. It wasn't prior.  The '676 document was published even later in July of 2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The German document, **was published earlier**. It was published in 1998 and does qualify as prior art.  I have not looked it how on-target it is, but it is useable from a date perspective and the other two are not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5052" RevisionGUID="172a03c0-88ec-4d87-bb77-5e663ec0b8a0" CreationDate="2013-09-15T11:35:44.070" UserId="5735" Text="I have a product that I am confident will be granted a patent. I am also confident that it is worth patenting from a commercial point of view.&#xD;&#xA;Whilst being very different and not obvious, the product is an improvement on a previous lapsed patent that carries out a repair in domestic homes.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to outline and file my patent application, then launch the product, and complete the patent process with a relevant patent lawyer, whilst the product is selling.&#xD;&#xA;The question I would like to ask is; what is the best and most economical way of achieving this?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12409" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5052" RevisionGUID="172a03c0-88ec-4d87-bb77-5e663ec0b8a0" CreationDate="2013-09-15T11:35:44.070" UserId="5735" Text="best &amp; most economical way to file a ww patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12410" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5052" RevisionGUID="172a03c0-88ec-4d87-bb77-5e663ec0b8a0" CreationDate="2013-09-15T11:35:44.070" UserId="5735" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12411" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5043" RevisionGUID="28898bad-c479-444d-ab3b-f0014a06f116" CreationDate="2013-09-15T12:59:55.993" UserId="5753" Comment="edited tags; added 17 characters in body; edited tags; edited title; deleted 17 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us7212688&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5043" RevisionGUID="28898bad-c479-444d-ab3b-f0014a06f116" CreationDate="2013-09-15T12:59:55.993" UserId="5753" Comment="edited tags; added 17 characters in body; edited tags; edited title; deleted 17 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I need some input regarding Prior Art. I have found some abandoned patents with almost similar invention to a US Patent with number WO2005065109A3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to invalidate the patent by using previous patent from European country since the invention is no longer new anymore, and they were already exist that kind technology in German, French and  Netherlands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please give some advices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Patent number that can be prior art documents are : &#xD;&#xA;- DE 19708178 (German) &#xD;&#xA;- EP 1477326 A1 (Netherland)&#xD;&#xA;- EP 1657676 A2 (French)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12413" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5043" RevisionGUID="28898bad-c479-444d-ab3b-f0014a06f116" CreationDate="2013-09-15T12:59:55.993" UserId="5753" Comment="edited tags; added 17 characters in body; edited tags; edited title; deleted 17 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Can abandoned european patents become prior art for a US Patent with number WO2005065109A3?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5053" RevisionGUID="377ff67c-209b-4d37-9732-fe10008d03bb" CreationDate="2013-09-15T14:34:27.073" UserId="5749" Text="Like most modern smartphones and tablets, Apple iOS devices have used many of the methods in this patent application for years. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the location aspect, Apple filed [US Patent #8,396,485][1] on 9 Nov 2010. Their system works by using cell towers to track the coarse location of a user, which uses less power. When the user enters a coarse location that contains the target location, the device uses RF beacons to determine location more precisely. Then, it uses the location of the device to &quot;determine services available,&quot; which include communicating with a website to present location-based advertisements to the user. *(The location is determined on the device in this case, not based on signals received from the device. [Mobile phone tracking][3] that happens offboard has been common knowledge for years.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since iOS 4 (released 21 Jun 2010), Apple has also used [identifiers to track per-person interests][2]. They use this identifier to serve track user interests and serve ads relevant to those interests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=8,396,485.PN.&amp;OS=PN/8,396,485&amp;RS=PN/8,396,485&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4228&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_tracking" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5054" RevisionGUID="b7396958-674c-4be1-8e97-cf450df45fd0" CreationDate="2013-09-15T14:43:17.630" UserId="5749" Text="The application also contains a claim for using RFID to get the location of a device:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;2. The method of claim 1, wherein the computer receives the data via a radio frequency identification tag of the device.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an article titled [&quot;How RFID Tags Could Be Used to Track Unsuspecting People&quot;][1], published 18 Aug 2008, *Scientific American* documents drivers license with RFID chips that can be read from 30 feet away. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The new licenses come equipped with radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags that can be read right through a wallet, pocket or purse from as far away as 30 feet. Each tag incorporates a tiny microchip encoded with a unique identification number. As the bearer approaches a border station, radio energy broadcast by a reader device is picked up by an antenna connected to the chip, causing it to emit the ID number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A computer then looks up the ID holder in the a database and displays profile information to law enforcement:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By the time the license holder reaches the border agent, the number has already been fed into a Homeland Security database, and the traveler’s photograph and other details are displayed on the agent’s screen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RFID readers would be able to determine the location of a device once the RFID tag enters the range of the reader, which (I believe) is one of the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-rfid-tags-could-be-used" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5057" RevisionGUID="f5c4e109-eb50-476c-936d-a5e22685a481" CreationDate="2013-09-15T21:54:27.380" UserId="5764" Text="Sorry for this extremely basic question, but it does not appear to be a duplicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What states may a patent be in? How does it get from one state to the next?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is the flow goes something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Applied for (unpublished, person/company submits to USPTO)&#xD;&#xA; 1. Published (Cursory review by some board? Now it is visible publicly.)&#xD;&#xA; 1. Granted (USPTO reviewers examine background and accept or deny)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am guessing this is a naïve simplification, but I'm having trouble figuring out what the order actually is. (Is published a synonym for granted? Is there a granted date?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12425" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5057" RevisionGUID="f5c4e109-eb50-476c-936d-a5e22685a481" CreationDate="2013-09-15T21:54:27.380" UserId="5764" Text="What steps does a patent application follow?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12426" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5057" RevisionGUID="f5c4e109-eb50-476c-936d-a5e22685a481" CreationDate="2013-09-15T21:54:27.380" UserId="5764" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;process&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5059" RevisionGUID="6d3b4989-8652-4b43-9a95-8acaf178a16a" CreationDate="2013-09-16T03:34:27.930" UserId="5770" Text="I am a senior college business student looking to write a business plan for patented ideas. I am really interested in the vehicle covering system patent (US8430444)and would like to contact Carl West. Is there anyway of retrieving his contact information.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for your help,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jennifer " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12432" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5059" RevisionGUID="6d3b4989-8652-4b43-9a95-8acaf178a16a" CreationDate="2013-09-16T03:34:27.930" UserId="5770" Text="Contact Information" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12433" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5059" RevisionGUID="6d3b4989-8652-4b43-9a95-8acaf178a16a" CreationDate="2013-09-16T03:34:27.930" UserId="5770" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5061" RevisionGUID="146fd2c9-7012-4d6b-9e21-ff9d6a91222b" CreationDate="2013-09-16T05:43:15.257" UserId="3076" Text="You have it basically right. First an application is submitted and it gets an *application number* and a tentative filing date. Over the next few weeks it is checked by administrative people for conformance and completeness with respect to formal requirements. They are not looking at content other then that the minimum requirements are met. If they are not met the applicant gets a notice to provide missing parts or correct problems with the submission - but they can't add new subject matter at all. A deadline to fix the application is given; if not met the application can go abandoned. In that case it is never published. The application is kept in confidence by the USPTO and there is no way for the public to tell it exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publishing is typesetting whatever the applicant submitted into a form that looks like a patent, assigning it a *publication number* and making the document available to the public. It is then searchable on the USPTO site, on google patents and many other patent document databases. This generally happens automatically 18 months from the initial filing as long as the application has not gone abandoned before that. It looks like a patent but could almost be gibberish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At some later point it is examined for novelty and obviousness. There is back and forth between the examiner and the applicant, all publically visible after the application is published. The back and forth generally includes objections, rejections, arguments and amendments. The ultimate result might be a rejection that the applicant chooses not to respond to causing an abandonment. Another result can be a notice of allowance. After paying money, the final content is typeset and given another number, a *patent number*. When finished, it is issued as a granted patent on some particular day and the document is publically released. The term &quot;published&quot; is not usually used in regard to the issuing of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Issued and granted are almost synonyms. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5061" RevisionGUID="7a264fb7-c53b-42f0-96b8-d207955de399" CreationDate="2013-09-16T05:48:17.700" UserId="3076" Comment="added 169 characters in body" Text="You have it basically right. First an application is submitted and it gets an *application number* and a tentative filing date. Over the next few weeks it is checked by administrative people for conformance and completeness with respect to formal requirements. They are not looking at content other then that the minimum requirements are met. These include internal consistently between the drawings' figure numbering and the specifications list of drawings. If formalities are not met the applicant gets a notice to provide missing parts or correct problems with the submission (but they can't add new subject matter at all). A deadline to fix the application is given; if not met the application can go abandoned. In that case it is never published. The application is kept in confidence by the USPTO and there is no way for the public to tell it exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publishing is typesetting whatever the applicant submitted into a form that looks like a patent, assigning it a *publication number* and making the document available to the public. It is then searchable on the USPTO site, on google patents and many other patent document databases. This generally happens automatically 18 months from the initial filing as long as the application has not gone abandoned before that. It looks like a patent but could almost be gibberish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At some later point it is examined for novelty and obviousness. There is back and forth between the examiner and the applicant, all publically visible after the application is published. The back and forth generally includes objections, rejections, arguments and amendments. The ultimate result might be a rejection that the applicant chooses not to respond to causing an abandonment. Another result can be a notice of allowance. After paying money, the final content is typeset and given another number, a *patent number*. When finished, it is issued as a granted patent on some particular day and the document is publically released. The term &quot;published&quot; is not usually used in regard to the issuing of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Issued and granted are almost synonyms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a somewhat simplified explanation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5062" RevisionGUID="d9285732-bbc0-454a-9099-5af220564a12" CreationDate="2013-09-16T12:48:02.153" UserId="5071" Text=" Well, I know Best Buy does this, and has for quite some time. They've tied my offline and online purchase history together with my Best Buy Rewards Zone card. They throw away orders that are too old? But I have an online order in my system as old as November 2011." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5063" RevisionGUID="7e7c77ed-ab1e-456b-b5b1-0ea524f4efec" CreationDate="2013-09-16T12:48:17.447" UserId="1259" Text="My overly-simplified view. There are two broad ways to file a utility patent application (I do not know what the title &quot;WW patent&quot; means). Option (a): file the application through a professional (patent lawyer or agent); the &quot;best&quot; option but not the cheapest. Option (b): file it yourself; NOT the &quot;best&quot; but it will the cheapest and almost sure of rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two applications paths available, regardless of the options above. A &quot;Provisional&quot; application will establish your priority date (giving you a year to get things together, incorporation, funding, etc); or a &quot;Non-Provisional&quot; application will begin the actual patent process. If using a Provisional, be aware that your final Non-Provisional application will be limited by the contents disclosed in the Provisional with no chance of making changes. Thus the effort and cost of a Provisional application could be almost equal to the filing of a Non-Provisional application. I have observed that Provisional applications are often used to spawn a series of similar/related Non-Provisional applications, thereby providing a wider range of claims that may collectively provide greater protection to the inventor (or, an wider net for patent trolls to cast)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12442" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5052" RevisionGUID="4ee6817b-51fa-4248-9b39-e3e7e0ba39c4" CreationDate="2013-09-16T13:30:01.170" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title; edited title" Text="What is the most economical way to file a US patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12446" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5063" RevisionGUID="5862e1d2-0bde-4f6e-ae73-ce8b8e89e37d" CreationDate="2013-09-16T17:33:54.313" UserId="3076" Comment="Fixed error - non provisionals can be more extensive than provisional they get benefit from.  " Text="My overly-simplified view. There are two broad ways to file a utility patent application (I do not know what the title &quot;WW patent&quot; means). Option (a): file the application through a professional (patent lawyer or agent); the &quot;best&quot; option but not the cheapest. Option (b): file it yourself; NOT the &quot;best&quot; but it will the cheapest and almost sure of rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two applications paths available, regardless of the options above. A &quot;Provisional&quot; application will establish your priority date (giving you a year to get things together, incorporation, funding, etc); or a &quot;Non-Provisional&quot; application will begin the actual patent process. If using a Provisional, be aware that your final Non-Provisional will only get the benefit of the earlier &#xD;&#xA;filing date of the provisional application for content that was well covered in the Provisional. Thus the effort and cost of a really solid Provisional application could be almost equal to the filing of a Non-Provisional application. I have observed that Provisional applications are often used to spawn a series of similar/related Non-Provisional applications, thereby providing a wider range of claims that may collectively provide greater protection to the inventor (or, an wider net for patent trolls to cast)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5063" RevisionGUID="c59512ff-ea13-491b-82b6-83fb596467d2" CreationDate="2013-09-16T17:40:52.360" UserId="3076" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="My overly-simplified view. There are two broad ways to file a utility patent application (I do not know what the title &quot;WW patent&quot; means). Option (a): file the application through a professional (patent lawyer or agent); the &quot;best&quot; option but not the cheapest. Option (b): file it yourself; NOT the &quot;best&quot; but it will the cheapest and will also be unlikely to result in the protection you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two applications paths available, regardless of the options above. A &quot;Provisional&quot; application will establish your priority date (giving you a year to get things together, incorporation, funding, etc); or a &quot;Non-Provisional&quot; application will begin the actual patent process. If using a Provisional, be aware that your final Non-Provisional will only get the benefit of the earlier &#xD;&#xA;filing date of the provisional application for content that was well covered in the Provisional. Thus the effort and cost of a really solid Provisional application could be almost equal to the filing of a Non-Provisional application. I have observed that Provisional applications are often used to spawn a series of similar/related Non-Provisional applications, thereby providing a wider range of claims that may collectively provide greater protection to the inventor (or, an wider net for patent trolls to cast)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5065" RevisionGUID="9f6bcb5a-c303-46b3-a8ee-68183f46ac15" CreationDate="2013-09-16T19:53:48.153" UserId="5735" Text="If a patent agent believed that my invention was both patentable &amp; profitable, could I offer x% of my invention to a patent agent in return for the work the agent has to put in to secure the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, is this sort of arrangement unheard of common or otherwise?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12449" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5065" RevisionGUID="9f6bcb5a-c303-46b3-a8ee-68183f46ac15" CreationDate="2013-09-16T19:53:48.153" UserId="5735" Text="Patent agent fees" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12450" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5065" RevisionGUID="9f6bcb5a-c303-46b3-a8ee-68183f46ac15" CreationDate="2013-09-16T19:53:48.153" UserId="5735" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5066" RevisionGUID="89c3f7a4-d991-4dc6-9ba1-37c9d7d0dd02" CreationDate="2013-09-16T21:59:22.083" UserId="3076" Text="Often brought up, very rarely agreed to. Also there are some ethics issues that can come up when an attorny or agent gets involved in business with a client. I have heard of practitioners taking a securiny interest in a patent application to the extennt only  to guarantee their fee." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5066" RevisionGUID="9b4719b5-915c-4d72-8103-790c7404b12d" CreationDate="2013-09-16T22:45:00.697" UserId="3076" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text="Often brought up, very rarely agreed to. Also there are some ethics issues that can come up when an attorny or agent gets involved in business with a client. The clients interst hwbe br the only interests Nd the two might not always aling I have heard of practitioners taking a security interest in a patent application to the extennt only to guarantee their fee; sort of a lien." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5067" RevisionGUID="aa574b1f-47fc-46c1-97ca-98361abed380" CreationDate="2013-09-17T12:29:31.187" UserId="5055" Text="As an inventor, you might be tempted to be willing to pay the services of a patent agent with a percentage of revenues from your invention. However, this does not fit the business model of patent agents at all. And for many reasons, it is **unadvisable to seek such an arrangement**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent agents are unlikely to believe that inventions are **profitable or not**. I guess experienced patent agents know what is likely to yield to a patent, and some could warn you or tell you to not file. Yet, they probably know that there is a lot of uncertainty based on what examiners will find during search and how well the application will go through prosecution. Some national jurisdiction are known to grant you a patent if the application respect minimum requirements and the applicant argue strong enough, but such patents are of little value, eventually, as they would have to stand in court. Besides, filing and obtaining a patent is a very long process and patent agents have cost to cover months or years before the patent is even granted, let alone profitable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, a patent could be profitable in two ways. It could be used to **discourage or prevent competition**. For example, Miele filed [a patent application](https://www.google.com/patents/DE3721689A1) in 1987 for cutlery trays in dish washers. This patent family was subsequently used by the company to prevent competitors to manufacture and sell dish washers with cutlery trays, establishing some technical advantage until the patents lapsed (nowadays, several manufacturer sell dish washers with similar trays). It was and is still used as a marketing argument. This typical case of profit is difficult to estimate and to determine before the patent is granted. Business analysts at Miele knew much better than any attorney what they could expect from this invention, and protection was just a side-cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent could also be **profitable through litigation**. This is a domain that patent attorneys know much better, and those who know about it are unlikely to accept a percentage of future revenue to cover filing fees since the filing fees are extremely small compared to litigation fees, and there is no way to find out at filing time if the patent will be both granted and effective during a lawsuit. Please note, however, that some attorneys could accept a percentage of what can be gained from a lawsuit or an agreement as a payment of their litigation fees." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5067" RevisionGUID="1cc28fb7-0d48-400c-8d0a-a6f5e0c25578" CreationDate="2013-09-17T13:46:05.060" UserId="5055" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="As an inventor, you might be tempted to be willing to pay the services of a patent agent with a percentage of revenues from your invention. However, this does not fit the business model of patent agents at all. And for many reasons, it is **unadvisable to seek such an arrangement**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent agents are unlikely to believe that inventions are **profitable or not**. I guess experienced patent agents know what is likely to yield a patent, and some could warn you or tell you to not file. Yet, they probably know that there is a lot of uncertainty based on what examiners will find during search and how well the application will go through prosecution. Some national jurisdiction are known to grant you a patent if the application respects minimum requirements and the applicant argues strong enough, but such patents are of little value, eventually, as they would have to stand in court. Besides, filing and obtaining a patent is a very long process and patent agents have cost to cover months or years before the patent is even granted, let alone profitable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, a patent could be profitable in two ways. It could be used to **discourage or prevent competition**. For example, Miele filed [a patent application](https://www.google.com/patents/DE3721689A1) in 1987 for cutlery trays in dish washers. This patent family was subsequently used by the company to prevent competitors to manufacture and sell dish washers with cutlery trays, establishing some technical advantage until the patents lapsed (nowadays, several manufacturer sell dish washers with similar trays). It was and is still used as a marketing argument. This typical case of profit is difficult to estimate and to determine before the patent is granted. Business analysts at Miele knew much better than any attorney what they could expect from this invention, and protection was just a side-cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent could also be **profitable through litigation**. This is a domain that patent attorneys know much better, and those who know about it are unlikely to accept a percentage of future revenue to cover **filing fees** since filing fees are extremely small compared to litigation fees, and there is no way to find out at filing time if the patent will be both granted and effective during a lawsuit. Please note, however, that some attorneys could accept a percentage of what can be gained from a lawsuit or an agreement as a payment of their litigation fees." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5040" RevisionGUID="427da4e5-435f-4cd9-96c7-9031f3fc81e3" CreationDate="2013-09-17T13:46:35.893" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON using purchase history to make product recommendations** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...Recommending products to customers based on their online purchase history and their offline purchase history! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/24/2013** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Recommending products based on combining customer online and offline purchase history&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - sending the product recommendation as a geographic map of other customers in a vicinity of the customer who have purchased a similar product&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Product recommendations based on online/offline purchasing history**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for generating a product recommendation based on combining online and in-store purchase history for customer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130204737 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/749,355&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/24/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a request for a product recommendation for a customer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Generating the product recommendation based on a **purchase history** for the customer that comprises in-store purchases from one or more brick and mortar stores and **online purchases** from one or more online stores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for generating product recommendations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Some process requests a product recommendation for a customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Generate product recommendation based on purchase history for same customer using information from both his in-store purchases and his online purchases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/24/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming sending the product recommendation as a geographic map of other customers in a vicinity of the customer who have purchased a similar product&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Combining online and offline purchase history to create product recommendation from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/01E52rr.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130204737&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant &#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130204737" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4919" RevisionGUID="5cd230d9-82de-49c6-82b8-0e8eb6d850e6" CreationDate="2013-09-17T13:46:59.973" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON targeting messages to users based on based on distance between user and a location** - This application from [a self-proclaimed &quot;Internet visionary&quot;][6] seeks to patent the idea of...geo-targeting messages to users! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/11/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using location between a user and a location to send messages to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO a radiofrequency tags are used to identify the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Delivering messages to users based on their location**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for delivering ads to users based on location: if user's device is within a predetermined distance of a location, sending the user a message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130179263 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/348,282&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:[a self-proclaimed &quot;Internet visionary&quot;][6] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/7/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for linking a person to a location, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a computer determining that a device of a person is within a predetermined distance of a location, based on data received from the device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the computer identifying the at least one of the person and the device, based on the received data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. the computer associating the at least one of the person and the device with the location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. the computer generating a message based on the association; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. the computer communicating the message to the person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for delivering ads to users based on user's location:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine with user is within predetermined distance of a location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identify the user or device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Associate (presumably in a database) the user with the location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generate a message for the user and send the message to the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Using RFID tags to identify the device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Communicating promotional content from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/BlZj7kI.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130179263?dq=US20130179263A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://gawker.com/5516162/visionary-eric-leebow-thinks-he-invented-the-social-network&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130179263" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12457" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5043" RevisionGUID="f1e17e8e-26f9-4c25-befd-bbdf3c4884f7" CreationDate="2013-09-17T13:47:53.717" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us7212688&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4859" RevisionGUID="509f74d6-a008-48f7-b036-c659d2b67440" CreationDate="2013-09-17T13:49:37.407" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **QUESTION - Have you seen anything that was published before Apr 13, 2011 that discusses digitally signing of barcodes ? (as opposed to signing documents, images etc)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE:** Authentic barcodes using digital signatures &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Publication Number:** [PCT/US2012/032964][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Assignee**: Verisign, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art predating Apr 13, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Open for Challenge at USPTO**: N/A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A computer-implemented method of verifying the authenticity of a barcode&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Inputting graphical data representing a barcode pattern into memory&#xD;&#xA; - Translating the graphical data into barcode information according to a standard for translating a particular type of barcode pattern into barcode information&#xD;&#xA; - Extracting a message and a digital signature from the barcode information&#xD;&#xA; - and determining whether the message is authentic by determining whether the digital signature matches the message &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Creating the barcode**:  Signing some text with a private key, then generating a signature of this text, combining both the signature and text and encoding as a barcode. The text may also identify the author/keypair... (so the public key can be known if the validation must support multiple authors/issuers)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Validation**: Scanning a barcode, converting it into a message. Extracting the signature and text and using the associated public key to verify the signature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This link shows the signing/creation process http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US20120308003A1/US20120308003A1-20121206-D00004.png  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2D barcodes, (QR Codes, PDF417, Aztec etc) can encode a lot of text... so can support a digital signature, and therefore the industry standards techniques for signing, encryption and so on can be used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to Apr 13, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already...  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[IATA][2] have published standards for bar coded boarding passes... their Resolution 792 document mentions&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;The Bar Code format also permits an airline to include its own proprietary data, and a digital signature alongside the required Bar Code information&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this count as prior art to this application?  Are there earlier and/or better examples?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/82Nip.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.iata.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2012142061A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4833" RevisionGUID="cc3ee80b-13f0-4994-b6d5-e69f2cacfbc3" CreationDate="2013-09-17T13:50:30.707" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON collaborative virtual shopping** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...individuals shopping together online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/13/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - individuals shopping together online with multiple shopping carts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves sharing information between users, such as shopping lists, price lists, or item comparisons between users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Collaborative virtual shopping**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for shopping together online.  Users participate in a **collaborative shopping session** using multiple **virtual shopping carts** and share information with one another&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130211953 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/372,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/13/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/11/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for collaborative shopping, comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A plurality of shopping devices interconnected by a network, the shopping devices being used by shoppers in a collaborative shopping session; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A plurality of virtual shopping carts respectively associated with the shopping devices for sharing information on items of interest among the shoppers and enabling the shoppers to collaborate on the shopping&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for shopping together online, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Devices (e.g. computers or smartphones or fancy in-store shopping carts) connected together by a network, used by shoppers in a collaborative shopping session&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Virtual shopping carts associated with each device for sharing information between shoppers (e.g. price lists, shopping lists, comparisons, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/13/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming sharing information between users, such as shopping lists, price lists, or comparisons between shopping cart items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Collaborative Virtual Shopping from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/nmc2wu8.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130211953&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5068" RevisionGUID="4a3b6fde-d3b5-4690-b58e-420d04396b3a" CreationDate="2013-09-17T16:04:52.120" UserId="5780" Text="Stop and Shop &quot;Scan It&quot; scanners provide ads for nearby products as a shopper walks through the store.  Described in an article here: http://phys.org/news139225121.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5071" RevisionGUID="6d441bbe-7179-4bda-bafb-f790e372e911" CreationDate="2013-09-18T05:39:04.863" UserId="5787" Text="Back around 2006-2007 I worked for Green Packet Inc. (www.greenpacket.com). We developed routers and mobile IP software. One fo the features of our carrier grade routers was location based services. It used routing information (which port/subnet is the device connected to) to figure out the user's location. From the routing information we can associate the user with the WIFI access point (AP) he's connected to and therefore associate the user with a location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not entirely sure if Green Packet has any patents on this as I was involved only in the coding/implementation stage and the patents may have been applied during the research/product development stage but some of our competitors such as Cisco also had similar capabilities and the idea have also been implemented in open source code (if I'm not mistaken, by the Linux Router Project - which was later merged back into the Linux kernel as the iproute stack).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, that's the &quot;location&quot; part. The &quot;targeted message&quot; part was an installation we did at a shopping mall and several trade shows in China that used the location based service to send location specific ads to Windows CE and Palm OS phones and PDAs. I don't believe Green Packet applied a patent for this application but I could be wrong (it was the most obvious use of location based services after all so maybe nobody thought it needed patenting).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That should basically cover at least 3 of the claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Determine user's location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Identify user or device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Generate and transmit location specific message to device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I recall, the system we installed did not require user to login or register so we didn't do the &quot;associate user with location&quot; part. But the software could do it since we did have a login/authentication module and did have the capability to track user's usage for accounting purposes. So it was invented/implemented but not deployed since the customer didn't require it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5072" RevisionGUID="023c6605-40cd-4e0a-b51d-169cbd67bbad" CreationDate="2013-09-18T13:22:31.073" UserId="5792" Text="Yes. Pitney Bowes had a system to do this in the late 1980s or early 1990s. The system involved digital signatures on identity cards, with a verification station. The system was marketed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See http://www.five-ten-sg.com/risks/risks-21.16.txt for a discussion of the system from 2000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a complete description on p. 84 of Garfinkel's Web Security and Commerce (first edition):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6.1.4.2 Veritas: digital signatures for physical credentials  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An interesting twist on using public key technology to prove&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identification is the Pitney-Bowes Veritas system,  which uses digital&#xD;&#xA;&gt; signatures to authenticate photographs and other information stored on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; physical  documents (such as a driver's license). The Pitney-Bowes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; system stores a high-density two-dimensional bar  code on the back of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a plastic card. This bar code contains a digitized photograph, a copy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the driver's  signature, and information such as the driver's name,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; age, and address. All of the information stored in the  bar code is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; signed with a digital signature. The private key used to create this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; signature belongs to the card's  issuing authority.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To verify the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; digital signature stored on the back of the plastic card, it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; necessary to have a Veritas reader.  This reader scans in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; two-dimensional bar code, verifies the digital signature, and then&#xD;&#xA;&gt; displays a copy of  the photograph on a small screen. A liquor store&#xD;&#xA;&gt; might use such a system to verify the age of people  attempting to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; purchase alcohol, as well as to verify the names of people writing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; checks.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Veritas was first tested in 1994 to issue IDs for 800&#xD;&#xA;&gt; students at the University of New Haven. In 1995, Veritas  was tested&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at the Special Olympic World Games in Connecticut. Approximately 7,000&#xD;&#xA;&gt; athlete credentials were  issued and used for the games. These&#xD;&#xA;&gt; credentials contained a photograph of the athlete, biographical data, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and medical information. Pitney-Bowes reported a 100 percent read rate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on the cards. At one point, the  event's network went down, and the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; offline data retrieval capability of Veritas enabled officials to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; retrieve  medical data in life-saving situations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5074" RevisionGUID="d3ad347d-0c72-4c06-a1a3-833a11d9ea9a" CreationDate="2013-09-18T13:49:10.023" UserId="5776" Text="I am searching for any help locating prior art for the afore mentioned Patent. I have been producing a product since 1995 for which I am now being attacked due to a 2002 Patent and a troll. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12475" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5074" RevisionGUID="d3ad347d-0c72-4c06-a1a3-833a11d9ea9a" CreationDate="2013-09-18T13:49:10.023" UserId="5776" Text="Sorensen Pat #6,960,316 - patent infringement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12476" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5074" RevisionGUID="d3ad347d-0c72-4c06-a1a3-833a11d9ea9a" CreationDate="2013-09-18T13:49:10.023" UserId="5776" Text="&lt;prior&gt;&lt;art&gt;&lt;request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12477" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="5074" RevisionGUID="17767cbd-6db8-417a-80b8-9b0f9c63c50f" CreationDate="2013-09-18T14:08:04.653" UserId="1767" Comment="15" />
  <row Id="12480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5075" RevisionGUID="10cc12e8-64b4-4846-9fba-3965194acada" CreationDate="2013-09-18T16:00:49.260" UserId="5796" Text="Abstract of the German Patent &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reproduction method uses a scanner for scanning the original to provide image data in which each image pixel is identified by a corresponding brightness value. The spacing between the image pixels can be increased or reduced for altering the image size, before recording a corresponding raster pattern on the sheet metal surface using a machining tool. The pixel points of the reproduced image may be recorded as a series of round holes, using a cutting or stamping tool, with a size which is directly related to the corresponding brightness value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: https://depatisnet.dpma.de/DepatisNet/depatisnet?action=bibdat&amp;docid=DE000019708178A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to this abstract the patent might be prior art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5076" RevisionGUID="fac1f5f1-feee-4ac1-9fe6-f8dcc463e8eb" CreationDate="2013-09-18T16:27:46.267" UserId="5797" Text="I just discovered that my grandfather had established a US, CA, and GB patent for a pontoon floating bridge around 1930. My grandfather died at an early age around 1941 and the patent was left to the family. I also just discovered that my grandfather’s patent has been referenced and cited in at least 8 other patents over the years since his death with the most current being in 2007. My question, is the family entitled to any royalties or patent infringement penalties from these other patents and implementations of patented items?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12482" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5076" RevisionGUID="fac1f5f1-feee-4ac1-9fe6-f8dcc463e8eb" CreationDate="2013-09-18T16:27:46.267" UserId="5797" Text="Patent Royalties / Ownership" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12483" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5076" RevisionGUID="fac1f5f1-feee-4ac1-9fe6-f8dcc463e8eb" CreationDate="2013-09-18T16:27:46.267" UserId="5797" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5077" RevisionGUID="36bc454a-ce1f-41b2-8bdb-457de81cbc6e" CreationDate="2013-09-18T17:10:57.420" UserId="3076" Text="Of course those patents would have expired long ago. Only activities carried out while a patent is in-force would be susceptible to royalties and there is a statute of limitations on asserting those claims. Someone citing his patents and even patenting things that build on his work would not entitle him to compensation. Only making, selling, offering for sale and using things covered by in force patents would do that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12485" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5074" RevisionGUID="0ef53d8f-4c76-48a7-8341-f3ece476a62d" CreationDate="2013-09-18T17:13:54.573" UserId="3076" Comment="Fixed tag added tag" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us6960316&gt;&lt;added&gt;&lt;titlle&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5074" RevisionGUID="0ef53d8f-4c76-48a7-8341-f3ece476a62d" CreationDate="2013-09-18T17:13:54.573" UserId="3076" Comment="Fixed tag added tag" Text="Issued US Patent No: 6,960,316&#xD;&#xA;Injection-molded plastic container or closure with turned-under rim and method of injection-molding same&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am searching for any help locating prior art for the afore mentioned Patent. I have been producing a product since 1995 for which I am now being attacked due to a 2002 Patent and a troll. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5078" RevisionGUID="45ff3b57-c2e6-401f-a5f2-6c2b29471114" CreationDate="2013-09-18T17:21:51.397" UserId="5798" Text="I came up with an idea for a new product and began researching the process for getting a patent etc. Along the way I found that a patent existed for this idea. After speaking to the patent owner they acknowledged that this idea had never been brought to market (because of unexpected life changes). All the fees were paid to maintain the patent even though it was never used. This patent expires in June 2014. What are the laws regarding the use of an expired patent? Specifically, I know I can't sell or market this item before the expiration date, but can I start having them made and designed in preparation for that date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12488" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5078" RevisionGUID="45ff3b57-c2e6-401f-a5f2-6c2b29471114" CreationDate="2013-09-18T17:21:51.397" UserId="5798" Text="When can I start using an expiring patnet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12489" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5078" RevisionGUID="45ff3b57-c2e6-401f-a5f2-6c2b29471114" CreationDate="2013-09-18T17:21:51.397" UserId="5798" Text="&lt;public&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12490" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5078" RevisionGUID="ea528151-e5d6-43f9-a15f-a297114a6cf1" CreationDate="2013-09-18T18:01:02.760" UserId="5798" Comment="edited title" Text="When can I start using an expiring patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12491" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5074" RevisionGUID="e7a7d2e8-a642-44f7-9d4f-7df84741d3a4" CreationDate="2013-09-18T19:16:20.587" UserId="3076" Comment="Added title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us6960316&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5079" RevisionGUID="91de487d-3092-493c-b475-95f8ab455a5f" CreationDate="2013-09-18T21:08:53.023" UserId="3076" Text="Making and offering for sale are also on the list of things one can't do. Designing is ok but testing prototypes might be making and using. If the patent owner is agreeable you could negotiate a non-exclusive license for a single payment fixed amount to make use and but not to offer for sale or sell (until it expired). Or a license (exclusive or not exclusive) to get going full bore. If it was exclusive and you move fast you could be selling a patent-protected product for a few months, it might be a good head start." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5079" RevisionGUID="9154d6b0-759b-460a-a394-813c52c374c2" CreationDate="2013-09-18T22:33:29.030" UserId="3076" Comment="edited body" Text="Making and offering for sale are also on the list of things one can't do. Designing is ok but testing prototypes might be making and using. If the patent owner is agreeable you could negotiate a non-exclusive license for a single payment fixed amount to make and use but not to offer for sale or sell (until it expired). Or a license (exclusive or not exclusive) to get going full bore. If it was exclusive and you move fast you could be selling a patent-protected product for a few months, it might be a good head start." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5080" RevisionGUID="e34c1e9c-5bdd-40a0-a8bf-93d45d559c55" CreationDate="2013-09-19T03:18:22.683" UserId="5800" Text="This is just a variation of a common practice: using a tool to generate sample (or stub/skeleton/boilerplate) code. This practice is described in [&quot;A Source Code Generator Based on UML &#xD;&#xA;Specification&quot;](http://www.universitypress.org.uk/journals/cc/cc-23.pdf), a paper by Kresimir Fertalj and Mario Brcic, published in 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually a developer uses offline tools to generate such code rather than a server. In the case of this patent application, the tool happens to be made available on a server rather than offline on a developer's local system. Other than that the process of generating code from a given input is the same (compare **III. Basic Principle** in the paper cited above **Claim 1** of the patent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said here are examples of server-based code generators (aka. *custom client library samples*) available before March 2012:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [ZumCoder](http://www.zumcoder.com/) - Based on the upload date of their [tutorial video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=FnAoWWK_cMI), this product was released prior to November, 2010.&#xD;&#xA; - [Android ksoap2 stub generator](http://www.davidgouveia.net/android-ksoap2-stub-generator/) - Based on the date of the associated [article](http://www.davidgouveia.net/2011/04/online-stub-generator-for-android-applications-using-ksoap2/) this tool was made available in April, 2011." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12498" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5076" RevisionGUID="d2fba520-a8a5-4276-8b98-2b9e8933587f" CreationDate="2013-09-19T12:36:47.457" UserId="1259" Comment="tags added" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12499" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5078" RevisionGUID="c74dc398-256e-4cb4-b6f2-6726da2a5b98" CreationDate="2013-09-19T12:39:10.387" UserId="1259" Comment="tags added" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;public&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5082" RevisionGUID="886787cb-c09c-41c1-a9ce-c0fe3224cff0" CreationDate="2013-09-19T13:53:10.500" UserId="5806" Text="Creative Labs had this in 2003 by storing the data in the database and you could use the same account to modify the same cart on different systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not documented because it is such a simple thought when using database storage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5084" RevisionGUID="5add5302-841b-4c9c-933f-e87dfb1186b8" CreationDate="2013-09-19T21:20:45.710" UserId="5813" Text="Client library generation is common practice for webservice API.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The clientgen Ant task generates, from an existing WSDL file, the client component files that client applications use to invoke both WebLogic and non-WebLogic Web Services.&#xD;&#xA;http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E13222_01/wls/docs92/webserv/anttasks.html#wp1039270&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Article from 2008 showing usage of clientgen : https://blogs.oracle.com/devtools/entry/clientgen_wizard_in_oracle_wor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5084" RevisionGUID="38f12c52-2a83-44ad-a0fe-15d1f058985b" CreationDate="2013-09-19T21:50:43.410" UserId="5813" Comment="added 860 characters in body" Text="Client library generation is common practice for webservice API.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The clientgen Ant task generates, from an existing WSDL file, the client component files that client applications use to invoke both WebLogic and non-WebLogic Web Services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Oracle documentation : http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E13222_01/wls/docs92/webserv/anttasks.html#wp1039270&#xD;&#xA;- Article from 2008 showing usage of clientgen : https://blogs.oracle.com/devtools/entry/clientgen_wizard_in_oracle_wor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some mainframe integration tools also use similar technique. Software AG webMethods EntireX comes to mind.&#xD;&#xA;They have a tool named EntireX Workbench that let you extract an API from COBOL or Natural routine. This API is called an IDL file. The IDL can then be used to generate .NET, Java client.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Product documentation : http://documentation.softwareag.com/webmethods/wmsuites/wmsuite8-2_ga/EntireX/8-2-SP1_EntireX/workbench/scope.htm&#xD;&#xA;- Simple overview of a Java client generation from an IDL file :&#xD;&#xA;http://documentation.softwareag.com/webmethods/wmsuites/wmsuite8-2_sp2/Designer/8-2-SP1_EntireX_Workbench/javaWrapper/using.htm&#xD;&#xA;- Timed article showing such feature has been available since (at least) 2003 :&#xD;&#xA;http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240052186/Software-AG-extends-EntireX-communications-broker-to-net-and-Java" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4814" RevisionGUID="744f846b-937e-4f1f-8068-b408c3ca38aa" CreationDate="2013-09-19T21:53:53.157" UserId="1767" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON transferring data to a server based on user travel plans** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...transferring data in cloud storage system from a data server near a user usual location to a data server near where a user plans to travel! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2011** that discusses: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Moving data between servers based on user travel plans&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves accessing a user's calendar to figure out where he will travel and when&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transferring data between servers based on travel plans of a user**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for moving data between data servers bsaed on travel plans of a user (basically, if the user is traveling somewhere, moving some data from his &quot;home&quot; server to a server which is closer to the location he will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144978 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/309,640&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/3/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. locating a data server near a travel location of a user based on one or more travel plans of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transferring data of the user from a home data server near a home location of the user to the data server near the travel location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of data relocation in a cloud storage environment, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Locating a data server which is physically close to a location of a user based on travel plans of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Transferring data of the user from the home data server to the data server near the travel location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming accessing the user's calendar to figure out where he will travel so data can be moved there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for data relocation in cloud storage environments from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rLnVZ5M.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130144978?dq=US20130144978A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130144978" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4740" RevisionGUID="cc021e7f-5220-4e9f-857e-a65a30b01cfd" CreationDate="2013-09-19T21:57:21.157" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON classifying mobile users based on who they call in a network** - This application from [Ericsson][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Social network analysis applied to mobile phones...Keep [PRISM][7] free of patent licenses!  10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/24/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Social network analysis to classify individuals in a community based on who they communicate with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves demographic information about users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Social network analysis on cell phone calling networks to segment users**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130138479 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/699,796&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/24/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for classifying a new mobile user in a communication network based on demographics associated with the new mobile user, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Representing, for a sample set of mobile users, each mobile user in the sample set by a node and mobile usage between two nodes by an edge connecting the two nodes;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Forming one or more communities of nodes;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identifying a plurality of demographic subunits by splitting each of the one or more communities;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining one or more structural properties associated with each of the plurality of subunits;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Mapping the one or more structural properties to demographics of the plurality of subunits; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Classifying the new mobile user based on the determined structural properties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for classifying a new user in a communication network, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a graph structure with users as nodes and edges as communication between users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Forming communities of nodes (using any clustering technique)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Looking for correlation between demographic features of groups of nodes (e.g. rich, white, parent, etc…) and structural features of same groups of nodes (all communicate with one another, for example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Classifying a new user based on these structural features (i.e. who he talk to)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/24/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming segmenting customers based on **standard clustering algorithms** applied to a social graph&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Determining and presenting demographics of mobile users in a communication network from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/R2i0mp3.png&quot; width=&quot;350&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130138479&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ericsson.com/us&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5085" RevisionGUID="577d5218-95a4-4b53-909f-7d6820f7b3d0" CreationDate="2013-09-20T00:12:03.743" UserId="5151" Text="I have a box full of prior art that has been used in several cases like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The history of virtual worlds significantly predates Worlds, Inc. - just do searches on &quot;Lucasfilm's Habitat&quot; (1986 video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVpulhO3jyc), and a decade later Worlds Away (bogus patent with my name on it here: http://www.google.com/patents/US6476830)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several generations of this software during this period, in the US and internationally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5087" RevisionGUID="f09dec75-c5a2-4120-9dcf-d21985dbf194" CreationDate="2013-09-20T07:24:04.103" UserId="5814" Text="Few months ago, an idea went over my head. After some thinking, I though I had first to do a search over the internet to see if my idea already existed. And it existed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found out that there is a company that is selling the product I had in mind. The product is sold behind a brand named `qlocktwo`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, it's a wall clock but instead of pointers, it uses words to show the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did sooo much googleing and all I found out, was the company name and its copyright (the name, but not the design). My idea is not to copy literally the design, but create a clock with words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I don't really know if the dessign pattern copyrighted includes the idea of using words to show the time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any website where I can check this? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you so much.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12517" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5087" RevisionGUID="f09dec75-c5a2-4120-9dcf-d21985dbf194" CreationDate="2013-09-20T07:24:04.103" UserId="5814" Text="Finding design pattern copyright" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12518" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5087" RevisionGUID="f09dec75-c5a2-4120-9dcf-d21985dbf194" CreationDate="2013-09-20T07:24:04.103" UserId="5814" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5088" RevisionGUID="49be8973-ebda-4493-8f6c-9e08375d8890" CreationDate="2013-09-20T09:34:19.137" UserId="5816" Text="The iPhone app called Chirp allows you to send audio links to other people.&#xD;&#xA;http://chirp.io/&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AM6Cz5ANI1Q&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5089" RevisionGUID="c6afb024-2976-494b-b45b-ccb036f66534" CreationDate="2013-09-20T12:17:16.593" UserId="5817" Text="The hyperlinking and computer pieces would be tough to match, but I was thinking of something along the lines of closed-captioning (I doubt there's much that would be earlier than that that speaks to claims 1 and 2): (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_captioning)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For all types of NTSC programming, captions are &quot;encoded&quot; into line 21 of the vertical blanking interval – a part of the TV picture that sits just above the visible portion and is usually unseen. For ATSC (digital television) programming, three streams are encoded in the video: two are backward compatible &quot;line 21&quot; captions, and the third is a set of up to 63 additional caption streams encoded in EIA-708 format.[19]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Captioning is modulated and stored differently in PAL and SECAM 625 line 25 frame countries, where teletext is used rather than in EIA-608, but the methods of preparation and the line 21 field used are similar. For home BetaMax and VHS videotapes, a shift down of this line 21 field must be done due to the greater number of VBI lines used in 625 line PAL countries, though only a small minority of European PAL VHS machines support this (or any) format for closed caption recording. Like all teletext fields, teletext captions can't be stored by a standard 625 line VHS recorder (due to the lack of field shifting support), they are available on all professional S-VHS recordings due to all fields being recorded. Recorded Teletext caption fields also suffer from a higher number of caption errors due to increased number of bits and a low SNR especially on low bandwidth VHS. This is why Teletext captions use to be stored separately on floppy disk to the analogue master tape. DVDs have their own system for subtitles and/or captions that is digitally inserted in the data stream and encoded on playback in video field lines." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5090" RevisionGUID="e2b3a131-01c5-42b9-a932-6fb3ac30491c" CreationDate="2013-09-20T18:01:52.763" UserId="5821" Text="Actually, Misonimo has many more than four patents that cite the '541 patent, there are six at one degree of separation and numerous others that cite those citing patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5091" RevisionGUID="4084f58a-098a-49ba-bc31-f42d04296f25" CreationDate="2013-09-20T22:18:58.950" UserId="5079" Text="Foodler's Group Order system allows many users to share an order, adding their own selections to the create a final single order. A user can participate in several concurrent group orders http://www.foodler.com/order/startGroup.do?restId=6219" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12526" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5091" RevisionGUID="62e3f7fe-7e39-4d82-8d52-76e9d20d8f44" CreationDate="2013-09-20T22:18:58.950" UserId="5079" />
  <row Id="12528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5092" RevisionGUID="6c4f04cf-e067-4bde-8fc9-c5e6a0beefa7" CreationDate="2013-09-21T00:47:21.503" UserId="3076" Text="A US patent application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication number	**US20110157186 A1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inventors	        Marco Biegert, Andreas Funk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Original Assignee	Biegert Funk GmbH &amp; Co. KG" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12530" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5087" RevisionGUID="ad459f41-6dcd-42ff-b68c-2effeb18a709" CreationDate="2013-09-21T04:51:46.050" UserId="3076" Comment="edited title" Text="Finding design or utility patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5087" RevisionGUID="ad459f41-6dcd-42ff-b68c-2effeb18a709" CreationDate="2013-09-21T04:51:46.050" UserId="3076" Comment="edited title" Text="Few months ago, an idea went over my head. After some thinking, I though I had first to do a search over the internet to see if my idea already existed. And it existed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found out that there is a company that is selling the product I had in mind. The product is sold behind a brand named `qlocktwo`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, it's a wall clock but instead of pointers, it uses words to show the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did sooo much googleing and all I found out, was the company name and its copyright (the name, but not the design). My idea is not to copy literally the design, but create a clock with words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I don't really know if the a design patent or maybe a copyrighted includes the idea of using words to show the time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any website where I can check this?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12532" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5092" RevisionGUID="2772b2d1-0527-4da3-8d7d-9cdf7f821dcc" CreationDate="2013-09-21T08:38:04.463" UserId="3076" Comment="Added search strategy" Text="A US patent application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication number	**US20110157186 A1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inventors	        Marco Biegert, Andreas Funk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Original Assignee	Biegert Funk GmbH &amp; Co. KG&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Found with google patents using the name of the German manufacturer of the device in the assignee field." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5094" RevisionGUID="a0a4f027-b5d1-4ebb-970c-00a5e96a4f4a" CreationDate="2013-09-22T08:40:13.083" UserId="4449" Text="http://www.google.com/patents/US20120206565&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent covers the hardware design of a multi-camera array of video cameras making up a spherical or 360º panoramic video system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole idea is fairly obvious and already exists in a number of commercial systems, so I'd like to know if anyone would be able to help to post concrete examples of prior art here which can invalidate as many of the claims as possible in this patent application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12540" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5094" RevisionGUID="a0a4f027-b5d1-4ebb-970c-00a5e96a4f4a" CreationDate="2013-09-22T08:40:13.083" UserId="4449" Text="Prior art request: OMNI-DIRECTIONAL CAMERA AND RELATED VIEWING SOFTWARE patent 20120206565" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12541" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5094" RevisionGUID="a0a4f027-b5d1-4ebb-970c-00a5e96a4f4a" CreationDate="2013-09-22T08:40:13.083" UserId="4449" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;hardware-patents&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5095" RevisionGUID="be7d6bbe-29fe-4365-88ef-8fd161c5b953" CreationDate="2013-09-22T12:22:07.490" UserId="5830" Text="We use since years 360° Video solutions... so what is there do make a patent with old thinks.&#xD;&#xA;So where is the patent worthy idea and the new mind" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5097" RevisionGUID="3119e1d3-380b-4599-8abb-6355ef586390" CreationDate="2013-09-22T16:22:16.300" UserId="5832" Text="Panoramic Photography has been around since the earliest of times when photographers stitched together negatives to create a panoramic image.  Sometimes, in art exhibits you would see a complete 360 viewpoint by the photographer printing individual prints and posting them up onto the spherical room walls and ceiling.  As the digital age came about, photographers were able to use software to stitch together their images (i.e. photoshop) and create the panoramics that way.  As Video came about, 360 degree video became available to the public to create and view.  Multiple cameras have been used for a long time in the iMax theaters to create completely immersible experiences for the viewer - first with limited nature films and now with full length feature films.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12546" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5094" RevisionGUID="48ab2ed9-5da5-4909-bb94-b3d5f8cb1763" CreationDate="2013-09-22T17:48:39.900" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;us20120206565&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5098" RevisionGUID="d69b984d-3142-4a0c-9cda-d9971600175c" CreationDate="2013-09-22T20:41:33.320" UserId="5837" Text="I would look at the work done by Disney in 1967, Circle-Vision 360&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle-Vision_360%C2%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5100" RevisionGUID="823a1889-d7c0-4167-a610-155308bf70d9" CreationDate="2013-09-23T02:51:43.467" UserId="5840" Text="According to 37 CFR 1.33b, correspondence relating to a patent application should be signed by either a patent practitioner or the inventor(s). Reading the section makes me think it is generally preferred that the practitioner sign, but it seems more natural and appropriate for the inventor to sign that he/she qualifies for small or micro entity status. Is one or the other preferred? Does it really even matter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12553" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5100" RevisionGUID="823a1889-d7c0-4167-a610-155308bf70d9" CreationDate="2013-09-23T02:51:43.467" UserId="5840" Text="Is it better for the inventor or the patent agent to sign for small/micro entity status?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12554" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5100" RevisionGUID="823a1889-d7c0-4167-a610-155308bf70d9" CreationDate="2013-09-23T02:51:43.467" UserId="5840" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5101" RevisionGUID="a8bd8efe-263d-401b-b7e8-108c09e92ef3" CreationDate="2013-09-23T04:12:20.243" UserId="3076" Text="Only the new micro entity status involving &quot;means testing&quot; requires a separate form to be signed. Small entity status (all individuals and any company with less than 500 employees) is usually declared by checking a box on an Application Data Sheet form that would normally be signed by the practitioner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't matter to the USPTO which allowed party signs the micro entity statement.  However, as a practitioner, I have decided to rarely recommend it and **never** to sign them myself. I do not want to be the one certifying that the inventors all made less than a certain amount of money last year or otherwise made more than 50% of their income from an institution of higher leaning. And that none of them have filed more than four applications in their life. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The concern regardless of who signs is that it is a very new program and many things about it aren't 100% clear. How a spouse's income in a community property state figures into the equation is one issue. Another is what penalties might be imposed in a situation of unintentionally erroneously claiming micro entity. Does the patent get torn up? Has the practitioner committed inequitable conduct? Does the inventor say they misunderstood the criteria and it is all the agent or attorney's fault?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12561" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5103" RevisionGUID="d96963a0-5700-4a81-94a0-d77469906f31" CreationDate="2013-09-23T05:45:21.090" UserId="5843" Text="Does this constitute prior art? It looks like someone filed an application and walked away from it. What happened here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12562" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5103" RevisionGUID="d96963a0-5700-4a81-94a0-d77469906f31" CreationDate="2013-09-23T05:45:21.090" UserId="5843" Text="Was this patent ever issued?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12563" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5103" RevisionGUID="d96963a0-5700-4a81-94a0-d77469906f31" CreationDate="2013-09-23T05:45:21.090" UserId="5843" Text="&lt;us20040158483&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5104" RevisionGUID="81b98b6c-1b78-4638-8672-c541e8988a58" CreationDate="2013-09-23T06:51:42.503" UserId="3076" Text="Taking the parts of the question separately:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Issued?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, this is an application that never resulted in a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prior art?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to what? The determination of something being or not being prior art is relative to some specific patent or patent application in question. Is is veritably a published document and would be useable as prior art against anything filed after its publication date. (Some simplifying)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Walked away?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually the inventor filed this, received multiple rejections over a two year period and responded to each rejection. The one response I looked at was very far off the required format. The responses were also deemed insufficient to overcome the rejections. The last rejection was a so-called &quot;final rejection&quot; that needed a particular type of response (and more fees). The required response and fees were not submitted. The application went abandoned in June of 2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What happened?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way to find out for yourself what happened is to use the [USPTO's Public PAIR][2]  database. A quick search on Ask Patents will find some very good answers that include step-by-step instructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happened is this application looks like it was written and pursued by the inventor himself without the help of a professional. The last thing he submitted was classified as a &quot;miscellaneous incoming letter&quot; in which he said the examiner never understood the invention and asked the patent office to tell him what to do to keep the application alive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The next occurrence recorded is the patent office properly declaring it abandoned. I have. I have not looked into the substance of the case, just its progression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/XxIeD.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/wJSP9.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5104" RevisionGUID="76b192e1-e258-435e-934c-5db4bcd05f8d" CreationDate="2013-09-23T07:13:30.940" UserId="3076" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="Taking the parts of the question separately:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Issued?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, this is an application that never resulted in a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prior art?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to what? The determination of something being or not being prior art is relative to some specific patent or patent application in question. Is is veritably a published document and would be useable as prior art against anything filed after its publication date. (Some simplifying)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It must have been fairly early in its field judging from thelarge  number of later patents that cited it. ,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Walked away?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually the inventor filed this, received multiple rejections over a two year period and responded to each rejection. The one response I looked at was very far off the required format. The responses were also deemed insufficient to overcome the rejections. The last rejection was a so-called &quot;final rejection&quot; that needed a particular type of response (and more fees). The required response and fees were not submitted. The application went abandoned in June of 2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What happened?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way to find out for yourself what happened is to use the [USPTO's Public PAIR][2]  database. A quick search on Ask Patents will find some very good answers that include step-by-step instructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happened is this application was written and pursued by the inventor himself without the help of a professional. The last thing he submitted was classified as a &quot;miscellaneous incoming letter&quot; in which he said the examiner never understood the invention and asked the patent office to tell him what to do to keep the application alive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The next occurrence recorded is the patent office properly declaring it abandoned. I have. I have not looked into the substance of the case, just its progression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/XxIeD.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/wJSP9.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5104" RevisionGUID="70ef1cd0-c22d-4eb6-90fe-76ab17c19720" CreationDate="2013-09-23T07:19:38.083" UserId="3076" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="Taking the parts of the question separately:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Issued?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, this is an application that never resulted in a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prior art?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to what? The determination of something being or not being prior art is relative to some specific patent or patent application in question. Is is veritably a published document and would be useable as prior art against anything filed after its publication date. (Some simplifying)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It must have been fairly early in its field judging from thelarge  number of later patents that cited it. ,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Walked away?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually the inventor filed this, received multiple rejections over a two year period and responded to each rejection. The one response I looked at was very far off the required format. The responses were also deemed insufficient to overcome the rejections. The last rejection was a so-called &quot;final rejection&quot; that needed a particular type of response (and more fees). The required response and fees were not submitted. The application went abandoned in June of 2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He may have really had something valuable and new when this was filed ten years ago. If he had professional patent prosecution help he might have received a patent that would be valuable now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What happened?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way to find out for yourself what happened is to use the [USPTO's Public PAIR][2]  database. A quick search on Ask Patents will find some very good answers that include step-by-step instructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happened is this application was written and pursued by the inventor himself without the help of a professional. The last thing he submitted was classified as a &quot;miscellaneous incoming letter&quot; in which he said the examiner never understood the invention and asked the patent office to tell him what to do to keep the application alive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The next occurrence recorded is the patent office properly declaring it abandoned. I have. I have not looked into the substance of the case, just its progression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/XxIeD.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/wJSP9.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5094" RevisionGUID="fb2c0337-0567-46b0-b0eb-e34ee557b4b7" CreationDate="2013-09-23T12:13:16.307" UserId="4449" Comment="added examples of existing hardware" Text="http://www.google.com/patents/US20120206565&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent covers the hardware design of a multi-camera array of video cameras making up a spherical or 360º panoramic video system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole idea is fairly obvious and already exists in a number of commercial systems, so I'd like to know if anyone would be able to help to post concrete examples of prior art here which can invalidate as many of the claims as possible in this patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few 360º panoramic video cameras already on the market, including the Ladybug http://www.ptgrey.com/products/ladybug3/Ladybug3_360_video_camera.asp&#xD;&#xA;Geonaute http://www.geonaute.com/camera360/&#xD;&#xA;Sphericam http://www.sphericam.com&#xD;&#xA;and others.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5105" RevisionGUID="af071308-5c20-411f-bc26-80a879453efd" CreationDate="2013-09-23T12:55:35.307" UserId="5071" Text="As far as video goes, May 25 2007. Google has effectively done spherical video with their street view program. It's effectively a video with a low framerate, and manual framerate advancement of a car driving around the city." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5094" RevisionGUID="9e84b4c5-ee09-4994-ae0f-0b0635d89245" CreationDate="2013-09-23T17:05:44.000" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1321 characters in body" Text="http://www.google.com/patents/US20120206565&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent covers the hardware design of a multi-camera array of video cameras making up a spherical or 360º panoramic video system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole idea is fairly obvious and already exists in a number of commercial systems, so I'd like to know if anyone would be able to help to post concrete examples of prior art here which can invalidate as many of the claims as possible in this patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few 360º panoramic video cameras already on the market, including the Ladybug http://www.ptgrey.com/products/ladybug3/Ladybug3_360_video_camera.asp&#xD;&#xA;Geonaute http://www.geonaute.com/camera360/&#xD;&#xA;Sphericam http://www.sphericam.com&#xD;&#xA;and others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A camera device for creating spherical video and corresponding audio, said camera device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a camera device housing;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a computer processor for operating the camera device, said computer processor being located inside the housing;&#xD;&#xA;a plurality of cameras, each of said cameras having a lens attached thereto located outside the housing and oriented in different directions for acquiring image data;&#xD;&#xA;at least one microphone for acquiring audio data corresponding to the acquired image data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a system memory having stored thereon computer-processor executable instructions for operating the camera device, said computer-processor executable instructions comprising instructions for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;initiating image acquisition;&#xD;&#xA;acquiring at least first and second image data synchronously from the plurality of cameras;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;acquiring audio data from the at least one microphone synchronously with the image data acquisition;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;processing the acquired first image data and the acquired second image data to create a single image including at least a portion of the acquired first image data and at least a portion of the acquired second image;&#xD;&#xA;encoding the single image and the acquired audio data into a spherical video file; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;saving the spherical video file to a system memory." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5094" RevisionGUID="0a7d5a7f-9ea1-446f-9baf-b271d89c501f" CreationDate="2013-09-23T17:12:07.640" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1321 characters in body's  added claim 1" Text="http://www.google.com/patents/US20120206565&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent covers the hardware design of a multi-camera array of video cameras making up a spherical or 360º panoramic video system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole idea is fairly obvious and already exists in a number of commercial systems, so I'd like to know if anyone would be able to help to post concrete examples of prior art here which can invalidate as many of the claims as possible in this patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few 360º panoramic video cameras already on the market, including the Ladybug http://www.ptgrey.com/products/ladybug3/Ladybug3_360_video_camera.asp&#xD;&#xA;Geonaute http://www.geonaute.com/camera360/&#xD;&#xA;Sphericam http://www.sphericam.com&#xD;&#xA;and others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A camera device for creating spherical video and corresponding audio, said camera device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a camera device housing;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a computer processor for operating the camera device, said computer processor being located inside the housing;&#xD;&#xA;a plurality of cameras, each of said cameras having a lens attached thereto located outside the housing and oriented in different directions for acquiring image data;&#xD;&#xA;at least one microphone for acquiring audio data corresponding to the acquired image data;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a system memory having stored thereon computer-processor executable instructions for operating the camera device, said computer-processor executable instructions comprising instructions for:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;initiating image acquisition;&#xD;&#xA;acquiring at least first and second image data synchronously from the plurality of cameras;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;acquiring audio data from the at least one microphone synchronously with the image data acquisition;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;processing the acquired first image data and the acquired second image data to create a single image including at least a portion of the acquired first image data and at least a portion of the acquired second image;&#xD;&#xA;encoding the single image and the acquired audio data into a spherical video file; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;saving the spherical video file to a system memory." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5104" RevisionGUID="56e6cd63-51b6-48a9-a3b9-6b1075fd9e4a" CreationDate="2013-09-23T17:36:55.907" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="Taking the parts of the question separately:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Issued?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, this is an application that never resulted in a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prior art?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to what? The determination of something being or not being prior art is relative to some specific patent or patent application in question. Is is veritably a published document and would be useable as prior art against anything filed after its publication date. (Some simplifying)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It must have been fairly early in its field judging from the large  number of later patents that cited it. ,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Walked away?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually the inventor filed this, received multiple rejections over a two year period and responded to each rejection. The one response I looked at was very far off the required format. The responses were also deemed insufficient to overcome the rejections. The last rejection was a so-called &quot;final rejection&quot; that needed a particular type of response (and more fees). The required response and fees were not submitted. The application went abandoned in June of 2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He may have really had something valuable and new when this was filed ten years ago. If he had professional patent prosecution help he might have received a patent that would be valuable now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What happened?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way to find out for yourself what happened is to use the [USPTO's Public PAIR][2]  database. A quick search on Ask Patents will find some very good answers that include step-by-step instructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happened is this application was written and pursued by the inventor himself without the help of a professional. The last thing he submitted was classified as a &quot;miscellaneous incoming letter&quot; in which he said the examiner never understood the invention and asked the patent office to tell him what to do to keep the application alive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The next occurrence recorded is the patent office properly declaring it abandoned. I have not looked into the substance of the case, just its progression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/XxIeD.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/wJSP9.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5107" RevisionGUID="90b0deb9-2485-4ccc-bf02-1a687fdfe772" CreationDate="2013-09-23T18:40:49.407" UserId="5849" Text="I'm looking for prior art against US patent application 20130015958 (serial number 13/481,141)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12582" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5107" RevisionGUID="90b0deb9-2485-4ccc-bf02-1a687fdfe772" CreationDate="2013-09-23T18:40:49.407" UserId="5849" Text="US patent application 20130015958" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12583" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5107" RevisionGUID="90b0deb9-2485-4ccc-bf02-1a687fdfe772" CreationDate="2013-09-23T18:40:49.407" UserId="5849" Text="&lt;patent-infringment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5108" RevisionGUID="e9a7fa83-56b1-462d-8786-bb4745eb7a06" CreationDate="2013-09-23T18:54:26.440" UserId="5850" Text="Here is prior art against US patent application 20130015958&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/SLwDo.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12585" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5107" RevisionGUID="a3f8a68e-e309-4e0a-b344-85dccf1c90b4" CreationDate="2013-09-23T21:41:51.673" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20130015958&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5107" RevisionGUID="a3f8a68e-e309-4e0a-b344-85dccf1c90b4" CreationDate="2013-09-23T21:41:51.673" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="I'm looking for prior art against US patent application 20130015958 (serial number 13/481,141).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Truncation, compression, and encryption of rfid tag communications**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 61&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 61. A radio frequency identification (RFID) tag system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a storage module storing information comprising data and instructions;&#xD;&#xA;a logic module executing the instructions to:&#xD;&#xA;determine a mode of tag operation from a plurality of modes;&#xD;&#xA;read the data from the storage module to determine a response to a received signal based on the mode of tag operation;&#xD;&#xA;determine one of an unaltered version of the data and an altered version of the data based on the mode of tag operation for a response to the received signal; and&#xD;&#xA;provide a response with one of the unaltered version of the data and the altered version based on the determine step, wherein the response comprises an EPCglobal Header bit pattern indicative of the mode of tag operation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12587" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5107" RevisionGUID="a3f8a68e-e309-4e0a-b344-85dccf1c90b4" CreationDate="2013-09-23T21:41:51.673" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="US patent application Us20130015958 An RFID tag system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5109" RevisionGUID="e05b1e53-5cd9-49be-8185-9d600c58c9e6" CreationDate="2013-09-23T21:48:39.533" UserId="5852" Text="Sounds a lot like the Nissan around view monitor.  Pretty sure that they don't use audio, and probably don't record the stream.  Hope this helps&#xD;&#xA;http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/TECHNOLOGY/OVERVIEW/avm.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5110" RevisionGUID="e74a5fe5-aa43-46a5-82a1-54aa550d4f0b" CreationDate="2013-09-23T21:59:43.813" UserId="5852" Text="LEGO does this as well.  From their Privacy Policy page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;LEGO VIP Program&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are 13 years or older (age limitation may vary by country), you can join our LEGO VIP Program in physical LEGO Brand Retail Stores, online via LEGO Shop at Home, by phone via the LEGO Consumer Services Center, or through LEGO events offered by the VIP program. If you sign up in a store or by phone, you will be required to subsequently visit VIP.LEGO.com/Register to finalize the sign-up process online.&#xD;&#xA;We will process personal data such as your first and last name, address details, phone number, cell phone number (optional), email address, credit card or other payment information, LEGO ID username and password, date of birth and gender. We will also process information about your purchases with us (online and offline), marketing preferences and your use of LEGO.com related websites.&#xD;&#xA;We use your personal data to send you regular email newsletters, to send you marketing offers (if you opt-in) via catalogues, emails and text messages, to analyze customer behavior and to customize our LEGO VIP Program communication with you. We will also use your personal data to update your profile periodically to ensure that we have the most accurate personal data available.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3833" RevisionGUID="dccc20d2-d28c-4639-9d59-13bb38fb82c1" CreationDate="2013-09-23T22:49:56.553" UserId="1767" Comment="added 463 characters in body; edited tags" Text="![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An **initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to the **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **HELP SAVE AMERICAN INDUSTRY AND THE WORLD'S OLDEST PROFESSION** - This application seeks to patent an online escort service.  According to the [inventor][6], “I had trouble finding dates when I was at MIT primarily because of the high male to female ratio, as well as my lack of social skills...The social problems I faced...eventually led me to (invent this technology).” 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Online Dating System**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  A method and system for balancing the supply of desirable users with the demand by other users to date them in an online dating system is provided. The method includes enabling a first user to make an offer to pay or to be paid a compensation for having a date with a second user. The offer made by the first user is transmitted to the second user. The second user responds to the first user by accepting, rejecting or making a counter offer. The first user and the second user are allowed to communicate only after any one of the users accepts an offer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110731 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Seeking Arrangements, Inc.][3]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Oct 26, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for balancing supply of and demand for dating desirable users in an online dating system, the method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving from a first user an offer to pay, or to be paid, a compensation to have a date with a second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transmitting said offer to said second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving a response from said second user to either accept, or reject, said offer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. allowing the two users to communicate only after said offer is accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claims 7, 12 and 15** specify further that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Compensation** could be selected from a group consisting of money, points, gifts and credits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Users could provide **review or rating** corresponding to the other user whom they have dated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The terms or conditions of the &quot;date&quot; could be **negotiated**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specification notes that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Invention should not be limited to the types of software operating system, web-server software, database software, software development language, server or client hardware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Give me $100 and I'll date you!** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/grT6Y.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 10/26/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (1) **offers to pay**; or&#xD;&#xA; (2) **offers to be paid** for **dating desirable users** in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Help protect American Industry!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/grT6Y.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130110731&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.seekingarrangement.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N34/normandin.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/h3moa.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12591" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3833" RevisionGUID="dccc20d2-d28c-4639-9d59-13bb38fb82c1" CreationDate="2013-09-23T22:49:56.553" UserId="1767" Comment="added 463 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;us20130110731&gt;&lt;escort-service&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5094" RevisionGUID="4f155a3e-af4f-4355-80ce-3f8d7a88836d" CreationDate="2013-09-23T23:40:15.963" UserId="3076" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="http://www.google.com/patents/US20120206565&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent covers the hardware design of a multi-camera array of video cameras making up a spherical or 360º panoramic video system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole idea is fairly obvious and already exists in a number of commercial systems, so I'd like to know if anyone would be able to help to post concrete examples of prior art here which can show as many of the claims as possible as not novel or obvious in this patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few 360º panoramic video cameras already on the market, including the Ladybug http://www.ptgrey.com/products/ladybug3/Ladybug3_360_video_camera.asp&#xD;&#xA;Geonaute http://www.geonaute.com/camera360/&#xD;&#xA;Sphericam http://www.sphericam.com&#xD;&#xA;and others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A camera device for creating spherical video and corresponding audio, said camera device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a camera device housing;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a computer processor for operating the camera device, said computer processor being located inside the housing;&#xD;&#xA;a plurality of cameras, each of said cameras having a lens attached thereto located outside the housing and oriented in different directions for acquiring image data;&#xD;&#xA;at least one microphone for acquiring audio data corresponding to the acquired image data;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a system memory having stored thereon computer-processor executable instructions for operating the camera device, said computer-processor executable instructions comprising instructions for:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;initiating image acquisition;&#xD;&#xA;acquiring at least first and second image data synchronously from the plurality of cameras;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;acquiring audio data from the at least one microphone synchronously with the image data acquisition;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;processing the acquired first image data and the acquired second image data to create a single image including at least a portion of the acquired first image data and at least a portion of the acquired second image;&#xD;&#xA;encoding the single image and the acquired audio data into a spherical video file; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;saving the spherical video file to a system memory." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5111" RevisionGUID="1690fce7-3554-4583-97f3-8339160aa7a8" CreationDate="2013-09-24T01:57:44.533" UserId="5455" Text="Have there been any attempts at classifying patent classes?  I can see that the design classes is one group.  I am wondering if it is possible to create groups such as chemistry, manufacturing, etc.  Or even at a abstract level for things like processes, widgets.  I realize that there will be overlap and cross references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for a grouping of patent classes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12594" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5111" RevisionGUID="1690fce7-3554-4583-97f3-8339160aa7a8" CreationDate="2013-09-24T01:57:44.533" UserId="5455" Text="Have there been any attempts at classifying patent classes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12595" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5111" RevisionGUID="1690fce7-3554-4583-97f3-8339160aa7a8" CreationDate="2013-09-24T01:57:44.533" UserId="5455" Text="&lt;us-class&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5112" RevisionGUID="fc0d1a2c-5cf6-4202-b8eb-031502bf7bb6" CreationDate="2013-09-24T03:27:11.413" UserId="5853" Text="Basic scenario:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* BigCorp applies for patent for overly broad software independent claims `a+b+c+d+e+f`&#xD;&#xA;* Patent office rejects application, back and forth, BigCorp adds narrow claim `g` &#xD;&#xA;* Patent office awards patent for claims `a+b+c+d+e+f+g`&#xD;&#xA;* Former designer of original software leaves BigCorp to create startup&#xD;&#xA;* Startup creates software that loosely meets satisfies `a+b+c+d+e+f` but visibly NOT `g`&#xD;&#xA;* Startup gets written opinion of non-infringement from reputable attorney&#xD;&#xA;* Code is clean, all new, no copyright, stolen data, etc.  GitHub and Gmail are squeaky clean.&#xD;&#xA;* Startup gets customers, not stealing customers from BigCorp, just succeeding in shadow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if BigCorp decides to get ornery just to be ornery?  What should Startup consider in its contingency planning?  More specifically, what legal budget would be roughly &quot;enough&quot; to defend?  Or is this hypothetical just a distraction, don't look in the rear view mirror?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3707/general-knowledge-on-how-software-patent-infringement-lawsuits-are-evaluated" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12597" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5112" RevisionGUID="fc0d1a2c-5cf6-4202-b8eb-031502bf7bb6" CreationDate="2013-09-24T03:27:11.413" UserId="5853" Text="defend patent infringement suit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12598" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5112" RevisionGUID="fc0d1a2c-5cf6-4202-b8eb-031502bf7bb6" CreationDate="2013-09-24T03:27:11.413" UserId="5853" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5113" RevisionGUID="9dc338c3-3e7b-4bcf-9fac-f8b67ae8d7e5" CreationDate="2013-09-24T03:31:42.397" UserId="3076" Text="Look no further, it has been done, at least twice!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examination corp is organized into Technology Centers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under that level are Art Units and each art unit is responsible for a handful of classes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO recently started transitioning to a new joint US/EPO classification system called CPC that is based on the European system but with more granularity in the leaf nodes. Like the international system, it has a logical top level:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/4Zzj9.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/kOg72.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5112" RevisionGUID="41c24e76-9afb-434e-b97f-0aa582c8d159" CreationDate="2013-09-24T04:02:25.043" UserId="3076" Comment="Clarified a, b etc are elements or limitations of a claim." Text="Basic scenario:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* BigCorp applies for patent for overly broad software independent claim requiring the elements`a+b+c+d+e+f`&#xD;&#xA;* Patent office rejects application, back and forth, BigCorp adds element `g` to narrow the claim.&#xD;&#xA;* Patent office awards patent for claim `a+b+c+d+e+f+g`&#xD;&#xA;* Former designer of original software leaves BigCorp to create startup&#xD;&#xA;* Startup creates software that loosely satisfies `a+b+c+d+e+f` but visibly NOT `g`&#xD;&#xA;* Startup gets written opinion of non-infringement from reputable attorney&#xD;&#xA;* Code is clean, all new, no copyright, stolen data, etc.  GitHub and Gmail are squeaky clean.&#xD;&#xA;* Startup gets customers, not stealing customers from BigCorp, just succeeding in shadow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if BigCorp decides to get ornery just to be ornery?  What should Startup consider in its contingency planning?  More specifically, what legal budget would be roughly &quot;enough&quot; to defend?  Or is this hypothetical just a distraction, don't look in the rear view mirror?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3707/general-knowledge-on-how-software-patent-infringement-lawsuits-are-evaluated" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3846" RevisionGUID="fdacc078-6649-43a5-8c7f-0f3ca9c24291" CreationDate="2013-09-24T16:12:54.320" UserId="3076" Comment="Deleted signature" Text="I have a question relating to whether an imported product made in a foreign country by a patented method, before the method was patented, would be prior art to the method patent.  That's a mouthful, so below I've provided a hypothetical and accompanying 3 questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume the following facts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I own a patent on a method of making widgets filed in 2000;&#xD;&#xA;- I also own a patent on the system used to make the widgets filed in 2000;&#xD;&#xA;- A competitor practiced the method and used the system in a foreign country in 1998;&#xD;&#xA;- The competitor did not publish any documents relating to the method or system;&#xD;&#xA;- However, the competitor imported and sold a widget in the US in 1999;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Is the use of the method prior art?  I believe the answer is &quot;NO.&quot; [35 U.S.C. 102(b) - &quot;use in this country&quot;)]&#xD;&#xA;2.  Is the use of the system prior art?  Same as #1&#xD;&#xA;3.  Is the sale of the widget in the US prior art to either of the patents?  I believe the answer is &quot;NO,&quot; because there is no teaching of the method or system.  The widget would, however, be prior art to a patent on the actual product.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5112" RevisionGUID="9c0bc1d0-ecc3-4804-8527-e01dc02193a1" CreationDate="2013-09-24T16:14:36.380" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Basic scenario:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* BigCorp applies for patent for overly broad software independent claim requiring the elements `a+b+c+d+e+f`&#xD;&#xA;* Patent office rejects application, back and forth, BigCorp adds element `g` to narrow the claim.&#xD;&#xA;* Patent office awards patent for claim `a+b+c+d+e+f+g`&#xD;&#xA;* Former designer of original software leaves BigCorp to create startup&#xD;&#xA;* Startup creates software that loosely satisfies `a+b+c+d+e+f` but visibly NOT `g`&#xD;&#xA;* Startup gets written opinion of non-infringement from reputable attorney&#xD;&#xA;* Code is clean, all new, no copyright, stolen data, etc.  GitHub and Gmail are squeaky clean.&#xD;&#xA;* Startup gets customers, not stealing customers from BigCorp, just succeeding in shadow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if BigCorp decides to get ornery just to be ornery?  What should Startup consider in its contingency planning?  More specifically, what legal budget would be roughly &quot;enough&quot; to defend?  Or is this hypothetical just a distraction, don't look in the rear view mirror?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3707/general-knowledge-on-how-software-patent-infringement-lawsuits-are-evaluated" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5066" RevisionGUID="79ee83de-7d81-4312-99e8-30ad9c159d87" CreationDate="2013-09-24T22:13:11.870" UserId="3076" Comment="Spelling and awkward wording" Text="Often brought up, very rarely agreed to. Also there are some ethics issues that can come up when an attorney or agent gets involved in business with a client. What is in the client's interests must guide the practitioner. If they are in business together their interests might not always align. I have heard of practitioners taking a security interest in a patent application to the extennt only to guarantee their fee; sort of a lien." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5115" RevisionGUID="77d64dc8-e30b-4d27-88c7-97ff704f7822" CreationDate="2013-09-24T22:13:27.403" UserId="1698" Text="The only way to answer your question is to read the assignments you signed. An assignment of patent rights is a form of contract, so contract law applies. What rights did you assign to your employer? Typical assignments cover &quot;full and exclusive right to the invention described in patent application titled blah blah filed on blah blah blah&quot;. There may also be an assignment of other patent applications filed in the US or throughout the world. The assignment may also cover divisional, continuation, or reissue applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5116" RevisionGUID="46b98c52-f683-45c3-91bc-d81438779ab6" CreationDate="2013-09-24T22:15:28.503" UserId="5860" Text="I did my own research on a product that I can't find anywhere in the Internet. Do I need to file for both design and utility at the same time? Do I file for a patent over seas meaning China at same time? Please explain, Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12611" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5116" RevisionGUID="46b98c52-f683-45c3-91bc-d81438779ab6" CreationDate="2013-09-24T22:15:28.503" UserId="5860" Text="Do I need to apply for a design patent if I am applying for a utility patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12612" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5116" RevisionGUID="46b98c52-f683-45c3-91bc-d81438779ab6" CreationDate="2013-09-24T22:15:28.503" UserId="5860" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="0b05ec5c-05bb-4f69-b6b1-aa68bbe83f1c" CreationDate="2013-09-24T22:18:08.770" UserId="1767" Comment="added 463 characters in body; edited tags" Text="![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was **based on prior art found by Ask Patents community** below!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to the **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **A PATENT APPLICATION ON updating apps on mobile devices to restricted &quot;dummy&quot; apps** This application from [Good Technologies][2] seeks to patent the idea of...deleting sensitive information on a device by creating dummy apps. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents] (https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A management system for apps on mobile devices where apps are updated to dummy apps that, when invoked, destroy the respective apps' sensitive data.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your company has as &quot;Bring Your Own Device&quot; policy.  The company email app on your personal phone is &quot;updated&quot; to a new version. Then, when you launch that app, it will delete all the company email on your device and present a &quot;YOU'RE FIRED&quot; message instead of an inbox view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Another example would be having version 1.0 of a game updated to a limited trial of version 2.0 that encrypts your old save file on first being run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that standard mobile app management/mobile device management platforms do not necessarily anticipate the invention. That is, **remote deletion of an application and/or data is not sufficient to meet the claim limitations**. It's critical that the prior art disclose updating/modifying the app to a restricted functionality &quot;dummy&quot; version and for the updated app to itself delete/modify the existing data upon being run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System and Method for Remote Management of Applications Downloaded to a Personal Portable Wireless Appliance** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110145932 A1][0]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/975,145&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  [Appcentral, Inc.][1] / [Good Technologies][2] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for downloading and monitoring applications, programs and data structures to a personal portable appliance coupled to a server via a network configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;0. determine that the appliance is connected; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. generating a connection request from the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. authenticating the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. determining that one or more applications must be updated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. receiving at least one updated application comprising a dummy application such that when the application is invoked the data structures of the previous application are manipulated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. modifying the functionality of the application; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. offering the user one or more indications that the application is restricted or limited. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010. (Please note that although that this patent application is a continuation-in-part of earlier-filed parent cases, the claimed invention is not supported by the disclosure of the parent cases, rendering the actual filing date the effective filing date.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A diagram of the application management system&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NhpR6yB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [0]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110145932?dq=US20110145932&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.appcentral.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.good.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/h3moa.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12614" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="0b05ec5c-05bb-4f69-b6b1-aa68bbe83f1c" CreationDate="2013-09-24T22:18:08.770" UserId="1767" Comment="added 463 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;us20110145932&gt;&lt;goodtechnologies&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="9235c040-19dd-4293-ba9e-14fa01718c4e" CreationDate="2013-09-24T22:33:39.353" UserId="1767" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was **based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community** below!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to the **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **A PATENT APPLICATION ON updating apps on mobile devices to restricted &quot;dummy&quot; apps** This application from [Good Technologies][2] seeks to patent the idea of...deleting sensitive information on a device by creating dummy apps. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents] (https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A management system for apps on mobile devices where apps are updated to dummy apps that, when invoked, destroy the respective apps' sensitive data.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your company has as &quot;Bring Your Own Device&quot; policy.  The company email app on your personal phone is &quot;updated&quot; to a new version. Then, when you launch that app, it will delete all the company email on your device and present a &quot;YOU'RE FIRED&quot; message instead of an inbox view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Another example would be having version 1.0 of a game updated to a limited trial of version 2.0 that encrypts your old save file on first being run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that standard mobile app management/mobile device management platforms do not necessarily anticipate the invention. That is, **remote deletion of an application and/or data is not sufficient to meet the claim limitations**. It's critical that the prior art disclose updating/modifying the app to a restricted functionality &quot;dummy&quot; version and for the updated app to itself delete/modify the existing data upon being run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System and Method for Remote Management of Applications Downloaded to a Personal Portable Wireless Appliance** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110145932 A1][0]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/975,145&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  [Appcentral, Inc.][1] / [Good Technologies][2] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for downloading and monitoring applications, programs and data structures to a personal portable appliance coupled to a server via a network configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;0. determine that the appliance is connected; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. generating a connection request from the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. authenticating the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. determining that one or more applications must be updated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. receiving at least one updated application comprising a dummy application such that when the application is invoked the data structures of the previous application are manipulated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. modifying the functionality of the application; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. offering the user one or more indications that the application is restricted or limited. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010. (Please note that although that this patent application is a continuation-in-part of earlier-filed parent cases, the claimed invention is not supported by the disclosure of the parent cases, rendering the actual filing date the effective filing date.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A diagram of the application management system&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NhpR6yB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [0]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110145932?dq=US20110145932&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.appcentral.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.good.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/h3moa.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4853" RevisionGUID="aa82f6ff-1a87-4924-a00e-8c963a63d690" CreationDate="2013-09-24T22:34:33.137" UserId="1767" Comment="added 549 characters in body; edited tags" Text="![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was **based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community** below!  The first two references cited by the Patent Examiner were found by Ask Patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to the **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON self-destructing email** - This application from [AT&amp;T][6] seeks to patent the idea of...electronic mail which deletes itself after a specific period of time has elapsed and warns sender if it recipient is outside the sender's email domain (where self-destruction presumably cannot be assured)! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/9/2002** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - self-destructing email&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO prohibits forwarding or copying the email into another application (such as a word processor) or which warns the sender if it is being sent outside to a recipient outside the sender's email domain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Self-destructing email**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for sending email which identifies a time period after which the email destroys itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159436 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/690,555&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: AT&amp;T&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/9/2002&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/17/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for transmitting self-destructing electronic mail messages comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a request, at an electronic mail server, from a sender to send a self-destructing electronic mail message, the request identifying a time period after which the self-destructing electronic mail message is to be destroyed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. sending a security warning to the sender when an electronic mail address of an intended recipient of the self-destructing electronic mail message is located beyond a home domain of the sender;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. sending the self-destructing electronic mail message to the electronic mail address of the intended recipient in response to input from the sender responsive to the security warning;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4.deleting any instances of the self-destructing electronic mail message that are being stored at the electronic mail server after the sending and after expiration of the time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for sending self-destructing email, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Sender specifies time period after which email self-destructs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Warn sender if recipient email address is outside home domain (where self-destruction presumably cannot be assured)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Send the self-destructing email&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Delete the email after expiration of the time period specified by sender&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/9/2002&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming self-destructing email which is prohibited from being **forwarded** or **copied** into an application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;email which is time-limited from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ao0cGJA.jpg&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/T7xdF.jpg&quot; width=&quot;200&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159436?dq=20130159436&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.att.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/h3moa.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12617" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4853" RevisionGUID="aa82f6ff-1a87-4924-a00e-8c963a63d690" CreationDate="2013-09-24T22:34:33.137" UserId="1767" Comment="added 549 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;att&gt;&lt;us20130159436&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4853" RevisionGUID="da3ac50e-c282-4844-950e-4ea32585b1a0" CreationDate="2013-09-24T22:40:13.240" UserId="1767" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]; deleted 2 characters in body; added 6 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was **based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community** below!  The first two references cited by the Patent Examiner were found by Ask Patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to the **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON self-destructing email** - This application from [AT&amp;T][6] seeks to patent the idea of...electronic mail which deletes itself after a specific period of time has elapsed and warns sender if it recipient is outside the sender's email domain (where self-destruction presumably cannot be assured)! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/9/2002** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - self-destructing email&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO prohibits forwarding or copying the email into another application (such as a word processor) or which warns the sender if it is being sent outside to a recipient outside the sender's email domain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Self-destructing email**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for sending email which identifies a time period after which the email destroys itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159436 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/690,555&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: AT&amp;T&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/9/2002&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/17/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for transmitting self-destructing electronic mail messages comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a request, at an electronic mail server, from a sender to send a self-destructing electronic mail message, the request identifying a time period after which the self-destructing electronic mail message is to be destroyed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. sending a security warning to the sender when an electronic mail address of an intended recipient of the self-destructing electronic mail message is located beyond a home domain of the sender;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. sending the self-destructing electronic mail message to the electronic mail address of the intended recipient in response to input from the sender responsive to the security warning;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4.deleting any instances of the self-destructing electronic mail message that are being stored at the electronic mail server after the sending and after expiration of the time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for sending self-destructing email, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Sender specifies time period after which email self-destructs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Warn sender if recipient email address is outside home domain (where self-destruction presumably cannot be assured)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Send the self-destructing email&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Delete the email after expiration of the time period specified by sender&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/9/2002&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming self-destructing email which is prohibited from being **forwarded** or **copied** into an application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;email which is time-limited from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ao0cGJA.jpg&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/T7xdF.jpg&quot; width=&quot;200&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159436?dq=20130159436&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.att.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/h3moa.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4853" RevisionGUID="7cdb4486-f9cf-4b34-86fa-df0cdec1953e" CreationDate="2013-09-24T23:48:06.030" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was **based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community** below!  The first two references cited by the Patent Examiner were found by Ask Patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON self-destructing email** - This application from [AT&amp;T][6] seeks to patent the idea of...electronic mail which deletes itself after a specific period of time has elapsed and warns sender if it recipient is outside the sender's email domain (where self-destruction presumably cannot be assured)! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/9/2002** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - self-destructing email&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO prohibits forwarding or copying the email into another application (such as a word processor) or which warns the sender if it is being sent outside to a recipient outside the sender's email domain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Self-destructing email**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for sending email which identifies a time period after which the email destroys itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159436 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/690,555&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: AT&amp;T&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/9/2002&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/17/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for transmitting self-destructing electronic mail messages comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a request, at an electronic mail server, from a sender to send a self-destructing electronic mail message, the request identifying a time period after which the self-destructing electronic mail message is to be destroyed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. sending a security warning to the sender when an electronic mail address of an intended recipient of the self-destructing electronic mail message is located beyond a home domain of the sender;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. sending the self-destructing electronic mail message to the electronic mail address of the intended recipient in response to input from the sender responsive to the security warning;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4.deleting any instances of the self-destructing electronic mail message that are being stored at the electronic mail server after the sending and after expiration of the time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for sending self-destructing email, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Sender specifies time period after which email self-destructs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Warn sender if recipient email address is outside home domain (where self-destruction presumably cannot be assured)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Send the self-destructing email&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Delete the email after expiration of the time period specified by sender&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/9/2002&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming self-destructing email which is prohibited from being **forwarded** or **copied** into an application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;email which is time-limited from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ao0cGJA.jpg&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/T7xdF.jpg&quot; width=&quot;200&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159436?dq=20130159436&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.att.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/h3moa.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="d651a9c4-0cc9-4912-ad79-8ef03139a4f7" CreationDate="2013-09-24T23:48:55.707" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was **based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community** below!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **A PATENT APPLICATION ON updating apps on mobile devices to restricted &quot;dummy&quot; apps** This application from [Good Technologies][2] seeks to patent the idea of...deleting sensitive information on a device by creating dummy apps. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents] (https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A management system for apps on mobile devices where apps are updated to dummy apps that, when invoked, destroy the respective apps' sensitive data.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your company has as &quot;Bring Your Own Device&quot; policy.  The company email app on your personal phone is &quot;updated&quot; to a new version. Then, when you launch that app, it will delete all the company email on your device and present a &quot;YOU'RE FIRED&quot; message instead of an inbox view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Another example would be having version 1.0 of a game updated to a limited trial of version 2.0 that encrypts your old save file on first being run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that standard mobile app management/mobile device management platforms do not necessarily anticipate the invention. That is, **remote deletion of an application and/or data is not sufficient to meet the claim limitations**. It's critical that the prior art disclose updating/modifying the app to a restricted functionality &quot;dummy&quot; version and for the updated app to itself delete/modify the existing data upon being run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System and Method for Remote Management of Applications Downloaded to a Personal Portable Wireless Appliance** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110145932 A1][0]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/975,145&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  [Appcentral, Inc.][1] / [Good Technologies][2] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for downloading and monitoring applications, programs and data structures to a personal portable appliance coupled to a server via a network configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;0. determine that the appliance is connected; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. generating a connection request from the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. authenticating the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. determining that one or more applications must be updated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. receiving at least one updated application comprising a dummy application such that when the application is invoked the data structures of the previous application are manipulated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. modifying the functionality of the application; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. offering the user one or more indications that the application is restricted or limited. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010. (Please note that although that this patent application is a continuation-in-part of earlier-filed parent cases, the claimed invention is not supported by the disclosure of the parent cases, rendering the actual filing date the effective filing date.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A diagram of the application management system&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NhpR6yB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [0]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110145932?dq=US20110145932&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.appcentral.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.good.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/h3moa.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5117" RevisionGUID="8f6aa52a-cc01-4464-b816-ba72217d20d0" CreationDate="2013-09-25T12:58:09.817" UserId="5862" Text="Is there a way to look up patents and designs in the UK and USA for a given company?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12622" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5117" RevisionGUID="8f6aa52a-cc01-4464-b816-ba72217d20d0" CreationDate="2013-09-25T12:58:09.817" UserId="5862" Text="Where do I find the list of patents and designs for a given company?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12623" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5117" RevisionGUID="8f6aa52a-cc01-4464-b816-ba72217d20d0" CreationDate="2013-09-25T12:58:09.817" UserId="5862" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5118" RevisionGUID="3942ba6b-fe13-4746-9e03-7d31538076fe" CreationDate="2013-09-25T13:03:35.293" UserId="5862" Text="What is the total cost of filing a software patent and/or design in UK and in USA?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean, the fees for filing, the agency fees for writing the documents, etc. in total." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12625" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5118" RevisionGUID="3942ba6b-fe13-4746-9e03-7d31538076fe" CreationDate="2013-09-25T13:03:35.293" UserId="5862" Text="What is the total cost of a software patent and design in UK and USA?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12626" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5118" RevisionGUID="3942ba6b-fe13-4746-9e03-7d31538076fe" CreationDate="2013-09-25T13:03:35.293" UserId="5862" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5119" RevisionGUID="fa75b51f-c98f-4f6e-a360-a314a09e028c" CreationDate="2013-09-25T13:53:21.380" UserId="1259" Text="Patent fees are spelled out on the [USPTO website][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for lawyer or agent fees, that is outside the scope of this site and you can try contacting some directly. But starting at $10,000 ~ $30,000 would be my ballpark estimate based on what I've heard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee031913.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5120" RevisionGUID="85114726-5d35-46e9-b196-04b229466e2d" CreationDate="2013-09-25T14:27:31.710" UserId="5862" Text="Obviously all agents and lawyers will vote to work with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How hard is it to write parent documents on your own?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12629" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5120" RevisionGUID="85114726-5d35-46e9-b196-04b229466e2d" CreationDate="2013-09-25T14:27:31.710" UserId="5862" Text="Is it reasonable to write patent documents on your own?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12630" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5120" RevisionGUID="85114726-5d35-46e9-b196-04b229466e2d" CreationDate="2013-09-25T14:27:31.710" UserId="5862" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5121" RevisionGUID="9ba00ae7-c7bc-4b37-a82a-4332d35613c1" CreationDate="2013-09-25T16:49:01.437" UserId="4177" Text="You might consider writing a patent using this analogy:  writing a critical app using a new coding language that is vaguely related to the language you presently prefer, but that has a few interesting type conventions which, if you don't know about them, will lead to significant bugs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You get one chance to compile and debug, after the code is written.  The compiler may produce recoverable errors, or it may produce unrecoverable errors.  The recoverable errors will cost $1000s to fix, while the unrecoverable ones will not be fixable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you feel about writing a patent document on your own?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5122" RevisionGUID="149eec11-f8a0-4a0a-ac82-e8e80af909d0" CreationDate="2013-09-25T17:12:15.443" UserId="5842" Text="The services listed after 2002 does not negate them as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;It is necessary to request records from those services to indicate when it was that they began developing their service. If the companies have records indicating the beginning of development prior to and at the same time as AT&amp;T filed it's claim, then that should constitute valid prior art.&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, those companies intellectual property becomes jeopardized with the issuing of a patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5123" RevisionGUID="38f012d3-94b7-4181-b767-111048c3d323" CreationDate="2013-09-25T19:36:20.680" UserId="5864" Text="I had a website tying messages-with gifts online around 2006.  I notice that there are several patents dealing with this topic and I believe that I have written evidence that I considered the same processes that are now patented.  I am wondering if I have something to sell to the patent holders?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12634" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5123" RevisionGUID="38f012d3-94b7-4181-b767-111048c3d323" CreationDate="2013-09-25T19:36:20.680" UserId="5864" Text="Is &quot;prior art&quot; established by written consideration of an idea but not used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12635" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5123" RevisionGUID="38f012d3-94b7-4181-b767-111048c3d323" CreationDate="2013-09-25T19:36:20.680" UserId="5864" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12636" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5123" RevisionGUID="ee2135b4-7e16-454a-a223-ee37fc740227" CreationDate="2013-09-25T21:11:53.657" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5124" RevisionGUID="2a017a9f-d926-4e0d-b3be-1895ba26a3a1" CreationDate="2013-09-26T00:02:48.257" UserId="3076" Text="Since you didn't apply for anything back then you do not have any particular rights. All you have is knowledge of something in the public domain that might be used to show someone's patent is invalid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can document what you had, possibly by the wayback machine, and you studied  the history of specific patents you might conclude you have killer prior art and have something valuable to anyone whom those patents are trying to be enforced against. I would think it is only valuable if it is dead-on and hard to find. On problem is it is hard to see how you demonstrate its value without giving away its value. It is only prior art if it is published (on the web will do). If it is published and findable they do not need you. After you approach them with a proposition backed up by evidence it will become very easy to find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not an attorney but I wonder if contacting a patent owner and saying &quot;pay me or I will publicize  my prior art&quot; is considered proposing a legitimate  business relationship or something underhanded. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5125" RevisionGUID="044e2aa1-9c28-49fa-9e93-3a10681fb1c5" CreationDate="2013-09-26T00:52:33.137" UserId="3076" Text="There are inventors who do a reasonable job of drafting a provisional application that has some value. If they understand the limits of the value they are getting and do not get a false sense of security from it, they will probably be better off than if they had done nothing. Although I do **not** recommend writing your own patent application, I **do** highly recommend *Patent it Yourself* by David Pressman. It is updated every year and he has a web site covering errata and changes in the law. If you study the book, do not skip the complex parts or the boring parts and feel confident you could write a regular patent application then you might be able to write a provisional application without shooting yourself in the foot. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more abstract and complex your invention is the lower the likelihood is that you, or anyone, will get it right. But there are prolific inventors who follow courts cases, attend the annual USPTO independent inventor conferences in D.C. and faithfully read the PatentlyO blog every day. If you consistently have 1O good ideas a year and are willing to learn enough so you could almost pass the patent bar exam (you can find old ones on-line) and to play the percentages of winning and loosing, getting better at it as you go then have at it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a relative newbie, having passed the patent bar five years ago in order to get into a second career as a patent agent after being an engineer, technical manager and entrepreneur for 20+ years. I was always the person interfacing between the outside patent attorneys and the engineer/inventors and I thought I had a pretty good handle on the topic. I didn't. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first step in becoming a registered patent practitioner is filling out a form and sending it with your college transcript to the USPTO. I got the form back with a letter: &quot;Please fill out and submit the form again. You included your name on line 1a, thank you, but you neglected to fill in your name as it appears on your government issued ID in line 1b.&quot; Just the tip of the iceberg of nits to get right or your patent goes abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*After* studying for and passing the patent bar, I decided to take one of my own (lame) ideas and do a patentability search and then write an application before I hung up a shingle to take on anyone else's project. Every week for three months I announced to my wife that &quot;Last week I thought I knew what I was doing but I was wrong, now I really do know what I am doing.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5120" RevisionGUID="da928cbc-cbaf-4a67-a6bf-fe02a8c2a565" CreationDate="2013-09-26T01:09:30.297" UserId="3076" Comment="Spelling" Text="Obviously all agents and lawyers will vote to work with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How hard is it to write patent documents on your own?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5125" RevisionGUID="ca1e6d00-7968-47bc-a037-0d95226c86e1" CreationDate="2013-09-26T01:10:13.020" UserId="3076" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="There are inventors who do a reasonable job of drafting a provisional application that has some value. If they understand the limits of the value they are getting and do not get a false sense of security from it, they will probably be better off than if they had done nothing. Although I do **not** recommend writing your own patent application, I **do** highly recommend reading *Patent it Yourself* by David Pressman. It is updated every year and he has a web site covering errata and changes in the law. If you study the book, do not skip the complex parts or the boring parts and feel confident you could write a regular patent application then you might be able to write a provisional application without shooting yourself in the foot. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more abstract and complex your invention is the lower the likelihood is that you, or anyone, will get it right. But there are prolific inventors who follow courts cases, attend the annual USPTO independent inventor conferences in D.C. and faithfully read the PatentlyO blog every day. If you consistently have 10 good ideas a year and are willing to learn enough so you could almost pass the patent bar exam (you can find old ones on-line) and to play the percentages of winning and loosing, getting better at it as you go, then have at it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a relative newbie, having passed the patent bar five years ago in order to get into a second career as a patent agent after being an engineer, technical manager and entrepreneur for 20+ years. I was always the person interfacing between the outside patent attorneys and the engineer/inventors and I thought I had a pretty good handle on the topic. I didn't. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first step in becoming a registered patent practitioner is filling out a form and sending it with your college transcript to the USPTO. I got the form back with a letter: &quot;Please fill out and submit the form again. You included your name on line 1a, thank you, but you neglected to fill in your name as it appears on your government issued ID in line 1b.&quot; Just the tip of the iceberg of nits to get right or your patent goes abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*After* studying for and passing the patent bar (it has a 50% pass rate), I decided to take one of my own (lame) ideas and do a patentability search and then write an application before I hung up a shingle to take on anyone else's project. Every week for three months I announced to my wife that &quot;Last week I thought I knew what I was doing but I was wrong, now I really do know what I am doing.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5128" RevisionGUID="6f68ba91-80ee-4a9d-b756-821549b33df4" CreationDate="2013-09-26T09:28:55.100" UserId="5055" Text="I am not a patent agent or attorney, yet I believe patent agents and attorneys' help is extremely valuable for filing patent applications because of **their experience**. You can do large parts of the filing yourself, yet you should better seek help for writing the application and the arguments during prosecution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**It is quite easy to obtain a patent entirely on your own**. If you invented something worth patenting, and have some experience in writing say scientific papers, you can get a patent on this invention eventually. It requires quite a fair amount of work, quite a long time, but it's doable. However, the patent you will get might be worth nothing at all *from an IP point of view*. It might even be counter-productive as it will publicly disclose your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The description is filed initially, and mostly cannot be changed. It sets the priority date. If you realize you missed something in your description, you might need to file a new patent application and added matter will get a new priority date. Since patent prosecution is long, you will typically realize this during examination, several years later, and your invention will not be so fresh and will therefore be less patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Patent agents and attorneys will help you get the description right initially**. They can ask you to write a description of your invention and will transform it to make it a great patent application. For example, they know about subtle elements that must be present the description, especially in the difficult field of software patents. They know this because they are aware of appeals decisions and they acquired experience from past cases with other clients. You could read about appeals and other decisions, learn from blogs (and pass the exam to become an agent yourself), yet there are things you will only learn from experience of prosecution. Besides, if you plan to seek patents internationally, you will need help from agents or attorneys who are aware of usage abroad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Patent agents and attorneys will also help for writing claims**. Part of this help comes from *not being the inventor* and understanding the value of the patent application. Part of this help also comes from their experience of prosecution. Also, they know the usage for writing claims, but you can figure this out yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Patent agents and attorneys also know how to argue with examiners**. This is less critical than getting the description right initially, yet it is both a time-saver and a way to get a patent *as broad as possible*. Examination is often tough and office actions are not always easy to understand. Besides, not being the inventor helps them react rationally. They also know the usage for writing amendments, but you can figure this out yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Patent agents and attorneys know how to file forms** and design figures that respect the requirements. This is the less critical aspect and will only save time. If you do it wrong, the office will usually give you a chance to fix the forms or the figures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually, **patent agents and attorneys know about the timing**. They typically use software or some tool to perform all operations in time. Most offices will tell you about acceptable delays for procedure, and in many cases *you can do things late with a financial penalty*. Yet failing to respect timing can invalidate your application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5129" RevisionGUID="43fec5ee-4034-40bf-a27b-5bbf8b720b62" CreationDate="2013-09-26T12:09:46.760" UserId="5867" Text="I have seen some patents of Google about their toolbar as well as some copyrighted software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which one is a better option to protect the idea? Can I copyright my own open source project?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally: I am a student and wanting to protect my idea, which I am implementing at the moment. I don't have much to pay, but I want to be able to talk about it to someone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12652" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5129" RevisionGUID="43fec5ee-4034-40bf-a27b-5bbf8b720b62" CreationDate="2013-09-26T12:09:46.760" UserId="5867" Text="Q: Applying for a patent or copyright?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12653" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5129" RevisionGUID="43fec5ee-4034-40bf-a27b-5bbf8b720b62" CreationDate="2013-09-26T12:09:46.760" UserId="5867" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4843" RevisionGUID="9c138228-92b8-4460-9558-aabce67b4150" CreationDate="2013-09-26T13:18:56.033" UserId="-1" Comment="This is a second addendum to address the &quot;extra credit&quot; request for something that sends the notification to a third party." Text="My 2006 thesis: &quot;Knowledge discovery in corporate email : the compliance bot meets Enron&quot; (http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/37574) has an abstract which begins: &quot;I propose the creation of a real-time compliance &quot;bot&quot; - software to momentarily pause each employee's email at the moment of sending and to electronically assess whether that email is likely to create liability or unanticipated expense for the corporation.&quot;  It has a chapter on the kinds of things to look for - criminal, civil malfeasance, as well as other liability and risk issues and a final chapter which includes a graphic of the sort of warning the bot could display to a user. Is that what you're seeking? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addendum - I should also have mentioned that the thesis describes the methods for pre-processing/cleansing data and describes and demonstrates how keyword and concept searching could find inappropriate phrases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second Addendum - In re-reading the request, I should also note that Chapter 9 of the thesis describes informing the user of finding inappropriate content and identifying the appropriate third party (e.g., compliance, human resources) that will be informed. It shows a sample pop-up window of such notification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12655" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4843" RevisionGUID="9c138228-92b8-4460-9558-aabce67b4150" CreationDate="2013-09-26T13:18:56.033" Comment="Proposed by 66.108.179.55|75acf2bd-965c-458b-9d6d-609958347089 approved by 3076, 1259 edit id of 436" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3591" RevisionGUID="8ea4fc91-ef8f-495b-a73f-cb6d8ea7dd59" CreationDate="2013-09-26T23:13:10.703" UserId="1767" Comment="added 465 characters in body; edited tags" Text="![enter image description here][9]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An **initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to the **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Johnson &amp; Johnson logo][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application attempts to patent the method of applying **cold** analgesics, that are **cold by virtue of being stored in a cold place**, to a sore muscle. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Method and Composition for Treating Pain**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/235947][1]  &#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130072575 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Johnson &amp; Johnson, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 19, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 21, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application relates to the method of treating pain by applying any **cold** analgesic. The main independent claim, if allowed, would cover the method of treating pain in a person by applying a cooled, unspecified analgesic to the region of pain. It requires the substance to have been placed in a cold place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of treating pain by topical application of an analgesic composition to the skin of a patient comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - placing an analgesic composition in an environment with a temperature of less than 10° Centigrade,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - keeping said analgesic composition in said environment for a period of time sufficient to reduce the temperature of said composition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - removing said composition from said environment, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - applying said composition topically to the region of pain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 09/19/2011** that discusses (1) cooling an analgesic; (2) applying the cooled analgesic to region of pain; (3) cooled analgesics in gel, soft solid, liquid, cream, ointment or aerosol form (taken from claim 5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][7] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][8] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130072575&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130072575&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/XQQ1qm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/h3moa.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12664" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3591" RevisionGUID="8ea4fc91-ef8f-495b-a73f-cb6d8ea7dd59" CreationDate="2013-09-26T23:13:10.703" UserId="1767" Comment="added 465 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;us20130072575&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12665" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="3591" RevisionGUID="ce28175f-5ef5-468d-a74a-1784bca9b3d7" CreationDate="2013-09-26T23:13:31.033" UserId="1767" Comment="4" />
  <row Id="12666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4580" RevisionGUID="9c9b7991-755b-4573-b790-8479222652d0" CreationDate="2013-09-26T23:20:43.440" UserId="1767" Comment="added 821 characters in body; edited tags" Text="![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application was given a &quot;**final rejection**&quot; by the US Patent Office. An applicant has several ways to keep an application in this state alive. They include a request for continuing examination. It just involves paying more fees and responding to the rejection. Appealing the rejection is another avenue. If nothing is done it will go abandoned six months from the final rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the grounds for rejection (can be seen in Public PAIR) are based on things the applicant themselves cited to the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON PREDICTING ADVERTISER KEYWORD PERFORMANCE** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...predicting keyword performance for an advertiser by how the keyword has performed for similar advertisers! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 27, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of predicting **KEYWORD PERFORMANCE** for an advertiser who has not previously bid on the keyword; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying **SIMILAR ADVERTISERS** and using that to predict the performance expected from the subject keyword;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **EUCLIDIAN DISTANCE BETWEEN ATTRIBUTES BETWEEN ADVERTISERS** to estimate similarity between advertisers; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **CATEGORY**, **QUALITY SCORE**, **PAY-PER-CLICK**, **BID**, **ADVERTISER VERTICAL**, **GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION**, **DAY-TARGETING**, **DAY-PARTING**, **KEYWORDS IN COMMON** to estimate the performance expected from the keyword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PREDICTION OF USER RESPONSE TO RECEIVED DATA**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Within an online advertising system, a method of predicting keyword performance for an advertiser who has not previously bid on a keyword by identifying a similar advertiser who has used the same keyword and using the keyword’s previous performance to provide an expected result for the current advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130166371 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/337,709&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 27, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 27, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; {A METHOD} for predicting advertiser **keyword performance indicator** values, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a keyword from a first advertiser, whereinthe first advertiser has **not previously bid on the keyword**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying at least one other **advertiser that is similar** to the first advertiser and has previously bid on the keyword; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  calculating at least one predicted **performance indicator value** for the keyword for the first advertiser based upon at least one established performance indicator value of the keyword for the at least one other advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for detecting expected keyword performance for an advertiser, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving from the advertiser a keyword which the advertiser has not previously bid on; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a 2nd advertiser similar to the advertiser; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Predicting the performance of the keyword (based on any metric) for the subject advertiser based on the performance of the keyword for the similar advertiser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 15, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a **EUCLIDIAN DISTANCE BETWEEN ATTRIBUTES BETWEEN ADVERTISERS** to estimate similarity between advertisers; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **CATEGORY**, **QUALITY SCORE**, **PAY-PER-CLICK**, **BID**, **ADVERTISER VERTICAL**, **GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION**, **DAY-TARGETING**, **DAY-PARTING**, **KEYWORDS IN COMMON** to estimate the performance expected from the keyword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Predicting advertiser keyword performance indicator values” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Ib77Z.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130166371?dq=US20130166371A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/h3moa.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12667" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4580" RevisionGUID="9c9b7991-755b-4573-b790-8479222652d0" CreationDate="2013-09-26T23:20:43.440" UserId="1767" Comment="added 821 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;us20130166371&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5131" RevisionGUID="493e8bfb-06e0-415e-826d-64e0afbb7fcc" CreationDate="2013-09-27T01:22:25.117" UserId="5872" Text="Does anyone know Who is now the owner of this Patent (US6352164 B1) at this time? &#xD;&#xA;It seems the onership of the company has changed hands." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12669" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5131" RevisionGUID="493e8bfb-06e0-415e-826d-64e0afbb7fcc" CreationDate="2013-09-27T01:22:25.117" UserId="5872" Text="Whom is the owner" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12670" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5131" RevisionGUID="493e8bfb-06e0-415e-826d-64e0afbb7fcc" CreationDate="2013-09-27T01:22:25.117" UserId="5872" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12671" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5131" RevisionGUID="804fabe8-a2a5-47ab-ad31-6620aa587edf" CreationDate="2013-09-27T02:05:27.227" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;us6352164&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5131" RevisionGUID="0fc82273-4131-4224-8f17-36f22fb7ffdc" CreationDate="2013-09-27T02:37:24.323" UserId="1767" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Does anyone know who is now the owner of this Patent (US6352164 B1) at this time? &#xD;&#xA;It seems the onership of the company has changed hands." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12673" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5131" RevisionGUID="0fc82273-4131-4224-8f17-36f22fb7ffdc" CreationDate="2013-09-27T02:37:24.323" UserId="1767" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Who is the current owner of US 6352164 B1?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5132" RevisionGUID="3539bf3e-af9f-4992-b7d6-314bb374e24a" CreationDate="2013-09-27T03:11:05.680" UserId="3076" Text="Google patents now pulls in the USPTO assignment database and integrates the information into its summary of a US patent or application. A screen shot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/XDhQk.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5112" RevisionGUID="387eea7a-efa2-4f9d-802c-028407d1ee39" CreationDate="2013-09-27T17:31:48.473" UserId="603" Comment="Copy edited." Text="Basic scenario:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* BigCorp applies for a patent for an overly broad software independent claim requiring the elements `a+b+c+d+e+f`&#xD;&#xA;* The patent office rejects the application, back and forth, and BigCorp adds element `g` to narrow the claim.&#xD;&#xA;* The Patent office awards a patent for claim `a+b+c+d+e+f+g`&#xD;&#xA;* The former designer of the original software leaves BigCorp to create a startup&#xD;&#xA;* The startup creates software that loosely satisfies `a+b+c+d+e+f`, but visibly NOT `g`&#xD;&#xA;* The startup gets a written opinion of non-infringement from a reputable attorney&#xD;&#xA;* The code is clean, all new, no copyright, stolen data, etc. GitHub and Gmail are squeaky clean.&#xD;&#xA;* The startup gets customers, not stealing customers from BigCorp, just succeeding in the shadow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if BigCorp decides to get ornery just to be ornery? What should the startup consider in its contingency planning? More specifically, what legal budget would be roughly &quot;enough&quot; to defend? Or is this hypothetical, just a distraction, and don't look in the rear-view mirror?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related: Ask Patents question *[General knowledge on how software patent-infringement lawsuits are evaluated][1]*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3707&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12677" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5112" RevisionGUID="387eea7a-efa2-4f9d-802c-028407d1ee39" CreationDate="2013-09-27T17:31:48.473" UserId="603" Comment="Copy edited." Text="Defend patent infringement suit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12678" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5112" RevisionGUID="387eea7a-efa2-4f9d-802c-028407d1ee39" CreationDate="2013-09-27T17:31:48.473" Comment="Proposed by 603 approved by 1767 edit id of 438" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5133" RevisionGUID="767c97ff-cedd-4d6f-9e11-e06101fe3396" CreationDate="2013-09-27T17:48:14.057" UserId="1767" Text="The [tag:rejected] tag is used to tag [tag:prior-art-request] which have been successfully **narrowed or rejected** by the USPTO after having been posted on Ask Patents.  If the USPTO rejection cites prior art which was discovered at Ask Patents this can be indicated in the appropriate answer with a special graphic.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions on which to use the [tag:rejected] tag:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **US Patent Applications** which were the subject of a [tag:prior-art-request] [tag:pre-grant] on Ask Patents and which have subsequently been given a non-final or a final rejection by the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Issued US Patents** which were the subject of a [tag:prior-art-request] [tag:post-grant] and which have been subsequently rejected or narrowed by the USPTO in a post-grant review or inter-partes review.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of the tag is to focus community effort on finding prior art for [tag:prior-art-request]  which have not yet been rejected by the USPTO.  Plus it's nice to celebrate success.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5134" RevisionGUID="87a22acc-4789-43ed-808b-6b76b31581eb" CreationDate="2013-09-27T17:48:14.057" UserId="1767" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="The rejected tag is used on patent applications and patents which have been successfully narrowed or rejected by the USPTO after having been the subject of a prior-art-request on Ask Patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5133" RevisionGUID="1c5048d9-9f5a-4ec1-bf1c-7081763b84fa" CreationDate="2013-09-27T20:29:49.297" UserId="1767" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="![Rejected Graphic][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [tag:rejected] tag is used to tag [tag:prior-art-request] which have been successfully **narrowed or rejected** by the USPTO after having been posted on Ask Patents.  If the USPTO rejection cites prior art which was discovered at Ask Patents this can be indicated in the appropriate answer with a special graphic.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions on which to use the [tag:rejected] tag:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **US Patent Applications** which were the subject of a [tag:prior-art-request] [tag:pre-grant] on Ask Patents and which have subsequently been given a non-final or a final rejection by the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Issued US Patents** which were the subject of a [tag:prior-art-request] [tag:post-grant] and which have been subsequently rejected or narrowed by the USPTO in a post-grant review or inter-partes review.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of the tag is to focus community effort on finding prior art for [tag:prior-art-request]  which have not yet been rejected by the USPTO.  Plus it's nice to celebrate success.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/VFiZs.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4580" RevisionGUID="949a12f4-bf36-45c6-b3f6-3e78bde6b4a3" CreationDate="2013-09-27T20:30:46.333" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application was given a &quot;**final rejection**&quot; by the US Patent Office. An applicant has several ways to keep an application in this state alive. They include a request for continuing examination. It just involves paying more fees and responding to the rejection. Appealing the rejection is another avenue. If nothing is done it will go abandoned six months from the final rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the grounds for rejection (can be seen in Public PAIR) are based on things the applicant themselves cited to the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON PREDICTING ADVERTISER KEYWORD PERFORMANCE** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...predicting keyword performance for an advertiser by how the keyword has performed for similar advertisers! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 27, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of predicting **KEYWORD PERFORMANCE** for an advertiser who has not previously bid on the keyword; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying **SIMILAR ADVERTISERS** and using that to predict the performance expected from the subject keyword;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **EUCLIDIAN DISTANCE BETWEEN ATTRIBUTES BETWEEN ADVERTISERS** to estimate similarity between advertisers; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **CATEGORY**, **QUALITY SCORE**, **PAY-PER-CLICK**, **BID**, **ADVERTISER VERTICAL**, **GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION**, **DAY-TARGETING**, **DAY-PARTING**, **KEYWORDS IN COMMON** to estimate the performance expected from the keyword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PREDICTION OF USER RESPONSE TO RECEIVED DATA**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Within an online advertising system, a method of predicting keyword performance for an advertiser who has not previously bid on a keyword by identifying a similar advertiser who has used the same keyword and using the keyword’s previous performance to provide an expected result for the current advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130166371 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/337,709&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 27, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 27, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; {A METHOD} for predicting advertiser **keyword performance indicator** values, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a keyword from a first advertiser, whereinthe first advertiser has **not previously bid on the keyword**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying at least one other **advertiser that is similar** to the first advertiser and has previously bid on the keyword; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  calculating at least one predicted **performance indicator value** for the keyword for the first advertiser based upon at least one established performance indicator value of the keyword for the at least one other advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for detecting expected keyword performance for an advertiser, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving from the advertiser a keyword which the advertiser has not previously bid on; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a 2nd advertiser similar to the advertiser; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Predicting the performance of the keyword (based on any metric) for the subject advertiser based on the performance of the keyword for the similar advertiser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 15, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a **EUCLIDIAN DISTANCE BETWEEN ATTRIBUTES BETWEEN ADVERTISERS** to estimate similarity between advertisers; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **CATEGORY**, **QUALITY SCORE**, **PAY-PER-CLICK**, **BID**, **ADVERTISER VERTICAL**, **GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION**, **DAY-TARGETING**, **DAY-PARTING**, **KEYWORDS IN COMMON** to estimate the performance expected from the keyword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Predicting advertiser keyword performance indicator values” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Ib77Z.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130166371?dq=US20130166371A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3591" RevisionGUID="5f39503b-c4a9-40be-bf25-e247391174ab" CreationDate="2013-09-27T20:31:02.663" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][9]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An **initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to the **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Johnson &amp; Johnson logo][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application attempts to patent the method of applying **cold** analgesics, that are **cold by virtue of being stored in a cold place**, to a sore muscle. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Method and Composition for Treating Pain**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/235947][1]  &#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130072575 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Johnson &amp; Johnson, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 19, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 21, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application relates to the method of treating pain by applying any **cold** analgesic. The main independent claim, if allowed, would cover the method of treating pain in a person by applying a cooled, unspecified analgesic to the region of pain. It requires the substance to have been placed in a cold place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of treating pain by topical application of an analgesic composition to the skin of a patient comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - placing an analgesic composition in an environment with a temperature of less than 10° Centigrade,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - keeping said analgesic composition in said environment for a period of time sufficient to reduce the temperature of said composition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - removing said composition from said environment, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - applying said composition topically to the region of pain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 09/19/2011** that discusses (1) cooling an analgesic; (2) applying the cooled analgesic to region of pain; (3) cooled analgesics in gel, soft solid, liquid, cream, ointment or aerosol form (taken from claim 5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][7] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][8] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130072575&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130072575&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/XQQ1qm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4853" RevisionGUID="21e2951f-eac2-4116-95cf-726c68f9b3a2" CreationDate="2013-09-27T20:31:36.400" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was **based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community** below!  The first two references cited by the Patent Examiner were found by Ask Patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON self-destructing email** - This application from [AT&amp;T][6] seeks to patent the idea of...electronic mail which deletes itself after a specific period of time has elapsed and warns sender if it recipient is outside the sender's email domain (where self-destruction presumably cannot be assured)! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/9/2002** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - self-destructing email&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO prohibits forwarding or copying the email into another application (such as a word processor) or which warns the sender if it is being sent outside to a recipient outside the sender's email domain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Self-destructing email**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for sending email which identifies a time period after which the email destroys itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159436 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/690,555&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: AT&amp;T&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/9/2002&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/17/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for transmitting self-destructing electronic mail messages comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a request, at an electronic mail server, from a sender to send a self-destructing electronic mail message, the request identifying a time period after which the self-destructing electronic mail message is to be destroyed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. sending a security warning to the sender when an electronic mail address of an intended recipient of the self-destructing electronic mail message is located beyond a home domain of the sender;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. sending the self-destructing electronic mail message to the electronic mail address of the intended recipient in response to input from the sender responsive to the security warning;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4.deleting any instances of the self-destructing electronic mail message that are being stored at the electronic mail server after the sending and after expiration of the time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for sending self-destructing email, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Sender specifies time period after which email self-destructs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Warn sender if recipient email address is outside home domain (where self-destruction presumably cannot be assured)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Send the self-destructing email&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Delete the email after expiration of the time period specified by sender&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/9/2002&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming self-destructing email which is prohibited from being **forwarded** or **copied** into an application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;email which is time-limited from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ao0cGJA.jpg&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/T7xdF.jpg&quot; width=&quot;200&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159436?dq=20130159436&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.att.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="92752773-33df-4890-897c-49082ece86ff" CreationDate="2013-09-27T20:32:02.530" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was **based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community** below!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **A PATENT APPLICATION ON updating apps on mobile devices to restricted &quot;dummy&quot; apps** This application from [Good Technologies][2] seeks to patent the idea of...deleting sensitive information on a device by creating dummy apps. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents] (https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A management system for apps on mobile devices where apps are updated to dummy apps that, when invoked, destroy the respective apps' sensitive data.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your company has as &quot;Bring Your Own Device&quot; policy.  The company email app on your personal phone is &quot;updated&quot; to a new version. Then, when you launch that app, it will delete all the company email on your device and present a &quot;YOU'RE FIRED&quot; message instead of an inbox view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Another example would be having version 1.0 of a game updated to a limited trial of version 2.0 that encrypts your old save file on first being run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that standard mobile app management/mobile device management platforms do not necessarily anticipate the invention. That is, **remote deletion of an application and/or data is not sufficient to meet the claim limitations**. It's critical that the prior art disclose updating/modifying the app to a restricted functionality &quot;dummy&quot; version and for the updated app to itself delete/modify the existing data upon being run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System and Method for Remote Management of Applications Downloaded to a Personal Portable Wireless Appliance** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110145932 A1][0]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/975,145&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  [Appcentral, Inc.][1] / [Good Technologies][2] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for downloading and monitoring applications, programs and data structures to a personal portable appliance coupled to a server via a network configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;0. determine that the appliance is connected; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. generating a connection request from the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. authenticating the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. determining that one or more applications must be updated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. receiving at least one updated application comprising a dummy application such that when the application is invoked the data structures of the previous application are manipulated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. modifying the functionality of the application; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. offering the user one or more indications that the application is restricted or limited. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010. (Please note that although that this patent application is a continuation-in-part of earlier-filed parent cases, the claimed invention is not supported by the disclosure of the parent cases, rendering the actual filing date the effective filing date.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A diagram of the application management system&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NhpR6yB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [0]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110145932?dq=US20110145932&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.appcentral.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.good.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3833" RevisionGUID="d39bc143-73f5-4c22-8a14-eacca47c98fd" CreationDate="2013-09-27T20:32:40.423" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An **initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to the **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **HELP SAVE AMERICAN INDUSTRY AND THE WORLD'S OLDEST PROFESSION** - This application seeks to patent an online escort service.  According to the [inventor][6], “I had trouble finding dates when I was at MIT primarily because of the high male to female ratio, as well as my lack of social skills...The social problems I faced...eventually led me to (invent this technology).” 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Online Dating System**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  A method and system for balancing the supply of desirable users with the demand by other users to date them in an online dating system is provided. The method includes enabling a first user to make an offer to pay or to be paid a compensation for having a date with a second user. The offer made by the first user is transmitted to the second user. The second user responds to the first user by accepting, rejecting or making a counter offer. The first user and the second user are allowed to communicate only after any one of the users accepts an offer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110731 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Seeking Arrangements, Inc.][3]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Oct 26, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for balancing supply of and demand for dating desirable users in an online dating system, the method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving from a first user an offer to pay, or to be paid, a compensation to have a date with a second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transmitting said offer to said second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving a response from said second user to either accept, or reject, said offer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. allowing the two users to communicate only after said offer is accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claims 7, 12 and 15** specify further that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Compensation** could be selected from a group consisting of money, points, gifts and credits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Users could provide **review or rating** corresponding to the other user whom they have dated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The terms or conditions of the &quot;date&quot; could be **negotiated**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specification notes that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Invention should not be limited to the types of software operating system, web-server software, database software, software development language, server or client hardware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Give me $100 and I'll date you!** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/grT6Y.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 10/26/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (1) **offers to pay**; or&#xD;&#xA; (2) **offers to be paid** for **dating desirable users** in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Help protect American Industry!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/grT6Y.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130110731&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.seekingarrangement.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N34/normandin.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="2efc0ef8-bded-4016-9560-50e46737281f" CreationDate="2013-09-27T20:32:57.957" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application was given a &quot;**final rejection**&quot; by the US Patent Office. An applicant has several ways to keep an application in this state alive. They include a request for continuing examination. It just involves paying more fees and responding to the rejection. Appealing the rejection is another avenue. If nothing is done it will go abandoned six months from the final rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the grounds for rejection (can be seen in Public PAIR) are based on scientific publications by the applicants themselves.&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ANALYZING A WEBPAGE** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...extracting information blocks from a webpage based on text and visual layout! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Webpage extraction through page structure and sentences**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for extracting entities in a webpage using a **text understanding component** and a **visual layout extraction&quot; component**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110078554 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 12/569,912&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Sep 30, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. In a computing environment, a system comprising, at least one processor, a memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and including components comprising, a framework configured to process a webpage to understand one or more entities of the webpage, the framework including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a text understanding component and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to provide text-related data to the structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the structure understanding component configured to use the text-related data and visual layout features of the webpage to produce a labeled block,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to use the labeled block to understand text of the one or more entities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for processing a webpage, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A text understanding component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A visual layout (&quot;structure&quot;) understanding component; where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The text component provides data to the visual layout component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The visual layout component produces a labeled block based on the visual layout and the text; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. The text understanding component uses the labeled block to &quot;understand&quot; the text of an entity on the webpage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Sep 30, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A natural language processing framework for labeling webpages” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/V9vSS.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110078554&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="f0d005cd-f535-4bea-be92-19a58ae46868" CreationDate="2013-09-27T20:33:17.973" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application was given a &quot;**final rejection**&quot; by the US Patent Office. An applicant has several ways to keep an application in this state alive. They include a request for continuing examination. It just involves paying more fees and responding to the rejection. Appealing the rejection is another avenue. If nothing is done it will go abandoned six months from the final rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the grounds for rejection (can be seen in Public PAIR) are based on things the applicant themselves cited to the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;Check out [Google Patents][3] for full details about this particular application.&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method and System for Weight Management&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC APPLICATION DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number:** 13/466661&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** US20120225162 A1&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Scott A. Mann Enterprises Llc &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date:** June 15, 2004&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until March 6, 2013 &#xD;&#xA;- **AIA window:** CLOSED&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**APPLICATION OVERVIEW:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US Patent Application [#20120225162][3] describes a weight management method. I'm reasonably sure the claims below correlate with advice I've seen for *years* in various &quot;women's interest&quot; magazines, in a number of diet books (including Weight Watchers guides), and even the USDA nutrition guide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1.** A method for managing weight, comprising the steps of: eating at least five meals a day with each meal comprising one serving of a vegetable or a fruit, a complex carbohydrate, and a lean protein for a predetermined number of calories per meal at ranges of 25-35% protein, 50-55% carbohydrate, 15-20% fat with a predetermined range of grams of fiber, wherein said predetermined range of calories is about 300 calories or is about 450 calories; losing weight by said eating at least five meals a day; and optimizing body composition by said eating at least five meals a day, [etc.]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**.  We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one.  This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on  submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA; [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20120225162&#xD;&#xA; [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA; [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="611" RevisionGUID="152d9a7e-ac36-456e-83e1-0f43daa08634" CreationDate="2013-09-27T20:33:32.227" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office that was based in part on Ask Patents contributions! An **initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to the **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US Patent No. [2010/0251120](http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20100930ptan20100251120.php) (filed 2009-03-26, [USPTO link](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=20100251120.PGNR.)) seems basically to be &quot;using a URL to link to a given part of a video&quot;. The key claim is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -  receiving from a first user interface a first input from a first user specifying a first particular instant in a video other than a beginning of the video;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - in response to the first input, generating by one or more computer systems first data for inclusion in a link to the video, the first data representing the first particular instant in the video and being operable automatically to direct playback of the video at a second user interface to start at the first particular instant in the video in response to a second user selecting the link at the second user interface;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and communicating the first data to a link generator for inclusion in the link to the video&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or in human speak, something to generate links like [blah#t=43s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ#t=43s)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(plus later, claim 12, that must then be processed by the system, and a lot of minor dependent claims about all of the above, etc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there doesn't seem to be anything particularly non-obvious about this, given that URLs are *designed* to convey context about a resource. Conveying time as part of a URL does *not* seem any kind of invention. Can anyone think of prior art for this? Perhaps for audio, if video is elusive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that under the AIA **it is not be possible for Ask Patents to submit prior art under the pre-grant process used by Ask Patents** due to the window having closed. Prior art which is found below would need to submitted under the six-month post-grant process or the ex-parte rexamination process. (This could be done by a company or an individual.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="a0ef38d2-6833-4af9-bf9d-799a110883ec" CreationDate="2013-09-27T20:33:50.400" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received an **initial non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office that was based on Ask Patents contributions! An **initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.** In this case the applicant has responded back by canceling a claim, amending others and presenting counter argument to others.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to the **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **TITLE: Scale factors for visual presentations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130063492 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/230445][3]  &#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application generates and display graphical elements based on *pixel density.* The invention selects a *scale factor* from a *scale factor set* that is within the *range* of the pixel density.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of generating, using a device having a processor, a presentation comprising elements to be displayed on a display component, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - executing on the processor instructions configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - identify a ***pixel density*** of the display component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - for respective elements of the presentation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - from a ***scale factor set***, select a ***scale factor*** having a ***pixel density range*** including the pixel density of the display component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - request the element to generate a scaled representation using the scale factor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - generate the presentation comprising the scaled representations of the elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample figure** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/WgDnr.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application is similar to other resolution-independent scaling applications, patents, and implementations carried out in the industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 09/12/2011** that discusses (1) scale factor; (2) scale factor set; and (3) pixel density range in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][5] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][6] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="e2cc11cb-4c2a-41cc-9a6a-7957abc6eb1a" CreationDate="2013-09-27T20:34:46.200" UserId="1767" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;US Patent Application US20120226658: [Data model versioning for document databases](http://www.google.com/patents/US20120226658)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim #1 describes an extremely simple versioning system for a document database:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; reading, by a processing device, a first version tag, the first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; version tag associated with a document database;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; comparing the first version tag to a second version tag, the second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; version tag associated with a current document template of an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if the first version tag does not match the second version tag,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; performing a version migration operation to update a document format&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the document database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I am reading this correctly, it's attempting to patent **a system in which one revision number is compared to the previous revision number, and if it's different do an upgrade.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 8 and 15 go on to describe a &quot;processing system&quot; and a &quot;machine-readable storage medium&quot; without adding any specific details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surely there must be prior art for this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/VhX1b.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3569" RevisionGUID="17564c29-07bb-4b03-a4b4-da4d70dad3a9" CreationDate="2013-09-27T20:42:02.710" UserId="1767" Comment="added 282 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! The rejection was **based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community** in the answer below! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Writing DPI-Aware Win32 Applications][2]&quot;, an article by Ryan Haveson and Ken Sykes, published by Microsoft and dated **September 2008**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the terminology is different; Pixel Density is referred to as DPI (dots per inch, where a dot is a pixel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice on page 15, the sections &quot;Multiple Resolution Support&quot; and &quot;Closest Fit&quot;, appears to disclose what 13/230445 calls &quot;scaling sets.&quot; Vis.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The multiple resolution support technique requires that you provide your graphics at multiple resolutions so that you have a version that renders well at for each targeted DPI setting, such as 96, 120, 144, and 192. In this case, these values are equivalent to 100%, 125%, 150%, and 200% of the baseline DPI setting of 96. At run&#xD;&#xA;time, your application’s logic first determines the&#xD;&#xA;correct DPI scaling factor, and then uses it to determine which resolution of the graphics to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, if the current custom DPI setting is 132 and you have provided multiple resolution graphics for 96, 120, and 144 DPI, you would first load the graphic that has slightly greater resolution to the current DPI. In this case, you would first load the 144 DPI version of the graphic. You would then scale it down to render well at 132 DPI.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uvXcn.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/132533533/Writing-DPI-Aware-Applications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3569" RevisionGUID="aa4ff0c8-b0fc-4edd-96cc-0c975391f218" CreationDate="2013-09-27T20:49:05.463" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="![Official USPTO Prior Art][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! The rejection was **based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community** in this answer! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Writing DPI-Aware Win32 Applications][2]&quot;, an article by Ryan Haveson and Ken Sykes, published by Microsoft and dated **September 2008**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the terminology is different; Pixel Density is referred to as DPI (dots per inch, where a dot is a pixel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice on page 15, the sections &quot;Multiple Resolution Support&quot; and &quot;Closest Fit&quot;, appears to disclose what 13/230445 calls &quot;scaling sets.&quot; Vis.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The multiple resolution support technique requires that you provide your graphics at multiple resolutions so that you have a version that renders well at for each targeted DPI setting, such as 96, 120, 144, and 192. In this case, these values are equivalent to 100%, 125%, 150%, and 200% of the baseline DPI setting of 96. At run&#xD;&#xA;time, your application’s logic first determines the&#xD;&#xA;correct DPI scaling factor, and then uses it to determine which resolution of the graphics to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, if the current custom DPI setting is 132 and you have provided multiple resolution graphics for 96, 120, and 144 DPI, you would first load the graphic that has slightly greater resolution to the current DPI. In this case, you would first load the 144 DPI version of the graphic. You would then scale it down to render well at 132 DPI.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uvXcn.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/132533533/Writing-DPI-Aware-Applications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4799" RevisionGUID="616fd33c-34d3-4d00-b1ac-d7d54c67be34" CreationDate="2013-09-27T20:53:31.253" UserId="1767" Comment="added 268 characters in body" Text="![Official USPTO Prior Art][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! The rejection was **based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community** in this answer! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **US Patent US 20060073820 A1: Method and apparatus for remote control and updating of wireless mobile devices** with priority from Oct 2002 appears a very good match. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US20060073820&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This part of US20060073820's claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; request available updates;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;receive an update catalog for available updates, wherein said updates are selected from the group consisting of discretionary updates and mandatory updates; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and this part of US20060073820's claim 6:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; execute a stub application, said stub application automatically querying a remote source for a full application;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;receive said current application from said remote source;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;automatically install said full application; and&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;automatically execute said full application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and this explanation:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Further, in an exemplary embodiment of the present invention, by invoking the update application described below, **a user's data (including programs and operating system data) on a wireless mobile device can be updated** without the user needing to intervene. &#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Briefly, the update application on the wireless mobile device can update itself, update applications from a remote server, monitor a catalogue of application updates and additions on the server, monitor user activity via a unique device ID and/or other unique identifiers, launch by stub applications asking to be replaced by full applications...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **As noted above, the update application may be activated in a number of different ways:** (1) It may be launched as a normal stand alone application as to any other application launched on the wireless mobile device. **(2) It may be launched by a stub application, with a specific path, to replace the stub application with its intended application** (after download and successful install). To the user, they would launch the stub application, see a download in progress screen, followed by the actual application starting up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US20060073820 patent primarily discusses replacing a &quot;stub application&quot; with a full application. This filing on the other hand discusses replacing a full application with a &quot;dummy application&quot;. (The terms dummy and stub are clearly equivalent in this context). However the US20060073820 patent anticipates such obvious tweaks to the sequence of events and lays claim to them too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...it will be appreciated that while the processes and communication-interactions and the present interaction have been described in a particular order, those of ordinary skill in the art and other will appreciate that other orders of processes and/or communication interactions will also fall within the spirit and scope of the present invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These claims, explanatory notes, and caveats against obvious modifications to the sequence of events, together appear to anticipate and invalidate claims 1.1 to 1.6 of the present filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uvXcn.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4869" RevisionGUID="876eb7a2-1aa2-420f-af2e-74e8b855d57f" CreationDate="2013-09-27T20:57:48.277" UserId="1767" Comment="added 227 characters in body" Text="![Official USPTO Prior Art][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! The rejection was **based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community** in this answer! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This functionality was part of the Java ME specification (http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=37). When an application was updated or replaced, the data associated could be manipulated or destroyed. In this case, a MIDlet is the term used for the mobile application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From http://docs.oracle.com/javame/config/cldc/ref-impl/midp1.0/jsr037/index.html &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    Published : 19 Sep, 2000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When a MIDlet suite is removed from a platform all the record stores&#xD;&#xA;&gt; associated with its MIDlets will also be removed. These APIs only&#xD;&#xA;&gt; allow the manipulation of the MIDlet suite's own record stores, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; does not provide any mechanism for record sharing between MIDlets in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different MIDlet suites. MIDlets within a MIDlet suite can access each&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other's record stores directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A set of slides by Tommy Egeberg from 2006, for his MsC thesis, makes explicit the relevance of the midlet upgrade mechanism to the current patent filing:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.hig.no/content/download/5150/83760/file/Storage%20of%20sensitive%20data%20in%20a%20Java%20enabled%20cell%20phone.ppt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Egeberg teaches the concept of a &quot;Stealing Midlet&quot; which he describes as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Upgrade a previously installed MIDlet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The RMS will not be erased&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Read the stored information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Identical values in the JAD file&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Can be used to inject Trojan code&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Stealing Midlet is therefore identical to the concept of the &quot;dummy app&quot; in the present patent filing: it is a dummy application which overwrites the currently installed app for the sole purpose of accessing and/or manipulating that app's stored data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Egeberg's 2006 invention of a stealing midlet therefore appears to anticipate and invalidate the present filing's claims regarding a dummy app.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uvXcn.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4860" RevisionGUID="f8a34814-f549-4838-969d-b972e6a23012" CreationDate="2013-09-27T20:59:40.287" UserId="1767" Comment="added 270 characters in body" Text="![Official USPTO Prior Art][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! The rejection was **based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community** in this answer! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Published in July 2006, patent **US 7072913 B2: &quot;Method, system and computer program for executing hot migrate operation using migration plug-ins&quot;** covers some of the claims in the present filing.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US7072913 &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Selected claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *1. A method for executing a hot migrate operation from a first version of a service using a first data model, to a second version of the service using a second data model that is modified with respect to the first data model, the service comprising a client application, a data manager and a data repository, said method comprising the steps of: &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; installing at least one second version client application;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *4. A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the incremental roll-over process is terminated when all data are migrated to the second version data repository, and thereafter the first migration plug-in is replaced by a null stub.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The accompanying text also states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...the present invention is equally applicable to down-migrate a service (e.g., switching from N version to N−1 version). Such situation may arise for example when a new version appears to be not yet stable and a return to the previous version is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This appears to overlap substantially with claims 5 and 6 in the present filing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*5. receiving at least one updated application comprising a dummy application such that when the application is invoked the data structures of the previous application are manipulated;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*6. modifying the functionality of the application;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uvXcn.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5049" RevisionGUID="1bd68e23-750b-4e95-aa04-064126d9a7c6" CreationDate="2013-09-27T21:02:50.193" UserId="1767" Comment="added 272 characters in body" Text="![Official USPTO Prior Art][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! The rejection was **based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community** in this answer! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent [WO 1998058321 A1][1] filed in 1998 describes a &quot;Self-destructing document and e-mail messaging system&quot; which &quot;automatically destroys documents or e-mail messages at a predetermined time by attaching a macro or virus to the document or e-mail message.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this qualify as prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO1998058321A1?cl=en&amp;dq=self%20destructing%20email&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=kD41UpyiH7S84AOAjIGoBA&amp;ved=0CE4Q6AEwAw&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uvXcn.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5136" RevisionGUID="18f4fdc1-cbf0-4a0e-bf21-8ef66185e09e" CreationDate="2013-09-29T10:29:21.147" UserId="5881" Text="This seems to be an much to wide patent on mostly (maybe completely?) prior-art technology). It tries to patent user triggered moves/transforms to particular points on a canvas using &quot;frames&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It comes from famous Prezi inc, who did the zooming online presention tool. Although I think this is a nice idea to do for presentations, however this patent tries to patent the technologies behind this, which I think are not at all new and, due to its broadness, may also prevent other uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Publication Number: US20130132895 A1&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Application Number: US 13/298,523&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Assignee: Prezi, Inc.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Prior Art Date: Seeking prior Art predating 11/17/2011**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Patents link: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130132895&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This kind of patent is really problematic for many projects using standart css transforms based on user interaction&#xD;&#xA;for zooming and moving including some of my favorite open-source projects like jessyink, impress.js or reveal.js to name a few. This could even affect page swipes seen on many&#xD;&#xA;mobile devices where a div(=frame) is moved into the current view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there is quite a lot of prior art for most of the methods claimed:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- pptplex (Powerpoint plugin to support zoomable slides, around since at least 2008)&#xD;&#xA;- google maps (around since 2005)&#xD;&#xA;- jessyink (has views since 2009)&#xD;&#xA;- prezi itself (they only applied for patent end of 2011)&#xD;&#xA;- ken burns effect&#xD;&#xA;- map based games&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm not an expert in patents and especially software patents and there might be patentable parts. So maybe someone can have a closer look&#xD;&#xA;at the claims and/or find prior art that even better resembles the methods described:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patents has claims in three categories:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; 1. transforms to specific points in space&#xD;&#xA; 2. doing that with frames&#xD;&#xA; 3. doing 1&amp;2 on a machine with storage&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The 1st is clearly prior-art and the 3rd is just a patent specific reformulation of the two others.&#xD;&#xA;The 2nd may be more tricky. It seems trivial to go from a center point + scale + rotation (e.g. Gmaps) to the actual view frame.&#xD;&#xA;Still there might be more obvious cases of prior art for that. I've seen similar things in iMovie but I don't know when&#xD;&#xA;they came up (there is some indication that this was possible before the application: http://web.archive.org/web/20111031001100/http://acomp.stanford.edu/tutorials/imovie_video_editing). &#xD;&#xA;Maybe there is even other video software that uses frames to zoom into specific areas. Frames as data structures for containing &#xD;&#xA;objects is also prior art as this is what a HTML-div is. And these can be zoomed and rotated using css transforms which were &#xD;&#xA;already in the specs/drafts in 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in my opinion, what prezi really did new is to apply these methods to presentations and this is definitively a good idea (although i'm not sure such an idea is patentable). &#xD;&#xA;However, in their claims they do not relate to presentations and I think the generic methods are very wide and not new. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be great if someone can comment on this or even find more evidence of prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks a lot! &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12707" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5136" RevisionGUID="18f4fdc1-cbf0-4a0e-bf21-8ef66185e09e" CreationDate="2013-09-29T10:29:21.147" UserId="5881" Text="Prezi patent: Grouping with frames to transform display elements within a zooming user interface - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12708" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5136" RevisionGUID="18f4fdc1-cbf0-4a0e-bf21-8ef66185e09e" CreationDate="2013-09-29T10:29:21.147" UserId="5881" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;user-interface&gt;&lt;css-transforms&gt;&lt;us20130132895&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5137" RevisionGUID="6be2ac25-a46d-477d-98a5-ff23a773d5c5" CreationDate="2013-09-29T21:38:21.537" UserId="5843" Text="I am applying for a patent on a method to allocate transportation resources (e.g. trucks) among loads. Central to the patent is a (very simple) mathematical formula, into which I plug some variables (a+b=Z) to get a useful value Z. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is my formula a method? Can it be used as a part of an embodiment? Can it be listed along with materials and methods, e.g. &quot;A computer and a program on the computer and a method within the program performing operation a+b=Z&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes I will use an additional variable c (a+b+c=Z) for the computation. Is this a separate embodiment? Is it a ramification?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes a and b are measured in units of distance, and sometimes in units of time, and sometimes in units of money. In each case there are conversions into a common unit before the computation is made. For example, I could have a minutes and b miles and c dollars, and a conversion of $2/minute and $3/mile, convert a and b into dollars by multiplying, and add them all to get Z in dollars. Is this an embodiment? Do I list my conversion factors as materials, like widgets?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose my question is, &quot;Given that a simple algebraic formula is vital to my invention, and given that the equation may appear with different terms or different units, what is the most logical way to describe this to the patent examiner?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks loads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;WW" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12710" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5137" RevisionGUID="6be2ac25-a46d-477d-98a5-ff23a773d5c5" CreationDate="2013-09-29T21:38:21.537" UserId="5843" Text="Is a mathematical method an embodiment, or a ramification?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12711" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5137" RevisionGUID="6be2ac25-a46d-477d-98a5-ff23a773d5c5" CreationDate="2013-09-29T21:38:21.537" UserId="5843" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;formula&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5138" RevisionGUID="b90f3813-78e5-44df-b353-7edb8d55a736" CreationDate="2013-09-29T23:10:22.643" UserId="5883" Text="As far as I can tell, starting in 1999 our company did exactly what this Patent Application's Independent Claims are trying to get exclusive rights to. We neither considered it novel nor original at the time. I believe at least several other companies did the same before us, and that dozens of other companies were also doing this within a year or two after. I have watched numerous folks come up with (and implement) what appears to me to be the exact same idea in the decade since. If issued, it appears that this patent could be used to block an extremely common practice. I am not currently doing what this patent is claiming, but may very well want to do so again in the future. How should one go about preventing an applicant from receiving an exclusive right over an idea which appears to be identical to one you had implemented over a decade before, and may very well wish to implement again?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12713" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5138" RevisionGUID="b90f3813-78e5-44df-b353-7edb8d55a736" CreationDate="2013-09-29T23:10:22.643" UserId="5883" Text="How should one notify the USPTO that this idea appears to be neither novel, nor original?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12714" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5138" RevisionGUID="b90f3813-78e5-44df-b353-7edb8d55a736" CreationDate="2013-09-29T23:10:22.643" UserId="5883" Text="&lt;wo2012030678a2&gt;&lt;wo2012030678a3&gt;&lt;us20130173402&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12715" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="5138" RevisionGUID="08c885f6-4db7-4e00-b994-ddebe6e57953" CreationDate="2013-09-30T00:04:29.950" UserId="1767" Comment="16" />
  <row Id="12722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5140" RevisionGUID="90b4bac4-f743-45fc-ad20-178b3a93a811" CreationDate="2013-09-30T04:58:26.270" UserId="3076" Text="First, do not use words like &quot;mathematical&quot; in a patent application. There can be a fine line between what is considered a mere mathematical manipulation (not patentable subject matter) and what is a specific, tangible use of a mathematical  expression. How it is worded can impart a flavor that swings it one way or the other. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You do not need to write a program but you do need to explain your invention at a level of detail that someone could make and use it. Both lower level and higher level things can be patented. A process of purifying silicon for use in making integrated circuits, a process for using silicon to make IC's in general, the design of a specific IC, and using that IC in a particular circuit for a particular end use, are all patentable. Of course, whatever you are doing must be new and non-obvious to be patentable. And, in order to be worth patenting, should be something that provides value to a user in a way that is not easy to get around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If sorting alphabetically for rapid location by binary search is already known, and hyper-threaded CPUs have just been invented, maybe the world needs a new multithreaded sorting technique.  On the other hand, you might have &quot;big picture&quot; invention and the details of the various aspects of implementation are well known. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A danger of claiming at a high a level is that it seems abstract; a danger of claiming at a low level is there will be more way to do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5141" RevisionGUID="a08b67e3-1067-4222-9c66-3c4b5bcb602b" CreationDate="2013-09-30T10:21:57.660" UserId="5886" Text=" I have filed an Utility patent with USPTO. A few days ago, I received a letter from an USPTO examiner stating that all my claims were rejected and that the action is non-final. She has given me 3 months to reply.&#xD;&#xA;However, I want to change/add my claims.  Is that Allowed? How do I do that? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best regards, &#xD;&#xA;Foruzan Mehdiani&#xD;&#xA;foruzan_m@yahoo.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12724" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5141" RevisionGUID="a08b67e3-1067-4222-9c66-3c4b5bcb602b" CreationDate="2013-09-30T10:21:57.660" UserId="5886" Text="How do I make amendments to claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12725" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5141" RevisionGUID="a08b67e3-1067-4222-9c66-3c4b5bcb602b" CreationDate="2013-09-30T10:21:57.660" UserId="5886" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5141" RevisionGUID="eb9955e4-a1dc-4ad6-a76b-d863c7139305" CreationDate="2013-09-30T13:19:11.767" UserId="1259" Comment="signature removed" Text=" I have filed an Utility patent with USPTO. A few days ago, I received a letter from an USPTO examiner stating that all my claims were rejected and that the action is non-final. She has given me 3 months to reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I want to change/add my claims.  Is that Allowed? How do I do that? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12730" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5141" RevisionGUID="eb9955e4-a1dc-4ad6-a76b-d863c7139305" CreationDate="2013-09-30T13:19:11.767" UserId="1259" Comment="signature removed" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5143" RevisionGUID="f1156d85-667b-424a-a9c5-fe8ffcdddfba" CreationDate="2013-09-30T14:36:49.380" UserId="5889" Text="WO2012113874A1 Seems to covers storing the method of forming the transform specifically in the case of a touch screen. I general I feel most of the methods of this patent are covered for this specific case&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5144" RevisionGUID="56dea18d-d439-4bfc-bab2-854af8d5b5de" CreationDate="2013-09-30T16:47:45.353" UserId="3076" Text="Please take a look at http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/4190/how-can-an-individual-participate-in-the-examination-process-for-us-patent-appli&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also you can search this site for &quot;third party submission&quot;. That process involves submission of published documents. Just stating &quot;we did it years ago&quot; isn't good enough. The documents you send need to be published before the date of the filing. That means an internal company memo or specification is may not qualify. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5145" RevisionGUID="b16470b1-7e1c-4328-8ded-98c5dc458bab" CreationDate="2013-09-30T17:21:46.993" UserId="3076" Text="Almost every patent application gets a letter just like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A document called the MPEP is the &quot;bible&quot; for examiners and applicants in terms of procedures. It has a section on the [manner of making amendments][1]. That covers the mechanics of replying. But first you need to completely understand the Office Action and formulate a plan to get past each specific objection and rejection. If the examiner is correct on some issue you will need to amend, if you are confident she has made an error, you can argue the point rather than amend. In doing that you can't add new matter. Amending claims to cover something explained well in the initial filing is fine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this stage you are entitled to an interview with the examiner and her supervisor, usually by phone. It lasts 1/2 hour and is to give you a chance to understand how she sees the cited prior art as the same as what you are claiming and for you to clarify misunderstandings she may have about your invention. You can talk about your proposed amendments without putting them on record and get her reaction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You draft and submit your response to the office action after getting the benefit of this conversation. This is an unforgiving and arcane process. Please get, and study, *Patent it Yourself* by David Pressman. Also you can look up the history of other patent cases in your field via USPTO Public PAIR to see how responses where formulated. One small tip - if you submit an amended that is not signed it has the same effect as not having sent it in at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s714.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5145" RevisionGUID="72a98085-8fe3-4416-aada-e54004e684dd" CreationDate="2013-09-30T17:32:40.830" UserId="3076" Comment="added 171 characters in body" Text="Almost every patent application gets a letter just like that. Your next step could be to find a patent attorney or patent agent to help you through the process. If, instead, you plan to continue on your own, there is a lot to learn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A document called the MPEP is the &quot;bible&quot; for examiners and applicants in terms of procedures. It has a section on the [manner of making amendments][1]. That covers the mechanics of replying. But first you need to completely understand the Office Action and formulate a plan to get past each specific objection and rejection. If the examiner is correct on some issue you will need to amend, if you are confident she has made an error, you can argue the point rather than amend. In doing that you can't add new matter. Amending claims to cover something explained well in the initial filing is fine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this stage you are entitled to an interview with the examiner and her supervisor, usually by phone. It lasts 1/2 hour and is to give you a chance to understand how she sees the cited prior art as the same as what you are claiming and for you to clarify misunderstandings she may have about your invention. You can talk about your proposed amendments without putting them on record and get her reaction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You draft and submit your response to the office action after getting the benefit of this conversation. This is an unforgiving and arcane process. Please get, and study, *Patent it Yourself* by David Pressman. Also you can look up the history of other patent cases in your field via USPTO Public PAIR to see how responses where formulated. One small tip - if you submit an amended that is not signed it has the same effect as not having sent it in at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s714.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5136" RevisionGUID="3858af7b-1c01-42e2-a89d-c1749086663e" CreationDate="2013-09-30T21:41:36.547" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1133 characters in body; edited tags" Text="This seems to be an much to wide patent on mostly (maybe completely?) prior-art technology). It tries to patent user triggered moves/transforms to particular points on a canvas using &quot;frames&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It comes from famous [Prezi, Inc.][2], who did the zooming online presention tool. Although I think this is a nice idea to do for presentations, however this patent tries to patent the technologies behind this, which I think are not at all new and, due to its broadness, may also prevent other uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Publication Number**: [US 20130132895 A1][1]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Application Number: US 13/298,523&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Assignee: [Prezi, Inc.][2]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Prior Art Date: **Seeking Prior Art predating 11/17/2011**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Patents link: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130132895&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This kind of patent is really problematic for many projects using standart css transforms based on user interaction for zooming and moving including some of my favorite open-source projects like jessyink, impress.js or reveal.js to name a few. This could even affect page swipes seen on many&#xD;&#xA;mobile devices where a div(=frame) is moved into the current view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method to edit a display screen of a zooming user interface system comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a user request to transform a set of display elements that are displayed on a display screen encompassed by a frame;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. in response to receipt of the user request, producing an information structured in a non-transitory storage device that indicates each display element of the set of display elements that is displayed on the display screen encompassed by the frame;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. transforming each display element indicated by the information structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method to zoom into a set of display elements, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. User requests a transformation (e.g. a zoom operation) of elements (e.g. objects) that are displayed on a display screen encompassed by a frame;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Computer creates a data structure with each display element of the set of display elements in accordance with the requested transformation of those elements;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Computer transforms the display element indicated by the data structure.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there is quite a lot of prior art for most of the methods claimed:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- pptplex (Powerpoint plugin to support zoomable slides, around since at least 2008)&#xD;&#xA;- google maps (around since 2005)&#xD;&#xA;- jessyink (has views since 2009)&#xD;&#xA;- prezi itself (they only applied for patent end of 2011)&#xD;&#xA;- ken burns effect&#xD;&#xA;- map based games&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm not an expert in patents and especially software patents and there might be patentable parts. So maybe someone can have a closer look&#xD;&#xA;at the claims and/or find prior art that even better resembles the methods described:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The patents has claims in three categories:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; 1. transforms to specific points in space&#xD;&#xA; 2. doing that with frames&#xD;&#xA; 3. doing 1&amp;2 on a machine with storage&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The 1st is clearly prior-art and the 3rd is just a patent specific reformulation of the two others.&#xD;&#xA;The 2nd may be more tricky. It seems trivial to go from a center point + scale + rotation (e.g. Gmaps) to the actual view frame.&#xD;&#xA;Still there might be more obvious cases of prior art for that. I've seen similar things in iMovie but I don't know when&#xD;&#xA;they came up (there is some indication that this was possible before the application: http://web.archive.org/web/20111031001100/http://acomp.stanford.edu/tutorials/imovie_video_editing). &#xD;&#xA;Maybe there is even other video software that uses frames to zoom into specific areas. Frames as data structures for containing &#xD;&#xA;objects is also prior art as this is what a HTML-div is. And these can be zoomed and rotated using css transforms which were &#xD;&#xA;already in the specs/drafts in 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in my opinion, what prezi really did new is to apply these methods to presentations and this is definitively a good idea (although i'm not sure such an idea is patentable). &#xD;&#xA;However, in their claims they do not relate to presentations and I think the generic methods are very wide and not new. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be great if someone can comment on this or even find more evidence of prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks a lot! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130132895&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.prezi.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12743" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5136" RevisionGUID="3858af7b-1c01-42e2-a89d-c1749086663e" CreationDate="2013-09-30T21:41:36.547" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1133 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;user-interface&gt;&lt;css-transforms&gt;&lt;us20130132895&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12744" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5136" RevisionGUID="3858af7b-1c01-42e2-a89d-c1749086663e" CreationDate="2013-09-30T21:41:36.547" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1133 characters in body; edited tags" Text="User Interface - Transforming display elements within zooming user interface (Prezi) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5136" RevisionGUID="84c7fcff-5641-4690-b93b-257b7e2feb17" CreationDate="2013-09-30T21:50:20.847" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1133 characters in body; edited tags" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON zooming transformations on an electronic display** - This application from [Prezi][2] seeks to patent the idea of...zooming displays within frames! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/17/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - zooming user interfaces with multiple display elements and a frame &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to be an overly broad patent application based mostly or even entirely on known technologies. It tries to patent user triggered moves/transformations to particular points on a canvas using &quot;frames&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application comes from famous [Prezi, Inc.][2], who did the zooming online presention tool. Although I think this is a nice idea to do for presentations, however this patent tries to patent the technologies behind this, which I think are not at all new and, due to its broadness, may also prevent other uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Publication Number**: [US 20130132895 A1][1]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Application Number: US 13/298,523&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Assignee: [Prezi, Inc.][2]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Prior Art Date: **Seeking Prior Art predating 11/17/2011**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Patents link: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130132895&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This kind of patent is really problematic for many projects using standart css transforms based on user interaction for zooming and moving including some of my favorite open-source projects like jessyink, impress.js or reveal.js to name a few. This could even affect page swipes seen on many&#xD;&#xA;mobile devices where a div(=frame) is moved into the current view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method to edit a display screen of a zooming user interface system comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a user request to transform a set of display elements that are displayed on a display screen encompassed by a frame;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. in response to receipt of the user request, producing an information structured in a non-transitory storage device that indicates each display element of the set of display elements that is displayed on the display screen encompassed by the frame;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. transforming each display element indicated by the information structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method to zoom into a set of display elements, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. User requests a transformation (e.g. a zoom operation) of elements (e.g. objects) that are displayed on a display screen encompassed by a frame;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Computer creates a data structure with each display element of the set of display elements in accordance with the requested transformation of those elements;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Computer transforms the display element indicated by the data structure.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there is quite a lot of prior art for most of the methods claimed:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- pptplex (Powerpoint plugin to support zoomable slides, around since at least 2008)&#xD;&#xA;- google maps (around since 2005)&#xD;&#xA;- jessyink (has views since 2009)&#xD;&#xA;- prezi itself (they only applied for patent end of 2011)&#xD;&#xA;- ken burns effect&#xD;&#xA;- map based games&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm not an expert in patents and especially software patents and there might be patentable parts. So maybe someone can have a closer look&#xD;&#xA;at the claims and/or find prior art that even better resembles the methods described:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The patents has claims in three categories:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; 1. transforms to specific points in space&#xD;&#xA; 2. doing that with frames&#xD;&#xA; 3. doing 1&amp;2 on a machine with storage&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The 1st is clearly prior-art and the 3rd is just a patent specific reformulation of the two others.&#xD;&#xA;The 2nd may be more tricky. It seems trivial to go from a center point + scale + rotation (e.g. Gmaps) to the actual view frame.&#xD;&#xA;Still there might be more obvious cases of prior art for that. I've seen similar things in iMovie but I don't know when&#xD;&#xA;they came up (there is some indication that this was possible before the application: http://web.archive.org/web/20111031001100/http://acomp.stanford.edu/tutorials/imovie_video_editing). &#xD;&#xA;Maybe there is even other video software that uses frames to zoom into specific areas. Frames as data structures for containing &#xD;&#xA;objects is also prior art as this is what a HTML-div is. And these can be zoomed and rotated using css transforms which were &#xD;&#xA;already in the specs/drafts in 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in my opinion, what prezi really did new is to apply these methods to presentations and this is definitively a good idea (although i'm not sure such an idea is patentable). &#xD;&#xA;However, in their claims they do not relate to presentations and I think the generic methods are very wide and not new. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be great if someone can comment on this or even find more evidence of prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks a lot! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130132895&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.prezi.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5138" RevisionGUID="0ae9c32a-57c1-489c-9aa4-a31ff225d61f" CreationDate="2013-09-30T22:02:39.587" UserId="1767" Comment="added 2382 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON monitoring user behavior and offering products for sale** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...offering products to users on a computer based on user behavior! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/30/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - monitoring user behavior, determining brand preference of a user and offering products for sale to user based on brand preference&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, starting in 1999 our company did exactly what this Patent Application's Independent Claims are trying to get exclusive rights to. We neither considered it novel nor original at the time. I believe at least several other companies did the same before us, and that dozens of other companies were also doing this within a year or two after. I have watched numerous folks come up with (and implement) what appears to me to be the exact same idea in the decade since. If issued, it appears that this patent could be used to block an extremely common practice. I am not currently doing what this patent is claiming, but may very well want to do so again in the future. How should one go about preventing an applicant from receiving an exclusive right over an idea which appears to be identical to one you had implemented over a decade before, and may very well wish to implement again?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Publication Number**: [US 20130173402 A1][1]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Application Number: US 13/298,523&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Prior Art Date: **Seeking Prior Art predating 8/30/2010**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Patents link: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130173402&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for facilitating electronic commerce via a computer network, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. monitoring a user's interactions with an on-line content provider;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying a first brand of interest to the user, wherein the identified first brand of interest is based at least in part upon the user's interactions with the on-line content provider;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining whether merchandise associated with the identified first brand is available for sale/purchase; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. presenting to the user, via an electronic display and in response to identifying available merchandise associated with the identified first brand, at least one opportunity for the user to purchase at least a portion of the identified available items of merchandise associated with the identified first brand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A method for facilitating electronic commerce:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. monitoring a user's interactions with an on-line content provider;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying brand of interest to the user based upon the user's interactions with the on-line content provider;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining whether merchandise associated with the identified brand is available for sale/purchase; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. offering the user an opportunity to purchase the identified items of merchandise associated with the identified brand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130173402" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12747" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5138" RevisionGUID="0ae9c32a-57c1-489c-9aa4-a31ff225d61f" CreationDate="2013-09-30T22:02:39.587" UserId="1767" Comment="added 2382 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Electronic Commerce - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12748" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5138" RevisionGUID="0ae9c32a-57c1-489c-9aa4-a31ff225d61f" CreationDate="2013-09-30T22:02:39.587" UserId="1767" Comment="added 2382 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;online-shopping&gt;&lt;us20130173402&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12749" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="5138" RevisionGUID="a64db240-eb6d-4045-907b-e008a9b785c8" CreationDate="2013-09-30T22:03:04.950" UserId="1767" Comment="16" />
  <row Id="12750" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5138" RevisionGUID="cab169cc-29a2-4789-8823-0b76be503dc7" CreationDate="2013-09-30T22:10:35.287" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Electronic Commerce - Monitoring Brand Preference - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5146" RevisionGUID="2a2bc624-3190-4ebb-85da-9ebd7b04b690" CreationDate="2013-09-30T22:15:08.113" UserId="5893" Text="Um, isn't **click+drag to zoom** a ubiquitous example of these claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All three of those claims are trivial, and combining them doesn't create something non-trivial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every element in a GUI is already &quot;encompassed by a frame&quot;...the enclosing window. The click+drag is the user request for the other requirement of (1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Data structures containing the objects (could be pixels or vectors) are already necessarily available (what is already displayed). Whether those are stored on &quot;non-transitory storage devices&quot; or not is trivial; an application may choose to keep certain information in memory or on-disk depending on its needs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any application that does click+drag to create a zoom box (Photoshop [objects=pixels], or Illustrator [objects=vectors]) is prior art. The oldest popular example I can think of is the original Macintosh operating system in 1980, based upon the work of Xerox PARC.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5145" RevisionGUID="61e2b6b5-8507-476e-a880-41970673624a" CreationDate="2013-10-01T01:36:01.667" UserId="3076" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Almost every patent application gets a letter just like that. Your next step could be to find a patent attorney or patent agent to help you through the process. If, instead, you plan to continue on your own, there is a lot to learn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A document called the MPEP is the &quot;bible&quot; for examiners and applicants in terms of procedures. It has a section on the [manner of making amendments][1]. That covers the mechanics of replying. But first you need to completely understand the Office Action and formulate a plan to get past each specific objection and rejection. If the examiner is correct on some issue you will need to amend, if you are confident she has made an error, you can argue the point rather than amend. In doing that you can't add new matter. Amending claims to cover something explained well in the initial filing is fine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this stage you are entitled to an interview with the examiner and her supervisor, usually by phone. It lasts 1/2 hour and is to give you a chance to understand how she sees the cited prior art as the same as what you are claiming and for you to clarify misunderstandings she may have about your invention. You can talk about your proposed amendments without putting them on record and get her reaction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You draft and submit your response to the office action after getting the benefit of this conversation. This is an unforgiving and arcane process. Please get, and study, *Patent it Yourself* by David Pressman. Also you can look up the history of other patent cases in your field via USPTO Public PAIR to see how responses where formulated. One small tip - if you submit an amendment that is not signed it has about the same effect as not having sent it in at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s714.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5147" RevisionGUID="abe3dc0d-c3f1-4021-84f3-fa77dc5ef76a" CreationDate="2013-10-01T01:40:13.823" UserId="5894" Text="Looking for Bruce Abraham contact info for the decorative noodle patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12754" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5147" RevisionGUID="abe3dc0d-c3f1-4021-84f3-fa77dc5ef76a" CreationDate="2013-10-01T01:40:13.823" UserId="5894" Text="Does anyone know the contact info for the assignee on this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12755" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5147" RevisionGUID="abe3dc0d-c3f1-4021-84f3-fa77dc5ef76a" CreationDate="2013-10-01T01:40:13.823" UserId="5894" Text="&lt;us20130052896&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5148" RevisionGUID="285e2289-50ad-40e6-9833-2f5a2585b9a2" CreationDate="2013-10-01T03:08:28.337" UserId="3076" Text="The information regarding this patent application is on the public record in the USPTO's Public PAIR database. The entire paper work history of a patent or published application filed since mid 2003 is visible to all. From the inventor's declaration:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/YFc5h.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5136" RevisionGUID="b8c1a20b-b14d-4631-9696-b23a057121ea" CreationDate="2013-10-01T08:35:23.763" UserId="5881" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON zooming transformations on an electronic display** - This application from [Prezi][2] seeks to patent the idea of...zooming displays within frames! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/17/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - zooming user interfaces with multiple display elements and a frame &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to be an overly broad patent application based mostly or even entirely on known technologies. It tries to patent user triggered moves/transformations to particular points on a canvas using &quot;frames&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application comes from famous [Prezi, Inc.][2], who did the zooming online presentation tool. Although I think this is a nice idea to do for presentations, this patent tries to patent the technologies behind this. I think those are not at all new and, due to its broadness, the patent also prevents other uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Publication Number**: [US 20130132895 A1][1]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Application Number: US 13/298,523&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Assignee: [Prezi, Inc.][2]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Prior Art Date: **Seeking Prior Art predating 11/17/2011**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Patents link: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130132895&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This kind of patent is really problematic for many projects using standart css transforms based on user interaction for zooming and moving including some of my favorite open-source projects like jessyink, impress.js or reveal.js to name a few. This could even affect page swipes seen on many&#xD;&#xA;mobile devices where a div(=frame) is moved into the current view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method to edit a display screen of a zooming user interface system comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a user request to transform a set of display elements that are displayed on a display screen encompassed by a frame;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. in response to receipt of the user request, producing an information structured in a non-transitory storage device that indicates each display element of the set of display elements that is displayed on the display screen encompassed by the frame;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. transforming each display element indicated by the information structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method to zoom into a set of display elements, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. User requests a transformation (e.g. a zoom operation) of elements (e.g. objects) that are displayed on a display screen encompassed by a frame;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Computer creates a data structure with each display element of the set of display elements in accordance with the requested transformation of those elements;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Computer transforms the display element indicated by the data structure.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there is quite a lot of prior art for most of the methods claimed:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- pptplex (Powerpoint plugin to support zoomable slides, around since at least 2008)&#xD;&#xA;- google maps (around since 2005)&#xD;&#xA;- jessyink (has views since 2009)&#xD;&#xA;- prezi itself (they only applied for patent end of 2011)&#xD;&#xA;- ken burns effect&#xD;&#xA;- map based games&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm not an expert in patents and especially software patents and there might be patentable parts. So maybe someone can have a closer look&#xD;&#xA;at the claims and/or find prior art that even better resembles the methods described:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The patents has claims in three categories:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; 1. transforms to specific points in space&#xD;&#xA; 2. doing that with frames&#xD;&#xA; 3. doing 1&amp;2 on a machine with storage&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The 1st is clearly prior-art and the 3rd is just a patent specific reformulation of the two others.&#xD;&#xA;The 2nd may be more tricky. It seems trivial to go from a center point + scale + rotation (e.g. Gmaps) to the actual view frame.&#xD;&#xA;Still there might be more obvious cases of prior art for that. I've seen similar things in iMovie but I don't know when&#xD;&#xA;they came up (there is some indication that this was possible before the application: http://web.archive.org/web/20111031001100/http://acomp.stanford.edu/tutorials/imovie_video_editing). &#xD;&#xA;Maybe there is even other video software that uses frames to zoom into specific areas. Frames as data structures for containing &#xD;&#xA;objects is also prior art as this is what a HTML-div is. And these can be zoomed and rotated using css transforms which were &#xD;&#xA;already in the specs/drafts in 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in my opinion, what prezi really did new is to apply these methods to presentations and this is definitively a good idea (although i'm not sure such an idea is patentable). &#xD;&#xA;However, in their claims they do not relate to presentations and I think the generic methods are very wide and not new. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be great if someone can comment on this or even find more evidence of prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks a lot! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130132895&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.prezi.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5150" RevisionGUID="362e0d70-f61b-41de-8428-5d80e2a3cea8" CreationDate="2013-10-01T08:44:44.377" UserId="5895" Text="A small search on Google Prior Art finder led me to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ftp://db.stanford.edu/public_html/cstr/reports/csl/tr/88/369/CSL-TR-88-369.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It talks about Inter-Views, (multiple views) and switching between them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5147" RevisionGUID="ad56a6e4-3674-435e-86f5-3075657befcb" CreationDate="2013-10-01T14:08:31.657" UserId="1" Comment="added 76 characters in body; edited title" Text="I'm looking for Bruce Abraham's contact information for the decorative noodle patent ([US20130052896](http://www.google.com/patents/US20130052896))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12764" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5147" RevisionGUID="ad56a6e4-3674-435e-86f5-3075657befcb" CreationDate="2013-10-01T14:08:31.657" UserId="1" Comment="added 76 characters in body; edited title" Text="How do I find the contact info for the assignee on a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5152" RevisionGUID="10416942-7d9a-4b35-b2ac-2e8355d5d8e5" CreationDate="2013-10-01T17:34:53.973" UserId="5901" Text="I am working on developing a very specific patent for the defense industry. My idea requires the use of a synthetic material only manufactured by one company. They will not sell the raw material to anyone in bulk, or in any other configuration than their finished product. How do I go about protecting my idea, but have them manufacture it?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12770" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5152" RevisionGUID="10416942-7d9a-4b35-b2ac-2e8355d5d8e5" CreationDate="2013-10-01T17:34:53.973" UserId="5901" Text="I need to learn about using another companies product in my patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12771" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5152" RevisionGUID="10416942-7d9a-4b35-b2ac-2e8355d5d8e5" CreationDate="2013-10-01T17:34:53.973" UserId="5901" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;protocol&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5147" RevisionGUID="863c275c-b179-44e7-9daf-698cb43ad634" CreationDate="2013-10-01T18:12:00.157" UserId="1767" Comment="added 164 characters in body" Text="I'm looking for Bruce Abraham's contact information for the decorative noodle patent ([US20130052896](http://www.google.com/patents/US20130052896)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/qF60n.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/WBzLM.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5153" RevisionGUID="69f892cd-e270-4ca7-b613-f30d9c7fe733" CreationDate="2013-10-01T18:14:03.203" UserId="3076" Text="You do not need any rights to the material to get a patent on a novel thing made with the material. Patents do not infringe patents, products infringe patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Presumably you understand the properties of the material so that you can show how it functions in your system. If the composition of the material is a trade secret you may have a hard time characterizing it your claims. Identifying a material by trademark name is rarely, if ever, allowed in a claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If other materials function, but just not as well, the patent does not need to revolve around the special material only. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If and when you get the patent, you can't make it because you can't get the material and they can't make it because you have the patent. If there is a large and lucrative market to be served, you and they should be able to work out a mutually agreeable deal. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="d4744aa4-e3b2-4c49-afcf-c09401c843f4" CreationDate="2013-10-01T18:22:44.310" UserId="1767" Comment="added 227 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **final rejection** by the US Patent Office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community below! The main reference cited by the Patent Examiner in the rejection was found by Ask Patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An applicant has several ways to keep an application in this state alive. They include a request for continuing examination, which involves paying more fees and responding to the rejection. Appealing the rejection is another avenue. If nothing is done it will go abandoned six months from the final rejection.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to the **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **TITLE: Scale factors for visual presentations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130063492 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/230445][3]  &#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application generates and display graphical elements based on *pixel density.* The invention selects a *scale factor* from a *scale factor set* that is within the *range* of the pixel density.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of generating, using a device having a processor, a presentation comprising elements to be displayed on a display component, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - executing on the processor instructions configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - identify a ***pixel density*** of the display component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - for respective elements of the presentation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - from a ***scale factor set***, select a ***scale factor*** having a ***pixel density range*** including the pixel density of the display component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - request the element to generate a scaled representation using the scale factor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - generate the presentation comprising the scaled representations of the elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample figure** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/WgDnr.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application is similar to other resolution-independent scaling applications, patents, and implementations carried out in the industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 09/12/2011** that discusses (1) scale factor; (2) scale factor set; and (3) pixel density range in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][5] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][6] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12776" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="f466fd8b-a37b-42ec-a740-d4ce1e4a7bc1" CreationDate="2013-10-01T18:29:40.293" UserId="1767" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application has received a **final rejection** by the US Patent Office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community below! The main reference cited by the Patent Examiner in the rejection was found by Ask Patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An applicant has several ways to keep an application in this state alive. They include a request for continuing examination, which involves paying more fees and responding to the rejection. Appealing the rejection is another avenue. If nothing is done it will go abandoned six months from the final rejection.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to the **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **TITLE: Scale factors for visual presentations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130063492 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/230445][3]  &#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application generates and display graphical elements based on *pixel density.* The invention selects a *scale factor* from a *scale factor set* that is within the *range* of the pixel density.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of generating, using a device having a processor, a presentation comprising elements to be displayed on a display component, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - executing on the processor instructions configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - identify a ***pixel density*** of the display component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - for respective elements of the presentation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - from a ***scale factor set***, select a ***scale factor*** having a ***pixel density range*** including the pixel density of the display component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - request the element to generate a scaled representation using the scale factor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - generate the presentation comprising the scaled representations of the elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample figure** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/WgDnr.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application is similar to other resolution-independent scaling applications, patents, and implementations carried out in the industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 09/12/2011** that discusses (1) scale factor; (2) scale factor set; and (3) pixel density range in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][5] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][6] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5138" RevisionGUID="40793ead-5d45-4478-8de6-4aee133f0898" CreationDate="2013-10-01T18:48:54.427" UserId="1767" Comment="added 651 characters in body; edited tags" Text="![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An **initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the grounds for rejection (can be seen in Public PAIR) are based on public disclosure by the applicant themselves in [2008][2] and [2009][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;[Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON monitoring user behavior and offering products for sale** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...offering products to users on a computer based on user behavior! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/30/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - monitoring user behavior, determining brand preference of a user and offering products for sale to user based on brand preference&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, starting in 1999 our company did exactly what this Patent Application's Independent Claims are trying to get exclusive rights to. We neither considered it novel nor original at the time. I believe at least several other companies did the same before us, and that dozens of other companies were also doing this within a year or two after. I have watched numerous folks come up with (and implement) what appears to me to be the exact same idea in the decade since. If issued, it appears that this patent could be used to block an extremely common practice. I am not currently doing what this patent is claiming, but may very well want to do so again in the future. How should one go about preventing an applicant from receiving an exclusive right over an idea which appears to be identical to one you had implemented over a decade before, and may very well wish to implement again?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Publication Number**: [US 20130173402 A1][1]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Application Number: US 13/298,523&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Prior Art Date: **Seeking Prior Art predating 8/30/2010**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Patents link: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130173402&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for facilitating electronic commerce via a computer network, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. monitoring a user's interactions with an on-line content provider;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying a first brand of interest to the user, wherein the identified first brand of interest is based at least in part upon the user's interactions with the on-line content provider;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining whether merchandise associated with the identified first brand is available for sale/purchase; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. presenting to the user, via an electronic display and in response to identifying available merchandise associated with the identified first brand, at least one opportunity for the user to purchase at least a portion of the identified available items of merchandise associated with the identified first brand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A method for facilitating electronic commerce:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. monitoring a user's interactions with an on-line content provider;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying brand of interest to the user based upon the user's interactions with the on-line content provider;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining whether merchandise associated with the identified brand is available for sale/purchase; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. offering the user an opportunity to purchase the identified items of merchandise associated with the identified brand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130173402&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.prweb.com/releases/tunipop/launch/prweb1162224.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://web.archive.org/web/20080615000000*/http://tunipop.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12778" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5138" RevisionGUID="40793ead-5d45-4478-8de6-4aee133f0898" CreationDate="2013-10-01T18:48:54.427" UserId="1767" Comment="added 651 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;online-shopping&gt;&lt;us20130173402&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4919" RevisionGUID="90908d92-e6bf-42a5-9721-6ba40fc9fda4" CreationDate="2013-10-01T18:58:50.597" UserId="1767" Comment="added 248 characters in body; edited tags" Text="![enter image description here][8]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application has received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON targeting messages to users based on based on distance between user and a location** - This application from [a self-proclaimed &quot;Internet visionary&quot;][6] seeks to patent the idea of...geo-targeting messages to users! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/11/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using location between a user and a location to send messages to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO a radiofrequency tags are used to identify the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Delivering messages to users based on their location**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for delivering ads to users based on location: if user's device is within a predetermined distance of a location, sending the user a message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130179263 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/348,282&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:[a self-proclaimed &quot;Internet visionary&quot;][6] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/7/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for linking a person to a location, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a computer determining that a device of a person is within a predetermined distance of a location, based on data received from the device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the computer identifying the at least one of the person and the device, based on the received data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. the computer associating the at least one of the person and the device with the location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. the computer generating a message based on the association; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. the computer communicating the message to the person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for delivering ads to users based on user's location:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine with user is within predetermined distance of a location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identify the user or device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Associate (presumably in a database) the user with the location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generate a message for the user and send the message to the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Using RFID tags to identify the device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Communicating promotional content from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/BlZj7kI.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130179263?dq=US20130179263A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://gawker.com/5516162/visionary-eric-leebow-thinks-he-invented-the-social-network&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130179263&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12780" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4919" RevisionGUID="90908d92-e6bf-42a5-9721-6ba40fc9fda4" CreationDate="2013-10-01T18:58:50.597" UserId="1767" Comment="added 248 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;geo-target&gt;&lt;us20130179263&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5154" RevisionGUID="a474cff1-365e-4911-81df-83e6b564b706" CreationDate="2013-10-01T19:10:18.630" UserId="5902" Text="If a patent makes claims about a &quot;device&quot;, but not about &quot;software&quot;, does that mean I can make apps without infringing, and would my app potentially be patentable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:  Say I want to write a skydiving app that vibrates in different patterns as you fall through altitude zones.  However an existing patent makes the claims below.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  A device to calculate skydiving metrics of a jumper, the portable device comprising: a housing having a physical size and shape that is adapted to couple to the body of the user; a motion sensor, to generate data representative of motion of the user; an altitude sensor, to generate data representative of the change in altitude of the user; processing circuitry, coupled to the motion and altitude sensors, to calculate activity metrics, wherein the processing circuitry: calculates a motion metric using the data which is representative of motion of the user, calculates an altitude metric using the data which is representative of the change in altitude of the user, and calculates at least one metric of the jumper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The device of claim 1 wherein the processing circuitry determines a jump mode of the jumper using the data representative of motion and calculates jump metrics of the user. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The device of claim 1 further including a physiological sensor, disposed in the housing, to generate data representative of physiological information of the jumper and processing circuitry is coupled to the physiological sensor to calculate a physiological condition of the user using the data which is representative of the physiological information of the jumper. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ps - I'm new to patents and know this may be a dumb question or not precisely answerable.  However I appreciate as much insight into the issue as possible given the information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12782" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5154" RevisionGUID="a474cff1-365e-4911-81df-83e6b564b706" CreationDate="2013-10-01T19:10:18.630" UserId="5902" Text="Smartphone Apps: Difference between a device and software?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12783" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5154" RevisionGUID="a474cff1-365e-4911-81df-83e6b564b706" CreationDate="2013-10-01T19:10:18.630" UserId="5902" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;hardware-patents&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4919" RevisionGUID="2720fa55-7c66-416b-aa6c-9b485091a3d3" CreationDate="2013-10-01T19:15:09.027" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][8]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application has received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON targeting messages to users based on based on distance between user and a location** - This application from [a self-proclaimed &quot;Internet visionary&quot;][6] seeks to patent the idea of...geo-targeting messages to users! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/11/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using location between a user and a location to send messages to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO a radiofrequency tags are used to identify the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Delivering messages to users based on their location**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for delivering ads to users based on location: if user's device is within a predetermined distance of a location, sending the user a message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130179263 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/348,282&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:[a self-proclaimed &quot;Internet visionary&quot;][6] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/7/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for linking a person to a location, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a computer determining that a device of a person is within a predetermined distance of a location, based on data received from the device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the computer identifying the at least one of the person and the device, based on the received data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. the computer associating the at least one of the person and the device with the location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. the computer generating a message based on the association; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. the computer communicating the message to the person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for delivering ads to users based on user's location:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine with user is within predetermined distance of a location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identify the user or device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Associate (presumably in a database) the user with the location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generate a message for the user and send the message to the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Using RFID tags to identify the device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Communicating promotional content from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/BlZj7kI.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130179263?dq=US20130179263A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://gawker.com/5516162/visionary-eric-leebow-thinks-he-invented-the-social-network&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130179263&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5155" RevisionGUID="e9fcfd00-1f4b-4127-847e-33ea40b44b74" CreationDate="2013-10-01T20:33:40.983" UserId="5904" Text="I am in possession of an OKILL'S PATENT PRESSURE INDICATOR, NEW TYPE PATENT No. 144034. I have not been able to find any record of this PATENT NO. and would appreciate any information regarding this particular model, as I am researching the mechanical development of tools used by Fisheries in the Bristol Bay area, and this was one of the few which I was unable to find any information on. The tool is labeled thus: OKILL'S PATENT PRESSURE INDICATOR&#xD;&#xA;                               N.D, 528&#xD;&#xA;                               NEW TYPE&#xD;&#xA;                                PATENT&#xD;&#xA;                              No. 144034&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                             G.TAYLOR (6) Ld&#xD;&#xA;                                 MAKERS&#xD;&#xA;                                 BOLTON&#xD;&#xA;                             MADE IN ENGLAND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(reverse side):              FERRIER &amp; LUCAS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any information that could point my research in the right direction would be received with the utmost gratitude, and I hope to hear back from you soon. Thank you for your time, Sincerely, Sean Howard." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12786" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5155" RevisionGUID="e9fcfd00-1f4b-4127-847e-33ea40b44b74" CreationDate="2013-10-01T20:33:40.983" UserId="5904" Text="IS THERE A PIOR MODEL PATENTED TO JOHN OKILL" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12787" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5155" RevisionGUID="e9fcfd00-1f4b-4127-847e-33ea40b44b74" CreationDate="2013-10-01T20:33:40.983" UserId="5904" Text="&lt;research&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5155" RevisionGUID="7190f94f-1639-44d8-a3c8-09f4e096aa58" CreationDate="2013-10-01T21:29:27.700" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 35 characters in body; edited title" Text="I am researching the mechanical development of tools used by Fisheries in the Bristol Bay area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm in possession of a tool marked, &quot;OKILL'S PATENT PRESSURE INDICATOR, NEW TYPE PATENT No. 144034. This was one of the few tools which I was unable to find any information on.  I have not been able to find any record of the PATENT NO. 144034 and would appreciate any information regarding this particular model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the label on the tool:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                  OKILL'S PATENT PRESSURE INDICATOR&#xD;&#xA;                                N.D, 528&#xD;&#xA;                               NEW TYPE&#xD;&#xA;                                PATENT&#xD;&#xA;                              No. 144034&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                             G.TAYLOR (6) Ld&#xD;&#xA;                                 MAKERS&#xD;&#xA;                                 BOLTON&#xD;&#xA;                             MADE IN ENGLAND&#xD;&#xA;              (reverse side):              FERRIER &amp; LUCAS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any information that could point my research on this patent in the right direction would be appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12793" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5155" RevisionGUID="7190f94f-1639-44d8-a3c8-09f4e096aa58" CreationDate="2013-10-01T21:29:27.700" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 35 characters in body; edited title" Text="Looking for information about an old Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5157" RevisionGUID="26b3d806-d0df-40af-aaf0-f46cf22441bb" CreationDate="2013-10-01T21:47:48.923" UserId="1767" Text="Questions about the model and product are off-topic for Ask Patents.  See [faq][5] for more information about which questions are on-topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions about old patents are generally on-topic.  The entertainment value is high and the history of technology as expressed through patent documents is usually interesting to our community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original patent in question is from the United Kingdom, Publication Number GB144034A.  Published in 1920 and Invented by John Okill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Original UK Patent: [GB144034A][1]&#xD;&#xA;==&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Related **US Patent Family member: [US1467558][3]**&#xD;&#xA;==&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://mega.co.nz/#!w5BW0JLI!BenHJ0d3KN8BSsfdxRx93SmowfAm2yCkN14GCZDTYWc&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/cW1ZP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US1467558&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/nH2SQ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12795" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5155" RevisionGUID="4d2a75ff-e6a2-4bf8-94db-21b1d8d9cf58" CreationDate="2013-10-01T21:47:58.787" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;research&gt;&lt;us1467558&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5157" RevisionGUID="bef21a96-48bb-4e09-b995-838376839520" CreationDate="2013-10-01T21:56:08.907" UserId="1767" Comment="added 207 characters in body" Text="Questions about the model and product are off-topic for Ask Patents.  See [faq][5] for more information about which questions are on-topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions about old patents are generally on-topic.  The entertainment value is high and the history of technology as expressed through patent documents is usually interesting to our community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original patent in question is from the United Kingdom, Publication Number GB144034A.  Published in 1920 and Invented by John Okill, a British citizen who lived in [Rock Ferry][6] near Liverpool, England..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Original UK Patent: [GB144034A][1]&#xD;&#xA;==&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Related **US Patent Family member: [US1467558][3]**&#xD;&#xA;==&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://mega.co.nz/#!w5BW0JLI!BenHJ0d3KN8BSsfdxRx93SmowfAm2yCkN14GCZDTYWc&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/cW1ZP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US1467558&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/nH2SQ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.google.com/maps?t=m&amp;q=rock+ferry+map&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=Rock+Ferry,+Merseyside,+United+Kingdom&amp;z=6&amp;vpsrc=0&amp;iwloc=A" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5158" RevisionGUID="effc6b90-7557-4e2d-8929-3871e0249287" CreationDate="2013-10-01T22:47:14.817" UserId="3076" Text="Direct infringement requires making, offering for sale, selling or using the patents thing. You selling your software would presumably *not* be direct infringement of those specific claims since you are not making, selling! etc. such a &quot;device&quot;. However anyone who buys your app is using it to turn their phone into such a device. If the resulting device has all of the features of a claim and your software has no other use, then you are probably inducing infringement, contributing to infringement,etc. And technically if you ever tested your software you would have been using such a device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims require the device to have an altitude sensor. Where does that come in?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5158" RevisionGUID="899d4c21-ab9c-4c34-8233-dfa0bd285e12" CreationDate="2013-10-01T23:31:32.657" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Direct infringement requires making, offering for sale, selling or using the patented thing. You selling your software would presumably *not* be direct infringement of those specific claims since you are not making, selling, etc. such a &quot;device&quot;. However anyone who buys your app is using it to turn their phone into such a device. If the resulting device has all of the features of a claim and your software has no other use, then you are probably inducing infringement, contributing to infringement,etc. And technically if you ever tested your software you would have been using such a device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims require the device to have an altitude sensor. Where does that come in?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5158" RevisionGUID="304afd80-7f31-4213-929f-8aca169c3177" CreationDate="2013-10-02T04:22:01.487" UserId="3076" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="Direct infringement requires making, offering for sale, selling or using the patented thing. You selling your software would presumably *not* be direct infringement of those specific claims since you are not making, selling, etc. such a &quot;device&quot;. However anyone who buys your app is using it to turn their phone into such a device. If the resulting device has all of the features of a claim and your software has no other use, then you are probably inducing infringement, contributing to infringement,etc. And technically if you ever tested your software you would have been using such a device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims require the device to have an altitude sensor. Where does that come in? If your app runs on a standard phone *without* an altimeter, then it is hard to see how these claims apply at all. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5160" RevisionGUID="8a377617-5280-4b8b-a360-f26609b5b1d8" CreationDate="2013-10-02T14:57:29.797" UserId="5902" Text="Through experience I know that when hiring consultants, top quality software architects can come about $50/hour less expensive if they are working independently rather than though a large company.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the same true for patent agents/attorneys?  Comparable experience and capabilities of course, as much as that can be measured." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12804" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5160" RevisionGUID="8a377617-5280-4b8b-a360-f26609b5b1d8" CreationDate="2013-10-02T14:57:29.797" UserId="5902" Text="Are independent patent agent/attorney companies a better deal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12805" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5160" RevisionGUID="8a377617-5280-4b8b-a360-f26609b5b1d8" CreationDate="2013-10-02T14:57:29.797" UserId="5902" Text="&lt;attorney&gt;&lt;patent-agent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4919" RevisionGUID="72e212ec-3d5e-4ca3-91b5-b66f31b3bb1e" CreationDate="2013-10-02T16:50:23.473" UserId="1767" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][8]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application has received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON targeting messages to users based on based on distance between user and a location** - This application from [a self-proclaimed &quot;Internet visionary&quot;][6] seeks to patent the idea of...geo-targeting messages to users! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/11/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using location between a user and a location to send messages to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO a radiofrequency tags are used to identify the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Delivering messages to users based on their location**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for delivering ads to users based on location: if user's device is within a predetermined distance of a location, sending the user a message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130179263 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/348,282&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:[a self-proclaimed &quot;Internet visionary&quot;][6] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/7/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for linking a person to a location, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a computer determining that a device of a person is within a predetermined distance of a location, based on data received from the device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the computer identifying the at least one of the person and the device, based on the received data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. the computer associating the at least one of the person and the device with the location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. the computer generating a message based on the association; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. the computer communicating the message to the person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for delivering ads to users based on user's location:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine with user is within predetermined distance of a location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identify the user or device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Associate (presumably in a database) the user with the location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generate a message for the user and send the message to the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Using RFID tags to identify the device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Communicating promotional content from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/BlZj7kI.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130179263?dq=US20130179263A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://gawker.com/5516162/visionary-eric-leebow-thinks-he-invented-the-social-network&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130179263&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12808" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4086" RevisionGUID="5bcc60b7-b791-4cb5-80c5-484d2e133bc4" CreationDate="2013-10-02T16:55:08.353" UserId="1767" Comment="added 392 characters in body; edited tags" Text="![enter image description here][8]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application has received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.  The applicant (or his attorney) was compelled to submit the prior art below to the US Patent Office after discovering it on Ask Patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **HELP SAVE MESH NETWORKING** —This application from Cisco seeks to patent a technique for authenticating devices seeking to join a mesh network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was **published before July 6, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     A device **sending an authentication packet** to an authenticated device in the mesh network (through one or more hops); &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.     The authenticated device **encapsulating** the authentication packet in **Layer 3 packets** for transmission over an **Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel** to an authenticator device; OR&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.     The authenticated device **receiving an authentication packet** that is encapsulated in Layer 3 packets from the authenticator, **decapsulating** the authentication packet, and **transmitting** it over the mesh network to the device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT ---**&#xD;&#xA;        	A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the authentication message is sent as a **Layer 2** message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses the **IEEE 802.1X standard**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the packets are transmitted **wirelessly**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO encapsulates the packet in **Universal Datagram Protocol (UDP)** Packets OR **Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)** Packets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the authenticator device forwards a **group mesh key** to the device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: ADAPTING EXTENSIBLE AUTHENTICATION PROTOCOL FOR LAYER 3 MESH NETWORKS**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** [Translated from Legalish into English] A method and apparatus for authenticating devices in a mesh network by routing authentication packets through the mesh network, over an IP tunnel, and to an authenticator device.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;•	**Publication Number:** &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US20130014217&quot;&gt;US 20130014217 A1&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Assignee:** Cisco&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Prior Art Date:** July 6, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Open for Challenge at USPTO: open at least through &lt;i&gt;July 10, 2013&lt;/i&gt;**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     At an authenticated device in a network, receiving an authentication packet sent over the network from a device that is seeking authentication; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     Encapsulating the authentication packet for transmission in Layer 3 packets over an Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel to an authenticator device associated in the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     A mesh node that wants access to the network sends an authentication message (this message can be sent, for example, as a Layer 2 or Layer 3 message) over the network to an already authenticated mesh node; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.     The receiving mesh node encapsulates the message in Layer 3 packets and sends it to an authenticator over an Internet Protocol (IP) network connection.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 10** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     An authenticated device in a network, receiving an authentication packet that is encapsulated in Layer 3 packets from an authenticator device over an Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     Decapsulating the authentication packet from the Layer 3 packets and transmitting the authentication packet over the network to a device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     The authenticator sends an authentication message in Layer 3 packets over an IP network connection to an already authenticated mesh node; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.     The authenticated mesh node decapsulates the authentication message from the Layer 3 packets and sends the message back over the network to the node that requested access.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 13** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;An apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     A transceiver unit configured to transmit and receive signals over a network; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     A processor coupled to the transceiver unit, the processor configured to, for an authentication packet received from a device that is seeking authentication in the network, encapsulate the authentication packet for transmission in Layer 3 packets over an Internet protocol (IP) tunnel to an authenticator device associated in the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     A wireless device that can receive an authentication message from another device and encapsulate that message into Layer 3 packets to be sent to an authenticator over an IP network connection.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 20** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;One or more computer readable storage media encoded with software comprising computer executable instructions and when software is executed operable to:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     For an authentication packet received from a device that is seeking authentication in a network, encapsulate the authentication packet for transmission in layer 3 packets over an Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel to an authenticator device associated in the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     Any memory device that stores software instructions for a controller to encapsulate messages in Layer 3 packets to be sent to an authenticator over an IP network connection.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 24** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The computer readable storage media of claim 20, and further comprising instructions that are operable to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.     For an authentication packet encapsulated in Layer 3 packets received from the authenticator device over the IP tunnel, decapsulate the authentication packet from the Layer 3 packets and to control a transceiver unit to transmit the authentication packet to the device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     Any memory device that stores software instructions for a controller to decapsulate authentication messages from the Layer 3 packets and transmit them to the node seeking access to the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Separately,** the applicant is claiming a method where the authenticator transmits a **group mesh key** to the device seeking access, where the key is known only to authenticated devices, and where all packets not encrypted with the mesh key and not part of the authentication negotiation are **dropped** by nodes in the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;What is good prior art? Please see our &lt;a href=&quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post prior art you know about][3] on other questionable US patent applications.&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/851CF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/UVGON.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12809" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4086" RevisionGUID="5bcc60b7-b791-4cb5-80c5-484d2e133bc4" CreationDate="2013-10-02T16:55:08.353" UserId="1767" Comment="added 392 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;mesh-networking&gt;&lt;us20130014217&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12810" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="4919" RevisionGUID="48bfce76-967d-47f7-b001-0f326b7ae76c" CreationDate="2013-10-02T17:34:50.457" UserId="1767" Comment="Rollback to [2720fa55-7c66-416b-aa6c-9b485091a3d3]" Text="![enter image description here][8]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application has received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON targeting messages to users based on based on distance between user and a location** - This application from [a self-proclaimed &quot;Internet visionary&quot;][6] seeks to patent the idea of...geo-targeting messages to users! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/11/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using location between a user and a location to send messages to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO a radiofrequency tags are used to identify the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Delivering messages to users based on their location**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for delivering ads to users based on location: if user's device is within a predetermined distance of a location, sending the user a message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130179263 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/348,282&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:[a self-proclaimed &quot;Internet visionary&quot;][6] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/7/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for linking a person to a location, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a computer determining that a device of a person is within a predetermined distance of a location, based on data received from the device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the computer identifying the at least one of the person and the device, based on the received data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. the computer associating the at least one of the person and the device with the location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. the computer generating a message based on the association; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. the computer communicating the message to the person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for delivering ads to users based on user's location:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine with user is within predetermined distance of a location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identify the user or device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Associate (presumably in a database) the user with the location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generate a message for the user and send the message to the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Using RFID tags to identify the device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Communicating promotional content from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/BlZj7kI.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130179263?dq=US20130179263A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://gawker.com/5516162/visionary-eric-leebow-thinks-he-invented-the-social-network&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130179263&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12811" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4655" RevisionGUID="c83a0315-0e53-434c-826c-d25a159b85f5" CreationDate="2013-10-03T00:32:20.187" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Claim with three elements - are products infringing if they contain ANY of the elements or do they need to contain ALL of the elements in the claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4658" RevisionGUID="56d86687-bfd2-4dcf-8dec-cc4376e6091b" CreationDate="2013-10-03T05:09:09.477" UserId="3076" Comment="Better fit the specific patent bring asked about" Text="All three elements (a. energy generating module, b. interface module, and c. lighting installation) must be present for claim 1. to &quot;read on&quot; a product. It is the all elements rule. All of the other claims in this patent are dependent upon claim 1 so they automatically require those three things and more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is  doctrine of equivalents that says that an element might be replaced with a structure that is not technically as required by the claim wording, but that accomplishes the same thing the same way and still infringe. The doctrine of equivalents is not very powerful these days." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5161" RevisionGUID="79ec7b66-4b97-45e5-85ed-a3276d2e5851" CreationDate="2013-10-03T05:31:14.860" UserId="3076" Text="As a solo practitioner, I'd like to explain the advantages of going the other way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes you will pay more to work with a big firm, but there can be added-value that makes it worth it. The software consultant working through a large organization may not get specific support from that large organization that provides a benefit to you, the client. In the case of a large law firm that specializes in IP, the individual working on your case can get advice from their colleagues who might have specialist knowledge. They also have sophisticated docketing systems, and back ups to those systems, to make sure an important deadline is not missed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, anyone can have a blind spot. A solo practitioner can get set in their ways and blind spots can develop and persist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some caveats: there is a big difference between a 100 attorney IP firm and a 100 attorney general law firm with five IP attorneys. Also, if you have a complex case and can get the attention of a top patent attorney, and can afford him/her, that might be the way to go. But, f you get won over by a &quot;name&quot; partner who then hands you off to someone very jr, that is another matter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5162" RevisionGUID="c0215eed-2062-4b94-8131-3613ad7b9f9d" CreationDate="2013-10-03T15:55:46.483" UserId="5912" Text="You should also be aware of www.researchdisclosure.com they offer a defensive publication service which is commonly cited by patent examiners." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5163" RevisionGUID="609247f4-ab78-4e4d-bdda-7f1c7d98ad9b" CreationDate="2013-10-03T16:41:50.927" UserId="5913" Text="Does this count:&#xD;&#xA;https://sonos.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/126/kw/mesh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It mentions a mesh network between separate Sonos devices.&#xD;&#xA;The date published mentions 05/13/2004, but the document has been updated in 01/07/2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The picture of the mesh network:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.sonos.com/graphics/rn/FAQ126/SonosNet-wireless.PNG&#xD;&#xA;is dated as modified on 17 July 2008 16:43:45.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5161" RevisionGUID="6f2b53f3-4931-4269-8fe6-f64202e95306" CreationDate="2013-10-03T17:48:39.737" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="As a solo practitioner, I'd like to explain the advantages of going the other way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes you will pay more to work with a big firm, but there can be added-value that makes it worth it. The software consultant working through a large organization may not get specific support from that large organization that provides a benefit to you, the client. In the case of a large law firm that specializes in IP, the individual working on your case can get advice from their colleagues who might have specialist knowledge. They also have sophisticated docketing systems, and back ups to those systems, to make sure an important deadline is not missed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, anyone can have a blind spot. A solo practitioner can get set in their ways and blind spots can develop and persist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some caveats: there is a big difference between a 100 attorney IP firm and a 100 attorney general law firm with five IP attorneys. Also, if you have a complex case and can get the attention of a top patent attorney, and can afford him/her, that might be the way to go. But, if you get won over by a &quot;name&quot; partner who then hands you off to someone very jr, that is another matter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="46540f1a-7489-4d7c-9bb2-09c7041763ac" CreationDate="2013-10-03T20:16:23.313" UserId="5910" Text="I'm having trouble figuring out whether they're claiming invention of the use of an adjustable free-space low-water-mark threshold to trigger GC.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also observe that they don't provide a single complete sample algorithm for actually computing this threshold." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12818" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="46540f1a-7489-4d7c-9bb2-09c7041763ac" CreationDate="2013-10-03T20:16:23.313" UserId="5910" Text="Prior art for a GC scheduler with an adaptive free-memory threshold?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12819" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="46540f1a-7489-4d7c-9bb2-09c7041763ac" CreationDate="2013-10-03T20:16:23.313" UserId="5910" Text="&lt;us8166269&gt;&lt;adaptive-gc&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="9821bf48-69e0-4019-a379-df416f1d9ff4" CreationDate="2013-10-03T20:25:45.573" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1476 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Patent: [US 8,166,269](http://www.google.com/patents/us8166269)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assignee: [Oracle](http://www.oracle.com)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Priority Date: [11/5/09](http://www.patentlens.net/daisy/patentlens/2343.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior Art: [Search Google **Prior Art** search for 8,166,269](https://www.google.com/patents/related/US8166269)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having trouble figuring out whether Oracle is claiming to have invented the method of **an adjustable free-space low-water-mark threshold to trigger garbage collection**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also observe that they don't provide a single complete sample algorithm for actually computing this threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of adaptively triggering garbage collection within a computer system, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Initializing a data structure to comprise N empty buckets (N&gt;0), wherein each bucket represents an amount of free memory;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Periodically recording a rate of allocation of free memory;&#xD;&#xA;for each of multiple iterations of garbage collection:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - calculating a mean rate of allocation of free memory prior to the iteration;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - observing a drop in the free memory during the iteration;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - reading the data structure to examine a bucket corresponding to the observed memory drop;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - if the bucket is empty, storing in the bucket the calculated mean rate of allocation of free memory; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - if the bucket stores a rate of allocation higher than the calculated mean rate of allocation of free memory, replacing the stored rate of allocation with a new rate of allocation; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - if an increase in the rate of allocation of free memory is observed during said periodic recording, adjusting a free memory threshold at which the garbage collection is initiated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone help me parse this claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12821" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="9821bf48-69e0-4019-a379-df416f1d9ff4" CreationDate="2013-10-03T20:25:45.573" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1476 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;adaptive-gc&gt;&lt;oracle&gt;&lt;us8166269&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="b19da174-65bf-4d05-adfc-d9d49d1a0dc4" CreationDate="2013-10-03T20:54:08.377" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Using word stems to translate unknown words** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Machine translation of unknown words by finding known word stems and adding inflecting! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/31/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using word stems to guess at translations of &quot;out of vocabulary words&quot; in machine translation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - sending the product recommendation as a geographic map of other customers in a vicinity of the customer who have purchased a similar product&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Resolving out-of-vocabulary words with word stem analysis**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for translating &quot;out-of-vocabulary&quot; words which involves looking for word stems, translating the word stem and inflecting the word stem in the foreign language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130197896 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/362,595&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/31/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/28/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method under control of one or more processors specifically configured with executable instructions, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving, by a server, a request from a computing device to translate one or more words from a source language to a target language;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining that a phrase table excludes a particular word of the one or more words but includes a remainder of the one or more words;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining whether a morphological analysis of the particular word identifies a stem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. in response to determining that the morphological analysis of the particular word identifies the stem, translating the stem from the source language to the target language to create a translated stem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. inflecting the translated stem based on the morphological analysis of the particular word to create a translated word corresponding to the particular word;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. translating the remainder of the one or more words from the source language to the target language to create a translated remainder;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. creating a translation of the one or more words based on the translated word and the translated remainder; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. sending the translation to the computing device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of machine translation, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving request to translate one or more words to target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining that the words are &quot;out-of-vocabulary&quot; (i.e. not in the lookup table)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining that the words contain word stems&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Translating the word stems into the target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Inflecting the word stems in the target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Translating the remaining words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Sending the translated words to a computer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/31/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming looking for transliterations, misspellings, substituting colloquial expressions if recognized&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Using word-stem analysis to translate unknown words from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Rz2r9.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130197896?dq=US20130197896A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130197896" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12823" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="b19da174-65bf-4d05-adfc-d9d49d1a0dc4" CreationDate="2013-10-03T20:54:08.377" UserId="1767" Text="Machine Translation - Using word stems to translate &quot;out-of-vocabulary&quot; words (Microsoft Corporation) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12824" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="b19da174-65bf-4d05-adfc-d9d49d1a0dc4" CreationDate="2013-10-03T20:54:08.377" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;us20130197896a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5166" RevisionGUID="0d21e1bd-913a-44ae-953b-c3e246a8dd6c" CreationDate="2013-10-03T22:48:47.923" UserId="5914" Text="Isn't your 1995 product prior art to this patent filed in 2002?  Did Sorenson R&amp;D provide a draft claim chart in which it attempted to read the patent onto your product?  That would be quite useful to you and several others if it did." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="8c4d77d0-deec-460b-9bdb-32adcd1d2941" CreationDate="2013-10-03T23:09:15.977" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON using word stems to translate unknown words** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Machine translation of unknown words by finding known word stems and adding inflections! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/31/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using word stems to guess at translations of &quot;out of vocabulary words&quot; in machine translation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - the applicant is claiming preprocessing the morphological analysis by looking for transliterations, misspellings, substituting colloquial expressions if recognized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Resolving out-of-vocabulary words with word stem analysis**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for translating &quot;out-of-vocabulary&quot; words which involves looking for word stems, translating the word stem and inflecting the word stem in the foreign language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130197896 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/362,595&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/31/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/28/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method under control of one or more processors specifically configured with executable instructions, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving, by a server, a request from a computing device to translate one or more words from a source language to a target language;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining that a phrase table excludes a particular word of the one or more words but includes a remainder of the one or more words;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining whether a morphological analysis of the particular word identifies a stem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. in response to determining that the morphological analysis of the particular word identifies the stem, translating the stem from the source language to the target language to create a translated stem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. inflecting the translated stem based on the morphological analysis of the particular word to create a translated word corresponding to the particular word;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. translating the remainder of the one or more words from the source language to the target language to create a translated remainder;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. creating a translation of the one or more words based on the translated word and the translated remainder; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. sending the translation to the computing device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of machine translation, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving request to translate one or more words to target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining that the words are &quot;out-of-vocabulary&quot; (i.e. not in the lookup table)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining that the words contain word stems&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Translating the word stems into the target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Inflecting the word stems in the target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Translating the remaining words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Sending the translated words to a computer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/31/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming looking for transliterations, misspellings, substituting colloquial expressions if recognized&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Using word-stem analysis to translate unknown words from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Rz2r9.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130197896?dq=US20130197896A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130197896" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12827" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="5074" RevisionGUID="91ed6336-2470-471d-bb79-aa459b733575" CreationDate="2013-10-03T23:15:00.557" UserId="1767" Comment="15" />
  <row Id="12828" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="5074" RevisionGUID="6ebbbcfe-06a0-4321-9a2f-16afd916b113" CreationDate="2013-10-03T23:15:34.593" UserId="1767" Comment="17" />
  <row Id="12829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5167" RevisionGUID="0da2a50c-7469-4f52-b9b3-ca51914e7cc7" CreationDate="2013-10-04T00:32:12.787" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON delivering video to user devices** - This application from [Google Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Offering a list of registered devices to a user so a video can be transferred to the selected device and the user can watch it.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Transferring video (or other content) to selected devices from among a list of devices **previously registered** to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - reformatting or transcoding the content into a format that is compatible with the selected device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Delivering videos to user-selected device**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for delivering video to a user.  User selects among a list of registered devices.  Video is transferred to the selected device so user can view it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130227076 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/406,407&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/25/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving at a content delivery system, from a content provider system, a request, associated with a user accessing the content provider system, to transfer a video stored on a content source system to a viewing device of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying a plurality of viewing devices registered to the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. providing, to the user, a list of the user's registered viewing devices;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. receiving, from the user, a selection of one of the user's viewing devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. transferring the video from the content source system to the selected viewing device, whereby the user is able to subsequently view the content item on the selected viewing device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of content deliver, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving request to transfer a video from a content store to a device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying multiple viewing devices associated with user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing user a list of registered viewing devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. User selects a viewing device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Transferring video from content source to the selected viewing device so user can view it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming reformatting or transcoding the content to be compatible with selected device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Delivering user's video to a selected device from a list of registered devices from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/vtN9G.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130227076?dq=US20130227076A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130227076" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12830" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5167" RevisionGUID="0da2a50c-7469-4f52-b9b3-ca51914e7cc7" CreationDate="2013-10-04T00:32:12.787" UserId="1767" Text="Sharing digital content - Delivering video to a selected device (Google Inc.) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12831" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5167" RevisionGUID="0da2a50c-7469-4f52-b9b3-ca51914e7cc7" CreationDate="2013-10-04T00:32:12.787" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;google&gt;&lt;us20130227076a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="42b4544d-7909-449a-8223-d1a7c29cf261" CreationDate="2013-10-04T00:38:48.730" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON using word stems to translate unknown words** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Machine translation of unknown words by finding known word stems and adding inflections! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/31/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using word stems to guess at translations of &quot;out of vocabulary words&quot; in machine translation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - the applicant is claiming preprocessing the morphological analysis by looking for transliterations, misspellings, substituting colloquial expressions if recognized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Resolving out-of-vocabulary words with word stem analysis**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for translating &quot;out-of-vocabulary&quot; words which involves looking for word stems, translating the word stem and inflecting the word stem in the foreign language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130197896 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/362,595&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/31/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/28/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method under control of one or more processors specifically configured with executable instructions, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving, by a server, a request from a computing device to translate one or more words from a source language to a target language;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining that a phrase table excludes a particular word of the one or more words but includes a remainder of the one or more words;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining whether a morphological analysis of the particular word identifies a stem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. in response to determining that the morphological analysis of the particular word identifies the stem, translating the stem from the source language to the target language to create a translated stem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. inflecting the translated stem based on the morphological analysis of the particular word to create a translated word corresponding to the particular word;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. translating the remainder of the one or more words from the source language to the target language to create a translated remainder;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. creating a translation of the one or more words based on the translated word and the translated remainder; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. sending the translation to the computing device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of machine translation, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving request to translate one or more words to target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining that the words are &quot;out-of-vocabulary&quot; (i.e. not in the lookup table)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining that the words contain word stems&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Translating the word stems into the target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Inflecting the word stems in the target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Translating the remaining words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Sending the translated words to a computer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/31/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming looking for transliterations, misspellings, substituting colloquial expressions if recognized&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Using word-stem analysis to translate unknown words from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Rz2r9.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130197896?dq=US20130197896A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130197896" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12833" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5074" RevisionGUID="84436572-f2be-4df9-a51b-4f472964f8a0" CreationDate="2013-10-04T00:39:05.077" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;us6960316&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5167" RevisionGUID="4506980d-ed0f-427f-bb6c-a07eac9fee44" CreationDate="2013-10-04T00:39:37.297" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON delivering video to a user devices** - This application from [Google Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...offering a list of registered devices to a user so a video can be transferred to the selected device and the user can watch it! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Transferring video (or other content) to selected devices from among a list of devices **previously registered** to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - reformatting or transcoding the content into a format that is compatible with the selected device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Delivering videos to user-selected device**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for delivering video to a user.  User selects among a list of registered devices.  Video is transferred to the selected device so user can view it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130227076 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/406,407&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/25/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving at a content delivery system, from a content provider system, a request, associated with a user accessing the content provider system, to transfer a video stored on a content source system to a viewing device of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying a plurality of viewing devices registered to the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. providing, to the user, a list of the user's registered viewing devices;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. receiving, from the user, a selection of one of the user's viewing devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. transferring the video from the content source system to the selected viewing device, whereby the user is able to subsequently view the content item on the selected viewing device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of content deliver, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving request to transfer a video from a content store to a device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying multiple viewing devices associated with user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing user a list of registered viewing devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. User selects a viewing device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Transferring video from content source to the selected viewing device so user can view it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming reformatting or transcoding the content to be compatible with selected device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Delivering user's video to a selected device from a list of registered devices from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/vtN9G.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130227076?dq=US20130227076A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130227076" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12835" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5167" RevisionGUID="4506980d-ed0f-427f-bb6c-a07eac9fee44" CreationDate="2013-10-04T00:39:37.297" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Sharing digital content - Delivering video to a selected device (Google) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5168" RevisionGUID="767cebea-25f0-44c1-b1a3-bdbc626e2796" CreationDate="2013-10-04T01:16:22.633" UserId="5915" Text="Conduit receptacle&#xD;&#xA;US 1826708 A &#xD;&#xA;How do I obtain better quality copies of this patent other than what I can print off this site? &#xD;&#xA;Publication number	US1826708 A&#xD;&#xA;Publication type	Grant&#xD;&#xA;Publication date	Oct 13, 1931&#xD;&#xA;Filing date	Jan 21, 1930&#xD;&#xA;Priority date	Jan 21, 1930&#xD;&#xA;Inventors	Jacob Colitz&#xD;&#xA;Original Assignee	Jacob Colitz&#xD;&#xA;Referenced by (1), Classifications (6)&#xD;&#xA;External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12837" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5168" RevisionGUID="767cebea-25f0-44c1-b1a3-bdbc626e2796" CreationDate="2013-10-04T01:16:22.633" UserId="5915" Text="How do I obtain better quality copies of this patent other than what I can print off this site? The patent holder was my father" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12838" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5168" RevisionGUID="767cebea-25f0-44c1-b1a3-bdbc626e2796" CreationDate="2013-10-04T01:16:22.633" UserId="5915" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12839" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5168" RevisionGUID="1b7fd7da-2025-43be-a5e5-e38a18550cb6" CreationDate="2013-10-04T02:06:16.807" UserId="3076" Comment="Edited tabs" Text="&lt;us1826708&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="9211d5ab-6615-48b5-ab5d-78fd8cf233d1" CreationDate="2013-10-04T02:16:16.057" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON using word stems to translate unknown words** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Machine translation of unknown words by finding known word stems and adding inflections! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/31/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using word stems to guess at translations of &quot;out of vocabulary words&quot; in machine translation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - the applicant is claiming preprocessing the morphological analysis by looking for transliterations, misspellings, substituting colloquial expressions if recognized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Resolving out-of-vocabulary words with word stem analysis**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for translating &quot;out-of-vocabulary&quot; words which involves looking for word stems, translating the word stem and inflecting the word stem in the foreign language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130197896 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/362,595&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/31/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/28/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method under control of one or more processors specifically configured with executable instructions, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving, by a server, a request from a computing device to translate one or more words from a source language to a target language;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining that a phrase table excludes a particular word of the one or more words but includes a remainder of the one or more words;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining whether a morphological analysis of the particular word identifies a stem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. in response to determining that the morphological analysis of the particular word identifies the stem, translating the stem from the source language to the target language to create a translated stem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. inflecting the translated stem based on the morphological analysis of the particular word to create a translated word corresponding to the particular word;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. translating the remainder of the one or more words from the source language to the target language to create a translated remainder;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. creating a translation of the one or more words based on the translated word and the translated remainder; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. sending the translation to the computing device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of machine translation, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving request to translate one or more words to target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining that the words are &quot;out-of-vocabulary&quot; (i.e. not in the lookup table)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining that the words contain word stems&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Translating the word stems into the target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Inflecting the word stems in the target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Translating the remaining words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Sending the translated words to a computer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/31/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming looking for transliterations, misspellings, substituting colloquial expressions if recognized&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Using word-stem analysis to translate unknown words from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Rz2r9.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130197896?dq=US20130197896A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130197896" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5167" RevisionGUID="8778c755-514a-4503-a07f-de3dd89fc901" CreationDate="2013-10-04T02:16:31.573" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON delivering video to a user devices** - This application from [Google Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...offering a list of registered devices to a user so a video can be transferred to the selected device and the user can watch it! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Transferring video (or other content) to selected devices from among a list of devices **previously registered** to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - reformatting or transcoding the content into a format that is compatible with the selected device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Delivering videos to user-selected device**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for delivering video to a user.  User selects among a list of registered devices.  Video is transferred to the selected device so user can view it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130227076 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/406,407&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/25/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving at a content delivery system, from a content provider system, a request, associated with a user accessing the content provider system, to transfer a video stored on a content source system to a viewing device of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying a plurality of viewing devices registered to the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. providing, to the user, a list of the user's registered viewing devices;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. receiving, from the user, a selection of one of the user's viewing devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. transferring the video from the content source system to the selected viewing device, whereby the user is able to subsequently view the content item on the selected viewing device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of content deliver, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving request to transfer a video from a content store to a device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying multiple viewing devices associated with user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing user a list of registered viewing devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. User selects a viewing device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Transferring video from content source to the selected viewing device so user can view it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming reformatting or transcoding the content to be compatible with selected device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Delivering user's video to a selected device from a list of registered devices from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/vtN9G.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130227076?dq=US20130227076A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130227076" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5169" RevisionGUID="6690476e-eaed-46ed-b639-934f2f033e3b" CreationDate="2013-10-04T02:17:15.637" UserId="3076" Text=" If this is seems better, you can get it [at USPTO][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us1826708&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/hpJ0p.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="88fed5a3-b31a-49fe-9423-d52c8579f683" CreationDate="2013-10-04T19:06:02.477" UserId="1767" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** below!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **A PATENT APPLICATION ON updating apps on mobile devices to restricted &quot;dummy&quot; apps** This application from [Good Technologies][2] seeks to patent the idea of...deleting sensitive information on a device by creating dummy apps. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents] (https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A management system for apps on mobile devices where apps are updated to dummy apps that, when invoked, destroy the respective apps' sensitive data.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your company has as &quot;Bring Your Own Device&quot; policy.  The company email app on your personal phone is &quot;updated&quot; to a new version. Then, when you launch that app, it will delete all the company email on your device and present a &quot;YOU'RE FIRED&quot; message instead of an inbox view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Another example would be having version 1.0 of a game updated to a limited trial of version 2.0 that encrypts your old save file on first being run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that standard mobile app management/mobile device management platforms do not necessarily anticipate the invention. That is, **remote deletion of an application and/or data is not sufficient to meet the claim limitations**. It's critical that the prior art disclose updating/modifying the app to a restricted functionality &quot;dummy&quot; version and for the updated app to itself delete/modify the existing data upon being run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System and Method for Remote Management of Applications Downloaded to a Personal Portable Wireless Appliance** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110145932 A1][0]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/975,145&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  [Appcentral, Inc.][1] / [Good Technologies][2] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for downloading and monitoring applications, programs and data structures to a personal portable appliance coupled to a server via a network configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;0. determine that the appliance is connected; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. generating a connection request from the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. authenticating the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. determining that one or more applications must be updated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. receiving at least one updated application comprising a dummy application such that when the application is invoked the data structures of the previous application are manipulated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. modifying the functionality of the application; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. offering the user one or more indications that the application is restricted or limited. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010. (Please note that although that this patent application is a continuation-in-part of earlier-filed parent cases, the claimed invention is not supported by the disclosure of the parent cases, rendering the actual filing date the effective filing date.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A diagram of the application management system&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NhpR6yB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [0]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110145932?dq=US20110145932&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.appcentral.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.good.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/173445073/US-20110145932-A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4787" RevisionGUID="2b5f87f4-5f8f-4a5f-ab4c-f0dbfbb894ea" CreationDate="2013-10-04T19:16:32.927" UserId="1767" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text="![Official USPTO Prior Art][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uvXcn.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This functionality has existed in the iPhone since launch. It was confirmed in a [wall street journal interview][1] with Steve Jobs on 11 Aug 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apple raised hackles in computer-privacy and security circles when an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; independent engineer discovered code inside the iPhone that suggested&#xD;&#xA;&gt; iPhones routinely check an Apple Web site that could, in theory&#xD;&#xA;&gt; trigger the removal of the undesirable software from the devices.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mr. Jobs confirmed such a capability exists, but argued that Apple&#xD;&#xA;&gt; needs it in case it inadvertently allows a malicious program -- one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that stole users' personal data, for example -- to be distributed to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; iPhones through the App Store. &quot;Hopefully we never have to pull that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lever, but we would be irresponsible not to have a lever like that to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pull,&quot; he says.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent also would need to address the existing patent from [Microsoft US 7516478 B2 &#xD;&#xA; Remote management of mobile devices][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121842341491928977.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7516478" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5167" RevisionGUID="2c594d61-4ef5-4a1d-b823-0ba228fa07bc" CreationDate="2013-10-04T20:29:41.537" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON delivering video to a user devices** - This application from [Google][6] seeks to patent the idea of...offering a list of registered devices to a user so a video can be transferred to the selected device and the user can watch it! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Transferring video (or other content) to selected devices from among a list of devices **previously registered** to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - reformatting or transcoding the content into a format that is compatible with the selected device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Delivering videos to user-selected device**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for delivering video to a user.  User selects among a list of registered devices.  Video is transferred to the selected device so user can view it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130227076 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/406,407&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/25/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving at a content delivery system, from a content provider system, a request, associated with a user accessing the content provider system, to transfer a video stored on a content source system to a viewing device of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying a plurality of viewing devices registered to the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. providing, to the user, a list of the user's registered viewing devices;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. receiving, from the user, a selection of one of the user's viewing devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. transferring the video from the content source system to the selected viewing device, whereby the user is able to subsequently view the content item on the selected viewing device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of content deliver, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving request to transfer a video from a content store to a device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying multiple viewing devices associated with user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing user a list of registered viewing devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. User selects a viewing device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Transferring video from content source to the selected viewing device so user can view it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming reformatting or transcoding the content to be compatible with selected device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Delivering user's video to a selected device from a list of registered devices from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/vtN9G.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130227076?dq=US20130227076A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130227076" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="bff4f42b-3dbf-405d-b12b-b0c3003f72b4" CreationDate="2013-10-04T20:29:55.053" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON using word stems to translate unknown words** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Machine translation of unknown words by finding known word stems and adding inflections! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/31/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using word stems to guess at translations of &quot;out of vocabulary words&quot; in machine translation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - the applicant is claiming preprocessing the morphological analysis by looking for transliterations, misspellings, substituting colloquial expressions if recognized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Resolving out-of-vocabulary words with word stem analysis**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for translating &quot;out-of-vocabulary&quot; words which involves looking for word stems, translating the word stem and inflecting the word stem in the foreign language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130197896 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/362,595&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/31/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/28/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method under control of one or more processors specifically configured with executable instructions, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving, by a server, a request from a computing device to translate one or more words from a source language to a target language;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining that a phrase table excludes a particular word of the one or more words but includes a remainder of the one or more words;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining whether a morphological analysis of the particular word identifies a stem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. in response to determining that the morphological analysis of the particular word identifies the stem, translating the stem from the source language to the target language to create a translated stem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. inflecting the translated stem based on the morphological analysis of the particular word to create a translated word corresponding to the particular word;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. translating the remainder of the one or more words from the source language to the target language to create a translated remainder;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. creating a translation of the one or more words based on the translated word and the translated remainder; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. sending the translation to the computing device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of machine translation, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving request to translate one or more words to target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining that the words are &quot;out-of-vocabulary&quot; (i.e. not in the lookup table)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining that the words contain word stems&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Translating the word stems into the target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Inflecting the word stems in the target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Translating the remaining words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Sending the translated words to a computer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/31/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming looking for transliterations, misspellings, substituting colloquial expressions if recognized&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Using word-stem analysis to translate unknown words from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Rz2r9.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130197896?dq=US20130197896A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130197896" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5171" RevisionGUID="4cb11eb6-2df2-4532-b621-15def9e8860a" CreationDate="2013-10-04T22:28:29.163" UserId="5755" Text="&quot;Towards the Use of Word Stems and Sufﬁxes for Statistical Machine Translation&quot; (2004) discusses this technique.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 &quot;Determining that the words are 'out-of-vocabulary'&quot; seems trivial, but they reference this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the system is able to produce correct or approximatively correct translations even if the full form has not been seen in the training corpus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 &quot;Determining that the words contain word stems&quot; seems covered by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We introduce two types of transformations to the verbs...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The full form of the&#xD;&#xA;verb is replaced with its base form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Therefore we reduce the words of this language [Serbian] into stems. We split the word into stem and suffix and then drop the suffix." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5172" RevisionGUID="60a348c9-ee76-4eef-a64d-659bcad6f480" CreationDate="2013-10-04T23:13:40.070" UserId="3076" Text="It looks likes an increasing mean rate of amount of memory allocated between garbage collections causes a raising of the threshold for garbage collection. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12855" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5172" RevisionGUID="6ea55ccf-c111-4919-8fc8-af970a47374c" CreationDate="2013-10-04T23:20:30.313" UserId="3076" Comment="added 307 characters in body" Text="To answer the question: It looks likes an increasing mean rate of amount of memory allocated between garbage collections causes a raising of the threshold for garbage collection. Some claims are more specific than others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding examples, an application has to enable someone skilled in the art to make and use the invention without undue experimentation and to not hide whatever way the inventor thinks is the best way of doing it at the time of filing.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12860" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5167" RevisionGUID="cffdddce-1d90-47cc-a804-205ff7d6b4fb" CreationDate="2013-10-05T04:58:08.943" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON delivering video to a user devices** - This application from [Google][6] seeks to patent the idea of...offering a list of registered devices to a user so a video can be transferred to the selected device and the user can watch it! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Transferring video (or other content) to selected devices from among a list of devices **previously registered** to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - reformatting or transcoding the content into a format that is compatible with the selected device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Delivering videos to user-selected device**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for delivering video to a user.  User selects among a list of registered devices.  Video is transferred to the selected device so user can view it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130227076 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/406,407&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/25/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving at a content delivery system, from a content provider system, a request, associated with a user accessing the content provider system, to transfer a video stored on a content source system to a viewing device of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying a plurality of viewing devices registered to the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. providing, to the user, a list of the user's registered viewing devices;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. receiving, from the user, a selection of one of the user's viewing devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. transferring the video from the content source system to the selected viewing device, whereby the user is able to subsequently view the content item on the selected viewing device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of content deliver, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving request to transfer a video from a content store to a device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying multiple viewing devices associated with user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing user a list of registered viewing devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. User selects a viewing device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Transferring video from content source to the selected viewing device so user can view it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming reformatting or transcoding the content to be compatible with selected device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Delivering user's video to a selected device from a list of registered devices from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/vtN9G.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130227076?dq=US20130227076A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130227076" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5174" RevisionGUID="a9832e42-8a1d-41c1-8f53-2f4640da4f53" CreationDate="2013-10-05T05:05:24.813" UserId="1912" Text="Go to the source: [the patent office][1] maintains a network of libraries that hold patents back to at least 1870.  They will be the best copy quality available. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/products/library/ &quot;Patent and Trademark Resource Centers&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5175" RevisionGUID="17777f40-0642-4cc1-b1b7-489e49c1d44a" CreationDate="2013-10-05T16:27:45.763" UserId="5921" Text="This is basically &quot;put a webserver on it and call it an invention&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sort of thing has been done on home routers and numerous other types of industrial equipment for many years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would one go about killing this application once and for all?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12863" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5175" RevisionGUID="17777f40-0642-4cc1-b1b7-489e49c1d44a" CreationDate="2013-10-05T16:27:45.763" UserId="5921" Text="Is application US20090055029 this fairly obvious?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12864" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5175" RevisionGUID="17777f40-0642-4cc1-b1b7-489e49c1d44a" CreationDate="2013-10-05T16:27:45.763" UserId="5921" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;examination&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12865" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5175" RevisionGUID="e22af81d-a7ce-4eea-bb9b-0d59e9bd699e" CreationDate="2013-10-05T18:08:18.277" UserId="3076" Comment="Tag added" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;examination&gt;&lt;us20090055029&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5176" RevisionGUID="7bd0a1c0-9bec-4e4c-b132-f1fa073ad6b4" CreationDate="2013-10-05T19:27:21.993" UserId="3076" Text="This application is currently awaiting appeal. It has been rejected and amended a few times and now the applicants have filed an 18 page appeal brief that has been responded to by an equally long examiner's response. There is a very long wait right now for a case to get before the board. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As they sit right now the claims are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner's reply lists these as the references cited against it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ward and Gibbs are cited as the most important references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/YZPyC.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/hiRyM.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5177" RevisionGUID="b61790fc-501b-4a93-9228-88ae717567c0" CreationDate="2013-10-05T20:21:52.637" UserId="5341" Text="I understand that this system should be used for households but every major food logistic system stores expiration date, location and quantity and notifies if products are due to expire. It uses microprocessors and data storage units. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Medical (Sep 2011): http://www.google.com/patents/WO2011115676A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;Peoplesoft (Oracle,2000): http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B28728_01/jded/acrobat/xeeaim.pdf&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5176" RevisionGUID="f9e98537-c100-4dd6-a623-85eb274c093c" CreationDate="2013-10-06T01:15:41.817" UserId="3076" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="This application is currently awaiting appeal. It has been rejected and amended/argued a few times and now the applicants have filed an 18 page appeal brief that has been responded to by an equally long examiner's response. There is a very long wait right now for a case to get before the board. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As they sit right now the claims are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner's reply lists these as the references cited against it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ward and Gibbs are cited as the most important references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/YZPyC.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/hiRyM.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5167" RevisionGUID="bff43266-b848-40f1-92df-e5244198c744" CreationDate="2013-10-06T04:06:18.717" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON delivering video to a user devices** - This application from [Google][6] seeks to patent the idea of...offering a list of registered devices to a user so a video can be transferred to the selected device and the user can watch it! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Transferring video (or other content) to selected devices from among a list of devices **previously registered** to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - reformatting or transcoding the content into a format that is compatible with the selected device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Delivering videos to user-selected device**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for delivering video to a user.  User selects among a list of registered devices.  Video is transferred to the selected device so user can view it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130227076 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/406,407&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/25/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving at a content delivery system, from a content provider system, a request, associated with a user accessing the content provider system, to transfer a video stored on a content source system to a viewing device of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying a plurality of viewing devices registered to the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. providing, to the user, a list of the user's registered viewing devices;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. receiving, from the user, a selection of one of the user's viewing devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. transferring the video from the content source system to the selected viewing device, whereby the user is able to subsequently view the content item on the selected viewing device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of content deliver, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving request to transfer a video from a content store to a device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying multiple viewing devices associated with user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing user a list of registered viewing devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. User selects a viewing device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Transferring video from content source to the selected viewing device so user can view it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming reformatting or transcoding the content to be compatible with selected device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Delivering user's video to a selected device from a list of registered devices from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/vtN9G.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130227076?dq=US20130227076A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130227076" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="829ab9d0-0f2c-485b-a60b-d448770e8281" CreationDate="2013-10-06T04:06:44.360" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON using word stems to translate unknown words** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Machine translation of unknown words by finding known word stems and adding inflections! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/31/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using word stems to guess at translations of &quot;out of vocabulary words&quot; in machine translation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - the applicant is claiming preprocessing the morphological analysis by looking for transliterations, misspellings, substituting colloquial expressions if recognized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Resolving out-of-vocabulary words with word stem analysis**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for translating &quot;out-of-vocabulary&quot; words which involves looking for word stems, translating the word stem and inflecting the word stem in the foreign language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130197896 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/362,595&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/31/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/28/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method under control of one or more processors specifically configured with executable instructions, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving, by a server, a request from a computing device to translate one or more words from a source language to a target language;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining that a phrase table excludes a particular word of the one or more words but includes a remainder of the one or more words;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining whether a morphological analysis of the particular word identifies a stem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. in response to determining that the morphological analysis of the particular word identifies the stem, translating the stem from the source language to the target language to create a translated stem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. inflecting the translated stem based on the morphological analysis of the particular word to create a translated word corresponding to the particular word;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. translating the remainder of the one or more words from the source language to the target language to create a translated remainder;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. creating a translation of the one or more words based on the translated word and the translated remainder; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. sending the translation to the computing device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of machine translation, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving request to translate one or more words to target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining that the words are &quot;out-of-vocabulary&quot; (i.e. not in the lookup table)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining that the words contain word stems&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Translating the word stems into the target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Inflecting the word stems in the target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Translating the remaining words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Sending the translated words to a computer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/31/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming looking for transliterations, misspellings, substituting colloquial expressions if recognized&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Using word-stem analysis to translate unknown words from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Rz2r9.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130197896?dq=US20130197896A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130197896" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5167" RevisionGUID="e49e16bd-abaa-4a2f-b716-e0f67c0e4148" CreationDate="2013-10-06T04:20:44.243" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON delivering video to a user devices** - This application from [Google][6] seeks to patent the idea of...offering a list of registered devices to a user so a video can be transferred to the selected device and the user can watch it! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Transferring video (or other content) to selected devices from among a list of devices **previously registered** to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - reformatting or transcoding the content into a format that is compatible with the selected device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Delivering videos to user-selected device**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for delivering video to a user.  User selects among a list of registered devices.  Video is transferred to the selected device so user can view it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130227076 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/406,407&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/25/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving at a content delivery system, from a content provider system, a request, associated with a user accessing the content provider system, to transfer a video stored on a content source system to a viewing device of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying a plurality of viewing devices registered to the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. providing, to the user, a list of the user's registered viewing devices;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. receiving, from the user, a selection of one of the user's viewing devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. transferring the video from the content source system to the selected viewing device, whereby the user is able to subsequently view the content item on the selected viewing device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of content deliver, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving request to transfer a video from a content store to a device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying multiple viewing devices associated with user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing user a list of registered viewing devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. User selects a viewing device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Transferring video from content source to the selected viewing device so user can view it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming reformatting or transcoding the content to be compatible with selected device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Delivering user's video to a selected device from a list of registered devices from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/vtN9G.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130227076?dq=US20130227076A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130227076" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5179" RevisionGUID="11b3c928-b05f-4749-9f44-d4a089ec188a" CreationDate="2013-10-06T23:05:34.257" UserId="5924" Text="I think I just earned myself some extra credit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication number	US8489994 B2&#xD;&#xA;Publication type	Grant&#xD;&#xA;Application number	US 10/580,800&#xD;&#xA;PCT number	PCT/AU2004/001673&#xD;&#xA;Publication date	16 Jul 2013&#xD;&#xA;Filing date	29 Nov 2004&#xD;&#xA;Priority date	27 Nov 2003&#xD;&#xA;Inventors	Christine Satchell&#xD;&#xA;Original Assignee	Smart Internet Technology Crc Pty Ltd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FIELD OF THE INVENTION&#xD;&#xA;The present invention relates generally to systems and methods for communicating. More specifically, the present invention has particular—but by no means exclusive—application to communicating via mobile communication devices such as a mobile telephone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION&#xD;&#xA;Whilst today's mobile telephone networks have undoubtedly enhanced our ability to communicate with each other, there are several aspects of their functionality that could be improved in order to further enhance our ability to efficiently communicate with each other. One aspect that could be improved is the ability for a user of a mobile telephone to readily determine what another mobile telephone user is doing without having to communicate directly (for instance, speak) with the user of the mobile telephone. For example, it would be advantageous if the user of a mobile telephone could program the telephone network (or their mobile telephone) to provide information that informs parties calling the mobile telephone that the user thereof is currently in a meeting without having to communicate directly with the user. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EXTRA CREDIT PART&#xD;&#xA;Claim 18 - &#xD;&#xA;A system for providing communication between mobile communication devices, the system comprising:a receiver configured to receive from a first communication device data indicative of a first status and a second status of a user of the first communication device, the first status being different from the second status.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5181" RevisionGUID="68c3acfc-64de-45c3-a545-7562ba4d80c7" CreationDate="2013-10-07T12:29:18.013" UserId="5071" Text="Amazon has always given you the choice of which compatible device to send stuff too. If I buy a movie, it can be sent to one of 2 computers or a tablet, if it's a book, I can choose to have it sent to either a physical kindle, or a kindle app I have installed on my phone, if it's an android app, I can choose to have it sent to my phone, or the development emulator I have set up. I first remember the choice of devices with Amazon Unbox, which according to [a press release](http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=97664&amp;p=irol-newsArticle&amp;ID=971365&amp;highlight=) was 2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe it met all 5 steps ca 2007." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5179" RevisionGUID="c2e1eebd-a9b3-4c7e-99ce-55cb7a2f26ed" CreationDate="2013-10-07T14:00:28.227" UserId="1259" Comment="formatting fixed" Text="I think I just earned myself some extra credit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Publication number	US8489994 B2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Publication type	Grant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Application number	US 10/580,800&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;PCT number	PCT/AU2004/001673&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Publication date	16 Jul 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Filing date	29 Nov 2004&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Priority date	27 Nov 2003&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Inventors	Christine Satchell&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Original Assignee	Smart Internet Technology Crc Pty Ltd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FIELD OF THE INVENTION&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The present invention relates generally to systems and methods for communicating. More specifically, the present invention has particular—but by no means exclusive—application to communicating via mobile communication devices such as a mobile telephone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst today's mobile telephone networks have undoubtedly enhanced our ability to communicate with each other, there are several aspects of their functionality that could be improved in order to further enhance our ability to efficiently communicate with each other. One aspect that could be improved is the ability for a user of a mobile telephone to readily determine what another mobile telephone user is doing without having to communicate directly (for instance, speak) with the user of the mobile telephone. For example, it would be advantageous if the user of a mobile telephone could program the telephone network (or their mobile telephone) to provide information that informs parties calling the mobile telephone that the user thereof is currently in a meeting without having to communicate directly with the user. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EXTRA CREDIT PART&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 18 - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A system for providing communication between mobile communication devices, the system comprising:a receiver configured to receive from a first communication device data indicative of a first status and a second status of a user of the first communication device, the first status being different from the second status.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5182" RevisionGUID="e3c9eeaa-9344-4c46-a646-a9e1d11126a5" CreationDate="2013-10-07T17:03:37.370" UserId="5353" Text="An overbroad patent application for **&quot;Tracking and Managing Group Expenditures&quot;**, originally filed by Google on March 30, 2012, was made public Oct 3, 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US Patent Application 0130262294][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And covered by [GeekWire][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art Date: Seeking Prior Art predating **March 30, 2012**.&#xD;&#xA; - Patent Number: **0130262294**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220130262294%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20130262294&amp;RS=DN/20130262294&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.geekwire.com/2013/joke-google-seeks-patent-splitting-restaurant-bills/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12888" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5182" RevisionGUID="e3c9eeaa-9344-4c46-a646-a9e1d11126a5" CreationDate="2013-10-07T17:03:37.370" UserId="5353" Text="Tracking and Managing Group Expenditures (Google) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12889" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5182" RevisionGUID="e3c9eeaa-9344-4c46-a646-a9e1d11126a5" CreationDate="2013-10-07T17:03:37.370" UserId="5353" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;google&gt;&lt;us0130262294&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5184" RevisionGUID="8adfb253-73a2-4d47-b0bf-085a0d65da68" CreationDate="2013-10-07T18:06:46.553" UserId="5932" Text="Got a few here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. List of three dated [January 1, 2012](http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/3-great-apps-easily-split-bill-people-iphone/).&#xD;&#xA;2. One dated [October 3, 2011](http://www.theverge.com/apple/2011/10/3/2466806/divided-bill-splitter-for-ios-hands-on).&#xD;&#xA;3. A list of several dated [August 29, 2008](http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/iphone-gems-all-30-tip-calculators-meal-splitters-reviewed/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also found [this patent](https://www.google.com/patents/US20120166332?pg=PA19&amp;dq=bill+splitting&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=ZvhSUp_rJoGriAKD1oDQBw&amp;ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA) for point-of-sale software (as I read it) to split a bill, filed December 22, 2010." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5182" RevisionGUID="cd382b6f-a7cd-4844-b0c9-f51d08b1eecf" CreationDate="2013-10-07T18:13:52.737" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body; edited tags" Text="An overbroad patent application for **&quot;Tracking and Managing Group Expenditures&quot;**, originally filed by Google on March 30, 2012, was made public Oct 3, 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US Patent Application 20130262294][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And covered by [GeekWire][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art Date: Seeking Prior Art predating **March 30, 2012**.&#xD;&#xA; - Patent Number: **20130262294**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220130262294%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20130262294&amp;RS=DN/20130262294&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.geekwire.com/2013/joke-google-seeks-patent-splitting-restaurant-bills/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12895" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5182" RevisionGUID="cd382b6f-a7cd-4844-b0c9-f51d08b1eecf" CreationDate="2013-10-07T18:13:52.737" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;google&gt;&lt;us20130262294&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4967" RevisionGUID="a8c90d05-5e41-4164-9104-08aca9268f28" CreationDate="2013-10-07T19:44:36.423" UserId="5697" Comment="New evidence" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](http://ahhha.brightidea.com/ct/ct_a_view_idea.bix?c=0C47ED00-A571-4110-B9CB-97EA1D221284&amp;idea_id=D3127FE1-BCA4-41ED-B11C-5E1736F02E9E) is an example of an invention website where a poster presents the idea of a &quot;Slide Release Buckle + Fire Starter&quot;, dated April 18, 2011. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application in question is &quot;Quick-Release Buckle with Fire Starting Components&quot;(Publication Number: [US20130189631 A1](https://www.google.com/patents/US20130189631?dq=fire+starter+buckle&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=x_IoUvb1M8Xd4APO-YCQDQ&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA)) by Michael John MOJICA claiming a priority to the U.S. Provisional Patent application submitted January 19, 2012, whereas claim 1 is as follows &quot;A quick-release buckle with fire starting components...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![www.hikepro.com also makes claims to having invented a buckle with a fire starter in 2007][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This image is a screen shot from a page on www.hikepro.net describing their history of creating a buckle with a fire starter. It dates the invention to 2007.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ZFtho.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/qO2mH.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4967" RevisionGUID="55714b9f-7e99-4533-9746-f62c04573cce" CreationDate="2013-10-07T19:51:16.440" UserId="5697" Comment="New evidence" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](http://ahhha.brightidea.com/ct/ct_a_view_idea.bix?c=0C47ED00-A571-4110-B9CB-97EA1D221284&amp;idea_id=D3127FE1-BCA4-41ED-B11C-5E1736F02E9E) is an example of an invention website where a poster presents the idea of a &quot;Slide Release Buckle + Fire Starter&quot;, dated April 18, 2011. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application in question is &quot;Quick-Release Buckle with Fire Starting Components&quot;(Publication Number: [US20130189631 A1](https://www.google.com/patents/US20130189631?dq=fire+starter+buckle&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=x_IoUvb1M8Xd4APO-YCQDQ&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA)) by Michael John MOJICA claiming a priority to the U.S. Provisional Patent application submitted January 19, 2012, whereas claim 1 is as follows &quot;A quick-release buckle with fire starting components...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![www.hikepro.com also makes claims to having invented a buckle with a fire starter in 2007][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The image above is a screen shot from a page on http://www.hikepro.net describing the history of creating a buckle with a fire starter. It dates the invention to 2007.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ZFtho.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/qO2mH.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12900" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5182" RevisionGUID="85a574e7-0b27-493a-886c-0c379c20cb5f" CreationDate="2013-10-07T21:04:44.040" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;google&gt;&lt;us20130262294&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5185" RevisionGUID="5f477abe-978b-4390-a043-e30b9084d539" CreationDate="2013-10-08T05:43:27.990" UserId="5639" Text="Short Reckonings.  www.shortreckonings.com.  I've been using them since at least summer 2010.  Google has basically described exactly the function that SR performs.  You go somewhere with a group of friends.  You pay for bills as they come up, and later you punch the bills into SR, and it figures out who owes what to who.  Even for uneven splits.  Google's late to the party.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SR's Twitter feed shows they've been around since May 2008: https://twitter.com/shortreckonings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SR was featured in yuiblog in 2009: http://www.yuiblog.com/blog/2009/07/31/implementation-focus-short-reckonings/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5186" RevisionGUID="640d1241-7ed2-45f7-81d1-e7b67d5ef310" CreationDate="2013-10-08T06:24:40.697" UserId="5639" Text="In the public transit industry, there were companies doing this back when I went to the APTA conference in 2008.  Trying to get some extra advertising revenue.  Substitute a &quot;bus&quot; as the mobile device, and this is more-or-less the same thing...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Article from 2011 about GPS-based audio advertisements in buses: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/07/06/mbta_again_considers_audio_ads_on_its_buses/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hey!  Here's an article from 2008 about location-based advertising on buses: http://www.psfk.com/2008/10/nyc-buses-get-location-based-advertising.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's another going back to 2006: http://adage.com/article/digital/london-bus-ads-change-locations/111429/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5187" RevisionGUID="7c30790b-5047-4096-aba3-9487500a145e" CreationDate="2013-10-08T09:54:34.000" UserId="5936" Text="For use in the Netherlands, this is the normal way to go out with friends and split the bill. And yes, we do it also on a date ;)&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_Dutch" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5188" RevisionGUID="c86cdf5b-70e7-4b44-8a42-1762759a74cc" CreationDate="2013-10-08T16:21:45.413" UserId="5940" Text="http://kittysplit.com does exactly what the patent describes and has been online as a webapp since janruary 2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5189" RevisionGUID="b6f0cec9-8a83-4982-a5bb-67450c9a704f" CreationDate="2013-10-08T18:01:43.743" UserId="5071" Text="I have been writing my own code to do this for several years. I think the first version that covered &quot;includes a plurality of payment transactions.&quot; was built in 45 minutes on 3 June 2010 (according to google's version history)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a screenshot about what it looked like on that day:&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first line is the information header,&#xD;&#xA;the second line is the current balance header&#xD;&#xA;Each subsequent line represents an item with amounts and running totals.&#xD;&#xA;The first four columns are user-editable. The columns with running totals are automatically calculated based on the data in the first four columns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the example below, &quot;McKay&quot; paid 600, and each of four individuals used said items split equally.&#xD;&#xA;Then Mark paid 497 dollars split equally between McKay and Mark.&#xD;&#xA;The system knows who is owed what (but it doesn't matter to who). Shyra needs to pay 150, Sean needs to pay 150, and McKay and Mark are each owed different amounts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is made available to everyone in the group. From any of their devices compatible with google's services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use code like this every time I go on a group trip, and because it took 45 minutes to write, I considered it obvious, and non-patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the end of the trip, it looked like this:&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, Sean and Shyra didn't end up going, and Mark and Steve took their place. Cash and Check lines indicate when one person paid another (as indicated) to clear out their balances after the trip was over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/PfEPW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/jR9a6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5182" RevisionGUID="0063fc58-8ba9-4236-9c01-51034ae8d1bd" CreationDate="2013-10-08T18:12:23.950" UserId="1767" Comment="added 2295 characters in body" Text="An overbroad patent application for **&quot;Tracking and Managing Group Expenditures&quot;**, originally filed by Google on March 30, 2012, was made public Oct 3, 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US Patent Application 20130262294][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And covered by [GeekWire][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art Date: Seeking Prior Art predating **March 30, 2012**.&#xD;&#xA; - **Patent Publication Number**: [20130262294 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA; - **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/3/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for tracking payment transactions of a group of users, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. establishing, by a computer system a group including at least three users; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. maintaining, by the computer system, a transaction record for the group including a plurality of payment transactions involving the users of the group, each of the plurality of payment transactions associated with a payment amount;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. responsive to receiving information on a payment transaction involving a user of the group and associated with a payment amount, determining, by the computer system, whether the payment transaction occurred within a range of dates provided for the group;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. responsive to determining the payment transaction occurred within the range o dates, updating, by a computer system, the transaction record for the group to include the payment transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. updating, by the computer system, a total balance maintained for the transaction record based on payment amounts associated with the payment transactions included in the transaction record; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. responsive to a settlement event, settling, by the computer system, the total balance by initiating fund transfers between the users of the group for the payment transactions occurring within the date range&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English the means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for tracking payment transactions of a group of users, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Establishing a group of at least three users; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Maintaining a transaction record for the group which includes at least one payment transaction among group members and a payment amount for that transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving information about a payment transaction involving the group that occurs within a **range of dates** provided for by the group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Updating, the transaction record for the group to include the payment transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Updating, a **total balance** maintained for the transaction record; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Settling the total balance by initiating fund transfers between the users of the group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 3/30/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220130262294%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20130262294&amp;RS=DN/20130262294&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.geekwire.com/2013/joke-google-seeks-patent-splitting-restaurant-bills/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5182" RevisionGUID="7f34dd39-5945-40e4-b096-3425bd5bc203" CreationDate="2013-10-08T18:23:46.420" UserId="1767" Comment="added 543 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;An overbroad patent application for **&quot;Tracking and Managing Group Expenditures&quot;**, originally filed by Google on March 30, 2012, was made public Oct 3, 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US Patent Application 20130262294][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And covered by [GeekWire][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art Date: Seeking Prior Art predating **March 30, 2012**.&#xD;&#xA; - **Patent Publication Number**: [US 20130262294 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA; - **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/3/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for tracking payment transactions of a group of users, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. establishing, by a computer system a group including at least three users; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. maintaining, by the computer system, a transaction record for the group including a plurality of payment transactions involving the users of the group, each of the plurality of payment transactions associated with a payment amount;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. responsive to receiving information on a payment transaction involving a user of the group and associated with a payment amount, determining, by the computer system, whether the payment transaction occurred within a range of dates provided for the group;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. responsive to determining the payment transaction occurred within the range o dates, updating, by a computer system, the transaction record for the group to include the payment transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. updating, by the computer system, a total balance maintained for the transaction record based on payment amounts associated with the payment transactions included in the transaction record; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. responsive to a settlement event, settling, by the computer system, the total balance by initiating fund transfers between the users of the group for the payment transactions occurring within the date range&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English the means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for tracking payment transactions of a group of users, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Establishing a group of at least three users; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Maintaining a transaction record for the group which includes at least one payment transaction among group members and a payment amount for that transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving information about a payment transaction involving the group that occurs within a **range of dates** provided for by the group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Updating, the transaction record for the group to include the payment transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Updating, a **total balance** maintained for the transaction record; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Settling the total balance by initiating fund transfers between the users of the group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 3/30/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Fig 4. A table illustrating balances of users of a group&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/fx5dI.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220130262294%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20130262294&amp;RS=DN/20130262294&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.geekwire.com/2013/joke-google-seeks-patent-splitting-restaurant-bills/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5167" RevisionGUID="fba34e79-ad3f-4360-8894-80cd5d9f0113" CreationDate="2013-10-08T20:44:13.663" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON delivering video to a user devices** - This application from [Google][6] seeks to patent the idea of...offering a list of registered devices to a user so a video can be transferred to the selected device and the user can watch it! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Transferring video (or other content) to selected devices from among a list of devices **previously registered** to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - reformatting or transcoding the content into a format that is compatible with the selected device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Delivering videos to user-selected device**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for delivering video to a user.  User selects among a list of registered devices.  Video is transferred to the selected device so user can view it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130227076 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/406,407&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/25/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving at a content delivery system, from a content provider system, a request, associated with a user accessing the content provider system, to transfer a video stored on a content source system to a viewing device of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying a plurality of viewing devices registered to the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. providing, to the user, a list of the user's registered viewing devices;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. receiving, from the user, a selection of one of the user's viewing devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. transferring the video from the content source system to the selected viewing device, whereby the user is able to subsequently view the content item on the selected viewing device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of content deliver, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving request to transfer a video from a content store to a device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying multiple viewing devices associated with user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing user a list of registered viewing devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. User selects a viewing device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Transferring video from content source to the selected viewing device so user can view it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming reformatting or transcoding the content to be compatible with selected device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Delivering user's video to a selected device from a list of registered devices from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/vtN9G.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130227076?dq=US20130227076A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130227076" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5182" RevisionGUID="b20d4139-8644-4eec-afca-0efa49b4e35e" CreationDate="2013-10-08T20:45:10.047" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="An overbroad patent application for **&quot;Tracking and Managing Group Expenditures&quot;**, originally filed by Google on March 30, 2012, was made public Oct 3, 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US Patent Application 20130262294][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And covered by [GeekWire][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art Date: Seeking Prior Art predating **March 30, 2012**.&#xD;&#xA; - **Patent Publication Number**: [US 20130262294 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA; - **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/3/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for tracking payment transactions of a group of users, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. establishing, by a computer system a group including at least three users; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. maintaining, by the computer system, a transaction record for the group including a plurality of payment transactions involving the users of the group, each of the plurality of payment transactions associated with a payment amount;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. responsive to receiving information on a payment transaction involving a user of the group and associated with a payment amount, determining, by the computer system, whether the payment transaction occurred within a range of dates provided for the group;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. responsive to determining the payment transaction occurred within the range o dates, updating, by a computer system, the transaction record for the group to include the payment transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. updating, by the computer system, a total balance maintained for the transaction record based on payment amounts associated with the payment transactions included in the transaction record; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. responsive to a settlement event, settling, by the computer system, the total balance by initiating fund transfers between the users of the group for the payment transactions occurring within the date range&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English the means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for tracking payment transactions of a group of users, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Establishing a group of at least three users; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Maintaining a transaction record for the group which includes at least one payment transaction among group members and a payment amount for that transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving information about a payment transaction involving the group that occurs within a **range of dates** provided for by the group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Updating the transaction record for the group to include the payment transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Updating a **total balance** maintained for the transaction record; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Settling the total balance by initiating fund transfers between the users of the group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 3/30/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Fig 4. A table illustrating balances of users of a group&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/fx5dI.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220130262294%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20130262294&amp;RS=DN/20130262294&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.geekwire.com/2013/joke-google-seeks-patent-splitting-restaurant-bills/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12910" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5182" RevisionGUID="679d666b-02d5-4aa1-95a0-513386638169" CreationDate="2013-10-08T22:12:25.680" UserId="1767" Comment="added 299 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON** tracking and managing group expenditures&quot;* - This application from Google seeks to patent the idea of...dividing expenses among members of a group! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally filed by Google on March 30, 2012, made public Oct 3, 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US Patent Application 20130262294][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And covered by [GeekWire][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art Date: Seeking Prior Art predating **March 30, 2012**.&#xD;&#xA; - **Patent Publication Number**: [US 20130262294 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA; - **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/3/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for tracking payment transactions of a group of users, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. establishing, by a computer system a group including at least three users; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. maintaining, by the computer system, a transaction record for the group including a plurality of payment transactions involving the users of the group, each of the plurality of payment transactions associated with a payment amount;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. responsive to receiving information on a payment transaction involving a user of the group and associated with a payment amount, determining, by the computer system, whether the payment transaction occurred within a range of dates provided for the group;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. responsive to determining the payment transaction occurred within the range o dates, updating, by a computer system, the transaction record for the group to include the payment transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. updating, by the computer system, a total balance maintained for the transaction record based on payment amounts associated with the payment transactions included in the transaction record; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. responsive to a settlement event, settling, by the computer system, the total balance by initiating fund transfers between the users of the group for the payment transactions occurring within the date range&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English the means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for tracking payment transactions of a group of users, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Establishing a group of at least three users; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Maintaining a transaction record for the group which includes at least one payment transaction among group members and a payment amount for that transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving information about a payment transaction involving the group that occurs within a **range of dates** provided for by the group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Updating the transaction record for the group to include the payment transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Updating a **total balance** maintained for the transaction record; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Settling the total balance by initiating fund transfers between the users of the group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 3/30/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Fig 4. A table illustrating balances of users of a group&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/fx5dI.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220130262294%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20130262294&amp;RS=DN/20130262294&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.geekwire.com/2013/joke-google-seeks-patent-splitting-restaurant-bills/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5190" RevisionGUID="1d01e4dd-c1c6-4ce4-af37-adfe40513b16" CreationDate="2013-10-08T23:45:05.540" UserId="5942" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Oxford University: The Computer Journal&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Article:  HYPERTEXT - Moving Towards Large Volumes&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Published: Volume 32 Issue 6 December &lt;b&gt;1989&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Author: I. RITCHIE&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;url:  http://comjnl.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/6.toc&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Excerpts:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In &lt;b&gt;1945&lt;/b&gt; Bush wrote an article, called As we may Think, which was&#xD;&#xA;published in the magazine Atlantic Monthly  in which he&#xD;&#xA;argued that: 'Our methods of transmitting and reviewing&#xD;&#xA;the results of research are generations old and by now are&#xD;&#xA;totally inadequate in their purposes'. Bush proposed a&#xD;&#xA;machine called 'the Memex', which he described as 'a&#xD;&#xA;device in which an individual stores his books, records&#xD;&#xA;and &lt;b&gt;***communications***&lt;/b&gt;, and which is mechanised so that it&#xD;&#xA;may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility'.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Our ineptitude in getting at the record is largely caused by the&#xD;&#xA;artificiality of systems. When data of any sort are placed in&#xD;&#xA;storage, they are filed alphabetically or numerically, and&#xD;&#xA;information is found (when it is) by tracing it down from&#xD;&#xA;subclass to subclass. It can only be in one place, unless&#xD;&#xA;duplicates are used; one has to have rules as to which path will&#xD;&#xA;locate it, and the rules are cumbersome. Having found one&#xD;&#xA;item, moreover, one has to emerge from the system and re-enter&#xD;&#xA;on a new path.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The Human mind does not work that way. It operates by&#xD;&#xA;association. With one item in its grasp, it snaps instantly to the&#xD;&#xA;next that is suggested by the association of thoughts, in&#xD;&#xA;accordance with some intricate web of trails carried by the cells&#xD;&#xA;of the brain.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;... &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It is clear that these are only the first generation of&#xD;&#xA;hypertext products and that many others will be launched&#xD;&#xA;in the coming few years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the most active areas of development of&#xD;&#xA;hypertext will be to build in the capabilities to manage&#xD;&#xA;other information sources including Video and Audio&#xD;&#xA;material; the resulting technology has already been&#xD;&#xA;called Hypermedia.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It is interesting to note that Bush's Memex included&#xD;&#xA;provision for voice storage and recovery and that&#xD;&#xA;Engelbart's NLS project experimented with integrated&#xD;&#xA;video images.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Both the GUIDE and HyperCard products are now&#xD;&#xA;being used actively to create applications which will run&#xD;&#xA;Video and Audio sequences and can call on other&#xD;&#xA;software packages for functions such as animation,&#xD;&#xA;database access and expert system diagnosis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12912" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5190" RevisionGUID="77d9016a-d0ce-4760-8086-96568fcf7c2b" CreationDate="2013-10-08T23:45:05.540" UserId="5942" />
  <row Id="12913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5167" RevisionGUID="116a3d69-35a6-49fe-8bd1-25923aaf4f79" CreationDate="2013-10-09T00:32:41.647" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON delivering video to a user devices** - This application from [Google][6] seeks to patent the idea of...offering a list of registered devices to a user so a video can be transferred to the selected device and the user can watch it! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Transferring video (or other content) to selected devices from among a list of devices **previously registered** to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - reformatting or transcoding the content into a format that is compatible with the selected device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Delivering videos to user-selected device**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for delivering video to a user.  User selects among a list of registered devices.  Video is transferred to the selected device so user can view it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130227076 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/406,407&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/25/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving at a content delivery system, from a content provider system, a request, associated with a user accessing the content provider system, to transfer a video stored on a content source system to a viewing device of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying a plurality of viewing devices registered to the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. providing, to the user, a list of the user's registered viewing devices;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. receiving, from the user, a selection of one of the user's viewing devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. transferring the video from the content source system to the selected viewing device, whereby the user is able to subsequently view the content item on the selected viewing device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of content deliver, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving request to transfer a video from a content store to a device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying multiple viewing devices associated with user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing user a list of registered viewing devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. User selects a viewing device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Transferring video from content source to the selected viewing device so user can view it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming reformatting or transcoding the content to be compatible with selected device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Delivering user's video to a selected device from a list of registered devices from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/vtN9G.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130227076?dq=US20130227076A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130227076" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5190" RevisionGUID="9a671105-c272-44d9-86ba-1c50e65f1caa" CreationDate="2013-10-09T00:34:04.647" UserId="5942" Comment="added info to show that article also covers network access in addition to the fundamental concepts of doc storage and retrival" Text="Oxford University: The Computer Journal&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Article:  HYPERTEXT - Moving Towards Large Volumes&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Published: Volume 32 Issue 6 December &lt;b&gt;1989&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Author: I. RITCHIE&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;url:  http://comjnl.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/6.toc&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Excerpts:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In &lt;b&gt;1945&lt;/b&gt; Bush wrote an article, called As we may Think, which was&#xD;&#xA;published in the magazine Atlantic Monthly  in which he&#xD;&#xA;argued that: 'Our methods of transmitting and reviewing&#xD;&#xA;the results of research are generations old and by now are&#xD;&#xA;totally inadequate in their purposes'. Bush proposed a&#xD;&#xA;machine called 'the Memex', which he described as 'a&#xD;&#xA;device in which an individual stores his books, records&#xD;&#xA;and &lt;b&gt;***communications***&lt;/b&gt;, and which is mechanised so that it&#xD;&#xA;may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility'.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Our ineptitude in getting at the record is largely caused by the&#xD;&#xA;artificiality of systems. When data of any sort are placed in&#xD;&#xA;storage, they are filed alphabetically or numerically, and&#xD;&#xA;information is found (when it is) by tracing it down from&#xD;&#xA;subclass to subclass. It can only be in one place, unless&#xD;&#xA;duplicates are used; one has to have rules as to which path will&#xD;&#xA;locate it, and the rules are cumbersome. Having found one&#xD;&#xA;item, moreover, one has to emerge from the system and re-enter&#xD;&#xA;on a new path.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The Human mind does not work that way. It operates by&#xD;&#xA;association. With one item in its grasp, it snaps instantly to the&#xD;&#xA;next that is suggested by the association of thoughts, in&#xD;&#xA;accordance with some intricate web of trails carried by the cells&#xD;&#xA;of the brain.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Bush's foresight from the 1940s makes dramatic&#xD;&#xA;reading in the 1980s when so much of his prediction is&#xD;&#xA;being delivered.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The most effective work in developing and implementing &#xD;&#xA;the concepts described by Bush during the 1950s and &#xD;&#xA;1960s was led at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) by &#xD;&#xA;Doug Engelbart. The NLS (oN Line System), developed &#xD;&#xA;by the Augmented Human Intellect Research Centre at &#xD;&#xA;SRI, allowed users to create electronic documents based &#xD;&#xA;on connected concepts, to build hierarchies of infor- &#xD;&#xA;mation and to collaborate with others on the joint &#xD;&#xA;development of documentation. This work was also &#xD;&#xA;responsible for the development of many of the features &#xD;&#xA;which we now recognise as standard in modern personal &#xD;&#xA;computer systems: notably text processing and electronic &#xD;&#xA;mail &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;... &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It is clear that these are only the first generation of&#xD;&#xA;hypertext products and that many others will be launched&#xD;&#xA;in the coming few years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the most active areas of development of&#xD;&#xA;hypertext will be to build in the capabilities to manage&#xD;&#xA;other information sources including Video and Audio&#xD;&#xA;material; the resulting technology has already been&#xD;&#xA;called Hypermedia.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It is interesting to note that Bush's Memex included&#xD;&#xA;provision for voice storage and recovery and that&#xD;&#xA;Engelbart's NLS project experimented with integrated&#xD;&#xA;video images.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Both the GUIDE and HyperCard products are now&#xD;&#xA;being used actively to create applications which will run&#xD;&#xA;Video and Audio sequences and can call on other&#xD;&#xA;software packages for functions such as animation,&#xD;&#xA;database access and expert system diagnosis.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;COMMERCIAL HYPERTEXT&#xD;&#xA;Adoption of hypertext technology outside of the research&#xD;&#xA;laboratory has been quite limited until relatively recently.&#xD;&#xA;In the last two years, however, there has been an explosive&#xD;&#xA;growth in commercial hypertext projects.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;The IRIS team are now evaluating&#xD;&#xA;enhancements of the web concept, which they call filters,&#xD;&#xA;which allow the user to display hypertext links by&#xD;&#xA;characteristics such as author, date, authorisation level&#xD;&#xA;etc.&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5167" RevisionGUID="0df6dab4-3427-4dcd-8fe5-0a6a9b819f81" CreationDate="2013-10-09T01:30:16.197" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON delivering video to a user devices** - This application from [Google][6] seeks to patent the idea of...offering a list of registered devices to a user so a video can be transferred to the selected device and the user can watch it! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Transferring video (or other content) to selected devices from among a list of devices **previously registered** to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - reformatting or transcoding the content into a format that is compatible with the selected device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Delivering videos to user-selected device**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for delivering video to a user.  User selects among a list of registered devices.  Video is transferred to the selected device so user can view it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130227076 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/406,407&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/25/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving at a content delivery system, from a content provider system, a request, associated with a user accessing the content provider system, to transfer a video stored on a content source system to a viewing device of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying a plurality of viewing devices registered to the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. providing, to the user, a list of the user's registered viewing devices;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. receiving, from the user, a selection of one of the user's viewing devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. transferring the video from the content source system to the selected viewing device, whereby the user is able to subsequently view the content item on the selected viewing device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of content deliver, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving request to transfer a video from a content store to a device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying multiple viewing devices associated with user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing user a list of registered viewing devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. User selects a viewing device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Transferring video from content source to the selected viewing device so user can view it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming reformatting or transcoding the content to be compatible with selected device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Delivering user's video to a selected device from a list of registered devices from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/vtN9G.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130227076?dq=US20130227076A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130227076" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4854" RevisionGUID="7372539d-c07d-41a0-8b59-7d6d42e3d780" CreationDate="2013-10-09T01:30:46.793" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Away/Available/Busy status** - This application from [Apple][6] seeks to patent the idea of...displaying a status to contacts that would indicate whether you’re available to field a call or not! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/13/2007** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sharing Away/Available/Busy status on a mobile phone along with your location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO takes into account user preferences, determining what information it can share as set by a user, or filtering inbound calls against a phone’s contact list to help preserve privacy before sharing any information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Away/Available/Busy status on a mobile phone**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for displaying contact information about a first phone to user of a second phone.  Contact information of user includes Away/Available/Busy status for the user of the first phone and his location.  Main idea is letting user set and forget preferences around just how much status they’re willing to share and with who, and letting the automated system do the rest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130177141 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/785,294&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Apple&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/13/2007&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/7/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a command at an operating system of a first mobile phone for displaying contact information of a remote user having a mobile phone number of a second mobile phone;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. in response to the command, transmitting a request to a remote server from the first mobile phone over a cellular network requesting an operating status of the second mobile phone; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving the operating status of the second mobile phone from the remote server over the cellular network; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. displaying the operating status of the second mobile phone on a display of the first mobile phone as a part of contact information of the remote user associated with the second mobile phone, the operating status including current locality of the second mobile phone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying contact information of a remote user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. User of first phone asks for contact information of user of second phone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. First phone asks remote server for contact information of user of second phone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. First phone receives contact information over a cellular network&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. First phone displays status of second phone (e.g. Away/Available/Busy) and location of second user as part of contact information for the second user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/13/2007&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using user preferences and privacy settings to show Away/Available/Busy selectively&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Away/Available/Busy status on a mobile phone from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Hjkucu1.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220130217364%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20130217364&amp;RS=DN/20130217364&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.apple.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5193" RevisionGUID="5913fe09-f686-479f-a1cd-3bf58283ac1e" CreationDate="2013-10-09T03:38:57.237" UserId="5942" Text="Back in about 1992 I was lead developer on a project that did exactly this.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Field supervisors had HP Pocket computers.  The pocket computer was very similar to todays cell phones, it ran programs in other words APPS.  It had a keyboard and display.  It did not support voice calls, instead it used a modem to connect to our server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Twice a day (morning and evening) they would connect by modem to our server.  We would send both data and software updates to their pocket computer and it would send us data that comprised the status info for the things that they were supervising.  This was all automated under the control of our software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our concern was with theft rather than with firing, but it was the same result.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We actually had two different self destruct mechanisms.  One was a deadman timer in case they did not connect within a certain number of days for an update.  The other was a program that we could download to their computer as part of the daily software update, which would cause the erasure of everything on their computer.  We could queue this for download using our control system UI.  We called it the Bonzai program.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: we did not have to send out a daily software update (only when there were changes), but the pocket computer would check every time that it connected to see if there was an update available.  We had a system in which we queued up the files to be downloaded.  Some of which were executable and others that were just data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is any of this NON-OBVIOUS??  eh gad these patents are krap!!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would take some digging, but I may still have a copy of that program around somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5193" RevisionGUID="ff37c491-7537-47a0-9008-2e0cf5efc6ae" CreationDate="2013-10-09T03:49:55.950" UserId="5942" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="Back in about 1992 I was lead developer on a project that did exactly this.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Field supervisors had HP Pocket computers.  The pocket computer was very similar to todays cell phones, it ran programs in other words APPS.  It had a keyboard and display.  It did not support voice calls, instead it used a modem to connect to our server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Twice a day (morning and evening) they would connect by modem to our server.  We would send both data and software updates to their pocket computer and it would send us data that comprised the status info for the things that they were supervising.  This was all automated under the control of our software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our concern was with theft rather than with firing, but it was the same result.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We actually had two different self destruct mechanisms.  One was a deadman timer in case they did not connect within a certain number of days for an update.  The other was a program that we could download to their computer as part of the daily software update, which would cause the erasure of everything on their computer.  We could queue this for download using our control system UI.  We called it the Bonzai program, it was downloaded as a replacment for the original program, when run it wiped out all data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: we did not have to send out a daily software update (only when there were changes), but the pocket computer would check every time that it connected to see if there was an update available.  We had a system in which we queued up the files to be downloaded.  Some of which were executable and others that were just data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is any of this NON-OBVIOUS??  eh gad these patents are krap!!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would take some digging, but I may still have a copy of that program around somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5194" RevisionGUID="014d4359-6e0b-4e24-98d2-cb21bdb3d2d6" CreationDate="2013-10-09T04:09:04.263" UserId="5942" Text="I think the IMAP protocol covers most of these points.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;paraphrasing the docs:  IMAP is much more than an email protocol it is also a file storage and syncing/retrieval protocol." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5188" RevisionGUID="8ea747a5-5a2e-4f88-b44c-7536b3bf39ee" CreationDate="2013-10-09T13:50:23.447" UserId="1259" Comment="spelling" Text="http://kittysplit.com does exactly what the patent describes and has been online as a webapp since January 2012." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5195" RevisionGUID="327805b4-7342-4a58-b9dd-6e7091752c67" CreationDate="2013-10-09T14:08:57.103" UserId="5939" Text="I cover all the pieces of Claim 1, as well as some of the other claims. You might want to make sure to refer to the [amended version](https://s3.amazonaws.com/SplitwiseBlogJB/13436491.pdf), which I just linked to, and you can also find on &quot;Public Pair&quot; of the USPTO by searching this publication number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# CLAIM 1: #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bullets 1&amp;2: Establish at least a group of three users sharing a total balance in a group, with a list of transactions and payments, and have the list of transactions and total balance list be reactive to payment transactions added by group members. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk, Jan 2006: [TechCrunch](http://techcrunch.com/2006/01/20/billmonk-social-money/)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;SplitTheRent, June 2011: [New York Times](http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/a-new-tool-splittherent-com-for-roommates)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Conmigo, Sept 2011: [Lifehacker](http://lifehacker.com/5843961/conmigo-helps-you-split-your-expenses-with-your-roommates)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;PayDivvy, May 2011: [VentureBeat](http://venturebeat.com/2011/05/11/no-more-deadbeat-friends-paydivvy-launches-social-bill-service/)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and many others (SplitMyBill.ie, WeSplit.it, Wie Betaalt Wat, KittySplit, etc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Splitwise Screenshot from NYT](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/04/27/business/splittherentscreenshot/splittherentscreenshot-blog480.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bullets 4&amp;5: All of the previous software update total balances and react to payment transactions, but here are some clean examples in screenshot form:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, June 2011: [Splitwise Blog](http://blog.splitwise.com/2011/06/06/upcoming-redesign/)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Conmigo, Sept 2011: [Lifehacker](http://lifehacker.com/5843961/conmigo-helps-you-split-your-expenses-with-your-roommates)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![Conmingo](http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18ixc8llklhzajpg/original.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bullet 6: Fund transfer was done by Billmonk/Obopay and PayDivvy prior to 2012.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk, Jan 2007: [TechCrunch](http://techcrunch.com/2007/01/30/minimerger-obopay-aquires-billmonk/) describes online settlement as the point of the acquisition.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk, Jan 2007: [Billmonk Blog showing online settlement](http://billmonk.wordpress.com/2007/01/30/billmonk-is-now-an-obopay-company-settle-up-online/)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;PayDivvy, May 2011: [VentureBeat](http://venturebeat.com/2011/05/11/no-more-deadbeat-friends-paydivvy-launches-social-bill-service/) Describes bank settlement.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![Billmonk / Obopay](http://billmonk.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/obopay_settleup.png?w=450) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bullet 3: Using a range of dates was used for recurring expenses in SplitMyBill.ie, and done in a couple ways at Splitwise prior to 2012.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;SplitMyBill.ie, Apr 2009: [Wayback Machine / SplitMyBill.ie Tour](http://web.archive.org/web/20090403110658/http://www.splitmybill.ie/tour.html)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, Mar 5th 2012: [Splitwise Blog](http://blog.splitwise.com/2012/03/05/the-new-monthly-summary-and-google-charts/). Splitwise uses a date range to sort balances into monthly totals within each group.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, Dec 2011: [Forbes](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbittner/2011/12/07/do-you-vacation-like-a-capitalist-or-a-socialist/) / [Splitwise Blog](http://blog.splitwise.com/2011/12/07/announcing-the-travel-calculator/). Splitwise publishes a calculator that uses a range of dates to tell how a given expense should be divided among which members of a group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![SplitMyBill.ie](http://splitmybill.ie/images/loan.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Travel calculator link](http://www.allmyfaves.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/splitwise-split-bills-with-friends-and-roommates.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Other Claims#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the patent [as amended](https://s3.amazonaws.com/SplitwiseBlogJB/13436491.pdf)*, we should also look at Claims 2, 6, and 10. Claims 11-25 are basically variations on a theme, with the phrases &quot;computer software&quot; exchanged with &quot;method&quot; or &quot;system&quot; or the idea of &quot;additional users&quot; added to the other claims. The idea of an &quot;additional user&quot; (doing something as part of an invitation, does this mean?) being able to do things was a feature in BillMonk, SplitMyBill.ie, Splitwise, and others, and combining that with other features is probably fairly obvious to someone skilled in the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## CLAIM 2: Individual Balances&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 2 brings in the idea of &quot;individual balances&quot;, as distinct from &quot;total balances,&quot; which could mean non-total balances as shown in Figure 4. But Billmonk pioneered the idea that you could track both individual and total balances within the group and reduce it to a total balance at the users discretion.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk, Aug 2007: [Billmonk Blog](http://billmonk.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/debt-shuffling/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Individual Debts](http://billmonk.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/before1.png?w=450)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##CLAIM 6-9&lt;br&gt;Claim 1 + &quot;inquiring from the additional user whether to add the additional payment transaction to the record&quot;, &quot;responsive to a user device&quot;, and &quot;electronic system of a financial account&quot;.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This was all done by PayDivvy. In the screenshot below, you can see the connections to real bank accounts, from a user device (a laptop), with a permission based system for new bills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PayDivvy, Sept 2011: [Finovate](http://www.finovate.com/spring11vid/paydivvy.html)/[ApartmentTherapy](http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/tech-to-help-keep-the-peace-wi-156378). See the &quot;Pay or Decline&quot; options in the screenshot. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![PayDivvy](http://i-cdn.apartmenttherapy.com/uimages/unplggd/092011_roomietechpeace3.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#CLAIM 10: &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 + &quot;settlement event is at least one of the following: an end date being reached, a user of the group requested settlement, and a total balance reaching a set amount.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User requesting settlement:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Wie Betaalt Wat, Aug 2010: [FrankWatching](http://www.frankwatching.com/gespot/wiebetaaltwat-nl-verreken-je-gezamenlijke-uitgaven/) (in Dutch)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, Oct 2011: [New York Times]()/[Splitise Blog](http://splitwise.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/screen-shot-2011-10-30-at-9-39-20-pm.png?w=640&amp;h=511) (based on months)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specific time:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;PayDivvy, Sept 2011: [Finovate](http://www.finovate.com/spring11vid/paydivvy.html) (due dates for each divvy)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, Oct 2011: [Splitise Blog](http://splitwise.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/screen-shot-2011-10-30-at-9-39-20-pm.png?w=640&amp;h=511) Monthly balances with settlement alarms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Balance-based: May be the only claim in the patent that is not built in a pre-existing product, though someone may have described it in a press article or interview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Splitwise with reminders and dates](http://splitwise.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/screen-shot-2011-10-30-at-9-39-20-pm.png?w=640&amp;h=511)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# FIGURE 4&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk was the first to widely publicize the simplification of a set of &quot;X owes Y&quot; into its simplest form, but the feature is also in Splitwise, Billsup, and many other apps. Look at this image from the [Billmonk Blog](http://billmonk.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/debt-shuffling/) in August 2007 and compare it to the official Figure 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Billmonk](http://billmonk.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/debtsettlescreenshot.png?w=450)&#xD;&#xA;![Official Figure 4](http://i.stack.imgur.com/fx5dI.png)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5196" RevisionGUID="f9f890a6-6850-4c4c-af71-0baa9e5a8ea9" CreationDate="2013-10-09T17:19:00.303" UserId="5942" Text="This is really quite bogus.  From a technical standpoint there is no difference between a physical location and a website.  The information is being put into the exact same database via an electronic connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They might just as well be trying to patent using a computer to access a database to store customer history.  There is no material difference between the access from the physical store's computer and the access from internet accessible store's computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5197" RevisionGUID="ba05ed07-1f6a-49f1-b7f7-6a8942685724" CreationDate="2013-10-09T17:32:24.187" UserId="5942" Text="The proposed Memex system does most if not all of this, it was defined back in 1945 !!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Experimental implementations of the concept -- such as NLS -- were created in the 1950's and 60's. Extensive implementations of various kinds where created starting in the 80's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oxford University: The Computer Journal&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Article:  HYPERTEXT - Moving Towards Large Volumes&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Published Volume 32 Issue 6 December &lt;b&gt;1989&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Author: I. RITCHIE&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;url:  http://comjnl.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/6.toc&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5198" RevisionGUID="921d1826-7074-4770-a517-67392ea70b83" CreationDate="2013-10-09T17:55:04.683" UserId="5952" Text="Seeking prior art for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;100. A remotely updatable database system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) a central server and at least one subscriber system, said central server including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i) a user interface for communicating with said at least one subscriber system to receive user input from a user at said at least one subscriber system;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ii) a database of information records;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iii) a database manager in communication with said user interface, for controlling said database such that each information record is associated with at least one user, and for amending said information records in response to user input received at said user interface from said at least one subscriber system; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iv) a message server in communication with said database manager for serving a message including at least one record received from said database manager to said at least one user associated with said information record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) said subscriber system including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i) a message receiver for receiving a message from said message server, said message including at least one file from said database;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ii) transfer memory for storing said at least one file;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iii) an output device for presenting information to a user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iv) a processor circuit in communication with said message receiver, said transfer memory and said output device, and processor memory programmed with processor-readable codes for directing said processor to direct said output device to present to the user a list of files stored in said local memory, the files included in said list having at least one predefined characteristic; and to direct said output device to present to the user at least some of the contents of at least one file having said at least one predefined characteristic.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12933" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5198" RevisionGUID="921d1826-7074-4770-a517-67392ea70b83" CreationDate="2013-10-09T17:55:04.683" UserId="5952" Text="Prior art request for US 6529908 web-updated database with record distribution by email" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12934" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5198" RevisionGUID="921d1826-7074-4770-a517-67392ea70b83" CreationDate="2013-10-09T17:55:04.683" UserId="5952" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;data-processing-database&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12935" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5198" RevisionGUID="4e1948d9-6b33-4959-9f6a-c51366ec7130" CreationDate="2013-10-09T18:12:12.337" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;data-processing-database&gt;&lt;us6529908&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5199" RevisionGUID="4e18b4f2-8005-4a9d-9c63-28f300b35616" CreationDate="2013-10-09T18:15:01.993" UserId="5942" Text="Boeing has an in-house system that allows for collaborative shopping.  People add their supply requests to a shopping cart.  a manager approves the list. someone else then reviews the list and forwards it to the vendors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, a shopping cart list is created, multiple people review that list and can modify it. a B2B connection then places the order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have had this system for many years. I'm sure that many companies have similar systems." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5198" RevisionGUID="f085d7df-376a-4bc3-a22c-45c51960d93e" CreationDate="2013-10-09T18:22:02.480" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="Seeking prior art for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Patent Number**: [US 6,529,908][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Netspan Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/28/1998&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/28/1998** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Remotely updatable database system with a remote user interface&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 100** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A remotely updatable database system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a) a central server and at least one subscriber system, said central server including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - i) a user interface for communicating with said at least one subscriber system to receive user input from a user at said at least one subscriber system;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ii) a database of information records;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - iii) a database manager in communication with said user interface, for controlling said database such that each information record is associated with at least one user, and for amending said information records in response to user input received at said user interface from said at least one subscriber system; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - iv) a message server in communication with said database manager for serving a message including at least one record received from said database manager to said at least one user associated with said information record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b) said subscriber system including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - i) a message receiver for receiving a message from said message server, said message including at least one file from said database;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ii) transfer memory for storing said at least one file;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - iii) an output device for presenting information to a user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - iv) a processor circuit in communication with said message receiver, said transfer memory and said output device, and processor memory programmed with processor-readable codes for directing said processor to direct said output device to present to the user a list of files stored in said local memory, the files included in said list having at least one predefined characteristic; and to direct said output device to present to the user at least some of the contents of at least one file having said at least one predefined characteristic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us6529908&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US6529908&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5200" RevisionGUID="9c685596-02f6-4f39-a681-68d48ee8bd8e" CreationDate="2013-10-09T18:24:08.477" UserId="5942" Text="the VoIP specification covers most if not all of these claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5198" RevisionGUID="d10169af-1c5e-4bc5-bf48-1e3cd9e508ad" CreationDate="2013-10-09T18:29:13.183" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON a remotely updatable database with a user interface** - This issued patent from 1998 is being used by a troll [Data Distribution Technologies LLC][1] to sue a variety of real estate companies and software companies! 10 minutes of your time can help invalidate overbroad US patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seeking prior art for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Patent Number**: [US 6,529,908][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Netspan Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/28/1998&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/28/1998** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Web-updated database with record distribution by email&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 100** requires **each and every step** below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A remotely updatable database system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a) a central server and at least one subscriber system, said central server including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - i) a user interface for communicating with said at least one subscriber system to receive user input from a user at said at least one subscriber system;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ii) a database of information records;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - iii) a database manager in communication with said user interface, for controlling said database such that each information record is associated with at least one user, and for amending said information records in response to user input received at said user interface from said at least one subscriber system; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - iv) a message server in communication with said database manager for serving a message including at least one record received from said database manager to said at least one user associated with said information record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b) said subscriber system including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - i) a message receiver for receiving a message from said message server, said message including at least one file from said database;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ii) transfer memory for storing said at least one file;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - iii) an output device for presenting information to a user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - iv) a processor circuit in communication with said message receiver, said transfer memory and said output device, and processor memory programmed with processor-readable codes for directing said processor to direct said output device to present to the user a list of files stored in said local memory, the files included in said list having at least one predefined characteristic; and to direct said output device to present to the user at least some of the contents of at least one file having said at least one predefined characteristic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.datadistributiontech.com/&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us6529908&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US6529908&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12940" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5198" RevisionGUID="d10169af-1c5e-4bc5-bf48-1e3cd9e508ad" CreationDate="2013-10-09T18:29:13.183" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="Web-updated database with record distribution by email - Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12941" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5198" RevisionGUID="d10169af-1c5e-4bc5-bf48-1e3cd9e508ad" CreationDate="2013-10-09T18:29:13.183" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;data-processing-database&gt;&lt;npe&gt;&lt;us6529908&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5198" RevisionGUID="67e20024-549c-42fd-b1e8-637bdc20c640" CreationDate="2013-10-09T19:14:12.850" UserId="3076" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON a remotely updatable database with a user interface** - This issued patent from 1998 is being used by a troll [Data Distribution Technologies LLC][1] to sue a variety of real estate companies and software companies! 10 minutes of your time can help invalidate overbroad US patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seeking prior art for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Patent Number**: [US 6,529,908][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Netspan Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/28/1998&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/28/1998** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Web-updated database with record distribution by email&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 100** requires **each and every component** below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A remotely updatable database system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a) a central server and at least one subscriber system, said central server including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - i) a user interface for communicating with said at least one subscriber system to receive user input from a user at said at least one subscriber system;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ii) a database of information records;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - iii) a database manager in communication with said user interface, for controlling said database such that each information record is associated with at least one user, and for amending said information records in response to user input received at said user interface from said at least one subscriber system; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - iv) a message server in communication with said database manager for serving a message including at least one record received from said database manager to said at least one user associated with said information record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b) said subscriber system including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - i) a message receiver for receiving a message from said message server, said message including at least one file from said database;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ii) transfer memory for storing said at least one file;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - iii) an output device for presenting information to a user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - iv) a processor circuit in communication with said message receiver, said transfer memory and said output device, and processor memory programmed with processor-readable codes for directing said processor to direct said output device to present to the user a list of files stored in said local memory, the files included in said list having at least one predefined characteristic; and to direct said output device to present to the user at least some of the contents of at least one file having said at least one predefined characteristic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.datadistributiontech.com/&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us6529908&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US6529908&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5201" RevisionGUID="00ad696d-fd6b-4a26-a6ad-9d42de1ec480" CreationDate="2013-10-09T20:10:50.377" UserId="5953" Text="There is an excellent build system that covers off each point in claim 1 and simultaneously takes it much further.  The build system is part of &quot;Real Time Software Components&quot; (RTSC).  It employs a scriptable build system revolving around a tool suite called XDCTools. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With XDCTools, a project defines its build configuration in a file with a .bld extension (Claim 1.1).  The platform-specific build steps to perform, for any number of platforms, are also defined in this or other .bld files (Claim 1.2).  What targets to build for are further defined in the same or other .bld files.  The so-called 'templates' are the scripted build steps encapsulated in the .bld files. (Claim 1.3).  After the .bld files have been processed, a series of makefiles are generated, at least one for each selected platform/target. (Claim 1.4).  The makefiles are 'provided' in an output directory (Claim 1.5). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;XDCTools is responsible for building the entire project and does not just spit out makefiles as its end product.  The makefiles that it does produce are typically intermediate products that are then used by the tool to complete the builds.  Unfortunately, documentation of the specific workings of the build system is largely buried within descriptions of RTSC's higher level functions such as creating, producing and consuming software 'modules'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RTSC home page: http://eclipse.org/rtsc/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An overview of RTSC: http://rtsc.eclipse.org/docs-tip/Introducing_RTSC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A partial description of the build system:&#xD;&#xA;http://rtsc.eclipse.org/docs-tip/Using_Targets_and_Platforms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Page dating the use of RTSC/XDCTools to at least 2007: http://rtsc.eclipse.org/docs-tip/FAQ-080713-6&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5202" RevisionGUID="b20d6ba2-f06a-4f5a-9ac4-e94b59fa9942" CreationDate="2013-10-10T01:49:53.763" UserId="5455" Text="Has anyone every contact google patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a recent gazette, I find many images missing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See here: [http://www.google.com/patents/USD690487][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have a non-committal feedback page.  I have given feedback!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/USD690487" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12948" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5202" RevisionGUID="b20d6ba2-f06a-4f5a-9ac4-e94b59fa9942" CreationDate="2013-10-10T01:49:53.763" UserId="5455" Text="How do you contact google patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12949" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5202" RevisionGUID="b20d6ba2-f06a-4f5a-9ac4-e94b59fa9942" CreationDate="2013-10-10T01:49:53.763" UserId="5455" Text="&lt;google&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5203" RevisionGUID="f06e387f-b779-412f-a17c-c16624e5a5ff" CreationDate="2013-10-10T10:25:10.683" UserId="5957" Text="It seems to me that predictive prefetching of files would be covered by these claims, assuming that the prediction was based on scoring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Using multiple predictors to improve the accuracy of file access predictions.&quot; by Whittle, G.A.S.; Paris, J.-F. ; Amer, A. ; Long, D.D.E. ; Burns, R.&#xD;&#xA; (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=4100184606292517071&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=20000005&amp;sciodt=0,21) seems to describe a such a system, using the &quot;effective miss ratio&quot; as a scoring mechanism. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5204" RevisionGUID="1b60a152-1e8d-4a6f-b252-23f13c213fa6" CreationDate="2013-10-10T12:04:10.663" UserId="5958" Text="http://www.google.com/patents/US6368227 &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a joke? What is the applicability of such a patent? &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;But even more, how can you have the nerve to say that no one else thought about pulling sideways on the chains of a swing to make it move from side to side? People in the stone age probably did that.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12952" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5204" RevisionGUID="1b60a152-1e8d-4a6f-b252-23f13c213fa6" CreationDate="2013-10-10T12:04:10.663" UserId="5958" Text="&quot;Method of swinging on a swing&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12953" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5204" RevisionGUID="1b60a152-1e8d-4a6f-b252-23f13c213fa6" CreationDate="2013-10-10T12:04:10.663" UserId="5958" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5202" RevisionGUID="b6b2aea4-0169-4a16-840d-21f28eb574ae" CreationDate="2013-10-10T12:29:22.473" UserId="5455" Comment="added screen shot of what I see" Text="Has anyone every contact google patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a recent gazette, I find many images missing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See here: [http://www.google.com/patents/USD690487][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have a non-committal feedback page.  I have given feedback!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/USD690487&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/x5pRM.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5205" RevisionGUID="3773ffe2-d793-46c5-a857-3fe0fc3ec29a" CreationDate="2013-10-10T12:50:59.637" UserId="5455" Text="You can contact them on twitter @googlepatents.  I am still waiting for their response :-(" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5204" RevisionGUID="3c9686fc-0b8b-44b9-92ac-a5647c240a6c" CreationDate="2013-10-10T13:28:15.790" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="http://www.google.com/patents/US6368227&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a joke? What is the applicability of such a patent? &#xD;&#xA;But even more, how can you have the nerve to say that no one else thought about pulling sideways on the chains of a swing to make it move from side to side? People in the stone age probably did that.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12957" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5204" RevisionGUID="3c9686fc-0b8b-44b9-92ac-a5647c240a6c" CreationDate="2013-10-10T13:28:15.790" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us6368227&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5206" RevisionGUID="e922cbac-d7dc-43d5-a082-0d4917ff6ea2" CreationDate="2013-10-10T14:58:19.387" UserId="5960" Text="I guess Lotus Notes can do all these things and is around for quite a while now.&#xD;&#xA;The calendar could be used to schedule a meeting and all participants gets notification. The notification can have attachements (so something from a database)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5207" RevisionGUID="268bdec6-aa1f-4d7d-9a11-6b7c888e59b5" CreationDate="2013-10-10T15:03:40.847" UserId="5961" Text="From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Patent_and_Trademark_Office)&#xD;&#xA;U.S. Patent 6,368,227, &quot;Method of swinging on a swing&quot;, issued April 9, 2002 was granted to a seven-year-old boy, whose father, a patent attorney, wanted to demonstrate how the patent system worked to his son (aged 5 at the time of the application). The PTO initially rejected it due to prior art, but eventually issued the patent. However, all claims of the patent were subsequently canceled by the PTO upon reexamination." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5208" RevisionGUID="dcbbc173-ed44-4ed4-a2cc-78b28ac70daa" CreationDate="2013-10-10T15:57:20.540" UserId="3076" Text="While this may have been a ridiculous patent, an examiner's rejection can't be *&quot;people in the Stone Age probably did that&quot;* or *&quot;seems obvious to me&quot;*. Actual references need to be found and cited. Otherwise obviousness is just opinion and very subject to hindsight bias. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5209" RevisionGUID="f7709c82-35b2-43fe-a7aa-8c17813446d9" CreationDate="2013-10-10T17:31:00.983" UserId="5959" Text="IBM seeks to patent the idea of adding comments in the form of voice annotations to source code. It further seeks to specifically patent the ideas of organizing the annotations by the structure of the program and playing comments back based on the program flow being inspected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: Source Code Commenting Via Speech Recording and Recognition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;link: http://www.google.com/patents/us20070288889&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm pretty sure there's gonna be some prior art for this kind of audio-tagging of text." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12962" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5209" RevisionGUID="f7709c82-35b2-43fe-a7aa-8c17813446d9" CreationDate="2013-10-10T17:31:00.983" UserId="5959" Text="Voice comment dictation and playback for source code - Patent App - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12963" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5209" RevisionGUID="f7709c82-35b2-43fe-a7aa-8c17813446d9" CreationDate="2013-10-10T17:31:00.983" UserId="5959" Text="&lt;audio&gt;&lt;tagging&gt;&lt;source-code&gt;&lt;comments&gt;&lt;linking&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5210" RevisionGUID="42cb54e9-5934-40d9-a141-2e067ecc1bb6" CreationDate="2013-10-10T18:16:41.927" UserId="1767" Text="US20070288889 is interesting because it is an **allowed** patent application which **never became an issued patent**, apparently because the applicant did not pay the issuance fee and the application was abandoned.  You can see this at the USPTO on [Public PAIR](http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/3797/1767)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first allowed claim is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method enabling a computer programmer to verbally add comments to source code comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. detecting utterances made by said programmer with a microphone;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. recording said utterances detected from said programmer with an audio recording program;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. converting said utterances recorded by said audio recording program to text;&#xD;&#xA;creating links to said audio recording;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. indicating a relevant source code position determined by cursor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. inserting said text and links to said voice recording at said relevant source code position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent was assigned to IBM, which is a sophisticated patent owner.  It is surprising to me that IBM let this patent lapse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either IBM dropped the ball on paying the issuance fee or (more likely) IBM decided that the invention wasn't worth the issuance fees and maintenance patent.  Why they went to the trouble of prosecuting it only to drop it after it was allowed is unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll let others on Ask Patents explain what would be involved in reviving a patent which was abandoned over four years ago.  At this point the patent is abandoned and it is not in force.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No obvious reason to look for prior art on the application at Ask Patents unless the patent is somehow revived.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/cfO18.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/bHw8j.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/I5dBe.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5204" RevisionGUID="2062bc48-e25b-4ec7-a3e9-3053e763d80c" CreationDate="2013-10-10T18:19:58.583" UserId="1767" Comment="added 667 characters in body" Text="http://www.google.com/patents/US6368227&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a joke? What is the applicability of such a patent? &#xD;&#xA;But even more, how can you have the nerve to say that no one else thought about pulling sideways on the chains of a swing to make it move from side to side? People in the stone age probably did that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of swinging on a swing, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a) suspending a seat for supporting a user between only two chains that are hung from a tree branch;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - b) positioning a user on the seat so that the user is facing a direction perpendicular to the tree branch;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - c) having the user pull alternately on one chain to induce movement of the user and the swing toward one side, and then on the other chain to induce movement of the user and the swing toward the other side; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - d) repeating step c) to create side-to-side swinging motion, relative to the user, that is parallel to the tree branch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/smN5m.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5182" RevisionGUID="2ec28cf5-d02f-4ba6-8e24-747599207f41" CreationDate="2013-10-10T18:23:30.987" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON** tracking and managing group expenditures - This application from Google seeks to patent the idea of...dividing expenses among members of a group! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally filed by Google on March 30, 2012, made public Oct 3, 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US Patent Application 20130262294][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And covered by [GeekWire][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art Date: Seeking Prior Art predating **March 30, 2012**.&#xD;&#xA; - **Patent Publication Number**: [US 20130262294 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA; - **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/3/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for tracking payment transactions of a group of users, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. establishing, by a computer system a group including at least three users; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. maintaining, by the computer system, a transaction record for the group including a plurality of payment transactions involving the users of the group, each of the plurality of payment transactions associated with a payment amount;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. responsive to receiving information on a payment transaction involving a user of the group and associated with a payment amount, determining, by the computer system, whether the payment transaction occurred within a range of dates provided for the group;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. responsive to determining the payment transaction occurred within the range o dates, updating, by a computer system, the transaction record for the group to include the payment transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. updating, by the computer system, a total balance maintained for the transaction record based on payment amounts associated with the payment transactions included in the transaction record; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. responsive to a settlement event, settling, by the computer system, the total balance by initiating fund transfers between the users of the group for the payment transactions occurring within the date range&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English the means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for tracking payment transactions of a group of users, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Establishing a group of at least three users; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Maintaining a transaction record for the group which includes at least one payment transaction among group members and a payment amount for that transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving information about a payment transaction involving the group that occurs within a **range of dates** provided for by the group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Updating the transaction record for the group to include the payment transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Updating a **total balance** maintained for the transaction record; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Settling the total balance by initiating fund transfers between the users of the group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 3/30/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Fig 4. A table illustrating balances of users of a group&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/fx5dI.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220130262294%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20130262294&amp;RS=DN/20130262294&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.geekwire.com/2013/joke-google-seeks-patent-splitting-restaurant-bills/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5210" RevisionGUID="a595703c-2053-4a9e-bfb7-0123f2d52983" CreationDate="2013-10-10T18:28:31.620" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 65 characters in body" Text="US20070288889 is interesting because it is an **allowed** patent application which **never became an issued patent**, apparently because the applicant did not pay the issuance fee and the application was abandoned.  You can see this at the USPTO on [Public PAIR](http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/3797/1767)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first allowed claim is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method enabling a computer programmer to verbally add comments to source code comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. detecting utterances made by said programmer with a microphone;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. recording said utterances detected from said programmer with an audio recording program;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. converting said utterances recorded by said audio recording program to text;&#xD;&#xA;creating links to said audio recording;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. indicating a relevant source code position determined by cursor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. inserting said text and links to said voice recording at said relevant source code position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent was assigned to IBM, which is a sophisticated patent owner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either IBM dropped the ball on paying the issuance fee or (more likely) IBM decided that the invention wasn't worth the issuance fees and projected maintenance fees.  Why IBM prosecuted the patent only to drop it after it was allowed is unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll let others on Ask Patents explain what would be involved in reviving a patent which was abandoned over four years ago.  At this point the patent is abandoned and it is not in force.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No obvious reason to look for prior art on the application at Ask Patents unless the patent is somehow revived.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/cfO18.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/bHw8j.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/I5dBe.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5213" RevisionGUID="161ec9c5-1709-4629-baea-b976d737e53b" CreationDate="2013-10-11T02:09:43.423" UserId="5959" Text="Just for completeness, here is a 2002 research paper on voice comments in programs:&#xD;&#xA;http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/abegel/cs294-1/voice-comments.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is strongly correlated with the general claim, but doesn't cover the idea of linking from text to specific audio snippets." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5214" RevisionGUID="50274cf8-d8c2-49c5-92f4-fd0ad355f4c4" CreationDate="2013-10-11T06:24:37.373" UserId="5969" Text="BillPin is another software that does the same and is also available as an Android App.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check out billpin.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12983" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5209" RevisionGUID="dd77dd54-c9ba-4c82-b962-a4bddb5e8657" CreationDate="2013-10-11T13:44:46.720" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;ibm&gt;&lt;us20070288889&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5217" RevisionGUID="81aeb3c7-dba3-4f30-8a63-2c35dfb20cd7" CreationDate="2013-10-11T17:50:50.133" UserId="5972" Text="Can somebody tell me differences between novelty 35 USC 102 AIA and Old act besides first to file and first to invent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12990" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5217" RevisionGUID="81aeb3c7-dba3-4f30-8a63-2c35dfb20cd7" CreationDate="2013-10-11T17:50:50.133" UserId="5972" Text="Novelty under Patent act" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12991" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5217" RevisionGUID="81aeb3c7-dba3-4f30-8a63-2c35dfb20cd7" CreationDate="2013-10-11T17:50:50.133" UserId="5972" Text="&lt;novelty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5218" RevisionGUID="9c90add2-ace4-4c86-ab0c-1b19a34fb2e9" CreationDate="2013-10-11T19:54:15.657" UserId="5973" Text="I wrote a Palm app for this, &quot;DinnerDebt,&quot; in 2005. Its web page and executable are still online at http://www.midwinter.com/palm and its age can be verified on archive.org. Then I wrote a version for webOS, also called &quot;DinnerDebt,&quot; in 2009; source code at https://github.com/koreth/DinnerDebt ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5220" RevisionGUID="188728db-612c-494a-9660-daed9800162d" CreationDate="2013-10-12T21:27:44.187" UserId="5982" Text="VLC media player has had this functionality for many, many years (very handy to do multi-room audio at parties for no cost!). See (dated 2005):&#xD;&#xA;http://www.videolan.org/doc/streaming-howto/en/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The page linked above demonstrates all of the three required criteria for prior art but does takes some reading to fathom. The first page I found that walks you through it I've linked to below, dated 2009:&#xD;&#xA;https://github.com/videolan/vlc/commits/66d45378d23e7420a5facdcebf83aab95459a3fc/modules/gui/macosx/wizard.h&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;VLC is open source and stored on GIT, as such it's trivial to confirm at the code level when a feature was added, to help a little the code for the wizard (in Mac) has a header file with a date starting in 2005:&#xD;&#xA;https://github.com/videolan/vlc/commits/66d45378d23e7420a5facdcebf83aab95459a3fc/modules/gui/macosx/wizard.h" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5221" RevisionGUID="0c0837c3-06df-4c9e-a3a9-e83c395a4f11" CreationDate="2013-10-13T02:42:59.460" UserId="5942" Text="Sounds to me like a pretty good description of a ListServ Mailing List Manager which maintains a database of users and can send specific files based on keywords in either the subject or message body of an email.  There can be many different kinds of files made available in this fashion, for instance the RFCs used to be published via a ListServ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also various commands could be performed such as subscribing to the list or updating your email address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ListServs have been around since at least the 80s and probably a lot earlier.  Later versions (90's era) also included a web interface to perform the same/similar operations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any email based discussion group such as usenet news, or google groups etc.  which also has a web interface (quite common) and keeps track of the subscribers (normal procedure) should fulfill all of the claims of this patent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5223" RevisionGUID="cfdae661-29ac-4067-b98c-bb017e2b9495" CreationDate="2013-10-13T17:35:26.307" UserId="5985" Text="Windows Media Player version 12, released in 2009, has the Play To functionality, which does precisely this. See this Wikipedia Article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Media_Player.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5224" RevisionGUID="bf88acb7-30df-49e2-b268-dc7f4c3c8216" CreationDate="2013-10-13T20:09:42.737" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Search results based on user location and whether stores are open or closed nearby** - This application from [Inrix, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...determining a user's location and giving search results which depend on whether stores are open nearby! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/29/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - User location to modify search results and using provider (e.g. store) availability to modify search results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Search results based on whether store is open, ETA for user to visit store, and route user would take to visit store&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Organization of search results based upon availability of respective providers.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for providing search results to a user based on the user's location and whether the providers nearby (within any **&quot;temporal or geographic proximity&quot;** to the user) are open or closed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130226915 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/407,841&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Inrix, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/29/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/25/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing one or more search results comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a query;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining a location of a user performing the query; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. providing one or more search results for presentation based upon the query, the search results indicative of one or more providers within at least one of a temporal and a geographic proximity of the location, and the search results provided as a function of whether the one or more providers are available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a query from user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining user's location; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Presenting search results to the user indicating one or more providers in spatial or temporal proximity, where the search results are a function of whether the providers are available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/29/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming modifying search results by determining whether provider store is open, whether it is nearby user based on user's location, and current ETA for user to visit the provider store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Location and nearby stores are used to modify search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/n8JHjES.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130226915&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.inrix.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130226915" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13008" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5224" RevisionGUID="bf88acb7-30df-49e2-b268-dc7f4c3c8216" CreationDate="2013-10-13T20:09:42.737" UserId="1767" Text="Mobile Search - Organizing search results based on user location and availability of providers (Inrix, Inc.) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13009" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5224" RevisionGUID="bf88acb7-30df-49e2-b268-dc7f4c3c8216" CreationDate="2013-10-13T20:09:42.737" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;us20130226915a1&gt;&lt;inrix&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13010" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5224" RevisionGUID="00f38823-087c-42a6-8a5a-8f702501e308" CreationDate="2013-10-13T21:54:55.297" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Mobile Search - Organizing search results based on user location and availability of stores (Inrix, Inc.) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5225" RevisionGUID="5611ae79-694c-4b35-abed-5c724a7cee99" CreationDate="2013-10-14T13:07:24.683" UserId="5987" Text="Marmalade SDK (previously Airplay) has been around since well before the filing date. Cross-platform support for Android, Blackberry and iOS (among others):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.madewithmarmalade.com/marmaladesdk/supported-platforms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From their site: https://www.madewithmarmalade.com/about-us/overview&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Marmalade is a trading name of Ideaworks3D Limited, which was originally founded in 1998. The unique technology behind the Marmalade SDK was developed between 2005 and 2008 and battle tested through the development and deployment of high profile games such as Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, Need for Speed and Resident Evil to mobile devices. The SDK was launched as ‘Airplay SDK’ in late 2009, before becoming Marmalade in June 2011.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13013" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1942" RevisionGUID="455596da-8341-428f-9230-d8802aadb0d7" CreationDate="2013-10-14T13:21:46.400" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;data-processing-software&gt;&lt;us8261231&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5226" RevisionGUID="d26e39ee-8e77-4356-b4e1-bc339cee91fe" CreationDate="2013-10-14T14:44:04.657" UserId="5988" Text="Gregg Shorthand built words using stems and inflections from the 1930s at least through the 1990s. 'Brief Forms' and extrapolated inflections were common. Several good articles exist, including this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_shorthand&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other older shorthand systems including Pitman and Duployan had similar structures. Machine stenography is still common in courts of law, and uses 'chords' played on a small keyboard to represent word stems and inflections. Most of these systems are patented, and there may be at least one open source machine shorthand system in use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Microsoft's attempt to patent such a system appears to be ridiculous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5227" RevisionGUID="cb9d742c-6636-441d-be64-053ed4ce43ed" CreationDate="2013-10-14T17:13:47.433" UserId="5071" Text="Isn't that what every &quot;find a store&quot; link has ever done? determines the user's location (by asking them their zip code, or using their IP address reverse lookup, but more recently by the browser providing the website with the user's location), then doing a distance search, optionally whether or not the product is available? Basically every brick-and-mortar store I can think of has such a feature. Those that don't are the annoying ones. I don't know how long such websites have had such features though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4624" RevisionGUID="bdc07ffd-f2f3-417f-8458-74f604be4da0" CreationDate="2013-10-14T18:28:34.263" UserId="1767" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON IN-FLIGHT/IN-CAR NETWORKING** - This application from [Lear Corporation][6] seeks to patent the idea of...a gateway from the Internet to a vehicle! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 15, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - embedding an **HTTP request** in a **[CAN][7] bus-compatible message** and transmitting the CAN bus-compatible message onto a CAN bus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO is compatible with **Ethernet** or communicates with a **Server**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: INTERNET TO VEHICLE GATEWAY AND CONTROL SYSTEM**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A which translates from HTTP to the standard vehicle bus: controller area network ([CAN bus][7]) and a controller on the vehicle which responds to the HTTP request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159586 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/712,293&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Lear Corporation &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 15, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Find Prior Art on Google**:  **[Google Link][8]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A control system for a vehicle, the control system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a gateway controller configured to embed an HTTP request in a CAN bus-compatible message and transmit the CAN bus-compatible message onto a CAN bus; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a remote controller configured to receive the CAN bus-compatible message from the CAN bus, extract the HTTP request from the CAN bus-compatible message, and create an HTTP response to the HTTP request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A vehicle control system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A gateway from the Internet (HTTP) to a vehicle (CAN bus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A controller on the vehicle which receives CAN bus, extracts HTTP request and creates an HTTP response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 15, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using gateway which ALSO is compatible with **Ethernet** or communicates with a **Server**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Controllers communicate through a CAN bus in a vehicle and connected through a gateway controller with an Ethernet network” from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/mXpEO.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;300&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130159586&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.lear.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN_bus&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130159586" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13017" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4624" RevisionGUID="bdc07ffd-f2f3-417f-8458-74f604be4da0" CreationDate="2013-10-14T18:28:34.263" UserId="1767" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;data-processing-vehicles&gt;&lt;lear&gt;&lt;us20130159586&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5224" RevisionGUID="bb78d9d2-18c7-4d61-8346-681c4adcbaf4" CreationDate="2013-10-14T19:29:54.980" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Search results based on user location and whether stores are open or closed nearby** - This application from [Inrix, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...determining a user's location and giving search results which depend on whether stores are open nearby! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/29/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - User location to modify search results and using provider (e.g. store) availability to modify search results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Search results based on whether store is open, ETA for user to visit store, and route user would take to visit store&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Organization of search results based upon availability of respective providers.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for providing search results to a user based on the user's location and whether the providers nearby (within any **&quot;temporal or geographic proximity&quot;** to the user) are open or closed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130226915 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/407,841&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Inrix, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/29/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/25/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing one or more search results comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a query;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining a location of a user performing the query; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. providing one or more search results for presentation based upon the query, the search results indicative of one or more providers within at least one of a temporal and a geographic proximity of the location, and the search results provided as a function of whether the one or more providers are available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a query from user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining user's location; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Presenting search results to the user indicating one or more providers in spatial or temporal proximity, where the search results are a function of whether the providers are available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/29/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming modifying search results by determining whether provider store is open, whether it is nearby user based on user's location, and current ETA for user to visit the provider store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Location and nearby stores are used to modify search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/n8JHjES.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130226915&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.inrix.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130226915" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5229" RevisionGUID="13590561-5b7a-4cd2-92d9-9d8adc1c8ef8" CreationDate="2013-10-15T14:24:49.850" UserId="5996" Text="USPTO and FreePatentsOnline both allow the &quot;an/&quot; specifier for assignee, so you can search for &quot;an/google&quot; or &quot;an/microsoft&quot; for the most part. (Per George White's comment, it doesn't help follow business transactions e.g. subsidiaries and sales.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5231" RevisionGUID="fbf2dff2-a9ad-4104-b362-e95c00e1edbd" CreationDate="2013-10-15T21:51:20.617" UserId="5998" Text="Here are a few links to &quot;store finders&quot; similar to what @McKay is describing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Lowe's Hardware][1]&#xD;&#xA; - [Walmart][2]&#xD;&#xA; - [Target][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a word press plugin which enables this kind of search functionality:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Store Locator Plus][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.lowes.com/StoreLocatorDisplayView?storeId=10151&amp;langId=-1&amp;catalogId=10051&amp;cm_mmc=search_google-_-General%20Home%20Improvement-_-Google%20Site%20Links%202013-_-home%20store&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.walmart.com/cservice/ca_storefinder.gsp&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.target.com/store-locator/find-stores&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://wordpress.org/plugins/store-locator-le/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5232" RevisionGUID="9c25acb1-5394-454c-b5be-bb59fcb83a44" CreationDate="2013-10-15T23:33:23.777" UserId="6003" Text="If they are looking to provide local results based on user's location using mobile GPS, then iPhone/Google maps already does that. Yelp mobile app provides location-based search results as well, and shows whether the stores are currently open (ie. Providers available).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google 2009/2010:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/16/google_location_based_searches/&#xD;&#xA;http://blogs.computerworld.com/15409/googles_location_based_iphone_search_is_a_big_deal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yelp 2009/2010:&#xD;&#xA;http://officialblog.yelp.com/2009/08/even-mo-mobile.html&#xD;&#xA;http://www.appolicious.com/articles/2378-yelp-for-android-and-other-location-based-newcomers&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5233" RevisionGUID="3f0f50ef-2476-41b4-a2ad-75e2b02b48ea" CreationDate="2013-10-16T00:51:40.527" UserId="6005" Text="Majordomo was available and written about [in 1992][1] and has a web interface component called MajorCool presented at USENIX [in 1996][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MajorCool will cover the first part of the patent description - &quot;Web updated database&quot;, while Majordomo covers the second part - &quot;record distribution via email&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.greatcircle.com/majordomo/majordomo.lisa6.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.usenix.org/legacy/publications/library/proceedings/lisa96/bhoule.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5234" RevisionGUID="42dee873-6850-48ad-94fe-902415f6b6b8" CreationDate="2013-10-16T01:34:47.630" UserId="6005" Text="Junhua Gu discusses a &quot;smart pantry&quot; in her [Georgia Tech Master's Thesis][1] ([abstract][2])  Her thesis explicitly mentions recording expiration dates in section 6.3.2:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;users use a special scanner to scan the items and the &#xD;&#xA;system automatically updates items related information such as name, category, &#xD;&#xA;manufacturer, in-stock date, **expiration date**, quantity, function, nutrition facts and etc.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The paper also explicitly describes a electronic data inventory storage system in section 6.3:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The system also collects and stores grocery data for organizing, quick locating and inventory tracking&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/11625/Gu_Junhua_200608_mast.pdf?sequence=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/11625" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5235" RevisionGUID="49d8fdc1-cc00-4715-ac8c-33453e33d2ed" CreationDate="2013-10-16T01:52:31.933" UserId="6005" Text="Weihua Zhu discusses intelligent re-routing of navigation systems for environmental concerns in his dissertation &quot;[Design and Development of Novel Routing Methodologies for Dynamic Roadway Navigation Systems][1]&quot; published in March 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uctc.net/research/diss148.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5236" RevisionGUID="d636d899-8e90-4e09-ad48-5ffa6c2f3c13" CreationDate="2013-10-16T04:28:07.143" UserId="6006" Text="So a software program running on a computer that searches through web pages (but only the FIRST web page) and organizes it based on location keywords?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IE: searching for &quot;fire 1871&quot; when I'm in Chicago. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google has been doing this for a while now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[news clip, 2009](http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=65814)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4785" RevisionGUID="d503a599-28ad-4056-9cd6-669168d0a6c0" CreationDate="2013-10-16T13:25:03.420" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON a navigation device with alternative route calculation** - This application from [TomTom][6] seeks to patent the idea of...providing a navigation instruction together with alternative navigation instructions to a destination! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/13/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - providing alternate routes to a driver without the driver being required to request a calculation of an alternative route&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO displays multiple potential navigation routes simultaneously&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Navigation device with alternate route calculation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A navigation device that calculates multiple routes for a driver and displays them simultaneously (without the driver being required to request a different route)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130173159 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/822,791&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: TomTom&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/13/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/31/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A navigation device, the navigation device operable to calculate routes to one or more destinations,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.  the device further operable to provide a navigation instruction together with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. an alternative navigation instruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A navigation device which calculates routes to destination (or multiple destinations), which:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. provides navigation instructions; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. provides instructions on alternative routes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/13/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming displaying multiple routes simultaneously without the driver requesting a &quot;re-route&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Providing multiple routes to a driver&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/GeJlCmH.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130173159?dq=US20130173159A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.tomtom.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5198" RevisionGUID="e7b66430-508b-4abe-b914-e6dba51fde00" CreationDate="2013-10-16T13:25:25.830" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON a remotely updatable database with a user interface** - This issued patent from 1998 is being used by a troll [Data Distribution Technologies LLC][1] to sue a variety of real estate companies and software companies! 10 minutes of your time can help invalidate overbroad US patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seeking prior art for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Patent Number**: [US 6,529,908][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Netspan Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/28/1998&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/28/1998** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Web-updated database with record distribution by email&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 100** requires **each and every component** below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A remotely updatable database system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a) a central server and at least one subscriber system, said central server including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - i) a user interface for communicating with said at least one subscriber system to receive user input from a user at said at least one subscriber system;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ii) a database of information records;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - iii) a database manager in communication with said user interface, for controlling said database such that each information record is associated with at least one user, and for amending said information records in response to user input received at said user interface from said at least one subscriber system; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - iv) a message server in communication with said database manager for serving a message including at least one record received from said database manager to said at least one user associated with said information record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b) said subscriber system including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - i) a message receiver for receiving a message from said message server, said message including at least one file from said database;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ii) transfer memory for storing said at least one file;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - iii) an output device for presenting information to a user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - iv) a processor circuit in communication with said message receiver, said transfer memory and said output device, and processor memory programmed with processor-readable codes for directing said processor to direct said output device to present to the user a list of files stored in said local memory, the files included in said list having at least one predefined characteristic; and to direct said output device to present to the user at least some of the contents of at least one file having said at least one predefined characteristic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.datadistributiontech.com/&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us6529908&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US6529908&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5224" RevisionGUID="0aa37d7b-d677-43de-8334-94a827b4caaa" CreationDate="2013-10-16T13:25:43.393" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Search results based on user location and whether stores are open or closed nearby** - This application from [Inrix, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...determining a user's location and giving search results which depend on whether stores are open nearby! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/29/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - User location to modify search results and using provider (e.g. store) availability to modify search results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Search results based on whether store is open, ETA for user to visit store, and route user would take to visit store&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Organization of search results based upon availability of respective providers.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for providing search results to a user based on the user's location and whether the providers nearby (within any **&quot;temporal or geographic proximity&quot;** to the user) are open or closed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130226915 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/407,841&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Inrix, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/29/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/25/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing one or more search results comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a query;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining a location of a user performing the query; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. providing one or more search results for presentation based upon the query, the search results indicative of one or more providers within at least one of a temporal and a geographic proximity of the location, and the search results provided as a function of whether the one or more providers are available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a query from user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining user's location; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Presenting search results to the user indicating one or more providers in spatial or temporal proximity, where the search results are a function of whether the providers are available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/29/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming modifying search results by determining whether provider store is open, whether it is nearby user based on user's location, and current ETA for user to visit the provider store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Location and nearby stores are used to modify search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/n8JHjES.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130226915&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.inrix.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130226915" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="f298b86e-1436-4605-b42a-8e0127405ac1" CreationDate="2013-10-16T14:25:49.110" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON using word stems to translate unknown words** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Machine translation of unknown words by finding known word stems and adding inflections! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/31/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using word stems to guess at translations of &quot;out of vocabulary words&quot; in machine translation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - the applicant is claiming preprocessing the morphological analysis by looking for transliterations, misspellings, substituting colloquial expressions if recognized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Resolving out-of-vocabulary words with word stem analysis**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for translating &quot;out-of-vocabulary&quot; words which involves looking for word stems, translating the word stem and inflecting the word stem in the foreign language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130197896 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/362,595&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/31/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/28/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method under control of one or more processors specifically configured with executable instructions, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving, by a server, a request from a computing device to translate one or more words from a source language to a target language;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining that a phrase table excludes a particular word of the one or more words but includes a remainder of the one or more words;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining whether a morphological analysis of the particular word identifies a stem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. in response to determining that the morphological analysis of the particular word identifies the stem, translating the stem from the source language to the target language to create a translated stem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. inflecting the translated stem based on the morphological analysis of the particular word to create a translated word corresponding to the particular word;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. translating the remainder of the one or more words from the source language to the target language to create a translated remainder;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. creating a translation of the one or more words based on the translated word and the translated remainder; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. sending the translation to the computing device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of machine translation, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving request to translate one or more words to target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining that the words are &quot;out-of-vocabulary&quot; (i.e. not in the lookup table)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining that the words contain word stems&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Translating the word stems into the target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Inflecting the word stems in the target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Translating the remaining words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Sending the translated words to a computer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/31/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming looking for transliterations, misspellings, substituting colloquial expressions if recognized&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Using word-stem analysis to translate unknown words from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Rz2r9.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130197896?dq=US20130197896A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130197896" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5182" RevisionGUID="eb4d2047-9108-48aa-a81d-6190cc9b8b00" CreationDate="2013-10-16T14:26:06.157" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON** tracking and managing group expenditures - This application from Google seeks to patent the idea of...dividing expenses among members of a group! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally filed by Google on March 30, 2012, made public Oct 3, 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US Patent Application 20130262294][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And covered by [GeekWire][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art Date: Seeking Prior Art predating **March 30, 2012**.&#xD;&#xA; - **Patent Publication Number**: [US 20130262294 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA; - **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/3/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for tracking payment transactions of a group of users, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. establishing, by a computer system a group including at least three users; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. maintaining, by the computer system, a transaction record for the group including a plurality of payment transactions involving the users of the group, each of the plurality of payment transactions associated with a payment amount;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. responsive to receiving information on a payment transaction involving a user of the group and associated with a payment amount, determining, by the computer system, whether the payment transaction occurred within a range of dates provided for the group;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. responsive to determining the payment transaction occurred within the range o dates, updating, by a computer system, the transaction record for the group to include the payment transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. updating, by the computer system, a total balance maintained for the transaction record based on payment amounts associated with the payment transactions included in the transaction record; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. responsive to a settlement event, settling, by the computer system, the total balance by initiating fund transfers between the users of the group for the payment transactions occurring within the date range&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English the means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for tracking payment transactions of a group of users, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Establishing a group of at least three users; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Maintaining a transaction record for the group which includes at least one payment transaction among group members and a payment amount for that transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving information about a payment transaction involving the group that occurs within a **range of dates** provided for by the group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Updating the transaction record for the group to include the payment transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Updating a **total balance** maintained for the transaction record; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Settling the total balance by initiating fund transfers between the users of the group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 3/30/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Fig 4. A table illustrating balances of users of a group&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/fx5dI.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220130262294%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20130262294&amp;RS=DN/20130262294&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.geekwire.com/2013/joke-google-seeks-patent-splitting-restaurant-bills/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5224" RevisionGUID="6d9a05d6-7ad6-4eda-a7eb-df00d5e19d4b" CreationDate="2013-10-16T14:26:25.127" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Search results based on user location and whether stores are open or closed nearby** - This application from [Inrix, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...determining a user's location and giving search results which depend on whether stores are open nearby! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/29/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - User location to modify search results and using provider (e.g. store) availability to modify search results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Search results based on whether store is open, ETA for user to visit store, and route user would take to visit store&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Organization of search results based upon availability of respective providers.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for providing search results to a user based on the user's location and whether the providers nearby (within any **&quot;temporal or geographic proximity&quot;** to the user) are open or closed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130226915 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/407,841&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Inrix, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/29/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/25/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing one or more search results comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a query;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining a location of a user performing the query; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. providing one or more search results for presentation based upon the query, the search results indicative of one or more providers within at least one of a temporal and a geographic proximity of the location, and the search results provided as a function of whether the one or more providers are available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a query from user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining user's location; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Presenting search results to the user indicating one or more providers in spatial or temporal proximity, where the search results are a function of whether the providers are available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/29/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming modifying search results by determining whether provider store is open, whether it is nearby user based on user's location, and current ETA for user to visit the provider store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Location and nearby stores are used to modify search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/n8JHjES.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130226915&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.inrix.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130226915" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5238" RevisionGUID="cdfa047b-20a0-4b7e-a9a2-19f90de3045c" CreationDate="2013-10-16T15:41:23.173" UserId="6008" Text="This patent quotes prior art (US20070112261). Patent US8207860B2 quotes the same prior art. I was a co-applicant on US20070112261 but was removed from the later applicantions above without my consent? Is this allowed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13048" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5238" RevisionGUID="cdfa047b-20a0-4b7e-a9a2-19f90de3045c" CreationDate="2013-10-16T15:41:23.173" UserId="6008" Text="prior art and new submissions but applicants names altered" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13049" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5238" RevisionGUID="cdfa047b-20a0-4b7e-a9a2-19f90de3045c" CreationDate="2013-10-16T15:41:23.173" UserId="6008" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5224" RevisionGUID="82d533e7-c6a6-4b63-b10d-9b269e42fb39" CreationDate="2013-10-16T16:01:30.410" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Search results based on user location and whether stores are open or closed nearby** - This application from [Inrix, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...determining a user's location and giving search results which depend on whether stores are open nearby! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/29/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - User location to modify search results and using provider (e.g. store) availability to modify search results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Search results based on whether store is open, ETA for user to visit store, and route user would take to visit store&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Organization of search results based upon availability of respective providers.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for providing search results to a user based on the user's location and whether the providers nearby (within any **&quot;temporal or geographic proximity&quot;** to the user) are open or closed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130226915 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/407,841&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Inrix, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/29/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/25/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing one or more search results comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a query;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining a location of a user performing the query; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. providing one or more search results for presentation based upon the query, the search results indicative of one or more providers within at least one of a temporal and a geographic proximity of the location, and the search results provided as a function of whether the one or more providers are available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a query from user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining user's location; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Presenting search results to the user indicating one or more providers in spatial or temporal proximity, where the search results are a function of whether the providers are available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/29/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming modifying search results by determining whether provider store is open, whether it is nearby user based on user's location, and current ETA for user to visit the provider store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Location and nearby stores are used to modify search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/n8JHjES.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130226915&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.inrix.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130226915" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5182" RevisionGUID="c6c9c677-3ce1-4420-8980-fc21d74394a5" CreationDate="2013-10-16T16:01:46.320" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON** tracking and managing group expenditures - This application from Google seeks to patent the idea of...dividing expenses among members of a group! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally filed by Google on March 30, 2012, made public Oct 3, 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US Patent Application 20130262294][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And covered by [GeekWire][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art Date: Seeking Prior Art predating **March 30, 2012**.&#xD;&#xA; - **Patent Publication Number**: [US 20130262294 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA; - **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/3/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for tracking payment transactions of a group of users, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. establishing, by a computer system a group including at least three users; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. maintaining, by the computer system, a transaction record for the group including a plurality of payment transactions involving the users of the group, each of the plurality of payment transactions associated with a payment amount;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. responsive to receiving information on a payment transaction involving a user of the group and associated with a payment amount, determining, by the computer system, whether the payment transaction occurred within a range of dates provided for the group;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. responsive to determining the payment transaction occurred within the range o dates, updating, by a computer system, the transaction record for the group to include the payment transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. updating, by the computer system, a total balance maintained for the transaction record based on payment amounts associated with the payment transactions included in the transaction record; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. responsive to a settlement event, settling, by the computer system, the total balance by initiating fund transfers between the users of the group for the payment transactions occurring within the date range&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English the means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for tracking payment transactions of a group of users, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Establishing a group of at least three users; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Maintaining a transaction record for the group which includes at least one payment transaction among group members and a payment amount for that transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving information about a payment transaction involving the group that occurs within a **range of dates** provided for by the group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Updating the transaction record for the group to include the payment transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Updating a **total balance** maintained for the transaction record; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Settling the total balance by initiating fund transfers between the users of the group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 3/30/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Fig 4. A table illustrating balances of users of a group&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/fx5dI.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220130262294%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20130262294&amp;RS=DN/20130262294&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.geekwire.com/2013/joke-google-seeks-patent-splitting-restaurant-bills/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13052" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="c45c1844-e728-48aa-abd8-c28bafe13676" CreationDate="2013-10-16T16:02:18.587" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON using word stems to translate unknown words** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Machine translation of unknown words by finding known word stems and adding inflections! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/31/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using word stems to guess at translations of &quot;out of vocabulary words&quot; in machine translation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - the applicant is claiming preprocessing the morphological analysis by looking for transliterations, misspellings, substituting colloquial expressions if recognized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Resolving out-of-vocabulary words with word stem analysis**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for translating &quot;out-of-vocabulary&quot; words which involves looking for word stems, translating the word stem and inflecting the word stem in the foreign language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130197896 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/362,595&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/31/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/28/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method under control of one or more processors specifically configured with executable instructions, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving, by a server, a request from a computing device to translate one or more words from a source language to a target language;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining that a phrase table excludes a particular word of the one or more words but includes a remainder of the one or more words;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining whether a morphological analysis of the particular word identifies a stem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. in response to determining that the morphological analysis of the particular word identifies the stem, translating the stem from the source language to the target language to create a translated stem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. inflecting the translated stem based on the morphological analysis of the particular word to create a translated word corresponding to the particular word;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. translating the remainder of the one or more words from the source language to the target language to create a translated remainder;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. creating a translation of the one or more words based on the translated word and the translated remainder; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. sending the translation to the computing device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of machine translation, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving request to translate one or more words to target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining that the words are &quot;out-of-vocabulary&quot; (i.e. not in the lookup table)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining that the words contain word stems&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Translating the word stems into the target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Inflecting the word stems in the target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Translating the remaining words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Sending the translated words to a computer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/31/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming looking for transliterations, misspellings, substituting colloquial expressions if recognized&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Using word-stem analysis to translate unknown words from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Rz2r9.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130197896?dq=US20130197896A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130197896" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5239" RevisionGUID="c0adc4cd-a7c9-48de-9001-4baafd588bca" CreationDate="2013-10-16T17:17:34.733" UserId="6010" Text="We applied for US and Canadian Utility Patents.  Our US patent issued.  After the US patent issued, during prosecution, the Canadian patent examiner sent back an office action and cited prior art that we did not cite in the US application.  What do we do now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13054" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5239" RevisionGUID="c0adc4cd-a7c9-48de-9001-4baafd588bca" CreationDate="2013-10-16T17:17:34.733" UserId="6010" Text="Prior Art not cited in application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13055" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5239" RevisionGUID="c0adc4cd-a7c9-48de-9001-4baafd588bca" CreationDate="2013-10-16T17:17:34.733" UserId="6010" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5240" RevisionGUID="a207551e-7006-41b8-84cf-0568773e5d82" CreationDate="2013-10-16T19:26:08.270" UserId="3076" Text="Information that comes to your attention *before* the grant of your U.S. patent must be brought to the attention of the USPTO even if it is after the notice of allowance and payment of the issue fee. After grant there is no obligation to do anything with this new reference. However, if you feel it weakens the patent, you might request an ex parte reexamination. This will allow the new reference to be considered, and arguments and amendments to be made. You may end up with a narrowed but stronger patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5182" RevisionGUID="24ba4587-8227-46ee-9867-c77eef9816f1" CreationDate="2013-10-16T19:39:18.507" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 137 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON** tracking and managing group expenditures - This application from Google seeks to patent the idea of...dividing expenses among members of a group! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally filed by Google on March 30, 2012, made public Oct 3, 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US Patent Application 20130262294][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And covered by [GeekWire][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art Date: Seeking Prior Art predating **March 30, 2012**.&#xD;&#xA; - **Patent Publication Number**: [US 20130262294 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA; - **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/3/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for tracking payment transactions of a group of users, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. establishing, by a computer system a group including at least three users; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. maintaining, by the computer system, a transaction record for the group including a plurality of payment transactions involving the users of the group, each of the plurality of payment transactions associated with a payment amount;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. responsive to receiving information on a payment transaction involving a user of the group and associated with a payment amount, determining, by the computer system, whether the payment transaction occurred within a range of dates provided for the group;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. responsive to determining the payment transaction occurred within the range o dates, updating, by a computer system, the transaction record for the group to include the payment transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. updating, by the computer system, a total balance maintained for the transaction record based on payment amounts associated with the payment transactions included in the transaction record; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. responsive to a settlement event, settling, by the computer system, the total balance by initiating fund transfers between the users of the group for the payment transactions occurring within the date range&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English the means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for tracking payment transactions of a group of users, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Establishing a group of at least three users; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Maintaining a transaction record for the group which includes at least one payment transaction among group members and a payment amount for that transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving information about a payment transaction involving the group that occurs within a **range of dates** provided for by the group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Updating the transaction record for the group to include the payment transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Updating a **total balance** maintained for the transaction record; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Settling the total balance by initiating fund transfers between the users of the group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 3/30/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Fig 4. A table illustrating balances of users of a group&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/fx5dI.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130262294&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.geekwire.com/2013/joke-google-seeks-patent-splitting-restaurant-bills/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5241" RevisionGUID="34a9263c-1231-40a6-ab33-e85b667bf361" CreationDate="2013-10-16T19:56:36.553" UserId="3076" Text="I assume you are referring to US 8207859. Both it and the '860 refer back to a common provisional application filed in 2008. The publication 20070112261 covers similar material and has one inventor in common but does not have a common history with the others. You probably know that the '261 document is a publication of an application, not a granted patent. It does not seem to have resulted in an issued patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inventorship has to do with what is claimed. Two applications can be identical except for the claims and have different lists of inventors. You are named as inventor if you made a conceptual contribution to something that is claimed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13059" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5242" RevisionGUID="ed65bb98-9fbe-4d19-b6e3-8ad9712481b2" CreationDate="2013-10-16T20:17:57.553" UserId="6011" Text="This should help.  See the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [2004 Hawaii Ad-Me][1]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - [2005 location-aware GPS][2]  See Fig. 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Ad-Me #2][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Ad-Me #3][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A method for providing one or more search results comprising:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**receiving a query;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some of the key functional requirements of the system are: to provide&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a backdrop of tourist information; present local map image and depict&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the user position upon it; find objects of interest to the user and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; show their location on the map as well as their names within a list. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Additionally the user may acquire information about an object, make a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reservation, or get directions to the object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2004 Ad-me at 4, col. 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Preceptors acquire environmental stimulus such as user input and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; GPS coordinates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2004 Ad-me at 4, col. 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Active Personalization:  User interactions are accrued and are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; automatically exploited in order to dynamically refine the preexisting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user profiles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2004 Ad-me at 7, col. 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**determining a location of a user performing the query; and**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Preceptors acquire environmental stimulus such as user input and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; GPS coordinates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2004 Ad-me at 4, col. 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The GPS Preceptor acquires the GPS coordinates and then the GPS&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Actuator passes them to the GUI as well as to the server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2004 Ad-me at 5, col. 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**providing one or more search results for presentation based upon the query, the search results indicative of one or more providers within at least one of a temporal and a geographic proximity of the location, and the search results provided as a function of whether the one or more providers are available.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The high relevant value is assured because of several factors.  First&#xD;&#xA;&gt; advertisements are prioritized amongst other things on the proximity&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the supplier to the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2004 Ad-me at 9, col. 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A parallel set of profiles exists for each advertisers.  These&#xD;&#xA;&gt; profiles contain such data as outlet location, special promotional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; offers, opening times and parking or delivery facilities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2004 Ad-me at 7, col. 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MIA also constitutes a multi-agent based location-aware information&#xD;&#xA;&gt; system for mobile users.  MIA's emphasis is one of retrieving content&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from the web and delivering this to the user.  The retrieved&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information is relevant to the city where the user is currently&#xD;&#xA;&gt; located.  It merely uses user location as the key.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2004 Ad-me at 8, col. 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The service is augmented with a range of pull technology functions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; including a find nearest function which will find a desired object&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (e.g. restaurant, museum), that is closest to the users [sic] current&#xD;&#xA;&gt; position.  Objects are selected from a list of standard objects&#xD;&#xA;&gt; including inter alia cash machine, taxi rank, pharmacy, train station,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and police station.  The system addresses interoperability and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; delivers its service in a manner sensitive to the users [sic]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technological context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2004 Ad-me at 4, col. 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ad-me utilizes user profiles in order to present to the user context&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sensitive advertisements which in particular takes cognizance of: ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Those items of high interest to the user; ... Products and Services&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that are within the immediate user locality; Products and Services&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that are available at a given instance (opening times, in stock).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2004 Ad-me at 7, col. 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also 2004 Ad-me at 3, col. 1 (computing context, user context, physical context and time context)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lithosphere.com/stackexchange/2004-Ad-me-Hawaii.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lithosphere.com/stackexchange/2005-Location-aware-GPS.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://lithosphere.com/stackexchange/Ad-me-2.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://lithosphere.com/stackexchange/Ad-me-3.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13060" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5238" RevisionGUID="c377ee4f-24ba-4705-b47a-92259b4ab33c" CreationDate="2013-10-16T20:23:01.340" UserId="6008" Comment="More detail added" Text="I was a co-applicant on US20070112261. Subsequently granted Patents US8207859B2 and US8207860B2 quote the the earlier application as  prior art but my name was was removed from the later successful submissions without my consent even though much of the content is very similar? Is this allowed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5243" RevisionGUID="a25a087b-02b8-4c2e-ae80-285d1f456733" CreationDate="2013-10-16T22:51:09.063" UserId="3076" Text="The changes to section 102 boil down to changing what can be used against an application. Allowing anything filed before you to be used against you is what creates &quot;first to file&quot;. We do not literally have a strict first to file in that if you filed last but the first filer &quot;stold&quot; the invention from you, there is a way to try to prove it and win even though you were second to file. Also, if you published your invention in enough detail you can beat someone who filed before you as long as they are claiming almost exactly what you disclosed in your prior publication and as long as you have filed witHin a year of the publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an international expansion of what can be used against an application. Before, a publication or a patent counted regardless of the place of the publication but &quot;known or used&quot; was in this country. Now known or used anywhere can be used against a US application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Last, US applications that are eventually published or issued can be used against you *as of the date of filing*. Now foreign applications that have US counterparts or are later filed as PCT applications can also be used as prior art as of their filing date. This increases the amount of so-called &quot;secret&quot; prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5243" RevisionGUID="c0028a4d-2947-40e8-ac6a-05b5ff225a66" CreationDate="2013-10-17T01:14:53.620" UserId="3076" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="The changes to section 102 boil down to changing what can be used against an application. Allowing anything filed before you to be used against you is what creates &quot;first to file&quot;. We do not literally have a strict first to file in that if you filed last but the first filer &quot;stold&quot; the invention from you, there is a way to try to prove it and win even though you were second to file. Also, if you published your invention in enough detail you can beat someone who filed before you as long as they are claiming almost exactly what you disclosed in your prior publication and as long as you have filed within a year of the publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an international expansion of what can be used against an application. Before, a publication or a patent counted regardless of the place of the publication but &quot;known or used&quot; was only in this country. Now known or used anywhere can be used against a US application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Last, US applications that are eventually published or issued can be used against you *as of the date of filing*. Now foreign applications that have US counterparts or are later filed as PCT applications can also be used as prior art as of their filing date. This increases the amount of so-called &quot;secret&quot; prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5244" RevisionGUID="5d67dafb-d632-4784-8ff1-cacf21325d81" CreationDate="2013-10-17T04:19:23.457" UserId="6015" Text="**HELP SAVE SURVIVAL BRACELET MAKERS** - This application from Bison Designs, Llc seeks to patent Braided Para cord Devices with Tools Contained Therein! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent application before it becomes a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTION - Have you seen anything that was published before 5 aug 2011 that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A paracord survival bracelet with tools contained therein&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question -- one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: Braided Para cord Devices with Tools Contained Therein&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summary: A paracord bracelet is disclosed which includes a blade with a loop as a handle that can be encased in the braiding to form the loop part of a closure mechanism. In a further embodiment the bracelet includes a pieces of flint formed into a solid piece to form the tab and/or toggle part of a closure mechanism. This combination of devices means that the user has a means of making a fire with them whenever they are wearing the bracelet, in addition to the paracord. In an additional embodiment a key fob is made of paracord enclosing a blade, a flint and tender. Another embodiment the bracelet includes fishing gear, including a steel cable leader set with a clasp hook, swivel, lure and other items. In the depicted embodiment the bracelet is design with the swivel and the clasp hook forming the bracelet closure mechanism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication Number: US20130031935 (https://www.google.com/patents/US20130031935?dq=survival+bracelet+patent&amp;hl=sv&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=IldfUpGIE4mYlQXz_4GYBw&amp;ved=0CFMQ6AEwAw)&#xD;&#xA;Assignee: Bison Designs, Llc&#xD;&#xA;Prior Art Date: Seeking prior Art predating 5 Aug 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A bracelet comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a body formed from braided paracord having a first and second end;&#xD;&#xA;a closure mechanism for the bracelet formed in two parts, each of said part being attached to the first and second end respectively;&#xD;&#xA;at least one of the closure mechanisms being an item that is a tool usable for a task other than closing the bracelet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A paracord bracelet with two ends and a closure mechanism that can be used as a tool for something else than closing the bracelet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5 Aug 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help saving the survival paracord bracelet makers by providing prior art! This &quot;invention&quot; does not deserve a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13064" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5244" RevisionGUID="5d67dafb-d632-4784-8ff1-cacf21325d81" CreationDate="2013-10-17T04:19:23.457" UserId="6015" Text="Braided Para cord Devices with Tools Contained Therein (Bison Designs, Llc) Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13065" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5244" RevisionGUID="5d67dafb-d632-4784-8ff1-cacf21325d81" CreationDate="2013-10-17T04:19:23.457" UserId="6015" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5245" RevisionGUID="9bed7f5b-735b-4bf2-806f-a5cabcac8a71" CreationDate="2013-10-17T04:53:59.967" UserId="5858" Text="Most Usenet news agents have some implementation of selective synchronization with a news server. In general, the differences are that the protocol is NNTP (not whatever Citrix supports) and the scoring is done at the client (with reference at least to article header values, which must be downloaded).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a description of the extremely flexible scoring system in Gnus (the Usenet agent that comes with Emacs), see [Gnus Manual, Ch. 7](http://www.gnus.org/manual/gnus_255.html#SEC255). An article (file) may be downloaded in full (or not) depending on its accumulated score. This score is computed using potentially very many individual tests, each of which may raise or lower it. A user's scoring rules may examine meta-data only (header values, here), the body text, or any combination of both. Indeed, it is probably more flexible than what is described in this application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The scoring rules in Gnus may also be permanent, may persist for some limited duration (and disappear thereafter), or simply be one-shot scores. Moreover, Gnus provides an [adaptive scoring](http://www.gnus.org/manual/gnus_261.html#SEC261) implementation, with which it will attempt to score articles automatically, based on the user's historical activity. Finally, parts the Gnus scoring system may also be applied to logical groups of files (Usenet threads, say), in contrast to the usual scoring of one file against its peers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe most, if not all, of the particulars of Claims 3-13 (the actual scoring claims) can find defeat within the Gnus scoring system. The surrounding claims are sufficiently dealt with by other answers (and any file-download UI, like, say, a news agent).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13067" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5242" RevisionGUID="3dee33cd-1585-44a5-aa0d-6fd4f2d2827e" CreationDate="2013-10-17T11:02:19.803" UserId="6011" Comment="explaining type of prior art previously linked" Text="The below links to prior art PDFs circa 2004-2005 should help.  Each of these is a printed publication and 102(b) prior art to the application.  See the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [2004 Hawaii Ad-Me][1]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - [2005 location-aware GPS][2]  See Fig. 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Ad-Me #2][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Ad-Me #3][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A method for providing one or more search results comprising:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**receiving a query;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some of the key functional requirements of the system are: to provide&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a backdrop of tourist information; present local map image and depict&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the user position upon it; find objects of interest to the user and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; show their location on the map as well as their names within a list. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Additionally the user may acquire information about an object, make a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reservation, or get directions to the object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2004 Ad-me at 4, col. 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Preceptors acquire environmental stimulus such as user input and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; GPS coordinates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2004 Ad-me at 4, col. 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Active Personalization:  User interactions are accrued and are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; automatically exploited in order to dynamically refine the preexisting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user profiles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2004 Ad-me at 7, col. 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**determining a location of a user performing the query; and**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Preceptors acquire environmental stimulus such as user input and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; GPS coordinates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2004 Ad-me at 4, col. 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The GPS Preceptor acquires the GPS coordinates and then the GPS&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Actuator passes them to the GUI as well as to the server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2004 Ad-me at 5, col. 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**providing one or more search results for presentation based upon the query, the search results indicative of one or more providers within at least one of a temporal and a geographic proximity of the location, and the search results provided as a function of whether the one or more providers are available.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The high relevant value is assured because of several factors.  First&#xD;&#xA;&gt; advertisements are prioritized amongst other things on the proximity&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the supplier to the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2004 Ad-me at 9, col. 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A parallel set of profiles exists for each advertisers.  These&#xD;&#xA;&gt; profiles contain such data as outlet location, special promotional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; offers, opening times and parking or delivery facilities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2004 Ad-me at 7, col. 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MIA also constitutes a multi-agent based location-aware information&#xD;&#xA;&gt; system for mobile users.  MIA's emphasis is one of retrieving content&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from the web and delivering this to the user.  The retrieved&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information is relevant to the city where the user is currently&#xD;&#xA;&gt; located.  It merely uses user location as the key.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2004 Ad-me at 8, col. 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The service is augmented with a range of pull technology functions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; including a find nearest function which will find a desired object&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (e.g. restaurant, museum), that is closest to the users [sic] current&#xD;&#xA;&gt; position.  Objects are selected from a list of standard objects&#xD;&#xA;&gt; including inter alia cash machine, taxi rank, pharmacy, train station,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and police station.  The system addresses interoperability and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; delivers its service in a manner sensitive to the users [sic]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technological context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2004 Ad-me at 4, col. 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ad-me utilizes user profiles in order to present to the user context&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sensitive advertisements which in particular takes cognizance of: ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Those items of high interest to the user; ... Products and Services&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that are within the immediate user locality; Products and Services&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that are available at a given instance (opening times, in stock).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2004 Ad-me at 7, col. 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also 2004 Ad-me at 3, col. 1 (computing context, user context, physical context and time context)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lithosphere.com/stackexchange/2004-Ad-me-Hawaii.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lithosphere.com/stackexchange/2005-Location-aware-GPS.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://lithosphere.com/stackexchange/Ad-me-2.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://lithosphere.com/stackexchange/Ad-me-3.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5244" RevisionGUID="4fed5e76-6a9b-4f65-9465-dad4e2f0176f" CreationDate="2013-10-17T13:31:16.760" UserId="1259" Comment="tag, formatting claim" Text="**HELP SAVE SURVIVAL BRACELET MAKERS** - This application from Bison Designs, Llc seeks to patent Braided Para cord Devices with Tools Contained Therein! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent application before it becomes a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTION - Have you seen anything that was published before 5 aug 2011 that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A paracord survival bracelet with tools contained therein&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question -- one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: Braided Para cord Devices with Tools Contained Therein&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summary: A paracord bracelet is disclosed which includes a blade with a loop as a handle that can be encased in the braiding to form the loop part of a closure mechanism. In a further embodiment the bracelet includes a pieces of flint formed into a solid piece to form the tab and/or toggle part of a closure mechanism. This combination of devices means that the user has a means of making a fire with them whenever they are wearing the bracelet, in addition to the paracord. In an additional embodiment a key fob is made of paracord enclosing a blade, a flint and tender. Another embodiment the bracelet includes fishing gear, including a steel cable leader set with a clasp hook, swivel, lure and other items. In the depicted embodiment the bracelet is design with the swivel and the clasp hook forming the bracelet closure mechanism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication Number: US20130031935 (https://www.google.com/patents/US20130031935?dq=survival+bracelet+patent&amp;hl=sv&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=IldfUpGIE4mYlQXz_4GYBw&amp;ved=0CFMQ6AEwAw)&#xD;&#xA;Assignee: Bison Designs, Llc&#xD;&#xA;Prior Art Date: Seeking prior Art predating 5 Aug 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A bracelet comprising:&#xD;&#xA;- a body formed from braided paracord having a first and second end;&#xD;&#xA;- a closure mechanism for the bracelet formed in two parts, each of said part being attached to the first and second end respectively;&#xD;&#xA;- at least one of the closure mechanisms being an item that is a tool usable for a task other than closing the bracelet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A paracord bracelet with two ends and a closure mechanism that can be used as a tool for something else than closing the bracelet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5 Aug 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help saving the survival paracord bracelet makers by providing prior art! This &quot;invention&quot; does not deserve a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13069" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5244" RevisionGUID="4fed5e76-6a9b-4f65-9465-dad4e2f0176f" CreationDate="2013-10-17T13:31:16.760" UserId="1259" Comment="tag, formatting claim" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20130031935&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5246" RevisionGUID="f17316c9-926c-4f40-bd3a-82c6323711de" CreationDate="2013-10-17T17:30:57.683" UserId="4922" Text="[This article][1] from **1994** covers PC-KIMMO version 2, a then-new computer program designed to perform &quot;morphological analysis&quot; on words in natural languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples are given in the article for English, but it is strongly hinted that the analysis could easily be adapted for other languages, and they mention several languages (including Finnish) which motivated the need for this style of language parser.  They specifically note that version 2 adds the ability to determine the part of speech that a word belongs to (noun, verb, adjective...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would then be a straightforward and obvious step to map the word-stems and inflections to their equivalents in another language, reverse the analysis there, and thus produce a transliteration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www-01.sil.org/pckimmo/ntnlp94.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5244" RevisionGUID="3dfcf8d5-86fe-4deb-9446-fa7cfd4f8417" CreationDate="2013-10-17T19:56:50.507" UserId="3076" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="**HELP SAVE SURVIVAL BRACELET MAKERS** - This application from Bison Designs, Llc seeks to patent Braided Para cord Devices with Tools Contained Therein! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent application before it becomes a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTION - Have you seen anything that was published before 5 aug 2011 that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A paracord survival bracelet with tools contained therein&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question -- one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: Braided Para cord Devices with Tools Contained Therein&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summary: A paracord bracelet is disclosed which includes a blade with a loop as a handle that can be encased in the braiding to form the loop part of a closure mechanism. In a further embodiment the bracelet includes a pieces of flint formed into a solid piece to form the tab and/or toggle part of a closure mechanism. This combination of devices means that the user has a means of making a fire with them whenever they are wearing the bracelet, in addition to the paracord. In an additional embodiment a key fob is made of paracord enclosing a blade, a flint and tender. Another embodiment the bracelet includes fishing gear, including a steel cable leader set with a clasp hook, swivel, lure and other items. In the depicted embodiment the bracelet is design with the swivel and the clasp hook forming the bracelet closure mechanism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication Number: US20130031935 (https://www.google.com/patents/US20130031935?dq=survival+bracelet+patent&amp;hl=sv&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=IldfUpGIE4mYlQXz_4GYBw&amp;ved=0CFMQ6AEwAw)&#xD;&#xA;Assignee: Bison Designs, Llc&#xD;&#xA;Prior Art Date: Seeking prior Art predating 5 Aug 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 requires each and every structural aspect below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A bracelet comprising:&#xD;&#xA;- a body formed from braided paracord having a first and second end;&#xD;&#xA;- a closure mechanism for the bracelet formed in two parts, each of said part being attached to the first and second end respectively;&#xD;&#xA;- at least one of the closure mechanisms being an item that is a tool usable for a task other than closing the bracelet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A paracord bracelet with two ends and a closure mechanism that can be used as a tool for something else than closing the bracelet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5 Aug 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help saving the survival paracord bracelet makers by providing prior art! This &quot;invention&quot; does not deserve a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5247" RevisionGUID="3276e11b-bbde-4f61-9770-421cea412b24" CreationDate="2013-10-17T21:12:27.140" UserId="6020" Text="If the whistle buckle is sufficient there is ample evidence of the use of whistle buckles in paracord bracelets prior to the date in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A picture is here&#xD;&#xA;http://www.zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=34&amp;t=38163&amp;start=96&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instructables has a belt but not a bracelet tutorial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5249" RevisionGUID="db58dbda-6d91-4b2f-8e29-4727755171d5" CreationDate="2013-10-17T23:56:41.117" UserId="6023" Text="In 1934, My Grandfather (kurt Loesch) received a patent for an atomizer cap (D94036).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The information I've found states that the patent was assigned to Lentheric - which was sold to another company, then sold to another company, and on and on. The company is now Shaneel Enterprises LTD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that this patent had a term 14 years from 1934.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions are:&#xD;&#xA;1.  Does the 'assignor' still hold the rights to this patent? Have those rights been transferred to each company since 1934?&#xD;&#xA;2.  The term of the patent was 14 years.  What happens/ed after the term of the patent expired?&#xD;&#xA;3.  Do I (sole remaining family member) have rights to this patent (patent royalties)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;Susan Loesch&#xD;&#xA;sloesch@gmail.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13077" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5249" RevisionGUID="db58dbda-6d91-4b2f-8e29-4727755171d5" CreationDate="2013-10-17T23:56:41.117" UserId="6023" Text="My Grandfathers Patent - D94036" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13078" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5249" RevisionGUID="db58dbda-6d91-4b2f-8e29-4727755171d5" CreationDate="2013-10-17T23:56:41.117" UserId="6023" Text="&lt;usd94036&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5251" RevisionGUID="714b7224-1c46-4f21-9c0c-52db34a3ba47" CreationDate="2013-10-18T03:50:17.567" UserId="3076" Text="I haven't looked this specific patent up but once a patent expires, and the state of limitations on past infringement passes (long long ago), there are no rights at all. In any case, if a patent is assigned outright by the inventor to a company, the company, not the inventor or his heirs has the rights. Copyrights have a &quot;revert to the author&quot; provision after a certain time. Patents do not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5254" RevisionGUID="7bfb40c1-6f04-4e10-b9b8-b8364398fb01" CreationDate="2013-10-18T14:28:20.447" UserId="6028" Text="Around 2001 I built a system that allows the creation, customization and deployment of mobile applications for both Windows and BlackBerry. The creation of such environments is quite easy as most tool chains out there allow you to call compilers from the command line (.net, java), and given that now configuration files and the like are generally simple text its quite easy to do. I would also site Xamarian's tool set that allows for the development of mobile applications with compilation on Android, and IOS with some support for windows phone. In my opinion compiling and deploying to mobile is no different then compiling and deployment to desktop." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5255" RevisionGUID="d59244bb-3e84-4402-a167-8347b2a8772a" CreationDate="2013-10-18T15:06:56.397" UserId="6029" Text="Simulink by MathWorks has been doing Code generation for years (I used it in 2002). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their generator was designed for embedded systems -mobile micro controllers. It could even be customized to add platforms!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5256" RevisionGUID="78493da1-2bab-4222-a30b-2ed80aa55998" CreationDate="2013-10-18T21:53:24.337" UserId="6032" Text="I have an idea.  I'm debating with myself whether or not it is obvious.  I don't see any evidence of anyone else in the industry doing it. Before I begin doing it I'd like to secure a patent if possible to prevent competitors from copying.  How do I know if it can be patented?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will give you as much as I can of the idea in industry non-specific terms.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially I have a large user base using my software/hardware product.  I would like to setup a systematic approach where the user base can submit proposed changes to my product.&#xD;&#xA;I have a computer process that automatically analyzes what has been submitted to determine if it should be included.  If it is determined that it should be included then it is automatically adding into a patch.  That patch will automatically be downloaded and installed by all users of the product.   This whole process can be completed within a minute or less.  That means that users can have virtually real time impact on improving the product for everyone.  Due to the nature of the product, updating that rapidly makes the product/user experience better for everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is this obvious?  I don't care if the idea is used for other types of applications.  I just don't want it to be used by my competitors as it would give me a competitive advantage to be the only one with a system that works like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are your thoughts?  Am I nuts to think I could get a patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thx!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EV" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13095" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5256" RevisionGUID="78493da1-2bab-4222-a30b-2ed80aa55998" CreationDate="2013-10-18T21:53:24.337" UserId="6032" Text="Is it obvious even though no one is doing it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13096" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5256" RevisionGUID="78493da1-2bab-4222-a30b-2ed80aa55998" CreationDate="2013-10-18T21:53:24.337" UserId="6032" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5256" RevisionGUID="0815f6cc-3cff-40ad-95a0-1693b15c7d62" CreationDate="2013-10-19T06:53:55.867" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="I have an idea.  I'm debating with myself whether or not it is obvious.  I don't see any evidence of anyone else in the industry doing it. Before I begin doing it I'd like to secure a patent if possible to prevent competitors from copying.  How do I know if it can be patented?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will give you as much as I can of the idea in industry non-specific terms.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially I have a large user base using my software/hardware product.  I would like to setup a systematic approach where the user base can submit proposed changes to my product.&#xD;&#xA;I have a computer process that automatically analyzes what has been submitted to determine if it should be included.  If it is determined that it should be included then it is automatically adding into a patch.  That patch will automatically be downloaded and installed by all users of the product.   This whole process can be completed within a minute or less.  That means that users can have virtually real time impact on improving the product for everyone.  Due to the nature of the product, updating that rapidly makes the product/user experience better for everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is this obvious?  I don't care if the idea is used for other types of applications.  I just don't want it to be used by my competitors as it would give me a competitive advantage to be the only one with a system that works like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are your thoughts?  Am I nuts to think I could get a patent?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5257" RevisionGUID="151b9d02-73a8-47d9-87c3-fffe3850156f" CreationDate="2013-10-19T07:12:47.013" UserId="3076" Text="You might be able to - it depends on what it is being compared to in an obvious analysis. Obviousness isn't pondering &quot;does it seem obvious to me&quot; in general. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With some simplification, a patent examiner has to find all of the aspects of your system (that appear in a claim) in one or more published documents. If they find one document/embodiment that has *all* of the aspects of a claim, that claim is *not novel*. If they can't find all aspects in one reference they try to find a single reference that is close and then locate others that fill in the missing pieces to add up to your whole claimed invention. But finding pieces isn't enough to make an obviousness rejection - the examiner has to show some logic that would drive someone to actually add the pieces together. Only then is it *obvious*, unless you can successfully argue otherwise or can amend your claims to include more details not in the prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need a non-trival search. A really good search would look at US and international patent documents, professional/scholarly journals like IEEE and ACM publications as well as theses. The narrower you are willing to make your claims the better chance of getting something through." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5259" RevisionGUID="2b65a5a4-5fbe-4194-b87c-0a88aa2ed366" CreationDate="2013-10-20T14:47:40.433" UserId="6038" Text="In Harold Urey's patent #2,690,379, Google Patents says that the patent examiner added a citation, but the patent itself doesn't say that. If I want to read the patent examiner's notes (assuming it's more than one sentence), where could I order a copy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13104" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5259" RevisionGUID="2b65a5a4-5fbe-4194-b87c-0a88aa2ed366" CreationDate="2013-10-20T14:47:40.433" UserId="6038" Text="Are the patent examiner's notes available?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13105" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5259" RevisionGUID="2b65a5a4-5fbe-4194-b87c-0a88aa2ed366" CreationDate="2013-10-20T14:47:40.433" UserId="6038" Text="&lt;examiner&gt;&lt;us2690379&gt;&lt;urey&gt;&lt;heavy-water&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5261" RevisionGUID="a5fb7276-a6a8-40fe-8651-d7f58caea83e" CreationDate="2013-10-20T21:17:26.030" UserId="3076" Text="The citation google patents listed is from the patent. It appears on the last page of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The image file wrapper of any patent is available to the public. It is the closest thing to &quot;examiner's notes&quot; there is. It includes all of the back-and-forth written communication between the USPTO and the applicant. For applications filed from the middle of 2003 onward the file wrappers on on-line on USPTP Public PAIR. For application before that they need to be ordered. Many commercial entities offer this service. It usually charged by the page and file wrappers can be very long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One service is [REEDFAX.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/SOsjq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.reedfax.com/r_prod_histories.asp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5263" RevisionGUID="ec7c236c-e652-4432-8bd1-8e82f5f855d5" CreationDate="2013-10-21T07:01:29.427" UserId="6042" Text="Good day my name is norrice  le roux I am a road maintenance contractor from south Africa.I have installed thousands of these  D1 reflectors and I have spotted a definitive flaw in the product plus I have invented a upgraded selution for the problem . Can anyone please help me to get hold off the inventor Mr Garcia Guadalupe please , or refer me to the right channels to get hold off him please.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards norrice le roux    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13117" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5263" RevisionGUID="ec7c236c-e652-4432-8bd1-8e82f5f855d5" CreationDate="2013-10-21T07:01:29.427" UserId="6042" Text="type D1 gaurdrail reflector - us20060081742A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13118" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5263" RevisionGUID="ec7c236c-e652-4432-8bd1-8e82f5f855d5" CreationDate="2013-10-21T07:01:29.427" UserId="6042" Text="&lt;us7222078&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5264" RevisionGUID="740661ca-f920-448c-8136-733dded20176" CreationDate="2013-10-21T11:40:44.277" UserId="6043" Text="I worked for a company in a senior tech leadership role and was responsible for their patent applications. I worked with patent attorney to write 3 applications, one of which I was a named inventor on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I left the company a couple of years ago, somewhat acrimoniously, and before the final applications were submitted, but after the initial registration. I have subsequently discovered that the patent that I was named inventor on has been granted, but the inventor names have been changed to the CEO's partner, an employee in the company, and I have been removed along with others who have also left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the position for the inventorship? It seems wrong that this is allowed, although I understand I have no claim on the patent as inventor because the assignee was, and still is, the company." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13120" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5264" RevisionGUID="740661ca-f920-448c-8136-733dded20176" CreationDate="2013-10-21T11:40:44.277" UserId="6043" Text="I was removed as inventor on a patent after leaving the company. Do I have any rights?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13121" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5264" RevisionGUID="740661ca-f920-448c-8136-733dded20176" CreationDate="2013-10-21T11:40:44.277" UserId="6043" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5263" RevisionGUID="c3c87d7c-9a7c-4f5f-9cbb-d54d2c200b6e" CreationDate="2013-10-21T17:11:15.350" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 111 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I have installed items similar to the D1 reflectors described in [US2006081742][1].  I believe I have spotted an opportunity to improve the invention described in this patent application. Can anyone please help me to get hold off the inventor Mr Garcia Guadalupe?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US20060081742" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13123" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5263" RevisionGUID="c3c87d7c-9a7c-4f5f-9cbb-d54d2c200b6e" CreationDate="2013-10-21T17:11:15.350" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 111 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Where can I contact the inventor of US20060081742A1, Type D1 Guardrail Reflector?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13124" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5263" RevisionGUID="c3c87d7c-9a7c-4f5f-9cbb-d54d2c200b6e" CreationDate="2013-10-21T17:11:15.350" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 111 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;us20060081742&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5266" RevisionGUID="42aef7fc-432a-4aa6-9d9e-366b4ce4dcbb" CreationDate="2013-10-21T17:28:22.913" UserId="1767" Text="[US2006081742][1] is a Patent application.  The best way to find information about a US patent application or an issued US patent is on Google Patents.  The second best way is through the [Public PAIR][6] system of the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US2006081742 was rejected by the USPTO in 2007 and subsequently abandoned. The inventor was Guadalupe Garcia and he used an IP service called [Lumen IP][7], which is located in Palo Alto, California and is frequently used by nearby Stanford University:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent was subsequently assigned to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Worldwide Safety, Inc&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 648 46th Street&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sacramento, CA 95819&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Worldwide Safety, Inc. does not appear to have a website.  The address appears to be a home address. The best way to reach the inventor is probably through [Lumen IP][7], which may still have contact information and an email address for the inventor. The second best way is to look through the [other patent applications Guadalupe Garcia has filed at the USPTO][4]  It appears the inventor may now live in Santa Monica, California.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20060081742&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/phsQW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/R79Tb.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&amp;tbm=pts&amp;hl=en&amp;q=ininventor:%22Guadalupe+Garcia%22&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/eYXZd.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3972/1767&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://lumen.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5268" RevisionGUID="a4c552a7-263f-4b15-b935-cb35cbd12fce" CreationDate="2013-10-21T21:05:18.027" UserId="6045" Text="USPTO Litigation Alert reports that &quot;Google, Sony, Microsoft and Samsung requested inter partes review of&quot; this patent.  See http://blog.whda.com/2013/10/google-microsoft-sony-facebook-samsung-gang-up-on-two-b-e-tech-patents-week-of-october-7-2013/#more-4599&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the prior art documents being used to challenge this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13136" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5268" RevisionGUID="a4c552a7-263f-4b15-b935-cb35cbd12fce" CreationDate="2013-10-21T21:05:18.027" UserId="6045" Text="Inter partes review" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13137" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5268" RevisionGUID="a4c552a7-263f-4b15-b935-cb35cbd12fce" CreationDate="2013-10-21T21:05:18.027" UserId="6045" Text="&lt;us6771290&gt;&lt;interpartes&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="00957a5e-8fbb-4492-9b72-99fc4c147c61" CreationDate="2013-10-21T21:57:13.640" UserId="1767" Comment="added 563 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][8]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application has received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON PREDICTING USER BEHAVIOR** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...automatically predicting actions a user is likely to take in response to receiving data! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 15, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of **MONITORING USER ACTION** in response to **INCOMING DATA FOR A USER**; determining a **PATTERN OF USER ACTIONS**; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Predicting the **USER’S ACTION**  in response to his receiving **NEW INCOMING DATA**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses a **SEED MODEL** to make predictions for new users, to utilize **OTHER USER BEHAVIOR** for existing and new users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PREDICTION OF USER RESPONSE TO RECEIVED DATA**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of detecting when a user receives new data, monitoring what the user does in response the the data, and building a model of the user’s future behavior, and predicting the user’s action in response to new incoming data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159220 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/326,877&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 15, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method executed for predicting user actions in response to receiving incoming data, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. detecting incoming data from a data source for a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. monitoring the user's actions in response to receiving the incoming data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining a pattern of user actions in response to the received incoming data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. detecting new incoming data from a data source; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. predicting the user's action in response to receiving the new incoming data based on the pattern of user actions, an incoming data context and an incoming data content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 19** gives insight into what Microsoft claims to have invented with more specificity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 19. {A method, comprising}:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. detecting incoming data from a data source for a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. extracting one or more features of the incoming data utilizing a feature extractor component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. enabling a sensor component to continuously detect the user's actions in response to receiving the incoming data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. uploading detected user action information from the sensor component and extracted feature information from the feature extractor component to an actions processor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. enabling the actions processor to combine, store, and organize the information from the sensor component and the feature extractor component into a user action database, wherein the user action database includes a list of past actions the user has taken in response to receiving data having one or more features;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6.  determining a pattern of user actions in response to the received incoming data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. detecting new incoming data from a data source; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. predicting the user's action in response to receiving the new incoming data based on the pattern of user actions, an incoming data context and an incoming data content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method predicting user actions comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Detecting that user has received some new data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Monitoring what the user does in response to the data; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Extracting patterns of user action in response to the new data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Predicting the user’s action based on the previous pattern of user actions and the incoming data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 15, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using a **SEED MODEL** to make predictions for new users, to utilize **OTHER USER BEHAVIOR** for existing and new users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Cloud-based system for observing and predicting user actions” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/pmGRz.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159220?dq=US20130159220A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13139" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="00957a5e-8fbb-4492-9b72-99fc4c147c61" CreationDate="2013-10-21T21:57:13.640" UserId="1767" Comment="added 563 characters in body" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;us20130159220&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="50005902-89d8-4f05-bee6-58926ef79641" CreationDate="2013-10-21T21:59:36.227" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application has received a **final rejection** by the US Patent Office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community below! The main reference cited by the Patent Examiner in the rejection was found by Ask Patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An applicant has several ways to keep an application in this state alive. They include a request for continuing examination, which involves paying more fees and responding to the rejection. Appealing the rejection is another avenue. If nothing is done it will go abandoned six months from the final rejection.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to the **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **TITLE: Scale factors for visual presentations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130063492 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/230445][3]  &#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application generates and display graphical elements based on *pixel density.* The invention selects a *scale factor* from a *scale factor set* that is within the *range* of the pixel density.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of generating, using a device having a processor, a presentation comprising elements to be displayed on a display component, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - executing on the processor instructions configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - identify a ***pixel density*** of the display component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - for respective elements of the presentation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - from a ***scale factor set***, select a ***scale factor*** having a ***pixel density range*** including the pixel density of the display component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - request the element to generate a scaled representation using the scale factor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - generate the presentation comprising the scaled representations of the elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample figure** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/WgDnr.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application is similar to other resolution-independent scaling applications, patents, and implementations carried out in the industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 09/12/2011** that discusses (1) scale factor; (2) scale factor set; and (3) pixel density range in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][5] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][6] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13141" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="33128976-76ca-4ed1-a76f-6451fe71f171" CreationDate="2013-10-21T22:58:48.783" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;us20130063492&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5269" RevisionGUID="4a1cb6fc-e7aa-4bfb-9485-c9ebf026e033" CreationDate="2013-10-21T23:54:26.200" UserId="3076" Text="The case number of the Sony filing regarding US 6,771,29 is IPR2014-00029. It cites two things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PCT App. Pub. WO 97/09682 (“Kikinis”)&#xD;&#xA;6,049,831(“Gardell”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5269" RevisionGUID="47c60eb2-c9cf-4584-910b-6be116180f3f" CreationDate="2013-10-22T00:04:20.490" UserId="3076" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="The case number of the Sony filing regarding US 6,771,29 is IPR2014-00029. It cites two things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PCT App. Pub. WO 97/09682 (“Kikinis”)&#xD;&#xA;6,049,831(“Gardell”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Microsofts filing has Kikinis and excerpts from AOL for Dummies 3rd edition!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5270" RevisionGUID="69164a6d-5de1-4a86-8d73-1747f871e610" CreationDate="2013-10-22T15:30:27.420" UserId="3588" Text="I saw a recent patent application publication (by Microsoft) where it looks like a a same or equivalent application was submitted to the U.S. patent office and the Chinese equivalent, on the same day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering what might be the tactic or strategy here.&#xD;&#xA;The patent application - http://www.google.com/patents/WO2013062965A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks,&#xD;&#xA;Matt" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13145" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5270" RevisionGUID="69164a6d-5de1-4a86-8d73-1747f871e610" CreationDate="2013-10-22T15:30:27.420" UserId="3588" Text="Parallel application submission China and U.S" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13146" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5270" RevisionGUID="69164a6d-5de1-4a86-8d73-1747f871e610" CreationDate="2013-10-22T15:30:27.420" UserId="3588" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;strategy&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5271" RevisionGUID="1711aab8-1b60-45af-be7b-a3e989f653ee" CreationDate="2013-10-22T15:35:49.893" UserId="6048" Text="I think Titanium may be a good candidate for prior art. Written by Appcelerator which has been going since 2006 (http://www.appcelerator.com/company/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Titanium provides a write once compile native application for multiple mobile platforms (including Android, Blackberry, iOS - http://www.appcelerator.com/titanium/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The SDK is open source but the development environment is a paid for application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5272" RevisionGUID="dcc6dda5-e413-414f-8b74-61a6dff8e72d" CreationDate="2013-10-22T23:10:51.277" UserId="6051" Text="presentation/ gui/ theme maker&#xD;&#xA;http://www.hollywood-mal.com/index.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;logo creator for mobile phone (presentation of mobile)&#xD;&#xA;http://aminet.net/package/mus/misc/ringtonetools&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent is nothing new. just because the developer adds porting code to a new 'device' does not make it any new to a farmer creating a new shovel with extra grooves that digs in a new land of man made soil called newsoil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a shovel is still a shovel - it cannot be reinvented to do a job on something new eg ne type of soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a gui/theme app/software and any porting software (for any platform/desktop) is the shovel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They existed for years, nothing new&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;using a new shovel to dig in new type of soil does not make it unique&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;same as any gui/theme software that targets any new future DEVICE is NOT new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its same as saying i invented a new shovel, extra lining of titanium (does not exist in world) because i am digging somewhere new EG MARS. New soil in Mars is different % minerals, we call in MarsSoil (TM).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I dont care WHERE any shovel digs - its not new techology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;we dont care ANY theme/gui/presentation software converts/ports or 'made to work' or 'improved to work' with any 'device' now or future. Process is same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another cross platform SDK/ converter/ porting software is  :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.amigahistory.co.uk/amigade.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Amiga DE / Elate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;run once port to any other device including mobile&#xD;&#xA;http://www.amiga.com/about/history/?t=anywhere&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5273" RevisionGUID="37732e73-eea9-480f-a314-ec292ca18c86" CreationDate="2013-10-23T00:25:35.147" UserId="3076" Text="It is a strategy, called filing a PCT application. The one with the WO # is the publication of a Patent Cooperation Treaty application. It is a process run by WIPO in Geneva but applicants generally file a PCT international application *through* their own country's patent office. A PCT appellation is a &quot;world&quot; **application** but there is not such thing as a world **patent**. When a PCT application is filed is has the properties of having filed 147 applications in that many locations. At some later date the applicant choses which branches to let fall and which to keep going with. The filing date of the PCT application is the filing date of all 147 applications - going into the *national stage* in China is technically not filing a new application, just changing the state of the China instance of the PCT application. The WO # application is not a &quot;regular&quot; U.S. national patent application. It was just filed through the USPTO acting as a Receiving Office for WIPO. Of course, it is technically a U.S. application just like it is technically a Luxembourg and an Indonesia application (and the other 143 places)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5273" RevisionGUID="073dbec4-072c-49f0-b3b6-bea5bbeb1590" CreationDate="2013-10-23T01:57:18.353" UserId="3076" Comment="added 177 characters in body" Text="It is a strategy called filing a PCT application. The one with the WO # (Not a US normal U.S. application) is the publication of a Patent Cooperation Treaty application. It is a process run by WIPO in Geneva. You can file in Geneva but applicants generally file a PCT international application *through* their own country's patent office. A PCT application is a &quot;world&quot; **application** but there is no such thing as a world **patent**. What makes a PCT application an international application is that its filing is has the effect of filing 147 applications in that many locations. At some later date the applicant choses which branches to let die and which to keep going with (paying money per location) . The filing date of the PCT application is the filing date of all 147 applications. Later, going into the *national stage* in China is technically not filing a new application, it is just changing the state of the China instance of the PCT application. The WO # application is not a &quot;regular&quot; U.S. national patent application. It was just filed through the USPTO acting as a Receiving Office for WIPO. On the other hand it, of course, is technically a U.S. application just like it is technically a China application, and a Luxembourg and an Indonesia application (and the other 142 places)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5274" RevisionGUID="b1c3fd62-79ce-46a4-9a98-065c24265184" CreationDate="2013-10-23T07:30:46.617" UserId="5715" Text="The patents search engines market is saturated with big players, there are many engines, each offers more or the same features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you describe the best patents search engine? what would you like to have in such a search engine? beside of-course, the search option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;how do you chose your search engine?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13156" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5274" RevisionGUID="b1c3fd62-79ce-46a4-9a98-065c24265184" CreationDate="2013-10-23T07:30:46.617" UserId="5715" Text="What is missing in todays patents search engines?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13157" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5274" RevisionGUID="b1c3fd62-79ce-46a4-9a98-065c24265184" CreationDate="2013-10-23T07:30:46.617" UserId="5715" Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;patent-search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5275" RevisionGUID="35ccad3f-bf2a-4f2b-a599-b2c50e1d3742" CreationDate="2013-10-23T11:42:54.007" UserId="6054" Text="SIFT is a patented method that does both feature detection and description (US6711293 - http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6711293). The method consists of roughly of three points (please let me know if I am inaccurate):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Detected features are local extrema of Difference of Gaussians in scale-space.&#xD;&#xA;2. Each detected feature are assigned (possibly) multiple dominant gradient orientations. &#xD;&#xA;3. For each detected feature and for all possible dominant orientations, a descriptor is computed in a rotationally invariant manner from several histograms of gradients.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I be sued...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if I design another method which:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- reimplements exactly claim (1) and claim (2), i.e., *including all the associated technical details*,&#xD;&#xA;- but, for which, claim (3) is replaced by a *strictly different* nonpatented method, e.g., DAISY, FREAK...&#xD;&#xA;- and will be used in a commercial application? (sold anywhere in the world)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I still have to replace claims (1) and (2) by strictly different methods?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13159" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5275" RevisionGUID="35ccad3f-bf2a-4f2b-a599-b2c50e1d3742" CreationDate="2013-10-23T11:42:54.007" UserId="6054" Text="SIFT: reusing some claims and replacing others by strictly different nonpatented methods?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13160" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5275" RevisionGUID="35ccad3f-bf2a-4f2b-a599-b2c50e1d3742" CreationDate="2013-10-23T11:42:54.007" UserId="6054" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;us6711293&gt;&lt;image-processing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13161" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5275" RevisionGUID="0789931e-8941-41f5-893f-d6dc24060db9" CreationDate="2013-10-23T11:57:38.590" UserId="6054" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;us6711293&gt;&lt;image-processing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5276" RevisionGUID="9b3e1a6c-45c7-4c91-a733-21b2e038334f" CreationDate="2013-10-23T12:04:02.180" UserId="6056" Text="Definitely, the user interface wherein one can easily access the claims, summary and drawings related to the patents get the highest priority. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the engines which give clear and easy access to classifications of the patent i.e. the US classification, the ECLA and the CPC classification are preferred.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thirdly, a search engine which accesses patents worldwide especially the chinese patents add up to the list.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5277" RevisionGUID="01571eea-b2e2-4e76-95fa-63dacbb81fa9" CreationDate="2013-10-23T12:14:52.300" UserId="6056" Text="If you still have any written documents or any recordings or even an email wherein this can be proved that you were the inventor of the invention, then, YES, you can invalidate that application/draft! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know you can take it for legal course as well provided you have a concrete proof ! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good Luck ! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5279" RevisionGUID="68fdf055-2337-47fc-938c-555cbc469878" CreationDate="2013-10-23T15:49:18.900" UserId="6057" Text="How could this patent possibly be valid? https://www.google.ca/patents/US8131735&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like every information retrieval system ever built is prior art. Specifically, even the notion of using word co-occurrence scores to find key phrases has been documented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this paper: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.174.8359&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We find the following quote: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Various phrase-finding and indexing methods have been proposed in the past and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generally, retrieval performance conclusions on the use of phrases as indexing units&#xD;&#xA;&gt; were inconsistent. Salton &amp; McGill [23] suggested generating statistical phrases based&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on word co-occurrence and then incorporating them into document representation as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; additional index terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Salton &amp; McGill reference is from this book, published in 1983: http://books.google.ca/books/about/Introduction_to_modern_information_retri.html?id=7f5TAAAAMAAJ&amp;redir_esc=y&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not an expert on patents, but it looks like this one was granted. Is there anything that can be done if a patent that clearly has prior art has already been granted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone explain what, exactly, about this patent is unique?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13169" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5279" RevisionGUID="68fdf055-2337-47fc-938c-555cbc469878" CreationDate="2013-10-23T15:49:18.900" UserId="6057" Text="How could patent US 8131735 B2 possibly be valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13170" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5279" RevisionGUID="68fdf055-2337-47fc-938c-555cbc469878" CreationDate="2013-10-23T15:49:18.900" UserId="6057" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;us8131735&gt;&lt;keyword&gt;&lt;extraction&gt;&lt;parsing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5279" RevisionGUID="66ef8ab4-2b83-4621-aff5-d3b9006f950a" CreationDate="2013-10-23T17:44:43.647" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1292 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON automatic keyword extraction** - 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patents in the future.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 7/2/2009** that discusses using word co-occurrence scores to find key phrases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for prior art on [US 8,131,735][1] Rapid automatic keyword extraction for information retrieval and analysis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US8131735 B2][1]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Battelle Memorial Institute&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 7/2/2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A computer-implemented method of extracting keywords from an individual document, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Parsing an individual document by delimiters and stop words to identify candidate keywords;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining co-occurrences of words within the candidate keywords;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Calculating word scores for each word within the candidate keywords based on a function of co-occurrence degree, co-occurrence frequency, or both;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Calculating a keyword score for each candidate keyword based on a function of word scores for words within the candidate keyword; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Selecting a portion of the candidate keywords to extract as keywords based, at least in part, on the candidate keywords with highest keyword scores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The notion of using word co-occurrence scores to find key phrases has been documented.  (It seems like every information retrieval system ever built is prior art.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in this paper: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.174.8359&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We find the following quote: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Various phrase-finding and indexing methods have been proposed in the past and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generally, retrieval performance conclusions on the use of phrases as indexing units&#xD;&#xA;&gt; were inconsistent. Salton &amp; McGill [23] suggested generating statistical phrases based&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on word co-occurrence and then incorporating them into document representation as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; additional index terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Salton &amp; McGill reference is from this book, published in 1983: http://books.google.ca/books/about/Introduction_to_modern_information_retri.html?id=7f5TAAAAMAAJ&amp;redir_esc=y&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.google.ca/patents/US8131735&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US8131735" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13172" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5279" RevisionGUID="66ef8ab4-2b83-4621-aff5-d3b9006f950a" CreationDate="2013-10-23T17:44:43.647" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1292 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Automatic Keyword Extraction - Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13173" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5279" RevisionGUID="66ef8ab4-2b83-4621-aff5-d3b9006f950a" CreationDate="2013-10-23T17:44:43.647" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1292 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;us8131735&gt;&lt;keyword&gt;&lt;extraction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5280" RevisionGUID="2eace67d-c572-4c78-8cdb-2dd177be523f" CreationDate="2013-10-23T18:22:12.587" UserId="3076" Text="First lets get terminology straight, each of the long sentences that is preceded by a number is a claim. This patent has 20 of them. Each sub-aspect of a claim is called an element or a limitation of that claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each numbered claim is like its own patent. Patents as a whole are not infringed, claims are infringed. To be in the clear, whatever you are doing needs to *not* be describable by any of the 19 claims. Now, to infringe a particular claim, you need to do everything that claim requires. To infringe a method comprising the steps a, b and c you would need to do a, b and c. (Somewhat simplified). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case there are three independent claims: 1, 10 and 19. If you avoid those you avoid all of the others, by defininition, since the others are all  narrowed versiosn of one of the independent claims. Claim 1 requires the steps of locating, comparing, comparing, comparing and finally producing descriptors for a plurality of subregions. To not practice claim 1 you need to accomplish a result that serves the purpose of the descriptors without doing at least one of those steps. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I do not see Gaussian or histogram anywhere in the claim language. To even get to &quot;blur&quot; you need to go to claim 3." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5280" RevisionGUID="e9836174-b513-4190-8c70-aa56b3f2cb19" CreationDate="2013-10-23T20:47:23.940" UserId="3076" Comment="typo" Text="First lets get terminology straight, each of the long sentences that is preceded by a number is a claim. This patent has 20 of them. Each sub-aspect of a claim is called an element or a limitation of that claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each numbered claim is like its own patent. Patents as a whole are not infringed, claims are infringed. To be in the clear, whatever you are doing needs to *not* be describable by any of the 20 claims. Now, to infringe a particular claim, you need to do everything that claim requires. To infringe a method comprising the steps a, b and c you would need to do a, b and c. (Somewhat simplified). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case there are three independent claims: 1, 10 and 19. If you avoid those you avoid all of the others, by defininition, since the others are all  narrowed versiosn of one of the independent claims. Claim 1 requires the steps of locating, comparing, comparing, comparing and finally producing descriptors for a plurality of subregions. To not practice claim 1 you need to accomplish a result that serves the purpose of the descriptors without doing at least one of those steps. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I do not see Gaussian or histogram anywhere in the claim language. To even get to &quot;blur&quot; you need to go to claim 3." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5281" RevisionGUID="a2be224c-bbb1-4a9b-92cc-74edb65484f4" CreationDate="2013-10-23T21:08:12.613" UserId="3076" Text="Comprehensiveness in coverage. Ability to include English machine translations of non-English specifications and claims in a search (not just abstract). Search results ranked by relevance. Easy hyperlinks to forward and backward citations. Automatically store a large number of search query histories. Proximity criteria in searching. Folders for saved documents. Legal Status. Family members. Related Court cases. Private annotation. Reporting that includes high-res thumbnails of figures. Maybe automatically find other things that are similar to: X, Y and Z documents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5275" RevisionGUID="f0e8859a-6a02-4672-8074-4e3f37494844" CreationDate="2013-10-23T21:43:00.947" UserId="6054" Comment="changed link" Text="SIFT is a patented method that does both feature detection and description (US6711293 - http://www.google.com/patents/us6711293). The method consists of roughly of three points (please let me know if I am inaccurate):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Detected features are local extrema of Difference of Gaussians in scale-space.&#xD;&#xA;2. Each detected feature are assigned (possibly) multiple dominant gradient orientations. &#xD;&#xA;3. For each detected feature and for all possible dominant orientations, a descriptor is computed in a rotationally invariant manner from several histograms of gradients.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I be sued...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if I design another method which:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- reimplements exactly claim (1) and claim (2), i.e., *including all the associated technical details*,&#xD;&#xA;- but, for which, claim (3) is replaced by a *strictly different* nonpatented method, e.g., DAISY, FREAK...&#xD;&#xA;- and will be used in a commercial application? (sold anywhere in the world)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I still have to replace claims (1) and (2) by strictly different methods?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="05a3d7d4-0117-4256-9f3f-07318cf29446" CreationDate="2013-10-23T23:36:25.360" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" ![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application has received a **final rejection** by the US Patent Office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community below! The main reference cited by the Patent Examiner in the rejection was found by Ask Patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An applicant has several ways to keep an application in this state alive. They include a request for continuing examination, which involves paying more fees and responding to the rejection. Appealing the rejection is another avenue. If nothing is done it will go abandoned six months from the final rejection.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to the **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **TITLE: Scale factors for visual presentations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130063492 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/230445][3]  &#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application generates and display graphical elements based on *pixel density.* The invention selects a *scale factor* from a *scale factor set* that is within the *range* of the pixel density.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of generating, using a device having a processor, a presentation comprising elements to be displayed on a display component, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - executing on the processor instructions configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - identify a ***pixel density*** of the display component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - for respective elements of the presentation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - from a ***scale factor set***, select a ***scale factor*** having a ***pixel density range*** including the pixel density of the display component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - request the element to generate a scaled representation using the scale factor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - generate the presentation comprising the scaled representations of the elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample figure** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/WgDnr.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application is similar to other resolution-independent scaling applications, patents, and implementations carried out in the industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 09/12/2011** that discusses (1) scale factor; (2) scale factor set; and (3) pixel density range in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][5] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][6] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="fb1786ec-bd5e-4183-b342-d21f0258778c" CreationDate="2013-10-23T23:36:39.830" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" ![enter image description here][8]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application has received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON PREDICTING USER BEHAVIOR** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...automatically predicting actions a user is likely to take in response to receiving data! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 15, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of **MONITORING USER ACTION** in response to **INCOMING DATA FOR A USER**; determining a **PATTERN OF USER ACTIONS**; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Predicting the **USER’S ACTION**  in response to his receiving **NEW INCOMING DATA**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses a **SEED MODEL** to make predictions for new users, to utilize **OTHER USER BEHAVIOR** for existing and new users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PREDICTION OF USER RESPONSE TO RECEIVED DATA**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of detecting when a user receives new data, monitoring what the user does in response the the data, and building a model of the user’s future behavior, and predicting the user’s action in response to new incoming data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159220 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/326,877&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 15, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method executed for predicting user actions in response to receiving incoming data, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. detecting incoming data from a data source for a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. monitoring the user's actions in response to receiving the incoming data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining a pattern of user actions in response to the received incoming data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. detecting new incoming data from a data source; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. predicting the user's action in response to receiving the new incoming data based on the pattern of user actions, an incoming data context and an incoming data content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 19** gives insight into what Microsoft claims to have invented with more specificity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 19. {A method, comprising}:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. detecting incoming data from a data source for a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. extracting one or more features of the incoming data utilizing a feature extractor component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. enabling a sensor component to continuously detect the user's actions in response to receiving the incoming data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. uploading detected user action information from the sensor component and extracted feature information from the feature extractor component to an actions processor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. enabling the actions processor to combine, store, and organize the information from the sensor component and the feature extractor component into a user action database, wherein the user action database includes a list of past actions the user has taken in response to receiving data having one or more features;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6.  determining a pattern of user actions in response to the received incoming data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. detecting new incoming data from a data source; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. predicting the user's action in response to receiving the new incoming data based on the pattern of user actions, an incoming data context and an incoming data content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method predicting user actions comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Detecting that user has received some new data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Monitoring what the user does in response to the data; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Extracting patterns of user action in response to the new data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Predicting the user’s action based on the previous pattern of user actions and the incoming data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 15, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using a **SEED MODEL** to make predictions for new users, to utilize **OTHER USER BEHAVIOR** for existing and new users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Cloud-based system for observing and predicting user actions” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/pmGRz.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159220?dq=US20130159220A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="0f29f591-0f61-455b-9f88-a28dfe82f34b" CreationDate="2013-10-23T23:36:51.830" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON using word stems to translate unknown words** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Machine translation of unknown words by finding known word stems and adding inflections! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/31/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using word stems to guess at translations of &quot;out of vocabulary words&quot; in machine translation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - the applicant is claiming preprocessing the morphological analysis by looking for transliterations, misspellings, substituting colloquial expressions if recognized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Resolving out-of-vocabulary words with word stem analysis**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for translating &quot;out-of-vocabulary&quot; words which involves looking for word stems, translating the word stem and inflecting the word stem in the foreign language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130197896 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/362,595&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/31/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/28/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method under control of one or more processors specifically configured with executable instructions, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving, by a server, a request from a computing device to translate one or more words from a source language to a target language;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining that a phrase table excludes a particular word of the one or more words but includes a remainder of the one or more words;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining whether a morphological analysis of the particular word identifies a stem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. in response to determining that the morphological analysis of the particular word identifies the stem, translating the stem from the source language to the target language to create a translated stem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. inflecting the translated stem based on the morphological analysis of the particular word to create a translated word corresponding to the particular word;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. translating the remainder of the one or more words from the source language to the target language to create a translated remainder;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. creating a translation of the one or more words based on the translated word and the translated remainder; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. sending the translation to the computing device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of machine translation, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving request to translate one or more words to target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining that the words are &quot;out-of-vocabulary&quot; (i.e. not in the lookup table)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining that the words contain word stems&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Translating the word stems into the target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Inflecting the word stems in the target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Translating the remaining words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Sending the translated words to a computer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/31/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming looking for transliterations, misspellings, substituting colloquial expressions if recognized&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Using word-stem analysis to translate unknown words from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Rz2r9.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130197896?dq=US20130197896A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130197896" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5224" RevisionGUID="e1dd4031-9e2d-406f-9af3-d2131d7b084f" CreationDate="2013-10-23T23:37:06.410" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Search results based on user location and whether stores are open or closed nearby** - This application from [Inrix, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...determining a user's location and giving search results which depend on whether stores are open nearby! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/29/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - User location to modify search results and using provider (e.g. store) availability to modify search results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Search results based on whether store is open, ETA for user to visit store, and route user would take to visit store&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Organization of search results based upon availability of respective providers.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for providing search results to a user based on the user's location and whether the providers nearby (within any **&quot;temporal or geographic proximity&quot;** to the user) are open or closed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130226915 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/407,841&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Inrix, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/29/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/25/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing one or more search results comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a query;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining a location of a user performing the query; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. providing one or more search results for presentation based upon the query, the search results indicative of one or more providers within at least one of a temporal and a geographic proximity of the location, and the search results provided as a function of whether the one or more providers are available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a query from user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining user's location; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Presenting search results to the user indicating one or more providers in spatial or temporal proximity, where the search results are a function of whether the providers are available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/29/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming modifying search results by determining whether provider store is open, whether it is nearby user based on user's location, and current ETA for user to visit the provider store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Location and nearby stores are used to modify search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/n8JHjES.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130226915&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.inrix.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130226915" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5182" RevisionGUID="c04e9582-d45e-4c3b-b215-dc1ac1debf7c" CreationDate="2013-10-23T23:37:21.690" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON** tracking and managing group expenditures - This application from Google seeks to patent the idea of...dividing expenses among members of a group! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally filed by Google on March 30, 2012, made public Oct 3, 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US Patent Application 20130262294][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And covered by [GeekWire][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art Date: Seeking Prior Art predating **March 30, 2012**.&#xD;&#xA; - **Patent Publication Number**: [US 20130262294 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA; - **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/3/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for tracking payment transactions of a group of users, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. establishing, by a computer system a group including at least three users; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. maintaining, by the computer system, a transaction record for the group including a plurality of payment transactions involving the users of the group, each of the plurality of payment transactions associated with a payment amount;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. responsive to receiving information on a payment transaction involving a user of the group and associated with a payment amount, determining, by the computer system, whether the payment transaction occurred within a range of dates provided for the group;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. responsive to determining the payment transaction occurred within the range o dates, updating, by a computer system, the transaction record for the group to include the payment transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. updating, by the computer system, a total balance maintained for the transaction record based on payment amounts associated with the payment transactions included in the transaction record; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. responsive to a settlement event, settling, by the computer system, the total balance by initiating fund transfers between the users of the group for the payment transactions occurring within the date range&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English the means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for tracking payment transactions of a group of users, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Establishing a group of at least three users; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Maintaining a transaction record for the group which includes at least one payment transaction among group members and a payment amount for that transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving information about a payment transaction involving the group that occurs within a **range of dates** provided for by the group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Updating the transaction record for the group to include the payment transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Updating a **total balance** maintained for the transaction record; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Settling the total balance by initiating fund transfers between the users of the group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 3/30/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Fig 4. A table illustrating balances of users of a group&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/fx5dI.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130262294&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.geekwire.com/2013/joke-google-seeks-patent-splitting-restaurant-bills/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5027" RevisionGUID="3e968240-6862-4a96-b69a-816fd22324d0" CreationDate="2013-10-23T23:40:03.603" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **A PATENT APPLICATION WITH SOME OVER-BROAD CLAIMS ON synchronizing groups of files from a storage system to a client device** - This application from [Citrix][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Selecting groups of files to copy from a storage system to a client device! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 	Feb 14, 2013** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Selecting groups of files to copy together when synchronizing a client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO scores files based on relevancy to determine whether they should be synchronized as part of a group of files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Synchronizing groups of files to client device**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for synchronizing data between client device and storage system, comprising: selecting a set of files which are **related to a particular file** based on any selection criteria and copying those files to from the storage system to the client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130212067 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/767,510&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Citrix&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 	Feb 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/11/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of synchronizing data between a client device and a storage repository, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Establishing a communications channel between the client device and the storage repository;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. From a storage location for files to be synchronized between the client device and the storage repository, **selecting** a set of files which is related to a particular file based on a set of selection criteria; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. While the communications channel is established, **copying** data of the selected set of files between the client device and the storage repository to synchronize the selected set of files between the client device and the storage repository.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for sychronizing data between a client device and a storage system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Connecting the client device and the storage system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a set of files which is related to a particular file based on **any** selection criteria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Copying the set of files to/from the storage system to the client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the features of claim 1 seem old and that claim may be quickly rejected, as the claims get narrower they get closer to what the applicant seems to consider important. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application is about files that are given an *overall figure of merit* that is used to decide what gets automatically moved to the client and in what order or priority. They are trying to solve the problem of having much more stored in the cloud than you want to dedicate space to on the client, but to still have synced copies of things locally,hopefully before you need them, by heuristics predicting your needs based on this overall figure of merit that involves frequency of access and access to things with similar names or in nearby folders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner will not need our help to reject Claim 1. See **Claim 5** below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A method as in claim 4 wherein providing, for each file of the group of files, the respective overall score includes:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;applying each file relevancy factor of the set of file relevancy factors to each file of the group of files to generate a set of relevancy scores for that file, and&#xD;&#xA;for each file,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA; aggregating the set of relevancy scores for that file to generate an aggregate score as the respective overall score for that file, the selected set of files being distinguished from the remaining files of the group based on the aggregate score generated for each file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to  Feb 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming scoring files based on relevancy to determine whether they should be synchronized as part of a group of files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Selecting groups of files to synchronize together from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zTHarXn.png&quot; width=&quot;900&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130212067?dq=US20130212067&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.citrix.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130212067" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5280" RevisionGUID="e7625e85-660c-4981-9361-6002ee6b1098" CreationDate="2013-10-24T02:46:11.513" UserId="3076" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="First lets get terminology straight, each of the long sentences that is preceded by a number is a claim. This patent has 20 of them. Each sub-aspect of a claim is called an element or a limitation of that claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each numbered claim is like its own patent. Patents as a whole are not infringed, claims are infringed. To be in the clear, whatever you are doing needs to *not* be describable by any of the 20 claims. Now, to infringe a particular claim, you need to do everything that claim requires. To infringe a method comprising the steps a, b and c you would need to do a, b and c. (Somewhat simplified). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case there are three independent claims: 1, 10 and 19. If you avoid those you avoid all of the others, by defininition, since the others are all  narrowed versiosn of one of the independent claims. Claim 1 requires the steps of locating, comparing, comparing, comparing and finally producing descriptors for a plurality of subregions. To not practice claim 1 you need to accomplish a result that serves the purpose of the descriptors without doing at least one of those steps. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gaussian and histogram are not specified anywhere in the claim language. To even get to &quot;blur&quot; you need to go to claim 3. That means avoiding Gaussian operations, histograms or even blurring will not get you past claim 1, for example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5287" RevisionGUID="54380f16-d3c7-4ac7-892e-9a81a5ddf2cb" CreationDate="2013-10-24T21:54:06.760" UserId="6072" Text="Take a look at this patent. wo2013112217a3 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are hundreds if not thousands of patents filed before this patent that utilize this fundamental principal.  Technically all samurai swords are in violation of this patent.  Silly to see that system reform we had for patent system encourages this ridiculous behavior.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thomas Edison is turning in his grave.  This is stopping technology development.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13210" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5287" RevisionGUID="54380f16-d3c7-4ac7-892e-9a81a5ddf2cb" CreationDate="2013-10-24T21:54:06.760" UserId="6072" Text="Why can patents so broad and vague get awarded?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13211" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5287" RevisionGUID="54380f16-d3c7-4ac7-892e-9a81a5ddf2cb" CreationDate="2013-10-24T21:54:06.760" UserId="6072" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5288" RevisionGUID="f017c9b5-079b-4e57-a801-a25c9687879b" CreationDate="2013-10-24T22:15:43.780" UserId="6073" Text="I did an [advanced search][1] for `AN/&quot;Amazon.com&quot; AND (delivery OR locker OR distribution)` and could not find a patent for the [Amazon Locker][2]. Is it patented? If so, what is the patent number? Is it publicly known if they tried to patent it? If not, why not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm&amp;r=0&amp;p=1&amp;f=S&amp;l=50&amp;Query=AN/%22Amazon.com%22%20AND%20%28delivery%20OR%20locker%20OR%20distribution%29&amp;d=PTXT&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200689010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13213" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5288" RevisionGUID="f017c9b5-079b-4e57-a801-a25c9687879b" CreationDate="2013-10-24T22:15:43.780" UserId="6073" Text="Is the Amazon Locker Patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13214" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5288" RevisionGUID="f017c9b5-079b-4e57-a801-a25c9687879b" CreationDate="2013-10-24T22:15:43.780" UserId="6073" Text="&lt;process&gt;&lt;business-methods&gt;&lt;amazon.com&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13215" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5287" RevisionGUID="2a097af8-8293-4bb3-9771-2d323b81414c" CreationDate="2013-10-24T22:54:59.663" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;wo2013112217&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5280" RevisionGUID="5a91ea28-7085-43cb-9113-f25066013ab0" CreationDate="2013-10-24T22:59:39.473" UserId="3076" Comment="edited body" Text="First lets get terminology straight, each of the long sentences that is preceded by a number is a claim. This patent has 20 of them. Each sub-aspect of a claim is called an element or a limitation of that claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each numbered claim is like its own patent. Patents as a whole are not infringed, claims are infringed. To be in the clear, whatever you are doing needs to *not* be describable by any of the 20 claims. Now, to infringe a particular claim, you need to do everything that claim requires. To infringe a method comprising the steps a, b and c you would need to do a, b and c. (Somewhat simplified). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case there are three independent claims: 1, 10 and 19. If you avoid those you avoid all of the others, by defininition, since the others are all  narrowed versions of one of the independent claims. Claim 1 requires the steps of locating, comparing, comparing, comparing and finally producing descriptors for a plurality of subregions. To not practice claim 1 you need to accomplish a result that serves the purpose of the descriptors without doing at least one of those steps. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gaussian and histogram are not specified anywhere in the claim language. To even get to &quot;blur&quot; you need to go to claim 3. That means avoiding Gaussian operations, histograms or even blurring will not get you past claim 1, for example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5289" RevisionGUID="75520ed9-c78c-4664-8133-b71185ccb813" CreationDate="2013-10-24T23:28:19.753" UserId="3076" Text="I highly recommend **not** using the USPTO's search site. Google patents is easier to use, more forgiving of poor search strings&#xD;&#xA;, now has patents and patent applications from China, Europe and WIPO, and provides access to information besides the patent itself, including assignment history. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The search you did might have found something if you didn't have the &quot;.com&quot; in the search string. The company's actual corporate name has no dot com in it. Putting amazon locker into google patents turns up several documents, including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A better search would be to use google patents advanced and put Amazon in the assignee field instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US8504653 Amazon][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8504653?dq=amazon%20locker&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=rappUo6eMYuzigLVnoDgCw&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CFYQ6AEwBQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5290" RevisionGUID="8e27dad4-c1c4-4c32-a973-79ed4d9c237a" CreationDate="2013-10-24T23:36:07.267" UserId="3076" Text="This is an application, **not a granted patent**. And I do not think Samurai were doing what the Cal Tech researchers are claiming. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  claim 4. The method according to claim 1 , wherein the at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gradient transition region comprises a multi-stage gradient wherein&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the gradient region includes both incremental compositional steps and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; direct stepwise compositional transitions.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5289" RevisionGUID="6b09b280-d01d-4be1-ae5c-db5b3f28c505" CreationDate="2013-10-24T23:43:12.440" UserId="3076" Comment="added 216 characters in body" Text="I highly recommend **not** using the USPTO's search site. Google patents is easier to use, more forgiving of poor search strings&#xD;&#xA;, now has patents and patent applications from China, Europe and WIPO, and provides access to information besides the patent itself, including assignment history. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The search you did might have found something if you didn't have the &quot;.com&quot; in the search string. The company's actual corporate name has no dot com in it. Putting amazon locker into google patents turns up several documents, including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A better search would be to use google patents advanced and put Amazon in the assignee field instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US8504653 Amazon][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if looking for a physical locker could add &quot;goods&quot; to the search string and find:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US 6085170 Delivery managing system][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8504653?dq=amazon%20locker&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=rappUo6eMYuzigLVnoDgCw&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CFYQ6AEwBQ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6085170?dq=amazon%20locker%20goods&amp;ei=s69pUpnoGITvigLr-oHwDA&amp;cl=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5288" RevisionGUID="83c40ada-79f0-410f-8bf3-18ecfdda0bbe" CreationDate="2013-10-24T23:48:12.620" UserId="6073" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="I did an [advanced search][1] for `AN/&quot;Amazon&quot; AND (delivery OR locker OR distribution)` and could not find a patent for the [Amazon Locker][2]. Is it patented? If so, what is the patent number? Is it publicly known if they tried to patent it? If not, why not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm&amp;r=0&amp;p=1&amp;f=S&amp;l=50&amp;Query=AN/%22Amazon.com%22%20AND%20%28delivery%20OR%20locker%20OR%20distribution%29&amp;d=PTXT&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200689010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5289" RevisionGUID="226918ef-2698-4068-af81-8ab6458502ec" CreationDate="2013-10-24T23:49:44.613" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 237 characters in body" Text="I highly recommend **not** using the USPTO's search site. Google patents is easier to use, more forgiving of poor search strings&#xD;&#xA;, now has patents and patent applications from China, Europe and WIPO, and provides access to information besides the patent itself, including assignment history. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The search you did might have found something if you didn't have the &quot;.com&quot; in the search string. The company's actual corporate name has no dot com in it. Putting amazon locker into google patents turns up several documents, including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A better search would be to use google patents advanced and put Amazon in the assignee field instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US8504653 Amazon][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8504653?dq=amazon%20locker&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=rappUo6eMYuzigLVnoDgCw&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CFYQ6AEwBQ&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5289" RevisionGUID="9fa32ae8-562c-4f28-9d44-3deb4db54665" CreationDate="2013-10-24T23:56:40.380" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 237 characters in body" Text="I highly recommend **not** using the USPTO's search site. Google patents is easier to use, more forgiving of poor search strings&#xD;&#xA;, now has patents and patent applications from China, Europe and WIPO, and provides access to information besides the patent itself, including assignment history. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The search you did might have found something if you didn't have the &quot;.com&quot; in the search string. The company's actual corporate name has no dot com in it. Putting amazon locker into google patents turns up several documents, including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A better search would be to use google patents advanced and put Amazon in the assignee field instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US8504653 Amazon][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If looking for physical lockers a quick search did not turn up Amazon patent documents, put others are in that game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8504653?dq=amazon%20locker&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=rappUo6eMYuzigLVnoDgCw&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CFYQ6AEwBQ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/T4FNA.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5288" RevisionGUID="784e3bdf-1509-4808-804e-942736095b4d" CreationDate="2013-10-24T23:58:33.020" UserId="6073" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="I did an [advanced search][1] for `AN/&quot;Amazon&quot; AND (delivery OR locker OR distribution)` and could not find a patent for the [Amazon Locker][2]. Is it patented? If so, what is the patent number? Is it publicly known if they tried to patent it? If not, why not? Or are they licensing from another patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm&amp;r=0&amp;p=1&amp;f=S&amp;l=50&amp;Query=AN/%22Amazon.com%22%20AND%20%28delivery%20OR%20locker%20OR%20distribution%29&amp;d=PTXT&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200689010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5289" RevisionGUID="283222da-2a5e-4d1d-95a9-7d1762562657" CreationDate="2013-10-25T00:15:51.413" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="I highly recommend **not** using the USPTO's search site. Google patents is easier to use, more forgiving of poor search strings, now has patents and patent applications from China, Europe and WIPO, and provides access to information besides the patent itself, including assignment history. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The search you did might have found something if you didn't have the &quot;.com&quot; in the search string. The company's actual corporate name has no dot com in it. Putting amazon locker into google patents turns up several documents, including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A better search would be to use google patents advanced and put Amazon in the assignee field instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US8504653 Amazon][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If looking for physical lockers, a quick search did not turn up Amazon patent documents, but others are in that game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8504653?dq=amazon%20locker&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=rappUo6eMYuzigLVnoDgCw&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CFYQ6AEwBQ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/T4FNA.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5291" RevisionGUID="f19ff178-b7a8-477a-addd-4cb0ec6b2a01" CreationDate="2013-10-25T00:42:00.497" UserId="6074" Text=" I am uncertain if I need to get a patent, copyright, or a trademark for my original artistic handmade ornamental item. Confusion arises as to the exact definitions of these terms.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;-Karen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13226" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5291" RevisionGUID="f19ff178-b7a8-477a-addd-4cb0ec6b2a01" CreationDate="2013-10-25T00:42:00.497" UserId="6074" Text="Need more clarity about Patents for my new item" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13227" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5291" RevisionGUID="f19ff178-b7a8-477a-addd-4cb0ec6b2a01" CreationDate="2013-10-25T00:42:00.497" UserId="6074" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5292" RevisionGUID="8693c299-9de2-4891-831a-235771ea4915" CreationDate="2013-10-25T03:45:05.590" UserId="6076" Text="I'm a researcher doing work in Information Retrieval. One of the papers I stumbled upon was this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Andrei Z. Broder, David Carmel, Michael Herscovici, Aya Soffer, Jason Y. Zien: Efficient query evaluation using a two-level retrieval process. CIKM 2003: 426-434&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which was published in 2003. I also discovered a patent (US7512602) which describes the same idea but was patented only in 2009. The patent contains the same figures as the research paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can the published research paper from 2003 not be considered (or listed in the patent) as prior art to this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13229" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5292" RevisionGUID="8693c299-9de2-4891-831a-235771ea4915" CreationDate="2013-10-25T03:45:05.590" UserId="6076" Text="Patent granted in 2009 on published research results in 2003" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13230" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5292" RevisionGUID="8693c299-9de2-4891-831a-235771ea4915" CreationDate="2013-10-25T03:45:05.590" UserId="6076" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;research&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13234" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5292" RevisionGUID="d1ec839e-4fe7-41be-85bc-71405a0e1cb1" CreationDate="2013-10-25T06:07:39.720" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;research&gt;&lt;us7512602&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5294" RevisionGUID="0116f869-34d7-4e6b-a503-f0184d70f344" CreationDate="2013-10-25T06:24:41.550" UserId="3076" Text="If the paper was published after May 30 2003, the patent application *preceded* it. The relevant date is not the day the patent is issued, but the day it was applied for. In this case that was in 2006. But it is a continuation of an application filed in May 30 2003. That information appears on the face of the patent under the heading &quot;Related U.S. Application Data&quot;. If a patent is filed the day before a journal article is published, that article is not eligible to be considered prior art.  It's not prior.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ESdLD.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5290" RevisionGUID="50437779-61e9-4ba7-be60-9aee7a57d0aa" CreationDate="2013-10-25T06:34:22.777" UserId="3076" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="This is an application, **not a granted patent**. And I do not think Samurai were doing what the Cal Tech researchers are claiming. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  claim 4. The method according to claim 1 , wherein the at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gradient transition region comprises **a multi-stage gradient wherein&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the gradient region includes both incremental compositional steps and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; direct stepwise compositional transitions**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5295" RevisionGUID="e5ca78c0-6f37-445f-bdec-5f8c3e84bc17" CreationDate="2013-10-25T08:35:36.190" UserId="6078" Text="all&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am reading one patent. One claim contains the statement: object A movable relative to object B. My understanding is that object A can be movable, B is fixed and the motion is relative to object B. Can I  fix object A and move object B? Does my proposal infringe the claim? Thanks in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards&#xD;&#xA;Jogging" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13238" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5295" RevisionGUID="e5ca78c0-6f37-445f-bdec-5f8c3e84bc17" CreationDate="2013-10-25T08:35:36.190" UserId="6078" Text="the meaning of object A movable relative to object B" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13239" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5295" RevisionGUID="e5ca78c0-6f37-445f-bdec-5f8c3e84bc17" CreationDate="2013-10-25T08:35:36.190" UserId="6078" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5297" RevisionGUID="3b9347f7-619b-4ad3-8d47-7758b07470bf" CreationDate="2013-10-25T13:38:59.173" UserId="6080" Text="If a product is already in the market for a specific purpose and is found to be useful in another function by someone else can that person apply for a patent for that new  function? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13244" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5297" RevisionGUID="3b9347f7-619b-4ad3-8d47-7758b07470bf" CreationDate="2013-10-25T13:38:59.173" UserId="6080" Text="re: applying a patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13245" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5297" RevisionGUID="3b9347f7-619b-4ad3-8d47-7758b07470bf" CreationDate="2013-10-25T13:38:59.173" UserId="6080" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5298" RevisionGUID="66ff7ddd-371a-4f2a-922a-ab43a85cab5e" CreationDate="2013-10-25T13:52:44.837" UserId="5928" Text="As a patent is a territorial right you may want to clarify where protection is sought/ which national/ regional legislation should be applied. Your pofile does not state your origin. At this time this may help regarding EU-related matters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/f_iv_4_16.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question cannot be answered definitely but one way to get protection may be a use claim. Consult a lawyer of your choice and provide him with details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5295" RevisionGUID="29e94009-f9cd-42be-a580-833c344204a7" CreationDate="2013-10-26T07:27:35.717" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 46 characters in body; edited title" Text="I am reading one patent. One claim contains the statement: object A movable relative to object B. My understanding is that object A can be movable, B is fixed and the motion is relative to object B. Can I  fix object A and move object B? Does my proposal infringe the claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13254" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5295" RevisionGUID="29e94009-f9cd-42be-a580-833c344204a7" CreationDate="2013-10-26T07:27:35.717" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 46 characters in body; edited title" Text="The meaning of object A movable relative to object B" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5299" RevisionGUID="8fe3f0b6-6228-4690-b49e-9b995d9ba3e0" CreationDate="2013-10-26T07:37:35.163" UserId="3076" Text="Someone would need to know much more about the patent and your planned work-around to provide a very useful answer. I can say that if that is the actual claim wording it is un-artful. The reason claim language uses relative motion between two objects is toy avoid this loop hole. Relative motion should be used in the sentence so it covers any way that the described motion can be done regardless of which stays still, if anything. For example, a claim on microwave ovens with motorized lazy susans should say the microwave radiation source and the object being cooked move relative to each other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5299" RevisionGUID="8b6495ae-b2ca-4024-b7e2-21ea84cbf425" CreationDate="2013-10-26T18:12:57.847" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Someone would need to know much more about the patent and your planned work-around to provide a very useful answer. I can say that if that is the actual claim wording it is un-artful. The reason claim language uses relative motion between two objects is to avoid this loophole. Relative motion should be used in the sentence so it covers any way that the described motion can be done regardless of which stays still, if anything. For example, a claim on microwave ovens with motorized lazy susans should say the microwave radiation source and the object being cooked move relative to each other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5301" RevisionGUID="cb7266a5-1ee2-4820-9add-815726202655" CreationDate="2013-10-27T02:23:06.893" UserId="6085" Text="One benefit of selective sync in the latest Dropbox release **article**(http://lifehacker.com/5714468/dropbox-hits-version-10-leaves-its-beta-days-behind) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**rsync features**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;rsync is a file transfer program for Unix systems. rsync uses the &quot;rsync algorithm&quot; which provides a very fast method for bringing remote files into sync. It does this by sending just the differences in the files across the link, without requiring that both sets of files are present at one of the ends of the link beforehand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some features of rsync include&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    can update whole directory trees and filesystems&#xD;&#xA;    optionally preserves symbolic links, hard links, file ownership, permissions, devices and times&#xD;&#xA;    requires no special privileges to install&#xD;&#xA;    internal pipelining reduces latency for multiple files&#xD;&#xA;    can use rsh, ssh or direct sockets as the transport&#xD;&#xA;    supports anonymous rsync which is ideal for mirroring " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5302" RevisionGUID="fd28e9d2-e2ee-4567-8114-a53568f6f6da" CreationDate="2013-10-27T06:10:36.593" UserId="6087" Text="ths linux command rsync does this" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5303" RevisionGUID="13d68def-e8ac-42f7-b811-edb9c2c00dd8" CreationDate="2013-10-27T07:50:41.120" UserId="6088" Text="zsync does exactly that, I think" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5304" RevisionGUID="1fa34899-3f94-4316-a51e-5e116b58a3d8" CreationDate="2013-10-27T19:06:10.327" UserId="6089" Text="Software patents could be described in claims as methods or as systems.  One cannot claim damages for infringement of METHODS until the method is used (e.g. when the software is run).  But, one can claim damages for infringement of SYSTEMS simply from their marketing/sale in the marketplace.  So, why do most applications describe software patents as METHODS instead of a general leaning by the authors toward writing them as SYSTEMS?  It seems the SYSTEM language would be preferred.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13266" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5304" RevisionGUID="1fa34899-3f94-4316-a51e-5e116b58a3d8" CreationDate="2013-10-27T19:06:10.327" UserId="6089" Text="Software Patents: Claiming as a METHOD vs as a SYSTEM?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13267" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5304" RevisionGUID="1fa34899-3f94-4316-a51e-5e116b58a3d8" CreationDate="2013-10-27T19:06:10.327" UserId="6089" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;method&gt;&lt;system&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5305" RevisionGUID="790e1030-4da4-406a-82a7-0ea7346bc0d7" CreationDate="2013-10-27T22:42:50.513" UserId="3076" Text="For a complex computer implemented invention is advisable to have independent claims for a system, for a method and for a so-call CRM (computer readable medium). For a device, machine or system that comes all together from one vendor ready to do what it does (egg beater, laser printer, machine gun) a claim on the &quot;thing&quot; is usually more desirable than  method of use of the thing. As you point out, the manufacture is infringing just by making and offering for sale. We would say it infringes just sitting on the shelf in a box. And the infringing party is the one that you want to go after.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a system made of many computer related subsystems (server, storage sub-system, client, router, internet, interconnect and software) there is probably not one entity providing the whole system. To infringe a system claim some single entity must have made, offered for sale, sold, or used the entire system as positively recited in a claim. Maybe some parts of the system are not only provided by a 3rd party but are located outside the U.S. To infringe in the U.S. the system has to be in the U.S. (a simplification). A method claim can be written so that all of the actions or step occur in one place. &quot;a) Send a file far away,&#xD;&#xA;b) wait for it to be returned translated into another language; c) . . . &quot;. Locally we are sending and waiting.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A CRM claim is to a non-trangient medium holding the bits to instruct a machine to carry out a method." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5305" RevisionGUID="3b00255f-99fb-45d5-91a9-f2e48e804f49" CreationDate="2013-10-27T22:50:10.970" UserId="3076" Comment="added 232 characters in body" Text="For a complex computer implemented invention is advisable to have independent claims for a system, for a method and for a so-call CRM (computer readable medium). For a device, machine or system that comes all together from one vendor ready to do what it does (egg beater, laser printer, machine gun) a claim on the &quot;thing&quot; is usually more desirable than  method of use of the thing. As you point out, the manufacture is infringing just by making and offering for sale. We would say it infringes just sitting on the shelf in a box. And the infringing party is the one that you want to go after.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a system made of many computer related subsystems (server, storage sub-system, client, router, internet, interconnect and software) there is probably not one entity providing the whole system. To infringe a system claim some single entity must have made, offered for sale, sold, or used the entire system as positively recited in a claim. Maybe some parts of the system are not only provided by a 3rd party but are located outside the U.S. To infringe in the U.S. the system has to be in the U.S. (a simplification). A method claim can be written so that all of the actions or steps occur in one place. &quot;a) Send a file far away,&#xD;&#xA;b) wait for it to be returned translated into another language; c) . . . &quot;. Locally we are sending and waiting.  Another set of claims takes the other end &quot;a) wait for a file from far away, b) translate it to a different language, c) send back the translation . . . &quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A CRM claim is to a non-trantient medium holding the bits to instruct a machine to carry out a method. There the actual &quot;bad guy&quot; probably is manufacturing and selling the thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5305" RevisionGUID="cbb3d4e6-a068-47da-a49f-30a31d3001e8" CreationDate="2013-10-28T06:27:58.417" UserId="3076" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="For a complex computer implemented invention it &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is advisable to have independent claims for a system, for a method and for a so-call CRM (computer readable medium). For a device, machine or system that comes all together from one vendor ready to do what it does (egg beater, laser printer, machine gun) a claim on the &quot;thing&quot; is usually more desirable than  method of use of the thing. As you point out, the manufacture is infringing just by making and offering for sale. We would say it infringes just sitting on the shelf in a box. And the infringing party is the one that you want to go after.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a system made of many computer related subsystems (server, storage sub-system, client, router, internet, interconnect and software) there is probably not one entity providing the whole system. To infringe a system claim some single entity must have made, offered for sale, sold, or used the entire system as positively recited in a claim. Maybe some parts of the system are not only provided by a 3rd party but are located outside the U.S. To infringe in the U.S. the system has to be in the U.S. (a simplification). A method claim can be written so that all of the actions or steps occur in one place. &quot;a) Send a file far away,&#xD;&#xA;b) wait for it to be returned translated into another language; c) . . . &quot;. Locally we are sending and waiting.  Another set of claims takes the other end &quot;a) wait for a file from far away, b) translate it to a different language, c) send back the translation . . . &quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A CRM claim is to a non-trantientory medium holding the bits to instruct a machine to carry out a method. There the actual &quot;bad guy&quot; probably is manufacturing and selling the thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5306" RevisionGUID="83d47437-b9ba-4153-89e9-2587a6d5347c" CreationDate="2013-10-28T13:08:18.183" UserId="5071" Text="This sounds literally like the textbook way of doing a search. As in, the textbook I used in my CS 553 class at Brigham Young University in Fall 2003 taught using this method.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="3e5eb7ef-5479-437d-b1e8-525d03644199" CreationDate="2013-10-28T18:12:23.237" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text=" ![enter image description here][8]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application has received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON PREDICTING USER BEHAVIOR** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...automatically predicting actions a user is likely to take in response to receiving data! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 15, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of **MONITORING USER ACTION** in response to **INCOMING DATA FOR A USER**; determining a **PATTERN OF USER ACTIONS**; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Predicting the **USER’S ACTION**  in response to his receiving **NEW INCOMING DATA**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses a **SEED MODEL** to make predictions for new users, to utilize **OTHER USER BEHAVIOR** for existing and new users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PREDICTION OF USER RESPONSE TO RECEIVED DATA**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of detecting when a user receives new data, monitoring what the user does in response the the data, and building a model of the user’s future behavior, and predicting the user’s action in response to new incoming data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159220 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/326,877&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 15, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method executed for predicting user actions in response to receiving incoming data, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. detecting incoming data from a data source for a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. monitoring the user's actions in response to receiving the incoming data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining a pattern of user actions in response to the received incoming data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. detecting new incoming data from a data source; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. predicting the user's action in response to receiving the new incoming data based on the pattern of user actions, an incoming data context and an incoming data content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 19** gives insight into what Microsoft claims to have invented with more specificity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 19. {A method, comprising}:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. detecting incoming data from a data source for a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. extracting one or more features of the incoming data utilizing a feature extractor component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. enabling a sensor component to continuously detect the user's actions in response to receiving the incoming data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. uploading detected user action information from the sensor component and extracted feature information from the feature extractor component to an actions processor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. enabling the actions processor to combine, store, and organize the information from the sensor component and the feature extractor component into a user action database, wherein the user action database includes a list of past actions the user has taken in response to receiving data having one or more features;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6.  determining a pattern of user actions in response to the received incoming data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. detecting new incoming data from a data source; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. predicting the user's action in response to receiving the new incoming data based on the pattern of user actions, an incoming data context and an incoming data content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method predicting user actions comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Detecting that user has received some new data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Monitoring what the user does in response to the data; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Extracting patterns of user action in response to the new data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Predicting the user’s action based on the previous pattern of user actions and the incoming data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 15, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using a **SEED MODEL** to make predictions for new users, to utilize **OTHER USER BEHAVIOR** for existing and new users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Cloud-based system for observing and predicting user actions” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/pmGRz.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159220?dq=US20130159220A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5136" RevisionGUID="058b8f6d-beb7-4c7b-bf7c-b93113dc1d78" CreationDate="2013-10-28T18:21:34.200" UserId="1767" Comment="added 262 characters in body" Text=" ![enter image description here][8]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application has received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON zooming transformations on an electronic display** - This application from [Prezi][2] seeks to patent the idea of...zooming displays within frames! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/17/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - zooming user interfaces with multiple display elements and a frame &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to be an overly broad patent application based mostly or even entirely on known technologies. It tries to patent user triggered moves/transformations to particular points on a canvas using &quot;frames&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application comes from famous [Prezi, Inc.][2], who did the zooming online presentation tool. Although I think this is a nice idea to do for presentations, this patent tries to patent the technologies behind this. I think those are not at all new and, due to its broadness, the patent also prevents other uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Publication Number**: [US 20130132895 A1][1]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Application Number: US 13/298,523&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Assignee: [Prezi, Inc.][2]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Prior Art Date: **Seeking Prior Art predating 11/17/2011**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Patents link: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130132895&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This kind of patent is really problematic for many projects using standart css transforms based on user interaction for zooming and moving including some of my favorite open-source projects like jessyink, impress.js or reveal.js to name a few. This could even affect page swipes seen on many&#xD;&#xA;mobile devices where a div(=frame) is moved into the current view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method to edit a display screen of a zooming user interface system comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a user request to transform a set of display elements that are displayed on a display screen encompassed by a frame;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. in response to receipt of the user request, producing an information structured in a non-transitory storage device that indicates each display element of the set of display elements that is displayed on the display screen encompassed by the frame;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. transforming each display element indicated by the information structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method to zoom into a set of display elements, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. User requests a transformation (e.g. a zoom operation) of elements (e.g. objects) that are displayed on a display screen encompassed by a frame;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Computer creates a data structure with each display element of the set of display elements in accordance with the requested transformation of those elements;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Computer transforms the display element indicated by the data structure.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there is quite a lot of prior art for most of the methods claimed:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- pptplex (Powerpoint plugin to support zoomable slides, around since at least 2008)&#xD;&#xA;- google maps (around since 2005)&#xD;&#xA;- jessyink (has views since 2009)&#xD;&#xA;- prezi itself (they only applied for patent end of 2011)&#xD;&#xA;- ken burns effect&#xD;&#xA;- map based games&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm not an expert in patents and especially software patents and there might be patentable parts. So maybe someone can have a closer look&#xD;&#xA;at the claims and/or find prior art that even better resembles the methods described:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The patents has claims in three categories:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; 1. transforms to specific points in space&#xD;&#xA; 2. doing that with frames&#xD;&#xA; 3. doing 1&amp;2 on a machine with storage&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The 1st is clearly prior-art and the 3rd is just a patent specific reformulation of the two others.&#xD;&#xA;The 2nd may be more tricky. It seems trivial to go from a center point + scale + rotation (e.g. Gmaps) to the actual view frame.&#xD;&#xA;Still there might be more obvious cases of prior art for that. I've seen similar things in iMovie but I don't know when&#xD;&#xA;they came up (there is some indication that this was possible before the application: http://web.archive.org/web/20111031001100/http://acomp.stanford.edu/tutorials/imovie_video_editing). &#xD;&#xA;Maybe there is even other video software that uses frames to zoom into specific areas. Frames as data structures for containing &#xD;&#xA;objects is also prior art as this is what a HTML-div is. And these can be zoomed and rotated using css transforms which were &#xD;&#xA;already in the specs/drafts in 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in my opinion, what prezi really did new is to apply these methods to presentations and this is definitively a good idea (although i'm not sure such an idea is patentable). &#xD;&#xA;However, in their claims they do not relate to presentations and I think the generic methods are very wide and not new. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be great if someone can comment on this or even find more evidence of prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks a lot! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130132895&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.prezi.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13276" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5136" RevisionGUID="058b8f6d-beb7-4c7b-bf7c-b93113dc1d78" CreationDate="2013-10-28T18:21:34.200" UserId="1767" Comment="added 262 characters in body" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;user-interface&gt;&lt;us20130132895&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5307" RevisionGUID="8348d517-655e-4476-b883-eb6bafa6c217" CreationDate="2013-10-28T21:42:41.503" UserId="6093" Text="I found a patent which was granted but the product which is claiming the patent is different from the contents of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does one challenge the validity of the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13278" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5307" RevisionGUID="8348d517-655e-4476-b883-eb6bafa6c217" CreationDate="2013-10-28T21:42:41.503" UserId="6093" Text="Challenging a granted patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13279" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5307" RevisionGUID="8348d517-655e-4476-b883-eb6bafa6c217" CreationDate="2013-10-28T21:42:41.503" UserId="6093" Text="&lt;validity&gt;&lt;challenge&gt;&lt;incorrect&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5308" RevisionGUID="663d9a16-c225-4f1f-b658-55508560602d" CreationDate="2013-10-28T23:06:28.900" UserId="3076" Text="A patent can be challenged in an ex party re-examination or an interparties  review at the USPTO. They are expensive procedures. In this case you are concerned about a difference between a product and its description in a patent. That would *not* be grounds for challenging the patent. A patent owner has no obligation to make a product that matches any description or definition in their patent. Also, the maker of a product does not need to have a patent at all, let along one that matches a manufacturd product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the product has a patent number printed on it, that is another issue. There is a law against mis-marking of products with a non-applicable or expired patent. However the AIA law took the teeth out of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5309" RevisionGUID="10397197-0bab-426e-bf1f-bedcbd74b680" CreationDate="2013-10-29T03:23:54.517" UserId="1827" Text="The [Panoptic camera][1] out of École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland fits the bill pretty nicely. It has over a hundred cameras with specialized hardware to create stereoscopic omnidirectional video in real-time. Very cool stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a [YouTube video of it in action][2] (could have picked more interesting imagery though). I'm not sure whether it has audio, as required by the claims, but adding audio to video seems pretty obvious.  Here are a few PDFs describing it in more detail:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://lsm.epfl.ch/files/content/sites/lsm/files/shared/Research%20Posters/Panoptic2011_Afshari.pdf&#xD;&#xA;- http://lsm.epfl.ch/files/content/sites/lsm/files/shared/Research%20Posters/Panoptic_Afshari.pdf&#xD;&#xA;- http://lsm.epfl.ch/files/content/sites/lsm/files/shared/Research%20Posters/Panoptic%20camera.pdf&#xD;&#xA;- http://lsm.epfl.ch/files/content/sites/lsm/files/shared/Research%20Posters/VPOPOVIC_CUSO_2013_A1.pdf&#xD;&#xA;- http://lsm.epfl.ch/files/content/sites/lsm/files/shared/Research%20Posters/diagrams2012_poster.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lsm.epfl.ch/page-52820-en.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTuyKp_iHwg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/jVKXv.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5309" RevisionGUID="5337b5ce-1a4e-45c0-b3ee-73f0bc2c1718" CreationDate="2013-10-29T03:29:34.847" UserId="1827" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="The [Panoptic camera][1] out of École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland fits the bill pretty nicely. It has over a hundred cameras with specialized hardware to create stereoscopic omnidirectional video in real-time. Very cool stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that work started on this in 2009, which is before the priority date, but there have been papers are recently as 2013, so not everything here may be prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a [YouTube video of it in action][2] (could have picked more interesting imagery though). I'm not sure whether it has audio, as required by the claims, but the idea of adding audio to video seems pretty obvious.  Here are a few PDFs describing it in more detail:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://lsm.epfl.ch/files/content/sites/lsm/files/shared/Research%20Posters/Panoptic2011_Afshari.pdf&#xD;&#xA;- http://lsm.epfl.ch/files/content/sites/lsm/files/shared/Research%20Posters/Panoptic_Afshari.pdf&#xD;&#xA;- http://lsm.epfl.ch/files/content/sites/lsm/files/shared/Research%20Posters/Panoptic%20camera.pdf&#xD;&#xA;- http://lsm.epfl.ch/files/content/sites/lsm/files/shared/Research%20Posters/VPOPOVIC_CUSO_2013_A1.pdf&#xD;&#xA;- http://lsm.epfl.ch/files/content/sites/lsm/files/shared/Research%20Posters/diagrams2012_poster.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lsm.epfl.ch/page-52820-en.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTuyKp_iHwg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/jVKXv.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5308" RevisionGUID="4895adfd-8756-4780-8305-06a79867646a" CreationDate="2013-10-29T07:38:13.207" UserId="1827" Comment="fixed the name of the procedure and spelling correction" Text="A patent can be challenged in an ex party re-examination or an *inter partes* review at the USPTO. They are expensive procedures. In this case you are concerned about a difference between a product and its description in a patent. That would *not* be grounds for challenging the patent. A patent owner has no obligation to make a product that matches any description or definition in their patent. Also, the maker of a product does not need to have a patent at all, let along one that matches a manufactured product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the product has a patent number printed on it, that is another issue. There is a law against mis-marking of products with a non-applicable or expired patent. However the America Invents Act (&quot;AIA&quot;) took the teeth out of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13287" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5308" RevisionGUID="4895adfd-8756-4780-8305-06a79867646a" CreationDate="2013-10-29T07:38:13.207" Comment="Proposed by 1827 approved by 3076 edit id of 445" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5313" RevisionGUID="3fea37f2-5c7e-46d3-bc06-2cd99fd8ec67" CreationDate="2013-10-29T14:28:36.753" UserId="6102" Text="I am trying to find a good image of the design in [this patent application][app], but the application itself does not contain any good depictions of the actual microwave oven.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know of a good way to find examples of or existing products that use some patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [app]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130186888?dq=US+20130186888&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=KcFvUovEJc7i4AOjhoHgDg&amp;ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13296" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5313" RevisionGUID="3fea37f2-5c7e-46d3-bc06-2cd99fd8ec67" CreationDate="2013-10-29T14:28:36.753" UserId="6102" Text="Instance of the product patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13297" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5313" RevisionGUID="3fea37f2-5c7e-46d3-bc06-2cd99fd8ec67" CreationDate="2013-10-29T14:28:36.753" UserId="6102" Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;us20130186888&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5316" RevisionGUID="fd7be7ae-add2-43ab-a9d6-267bc09565d0" CreationDate="2013-10-30T10:29:40.927" UserId="6110" Text="This patent application claims that the collaborative merging of brain signals is a new invention. However, in an article by Yijun Wang and Tzyy-Ping Jung entitled &quot;[A Collaborative Brain-Computer Interface for Improving Human Performance][1]&quot; in PLOS ONE, the authors did precisely this a year before (or possibly more, given that the article was submitted in February 2011) than this patent application.&#xD;&#xA;Is the patent office aware of this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0020422" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13307" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5316" RevisionGUID="fd7be7ae-add2-43ab-a9d6-267bc09565d0" CreationDate="2013-10-30T10:29:40.927" UserId="6110" Text="Patent application US20120203725 conflicting with a older publication" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13308" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5316" RevisionGUID="fd7be7ae-add2-43ab-a9d6-267bc09565d0" CreationDate="2013-10-30T10:29:40.927" UserId="6110" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;user-interface&gt;&lt;computer&gt;&lt;us20120203725&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4853" RevisionGUID="635b37ac-a6d2-4a2a-8dd0-c2bf386f1ec5" CreationDate="2013-10-30T17:22:14.757" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" ![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was **based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community** below!  The first two references cited by the Patent Examiner were found by Ask Patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON self-destructing email** - This application from [AT&amp;T][6] seeks to patent the idea of...electronic mail which deletes itself after a specific period of time has elapsed and warns sender if it recipient is outside the sender's email domain (where self-destruction presumably cannot be assured)! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/9/2002** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - self-destructing email&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO prohibits forwarding or copying the email into another application (such as a word processor) or which warns the sender if it is being sent outside to a recipient outside the sender's email domain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Self-destructing email**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for sending email which identifies a time period after which the email destroys itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159436 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/690,555&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: AT&amp;T&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/9/2002&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/17/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for transmitting self-destructing electronic mail messages comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a request, at an electronic mail server, from a sender to send a self-destructing electronic mail message, the request identifying a time period after which the self-destructing electronic mail message is to be destroyed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. sending a security warning to the sender when an electronic mail address of an intended recipient of the self-destructing electronic mail message is located beyond a home domain of the sender;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. sending the self-destructing electronic mail message to the electronic mail address of the intended recipient in response to input from the sender responsive to the security warning;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4.deleting any instances of the self-destructing electronic mail message that are being stored at the electronic mail server after the sending and after expiration of the time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for sending self-destructing email, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Sender specifies time period after which email self-destructs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Warn sender if recipient email address is outside home domain (where self-destruction presumably cannot be assured)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Send the self-destructing email&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Delete the email after expiration of the time period specified by sender&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/9/2002&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming self-destructing email which is prohibited from being **forwarded** or **copied** into an application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;email which is time-limited from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ao0cGJA.jpg&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/T7xdF.jpg&quot; width=&quot;200&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159436?dq=20130159436&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.att.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="13e31d41-7433-4c8e-90d3-6c658642acb6" CreationDate="2013-10-30T17:22:45.617" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" ![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application was given a &quot;**final rejection**&quot; by the US Patent Office. An applicant has several ways to keep an application in this state alive. They include a request for continuing examination. It just involves paying more fees and responding to the rejection. Appealing the rejection is another avenue. If nothing is done it will go abandoned six months from the final rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the grounds for rejection (can be seen in Public PAIR) are based on scientific publications by the applicants themselves.&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ANALYZING A WEBPAGE** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...extracting information blocks from a webpage based on text and visual layout! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Webpage extraction through page structure and sentences**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for extracting entities in a webpage using a **text understanding component** and a **visual layout extraction&quot; component**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110078554 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 12/569,912&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Sep 30, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. In a computing environment, a system comprising, at least one processor, a memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and including components comprising, a framework configured to process a webpage to understand one or more entities of the webpage, the framework including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a text understanding component and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to provide text-related data to the structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the structure understanding component configured to use the text-related data and visual layout features of the webpage to produce a labeled block,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to use the labeled block to understand text of the one or more entities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for processing a webpage, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A text understanding component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A visual layout (&quot;structure&quot;) understanding component; where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The text component provides data to the visual layout component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The visual layout component produces a labeled block based on the visual layout and the text; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. The text understanding component uses the labeled block to &quot;understand&quot; the text of an entity on the webpage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Sep 30, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A natural language processing framework for labeling webpages” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/V9vSS.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110078554&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4580" RevisionGUID="bf302ec8-8fa6-4ef1-ac3d-95c512a01d6a" CreationDate="2013-10-30T17:22:58.337" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" ![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application was given a &quot;**final rejection**&quot; by the US Patent Office. An applicant has several ways to keep an application in this state alive. They include a request for continuing examination. It just involves paying more fees and responding to the rejection. Appealing the rejection is another avenue. If nothing is done it will go abandoned six months from the final rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the grounds for rejection (can be seen in Public PAIR) are based on things the applicant themselves cited to the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON PREDICTING ADVERTISER KEYWORD PERFORMANCE** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...predicting keyword performance for an advertiser by how the keyword has performed for similar advertisers! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 27, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of predicting **KEYWORD PERFORMANCE** for an advertiser who has not previously bid on the keyword; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying **SIMILAR ADVERTISERS** and using that to predict the performance expected from the subject keyword;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **EUCLIDIAN DISTANCE BETWEEN ATTRIBUTES BETWEEN ADVERTISERS** to estimate similarity between advertisers; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **CATEGORY**, **QUALITY SCORE**, **PAY-PER-CLICK**, **BID**, **ADVERTISER VERTICAL**, **GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION**, **DAY-TARGETING**, **DAY-PARTING**, **KEYWORDS IN COMMON** to estimate the performance expected from the keyword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PREDICTION OF USER RESPONSE TO RECEIVED DATA**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Within an online advertising system, a method of predicting keyword performance for an advertiser who has not previously bid on a keyword by identifying a similar advertiser who has used the same keyword and using the keyword’s previous performance to provide an expected result for the current advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130166371 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/337,709&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 27, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 27, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; {A METHOD} for predicting advertiser **keyword performance indicator** values, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a keyword from a first advertiser, whereinthe first advertiser has **not previously bid on the keyword**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying at least one other **advertiser that is similar** to the first advertiser and has previously bid on the keyword; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  calculating at least one predicted **performance indicator value** for the keyword for the first advertiser based upon at least one established performance indicator value of the keyword for the at least one other advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for detecting expected keyword performance for an advertiser, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving from the advertiser a keyword which the advertiser has not previously bid on; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a 2nd advertiser similar to the advertiser; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Predicting the performance of the keyword (based on any metric) for the subject advertiser based on the performance of the keyword for the similar advertiser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 15, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a **EUCLIDIAN DISTANCE BETWEEN ATTRIBUTES BETWEEN ADVERTISERS** to estimate similarity between advertisers; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **CATEGORY**, **QUALITY SCORE**, **PAY-PER-CLICK**, **BID**, **ADVERTISER VERTICAL**, **GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION**, **DAY-TARGETING**, **DAY-PARTING**, **KEYWORDS IN COMMON** to estimate the performance expected from the keyword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Predicting advertiser keyword performance indicator values” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Ib77Z.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130166371?dq=US20130166371A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4741" RevisionGUID="ac886d1f-401b-4b7c-8f15-a9d859e953ae" CreationDate="2013-10-30T17:23:11.480" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT on managing online distribution based on location** - This application from [Google][6] seeks to patent the idea of...managing content distribution based on geographic limitations! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2009** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Returning a search results query that only shows content which can be distributed in a location selected by the searcher&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves publishers reviewing distribution locations of content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Publisher review of proposed geo-targeted content**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] a method by which publisher can review proposed geo-targeted content items to determine whether the content items include any offensive material, whether the content items are composed in an acceptable format, or whether the content items should be approved or disapproved for any other reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130138487 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/513,325&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for managing content distribution, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving content information regarding content items for distribution and how the content items are to be distributed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving publication information regarding locations where content items are to be distributed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Updating, by at least one processor based on the received content information and publication information, a searchable data structure that relates the content information and the publisher information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving a search query regarding content items that are related to at least one location where content is to be distributed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Retrieving, by at least one processor from the data structure, content information responsive to the search query; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Transmitting content information responsive to the search query to enable review of the content information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of managing content distribution, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving information on where and how content is to be distributed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Updating a searchable data structure that relates content to publisher information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving a search query for content items which can be distributed in a location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Retrieving information about the content which can be distributed in that location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Transmitting information about that content (presumably to a publisher) for review&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming publishers reviewing distribution locations of content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A process for managing content distribution from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zQleEpH.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;350&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130138487?dq=US20130138487A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.google.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4692" RevisionGUID="cdba543c-c869-4359-a86a-4d053ccc7739" CreationDate="2013-10-30T17:23:22.963" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Recognizing objects in images** - This application from [Sony][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying objects through image process and registering content information about those objects! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Object recognition combined with sensor data (e.g. GPS, Inertial Sensors, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses environmental data (e.g. inertial sensor or GPS) or positional data about the object to be recognized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Recognizing objects in images and environmental data**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A camera-type device which recognizes objects in images and attaches content to the recognized objects, which content could include environmental data (e.g. GPS, orientation of camera, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130124518 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/670,705&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Sony&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/12/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. an object information acquiring unit that acquires object information obtained by performing processing for detecting and identifying an object for image data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a content information registering unit that registers target content information in a database in association with the object information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A device for recogizing objects in images, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a unit that detects and identifies an object in the image data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a unit that associates content information with the object and registers that in a database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Object recognition involving environmental data.  Examples of environmental data cited by the applicant include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - temperature, atmospheric pressure, and humidity,&#xD;&#xA; - orientation and acceleration,&#xD;&#xA; - proximity,&#xD;&#xA; - illuminance,&#xD;&#xA; - noise, &#xD;&#xA; - date,&#xD;&#xA; - attitude (six axes)&#xD;&#xA; - user's vital data (complexion, body temperature, body mass index (BMI),&#xD;&#xA; - user's operation (commuting, playing golf, having dinner, cleaning, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;an information registration system from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/HHftf.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130124518?dq=US20130124518A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.sony.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4622" RevisionGUID="44fc1145-be2e-4041-87f8-00f02711f246" CreationDate="2013-10-30T17:23:38.497" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON SOCIAL NETWORKING** - This application from [Renren (China)][6] seeks to patent the idea of...initiating social network services between two users based on contact information! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 20, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Initiating a “social networking service” between a first and second user based on the contact information of the second user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **PHYSICAL BUSINESS CARDS** to identify the 2nd user contact information (i.e. when you hand someone a business card at a conference), or social networking services such as a **FRIEND INVITING MESSAGE** or an **INVITATION TO AN EVENT** .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PROCESSING USER CONTACT INFORMATION**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for “processing user contact information” comprising: You provide contact information about another user and a server initiates a “social networking service” between you and that user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159435 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/607,532&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Renren, Inc. (China)&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 20, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for processing user contact information, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. obtaining, at a user equipment of a first user, contact information associated with a second user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. initiating a social networking service SNS operation between the first user and the second user based on the contact information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for connecting users in a social network:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. First user provides contact information about a second user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Initiating a “social networking service” (e.g. a friend request, event invitation, etc.) between the first user and the second user based on the contact information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 20, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using **PHYSICAL BUSINESS CARDS** to identify the 2nd user contact information (i.e. when you hand someone a business card at a conference)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Processing User Contact Information” from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/C6IBv.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159435?dq=US20130159435A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renren" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5319" RevisionGUID="ed556a1c-104c-4951-be52-bd7c6ed1d8b7" CreationDate="2013-10-30T18:20:10.197" UserId="6113" Text="If the apparatus existed before with all the structure, you can't patent the apparatus for a different even novel use. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5321" RevisionGUID="87a61c9e-727c-44c5-aa74-bf124e43e444" CreationDate="2013-10-30T18:35:49.540" UserId="5942" Text="The NeXt computer had a file browser that worked very much like this, back in the 19080's.   Any such patents should have expired by now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5322" RevisionGUID="84d4a6f1-cf2f-40ec-9603-ad8757836054" CreationDate="2013-10-30T18:43:26.717" UserId="3076" Text="The priority date of the application is January 19th 2011. This is about four months *before* the article's publication date. Therefore the publication itself is **not prior art** to the patent application. Also, it is it clear that the claims of the patent application are things that are &quot;taught&quot; by the article." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5323" RevisionGUID="c03cf37f-4745-4b57-8be4-abb11fe85d44" CreationDate="2013-10-30T18:55:45.793" UserId="6114" Text="I am thinking of making a certain consumer product. There is a similar product on the market that is designed to be used on a desktop and is quite large. (To the best of my knowledge it is not patented today, if that has any bearing on the answer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The product I am thinking of is designed to be mobile (can be used in any position, not necessarily standing on a desktop) and significantly smaller.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are your thoughts on this – is making a product mobile and smaller enough to fulfill the requirements of novelty?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13326" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5323" RevisionGUID="c03cf37f-4745-4b57-8be4-abb11fe85d44" CreationDate="2013-10-30T18:55:45.793" UserId="6114" Text="Thoughts on novelty: Making a mobile product when there is already a desktop version?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13327" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5323" RevisionGUID="c03cf37f-4745-4b57-8be4-abb11fe85d44" CreationDate="2013-10-30T18:55:45.793" UserId="6114" Text="&lt;novelty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4622" RevisionGUID="a3e7339b-d877-46b0-8069-a22a0fde74d9" CreationDate="2013-10-30T19:08:31.973" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON SOCIAL NETWORKING** - This application from [Renren (China)][6] seeks to patent the idea of...initiating social network services between two users based on contact information! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 20, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Initiating a “social networking service” between a first and second user based on the contact information of the second user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **PHYSICAL BUSINESS CARDS** to identify the 2nd user contact information (i.e. when you hand someone a business card at a conference), or social networking services such as a **FRIEND INVITING MESSAGE** or an **INVITATION TO AN EVENT** .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PROCESSING USER CONTACT INFORMATION**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for “processing user contact information” comprising: You provide contact information about another user and a server initiates a “social networking service” between you and that user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159435 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/607,532&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Renren, Inc. (China)&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 20, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for processing user contact information, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. obtaining, at a user equipment of a first user, contact information associated with a second user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. initiating a social networking service SNS operation between the first user and the second user based on the contact information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for connecting users in a social network:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. First user provides contact information about a second user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Initiating a “social networking service” (e.g. a friend request, event invitation, etc.) between the first user and the second user based on the contact information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 20, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using **PHYSICAL BUSINESS CARDS** to identify the 2nd user contact information (i.e. when you hand someone a business card at a conference)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Processing User Contact Information” from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/C6IBv.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159435?dq=US20130159435A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renren" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4692" RevisionGUID="48f9b3ad-83b9-45f1-a4d1-e6cd02125209" CreationDate="2013-10-30T19:08:49.287" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Recognizing objects in images** - This application from [Sony][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying objects through image process and registering content information about those objects! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Object recognition combined with sensor data (e.g. GPS, Inertial Sensors, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses environmental data (e.g. inertial sensor or GPS) or positional data about the object to be recognized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Recognizing objects in images and environmental data**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A camera-type device which recognizes objects in images and attaches content to the recognized objects, which content could include environmental data (e.g. GPS, orientation of camera, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130124518 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/670,705&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Sony&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/12/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. an object information acquiring unit that acquires object information obtained by performing processing for detecting and identifying an object for image data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a content information registering unit that registers target content information in a database in association with the object information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A device for recogizing objects in images, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a unit that detects and identifies an object in the image data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a unit that associates content information with the object and registers that in a database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Object recognition involving environmental data.  Examples of environmental data cited by the applicant include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - temperature, atmospheric pressure, and humidity,&#xD;&#xA; - orientation and acceleration,&#xD;&#xA; - proximity,&#xD;&#xA; - illuminance,&#xD;&#xA; - noise, &#xD;&#xA; - date,&#xD;&#xA; - attitude (six axes)&#xD;&#xA; - user's vital data (complexion, body temperature, body mass index (BMI),&#xD;&#xA; - user's operation (commuting, playing golf, having dinner, cleaning, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;an information registration system from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/HHftf.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130124518?dq=US20130124518A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.sony.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4741" RevisionGUID="4dd4c804-0142-483e-8400-7be2c5cabea8" CreationDate="2013-10-30T19:09:06.477" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT on managing online distribution based on location** - This application from [Google][6] seeks to patent the idea of...managing content distribution based on geographic limitations! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2009** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Returning a search results query that only shows content which can be distributed in a location selected by the searcher&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves publishers reviewing distribution locations of content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Publisher review of proposed geo-targeted content**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] a method by which publisher can review proposed geo-targeted content items to determine whether the content items include any offensive material, whether the content items are composed in an acceptable format, or whether the content items should be approved or disapproved for any other reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130138487 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/513,325&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for managing content distribution, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving content information regarding content items for distribution and how the content items are to be distributed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving publication information regarding locations where content items are to be distributed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Updating, by at least one processor based on the received content information and publication information, a searchable data structure that relates the content information and the publisher information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving a search query regarding content items that are related to at least one location where content is to be distributed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Retrieving, by at least one processor from the data structure, content information responsive to the search query; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Transmitting content information responsive to the search query to enable review of the content information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of managing content distribution, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving information on where and how content is to be distributed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Updating a searchable data structure that relates content to publisher information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving a search query for content items which can be distributed in a location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Retrieving information about the content which can be distributed in that location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Transmitting information about that content (presumably to a publisher) for review&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming publishers reviewing distribution locations of content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A process for managing content distribution from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zQleEpH.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;350&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130138487?dq=US20130138487A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.google.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4580" RevisionGUID="cca157ac-aeec-4c26-8388-a3c7f0c39d5e" CreationDate="2013-10-30T19:09:24.320" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  ![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application was given a &quot;**final rejection**&quot; by the US Patent Office. An applicant has several ways to keep an application in this state alive. They include a request for continuing examination. It just involves paying more fees and responding to the rejection. Appealing the rejection is another avenue. If nothing is done it will go abandoned six months from the final rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the grounds for rejection (can be seen in Public PAIR) are based on things the applicant themselves cited to the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON PREDICTING ADVERTISER KEYWORD PERFORMANCE** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...predicting keyword performance for an advertiser by how the keyword has performed for similar advertisers! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 27, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of predicting **KEYWORD PERFORMANCE** for an advertiser who has not previously bid on the keyword; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying **SIMILAR ADVERTISERS** and using that to predict the performance expected from the subject keyword;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **EUCLIDIAN DISTANCE BETWEEN ATTRIBUTES BETWEEN ADVERTISERS** to estimate similarity between advertisers; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **CATEGORY**, **QUALITY SCORE**, **PAY-PER-CLICK**, **BID**, **ADVERTISER VERTICAL**, **GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION**, **DAY-TARGETING**, **DAY-PARTING**, **KEYWORDS IN COMMON** to estimate the performance expected from the keyword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PREDICTION OF USER RESPONSE TO RECEIVED DATA**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Within an online advertising system, a method of predicting keyword performance for an advertiser who has not previously bid on a keyword by identifying a similar advertiser who has used the same keyword and using the keyword’s previous performance to provide an expected result for the current advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130166371 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/337,709&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 27, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 27, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; {A METHOD} for predicting advertiser **keyword performance indicator** values, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a keyword from a first advertiser, whereinthe first advertiser has **not previously bid on the keyword**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying at least one other **advertiser that is similar** to the first advertiser and has previously bid on the keyword; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  calculating at least one predicted **performance indicator value** for the keyword for the first advertiser based upon at least one established performance indicator value of the keyword for the at least one other advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for detecting expected keyword performance for an advertiser, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving from the advertiser a keyword which the advertiser has not previously bid on; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a 2nd advertiser similar to the advertiser; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Predicting the performance of the keyword (based on any metric) for the subject advertiser based on the performance of the keyword for the similar advertiser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 15, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a **EUCLIDIAN DISTANCE BETWEEN ATTRIBUTES BETWEEN ADVERTISERS** to estimate similarity between advertisers; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **CATEGORY**, **QUALITY SCORE**, **PAY-PER-CLICK**, **BID**, **ADVERTISER VERTICAL**, **GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION**, **DAY-TARGETING**, **DAY-PARTING**, **KEYWORDS IN COMMON** to estimate the performance expected from the keyword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Predicting advertiser keyword performance indicator values” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Ib77Z.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130166371?dq=US20130166371A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5324" RevisionGUID="4472ca1e-40ef-40a4-8f75-3ca786173245" CreationDate="2013-10-30T19:18:15.607" UserId="5942" Text="prior art for this concept would be any of the Trojan Horse viruses which pretended to be the legitimate program and which resulted in damage to the computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;these types of viruses have been around since at least the 1980's." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13333" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5323" RevisionGUID="fb2acf9d-be46-429c-b55a-1efff9469144" CreationDate="2013-10-30T19:18:59.200" UserId="6114" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5325" RevisionGUID="6cd28b8f-97ea-451f-9472-2a454450bee2" CreationDate="2013-10-30T20:02:31.407" UserId="3076" Text="Novelty is easy, non-obviousness is hard. Yes it will be novel but will it also be obvious? Generally, making something smaller, bigger, lighter, heavier would be considered obvious unless there was a trick to accomplishing it. If a mobile version benefits from a user interface change or the addition of features those might be elements that can add up to non-obviousness." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5326" RevisionGUID="4f52250b-7af1-4248-9a26-1b7ea49c9b62" CreationDate="2013-10-30T21:21:27.270" UserId="5942" Text="Back in the 90's Microsoft made extensive use of a tool called MSTest (they probably still use it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;among other things, it captured screen images of the program under test and analyzed them to identify controls and fields.  It could make decisions based on the presence or absence of graphical values.  It also simulated mouse and keyboard interactions in order to exert control over the program being tested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MSTest itself was actually a specialized programming language (syntax similar to VB), you could write programs to perform any desired monitoring and control sequence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as I recall, this was eventually turned into a commercial product and made publicly available.  This was not a unique product there were several other similar products also available in the 90's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of VNC or similar in conjunction with MSTest would be trivial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13341" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5322" RevisionGUID="ce2ff532-a8f8-4794-aaac-e159b0f700e0" CreationDate="2013-10-31T01:49:37.017" UserId="3076" Comment="added 203 characters in body" Text="The priority date of the application is January 19th 2011. This is about four months *before* the article's publication date. Therefore the publication itself is **not prior art** to the patent application. Also, it is not clear that the claims of the patent application are things that are &quot;taught&quot; by the article. Some claims cover one of two sources being human while the second is living but non-human and the case where the second is from a machine. Also the claims are not resticted to direct brain connections." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5328" RevisionGUID="af74cbd4-dec8-4495-9a8d-51e2315e1910" CreationDate="2013-10-31T03:15:33.953" UserId="5942" Text="the University Of Washington had a department back in the 80's that was doing extensive research on virtual worlds, head mounted displays, datagloves as input devices etc..   They were one of the pioneers in this field." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5331" RevisionGUID="5742bb0c-4f7f-4fa3-b941-8a15cf6244c6" CreationDate="2013-10-31T15:54:37.693" UserId="6119" Text="I know a few other parties who upon reading this application will not want this granted as they already have commercialised products selling in the engineering adhesive fields that use 1992 prior art .&#xD;&#xA;BASF have supplied the TEBDAP to my companies for over 7 years .&#xD;&#xA;We have also had extensive investigations into its use and its safe sale in EU &#xD;&#xA;and also worldwide.&#xD;&#xA;Nothing in this application is new or novel and this is a nuisance patent application which should not be granted.&#xD;&#xA;Loctite currently sell a product formerly sold by national Starch as V5004&#xD;&#xA;Using this TEBDAP .&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John Quinn adhesiveconsultants@hotmail.com&#xD;&#xA;I also represent the interests of Xtraloc UK and will inform other interested parties who also have interests in the use of this technology.&#xD;&#xA;They include Scigrip , Weld-on USA and Jacret france among others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I proceed to challenge its granting.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13349" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5331" RevisionGUID="5742bb0c-4f7f-4fa3-b941-8a15cf6244c6" CreationDate="2013-10-31T15:54:37.693" UserId="6119" Text="This application is not novel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13350" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5331" RevisionGUID="5742bb0c-4f7f-4fa3-b941-8a15cf6244c6" CreationDate="2013-10-31T15:54:37.693" UserId="6119" Text="&lt;wo2012160452a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5332" RevisionGUID="64fcb73a-1393-40c3-ab48-67ffa78354ec" CreationDate="2013-10-31T16:17:38.977" UserId="3076" Text="At this point it is a PCT application only. The applicants chose the EPO  as the international search agency and the international search report has been issued. The key page of the ISR is below. Three different references are indicated with an &quot;X&quot; as anticipating all claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/8Z8LX.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5331" RevisionGUID="3bddb638-677c-43cb-8f3d-4faded72d6ff" CreationDate="2013-10-31T19:18:50.093" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 183 characters in body; edited title" Text="[WO2012160452A1][1] Two-part polymerisable compositions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A number of parties (including me) will not want this application granted as there are products currently available in the engineering adhesive fields that use 1992 prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, BASF has supplied TEB-DAP (C9H25BN2) to my companies for over 7 years. We have also had extensive investigations into its use and its safe sale in EU and worldwide. Nothing in this application appears to be new or novel.  For example, Loctite currently sells a product formerly sold by national Starch under the trade-name V5004 using this TEBDAP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does challenge the granting of this application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents/wo2012160452a1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13356" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5331" RevisionGUID="3bddb638-677c-43cb-8f3d-4faded72d6ff" CreationDate="2013-10-31T19:18:50.093" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 183 characters in body; edited title" Text="Polymerisable Composition - Patent Application - How to challenge novelty" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5332" RevisionGUID="a270263e-3ee9-44be-a61e-cc894005f218" CreationDate="2013-11-01T01:40:30.947" UserId="3076" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="At this point it is a PCT application only. The applicants chose the EPO  as the international search authority and the international search report has been issued. The key page of the ISR is below. Three different references are indicated with an &quot;X&quot; as anticipating all claims. It is not likely the application will go very far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/8Z8LX.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5333" RevisionGUID="c91eded8-6b99-4e38-b71e-92c78e05dae8" CreationDate="2013-11-01T10:45:13.827" UserId="6122" Text="This sounds like &quot;data fusion&quot;, which is defined as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the act or process of combining or associating data or information&#xD;&#xA;&gt; regarding one or more entities considered in an explicit or implicit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; knowledge framework to improve one’s capability (or provide a new&#xD;&#xA;&gt; capability) for detection, identification, or characterization of that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; entity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- [Open Geospatial Consortium, OGC Fusion Standards Study, Phase 2 Engineering Report, 13 December 2010](http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/per)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This functionality was already present in systems designed for &quot;[Geospatial Intelligence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geospatial_intelligence)&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The R&amp;D group at Lockheed-Martin Canada has developed a target&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identifier function called ID Box. This computer program ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - ... transforms the sensor attribute input into a few contact ID declarations...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - ... enables the ID Box to fuse attribute data from almost all kinds of sensor or information sources that may be found on large warships&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or patrol aircraft. These attributes are ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - ... acoustical signature from sonar system ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - ... dimensional data from imaging systems ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - ... dynamical parameters from positional trackers ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- [M.A. Simard, P. Valin, F. Lesage, The ID Box: a Multisource Attribute Data Fusion Function for Target Identification, April 24 2000](http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=906288)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5333" RevisionGUID="dd052512-4b4d-4092-97aa-306a9030166c" CreationDate="2013-11-01T10:52:24.393" UserId="6122" Comment="edited body" Text="This sounds like &quot;data fusion&quot;, which is defined as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the act or process of combining or associating data or information&#xD;&#xA;&gt; regarding one or more entities considered in an explicit or implicit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; knowledge framework to improve one’s capability (or provide a new&#xD;&#xA;&gt; capability) for detection, identification, or characterization of that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; entity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- [Open Geospatial Consortium, OGC Fusion Standards Study, Phase 2 Engineering Report, December 13 2010](http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/per)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This functionality was already present in systems designed for &quot;[Geospatial Intelligence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geospatial_intelligence)&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The R&amp;D group at Lockheed-Martin Canada has developed a target&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identifier function called ID Box. This computer program ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - ... transforms the sensor attribute input into a few contact ID declarations...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - ... enables the ID Box to fuse attribute data from almost all kinds of sensor or information sources that may be found on large warships&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or patrol aircraft. These attributes are ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - ... acoustical signature from sonar system ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - ... dimensional data from imaging systems ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - ... dynamical parameters from positional trackers ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- [M.A. Simard, P. Valin, F. Lesage, The ID Box: a Multisource Attribute Data Fusion Function for Target Identification, April 24 2000](http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=906288)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5334" RevisionGUID="84038b24-0591-4dd1-b932-0dc8b092b979" CreationDate="2013-11-01T15:09:42.600" UserId="7" Text="In 2011, Nortel sold its patent portfolio to Rockstar, a consortium of companies including Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Ericsson AB and EMC. According to [The Star][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The purchase will give Apple and its five bidding partners control over more than 6,000 patents and applications that cover wireless and Internet technologies ranging from mobile standards to Internet search and social networking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we know for certain which patents, and in particular which pending patents Rockstar acquired from Nortel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thestar.com/business/2011/07/01/nortel_gets_45_billion_for_its_patents.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13362" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5334" RevisionGUID="84038b24-0591-4dd1-b932-0dc8b092b979" CreationDate="2013-11-01T15:09:42.600" UserId="7" Text="How many pending patents did &quot;Rockstar&quot; acquire when it paid $4.5 billion for Nortel's patent portfolio?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13363" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5334" RevisionGUID="84038b24-0591-4dd1-b932-0dc8b092b979" CreationDate="2013-11-01T15:09:42.600" UserId="7" Text="&lt;apple&gt;&lt;nortel&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5335" RevisionGUID="588522c7-3af7-45d7-9912-a48a29acad29" CreationDate="2013-11-01T16:15:52.860" UserId="1844" Text="[US patent #6098065][1] is the first in the series of patents used in [Rockstar's legal action against Google and Android device manufacturers][2]. It is for an &quot;Associative search engine&quot; and contains just one claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;1. A method of searching for desired information within a data network, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- receiving, from a user, a search request including a search argument corresponding to the desired information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- searching, based upon the received search argument and user profile data, a database of information to generate a search result;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- and&#xD;&#xA;providing the search results to the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- wherein searching the database includes correlating, as a function of a fuzzy logic algorithm, the received search argument and user profile data to particular information in the database, and providing the particular information as the search results.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Off the cuff, the key here would appear to be the &quot;fuzzy logic algorithm&quot;, as the rest of the claim certainly was used prior to February 13, 1997 (including various bits of prior art mentioned in the abstract, like Yahoo).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am interested in collecting relevant definitions of &quot;fuzzy logic algorithm&quot; and any prior art for the same. It is unclear to me if [stemming][3] or synonym matching would qualify as &quot;fuzzy logic algorithms&quot; or not, and if they do, whether there is documented evidence of such techniques being used in database searching prior to February 13, 1997. I would assume that simple wildcards (e.g., SQL `LIKE` operator) would probably not qualify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6098065?dq=6,098,065&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/patent-war-goes-nuclear-microsoft-apple-owned-rockstar-sues-google/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stemming" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13365" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5335" RevisionGUID="588522c7-3af7-45d7-9912-a48a29acad29" CreationDate="2013-11-01T16:15:52.860" UserId="1844" Text="Rockstar US 6098065 &quot;Associative search engine&quot; -- PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13366" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5335" RevisionGUID="588522c7-3af7-45d7-9912-a48a29acad29" CreationDate="2013-11-01T16:15:52.860" UserId="1844" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us6098065&gt;&lt;rockstar&gt;&lt;search-engine&gt;&lt;fuzzy-logic&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5336" RevisionGUID="33b2eb09-e31f-4118-b8b7-af3d2cc49e1c" CreationDate="2013-11-01T16:56:22.290" UserId="3076" Text="Fuzzy logic would involve assigning a probability of a hit that was between 0 and 1. Just using stemming or synonyms to decide if something hit or not wouldn't be fuzzy. Giving a record extra &quot;points&quot; for having multiple synonyms hit or for degree of proximity of terms or having terms in a title vs in a footnote would be fuzzy, in my opinion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it makes sense to look for a &quot;point of novelty&quot; in trying to understand a claim, they are taken as a whole. That is, there may be no single new element in a claim but it can still be novel and non-obvious as a whole. Is a wind surfer like a sailboat but flatter or like a surfboard with a sail added?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides the fuzzy search it may have been novel at the time of filing to take user profile information into account in interpreting a search string." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5337" RevisionGUID="4baefa41-db78-45a5-b90e-a2db79a4fed1" CreationDate="2013-11-01T17:10:00.117" UserId="3076" Text="From press reports it looks like Nortel sold their *entire* portfolio. One person seems to be widely quoted talking about important subsets of the portfolio he came up with (The &quot;five&quot; lists). His lists are at [Nortel patenttrakker][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick search on the USPTO site for patents with original assignee having &quot;Nortel&quot; in the name gets 4278 hits. Looking for applications there &quot;Nortel&quot; is assignee gets 1360 hits. The sum is 5,638. Press accounts seem to all use the number 6000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentrakker.com/NORTEL/lists.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5335" RevisionGUID="36c10dcf-48f6-4cd3-9381-e7fb6862525f" CreationDate="2013-11-01T18:02:35.027" UserId="1767" Comment="added 19 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="[US patent #6098065][1] is the first in the series of patents used in [Rockstar's legal action against Google and Android device manufacturers][2]. It is for an &quot;Associative search engine&quot; and contains just one claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of searching for desired information within a data network, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving, from a user, a search request including a search argument corresponding to the desired information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. searching, based upon the received search argument and user profile data, a database of information to generate a search result;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. and providing the search results to the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein searching the database includes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - correlating, as a function of a fuzzy logic algorithm, the received search argument and user profile data to particular information in the database, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - providing the particular information as the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Off the cuff, the key here would appear to be the &quot;fuzzy logic algorithm&quot;, as the rest of the claim certainly was used prior to February 13, 1997 (including various bits of prior art mentioned in the abstract, like Yahoo).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am interested in collecting relevant definitions of &quot;fuzzy logic algorithm&quot; and any prior art for the same. It is unclear to me if [stemming][3] or synonym matching would qualify as &quot;fuzzy logic algorithms&quot; or not, and if they do, whether there is documented evidence of such techniques being used in database searching prior to February 13, 1997. I would assume that simple wildcards (e.g., SQL `LIKE` operator) would probably not qualify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6098065?dq=6,098,065&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/patent-war-goes-nuclear-microsoft-apple-owned-rockstar-sues-google/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stemming" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13370" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5335" RevisionGUID="36c10dcf-48f6-4cd3-9381-e7fb6862525f" CreationDate="2013-11-01T18:02:35.027" UserId="1767" Comment="added 19 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Rockstar US 6098065 &quot;Associative search engine&quot; (Nortel) - Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13371" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5335" RevisionGUID="36c10dcf-48f6-4cd3-9381-e7fb6862525f" CreationDate="2013-11-01T18:02:35.027" UserId="1767" Comment="added 19 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;us6098065&gt;&lt;rockstar&gt;&lt;fuzzy-logic&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5337" RevisionGUID="33582c9d-e719-4859-8ae5-26ef8cdb57d2" CreationDate="2013-11-01T21:59:34.003" UserId="3076" Comment="typo and clean up" Text="From press reports it looks like Nortel sold their *entire* portfolio. One person seems to be widely quoted talking about important subsets of the portfolio he came up with (The &quot;five&quot; lists). His lists are at [Nortel patenttrakker][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick search on the USPTO site for patents with original assignee having &quot;Nortel&quot; in the name gets 4278 hits. Looking for applications at the USPTO site, &quot;Nortel&quot; as assignee gets 1360 hits. The sum is 5,638. Press accounts seem to all use the number 6,000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentrakker.com/NORTEL/lists.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5339" RevisionGUID="cfb02bfc-7617-425f-9dcb-db6825ffed65" CreationDate="2013-11-02T19:34:42.760" UserId="6125" Text="I've invented a new product and started selling it (in very small quantities). No one else is selling this product. Can I apply for a patent for it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13378" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5339" RevisionGUID="cfb02bfc-7617-425f-9dcb-db6825ffed65" CreationDate="2013-11-02T19:34:42.760" UserId="6125" Text="Can I patent a product I'm already selling?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13379" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5339" RevisionGUID="cfb02bfc-7617-425f-9dcb-db6825ffed65" CreationDate="2013-11-02T19:34:42.760" UserId="6125" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5340" RevisionGUID="1e9bb034-caa5-4e56-8c06-a9dd24dcae2f" CreationDate="2013-11-02T21:41:08.350" UserId="3076" Text="In the U.S. there is a bar against patenting anything that has been sold or even offered for sale that is 1 year after the first sale. Even if it is only one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5340" RevisionGUID="8e055408-55b3-4c67-9bbd-5eb5067fec4b" CreationDate="2013-11-02T22:04:27.823" UserId="3076" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="In the U.S. there is a bar against patenting anything that has been sold or even offered for sale that is 1 year after the first sale. Even if it is only one. If you want to patent outside the U.S. it is worse. In  most locations it is too late to apply for a patent the day after you sell the first one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5341" RevisionGUID="9a90c812-bbe7-485d-a503-191be6b8b1f4" CreationDate="2013-11-03T03:56:17.317" UserId="6126" Text="I have a good idea that is non-obvious and new. I want to make this technology (a new encryption technique) available for everyone to use, and keep it entirely patent-free, including myself. I have written a paper that describes the technology in enough detail to be able to prove it to be prior art for patents on this idea, however the paper is not yet ready to be published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am communicating with various people about my ideas however, and I'd like to avoid the possibility of them (or others who see the communication) filing a patent. Is there a way to _provably_ put my ideas so far in the public domain, such that if someone tries to patent my idea I can prove prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a [PDF](http://www.liacs.nl/~opeters/orlein.pdf) on a publicly accessibly web server, but right now I have no way of proving that I put the file up there before a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A solution available through the internet would be highly preferred. I am a student not living in the US, and I don't really have the money to send mail to the US. Hiring a lawyer / physical presence in the US is downright impossible financially." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13383" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5341" RevisionGUID="9a90c812-bbe7-485d-a503-191be6b8b1f4" CreationDate="2013-11-03T03:56:17.317" UserId="6126" Text="How can I provably put something in the public domain so that someone else can not patent it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13384" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5341" RevisionGUID="9a90c812-bbe7-485d-a503-191be6b8b1f4" CreationDate="2013-11-03T03:56:17.317" UserId="6126" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;public-domain&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5342" RevisionGUID="43be1ddf-80ca-416b-8ccf-5e23dc892f9b" CreationDate="2013-11-03T03:59:57.403" UserId="6127" Text="My question is for the Molded sports board by Inventor 	Wah Kan Cheung (Kenneth) I simply want to manufacture a Snow Sled such as one on this Image page:   https://www.google.com/search?q=foam+snow+sleds&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=_Mh1UuepNuO8iwLtyoGQBA&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&amp;biw=1280&amp;bih=832    Does the Above patent cover these simple Foam sleds?    Do all these companies have to pay Inventor Wah Kan Cheung to license his patent when they make a foam sled or do I have a completely wrong patent?   This Patent is the only one I could find involving a simple foam sled.   Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13386" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5342" RevisionGUID="43be1ddf-80ca-416b-8ccf-5e23dc892f9b" CreationDate="2013-11-03T03:59:57.403" UserId="6127" Text="The Patent For &quot; Molded Sports Board&quot; Patent # EP1745909 A2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13387" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5342" RevisionGUID="43be1ddf-80ca-416b-8ccf-5e23dc892f9b" CreationDate="2013-11-03T03:59:57.403" UserId="6127" Text="&lt;ep1745909a2&gt;&lt;molded&gt;&lt;sports&gt;&lt;board&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5343" RevisionGUID="7535c955-981d-4df4-9b54-09f4ee2c1718" CreationDate="2013-11-03T06:11:12.463" UserId="3076" Text="There are commercial companies set up to publish things exactly for this reason. They charge by the page. One, Kenneth Mason Publishing, is in the U.K. and has [Research Disclosures][1]. Looks like is over $100 per page. Is it short?. Another is IP.com. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To do it free but in a way that is time stamped and likely to show up in a search requires more creativity. Take a look at the waybackback machine at archive.org. I see they have a feature that allows you to point at a web site and ask them to archive it for you. Patent examiners have used the wayback machine to establish prior art dates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can make the core of it very short you might try [halfbakery.][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.researchdisclosure.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.halfbakery.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5345" RevisionGUID="00edb085-90a0-45ce-a8bb-4152abbd1f4f" CreationDate="2013-11-03T17:01:50.210" UserId="6131" Text="This sounds like a response to [DARPA's Visual Media Reasoning][1] (VMR) program which goes back to August 2011. There's a [sample video][2] from Wikipedia's [computer vision article][3]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me know if this is relevant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/darpa-software-spin-dumb-photos-or-video-inte&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DARPA_Visual_Media_Reasoning_Concept_Video.ogv&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_vision" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5346" RevisionGUID="22f17b53-2a12-4bc9-94b6-05b0f28231c9" CreationDate="2013-11-03T23:13:23.507" UserId="5524" Text="The patent system is based on &quot;first to file&quot; but the person who files the patent application must be able to prove that he/she actually invented it. No one can &quot;steal&quot; an idea from you and try to patent it for themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to George White's suggestions (IP.com, the Wayback Machine, and halfbakery.com), you could also just patent it yourself and release the patent under a non-assertion pledge similar to [Google's][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5343" RevisionGUID="d39594d4-0ceb-407a-8e46-a15326a78187" CreationDate="2013-11-04T00:22:54.067" UserId="3076" Comment="added 345 characters in body" Text="There are commercial companies set up to publish things exactly for this reason. They charge by the page. One, Kenneth Mason Publishing, is in the U.K. and has [Research Disclosures][1]. Looks like is over $100 per page. Is it short?. Another is IP.com. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To do it free but in a way that is time stamped and likely to show up in a search requires more creativity. Take a look at the waybackback machine at archive.org. I see they have a feature that allows you to point at a web site and ask them to archive it for you. Patent examiners have used the wayback machine to establish prior art dates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can make the core of it very short you might try [halfbakery.][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also consider filing a patent and then letting it go abandoned. If you qualify for micro entity status the filing fees would be about $380. Since you don't care if it becomes a patent you wouldn't need to hire a patent attorney to write it. This is like user2276567's idea but saves the costs of pursuing a granted patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.researchdisclosure.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.halfbakery.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5347" RevisionGUID="979140d3-9bfe-4aa2-bb05-6c30feaa5f93" CreationDate="2013-11-04T01:31:52.303" UserId="6137" Text="GroupExpense app has been on the appstore since 2010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5348" RevisionGUID="6f120f8f-0429-4a8f-a342-19e2a2165856" CreationDate="2013-11-04T13:48:58.997" UserId="5071" Text="If it's an encryption technique, it's probably software related, and if you've got code, then that can easily be used to show functioning of the idea. Posting such source code on places like bitbucket, or sourceforge are popular enough that their timestamps for posting would probably stand up to scrutiny in court." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5349" RevisionGUID="8482ce05-9913-4883-8542-ff0704599821" CreationDate="2013-11-04T19:07:33.707" UserId="105" Text="Your question is extremely broad, and you should really consult an attorney, because this answer is the absolute top level of what you need to know. There are tons of exceptions and clarifications for everything in this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Copyright***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the US Copyright Office, copyright is &quot;granted by law for **original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression**. Copyright covers both published and unpublished works.&quot; Source: [Copyright in General][1]. That definition is of course subject to multiple layers of interpretation, but at a general level you should check out these additional definitions: [Copyright FAQ][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Trademark***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the US Patent and Trademark Office, trademark is &quot;a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, **that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others**.&quot; Source: [Trademark FAQ][3]. You will want to take a look at this page which explains the basics of trademark: [Trademark Basics][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Patent***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the US Patent and Trademark Office, a patent is &quot;a property right granted by the Government of the United States of America to an inventor “**to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States**” for a limited time in exchange for public disclosure of the invention when the patent is granted.&quot; Source: [US Patent Office: Patents][5]. You should read the rest of the FAQ on patents here: [Patents][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, your ornamental item is probably covered by copyright, probably not covered by trademark, and you probably couldn't get a patent on it, unless it was a design patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said right at the beginning these are conversations to have with an attorney, but the information and links provided will give you the background high level information you need before you talk to an attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/faq/trademarks.jsp#_Toc275426672&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/patents.jsp#heading-1&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/patents.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5291" RevisionGUID="5e6593fc-4240-471b-98b9-0bbd7f0087cd" CreationDate="2013-11-04T19:21:27.417" UserId="1767" Comment="added 40 characters in body; edited title" Text="What are definitions of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. patents,&#xD;&#xA;2. copyrights, and&#xD;&#xA;3. trademarks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have created an original artistic handmade ornamental item. I'm trying to understand whether I need to get a patent, a copyright, or a trademark to protect my idea.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13403" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5291" RevisionGUID="5e6593fc-4240-471b-98b9-0bbd7f0087cd" CreationDate="2013-11-04T19:21:27.417" UserId="1767" Comment="added 40 characters in body; edited title" Text="Need more clarity about definition of Patents, Copyright, and Trademark" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5350" RevisionGUID="4af59f70-d2c8-4b6f-9504-02fce5202f6a" CreationDate="2013-11-04T20:23:59.870" UserId="105" Text="**Short Answer: Not necessarily.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Long Answer:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These conversations are best had with an attorney, but the answer provided gives you a little bit of background. As always there is a ton more consideration that goes into figuring out whether you want to file for a utility and/or design patent. I can only speak to US patent law, but generally speaking a design patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;consists of the visual ornamental characteristics embodied&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in, or applied to, an article of manufacture. Since a design is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; manifested in appearance, the subject matter of a design patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application may relate to the configuration or shape of an article, to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the surface ornamentation applied to an article, or to the combination&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of configuration and surface ornamentation. A design for surface&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ornamentation is inseparable from the article to which it is applied&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and cannot exist alone. It must be a definite pattern of surface&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ornamentation, applied to an article of manufacture.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Source: [USPTO][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it depends on what your product is. If it is a new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, compositions of matter, or any new useful improvement thereof, you probably want to file a utility patent. If you are trying to protect the ornamental nature of that product you would want to file a design patent as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recommend further reading: [What is the difference between a utility patent and a design patent?][2], and [Design Patent Application Guide][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With respect to filing overseas you have a couple of different options, but you will likely be taking advantage of something called the [Patent Cooperation Treaty][4]. For more information on the PCT check out this short FAQ from the World Intellectual Property Organization: [PCT FAQs][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/types/designapp.jsp#def&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/main/faq/p120011.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/types/designapp.jsp&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Cooperation_Treaty&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/pct/en/basic_facts/faqs_about_the_pct.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5351" RevisionGUID="40a703e9-c8b9-4d1c-b7dd-0e04b82ab50e" CreationDate="2013-11-04T20:41:37.057" UserId="105" Text="I'm answering this question as a **general** guide on how to access contact information for patents that have issued, and applications that have published. Following these steps you can find the contact information on record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Go to Public Pair: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA; 2. Defeat captcha.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Input the Patent Number, Publication Number, or Application Number. You probably won't be searching by PCT Number or Control Number.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Now you can click on the tab that says &quot;Address and Attorney/Agent.&quot; This will give you the contact information for the Attorney or Agent that prosecuted the case before the USPTO. Or, you can go to the &quot;Image File Wrapper&quot; tab and look for the document entitled &quot;Oath or Declaration filed.&quot; There you should find the inventor's name and address. In this case it is on the third page of the document. Alternatively, under the &quot;Image File Wrapper&quot; you could search for the &quot;Application Data Sheet,&quot; and the inventor name and address is on the first page." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4580" RevisionGUID="048ac072-e992-4834-aa2b-70b539d0b9ab" CreationDate="2013-11-05T00:06:56.807" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" ![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application was given a &quot;**final rejection**&quot; by the US Patent Office. An applicant has several ways to keep an application in this state alive. They include a request for continuing examination. It just involves paying more fees and responding to the rejection. Appealing the rejection is another avenue. If nothing is done it will go abandoned six months from the final rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the grounds for rejection (can be seen in Public PAIR) are based on things the applicant themselves cited to the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON PREDICTING ADVERTISER KEYWORD PERFORMANCE** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...predicting keyword performance for an advertiser by how the keyword has performed for similar advertisers! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 27, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of predicting **KEYWORD PERFORMANCE** for an advertiser who has not previously bid on the keyword; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying **SIMILAR ADVERTISERS** and using that to predict the performance expected from the subject keyword;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **EUCLIDIAN DISTANCE BETWEEN ATTRIBUTES BETWEEN ADVERTISERS** to estimate similarity between advertisers; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **CATEGORY**, **QUALITY SCORE**, **PAY-PER-CLICK**, **BID**, **ADVERTISER VERTICAL**, **GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION**, **DAY-TARGETING**, **DAY-PARTING**, **KEYWORDS IN COMMON** to estimate the performance expected from the keyword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PREDICTION OF USER RESPONSE TO RECEIVED DATA**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Within an online advertising system, a method of predicting keyword performance for an advertiser who has not previously bid on a keyword by identifying a similar advertiser who has used the same keyword and using the keyword’s previous performance to provide an expected result for the current advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130166371 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/337,709&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 27, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 27, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; {A METHOD} for predicting advertiser **keyword performance indicator** values, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a keyword from a first advertiser, whereinthe first advertiser has **not previously bid on the keyword**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying at least one other **advertiser that is similar** to the first advertiser and has previously bid on the keyword; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  calculating at least one predicted **performance indicator value** for the keyword for the first advertiser based upon at least one established performance indicator value of the keyword for the at least one other advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for detecting expected keyword performance for an advertiser, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving from the advertiser a keyword which the advertiser has not previously bid on; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a 2nd advertiser similar to the advertiser; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Predicting the performance of the keyword (based on any metric) for the subject advertiser based on the performance of the keyword for the similar advertiser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 15, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a **EUCLIDIAN DISTANCE BETWEEN ATTRIBUTES BETWEEN ADVERTISERS** to estimate similarity between advertisers; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **CATEGORY**, **QUALITY SCORE**, **PAY-PER-CLICK**, **BID**, **ADVERTISER VERTICAL**, **GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION**, **DAY-TARGETING**, **DAY-PARTING**, **KEYWORDS IN COMMON** to estimate the performance expected from the keyword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Predicting advertiser keyword performance indicator values” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Ib77Z.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130166371?dq=US20130166371A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="285db631-440d-408e-8df1-5e8f7be2c681" CreationDate="2013-11-05T00:07:17.107" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON using word stems to translate unknown words** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Machine translation of unknown words by finding known word stems and adding inflections! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/31/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using word stems to guess at translations of &quot;out of vocabulary words&quot; in machine translation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - the applicant is claiming preprocessing the morphological analysis by looking for transliterations, misspellings, substituting colloquial expressions if recognized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Resolving out-of-vocabulary words with word stem analysis**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for translating &quot;out-of-vocabulary&quot; words which involves looking for word stems, translating the word stem and inflecting the word stem in the foreign language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130197896 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/362,595&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/31/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/28/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method under control of one or more processors specifically configured with executable instructions, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving, by a server, a request from a computing device to translate one or more words from a source language to a target language;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining that a phrase table excludes a particular word of the one or more words but includes a remainder of the one or more words;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining whether a morphological analysis of the particular word identifies a stem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. in response to determining that the morphological analysis of the particular word identifies the stem, translating the stem from the source language to the target language to create a translated stem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. inflecting the translated stem based on the morphological analysis of the particular word to create a translated word corresponding to the particular word;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. translating the remainder of the one or more words from the source language to the target language to create a translated remainder;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. creating a translation of the one or more words based on the translated word and the translated remainder; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. sending the translation to the computing device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of machine translation, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving request to translate one or more words to target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining that the words are &quot;out-of-vocabulary&quot; (i.e. not in the lookup table)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining that the words contain word stems&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Translating the word stems into the target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Inflecting the word stems in the target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Translating the remaining words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Sending the translated words to a computer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/31/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming looking for transliterations, misspellings, substituting colloquial expressions if recognized&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Using word-stem analysis to translate unknown words from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Rz2r9.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130197896?dq=US20130197896A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130197896" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5040" RevisionGUID="91992838-6026-4a5f-9bd5-430f29452c8a" CreationDate="2013-11-05T00:07:32.340" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON using purchase history to make product recommendations** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...Recommending products to customers based on their online purchase history and their offline purchase history! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/24/2013** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Recommending products based on combining customer online and offline purchase history&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - sending the product recommendation as a geographic map of other customers in a vicinity of the customer who have purchased a similar product&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Product recommendations based on online/offline purchasing history**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for generating a product recommendation based on combining online and in-store purchase history for customer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130204737 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/749,355&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/24/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a request for a product recommendation for a customer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Generating the product recommendation based on a **purchase history** for the customer that comprises in-store purchases from one or more brick and mortar stores and **online purchases** from one or more online stores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for generating product recommendations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Some process requests a product recommendation for a customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Generate product recommendation based on purchase history for same customer using information from both his in-store purchases and his online purchases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/24/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming sending the product recommendation as a geographic map of other customers in a vicinity of the customer who have purchased a similar product&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Combining online and offline purchase history to create product recommendation from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/01E52rr.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130204737&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant &#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130204737" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5167" RevisionGUID="42bcee29-331e-4a95-8eaf-a481a46e85db" CreationDate="2013-11-05T00:07:47.500" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON delivering video to a user devices** - This application from [Google][6] seeks to patent the idea of...offering a list of registered devices to a user so a video can be transferred to the selected device and the user can watch it! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Transferring video (or other content) to selected devices from among a list of devices **previously registered** to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - reformatting or transcoding the content into a format that is compatible with the selected device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Delivering videos to user-selected device**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for delivering video to a user.  User selects among a list of registered devices.  Video is transferred to the selected device so user can view it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130227076 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/406,407&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/25/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving at a content delivery system, from a content provider system, a request, associated with a user accessing the content provider system, to transfer a video stored on a content source system to a viewing device of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying a plurality of viewing devices registered to the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. providing, to the user, a list of the user's registered viewing devices;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. receiving, from the user, a selection of one of the user's viewing devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. transferring the video from the content source system to the selected viewing device, whereby the user is able to subsequently view the content item on the selected viewing device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of content deliver, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving request to transfer a video from a content store to a device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying multiple viewing devices associated with user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing user a list of registered viewing devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. User selects a viewing device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Transferring video from content source to the selected viewing device so user can view it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming reformatting or transcoding the content to be compatible with selected device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Delivering user's video to a selected device from a list of registered devices from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/vtN9G.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130227076?dq=US20130227076A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130227076" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4740" RevisionGUID="5383234c-5f60-4a5a-a4ae-9f2ea77a05c1" CreationDate="2013-11-05T00:08:08.000" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON classifying mobile users based on who they call in a network** - This application from [Ericsson][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Social network analysis applied to mobile phones...Keep [PRISM][7] free of patent licenses!  10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/24/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Social network analysis to classify individuals in a community based on who they communicate with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves demographic information about users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Social network analysis on cell phone calling networks to segment users**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130138479 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/699,796&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/24/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for classifying a new mobile user in a communication network based on demographics associated with the new mobile user, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Representing, for a sample set of mobile users, each mobile user in the sample set by a node and mobile usage between two nodes by an edge connecting the two nodes;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Forming one or more communities of nodes;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identifying a plurality of demographic subunits by splitting each of the one or more communities;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining one or more structural properties associated with each of the plurality of subunits;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Mapping the one or more structural properties to demographics of the plurality of subunits; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Classifying the new mobile user based on the determined structural properties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for classifying a new user in a communication network, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a graph structure with users as nodes and edges as communication between users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Forming communities of nodes (using any clustering technique)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Looking for correlation between demographic features of groups of nodes (e.g. rich, white, parent, etc…) and structural features of same groups of nodes (all communicate with one another, for example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Classifying a new user based on these structural features (i.e. who he talk to)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/24/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming segmenting customers based on **standard clustering algorithms** applied to a social graph&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Determining and presenting demographics of mobile users in a communication network from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/R2i0mp3.png&quot; width=&quot;350&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130138479&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ericsson.com/us&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4814" RevisionGUID="33421abf-3140-4809-a538-61bc62351ac3" CreationDate="2013-11-05T00:08:22.487" UserId="1767" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON transferring data to a server based on user travel plans** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...transferring data in cloud storage system from a data server near a user usual location to a data server near where a user plans to travel! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2011** that discusses: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Moving data between servers based on user travel plans&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves accessing a user's calendar to figure out where he will travel and when&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transferring data between servers based on travel plans of a user**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for moving data between data servers bsaed on travel plans of a user (basically, if the user is traveling somewhere, moving some data from his &quot;home&quot; server to a server which is closer to the location he will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144978 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/309,640&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/3/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. locating a data server near a travel location of a user based on one or more travel plans of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transferring data of the user from a home data server near a home location of the user to the data server near the travel location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of data relocation in a cloud storage environment, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Locating a data server which is physically close to a location of a user based on travel plans of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Transferring data of the user from the home data server to the data server near the travel location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming accessing the user's calendar to figure out where he will travel so data can be moved there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for data relocation in cloud storage environments from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rLnVZ5M.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130144978?dq=US20130144978A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130144978" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5361" RevisionGUID="c83a6f39-7413-4f8d-b31d-496bff024679" CreationDate="2013-11-05T16:46:46.303" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5362" RevisionGUID="ad8e7ef4-0203-42c4-bd4b-0fc9622f08db" CreationDate="2013-11-05T16:46:46.303" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5364" RevisionGUID="583b763f-64a7-4bb4-b3d7-3ee5255d0e06" CreationDate="2013-11-05T19:20:33.923" UserId="3109" Text="I filed a patent disclosing an innovative product that uses a certain technology. The claims are on the product features, then I describe multiple embodiments of the technology that can enable those features. Months later, I discover another embodiment of the technology that can enable the features in my product and that works particularly well compared with the embodiments I had described in my patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking into account that my patent describes the spirit of the invention, and that my claims, system and method claims, are on the features of the product, can I keep this new embodiment of the technology as a trade secret? any reasons pro and against? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that I'm a very small company, my product targets a large market, the lifetime of the product will be just a few years, and my biggest risk is competition from a large company that can easily bankrupt me on trials or work around my patent. Do the reasons pro and against keeping this embodiment as trade secret change?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13461" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5364" RevisionGUID="583b763f-64a7-4bb4-b3d7-3ee5255d0e06" CreationDate="2013-11-05T19:20:33.923" UserId="3109" Text="Keep an embodiment of a technology as trade secret" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13462" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5364" RevisionGUID="583b763f-64a7-4bb4-b3d7-3ee5255d0e06" CreationDate="2013-11-05T19:20:33.923" UserId="3109" Text="&lt;trade&gt;&lt;secret&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5365" RevisionGUID="ba6a62da-92fa-442e-8172-f0f76eab8889" CreationDate="2013-11-05T20:39:16.580" UserId="3076" Text="There is (still) a requirement that the inventor not hide the ball by holding back the &quot;best mode&quot; they know of practicing their invention. There are not reasons pro and con, it is a rule and not following it *used to* get your patent torn up. The new AIA law took away the main penalty for not providing the best mode, they can't tear up your patent. But it is still a requirement. Fortunately for your situation, the rule is &quot;best mode known at the *time of filing*&quot;. After filling you are not required to inform the USPTO of any &quot;better&quot; ways of doing it. In fact, doing so would probably constitute adding new matter, which is not allowed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5365" RevisionGUID="244a4a7f-5e9c-4f8c-a00f-01e698088574" CreationDate="2013-11-05T21:18:05.183" UserId="3076" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="There is (still) a requirement that the inventor not hide the ball by holding back the &quot;best mode&quot; they know of practicing their invention. There are not reasons pro and con, it is a rule and not following it *used to* get your patent torn up. The new AIA law took away the main penalty for not providing the best mode, they can't tear up your patent. But it is still a requirement. Fortunately for your situation, the rule is &quot;best mode known at the *time of filing*&quot;. After filling you are not required to inform the USPTO of any &quot;better&quot; ways of doing it. In fact, doing so would probably constitute adding new matter, which is not allowed. So, in this case, you can keep it a trade secret." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5366" RevisionGUID="42a3b919-19ac-45b8-93db-63054b7dd623" CreationDate="2013-11-05T22:42:16.203" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ad targeting based on demographic profiles of website visitors** - This application from [Tonemedia, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Determining user characteristic, inferring a demographic profile based on this characteristic and showing an advertisement based on the demographic profile of the website visitor! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/7/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using user characteristics to select a demographic profile for a website visitor, and showing ads based on that demographic profile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Using content preference of user as a characteristic to determine user profile, or **correlating** a bunch of users to generate demographic profiles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Demographic profiling to select website advertisements**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for presenting an online ad to a website visitor based on a linking the user to a demographic profile and selecting an ad based on that demographic profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130204709 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/367,442&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Tonemedia / Cellfish, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method of presenting an ad from an ad server to a visitor of a site available from a server comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining a characteristic parameter associated with the visitor based on an action of the visitor at said site;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a demographic profile for said visitor based on said characteristic parameter;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting by said ad server at least one ad associated with said demographic profile; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Presenting the selected ad to said visitor on said site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of presenting an advertisement to a website visitor, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Measuring any parameter associated with the visitor **based on an action of the visitor on the site** (so presumably simply the IP address doesn't count);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a demographic profile of user based on measured parameter;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting an ad basedo the demographic profile; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Presenting the selected ad to the visitor on the website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming creating demographic profiles by correlating a user characteristic across a bunch of users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Typical concordance between preferences for various singers and various target segments&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/5C1Boj3.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130204709&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://tonemedia.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130204709" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13466" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5366" RevisionGUID="42a3b919-19ac-45b8-93db-63054b7dd623" CreationDate="2013-11-05T22:42:16.203" UserId="1767" Text="Behavioral ad targeting - Ads on websites based on user behavior (Tonemedia) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13467" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5366" RevisionGUID="42a3b919-19ac-45b8-93db-63054b7dd623" CreationDate="2013-11-05T22:42:16.203" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;online-advertising&gt;&lt;us20130204709a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5367" RevisionGUID="03750810-515b-4e2d-9a3a-f1cb148e12c6" CreationDate="2013-11-05T23:10:40.103" UserId="6154" Text="The idea of physicalizing educational concepts to create visualizations seems to be a mental process. Patent Application: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130224715 seems to fail the requirement of being novel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Was this application accepted as a patent?&#xD;&#xA;2. What makes the content in this application patentable when prior art shows that their ideas have been created before such as with Abelson and diSessa's turtle geometry in 1986" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13469" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5367" RevisionGUID="03750810-515b-4e2d-9a3a-f1cb148e12c6" CreationDate="2013-11-05T23:10:40.103" UserId="6154" Text="How Patent passes the prior art requirement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13470" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5367" RevisionGUID="03750810-515b-4e2d-9a3a-f1cb148e12c6" CreationDate="2013-11-05T23:10:40.103" UserId="6154" Text="&lt;novelty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5368" RevisionGUID="6e466e16-16a6-41ab-a786-db60926aa322" CreationDate="2013-11-06T00:24:03.483" UserId="3076" Text="At this point it is an application for a patent that has not yet been examined. I agree that much of it is abstractly worded; that can be a good thing for an inventor. The claims do *not* seem to be a mental process. They are all dependent upon claim 1 and it involve servers and clients and rendering. The applicants acknowledge learning by mapping concepts to physical metaphors is old. In the spec. they claim that combining gamification of that metaphor with the learning tied to a specific curriculum is new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a former Logo and turtle hobbyist I would say I found it fun, but it is not what most people would call a game and I think the people involved with it would not say they were doing something tied to a specific, existing curriculum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To the extent that they may have something new and non-obvious and not abstract, I would say the existing claim set does not seem terribly artful at first look.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5366" RevisionGUID="274a6bb8-3361-4aea-8019-bbe166de5dea" CreationDate="2013-11-06T00:39:56.720" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ad targeting based on demographic profiles of website visitors** - This application from [Tonemedia, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Determining user characteristic, inferring a demographic profile based on this characteristic and showing an advertisement based on the demographic profile of the website visitor! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/7/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using user characteristics to select a demographic profile for a website visitor, and showing ads based on that demographic profile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Using content preference of user as a characteristic to determine user profile, or **correlating** a bunch of users to generate demographic profiles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Demographic profiling to select website advertisements**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for presenting an online ad to a website visitor based on a linking the user to a demographic profile and selecting an ad based on that demographic profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130204709 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/367,442&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Tonemedia / Cellfish, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method of presenting an ad from an ad server to a visitor of a site available from a server comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining a characteristic parameter associated with the visitor based on an action of the visitor at said site;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a demographic profile for said visitor based on said characteristic parameter;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting by said ad server at least one ad associated with said demographic profile; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Presenting the selected ad to said visitor on said site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of presenting an advertisement to a website visitor, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Measuring any parameter associated with the visitor **based on an action of the visitor on the site** (so presumably simply the IP address doesn't count);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a demographic profile of user based on measured parameter;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting an ad basedo the demographic profile; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Presenting the selected ad to the visitor on the website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming creating demographic profiles by correlating a user characteristic across a bunch of users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Typical concordance between preferences for various singers and various target segments&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/5C1Boj3.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130204709&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://tonemedia.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130204709" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5369" RevisionGUID="81ba4643-a1c4-4be6-840d-22c041531359" CreationDate="2013-11-06T00:55:05.830" UserId="6157" Text="I've thought of a couple different but nearly equally efficient ways to manufacture a new tool. Should I be covering both in a provisional patent application? Is that even possible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if the different methods result in different components in the finished product (but the function remains the same)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13474" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5369" RevisionGUID="81ba4643-a1c4-4be6-840d-22c041531359" CreationDate="2013-11-06T00:55:05.830" UserId="6157" Text="Article of manufacture - multiple unique methods of manufacture?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13475" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5369" RevisionGUID="81ba4643-a1c4-4be6-840d-22c041531359" CreationDate="2013-11-06T00:55:05.830" UserId="6157" Text="&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5368" RevisionGUID="98498307-34e5-4c5f-9a87-9d393420f6e2" CreationDate="2013-11-06T00:58:22.180" UserId="3076" Comment="added 170 characters in body" Text="At this point it is an application for a patent that has not yet been examined. I agree that much of it is abstractly worded; that can be a good thing for an inventor as long as the claimed invention itself is not an abstract idea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims do *not* seem to be a mental process to me. They are all dependent upon claim 1 and that claim involve servers and clients and rendering - things carried out bay machines. The applicants acknowledge learning by mapping concepts to physical metaphors is old. To clarify what do do think is new, in the spec. they claim that combining gamification, a physical mapping metaphor and having the learning tied to a specific curriculum is new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a former Logo and turtle hobbyist I would say I found it fun, but it is not what most people would call a game and I think the people involved with it would not say they were doing something tied to a specific, existing curriculum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To the extent that they may have something new and non-obvious and not abstract, I would say the existing claim set does not seem terribly artful at first look.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="b136d281-b758-471d-915a-cfe2f264274e" CreationDate="2013-11-06T01:09:49.703" UserId="1767" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON online ads based on current events** - This application from [Yahoo! Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying current events, categorizing them, and showing ads based on the current event! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Real-time ads triggered by current events&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Current events such as earthquakes, fires, or floods, **drop in prices** or **sale for a particular type of product** (e.g., cars), a general **reduction in inventory** of a particular type of product, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Showing ads based on current events**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identify a current event of any kind (examples: earthquakes, fires, or floods, drop in prices or sale for a particular type of product (e.g., cars), a general reduction in inventory of a particular type of product, etc.), categorize the current event, determine an advertisement based on the **category of event** (Halloween is here?  Buy a costume!), and send the advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130159094 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/326,033&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/17/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying by a network device an event that has recently occurred;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Categorizing by the network device the event into a category of events from a plurality of categories;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Ascertaining by the network device a set of one or more advertisements associated with the category of events;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Selecting by the network device at least one advertisement from the set of one or more advertisements associated with the category of events; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Providing by the network device the at least one advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identify an event that has recently occurred;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Categorizing the event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Find an advertisement associated with the category of the current event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Select an advertisement associated with the category of event; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Show the advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A variety of specific types of current events used to trigger ads, such as earthquakes, fires, or floods, **drop in prices** or **sale for a particular type of product** (e.g., cars), a general **reduction in inventory** of a particular type of product, etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method of serving advertisements based on current events&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fSlhSt4.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130159094&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130159094" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13478" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="b136d281-b758-471d-915a-cfe2f264274e" CreationDate="2013-11-06T01:09:49.703" UserId="1767" Text="Realtime advertisements - Selecting ads based on current events (Yahoo!) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13479" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="b136d281-b758-471d-915a-cfe2f264274e" CreationDate="2013-11-06T01:09:49.703" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;online-advertising&gt;&lt;yahoo&gt;&lt;us20130159094a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5366" RevisionGUID="dd5b9847-8da4-4148-b6df-f1ed83f8e418" CreationDate="2013-11-06T01:14:19.080" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ad targeting based on demographic profiles of website visitors** - This application from [Tonemedia, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Determining user characteristic, inferring a demographic profile based on this characteristic and showing an advertisement based on the demographic profile of the website visitor! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/7/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using user characteristics to select a demographic profile for a website visitor, and showing ads based on that demographic profile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Using content preference of user as a characteristic to determine user profile, or **correlating** a bunch of users to generate demographic profiles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Demographic profiling to select website advertisements**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for presenting an online ad to a website visitor based on a linking the user to a demographic profile and selecting an ad based on that demographic profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130204709 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/367,442&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Tonemedia / Cellfish, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method of presenting an ad from an ad server to a visitor of a site available from a server comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining a characteristic parameter associated with the visitor based on an action of the visitor at said site;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a demographic profile for said visitor based on said characteristic parameter;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting by said ad server at least one ad associated with said demographic profile; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Presenting the selected ad to said visitor on said site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of presenting an advertisement to a website visitor, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Measuring any parameter associated with the visitor **based on an action of the visitor on the site** (so presumably simply the IP address doesn't count);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a demographic profile of user based on measured parameter;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting an ad basedo the demographic profile; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Presenting the selected ad to the visitor on the website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming creating demographic profiles by correlating a user characteristic across a bunch of users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Typical concordance between preferences for various singers and various target segments&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/5C1Boj3.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130204709&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://tonemedia.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130204709" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="1f91fe1d-0ed0-434b-99fc-5bb934d2311e" CreationDate="2013-11-06T01:21:09.533" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON online ads based on current events** - This application from [Yahoo! Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying current events, categorizing them, and showing ads based on the current event! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Real-time ads triggered by current events&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Current events such as earthquakes, fires, or floods, **drop in prices** or **sale for a particular type of product** (e.g., cars), a general **reduction in inventory** of a particular type of product, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Showing ads based on current events**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identify a current event of any kind (examples: earthquakes, fires, or floods, drop in prices or sale for a particular type of product (e.g., cars), a general reduction in inventory of a particular type of product, etc.), categorize the current event, determine an advertisement based on the **category of event** (Halloween is here?  Buy a costume!), and send the advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130159094 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/326,033&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/17/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying by a network device an event that has recently occurred;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Categorizing by the network device the event into a category of events from a plurality of categories;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Ascertaining by the network device a set of one or more advertisements associated with the category of events;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Selecting by the network device at least one advertisement from the set of one or more advertisements associated with the category of events; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Providing by the network device the at least one advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identify an event that has recently occurred;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Categorizing the event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Find an advertisement associated with the category of the current event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Select an advertisement associated with the category of event; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Show the advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A variety of specific types of current events used to trigger ads, such as earthquakes, fires, or floods, **drop in prices** or **sale for a particular type of product** (e.g., cars), a general **reduction in inventory** of a particular type of product, etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method of serving advertisements based on current events&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fSlhSt4.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130159094&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130159094" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5366" RevisionGUID="d4ddbf3e-5eee-4b09-9c81-0f75cc1220ba" CreationDate="2013-11-06T01:34:19.340" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ad targeting based on demographic profiles of website visitors** - This application from [Tonemedia, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Determining user characteristic, inferring a demographic profile based on this characteristic and showing an advertisement based on the demographic profile of the website visitor! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/7/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using user characteristics to select a demographic profile for a website visitor, and showing ads based on that demographic profile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Using content preference of user as a characteristic to determine user profile, or **correlating** a bunch of users to generate demographic profiles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Demographic profiling to select website advertisements**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for presenting an online ad to a website visitor based on a linking the user to a demographic profile and selecting an ad based on that demographic profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130204709 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/367,442&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Tonemedia / Cellfish, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method of presenting an ad from an ad server to a visitor of a site available from a server comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining a characteristic parameter associated with the visitor based on an action of the visitor at said site;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a demographic profile for said visitor based on said characteristic parameter;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting by said ad server at least one ad associated with said demographic profile; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Presenting the selected ad to said visitor on said site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of presenting an advertisement to a website visitor, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Measuring any parameter associated with the visitor **based on an action of the visitor on the site** (so presumably simply the IP address doesn't count);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a demographic profile of user based on measured parameter;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting an ad basedo the demographic profile; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Presenting the selected ad to the visitor on the website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming creating demographic profiles by correlating a user characteristic across a bunch of users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Typical concordance between preferences for various singers and various target segments&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/5C1Boj3.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130204709&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://tonemedia.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130204709" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="ffeca129-3cab-4802-a89d-8d326d9f01cc" CreationDate="2013-11-06T01:34:31.467" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON online ads based on current events** - This application from [Yahoo! Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying current events, categorizing them, and showing ads based on the current event! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Real-time ads triggered by current events&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Current events such as earthquakes, fires, or floods, **drop in prices** or **sale for a particular type of product** (e.g., cars), a general **reduction in inventory** of a particular type of product, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Showing ads based on current events**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identify a current event of any kind (examples: earthquakes, fires, or floods, drop in prices or sale for a particular type of product (e.g., cars), a general reduction in inventory of a particular type of product, etc.), categorize the current event, determine an advertisement based on the **category of event** (Halloween is here?  Buy a costume!), and send the advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130159094 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/326,033&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/17/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying by a network device an event that has recently occurred;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Categorizing by the network device the event into a category of events from a plurality of categories;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Ascertaining by the network device a set of one or more advertisements associated with the category of events;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Selecting by the network device at least one advertisement from the set of one or more advertisements associated with the category of events; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Providing by the network device the at least one advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identify an event that has recently occurred;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Categorizing the event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Find an advertisement associated with the category of the current event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Select an advertisement associated with the category of event; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Show the advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A variety of specific types of current events used to trigger ads, such as earthquakes, fires, or floods, **drop in prices** or **sale for a particular type of product** (e.g., cars), a general **reduction in inventory** of a particular type of product, etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method of serving advertisements based on current events&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fSlhSt4.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130159094&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130159094" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5366" RevisionGUID="e7fe70c3-7967-4c0e-878d-20aef3d3cb7c" CreationDate="2013-11-06T02:35:49.177" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ad targeting based on demographic profiles of website visitors** - This application from [Tonemedia, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Determining user characteristic, inferring a demographic profile based on this characteristic and showing an advertisement based on the demographic profile of the website visitor! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/7/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using user characteristics to select a demographic profile for a website visitor, and showing ads based on that demographic profile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Using content preference of user as a characteristic to determine user profile, or **correlating** a bunch of users to generate demographic profiles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Demographic profiling to select website advertisements**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for presenting an online ad to a website visitor based on a linking the user to a demographic profile and selecting an ad based on that demographic profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130204709 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/367,442&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Tonemedia / Cellfish, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method of presenting an ad from an ad server to a visitor of a site available from a server comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining a characteristic parameter associated with the visitor based on an action of the visitor at said site;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a demographic profile for said visitor based on said characteristic parameter;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting by said ad server at least one ad associated with said demographic profile; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Presenting the selected ad to said visitor on said site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of presenting an advertisement to a website visitor, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Measuring any parameter associated with the visitor **based on an action of the visitor on the site** (so presumably simply the IP address doesn't count);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a demographic profile of user based on measured parameter;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting an ad basedo the demographic profile; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Presenting the selected ad to the visitor on the website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming creating demographic profiles by correlating a user characteristic across a bunch of users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Typical concordance between preferences for various singers and various target segments&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/5C1Boj3.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130204709&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://tonemedia.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130204709" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="1fcfb1ef-bacc-4bdc-87cb-6f1eebd30f61" CreationDate="2013-11-06T02:36:06.240" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON online ads based on current events** - This application from [Yahoo! Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying current events, categorizing them, and showing ads based on the current event! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Real-time ads triggered by current events&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Current events such as earthquakes, fires, or floods, **drop in prices** or **sale for a particular type of product** (e.g., cars), a general **reduction in inventory** of a particular type of product, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Showing ads based on current events**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identify a current event of any kind (examples: earthquakes, fires, or floods, drop in prices or sale for a particular type of product (e.g., cars), a general reduction in inventory of a particular type of product, etc.), categorize the current event, determine an advertisement based on the **category of event** (Halloween is here?  Buy a costume!), and send the advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130159094 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/326,033&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/17/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying by a network device an event that has recently occurred;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Categorizing by the network device the event into a category of events from a plurality of categories;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Ascertaining by the network device a set of one or more advertisements associated with the category of events;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Selecting by the network device at least one advertisement from the set of one or more advertisements associated with the category of events; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Providing by the network device the at least one advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identify an event that has recently occurred;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Categorizing the event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Find an advertisement associated with the category of the current event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Select an advertisement associated with the category of event; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Show the advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A variety of specific types of current events used to trigger ads, such as earthquakes, fires, or floods, **drop in prices** or **sale for a particular type of product** (e.g., cars), a general **reduction in inventory** of a particular type of product, etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method of serving advertisements based on current events&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fSlhSt4.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130159094&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130159094" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5371" RevisionGUID="762886ea-4070-4c77-920b-f714fc4c57b4" CreationDate="2013-11-06T05:06:33.103" UserId="3076" Text="You can cover whatever you like in a provsional application. When it comes time to write and file non-provisonal applications there is no requirement for a 1:1 corespondence. Three non-provisionals can all get the benefit of the same provisonal and a non-provisional application can get the benefit of multiple provisionals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5372" RevisionGUID="f553c790-e9ce-4550-b28c-f7f547523289" CreationDate="2013-11-06T14:57:18.713" UserId="6160" Text="I came across this article on Hacker News, that cited this patent:&#xD;&#xA;http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&amp;r=4&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PTXT&amp;S1=%28455%2F456.3.CCLS.+AND+20131105.PD.%29&amp;OS=ccl/455/456.3+and+isd/11/05/2013&amp;RS=%28CCL/455/456.3+AND+ISD/20131105%29&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It detailed proximity based home automation, I am sure there has to be prior art on this, I mean they talk about it in the movie AntiTrust, and I'm pretty sure i've seen videos on the internet showing people using a proximity based system to turn on lights, computers/etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It talks about doing certain actions while in different locations, and the lifehacker link below talks about doing different things based on different networks you connect to, which sounds a lot like this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this something that can still be reversed due to prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(A limited example could be this: lifehacker.com/265822/automate-proximity-and-location+based-computer-actions from back in 2007)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13493" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5372" RevisionGUID="f553c790-e9ce-4550-b28c-f7f547523289" CreationDate="2013-11-06T14:57:18.713" UserId="6160" Text="Proximity Based Home Automation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13494" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5372" RevisionGUID="f553c790-e9ce-4550-b28c-f7f547523289" CreationDate="2013-11-06T14:57:18.713" UserId="6160" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5372" RevisionGUID="03d0504a-6c04-4889-8119-725113cef5ed" CreationDate="2013-11-06T16:43:10.713" UserId="3076" Comment="Added claim 1" Text="I came across this article on Hacker News, that cited this patent:&#xD;&#xA;http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&amp;r=4&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PTXT&amp;S1=%28455%2F456.3.CCLS.+AND+20131105.PD.%29&amp;OS=ccl/455/456.3+and+isd/11/05/2013&amp;RS=%28CCL/455/456.3+AND+ISD/20131105%29&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It detailed proximity based home automation, I am sure there has to be prior art on this, I mean they talk about it in the movie AntiTrust, and I'm pretty sure i've seen videos on the internet showing people using a proximity based system to turn on lights, computers/etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A device for relaying location information, the device comprising: a receiver to receive first signals from a plurality of first devices associated with a person, each of the first signals comprising first data, the first data being indicative of an estimated location of the person, wherein, for at least one of the first devices, the first data is indicative of a real-time user-input activity; a location estimator to estimate a location of the person associated with the plurality of first devices, the location estimator comprising: a data aggregator to aggregate at least some of the first data in the first signals; and a weight assigner to assign one or more weights to the first data in the first signals, wherein the estimated location of the person is based at least in part on the assigned weights; a signal generator to generate one or more second signals based on the estimated location of the person, each of the one or more second signals comprising second data; and a transmitter that transmit the one or more second signals to a plurality of second devices. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It talks about doing certain actions while in different locations, and the lifehacker link below talks about doing different things based on different networks you connect to, which sounds a lot like this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this something that can still be reversed due to prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(A limited example could be this: lifehacker.com/265822/automate-proximity-and-location+based-computer-actions from back in 2007)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5368" RevisionGUID="46b1eb33-9a08-47b6-9cf8-ee87ad02bd95" CreationDate="2013-11-06T17:29:08.283" UserId="3076" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="At this point it is an application for a patent that has not yet been examined. I agree that much of it is abstractly worded; that can be a good thing for an inventor as long as the claimed invention itself is not an abstract idea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims do *not* seem to be a mental process to me. They are all dependent upon claim 1 and that claim involve servers and clients and rendering - things carried out by machines. The applicants acknowledge learning by mapping concepts to physical metaphors is old. To clarify what do do think is new, in the spec. they claim that combining gamification, a physical mapping metaphor and having the learning tied to a specific curriculum is new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a former Logo and turtle hobbyist I would say I found recursive drawing fun, but it is not what most people would call a game and I think the people involved with it would not say they were doing something tied to a specific, existing curriculum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To the extent that they may have something new and non-obvious and not abstract, I would say the existing claim set does not seem terribly artful at first look.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5375" RevisionGUID="79512ac8-40ec-4e26-a88b-2c9da0d080f9" CreationDate="2013-11-06T20:20:33.930" UserId="3076" Text="If you take a look at the drawings, abstract and claims you will see that a &quot;relay server&quot; between the user's devices and the home automation technology is required. The relay server consolidates, converts, determines locations and coordinates commands. Any prior art that is located would need to teach these elements. There are several USPTO process that can be used to try to narrow or knock out an issued patent. Ex parte reexamination request, inter partes review and post grant opposition. The least expensive is ex part reexam and it costs $6000 in USPTO fees to request + whatever patent attorney fees to draw up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5376" RevisionGUID="c95347ed-ec96-4717-966a-efba99a61ff8" CreationDate="2013-11-06T22:28:36.570" UserId="5849" Text="This second image provides additional reasons why MCS does not use US patent 8228198&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![MCS does not provide uniqueness as required by the 198 patent][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/mNKmO.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5377" RevisionGUID="be9efff6-bd1f-4163-a5ba-e14a232d3c7b" CreationDate="2013-11-06T23:41:16.657" UserId="6165" Text="Low tech, but this should work. Go to your local county courthouse or county recorder and get a certified true copy with a date time stamp. Then you can post a scan of the document online as proof that you did this. The county will have a permanent record of your filing, and you can retain the paper copy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certified true copies exist to serve this type of purpose." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5375" RevisionGUID="3dc0be83-c303-427d-aa46-9662b6a2a1c7" CreationDate="2013-11-07T00:52:52.113" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="If you take a look at the drawings, abstract and claims you will see that a &quot;relay server&quot; between the user's devices and the home automation technology is required. The relay server consolidates, converts, determines locations and coordinates commands. Any prior art that is located would need to teach these elements. There are several USPTO process that can be used to try to narrow or knock out an issued patent. Ex parte reexamination request, inter partes review and post grant opposition. The least expensive is ex parte reexam and it costs $6000 in USPTO fees to request + whatever patent attorney fees to draw up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5372" RevisionGUID="b1e86ede-9647-4ea4-9ea7-5375e6ca8a33" CreationDate="2013-11-07T01:00:02.747" UserId="1767" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="I came across this article on Hacker News, that cited this patent:&#xD;&#xA;http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&amp;r=4&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PTXT&amp;S1=%28455%2F456.3.CCLS.+AND+20131105.PD.%29&amp;OS=ccl/455/456.3+and+isd/11/05/2013&amp;RS=%28CCL/455/456.3+AND+ISD/20131105%29&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It detailed proximity based home automation, I am sure there has to be prior art on this, I mean they talk about it in the movie AntiTrust, and I'm pretty sure i've seen videos on the internet showing people using a proximity based system to turn on lights, computers/etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1 -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A device for relaying location information, the device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A receiver to receive first signals from a plurality of first devices associated with a person, each of the first signals comprising first data, the first data being indicative of an estimated location of the person, wherein, for at least one of the first devices, the first data is indicative of a real-time user-input activity;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A location estimator to estimate a location of the person associated with the plurality of first devices, the location estimator comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a data aggregator to aggregate at least some of the first data in the first signals; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a weight assigner to assign one or more weights to the first data in the first signals, wherein the estimated location of the person is based at least in part on the assigned weights;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A signal generator to generate one or more second signals based on the estimated location of the person, each of the one or more second signals comprising second data; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. A transmitter that transmit the one or more second signals to a plurality of second devices. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It talks about doing certain actions while in different locations, and the lifehacker link below talks about doing different things based on different networks you connect to, which sounds a lot like this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this something that can still be reversed due to prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(A limited example could be this: lifehacker.com/265822/automate-proximity-and-location+based-computer-actions from back in 2007)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5372" RevisionGUID="8ab8f97e-a28f-42e8-9372-a232bd19a5a2" CreationDate="2013-11-07T01:05:30.660" UserId="1767" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="I came across an article on Hacker News that cited this recently **issued patent** by Apple:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Patent Number** 8,577,392&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title [System and method of determining location of wireless communication devices/persons for controlling/adjusting operation of devices based on the location][1]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Assignee** Apple, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Priority Date** June 13, 2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the Hacker News article, the patent relates to proximity based home automation.  I am sure there has to be prior art on this. They talk about it in the movie AntiTrust and I'm pretty sure I've seen videos on the internet showing people using a proximity based system to turn on lights, computers/etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1 -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A device for relaying location information, the device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A receiver to receive first signals from a plurality of first devices associated with a person, each of the first signals comprising first data, the first data being indicative of an estimated location of the person, wherein, for at least one of the first devices, the first data is indicative of a real-time user-input activity;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A location estimator to estimate a location of the person associated with the plurality of first devices, the location estimator comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a data aggregator to aggregate at least some of the first data in the first signals; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a weight assigner to assign one or more weights to the first data in the first signals, wherein the estimated location of the person is based at least in part on the assigned weights;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A signal generator to generate one or more second signals based on the estimated location of the person, each of the one or more second signals comprising second data; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. A transmitter that transmit the one or more second signals to a plurality of second devices. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It talks about doing certain actions while in different locations, and the lifehacker link below talks about doing different things based on different networks you connect to, which sounds a lot like this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this something that can still be reversed due to prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(A limited example could be this: lifehacker.com/265822/automate-proximity-and-location+based-computer-actions from back in 2007)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&amp;r=4&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PTXT&amp;S1=%28455%2F456.3.CCLS.+AND+20131105.PD.%29&amp;OS=ccl/455/456.3+and+isd/11/05/2013&amp;RS=%28CCL/455/456.3+AND+ISD/20131105%29&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13512" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5372" RevisionGUID="8ab8f97e-a28f-42e8-9372-a232bd19a5a2" CreationDate="2013-11-07T01:05:30.660" UserId="1767" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;home-automation&gt;&lt;us8577392&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13513" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5372" RevisionGUID="8ab8f97e-a28f-42e8-9372-a232bd19a5a2" CreationDate="2013-11-07T01:05:30.660" UserId="1767" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="Proximity-based home automation (Apple) - Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="0ff46c34-f5df-41b9-a6a6-8eeac84d8056" CreationDate="2013-11-07T01:07:04.653" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON online ads based on current events** - This application from [Yahoo! Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying current events, categorizing them, and showing ads based on the current event! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Real-time ads triggered by current events&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Current events such as earthquakes, fires, or floods, **drop in prices** or **sale for a particular type of product** (e.g., cars), a general **reduction in inventory** of a particular type of product, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Showing ads based on current events**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identify a current event of any kind (examples: earthquakes, fires, or floods, drop in prices or sale for a particular type of product (e.g., cars), a general reduction in inventory of a particular type of product, etc.), categorize the current event, determine an advertisement based on the **category of event** (Halloween is here?  Buy a costume!), and send the advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130159094 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/326,033&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/17/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying by a network device an event that has recently occurred;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Categorizing by the network device the event into a category of events from a plurality of categories;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Ascertaining by the network device a set of one or more advertisements associated with the category of events;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Selecting by the network device at least one advertisement from the set of one or more advertisements associated with the category of events; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Providing by the network device the at least one advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identify an event that has recently occurred;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Categorizing the event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Find an advertisement associated with the category of the current event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Select an advertisement associated with the category of event; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Show the advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A variety of specific types of current events used to trigger ads, such as earthquakes, fires, or floods, **drop in prices** or **sale for a particular type of product** (e.g., cars), a general **reduction in inventory** of a particular type of product, etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method of serving advertisements based on current events&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fSlhSt4.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130159094&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130159094" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13515" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5366" RevisionGUID="c4f51dfd-2810-4850-a104-6cdbb0f564fd" CreationDate="2013-11-07T01:07:17.217" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ad targeting based on demographic profiles of website visitors** - This application from [Tonemedia, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Determining user characteristic, inferring a demographic profile based on this characteristic and showing an advertisement based on the demographic profile of the website visitor! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/7/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using user characteristics to select a demographic profile for a website visitor, and showing ads based on that demographic profile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Using content preference of user as a characteristic to determine user profile, or **correlating** a bunch of users to generate demographic profiles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Demographic profiling to select website advertisements**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for presenting an online ad to a website visitor based on a linking the user to a demographic profile and selecting an ad based on that demographic profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130204709 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/367,442&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Tonemedia / Cellfish, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method of presenting an ad from an ad server to a visitor of a site available from a server comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining a characteristic parameter associated with the visitor based on an action of the visitor at said site;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a demographic profile for said visitor based on said characteristic parameter;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting by said ad server at least one ad associated with said demographic profile; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Presenting the selected ad to said visitor on said site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of presenting an advertisement to a website visitor, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Measuring any parameter associated with the visitor **based on an action of the visitor on the site** (so presumably simply the IP address doesn't count);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a demographic profile of user based on measured parameter;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting an ad basedo the demographic profile; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Presenting the selected ad to the visitor on the website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming creating demographic profiles by correlating a user characteristic across a bunch of users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Typical concordance between preferences for various singers and various target segments&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/5C1Boj3.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130204709&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://tonemedia.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130204709" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5378" RevisionGUID="4beae88f-a66e-4950-9f3e-23763a3dbe32" CreationDate="2013-11-07T01:14:08.657" UserId="6166" Text="excited to have found this place!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as described in the title, when we come up with an idea (and let's assume that this idea can be implemented), can i just go ahead and file for a patent (in which I fully describe in much detail its nature and content), or do I have to operationalize and come up with a preliminary prototype (either to demonstrate my seriousness or its viability) first?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the reason for asking this is simple, operationalization invariably involves other people, while ideally it is best to have obtained a patent before involving other people, not that I don't trust people but it is better for focusing on the work if everybody involved knows patent issues are out of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13517" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5378" RevisionGUID="4beae88f-a66e-4950-9f3e-23763a3dbe32" CreationDate="2013-11-07T01:14:08.657" UserId="6166" Text="do I have to come with an actual prototype before filing a patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13518" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5378" RevisionGUID="4beae88f-a66e-4950-9f3e-23763a3dbe32" CreationDate="2013-11-07T01:14:08.657" UserId="6166" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5378" RevisionGUID="c060ed14-6a0d-4bb4-a1a7-8249d57c5e0e" CreationDate="2013-11-07T04:35:52.320" UserId="3076" Comment="small cleaning up" Text="excited to have found this place!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as described in the title, when we come up with an idea (and let's assume that this idea can be implemented), can I just go ahead and file for a patent (in which I fully describe in much detail its nature and content), or do I have to operationalize and come up with a preliminary prototype (either to demonstrate my seriousness or its viability) first?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for asking this is simple, operationalization invariably involves other people, while ideally it is best to have obtained a patent before involving other people, not that I don't trust people but it is better for focusing on the work if everybody involved knows patent issues are out of the question.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5379" RevisionGUID="cf5c25a0-2d95-4bc6-8c9e-6faae5eaacdf" CreationDate="2013-11-07T04:45:55.680" UserId="3076" Text="There is no need to create a prototype before filing a patent. A patent *does* need to explain invention in enough detail that someone &quot;skilled in the art&quot; can make and use it without &quot;undue experimentation&quot;. The patent application also needs to demonstrate that the inventor is in &quot;possession&quot; of the invention, meaning that it is more than an idea or a desired outcome. The application text and drawings demonstrate the invention could come to basic operation (not necessarily optimum operation) without further invention required. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it often happens that an inventor learns enough in the early stages of implementation that their first approach can be hugely improved. You want to be spending your money patenting the hugely improved version, not your first idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5380" RevisionGUID="69482d38-e68f-45cd-8bb7-17e5fb826249" CreationDate="2013-11-07T10:07:34.557" UserId="6167" Text="IANAL, but wouldn't the famous [IFTTT](http://www.ifttt.com) (If This Then That) qualify as prior art?&#xD;&#xA;it acts as a &quot;Relay Server&quot;, aggregating 'signals' and triggering 'actions' based on 'aggregated' data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This website allows you to define, from a broad range of triggers (on the internet) to define general actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These triggers include location-based triggers, such as FourSquare-checkins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possible actions include triggering home-automation &quot;Smart devices&quot;, specific example: Belkin's WeMo smart plugs: https://ifttt.com/wemo_switch&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Analysis**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IFTTT acts as the receiver from claim 1.1, receiving &quot;first signals&quot; from &quot;first devices associated with a person&quot; (Phones via Foursquare, but also other online accounts)&#xD;&#xA;IFTTT then acts as the &quot;signal generator&quot;(1.3) and the Transmitter (1.4), for example via the WeMo channel, to trigger &quot;a plurality of devices&quot; ('up to 72 WeMo switches', but also 'sending text messages', 'posting twitter updates', etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5372" RevisionGUID="9fd9ae0a-9be8-4cdf-83be-c999e9915a8f" CreationDate="2013-11-07T16:53:54.443" UserId="3076" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I came across an article on Hacker News that cited this recently **issued patent** by Apple:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Patent Number** 8,577,392&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title [System and method of determining location of wireless communication devices/persons for controlling/adjusting operation of devices based on the location][1]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Assignee** Apple, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Priority Date** June 13, 2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the Hacker News article, the patent relates to proximity based home automation.  I am sure there has to be prior art on this. They talk about it in the movie AntiTrust and I'm pretty sure I've seen videos on the internet showing people using a proximity based system to turn on lights, computers/etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1 -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A device for relaying location information, the device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a) A receiver to receive first signals from a plurality of first devices associated with a person, each of the first signals comprising first data, the first data being indicative of an estimated location of the person, wherein, for at least one of the first devices, the first data is indicative of a real-time user-input activity;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b) A location estimator to estimate a location of the person associated with the plurality of first devices, the location estimator comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a data aggregator to aggregate at least some of the first data in the first signals; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; c) a weight assigner to assign one or more weights to the first data in the first signals, wherein the estimated location of the person is based at least in part on the assigned weights;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; d) A signal generator to generate one or more second signals based on the estimated location of the person, each of the one or more second signals comprising second data; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; e) A transmitter that transmit the one or more second signals to a plurality of second devices. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It talks about doing certain actions while in different locations, and the lifehacker link below talks about doing different things based on different networks you connect to, which sounds a lot like this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this something that can still be reversed due to prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(A limited example could be this: lifehacker.com/265822/automate-proximity-and-location+based-computer-actions from back in 2007)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&amp;r=4&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PTXT&amp;S1=%28455%2F456.3.CCLS.+AND+20131105.PD.%29&amp;OS=ccl/455/456.3+and+isd/11/05/2013&amp;RS=%28CCL/455/456.3+AND+ISD/20131105%29&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5382" RevisionGUID="b3d9d7d1-194b-4b49-8498-f247de4200ef" CreationDate="2013-11-07T17:31:01.817" UserId="6169" Text="The &quot;relay server&quot; is the claimed device.  It has all the obvious functions that you would need to be included in a device with the recited functionality and nothing more.  The geniuses who invented this realized that if you want a relay server device that, say, turns the lights down when X leaves at room, you need to be able to receive information that can be used to determine the location of X (surprise!), which you can do by detecting input into a &quot;first device&quot; associated with X (surprise!).  The &quot;relay server&quot; then needs to be able to process that location information to estimate the location of X (surprise!) and then ... this is the really genius part ... the &quot;relay server&quot; needs to send instructions to other devices with receivers (e.g., the lights in the room) based on the location information.  WOW!  So cool.  So broad.  So unbelievably obvious.  Heckuva job, PTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5383" RevisionGUID="5cc33f2c-6052-40cd-8d7e-21a3792cf1ea" CreationDate="2013-11-07T18:52:25.803" UserId="6170" Text="I would like to know more about this patent, likehow much it cost or if it is possible to work with it to produce new projects and products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Natalí" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13529" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5383" RevisionGUID="5cc33f2c-6052-40cd-8d7e-21a3792cf1ea" CreationDate="2013-11-07T18:52:25.803" UserId="6170" Text="it is possible to buy this pattent and use it in Colombia south america?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13530" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5383" RevisionGUID="5cc33f2c-6052-40cd-8d7e-21a3792cf1ea" CreationDate="2013-11-07T18:52:25.803" UserId="6170" Text="&lt;us20100175570&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="8c5da3fa-c4d4-421c-b262-bcb04c1a5fa8" CreationDate="2013-11-07T22:21:49.070" UserId="6169" Text="Also, with respect to your remark about &quot;obvious (as a whole)&quot;, all that the language about &quot;as a whole&quot; stands for is that you can't simply identify each element recited in the claim as old and conclude that the claim is obvious.  This is because some combinations of old elements produce unexpected results.  It certainly does not mean that all claims that recite a new combination are non-obvious, which is how people who habitually defend this kind of junk try to spin it.  I certainly considered the claim &quot;as a whole&quot; before I presented my views about the claim.  Nothing about the combination of those old, well-known functions into a single device suggests that the device is non-obvious in view of the reams of prior art teachings about the ability of computerized devices to transmit information about their locations to each other and, in response, perform whatever act is desired by the programmer (open a door, turn out the light, turn off the TV).  Heck, it was already old that a computer could &quot;see&quot; you coming and perform some act based on that (turn on a light, open the door0.  Now it's non-obvious to stick a couple intervening devices into that process?  Give me a break." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13532" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="05cc6ec6-3243-46c2-b984-bb395d78b1ab" CreationDate="2013-11-08T02:07:46.117" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON online ads based on current events** - This application from [Yahoo! Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying current events, categorizing them, and showing ads based on the current event! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Real-time ads triggered by current events&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Current events such as earthquakes, fires, or floods, **drop in prices** or **sale for a particular type of product** (e.g., cars), a general **reduction in inventory** of a particular type of product, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Showing ads based on current events**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identify a current event of any kind (examples: earthquakes, fires, or floods, drop in prices or sale for a particular type of product (e.g., cars), a general reduction in inventory of a particular type of product, etc.), categorize the current event, determine an advertisement based on the **category of event** (Halloween is here?  Buy a costume!), and send the advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130159094 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/326,033&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/17/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying by a network device an event that has recently occurred;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Categorizing by the network device the event into a category of events from a plurality of categories;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Ascertaining by the network device a set of one or more advertisements associated with the category of events;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Selecting by the network device at least one advertisement from the set of one or more advertisements associated with the category of events; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Providing by the network device the at least one advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identify an event that has recently occurred;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Categorizing the event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Find an advertisement associated with the category of the current event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Select an advertisement associated with the category of event; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Show the advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A variety of specific types of current events used to trigger ads, such as earthquakes, fires, or floods, **drop in prices** or **sale for a particular type of product** (e.g., cars), a general **reduction in inventory** of a particular type of product, etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method of serving advertisements based on current events&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fSlhSt4.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130159094&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130159094" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5366" RevisionGUID="d8e94fdd-2a78-499b-bde5-e804dfe763a0" CreationDate="2013-11-08T21:22:07.577" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ad targeting based on demographic profiles of website visitors** - This application from [Tonemedia, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Determining user characteristic, inferring a demographic profile based on this characteristic and showing an advertisement based on the demographic profile of the website visitor! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/7/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using user characteristics to select a demographic profile for a website visitor, and showing ads based on that demographic profile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Using content preference of user as a characteristic to determine user profile, or **correlating** a bunch of users to generate demographic profiles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Demographic profiling to select website advertisements**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for presenting an online ad to a website visitor based on a linking the user to a demographic profile and selecting an ad based on that demographic profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130204709 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/367,442&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Tonemedia / Cellfish, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method of presenting an ad from an ad server to a visitor of a site available from a server comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining a characteristic parameter associated with the visitor based on an action of the visitor at said site;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a demographic profile for said visitor based on said characteristic parameter;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting by said ad server at least one ad associated with said demographic profile; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Presenting the selected ad to said visitor on said site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of presenting an advertisement to a website visitor, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Measuring any parameter associated with the visitor **based on an action of the visitor on the site** (so presumably simply the IP address doesn't count);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a demographic profile of user based on measured parameter;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting an ad basedo the demographic profile; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Presenting the selected ad to the visitor on the website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming creating demographic profiles by correlating a user characteristic across a bunch of users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Typical concordance between preferences for various singers and various target segments&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/5C1Boj3.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130204709&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://tonemedia.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130204709" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5366" RevisionGUID="780ebd80-9823-42e2-abf7-50dd25b89e02" CreationDate="2013-11-08T23:54:17.543" UserId="1767" Comment="edited body; added 4 characters in body; added 4 characters in body; edited body; deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ad targeting based on demographic profiles of website visitors** - This application from [Tonemedia, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Determining user characteristic, inferring a demographic profile based on this characteristic and showing an advertisement based on the demographic profile of the website visitor! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/7/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using user characteristics to select a demographic profile for a website visitor, and showing ads based on that demographic profile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Using content preference of user as a characteristic to determine user profile, or **correlating** a bunch of users to generate demographic profiles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Demographic profiling to select website advertisements**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for presenting an online ad to a website visitor based on a linking the user to a demographic profile and selecting an ad based on that demographic profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130204709 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/367,442&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Tonemedia / Cellfish, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method of presenting an ad from an ad server to a visitor of a site available from a server comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.  Determining a characteristic parameter associated with the visitor based on an action of the visitor at said site;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2.  Selecting a demographic profile for said visitor based on said characteristic parameter;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting by said ad server at least one ad associated with said demographic profile; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Presenting the selected ad to said visitor on said site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of presenting an advertisement to a website visitor, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Measuring any parameter associated with the visitor **based on an action of the visitor on the site** (so presumably simply the IP address doesn't count);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a demographic profile of user based on measured parameter;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting an ad basedo the demographic profile; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Presenting the selected ad to the visitor on the website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming creating demographic profiles by correlating a user characteristic across a bunch of users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Typical concordance between preferences for various singers and various target segments&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/5C1Boj3.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130204709&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://tonemedia.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130204709" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5389" RevisionGUID="af8c232a-4f26-429c-a3dd-330bf19fe4cf" CreationDate="2013-11-10T03:26:42.307" UserId="7178" Text="US563836 A was granted in 1896. Edison's light bulb dates from 1879, US223898 A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a key idea, namely a parabolic reflector made of glass. Rather than being silvered to reflect light, the parabolic bowl is made with prismatic fluting (triangular ridges) on the outside. Light entering through the smooth inside of the bowl is reflected twice inside one of the prisms, by total internal reflection. Total internal reflection is efficient, and if a little light leaks out it makes the exterior sparkly, rather than totally dark. I think I have seen such reflectors in life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Years ago I visited the patent office and saw a patent on a simple parabolic reflector as just described. This 1896 patent, US563836 A, seems to be a more complicated version of the idea, presumably invented after the simple version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I sit searching on Google Patents, I get the feeling that the simpler patent is not in the Google system, or all the good keywords were garbled by OCR. **Does anybody know the simpler parabolic-prismatic reflector patent, from about 1888??** Thank you. I have really struggled with this. My goal is to document a fascinating bit of history." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13558" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5389" RevisionGUID="af8c232a-4f26-429c-a3dd-330bf19fe4cf" CreationDate="2013-11-10T03:26:42.307" UserId="7178" Text="Is there a more basic patent on a parabolic reflector with prismatic fluting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13559" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5389" RevisionGUID="af8c232a-4f26-429c-a3dd-330bf19fe4cf" CreationDate="2013-11-10T03:26:42.307" UserId="7178" Text="&lt;us563836&gt;&lt;us223898&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5018" RevisionGUID="73c0f1b7-1165-4147-b966-ea550dae7dc5" CreationDate="2013-11-10T04:58:05.517" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="This document is an international patent application. To become an enforceable patent in any specific country other steps will need to be taken to enter the national stage in chosen locations. At this point that hasn't happened. Below is a screenshot of a page showing the legal status. It has not gotten very far through the system to date.&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/xku1X.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13561" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5390" RevisionGUID="5dd87759-0fac-4d3f-aaee-e6c6bcc43e10" CreationDate="2013-11-10T06:19:41.117" UserId="3076" Text="I found a method of making a hollow glass reflector from 1875&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US362415A 1887-05-03 GLASS REFLECTOR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and a housing for an electric bulb with triangular prismatic curved diffuser.&#xD;&#xA;US453187A 1891-06-02 HOBBS. GLASS GLOBE FOR ILLUMINATING PURPOSES.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Google patent advanced or other sophisticated search sites you can avoid OCR issues by using classifications. A google advanced patent search using uspclass:&quot;362/334&quot; restricted to 1870-1899 brings up only five things including Hobbs and Blondel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5390" RevisionGUID="8c24e55d-f499-4beb-9cc6-1df238c09eca" CreationDate="2013-11-10T06:28:23.930" UserId="3076" Comment="added classification info" Text="I found a method of making a hollow glass reflector from 1875&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US362415A 1887-05-03 GLASS REFLECTOR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and a housing for an electric bulb with triangular prismatic curved diffuser.&#xD;&#xA;US453187A 1891-06-02 HOBBS. GLASS GLOBE FOR ILLUMINATING PURPOSES.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Google patent advanced or other sophisticated search sites you can avoid OCR issues by using classifications. A google advanced patent search using uspclass:&quot;362/334&quot; restricted to 1870-1899 brings up only five things including Hobbs and Blondel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then again classes boundaries can be confusing. This one's hierarchy is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    CLASS 362, ILLUMINATION&#xD;&#xA;       317	 LIGHT MODIFIER:&#xD;&#xA;       326	. Refractor:&#xD;&#xA;       333	.. With plural elements on both sides of main surface:&#xD;&#xA;       334	... Curved main surface:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5393" RevisionGUID="97acabd7-4269-4a2d-bc8c-0b5f3238eb6a" CreationDate="2013-11-10T17:49:59.990" UserId="7183" Text=" I prefer to not spend a lot of money before I see if it has any value so I would like to file a provisional patent on my own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic invention takes some data from inputs encodes it in a certain way and then sends the data out. It sounds like a server and it pretty much in its functionality, but what I would like to patent is how it takes the data and encodes it. So would I have to describe all the types of input and all the types of outputs or can I talk in general terms and when if I file the patent describe all the specific inputs and outputs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13570" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5393" RevisionGUID="97acabd7-4269-4a2d-bc8c-0b5f3238eb6a" CreationDate="2013-11-10T17:49:59.990" UserId="7183" Text="How similar does non provisional and provisional patent have to be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13571" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5393" RevisionGUID="97acabd7-4269-4a2d-bc8c-0b5f3238eb6a" CreationDate="2013-11-10T17:49:59.990" UserId="7183" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5394" RevisionGUID="1faf6ac0-d75e-41d7-8267-3b93480e40c3" CreationDate="2013-11-10T19:32:21.757" UserId="7184" Text="My father invented this product and I would like to know if it ever went into production and if so who produced it. Is the patent still in effect. Could I use this patent to produce the machine or sell the patent to a company?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13574" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5394" RevisionGUID="1faf6ac0-d75e-41d7-8267-3b93480e40c3" CreationDate="2013-11-10T19:32:21.757" UserId="7184" Text="pillow cleaning machine" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13575" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5394" RevisionGUID="1faf6ac0-d75e-41d7-8267-3b93480e40c3" CreationDate="2013-11-10T19:32:21.757" UserId="7184" Text="&lt;us3081553&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5395" RevisionGUID="a0283c8e-c984-445c-92ca-f89a3432a495" CreationDate="2013-11-11T04:28:44.947" UserId="3076" Text="There is no formal requirement that a non-provisonal have the same scope of content as a provisional from which it gets priority benefit. However the reason to file a provisional *application* (no such thing as a provisional *patent*) is to establish that, on the date of filing, you had the invention in hand. Anything you later want to claim as your invention needs to be fully explained in whatever you file whose date you need to rely on. Patent applications need to explain things such that someone in the field can make it and use it without undue experimentation. The more you put into the provisional document the better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5398" RevisionGUID="219c2acd-f25f-4db4-9c62-afbc4827f1ba" CreationDate="2013-11-11T10:42:45.820" UserId="3775" Text="I'm interested in learning about how to formulate claims. Can people suggest books? Preferably with examples related to questions within the chemical sciences and for the european area." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13586" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5398" RevisionGUID="219c2acd-f25f-4db4-9c62-afbc4827f1ba" CreationDate="2013-11-11T10:42:45.820" UserId="3775" Text="Where to learn how to formulate claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13587" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5398" RevisionGUID="219c2acd-f25f-4db4-9c62-afbc4827f1ba" CreationDate="2013-11-11T10:42:45.820" UserId="3775" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5366" RevisionGUID="2d60143c-1a0b-4671-ab12-2fd8e9a16038" CreationDate="2013-11-11T15:18:20.670" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ad targeting based on demographic profiles of website visitors** - This application from [Tonemedia, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Determining user characteristic, inferring a demographic profile based on this characteristic and showing an advertisement based on the demographic profile of the website visitor! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/7/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using user characteristics to select a demographic profile for a website visitor, and showing ads based on that demographic profile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Using content preference of user as a characteristic to determine user profile, or **correlating** a bunch of users to generate demographic profiles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Demographic profiling to select website advertisements**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for presenting an online ad to a website visitor based on a linking the user to a demographic profile and selecting an ad based on that demographic profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130204709 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/367,442&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Tonemedia / Cellfish, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method of presenting an ad from an ad server to a visitor of a site available from a server comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.  Determining a characteristic parameter associated with the visitor based on an action of the visitor at said site;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2.  Selecting a demographic profile for said visitor based on said characteristic parameter;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting by said ad server at least one ad associated with said demographic profile; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Presenting the selected ad to said visitor on said site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of presenting an advertisement to a website visitor, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Measuring any parameter associated with the visitor **based on an action of the visitor on the site** (so presumably simply the IP address doesn't count);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a demographic profile of user based on measured parameter;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting an ad basedo the demographic profile; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Presenting the selected ad to the visitor on the website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming creating demographic profiles by correlating a user characteristic across a bunch of users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Typical concordance between preferences for various singers and various target segments&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/5C1Boj3.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130204709&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://tonemedia.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130204709" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="49d390fd-f6a7-45d7-94a2-c70365cc0e03" CreationDate="2013-11-11T15:18:43.843" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON online ads based on current events** - This application from [Yahoo! Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying current events, categorizing them, and showing ads based on the current event! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Real-time ads triggered by current events&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Current events such as earthquakes, fires, or floods, **drop in prices** or **sale for a particular type of product** (e.g., cars), a general **reduction in inventory** of a particular type of product, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Showing ads based on current events**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identify a current event of any kind (examples: earthquakes, fires, or floods, drop in prices or sale for a particular type of product (e.g., cars), a general reduction in inventory of a particular type of product, etc.), categorize the current event, determine an advertisement based on the **category of event** (Halloween is here?  Buy a costume!), and send the advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130159094 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/326,033&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/17/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying by a network device an event that has recently occurred;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Categorizing by the network device the event into a category of events from a plurality of categories;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Ascertaining by the network device a set of one or more advertisements associated with the category of events;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Selecting by the network device at least one advertisement from the set of one or more advertisements associated with the category of events; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Providing by the network device the at least one advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identify an event that has recently occurred;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Categorizing the event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Find an advertisement associated with the category of the current event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Select an advertisement associated with the category of event; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Show the advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A variety of specific types of current events used to trigger ads, such as earthquakes, fires, or floods, **drop in prices** or **sale for a particular type of product** (e.g., cars), a general **reduction in inventory** of a particular type of product, etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method of serving advertisements based on current events&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fSlhSt4.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130159094&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130159094" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5372" RevisionGUID="6c5b82ed-3a61-46e8-8d5d-99970feac85c" CreationDate="2013-11-11T15:19:09.207" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" I came across an article on Hacker News that cited this recently **issued patent** by Apple:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Patent Number** 8,577,392&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title [System and method of determining location of wireless communication devices/persons for controlling/adjusting operation of devices based on the location][1]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Assignee** Apple, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Priority Date** June 13, 2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the Hacker News article, the patent relates to proximity based home automation.  I am sure there has to be prior art on this. They talk about it in the movie AntiTrust and I'm pretty sure I've seen videos on the internet showing people using a proximity based system to turn on lights, computers/etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1 -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A device for relaying location information, the device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a) A receiver to receive first signals from a plurality of first devices associated with a person, each of the first signals comprising first data, the first data being indicative of an estimated location of the person, wherein, for at least one of the first devices, the first data is indicative of a real-time user-input activity;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b) A location estimator to estimate a location of the person associated with the plurality of first devices, the location estimator comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a data aggregator to aggregate at least some of the first data in the first signals; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; c) a weight assigner to assign one or more weights to the first data in the first signals, wherein the estimated location of the person is based at least in part on the assigned weights;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; d) A signal generator to generate one or more second signals based on the estimated location of the person, each of the one or more second signals comprising second data; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; e) A transmitter that transmit the one or more second signals to a plurality of second devices. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It talks about doing certain actions while in different locations, and the lifehacker link below talks about doing different things based on different networks you connect to, which sounds a lot like this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this something that can still be reversed due to prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(A limited example could be this: lifehacker.com/265822/automate-proximity-and-location+based-computer-actions from back in 2007)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&amp;r=4&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PTXT&amp;S1=%28455%2F456.3.CCLS.+AND+20131105.PD.%29&amp;OS=ccl/455/456.3+and+isd/11/05/2013&amp;RS=%28CCL/455/456.3+AND+ISD/20131105%29&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4814" RevisionGUID="e1a82ae1-576c-4cbd-a1e5-2418a3155a15" CreationDate="2013-11-11T15:19:31.223" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON transferring data to a server based on user travel plans** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...transferring data in cloud storage system from a data server near a user usual location to a data server near where a user plans to travel! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2011** that discusses: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Moving data between servers based on user travel plans&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves accessing a user's calendar to figure out where he will travel and when&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transferring data between servers based on travel plans of a user**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for moving data between data servers bsaed on travel plans of a user (basically, if the user is traveling somewhere, moving some data from his &quot;home&quot; server to a server which is closer to the location he will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144978 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/309,640&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/3/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. locating a data server near a travel location of a user based on one or more travel plans of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transferring data of the user from a home data server near a home location of the user to the data server near the travel location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of data relocation in a cloud storage environment, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Locating a data server which is physically close to a location of a user based on travel plans of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Transferring data of the user from the home data server to the data server near the travel location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming accessing the user's calendar to figure out where he will travel so data can be moved there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for data relocation in cloud storage environments from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rLnVZ5M.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130144978?dq=US20130144978A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130144978" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5167" RevisionGUID="8558f9d3-26cf-41b3-9cc3-2a6a283e5b14" CreationDate="2013-11-11T15:20:24.197" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON delivering video to a user devices** - This application from [Google][6] seeks to patent the idea of...offering a list of registered devices to a user so a video can be transferred to the selected device and the user can watch it! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Transferring video (or other content) to selected devices from among a list of devices **previously registered** to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - reformatting or transcoding the content into a format that is compatible with the selected device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Delivering videos to user-selected device**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for delivering video to a user.  User selects among a list of registered devices.  Video is transferred to the selected device so user can view it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130227076 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/406,407&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/25/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving at a content delivery system, from a content provider system, a request, associated with a user accessing the content provider system, to transfer a video stored on a content source system to a viewing device of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying a plurality of viewing devices registered to the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. providing, to the user, a list of the user's registered viewing devices;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. receiving, from the user, a selection of one of the user's viewing devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. transferring the video from the content source system to the selected viewing device, whereby the user is able to subsequently view the content item on the selected viewing device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of content deliver, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving request to transfer a video from a content store to a device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying multiple viewing devices associated with user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing user a list of registered viewing devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. User selects a viewing device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Transferring video from content source to the selected viewing device so user can view it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming reformatting or transcoding the content to be compatible with selected device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Delivering user's video to a selected device from a list of registered devices from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/vtN9G.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130227076?dq=US20130227076A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130227076" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5399" RevisionGUID="d6232946-ddb4-4c87-8b5f-36c1371a187e" CreationDate="2013-11-11T19:50:21.553" UserId="3076" Text="One of the best books about (U.S.) claims is [Invention Analysis and Claiming: A Patent Lawyer's Guide][1]. It does *not* use chemistry examples. Chemical patent claiming is definitely a specialty within a specialty. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Landis (now Faber) [Faber on Mechanics Patent Claim 6th Ed ][1] has a chapter on chemical claims. It is over $350 but you might find a copy at a specialized law library. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone else may be able to recommend references on European patent law. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.amazon.com/Faber-Mechanics-Patent-Claim-6th/dp/1402411340/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1384199082&amp;sr=1-1-fkmr1&amp;keywords=faber%20on%20claiming%20patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4801" RevisionGUID="c8d10699-4841-4636-9b2d-0662a11bdf99" CreationDate="2013-11-11T20:36:32.613" UserId="1767" Comment="added 262 characters in body; edited tags" Text=" ![enter image description here][8]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application has received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON cloud-based video editing** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...sending large video files to a server and providing **cloud-based applications to edit video** files! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/23/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Video-editing software as a service run on a cloud-based server&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves segmenting large files into smaller segments so that encoding and delivery can be managed in segments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Databases and web applications for large video files**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for editing and managing large video files by uploading the files to a server and doing editing through web applications&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130132523 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/478,772&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for the acquisition and management of digital files and their display and management through the internet, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. communicating with a plurality of electronic storage devices via the internet;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. copying files from said electronic storage devices;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. storing said files and facilitating the download of said files; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. providing tools for the management of said files, said tools comprising a tool for delivering only a portion of one of said files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for managing and displaying video files on the internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Communicating with more than one storage device (e.g. a laptop or a smartphone)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Copying files from the storage device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Storing files on server(s) on the internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Providing tools to manage the files, including tools to download only a portion of one of the files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming breaking large files into segments to help with uploading, encoding, and editing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Acquiring, managing and uploading video files from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/8owuaJl.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132523?dq=US20130132523A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13601" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4801" RevisionGUID="c8d10699-4841-4636-9b2d-0662a11bdf99" CreationDate="2013-11-11T20:36:32.613" UserId="1767" Comment="added 262 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;us20130132523&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4727" RevisionGUID="cc84d107-0390-47da-a833-3904e14c9294" CreationDate="2013-11-11T20:45:16.113" UserId="1767" Comment="added 262 characters in body; edited tags" Text=" ![enter image description here][8]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application has received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON online video advertisements** - This application from [Yahoo!][6] seeks to patent the idea of...stopping a video advertisement on one browser tab and resuming the video advertisement within another browser tab! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/20/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - starting and resuming a video advertisements across tabs during browsing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO records the current time of play so as to resume at exactly the same place in the video advertisement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Seemless online video advertisement during browsing**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Online video advertisement during browsing - ad unit on first web page is paused when user sends request for second web page.  On loading second web page the video advertisement resumes in the same time time during video&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130132211 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/300,583&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo!&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/20/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method of providing seamless online video advertisements, the computer-implemented method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. rendering a video advertisement on a first web page in a first tab;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. recording current time of play constantly during the rendering of the video advertisement;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving a request for a second web page in the first tab from a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. unloading the first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. loading the second web page in the first tab;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. retrieving the current time of play stored corresponding to the unloading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. resume the rendering of the video advertisement on the second web page based on the current time of play retrieved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing seamless online video ads, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Playing video ad in first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Recording current time of video while playing the video;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving request for second web page and loading second web page; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Resume playing video ad in second web page at same time video was stopped in first web page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/20/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming recording the stop time of the video so as to resume in the same place during browsing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;providing seemless online video advertisements from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zBFVoxZ.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132211?dq=US20130132211A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13603" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4727" RevisionGUID="cc84d107-0390-47da-a833-3904e14c9294" CreationDate="2013-11-11T20:45:16.113" UserId="1767" Comment="added 262 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;yahoo&gt;&lt;us20130132211&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13604" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4727" RevisionGUID="c70dd969-3f03-475e-a1b1-3b24bab69836" CreationDate="2013-11-12T01:12:58.877" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Online Video - Ads While Browsing (Yahoo!) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5400" RevisionGUID="32cf0079-22dd-4f97-94bb-3d33116ad8bc" CreationDate="2013-11-12T02:17:49.273" UserId="6131" Text="In the late 90s, early 2000s, there were several proprietary implementations of trading/finance systems that would cache/sync data with servers in other locations (where the firm had offices) based on a mobile/desktop calender app. This was generally used for presentation prep and if large models/trade histories had to be moved for those presentations. Bandwidth/disk space limitations existed back then and the internet applications weren't very reliable, so it was worthwhile to move files when needed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I no longer recall the specific system's names, but it gives an idea of where this could be done before." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5401" RevisionGUID="cb3a7eb1-24b1-4033-8f67-d4e05b85cc40" CreationDate="2013-11-12T06:33:15.533" UserId="7188" Text="i believe this patent application has prior art and is not patent able.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com.au/patents/US20130220295?dq=jack+kingsley&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=18qBUpvgIObwiAfy2YG4Dg&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;people have been modding paintball guns to accept shells for a long time and i dont believe this should be allowed to be patented. do you need to see some prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;regards,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;james" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13607" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5401" RevisionGUID="cb3a7eb1-24b1-4033-8f67-d4e05b85cc40" CreationDate="2013-11-12T06:33:15.533" UserId="7188" Text="i believe this patent application has proir art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13608" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5401" RevisionGUID="cb3a7eb1-24b1-4033-8f67-d4e05b85cc40" CreationDate="2013-11-12T06:33:15.533" UserId="7188" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4814" RevisionGUID="ee9a5c2c-a28d-4d49-83db-6d3e07ef0494" CreationDate="2013-11-12T07:28:57.433" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON transferring data to a server based on user travel plans** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...transferring data in cloud storage system from a data server near a user usual location to a data server near where a user plans to travel! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2011** that discusses: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Moving data between servers based on user travel plans&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves accessing a user's calendar to figure out where he will travel and when&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transferring data between servers based on travel plans of a user**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for moving data between data servers bsaed on travel plans of a user (basically, if the user is traveling somewhere, moving some data from his &quot;home&quot; server to a server which is closer to the location he will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144978 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/309,640&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/3/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. locating a data server near a travel location of a user based on one or more travel plans of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transferring data of the user from a home data server near a home location of the user to the data server near the travel location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of data relocation in a cloud storage environment, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Locating a data server which is physically close to a location of a user based on travel plans of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Transferring data of the user from the home data server to the data server near the travel location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming accessing the user's calendar to figure out where he will travel so data can be moved there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for data relocation in cloud storage environments from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rLnVZ5M.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130144978?dq=US20130144978A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130144978" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5167" RevisionGUID="86fcb195-0ebe-4536-825d-0bf620c30b64" CreationDate="2013-11-12T07:29:43.157" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON delivering video to a user devices** - This application from [Google][6] seeks to patent the idea of...offering a list of registered devices to a user so a video can be transferred to the selected device and the user can watch it! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Transferring video (or other content) to selected devices from among a list of devices **previously registered** to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - reformatting or transcoding the content into a format that is compatible with the selected device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Delivering videos to user-selected device**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for delivering video to a user.  User selects among a list of registered devices.  Video is transferred to the selected device so user can view it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130227076 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/406,407&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/25/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving at a content delivery system, from a content provider system, a request, associated with a user accessing the content provider system, to transfer a video stored on a content source system to a viewing device of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying a plurality of viewing devices registered to the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. providing, to the user, a list of the user's registered viewing devices;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. receiving, from the user, a selection of one of the user's viewing devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. transferring the video from the content source system to the selected viewing device, whereby the user is able to subsequently view the content item on the selected viewing device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of content deliver, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving request to transfer a video from a content store to a device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying multiple viewing devices associated with user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing user a list of registered viewing devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. User selects a viewing device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Transferring video from content source to the selected viewing device so user can view it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming reformatting or transcoding the content to be compatible with selected device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Delivering user's video to a selected device from a list of registered devices from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/vtN9G.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130227076?dq=US20130227076A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130227076" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="1073070b-1b7a-4d65-be50-56814ad38d36" CreationDate="2013-11-12T07:30:01.550" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON online ads based on current events** - This application from [Yahoo! Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying current events, categorizing them, and showing ads based on the current event! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Real-time ads triggered by current events&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Current events such as earthquakes, fires, or floods, **drop in prices** or **sale for a particular type of product** (e.g., cars), a general **reduction in inventory** of a particular type of product, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Showing ads based on current events**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identify a current event of any kind (examples: earthquakes, fires, or floods, drop in prices or sale for a particular type of product (e.g., cars), a general reduction in inventory of a particular type of product, etc.), categorize the current event, determine an advertisement based on the **category of event** (Halloween is here?  Buy a costume!), and send the advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130159094 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/326,033&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/17/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying by a network device an event that has recently occurred;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Categorizing by the network device the event into a category of events from a plurality of categories;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Ascertaining by the network device a set of one or more advertisements associated with the category of events;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Selecting by the network device at least one advertisement from the set of one or more advertisements associated with the category of events; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Providing by the network device the at least one advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identify an event that has recently occurred;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Categorizing the event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Find an advertisement associated with the category of the current event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Select an advertisement associated with the category of event; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Show the advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A variety of specific types of current events used to trigger ads, such as earthquakes, fires, or floods, **drop in prices** or **sale for a particular type of product** (e.g., cars), a general **reduction in inventory** of a particular type of product, etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method of serving advertisements based on current events&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fSlhSt4.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130159094&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130159094" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5366" RevisionGUID="f4188224-a0d2-4916-baca-8dd3e488b1bf" CreationDate="2013-11-12T07:30:18.033" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ad targeting based on demographic profiles of website visitors** - This application from [Tonemedia, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Determining user characteristic, inferring a demographic profile based on this characteristic and showing an advertisement based on the demographic profile of the website visitor! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/7/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using user characteristics to select a demographic profile for a website visitor, and showing ads based on that demographic profile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Using content preference of user as a characteristic to determine user profile, or **correlating** a bunch of users to generate demographic profiles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Demographic profiling to select website advertisements**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for presenting an online ad to a website visitor based on a linking the user to a demographic profile and selecting an ad based on that demographic profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130204709 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/367,442&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Tonemedia / Cellfish, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method of presenting an ad from an ad server to a visitor of a site available from a server comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.  Determining a characteristic parameter associated with the visitor based on an action of the visitor at said site;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2.  Selecting a demographic profile for said visitor based on said characteristic parameter;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting by said ad server at least one ad associated with said demographic profile; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Presenting the selected ad to said visitor on said site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of presenting an advertisement to a website visitor, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Measuring any parameter associated with the visitor **based on an action of the visitor on the site** (so presumably simply the IP address doesn't count);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a demographic profile of user based on measured parameter;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting an ad basedo the demographic profile; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Presenting the selected ad to the visitor on the website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming creating demographic profiles by correlating a user characteristic across a bunch of users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Typical concordance between preferences for various singers and various target segments&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/5C1Boj3.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130204709&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://tonemedia.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130204709" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5401" RevisionGUID="72007841-f264-4f60-bb90-fc6e86718cb4" CreationDate="2013-11-12T08:30:37.023" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag. Removed signature" Text="I believe this patent application has prior art and is not patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com.au/patents/US20130220295?dq=jack+kingsley&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=18qBUpvgIObwiAfy2YG4Dg&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People have been modding paintball guns to accept shells for a long time and i dont believe this should be allowed to be patented. do you need to see some prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13614" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5401" RevisionGUID="72007841-f264-4f60-bb90-fc6e86718cb4" CreationDate="2013-11-12T08:30:37.023" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag. Removed signature" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20130220295&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13615" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5401" RevisionGUID="72007841-f264-4f60-bb90-fc6e86718cb4" CreationDate="2013-11-12T08:30:37.023" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag. Removed signature" Text="I believe this patent application has prior art - US2013/0220295" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5402" RevisionGUID="6cdf21bd-512f-4dc4-80eb-7ae37e8914e8" CreationDate="2013-11-12T14:29:36.000" UserId="3775" Text="Motorola filed a patent application for an electronic tatoo that allows communication with a mobile device (if I get it right).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Patent link][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does a patent not require a functional prototype? So did they actually tatoo a guy to prove the concept?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=13462881&amp;OS=13462881&amp;RS=13462881&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/LGVFI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13617" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5402" RevisionGUID="6cdf21bd-512f-4dc4-80eb-7ae37e8914e8" CreationDate="2013-11-12T14:29:36.000" UserId="3775" Text="Will this patent be granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13618" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5402" RevisionGUID="6cdf21bd-512f-4dc4-80eb-7ae37e8914e8" CreationDate="2013-11-12T14:29:36.000" UserId="3775" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5403" RevisionGUID="7f4967be-9fe6-4ffe-bed2-677ff2e06fb5" CreationDate="2013-11-12T19:07:08.960" UserId="3076" Text="In examining patent appellations the USPTO examiner can not just say &quot;I think this has been done before&quot;. Preferably they find documents that describe what the applicant is claiming and in their rejection explain where in the document the specific aspects of the claims are covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5404" RevisionGUID="163dbaa2-b7cb-4b34-a16f-7b5b356793f6" CreationDate="2013-11-12T19:13:02.133" UserId="3076" Text="A functional prototype is *not* needed. On the other hand, he application must provide everything someone skilled in the field needs to make and use the invention without undue experimentation. In the &quot;unpredictable arts&quot; like biology it is usually required to have done experiments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4922" RevisionGUID="fdacc245-9be6-44ab-a1c8-2414b9185278" CreationDate="2013-11-12T19:14:25.920" UserId="7187" Comment="spelling and grammer" Text="Is it possible for an independent developer to self-publish software? Even if you crossed your Is and dotted your Ts, documented prior art for every single idea you were conscious, that at least a dozen patents would end up being infringed upon regardless on the nature of the non-trivial-project, even if you went to court and were found innocent the minimum damage is estimated two million, so you can imagine how vulnerable that makes an independent publisher and developer to trolls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What steps, if any, should an independent developer take in avoiding litigation? It honestly seems impossible at this point. Despite five years of school and ten years of research, I've decided to stop all further development until I find some answers. For the amount of time and research it takes to be successful, the chance of success seems extremely poor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've looked at everything I can imagine, from forming an LLC to finding an expired patent or prior art for every idea, but nothing seems to guarantee that I won't lose my house/car/wife/kids etc... Normally I'd be the type to take a risk, but these odds are nothing short of Blackjack in Vegas using a no-limit credit card with a professional dirty dealer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over eighty million (EDIT: BILLION) a year in damages to the economy by trolls alone, it's no wonder there are virtually (EDIT: relatively few) no small businesses (and thus few jobs) operating in this sphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it even possible for us?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13622" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4922" RevisionGUID="fdacc245-9be6-44ab-a1c8-2414b9185278" CreationDate="2013-11-12T19:14:25.920" Comment="Proposed by 7187 approved by 3076, 1767 edit id of 455" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5404" RevisionGUID="a784e988-82c4-404a-b4ed-705ed1a9f51b" CreationDate="2013-11-12T19:33:06.973" UserId="3076" Comment="edited body" Text="A functional prototype is *not* needed. On the other hand, an application must provide everything someone skilled in the field needs to make and use the invention without undue experimentation. In the &quot;unpredictable arts&quot; like biology it is usually required to have done experiments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5403" RevisionGUID="96c6a754-5422-427e-8e4f-50177c7f8e07" CreationDate="2013-11-12T20:09:02.540" UserId="3076" Comment="edited body" Text="In examining patent applications the USPTO examiner can not just say &quot;I think this has been done before&quot;. Preferably they find documents that describe what the applicant is claiming and in their rejection explain where in the document the specific aspects of the claims are covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5408" RevisionGUID="5fb31316-014c-4e26-a68f-d1d10a480325" CreationDate="2013-11-13T07:26:48.077" UserId="7194" Text="This describes Google's &quot;Google Display Network&quot; from 2009, which sorts users into demographics based on their behavior, so that advertisers can show ads that are relevant to that demographic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://adwords.blogspot.com/2010/09/new-for-google-display-network-show-ads.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the site: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;For example, if someone frequently visits sites that have a majority of female visitors, we may associate her browser's cookie with the “female” demographic category. With this information, you can choose to show more ads that are relevant to women as she browses sites across the Google Display Network, exactly the same way you can currently show ads related to other categories like sports or gardening.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5409" RevisionGUID="5aa5d8b3-da31-47ad-a8a7-c173850bc36e" CreationDate="2013-11-13T13:24:55.410" UserId="7199" Text="Claim 1 sounds very much like DES Encryption by IBM (1977), which encrypts a stream in blocks. But it requires a private key, which needs to be kept secret. It seems a very broad description - without detail on *how* these are implemented its hard to tell how it differs from DES, e.g. is it an asymmetric encryption system?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 2 doesn't make much sense. Does it mean that a new key is produced for each block? Great idea - like a skyhook or tartan paint - it doesn't say how it could work. Do you distribute a new key for each block?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13639" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5410" RevisionGUID="3f75d3e1-ca68-412a-b8b6-4b566bd09d70" CreationDate="2013-11-13T15:02:08.267" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/188/making-similar-item-but-not-made-of-the-same-materials" />
  <row Id="13640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5410" RevisionGUID="b2c88f57-2865-434f-84f4-3f311a1a7cf6" CreationDate="2013-11-12T19:48:29.993" UserId="7189" Text="I made a flask out of one of my sculptures. This flask is made from a shrunken head that what sculptured by me.. Now this guy says he has a patent pending and he is going to sue me  .. If I have never seen his product how can this be?  Is there a rule on how many similarities a product must have to infringe on his patent?  Or how many differences I must have if his item is patented?   Help Help help&#xD;&#xA;                                     Kelley" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13641" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5410" RevisionGUID="b2c88f57-2865-434f-84f4-3f311a1a7cf6" CreationDate="2013-11-12T19:48:29.993" UserId="7189" Text="Making similar item but not made of the same materials" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13642" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5410" RevisionGUID="b2c88f57-2865-434f-84f4-3f311a1a7cf6" CreationDate="2013-11-12T19:48:29.993" UserId="7189" Text="&lt;untagged&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5411" RevisionGUID="83edef23-b6e4-4c7a-9410-987c6165bf7d" CreationDate="2013-11-13T16:10:35.257" UserId="7200" Text="Just wondering, what would need the next steps be to invalidate this patent (if appropriate)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Explained in full here:&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X264#Tandberg_controversy&#xD;&#xA;http://x264.nl/developers/Dark_Shikari/tandberg.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13644" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5411" RevisionGUID="83edef23-b6e4-4c7a-9410-987c6165bf7d" CreationDate="2013-11-13T16:10:35.257" UserId="7200" Text="Tandberg run-level encoding patent may have prior art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13645" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5411" RevisionGUID="83edef23-b6e4-4c7a-9410-987c6165bf7d" CreationDate="2013-11-13T16:10:35.257" UserId="7200" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5412" RevisionGUID="a9817e5d-1ca6-4b44-9e60-04261ce4837b" CreationDate="2013-11-13T16:43:55.573" UserId="7197" Text="I like the swiss **Panoptic camera** mentioned in here. It covers most of the claim elements well. However, I think it misses the audio component.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For that matter I propose *Sorokin*: &quot;Navigable telepresence method and system utilizing an array of cameras&quot; granted in 2003.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US6522325&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See for example Fig. 8, where an array of cameras and two microphones (818) are shown. Output of cameras and microphones is combined in a hub and sent to the server (804 and Fig.9, 902). See column 16. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reference might prove that is was obvious at the time of the invention to add audio to a multi-camera system, e.g. for telepresenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5411" RevisionGUID="f928f5aa-25db-4255-90b1-e37e42fed44a" CreationDate="2013-11-13T17:32:15.143" UserId="1767" Comment="added 274 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I believe there is good prior art for [this patent][3]. What would be next steps be to invalidate a non-US patent application from Tandberg (a subsidiary of Cisco)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Quantized transform coefficients representing pixel values in a Video][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Controversy is explained in full here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Wikipedia Article][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [x264.nl][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X264#Tandberg_controversy&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://x264.nl/developers/Dark_Shikari/tandberg.html&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2010077148A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13648" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5411" RevisionGUID="f928f5aa-25db-4255-90b1-e37e42fed44a" CreationDate="2013-11-13T17:32:15.143" UserId="1767" Comment="added 274 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How do I invalidate a non-US patent application? Tandberg run-level encoding patent application may have prior art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13649" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5411" RevisionGUID="f928f5aa-25db-4255-90b1-e37e42fed44a" CreationDate="2013-11-13T17:32:15.143" UserId="1767" Comment="added 274 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;wo2010077148a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5413" RevisionGUID="45b20c6a-7c69-4a50-8aa2-aa8015f5e633" CreationDate="2013-11-13T17:50:07.770" UserId="3076" Text="First, once someone says &quot;sue&quot;, I would contact a lawyer to get actual advice. I am knowledgeable about patent law but am not an attorney. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A *pending* patent wouldn't give anyone the right to sue. They could put you on notice that their application is on file and that if and when it issues as a patent they think they will have rights they could use against your activities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they end up with a patent, the fact that you independently developed your product is not a defense. Copyright involves copying, patent infringement can be &quot;innocent&quot;, and still be infringement. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5410" RevisionGUID="7f62e6b2-5ab9-4fd8-8bd8-1ab89b6effa6" CreationDate="2013-11-13T17:52:33.440" UserId="3076" Comment="removed signature" Text="I made a flask out of one of my sculptures. This flask is made from a shrunken head that what sculptured by me.. Now this guy says he has a patent pending and he is going to sue me  .. If I have never seen his product how can this be?  Is there a rule on how many similarities a product must have to infringe on his patent?  Or how many differences I must have if his item is patented? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3171" RevisionGUID="1fbe61ec-00fc-433e-9c78-cc0457882627" CreationDate="2013-11-13T23:37:54.530" UserId="1767" Comment="added 60 characters in body; added 17 characters in body" Text="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Trademarks, copyrights, litigation or anything not directly related to US patents&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Questions about product availability or implementation details&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Questions which are primarily opinion-based&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Questions with many possible answers or questions which would require an extremely long answer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4056" RevisionGUID="c7947b88-4462-4d00-8c02-a08d9b614827" CreationDate="2013-11-13T23:43:03.353" UserId="1767" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="&lt;strong&gt;Ask Patents&lt;/strong&gt; is a question and answer site for people interested in improving and participating in the US patent system. It's built and run &lt;em&gt;by you&lt;/em&gt; as part of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Stack Exchange&lt;/a&gt; network of Q&amp;amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to find Prior Art on dangerous and overly broad US Patent Applications **before** they become issued Patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3171" RevisionGUID="111593b3-416b-4ef5-b177-0e5a894f4c28" CreationDate="2013-11-13T23:44:11.343" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body; deleted 10 characters in body; deleted 1 characters in body" Text="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Trademarks, copyrights or anything not directly related to US patents&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Questions about product availability or implementation details&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Questions which are primarily opinion-based&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Questions with many possible answers or questions which would require an extremely long answer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5412" RevisionGUID="ae2f622d-514e-4d05-8a60-673fc9f1a9b4" CreationDate="2013-11-14T11:34:01.770" UserId="7197" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="I like the swiss **Panoptic camera** mentioned in here. It covers most of the claim elements well. However, I think it misses the audio component.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For that matter I propose *Sorokin*: &quot;Navigable telepresence method and system utilizing an array of cameras&quot; granted in 2003.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US6522325&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See for example Fig. 8, where an array of cameras and two microphones (818) are shown. Output of cameras and microphones is combined in a hub and sent to the server (804 and Fig.9, 902). See column 16. &#xD;&#xA;![Fig. 8][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reference might prove that is was obvious at the time of the invention to add audio to a multi-camera system, e.g. for telepresenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/qx4nl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5412" RevisionGUID="6d10aad6-10d1-427f-af02-47def76dab5c" CreationDate="2013-11-14T13:26:08.490" UserId="7197" Comment="added 931 characters in body" Text="I like the swiss **Panoptic camera** mentioned in here. It covers most of the claim elements well. However, I think it misses the audio component.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Concentrating on the &quot;audio&quot; part,** here are **references to combine** with the Panoptic camera (or other panoramic camera devices).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seeley&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;US Pat. No. US 6097429 to Seeley, filed Aug 1, 1997: &quot;Site control unit for video security system&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US6097429&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The invention discloses a SCU (site control unit) capable of controlling the operation of a plurality of cameras, see Fig. 7.&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the video cameras 22, audio microphones 52 may be employed about the premises. The cameras 22 may incorporate the microphones, or the microphones may be separately installed. Audio received by the microphones is processed by an audio processing module 54 of the SCU. Audio output signals from the processing are supplied to video compression module 50 for the audio to be compressed. The compressed video signals from the SCU are then transmitted to the system control with interlaced [audio interleaved with video data] compressed audio, thus enabling the operator to also listen in on an intrusion as well as view it. (col 13, 60-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Fig. 7][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorokin&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;For that matter I propose *Sorokin*: &quot;Navigable telepresence method and system utilizing an array of cameras&quot; granted in 2003.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US6522325&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See for example Fig. 8, where an array of cameras and two microphones (818) are shown. Output of cameras and microphones is combined in a hub and sent to the server (804 and Fig.9, 902). See column 16. &#xD;&#xA;![Fig. 8][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reference might prove that is was obvious at the time of the invention to add audio to a multi-camera system, e.g. for telepresenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/c3HEk.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/qx4nl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5412" RevisionGUID="a1dbc1b2-e171-4f34-9ac8-3a1d17e8fa3a" CreationDate="2013-11-14T13:51:35.710" UserId="7197" Comment="added 1366 characters in body" Text="I like the swiss **Panoptic camera** mentioned in here. It covers most of the claim elements well. However, I think it misses the audio component.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Concentrating on the &quot;audio&quot; part,** here are **references to combine** with the Panoptic camera (or other panoramic camera devices).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seeley&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;US Pat. No. US 6097429 to Seeley, filed Aug 1, 1997: &quot;Site control unit for video security system&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US6097429&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The invention discloses a SCU (site control unit) capable of controlling the operation of a plurality of cameras, see Fig. 7.&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the video cameras 22, audio microphones 52 may be employed about the premises. The cameras 22 may incorporate the microphones, or the microphones may be separately installed. Audio received by the microphones is processed by an audio processing module 54 of the SCU. Audio output signals from the processing are supplied to video compression module 50 for the audio to be compressed. The compressed video signals from the SCU are then transmitted to the system control with interlaced [audio interleaved with video data] compressed audio, thus enabling the operator to also listen in on an intrusion as well as view it. (col 13, 60-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Fig. 7][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Monroe&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US Pat. No. 7023913 to Monroe, filed Jun 14, 2000: &quot;Digital security multimedia sensor&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US7023913&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The digital camera for collects an image from **one or more image transducers**, compressing the image and sending the compressed digital image signal to a receiving station over a digital network. A plurality of image transducers or sensors may be included in a single camera unit, providing array imaging such as full **360 degree panoramic imaging**, universal or **spherical imaging** and field imaging by stacking or arranging the sensors in an array. The multiple images are then compressed and merged at the camera in the desired format... (Abstract).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The camera may contain a microphone, audio digitizer, and compressor that allow captured audio to be conveyed, over the attached network along with the captured video. **Audio and video samples** are time-stamped to allow **accurate synchronization** at the monitoring station(s).(col 4:9-13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a further refinement, an **internal data storage device** such as a small disk drive may be embedded into the camera. This allows the camera to collect images and/or video and audio from cameras, which may be located at some inaccessible distance from the facility's data network. (col 5:7-11)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US7023913B1/US07023913-20060404-D00002.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorokin&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;US Pat. No. 6522325 to Sorokin: &quot;Navigable telepresence method and system utilizing an array of cameras&quot; granted in 2003.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US6522325&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See for example Fig. 8, where an array of cameras and two microphones (818) are shown. Output of cameras and microphones is combined in a hub and sent to the server (804 and Fig.9, 902). See column 16. &#xD;&#xA;![Fig. 8][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reference might prove that is was obvious at the time of the invention to add audio to a multi-camera system, e.g. for telepresenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/c3HEk.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/qx4nl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5412" RevisionGUID="250d8c49-9395-4e89-8b91-87d7c069240b" CreationDate="2013-11-14T13:59:14.983" UserId="7197" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I like the swiss **Panoptic camera** mentioned in here. It covers most of the claim elements well. However, I think it misses the audio component.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Concentrating on the &quot;audio&quot; part,** here are **references to combine** with the Panoptic camera (or other panoramic camera devices).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seeley&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;US Pat. No. US 6097429 to Seeley, filed Aug 1, 1997: &quot;Site control unit for video security system&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US6097429&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The invention discloses a SCU (site control unit) capable of controlling the operation of a plurality of cameras, see Fig. 7.&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the video cameras 22, audio microphones 52 may be employed about the premises. The cameras 22 may incorporate the microphones, or the microphones may be separately installed. Audio received by the microphones is processed by an audio processing module 54 of the SCU. Audio output signals from the processing are supplied to video compression module 50 for the audio to be compressed. The compressed video signals from the SCU are then transmitted to the system control with interlaced [audio interleaved with video data] compressed audio, thus enabling the operator to also listen in on an intrusion as well as view it. (col 13, 60-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Fig. 7][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Monroe&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US Pat. No. 7023913 to Monroe, filed Jun 14, 2000: &quot;Digital security multimedia sensor&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US7023913&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The digital camera for collects an image from **one or more image transducers**, compressing the image and sending the compressed digital image signal to a receiving station over a digital network. A plurality of image transducers or sensors may be included in a single camera unit, providing array imaging such as full **360 degree panoramic imaging**, universal or **spherical imaging** and field imaging by stacking or arranging the sensors in an array. The multiple images are then compressed and merged at the camera in the desired format... (Abstract).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The camera may contain a microphone, audio digitizer, and compressor that allow captured audio to be conveyed, over the attached network along with the captured video. **Audio and video samples** are time-stamped to allow **accurate synchronization** at the monitoring station(s).(col 4:9-13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a further refinement, an **internal data storage device** such as a small disk drive may be embedded into the camera. This allows the camera to collect images and/or video and audio from cameras, which may be located at some inaccessible distance from the facility's data network. (col 5:7-11)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US7023913B1/US07023913-20060404-D00002.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorokin&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;US Pat. No. 6522325 to Sorokin: &quot;Navigable telepresence method and system utilizing an array of cameras&quot; granted in 2003.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US6522325&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See for example Fig. 8, where an array of cameras and two microphones (818) are shown. Output of cameras and microphones is combined in a hub and sent to the server (804 and Fig.9, 902). See column 16. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Fig. 8][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reference might prove that is was obvious at the time of the invention to add audio to a multi-camera system, e.g. for telepresenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/c3HEkl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/qx4nlm.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5416" RevisionGUID="839720a9-6592-4333-ab06-efd4e5f4e30f" CreationDate="2013-11-14T15:35:48.983" UserId="7197" Text="This is important information, too important to be hidden in the comment section:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**During patent prosecution, claims can change drastically since application.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, it is not enough to copy&amp;paste the claims from the published application, but it is also important to check Public PAIR what the current language of the claims is! **The community needs to have the latest version of the claims to find relevant prior art!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to retrieve the current claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Please go to [Public Pair][1] at the USPTO&#xD;&#xA; 1. pass the captcha&#xD;&#xA; 1. enter the application number 13/371,137&#xD;&#xA; 1. Click search. Now you see the Bibliographic Data of this patent application.&#xD;&#xA; 1. Click &quot;Image File Wrapper&quot; tab.&#xD;&#xA; 1. Search for &quot;Claims&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this application's file wrapper you find an amended (2013-07-01) set of claims right at the top of the document list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, at this stage of the prosecution claim 1 reads as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;A camera device for creating a media file including omnidirectional&#xD;&#xA;image data and corresponding audio, said camera device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a computer processor for operating the camera device;&#xD;&#xA;a plurality of cameras for acquiring image data, &#xD;&#xA;  each of said cameras being oriented in different directions;&#xD;&#xA;at least one microphone for acquiring audio data corresponding to the acquired image data;&#xD;&#xA;a system memory having stored thereon computer-processor executable instructions for&#xD;&#xA;operating the camera device, said computer-processor executable instructions comprising&#xD;&#xA;instructions for initiating an acquisition sequence, said acquisition sequence comprising:&#xD;&#xA;acquiring image data synchronously from each of the plurality of cameras;&#xD;&#xA;acquiring audio data from the at least one microphone synchronously with the&#xD;&#xA;image data acquisition;&#xD;&#xA;encoding the image data from each camera and the acquired audio data into  the media file; and &#xD;&#xA;saving the media file to a system memory.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5416" RevisionGUID="d384c25d-a0ba-4cd3-a057-0e3119f35f2b" CreationDate="2013-11-14T16:08:24.693" UserId="7197" Comment="wording more precise and elaborate" Text="This is important information, too important to be hidden in the comment section:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**During patent prosecution, claims can change drastically and then they differ from the patent application publication.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, it is not sufficient to copy&amp;paste the claims from the patent application publication. It is of paramount importance to access Public PAIR and check what the current language of the claims is! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The community needs to have the latest version of the claims to find relevant prior art!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to retrieve the current claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Please go to [Public Pair][1] at the USPTO&#xD;&#xA; 1. pass the captcha&#xD;&#xA; 1. enter the application number 13/371,137&#xD;&#xA; 1. Click search. Now you see the Bibliographic Data of this patent application.&#xD;&#xA; 1. Click &quot;Image File Wrapper&quot; tab.&#xD;&#xA; 1. Search for &quot;Claims&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this application's file wrapper you find an amended (2013-07-01) set of claims right at the top of the document list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, at this stage of the prosecution claim 1 reads as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;A camera device for creating a media file including omnidirectional&#xD;&#xA;image data and corresponding audio, said camera device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a computer processor for operating the camera device;&#xD;&#xA;a plurality of cameras for acquiring image data, &#xD;&#xA;  each of said cameras being oriented in different directions;&#xD;&#xA;at least one microphone for acquiring audio data corresponding to the acquired image data;&#xD;&#xA;a system memory having stored thereon computer-processor executable instructions for&#xD;&#xA;operating the camera device, said computer-processor executable instructions comprising&#xD;&#xA;instructions for initiating an acquisition sequence, said acquisition sequence comprising:&#xD;&#xA;acquiring image data synchronously from each of the plurality of cameras;&#xD;&#xA;acquiring audio data from the at least one microphone synchronously with the&#xD;&#xA;image data acquisition;&#xD;&#xA;encoding the image data from each camera and the acquired audio data into  the media file; and &#xD;&#xA;saving the media file to a system memory.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5417" RevisionGUID="c0e0fe95-c33c-48e2-831e-d9f5603a21f7" CreationDate="2013-11-14T16:58:17.307" UserId="7204" Text="This is ridiculous. It plays on much prior art. Pyxos, Zigbee, any asset control company.... I'm tired of stupidly issued patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there is IEC 61499 for automation types and inherent communication and association.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, ridiculous." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="adae7779-898c-4ec7-9a41-8e8121eca6d0" CreationDate="2013-11-14T21:06:33.663" UserId="1767" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON online ads based on current events** - This application from [Yahoo! Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying current events, categorizing them, and showing ads based on the current event! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Real-time ads triggered by current events&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Current events such as earthquakes, fires, or floods, **drop in prices** or **sale for a particular type of product** (e.g., cars), a general **reduction in inventory** of a particular type of product, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Showing ads based on current events**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identify a current event of any kind (examples: earthquakes, fires, or floods, drop in prices or sale for a particular type of product (e.g., cars), a general reduction in inventory of a particular type of product, etc.), categorize the current event, determine an advertisement based on the **category of event** (Halloween is here?  Buy a costume!), and send the advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130159094 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/326,033&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/17/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying by a network device an event that has recently occurred;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Categorizing by the network device the event into a category of events from a plurality of categories;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Ascertaining by the network device a set of one or more advertisements associated with the category of events;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Selecting by the network device at least one advertisement from the set of one or more advertisements associated with the category of events; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Providing by the network device the at least one advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identify an event that has recently occurred;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Categorizing the event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Find one or more advertisements associated with the category of the current event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Select an advertisement associated with the category of event; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Show the advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A variety of specific types of current events used to trigger ads, such as earthquakes, fires, or floods, **drop in prices** or **sale for a particular type of product** (e.g., cars), a general **reduction in inventory** of a particular type of product, etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method of serving advertisements based on current events&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fSlhSt4.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130159094&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130159094" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5411" RevisionGUID="251f245c-3fcc-4853-98a3-ea07d88a39e2" CreationDate="2013-11-14T21:26:31.240" UserId="1767" Comment="added 3202 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON run-level encoding for video** - This application from [Cisco][6] seeks to patent work that was previously published as open-source software! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe there is good prior art for [this patent][3]. Now the applicant is trying to [patent the same idea in the US][5]! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Quantized transform coefficients representing pixel values in a Video][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Controversy is explained in full here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Wikipedia Article][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [x264.nl][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/30/2008** that discusses: Run-level coders for video&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [From x264.nl][2]: A run-level coder is a function that takes an array of values and calculates the distances between nonzero values (runs) in the array, as well as the indices of the nonzero values (levels). This is necessary for practically any video format that makes use of run-level compression (H.264, MPEG-2, Theora, etc). Here's one of x264's unoptimized run-level coders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This function is run often enough that high performance is very important. Naively, there is no obvious way to make use of SIMD in such an algorithm, so some trickery has to be used to write a fast assembly function for it. Near the end of 2008, I added optimized assembly implementations of two run-length coders (for block decimation and CAVLC) to x264.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So why the deja vu? Because this patent application was an exact, step-by-step description of the algorithm I came up with for decimate_score (and later coeff_level_run) in x264 in 2008!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20100166076 A1][5]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/649,764&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Tandberg Telecom (now Cisco)&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/30/2008&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for calculating run and level representations of quantized transform coefficients representing pixel values included in a block of a video picture, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Packing, at a video processing apparatus, each quantized transform coefficients in a value interval [Max, Min] by setting all quantized transform coefficients greater than Max equal to Max, and all quantized transform coefficients less than Min equal to Min;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Reordering, at the video processing apparatus, the quantized transform coefficients according to a predefined order depending on respective positions in the block resulting in an array C of reordered quantized transform coefficients;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Masking, at the video processing apparatus, C by generating an array M containing ones in positions corresponding to positions of C having non-zero values, and zeros in positions corresponding to positions of C having zero values;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generating, at the video processing apparatus, for each position containing a one in M, a run and a level representation by setting the level value equal to an occurring value in a corresponding position of C; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Setting, at the video processing apparatus, for each position containing a one in M, the run value equal to the number of proceeding positions relative to a current position in M since a previous occurrence of one in M.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X264#Tandberg_controversy&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://x264.nl/developers/Dark_Shikari/tandberg.html&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2010077148A1&#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20100166076&#xD;&#xA;[5]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20100166076&#xD;&#xA;[6]: http://www.cisco.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13673" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5411" RevisionGUID="251f245c-3fcc-4853-98a3-ea07d88a39e2" CreationDate="2013-11-14T21:26:31.240" UserId="1767" Comment="added 3202 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Run-level encoding - Copied from Open Source Logs (Tandberg) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13674" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5411" RevisionGUID="251f245c-3fcc-4853-98a3-ea07d88a39e2" CreationDate="2013-11-14T21:26:31.240" UserId="1767" Comment="added 3202 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;us20100166076a1&gt;&lt;tandberg&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5411" RevisionGUID="55373431-b6b7-4fb0-a581-401cd1920a92" CreationDate="2013-11-14T21:50:59.293" UserId="1767" Comment="edited body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON run-level encoding for video** - This application from [Cisco][6] seeks to patent work that was previously published as open-source software! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe there is good prior art for [this patent][3]. Now the applicant is trying to [patent the same idea in the US][5]! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Quantized transform coefficients representing pixel values in a Video][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Controversy is explained in full here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Wikipedia Article][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [x264.nl][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/30/2008** that discusses: Run-level coders for video&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [From x264.nl][2]: A run-level coder is a function that takes an array of values and calculates the distances between nonzero values (runs) in the array, as well as the indices of the nonzero values (levels). This is necessary for practically any video format that makes use of run-level compression (H.264, MPEG-2, Theora, etc). Here's one of x264's unoptimized run-level coders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This function is run often enough that high performance is very important. Naively, there is no obvious way to make use of SIMD in such an algorithm, so some trickery has to be used to write a fast assembly function for it. Near the end of 2008, I added optimized assembly implementations of two run-length coders (for block decimation and CAVLC) to x264.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So why the deja vu? Because this patent application was an exact, step-by-step description of the algorithm I came up with for decimate_score (and later coeff_level_run) in x264 in 2008!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20100166076 A1][5]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/649,764&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Tandberg Telecom (now Cisco)&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/30/2008&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for calculating run and level representations of quantized transform coefficients representing pixel values included in a block of a video picture, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Packing, at a video processing apparatus, each quantized transform coefficients in a value interval [Max, Min] by setting all quantized transform coefficients greater than Max equal to Max, and all quantized transform coefficients less than Min equal to Min;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Reordering, at the video processing apparatus, the quantized transform coefficients according to a predefined order depending on respective positions in the block resulting in an array C of reordered quantized transform coefficients;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Masking, at the video processing apparatus, C by generating an array M containing ones in positions corresponding to positions of C having non-zero values, and zeros in positions corresponding to positions of C having zero values;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generating, at the video processing apparatus, for each position containing a one in M, a run and a level representation by setting the level value equal to an occurring value in a corresponding position of C; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Setting, at the video processing apparatus, for each position containing a one in M, the run value equal to the number of proceeding positions relative to a current position in M since a previous occurrence of one in M.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X264#Tandberg_controversy&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://x264.nl/developers/Dark_Shikari/tandberg.html&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2010077148A1&#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20100166076&#xD;&#xA;[5]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20100166076&#xD;&#xA;[6]: http://www.cisco.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13676" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5411" RevisionGUID="c7d66485-68f6-4433-b058-1329e9c9f51c" CreationDate="2013-11-14T22:10:39.223" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Run-level video encoding - Copied from Open Source Logs (Tandberg) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5419" RevisionGUID="96e6d85a-9166-4874-9cbc-8bf0f4813781" CreationDate="2013-11-14T23:00:16.883" UserId="7209" Text="This describes Yahoo's ad serving/targeting from their own Privacy Policy in 2008 (from the Internet Archive Wayback machine) at: http://web.archive.org/web/20081219224808/http://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/adserving/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the Privacy Policy: &#xD;&#xA;&quot; Yahoo! tries to show you ads that are relevant to you. To do this most effectively, we may use information we know or receive about you like your gender, location or interests. We may also analyze your use of our products and services ...&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It then goes into detail on how it accomplishes this.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5420" RevisionGUID="70b22e50-1456-4c75-a9d9-9c4c8dbadfe1" CreationDate="2013-11-15T07:05:28.747" UserId="7210" Text="If I'm wording a claim for my cool device and I want to express that either option A (squarish flange type 1) or option B (roundish flange type 2) can be attached to my design, or any other type, how do I word that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13679" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5420" RevisionGUID="70b22e50-1456-4c75-a9d9-9c4c8dbadfe1" CreationDate="2013-11-15T07:05:28.747" UserId="7210" Text="How to word either A or B?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13680" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5420" RevisionGUID="70b22e50-1456-4c75-a9d9-9c4c8dbadfe1" CreationDate="2013-11-15T07:05:28.747" UserId="7210" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5421" RevisionGUID="eb262c5b-051e-4df0-afbb-5535b52b8f12" CreationDate="2013-11-15T07:23:18.093" UserId="7210" Text="I'm under the impression that being too specific is a bad idea in dependent claims. But is there a case when I really have to be, and therefore cannot use &quot;further comprising&quot; but rather I must use &quot;wherein&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13682" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5421" RevisionGUID="eb262c5b-051e-4df0-afbb-5535b52b8f12" CreationDate="2013-11-15T07:23:18.093" UserId="7210" Text="Claims: When to use &quot;wherein&quot;? Should I always use &quot;further comprising&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13683" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5421" RevisionGUID="eb262c5b-051e-4df0-afbb-5535b52b8f12" CreationDate="2013-11-15T07:23:18.093" UserId="7210" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;independent-inventor&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5422" RevisionGUID="3c22dd89-c724-4421-a5b6-521693469dac" CreationDate="2013-11-15T08:11:47.330" UserId="6114" Text="Does a patent prohibit the use of the patented product in another product?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say a company want to make a camera that uses 35mm film, and Kodak has the patent for 35 mm film. Does the company need to license the use of the 35 mm film in its own product?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13685" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5422" RevisionGUID="3c22dd89-c724-4421-a5b6-521693469dac" CreationDate="2013-11-15T08:11:47.330" UserId="6114" Text="Does a patent prohibit the use of the patented product in another product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13686" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5422" RevisionGUID="3c22dd89-c724-4421-a5b6-521693469dac" CreationDate="2013-11-15T08:11:47.330" UserId="6114" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5423" RevisionGUID="ca746647-47c5-4ca7-b079-49401e0bad2f" CreationDate="2013-11-15T09:54:19.570" UserId="5274" Text="I'm looking to create a software that assembles multiple small objects into multiple layers. The reason for this is that the objects are relatively small (a few cm diameter), and the printing platform size isn't exactly huge either, but offers a significant height (four of five times the average object). To be able to let the printer run for longer with one job, we'd like to make a relatively big support structure that covers multiple levels of objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an existing patent that would shut us down? We're still looking and haven't found anything yet..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13688" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5423" RevisionGUID="ca746647-47c5-4ca7-b079-49401e0bad2f" CreationDate="2013-11-15T09:54:19.570" UserId="5274" Text="Multi-story 3d printing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13689" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5423" RevisionGUID="ca746647-47c5-4ca7-b079-49401e0bad2f" CreationDate="2013-11-15T09:54:19.570" UserId="5274" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5422" RevisionGUID="1cf2d4e5-a7d4-47f1-b7d2-0663a7ec6add" CreationDate="2013-11-15T09:57:18.727" UserId="6114" Comment="added 481 characters in body; edited title" Text="I have learnt that &quot;A patent owner has the right to exclude all others from making, **using** or selling products or services containing the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is the &quot;using&quot; part I don't understand - when does it apply? For example, let's say a company want to make a new type of camera (a new invention) that uses 35mm film, and Kodak has the patent for 35 mm film. Does the company need to license the use of the 35 mm film in its own invention? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same goes for other supplies - take for example the batteries in the same camera (assuming someone has a patent for e.g. AA batteries). Does the company need to license the use of them as well? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of this right seems a bit far-fetched when applied to common products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13691" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5422" RevisionGUID="1cf2d4e5-a7d4-47f1-b7d2-0663a7ec6add" CreationDate="2013-11-15T09:57:18.727" UserId="6114" Comment="added 481 characters in body; edited title" Text="When does a patent prohibit the use of the patented product in another product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5422" RevisionGUID="c00ccc67-c43c-452a-920a-5c93c0944b8b" CreationDate="2013-11-15T11:14:01.740" UserId="6114" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="I have learnt that &quot;A patent owner has the right to exclude all others from making, **using** or selling products or services containing the claimed invention.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is the &quot;using&quot; part I don't understand - when does it apply? For example, let's say a company want to make a new type of camera (a new invention) that uses 35mm film, and Kodak has the patent for 35 mm film. Does the company need to license the use of 35mm film from Kodak? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not part of the new invention (the new camera), but it will  definitely be **used** in the new invention, hence it seems forbidden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same goes for other supplies - take for example the batteries in the same camera. Would the company need to license the use of them as well (assuming someone has the patent for e.g. AA batteries).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems a bit far-fetched when applied to common products. Have I misunderstood something?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13693" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5422" RevisionGUID="c00ccc67-c43c-452a-920a-5c93c0944b8b" CreationDate="2013-11-15T11:14:01.740" UserId="6114" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="Does a patent always prohibit the use of the patented product in another product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5422" RevisionGUID="5e216e1e-1a20-4db2-bfeb-ba137bd81b79" CreationDate="2013-11-15T11:20:33.370" UserId="6114" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="I have learnt that &quot;A patent owner has the right to exclude all others from making, **using** or selling products or services **containing** the claimed invention.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is the &quot;using&quot; part I don't understand - when does it apply? For example, let's say a company want to make a new type of camera (a new invention) that uses 35mm film, and Kodak has the patent for 35 mm film. Does the company need to license the use of 35mm film from Kodak? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The film is not part of the new invention (the new invention does not **&quot;contain&quot;** the patented product), but the film will still be **used** in the new invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same goes for other supplies - take for example the batteries in the same camera. Would the company need to license the use of them as well (assuming someone has the patent for the type of required batteries).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there something I haven't understood here? All help to clarify this is much appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13695" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5422" RevisionGUID="5e216e1e-1a20-4db2-bfeb-ba137bd81b79" CreationDate="2013-11-15T11:20:33.370" UserId="6114" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="When does a patent prohibit the use of a patented product in another product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5424" RevisionGUID="e9d2b102-f692-4eee-bf8b-45dd1516ae1f" CreationDate="2013-11-15T14:23:58.670" UserId="5071" Text="Yes, all technologies would have to be licensed separately. Even if there's a patent for 35mm film, there's nothing preventing a second patent for &quot;a camera lens that uses 35mm film&quot;, the patent doesn't infringe another patent, but a product using such a lens would need permission to use the film too. Products infringe patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13697" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5423" RevisionGUID="7225001b-3a83-4311-b134-1833f55f39ad" CreationDate="2013-11-15T14:26:35.820" UserId="253" Comment="retag (since the retag priviledge is gone I have to go through suggested edits)" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13698" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5423" RevisionGUID="7225001b-3a83-4311-b134-1833f55f39ad" CreationDate="2013-11-15T14:26:35.820" Comment="Proposed by 253 approved by 1 edit id of 457" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5425" RevisionGUID="5ebca34e-67a8-45c2-8652-0133d00b60ec" CreationDate="2013-11-15T15:20:35.430" UserId="7212" Text="This features is available using skeinforge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Empty Layers Only&#xD;&#xA;When selected, support material will be only on the empty layers. This is useful when making identical objects in a stack.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://fabmetheus.crsndoo.com/wiki/index.php/Skeinforge_Raft#Support_Material_Choice" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5426" RevisionGUID="27909454-8426-45f9-9142-72e5afbf021e" CreationDate="2013-11-15T16:18:56.593" UserId="6120" Text="(ref: [this question][1], George White's answer)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm writing a software patent that includes a system and a method claim. I've heard of something called a CRM (Computer Readable Medium) claim, but am unfamiliar with the concept. Is this a real type of claim? What are the advantages/disadvantages of including a CRM claim, in addition to a system and a method claim? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm located in the US, by the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5304/software-patents-claiming-as-a-method-vs-as-a-system/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13701" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5426" RevisionGUID="27909454-8426-45f9-9142-72e5afbf021e" CreationDate="2013-11-15T16:18:56.593" UserId="6120" Text="What is a CRM (Computer Readable Medium) claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13702" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5426" RevisionGUID="27909454-8426-45f9-9142-72e5afbf021e" CreationDate="2013-11-15T16:18:56.593" UserId="6120" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;crm&gt;&lt;us&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5427" RevisionGUID="d77a726d-d144-42b7-afd1-afa811098b2c" CreationDate="2013-11-15T16:34:55.813" UserId="7213" Text="I wanted to make a carbon fiber hockey stick on my own, then I realized there is a patent for it. Is it against the law to make a oval hockey stick for myself, not for resale?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if, I changed the design, so that the design is not quite the same as the patent, is that legal? If the parameters were not the same, then could I sell the oval hockey stick?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks anyone who knows the answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13704" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5427" RevisionGUID="d77a726d-d144-42b7-afd1-afa811098b2c" CreationDate="2013-11-15T16:34:55.813" UserId="7213" Text="Oval Hockey Stick Question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13705" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5427" RevisionGUID="d77a726d-d144-42b7-afd1-afa811098b2c" CreationDate="2013-11-15T16:34:55.813" UserId="7213" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5427" RevisionGUID="917c5be1-a5e1-4f70-bb5b-c79cbddce495" CreationDate="2013-11-15T17:35:33.927" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 205 characters in body; edited title" Text="I wanted to make a carbon fiber hockey stick on my own, then I realized there is already an issued US patent on it. Is it against the law to make a oval hockey stick for myself, not for resale?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13710" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5427" RevisionGUID="917c5be1-a5e1-4f70-bb5b-c79cbddce495" CreationDate="2013-11-15T17:35:33.927" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 205 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can I make a product which infringes on a patent for my own use (not for resale)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5428" RevisionGUID="2dfc10d4-2756-48db-8986-2332affa0191" CreationDate="2013-11-15T17:50:27.367" UserId="3076" Text="Patents give their owner an exclusive right to *make*, sell, offer for sale and *use* the covered subject matter. Making and using, themselves, are on the list. The only enforcement of patent rights is by the patent owner, the government can not go after patent infringers. Given that you can assess the benefits and risks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5429" RevisionGUID="c6a71e7b-b30c-449b-8571-f94e204cc724" CreationDate="2013-11-15T18:06:54.813" UserId="3076" Text="A CRM claim is also called a Beauregard claim after the 1995 case that established it as an allowed approach to organizing a claim. The goal is to make a CD (for example) siting on a shelf an infringing article of manufacture. A method patent requires execution of steps, a system patent requires hardware but a CRM claim is infringed by the bits on the media. Not any bits, but bits that are instructions to a machine to carry out the steps of what would (if organized differently) be a patentable method claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A non-transient computer readable medium containing program instructions for causing a computer to perform the method of:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;do step 1&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;do step 2&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;do step 3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;non-transent&quot; limitation is due to a case several years ago that ruled a disembodied signal was not a &quot;thing&quot;. The bits have to reside somewhere other that flying through the air or down a wire." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5429" RevisionGUID="5456a244-d308-42f2-88a7-c90372807646" CreationDate="2013-11-15T18:33:32.457" UserId="3076" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="A CRM claim is also called a Beauregard claim after the 1995 case that established it as an allowed approach to organizing a claim. The goal is to make a CD (for example) siting on a shelf an infringing article of manufacture. A method claim requires execution of steps, a system claim requires hardware but a CRM claim is infringed by the media with bits on it. Not any bits, but bits that are instructions to a machine to carry out the steps of what would (if organized differently) be a patentable method claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A non-transient computer readable medium containing program instructions for causing a computer to perform the method of:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;do step 1&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;do step 2&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;do step 3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;non-transent&quot; limitation is due to a case several years ago that ruled a disembodied signal was not a &quot;thing&quot;. The bits have to reside somewhere other that flying through the air or down a wire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sticking with CD's, just stamping them out would be a direct infringement of a CRM claim but not of the equivalent method claim or system claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5430" RevisionGUID="5ac97427-c7c3-465d-9149-b77faf44dd01" CreationDate="2013-11-15T18:39:41.087" UserId="6120" Text="I'm writing a system claim, and I'd like to get some feedback on an obfuscated version of it. Please don't reserve your criticism! I'm interested in learning from the best. Why am I off base? Why am I correct? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is claimed is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A system for controlling the operation of software installed on multiple portable devices, said system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; an ability to decode and process *XXXXX* stored within *YYYYY*;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; an ability to associate said *XXXXX* with a unique user of said software;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; an ability to associate said *XXXXX* with a unique geographical location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; an ability to record *ZZZZZ* at said unique geographical location; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; a limitation that said software must be facilitating the business operation of a *AAAAA*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13715" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5430" RevisionGUID="5ac97427-c7c3-465d-9149-b77faf44dd01" CreationDate="2013-11-15T18:39:41.087" UserId="6120" Text="Forming a System Claim: Am I on the Right Track?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13716" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5430" RevisionGUID="5ac97427-c7c3-465d-9149-b77faf44dd01" CreationDate="2013-11-15T18:39:41.087" UserId="6120" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;system&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5431" RevisionGUID="f5cdbb98-5ca8-4645-b979-870878b491ce" CreationDate="2013-11-15T21:42:45.650" UserId="3076" Text="One way to form a system claim is by saying it includes hardware and the hardware performs the following steps. The steps then look like the steps in a method claim. So a method claim can usually be turned into a system claim by putting &quot;A system for doing X, the system comprising: a computing system including a processor configured to&quot; in front of the list of steps.  Note *&quot;configured to&quot;*. Not quite magic words but they mean the system is built to do the steps. &quot;*An ability to&quot;*, or &quot;capable of&quot; are not read that way. A hammer is configured to be used to hit in nails while an iPad has an ability to be used to hit nails.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another approach to a system claim is to talk about what it has rather than what it does. &quot;A first module configured to take its input and separate into a left stream and a right output stream, a second module coupled to the left stream output of the first module that removes all odd numbers . . . &quot;. Even though the modules may or may not be defined in terms of steps they do the overall framework is listing modules, defineing what they do and how they interact." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5431" RevisionGUID="48f14d6e-12d8-4e1b-ae2f-5e64e7dc2b46" CreationDate="2013-11-15T22:25:33.503" UserId="3076" Comment="added mechanical analog" Text="One way to form a system claim is by saying it includes hardware and the hardware performs the following steps a), b) and c). The steps then look like the steps in a method claim. So a method claim can usually be turned into a system claim by putting &quot;A system for doing X, the system comprising: a computing system including a processor configured to&quot; in front of the list of steps.  Note *&quot;configured to&quot;*. Not quite magic words but they mean the system is built to do the steps. &quot;*An ability to&quot;*, or &quot;capable of&quot; are not read that way. A hammer is configured to be used to hit in nails while an iPad has an ability to be used to hit nails.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another approach to a system claim is to talk about what it has rather than what it does. &quot;A first module configured to take its input and separate it into a left output stream and a right output stream, a second module coupled to the left stream output of the first module that removes all odd numbers ... &quot;. Even though the modules may or may not be defined in terms of steps they do, the overall framework is a listing of modules, defineing what they do and how they interact. This is much the way a mechanical system might be claimed. &quot;A transmission coupled to a drive train ... .&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5431" RevisionGUID="40d34400-79b6-4fa7-91ea-52668aa99686" CreationDate="2013-11-15T22:33:17.343" UserId="3076" Comment="added mechanical analog" Text="One way to form a system claim is by saying it includes hardware and the hardware performs the following steps a), b) and c). The steps then look like the steps in a method claim. So a method claim can usually be turned into a system claim by putting &quot;A system for doing X, the system comprising: a computing system including a processor configured to performing the following:&quot; in front of the list of steps.  In your case you would have a global &quot;configured to&quot; and then just list actions &quot;decoding; processing; associating; . . . ; recording . . . &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note *&quot;configured to&quot;* - these are not quite magic words but use them. They mean the system is built to do the steps. &quot;*An ability to&quot;*, or &quot;capable of&quot; are not read that way. A hammer is configured to be used to hit in nails while an iPad has an ability to be used to hit nails. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another approach to a system claim is to talk about what it has rather than what it does. &quot;A first module configured to take its input and separate it into a left output stream and a right output stream, a second module coupled to the left stream output of the first module that removes all odd numbers ... &quot;. Even though the modules may or may not be defined in terms of steps they do, the overall framework is a listing of modules, defineing what they do and how they interact. This is much the way a mechanical system might be claimed. &quot;A transmission coupled to a drive train ... .&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5431" RevisionGUID="48c298f0-73bc-48bd-be50-a2f1c0814603" CreationDate="2013-11-15T23:00:45.723" UserId="3076" Comment="typo and clean up" Text="One way to form a system claim is by saying it includes hardware and the hardware performs the following steps a), b) and c). The steps then look like the steps in a method claim. So a method claim can usually be turned into a system claim by putting &quot;A system for doing X, the system comprising: a computing system including a processor configured to performing the following:&quot; in front of the list of steps.  In your case you would have a global &quot;configured to&quot; and then just list actions &quot;decoding; processing; associating; . . . ; recording . . . &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note *&quot;configured to&quot;* - these are not quite magic words but use them. They mean the system is built to do the steps. &quot;*An ability to&quot;*, or &quot;capable of&quot; are not read that way. A hammer is configured to be used to hit in nails while an iPad has an ability to be used to hit nails. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another approach to a system claim is to talk about what it has rather than what it does. &quot;A first module configured to take its input and separate it into a left output stream and a right output stream, a second module coupled to the left stream output of the first module that removes all odd numbers ... &quot;. Even though the modules may or may not be defined in terms of steps they do, the overall framework is a listing of modules, defining what they do and how they interact. This is much the way a mechanical system might be claimed. &quot;A transmission coupled to a drive train ... .&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5432" RevisionGUID="153ddda5-40bc-4036-9fd2-f54f73a04687" CreationDate="2013-11-16T05:21:55.390" UserId="3076" Text="Dependent claims *are* the place to get narrower and are often chained to get more and more specific as they descend. The use of &quot;further comprising&quot; vs &quot;wherein&quot; is unrelated to the extent of narrowness you are adding. The parent claims requires an A and a B and a C. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Further comprising an X &quot;says you are adding a new element, X to the already required A, B, &amp; C. &quot;Wherein C is blue&quot; gives more detail to an element already required." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5433" RevisionGUID="ca37957a-183e-4609-9c13-27f14b9c4672" CreationDate="2013-11-16T05:34:44.647" UserId="3076" Text="If the only patent claims related to the film were specifically to the film itself and not to a method of using it or to the film in combination with a camera, then no license would be needed. This assumes the patent owner (or a licensee) is selling the film. In that case whoever buys the film can do what they want with it. There is an implied license to use it given to the buyer of the film - this is called patent exhaustion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are method of use claims or claims with the film in combination with a camera, that is a different story. Right now the Supreme Court says if the patent owner of a &quot;thing&quot; wants to control its downstream use they could retain title and just lease it under a limited license rather than sell. Not at all practical with something like film.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More broadly, a cool patented camera can very well infringe someone's strap patent, lens patent, or the box-it-goes-in patent. But if they buy the strap, lens, box, etc. from whoever owns the patent then they are fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13723" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5432" RevisionGUID="18de8792-481a-41a7-b074-b6ce653b4896" CreationDate="2013-11-17T01:21:49.627" UserId="3076" Comment="added 930 characters in body" Text="Dependent claims *are* the place to get narrower and are often chained to get more and more specific as they descend. The use of &quot;further comprising&quot; vs &quot;wherein&quot; is unrelated to the extent of narrowness you are adding. The parent claims requires an A and a B and a C. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Further comprising an X &quot;says you are adding a new element, X to the already required A, B, &amp; C. &quot;Wherein C is blue&quot; gives more detail to an element already required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims are often arranged in a hierarchy of increasing specificity and included structure. To infringe your patent an apparatus only has to fall under one of your claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If claim one says &quot;A portion of a vehicle comprising an xyz transmission coupled to an abc drive shaft.&quot; Claim two might say. &quot;The portion of a vehicle of claim 1 further comprising a two-wheel drive system.&quot; And claim three might say &quot;The portion of a vehicle of claim 1 further comprising a 4-wheel drive.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both claim 2 and 3 something is added to the elements of claim 1. This only works because clim 1 was patentable on its own. If some complete drive drain is needed to get a patentable claim then claim 1 can say &quot;a transmission coupled to a drive train&quot;. Claim 2 can be &quot;the thing of claim 1 wherein the drive train is for 2-wheeled drive&quot; and claim 3 can be &quot;the thing of claim 1 wherein the drive train is for 2-wheeled drive.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5435" RevisionGUID="0e2bbade-dd27-4495-aba4-e39f61be8d99" CreationDate="2013-11-17T04:32:03.933" UserId="7210" Text="I read a while back that one's goal should be a patent that is a method, a system and a means (I don't quite know what a means is). Is this actually a good goal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also read that all the steps of a method (including all dependent claims of the method) must be used in order for it to infringe. Is that true?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13729" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5435" RevisionGUID="0e2bbade-dd27-4495-aba4-e39f61be8d99" CreationDate="2013-11-17T04:32:03.933" UserId="7210" Text="A patent with both apparatus (i.e. system) and method?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13730" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5435" RevisionGUID="0e2bbade-dd27-4495-aba4-e39f61be8d99" CreationDate="2013-11-17T04:32:03.933" UserId="7210" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;method&gt;&lt;independent-inventor&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5436" RevisionGUID="2940dfa4-72b5-4bcf-a6a7-a0594da9210e" CreationDate="2013-11-17T05:27:46.913" UserId="3076" Text="If an indirect method claim 1 has 6 steps, to infringe that claim one entity must perform all 6 steps. A different claim 2 depending from 1 essentially says &quot;do all those 6 steps **plus** these two more steps. To infringe 1 you must do the 6 steps. To infringe 2 you must do the eight steps. In both cases it is **all steps** of a particular claim. Anyone who infringes 2, is by definition also infringing 1. If you are doing all 8 steps you are obviously doing the 6 steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Means&quot;, used in a U.S. claim, has a very specific, and somewhat counter-intuitive meaning. There is a claim form that intentionally uses the word means. It is not used very often. Throwing around the word &quot;means&quot; in claim that was not specifically intended to invoke a particular paragraph in the patent law is to be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a goal you want a range of claim types and scope and you especially want claims that are actually directly infringed by the hypothetical &quot;bad guy&quot; with the deep pockets who is profiting from your work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5437" RevisionGUID="e664245d-fb25-4d47-bcc6-70661c538be8" CreationDate="2013-11-17T13:45:33.237" UserId="7217" Text="Looking for prior art (pre-2000) on US Patent 6757714, particularly the first independent claim which I have pasted in below.  Any input would be appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A method performed by a device associated with an apparatus to report a state of the apparatus to a remote computer that cannot directly address the device, the method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;detecting the state of the apparatus, wherein detecting is performed by monitoring variables associated with the apparatus, the monitoring occurring independently of communications from the remote computer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;generating a message that reports the state of the apparatus using a self-describing computer language, wherein generating is performed periodically or in response to a deviation in the state; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sending the message to the remote computer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;wherein the deviation is indicative of an error condition in the apparatus, and wherein the error condition comprises one or more variables that deviate from an acceptable value or a predetermined range of acceptable values." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13733" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5437" RevisionGUID="e664245d-fb25-4d47-bcc6-70661c538be8" CreationDate="2013-11-17T13:45:33.237" UserId="7217" Text="Prior Art Request: US6757714" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13734" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5437" RevisionGUID="e664245d-fb25-4d47-bcc6-70661c538be8" CreationDate="2013-11-17T13:45:33.237" UserId="7217" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5437" RevisionGUID="21a74eb2-b4e5-418c-8784-05dc3a0a639e" CreationDate="2013-11-17T14:31:04.127" UserId="1259" Comment="tags, formatting" Text="Looking for prior art (pre-2000) on US Patent 6757714, particularly the first independent claim which I have pasted in below.  Any input would be appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method performed by a device associated with an apparatus to report a state of the apparatus to a remote computer that cannot directly address the device, the method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;detecting the state of the apparatus, wherein detecting is performed by monitoring variables associated with the apparatus, the monitoring occurring independently of communications from the remote computer;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;generating a message that reports the state of the apparatus using a self-describing computer language, wherein generating is performed periodically or in response to a deviation in the state; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;sending the message to the remote computer;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;wherein the deviation is indicative of an error condition in the apparatus, and wherein the error condition comprises one or more variables that deviate from an acceptable value or a predetermined range of acceptable values.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13739" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5437" RevisionGUID="21a74eb2-b4e5-418c-8784-05dc3a0a639e" CreationDate="2013-11-17T14:31:04.127" UserId="1259" Comment="tags, formatting" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us6757714&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13742" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5437" RevisionGUID="334e5358-8384-49ef-8e50-3b3f700cc1fc" CreationDate="2013-11-17T17:12:43.713" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;us6757714&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5436" RevisionGUID="0de30e11-7196-48dd-a977-12670d53d93b" CreationDate="2013-11-17T18:21:36.733" UserId="3076" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="If an independent method claim 1 has 6 steps, to infringe that claim one entity must perform all 6 steps. A different claim 2 depending from 1 essentially says &quot;do all those 6 steps **plus** these two more steps. To infringe 1 you must do the 6 steps. To infringe 2 you must do the eight steps. In both cases it is **all steps** of a particular claim. Anyone who infringes 2, is by definition also infringing 1. If you are doing all 8 steps you are obviously doing the 6 steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Means&quot;, used in a U.S. claim, has a very specific, and somewhat counter-intuitive meaning. There is a claim form that intentionally uses the word means (means+function). That claim form is not used very often. Throwing around the word &quot;means&quot; in claim that was not specifically intended to invoke a particular paragraph in the patent law is to be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a goal you want a range of claim types and scope and you especially want claims that are actually directly infringed by the hypothetical &quot;bad guy&quot; with the deep pockets who is profiting from your work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5436" RevisionGUID="728e19bd-6bfe-4fd4-a671-d6c3a1db2e7d" CreationDate="2013-11-17T18:55:06.630" UserId="3076" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="If an independent method claim 1 has 6 steps, to infringe that claim one entity must perform all 6 steps. A different claim 2 depending from 1 essentially says &quot;do all those 6 steps **plus** these two (for example) more steps. To infringe 1 you must do the 6 steps. To infringe 2 you must do the eight steps. In both cases it is **all steps** of a particular claim. Anyone who infringes 2, is by definition also infringing 1. If you are doing all 8 steps you are obviously doing the 6 steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Means&quot;, used in a U.S. claim, has a very specific, and somewhat counter-intuitive meaning. There is a claim form that intentionally uses the word means (means+function). That claim form is not used very often. Throwing around the word &quot;means&quot; in claim that was not specifically intended to invoke a particular paragraph in the patent law is to be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a goal you want a range of claim types and scope and you especially want claims that are actually directly infringed by the hypothetical &quot;bad guy&quot; with the deep pockets who is profiting from your work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5437" RevisionGUID="9b34ae7b-8cc0-4060-87a2-9c7fc68ff0fb" CreationDate="2013-11-17T19:09:34.933" UserId="1767" Comment="added 118 characters in body; edited title; added 39 characters in body; added 68 characters in body" Text="Looking for prior art (pre-2000) on US Patent 6757714, particularly the first independent claim which I have pasted in below.  Any input would be appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Title: **Reporting the state of an apparatus to a remote computer**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent Number:  **[US 6757714 B1][1]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 requires each and every step of the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method performed by a device associated with an apparatus to report a state of the apparatus to a remote computer that cannot directly address the device, the method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a. Detecting the state of the apparatus, wherein detecting is performed by monitoring variables associated with the apparatus, the monitoring occurring independently of communications from the remote computer;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;b. Generating a message that reports the state of the apparatus using a self-describing computer language, wherein generating is performed periodically or in response to a deviation in the state; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;c. Sending the message to the remote computer;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;wherein the deviation is indicative of an error condition in the apparatus, and wherein the error condition comprises one or more variables that deviate from an acceptable value or a predetermined range of acceptable values.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6757714" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13746" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5437" RevisionGUID="9b34ae7b-8cc0-4060-87a2-9c7fc68ff0fb" CreationDate="2013-11-17T19:09:34.933" UserId="1767" Comment="added 118 characters in body; edited title; added 39 characters in body; added 68 characters in body" Text="Remote Error Detection - Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5436" RevisionGUID="eeb4357d-17b8-4aaa-823c-ed5331eaeb07" CreationDate="2013-11-17T20:22:34.830" UserId="3076" Comment="added 197 characters in body" Text="If an independent method claim 1 has 6 steps, to infringe that claim one entity must perform all 6 steps. A different claim 2 depending from 1 essentially says &quot;do all those 6 steps **plus** these two (for example) more steps. To infringe 1 you must do the 6 steps. To infringe 2 you must do the eight steps. In both cases it is **all steps** of a particular claim. Anyone who infringes 2, is by definition also infringing 1. If you are doing all 8 steps you are obviously doing the 6 steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To infringe a *dependent* claim one must do all of the steps in all the claims in the chain of claims it depends from as well as the steps specifically written in that dependent claim's text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Means&quot;, used in a U.S. claim, has a very specific, and somewhat counter-intuitive meaning. There is a claim form that intentionally uses the word means (means+function). That claim form is not used very often. Throwing around the word &quot;means&quot; in a claim that was not specifically intended to invoke a particular paragraph in the patent law is to be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a goal you want a range of claim types and scope and you especially want claims that are actually directly infringed by the hypothetical &quot;bad guy&quot; with the deep pockets who is profiting from your work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5439" RevisionGUID="84a4d661-9f98-4373-9404-d67647392259" CreationDate="2013-11-17T21:51:51.267" UserId="7219" Text="SNMP (Simple Network Management Protocol) is a standards-based protocol that addresses the same problem - see RFC-1067 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1067 (from Aug 1988), and the many, many other internet standards RFCs related to SNMP that you will find if you search for SNMP on http://www.rfc-editor.org.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SNMP deployments often uses intermediate agents to collect/ monitor devices, and present those to other (remote) computers that would not be able to directly access the device to be monitored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many commercial and open source examples of SNMP management servers and proxies that fit this role, and also produce messages/ alerts.  Just one example would be Munin (http://munin-monitoring.org)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SNMP management servers monitor alerts, traps, and variables on device(s).  Information can be queried, published using a standards-based encoding (ASN.1 in this case), and augmented with human-readable explanations through meta-data - please see the RFCs for information on the MIB (Management Information Base).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a later RFC (5935) that apparently describes an encoding of SNMP data using XML." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5432" RevisionGUID="816df8a3-3d3e-4885-ab9b-f7aaacfdcca9" CreationDate="2013-11-17T23:23:32.470" UserId="3076" Comment="Typos" Text="Dependent claims *are* the place to get narrower and are often chained to get more and more specific as they descend. The use of &quot;further comprising&quot; vs &quot;wherein&quot; is unrelated to the extent of narrowness you are adding. The parent claims requires an A and a B and a C. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Further comprising an X &quot;says you are adding a new element, X to the already required A, B, &amp; C. &quot;Wherein C is blue&quot; gives more detail to an element already required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims are often arranged in a hierarchy of increasing specificity and included structure. To infringe your patent an apparatus only has to fall under one of your claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If claim one says &quot;A portion of a vehicle comprising an xyz transmission coupled to an abc drive shaft.&quot; Claim two might say. &quot;The portion of a vehicle of claim 1 further comprising a two-wheel drive system.&quot; And claim three might say &quot;The portion of a vehicle of claim 1 further comprising a 4-wheel drive.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both claim 2 and 3 something is added to the elements of claim 1. This only works because claim 1 was patentable on its own. If some complete drive train is needed to get a patentable claim then claim 1 can say &quot;a transmission coupled to a drive train&quot;. Claim 2 can be &quot;the thing of claim 1 wherein the drive train is for 2-wheeled drive&quot; and claim 3 can be &quot;the thing of claim 1 wherein the drive train is for 2-wheeled drive.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5443" RevisionGUID="e5d8184d-4f18-4f02-bdd8-c03e9d5d09c6" CreationDate="2013-11-18T19:34:09.640" UserId="7223" Text="Systems management and monitoring programs do this all the time.  One prominent product is the Oracle Enterprise Manager Cloud Control product.  It has an architecture where an &quot;agent&quot; is installed on the computer close to the &quot;target&quot; that it wishes to monitor.  The Agent comes with a pre-defined set of targets.  Additionally, with Oracle's kit, one can expand the capabilities of the agents by creating new defined types.  The agent periodically collects metrics from a device, and stores it on disk.  At a scheduled interval, the agent uploads these data items to the server, known as the management server.  The management server stores this data in a special Oracle database, which Oracle calls the Management Repository.  &#xD;&#xA;The management server can be configured to respond to thresholds or emergency situations programmed by an administrator and create an incident trail to track the resolution of the incident.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E11857_01/em.111/e16790/sizing.htm&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5444" RevisionGUID="f24335d3-d86b-4735-9483-06122e738a1d" CreationDate="2013-11-19T07:54:19.197" UserDisplayName="user7227" Text="I am Ekansh Mangal. My email is - ekansh.mangal@gmail.com. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say I patent an innovative method or device for creating ice-cream. I am in the ice-cream business itself, not device manufacturing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suddenly, some competitor appears claiming to use a trade secret method for creating ice-cream, stealing my customers. Obviously, I can't prove they use my invention without breaking into their facility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now what? Does it even make sense to patent inventions that are not direct-to-market? It feels like I just shot myself in the foot by patenting my idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13761" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5444" RevisionGUID="f24335d3-d86b-4735-9483-06122e738a1d" CreationDate="2013-11-19T07:54:19.197" UserDisplayName="user7227" Text="Do patents offer protection from use by others?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13762" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5444" RevisionGUID="f24335d3-d86b-4735-9483-06122e738a1d" CreationDate="2013-11-19T07:54:19.197" UserDisplayName="user7227" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5444" RevisionGUID="1d97aff9-38bf-4cef-8c7a-1c9191813b68" CreationDate="2013-11-19T08:00:29.357" UserDisplayName="user7227" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="I am Ekansh Mangal. My email is - ekansh.mangal@gmail.com. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say I patent an innovative method or device for creating CONDOMS. I am in the CONDOM business itself, not device manufacturing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suddenly, some competitor appears claiming to use a trade secret method for creating CONDOM, stealing my customers. Obviously, I can't prove they use my invention without breaking into their facility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now what? Does it even make sense to patent inventions that are not direct-to-market? It feels like I just shot myself in the foot by patenting my idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5444" RevisionGUID="f543591c-aaf1-40d2-b60d-b989b70025d5" CreationDate="2013-11-19T09:11:03.820" UserDisplayName="user7227" Comment="deleted 59 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say I patent an innovative method or device for creating CONDOMS. I am in the CONDOM business itself, not device manufacturing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suddenly, some competitor appears claiming to use a trade secret method for creating CONDOM, stealing my customers. Obviously, I can't prove they use my invention without breaking into their facility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now what? Does it even make sense to patent inventions that are not direct-to-market? It feels like I just shot myself in the foot by patenting my idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5445" RevisionGUID="cabf7b61-721d-45a4-b0c4-305c39ebd1ab" CreationDate="2013-11-19T09:23:05.673" UserId="4922" Text="So this is a trivial combination of a zero-run-length encoder with a quantiser.  That somebody thinks this is worthy of patenting beggars belief.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, the same technique is used in the **JPEG/JFIF format**, which counts as a video codec because many cameras (prior to the introduction of cheap realtime MPEG4 encoders) used Motion JPEG for video recording, leveraging their existing JPEG acceleration hardware.  Motion JPEG simply encodes each frame of the video as a separate JPEG image.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The steps for encoding JPEG are essentially similar to the claim here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;0) The source pixel data is transformed into a series of coefficients.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) The coefficients are quantised, effectively reducing their range of possible values.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The resulting series of quantised coefficients typically contains long runs of zeroes.  These are encoded using RLE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) The remaining, nonzero coefficients are encoded using a Huffman scheme (in most implementations) or with arithmetic coding (rarely, due to - yes - patent concerns).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The JPEG standard was published at least by **September 1992** as an ITU Recommendation.  It was ratified as a formal ISO standard two years later.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5445" RevisionGUID="9f0577e5-1704-4e0f-8d5c-0d01a61558df" CreationDate="2013-11-19T09:30:51.770" UserId="4922" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="So this is a trivial combination of a zero-run-length encoder with a quantiser.  That somebody thinks this is worthy of patenting beggars belief.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, the same technique is used in the **JPEG/JFIF format**, which counts as a video codec because many cameras (prior to the introduction of cheap realtime MPEG4 encoders) used Motion JPEG for video recording, leveraging their existing JPEG acceleration hardware.  Motion JPEG simply encodes each frame of the video as a separate JPEG image.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The steps for encoding JPEG are essentially similar to the claim here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;0) The source pixel data is transformed into a series of coefficients.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) The coefficients are quantised, effectively reducing their range of possible values.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The resulting series of quantised coefficients typically contains long runs of zeroes.  These are encoded using RLE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) The remaining, nonzero coefficients are encoded using a Huffman scheme (in most implementations) or with arithmetic coding (rarely, due to - yes - patent concerns).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The JPEG standard was published at least by **September 1992** as an ITU Recommendation.  It was ratified as a formal ISO standard two years later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, it is my understanding that all MPEG-family video codecs ultimately trace their heritage back to JPEG." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5445" RevisionGUID="60904d01-494a-424e-9929-8eaf78811511" CreationDate="2013-11-19T13:09:32.533" UserId="4922" Comment="added 951 characters in body" Text="So this is a trivial combination of a zero-run-length encoder with a quantiser.  That somebody thinks this is worthy of patenting beggars belief.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, the same technique is used in the **JPEG/JFIF format**, which counts as a video codec because many cameras (prior to the introduction of cheap realtime MPEG4 encoders) used Motion JPEG for video recording, leveraging their existing JPEG acceleration hardware.  Motion JPEG simply encodes each frame of the video as a separate JPEG image.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The steps for encoding JPEG are essentially similar to the claim here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;0) The source pixel data is transformed into a series of coefficients (DCT).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) The coefficients are quantised, effectively reducing their range of possible values.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) These coefficients are reordered using a specific &quot;zigzag&quot; pattern.  It would be natural to have an array describing the required order, but optimised code would probably be unrolled to express it directly using loads and stores to specific indices.  This &quot;fastcoding&quot; technique is widely used when performance is critical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) The resulting reordered series of quantised coefficients typically contains long runs of zeroes.  These are encoded using RLE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) The remaining, nonzero coefficients are encoded individually using a Huffman scheme (in most implementations) or with arithmetic coding (rarely, due to - yes - patent concerns).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The JPEG standard was published at least by **September 1992** as an ITU Recommendation.  It was ratified as a formal ISO standard two years later.  Additionally, it is my understanding that all MPEG-family video codecs ultimately trace their heritage back to JPEG, especially the basic DCT-quantisation scheme described here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only step in the claim but not in the above is the creation of a mask to identify the zero and non-zero coefficients.  This appears to have been introduced by Tandberg, presumably as part of an optimisation.  It's not immediately obvious to me how his code works or why it is supposed to be faster than examining the elements individually, but my grasp of x86 SIMD assembly is hazy at best - all I can gather so far is that he makes a mask involving four coefficients at a time, and then does something complicated with it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5445" RevisionGUID="86f1f425-5358-49da-bb2c-d541bf223e19" CreationDate="2013-11-19T13:21:14.723" UserId="4922" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="So this is a trivial combination of a zero-run-length encoder with a quantiser.  That somebody thinks this is worthy of patenting beggars belief.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, the same technique is used in the **JPEG/JFIF format**, which counts as a video codec because many cameras (prior to the introduction of cheap realtime MPEG4 encoders) used Motion JPEG for video recording, leveraging their existing JPEG acceleration hardware.  Motion JPEG simply encodes each frame of the video as a separate JPEG image.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The steps for encoding JPEG are essentially similar to the claim here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;0) The source pixel data is transformed into a series of coefficients (DCT).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) The coefficients are quantised, effectively reducing their range of possible values.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) These coefficients are reordered using a specific &quot;zigzag&quot; pattern.  It would be natural to have an array describing the required order, but optimised code would probably be unrolled to express it directly using loads and stores to specific indices.  This &quot;fastcoding&quot; technique is widely used when performance is critical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) The resulting reordered series of quantised coefficients typically contains long runs of zeroes.  These are encoded using RLE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) The remaining, nonzero coefficients are encoded individually using a Huffman scheme (in most implementations) or with arithmetic coding (rarely, due to - yes - patent concerns).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The JPEG standard was published at least by **September 1992** as an ITU Recommendation.  It was ratified as a formal ISO standard two years later.  Additionally, it is my understanding that all MPEG-family video codecs ultimately trace their heritage back to JPEG, especially the basic DCT-quantisation scheme described here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only step in the claim but not in the above is the creation of a mask to identify the zero and non-zero coefficients.  This appears to have been introduced as part of an optimisation.  It's not immediately obvious to me how this code works or why it is supposed to be faster than examining the elements individually, but my grasp of x86 SIMD assembly is hazy at best - all I can gather so far is that the 2008 x264 code makes a mask involving four coefficients at a time, and then does something complicated with it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5446" RevisionGUID="74610c66-0186-47bb-bf15-1121b199e5e9" CreationDate="2013-11-19T15:39:42.353" UserId="4922" Text="The **Oscar-7 amateur satellite**, aka [AO-7][1], was launched into Earth orbit on **November 15, 1974** and included an automatic telemetry downlink by radio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After several years' operation, the batteries shorted out and silenced the satellite.  In mid-2002, however, it was suddenly heard again, after the batteries went open-circuit and allowed the satellite to run purely on solar power.  Since then, it has continued to work quite well, with everything besides the batteries working essentially as well as it did circa 1980.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, the telemetry only reports the values of certain measurements taken on board, and does not provide any error flags or interpretation of these values.  The format of the data is in groups of figures transmitted using Morse code, which can be received and decoded by a reasonably modern computer with an attached radio receiver:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Hi Hi&#xD;&#xA;    100 176 164 178&#xD;&#xA;    280 262 200 254&#xD;&#xA;    375 358 331 354&#xD;&#xA;    453 454 461 459&#xD;&#xA;    541 501 552 529&#xD;&#xA;    600 600 601 651&#xD;&#xA;    Hi Hi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last group of digits in the block, reading 651, is the one which tells you whether the telemetry itself is reliable.  Ideally it should be 650, but 651 is close enough.  The telemetry is sent *continuously*, delimited by the &quot;HI HI&quot; callsign markers, which possibly counts as &quot;periodically&quot; given the time it takes to send a single block.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also predating 2000 is **Oscar-27**, aka [AO-27][2], which was launched on **September 26, 1993**.  Being almost 20 years newer than Oscar-7, telemetry is provided in a directly computer-readable format (1200-baud AFSK).  As for Oscar-7, the telemetry is sent continuously when power is available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; AO-27 is a secondary amateur communications payload carried aboard the EYESAT-1 experimental MICROSAT satellite built by Interferometrics Inc. of Chantilly, Virginia.  The commercial side of the spacecraft's mission is the experimental monitoring of mobile industrial equipment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sample of raw telemetry data from Oscar-27:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    [TIMESTAMP] OS 117 [000/11:18:30] [Sat Feb 28 20:30:17 2009]&#xD;&#xA;    [HWS] 1235853007 &lt;BCR Setpoint 1F&gt;&lt;TXC Exciter ON&gt;&lt;TXC 5v HPA ON&gt;&lt;Rx=082F80&gt;&lt;Modem=88FFE4&gt;&lt;BCR=180D1F&gt;&lt;Tx=000377&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    [SWS] &lt;00=10,0A&gt;&lt;01=5,05&gt;&lt;02=0,00&gt;&lt;03=15,0F&gt;&lt;04=80,50&gt;&lt;05=0,00&gt;&lt;06=0,00&gt;&lt;07=0,00&gt;&lt;08=4,04&gt;&lt;09=18,12&gt;&lt;10=71,47&gt;&lt;11=123,7B&gt;&lt;12=81,51&gt;&lt;13=83,53&gt;&lt;14=85,55&gt;&lt;15=87,57&gt;&lt;16=89,59&gt;&lt;17=91,5B&gt;&lt;18=65,41&gt;&lt;19=73,49&gt;&lt;20=31,1F&gt;&lt;21=32,20&gt;&lt;22=1,01&gt;&lt;23=1,01&gt;&lt;24=0,00&gt;&lt;25=0,00&gt;&lt;26=20,14&gt;&lt;27=125,7D&gt;&lt;28=0,00&gt;&lt;29=0,00&gt;&lt;30=0,00&gt;&lt;31=0,00&gt;&lt;32=0,00&gt;&lt;33=0,00&gt;&lt;34=0,00&gt;&lt;35=0,00&gt;&lt;36=0,00&gt;&lt;37=0,00&gt;&lt;38=0,00&gt;&lt;39=0,00&gt;&lt;40=0,00&gt;&lt;41=0,00&gt;&lt;42=0,00&gt;&lt;43=0,00&gt;&lt;44=0,00&gt;&lt;45=0,00&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    [SWS] &lt;TXMODE=2&gt; &lt;WDOG1=80&gt;&lt;WDOG2=0&gt;&lt;WDOG3=0&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    [SWS] &lt;WODVER=18&gt;&lt;WOD1=47&gt;&lt;WOD2=7B&gt;&lt;WOD3=51&gt;&lt;WOD4=53&gt;&lt;WOD5=55&gt;&lt;WOD6=57&gt;&lt;WOD7=59&gt;&lt;WOD8=5B&gt;&lt;WOD9=41&gt;&lt;WOD10=49&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    [SWS] &lt;SPSUN=1F&gt;&lt;SPECL=20&gt;&lt;ECCO=20&gt;&lt;EVCO=125&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    [SWS] &lt;TEPR1=0, 0&gt;&lt;TEPR2=0, 0&gt;&lt;TEPR3=0, 0&gt;&lt;TEPR4=0, 0&gt;&lt;TEPR5=0, 0&gt;&lt;TEPR6=0, 0&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of that data is more-or-less human-readable.  The rest is also *self-describing*, in that each data element is unambiguously delimited and associated with a unique field name, and can thus be parsed by a computer without prior knowledge of which or even how many elements exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Telemetry data is usually sent on a schedule timed to coincide with passes over the Northern Hemisphere, thus *periodically*, and is followed by a period of payload operation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oscar-27 also monitors its own battery charge status, and will automatically shut down the more powerful payload transmitter when the batteries run low (which can happen during &quot;eclipse season&quot;), switching to a mode where it sends telemetry instead using a weaker transmitter.  Thus it effectively also sends telemetry *in response to an error condition*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/satellites/sat_summary/ao7.php&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/satellites/sat_summary/ao27.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5446" RevisionGUID="ca7fede3-ebde-4334-a0a9-16fb799bb36a" CreationDate="2013-11-19T18:00:05.640" UserId="4922" Comment="removed a contradiction" Text="The **Oscar-7 amateur satellite**, aka [AO-7][1], was launched into Earth orbit on **November 15, 1974** and included an automatic telemetry downlink by radio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After several years' operation, the batteries shorted out and silenced the satellite.  In mid-2002, however, it was suddenly heard again, after the batteries went open-circuit and allowed the satellite to run purely on solar power.  Since then, it has continued to work quite well, with everything besides the batteries working essentially as well as it did circa 1980.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, the telemetry only reports the values of certain measurements taken on board, and does not provide any error flags or interpretation of these values.  The format of the data is in groups of figures transmitted using Morse code, which can be received and decoded by a reasonably modern computer with an attached radio receiver:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Hi Hi&#xD;&#xA;    100 176 164 178&#xD;&#xA;    280 262 200 254&#xD;&#xA;    375 358 331 354&#xD;&#xA;    453 454 461 459&#xD;&#xA;    541 501 552 529&#xD;&#xA;    600 600 601 651&#xD;&#xA;    Hi Hi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last group of digits in the block, reading 651, is the one which tells you whether the telemetry itself is reliable.  Ideally it should be 650, but 651 is close enough.  The telemetry is sent *continuously*, delimited by the &quot;HI HI&quot; callsign markers, which possibly counts as &quot;periodically&quot; given the time it takes to send a single block.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also predating 2000 is **Oscar-27**, aka [AO-27][2], which was launched on **September 26, 1993**.  Being almost 20 years newer than Oscar-7, telemetry is provided in a directly computer-readable format (1200-baud AFSK).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; AO-27 is a secondary amateur communications payload carried aboard the EYESAT-1 experimental MICROSAT satellite built by Interferometrics Inc. of Chantilly, Virginia.  The commercial side of the spacecraft's mission is the experimental monitoring of mobile industrial equipment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sample of raw telemetry data from Oscar-27:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    [TIMESTAMP] OS 117 [000/11:18:30] [Sat Feb 28 20:30:17 2009]&#xD;&#xA;    [HWS] 1235853007 &lt;BCR Setpoint 1F&gt;&lt;TXC Exciter ON&gt;&lt;TXC 5v HPA ON&gt;&lt;Rx=082F80&gt;&lt;Modem=88FFE4&gt;&lt;BCR=180D1F&gt;&lt;Tx=000377&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    [SWS] &lt;00=10,0A&gt;&lt;01=5,05&gt;&lt;02=0,00&gt;&lt;03=15,0F&gt;&lt;04=80,50&gt;&lt;05=0,00&gt;&lt;06=0,00&gt;&lt;07=0,00&gt;&lt;08=4,04&gt;&lt;09=18,12&gt;&lt;10=71,47&gt;&lt;11=123,7B&gt;&lt;12=81,51&gt;&lt;13=83,53&gt;&lt;14=85,55&gt;&lt;15=87,57&gt;&lt;16=89,59&gt;&lt;17=91,5B&gt;&lt;18=65,41&gt;&lt;19=73,49&gt;&lt;20=31,1F&gt;&lt;21=32,20&gt;&lt;22=1,01&gt;&lt;23=1,01&gt;&lt;24=0,00&gt;&lt;25=0,00&gt;&lt;26=20,14&gt;&lt;27=125,7D&gt;&lt;28=0,00&gt;&lt;29=0,00&gt;&lt;30=0,00&gt;&lt;31=0,00&gt;&lt;32=0,00&gt;&lt;33=0,00&gt;&lt;34=0,00&gt;&lt;35=0,00&gt;&lt;36=0,00&gt;&lt;37=0,00&gt;&lt;38=0,00&gt;&lt;39=0,00&gt;&lt;40=0,00&gt;&lt;41=0,00&gt;&lt;42=0,00&gt;&lt;43=0,00&gt;&lt;44=0,00&gt;&lt;45=0,00&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    [SWS] &lt;TXMODE=2&gt; &lt;WDOG1=80&gt;&lt;WDOG2=0&gt;&lt;WDOG3=0&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    [SWS] &lt;WODVER=18&gt;&lt;WOD1=47&gt;&lt;WOD2=7B&gt;&lt;WOD3=51&gt;&lt;WOD4=53&gt;&lt;WOD5=55&gt;&lt;WOD6=57&gt;&lt;WOD7=59&gt;&lt;WOD8=5B&gt;&lt;WOD9=41&gt;&lt;WOD10=49&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    [SWS] &lt;SPSUN=1F&gt;&lt;SPECL=20&gt;&lt;ECCO=20&gt;&lt;EVCO=125&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    [SWS] &lt;TEPR1=0, 0&gt;&lt;TEPR2=0, 0&gt;&lt;TEPR3=0, 0&gt;&lt;TEPR4=0, 0&gt;&lt;TEPR5=0, 0&gt;&lt;TEPR6=0, 0&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of that data is more-or-less human-readable.  The rest is also *self-describing*, in that each data element is unambiguously delimited and associated with a unique field name, and can thus be parsed by a computer without prior knowledge of which or even how many elements exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Telemetry data is usually sent on a schedule timed to coincide with passes over the Northern Hemisphere, thus *periodically*, and is followed by a period of payload operation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oscar-27 also monitors its own battery charge status, and will automatically shut down the more powerful payload transmitter when the batteries run low (which can happen during &quot;eclipse season&quot;), switching to a mode where it sends telemetry instead using a weaker transmitter.  Thus it effectively also sends telemetry *in response to an error condition*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/satellites/sat_summary/ao7.php&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/satellites/sat_summary/ao27.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5444" RevisionGUID="09496b50-59b6-43da-ad43-61b80abf54c9" CreationDate="2013-11-19T20:28:19.977" UserId="-1" Comment="changed terms" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Say I patent an innovative method or device for creating Cookies. I am in the Food business itself, not device manufacturing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suddenly, some competitor appears claiming to use a trade secret method for creating Cookies, stealing my customers. Obviously, I can't prove they use my invention without breaking into their facility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now what? Does it even make sense to patent inventions that are not direct-to-market? It feels like I just shot myself in the foot by patenting my idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13772" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5444" RevisionGUID="09496b50-59b6-43da-ad43-61b80abf54c9" CreationDate="2013-11-19T20:28:19.977" Comment="Proposed by 122.162.99.170|67c5cf5e-5360-41ab-b6ab-022157055002 approved by 1259, 1767 edit id of 461" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13773" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5129" RevisionGUID="676020aa-1aeb-4914-8ae4-4bd58ac98aa2" CreationDate="2013-11-19T20:28:31.713" UserId="267" Comment="Removed &quot;Q&quot; from question title." Text="I have seen that Google has some patents on their Toolbar, and also has some copyrighted software. Which is a better option to protect an idea? Can I copyright my own Open Source project?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I am a student and want to protect my idea, which I am implementing at the moment. I don’t have much to pay, but I want to be able to talk about it to someone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13774" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5129" RevisionGUID="676020aa-1aeb-4914-8ae4-4bd58ac98aa2" CreationDate="2013-11-19T20:28:31.713" UserId="267" Comment="Removed &quot;Q&quot; from question title." Text="Should I use patents or copyright law to protect my ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13775" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5129" RevisionGUID="676020aa-1aeb-4914-8ae4-4bd58ac98aa2" CreationDate="2013-11-19T20:28:31.713" Comment="Proposed by 267 approved by 1259, 1767 edit id of 459" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13776" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="873" RevisionGUID="c0d598a7-1c9e-4978-a668-d7e6d62040dd" CreationDate="2013-11-19T20:28:38.353" UserId="267" Comment="Tidied grammar. Improved flow of question and clarity of title, so it's easier to understand." Text="If I make some software and start selling it, and then someone who has a patent on a central idea in my software discovers this, would they have to provide me a warning to remove my product from the market, or could they sue me directly without any warning, asking for a large amount of money?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13777" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="873" RevisionGUID="c0d598a7-1c9e-4978-a668-d7e6d62040dd" CreationDate="2013-11-19T20:28:38.353" UserId="267" Comment="Tidied grammar. Improved flow of question and clarity of title, so it's easier to understand." Text="Must one issue a warning before suing for patent infringment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13778" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="873" RevisionGUID="c0d598a7-1c9e-4978-a668-d7e6d62040dd" CreationDate="2013-11-19T20:28:38.353" Comment="Proposed by 267 approved by 1259, 1767 edit id of 460" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="18952f4a-c835-4eeb-ad6b-a50d7f4b7cd5" CreationDate="2013-11-19T20:30:35.550" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON online ads based on current events** - This application from [Yahoo! Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying current events, categorizing them, and showing ads based on the current event! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Real-time ads triggered by current events&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Current events such as earthquakes, fires, or floods, **drop in prices** or **sale for a particular type of product** (e.g., cars), a general **reduction in inventory** of a particular type of product, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Showing ads based on current events**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identify a current event of any kind (examples: earthquakes, fires, or floods, drop in prices or sale for a particular type of product (e.g., cars), a general reduction in inventory of a particular type of product, etc.), categorize the current event, determine an advertisement based on the **category of event** (Halloween is here?  Buy a costume!), and send the advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130159094 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/326,033&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/17/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying by a network device an event that has recently occurred;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Categorizing by the network device the event into a category of events from a plurality of categories;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Ascertaining by the network device a set of one or more advertisements associated with the category of events;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Selecting by the network device at least one advertisement from the set of one or more advertisements associated with the category of events; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Providing by the network device the at least one advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identify an event that has recently occurred;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Categorizing the event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Find one or more advertisements associated with the category of the current event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Select an advertisement associated with the category of event; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Show the advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A variety of specific types of current events used to trigger ads, such as earthquakes, fires, or floods, **drop in prices** or **sale for a particular type of product** (e.g., cars), a general **reduction in inventory** of a particular type of product, etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method of serving advertisements based on current events&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fSlhSt4.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130159094&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130159094" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5447" RevisionGUID="4cd2e5f6-ef4c-4d20-a650-61df457ff351" CreationDate="2013-11-19T23:09:48.220" UserId="2029" Text="This is somewhat subjective but in doing my research, I have seen a lot of patents that were accepted in other countries (e.g. China, Australia) or in PCT later get accepted at the USPTO with what seems to be a reduced amount of investigation from the examiner. Some were accepted on the first try according to PAIR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I know this is not uncommon for patents, a lot of these foreign patents make very broad and already published claims that can easily and unarguably be shot down with just a 2-minute google search. I'm guessing that they were accepted in their country of origin because of less stringent examination and then people here accepted them because they assumed someone else had done the bulk of the job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any truth to this anecdote? Would USPTO be aware of this if it ever came down to a re-examination request?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cheers!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13781" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5447" RevisionGUID="4cd2e5f6-ef4c-4d20-a650-61df457ff351" CreationDate="2013-11-19T23:09:48.220" UserId="2029" Text="How solid are foreign patents that are later filed in the US?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13782" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5447" RevisionGUID="4cd2e5f6-ef4c-4d20-a650-61df457ff351" CreationDate="2013-11-19T23:09:48.220" UserId="2029" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;foreign&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5448" RevisionGUID="867d32bf-6f02-424f-8941-364912904f23" CreationDate="2013-11-20T01:40:12.193" UserId="3076" Text="Most of the applications you are referring to are &quot;PPH&quot;, Patent Prosecution Highway, cases. There are multiple ways to &quot;get on the highway&quot; but *not* every country lets an application get on the PPH based on positive action from any other country. The US has PPH in place with many countries. The idea is &quot;work sharing&quot; between patent offices but to assure quality by doing everything over again but from a better starting place. The statistics the USPTO keeps shows PPH applications &#xD;&#xA;have fewer office actions and a much higher allowance rate. However they claim that quality does not suffer because they do an independent search, on top of what has already been done. See two slides from a 2012 USPTO presentation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the PCT PPH the allowance rate is about double the average allowance rate and the average number of actions also drops. It takes one action to say &quot;yes&quot; so 1.6 actions means only .6 hear an initial no.&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand the next slide shows that the US examiners are doing something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A huge point is that this is not just for foreign applicants. If a US applicant files in the US and a PCT, they may get a positive prelim examination report from the PCT while the US case is still in the queue. They can petition the US to accelerate the corresponding US application under PPH.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have had two applications that had all claims allowed right out of the box -it is a shock. They included a PPH case and a &quot;regular&quot; case. In both instances I was concerned, wondering if I had received a thorough examination and also wondering if I had left something on the table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recommend applicants take yes for an answer and put the patent in their pocket - and seriously consider filing a continuation application that is not accelerated as a safeguard.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/39gm7.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5448" RevisionGUID="765947c9-4140-49d1-9ee9-d82d3ff2ca18" CreationDate="2013-11-20T02:09:07.410" UserId="3076" Comment="added 115 characters in body" Text="Most of the applications you are referring to are &quot;PPH&quot;, Patent Prosecution Highway, cases. There are multiple ways to &quot;get on the highway&quot; but *not* every country lets an application get on the PPH based on positive action from any other country. The US has PPH in place with many countries. The idea is &quot;work sharing&quot; between patent offices but to assure quality by doing everything over again but from a better starting place. The statistics the USPTO keeps shows PPH applications &#xD;&#xA;have fewer office actions and a much higher allowance rate. However they claim that quality does not suffer because they do an independent search, on top of what has already been done. See two slides from a 2012 USPTO presentation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the PCT PPH the allowance rate is about double the average allowance rate and the average number of actions also drops. It takes one action to say &quot;yes&quot; so 1.6 actions means only .6 hear an initial no.&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand the next slide shows that the US examiners are doing something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A huge point is that this is not just for foreign applicants. If a US applicant files in the US and a PCT, they may get a positive prelim examination report from the PCT while the US case is still in the queue. They can petition the US to accelerate the corresponding US application under PPH.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have had two applications that had all claims allowed right out of the box -it is a shock. They included a PPH case and a &quot;regular&quot; case. In both instances I was concerned, wondering if I had received a thorough examination and also wondering if I had left something on the table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding reexamination - reexamination proceedings are all done by a separate group from the initial examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recommend applicants take yes for an answer and put the patent in their pocket - and seriously consider filing a continuation application that is not accelerated as a safeguard.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/39gm7.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5449" RevisionGUID="c102e793-dc24-4f87-9963-5047db72e609" CreationDate="2013-11-20T06:48:20.860" UserId="7234" Text="I have this idea in a very vague form which I have not seen implemented yet but maybe someone can tell me if it is out there already or not. It might not be worth a patent as its just an addition but if something similar is patent I need to know who has it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its Basically a procedure to suggest related applications on App stores to users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. For New users: We suggest nothing unless they have started using app store for 'n' days.&#xD;&#xA; 2. 'n' is always greater than 2 to be used with any extrapolation algorithm.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Device records each run of the Application installed through App stores with timestamp.&#xD;&#xA; 4. An indexing service would run at certain time of day to update app index database by time units 't'. This can be customized per user or per device.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Indexing service will place related tags for apps running at time 't' and using those tags would use same or different algorithm to find other applications.&#xD;&#xA; 6. This can be used to just suggest user what apps he should be looking for at certain time of the day or extrapolate his next app installation from app stores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now in terms of why I came up with this idea is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use my phone during the day to send and receive emails. I have to have an email widget on screen for this and it helps me. Between 9-5 this is all good, except at lunch time I want to use facebook and twitter. May be some devices are storing such patterns on phone or tablets. As per websites (I know google analytics does that and record user behaviour on web pages and can relate what time a visit was done however while its doing that, it does not highlight to user for example that 90% people who came to my question are likely to go to this link. This may become annoying ) but there is no such option to make this available or hide this feature if not required. Its about using this collected data for **suggesting time based results**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to use it for both pattern analysis of existing users and prediction for future for an individual or prediction of future application uses by other people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this kind of thing too general to patent or some has already got this implemented on some devices?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13787" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5449" RevisionGUID="c102e793-dc24-4f87-9963-5047db72e609" CreationDate="2013-11-20T06:48:20.860" UserId="7234" Text="Idea of Suggesting Application by time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13788" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5449" RevisionGUID="c102e793-dc24-4f87-9963-5047db72e609" CreationDate="2013-11-20T06:48:20.860" UserId="7234" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;data-processing-database&gt;&lt;algorithms&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5450" RevisionGUID="a281c2f9-a2b5-4e76-a534-d3d5311b15d7" CreationDate="2013-11-20T07:04:39.347" UserId="7234" Text="Does this also suggest number of communications like amount of connections or it just considers 2 nodes connected using 1 connection and analysis of nodes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean does it say that analysis would include how much time it took for the connection to stay live and also take into account how many time a connection was live etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5452" RevisionGUID="6823c67c-1800-4de8-a89b-8d3fffe8e4f6" CreationDate="2013-11-20T23:30:17.677" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON product comparison table interfaces** - This application from [CompareMetrics][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Comparing two products for a user by adjusting a criteria based on user preference for another criteria! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/23/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Adjusting two criteria (e.g. price and memory) which are related to one another when comparing different products in a product comparison table&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Quantitative criteria (such as memory, weight or screen size) and displaying criteria in a tabulated format (!).  See figures below for an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Changing criteria for a user when comparing complex product offering**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Display two or more criteria for two or more products in a table. Receive an input from a user related to one criteria.  Automatically modifying the other criteria in the table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120330778 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/477,831&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: CompareMetrics&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/25/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of providing a comparison among two or more offerings, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying a tabulation of two or more criteria for two or more offerings;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving an input from a user relating to a first one of the criteria in the tabulation; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Automatically modifying, by a computer system, based on the input received from the user for the first one of the criteria, the tabulation with respect to at least one criterion other than the first one of the criteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing a comparison among two or more products, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying at least two criteria for two or more products&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receive an input from a user related to one criteria (e.g. screen size)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Automatically modifying the other criteria (e.g. weight) and displaying it in the table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming **quantitative criteria** which move together in a user interface - e.g. change the screen size on the laptop product and the weight goes up automatically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Comparison interface and a visual trade-off analysis of criteria&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/XoSjEJQ.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120330778&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://comparemetrics.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120330778" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13795" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5452" RevisionGUID="6823c67c-1800-4de8-a89b-8d3fffe8e4f6" CreationDate="2013-11-20T23:30:17.677" UserId="1767" Text="Product Comparison Tables - Adjusting criteria for product comparison (CompareMetrics) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13796" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5452" RevisionGUID="6823c67c-1800-4de8-a89b-8d3fffe8e4f6" CreationDate="2013-11-20T23:30:17.677" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;user-interface&gt;&lt;us20120330778a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5452" RevisionGUID="b16306a4-7474-4290-84de-a77b91b31e2d" CreationDate="2013-11-20T23:38:15.563" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON product comparison table interfaces** - This application from [CompareMetrics][6] (funded by [FLOODGATE Ventures][8]) seeks to patent the idea of...Comparing products for a user by adjusting one criteria based on user preference for another criteria! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/23/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Adjusting two criteria (e.g. price and memory) which are related to one another when comparing different products in a product comparison table&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Quantitative criteria (such as memory, weight or screen size) and displaying criteria in a tabulated format (!).  See figures below for an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Changing criteria for a user when comparing complex product offering**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Display two or more criteria for two or more products in a table. Receive an input from a user related to one criteria.  Automatically modifying the other criteria in the table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120330778 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/477,831&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: CompareMetrics&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/25/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of providing a comparison among two or more offerings, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying a tabulation of two or more criteria for two or more offerings;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving an input from a user relating to a first one of the criteria in the tabulation; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Automatically modifying, by a computer system, based on the input received from the user for the first one of the criteria, the tabulation with respect to at least one criterion other than the first one of the criteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing a comparison among two or more products, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying at least two criteria for two or more products&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receive an input from a user related to one criteria (e.g. screen size)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Automatically modifying the other criteria (e.g. weight) and displaying it in the table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming **quantitative criteria** which move together in a user interface - e.g. change the screen size on the laptop product and the weight goes up automatically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Comparison interface and a visual trade-off analysis of criteria&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/XoSjEJQ.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120330778&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://comparemetrics.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120330778&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.floodgate.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5453" RevisionGUID="8d237e4b-c1f4-4a2f-b8fb-78e847cb6c9d" CreationDate="2013-11-20T23:56:01.850" UserId="7239" Text="Let's help the USPTO assemble prior art to prevent this patent application from becoming an issued patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US20130275486&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First example of prior art is www.dnanexus.com, which has been offering this solution since 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;us20130275486" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13799" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5453" RevisionGUID="8d237e4b-c1f4-4a2f-b8fb-78e847cb6c9d" CreationDate="2013-11-20T23:56:01.850" UserId="7239" Text="Illumina wants to patent DNA analytics in the cloud" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13800" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5453" RevisionGUID="8d237e4b-c1f4-4a2f-b8fb-78e847cb6c9d" CreationDate="2013-11-20T23:56:01.850" UserId="7239" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5453" RevisionGUID="48efcd72-06a3-4adf-9ecf-66526db99da0" CreationDate="2013-11-21T00:16:58.350" UserId="1767" Comment="Updated with prior art request template" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON DNA Analytics in the cloud** - This application from [Illumina][6] seeks to patent the idea of...DNA analysis done by a server which is remote to the DNA sequencer! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 4/11/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Separating the DNA sequencer from a remote server in the cloud&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - DNA sequencing with standard fluorescent nucleotides but where server is remote to the sequencing machine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Cloud-based DNA sequencing analysis**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Display two ore more criteria for two or more products in a table. Receive an input from a user related to one criteria.  Automatically modifying the other criteria in the table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130275486 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/790,596&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Illumina&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 4/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/15/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for analyzing biological samples, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A cloud computing environment in communication with a plurality of sequencing devices, wherein the cloud computing environment comprises at least one server, the server being configured to communicate with a sequencing system remote from the server to receive and store sequence data from the sequencing system while the sequence data is being generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for analyzing biological samples, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A cloud computing environment communicating with multiple sequencing devices, where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The cloud computing servers communicate with a remote sequencing system to receive and store sequence data while the sequence data is being generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 4/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Cloud-based sequence analysis which uses multiple, distributed networks of computers to do the analysis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method of providing sequence data to the cloud computing environment&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fpRVIWq.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A first example of prior art is **[www.dnanexus.com](http://www.dnanexus.com)**, which has been offering this solution since 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130275486&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.illumina.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130275486&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13802" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5453" RevisionGUID="48efcd72-06a3-4adf-9ecf-66526db99da0" CreationDate="2013-11-21T00:16:58.350" UserId="1767" Comment="Updated with prior art request template" Text="DNA Analytics in the Cloud - Cloud computing environment for biological data (Illumina) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13803" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5453" RevisionGUID="48efcd72-06a3-4adf-9ecf-66526db99da0" CreationDate="2013-11-21T00:16:58.350" UserId="1767" Comment="Updated with prior art request template" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130275486a1&gt;&lt;illumina&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5453" RevisionGUID="a2e01413-1059-447f-a5b8-2f555079a328" CreationDate="2013-11-21T00:25:31.923" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 45 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON DNA Analytics in the cloud** - This application from [Illumina][6] seeks to patent the idea of...DNA analysis done by a server which is remote to the DNA sequencer! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 4/11/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Separating the DNA sequencer from a remote server in the cloud&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - DNA sequencing with standard fluorescent nucleotides but where server is remote to the sequencing machine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Cloud-based DNA sequencing analysis**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Connecting a cloud computing environment to multiple DNA sequencers and doing DNA analysis in the cloud (remote from the sequencers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130275486 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/790,596&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Illumina][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 4/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/15/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for analyzing biological samples, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A cloud computing environment in communication with a plurality of sequencing devices, wherein &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the cloud computing environment comprises at least one server,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the server being configured to communicate with a sequencing system remote from the server to receive and store sequence data from the sequencing system while the sequence data is being generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for analyzing biological samples, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A cloud computing environment communicating with multiple sequencing devices, where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The cloud computing servers communicate with a remote sequencing system to receive and store sequence data while the sequence data is being generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 4/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Cloud-based sequence analysis which uses multiple, distributed networks of computers to do the analysis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method of providing sequence data to the cloud computing environment&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fpRVIWq.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A first example of prior art is **[www.dnanexus.com](http://www.dnanexus.com)**, which has been offering this solution since 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130275486&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.illumina.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130275486&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13805" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4785" RevisionGUID="98f28326-6960-4e21-9c00-06a69602391d" CreationDate="2013-11-21T00:38:01.000" UserId="1767" Comment="added 262 characters in body; edited tags" Text=" ![enter image description here][8]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application has received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON a navigation device with alternative route calculation** - This application from [TomTom][6] seeks to patent the idea of...providing a navigation instruction together with alternative navigation instructions to a destination! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/13/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - providing alternate routes to a driver without the driver being required to request a calculation of an alternative route&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO displays multiple potential navigation routes simultaneously&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Navigation device with alternate route calculation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A navigation device that calculates multiple routes for a driver and displays them simultaneously (without the driver being required to request a different route)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130173159 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/822,791&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: TomTom&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/13/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/31/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A navigation device, the navigation device operable to calculate routes to one or more destinations,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.  the device further operable to provide a navigation instruction together with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. an alternative navigation instruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A navigation device which calculates routes to destination (or multiple destinations), which:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. provides navigation instructions; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. provides instructions on alternative routes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/13/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming displaying multiple routes simultaneously without the driver requesting a &quot;re-route&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Providing multiple routes to a driver&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/GeJlCmH.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130173159?dq=US20130173159A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.tomtom.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13806" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4785" RevisionGUID="98f28326-6960-4e21-9c00-06a69602391d" CreationDate="2013-11-21T00:38:01.000" UserId="1767" Comment="added 262 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;us20130173159a1&gt;&lt;tomtom&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5452" RevisionGUID="c80525e5-849b-4a45-bda4-fccaad73fc5b" CreationDate="2013-11-21T00:41:29.237" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON product comparison table interfaces** - This application from [CompareMetrics][6] (funded by [FLOODGATE Ventures][8]) seeks to patent the idea of...Comparing products for a user by adjusting one criteria based on user preference for another criteria! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/23/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Adjusting two criteria (e.g. price and memory) which are related to one another when comparing different products in a product comparison table&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Quantitative criteria (such as memory, weight or screen size) and displaying criteria in a tabulated format (!).  See figures below for an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Changing criteria for a user when comparing complex product offering**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Display two or more criteria for two or more products in a table. Receive an input from a user related to one criteria.  Automatically modifying the other criteria in the table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120330778 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/477,831&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: CompareMetrics&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/25/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of providing a comparison among two or more offerings, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying a tabulation of two or more criteria for two or more offerings;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving an input from a user relating to a first one of the criteria in the tabulation; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Automatically modifying, by a computer system, based on the input received from the user for the first one of the criteria, the tabulation with respect to at least one criterion other than the first one of the criteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing a comparison among two or more products, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying at least two criteria for two or more products&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receive an input from a user related to one criteria (e.g. screen size)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Automatically modifying the other criteria (e.g. weight) and displaying it in the table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming **quantitative criteria** which move together in a user interface - e.g. change the screen size on the laptop product and the weight goes up automatically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Comparison interface and a visual trade-off analysis of criteria&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/XoSjEJQ.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120330778&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://comparemetrics.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120330778&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.floodgate.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13808" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5453" RevisionGUID="ac6e291a-0ee9-4ddf-8711-359527120556" CreationDate="2013-11-21T00:42:00.723" UserId="1767" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON DNA Analytics in the cloud** - This application from [Illumina][6] seeks to patent the idea of...DNA analysis done by a server which is remote to the DNA sequencer! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 4/11/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Separating the DNA analysis in the cloud from the DNA sequencer in the lab&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - DNA sequencing with standard fluorescent nucleotides but where server is remote to the sequencing machine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Cloud-based DNA sequencing analysis**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Connecting a cloud computing environment to multiple DNA sequencers and doing DNA analysis in the cloud (remote from the sequencers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130275486 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/790,596&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Illumina][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 4/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/15/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for analyzing biological samples, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A cloud computing environment in communication with a plurality of sequencing devices, wherein &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the cloud computing environment comprises at least one server,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the server being configured to communicate with a sequencing system remote from the server to receive and store sequence data from the sequencing system while the sequence data is being generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for analyzing biological samples, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A cloud computing environment communicating with multiple sequencing devices, where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The cloud computing servers communicate with a remote sequencing system to receive and store sequence data while the sequence data is being generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 4/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Cloud-based sequence analysis which uses multiple, distributed networks of computers to do the analysis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method of providing sequence data to the cloud computing environment&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fpRVIWq.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A first example of prior art is **[www.dnanexus.com](http://www.dnanexus.com)**, which has been offering this solution since 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130275486&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.illumina.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130275486&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5454" RevisionGUID="46bc0ab1-011c-46af-a3d7-640fab1b4f2e" CreationDate="2013-11-21T01:00:01.413" UserId="7240" Text="prior request for http://www.google.com/patents/US20120137209&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A method, system, and a computer readable storage medium for visualizing total order relation of nodes included in structured document. The method includes the steps of: acquiring log information, where the log information is created by storing information on transitions between nodes in a structured document in chronological order; specifying a relation of relative positions of the nodes in the transitions based on acquired log information; and determining a total order relation of the nodes in the structured document by performing a topological sorting that uses specified relation as a constraint, where the total order relation of the nodes is determined by using content data of said node if the node is added to or removed from the structured document; and where at least one of the steps is carried out using a computer device" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13810" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5454" RevisionGUID="46bc0ab1-011c-46af-a3d7-640fab1b4f2e" CreationDate="2013-11-21T01:00:01.413" UserId="7240" Text="prior art request US PGPUB 20120137209" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13811" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5454" RevisionGUID="46bc0ab1-011c-46af-a3d7-640fab1b4f2e" CreationDate="2013-11-21T01:00:01.413" UserId="7240" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5454" RevisionGUID="3f4f2287-b92c-4d74-9102-9479a4e03085" CreationDate="2013-11-21T01:11:20.407" UserId="3076" Comment="added 69 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Visualizing total order relation of nodes in a structured document&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;IBM&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;prior request for http://www.google.com/patents/US20120137209&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, system, and a computer readable storage medium for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; visualizing total order relation of nodes included in structured&#xD;&#xA;&gt; document, the method includes the steps of: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;acquiring log information,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; where the log information is created by storing information on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transitions between nodes in a structured document in chronological&#xD;&#xA;&gt; order; &lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;specifying a relation of relative positions of the nodes in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transitions based on acquired log information; and &lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;determining a total&#xD;&#xA;&gt; order relation of the nodes in the structured document by performing a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; topological sorting that uses specified relation as a constraint,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; where the total order relation of the nodes is determined by using&#xD;&#xA;&gt; content data of said node if the node is added to or removed from the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; structured document; and where at least one of the steps is carried&#xD;&#xA;&gt; out using a computer device." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13813" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5454" RevisionGUID="3f4f2287-b92c-4d74-9102-9479a4e03085" CreationDate="2013-11-21T01:11:20.407" UserId="3076" Comment="added 69 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20120137209&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13814" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5454" RevisionGUID="3f4f2287-b92c-4d74-9102-9479a4e03085" CreationDate="2013-11-21T01:11:20.407" UserId="3076" Comment="added 69 characters in body; edited tags" Text="prior art request: Visualizing total order relation of nodes in a structured document" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5455" RevisionGUID="84af6a6c-faf6-4317-a7fe-2b5784692a67" CreationDate="2013-11-21T01:27:24.673" UserId="5749" Text="[Apple’s AirTunes protocol][1] (now know as AirPlay) was introduced in 2004. It lets users stream audio (and later video) from one device to another. An example is streaming songs from an iTunes library on a computer to an AirPort Express router. In the process, the [audio is converted][2] from an iTunes-supported format (mp3, aac, wav, etc) to Apple Lossless. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirPlay&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://github.com/lperrin/node_airtunes#audio-streaming" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5456" RevisionGUID="f1ce0ddb-c658-4b51-a27a-53a5fb9bda46" CreationDate="2013-11-21T05:23:44.503" UserId="5843" Text="I am writing claims for a patent application for an invention that includes a person, an office, and a vehicle. The person and the office communicate; the office and the vehicle communicate; the persons and vehicles do not communicate with each other (the &quot;persons&quot; and &quot;vehicles&quot; here are more than just naked people or empty cars, they possess other claimed means and items). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I am writing my claims I am running into a problem in that I must refer to each of these before I define them, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I claim: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A person equipped with means to communicate with a dispatch office (but have not defined dispatch office) ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I claim: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A vehicle, suitable for transporting persons, and equipped with means of communicating with a dispatch office (but have not defined person or dispatch office)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A dispatch office, equipped with (blah blah Beauregard claim) and a means of communicating with persons and vehicles (but have not defined persons or vehicles)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How in general can I avoid referring to something without first defining it? If A touches B touches C touches B touches A, how do I claim A and B and C?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13817" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5456" RevisionGUID="f1ce0ddb-c658-4b51-a27a-53a5fb9bda46" CreationDate="2013-11-21T05:23:44.503" UserId="5843" Text="How to claim interlocking elements or means" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13818" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5456" RevisionGUID="f1ce0ddb-c658-4b51-a27a-53a5fb9bda46" CreationDate="2013-11-21T05:23:44.503" UserId="5843" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;definitions&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5459" RevisionGUID="30f4220d-f076-41e4-ba09-7d13f0f40744" CreationDate="2013-11-21T07:03:53.607" UserId="3076" Text="Claims are very very hard; this problem is easy. &quot;A system comprising: an X, a Y and a Z where . . . &quot;. In the ellipsis you define the relationship between the elements. There is no need to explain each item as it is introduced. You can list the parts and then define their relationship to one another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Also, pay attention to what is positively part of the claimed thing and what you are mentioning that is not a proper part of the claimed thing but that the claimed thing is defined in terms of. For example in the third example you are listing a dispatch office as a required part of what it takes to infringe. Only an owner of a dispatch office has the first ingredient. In the second case, for someone accused of selling the invention they must be selling a vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Separately a human can't be patented. That covers cloning but it also covers your first example. And &quot;means *for*&quot; has a specific meaning that is not in concert with it seems to mean. And to exaggerate a little, the term &quot;means *of*&quot; in your examples has no clear meaning in a claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5461" RevisionGUID="5253b507-b4f8-481c-aa57-9234b5a87980" CreationDate="2013-11-21T13:31:00.267" UserId="5071" Text="Well, Microsoft's event viewer has been able to do this for as long as I can remember.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Log information is stored in chronological order. That's how logs work.&#xD;&#xA;2. specifying a relation based on acquired log information is as simple as clicking on the relevant column (additional columns can even be added?)&#xD;&#xA;3. determining a total order of the nodes and sorting is precisely what happens when you click on the relevant column. The log viewer sorts by that column.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these features have been part of the event viewer for a long time. The event viewer in windows XP (ca. 2001) seems to meet all of these requirements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Image on Wikipedia of the XP viewer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windows_XP_Event_Viewer.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also, [the Wikipedia article on the event viewer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_Viewer)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd bet these criteria are in older versions of windows than that, I just haven't looked, because beating it by 10 years (plus development time) seems good enough." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5463" RevisionGUID="43f47b1b-df32-41bb-a63a-fd459533e04a" CreationDate="2013-11-21T16:01:39.677" UserId="7197" Text="**This question might be rather academic**. It is about patent litigation which is related to the US patent system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a patent owner thinks, his patent is being infringed, the patent owner may choose to sue the infringing party to stop his or her activities, as well as to receive compensation for the unauthorized use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To initiate litigation, patent owner must file a complaint, listing the alleged infringer, the patent(s) allegedly infringed, the infringing products and request relief. This is as simple as filling out [Form 18][1] provided by the US courts and filing it with a district court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The defendant responds to the plaintiff's complaint by preparing an answer denying the allegations asserted against it, **stating defenses** to each claim asserted against it and usually asserting counterclaims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Common **defenses** are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted.&#xD;&#xA; - the **products do not infringe** the patents-in-suit ([35 USC §282(b)][2])&#xD;&#xA; - the patents-in-suit are invalid&#xD;&#xA; - laches&#xD;&#xA; - [...and others...][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [FRCP rule 8][4], there are &quot;defenses&quot; and &quot;affirmative defenses&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Affirmative defenses in nature admit the claims asserted by plaintiff but provide other facts which defeat or mitigate the legal consequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many answers to complaints where all defenses are listed in a section titled &quot;affirmative defenses&quot;, also the non-infrigement defense e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://essentialpatentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Samsung-Answer-to-Ericsson-Complaint.pdf&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.speakforyourself.org/uploads/4-23-12_Answer_and__Counterclaims_to_Plaintiffs__Complaint_for_Patent_Infringement.pdf&#xD;&#xA; - http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/4:2009cv05718/222877/18/0.pdf&#xD;&#xA; - http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/2:2007cv00432/105705/44&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But how can asserting &quot;non-infringement&quot; be an affirmative defense when the cause of action is infringement?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/Rules/Usable_Rules_Forms_Civil/CIV18-Complaint_for_Patent_Infringement.rtf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/282&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/09/not-much-left-of-googles-20-affirmative.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13834" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5463" RevisionGUID="43f47b1b-df32-41bb-a63a-fd459533e04a" CreationDate="2013-11-21T16:01:39.677" UserId="7197" Text="How can &quot;non-infringement&quot; be an &quot;affirmative defense&quot; in patent litigation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13835" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5463" RevisionGUID="43f47b1b-df32-41bb-a63a-fd459533e04a" CreationDate="2013-11-21T16:01:39.677" UserId="7197" Text="&lt;litigation&gt;&lt;answer-to-complaint&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5464" RevisionGUID="1a2dd72e-1dd5-40bc-b707-a8273274e2e6" CreationDate="2013-11-21T16:07:25.103" UserId="1840" Text="Didn't just about all of Dell's online shopping screens allow this? Hard to tell now as Dell update this stuff all the time. (Purely coincidence my answer actually matches their example)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5465" RevisionGUID="16002b66-6ad6-44c6-887f-98ab424e29e0" CreationDate="2013-11-21T16:33:33.353" UserId="7246" Text="Would the Wayback Machine help? Screenshot and link below are for an MP3 page but you could probably easily find something for laptops by clicking around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Screenshot from 2010: http://cl.ly/image/0S2i243K251z&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Page: http://web.archive.org/web/20100217121624/http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&amp;SubCategory=23&amp;N=2100080023" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5467" RevisionGUID="9db38a03-855e-448f-afb0-596e866a3cdd" CreationDate="2013-11-21T18:07:54.937" UserId="7249" Text="If we buy and use Bluetooth radios / modules in our products (such as those manufactured by BlueGiga or TI, for example) how - if at all - are we indemnified against infringements allegations by companies claiming to own patents that are &quot;relied upon in the Bluetooth standard&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13843" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5467" RevisionGUID="9db38a03-855e-448f-afb0-596e866a3cdd" CreationDate="2013-11-21T18:07:54.937" UserId="7249" Text="Do Bluetooth modules indemnify you from infringement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13844" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5467" RevisionGUID="9db38a03-855e-448f-afb0-596e866a3cdd" CreationDate="2013-11-21T18:07:54.937" UserId="7249" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;standards&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5468" RevisionGUID="fb4099d8-fd8c-4722-bfea-ccce84c8af0d" CreationDate="2013-11-21T21:53:30.397" UserId="5317" Text="The method described in the patent is breathtakingly beautiful in its simplicity.  Have inter-modulation because of poor quality radio frequency (RF) connectors made with steel or nickle?   Well just pass a strong magnetic field through them to reduce the inter-modulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very nice and a very handy technique to help engineers and technicians troubleshoot busy radio sites with multiple radio transmissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being so elegantly simple leaves one wondering if this method is obvious or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any radio references talking about using a static magnetic field to tame the influence of cheap RF connectors make of ferrous?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13848" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5468" RevisionGUID="fb4099d8-fd8c-4722-bfea-ccce84c8af0d" CreationDate="2013-11-21T21:53:30.397" UserId="5317" Text="Prior Art Request - Magnets used to reduce passive intermodulation in ferrous materials" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13849" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5468" RevisionGUID="fb4099d8-fd8c-4722-bfea-ccce84c8af0d" CreationDate="2013-11-21T21:53:30.397" UserId="5317" Text="&lt;us20120139656&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13850" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5454" RevisionGUID="9a8b1d2e-7232-4be2-a2bd-39704c98510c" CreationDate="2013-11-21T21:58:19.180" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Visualizing total order relation of nodes in a structured document (IBM) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13851" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5454" RevisionGUID="9a8b1d2e-7232-4be2-a2bd-39704c98510c" CreationDate="2013-11-21T21:58:19.180" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;ibm&gt;&lt;us20120137209&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13852" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5468" RevisionGUID="c82aba2f-6a50-42b2-a1fa-65ce9041e8ab" CreationDate="2013-11-21T22:03:58.070" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Magnets used to reduce passive intermodulation in ferrous materials (Purdue University) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13853" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5468" RevisionGUID="c82aba2f-6a50-42b2-a1fa-65ce9041e8ab" CreationDate="2013-11-21T22:03:58.070" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;us20120139656&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13854" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5468" RevisionGUID="ce79f7b5-c3b8-49a1-8cd4-238b94a75f63" CreationDate="2013-11-22T00:03:38.840" UserId="3076" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="The method described in the patent is breathtakingly beautiful in its simplicity.  Have inter-modulation because of poor quality radio frequency (RF) connectors made with steel or nickle?   Well just pass a strong magnetic field through them to reduce the inter-modulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very nice and a very handy technique to help engineers and technicians troubleshoot busy radio sites with multiple radio transmissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being so elegantly simple leaves one wondering if this method is obvious or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any radio references talking about using a static magnetic field to tame the influence of cheap RF connectors made of a ferrous material?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5469" RevisionGUID="168d1719-1bd7-4ae0-a2e7-4df267819db1" CreationDate="2013-11-22T00:49:31.833" UserId="7250" Text="I actually have both references and work experience with Wireless Mesh. I last worked with them in 2007 so my access to their data is limited to commercial information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3D-P Tech meets all the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Variable Rate mesh network utilizing Motorola Cards inside a ruggedized box that is attached to an open source computer that stores and passes information on to a central monitoring unit. Current tech is up to 300 mbps max but is able to transmit much lower as needed. Also has GPS connectivity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Multiple methods for assembling the network provided including basic theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Base unit is attached mounted to a vehicle with omni directional antenna that gives information including GPS location and information about the vehicle. This is relayed over the mesh network and relayed back to a central monitoring station that often goes through a backhaul system which is point to point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have included the links to diagrams and info at the bottom but here is something really important coming off their network diagram information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3D-P Intelligent EndpointsTM&#xD;&#xA;3D-P Intelligent Endpoints are ruggedized networking and open computing platforms designed for on-machine use. With multiple wired and wireless interface options, the Intelligent Endpoint offers the flexibility to meet your needs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Motorola Access Points&#xD;&#xA;Motorola’s MOTOMESH and 802.11n access points provide optimal in-pit coverage. Motorola’s AP 7181 is a high performance, multi-radio device featuring a maximum data rate of 300 Mbps and Motorola’s unique ADEPT (Advanced Element Panel Technology) antenna system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cambium Networks Backhaul&#xD;&#xA;Cambium is the gold standard for point-to-point and point- to-multipoint radios and has deployed millions of units around the globe. With solutions capable of 300Mbps and a range of up to 120 miles, Cambium products offer carrier- grade reliability and unmatched performance for network backhaul and distribution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the endpoints offer multiple wired and wireless options that go through the whole spectrum of devices and endpoints available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Main Website: http://www.3D-P.com&lt;br&gt; &#xD;&#xA;http://www.3d-p.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/112911-Network-Design.pdf&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.3d-p.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Intelligent-Endpoints.pdf&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.3d-p.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Network-Health.pdf&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.3d-p.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/PB111122-01-RF_Connectors.pdf&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Extra Credit:&#xD;&#xA;System uses Multiple Omni Directional Antennas that vary in size based off wattage.&#xD;&#xA;System also uses multiple directional Dishes on the Backhaul that use polarity dependent upon noise in the mine. (I personally had to set the polarity on two TrangoBand Wireless Devices from a central point in a mine and one was +1 the other -1 so they wouldn't interfere with each other)&#xD;&#xA;The endpoints have a processor built in that runs off a Linux Debian Kernel that stores information of the device it is connected to. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5468" RevisionGUID="46c3b7ca-518f-4a36-9b85-1459da54e4ae" CreationDate="2013-11-22T03:30:55.317" UserId="5317" Comment="Spelling." Text="The method described in the patent is breathtakingly beautiful in its simplicity.  Have inter-modulation because of poor quality radio frequency (RF) connectors made with steel or nickel?   Well just pass a strong magnetic field through them to reduce the inter-modulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very nice and a very handy technique to help engineers and technicians troubleshoot busy radio sites with multiple radio transmissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being so elegantly simple leaves one wondering if this method is obvious or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any radio references talking about using a static magnetic field to tame the influence of cheap RF connectors made of a ferrous material?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5470" RevisionGUID="642d660d-d1e0-4d06-b3ba-0291da665789" CreationDate="2013-11-22T09:03:48.427" UserId="4922" Text="I think that's the entire point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The plaintiff *alleges* that the product infringes the patent.  But allegation is not proof of fact, whatever the tabloid newspapers wish you to believe.  If the product does not in fact infringe the patent, then there is no tort and no damage to rectify, and the defendant must be given a chance to show that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If non-infringement were not an affirmative defence, then any old troll could extract damages at will - simply by holding a patent and alleging infringement of it, without any evidence whatsoever.  The legal system is intended to prevent such extortion, even if it isn't always very effective at it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More commonly, a defendant may wish to show that, although they have a product which achieves the same goal as the patented invention, the product does so in a different way than the patent describes and has claims for - eg. an eccentric cam versus a crankshaft, to quote a common nineteenth-century example.  This may not be obvious from the outside, especially with microelectronics and software.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5471" RevisionGUID="2b0ccf3f-0d7d-4dac-83fd-6c4a4e65c769" CreationDate="2013-11-22T16:17:13.203" UserId="7253" Text="I first thought of 'spamassassin', which is a tool to do fuzzy email filtering, but is newer than '97. However, the program is based on Jason Rennie's technology published in 1996:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first known mail-filtering program to use a naive Bayes classifier was Jason Rennie's ifile program, released in 1996. The program was used to sort mail into folders.[1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://people.csail.mit.edu/jrennie/ifile/old/README-0.1A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest this was close enough: the claims basically say: a search engine that does fuzzy matching, and 'ifile' is just that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5472" RevisionGUID="30d9a548-1149-4db0-ab06-b598f02d184e" CreationDate="2013-11-22T18:11:06.020" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Showing information about local businesses on a map on a webpage** - This application from Abra Inc. seeks to patent the idea of...Showing website visitors a map containing information about local businesses! This application is now owned by a presumed patent troll known as &quot;FAN CHIANG HOLDINGS&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/18/1999** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Showing a web page with a map based on user selected geographical information.  In reponse to user request, showing a second web page with more information about a local business on the map.  (Note **1999 priority date** of application.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - User selected information is a **zip code** or location of local businesses are shown with **markers** on the map &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Providing local business information on a website**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Send user a first customized web page which includes **a map** localized to any geographical area specified by user.  Sending a second web page with more information pertaining to businesses on the map (in response to user request).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120284613 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/551,267&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: FAN CHIANG HOLDINGS (presumably an NPE/patent troll)&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/18/1999&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 5/7/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Sending, by a first computing device to a second computing device, a first web page customized based on user selected information and including map information localized to a user selected geographic area; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Responsive to a request for information pertaining to a business indicated on the first web page, sending, by the first computing device to the second computing device, the requested information in the form of a second web page customized based on the business and including information pertaining to the business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Sending a web page customized in any way based on **user selected information** which includes a **map** localized to some geographical area selected by the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. In reponse to the user requesting more information about a business on the web page, Sending a second web page customed with more information pertaining to the business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/18/1999&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming User-entered zip codes and local businesses indicated with map markers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method of providing sequence data to the cloud computing environment&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/BGt49Pl.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120284613&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120284613#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=11%2F18%2F1999" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13863" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5472" RevisionGUID="30d9a548-1149-4db0-ab06-b598f02d184e" CreationDate="2013-11-22T18:11:06.020" UserId="1767" Text="Map information - Providing info about a local business on a webpage (Abra, Inc.) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13864" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5472" RevisionGUID="30d9a548-1149-4db0-ab06-b598f02d184e" CreationDate="2013-11-22T18:11:06.020" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;us20120284613a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5472" RevisionGUID="7857372e-9df3-4aee-884a-acbf586f9355" CreationDate="2013-11-22T18:17:41.393" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Showing information about local businesses on a map on a webpage** - This application from Abra Inc. seeks to patent the idea of...Showing website visitors a map containing information about local businesses! This application is now owned by a presumed patent troll known as &quot;FAN CHIANG HOLDINGS&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/18/1999** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Showing a web page with a map based on user selected geographical information.  In reponse to user request, showing a second web page with more information about a local business on the map.  (Note **1999 priority date** of application.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - User selected information is a **zip code** or location of local businesses are shown with **markers** on the map &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Providing local business information on a website**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Send user a first customized web page which includes **a map** localized to any geographical area specified by user.  Sending a second web page with more information pertaining to businesses on the map (in response to user request).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120284613 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/551,267&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: FAN CHIANG HOLDINGS (presumably an NPE/patent troll)&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/18/1999&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 5/7/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Sending, by a first computing device to a second computing device, a first web page customized based on user selected information and including map information localized to a user selected geographic area; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Responsive to a request for information pertaining to a business indicated on the first web page, sending, by the first computing device to the second computing device, the requested information in the form of a second web page customized based on the business and including information pertaining to the business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Sending a web page customized in any way based on **user selected information** which includes a **map** localized to some geographical area selected by the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. In reponse to the user requesting more information about a business on the web page, Sending a second web page customed with more information pertaining to the business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/18/1999&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming User-entered zip codes and local businesses indicated with map markers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method of providing sequence data to the cloud computing environment&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/BGt49Pl.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120284613&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120284613#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=11%2F18%2F1999" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13866" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5472" RevisionGUID="7857372e-9df3-4aee-884a-acbf586f9355" CreationDate="2013-11-22T18:17:41.393" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Map information - Providing info about a local business on a webpage (NPE) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13867" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5472" RevisionGUID="7857372e-9df3-4aee-884a-acbf586f9355" CreationDate="2013-11-22T18:17:41.393" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;npe&gt;&lt;us20120284613a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5477" RevisionGUID="92ce8d8d-1ba3-4b84-8192-e3c159326ed6" CreationDate="2013-11-23T07:32:53.080" UserId="7260" Text="If you released your software to the Open Source Community, you did it under a license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That license grants certain rights which would prevent you from patenting it now.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  You should investigate what license you choose, for instance if you uploaded this project to http://www.github.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5479" RevisionGUID="46441f5e-a195-4002-a49c-97cab37d69d3" CreationDate="2013-11-23T16:35:40.043" UserId="3775" Text="To be granted a patent, an invention is required to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- be novel&#xD;&#xA;- result from an inventive step&#xD;&#xA;- have commercial applicability&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why &quot;novel&quot;? Every inventive step will, necessarily, lead to something &quot;new&quot;, no?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can understand, that not everything that is new, is based on an inventive step." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13890" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5479" RevisionGUID="46441f5e-a195-4002-a49c-97cab37d69d3" CreationDate="2013-11-23T16:35:40.043" UserId="3775" Text="Granting of patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13891" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5479" RevisionGUID="46441f5e-a195-4002-a49c-97cab37d69d3" CreationDate="2013-11-23T16:35:40.043" UserId="3775" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5481" RevisionGUID="456879f6-1b75-45b6-be21-c35b9d1d1856" CreationDate="2013-11-23T21:24:37.280" UserId="3076" Text="The way to think of the criteria is that the test for novelty comes before the test for inventive step (in U.S. this is expressed as &quot;non-obviousness&quot; which is similar but not exactly the same as what most of the rest of the world calls inventive step.) Is it new? Is a clearer question. After you pass that then the harder and more subjective question of obviousness come up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5483" RevisionGUID="38a12d5d-f6cf-496c-8170-38428762501f" CreationDate="2013-11-24T01:18:54.243" UserId="5843" Text="Central to my invention is a process that runs on a computer, generating routing information, which is sent to vehicles for efficient carriage of persons or cargo. &#xD;&#xA;While the people or cargo will be carried locally (say, in New York City), the computer running the algorithm could technically be anywhere. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will my US patent prevent someone from putting a server with an infringing method somewhere outside of the US, selling transportation in the US that uses routes generated on that server, and avoiding technical infringement of my US patent on the grounds that the method is not running in the US?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13899" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5483" RevisionGUID="38a12d5d-f6cf-496c-8170-38428762501f" CreationDate="2013-11-24T01:18:54.243" UserId="5843" Text="Do I need international protection for a computerized method?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13900" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5483" RevisionGUID="38a12d5d-f6cf-496c-8170-38428762501f" CreationDate="2013-11-24T01:18:54.243" UserId="5843" Text="&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5484" RevisionGUID="99591cb5-819b-4632-b455-d4513982f2fd" CreationDate="2013-11-24T08:13:55.587" UserId="3076" Text="Patenting in lots of foreign places does solve the problem because there are so many foreign countries. The bad guys just need one where you don't have a patent or where patented aren't enforced. The solution is &quot;inferential claiming&quot;. Step 1, sending by a client the following data; step 2 receiving from a remote server a result that has done the following transfermation on the data; step three dispatching vehicles based on the recieved data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The positively recited steps: sending, receiving and dispatching are done in the US. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5484" RevisionGUID="d8e139f5-bafc-45a1-9c99-6f9d11e74d4b" CreationDate="2013-11-24T08:49:34.180" UserId="3076" Comment="added 234 characters in body" Text="Patenting in lots of foreign places does *not* solve the problem because there are so many foreign countries. The bad guys just need one where you don't have a patent or where patents aren't enforced. The solution is &quot;inferential claiming&quot;. Step 1, sending by a client the following data to a server; step 2 receiving from the server a result that was created by the following actions being performed on the sent data; step three dispatching vehicles based on the recieved data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The positively recited steps: sending, receiving and dispatching are all done in the US. Now, you still need to establish that the received data was created according to whatever you have in the claim but none of the steps performed by the server are an actual element of the claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5454" RevisionGUID="cc7a5f7b-f821-47f1-ada3-74325efafa77" CreationDate="2013-11-24T13:26:51.357" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" Visualizing total order relation of nodes in a structured document&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;IBM&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;prior request for http://www.google.com/patents/US20120137209&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, system, and a computer readable storage medium for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; visualizing total order relation of nodes included in structured&#xD;&#xA;&gt; document, the method includes the steps of: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;acquiring log information,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; where the log information is created by storing information on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transitions between nodes in a structured document in chronological&#xD;&#xA;&gt; order; &lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;specifying a relation of relative positions of the nodes in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transitions based on acquired log information; and &lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;determining a total&#xD;&#xA;&gt; order relation of the nodes in the structured document by performing a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; topological sorting that uses specified relation as a constraint,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; where the total order relation of the nodes is determined by using&#xD;&#xA;&gt; content data of said node if the node is added to or removed from the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; structured document; and where at least one of the steps is carried&#xD;&#xA;&gt; out using a computer device." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13910" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5472" RevisionGUID="19619876-f912-46e7-a459-d55c3b0bcfcf" CreationDate="2013-11-24T17:19:08.810" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Showing information about local businesses on a map on a webpage** - This application from Abra Inc. seeks to patent the idea of...Showing website visitors a map containing information about local businesses! This application is now owned by a presumed patent troll known as &quot;FAN CHIANG HOLDINGS&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/18/1999** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Showing a web page with a map based on user selected geographical information.  In reponse to user request, showing a second web page with more information about a local business on the map.  (Note **1999 priority date** of application.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - User selected information is a **zip code** or location of local businesses are shown with **markers** on the map &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Providing local business information on a website**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Send user a first customized web page which includes **a map** localized to any geographical area specified by user.  Sending a second web page with more information pertaining to businesses on the map (in response to user request).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120284613 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/551,267&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: FAN CHIANG HOLDINGS (presumably an NPE/patent troll)&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/18/1999&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 5/7/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Sending, by a first computing device to a second computing device, a first web page customized based on user selected information and including map information localized to a user selected geographic area; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Responsive to a request for information pertaining to a business indicated on the first web page, sending, by the first computing device to the second computing device, the requested information in the form of a second web page customized based on the business and including information pertaining to the business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Sending a web page customized in any way based on **user selected information** which includes a **map** localized to some geographical area selected by the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. In reponse to the user requesting more information about a business on the web page, Sending a second web page customed with more information pertaining to the business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/18/1999&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming User-entered zip codes and local businesses indicated with map markers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method of providing sequence data to the cloud computing environment&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/BGt49Pl.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120284613&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120284613#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=11%2F18%2F1999" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5463" RevisionGUID="84666460-0f26-47b3-a982-03e2c32c4785" CreationDate="2013-11-24T21:00:25.793" UserId="7197" Comment="&quot;Non-infringement&quot; is  a &quot;non-affirmative&quot; defense" Text="**This question might be rather academic**. It is about patent litigation which is related to the US patent system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a patent owner thinks, his patent is being infringed, the patent owner may choose to sue the infringing party to stop his or her activities, as well as to receive compensation for the unauthorized use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To initiate litigation, patent owner must file a complaint, listing the alleged infringer, the patent(s) allegedly infringed, the infringing products and request relief. This is as simple as filling out [Form 18][1] provided by the US courts and filing it with a district court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The defendant responds to the plaintiff's complaint by preparing an answer denying the allegations asserted against it, **stating defenses** to each claim asserted against it and usually asserting counterclaims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Common **defenses** are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted.&#xD;&#xA; - the **products do not infringe** the patents-in-suit ([35 USC §282(b)][2])&#xD;&#xA; - the patents-in-suit are invalid&#xD;&#xA; - laches&#xD;&#xA; - [...and others...][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [FRCP rule 8][4], there are **&quot;defenses&quot;** and **&quot;affirmative defenses&quot;**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Affirmative defenses in nature admit the claims asserted by plaintiff but provide other facts which defeat or mitigate the legal consequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many answers to complaints where all defenses are listed in a section titled &quot;affirmative defenses&quot;, also the non-infrigement defense e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://essentialpatentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Samsung-Answer-to-Ericsson-Complaint.pdf&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.speakforyourself.org/uploads/4-23-12_Answer_and__Counterclaims_to_Plaintiffs__Complaint_for_Patent_Infringement.pdf&#xD;&#xA; - http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/4:2009cv05718/222877/18/0.pdf&#xD;&#xA; - http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/2:2007cv00432/105705/44&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how can asserting &quot;non-infringement&quot; be an affirmative defense when the cause of action is infringement?  &quot;Non-infringement&quot; is a defense, but a &quot;non-affirmative&quot; defense in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/Rules/Usable_Rules_Forms_Civil/CIV18-Complaint_for_Patent_Infringement.rtf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/282&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/09/not-much-left-of-googles-20-affirmative.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5124" RevisionGUID="cd20dfa3-7db9-4c4d-b316-bc762dffb5a8" CreationDate="2013-11-25T06:51:20.583" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Since you didn't apply for anything back then you do not have any particular rights. All you have is knowledge of something in the public domain that might be used to show someone's patent is invalid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can document what you had, possibly by the wayback machine, and you studied  the history of specific patents you might conclude you have killer prior art and have something valuable to anyone whom those patents are trying to be enforced against. I would think it is only valuable if it is dead-on and hard to find. One problem is it is hard to see how you demonstrate its value without giving away its value. It is only prior art if it is published (on the web will do). If it is published and findable they do not need you. After you approach them with a proposition backed up by evidence it will become very easy to find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not an attorney but I wonder if contacting a patent owner and saying &quot;pay me or I will publicize  my prior art&quot; is considered proposing a legitimate  business relationship or something underhanded. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13923" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5489" RevisionGUID="d91b4dcf-e6e2-454a-9eec-507319553cdc" CreationDate="2013-11-25T12:20:10.310" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://stackoverflow.com/questions/20190444/can-this-patent-on-smartphone-app-stop-me" />
  <row Id="13924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5489" RevisionGUID="f88b5910-9220-498e-bd57-9fbd3dd97d5e" CreationDate="2013-11-25T10:58:34.253" UserId="7271" Text="I developed a software system that comprises an app for smartphones, one for tablets and a central server that manages the communications between all the instances of them. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I did a research and found out that a company already requested to the PCT an international patent for a system that does exactly the same of what mine is intended to.&#xD;&#xA;This patent has claims regarding what this system is used for (the IDEA), describing the architecture (central server connected to apps for smartphones and tablets and printers) and technology used for it (basic IP, XMPP, Push).&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    Can this patent (I am not sure this is been approved or not) can actually causes me legal problems when I will sell my system? &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I ask this since I don't see any technological innovation, only an innovative idea.&#xD;&#xA;I intend to sell in the EU first and then worldwide (if it works of course!!!)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for your help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13925" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5489" RevisionGUID="f88b5910-9220-498e-bd57-9fbd3dd97d5e" CreationDate="2013-11-25T10:58:34.253" UserId="7271" Text="can this patent on smartphone app stop me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13926" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5489" RevisionGUID="f88b5910-9220-498e-bd57-9fbd3dd97d5e" CreationDate="2013-11-25T10:58:34.253" UserId="7271" Text="&lt;android&gt;&lt;ios&gt;&lt;intellectual-property&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5472" RevisionGUID="1a5a9148-a982-48be-8474-c8d64748612e" CreationDate="2013-11-25T19:22:33.853" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Showing information about local businesses on a map on a webpage** - This application from Abra Inc. seeks to patent the idea of...Showing website visitors a map containing information about local businesses! This application is now owned by a presumed patent troll known as &quot;FAN CHIANG HOLDINGS&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/18/1999** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Showing a web page with a map based on user selected geographical information.  In reponse to user request, showing a second web page with more information about a local business on the map.  (Note **1999 priority date** of application.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - User selected information is a **zip code** or location of local businesses are shown with **markers** on the map &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Providing local business information on a website**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Send user a first customized web page which includes **a map** localized to any geographical area specified by user.  Sending a second web page with more information pertaining to businesses on the map (in response to user request).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120284613 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/551,267&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: FAN CHIANG HOLDINGS (presumably an NPE/patent troll)&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/18/1999&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 5/7/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Sending, by a first computing device to a second computing device, a first web page customized based on user selected information and including map information localized to a user selected geographic area; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Responsive to a request for information pertaining to a business indicated on the first web page, sending, by the first computing device to the second computing device, the requested information in the form of a second web page customized based on the business and including information pertaining to the business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Sending a web page customized in any way based on **user selected information** which includes a **map** localized to some geographical area selected by the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. In reponse to the user requesting more information about a business on the web page, Sending a second web page customed with more information pertaining to the business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/18/1999&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming User-entered zip codes and local businesses indicated with map markers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method of providing sequence data to the cloud computing environment&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/BGt49Pl.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120284613&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120284613#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=11%2F18%2F1999" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13933" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5454" RevisionGUID="7d048b5b-10d1-463b-97b9-54e8523845d8" CreationDate="2013-11-25T19:22:51.133" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Visualizing total order relation of nodes in a structured document&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;IBM&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;prior request for http://www.google.com/patents/US20120137209&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, system, and a computer readable storage medium for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; visualizing total order relation of nodes included in structured&#xD;&#xA;&gt; document, the method includes the steps of: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;acquiring log information,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; where the log information is created by storing information on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transitions between nodes in a structured document in chronological&#xD;&#xA;&gt; order; &lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;specifying a relation of relative positions of the nodes in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transitions based on acquired log information; and &lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;determining a total&#xD;&#xA;&gt; order relation of the nodes in the structured document by performing a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; topological sorting that uses specified relation as a constraint,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; where the total order relation of the nodes is determined by using&#xD;&#xA;&gt; content data of said node if the node is added to or removed from the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; structured document; and where at least one of the steps is carried&#xD;&#xA;&gt; out using a computer device." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13946" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5472" RevisionGUID="519e136e-8fe3-45c3-8238-e98be78aa45c" CreationDate="2013-11-26T13:40:51.977" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Showing information about local businesses on a map on a webpage** - This application from Abra Inc. seeks to patent the idea of...Showing website visitors a map containing information about local businesses! This application is now owned by a presumed patent troll known as &quot;FAN CHIANG HOLDINGS&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/18/1999** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Showing a web page with a map based on user selected geographical information.  In reponse to user request, showing a second web page with more information about a local business on the map.  (Note **1999 priority date** of application.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - User selected information is a **zip code** or location of local businesses are shown with **markers** on the map &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Providing local business information on a website**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Send user a first customized web page which includes **a map** localized to any geographical area specified by user.  Sending a second web page with more information pertaining to businesses on the map (in response to user request).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120284613 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/551,267&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: FAN CHIANG HOLDINGS (presumably an NPE/patent troll)&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/18/1999&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 5/7/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Sending, by a first computing device to a second computing device, a first web page customized based on user selected information and including map information localized to a user selected geographic area; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Responsive to a request for information pertaining to a business indicated on the first web page, sending, by the first computing device to the second computing device, the requested information in the form of a second web page customized based on the business and including information pertaining to the business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Sending a web page customized in any way based on **user selected information** which includes a **map** localized to some geographical area selected by the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. In reponse to the user requesting more information about a business on the web page, Sending a second web page customed with more information pertaining to the business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/18/1999&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming User-entered zip codes and local businesses indicated with map markers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method of providing sequence data to the cloud computing environment&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/BGt49Pl.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120284613&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120284613#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=11%2F18%2F1999" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5484" RevisionGUID="b62ea63d-e7bd-49de-882e-eaf7a354230d" CreationDate="2013-11-26T18:14:17.157" UserId="3076" Comment="added 297 characters in body" Text="Patenting in lots of foreign places does *not* solve the problem because there are so many foreign countries. The bad guys just need one where you don't have a patent or where patents aren't enforced. The solution is &quot;inferential claiming&quot;. Step 1, sending by a client the following data to a server; step 2 receiving from the server a result that was created by the following actions being performed on the sent data; step three dispatching vehicles based on the recieved data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The positively recited steps: sending, receiving and dispatching are all done in the US. Now, you still need to establish that the received data was created according to whatever you have in the claim but none of the steps performed by the server are an actual element of the claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims can be amended so if you get them way off someone could help you later even after many rejections, continuations, etc. However no new matter can be added after filing so I would concentrate on a great specification rather than twisting your mind around convoluted claim wording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5495" RevisionGUID="ba3d0670-3223-4f4e-9155-b0d95317fb11" CreationDate="2013-11-26T18:17:11.387" UserId="2029" Text="Let's say I want to launch a product A in the US. It looks like many troll lawsuits are filed in the Eastern District of Texas and unfortunately many of them are won and then overturned on appeal by which time hundreds of thousands of dollars and months/years have been wasted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if I didn't sell or advertise the product to Texas entirely and absorbed the loss in revenue? Something like &quot;Not for sale in TX&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it still be possible for a suit to be brought in TX if no product was ever sold there (hence no infringement happened there?), and are there any other legal ramifications?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13954" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5495" RevisionGUID="ba3d0670-3223-4f4e-9155-b0d95317fb11" CreationDate="2013-11-26T18:17:11.387" UserId="2029" Text="Is the following method a valid way to dodge some patent trolls?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13955" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5495" RevisionGUID="ba3d0670-3223-4f4e-9155-b0d95317fb11" CreationDate="2013-11-26T18:17:11.387" UserId="2029" Text="&lt;npe&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5496" RevisionGUID="e17f047f-259e-49e2-a8f8-0e2795724e78" CreationDate="2013-11-26T18:34:55.440" UserId="7289" Text="What is the average length of time for a utility patent to be approved?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13957" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5496" RevisionGUID="e17f047f-259e-49e2-a8f8-0e2795724e78" CreationDate="2013-11-26T18:34:55.440" UserId="7289" Text="What is the average time for a utility patent to be approved?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13958" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5496" RevisionGUID="e17f047f-259e-49e2-a8f8-0e2795724e78" CreationDate="2013-11-26T18:34:55.440" UserId="7289" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5498" RevisionGUID="c53d573f-1e2b-4022-94e7-9d12d503db7e" CreationDate="2013-11-26T21:19:15.567" UserId="2029" Text="The USPTO says in its FAQ from 2003 (http://www.uspto.gov/main/faq/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**--&#xD;&#xA;Currently, the average patent application pendency is 24.6 months. Applications received in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are numbered in sequential order and the applicant will be informed within eight weeks of the application number and official filing date if filed in paper.  If filed electronically, the application number is available within minutes.&#xD;&#xA;--**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So just over two years - that said, I am willing to bet the variance is much higher since some patents can be quickly approved while others might need several back-and-forths with USPTO before they are. We had a few pending in our org in software and they were all 4-5 years old and still being discussed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5500" RevisionGUID="93525bde-99ff-48ae-a5f7-cfe506aca0dc" CreationDate="2013-11-27T01:55:24.977" UserId="3076" Text="I am pasting a chart from a [posting][1] on the PatentlyO blog from this year showing the rise and fall of the average pendency. There is also data available by Technology Center. Pendency is from filing to either abandonment or issue. The time to allowance would be less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/03/average-pendency-of-us-patent-applications.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/eKVxu.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5501" RevisionGUID="5ce70cc3-98b8-4213-9622-fbda3e2f155e" CreationDate="2013-11-27T04:32:58.327" UserId="7291" Text="[US 2013/0078073][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a gantry for a 3d printer. It uses what is commonly referred to as an H-Bot configuration. It was filed Sep.23, 2011. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A simple Google search with the term H-Bot from 2009-2010 will reveal sites, videos and other info for the -exact- same mechanical setup. For example here(dated Oct 29, 2009): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Rockwell automation catalogue][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The H-bot gantry is essentially what is called a Cartesian robot, and Cartesian robots are a building block of many robots including but not limited to CNC machines, laser cutters and similar. The only difference here is that a known component is placed into a 3d printer instead of a CNC machine or other similar robot.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would love to make a call for prior art, but I would like to hear thoughts from people who know more about the patent system first. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.faqs.org/patents/imgfull/20130078073_01&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.rockwellautomation.dk/applications/gs/emea/GSDK.nsf/files/au_dk_09_material/$file/HW_T5PPT.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13973" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5501" RevisionGUID="5ce70cc3-98b8-4213-9622-fbda3e2f155e" CreationDate="2013-11-27T04:32:58.327" UserId="7291" Text="How was this eligible for a patent? US 2013/0078073" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13974" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5501" RevisionGUID="5ce70cc3-98b8-4213-9622-fbda3e2f155e" CreationDate="2013-11-27T04:32:58.327" UserId="7291" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;3d-printing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5502" RevisionGUID="3c9c08db-4f69-463d-96f6-c1f3fbd29da4" CreationDate="2013-11-27T05:22:00.277" UserId="2029" Text="I'm not a lawyer but I know a bit about 3D printing (this isn't legal advice :) )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's still a patent application so it's not approved yet and we don't know whether any of the claims will be accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're right that the H-bit you show in that catalogue looks a lot like it, and given it was being used on a CNC which is &quot;subtractive manufacturing&quot;, I doubt that using it in a 3D printer which is &quot;additive manufacturing&quot; can really be considered novel or unobvious but who knows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's a little surprising is that this is Stratasys which is a major player in 3D printing, who I'm sure would know about the H-configuration, yet their prior art references is a little on the short side and seems to not mention any existing such configurations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're allowed to submit 3 pieces of prior art for free against that application (here are some easy instructions: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/questions/105/i-want-to-make-a-difference-how-can-i-submit-prior-art-to-the-patent-office). I'd say pick the best 3 that a USPTO examiner can understand and just do it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5503" RevisionGUID="19ffbb37-53ae-45c7-8a08-0365eeb0cbf8" CreationDate="2013-11-27T05:40:36.067" UserId="5843" Text="I am writing a claim in which I want to define an object, which is similar to (yet ever so slightly different from) many other like objects. I am doing it like this:&quot;...designating one of said framzits within a collection of one or more of said framzits as superior to other framzits in said collection, ***such a framzit hereinafter labeled a superior framzit,*** and ..[blah, blah] .. utilizing said ***superior framzit*** to club said seal pup or seal pups to death ...&quot; (or whatever). Is my little definition-in-line there legit, and if not, what else can I use? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13977" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5503" RevisionGUID="19ffbb37-53ae-45c7-8a08-0365eeb0cbf8" CreationDate="2013-11-27T05:40:36.067" UserId="5843" Text="Language in claim:definition" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13978" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5503" RevisionGUID="19ffbb37-53ae-45c7-8a08-0365eeb0cbf8" CreationDate="2013-11-27T05:40:36.067" UserId="5843" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;definitions&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5504" RevisionGUID="c3b6b061-17a8-4fc6-ae1e-00788b8bcec3" CreationDate="2013-11-27T06:09:55.003" UserId="7292" Text="In 1999 I did some brief consulting work for the company where2getit.com.  Their product was(is) a web application that allows people to locate stores close to their location.  Users can search by address and it would display stores on a map close to their location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The company and product were created around 1997!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.where2getit.com/about/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately the way back machine does not have any captures of their site prior to '99" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5504" RevisionGUID="ef5a2272-4a4b-4b3c-a0df-a49b89fbd2b3" CreationDate="2013-11-27T06:28:40.060" UserId="7292" Comment="added additional link to business locator tool." Text="In 1999 I did some brief consulting work for the company where2getit.com.  Their product was(is) a web application that allows people to locate stores close to their location.  Users can search by address and it would display stores on a map close to their location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The company and product were created around 1997!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.where2getit.com/about/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.where2getit.com/solutions/business-locator/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately the way back machine does not have any captures of their site prior to '99" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5505" RevisionGUID="250884a2-189b-48d9-93d3-b2172ac43652" CreationDate="2013-11-27T10:26:18.927" UserId="3775" Text="Can I patent a machine that stores electric charge in multiple capacitors each being addressed by a transistor on a chip in a specified way leading to a predefined current output? In other words, is it conceivable to patent software by defining it through the electric charge that is being stored in the memory components? I guess to completely disclose the invention, I then would need to provide details on how I measure the charge in each capacitor. But if it was possible to do that, which it is, could software be patented that way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a side note, what does it mean when it is said that software is not patentable &quot;as such&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13982" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5505" RevisionGUID="250884a2-189b-48d9-93d3-b2172ac43652" CreationDate="2013-11-27T10:26:18.927" UserId="3775" Text="Patent for a machine that stores electric charge in a capacitor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13983" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5505" RevisionGUID="250884a2-189b-48d9-93d3-b2172ac43652" CreationDate="2013-11-27T10:26:18.927" UserId="3775" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13984" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5501" RevisionGUID="248d9a05-13b5-4421-92e4-23a4ebd9ff03" CreationDate="2013-11-27T13:39:10.757" UserId="1259" Comment="tag with patent no" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;3d-printing&gt;&lt;us20130078073&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5506" RevisionGUID="f0ae2c21-c029-41bb-bf1b-29fd46ee9abd" CreationDate="2013-11-27T16:03:42.373" UserId="4922" Text="As George White says, this might not constitute prior art, if it was not *published* in some way before the priority date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it might be possible to make it serve as evidence of &quot;**obviousness** to a person skilled in the art&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is different from an argument against &quot;novelty&quot;, and involves a different requirement of the patent statute.  My impression is, however, that this is not as useful an argument as prior art would be - it is more difficult to argue.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5501" RevisionGUID="2d1085d1-1c71-4861-96a3-557c524c7a99" CreationDate="2013-11-27T17:32:34.817" UserId="3076" Comment="added claim 1" Text="[US 2013/0078073][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a gantry for a 3d printer. It uses what is commonly referred to as an H-Bot configuration. It was filed Sep.23, 2011. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A simple Google search with the term H-Bot from 2009-2010 will reveal sites, videos and other info for the -exact- same mechanical setup. For example here(dated Oct 29, 2009): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Rockwell automation catalogue][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The H-bot gantry is essentially what is called a Cartesian robot, and Cartesian robots are a building block of many robots including but not limited to CNC machines, laser cutters and similar. The only difference here is that a known component is placed into a 3d printer instead of a CNC machine or other similar robot.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would love to make a call for prior art, but I would like to hear thoughts from people who know more about the patent system first. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.faqs.org/patents/imgfull/20130078073_01&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.rockwellautomation.dk/applications/gs/emea/GSDK.nsf/files/au_dk_09_material/$file/HW_T5PPT.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 of the application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A gantry assembly comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a first bearing shaft extending along a first axis;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a carriage slidably engaged with the first bearing shaft;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a second bearing shaft operably supported by the carriage, the second bearing shaft extending along a second axis that defines a plane with the first axis;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a tool-head mount slidably engaged with the second bearing shaft;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a drive belt secured to the tool-head mount;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a first motor having a first drive shaft engaged with the drive belt; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a second motor having a second drive shaft engaged with the drive belt, wherein the first motor and the second motor are configured to operate independently to rotate the drive belt in manners that move the carriage along the first bearing shaft and that move the head-tool mount along the second bearing shaft based on relative rotational directions and rotational rates between the first drive shaft and the second drive shaft, so as to allow movement of the tool-head mount to any coordinate location within the plane, wherein the gantry assembly is configured to reduce pivoting of the carriage in the plane." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5509" RevisionGUID="fbd978f8-df0e-4f52-b668-4f743a85f9a4" CreationDate="2013-11-27T21:54:13.960" UserId="4922" Text="There are really two questions in here, but I think I can answer them both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, the device you describe is commonly known as a Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) and is a standard part of a modern computer - and has been for the past 25 years or more.  Using one to store software is not novel in the slightest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a novel way of *making* a DRAM, then that is a hardware invention and could be patented quite legitimately.  Such a patent would be totally independent of any use it would be put to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your second question, I would refer you to [these articles][1] which were written by some exceptionally knowledgeable and articulate people.  The short version is: software is mathematics, and mathematics is not patentable subject matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=Patents2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5510" RevisionGUID="309b5328-d1d1-45a9-9807-84af2563ec00" CreationDate="2013-11-27T23:38:55.513" UserId="3076" Text="First, many many so-called software patents are issued every week by the USPTO. Exactly what falls under the term software patent is unclear. All the way up to the Supreme Court the system can't draw a clear line between what is abstract (and thus unpatentable) and what is non-abstract in computer-implemented inventions. In practice software based systems that do non-trivial things that are claimed in terms of a computer system *configured* (i.e. Programmed) to do the following or a method carried out by a computer with a processor doing something way outside of what a human could practically do with pencil and paper are patented all the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long before the courts acknowledged software patenting, people were patenting systems described in terms of hardware that could be also implemented in software. You do not need to go to the level of charge on capacitors. An electronic system that takes in the following input, does X and Y and Y on the input and outputs A, B, C&quot; could be made of pure hardware, could be made with a set of interconnected micro controllers (running firmware) or could be made on a general purpose computer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13993" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5510" RevisionGUID="4a62139e-b8d6-4c82-9401-3d2c3a92f5a7" CreationDate="2013-11-27T23:51:18.970" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="First, many many so-called software patents are issued every week by the USPTO. Exactly what falls under the term software patent is unclear. All the way up to the Supreme Court the system can't draw a clear line between what is abstract (and thus unpatentable) and what is non-abstract in computer-implemented inventions. In practice software based systems that do non-trivial things that are claimed in terms of a computer system *configured* (i.e. Programmed) to do the following or a method carried out by a computer with a processor doing something way outside of what a human could practically do with pencil and paper are patented all the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long before the courts acknowledged software patenting, people were patenting systems described in terms of hardware that could be also implemented in software. You do not need to go to the level of charge on capacitors. &quot;An electronic system that takes in the following input, does X and Y and Y on the input and outputs A, B, C&quot; could be made of pure hardware, could be made with a set of interconnected micro controllers (running firmware) or could be made on a general purpose computer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5512" RevisionGUID="0bbf6986-468d-4298-baf6-f3bb613ea1a9" CreationDate="2013-11-29T03:02:01.693" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON the display of contextually relevant communications based on viewer information and weather information.** - This application from [Weatheralpha, Llc][6] seeks to patent the idea of...dynamically selecting, rotating or altering digital advertisements based on constantly changing weather conditions, thereby allowing advertisers to include weather specific details and improve the contextual accuracy in targeting such advertisements! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 10/5/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Analyzing viewer information and weather information to adjust display of contextually relevant digital communications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - **Weather information** pertaining to current, forecasted, or past atmospheric and **environmental conditions** affecting the viewer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: **Method of targeting contextually relevant digital communication based on weather conditions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Automatically receiving **geolocation information** of a viewer's location, receiving **weather data** relevant to the viewer's location, analysing the **weather data** to identify a **weather condition**, accessing a database multiple available advertisements assigned to the **weather condition**, and selecting a **digital communication** associated with the identified **weather condition** based on the viewer's preference. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20120290372A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/555,494&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Weatheralpha, Llc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 10/5/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 5/14/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A computerized method of analyzing weather data to improve the selection of contextually relevant communication, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving passive geolocation information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving weather data relevant to the location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Analyzing the weather data to identify a weather condition;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Accessing a database containing a plurality of available advertisements assigned to weather conditions; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Selecting a communication associated with the identified weather condition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A computerized method of analyzing weather data to improve the selection of contextually relevant communication, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Automatically receiving geolocation information of a viewer's location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving weather data relevant to the viewer's location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Analyzing the weather data to identify a weather condition;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Accessing a database containing multiple available advertisements assigned to weather conditions; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Selecting a communication associated with the identified weather condition based on a viewer's preference. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 10/5/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Weighting weather factor and selecting targeted contextual communications based on rules associated with available digital communication. The selected targeted contextual communications are prioritized based on user preferences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;The advertisement selection process as determined by current weather events&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/MeFpYpK.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120290372&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.weatheralpha.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120290372" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14003" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5512" RevisionGUID="0bbf6986-468d-4298-baf6-f3bb613ea1a9" CreationDate="2013-11-29T03:02:01.693" UserId="1767" Text="Digital communication management system - Targeting contextually relevant communications (Weatheralpha) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14004" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5512" RevisionGUID="0bbf6986-468d-4298-baf6-f3bb613ea1a9" CreationDate="2013-11-29T03:02:01.693" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20120290372&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14005" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5512" RevisionGUID="f5b1daf1-4fda-4c0d-b776-e876b0970691" CreationDate="2013-11-29T03:17:35.317" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;online-advertising&gt;&lt;us20120290372&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5140" RevisionGUID="9b2caafc-eee0-4ce7-8e41-61419c8f0047" CreationDate="2013-11-29T07:47:27.383" UserId="3076" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="First, do not use words like &quot;mathematical&quot; in a patent application. There can be a fine line between what is considered a mere mathematical manipulation (not patentable subject matter) and what is a specific, tangible use of a mathematical  expression. How it is worded can impart a flavor that swings it one way or the other. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You do not need to write a program but you do need to explain your invention at a level of detail that someone could make and use it. Both lower level and higher level things can be patented. A process of purifying silicon for use in making integrated circuits, a process for using silicon to make IC's in general, the design of a specific IC, and using that IC in a particular circuit for a particular end use, are all patentable. Of course, whatever you are doing must be new and non-obvious to be patentable. And, in order to be worth patenting, should be something that provides value to a user in a way that is not easy to get around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If sorting alphabetically for rapid location by binary search is already known, and hyper-threaded CPUs have just been invented, maybe the world needs a new multithreaded sorting technique.  On the other hand, you might have &quot;big picture&quot; invention and the details of the various aspects of implementation are well known. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A danger of claiming at a high a level is that it seems abstract; a danger of claiming at a low level is there will be more than one way to do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5514" RevisionGUID="cec86467-1e37-4f70-bcda-cae6cd0abc73" CreationDate="2013-11-29T13:26:51.567" UserId="7305" Text="Ex: Apparatus and methods for automated observation of objects (US 5351078 A) calls for the patenting of &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Apparatus and methods are disclosed for automatically inspecting two- or three-dimensional objects or subjects. A detector and the object are moved relative to each other. In one form, a detector, such as a camera or radiation receiver, moves around an object, which is supported to be rotatable such that the detector may receive electromagnetic energy signals from the object from a variety of angles. The energy may be directed as a beam at and reflected from the object, as for visible light, or passed through the object, as for x-ray radiation. Alternatively, the detector passively receives energy from the object, as in an infrared detector. The detector generates analog image signals resulting from the detected radiation, and an electronic computer process and analyzes the analog signals and generates digital codes, which may be stored or employed to control a display.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can we fix the patent office to stop granting such non-innovative and all-encompassing patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14012" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5514" RevisionGUID="cec86467-1e37-4f70-bcda-cae6cd0abc73" CreationDate="2013-11-29T13:26:51.567" UserId="7305" Text="How can we fix the patent office to stop granting such non-innovative and all-encompassing patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14013" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5514" RevisionGUID="cec86467-1e37-4f70-bcda-cae6cd0abc73" CreationDate="2013-11-29T13:26:51.567" UserId="7305" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14014" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5514" RevisionGUID="439ed93e-8d34-44fe-bb65-cacd3274c5a0" CreationDate="2013-11-29T13:59:32.730" UserId="1767" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1767,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Micah Siegel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="14015" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="5514" RevisionGUID="b205c77b-3783-45ce-a14e-f1d1436bc6fe" CreationDate="2013-11-29T14:00:46.783" UserId="1767" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1767,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Micah Siegel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="14016" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5514" RevisionGUID="e0b14676-65ff-4efe-a609-836c5e9d63c8" CreationDate="2013-11-29T14:00:53.720" UserId="1767" Comment="105" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1767,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Micah Siegel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="14017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5514" RevisionGUID="310e3153-8500-4bca-87a9-98ffe4f0d795" CreationDate="2013-11-29T18:30:06.647" UserId="3076" Comment="Added claim1" Text="Ex: Apparatus and methods for automated observation of objects (US 5351078 A) calls for the patenting of &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Apparatus and methods are disclosed for automatically inspecting two- or three-dimensional objects or subjects. A detector and the object are moved relative to each other. In one form, a detector, such as a camera or radiation receiver, moves around an object, which is supported to be rotatable such that the detector may receive electromagnetic energy signals from the object from a variety of angles. The energy may be directed as a beam at and reflected from the object, as for visible light, or passed through the object, as for x-ray radiation. Alternatively, the detector passively receives energy from the object, as in an infrared detector. The detector generates analog image signals resulting from the detected radiation, and an electronic computer process and analyzes the analog signals and generates digital codes, which may be stored or employed to control a display.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can we fix the patent office to stop granting such non-innovative and all-encompassing patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for automatically observing objects comprising:&#xD;&#xA;(a) supporting an object at an observation station, and employing an imaging device to control the positioning of said object relative to the observation station;&#xD;&#xA;(b) causing the object to modulate electromagnetic energy signals;&#xD;&#xA;(c) detecting electromagnetic energy signals modulated by a first portion of said object;&#xD;&#xA;(d) detecting electromagnetic energy signals modulated by a second portion of said object;&#xD;&#xA;(e) computer-processing the detected energy signals and generating and storing electronic image signals representing a physical characteristic of the object;&#xD;&#xA;(f) computer-analyzing the stored image signals and generating code signals representing further physical characteristics of the object; and&#xD;&#xA;(g) storing a plurality of command control signals at selectable locations of a signal storage device, and reproducing and using selected of said stored command control signals to control at least one of the positioning, detecting, computer-processing, and computer-analyzing acts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5514" RevisionGUID="a7d4c0ee-b633-44dd-aebb-ea125d59799b" CreationDate="2013-11-29T18:35:22.190" UserId="3076" Comment="Added claim1" Text="Ex: Apparatus and methods for automated observation of objects (US 5351078 A) has the following abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Apparatus and methods are disclosed for automatically inspecting two- or three-dimensional objects or subjects. A detector and the object are moved relative to each other. In one form, a detector, such as a camera or radiation receiver, moves around an object, which is supported to be rotatable such that the detector may receive electromagnetic energy signals from the object from a variety of angles. The energy may be directed as a beam at and reflected from the object, as for visible light, or passed through the object, as for x-ray radiation. Alternatively, the detector passively receives energy from the object, as in an infrared detector. The detector generates analog image signals resulting from the detected radiation, and an electronic computer process and analyzes the analog signals and generates digital codes, which may be stored or employed to control a display.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can we fix the patent office to stop granting such non-innovative and all-encompassing patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for automatically observing objects comprising:&#xD;&#xA;(a) supporting an object at an observation station, and employing an imaging device to control the positioning of said object relative to the observation station;&#xD;&#xA;(b) causing the object to modulate electromagnetic energy signals;&#xD;&#xA;(c) detecting electromagnetic energy signals modulated by a first portion of said object;&#xD;&#xA;(d) detecting electromagnetic energy signals modulated by a second portion of said object;&#xD;&#xA;(e) computer-processing the detected energy signals and generating and storing electronic image signals representing a physical characteristic of the object;&#xD;&#xA;(f) computer-analyzing the stored image signals and generating code signals representing further physical characteristics of the object; and&#xD;&#xA;(g) storing a plurality of command control signals at selectable locations of a signal storage device, and reproducing and using selected of said stored command control signals to control at least one of the positioning, detecting, computer-processing, and computer-analyzing acts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5512" RevisionGUID="95835fb5-bb31-4820-828a-142b92d8f897" CreationDate="2013-11-29T21:52:42.870" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON the display of contextually relevant communications based on viewer information and weather information.** - This application from [Weatheralpha, Llc][6] seeks to patent the idea of...dynamically selecting, rotating or altering digital advertisements based on constantly changing weather conditions, thereby allowing advertisers to include weather specific details and improve the contextual accuracy in targeting such advertisements! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 10/5/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Analyzing viewer information and weather information to adjust display of contextually relevant digital communications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - **Weather information** pertaining to current, forecasted, or past atmospheric and **environmental conditions** affecting the viewer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: **Method of targeting contextually relevant digital communication based on weather conditions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Automatically receiving **geolocation information** of a viewer's location, receiving **weather data** relevant to the viewer's location, analysing the **weather data** to identify a **weather condition**, accessing a database multiple available advertisements assigned to the **weather condition**, and selecting a **digital communication** associated with the identified **weather condition** based on the viewer's preference. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20120290372A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/555,494&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Weatheralpha, Llc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 10/5/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 5/14/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A computerized method of analyzing weather data to improve the selection of contextually relevant communication, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving passive geolocation information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving weather data relevant to the location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Analyzing the weather data to identify a weather condition;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Accessing a database containing a plurality of available advertisements assigned to weather conditions; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Selecting a communication associated with the identified weather condition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A computerized method of analyzing weather data to improve the selection of contextually relevant communication, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Automatically receiving geolocation information of a viewer's location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving weather data relevant to the viewer's location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Analyzing the weather data to identify a weather condition;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Accessing a database containing multiple available advertisements assigned to weather conditions; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Selecting a communication associated with the identified weather condition based on a viewer's preference. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 10/5/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Weighting weather factor and selecting targeted contextual communications based on rules associated with available digital communication. The selected targeted contextual communications are prioritized based on user preferences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;The advertisement selection process as determined by current weather events&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/MeFpYpK.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120290372&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.weatheralpha.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120290372" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5515" RevisionGUID="037493b4-b756-438d-b156-62aa88c8393f" CreationDate="2013-11-29T22:18:49.240" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Targeting promotions based on location of vendors with respect to user's current location.** - This application from [Finnoble Solutions, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying vendors from a user's transaction history, determining a vendor whose location is proximate to the user's current location, and delivering promotions associated with the determined vendor to the user! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/9/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Targeting promotions based on location of vendors with respect to the user's location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Vendors are identified from the **transaction history** of a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Presenting promotions offered by vendors in proximity to a consumer's current location.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying vendors from the **transaction history** of a consumer, determining location of the consumer based on location of the consumer's **mobile device**, identifying a vendor in proximity to the consumer, and presenting promotions offered by the identified vendor on the consumer's **mobile device**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20120290389 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/103,855&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Finnoble Solutions, Inc. / CapitalOne&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/9/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 5/14/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of providing a list of current offers from retailers to a user operating a mobile client device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Analyzing a transaction history of the user to identify a vendor who has transacted with the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining a present geographic location of the user based on a location of the mobile client device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining a location of the vendor proximate the user based on the transaction history and the present geographic location of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Searching for a current promotion offered by the vendor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Facilitating the serving of the current promotion to the user through the mobile client device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing a list of current offers from retailers to consumers operating a mobile device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying vendors who have transacted with the consumer from the consumer's transaction history;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining location of the consumer based on the location of the mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining a vendor in proximity to the user's location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Searching for current promotion offered by the vendor ; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Presenting the current promotion offered by the vendor on the consumer's mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/9/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Matching one or more locations of a vendor with the consumer's location to identify the nearest vendor location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Display of matched offers based on a user's location and transaction history&quot;&quot;&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/y9Jerqn.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120290389&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.bankons.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120290389" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14026" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5515" RevisionGUID="037493b4-b756-438d-b156-62aa88c8393f" CreationDate="2013-11-29T22:18:49.240" UserId="1767" Text="Targeted Promotions - Vendor promotions based on current location (Capital One) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14027" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5515" RevisionGUID="037493b4-b756-438d-b156-62aa88c8393f" CreationDate="2013-11-29T22:18:49.240" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;mobile-phone&gt;&lt;us20120290389&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5515" RevisionGUID="1b4733fa-885b-4262-a30d-6ba9dce062a7" CreationDate="2013-11-29T22:24:09.623" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Targeting promotions based on location of vendors with respect to user's current location.** - This application from [Finnoble Solutions, now Capital One][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying vendors from a user's transaction history, determining a vendor whose location is proximate to the user's current location, and delivering promotions associated with the determined vendor to the user! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/9/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Targeting promotions based on location of vendors with respect to the user's location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Vendors are identified from the **transaction history** of a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Presenting promotions offered by vendors in proximity to a consumer's current location.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying vendors from the **transaction history** of a consumer, determining location of the consumer based on location of the consumer's **mobile device**, identifying a vendor in proximity to the consumer, and presenting promotions offered by the identified vendor on the consumer's **mobile device**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120290389 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/103,855&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Finnoble Solutions, Inc. / CapitalOne&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/9/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 5/14/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of providing a list of current offers from retailers to a user operating a mobile client device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Analyzing a transaction history of the user to identify a vendor who has transacted with the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining a present geographic location of the user based on a location of the mobile client device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining a location of the vendor proximate the user based on the transaction history and the present geographic location of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Searching for a current promotion offered by the vendor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Facilitating the serving of the current promotion to the user through the mobile client device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing a list of current offers from retailers to consumers operating a mobile device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying vendors who have transacted with the consumer from the consumer's transaction history;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining location of the consumer based on the location of the mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining a vendor in proximity to the user's location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Searching for current promotion offered by the vendor ; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Presenting the current promotion offered by the vendor on the consumer's mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/9/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Matching one or more locations of a vendor with the consumer's location to identify the nearest vendor location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Display of matched offers based on a user's location and transaction history&quot;&quot;&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/y9Jerqn.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120290389&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.bankons.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120290389" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5515" RevisionGUID="24d9fb3e-0219-4456-a4fa-d40f6f3188d9" CreationDate="2013-11-29T22:36:21.070" UserId="1767" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Targeting promotions based on location of vendors with respect to user's current location.** - This application from [Finnoble Solutions, now Capital One][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying vendors from a user's transaction history, determining a vendor whose location is proximate to the user's current location, and delivering promotions associated with the determined vendor to the user! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/9/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Targeting promotions based on location of vendors with respect to the user's location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Vendors are identified from the **transaction history** of a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Presenting promotions offered by vendors in proximity to a consumer's current location.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying vendors from the **transaction history** of a consumer, determining location of the consumer based on location of the consumer's **mobile device**, identifying a vendor in proximity to the consumer, and presenting promotions offered by the identified vendor on the consumer's **mobile device**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120290389 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/103,855&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Finnoble Solutions, Inc. / CapitalOne&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/9/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 5/14/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of providing a list of current offers from retailers to a user operating a mobile client device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Analyzing a transaction history of the user to identify a vendor who has transacted with the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining a present geographic location of the user based on a location of the mobile client device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining a location of the vendor proximate the user based on the transaction history and the present geographic location of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Searching for a current promotion offered by the vendor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Transmitting, the current promotion to the user, wherein the transmitted current promotion comprises information related to the transaction history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing a list of current offers from retailers to consumers operating a mobile device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying vendors who have transacted with the consumer from the consumer's transaction history;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining location of the consumer based on the location of the mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining a vendor in proximity to the user's location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Searching for current promotion offered by the vendor ; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Presenting the current promotion offered by the vendor on the consumer's mobile device, where the promotion is related to the user's transaction history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/9/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Matching one or more locations of a vendor with the consumer's location to identify the nearest vendor location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Display of matched offers based on a user's location and transaction history&quot;&quot;&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/y9Jerqn.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120290389&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.bankons.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120290389" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14030" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5515" RevisionGUID="24d9fb3e-0219-4456-a4fa-d40f6f3188d9" CreationDate="2013-11-29T22:36:21.070" UserId="1767" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;mobile-phone&gt;&lt;us20120290389&gt;&lt;capitalone&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5512" RevisionGUID="eb3245e1-934c-4a3e-9906-bbf0c248211d" CreationDate="2013-11-29T23:29:40.970" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON the display of contextually relevant communications based on viewer information and weather information.** - This application from [Weatheralpha, Llc][6] seeks to patent the idea of...dynamically selecting, rotating or altering digital advertisements based on constantly changing weather conditions, thereby allowing advertisers to include weather specific details and improve the contextual accuracy in targeting such advertisements! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 10/5/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Analyzing viewer information and weather information to adjust display of contextually relevant digital communications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - **Weather information** pertaining to current, forecasted, or past atmospheric and **environmental conditions** affecting the viewer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: **Method of targeting contextually relevant digital communication based on weather conditions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Automatically receiving **geolocation information** of a viewer's location, receiving **weather data** relevant to the viewer's location, analysing the **weather data** to identify a **weather condition**, accessing a database multiple available advertisements assigned to the **weather condition**, and selecting a **digital communication** associated with the identified **weather condition** based on the viewer's preference. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20120290372A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/555,494&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Weatheralpha, Llc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 10/5/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 5/14/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A computerized method of analyzing weather data to improve the selection of contextually relevant communication, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving passive geolocation information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving weather data relevant to the location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Analyzing the weather data to identify a weather condition;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Accessing a database containing a plurality of available advertisements assigned to weather conditions; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Selecting a communication associated with the identified weather condition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A computerized method of analyzing weather data to improve the selection of contextually relevant communication, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Automatically receiving geolocation information of a viewer's location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving weather data relevant to the viewer's location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Analyzing the weather data to identify a weather condition;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Accessing a database containing multiple available advertisements assigned to weather conditions; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Selecting a communication associated with the identified weather condition based on a viewer's preference. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 10/5/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Weighting weather factor and selecting targeted contextual communications based on rules associated with available digital communication. The selected targeted contextual communications are prioritized based on user preferences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;The advertisement selection process as determined by current weather events&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/MeFpYpK.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120290372&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.weatheralpha.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120290372" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5515" RevisionGUID="e4864f5b-4616-4ab2-9fc1-c88fb91c21fe" CreationDate="2013-11-29T23:29:53.970" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Targeting promotions based on location of vendors with respect to user's current location.** - This application from [Finnoble Solutions, now Capital One][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying vendors from a user's transaction history, determining a vendor whose location is proximate to the user's current location, and delivering promotions associated with the determined vendor to the user! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/9/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Targeting promotions based on location of vendors with respect to the user's location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Vendors are identified from the **transaction history** of a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Presenting promotions offered by vendors in proximity to a consumer's current location.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying vendors from the **transaction history** of a consumer, determining location of the consumer based on location of the consumer's **mobile device**, identifying a vendor in proximity to the consumer, and presenting promotions offered by the identified vendor on the consumer's **mobile device**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120290389 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/103,855&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Finnoble Solutions, Inc. / CapitalOne&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/9/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 5/14/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of providing a list of current offers from retailers to a user operating a mobile client device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Analyzing a transaction history of the user to identify a vendor who has transacted with the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining a present geographic location of the user based on a location of the mobile client device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining a location of the vendor proximate the user based on the transaction history and the present geographic location of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Searching for a current promotion offered by the vendor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Transmitting, the current promotion to the user, wherein the transmitted current promotion comprises information related to the transaction history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing a list of current offers from retailers to consumers operating a mobile device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying vendors who have transacted with the consumer from the consumer's transaction history;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining location of the consumer based on the location of the mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining a vendor in proximity to the user's location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Searching for current promotion offered by the vendor ; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Presenting the current promotion offered by the vendor on the consumer's mobile device, where the promotion is related to the user's transaction history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/9/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Matching one or more locations of a vendor with the consumer's location to identify the nearest vendor location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Display of matched offers based on a user's location and transaction history&quot;&quot;&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/y9Jerqn.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120290389&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.bankons.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120290389" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5516" RevisionGUID="0be2be90-48ba-4cbe-bf0e-749abf9992be" CreationDate="2013-11-30T02:52:50.613" UserId="5198" Text="No. Patent trolls file in the eastern district of Texas not because the allegedly infringing products are sold there, but because the trolls have their &quot;headquarters&quot; there. If a product is found to be infringing, the decision is enforced nationwide." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5518" RevisionGUID="1c8d58d7-4752-460a-8946-96fc04f31c04" CreationDate="2013-11-30T03:28:18.983" UserId="7308" Text="Foursquare does this, and here's a [mention of it][1] from March of 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This blog post may not be ideal evidence as it doesn't specifically mention the location-based facet of their promotions. [Here's one][2] from 2010 that mentions Foursquare as well as ShopAlerts, and has more technical details about how it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.foursquare.com/2011/03/09/a-whole-new-world-of-specials/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://readwrite.com/2010/08/18/foursquare_for_the_real_world_shopalerts_debuts_geo-fenced_mobile_promotions#awesm=~ooDS8k9oH2nUaF" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5515" RevisionGUID="f921c240-0d44-483b-81bf-eccabe65207d" CreationDate="2013-11-30T17:09:02.593" UserId="1767" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Targeting promotions based on location of vendors with respect to user's current location.** - This application from [Finnoble Solutions, now Capital One][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying vendors from a user's transaction history, determining a vendor whose location is proximate to the user's current location, and delivering promotions associated with the determined vendor to the user! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/9/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Targeting promotions based on location of vendors with respect to the user's location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Vendors are identified from the **transaction history** of a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Presenting promotions offered by vendors in proximity to a consumer's current location.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying vendors from the **transaction history** of a consumer, determining location of the consumer based on location of the consumer's **mobile device**, identifying a vendor in proximity to the consumer, and presenting promotions offered by the identified vendor on the consumer's **mobile device**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120290389 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/103,855&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Finnoble Solutions, Inc. / CapitalOne&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/9/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 5/14/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of providing a list of current offers from retailers to a user operating a mobile client device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Analyzing a transaction history of the user to identify a vendor who has transacted with the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining a present geographic location of the user based on a location of the mobile client device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining a location of the vendor proximate the user based on the transaction history and the present geographic location of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Searching for a current promotion offered by the vendor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Transmitting, the current promotion to the user, wherein the transmitted current promotion comprises information related to the transaction history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing a list of current offers from retailers to consumers operating a mobile device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying vendors who have transacted with the consumer from the consumer's transaction history;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining location of the consumer based on the location of the mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining a vendor in proximity to the user's location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Searching for current promotion offered by the vendor ; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Presenting the current promotion offered by the vendor on the consumer's mobile device, where the promotion is related to the user's transaction history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/9/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Matching one or more locations of a vendor with the consumer's location to identify the nearest vendor location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Display of matched offers based on a user's location and transaction history&quot;&quot;&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/y9Jerqn.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120290389&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.bankons.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120290389" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5512" RevisionGUID="cb61dccb-1047-4de9-bc13-d3b17e5c3680" CreationDate="2013-11-30T17:09:18.563" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON the display of contextually relevant communications based on viewer information and weather information.** - This application from [Weatheralpha, Llc][6] seeks to patent the idea of...dynamically selecting, rotating or altering digital advertisements based on constantly changing weather conditions, thereby allowing advertisers to include weather specific details and improve the contextual accuracy in targeting such advertisements! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 10/5/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Analyzing viewer information and weather information to adjust display of contextually relevant digital communications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - **Weather information** pertaining to current, forecasted, or past atmospheric and **environmental conditions** affecting the viewer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: **Method of targeting contextually relevant digital communication based on weather conditions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Automatically receiving **geolocation information** of a viewer's location, receiving **weather data** relevant to the viewer's location, analysing the **weather data** to identify a **weather condition**, accessing a database multiple available advertisements assigned to the **weather condition**, and selecting a **digital communication** associated with the identified **weather condition** based on the viewer's preference. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20120290372A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/555,494&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Weatheralpha, Llc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 10/5/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 5/14/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A computerized method of analyzing weather data to improve the selection of contextually relevant communication, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving passive geolocation information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving weather data relevant to the location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Analyzing the weather data to identify a weather condition;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Accessing a database containing a plurality of available advertisements assigned to weather conditions; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Selecting a communication associated with the identified weather condition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A computerized method of analyzing weather data to improve the selection of contextually relevant communication, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Automatically receiving geolocation information of a viewer's location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving weather data relevant to the viewer's location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Analyzing the weather data to identify a weather condition;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Accessing a database containing multiple available advertisements assigned to weather conditions; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Selecting a communication associated with the identified weather condition based on a viewer's preference. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 10/5/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Weighting weather factor and selecting targeted contextual communications based on rules associated with available digital communication. The selected targeted contextual communications are prioritized based on user preferences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;The advertisement selection process as determined by current weather events&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/MeFpYpK.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120290372&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.weatheralpha.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120290372" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14044" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="5514" RevisionGUID="82a92752-cb6d-43fc-a93b-a6f6ef4f88b9" CreationDate="2013-11-30T21:56:20.303" UserId="1767" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3076,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George White&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1767,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Micah Siegel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="14046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5520" RevisionGUID="e4b4e66a-70f7-419c-84fe-038c09d83c2d" CreationDate="2013-11-30T23:20:29.420" UserId="7310" Text="Do I have rights as the first co-author of the paper behind the invention (Shan et al PNAS)? This was filed without my knowledge since I left this institution.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14047" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5520" RevisionGUID="e4b4e66a-70f7-419c-84fe-038c09d83c2d" CreationDate="2013-11-30T23:20:29.420" UserId="7310" Text="I left the institution. Do I have rights to the invention as a co-author?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14048" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5520" RevisionGUID="e4b4e66a-70f7-419c-84fe-038c09d83c2d" CreationDate="2013-11-30T23:20:29.420" UserId="7310" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5521" RevisionGUID="be060c10-e3bd-4f51-847f-cbdbb8ea7a9f" CreationDate="2013-11-30T23:31:45.647" UserId="3775" Text="In [US 7,704,933 B2][1], claims **1** and **2** are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1**. A compound of formula (II):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein the dotted line represents a single or double bond and one R2&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is a hydrogen atom and the other is a hydrogen atom or a methyl group.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **2**. A compound according to claim **1**, wherein said compund is of formula (III):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein the dotted line represents a single or double bond.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is claim **2** not completely included in claim **1**? Why state claim **2**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.co.in/patents/US7704933&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/cQWgQ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/9Htt7.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14050" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5521" RevisionGUID="be060c10-e3bd-4f51-847f-cbdbb8ea7a9f" CreationDate="2013-11-30T23:31:45.647" UserId="3775" Text="Why is claim 2 required in this example?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14051" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5521" RevisionGUID="be060c10-e3bd-4f51-847f-cbdbb8ea7a9f" CreationDate="2013-11-30T23:31:45.647" UserId="3775" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5522" RevisionGUID="4030b0c9-3bb9-4963-adcd-710a63e7062d" CreationDate="2013-11-30T23:33:02.060" UserId="7310" Text="For context, a patent is being based on a paper I coauthored with my former post-doc advisor in graduate school five years ago (i.e., I was first author, he was the last author). I just learned that he filed it for a patent in late 2007 with only himself named as an investor and the application is about to grant. Is there anything I can do to assert my rights at this point?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14053" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5522" RevisionGUID="4030b0c9-3bb9-4963-adcd-710a63e7062d" CreationDate="2013-11-30T23:33:02.060" UserId="7310" Text="Can one author exclude another author from an invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14054" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5522" RevisionGUID="4030b0c9-3bb9-4963-adcd-710a63e7062d" CreationDate="2013-11-30T23:33:02.060" UserId="7310" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14055" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5514" RevisionGUID="c6f6a614-b88a-4cf5-81c7-ac65b097a2c8" CreationDate="2013-11-30T23:51:05.010" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag " Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;us5351078&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5523" RevisionGUID="2fed6c41-cc68-4f65-b630-77ad2f313585" CreationDate="2013-12-01T00:07:08.533" UserId="3076" Text="This patent is a good example of how our patent system has been reformed. Take a look at this clip from its front page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application this patent issued from was filed in 1993. It is true that the claimed subject matter was **not**  innovative in 1993. However, the original text was **filed in 1954** ! Presumably it was innovative then. Even if the filing date is 1993 the examiner must put himself back to 1954's technology when examining it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, now and why did this happen? The inventor, [Jerry Lemelson][2] was a famous and prolific inventor. He was very creative and was a visionary. He was also a supreme practitioner of &quot;submarine patents&quot;. These were patents that are conceptually breakthrough but are not practical at the time of filing. The inventors stalls the process or refiles many times (cost $$) in a chain of continuations. A patent gets issued 20 years later; in this case 40 years later!. At that point the hope is that technology has caught up with the idea and it is being used in high volume by companies with deep pockets and has a life of 17 years from then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*This can't be done now.  In the late 1990's the law was changed so that patents expire 20 years from the earliest priority date regardless of when they issue.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/QHC79.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_H._Lemelson" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5524" RevisionGUID="ded537c6-abe0-46e8-9060-54db8a7ad0b3" CreationDate="2013-12-01T02:17:49.573" UserId="3076" Text="The only way this (you not being included as an inventor) would be proper is if the only aspects are claimed are aspects that were conceived by the other person. An inventor (don't think author = inventor, they are completely different concepts) is someone who made a conceptual contribution to something *claimed* in the patent. If you conceived of X and the other person conceived of a related Y (that isn't a special case of X) then a patent that only claims Y has only the other person as an inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that is not the case then you should be named as an inventor by law. What benefit that would convey to you is a separate issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5526" RevisionGUID="d2d04192-8849-4a21-a5e4-102506e51d59" CreationDate="2013-12-01T22:48:37.550" UserId="3076" Text="**Method for weather-based advertising**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;US 7080018 B1&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;priority date is in 1999&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ABSTRACT&#xD;&#xA;A system and method that allows for weather-based planning of future activities and/or events, and the like. The system includes weather forecast, weather history, activities, advertisement and external information source databases. Also included in the system is a central processing planning server that is accessible via a plurality of internal and external workstations. The workstations provide a graphical user interface for users to enter a series of inputs and receive information (i.e., output) concerning weather-based information. The method involves collecting the series of inputs—geographic location(s), time period(s), and preferred weather pattern(s)—affecting a future event" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5526" RevisionGUID="49de6605-5f16-4d93-8495-0bffca597881" CreationDate="2013-12-01T23:16:17.727" UserId="3076" Comment="added 325 characters in body" Text="**Method for weather-based advertising**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;US 7080018 B1&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;priority date is May 10, 1999&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ABSTRACT&#xD;&#xA;A system and method that allows for weather-based planning of future activities and/or events, and the like. The system includes weather forecast, weather history, activities, advertisement and external information source databases. Also included in the system is a central processing planning server that is accessible via a plurality of internal and external workstations. The workstations provide a graphical user interface for users to enter a series of inputs and receive information (i.e., output) concerning weather-based information. The method involves collecting the series of inputs—geographic location(s), time period(s), and preferred weather pattern(s)—affecting a future event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One element of claim 1 mentions advertising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6) searching an **advertisement database** for a record having field that match said **geographic location, said activity and said weather condition**; (7) displaying information indicative of said weather condition and an advertisement associated with said record." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5528" RevisionGUID="8516baac-82c9-4cbe-9a7a-4b8770063317" CreationDate="2013-12-02T14:09:47.263" UserId="5071" Text="[ProPay](http://propay.com)'s Link ([formerly known as Zumogo](http://blog.propay.com/index.php/2011/07/13/effective-targeted-marketing/)) does this. Their press release in Feb 2011 outlines some of this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.propay.com/propay-company/propay-news-events/propay-press-releases/zumogo-mobile-payment-application/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But their [initial launch during Sundance 2011](http://blog.propay.com/index.php/2011/01/24/propay-debuts-zumogo-during-sundance-film-festival/) (January 2011) had promotions available at vendors sorted by distance from the current user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5528" RevisionGUID="9989ff28-5ec8-4f1c-8a4e-3a7bc44f6e5e" CreationDate="2013-12-02T14:30:22.017" UserId="5071" Comment="added 852 characters in body" Text="[ProPay](http://propay.com)'s Link ([formerly known as Zumogo](http://blog.propay.com/index.php/2011/07/13/effective-targeted-marketing/)) does this. Their press release in Feb 2011 outlines some of this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.propay.com/propay-company/propay-news-events/propay-press-releases/zumogo-mobile-payment-application/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But their [initial launch during Sundance 2011](http://blog.propay.com/index.php/2011/01/24/propay-debuts-zumogo-during-sundance-film-festival/) (January 2011) had stores available at vendors sorted by distance from the current user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have had promotions (designated by an icon on nearby supported retailers) for some time. I'm not sure when it was added into their apps, or when first design was available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the [current screenshots for their app](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.propay.mercury) they have a list of supported merchants, and one of them &quot;It's a Lark Hobbies new&quot; has a promotion available, designated by the icon below &quot;It's&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![android screenshot][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Apple App store version](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/propay-link/id413113516?mt=8)'s first two screenshots outline the way deals work a little more clearly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't look like they have a count of the number of times the user has visited the merchant or any of its location, but they might have a &quot;favorite&quot; locations concept.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/UctNd.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14077" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4667" RevisionGUID="7c9d1750-605d-469f-9ff4-7d98a2e1880c" CreationDate="2013-12-02T18:55:49.067" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;3d-printing&gt;&lt;stratasys&gt;&lt;us20130095303&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4967" RevisionGUID="cc1bcc26-2503-4ec0-ac3c-fda0267629fb" CreationDate="2013-12-02T23:02:27.093" UserId="5697" Comment="Fixed Hyperlink" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](http://ahhha.com/idea/slide-release-buckle-fire-starter/) is an example of an invention website where a poster presents the idea of a &quot;Slide Release Buckle + Fire Starter&quot;, dated April 18, 2011. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application in question is &quot;Quick-Release Buckle with Fire Starting Components&quot;(Publication Number: [US20130189631 A1](https://www.google.com/patents/US20130189631?dq=fire+starter+buckle&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=x_IoUvb1M8Xd4APO-YCQDQ&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA)) by Michael John MOJICA claiming a priority to the U.S. Provisional Patent application submitted January 19, 2012, whereas claim 1 is as follows &quot;A quick-release buckle with fire starting components...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![www.hikepro.com also makes claims to having invented a buckle with a fire starter in 2007][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The image above is a screen shot from a page on http://www.hikepro.net describing the history of creating a buckle with a fire starter. It dates the invention to 2007.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ZFtho.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/qO2mH.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5512" RevisionGUID="486406d7-b5d0-4f9b-a6a4-0b50b66a6c9c" CreationDate="2013-12-02T23:17:41.550" UserId="1767" Comment="added 604 characters in body; edited tags" Text="![enter image description here][9]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** below!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications. **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON the display of contextually relevant communications based on viewer information and weather information.** - This application from [Weatheralpha, Llc][6] seeks to patent the idea of...dynamically selecting, rotating or altering digital advertisements based on constantly changing weather conditions, thereby allowing advertisers to include weather specific details and improve the contextual accuracy in targeting such advertisements! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 10/5/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Analyzing viewer information and weather information to adjust display of contextually relevant digital communications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - **Weather information** pertaining to current, forecasted, or past atmospheric and **environmental conditions** affecting the viewer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: **Method of targeting contextually relevant digital communication based on weather conditions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Automatically receiving **geolocation information** of a viewer's location, receiving **weather data** relevant to the viewer's location, analysing the **weather data** to identify a **weather condition**, accessing a database multiple available advertisements assigned to the **weather condition**, and selecting a **digital communication** associated with the identified **weather condition** based on the viewer's preference. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20120290372A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/555,494&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Weatheralpha, Llc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 10/5/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 5/14/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A computerized method of analyzing weather data to improve the selection of contextually relevant communication, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving passive geolocation information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving weather data relevant to the location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Analyzing the weather data to identify a weather condition;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Accessing a database containing a plurality of available advertisements assigned to weather conditions; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Selecting a communication associated with the identified weather condition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A computerized method of analyzing weather data to improve the selection of contextually relevant communication, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Automatically receiving geolocation information of a viewer's location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving weather data relevant to the viewer's location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Analyzing the weather data to identify a weather condition;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Accessing a database containing multiple available advertisements assigned to weather conditions; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Selecting a communication associated with the identified weather condition based on a viewer's preference. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 10/5/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Weighting weather factor and selecting targeted contextual communications based on rules associated with available digital communication. The selected targeted contextual communications are prioritized based on user preferences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;The advertisement selection process as determined by current weather events&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/MeFpYpK.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120290372&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.weatheralpha.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120290372&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/188743700/US-20120290372-A1&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14083" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5512" RevisionGUID="486406d7-b5d0-4f9b-a6a4-0b50b66a6c9c" CreationDate="2013-12-02T23:17:41.550" UserId="1767" Comment="added 604 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;online-advertising&gt;&lt;us20120290372&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5526" RevisionGUID="17fcaa3c-c23e-428f-ba24-b15ac9fe3a93" CreationDate="2013-12-02T23:19:13.433" UserId="1767" Comment="added 272 characters in body" Text="![Official USPTO Prior Art][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! The rejection was **based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community** in this answer! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Method for weather-based advertising**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;US 7080018 B1&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;priority date is May 10, 1999&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ABSTRACT&#xD;&#xA;A system and method that allows for weather-based planning of future activities and/or events, and the like. The system includes weather forecast, weather history, activities, advertisement and external information source databases. Also included in the system is a central processing planning server that is accessible via a plurality of internal and external workstations. The workstations provide a graphical user interface for users to enter a series of inputs and receive information (i.e., output) concerning weather-based information. The method involves collecting the series of inputs—geographic location(s), time period(s), and preferred weather pattern(s)—affecting a future event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One element of claim 1 mentions advertising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6) searching an **advertisement database** for a record having field that match said **geographic location, said activity and said weather condition**; (7) displaying information indicative of said weather condition and an advertisement associated with said record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uvXcn.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5526" RevisionGUID="c64bba24-d707-4ba9-917e-ba4726a8faed" CreationDate="2013-12-02T23:34:42.027" UserId="1767" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="![Official USPTO Prior Art][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** in this answer! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Method for weather-based advertising**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[US 7080018 B1](https://www.google.com/patents/US7080018)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;priority date is May 10, 1999&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ABSTRACT&#xD;&#xA;A system and method that allows for weather-based planning of future activities and/or events, and the like. The system includes weather forecast, weather history, activities, advertisement and external information source databases. Also included in the system is a central processing planning server that is accessible via a plurality of internal and external workstations. The workstations provide a graphical user interface for users to enter a series of inputs and receive information (i.e., output) concerning weather-based information. The method involves collecting the series of inputs—geographic location(s), time period(s), and preferred weather pattern(s)—affecting a future event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One element of claim 1 mentions advertising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6) searching an **advertisement database** for a record having field that match said **geographic location, said activity and said weather condition**; (7) displaying information indicative of said weather condition and an advertisement associated with said record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uvXcn.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/188743700/US-20120290372-A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5512" RevisionGUID="89a8acb0-32ce-464c-bf98-767842990d28" CreationDate="2013-12-03T01:14:12.753" UserId="1767" Comment="edited body" Text="![enter image description here][9]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** below!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications. **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON the display of contextually relevant communications based on viewer information and weather information.** - This application from [Weatheralpha, Llc][6] seeks to patent the idea of...dynamically selecting, rotating or altering digital advertisements based on constantly changing weather conditions, thereby allowing advertisers to include weather specific details and improve the contextual accuracy in targeting such advertisements! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 10/5/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Analyzing viewer information and weather information to adjust display of contextually relevant digital communications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - **Weather information** pertaining to current, forecasted, or past atmospheric and **environmental conditions** affecting the viewer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: **Method of targeting contextually relevant digital communication based on weather conditions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Automatically receiving **geolocation information** of a viewer's location, receiving **weather data** relevant to the viewer's location, analysing the **weather data** to identify a **weather condition**, accessing a database multiple available advertisements assigned to the **weather condition**, and selecting a **digital communication** associated with the identified **weather condition** based on the viewer's preference. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20120290372A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/555,494&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Weatheralpha, Llc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 10/5/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 5/14/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A computerized method of analyzing weather data to improve the selection of contextually relevant communication, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving passive geolocation information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving weather data relevant to the location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Analyzing the weather data to identify a weather condition;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Accessing a database containing a plurality of available advertisements assigned to weather conditions; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Selecting a communication associated with the identified weather condition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A computerized method of analyzing weather data to improve the selection of contextually relevant communication, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Automatically receiving geolocation information of a viewer's location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving weather data relevant to the viewer's location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Analyzing the weather data to identify a weather condition;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Accessing a database containing multiple available advertisements assigned to weather conditions; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Selecting a communication associated with the identified weather condition based on a viewer's preference. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 10/5/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Weighting weather factor and selecting targeted contextual communications based on rules associated with available digital communication. The selected targeted contextual communications are prioritized based on user preferences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;The advertisement selection process as determined by current weather events&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/WOczLV5.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120290372&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.weatheralpha.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120290372&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/188743700/US-20120290372-A1&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5531" RevisionGUID="351967ac-2fc3-41a2-8742-2f410fa37c40" CreationDate="2013-12-03T12:17:54.477" UserId="7322" Text="Do owners have to maintain an availability or can they just lodge a patent and vanish leaving an idea protected which nobody else can touch.  If not how do we locate owners to find out more details or be sure not to infringe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14089" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5531" RevisionGUID="351967ac-2fc3-41a2-8742-2f410fa37c40" CreationDate="2013-12-03T12:17:54.477" UserId="7322" Text="OWNER LOCATION?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14090" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5531" RevisionGUID="351967ac-2fc3-41a2-8742-2f410fa37c40" CreationDate="2013-12-03T12:17:54.477" UserId="7322" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5532" RevisionGUID="d89e10fa-dacb-4813-9b42-f0144591e9b2" CreationDate="2013-12-03T17:31:30.643" UserId="7325" Text="Please look at work being done at the University of Manchester. GATE is a NLP toolkit that contains a user interface that allows users to find named entities in unstructured text documents. These entities include names of person, organizations, and geographical locations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first release of GATE was over 15 years ago and has been open source for the entire time it was released.  People working in the NLP industry for some time should be very familiar with GATE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the overview page on their site. http://gate.ac.uk/overview.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, a Google search on &quot;named entity extraction&quot; returns many links. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/search?q=named+entity+extraction&amp;aq=0&amp;oq=named+entity+extr&amp;aqs=chrome.0.0j57j0l2j62.8693j0&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first link is a link to Wikipedia.  On this link they mention GATE as an example of software used to perform named entity extraction.  Here is the link to that Wikipedia page: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Named-entity_recognition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This capability is the hardest part of this patent.  The subsequent claims on relating like entities across several documents is trivial once named entity detection is available.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14093" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5532" RevisionGUID="d89e10fa-dacb-4813-9b42-f0144591e9b2" CreationDate="2013-12-03T17:31:30.643" UserId="7325" Text="Shouldn't this patent be considered invalid as there appears to be prior art for this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14094" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5532" RevisionGUID="d89e10fa-dacb-4813-9b42-f0144591e9b2" CreationDate="2013-12-03T17:31:30.643" UserId="7325" Text="&lt;us20110161333&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5516" RevisionGUID="a3b3324b-524c-4693-a681-abb4dcc4d534" CreationDate="2013-12-03T17:50:48.617" UserId="5198" Comment="expanded with specifics" Text="No. Patent trolls file in the eastern district of Texas not because the allegedly infringing products are sold there, but because the trolls have their &quot;headquarters&quot; there. If a product is found to be infringing, the decision is enforced nationwide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you own a patent, you file any infringement lawsuits in the jurisdiction in which you are domiciled (i.e., where you live, or if &quot;you&quot; are a corporation, the address at which the company is incorporated). Because the Eastern District of Texas is regarded as notoriously friendly to patent holders, a large number of non-practicing entities (NPEs) have incorporated there for the sole purpose of being able to bring suits in the district. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/transcript&quot;&gt;A 2011 episode of the public radio program &lt;i&gt;This American Life&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/a&gt; visited a nondescript office building in the small town of Marshall, Texas, just across the street from the federal courthouse, that is home to dozens of NPEs, all of which occupy locked and apparently permanently empty offices. These NPEs are corporate entities in name only, and exist only to own patents and bring infringement lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas. Because the patent system is federal, however, any judgments handed down by the court apply nationwide. It doesn't matter where the products are sold." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5533" RevisionGUID="5bb5eb3e-b170-4cb0-b1fd-2ac00a0e3f1e" CreationDate="2013-12-03T18:04:16.813" UserId="3076" Text="This is an **application** for a patent, not an issued patent. It was rejected by the USPTO and went abandoned about two years ago due to no response from the applicant. The status and history of applications can be looked up at [USPTO Public PAIR.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/F9SQt.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5534" RevisionGUID="89ac16be-62ab-4b03-89d6-e7b765017855" CreationDate="2013-12-03T21:30:10.243" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON managing consumer profiles based on detailed visit records of consumers.** - This application from [Rapidblue Solutions / Shoppertrak][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving **location information** and **unique identifier** of a consumer, retrieving consumer profile associated with the unique identifier, and **updating a consumer profile** based on information related to their location! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 4/28/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Updating consumer profiles based on consumer's visit record info.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A visit record information includes **a location visited by a consumer**, **date and time of visit**, and **length of time spent at the location**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Updating consumer profile based on location information received from the consumer's mobile device.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receive **visit record information** (such as location, **date and time of visit**, and **time spent at the location**) and **unique identifier** of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device, retrieve **consumer profile** associated with the **unique identifier** from a server, and update the retrieved **consumer profile** based on the **visit record information**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20120278132 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/458,337&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Rapidblue Solutions / ShopperTrak&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 4/28/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/30/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for profiling a consumer, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An agent with a memory in communication with a processor, the memory including program instructions for execution by the processor to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receive a visit record information element comprising information about a location visited by the consumer and a unique consumer identifier;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Retrieve location information element associated with the location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Retrieve a consumer profile element associated with the unique consumer identifier;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Generate an updated consumer profile information element based at least in part on one or more of the consumer profile information element, the detailed visit record information element, and the location characterization information element; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Store the updated consumer profile information element.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving visit record information and unique identifier of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Retrieving consumer profile associated with the unique identifier from a server;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Updating the retrieved consumer profile based on the received visit record information; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Storing the updated consumer profile in the server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 4/28/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A tracking device (e.g. using **bluetooth**) that receives location information and unique identifier of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Location based consumer profiling&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/d3T4jbc.png&quot; width=&quot;421&quot; height=&quot;646&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://rapidbluesolutions.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120278132" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14098" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5534" RevisionGUID="89ac16be-62ab-4b03-89d6-e7b765017855" CreationDate="2013-12-03T21:30:10.243" UserId="1767" Text="Location based consumer profiling - Updating consumer profiles based on visits (ShopperTrak) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14099" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5534" RevisionGUID="89ac16be-62ab-4b03-89d6-e7b765017855" CreationDate="2013-12-03T21:30:10.243" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;us20120278132&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5534" RevisionGUID="50757373-9a20-433f-8def-e2d86f692f20" CreationDate="2013-12-03T21:40:16.250" UserId="1767" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON managing consumer profiles based on detailed visit records of consumers.** - This application from [Rapidblue Solutions / Shoppertrak][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving **location information** and **unique identifier** of a consumer, retrieving consumer profile associated with the unique identifier, and **updating a consumer profile** based on information related to their location! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 4/28/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Updating consumer profiles based on consumer's visit record info.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A visit record information includes **a location visited by a consumer**, **date and time of visit**, and **length of time spent at the location**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Updating consumer profile based on location information received from the consumer's mobile device.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receive **visit record information** (such as location, **date and time of visit**, and **time spent at the location**) and **unique identifier** of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device, retrieve **consumer profile** associated with the **unique identifier** from a server, and update the retrieved **consumer profile** based on the **visit record information**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20120278132 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/458,337&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Rapidblue Solutions / ShopperTrak&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 4/28/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/30/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for profiling a consumer, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An agent with a memory in communication with a processor, the memory including program instructions for execution by the processor to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receive a visit record information element comprising information about a location visited by the consumer and a unique consumer identifier;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Retrieve location information element associated with the location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Retrieve a consumer profile element associated with the unique consumer identifier;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Generate an updated consumer profile information element based at least in part on one or more of the consumer profile information element, the detailed visit record information element, and the location characterization information element; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Store the updated consumer profile information element.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving visit record information and unique identifier of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Retrieving consumer profile associated with the unique identifier from a server;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Updating the retrieved consumer profile based on the received visit record information; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Storing the updated consumer profile in the server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 4/28/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A tracking device (e.g. using **bluetooth**) that receives location information and unique identifier of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Location based consumer profiling&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/d3T4jbc.png&quot; width=&quot;421&quot; height=&quot;646&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://rapidbluesolutions.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120278132#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=04%2F28%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5515" RevisionGUID="d17ad6b7-eac4-47ec-933d-35a86619e154" CreationDate="2013-12-03T21:40:36.143" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Targeting promotions based on location of vendors with respect to user's current location.** - This application from [Finnoble Solutions, now Capital One][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying vendors from a user's transaction history, determining a vendor whose location is proximate to the user's current location, and delivering promotions associated with the determined vendor to the user! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/9/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Targeting promotions based on location of vendors with respect to the user's location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Vendors are identified from the **transaction history** of a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Presenting promotions offered by vendors in proximity to a consumer's current location.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying vendors from the **transaction history** of a consumer, determining location of the consumer based on location of the consumer's **mobile device**, identifying a vendor in proximity to the consumer, and presenting promotions offered by the identified vendor on the consumer's **mobile device**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120290389 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/103,855&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Finnoble Solutions, Inc. / CapitalOne&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/9/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 5/14/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of providing a list of current offers from retailers to a user operating a mobile client device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Analyzing a transaction history of the user to identify a vendor who has transacted with the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining a present geographic location of the user based on a location of the mobile client device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining a location of the vendor proximate the user based on the transaction history and the present geographic location of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Searching for a current promotion offered by the vendor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Transmitting, the current promotion to the user, wherein the transmitted current promotion comprises information related to the transaction history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing a list of current offers from retailers to consumers operating a mobile device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying vendors who have transacted with the consumer from the consumer's transaction history;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining location of the consumer based on the location of the mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining a vendor in proximity to the user's location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Searching for current promotion offered by the vendor ; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Presenting the current promotion offered by the vendor on the consumer's mobile device, where the promotion is related to the user's transaction history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/9/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Matching one or more locations of a vendor with the consumer's location to identify the nearest vendor location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Display of matched offers based on a user's location and transaction history&quot;&quot;&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/y9Jerqn.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120290389&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.bankons.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120290389" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5534" RevisionGUID="ee9138f6-cb87-4740-a3f9-242f7df8eb63" CreationDate="2013-12-03T21:48:42.123" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON managing consumer profiles based on detailed visit records of consumers.** - This application from [Rapidblue Solutions / Shoppertrak][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving **location information** and **unique identifier** of a consumer, retrieving consumer profile associated with the unique identifier, and **updating a consumer profile** based on information related to their location! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 4/28/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Updating consumer profiles based on consumer's visit record info.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A visit record information includes **a location visited by a consumer**, **date and time of visit**, and **length of time spent at the location**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Updating consumer profile based on location information received from the consumer's mobile device.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receive **visit record information** (such as location, **date and time of visit**, and **time spent at the location**) and **unique identifier** of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device, retrieve **consumer profile** associated with the **unique identifier** from a server, and update the retrieved **consumer profile** based on the **visit record information**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120278132 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/458,337&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Rapidblue Solutions / ShopperTrak&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 4/28/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/30/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for profiling a consumer, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An agent with a memory in communication with a processor, the memory including program instructions for execution by the processor to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receive a visit record information element comprising information about a location visited by the consumer and a unique consumer identifier;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Retrieve location information element associated with the location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Retrieve a consumer profile element associated with the unique consumer identifier;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Generate an updated consumer profile information element based at least in part on one or more of the consumer profile information element, the detailed visit record information element, and the location characterization information element; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Store the updated consumer profile information element.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving visit record information and unique identifier of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Retrieving consumer profile associated with the unique identifier from a server;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Updating the retrieved consumer profile based on the received visit record information; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Storing the updated consumer profile in the server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 4/28/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A tracking device (e.g. using **bluetooth**) that receives location information and unique identifier of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Location based consumer profiling&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/d3T4jbc.png&quot; width=&quot;421&quot; height=&quot;646&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20120278132&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://rapidbluesolutions.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120278132#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=04%2F28%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14103" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5534" RevisionGUID="ee9138f6-cb87-4740-a3f9-242f7df8eb63" CreationDate="2013-12-03T21:48:42.123" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;us20120278132&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5534" RevisionGUID="d382e2f1-05cb-46f0-b8fe-220bac97dd42" CreationDate="2013-12-03T21:57:09.357" UserId="1767" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON managing consumer profiles based on detailed visit records of consumers.** - This application from [Rapidblue Solutions / Shoppertrak][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving **location information** and **unique identifier** of a consumer, retrieving consumer profile associated with the unique identifier, and **updating a consumer profile** based on information related to their location! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 4/28/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Updating consumer profiles based on consumer's visit record info.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A visit record information includes **a location visited by a consumer**, **date and time of visit**, and **length of time spent at the location**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Updating consumer profile based on location information received from the consumer's mobile device.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receive **visit record information** (such as location, **date and time of visit**, and **time spent at the location**) and **unique identifier** of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device, retrieve **consumer profile** associated with the **unique identifier** from a server, and update the retrieved **consumer profile** based on the **visit record information**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120278132 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/458,337&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Rapidblue Solutions / ShopperTrak][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 4/28/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/30/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for profiling a consumer, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An agent with a memory in communication with a processor, the memory including program instructions for execution by the processor to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receive a visit record information element comprising information about a location visited by the consumer and a unique consumer identifier;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Retrieve location information element associated with the location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Retrieve a consumer profile element associated with the unique consumer identifier;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Generate an updated consumer profile information element based at least in part on one or more of the consumer profile information element, the detailed visit record information element, and the location characterization information element; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Store the updated consumer profile information element.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving visit record information and unique identifier of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Retrieving consumer profile associated with the unique identifier from a server;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Updating the retrieved consumer profile based on the received visit record information; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Storing the updated consumer profile in the server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 4/28/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A tracking device (e.g. using **bluetooth**) that receives location information and unique identifier of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Location based consumer profiling&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/d3T4jbc.png&quot; width=&quot;421&quot; height=&quot;646&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20120278132&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://rapidbluesolutions.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120278132#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=04%2F28%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5535" RevisionGUID="8315f135-2b3a-41bf-9e0c-719a4bd35e8d" CreationDate="2013-12-03T23:07:48.063" UserId="3076" Text="**Publication number	US20110025816 A1**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Publication date	Feb 3, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Filing date	Jul 31, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Priority date	Jul 31, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Prior Art under 102(e) as of the filing and priority date*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;MICROSOFT&#xD;&#xA;&gt; FIG. 5 provides exemplification of a methodology 500 that facilitates and/or effectuates advertising as a real-time call in accordance with an aspect of the claimed subject matter. Methodology 500 can commence at 502 where a point of sale or retail establishment component (e.g., retail establishment component 104) **can detect whether or not a mobile device is within its proximity**. At 504 the point of sale or retail establishment component can **ascertain whether or not the detected mobile is receptive to the download or dissemination of advertising content**. At 506 where it is determined that the detected mobile device within the vicinity of the retail establishment or point of sale&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA; . . . &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Retail establishment component 104 can further include filter component 304 that can utilize information obtained during data interchange with mobile device 102 wherein such information can include user preferences that can have been solicited from the user or deduced or inferred from **previous interactions between the user and the retail establishment** (e.g., the user can be a regular customer of the retail establishment in that he/she carries a store credit card or rewards card) from which retail . . . " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5535" RevisionGUID="97b9ee2d-5a86-4a18-97cf-ae8796271074" CreationDate="2013-12-03T23:53:38.340" UserId="3076" Comment="added 133 characters in body" Text="**Publication number	US20110025816 A1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application has a profile stored on the user's phone, I believe, rather than with the store. I do *not* think it is dead-on.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Publication date	Feb 3, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Filing date	Jul 31, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Priority date	Jul 31, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Prior Art under 102(e) as of the filing and priority date*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;MICROSOFT&#xD;&#xA;&gt; FIG. 5 provides exemplification of a methodology 500 that facilitates and/or effectuates advertising as a real-time call in accordance with an aspect of the claimed subject matter. Methodology 500 can commence at 502 where a point of sale or retail establishment component (e.g., retail establishment component 104) **can detect whether or not a mobile device is within its proximity**. At 504 the point of sale or retail establishment component can **ascertain whether or not the detected mobile is receptive to the download or dissemination of advertising content**. At 506 where it is determined that the detected mobile device within the vicinity of the retail establishment or point of sale&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA; . . . &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Retail establishment component 104 can further include filter component 304 that can utilize information obtained during data interchange with mobile device 102 wherein such information can include user preferences that can have been solicited from the user or deduced or inferred from **previous interactions between the user and the retail establishment** (e.g., the user can be a regular customer of the retail establishment in that he/she carries a store credit card or rewards card) from which retail . . . " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14107" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5531" RevisionGUID="69c5fa8c-d85c-4641-914e-0ca5946f1ecb" CreationDate="2013-12-04T01:01:08.680" UserId="1" Comment="edited title" Text="Do patent holders have to be &quot;reachable?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5536" RevisionGUID="408be55e-b600-42eb-bd4e-93cbacf4cbb2" CreationDate="2013-12-04T02:18:26.447" UserId="3076" Text="The original applicants and inventors provide some contact information  during the patent prosecution process. If they use a patent attorney of patent agent, their information will also be in the record (the best way to look these things us is via Public PAIR). As the patent changes hands from the inventors to a company and maybe them to a second company the information should be recorded with the USPTO's recordation office. It is like recording the transfer of a deed at the county courthouse. While not recording a transfer generates some risk to the buyer, there is no rule that says assignments must be filed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if the inventors still hold the patent rights they do not need to update the USPTO of their change of residence. There are reminders that the USPTO sends out that the patent owners should be motivated to get, but they do not need to provide address updates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can represent a problem for someone who wants to take out a license. In many cases the owner can be tracked down.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5534" RevisionGUID="1b2d4890-b643-4e98-aded-ee80ca154e29" CreationDate="2013-12-04T02:39:10.813" UserId="1767" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON managing consumer profiles based on detailed visit records of consumers.** - This application from [Rapidblue Solutions / Shoppertrak][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving **location information** and a **unique identifier** of a consumer, retrieving consumer profile associated with the unique identifier, and **updating a consumer profile** based on information related to their location! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 4/28/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Updating consumer profiles based on consumer's visit record info.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A visit record information includes **a location visited by a consumer**, **date and time of visit**, and **length of time spent at the location**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Updating consumer profile based on location information received from the consumer's mobile device.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receive **visit record information** (such as location, **date and time of visit**, and **time spent at the location**) and **unique identifier** of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device, retrieve **consumer profile** associated with the **unique identifier** from a server, and update the retrieved **consumer profile** based on the **visit record information**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120278132 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/458,337&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Rapidblue Solutions / ShopperTrak][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 4/28/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/30/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for profiling a consumer, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An agent with a memory in communication with a processor, the memory including program instructions for execution by the processor to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receive a visit record information element comprising information about a location visited by the consumer and a unique consumer identifier;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Retrieve location information element associated with the location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Retrieve a consumer profile element associated with the unique consumer identifier;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Generate an updated consumer profile information element based at least in part on one or more of the consumer profile information element, the detailed visit record information element, and the location characterization information element; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Store the updated consumer profile information element.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving visit record information and unique identifier of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Retrieving consumer profile associated with the unique identifier from a server;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Updating the retrieved consumer profile based on the received visit record information; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Storing the updated consumer profile in the server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 4/28/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A tracking device (e.g. using **bluetooth**) that receives location information and unique identifier of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Location based consumer profiling&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/d3T4jbc.png&quot; width=&quot;421&quot; height=&quot;646&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20120278132&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://rapidbluesolutions.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120278132#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=04%2F28%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5534" RevisionGUID="acb24a23-a71d-425f-9e5c-6f1edf18ba2c" CreationDate="2013-12-04T04:26:09.080" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body; added 14 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON managing consumer profiles based on detailed visit records of consumers.** - This application from [Rapidblue Solutions / Shoppertrak][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving **location information** and a **unique identifier** of a consumer, retrieving consumer profile associated with the unique identifier, and **updating a consumer profile** based on information related to their location! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 4/28/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Updating consumer profiles based on consumer's visit record info.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A visit record information includes **a location visited by a consumer**, **date and time of visit**, and **length of time spent at the location**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Updating consumer profile based on location information received from the consumer's mobile device.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receive **visit record information** (such as location, **date and time of visit**, and **time spent at the location**) and **unique identifier** of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device, retrieve **consumer profile** associated with the **unique identifier** from a server, and update the retrieved **consumer profile** based on the **visit record information**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120278132 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/458,337&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Rapidblue Solutions / ShopperTrak][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 4/28/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/30/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for profiling a consumer, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An agent with a memory in communication with a processor, the memory including program instructions for execution by the processor to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receive a visit record information element comprising information about a location visited by the consumer and a unique consumer identifier;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Retrieve location information element associated with the location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Retrieve a consumer profile element associated with the unique consumer identifier;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Generate an updated consumer profile information element based at least in part on one or more of the consumer profile information element, the detailed visit record information element, and the location characterization information element; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Store the updated consumer profile information element in the server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving visit record information and unique identifier of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Retrieving consumer profile associated with the unique identifier from a server;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Updating the retrieved consumer profile based on the received visit record information; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Storing the updated consumer profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 4/28/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A tracking device (e.g. using **bluetooth**) that receives location information and unique identifier of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Location based consumer profiling&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/d3T4jbc.png&quot; width=&quot;421&quot; height=&quot;646&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20120278132&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://rapidbluesolutions.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120278132#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=04%2F28%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5537" RevisionGUID="44a85127-613b-45d3-a5f9-7af65ee516d4" CreationDate="2013-12-04T06:28:04.320" UserId="7327" Text="In 2010 an iPhone app launched that I think might be prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/02/future-checkin/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Future Checkin is an app that **allows you to check-in to your favorite Foursquare venues automatically when you're near them**. You don't have to do a thing besides simply have your phone on you and this app will check you in while running in the background with iOS 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here's how it works: you sign in to the app with your Foursquare account, and it shows you a list of Foursquare venues nearby. Or you can search for your favorite venues. From this list, you choose the ones to mark as “Favorites.” You can also scan your recent check-in history and select venues from here to add to your Favorites. This Favorites list is key - these are the venues **you will be automatically checked-in to when you get close enough to them (within 300 meters)**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Item-by-item:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Receiving visit record information and unique identifier of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The app sends the checkin along with user id and credentials to the server&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Retrieving consumer profile associated with the unique identifier from a server&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The app retrieves the user details from the server (probably including checkin history).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Updating the retrieved consumer profile based on the received visit record information; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Storing the updated consumer profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The app auto-posts the checkin to the server and I think also stores checkin history on the device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This app is no longer offered in the app store but there are numerous date-stamped reviews and even videos of it online: https://www.google.com/?q=future+checkin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel like foursquqre itself might qualify as prior art but since that didn't come up yet I assume it doesn't..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5538" RevisionGUID="6c651a45-7be8-480b-b119-fa6008c41903" CreationDate="2013-12-04T18:02:37.113" UserId="7328" Text="US6933362&#xD;&#xA;How could a researcher use the sequence of this intein molecule to synthesize it now for scientific and research purpose?&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent still active?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14113" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5538" RevisionGUID="6c651a45-7be8-480b-b119-fa6008c41903" CreationDate="2013-12-04T18:02:37.113" UserId="7328" Text="Is this patent still active?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14114" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5538" RevisionGUID="6c651a45-7be8-480b-b119-fa6008c41903" CreationDate="2013-12-04T18:02:37.113" UserId="7328" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14115" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5538" RevisionGUID="e7fc754d-5396-4247-ad9f-e28a54fc8249" CreationDate="2013-12-04T18:43:20.233" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag " Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;us6933362&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5540" RevisionGUID="3973cd24-bf1a-4ae8-acdc-cb1b7402ea6a" CreationDate="2013-12-04T21:23:08.950" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON managing information associated with a data set based on location of the consumer.** - This application from [Cadio, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving an input from a consumer, obtaining location of the consumer, identifying a setting visited by the consumer based on the obtained location, and adjusting the information associated with the identified setting based on the obtained location and input from the consumer.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/27/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Managing information in a data set for identifying settings visited by a consumer based on consumer's location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A setting refers to a place corresponding to the consumer's location, such as a **commercial place** or a **non-commercial place** (e.g., business or park).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Adjusting a process for identifying a setting visited by a consumer based on the consumer's location and input received from the consumer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving location of a consumer, identifying a setting (such as **a commercial place** or **a non-commercial place** (e.g., business or park)) from a **data set** corresponding to the received location, and changing the information associated with the identified setting in the from a **data set** based on the identification process.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20120330722 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/535,150&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Cadio, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/27/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/25/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of operating a consumer analytics system in which information about consumers is generated at least in part based on applying a visit detection process to location data relating to one or more consumers, to identified settings visited by the one or more consumers, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving input provided by a consumer identifying a setting visited by the consumer at a time;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Obtaining information identifying a physical location of the consumer at the time; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Adjusting, using at least one processor and based at least in part on the input provided by the consumer and the physical location of the consumer, the visit detection process for identifying settings visited by the plurality of consumers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving input from a consumer to identify a setting visited by the consumer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Obtaining location of the consumer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identifying a setting corresponding to the location of the consumer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Adjusting information stored in a data set used for identifying whether the consumer has visited the setting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/27/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Comparing location of the consumer with location boundaries of one or more settings to identify a setting corresponding to the location of the consumer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Identifying a place visited by a consumer&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NtMqOcJ.png&quot; width=&quot;446&quot; height=&quot;629&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120330722&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.locately.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14121" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5540" RevisionGUID="3973cd24-bf1a-4ae8-acdc-cb1b7402ea6a" CreationDate="2013-12-04T21:23:08.950" UserId="1767" Text="Adjusting setting from consumer's location - Collecting data to make inferences using location. (Cadio, Inc.) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14122" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5540" RevisionGUID="3973cd24-bf1a-4ae8-acdc-cb1b7402ea6a" CreationDate="2013-12-04T21:23:08.950" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;us20120330722&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5541" RevisionGUID="245c3468-8da2-4172-932c-2686cc8aed9e" CreationDate="2013-12-05T00:32:52.137" UserId="7333" Text="I have used an Android application created specifically for that purpose since before the given date.&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20100110203540/http://www.twofortyfouram.com/?&#xD;&#xA;The web archive presents the situation and the solution prior to the patent application date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;JonathanWardRogers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5540" RevisionGUID="8f989229-e29b-4cef-9f37-daec5037bf58" CreationDate="2013-12-05T00:59:09.237" UserId="1767" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON managing information associated with a data set based on location of the consumer.** - This application from [Cadio, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving an input from a consumer, obtaining location of the consumer, identifying a setting visited by the consumer based on the obtained location, and adjusting the information associated with the identified setting based on the obtained location and input from the consumer.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/27/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Managing information in a data set for identifying settings visited by a consumer based on consumer's location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A setting refers to a place corresponding to the consumer's location, such as a **commercial place** or a **non-commercial place** (e.g., business or park).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Adjusting a process for identifying a setting visited by a consumer based on the consumer's location and input received from the consumer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving location of a consumer, identifying a setting (such as **a commercial place** or **a non-commercial place** (e.g., business or park)) from a **data set** corresponding to the received location, and changing the information associated with the identified setting in the from a **data set** based on the identification process.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20120330722 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/535,150&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Cadio, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/27/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/25/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of operating a consumer analytics system in which information about consumers is generated at least in part based on applying a visit detection process to location data relating to one or more consumers, to identified settings visited by the one or more consumers, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving input provided by a consumer identifying a setting visited by the consumer at a time;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Obtaining information identifying a physical location of the consumer at the time; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Adjusting, using at least one processor and based at least in part on the input provided by the consumer and the physical location of the consumer, the visit detection process for identifying settings visited by the plurality of consumers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving input from a consumer to identify a setting visited by the consumer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Obtaining location of the consumer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identifying a setting corresponding to the location of the consumer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Adjusting information stored in a data set used for identifying whether the consumer has visited the setting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/27/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Comparing location of the consumer with location boundaries of one or more settings to identify a setting corresponding to the location of the consumer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Identifying a place visited by a consumer&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NtMqOcJ.png&quot; width=&quot;446&quot; height=&quot;629&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120330722&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.locately.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120330722#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=06%2F27%2F2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5541" RevisionGUID="a37f0d31-dfa5-44b7-bff4-167c6dd02767" CreationDate="2013-12-05T05:06:00.227" UserId="3076" Comment="removed signature" Text="I have used an Android application created specifically for that purpose since before the given date.&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20100110203540/http://www.twofortyfouram.com/?&#xD;&#xA;The web archive presents the situation and the solution prior to the patent application date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5515" RevisionGUID="7ced1b40-25bb-4606-ad4e-e0d4abd3d1a9" CreationDate="2013-12-05T14:03:09.937" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Targeting promotions based on location of vendors with respect to user's current location.** - This application from [Finnoble Solutions, now Capital One][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying vendors from a user's transaction history, determining a vendor whose location is proximate to the user's current location, and delivering promotions associated with the determined vendor to the user! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/9/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Targeting promotions based on location of vendors with respect to the user's location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Vendors are identified from the **transaction history** of a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Presenting promotions offered by vendors in proximity to a consumer's current location.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying vendors from the **transaction history** of a consumer, determining location of the consumer based on location of the consumer's **mobile device**, identifying a vendor in proximity to the consumer, and presenting promotions offered by the identified vendor on the consumer's **mobile device**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120290389 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/103,855&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Finnoble Solutions, Inc. / CapitalOne&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/9/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 5/14/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of providing a list of current offers from retailers to a user operating a mobile client device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Analyzing a transaction history of the user to identify a vendor who has transacted with the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining a present geographic location of the user based on a location of the mobile client device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining a location of the vendor proximate the user based on the transaction history and the present geographic location of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Searching for a current promotion offered by the vendor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Transmitting, the current promotion to the user, wherein the transmitted current promotion comprises information related to the transaction history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing a list of current offers from retailers to consumers operating a mobile device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying vendors who have transacted with the consumer from the consumer's transaction history;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining location of the consumer based on the location of the mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining a vendor in proximity to the user's location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Searching for current promotion offered by the vendor ; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Presenting the current promotion offered by the vendor on the consumer's mobile device, where the promotion is related to the user's transaction history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/9/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Matching one or more locations of a vendor with the consumer's location to identify the nearest vendor location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Display of matched offers based on a user's location and transaction history&quot;&quot;&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/y9Jerqn.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120290389&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.bankons.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120290389" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5534" RevisionGUID="d1e4d120-e464-4d42-b3d8-92031eaa3399" CreationDate="2013-12-05T14:03:36.207" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON managing consumer profiles based on detailed visit records of consumers.** - This application from [Rapidblue Solutions / Shoppertrak][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving **location information** and a **unique identifier** of a consumer, retrieving consumer profile associated with the unique identifier, and **updating a consumer profile** based on information related to their location! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 4/28/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Updating consumer profiles based on consumer's visit record info.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A visit record information includes **a location visited by a consumer**, **date and time of visit**, and **length of time spent at the location**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Updating consumer profile based on location information received from the consumer's mobile device.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receive **visit record information** (such as location, **date and time of visit**, and **time spent at the location**) and **unique identifier** of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device, retrieve **consumer profile** associated with the **unique identifier** from a server, and update the retrieved **consumer profile** based on the **visit record information**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120278132 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/458,337&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Rapidblue Solutions / ShopperTrak][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 4/28/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/30/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for profiling a consumer, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An agent with a memory in communication with a processor, the memory including program instructions for execution by the processor to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receive a visit record information element comprising information about a location visited by the consumer and a unique consumer identifier;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Retrieve location information element associated with the location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Retrieve a consumer profile element associated with the unique consumer identifier;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Generate an updated consumer profile information element based at least in part on one or more of the consumer profile information element, the detailed visit record information element, and the location characterization information element; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Store the updated consumer profile information element in the server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving visit record information and unique identifier of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Retrieving consumer profile associated with the unique identifier from a server;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Updating the retrieved consumer profile based on the received visit record information; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Storing the updated consumer profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 4/28/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A tracking device (e.g. using **bluetooth**) that receives location information and unique identifier of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Location based consumer profiling&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/d3T4jbc.png&quot; width=&quot;421&quot; height=&quot;646&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20120278132&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://rapidbluesolutions.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120278132#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=04%2F28%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5543" RevisionGUID="9b3fa301-4976-4c39-891d-26740e74076a" CreationDate="2013-12-05T19:19:46.430" UserId="3076" Text="It would have expired in 1980 so there are no right associated with it. You, or anyone else, do not need any patent to produce a machine. It is the patent of others that you must avoid when making a product." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5540" RevisionGUID="311fa910-5171-4257-9bf6-e7b34eb1390c" CreationDate="2013-12-05T19:56:33.350" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON managing information associated with a data set based on location of the consumer.** - This application from [Cadio, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving an input from a consumer, obtaining location of the consumer, identifying a setting visited by the consumer based on the obtained location, and adjusting the information associated with the identified setting based on the obtained location and input from the consumer.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/27/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Managing information in a data set for identifying settings visited by a consumer based on consumer's location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A setting refers to a place corresponding to the consumer's location, such as a **commercial place** or a **non-commercial place** (e.g., business or park).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Adjusting a process for identifying a setting visited by a consumer based on the consumer's location and input received from the consumer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving location of a consumer, identifying a setting (such as **a commercial place** or **a non-commercial place** (e.g., business or park)) from a **data set** corresponding to the received location, and changing the information associated with the identified setting in the from a **data set** based on the identification process.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20120330722 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/535,150&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Cadio, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/27/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/25/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of operating a consumer analytics system in which information about consumers is generated at least in part based on applying a visit detection process to location data relating to one or more consumers, to identified settings visited by the one or more consumers, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving input provided by a consumer identifying a setting visited by the consumer at a time;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Obtaining information identifying a physical location of the consumer at the time; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Adjusting, using at least one processor and based at least in part on the input provided by the consumer and the physical location of the consumer, the visit detection process for identifying settings visited by the plurality of consumers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving input from a consumer to identify a setting visited by the consumer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Obtaining location of the consumer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identifying a setting corresponding to the location of the consumer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Adjusting information stored in a data set used for identifying whether the consumer has visited the setting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/27/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Comparing location of the consumer with location boundaries of one or more settings to identify a setting corresponding to the location of the consumer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Identifying a place visited by a consumer&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NtMqOcJ.png&quot; width=&quot;446&quot; height=&quot;629&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120330722&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.locately.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120330722#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=06%2F27%2F2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5515" RevisionGUID="e8174562-69e9-47e5-9d29-0d1d93fe5441" CreationDate="2013-12-05T19:56:53.397" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Targeting promotions based on location of vendors with respect to user's current location.** - This application from [Finnoble Solutions, now Capital One][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying vendors from a user's transaction history, determining a vendor whose location is proximate to the user's current location, and delivering promotions associated with the determined vendor to the user! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/9/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Targeting promotions based on location of vendors with respect to the user's location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Vendors are identified from the **transaction history** of a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Presenting promotions offered by vendors in proximity to a consumer's current location.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying vendors from the **transaction history** of a consumer, determining location of the consumer based on location of the consumer's **mobile device**, identifying a vendor in proximity to the consumer, and presenting promotions offered by the identified vendor on the consumer's **mobile device**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120290389 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/103,855&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Finnoble Solutions, Inc. / CapitalOne&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/9/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 5/14/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of providing a list of current offers from retailers to a user operating a mobile client device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Analyzing a transaction history of the user to identify a vendor who has transacted with the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining a present geographic location of the user based on a location of the mobile client device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining a location of the vendor proximate the user based on the transaction history and the present geographic location of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Searching for a current promotion offered by the vendor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Transmitting, the current promotion to the user, wherein the transmitted current promotion comprises information related to the transaction history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing a list of current offers from retailers to consumers operating a mobile device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying vendors who have transacted with the consumer from the consumer's transaction history;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining location of the consumer based on the location of the mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining a vendor in proximity to the user's location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Searching for current promotion offered by the vendor ; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Presenting the current promotion offered by the vendor on the consumer's mobile device, where the promotion is related to the user's transaction history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/9/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Matching one or more locations of a vendor with the consumer's location to identify the nearest vendor location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Display of matched offers based on a user's location and transaction history&quot;&quot;&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/y9Jerqn.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120290389&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.bankons.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120290389" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5534" RevisionGUID="35de8454-1223-404b-9262-ebc7b8209c72" CreationDate="2013-12-05T19:57:25.900" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON managing consumer profiles based on detailed visit records of consumers.** - This application from [Rapidblue Solutions / Shoppertrak][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving **location information** and a **unique identifier** of a consumer, retrieving consumer profile associated with the unique identifier, and **updating a consumer profile** based on information related to their location! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 4/28/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Updating consumer profiles based on consumer's visit record info.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A visit record information includes **a location visited by a consumer**, **date and time of visit**, and **length of time spent at the location**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Updating consumer profile based on location information received from the consumer's mobile device.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receive **visit record information** (such as location, **date and time of visit**, and **time spent at the location**) and **unique identifier** of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device, retrieve **consumer profile** associated with the **unique identifier** from a server, and update the retrieved **consumer profile** based on the **visit record information**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120278132 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/458,337&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Rapidblue Solutions / ShopperTrak][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 4/28/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/30/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for profiling a consumer, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An agent with a memory in communication with a processor, the memory including program instructions for execution by the processor to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receive a visit record information element comprising information about a location visited by the consumer and a unique consumer identifier;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Retrieve location information element associated with the location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Retrieve a consumer profile element associated with the unique consumer identifier;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Generate an updated consumer profile information element based at least in part on one or more of the consumer profile information element, the detailed visit record information element, and the location characterization information element; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Store the updated consumer profile information element in the server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving visit record information and unique identifier of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Retrieving consumer profile associated with the unique identifier from a server;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Updating the retrieved consumer profile based on the received visit record information; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Storing the updated consumer profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 4/28/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A tracking device (e.g. using **bluetooth**) that receives location information and unique identifier of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Location based consumer profiling&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/d3T4jbc.png&quot; width=&quot;421&quot; height=&quot;646&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20120278132&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://rapidbluesolutions.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120278132#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=04%2F28%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5545" RevisionGUID="345f81db-db1a-4b07-aad5-377fb50b6610" CreationDate="2013-12-05T21:43:24.483" UserId="7338" Text="It's not formaly an affirmative defense under the law.  Lawyers throw it in as a cya for some reason.  Affirmative defenses generally track the burden of proof.  The patent plaintiff has the burden of proof on infringement so the defendant doesn't have to present the &quot;affirmative defense&quot; of noninfringement, but merely has to deny it.  The defendant generally has the burden of proof on invalidity so that is generally plead as an affirmative defense. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5547" RevisionGUID="2ef04b36-14ee-4d6e-91c4-947da775012f" CreationDate="2013-12-06T02:35:42.340" UserId="7340" Text="I am filing a provisional application for a device that that can be use to improve the operation and performance of a very common item.  The device can be designed to be integrated into the design of the item (i.e., a manufacture could produce items that have the device as a built-in feature) or designed to be added onto an instance of the item not originally designed to utilize the feature.  Imagine a special handle that makes it easy to carry a box and a box with that special handle designed right into the box.  (For clarity, my invention has nothing to do with boxes... it's just an analogy.  ;) In the provisional application, I describe embodiments of both genre, i.e., as an independent box handle and as a box with the handle designed right in.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, if I move forward with a full patent, will I be able to file more than one patent referencing the provisional, i.e., one for a handle that can be added to a box and one for a box designed with the handle built right in?  Is it enough to patent the handle and just assume that no one would be able to build a box with the handle integrated?  I know there are a lot of &quot;it depends&quot; conditions and that's fine.  I'm just looking for general guidelines on what's possible and what's likely.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14145" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5547" RevisionGUID="2ef04b36-14ee-4d6e-91c4-947da775012f" CreationDate="2013-12-06T02:35:42.340" UserId="7340" Text="Multiple patents from a single provisional patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14146" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5547" RevisionGUID="2ef04b36-14ee-4d6e-91c4-947da775012f" CreationDate="2013-12-06T02:35:42.340" UserId="7340" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5548" RevisionGUID="351a22fd-9a91-44ad-8fad-ab2efcb5fa22" CreationDate="2013-12-06T05:24:45.830" UserId="7342" Text="I have spent a few months building a web based service, and am quite excited about the result/idea/potential. I came up with the idea entirely on my own as a result of a personal experience. I instantly knew what I wanted to call the product also.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I near the launch date, I did a quick search for a name similar to what I am planning on calling my product (I really like the name I chose). Unfortunately, I found a really short and unprofessional powerpoint which seems to have been made by some software engineering students vaguely describing the product I built (my product is very different, but the core goal is admittedly quite similar). I wouldn't expect this to be a big problem, but since the name they proposed is similar also, I'm a bit concerned. There is nothing more on the internet about that project, and it is a 3 year old document (that project seems to have never been actually built).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I own the domain name for my product, but that's about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there anything I should be concerned about, or should I just carry on? I don't intend on filing a patent or anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14151" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5548" RevisionGUID="351a22fd-9a91-44ad-8fad-ab2efcb5fa22" CreationDate="2013-12-06T05:24:45.830" UserId="7342" Text="Not filing a patent, but found what seems to be &quot;prior art&quot; - any risk?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14152" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5548" RevisionGUID="351a22fd-9a91-44ad-8fad-ab2efcb5fa22" CreationDate="2013-12-06T05:24:45.830" UserId="7342" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;websites&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5549" RevisionGUID="c07eb0b6-f66e-4c80-b7f1-16cd67983a3b" CreationDate="2013-12-06T06:36:22.993" UserId="3076" Text="**The answer to the question in the title of the post** - More than one non-provisional patent application can claim the benefit of a single provisional application.Not your question but - Also, a single non-provisonal patent application can claim the benefit of multiple provisional applications&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**An answer to the question in the body of the post** - Most likely both your non-provisonal application  and your provisional application would cover all implementations you can think of including just the handle, the handle integrated into a box, the handle integrated into several other box-like things. In the claims portion of the non-provisonal you can have some claims directed to just a handle and other directed to a box with an integrated handle. You may get claims on both or it may turn out that the handle isn't new but in the past it had always been used on something other than boxes, or the way you integrate into the box makes a novel and non-obvious whole. Another possibility is the examiner issues a restriction requirement and you need decide to go forward with the system or with the handle in that initial application. You can later file a divisional application to go back and try for the second version. It will keep all the dates of the original application back to the provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an easy question, if you are going to write your own patent application it is a very small tip of a very big iceberg." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5550" RevisionGUID="d34f7554-737d-4105-84b1-9ff305db1d32" CreationDate="2013-12-06T11:28:30.720" UserId="7344" Text="If I post my idea, in detail, even with drawings, on a public Google+ post, would that be considered to be an accurately dated disclosure?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems it would establish the dates of invention, both publicly, and verifiably from Googles own servers, and the internet archive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same concept would go for a Facebook public posting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14155" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5550" RevisionGUID="d34f7554-737d-4105-84b1-9ff305db1d32" CreationDate="2013-12-06T11:28:30.720" UserId="7344" Text="Would a Google+ public posting be considered an invention disclosure?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14156" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5550" RevisionGUID="d34f7554-737d-4105-84b1-9ff305db1d32" CreationDate="2013-12-06T11:28:30.720" UserId="7344" Text="&lt;google&gt;&lt;facebook&gt;&lt;invention&gt;&lt;plus&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5551" RevisionGUID="154db8c7-a45d-4032-8686-fa656e3e3024" CreationDate="2013-12-06T14:07:27.110" UserId="5071" Text="I think it might depend on how public that posting was. Both of those social networks have privacy settings which limit the exposure to your posts. Was it posted to a single individual? Probably not considered disclosure. Public to the world, probably considered disclosure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, any such could establish a date for invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5540" RevisionGUID="94652da4-db20-4fae-8f07-6302ccd45ce2" CreationDate="2013-12-06T14:45:13.647" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON managing information associated with a data set based on location of the consumer.** - This application from [Cadio, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving an input from a consumer, obtaining location of the consumer, identifying a setting visited by the consumer based on the obtained location, and adjusting the information associated with the identified setting based on the obtained location and input from the consumer.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/27/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Managing information in a data set for identifying settings visited by a consumer based on consumer's location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A setting refers to a place corresponding to the consumer's location, such as a **commercial place** or a **non-commercial place** (e.g., business or park).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Adjusting a process for identifying a setting visited by a consumer based on the consumer's location and input received from the consumer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving location of a consumer, identifying a setting (such as **a commercial place** or **a non-commercial place** (e.g., business or park)) from a **data set** corresponding to the received location, and changing the information associated with the identified setting in the from a **data set** based on the identification process.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20120330722 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/535,150&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Cadio, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/27/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/25/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of operating a consumer analytics system in which information about consumers is generated at least in part based on applying a visit detection process to location data relating to one or more consumers, to identified settings visited by the one or more consumers, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving input provided by a consumer identifying a setting visited by the consumer at a time;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Obtaining information identifying a physical location of the consumer at the time; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Adjusting, using at least one processor and based at least in part on the input provided by the consumer and the physical location of the consumer, the visit detection process for identifying settings visited by the plurality of consumers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving input from a consumer to identify a setting visited by the consumer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Obtaining location of the consumer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identifying a setting corresponding to the location of the consumer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Adjusting information stored in a data set used for identifying whether the consumer has visited the setting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/27/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Comparing location of the consumer with location boundaries of one or more settings to identify a setting corresponding to the location of the consumer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Identifying a place visited by a consumer&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NtMqOcJ.png&quot; width=&quot;446&quot; height=&quot;629&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120330722&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.locately.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120330722#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=06%2F27%2F2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5515" RevisionGUID="928851ab-f1b8-44ee-8136-e42354317061" CreationDate="2013-12-06T14:45:35.680" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Targeting promotions based on location of vendors with respect to user's current location.** - This application from [Finnoble Solutions, now Capital One][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying vendors from a user's transaction history, determining a vendor whose location is proximate to the user's current location, and delivering promotions associated with the determined vendor to the user! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/9/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Targeting promotions based on location of vendors with respect to the user's location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Vendors are identified from the **transaction history** of a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Presenting promotions offered by vendors in proximity to a consumer's current location.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying vendors from the **transaction history** of a consumer, determining location of the consumer based on location of the consumer's **mobile device**, identifying a vendor in proximity to the consumer, and presenting promotions offered by the identified vendor on the consumer's **mobile device**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120290389 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/103,855&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Finnoble Solutions, Inc. / CapitalOne&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/9/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 5/14/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of providing a list of current offers from retailers to a user operating a mobile client device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Analyzing a transaction history of the user to identify a vendor who has transacted with the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining a present geographic location of the user based on a location of the mobile client device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining a location of the vendor proximate the user based on the transaction history and the present geographic location of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Searching for a current promotion offered by the vendor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Transmitting, the current promotion to the user, wherein the transmitted current promotion comprises information related to the transaction history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing a list of current offers from retailers to consumers operating a mobile device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying vendors who have transacted with the consumer from the consumer's transaction history;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining location of the consumer based on the location of the mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining a vendor in proximity to the user's location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Searching for current promotion offered by the vendor ; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Presenting the current promotion offered by the vendor on the consumer's mobile device, where the promotion is related to the user's transaction history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/9/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Matching one or more locations of a vendor with the consumer's location to identify the nearest vendor location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Display of matched offers based on a user's location and transaction history&quot;&quot;&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/y9Jerqn.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120290389&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.bankons.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120290389" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5534" RevisionGUID="f255528d-4e25-4afa-9e9b-02e365be5629" CreationDate="2013-12-06T14:45:54.307" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON managing consumer profiles based on detailed visit records of consumers.** - This application from [Rapidblue Solutions / Shoppertrak][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving **location information** and a **unique identifier** of a consumer, retrieving consumer profile associated with the unique identifier, and **updating a consumer profile** based on information related to their location! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 4/28/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Updating consumer profiles based on consumer's visit record info.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A visit record information includes **a location visited by a consumer**, **date and time of visit**, and **length of time spent at the location**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Updating consumer profile based on location information received from the consumer's mobile device.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receive **visit record information** (such as location, **date and time of visit**, and **time spent at the location**) and **unique identifier** of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device, retrieve **consumer profile** associated with the **unique identifier** from a server, and update the retrieved **consumer profile** based on the **visit record information**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120278132 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/458,337&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Rapidblue Solutions / ShopperTrak][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 4/28/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/30/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for profiling a consumer, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An agent with a memory in communication with a processor, the memory including program instructions for execution by the processor to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receive a visit record information element comprising information about a location visited by the consumer and a unique consumer identifier;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Retrieve location information element associated with the location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Retrieve a consumer profile element associated with the unique consumer identifier;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Generate an updated consumer profile information element based at least in part on one or more of the consumer profile information element, the detailed visit record information element, and the location characterization information element; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Store the updated consumer profile information element in the server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving visit record information and unique identifier of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Retrieving consumer profile associated with the unique identifier from a server;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Updating the retrieved consumer profile based on the received visit record information; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Storing the updated consumer profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 4/28/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A tracking device (e.g. using **bluetooth**) that receives location information and unique identifier of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Location based consumer profiling&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/d3T4jbc.png&quot; width=&quot;421&quot; height=&quot;646&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20120278132&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://rapidbluesolutions.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120278132#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=04%2F28%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5553" RevisionGUID="61dc5155-3a08-47b1-afb5-82f49dc38b57" CreationDate="2013-12-06T16:54:21.350" UserId="3775" Text="I was reading [EP 1 207 394 A2][1] filed in 2001, so I believe there could be a decision available. How can I find it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&amp;II=0&amp;ND=3&amp;adjacent=true&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;FT=D&amp;date=20020522&amp;CC=EP&amp;NR=1207394A2&amp;KC=A2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14166" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5553" RevisionGUID="61dc5155-3a08-47b1-afb5-82f49dc38b57" CreationDate="2013-12-06T16:54:21.350" UserId="3775" Text="How to find the decision corresponding to a patent on ESPACENET?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14167" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5553" RevisionGUID="61dc5155-3a08-47b1-afb5-82f49dc38b57" CreationDate="2013-12-06T16:54:21.350" UserId="3775" Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5554" RevisionGUID="d4f8deb2-3880-4c48-8916-51b6f72f5370" CreationDate="2013-12-06T19:20:05.913" UserId="3076" Text="If you go to that document in ESPACENET you will see an &quot;also published as&quot; box. In it is a link to a publication with the same number but followed by B1. That designation is for an issued patent. If you follow that link you get to the issued patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the upper left see &quot;Date of publication and mention of grant of patent&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/d3I53.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5554" RevisionGUID="4440e22d-d284-4881-9ad9-387489360121" CreationDate="2013-12-06T19:35:14.980" UserId="3076" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="I assume by &quot;a decision&quot; you are asking if it has reached a final disposition. It has resulted in a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If you go to that document in ESPACENET you will see an &quot;also published as&quot; box. In it is a link to a publication with the same number but followed by B1. That designation is for an issued patent. If you follow that link you get to the issued patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the upper left see &quot;Date of publication and mention of grant of patent&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/d3I53.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5555" RevisionGUID="9a1cfee6-5178-4d81-a792-6b17f61873c1" CreationDate="2013-12-06T20:08:33.440" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Personalized purchase offers** - This application from [Ibotta, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Personalized purchase offers based on item-level transaction data from a physical retail receipt! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/20/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Generating and providing personalized purchase offers based on item-level purchase data. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Matching the item-level purchase data of at least one user with offer data. The offer data indicates purchases of a product of a provider of the offer over a specified number of shopping outings, manufactured by the provider of the offer  or a competitor of the provider of the offer. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Method for generating and providing personalized purchase offers based on item-level purchase data.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Aggregating **item-level purchase data** for each of a plurality of users from multiple sources, the aggregated **item-level purchase data** comprising **item-level purchase data** from a **physical retail receipt**, receiving **offer data** from **offer providers**, selecting a user to receive an offer based on the aggregated **item-level purchase data** and the **offer data**, and transmitting the offer to a **communication device** of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20120323663A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/571,150&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Ibotta, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/20/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/18/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Aggregating item-level purchase data for each of a plurality of users from multiple sources, the aggregated item-level purchase data comprising item-level purchase data from a physical retail receipt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving offer data from offer providers;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting, using at least one processor of a machine, at least one user of the plurality of users to receive an offer based on the aggregated item-level purchase data and the offer data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmitting the offer to a communication device of the at least one user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Aggregate item-level purchase data from a physical retail receipt of multiple users from multiple sources;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receive offer data from offer providers;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Select the user to receive an offer based on the aggregated item-level purchase data and the offer data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmit the offer to a communication device of the selected user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/20/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#REF!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Personalized purchase offers based on item-level transaction data&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/qkjbqs2.png&quot; width=&quot;428&quot; height=&quot;621&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120323663&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://ibotta.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120323663" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14171" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5555" RevisionGUID="9a1cfee6-5178-4d81-a792-6b17f61873c1" CreationDate="2013-12-06T20:08:33.440" UserId="1767" Text="Personalized offers based on purchase data - Offers from Item-level data from receipt (Ibotta, Inc.) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14172" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5555" RevisionGUID="9a1cfee6-5178-4d81-a792-6b17f61873c1" CreationDate="2013-12-06T20:08:33.440" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20120323663&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5555" RevisionGUID="8286d4a3-01e3-4ca9-8673-4905181e474d" CreationDate="2013-12-06T20:22:25.737" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Personalized purchase offers** - This application from [Ibotta, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Personalized purchase offers based on item-level transaction data from a physical retail receipt! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/20/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Generating and providing personalized purchase offers based on item-level purchase data. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Matching the item-level purchase data of at least one user with offer data. The offer data indicates purchases of a product of a provider of the offer over a specified number of shopping outings, manufactured by the provider of the offer  or a competitor of the provider of the offer. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Method for generating and providing personalized purchase offers based on item-level purchase data.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Aggregating **item-level purchase data** for each of a plurality of users from multiple sources, the aggregated **item-level purchase data** comprising **item-level purchase data** from a **physical retail receipt**, receiving **offer data** from **offer providers**, selecting a user to receive an offer based on the aggregated **item-level purchase data** and the **offer data**, and transmitting the offer to a **communication device** of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120323663 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/571,150&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Ibotta, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/20/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/18/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Aggregating item-level purchase data for each of a plurality of users from multiple sources, the aggregated item-level purchase data comprising item-level purchase data from a physical retail receipt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving offer data from offer providers;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting, using at least one processor of a machine, at least one user of the plurality of users to receive an offer based on the aggregated item-level purchase data and the offer data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmitting the offer to a communication device of the at least one user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Aggregate item-level purchase data from a physical retail receipt of multiple users from multiple sources;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receive offer data from offer providers;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Select the user to receive an offer based on the aggregated item-level purchase data and the offer data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmit the offer to a communication device of the selected user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/20/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Personalized purchase offers based on item-level transaction data&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/qkjbqs2.png&quot; width=&quot;428&quot; height=&quot;621&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120323663&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://ibotta.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120323663" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14174" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5555" RevisionGUID="8286d4a3-01e3-4ca9-8673-4905181e474d" CreationDate="2013-12-06T20:22:25.737" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Personalized offers based on purchase data - Offers from Item-level data from receipt (Ibotta) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14175" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5555" RevisionGUID="8286d4a3-01e3-4ca9-8673-4905181e474d" CreationDate="2013-12-06T20:22:25.737" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20120323663&gt;&lt;ibotta&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5556" RevisionGUID="0d969e0a-284a-4a22-b9e1-a4eb68dc8189" CreationDate="2013-12-06T22:11:33.463" UserId="3076" Text="**Methods and Apparatus for Gathering Intelligence from Itemized Receipts**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;US 20120284081 A1&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Abstract&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The present invention is in the field of commerce, including e-commerce and pertains particularly to methods and apparatus for gathering intelligence from itemized receipts, as well as methods for using the gathered intelligence for targeted CRM and marketing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the specification:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;...the itemized receipts are one or a combination of paper receipts and digital receipts ...&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;... real receipts and real matching product items listed on the same merchant site or across multiple merchants ... &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;... ws manufacturers like CPGs to directly issue targeted offers or marketing contents to the consumers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may not include 100% of the limitations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5557" RevisionGUID="759ef571-4a16-4bf4-8121-a4bff8c0f517" CreationDate="2013-12-06T22:29:39.737" UserId="7346" Text="What you are asking is more of a trademark issue than a patent issue. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5558" RevisionGUID="f3967dfe-c0f2-4fe2-bfb5-d32b8e9cea4a" CreationDate="2013-12-07T00:58:42.177" UserId="3076" Text="What someone else (person A) did, and published, in the past would be useable as &quot;prior art&quot; to a patent you might file. Since you don't care about getting a patent yourself this is irrelevant. You do care about building a product and worry about someone coming after you. If the person with the earlier version of your idea never filed anything, than he wouldn't ever get a patent to use against you. The last case is that of a third party (person B) who independently developed the idea after person A's publication and filed an application. Person A's powerpoint could be used to try to show that person B's invention was not novel or was obvious at the time. That helps you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5556" RevisionGUID="08be28d2-01b9-4d35-a695-fed4e7bc53a9" CreationDate="2013-12-07T00:59:38.900" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 26 characters in body" Text="**Methods and Apparatus for Gathering Intelligence from Itemized Receipts**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;US 20120284081 A1&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Abstract&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The present invention is in the field of commerce, including e-commerce and pertains particularly to methods and apparatus for gathering intelligence from itemized receipts, as well as methods for using the gathered intelligence for targeted CRM and marketing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the specification:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;...the itemized receipts are one or a combination of paper receipts and digital receipts ...&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;... real receipts and real matching product items listed on the same merchant site or across multiple merchants ... &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;...  to directly issue targeted offers or marketing contents to the consumers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may not include 100% of the limitations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5559" RevisionGUID="e40c7ea9-9317-441a-bc4c-522b7aeb0842" CreationDate="2013-12-08T13:10:41.817" UserId="7351" Text="How about this from 2009: [Ferromagnetic Passive Intermodulation][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ferromagnetic materials are a known cause of passive intermodulation (PIM). For the first time we show that by biasing them with a static magnetic field, the PIM can be reduced significantly. Specifically we show that a standard gold plated SMA can have it's PIM reduced by 35 dB, down to the level of the DIN 7/16 silver plated connector specifically designed for low PIM performance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mVPfwqEPaM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5560" RevisionGUID="dc1bd221-33e3-474f-8653-3dd688040b63" CreationDate="2013-12-08T13:56:18.323" UserId="7351" Text="I'm reading though a patent that's part of a suit (I have a morbid curiosity at times). The patent is US 8402281, [Data security system for a database][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a sentence in the document that states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Encryption” may concern any form of encryption, tricryption,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conversion of coding of plain-text data to non-interpretable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (encrypted) data, and is especially to concern also methods of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conversion including hashing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried searching on the web, and I have not come up with anything useful. The closet I get is someone's encryption product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question: what is tricryption? Is there some specific legal meaning that concerns itself with technology and encryption?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.co.in/patents/US8402281" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14182" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5560" RevisionGUID="dc1bd221-33e3-474f-8653-3dd688040b63" CreationDate="2013-12-08T13:56:18.323" UserId="7351" Text="What is tricryption?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14183" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5560" RevisionGUID="dc1bd221-33e3-474f-8653-3dd688040b63" CreationDate="2013-12-08T13:56:18.323" UserId="7351" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5559" RevisionGUID="85572b67-7235-40a0-82da-7dce3b649539" CreationDate="2013-12-08T15:03:53.450" UserId="7351" Comment="Add quotation" Text="How about this from 2009: [Ferromagnetic Passive Intermodulation][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ferromagnetic materials are a known cause of passive intermodulation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (PIM). For the first time we show that by biasing them with a static&#xD;&#xA;&gt; magnetic field, the PIM can be reduced significantly. Specifically we&#xD;&#xA;&gt; show that a standard gold plated SMA can have it's PIM reduced by 35&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dB, down to the level of the DIN 7/16 silver plated connector&#xD;&#xA;&gt; specifically designed for low PIM performance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mVPfwqEPaM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5561" RevisionGUID="c7f0f9e4-1c09-4efa-8c34-f57a4af75b06" CreationDate="2013-12-08T17:11:36.390" UserId="7352" Text="This is one of my inventions (I am Archie)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my preferred embodiment of the method the patient himself or herself will function as the bioreactor for the development of a neo-organ.  If the patient in need of the organ is not healthy enough, than a healthy human would perhaps volunteer or accept payment to build a donor organ and said patient would function as a bioreactor for someone in need.   I would liken it to someone donating their kidney, but with much less to lose.  The volunteer would need to be a match and the process may be a little risky at first, but over time and with lots of testing I’m sure that we could make it a very safe procedure.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially we would harvest the cells from the person functioning as a bioreactor and then cultivate the cells (and perhaps preserve them) for when we decide to begin the process of fabrication.  This would eliminate all of the immunogenicity issues during the fabrication process.  Once the organ was completed it would be detached from the person functioning as the bioreactor and it would be implanted into the patient that needs the donor organ.  This patient would still require immunosuppressant medication, but they would at least have found the organ that they need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’m not sure of the ethical implications of hiring a human to be a bioreactor for a number of weeks or months, but it seems less invasive and somewhat less ethically controversial than asking someone to donate a functional kidney.  There may be some people that would welcome the opportunity to help another human or in some instances earn money for their stay in a medical facility to save a persons (or loved ones) life.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14186" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5560" RevisionGUID="f186e81e-e7d7-49c9-9547-6a9f524c3ebf" CreationDate="2013-12-08T23:39:52.717" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;us8402281&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5562" RevisionGUID="d72d1c61-035f-4660-be2a-b16170f17769" CreationDate="2013-12-08T23:50:37.680" UserId="1767" Text="The term **&quot;Tricryption&quot;** does seem to be obscure.  It has no weird legal meaning related to security and encryption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic legal principle is that the patent claims must be **&quot;given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.”** The applicant is also free to act as his own lexicographer, meaning the applicant is allowed to define terms in the specification idiosyncratically, i.e. differently from their ordinary meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Absent a specific definition of a term such as **Tricryption** in the specification, or a specific narrowing of the ordinary definition, the interpretation would fall back on the ordinary definition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which doesn't help much if the term isn't ordinarily used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [Google Scholar search][1] may provide some context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems from at least [one of the Google references][2], a Master's Thesis from West Virginia University, that the term has some ordinary meaning to at least a small group within the data security community:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To aid us in this project, ERUCES, Inc. allowed us to use the Tricryption® Engine&#xD;&#xA;software suite for our experimental setup. The ERUCES Tricryption® Engine is a&#xD;&#xA;patent-pending encryption solution that is used to secure sensitive information stored in a database. This is accomplished using standard algorithms along with key management to&#xD;&#xA;protect data from theft and tampering, ensuring privacy&#xD;&#xA;and integrity in the database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tricryption claims to eliminate intruder and insider threats to the databases security.&#xD;&#xA;The Tricryption® Engine encrypts individual fields, records, or objects&#xD;&#xA;within a database using unique, variable lifetime keys. These keys are stored in a protected database in a separate domain keeping them securely away from the encrypted data. The links between the encrypted data and the corresponding keys are also encrypted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tricryption provides many advantages for data-at-rest security.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; First, when Tricryption is used, the protected data and the encrypted keys&#xD;&#xA;are stored separately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Next, Tricryption uses an unlimited number of keys based on the number of transact ions as opposed to using a single key or a fixed number of keys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In addition, the complexity of the scrambling system used in Tricryption incr&#xD;&#xA;eases with every single transaction, thus adding to the difficulty of a successful crypto&#xD;&#xA;attack.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And finally, even if a malicious user were to steal the information database&#xD;&#xA;and the key database, the protected data is useless outside of the ERUCES system. The&#xD;&#xA;reason for this is the combination of the unlimited number of keys and the complexity&#xD;&#xA;of the scrambling system used. Even though the malicious user has the keys used to&#xD;&#xA;encrypt the data, th ere are an unlimited number of them so the user would have to fi&#xD;&#xA;rst somehow figure out which keys were used to encrypt which data, then figure out the algori thm used to encrypt the data so he or she could in turn decrypt it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&amp;q=tricryption&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://wvuscholar.wvu.edu:8881//exlibris/dtl/d3_1/apache_media/L2V4bGlicmlzL2R0bC9kM18xL2FwYWNoZV9tZWRpYS8yMTE1MA==.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5563" RevisionGUID="78eeb489-8f7c-4f39-a7d5-ae2aeb970e73" CreationDate="2013-12-09T04:26:22.933" UserId="7356" Text="Tricryption might refer to something like triple DES or 3DES." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5564" RevisionGUID="d1d8c28f-e186-420e-90d0-aa3bc540ac30" CreationDate="2013-12-09T06:47:49.737" UserId="7356" Text="Has this patent expired?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US5870405&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication number	US5870405 A  &#xD;&#xA;Publication type	Grant  &#xD;&#xA;Application number	US 08/610,184  &#xD;&#xA;Publication date	Feb 9, 1999  &#xD;&#xA;Filing date	Mar 4, 1996  &#xD;&#xA;Priority date	Nov 30, 1992  &#xD;&#xA;Fee status	Paid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the patent expired 20 years from the priority date (this is a divisional patent) which would be March 4, 2012. Is that correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14192" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5564" RevisionGUID="d1d8c28f-e186-420e-90d0-aa3bc540ac30" CreationDate="2013-12-09T06:47:49.737" UserId="7356" Text="Has US5870405 expired?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14193" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5564" RevisionGUID="d1d8c28f-e186-420e-90d0-aa3bc540ac30" CreationDate="2013-12-09T06:47:49.737" UserId="7356" Text="&lt;us5870405&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="15021902-dbc4-439d-90dd-b807163efc91" CreationDate="2013-12-09T07:43:17.913" UserId="5843" Text="I need to use certain terms repeatedly in my dependent claims, but do not need the same terms in my independent claims. I could define the terms in each dependent claim, but that would be prolix. I would like to define the terms once, then use them throughout the dependent claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the correct form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14195" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="15021902-dbc4-439d-90dd-b807163efc91" CreationDate="2013-12-09T07:43:17.913" UserId="5843" Text="Definitions in dependent claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14196" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="15021902-dbc4-439d-90dd-b807163efc91" CreationDate="2013-12-09T07:43:17.913" UserId="5843" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;definitions&gt;&lt;prolixity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5559" RevisionGUID="7f154e91-01d2-461a-afe5-24b8f540a1c3" CreationDate="2013-12-09T07:55:15.500" UserId="7351" Comment="Added info on IDEAS youtube account" Text="How about this from 2009? [Ferromagnetic Passive Intermodulation][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ferromagnetic materials are a known cause of passive intermodulation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (PIM). For the first time we show that by biasing them with a static&#xD;&#xA;&gt; magnetic field, the PIM can be reduced significantly. Specifically we&#xD;&#xA;&gt; show that a standard gold plated SMA can have it's PIM reduced by 35&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dB, down to the level of the DIN 7/16 silver plated connector&#xD;&#xA;&gt; specifically designed for low PIM performance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Humorously, it came from Purdue's IDEAS RF Lab. The lab apparently has a YouTube account (https://www.youtube.com/user/ideasrf and https://engineering.purdue.edu/IDEAS).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mVPfwqEPaM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5566" RevisionGUID="132e2c30-bea6-4795-9277-46741ce6aebf" CreationDate="2013-12-09T14:15:07.237" UserId="5071" Text="Target has been doing this for a very long time. My guess is about 10 years. You go in to get cereal, and they'll print off a coupon for the brand that's paying them the advertising for the week. Or you buy some name brand, and there'll be a coupon for the &lt;strike&gt;Target&lt;/strike&gt; Market Pantry brand with your receipt. There's even public cases of them having done it over the course of several purchases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5556" RevisionGUID="41cc1d7e-7d5d-402a-bab3-8e838adf72b0" CreationDate="2013-12-09T16:34:01.863" UserId="3076" Comment="added link" Text="**Methods and Apparatus for Gathering Intelligence from Itemized Receipts**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[US20120284081][1] A1&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Abstract&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The present invention is in the field of commerce, including e-commerce and pertains particularly to methods and apparatus for gathering intelligence from itemized receipts, as well as methods for using the gathered intelligence for targeted CRM and marketing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the specification:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;...the itemized receipts are one or a combination of paper receipts and digital receipts ...&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;... real receipts and real matching product items listed on the same merchant site or across multiple merchants ... &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;...  to directly issue targeted offers or marketing contents to the consumers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may not include 100% of the limitations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120284081" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5567" RevisionGUID="1a5b4491-fb51-4428-b961-49e95b6957f4" CreationDate="2013-12-09T20:35:42.733" UserId="3076" Text="No. The law for patent term changed as of 1995 with the Uruguay round of the WTO TRIPS treaty. It is now 20 years from the first claimed priority filing (excluding provisionals). Before that it was 17 years from grant. The patent in question was caught in the middle of the change and is the *later* of those two calculations. 1999 + 17 = 2016 so the 17 years from grant would govern. This could be less if there was a terminal disclaimer filed. If it had been for a pharmaceutical then time waiting for FDA approval can also be involved in the calculation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="c60720aa-7384-42c3-bb57-014830a5ba08" CreationDate="2013-12-09T23:09:53.877" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions** - This application from [Smart Destinations, Inc][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Enhanced data collection and reporting for improved ticket pricing and marketing. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/15/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Enhanced data collection and reporting for improved ticket pricing and marketing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Dynamically pricing and validating access to goods, services, attractions, events and other items&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Method for enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving an identification of a location of a user and a **first attraction** selected for access by a user, determining a **travel path** between the location of the user and the **first attraction**, identifying a **second attraction** within a predetermined distance from the **travel path**, and transmitting an offer of access to the **second attraction** to a computing device of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20120323691A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/523,213&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Smart Destinations, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/15/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/18/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, by a first device, an identification of a location of a user and a first attraction selected for access by a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining, by a path analyzer, a travel path between the location of the user and the first attraction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identifying, by the path analyzer, a second attraction within a predetermined distance from the travel path; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmitting, by the first device to a computing device of the user, an offer of access to the second attraction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for better customer marketing based on customer path data between attractions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receive an identification of a user's location and a first attraction selected for access by the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determine a travel path between the location of the user and the first attraction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identify a second attraction within a predetermined distance from the travel path; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmit an offer of access to the second attraction to a computing device of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/15/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Identifying the second attraction based on a net price. The  net price being below a net price threshold or an average customer visit time of the second attraction being above a visit time threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Location-based marketing for attraction access&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/gIUuqQa.png&quot; width=&quot;315&quot; height=&quot;458&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120323691&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.smartdestinations.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120323691" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14205" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="c60720aa-7384-42c3-bb57-014830a5ba08" CreationDate="2013-12-09T23:09:53.877" UserId="1767" Text="Location-based marketing - Providing ticketing and access to attractions. (Smart Destinations) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14206" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="c60720aa-7384-42c3-bb57-014830a5ba08" CreationDate="2013-12-09T23:09:53.877" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;us20120323691&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="420e7da3-9aa8-4a55-86e4-1637bd26001e" CreationDate="2013-12-09T23:23:42.103" UserId="1767" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions** - This application from [Smart Destinations, Inc][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Enhanced data collection and reporting for improved ticket pricing and marketing. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/15/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Enhanced data collection and reporting for improved ticket pricing and marketing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Dynamically pricing and validating access to goods, services, attractions, events and other items&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Method for enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving an identification of a location of a user and a **first attraction** selected for access by a user, determining a **travel path** between the location of the user and the **first attraction**, identifying a **second attraction** within a predetermined distance from the **travel path**, and transmitting an offer of access to the **second attraction** to a computing device of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20120323691A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/523,213&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Smart Destinations, Inc.][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/15/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/18/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, by a first device, an identification of a location of a user and a first attraction selected for access by a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining, by a path analyzer, a travel path between the location of the user and the first attraction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identifying, by the path analyzer, a second attraction within a predetermined distance from the travel path; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmitting, by the first device to a computing device of the user, an offer of access to the second attraction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for better customer marketing based on customer path data between attractions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receive an identification of a user's location and a first attraction selected for access by the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determine a travel path between the location of the user and the first attraction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identify a second attraction within a predetermined distance from the travel path; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmit an offer of access to the second attraction to a computing device of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/15/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Identifying the second attraction based on a net price. The  net price being below a net price threshold or an average customer visit time of the second attraction being above a visit time threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Location-based marketing for attraction access&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/gIUuqQa.png&quot; width=&quot;315&quot; height=&quot;458&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120323691&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.smartdestinations.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120323691" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="0507d7d2-dc71-4fb5-885e-1577bfe96d2f" CreationDate="2013-12-09T23:35:58.913" UserId="1767" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions** - This application from [Smart Destinations, Inc][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Enhanced data collection and reporting for improved ticket pricing and marketing. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/15/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Enhanced data collection related to a customer's travel path in order to improve ticket pricing and marketing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Dynamically pricing and validating access to goods, services, attractions, events and other items&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Method for enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving an identification of a location of a user and a **first attraction** selected for access by a user, determining a **travel path** between the location of the user and the **first attraction**, identifying a **second attraction** within a predetermined distance from the **travel path**, and transmitting an offer of access to the **second attraction** to a computing device of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120323691 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/523,213&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Smart Destinations, Inc.][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/15/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/18/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, by a first device, an identification of a location of a user and a first attraction selected for access by a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining, by a path analyzer, a travel path between the location of the user and the first attraction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identifying, by the path analyzer, a second attraction within a predetermined distance from the travel path; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmitting, by the first device to a computing device of the user, an offer of access to the second attraction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for better customer marketing based on customer path data between attractions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receive an identification of a user's location and a first attraction selected for access by the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determine a travel path between the location of the user and the first attraction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identify a second attraction within a predetermined distance from the travel path; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmit an offer of access to the second attraction to a computing device of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/15/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Identifying the second attraction based on a net price. The  net price being below a net price threshold or an average customer visit time of the second attraction being above a visit time threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Location-based marketing for attraction access&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/gIUuqQa.png&quot; width=&quot;315&quot; height=&quot;458&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120323691&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.smartdestinations.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120323691" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5564" RevisionGUID="26f884e0-ad43-43f1-89bb-4fdb90352af9" CreationDate="2013-12-10T03:05:08.210" UserId="7356" Comment="munged the date" Text="Has this patent expired?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US5870405&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication number	US5870405 A  &#xD;&#xA;Publication type	Grant  &#xD;&#xA;Application number	US 08/610,184  &#xD;&#xA;Publication date	Feb 9, 1999  &#xD;&#xA;Filing date	Mar 4, 1996  &#xD;&#xA;Priority date	Nov 30, 1992  &#xD;&#xA;Fee status	Paid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the patent expired 20 years from the priority date (this is a divisional patent) which would be November 30, 2012 (edited). Is that correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="1e5c0051-9c9b-4861-bbe5-325c9da84c78" CreationDate="2013-12-10T15:22:05.423" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions** - This application from [Smart Destinations, Inc][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Enhanced data collection and reporting for improved ticket pricing and marketing. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/15/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Enhanced data collection related to a customer's travel path in order to improve ticket pricing and marketing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Dynamically pricing and validating access to goods, services, attractions, events and other items&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Method for enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving an identification of a location of a user and a **first attraction** selected for access by a user, determining a **travel path** between the location of the user and the **first attraction**, identifying a **second attraction** within a predetermined distance from the **travel path**, and transmitting an offer of access to the **second attraction** to a computing device of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120323691 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/523,213&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Smart Destinations, Inc.][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/15/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/18/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, by a first device, an identification of a location of a user and a first attraction selected for access by a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining, by a path analyzer, a travel path between the location of the user and the first attraction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identifying, by the path analyzer, a second attraction within a predetermined distance from the travel path; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmitting, by the first device to a computing device of the user, an offer of access to the second attraction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for better customer marketing based on customer path data between attractions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receive an identification of a user's location and a first attraction selected for access by the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determine a travel path between the location of the user and the first attraction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identify a second attraction within a predetermined distance from the travel path; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmit an offer of access to the second attraction to a computing device of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/15/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Identifying the second attraction based on a net price. The  net price being below a net price threshold or an average customer visit time of the second attraction being above a visit time threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Location-based marketing for attraction access&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/gIUuqQa.png&quot; width=&quot;315&quot; height=&quot;458&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120323691&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.smartdestinations.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120323691" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5555" RevisionGUID="361c5c2b-42eb-4431-a5fc-2a712d15e3a8" CreationDate="2013-12-10T15:22:30.787" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Personalized purchase offers** - This application from [Ibotta, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Personalized purchase offers based on item-level transaction data from a physical retail receipt! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/20/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Generating and providing personalized purchase offers based on item-level purchase data. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Matching the item-level purchase data of at least one user with offer data. The offer data indicates purchases of a product of a provider of the offer over a specified number of shopping outings, manufactured by the provider of the offer  or a competitor of the provider of the offer. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Method for generating and providing personalized purchase offers based on item-level purchase data.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Aggregating **item-level purchase data** for each of a plurality of users from multiple sources, the aggregated **item-level purchase data** comprising **item-level purchase data** from a **physical retail receipt**, receiving **offer data** from **offer providers**, selecting a user to receive an offer based on the aggregated **item-level purchase data** and the **offer data**, and transmitting the offer to a **communication device** of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120323663 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/571,150&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Ibotta, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/20/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/18/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Aggregating item-level purchase data for each of a plurality of users from multiple sources, the aggregated item-level purchase data comprising item-level purchase data from a physical retail receipt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving offer data from offer providers;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting, using at least one processor of a machine, at least one user of the plurality of users to receive an offer based on the aggregated item-level purchase data and the offer data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmitting the offer to a communication device of the at least one user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Aggregate item-level purchase data from a physical retail receipt of multiple users from multiple sources;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receive offer data from offer providers;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Select the user to receive an offer based on the aggregated item-level purchase data and the offer data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmit the offer to a communication device of the selected user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/20/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Personalized purchase offers based on item-level transaction data&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/qkjbqs2.png&quot; width=&quot;428&quot; height=&quot;621&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120323663&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://ibotta.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120323663" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5540" RevisionGUID="aa470d01-703e-43b3-b29e-36ee9cd83399" CreationDate="2013-12-10T15:23:23.540" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON managing information associated with a data set based on location of the consumer.** - This application from [Cadio, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving an input from a consumer, obtaining location of the consumer, identifying a setting visited by the consumer based on the obtained location, and adjusting the information associated with the identified setting based on the obtained location and input from the consumer.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/27/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Managing information in a data set for identifying settings visited by a consumer based on consumer's location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A setting refers to a place corresponding to the consumer's location, such as a **commercial place** or a **non-commercial place** (e.g., business or park).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Adjusting a process for identifying a setting visited by a consumer based on the consumer's location and input received from the consumer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving location of a consumer, identifying a setting (such as **a commercial place** or **a non-commercial place** (e.g., business or park)) from a **data set** corresponding to the received location, and changing the information associated with the identified setting in the from a **data set** based on the identification process.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20120330722 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/535,150&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Cadio, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/27/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/25/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of operating a consumer analytics system in which information about consumers is generated at least in part based on applying a visit detection process to location data relating to one or more consumers, to identified settings visited by the one or more consumers, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving input provided by a consumer identifying a setting visited by the consumer at a time;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Obtaining information identifying a physical location of the consumer at the time; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Adjusting, using at least one processor and based at least in part on the input provided by the consumer and the physical location of the consumer, the visit detection process for identifying settings visited by the plurality of consumers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving input from a consumer to identify a setting visited by the consumer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Obtaining location of the consumer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identifying a setting corresponding to the location of the consumer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Adjusting information stored in a data set used for identifying whether the consumer has visited the setting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/27/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Comparing location of the consumer with location boundaries of one or more settings to identify a setting corresponding to the location of the consumer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Identifying a place visited by a consumer&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NtMqOcJ.png&quot; width=&quot;446&quot; height=&quot;629&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120330722&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.locately.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120330722#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=06%2F27%2F2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5573" RevisionGUID="d1a00e1a-bdf2-4f82-9a17-71c039ebbaf7" CreationDate="2013-12-10T19:29:43.073" UserId="7372" Text="A new method patent was granted in August of 2013 which is extremely dangerous and frankly we feel it needs to be invalidated.  We call upon you, through several referrals to this site, to ask for any help in reviewing the patent that is being used as a sword to crush a small veteran owned company who released an app. Other apps have fearfully withdrawn from global app markets and this patent provides serious threats of taxation on innovation, not to mention blocking it as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please review Patent US8502060 as it's claws are already dug deep into an American Innovator's back.  We must stop this.  The app that is being sued is being forced into cease and desist and black out social media communities 60,000 musicians strong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 1 &amp; 13 are particularly concerning. We request USPTO Director Initiated Reexamination. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US8502060?dq=8502060" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14229" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5573" RevisionGUID="d1a00e1a-bdf2-4f82-9a17-71c039ebbaf7" CreationDate="2013-12-10T19:29:43.073" UserId="7372" Text="US8502060 - Methods 1&amp;13 Dangerous and Concerning" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14230" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5573" RevisionGUID="d1a00e1a-bdf2-4f82-9a17-71c039ebbaf7" CreationDate="2013-12-10T19:29:43.073" UserId="7372" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;post-grant-review&gt;&lt;business-methods&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5575" RevisionGUID="fcdf6452-afdd-440f-9380-7a6084258db9" CreationDate="2013-12-10T20:46:49.803" UserId="7373" Text="I wondering if there's a service you use to print patent entries in a decorative/commerative manner - full text and images. My grandfather submitted [US3281099](http://www.google.com/patents/US3281099) and I thought if I can have a 'keepsake' copy made it would be a nice gift to my mom." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14235" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5575" RevisionGUID="fcdf6452-afdd-440f-9380-7a6084258db9" CreationDate="2013-12-10T20:46:49.803" UserId="7373" Text="Commemorative patent prints/canvases/etc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14236" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5575" RevisionGUID="fcdf6452-afdd-440f-9380-7a6084258db9" CreationDate="2013-12-10T20:46:49.803" UserId="7373" Text="&lt;gift&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5576" RevisionGUID="df2516fd-2a0d-47fd-8953-009ec69f94e8" CreationDate="2013-12-10T21:29:45.380" UserId="1767" Text="As far as I know the USPTO does not does sell commemorative patent plaques.  However, there are a number of companies which will create engraved plaques and various other certificates based on US Patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Start with a [Google Search][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have had good luck creating gifts for friends with patents engraved on metal and mounted on solid walnut from a company called PlaqueMaker.com: [http://www.plaquemaker.com/PatentPlaque.html][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.google.com/#q=commemorative+patent+plaque&amp;safe=off&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.plaquemaker.com/PatentPlaque.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5573" RevisionGUID="d4a0bc67-c708-43df-8606-3eca198a319b" CreationDate="2013-12-11T00:00:14.950" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 142 characters in body; edited tags" Text="A new method patent was granted in August of 2013 which is extremely dangerous and frankly we feel it needs to be invalidated.  We call upon you, through several referrals to this site, to ask for any help in reviewing the patent that is being used as a sword to crush a small veteran owned company who released an app. Other apps have fearfully withdrawn from global app markets and this patent provides serious threats of taxation on innovation, not to mention blocking it as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please review Patent US8502060 The app that is being sued is being forced into cease and desist and black out social media communities 60,000 musicians strong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 1 &amp; 13 are particularly concerning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US8502060?dq=8502060" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14240" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5573" RevisionGUID="d4a0bc67-c708-43df-8606-3eca198a319b" CreationDate="2013-12-11T00:00:14.950" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 142 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;business-methods&gt;&lt;us8502060&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14241" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5573" RevisionGUID="699a7aaa-dfd7-414b-b310-b3655323bb40" CreationDate="2013-12-11T00:14:10.883" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 142 characters in body; edited tags" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON pitch detection** - This issued patent from [Overtone Labs][2] seeks to patent the idea of...pitch detection for resonance tuning of a musical instrument. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A new method patent was granted in August of 2013 which is extremely dangerous.  The patent is being asserted against a small veteran-owned company which released an app. Other apps have fearfully withdrawn from global app markets as a result of this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/30/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using power spectral analysis to tune musical instruments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please review Patent [US8502060][1] The app that is being sued is being forced into cease and desist and black out social media communities 60,000 musicians strong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Publication number:	[US8502060 B2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Publication type:	Grant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Application number:	US 13/768,799&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Issued date:	Aug 6, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Priority date: 	Nov 30, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Assignee: [OVERTONE LABS, INC.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Link to Google Prior Art Search - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 1 &amp; 13 are particularly concerning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1: A method for resonance tuning, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Receiving a signal in response to a resonance of a structure;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining a frequency or musical note related to an overtone from the signal;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Selecting the frequency or musical note related to the overtone as a filter mode reference frequency or musical note; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Suppressing a display of frequencies or musical notes from a subsequent signal that deviate from the filter mode reference frequency or musical note by a predetermined threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; .&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 13: A method for pitch detection, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Providing one or more power spectrum frequency samples;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Selecting a frequency in a frequency band having a largest power spectrum magnitude from the one or more power spectrum frequency samples, the frequency band having an upper frequency limit and a lower frequency limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A schematic view of an embodiment of the Pitch Estimator&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/wFNKZHe.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8502060?dq=8502060&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.overtonelabs.com/&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US8502060&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14242" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5573" RevisionGUID="699a7aaa-dfd7-414b-b310-b3655323bb40" CreationDate="2013-12-11T00:14:10.883" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 142 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Pitch Detection - Power Spectral Estimator to Tune Musical Instruments (Overtone, Inc) - Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="b42b733f-81c9-4832-acde-a8d1a293532d" CreationDate="2013-12-11T01:35:45.690" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON online ads based on current events** - This application from [Yahoo! Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying current events, categorizing them, and showing ads based on the current event! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Real-time ads triggered by current events&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Current events such as earthquakes, fires, or floods, **drop in prices** or **sale for a particular type of product** (e.g., cars), a general **reduction in inventory** of a particular type of product, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Showing ads based on current events**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identify a current event of any kind (examples: earthquakes, fires, or floods, drop in prices or sale for a particular type of product (e.g., cars), a general reduction in inventory of a particular type of product, etc.), categorize the current event, determine an advertisement based on the **category of event** (Halloween is here?  Buy a costume!), and send the advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130159094 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/326,033&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/17/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying by a network device an event that has recently occurred;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Categorizing by the network device the event into a category of events from a plurality of categories;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Ascertaining by the network device a set of one or more advertisements associated with the category of events;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Selecting by the network device at least one advertisement from the set of one or more advertisements associated with the category of events; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Providing by the network device the at least one advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identify an event that has recently occurred;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Categorizing the event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Find one or more advertisements associated with the category of the current event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Select an advertisement associated with the category of event; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Show the advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A variety of specific types of current events used to trigger ads, such as earthquakes, fires, or floods, **drop in prices** or **sale for a particular type of product** (e.g., cars), a general **reduction in inventory** of a particular type of product, etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method of serving advertisements based on current events&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fSlhSt4.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130159094&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130159094" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="c4164ffc-6a69-4fd0-ad0c-01521fd33ee8" CreationDate="2013-12-11T01:36:04.973" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions** - This application from [Smart Destinations, Inc][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Enhanced data collection and reporting for improved ticket pricing and marketing. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/15/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Enhanced data collection related to a customer's travel path in order to improve ticket pricing and marketing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Dynamically pricing and validating access to goods, services, attractions, events and other items&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Method for enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving an identification of a location of a user and a **first attraction** selected for access by a user, determining a **travel path** between the location of the user and the **first attraction**, identifying a **second attraction** within a predetermined distance from the **travel path**, and transmitting an offer of access to the **second attraction** to a computing device of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120323691 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/523,213&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Smart Destinations, Inc.][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/15/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/18/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, by a first device, an identification of a location of a user and a first attraction selected for access by a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining, by a path analyzer, a travel path between the location of the user and the first attraction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identifying, by the path analyzer, a second attraction within a predetermined distance from the travel path; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmitting, by the first device to a computing device of the user, an offer of access to the second attraction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for better customer marketing based on customer path data between attractions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receive an identification of a user's location and a first attraction selected for access by the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determine a travel path between the location of the user and the first attraction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identify a second attraction within a predetermined distance from the travel path; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmit an offer of access to the second attraction to a computing device of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/15/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Identifying the second attraction based on a net price. The  net price being below a net price threshold or an average customer visit time of the second attraction being above a visit time threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Location-based marketing for attraction access&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/gIUuqQa.png&quot; width=&quot;315&quot; height=&quot;458&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120323691&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.smartdestinations.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120323691" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14248" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5573" RevisionGUID="50e52118-9dcc-4bf8-8b2d-af1d59b3b73c" CreationDate="2013-12-11T03:19:22.753" UserId="3076" Comment="Removed inappropriate tag" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;us8502060&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5579" RevisionGUID="e8afc2c2-167f-45a9-85ab-451711cd9a67" CreationDate="2013-12-12T00:57:58.430" UserId="7382" Text="here is everything needed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US20100212475&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it's almost exactly the same" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5573" RevisionGUID="461b9585-38c9-45c7-b644-a7c48f72e07f" CreationDate="2013-12-12T01:29:43.733" UserId="7376" Comment="Included Fig. 16 cited by Applicant in Examination Support Document (for Expedited Prosecution) as giving 112(1) support for Claim 13" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON pitch detection** - This issued patent from [Overtone Labs][2] seeks to patent the idea of...pitch detection for resonance tuning of a musical instrument. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A new method patent was granted in August of 2013 which is extremely dangerous.  The patent is being asserted against a small veteran-owned company which released an app. Other apps have fearfully withdrawn from global app markets as a result of this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/30/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using power spectral analysis to tune musical instruments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please review Patent [US8502060][1] The app that is being sued is being forced into cease and desist and black out social media communities 60,000 musicians strong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Publication number:	[US8502060 B2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Publication type:	Grant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Application number:	US 13/768,799&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Issued date:	Aug 6, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Priority date: 	Nov 30, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Assignee: [OVERTONE LABS, INC.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Link to Google Prior Art Search - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 1 &amp; 13 are particularly concerning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1: A method for resonance tuning, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Receiving a signal in response to a resonance of a structure;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining a frequency or musical note related to an overtone from the signal;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Selecting the frequency or musical note related to the overtone as a filter mode reference frequency or musical note; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Suppressing a display of frequencies or musical notes from a subsequent signal that deviate from the filter mode reference frequency or musical note by a predetermined threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; .&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 13: A method for pitch detection, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Providing one or more power spectrum frequency samples;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Selecting a frequency in a frequency band having a largest power spectrum magnitude from the one or more power spectrum frequency samples, the frequency band having an upper frequency limit and a lower frequency limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A schematic view of an embodiment of the Pitch Estimator&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/wFNKZHe.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FIG. 16 cited by applicant in Supplemental Examination Support Doc as providing support for Claim 13. (annotation emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BbE2PxUCMAARScl.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8502060?dq=8502060&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.overtonelabs.com/&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US8502060&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14258" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5573" RevisionGUID="461b9585-38c9-45c7-b644-a7c48f72e07f" CreationDate="2013-12-12T01:29:43.733" Comment="Proposed by 7376 approved by 3076, 7372 edit id of 469" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5580" RevisionGUID="c2118817-864b-4996-b5dd-a01acb9be37a" CreationDate="2013-12-12T03:51:15.037" UserId="7372" Text="Here's a really cool web example of this very topic: http://fivefilters.org/term-extraction/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is Term Extraction?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Term Extraction from FiveFilters.org is a free software project to help you  extract terms (e.g. for use as tags) through a web service. Given some text it will return a list of terms with (hopefully) the most relevant first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5581" RevisionGUID="fb6763e5-3ac0-49c2-9f84-5927a2f3dc17" CreationDate="2013-12-12T03:54:21.973" UserId="7372" Text="Here's a PHP Tip that does very much the same, assuming you consider a web page a document..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## PHP tip: How to extract keywords from a web page ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;April 13, 2008&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Topics: PHP, Text processing&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Technologies: PHP 5+, UTF-8&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Web page keywords characterize the page's topic for a search engine. Extracting keywords requires that you recognize the page's character encoding, strip away HTML tags, scripts, and styles, decode HTML entities, and remove unwanted punctuation, symbols, numbers, and stop words. This article shows how.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://nadeausoftware.com/articles/2008/04/php_tip_how_extract_keywords_web_page&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5583" RevisionGUID="cfc3826d-eb5a-4346-8f32-db9776548d7d" CreationDate="2013-12-12T05:03:09.063" UserDisplayName="user7385" Text="A large number of patents in the IT area appear to have a very similar diagram embedded int them somewhere, usually some forms of a block diagram detailing system components such as Northbridge, Southbridge, memory, disks, CPU and (this is my personal favorite) speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These exist in patent applications even in cases where they appear to bear no relationship to the invention at all and, as far as I can tell, the descriptive area that describes them simply states that it's one possible system that may contain the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is this necessary even in cases where the surrounding hardware is irrelevant? For example, why is amouse even mentioned in [US8607238][1] when the patent is about &quot;lock wait time reduction in a distributed processing environment&quot;? I can't think of _any_ rational circumstance where the mouse would be important here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, I've seen database-related patents mentioning audio devices (eh?) and irrelevant details such as the internal machine architecture (CPU/Northbridge/Southbridge), some of which doesn't even exist on some architectures where the invention may exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=8,607,238" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14266" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5583" RevisionGUID="cfc3826d-eb5a-4346-8f32-db9776548d7d" CreationDate="2013-12-12T05:03:09.063" UserDisplayName="user7385" Text="Why is there the same boilerplate stuff at the front of every patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14267" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5583" RevisionGUID="cfc3826d-eb5a-4346-8f32-db9776548d7d" CreationDate="2013-12-12T05:03:09.063" UserDisplayName="user7385" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;description&gt;&lt;diagrams&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5584" RevisionGUID="214577a3-42cf-4dca-b19d-b0942a6d4d80" CreationDate="2013-12-12T13:57:51.640" UserId="7376" Text="Unfortunately the 20100212475 by Toulson is listed on the face of the 8502060 patent.  AFAIK that means that there is a presumption (albeit rebuttable) that this document was reviewed by the Patent Examiner and that the CLAIMS of the 8502060 application were nonetheless patentably novel and nonobvious over the Toulson reference.*  In a normal 3rd party ex parte requested reexam, I don't believe that this reference can be used to raise the substantial new question of patentability required to actually open a reexam, IIRC.* HOWEVER, if the Director of Patents or her delegees Commissioner Focarino or Deputy Commissioner Hirshcfeld (or Office of Patent Quality Review) were to sua sponte notice Claim 13 as prima facie invalid and under the Director's prerogative instigate a reexam, then nothing stops them from reconsidering the Toulson reference.&#xD;&#xA;BUT, at least with respect to Claim 13, it sure seems that performing a simple (Peak detection==loudest frequency band) of a Fourier transform (frequency spectrum) would anticipate if before 2011? or infringe if after Aug 2012???  Any highschool AP math students out there to confirm this? :)  Sure seems that (aside from the computer processor in the claim -- oh right, nevermind) anyone subconsciously focusing on the characteristic timbre of   a particular speaker in a cocktail party would infringe OR anticipate if anyone can find proof of a cocktail party conversation actually occurring before 2011?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5584" RevisionGUID="741054fd-8de6-474a-94b7-a9ed81cb7ee1" CreationDate="2013-12-12T14:05:43.920" UserId="7376" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately the 20100212475 by Toulson is listed on the face of the 8502060 patent.  AFAIK that means that there is a presumption (albeit rebuttable) that this document was reviewed by the Patent Examiner and that the CLAIMS of the 8502060 application were nonetheless patentably novel and nonobvious over the Toulson reference.*  In a normal 3rd party ex parte requested reexam, I don't believe that this reference can be used to raise the substantial new question of patentability required to actually open a reexam, IIRC.* HOWEVER, if the Director of Patents or her delegates Commissioner Focarino or Deputy Commissioner Hirshcfeld (or Office of Patent Quality Review) ((OR ANY EXAMINER)) were to sua sponte notice Claim 13 as prima facie invalid and under the Director's prerogative instigate a reexam, then nothing stops them from reconsidering the Toulson reference.&#xD;&#xA;BUT, at least with respect to Claim 13, it sure seems that performing a simple (Peak detection==loudest frequency band) of a Fourier transform (frequency spectrum) would anticipate if before 2011? or infringe if after Aug 2012???  Any highschool AP math students out there to confirm this? :)  Sure seems that (aside from the computer processor in the claim -- oh right, nevermind) anyone subconsciously focusing on the characteristic timbre of   a particular speaker in a cocktail party would infringe OR anticipate if anyone can find proof of a cocktail party conversation actually occurring before 2011?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="43043dc6-a57e-4301-b650-b9f872d82723" CreationDate="2013-12-12T20:09:40.037" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON online ads based on current events** - This application from [Yahoo! Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying current events, categorizing them, and showing ads based on the current event! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Real-time ads triggered by current events&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Current events such as earthquakes, fires, or floods, **drop in prices** or **sale for a particular type of product** (e.g., cars), a general **reduction in inventory** of a particular type of product, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Showing ads based on current events**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identify a current event of any kind (examples: earthquakes, fires, or floods, drop in prices or sale for a particular type of product (e.g., cars), a general reduction in inventory of a particular type of product, etc.), categorize the current event, determine an advertisement based on the **category of event** (Halloween is here?  Buy a costume!), and send the advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130159094 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/326,033&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/17/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying by a network device an event that has recently occurred;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Categorizing by the network device the event into a category of events from a plurality of categories;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Ascertaining by the network device a set of one or more advertisements associated with the category of events;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Selecting by the network device at least one advertisement from the set of one or more advertisements associated with the category of events; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Providing by the network device the at least one advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identify an event that has recently occurred;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Categorizing the event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Find one or more advertisements associated with the category of the current event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Select an advertisement associated with the category of event; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Show the advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A variety of specific types of current events used to trigger ads, such as earthquakes, fires, or floods, **drop in prices** or **sale for a particular type of product** (e.g., cars), a general **reduction in inventory** of a particular type of product, etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method of serving advertisements based on current events&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fSlhSt4.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130159094&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130159094" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="2d56f189-b2da-4d16-a1f9-a267814db71e" CreationDate="2013-12-12T20:09:55.803" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions** - This application from [Smart Destinations, Inc][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Enhanced data collection and reporting for improved ticket pricing and marketing. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/15/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Enhanced data collection related to a customer's travel path in order to improve ticket pricing and marketing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Dynamically pricing and validating access to goods, services, attractions, events and other items&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Method for enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving an identification of a location of a user and a **first attraction** selected for access by a user, determining a **travel path** between the location of the user and the **first attraction**, identifying a **second attraction** within a predetermined distance from the **travel path**, and transmitting an offer of access to the **second attraction** to a computing device of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120323691 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/523,213&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Smart Destinations, Inc.][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/15/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/18/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, by a first device, an identification of a location of a user and a first attraction selected for access by a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining, by a path analyzer, a travel path between the location of the user and the first attraction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identifying, by the path analyzer, a second attraction within a predetermined distance from the travel path; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmitting, by the first device to a computing device of the user, an offer of access to the second attraction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for better customer marketing based on customer path data between attractions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receive an identification of a user's location and a first attraction selected for access by the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determine a travel path between the location of the user and the first attraction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identify a second attraction within a predetermined distance from the travel path; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmit an offer of access to the second attraction to a computing device of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/15/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Identifying the second attraction based on a net price. The  net price being below a net price threshold or an average customer visit time of the second attraction being above a visit time threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Location-based marketing for attraction access&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/gIUuqQa.png&quot; width=&quot;315&quot; height=&quot;458&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120323691&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.smartdestinations.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120323691" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5585" RevisionGUID="fb091a82-5933-4214-9cbe-3507ba6702c0" CreationDate="2013-12-12T21:52:09.277" UserId="7391" Text="Check out my patent which I filed in April 2000 and which issued in 2005. Patent number 6,912,398" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5586" RevisionGUID="5c91cdf6-1158-47ae-bd23-02d0fe0843a4" CreationDate="2013-12-12T23:57:16.827" UserId="7372" Text="I do believe the defendant demonstrated his prior art on Youtube in September 2010 as in this video. From his other videos, he teaches how to use Noise Gates, Filters, etc for drum recording and demonstrates the differences. In this video, the same methods applied, standard audio DAW called Logic Pro by Apple and he's got the spectrum analyzers and frequency readouts right there.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSTp9jKJpZU&amp;feature=youtu.be&amp;t=1m50s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironic isn't it how the patent applied for is for Drum Tuning, specifically in Spectral Analysis yet the gentleman who demonstrated it on YouTube in several videos before Nov 30, 2011 is being shut down and sued out of business for a method that can't technically be patented?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerned.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5587" RevisionGUID="187b9b33-678b-47bf-902f-52006c9884e9" CreationDate="2013-12-13T00:18:07.843" UserId="1412" Text="I am in the process of filing a reexamination request for patent [8,605,152](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=8,605,152.PN.&amp;OS=PN/8,605,152&amp;RS=PN/8,605,152): Method and apparatus for yoga class imaging and streaming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under what grounds would I challenge a patent for an instructional video?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14276" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5587" RevisionGUID="187b9b33-678b-47bf-902f-52006c9884e9" CreationDate="2013-12-13T00:18:07.843" UserId="1412" Text="Method to request reexamination of patent for instructional video" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14277" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5587" RevisionGUID="187b9b33-678b-47bf-902f-52006c9884e9" CreationDate="2013-12-13T00:18:07.843" UserId="1412" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;reexamination&gt;&lt;obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14278" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5587" RevisionGUID="bc3d2040-b3f9-42d4-9df4-eab8a6c92af4" CreationDate="2013-12-13T01:12:18.640" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag with patent #" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;reexamination&gt;&lt;obviousness&gt;&lt;us8605153&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14279" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5587" RevisionGUID="8851a3ef-5081-405d-b019-4a1505b0d23f" CreationDate="2013-12-13T01:18:06.900" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;reexamination&gt;&lt;obviousness&gt;&lt;us8605152&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5588" RevisionGUID="dc7e8eb0-ddc8-4276-a210-36bae2988ce6" CreationDate="2013-12-13T01:34:08.293" UserId="3076" Text="The grounds for an exparte reexamination are restricted to novelty and obvious challenges based on patents or published documents and on section 112 issues. Section 112 includes the requirement for proper support for claims in the specification, the claims not being indeterminate, and the specification being enabling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The allowed grounds to *not* include section 101 which sets out subject matter requirements. Claim 1 of this patent seems to positively require *students*, who, I presume are human. It may seem silly, but this is &quot;patenting humans&quot; and is not allowed under previous policy and was codified in the AIA." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5589" RevisionGUID="76ef4799-96e1-4410-aeb3-6ad861659345" CreationDate="2013-12-13T03:13:57.947" UserId="7392" Text="After looking at this, it is my personal belief that there is a very strong possibility that every claim of the ['060][1] Patent can be invalidated by an attorney. The easiest to invalidate is Claim 13. US Patent [4,608,993][2] is directed to a blood flow measurement device and method. On the face of it, how does a medical device relate to the '060 Patent? The '993 Patent states in the Abstract,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The systems employ electronic techniques for providing accurate tracking of portions of the frequency spectra of Doppler shift signals to determine peak and means velocity and acceleration.” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic element of the system of the ‘993 patent determines a peak ultrasonic acoustic signal of a power spectra within a band and correlates this to a peak velocity. The system filters out the sound of unwanted sources, such as the heart, and detects the peak volume within a set band. The ['993][3] Patent utilizes frequency detection or in other words pitch detection by initialization a filtering means and determines a peak value of a power spectra found by using a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am very confident that I can find references that could be used by an attorney to invalidate ALL of the claims of the '060 Patent, not just the independent claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8502060?dq=8502060&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4608993&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4608993" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5589" RevisionGUID="295c3120-2244-4587-b03c-6e3712c57cbe" CreationDate="2013-12-13T03:19:03.363" UserId="7392" Comment="added 610 characters in body" Text="After looking at this, it is my personal belief that there is a very strong possibility that every claim of the ['060][1] Patent can be invalidated by an attorney. The easiest to invalidate is Claim 13. US Patent [4,608,993][2] is directed to a blood flow measurement device and method. On the face of it, how does a medical device relate to the '060 Patent? The '993 Patent states in the Abstract,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The systems employ electronic techniques for providing accurate tracking of portions of the frequency spectra of Doppler shift signals to determine peak and means velocity and acceleration.” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic element of the system of the ‘993 patent determines a peak ultrasonic acoustic signal of a power spectra within a band and correlates this to a peak velocity. The system filters out the sound of unwanted sources, such as the heart, and detects the peak volume within a set band. The ['993][3] Patent utilizes frequency detection or in other words pitch detection by initialization a filtering means and determines a peak value of a power spectra found by using a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am very confident that I can find references that could be used by an attorney to invalidate ALL of the claims of the '060 Patent, not just the independent claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To further clarify, Doppler, or Doppler Effect is essentially sound or light waves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Doppler effect][4]&#xD;&#xA;n.&#xD;&#xA;A change in the observed frequency of a wave, as of sound or light, occurring when the source and observer are in motion relative to each other, with the frequency increasing when the source and observer approach each other and decreasing when they move apart. The motion of the source causes a real shift in frequency of the wave, while the motion of the observer produces only an apparent shift in frequency. Also called Doppler shift.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8502060?dq=8502060&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4608993&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4608993&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Doppler+effect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5590" RevisionGUID="220a17fb-9b37-4d61-acbe-f318193195fa" CreationDate="2013-12-13T03:29:08.413" UserId="7392" Text="I also find this US Patent [US4688464][1] particularly fascinating. Filed January 16, 1986.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In it's abstract, it states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A pitch detector is disclosed that automatically recognizes the pitch of musical notes quickly and outputs the pitch information in a variety of formats. The detector employs a microprocessor that samples the signal from a musical instrument or voice at regular intervals using an analog-to-digital converter and then utilizes both amplitude and time information from the waveform to determine the fundamental period of the note, while rejecting the harmonic components. The microprocessor analyzes the waveform looking for peaks that are approximately equal in amplitude separated by opposite polarity peaks. The time intervals between the peaks must be approximately equal too. Timing information is measured using more than one point on the waveform to avoid inaccuracies caused by temporary distortions of the waveform. The timing points are chosen at points where the slope of the waveform is high for substantially optimal accuracy. To filter out erroneous readings caused by pitch detection during note transition or noise, additional processing of the data is performed to cause a second corroborating reading to be taken when a note transition that is uncommon musically is detected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's Claim 1, other claims can invalidate one or more of the '060 Patent claims easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. An apparatus, for determining the pitch of a substantially periodic audio input signal having one or more sinusoidal components forming a series of peaks of a given polarity that are separated by at least one peak of opposite polarity and that define at least one cycle of said signal, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a first means for producing a plurality of overlapping, sample timing intervals from a portion of said input signal;&#xD;&#xA;a second means for producing an indication of the period of said input signal from said plurality of sample timing intervals; and&#xD;&#xA;a third means for converting said indication of said period of said input signal into a determination of the pitch of said input signal.&#xD;&#xA;2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said second means comprises:&#xD;&#xA;means for determining an average sample timing interval from selected ones of said sample timing intervals; and&#xD;&#xA;means for dividing said average sample timing interval by the number of cycles of said portion of said input signal that said sample timing intervals were produced from, to obtain an indication of the period of said input signal.&#xD;&#xA;3. The apparatus of claim 2, further comprising:&#xD;&#xA;means for identifying a substantially recurrent reference peak on said input signal, said reference peak separated in occurrence by a peak of opposite polarity and having an amplitude at least a predetermined percentage of the maximum peak amplitude of said input signal, said means for producing a plurality of sample timing intervals being responsive to the occurrence of said reference peak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US4688464][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4688464&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4688464" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5592" RevisionGUID="9b54192b-2ef7-47a4-8339-71827b12faab" CreationDate="2013-12-13T04:27:59.067" UserId="7393" Text="From my quick look at this, I can see that this is based on FFT Fast Fourier Transforms which is a public domain algorithm.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [&quot;The FFT - an algorithm the whole family can use&quot;][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A paper by Cooley and Tukey [5] described a recipe for computing Fouri-&#xD;&#xA;er coecients of a time series that used many fewer machine operations than&#xD;&#xA;did the straightforward procedure...What lies over the horizon in digital signal&#xD;&#xA;processing is anyone's guess, but I think it will surprise us all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are surprised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It seems almost everyone knows that&#xD;&#xA;somehow all the data whizzing over the internet, bustling through our modems&#xD;&#xA;or crashing into our cell phones is ultimately just a sequence of 0's and 1's {&#xD;&#xA;a digital sequence { that magically makes the world the convenient high speed&#xD;&#xA;place it is today. So much of this magic is due to a family of algorithms that&#xD;&#xA;collectively go by the name \The Fast Fourier Transform&quot;, or \FFT&quot; to its&#xD;&#xA;friends, among which the version published by Cooley and Tukey [5] is the most&#xD;&#xA;famous. Indeed, the FFT is perhaps the most ubiquitous algorithm used today&#xD;&#xA;in the analysis and manipulation of digital or discrete data.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's an obvious choice and the most common used data analysis algorithm known to man and it's in the Public Domain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;My own research experience with various avors of the FFT is evidence of the&#xD;&#xA;wide range of applicability: electroacoustic music and audio signal processing,&#xD;&#xA;medical imaging, image processing, pattern recognition, computational chem-&#xD;&#xA;istry, error correcting codes, spectral methods for PDEs and last but not least,&#xD;&#xA;in mathematics, as the starting point of my doctoral dissertation in computa-&#xD;&#xA;tional harmonic analysis which investigated group theoretic generalizations of&#xD;&#xA;the Cooley-Tukey FFT. Of course many more could be listed, notably those to&#xD;&#xA;radar and communications. The book [2] is an excellent place to look, especially&#xD;&#xA;pages 2 and 3 which contain a (nonexhaustive) list of seventy-seven applications&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was written in 1999.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Despite these early discoveries of an FFT, it wasn't until Cooley and Tukey's&#xD;&#xA;article that the algorithm gained any notice. The story of their collaboration&#xD;&#xA;is an interesting one. Tukey arrived at the basic reduction while in a meeting&#xD;&#xA;of President Kennedy's Science Advisory Committee where among the topics of&#xD;&#xA;discussions were techniques for o-shore detection of nuclear tests in the Soviet&#xD;&#xA;Union. Ratication of a proposed United States/Soviet Union nuclear test ban&#xD;&#xA;depended upon the development of a method for detecting the tests without&#xD;&#xA;actually visiting the Soviet nuclear facilities. One idea was to analyze seismo-&#xD;&#xA;logical time series obtained from o-shore seismometers, the length and number&#xD;&#xA;of which would require fast algorithms for computing the DFT. Other possible&#xD;&#xA;applications to national security included the long-range acoustic detection of&#xD;&#xA;nuclear submarines.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So obviously, FFT was treated with the highest National Security in mind when it was discovered. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Richard Garwin of IBM was another of the participants at this meeting&#xD;&#xA;and when Tukey showed him this idea he immediately saw a wide range of&#xD;&#xA;potential applicability and quickly set to getting this algorithm implemented.&#xD;&#xA;He was directed to Cooley, and, needing to hide the national security issues,&#xD;&#xA;instead told Cooley that he wanted the code for another problem of interest:&#xD;&#xA;the determination of the periodicities of the spin orientations in a 3-D crystal of&#xD;&#xA;He3. Cooley had other projects going on, and only after quite a lot of prodding&#xD;&#xA;did he sit down to program the \Cooley-Tukey&quot; FFT. In short order, Cooley&#xD;&#xA;and Tukey prepared a paper which, for a mathematics/computer science paper,&#xD;&#xA;was published almost instantaneously (in six months!) [5]. This publication, as&#xD;&#xA;well as Garwin's fervent prosletizing, did a lot to help publicize the existence of&#xD;&#xA;this (apparently) new fast algorithm. (See also [4] and the introductory papers&#xD;&#xA;of [17] for more historical details.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this obviously caught the eye of the government, along with IBM. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The timing of the announcement was such that now usage spread quickly.&#xD;&#xA;The roughly simultaneous development of analog to digital converters capable&#xD;&#xA;of producing digitized samples of a time-varying voltage at rates of 300,000&#xD;&#xA;samples/second had already initiated something of a digital revolution, and was&#xD;&#xA;also providing scientists with heretofore unimagined quantities of digital data&#xD;&#xA;to analyze and manipulate (just as is the case today!). Even the \standard&quot; ap-&#xD;&#xA;plications of Fourier analysis as an analysis tool for waveforms or solving PDEs,&#xD;&#xA;meant that a priori there would be a tremendous interest in the algorithm. But&#xD;&#xA;even more, the ability to do this analysis quickly allowed scientists from new&#xD;&#xA;areas to try the DFT without having to invest too much time and energy in the&#xD;&#xA;exercise. I can do no better than to quote the introduction to the FFT from&#xD;&#xA;Numerical Recipes, \If you speed up any nontrivial algorithm by a factor of a&#xD;&#xA;million or so the world will beat a path towards nding useful applications for&#xD;&#xA;it [3].&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, it's powerful, now free, and non-trivial to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Even beyond these direct technological applications, the FFT influenced the&#xD;&#xA;direction of academic research too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Academic research.  Doesn't the app being sued cost a few dollars on the app store? I'd say it's a fair allocation of an FFT algorithm. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Ironically, the prominence of the FFT may have also contributed to slow oth-&#xD;&#xA;er areas of research. The FFT provided scientists with a big analytic hammer,&#xD;&#xA;and for many, the world suddenly looked as though it was full of nails { even if&#xD;&#xA;this wasn't always so.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taken out of context perhaps, but I'd say patenting anything that uses the FFT algorithms and re-wording it, without it being actually examined is a &quot;big analytical hammer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Even now there are still lessons to be learned from the FFT's development.&#xD;&#xA;In this day and age in which almost any new technological idea seems fodder for&#xD;&#xA;internet venture capitalists and patent lawyers, it is natural to ask, Why was&#xD;&#xA;the FFT not patented by IBM?&quot; As Cooley tells the story, on the one hand,Tukey was not an IBM employee, so IBM had some worry that they might not&#xD;&#xA;be able to gain the patent. Consequently, they had great interest in putting&#xD;&#xA;the algorithm in the public domain. The eect of this was that no one else&#xD;&#xA;would be able to patent the algorithm, and even more, like many computer&#xD;&#xA;manufacturers of that time, the thought was that the money was to be made in&#xD;&#xA;hardware, not software. In fact, the FFT was designed as a tool for the analysis&#xD;&#xA;of huge time series, in theory something only tackled by supercomputers. So&#xD;&#xA;by placing in the public domain an algorithm which would make feasible the&#xD;&#xA;analysis of large time series, more big companies might have an interest in buying&#xD;&#xA;supercomputers (like IBM mainframes) to do their work. Times certainly have&#xD;&#xA;changed.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Whether having the FFT in the public domain had the eect IBM hoped for&#xD;&#xA;is moot, but it is certain that it did provide many, many scientists with appli-&#xD;&#xA;cations to work on and apply the algorithm. The breadth of scientic interests&#xD;&#xA;at the Arden workshop (held only two years after publication of the paper) is&#xD;&#xA;truly impressive. In fact, the rapid pace of today's technological developments&#xD;&#xA;is in many ways a testament to the advantage of this open development. This&#xD;&#xA;is a cautionary tale in today's arena of proprietary research, and we can only&#xD;&#xA;wonder which of the many recent private technological discoveries might have&#xD;&#xA;prospered from a similar announcement**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a very interesting quote, extracted from above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**&quot;In this day and age in which almost any new technological idea seems fodder for&#xD;&#xA;internet venture capitalists and patent lawyers, it is natural to ask, Why was&#xD;&#xA;the FFT not patented by IBM?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~rockmore/cse-fft.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5592" RevisionGUID="8cf0a1e3-78a3-40ea-a9cb-58f4b75adade" CreationDate="2013-12-13T04:45:05.573" UserId="7393" Comment="added 331 characters in body" Text="From my quick look at this, I can see that this is based on FFT Fast Fourier Transforms which is a public domain algorithm.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [&quot;The FFT - an algorithm the whole family can use&quot;][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A paper by Cooley and Tukey [5] described a recipe for computing Fouri-&#xD;&#xA;er coecients of a time series that used many fewer machine operations than&#xD;&#xA;did the straightforward procedure...What lies over the horizon in digital signal&#xD;&#xA;processing is anyone's guess, but I think it will surprise us all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are surprised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It seems almost everyone knows that&#xD;&#xA;somehow all the data whizzing over the internet, bustling through our modems&#xD;&#xA;or crashing into our cell phones is ultimately just a sequence of 0's and 1's {&#xD;&#xA;a digital sequence { that magically makes the world the convenient high speed&#xD;&#xA;place it is today. So much of this magic is due to a family of algorithms that&#xD;&#xA;collectively go by the name &quot;The Fast Fourier Transform&quot;, or &quot;FFT&quot; to its&#xD;&#xA;friends, among which the version published by Cooley and Tukey [5] is the most&#xD;&#xA;famous. Indeed, the FFT is perhaps the most ubiquitous algorithm used today&#xD;&#xA;in the analysis and manipulation of digital or discrete data.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's an obvious choice and the most common used data analysis algorithm known to man and it's in the Public Domain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;My own research experience with various avors of the FFT is evidence of the&#xD;&#xA;wide range of applicability: electroacoustic music and audio signal processing,&#xD;&#xA;medical imaging, image processing, pattern recognition, computational chem-&#xD;&#xA;istry, error correcting codes, spectral methods for PDEs and last but not least,&#xD;&#xA;in mathematics, as the starting point of my doctoral dissertation in computa-&#xD;&#xA;tional harmonic analysis which investigated group theoretic generalizations of&#xD;&#xA;the Cooley-Tukey FFT. Of course many more could be listed, notably those to&#xD;&#xA;radar and communications. The book [2] is an excellent place to look, especially&#xD;&#xA;pages 2 and 3 which contain a (nonexhaustive) list of seventy-seven applications&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was written in 1999.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Despite these early discoveries of an FFT, it wasn't until Cooley and Tukey's&#xD;&#xA;article that the algorithm gained any notice. The story of their collaboration&#xD;&#xA;is an interesting one. Tukey arrived at the basic reduction while in a meeting&#xD;&#xA;of President Kennedy's Science Advisory Committee where among the topics of&#xD;&#xA;discussions were techniques for o-shore detection of nuclear tests in the Soviet&#xD;&#xA;Union. Ratication of a proposed United States/Soviet Union nuclear test ban&#xD;&#xA;depended upon the development of a method for detecting the tests without&#xD;&#xA;actually visiting the Soviet nuclear facilities. One idea was to analyze seismo-&#xD;&#xA;logical time series obtained from o-shore seismometers, the length and number&#xD;&#xA;of which would require fast algorithms for computing the DFT. Other possible&#xD;&#xA;applications to national security included the long-range acoustic detection of&#xD;&#xA;nuclear submarines.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So obviously, FFT was treated with the highest National Security in mind when it was discovered. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Richard Garwin of IBM was another of the participants at this meeting&#xD;&#xA;and when Tukey showed him this idea he immediately saw a wide range of&#xD;&#xA;potential applicability and quickly set to getting this algorithm implemented.&#xD;&#xA;He was directed to Cooley, and, needing to hide the national security issues,&#xD;&#xA;instead told Cooley that he wanted the code for another problem of interest:&#xD;&#xA;the determination of the periodicities of the spin orientations in a 3-D crystal of&#xD;&#xA;He3. Cooley had other projects going on, and only after quite a lot of prodding&#xD;&#xA;did he sit down to program the &quot;Cooley-Tukey&quot; FFT. In short order, Cooley&#xD;&#xA;and Tukey prepared a paper which, for a mathematics/computer science paper,&#xD;&#xA;was published almost instantaneously (in six months!) [5]. This publication, as&#xD;&#xA;well as Garwin's fervent prosletizing, did a lot to help publicize the existence of&#xD;&#xA;this (apparently) new fast algorithm. (See also [4] and the introductory papers&#xD;&#xA;of [17] for more historical details.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this obviously caught the eye of the government, along with IBM. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The timing of the announcement was such that now usage spread quickly.&#xD;&#xA;The roughly simultaneous development of analog to digital converters capable&#xD;&#xA;of producing digitized samples of a time-varying voltage at rates of 300,000&#xD;&#xA;samples/second had already initiated something of a digital revolution, and was&#xD;&#xA;also providing scientists with heretofore unimagined quantities of digital data&#xD;&#xA;to analyze and manipulate (just as is the case today!). Even the standard  applications of Fourier analysis as an analysis tool for waveforms or solving PDEs,&#xD;&#xA;meant that a priority there would be a tremendous interest in the algorithm. But&#xD;&#xA;even more, the ability to do this analysis quickly allowed scientists from new&#xD;&#xA;areas to try the DFT without having to invest too much time and energy in the&#xD;&#xA;exercise. I can do no better than to quote the introduction to the FFT from&#xD;&#xA;Numerical Recipes, If you speed up any nontrivial algorithm by a factor of a&#xD;&#xA;million or so the world will beat a path towards nding useful applications for&#xD;&#xA;it [3].&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, it's powerful, now free, and non-trivial to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Even beyond these direct technological applications, the FFT influenced the&#xD;&#xA;direction of academic research too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Academic research.  Doesn't the app being sued cost a few dollars on the app store? I'd say it's a fair allocation of an FFT algorithm. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Ironically, the prominence of the FFT may have also contributed to slow oth-&#xD;&#xA;er areas of research. The FFT provided scientists with a big analytic hammer,&#xD;&#xA;and for many, the world suddenly looked as though it was full of nails { even if&#xD;&#xA;this wasn't always so.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taken out of context perhaps, but I'd say patenting anything that uses the FFT algorithms and re-wording it, without it being actually examined is a &quot;big analytical hammer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Even now there are still lessons to be learned from the FFT's development.&#xD;&#xA;In this day and age in which almost any new technological idea seems fodder for&#xD;&#xA;internet venture capitalists and patent lawyers, it is natural to ask, Why was&#xD;&#xA;the FFT not patented by IBM?&quot; As Cooley tells the story, on the one hand,Tukey was not an IBM employee, so IBM had some worry that they might not&#xD;&#xA;be able to gain the patent. Consequently, they had great interest in putting&#xD;&#xA;the algorithm in the public domain. The eect of this was that no one else&#xD;&#xA;would be able to patent the algorithm, and even more, like many computer&#xD;&#xA;manufacturers of that time, the thought was that the money was to be made in&#xD;&#xA;hardware, not software. In fact, the FFT was designed as a tool for the analysis&#xD;&#xA;of huge time series, in theory something only tackled by supercomputers. So&#xD;&#xA;by placing in the public domain an algorithm which would make feasible the&#xD;&#xA;analysis of large time series, more big companies might have an interest in buying&#xD;&#xA;supercomputers (like IBM mainframes) to do their work. Times certainly have&#xD;&#xA;changed.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Whether having the FFT in the public domain had the eect IBM hoped for&#xD;&#xA;is moot, but it is certain that it did provide many, many scientists with appli-&#xD;&#xA;cations to work on and apply the algorithm. The breadth of scientic interests&#xD;&#xA;at the Arden workshop (held only two years after publication of the paper) is&#xD;&#xA;truly impressive. In fact, the rapid pace of today's technological developments&#xD;&#xA;is in many ways a testament to the advantage of this open development. This&#xD;&#xA;is a cautionary tale in today's arena of proprietary research, and we can only&#xD;&#xA;wonder which of the many recent private technological discoveries might have&#xD;&#xA;prospered from a similar announcement**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a very interesting quote, extracted from above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**&quot;In this day and age in which almost any new technological idea seems fodder for&#xD;&#xA;internet venture capitalists and patent lawyers, it is natural to ask, Why was&#xD;&#xA;the FFT not patented by IBM?&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[An algorithm for the machine calculation of complex Fourier series Authors James W. Cooley and John W. Tukey 1965][2]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Full PDF Free Access of Cooley and Turkey's Paper][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~rockmore/cse-fft.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ams.org/journals/mcom/1965-19-090/S0025-5718-1965-0178586-1/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ams.org/journals/mcom/1965-19-090/S0025-5718-1965-0178586-1/S0025-5718-1965-0178586-1.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5592" RevisionGUID="f53d6bb9-207e-4d2a-b712-2cf5af28dfcd" CreationDate="2013-12-13T04:54:01.697" UserId="7393" Comment="added 331 characters in body" Text="From my quick look at this, I can see that this is based on FFT Fast Fourier Transforms which is a public domain algorithm.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [&quot;The FFT - an algorithm the whole family can use&quot;][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A paper by Cooley and Tukey [5] described a recipe for computing Fouri-&#xD;&#xA;er coecients of a time series that used many fewer machine operations than&#xD;&#xA;did the straightforward procedure...What lies over the horizon in digital signal&#xD;&#xA;processing is anyone's guess, but I think it will surprise us all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are surprised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It seems almost everyone knows that&#xD;&#xA;somehow all the data whizzing over the internet, bustling through our modems&#xD;&#xA;or crashing into our cell phones is ultimately just a sequence of 0's and 1's {&#xD;&#xA;a digital sequence { that magically makes the world the convenient high speed&#xD;&#xA;place it is today. So much of this magic is due to a family of algorithms that&#xD;&#xA;collectively go by the name &quot;The Fast Fourier Transform&quot;, or &quot;FFT&quot; to its&#xD;&#xA;friends, among which the version published by Cooley and Tukey [5] is the most&#xD;&#xA;famous. Indeed, the FFT is perhaps the most ubiquitous algorithm used today&#xD;&#xA;in the analysis and manipulation of digital or discrete data.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's an obvious choice and the most common used data analysis algorithm known to man and it's in the Public Domain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;My own research experience with various avors of the FFT is evidence of the&#xD;&#xA;wide range of applicability: electroacoustic music and audio signal processing,&#xD;&#xA;medical imaging, image processing, pattern recognition, computational chem-&#xD;&#xA;istry, error correcting codes, spectral methods for PDEs and last but not least,&#xD;&#xA;in mathematics, as the starting point of my doctoral dissertation in computa-&#xD;&#xA;tional harmonic analysis which investigated group theoretic generalizations of&#xD;&#xA;the Cooley-Tukey FFT. Of course many more could be listed, notably those to&#xD;&#xA;radar and communications. The book [2] is an excellent place to look, especially&#xD;&#xA;pages 2 and 3 which contain a (nonexhaustive) list of seventy-seven applications&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was written in 1999.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Despite these early discoveries of an FFT, it wasn't until Cooley and Tukey's&#xD;&#xA;article that the algorithm gained any notice. The story of their collaboration&#xD;&#xA;is an interesting one. Tukey arrived at the basic reduction while in a meeting&#xD;&#xA;of President Kennedy's Science Advisory Committee where among the topics of&#xD;&#xA;discussions were techniques for o-shore detection of nuclear tests in the Soviet&#xD;&#xA;Union. Ratication of a proposed United States/Soviet Union nuclear test ban&#xD;&#xA;depended upon the development of a method for detecting the tests without&#xD;&#xA;actually visiting the Soviet nuclear facilities. One idea was to analyze seismo-&#xD;&#xA;logical time series obtained from o-shore seismometers, the length and number&#xD;&#xA;of which would require fast algorithms for computing the DFT. Other possible&#xD;&#xA;applications to national security included the long-range acoustic detection of&#xD;&#xA;nuclear submarines.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So obviously, FFT was treated with the highest National Security in mind when it was discovered. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Richard Garwin of IBM was another of the participants at this meeting&#xD;&#xA;and when Tukey showed him this idea he immediately saw a wide range of&#xD;&#xA;potential applicability and quickly set to getting this algorithm implemented.&#xD;&#xA;He was directed to Cooley, and, needing to hide the national security issues,&#xD;&#xA;instead told Cooley that he wanted the code for another problem of interest:&#xD;&#xA;the determination of the periodicities of the spin orientations in a 3-D crystal of&#xD;&#xA;He3. Cooley had other projects going on, and only after quite a lot of prodding&#xD;&#xA;did he sit down to program the &quot;Cooley-Tukey&quot; FFT. In short order, Cooley&#xD;&#xA;and Tukey prepared a paper which, for a mathematics/computer science paper,&#xD;&#xA;was published almost instantaneously (in six months!) [5]. This publication, as&#xD;&#xA;well as Garwin's fervent prosletizing, did a lot to help publicize the existence of&#xD;&#xA;this (apparently) new fast algorithm. (See also [4] and the introductory papers&#xD;&#xA;of [17] for more historical details.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this obviously caught the eye of the government, along with IBM. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The timing of the announcement was such that now usage spread quickly.&#xD;&#xA;The roughly simultaneous development of analog to digital converters capable&#xD;&#xA;of producing digitized samples of a time-varying voltage at rates of 300,000&#xD;&#xA;samples/second had already initiated something of a digital revolution, and was&#xD;&#xA;also providing scientists with heretofore unimagined quantities of digital data&#xD;&#xA;to analyze and manipulate (just as is the case today!). Even the standard  applications of Fourier analysis as an analysis tool for waveforms or solving PDEs,&#xD;&#xA;meant that a priority there would be a tremendous interest in the algorithm. But&#xD;&#xA;even more, the ability to do this analysis quickly allowed scientists from new&#xD;&#xA;areas to try the DFT without having to invest too much time and energy in the&#xD;&#xA;exercise. I can do no better than to quote the introduction to the FFT from&#xD;&#xA;Numerical Recipes, If you speed up any nontrivial algorithm by a factor of a&#xD;&#xA;million or so the world will beat a path towards nding useful applications for&#xD;&#xA;it [3].&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, it's powerful, now free, and non-trivial to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Even beyond these direct technological applications, the FFT influenced the&#xD;&#xA;direction of academic research too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Academic research.  Doesn't the app being sued cost a few dollars on the app store? I'd say it's a fair allocation of an FFT algorithm. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Ironically, the prominence of the FFT may have also contributed to slow oth-&#xD;&#xA;er areas of research. The FFT provided scientists with a big analytic hammer,&#xD;&#xA;and for many, the world suddenly looked as though it was full of nails { even if&#xD;&#xA;this wasn't always so.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taken out of context perhaps, but I'd say patenting anything that uses the FFT algorithms and re-wording it, without it being actually examined is a &quot;big analytical hammer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Even now there are still lessons to be learned from the FFT's development.&#xD;&#xA;In this day and age in which almost any new technological idea seems fodder for&#xD;&#xA;internet venture capitalists and patent lawyers, it is natural to ask, Why was&#xD;&#xA;the FFT not patented by IBM?&quot; As Cooley tells the story, on the one hand,Tukey was not an IBM employee, so IBM had some worry that they might not&#xD;&#xA;be able to gain the patent. Consequently, they had great interest in putting&#xD;&#xA;the algorithm in the public domain. The eect of this was that no one else&#xD;&#xA;would be able to patent the algorithm, and even more, like many computer&#xD;&#xA;manufacturers of that time, the thought was that the money was to be made in&#xD;&#xA;hardware, not software. In fact, the FFT was designed as a tool for the analysis&#xD;&#xA;of huge time series, in theory something only tackled by supercomputers. So&#xD;&#xA;by placing in the public domain an algorithm which would make feasible the&#xD;&#xA;analysis of large time series, more big companies might have an interest in buying&#xD;&#xA;supercomputers (like IBM mainframes) to do their work. Times certainly have&#xD;&#xA;changed.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Whether having the FFT in the public domain had the eect IBM hoped for&#xD;&#xA;is moot, but it is certain that it did provide many, many scientists with appli-&#xD;&#xA;cations to work on and apply the algorithm. The breadth of scientic interests&#xD;&#xA;at the Arden workshop (held only two years after publication of the paper) is&#xD;&#xA;truly impressive. In fact, the rapid pace of today's technological developments&#xD;&#xA;is in many ways a testament to the advantage of this open development. This&#xD;&#xA;is a cautionary tale in today's arena of proprietary research, and we can only&#xD;&#xA;wonder which of the many recent private technological discoveries might have&#xD;&#xA;prospered from a similar announcement**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a very interesting quote, extracted from above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**&quot;In this day and age in which almost any new technological idea seems fodder for&#xD;&#xA;internet venture capitalists and patent lawyers, it is natural to ask, Why was&#xD;&#xA;the FFT not patented by IBM?&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[An algorithm for the machine calculation of complex Fourier series Authors James W. Cooley and John W. Tukey 1965][2]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Full PDF Free Access of Cooley and Turkey's Paper][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# The '060 Patent on FFT #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The '060 Patent talks about using Fourier and basically claims that all others do it wrong?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; FIG. 6 shows an embodiment of the Power-Spectral Estimator 78 as referenced in FIG. 5. The Power-Spectral Estimator 78 receives a series of buffered time samples from the Buffer 70 in FIG. 5 and optionally conditions the samples with Zero-padding 84 and Windowing 86 prior to converting the time samples to the frequency domain with a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) 88. Zero-padding 84 refers to adding zero-value samples to the predominately non-zero value series of time samples to increase the size of the FFT and hence the resulting frequency resolution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The FFT is a specific implementation of a Time-To-Frequency-Transform, defined herein to refer to the conversion of time samples to the frequency domain irrespective of the algorithm used. For example, in other embodiments the Time-To-Frequency-Transform uses either a Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT), a Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT), a Fast Cosine Transform, a Discrete Sine Transform (DST) or a Fast Sine Transform (FST).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In a preferred embodiment Zero-padding 84 is used with Windowing 86. Because the series of time samples, with or without the Zero-padding 84, only represents a finite observation window, the resulting spectral information will be distorted after performing an FFT due to the ringing or sin(f)/f spectral peaks of the rectangular window. This is also referred to as “spectral leakage.” To correct for this, each sample in a series of time samples is multiplied by a sample from a fixed waveform such as a Hanning, Bartlett or Kaiser window. In this embodiment these window functions have the same number of samples as the FFT (e.g. 4096), have symmetry about N/2 and increase in value from close to zero at the beginning and end of the time series to a maximum value at the center of the time series. In a preferred embodiment, a Blackman-Harris window function is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In a preferred embodiment the time samples are preconditioned with Zero-padding 84 and Windowing 86 and are subsequently converting to the frequency domain with an FFT processor. It is envisioned that any Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) can be used to perform the frequency conversion without being limited to using an FFT. Following the FFT 88, the series of frequency samples forming an estimate of the frequency spectrum is converted into a power-spectral estimate by squaring each of the frequency samples with a Magnitude Squared function 90.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The description in the '060 talks about FFT in it's digital sense, yet it's claims are overly broad because it's not bound to a specific device by the sense that if you are listening to anything and select the highest frequency, loudest person, loudest sound and focus on it, you are infringing upon '060. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~rockmore/cse-fft.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ams.org/journals/mcom/1965-19-090/S0025-5718-1965-0178586-1/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ams.org/journals/mcom/1965-19-090/S0025-5718-1965-0178586-1/S0025-5718-1965-0178586-1.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5588" RevisionGUID="d991d222-a56f-4b5d-8248-53f09ea445fb" CreationDate="2013-12-13T18:17:30.613" UserId="3076" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The grounds for an exparte reexamination are restricted to novelty and obvious challenges based on patents or published documents and on section 112 issues. Section 112 includes the requirement for proper support for claims in the specification, the claims not being indeterminate, and the specification being enabling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The allowed grounds do *not* include section 101 which sets out subject matter requirements. Claim 1 of this patent seems to positively require *students*, who, I presume are human. It may seem silly, but this is &quot;patenting humans&quot; and is not allowed under previous policy and was codified in the AIA." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5595" RevisionGUID="1ef32d0a-255f-4808-80dd-517efaaa7e03" CreationDate="2013-12-14T06:37:49.693" UserId="1186" Text="How do I get the current status of [this patent][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Publication number	WO2006064303 A1&#xD;&#xA;    Publication type	Application&#xD;&#xA;    Application number	PCT/IB2004/004129&#xD;&#xA;    Publication date	Jun 22, 2006&#xD;&#xA;    Filing date	Dec 15, 2004&#xD;&#xA;    Priority date	Dec 15, 2004&#xD;&#xA;    Also published as	EP1824719A1&#xD;&#xA;    Inventors	Sudesh Kumar Mittal, Mehar Alam Shamshi, Sandeep Kalra, Bal Kishor Sharma&#xD;&#xA;    Applicant	Council Scient Ind Res, 4 More »&#xD;&#xA;    Export Citation	BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan&#xD;&#xA;    Patent Citations (4), Non-Patent Citations (1), Classifications (5), Legal Events (7)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it pending or granted? What is current situation? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/WO2006064303A1.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14297" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5595" RevisionGUID="1ef32d0a-255f-4808-80dd-517efaaa7e03" CreationDate="2013-12-14T06:37:49.693" UserId="1186" Text="How do I know if a patent is pending or granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14298" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5595" RevisionGUID="1ef32d0a-255f-4808-80dd-517efaaa7e03" CreationDate="2013-12-14T06:37:49.693" UserId="1186" Text="&lt;post-grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5596" RevisionGUID="09a9221f-3b80-4cd2-837a-7109457e3dd0" CreationDate="2013-12-14T06:51:07.337" UserId="7372" Text="It would say GRANTED vs Application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5597" RevisionGUID="11f8dbba-00e5-4692-abe4-07083077cca1" CreationDate="2013-12-14T18:32:46.250" UserId="3076" Text="This is a PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) application. As such, it is *never* granted. The PCT system allows one application to stand for 140+ applications in as many locations. Only those actual patent offices can grant a patent. In any case, even if you pulled up the publication of a US application that had subsequently resulted in an issued patent, that publication would still *not* be labeled as granted. The grant results in a new publication with a patent number rather than a publication number but the original application publication remains unchanged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general a patent application may not have resulted in a patent after nine years because it was rejected and the rejection was not responded to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5598" RevisionGUID="8de609a3-492d-4de6-992b-aa52bb02043a" CreationDate="2013-12-14T18:43:24.413" UserId="3076" Text="Enablement. Even though an applicant would like a broad claim that is free of implementation specifics, the US has a requirement that the specification teach someone of skill in the art how to make and use the invention. This leads to some very specific descriptions of one or two particular embodiments, down to the part numbers of microprocessors in some cases. In some places it is good for a patent to be general and in some places it is good to be specific. And yes, software should be shown and claimed in a hardware context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5598" RevisionGUID="e04dd29e-2705-4eb6-9860-4f02cd45de9f" CreationDate="2013-12-14T18:56:43.230" UserId="3076" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="The U.S. Enablement requirement. Even though an applicant would like a broad claim that is free of implementation specifics, the US has a requirement that the specification teach someone of skill in the art how to make and use the invention. This leads to some very specific descriptions of one or two particular embodiments, down to the part numbers of microprocessors in some cases. In some places it is good for a patent to be general and in some places it is good to be specific. And yes, software should be shown and claimed in a hardware context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5598" RevisionGUID="97a9c812-bea2-4b8f-8a30-b40a33a64a63" CreationDate="2013-12-14T19:10:00.890" UserId="3076" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="The U.S. Enablement requirement. Even though an applicant would like a broad claim that is free of implementation specifics, the US has a requirement that the specification teach someone of skill in the art how to make and use the invention. This leads to some very specific descriptions of one or two particular embodiments, down to the part numbers of microprocessors in some cases. In some places it is good for a patent to be general and in some places it is good to be specific. And yes, software should be shown and claimed in a hardware context.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5599" RevisionGUID="dd0c3dd6-95cf-44a0-a9a8-083952087bdb" CreationDate="2013-12-14T22:19:01.357" UserId="7393" Text="I will respectfully revert to a fart joke if you don't mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1: A method for resonance tuning, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Receiving a signal in response to a resonance of a structure;&#xD;&#xA;    Determining a frequency or musical note related to an overtone from the signal;&#xD;&#xA;    Selecting the frequency or musical note related to the overtone as a filter mode reference frequency or musical note; and&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Suppressing a display of frequencies or musical notes from a subsequent signal that deviate from the filter mode reference frequency or musical note by a predetermined threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jim is a man who is of normal stature. He's clean and respectable and while riding on a subway, he passes gas.  The resonant result of this action did not result in a sound above a certain level. Therefore, he suppresses his facial expressions and does not display a result of the frequency in sound because it was below a certain level. Therefore his high/low limits based on a target frequency of his natural bandpass filtering capabilities helped him avoid humiliation more than it was due. This is normal behavior, and obvious to most. His retraction from displaying the result therefore suppressed naturally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Versus..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 13: A method for pitch detection, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Providing one or more power spectrum frequency samples;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Selecting a frequency in a frequency band having a largest power spectrum magnitude from the one or more power spectrum frequency samples, the frequency band having an upper frequency limit and a lower frequency limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jim accidentally passes a very loud percussive, resonant fart on the subway surrounded by people. His natural reaction is to either say Excuse ME!! or point at someone else and shift the blame. Therefore, he reacted above a certain sound threshold and indicated his result until the sound threshold was later lowered. A noise gate is all that is really needed to understand any of these claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5599" RevisionGUID="f940caed-59bc-421b-8ee9-2b55cf1dcd7f" CreationDate="2013-12-14T22:34:27.903" UserId="7392" Comment="Added more descriptions." Text="I will respectfully revert to a fart joke if you don't mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1: A method for resonance tuning, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Receiving a signal in response to a resonance of a structure;&#xD;&#xA;    Determining a frequency or musical note related to an overtone from the signal;&#xD;&#xA;    Selecting the frequency or musical note related to the overtone as a filter mode reference frequency or musical note; and&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Suppressing a display of frequencies or musical notes from a subsequent signal that deviate from the filter mode reference frequency or musical note by a predetermined threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jim is a man who is of normal stature. He's clean and respectable and while riding on a subway, he passes gas.  The resonant result of this action did not result in a sound above a certain level. Therefore, he suppresses his facial expressions and does not display a result of the frequency in sound because it was below a certain level. Therefore his high/low limits based on a target frequency of his natural bandpass filtering capabilities helped him avoid humiliation more than it was due. This is normal behavior, and obvious to most. His retraction from displaying the result therefore suppressed naturally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;filter mode reference frequency&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I'm not mistaken, every filter has a center point (a reference frequency), therefore you simply cannot apply a high/low limit because it will have a reference frequency, so that covers A) a common mode of usage, not novel, obvious  and B) every digital device in history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;Mode&quot; in simpler terms is a means of on/off. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fart Joke #2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 13: A method for pitch detection, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Providing one or more power spectrum frequency samples;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Selecting a frequency in a frequency band having a largest power spectrum magnitude from the one or more power spectrum frequency samples, the frequency band having an upper frequency limit and a lower frequency limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jim accidentally passes a very loud percussive, resonant fart on the subway surrounded by people. His natural reaction is to either say Excuse ME!! or point at someone else and shift the blame. Therefore, he reacted above a certain sound threshold and indicated his result until the sound threshold was later lowered. A noise gate is all that is really needed to understand any of these claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for pitch detection&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are thousands of pitch detection methods to include telephones that recognize pitch and many others to include natural instinct. Red Flag #1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing one or more power spectrum frequency samples;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A person listening to anything that is in their environment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Selecting a frequency in a frequency band having a largest power spectrum magnitude from the one or more power spectrum frequency samples, the frequency band having an upper frequency limit and a lower frequency limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Listening to whichever source you desire by naturally filtering out other sounds. Imagine if your Mother was talking to you while you were watching television. You choose to listen to either your mother, or the television and you've infringed upon this method. Danger!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14308" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5599" RevisionGUID="f940caed-59bc-421b-8ee9-2b55cf1dcd7f" CreationDate="2013-12-14T22:34:27.903" Comment="Proposed by 7392 approved by 7393 edit id of 470" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5599" RevisionGUID="86264cc5-0ac6-44e9-a81b-b9129be4176a" CreationDate="2013-12-14T22:53:43.890" UserId="7393" Comment="added 947 characters in body" Text="I will respectfully revert to a couple of fart jokes if you don't mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Fart Joke 1 #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1: A method for resonance tuning, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Receiving a signal in response to a resonance of a structure;&#xD;&#xA;    Determining a frequency or musical note related to an overtone from the signal;&#xD;&#xA;    Selecting the frequency or musical note related to the overtone as a filter mode reference frequency or musical note; and&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Suppressing a display of frequencies or musical notes from a subsequent signal that deviate from the filter mode reference frequency or musical note by a predetermined threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jim is a man who is of normal stature. He's clean and respectable and while riding on a subway, he passes gas.  The resonant result of this action did not result in a sound above a certain level. Therefore, he suppresses his facial expressions and does not display a result of the frequency in sound because it was below a certain level. Therefore his high/low limits based on a target frequency of his natural bandpass filtering capabilities helped him avoid humiliation more than it was due. This is normal behavior, and obvious to most. His retraction from displaying the result therefore suppressed naturally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;filter mode reference frequency&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I'm not mistaken, every filter has a center point (a reference frequency), therefore you simply cannot apply a high/low limit because it will have a reference frequency, so that covers A) a common mode of usage, not novel, obvious  and B) every digital device in history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;Mode&quot; in simpler terms is a means of on/off. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this simple diagram explains what happens in each human mind when they pass gas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A schematic view of an embodiment of the Pitch Estimator&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/wFNKZHe.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FIG. 16 cited by applicant in Supplemental Examination Support Doc as providing support for Claim 13. (annotation emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BbE2PxUCMAARScl.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Fart Joke 2 #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 13: A method for pitch detection, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Providing one or more power spectrum frequency samples;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Selecting a frequency in a frequency band having a largest power spectrum magnitude from the one or more power spectrum frequency samples, the frequency band having an upper frequency limit and a lower frequency limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jim accidentally passes a very loud percussive, resonant fart on the subway surrounded by people. His natural reaction is to either say Excuse ME!! or point at someone else and shift the blame. Therefore, he reacted above a certain sound threshold and indicated his result until the sound threshold was later lowered. A noise gate is all that is really needed to understand any of these claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for pitch detection&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are thousands of pitch detection methods to include telephones that recognize pitch and many others to include natural instinct. Red Flag #1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing one or more power spectrum frequency samples;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A person listening to anything that is in their environment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Selecting a frequency in a frequency band having a largest power spectrum magnitude from the one or more power spectrum frequency samples, the frequency band having an upper frequency limit and a lower frequency limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Listening to whichever source you desire by naturally filtering out other sounds. Imagine if your Mother was talking to you while you were watching television. You choose to listen to either your mother, or the television and you've infringed upon this method. Danger!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this simple diagram explains what happens in each human mind when they pass gas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A schematic view of an embodiment of the Pitch Estimator&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/wFNKZHe.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FIG. 16 cited by applicant in Supplemental Examination Support Doc as providing support for Claim 13. (annotation emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BbE2PxUCMAARScl.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5600" RevisionGUID="8b130a50-81b8-4a22-94f9-ad19b9cbc0fd" CreationDate="2013-12-15T00:18:37.173" UserId="7393" Text="My understanding of guitar tuners from [Zen-on Justina Quartz Guitar Tuners][1] and many other tuners utilize a filter means when you select which guitar string you are tuning to.  This is a chromatic tuner, but it still use frequencies to translate to musical notes which I believe the 060 patent being asserted uses the same methods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Zen-on Justina Quartz Guitar Tuners][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a lot to be said on the [WikiPedia Page for Guitar Tuners][3] - Especially about Peterson Strobosoft Tuners which have been patented by [US6580024][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Peterson's patent US6580024, they discuss in the Figures description the following, which even they admit is blatantly obvious:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Concurrently, computing engine 22 analyzes the conditioned and digitized input signal or waveform to detect a unique phase or portion of the fundamental period segments of said signal or waveform, typically a portion corresponding to the original fundamental period peaks of the input signal or waveform. There are many methods and algorithms current in the art which implement this function, the details of which are understood by those of skill in the art and are not a subject of this invention. Upon detection of said phase or portion of each fundamental period segment, or upon detection of a selected number of said phases, computing engine 22 sends commands to visual display 25 to make visible one or a plurality of image objects or patterns at positions determined by the most recently calculated displacement value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peterson's tuners use a method of frequency translation into musical objects, as well as **musical notes** which the 060 Patent claims to have invented.  Adjusting the input level (Peak Detection) is not novel, nor is using a standard [Noise Gate, or Gate][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A noise gate or gate is an electronic device or software that is used to control the volume of an audio signal. Gating is the use of a gate. Comparable to a compressor, which attenuate signals above a threshold, noise gates attenuate signals that register below the threshold.[1] **However, noise gates attenuate signals by a fixed amount, known as the range. In its most simple form, a noise gate allows a signal to pass through only when it is above a set threshold: the gate is 'open'. If the signal falls below the threshold no signal is allowed to pass (or the signal is substantially attenuated): the gate is 'closed'.[2]** A noise gate is used when the level of the 'signal' is above the level of the 'noise'. The threshold is set above the level of the 'noise' and so when there is no 'signal' the gate is closed. A noise gate does not remove noise from the signal. When the gate is open both the signal and the noise will pass through. Gates typically feature 'attack', 'release', and 'hold' settings and may feature a 'look-ahead' function.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm curious to how employing a Noise Gate on a signal is novel per Claim 1 of the 060 Patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 13: A method for pitch detection, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Providing one or more power spectrum frequency samples;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Selecting a frequency in a frequency band having a largest power spectrum magnitude from the one or more power spectrum frequency samples, the frequency band having an upper frequency limit and a lower frequency limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you say [Peanut Butter &amp; Jelly Time?][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Peanut Butter &amp; Jelly Time?][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.harmonycentral.com/t5/Effects/Crybaby-From-Hell-Vintage-tuner-Danelectro-and-DOD-EQ/td-p/25548609&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/g1w9d.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_tuner&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6580024&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_gate&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reexamination&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/AFPDx.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5601" RevisionGUID="1bf02d8d-5a2f-4707-af9e-5b67dfbd8980" CreationDate="2013-12-15T02:44:14.370" UserId="7392" Text="The [US4028985][1] Patent that I find useful from Filed on Feb 17, 1976 and Published Date: Jun 14, 1977 is very interesting indeed. It's abstract states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An improved system for the determination of pitch or perceived frequency of signals generated by musical instruments or voices and for the display of the results in a format easily understood and used by musicians. An incoming signal from **a microphone is peak detected after amplification, then further processed by rejecting spurious peaks through the use of an inhibit circuit which sends onward acceptable pulses and inhibits those pulses which arrive during a period immediately following each accepted pulse**, the period being approximately 3/8 of the time between acceptable pulses. These pulses drive a period measuring circuit which provides a signal proportional to the time between input pulses, the signal being fed back to the inhibit circuit for its proper operation and being fed forward to the readout display where the results are translated into convenient musical notation, like C.sub.+.sub.1 .music-sharp.. The display further subdivides the standard 6% musical pitch increments in 2% increments so that slightly sharp or flat indications can be provided for the use of the musician.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US4028985][2] Claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. An improved pitch determining and display system comprising, in combination:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a. signal generating means for providing a signal which corresponds to pitch produced by a musician said signal generating means comprising a microphone for picking up the sounds produced by a musician and translating the sounds into corresponding electronic signals;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;b. signal processing means for determining the pitch produced said means being connected to the signal generating means and driven by the electronic signals generated by said microphone, said signal processing means comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;i. amplifier means connected to the microphone for amplifying the signal produced by the microphone:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ii. peak detector means connected to the amplifier means for providing an output pulse when an input peak pulse from the amplifier means exceeds a previous input pulse less an amount proportional to the time that has elapsed since the previous input pulse;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that invalidates Claim 13 of the [US8502060][3] Patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for pitch detection, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;providing one or more power spectrum frequency samples;&#xD;&#xA;selecting a frequency in a frequency band having a largest power spectrum magnitude from the one or more power spectrum frequency samples, the frequency band having an upper frequency limit and a lower frequency limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4028985&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4028985&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8502060" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5601" RevisionGUID="9211d5ac-e0d1-4015-a432-09c3261e228b" CreationDate="2013-12-15T02:50:48.463" UserId="7392" Comment="added 1130 characters in body" Text="The [US4028985][1] Patent that I find useful from Filed on Feb 17, 1976 and Published Date: Jun 14, 1977 is very interesting indeed. It's abstract states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An improved system for the determination of pitch or perceived frequency of signals generated by musical instruments or voices and for the display of the results in a format easily understood and used by musicians. An incoming signal from **a microphone is peak detected after amplification, then further processed by rejecting spurious peaks through the use of an inhibit circuit which sends onward acceptable pulses and inhibits those pulses which arrive during a period immediately following each accepted pulse**, the period being approximately 3/8 of the time between acceptable pulses. These pulses drive a period measuring circuit which provides a signal proportional to the time between input pulses, the signal being fed back to the inhibit circuit for its proper operation and being fed forward to the readout display where the results are translated into convenient musical notation, like C.sub.+.sub.1 .music-sharp.. The display further subdivides the standard 6% musical pitch increments in 2% increments so that slightly sharp or flat indications can be provided for the use of the musician.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US4028985][2] Claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. An improved pitch determining and display system comprising, in combination:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a. signal generating means for providing a signal which corresponds to pitch produced by a musician said signal generating means comprising a microphone for picking up the sounds produced by a musician and translating the sounds into corresponding electronic signals;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;b. signal processing means for determining the pitch produced said means being connected to the signal generating means and driven by the electronic signals generated by said microphone, said signal processing means comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;i. amplifier means connected to the microphone for amplifying the signal produced by the microphone:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ii. peak detector means connected to the amplifier means for providing an output pulse when an input peak pulse from the amplifier means exceeds a previous input pulse less an amount proportional to the time that has elapsed since the previous input pulse;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;.....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; c. display means connected to the signal processing means for translating the determined pitch into convenient musical notation, said display means being adapted to receive the signal from said period measuring means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The pitch determining and display system of claim 1, wherein the output of the period measuring means is fed back to the peak detection means to provide the most appropriate constant of proportionality for the period of the signal entering the signal processing means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The pitch determining and display system of claim 2, wherein the display means is a digital readout display for providing pitch information in convenient musical notation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And more in Claim 9:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9. Improved electronic signal processing circuitry comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a. mplifier means for amplifying an electronic signal supplied to the input thereof;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;b. peak detector means connected to the amplifier means for providing an output pulse when an input peak pulse from the amplifier means exceeds a previous input pulse less an amount proportional to the time that has elapsed since the previous input pulse;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;** I believe that invalidates Claim 13 of the [US8502060][3] Patent**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for pitch detection, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;providing one or more power spectrum frequency samples;&#xD;&#xA;selecting a frequency in a frequency band having a largest power spectrum magnitude from the one or more power spectrum frequency samples, the frequency band having an upper frequency limit and a lower frequency limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4028985&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4028985&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8502060" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5602" RevisionGUID="f62ea1b5-e93b-4a58-aee0-00f8f5a175d1" CreationDate="2013-12-15T03:34:57.920" UserId="7392" Text="The frequency selection bit of this all puzzles me in the sense of how they patented frequencies above a sound level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking into several documents online, I discover on **WikiPedia Pitch Detection Algorithm (PDA)** which is the obvious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_detection_algorithm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A pitch detection algorithm (PDA) is an algorithm designed to estimate the pitch or fundamental frequency of a quasiperiodic or virtually periodic signal, usually a digital recording of speech or a musical note or tone. This can be done in the time domain or the frequency domain or both the two domains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading into this even further, I see more about pitch detection in the references of this wiki article. This takes me to **2005** http://www.cs.otago.ac.nz/tartini/papers/A_Smarter_Way_to_Find_Pitch.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#A SMARTER WAY TO FIND PITCH#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Philip McLeod, Geoff Wyvill**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**University of Otago Department of Computer Science**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. PEAK PICKING ALGORITHM&#xD;&#xA;The algorithm so far gives us correlation coefficients at integer τ. We will choose the first ’major’ peak as representing the pitch period. This is not always the maximum, which is considered the fundamental frequency. Firstly, find all of the useful local maxima. These are maxima with τ which potentially represent the period associated with the pitch. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this proves that selecting a peak frequency is not novel or unique, and is obvious. Sorry, but this patent needs to be reexamined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's one more I like as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ime.usp.br/~mqz/Mitre_AESBR2006.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Accurate and Efﬁcient Fundamental Frequency #&#xD;&#xA;## Determination from Precise Partial Estimates ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's several references in there about how most pitch detection is done in the frequency and time domains, and this document proposes methods for selecting the loudest partial and displaying it versus all of the partials.  Same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think trying to patent these methods in the [us8502060][1] is a bit far fetched considering techniques, common knowledge, and obviousness has been in existence since audio waves were discovered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This is a bad method patent disguised as a Drum-Set Tuner?  Do they realize the implications and overbroad nature of this patent?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us8502060" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5603" RevisionGUID="97f000be-321c-463f-afed-a84732f488f3" CreationDate="2013-12-15T06:34:03.543" UserId="7392" Text="Another fine example of selecting frequencies above a predetermined threshold is [US4227437][1] Published Oct 14, 1980 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Frequency detecting apparatus #&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Frequency detection apparatus for tuning a stringed instrument or the like, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a transducer for receiving sound information from a vibrating string on said instrument and for converting the same into an electrical signal of like frequency,&#xD;&#xA;selection means for selecting a note corresponding to a correct frequency to be detected,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Transducer == microphone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a filter for receiving said electrical signal and responsive to said selection means for filtering second harmonic information from said electrical signal,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a first oscillator phase locked to the signal provided by said filter for generating a phase locked signal,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a second oscillator also responsive to the signal provided by said filter to produce a standard frequency output signal initiated in synchronous time relation with the signal provided by said filter,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a control counter coupled to the output of said second oscillator for counting the output cycles of said standard frequency output signal, and a gating circuit responsive to a count of said control counter for gating said phase locked signal during a gating period as determined by a predetermined counted number of cycles of said standard frequency output signal,&#xD;&#xA;note counter means coupled for receiving the phase locked signal as gated by said **gating circuit** for detecting whether the number of output cycles of the gated phase locked signal received during said gating period reaches a predetermined count corresponding to the note selected by said selection means, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and display means for producing first, second and third indications for respectively indicating substantial identity in frequency between the electrical signal and the note selected by said selection means, or whether the electrical signal is above or below said note, said display means receiving the output of said note counter means substantially at the end of said gating period produced by said gating circuit to determine whether said note counter means has made a full count corresponding to the selected note substantially at the end of said gating period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure seems like claim 1 &amp; 13 of [US8502060][2] when you realize what a [gate][3] is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4227437&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8502060&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_gate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5604" RevisionGUID="e88ff9f5-d2ff-45b2-8423-730d72902c09" CreationDate="2013-12-15T07:22:14.110" UserId="7393" Text="Checking some dates here from the original post, **I find this to be very concnerning:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asserted Patent in lawsuit: [US8502060][1]&#xD;&#xA;also filed as application [US20130139672][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Filing Date: Feb 15, 2013&#xD;&#xA; - Publication Date: Aug 6, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; All CLAIMS for a tuner device are now obscured by a Method?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Continuation Of###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Original Application: [US20130145921][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Filing Date: Nov 30, 2011&#xD;&#xA; - Publication Date: June 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This application is specifically for a handheld tuner via the claims, yet still has the methods in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in summary to the above, an original application US20130145921 was filed on Nov 30,2011 claiming an actual tuner device in the claims. It wasn't published until Jun 13, 2013?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**An app comes on the market on February 8th, 2013** and **one week** later a patent is revised and stripped of any novel information, yet now covers the method that the app is being sued over? Seems fishy!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![iDrumTech App (Named in lawsuit) Release date on itunes][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a great article I read recently called [This simple change could fix the patent system—but it’ll never happen.][5] by James Bessen on slate.com:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Problem No. 2: Gotcha lawsuits##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Continued patents are much more likely to be litigated than are other patents—not only because they result in low-quality patents, but also because they permit a particularly nasty legal tactic: A patent applicant with a continued application can rewrite the claim language so that the patent covers technology that is developed after the patent is filed. In the worst cases, so-called “submarine patents” are kept hidden from the public as they mark time in the Patent Office. Innovative companies come along and develop new technology only to find themselves surprised one day with a patent infringement lawsuit, a lawsuit based on a patent application that was rewritten to cover the defendant’s own innovations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8502060&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130139672&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130145921&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/SNC3A.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/12/the_simple_fix_that_could_heal_the_patent_system.2.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5606" RevisionGUID="aaf12f40-8e74-4067-b0c0-66858e0fec64" CreationDate="2013-12-15T16:51:00.230" UserId="7409" Text="I'd like to patent a niche idea for a software product. I'm just an individual developer. I have no access to a legal team or expensive legal services.  What is the best option for applying for software patent in this case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the actual cost of the patent is &lt;$1000 total but i'd have to prepare the patent myself, i assume.  Is there a recommended way to do this or some guideline to follow?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no patent experience so I appreciate your patience with my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14324" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5606" RevisionGUID="aaf12f40-8e74-4067-b0c0-66858e0fec64" CreationDate="2013-12-15T16:51:00.230" UserId="7409" Text="Is there a legitimate/reliable way to apply for a software patent for &lt; $1000?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14325" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5606" RevisionGUID="aaf12f40-8e74-4067-b0c0-66858e0fec64" CreationDate="2013-12-15T16:51:00.230" UserId="7409" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5607" RevisionGUID="1fd43ebc-14de-406f-a2e5-08b8e46e29af" CreationDate="2013-12-15T19:06:30.270" UserId="7392" Text="#Non-Cited Prior Art Found#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it amusing that Jesse Aronstein was mentioned via patent [US4741242][1] in the asserted [US8502060][2] patent, yet Aronstein's [US4457203][3] was not. I know that all inventors get a bug in them and never stop inventing. I know if you've ever had a patent, you want more.  Why would you cite someone in your patent and not do your full research on them?  Even the patent attorney who prepared this patent should have done so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's have a look at **US4457203** and **US8502060** side by side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#'203 Abstract (year 1982):#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ABSTRACT&#xD;&#xA;A sound signal automatic detector used in a system with a micro computer and display for automatically detecting an input sound wave, computing from the detected sound wave the fundamental frequency of the sound and displaying its value in a number of different formats. The sound signal detector requires no attention on the part of a musician or other user while it is in operation and comprises a sound signal transducer supplying an amplifier having audio frequency bandpass characteristics compatible with the sound signal frequency spectrum over which sound signals to be analyzed extend. The bandpass characteristics of the amplifier preferably are defined by a high pass filter stage followed by an automatic gain control amplifier that in turn is followed by two stages of low pass filtering. The low pass filter stages supply their output to an alternate positive peak voltage and negative peak voltage detector circuit that functions to derive an output signal which is representative of the fundamental frequency of a input sound wave being analyzed. The output from the automatic detection circuit is supplied to a micro computer which then processes the signal and derives a number of different display formats for use by an instrumentalist, vocalist, or other musician or like person producing the sound for analysis and instruction purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#'060 Abstract (year 2013):#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abstract&#xD;&#xA;Provided are systems and methods for resonance tuning. A signal is received in response to a resonance of a structure. A frequency or musical note related to an overtone is determined from the signal. The frequency or musical note related to the overtone is selected as a filter mode reference frequency or musical note. A display of frequencies or musical notes from a subsequent signal that deviate from the filter mode reference frequency or musical note by a predetermined threshold is suppressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to assume, since it's done quiet often that it's ok to paraphrase things and call them your own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#'203 Claim 1 (year 1982):#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A sound pitch automatic detection circuit comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) sound signal transducer means responsive to a sound signal in the form of a note being played or voiced for converting the sound signal to an electrical signal having corresponding audio frequency characteristics and a generally sinusoidally varying waveshape;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) amplifier means having audio frequency bandpass characteristics compatible with the sound signal frequency spectrum over which the sound signal extends and for amplifying the electrical signals derived by said transducer means;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) alternate positive polarity and negative polarity peak voltage detector means continuously responsive to the output from said amplifier means for detecting the first major positive going peak voltage and the first major negative going peak voltage which exceed respective positive and negative threshold voltage values and occurring in each fundamental period of the generally sinusoidally varying waveshape electric signal; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (d) output circuit means responsive to the output from said alternate positive polarity and negative polarity peak voltage detector means for deriving an output electric signal representative of the fundamental frequency of the sound signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This is what I consider a well worded higher quality patent. It does not obscure or over broaden its claims.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#'060 Claim 1 (year 2013):#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for resonance tuning, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;receiving a signal in response to a resonance of a structure;&#xD;&#xA;determining a frequency or musical note related to an overtone from the signal;&#xD;&#xA;selecting the frequency or musical note related to the overtone as a filter mode reference frequency or musical note; and&#xD;&#xA;suppressing a display of frequencies or musical notes from a subsequent signal that deviate from the filter mode reference frequency or musical note by a predetermined threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:&#xD;&#xA;displaying the frequency or musical note of the overtone as the filter mode reference frequency or musical note.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The method of claim 1, wherein suppressing the frequencies or musical notes from a subsequent signal that deviate from the filter mode reference frequency or musical note by a predetermined threshold includes filtering the frequencies or musical notes of the subsequent signal to reject overtones or a fundamental tone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The method of claim 1, further comprising providing a bandpass filter centered at the filter mode reference frequency or musical note with a passband bandwidth extending from a predetermined frequency or frequency ratio below the filter mode reference frequency or musical note to a predetermined frequency or frequency ratio above the filter mode reference frequency or musical note, and suppressing frequencies that are outside of the passband bandwidth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. The method of claim 1, wherein suppressing the frequencies from a subsequent signal that deviate from the filter mode reference frequency by a predetermined threshold includes limiting the start and stop frequencies of a frequency band used in a peak selection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I believe Aronstein demonstrated this in his claims**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's two diagrams from each patent side by side. What concerns me is the '060 diagram has a simple component to accomplish peak selection, and Aronstein actually drew out the operation of his simple component in expanded form.  Again, I suppose it's ok to &quot;paraphrase&quot; or simplify by obscuring something and calling it your own?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#'203 Figure 1 (Year 1982):#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;!['203 Figure 1 (Year 1982)][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#'060 Figure 5 (Year 2011/2013):#&#xD;&#xA;!['060 Figure 5 (Year 2011/2013)][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#US4457203 (1982) Summary#&#xD;&#xA; - Musical Instrument Tuner - Reads Frequencies&#xD;&#xA; - Bandpass the target frequency to remove unwanted sound&#xD;&#xA; - When sound is above a level, a peak is detected&#xD;&#xA; - Sound above level is estimated&#xD;&#xA; - estimated pitch is displayed via several formats, to include difference from target.&#xD;&#xA; - All other pitches are suppressed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#US8502060 (2011/2013) Summary#&#xD;&#xA; - Musical Instrument Tuner - Reads Frequencies&#xD;&#xA; - Bandpass the target frequency to remove unwanted sound&#xD;&#xA; - When sound is above a level, a peak is detected&#xD;&#xA; - Sound above level is estimated&#xD;&#xA; - estimated pitch is displayed via several formats, to include difference from target.&#xD;&#xA; - All other pitches are suppressed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's several claims in the US4457203 that were not cited as prior art to the US8502060 patent that will be easy to invalidate 1 if not all claims in the 060. I will revise this answer for more, yet I can't see the need other than for public consumption.  I don't see anything novel with the 060 patent considering it's been done for years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I still find it **strikingly odd** that Aronstein's '203 patent was cited on the '060 patent but his '203 was not. Coincidence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4741242&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8502060&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4457203&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/RpUH1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/E6wQF.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5607" RevisionGUID="925c1ad1-9b40-4003-b67c-a23d937e7b6c" CreationDate="2013-12-15T19:11:49.187" UserId="7392" Comment="edited body" Text="#Non-Cited Prior Art Found#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it amusing that Jesse Aronstein was mentioned via patent [US4741242][1] in the asserted [US8502060][2] patent, yet Aronstein's [US4457203][3] was not. I know that all inventors get a bug in them and never stop inventing. I know if you've ever had a patent, you want more.  Why would you cite someone in your patent and not do your full research on them?  Even the patent attorney who prepared this patent should have done so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's have a look at **US4457203** and **US8502060** side by side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#'203 Abstract (year 1982):#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ABSTRACT&#xD;&#xA;A sound signal automatic detector used in a system with a micro computer and display for automatically detecting an input sound wave, computing from the detected sound wave the fundamental frequency of the sound and displaying its value in a number of different formats. The sound signal detector requires no attention on the part of a musician or other user while it is in operation and comprises a sound signal transducer supplying an amplifier having audio frequency bandpass characteristics compatible with the sound signal frequency spectrum over which sound signals to be analyzed extend. The bandpass characteristics of the amplifier preferably are defined by a high pass filter stage followed by an automatic gain control amplifier that in turn is followed by two stages of low pass filtering. The low pass filter stages supply their output to an alternate positive peak voltage and negative peak voltage detector circuit that functions to derive an output signal which is representative of the fundamental frequency of a input sound wave being analyzed. The output from the automatic detection circuit is supplied to a micro computer which then processes the signal and derives a number of different display formats for use by an instrumentalist, vocalist, or other musician or like person producing the sound for analysis and instruction purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#'060 Abstract (year 2013):#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abstract&#xD;&#xA;Provided are systems and methods for resonance tuning. A signal is received in response to a resonance of a structure. A frequency or musical note related to an overtone is determined from the signal. The frequency or musical note related to the overtone is selected as a filter mode reference frequency or musical note. A display of frequencies or musical notes from a subsequent signal that deviate from the filter mode reference frequency or musical note by a predetermined threshold is suppressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to assume, since it's done quiet often that it's ok to paraphrase things and call them your own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#'203 Claim 1 (year 1982):#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A sound pitch automatic detection circuit comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) sound signal transducer means responsive to a sound signal in the form of a note being played or voiced for converting the sound signal to an electrical signal having corresponding audio frequency characteristics and a generally sinusoidally varying waveshape;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) amplifier means having audio frequency bandpass characteristics compatible with the sound signal frequency spectrum over which the sound signal extends and for amplifying the electrical signals derived by said transducer means;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) alternate positive polarity and negative polarity peak voltage detector means continuously responsive to the output from said amplifier means for detecting the first major positive going peak voltage and the first major negative going peak voltage which exceed respective positive and negative threshold voltage values and occurring in each fundamental period of the generally sinusoidally varying waveshape electric signal; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (d) output circuit means responsive to the output from said alternate positive polarity and negative polarity peak voltage detector means for deriving an output electric signal representative of the fundamental frequency of the sound signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This is what I consider a well worded higher quality patent. It does not obscure or over broaden its claims.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#'060 Claim 1 (year 2013):#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for resonance tuning, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;receiving a signal in response to a resonance of a structure;&#xD;&#xA;determining a frequency or musical note related to an overtone from the signal;&#xD;&#xA;selecting the frequency or musical note related to the overtone as a filter mode reference frequency or musical note; and&#xD;&#xA;suppressing a display of frequencies or musical notes from a subsequent signal that deviate from the filter mode reference frequency or musical note by a predetermined threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:&#xD;&#xA;displaying the frequency or musical note of the overtone as the filter mode reference frequency or musical note.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The method of claim 1, wherein suppressing the frequencies or musical notes from a subsequent signal that deviate from the filter mode reference frequency or musical note by a predetermined threshold includes filtering the frequencies or musical notes of the subsequent signal to reject overtones or a fundamental tone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The method of claim 1, further comprising providing a bandpass filter centered at the filter mode reference frequency or musical note with a passband bandwidth extending from a predetermined frequency or frequency ratio below the filter mode reference frequency or musical note to a predetermined frequency or frequency ratio above the filter mode reference frequency or musical note, and suppressing frequencies that are outside of the passband bandwidth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. The method of claim 1, wherein suppressing the frequencies from a subsequent signal that deviate from the filter mode reference frequency by a predetermined threshold includes limiting the start and stop frequencies of a frequency band used in a peak selection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I believe Aronstein demonstrated this in his claims**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's two diagrams from each patent side by side. What concerns me is the '060 diagram has a simple component to accomplish peak selection, and Aronstein actually drew out the operation of his simple component in expanded form.  Again, I suppose it's ok to &quot;paraphrase&quot; or simplify by obscuring something and calling it your own?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#'203 Figure 1 (Year 1982):#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;!['203 Figure 1 (Year 1982)][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#'060 Figure 5 (Year 2011/2013):#&#xD;&#xA;!['060 Figure 5 (Year 2011/2013)][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#US4457203 (1982) Summary#&#xD;&#xA; - Musical Instrument Tuner - Reads Frequencies&#xD;&#xA; - Bandpass the target frequency to remove unwanted sound&#xD;&#xA; - When sound is above a level, a peak is detected&#xD;&#xA; - Sound above level is estimated&#xD;&#xA; - estimated pitch is displayed via several formats, to include difference from target.&#xD;&#xA; - All other pitches are suppressed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#US8502060 (2011/2013) Summary#&#xD;&#xA; - Musical Instrument Tuner - Reads Frequencies&#xD;&#xA; - Bandpass the target frequency to remove unwanted sound&#xD;&#xA; - When sound is above a level, a peak is detected&#xD;&#xA; - Sound above level is estimated&#xD;&#xA; - estimated pitch is displayed via several formats, to include difference from target.&#xD;&#xA; - All other pitches are suppressed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's several claims in the US4457203 that were not cited as prior art to the US8502060 patent that will be easy to invalidate 1 if not all claims in the 060. I will revise this answer for more, yet I can't see the need other than for public consumption.  I don't see anything novel with the 060 patent considering it's been done for years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I still find it **strikingly odd** that Aronstein's '242 patent was cited on the '060 patent but his '203 was not. Coincidence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4741242&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8502060&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4457203&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/RpUH1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/E6wQF.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5604" RevisionGUID="3e4972d2-7647-46d5-9bd5-3ae241cd3746" CreationDate="2013-12-15T20:26:53.297" UserId="7393" Comment="added 615 characters in body" Text="Checking some dates here from the original post, **I find this to be very concerning:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asserted Patent in lawsuit: [US8502060][1]&#xD;&#xA;also filed as application [US20130139672][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Original Application: [US20130145921][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Filing Date: Nov 30, 2011&#xD;&#xA; - Publication Date: June 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This application is specifically for a handheld tuner via the claims, yet still has the methods in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**An app comes on the market called [iDrumTune][4] on 4/20/2012 - the creator cited as prior art in '060 Patent**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**An app comes on the market called iDrumTech on February 8th, 2013** and **one week** later the '921 application is revised and stripped of any novel information, filed as '060 (a continuation) and gets granted? Seems fishy!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![iDrumTech App (Named in lawsuit) Release date on itunes][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Continuation Of US20130145921 Filed As [US8502060][6]#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Filing Date: Feb 15, 2013&#xD;&#xA; - Publication Date: Aug 6, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; All CLAIMS for a tuner device are now obscured by a Method?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in summary to the above, an original application US20130145921 was filed on Nov 30,2011 claiming an actual tuner device in the claims. It wasn't published until Jun 13, 2013? Two apps are released, one is built on prior art (iDrumTune / Rob Toulson) released 4/20/2012, and another released 2/8/2013.  Patent filed, overbroad claims on 2/15/2013 and published 5/2013, granted 8/2013. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#WHAT HAPPENED? Expedited Processing. Applicant claims novel over prior art, the patent office doesn't dispute, rubber stamps, law suits filed.#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a great article I read recently called [This simple change could fix the patent system—but it’ll never happen.][7] by James Bessen on slate.com:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Problem No. 2: Gotcha lawsuits##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Continued patents are much more likely to be litigated than are other patents—not only because they result in low-quality patents, but also because they permit a particularly nasty legal tactic: A patent applicant with a continued application can rewrite the claim language so that the patent covers technology that is developed after the patent is filed. In the worst cases, so-called “submarine patents” are kept hidden from the public as they mark time in the Patent Office. Innovative companies come along and develop new technology only to find themselves surprised one day with a patent infringement lawsuit, a lawsuit based on a patent application that was rewritten to cover the defendant’s own innovations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8502060&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130139672&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130145921&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://idrumtune.com&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/SNC3A.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8502060&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/12/the_simple_fix_that_could_heal_the_patent_system.2.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5608" RevisionGUID="fad96da2-a9d7-4291-811d-2279f476645a" CreationDate="2013-12-16T01:05:12.520" UserId="3076" Text="If you are not going to pay to use a registered paatent attorney or agent you have a few options. One is do it yourself. It will take much studying and isn't really reliable. You can join an inventors club at get some advice from other inventors. Also the USPTO has started a pro bono program in conjunction with bar associations around the country. It might've worth looking into that. I know the program is up and running in Minnesota and California." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5608" RevisionGUID="4f650b7b-4430-4114-a8bd-09da12b035c8" CreationDate="2013-12-16T05:07:36.563" UserId="3076" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="If you are not going to pay to use a registered patent attorney or agent you have a few options. One is do it yourself. It will take much studying and isn't really reliable. You can join a local inventors club and get some advice from other inventors. Also the USPTO has started a pro bono program in conjunction with bar associations around the country. It might've worth looking into that. I know the program is up and running in Minnesota and California." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5609" RevisionGUID="8da8e13b-f29c-4cb6-826f-1c5ca0b31aa1" CreationDate="2013-12-16T05:09:02.457" UserId="7392" Text="# Non-Cited Prior Art #&#xD;&#xA;##[US6140568][1] (Priority Date: Nov 6, 1997)##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a great example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Title: System and method for automatically detecting a set of fundamental frequencies simultaneously present in an audio signal##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ABSTRACT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system and method for automatically detecting and identifying a plurality of frequencies simultaneously present in an audio signal, as well as the duration, amplitude, and phase of those frequencies, then filtering out harmonic components to determine which frequencies are fundamentals. The system includes a computer readable medium of instruction code that decomposes the signal into its component sine waves by computing and comparing correlations between the input signal and sine waves at various phase and amplitude combinations. The system also employs several optimization and error correction routines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Claims ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is claimed is:&#xD;&#xA;1. A method of identifying one or more fundamental frequencies simultaneously present in a complex signal, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;receiving the complex signal;&#xD;&#xA;decomposing the signal into sine wave components to determine all frequencies present in the signal;&#xD;&#xA;setting and obtaining parameters used to detect fundamental frequencies; and&#xD;&#xA;filtering out harmonic frequencies to determine the fundamental frequencies actually present in the signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of receiving the complex signal includes dividing the signal into a series of sample windows which contain sample amplitudes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **3. The method of claim 2, further comprising an optimization step of ignoring sample windows in which the sample amplitudes do not meet a predetermined threshold.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The method of claim 2, wherein the step of decomposing includes obtaining best correlation scores by comparing reference frequencies to the complex signal, and comparing said best correlation scores to determine which reference frequencies are in the complex signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. The method of claim 4, wherein the step of decomposing is carried out by comparing amplitudes resulting in the best correlation score at each reference frequency to amplitudes resulting in best correlation scores at adjacent reference frequencies to locate amplitude peaks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. The method of claim 4, wherein the step of decomposing includes the step of scaling the amplitudes of the detected frequencies according to said frequencies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. The method of claim 4, wherein the step of obtaining the best correlation scores comprises shifting the amplitude and phase of the reference frequencies until an amplitude/phase combination yielding the best correlation score out of all correlation scores for said combinations of each reference frequency is found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. The method of claim 4, further comprising the step of attenuating frequencies lower than current reference frequencies before correlation scores are obtained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9. The method of claim 8, wherein said attenuation step comprises:&#xD;&#xA;**a high-pass filter having a cutoff frequency set to the current reference frequency; and&#xD;&#xA;a low-pass filter having a cutoff frequency set to one half of the current reference frequency**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10. The method of claim 7, further comprising an optimization step of ignoring amplitude/phase combinations which yield correlation scores that are worse than previously obtained correlation scores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 9 of US6140568 Proves that Claim 1 of '060 is not novel. Bandpass filtering around a target frequency is not novel, has been done, and this is prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 3 of US6140568 Proves that Claim 13 of '060 is not novel. This claims to select frequencies from above a predetermined threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel that other claims in this patent as well would invalidate several claims within the '060 patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6140568" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5600" RevisionGUID="178a8e61-f3ab-42f4-9430-7d28ef61d4c0" CreationDate="2013-12-16T05:15:37.323" UserId="3076" Comment="Removed signature" Text="My understanding of guitar tuners from [Zen-on Justina Quartz Guitar Tuners][1] and many other tuners utilize a filter means when you select which guitar string you are tuning to.  This is a chromatic tuner, but it still use frequencies to translate to musical notes which I believe the 060 patent being asserted uses the same methods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Zen-on Justina Quartz Guitar Tuners][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a lot to be said on the [WikiPedia Page for Guitar Tuners][3] - Especially about Peterson Strobosoft Tuners which have been patented by [US6580024][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Peterson's patent US6580024, they discuss in the Figures description the following, which even they admit is blatantly obvious:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Concurrently, computing engine 22 analyzes the conditioned and digitized input signal or waveform to detect a unique phase or portion of the fundamental period segments of said signal or waveform, typically a portion corresponding to the original fundamental period peaks of the input signal or waveform. There are many methods and algorithms current in the art which implement this function, the details of which are understood by those of skill in the art and are not a subject of this invention. Upon detection of said phase or portion of each fundamental period segment, or upon detection of a selected number of said phases, computing engine 22 sends commands to visual display 25 to make visible one or a plurality of image objects or patterns at positions determined by the most recently calculated displacement value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peterson's tuners use a method of frequency translation into musical objects, as well as **musical notes** which the 060 Patent claims to have invented.  Adjusting the input level (Peak Detection) is not novel, nor is using a standard [Noise Gate, or Gate][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A noise gate or gate is an electronic device or software that is used to control the volume of an audio signal. Gating is the use of a gate. Comparable to a compressor, which attenuate signals above a threshold, noise gates attenuate signals that register below the threshold.[1] **However, noise gates attenuate signals by a fixed amount, known as the range. In its most simple form, a noise gate allows a signal to pass through only when it is above a set threshold: the gate is 'open'. If the signal falls below the threshold no signal is allowed to pass (or the signal is substantially attenuated): the gate is 'closed'.[2]** A noise gate is used when the level of the 'signal' is above the level of the 'noise'. The threshold is set above the level of the 'noise' and so when there is no 'signal' the gate is closed. A noise gate does not remove noise from the signal. When the gate is open both the signal and the noise will pass through. Gates typically feature 'attack', 'release', and 'hold' settings and may feature a 'look-ahead' function.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm curious to how employing a Noise Gate on a signal is novel per Claim 1 of the 060 Patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 13: A method for pitch detection, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Providing one or more power spectrum frequency samples;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Selecting a frequency in a frequency band having a largest power spectrum magnitude from the one or more power spectrum frequency samples, the frequency band having an upper frequency limit and a lower frequency &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.harmonycentral.com/t5/Effects/Crybaby-From-Hell-Vintage-tuner-Danelectro-and-DOD-EQ/td-p/25548609&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/g1w9d.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_tuner&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6580024&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_gate&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reexamination&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/AFPDx.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5609" RevisionGUID="186e4eac-6e3c-4437-adbd-b3a02e0affe1" CreationDate="2013-12-16T05:19:08.930" UserId="7392" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="# Non-Cited Prior Art #&#xD;&#xA;##[US6140568][1] (Priority Date: Nov 6, 1997)##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a great example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Title: System and method for automatically detecting a set of fundamental frequencies simultaneously present in an audio signal##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ABSTRACT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system and method for automatically detecting and identifying a plurality of frequencies simultaneously present in an audio signal, as well as the duration, amplitude, and phase of those frequencies, then filtering out harmonic components to determine which frequencies are fundamentals. The system includes a computer readable medium of instruction code that decomposes the signal into its component sine waves by computing and comparing correlations between the input signal and sine waves at various phase and amplitude combinations. The system also employs several optimization and error correction routines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Claims ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is claimed is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of identifying one or more fundamental frequencies simultaneously present in a complex signal, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;receiving the complex signal;&#xD;&#xA;decomposing the signal into sine wave components to determine all frequencies present in the signal;&#xD;&#xA;setting and obtaining parameters used to detect fundamental frequencies; and&#xD;&#xA;filtering out harmonic frequencies to determine the fundamental frequencies actually present in the signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of receiving the complex signal includes dividing the signal into a series of sample windows which contain sample amplitudes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The method of claim 2, further comprising an **optimization step of ignoring sample windows in which the sample amplitudes do not meet a predetermined threshold.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The method of claim 2, wherein the step of decomposing includes obtaining best correlation scores by comparing reference frequencies to the complex signal, and comparing said best correlation scores to determine which reference frequencies are in the complex signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. The method of claim 4, wherein the step of decomposing is carried out by comparing amplitudes resulting in the best correlation score at each reference frequency to amplitudes resulting in best correlation scores at adjacent reference frequencies to locate amplitude peaks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. The method of claim 4, wherein the step of decomposing includes the step of scaling the amplitudes of the detected frequencies according to said frequencies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. The method of claim 4, wherein the step of obtaining the best correlation scores comprises shifting the amplitude and phase of the reference frequencies until an amplitude/phase combination yielding the best correlation score out of all correlation scores for said combinations of each reference frequency is found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. The method of claim 4, further comprising the step of attenuating frequencies lower than current reference frequencies before correlation scores are obtained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9. The method of claim 8, wherein said attenuation step comprises:&#xD;&#xA;**a high-pass filter having a cutoff frequency set to the current reference frequency; and&#xD;&#xA;a low-pass filter having a cutoff frequency set to one half of the current reference frequency**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10. The method of claim 7, further comprising an optimization step of ignoring amplitude/phase combinations which yield correlation scores that are worse than previously obtained correlation scores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 9 of US6140568 Proves that Claim 1 of '060 is not novel. Bandpass filtering around a target frequency is not novel, has been done, and this is prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 3 of US6140568 Proves that Claim 13 of '060 is not novel. This claims to select frequencies from above a predetermined threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel that other claims in this patent as well would invalidate several claims within the '060 patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6140568" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5610" RevisionGUID="9969ba28-57ca-44e5-aeb2-ef3ae3350d66" CreationDate="2013-12-16T05:31:22.913" UserId="7392" Text="#Non-Cited Prior Art#&#xD;&#xA;#[US5777248][1] (Priority Date Jul 22, 1996)#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Title: Tuning indicator for musical instruments##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Abstract:##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A musical instrument tuning aid. The display provides the user tuning information in a rapidly interpreted form. The input note, or tuning device setting, is displayed in a clock face format. A sharp/flat indicator provides a course display for gross tuning. A display means for electronically producing a stroboscopic display between the input tone and the internally generated reference frequency provides for very accurate fine tuning with instantaneous response to pitch changes. Signal conditioning to control signal level enhances the strobe display. Tracking low pass filtering is provided to enhance strobe display for high harmonic content signals. An adjustable band pass filtering mode is provided to allow analysis of individual harmonics. A crystal timebase is used to generate a high accuracy reference frequency with fine calibration adjustment. A control means is provided to measure the input signal fundamental, select the nearest chromatic scale note, and set tuning device accordingly, allowing hands off operation. In automatic mode the note display tracks the input note providing an easy to read display indicating the note played, as well as tuning of that note.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this tuner uses a strobe form of display, it also displays a frequency, note and octave. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claims##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A tuning aid for musical instruments comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) a note/octave display comprising indication elements arranged in a pattern around two concentric circles to resemble a clock face having an inside pattern corresponding to an hour hand designating an octave and an outside pattern corresponding to a minute hand designating the twelve notes of a chromatic scale;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) a strobe display array consisting of a plurality of luminous elements arranged in a circular pattern;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) **a reference frequency generating means of generating a reference frequency;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (d) **a control means of controlling the reference frequency to a desired note to be tuned and controlling the note/octave display accordingly;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (e) a means of enabling each element of said strobe display sequentially at a rate such that said strobe display cycles once for each two periods of said reference frequency, each enabled element having an intensity;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (f) **a means of inputting a signal having a peak level for analysis;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (g) **a level control means of automatically controlling the peak level of said signal to a predetermined level and producing a level controlled output;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (h) **a filtering means of receiving the level controlled output and producing a filtered output**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (i) a positive rectifying means of positive rectification of the filtered output of said filtering means and producing a positive rectified output having an instantaneous magnitude;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (j) a means of controlling the intensity of the enabled element of said strobe display according to the instantaneous magnitude of the positive rectified output of said positive rectifying means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **A tuning aid as in claim 1 wherein said filtering means is configured in low pass mode and is adjusted by said control means to attenuate signal harmonics higher than said reference frequency.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A tuning aid as in claim 1 wherein said filtering means is configured in band pass mode and is controlled by said control means to pass only a selected signal harmonic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. **A tuning aid as in claim 1 in which the filtering means is connected to a fundamental period detection means which is connected to said control means controlling a sharp/flat indication means accordingly.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. **A tuning aid as in claim 1 in which the filtering means is connected to a fundamental period detection means which determines the input signal's fundamental frequency and is connected to said control means which automatically selects the note from the chromatic scale closest to the input signal fundamental frequency and sets said reference frequency and said note/octave display accordingly.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first few sections of this diagram from US5777248 are the foundation of the '060 patent.  The rest of this illustration is omitted on '060 patent diagrams and one can guess what the &quot;Pitch Estimator&quot; and other obscured items actually do. My guess is the items illustrated below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![US577248 Diagram][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This should be enough to invalidate claims 1 &amp; 13 of [US8502060][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##[US8502060][4] Claims 1 &amp; 13##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1: A method for resonance tuning, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Receiving a signal in response to a resonance of a structure;&#xD;&#xA;Determining a frequency or musical note related to an overtone from the signal;&#xD;&#xA;Selecting the frequency or musical note related to the overtone as a filter mode reference frequency or musical note; and&#xD;&#xA;Suppressing a display of frequencies or musical notes from a subsequent signal that deviate from the filter mode reference frequency or musical note by a predetermined threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 13: A method for pitch detection, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Providing one or more power spectrum frequency samples;&#xD;&#xA;Selecting a frequency in a frequency band having a largest power spectrum magnitude from the one or more power spectrum frequency samples, the frequency band having an upper frequency limit and a lower frequency limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5777248&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/wzQv9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8502060&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8502060" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5611" RevisionGUID="e0401cc7-72fb-4e1d-9919-82c171d8d27e" CreationDate="2013-12-16T05:49:15.800" UserId="7392" Text="#Non-Cited Prior Art#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#[US4823667][1] (Priority Date: Jun 22, 1987)#&#xD;&#xA;##Title: Guitar controlled electronic musical instrument##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Claim 1 - Predetermined Threshold#&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a threshold detect unit whereby an on-signal is generated if said envelope of said string waveshape signal is greater than or equal to a prespecified threshold signal amplitude and whereby an off-signal is generated if said on-signal has been generated and said envelope of said string waveshape signal is less than said prespecified threshold signal amplitude,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point of this is Claim 13 of '060 is invalid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##'060 Claim 13##&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 13: A method for pitch detection, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Providing one or more power spectrum frequency samples;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Selecting a frequency in a frequency band having a largest power spectrum magnitude from the one or more power spectrum frequency samples, the frequency band having an upper frequency limit and a lower frequency&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4823667" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5614" RevisionGUID="c48cee74-19dc-4d74-96ea-8ed9f987653a" CreationDate="2013-12-16T06:45:22.470" UserId="7393" Text="#Visualization of Musical Pitch#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Philip McLeod and Geoff Wyvill.##&#xD;&#xA;##In Computer Graphics International 2003, 2003##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://miracle.otago.ac.nz/tartini/papers/Visualization_of_Musical_Pitch.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ##2.5 Choosing the Fundamental##&#xD;&#xA;After the frequencies of all the local maxima have been found, their amplitudes are calculated. The strongest frequency is selected and assumed to be one of the harmonics from the note being played. The fundamental is not always the strongest frequency in a note. Figure 4 shows an example of a note where the fifth harmonic is the most powerful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The pitch of the note is related to the “dominant” frequency. In this case, dominant means what a musician perceives to be the main frequency. This is not necessarily the lowest or the one with the largest amplitude. The following process appears to agree with our subjective observation al- most all of the time.&#xD;&#xA;Firstly we pick out the frequency, f, with the largest am- plitude. This is almost certainly a true harmonic of the fundamental we are seeking. In other words, the fundamental frequency is F = f/n where n is an integer. For each value of n from one to ten we examine the spectrum to see how many frequencies are potential harmonics of F. A frequency is a potential harmonic if it is close the ideal frequency of the harmonic. We actually calculate a score for each F = f/n which is a weighted sum of closeness measures. The more peaks that are separated by F the better the fit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure 4][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This example simply demonstrates that selecting a peak frequency for display and suppressing the other frequencies is common practice.  Claim 13 is not novel, and very obvious to anyone in spectral analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ChpHO.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5579" RevisionGUID="5055f733-2493-45d6-ae8d-e23a1afe0943" CreationDate="2013-12-16T13:25:31.753" UserId="7392" Comment="Adding explanations." Text="#Cited Prior Art - Useful for Reexamination#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#US Patent Application: [US20100212475][1]#&#xD;&#xA;#[Dr Rob Toulson][2], Priority Date July 13, 2007##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent is being explored and compared here, for the possibility of reexamination.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [MPEP 2216][3] says &quot;The legal standard for ordering ex parte reexamination, as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 303(a), requires a substantial new question of patentability. The substantial new question of patentability may be based on art previously considered by the Office if the reference is presented in a new light or a different way that escaped review during earlier examination.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there is **substantial new question of patentability** already outlined on this site, this is a breakdown of Dr Rob Toulson's work.  [Toulson states that he abandoned the patent][4] due to too much prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##[US20100212475][5] (2007) Abstract##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A device for tuning a percussion instrument or training a voice has a processor which is adapted to receive an electronic signal corresponding to an acoustic impulse produced by the percussion instrument or voice. The processor is further adapted to analyse the signal to generate one or more characteristics of the signal. The device also has a display connected to the processor which displays the generated characteristics. The one or more characteristics include any one or any combination of a time-domain characteristic of the signal, a plurality of fundamental and/or harmonic frequencies of the signal, and a frequency spectrum of the signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##[us8502060][6] (2011) Abstract##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Provided are systems and methods for resonance tuning. A signal is received in response to a resonance of a structure. A frequency or musical note related to an overtone is determined from the signal. The frequency or musical note related to the overtone is selected as a filter mode reference frequency or musical note. A display of frequencies or musical notes from a subsequent signal that deviate from the filter mode reference frequency or musical note by a predetermined threshold is suppressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it difficult to distinguish a difference. Toulson states:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A device for tuning a percussion instrument or training a voice has a processor which is adapted to receive an electronic signal corresponding to an acoustic impulse produced by the percussion instrument or voice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The processor is further adapted to analyse the signal to generate one or more characteristics of the signal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could also be an over broad way of describing it, yet simple research into Toulson's work which was highly publicized in the audio field, journals, and even live presentations near Boston, MA (where the '060 patentee resides) would clearly indicate that Toulson used Peak Selection, Bandpass Filtering, and more exactly as later patented, produced, sold, and asserted on one app.  Toulson is also the creator of [iDrumTune app][7] which has been out since 4/20/2012. A simple look at the '060 revision dates and you'll see that even his idea was later covered in this patent by the methods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Percussionalyzer - Software Demonstrated worldwide, US and near Boston, MA][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dr Rob Toulson wrote a blog post on his thoughts in [Nov, 2013][9]. A few quotes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#[From Quantitative Drum Tuning Blog Post - Nov, 2013][10]#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wow - the world of drum tuning has changed very rapidly this year, but for me it's been a long time coming. Back in 2005 I started a research project to analyse drums with the intention of scientifically quantifying what was in and out of tune. To do this I wrote a piece of software which I called Percussionizer and started to demonstrate this software internationally in 2008. Percussionizer could do many novel and advanced things for analysing and tuning drums - it could record and display a drum hit and tell you the fundamental and most prominent overtone frequencies. It would tell you which musical pitch the drums were tuned to. It allowed you to set a target frequency which would bandpass filter a window around that target, removing noise and allowing the user to home in on their preferred sound. It had a mode for equalising or clearing the drumhead, which allowed you to take a number of bandpass filtered readings from around the edge of the drum and showed you the results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He later states in this blog post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I first demonstrated Percussionizer internationally at The Art of Record Production conference in Lowell (near Boston, Massachusetts) in 2008 and my article was published subsequently in their Journal in 2009 - &quot;The perception and importance of drum tuning in live performance and music production&quot;. In 2009 I then showcased the Percussionizer software at the world's largest Audio Engineering Society Conference in New York. Here I gave a 90 minute tutorial to a huge audience of people interested in drum tuning and percussion acoustics (see here). During the tutorial I discussed the importance of drum tuning, described the fundamental vibration science and demonstrated the Percussionizer software in its entirety. It was a fantastic event and the audience were excited to see my novel approach to tuning and analysis. This tutorial was audio recorded and can be purchased from the AES website here. I also published my tutorial slides on my own website here. At the end of the tutorial I explained that my next step was to develop an iPhone app, which would bring this software to a mass marketplace. More recently I've presented my drum and drum tuning research in the UK in 2010 &quot;Fine tuning percussion – a new educational approach&quot; and in the highest regarded acoustics journal in the world, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America &quot;Analysis and manipulation of the modal ratios of cylindrical drums&quot;. A number of my publications have been in collaboration with Dr Phill Richardson, of Cambridge University, who's PhD I supervised in exactly this field of quantitative drum tuning - he's an international expert in all this too!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Prior to demonstrating my software I applied for a worldwide patent on the new drum tuning approach - method, software and apparatus. The patent was first applied for in 2007 and went fully public in 2010. Here, you can read my patent - Tuning or Training Device - which covers all the aspects of the Percussionizer software and hardware design. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Toulson released his iDrumTune App on 4/20/2012  pre-dating the iDrumTech App (2/8/2013) and pre-dating the revisions of the '060 patent on 2/15/2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![iDrumTune App - First Released 04/20/2012][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How Was This Prior Art Allowed?##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US20100212475&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.quantitativedrumtuning.blogspot.co.uk/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2216.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.quantitativedrumtuning.blogspot.co.uk/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US20100212475&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.google.com/patents/us8502060&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://idrumtune.com&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/mkhWc.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.quantitativedrumtuning.blogspot.co.uk/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.quantitativedrumtuning.blogspot.co.uk/&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/bUYd8.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14346" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5579" RevisionGUID="5055f733-2493-45d6-ae8d-e23a1afe0943" CreationDate="2013-12-16T13:25:31.753" Comment="Proposed by 7392 approved by 3076, 1259 edit id of 471" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5615" RevisionGUID="90a914f6-6593-4d23-93db-a7e750504526" CreationDate="2013-12-16T18:24:39.070" UserId="7392" Text="Considering the substantial new questionability of prior art that was found in such a short time (5 days so far), one would be curious to how the patent was approved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Information from [USPTO Public Pair System][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To obtain this patent information, go to the search, select Patent, and enter: 8502060 in the search box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will display the Application Data and audit trail (Transaction History).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![USPTO Public Pair Application Data][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the Transaction History, I particularly note no rejections to the claims, and a rapid approval process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Transaction History Part 1][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Transaction History Part 2][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, under Image Wrapper File (public information) you see on 2/15/2013 when the application was filed, it had a **Statement of Preexamination Search** where the applicant cites a prior application and claims that all of the pre examination searches for prior art was completed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Image File Wrapper][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Document ID 13768799 - Statement of Preexamination Search by Applicant#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Statement of Preexamination Search][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other supporting documents in the Image File Wrapper, especially this one, include an OATH or Declaration provided by the applicant which allows the applicant to be punished under 18 U.S.C. 1001.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This oath was provided on 2/15/2013 along with all of the other required documents and barrage of paperwork to the patent examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I hereby acknowledge that any willful false statement made in this declaration is punishable under [18 U.S.C. 1001][7] by fine or imprisonment of not more than (5) years, or both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Oath Document File ID: 13768799][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later the applicant eludes to Rob Toulson's patent in their prior art submission claiming that Toulson's patent as prior art is invalid, which is false.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On 2/15/2013 when the application was submitted, another document titled:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Accelerated Examination Support Document#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Submitted by the applicant, 3 prior art examples noted as &quot;Closest Related Match&quot; begin on page 5.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Accelerated Examination Support Document][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Particularly of concern is relation to Toulson's patent on Page 9 - 12 where the applicant states Rob Toulson's patent and methods are not taught. Page 12 in regards to Claim 13 are particularly concerning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Toulson's Patent Claims Dispute][10] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The point here is this was an accelerated patent and the examiner relied on the applicant's prior-art search, oath, and good word.  This is alarming.#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/57h9k.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/CmMEP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/XXkMy.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/7bnyp.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/EuH9y.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/pdf/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap47-sec1001.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/2R729.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/KnX1D.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/d8P97.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5615" RevisionGUID="b8885932-991e-4e77-81a8-d4738ce56ea7" CreationDate="2013-12-16T19:13:47.283" UserId="7392" Comment="added 2000 characters in body" Text="Considering the substantial new questionability of prior art that was found in such a short time (5 days so far), one would be curious to how the patent was approved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Information from [USPTO Public Pair System][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To obtain this patent information, go to the search, select Patent, and enter: 8502060 in the search box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will display the Application Data and audit trail (Transaction History).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![USPTO Public Pair Application Data][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the Transaction History, I particularly note no rejections to the claims, and a rapid approval process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Transaction History Part 1][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Transaction History Part 2][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, under Image Wrapper File (public information) you see on 2/15/2013 when the application was filed, it had a **Statement of Preexamination Search** where the applicant cites a prior application and claims that all of the pre examination searches for prior art was completed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Image File Wrapper][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Document ID 13768799 - Statement of Preexamination Search by Applicant#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Statement of Preexamination Search][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other supporting documents in the Image File Wrapper, especially this one, include an OATH or Declaration provided by the applicant which allows the applicant to be punished under 18 U.S.C. 1001.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This oath was provided on 2/15/2013 along with all of the other required documents and barrage of paperwork to the patent examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I hereby acknowledge that any willful false statement made in this declaration is punishable under [18 U.S.C. 1001][7] by fine or imprisonment of not more than (5) years, or both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Oath Document File ID: 13768799][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later the applicant eludes to Rob Toulson's patent in their prior art submission claiming that Toulson's patent as prior art is invalid, which is false.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On 2/15/2013 when the application was submitted, another document titled:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Accelerated Examination Support Document#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Submitted by the applicant, 3 prior art examples noted as &quot;Closest Related Match&quot; begin on page 5.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Accelerated Examination Support Document][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Particularly of concern is relation to Toulson's patent on Page 9 - 12 where the applicant states Rob Toulson's patent and methods are not taught. Page 12 in regards to Claim 13 are particularly concerning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Toulson's Patent Claims Dispute][10] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The point here is this was an accelerated patent and the examiner relied on the applicant's prior-art search, oath, and good word.  This is alarming.#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Take a closer look at this rapid process. 02/15/2013 Filed, 05/28/2013 Approval#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone elude to ever seeing a patent fly through the system this fast? [The USPTO Expedited Examination Program][11] http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/accelerated/index.jsp&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The USPTO has established procedures under which the examination of a patent application may be accelerated. Under one of these procedures, the USPTO will advance an application out of turn for examination if the applicant files a grantable petition to make special under the accelerated examination program. The USPTO is similarly revising the procedures for other petitions to make special, except those based on applicant’s health or age or the PPH pilot program. Other petitions to make special (i.e., based on: manufacture, infringement, environmental quality, energy, recombinant DNA, superconductivity materials, HIV/AIDS and cancer, countering terrorism, and biotechnology applications filed by small entities  MPEP § 708.02 ) will be processed using the revised procedure for accelerated examination. Thus, petitions to make special, except those based on applicant’s health, age, or the  PPH pilot program , will be required to comply with the requirements for petitions to make special under the accelerated examination program as set forth in this notice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, you have the &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#PET.DEC.TC - Petition decision routed to the Technology Center to act on the decision or continue prosecution#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Filed on 3/18/2013 and the patent buzzes along nicely through the system without anyone rejecting claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Petition][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On 5/28/2013 the Patent Examiner publishes his brief prior art search. And rubber stamps it Approved the same day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Patent Examiner Prior Art Search][13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Confused? Where can I buy this kind of expedited processing?#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/57h9k.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/CmMEP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/XXkMy.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/7bnyp.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/EuH9y.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/pdf/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap47-sec1001.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/2R729.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/KnX1D.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/d8P97.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/accelerated/index.jsp&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ypNbZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/pY9Zd.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5616" RevisionGUID="0695e2e4-d0a5-4383-b419-db63b865617f" CreationDate="2013-12-16T21:25:41.567" UserId="7392" Text="#Non-Cited Prior Art#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Title: Digital audio signal processor employing multiple filter fundamental acquisition circuitry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#[US 5056398 A][1]#&#xD;&#xA;##Priority Date (Sep 20, 1988)##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##ABSTRACT##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A digital signal processing apparatus is provided for identifying the octave, note and cent of a musical sound. The apparatus includes a transducer for converting the musical sound into an electrical signal, a plurality of digital detection units, each dedicated to a particular sub-scanning interval within an overall frequency interval to be scanned, receiving the electrical signal from the transducer, for determining the octave, note and cent of the musical sound by detecting a fundamental frequency of the electrical signal; and a display unit, responsive to the detection unit, for displaying the note as an alphanumeric character and the cent as a positive or negative decimal integral number from -49 to +50 with zero cents representing perfect concert pitch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This should easily invalidate Claim 1 in regards to bandpass filtering a target frequency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 1 of '398##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. An apparatus for identifying the octave, note and degree of sharpness or flatness of a musical sound, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) a transducer means for converting said sound into an electrical signal;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) **a filter means, responsive to said electrical signal provided by said transducer means, for passing a filter output signal having a frequency corresponding to a frequency of said electrical signal;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c)** a microprocessor means**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (d) **a fundamental detection means, cooperating with said microprocessor means, for analyzing said filter output signal to identify when said frequency of said filter output signal corresponds to the fundamental frequency of said electrical signal and for providing a fundamental detection signal indicating such correspondence;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (e) **control means for causing said filter means**, responsive to said fundamental detection signal, to pass signals at a particular scanning frequency at which said frequency of said filter output signal corresponds to said fundamental frequency;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (f) a square wave generator means, responsive to said frequency of said filter output signal corresponding to said fundamental frequency, for providing a square wave output signal having a same period as said filter output signal;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (g) a logic circuit means, responsive to said square wave output signal, for providing an output indicating a period of said square wave output signal;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (h) said microprocessor means comprising means for comparing said output from said logic means with a look-up table including a plurality of previously calculated periods to provide an output indicating the octave, note and degree of sharpness or flatness or said musical sound; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (i) a display means, responsive to said output of said microprocessor means, for displaying said octave, note and degree of sharpness or flatness of said musical sound, said note being displayed as an alphanumeric character and said degree of sharpness or flatness being displayed as a positive or negative number on a scale including a zero value representing perfect concert pitch and a plurality of positive or negative values on each side of zero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2.**An apparatus as in claim 1, wherein said filter means** comprises a plurality of switched capacitor filters respectively provided to scan a plurality of sub-intervals of an overall scanning interval and wherein said control means comprises a plurality of dedicated center frequency filter clocks respectively provided for said plurality of switched capacitor filters to cause said switched capacitor filters respectively to sweep said plurality of sub-intervals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I consider the above method above proves that Claim 1 of '060 is not novel. Selecting a target frequency for a bandpass filter for filtering means of the musical instrument you're tuning seems logical, obvious and not novel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##'060 Claim 1##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. A method for resonance tuning, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;receiving a signal in response to a resonance of a structure;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;determining a frequency or musical note related to an overtone from the signal;&#xD;&#xA;selecting the frequency or musical note related to the overtone as a filter mode reference frequency or musical note; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;and&#xD;&#xA;suppressing a display of frequencies or musical notes from a subsequent signal that deviate from the filter mode reference frequency or musical note by a predetermined threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the same method, just broadened in description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5056398" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5608" RevisionGUID="67f81b4f-7ae7-45ed-920d-9819b54800de" CreationDate="2013-12-16T22:57:29.703" UserId="3076" Comment="edited body" Text="If you are not going to pay to use a registered patent attorney or agent you have a few options. One is do it yourself. It will take much studying and isn't really reliable. You can join a local inventors club and get some advice from other inventors. Also the USPTO has started a pro bono program in conjunction with bar associations around the country. It might be worth looking into that. I know the program is up and running in Minnesota and California." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5617" RevisionGUID="191f3d31-0f58-4b98-aaa8-da737ab538a0" CreationDate="2013-12-17T00:41:30.963" UserId="3076" Text="I just listened to the Supreme Court [oral arguments in Medtronic v Boston Scientific][1] and non-infringement as an affirmative defense came up. The attorney being questioned made a distinction between a basic denial of infringement and something that acknowledged that even if actions might might fall within the words of the claim they did not constituent infringement because it fell into a judicially created exception for experimental use or because prosecution estoppel prevented the patentee from a particular claim construction. None of the justices argued with him about that. I suppose another case could be &quot;we did it but we have an implied license&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.717madisonplace.com/?p=6267" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5608" RevisionGUID="3fde1359-8e0b-429e-8583-c75dd4dffb12" CreationDate="2013-12-17T00:43:58.570" UserId="3076" Comment="Added link" Text="If you are not going to pay to use a registered patent attorney or agent you have a few options. One is do it yourself. It will take much studying and isn't really reliable. You can join a local inventors club and get some advice from other inventors. Also the [USPTO has started a pro bono program][1] in conjunction with bar associations around the country. It might be worth looking into that. I know the program is up and running in Minnesota and California.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/proseprobono/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5606" RevisionGUID="b867d472-09ff-48fe-868e-b4f0167b7e5f" CreationDate="2013-12-17T00:46:08.487" UserId="3076" Comment="edited body" Text="I'd like to patent a niche idea for a software product. I'm just an individual developer. I have no access to a legal team or expensive legal services.  What is the best option for applying for software patent in this case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the actual cost of the patent is &lt;$1000 total but i'd have to prepare the patent myself, I assume.  Is there a recommended way to do this or some guideline to follow?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no patent experience so I appreciate your patience with my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5608" RevisionGUID="edc52b1f-8408-4ab5-86f3-5aa0a89f68c2" CreationDate="2013-12-17T00:59:41.860" UserId="3076" Comment="added 650 characters in body" Text="If you are not going to pay to use a registered patent attorney or agent you have a few options. One is do it yourself. It will take much studying and isn't really reliable. You can join a local inventors club and get some advice from other inventors. To have a reasonable chance doing it yourself, you would need to make patent law and patent office procedures an all-consuming hobby. The book patent it yourself is a good start if you were going for a simple mechanical invention. Starting with a computer implemented invention is biting off a huge task with tons of pitfalls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The actual fees to the USPTO aren't too bad for a &quot;small entity&quot;  if you qualify as a &quot;micro entity&quot; you get 75% off most fees. That would make filing a regular non-provisional application about $370. If you go through the system **very** smoothly the next fee due will be the issue fee of about $400 for micro entities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [USPTO has started a pro bono program][1] in conjunction with bar associations around the country. It might be worth looking into that. I know the program is up and running in Minnesota and California.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/proseprobono/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5598" RevisionGUID="0ec6f495-66ec-480e-95ce-0056f495b15a" CreationDate="2013-12-17T01:03:42.843" UserId="3076" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="The U.S. Enablement requirement. Even though an applicant would like a broad claim that is free of implementation specifics, the US has a requirement that the specification teach someone of skill in the art how to make and use the invention. This leads to some very specific descriptions of one or two particular embodiments, down to the part numbers of microprocessors in some cases. In some places it is good for a patent to be general and in some places it is good to be specific. And yes, software should be shown and claimed in a hardware context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, most of the front page is dictated by the format. Title, filing date, list of inventors, previous relevant work, abstract, etc. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5618" RevisionGUID="4d6796a0-956f-40e5-a723-4cfc7aac53c1" CreationDate="2013-12-17T03:13:41.607" UserId="7418" Text="My password evaluator, http://geodsoft.com/cgi-bin/pwcheck.pl , has been online since April 2001. It uses multiple unabridged English dictionaries, plus common names and passwords, combined without duplication, to check for words used in passwords. It checks for all the transformations that can normally be done by password cracking tools. It defaults to checking for words that are interrupted by one or more non alpha characters. It also checks for sequences including ASCII and keyboard sequences, in both directions, with wrap and also alternate character sequences. It checks for repeat characters and too many of the same character in a password. It checks for repeat character groups. Many potential conditions result in one or more errors. If an error is reported (the equivalent of unacceptable if this were used to check a system password) no strength rating is given. If no error conditions are present it may still report some warnings, but always give a strength rating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The workings of my evaluator can be checked at the above URL. The default conditions checked for changed in 2012 but the basic workings have not changed since 2001. That my evaluator has been online since 2001 can be checked at https://archive.org . Search for my home page link http://geodsoft.com and select the one from April 1, 2001. Then click on the link to Password Evaluator at the bottom of the site map. It will bring up an image of my password evaluator. This is from Dec. 2003. Apparently Archive.org did not pick up my evaluator until then, but I never put a link on my site that was to an unfinished page or script that was not working. The appearance of my password evaluator was constant from early 2001 to mid or late 2012." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5618" RevisionGUID="21511ca8-9223-411f-9707-6185f4325cb1" CreationDate="2013-12-17T03:20:11.320" UserId="7418" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="My password evaluator, http://geodsoft.com/cgi-bin/pwcheck.pl , has been online since April 2001. It uses multiple unabridged English dictionaries, plus common names and passwords, combined without duplication, to check for words used in passwords. It checks for all the transformations that can normally be done by password cracking tools. It defaults to checking for words that are interrupted by one or more non alpha characters. It also checks for sequences including ASCII and keyboard sequences, in both directions, with wrap and also alternate character sequences. It checks for repeat characters and too many of the same character in a password. It checks for repeat character groups. Many potential conditions result in one or more errors. If an error is reported (the equivalent of unacceptable if this were used to check a system password) no strength rating is given. If no error conditions are present it may still report some warnings, but will always give a strength rating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The workings of my evaluator can be checked at the above URL. The default conditions checked for changed in 2012 but the basic workings have not changed since 2001. That my evaluator has been online since 2001 can be checked at https://archive.org . Search for my home page link http://geodsoft.com and select the one from April 1, 2001. Then click on the link to Password Evaluator at the bottom of the site map. It will bring up an image of my password evaluator. This is from Dec. 2003. Apparently Archive.org did not pick up my evaluator until then, but I never put a link on my site that was to an unfinished page or script that was not working. The appearance of my password evaluator was constant from early 2001 to mid or late 2012." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5619" RevisionGUID="f3556e55-2572-4e30-89f9-1c5a08f59f5d" CreationDate="2013-12-17T03:20:27.783" UserId="7419" Text="http://angliaruskin.openrepository.com/arro/handle/10540/189010  2010.  Too much for me to start editing and commenting on each detail, but a very thorough chronology and bibliography of related prior art developments none-the-less.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5619" RevisionGUID="5caab4c7-c03b-4ba4-ab19-3bbe2ea8755b" CreationDate="2013-12-17T06:00:39.327" UserId="7392" Comment="Helping expand the answer." Text="#Non-Cited Prior Art Found#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##[ACOUSTIC ANALYSIS AND TUNING OF CYLINDRICAL MEMBRANOPHONES][1]##&#xD;&#xA;##Authors: PHILLIP, GILES, MACGILLIVRAY, RICHARDSON##&#xD;&#xA;##Date: Aug-2010##&#xD;&#xA;##Anglia Ruskin University&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This document is over 100 pages and contains several references to Toulson, and others. It also depicts the peak selection (predetermined threshold in '060) and filtering means.  This document was not cited, and belief is that it can easily invalidate '060 Claims 1&amp;13 easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Page 59,60##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, existing electronic tuning devices only allow a single fundamental frequency to be detected and evaluated as in tune, such as the device described by Miesak (1984). This data is sufficient for tuning instruments such as guitar and piano which have a strong fundamental frequency. However, more complex sounds such as those from percussion require details of the fundamental frequency, higher partials, relative harmonic strengths and the time-domain envelope in order to tune the drum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A novel percussion analysis and tuning tool has been developed and patented by Rob&#xD;&#xA;Toulson (Toulson, 2007). The new analysis system is being utilised in this research and, as such, becomes the first ever scientific tuning analysis of percussion instru- ments by such a method.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Page 86##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The onset of the response is determined by finding the first instance of a threshold exceedance of half the amplitude of the maximum data reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Figure 4.11 (partial)##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure 4.11 (partial)][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the '060 Patent talks about Zero Padding in it's description:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Page 90##&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “When we zero-pad a signal in the time-domain, we get a smoother look- ing frequency resolution...so adding zeroes means that there will be more frequency domain points. The analysis frequencies, as a result, become finer since they are &#xD;&#xA;closer together.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Weeks (2006, p.214)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In regards to filtering:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Page 91##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In addition, and prior to spectral analysis, the captured waveform data is high-pass filtered to remove any unwanted rumble, DC offset or other unwanted low-frequency components. In the current research this is performed using a 5th-order Butterworth filter with a 30-Hz cut-off frequency, and is implemented by the Matlab Butterworth filter function (MathWorks, 2010d). This processing method has been used in analysis of musical instruments previously, for example by Taguti and Tohnai (2001) who used a 4th-order Butterworth filter with a cut-off frequency of 80 Hz.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://angliaruskin.openrepository.com/arro/handle/10540/189010  2010.  Too much for me to start editing and commenting on each detail, but a very thorough chronology and bibliography of related prior art developments none-the-less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://angliaruskin.openrepository.com/arro/handle/10540/189010&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/JlpkC.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5620" RevisionGUID="991ff23c-a46e-4e20-b033-26f1817ec4dd" CreationDate="2013-12-17T07:20:55.107" UserId="1145" Text="The original documents at [Espacenet](http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&amp;NR=1826708A&amp;KC=A&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=3&amp;date=19311013&amp;DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&amp;locale=en_EP) are normally 300DPI but at that age they may have come from scans of photocopies and hence skewed a bit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/xdj0v.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5621" RevisionGUID="a5b403bf-0fda-43f8-8c61-9cbd11d99c53" CreationDate="2013-12-17T09:48:06.973" UserId="7420" Text="Another cheap yet powerful alternative is to certify copies of your printed materials through Notary Public. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5622" RevisionGUID="c4a45ac6-7208-4ce9-ab67-9ee1e2d2f85e" CreationDate="2013-12-17T11:16:37.560" UserId="7421" Text="Is the patent no US6676109 for rotary valve in favour of Kitz Corporation a design patent or a utility patent? what is its expiry date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14367" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5622" RevisionGUID="c4a45ac6-7208-4ce9-ab67-9ee1e2d2f85e" CreationDate="2013-12-17T11:16:37.560" UserId="7421" Text="Expiry date of patent no 6676109" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14368" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5622" RevisionGUID="c4a45ac6-7208-4ce9-ab67-9ee1e2d2f85e" CreationDate="2013-12-17T11:16:37.560" UserId="7421" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5622" RevisionGUID="b5077977-346f-4090-8cb9-3c23d46d9eb0" CreationDate="2013-12-17T14:13:26.887" UserId="1259" Comment="tag typos" Text="Is patent US6676109 for a rotary valve in favor of Kitz Corporation a design patent or a utility patent? What is it's expiry date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14370" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5622" RevisionGUID="b5077977-346f-4090-8cb9-3c23d46d9eb0" CreationDate="2013-12-17T14:13:26.887" UserId="1259" Comment="tag typos" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;us6676109&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5623" RevisionGUID="4f20c6d9-2489-456c-883b-9a62f561af69" CreationDate="2013-12-17T14:25:42.097" UserId="3588" Text="How would apple's design patent for the shape of the iphone could have been non-obvious as a ___design___ patent? please don't jump right away..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The iphone was innovative in most respects when launched, I leave to others to argue how much innovative but I'd say it was very innovative when launched. But, in design patenting the shape - this is a different and separate discussion to my initial view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may seem to me, that the shape is _obvious_ given the _operation_ of the device, which I will explain in a minute, and a patent professional told me that visual features that have a utilitarian function tend to step outside the territory of what can be part of a design patent (in slightly different words, this is just my superficial summary or rewording).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why may it seem the design is not non-obvious? because if you have a touch screen instead of a keypad, obviously (I) the consumer would prefer the screen to be as large as possible within the front of the device, (II) obviously that they'd prefer the device will have minimal edges to the sides of the screen (we like every device as small as it can be).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, (III), a button for controlling the device would _somewhat_ obviously be outside the screen, and either above, beyond, or to the sides of it, and (IV) obviously, it's easiest to press it with the hand holding the device when it's at the bottom otherwise you hide the screen to yourself while pressing it. Maybe the last claim that it's obvious the button would be at the bottom is the weakest in this line of argument, as it assumes some thought about consumer convenience. Yet I'm not sure that design patents need to pass any threshold for being not obvious to those skilled in the art of design (let's call this hypothesis hypothesis H if anyone relates to it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not relating to the rounded corners aspect of the iphone design patent, because that is less key to my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a final comment to this question, I have a hard time seeing how this patent, in each of its features more or less enumerated above, or in whole, can be said to be an _ornamental_ design rather than being a quite very _functional_ design." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14372" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5623" RevisionGUID="4f20c6d9-2489-456c-883b-9a62f561af69" CreationDate="2013-12-17T14:25:42.097" UserId="3588" Text="Apple's iphone design patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14373" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5623" RevisionGUID="4f20c6d9-2489-456c-883b-9a62f561af69" CreationDate="2013-12-17T14:25:42.097" UserId="3588" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;apple&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5623" RevisionGUID="7b6beb85-6eb6-4ae1-aee7-d39a1f53b253" CreationDate="2013-12-17T14:31:09.883" UserId="3588" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="How would apple's design patent for the shape of the iphone could have been non-obvious as a ___design___ patent? please don't jump right away..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The iphone was innovative in most respects when launched, I leave to others to argue how much innovative but I'd say it was very innovative when launched. But, in design patenting the shape - this is a different and separate discussion to my initial view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may seem to me, that the shape is _obvious_ given the _operation_ of the device, which I will explain in a minute, and a patent professional told me that visual features that have a utilitarian function tend to step outside the territory of what can be part of a design patent (in slightly different words, this is just my superficial summary or rewording).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why may it seem the design is not non-obvious? because if you have a touch screen instead of a keypad, obviously (I) the consumer would prefer the screen to be as large as possible within the front of the device, (II) obviously that they'd prefer the device will have minimal edges to the sides of the screen (we like every device as small as it can be).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, (III), a button for controlling the device would _somewhat_ obviously be outside the screen, and either above, beyond, or to the sides of it, and (IV) obviously, it's easiest to press it with the hand holding the device when it's at the bottom otherwise you hide the screen to yourself while pressing it. Maybe the last claim that it's obvious the button would be at the bottom and not elsewhere is the weakest in this line of argument, as it assumes some thought taken towards consumer convenience - yet I'm not sure that design patents need to pass any threshold for being not obvious to those skilled in the art of design (let's call this hypothesis hypothesis H if anyone relates to it), and its location is very much entirely functional, not ornamental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not relating to the rounded corners aspect of the iphone design patent, because that is less key to my question or just heavily discussed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a final comment to this question, I have a hard time seeing how this patent, in each of its features more or less enumerated above, or in whole, can be said to be an _ornamental_ design rather than being a quite very _functional_ design." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14375" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="5573" RevisionGUID="f2997d04-62f5-4a80-b28c-537c0d0a8402" CreationDate="2013-12-17T18:32:10.530" UserId="7392" Comment="20" />
  <row Id="14376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5589" RevisionGUID="d9eb6450-e301-4edf-923a-5365df91ce6f" CreationDate="2013-12-17T18:39:54.943" UserId="7392" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="#Non-Cited Prior Art##&#xD;&#xA;#[4,608,993][2]#&#xD;&#xA;##Priority Date: Jul 31, 1984##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After looking at this, it is my personal belief that there is a very strong possibility that every claim of the ['060][1] Patent can be invalidated by an attorney. The easiest to invalidate is Claim 13. US Patent [4,608,993][2] is directed to a blood flow measurement device and method. On the face of it, how does a medical device relate to the '060 Patent? The '993 Patent states in the Abstract,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The systems employ electronic techniques for providing accurate tracking of portions of the frequency spectra of Doppler shift signals to determine peak and means velocity and acceleration.” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic element of the system of the ‘993 patent determines a peak ultrasonic acoustic signal of a power spectra within a band and correlates this to a peak velocity. The system filters out the sound of unwanted sources, such as the heart, and detects the peak volume within a set band. The ['993][3] Patent utilizes frequency detection or in other words pitch detection by initialization a filtering means and determines a peak value of a power spectra found by using a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am very confident that I can find references that could be used by an attorney to invalidate ALL of the claims of the '060 Patent, not just the independent claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To further clarify, Doppler, or Doppler Effect is essentially sound or light waves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Doppler effect][4]&#xD;&#xA;n.&#xD;&#xA;A change in the observed frequency of a wave, as of sound or light, occurring when the source and observer are in motion relative to each other, with the frequency increasing when the source and observer approach each other and decreasing when they move apart. The motion of the source causes a real shift in frequency of the wave, while the motion of the observer produces only an apparent shift in frequency. Also called Doppler shift.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8502060?dq=8502060&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4608993&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4608993&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Doppler+effect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5603" RevisionGUID="50e8104b-f111-4af6-a346-e623ccaaacc6" CreationDate="2013-12-17T18:41:16.560" UserId="7392" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="#Non-Cited Prior Art##&#xD;&#xA;#[US4227437][1]#&#xD;&#xA;##Priority Date: Oct 11, 1977##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another fine example of selecting frequencies above a predetermined threshold is [US4227437][1] Published Oct 14, 1980 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Frequency detecting apparatus #&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Frequency detection apparatus for tuning a stringed instrument or the like, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a transducer for receiving sound information from a vibrating string on said instrument and for converting the same into an electrical signal of like frequency,&#xD;&#xA;selection means for selecting a note corresponding to a correct frequency to be detected,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Transducer == microphone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a filter for receiving said electrical signal and responsive to said selection means for filtering second harmonic information from said electrical signal,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a first oscillator phase locked to the signal provided by said filter for generating a phase locked signal,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a second oscillator also responsive to the signal provided by said filter to produce a standard frequency output signal initiated in synchronous time relation with the signal provided by said filter,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a control counter coupled to the output of said second oscillator for counting the output cycles of said standard frequency output signal, and a gating circuit responsive to a count of said control counter for gating said phase locked signal during a gating period as determined by a predetermined counted number of cycles of said standard frequency output signal,&#xD;&#xA;note counter means coupled for receiving the phase locked signal as gated by said **gating circuit** for detecting whether the number of output cycles of the gated phase locked signal received during said gating period reaches a predetermined count corresponding to the note selected by said selection means, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and display means for producing first, second and third indications for respectively indicating substantial identity in frequency between the electrical signal and the note selected by said selection means, or whether the electrical signal is above or below said note, said display means receiving the output of said note counter means substantially at the end of said gating period produced by said gating circuit to determine whether said note counter means has made a full count corresponding to the selected note substantially at the end of said gating period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure seems like claim 1 &amp; 13 of [US8502060][2] when you realize what a [gate][3] is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4227437&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8502060&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_gate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5624" RevisionGUID="2f3f7df0-c7d3-4b97-9830-1d423fd62784" CreationDate="2013-12-17T20:01:12.927" UserId="7425" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Drum tuning as compared to tuning most musical instruments does not involve detecting simple series of harmonically related notes (same note in different octaves), but different unrelated notes generated by the sundry different length physical paths that different head resonances travel over. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;060 claim 1 with several means combined describes applying a bandpass filter to a conventional note sniffer measurement string to preferentially isolate one resonance pitch and reject other resonances. This may have some utility in the context of parsing the multiple pitches drums can make when struck at different places on the head. If novel(?) this seems like a narrow improvement patent that should not control the basic measurement technology of generic note sniffers not specifically using a BPF (but I am not a patent lawyer).   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;060 claim 13 seems like a paraphrased version of claim one in abstract terms where instead of a BP filter &quot;means&quot;, the frequency band has an upper and lower limit? This equivalent claims language is unclear (to me) whether they are describing computer software or something else? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a patent related to drum tuning (US 6,925,880), while I do not use simple note sniffing or FFT (yet). I am familiar with the instrument and technology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5625" RevisionGUID="5998563c-e3f0-4434-b405-0c32620e102d" CreationDate="2013-12-17T20:01:22.960" UserId="3076" Text="Obviousness of a design is judged in comparison to existing designs that are located in a search, not by the type of logic you are using. You are using arguments about functionality (users would want a large button) to address ornamentation. A single centered circular button doesn't look like an array of tiny buttons. A portable computing device could be designed either way and could function either way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is true that features *dictated* by functionality are subtracted out in the analysis of design. To be functional a hammer probably needs a handle and a flat face but the shape of both can be arbitrary. Features that are desirable (thinness) are not required for functionality. Big faced watches are popular as a design choice, not as a readability aid." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5168" RevisionGUID="55edcdf7-55f8-46ee-a957-aa5a9bdf4640" CreationDate="2013-12-17T20:02:32.467" UserId="1145" Comment="Formatting" Text="Conduit receptacle&#xD;&#xA;US 1826708 A &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I obtain better quality copies of this patent other than what I can print off this site? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Publication number	US1826708 A&#xD;&#xA;    Publication type	Grant&#xD;&#xA;    Publication date	Oct 13, 1931&#xD;&#xA;    Filing date	Jan 21, 1930&#xD;&#xA;    Priority date	Jan 21, 1930&#xD;&#xA;    Inventors	Jacob Colitz&#xD;&#xA;    Original Assignee	Jacob Colitz&#xD;&#xA;    Referenced by (1), Classifications (6)&#xD;&#xA;    External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14381" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5168" RevisionGUID="55edcdf7-55f8-46ee-a957-aa5a9bdf4640" CreationDate="2013-12-17T20:02:32.467" Comment="Proposed by 1145 approved by 1259, 3076 edit id of 472" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5626" RevisionGUID="ff586d74-a57a-458b-aa7e-f927058b71a8" CreationDate="2013-12-17T20:03:31.657" UserId="7426" Text="I am curious to how this is NOVEL or even UNOBVIOUS.  I am a recording engineer and I use common software such as Pro Tools, Logic Pro and others.  Virtually all Digital Audio Workstations and recording software comes equipped with BandPass, Tuners, and Noise Gates.  An end user could easily stumble and infringe upon this patent easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allow me to demonstrate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 13 Infringement##&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Open Logic Pro (or even more distributed Garage Band) with Live or Recorded Samples&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Select a Noise Gate on a Channel Strip&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Add the Tuner Plugin under Metering &gt; Tuner &gt; Tuner&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**You have now infringed upon Claim 13 of '060 Patent.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Also note if you use a recording interface that uses BandPass Filters or Noise Gates, and you simply activate the Tuner plugin on a channel strip, you have effectively infringed on this brand new patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Claim 13 Infringement][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 1 Example:##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Open Logic Pro (or even more distributed Garage Band) with Live or Recorded Samples&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Select a Noise Gate on a Channel Strip&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Add a BandPass Filter: Audio Units &gt; Bandpass Filter (Adjust to range of a drum or instrument) after you determine the pitch the tuner is displaying, adjust it to that range.  To enable / disable this &quot;mode&quot; just bypass the bandpass filter.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Add the Tuner Plugin under Metering &gt; Tuner &gt; Tuner&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Claim 1 Infringement: BandPass Filter and a Tuner][2]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a very ingredient oriented piece of software. I attribute this patent to pulling out bread, ham, cheese and and assembling it and patenting that method. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/9qjXi.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/9vzQf.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5627" RevisionGUID="3a159a2a-10d5-4a50-ba6d-42d0ebbcf8a9" CreationDate="2013-12-17T20:57:09.210" UserId="7426" Text="This could be considered prior art, but it's an application called [Drum-Tuner][1] on both iTunes and Google Play.  The iphone version was published **Jul 25, 2012** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The proof here is that the '060 is not novel, and obvious. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The ['060][3] Application filing date is 02/15/2013, published Aug 6, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The '060 patent was an extension of Application [US20130139672][4] Published Jun 6, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My thoughts are leaning towards how is an idea novel and unobvious if the application or patent was not published yet so many very close ideas such as Drum-Tuner and apparently a few other software apps like Toulson's iDrumTune came out which now technically infringe upon 060 due to its broad claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.drum-tuner-app.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Mvbay.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8502060?dq=drum-set%20tuner&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=nrmwUrHxEMuGkQe6Zw&amp;ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130139672?dq=drum-set%20tuner&amp;ei=nrmwUrHxEMuGkQe6Zw" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5628" RevisionGUID="bab63574-49d1-40d6-988a-c203d944ce51" CreationDate="2013-12-17T22:09:32.480" UserId="7427" Text="I'm interested in a beginners guide on how to invalidate a patent, like searching for prior art, and what to do next, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully someone can help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14387" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5628" RevisionGUID="bab63574-49d1-40d6-988a-c203d944ce51" CreationDate="2013-12-17T22:09:32.480" UserId="7427" Text="How do you invalidate a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14388" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5628" RevisionGUID="bab63574-49d1-40d6-988a-c203d944ce51" CreationDate="2013-12-17T22:09:32.480" UserId="7427" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5629" RevisionGUID="b359b510-12f9-42e6-aece-fa186109e7ae" CreationDate="2013-12-17T22:54:10.137" UserId="3076" Text="A short version is that U.S. patents are presumed valid when issued. After issue, a patent can be challenged in a handful of different USPTO procedures. Any third party can file to try to initiate one of these actions. The least expensive procedure has a min. $6000 filing fee. Besides that fee and good prior art you will need good lawyering to be sure to put your best data/arguments forward. The patent office can determine some or all of claims are not patentable and the patentee has a chance to amend the claims to make them narrower or otherwise acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a patent dispute that makes it to court, an alleged infringer can argue that one or more claims, or the whole patent are invalid. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few patents have been disclaimed by the patentee after receiving widespread public ridicule. IBM disclaimed its patent for managing a queue of people waiting to go to the bathroom on an airplane. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course this site was set up for crowd sourcing the search for good prior art to be used against patent **applications**. It can certainly be used to try to collect good prior art against issued patents.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5625" RevisionGUID="9e64e5b9-f671-494c-a566-56e0e39e6c1c" CreationDate="2013-12-17T22:58:23.703" UserId="3076" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="Obviousness of a design is judged in comparison to existing designs that are located in a search, not by the type of logic you are using. You are using arguments about functionality (users would want a large button) to address ornamentation. A single centered circular button doesn't look like an array of tiny buttons. A portable computing device could be designed either way and could function either way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is true that features *dictated* by functionality are subtracted out in the analysis of design. To be functional a hammer probably needs a handle and a flat face but the shape of both can be arbitrary. Features that are desirable (thinness) are not required for functionality. Big faced watches are popular as a design choice, not as a readability aid even though it may be easier to read. There have been many functional watches with tiny faces. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5629" RevisionGUID="ff074344-c8cc-4606-b3fe-017a48e39f01" CreationDate="2013-12-17T23:33:48.360" UserId="3076" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="A short version is that U.S. patents are presumed valid when issued. After issue, a patent can be challenged in a handful of different USPTO procedures. Any third party can file to try to initiate one of these actions. The least expensive procedure has a min. $6000 filing fee. Besides that fee and good prior art you will need good lawyering to be sure to put your best data/arguments forward. The patent office can determine some or all of claims are not patentable and the patentee has a chance to amend the claims to make them narrower or otherwise acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a patent dispute that makes it to court, an alleged infringer can argue that one or more claims, or the whole patent are invalid. There may be a judgment of invalidity or un-enforcability. In a court proceeding the claims can't be changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few patents have been disclaimed by the patentee after receiving widespread public ridicule. IBM disclaimed its patent for managing a queue of people waiting to go to the bathroom on an airplane. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course this site was set up for crowd sourcing the search for good prior art to be used against patent **applications**. It can certainly be used to try to collect good prior art against issued patents.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5630" RevisionGUID="a9ca4f1e-7e3c-4ecc-9db4-f5970642c17c" CreationDate="2013-12-17T23:43:02.797" UserId="7428" Text="I've taken an interest in the above mentioned patent, but I am exceedingly new to the intricacies of the patent system and so I am unclear about who exactly currently has control over and who else has the license rights to this patent, and how long those rights will last.  I thank whoever responds in advance for doing so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14393" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5630" RevisionGUID="a9ca4f1e-7e3c-4ecc-9db4-f5970642c17c" CreationDate="2013-12-17T23:43:02.797" UserId="7428" Text="Who has the rights to patent US 7775666?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14394" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5630" RevisionGUID="a9ca4f1e-7e3c-4ecc-9db4-f5970642c17c" CreationDate="2013-12-17T23:43:02.797" UserId="7428" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5630" RevisionGUID="834894bf-958c-4e03-bfda-ca2385082c29" CreationDate="2013-12-18T00:21:59.757" UserId="1767" Comment="added 214 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I've taken an interest [US 7,775,666][1], but I am new to the intricacies of the patent system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I figure out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Who owns the '666 patent;&#xD;&#xA;2. Who else may have license rights to this patent; and&#xD;&#xA;3. How long those rights will last.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent Number: [**7,775,666**][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Title: **Three-dimensional image communication terminal and projection-type three-dimensional image display apparatus**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7775666&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14396" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5630" RevisionGUID="834894bf-958c-4e03-bfda-ca2385082c29" CreationDate="2013-12-18T00:21:59.757" UserId="1767" Comment="added 214 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;us7775666&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14397" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5630" RevisionGUID="834894bf-958c-4e03-bfda-ca2385082c29" CreationDate="2013-12-18T00:21:59.757" UserId="1767" Comment="added 214 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Who has the rights to patent US 7775666" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5632" RevisionGUID="d394d863-4a08-47c9-84a4-6e33f4bd4219" CreationDate="2013-12-18T01:09:29.983" UserId="731" Text="The person listed as the &quot;Assignee&quot; is the owner.  In this case, it's Panasonic Corporation.  &quot;Assignee&quot; means that they didn't invent it (only a person can be an inventor, not a company), but the inventor assigned ownership to them.  This is typical of an invention created by an employee of a company as part of their normal work.  You can also see this if a patent is sold; it will be re-assigned to the new owner, but the original inventor stays the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;License rights to a patent are gained through a private contract with the patent owner, so there's no public information regarding licensees.  The only way to know for sure is to contact the owner and ask.  How long licensing rights last is also part of the contract between the owner and the licensee, so there's no way to tell." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5633" RevisionGUID="5ff2e93d-25c9-427b-8133-cb529161ef99" CreationDate="2013-12-18T01:49:51.580" UserId="3076" Text="To answer the &quot;how do I figure it out&quot; question: The assignee at the time the patent issues, if there is one, will be listed on the front page of the patent. As bta said, the ownership can change after that. Those changes are *not* reflected by changes on the front page of the patent. Once granted and published, the patent document is static. The USPTO has a recordation office where people and companies buying and selling (assigning) patent rights can register a transaction. It is very much like recording a deed for a property transaction at the county courthouse. Google patents has started grabbing that data and posting it at the end of their information about a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this patent you can see that the inventors assigned the application to MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., *JAPAN* while the application was still pending. It was then assigned to MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.;*US* and finally a change of name was filed from MATSUSHITA to Panasonic. This all happened before issue but in many cases there is a change of ownership many years after issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not calculated this carefully but this patent would normally be in force for 20 years after the US filing date in 2006. You can see on the front page that it was given 1190 extra days to make up for patent office delays. That would put it in 2029 or so as long the maintenance fees are paid and there is not terminal disclaimer.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="5935476c-3e26-48f3-b2ce-e1831d57c63d" CreationDate="2013-12-18T02:56:48.137" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions** - This application from [Smart Destinations, Inc][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Enhanced data collection and reporting for improved ticket pricing and marketing. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/15/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Enhanced data collection related to a customer's travel path in order to improve ticket pricing and marketing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Dynamically pricing and validating access to goods, services, attractions, events and other items&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Method for enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving an identification of a location of a user and a **first attraction** selected for access by a user, determining a **travel path** between the location of the user and the **first attraction**, identifying a **second attraction** within a predetermined distance from the **travel path**, and transmitting an offer of access to the **second attraction** to a computing device of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120323691 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/523,213&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Smart Destinations, Inc.][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/15/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/18/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, by a first device, an identification of a location of a user and a first attraction selected for access by a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining, by a path analyzer, a travel path between the location of the user and the first attraction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identifying, by the path analyzer, a second attraction within a predetermined distance from the travel path; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmitting, by the first device to a computing device of the user, an offer of access to the second attraction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for better customer marketing based on customer path data between attractions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receive an identification of a user's location and a first attraction selected for access by the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determine a travel path between the location of the user and the first attraction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identify a second attraction within a predetermined distance from the travel path; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmit an offer of access to the second attraction to a computing device of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/15/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Identifying the second attraction based on a net price. The  net price being below a net price threshold or an average customer visit time of the second attraction being above a visit time threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Location-based marketing for attraction access&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/gIUuqQa.png&quot; width=&quot;315&quot; height=&quot;458&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120323691&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.smartdestinations.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120323691" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5634" RevisionGUID="ddc1c9e1-faab-4f1b-979b-171c42d3d30b" CreationDate="2013-12-18T03:04:40.917" UserId="7392" Text="#Non-Cited Prior Art#&#xD;&#xA;#[The Scientist and Engineer's Guide to Digital Signal Processing][1]#&#xD;&#xA;#[DSPGuide.com][2]#&#xD;&#xA;##1997-2011##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an online, paper, hard copy publication for Digital Signal Processing. It's know as one of the defacto sources of information in relation to signal processing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Chapter 26: Target Selection##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Discusses several aspects and reasons why you would choose values over a predetermined threshold as Claim 13 of '060 claims rights to. In this example, a device for reading cancer in a patient is discussed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This method of converting the output value into a probability can be useful for understanding the problem, but it is not the main way that target detection is accomplished. Most applications require a yes/no decision on&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In short, we need a machine that can carry out a multi-parameter space division, according to examples of target and nontarget signals. This ideal target detection system is remarkably close to the main topic of this chapter, the neural network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Chapter 14: ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.dspguide.com/ch14/5.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Just for clarification on Bandpass filters, what they are, how they are comprised, and how common they are in audio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; High-pass, band-pass and band-reject filters are designed by starting with a low-pass filter, and then converting it into the desired response. For this reason, most discussions on filter design only give examples of low-pass filters. There are two methods for the low-pass to high-pass conversion: spectral inversion and spectral reversal. Both are equally useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![BandPass Filter Construction][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lastly, Figs. 14-8 and 14-9 show how low-pass and high-pass filter kernels can be combined to form band-pass and band-reject filters. In short, adding the filter kernels produces a band-reject filter, while convolving the filter kernels produces a band-pass filter. These are based on the way cascaded and parallel systems are be combined, as discussed in Chapter 7. Multiple combination of these techniques can also be used. For instance, a band-pass filter can be designed by adding the two filter kernels to form a band-pass filter, and then use spectral inversion or spectral reversal as previously described. All these techniques work very well with few surprises.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Chapter 17: Custom Filters##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.dspguide.com/ch17.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Most filters have one of the four standard frequency responses: low-pass, high-pass, band-pass or band-reject. This chapter presents a general method of designing digital filters with an arbitrary frequency response, tailored to the needs of your particular application. DSP excels in this area, solving problems that are far above the capabilities of analog electronics. Two important uses of custom filters are discussed in this chapter: deconvolution, a way of restoring signals that have undergone an unwanted convolution, and optimal filtering, the problem of separating signals with overlapping frequency spectra. This is DSP at its best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This NON-CITED Prior Art online book has several examples, common solutions to all of the claims in the '060 patent. Reexamine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dspguide.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dspguide.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/dQlry.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5636" RevisionGUID="c3665bfe-c5e2-4d85-9122-c51967905b2d" CreationDate="2013-12-18T09:54:37.397" UserId="3588" Text="Can you show your invention to few individuals, without making it count as having published your patent or otherwise invalidating the ability to patent it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is assuming they didn't go and post it on their blog etc, stole it, or published stuff that makes your patent too obvious.... in short, the question is about legitimacy to patent, not about risks of showing it to individuals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, this question assumes you show them anything about the invention, not just an output created by it or something that does not reveal the crux or inner-workings of the invention. Showing up to full disclosure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14408" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5636" RevisionGUID="c3665bfe-c5e2-4d85-9122-c51967905b2d" CreationDate="2013-12-18T09:54:37.397" UserId="3588" Text="Can you show your invention to few individuals without breaking patentability" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14409" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5636" RevisionGUID="c3665bfe-c5e2-4d85-9122-c51967905b2d" CreationDate="2013-12-18T09:54:37.397" UserId="3588" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5637" RevisionGUID="96e7be13-2ca9-4378-8798-c29e0ec8d032" CreationDate="2013-12-18T09:58:15.363" UserId="3588" Text="The previous answer has all the components, but may be a bit confusing at the bottom line level. The bottom line is it depends. If the 'improved' patent still falls within the claims of the 'original' patent then the 'original' patent can exclude practice of the 'improved' one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may have to learn more about claims to get for yourself the answer to your specific case then." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5638" RevisionGUID="a77988d3-484e-4fc7-b620-e2538c8c9b16" CreationDate="2013-12-18T10:12:53.903" UserId="3588" Text="## Premises:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Any complex software product uses many algorithms, steps, techniques and so on&#xD;&#xA;+ There's a patent on almost any method and system in software, even such that are trivial by now but still didn't expire. There is no likely way to conduct a thorough check into whether a complex piece of software violates any patent or not, using today's tools.&#xD;&#xA;+ Software patents are arguably in about half the cases very abstract, vague and vague to determine what range of trivial stuff their claims cover&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Legal premises&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ In court proceedings, damages are awarded as some reasonable % of sales, or as 3 times the amount of sales in case the infringing party has known about a patent while practicing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Key Question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it then, not better for a software startup not to read patents in its domain (other than if it needs to make a search prior to filing its own!)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Rationalization:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Finding whether a software startup violates any software patent would take a human something in the order of magnitude of a century without sleep and food.&#xD;&#xA;2. It will fill their heads with all kinds of vague worries pushing them off to a state of mind that does not allow doing creative work or being very productive in general, as an understatement.&#xD;&#xA;3. It subjects them to a risk of finding themselves paying damages 3 times their sales, e.g. closing their business, rather than a risk of paying _some_ damages that can also be more possibly negotiated&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Clarification&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is asked in good spirit, not one that tries to cheat or be unethical.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14412" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5638" RevisionGUID="a77988d3-484e-4fc7-b620-e2538c8c9b16" CreationDate="2013-12-18T10:12:53.903" UserId="3588" Text="Is it not better in practicality to avoid searching software patents in your domain" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14413" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5638" RevisionGUID="a77988d3-484e-4fc7-b620-e2538c8c9b16" CreationDate="2013-12-18T10:12:53.903" UserId="3588" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;ethics&gt;&lt;strategy&gt;&lt;practicality&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5639" RevisionGUID="eadb2c54-3623-4962-a0cd-ca160f11d9ed" CreationDate="2013-12-18T10:18:34.410" UserId="3588" Text="I think the short answer would be that you are right in your statements and question (i.e. the answer is yes)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5636" RevisionGUID="c31662c5-bc47-4c78-8f46-69e3b2d2f4e6" CreationDate="2013-12-18T10:24:02.573" UserId="3588" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="Can you show your invention to few individuals (who are not your patent attorney etc), without making it count as having published your patent or otherwise invalidating the ability to patent it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is assuming they didn't go and post it on their blog etc, stole it, or published stuff that makes your patent too obvious.... in short, the question is about legitimacy to patent, not about risks of showing it to individuals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, this question assumes you show them anything about the invention, not just an output created by it or something that does not reveal the crux or inner-workings of the invention. Showing up to full disclosure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5640" RevisionGUID="2ec8bb4e-2e8c-4cb1-bdef-8869ee1891a6" CreationDate="2013-12-18T14:04:30.637" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5641" RevisionGUID="cc9ca2dd-33e9-4a54-a948-7f328033fd31" CreationDate="2013-12-18T14:04:30.637" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14418" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5614" RevisionGUID="c7f361de-0ae0-40ac-985d-e3c3c08045ca" CreationDate="2013-12-18T14:28:16.220" UserId="7392" Comment="Added header." Text="#Non-Cited Prior Art#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Visualization of Musical Pitch#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Philip McLeod and Geoff Wyvill.##&#xD;&#xA;##In Computer Graphics International 2003, 2003##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://miracle.otago.ac.nz/tartini/papers/Visualization_of_Musical_Pitch.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ##2.5 Choosing the Fundamental##&#xD;&#xA;After the frequencies of all the local maxima have been found, their amplitudes are calculated. The strongest frequency is selected and assumed to be one of the harmonics from the note being played. The fundamental is not always the strongest frequency in a note. Figure 4 shows an example of a note where the fifth harmonic is the most powerful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The pitch of the note is related to the “dominant” frequency. In this case, dominant means what a musician perceives to be the main frequency. This is not necessarily the lowest or the one with the largest amplitude. The following process appears to agree with our subjective observation al- most all of the time.&#xD;&#xA;Firstly we pick out the frequency, f, with the largest am- plitude. This is almost certainly a true harmonic of the fundamental we are seeking. In other words, the fundamental frequency is F = f/n where n is an integer. For each value of n from one to ten we examine the spectrum to see how many frequencies are potential harmonics of F. A frequency is a potential harmonic if it is close the ideal frequency of the harmonic. We actually calculate a score for each F = f/n which is a weighted sum of closeness measures. The more peaks that are separated by F the better the fit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure 4][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This example simply demonstrates that selecting a peak frequency for display and suppressing the other frequencies is common practice.  Claim 13 is not novel, and very obvious to anyone in spectral analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ChpHO.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14419" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5614" RevisionGUID="c7f361de-0ae0-40ac-985d-e3c3c08045ca" CreationDate="2013-12-18T14:28:16.220" Comment="Proposed by 7392 approved by 3076, 1259 edit id of 473" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="2cdd3737-e152-4198-b010-997e96a6c762" CreationDate="2013-12-18T17:43:33.687" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions** - This application from [Smart Destinations, Inc][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Enhanced data collection and reporting for improved ticket pricing and marketing. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/15/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Enhanced data collection related to a customer's travel path in order to improve ticket pricing and marketing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Dynamically pricing and validating access to goods, services, attractions, events and other items&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Method for enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving an identification of a location of a user and a **first attraction** selected for access by a user, determining a **travel path** between the location of the user and the **first attraction**, identifying a **second attraction** within a predetermined distance from the **travel path**, and transmitting an offer of access to the **second attraction** to a computing device of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120323691 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/523,213&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Smart Destinations, Inc.][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/15/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/18/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, by a first device, an identification of a location of a user and a first attraction selected for access by a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining, by a path analyzer, a travel path between the location of the user and the first attraction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identifying, by the path analyzer, a second attraction within a predetermined distance from the travel path; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmitting, by the first device to a computing device of the user, an offer of access to the second attraction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for better customer marketing based on customer path data between attractions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receive an identification of a user's location and a first attraction selected for access by the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determine a travel path between the location of the user and the first attraction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identify a second attraction within a predetermined distance from the travel path; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmit an offer of access to the second attraction to a computing device of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/15/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Identifying the second attraction based on a net price. The  net price being below a net price threshold or an average customer visit time of the second attraction being above a visit time threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Location-based marketing for attraction access&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/gIUuqQa.png&quot; width=&quot;315&quot; height=&quot;458&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120323691&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.smartdestinations.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120323691" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="b511e729-6965-4524-81b1-3d2c9f6a4b00" CreationDate="2013-12-18T17:43:56.550" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON online ads based on current events** - This application from [Yahoo! Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying current events, categorizing them, and showing ads based on the current event! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Real-time ads triggered by current events&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Current events such as earthquakes, fires, or floods, **drop in prices** or **sale for a particular type of product** (e.g., cars), a general **reduction in inventory** of a particular type of product, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Showing ads based on current events**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identify a current event of any kind (examples: earthquakes, fires, or floods, drop in prices or sale for a particular type of product (e.g., cars), a general reduction in inventory of a particular type of product, etc.), categorize the current event, determine an advertisement based on the **category of event** (Halloween is here?  Buy a costume!), and send the advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130159094 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/326,033&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/17/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying by a network device an event that has recently occurred;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Categorizing by the network device the event into a category of events from a plurality of categories;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Ascertaining by the network device a set of one or more advertisements associated with the category of events;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Selecting by the network device at least one advertisement from the set of one or more advertisements associated with the category of events; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Providing by the network device the at least one advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identify an event that has recently occurred;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Categorizing the event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Find one or more advertisements associated with the category of the current event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Select an advertisement associated with the category of event; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Show the advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A variety of specific types of current events used to trigger ads, such as earthquakes, fires, or floods, **drop in prices** or **sale for a particular type of product** (e.g., cars), a general **reduction in inventory** of a particular type of product, etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method of serving advertisements based on current events&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fSlhSt4.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130159094&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130159094" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5642" RevisionGUID="4ff7bc69-b12c-40cd-98af-d56c0122dc2a" CreationDate="2013-12-18T18:24:40.007" UserId="3076" Text="The premise of &quot;3 * sales&quot; is not correct. The treble damages for willful infringement is 3 times whatever it would have been otherwise. It is not always imposed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, yes. Staying ignorant of possible patents out there is a very reasonable plan whether for software or for hardware. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5643" RevisionGUID="bce40813-41f9-4fb4-b38f-432389e58a11" CreationDate="2013-12-18T18:51:38.683" UserId="3076" Text="It isn't how many people you show it to, but under what circumstances. If there is an understanding of confidentiality you are ok. And in the U.S., there is still a version of a one year grace period. Also, even if it is a confidential setting,if you say &quot;do you want to buy one when I go into production?&quot;. You are back in trouble triggering the one year grace period. The AIA law changed the details of all this in a way that remains to be settled in the courts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5645" RevisionGUID="85253929-8c5c-4bd1-ac6e-1e8cf3eca407" CreationDate="2013-12-18T19:50:43.980" UserId="3588" Text="Patents are per territory. If something is excluded from exercise only by a U.S. patent (that has been granted and did not yet expire), then in general you are not in violation of the patent if you do not sell it in the U.S. nor do you manufacture it in the U.S. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Disclaimer_: I'm not sure if you would be in some kind of retroactive violation or not, in case it is later extended to the territory where you sell or produce/assemble it. But if it's later extended to those territories you are certainly in violation if you continue after that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Please note I assume you wrote 'Americans' without giving it much thought, but it's not the nationality of a person, but where the product is sold, used, or manufactured/assembled._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a final note, __practically speaking__, you should want to check whether there are international patents or patents of other states extending or deriving from a U.S. patent, before assuming the invention is not patent protected in any given territory. And maybe consider whether what you're doing at all feels ethical or not because the motivation of the question is not very clear... " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5645" RevisionGUID="037383ed-5273-4a32-a275-e9109157152e" CreationDate="2013-12-18T19:55:44.500" UserId="3588" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="Patents are per territory. If something is excluded from exercise only by a U.S. patent (that has been granted and did not yet expire), then in general you are not in violation of the patent if you do not sell it in the U.S. nor do you manufacture it in the U.S. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Disclaimer_: I'm not sure if you would be in some kind of retroactive violation or not, in case it is later extended to the territory where you sell or produce/assemble it. But if it's later extended to those territories you are certainly in violation if you continue after that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Please note I assume you wrote 'Americans' without giving it much thought, but it's not the nationality of a person that matters to the aspect of the right here, but where the product is sold, used, or manufactured/assembled._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a final note, __practically speaking__, you should want to check whether there are international patents or patents of other states extending or deriving from a U.S. patent, before assuming the invention is not patent protected in any given territory. And maybe consider whether what you're doing at all feels ethical or not because the motivation of the question is not very clear... " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5638" RevisionGUID="34d207bc-aef9-4fca-9282-708d45628242" CreationDate="2013-12-18T20:10:32.340" UserId="3588" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body" Text="## Premises:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Any complex software product uses many algorithms, steps, techniques and so on&#xD;&#xA;+ There's a patent on almost any method and system in software, even such that are trivial by now but still didn't expire. There is no likely way to conduct a thorough check into whether a complex piece of software violates any patent or not, using today's tools.&#xD;&#xA;+ Software patents are arguably in about half the cases very abstract, vague and vague to determine what range of trivial stuff their claims cover&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Legal premises&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ In court proceedings, damages may be awarded as 3 times the basic amount arrived at, in case the infringing party has known about a patent while practicing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Key Question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it then, not better for a software startup not to read patents in its domain (other than if it needs to make a search prior to filing its own!)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Rationalization:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Finding whether a software startup violates any software patent would take a human something in the order of magnitude of a century without sleep and food.&#xD;&#xA;2. It will fill their heads with all kinds of vague worries pushing them off to a state of mind that does not allow doing creative work or being very productive in general, as an understatement.&#xD;&#xA;3. It subjects them to a risk of finding themselves paying damages 3 times their sales, e.g. closing their business, rather than a risk of paying _some_ damages that can also be more possibly negotiated&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Clarification&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is asked in good spirit, not one that tries to cheat or be unethical.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5646" RevisionGUID="71c72f54-c02f-4a3d-81ea-2cf44a324077" CreationDate="2013-12-18T20:21:19.927" UserId="3588" Text="I don't entirely understand some parts of your question (maybe if I spent more time....), but you may improve your standing by proving you did not know of a patent when you violated it (if at all anything in your question amounts to violating a patent). As far as I know that may avoid any damages you may need to pay from tripling, which they may, if it is proven you knew about the patent when violating it. So yes, being in a position where you can prove you didn't know of it, or in a position where it can't be proven you did (not sure which of the two), does come to your aid in this specific manner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5647" RevisionGUID="047d1edc-b1ce-4528-9acf-9693d9184432" CreationDate="2013-12-18T22:45:44.020" UserId="7392" Text="#Can You Patent Human Auditory Senses?#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe they just patented basic human auditory senses.  The Claims in '060 discuss selecting frequencies above a predetermined threshold, and suppressing the rest. Likewise, Claim 1 discusses bandpass filtering around a target frequency. This is exactly what the natural auditory senses of the human ear and brain do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##[Auditory Masking - Wikipedia][1]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &quot;Off frequency listening is when a listener chooses a filter just lower than the signal frequency to improve their auditory performance. This “off frequency” filter reduces the level of the masker more than the signal at the output level of the filter, which means they can hear the signal more clearly hence causing an improvement of auditory performance.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I to assume that anyone recognizing a pitch would be infringing? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5648" RevisionGUID="739cc479-06c0-4e6b-ab3a-7d3b4dcacb91" CreationDate="2013-12-18T23:46:33.930" UserId="7392" Text="#NON-CITED Prior Art (1999)#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#[ELECTRONIC GUITAR TUNER][1]#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**by Kathleen Wettstein and Adam Wunderlich&#xD;&#xA;May 4, 1999**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://courses.engr.illinois.edu/ece445/projects/.../project45_final_paper.doc][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found this old 1999 document on 3 examples of basic guitar tuners. This document also has considerable mention of peak detection and only allowing portions of the signal through **above a predetermined threshold**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The FFT was implemented as a  radix 2, decimation in time algorithm.  The FFT code used was that made available to students in ECE 320.  Since the FFT was a  decimation in time algorithm, the complex output was in bit-reversed order.  Consequently, the program reordered the output in the correct order, and placed the magnitude squared of the FFT data in an array.  Next, the FFT data array was searched for the fundamental frequency.  For reasons mentioned earlier, the search algorithm began at the ninth sample in the array.  The search was executed by first comparing each data value to an FFT threshold value.  **The threshold was chosen so that only peaks in the FFT surpassed it.  If the output sample was above the threshold, the program executed a subroutine to identify if the data sample was indeed a peak.  A point was considered a peak if the next value in the array was less. **&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **If a point was identified as a peak, it was considered to be the fundamental.  The index of the fundamental in the FFT output array was used to reference two look-up tables.**  The first look-up table gave the pitch, and second gave the cents out of tune.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It searches for a *peak* in sound (above a predetermined threshold) and then outputs a display of figures based on frequencies calculated through FFT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Claim 13 '060 Invalidated?#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Figure 5.  Block Diagram for DSP program##&#xD;&#xA;![Figure 5.  Block Diagram for DSP program][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Page 8: Pitch Detection##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Motorola’s DSP5630x family of processors was chosen because of its availability and familiarity of the designers with the product.  Also, this family of DSPs is widely used because of their versatility and capacity for operations such as filtering, and Fast Fourier Transforms (FFTs). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Discusses filtering like it's just another part of audio signal processing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=2&amp;ved=0CDQQFjAB&amp;url=http://courses.engr.illinois.edu/ece445/projects/spring99/project45_final_paper.doc&amp;ei=GTOyUqSKBJSvkAfY24CwBA&amp;usg=AFQjCNFH7zy8IsPhB7MqsCO6qZ-Yv2qL6w&amp;sig2=uib_wAj2kut3yYDRzFO1oA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=2&amp;ved=0CDQQFjAB&amp;url=http://courses.engr.illinois.edu/ece445/projects/spring99/project45_final_paper.doc&amp;ei=GTOyUqSKBJSvkAfY24CwBA&amp;usg=AFQjCNFH7zy8IsPhB7MqsCO6qZ-Yv2qL6w&amp;sig2=uib_wAj2kut3yYDRzFO1oA&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/qpSDb.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5649" RevisionGUID="6c87d147-3c5e-4bfc-8e96-b1ca621fbbf0" CreationDate="2013-12-19T07:45:29.963" UserId="2029" Text="Can someone here please help clarify the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For applications that have included a &quot;non-publication request&quot;, at what time am I allowed to file 3rd party prior art against them before they get granted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the moment, the only applications I've found were the ones that have been published but I would assume (and hope) that there is some avenue to see those that haven't been published yet, so that I can submit prior art against them. Is that accurate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14434" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5649" RevisionGUID="6c87d147-3c5e-4bfc-8e96-b1ca621fbbf0" CreationDate="2013-12-19T07:45:29.963" UserId="2029" Text="Non-publication requests and 3rd party prior art submissions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14435" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5649" RevisionGUID="6c87d147-3c5e-4bfc-8e96-b1ca621fbbf0" CreationDate="2013-12-19T07:45:29.963" UserId="2029" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;non-publication&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5622" RevisionGUID="a1a9573b-3961-4f9d-a465-0fcd12cd4cc6" CreationDate="2013-12-19T13:25:57.613" UserId="7421" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Is patent US6676109 for a rotary valve in favour of Kitz Corporation a design patent or a utility patent? What is it's expiry date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5651" RevisionGUID="de6ffd7e-ebce-456f-acab-eed46028ae3a" CreationDate="2013-12-19T13:58:06.590" UserId="7441" Text="I want to port routines from some open source software to another programming language and distribute it publicly. The source code is licensed under GPLv2, so this should not be a problem.&#xD;&#xA;However, the following statement on the website irritates me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Important:** [the algorithm] is under a patent by the [...] and any commercial product using this type of algorithm (or the recompiled binary files distributed here) should contact the [...] patent office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does such a patent affect me as developer?&#xD;&#xA;Am I allowed to modify/redistribute the sources?&#xD;&#xA;If yes, do I have to include that patent statement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14441" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5651" RevisionGUID="de6ffd7e-ebce-456f-acab-eed46028ae3a" CreationDate="2013-12-19T13:58:06.590" UserId="7441" Text="Patent on Open Source Software" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14442" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5651" RevisionGUID="de6ffd7e-ebce-456f-acab-eed46028ae3a" CreationDate="2013-12-19T13:58:06.590" UserId="7441" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;opensource&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5652" RevisionGUID="858ac5d3-0141-4b48-8e1f-de358a9f148a" CreationDate="2013-12-19T15:28:24.447" UserId="7393" Text="If the software you are creating does not infringe up the claims of the patent, and proves novel / uniqueness or even obviousness, then you should be ok. However, contact a patent attorney first! Software / Method patents have proven the new Gold Rush on American Businesses.  Methods / Software patents are dangerous, so watch out!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, do a search of that patent number in the USPTO or Google Patents and check citations / references mentioning that patent and use keyword searches that are used within your technology.  For example &quot;Clamps, database, upload&quot; and such. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember, patents are about the CLAIMS.  If you infringe upon one or more claim of a patent, then you risk getting sued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hindsight is not 20/20 when you get sued for patent infringement. You must do as much homework as you can up front because not knowing is not good enough.  A Patent Holder / Patentee can get away with not knowing about prior art, but you can't get away with not knowing about their patent.  Its that miserable when you get sued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My advice is to set aside substantial funds to fight lawsuits against patents and also be prepared to pull the plug at any time.  The less assets you have in your company, the less the patent holder can take.  This is why we have so many &quot;startup companies&quot; built by experienced, previous business owners.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be prepared.  You can't win a patent infringement lawsuit unless you're a huge company or filthy rich.  The software you may be building is great, but if it infringes, it will be short lived.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if you have found prior art, such as an enforceable patent, you may want to contact the patentee start looking into licensing options. Most of the time, licensing agreements come from lawsuits, and they are usually in favor of the patentee because they whittled you down via a patent lawsuit and have you backed into a corner and seem to have leverage on you at this point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The most important advice is to seek assistance from a patent attorney, usually at astronomical costs**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Get ready to be double-taxed on your innovative idea!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5654" RevisionGUID="1671d206-2288-4b6a-9155-ede3cca6f4c6" CreationDate="2013-12-19T16:33:04.847" UserId="7393" Text="##The Secret is BandPass is No Secret!!##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#[FREQUENCY FILTERING in practice][1]#&#xD;&#xA;version 1.0 released 29/1/99&#xD;&#xA;http://www.xsgeo.com/course/filt.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this patent focuses around peak selection and filtering, and has no merit otherwise, it's important to realize how common bandpass filtering is and it's wide use among many fields of frequency analysis (medical, television, search for extra terrestrial and of course musical instruments and sound manipulation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this 1999 article, it clearly states that **bandpass is very common**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ##Introduction##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The commonest form of filtering is to remove unwanted frequency components from the data by bandpass frequency filtering. This may be to remove frequencies above the Nyquist before re-sampling or to remove noise types e.g. low frequency swell noise from the data. Most commonly bandpass filters are applied post-migration to improve the clarity of the display. While filters can be applied in several domains they are usually designed in the frequency domain for clarity. They may be applied in the time domain by convolution or in the frequency domain by multiplication, however this is usually transparent to the user. The user has to decide whether to apply a minimum phase or zero-phase filter and must input sufficient parameters to specify the pass or reject bandwidth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##POST-STACK APPLICATIONS##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Once the data have been migrated they are usually bandpass filtered to improve the clarity of the display by increasing the signal-to-noise ratio. This is required since the higher frequencies are usually lost in the deeper sections due to various attenuation mechanisms and without filtering the clarity of the deeper section is reduced by the presence of high-frequency noise. It is normal to pass higher frequencies in the shallow part of the section and filter high frequencies in the deeper part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the migrated data have been converted to zero-phase then zero-phase filters may be used, otherwise minimum phase filters should be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Written in 1999 Describes methods of '060 and it's description section near perfect**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Common Filters to include BandPass][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.xsgeo.com/course/filt.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/wjr1A.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5655" RevisionGUID="e5c402bb-05a4-434e-9443-948a60b31f37" CreationDate="2013-12-19T16:43:58.763" UserId="7376" Text="US PG Pub 2010/0128897 with priority to Japanese Application 2007-092067 (Mar. 30, 2007), PCT/JP08/55757, then US filing of 371 on Sep. 30 2009.  This seems good 102(b) and 102(e) art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...mixed signals for one frame which are converted into those in a frequency region [fourier transformed == &quot;power spectrum frequency sample&quot;] ... A noise signal selection unit selects a noise signal for each frequency bin on the basis of the amount of noise measured.&quot; (Abstract).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See Fig. 10. Microphones 15 accept sounds, Fourier Transform (FFT) 17 to a power spectrum frequency sample, and noise amount measuring unit 140(240) selects the frequency bin with the loudest or highest magnitude noise. Q.E.D. :^)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8502060&#xD;&#xA;13. A method for pitch detection, comprising: providing one or more power spectrum frequency samples; selecting a frequency in a frequency band having a largest power spectrum magnitude from the one or more power spectrum frequency samples, the frequency band having an upper frequency limit and a lower frequency limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. This reference also discloses &quot;masking&quot; == &quot;suppressing&quot; == &quot;removing&quot; frequency bands as recited in Claim 1 and may be useful in 103 analyses.  I do not see display in this case and this case is directed to noise removal not necessarily tuning - but that hardly matters." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5656" RevisionGUID="995de076-afde-43df-89fe-da45dcfc8d49" CreationDate="2013-12-19T17:29:37.857" UserId="3076" Text="Not published means not available for the public to see at all. The AIA 3rd party submission process window opens at publication and closes six months later or at first action on the merits. For an application with a non-publicatio request that window would seem to never open." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5657" RevisionGUID="58c69f91-abde-45af-a410-14dd720b5f12" CreationDate="2013-12-19T17:42:04.033" UserId="3076" Text="Patents are about structure and function not about snippets of code. If you produce a product that does all of the steps of an enforceable patent then you are infringing. Does your code contain portions of somebody else's code? Patents don't care (copyright does). Does your code, however put together, do all of the steps of a particle claim of a particular patent is the question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The open source project may practice a patent by doing actions a, b, and c. If you do a, b, and c with or without portions of that software then you infringe. If you take all of their code, rearrange it and produce a program that does a, b, but not c, then you are ok. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the patent owner seems to be saying that the patents they own that the code infringes on can be practiced non-comercially." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="05816dad-6ffd-4967-b68d-c286fdfe94f3" CreationDate="2013-12-19T17:48:24.700" UserId="7443" Text="Apple [recently filed for an &quot;Interactive Map&quot; patent][1] that in every way resembles a collection of technologies and methods known as &quot;Geographic Information Systems&quot; (GIS). Claim 1 in particular has been in active use by the GIS community for over 40 years:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for displaying a map on a computing device, Comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; storing information to be displayed on the map in a memory of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computing device, the stored information comprising a plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different layers of information, wherein each layer contains a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; respective type of information; displaying a map on a display of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computing device, the map comprising a plurality of the layers of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information superimposed upon one another; in response to a user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selection of a display mode corresponding to a topic of interest,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; displaying at least one layer containing information that is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; associated with the selected mode; and enhancing the value of at least&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one display parameter for map features of each displayed layer that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are associated with the selected mode, relative to a default value for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the display parameter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible that no patents surrounding this technology have been issued before? Probable holders of patents in this vein include [Esri][2], [Pitney Bowes][3] and [Google][4]. I'd be interested to see what's actually on the books for these methods and technologies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&amp;r=2&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=%28715/771.CCLS.%20AND%2020131219.PD.%29&amp;OS=ccl/715/771%20and%20pd/12/19/2013&amp;RS=%28CCL/715/771%20AND%20PD/20131219%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.esri.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.mapinfo.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/maps/about/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14454" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="05816dad-6ffd-4967-b68d-c286fdfe94f3" CreationDate="2013-12-19T17:48:24.700" UserId="7443" Text="Interactive Map: Is Apple the first to try patenting 40-year-old GIS methods?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14455" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="05816dad-6ffd-4967-b68d-c286fdfe94f3" CreationDate="2013-12-19T17:48:24.700" UserId="7443" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;maps&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="fef4bb29-e171-465f-9710-dfd636336ae5" CreationDate="2013-12-19T18:01:42.810" UserId="7443" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="Apple [recently filed for an &quot;Interactive Map&quot; patent][1] that in every way resembles a collection of technologies and methods known as &quot;Geographic Information Systems&quot; (GIS). Claim 1 in particular has been in active use by the GIS community for over 40 years:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for displaying a map on a computing device, Comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; storing information to be displayed on the map in a memory of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computing device, the stored information comprising a plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different layers of information, wherein each layer contains a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; respective type of information; displaying a map on a display of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computing device, the map comprising a plurality of the layers of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information superimposed upon one another; in response to a user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selection of a display mode corresponding to a topic of interest,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; displaying at least one layer containing information that is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; associated with the selected mode; and enhancing the value of at least&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one display parameter for map features of each displayed layer that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are associated with the selected mode, relative to a default value for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the display parameter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible that no patents surrounding this technology have been issued before? Probable holders of patents in this vein include [Esri][2], [Pitney Bowes][3] and [Google][4]. I'd be interested to see what's actually on the books for these methods and technologies; do you know of any prior art here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's help inform the USPTO!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&amp;r=2&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=%28715/771.CCLS.%20AND%2020131219.PD.%29&amp;OS=ccl/715/771%20and%20pd/12/19/2013&amp;RS=%28CCL/715/771%20AND%20PD/20131219%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.esri.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.mapinfo.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/maps/about/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14457" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="b5db01cc-5fc1-47b3-8d70-ad5beb6ea632" CreationDate="2013-12-19T18:11:18.093" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;maps&gt;&lt;us20130339891&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5645" RevisionGUID="19035124-622d-4452-a22a-14e750b70ba9" CreationDate="2013-12-19T19:11:20.573" UserId="3588" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="Patents are per territory. If something is excluded from exercise only by a U.S. patent (that has been granted and did not yet expire), then in general you are not in violation of the patent if you do not sell it in the U.S. nor do you manufacture it in the U.S. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Disclaimer_: I'm not sure if you would be in some kind of retroactive violation or not, in case it is later extended to the territory where you sell or produce/assemble it. But if it's later extended to those territories you are certainly in violation if you continue after that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Please note I assume you wrote 'Americans' without giving it much thought, but it's not the nationality of a person that matters to the aspect of the right here, but where the product is sold, used, or manufactured/assembled._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a final note, __practically speaking__, you should want to check whether there are international patents or patents of other states linked in patent databases as the equivalents of the U.S. patent in question, before assuming the invention is not patent protected in any given territory. And maybe consider whether what you're doing at all feels ethical or not because the motivation of the question is not very clear... " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5659" RevisionGUID="8478f6b9-5949-4be9-b410-e349c654096a" CreationDate="2013-12-19T20:58:54.627" UserId="7376" Text="http://www.plogue.com/bidule/help/ch04s11.html&#xD;&#xA;Bidule user manual (C) 2001&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;FFT:Time Domain to Spectral Domain Conversion &#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;Spectral To Loudest Freq/Amp&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Takes the frequency+magnitude in input and outputs the loudest frequency with its amplitude&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;==&#xD;&#xA;13. ... comprising: providing one or more power spectrum frequency samples; selecting a frequency in a frequency band having a largest power spectrum magnitude from the one or more power spectrum frequency samples...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5660" RevisionGUID="f7f328e1-df33-48b4-b677-e0f8039b3103" CreationDate="2013-12-19T21:01:43.407" UserId="1843" Text="Hundreds of apps and software programs, and thousands of books, all doing the same thing. How does a basic patent with no new idea and no new embodiment get assigned a patent number? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14461" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5660" RevisionGUID="f7f328e1-df33-48b4-b677-e0f8039b3103" CreationDate="2013-12-19T21:01:43.407" UserId="1843" Text="Pronunciation practice software" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14462" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5660" RevisionGUID="f7f328e1-df33-48b4-b677-e0f8039b3103" CreationDate="2013-12-19T21:01:43.407" UserId="1843" Text="&lt;us20130130212&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5661" RevisionGUID="c99b214d-7843-4c08-bb47-f7fbeb997282" CreationDate="2013-12-19T21:08:34.497" UserId="7376" Text="http://pi.physik.uni-bonn.de/~dieckman/DFT/DFT.html&#xD;&#xA;Amplitude and Phase of a discrete Fourier Spectrum&#xD;&#xA;Last change on: Wed 7 Sep 2011 [not sure when initially published]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;This tutorial describes the calculation of the amplitude and the phase from DFT spectra with finite sampling... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finding Amplitude and Phase for select frequencies&#xD;&#xA;   The next statement collects all bin numbers of the spectrum with bin values [magnitudes] over threshold into a list s.  The threshold is used to suppress insignificant bins...[pseudo/real code follows enabling]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;==&#xD;&#xA;13. A method ... comprising: providing one or more power spectrum frequency samples; selecting a frequency ... having a largest power spectrum magnitude ...." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5660" RevisionGUID="a1d2e5c7-2928-4f79-ba75-c50516ca77e5" CreationDate="2013-12-19T21:17:55.207" UserId="1843" Comment="added 237 characters in body" Text="Hundreds of apps and software programs, and thousands of books, all doing the same thing. How does a basic patent with no new idea and no new embodiment get assigned a patent number? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is simply software to practice speaking the sounds of a new language in different orders. The patent office can't look up the definition of the words used in the filing either? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com.au/patents/US20130130212" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5663" RevisionGUID="1e952c2c-7ca9-42ef-9e55-5b624b6df50a" CreationDate="2013-12-19T21:32:28.947" UserId="7376" Text="http://www.technick.net/public/code/cp_dpage.php?aiocp_dp=guide_dft_db_display&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Music 320 Background Reader&quot; by Julius O. Smith III, (Course Background Reader, Music 320). Copyright © 2001-01-02 by Julius O. Smith III. - Center for Computer Research in Music and Acoustics (CCRMA), Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University. This is a modified HTML version reproduced by permission.&#xD;&#xA;Copyright © 1997-2011 Nicola Asuni - Tecnick.com LTD - All Rights Reserved.&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Code in Matlab:&#xD;&#xA;sound(xw,fs);           % Might as well listen to it&#xD;&#xA;xzp = [xw,zeros(1,N-L)];% Zero-padded FFT input buffer&#xD;&#xA;X = **fft(xzp)**;           % Spectrum of xw, interpolated by factor ZP&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Xmag = abs(X);          % Spectral magnitude**&#xD;&#xA;Xdb = 20*log10(Xmag);   % Spectral magnitude in dB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**XdbMax = max(Xdb);      % Peak dB magnitude**&#xD;&#xA;Xdbn = Xdb - XdbMax;    % Normalize to 0dB peak&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;dBmin = -100;           % **Don't show anything lower than this**&#xD;&#xA;Xdbp = max(Xdbn,dBmin); % Normalized, clipped, dB magnitude spectrum&#xD;&#xA;fmaxp = 2*f;            % Upper frequency limit of plot, in Hz&#xD;&#xA;kmaxp = fmaxp*N/fs;     % Upper frequency limit of plot, in bins&#xD;&#xA;fp = fs*[0:kmaxp]/N;    % Frequency axis in Hz&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;% Ok, plot it already!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;subplot(2,1,1);&#xD;&#xA;plot(1000*t,xw);&#xD;&#xA;xlabel('Time (ms)');&#xD;&#xA;ylabel('Amplitude');&#xD;&#xA;title(**sprintf('a) %d Periods of a %3.0f Hz Sinusoid, Kaiser Windowed**',nper,f));&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5624" RevisionGUID="e3a6edde-d8e8-4dfb-b410-57dbce96181e" CreationDate="2013-12-19T21:33:25.507" UserId="7392" Comment="Link to patent." Text="Drum tuning as compared to tuning most musical instruments does not involve detecting simple series of harmonically related notes (same note in different octaves), but different unrelated notes generated by the sundry different length physical paths that different head resonances travel over. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;060 claim 1 with several means combined describes applying a bandpass filter to a conventional note sniffer measurement string to preferentially isolate one resonance pitch and reject other resonances. This may have some utility in the context of parsing the multiple pitches drums can make when struck at different places on the head. If novel(?) this seems like a narrow improvement patent that should not control the basic measurement technology of generic note sniffers not specifically using a BPF (but I am not a patent lawyer).   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;060 claim 13 seems like a paraphrased version of claim one in abstract terms where instead of a BP filter &quot;means&quot;, the frequency band has an upper and lower limit? This equivalent claims language is unclear (to me) whether they are describing computer software or something else? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a patent related to drum tuning ([US 6,925,880][1]), while I do not use simple note sniffing or FFT (yet). I am familiar with the instrument and technology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6925880" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5664" RevisionGUID="894d56a2-dce6-48c9-915d-5ddc5edce6c7" CreationDate="2013-12-19T21:41:59.253" UserId="7376" Text="Frequency based criterion for distinguishing tonal and noisy &#xD;&#xA;spectral components &#xD;&#xA;http://www.cscjournals.org/csc/manuscript/Journals/SPIJ/volume4/Issue1/SPIJ-56.pdf&#xD;&#xA;International Journal of Computer Science and Security, Volume (4): Issue (1) by M. Kulesza &#xD;&#xA;No copyright notice in casual glance, however, no references cited beyond 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![(1)receives a sound, Fourier Transforms it to Magnitude/Power Spectrum and selects peak magnitude][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/gPkAz.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5624" RevisionGUID="996c34be-d0fb-42b6-945f-6170f165b0b6" CreationDate="2013-12-19T21:42:43.503" UserId="7392" Comment="Added Claim 18" Text="Drum tuning as compared to tuning most musical instruments does not involve detecting simple series of harmonically related notes (same note in different octaves), but different unrelated notes generated by the sundry different length physical paths that different head resonances travel over. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;060 claim 1 with several means combined describes applying a bandpass filter to a conventional note sniffer measurement string to preferentially isolate one resonance pitch and reject other resonances. This may have some utility in the context of parsing the multiple pitches drums can make when struck at different places on the head. If novel(?) this seems like a narrow improvement patent that should not control the basic measurement technology of generic note sniffers not specifically using a BPF (but I am not a patent lawyer).   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;060 claim 13 seems like a paraphrased version of claim one in abstract terms where instead of a BP filter &quot;means&quot;, the frequency band has an upper and lower limit? This equivalent claims language is unclear (to me) whether they are describing computer software or something else? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a patent related to drum tuning ([US 6,925,880][1]), while I do not use simple note sniffing or FFT (yet). I am familiar with the instrument and technology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##US 6,925,880 Claim 18##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for measuring the acoustic properties of a drumhead of a drum, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applying energy to a surface of the drumhead to cause the drumhead to emit acoustic energy therefrom;&#xD;&#xA;receiving acoustic energy emitted from the drumhead using moveable acoustic sensor positioned above the surface of the drumhead and in proximity to a tightening bolt of the drum without substantial interference from other tightening bolts of the drum;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; converting the acoustic energy received by the acoustic sensor into a signal corresponding to an acoustic property of the drumhead; and&#xD;&#xA;adjusting all of the tightening bolts of the drum to a single resonant frequency &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6925880" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5665" RevisionGUID="05de5c73-3a74-4174-8b41-ec8ab14949f4" CreationDate="2013-12-19T21:43:45.003" UserId="1843" Text="If I go to the DMV and try to register a car that doesn't belong to me, or if I enter into a contract under fraudulent assumptions, I could be criminally or civilly liable. I am not free to make false claims in legally binding documents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the criminal penalties for filing a patent based on untrue statements? Is there no reason to ask applicants to swear that they believe that all the claims are valid with penalties for perjury? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14473" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5665" RevisionGUID="05de5c73-3a74-4174-8b41-ec8ab14949f4" CreationDate="2013-12-19T21:43:45.003" UserId="1843" Text="Penalties for errors in patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14474" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5665" RevisionGUID="05de5c73-3a74-4174-8b41-ec8ab14949f4" CreationDate="2013-12-19T21:43:45.003" UserId="1843" Text="&lt;invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5666" RevisionGUID="568182d1-392e-4d73-8f74-6040a8ec7cf7" CreationDate="2013-12-19T21:52:55.260" UserId="7393" Text="One could look at 18 USC 1001 which is required for submitting a US Patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#18 USC 1001#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;&#xD;&#xA;shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're going to sign your name to a patent and put your name on an OATH as required, then you would likely sign a statement like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I hereby acknowledge that any willful false statement made in this declaration is punishable under 18 U.S.C. 1001 by fine or imprisonment of not more than (5) years, or both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then you should have done your homework. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also **Rule 11** to consider for being sued wrongfully over patent infringement, although it is very hard to get. If Rule 11 applied, the attorneys and the plantiff could be responsible for serious damages and even possibly FTC Sanctions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5657" RevisionGUID="75429515-becb-4deb-93d0-16155df74493" CreationDate="2013-12-19T22:15:09.993" UserId="3076" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Patents are about structure and function not about snippets of code. If you produce a product that does all of the steps of an enforceable patent then you are infringing. Does your code contain portions of somebody else's code? Patents don't care (copyright does). Does your code, however put together, do all of the steps of a particular claim of a particular patent is the question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The open source project may practice a patent by doing actions a, b, and c. If you do a, b, and c with or without portions of that software then you infringe. If you take all of their code, rearrange it and produce a program that does a, b, but not c, then you are ok. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the patent owner seems to be saying that the patents they own that the code infringes on can be practiced non-comercially." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5667" RevisionGUID="da9e3f72-f1c1-4efb-a3a9-7be6b88e37c0" CreationDate="2013-12-19T23:14:05.460" UserId="3076" Text="In practice this very rarely comes up. Until a recent case (Therasense) very often the patent practitioner who filed the case would be accused of &quot;inequitable conduct&quot; in an attempt to get a patent torn up. It was a bad situation where patents were made unenforceable for not submitting a document that **provably would not** have made a difference. Now the standards for inequitable conduct are much higher. And that is something that happens in court during an infringement case. The USPTO can go after the registered practitioner and discipline them in egregious cases. I do not think the U.S. attorney ever goes after the inventors or applicant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I presume the patent you are talking about is US 8,502,060. On its front page 32 US patents, 12 US applications, 11 foreign patent documents and 11 non-patent literature documents are cited. That is a lot of prior art and it would be very likely that anything not on that list could be argued to be &quot;cumulative&quot; rather that teaching something above and beyond those 67 documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As noted in another thread, the examination was done very quickly. That is a &quot;feature&quot; of the Accelerated Examination process. The applicant does all of the work of searching, examination, imagines the rejections they might get and responds to those hypothetical rejections in a very detailed manner. This puts the applicant on-record in way that can come back to haunt them later. In a normal examination you try to say as little as possible to overcome the rejections actually presented." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5668" RevisionGUID="73cf155a-7a20-4ca0-893a-621b837db8c5" CreationDate="2013-12-19T23:58:15.743" UserId="7449" Text="I would like to offer my insight. I have asked my professor to present this in class as we are learning about FFT and DSP signal analysis. Perhaps my classmates can join in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of audio training is learning about Apple's Audio Units.  Audio Units have been the cornerstone in apple's audio development for years and is utilized by developers that all would infringe upon this patent.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#[Audio Units on Mac OS][1]#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/musicaudio/Conceptual/AudioUnitProgrammingGuide/TheAudioUnit/TheAudioUnit.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; #Under Listing 2-10#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The audio unit you build in “Tutorial: Building a Simple Effect Unit with a Generic View” makes use of all three of these methods: GetParameterInfo, GetParameter, and SetParameter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;An audio unit sometimes needs to invoke a value change for one of its parameters. It might do this in response to a change (invoked by a view or host) in another parameter. When an audio unit on its own initiative changes a parameter value, it should post an event notification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For example, in a **bandpass filter** audio unit, a user might lower the upper corner frequency to a value below the current setting of the frequency band’s lower limit. The audio unit could respond by lowering the lower corner frequency appropriately. In such a case, the audio unit is responsible for posting an event notification about the self-invoked change. The notification informs the view and the host of the lower corner frequency parameter’s new value. To post the notification, the audio unit follows a call to the SetParameter method with a call to the AUParameterListenerNotify method.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#[Apple Audio Units MAC OSX 10.6 (August, 2009)][2]#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**AudioUnitFrequencyResponseBin**&#xD;&#xA;An audio unit’s audio level at a particular frequency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;typedef struct AudioUnitFrequencyResponseBin {&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   Float64   mFrequency&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   Float64   mMagnitude;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;} AudioUnitFrequencyResponseBin;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; #Fields#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**mFrequency**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**mMagnitude**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Discussion&#xD;&#xA;An array of AudioUnitFrequencyResponseBin are passed in to kAudioUnitProperty_FrequencyResponse with the mFrequency field filled in. The array is returned with the mMagnitude fields filled in. If fewer than kNumberOfResponseFrequencies are needed, then the first unused bin should be marked with a negative frequency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Availability&#xD;&#xA;Available in OS X v10.6 and later. (Aug, 2009)&#xD;&#xA;Declared In&#xD;&#xA;AudioUnitProperties.h&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All apple audio software, to include itunes (think visualizer) and any audio/input output driver on Mac OS uses AudioUnits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Audio Units in IOS Since at Least 2008#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The '060 patent now has priority from Nov 30,2011 over any and all apps that respond to voice recognition, instrument tuning, spectral analysis, and several other applications of various sorts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://developer.apple.com/library/iOS/documentation/AudioUnit/Reference/AudioUnitParametersReference/Reference/reference.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since IOS 2.0 ([July 11, 2008 saw the public release of iPhone OS 2.0, with upgrades through version 2.2.1 made available.)][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ##Constants##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **kMultiChannelMixerParam_Volume**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sets the audio gain for a mixer input or the output.&#xD;&#xA;Range is from 0 (for silence) through 1 (for unity gain).&#xD;&#xA;Available in iOS 2.0 and later.&#xD;&#xA;Declared in AudioUnitParameters.h.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**kMultiChannelMixerParam_PreAveragePower**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Indicates the average “pre” power in decibels (dB). Read only.&#xD;&#xA;Available in iOS 2.0 and later.&#xD;&#xA;Declared in AudioUnitParameters.h.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**kMultiChannelMixerParam_PrePeakHoldLevel**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Indicates the “pre” peak hold level in decibels (dB). Read only.&#xD;&#xA;Available in iOS 2.0 and later.&#xD;&#xA;Declared in AudioUnitParameters.h.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**kMultiChannelMixerParam_PostAveragePower**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Indicates the average “post” power in decibels (dB). Read only.&#xD;&#xA;Available in iOS 2.0 and later.&#xD;&#xA;Declared in AudioUnitParameters.h.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**kMultiChannelMixerParam_PostPeakHoldLevel**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Indicates the “post” peak hold level in decibels (dB). Read only.&#xD;&#xA;Available in iOS 2.0 and later.&#xD;&#xA;Declared in AudioUnitParameters.h.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##[AS OF IOS 5.0 (Release Date: October 12, 2011)][4]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Important Note: Developer Preview of all Apple Code is published in June, 2011. All documents relating to default BandPass filtering were provided public online.  Any app updated to IOS 5 that used spectrum/frequency display of any time would be employing these default methods**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bandpass Unit Parameters&#xD;&#xA;Parameters for the Bandpass unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    enum {&#xD;&#xA;       kBandpassParam_CenterFrequency  = 0,&#xD;&#xA;       kBandpassParam_Bandwidth        = 1&#xD;&#xA;    };&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ##Constants##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **kBandpassParam_CenterFrequency**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Range is from 20 Hz to less than the Nyquist frequency (half the sample rate). Default value is 5,000 Hz. Used on the Global scope.&#xD;&#xA;Available in iOS 5.0 and later.&#xD;&#xA;Declared in AudioUnitParameters.h.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**kBandpassParam_Bandwidth**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Range is from 100 through 12000 cents. Default value is 600 cents. Used on the Global scope.&#xD;&#xA;Available in iOS 5.0 and later.&#xD;&#xA;Declared in AudioUnitParameters.h.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Highpass Unit Parameters&#xD;&#xA;Parameters for the Highpass unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;enum {&#xD;&#xA;   kHipassParam_CutoffFrequency  = 0,&#xD;&#xA;   kHipassParam_Resonance        = 1&#xD;&#xA;};&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;##Constants##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**kHipassParam_CutoffFrequency**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Range is from 10 Hz to less than the Nyquist frequency (half the sample rate). Default value is 6900 Hz. Used on the Global scope.&#xD;&#xA;Available in iOS 5.0 and later.&#xD;&#xA;Declared in AudioUnitParameters.h.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**kHipassParam_Resonance**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Range is from –20 through +40 dB. Default value is 0 dB. Used on the Global scope.&#xD;&#xA;Available in iOS 5.0 and later.&#xD;&#xA;Declared in AudioUnitParameters.h.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;##Lowpass Unit Parameters##&#xD;&#xA;Parameters for the Lowpass unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; enum {&#xD;&#xA;   kLowPassParam_CutoffFrequency  = 0,&#xD;&#xA;   kLowPassParam_Resonance        = 1&#xD;&#xA;};&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;##Constants##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**kLowPassParam_CutoffFrequency**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Range is from 10 Hz to less than the Nyquist frequency (half the sample rate). Default value is 6900 Hz. Used on the Global scope.&#xD;&#xA;Available in iOS 5.0 and later.&#xD;&#xA;Declared in AudioUnitParameters.h.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**kLowPassParam_Resonance**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Range is from –20 through +40 dB. Default value is 0 dB. Used on the Global scope.&#xD;&#xA;Available in iOS 5.0 and later.&#xD;&#xA;Declared in AudioUnitParameters.h.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**High Shelf Filter Unit Parameters**&#xD;&#xA;Parameters for the High Shelf Filter unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;enum {&#xD;&#xA;   kHighShelfParam_CutOffFrequency  = 0,&#xD;&#xA;   kHighShelfParam_Gain             = 1&#xD;&#xA;};&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;##Constants##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**kHighShelfParam_CutOffFrequency**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Range is from 10000 Hz to less than the Nyquist frequency (half the sample rate). Default value is 10000 Hz. Used on the Global scope.&#xD;&#xA;Available in iOS 5.0 and later.&#xD;&#xA;Declared in AudioUnitParameters.h.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**kHighShelfParam_Gain**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Range is from –40 through +40 dB. Default value is 0 dB. Used on the Global scope.&#xD;&#xA;Available in iOS 5.0 and later.&#xD;&#xA;Declared in AudioUnitParameters.h.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;##Low Shelf Filter Unit Parameters##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Parameters for the Low Shelf Filter unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;enum {&#xD;&#xA;   kAULowShelfParam_CutoffFrequency  = 0,&#xD;&#xA;   kAULowShelfParam_Gain             = 1&#xD;&#xA;};&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;#Constants#&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**kAULowShelfParam_CutoffFrequency**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Range is from 10 through 200 Hz. Default value is 80 Hz. Used on the Global scope.&#xD;&#xA;Available in iOS 5.0 and later.&#xD;&#xA;Declared in AudioUnitParameters.h.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**kAULowShelfParam_Gain**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Range is from –40 through +40 dB. Default value is 0 dB. Used on the Global scope.&#xD;&#xA;Available in iOS 5.0 and later.&#xD;&#xA;Declared in AudioUnitParameters.h.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next set of Constants (Defaults) are in relation to the Dynamics Processing, which is the pre-processing of all signals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;##Dynamics Processor Unit Parameters##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Parameters for the Dynamics Processor unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;enum {&#xD;&#xA;   **kDynamicsProcessorParam_Threshold          = 0,**&#xD;&#xA;   kDynamicsProcessorParam_HeadRoom           = 1,&#xD;&#xA;   kDynamicsProcessorParam_ExpansionRatio     = 2,&#xD;&#xA;   kDynamicsProcessorParam_ExpansionThreshold = 3,&#xD;&#xA;   kDynamicsProcessorParam_AttackTime         = 4,&#xD;&#xA;   kDynamicsProcessorParam_ReleaseTime        = 5,&#xD;&#xA;   kDynamicsProcessorParam_MasterGain         = 6,&#xD;&#xA;   kDynamicsProcessorParam_CompressionAmount  = 1000,&#xD;&#xA;   kDynamicsProcessorParam_InputAmplitude     = 2000,&#xD;&#xA;   kDynamicsProcessorParam_OutputAmplitude    = 3000&#xD;&#xA;};&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;##Constants##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**kDynamicsProcessorParam_Threshold**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Range is from –40 through +20 dB. Default value is –20 dB. Used on the Global scope.&#xD;&#xA;Available in iOS 5.0 and later.&#xD;&#xA;Declared in AudioUnitParameters.h.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**kDynamicsProcessorParam_HeadRoom**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Range is from 0.1 through 40 dB. Default value is 5 dB. Used on the Global scope.&#xD;&#xA;Available in iOS 5.0 and later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://developer.apple.com/library/iOS/documentation/AudioUnit/Reference/AudioUnitParametersReference/Reference/reference.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AudioUnits specifically has default settings for peak selection, filtering, cuttoff (high/low pass filters == bandpass filter) and more.  Since these DEFAULTS are on every Apple Audio Unit, anything displaying a spectrum of frequencies, a calculated musical note, or possibly a visualizer would infringe upon '060. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All audio units, especially in the last 5 years on mobile devices has had built-in bandpass and high/low pass filtering. Likewise for amplitude selection. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These filters have been built into Apple's IOS Audio Units for quite sometime. It was often considered that processing every possible signal on a mobile device is not efficient, and reduces battery lifetime considerably.  The same goes for any device that runs on batteries and employs a signal display; especially with a physical motor/servo driven needle. Utilizing frequencies above &quot;predetermined threshold&quot; while suppressing the other signals is Audio 101 for portable devices. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is my belief that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Any Mac OS Software which detects a frequency through a microphone and displays it such as Logic, Garage Band, and several 3rd Party software will utilize a **predetermined threshold** and a high/low (bandpass)filter or an upper and lower frequency bounds&#xD;&#xA;- Any IOS app which will utilize a **predetermined threshold** and a **high/low (bandpass)filter** or an **upper and lower frequency bounds**&#xD;&#xA;- Thousands of applications and software plugins by several vendors prove prior art over this and that it is not a unique concept, yet it's the standard way of performing a signal processing method, at least on Apple. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/musicaudio/Conceptual/AudioUnitProgrammingGuide/TheAudioUnit/TheAudioUnit.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://developer.apple.com/library/Mac/DOCUMENTATION/AudioUnit/Reference/AudioUnitPropertiesReference/Reference/reference.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40007288-4-DontLinkElementID_3&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_version_history&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5669" RevisionGUID="1f38c45f-ebd1-4fff-a6ae-d3d9d128f62f" CreationDate="2013-12-20T00:33:06.267" UserId="7450" Text="In regards to Patent USD637920,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to make a digital watch with it's case similar to this one. How much different does my design need to be in order for it to be legal? Mine would be completly digital and and will be a smart watch with many functions as well. It's look like the picture I have attached. Is this enough of a change?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Isometric][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Another angle][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/CEVat.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/yf0z6.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14484" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5669" RevisionGUID="1f38c45f-ebd1-4fff-a6ae-d3d9d128f62f" CreationDate="2013-12-20T00:33:06.267" UserId="7450" Text="I'd like to make a digital watch with it's case similar to this one. How much different does my design need to be in order for it to be legal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14485" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5669" RevisionGUID="1f38c45f-ebd1-4fff-a6ae-d3d9d128f62f" CreationDate="2013-12-20T00:33:06.267" UserId="7450" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;examination&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14486" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5669" RevisionGUID="995a1104-42e3-413d-8ae2-41ec9e4bb784" CreationDate="2013-12-20T00:39:12.987" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;examination&gt;&lt;usd637920&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5670" RevisionGUID="b74990af-2833-4633-894b-16a79e668775" CreationDate="2013-12-20T01:00:03.380" UserId="1767" Text="[US20130130212 - Language phoneme practice engine][1]&#xD;&#xA;This is a patent **application**. It is not an issued patent.&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some sense, anyone can file a patent application for anything.  Whatever is filed is assigned an application number as an administrative matter to keep things in order. The USPTO uses the application number to track the application while the USPTO evaluates whether the claims are novel, non-obvious, useful, and pertain to a subject matter which can be patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically 18 months after the application is filed it is made public and the dialog between the applicant and the USPTO appears as documents in [Public Pair][2] where anyone can read them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject patent application [US20130130212][3] has received two **non-final rejections** and a **final rejection** by the USPTO on 5/21/13.  The applicant is allowed to pay another fee and file a **Request for Continued Examination** to continue modifying the claims and arguing with the USPTO examiner, which is what this applicant has done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicant had a telephone meeting with the USPTO examiner in December 2013.  The summary of that can be read in the file history as well.  No agreement was reached with the examiner and the patent application would appear to be dead in the water as currently written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent application doesn't entitle the applicant to do anything (except to keep discussions going with the USPTO by paying fees).  It doesn't give the applicant any right to prevent others from making, using or selling a **Language phoneme practice engine** unless it is allowed.  In that case one would need to read the claims carefully to understand what has been patented.  The title is not a sufficient summary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see the file history here on [Public PAIR][4]&#xD;&#xA;![Public PAIR][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130130212&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3330/1767&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130130212&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/fmSLf.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5670" RevisionGUID="2803e9fd-45db-4cd5-90e2-8b879abc4556" CreationDate="2013-12-20T01:05:21.263" UserId="1767" Comment="added 203 characters in body" Text="[US20130130212 - Language phoneme practice engine][1]&#xD;&#xA;This is a patent **application**. It is not an issued patent.&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some sense, anyone can file a patent application for anything.  Whatever is filed is assigned an application number as an administrative matter to keep things in order. The USPTO uses the application number to track the application while the USPTO evaluates whether the claims are novel, non-obvious, useful, and pertain to a subject matter which can be patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically 18 months after the application is filed it is made public and the dialog between the applicant and the USPTO appears as documents in [Public Pair][2] where anyone can read them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject patent application [US20130130212][3] has received two **non-final rejections** and a **final rejection** by the USPTO on 5/21/13.  The applicant is allowed to pay another fee and file a **Request for Continued Examination** to continue modifying the claims and arguing with the USPTO examiner, which is what this applicant has done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicant had a telephone meeting with the USPTO examiner in December 2013.  The summary of that can be read in the file history as well.  No agreement was reached with the examiner and the patent application would appear to be dead in the water as currently written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent application doesn't entitle the applicant to do anything (except to keep discussions going with the USPTO by paying fees).  It doesn't give the applicant any right to prevent others from making, using or selling a **Language phoneme practice engine** unless it is allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If claims ever are allowed by the USPTO for this application, one would need to read to read the claims of the issued patent carefully to understand what has been patented.  The title of the patent application is not a complete summary and often is only tangentially related to the actual invention (which can be much more limited).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see the file history here on [Public PAIR][4]&#xD;&#xA;![Public PAIR][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130130212&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3330/1767&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130130212&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/fmSLf.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5671" RevisionGUID="78c9bd05-f524-464e-85bd-c8384a78aeaf" CreationDate="2013-12-20T01:42:32.230" UserId="3076" Text="It is hard to say. My observations are you have moved the watch face to an entirely different location and you do not have the prominent winder knob." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5672" RevisionGUID="edbe9ac6-6942-40a7-a8ab-47bb33513633" CreationDate="2013-12-20T03:28:24.920" UserId="7449" Text="#This is a Lab at College of Engineering Montana State University Spring of 2006#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## [EE477 Digital Signal Processing Spring 2006][1] ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lab 11&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.coe.montana.edu/ee/rmaher/ee477_SP06/ee477_fftlab_sp06.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Short-time Fourier transform (STFT)# &#xD;&#xA;....&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The DFT is a frequency-sampled version of the Fourier transform, so multiplying the DFT by a **filter function in the frequency domain** is actually the **equivalent of circular convolution**, not linear convolution. This means that the resulting time domain signal may have “time domain aliasing”if the effects of the circular overlap are not accounted for. Refer to an authoritative DSP textbook for the details of this issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Exercise C: STFT for signal processing#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now that the basic pass program is working, you can consider some more interesting STFT- based processing. In this part you will do some signal-dependent processing. Since the DFT gives a complex view of the input signal’s short-time spectrum, we can take advantage of the spectral analysis to do some signal enhancement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is common to have an input signal that is contaminated with unwanted broadband noise. **One way to reduce the undesired noise is to use a spectral threshold**. The algorithm compares the spectral magnitude in each FFT bin to a threshold value. **If the magnitude is above the threshold, it is assumed to be “signal”and gets passed unaltered**. On the other hand, if the measured magnitude in an FFT bin is below the threshold, it is assumed to be noise and the bin is set to zero. If the threshold is chosen carefully, the output signal will have less audible noise than the input signal. **This process is known as a “de-hisser”or a spectral “noise gate.”**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In order to do the threshold test you will need to add another parameter to the block_fft() function: xx=block_fft(in,fftlen,thresh), and use the threshold and the FFT magnitude to take out the FFT bins that are below the threshold. You will also need to experiment with various threshold values, and try different types of input signals to verify that your de-hisser is working. Demonstrate your code by choosing an appropriate threshold value for the noisy speech signal on the course web site (instructor check off C).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.coe.montana.edu/ee/rmaher/ee477_SP06/ee477_fftlab_sp06.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5615" RevisionGUID="7847bf93-0380-40c9-828f-5c37839d2573" CreationDate="2013-12-20T03:41:43.033" UserId="7392" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Considering the **substantial new question of patentability** with prior art that was found in such a short time (5 days so far), one would be curious to how the patent was approved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Information from [USPTO Public Pair System][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To obtain this patent information, go to the search, select Patent, and enter: 8502060 in the search box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will display the Application Data and audit trail (Transaction History).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![USPTO Public Pair Application Data][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the Transaction History, I particularly note no rejections to the claims, and a rapid approval process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Transaction History Part 1][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Transaction History Part 2][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, under Image Wrapper File (public information) you see on 2/15/2013 when the application was filed, it had a **Statement of Preexamination Search** where the applicant cites a prior application and claims that all of the pre examination searches for prior art was completed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Image File Wrapper][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Document ID 13768799 - Statement of Preexamination Search by Applicant#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Statement of Preexamination Search][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other supporting documents in the Image File Wrapper, especially this one, include an OATH or Declaration provided by the applicant which allows the applicant to be punished under 18 U.S.C. 1001.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This oath was provided on 2/15/2013 along with all of the other required documents and barrage of paperwork to the patent examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I hereby acknowledge that any willful false statement made in this declaration is punishable under [18 U.S.C. 1001][7] by fine or imprisonment of not more than (5) years, or both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Oath Document File ID: 13768799][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later the applicant eludes to Rob Toulson's patent in their prior art submission claiming that Toulson's patent as prior art is invalid, which is false.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On 2/15/2013 when the application was submitted, another document titled:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Accelerated Examination Support Document#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Submitted by the applicant, 3 prior art examples noted as &quot;Closest Related Match&quot; begin on page 5.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Accelerated Examination Support Document][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Particularly of concern is relation to Toulson's patent on Page 9 - 12 where the applicant states Rob Toulson's patent and methods are not taught. Page 12 in regards to Claim 13 are particularly concerning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Toulson's Patent Claims Dispute][10] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The point here is this was an accelerated patent and the examiner relied on the applicant's prior-art search, oath, and good word.  This is alarming.#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Take a closer look at this rapid process. 02/15/2013 Filed, 05/28/2013 Approval#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone elude to ever seeing a patent fly through the system this fast? [The USPTO Expedited Examination Program][11] http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/accelerated/index.jsp&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The USPTO has established procedures under which the examination of a patent application may be accelerated. Under one of these procedures, the USPTO will advance an application out of turn for examination if the applicant files a grantable petition to make special under the accelerated examination program. The USPTO is similarly revising the procedures for other petitions to make special, except those based on applicant’s health or age or the PPH pilot program. Other petitions to make special (i.e., based on: manufacture, infringement, environmental quality, energy, recombinant DNA, superconductivity materials, HIV/AIDS and cancer, countering terrorism, and biotechnology applications filed by small entities  MPEP § 708.02 ) will be processed using the revised procedure for accelerated examination. Thus, petitions to make special, except those based on applicant’s health, age, or the  PPH pilot program , will be required to comply with the requirements for petitions to make special under the accelerated examination program as set forth in this notice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, you have the &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#PET.DEC.TC - Petition decision routed to the Technology Center to act on the decision or continue prosecution#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Filed on 3/18/2013 and the patent buzzes along nicely through the system without anyone rejecting claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Petition][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On 5/28/2013 the Patent Examiner publishes his brief prior art search. And rubber stamps it Approved the same day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Patent Examiner Prior Art Search][13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Confused? Where can I buy this kind of expedited processing?#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/57h9k.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/CmMEP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/XXkMy.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/7bnyp.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/EuH9y.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/pdf/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap47-sec1001.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/2R729.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/KnX1D.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/d8P97.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/accelerated/index.jsp&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ypNbZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/pY9Zd.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5673" RevisionGUID="1d418030-3018-4b11-a183-74e3f1c5abc5" CreationDate="2013-12-20T04:44:30.783" UserId="7393" Text="MOTU has been shipping their [CueMix FXsoftware][1] with their mixer units for quite some time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![MOTU Tuner Plugin][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;#[Instrument tuner (Published: 2010-10-14 15:51:06 )][3]#&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Just open the Tuner window, play a note, and use the large graphic display to get in tune with an accuracy of one 10th of a cent (one 1,000th of a semi-tone). Being in tune has never been easier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Tuner displays the detected note by frequency (in Hertz), note name and octave, with an adjustable reference frequency for A4 between 400 and 480 Hz.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The large meter gives you a clear indication of how high or low you are from the detected pitch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Large red arrows direct you up or down as needed to zero in on the correct pitch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You can even tune phase-coherent stereo signals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The CueMix FX Tuner is as advanced and accurate as any dedicated hardware tuner out there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also an FFT Plugin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![FFT Plugin][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;#FFT Display##&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CueMix FX provides an optional real-time FFT display super-imposed on top of the graphic EQ curve so you can see as well as hear the effect of your equalization adjustments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This software ships with [MOTU Audio Interfaces][5] which all have Noise Gates, Bandpass filters, and more built right into the plugins and physical input boards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.motu.com/products/cuemix-fx/tuner-analysis.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.motu.com/products/cuemix-fx/new-in-cuemix&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.motu.com/products/cuemix-fx/tuner-analysis.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/5pkDm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.motu.com/newsitems/download-your-free-tuner-now&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/EYXvt.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.motu.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5676" RevisionGUID="799e7508-903f-461d-b586-56c55b27e381" CreationDate="2013-12-20T13:19:11.803" UserId="7454" Text="as far as I understand, this patent pending is for a huge device which is for intra vaginal observation of the cervix as well as for introducing pregnancy by inserting sperm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless I don't know if it affects my idea of an intra vaginal thermometer used to continuously measuring the woman's temperature. The measurement is thought to be transferred by radio signal and then evaluated by a smartphone app to predict fertility status.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any idea if this patent is affecting my project?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks a lot,&#xD;&#xA;crt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;us20110190581" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14501" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5676" RevisionGUID="799e7508-903f-461d-b586-56c55b27e381" CreationDate="2013-12-20T13:19:11.803" UserId="7454" Text="Is this patent covering my idea of measuring intra vaginal temperature to evaluate it by smartphone app?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14502" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5676" RevisionGUID="799e7508-903f-461d-b586-56c55b27e381" CreationDate="2013-12-20T13:19:11.803" UserId="7454" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5677" RevisionGUID="2ca16fc7-99b7-4c1f-adaa-145367fa1383" CreationDate="2013-12-20T14:51:36.240" UserId="7376" Text="Programming Electronic Music in Pd&#xD;&#xA;Johannes Kreidler &lt;www.kreidler-net.de&gt;&#xD;&#xA;27-01-2009&#xD;&#xA;http://www.pd-tutorial.com/english/ch03s08.html&#xD;&#xA;*This seems a good primer for understanding what's going on with FFT, selection, filtering, displaying, and the like***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.8.1.1 Analyzing partials&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's return to a basic concept of additive synthesis: a sound comprises partials. If you want to find out what the component parts of a sound are, you could employ a set of band-pass filters for every partial:&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;3.8.2.1 Filters&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;3.8.3.2 Tuner&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's one way to build a tuner:&#xD;&#xA;patches/3-8-3-2-tuner.pd&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5678" RevisionGUID="14495bbd-9a8c-46f4-96b9-f573af281407" CreationDate="2013-12-20T15:02:35.830" UserId="7455" Text="I have been a GIS professional since 1969. I helped design and program two major GIS software packages. The first was a system called MOSS (Map Overlay and Statistical System). This fully interactive GIS package was deployed in 1978. MOSS had a command line interface that allowed the user to select map layers of interest (including attribute filters) and control the display of these layers at run time. MOSS was in the public domain and is recognized as the first open source GIS project. Therefore, all MOSS capabilities could be consider as prior art. I have copies of user manuals, design documents, and so forth. These documents are also in the public domain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carl Reed, PhD" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14509" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="5573" RevisionGUID="2a8225f0-209d-43d8-849b-99ab73e76c74" CreationDate="2013-12-20T15:16:53.453" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="14510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5679" RevisionGUID="7ec6fc7b-970e-41b1-b3ca-e6566511833e" CreationDate="2013-12-20T16:16:46.433" UserId="7392" Text="#In Application [US20110190581][1]#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The abstract sounds like your smartphone app idea.  Claim 1 does also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **A method used by a server in a communication network**, the communication network also **having a plurality of sensor devices** and a support computer, each of the plurality of sensor devices capturing sensor data via a vaginal channel of a female reproductive system, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;establishing communication with the plurality of sensor devices;&#xD;&#xA;receiving the sensor data captured by at least one of the plurality of sensor devices via the vaginal channel of the female reproductive system;&#xD;&#xA;generating display data based on the sensor data received; and&#xD;&#xA;delivering the display data to the support computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's important to understand that you'd need to have a **a plurality (more than one) sensor** inserted into the vagina which communicates to a server/computer which is your smartphone in this case.  This patent specifically discusses smartphone as a the desired readout device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best thing for you would be to utilize a Patent Attorney and or this AskPatents website as it seems to have the ability to prevent a patent application from becoming a patent (the main goal here).   If this is a method/software/utility patent, the patent application can file for an expedited review (as we see with the '060 case on pitch detection listed here) and at that point, the patent applicant can claim (under penalties of perjury) that they conducted all prior art searches and can easily argue novel over prior art with little or no rejection from a patent examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the &quot;smartphone&quot; term used in the description, a smartphone is indeed a small computer.  If you can find any prior art that A) uses a vaginal sensor and B) communicates the data to a computer for monitoring the temperature then you should be able to prevent the patent from being granted, moving you out of harms way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember Claim 1 is in an independent claim for a METHOD.  This means that it is not bound to an embodiment, regardless of the Abstract, Description, and such. If you can find anything to invalidate that claim, that is not listed as Prior Art, then you have helped yourself as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last, beware that you can and most likely will be served with a demand letter followed by a lawsuit just by merely entering into the same market with a similar concept.  Even if your product does not infringe, it still does not matter when being sued.  All the patentee has to claim is that you infringed on their patent. They are not required to act in good faith and tell you how you infringed, or what you owe. Patents can be asserted in bad faith to destroy competition, hence monopolizing.  The estimated cost to defending a patent infringement case is $2.6 million US.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110190581" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14511" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5676" RevisionGUID="ae83a50a-6d8a-4edb-8fab-c6ad48705e5f" CreationDate="2013-12-20T16:30:22.613" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;us20110190581&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5679" RevisionGUID="17b89727-76f1-4591-be0f-a5c51dc8441f" CreationDate="2013-12-20T16:32:26.950" UserId="7392" Comment="added 720 characters in body" Text="#In Application [US20110190581][1]#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The abstract sounds like your smartphone app idea.  Claim 1 does also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **A method used by a server in a communication network**, the communication network also **having a plurality of sensor devices** and a support computer, each of the plurality of sensor devices capturing sensor data via a vaginal channel of a female reproductive system, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;establishing communication with the plurality of sensor devices;&#xD;&#xA;receiving the sensor data captured by at least one of the plurality of sensor devices via the vaginal channel of the female reproductive system;&#xD;&#xA;generating display data based on the sensor data received; and&#xD;&#xA;delivering the display data to the support computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's important to understand for claim 1 that you'd need to have a **a plurality (more than one) sensor** inserted into the vagina which communicates to a server/computer which is your smartphone in this case.  This patent specifically discusses smartphone as a the desired readout device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(Edit: Added Claim 7 to answer)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 7##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A method used by a server in a communication network to make a related data selection from a plurality of data, **the communication network comprising a medical sensor device that captures sensor data** via a vaginal channel of a female reproductive system, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;establishing communication with the medical sensor device;&#xD;&#xA;receiving the sensor data captured by the medical sensor device; and&#xD;&#xA;selecting the related data from the plurality of data, the selection being based at least in part on the sensor data received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In claim 7, it only discusses a single sensor device receiving a plurality of data.  Beware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best thing for you would be to utilize a Patent Attorney and or this AskPatents website as it seems to have the ability to prevent a patent application from becoming a patent (the main goal here).   If this is a method/software/utility patent, the patent application can file for an expedited review (as we see with the '060 case on pitch detection listed here) and at that point, the patent applicant can claim (under penalties of perjury) that they conducted all prior art searches and can easily argue novel over prior art with little or no rejection from a patent examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the &quot;smartphone&quot; term used in the description, a smartphone is indeed a small computer.  If you can find any prior art that A) uses a vaginal sensor and B) communicates the data to a computer for monitoring the temperature then you should be able to prevent the patent from being granted, moving you out of harms way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember Claim 1 is in an independent claim for a METHOD.  This means that it is not bound to an embodiment, regardless of the Abstract, Description, and such. If you can find anything to invalidate that claim, that is not listed as Prior Art, then you have helped yourself as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last, beware that you can and most likely will be served with a demand letter followed by a lawsuit just by merely entering into the same market with a similar concept.  Even if your product does not infringe, it still does not matter when being sued.  All the patentee has to claim is that you infringed on their patent. They are not required to act in good faith and tell you how you infringed, or what you owe. Patents can be asserted in bad faith to destroy competition, hence monopolizing.  The estimated cost to defending a patent infringement case is $2.6 million US.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110190581" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5681" RevisionGUID="8f1abd04-ef50-4dd8-aef0-d1cfa054b51a" CreationDate="2013-12-20T17:19:15.917" UserId="7392" Text="I would like to introduce as Prior Art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#[Google Maps][1]#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://maps.google.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Google Maps][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://maps.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/8bCti.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5682" RevisionGUID="77a62242-a9e3-45cf-a12c-706a366faa95" CreationDate="2013-12-20T17:23:02.470" UserId="7392" Text="#Quiznos Store Locator#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Locates a store with selectable map modes. Common across thousands of websites, in-app maps, and more. Excludes (method of suppressing) outside map data based on the person's location (search criteria) which can be geo-targeted through javascript.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.quiznos.com/storeLocator.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Quiznos Store Locator][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/TJ5DM.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="9590b153-aabd-43bf-9b80-bf543cd3109b" CreationDate="2013-12-20T18:55:39.043" UserId="7376" Comment="Help give direction on what prior art can kill the map application" Text="Apple [recently filed for an &quot;Interactive Map&quot; patent][1] that in every way resembles a collection of technologies and methods known as &quot;Geographic Information Systems&quot; (GIS). Claim 1 in particular has been in active use by the GIS community for over 40 years:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for displaying a map on a computing device, Comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; storing information to be displayed on the map in a memory of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computing device, the stored information comprising a plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different layers of information, wherein each layer contains a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; respective type of information; displaying a map on a display of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computing device, the map comprising a plurality of the layers of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information superimposed upon one another; in response to a user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selection of a display mode corresponding to a topic of interest,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; displaying at least one layer containing information that is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; associated with the selected mode; and enhancing the value of at least&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one display parameter for map features of each displayed layer that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are associated with the selected mode, relative to a default value for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the display parameter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likely innovators/publishers(manuals...)/patentees in this vein include [Esri][2], [Pitney Bowes][3] and [Google][4]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help find prior art from June 5th 2012 or before.&#xD;&#xA;Prior art can be any publication (webpage, user manual, paper, book, youtube video, patent pre-grant publication) or patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's help inform the USPTO!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&amp;r=2&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=%28715/771.CCLS.%20AND%2020131219.PD.%29&amp;OS=ccl/715/771%20and%20pd/12/19/2013&amp;RS=%28CCL/715/771%20AND%20PD/20131219%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.esri.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.mapinfo.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/maps/about/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5683" RevisionGUID="46f6c056-8897-4807-a2c0-77bcc2d52798" CreationDate="2013-12-20T19:11:00.687" UserId="7376" Text="Egyptian Goddess v. Swissa case defines the standard for infringement of a design patent: the point of novelty test should no longer be used in the analysis for determining design patent infringement as it is inconsistent with the &quot;ordinary observer&quot; test to be applied (following Gorham v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 528 (1872)). However, the ordinary observer comparison between the patented design and the accused design can take into account the context of similar designs found in the prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5685" RevisionGUID="2f2f2812-70bd-440e-be19-646e8726c6d9" CreationDate="2013-12-20T23:38:58.187" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Determine shareability of online content and generate customer relevance scores** - This application from a few independent social media &quot;experts&quot; seeks to patent the idea of...Obtaining social media data from multiple social media platforms relative to online content, calculating a customer relevance score that represents shareability of the online content and providing the customer relevance score to an end user client device.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/18/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Measuring &quot;shareability&quot; of online content; evaluating tone of content and whether content is relevant to one's potential customers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Calculation of the **customer relevance score** comprises calculating an **author rank** for an author by determining an influence for the author, dividing the **author rank** by a sum of **author ranks** for a plurality of authors to calculate an **adjusted author rank score**, multiplying the adjusted **author rank score** with three weighted components .&#xD;&#xA;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determine shareability of online content and generate customer relevance scores**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Obtaining **social media data** from multiple **social media platforms** relative to **online content**, calculating a **customer relevance score** that represents shareability of the **online content** and providing the **customer relevance score** to an **end user**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130046760 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/587,789&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Michelle Amanda Evans, Elizabeth Ann High, Russell Taufa&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/18/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 8/20/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for determining the shareability of online content, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining, via a social media intelligence system, social media data from one or more social media platforms relative to online content;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Calculating, via the social media intelligence system, a customer relevance score that represents shareability of the online content; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing the customer relevance score to an end user client device by the social media intelligence system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for determining the shareability of online content, the method comprising the following steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining social media data from multiple social media platforms relative to online content;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Calculating a customer relevance score that represents shareability of the online content; and Calculating a customer relevance score that represents shareability of the online content; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing the customer relevance score to an end user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/18/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Identifying content that is to be tracked to determine the shareability of the content, tracking social media conversations of authors related to the content, grouping the social media conversations into one or more shareability classifications by conducting a semiotic evaluation of the social media conversations, and categorizing any of authors and social media conversations based upon the classification of social media conversations into one or more shareability classifications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Determine shareability of online content and generate customer relevance scores&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/2L2EiTs.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130046760 &#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130046760 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14526" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5685" RevisionGUID="2f2f2812-70bd-440e-be19-646e8726c6d9" CreationDate="2013-12-20T23:38:58.187" UserId="1767" Text="Online content - Using social media data to measure sentiment for a product - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14527" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5685" RevisionGUID="2f2f2812-70bd-440e-be19-646e8726c6d9" CreationDate="2013-12-20T23:38:58.187" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;social-networking&gt;&lt;us20130046760a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5685" RevisionGUID="2e30eeef-4933-42fe-98ab-90f59fec13b9" CreationDate="2013-12-20T23:48:57.487" UserId="1767" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON determining the shareability of online content and generating customer relevance scores** - This application from a few independent social media &quot;experts&quot; seeks to patent the idea of...Obtaining social media data from multiple social media platforms relative to online content, calculating a customer relevance score that represents shareability of the online content and providing the customer relevance score to an end user client device.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/18/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Measuring &quot;shareability&quot; of online content; evaluating tone of content and whether content is relevant to potential customers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Calculation of the **customer relevance score** comprises calculating an **author rank** for an author by determining an influence for the author, dividing the **author rank** by a sum of **author ranks** for a plurality of authors to calculate an **adjusted author rank score**, multiplying the adjusted **author rank score** with three weighted components .&#xD;&#xA;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determine shareability of online content and generate customer relevance scores**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Obtaining **social media data** from multiple **social media platforms** relative to **online content**, calculating a **customer relevance score** that represents shareability of the **online content** and providing the **customer relevance score** to an **end user**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130046760 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/587,789&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Michelle Amanda Evans, Elizabeth Ann High, Russell Taufa&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/18/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 8/20/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for determining the shareability of online content, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining, via a social media intelligence system, social media data from one or more social media platforms relative to online content;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Calculating, via the social media intelligence system, a customer relevance score that represents shareability of the online content; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing the customer relevance score to an end user client device by the social media intelligence system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for determining the shareability of online content, the method comprising the following steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining social media data from multiple social media platforms relative to online content;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Calculating a customer relevance score that represents shareability of the online content; and Calculating a customer relevance score that represents shareability of the online content; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing the customer relevance score to an end user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/18/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Identifying content that is to be tracked to determine the shareability of the content, tracking social media conversations of authors related to the content, grouping the social media conversations into one or more shareability classifications by conducting a semiotic evaluation of the social media conversations, and categorizing any of authors and social media conversations based upon the classification of social media conversations into one or more shareability classifications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Determine shareability of online content and generate customer relevance scores&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/2L2EiTs.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130046760 &#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130046760 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5685" RevisionGUID="4ffda72c-dd60-493b-a6ff-195d7648faa6" CreationDate="2013-12-21T00:17:17.230" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 59 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON determining the shareability of online content and generating customer relevance scores** - This application from a few independent social media &quot;experts&quot; seeks to patent the idea of...Obtaining social media data from multiple social media platforms relative to online content, calculating a customer relevance score that represents shareability of the online content and providing the customer relevance score to an end user client device.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/18/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Measuring &quot;shareability&quot; of online content; evaluating tone of content and whether content is relevant to potential customers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Calculation of the **customer relevance score** comprises calculating an **author rank** for an author by determining an influence for the author, dividing the **author rank** by a sum of **author ranks** for a plurality of authors to calculate an **adjusted author rank score**, multiplying the adjusted **author rank score** with three weighted components .&#xD;&#xA;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determine shareability of online content and generate customer relevance scores**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Obtaining **social media data** from multiple **social media platforms** relative to **online content**, calculating a **customer relevance score** that represents shareability of the **online content** and providing the **customer relevance score** to an **end user**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130046760 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/587,789&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Michelle Amanda Evans, Elizabeth Ann High, Russell Taufa&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/18/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for determining the shareability of online content, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining, via a social media intelligence system, social media data from one or more social media platforms relative to online content;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Calculating, via the social media intelligence system, a customer relevance score that represents shareability of the online content; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing the customer relevance score to an end user client device by the social media intelligence system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for determining the shareability of online content, the method comprising the following steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining social media data from multiple social media platforms relative to online content;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Calculating a customer relevance score that represents shareability of the online content; and Calculating a customer relevance score that represents shareability of the online content; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing the customer relevance score to an end user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/18/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Identifying content that is to be tracked to determine the shareability of the content, tracking social media conversations of authors related to the content, grouping the social media conversations into one or more shareability classifications by conducting a semiotic evaluation of the social media conversations, and categorizing any of authors and social media conversations based upon the classification of social media conversations into one or more shareability classifications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Determine shareability of online content and generate customer relevance scores&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/2L2EiTs.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130046760 &#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130046760 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="d53c9541-3299-47d3-8170-6c4e94370ed0" CreationDate="2013-12-21T00:31:22.227" UserId="1767" Comment="added 704 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Apple [recently filed for an &quot;Interactive Map&quot; patent][1] that in every way resembles a collection of technologies and methods known as &quot;Geographic Information Systems&quot; (GIS). 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 in particular has been in active use by the GIS community for over 40 years:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for **displaying a map on a computing device**, Comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Storing information to be displayed on the map in a memory of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computing device, the stored information comprising a plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different layers of information, wherein each layer contains a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; respective type of information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Displaying a map on a display of the computing device, the map comprising&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a plurality of the layers of information superimposed upon one another;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - In response to a user selection of a display mode corresponding to a topic of interest, displaying at least one layer containing information that is associated with the selected mode; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Enhancing the value of at least one display parameter for map features of each displayed layer that are associated with the selected mode, relative to a default value for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the display parameter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likely innovators/publishers(manuals...)/patentees in this vein include [Esri][2], [Pitney Bowes][3] and [Google][4]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help find prior art from **June 5th 2012 or earlier**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior art can be any publication (webpage, user manual, paper, book, youtube video, patent pre-grant publication) or patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's help inform the USPTO!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Publication Number: **[US20130339891][1]**&#xD;&#xA;- Priority Date: Seeking prior art predating **Jun 5, 2012**&#xD;&#xA;- Assignee: Apple, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][5].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][6] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&amp;r=2&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=%28715/771.CCLS.%20AND%2020131219.PD.%29&amp;OS=ccl/715/771%20and%20pd/12/19/2013&amp;RS=%28CCL/715/771%20AND%20PD/20131219%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.esri.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.mapinfo.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/maps/about/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14531" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="d53c9541-3299-47d3-8170-6c4e94370ed0" CreationDate="2013-12-21T00:31:22.227" UserId="1767" Comment="added 704 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Interactive Map: Is Apple the first to try patenting 40-year-old GIS methods? - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14532" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="d53c9541-3299-47d3-8170-6c4e94370ed0" CreationDate="2013-12-21T00:31:22.227" UserId="1767" Comment="added 704 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;maps&gt;&lt;us20130339891&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="3221d7f8-3fd0-4640-9d39-b824e6a4618e" CreationDate="2013-12-21T00:38:18.000" UserId="1767" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Apple [recently filed for an &quot;Interactive Map&quot; patent][1] that in every way resembles a collection of technologies and methods known as &quot;Geographic Information Systems&quot; (GIS). 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 in particular has been in active use by the GIS community for over 40 years:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for **displaying a map on a computing device**, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Storing information to be displayed on the map in a memory of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computing device, the stored information comprising a plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different layers of information, wherein each layer contains a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; respective type of information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Displaying a map on a display of the computing device, the map comprising&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a plurality of the layers of information superimposed upon one another;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - In response to a user selection of a display mode corresponding to a topic of interest, displaying at least one layer containing information that is associated with the selected mode; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Enhancing the value of at least one display parameter for map features of each displayed layer that are associated with the selected mode, relative to a default value for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the display parameter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likely innovators/publishers(manuals...)/patentees in this vein include [Esri][2], [Pitney Bowes][3] and [Google][4]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help find prior art from **June 5th 2012 or earlier**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior art can be any publication (webpage, user manual, paper, book, youtube video, patent pre-grant publication) or patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's help inform the USPTO!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Publication Number: **[US 20130339891 A1][5]**&#xD;&#xA;- Priority Date: Seeking prior art predating **Jun 5, 2012**&#xD;&#xA;- Assignee: Apple, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Interactive Map US20130339891][6]&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][7].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][8] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&amp;r=2&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=%28715/771.CCLS.%20AND%2020131219.PD.%29&amp;OS=ccl/715/771%20and%20pd/12/19/2013&amp;RS=%28CCL/715/771%20AND%20PD/20131219%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.esri.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.mapinfo.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/maps/about/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&amp;r=2&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=%28715/771.CCLS.%20AND%2020131219.PD.%29&amp;OS=ccl/715/771%20and%20pd/12/19/2013&amp;RS=%28CCL/715/771%20AND%20PD/20131219%29&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/pkgiB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14534" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="3221d7f8-3fd0-4640-9d39-b824e6a4618e" CreationDate="2013-12-21T00:38:18.000" UserId="1767" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Interactive Map - Is Apple trying to patent 40-year-old GIS methods? - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="c8dbdc90-12ab-41d7-a149-5077d5f48179" CreationDate="2013-12-21T01:00:58.980" UserId="1767" Comment="added 347 characters in body" Text="Apple [recently filed for an &quot;Interactive Map&quot; patent][1] that in every way resembles a collection of technologies and methods known as &quot;Geographic Information Systems&quot; (GIS). 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 in particular has been in active use by the GIS community for over 40 years:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for **displaying a map on a computing device**, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Storing information to be displayed on the map in a memory of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computing device, the stored information comprising a plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different layers of information, wherein each layer contains a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; respective type of information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Displaying a map on a display of the computing device, the map comprising&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a plurality of the layers of information superimposed upon one another;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - In response to a user selection of a display mode corresponding to a topic of interest, displaying at least one layer containing information that is associated with the selected mode; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Enhancing the value of at least one display parameter for map features of each displayed layer that are associated with the selected mode, relative to a default value for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the display parameter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likely innovators/publishers(manuals...)/patentees in this vein include [Esri][2], [Pitney Bowes][3] and [Google][4]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help find prior art from **June 5th 2012 or earlier**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior art can be any publication (webpage, user manual, paper, book, youtube video, patent pre-grant publication) or patent. **It is helpful to establish a date when the prior art was available to the public and a solid reference which can be cited by the USPTO**.  A citable reference can often be found in a contemporaneous publication about the technology in magazine, blog, or scientific article.  Another place to look is [The Wayback Machine](https://archive.org/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's help inform the USPTO!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Publication Number: **[US 20130339891 A1][5]**&#xD;&#xA;- Priority Date: Seeking prior art predating **Jun 5, 2012**&#xD;&#xA;- Assignee: Apple, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Interactive Map US20130339891][6]&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][7].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][8] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&amp;r=2&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=%28715/771.CCLS.%20AND%2020131219.PD.%29&amp;OS=ccl/715/771%20and%20pd/12/19/2013&amp;RS=%28CCL/715/771%20AND%20PD/20131219%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.esri.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.mapinfo.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/maps/about/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&amp;r=2&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=%28715/771.CCLS.%20AND%2020131219.PD.%29&amp;OS=ccl/715/771%20and%20pd/12/19/2013&amp;RS=%28CCL/715/771%20AND%20PD/20131219%29&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/pkgiB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5685" RevisionGUID="022c3016-618a-4829-901c-04815fa26106" CreationDate="2013-12-21T06:51:09.973" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON determining the shareability of online content and generating customer relevance scores** - This application from a few independent social media &quot;experts&quot; seeks to patent the idea of...Obtaining social media data from multiple social media platforms relative to online content, calculating a customer relevance score that represents shareability of the online content and providing the customer relevance score to an end user client device.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/18/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Measuring &quot;shareability&quot; of online content; evaluating tone of content and whether content is relevant to potential customers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Calculation of the **customer relevance score** comprises calculating an **author rank** for an author by determining an influence for the author, dividing the **author rank** by a sum of **author ranks** for a plurality of authors to calculate an **adjusted author rank score**, multiplying the adjusted **author rank score** with three weighted components .&#xD;&#xA;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determine shareability of online content and generate customer relevance scores**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Obtaining **social media data** from multiple **social media platforms** relative to **online content**, calculating a **customer relevance score** that represents shareability of the **online content** and providing the **customer relevance score** to an **end user**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130046760 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/587,789&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Michelle Amanda Evans, Elizabeth Ann High, Russell Taufa&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/18/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for determining the shareability of online content, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining, via a social media intelligence system, social media data from one or more social media platforms relative to online content;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Calculating, via the social media intelligence system, a customer relevance score that represents shareability of the online content; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing the customer relevance score to an end user client device by the social media intelligence system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for determining the shareability of online content, the method comprising the following steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining social media data from multiple social media platforms relative to online content;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Calculating a customer relevance score that represents shareability of the online content; and Calculating a customer relevance score that represents shareability of the online content; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing the customer relevance score to an end user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/18/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Identifying content that is to be tracked to determine the shareability of the content, tracking social media conversations of authors related to the content, grouping the social media conversations into one or more shareability classifications by conducting a semiotic evaluation of the social media conversations, and categorizing any of authors and social media conversations based upon the classification of social media conversations into one or more shareability classifications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Determine shareability of online content and generate customer relevance scores&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/2L2EiTs.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130046760 &#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130046760 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5688" RevisionGUID="06b648e2-5ca9-4636-9d2b-26dfdd9b824e" CreationDate="2013-12-21T15:45:16.483" UserId="7393" Text="#Non Cited Prior Art#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#[US 4227437 A (1977)][1]#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Frequency detecting apparatus#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note: a stringed instrument is also a resonant structure, in fact everything in the world resonates and therefore is a resonant structure.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Abstract##&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A detecting apparatus for tuning musical instruments receives an input signal from a sound transducer and removes second harmonic content therefrom by means of a filter responsive to a note and octave selection. A phase lock pulse generator receives the filtered output and generates a signal in step with the input sound signal. The generated signal is counted by a note counter during a gating period derived by counting a predetermined number of output cycles of an oscillator started in step with the input signal. Three outputs indicating &quot;on-frequency&quot;, &quot;sharp&quot; or &quot;flat&quot; are supplied in the alternative at the end of the gating period in accordance with the count in the note counter at that time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 1##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Frequency detection apparatus for tuning a stringed instrument or the like, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a transducer for receiving sound information from a vibrating string on said instrument and for converting the same into an electrical signal of like frequency,&#xD;&#xA;selection means for selecting a note corresponding to a correct frequency to be detected,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**a filter for receiving said electrical signal and responsive to said selection means for filtering second harmonic information from said electrical signal,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a first oscillator phase locked to the signal provided by said filter for generating a phase locked signal,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **a second oscillator also responsive to the signal provided by said filter to produce a standard frequency output signal initiated in synchronous time relation with the signal provided by said filter,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a control counter coupled to the output of said second oscillator for counting the output cycles of said standard frequency output signal, and a gating circuit responsive to a count of said control counter for gating said phase locked signal during a gating period as determined by a predetermined counted number of cycles of said standard frequency output signal,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; note counter means coupled for receiving the phase locked signal as gated by said gating circuit for detecting whether the number of output cycles of the gated phase locked signal received during said gating period reaches a predetermined count corresponding to the note selected by said selection means, and&#xD;&#xA;display means for producing first, second and third indications for respectively indicating substantial identity in frequency between the electrical signal and the note selected by said selection means, or whether the electrical signal is above or below said note, said display means receiving the output of said note counter means substantially at the end of said gating period produced by said gating circuit to determine whether said note counter means has made a full count corresponding to the selected note substantially at the end of said gating period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 2##&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The apparatus according to claim 1 wherein said note counter means includes a note counter for counting said phase locked signal as gated by said gating circuit, and a plurality of note gates, each responsive to a note selection by said selection means for recognizing a particular count output from said note counter, said note gates supplying a common output,&#xD;&#xA;said display means being responsive to said gating circuit at the end of the gating period for testing said common output from said note gates to determine whether said note counter means has made said full count corresponding to the selected note substantially at the end of said gating period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 3##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The apparatus according to claim 1 wherein said note counter means includes a note counter for counting said phase locked signal as gated by said gating circuit, and a plurality of note gates, each responsive to a note selection by said selection means for recognizing a particular count output from said note counter, said note gates supplying a common output,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said display means being responsive to said gating circuit at the end of the gating period for testing said common output from said note gates to determine whether said note counter means has made said full count corresponding to the selected note substantially at the end of said gating period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent claims (paraphrased):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Plucking a string ( a resonant structure per '060 )&#xD;&#xA; - Identifying the note via the tuner means&#xD;&#xA; - Applying a BandPass Filter around the detected note (target frequency).&#xD;&#xA; - Providing a gating mechanism (for sounds above a predetermined threshold).&#xD;&#xA; - Deriving subsequent signals above a predetermined threshold with a high/low filter bounds determined by the previous signal (as per any filter has, that is what a filter is.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4227437" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5689" RevisionGUID="d6f59595-2b18-4ce2-9f48-edefb69968f1" CreationDate="2013-12-21T16:24:13.100" UserId="7392" Text="#Non-Cited Prior Art#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##[US 3812432 A (Priority Jan 5, 1973)][1]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US3812432&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tone detector##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Description (Abstracted)##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More specifically, a tone detector, in accordance with the invention, **includes a threshold detector** for generating a substantially constant amplitude pulsating signal representative of intervals between prescribed levels of the instantaneous amplitude of an applied signal, for example, positive and negative peak amplitudes. **No pulsating signal is generated during intervals in which the amplitude of the applied signal is below the prescribed level.** The presence of frequency components of interest in the applied signal is determined by supplying the pulsating signal to appropriate filters. The peak value of the output from each filter is detected and compared with a predetermined reference signal to determine, in accordance with the invention, whether the particular filter output represents the fundamental frequency of the applied signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;An additional aspect of the instant invention is concerned with **eliminating possible detection errors caused by noise signals**. Such errors are substantially eliminated, in accordance with the invention, **by inhibiting the operation of the threshold detector until the is disabled until the average amplitude of the applied signal exceeds a predetermined value.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - FIG. 1 depicts a tone detector circuit illustrating the invention;&#xD;&#xA; - FIG. 2 shows in greater detail a threshold detector which may be utilized in the tone detector of FIG. 1;&#xD;&#xA; - FIG. 3 illustrates details of an average detector which may be employed in the circuit of FIG. 1;&#xD;&#xA; - FIG. 4 depicts details of a frequency component detector which may be used in the tone detector of FIG. 1; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - FIGS. 5A, 5B and 5C each show a sequence of waveforms useful in describing operational modes of the tone detector of FIG. 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 1##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A tone detector circuit which comprises:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **means responsive to an applied signal for generating a pulsating signal having a substantially constant amplitude and being representative of intervals between prescribed amplitude levels of said applied signal, said pulsating signal generating means being selectively disabled in response to a predetermined signal being supplied thereto;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means in circuit relationship with said pulsating signal generating means and being **responsive to at least one predetermined frequency component** of said pulsating signal for generating a pulse signal representative of intervals when the **amplitude of said at least one frequency component exceeds a predetermined reference level**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **means for detecting a predetermined amplitude characteristic of said applied signal**; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means in circuit relationship with said amplitude detecting means and said pulsating signal generating means and being responsive to the output from said amplitude detecting means for generating a signal **to disable said pulsating signal generating means during intervals when the output from said amplitude detecting means is below a predetermined level**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Suppressing below a predetermined threshold is the same as displaying above a predetermined threshold**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 2##&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A tone detector as defined in claim 1 wherein said amplitude detecting means includes means for generating a signal representative of the average amplitude of said applied signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 3##&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A tone detector as defined in claim 1 wherein said pulsating signal generating means includes a threshold detector for generating a pulsating signal having a substantially constant amplitude and being representative of intervals between prescribed values of the instantaneous amplitude of said applied signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 4##&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A tone detector as defined in claim 3 wherein said pulse signal generating means includes filter means in circuit relationship with said threshold detector for passing only said at least one frequency component of said pulsating signal and level detector means in circuit with said filter means for generating said pulse signal during intervals in which the amplitude of said at least one frequency component exceeds a predetermined level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 5##&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A tone detector as defined in claim 4 wherein said level detector means includes peak detector means in circuit with said filter means for generating a unipolarity signal having an amplitude proportional to the peak amplitude value of said at least one frequency component output from said filter means and comparator means having first and second inputs and an output, a reference signal source being connected in circuit with said first input, said peak detector means being connected in circuit with said second input and said comparator means being responsive to a reference signal and to said unipolarity signal for generating said pulse signal at said comparator means output during intervals in which the amplitude of said unipolarity signal exceeds the amplitude of said reference signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, 3812432 is a method of detecting tone above a predetermined threshold, limited by filter means to identify the tone.  '060 Claim 13 and quite possibly Claim 1 invalid.  By displaying the output of any calculations, equated to digits represented by frequencies, this is effectively the same as '060 in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3812432" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5689" RevisionGUID="db61843a-f6a0-4e8b-9dce-391ae947ae6c" CreationDate="2013-12-21T16:33:20.427" UserId="7392" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="#Non-Cited Prior Art#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##[US 3812432 A (Priority Jan 5, 1973)][1]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US3812432&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tone detector##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Description (Abstracted)##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More specifically, a tone detector, in accordance with the invention, **includes a threshold detector** for generating a substantially constant amplitude pulsating signal representative of intervals between prescribed levels of the instantaneous amplitude of an applied signal, for example, positive and negative peak amplitudes. **No pulsating signal is generated during intervals in which the amplitude of the applied signal is below the prescribed level.** The presence of frequency components of interest in the applied signal is determined by supplying the pulsating signal to appropriate filters. The peak value of the output from each filter is detected and compared with a predetermined reference signal to determine, in accordance with the invention, whether the particular filter output represents the fundamental frequency of the applied signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;An additional aspect of the instant invention is concerned with **eliminating possible detection errors caused by noise signals**. Such errors are substantially eliminated, in accordance with the invention, **by inhibiting the operation of the threshold detector until the is disabled until the average amplitude of the applied signal exceeds a predetermined value.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - FIG. 1 depicts a tone detector circuit illustrating the invention;&#xD;&#xA; - FIG. 2 shows in greater detail a threshold detector which may be utilized in the tone detector of FIG. 1;&#xD;&#xA; - FIG. 3 illustrates details of an average detector which may be employed in the circuit of FIG. 1;&#xD;&#xA; - FIG. 4 depicts details of a frequency component detector which may be used in the tone detector of FIG. 1; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - FIGS. 5A, 5B and 5C each show a sequence of waveforms useful in describing operational modes of the tone detector of FIG. 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 1##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A tone detector circuit which comprises:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **means responsive to an applied signal for generating a pulsating signal having a substantially constant amplitude and being representative of intervals between prescribed amplitude levels of said applied signal, said pulsating signal generating means being selectively disabled in response to a predetermined signal being supplied thereto;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means in circuit relationship with said pulsating signal generating means and being **responsive to at least one predetermined frequency component** of said pulsating signal for generating a pulse signal representative of intervals when the **amplitude of said at least one frequency component exceeds a predetermined reference level**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **means for detecting a predetermined amplitude characteristic of said applied signal**; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means in circuit relationship with said amplitude detecting means and said pulsating signal generating means and being responsive to the output from said amplitude detecting means for generating a signal **to disable said pulsating signal generating means during intervals when the output from said amplitude detecting means is below a predetermined level**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Suppressing below a predetermined threshold is the same as displaying above a predetermined threshold**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 2##&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A tone detector as defined in claim 1 wherein said amplitude detecting means includes means for generating a signal representative of the average amplitude of said applied signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 3##&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A tone detector as defined in claim 1 wherein said pulsating signal generating means includes a threshold detector for generating a pulsating signal having a substantially constant amplitude and being representative of intervals between prescribed values of the instantaneous amplitude of said applied signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 4##&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A tone detector as defined in claim 3 wherein said pulse signal generating means includes filter means in circuit relationship with said threshold detector for passing only said at least one frequency component of said pulsating signal and level detector means in circuit with said filter means for generating said pulse signal during intervals in which the amplitude of said at least one frequency component exceeds a predetermined level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 5##&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A tone detector as defined in claim 4 wherein said level detector means includes peak detector means in circuit with said filter means for generating a unipolarity signal having an amplitude proportional to the peak amplitude value of said at least one frequency component output from said filter means and comparator means having first and second inputs and an output, a reference signal source being connected in circuit with said first input, said peak detector means being connected in circuit with said second input and said comparator means being responsive to a reference signal and to said unipolarity signal for generating said pulse signal at said comparator means output during intervals in which the amplitude of said unipolarity signal exceeds the amplitude of said reference signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, 3812432 is a method of detecting tone above a predetermined threshold, limited by filter means to identify the tone.  '060 Claim 13 and quite possibly Claim 1 invalid.  By displaying the output of any calculations, equated to digits represented by frequencies, this is effectively the same as '060 in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![3812432 Figure of Filter and Threshold Detector][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3812432&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/q4Jht.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5690" RevisionGUID="811b4a8f-36d2-4f19-bf18-a516aa9ea7d1" CreationDate="2013-12-21T17:53:34.373" UserId="7393" Text="#Non Cited Prior Art#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#[EP0285238B1 (1987)][1]#&#xD;&#xA;##[Digital bandpass oscilloscope][2]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent from 1987 discusses an Oscilloscope with bandpass filters, an accumulator that uses gates (predetermined threshold) and can easily be used to invalidate claims of the '060 patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent talks about using Time and converting to Frequency Domains, analyzing a signal, applying a bandpass filter to it (high/low frequency limits) and deriving subsequent signals from bandpass above a predetermined threshold (gates).  Look under [0047] in the description for gates used in the embondiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;##Background of the Invention##&#xD;&#xA;[0001] The present invention relates to digital storage oscilloscopes in general and in particular to a digital oscilloscope for displaying waveforms representing component signals of frequency within selectable passbands of an input signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [0002] The behavior of component signals of frequency within selected frequency bands of a wideband analog signal is often of interest, and spectrum analyzers provide researchers with frequency domain plots of signal amplitudes within a band. However, sometimes researchers wish to view a frequency band of interest as a time domain plot. Oscilloscopes plot signal magnitudes as function of time, but when a waveform representing an input signal is displayed by a conventional oscilloscope, signal components having frequencies within a particular frequency band of interest are often difficult to observe due to the presence of higher or lower frequency components. A analog bandpass filter is sometimes utilized to remove the higher and lower frequency components from the analog signal before it is applied to the input of an oscilloscope, but many different bandpass filters would be needed in order to separately view a wide range of selectable passbands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [0047] Accumulator 132 includes an adder 134 and a random access memory (RAM) 136. Adder 134 is adapted to add each output term produced by multiplier 130 to an accumulated sum R stored in RAM 136. The sum produced by adder 134 may then be stored in RAM 136, thereby replacing the accumulated sum R with the result of the addition. Addressing of RAM 136 is controlled by an address signal (ADDR) provided by state machine 118 of FIG. 8. Data output terminals of RAM 136 are coupled to an input of adder 134 through a set of AND gates 138, each having another input controlled by a signal NADD supplied by state machine 118 of FIG. 8. When NADD is low, a 0 value, rather than the currently addressed data in RAM 136, is passed to adder 134. The NADD signal may be driven low when the output of multiplier 130 is the first term of a sum to be accumulated in RAM 136 so that adder 134 merely added a 0 to that term and forwards it for storage in RAM 136. The output of adder 134 is coupled to data input terminals of RAM 136 through another set of AND gates 140. A signal NLOAD produced by state machine 118 is applied to an additional input of each AND gate 140 and is driven low when RAM 136 is to store a 0 value rather than the output of adder 134. The NLOAD signal allows the contents of any storage location in RAM 136 to be initialized to 0 when necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(going through a serious of noise gates to determine if the signal is worthy of displaying above a threshold / level).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![EP0285238B1][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP0285238B1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP0285238B1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/LJBOe.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5691" RevisionGUID="94436512-f75d-48cb-98ac-2150c33d070a" CreationDate="2013-12-21T18:35:40.913" UserId="7393" Text="#Non-Cited Prior Art#&#xD;&#xA;#[US4434697][1]#&#xD;&#xA;##[Indicator apparatus for indicating notes emitted by means of a musical instrument][2]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 1##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Apparatus for indicating the presence of musical notes and for identifying the musical notes detected comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;means for amplifying input signals corresponding to musical notes to be identified;&#xD;&#xA;**filter means connected to said means for amplifying for eliminating harmonics from said input signals;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;energy detecting means connected to said means for amplifying for **detecting input signals exceeding a predetermined threshhold;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;memory means including at least one memory for storing items of information representing a table of musical notes;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;means for calculating the frequency and octive of said input signal, **said means for calculating including microprocessor means and being connected to said filter means**, said energy detecting means and said memory means, **said means for calculating being responsive to input signals received from said filter means exceeding said predetermined threshhold determined by said energy detecting means to calculate the frequency thereof**, said frequency calculated being employed to read from said memory for storing items of information representing a table of musical notes items of information representing the closest corresponding musical note for said frequency calculated; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;means for displaying, in alphanumeric form, said musical note read closest to each successive musical note in said input signals to be indentified and the octive in which said musical note resides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 2##&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The apparatus according to claim 1 wherein said means for calculating additionally comprises:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;means for determining any difference between said frequency of said input signals calculated, and said closest corresponding musical note read;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;means for providing indicia representative of any difference determined; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;means for supplying said indicia to said means for displaying to cause said indicia to be displayed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 3##&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The apparatus according to claim 2 wherein said indicia take the form of a plurality of signs, and selected ones of said plurality of signs respectively indicate that a difference between a calculated frequency of an input signal and a frequency of a displayed musical note is a positive value exceeding a predetermined limit, a negative value exceeding a selected limit and a value within a limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 4##&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The apparatus according to any one of claims 1, 2 or 3 wherein said filter means comprises:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**a plurality of low pass filter means for receiving said input signals representing said musical notes to be identified;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a plurality of **threshhold detector means** for indicating that input signals applied thereto exceed a predetermined threshhold, each of said plurality of threshhold detector means being connected to an associated one of said plurality of low pass filter means;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;means for determining a one of said plurality of low pass filter means having the lowest cut-off frequency characteristic and at least a portion of said input signals having a predetermined threshhold level passing therethrough; **and&#xD;&#xA;means for inhibiting outputs from remaining ones of said plurality of low pass filter means having cut-off frequency characteristics higher than that of said one of said plurality of low pass filter means.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4434697&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4434697" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5692" RevisionGUID="0fad5ff7-6537-483c-bed2-57bc819abe20" CreationDate="2013-12-21T19:31:49.583" UserId="7393" Text="I find pitch refinement an interesting topic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#[WO1999059138A2 (May 11, 1998)][1]#&#xD;&#xA;#[Refinement of pitch detection][1]#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Abstract#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Successive pitch periods/frequencies are accurately determined in an audio equivalent signal. Using a suitable conventional pitch detection technique, an initial value of the pitch frequency/period is determined for so-called pitch detection segments of the audio equivalent signal. Based on the determined initial value, a refined value of the pitch frequency/period is determined. To this end, the signal is divided into a sequence of pitch refinement segments. Each pitch refinement segment is associated with at least one of the pitch detection segments. The pitch refinement segments are filtered to extract a frequency component with a frequency substantially corresponding to an initially determined pitch frequency of an associated pitch detection segment. The successive pitch periods/frequencies are determined in the filtered signal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Description#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;....&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In step 130, each pitch refinement segment is filtered to extract the fundamental frequency component (also referred to as the first harmonic) of that segment. The filtering may, for instance, be performed by using a band-pass filter around the first harmonic. It will be appreciated that if the first harmonic is not present in the signal (e.g. the signal is supplied via a telephone line and the lowest frequencies have been lost) a first higher harmonic which is present may be extracted and used to accurately detect this representation of the pitch. For many applications it is sufficient if one of the harmonics, preferably one of the lower harmonics, is accurately detected. It is not always required that the actually lowest harmonic is detected. Preferably, the filtering is performed by convolution of the input signal with a sine/cosine pair as will be described in more detail below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read **each pitch refinement segment** ('138) as **subsequent signal** ('060)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In step 140, a concatenation occurs of the filtered pitch refinement segments. The filtered pitch detection segments are concatenated by locating each segment at the original time instant and adding the segments together (the segments may overlap). The concatenation results in obtained a filtered signal. In step 150, an accurate value for the pitch period/frequency is determined from the filtered signal. In principle, the pitch period can be determined as the time interval between maximum and/or minimum amplitudes of the filtered signal. **Advantageously, the pitch period is determined based on successive zero crossings of the filtered signal, since it is easier to determine the zero crossings.** Normally, the filtered signal is formed by digital samples, sampled at, for instance, 8 or 16 Khz. Preferably, the accuracy of determining the moments at which a desired amplitude (e.g. the maximum amplitude or the zero-crossing) occurs in the signal is increased by interpolation. Any conventional interpolation technique may be used (such as a parabolic interpolation for determining the moment of maximum amplitude or a linear interpolation for determining the moment of zero crossing). In this way accuracy well above the sampling rate can be achieved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Extract from above:)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;the pitch period is determined based on successive zero crossings of the filtered signal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To determine Zero Crossings, you need to have a predetermined threshold. For it to be successive, it would have been required to exceed a predetermined threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, if this method is employed on a microphone, guitar, keyboard, amplifier, and human voice, detects a pitch/fundamental/harmonics and applies a bandpass filter around them for suppressing further action it would infringe. This could include spectral analysis, visualizers, frequency readouts and any derivative thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO1999059138A2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5693" RevisionGUID="639602fc-c55a-49b2-850e-2df6e9e83c71" CreationDate="2013-12-21T19:40:01.563" UserId="3588" Text="What are the implications of insufficient prior art?&#xD;&#xA;Beyond vaguely being aware that it somehow reduces the chances of finally getting a patent grant, I am unclear as to what are the specific implications, and the implications on the examination process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have broken this down into a few questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Will the examiner typically perform a wider search of their own if they feel the attached prior art references are too little or too much outside the core prior art that would seem to match the topic(s) of the invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Will the USPTO examiner ask for more prior art? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Will it cause more iterations with the USPTO, that result in more payments to the USPTO or any significant potential for long waits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Will the examiner simply deny the application on the basis of 'insufficient prior art'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Will it somehow work against the people filing the patent application beyond the scope of the patent application consideration? such as, affecting other applications by the same people, or the right to submit more parallel applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Can it be considered a violation of any commitment made by the people filing the patent, or an invalidation of any statement (signed or otherwise) they need to make during the application and examination process?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14555" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5693" RevisionGUID="639602fc-c55a-49b2-850e-2df6e9e83c71" CreationDate="2013-12-21T19:40:01.563" UserId="3588" Text="What are the implications of insufficient prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14556" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5693" RevisionGUID="639602fc-c55a-49b2-850e-2df6e9e83c71" CreationDate="2013-12-21T19:40:01.563" UserId="3588" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5694" RevisionGUID="ff5e67dc-c0ff-4692-a511-5ecfc35afeea" CreationDate="2013-12-21T20:03:38.637" UserId="3076" Text="In a normal examination (anything other than aN Accelerated Examination) **the applicant has no obligation to do any searching**. They **do** have an obligation to inform the examiner of relevant things they do know of. The IDS form is to submit anything you happen know of that meets some relevance criteria. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice searches are usually done and the inventors are aware of other's work. Best practice is to list everything on an IDS that is at all close. The more things the examiner has in front of them the better from the applicant's point of view. It makes for a more solid patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner's job is to find prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the examiner's first rejection is on marginal art that is easily&#xD;&#xA; knocked down by the applicant and then the examine digs deeper to find better art for a second rejection that delays the process and adds cost to the applicant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5695" RevisionGUID="f2c8048d-1e9a-478e-a705-d8d42f3c3900" CreationDate="2013-12-21T20:29:53.253" UserId="7443" Text="1987, William Shatner [narrates a video](https://t.co/15moyw7adU) about [GRASS GIS](http://grass.osgeo.org/home/history/), a system released in 1982 that covers: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Claims 1-7&#xD;&#xA; - Claims 10-15&#xD;&#xA; - Claims 17-21&#xD;&#xA; - NOT claims 16 or 22&#xD;&#xA; - Claims 23-28&#xD;&#xA; - Claims 50-54" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5694" RevisionGUID="589a3b7f-12fc-471c-85cb-989261c6f778" CreationDate="2013-12-21T20:57:11.077" UserId="3076" Comment="added 595 characters in body" Text="In a normal examination (anything other than an Accelerated Examination) **the applicant has no obligation to do any searching**. They **do** have an obligation to inform the examiner of relevant things they do know of. The IDS form is to submit anything you happen know of that meets some relevance criteria. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice searches are usually done and the inventors are aware of other's work. Best practice is to list everything on an IDS that is at all close. The more things the examiner has in front of them the better from the applicant's point of view. It makes for a more solid patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner's job is to find prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the examiner's first rejection is on marginal art that is easily&#xD;&#xA; knocked down by the applicant and then the examine digs deeper to find better art for a second rejection that delays the process and adds cost to the applicant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;In the special case of an Accelerated Examination the applicant needs to follow a specific search protocol depending on the classification. Before the application gets to an examiner it is evaluated to see if it meets the rules for entry into the AE program. It can be denied entry to that program for insuficent **searching**, but not for insufficient **finding** of prior art. They can ask you to search, but how could anyone specify what you will find?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;USPTO statistics from 2012 show about 40% of petitions for Acelerated Examination did *not* result in an accelerated examination.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5615" RevisionGUID="db8a3763-ccc0-4ba4-9a5e-c7f68bfba083" CreationDate="2013-12-21T21:50:06.883" UserId="7392" Comment="Added image figure." Text="Considering the **substantial new question of patentability** with prior art that was found in such a short time (5 days so far), one would be curious to how the patent was approved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Information from [USPTO Public Pair System][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To obtain this patent information, go to the search, select Patent, and enter: 8502060 in the search box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will display the Application Data and audit trail (Transaction History).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![USPTO Public Pair Application Data][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the Transaction History, I particularly note no rejections to the claims, and a rapid approval process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Transaction History Part 1][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Transaction History Part 2][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, under Image Wrapper File (public information) you see on 2/15/2013 when the application was filed, it had a **Statement of Preexamination Search** where the applicant cites a prior application and claims that all of the pre examination searches for prior art was completed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Image File Wrapper][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Document ID 13768799 - Statement of Preexamination Search by Applicant#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Statement of Preexamination Search][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other supporting documents in the Image File Wrapper, especially this one, include an OATH or Declaration provided by the applicant which allows the applicant to be punished under 18 U.S.C. 1001.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This oath was provided on 2/15/2013 along with all of the other required documents and barrage of paperwork to the patent examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I hereby acknowledge that any willful false statement made in this declaration is punishable under [18 U.S.C. 1001][7] by fine or imprisonment of not more than (5) years, or both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Oath Document File ID: 13768799][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later the applicant eludes to Rob Toulson's patent in their prior art submission claiming that Toulson's patent as prior art is invalid, which is false.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On 2/15/2013 when the application was submitted, another document titled:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Accelerated Examination Support Document#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Submitted by the applicant, 3 prior art examples noted as &quot;Closest Related Match&quot; begin on page 5.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Accelerated Examination Support Document][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Particularly of concern is relation to Toulson's patent on Page 9 - 12 where the applicant states Rob Toulson's patent and methods are not taught. Page 12 in regards to Claim 13 are particularly concerning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Toulson's Patent Claims Dispute][10] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The point here is this was an accelerated patent and the examiner relied on the applicant's prior-art search, oath, and good word.  This is alarming.#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Take a closer look at this rapid process. 02/15/2013 Filed, 05/28/2013 Approval#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone elude to ever seeing a patent fly through the system this fast? [The USPTO Expedited Examination Program][11] http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/accelerated/index.jsp&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The USPTO has established procedures under which the examination of a patent application may be accelerated. Under one of these procedures, the USPTO will advance an application out of turn for examination if the applicant files a grantable petition to make special under the accelerated examination program. The USPTO is similarly revising the procedures for other petitions to make special, except those based on applicant’s health or age or the PPH pilot program. Other petitions to make special (i.e., based on: manufacture, infringement, environmental quality, energy, recombinant DNA, superconductivity materials, HIV/AIDS and cancer, countering terrorism, and biotechnology applications filed by small entities  MPEP § 708.02 ) will be processed using the revised procedure for accelerated examination. Thus, petitions to make special, except those based on applicant’s health, age, or the  PPH pilot program , will be required to comply with the requirements for petitions to make special under the accelerated examination program as set forth in this notice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, you have the &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#02-15-2013 	PET.SPRE.ACX 	Petition for 12-month Accelerated Exam#&#xD;&#xA;(Petition to make Special)  yet this petition clearly states in item 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;the claims must be directed to a *single invention*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since Claim 1 and Claim 13 are method claims that are not bound to an embodiment, are they directed towards a **single invention**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Petition for 12-month Accelerated Exam][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#PET.DEC.TC - Petition decision routed to the Technology Center to act on the decision or continue prosecution#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Filed on 3/18/2013 and the patent buzzes along nicely through the system without anyone rejecting claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Petition][13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On 5/28/2013 the Patent Examiner publishes his brief prior art search. And rubber stamps it Approved the same day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Patent Examiner Prior Art Search][14]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Confused? Where can I buy this kind of expedited processing?#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/57h9k.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/CmMEP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/XXkMy.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/7bnyp.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/EuH9y.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/pdf/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap47-sec1001.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/2R729.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/KnX1D.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/d8P97.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/accelerated/index.jsp&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/FnuEZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ypNbZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/pY9Zd.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5694" RevisionGUID="84a4e418-6a99-4977-9dd9-522aa4dd165b" CreationDate="2013-12-21T23:15:07.233" UserId="3076" Comment="Added pie chart from uspto site." Text="In a normal examination (anything other than an Accelerated Examination) **the applicant has no obligation to do any searching**. They **do** have an obligation to inform the examiner of relevant things they do know of. The IDS form is to submit anything you happen know of that meets some relevance criteria. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice searches are usually done and the inventors are aware of other's work. Best practice is to list everything on an IDS that is at all close. The more things the examiner has in front of them the better from the applicant's point of view. It makes for a more solid patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner's job is to find prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the examiner's first rejection is on marginal art that is easily&#xD;&#xA; knocked down by the applicant and then the examine digs deeper to find better art for a second rejection that delays the process and adds cost to the applicant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;In the special case of an Accelerated Examination the applicant needs to follow a specific search protocol depending on the classification. Before the application gets to an examiner it is evaluated to see if it meets the rules for entry into the AE program. It can be denied entry to that program for insuficent **searching**, but not for insufficient **finding** of prior art. They can ask you to search, but how could anyone specify what you will find?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;USPTO statistics from 2012 show about 40% of petitions for Acelerated Examination did *not* result in an accelerated examination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/yQHrI.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5697" RevisionGUID="0d9abfd2-7a93-475d-8bb2-46d44bf56bce" CreationDate="2013-12-22T04:17:17.707" UserId="7468" Text="[http://caretdashcaret.wordpress.com/2013/12/21/3d-printing-patents/][1] has a summary of SLA and SLS patents expiring next year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://caretdashcaret.wordpress.com/2013/12/21/3d-printing-patents/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5698" RevisionGUID="33c330f5-0428-4811-bf8c-6debb7825716" CreationDate="2013-12-22T16:12:11.170" UserId="446" Text="RFC2325 specifies a SNMP data structure (MIB) for reporting the status of a coffee pot, including the temperature of the pot.  http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2325.txt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, it's an April fools joke (dated April 1, 1998), but I don't think you have to look hard to find tons of &quot;computer reporting the temperature of another apparatus&quot; types of inventions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5685" RevisionGUID="f3e6fa07-c164-438b-9e1e-8b60865b54dc" CreationDate="2013-12-22T16:16:12.537" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON determining the shareability of online content and generating customer relevance scores** - This application from a few independent social media &quot;experts&quot; seeks to patent the idea of...Obtaining social media data from multiple social media platforms relative to online content, calculating a customer relevance score that represents shareability of the online content and providing the customer relevance score to an end user client device.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/18/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Measuring &quot;shareability&quot; of online content; evaluating tone of content and whether content is relevant to potential customers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Calculation of the **customer relevance score** comprises calculating an **author rank** for an author by determining an influence for the author, dividing the **author rank** by a sum of **author ranks** for a plurality of authors to calculate an **adjusted author rank score**, multiplying the adjusted **author rank score** with three weighted components .&#xD;&#xA;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determine shareability of online content and generate customer relevance scores**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Obtaining **social media data** from multiple **social media platforms** relative to **online content**, calculating a **customer relevance score** that represents shareability of the **online content** and providing the **customer relevance score** to an **end user**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130046760 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/587,789&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Michelle Amanda Evans, Elizabeth Ann High, Russell Taufa&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/18/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for determining the shareability of online content, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining, via a social media intelligence system, social media data from one or more social media platforms relative to online content;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Calculating, via the social media intelligence system, a customer relevance score that represents shareability of the online content; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing the customer relevance score to an end user client device by the social media intelligence system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for determining the shareability of online content, the method comprising the following steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining social media data from multiple social media platforms relative to online content;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Calculating a customer relevance score that represents shareability of the online content; and Calculating a customer relevance score that represents shareability of the online content; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing the customer relevance score to an end user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/18/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Identifying content that is to be tracked to determine the shareability of the content, tracking social media conversations of authors related to the content, grouping the social media conversations into one or more shareability classifications by conducting a semiotic evaluation of the social media conversations, and categorizing any of authors and social media conversations based upon the classification of social media conversations into one or more shareability classifications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Determine shareability of online content and generate customer relevance scores&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/2L2EiTs.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130046760 &#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130046760 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5699" RevisionGUID="5f54382b-d4ea-4d7b-a163-0ba85425f427" CreationDate="2013-12-22T16:51:09.153" UserId="7472" Text=" * Cloud BioLinux: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22429538&#xD;&#xA; * Galaxy NGS IS (probably too new): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23479349" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5700" RevisionGUID="99438b11-b282-4f9a-845f-0de2a8537221" CreationDate="2013-12-22T17:26:51.450" UserId="7473" Text="&gt;I am researching patents regarding rainwash depression. Do you have any diagrams of patent Patent wo2000006442a1 ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14572" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5700" RevisionGUID="99438b11-b282-4f9a-845f-0de2a8537221" CreationDate="2013-12-22T17:26:51.450" UserId="7473" Text="Diagram of Patent wo2000006442a1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14573" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5700" RevisionGUID="99438b11-b282-4f9a-845f-0de2a8537221" CreationDate="2013-12-22T17:26:51.450" UserId="7473" Text="&lt;diagrams&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14574" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5453" RevisionGUID="f1649027-ff6d-44cb-9db3-8421a2e838f4" CreationDate="2013-12-22T18:31:32.400" UserId="7472" Comment="added patent number to tags so link from google patents will head here" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130275486a1&gt;&lt;illumina&gt;&lt;us20130275486&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14575" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5453" RevisionGUID="f1649027-ff6d-44cb-9db3-8421a2e838f4" CreationDate="2013-12-22T18:31:32.400" Comment="Proposed by 7472 approved by 3076, 1767 edit id of 476" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5701" RevisionGUID="27968b27-7ba2-456f-b7fc-862811c2ffeb" CreationDate="2013-12-22T21:56:35.860" UserId="7392" Text="Being new here, I'm wondering what the best way to match prior art to a claim you feel is invalid.  I have found examples applicants use with the USPTO, so I would imagine using that same format to invalidate a claim may be helpful. Do you have any suggestions on what would be useful in the right column, while keeping it short and simple? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks,&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/1dM9a.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14577" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5701" RevisionGUID="27968b27-7ba2-456f-b7fc-862811c2ffeb" CreationDate="2013-12-22T21:56:35.860" UserId="7392" Text="What's the best approach to document a claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14578" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5701" RevisionGUID="27968b27-7ba2-456f-b7fc-862811c2ffeb" CreationDate="2013-12-22T21:56:35.860" UserId="7392" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5702" RevisionGUID="4ed1cc62-1f83-403f-be8b-5ecbd2ade652" CreationDate="2013-12-23T04:20:57.863" UserId="7478" Text="This patent, http://www.google.com/patents/US8271057, described as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Condition-based activation, shut-down and management of applications of mobile devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;seems to describe many applications that run on a mobile device and respond to services the operating system provides (like location services). Is that not very broad and likely to be applicable to many existing applications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14581" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5702" RevisionGUID="4ed1cc62-1f83-403f-be8b-5ecbd2ade652" CreationDate="2013-12-23T04:20:57.863" UserId="7478" Text="Is this software patent, http://www.google.com/patents/US8271057 reasonable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14582" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5702" RevisionGUID="4ed1cc62-1f83-403f-be8b-5ecbd2ade652" CreationDate="2013-12-23T04:20:57.863" UserId="7478" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;mobile-phone&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14583" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5702" RevisionGUID="bc3ce230-b16e-4a08-8685-a938163999d9" CreationDate="2013-12-23T04:48:25.817" UserId="1767" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1767,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Micah Siegel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="14584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5703" RevisionGUID="2a34d63b-9540-438a-bf0f-24d2d9c7d8b7" CreationDate="2013-12-23T04:59:10.403" UserId="7392" Text="#Non Cited Prior Art#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#[PITCH DETECTION USING THE SHORT—TERM PHASE SPECTRUM][1]#&#xD;&#xA;##F.J. CHARPENTIER (Tokyo, 1986)##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ee.columbia.edu/~dpwe/papers/Charp86-pitchphase.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Abstract##&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A new frequency domain method for determining the fundamental frequency of speech is presented in this paper. This method uses the information contained in short-term phase spectrum whereas the previous methods were limited to the amplitude spectrum. The short-term spectrum is computed by DFT and is interpreted as the output of a bank of band-pass filters. Harmonic components are detected by searching for sets of three continuos filters having the same instantaneous frequency. The frequency of a detected harmonic is given by the instantaneous frequency itself. A conventional harmonic numbering algorithm is used to confer the set of detected harmonics to a value of the fundamental frequency. Preliminary results show the validity of the method.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This document goes into detail about detecting a frequency and automatically band-passing the signal to eliminate other harmonics. It was discusses it being used in a pitch detection application and eliminating other noise and computation below a threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To further clarify, bandpass a frequency detected, and when applicable, reduce the onboard computation by only computing frequencies above a threshold. &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ee.columbia.edu/~dpwe/papers/Charp86-pitchphase.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/h7bBw.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ZFkrU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ICfT3.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/lktL5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5704" RevisionGUID="023de373-9197-4336-8e05-73e5b0731e88" CreationDate="2013-12-23T05:29:17.677" UserId="7429" Text="If I were granted a patent in a field and then it was later brought to my attention that there is a lot of prior art that would render one if not more of my claims invalid, and possibly my patent, what should I do? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the event I asserted my patent on someone and then discovered prior art proving I patented an expired patents concept that was open for public domain use, and my claims are not novel and were obvious after all in light to the newly discovered prior art, what would be a good course if action?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14586" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5704" RevisionGUID="023de373-9197-4336-8e05-73e5b0731e88" CreationDate="2013-12-23T05:29:17.677" UserId="7429" Text="Patent Granted then I discovered prior art... What to do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14587" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5704" RevisionGUID="023de373-9197-4336-8e05-73e5b0731e88" CreationDate="2013-12-23T05:29:17.677" UserId="7429" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5705" RevisionGUID="d7b5793a-c77f-4b1a-8a3d-2a39af6aa20a" CreationDate="2013-12-23T05:42:20.597" UserId="3076" Text=" Patent law and procedures can be subtle and a layman's analysis of your patent could be way off. After a patent is granted the applicant no longer has a duty to inform the USPTO of prior art that comes to their attention. If, after getting professional  advice you decide your patent is 100% worthless you can formally disclaim it. And you wouldn't be paying your maintenance fees so it would expire before its full term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your claim wording can be narrowed or new claims can be crafted that would stand up then you could consider filing for a reissue or for a reexamination of your patent. In both cases you could file the prior art you think has been unearthed and amend during another examination can could result in a narrower, or otherwise different patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5702" RevisionGUID="ad70becc-b8e7-4dd2-a296-cf7b3e84faa5" CreationDate="2013-12-23T05:46:14.910" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag added claim" Text="This patent, http://www.google.com/patents/US8271057, described as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Condition-based activation, shut-down and management of applications of mobile devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;seems to describe many applications that run on a mobile device and respond to services the operating system provides (like location services). Is that not very broad and likely to be applicable to many existing applications?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;based on one or more collected information items, determining whether or not a condition related to a mobile device is true; and&#xD;&#xA;controlling a monitored application of the mobile device in response to the determination and according to usage patterns of the monitored application to perform at least one of:&#xD;&#xA;activating the monitored application;&#xD;&#xA;shutting down the monitored application;&#xD;&#xA;activating a feature of the monitored application;&#xD;&#xA;deactivating a feature of the monitored application; and&#xD;&#xA;switching the monitored application from a first mode of operation to a second, different, mode of operation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14590" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5702" RevisionGUID="ad70becc-b8e7-4dd2-a296-cf7b3e84faa5" CreationDate="2013-12-23T05:46:14.910" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag added claim" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;mobile-phone&gt;&lt;us8271057&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14595" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5702" RevisionGUID="9b424b6c-20f0-4456-9548-02f66f0990b4" CreationDate="2013-12-23T13:07:15.197" UserId="7478" Comment="edited title" Text="Prior art request - Condition-based activation, shut-down and management of applications of mobile devices" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14597" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="5573" RevisionGUID="39bdf2ea-89b0-4f5e-9be9-d351b2883abb" CreationDate="2013-12-23T16:54:23.953" UserId="7392" Comment="20" />
  <row Id="14598" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="5573" RevisionGUID="1652f305-1def-4a3a-926b-d78bab73b5e2" CreationDate="2013-12-23T16:55:37.770" UserId="7392" Comment="21" />
  <row Id="14599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5705" RevisionGUID="03402e71-7ccd-4e4f-bb05-01218b4ac673" CreationDate="2013-12-23T17:48:29.733" UserId="3076" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text=" Patent law and procedures can be subtle and a layman's analysis of your patent could be way off. After a patent is granted the applicant no longer has a duty to inform the USPTO of prior art that comes to their attention. If, after getting professional  advice you decide your patent is 100% worthless you can formally disclaim it. And you wouldn't be paying your maintenance fees so it would expire before its full term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your claim wording can be narrowed or new claims can be crafted that would stand up then you could consider filing for a reissue or for a reexamination of your patent. In both cases you could file the prior art you think has been unearthed and amend during another examination. This could result in a narrower, or otherwise different, but solid, patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5702" RevisionGUID="39fff7e0-0a8c-442b-8b38-cd63b076b6d2" CreationDate="2013-12-23T18:42:02.417" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 81 characters in body" Text="This patent, http://www.google.com/patents/US8271057, described as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Condition-based activation, shut-down and management of applications of mobile devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;seems to describe many applications that run on a mobile device and respond to services the operating system provides (like location services). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;based on one or more collected information items, determining whether or not a condition related to a mobile device is true; and&#xD;&#xA;controlling a monitored application of the mobile device in response to the determination and according to usage patterns of the monitored application to perform at least one of:&#xD;&#xA;activating the monitored application;&#xD;&#xA;shutting down the monitored application;&#xD;&#xA;activating a feature of the monitored application;&#xD;&#xA;deactivating a feature of the monitored application; and&#xD;&#xA;switching the monitored application from a first mode of operation to a second, different, mode of operation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14602" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5700" RevisionGUID="fbbb3df9-eae0-421c-a069-dbfd1ae5ed33" CreationDate="2013-12-23T18:43:26.347" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;diagrams&gt;&lt;wo2000006442a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5708" RevisionGUID="93242a67-bf70-497e-b6b1-c9423e9b088d" CreationDate="2013-12-23T19:12:56.263" UserDisplayName="user7483" Text="Here are some links to official, dated, press releases that reference interactive maps that were developed, released, and publically available prior to June 5, 2012.  Feel free to use any of these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.oregongeology.org/pubs/nr/press-release-2012-02-23.pdf&#xD;&#xA;http://www.oregongeology.org/pubs/nr/press-release-2012-01-31.pdf&#xD;&#xA;http://www.oregongeology.org/pubs/nr/press-release-2011-01-19.pdf&#xD;&#xA;http://www.oregongeology.org/sub/news%26events/archives/press-release-2009-05-28.pdf&#xD;&#xA;http://www.oregongeology.org/sub/news%26events/archives/press-release-2008-07-18.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5709" RevisionGUID="f5cca683-6366-4f9d-b16f-f7a9f5992ed2" CreationDate="2013-12-23T19:25:57.757" UserId="1767" Text="[WO 2000006442 A1][1] &quot;Apparatus for Reducing Road Vehicle Spray&quot;&#xD;&#xA;is a **[patent family member][2]** of [US 20020109347 A1][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be seen in the &quot;Also Published as&quot; section on Google Patents.&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The figures in [US 20020109347 A1][5] can be seen on Google Patents and some of the diagrams are posted below.&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][6]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][8]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][9]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/wo2000006442a1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_family&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20020109347&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/4odt4.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20020109347&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ivB1z.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/6qEa2.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/7UJzO.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/f5KKV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/OBsgJ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14605" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="5702" RevisionGUID="8223e851-8f59-45d9-bcb8-00f41589c931" CreationDate="2013-12-23T19:28:02.893" UserId="1767" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1259,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ron J.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3076,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George White&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1767,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Micah Siegel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="14606" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5702" RevisionGUID="9bdd5458-a1a8-4cfb-a2a2-6f4000d49328" CreationDate="2013-12-23T19:31:55.193" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Condition-based activation, shut-down and management of applications of mobile devices - Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14607" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5702" RevisionGUID="9bdd5458-a1a8-4cfb-a2a2-6f4000d49328" CreationDate="2013-12-23T19:31:55.193" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;mobile-phone&gt;&lt;us8271057&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5702" RevisionGUID="57d4287c-3c5f-4fb9-996e-31e961fe90aa" CreationDate="2013-12-23T19:37:04.317" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Managing applications on mobile devices** - This patent seeks to patent the idea of...monitoring and controlling an application on a mobile device! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent, [US 8,271,057][1], described as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Condition-based activation, shut-down and management of applications of mobile devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;seems to describe many applications that run on a mobile device and respond to services the operating system provides (like location services). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Priority Date:  Seeking Prior Art which predates **Mar 16, 2009**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - based on one or more collected information items, Determining whether or not a condition related to a mobile device is true; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Controlling a monitored application of the mobile device in response to the determination and according to usage patterns of the monitored application to perform at least one of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - activating the monitored application;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - shutting down the monitored application;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - activating a feature of the monitored application;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - deactivating a feature of the monitored application; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - switching the monitored application from a first mode of operation to a second, different, mode of operation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8271057" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5710" RevisionGUID="41e17a86-5f93-4f19-86b2-e434136220ba" CreationDate="2013-12-23T20:39:16.567" UserId="7484" Text="Is this useful to you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.crunchbase.com/company/klout&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The company `Klout` seems to have been doing exactly this since at *least* 2010.  The end-user  is the person being examined, as far as I can tell.  The score is complied across multiple social media sites and a numeric score from 1 to 100 is produced.  Does this qualify?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5711" RevisionGUID="dca0b5e4-2e43-4b79-8fa9-4a2c9b0d6e55" CreationDate="2013-12-23T20:51:25.410" UserId="7484" Text="It seems that (among what I'm sure are a million others) a company called `Helihub` has been doing this kind of context sensitive advertising based upon news stories for some time (September 2011):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://helihub.com/advertising/context-sensitive-advertising/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They seem to focus on helicopter stories but there are categories within that are categorized further.  Advertisements are associated with categories beforehand.  The advertisement is chosen (presumably) from a pool of clients that want their ad placed on an article from this category's page.  The ad is definitely shown to the end-user.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only thing I wonder about with this service is that it doesn't specifically target the newest of such stories, as it targets all such stories.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'm still not sure if this qualifies as decent prior art as I'm very new to this.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5712" RevisionGUID="dcc756a5-cc36-4f83-9164-b8dfc8dff35e" CreationDate="2013-12-23T21:04:00.957" UserId="7484" Text="Similar to `Klout` is `Kred` which began providing a service nearly identical to Klout on September 30th, 2011 according to this article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/PeopleBrowsr-s-Kred-eyes-social-metrics-precision-2298869.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This uses a scale from 1 to 1,000 and has a secondary influence measurement (`outreach level`) that seems to highlight the second part of claim 1 even more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5713" RevisionGUID="d3c7a1a6-4245-4e9a-82d1-871b2fd9800a" CreationDate="2013-12-23T22:32:19.500" UserId="7485" Text="http://geochico.csuchico.edu/bcep/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if this helps, but it is a link to a flex webmap I built in 2010-11 for a graduate school project. The date is clearly listed on the splash screen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this the kind of submission they are looking for (but maybe more of a screen shot with text highlighting what parts match the patent application)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="014eb7ee-1ecd-411a-8208-6fbc3fbbdde4" CreationDate="2013-12-23T23:54:21.710" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Applying user defined ranking rules to alter the ranking of search results.** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Applying a user-defined ranking rule on search results, and re-ordering the search results based on the ranking rule! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Re-ordering search results based on rules defined by a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Graphical User Interface allows a user to: configure the **ranking rules** such as to enter **key/value restrictions** or set a **boost value**,  preview an application of one or more of the **ranking rules**, specify a portion of results from which statistics such as **standard deviation**, **average score** are calculated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: User-configured rules to re-order search results.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving search results, applying user-defined re-ranking rules to the search results, and re-ranking the search results based on the user-defined re-ranking rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130198174 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/360,536&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/28/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for re-ranking search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results that are ranked; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. applying a ranking rule defined by a user to the search results that re-ranks the search results, wherein the ranking rule includes user specified parameters that influence how a result within the search results is re-ranked using statistical information relating to the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for re-ordering search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results in an order in response to a search query executed using a search engine;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2a. applying a re-ordering rule defined by a user to re-order the search results,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2b. the re-ordering rule defines ordering a result within the search results on the basis of statistical information related to search results; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2c. re-ordering the search results on the basis of user-defined re-ordering rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A Graphical User Interface (GUI) displays options for a user to set search parameters to re-rank search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;User defined re-ordering of search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Ie8wCzF.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130198174&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130198174#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=01%2F27%2F2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14617" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="014eb7ee-1ecd-411a-8208-6fbc3fbbdde4" CreationDate="2013-12-23T23:54:21.710" UserId="1767" Text="Re-ranking search results - Re-ranking search results based on user-configured ranking rules (Microsoft) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14618" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="014eb7ee-1ecd-411a-8208-6fbc3fbbdde4" CreationDate="2013-12-23T23:54:21.710" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130198174&gt;&lt;us20130198174a1&gt;&lt;online-search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14619" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="04d02e07-104b-4a26-924f-d42b133c0a77" CreationDate="2013-12-24T00:01:56.990" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;us20130198174&gt;&lt;online-search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="04d02e07-104b-4a26-924f-d42b133c0a77" CreationDate="2013-12-24T00:01:56.990" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Applying user defined ranking rules to alter the ranking of search results.** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Applying a user-defined ranking rule on search results, and re-ordering the search results based on the ranking rule! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Re-ordering search results based on rules defined by a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Graphical User Interface allows a user to: configure the **ranking rules** such as to enter **key/value restrictions** or set a **boost value**,  preview an application of one or more of the **ranking rules**, specify a portion of results from which statistics such as **standard deviation**, **average score** are calculated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: User-configured rules to re-order search results.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving search results, applying user-defined re-ranking rules to the search results, and re-ranking the search results based on the user-defined re-ranking rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130198174 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/360,536&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/28/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for re-ranking search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results that are ranked; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. applying a ranking rule defined by a user to the search results that re-ranks the search results, wherein the ranking rule includes user specified parameters that influence how a result within the search results is re-ranked using statistical information relating to the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for re-ordering search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results in an order in response to a search query executed using a search engine;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - (2a) applying a re-ordering rule defined by a user to re-order the search results,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - (2b) the re-ordering rule defines ordering a result within the search results on the basis of statistical information related to search results; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - (2c) re-ordering the search results on the basis of user-defined re-ordering rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A Graphical User Interface (GUI) displays options for a user to set search parameters to re-rank search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;User defined re-ordering of search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Ie8wCzF.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130198174&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130198174#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=01%2F27%2F2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14621" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="5f634032-4777-4538-aab1-e708b2f6b6df" CreationDate="2013-12-24T00:32:59.103" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Online Search - Re-ranking search results based on user-configured ranking rules (Microsoft) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="5f634032-4777-4538-aab1-e708b2f6b6df" CreationDate="2013-12-24T00:32:59.103" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Applying user defined ranking rules to alter the ranking of search results** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Applying a user-defined ranking rule on search results, and re-ordering the search results based on the ranking rule! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Re-ordering search results based on rules defined by a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Graphical User Interface allows a user to: configure the **ranking rules** such as to enter **key/value restrictions** or set a **boost value**,  preview an application of one or more of the **ranking rules**, specify a portion of results from which statistics such as **standard deviation**, **average score** are calculated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: User-configured rules to re-order search results.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving search results, applying user-defined re-ranking rules to the search results, and re-ranking the search results based on the user-defined re-ranking rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130198174 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/360,536&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/28/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for re-ranking search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results that are ranked; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. applying a ranking rule defined by a user to the search results that re-ranks the search results, wherein the ranking rule includes user specified parameters that influence how a result within the search results is re-ranked using statistical information relating to the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for re-ordering search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results in an order in response to a search query executed using a search engine;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - (2a) applying a re-ordering rule defined by a user to re-order the search results,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - (2b) the re-ordering rule defines ordering a result within the search results on the basis of statistical information related to search results; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - (2c) re-ordering the search results on the basis of user-defined re-ordering rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A Graphical User Interface (GUI) displays options for a user to set search parameters to re-rank search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;User defined re-ordering of search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Ie8wCzF.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130198174&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130198174#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=01%2F27%2F2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="670a20e6-33dd-4245-8035-c79ea8990849" CreationDate="2013-12-24T01:06:03.943" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Applying user defined ranking rules to alter the ranking of search results** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Applying a user-defined ranking rule on search results and re-ordering the search results based on the ranking rule! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Re-ordering search results based on rules defined by a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Graphical User Interface allows a user to: configure the **ranking rules** such as to enter **key/value restrictions** or set a **boost value**,  preview an application of one or more of the **ranking rules**, specify a portion of results from which statistics such as **standard deviation**, **average score** are calculated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: User-configured rules to re-order search results.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving search results, applying user-defined re-ranking rules to the search results, and re-ranking the search results based on the user-defined re-ranking rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130198174 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/360,536&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/28/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for re-ranking search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results that are ranked; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. applying a ranking rule defined by a user to the search results that re-ranks the search results, wherein the ranking rule includes user specified parameters that influence how a result within the search results is re-ranked using statistical information relating to the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for re-ordering search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results in an order in response to a search query executed using a search engine;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - (2a) applying a re-ordering rule defined by a user to re-order the search results,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - (2b) the re-ordering rule defines ordering a result within the search results on the basis of statistical information related to search results; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - (2c) re-ordering the search results on the basis of user-defined re-ordering rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A Graphical User Interface (GUI) displays options for a user to set search parameters to re-rank search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;User defined re-ordering of search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Ie8wCzF.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130198174&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130198174#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=01%2F27%2F2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5716" RevisionGUID="009c902d-2e39-4228-a895-28dd3828580d" CreationDate="2013-12-24T03:31:33.437" UserId="7489" Text="Does beta-testing of software count as a sale and trigger the start of the one year grace period?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am referencing: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Under current U.S. law (35 U.S.C. §102(b)), a sale or offer for sale of the invention within the U.S., even if confidential, may trigger the start of the one-year grace period in the U.S.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.smart-biggar.ca/en/articles_detail.cfm?news_id=625&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14625" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5716" RevisionGUID="009c902d-2e39-4228-a895-28dd3828580d" CreationDate="2013-12-24T03:31:33.437" UserId="7489" Text="does beta testing software count as a sale?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14626" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5716" RevisionGUID="009c902d-2e39-4228-a895-28dd3828580d" CreationDate="2013-12-24T03:31:33.437" UserId="7489" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;grace-period&gt;&lt;public&gt;&lt;on-sale&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5717" RevisionGUID="ab5fa26c-0ea6-4d9d-8488-47ddaeb1cebd" CreationDate="2013-12-24T03:59:18.917" UserId="7489" Text="Can a provisional patent application be filed within the 1 year grace period for after public disclosure, or does it need to be a non-provisional application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14628" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5717" RevisionGUID="ab5fa26c-0ea6-4d9d-8488-47ddaeb1cebd" CreationDate="2013-12-24T03:59:18.917" UserId="7489" Text="Can a provisional patent application be filed within the 1 year grace period for after public disclosure?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14629" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5717" RevisionGUID="ab5fa26c-0ea6-4d9d-8488-47ddaeb1cebd" CreationDate="2013-12-24T03:59:18.917" UserId="7489" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;grace-period&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5718" RevisionGUID="38472458-e703-4248-aa82-ca914a4fbd94" CreationDate="2013-12-24T04:10:13.897" UserId="7489" Text="Does usage of a website constitute public disclosure of the patentable server components for the website?  In other words: will the grace period start for server components as soon as users start using a website?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please assume that the user cannot determine much about the server components from using the website. e.g. Google's pagerank algorithm cannot be determined just by doing searches in Google.com. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference if the website is:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; 1. in the public domain &#xD;&#xA; 2. is only accessible via authenticated users who have either signed non-disclosure or agreed to a non-disclosure in the terms of use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14631" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5718" RevisionGUID="38472458-e703-4248-aa82-ca914a4fbd94" CreationDate="2013-12-24T04:10:13.897" UserId="7489" Text="Does usage of a website constitute public disclosure of the patentable server components for the website?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14632" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5718" RevisionGUID="38472458-e703-4248-aa82-ca914a4fbd94" CreationDate="2013-12-24T04:10:13.897" UserId="7489" Text="&lt;grace-period&gt;&lt;public-domain&gt;&lt;websites&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5719" RevisionGUID="75af6404-4c08-404a-9da7-83e4829f80f8" CreationDate="2013-12-24T04:33:10.293" UserId="7490" Text="![Open Street Map Logo][1]&#xD;&#xA;OpenStreetMap was founded in 2004:&#xD;&#xA;http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/History_of_OpenStreetMap&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 'plurality of the layers of information superimposed upon one another' is the normal display for this map. Information layers, such as highways, are defined through tags.  Here's an example of the highway tag/layer and all the edits made to it since the year 2006 (click history to see each edit): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has always been possible to highlight a particular element (line, point, or relationship) and see the entire edit history along with associated tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Open Cycle Map was created prior to 2009, highlighting a particular aspect of the OpenStreetMap layers: those of interest to cyclists.  See the history tab at  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenCycleMap for dates.  The OpenCycleMap shows roads, but emphasizes roads for cyclists, and shows pubs, bike shops and ice cream shops more prominently than the main map.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/OiHnA.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5720" RevisionGUID="f58eb26c-c5fd-41f1-bf20-826cb1ae44d0" CreationDate="2013-12-24T04:36:45.060" UserId="3076" Text="Either a provisional or a non-provisional application can be used. But remember, any application is only as good as what it contains. If you take &quot;provisional&quot; to be &quot;very sparse on depth and breadth&quot; then it may not do the job. But it isn't the difference between provisional and non provisional, it is the difference between a complete discourse and a poor disclosure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5721" RevisionGUID="ca77d26a-c091-4cb4-ad6d-e5c71145e7f6" CreationDate="2013-12-24T04:40:08.793" UserId="3076" Text="In the past this would be a public use and maybe a public commercial use even if no information was determinable from the outside. The AIA law probably changed this so a &quot;non-informing use&quot; doesn't start the clock. Until a few cases get to court it is not 100% clear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5722" RevisionGUID="1ad7ab9b-e081-4749-9ac9-cc0857de6389" CreationDate="2013-12-24T04:54:17.163" UserId="3076" Text="It always did until the AIA law went into effect. Now the law says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—&#xD;&#xA;(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, *or otherwise available to the public* before the effective filing date of the claimed invention;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the italicized phrase modifies &quot;public use or in sale&quot; the the world has changed and confidential transactions would not start the clock. If it is a catch all for anything that is not a public use or on sale then the world hasn't changed. It will take future court cases to really know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5723" RevisionGUID="c5109af1-c544-40b7-8710-8234b87bd7e6" CreationDate="2013-12-24T06:17:06.720" UserId="7491" Text="I've written a technical paper and have sent it for publication. There's a chance that some other can make use of my paper and file a patent before me. How to protect the paper, when we are publishing it before a patent has been taken for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another situation in the same line is that you are explaining your business idea to angel investors. They may reject your idea there and set up the start-up as it was their own idea.What measures need to be taken for such situations.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14638" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5723" RevisionGUID="c5109af1-c544-40b7-8710-8234b87bd7e6" CreationDate="2013-12-24T06:17:06.720" UserId="7491" Text="How the idea or solution should be protected before having a patent for it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14639" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5723" RevisionGUID="c5109af1-c544-40b7-8710-8234b87bd7e6" CreationDate="2013-12-24T06:17:06.720" UserId="7491" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5724" RevisionGUID="c5ced5d6-65fe-4f98-90f0-a83b785fd6d1" CreationDate="2013-12-24T06:33:24.833" UserId="3076" Text="It isn't elegant or optimal but you can take a copy of the paper, attach a provisional patent application cover sheet and a check and express mail it to the USPTO. Or do the electronic equivalent with PDFs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding inventors, they generally will not sign NDAs because they see so many plans that might have overlapping concepts. Again, a vey informal provisional application that is just your slide deck or product spec. Can be filed very inexpensively. If you do that don't think you're covered, just that you're covered to the extent of the content of what you filed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5722" RevisionGUID="aced4d86-70dc-483b-855d-898a82d2e5c7" CreationDate="2013-12-24T08:27:03.247" UserId="3076" Comment="added 722 characters in body" Text="It always did until the AIA law went into effect. Now the law says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—&#xD;&#xA;(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, *or otherwise available to the public* before the effective filing date of the claimed invention;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the italicized phrase modifies &quot;public use or in sale&quot; the the world has changed and confidential transactions would not start the clock. If it is a catch all for anything that is not a public use or on sale then the world hasn't changed. It will take future court cases to really know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also there is a judicially created exception for &quot;experiment use&quot;. Beta testing could fall under this. The inventor needs to retain control, collect data, etc. But it must be an experiment to see if the invention works, not if people like it or if there is a new feature wanted or to iron out tiny bugs. The classic example was the new street paving formulation (in the 1800's). The inventor thought his new road paving system would last two years with normal traffic. He got paid to have a section of roadway paved. It was clearly in the public and in use and even for commercial gain. But it dreamed the experimental use exception because he didn't have another way to see if it would really last two years. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5725" RevisionGUID="7284493f-829c-465a-bc4e-3fb5fd5d6b57" CreationDate="2013-12-24T08:43:44.520" UserId="7491" Text="If I've got a patent in a country say India, will it be valid across the world. If not, are there any international patents. If so, who organize them. Is there any facility that, if I file a patent in a country, it has validity in many countries" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14643" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5725" RevisionGUID="7284493f-829c-465a-bc4e-3fb5fd5d6b57" CreationDate="2013-12-24T08:43:44.520" UserId="7491" Text="Difference b/w Domestic Patents and international patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14644" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5725" RevisionGUID="7284493f-829c-465a-bc4e-3fb5fd5d6b57" CreationDate="2013-12-24T08:43:44.520" UserId="7491" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5726" RevisionGUID="36ccdef6-546c-488b-9086-d60a101ceea2" CreationDate="2013-12-24T09:50:42.353" UserId="7493" Text="[TizzToday][1] is a news sharing social network which filters news based on their social importance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It allows users &#xD;&#xA;    to connect all their social networks (facebook, twitter, linkedin, google+)&#xD;&#xA;    to share news with a group of friends on the same news interest&#xD;&#xA;    to add specific news sources to a Reader (our own news sources, or their own)&#xD;&#xA;    to follow verified accounts (celebrities, personalities etc)&#xD;&#xA;    to discover clustered news on our own news aggregator (1000+ news sources)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it basically filters news from all the possible sources that a news might come from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More than that, it allows users to customize the filter the way they want, so they have a personalized news feed that shows only the most relevant news for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To &quot;Tizz&quot; a news is our concept of Facebook's &quot;Like&quot; or Google+'s &quot;+1&quot;. You can Tizz any worldwide news, or Tizz one directly from the aggregator, or your own news feed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a great tool to discover interesting content which you can't reach by yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google submitted a [patent request][2] AFTER I already finished the beta version of TizzToday. What will happen to my startup? Do you know anyone that can provide funding so we can take it off the ground?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.tizztoday.com/login/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/11/19/google-seeks-patent-on-social-news-aggregator/id=46394/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14646" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5726" RevisionGUID="36ccdef6-546c-488b-9086-d60a101ceea2" CreationDate="2013-12-24T09:50:42.353" UserId="7493" Text="Google has pending patent on my idea. What to do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14647" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5726" RevisionGUID="36ccdef6-546c-488b-9086-d60a101ceea2" CreationDate="2013-12-24T09:50:42.353" UserId="7493" Text="&lt;google&gt;&lt;social-networking&gt;&lt;news&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5727" RevisionGUID="2eeb74eb-e082-4d41-ab0d-fd677796df98" CreationDate="2013-12-24T13:45:22.440" UserId="7494" Text="I am aware of a patent application that has been filed that I wish to challenge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know the application number, but the it was recently filed and is not publicly available for review on the USPTO website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to understand how long it usually takes before such applications become available for review and comment, and how that process works in general so I can best prepare information to present regarding prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for ideas or direction to resources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14649" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5727" RevisionGUID="2eeb74eb-e082-4d41-ab0d-fd677796df98" CreationDate="2013-12-24T13:45:22.440" UserId="7494" Text="How does the public review process work for US patent applications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14650" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5727" RevisionGUID="2eeb74eb-e082-4d41-ab0d-fd677796df98" CreationDate="2013-12-24T13:45:22.440" UserId="7494" Text="&lt;process&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;challenge&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="88da3678-76de-4ddb-b346-a32974420e81" CreationDate="2013-12-24T13:47:23.680" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Applying user defined ranking rules to alter the ranking of search results** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Applying a user-defined ranking rule on search results and re-ordering the search results based on the ranking rule! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Re-ordering search results based on rules defined by a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Graphical User Interface allows a user to: configure the **ranking rules** such as to enter **key/value restrictions** or set a **boost value**,  preview an application of one or more of the **ranking rules**, specify a portion of results from which statistics such as **standard deviation**, **average score** are calculated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: User-configured rules to re-order search results.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving search results, applying user-defined re-ranking rules to the search results, and re-ranking the search results based on the user-defined re-ranking rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130198174 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/360,536&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/28/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for re-ranking search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results that are ranked; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. applying a ranking rule defined by a user to the search results that re-ranks the search results, wherein the ranking rule includes user specified parameters that influence how a result within the search results is re-ranked using statistical information relating to the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for re-ordering search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results in an order in response to a search query executed using a search engine;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - (2a) applying a re-ordering rule defined by a user to re-order the search results,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - (2b) the re-ordering rule defines ordering a result within the search results on the basis of statistical information related to search results; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - (2c) re-ordering the search results on the basis of user-defined re-ordering rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A Graphical User Interface (GUI) displays options for a user to set search parameters to re-rank search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;User defined re-ordering of search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Ie8wCzF.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130198174&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130198174#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=01%2F27%2F2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5573" RevisionGUID="26833d98-edce-46dc-9188-b60ad029c58d" CreationDate="2013-12-24T15:30:48.150" UserId="7392" Comment="Corrected URL" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON pitch detection** - This issued patent from [Overtone Labs][2] seeks to patent the idea of...pitch detection for resonance tuning of a musical instrument. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A new method patent was granted in August of 2013 which is extremely dangerous.  The patent is being asserted against a small veteran-owned company which released an app. Other apps have fearfully withdrawn from global app markets as a result of this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/30/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using power spectral analysis to tune musical instruments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please review Patent [US8502060][1] The app that is being sued is being forced into cease and desist and black out social media communities 60,000 musicians strong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Publication number:	[US8502060 B2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Publication type:	Grant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Application number:	US 13/768,799&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Issued date:	Aug 6, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Priority date: 	Nov 30, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Assignee: [OVERTONE LABS, INC.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Link to Google Prior Art Search - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 1 &amp; 13 are particularly concerning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1: A method for resonance tuning, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Receiving a signal in response to a resonance of a structure;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining a frequency or musical note related to an overtone from the signal;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Selecting the frequency or musical note related to the overtone as a filter mode reference frequency or musical note; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Suppressing a display of frequencies or musical notes from a subsequent signal that deviate from the filter mode reference frequency or musical note by a predetermined threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; .&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 13: A method for pitch detection, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Providing one or more power spectrum frequency samples;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Selecting a frequency in a frequency band having a largest power spectrum magnitude from the one or more power spectrum frequency samples, the frequency band having an upper frequency limit and a lower frequency limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A schematic view of an embodiment of the Pitch Estimator&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/wFNKZHe.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FIG. 16 cited by applicant in Supplemental Examination Support Doc as providing support for Claim 13. (annotation emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BbE2PxUCMAARScl.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8502060?dq=8502060&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://tune-bot.com/&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US8502060&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14653" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5573" RevisionGUID="86bfd6ce-3096-468b-92b8-5000db663d64" CreationDate="2013-12-24T16:40:12.023" UserId="7392" Comment="Correct spelling." Text="Pitch Detection - Power Spectral Estimator to Tune Musical Instruments (Overtone Labs, Inc) - Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5609" RevisionGUID="a0770d6f-a310-48e7-9780-009f83fd60c3" CreationDate="2013-12-24T16:47:34.810" UserId="7392" Comment="improved answer." Text="# Non-Cited Prior Art #&#xD;&#xA;##[US6140568][1] (Priority Date: Nov 6, 1997)##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a great example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Title: System and method for automatically detecting a set of fundamental frequencies simultaneously present in an audio signal##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ABSTRACT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system and method for **automatically detecting and identifying a plurality of frequencies** simultaneously present in an audio signal, as well as the duration, **amplitude**, and phase of those frequencies, **then filtering out harmonic components to determine which frequencies are fundamentals**. The system includes a **computer readable** medium of instruction code that decomposes the signal into its component sine waves by computing and comparing correlations between the input signal and sine waves at various phase and amplitude combinations. The system also employs several optimization and error correction routines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Claims ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 1##&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of identifying **one or more fundamental frequencies** simultaneously present in a complex signal, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;receiving the complex signal;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;decomposing the signal into sine wave components to determine all frequencies present in the signal;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**setting and obtaining parameters used to detect fundamental frequencies**; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and&#xD;&#xA;**filtering out harmonic frequencies to determine the fundamental frequencies actually present in the signal**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 2##&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The method of claim 1, wherein the step of receiving the complex signal includes dividing the signal into a series of sample windows which contain sample amplitudes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 3##&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The method of claim 2, further comprising an **optimization step of ignoring sample windows in which the sample amplitudes do not meet a predetermined threshold.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 4##&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The method of claim 2, wherein the step of decomposing includes obtaining best correlation scores by comparing reference frequencies to the complex signal, and comparing said best correlation scores to determine which reference frequencies are in the complex signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 5##&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The method of claim 4, wherein the step of decomposing is carried out by comparing amplitudes resulting in the best correlation score at each reference frequency to amplitudes resulting in best correlation scores at adjacent reference frequencies to locate amplitude peaks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 6##&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The method of claim 4, wherein the step of decomposing includes the step of scaling the amplitudes of the detected frequencies according to said frequencies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 7##&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The method of claim 4, wherein the step of obtaining the best correlation scores comprises shifting the amplitude and phase of the reference frequencies until an amplitude/phase combination yielding the best correlation score out of all correlation scores for said combinations of each reference frequency is found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 8##&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The method of claim 4, **further comprising the step of attenuating frequencies lower than current reference frequencies** before correlation scores are obtained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 9##&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The method of claim 8, wherein said attenuation step comprises:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**a high-pass filter having a cutoff frequency set to the current reference frequency; and**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**a low-pass filter having a cutoff frequency set to one half of the current reference frequency**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(High/Low Pass == BandPass)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 10##&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The method of claim 7, further comprising an optimization step of ignoring amplitude/phase combinations which yield correlation scores that are worse than previously obtained correlation scores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 9 of US6140568 Proves that Claim 1 of '060 is not novel. Bandpass filtering around a target frequency is not novel, has been done, and this is prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 3 of US6140568 Proves that Claim 13 of '060 is not novel. This claims to select frequencies from above a predetermined threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel that other claims in this patent as well would invalidate several claims within the '060 patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6140568" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="572" RevisionGUID="809459dd-3489-444a-b71e-01823439c746" CreationDate="2013-12-24T20:39:01.113" UserId="147" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I am creating a wiki for the answer(s), please feel free to update below each question as appropriate. If you have a second answer, number it accordingly and place it below other answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For (a) an application that has NOT yet been issued, sub-questions:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Does the NEW application cancel the previous (original) application, taking its priority (filing) date? If the new application is defeated/rejected, does their original application come back to life or is it also lost?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A continuation is a later application filed during the pendency of an earlier application and which has the same specification (disclosure) as the prior application. Usually this is done to change (improve) the claims. The continuation does not necessarily mean the original application is dead, although most often the applicant, having improved the claims, no longer needs the prior application and abandons it. Normally that abandonment is expressly done in a transmittal letter accompanying the continuation when filed. If the continuation adds new subject matter to the specification, it is called a &quot;continuation in part&quot; since only part is the same specification. If the continuation has claims to a different invention, it is called a &quot;divisional&quot; rather than a continuation, since a divisional carves out or divides out a different invention found in the same specification. Just like any other application, either the first application (called the &quot;parent&quot; case) or the continuation, or both, may be searched, examined, rejected, or allowed by the Patent Office if the basic, search and examination fees were paid, and either the parent case, the continuation case, or both, may be abandoned or issue as a patent. So it's possible that both the original application and the continuation would result in (separate) patents being issued.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of the original application as a lit candle that stays lit as long as the application is pending.  So long as the candle is lit, it can be used to light other candles. Those other candles are the continuation, divisional or continuation-in-part applications.  Once the two applications are being processed, they are each judged on their merits.  US patent law allows applicants to file as many continuations as they like and in whatever series.  The only restriction is that you need a lit candle (pending application) to light another candle. And each candle can be considered to have been lit on the date the first candle was lit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) Does a significant change in the continuation application mean that the original application(s) was/were flawed and/or incomplete? How does this affect the new patent application credibility?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, it doesn't mean the original was necessarily flawed or incomplete.  Rather, there are many varied strategies used by patent applicants when building a *patent family*.  Most often continuations result from improvements to the invention or a desire to add claims after examination has been concluded. This might happen where the applicant discovers a product that might be covered by the claims but wants to be sure and so files additional claims in a continuation to specifically cover that product. That product might be the applicant's product or might be a competitive product that the applicant wants to stop as an infringement. As noted in (1) above, the continuation may be what is called a divisional to cover a separate invention disclosed in the parent case. There is some times strategic sense to including multiple inventions in a single case and then filing divisional cases. In the lit candle example, this might be where the first candle was described as red, white or blue and the examiner says those are 3 separate inventions, so the applicant &quot;elects&quot; to prosecute the red candle in the first case and files 2 divisional applications, one to a white candle and one to a blue candle. Three candle patents might result from this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) Assuming the continuation application builds upon the prior application (ergo, requiring prior art pertaining to original claims to predate the previous filing date), how does prior art on ADDED or CHANGED items affect the application, i.e. does prior art for new/changed claims also need to predate the ORIGINAL filing date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to all matter disclosed in the parent case, a continuation gets the priority date of the parent application from which it is derived. An applicant can have a continuation of a continuation of a continuation in part of a ..., going on for years) and each will get an &quot;effective filing date&quot; of the first filed application in the chain. Just for one example, US Patent 6,442,336 says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/110,861, filed Aug. 24, 1993, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,446,599 which is a division of application Ser. No. 07/818,168, filed Jan. 8, 1992, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,260,837, which is a division of application Ser. No. 07/325,768, filed Mar. 20, 1989, abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 06/877,319, filed Jun. 23, 1986, now U.S. Pat. No. 4,819,101, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 06/516,532, filed Jul. 25, 1983, now U.S. Pat. No. 4,604,668, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 06/209,057, filed Nov. 21, 1980, abandoned.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, that patent would have an effective filing date of Nov. 21, 1980. However, it is important to note that, since 1995, the term of a patent is 20 years from its effective filing date, while prior to that date the term was 17 years from the issue date. The change was made to eliminate long pendencies and suprises when such &quot;submarine patents&quot; surfaced after decades to potentially sink later products. This was famously the case with Jerome Lemelson and his &quot;machine vision&quot; patents which were pending more than 20 years and subsequently issued and resulted in more than a billion dollars of royalty for Lemelson from manufacturers of bar code scanners before the patents were eventually invalidated for abuse of the patent system due to the long pendency. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For (b) an issued patent that HAS expired:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Can a continuation patent be filed for an expired patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be a continuation, an application must be filed prior to issuance of the application from which it seeks to claim priority.  In the case of a chain of continuations, so long as one application in the chain is still pending, it is possible to file a continuation, even if a grandparent or great-great-great grandparent case has already issued, and even if that first patent has expired. However, this is not practical because the term of a patent is 20 years from the effective filing date, so claiming the benefit of the filing date of an expired patent means claiming back more than 20 years, and that would mean the continuation case so claiming would have zero term, it would expire immediately upon issuance and thus provide no exclusive rights. So, yes you could do it, but you would be a fool if you did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For (c) an issued patent that has NOT expired, sub-questions:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Can a trivial change be used to simply extend the life of the patent, indefinitely by applying trivial changes periodically? Is there a solid litmus test for this or is it just up to the examiners?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes and no. You can continue an *application*, but only while that application remains in prosecution (i.e., before it issues as a patent). Under the old patent expiration model (i.e., that patents were valid for 17 years after being issued) yes, it was possible to extend the life of a patent for quite a while by writing continuations, continuations-in-part, divisionals, etc. Under the current system (that a patent expires 20 years after application) this has been drastically reduced, if not eliminated entirely, because (at least normally) the date of the *original* application will be used to compute the expiration date of a continuation [see prior answer for &quot;expired patents&quot;.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) Can a major change that effectively turns the invention into something else be introduced periodically, resulting in indefinite continuations by simply writing in or incorporating new technologies as they come out, thus broadening the scope of the original invention (to the point where it covers completely different industries/areas)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. That is what continuation-in-part applications (&quot;CIPs&quot;) seek to accomplish. However, once a patent expires, the subject matter of its claims becomes public domain, so only the new aspects introduced in the CIPs still unexpired would thereafter be possible to cover or protect through CIPs. People have certainly *tried* to &quot;stretch&quot; an application to cover newer technologies. Just for example, Jerome Lemelson (the inventor on the patent quoted above) once wrote a patent on a &quot;computer system&quot;. After TI came out with the first microcontroller (i.e., essentially a complete computer system on a single integrated circuit), Mr. Lemelson wrote a continuation of one of his earlier patents that added something to the effect that: &quot;...and all of it is on one integrated circuit&quot;. The patent issued, but was eventually invalidated -- the court found that the original specification contained no support for the idea of the whole system being on a single integrated circuit, so the TI team (Gary Boone, and, if memory serves, a few others) officially invented the microcontroller.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) If a continuation patent is found to be invalid, how does that affect the original (built upon) patent(s)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They're independent patents -- each is valid or invalid on its own. That said, if any  patent in the chain of continuations is found invalid due to insufficient teaching of the patented invention or due to prior art, there's probably an increased chance that the same would be true of any derived patents as well.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="9f162dcc-e75f-4b9f-8087-fe5fcd3cde69" CreationDate="2013-12-24T22:19:31.553" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Applying user defined ranking rules to alter the ranking of search results** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Applying a user-defined ranking rule on search results and re-ordering the search results based on the ranking rule! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Re-ordering search results based on rules defined by a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Graphical User Interface allows a user to: configure the **ranking rules** such as to enter **key/value restrictions** or set a **boost value**,  preview an application of one or more of the **ranking rules**, specify a portion of results from which statistics such as **standard deviation**, **average score** are calculated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: User-configured rules to re-order search results.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving search results, applying user-defined re-ranking rules to the search results, and re-ranking the search results based on the user-defined re-ranking rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130198174 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/360,536&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/28/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for re-ranking search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results that are ranked; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. applying a ranking rule defined by a user to the search results that re-ranks the search results, wherein the ranking rule includes user specified parameters that influence how a result within the search results is re-ranked using statistical information relating to the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for re-ordering search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results in an order in response to a search query executed using a search engine;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.    applying a re-ordering rule defined by a user to re-order the search results, where the re-ordering rule defines ordering a result within the search results on the basis of statistical information related to search results; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. re-ordering the search results on the basis of user-defined re-ordering rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A Graphical User Interface (GUI) displays options for a user to set search parameters to re-rank search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;User defined re-ordering of search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Ie8wCzF.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130198174&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130198174#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=01%2F27%2F2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14658" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="e67f8e9a-2099-48d7-aa74-9da3615ac86a" CreationDate="2013-12-24T22:34:05.443" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Online Search - Re-ranking search results based on admin-configured ranking rules (Microsoft) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="e67f8e9a-2099-48d7-aa74-9da3615ac86a" CreationDate="2013-12-24T22:34:05.443" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Applying administrator defined ranking rules to alter the ranking of search results** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Applying a user-defined ranking rule on search results and re-ordering the search results based on the ranking rule! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Re-ordering search results based on rules defined by a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Graphical User Interface allows a user to: configure the **ranking rules** such as to enter **key/value restrictions** or set a **boost value**,  preview an application of one or more of the **ranking rules**, specify a portion of results from which statistics such as **standard deviation**, **average score** are calculated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: User-configured rules to re-order search results.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving search results, applying user-defined re-ranking rules to the search results, and re-ranking the search results based on the user-defined re-ranking rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130198174 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/360,536&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/28/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for re-ranking search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results that are ranked; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. applying a ranking rule defined by a user to the search results that re-ranks the search results, wherein the ranking rule includes user specified parameters that influence how a result within the search results is re-ranked using statistical information relating to the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for re-ordering search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results in an order in response to a search query executed using a search engine;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.    applying a re-ordering rule defined by a user to re-order the search results, where the re-ordering rule defines ordering a result within the search results on the basis of statistical information related to search results; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. re-ordering the search results on the basis of user-defined re-ordering rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A Graphical User Interface (GUI) displays options for a user to set search parameters to re-rank search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;User defined re-ordering of search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Ie8wCzF.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130198174&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130198174#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=01%2F27%2F2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5728" RevisionGUID="355b57f9-a54c-41ce-912a-52674ddc2686" CreationDate="2013-12-24T22:56:34.143" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Provide recommendations based on relative preferences across items for a customer.** - This application from [MIT][6] seeks to patent the idea of...identifying a relative preference list of all users, comparing a user's relative preference list with the canonical preference list, and inferring preferences of the user on the basis of comparison with other users. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/29/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Providing a personalized recommendation to a user regarding items that the user has not ranked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A user's preference is identified based on **pair-wise preferences** of items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining preferences of a user based on comparative rating across items.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Comparing preference of a user with identified preferences of all users and inferring preference of the user based on a correlation factor between the user preference and each of the identified preferences.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130054498 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/598,124&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: MIT&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/29/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 8/27/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for inferring the preferences of a user in relation to a population, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying a preference distribution of said population comprising a plurality of ranked lists and a weight of each of said plurality of ranked lists;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. comparing a revealed preference of said user to one of said plurality of ranked lists;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. assigning an affinity weight between said user and each of said plurality of ranked lists; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. taking a weighted average of each of said affinity weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for inferring preferences of a user, the method comprises the following steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying preferences of all users over a number of choices; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. comparing preferences of the user with each of the identified preferences;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. assigning a correlation factor between the user preferences and each of the identified preferences; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. averaging the assigned correlation factors to infer preferences of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/29/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A preference list  providing comparisons between every pair of items for a user is represented by a comparison matrix indexed by i and j, where entry (i, j) is set to 1 if item i is preferred to item j, and 0 otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Providing recommendations based on pair-wise comparison of items.&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/1c7H9Dw.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130054498a1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://web.mit.edu/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130054498#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=08%2F29%2F2011&amp;t=1providing%20personalized%20recommendations.1ranked%20lists.1preference.0preference%20distribution.0revealed%20preference.0affinity%20weight.0population.0weighted%20average.0index.0sparse%20distribution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14661" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5728" RevisionGUID="355b57f9-a54c-41ce-912a-52674ddc2686" CreationDate="2013-12-24T22:56:34.143" UserId="1767" Text="Personalized recommendations. - Recommendations based on inferring preferences (MIT) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14662" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5728" RevisionGUID="355b57f9-a54c-41ce-912a-52674ddc2686" CreationDate="2013-12-24T22:56:34.143" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;online-shopping&gt;&lt;mit&gt;&lt;us20130054498&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5728" RevisionGUID="9d32168b-7af4-45da-b6ed-dc6f0f2d3d06" CreationDate="2013-12-24T23:01:40.843" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Provide recommendations based on relative preferences across items for a customer.** - This application from [MIT][6] seeks to patent the idea of...identifying a relative preference list of all users, comparing a user's relative preference list with the canonical preference list, and inferring preferences of the user on the basis of comparison with other users. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/29/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Providing a personalized recommendation to a user regarding items that the user has not ranked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A user's preference is identified based on **pair-wise preferences** of items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining preferences of a user based on comparative rating across items.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Comparing preference of a user with identified preferences of all users and inferring preference of the user based on a correlation factor between the user preference and each of the identified preferences.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130054498 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/598,124&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: MIT&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/29/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 8/27/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for inferring the preferences of a user in relation to a population, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying a preference distribution of said population comprising a plurality of ranked lists and a weight of each of said plurality of ranked lists;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. comparing a revealed preference of said user to one of said plurality of ranked lists;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. assigning an affinity weight between said user and each of said plurality of ranked lists; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. taking a weighted average of each of said affinity weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for inferring preferences of a user, the method comprises the following steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying preferences of all users over a number of choices; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. comparing preferences of the user with each of the identified preferences;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. assigning a correlation factor between the user preferences and each of the identified preferences; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. averaging the assigned correlation factors to infer preferences of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/29/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A preference list  providing comparisons between every pair of items for a user is represented by a comparison matrix indexed by i and j, where entry (i, j) is set to 1 if item i is preferred to item j, and 0 otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Providing recommendations based on pair-wise comparison of items.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/1c7H9Dw.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130054498a1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://web.mit.edu/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130054498#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=08%2F29%2F2011&amp;t=1providing%20personalized%20recommendations.1ranked%20lists.1preference.0preference%20distribution.0revealed%20preference.0affinity%20weight.0population.0weighted%20average.0index.0sparse%20distribution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14664" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5728" RevisionGUID="9d32168b-7af4-45da-b6ed-dc6f0f2d3d06" CreationDate="2013-12-24T23:01:40.843" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body" Text="Personalized recommendations - Recommendations based on inferring preferences (MIT) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5729" RevisionGUID="6ea880a3-56ed-480d-9537-81877d8bfe49" CreationDate="2013-12-24T23:04:31.330" UserId="7497" Text="My company is currently developing software and we are interested in pursuing a patent for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is should I file patent it prior to completing the final version - we are about 1-2 months away from completion? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We want to have a patent in place prior to launch and I assume now would be a good time to do so? When is the best time do to this? Should I have done this already?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please advise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank You!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14666" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5729" RevisionGUID="6ea880a3-56ed-480d-9537-81877d8bfe49" CreationDate="2013-12-24T23:04:31.330" UserId="7497" Text="Patent During Software Development - When is the best time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14667" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5729" RevisionGUID="6ea880a3-56ed-480d-9537-81877d8bfe49" CreationDate="2013-12-24T23:04:31.330" UserId="7497" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="e76c5188-178a-41d0-a955-addc06d902df" CreationDate="2013-12-24T23:07:04.747" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Applying administrator defined ranking rules to alter the ranking of search results** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Applying a user-defined ranking rule on search results and re-ordering the search results based on the ranking rule! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Re-ordering search results based on rules defined by a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Graphical User Interface allows a user to: configure the **ranking rules** such as to enter **key/value restrictions** or set a **boost value**,  preview an application of one or more of the **ranking rules**, specify a portion of results from which statistics such as **standard deviation**, **average score** are calculated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: User-configured rules to re-order search results.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving search results, applying user-defined re-ranking rules to the search results, and re-ranking the search results based on the user-defined re-ranking rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130198174 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/360,536&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/28/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for re-ranking search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results that are ranked; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. applying a ranking rule defined by a user to the search results that re-ranks the search results, wherein the ranking rule includes user specified parameters that influence how a result within the search results is re-ranked using statistical information relating to the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for re-ordering search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results in an order in response to a search query executed using a search engine;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.    applying a re-ordering rule defined by a user to re-order the search results, where the re-ordering rule defines ordering a result within the search results on the basis of statistical information related to search results; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. re-ordering the search results on the basis of user-defined re-ordering rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A Graphical User Interface (GUI) displays options for a user to set search parameters to re-rank search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;User defined re-ordering of search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Ie8wCzF.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130198174&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130198174#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=01%2F27%2F2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5728" RevisionGUID="1faac6e2-1d91-4c30-b8c2-09a671290bfe" CreationDate="2013-12-24T23:07:17.623" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Provide recommendations based on relative preferences across items for a customer.** - This application from [MIT][6] seeks to patent the idea of...identifying a relative preference list of all users, comparing a user's relative preference list with the canonical preference list, and inferring preferences of the user on the basis of comparison with other users. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/29/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Providing a personalized recommendation to a user regarding items that the user has not ranked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A user's preference is identified based on **pair-wise preferences** of items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining preferences of a user based on comparative rating across items.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Comparing preference of a user with identified preferences of all users and inferring preference of the user based on a correlation factor between the user preference and each of the identified preferences.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130054498 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/598,124&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: MIT&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/29/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 8/27/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for inferring the preferences of a user in relation to a population, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying a preference distribution of said population comprising a plurality of ranked lists and a weight of each of said plurality of ranked lists;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. comparing a revealed preference of said user to one of said plurality of ranked lists;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. assigning an affinity weight between said user and each of said plurality of ranked lists; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. taking a weighted average of each of said affinity weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for inferring preferences of a user, the method comprises the following steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying preferences of all users over a number of choices; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. comparing preferences of the user with each of the identified preferences;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. assigning a correlation factor between the user preferences and each of the identified preferences; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. averaging the assigned correlation factors to infer preferences of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/29/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A preference list  providing comparisons between every pair of items for a user is represented by a comparison matrix indexed by i and j, where entry (i, j) is set to 1 if item i is preferred to item j, and 0 otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Providing recommendations based on pair-wise comparison of items.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/1c7H9Dw.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130054498a1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://web.mit.edu/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130054498#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=08%2F29%2F2011&amp;t=1providing%20personalized%20recommendations.1ranked%20lists.1preference.0preference%20distribution.0revealed%20preference.0affinity%20weight.0population.0weighted%20average.0index.0sparse%20distribution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5730" RevisionGUID="5ebf1f74-2024-4966-96b0-1d0c90afad9f" CreationDate="2013-12-24T23:57:08.507" UserId="3076" Text="There is no such thing as an international patent (enforceable rights). To in force a patent you need to go into court. Courts are run by countries who each have their own, differing patent laws.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is an international *application*. The Patent Cooperation Treaty (administered by WIPO) is a way to file one physical application that acts as 140+ virtual applications. PCT applications are filed through your home country or direct with the International Bureau in Geneva. The legal effect is as if you filed an application in all the locations that are PCT members. Most PCT members are countries, but some are patent offices representing a group of countries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somewhat separately there are bilateral as well as more complex reciprocal agreements between countries that fall under the umbrella of the Patent Prosecution Highway. PPH agreements allow an applicant with a positive reaction from country A to partition country B to move its counterpart application to the front of the line in country B. There are increasing numbers of ways to get into a PPH program. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of the EPO for Europe. IF the EPO issues a patent it can be turned into a valid enforceable UK patent or Frence or German patent by just paying money and possibly getting official translation of the claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5729" RevisionGUID="4c51264e-7419-47d7-9272-6029f3ae31c9" CreationDate="2013-12-24T23:58:23.373" UserId="3076" Comment="removed signature" Text="My company is currently developing software and we are interested in pursuing a patent for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is should I file patent it prior to completing the final version - we are about 1-2 months away from completion? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We want to have a patent in place prior to launch and I assume now would be a good time to do so? When is the best time do to this? Should I have done this already?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5731" RevisionGUID="9e14918a-66d4-459d-9370-da070924ed82" CreationDate="2013-12-25T00:01:55.813" UserId="3076" Text="It can take three years or more for a patent to issue. It is rare that people wait for patents to *issue* before they launch a product but very normal that they wait until the patents are *filed*. The downside of filing too soon is that you do not have a complete understanding of what the important, new, patentable nuggets are yet. Waiting too long and someone may beat you to it or your product launch might be held up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5732" RevisionGUID="a27e4147-9a92-4b46-bc5a-cca1c61ecb14" CreationDate="2013-12-25T00:15:52.070" UserId="3076" Text="The default case for a U.S. patent application is to be published 18 months from the earliest claimed priority date. That might be 18 months from filing. In  the case the priority document was a provisional application and a non-provisonal application is filed just before the 12 month point, the publication will be 18 months from the provisional filing or 6 months after the non-provisonal filing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the U.S. there isn't really a third party per-allowance challenge the way there is in many other countries. With the AIA we now have a way to submit a certain class of prior art during a particular time window via a process that obliges the examiner to look at the submitted material. Their is not an ability to present arguments but there is a limited facility to express why and what about the references are relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also an older, little used mechanism called a protest that can only be filed in a different time wind. It can only be filed *pre*-publication. It needs to identify the application. In most cases per-publication no one even knows the application is filed. You can learn more about it [here.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1901.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="395d34f4-8232-4e96-8407-fcbc67b04584" CreationDate="2013-12-25T01:05:31.087" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Applying administrator defined ranking rules to alter the ranking of search results** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Applying a user-defined ranking rule on search results and re-ordering the search results based on the ranking rule! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Re-ordering search results based on rules defined by a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Graphical User Interface allows a user to: configure the **ranking rules** such as to enter **key/value restrictions** or set a **boost value**,  preview an application of one or more of the **ranking rules**, specify a portion of results from which statistics such as **standard deviation**, **average score** are calculated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: User-configured rules to re-order search results.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving search results, applying user-defined re-ranking rules to the search results, and re-ranking the search results based on the user-defined re-ranking rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130198174 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/360,536&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/28/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for re-ranking search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results that are ranked; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. applying a ranking rule defined by a user to the search results that re-ranks the search results, wherein the ranking rule includes user specified parameters that influence how a result within the search results is re-ranked using statistical information relating to the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for re-ordering search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results in an order in response to a search query executed using a search engine;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.    applying a re-ordering rule defined by a user to re-order the search results, where the re-ordering rule defines ordering a result within the search results on the basis of statistical information related to search results; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. re-ordering the search results on the basis of user-defined re-ordering rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A Graphical User Interface (GUI) displays options for a user to set search parameters to re-rank search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;User defined re-ordering of search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Ie8wCzF.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130198174&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130198174#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=01%2F27%2F2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5728" RevisionGUID="714449d9-39a6-4440-9a3c-c88fed6001ca" CreationDate="2013-12-25T01:05:43.400" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON providing recommendations based on relative preferences across items for a customer.** - This application from [MIT][6] seeks to patent the idea of...identifying a relative preference list of all users, comparing a user's relative preference list with the canonical preference list, and inferring preferences of the user on the basis of comparison with other users. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/29/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Providing a personalized recommendation to a user regarding items that the user has not ranked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A user's preference is identified based on **pair-wise preferences** of items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining preferences of a user based on comparative rating across items.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Comparing preference of a user with identified preferences of all users and inferring preference of the user based on a correlation factor between the user preference and each of the identified preferences.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130054498 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/598,124&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: MIT&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/29/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 8/27/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for inferring the preferences of a user in relation to a population, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying a preference distribution of said population comprising a plurality of ranked lists and a weight of each of said plurality of ranked lists;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. comparing a revealed preference of said user to one of said plurality of ranked lists;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. assigning an affinity weight between said user and each of said plurality of ranked lists; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. taking a weighted average of each of said affinity weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for inferring preferences of a user, the method comprises the following steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying preferences of all users over a number of choices; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. comparing preferences of the user with each of the identified preferences;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. assigning a correlation factor between the user preferences and each of the identified preferences; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. averaging the assigned correlation factors to infer preferences of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/29/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A preference list  providing comparisons between every pair of items for a user is represented by a comparison matrix indexed by i and j, where entry (i, j) is set to 1 if item i is preferred to item j, and 0 otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Providing recommendations based on pair-wise comparison of items.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/1c7H9Dw.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130054498a1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://web.mit.edu/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130054498#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=08%2F29%2F2011&amp;t=1providing%20personalized%20recommendations.1ranked%20lists.1preference.0preference%20distribution.0revealed%20preference.0affinity%20weight.0population.0weighted%20average.0index.0sparse%20distribution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5733" RevisionGUID="ecf57b84-ba25-4d78-a225-12f5994a8a18" CreationDate="2013-12-25T19:34:02.393" UserId="7503" Text="To who can I address a specific patent question about a specific patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent us20050211962&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a phone number or email address?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack Exchange Team (Stack Exchange, Inc.)&#xD;&#xA;Dec 25 14:20&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dear Mr. Atkinson,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once again, our company is not involved in any way with the patent application process. We have absolutely no information about your application, nor do we have any special relationship with the patent office. We are a company that runs question-and-answer websites for the general public. I'm sorry, but there is nothing we can do to help you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards,&#xD;&#xA;The Stack Exchange team&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jhntknsn&#xD;&#xA;Dec 25 12:18&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Free text follows:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent us20050211962&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am trying to test samples of this patent and make modifications -- which means dealing with 3rd parties. Patent us20050211962 I would like to ensure my application is in order to insure its safety. Please send me a new bill. Or send address, or procedure to re-submit this patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John Atkinson 604 West Palmyra Avenue Orange, CA 92868&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;714-744-4479&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;j.atkinson@live.com Stack Exchange Team (Stack Exchange, Inc.) Dec 25 11:48&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14677" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5733" RevisionGUID="ecf57b84-ba25-4d78-a225-12f5994a8a18" CreationDate="2013-12-25T19:34:02.393" UserId="7503" Text="Patent information" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14678" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5733" RevisionGUID="ecf57b84-ba25-4d78-a225-12f5994a8a18" CreationDate="2013-12-25T19:34:02.393" UserId="7503" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5733" RevisionGUID="a27deb10-d966-45bb-b2c0-6b9542f0f9de" CreationDate="2013-12-25T21:04:00.893" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 923 characters in body; edited tags" Text="How can I reach the inventor of this patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent Application: us20050211962&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking for a phone number or email address to ask implementation details about the invention described in the patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14680" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5733" RevisionGUID="a27deb10-d966-45bb-b2c0-6b9542f0f9de" CreationDate="2013-12-25T21:04:00.893" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 923 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;us20050211962&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14681" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5733" RevisionGUID="a27deb10-d966-45bb-b2c0-6b9542f0f9de" CreationDate="2013-12-25T21:04:00.893" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 923 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Looking for information about inventor of us20050211962" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="42" RevisionGUID="4bed288c-6244-4980-9bf8-6fd89c0c28f4" CreationDate="2013-12-26T03:11:47.533" UserId="147" Comment="fixed two typos" Text="Absent some definition or example in the document itself, one must fall back on the [“ordinary and plain meaning”][1] of the term, which, as with all terms, is subject to interpretation and dispute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though it's tempting to say more than that, anything further would be misleading: how the “ordinary and plain meaning” of an undefined term is established will depend on the nature of the term, the context in which the term is used, the venue in which its meaning is being disputed, and the persuasiveness and expertise of the participants in the process. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2111_01.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14685" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="42" RevisionGUID="4bed288c-6244-4980-9bf8-6fd89c0c28f4" CreationDate="2013-12-26T03:11:47.533" Comment="Proposed by 147 approved by 79 edit id of 477" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5734" RevisionGUID="71a7b0cc-32e1-4be4-8c9c-9961d62662f4" CreationDate="2013-12-26T03:53:29.757" UserId="7491" Text="When the patent has been filed, how does the patent authority check that the idea or product you produced is new. How does they check that their resources that there exists no patent for the idea you have. Are there any categories in the patents that you file for like the patent you are filing for comes under 'Information Technology' or 'Physics' or 'Psychology'. I mean ask that they check in the categories if they exist, . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can they say that your idea is just an implication for some other patent, if so, how to proceed with our patent. Is there a way that we can proceed legally saying that your idea is unique.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14687" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5734" RevisionGUID="71a7b0cc-32e1-4be4-8c9c-9961d62662f4" CreationDate="2013-12-26T03:53:29.757" UserId="7491" Text="How does the patent approving authority check for the novelty of the idea that you want to patent for" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14688" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5734" RevisionGUID="71a7b0cc-32e1-4be4-8c9c-9961d62662f4" CreationDate="2013-12-26T03:53:29.757" UserId="7491" Text="&lt;process&gt;&lt;approving&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5735" RevisionGUID="3ec2d0b7-ef9b-4886-ab60-af760e71f5a7" CreationDate="2013-12-26T04:18:37.540" UserId="3076" Text="The short version is they do a search through databases starting with patent databases. They aren't specificLly looking for previous patents. If your claimed invention is already described in a patent, a patent application, a journal article, or anywhere else you shouldn't be able to get a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching is a art. It is done by text searching and by classification. The patent databases are indexable by class and subclass to a much finer level than &quot;physics&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5736" RevisionGUID="32415860-ab51-4e0c-aa94-3d1807e0474d" CreationDate="2013-12-26T06:02:46.500" UserId="7505" Text="Here's one of our prior patents that might help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20110010674&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem lies in the verbiage which snake oil lawyers are real good at manipulating. Also remember, a pencil and an eraser can each be patented, but so can a pencil with an eraser.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5736" RevisionGUID="5e2ce33a-8488-4e0f-a116-e853dc0f0ce8" CreationDate="2013-12-26T07:14:46.753" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 88 characters in body" Text="Here's one of our prior patents that might help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20110010674&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also remember, a pencil and an eraser can each be patented, but so can a pencil with an eraser.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5737" RevisionGUID="43783073-446d-49c7-8746-68aca86fa234" CreationDate="2013-12-26T12:17:35.363" UserId="7506" Text="please check the link below for details&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&amp;NR=2005211962A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=20050929&amp;DB=&amp;locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;                                                                         &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;         " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="cfdb3af5-5a3f-42cc-adf9-1a60397d7c93" CreationDate="2013-12-26T17:49:17.557" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Applying administrator defined ranking rules to alter the ranking of search results** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Applying a user-defined ranking rule on search results and re-ordering the search results based on the ranking rule! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Re-ordering search results based on rules defined by a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Graphical User Interface allows a user to: configure the **ranking rules** such as to enter **key/value restrictions** or set a **boost value**,  preview an application of one or more of the **ranking rules**, specify a portion of results from which statistics such as **standard deviation**, **average score** are calculated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: User-configured rules to re-order search results.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving search results, applying user-defined re-ranking rules to the search results, and re-ranking the search results based on the user-defined re-ranking rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130198174 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/360,536&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/28/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for re-ranking search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results that are ranked; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. applying a ranking rule defined by a user to the search results that re-ranks the search results, wherein the ranking rule includes user specified parameters that influence how a result within the search results is re-ranked using statistical information relating to the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for re-ordering search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results in an order in response to a search query executed using a search engine;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.    applying a re-ordering rule defined by a user to re-order the search results, where the re-ordering rule defines ordering a result within the search results on the basis of statistical information related to search results; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. re-ordering the search results on the basis of user-defined re-ordering rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A Graphical User Interface (GUI) displays options for a user to set search parameters to re-rank search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;User defined re-ordering of search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Ie8wCzF.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130198174&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130198174#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=01%2F27%2F2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5728" RevisionGUID="cd61f378-f420-458c-8fd2-a8504463f79b" CreationDate="2013-12-26T17:49:49.137" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON providing recommendations based on relative preferences across items for a customer.** - This application from [MIT][6] seeks to patent the idea of...identifying a relative preference list of all users, comparing a user's relative preference list with the canonical preference list, and inferring preferences of the user on the basis of comparison with other users. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/29/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Providing a personalized recommendation to a user regarding items that the user has not ranked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A user's preference is identified based on **pair-wise preferences** of items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining preferences of a user based on comparative rating across items.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Comparing preference of a user with identified preferences of all users and inferring preference of the user based on a correlation factor between the user preference and each of the identified preferences.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130054498 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/598,124&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: MIT&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/29/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 8/27/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for inferring the preferences of a user in relation to a population, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying a preference distribution of said population comprising a plurality of ranked lists and a weight of each of said plurality of ranked lists;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. comparing a revealed preference of said user to one of said plurality of ranked lists;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. assigning an affinity weight between said user and each of said plurality of ranked lists; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. taking a weighted average of each of said affinity weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for inferring preferences of a user, the method comprises the following steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying preferences of all users over a number of choices; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. comparing preferences of the user with each of the identified preferences;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. assigning a correlation factor between the user preferences and each of the identified preferences; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. averaging the assigned correlation factors to infer preferences of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/29/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A preference list  providing comparisons between every pair of items for a user is represented by a comparison matrix indexed by i and j, where entry (i, j) is set to 1 if item i is preferred to item j, and 0 otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Providing recommendations based on pair-wise comparison of items.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/1c7H9Dw.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130054498a1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://web.mit.edu/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130054498#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=08%2F29%2F2011&amp;t=1providing%20personalized%20recommendations.1ranked%20lists.1preference.0preference%20distribution.0revealed%20preference.0affinity%20weight.0population.0weighted%20average.0index.0sparse%20distribution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5735" RevisionGUID="2f92377a-3777-44dc-9013-121866997f65" CreationDate="2013-12-26T18:40:01.250" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="The short version is they do a search through databases starting with patent databases. They aren't specifically looking for previous patents. If your claimed invention is already described in a patent, a patent application, a journal article, or anywhere else you shouldn't be able to get a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching is a art. It is done by text searching and by classification. The patent databases are indexable by class and subclass to a much finer level than &quot;physics&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5738" RevisionGUID="45cec7f8-6dc0-4723-91c2-abbfdc0ffd8a" CreationDate="2013-12-26T19:50:41.147" UserId="7507" Text="I think a simalare  Idea can be found in the e-bay search features, check this: http://pages.ebay.com/help/search/customize-results.html&#xD;&#xA;By letting the user to choose their result&#xD;&#xA;and you can see it clearly in the description of search customization of e-bay search:&#xD;&#xA;`To customize your results page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Make sure you're signed into eBay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Search for an item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    In the View drop-down menu located at the top of the search results page, select Customize.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Modify your settings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Click the Apply changes button to save your settings.`&#xD;&#xA;I'm sorry for my English &#xD;&#xA;but I'm sure someone here well do the explaining better than me" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5739" RevisionGUID="5aa97923-0002-419d-8ffc-d5d1e969fe0e" CreationDate="2013-12-26T20:39:35.427" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Determine whether or not features of discussion thread pages have changed with time** - This application from [Sony][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Recording contents of an electronic page at different intervals and determining changes in feature based on the contents! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 7/26/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining change in contents of a discussion thread page with time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - An **electronic bulletin board system**: includes **discussion thread pages** each associated with a **discussion topic**, allows a user to create a new **discussion thread page** for a new **discussion topic**, or post a comment to an already created **discussion thread page**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining changes in contents of a discussion thread with time.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying contents of a page at various time intervals, and determining whether a feature of the page has changed based on the identification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130031118 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/554,135&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Sony&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 7/26/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 7/30/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An information processing system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An identifying unit that repeatedly identifies a content of a page whose content changes with a lapse of time; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A determination unit that determines based on contents of the page identified at different timings whether or not a feature of the identified page has changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An information processing system for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying contents of a page whose contents changes with time, at various time intervals; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining whether a feature of the page has changed on the basis of the identified contents of the page at the various time intervals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 7/26/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Receiving a search request and searching discussion thread pages matching the received search request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Identify change in contents of a discussion thread&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/wgPel4S.png&quot; width=&quot;450&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130031118&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.scei.co.jp/index_e.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130031118#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=07%2F20%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14698" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5739" RevisionGUID="5aa97923-0002-419d-8ffc-d5d1e969fe0e" CreationDate="2013-12-26T20:39:35.427" UserId="1767" Text="Social Networking - Analyzing contents of discussion threads whose contents change with time (Sony) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14699" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5739" RevisionGUID="5aa97923-0002-419d-8ffc-d5d1e969fe0e" CreationDate="2013-12-26T20:39:35.427" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;sony&gt;&lt;us20130031118&gt;&lt;online-forum&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5739" RevisionGUID="ad498e8b-19a6-4103-9283-490399d45deb" CreationDate="2013-12-26T21:40:19.113" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Determine whether or not features of discussion thread pages have changed with time** - This application from [Sony][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Recording contents of an electronic page at different intervals and determining changes in the contents! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 7/26/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining change in contents of a discussion thread page with time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - An **electronic bulletin board system**: includes **discussion thread pages** each associated with a **discussion topic**, allows a user to create a new **discussion thread page** for a new **discussion topic**, or post a comment to an already created **discussion thread page**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining changes in contents of a discussion thread with time.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying contents of a page at various time intervals, and determining whether a feature of the page has changed based on the content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130031118 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/554,135&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Sony&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 7/26/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 7/30/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An information processing system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An identifying unit that repeatedly identifies a content of a page whose content changes with a lapse of time; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A determination unit that determines based on contents of the page identified at different timings whether or not a feature of the identified page has changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An information processing system for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying contents of a page whose contents changes with time, at various time intervals; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining whether a feature of the page has changed on the basis of the identified contents of the page at the various time intervals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 7/26/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Receiving a search request and searching discussion thread pages matching the received search request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Identify change in contents of a discussion thread&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/wgPel4S.png&quot; width=&quot;450&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130031118&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.scei.co.jp/index_e.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130031118#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=07%2F20%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3959" RevisionGUID="fdeb8c25-fd1c-4d60-a412-baf1e569d3e2" CreationDate="2013-12-26T22:18:46.893" UserId="147" Comment="edited body" Text="LugRadio was a Linux news show that began podcasting in 26 Feb 2004, and stopped regular releases on 19th July 2008. (http://lugradio.org/episodes/#episode1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their shows contained segments that often had recurring themes and all their shows had detailed show notes containing links." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3915" RevisionGUID="d4dd9ad8-019b-444c-9048-3291b8dbd766" CreationDate="2013-12-26T22:19:00.113" UserId="147" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Cu-SeeMe (1993) was a multi-media video conferencing system that provided one-to-many, a several-to-several, or a several-to-many conference depending on user needs and hardware capabilities. Here's the Cu-SeeMe Cookbook:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.cadvision.com/blanchas/education/cu-seeme/cuseeme.txt&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3951" RevisionGUID="70c3b72d-b004-46ef-836b-b605ee43ab97" CreationDate="2013-12-26T22:19:33.353" UserId="147" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="I do not have an actual example, but when my Grandfather became blind in the early 90s, a disability group gave him recordings of specific articles, magazines and books at his request.  I am unsure of the actual organization, we live in Minnesota, but that should definitely show the obviousness of this patent.  I'm sure they were doing this for some time before even the 90s to assist blind people throughout the country." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3987" RevisionGUID="c0ec0fe5-cb3a-44c5-ab1b-cd924232b8aa" CreationDate="2013-12-26T22:19:53.213" UserId="147" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="From http://www.joybubblesthemovie.com/synopsis.html:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; During the last thirteen years of his life, before passing away from congestive heart failure in the summer of 2007, Joybubbles hosted a radio program called 'Stories and Stuff,' on his answering machine. He updated the show weekly, and made the recording available to anyone who called the number +1 206-FEELING. Joybubbles loved to tell stories about his imaginary friends, telephones, eternal childhood, and sensual pleasures he enjoyed, like the smell of chlorinated swimming pools, eating gooey angel food cake, and listening to the sound of venetian blinds fluttering in the wind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://audio.textfiles.com/shows/storiesandstuff/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.radiolab.org/2012/feb/20/long-distance/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4058" RevisionGUID="586707d0-dba3-446d-8a7d-a1872fb5960a" CreationDate="2013-12-26T22:20:26.013" UserId="147" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In *2001: A Space Odyssey*, Chapter 9 (p. 55 of the 1984 reprint):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; he would plug his foolscap-sized newspad into the ship's information circuit and scan the latest reports from Earth... he quickly searched the headlines and noted the items that interested him&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This likely fits within their definition and was originally published in 1968. While this example does not incorporate the concept of audio or moving video media, it is an example of media and the automatically updated list of current episodes/articles." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3897" RevisionGUID="82d01478-7411-4c45-9e3c-544715198ae2" CreationDate="2013-12-26T22:21:22.143" UserId="147" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Published in 1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[CBC Radio on the Internet: An Experiment in Convergence](http://www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/viewArticle/926)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Andrew S. Patrick, Alex Black, Thomas E. Whalen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abstract:  &#xD;&#xA;An experimental trial was conducted to determine: (1) if there was any demand for regular radio programming distributed as digital audio files over the Internet, (2) if the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) was willing to distribute programming in this format, and (3) what implications such a service would have for the corporation. Both sample and regular radio programs were digitized using computer sound equipment and made available via FTP, Gopher, and World Wide Web. Analysis of the traffic logs and a review of the comments submitted by users showed a very high demand (possibly all that was possible with this trial configuration) and a keen interest in the service. CBC has decided to adopt the trial and start a permanent service on the Internet. The trial identified a number of issues that will have to be addressed for this service, including archival storage, copyright, royalties, production changes, and electronic commerce opportunities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Yes, this paper reports on work we did in 1994 and describes most of the features of the claim. Contact me for details: Andrew@andrewpatrick.ca.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3895" RevisionGUID="cb425116-9c97-4de9-a489-5051e4d22c06" CreationDate="2013-12-26T22:22:51.433" UserId="147" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="Some of these might help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Just saw [this](http://ibiblio.org/pjones/blog/the-story-behind-the-hypertext-91-demo-page-and-unc-and-me/): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; I created my own page and added a link to an FTP site in Denmark that hosted a sound collection among other things. I wanted to see if the NeXT and Tim’s WWW browser would be able to pass the sound to a player. I think it did, but I really can’t remember if it did. &#xD;&#xA;* Patent for &quot;A credit card size portable system comprises a bubble memory for storage serially of digital data, especially of sound analogue signal which has been digitally encoded&quot;: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=4667088&#xD;&#xA;* First Internet audiocast:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.isi.edu/div7/publication_files/rs-92-293.pdf&#xD;&#xA;* Audio Highway Personal Audio Player from '96:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2023689_2023681_2023609,00.html&#xD;&#xA;http://www.deseretnews.com/article/536358/UTAH-FIRM-HUGS-SPOTLIGHT-AT-LV-ELECTRONICS-SHOW.html&#xD;&#xA;* MBone info: http://www.webstart.com/jed/papers/HRM/references/mbone-av.html&#xD;&#xA;* From 1994: Aerosmith received national press coverage in July when it claimed to have created the first single to be available exclusively on line. But a service called the Internet Underground Music Archive had already made some 75 songs available only on the Internet:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/22/arts/rolling-stones-live-on-internet-both-a-big-deal-and-a-little-deal.html&#xD;&#xA;* And from early October, 1996: the first &quot;virtual&quot; Mechanics of Materials class at the University of Missouri-Rolla had its audio and class notes broadcast over the Internet from the Basic Engineering Lecture Hall:&#xD;&#xA;http://technologyinterface.nmsu.edu/winter97/multimedia/mm-htm1.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14708" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3918" RevisionGUID="3c9cf61c-3451-464c-b752-ed89c389538e" CreationDate="2013-12-26T22:23:55.487" UserId="147" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="There were many electronic journals online before 1996&amp;nbsp;— if any of them had a &quot;latest articles&quot; page that described each article and had a direct download link to a file (eg PDF or PostScript, possibly HTML) for each article, that would seem to fit the description of this claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possible candidates include the [Theory and Applications of Categories][1], which started publishing online in 1995. The Internet Archive has [a capture from January 1997][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.tac.mta.ca/tac/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://web.archive.org/web/19970115173047/http://www.tac.mta.ca/tac/articles.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5484" RevisionGUID="1f9a7344-ad33-46b5-93ac-d41ec218ef7a" CreationDate="2013-12-27T02:43:31.457" UserId="147" Comment="fixed a typo, plus other minor fixes to reach the threshold" Text="Patenting in lots of foreign places does *not* solve the problem because there are so many foreign countries. The bad guys just need one where you don't have a patent or where patents aren't enforced. The solution is &quot;inferential claiming&quot;. Step 1, sending by a client the following data to a server; step 2, receiving from the server a result that was created by the following actions being performed on the sent data; step 3, dispatching vehicles based on the received data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The positively recited steps: sending, receiving and dispatching are all done in the US. Now, you still need to establish that the received data was created according to whatever you have in the claim but none of the steps performed by the server are an actual element of the claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims can be amended so if you get them way off someone could help you later even after many rejections, continuations, etc. However no new matter can be added after filing, so I would concentrate on a great specification rather than twisting your mind around convoluted claim wording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14714" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5484" RevisionGUID="1f9a7344-ad33-46b5-93ac-d41ec218ef7a" CreationDate="2013-12-27T02:43:31.457" Comment="Proposed by 147 approved by 7392, 3076 edit id of 478" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4478" RevisionGUID="3cd1c93b-ba95-417c-b5a1-5298c5cd0942" CreationDate="2013-12-27T05:09:09.243" UserId="147" Comment="fixed a typo, plus padding for edit threshold" Text="Sounds a lot like Craigslist to me.&amp;nbsp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14716" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4478" RevisionGUID="3cd1c93b-ba95-417c-b5a1-5298c5cd0942" CreationDate="2013-12-27T05:09:09.243" Comment="Proposed by 147 approved by 7392, 3076 edit id of 480" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4355" RevisionGUID="0eee6c46-0992-430e-b458-98b6484c8c1e" CreationDate="2013-12-27T05:09:21.403" UserId="147" Comment="fixed a typo, plus padding to reach the edit threshold" Text="The game [Midi Maze][1] from 1989 for the Atari ST would have a claim for prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The guys at [midimaze.de][2] know a lot more about the gameplay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIDI_Maze&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.midimaze.de" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14718" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4355" RevisionGUID="0eee6c46-0992-430e-b458-98b6484c8c1e" CreationDate="2013-12-27T05:09:21.403" Comment="Proposed by 147 approved by 7392, 3076 edit id of 481" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4480" RevisionGUID="e984af17-78dc-4da6-938f-0d2405b990ce" CreationDate="2013-12-27T05:09:32.683" UserId="147" Comment="fixed two typos, plus other minor things to reach the threshold" Text="I found &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A. Nasipuri, K. Li; A directionality based location discovery scheme for wireless sensor networks, Proceedings of the 1st ACM international workshop on Wireless sensor networks and applications, 2002][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In this work, we present a localization technique by which&#xD;&#xA;the sensor nodes determine their position with respect to a&#xD;&#xA;set of fixed beacon nodes that are capable of covering the&#xD;&#xA;entire network area by powerful directional wireless trans-&#xD;&#xA;missions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - wireless sensor network&#xD;&#xA; - several directional antennae&#xD;&#xA; - 2002&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately the directional antennae are not connected to a single data collection device. But they arguably are &quot;operatively coupled&quot; since they together achieve the localisation function.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=570754&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14720" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4480" RevisionGUID="e984af17-78dc-4da6-938f-0d2405b990ce" CreationDate="2013-12-27T05:09:32.683" Comment="Proposed by 147 approved by 7392, 3076 edit id of 479" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="29359f90-a16e-40ff-ad70-bdd434e02f6d" CreationDate="2013-12-27T05:14:30.513" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Applying administrator defined ranking rules to alter the ranking of search results** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Applying a user-defined ranking rule on search results and re-ordering the search results based on the ranking rule! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Re-ordering search results based on rules defined by a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Graphical User Interface allows a user to: configure the **ranking rules** such as to enter **key/value restrictions** or set a **boost value**,  preview an application of one or more of the **ranking rules**, specify a portion of results from which statistics such as **standard deviation**, **average score** are calculated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: User-configured rules to re-order search results.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving search results, applying user-defined re-ranking rules to the search results, and re-ranking the search results based on the user-defined re-ranking rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130198174 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/360,536&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/28/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for re-ranking search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results that are ranked; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. applying a ranking rule defined by a user to the search results that re-ranks the search results, wherein the ranking rule includes user specified parameters that influence how a result within the search results is re-ranked using statistical information relating to the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for re-ordering search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results in an order in response to a search query executed using a search engine;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.    applying a re-ordering rule defined by a user to re-order the search results, where the re-ordering rule defines ordering a result within the search results on the basis of statistical information related to search results; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. re-ordering the search results on the basis of user-defined re-ordering rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A Graphical User Interface (GUI) displays options for a user to set search parameters to re-rank search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;User defined re-ordering of search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Ie8wCzF.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130198174&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130198174#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=01%2F27%2F2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5739" RevisionGUID="369f121b-189c-4ae2-a185-07fb144fba96" CreationDate="2013-12-27T05:15:01.610" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Determine whether or not features of discussion thread pages have changed with time** - This application from [Sony][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Recording contents of an electronic page at different intervals and determining changes in the contents! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 7/26/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining change in contents of a discussion thread page with time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - An **electronic bulletin board system**: includes **discussion thread pages** each associated with a **discussion topic**, allows a user to create a new **discussion thread page** for a new **discussion topic**, or post a comment to an already created **discussion thread page**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining changes in contents of a discussion thread with time.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying contents of a page at various time intervals, and determining whether a feature of the page has changed based on the content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130031118 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/554,135&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Sony&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 7/26/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 7/30/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An information processing system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An identifying unit that repeatedly identifies a content of a page whose content changes with a lapse of time; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A determination unit that determines based on contents of the page identified at different timings whether or not a feature of the identified page has changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An information processing system for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying contents of a page whose contents changes with time, at various time intervals; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining whether a feature of the page has changed on the basis of the identified contents of the page at the various time intervals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 7/26/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Receiving a search request and searching discussion thread pages matching the received search request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Identify change in contents of a discussion thread&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/wgPel4S.png&quot; width=&quot;450&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130031118&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.scei.co.jp/index_e.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130031118#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=07%2F20%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5741" RevisionGUID="2dea714d-48d9-4271-a3ed-0d6ee76333a2" CreationDate="2013-12-27T19:10:27.710" UserId="3588" Text="Trying to establish how many patents have been issued in the U.S. for a certain classification, it seems not straightforward to get just that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a case in point, pick classification 715/234.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [USPTO reports][1] contain a certain number up until 2012, and a search on [Google patents search][2] seems to yield an order of magnitude more. Search with the [USPTO's own search portal][3] on the other hand yields yet a different order of magnitude, smaller. Maybe some of them count applications that weren't granted and some only patents that haven't expired, but it is unjustifiably hard to navigate the most representative/correct number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the real number for 715/234, and how should it be obtained for any other subclassification in general?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/cbcby.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/?tbm=pts#q=classification%20715/234&amp;start=90&amp;tbm=pts&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm&amp;r=0&amp;p=1&amp;f=S&amp;l=50&amp;Query=ccl/715/234&amp;d=PTXT" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14724" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5741" RevisionGUID="2dea714d-48d9-4271-a3ed-0d6ee76333a2" CreationDate="2013-12-27T19:10:27.710" UserId="3588" Text="Number of patents in a classification" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14725" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5741" RevisionGUID="2dea714d-48d9-4271-a3ed-0d6ee76333a2" CreationDate="2013-12-27T19:10:27.710" UserId="3588" Text="&lt;statistics&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5742" RevisionGUID="d9e031db-e054-4bfd-9104-992827ea5ee5" CreationDate="2013-12-27T21:14:22.840" UserId="3588" Text="Even though it is usually described that continuation patents are mainly used to broaden or change claims about a disclosure made in a parent patent application, I am led to understand they can also introduce real improvements to the 'invention' disclosed in the parent patent (and then the priority date shifts on the timeline accordingly etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also well known that for some domains, e.g. software, patent applications that do not go through the expedited examination process take about a year or more until they are first examined. So a patent application stays 'live' for the sake of being able to submit a continuation application deriving from it, for a bit of a long time (any comments up to here?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question here is how is the novelty of a continuation application - one that adds or modifies the original invention, due to improvements to the invention made since the original - how is its novelty judged by the examiner....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Namely does the continuation need to be sufficiently novel compared to the _parent_ (i.e. a big leap of novelty even compared to the parent), or does it more merely need to be novel compared to _what would have been considered novel at the time_ of the parent submission (which seems unfair as it sort of lets the continuation leap back in time to an earlier date). I find this very troubling...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14727" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5742" RevisionGUID="d9e031db-e054-4bfd-9104-992827ea5ee5" CreationDate="2013-12-27T21:14:22.840" UserId="3588" Text="Continuation patent and novelty" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14728" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5742" RevisionGUID="d9e031db-e054-4bfd-9104-992827ea5ee5" CreationDate="2013-12-27T21:14:22.840" UserId="3588" Text="&lt;continuation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5743" RevisionGUID="f5677e1e-db46-43ed-9c44-920f4b774b0d" CreationDate="2013-12-27T22:33:08.093" UserId="7516" Text="Others have delivered mobile advertising using geolocation since before the patent [us20100332310] was filed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14730" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5743" RevisionGUID="f5677e1e-db46-43ed-9c44-920f4b774b0d" CreationDate="2013-12-27T22:33:08.093" UserId="7516" Text="How can this be a valid patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14731" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5743" RevisionGUID="f5677e1e-db46-43ed-9c44-920f4b774b0d" CreationDate="2013-12-27T22:33:08.093" UserId="7516" Text="&lt;invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14732" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="5743" RevisionGUID="f3ba99d2-b99c-4766-875b-dc9f21db50ff" CreationDate="2013-12-27T23:19:53.477" UserId="1767" Comment="22" />
  <row Id="14733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5744" RevisionGUID="5585f26a-62e7-4293-8db7-b002d093b7c9" CreationDate="2013-12-28T03:17:07.840" UserId="3076" Text="Nothing troubling going on. No &quot;new matter&quot; is allowed in any continuation other than a continuation-in-part. In a continuation-in-part the examiner essentially treats the application as if it **didn't have any priority** benefit from the earlier applications in the chain. If prior art is found that pre-dates the actual filing of the CIP the examiner can use that prior art in a rejection and put the burden of showing that the topic in question was sufficiently covered in an earlier filing in the chain on the applicant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your own previous work, it can be used against you a year after it was published. At that time it is treated like any other prior art even if it is in the parentage chain of a CIP. So a CIP that only adds mater obvious in light of the original filing  can have claims to that addition allowed as long as it has not been a year since the original application was published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, it take years to get a patent or to have a patent go abandoned. A chain of child applications with the specification and drawings unchanged can extent for years. However the check on that is patent term ends 20 years from the earliest claimed priority. Extending a chain of continuations for 15 years would result in a patent with a five year life." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5745" RevisionGUID="0e1cefa1-6221-4b60-93ab-383ce37c05d3" CreationDate="2013-12-28T03:38:19.493" UserId="3076" Text="There are several things wrong in your searches. First you used the search string &quot;classification 715/234&quot; in google patents. Since google searching is very clever it is not easy to know what it thinks you are looking for. It is not at confined to patents in that class. It will presumably hit on anything with the word classification and the characters 715/234. That could appear in cross-referenced classes or on a list of citied patents as the classification they were found in. It could be part of a phone number. To constrain google patents to a particular US classification one would use google patents advanced. It would create a search string &quot;uspclass:&quot;715/234&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the report, I may have missed it but I don't see it going into subclasses. It has a total of 17,179 from 1977 to 2012 for **all subclasses within the major class 715**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent office search site is a good way to look up this type of information and it looks like you correctly used the search string " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5745" RevisionGUID="f5938f89-4120-476e-9408-08d7499e75dc" CreationDate="2013-12-28T03:45:15.823" UserId="3076" Comment="added 769 characters in body" Text="There are several things wrong in your searches. First you used the search string &quot;classification 715/234&quot; in google patents. Since google searching is very clever it is not easy to know what it thinks you are looking for. It is not at confined to patents in that class. It will presumably hit on anything with the word classification and the characters 715/234. That could appear in cross-referenced classes or on a list of citied patents as the classification they were found in. It could be part of a phone number. To constrain google patents to a particular US classification one would use google patents advanced. It would create a search string &quot;uspclass:&quot;715/234&quot;. You can also constrain  google patents by office and by status (application or issued patent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the report, I may have missed it but I don't see it going into subclasses. It has a total of 17,179 from 1977 to 2012 for **all subclasses within the major class 715**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent office search site is a good way to look up this type of information and it looks like you correctly used the search string ccl/715/234. Since the USPTO searching is completely separate between applications and issued patents your sear ) would have showed patents. To add in application publications you use the same search string on a different USPTO URL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know your purpose in this search but adding the application to the issued patents will double count some but not all cases. Any application that  was published that resulted in an issued patent will be in both counts. Any patent that came from an application that was not published (all were not published until a couple of decades go and sone are not published now by applicant request) would be a patent but not an application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5745" RevisionGUID="21a70c55-c1fb-400e-b405-5394ab82103c" CreationDate="2013-12-28T07:29:00.837" UserId="3076" Comment="typos cleaned up" Text="There are several things wrong in your searches. First you used the search string &quot;classification 715/234&quot; in google patents. Since google searching is very clever it is not easy to know what it thinks you are looking for but it is not at confined to patents in that class. It will presumably hit on anything with the word classification and the characters 715/234. That text could appear in cross-referenced classes or on a list of citied patents as the classification they were found in. It could be part of a phone number. To constrain google patents to a particular US classification one would use google patents advanced. It would create a search string &quot;uspclass:&quot;715/234&quot;. You can also constrain  google patents by office and by status (application or issued patent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the report, I may have missed it but I don't see it going into subclasses. It has a total of 17,179 from 1977 to 2012 for **all subclasses within the major class 715**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent office search site *is* a good way to look up this type of information and it looks like you correctly used the search string ccl/715/234. Since the USPTO searching is completely separate between applications and issued patents your search would have showed only patents. To add in application publications you use the same search string on a different USPTO URL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know your purpose in this search but adding the application to the issued patents will double count some but not all cases. Any application that was published that resulted in an issued patent will be in both counts. Any patent that came from an application that was *not* published (none were published until a couple of decades go and sone are not published now by applicant request) would be a patent but not an application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5746" RevisionGUID="326b2313-b858-4a2b-83ca-4b7e91be28eb" CreationDate="2013-12-28T16:25:11.023" UserId="7519" Text="This book was published in 2007: http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596529321.do Chapter 2 seems to cover much of this patent, specifically Collecting Preferences, finding similar uses, recommending items and matching products" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5747" RevisionGUID="eaca78c5-aba1-441b-ad65-c38ee58df46e" CreationDate="2013-12-28T16:27:07.167" UserId="7393" Text="The more I look into this I find that it's obvious the patent covers basic human auditory senses.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Psychoacoustics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hearing is not a purely mechanical phenomenon of wave propagation, but is also a sensory and perceptual event; in other words, when a person hears something, that something arrives at the ear as a mechanical sound wave traveling through the air, but within the ear it is transformed into neural action potentials. These nerve pulses then travel to the brain where they are perceived. Hence, in many problems in acoustics, such as for audio processing, it is advantageous to take into account not just the mechanics of the environment, but also the fact that both the ear and the brain are involved in a person’s listening experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The inner ear, for example, does significant signal processing in converting sound waveforms into neural stimuli, so certain differences between waveforms may be imperceptible.[1] Data compression techniques, such as MP3, make use of this fact.[2] In addition, the ear has a nonlinear response to sounds of different intensity levels; this nonlinear response is called loudness. Telephone networks and audio noise reduction systems make use of this fact by nonlinearly compressing data samples before transmission, and then expanding them for playback.[3] Another effect of the ear's nonlinear response is that sounds that are close in frequency produce phantom beat notes, or intermodulation distortion products.[4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Limits of perception##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The human ear can nominally hear sounds in the range 20 Hz (0.02 kHz) to 20,000 Hz (20 kHz). The upper limit tends to decrease with age; most adults are unable to hear above 16 kHz. The lowest frequency that has been identified as a musical tone is 12 Hz under ideal laboratory conditions.[5] Tones between 4 and 16 Hz can be perceived via the body's sense of touch.&#xD;&#xA;Frequency resolution of the ear is 3.6 Hz within the octave of 1000 – 2000 Hz. That is, changes in pitch larger than 3.6 Hz can be perceived in a clinical setting.[5] However, even smaller pitch differences can be perceived through other means. For example, the interference of two pitches can often be heard as a (low-)frequency difference pitch. This effect of phase variance upon the resultant sound is known as beating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The semitone scale used in Western musical notation is not a linear frequency scale but logarithmic. Other scales have been derived directly from experiments on human hearing perception, such as the mel scale and Bark scale (these are used in studying perception, but not usually in musical composition), and these are approximately logarithmic in frequency at the high-frequency end, but nearly linear at the low-frequency end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The psychoacoustic model provides for high quality lossy signal compression by describing which parts of a given digital audio signal can be removed (or aggressively compressed) safely — that is, without significant losses in the (consciously) perceived quality of the sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It can explain how a sharp clap of the hands might seem painfully loud in a quiet library, but is hardly noticeable after a car backfires on a busy, urban street. This provides great benefit to the overall compression ratio, and psychoacoustic analysis routinely leads to compressed music files that are 1/10th to 1/12th the size of high quality masters, but with discernibly less proportional quality loss. Such compression is a feature of nearly all modern lossy audio compression formats. Some of these formats include Dolby Digital (AC-3), MP3, Ogg Vorbis, AAC, WMA, MPEG-1 Layer II (used for digital audio broadcasting in several countries) and ATRAC, the compression used in MiniDisc and some Walkman models.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Psychoacoustics is based heavily on human anatomy, especially the ear's limitations in perceiving sound as outlined previously. To summarize, these limitations are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **[High frequency limit][1]**&#xD;&#xA; - **[Absolute threshold of hearing][2]**&#xD;&#xA; - **[Temporal masking][3]**&#xD;&#xA; - **[Simultaneous masking][4]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Psychoacoustics Model][5]&#xD;&#xA;(from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Psychoacoustic_Model.svg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Given that the ear will not be at peak perceptive capacity when dealing with these limitations, a compression algorithm can assign a lower priority to sounds outside the range of human hearing. By carefully shifting bits away from the unimportant components and toward the important ones, the algorithm ensures that the sounds a listener is most likely to perceive are of the highest quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#How did they patent natural human instinct of auditory senses?#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_frequency_limit&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_threshold_of_hearing&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_masking&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneous_masking&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/D5zip.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5738" RevisionGUID="fea2a7ee-3b3e-4ec7-ac0d-62e98f31f70d" CreationDate="2013-12-28T16:57:26.930" UserId="5749" Comment="Improve grammar &amp; formatting" Text="I think a similar idea can be found in the eBay search feature: http://pages.ebay.com/help/search/customize-results.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;eBay lets the user choose the order of search results. You can see it clearly in the description of their search customization feature:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To customize your results page:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Make sure you're signed into eBay.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Search for an item.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. In the View drop-down menu located at the top of the search results page, select Customize.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Modify your settings.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Click the Apply changes button to save your settings.`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14740" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5738" RevisionGUID="fea2a7ee-3b3e-4ec7-ac0d-62e98f31f70d" CreationDate="2013-12-28T16:57:26.930" Comment="Proposed by 5749 approved by 1259, 1767 edit id of 482" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5743" RevisionGUID="509feb29-da3c-41a2-9f53-875794c0ab1b" CreationDate="2013-12-28T20:24:53.770" UserId="7393" Comment="Helping the poster out." Text="Others have delivered mobile advertising using geolocation since before the patent [us20100332310][1] was filed in Jun 25, 2009. Have you seen prior art before Jun 25,2009?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#[Systems and methods for advertising and distributing prizes using location-based services][2]#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Publication number:	US20100332310 A1&#xD;&#xA;- Publication type:	Application&#xD;&#xA;- Application number:	US 12/823,045&#xD;&#xA;- Publication date:	Dec 30, 2010&#xD;&#xA;- Filing date	Jun 24, 2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Priority date	Jun 25, 2009**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Abstract#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The system and methods include delivering a prize to a mobile device based upon the geographic location of the mobile device. The system can include a registration interface for registering a plurality of mobile devices with the system and a registration interface for registering a plurality of clients with the system. A prize designation interface can associated one or more prizes with a specific geographic location. The prizes can be delivered to registered mobile devices when it is determined that the mobile devices are in the specific geographic locations associated with the prizes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Independent Claim 1#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for delivering a prize to a mobile device, the system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a registration interface for registering a plurality of mobile devices with the system;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a registration interface for registering a plurality of clients with the system;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a prize designation interface through which each of the plurality of clients can designate one or more prizes, each prize being associated with a specific geographic location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a geographic location receiving device configured to receive information relating to the geographic location of the registered mobile devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a delivery device for delivering the prize to one of the registered mobile devices when that mobile device is located within a predetermined radius of the specific geographic location associated with the delivered prize.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Independent Claim 13#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A method for delivering a redeemable prize to a mobile device using a prize delivery system, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - registering a plurality of mobile devices with the system;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - registering a plurality of clients with the system;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - associating a plurality of redeemable prizes with one or more clients, each redeemable prize being associated with a specific geographic location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - determining when a registered mobile device is within a predetermined radius of the specific geographic location associated with one or more of the redeemable prizes; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - delivering the redeemable prize associated with the specific geographic location when the registered mobile device is within the predetermined radius of the specific geographic location associated with that redeemable prize.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20100332310&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20100332310" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14742" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5743" RevisionGUID="509feb29-da3c-41a2-9f53-875794c0ab1b" CreationDate="2013-12-28T20:24:53.770" UserId="7393" Comment="Helping the poster out." Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;us20100332310&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14743" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5743" RevisionGUID="19c75418-c5bb-4a5f-aa87-d570cd2e317b" CreationDate="2013-12-28T20:30:53.973" UserId="7393" Comment="Helping the poster out." Text="US20100332310 - Location Based System &amp; Method for Issuing Prizes on Mobile Devices - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5743" RevisionGUID="19c75418-c5bb-4a5f-aa87-d570cd2e317b" CreationDate="2013-12-28T20:30:53.973" UserId="7393" Comment="Helping the poster out." Text="Others have delivered mobile advertising using geolocation since before the patent [us20100332310][1] was filed in Jun 25, 2009. Have you seen prior art before Jun 25,2009?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#[Systems and methods for advertising and distributing prizes using location-based services][2]#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Publication number:	US20100332310 A1&#xD;&#xA;- Publication type:	Application&#xD;&#xA;- Application number:	US 12/823,045&#xD;&#xA;- Publication date:	Dec 30, 2010&#xD;&#xA;- Filing date	Jun 24, 2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Priority date	Jun 25, 2009**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Abstract#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The system and methods include delivering a prize to a mobile device based upon the geographic location of the mobile device. The system can include a registration interface for registering a plurality of mobile devices with the system and a registration interface for registering a plurality of clients with the system. A prize designation interface can associated one or more prizes with a specific geographic location. The prizes can be delivered to registered mobile devices when it is determined that the mobile devices are in the specific geographic locations associated with the prizes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Independent Claim 1#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for delivering a prize to a mobile device, the system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a registration interface for registering a plurality of mobile devices with the system;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a registration interface for registering a plurality of clients with the system;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a prize designation interface through which each of the plurality of clients can designate one or more prizes, each prize being associated with a specific geographic location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a geographic location receiving device configured to receive information relating to the geographic location of the registered mobile devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a delivery device for delivering the prize to one of the registered mobile devices when that mobile device is located within a predetermined radius of the specific geographic location associated with the delivered prize.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Independent Claim 13#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A method for delivering a redeemable prize to a mobile device using a prize delivery system, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - registering a plurality of mobile devices with the system;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - registering a plurality of clients with the system;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - associating a plurality of redeemable prizes with one or more clients, each redeemable prize being associated with a specific geographic location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - determining when a registered mobile device is within a predetermined radius of the specific geographic location associated with one or more of the redeemable prizes; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - delivering the redeemable prize associated with the specific geographic location when the registered mobile device is within the predetermined radius of the specific geographic location associated with that redeemable prize.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you seen prior art before Jun 25, 2009?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20100332310&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20100332310" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5748" RevisionGUID="37b6a001-fc2e-479b-a588-51fe6fcb7b6f" CreationDate="2013-12-28T20:53:45.620" UserId="7393" Text="#[WO2009014735][1]#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##System, method and apparatus for secure multiparty located based services##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Publication date:	Jan 29, 2009&#xD;&#xA; - Filing date: 	 Jul 23, 2008&#xD;&#xA; - Priority date: 	**Jul 23, 2007**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a good example, it discusses &quot;distributing shares&quot; and such, which could be considered a prize?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Abstract##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer system implements a method to provide secure multiparty location based services. A user input is received from a user device of a user. The user input contains user location information. Based on the location information, a model is retrieved. The model is a constraint satisfaction problem defined by a set of variables and mapping functions. The set of variables and mapping functions are into multiple shares. Each share is distributed to one of agents in finding a solution to the constraint satisfaction problem. Once a solution is computed, a demographic profile is predicted based on the solution. The solution does not contain the user location information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Claim 1##&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A method, comprising: receiving a user input from a user device of a user, wherein the user input contains user location information; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - constructing and retrieving a model based on the user location information, wherein the model is a constraint satisfaction problem defined by a set of variables and mapping functions; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - dividing the set of variables and mapping functions into a plurality of shares; distributing the plurality of shares to a plurality of agents, wherein each of the plurality of agents participates in finding a solution to the constraint satisfaction problem; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - predicting a demographic profile based on the solution, wherein the solution does not contain the user location information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not 100% but it proves the method and system may lack novel and is obvious. I am sure you can find code examples or online tutorials published in the field of application and server development.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2009014735A2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14746" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="5743" RevisionGUID="351d912a-f293-483d-9c48-2a65c3a3838f" CreationDate="2013-12-28T21:28:24.987" UserId="1767" Comment="22" />
  <row Id="14747" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5743" RevisionGUID="29ca3528-b12f-42ab-a437-c8bba5fa51c3" CreationDate="2013-12-28T21:30:07.980" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="US20100332310 - Location Based System &amp; Method for Issuing Prizes on Mobile Devices - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14748" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5743" RevisionGUID="29ca3528-b12f-42ab-a437-c8bba5fa51c3" CreationDate="2013-12-28T21:30:07.980" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;us20100332310&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14749" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5743" RevisionGUID="d2f94548-4809-4efa-9e4a-572771db287b" CreationDate="2013-12-28T21:36:00.363" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;us20100332310&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5749" RevisionGUID="cb82d48c-3d4c-4b23-ab85-f83e53ca19ab" CreationDate="2013-12-29T08:32:05.663" UserId="7393" Text="***(The point of this post is to prove obviousness and lack of novelty in the '060 Patent)***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#[WikiPedia: Nyquist Frequency][1]#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Nyquist frequency, named after electronic engineer Harry Nyquist, is ½ of the sampling rate of a discrete signal processing system. It is sometimes known as the folding frequency of a sampling system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#[Nyquist Frequency Aliasing][2]#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This describes common Nyquist anti-aliasing (filtering) which is also includes bandpass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**In a typical application of sampling, one first chooses the highest frequency to be preserved and recreated, based on the expected content (voice, music, etc.) and desired fidelity. Then one inserts an anti-aliasing filter ahead of the sampler. Its job is to attenuate the frequencies above that limit.** Finally, based on the characteristics of the filter, one chooses a sample-rate (and corresponding Nyquist frequency) that will provide an acceptably small amount of aliasing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Aliasing][3]&#xD;&#xA; - [Filter banks][4]&#xD;&#xA; - [Signal Processing][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_frequency&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_frequency#Aliasing&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing#Bandpass_signals&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bank&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_processing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5750" RevisionGUID="7dccff9f-6644-4296-90eb-490aef3cc30c" CreationDate="2013-12-29T16:07:27.210" UserId="6070" Text="What is the purpose of pausing auctions and removing bidding interface to chat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I the only one seeing this? But it would be really annoying to be bid on the site because of the constant pausing. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14754" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5750" RevisionGUID="7dccff9f-6644-4296-90eb-490aef3cc30c" CreationDate="2013-12-29T16:07:27.210" UserId="6070" Text="What purpose does pausing the auctions serve?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14755" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5750" RevisionGUID="7dccff9f-6644-4296-90eb-490aef3cc30c" CreationDate="2013-12-29T16:07:27.210" UserId="6070" Text="&lt;us20130304599&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5751" RevisionGUID="550c370a-e2ac-455f-819c-0c02bdf86d65" CreationDate="2013-12-29T17:59:01.027" UserId="3076" Text="Welcome to Ask Patents. Although you were most likely led here from a &quot;discuss this patent&quot; link from google patents, this site is not for open ended discussion and is also not a way to directly communicate with the inventors. We are set up to post and answer questions about looking for prior art and about the U.S. patent system.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="a0d6a432-d169-4ac4-845a-44cc1cea9922" CreationDate="2013-12-30T01:00:51.697" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Applying administrator defined ranking rules to alter the ranking of search results** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Applying a user-defined ranking rule on search results and re-ordering the search results based on the ranking rule! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Re-ordering search results based on rules defined by a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Graphical User Interface allows a user to: configure the **ranking rules** such as to enter **key/value restrictions** or set a **boost value**,  preview an application of one or more of the **ranking rules**, specify a portion of results from which statistics such as **standard deviation**, **average score** are calculated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: User-configured rules to re-order search results.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving search results, applying user-defined re-ranking rules to the search results, and re-ranking the search results based on the user-defined re-ranking rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130198174 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/360,536&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/28/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for re-ranking search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results that are ranked; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. applying a ranking rule defined by a user to the search results that re-ranks the search results, wherein the ranking rule includes user specified parameters that influence how a result within the search results is re-ranked using statistical information relating to the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for re-ordering search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results in an order in response to a search query executed using a search engine;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.    applying a re-ordering rule defined by a user to re-order the search results, where the re-ordering rule defines ordering a result within the search results on the basis of statistical information related to search results; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. re-ordering the search results on the basis of user-defined re-ordering rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A Graphical User Interface (GUI) displays options for a user to set search parameters to re-rank search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;User defined re-ordering of search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Ie8wCzF.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130198174&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130198174#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=01%2F27%2F2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5728" RevisionGUID="11a17be1-073f-4b1c-aeed-ee914d755f87" CreationDate="2013-12-30T01:01:09.870" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON providing recommendations based on relative preferences across items for a customer.** - This application from [MIT][6] seeks to patent the idea of...identifying a relative preference list of all users, comparing a user's relative preference list with the canonical preference list, and inferring preferences of the user on the basis of comparison with other users. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/29/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Providing a personalized recommendation to a user regarding items that the user has not ranked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A user's preference is identified based on **pair-wise preferences** of items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining preferences of a user based on comparative rating across items.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Comparing preference of a user with identified preferences of all users and inferring preference of the user based on a correlation factor between the user preference and each of the identified preferences.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130054498 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/598,124&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: MIT&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/29/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 8/27/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for inferring the preferences of a user in relation to a population, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying a preference distribution of said population comprising a plurality of ranked lists and a weight of each of said plurality of ranked lists;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. comparing a revealed preference of said user to one of said plurality of ranked lists;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. assigning an affinity weight between said user and each of said plurality of ranked lists; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. taking a weighted average of each of said affinity weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for inferring preferences of a user, the method comprises the following steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying preferences of all users over a number of choices; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. comparing preferences of the user with each of the identified preferences;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. assigning a correlation factor between the user preferences and each of the identified preferences; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. averaging the assigned correlation factors to infer preferences of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/29/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A preference list  providing comparisons between every pair of items for a user is represented by a comparison matrix indexed by i and j, where entry (i, j) is set to 1 if item i is preferred to item j, and 0 otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Providing recommendations based on pair-wise comparison of items.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/1c7H9Dw.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130054498a1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://web.mit.edu/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130054498#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=08%2F29%2F2011&amp;t=1providing%20personalized%20recommendations.1ranked%20lists.1preference.0preference%20distribution.0revealed%20preference.0affinity%20weight.0population.0weighted%20average.0index.0sparse%20distribution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5753" RevisionGUID="eb7b4bfc-dc90-4509-ae8c-9acc7124b840" CreationDate="2013-12-30T03:35:28.693" UserId="7529" Text="Patent in question: &lt;https://www.google.com/patents/US8423452&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Related patent: &lt;https://www.google.com/patents/US8380623&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume I know nothing about patents or the law surrounding them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One feature of my idea is to track your transactions across one or more financial accounts and display them on a calendar, allowing for the input of future transactions that will occur. This would then show the balance for every day, whether that be positive or negative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this infringe on what is defined in the patent (or the related patent)? If so, how can I change my application so it does not or what advice could you offer me to stay within the confines of the law? It seems like these patents cover a lot of ground in terms of preventing anyone else from even touching the financial monitoring/planning realm." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14767" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5753" RevisionGUID="eb7b4bfc-dc90-4509-ae8c-9acc7124b840" CreationDate="2013-12-30T03:35:28.693" UserId="7529" Text="Does my idea infringe on this financial calendar patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14768" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5753" RevisionGUID="eb7b4bfc-dc90-4509-ae8c-9acc7124b840" CreationDate="2013-12-30T03:35:28.693" UserId="7529" Text="&lt;us8423452&gt;&lt;us8380623&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5753" RevisionGUID="131711a8-c40f-41ec-9e30-fc93735b437c" CreationDate="2013-12-30T04:46:42.420" UserId="3076" Comment="added claim 1 of each cited patent" Text="Patent in question: &lt;https://www.google.com/patents/US8423452&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Related patent: &lt;https://www.google.com/patents/US8380623&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume I know nothing about patents or the law surrounding them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One feature of my idea is to track your transactions across one or more financial accounts and display them on a calendar, allowing for the input of future transactions that will occur. This would then show the balance for every day, whether that be positive or negative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this infringe on what is defined in the patent (or the related patent)? If so, how can I change my application so it does not or what advice could you offer me to stay within the confines of the law? It seems like these patents cover a lot of ground in terms of preventing anyone else from even touching the financial monitoring/planning realm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CLAIM 1  of the '452 patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A computer-assisted method for alerting a user of a potential negative balance condition in a financial account, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;estimating, using a processor, a future account balance of the financial account based on at least one real time representation of an account transaction and at least one future account transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;determining, using the processor, whether the future account balance will be a negative value;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;generating for display, using the processor, an alert, in a graphical format, to the user that signifies when the future account balance is the negative value; and&#xD;&#xA;rescheduling an automatic bill payment from the financial account when the future account balance is the negative value, wherein the rescheduling causes, in real time, data in a source to be changed such that the automatic bill payment is scheduled to occur on a rescheduled date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CLAIM 1 of the '623 patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A computer-assisted method for facilitating financial savings, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;accepting, using a processor, a funds transfer request by a user of an amount of funds between a funding account and at least one receiving account, wherein the funding account and the receiving account are separate accounts;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;accepting, from the user, using the processor, a designation of an intended purpose of use of the amount of funds and a date of intended use of the amount of funds;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;transferring the amount of funds from the funding account to the at least one receiving account;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;generating, using the processor, for display on a graphical banking interface, a graphical representation of the designation of the intended purpose of use of the amount of funds; and&#xD;&#xA;transferring the amount of funds from the at least one receiving account to the funding account on the date of intended use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5640" RevisionGUID="fb0200b4-6cf8-447b-9a05-7813e7352f0e" CreationDate="2013-12-30T06:48:30.000" UserId="6070" Comment="Added explanation" Text="Prefunded pay-to-bid method. Next generation for the controversial penny auction method. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current penny auction method is not compatible with social features such as Facebook registration. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because if bidders are identified through Facebook, bidders will also start making bidding arrangements through Facebook which would make the penny auction house lose money. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding a prefunding component is the most simple way to get around this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14771" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5640" RevisionGUID="fb0200b4-6cf8-447b-9a05-7813e7352f0e" CreationDate="2013-12-30T06:48:30.000" Comment="Proposed by 6070 approved by 1767 edit id of 483" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5641" RevisionGUID="89bf0724-eddb-4d81-b7b0-45bbde5394ca" CreationDate="2013-12-30T06:49:35.507" UserId="6070" Comment="Added explanation" Text="Prefunded pay-to-bid method is the next generation for controversial penny auction method." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14773" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5641" RevisionGUID="89bf0724-eddb-4d81-b7b0-45bbde5394ca" CreationDate="2013-12-30T06:49:35.507" Comment="Proposed by 6070 approved by 1767 edit id of 484" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5754" RevisionGUID="43971841-613f-4a57-b826-7935097a3d83" CreationDate="2013-12-30T10:15:53.477" UserId="5987" Text="I am the author of FlightMaster for PalmOS. It is a GPS mapping program for pilots, running PalmOS devices, and has been available since 2002. It is an example of prior art in the following ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Multiple layers of information, including airfields, various types of airspace etc, navigation aids and terrain.&#xD;&#xA; - Layers stored in multiple databases within the device.&#xD;&#xA; - Layers can be selectively hidden or displayed by the user.&#xD;&#xA; - Layers can be automatically hidden by the program under certain conditions (de-cluttering)&#xD;&#xA; - Allowing user to interact with the display directly to display further information about the selected item(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user guide contained here is the latest version, and illustrates the concepts above. It is the latest release, dated from October 2010, but I have version-controlled copies going back further:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://palmos.flight-master.com/downloads/FlightMaster.zip&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Page 33 shows the configuration dialog for the various layers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5739" RevisionGUID="8e2baa37-0f5f-4574-a07c-23af8d5db79f" CreationDate="2013-12-30T20:49:37.477" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Determining whether or not features of discussion thread pages have changed with time** - This application from [Sony][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Recording contents of an electronic page at different intervals and determining changes in the contents! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 7/26/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining change in contents of a discussion thread page with time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - An **electronic bulletin board system**: includes **discussion thread pages** each associated with a **discussion topic**, allows a user to create a new **discussion thread page** for a new **discussion topic**, or post a comment to an already created **discussion thread page**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining changes in contents of a discussion thread with time.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying contents of a page at various time intervals, and determining whether a feature of the page has changed based on the content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130031118 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/554,135&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Sony&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 7/26/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 7/30/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An information processing system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An identifying unit that repeatedly identifies a content of a page whose content changes with a lapse of time; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A determination unit that determines based on contents of the page identified at different timings whether or not a feature of the identified page has changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An information processing system for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying contents of a page whose contents changes with time, at various time intervals; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining whether a feature of the page has changed on the basis of the identified contents of the page at the various time intervals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 7/26/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Receiving a search request and searching discussion thread pages matching the received search request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Identify change in contents of a discussion thread&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/wgPel4S.png&quot; width=&quot;450&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130031118&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.scei.co.jp/index_e.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130031118#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=07%2F20%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5755" RevisionGUID="0da92e3d-78da-4516-aed7-ea3083ab9408" CreationDate="2013-12-30T21:20:30.933" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Methods of detecting similar documents** - This application from [Nhn][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Extracting an entity from two or more web documents, calculating weights based on the two or more documents, and determining a similarity between the two or more documents! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/4/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Methods for detecting similar documents by matching and comparing extracted entities from the documents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A **characteristic index** for each of the **web documents** is calculated based on weight of the corresponding entity. A similarity between the **web documents** is determined based on the calculated **characteristic indices**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Method and device to detect similar documents**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Extracting an entity from two **web documents**, calculating weights for the entity based on **importance contribution elements** corresponding to both of the two **web documents**, and determining a similarity between the two **web documents** based on the calculated weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120284270 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/462,592&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Nhn&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/4/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 5/7/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method that uses a processor for detecting similar documents, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Extracting an entity from each of a first web document and a second web document;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining an importance contribution element corresponding to each of the web documents;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Calculating, using the processor, weights for each entity based on the determined importance contribution elements; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining whether the web documents are similar documents based on the calculated weights. Determining whether the web documents are similar documents based on the calculated weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for detecting similar documents, the method comprises the following steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Extracting an entity from two web documents;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining an importance contribution element corresponding to both the web documents;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Calculating weights for each entity based on the determined importance contribution elements; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining whether the two web documents are similar documents based on the calculated weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/4/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Each importance contribution element comprises at least one of a hash value of the corresponding entity, and a frequency of which the corresponding entity is duplicated within the corresponding web document.  Further, the calculating the weights comprises using an inverted document frequency concept, the inverted document frequency concept increasing a weight of each entity in inverse proportion to decreasing frequency of duplication of the respective entity.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method and device to detect similar documents&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/oOqv6nJ.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120284270&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.navercorp.com/en/index.nhn&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120284270#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=05%2F04%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14780" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5755" RevisionGUID="0da92e3d-78da-4516-aed7-ea3083ab9408" CreationDate="2013-12-30T21:20:30.933" UserId="1767" Text="Machine Learning - detecting similar documents using entity extraction (Nhn) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14781" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5755" RevisionGUID="0da92e3d-78da-4516-aed7-ea3083ab9408" CreationDate="2013-12-30T21:20:30.933" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;nhn&gt;&lt;us20120284270&gt;&lt;machine-learning&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5756" RevisionGUID="902498a8-af43-454e-8891-4d5da5c16d5b" CreationDate="2013-12-30T21:30:14.780" UserId="7536" Text="In working with my examiner to address issues with the claims mentioned in a final rejection of my **(pro se) software patent application**, I changed one term in the claims from &quot;word1 word2&quot; to &quot;word1 word3&quot;, and used a new word &quot;word4&quot; to describe something different that could be distinguished from &quot;word1 word3&quot;.  Each change occurs 6-7 times in the claims, as the term being clarified is important to the invention.  Unfortunately, the words are common English words that by themselves have no specific software meaning—*part*, *region*, *portion*—and are used in a more general way elsewhere in the application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see now that the original spec could be a little confusing, though I truly doubt a person *skilled in the art* would be confused (and I had numerous clear examples described as well, and marked in the drawings).  But seeing how difficult and precise claims language needs to be, I can see the clarity problem from the examiner's point of view (I have made some significant improvements and the examiner has spoken positively about the chances of getting to allowance).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot get a clear answer from the examiner, or the Inventors Assistance Center, to the question now facing me:  **To what extent can terminology be changed/added/removed from the specification and drawings without it being judged to be &quot;new material&quot;?**  The new terminology does not change the the invention in any way (How could distinguishing *part*, *portion* and *region* better possibly change it?), but simply describes 3 different aspects (of what the software works on and does) more clearly.  I find some parts (portions, sections) of the MPEP that suggest such amendments could be allowed (especially [**§608.01**][1] subsections **o**, **a**, and **i**), but it is not clear.  Google searching has not helped either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for any help here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html#d0e46173" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14783" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5756" RevisionGUID="902498a8-af43-454e-8891-4d5da5c16d5b" CreationDate="2013-12-30T21:30:14.780" UserId="7536" Text="Is clarifying some terminology in an Amendment considered &quot;new material&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14784" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5756" RevisionGUID="902498a8-af43-454e-8891-4d5da5c16d5b" CreationDate="2013-12-30T21:30:14.780" UserId="7536" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;specification&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;claim-amendment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5757" RevisionGUID="6851544a-3448-4c5d-9f9d-6782d9d51ad4" CreationDate="2013-12-30T22:38:26.350" UserId="3076" Text="They can be very sensitive to anything added in the spec or drawings unless it is already presented in one place and you are also putting it somewhere else, it is a dictionary definition and if the word has more than one meaning the one you intended is already clear or it is &quot;inherent&quot;. You might need an affidavit from an unrelated person in the field to explain that is was inherent in what was there originally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The MPEP section you pointed to says that a claim amendment might not be supported by the specification so you might need to add to the specification. That gets rid of the claim not supported by the spec. but throws you right into a &quot;new matter&quot; rejection. I would look at MPEP&#xD;&#xA;**[2163.06   Relationship of Written Description Requirement to New Matter][1]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2163.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5757" RevisionGUID="41a169ea-244c-4910-a0f5-937450140e6c" CreationDate="2013-12-30T23:55:22.470" UserId="3076" Comment="added 204 characters in body" Text="They can be very sensitive to anything added in the spec or drawings unless it is already presented in one place and you are also putting it somewhere else, it is a dictionary definition and if the word has more than one meaning the one you intended is already clear or it is &quot;inherent&quot;. You might need an affidavit from an unrelated person in the field to explain that is was inherent in what was there originally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The MPEP section you pointed to says that a claim amendment might not be supported by the specification so you might need to add to the specification. That gets rid of the claim not supported by the spec. but throws you right into a &quot;new matter&quot; rejection. I would look at MPEP&#xD;&#xA;**[2163.06   Relationship of Written Description Requirement to New Matter][1]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2163.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way you might think about it is, after you make the changes would a person of ordinary skill in the art react by thinking&quot;Oh, now I get it!&quot;. If so, you probably added something that wasn't there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14791" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="5573" RevisionGUID="12353fff-6ae7-4fcf-bf7e-94a23f838ba3" CreationDate="2013-12-31T00:23:50.100" UserId="7392" Comment="21" />
  <row Id="14792" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5755" RevisionGUID="17279287-e8ea-4738-8c57-ddbf2097f4c4" CreationDate="2013-12-31T01:13:37.790" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Machine Learning - Detecting similar documents using entity extraction (Nhn) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5757" RevisionGUID="eeacea7c-255c-432f-8f87-5976142b90ed" CreationDate="2013-12-31T01:56:46.277" UserId="3076" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="They can be very sensitive to anything added in the spec or drawings unless it is already presented in one place and you are also putting it somewhere else, it is a dictionary definition and if the word has more than one meaning the one you intended is already clear, it is an obvious error with an obvious fix, or it is &quot;inherent&quot;. You might need an affidavit from an unrelated person in the field to explain that it was inherent in what was there originally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The MPEP section you pointed to says that a claim amendment might not be supported by the specification so you might need to add to the specification. That gets rid of the claim not supported by the spec. but throws you right into a &quot;new matter&quot; rejection. I would look at MPEP&#xD;&#xA;**[2163.06   Relationship of Written Description Requirement to New Matter][1]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2163.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way you might think about it is, after you make the changes would a person of ordinary skill in the art react by thinking&quot;Oh, now I get it!&quot;. If so, you probably added something that wasn't there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5759" RevisionGUID="063bd5e0-8813-4b06-8315-15838accf451" CreationDate="2013-12-31T02:41:55.903" UserId="5843" Text="My invention involves people using machinery (computers, cars, cell phones, etc). I have been warned on this forum against including people as elements of a claim. Are the rules for specifications as strict? For example, I have a console within a vehicle as part of my invention. I have taken pains to exclude the vehicle itself from the claims, but without a human operator interacting with the console, the vehicle is sort of inert. Can I draw a driver in a car interacting with a console, or does that make a car and a driver part of the invention? Can I depict a passenger?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14795" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5759" RevisionGUID="063bd5e0-8813-4b06-8315-15838accf451" CreationDate="2013-12-31T02:41:55.903" UserId="5843" Text="How to include human participants in specs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14796" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5759" RevisionGUID="063bd5e0-8813-4b06-8315-15838accf451" CreationDate="2013-12-31T02:41:55.903" UserId="5843" Text="&lt;specification&gt;&lt;diagrams&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5760" RevisionGUID="267a968b-35cc-4f5d-9095-6ed9d4da2e84" CreationDate="2013-12-31T05:38:33.703" UserId="3076" Text="No problem. In the spec. and drawings you need to tell and show everything you can think of about what it is and how it is used. The users of patented devices and people carrying out patented methods are often portrayed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; People can also be mentioned in claims as long as they are not an element of the claim. If it is a method claim only actions are elements, not things, so you are safe with those. Two examples from recently issued patents are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for monitoring an individual, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;providing a monitoring system having a control device in communication with appliances;&#xD;&#xA;determining a routine usage of the appliance by an individual;&#xD;&#xA;prior to an alarm situation, alerting a first third party that the individual is using the appliance by displaying, in real time, the individual's use of the appliance on a display, the control device measuring and determining a maximum allowed time of usage of the appliance, . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A machine for processing, storing and handling health care information, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;at least one appliance device adapted to implement an individual-centric health information model, said appliance device adapted to be incorporated into an existing network or information technology system, said appliance device comprising the following components:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5761" RevisionGUID="7e939905-8d60-437f-9810-89e81bf8c41c" CreationDate="2013-12-31T05:38:40.787" UserId="7539" Text="The term &quot;aggregating preferences&quot; comes to mind., e.g., http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~tw/prvwjlc08.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5762" RevisionGUID="ef5e7376-58a7-418e-a373-7611540345bc" CreationDate="2014-01-01T00:47:58.447" UserId="7544" Text="The 10 years expiration aren't for utility model patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14804" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1981" RevisionGUID="b8201b7f-a2a1-4b7f-9101-8acf13d13f94" CreationDate="2014-01-01T00:52:22.043" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;drug-ingredients&gt;&lt;medicine&gt;&lt;us6677326&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5764" RevisionGUID="48226c40-0d32-41f4-b4ae-dbb27d3921c1" CreationDate="2014-01-01T01:37:47.000" UserId="7545" Text="I'd look into Tableau Desktop and it's ability to run extracts (execute query/receive results) and then in the desktop client you can do operations, create cross tabs and re-render the results received (apply user configured ranking rules/display results)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5765" RevisionGUID="6b1ead3f-1f6e-4788-8589-c0e3905e01ff" CreationDate="2014-01-01T10:29:14.757" UserId="7548" Text="This patten was done by and part of MyOnlyCatalog.com from which Philip Berlin explicitely said it in writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do MyOnlyCatalog share holders get any money if the pantent is sold?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14807" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5765" RevisionGUID="6b1ead3f-1f6e-4788-8589-c0e3905e01ff" CreationDate="2014-01-01T10:29:14.757" UserId="7548" Text="Do we have rights to this Patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14808" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5765" RevisionGUID="6b1ead3f-1f6e-4788-8589-c0e3905e01ff" CreationDate="2014-01-01T10:29:14.757" UserId="7548" Text="&lt;us7577595&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5766" RevisionGUID="0022cca7-9b8b-482f-906c-039521f1e88c" CreationDate="2014-01-01T10:35:09.030" UserId="7547" Text="From what I've been reading about US patents, once a patent has expired, it enters the public domain and can be freely used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent I was looking was filed on 1/1999 and published pm 10/2000. So, obviously the 20-year patent term has not yet be reached. However, the status appears to be expired due to non-payment of the maintenance fee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On google patents, the status is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`12/2008 Expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the uspto.gov, the patent's status is shown as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Patent Expired Due to NonPayment of Maintenance Fees Under 37 CFR 1.362 `&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has the patent entered the public domain and can it be used freely?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally (and assuming that it is in the public domain), can someone come along at some point and start paying the maintenance fee again and pull it out of the public domain until the 20-year term is reached? It is very unlikely that this patent will be revived by the company that originally filed it since they shut down production of products using the patent in 2000 and moved onto other things." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14810" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5766" RevisionGUID="0022cca7-9b8b-482f-906c-039521f1e88c" CreationDate="2014-01-01T10:35:09.030" UserId="7547" Text="Is an expired patent in the public domain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14811" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5766" RevisionGUID="0022cca7-9b8b-482f-906c-039521f1e88c" CreationDate="2014-01-01T10:35:09.030" UserId="7547" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;maintenance&gt;&lt;expired-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5766" RevisionGUID="a41b6289-5bb7-49bc-b32f-fb33cb037025" CreationDate="2014-01-01T10:58:35.513" UserId="7547" Comment="typo" Text="From what I've been reading about US patents, once a patent has expired, it enters the public domain and can be freely used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent I was looking was filed on 1/1999 and published in 10/2000. So, obviously the 20-year patent term has not yet be reached. However, the status appears to be expired due to non-payment of the maintenance fee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On google patents, the status is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`12/2008 Expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the uspto.gov, the patent's status is shown as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Patent Expired Due to NonPayment of Maintenance Fees Under 37 CFR 1.362 `&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has the patent entered the public domain and can it be used freely?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally (and assuming that it is in the public domain), can someone come along at some point and start paying the maintenance fee again and pull it out of the public domain until the 20-year term is reached? It is very unlikely that this patent will be revived by the company that originally filed it since they shut down production of products using the patent in 2000 and moved onto other things." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5767" RevisionGUID="32b5690f-c44d-4fc6-bd3b-f300c38f7010" CreationDate="2014-01-01T21:11:34.670" UserId="3076" Text="Taking this question as in the vein of &quot;how does the patent system work&quot;, that patent can be looked up in google patents, as well as on the patent office recordation site, to see that it was assigned to MyOnlyCataog by the inventors in 2009, then the assignment was reversed in 2010 and the patent was again owned by the inventors.  Most recently, in 2011 the inventors assigned it to TACK FOSS B.V., LLC. The inventors are shown as GRANT, DAVID of CALIFORNIA and BERLIN, PHILLIP of FLORIDA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What agreements the inventors may or may not have with the various companies and shareholders is a separate issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14814" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5766" RevisionGUID="b84c8b1c-f263-4565-955a-31b78a29a8e4" CreationDate="2014-01-01T21:54:25.147" UserId="7547" Comment="typo" Text="From what I've been reading about US patents, once a patent has expired, it enters the public domain and can be freely used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent I was looking was filed on 1/1999 and published in 10/2000. So, obviously the 20-year patent term has not yet be reached. However, the status appears to be expired due to non-payment of the maintenance fee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On google patents, the status is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`12/2008 Expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On uspto.gov, the patent's status is shown as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Patent Expired Due to NonPayment of Maintenance Fees Under 37 CFR 1.362 `&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has the patent entered the public domain and can it be used freely?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally (and assuming that it is in the public domain), can someone come along at some point and start paying the maintenance fee again and pull it out of the public domain until the 20-year term is reached? It is very unlikely that this patent will be revived by the company that originally filed it since they shut down production of products using the patent in 2000 and moved onto other things." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14815" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5766" RevisionGUID="7fab834a-dc89-421f-8004-825e08e9300d" CreationDate="2014-01-01T22:32:18.360" UserId="7547" Comment="typo" Text="From what I've been reading about US patents, once a patent has expired, it enters the public domain and can be freely used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent I was looking at was filed on 1/1999 and published in 10/2000. So, obviously the 20-year patent term has not yet be reached. However, the status appears to be expired due to non-payment of the maintenance fee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On google patents, the status is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`12/2008 Expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On uspto.gov, the patent's status is shown as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Patent Expired Due to NonPayment of Maintenance Fees Under 37 CFR 1.362 `&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has the patent entered the public domain and can it be used freely?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally (and assuming that it is in the public domain), can someone come along at some point and start paying the maintenance fee again and pull it out of the public domain until the 20-year term is reached? It is very unlikely that this patent will be revived by the company that originally filed it since they shut down production of products using the patent in 2000 and moved onto other things." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5768" RevisionGUID="6bfff3ce-f765-4ae0-99a8-2ffde91ec8ae" CreationDate="2014-01-02T01:01:22.533" UserId="3076" Text="Two or three issues involved with this. A patent that expired due to non-payment of maintance fee can be revived by petition as either unintentional or unavoidable. Unintentional has a two-year limit and unavoidable is very hard to establish. Only the patent owner can file got these, not just anyone who comes along. Even if revived there are intervening rights to anyone who started practicing the patent while it was dead to keep doing what they were doing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of this pertains to the claimed subject matter. Anything taught in the patent that was never claimed is &quot;dedicated to the public&quot; right away. Of course something taught but not claimed in patent X might very well be patented in some other patent Y." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5770" RevisionGUID="27ff1c64-64dd-46e5-823f-fba551de30bc" CreationDate="2014-01-02T04:56:24.617" UserId="7551" Text="[A Vector Space Model for Automatic Indexing](http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/class/fa05/cs511/Spring05/other_papers/p613-salton.pdf) (1975) by G. Salton, A. Wong, and C. S. Yang.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first two paragraphs (after the abstract) describe how to compute a similarity coefficient between two documents. The documents are associated with one or more index terms; a weight for each term may be computed according to its importance in the given document; the similarity of the documents may be computed by comparing the resulting weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of &quot;entities,&quot; the paper refers to &quot;index terms.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5771" RevisionGUID="b221f7c3-2636-4721-91f4-2b8b779c0515" CreationDate="2014-01-02T15:53:18.010" UserId="7554" Text="This patent is comprised of mainly open source technologies all put together. Can open source items be patent in this manner without a reference? The open source project I'm referencing is Kegbot (http://www.kegbot.org, https://github.com/Kegbot). This open source project does the exact same thing this patent specifies and has been in existence since 2010. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14823" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5771" RevisionGUID="b221f7c3-2636-4721-91f4-2b8b779c0515" CreationDate="2014-01-02T15:53:18.010" UserId="7554" Text="Open Source References" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14824" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5771" RevisionGUID="b221f7c3-2636-4721-91f4-2b8b779c0515" CreationDate="2014-01-02T15:53:18.010" UserId="7554" Text="&lt;us20130314244&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14825" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5699" RevisionGUID="e3628259-c48d-4993-a53c-97bce9837146" CreationDate="2014-01-02T16:56:08.763" UserId="7472" Comment="more text as requested, not just links" Text="**Cloud BioLinux** http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22429538&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cloud BioLinux is a publicly accessible Virtual Machine (VM) that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; enables scientists to quickly provision on-demand infrastructures for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; high-performance bioinformatics computing using cloud platforms.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Besides the Amazon EC2 cloud, we have started instances of Cloud&#xD;&#xA;&gt; BioLinux on a private Eucalyptus cloud&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Galaxy NGS IS** (probably too new) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23479349 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the platform provides the researcher with a user-friendly interface to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; create a request, submit accompanying samples, upload sample quality&#xD;&#xA;&gt; measurements and access to the sequencing results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As this is using the Galaxy platform and Galaxy can be easily run in the cloud via the Cloudman it should be relevant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5772" RevisionGUID="10ff6b0d-0bba-4406-a919-9c7d667dfdca" CreationDate="2014-01-02T18:32:18.437" UserId="3076" Text="To the question (paraphrasing) - Can open source technology all put together be patented ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, anything published before the date of filing or priority date can be used to show that a potential claim is not new, or if new, is obvious. Whether the earlier publication was a journal article, a patent, a rejected patent application or an open source project is generally immaterial. The earlier technology being open sourced doesn't make it any weaker or stronger prior art than if it were proprietary technology disclosed to the same level of detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, most new things are old things put together so that, itself, does not answer the question about non-obviousness. It is taken on a case-by-case basis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5776" RevisionGUID="9aea7191-b913-4842-b620-91cc714d14d2" CreationDate="2014-01-03T02:04:39.570" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Dynamic preloading of web pages** - This application by a venture capitalist ([Julien Nguyen - @Julien888][3]) currently at [NanoDimension Fund](http://www.crunchbase.com/financial-organization/nanodimension) seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying links in a loaded first web page, determining an order of based on those links secondary web pages for loading, and loading one or more of the second web pages according to the order! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/13/1996** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Dynamic preloading of web pages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Dynamically selecting and preloading **web pages** from **page server** to **page client** using parameters indicated by the **page client** (such as parameters selected by the operator or adaptively determined by the **page client**), parameters indicated by the **page server** (such as parameters selected by the page under presentation or adaptively determined by the **page server**), or parameters indicated by links to those subsequent pages, or responsive to a combination thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Dynamic preloading of web pages**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying a plurality of links in a loaded **first web page**, each of the plurality of links pointing to a respective one of a plurality of **secondary web pages**, determining an order of the plurality of **secondary web pages** for loading, and loading one or more of the plurality of **secondary web pages** according to the order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120221930 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/439,226&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Julien Tan Nguyen][3]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/13/1996&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method implemented by a computing device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Loading a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a plurality of links in the loaded first web page, each of the plurality of links pointing to a respective one of a plurality of secondary web pages;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining an order of the plurality of secondary web pages for loading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Loading one or more of the plurality of secondary web pages according to the order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method implemented by a computing device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Loading a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying multiple links in the loaded first web page, each of the multiple links pointing to a respective one of multiple secondary web pages;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining an order of the multiple secondary web pages for loading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Loading one or more of the multiple secondary web pages according to the determined order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/13/1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Dynamically saving and recalling behavior information, by the page client, about web pages to be presented, the behavior information being independent of actual links indicated on the web pages. The behavior information is further responsive to parameters selected by the operator parameters adaptively determined by the page client, or responsive to a combination thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Dynamic preloading of web pages&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/J5Xz9q9.png&quot; width=&quot;448&quot; height=&quot;486&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120221930&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://twitter.com/julien888&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120221930#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=09%2F13%2F1996" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14843" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5776" RevisionGUID="9aea7191-b913-4842-b620-91cc714d14d2" CreationDate="2014-01-03T02:04:39.570" UserId="1767" Text="Web browser - Dynamically selecting and preloading web pages from page server to page client - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14844" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5776" RevisionGUID="9aea7191-b913-4842-b620-91cc714d14d2" CreationDate="2014-01-03T02:04:39.570" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20120221930&gt;&lt;web-browser&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5776" RevisionGUID="6018f0ec-af35-4fd2-8185-3688606c66f6" CreationDate="2014-01-03T02:09:44.340" UserId="1767" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Dynamic preloading of web pages** - This application by a venture capitalist ([Julien Nguyen - @Julien888][3]) currently at [NanoDimension Fund](http://www.crunchbase.com/financial-organization/nanodimension) seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying links in a loaded first web page, determining an order of based on those links secondary web pages for loading, and loading one or more of the second web pages according to the order! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/13/1996** (this is a continuation of an old patent by Julien Nguyen) that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Dynamic preloading of web pages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Dynamically selecting and preloading **web pages** from **page server** to **page client** using parameters indicated by the **page client** (such as parameters selected by the operator or adaptively determined by the **page client**), parameters indicated by the **page server** (such as parameters selected by the page under presentation or adaptively determined by the **page server**), or parameters indicated by links to those subsequent pages, or responsive to a combination thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Dynamic preloading of web pages**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying a plurality of links in a loaded **first web page**, each of the plurality of links pointing to a respective one of a plurality of **secondary web pages**, determining an order of the plurality of **secondary web pages** for loading, and loading one or more of the plurality of **secondary web pages** according to the order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120221930 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/439,226&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Julien Tan Nguyen][3]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/13/1996&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method implemented by a computing device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Loading a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a plurality of links in the loaded first web page, each of the plurality of links pointing to a respective one of a plurality of secondary web pages;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining an order of the plurality of secondary web pages for loading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Loading one or more of the plurality of secondary web pages according to the order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method implemented by a computing device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Loading a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying multiple links in the loaded first web page, each of the multiple links pointing to a respective one of multiple secondary web pages;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining an order of the multiple secondary web pages for loading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Loading one or more of the multiple secondary web pages according to the determined order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/13/1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Dynamically saving and recalling behavior information, by the page client, about web pages to be presented, the behavior information being independent of actual links indicated on the web pages. The behavior information is further responsive to parameters selected by the operator parameters adaptively determined by the page client, or responsive to a combination thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Dynamic preloading of web pages&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/J5Xz9q9.png&quot; width=&quot;448&quot; height=&quot;486&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120221930&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://twitter.com/julien888&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120221930#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=09%2F13%2F1996" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5776" RevisionGUID="92a69152-96e2-4dee-911e-35762e2bc36a" CreationDate="2014-01-03T02:23:46.447" UserId="1767" Comment="added 168 characters in body; edited title" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Dynamic preloading of web pages** - This [Apple][10] application originally by a venture capitalist ([Julien Nguyen - @Julien888][3]) seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying links in a loaded first web page, determining an order of based on those links secondary web pages for loading, and loading one or more of the second web pages according to the order!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The assignment history here is illustrative because Nguyen apparently assigned the patent a long time ago to his employer and after a long chain of ownership finally ended up being assigned to [Apple][10]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/13/1996** (this is a continuation of an old patent by Julien Nguyen) that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Dynamic preloading of web pages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Dynamically selecting and preloading **web pages** from **page server** to **page client** using parameters indicated by the **page client** (such as parameters selected by the operator or adaptively determined by the **page client**), parameters indicated by the **page server** (such as parameters selected by the page under presentation or adaptively determined by the **page server**), or parameters indicated by links to those subsequent pages, or responsive to a combination thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Dynamic preloading of web pages**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying a plurality of links in a loaded **first web page**, each of the plurality of links pointing to a respective one of a plurality of **secondary web pages**, determining an order of the plurality of **secondary web pages** for loading, and loading one or more of the plurality of **secondary web pages** according to the order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120221930 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/439,226&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Julien Tan Nguyen][3]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/13/1996&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method implemented by a computing device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Loading a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a plurality of links in the loaded first web page, each of the plurality of links pointing to a respective one of a plurality of secondary web pages;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining an order of the plurality of secondary web pages for loading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Loading one or more of the plurality of secondary web pages according to the order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method implemented by a computing device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Loading a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying multiple links in the loaded first web page, each of the multiple links pointing to a respective one of multiple secondary web pages;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining an order of the multiple secondary web pages for loading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Loading one or more of the multiple secondary web pages according to the determined order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/13/1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Dynamically saving and recalling behavior information, by the page client, about web pages to be presented, the behavior information being independent of actual links indicated on the web pages. The behavior information is further responsive to parameters selected by the operator parameters adaptively determined by the page client, or responsive to a combination thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Dynamic preloading of web pages&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/J5Xz9q9.png&quot; width=&quot;448&quot; height=&quot;486&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120221930&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://twitter.com/julien888&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120221930#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=09%2F13%2F1996&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.apple.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14847" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5776" RevisionGUID="92a69152-96e2-4dee-911e-35762e2bc36a" CreationDate="2014-01-03T02:23:46.447" UserId="1767" Comment="added 168 characters in body; edited title" Text="Web browser - Dynamically selecting and preloading web pages from page server to page client (Apple) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14848" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5776" RevisionGUID="8ba70e55-cf25-4e53-9d2a-3d530eae27f6" CreationDate="2014-01-03T02:30:08.253" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;us20120221930&gt;&lt;web-browser&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5776" RevisionGUID="304e538d-deb4-417e-8fea-55a2373fddeb" CreationDate="2014-01-03T03:20:58.107" UserId="1767" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Dynamic preloading of web pages** - This [Apple][10] application originally invented by venture capitalist [Julien Nguyen - @Julien888][3] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying links in a loaded first web page, determining an order of based on those links secondary web pages for loading, and loading one or more of the second web pages according to the order!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The assignment history here is illustrative because Nguyen apparently assigned the patent a long time ago to his employer.  But after a [long chain of ownership changes][11] the patent finally ended up being owned by [Apple][10]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/13/1996** (this is a continuation of an old patent by Julien Nguyen) that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Dynamic preloading of web pages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Dynamically selecting and preloading **web pages** from **page server** to **page client** using parameters indicated by the **page client** (such as parameters selected by the operator or adaptively determined by the **page client**), parameters indicated by the **page server** (such as parameters selected by the page under presentation or adaptively determined by the **page server**), or parameters indicated by links to those subsequent pages, or responsive to a combination thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Dynamic preloading of web pages**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying a plurality of links in a loaded **first web page**, each of the plurality of links pointing to a respective one of a plurality of **secondary web pages**, determining an order of the plurality of **secondary web pages** for loading, and loading one or more of the plurality of **secondary web pages** according to the order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120221930 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/439,226&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Julien Tan Nguyen][3]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/13/1996&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method implemented by a computing device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Loading a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a plurality of links in the loaded first web page, each of the plurality of links pointing to a respective one of a plurality of secondary web pages;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining an order of the plurality of secondary web pages for loading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Loading one or more of the plurality of secondary web pages according to the order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method implemented by a computing device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Loading a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying multiple links in the loaded first web page, each of the multiple links pointing to a respective one of multiple secondary web pages;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining an order of the multiple secondary web pages for loading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Loading one or more of the multiple secondary web pages according to the determined order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/13/1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Dynamically saving and recalling behavior information, by the page client, about web pages to be presented, the behavior information being independent of actual links indicated on the web pages. The behavior information is further responsive to parameters selected by the operator parameters adaptively determined by the page client, or responsive to a combination thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Dynamic preloading of web pages&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/J5Xz9q9.png&quot; width=&quot;448&quot; height=&quot;486&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120221930&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://twitter.com/julien888&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120221930#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=09%2F13%2F1996&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.apple.com&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&amp;pat=6584498" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14851" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5776" RevisionGUID="bc4598a7-0cc8-4c3f-bb0e-c36d432169c8" CreationDate="2014-01-03T03:59:18.803" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Preloading web pages in a browser (Apple) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5776" RevisionGUID="bc4598a7-0cc8-4c3f-bb0e-c36d432169c8" CreationDate="2014-01-03T03:59:18.803" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Dynamic preloading of web pages** - This [Apple][10] application seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying links in a loaded first web page, determining an order of based on those links secondary web pages for loading, and loading one or more of the second web pages according to the order!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The assignment history here is illustrative because [Julien Nguyen][3] apparently assigned the patent a long time ago to his employer.  But after a [long chain of ownership changes][11] the patent finally ended up being owned by [Apple][10]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/13/1996** (this is a continuation of an old patent by Julien Nguyen) that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Dynamic pre-loading of web pages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Dynamically selecting and preloading **web pages** from **page server** to **page client** using parameters indicated by the **page client** or the **page server**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Dynamic preloading of web pages**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying a plurality of links in a loaded **first web page**, each of the plurality of links pointing to a respective one of a plurality of **secondary web pages**, determining an order of the plurality of **secondary web pages** for loading, and loading one or more of the plurality of **secondary web pages** according to the order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120221930 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/439,226&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Julien Tan Nguyen][3]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/13/1996&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method implemented by a computing device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Loading a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a plurality of links in the loaded first web page, each of the plurality of links pointing to a respective one of a plurality of secondary web pages;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining an order of the plurality of secondary web pages for loading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Loading one or more of the plurality of secondary web pages according to the order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method implemented by a computing device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Loading a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying multiple links in the loaded first web page, each of the multiple links pointing to a respective one of multiple secondary web pages;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining an order of the multiple secondary web pages for loading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Loading one or more of the multiple secondary web pages according to the determined order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/13/1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Dynamically saving and recalling behavior information, by the page client, about web pages to be presented, the behavior information being independent of actual links indicated on the web pages. The behavior information is further responsive to parameters selected by the operator parameters adaptively determined by the page client, or responsive to a combination thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Dynamic preloading of web pages&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/J5Xz9q9.png&quot; width=&quot;448&quot; height=&quot;486&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120221930&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://twitter.com/julien888&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120221930#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=09%2F13%2F1996&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.apple.com&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&amp;pat=6584498" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5776" RevisionGUID="dcb87993-a26c-46c2-9e25-03ef8150e83a" CreationDate="2014-01-03T04:04:58.567" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Dynamic preloading of web pages** - This [Apple][10] application seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying links in a loaded first web page, determining an order of pre-loading second web pages based on links to those web pages, and loading one or more of the second web pages according to the order!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The assignment history here is illustrative because [Julien Nguyen][3] apparently assigned the patent a long time ago to his employer.  But after a [long chain of ownership changes][11] the patent finally ended up being owned by [Apple][10]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/13/1996** (this is a continuation of an old patent by Julien Nguyen) that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Dynamic pre-loading of web pages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Dynamically selecting and preloading **web pages** from **page server** to **page client** using parameters indicated by the **page client** or the **page server**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Dynamic preloading of web pages**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying a plurality of links in a loaded **first web page**, each of the plurality of links pointing to a respective one of a plurality of **secondary web pages**, determining an order of the plurality of **secondary web pages** for loading, and loading one or more of the plurality of **secondary web pages** according to the order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120221930 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/439,226&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Julien Tan Nguyen][3]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/13/1996&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method implemented by a computing device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Loading a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a plurality of links in the loaded first web page, each of the plurality of links pointing to a respective one of a plurality of secondary web pages;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining an order of the plurality of secondary web pages for loading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Loading one or more of the plurality of secondary web pages according to the order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method implemented by a computing device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Loading a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying multiple links in the loaded first web page, each of the multiple links pointing to a respective one of multiple secondary web pages;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining an order of the multiple secondary web pages for loading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Loading one or more of the multiple secondary web pages according to the determined order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/13/1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Dynamically saving and recalling behavior information, by the page client, about web pages to be presented, the behavior information being independent of actual links indicated on the web pages. The behavior information is further responsive to parameters selected by the operator parameters adaptively determined by the page client, or responsive to a combination thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Dynamic preloading of web pages&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/J5Xz9q9.png&quot; width=&quot;448&quot; height=&quot;486&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120221930&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://twitter.com/julien888&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120221930#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=09%2F13%2F1996&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.apple.com&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&amp;pat=6584498" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5777" RevisionGUID="85b78601-2148-4bd7-b47c-c8c1532125cb" CreationDate="2014-01-03T07:46:52.637" UserId="3514" Text="[EP 1148681][1] is a EU patent owned by Nokia.&#xD;&#xA;[Nokia has been granted an injunction against all of HTC's Android devices][2] based on this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This shouldn't even be patentable in the EU, since software patents aren't allowed here, and this patent builds entirely on known hardware, leaving it to a software component to give the patent leverage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can this patent be shown as void in the EU?&#xD;&#xA;Can we present prior art?&#xD;&#xA;Can we show that the patent is a &quot;pure&quot; software patent, by showing that the hardware base for it is prior art?&#xD;&#xA;Is there a similar US-patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com.mx/patents/EP1148681A2?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2320721/nokia-scores-an-injunction-on-all-htc-android-devices-in-germany" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14855" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5777" RevisionGUID="85b78601-2148-4bd7-b47c-c8c1532125cb" CreationDate="2014-01-03T07:46:52.637" UserId="3514" Text="EU (non-US, european) patent EP 1148681 - software patent and prior art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14856" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5777" RevisionGUID="85b78601-2148-4bd7-b47c-c8c1532125cb" CreationDate="2014-01-03T07:46:52.637" UserId="3514" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;european&gt;&lt;nokia&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5778" RevisionGUID="70f549a7-deae-41ec-a236-deca2cac4357" CreationDate="2014-01-03T09:22:52.463" UserId="7561" Text="I have an idea for a new derivative of chess. Its very different 7*7 board game. With the movement logics modified. Though the winning is still the same (the king's death) and also the horse's move is same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is can i file a patent for my idea. Please help me. And also if anyone can tell me if there are patents involved with chess, so that i dont infringe one unintentionally" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14858" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5778" RevisionGUID="70f549a7-deae-41ec-a236-deca2cac4357" CreationDate="2014-01-03T09:22:52.463" UserId="7561" Text="Can i file a patent for a new dericative of CHESS" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14859" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5778" RevisionGUID="70f549a7-deae-41ec-a236-deca2cac4357" CreationDate="2014-01-03T09:22:52.463" UserId="7561" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14860" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5778" RevisionGUID="d5239a51-002b-4721-8897-74fa255bfd9a" CreationDate="2014-01-03T09:37:10.457" UserId="7561" Comment="edited title" Text="Can i file a patent for a new derivative of CHESS" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5778" RevisionGUID="6241639e-cdef-4c02-ab4f-468e9e98f4e5" CreationDate="2014-01-03T09:48:51.177" UserId="7561" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="I have an idea for a new derivative of chess. Its very different board game. With the movement logics modified. Though the winning is still the same (the king's death) and also the horse's move is same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is can i file a patent for my idea. Please help me. And also if anyone can tell me if there are patents involved with chess, so that i dont infringe one unintentionally" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5779" RevisionGUID="19c61e9b-0b92-4455-8618-a85eeab3f465" CreationDate="2014-01-03T10:57:36.580" UserId="5044" Text="Whilst I have not found prior art, the &quot;Alternative Embodiments&quot; seems rather vague though may be common in such patents? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Although embodiments are disclosed herein, many variations are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; possible which remain within the concept, scope, and spirit of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; embodiments described herein, and these variations would become clear&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to those skilled in the art after perusal of this application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume this will cover other methods of prefetching webpages, of which prior art *does* exist.  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Using Speculation to Reduce Server Load and Service Time on the WWW][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is from Feb 1995.  It describes a process of server-initiated prefetching of web pages based on what users are statistically likely to click on next. However it also notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In this paper we have assumed that servers (and not clients) are the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ones responsible for initiating speculative services. This need not be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the case. In particular, it is possible to adopt a protocol whereby&#xD;&#xA;&gt; servers attach to each document they serve a list of document URLs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that are highly likely to be accessed in the near future, leaving it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the clients to decide which documents to prefetch. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Client caching is referenced in the above, which is discussed in [prefetching via client speculation][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cs.bu.edu/techreports/pdf/1995-006-speculative-service.pdf &quot;Using Speculation to Reduce Server Load and Service Time on the WWW&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cs.bu.edu/techreports/pdf/1995-011-prefetching-via-client-speculation.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5780" RevisionGUID="f4672487-acd4-4614-a778-2a8b57ace77b" CreationDate="2014-01-03T13:56:32.440" UserId="5071" Text="Seeing as how the modern rules of chess is unaltered since say, 1972? And basically unchanged for 400 years, All patentability is forfeit. Copyright on rule text or images might get you into more trouble. But that's a question for a different forum." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5781" RevisionGUID="a4b48c88-6499-40fc-bc75-18ef58ff8587" CreationDate="2014-01-03T17:51:52.733" UserId="3076" Text="Games are patentable subject matter in the U.S. and have been covered by both apparatus claims and method claims. There are many many patents on &quot;proprietary&quot; card games involving betting that are variations on poker, etc. There are patents on method of playing certain board games.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that chess, as is normally played, is old does not mean one can't come up with a new game that is similar but different from chess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, after the Supreme Court Bilski decision the art unit at the USPTO responsible for game patents seems to be taking the position that it is all abstract and they will no longer allow anything unless you appeal and win the appeal. If it is &quot;computer implemented&quot;, then arguably a machine is involved and that might be seen as not abstract.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5782" RevisionGUID="c08a11e3-3816-4ca7-b505-59af34839a58" CreationDate="2014-01-03T17:55:23.813" UserId="3076" Text="The first claim of that patent is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of transferring resource related information from a first terminal to a second terminal of a wireless communication network, wherein at least the first terminal is a client of a server connected to an external network and also to a wireless communication network which includes the terminals, comprising the steps of the first terminal negotiating a connection with the second terminal and subsequently transferring the information over the connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is certainly **not** a pure software claim, so to answer a subpart of the question - no it can not be shown to be a pure software patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer another part of your equation, google patents shows that there are two coresponding U.S. pending applications but no issued U.S. patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5784" RevisionGUID="e31969f7-b6b7-44bd-9f2d-96c2eaf17dc3" CreationDate="2014-01-03T18:21:07.540" UserId="4603" Text="This sounds the same as Netscape Navigator's &quot;What's Related&quot; feature.  This may overlap with their &quot;What's Cool&quot; functionality too.  Both of which were present in their Navigator product circa ~1995.  Their may be others, but this is at least one patent tied to those features:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Shared document repository with coupled recommender system&quot; US&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6999962 B2&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A web-based shared document repository includes recommender system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; functions to allow users of the repository to input reviews of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; documents contained in the repository and to read inputted reviews.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The recommender system functions appear as a seamless integration in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the document repository by loosely coupling the shared document&#xD;&#xA;&gt; repository to a web-based recommender system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Publication number	US6999962 B2&#xD;&#xA;    Publication type	Grant&#xD;&#xA;    Application number	US 10/217,025&#xD;&#xA;    Publication date	Feb 14, 2006&#xD;&#xA;    Filing date	Aug 13, 2002&#xD;&#xA;    Priority date	Aug 13, 2002&#xD;&#xA;    Fee status	Paid&#xD;&#xA;    Also published as	US20040034631&#xD;&#xA;    Inventors	Laurent Julliard, Jean-Luc Meunier, Scott D Weber, Manfred Dardenne&#xD;&#xA;    Original Assignee	Xerox Corporation&#xD;&#xA;    Export Citation	BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5782" RevisionGUID="031f2b71-3eb1-4d2d-8449-4359170c876f" CreationDate="2014-01-03T18:33:56.037" UserId="3076" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="I do not know which claims where judged as infi fed but the first claim of that patent is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of transferring resource related information from a first terminal to a second terminal of a wireless communication network, wherein at least the first terminal is a client of a server connected to an external network and also to a wireless communication network which includes the terminals, comprising the steps of the first terminal negotiating a connection with the second terminal and subsequently transferring the information over the connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does seem vauge, at least without reading the spec. but this is **not** a pure software claim, so to answer a subpart of the question - no it can not be shown to be a pure software patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer another part of your equation, google patents shows that there are two coresponding U.S. pending applications but no issued U.S. patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14870" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5778" RevisionGUID="778723b8-19fe-4cd9-be63-165c3ea00894" CreationDate="2014-01-03T19:35:11.317" UserId="3076" Comment="Fixed typo and removed irrelevant tag" Text="Can I file a patent for a new derivative of CHESS" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14871" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5778" RevisionGUID="778723b8-19fe-4cd9-be63-165c3ea00894" CreationDate="2014-01-03T19:35:11.317" UserId="3076" Comment="Fixed typo and removed irrelevant tag" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5778" RevisionGUID="778723b8-19fe-4cd9-be63-165c3ea00894" CreationDate="2014-01-03T19:35:11.317" UserId="3076" Comment="Fixed typo and removed irrelevant tag" Text="I have an idea for a new derivative of chess. Its very different board game. With the movement logics modified. Though the winning is still the same (the king's death) and also the horse's move is same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is can I file a patent for my idea. Please help me. And also if anyone can tell me if there are patents involved with chess, so that I don't infringe one unintentionally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5781" RevisionGUID="feb9781a-48af-4db5-a774-ad2bd370b83f" CreationDate="2014-01-03T19:40:55.930" UserId="3076" Comment="Added ref. To patent" Text="Games are patentable subject matter in the U.S. and have been covered by both apparatus claims and method claims. There are many many patents on &quot;proprietary&quot; card games involving betting that are variations on poker, etc. There are patents on method of playing certain board games.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that chess, as is normally played, is old does not mean one can't come up with a new game that is similar but different from chess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, after the Supreme Court Bilski decision the art unit at the USPTO responsible for game patents seems to be taking the position that it is all abstract and they will no longer allow anything unless you appeal and win the appeal. If it is &quot;computer implemented&quot;, then arguably a machine is involved and that might be seen as not abstract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a patent on a non-standard way to play chess. The claims only cover a computer implemented version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Inverse chess&#xD;&#xA;[US 8302969][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]:https://www.google.com/patents/US8302969 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14874" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5777" RevisionGUID="d4c852e1-da1d-49d7-be0b-33c832a6f0f2" CreationDate="2014-01-03T19:46:08.660" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;european&gt;&lt;nokia&gt;&lt;ep1148681&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5782" RevisionGUID="b7f59d65-c60a-40a3-9ff6-47fc4c9d269d" CreationDate="2014-01-03T19:49:45.737" UserId="3076" Comment="Many typos and erroneous autocompletes" Text="I do not know which claims were judged as infringed but the first claim of that patent is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of transferring resource related information from a first terminal to a second terminal of a wireless communication network, wherein at least the first terminal is a client of a server connected to an external network and also to a wireless communication network which includes the terminals, comprising the steps of the first terminal negotiating a connection with the second terminal and subsequently transferring the information over the connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does seem vague, at least without reading the spec., but this is **not** a pure software claim, so to answer a sub-part of the question - no it can not be shown to be a pure software patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer another part of your question, google patents shows that there are two coresponding U.S. pending applications but no issued U.S. patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5786" RevisionGUID="782e5085-37f2-4dc9-9b43-4f8be32bc9fe" CreationDate="2014-01-03T20:45:49.280" UserId="4279" Text="Wouldn't Markov chains be related? Any Markov chain automatic configurator would naturally be doing step # 3 if not more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5788" RevisionGUID="2ad4eb0d-c2dc-4a72-83d0-4ec7dc99690e" CreationDate="2014-01-03T21:01:43.250" UserId="4279" Text="Hmm, replace &quot;file&quot; with &quot;octets in memory&quot; and you end up with a description that can be applied to a CPU memory cache.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, the use of cache lines to predict future data to load into the cache." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5789" RevisionGUID="755301fd-0be5-497e-bdc8-3fcecfc0a0a7" CreationDate="2014-01-03T21:20:22.650" UserId="4279" Text="The Shoutcast software allows for embedding links I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The RDS system used on FM radio stations could potentionaly be relevant too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5776" RevisionGUID="544a99c8-1c9e-4f6a-8535-4fd85a089020" CreationDate="2014-01-03T21:41:12.707" UserId="1767" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Dynamic preloading of web pages** - This [Apple][10] application seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying links in a loaded first web page, determining an order of pre-loading second web pages based on links to those web pages, and loading one or more of the second web pages according to the order!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The assignment history here is illustrative because [Julien Nguyen][3] apparently assigned the patent in 1996 to his employer at the time, MagicWeb.  After a [long chain of assignments and reassignments][11] over 15 years... the patent family is purchased by [Apple][10].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apple is trying to &quot;improve&quot; the claims of the patent through this continuation while retaining the 1996 priority date of Nguyen's original application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/13/1996** (this is a continuation of an old patent by Julien Nguyen) that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Dynamic pre-loading of web pages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Dynamically selecting and preloading **web pages** from **page server** to **page client** using parameters indicated by the **page client** or the **page server**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Dynamic preloading of web pages**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying a plurality of links in a loaded **first web page**, each of the plurality of links pointing to a respective one of a plurality of **secondary web pages**, determining an order of the plurality of **secondary web pages** for loading, and loading one or more of the plurality of **secondary web pages** according to the order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120221930 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/439,226&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Julien Tan Nguyen][3]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/13/1996&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method implemented by a computing device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Loading a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a plurality of links in the loaded first web page, each of the plurality of links pointing to a respective one of a plurality of secondary web pages;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining an order of the plurality of secondary web pages for loading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Loading one or more of the plurality of secondary web pages according to the order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method implemented by a computing device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Loading a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying multiple links in the loaded first web page, each of the multiple links pointing to a respective one of multiple secondary web pages;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining an order of the multiple secondary web pages for loading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Loading one or more of the multiple secondary web pages according to the determined order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/13/1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Dynamically saving and recalling behavior information, by the page client, about web pages to be presented, the behavior information being independent of actual links indicated on the web pages. The behavior information is further responsive to parameters selected by the operator parameters adaptively determined by the page client, or responsive to a combination thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Dynamic preloading of web pages&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/J5Xz9q9.png&quot; width=&quot;448&quot; height=&quot;486&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120221930&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://twitter.com/julien888&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120221930#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=09%2F13%2F1996&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.apple.com&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&amp;pat=6584498" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5790" RevisionGUID="ab05a4f9-de1c-439b-b5f0-cc6d483308b7" CreationDate="2014-01-03T21:41:25.420" UserId="4279" Text="They just described property pages as in the Windows shell." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5781" RevisionGUID="9535eac1-9aaa-4c43-9c7a-82231f8a9049" CreationDate="2014-01-04T00:29:51.370" UserId="3076" Comment="added 302 characters in body" Text="Games are patentable subject matter in the U.S. and have been covered by both apparatus claims and method claims. There are many many patents on &quot;proprietary&quot; card games involving betting that are variations on poker, etc. There are patents on method of playing certain board games.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that chess, as is normally played, is old does not mean one can't come up with a new game that is similar but different from chess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, after the Supreme Court Bilski decision the art unit at the USPTO responsible for game patents seems to be taking the position that it is all abstract and they will no longer allow anything unless you appeal and win the appeal. If it is &quot;computer implemented&quot;, then arguably a machine is involved and that might be seen as not abstract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also you can a board game considered if you have some unique, functional physical structure to the game pieces. That would not be your case if you using standard chess pieces. I did see a patent on a game with pieces that could come apart. If you lose an arm in game platy, the piece looses an arm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a patent on a non-standard way to play chess. The claims only cover a computer implemented version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Inverse chess&#xD;&#xA;[US 8302969][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]:https://www.google.com/patents/US8302969 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5781" RevisionGUID="c52ae698-5d5a-4a93-b90f-7fee4baa6cd5" CreationDate="2014-01-04T01:32:25.683" UserId="3076" Comment="more typos and autocompletes fixed" Text="Games are patentable subject matter in the U.S. and have been covered by both apparatus claims and method claims. There are many many patents on &quot;proprietary&quot; card games involving betting that are variations on poker, etc. There are patents on method of playing certain board games.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that chess, as is normally played, is old does not mean one can't come up with a new game that is similar but different from chess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, after the Supreme Court Bilski decision the art unit at the USPTO responsible for game patents seems to be taking the position that it is all abstract and they will no longer allow anything unless you appeal and win the appeal. If it is &quot;computer implemented&quot;, then arguably a machine is involved and that might be seen as not abstract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also you can have a board game considered if you have some unique, functional physical structure to the game pieces. That would not be your case if you are using standard chess pieces. I did see a patent on a game with pieces that could come apart. If you lose an arm in game play, the piece looses an arm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a patent on a non-standard way to play chess. The claims only cover a computer implemented version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Inverse chess&#xD;&#xA;[US 8302969][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]:https://www.google.com/patents/US8302969 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5791" RevisionGUID="1cc33edc-511a-49b3-a0b9-bf45f87ca3a9" CreationDate="2014-01-04T09:04:41.760" UserId="7571" Text="David,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer to your question can vary by Examiner.  Technically, anything not disclosed in the spec can be considered new matter and face a 112 rejection, but some examiners are more lenient than others.  Without knowing the specifics of your disclosure and/or claim language your question is difficult to address, but if you are concerned that mixing part, region, and portion in claim language may be confusing or lead to a 112, have you considered sticking to the original term (e.g., part, region, or portion) and prefacing it with &quot;first,&quot; &quot;second,&quot; &quot;third,&quot; etc.  So, for example's sake, &quot;a part of a region of a portion&quot; can become &quot;a first part of a second part of a third part&quot; (assuming the disclosure used the term &quot;part&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;George makes a good point about inherent disclosure (see MPEP 2163(I)(B)), you can argue that the new term you are using is implicitly or inherently supported in your disclosure (but you have to be very careful with such arguments so as not to fall into the trap of eluding that some part of your invention is/was obvious). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest setting up an interview with the examiner, approaching him/her with proposed amendment language, and asking him/her to work with you on that.  Your question &quot;to what extent can material be changed ...&quot; is too broad to answer generally, the answer varies with the specifics of the situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5792" RevisionGUID="b9a60f51-ee66-46ee-906b-466af0e3e88b" CreationDate="2014-01-04T15:27:57.950" UserId="7572" Text="I am working on an Herbal remedy, and thought I should get a patent. I found an existing patent in 2008, that has a combination of very different herbs for the same remedy. We may have some cross over on minor combinations, However these formulas have been around for hundreds of years in Eastern medicine. Not sure if I am infringing on the other patent because we are trying to accomplish the same remedy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14890" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5792" RevisionGUID="b9a60f51-ee66-46ee-906b-466af0e3e88b" CreationDate="2014-01-04T15:27:57.950" UserId="7572" Text="Not sure if my Idea infringes on current herbal remedy patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14891" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5792" RevisionGUID="b9a60f51-ee66-46ee-906b-466af0e3e88b" CreationDate="2014-01-04T15:27:57.950" UserId="7572" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5543" RevisionGUID="c38d5179-363f-48ba-bca1-f642b67ba861" CreationDate="2014-01-05T23:52:08.770" UserId="3076" Comment="clarified a little" Text="It would have expired in 1980 so there are no right associated with it. You, or anyone else, do not need **any** patent to produce **any machine**. It is the patent's of others that one must avoid when making this or any other product." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5801" RevisionGUID="444cc869-4d41-4abf-89ea-7a31df93fa28" CreationDate="2014-01-06T00:43:17.290" UserId="3076" Text="Many different inventions share a common goal. Goals are not patentable, but ways of achieving goals are. Of course, what you are claiming (either a composition of matter or a method of treating a condition) must be novel and non-obvious in light of everything that has gone before including the hundreds of years of Eastern medicine, and must have been invented by you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5802" RevisionGUID="7dba48ac-5fd0-4bb2-86d9-96d06ee19fd1" CreationDate="2014-01-06T04:00:14.113" UserId="7583" Text="A a scientific principle to specifically aid an automobile performance patent has run out. The principle has been used in other applications. Its use in bicycle design has recently been patented. There has been recent scientific research in marine applications to high speed ships. Can I patent application of this principle to small manually powered canoes, kayaks, or rowboats??" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14926" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5802" RevisionGUID="7dba48ac-5fd0-4bb2-86d9-96d06ee19fd1" CreationDate="2014-01-06T04:00:14.113" UserId="7583" Text="Prior art and patentability" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14927" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5802" RevisionGUID="7dba48ac-5fd0-4bb2-86d9-96d06ee19fd1" CreationDate="2014-01-06T04:00:14.113" UserId="7583" Text="&lt;physics&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5803" RevisionGUID="e458ae69-e34d-47cf-9145-95156f9254f5" CreationDate="2014-01-06T05:30:18.477" UserId="7584" Text="1. **First, you need to figure out if this is really worth your energy.** Why are you concerned about this patent application? If you want to become a patent crusader, you might consider answering some prior art requests on here, or helping out on a crowdsourced prior art search site. Googling that phrase will get you more info. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If you are a paintball enthusiast doing this because you think this patent could be used to suppress competition amongst manufacturers of paintball equipment, understand that a minority of patent applications ever become patents and an even smaller minority of those patents ever get asserted. If the prior art is as abundant as you seem to think it is, the odds of both of those things go down even more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **tl;dr**: it's pretty unlikely that anyone will be sued over this patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **As George White suggested, you need to track down some actual prior art.** Look for things like articles, other patent applications, or product manuals, that (a) describes what the application claims and (b) were published (posted on the internet) before the priority date of this application (Feb 27, 2012). Post the 3 most detailed things you find on here and see if anyone will give you their thoughts on their substance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Follow George White's other guide on third party prior art submissions:** http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3599/i-have-prior-art-for-a-pending-patent-what-should-i-do/3600#3600" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5804" RevisionGUID="84cdcef1-511f-41b3-ab33-5ea3c4aae231" CreationDate="2014-01-06T05:45:12.167" UserId="3076" Text="In general a scientific principle can be applied in many ways in many applications. Each might be unique but related. The previous use of the principle does not preempt all future inventing and patenting regarding the principle. But various applications can be similar enough as to not be patent ably distinct, or more likely, be obvious in light of the previous work. So, it depends." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5805" RevisionGUID="bfa21033-4d41-4396-a00d-2d945ba7d9ba" CreationDate="2014-01-06T10:08:01.627" UserId="7546" Text="The term &quot;user&quot; in the description of the patent makes it unclear what user role the configuring of search results applies to i.e. the administrator of the application (for example of a website who would configure a search task for use by end users) or the end user of the application (who would submit and get the results of a search).  This posting addresses the former, allowing a site administrator to configure the ranking of search results. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of the wording it is not totally clear whether the claim involves end users refreshing search results (for example using ajax) using a different set of sorts or filters such as a limited list of sort options (data, alphabet, price etc ascending/descending) based on static variables. These are also available in the application I am going to describe below as well as in many other applications as mentioned in other comments.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Smart Search&quot; also known as &quot;Finder&quot; is a Joomla component first produced by the company JXtended (under the Finder name) and now part of the Joomla CMS (under the Smart Search name) that provides advanced search configuration and customization by administrators. Smart Search was released as part of the Joomla! CMS January 12, 2012 ([Announcement][1]) which is just before the date in question.  Here is a link to an Internet Archive copy of an [article from December 9, 2008 from the JXtended website][2]. This screenshot from a November 24 2010 Internet Archive scan shows a description of the Finder user defined relevancy feature under the Indexed Content heading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Image of JXtended page][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to give an overall summary of why I think Finder/Smart Search is prior art. &#xD;&#xA;The application works as follows. Content on a website is indexed which first involves tokenizing various data sources to words and phrases. As part of this process each unique word or phrase receives a weight and is placed in the finder_terms table. &#xD;&#xA;![Finder_terms table excerpt][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each &quot;content item&quot; (the Joomla term for a database row representing the main content of a single rendered web page) is also assigned a &quot;link_id&quot; in a second table and then each term_id link_id combination is added to one of 16 tables.&#xD;&#xA;![example Finder links_terms table][5] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As part of the process of creating the term_id*link_id row, a weight is created by analyzing where the term is located. Possible locations are: title, meta data, body text.  &#xD;&#xA;The weight assigned to each data source is configurable by a site administrator. For example the default configuration weights are shown here. ![Default weights][6]. By changing these weights the administrator can change the ordering of the search results. For example, I have two articles, one with the word &quot;simple&quot; in the title and metadata but not in the body text and another with the word &quot;simple&quot; in the body text. After indexing with the default settings, a relevance ranked search returns &#xD;&#xA;![Default weight results][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I then changed the weights to increase the importance of body text and decrease the importance of title and metadata. ![New weights][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After reindexing (which is easily done by an administrator) the relevance ranked search returns the same results ranked differently. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![results with new weights][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With well managed weights and content an administrator can, for example, use the keyword field (part of the metadata) to push certain content items to the top of the search results and other items without the keywords to the bottom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Developers can also use the extension type that Joomla calls a plugin to introduce new weighting variables and otherwise modify the indexing process to more finely control the results. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.joomla.org/announcements/release-news/5403-joomla-250-released.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20090301021405/http://jxtended.com/news/product/85-inside-jxtended-finder-11-part-1.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Swccx.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/BTNi1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/yRVTd.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/54HvA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/SclnO.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/fD1CE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/AGUbi.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14933" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5805" RevisionGUID="48eff126-5b4a-4753-a14a-bbd133ce1bec" CreationDate="2014-01-06T10:14:11.853" UserId="7546" Comment="wrong image" Text="The term &quot;user&quot; in the description of the patent makes it unclear what user role the configuring of search results applies to i.e. the administrator of the application (for example of a website who would configure a search task for use by end users) or the end user of the application (who would submit and get the results of a search).  This posting addresses the former, allowing a site administrator to configure the ranking of search results. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of the wording it is not totally clear whether the claim involves end users refreshing search results (for example using ajax) using a different set of sorts or filters such as a limited list of sort options (data, alphabet, price etc ascending/descending) based on static variables. These are also available in the application I am going to describe below as well as in many other applications as mentioned in other comments.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Smart Search&quot; also known as &quot;Finder&quot; is a Joomla component first produced by the company JXtended (under the Finder name) and now part of the Joomla CMS (under the Smart Search name) that provides advanced search configuration and customization by administrators. Smart Search was released as part of the Joomla! CMS January 12, 2012 ([Announcement][1]) which is just before the date in question.  Here is a link to an Internet Archive copy of an [article from December 9, 2008 from the JXtended website][2]. This screenshot from a November 24 2010 Internet Archive scan shows a description of the Finder user defined relevancy feature under the Indexed Content heading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Image of JXtended page][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to give an overall summary of why I think Finder/Smart Search is prior art. &#xD;&#xA;The application works as follows. Content on a website is indexed which first involves tokenizing various data sources to words and phrases. As part of this process each unique word or phrase receives a weight and is placed in the finder_terms table. &#xD;&#xA;![Finder_terms table excerpt][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each &quot;content item&quot; (the Joomla term for a database row representing the main content of a single rendered web page) is also assigned a &quot;link_id&quot; in a second table and then each term_id link_id combination is added to one of 16 tables.&#xD;&#xA;![Finder_links_terms][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As part of the process of creating the term_id*link_id row, a weight is created by analyzing where the term is located. Possible locations are: title, meta data, body text.  &#xD;&#xA;The weight assigned to each data source is configurable by a site administrator. For example the default configuration weights are shown here. ![Default weights][6]. By changing these weights the administrator can change the ordering of the search results. For example, I have two articles, one with the word &quot;simple&quot; in the title and metadata but not in the body text and another with the word &quot;simple&quot; in the body text. After indexing with the default settings, a relevance ranked search returns &#xD;&#xA;![Default weight results][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I then changed the weights to increase the importance of body text and decrease the importance of title and metadata. ![New weights][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After reindexing (which is easily done by an administrator) the relevance ranked search returns the same results ranked differently. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![results with new weights][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With well managed weights and content an administrator can, for example, use the keyword field (part of the metadata) to push certain content items to the top of the search results and other items without the keywords to the bottom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Developers can also use the extension type that Joomla calls a plugin to introduce new weighting variables and otherwise modify the indexing process to more finely control the results. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.joomla.org/announcements/release-news/5403-joomla-250-released.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20090301021405/http://jxtended.com/news/product/85-inside-jxtended-finder-11-part-1.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Swccx.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/BTNi1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/wSOpz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/54HvA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/SclnO.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/fD1CE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/AGUbi.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5807" RevisionGUID="09bf7a5b-b1aa-4990-9b26-d4e2a83579b4" CreationDate="2014-01-06T22:11:51.507" UserId="7590" Text="S. Balasubramanian et al., &quot;Systematic analysis of interleaved digital-to-analog converters&quot;, Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, IEEE, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much of the claims overlap with the content of this article!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14939" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5807" RevisionGUID="09bf7a5b-b1aa-4990-9b26-d4e2a83579b4" CreationDate="2014-01-06T22:11:51.507" UserId="7590" Text="US8618969: Missing a key reference" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14940" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5807" RevisionGUID="09bf7a5b-b1aa-4990-9b26-d4e2a83579b4" CreationDate="2014-01-06T22:11:51.507" UserId="7590" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14941" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5807" RevisionGUID="bd738373-49cc-4410-8cfb-a6e3cbafd5e6" CreationDate="2014-01-06T22:15:12.603" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;us8618969&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5809" RevisionGUID="344be66b-0b0f-4d70-bea9-4e8ce10e0c25" CreationDate="2014-01-07T01:31:17.353" UserId="7591" Text="You should get a solid legal answer by an attorney. Show all of your paperwork and any agreements with your employer. I have ran into this myself for our clients as CEO of The Mars Rising Network. An attorney has to look at all of this to determine if you are free to move on your own. In your case you are a software developer, I have seen other people that had inventions separate from any projects the company was working on and they were fine to move forward on their own. If you are able to move forward contact the Mars Rising Network.com or call 888-627-7747. They can help you find the right patent to pursue and they will help you with the marketing portion as well.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.themarsrisingnetwork.com    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14946" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5809" RevisionGUID="1b0296da-3977-42d3-afc6-37edd551ad0a" CreationDate="2014-01-07T02:44:41.803" UserId="3076" Comment="typo and removed a semi-advertisment" Text="You should get a solid legal answer by an attorney. Show all of your paperwork and any agreements with your employer. I have run into this myself for our clients as CEO of The Mars Rising Network. An attorney has to look at all of this to determine if you are free to move on your own. In your case you are a software developer, I have seen other people that had inventions separate from any projects the company was working on and they were fine to move forward on their own. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5810" RevisionGUID="a12ca06b-a239-4f8f-b312-e4b72add9df8" CreationDate="2014-01-07T15:11:07.613" UserId="7546" Text="How important is it that this is specifically &quot;web pages&quot; i.e. html loaded in a web browser as opposed to non www? And http versus other protocols? I ask for two reasons. First in 1996 the www had not yet won the day so if you read the academic work from that time www is clearly important and seen as the likely winner but a lot of attention is also give to similar problems in usenet, gopher, and other protocols besides http and of course today just as then lots of mobile was not on the web.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This article is from 1995&#xD;&#xA;http://ftp.isi.edu/touch/pubs/jsac95.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Touch, J.D., &quot;Defining high-speed protocols: five challenges and an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; example that survives the challenges,&quot; Selected Areas in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Communications, IEEE Journal on , vol.13, no.5, pp.828,835, Jun 1995&#xD;&#xA;&gt; doi: 10.1109/49.391751 Abstract: The First IEEE Gigabit Networking&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (GBN) Workshop defined a set of characteristics of “Interesting”&#xD;&#xA;&gt; high-speed applications. The GBN criteria ensure that the application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; addresses a significant problem, and that it actually requires a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gigabit network. This paper presents five challenges that augment the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; GBN criteria. These challenges ask whether gigabit applications&#xD;&#xA;&gt; require new research into different protocols, or can be supported by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; existing protocols that merely run faster. It shows a class of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applications, interactive distributed multimedia, namely interactive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; real-time World Wide Web (WWW) access, that survive the challenges. It&#xD;&#xA;&gt; also shows how source presenting is a way to use excess&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bandwidth-delay product to reduce the browser response time, and how&#xD;&#xA;&gt; this is one example of a truly gigabit protocol keywords: {computer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; networks;delays;distributed processing;interactive systems;multimedia&#xD;&#xA;&gt; communication;professional aspects;protocols;societies;First IEEE&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gigabit Networking Workshop;bandwidth-delay product;browser response&#xD;&#xA;&gt; time;gigabit network;gigabit protocol;high-speed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applications;high-speed protocols;interactive distributed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; multimedia;interactive real-time World Wide&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Web;research;Bandwidth;Broadcasting;Computational modeling;Concurrent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computing;Conferences;Distributed computing;Government;Multimedia&#xD;&#xA;&gt; communication;Protocols;Telemedicine}, URL:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&amp;arnumber=391751&amp;isnumber=8876&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the article Touch discusses the need to &quot;keep the pipe full&quot; in order to optimize speed.  In particular he discusses the World Wide Web  as a gigabyte application and on pages 829-830  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) Even with Large Windows, There Is Not Enough Stuff:  Even if the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; windowing mechanism allows large amounts of  pipelining, there may not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be enough data with which to fill the  pipe. A gigabit WAN has 30-100&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mb in the pipe4-I2 Mbytes.  That is more RAM than many systems have,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and certainly  larger than most messages an application has to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transmit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One solution is to use multiplexing to share the channel among user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; processes 181. This is a parallel of process- swapping in OS-when one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; process runs out of data to send,  another is activated. This works,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; provided that the process  activation is deterministic, i.e., that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other side of the  channel knows what the process activation order is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [l 11.  This is also tantamount to not having a gigabit application &#xD;&#xA;&gt; protocol+ach application does not use a gigabit channel, so  bandwidth&#xD;&#xA;&gt; needs to be aggregated over a set of multiplexed  applications.  The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; case where the application order is not predictable is  more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interesting, as will be discussed later&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in other words, to have the best performance no &quot;space&quot; should be left unused, this is almost always the case when loading a single page of html, so more data should be sent than just one page worth. However the issue of predictability is key for solutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On 830 he continues&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B. Challenge #2--Multiplux (Determinisfic)  Multiplexing has been&#xD;&#xA;&gt; proposed as a solution to the “do not  have enough stuff to send”&#xD;&#xA;&gt; issue, as mentioned before [SI. This  is equivalent to not having a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gigabit application-the gigabits  are shared among a set of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applications on a workstation. Using  multiple hosts, users, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; processes are all ways of providing  aggregate gigabits only.  In the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; deterministic multiplexer case, this avoids the domain  examined here&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ 1 11. In the nondeterministic case, the problem  has just moved down&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a level in the protocol stack. In the  original case, there was not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; enough data to send, primarily  because data was sent to be sufficient&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for the current state of  the other end of the channel, and not any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; possible subsequent  states. If there were enough for subsequent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; states, that data  would have been sent too, and so on, increasing the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; amount  of data available to send ad infinitum. This is how sliding &#xD;&#xA;&gt; windows works-by predicting subsequent states, in a linear  manner. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the subsequent state is not predictable, neither is the  subsequent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data [12]. It does not matter whether it is the  application state, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the multiplexer state. Nondeterminis-  tic multiplexing moves the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; state prediction problem to the  multiplexer-synchronization level,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; i.e., lower in the protocol  stack.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not going to copy all of the rest of the related portions but among other things he discusses the difference between prefetching and preloading and the problem of unpredictability. Although I don't see statistical prediction the article does propose differentiating preloads of &quot;local&quot; hrefs (from the same domain) and &quot;all&quot; hrefs and has a figure where they appear to have collected data on this. I wonder if this may be enough differentiation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He does mention the issue of predictability being of key importance and I think that using statistical analysis to proxy deterministic predictibility is part of what is described in this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me the next article is really to the point in that they really implemented a variety of solutions but across many different kinds of systems, with their discussion of what they did for Usenet particularly interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;H. Shrikumar, Rehmi Post, Thinternet: life at the end of a tether, Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, Volume 27, Issue 3, December 1994, Pages 375-385, ISSN 0169-7552, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0169-7552(94)90111-2.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0169755294901112)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abstract: As the Internet continues its exponential growth, the user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; profile is changing. Many of the newer Internet hosts are personal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; workstations, often connected by dial-up or other slow links. We&#xD;&#xA;&gt; examine some factors that motivate or mandate “thin” (low-bandwidth)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; connections to the Internet. We notice that the motivation for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adopting thin links in the West can be different from those in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; developing countries. Using a profile of such typical users, we show&#xD;&#xA;&gt; how techniques exist that allow practical and adequately efficient use&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the Internet even “at the end of a tether”.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; We are exploring the use of these methods in routine Internet use from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a site in India (a software development laboratory, multi-user LAN,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; connected to an Internet service provider through an expensive dial-up&#xD;&#xA;&gt; link) and from mobile computers (e.g., HP100LX and Gateway Handbook)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the US. In each case the user's Internet access is through a thin&#xD;&#xA;&gt; link, with a bandwidth somewhere between 2400 bps and 28.8 kbps.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Local caching and prefetching of resources naturally suggests itself&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as a useful candidate. It appears that transparent replay of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application protocols is a practical way to retrofit resource caching&#xD;&#xA;&gt; into existing (shrinkwrapped) software. One promising method which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; works with most services of interest is Postel spoofing.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Given the “browsing” mode of network usage, progressive encoding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mechanisms are shown to effectively reduce the access time for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; particularly large Internet objects, such as Web pages. An ideal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; progressive encoding of a resource sends a gross quality rendering&#xD;&#xA;&gt; followed by successive refinements. Since only a fraction of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; images retrieved in a session actually have long-term value, such&#xD;&#xA;&gt; techniques can reduce on-line bandwidth demands by an order of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; magnitude. Obviously, such encoding methods apply also to large&#xD;&#xA;&gt; archive and distribution files (such as from FTP archives).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Filtering and relevance feedback have been recognised as effective&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tools in overcoming information overload. Many sophisticated general&#xD;&#xA;&gt; techniques are a subject of active research. However, we found that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exploiting certain behaviour patterns typical in Internet usage&#xD;&#xA;&gt; permits particularly efficient filtering using surprisingly simple&#xD;&#xA;&gt; methods.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; We apply this to USENET communication, and extend this to other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; services (FTP, HTTP, Gopher, mail, etc.), and outline a method of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; filtering network hypermedia on the basis of relevance contours. Our&#xD;&#xA;&gt; method recognises the amount of selected information that can be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; digested by a user in a day, and maximises the value of the packet so&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selected. It also differs from others by integrating all network&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hypermedia and selecting and filtering items without regard to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; service they were accessed from (USENET, Web, Gopher, FTP, etc.). It&#xD;&#xA;&gt; does not depend on a-priori categorisation such as news groups and the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consequent need for explicit subscription and unsubscription.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On page 222-09 they say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; It also appear that cache hit ratios can be improved considerably by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pre-fetching objects based on the branching probabilities of threads&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of browsing. These can either be statically determined or dynamically&#xD;&#xA;&gt; discovered. Quantitative information concerning patterns of reference&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and locality in the Web is hard to come by, but this appears to be an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; av enue worth exploring&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a dissertation that mainly focuses on preloading in file systems but says that similar approaches would apply on the WWW and an NSF document that talks about machine learning based on user click patterns to develop a way of predicting likely browsing patterns and using that to optimize.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SOme of the work on Rover may also be relevant http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=rover+prefetching&amp;btnG=&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=0%2C33&amp;as_yhi=1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example page 14 of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.45.6672&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf describes the issue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![article exerpt][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of other examples from around the same time. &#xD;&#xA;Hope that gives some help or clues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/DfY8g.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5811" RevisionGUID="5df1dbdd-44ce-4062-bc5f-4ea399de76de" CreationDate="2014-01-07T16:12:45.617" UserId="5317" Text="Sometimes I really have to wonder who is at the helm of the USPTO.  Claim 1 is an overly broad description of an antenna assembly that has been with us for many decades.  The other claims may also be overly broad, but my jaw dropped on #1 so that's the focus here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll be digging for reference material, but I figured I would put this out here to organize the findings of others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have a textbook showing a crossed dipole antenna using coax as the phasing mechanism whereupon the crossed dipoles are arranged over a ground plane?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I note the word &quot;microwave&quot; is in claim 1, but that merely suggests the frequencies are high and wavelengths short and is only a matter of scaling Prior Art to the new frequency... Obvious to any practitioner of the art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14949" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5811" RevisionGUID="5df1dbdd-44ce-4062-bc5f-4ea399de76de" CreationDate="2014-01-07T16:12:45.617" UserId="5317" Text="Prior Art Request for Claim #1 describing a textbook Turnstile Antenna over Ground Plane" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14950" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5811" RevisionGUID="5df1dbdd-44ce-4062-bc5f-4ea399de76de" CreationDate="2014-01-07T16:12:45.617" UserId="5317" Text="&lt;us8068066&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5812" RevisionGUID="ee3c169f-db8e-42ba-aa04-9da11c468646" CreationDate="2014-01-07T17:53:10.400" UserId="3076" Text="I found this inside the textbook Modern Antenna Design, Thomas A. Milligan&#xD;&#xA;John Wiley &amp; Sons, Jul 8, 2005 - Technology &amp; Engineering - 580 pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/MJmHD.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4745" RevisionGUID="73809e89-de70-4ab9-b827-6af9ca7cbbcb" CreationDate="2014-01-07T20:28:56.927" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **A PATENT APPLICATION ON embedding hyperlinks into audio signals** - This application from [Apple][6] seeks to patent the idea of...putting hypertextual information into sound streams. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/7/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Embedding textual information (e.g. a hyperlink) into a sound stream. The information could be added as meta information to the audio file or it could be embedded into the sound, interleaved with normal audio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [AppleInsider](http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/08/apples-audio-hyperlink-tech-can-control-devices-with-inaudible-sonic-pulses)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves embedding a hyperlink so that it is inaudible or so that it is audible to listeners and where the metadata is a link or where it contains information about the audio stream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Audio Hyperlinking**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130204413 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/368,129&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  Apple, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/8/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Computer code to cause an audio stream to playback on an electronic device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Computer code to traverse a hyperlink encoded with the audio stream to a destination object during playback of the audio stream; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Computer code to perform an activity corresponding to the destination object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer program, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Code to to play an audio stream&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Code to follow a hyperlink encoded with the audio stream to a destination object (e.g. a webpage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Code to perform an activity corresponding to the destination object (e.g. display the webpage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming encoding the hyperlink so that it is **inaudible** or so that it is **audible** to listeners and where the metadata is a **link** or where it contains *information about the audio stream**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that some of claims were implemented before 2012.. Adding metadata to an audio file as a separate stream, hiding metadata in the sound stream, recognition of metadata from audio signal. So, **prior art is welcome**...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Audio Hyperlink from one audio track to another&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/IJl4S.jpg&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS I'm not sure if I will be able to send information of found prior arts to patent office, so I ask you to send this to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&amp;r=3&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=(20130808.PD.+AND+700%2F94.CCLS.)&amp;OS=pd/8/8/2013+and+ccl/700/94&amp;RS=(PD/20130808+AND+CCL/700/94)&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.apple.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4622" RevisionGUID="886f46af-bc98-4fa1-bb11-218e8d841691" CreationDate="2014-01-07T20:29:16.587" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON SOCIAL NETWORKING** - This application from [Renren (China)][6] seeks to patent the idea of...initiating social network services between two users based on contact information! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 20, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Initiating a “social networking service” between a first and second user based on the contact information of the second user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **PHYSICAL BUSINESS CARDS** to identify the 2nd user contact information (i.e. when you hand someone a business card at a conference), or social networking services such as a **FRIEND INVITING MESSAGE** or an **INVITATION TO AN EVENT** .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PROCESSING USER CONTACT INFORMATION**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for “processing user contact information” comprising: You provide contact information about another user and a server initiates a “social networking service” between you and that user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159435 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/607,532&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Renren, Inc. (China)&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 20, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for processing user contact information, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. obtaining, at a user equipment of a first user, contact information associated with a second user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. initiating a social networking service SNS operation between the first user and the second user based on the contact information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for connecting users in a social network:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. First user provides contact information about a second user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Initiating a “social networking service” (e.g. a friend request, event invitation, etc.) between the first user and the second user based on the contact information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 20, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using **PHYSICAL BUSINESS CARDS** to identify the 2nd user contact information (i.e. when you hand someone a business card at a conference)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Processing User Contact Information” from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/C6IBv.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159435?dq=US20130159435A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renren" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5755" RevisionGUID="b50843db-217a-476f-9a42-933c4f2ca26f" CreationDate="2014-01-07T20:29:32.867" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Methods of detecting similar documents** - This application from [Nhn][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Extracting an entity from two or more web documents, calculating weights based on the two or more documents, and determining a similarity between the two or more documents! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/4/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Methods for detecting similar documents by matching and comparing extracted entities from the documents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A **characteristic index** for each of the **web documents** is calculated based on weight of the corresponding entity. A similarity between the **web documents** is determined based on the calculated **characteristic indices**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Method and device to detect similar documents**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Extracting an entity from two **web documents**, calculating weights for the entity based on **importance contribution elements** corresponding to both of the two **web documents**, and determining a similarity between the two **web documents** based on the calculated weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120284270 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/462,592&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Nhn&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/4/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 5/7/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method that uses a processor for detecting similar documents, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Extracting an entity from each of a first web document and a second web document;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining an importance contribution element corresponding to each of the web documents;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Calculating, using the processor, weights for each entity based on the determined importance contribution elements; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining whether the web documents are similar documents based on the calculated weights. Determining whether the web documents are similar documents based on the calculated weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for detecting similar documents, the method comprises the following steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Extracting an entity from two web documents;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining an importance contribution element corresponding to both the web documents;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Calculating weights for each entity based on the determined importance contribution elements; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining whether the two web documents are similar documents based on the calculated weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/4/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Each importance contribution element comprises at least one of a hash value of the corresponding entity, and a frequency of which the corresponding entity is duplicated within the corresponding web document.  Further, the calculating the weights comprises using an inverted document frequency concept, the inverted document frequency concept increasing a weight of each entity in inverse proportion to decreasing frequency of duplication of the respective entity.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method and device to detect similar documents&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/oOqv6nJ.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120284270&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.navercorp.com/en/index.nhn&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120284270#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=05%2F04%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5728" RevisionGUID="7b33d339-d19c-4a1d-94a4-d1617c89e430" CreationDate="2014-01-07T20:29:49.730" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON providing recommendations based on relative preferences across items for a customer.** - This application from [MIT][6] seeks to patent the idea of...identifying a relative preference list of all users, comparing a user's relative preference list with the canonical preference list, and inferring preferences of the user on the basis of comparison with other users. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/29/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Providing a personalized recommendation to a user regarding items that the user has not ranked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A user's preference is identified based on **pair-wise preferences** of items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining preferences of a user based on comparative rating across items.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Comparing preference of a user with identified preferences of all users and inferring preference of the user based on a correlation factor between the user preference and each of the identified preferences.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130054498 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/598,124&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: MIT&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/29/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 8/27/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for inferring the preferences of a user in relation to a population, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying a preference distribution of said population comprising a plurality of ranked lists and a weight of each of said plurality of ranked lists;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. comparing a revealed preference of said user to one of said plurality of ranked lists;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. assigning an affinity weight between said user and each of said plurality of ranked lists; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. taking a weighted average of each of said affinity weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for inferring preferences of a user, the method comprises the following steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying preferences of all users over a number of choices; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. comparing preferences of the user with each of the identified preferences;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. assigning a correlation factor between the user preferences and each of the identified preferences; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. averaging the assigned correlation factors to infer preferences of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/29/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A preference list  providing comparisons between every pair of items for a user is represented by a comparison matrix indexed by i and j, where entry (i, j) is set to 1 if item i is preferred to item j, and 0 otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Providing recommendations based on pair-wise comparison of items.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/1c7H9Dw.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130054498a1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://web.mit.edu/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130054498#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=08%2F29%2F2011&amp;t=1providing%20personalized%20recommendations.1ranked%20lists.1preference.0preference%20distribution.0revealed%20preference.0affinity%20weight.0population.0weighted%20average.0index.0sparse%20distribution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="75d575b0-a3e5-48de-bff4-384f96b4fb86" CreationDate="2014-01-07T20:30:06.387" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" Apple [recently filed for an &quot;Interactive Map&quot; patent][1] that in every way resembles a collection of technologies and methods known as &quot;Geographic Information Systems&quot; (GIS). 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 in particular has been in active use by the GIS community for over 40 years:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for **displaying a map on a computing device**, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Storing information to be displayed on the map in a memory of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computing device, the stored information comprising a plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different layers of information, wherein each layer contains a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; respective type of information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Displaying a map on a display of the computing device, the map comprising&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a plurality of the layers of information superimposed upon one another;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - In response to a user selection of a display mode corresponding to a topic of interest, displaying at least one layer containing information that is associated with the selected mode; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Enhancing the value of at least one display parameter for map features of each displayed layer that are associated with the selected mode, relative to a default value for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the display parameter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likely innovators/publishers(manuals...)/patentees in this vein include [Esri][2], [Pitney Bowes][3] and [Google][4]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help find prior art from **June 5th 2012 or earlier**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior art can be any publication (webpage, user manual, paper, book, youtube video, patent pre-grant publication) or patent. **It is helpful to establish a date when the prior art was available to the public and a solid reference which can be cited by the USPTO**.  A citable reference can often be found in a contemporaneous publication about the technology in magazine, blog, or scientific article.  Another place to look is [The Wayback Machine](https://archive.org/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's help inform the USPTO!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Publication Number: **[US 20130339891 A1][5]**&#xD;&#xA;- Priority Date: Seeking prior art predating **Jun 5, 2012**&#xD;&#xA;- Assignee: Apple, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Interactive Map US20130339891][6]&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][7].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][8] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&amp;r=2&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=%28715/771.CCLS.%20AND%2020131219.PD.%29&amp;OS=ccl/715/771%20and%20pd/12/19/2013&amp;RS=%28CCL/715/771%20AND%20PD/20131219%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.esri.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.mapinfo.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/maps/about/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&amp;r=2&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=%28715/771.CCLS.%20AND%2020131219.PD.%29&amp;OS=ccl/715/771%20and%20pd/12/19/2013&amp;RS=%28CCL/715/771%20AND%20PD/20131219%29&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/pkgiB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="65a93772-891f-4406-8dae-2cd88d12d96a" CreationDate="2014-01-07T20:30:24.293" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Applying administrator defined ranking rules to alter the ranking of search results** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Applying a user-defined ranking rule on search results and re-ordering the search results based on the ranking rule! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Re-ordering search results based on rules defined by a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Graphical User Interface allows a user to: configure the **ranking rules** such as to enter **key/value restrictions** or set a **boost value**,  preview an application of one or more of the **ranking rules**, specify a portion of results from which statistics such as **standard deviation**, **average score** are calculated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: User-configured rules to re-order search results.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving search results, applying user-defined re-ranking rules to the search results, and re-ranking the search results based on the user-defined re-ranking rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130198174 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/360,536&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/28/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for re-ranking search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results that are ranked; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. applying a ranking rule defined by a user to the search results that re-ranks the search results, wherein the ranking rule includes user specified parameters that influence how a result within the search results is re-ranked using statistical information relating to the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for re-ordering search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results in an order in response to a search query executed using a search engine;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.    applying a re-ordering rule defined by a user to re-order the search results, where the re-ordering rule defines ordering a result within the search results on the basis of statistical information related to search results; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. re-ordering the search results on the basis of user-defined re-ordering rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A Graphical User Interface (GUI) displays options for a user to set search parameters to re-rank search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;User defined re-ordering of search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Ie8wCzF.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130198174&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130198174#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=01%2F27%2F2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5776" RevisionGUID="df5ff041-412b-47a7-b6fe-f1bf0d83bb4d" CreationDate="2014-01-07T20:30:37.590" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Dynamic preloading of web pages** - This [Apple][10] application seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying links in a loaded first web page, determining an order of pre-loading second web pages based on links to those web pages, and loading one or more of the second web pages according to the order!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The assignment history here is illustrative because [Julien Nguyen][3] apparently assigned the patent in 1996 to his employer at the time, MagicWeb.  After a [long chain of assignments and reassignments][11] over 15 years... the patent family is purchased by [Apple][10].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apple is trying to &quot;improve&quot; the claims of the patent through this continuation while retaining the 1996 priority date of Nguyen's original application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/13/1996** (this is a continuation of an old patent by Julien Nguyen) that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Dynamic pre-loading of web pages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Dynamically selecting and preloading **web pages** from **page server** to **page client** using parameters indicated by the **page client** or the **page server**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Dynamic preloading of web pages**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying a plurality of links in a loaded **first web page**, each of the plurality of links pointing to a respective one of a plurality of **secondary web pages**, determining an order of the plurality of **secondary web pages** for loading, and loading one or more of the plurality of **secondary web pages** according to the order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120221930 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/439,226&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Julien Tan Nguyen][3]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/13/1996&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method implemented by a computing device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Loading a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a plurality of links in the loaded first web page, each of the plurality of links pointing to a respective one of a plurality of secondary web pages;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining an order of the plurality of secondary web pages for loading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Loading one or more of the plurality of secondary web pages according to the order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method implemented by a computing device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Loading a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying multiple links in the loaded first web page, each of the multiple links pointing to a respective one of multiple secondary web pages;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining an order of the multiple secondary web pages for loading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Loading one or more of the multiple secondary web pages according to the determined order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/13/1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Dynamically saving and recalling behavior information, by the page client, about web pages to be presented, the behavior information being independent of actual links indicated on the web pages. The behavior information is further responsive to parameters selected by the operator parameters adaptively determined by the page client, or responsive to a combination thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Dynamic preloading of web pages&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/J5Xz9q9.png&quot; width=&quot;448&quot; height=&quot;486&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120221930&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://twitter.com/julien888&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120221930#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=09%2F13%2F1996&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.apple.com&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&amp;pat=6584498" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5814" RevisionGUID="4d46e157-d1da-4920-abca-c6e47744b7d7" CreationDate="2014-01-07T20:46:29.017" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Publishing data items related to an event of interest to a user** - This application from [Ebay][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Determining a news event, identifying data items associated with the determined news event, and publishing the identified data items online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 10/22/2009** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining data items related to an event of interest to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A sample **list of events** may include elections, wars or conflicts, debates, **movie premiers**, **movie times**, **sporting events**, conventions, **celestial events**, **anniversaries of events**, or other **media events**. The **data items** may be in the form of **item listings**, links, **advertisements for products or services**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Publishing data items related to an event of interest**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Determining a news event based on a recent increase in interest of a user, identifying data items related to the determined news event, and presenting the relationship between the news event and the identified data items to the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120197752 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/440,865&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Ebay&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 10/22/2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/29/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining, using one or more processors, a news event of a plurality of news events, the news event corresponding to a recent increase in user interest above a baseline user interest;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying one or more listings from a plurality of listings as matching the news event associated with the user interest, wherein the one or more listings include search results retrieved in response to a search query from a user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Presenting, to the user, a visual representation of a relationship between the news event and the one or more listings such that the one or more listings are displayed as visually related to the news event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining a news event related to a recent increase in interest of a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a list of data items matching the determined news event,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * the identified list of data items includes search results retrieved in response to a search query from the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Displaying a relationship between the list of data items and the determined news event to the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 10/22/2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming An event of interest to a user is determined based on change in frequency of search queries related to a search category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Publishing data items related to an event of interest to a user&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Scsc9sE.png&quot; width=&quot;550&quot; height=&quot;900&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120197752&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ebayinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120197752#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=10%2F22%2F2009" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14962" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5814" RevisionGUID="4d46e157-d1da-4920-abca-c6e47744b7d7" CreationDate="2014-01-07T20:46:29.017" UserId="1767" Text="Publishing data online - Selectively publishing data items associated with an event (Ebay) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14963" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5814" RevisionGUID="4d46e157-d1da-4920-abca-c6e47744b7d7" CreationDate="2014-01-07T20:46:29.017" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;ebay&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5815" RevisionGUID="c7668348-f6e6-40a3-8886-de019fb1f939" CreationDate="2014-01-07T20:53:27.960" UserId="7595" Text="We have a situation where 3 people worked on an idea. We suspect - one of the people may apply for a patent without informing or acknowledging the contributions of the others.  How would the other contributors even know this has been done ?&#xD;&#xA;I am a newbie at the patent process." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14965" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5815" RevisionGUID="c7668348-f6e6-40a3-8886-de019fb1f939" CreationDate="2014-01-07T20:53:27.960" UserId="7595" Text="Can a person apply for a patent - and not let other contributors know he is applying?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14966" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5815" RevisionGUID="c7668348-f6e6-40a3-8886-de019fb1f939" CreationDate="2014-01-07T20:53:27.960" UserId="7595" Text="&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;inequitable-conduct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5815" RevisionGUID="a28fdf73-7bd1-4216-90a0-f44c13965f23" CreationDate="2014-01-07T21:04:19.263" UserId="1767" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="We have a situation where 3 people worked on an idea. We suspect that one of the people may have applied for a patent without informing or acknowledging the contributions of the others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a newbie at the patent process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would the other two contributors determine whether this has been done?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5814" RevisionGUID="295a47af-992e-43db-b525-29947fb299ad" CreationDate="2014-01-07T21:04:30.360" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Publishing data items related to an event of interest to a user** - This application from [Ebay][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Determining a news event, identifying data items associated with the determined news event, and publishing the identified data items online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 10/22/2009** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining data items related to an event of interest to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A sample **list of events** may include elections, wars or conflicts, debates, **movie premiers**, **movie times**, **sporting events**, conventions, **celestial events**, **anniversaries of events**, or other **media events**. The **data items** may be in the form of **item listings**, links, **advertisements for products or services**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Publishing data items related to an event of interest**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Determining a news event based on a recent increase in interest of a user, identifying data items related to the determined news event, and presenting the relationship between the news event and the identified data items to the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120197752 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/440,865&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Ebay&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 10/22/2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/29/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining, using one or more processors, a news event of a plurality of news events, the news event corresponding to a recent increase in user interest above a baseline user interest;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying one or more listings from a plurality of listings as matching the news event associated with the user interest, wherein the one or more listings include search results retrieved in response to a search query from a user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Presenting, to the user, a visual representation of a relationship between the news event and the one or more listings such that the one or more listings are displayed as visually related to the news event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining a news event related to a recent increase in interest of a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a list of data items matching the determined news event,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * the identified list of data items includes search results retrieved in response to a search query from the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Displaying a relationship between the list of data items and the determined news event to the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 10/22/2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming An event of interest to a user is determined based on change in frequency of search queries related to a search category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Publishing data items related to an event of interest to a user&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Scsc9sE.png&quot; width=&quot;550&quot; height=&quot;900&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120197752&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ebayinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120197752#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=10%2F22%2F2009" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5816" RevisionGUID="fabe8caf-3294-4ed8-a834-defabf822ce2" CreationDate="2014-01-07T22:10:54.680" UserId="7597" Text=" - You can watch for the application to be published, but that could take a while.&#xD;&#xA; - You could inform the person in question that not listing all inventors will essentially       invalidate the application&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Worked on an idea&quot; will need some clarification.  Did all the parties participate with meaningful design input?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5817" RevisionGUID="70854247-0023-472f-8db2-4486afd02b6d" CreationDate="2014-01-07T22:33:42.147" UserId="7598" Text="I find that these two patents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US3079851 and US3209667  unbelievably similar; they appear to be achieving the same thing by virtually the same method.How could they both have been granted patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14971" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5817" RevisionGUID="70854247-0023-472f-8db2-4486afd02b6d" CreationDate="2014-01-07T22:33:42.147" UserId="7598" Text="I find these two patents virtually identical" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14972" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5817" RevisionGUID="70854247-0023-472f-8db2-4486afd02b6d" CreationDate="2014-01-07T22:33:42.147" UserId="7598" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14973" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5812" RevisionGUID="61a1894c-1001-4ecb-b8d8-f12b01892c88" CreationDate="2014-01-07T23:00:50.937" UserId="3076" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="I found this inside the textbook Modern Antenna Design, Thomas A. Milligan&#xD;&#xA;John Wiley &amp; Sons, Jul 8, 2005 - Technology &amp; Engineering - 580 pages. I do not know enough about RF and antennas to know if this is missing a key element. The U-shaped coax?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/MJmHD.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5818" RevisionGUID="a45df40b-4e67-44f4-b3ac-8633622be15e" CreationDate="2014-01-08T03:32:41.403" UserId="7600" Text="The 'invention' is defined by the patent claims.   Joint inventorship also is a claim by claim analysis.  In other words, dick and jane invent AB, but jane only invented B, so dick can claim only A and is not required to include jane as inventor, but if a claim to AB is made then dick and jane both must be named as inventors.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4745" RevisionGUID="afbcb2de-907a-416f-a75e-4840510e97d2" CreationDate="2014-01-08T04:44:52.797" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**A PATENT APPLICATION ON embedding hyperlinks into audio signals** - This application from [Apple][6] seeks to patent the idea of...putting hypertextual information into sound streams. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/7/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Embedding textual information (e.g. a hyperlink) into a sound stream. The information could be added as meta information to the audio file or it could be embedded into the sound, interleaved with normal audio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [AppleInsider](http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/08/apples-audio-hyperlink-tech-can-control-devices-with-inaudible-sonic-pulses)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves embedding a hyperlink so that it is inaudible or so that it is audible to listeners and where the metadata is a link or where it contains information about the audio stream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Audio Hyperlinking**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130204413 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/368,129&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  Apple, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/8/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Computer code to cause an audio stream to playback on an electronic device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Computer code to traverse a hyperlink encoded with the audio stream to a destination object during playback of the audio stream; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Computer code to perform an activity corresponding to the destination object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer program, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Code to to play an audio stream&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Code to follow a hyperlink encoded with the audio stream to a destination object (e.g. a webpage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Code to perform an activity corresponding to the destination object (e.g. display the webpage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming encoding the hyperlink so that it is **inaudible** or so that it is **audible** to listeners and where the metadata is a **link** or where it contains *information about the audio stream**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that some of claims were implemented before 2012.. Adding metadata to an audio file as a separate stream, hiding metadata in the sound stream, recognition of metadata from audio signal. So, **prior art is welcome**...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Audio Hyperlink from one audio track to another&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/IJl4S.jpg&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS I'm not sure if I will be able to send information of found prior arts to patent office, so I ask you to send this to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&amp;r=3&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=(20130808.PD.+AND+700%2F94.CCLS.)&amp;OS=pd/8/8/2013+and+ccl/700/94&amp;RS=(PD/20130808+AND+CCL/700/94)&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.apple.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4622" RevisionGUID="c4e9c8c7-394c-4391-b1ac-e9265048cb2c" CreationDate="2014-01-08T04:45:05.830" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON SOCIAL NETWORKING** - This application from [Renren (China)][6] seeks to patent the idea of...initiating social network services between two users based on contact information! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 20, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Initiating a “social networking service” between a first and second user based on the contact information of the second user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **PHYSICAL BUSINESS CARDS** to identify the 2nd user contact information (i.e. when you hand someone a business card at a conference), or social networking services such as a **FRIEND INVITING MESSAGE** or an **INVITATION TO AN EVENT** .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PROCESSING USER CONTACT INFORMATION**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for “processing user contact information” comprising: You provide contact information about another user and a server initiates a “social networking service” between you and that user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159435 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/607,532&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Renren, Inc. (China)&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 20, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for processing user contact information, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. obtaining, at a user equipment of a first user, contact information associated with a second user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. initiating a social networking service SNS operation between the first user and the second user based on the contact information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for connecting users in a social network:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. First user provides contact information about a second user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Initiating a “social networking service” (e.g. a friend request, event invitation, etc.) between the first user and the second user based on the contact information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 20, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using **PHYSICAL BUSINESS CARDS** to identify the 2nd user contact information (i.e. when you hand someone a business card at a conference)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Processing User Contact Information” from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/C6IBv.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159435?dq=US20130159435A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renren" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5755" RevisionGUID="c1beb6b3-6912-4c81-a92f-affa9c2721e8" CreationDate="2014-01-08T04:45:20.453" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Methods of detecting similar documents** - This application from [Nhn][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Extracting an entity from two or more web documents, calculating weights based on the two or more documents, and determining a similarity between the two or more documents! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/4/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Methods for detecting similar documents by matching and comparing extracted entities from the documents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A **characteristic index** for each of the **web documents** is calculated based on weight of the corresponding entity. A similarity between the **web documents** is determined based on the calculated **characteristic indices**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Method and device to detect similar documents**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Extracting an entity from two **web documents**, calculating weights for the entity based on **importance contribution elements** corresponding to both of the two **web documents**, and determining a similarity between the two **web documents** based on the calculated weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120284270 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/462,592&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Nhn&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/4/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 5/7/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method that uses a processor for detecting similar documents, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Extracting an entity from each of a first web document and a second web document;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining an importance contribution element corresponding to each of the web documents;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Calculating, using the processor, weights for each entity based on the determined importance contribution elements; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining whether the web documents are similar documents based on the calculated weights. Determining whether the web documents are similar documents based on the calculated weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for detecting similar documents, the method comprises the following steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Extracting an entity from two web documents;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining an importance contribution element corresponding to both the web documents;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Calculating weights for each entity based on the determined importance contribution elements; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining whether the two web documents are similar documents based on the calculated weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/4/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Each importance contribution element comprises at least one of a hash value of the corresponding entity, and a frequency of which the corresponding entity is duplicated within the corresponding web document.  Further, the calculating the weights comprises using an inverted document frequency concept, the inverted document frequency concept increasing a weight of each entity in inverse proportion to decreasing frequency of duplication of the respective entity.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method and device to detect similar documents&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/oOqv6nJ.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120284270&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.navercorp.com/en/index.nhn&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120284270#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=05%2F04%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5728" RevisionGUID="b30e967d-9bf8-49ea-9fc5-0e6158122d9c" CreationDate="2014-01-08T04:45:34.097" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON providing recommendations based on relative preferences across items for a customer.** - This application from [MIT][6] seeks to patent the idea of...identifying a relative preference list of all users, comparing a user's relative preference list with the canonical preference list, and inferring preferences of the user on the basis of comparison with other users. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/29/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Providing a personalized recommendation to a user regarding items that the user has not ranked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A user's preference is identified based on **pair-wise preferences** of items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining preferences of a user based on comparative rating across items.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Comparing preference of a user with identified preferences of all users and inferring preference of the user based on a correlation factor between the user preference and each of the identified preferences.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130054498 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/598,124&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: MIT&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/29/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 8/27/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for inferring the preferences of a user in relation to a population, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying a preference distribution of said population comprising a plurality of ranked lists and a weight of each of said plurality of ranked lists;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. comparing a revealed preference of said user to one of said plurality of ranked lists;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. assigning an affinity weight between said user and each of said plurality of ranked lists; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. taking a weighted average of each of said affinity weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for inferring preferences of a user, the method comprises the following steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying preferences of all users over a number of choices; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. comparing preferences of the user with each of the identified preferences;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. assigning a correlation factor between the user preferences and each of the identified preferences; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. averaging the assigned correlation factors to infer preferences of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/29/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A preference list  providing comparisons between every pair of items for a user is represented by a comparison matrix indexed by i and j, where entry (i, j) is set to 1 if item i is preferred to item j, and 0 otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Providing recommendations based on pair-wise comparison of items.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/1c7H9Dw.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130054498a1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://web.mit.edu/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130054498#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=08%2F29%2F2011&amp;t=1providing%20personalized%20recommendations.1ranked%20lists.1preference.0preference%20distribution.0revealed%20preference.0affinity%20weight.0population.0weighted%20average.0index.0sparse%20distribution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="2e95936b-cadc-431e-9f85-b9fb4d5a8a10" CreationDate="2014-01-08T04:45:48.863" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  Apple [recently filed for an &quot;Interactive Map&quot; patent][1] that in every way resembles a collection of technologies and methods known as &quot;Geographic Information Systems&quot; (GIS). 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 in particular has been in active use by the GIS community for over 40 years:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for **displaying a map on a computing device**, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Storing information to be displayed on the map in a memory of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computing device, the stored information comprising a plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different layers of information, wherein each layer contains a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; respective type of information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Displaying a map on a display of the computing device, the map comprising&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a plurality of the layers of information superimposed upon one another;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - In response to a user selection of a display mode corresponding to a topic of interest, displaying at least one layer containing information that is associated with the selected mode; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Enhancing the value of at least one display parameter for map features of each displayed layer that are associated with the selected mode, relative to a default value for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the display parameter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likely innovators/publishers(manuals...)/patentees in this vein include [Esri][2], [Pitney Bowes][3] and [Google][4]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help find prior art from **June 5th 2012 or earlier**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior art can be any publication (webpage, user manual, paper, book, youtube video, patent pre-grant publication) or patent. **It is helpful to establish a date when the prior art was available to the public and a solid reference which can be cited by the USPTO**.  A citable reference can often be found in a contemporaneous publication about the technology in magazine, blog, or scientific article.  Another place to look is [The Wayback Machine](https://archive.org/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's help inform the USPTO!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Publication Number: **[US 20130339891 A1][5]**&#xD;&#xA;- Priority Date: Seeking prior art predating **Jun 5, 2012**&#xD;&#xA;- Assignee: Apple, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Interactive Map US20130339891][6]&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][7].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][8] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&amp;r=2&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=%28715/771.CCLS.%20AND%2020131219.PD.%29&amp;OS=ccl/715/771%20and%20pd/12/19/2013&amp;RS=%28CCL/715/771%20AND%20PD/20131219%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.esri.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.mapinfo.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/maps/about/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&amp;r=2&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=%28715/771.CCLS.%20AND%2020131219.PD.%29&amp;OS=ccl/715/771%20and%20pd/12/19/2013&amp;RS=%28CCL/715/771%20AND%20PD/20131219%29&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/pkgiB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="d4ff84a8-ab8c-4656-9b35-0eef5393447e" CreationDate="2014-01-08T04:46:08.443" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Applying administrator defined ranking rules to alter the ranking of search results** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Applying a user-defined ranking rule on search results and re-ordering the search results based on the ranking rule! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Re-ordering search results based on rules defined by a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Graphical User Interface allows a user to: configure the **ranking rules** such as to enter **key/value restrictions** or set a **boost value**,  preview an application of one or more of the **ranking rules**, specify a portion of results from which statistics such as **standard deviation**, **average score** are calculated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: User-configured rules to re-order search results.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving search results, applying user-defined re-ranking rules to the search results, and re-ranking the search results based on the user-defined re-ranking rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130198174 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/360,536&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/28/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for re-ranking search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results that are ranked; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. applying a ranking rule defined by a user to the search results that re-ranks the search results, wherein the ranking rule includes user specified parameters that influence how a result within the search results is re-ranked using statistical information relating to the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for re-ordering search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results in an order in response to a search query executed using a search engine;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.    applying a re-ordering rule defined by a user to re-order the search results, where the re-ordering rule defines ordering a result within the search results on the basis of statistical information related to search results; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. re-ordering the search results on the basis of user-defined re-ordering rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A Graphical User Interface (GUI) displays options for a user to set search parameters to re-rank search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;User defined re-ordering of search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Ie8wCzF.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130198174&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130198174#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=01%2F27%2F2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5776" RevisionGUID="80dadeb3-f8d1-4091-9d01-97d498b77c0d" CreationDate="2014-01-08T04:46:23.210" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Dynamic preloading of web pages** - This [Apple][10] application seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying links in a loaded first web page, determining an order of pre-loading second web pages based on links to those web pages, and loading one or more of the second web pages according to the order!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The assignment history here is illustrative because [Julien Nguyen][3] apparently assigned the patent in 1996 to his employer at the time, MagicWeb.  After a [long chain of assignments and reassignments][11] over 15 years... the patent family is purchased by [Apple][10].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apple is trying to &quot;improve&quot; the claims of the patent through this continuation while retaining the 1996 priority date of Nguyen's original application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/13/1996** (this is a continuation of an old patent by Julien Nguyen) that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Dynamic pre-loading of web pages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Dynamically selecting and preloading **web pages** from **page server** to **page client** using parameters indicated by the **page client** or the **page server**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Dynamic preloading of web pages**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying a plurality of links in a loaded **first web page**, each of the plurality of links pointing to a respective one of a plurality of **secondary web pages**, determining an order of the plurality of **secondary web pages** for loading, and loading one or more of the plurality of **secondary web pages** according to the order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120221930 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/439,226&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Julien Tan Nguyen][3]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/13/1996&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method implemented by a computing device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Loading a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a plurality of links in the loaded first web page, each of the plurality of links pointing to a respective one of a plurality of secondary web pages;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining an order of the plurality of secondary web pages for loading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Loading one or more of the plurality of secondary web pages according to the order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method implemented by a computing device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Loading a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying multiple links in the loaded first web page, each of the multiple links pointing to a respective one of multiple secondary web pages;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining an order of the multiple secondary web pages for loading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Loading one or more of the multiple secondary web pages according to the determined order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/13/1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Dynamically saving and recalling behavior information, by the page client, about web pages to be presented, the behavior information being independent of actual links indicated on the web pages. The behavior information is further responsive to parameters selected by the operator parameters adaptively determined by the page client, or responsive to a combination thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Dynamic preloading of web pages&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/J5Xz9q9.png&quot; width=&quot;448&quot; height=&quot;486&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120221930&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://twitter.com/julien888&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120221930#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=09%2F13%2F1996&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.apple.com&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&amp;pat=6584498" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5814" RevisionGUID="9d148669-352d-44e9-be20-fe4de9ba816c" CreationDate="2014-01-08T04:46:35.663" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Publishing data items related to an event of interest to a user** - This application from [Ebay][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Determining a news event, identifying data items associated with the determined news event, and publishing the identified data items online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 10/22/2009** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining data items related to an event of interest to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A sample **list of events** may include elections, wars or conflicts, debates, **movie premiers**, **movie times**, **sporting events**, conventions, **celestial events**, **anniversaries of events**, or other **media events**. The **data items** may be in the form of **item listings**, links, **advertisements for products or services**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Publishing data items related to an event of interest**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Determining a news event based on a recent increase in interest of a user, identifying data items related to the determined news event, and presenting the relationship between the news event and the identified data items to the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120197752 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/440,865&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Ebay&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 10/22/2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/29/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining, using one or more processors, a news event of a plurality of news events, the news event corresponding to a recent increase in user interest above a baseline user interest;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying one or more listings from a plurality of listings as matching the news event associated with the user interest, wherein the one or more listings include search results retrieved in response to a search query from a user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Presenting, to the user, a visual representation of a relationship between the news event and the one or more listings such that the one or more listings are displayed as visually related to the news event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining a news event related to a recent increase in interest of a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a list of data items matching the determined news event,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * the identified list of data items includes search results retrieved in response to a search query from the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Displaying a relationship between the list of data items and the determined news event to the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 10/22/2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming An event of interest to a user is determined based on change in frequency of search queries related to a search category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Publishing data items related to an event of interest to a user&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Scsc9sE.png&quot; width=&quot;550&quot; height=&quot;900&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120197752&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ebayinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120197752#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=10%2F22%2F2009" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5816" RevisionGUID="e4df5a97-7a16-4e38-af73-5d120e83f1df" CreationDate="2014-01-08T06:07:16.950" UserId="3076" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text=" - You can watch for the application to be published, but that could take a while.&#xD;&#xA; - You could inform the person in question that not listing all inventors will essentially       invalidate the application&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Worked on an idea&quot; will need some clarification.  Did all the parties participate with meaningful conceptual input?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14991" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5811" RevisionGUID="2d391aa1-7699-4f40-a116-85885f93eaf4" CreationDate="2014-01-08T14:17:04.440" UserId="5317" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us8068066&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5821" RevisionGUID="6dd028da-f3ab-4258-a5ee-6f421b60e944" CreationDate="2014-01-08T14:41:32.733" UserId="7602" Text="PM motors on a variety of applications has been done for 10 years. Cooling towers, fluid coolers, etc. The motor cost has not allowed it to go mainstream due to rare earth cost for the magnets." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14993" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5821" RevisionGUID="6dd028da-f3ab-4258-a5ee-6f421b60e944" CreationDate="2014-01-08T14:41:32.733" UserId="7602" Text="This is not a new idea" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14994" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5821" RevisionGUID="6dd028da-f3ab-4258-a5ee-6f421b60e944" CreationDate="2014-01-08T14:41:32.733" UserId="7602" Text="&lt;us8598823&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5822" RevisionGUID="80b20119-80f0-4d17-8893-10ef3d049802" CreationDate="2014-01-08T15:17:11.087" UserId="5317" Text="I'll go out on a limb and suggest the wording in this 1977 patent...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  https://www.google.com/patents/US4156857&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[. . .] the interaction of the local r.f. magnetic fields with the magnetic moments associated with the atoms of the various metals making up a passive microwave component. One of the stronger of this class of interactions is that associated with ferromagnetic resonance, [. . .]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The invention focuses on this class of phenomena which is dependent upon the magnitude of a static magnetic field (generated internally or externally), whereby the generation of harmonics and other spurious signals by this effect is minimized through the use of appropriately placed magnets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[. . .]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Utilizing additional conventional techniques to reduce harmonic generation at various junctions within the filter improved the second harmonic response to only about -70 dBm. However, applying small magnets 23 near the standard &quot;non-magnetic&quot; stainless steel coax connectors in accordance with the method of invention, easily improved the response to -90 dBm. Further adjustments in the placement of the magnets provided a response of less than -110 dBm, which was the sensitivity limit of the measurement system used.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...properly describes the very phenomena the Purdue team suggests is novel in their claim #1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good useful research?  Yes.  Novel?  No." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5823" RevisionGUID="772b7a7b-b38b-43e5-9b8e-bd2ec8e93ede" CreationDate="2014-01-08T17:03:04.430" UserId="7546" Text="One possibility may be the Northern Light search engine.  This was a publicly available search engine for a few years from the mid 1990s to early 2000s.  There are also a number of patents related to Northern Light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some excerpt from the summary here [Search Engine Show Down Review][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Databases: The main search screen searches both their large database&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of Web pages and their Special Collection. The Special Collection&#xD;&#xA;&gt; database includes records from over 7,100 publications including&#xD;&#xA;&gt; records from Special Collection includes MarkIntel, Find/SVP, WEFA,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and Investext reports. **The most recent two weeks of theirs news wires&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are available in a Current News tab**. Their Special Editions link has&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selected publications organized, sorted, and available for free on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; popular topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today the company still has a major product focused on &quot;marketing intelligence&quot; based on news so I think this was an important aspect of the search.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These additional links may be relevant&#xD;&#xA;[Description of Northern Light][2] published in Database 21(1):32-37, Feb.-Mar. 1998 according to note at the bottom.&#xD;&#xA;[Current text on former public site][3]&#xD;&#xA;[Description of NL in 1995/96][4]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2007  search related patent held by David Suess of Northern Light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US7877344][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.searchengineshowdown.com/features/nlight/review.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://notess.com/write/archive/9802a.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.nlsearch.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.salientmarketing.com/seo-resources/search-engine-history/northern-light.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8583580&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7877344" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14999" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5814" RevisionGUID="655c2a9e-6f81-4f5a-9893-27f59d6fbc0f" CreationDate="2014-01-08T18:34:34.930" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;ebay&gt;&lt;us20120197752&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5821" RevisionGUID="86a86b9a-eafe-40b0-b71e-1ef7b1d3941b" CreationDate="2014-01-08T19:02:15.327" UserId="3076" Comment="Added claim 1" Text="PM motors on a variety of applications has been done for 10 years. Cooling towers, fluid coolers, etc. The motor cost has not allowed it to go mainstream due to rare earth cost for the magnets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A drive system for rotating a fan in a wet cooling tower, comprising &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a permanent magnet motor comprising a motor casing,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a stator and &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a rotatable shaft configured for connection to a fan in a wet cooling tower, the motor further comprising&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a dual bearing system comprising a pair of bearings that locate and support the rotatable shaft relative to the motor casing, the drive system further comprising &lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;sensors for measuring vibrations of the bearings and outputting signals representing the measured vibrations, and &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;sensors for measuring heat of the stator and the bearings and outputting signals representing the measured heat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15001" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5821" RevisionGUID="058df5b8-f052-4c78-b4c5-d3b47480feb4" CreationDate="2014-01-08T19:05:48.937" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="US8598823 - Fan drive system for cooling tower is not novel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15002" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4745" RevisionGUID="75b680d7-58e3-4250-84ae-629fa4fc3c1a" CreationDate="2014-01-08T19:38:58.780" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **A PATENT APPLICATION ON embedding hyperlinks into audio signals** - This application from [Apple][6] seeks to patent the idea of...putting hypertextual information into sound streams. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/7/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Embedding textual information (e.g. a hyperlink) into a sound stream. The information could be added as meta information to the audio file or it could be embedded into the sound, interleaved with normal audio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [AppleInsider](http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/08/apples-audio-hyperlink-tech-can-control-devices-with-inaudible-sonic-pulses)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves embedding a hyperlink so that it is inaudible or so that it is audible to listeners and where the metadata is a link or where it contains information about the audio stream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Audio Hyperlinking**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130204413 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/368,129&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  Apple, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/8/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Computer code to cause an audio stream to playback on an electronic device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Computer code to traverse a hyperlink encoded with the audio stream to a destination object during playback of the audio stream; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Computer code to perform an activity corresponding to the destination object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer program, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Code to to play an audio stream&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Code to follow a hyperlink encoded with the audio stream to a destination object (e.g. a webpage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Code to perform an activity corresponding to the destination object (e.g. display the webpage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming encoding the hyperlink so that it is **inaudible** or so that it is **audible** to listeners and where the metadata is a **link** or where it contains *information about the audio stream**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that some of claims were implemented before 2012.. Adding metadata to an audio file as a separate stream, hiding metadata in the sound stream, recognition of metadata from audio signal. So, **prior art is welcome**...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Audio Hyperlink from one audio track to another&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/IJl4S.jpg&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS I'm not sure if I will be able to send information of found prior arts to patent office, so I ask you to send this to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&amp;r=3&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=(20130808.PD.+AND+700%2F94.CCLS.)&amp;OS=pd/8/8/2013+and+ccl/700/94&amp;RS=(PD/20130808+AND+CCL/700/94)&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.apple.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4622" RevisionGUID="f110ff31-7207-463b-bf4d-47581201c9bd" CreationDate="2014-01-08T19:39:14.280" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON SOCIAL NETWORKING** - This application from [Renren (China)][6] seeks to patent the idea of...initiating social network services between two users based on contact information! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 20, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Initiating a “social networking service” between a first and second user based on the contact information of the second user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **PHYSICAL BUSINESS CARDS** to identify the 2nd user contact information (i.e. when you hand someone a business card at a conference), or social networking services such as a **FRIEND INVITING MESSAGE** or an **INVITATION TO AN EVENT** .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PROCESSING USER CONTACT INFORMATION**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for “processing user contact information” comprising: You provide contact information about another user and a server initiates a “social networking service” between you and that user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159435 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/607,532&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Renren, Inc. (China)&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 20, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for processing user contact information, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. obtaining, at a user equipment of a first user, contact information associated with a second user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. initiating a social networking service SNS operation between the first user and the second user based on the contact information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for connecting users in a social network:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. First user provides contact information about a second user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Initiating a “social networking service” (e.g. a friend request, event invitation, etc.) between the first user and the second user based on the contact information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 20, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using **PHYSICAL BUSINESS CARDS** to identify the 2nd user contact information (i.e. when you hand someone a business card at a conference)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Processing User Contact Information” from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/C6IBv.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159435?dq=US20130159435A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renren" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5755" RevisionGUID="4e1fb292-5191-4a07-973e-b64011f6a245" CreationDate="2014-01-08T19:39:25.140" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Methods of detecting similar documents** - This application from [Nhn][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Extracting an entity from two or more web documents, calculating weights based on the two or more documents, and determining a similarity between the two or more documents! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/4/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Methods for detecting similar documents by matching and comparing extracted entities from the documents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A **characteristic index** for each of the **web documents** is calculated based on weight of the corresponding entity. A similarity between the **web documents** is determined based on the calculated **characteristic indices**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Method and device to detect similar documents**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Extracting an entity from two **web documents**, calculating weights for the entity based on **importance contribution elements** corresponding to both of the two **web documents**, and determining a similarity between the two **web documents** based on the calculated weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120284270 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/462,592&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Nhn&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/4/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 5/7/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method that uses a processor for detecting similar documents, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Extracting an entity from each of a first web document and a second web document;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining an importance contribution element corresponding to each of the web documents;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Calculating, using the processor, weights for each entity based on the determined importance contribution elements; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining whether the web documents are similar documents based on the calculated weights. Determining whether the web documents are similar documents based on the calculated weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for detecting similar documents, the method comprises the following steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Extracting an entity from two web documents;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining an importance contribution element corresponding to both the web documents;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Calculating weights for each entity based on the determined importance contribution elements; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining whether the two web documents are similar documents based on the calculated weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/4/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Each importance contribution element comprises at least one of a hash value of the corresponding entity, and a frequency of which the corresponding entity is duplicated within the corresponding web document.  Further, the calculating the weights comprises using an inverted document frequency concept, the inverted document frequency concept increasing a weight of each entity in inverse proportion to decreasing frequency of duplication of the respective entity.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method and device to detect similar documents&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/oOqv6nJ.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120284270&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.navercorp.com/en/index.nhn&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120284270#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=05%2F04%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5728" RevisionGUID="05d9cef3-c335-4bcd-9e1c-a4facc245bb6" CreationDate="2014-01-08T19:39:37.360" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON providing recommendations based on relative preferences across items for a customer.** - This application from [MIT][6] seeks to patent the idea of...identifying a relative preference list of all users, comparing a user's relative preference list with the canonical preference list, and inferring preferences of the user on the basis of comparison with other users. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/29/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Providing a personalized recommendation to a user regarding items that the user has not ranked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A user's preference is identified based on **pair-wise preferences** of items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining preferences of a user based on comparative rating across items.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Comparing preference of a user with identified preferences of all users and inferring preference of the user based on a correlation factor between the user preference and each of the identified preferences.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130054498 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/598,124&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: MIT&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/29/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 8/27/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for inferring the preferences of a user in relation to a population, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying a preference distribution of said population comprising a plurality of ranked lists and a weight of each of said plurality of ranked lists;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. comparing a revealed preference of said user to one of said plurality of ranked lists;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. assigning an affinity weight between said user and each of said plurality of ranked lists; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. taking a weighted average of each of said affinity weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for inferring preferences of a user, the method comprises the following steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying preferences of all users over a number of choices; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. comparing preferences of the user with each of the identified preferences;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. assigning a correlation factor between the user preferences and each of the identified preferences; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. averaging the assigned correlation factors to infer preferences of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/29/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A preference list  providing comparisons between every pair of items for a user is represented by a comparison matrix indexed by i and j, where entry (i, j) is set to 1 if item i is preferred to item j, and 0 otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Providing recommendations based on pair-wise comparison of items.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/1c7H9Dw.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130054498a1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://web.mit.edu/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130054498#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=08%2F29%2F2011&amp;t=1providing%20personalized%20recommendations.1ranked%20lists.1preference.0preference%20distribution.0revealed%20preference.0affinity%20weight.0population.0weighted%20average.0index.0sparse%20distribution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="e3baee41-c61c-4e12-a718-bbfb46ea486a" CreationDate="2014-01-08T19:40:01.690" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" Apple [recently filed for an &quot;Interactive Map&quot; patent][1] that in every way resembles a collection of technologies and methods known as &quot;Geographic Information Systems&quot; (GIS). 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 in particular has been in active use by the GIS community for over 40 years:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for **displaying a map on a computing device**, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Storing information to be displayed on the map in a memory of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computing device, the stored information comprising a plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different layers of information, wherein each layer contains a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; respective type of information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Displaying a map on a display of the computing device, the map comprising&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a plurality of the layers of information superimposed upon one another;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - In response to a user selection of a display mode corresponding to a topic of interest, displaying at least one layer containing information that is associated with the selected mode; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Enhancing the value of at least one display parameter for map features of each displayed layer that are associated with the selected mode, relative to a default value for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the display parameter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likely innovators/publishers(manuals...)/patentees in this vein include [Esri][2], [Pitney Bowes][3] and [Google][4]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help find prior art from **June 5th 2012 or earlier**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior art can be any publication (webpage, user manual, paper, book, youtube video, patent pre-grant publication) or patent. **It is helpful to establish a date when the prior art was available to the public and a solid reference which can be cited by the USPTO**.  A citable reference can often be found in a contemporaneous publication about the technology in magazine, blog, or scientific article.  Another place to look is [The Wayback Machine](https://archive.org/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's help inform the USPTO!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Publication Number: **[US 20130339891 A1][5]**&#xD;&#xA;- Priority Date: Seeking prior art predating **Jun 5, 2012**&#xD;&#xA;- Assignee: Apple, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Interactive Map US20130339891][6]&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][7].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][8] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&amp;r=2&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=%28715/771.CCLS.%20AND%2020131219.PD.%29&amp;OS=ccl/715/771%20and%20pd/12/19/2013&amp;RS=%28CCL/715/771%20AND%20PD/20131219%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.esri.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.mapinfo.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/maps/about/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&amp;r=2&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=%28715/771.CCLS.%20AND%2020131219.PD.%29&amp;OS=ccl/715/771%20and%20pd/12/19/2013&amp;RS=%28CCL/715/771%20AND%20PD/20131219%29&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/pkgiB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="f0229848-8d40-435a-b1a7-b2c93196ebb5" CreationDate="2014-01-08T19:40:13.050" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Applying administrator defined ranking rules to alter the ranking of search results** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Applying a user-defined ranking rule on search results and re-ordering the search results based on the ranking rule! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Re-ordering search results based on rules defined by a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Graphical User Interface allows a user to: configure the **ranking rules** such as to enter **key/value restrictions** or set a **boost value**,  preview an application of one or more of the **ranking rules**, specify a portion of results from which statistics such as **standard deviation**, **average score** are calculated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: User-configured rules to re-order search results.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving search results, applying user-defined re-ranking rules to the search results, and re-ranking the search results based on the user-defined re-ranking rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130198174 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/360,536&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/28/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for re-ranking search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results that are ranked; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. applying a ranking rule defined by a user to the search results that re-ranks the search results, wherein the ranking rule includes user specified parameters that influence how a result within the search results is re-ranked using statistical information relating to the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for re-ordering search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results in an order in response to a search query executed using a search engine;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.    applying a re-ordering rule defined by a user to re-order the search results, where the re-ordering rule defines ordering a result within the search results on the basis of statistical information related to search results; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. re-ordering the search results on the basis of user-defined re-ordering rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A Graphical User Interface (GUI) displays options for a user to set search parameters to re-rank search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;User defined re-ordering of search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Ie8wCzF.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130198174&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130198174#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=01%2F27%2F2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5776" RevisionGUID="c85f5027-4abf-4d62-b27d-5587a4555ac7" CreationDate="2014-01-08T19:40:26.333" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Dynamic preloading of web pages** - This [Apple][10] application seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying links in a loaded first web page, determining an order of pre-loading second web pages based on links to those web pages, and loading one or more of the second web pages according to the order!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The assignment history here is illustrative because [Julien Nguyen][3] apparently assigned the patent in 1996 to his employer at the time, MagicWeb.  After a [long chain of assignments and reassignments][11] over 15 years... the patent family is purchased by [Apple][10].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apple is trying to &quot;improve&quot; the claims of the patent through this continuation while retaining the 1996 priority date of Nguyen's original application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/13/1996** (this is a continuation of an old patent by Julien Nguyen) that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Dynamic pre-loading of web pages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Dynamically selecting and preloading **web pages** from **page server** to **page client** using parameters indicated by the **page client** or the **page server**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Dynamic preloading of web pages**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying a plurality of links in a loaded **first web page**, each of the plurality of links pointing to a respective one of a plurality of **secondary web pages**, determining an order of the plurality of **secondary web pages** for loading, and loading one or more of the plurality of **secondary web pages** according to the order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120221930 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/439,226&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Julien Tan Nguyen][3]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/13/1996&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method implemented by a computing device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Loading a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a plurality of links in the loaded first web page, each of the plurality of links pointing to a respective one of a plurality of secondary web pages;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining an order of the plurality of secondary web pages for loading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Loading one or more of the plurality of secondary web pages according to the order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method implemented by a computing device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Loading a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying multiple links in the loaded first web page, each of the multiple links pointing to a respective one of multiple secondary web pages;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining an order of the multiple secondary web pages for loading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Loading one or more of the multiple secondary web pages according to the determined order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/13/1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Dynamically saving and recalling behavior information, by the page client, about web pages to be presented, the behavior information being independent of actual links indicated on the web pages. The behavior information is further responsive to parameters selected by the operator parameters adaptively determined by the page client, or responsive to a combination thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Dynamic preloading of web pages&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/J5Xz9q9.png&quot; width=&quot;448&quot; height=&quot;486&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120221930&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://twitter.com/julien888&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120221930#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=09%2F13%2F1996&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.apple.com&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&amp;pat=6584498" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5814" RevisionGUID="dc6b02bd-3704-42b3-8ea0-992c8e4e8dfc" CreationDate="2014-01-08T19:40:41.863" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Publishing data items related to an event of interest to a user** - This application from [Ebay][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Determining a news event, identifying data items associated with the determined news event, and publishing the identified data items online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 10/22/2009** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining data items related to an event of interest to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A sample **list of events** may include elections, wars or conflicts, debates, **movie premiers**, **movie times**, **sporting events**, conventions, **celestial events**, **anniversaries of events**, or other **media events**. The **data items** may be in the form of **item listings**, links, **advertisements for products or services**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Publishing data items related to an event of interest**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Determining a news event based on a recent increase in interest of a user, identifying data items related to the determined news event, and presenting the relationship between the news event and the identified data items to the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120197752 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/440,865&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Ebay&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 10/22/2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/29/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining, using one or more processors, a news event of a plurality of news events, the news event corresponding to a recent increase in user interest above a baseline user interest;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying one or more listings from a plurality of listings as matching the news event associated with the user interest, wherein the one or more listings include search results retrieved in response to a search query from a user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Presenting, to the user, a visual representation of a relationship between the news event and the one or more listings such that the one or more listings are displayed as visually related to the news event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining a news event related to a recent increase in interest of a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a list of data items matching the determined news event,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * the identified list of data items includes search results retrieved in response to a search query from the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Displaying a relationship between the list of data items and the determined news event to the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 10/22/2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming An event of interest to a user is determined based on change in frequency of search queries related to a search category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Publishing data items related to an event of interest to a user&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Scsc9sE.png&quot; width=&quot;550&quot; height=&quot;900&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120197752&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ebayinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120197752#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=10%2F22%2F2009" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5825" RevisionGUID="b02f37f0-5bd0-4226-a410-ce1736679176" CreationDate="2014-01-08T20:50:46.420" UserId="3359" Text="This is a real patent.  It is related to a Theranos / Stanford / Walgreen project currently on going.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;U.S. Patent No. 8,380,541&#xD;&#xA;Priority date 9/26/2011&#xD;&#xA;Issued February 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sample claim has &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A method of evaluating a biological sample collected from a subject, said method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) receiving data transmitted from a device placed in or on the subject or at a site selected from the group consisting of a retailer site, the subject's home, or a health assessment/treatment location,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;wherein the device  (i) receives the biological sample; (ii) prepares data for evaluation; and (iii) transmits the data (iii) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) analyzing the raw data transmitted &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c) providing oversight of integrity of said analysis &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, that is a real claim.  When you stop laughing, can you find better prior art than say ..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lee et al., A simle and Smart Telemedicine Device for Developing Regions: a pocket size colorimetric reader, Lab on a Chip, issue 1, 2011. (First published 11/26/2010)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“We have proposed a novel mobile healthcare platform, combining a pocket-sized colorimetric reader (13.5 × 6.5 × 2.5 cm3) and commercially available 10-parameter urinalysis paper strips (glucose, protein, glucose, bilirubin, urobilinogen, ketones, nitrite, pH, specific gravity, erythrocytes, and leukocytes), capable of sending data with a smart phone. The reader includes a novel colorimetric multi-detection module, which consists of three-chromatic light-emitting diodes, silicon photodiodes and a novel poly(methylmethacrylate) (PMMA) optical splitter. We employed data reading methods using conversions of the signal data (red, blue, and green) to the hue (H) color map or the Y model data, and used a curve-fitting method for the quantification. The reader is battery-powered, inexpensive, light-weight, and very speedy in analysis. And, it was applied to detection of a thousand of human urine samples and demonstrated reliable quantification of urinary glucose and protein. The features can be used by unskilled people on-site to transfer the analyzed data to experts off-site.”&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15018" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5825" RevisionGUID="b02f37f0-5bd0-4226-a410-ce1736679176" CreationDate="2014-01-08T20:50:46.420" UserId="3359" Text="Prior Art Request - US Pat. No. 8,380,541 Theranos / Walgreen / Stanford U" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15019" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5825" RevisionGUID="b02f37f0-5bd0-4226-a410-ce1736679176" CreationDate="2014-01-08T20:50:46.420" UserId="3359" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior&gt;&lt;theranos&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15020" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5825" RevisionGUID="ed6308ac-1149-478c-9c80-44de8f86d1ef" CreationDate="2014-01-08T20:57:16.343" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;prior&gt;&lt;theranos&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15021" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5825" RevisionGUID="94399f4b-d027-4099-87da-e7319a93d03e" CreationDate="2014-01-08T21:28:47.393" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to patent" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;prior&gt;&lt;theranos&gt;&lt;us8380541&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5825" RevisionGUID="5a5cc2ac-7206-42f3-b825-52c7beb6c61a" CreationDate="2014-01-08T22:15:33.547" UserId="3076" Comment="[added in actual wording of claim 1" Text="This is a real patent.  It is related to a Theranos / Stanford / Walgreen project currently on going.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;U.S. Patent No. 8,380,541&#xD;&#xA;Priority date 9/26/2011&#xD;&#xA;Issued February 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sample claim has &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of evaluating a biological sample collected from a subject, said method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(a) receiving data transmitted from a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-compliant device placed in or on the subject or at a site selected from the group consisting of a retailer site, the subject's home, or a health assessment/treatment location,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the device is configured to process the biological sample by:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(i) receiving the biological sample;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(ii) preparing the biological sample and yielding raw data for a subsequent qualitative and/or quantitative evaluation of said biological sample; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(iii) transmitting electronically the raw data to an authorized analytical facility and/or an affiliate thereof for performance of said subsequent evaluation;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(b) analyzing the raw data transmitted from the device at the authorized analytical facility and/or the affiliate thereof, to provide said evaluation of said biological sample, wherein said analysis is performed using a processor alone or in conjunction with an individual affiliated with the authorized analytical facility; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(c) providing oversight of integrity of said analysis and operation of said CLIA-compliant device such that results generated from said analysis can be utilized by a health care professional for diagnosis or treatment of said subject, wherein the oversight is performed using a processor alone or in conjunction with an individual affiliated with the authorized analytical facility, and wherein the authorized analytical facility is a CLIA-compliant laboratory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lee et al., A simle and Smart Telemedicine Device for Developing Regions: a pocket size colorimetric reader, Lab on a Chip, issue 1, 2011. (First published 11/26/2010)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“We have proposed a novel mobile healthcare platform, combining a pocket-sized colorimetric reader (13.5 × 6.5 × 2.5 cm3) and commercially available 10-parameter urinalysis paper strips (glucose, protein, glucose, bilirubin, urobilinogen, ketones, nitrite, pH, specific gravity, erythrocytes, and leukocytes), capable of sending data with a smart phone. The reader includes a novel colorimetric multi-detection module, which consists of three-chromatic light-emitting diodes, silicon photodiodes and a novel poly(methylmethacrylate) (PMMA) optical splitter. We employed data reading methods using conversions of the signal data (red, blue, and green) to the hue (H) color map or the Y model data, and used a curve-fitting method for the quantification. The reader is battery-powered, inexpensive, light-weight, and very speedy in analysis. And, it was applied to detection of a thousand of human urine samples and demonstrated reliable quantification of urinary glucose and protein. The features can be used by unskilled people on-site to transfer the analyzed data to experts off-site.”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15023" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5825" RevisionGUID="887f6703-9cde-4e1f-8932-3fc952fb1035" CreationDate="2014-01-08T22:32:40.203" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags and added back in a portion accidentally deleted in previous edit" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;theranos&gt;&lt;us8380541&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5825" RevisionGUID="887f6703-9cde-4e1f-8932-3fc952fb1035" CreationDate="2014-01-08T22:32:40.203" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags and added back in a portion accidentally deleted in previous edit" Text="This is a real patent.  It is related to a Theranos / Stanford / Walgreen project currently on going.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;U.S. Patent No. 8,380,541&#xD;&#xA;Priority date 9/26/2011&#xD;&#xA;Issued February 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sample claim has &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of evaluating a biological sample collected from a subject, said method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(a) receiving data transmitted from a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-compliant device placed in or on the subject or at a site selected from the group consisting of a retailer site, the subject's home, or a health assessment/treatment location,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the device is configured to process the biological sample by:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(i) receiving the biological sample;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(ii) preparing the biological sample and yielding raw data for a subsequent qualitative and/or quantitative evaluation of said biological sample; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(iii) transmitting electronically the raw data to an authorized analytical facility and/or an affiliate thereof for performance of said subsequent evaluation;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(b) analyzing the raw data transmitted from the device at the authorized analytical facility and/or the affiliate thereof, to provide said evaluation of said biological sample, wherein said analysis is performed using a processor alone or in conjunction with an individual affiliated with the authorized analytical facility; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(c) providing oversight of integrity of said analysis and operation of said CLIA-compliant device such that results generated from said analysis can be utilized by a health care professional for diagnosis or treatment of said subject, wherein the oversight is performed using a processor alone or in conjunction with an individual affiliated with the authorized analytical facility, and wherein the authorized analytical facility is a CLIA-compliant laboratory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you find anything closer than:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lee et al., A simle and Smart Telemedicine Device for Developing Regions: a pocket size colorimetric reader, Lab on a Chip, issue 1, 2011. (First published 11/26/2010)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“We have proposed a novel mobile healthcare platform, combining a pocket-sized colorimetric reader (13.5 × 6.5 × 2.5 cm3) and commercially available 10-parameter urinalysis paper strips (glucose, protein, glucose, bilirubin, urobilinogen, ketones, nitrite, pH, specific gravity, erythrocytes, and leukocytes), capable of sending data with a smart phone. The reader includes a novel colorimetric multi-detection module, which consists of three-chromatic light-emitting diodes, silicon photodiodes and a novel poly(methylmethacrylate) (PMMA) optical splitter. We employed data reading methods using conversions of the signal data (red, blue, and green) to the hue (H) color map or the Y model data, and used a curve-fitting method for the quantification. The reader is battery-powered, inexpensive, light-weight, and very speedy in analysis. And, it was applied to detection of a thousand of human urine samples and demonstrated reliable quantification of urinary glucose and protein. The features can be used by unskilled people on-site to transfer the analyzed data to experts off-site.”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5825" RevisionGUID="f56b05dd-7680-4b43-964b-713ced8a90b1" CreationDate="2014-01-08T22:54:04.980" UserId="3076" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="This is an issued patent.  It is related to a Theranos / Stanford / Walgreen project currently on going.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;U.S. Patent No. 8,380,541&#xD;&#xA;Priority date 9/26/2011&#xD;&#xA;Issued February 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A sample claim is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of evaluating a biological sample collected from a subject, said method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(a) receiving data transmitted from a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-compliant device placed in or on the subject or at a site selected from the group consisting of a retailer site, the subject's home, or a health assessment/treatment location,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the device is configured to process the biological sample by:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(i) receiving the biological sample;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(ii) preparing the biological sample and yielding raw data for a subsequent qualitative and/or quantitative evaluation of said biological sample; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(iii) transmitting electronically the raw data to an authorized analytical facility and/or an affiliate thereof for performance of said subsequent evaluation;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(b) analyzing the raw data transmitted from the device at the authorized analytical facility and/or the affiliate thereof, to provide said evaluation of said biological sample, wherein said analysis is performed using a processor alone or in conjunction with an individual affiliated with the authorized analytical facility; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(c) providing oversight of integrity of said analysis and operation of said CLIA-compliant device such that results generated from said analysis can be utilized by a health care professional for diagnosis or treatment of said subject, wherein the oversight is performed using a processor alone or in conjunction with an individual affiliated with the authorized analytical facility, and wherein the authorized analytical facility is a CLIA-compliant laboratory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you find anything closer than:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lee et al., A simle and Smart Telemedicine Device for Developing Regions: a pocket size colorimetric reader, Lab on a Chip, issue 1, 2011. (First published 11/26/2010)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“We have proposed a novel mobile healthcare platform, combining a pocket-sized colorimetric reader (13.5 × 6.5 × 2.5 cm3) and commercially available 10-parameter urinalysis paper strips (glucose, protein, glucose, bilirubin, urobilinogen, ketones, nitrite, pH, specific gravity, erythrocytes, and leukocytes), capable of sending data with a smart phone. The reader includes a novel colorimetric multi-detection module, which consists of three-chromatic light-emitting diodes, silicon photodiodes and a novel poly(methylmethacrylate) (PMMA) optical splitter. We employed data reading methods using conversions of the signal data (red, blue, and green) to the hue (H) color map or the Y model data, and used a curve-fitting method for the quantification. The reader is battery-powered, inexpensive, light-weight, and very speedy in analysis. And, it was applied to detection of a thousand of human urine samples and demonstrated reliable quantification of urinary glucose and protein. The features can be used by unskilled people on-site to transfer the analyzed data to experts off-site.”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5826" RevisionGUID="e98ee1fa-7281-4169-aa11-b4a1cad6d199" CreationDate="2014-01-09T00:43:43.660" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON prioritizing search results based on content creation trends of terms in the search results** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving search results in response to a search query, ranking the search results, retrieving trend data related to terms in the search results, weighting the ranked search results according to the trend data, and displaying the weighted ranked search results! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ranking search results based on trend data related to terms in the search results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - **Trend data** indicates an extent to which a content associated with the terms in the **search query** and/or **search results** have been requested and/or retrieved by other users, or created by other users for example in the form of **blog entries**, **wiki pages**, **news stories**, **twitter tweets** and the like, and can be provided by a **trend service** such as the &quot;Insights&quot; (TM'') tool provided by Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Weighting rank of search results based on trend data related to terms in the search results**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving search results in response to a search query, ranking the search results according to a ranking factor, retrieving trend data that indicates a degree to which documents associated with the terms in the search results have been created, weighting the rank of the search results based on the trend data, and displaying the weighted rank of the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120323879 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/411,579&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/18/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for ranking search results based upon content creation trends, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a result set of results from a search engine produced in response to a search engine query of a plurality of search terms;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Ranking the results of the result set according to at least one ranking factor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Retrieving trend data indicating content creation trends from a trend feed offered by a commercial trend service for terms associated with the results of the result set, the trend data including data indicating a degree to which documents in the form of blog entries, wiki pages, news stories, and twitter tweets associated with the plurality of search terms corresponding to the results of the result set have been created;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Weighting the ranked results in the result set according to the retrieved trend data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying the weighted ranked results in response to the search engine query.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for ranking search results, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving search results from a search engine in response to a search query;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Ranking the search results based on a ranking factor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3a. Retrieving trend data related to search terms of the search results,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3b. The trend data indicates a degree to which contents related to terms in the search results have been created;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Weighting the ranked search results according to trend data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying the weighted search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Weight for each rank corresponding to the search results is computed based upon a combination of 1. a mutual expectation function that measures how likely a search term of the search query giving rise to the corresponding search results and an additional search term not included in the search query will occur together, 2. a mutual dependency function measuring how strongly the additional search term relates to the search terms in current content creation, and 3. a relevancy function calculating relevancy of the search terms to the corresponding search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Prioritizing search results based on terms in the search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/UNF7yfX.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;900&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120323879&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120323879#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=06%2F14%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15027" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5826" RevisionGUID="e98ee1fa-7281-4169-aa11-b4a1cad6d199" CreationDate="2014-01-09T00:43:43.660" UserId="1767" Text="Prioritizing search results - Ranking search results based on content creation trends (IBM) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15028" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5826" RevisionGUID="e98ee1fa-7281-4169-aa11-b4a1cad6d199" CreationDate="2014-01-09T00:43:43.660" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;ibm&gt;&lt;us20120323879&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5826" RevisionGUID="9cf79571-2644-49ae-93c8-37abf6d893b6" CreationDate="2014-01-09T00:57:22.510" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON prioritizing search results based on content creation trends of terms in the search results** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving search results in response to a search query, ranking the search results, retrieving trend data related to terms in the search results, weighting the ranked search results according to the trend data, and displaying the weighted ranked search results! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ranking search results based on trend data related to terms in the search results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - **Trend data** indicates an extent to which a content associated with the terms in the **search query** and/or **search results** have been requested and/or retrieved by other users, or created by other users for example in the form of **blog entries**, **wiki pages**, **news stories**, **twitter tweets** and the like, and can be provided by a **trend service** such as the &quot;Insights&quot; (TM'') tool provided by Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Weighting rank of search results based on trend data related to terms in the search results**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving search results in response to a search query, ranking the search results according to a ranking factor, retrieving trend data that indicates a degree to which documents associated with the terms in the search results have been created, weighting the rank of the search results based on the trend data, and displaying the weighted rank of the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120323879 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/411,579&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/18/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for ranking search results based upon content creation trends, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a result set of results from a search engine produced in response to a search engine query of a plurality of search terms;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Ranking the results of the result set according to at least one ranking factor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Retrieving trend data indicating content creation trends from a trend feed offered by a commercial trend service for terms associated with the results of the result set, the trend data including data indicating a degree to which documents in the form of blog entries, wiki pages, news stories, and twitter tweets associated with the plurality of search terms corresponding to the results of the result set have been created;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Weighting the ranked results in the result set according to the retrieved trend data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying the weighted ranked results in response to the search engine query.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for ranking search results, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving search results from a search engine in response to a search query;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Ranking the search results based on a ranking factor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3a. Retrieving trend data related to search terms of the search results,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3b. The trend data indicates a degree to which contents related to terms in the search results have been created;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Weighting the ranked search results according to trend data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying the weighted search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Weight for each rank corresponding to the search results is computed based upon a combination of 1. a mutual expectation function that measures how likely a search term of the search query giving rise to the corresponding search results and an additional search term not included in the search query will occur together, 2. a mutual dependency function measuring how strongly the additional search term relates to the search terms in current content creation, and 3. a relevancy function calculating relevancy of the search terms to the corresponding search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Prioritizing search results based on terms in the search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/UNF7yfX.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;900&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120323879&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120323879#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=06%2F14%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5826" RevisionGUID="4649f22d-dac7-4f56-93cf-f35982e9e0a2" CreationDate="2014-01-09T06:33:21.913" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON prioritizing search results based on content creation trends of terms in the search results** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving search results in response to a search query, ranking the search results, retrieving trend data related to terms in the search results, weighting the ranked search results according to the trend data, and displaying the weighted ranked search results! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ranking search results based on trend data related to terms in the search results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - **Trend data** indicates an extent to which a content associated with the terms in the **search query** and/or **search results** have been requested and/or retrieved by other users, or created by other users for example in the form of **blog entries**, **wiki pages**, **news stories**, **twitter tweets** and the like, and can be provided by a **trend service** such as the &quot;Insights&quot; (TM'') tool provided by Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Weighting rank of search results based on trend data related to terms in the search results**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving search results in response to a search query, ranking the search results according to a ranking factor, retrieving trend data that indicates a degree to which documents associated with the terms in the search results have been created, weighting the rank of the search results based on the trend data, and displaying the weighted rank of the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120323879 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/411,579&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/18/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for ranking search results based upon content creation trends, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a result set of results from a search engine produced in response to a search engine query of a plurality of search terms;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Ranking the results of the result set according to at least one ranking factor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Retrieving trend data indicating content creation trends from a trend feed offered by a commercial trend service for terms associated with the results of the result set, the trend data including data indicating a degree to which documents in the form of blog entries, wiki pages, news stories, and twitter tweets associated with the plurality of search terms corresponding to the results of the result set have been created;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Weighting the ranked results in the result set according to the retrieved trend data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying the weighted ranked results in response to the search engine query.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for ranking search results, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving search results from a search engine in response to a search query;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Ranking the search results based on a ranking factor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3a. Retrieving trend data related to search terms of the search results,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3b. The trend data indicates a degree to which contents related to terms in the search results have been created;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Weighting the ranked search results according to trend data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying the weighted search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Weight for each rank corresponding to the search results is computed based upon a combination of 1. a mutual expectation function that measures how likely a search term of the search query giving rise to the corresponding search results and an additional search term not included in the search query will occur together, 2. a mutual dependency function measuring how strongly the additional search term relates to the search terms in current content creation, and 3. a relevancy function calculating relevancy of the search terms to the corresponding search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Prioritizing search results based on terms in the search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/UNF7yfX.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;900&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120323879&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120323879#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=06%2F14%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5776" RevisionGUID="05d3df92-755b-4685-9ad6-3777be36851c" CreationDate="2014-01-09T06:33:34.370" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Dynamic preloading of web pages** - This [Apple][10] application seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying links in a loaded first web page, determining an order of pre-loading second web pages based on links to those web pages, and loading one or more of the second web pages according to the order!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The assignment history here is illustrative because [Julien Nguyen][3] apparently assigned the patent in 1996 to his employer at the time, MagicWeb.  After a [long chain of assignments and reassignments][11] over 15 years... the patent family is purchased by [Apple][10].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apple is trying to &quot;improve&quot; the claims of the patent through this continuation while retaining the 1996 priority date of Nguyen's original application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/13/1996** (this is a continuation of an old patent by Julien Nguyen) that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Dynamic pre-loading of web pages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Dynamically selecting and preloading **web pages** from **page server** to **page client** using parameters indicated by the **page client** or the **page server**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Dynamic preloading of web pages**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying a plurality of links in a loaded **first web page**, each of the plurality of links pointing to a respective one of a plurality of **secondary web pages**, determining an order of the plurality of **secondary web pages** for loading, and loading one or more of the plurality of **secondary web pages** according to the order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120221930 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/439,226&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Julien Tan Nguyen][3]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/13/1996&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method implemented by a computing device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Loading a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a plurality of links in the loaded first web page, each of the plurality of links pointing to a respective one of a plurality of secondary web pages;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining an order of the plurality of secondary web pages for loading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Loading one or more of the plurality of secondary web pages according to the order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method implemented by a computing device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Loading a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying multiple links in the loaded first web page, each of the multiple links pointing to a respective one of multiple secondary web pages;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining an order of the multiple secondary web pages for loading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Loading one or more of the multiple secondary web pages according to the determined order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/13/1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Dynamically saving and recalling behavior information, by the page client, about web pages to be presented, the behavior information being independent of actual links indicated on the web pages. The behavior information is further responsive to parameters selected by the operator parameters adaptively determined by the page client, or responsive to a combination thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Dynamic preloading of web pages&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/J5Xz9q9.png&quot; width=&quot;448&quot; height=&quot;486&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120221930&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://twitter.com/julien888&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120221930#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=09%2F13%2F1996&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.apple.com&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&amp;pat=6584498" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5814" RevisionGUID="1ce64525-995a-4531-8f59-9197c77eeee7" CreationDate="2014-01-09T06:33:46.650" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Publishing data items related to an event of interest to a user** - This application from [Ebay][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Determining a news event, identifying data items associated with the determined news event, and publishing the identified data items online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 10/22/2009** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining data items related to an event of interest to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A sample **list of events** may include elections, wars or conflicts, debates, **movie premiers**, **movie times**, **sporting events**, conventions, **celestial events**, **anniversaries of events**, or other **media events**. The **data items** may be in the form of **item listings**, links, **advertisements for products or services**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Publishing data items related to an event of interest**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Determining a news event based on a recent increase in interest of a user, identifying data items related to the determined news event, and presenting the relationship between the news event and the identified data items to the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120197752 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/440,865&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Ebay&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 10/22/2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/29/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining, using one or more processors, a news event of a plurality of news events, the news event corresponding to a recent increase in user interest above a baseline user interest;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying one or more listings from a plurality of listings as matching the news event associated with the user interest, wherein the one or more listings include search results retrieved in response to a search query from a user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Presenting, to the user, a visual representation of a relationship between the news event and the one or more listings such that the one or more listings are displayed as visually related to the news event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining a news event related to a recent increase in interest of a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a list of data items matching the determined news event,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * the identified list of data items includes search results retrieved in response to a search query from the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Displaying a relationship between the list of data items and the determined news event to the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 10/22/2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming An event of interest to a user is determined based on change in frequency of search queries related to a search category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Publishing data items related to an event of interest to a user&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Scsc9sE.png&quot; width=&quot;550&quot; height=&quot;900&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120197752&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ebayinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120197752#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=10%2F22%2F2009" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="de28b60f-d7bf-4289-9096-64332cb6ae57" CreationDate="2014-01-09T06:34:02.247" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Applying administrator defined ranking rules to alter the ranking of search results** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Applying a user-defined ranking rule on search results and re-ordering the search results based on the ranking rule! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Re-ordering search results based on rules defined by a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Graphical User Interface allows a user to: configure the **ranking rules** such as to enter **key/value restrictions** or set a **boost value**,  preview an application of one or more of the **ranking rules**, specify a portion of results from which statistics such as **standard deviation**, **average score** are calculated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: User-configured rules to re-order search results.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving search results, applying user-defined re-ranking rules to the search results, and re-ranking the search results based on the user-defined re-ranking rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130198174 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/360,536&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/28/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for re-ranking search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results that are ranked; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. applying a ranking rule defined by a user to the search results that re-ranks the search results, wherein the ranking rule includes user specified parameters that influence how a result within the search results is re-ranked using statistical information relating to the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for re-ordering search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results in an order in response to a search query executed using a search engine;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.    applying a re-ordering rule defined by a user to re-order the search results, where the re-ordering rule defines ordering a result within the search results on the basis of statistical information related to search results; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. re-ordering the search results on the basis of user-defined re-ordering rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A Graphical User Interface (GUI) displays options for a user to set search parameters to re-rank search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;User defined re-ordering of search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Ie8wCzF.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130198174&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130198174#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=01%2F27%2F2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15054" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5821" RevisionGUID="09c0ccaa-c263-44ea-b482-53bab4a78c87" CreationDate="2014-01-09T15:16:16.853" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us8598823&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5832" RevisionGUID="11b988df-92ec-4463-adba-e60dcf015a3e" CreationDate="2014-01-09T19:21:18.433" UserId="3359" Text="How about March 1999 - US Patent 7,962,367&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;As shown in FIG. 4 the present invention may include, but does not have to include, a user preference monitoring program.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The preferences may comprise a list of the type of products that the user has purchased and the frequency of those purchases.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;For example, a user that has a preference for company X's products may have an interactive banner placed in the product screen to assist the user is identifying the type of product they would like to purchase from Company X.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;As shown in FIG. 8, a statistical database 200 can be maintained that correlates products and manufactures 201 with hits, purchases, product returns and other data 202. Statistical data can be retrieved from the statistical database in a variety of ways. Individual product statistics can be provided for a given product or supplier. In addition, statistics can be generated comparing a product or manufacturer to competing products or manufacturers. Mean statistical information can be generated and used to compare the relative performance of a given product or company.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Internal hits may be compared to establish trends, such as preferred products, types of products or vendors. Internal hits for each vendor as a function of the total hits for the web site may also be generated. This information may be selectively shared with the product vendors to assist in effectively advertising or placing their products.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your matrix table is shown in Figure 8." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5833" RevisionGUID="dafdd455-c68e-493b-9be3-498eb1c1b0f3" CreationDate="2014-01-09T21:42:55.027" UserId="7611" Text="This is my mapping program that is done with our proprietary software.  I call it SEED.  ![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/IURPC.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We put the data in layers and define the information about the layers of data.  We collect the information, analyze it and distribute it through the web and smart phones etc.  This is one mosaic from last year.  The data is put together with other real time data." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5834" RevisionGUID="7ba0d1cc-8063-4698-afc2-2ae370fc2e05" CreationDate="2014-01-10T01:41:59.040" UserId="7546" Text="To me this seems similar to Google's [US20120284270][1] &quot;Method and device to detect similar documents&quot;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method that uses a processor for detecting similar documents, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;extracting an entity from each of a first web document and a second web document;&#xD;&#xA;determining an importance contribution element corresponding to each of the web documents;&#xD;&#xA;calculating, using the processor, weights for each entity based on the determined importance contribution elements; and&#xD;&#xA;determining whether the web documents are similar documents based on the calculated weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120284270" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5834" RevisionGUID="d4290fbb-ece6-4a31-a9d2-b463317c8a57" CreationDate="2014-01-10T10:02:27.480" UserId="7546" Comment="Fixing my mistake." Text="To me this seems similar to Google's [US8554561][1] &quot;Efficient indexing of documents with similar content&quot;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also trying to find out if two documents are identical or near identical and uses similarity hashes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8554561&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5834" RevisionGUID="083020eb-95f9-4f2f-868e-95ba716ce755" CreationDate="2014-01-10T15:35:26.613" UserId="7546" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Updated:&#xD;&#xA;To me this seems similar to Google's [US8554561][1] &quot;Efficient indexing of documents with similar content&quot;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also trying to find out if two documents are identical or near identical and uses similarity hashes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8554561&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5836" RevisionGUID="fbf63e02-c86a-4c89-961b-45413c3efe26" CreationDate="2014-01-10T17:52:37.467" UserId="7612" Text="Can I plant broccoli in my backyard? &#xD;&#xA;Can I plant broccoli in my backyard? &#xD;&#xA;Can I plant broccoli in my backyard? &#xD;&#xA;Can I plant broccoli in my backyard? &#xD;&#xA;Can I plant broccoli in my backyard? &#xD;&#xA;Can I plant broccoli in my backyard? &#xD;&#xA;Can I plant broccoli in my backyard? &#xD;&#xA;Can I plant broccoli in my backyard? &#xD;&#xA;Can I plant broccoli in my backyard? &#xD;&#xA;Can I plant broccoli in my backyard? &#xD;&#xA;Can I plant broccoli in my backyard? &#xD;&#xA;Can I plant broccoli in my backyard? &#xD;&#xA;Can I plant broccoli in my backyard? &#xD;&#xA;Can I plant broccoli in my backyard? &#xD;&#xA;Can I plant broccoli in my backyard? &#xD;&#xA;Can I plant broccoli in my backyard? &#xD;&#xA;Can I plant broccoli in my backyard? &#xD;&#xA;Can I plant broccoli in my backyard? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15065" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5836" RevisionGUID="fbf63e02-c86a-4c89-961b-45413c3efe26" CreationDate="2014-01-10T17:52:37.467" UserId="7612" Text="Can I plant broccoli in my backyard?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15066" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5836" RevisionGUID="fbf63e02-c86a-4c89-961b-45413c3efe26" CreationDate="2014-01-10T17:52:37.467" UserId="7612" Text="&lt;ep1597965a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15067" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5836" RevisionGUID="3ae4539e-93b3-4a0a-8135-920f65e3c454" CreationDate="2014-01-10T19:08:04.620" UserId="3076" Comment="Removed repetitive portion and add slight elaboration also added tag to US patent." Text="Can I plant broccoli in my backyard? This patent seems to cover some kinds of broccoli. What does that mean for a backyard grower?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15068" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5836" RevisionGUID="3ae4539e-93b3-4a0a-8135-920f65e3c454" CreationDate="2014-01-10T19:08:04.620" UserId="3076" Comment="Removed repetitive portion and add slight elaboration also added tag to US patent." Text="&lt;ep1597965a1&gt;&lt;us8030549&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5837" RevisionGUID="bb790f6b-4acc-4997-9e88-9e504ff904df" CreationDate="2014-01-10T20:44:39.907" UserId="3076" Text=" I'm not very knowledgable about plant breeding but this seems to be tied to a handful of particular, numbered strains, at least in the U.S. version.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15070" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5836" RevisionGUID="3094e1bd-7f8a-49f9-837c-2005181b221a" CreationDate="2014-01-10T20:49:19.817" UserId="1767" Comment="added 338 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Can I plant broccoli in my backyard? This patent seems to cover some kinds of broccoli. What does that mean for a backyard grower?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [US8030549][1] Broccoli type adapted for ease of harvest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Publication type:	**Grant**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Publication date:	**Oct 4, 2011**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Priority date:        **May 19, 2004**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [EP1597965B1][2] Broccoli type adapted for ease of harvest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8030549&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP1597965B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15071" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5836" RevisionGUID="3094e1bd-7f8a-49f9-837c-2005181b221a" CreationDate="2014-01-10T20:49:19.817" UserId="1767" Comment="added 338 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;us8030549&gt;&lt;plant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5838" RevisionGUID="98c91b4f-297b-4fc7-96c3-b6cc2ea4b3c8" CreationDate="2014-01-10T20:58:08.807" UserId="1767" Text="To add to George's comment above, in the US there are idiosyncratic [rules specifically related to patents on plants][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Title 35 U.S. Code § 161 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of title.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The plant patent must also satisfy the general requirements of patentability. The subject matter of the application would be a plant which was **developed or discovered** by applicant, and which has been found **stable by asexual reproduction**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A valid plant patent can be used to prohibit others from, making, using or selling the **specific strain of plant** described in the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/plant/#1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15076" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5836" RevisionGUID="c20f3939-7541-4751-887f-02861cb03881" CreationDate="2014-01-10T21:06:59.767" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;plant-patent&gt;&lt;us8030549&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5836" RevisionGUID="874c5634-de9e-4ace-a694-adbed8f6c51e" CreationDate="2014-01-10T23:39:09.290" UserId="3076" Comment="added class and note that it is a utility patent" Text="Can I plant broccoli in my backyard? This patent seems to cover some kinds of broccoli. What does that mean for a backyard grower?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [US8030549][1] Broccoli type adapted for ease of harvest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Publication type:	**Grant**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Publication date:	**Oct 4, 2011**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Priority date:        **May 19, 2004**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a utility patent on a living organism (fine as long as not human) it is in CLASS 800,	MULTICELLULAR LIVING ORGANISMS AND UNMODIFIED PARTS THEREOF AND RELATED PROCESSES&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actual plant patents are primarly for plants that have been made by grafting. Plants made by molecular manipulation are &quot;regular inventions&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [EP1597965B1][2] Broccoli type adapted for ease of harvest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8030549&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP1597965B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5838" RevisionGUID="00a25b9f-041c-4dcb-8ef4-5edb259bc8b5" CreationDate="2014-01-10T23:41:27.337" UserId="1767" Comment="added 173 characters in body" Text="This is not a plant patent but if it were, to add to George's comment above, in the US there are idiosyncratic [rules specifically related to patents on plants][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Title 35 U.S. Code § 161 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of title.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The plant patent must also satisfy the general requirements of patentability. The subject matter of the application would be a plant which was **developed or discovered** by applicant, and which has been found **stable by asexual reproduction**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A valid plant patent can be used to prohibit others from, making, using or selling the **specific strain of plant** described in the patent.  However, as George mentions in the comments below and in his answer above this is **not** a plant patent.  The subject patent is a **utility patent** on a living organism, which is allowed as long as the organism is not human.  Plant patent numbers apparently begin with PP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/plant/#1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5840" RevisionGUID="0ba04081-e626-4a4b-8bd4-077456e8861f" CreationDate="2014-01-11T16:51:20.927" UserId="7615" Text="Is it just me, or is this patent really broad?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent No. 7437290&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7437290.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15080" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5840" RevisionGUID="0ba04081-e626-4a4b-8bd4-077456e8861f" CreationDate="2014-01-11T16:51:20.927" UserId="7615" Text="Microsoft Patent from 2008 for &quot;Automatic censorship of audio data for broadcast&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15081" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5840" RevisionGUID="0ba04081-e626-4a4b-8bd4-077456e8861f" CreationDate="2014-01-11T16:51:20.927" UserId="7615" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;data-processing-software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15082" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5840" RevisionGUID="4d51cbba-d202-4036-82f0-c59da1c6ca6c" CreationDate="2014-01-11T16:56:19.670" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag added claim 1" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;data-processing-software&gt;&lt;us7437290&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5840" RevisionGUID="4d51cbba-d202-4036-82f0-c59da1c6ca6c" CreationDate="2014-01-11T16:56:19.670" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag added claim 1" Text="Is it just me, or is this patent really broad?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent No. 7437290&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7437290.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for automatically censoring audio data, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(a) automatically processing the audio data to detect any undesired speech that may be included therein, by comparison to undesired speech data, by performing the following steps;&#xD;&#xA;comparing words in the audio data against words comprising the undesired speech, to identify potential matches;&#xD;&#xA;dynamically varying a probability threshold dependent upon at least one criterion; and&#xD;&#xA;based upon a probability of a potential match and the probability threshold, determining whether any undesired speech is included in the audio data;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(b) for each occurrence of undesired speech that is automatically detected, altering the undesired speech detected in the audio data, producing censored audio data in which the undesired speech is substantially no longer perceivable by a listening audience; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(c) dynamically adjusting the probability threshold based upon a frequency with which undesired speech by a specific speaker is detected in the audio data, so that as the occurrences of undesired speech that are detected increase, the probability threshold is reduced." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5843" RevisionGUID="0ec1df84-0156-4b6e-8106-280c327f9c96" CreationDate="2014-01-11T21:43:11.163" UserId="3076" Text="It would be very broad - (which *doesn't* mean bad or invalid assuming it was novel and non obvious at the time of filing) without one of its key limitations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; All of the independent claims require a weighting factor to be adjusted in what seems to an odd and unnecessary way. Looking at claim 1: to avoid this claim a system could do steps a) and b) but not step c). It seems like an odd feature that could be left out without hurting the performance of a competing system. The same limitation applies to all the claims.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5843" RevisionGUID="765b0f9a-70c2-4690-8704-4492087daa5e" CreationDate="2014-01-11T21:58:28.083" UserId="3076" Comment="Added explanation of limitation" Text="It would be very broad - (which *doesn't* mean bad or invalid assuming it was novel and non obvious at the time of filing) without one of its key limitations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; All of the independent claims require a weighting factor to be adjusted in what seems to an odd and unnecessary way. Looking at claim 1: to avoid this claim a system could do steps a) and b) but not step c). It seems like an odd feature that could be left out without hurting the performance of a competing system. The more censored words are detected the less sensitive the system gets to deciding something is on the censored list. I guess it is a form of a high level negative feedback. The same limitation applies to all the independent claims.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5844" RevisionGUID="bc19d5f2-45e7-48c5-aa74-1bc39f2418b3" CreationDate="2014-01-12T00:40:27.283" UserId="7617" Text="Prior art englobes both &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Blockquote&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;published applications with search report&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Blockquote&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, and closed applications too?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15095" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5844" RevisionGUID="bc19d5f2-45e7-48c5-aa74-1bc39f2418b3" CreationDate="2014-01-12T00:40:27.283" UserId="7617" Text="Search/Examination Reports" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15096" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5844" RevisionGUID="bc19d5f2-45e7-48c5-aa74-1bc39f2418b3" CreationDate="2014-01-12T00:40:27.283" UserId="7617" Text="&lt;prior&gt;&lt;art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5843" RevisionGUID="6538ffcc-dc88-4a9f-a478-d9c2302fe0b3" CreationDate="2014-01-12T02:00:31.423" UserId="3076" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="It would be very broad - (which *doesn't* mean bad or invalid assuming it was novel and non obvious at the time of filing) without one of its key limitations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; All of the independent claims require a weighting factor to be adjusted in what seems to an odd and unnecessary way. Looking at claim 1: to avoid this claim a system could do steps a) and b) but not step c). It seems like an odd feature that could be left out without hurting the performance of a competing system. The more censored words are detected the less sensitive the system gets to deciding something is on the censored list. I guess it is a form of a high level negative feedback but it would seem to start to let censored material through if there was a lot of it. The same limitation applies to all the independent claims.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5844" RevisionGUID="dc4798d2-7688-4e06-97de-b4170a05c614" CreationDate="2014-01-12T02:04:06.253" UserId="3076" Comment="Formatting clean up" Text="Does prior art englobes both &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;published applications with search report,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;and closed applications too?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15099" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5844" RevisionGUID="dc4798d2-7688-4e06-97de-b4170a05c614" CreationDate="2014-01-12T02:04:06.253" UserId="3076" Comment="Formatting clean up" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5845" RevisionGUID="d8a96623-4c64-4cc7-8425-4dce56c60b79" CreationDate="2014-01-12T02:29:28.943" UserId="3076" Text="Anything &quot;published&quot; can be used as prior art if it meets the timing requirement and is not disqualified as being too far afield. It might be an issued patent, a published patent application that was abandoned before any search or examination has taken place, an article in a magazine, a web posting, an ancient sacred text, or the proverbial back of a cereal box. The definition of what is and what isn't published can be complicated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15101" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="5845" RevisionGUID="0ff4e778-6caf-46c1-858a-f640ac2d6c5e" CreationDate="2014-01-12T02:30:02.557" UserId="3076" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3076,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George White&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="15102" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="5845" RevisionGUID="547ec1db-3c10-463e-b733-8c71d30552fd" CreationDate="2014-01-12T02:30:11.120" UserId="3076" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3076,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George White&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="15103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5844" RevisionGUID="5d5d3d02-e67b-4078-8083-6c21b1a70ef8" CreationDate="2014-01-12T03:04:04.320" UserId="3076" Comment="Cleaned up language" Text="Does prior art encompass both &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;published applications with search report,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;and closed applications too?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5847" RevisionGUID="433cfdb0-fb45-4840-9d0a-0719c9729717" CreationDate="2014-01-12T19:51:21.437" UserId="3411" Text="The gist of this is, they are trying to claim that storing the &quot;type&quot; of graph or report as metadata to a dataset being reported on is novel and unobvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A picture is worth 1K words...Figure 5A and 5B say it all.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.faqs.org/patents/imgfull/20130339363_06&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anybody have information (as to prior art) to shoot down this frivolous trolling attempt by the dying borg collective.  Thought maybe crystal reports (pre-μsoft) or Wingz, but can't find anything specific.  Help end software patents...there is nothing new under the sun!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15110" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5847" RevisionGUID="433cfdb0-fb45-4840-9d0a-0719c9729717" CreationDate="2014-01-12T19:51:21.437" UserId="3411" Text="DYNAMIC VISUALIZATION GENERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION (μsoft corporation) - Patent Application US20130339363A1 - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15111" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5847" RevisionGUID="433cfdb0-fb45-4840-9d0a-0719c9729717" CreationDate="2014-01-12T19:51:21.437" UserId="3411" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15112" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5847" RevisionGUID="c39c9b4c-4c33-4986-9b2d-09fff2b30f02" CreationDate="2014-01-12T19:54:43.123" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;us2014030339363&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15113" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5847" RevisionGUID="c39c9b4c-4c33-4986-9b2d-09fff2b30f02" CreationDate="2014-01-12T19:54:43.123" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="DYNAMIC VISUALIZATION GENERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION (Microsoft corporation) - Patent Application US20130339363A1 - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15114" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5847" RevisionGUID="5672c852-f221-4b00-8eaf-aff02cfe5677" CreationDate="2014-01-12T19:59:43.477" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags title added claim  1" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;us20130339363&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5847" RevisionGUID="5672c852-f221-4b00-8eaf-aff02cfe5677" CreationDate="2014-01-12T19:59:43.477" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags title added claim  1" Text="The gist of this is, they are trying to claim that storing the &quot;type&quot; of graph or report as metadata to a dataset being reported on is novel and unobvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A picture is worth 1K words...Figure 5A and 5B say it all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is being claimed as new and non-obvious is defined by the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. At a computer system including at least one processor and a memory, a computer-implemented method for selecting and applying data-specific presentations, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;an act of receiving an indication that a visual presentation is to be applied to a specified portion of data;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;an act of analyzing the specified data to determine which of a plurality of data presentations is most relevant for the specified data, the relevance being based on relevancy factors including one or more of the following: end-user profile, structure of the specified data and patterns within the specified data; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;an act of applying the determined appropriate visual presentation to the specified data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.faqs.org/patents/imgfull/20130339363_06&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anybody have information (as to prior art) to shoot down this frivolous trolling attempt by the dying borg collective.  Thought maybe crystal reports (pre-μsoft) or Wingz, but can't find anything specific.  Help end software patents...there is nothing new under the sun!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5848" RevisionGUID="5a018fff-f760-4828-973e-eee08c9ab193" CreationDate="2014-01-12T20:13:17.933" UserId="3076" Text=" This seems in the ballpark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Automatically populating and/or generating tables using data extracted from files&#xD;&#xA;US 8601361&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ABSTRACT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Automatically populating and/or generating tables using data extracted from files is disclosed. In some embodiments, in response to receiving an indication that at least a portion of a data object is desired to be included in a table, a set of one or more data values associated with the data object is selected for inclusion in the table and automatically included as an entry corresponding to the data object in the table. In various embodiments, the table may comprise an existing table and/or a newly generated table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15117" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5847" RevisionGUID="d6d5f20f-7e39-4915-a361-c2b10b423fda" CreationDate="2014-01-12T20:45:49.653" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;us20130339363&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15118" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5847" RevisionGUID="1de3b989-a8a6-42b8-a481-1c8e59d8c12f" CreationDate="2014-01-12T21:31:40.997" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Dynamic visualization and implementation (Microsoft) - Patent Application US20130339363 - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5850" RevisionGUID="56c85c09-2c90-446d-a37e-d8eaf88560ed" CreationDate="2014-01-13T12:34:50.340" UserId="7626" Text="It might be worth contacting the University of Exeter (and Cornell, mentioned here) to see if they dealt with recirculation and whether they published it.  http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14030720" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5851" RevisionGUID="40110bd1-522f-4010-8215-ed9fcb5a3626" CreationDate="2014-01-13T13:03:13.860" UserId="7627" Text="Looking at claim 1's parts, 1a and 1b are taught by existing 3d printer technology, 1c is taught by existing chocolate fountains, but 1d is the issue - how to extract the recirculating flow as printable material.  For anyone versed in chocolate, keeping the temperature and viscosity stable by moving the chocolate is well known and there should be prior art for 1d in fluid movement.  Crude oil is similar - it can't be allowed to bake or solidify.  It seems that it would be obvious to a competent engineer to divert part of the flow from a chocolate recirculation loop (say http://www.dairyeng.com/acrobat/chocolat.pdf) to the extruder for printing once the University of Exeter or anyone preparing that  taught that chocolate could be 3d printed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5851" RevisionGUID="488c5b27-93d1-40eb-aee0-14489494cd4d" CreationDate="2014-01-13T13:14:47.323" UserId="7627" Comment="added 65 characters in body; added 24 characters in body" Text="Looking at claim 1's parts, 1a and 1b are taught by existing 3d printer technology, 1c is taught by existing chocolate fountains, but 1d is the issue - how to extract the recirculating flow as printable material.  For anyone versed in chocolate, keeping the temperature and viscosity stable by moving the chocolate is well known and there should be prior art for 1d in fluid movement.  Crude oil is similar - it can't be allowed to bake or solidify.  It seems that it would be obvious to a competent engineer to divert part of the flow from a chocolate recirculation loop (say http://www.dairyeng.com/acrobat/chocolat.pdf) to the extruder for printing once the University of Exeter or anyone preceeding that  taught that chocolate could be 3d printed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also Hans Fouche since 1993: http://3digitalcooks.com/2014/01/interview-hans-fouche/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5776" RevisionGUID="0333c30a-dd98-46a1-a42c-ba076098b8aa" CreationDate="2014-01-13T17:59:34.870" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Dynamic preloading of web pages** - This [Apple][10] application seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying links in a loaded first web page, determining an order of pre-loading second web pages based on links to those web pages, and loading one or more of the second web pages according to the order!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The assignment history here is illustrative because [Julien Nguyen][3] apparently assigned the patent in 1996 to his employer at the time, MagicWeb.  After a [long chain of assignments and reassignments][11] over 15 years... the patent family is purchased by [Apple][10].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apple is trying to &quot;improve&quot; the claims of the patent through this continuation while retaining the 1996 priority date of Nguyen's original application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/13/1996** (this is a continuation of an old patent by Julien Nguyen) that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Dynamic pre-loading of web pages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Dynamically selecting and preloading **web pages** from **page server** to **page client** using parameters indicated by the **page client** or the **page server**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Dynamic preloading of web pages**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying a plurality of links in a loaded **first web page**, each of the plurality of links pointing to a respective one of a plurality of **secondary web pages**, determining an order of the plurality of **secondary web pages** for loading, and loading one or more of the plurality of **secondary web pages** according to the order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120221930 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/439,226&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Julien Tan Nguyen][3]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/13/1996&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method implemented by a computing device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Loading a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a plurality of links in the loaded first web page, each of the plurality of links pointing to a respective one of a plurality of secondary web pages;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining an order of the plurality of secondary web pages for loading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Loading one or more of the plurality of secondary web pages according to the order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method implemented by a computing device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Loading a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying multiple links in the loaded first web page, each of the multiple links pointing to a respective one of multiple secondary web pages;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining an order of the multiple secondary web pages for loading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Loading one or more of the multiple secondary web pages according to the determined order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/13/1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Dynamically saving and recalling behavior information, by the page client, about web pages to be presented, the behavior information being independent of actual links indicated on the web pages. The behavior information is further responsive to parameters selected by the operator parameters adaptively determined by the page client, or responsive to a combination thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Dynamic preloading of web pages&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/J5Xz9q9.png&quot; width=&quot;448&quot; height=&quot;486&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120221930&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://twitter.com/julien888&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120221930#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=09%2F13%2F1996&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.apple.com&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&amp;pat=6584498" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5814" RevisionGUID="fcfedefc-77b0-4621-b7dc-450af4d14358" CreationDate="2014-01-13T17:59:46.510" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Publishing data items related to an event of interest to a user** - This application from [Ebay][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Determining a news event, identifying data items associated with the determined news event, and publishing the identified data items online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 10/22/2009** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining data items related to an event of interest to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A sample **list of events** may include elections, wars or conflicts, debates, **movie premiers**, **movie times**, **sporting events**, conventions, **celestial events**, **anniversaries of events**, or other **media events**. The **data items** may be in the form of **item listings**, links, **advertisements for products or services**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Publishing data items related to an event of interest**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Determining a news event based on a recent increase in interest of a user, identifying data items related to the determined news event, and presenting the relationship between the news event and the identified data items to the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120197752 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/440,865&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Ebay&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 10/22/2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/29/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining, using one or more processors, a news event of a plurality of news events, the news event corresponding to a recent increase in user interest above a baseline user interest;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying one or more listings from a plurality of listings as matching the news event associated with the user interest, wherein the one or more listings include search results retrieved in response to a search query from a user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Presenting, to the user, a visual representation of a relationship between the news event and the one or more listings such that the one or more listings are displayed as visually related to the news event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining a news event related to a recent increase in interest of a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a list of data items matching the determined news event,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * the identified list of data items includes search results retrieved in response to a search query from the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Displaying a relationship between the list of data items and the determined news event to the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 10/22/2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming An event of interest to a user is determined based on change in frequency of search queries related to a search category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Publishing data items related to an event of interest to a user&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Scsc9sE.png&quot; width=&quot;550&quot; height=&quot;900&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120197752&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ebayinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120197752#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=10%2F22%2F2009" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="cbd172a8-9b38-4e7a-93e4-8f084524b971" CreationDate="2014-01-13T17:59:58.667" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Applying administrator defined ranking rules to alter the ranking of search results** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Applying a user-defined ranking rule on search results and re-ordering the search results based on the ranking rule! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Re-ordering search results based on rules defined by a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Graphical User Interface allows a user to: configure the **ranking rules** such as to enter **key/value restrictions** or set a **boost value**,  preview an application of one or more of the **ranking rules**, specify a portion of results from which statistics such as **standard deviation**, **average score** are calculated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: User-configured rules to re-order search results.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving search results, applying user-defined re-ranking rules to the search results, and re-ranking the search results based on the user-defined re-ranking rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130198174 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/360,536&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/28/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for re-ranking search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results that are ranked; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. applying a ranking rule defined by a user to the search results that re-ranks the search results, wherein the ranking rule includes user specified parameters that influence how a result within the search results is re-ranked using statistical information relating to the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for re-ordering search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results in an order in response to a search query executed using a search engine;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.    applying a re-ordering rule defined by a user to re-order the search results, where the re-ordering rule defines ordering a result within the search results on the basis of statistical information related to search results; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. re-ordering the search results on the basis of user-defined re-ordering rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A Graphical User Interface (GUI) displays options for a user to set search parameters to re-rank search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;User defined re-ordering of search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Ie8wCzF.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130198174&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130198174#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=01%2F27%2F2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5728" RevisionGUID="7b620b2f-1a4d-47dd-a835-6321d817714c" CreationDate="2014-01-13T18:00:11.717" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON providing recommendations based on relative preferences across items for a customer.** - This application from [MIT][6] seeks to patent the idea of...identifying a relative preference list of all users, comparing a user's relative preference list with the canonical preference list, and inferring preferences of the user on the basis of comparison with other users. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/29/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Providing a personalized recommendation to a user regarding items that the user has not ranked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A user's preference is identified based on **pair-wise preferences** of items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining preferences of a user based on comparative rating across items.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Comparing preference of a user with identified preferences of all users and inferring preference of the user based on a correlation factor between the user preference and each of the identified preferences.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130054498 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/598,124&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: MIT&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/29/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 8/27/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for inferring the preferences of a user in relation to a population, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying a preference distribution of said population comprising a plurality of ranked lists and a weight of each of said plurality of ranked lists;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. comparing a revealed preference of said user to one of said plurality of ranked lists;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. assigning an affinity weight between said user and each of said plurality of ranked lists; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. taking a weighted average of each of said affinity weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for inferring preferences of a user, the method comprises the following steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying preferences of all users over a number of choices; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. comparing preferences of the user with each of the identified preferences;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. assigning a correlation factor between the user preferences and each of the identified preferences; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. averaging the assigned correlation factors to infer preferences of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/29/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A preference list  providing comparisons between every pair of items for a user is represented by a comparison matrix indexed by i and j, where entry (i, j) is set to 1 if item i is preferred to item j, and 0 otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Providing recommendations based on pair-wise comparison of items.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/1c7H9Dw.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130054498a1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://web.mit.edu/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130054498#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=08%2F29%2F2011&amp;t=1providing%20personalized%20recommendations.1ranked%20lists.1preference.0preference%20distribution.0revealed%20preference.0affinity%20weight.0population.0weighted%20average.0index.0sparse%20distribution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5770" RevisionGUID="6f230546-9f6e-4479-a22b-2a83bc2af672" CreationDate="2014-01-13T18:00:25.670" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" [A Vector Space Model for Automatic Indexing](http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/class/fa05/cs511/Spring05/other_papers/p613-salton.pdf) (1975) by G. Salton, A. Wong, and C. S. Yang.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first two paragraphs (after the abstract) describe how to compute a similarity coefficient between two documents. The documents are associated with one or more index terms; a weight for each term may be computed according to its importance in the given document; the similarity of the documents may be computed by comparing the resulting weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of &quot;entities,&quot; the paper refers to &quot;index terms.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5755" RevisionGUID="bfbc1671-9fd3-4944-b67e-2bb28d34e460" CreationDate="2014-01-13T18:00:37.450" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Methods of detecting similar documents** - This application from [Nhn][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Extracting an entity from two or more web documents, calculating weights based on the two or more documents, and determining a similarity between the two or more documents! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/4/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Methods for detecting similar documents by matching and comparing extracted entities from the documents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A **characteristic index** for each of the **web documents** is calculated based on weight of the corresponding entity. A similarity between the **web documents** is determined based on the calculated **characteristic indices**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Method and device to detect similar documents**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Extracting an entity from two **web documents**, calculating weights for the entity based on **importance contribution elements** corresponding to both of the two **web documents**, and determining a similarity between the two **web documents** based on the calculated weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120284270 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/462,592&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Nhn&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/4/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 5/7/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method that uses a processor for detecting similar documents, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Extracting an entity from each of a first web document and a second web document;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining an importance contribution element corresponding to each of the web documents;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Calculating, using the processor, weights for each entity based on the determined importance contribution elements; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining whether the web documents are similar documents based on the calculated weights. Determining whether the web documents are similar documents based on the calculated weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for detecting similar documents, the method comprises the following steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Extracting an entity from two web documents;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining an importance contribution element corresponding to both the web documents;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Calculating weights for each entity based on the determined importance contribution elements; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining whether the two web documents are similar documents based on the calculated weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/4/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Each importance contribution element comprises at least one of a hash value of the corresponding entity, and a frequency of which the corresponding entity is duplicated within the corresponding web document.  Further, the calculating the weights comprises using an inverted document frequency concept, the inverted document frequency concept increasing a weight of each entity in inverse proportion to decreasing frequency of duplication of the respective entity.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method and device to detect similar documents&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/oOqv6nJ.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120284270&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.navercorp.com/en/index.nhn&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120284270#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=05%2F04%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5847" RevisionGUID="545537bf-8bc0-4d40-8e0a-a8299082bce7" CreationDate="2014-01-13T18:02:10.943" UserId="1767" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="The gist of this is, they are trying to claim that storing the &quot;type&quot; of graph or report as metadata to a dataset being reported on is novel and unobvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A picture is worth 1K words...Figure 5A and 5B say it all:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is being claimed as new and non-obvious is defined by the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. At a computer system including at least one processor and a memory, a computer-implemented method for selecting and applying data-specific presentations, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;an act of receiving an indication that a visual presentation is to be applied to a specified portion of data;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;an act of analyzing the specified data to determine which of a plurality of data presentations is most relevant for the specified data, the relevance being based on relevancy factors including one or more of the following: end-user profile, structure of the specified data and patterns within the specified data; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;an act of applying the determined appropriate visual presentation to the specified data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.faqs.org/patents/imgfull/20130339363_06&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anybody have information (as to prior art) to shoot down this frivolous trolling attempt by the dying borg collective.  Thought maybe crystal reports (pre-μsoft) or Wingz, but can't find anything specific.  Help end software patents...there is nothing new under the sun!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/2O1VO.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5853" RevisionGUID="511eb877-cca6-474d-bdc5-8719ed1c2150" CreationDate="2014-01-13T18:06:27.133" UserId="7210" Text="Imagine that I have a device that gets inserted into a car engine to speed up the car. It consists of 3 parts that are connected via tubes. Is it an apparatus that gets inserted into a system (the car engine) or is it a system that gets inserted into a car engine (system)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15137" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5853" RevisionGUID="511eb877-cca6-474d-bdc5-8719ed1c2150" CreationDate="2014-01-13T18:06:27.133" UserId="7210" Text="Is it an apparatus or a system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15138" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5853" RevisionGUID="511eb877-cca6-474d-bdc5-8719ed1c2150" CreationDate="2014-01-13T18:06:27.133" UserId="7210" Text="&lt;system&gt;&lt;apparatus&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5853" RevisionGUID="f5c0e8c6-bd43-49d9-aa3a-62e8dad6bbe2" CreationDate="2014-01-13T19:37:33.513" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="Imagine that I have a device that gets inserted into a car engine to speed up the car. It consists of 3 parts that are connected via tubes. Is it an apparatus that gets inserted into a system (the car engine) or is it a system that gets inserted into a car engine (system)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5854" RevisionGUID="a7d91595-55cb-440a-9087-80dee9e92745" CreationDate="2014-01-13T20:54:02.803" UserId="3076" Text="There is no hard and fast distinction between a system and an apparatus and it doesn't matter much. The actual statutory categories do not include either term. In 35 USC section 101 the listed categories are process, machine, [article of] manufacture, composition of matter and improvements to any of those things. An article of manufacture is something made in a manufacturing process. And a machine (originally and loosely) was something with multiple, interconnected moving parts.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5855" RevisionGUID="c4d9ab08-a081-4ec3-91ec-b906bfcc9861" CreationDate="2014-01-14T01:06:57.073" UserId="7632" Text="wo2013026156a1 This seems like an interesting concept but there are no drawings.  Will the patent be awarded?  Have prototypes been submitted?  Are they looking for a manufacturer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15142" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5855" RevisionGUID="c4d9ab08-a081-4ec3-91ec-b906bfcc9861" CreationDate="2014-01-14T01:06:57.073" UserId="7632" Text="Lacrosse Training Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15143" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5855" RevisionGUID="c4d9ab08-a081-4ec3-91ec-b906bfcc9861" CreationDate="2014-01-14T01:06:57.073" UserId="7632" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15144" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5855" RevisionGUID="8622eb81-7677-4cc4-8dbe-ab2ad9a5fed1" CreationDate="2014-01-14T01:31:08.317" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to patent" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;wo2013026156&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5856" RevisionGUID="8983843a-1998-419d-aa85-a01bce8aee1b" CreationDate="2014-01-14T01:39:43.780" UserId="3076" Text="This is a PCT (international) application. I am assuming you found this on google patents. Unlike for U.S. patent documents, they do not show the drawings or provide a button to download a PDF. However you will see links to get to this document on Patentscope, the WPIO search site. &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The summary shows a drawing but to see them all you need to go to the drawing tab. There you will see:&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Ivcqx.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/KlA2X.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="e39a2bc1-0245-48f4-bac5-d4bb6dcfbb0d" CreationDate="2014-01-14T15:23:47.447" UserId="3359" Text="CALL FOR PRIOR ART.   Can you find better art doe this patent that claims novelty based on a comparison of device output with a known constant?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;U.S. Patent No. 7,888,125 (Theranos)&#xD;&#xA;Filed March 24, 2006&#xD;&#xA;Priority May 9, 2005.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 recites -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A method of improving the accuracy of calibrating a fluidic system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) providing a system for detecting an analyte in a bodily fluid from a subject comprising a fluidic device for providing said bodily fluid, said fluidic device having a calibration assembly and a reader assembly for detecting the presence of said analyte;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) measuring one or more parameters that are fitted to a calibration curve associated with said fluidic device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c) comparing said one or more parameters with predetermined parameters associated with said fluidic device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;d) adjusting a signal output from the fluidic device by multiplying a ratio of said predetermined parameters to said one or more parameters, wherein the ratio is selected from the group consisting of: a ratio of maximum signal level during factory calibration to maximum signal level measured within the assay, and a ratio of minimun signal level during factory calibration to minimum signal level measured within an assay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FOR this University battle I’ll pit Duke and one of their then PHD student’s thesis (which results in a company Advanced Liquid Logics bought by Illumina) against Stanford and one of their drop outs (who has a company Theranos).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CAN you find better prior art than Duke’s–&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Srinivasan, et al., Droplet-based microfluidic lab-on-a-chip for glucose detection, Analytica Clinica Acta 507 (2004), 145-50.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Amicrofluidic lab-on-a-chip (LoC) platform for in vitro measurement of glucose for clinical diagnostic applications is presented in this paper. The LoC uses a discrete droplet format in contrast to conventional continuous flow microfluidic systems. The droplets act as solution-phase reaction chambers and are manipulated using the electrowetting effect. Glucose is measured using a colorimetric enzyme-kinetic method based on Trinder’s reaction. The color change is detected using an absorbance measurement system consisting of a light emitting diode and a photodiode. The linear range of the assay is 9–100 mg/dl using a sample dilution factor of 2 and 15–300 mg/dl using a sample dilution factor of 3.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“The voltage V(t) is directly proportional to the light intensity incident on the photodiode and is related to the absorbance by the following equation:&#xD;&#xA;A(t) = ln {(V0 – Vdark) / (V(t) – Vdark)}  (5)&#xD;&#xA;V0 corresponds to zero absorbance (or 100% transmittance), and Vdark corresponds to the voltage output of the photodiode under dark conditions. The rate of the change of absorbance dA(t)/dt is equivalent to the reaction rate, and is related to the glucose concentration by Eq. (3).” (equation edited to conform).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15147" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="e39a2bc1-0245-48f4-bac5-d4bb6dcfbb0d" CreationDate="2014-01-14T15:23:47.447" UserId="3359" Text="Call for Prior Art US Patent 7,888,125 (Theranos) Duke v. Stanford" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15148" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="e39a2bc1-0245-48f4-bac5-d4bb6dcfbb0d" CreationDate="2014-01-14T15:23:47.447" UserId="3359" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;theranos&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5859" RevisionGUID="4cee2867-7d93-4abc-b02f-634d968167dc" CreationDate="2014-01-14T16:50:35.150" UserId="3076" Text="**System and method for calibration of a flow device&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;WO 2006020870 A1**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Priority date	Aug 13, 2004&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ABSTRACT&#xD;&#xA;Embodiments of the present invention provide a system (200) and method for rapid calibration of a flow device (30). A flow device can be provided with a calibration flow curve (e.g., represented by an nth degree polynomial) by the manufacturer or a third party. The calibration curve can be adjusted for a process fluid and the system for which the flow device is actually installed using one or more correction factors. The correction factors can be determined for the flow curve based on a simple empirical test or fluid properties of the process fluid. The corrected flow curve is then saved at the flow device so that it can be used for future flow control.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15153" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="6df291d0-45dc-435d-a49e-b74708b9b187" CreationDate="2014-01-14T16:52:00.830" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag to patent" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;theranos&gt;&lt;us7888125&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5859" RevisionGUID="53bea226-85e4-45c0-82d8-411f2b31bad1" CreationDate="2014-01-14T16:58:43.097" UserId="3076" Comment="added 164 characters in body" Text="There are about 100 references listed on the patent in question. It seems unlikely that this, or anything, is closer to the patent in question than one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**System and method for calibration of a flow device&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;WO 2006020870 A1**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Priority date	Aug 13, 2004&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ABSTRACT&#xD;&#xA;Embodiments of the present invention provide a system (200) and method for rapid calibration of a flow device (30). A flow device can be provided with a calibration flow curve (e.g., represented by an nth degree polynomial) by the manufacturer or a third party. The calibration curve can be adjusted for a process fluid and the system for which the flow device is actually installed using one or more correction factors. The correction factors can be determined for the flow curve based on a simple empirical test or fluid properties of the process fluid. The corrected flow curve is then saved at the flow device so that it can be used for future flow control.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5739" RevisionGUID="43fe7713-9ec1-491d-802e-49a3f9570c5d" CreationDate="2014-01-14T19:42:36.847" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Determining whether or not features of discussion thread pages have changed with time** - This application from [Sony][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Recording contents of an electronic page at different intervals and determining changes in the contents! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 7/26/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining change in contents of a discussion thread page with time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - An **electronic bulletin board system**: includes **discussion thread pages** each associated with a **discussion topic**, allows a user to create a new **discussion thread page** for a new **discussion topic**, or post a comment to an already created **discussion thread page**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining changes in contents of a discussion thread with time.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying contents of a page at various time intervals, and determining whether a feature of the page has changed based on the content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130031118 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/554,135&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Sony&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 7/26/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 7/30/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An information processing system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An identifying unit that repeatedly identifies a content of a page whose content changes with a lapse of time; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A determination unit that determines based on contents of the page identified at different timings whether or not a feature of the identified page has changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An information processing system for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying contents of a page whose contents changes with time, at various time intervals; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining whether a feature of the page has changed on the basis of the identified contents of the page at the various time intervals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 7/26/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Receiving a search request and searching discussion thread pages matching the received search request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Identify change in contents of a discussion thread&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/wgPel4S.png&quot; width=&quot;450&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130031118&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.scei.co.jp/index_e.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130031118#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=07%2F20%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="bfca4a44-49e3-48ce-af09-1fda32ab42c0" CreationDate="2014-01-14T19:42:47.643" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions** - This application from [Smart Destinations, Inc][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Enhanced data collection and reporting for improved ticket pricing and marketing. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/15/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Enhanced data collection related to a customer's travel path in order to improve ticket pricing and marketing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Dynamically pricing and validating access to goods, services, attractions, events and other items&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Method for enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving an identification of a location of a user and a **first attraction** selected for access by a user, determining a **travel path** between the location of the user and the **first attraction**, identifying a **second attraction** within a predetermined distance from the **travel path**, and transmitting an offer of access to the **second attraction** to a computing device of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120323691 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/523,213&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Smart Destinations, Inc.][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/15/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/18/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, by a first device, an identification of a location of a user and a first attraction selected for access by a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining, by a path analyzer, a travel path between the location of the user and the first attraction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identifying, by the path analyzer, a second attraction within a predetermined distance from the travel path; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmitting, by the first device to a computing device of the user, an offer of access to the second attraction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for better customer marketing based on customer path data between attractions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receive an identification of a user's location and a first attraction selected for access by the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determine a travel path between the location of the user and the first attraction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identify a second attraction within a predetermined distance from the travel path; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmit an offer of access to the second attraction to a computing device of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/15/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Identifying the second attraction based on a net price. The  net price being below a net price threshold or an average customer visit time of the second attraction being above a visit time threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Location-based marketing for attraction access&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/gIUuqQa.png&quot; width=&quot;315&quot; height=&quot;458&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120323691&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.smartdestinations.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120323691" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5826" RevisionGUID="49c3b8d3-5591-4cab-88e9-f9c95559ad5c" CreationDate="2014-01-14T19:42:59.643" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON prioritizing search results based on content creation trends of terms in the search results** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving search results in response to a search query, ranking the search results, retrieving trend data related to terms in the search results, weighting the ranked search results according to the trend data, and displaying the weighted ranked search results! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ranking search results based on trend data related to terms in the search results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - **Trend data** indicates an extent to which a content associated with the terms in the **search query** and/or **search results** have been requested and/or retrieved by other users, or created by other users for example in the form of **blog entries**, **wiki pages**, **news stories**, **twitter tweets** and the like, and can be provided by a **trend service** such as the &quot;Insights&quot; (TM'') tool provided by Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Weighting rank of search results based on trend data related to terms in the search results**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving search results in response to a search query, ranking the search results according to a ranking factor, retrieving trend data that indicates a degree to which documents associated with the terms in the search results have been created, weighting the rank of the search results based on the trend data, and displaying the weighted rank of the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120323879 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/411,579&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/18/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for ranking search results based upon content creation trends, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a result set of results from a search engine produced in response to a search engine query of a plurality of search terms;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Ranking the results of the result set according to at least one ranking factor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Retrieving trend data indicating content creation trends from a trend feed offered by a commercial trend service for terms associated with the results of the result set, the trend data including data indicating a degree to which documents in the form of blog entries, wiki pages, news stories, and twitter tweets associated with the plurality of search terms corresponding to the results of the result set have been created;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Weighting the ranked results in the result set according to the retrieved trend data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying the weighted ranked results in response to the search engine query.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for ranking search results, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving search results from a search engine in response to a search query;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Ranking the search results based on a ranking factor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3a. Retrieving trend data related to search terms of the search results,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3b. The trend data indicates a degree to which contents related to terms in the search results have been created;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Weighting the ranked search results according to trend data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying the weighted search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Weight for each rank corresponding to the search results is computed based upon a combination of 1. a mutual expectation function that measures how likely a search term of the search query giving rise to the corresponding search results and an additional search term not included in the search query will occur together, 2. a mutual dependency function measuring how strongly the additional search term relates to the search terms in current content creation, and 3. a relevancy function calculating relevancy of the search terms to the corresponding search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Prioritizing search results based on terms in the search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/UNF7yfX.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;900&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120323879&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120323879#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=06%2F14%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5860" RevisionGUID="6945a4af-ab17-4843-a08e-9b3e5f1bee7e" CreationDate="2014-01-15T00:26:53.717" UserId="3076" Text="From Elin's comment of 1/14/2014:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Information retrieval system and method that generates weighted comparison results to analyze the degree of dissimilarity between a reference corpus and a candidate document&#xD;&#xA;US 6167398 A**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ABSTRACT An internet information agent accepts a reference document,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; performs an analysis upon it in accordance with metrics defined by its&#xD;&#xA;&gt; analysis algorithm and obtains respective lists (word, character-level&#xD;&#xA;&gt; n-gram, word-level n-gram), derives weights corresponding to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; metrics, applies the metrics to a candidate document and obtains&#xD;&#xA;&gt; respective returned values, applies the weights to the returned values&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and sums the results to obtain a Document Dissimilarity (DD) value.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This DD is compared with a Dissimilarity Threshold (DT) and the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; candidate document is stored if the DD is less than the DT. A user can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apply relevance values to the search results and the agent modifies&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the weights accordingly. The agent can be used to improve a language&#xD;&#xA;&gt; model for use in speech recognition applications and the like." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5861" RevisionGUID="489e75a4-7e00-4aca-aa7d-17e40f8f4b78" CreationDate="2014-01-15T02:15:47.203" UserId="7546" Text="I'm going to add the beginning of another possible set of sources here, but I'd like to know if people think they sound right.  The way the the described process basically looks for mix-and-match meaning that web pages have regions, a lot of the regions may be identical, but other regions are different, and then also that they may be somewhat rearranged on the page (think of the menu bar on this page which is the same as other stackexchange sites, and then the part that is the same for all pages on patents.stackexchange.com  but not the other sites, and then the sidebar and footer. They are pretty similar everywhere but not identical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This led me to think about plagiarism as a similar problem, because you may have a document that is like another one but has been rearranged or has a few words changed or parts of it it may be copied from many different  original documents.   In searching Google Scholar there are a lot of automated plagiarism detection articles some going back to the 1980s.  There are a lot of algorithms for doing this, some use weighting and some don't. It seemed like some of them, although not specifically designed for the web, could well be prior art for this. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5865" RevisionGUID="4d62bb41-f060-4ebc-8203-7b54a9f7b8b3" CreationDate="2014-01-15T12:09:20.013" UserId="7546" Text="This paper from [Oracle][1] seems to be along the same lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Selecting the Best Graph Based on  Data, Tasks, and User Roles &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Enterprise software developers and product managers often have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; difficulty  selecting appropriate graph types for users of business&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applications.  Existing solutions for organizing graph types are not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adequately focused on  end users and their tasks. We have developed a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; design pattern that  serves as a decision support tool for selecting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; appropriate graph  visualizations based upon characteristics of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data, task, and end users.  A series of decision matrices allow the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user to rapidly filter acceptable  graph types. Images and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; descriptions of each graph type are shown in the  tables along with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; questions such as whether the data are categorical or  quantitative,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whether the tasks comprise comparison or identification of  trend or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; totals, and whether the end users are experts or casual users of &#xD;&#xA;&gt; graphs. While already part of the Oracle usability design pattern &#xD;&#xA;&gt; framework, the graph selection pattern continues to improve as the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; result  of ongoing usability evaluation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.upassoc.org/usability_resources/conference/2007/prp_049.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5865" RevisionGUID="9540c1c7-033f-403b-ac76-3145d77b72fb" CreationDate="2014-01-15T13:20:00.277" UserId="7546" Comment="added 329 characters in body" Text="This paper from [Oracle][1] seems to be along the same lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Selecting the Best Graph Based on  Data, Tasks, and User Roles &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Enterprise software developers and product managers often have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; difficulty  selecting appropriate graph types for users of business&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applications.  Existing solutions for organizing graph types are not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adequately focused on  end users and their tasks. We have developed a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; design pattern that  serves as a decision support tool for selecting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; appropriate graph  visualizations based upon characteristics of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data, task, and end users.  A series of decision matrices allow the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user to rapidly filter acceptable  graph types. Images and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; descriptions of each graph type are shown in the  tables along with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; questions such as whether the data are categorical or  quantitative,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whether the tasks comprise comparison or identification of  trend or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; totals, and whether the end users are experts or casual users of &#xD;&#xA;&gt; graphs. While already part of the Oracle usability design pattern &#xD;&#xA;&gt; framework, the graph selection pattern continues to improve as the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; result  of ongoing usability evaluation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I'll say the idea that there are a series of steps you can take to decide the appropriate kind of graphical representation without a computer is  pretty obvious. Here's a sample that outlines a [process in words][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.upassoc.org/usability_resources/conference/2007/prp_049.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.tutorial9.net/tutorials/web-tutorials/selecting-the-right-chart-type-for-your-data/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5866" RevisionGUID="81cabd2f-d319-4c99-8dee-76448654f596" CreationDate="2014-01-15T18:16:00.800" UserId="7644" Text="Claim 9 of this patent is related to the paper http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=6021287 of August 2011 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15176" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5866" RevisionGUID="81cabd2f-d319-4c99-8dee-76448654f596" CreationDate="2014-01-15T18:16:00.800" UserId="7644" Text="Claim 9 - minimum least-squares for DOA estimation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15177" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5866" RevisionGUID="81cabd2f-d319-4c99-8dee-76448654f596" CreationDate="2014-01-15T18:16:00.800" UserId="7644" Text="&lt;wo2013062650a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5866" RevisionGUID="34c4e4c3-74b1-4f20-8582-4790604ef25a" CreationDate="2014-01-15T18:27:08.710" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1237 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1. A method of locating an acoustic source using a plurality of vehicles, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Transferring acoustic input from a plurality of sensors to a plurality of processing modules, wherein each of the plurality of sensors is coupled to one of the plurality of processing modules, and wherein each of the plurality of vehicles includes at least one of the plurality of sensors and one of the plurality of processing modules;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining a location of each of the plurality of vehicles using at least one of a global positioning system module and an inertial motion unit module located in each vehicle;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Processing, at each of the plurality of processing modules, the received acoustic input;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Designating one of the plurality of processing modules a master processing module; sending processed acoustic input received at each processing module to the master processing module;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Combining the processed acoustic input at the master processing module; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Estimating acoustic source location based on combined processed acoustic data. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 9. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the acoustic source location includes calculating a minimum least squares estimate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 9 of this patent is related to the paper&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=6021287 of August 2011 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15179" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5866" RevisionGUID="34c4e4c3-74b1-4f20-8582-4790604ef25a" CreationDate="2014-01-15T18:27:08.710" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1237 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;wo2013062650a1&gt;&lt;us20130107668&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5866" RevisionGUID="80c578bb-d1fe-46f7-8871-8541881223a6" CreationDate="2014-01-15T18:33:53.083" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1237 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Looking for additional prior art for this patent application related to techniques for acoustic location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Title** Methods for locating an acoustic source&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130107668 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/283,997&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Raytheon][3]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 10/28/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1. A method of locating an acoustic source using a plurality of vehicles, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Transferring acoustic input from a plurality of sensors to a plurality of processing modules, wherein each of the plurality of sensors is coupled to one of the plurality of processing modules, and wherein each of the plurality of vehicles includes at least one of the plurality of sensors and one of the plurality of processing modules;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining a location of each of the plurality of vehicles using at least one of a global positioning system module and an inertial motion unit module located in each vehicle;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Processing, at each of the plurality of processing modules, the received acoustic input;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Designating one of the plurality of processing modules a master processing module; sending processed acoustic input received at each processing module to the master processing module;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Combining the processed acoustic input at the master processing module; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Estimating acoustic source location based on combined processed acoustic data. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 9. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the acoustic source location includes calculating a minimum least squares estimate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 9 of this patent is related to the paper&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=6021287 of August 2011 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130107668&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://www.raytheon.com&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130107668#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=10%2F28%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15181" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5866" RevisionGUID="80c578bb-d1fe-46f7-8871-8541881223a6" CreationDate="2014-01-15T18:33:53.083" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1237 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Acoustic location - Minimum least-squares for DOA estimation (Raytheon) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15182" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5866" RevisionGUID="80c578bb-d1fe-46f7-8871-8541881223a6" CreationDate="2014-01-15T18:33:53.083" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1237 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130107668&gt;&lt;raytheon&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5866" RevisionGUID="398a4f93-6f5d-4078-a780-2f0e467cb1ff" CreationDate="2014-01-15T18:41:32.130" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1237 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Looking for additional prior art for this Raytheon patent application related to **vehicle-based acoustic locating systems**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Title** Methods for locating an acoustic source&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130107668 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/283,997&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Raytheon][3]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 10/28/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1. A method of locating an acoustic source using a plurality of vehicles, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Transferring acoustic input from a plurality of sensors to a plurality of processing modules, wherein each of the plurality of sensors is coupled to one of the plurality of processing modules, and wherein each of the plurality of vehicles includes at least one of the plurality of sensors and one of the plurality of processing modules;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining a location of each of the plurality of vehicles using at least one of a global positioning system module and an inertial motion unit module located in each vehicle;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Processing, at each of the plurality of processing modules, the received acoustic input;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Designating one of the plurality of processing modules a master processing module; sending processed acoustic input received at each processing module to the master processing module;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Combining the processed acoustic input at the master processing module; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Estimating acoustic source location based on combined processed acoustic data. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 9. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the acoustic source location includes calculating a minimum least squares estimate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 9 of this patent is related to the following paper:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Published **August 2011** at a conference in Buenos Aires&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [DoA of gunshot signals in a spatial microphone array: Performance of the interpolated Generalized Cross-Correlation method][8]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The direction of arrival of impulsive, wideband audio signals, specifically of gunshot signals, is the main interest of this work. The Generalized Cross-Correlation (GCC) method, typically employed for wideband signals, is used in a tetrahedral microphone array to estimate horizontal and vertical angles. An investigation on the performance of the scheme is carried out based on signals recorded in an open air, low-noise environment, and then repeatedly replayed in an open-air, noisy environment, under controlled Direction of Arrival. To increase the accuracy of DoA estimates, the correlation function evaluated between each pair of microphones and used by GCC methods goes through an interpolation process. From this study, we have concluded that the GCC method can perform adequately in the task of estimating the DoA of a gunshot signal even in the presence of strong noise level and lower sampling frequency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question** - Are you aware of additional prior art for this patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130107668&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://www.raytheon.com&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130107668#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=10%2F28%2F2011&#xD;&#xA;[8]: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=6021287" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15187" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5866" RevisionGUID="8909e401-116f-4305-ad39-4d3d85e7cdde" CreationDate="2014-01-15T18:46:41.793" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1237 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Acoustic Location - Using vehicles as sensors (Raytheon) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5866" RevisionGUID="5785e48b-7ac0-442d-9f64-bbf6e4ed7535" CreationDate="2014-01-15T19:02:33.280" UserId="1767" Comment="added 456 characters in body" Text="Looking for additional prior art for this Raytheon patent application related to **vehicle-based acoustic locating systems**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Title** Methods for locating an acoustic source&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130107668 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/283,997&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Raytheon][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 10/28/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1. A method of locating an acoustic source using a plurality of vehicles, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Transferring acoustic input from a plurality of sensors to a plurality of processing modules, wherein each of the plurality of sensors is coupled to one of the plurality of processing modules, and wherein each of the plurality of vehicles includes at least one of the plurality of sensors and one of the plurality of processing modules;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining a location of each of the plurality of vehicles using at least one of a global positioning system module and an inertial motion unit module located in each vehicle;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Processing, at each of the plurality of processing modules, the received acoustic input;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Designating one of the plurality of processing modules a master processing module; sending processed acoustic input received at each processing module to the master processing module;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Combining the processed acoustic input at the master processing module; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Estimating acoustic source location based on combined processed acoustic data. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 9. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the acoustic source location includes calculating a minimum least squares estimate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 9 of this patent is related to the following paper.  Although the paper doesn't refer specifically to microphones on **vehicles** it does refer to the main idea of acoustic location using distributed microphone arrays. Attaching the microphones to vehicles isn't in itself particularly inventive.  For example, the same techniques described below would work whether the ad-hoc microphone arrays are moving or stationary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Published **August 2011** at a conference in Buenos Aires&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [DoA of gunshot signals in a spatial microphone array: Performance of the interpolated Generalized Cross-Correlation method][5]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The direction of arrival of impulsive, wideband audio signals, specifically of gunshot signals, is the main interest of this work. The Generalized Cross-Correlation (GCC) method, typically employed for wideband signals, is used in a tetrahedral microphone array to estimate horizontal and vertical angles. An investigation on the performance of the scheme is carried out based on signals recorded in an open air, low-noise environment, and then repeatedly replayed in an open-air, noisy environment, under controlled Direction of Arrival. To increase the accuracy of DoA estimates, the correlation function evaluated between each pair of microphones and used by GCC methods goes through an interpolation process. From this study, we have concluded that the GCC method can perform adequately in the task of estimating the DoA of a gunshot signal even in the presence of strong noise level and lower sampling frequency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question** - Are you aware of additional prior art for this patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130107668&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.raytheon.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130107668#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=10%2F28%2F2011&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/XZxLc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=6021287" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5866" RevisionGUID="3efab7d4-20ab-4ff9-a33a-da62afb9372d" CreationDate="2014-01-15T19:22:24.287" UserId="1767" Comment="added 315 characters in body" Text="Looking for additional prior art for this Raytheon patent application related to **vehicle-based acoustic locating systems**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Title** Methods for locating an acoustic source&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130107668 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/283,997&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Raytheon][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 10/28/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1. A method of locating an acoustic source using a plurality of vehicles, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Transferring acoustic input from a plurality of sensors to a plurality of processing modules, wherein each of the plurality of sensors is coupled to one of the plurality of processing modules, and wherein each of the plurality of vehicles includes at least one of the plurality of sensors and one of the plurality of processing modules;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining a location of each of the plurality of vehicles using at least one of a global positioning system module and an inertial motion unit module located in each vehicle;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Processing, at each of the plurality of processing modules, the received acoustic input;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Designating one of the plurality of processing modules a master processing module; sending processed acoustic input received at each processing module to the master processing module;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Combining the processed acoustic input at the master processing module; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Estimating acoustic source location based on combined processed acoustic data. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 9. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the acoustic source location includes calculating a minimum least squares estimate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 9 of this patent is related to the following paper.  Although the paper doesn't refer specifically to microphones on **vehicles** it does refer to the main idea of acoustic location using distributed microphone arrays. Attaching the microphones to vehicles isn't in itself particularly inventive.  For example, the same techniques described below would work whether the ad-hoc microphone arrays are moving or stationary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Published **August 2011** at a conference in Buenos Aires&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [DoA of gunshot signals in a spatial microphone array: Performance of the interpolated Generalized Cross-Correlation method][5]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The direction of arrival of impulsive, wideband audio signals, specifically of gunshot signals, is the main interest of this work. The Generalized Cross-Correlation (GCC) method, typically employed for wideband signals, is used in a tetrahedral microphone array to estimate horizontal and vertical angles. An investigation on the performance of the scheme is carried out based on signals recorded in an open air, low-noise environment, and then repeatedly replayed in an open-air, noisy environment, under controlled Direction of Arrival. To increase the accuracy of DoA estimates, the correlation function evaluated between each pair of microphones and used by GCC methods goes through an interpolation process. From this study, we have concluded that the GCC method can perform adequately in the task of estimating the DoA of a gunshot signal even in the presence of strong noise level and lower sampling frequency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=6021287&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Published in: Argentine School of Micro-Nanoelectronics Technology and Applications (EAMTA), 2011 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.jsp?punumber=6013948&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Print ISBN:     978-1-4577-1236-4  / INSPEC Accession Number:  12244486 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question** - Are you aware of additional prior art for this patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130107668&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.raytheon.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130107668#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=10%2F28%2F2011&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/XZxLc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=6021287" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5868" RevisionGUID="9d662e91-740f-4930-9d44-633e6e51f4cf" CreationDate="2014-01-15T20:09:07.747" UserId="7617" Text="A previous application for an European Patent Grant was &quot;closed&quot; by the European Patent Office. In which way the same application can be filled with US Patent Office?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15192" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5868" RevisionGUID="9d662e91-740f-4930-9d44-633e6e51f4cf" CreationDate="2014-01-15T20:09:07.747" UserId="7617" Text="Closed EPO application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15193" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5868" RevisionGUID="9d662e91-740f-4930-9d44-633e6e51f4cf" CreationDate="2014-01-15T20:09:07.747" UserId="7617" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;epo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5866" RevisionGUID="bf70676a-8ca4-4676-a253-85128d229b0b" CreationDate="2014-01-16T04:03:50.503" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" Looking for additional prior art for this Raytheon patent application related to **vehicle-based acoustic locating systems**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Title** Methods for locating an acoustic source&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130107668 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/283,997&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Raytheon][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 10/28/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1. A method of locating an acoustic source using a plurality of vehicles, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Transferring acoustic input from a plurality of sensors to a plurality of processing modules, wherein each of the plurality of sensors is coupled to one of the plurality of processing modules, and wherein each of the plurality of vehicles includes at least one of the plurality of sensors and one of the plurality of processing modules;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining a location of each of the plurality of vehicles using at least one of a global positioning system module and an inertial motion unit module located in each vehicle;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Processing, at each of the plurality of processing modules, the received acoustic input;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Designating one of the plurality of processing modules a master processing module; sending processed acoustic input received at each processing module to the master processing module;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Combining the processed acoustic input at the master processing module; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Estimating acoustic source location based on combined processed acoustic data. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 9. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the acoustic source location includes calculating a minimum least squares estimate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 9 of this patent is related to the following paper.  Although the paper doesn't refer specifically to microphones on **vehicles** it does refer to the main idea of acoustic location using distributed microphone arrays. Attaching the microphones to vehicles isn't in itself particularly inventive.  For example, the same techniques described below would work whether the ad-hoc microphone arrays are moving or stationary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Published **August 2011** at a conference in Buenos Aires&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [DoA of gunshot signals in a spatial microphone array: Performance of the interpolated Generalized Cross-Correlation method][5]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The direction of arrival of impulsive, wideband audio signals, specifically of gunshot signals, is the main interest of this work. The Generalized Cross-Correlation (GCC) method, typically employed for wideband signals, is used in a tetrahedral microphone array to estimate horizontal and vertical angles. An investigation on the performance of the scheme is carried out based on signals recorded in an open air, low-noise environment, and then repeatedly replayed in an open-air, noisy environment, under controlled Direction of Arrival. To increase the accuracy of DoA estimates, the correlation function evaluated between each pair of microphones and used by GCC methods goes through an interpolation process. From this study, we have concluded that the GCC method can perform adequately in the task of estimating the DoA of a gunshot signal even in the presence of strong noise level and lower sampling frequency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=6021287&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Published in: Argentine School of Micro-Nanoelectronics Technology and Applications (EAMTA), 2011 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.jsp?punumber=6013948&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Print ISBN:     978-1-4577-1236-4  / INSPEC Accession Number:  12244486 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question** - Are you aware of additional prior art for this patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130107668&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.raytheon.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130107668#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=10%2F28%2F2011&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/XZxLc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=6021287" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5826" RevisionGUID="c66ac2c6-ed70-4c1e-8e1c-8201000bc638" CreationDate="2014-01-16T04:04:24.287" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON prioritizing search results based on content creation trends of terms in the search results** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving search results in response to a search query, ranking the search results, retrieving trend data related to terms in the search results, weighting the ranked search results according to the trend data, and displaying the weighted ranked search results! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ranking search results based on trend data related to terms in the search results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - **Trend data** indicates an extent to which a content associated with the terms in the **search query** and/or **search results** have been requested and/or retrieved by other users, or created by other users for example in the form of **blog entries**, **wiki pages**, **news stories**, **twitter tweets** and the like, and can be provided by a **trend service** such as the &quot;Insights&quot; (TM'') tool provided by Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Weighting rank of search results based on trend data related to terms in the search results**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving search results in response to a search query, ranking the search results according to a ranking factor, retrieving trend data that indicates a degree to which documents associated with the terms in the search results have been created, weighting the rank of the search results based on the trend data, and displaying the weighted rank of the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120323879 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/411,579&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/18/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for ranking search results based upon content creation trends, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a result set of results from a search engine produced in response to a search engine query of a plurality of search terms;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Ranking the results of the result set according to at least one ranking factor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Retrieving trend data indicating content creation trends from a trend feed offered by a commercial trend service for terms associated with the results of the result set, the trend data including data indicating a degree to which documents in the form of blog entries, wiki pages, news stories, and twitter tweets associated with the plurality of search terms corresponding to the results of the result set have been created;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Weighting the ranked results in the result set according to the retrieved trend data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying the weighted ranked results in response to the search engine query.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for ranking search results, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving search results from a search engine in response to a search query;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Ranking the search results based on a ranking factor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3a. Retrieving trend data related to search terms of the search results,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3b. The trend data indicates a degree to which contents related to terms in the search results have been created;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Weighting the ranked search results according to trend data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying the weighted search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Weight for each rank corresponding to the search results is computed based upon a combination of 1. a mutual expectation function that measures how likely a search term of the search query giving rise to the corresponding search results and an additional search term not included in the search query will occur together, 2. a mutual dependency function measuring how strongly the additional search term relates to the search terms in current content creation, and 3. a relevancy function calculating relevancy of the search terms to the corresponding search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Prioritizing search results based on terms in the search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/UNF7yfX.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;900&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120323879&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120323879#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=06%2F14%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5872" RevisionGUID="854dd0d3-63f8-4fb2-9eb7-779f5aadff79" CreationDate="2014-01-16T18:47:32.040" UserId="7653" Text="The need to determine if page content has changed is commonly associated with cache busting or clearing a cached page based on changes which have been made to it. Because of how common this particular problem is, techniques readily exist to determine if changes have been made to any page and even partial pages (comment threads, etc.). I've written them myself for certain projects but I'll link to some which are easy to find online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Generational Caching][1] is a means of keeping track of any object or piece of data as it is modified over time. This is generic to basically anything which could be stored in a database, including the individual comments of a comment thread and even the comment thread itself. A comment looks like anything else in a database. It's just data. So specifying that this solution addresses comment threads doesn't make it novel. Even if it were novel because of that, [here][2] are some Drupal developers solving the same problem in 2005 specifically for comment threads. They are caching comment threads and then analyzing the threads to determine if a change has occurred.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, [this Stackoverflow discussion][3] specifically shows a user (Nixarn) attempting to solve a caching issue in which it is necessary to determine if a comment thread has been modified. To solve his issue, he will have to determine if the comments have changed over time. Other users recommend ready-made solutions including an open source package called [Django-groupcache][4] which was created in April of 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, [here][5] is an open source command posted on commandlinefu.com by user, &quot;Emzy&quot; in 2010 which does exactly what this patent application claims to be novel and unobvious. The user recommends putting this command &quot;in a cron&quot; which simply means to set the script up to be run automatically at a specified interval. The command makes use of &quot;diff&quot; which is part of the GNU toolset &quot;diffutils&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, this command will store the contents of a webpage (including any comments sections which may exist) and compare it with future versions of the same piece of information. If there is a difference, it will even email you to let you know that it's changed. It does all of this in two lines of code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be one of the most solved problems available to humanity in this day and age. Diff is used extensively to find changes within text-based and even binary data and has been around since the 70's. My guess is that ~90% of web applications employ some type of automated cache-clearing solution where they monitor the changes being made to various types of objects (including objects representing comments). They would all infringe on this patent the day it was approved because they've been doing it for years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.regexprn.com/2011/06/web-application-caching-strategies_05.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://drupal.org/comment/332784#comment-332784&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2268417/expire-a-view-cache-in-django&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://syfou.bitbucket.org/django-groupcache/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.commandlinefu.com/commands/view/5989/check-if-a-web-page-has-changed-last-time-checked." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5873" RevisionGUID="8f5d9a72-1a13-4e0f-9890-e085a1472591" CreationDate="2014-01-16T21:30:14.217" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON offering coupons based on an item of interest at a user's location** - This application from [Ebay][6] seeks to patent the idea of...determining the geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item at the geographic location, and generating an incentive offered by a merchant based on the determined geographic location and the identified item.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 3/17/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Presenting incentives offered by nearby merchants based on an item identified at the geographic location of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Incentives may be discounts, sales, rebates, coupons, **item recommendations** etc. A user may specify an item of interest using various input means of a mobile device such as **text identification**, **audio identification**, **machine-readable symbol identification**, **image identification**, or **video identification**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining incentives related to items identified at user location**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Determining geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item specified via the mobile device at the determined geographic location, generating an incentive offered by a merchant within a fixed geographic area based on the determined geographic location and the identified item, and expanding the fixed geographic area when the generated incentive is not related to the identified item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120239483 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/339,235&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Ebay&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 3/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a first module configured to determine a geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a second module configured to identify an item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device via an optical input of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a processor-implemented incentive module configured to generate a limited-time incentive offer from at least one merchant within a predefined geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device, the limited-time incentive offer based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device, and to expand the predefined geographic area when the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device does not correspond to any item identified in the at least one limited-time incentive offer of the at least one merchant within the predefined geographic area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising various modules to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identify an item specified at the determined geographic location via an input to the mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Generate limited-time incentive offers from merchants within a fixed geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Expand the fixed geographic area if the generated limited-time incentive offers are not related to the specified item,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * The limited-time incentive offers are based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A user preference setting to define a search radius and preferred merchants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Offering incentives related to an item based on geographic location of the item&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NioC9f0.png&quot; width=&quot;450&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120239483&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ebayinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120239483#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=03%2F17%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15216" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5873" RevisionGUID="8f5d9a72-1a13-4e0f-9890-e085a1472591" CreationDate="2014-01-16T21:30:14.217" UserId="1767" Text="Targeted incentives - Determining coupons based on location of a user (Ebay) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15217" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5873" RevisionGUID="8f5d9a72-1a13-4e0f-9890-e085a1472591" CreationDate="2014-01-16T21:30:14.217" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;geo-target&gt;&lt;ebay&gt;&lt;us20120239483a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5873" RevisionGUID="ea7b0c79-b984-40f6-895b-a4199034834b" CreationDate="2014-01-16T21:42:47.590" UserId="3076" Comment="re-added key(?) limitation the &quot;English&quot; version of claim 1" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON offering coupons based on an item of interest at a user's location** - This application from [Ebay][6] seeks to patent the idea of...determining the geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item at the geographic location, and generating an incentive offered by a merchant based on the determined geographic location and the identified item.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 3/17/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Presenting incentives offered by nearby merchants based on an item identified at the geographic location of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Incentives may be discounts, sales, rebates, coupons, **item recommendations** etc. A user may specify an item of interest using various input means of a mobile device such as **text identification**, **audio identification**, **machine-readable symbol identification**, **image identification**, or **video identification**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining incentives related to items identified at user location**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Determining geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item specified via the mobile device at the determined geographic location, generating an incentive offered by a merchant within a fixed geographic area based on the determined geographic location and the identified item, and expanding the fixed geographic area when the generated incentive is not related to the identified item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120239483 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/339,235&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Ebay&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 3/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a first module configured to determine a geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a second module configured to identify an item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device via an optical input of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a processor-implemented incentive module configured to generate a limited-time incentive offer from at least one merchant within a predefined geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device, the limited-time incentive offer based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device, and to expand the predefined geographic area when the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device does not correspond to any item identified in the at least one limited-time incentive offer of the at least one merchant within the predefined geographic area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising various modules to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identify an item specified at the determined geographic location via an OPTICAL input to the mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Generate limited-time incentive offers from merchants within a fixed geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Expand the fixed geographic area if the generated limited-time incentive offers are not related to the specified item,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * The limited-time incentive offers are based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A user preference setting to define a search radius and preferred merchants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Offering incentives related to an item based on geographic location of the item&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NioC9f0.png&quot; width=&quot;450&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120239483&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ebayinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120239483#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=03%2F17%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5874" RevisionGUID="d5415f1a-cda6-47c6-b1ac-1486318a407f" CreationDate="2014-01-16T22:05:04.977" UserId="7654" Text="If there are co inventors and one inventor files for and then receives a patent, under the new AIA laws can the co inventor invalidate the patent, or get his name on the patent that issued?  It seems to me that first to file means nothing if ALL true inventors must still be named." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15220" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5874" RevisionGUID="d5415f1a-cda6-47c6-b1ac-1486318a407f" CreationDate="2014-01-16T22:05:04.977" UserId="7654" Text="Did the AIA remove the requirement of naming all the true inventors?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15221" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5874" RevisionGUID="d5415f1a-cda6-47c6-b1ac-1486318a407f" CreationDate="2014-01-16T22:05:04.977" UserId="7654" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5873" RevisionGUID="30409346-6b3f-463f-bdd0-13bc78a1121e" CreationDate="2014-01-16T22:59:05.657" UserId="1767" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON offering coupons based on an item of interest at a user's location** - This application from [Ebay][6] seeks to patent the idea of...determining the geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item at the geographic location, and generating an incentive offered by a merchant based on the determined geographic location and the identified item.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 3/17/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Presenting incentives offered by nearby merchants based on an item identified at the geographic location of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Incentives may be discounts, sales, rebates, coupons, **item recommendations** etc. A user may specify an item of interest using various input means of a mobile device such as **text identification**, **audio identification**, **machine-readable symbol identification**, **image identification**, or **video identification**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining incentives related to items identified at user location**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Determining geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item specified via the mobile device at the determined geographic location, generating an incentive offered by a merchant within a fixed geographic area based on the determined geographic location and the identified item, and expanding the fixed geographic area when the generated incentive is not related to the identified item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120239483 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/339,235&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Ebay&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 3/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a first module configured to determine a geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a second module configured to identify an item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device via an optical input of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a processor-implemented incentive module configured to generate a limited-time incentive offer from at least one merchant within a predefined geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device, the limited-time incentive offer based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device, and to expand the predefined geographic area when the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device does not correspond to any item identified in the at least one limited-time incentive offer of the at least one merchant within the predefined geographic area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising various modules to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identify an item specified at the determined geographic location via an **optical** input to the mobile device (the example given is the phone reading the bar code of the item using its camera);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Generate limited-time incentive offers from merchants within a fixed geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Expand the fixed geographic area if the generated limited-time incentive offers are not related to the specified item,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * The limited-time incentive offers are based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A user preference setting to define a search radius and preferred merchants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Offering incentives related to an item based on geographic location of the item&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NioC9f0.png&quot; width=&quot;450&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120239483&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ebayinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120239483#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=03%2F17%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15223" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5873" RevisionGUID="30409346-6b3f-463f-bdd0-13bc78a1121e" CreationDate="2014-01-16T22:59:05.657" UserId="1767" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="Targeted incentives - Determining coupons based on location of a user &amp; item barcode (Ebay) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5875" RevisionGUID="fe6d6d91-9a46-4847-b896-10c73c78ac9f" CreationDate="2014-01-16T23:00:24.280" UserId="3076" Text="*I do not see how this relates to first-to-file at all*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All inventors need to be named but if they are not named or if the named inventors includes people who should not have been listed, the patent can be fixed later as long as everybody in question signs off on what the correct inventorship should have been. Pre-AIA it was possible to end up with an invalid patent even if all true inventors and incorrectly included non-inventors agreed on the proper inventorship later. Pre-AIA there was a requirement that &quot;no deceptive intent&quot; was involved in the original filing. Now that has been eliminated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pre-AIA if X filed as sole inventor (with deceptive intent) and later Y and Z caught up to him and asserted their co-inventorship, even if X was persuaded to fix it, legally, he couldn't (due to his original deceptive intent) and all three were screwed because it was wrong and couldn't be fixed. Now it can be fixed without worrying about orignal deceptiveness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is from the USPTO AIA FAQ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An inventor must state in his/her oath/declaration that (i) he/she is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an original inventor of the claimed invention; and (ii) he/she&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authorized the filing of the patent application for the claimed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention.  An inventor is **no longer required to (i) state that he/she&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is the first inventor** of the claimed invention; (ii) state that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application filing is made without deceptive intent; or (iii) provide&#xD;&#xA;&gt; his/her country of citizenship.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5879" RevisionGUID="bf29e497-c8f8-449b-8dfd-86fa053c1c16" CreationDate="2014-01-17T17:25:26.760" UserId="2029" Text="I have some 3rd party prior art available for a handful of published patent applications, by a few large tech corporations. I am knowledgeable in that field so I believe they would bring down a few of their claims if taken in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My concern is with any consequences to me or my (unrelated) business - do the applicants know who filed the 3rd party prior art? I got all the way to &quot;unregistered filer&quot; but it asked me for a first name/last name. What are the risks of my doing so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, I'm concerned that if they do know who filed the prior art, they'll dig up their huge patent portfolios and find some way to attack my business or even blacklist me personally. Am I overthinking things?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15235" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5879" RevisionGUID="bf29e497-c8f8-449b-8dfd-86fa053c1c16" CreationDate="2014-01-17T17:25:26.760" UserId="2029" Text="Submitting 3rd party prior art - any negative consequences to the 3rd party?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15236" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5879" RevisionGUID="bf29e497-c8f8-449b-8dfd-86fa053c1c16" CreationDate="2014-01-17T17:25:26.760" UserId="2029" Text="&lt;prior&gt;&lt;art&gt;&lt;third&gt;&lt;party&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15237" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5879" RevisionGUID="80fb5c9b-bb6d-4e7c-88ab-70923ffbd4ba" CreationDate="2014-01-17T17:40:06.787" UserId="3076" Comment="Edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;third-party-submission&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5880" RevisionGUID="5891fa1c-0945-4277-9d8b-05bf93bae3a0" CreationDate="2014-01-17T17:49:00.887" UserId="3076" Text="You can do it anonymously if you file through a registered patent practitioner (patent attorney or patent agent). They are identified but you are not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is from the USPTO FAQ on the AIA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Question PS3460:  Can a third-party submission be filed anonymously?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;A real party in interest can remain anonymous by having someone else make the third-party submission for them, but the submitter cannot remain anonymous.  The signature requirement of 37 CFR 1.4 for papers filed in a patent application, which require a person’s signature, apply to third-party submissions.  Third-party submissions must be signed due to statements that are required to be made under 37 CFR 1.290(d)(5) and 37 CFR 1.290(g) (if applicable) by the party making the submission.   Thus, the identity of the submitter (i.e., the party signing the submission) will be provided to the applicant upon entry of the compliant submission in the application file. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5879" RevisionGUID="0472e193-e014-45aa-9a67-d948bb9a46d3" CreationDate="2014-01-17T21:05:14.037" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="I have some 3rd party prior art available for a handful of published patent applications, by a few large tech corporations. I am knowledgeable in that field so I believe they would bring down a few of their claims if taken in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My concern is with any consequences to me or my (unrelated) business - do the applicants know who filed the 3rd party prior art? I got all the way to &quot;unregistered filer&quot; but it asked me for a first name/last name. What are the risks of my doing so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, I'm concerned that if they do know who filed the prior art, they'll dig up their huge patent portfolios and find some way to attack my business or even blacklist me personally. Am I overthinking things?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5873" RevisionGUID="47ef6089-6db4-4da2-a6df-d41c4fdbe18b" CreationDate="2014-01-17T22:11:34.750" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON offering coupons based on an item of interest at a user's location** - This application from [Ebay][6] seeks to patent the idea of...determining the geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item at the geographic location, and generating an incentive offered by a merchant based on the determined geographic location and the identified item.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 3/17/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Presenting incentives offered by nearby merchants based on an item identified at the geographic location of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Incentives may be discounts, sales, rebates, coupons, **item recommendations** etc. A user may specify an item of interest using various input means of a mobile device such as **text identification**, **audio identification**, **machine-readable symbol identification**, **image identification**, or **video identification**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining incentives related to items identified at user location**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Determining geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item specified via the mobile device at the determined geographic location, generating an incentive offered by a merchant within a fixed geographic area based on the determined geographic location and the identified item, and expanding the fixed geographic area when the generated incentive is not related to the identified item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120239483 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/339,235&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Ebay&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 3/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a first module configured to determine a geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a second module configured to identify an item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device via an optical input of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a processor-implemented incentive module configured to generate a limited-time incentive offer from at least one merchant within a predefined geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device, the limited-time incentive offer based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device, and to expand the predefined geographic area when the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device does not correspond to any item identified in the at least one limited-time incentive offer of the at least one merchant within the predefined geographic area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising various modules to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identify an item specified at the determined geographic location via an **optical** input to the mobile device (the example given is the phone reading the bar code of the item using its camera);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Generate limited-time incentive offers from merchants within a fixed geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Expand the fixed geographic area if the generated limited-time incentive offers are not related to the specified item,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * The limited-time incentive offers are based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A user preference setting to define a search radius and preferred merchants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Offering incentives related to an item based on geographic location of the item&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NioC9f0.png&quot; width=&quot;450&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120239483&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ebayinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120239483#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=03%2F17%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5881" RevisionGUID="5c69c0d1-82b1-42ad-825e-361748aa1291" CreationDate="2014-01-17T22:15:52.780" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON initiating a vendor check-in procedure on a customer's mobile device** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving a customer's location, comparing the customer location with a list of vendor locations, and identifying vendors based on the comparison! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 4/1/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Identifying vendors based on customer location and initiating check-in for an identified vendor on customer's mobile device &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Check-in includes displaying a vendor's **promotional video**, displaying a vendor's **threshold reward status**, updating **game status** of the customer, etc. on the customer's **mobile device**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Initiating vendor check-in or displaying a map of nearby vendors on a customer's mobile device based on location of the customer**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving location of a customer from a mobile device of the customer, comparing the location of the customer with a list of vendor locations, initiating vendor check-in on the mobile device if the customer corresponds to a vendor associated with the list of vendor locations, and displaying a map showing location of vendors within a fixed distance of the customer location if the customer location does not correspond to any of the vendor locations in the list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120253902 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/435,115&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 4/1/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/2/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A location-based marketing method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, by a computing device, a participating customer location from a mobile communication device of said participating customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Comparing, by said computing device, said participating customer location to a list of participating vendor locations;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. If said participating customer location corresponds to one of said participating vendor locations, initiating by said computing device a vendor check-in procedure on said mobile communication; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. If said participating customer location does not correspond to one of said participating vendor locations, initiating by said computing device, a map displaying participating vendor locations within a predetermined distance of said participating customer location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for location-based marketing comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving customer location from a mobile  device of the participating customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Comparing location of the participating customer to a list of participating vendor locations;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Initiating a vendor check-in procedure on the mobile  device if the location of the participating customer corresponds to any of the participating vendor locations; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Displaying a map showing locations of participating vendors within a fixed distance from the location of the participating customer if the location of the participating customer does not correspond to any of the participating vendor locations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 4/1/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Designating one or more identified vendors under various categories of a **marketing game** played by the customer on the **mobile device**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Initiate vendor check-in on a customer's mobile device&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/bTHjUMs.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120253902&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120253902#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=04%2F01%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15242" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5881" RevisionGUID="5c69c0d1-82b1-42ad-825e-361748aa1291" CreationDate="2014-01-17T22:15:52.780" UserId="1767" Text="Location-based marketing - Identifying vendors based on customer location - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15243" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5881" RevisionGUID="5c69c0d1-82b1-42ad-825e-361748aa1291" CreationDate="2014-01-17T22:15:52.780" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20120253902&gt;&lt;geo-target&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5883" RevisionGUID="2414c319-d688-4ace-b739-5b50ecb9e330" CreationDate="2014-01-19T05:14:49.947" UserId="7672" Text="Recently while I was writing up a patent, I discovered that another person has written a patent that is so badly and vaguely worded that it could be used to cover my invention. Whereas I offer clear details about what comes before what etc., this other person does not but claims the invention anyway and was granted a patent.&#xD;&#xA;He also begins almost every sentence in the summary with &quot;Some embodiments comprise&quot; as if to trying to make the patent so general as to cover everything. The way he words Claim 1, it appears he's trying to patent the microprocessor, 30 years after it was invented. What to do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15252" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5883" RevisionGUID="2414c319-d688-4ace-b739-5b50ecb9e330" CreationDate="2014-01-19T05:14:49.947" UserId="7672" Text="How to get a patent invalidated?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15253" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5883" RevisionGUID="2414c319-d688-4ace-b739-5b50ecb9e330" CreationDate="2014-01-19T05:14:49.947" UserId="7672" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5886" RevisionGUID="b5f2ed87-16d1-4ba8-a3cc-ca0a23d11568" CreationDate="2014-01-19T08:11:10.233" UserId="7673" Text="The complete patent manage to describe a typical PLC as used in industrial automation. You have a signal source, a device to process the signals and a means to output signals externally. If this is about the relay server, there should be enough prior art by Siemens, Honeywell, Allen Bradley etc. to invalidate the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The process that is purported to be done by this device is less complex than your normal industrial process control (excluding very simple processes). I have worked with more complex systems in industry for the last 30 years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5887" RevisionGUID="3960c6aa-916d-44bc-8c4a-7c1777d8ded5" CreationDate="2014-01-19T08:29:11.553" UserId="7673" Text="http://www.google.ca/patents/US8281169 is even broader and has a priority date of 27 Aug 2008. Remove mobile and it would describe just about any OS with the ability to shut down or change priorities of running programs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is moving functionality to a mobile device (laptop, phone, gps, e-book reader etc.) enough to warrant a new patent on industry best practices?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5888" RevisionGUID="a22d6f64-e6ed-4a0d-9e64-3ec028dfbcbb" CreationDate="2014-01-19T08:37:26.163" UserId="7673" Text="Vibration and heat sensors is industry best practices in many installations today. That does not bring anything new to cooling systems. Simply substituting a different type of motor makes no difference in the functionality of the machine. In fact, that is a standard part of my work, upgrading old machines with newer technology, including better, previously overly expensive motors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent is overly obvious to any practitioner in the field of machine automation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5873" RevisionGUID="63f82c15-bfe2-45f4-b37f-e3df1b664095" CreationDate="2014-01-19T18:36:37.257" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON offering coupons based on an item of interest at a user's location** - This application from [Ebay][6] seeks to patent the idea of...determining the geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item at the geographic location, and generating an incentive offered by a merchant based on the determined geographic location and the identified item.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 3/17/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Presenting incentives offered by nearby merchants based on an item identified at the geographic location of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Incentives may be discounts, sales, rebates, coupons, **item recommendations** etc. A user may specify an item of interest using various input means of a mobile device such as **text identification**, **audio identification**, **machine-readable symbol identification**, **image identification**, or **video identification**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining incentives related to items identified at user location**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Determining geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item specified via the mobile device at the determined geographic location, generating an incentive offered by a merchant within a fixed geographic area based on the determined geographic location and the identified item, and expanding the fixed geographic area when the generated incentive is not related to the identified item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120239483 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/339,235&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Ebay&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 3/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a first module configured to determine a geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a second module configured to identify an item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device via an optical input of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a processor-implemented incentive module configured to generate a limited-time incentive offer from at least one merchant within a predefined geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device, the limited-time incentive offer based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device, and to expand the predefined geographic area when the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device does not correspond to any item identified in the at least one limited-time incentive offer of the at least one merchant within the predefined geographic area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising various modules to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identify an item specified at the determined geographic location via an **optical** input to the mobile device (the example given is the phone reading the bar code of the item using its camera);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Generate limited-time incentive offers from merchants within a fixed geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Expand the fixed geographic area if the generated limited-time incentive offers are not related to the specified item,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * The limited-time incentive offers are based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A user preference setting to define a search radius and preferred merchants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Offering incentives related to an item based on geographic location of the item&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NioC9f0.png&quot; width=&quot;450&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120239483&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ebayinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120239483#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=03%2F17%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5881" RevisionGUID="385b4caa-6dea-4605-8e8a-c7e48ce202b1" CreationDate="2014-01-19T18:37:09.227" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON initiating a vendor check-in procedure on a customer's mobile device** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving a customer's location, comparing the customer location with a list of vendor locations, and identifying vendors based on the comparison! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 4/1/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Identifying vendors based on customer location and initiating check-in for an identified vendor on customer's mobile device &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Check-in includes displaying a vendor's **promotional video**, displaying a vendor's **threshold reward status**, updating **game status** of the customer, etc. on the customer's **mobile device**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Initiating vendor check-in or displaying a map of nearby vendors on a customer's mobile device based on location of the customer**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving location of a customer from a mobile device of the customer, comparing the location of the customer with a list of vendor locations, initiating vendor check-in on the mobile device if the customer corresponds to a vendor associated with the list of vendor locations, and displaying a map showing location of vendors within a fixed distance of the customer location if the customer location does not correspond to any of the vendor locations in the list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120253902 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/435,115&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 4/1/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/2/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A location-based marketing method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, by a computing device, a participating customer location from a mobile communication device of said participating customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Comparing, by said computing device, said participating customer location to a list of participating vendor locations;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. If said participating customer location corresponds to one of said participating vendor locations, initiating by said computing device a vendor check-in procedure on said mobile communication; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. If said participating customer location does not correspond to one of said participating vendor locations, initiating by said computing device, a map displaying participating vendor locations within a predetermined distance of said participating customer location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for location-based marketing comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving customer location from a mobile  device of the participating customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Comparing location of the participating customer to a list of participating vendor locations;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Initiating a vendor check-in procedure on the mobile  device if the location of the participating customer corresponds to any of the participating vendor locations; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Displaying a map showing locations of participating vendors within a fixed distance from the location of the participating customer if the location of the participating customer does not correspond to any of the participating vendor locations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 4/1/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Designating one or more identified vendors under various categories of a **marketing game** played by the customer on the **mobile device**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Initiate vendor check-in on a customer's mobile device&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/bTHjUMs.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120253902&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120253902#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=04%2F01%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4537" RevisionGUID="277f393f-c7ef-49cf-8731-151d5c931375" CreationDate="2014-01-21T00:18:04.793" UserId="1767" Comment="added 502 characters in body; edited tags" Text="![enter image description here][9]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** below!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed.   **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ONLINE SEARCH** - This application from [Yahoo!][6] seeks to patent the idea of... user editing search results for themselves and other users! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 19, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Accepting **USER EDITS** to **SEARCH RESULTS**; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Modifying the **SEARCH RESULTS PAGE** based on its **USER EDITS** with a **DRAG AND DROP** interface;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves user edits applying **GLOBALLY** to other users’ search results pages, **REMOVING DUPLICATE RESULTS** or a **DRAG AND DROP INTERFACE** to proposed user edits to search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: EDITORIAL CURATION OF SEARCH RESULTS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of modifying search results pages based on user edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159222 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/330,405&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 19, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for editorial curation of search results, comprising steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; using a processor device configured to perform:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a search results page rendered in response to a search query;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. receiving user edits comprising changes to objects in the search results page; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. applying the user edits to the search results page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for curating search results using a computer, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a search results page in response to a search query&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving user edits to objects in the search results page; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Applying the user edits to the search results page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming user edits applying **GLOBALLY** to other users’ search results pages, **REMOVING DUPLICATE RESULTS** or a **DRAG AND DROP INTERFACE** to proposed user edits to search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Drag and Drop User Curated Search Results Pages from Yahoo!**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/JCCnb.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130159222&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/201038072/US-20130159222-A1&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15275" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4537" RevisionGUID="277f393f-c7ef-49cf-8731-151d5c931375" CreationDate="2014-01-21T00:18:04.793" UserId="1767" Comment="added 502 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;yahoo&gt;&lt;us20130159222&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4548" RevisionGUID="c02f11cb-7c3b-47ca-98a7-0e8312ddf707" CreationDate="2014-01-21T00:20:51.867" UserId="1767" Comment="added 341 characters in body" Text="![Official USPTO Prior Art][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** in this answer! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examination has not begun, USPTO hasn't conducted search yet (or published search results) and therefore claims have not been amended by applicant in response to what will probably be a non-final rejection as first USPTO action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, a very quick search reveals the following prior art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [US 8,099,406](http://www.google.com/patents/US8099406) Lee (filed 03.01.2011)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All elements of Claim 1 are predated by Lee, which teaches a method for editorial curation of search results (*Method for human editing of information in search results* [title]), comprising steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- using a processor device configured to perform: receiving a search results page rendered in response to a search query; (*result items may be returned as a result of the search.* [abstract])&#xD;&#xA;- receiving user edits comprising changes to objects in the search results page; (*The user may enter new human edited information for some of the result items.* [abstract])&#xD;&#xA;- and applying the user edits to the search results page. (*The new human edited information may be displayed when other users search and view some of the result items at a later time* [abstract]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lee was granted, but granted Claim 1 is much narrower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uvXcn.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/201038072/US-20130159222-A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5881" RevisionGUID="50f5338a-21e2-4419-a68c-a469becc789a" CreationDate="2014-01-21T00:37:26.740" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON initiating a vendor check-in procedure on a customer's mobile device** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving a customer's location, comparing the customer location with a list of vendor locations, and identifying vendors based on the comparison! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 4/1/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Identifying vendors based on customer location and initiating check-in for an identified vendor on customer's mobile device &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Check-in includes displaying a vendor's **promotional video**, displaying a vendor's **threshold reward status**, updating **game status** of the customer, etc. on the customer's **mobile device**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Initiating vendor check-in or displaying a map of nearby vendors on a customer's mobile device based on location of the customer**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving location of a customer from a mobile device of the customer, comparing the location of the customer with a list of vendor locations, initiating vendor check-in on the mobile device if the customer corresponds to a vendor associated with the list of vendor locations, and displaying a map showing location of vendors within a fixed distance of the customer location if the customer location does not correspond to any of the vendor locations in the list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120253902 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/435,115&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 4/1/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/2/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A location-based marketing method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, by a computing device, a participating customer location from a mobile communication device of said participating customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Comparing, by said computing device, said participating customer location to a list of participating vendor locations;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. If said participating customer location corresponds to one of said participating vendor locations, initiating by said computing device a vendor check-in procedure on said mobile communication; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. If said participating customer location does not correspond to one of said participating vendor locations, initiating by said computing device, a map displaying participating vendor locations within a predetermined distance of said participating customer location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for location-based marketing comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving customer location from a mobile  device of the participating customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Comparing location of the participating customer to a list of participating vendor locations;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Initiating a vendor check-in procedure on the mobile  device if the location of the participating customer corresponds to any of the participating vendor locations; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Displaying a map showing locations of participating vendors within a fixed distance from the location of the participating customer if the location of the participating customer does not correspond to any of the participating vendor locations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 4/1/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Designating one or more identified vendors under various categories of a **marketing game** played by the customer on the **mobile device**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Initiate vendor check-in on a customer's mobile device&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/bTHjUMs.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120253902&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120253902#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=04%2F01%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5873" RevisionGUID="f2c0c423-d815-45d5-bfde-e4408ec98dda" CreationDate="2014-01-21T00:37:37.600" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON offering coupons based on an item of interest at a user's location** - This application from [Ebay][6] seeks to patent the idea of...determining the geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item at the geographic location, and generating an incentive offered by a merchant based on the determined geographic location and the identified item.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 3/17/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Presenting incentives offered by nearby merchants based on an item identified at the geographic location of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Incentives may be discounts, sales, rebates, coupons, **item recommendations** etc. A user may specify an item of interest using various input means of a mobile device such as **text identification**, **audio identification**, **machine-readable symbol identification**, **image identification**, or **video identification**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining incentives related to items identified at user location**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Determining geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item specified via the mobile device at the determined geographic location, generating an incentive offered by a merchant within a fixed geographic area based on the determined geographic location and the identified item, and expanding the fixed geographic area when the generated incentive is not related to the identified item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120239483 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/339,235&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Ebay&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 3/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a first module configured to determine a geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a second module configured to identify an item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device via an optical input of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a processor-implemented incentive module configured to generate a limited-time incentive offer from at least one merchant within a predefined geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device, the limited-time incentive offer based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device, and to expand the predefined geographic area when the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device does not correspond to any item identified in the at least one limited-time incentive offer of the at least one merchant within the predefined geographic area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising various modules to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identify an item specified at the determined geographic location via an **optical** input to the mobile device (the example given is the phone reading the bar code of the item using its camera);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Generate limited-time incentive offers from merchants within a fixed geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Expand the fixed geographic area if the generated limited-time incentive offers are not related to the specified item,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * The limited-time incentive offers are based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A user preference setting to define a search radius and preferred merchants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Offering incentives related to an item based on geographic location of the item&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NioC9f0.png&quot; width=&quot;450&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120239483&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ebayinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120239483#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=03%2F17%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4537" RevisionGUID="dc650e85-a3b2-47f6-82b6-8ed67877bacf" CreationDate="2014-01-21T00:37:55.977" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" ![enter image description here][9]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** below!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed.   **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ONLINE SEARCH** - This application from [Yahoo!][6] seeks to patent the idea of... user editing search results for themselves and other users! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 19, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Accepting **USER EDITS** to **SEARCH RESULTS**; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Modifying the **SEARCH RESULTS PAGE** based on its **USER EDITS** with a **DRAG AND DROP** interface;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves user edits applying **GLOBALLY** to other users’ search results pages, **REMOVING DUPLICATE RESULTS** or a **DRAG AND DROP INTERFACE** to proposed user edits to search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: EDITORIAL CURATION OF SEARCH RESULTS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of modifying search results pages based on user edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159222 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/330,405&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 19, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for editorial curation of search results, comprising steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; using a processor device configured to perform:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a search results page rendered in response to a search query;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. receiving user edits comprising changes to objects in the search results page; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. applying the user edits to the search results page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for curating search results using a computer, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a search results page in response to a search query&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving user edits to objects in the search results page; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Applying the user edits to the search results page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming user edits applying **GLOBALLY** to other users’ search results pages, **REMOVING DUPLICATE RESULTS** or a **DRAG AND DROP INTERFACE** to proposed user edits to search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Drag and Drop User Curated Search Results Pages from Yahoo!**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/JCCnb.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130159222&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/201038072/US-20130159222-A1&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4548" RevisionGUID="843e9fd8-e29f-47ac-86b8-c6f5d355920c" CreationDate="2014-01-21T00:58:09.037" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 232 characters in body" Text="![Official USPTO Prior Art][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** in this answer! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, a very quick search reveals the following prior art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [US 8,099,406](http://www.google.com/patents/US8099406) Lee (filed 03.01.2011)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All elements of Claim 1 are predated by Lee, which teaches a method for editorial curation of search results (*Method for human editing of information in search results* [title]), comprising steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- using a processor device configured to perform: receiving a search results page rendered in response to a search query; (*result items may be returned as a result of the search.* [abstract])&#xD;&#xA;- receiving user edits comprising changes to objects in the search results page; (*The user may enter new human edited information for some of the result items.* [abstract])&#xD;&#xA;- and applying the user edits to the search results page. (*The new human edited information may be displayed when other users search and view some of the result items at a later time* [abstract]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lee was granted, but granted Claim 1 is much narrower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uvXcn.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/201038072/US-20130159222-A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5891" RevisionGUID="73026bec-a55d-4758-a502-3c179a0bf5f4" CreationDate="2014-01-21T01:19:15.713" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON performing frequency analysis on the occurrence of target words in a stream of words** - This application from [Citizennet][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Generating a discrete time sequence of counts for a target word, performing frequency analysis of the generated discrete time sequence, and determining that the target keyword is a trending keyword based on the frequency analysis! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/7/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Detecting trends from a stream of words based on frequency analysis of word counts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Streams of words are taken from **word sources** such as **news stories**, tweets, posts on **social networking sites**, or **blog entries**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determine whether a target word is a trending keyword based on frequency analysis of discrete time sequence of counts for the target word**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Generating a discrete time sequence of counts for a target word from a stream of words, performing frequency analysis of the generated discrete time sequence to determine contributions of frequency components within different frequency ranges, and determining that the target keyword is a trending keyword based on the frequency analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130036107 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/568,851&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Citizennet&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/7/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 8/6/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for trend detection, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Generating a discrete time sequence of word counts for a target word using a trend detection device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Performing frequency analysis of the discrete time sequence of word counts to determine contributions of frequency components within different frequency ranges to the discrete time sequence of word counts using the trend detection device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Detecting that the target word is a trending keyword based upon at least the frequency analysis of the discrete time sequence of word counts for the target word using the trend detection device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for trend detection, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Generating a discrete time sequence of counts for a target word;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Performing frequency analysis of the generated discrete time sequence to measure frequency of target word counts within different frequency ranges; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Detecting that the target word is a trending keyword based on the frequency analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/7/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Performing **frequency analysis** refers to applying **discrete Fourier transform** to the **discrete time sequence** of counts for the target word(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Trend detection using frequency analysis of streams of words&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/UBd9kRB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;650&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130036107&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://citizennet.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130036107#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=08%2F07%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15282" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5891" RevisionGUID="73026bec-a55d-4758-a502-3c179a0bf5f4" CreationDate="2014-01-21T01:19:15.713" UserId="1767" Text="Keyword trends - Detecting trends in a stream of words using frequency analysis (Citizennet) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15283" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5891" RevisionGUID="73026bec-a55d-4758-a502-3c179a0bf5f4" CreationDate="2014-01-21T01:19:15.713" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;machine-learning&gt;&lt;us20130036107&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5894" RevisionGUID="3aef2a2f-c129-4858-ab10-e516adffa091" CreationDate="2014-01-21T10:19:52.280" UserId="7682" Text="Is a specific PCR (polymerase chain reaction) protocol including primers to detect the presence of a specific organism in a probe patentable in the US or/and elsewhere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. A blood test for tuberculosis&#xD;&#xA;using TCCAGCCATTGACCATCGTC, CGATGTGGTAGCAGGATTT, Taq polymerase with std. Buffer 20 cycles each of  30 sec annealing at 60°C and so on... " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15294" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5894" RevisionGUID="3aef2a2f-c129-4858-ab10-e516adffa091" CreationDate="2014-01-21T10:19:52.280" UserId="7682" Text="Is a PCR protocol including primers patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15295" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5894" RevisionGUID="3aef2a2f-c129-4858-ab10-e516adffa091" CreationDate="2014-01-21T10:19:52.280" UserId="7682" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;chemistry-microbiology&gt;&lt;design-medical&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5895" RevisionGUID="1ae3ae72-028b-44e2-a14f-114885107ec9" CreationDate="2014-01-21T15:22:40.893" UserId="7683" Text="Many panoramic cameras have already been described in previous comments, most if not all of them existing before the patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the following systems were also designed prior to the patent application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Elphel-Eyesis 360 degree panorama camera (April 2011): http://blog.elphel.com/category/panoramic/page/2/&#xD;&#xA; - DIY Streetview: http://www.diy-streetview.com/&#xD;&#xA; - Doo Technologies: http://www.dootechnologies.com/dt360usb-series-product.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to me it is a non-sense to claim such patent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5881" RevisionGUID="e32a1541-f339-44e1-a28f-e69ddf954aad" CreationDate="2014-01-21T16:33:19.937" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON initiating a vendor check-in procedure on a customer's mobile device** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving a customer's location, comparing the customer location with a list of vendor locations, and identifying vendors based on the comparison! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 4/1/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Identifying vendors based on customer location and initiating check-in for an identified vendor on customer's mobile device &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Check-in includes displaying a vendor's **promotional video**, displaying a vendor's **threshold reward status**, updating **game status** of the customer, etc. on the customer's **mobile device**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Initiating vendor check-in or displaying a map of nearby vendors on a customer's mobile device based on location of the customer**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving location of a customer from a mobile device of the customer, comparing the location of the customer with a list of vendor locations, initiating vendor check-in on the mobile device if the customer corresponds to a vendor associated with the list of vendor locations, and displaying a map showing location of vendors within a fixed distance of the customer location if the customer location does not correspond to any of the vendor locations in the list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120253902 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/435,115&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 4/1/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/2/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A location-based marketing method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, by a computing device, a participating customer location from a mobile communication device of said participating customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Comparing, by said computing device, said participating customer location to a list of participating vendor locations;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. If said participating customer location corresponds to one of said participating vendor locations, initiating by said computing device a vendor check-in procedure on said mobile communication; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. If said participating customer location does not correspond to one of said participating vendor locations, initiating by said computing device, a map displaying participating vendor locations within a predetermined distance of said participating customer location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for location-based marketing comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving customer location from a mobile  device of the participating customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Comparing location of the participating customer to a list of participating vendor locations;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Initiating a vendor check-in procedure on the mobile  device if the location of the participating customer corresponds to any of the participating vendor locations; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Displaying a map showing locations of participating vendors within a fixed distance from the location of the participating customer if the location of the participating customer does not correspond to any of the participating vendor locations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 4/1/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Designating one or more identified vendors under various categories of a **marketing game** played by the customer on the **mobile device**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Initiate vendor check-in on a customer's mobile device&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/bTHjUMs.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120253902&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120253902#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=04%2F01%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5873" RevisionGUID="5d883d5b-a1b1-4fbe-a48b-431d6e9336e4" CreationDate="2014-01-21T16:33:50.610" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON offering coupons based on an item of interest at a user's location** - This application from [Ebay][6] seeks to patent the idea of...determining the geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item at the geographic location, and generating an incentive offered by a merchant based on the determined geographic location and the identified item.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 3/17/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Presenting incentives offered by nearby merchants based on an item identified at the geographic location of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Incentives may be discounts, sales, rebates, coupons, **item recommendations** etc. A user may specify an item of interest using various input means of a mobile device such as **text identification**, **audio identification**, **machine-readable symbol identification**, **image identification**, or **video identification**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining incentives related to items identified at user location**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Determining geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item specified via the mobile device at the determined geographic location, generating an incentive offered by a merchant within a fixed geographic area based on the determined geographic location and the identified item, and expanding the fixed geographic area when the generated incentive is not related to the identified item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120239483 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/339,235&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Ebay&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 3/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a first module configured to determine a geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a second module configured to identify an item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device via an optical input of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a processor-implemented incentive module configured to generate a limited-time incentive offer from at least one merchant within a predefined geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device, the limited-time incentive offer based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device, and to expand the predefined geographic area when the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device does not correspond to any item identified in the at least one limited-time incentive offer of the at least one merchant within the predefined geographic area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising various modules to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identify an item specified at the determined geographic location via an **optical** input to the mobile device (the example given is the phone reading the bar code of the item using its camera);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Generate limited-time incentive offers from merchants within a fixed geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Expand the fixed geographic area if the generated limited-time incentive offers are not related to the specified item,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * The limited-time incentive offers are based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A user preference setting to define a search radius and preferred merchants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Offering incentives related to an item based on geographic location of the item&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NioC9f0.png&quot; width=&quot;450&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120239483&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ebayinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120239483#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=03%2F17%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4537" RevisionGUID="eed055b7-7c45-4d2a-8dfc-710372168027" CreationDate="2014-01-21T16:34:26.583" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  ![enter image description here][9]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** below!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed.   **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ONLINE SEARCH** - This application from [Yahoo!][6] seeks to patent the idea of... user editing search results for themselves and other users! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 19, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Accepting **USER EDITS** to **SEARCH RESULTS**; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Modifying the **SEARCH RESULTS PAGE** based on its **USER EDITS** with a **DRAG AND DROP** interface;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves user edits applying **GLOBALLY** to other users’ search results pages, **REMOVING DUPLICATE RESULTS** or a **DRAG AND DROP INTERFACE** to proposed user edits to search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: EDITORIAL CURATION OF SEARCH RESULTS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of modifying search results pages based on user edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159222 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/330,405&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 19, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for editorial curation of search results, comprising steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; using a processor device configured to perform:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a search results page rendered in response to a search query;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. receiving user edits comprising changes to objects in the search results page; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. applying the user edits to the search results page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for curating search results using a computer, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a search results page in response to a search query&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving user edits to objects in the search results page; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Applying the user edits to the search results page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming user edits applying **GLOBALLY** to other users’ search results pages, **REMOVING DUPLICATE RESULTS** or a **DRAG AND DROP INTERFACE** to proposed user edits to search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Drag and Drop User Curated Search Results Pages from Yahoo!**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/JCCnb.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130159222&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/201038072/US-20130159222-A1&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5891" RevisionGUID="8249f83c-8ab1-48d9-9b8d-d539f28d02e8" CreationDate="2014-01-21T16:34:47.553" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON performing frequency analysis on the occurrence of target words in a stream of words** - This application from [Citizennet][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Generating a discrete time sequence of counts for a target word, performing frequency analysis of the generated discrete time sequence, and determining that the target keyword is a trending keyword based on the frequency analysis! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/7/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Detecting trends from a stream of words based on frequency analysis of word counts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Streams of words are taken from **word sources** such as **news stories**, tweets, posts on **social networking sites**, or **blog entries**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determine whether a target word is a trending keyword based on frequency analysis of discrete time sequence of counts for the target word**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Generating a discrete time sequence of counts for a target word from a stream of words, performing frequency analysis of the generated discrete time sequence to determine contributions of frequency components within different frequency ranges, and determining that the target keyword is a trending keyword based on the frequency analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130036107 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/568,851&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Citizennet&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/7/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 8/6/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for trend detection, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Generating a discrete time sequence of word counts for a target word using a trend detection device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Performing frequency analysis of the discrete time sequence of word counts to determine contributions of frequency components within different frequency ranges to the discrete time sequence of word counts using the trend detection device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Detecting that the target word is a trending keyword based upon at least the frequency analysis of the discrete time sequence of word counts for the target word using the trend detection device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for trend detection, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Generating a discrete time sequence of counts for a target word;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Performing frequency analysis of the generated discrete time sequence to measure frequency of target word counts within different frequency ranges; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Detecting that the target word is a trending keyword based on the frequency analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/7/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Performing **frequency analysis** refers to applying **discrete Fourier transform** to the **discrete time sequence** of counts for the target word(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Trend detection using frequency analysis of streams of words&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/UBd9kRB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;650&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130036107&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://citizennet.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130036107#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=08%2F07%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5896" RevisionGUID="66b14948-dabb-497b-a1d3-8dd681d2e596" CreationDate="2014-01-21T18:42:38.833" UserId="7685" Text="the best way is to use pictures and product proofs (screen clips from product manuals etc). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Map it tick for tack, everything that is a element must be shown. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using too much text (as is the modern standard) confuses and dilutes the points. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5894" RevisionGUID="62eb9c92-5d47-4727-a105-23c1e32bcaf7" CreationDate="2014-01-21T22:54:32.670" UserId="7682" Comment="added examples from google patents. Extended/specified question." Text="Is a specific PCR (polymerase chain reaction) protocol including primers to detect the presence of a specific organism in a probe patentable in the US or/and elsewhere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. A blood test for tuberculosis&#xD;&#xA;using TCCAGCCATTGACCATCGTC, CGATGTGGTAGCAGGATTT, Taq polymerase with std. Buffer 20 cycles each of  30 sec annealing at 60°C and so on... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples from Google Patents:&#xD;&#xA;[ep2559761a1](http://google.com/patents/ep2559761a1),&#xD;&#xA;[wo2009093856a2](http://google.com/patents/wo2009093856a2),&#xD;&#xA;[ep1380654a1 ](http://google.com/patents/ep1380654a1 )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have heard that it is no longer possible in the US to patent DNA that occurs in nature. Is that true? Does this include Primer sequences? How is the situation elsewhere?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5873" RevisionGUID="449a6db6-9c99-4d0c-83a8-02cb1fc53f3e" CreationDate="2014-01-21T23:06:25.590" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON offering coupons based on an item of interest at a user's location** - This application from [Ebay][6] seeks to patent the idea of...determining the geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item at the geographic location, and generating an incentive offered by a merchant based on the determined geographic location and the identified item.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 3/17/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Presenting incentives offered by nearby merchants based on an item identified at the geographic location of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Incentives may be discounts, sales, rebates, coupons, **item recommendations** etc. A user may specify an item of interest using various input means of a mobile device such as **text identification**, **audio identification**, **machine-readable symbol identification**, **image identification**, or **video identification**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining incentives related to items identified at user location**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Determining geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item specified via the mobile device at the determined geographic location, generating an incentive offered by a merchant within a fixed geographic area based on the determined geographic location and the identified item, and expanding the fixed geographic area when the generated incentive is not related to the identified item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120239483 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/339,235&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Ebay&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 3/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a first module configured to determine a geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a second module configured to identify an item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device via an optical input of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a processor-implemented incentive module configured to generate a limited-time incentive offer from at least one merchant within a predefined geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device, the limited-time incentive offer based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device, and to expand the predefined geographic area when the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device does not correspond to any item identified in the at least one limited-time incentive offer of the at least one merchant within the predefined geographic area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising various modules to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identify an item specified at the determined geographic location via an **optical** input to the mobile device (the example given is the phone reading the bar code of the item using its camera);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Generate limited-time incentive offers from merchants within a fixed geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Expand the fixed geographic area if the generated limited-time incentive offers are not related to the specified item,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * The limited-time incentive offers are based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A user preference setting to define a search radius and preferred merchants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Offering incentives related to an item based on geographic location of the item&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NioC9f0.png&quot; width=&quot;450&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120239483&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ebayinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120239483#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=03%2F17%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5881" RevisionGUID="2aa5fc27-c8ac-4fa0-b059-08b70ec2d985" CreationDate="2014-01-21T23:06:43.013" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON initiating a vendor check-in procedure on a customer's mobile device** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving a customer's location, comparing the customer location with a list of vendor locations, and identifying vendors based on the comparison! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 4/1/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Identifying vendors based on customer location and initiating check-in for an identified vendor on customer's mobile device &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Check-in includes displaying a vendor's **promotional video**, displaying a vendor's **threshold reward status**, updating **game status** of the customer, etc. on the customer's **mobile device**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Initiating vendor check-in or displaying a map of nearby vendors on a customer's mobile device based on location of the customer**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving location of a customer from a mobile device of the customer, comparing the location of the customer with a list of vendor locations, initiating vendor check-in on the mobile device if the customer corresponds to a vendor associated with the list of vendor locations, and displaying a map showing location of vendors within a fixed distance of the customer location if the customer location does not correspond to any of the vendor locations in the list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120253902 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/435,115&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 4/1/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/2/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A location-based marketing method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, by a computing device, a participating customer location from a mobile communication device of said participating customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Comparing, by said computing device, said participating customer location to a list of participating vendor locations;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. If said participating customer location corresponds to one of said participating vendor locations, initiating by said computing device a vendor check-in procedure on said mobile communication; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. If said participating customer location does not correspond to one of said participating vendor locations, initiating by said computing device, a map displaying participating vendor locations within a predetermined distance of said participating customer location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for location-based marketing comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving customer location from a mobile  device of the participating customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Comparing location of the participating customer to a list of participating vendor locations;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Initiating a vendor check-in procedure on the mobile  device if the location of the participating customer corresponds to any of the participating vendor locations; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Displaying a map showing locations of participating vendors within a fixed distance from the location of the participating customer if the location of the participating customer does not correspond to any of the participating vendor locations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 4/1/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Designating one or more identified vendors under various categories of a **marketing game** played by the customer on the **mobile device**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Initiate vendor check-in on a customer's mobile device&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/bTHjUMs.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120253902&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120253902#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=04%2F01%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5891" RevisionGUID="4de32d7b-16ee-40a6-8980-96bf71f5c208" CreationDate="2014-01-21T23:06:59.607" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON performing frequency analysis on the occurrence of target words in a stream of words** - This application from [Citizennet][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Generating a discrete time sequence of counts for a target word, performing frequency analysis of the generated discrete time sequence, and determining that the target keyword is a trending keyword based on the frequency analysis! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/7/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Detecting trends from a stream of words based on frequency analysis of word counts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Streams of words are taken from **word sources** such as **news stories**, tweets, posts on **social networking sites**, or **blog entries**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determine whether a target word is a trending keyword based on frequency analysis of discrete time sequence of counts for the target word**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Generating a discrete time sequence of counts for a target word from a stream of words, performing frequency analysis of the generated discrete time sequence to determine contributions of frequency components within different frequency ranges, and determining that the target keyword is a trending keyword based on the frequency analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130036107 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/568,851&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Citizennet&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/7/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 8/6/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for trend detection, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Generating a discrete time sequence of word counts for a target word using a trend detection device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Performing frequency analysis of the discrete time sequence of word counts to determine contributions of frequency components within different frequency ranges to the discrete time sequence of word counts using the trend detection device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Detecting that the target word is a trending keyword based upon at least the frequency analysis of the discrete time sequence of word counts for the target word using the trend detection device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for trend detection, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Generating a discrete time sequence of counts for a target word;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Performing frequency analysis of the generated discrete time sequence to measure frequency of target word counts within different frequency ranges; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Detecting that the target word is a trending keyword based on the frequency analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/7/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Performing **frequency analysis** refers to applying **discrete Fourier transform** to the **discrete time sequence** of counts for the target word(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Trend detection using frequency analysis of streams of words&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/UBd9kRB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;650&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130036107&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://citizennet.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130036107#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=08%2F07%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4056" RevisionGUID="22110881-2cb7-4cb8-ab4f-c1e522f683f0" CreationDate="2014-01-21T23:43:04.043" UserId="1767" Comment="added 154 characters in body" Text="&lt;strong&gt;Ask Patents&lt;/strong&gt; is a question and answer site for people interested in improving and participating in the US patent system. It's built and run &lt;em&gt;by you&lt;/em&gt; as part of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Stack Exchange&lt;/a&gt; network of Q&amp;amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to find Prior Art on dangerous and overly broad US Patent Applications **before** they become issued Patents. &#xA;&#xA;US Patent Examiners receive direct **courtesy alerts** when Prior Art is found which is relevant to a patent applications which he or she is examining." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4056" RevisionGUID="5186b32f-0a0f-49e2-8790-3bba09bbdaa0" CreationDate="2014-01-21T23:48:34.660" UserId="1767" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="&lt;strong&gt;Ask Patents&lt;/strong&gt; is a question and answer site for people interested in improving and participating in the US patent system. It's built and run &lt;em&gt;by you&lt;/em&gt; as part of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Stack Exchange&lt;/a&gt; network of Q&amp;amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to find Prior Art on dangerous and overly broad US Patent Applications **before** they become issued Patents. &#xA;&#xA;**Ask Patents** blocks dangerous applications by alerting the US Patent Examiner of record when good Prior Art is found for an application which he or she is examining." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5897" RevisionGUID="e3ed73cf-9bea-494e-b8ef-a3c7e8fc7109" CreationDate="2014-01-21T23:50:04.927" UserId="7693" Text="In reference to Dash, the company who took this patent out, is it still possible to build an app that enables patrons to pay their bar tab via mobile device but using different methods?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I understand, the patent covers a mobile phone communicating with a POS system for the specific purposes of organizing, viewing, and paying your bill. (phone to POS)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone designed a widget installed on the POS system to communicate w/ the phone, would that infringe on this patent? (phone to widget, widget to POS)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, can you tweak a design w/ the end goal of allowing users to pay for tabs mobily, without infringing on this patent? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15310" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5897" RevisionGUID="e3ed73cf-9bea-494e-b8ef-a3c7e8fc7109" CreationDate="2014-01-21T23:50:04.927" UserId="7693" Text="Mobile Payment possibilites" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15311" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5897" RevisionGUID="e3ed73cf-9bea-494e-b8ef-a3c7e8fc7109" CreationDate="2014-01-21T23:50:04.927" UserId="7693" Text="&lt;us8498900&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3170" RevisionGUID="ce7b3b4d-62c3-4b39-b881-cf71d4ae8dba" CreationDate="2014-01-21T23:51:41.203" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 54 characters in body; added 6 characters in body" Text="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Request Prior Art to block a US Patent Application (&quot;Requests for Prior Art&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;US patent law or the patent approval process&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4056" RevisionGUID="cd4cc118-d8a0-488d-a73c-e80fb622206b" CreationDate="2014-01-22T00:01:28.023" UserId="1767" Comment="added 174 characters in body; edited body" Text="&lt;strong&gt;Ask Patents&lt;/strong&gt; is a question and answer site for people interested in improving and participating in the US patent system. It's built and run &lt;em&gt;by you&lt;/em&gt; as part of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Stack Exchange&lt;/a&gt; network of Q&amp;amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to find Prior Art on dangerous and overly broad US Patent Applications **before** they become issued Patents. &#xA;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;Some users&lt;/em&gt; help by identifying dangerous patent applications on Ask Patents.  &#xA;&lt;em&gt;Other users&lt;/em&gt; help by posting Prior Art related to these patent applications.&#xA;&#xA;**Ask Patents** blocks dangerous applications by alerting the US Patent Examiner of record when good Prior Art is found for an application which he or she is examining." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3170" RevisionGUID="2eb502c3-9cb2-4cac-95b5-3478d55a0b87" CreationDate="2014-01-22T00:03:37.593" UserId="1767" Comment="added 14 characters in body; added 29 characters in body; deleted 32 characters in body" Text="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Ask for Prior Art to block a dangerous US Patent Application. (&quot;Requests for Prior Art&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;US patent law or the patent approval process&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5897" RevisionGUID="6f1ca2da-ab45-4c95-ab78-c277a7d6e413" CreationDate="2014-01-22T00:12:49.130" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1982 characters in body" Text="In reference to Dash, the company who took this patent out, is it still possible to build an app that enables patrons to pay their bar tab via mobile device but using different methods?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I understand, the patent covers a mobile phone communicating with a POS system for the specific purposes of organizing, viewing, and paying your bill. (phone to POS)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone designed a widget installed on the POS system to communicate w/ the phone, would that necessarily infringe on this patent if it solves the same problem as the invention described in this patent? (phone to widget, widget to POS)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for allowing a customer to view and at least partially pay a bill incurred in a bar or a restaurant, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Operating** a POS system at the bar or the restaurant for tracking the bill and the bar or the restaurant having staff, wherein the POS system communicating with a customer mobile computing device;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Receiving**, via the POS system, customer check-in data at the restaurant or the bar in response to checking-in via the mobile computing device and customer payment account data as a payment security in response to authorizing access to the payment account data via the mobile computing device;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Validating**, via the POS system, the received payment account data for payment capability;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Receiving**, via the staff, an order from the customer using the POS system and associating, via the staff, the order with the validated payment account data in the POS system through utilizing the check-in data, wherein the check-in data indicating the customer as being physically present in proximity to the POS system;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Displaying** the bill in real-time via the mobile computing device upon the associating, the bill including the order;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Receiving** at least partial payment according to the validated payment account data in response to authorizing the at least partial payment via the mobile computing device;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Tagging** other visitors by the mobile computing device, tagging indicative of presence of the other visitors in the bar or the restaurant, the customer and the other visitors splitting the bill via the other visitors submitting the other visitors payment information only, the other visitors operating personal mobile devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Tagging** the other visitors by the mobile computing device when the other visitors also check-in via the personal mobile devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claim as written seems highly specific.  Can one tweak a design with the end goal of allowing users to pay for tabs mobily, without infringing on this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4056" RevisionGUID="b8673adb-7119-48c4-90fc-b2e686b81bf8" CreationDate="2014-01-22T00:14:26.730" UserId="1767" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="&lt;strong&gt;Ask Patents&lt;/strong&gt; is a question and answer site for people interested in improving and participating in the US patent system. It's built and run &lt;em&gt;by you&lt;/em&gt; as part of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Stack Exchange&lt;/a&gt; network of Q&amp;amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to find Prior Art on dangerous and overly broad US Patent Applications **before** they become issued Patents. &#xA;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;Some users&lt;/em&gt; help by identifying dangerous patent applications on Ask Patents.  &#xA;&lt;em&gt;Other users&lt;/em&gt; help by finding Prior Art related to dangerous patent applications.&#xA;&#xA;**Ask Patents** blocks dangerous applications by alerting the US Patent Examiner of record when good Prior Art is found for an application which he or she is examining." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3170" RevisionGUID="0f2bc101-83d6-4d48-b750-bfec0b4c94e7" CreationDate="2014-01-22T00:15:11.950" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; deleted 1 characters in body" Text="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Prior Art to block a dangerous US Patent Application which you have identified.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;US patent law or the patent approval process&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4056" RevisionGUID="e63f86f4-af66-49ee-bdd8-d753a96c283c" CreationDate="2014-01-22T00:21:52.570" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="&lt;strong&gt;Ask Patents&lt;/strong&gt; is a question and answer site for people interested in improving and participating in the US patent system. It's built and run &lt;em&gt;by you&lt;/em&gt; as part of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Stack Exchange&lt;/a&gt; network of Q&amp;amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to find Prior Art on dangerous and overly broad US Patent Applications **before** they become issued Patents. &#xA;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;Some users&lt;/em&gt; help by identifying dangerous patent applications on Ask Patents.  &#xA;&lt;em&gt;Other users&lt;/em&gt; help by finding Prior Art related to dangerous patent applications.&#xA;&#xA;**Ask Patents** blocks dangerous applications by alerting the US Patent Examiner of record when good Prior Art is found for an application that he or she is examining." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3170" RevisionGUID="0a4e80fa-7c3a-47ff-b727-0bc309f259ac" CreationDate="2014-01-22T00:22:39.807" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body; deleted 2 characters in body; added 2 characters in body; deleted 6 characters in body" Text="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Prior Art on a dangerous US Patent Application that you have identified.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;US patent law or the patent approval process&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5898" RevisionGUID="1475b466-b1db-47a5-ba7b-6a24cf95e14a" CreationDate="2014-01-22T01:02:42.133" UserId="3076" Text="It seems specific to me also. If you want to be sure you are in the clear you also have a search done in this area. There are likely other patents in this space that you might run afoul off even if you avoid this one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5898" RevisionGUID="5b4f113e-5f37-4add-a773-d5aff0580451" CreationDate="2014-01-22T01:11:35.800" UserId="3076" Comment="added 211 characters in body" Text="These claims seem specific to me also. There are most always many ways to solve a problem. In any method clam, if you leave out a step and do not replace it with an &quot;equivalent&quot; step you avoid infringement. There is a lot in the details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to be sure you are in the clear you also have a search done in this area. There are likely other patents in this space that you might run afoul off even if you avoid this one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5899" RevisionGUID="02792d5a-c8bd-41ce-b3f7-1bcc865883d3" CreationDate="2014-01-22T01:42:20.413" UserId="7695" Text="my question is regarding improvement patents. i have read some literature online, but it's all still pretty convoluted regarding this issue of improvement patents. my question is how does building your technology on top of already existing (and most likely patented) technology work. for example: computer mouses at one time probably all used wires to attach to the computers and send signals back and forth from the computer and one day i came along and decided that i was going to remove the wire and instead use wireless tech. (Bluetooth, WIFI, w/e the details are irrelevant), how do i determine whether my new technology is patent able and does not infringe on the existing technology that is probably patented itself?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15323" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5899" RevisionGUID="02792d5a-c8bd-41ce-b3f7-1bcc865883d3" CreationDate="2014-01-22T01:42:20.413" UserId="7695" Text="improvement patents, building your tech. on top of already existing tech" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15324" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5899" RevisionGUID="02792d5a-c8bd-41ce-b3f7-1bcc865883d3" CreationDate="2014-01-22T01:42:20.413" UserId="7695" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5900" RevisionGUID="ad17d7fb-ae3f-4149-800a-3bde583d0302" CreationDate="2014-01-22T02:18:34.247" UserId="7696" Text="For example:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The driver then proceeds to the pickup point. As the driver continues on her way, she may update the passenger 170 of any changes to the arrival time estimate including, for example, the fact that she has arrived at the pickup point. &quot; in US6356838&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Uber does not deserve this overly broad set of claims.  In particular, they claim:&#xD;&#xA;1. A computer implemented method for arranging transport amongst parties located at different locations, the method being implemented by one or more processors and comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;(a) enabling a customer at a first geographic location to make a request for transport;&#xD;&#xA;(b) from a pool of candidate respondents, selecting a driver at a second geographic location;&#xD;&#xA;(c) communicating the first geographic location to the driver; and (d) communicating, to the customer, a location of the driver as the vehicle progresses to and/or arrives at the first geographic location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its not a novel or non-obvious idea for 2009." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15326" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5900" RevisionGUID="ad17d7fb-ae3f-4149-800a-3bde583d0302" CreationDate="2014-01-22T02:18:34.247" UserId="7696" Text="Help find prior art for Uber patent application CA 2782611 - prior art seems plentiful (PCT/US2010/059152" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15327" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5900" RevisionGUID="ad17d7fb-ae3f-4149-800a-3bde583d0302" CreationDate="2014-01-22T02:18:34.247" UserId="7696" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5901" RevisionGUID="8494eba0-fc6f-4401-950a-3b83e89689af" CreationDate="2014-01-22T02:31:13.440" UserId="7490" Text="This is an Amazon patent for shipping a package to a general region, and while the package is in transit, assigning it for delivery to a specific address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kinda like you one-click, then get up to answer the doorbell, as a van with the product happened to be cruising the neighborhood.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15329" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5901" RevisionGUID="8494eba0-fc6f-4401-950a-3b83e89689af" CreationDate="2014-01-22T02:31:13.440" UserId="7490" Text="Prior art on 08615473 - Addressing a parcel already in transit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15330" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5901" RevisionGUID="8494eba0-fc6f-4401-950a-3b83e89689af" CreationDate="2014-01-22T02:31:13.440" UserId="7490" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15331" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5901" RevisionGUID="527f65f2-4238-4e5e-b3d1-48a8d69fb499" CreationDate="2014-01-22T03:51:59.847" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag for patent number - added claim 1" Text="Requesting Prior art on US 8615473 - Addressing a parcel already in transit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15332" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5901" RevisionGUID="527f65f2-4238-4e5e-b3d1-48a8d69fb499" CreationDate="2014-01-22T03:51:59.847" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag for patent number - added claim 1" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us8615473&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5901" RevisionGUID="527f65f2-4238-4e5e-b3d1-48a8d69fb499" CreationDate="2014-01-22T03:51:59.847" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag for patent number - added claim 1" Text="This is an Amazon patent for shipping a package to a general region, and while the package is in transit, assigning it for delivery to a specific address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kinda like you one-click, then get up to answer the doorbell, as a van with the product happened to be cruising the neighborhood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;performing, by one or more computing devices:&#xD;&#xA;determining a status of one or more shipped packages currently in transit to respective destination geographical areas, wherein said respective destination geographical areas include multiple delivery addresses to which said package is deliverable, wherein at least one of the one or more shipped packages comprises one or more items that have been shipped before an order has occurred for the one or more items in the at least one shipped package, and wherein the one or more shipped packages were shipped to a respective destination geographical area without completely specifying a delivery address at time of shipment, such that at the time of shipment, each shipped package is deliverable to said respective destination geographical area but is not deliverable to any delivery address;&#xD;&#xA;for a given one of said one or more shipped packages,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;analyzing one or more business variables related to said one or more items included in said given shipped package;dependent upon analyzing both said one or more business variables and said determined status,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;determining a disposition of said given shipped package." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5900" RevisionGUID="56ba85d4-b706-4c9c-aca0-1d06d18fac93" CreationDate="2014-01-22T04:11:20.833" UserId="3076" Comment="show claim 1 as quoted" Text="For example:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The driver then proceeds to the pickup point. As the driver continues on her way, she may update the passenger 170 of any changes to the arrival time estimate including, for example, the fact that she has arrived at the pickup point. &quot; in US6356838&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Uber does not deserve this overly broad set of claims.  In particular, they claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A computer implemented method for arranging transport amongst parties located at different locations, the method being implemented&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by one or more processors and comprising the steps of: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(a) enabling a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; customer at a first geographic location to make a request for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transport; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(b) from a pool of candidate respondents, selecting a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; driver at a second geographic location; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(c) communicating the first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; geographic location to the driver; and &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(d) communicating, to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; customer, a location of the driver as the vehicle progresses to and/or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; arrives at the first geographic location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its not a novel or non-obvious idea for 2009." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15335" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5900" RevisionGUID="56ba85d4-b706-4c9c-aca0-1d06d18fac93" CreationDate="2014-01-22T04:11:20.833" UserId="3076" Comment="show claim 1 as quoted" Text="Help find prior art for Uber patent application CA 2782611 - prior art seems plentiful (PCT/US2010/059152)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5899" RevisionGUID="ee1c7ef8-df96-4d85-b243-9d8afed68fb4" CreationDate="2014-01-22T04:14:38.927" UserId="3076" Comment="capitalization" Text="My question is regarding improvement patents. I have read some literature online, but it's all still pretty convoluted regarding this issue of improvement patents. My question is how does building your technology on top of already existing (and most likely patented) technology work. For example: computer mouses at one time all used wires to attach to the computers and send signals back to the computer and one day I came along and decided that I was going to remove the wire and instead use wireless tech. (Bluetooth, WIFI, w/e the details are irrelevant). How do I determine whether my new technology is patentable and does not infringe on the existing technology that is probably patented itself?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15337" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5899" RevisionGUID="ee1c7ef8-df96-4d85-b243-9d8afed68fb4" CreationDate="2014-01-22T04:14:38.927" UserId="3076" Comment="capitalization" Text="Improvement patents, building your technology on top of already existing technology" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5902" RevisionGUID="f38b272d-b88e-452b-b9ad-409079fd864b" CreationDate="2014-01-22T04:30:35.133" UserId="3076" Text="There are two separate issues here that are very frequently conflated. Your ability to get a patent has nothing to do with what others have or have not *patented* per se. It has to do with what others have done and allowed public access to. Your invention will be looked at in comparison with previous publications to judge the novelly and non-obviousness of your idea. The previous publications can be patents, expired patents, patent applications that were totally rejected, magazine articles, etc.  A large % of issued patents would be considered improvement patents. If you search for issued patents on manual tooth brushes you will find a vast array of attempts to improve on the basic tooth brush. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first wireless mouse may have been non-obvious altogether or maybe the inventor had to create a special protocol or other technology for the mouse to be low power enough or maybe some inventing needed to be done to bring the cost down to the point it was practical to put wireless in a low cost device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second issue is  - if you made your invention would it infringe on an existing patent for the underlying base technology? If someone had a patent on the optical mouse, your wireless optical mouse might very well infringe. That doesn't mean you can't get a patent, it means you can't make it or sell it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5902" RevisionGUID="32e141fe-8686-47d7-aff9-6d047f50b770" CreationDate="2014-01-22T06:03:49.537" UserId="3076" Comment="edited body" Text="There are two separate issues here that are very frequently conflated. Your ability to get a patent has nothing to do with what others have or have not *patented* per se. It has to do with what others have done and allowed public access to. Your invention will be looked at in comparison with previous publications to judge the novelty and non-obviousness of your idea. The previous publications can be patents, expired patents, patent applications that were totally rejected, magazine articles, etc.  A large % of issued patents would be considered improvement patents. If you search for issued patents on manual tooth brushes you will find a vast array of attempts to improve on the basic tooth brush. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first wireless mouse may have been non-obvious altogether or maybe the inventor had to create a special protocol or other technology for the mouse to be low power enough or maybe some inventing needed to be done to bring the cost down to the point it was practical to put wireless in a low cost device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second issue is  - if you made your invention would it infringe on an existing patent for the underlying base technology? If someone had a patent on the optical mouse, your wireless optical mouse might very well infringe. That doesn't mean you can't get a patent, it means you can't make it or sell it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5903" RevisionGUID="1f0dc1c9-d4cb-4dd9-9d8d-1cb05c199560" CreationDate="2014-01-22T08:42:08.920" UserId="7608" Text="Do not even reply to any requests from that US &quot;patent troll&quot; company - you will make even worst, because reply will state that you at least received their claim and process can go further. Ignore them - you have the full right to that because you are not required to comply with any USA laws, esp. if you are not based physically there. There's no state borders in Internet - they cannot prevent you to advertise or sell software on Internet. Any lawyer tell you the same - ignore them. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5903" RevisionGUID="d38f4f27-4f46-47fe-bd2a-94e9fdede22f" CreationDate="2014-01-22T08:47:10.653" UserId="7608" Comment="correcting suggestion" Text="Do not even reply to any requests from that US &quot;patent troll&quot; company - you will make even worst, because reply will state that you at least received their claim and process can go further. Ignore them - you have the full right to that because you are not required to comply with any USA laws, esp. if you are not based physically there. There's no state borders in Internet - they cannot prevent you to advertise or sell software on Internet. Any lawyer tell you the same - ignore them. Be very cautious with letters or post mail from USA - warn everyone to not signing for any mail from USA as &quot;received&quot; (they will send the big packet of documents to your address with their claims - for this matter better is to get the postal box in third party company)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5903" RevisionGUID="06c7503f-28aa-49a9-8f27-b336db487500" CreationDate="2014-01-22T09:04:37.340" UserId="7608" Comment="adding last edit" Text="People giving you the wrong suggestions here - do not even try to come to any US attorney.&#xD;&#xA;Do not even reply to any requests from that US &quot;patent troll&quot; company - you will make even worst, because reply will state that you at least received their claim and process can go further. Ignore them - you have the full right to that because you are not required to comply with any USA laws, esp. if you are not based physically there. There's no state borders in Internet - they cannot prevent you to advertise or sell software on Internet. Any lawyer tell you the same - ignore them. Be very cautious with letters or post mail from USA - warn everyone to not signing for any mail from USA as &quot;received&quot; (they will send the big packet of documents to your address with their claims - for this matter better is to get the postal box in third party company).&#xD;&#xA;Software patents forbidden in many countries - such things as algorithms (which always patented in USA even by such giants as Apple and Google), user interfaces and program code – cannot be patented (or protected in any way) in such countries of world as Russia, New Zealand... I can't say about EU, but you can check that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5904" RevisionGUID="6deb433e-cb1e-4fff-a875-ed35d21b7d4a" CreationDate="2014-01-22T10:11:00.230" UserId="7701" Text="could you please tell me whether patent number US5715629 is still in force?&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15349" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5904" RevisionGUID="6deb433e-cb1e-4fff-a875-ed35d21b7d4a" CreationDate="2014-01-22T10:11:00.230" UserId="7701" Text="Is patent US5715629 still in force?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15350" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5904" RevisionGUID="6deb433e-cb1e-4fff-a875-ed35d21b7d4a" CreationDate="2014-01-22T10:11:00.230" UserId="7701" Text="&lt;usa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5906" RevisionGUID="0ab93157-0d1e-4d1d-8a47-43269bdc5d3c" CreationDate="2014-01-22T14:25:26.583" UserId="7703" Text="Was having a look at Scoutmob.com as possible prior art. They've been around since 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How scoutmob works:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You get a deal for a shop/business/vendor from ScoutMob.com&#xD;&#xA; - The deal is only able to be redeemed when the user is in proximity of the vendor (based on geolocation). *(satisfies point 1. Receiving customer location from a mobile device of the participating customer)*&#xD;&#xA; - Deals are sorted by proximity to vendors *(satisfies point 2. Comparing location of the participating customer to a list of participating vendor locations;)*&#xD;&#xA; - I assume &quot;redeem deal&quot; is essentially a type of check-in.*(satisfies point 3. Initiating a vendor check-in procedure on the mobile device if the location of the participating customer corresponds to any of the participating vendor locations;)*&#xD;&#xA; -  I'm not sure they satisfy the map criteria - but they have a feature which sorts deals by proximity to you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's articles on them from 2010:&#xD;&#xA;http://mobrumblings.tumblr.com/page/10&#xD;&#xA;http://techcrunch.com/2010/01/13/real-time-mobile-savings-scoutmob-brings-local-deals-to-your-iphone/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5906" RevisionGUID="a7f6730b-d883-4b6d-9284-cde33835f9da" CreationDate="2014-01-22T14:52:04.137" UserId="7703" Comment="Added video demo" Text="Was having a look at Scoutmob.com as possible prior art. They've been around since 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How scoutmob works:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You get a deal for a shop/business/vendor from ScoutMob.com (this step is optional, you can use device to get deals closest to your location - [video demo](http://vimeo.com/24236406) ).&#xD;&#xA; - The deal is only able to be redeemed when the user is in proximity of the vendor (based on geolocation). *(satisfies point 1. Receiving customer location from a mobile device of the participating customer)*&#xD;&#xA; - Deals are sorted by proximity to vendors *(satisfies point 2. Comparing location of the participating customer to a list of participating vendor locations;)*&#xD;&#xA; - I assume &quot;redeem deal&quot; is essentially a type of check-in.*(satisfies point 3. Initiating a vendor check-in procedure on the mobile device if the location of the participating customer corresponds to any of the participating vendor locations;)*&#xD;&#xA; -  I'm not sure they satisfy the map criteria - but they have a feature which sorts deals by proximity to you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's articles on them from 2010:&#xD;&#xA;http://mobrumblings.tumblr.com/page/10&#xD;&#xA;http://techcrunch.com/2010/01/13/real-time-mobile-savings-scoutmob-brings-local-deals-to-your-iphone/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5904" RevisionGUID="2326c03c-72f7-493b-b650-7a311c78a5b4" CreationDate="2014-01-22T16:45:01.507" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="Could you please tell me whether patent number US5715629 is still in force?&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15358" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5904" RevisionGUID="2326c03c-72f7-493b-b650-7a311c78a5b4" CreationDate="2014-01-22T16:45:01.507" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;usa&gt;&lt;us5715629&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5907" RevisionGUID="336b0896-9a0b-4e9c-9e1c-7029a9afc240" CreationDate="2014-01-22T16:59:07.877" UserId="7706" Text="I am researching this product (Tri-Blade Plastic Spiral Vegetable Slicer) in which the company Paderno World Cuisine claims a patent.  I found no patent for this so far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The item, sold on Amazon ([http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007Y9WHQ/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&amp;psc=1][1])&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007Y9WHQ/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&amp;psc=1&#xD;&#xA;is made from plastic and is replicated under many brands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been searching through these patents and so far have not found the patent they claim.  Can a more experienced patient specialist help?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scott" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15360" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5907" RevisionGUID="336b0896-9a0b-4e9c-9e1c-7029a9afc240" CreationDate="2014-01-22T16:59:07.877" UserId="7706" Text="Researching this product: Paderno World Cuisine A4982799 Tri-Blade Plastic Spiral Vegetable Slicer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15361" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5907" RevisionGUID="336b0896-9a0b-4e9c-9e1c-7029a9afc240" CreationDate="2014-01-22T16:59:07.877" UserId="7706" Text="&lt;us2508868&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4056" RevisionGUID="da2b2c59-74dd-4ab3-8aa1-06800e39d1e3" CreationDate="2014-01-22T18:59:44.583" UserId="1767" Comment="edited body; deleted 15 characters in body" Text="&lt;strong&gt;Ask Patents&lt;/strong&gt; is a question and answer site for people interested in improving and participating in the US patent system. It's built and run &lt;em&gt;by you&lt;/em&gt; as part of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Stack Exchange&lt;/a&gt; network of Q&amp;amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to find Prior Art on dangerous and overly broad US Patent Applications **before** they become issued Patents. &#xA;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;Some users&lt;/em&gt; help by identifying dangerous patent applications.  &#xA;&lt;em&gt;Other users&lt;/em&gt; help by finding Prior Art related to dangerous patent applications.&#xA;&#xA;**Ask Patents** blocks dangerous applications by alerting the US Patent Examiner of record when good Prior Art is found for an application that he or she is examining." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="9f3b543e-9a85-4306-8155-5a77a97cfd18" CreationDate="2014-01-22T20:24:55.607" UserId="7708" Text="A set of measure/dimension boxes in an &quot;available fields&quot; region, which can then be dragged to &quot;Row&quot; or &quot;Column&quot; region?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/fRd99.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/lzOS1.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15364" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="9f3b543e-9a85-4306-8155-5a77a97cfd18" CreationDate="2014-01-22T20:24:55.607" UserId="7708" Text="US20140019842 prior art: Tableau?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15365" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="9f3b543e-9a85-4306-8155-5a77a97cfd18" CreationDate="2014-01-22T20:24:55.607" UserId="7708" Text="&lt;invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5900" RevisionGUID="1468d7f1-465f-4081-b725-8cdb91b6aee0" CreationDate="2014-01-22T20:29:22.943" UserId="1767" Comment="added 4358 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON arranging transport amongst parties through use of mobile devices** - This application from [Uber][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Enabling customers to order drivers from a mobile phone and tracking the location of the driver as it arrives! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/4/2009** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Mobile phone-based taxi services&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Location of driver is displayed on a map on user's phone, user and driver can communicate with one another prior to pickup, and/or user is able to provide feedback on driver's service after the ride.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Arranging transportation among parties at different locations using a mobile phone**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] User at one location requests driver.  From a pool of candidate drivers, the user chooses a driver to pick him up.  The user's location is communicated to the driver, the driver's location is communicated to the user as the vehicle progresses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20110313804 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/961,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Uber&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/4/2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/19/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer implemented method for arranging transport amongst parties located at different locations, the method being implemented by one or more processors of a server and comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, at the server from a customer device at a first geographic location a request for transport, the request including information about the first geographic location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. In response to receiving the request, from a pool of candidate respondents, selecting, by the server and for a customer operating the customer device, a driver at a second geographic location based, at least in part, on location information of the candidate driver;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Communicating, by the server, an invitation to a corresponding device of the driver, the invitation enabling the driver to accept the invitation to provide transport for the customer and including (i)_ the first geographic location, and (ii) identification information of the customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Communicating, from the server to the customer device, a status of fulfilling the request for the customer, including communicating one or more notifications that informs the customer that the server is selecting the driver; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Once the dirver has accepted the invitation, communicating, from the server to the customer device, a location of the driver as the driver progresses to or arrives at the first geographic location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for arranging transport amongst parties located at different locations, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, a request for transport, the request including information about the first geographic location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a driver at a second geographic location from a pool of candidate driveres based, at least in part, on the location of the driver&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Inviting the driver to provide transport for the customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Inform the customer that the server is selecting the driver; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Communicating the location of the driver as the driver progresses to or arrives at the first geographic location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/4/2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Displaying driver location on a map, feedback system for user to rate driver (and vice-versa) after trip&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Determining public opinion based on social media contents&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/G2VcnfE.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Uber does not deserve this overly broad set of claims!  As just one example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **US 6,356,838 System and method for determining an efficient transportation route**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The driver then proceeds to the pickup point. As the driver continues on her way, she may update the passenger 170 of any changes to the arrival time estimate including, for example, the fact that she has arrived at the pickup point. &quot; from [US6356838][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you help find more Prior Art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110313804&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.uber.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20110313804#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=12%2F06%2F2010&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6356838&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15367" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5900" RevisionGUID="1468d7f1-465f-4081-b725-8cdb91b6aee0" CreationDate="2014-01-22T20:29:22.943" UserId="1767" Comment="added 4358 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Mobile taxi service - Ordering transportation by a mobile device (Uber) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15368" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5900" RevisionGUID="1468d7f1-465f-4081-b725-8cdb91b6aee0" CreationDate="2014-01-22T20:29:22.943" UserId="1767" Comment="added 4358 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;us20110313804&gt;&lt;uber&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5900" RevisionGUID="5590c2ce-35b3-4810-baff-576065d1f2aa" CreationDate="2014-01-22T20:34:49.333" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 59 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON arranging transport amongst parties through use of mobile devices** - This application from [Uber][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Enabling customers to order drivers from a mobile phone and tracking the location of the driver as it arrives! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/4/2009** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Mobile phone-based taxi services&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Location of driver is displayed on a map on user's phone, user and driver can communicate with one another prior to pickup, and/or user is able to provide feedback on driver's service after the ride.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Arranging transportation among parties at different locations using a mobile phone**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] User at one location requests driver.  From a pool of candidate drivers, the user chooses a driver to pick him up.  The user's location is communicated to the driver, the driver's location is communicated to the user as the vehicle progresses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20110313804 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/961,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Uber&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/4/2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer implemented method for arranging transport amongst parties located at different locations, the method being implemented by one or more processors of a server and comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, at the server from a customer device at a first geographic location a request for transport, the request including information about the first geographic location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. In response to receiving the request, from a pool of candidate respondents, selecting, by the server and for a customer operating the customer device, a driver at a second geographic location based, at least in part, on location information of the candidate driver;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Communicating, by the server, an invitation to a corresponding device of the driver, the invitation enabling the driver to accept the invitation to provide transport for the customer and including (i)_ the first geographic location, and (ii) identification information of the customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Communicating, from the server to the customer device, a status of fulfilling the request for the customer, including communicating one or more notifications that informs the customer that the server is selecting the driver; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Once the dirver has accepted the invitation, communicating, from the server to the customer device, a location of the driver as the driver progresses to or arrives at the first geographic location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for arranging transport amongst parties located at different locations, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, a request for transport, the request including information about the first geographic location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a driver at a second geographic location from a pool of candidate driveres based, at least in part, on the location of the driver&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Inviting the driver to provide transport for the customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Inform the customer that the server is selecting the driver; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Communicating the location of the driver as the driver progresses to or arrives at the first geographic location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/4/2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Displaying driver location on a map, feedback system for user to rate driver (and vice-versa) after trip&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Determining public opinion based on social media contents&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/G2VcnfE.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Uber does not deserve this overly broad set of claims!  As just one example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **US 6,356,838 System and method for determining an efficient transportation route**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The driver then proceeds to the pickup point. As the driver continues on her way, she may update the passenger 170 of any changes to the arrival time estimate including, for example, the fact that she has arrived at the pickup point. &quot; from [US6356838][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you help find more Prior Art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110313804&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.uber.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20110313804#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=12%2F06%2F2010&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6356838&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5891" RevisionGUID="b3cbfcad-845d-401e-bd2c-af62daf803e1" CreationDate="2014-01-22T20:35:14.180" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 58 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON performing frequency analysis on the occurrence of target words in a stream of words** - This application from [Citizennet][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Generating a discrete time sequence of counts for a target word, performing frequency analysis of the generated discrete time sequence, and determining that the target keyword is a trending keyword based on the frequency analysis! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/7/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Detecting trends from a stream of words based on frequency analysis of word counts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Streams of words are taken from **word sources** such as **news stories**, tweets, posts on **social networking sites**, or **blog entries**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determine whether a target word is a trending keyword based on frequency analysis of discrete time sequence of counts for the target word**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Generating a discrete time sequence of counts for a target word from a stream of words, performing frequency analysis of the generated discrete time sequence to determine contributions of frequency components within different frequency ranges, and determining that the target keyword is a trending keyword based on the frequency analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130036107 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/568,851&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Citizennet&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/7/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for trend detection, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Generating a discrete time sequence of word counts for a target word using a trend detection device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Performing frequency analysis of the discrete time sequence of word counts to determine contributions of frequency components within different frequency ranges to the discrete time sequence of word counts using the trend detection device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Detecting that the target word is a trending keyword based upon at least the frequency analysis of the discrete time sequence of word counts for the target word using the trend detection device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for trend detection, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Generating a discrete time sequence of counts for a target word;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Performing frequency analysis of the generated discrete time sequence to measure frequency of target word counts within different frequency ranges; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Detecting that the target word is a trending keyword based on the frequency analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/7/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Performing **frequency analysis** refers to applying **discrete Fourier transform** to the **discrete time sequence** of counts for the target word(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Trend detection using frequency analysis of streams of words&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/UBd9kRB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;650&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130036107&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://citizennet.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130036107#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=08%2F07%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5873" RevisionGUID="0d33077d-6c71-4300-b171-6b3f996a6118" CreationDate="2014-01-22T20:35:33.293" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 59 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON offering coupons based on an item of interest at a user's location** - This application from [Ebay][6] seeks to patent the idea of...determining the geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item at the geographic location, and generating an incentive offered by a merchant based on the determined geographic location and the identified item.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 3/17/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Presenting incentives offered by nearby merchants based on an item identified at the geographic location of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Incentives may be discounts, sales, rebates, coupons, **item recommendations** etc. A user may specify an item of interest using various input means of a mobile device such as **text identification**, **audio identification**, **machine-readable symbol identification**, **image identification**, or **video identification**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining incentives related to items identified at user location**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Determining geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item specified via the mobile device at the determined geographic location, generating an incentive offered by a merchant within a fixed geographic area based on the determined geographic location and the identified item, and expanding the fixed geographic area when the generated incentive is not related to the identified item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120239483 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/339,235&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Ebay&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a first module configured to determine a geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a second module configured to identify an item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device via an optical input of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a processor-implemented incentive module configured to generate a limited-time incentive offer from at least one merchant within a predefined geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device, the limited-time incentive offer based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device, and to expand the predefined geographic area when the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device does not correspond to any item identified in the at least one limited-time incentive offer of the at least one merchant within the predefined geographic area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising various modules to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identify an item specified at the determined geographic location via an **optical** input to the mobile device (the example given is the phone reading the bar code of the item using its camera);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Generate limited-time incentive offers from merchants within a fixed geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Expand the fixed geographic area if the generated limited-time incentive offers are not related to the specified item,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * The limited-time incentive offers are based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A user preference setting to define a search radius and preferred merchants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Offering incentives related to an item based on geographic location of the item&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NioC9f0.png&quot; width=&quot;450&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120239483&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ebayinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120239483#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=03%2F17%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15372" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5900" RevisionGUID="87808041-a77a-454e-85d1-7c60701b70b1" CreationDate="2014-01-22T20:42:09.423" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Mobile taxi service - Ordering transportation through a mobile device (Uber) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5739" RevisionGUID="5af2fc5f-8317-4640-b67a-2e39be7a9b10" CreationDate="2014-01-22T20:54:09.807" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 59 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Determining whether or not features of discussion thread pages have changed with time** - This application from [Sony][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Recording contents of an electronic page at different intervals and determining changes in the contents! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 7/26/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining change in contents of a discussion thread page with time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - An **electronic bulletin board system**: includes **discussion thread pages** each associated with a **discussion topic**, allows a user to create a new **discussion thread page** for a new **discussion topic**, or post a comment to an already created **discussion thread page**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining changes in contents of a discussion thread with time.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying contents of a page at various time intervals, and determining whether a feature of the page has changed based on the content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130031118 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/554,135&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Sony&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 7/26/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An information processing system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An identifying unit that repeatedly identifies a content of a page whose content changes with a lapse of time; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A determination unit that determines based on contents of the page identified at different timings whether or not a feature of the identified page has changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An information processing system for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying contents of a page whose contents changes with time, at various time intervals; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining whether a feature of the page has changed on the basis of the identified contents of the page at the various time intervals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 7/26/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Receiving a search request and searching discussion thread pages matching the received search request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Identify change in contents of a discussion thread&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/wgPel4S.png&quot; width=&quot;450&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130031118&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.scei.co.jp/index_e.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130031118#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=07%2F20%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5900" RevisionGUID="985553b6-981e-438a-8bda-6fe44b9e6886" CreationDate="2014-01-22T21:03:00.937" UserId="1767" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON arranging transport amongst parties through use of mobile devices** - This application from [Uber][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Enabling customers to order drivers from a mobile phone and tracking the location of the driver as it arrives! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/4/2009** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Mobile phone-based taxi services&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Location of driver is displayed on a map on user's phone, user and driver can communicate with one another prior to pickup, and/or user is able to provide feedback on driver's service after the ride.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Arranging transportation among parties at different locations using a mobile phone**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] User at one location requests driver.  From a pool of candidate drivers, the user chooses a driver to pick him up.  The user's location is communicated to the driver, the driver's location is communicated to the user as the vehicle progresses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20110313804 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/961,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Uber&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/4/2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer implemented method for arranging transport amongst parties located at different locations, the method being implemented by one or more processors of a server and comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, at the server from a customer device at a first geographic location a request for transport, the request including information about the first geographic location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. In response to receiving the request, from a pool of candidate respondents, selecting, by the server and for a customer operating the customer device, a driver at a second geographic location based, at least in part, on location information of the candidate driver;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Communicating, by the server, an invitation to a corresponding device of the driver, the invitation enabling the driver to accept the invitation to provide transport for the customer and including (i) the first geographic location, and (ii) identification information of the customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Communicating, from the server to the customer device, a status of fulfilling the request for the customer, including communicating one or more notifications that informs the customer that the server is selecting the driver; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Once the dirver has accepted the invitation, communicating, from the server to the customer device, a location of the driver as the driver progresses to or arrives at the first geographic location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for arranging transport amongst parties located at different locations, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, a request for transport, the request including information about the first geographic location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a driver at a second geographic location from a pool of candidate driveres based, at least in part, on the location of the driver&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Inviting the driver to provide transport for the customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Informing the customer that the server is selecting the driver; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Communicating the location of the driver as the driver progresses to or arrives at the first geographic location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/4/2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Displaying driver location on a map, feedback system for user to rate driver (and vice-versa) after trip&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;User-interfaces as transportation is requested and provided&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/G2VcnfE.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Uber does not deserve this overly broad set of claims!  As just one example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **US 6,356,838 System and method for determining an efficient transportation route**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The driver then proceeds to the pickup point. As the driver continues on her way, she may update the passenger 170 of any changes to the arrival time estimate including, for example, the fact that she has arrived at the pickup point. &quot; from [US6356838][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you help find more Prior Art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110313804&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.uber.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20110313804#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=12%2F06%2F2010&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6356838&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15375" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="5fa578e9-ccdf-4196-ae3b-d1c9f3ccf839" CreationDate="2014-01-22T21:45:42.490" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag for application" Text="&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;us20140019842&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="7fb44f6e-3991-4cff-a76c-6af284ebfad5" CreationDate="2014-01-22T21:55:37.947" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag for application. Added claim 1 and prior art request tag" Text="A set of measure/dimension boxes in an &quot;available fields&quot; region, which can then be dragged to &quot;Row&quot; or &quot;Column&quot; region.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An apparatus, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a processor operable to:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;determine a plurality of field identifiers of a data set, the data set comprising a plurality of data entries, a data entry comprising one or more data values, a data value associated with a field identifier of the plurality of field identifiers;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;generate a plurality of field cells that each correspond to a field identifier of the plurality of field identifiers;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;display the plurality of field cells within an available fields region; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;display a column field region and a row field region, the column field region operable to define one or more columns of a pivot table, the row field region operable to define one or more rows of the pivot table; and&#xD;&#xA;an interface operable to accept a first input from a user; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;wherein the processor is further operable to:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;move a first field cell of the plurality of field cells from the available fields region to the column field region or the row field region in response to the first input from a user; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;update the pivot table to include one or more rows or columns corresponding to the first field cell upon detection of the movement of the first field cell to the column field region or the row field region.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FIGURE FROM PATENT APPLICATION IN QUESTION&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FIGURE FROM &quot;Tableau&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/fRd99.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/lzOS1.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15377" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="7fb44f6e-3991-4cff-a76c-6af284ebfad5" CreationDate="2014-01-22T21:55:37.947" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag for application. Added claim 1 and prior art request tag" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20140019842&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="5ebd2def-cab2-4fe8-bfee-114c1a9c8ea0" CreationDate="2014-01-22T22:12:43.290" UserId="1767" Comment="added 688 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="**Patent Application: **US20140019842** from Bank of America **reminds me a lot of [Software from Tableau](http://www.tableausoftware.com/)**.  I'm looking for a Tableau or other patent reference which can be given to the patent examiner to help block this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A set of measure/dimension boxes in an &quot;available fields&quot; region, which can then be dragged to &quot;Row&quot; or &quot;Column&quot; region.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was published before **7/11/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An apparatus, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a processor operable to:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Determine** a plurality of field identifiers of a data set, the data set comprising a plurality of data entries, a data entry comprising one or more data values, a data value associated with a field identifier of the plurality of field identifiers;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Generate** a plurality of field cells that each correspond to a field identifier of the plurality of field identifiers;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Display** the plurality of field cells within an available fields region; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Display** a column field region and a row field region, the column field region operable to define one or more columns of a pivot table, the row field region operable to define one or more rows of the pivot table; and&#xD;&#xA;an interface operable to accept a first input from a user; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wherein the processor is further operable to:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Move** a first field cell of the plurality of field cells from the available fields region to the column field region or the row field region in response to the first input from a user; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Update** the pivot table to include one or more rows or columns corresponding to the first field cell upon detection of the movement of the first field cell to the column field region or the row field region.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FIGURE FROM PATENT APPLICATION IN QUESTION&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FIGURE FROM &quot;Tableau&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question**: Can anyone find a reference to patents from Tableau (or any other company) which predates the subject patent application from Bank of America (filed 7/11/2012).  It's definitely not novel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/fRd99.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/lzOS1.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15379" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="5ebd2def-cab2-4fe8-bfee-114c1a9c8ea0" CreationDate="2014-01-22T22:12:43.290" UserId="1767" Comment="added 688 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Spreadsheets - Dynamic Pivot Table Creation and Modification (Bank of America) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15380" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="5ebd2def-cab2-4fe8-bfee-114c1a9c8ea0" CreationDate="2014-01-22T22:12:43.290" UserId="1767" Comment="added 688 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20140019842&gt;&lt;spreadsheets&gt;&lt;bofa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="37cf59dc-d520-48ec-8273-f01f6eaa4b75" CreationDate="2014-01-22T22:22:04.687" UserId="3076" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="**Patent Application: **US20140019842** from Bank of America **reminds me a lot of [Software from Tableau](http://www.tableausoftware.com/)**.  I'm looking for a Tableau or other reference which can be given to the patent examiner to help block or narrow this patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overview: &quot;A set of measure/dimension boxes in an &quot;available fields&quot; region, which can then be dragged to &quot;Row&quot; or &quot;Column&quot; region.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was published before **7/11/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An apparatus, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a processor operable to:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Determine** a plurality of field identifiers of a data set, the data set comprising a plurality of data entries, a data entry comprising one or more data values, a data value associated with a field identifier of the plurality of field identifiers;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Generate** a plurality of field cells that each correspond to a field identifier of the plurality of field identifiers;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Display** the plurality of field cells within an available fields region; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Display** a column field region and a row field region, the column field region operable to define one or more columns of a pivot table, the row field region operable to define one or more rows of the pivot table; and&#xD;&#xA;an interface operable to accept a first input from a user; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wherein the processor is further operable to:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Move** a first field cell of the plurality of field cells from the available fields region to the column field region or the row field region in response to the first input from a user; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Update** the pivot table to include one or more rows or columns corresponding to the first field cell upon detection of the movement of the first field cell to the column field region or the row field region.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FIGURE FROM PATENT APPLICATION IN QUESTION&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FIGURE FROM &quot;Tableau&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question**: Can anyone find a reference to patents from Tableau (or any other company) which predates the subject patent application from Bank of America (filed 7/11/2012).  It definitely does not seem novel to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/fRd99.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/lzOS1.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="3460bd6b-3135-4a94-854e-64a17e71aec7" CreationDate="2014-01-22T22:45:06.180" UserId="1767" Comment="added 143 characters in body" Text="**Patent Application: **US20140019842** from Bank of America **reminds me a lot of [Software from Tableau](http://www.tableausoftware.com/)**.  I'm looking for a Tableau or other reference which can be given to the patent examiner to help block or narrow this patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overview: &quot;A set of measure/dimension boxes in an &quot;available fields&quot; region, which can then be dragged to &quot;Row&quot; or &quot;Column&quot; region.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was published before **7/11/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An apparatus, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a processor operable to:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Determine** a plurality of field identifiers of a data set, the data set comprising a plurality of data entries, a data entry comprising one or more data values, a data value associated with a field identifier of the plurality of field identifiers;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Generate** a plurality of field cells that each correspond to a field identifier of the plurality of field identifiers;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Display** the plurality of field cells within an available fields region; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Display** a column field region and a row field region, the column field region operable to define one or more columns of a pivot table, the row field region operable to define one or more rows of the pivot table; and&#xD;&#xA;an interface operable to accept a first input from a user; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wherein the processor is further operable to:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Move** a first field cell of the plurality of field cells from the available fields region to the column field region or the row field region in response to the first input from a user; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Update** the pivot table to include one or more rows or columns corresponding to the first field cell upon detection of the movement of the first field cell to the column field region or the row field region.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FIGURE FROM PATENT APPLICATION IN QUESTION&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FIGURE FROM &quot;Tableau&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question**: Can anyone find a reference to patents from Tableau (or any other company) which predates the subject patent application from Bank of America (filed 7/11/2012).  It definitely does not seem novel to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/fRd99.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/lzOS1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5907" RevisionGUID="fd39aca4-2a91-4a98-b442-5af7d5ec9959" CreationDate="2014-01-22T23:57:13.023" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted signature" Text="I am researching this product (Tri-Blade Plastic Spiral Vegetable Slicer) in which the company Paderno World Cuisine claims a patent.  I found no patent for this so far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The item, sold on Amazon ([http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007Y9WHQ/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&amp;psc=1][1])&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007Y9WHQ/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&amp;psc=1&#xD;&#xA;is made from plastic and is replicated under many brands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been searching through these patents and so far have not found the patent they claim.  Can a more experienced patient specialist help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5909" RevisionGUID="94ff0ce5-a944-41f3-a7ba-77d8f89bf432" CreationDate="2014-01-23T01:11:01.130" UserId="11" Text="This is a direct copy of the Pivot Tables feature from Excel which was introduced in Excel 5.0, approximately 1995.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a PDF document describing [Pivot Tables as they are implemented in Excel 2003](http://ase.tufts.edu/its/trainDocuments/excel03PivotTables.pdf) which clearly teaches all of the technology in the claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5910" RevisionGUID="7ea7bd56-5531-4ca8-8f33-865e8c874acb" CreationDate="2014-01-23T04:25:10.567" UserId="7710" Text="This patent is for a device to smoke Hash Oil, currently a schedule one narcotic in the USA. There is no other use for this product. Can it be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15387" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5910" RevisionGUID="7ea7bd56-5531-4ca8-8f33-865e8c874acb" CreationDate="2014-01-23T04:25:10.567" UserId="7710" Text="Can you patent something illegal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15388" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5910" RevisionGUID="7ea7bd56-5531-4ca8-8f33-865e8c874acb" CreationDate="2014-01-23T04:25:10.567" UserId="7710" Text="&lt;thc&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5728" RevisionGUID="7f04756b-378d-4361-9b36-0815de226d83" CreationDate="2014-01-23T04:56:45.393" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 59 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON providing recommendations based on relative preferences across items for a customer.** - This application from [MIT][6] seeks to patent the idea of...identifying a relative preference list of all users, comparing a user's relative preference list with the canonical preference list, and inferring preferences of the user on the basis of comparison with other users. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/29/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Providing a personalized recommendation to a user regarding items that the user has not ranked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A user's preference is identified based on **pair-wise preferences** of items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining preferences of a user based on comparative rating across items.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Comparing preference of a user with identified preferences of all users and inferring preference of the user based on a correlation factor between the user preference and each of the identified preferences.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130054498 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/598,124&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: MIT&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/29/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for inferring the preferences of a user in relation to a population, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying a preference distribution of said population comprising a plurality of ranked lists and a weight of each of said plurality of ranked lists;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. comparing a revealed preference of said user to one of said plurality of ranked lists;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. assigning an affinity weight between said user and each of said plurality of ranked lists; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. taking a weighted average of each of said affinity weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for inferring preferences of a user, the method comprises the following steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying preferences of all users over a number of choices; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. comparing preferences of the user with each of the identified preferences;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. assigning a correlation factor between the user preferences and each of the identified preferences; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. averaging the assigned correlation factors to infer preferences of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/29/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A preference list  providing comparisons between every pair of items for a user is represented by a comparison matrix indexed by i and j, where entry (i, j) is set to 1 if item i is preferred to item j, and 0 otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Providing recommendations based on pair-wise comparison of items.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/1c7H9Dw.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130054498a1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://web.mit.edu/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130054498#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=08%2F29%2F2011&amp;t=1providing%20personalized%20recommendations.1ranked%20lists.1preference.0preference%20distribution.0revealed%20preference.0affinity%20weight.0population.0weighted%20average.0index.0sparse%20distribution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5911" RevisionGUID="5d82700e-e22d-4323-9444-ae6caff7f3d0" CreationDate="2014-01-23T06:15:42.593" UserId="5843" Text="Well I finally filed my utility patent application - about 20 minutes ago, electronically - and now I am wondering if I forgot to check the box for non-publication by the PTO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any way to change that now? It's not life-ending but I would like the privacy protection. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15391" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5911" RevisionGUID="5d82700e-e22d-4323-9444-ae6caff7f3d0" CreationDate="2014-01-23T06:15:42.593" UserId="5843" Text="Forgot to check 'Request Not To Publish'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15392" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5911" RevisionGUID="5d82700e-e22d-4323-9444-ae6caff7f3d0" CreationDate="2014-01-23T06:15:42.593" UserId="5843" Text="&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15393" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5906" RevisionGUID="42380bf0-19ef-4302-bb89-ac8d8e60ffe2" CreationDate="2014-01-23T06:55:51.703" UserId="7703" Comment="Added that I think a map is an obvious innovation on existing tech." Text="Was having a look at Scoutmob.com as possible prior art. They've been around since 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How scoutmob works:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You get a deal for a shop/business/vendor from ScoutMob.com (this step is optional, you can use device to get deals closest to your location - [video demo](http://vimeo.com/24236406) ).&#xD;&#xA; - The deal is only able to be redeemed when the user is in proximity of the vendor (based on geolocation). *(satisfies point 1. Receiving customer location from a mobile device of the participating customer)*&#xD;&#xA; - Deals are sorted by proximity to vendors *(satisfies point 2. Comparing location of the participating customer to a list of participating vendor locations;)*&#xD;&#xA; - I assume &quot;redeem deal&quot; is essentially a type of check-in.*(satisfies point 3. Initiating a vendor check-in procedure on the mobile device if the location of the participating customer corresponds to any of the participating vendor locations;)*&#xD;&#xA; -  I'm not sure they satisfy the map criteria - but they have a feature which sorts deals by proximity to you. **Edit: I believe that showing a map is an obvious innovation over a list based on proximity**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's articles on them from 2010:&#xD;&#xA;http://mobrumblings.tumblr.com/page/10&#xD;&#xA;http://techcrunch.com/2010/01/13/real-time-mobile-savings-scoutmob-brings-local-deals-to-your-iphone/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5912" RevisionGUID="06db6007-9658-4183-a309-6ebbdb818395" CreationDate="2014-01-23T07:07:25.690" UserId="7712" Text="Astoundingly the patent was granted as [8,576,051][2] in November 2013. However, during prosecution the independent claims were modified to state the width of the spacer to be **&quot;greater than or equal to about 1/4 of a wavelength of the predetermined operating frequency.&quot;** The operating frequency is the UHF band of which a quarter wavelength is ~8.83cm or ~3.4inches. That is much wider than all application of RFID tags used in timing systems I have seen, including that of the patentee. That said, obviously this patent should never have been granted at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note another example of prior art is patent [8,159,349][1] which states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A key characteristic of the encoder of the present invention is that the encoder encodes tags of many different types, shapes, sizes, and thicknesses; which includes efficiently encoding thick tags, tags that are **thicker than a sheet of paper because a foam layer is present**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8159349&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8576051" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5912" RevisionGUID="6e8cab6d-cf0a-49c2-8242-107aa2a6bc53" CreationDate="2014-01-23T07:55:45.003" UserId="7712" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="Astoundingly the patent was granted as [8,576,051][2] in November 2013. However, during prosecution the independent claims were narrowed to state the width of the spacer to be **&quot;greater than or equal to about 1/4 of a wavelength of the predetermined operating frequency.&quot;** The operating frequency is the UHF band of which a quarter wavelength is ~8.83cm or ~3.4inches. That is much wider than all applications of RFID tags used in timing systems I have seen, including that of the patentees' system. That said, obviously this patent should never have been granted at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note another example of prior art is patent [8,159,349][1] which states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A key characteristic of the encoder of the present invention is that the encoder encodes tags of many different types, shapes, sizes, and thicknesses; which includes efficiently encoding thick tags, tags that are **thicker than a sheet of paper because a foam layer is present**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8159349&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8576051" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5914" RevisionGUID="bcddf1c4-f506-4e81-aca8-4a37e7f69c7c" CreationDate="2014-01-23T17:33:53.473" UserId="3076" Text="You say you aren't sure if you checked the box. The box is on the ADS form, if you filed electronically you would have uploaded that form as a PDF. You should be able to look at the PDF and see if you checked that box or not. If you did not check it there is no way to change it for *this* application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the USPTO's MPEP 1122  Requests for Nonpublication&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **A nonpublication request must be filed upon the filing of the application. &lt; This is a statutory requirement and cannot be waived. &gt;** For example, a nonpublication request filed with a request under 37 CFR 1.53(c)(3) to convert a provisional application to a nonprovisional application will not be accepted as timely filed because the nonprovisional application would be accorded the original filing date of the provisional application if the request to convert is granted. The nonpublication request must also be included with the application papers. **The nonpublication request cannot be filed separately on the same date as the filing date of the application**(e.g., the nonpublication request is filed in a different “Express Mail” package than the package that contains the application). &lt; If the Office mistakenly accepts an improper nonpublication request, applicants should notify the Pre-Grant Publication Division and rescind the request immediately. See MPEP § 1730 for contact information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it were critical, one could file the whole thing all over again today. You would get a new application number and the filing date would be the same. After you are sure every thing was correct in the second filing the first application could expressly abandoned. Of course you would be paying the fees all over again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of this is tricky and please don't act solely on this educational information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5914" RevisionGUID="18b24437-432e-4a3c-b2a0-984ac3199c00" CreationDate="2014-01-23T18:13:24.213" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="You say you aren't sure if you checked the box. The box is on the ADS form, if you filed electronically you would have uploaded that form as a PDF. You should be able to look at the PDF and see if you checked that box or not. If you did not check it there is no way to change it for *this* application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the USPTO's MPEP 1122  Requests for Nonpublication&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **A nonpublication request must be filed upon the filing of the application. &lt; This is a statutory requirement and cannot be waived. &gt;** For example, a nonpublication request filed with a request under 37 CFR 1.53(c)(3) to convert a provisional application to a nonprovisional application will not be accepted as timely filed because the nonprovisional application would be accorded the original filing date of the provisional application if the request to convert is granted. The nonpublication request must also be included with the application papers. **The nonpublication request cannot be filed separately on the same date as the filing date of the application**(e.g., the nonpublication request is filed in a different “Express Mail” package than the package that contains the application). &lt; If the Office mistakenly accepts an improper nonpublication request, applicants should notify the Pre-Grant Publication Division and rescind the request immediately. See MPEP § 1730 for contact information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it were critical, one could file the whole thing all over again today. You would get a new application number and the filing date would be the same. After you are sure every thing was correct in the second filing, the first application could expressly abandoned. Of course you would be paying the fees all over again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of this is tricky and please don't act solely on this educational information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4221" RevisionGUID="02642dba-5784-4650-a427-ffae31f070f2" CreationDate="2014-01-23T19:58:02.877" UserId="1767" Comment="added 158 characters in body; edited tags" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON RFID Spacers** - This application seeks to patent the idea of... RFID spacers! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything else that was **published before Jan, 2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[us20110234383][1] (recently issued as [8,576,051][2], see [this answer][3])appears to be nothing more than **a patent for placing a foam spacer on the RFID tag to keep it away from the body of the runner**. These have been in use for as long as I can remember since RFID tags do not operate when directly placed in contact with an object that absorbs RF such as the human body or metal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, this blog post made within days of the application date http://rfidtiming.com/tech-talk-the-great-spacer-debate/ explains the problem and the solution that this patent filer is claiming to have invented. At the time of the blog post, the solution of using a foam spacer (explicitly noted in claim 64) was not new or novel. The post is notable in that it was explaining the problem that was known to anybody skilled in the art and the solution that was by then the accepted practice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note http://www.schreiner-group.com/3/company/press-room/schreiner-logidata/rfid-foam-label/ is a product with a press-release date of Aug-2010, a year before the application date. A simple google search for &quot;rfid tag foam spacer&quot; will return a number of products going back 5+ years before the application date. The problem was well known and the solution well implemented before 2011. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110234383&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8576051&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/5912/1767&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15410" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4221" RevisionGUID="02642dba-5784-4650-a427-ffae31f070f2" CreationDate="2014-01-23T19:58:02.877" UserId="1767" Comment="added 158 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;us8576051&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15411" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4221" RevisionGUID="02642dba-5784-4650-a427-ffae31f070f2" CreationDate="2014-01-23T19:58:02.877" UserId="1767" Comment="added 158 characters in body; edited tags" Text="RFID - Foam spacers used in timing tags - Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5728" RevisionGUID="a1edae16-2b24-4bf0-9c15-4838397e2697" CreationDate="2014-01-23T20:01:34.063" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON providing recommendations based on relative preferences across items for a customer.** - This application from [MIT][6] seeks to patent the idea of...identifying a relative preference list of all users, comparing a user's relative preference list with the canonical preference list, and inferring preferences of the user on the basis of comparison with other users. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/29/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Providing a personalized recommendation to a user regarding items that the user has not ranked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A user's preference is identified based on **pair-wise preferences** of items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining preferences of a user based on comparative rating across items.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Comparing preference of a user with identified preferences of all users and inferring preference of the user based on a correlation factor between the user preference and each of the identified preferences.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130054498 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/598,124&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: MIT&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/29/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for inferring the preferences of a user in relation to a population, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying a preference distribution of said population comprising a plurality of ranked lists and a weight of each of said plurality of ranked lists;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. comparing a revealed preference of said user to one of said plurality of ranked lists;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. assigning an affinity weight between said user and each of said plurality of ranked lists; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. taking a weighted average of each of said affinity weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for inferring preferences of a user, the method comprises the following steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying preferences of all users over a number of choices; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. comparing preferences of the user with each of the identified preferences;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. assigning a correlation factor between the user preferences and each of the identified preferences; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. averaging the assigned correlation factors to infer preferences of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/29/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A preference list  providing comparisons between every pair of items for a user is represented by a comparison matrix indexed by i and j, where entry (i, j) is set to 1 if item i is preferred to item j, and 0 otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Providing recommendations based on pair-wise comparison of items.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/1c7H9Dw.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130054498a1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://web.mit.edu/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130054498#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=08%2F29%2F2011&amp;t=1providing%20personalized%20recommendations.1ranked%20lists.1preference.0preference%20distribution.0revealed%20preference.0affinity%20weight.0population.0weighted%20average.0index.0sparse%20distribution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="ce69146f-4bd9-426b-a611-3a4d8f5cf03b" CreationDate="2014-01-23T20:01:52.690" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **Patent Application: **US20140019842** from Bank of America **reminds me a lot of [Software from Tableau](http://www.tableausoftware.com/)**.  I'm looking for a Tableau or other reference which can be given to the patent examiner to help block or narrow this patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overview: &quot;A set of measure/dimension boxes in an &quot;available fields&quot; region, which can then be dragged to &quot;Row&quot; or &quot;Column&quot; region.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was published before **7/11/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An apparatus, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a processor operable to:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Determine** a plurality of field identifiers of a data set, the data set comprising a plurality of data entries, a data entry comprising one or more data values, a data value associated with a field identifier of the plurality of field identifiers;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Generate** a plurality of field cells that each correspond to a field identifier of the plurality of field identifiers;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Display** the plurality of field cells within an available fields region; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Display** a column field region and a row field region, the column field region operable to define one or more columns of a pivot table, the row field region operable to define one or more rows of the pivot table; and&#xD;&#xA;an interface operable to accept a first input from a user; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wherein the processor is further operable to:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Move** a first field cell of the plurality of field cells from the available fields region to the column field region or the row field region in response to the first input from a user; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Update** the pivot table to include one or more rows or columns corresponding to the first field cell upon detection of the movement of the first field cell to the column field region or the row field region.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FIGURE FROM PATENT APPLICATION IN QUESTION&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FIGURE FROM &quot;Tableau&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question**: Can anyone find a reference to patents from Tableau (or any other company) which predates the subject patent application from Bank of America (filed 7/11/2012).  It definitely does not seem novel to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/fRd99.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/lzOS1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5900" RevisionGUID="333bc6b8-337c-4716-b228-8d82de05310e" CreationDate="2014-01-23T20:02:06.037" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON arranging transport amongst parties through use of mobile devices** - This application from [Uber][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Enabling customers to order drivers from a mobile phone and tracking the location of the driver as it arrives! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/4/2009** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Mobile phone-based taxi services&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Location of driver is displayed on a map on user's phone, user and driver can communicate with one another prior to pickup, and/or user is able to provide feedback on driver's service after the ride.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Arranging transportation among parties at different locations using a mobile phone**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] User at one location requests driver.  From a pool of candidate drivers, the user chooses a driver to pick him up.  The user's location is communicated to the driver, the driver's location is communicated to the user as the vehicle progresses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20110313804 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/961,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Uber&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/4/2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer implemented method for arranging transport amongst parties located at different locations, the method being implemented by one or more processors of a server and comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, at the server from a customer device at a first geographic location a request for transport, the request including information about the first geographic location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. In response to receiving the request, from a pool of candidate respondents, selecting, by the server and for a customer operating the customer device, a driver at a second geographic location based, at least in part, on location information of the candidate driver;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Communicating, by the server, an invitation to a corresponding device of the driver, the invitation enabling the driver to accept the invitation to provide transport for the customer and including (i) the first geographic location, and (ii) identification information of the customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Communicating, from the server to the customer device, a status of fulfilling the request for the customer, including communicating one or more notifications that informs the customer that the server is selecting the driver; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Once the dirver has accepted the invitation, communicating, from the server to the customer device, a location of the driver as the driver progresses to or arrives at the first geographic location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for arranging transport amongst parties located at different locations, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, a request for transport, the request including information about the first geographic location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a driver at a second geographic location from a pool of candidate driveres based, at least in part, on the location of the driver&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Inviting the driver to provide transport for the customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Informing the customer that the server is selecting the driver; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Communicating the location of the driver as the driver progresses to or arrives at the first geographic location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/4/2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Displaying driver location on a map, feedback system for user to rate driver (and vice-versa) after trip&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;User-interfaces as transportation is requested and provided&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/G2VcnfE.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Uber does not deserve this overly broad set of claims!  As just one example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **US 6,356,838 System and method for determining an efficient transportation route**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The driver then proceeds to the pickup point. As the driver continues on her way, she may update the passenger 170 of any changes to the arrival time estimate including, for example, the fact that she has arrived at the pickup point. &quot; from [US6356838][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you help find more Prior Art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110313804&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.uber.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20110313804#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=12%2F06%2F2010&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6356838&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5873" RevisionGUID="387a08ce-f3c8-47c9-96a4-cf01b1959c0f" CreationDate="2014-01-23T20:02:20.067" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON offering coupons based on an item of interest at a user's location** - This application from [Ebay][6] seeks to patent the idea of...determining the geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item at the geographic location, and generating an incentive offered by a merchant based on the determined geographic location and the identified item.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 3/17/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Presenting incentives offered by nearby merchants based on an item identified at the geographic location of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Incentives may be discounts, sales, rebates, coupons, **item recommendations** etc. A user may specify an item of interest using various input means of a mobile device such as **text identification**, **audio identification**, **machine-readable symbol identification**, **image identification**, or **video identification**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining incentives related to items identified at user location**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Determining geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item specified via the mobile device at the determined geographic location, generating an incentive offered by a merchant within a fixed geographic area based on the determined geographic location and the identified item, and expanding the fixed geographic area when the generated incentive is not related to the identified item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120239483 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/339,235&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Ebay&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a first module configured to determine a geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a second module configured to identify an item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device via an optical input of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a processor-implemented incentive module configured to generate a limited-time incentive offer from at least one merchant within a predefined geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device, the limited-time incentive offer based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device, and to expand the predefined geographic area when the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device does not correspond to any item identified in the at least one limited-time incentive offer of the at least one merchant within the predefined geographic area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising various modules to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identify an item specified at the determined geographic location via an **optical** input to the mobile device (the example given is the phone reading the bar code of the item using its camera);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Generate limited-time incentive offers from merchants within a fixed geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Expand the fixed geographic area if the generated limited-time incentive offers are not related to the specified item,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * The limited-time incentive offers are based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A user preference setting to define a search radius and preferred merchants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Offering incentives related to an item based on geographic location of the item&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NioC9f0.png&quot; width=&quot;450&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120239483&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ebayinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120239483#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=03%2F17%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5891" RevisionGUID="9eed5358-8622-42d7-a236-fb62696bcfc2" CreationDate="2014-01-23T20:02:32.960" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON performing frequency analysis on the occurrence of target words in a stream of words** - This application from [Citizennet][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Generating a discrete time sequence of counts for a target word, performing frequency analysis of the generated discrete time sequence, and determining that the target keyword is a trending keyword based on the frequency analysis! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/7/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Detecting trends from a stream of words based on frequency analysis of word counts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Streams of words are taken from **word sources** such as **news stories**, tweets, posts on **social networking sites**, or **blog entries**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determine whether a target word is a trending keyword based on frequency analysis of discrete time sequence of counts for the target word**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Generating a discrete time sequence of counts for a target word from a stream of words, performing frequency analysis of the generated discrete time sequence to determine contributions of frequency components within different frequency ranges, and determining that the target keyword is a trending keyword based on the frequency analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130036107 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/568,851&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Citizennet&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/7/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for trend detection, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Generating a discrete time sequence of word counts for a target word using a trend detection device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Performing frequency analysis of the discrete time sequence of word counts to determine contributions of frequency components within different frequency ranges to the discrete time sequence of word counts using the trend detection device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Detecting that the target word is a trending keyword based upon at least the frequency analysis of the discrete time sequence of word counts for the target word using the trend detection device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for trend detection, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Generating a discrete time sequence of counts for a target word;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Performing frequency analysis of the generated discrete time sequence to measure frequency of target word counts within different frequency ranges; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Detecting that the target word is a trending keyword based on the frequency analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/7/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Performing **frequency analysis** refers to applying **discrete Fourier transform** to the **discrete time sequence** of counts for the target word(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Trend detection using frequency analysis of streams of words&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/UBd9kRB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;650&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130036107&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://citizennet.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130036107#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=08%2F07%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5916" RevisionGUID="46b4ebf3-f5f3-41a8-af5a-e4a7b639f1d2" CreationDate="2014-01-23T22:00:13.980" UserId="2029" Text="hypothetical question. Let's assume someone else's patent has expired due to non-payment, and we release a product that that would potentially have infringed on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three months later they see our product has gone live and file a petition to get the maintenance fee renewed and it gets granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where does that leave us legally? When our product came out the patent was expired/invalid, and they dug it out of the grave - would we be legally safe or are we infringing once the patent fees are paid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15418" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5916" RevisionGUID="46b4ebf3-f5f3-41a8-af5a-e4a7b639f1d2" CreationDate="2014-01-23T22:00:13.980" UserId="2029" Text="Expired patent - non-payment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15419" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5916" RevisionGUID="46b4ebf3-f5f3-41a8-af5a-e4a7b639f1d2" CreationDate="2014-01-23T22:00:13.980" UserId="2029" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5918" RevisionGUID="8df1e479-b898-4d43-bc6a-4d0b3a83ef11" CreationDate="2014-01-24T10:33:11.007" UserId="7546" Text="I see a couple of things. One is that they are just putting some of the UI in different places, the columns to the left of the table and the rows above and  &quot;in the same window' as the table, as opposed to in a separate window the way it is in Excel. Also notice how it's not just a list of fields, it's a box with all the properties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(And they seem to claim the color thing is important, not sure what that is about).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we'd want to find something that that same window feature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know that all of that is new  different enough, but it is definitely different.  But, I'm thinking there probably is something else out there that isn't Excel. I haven't looked at Tableau yet but that could be it. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5919" RevisionGUID="bd439db9-af74-466f-b0ed-02792d1a8db5" CreationDate="2014-01-24T14:25:13.707" UserId="7725" Text="Would Wordle be in the right direction as prior art, or is this not specific enough?&#xD;&#xA;http://www.wordle.net/ There are examples on the Wordle website which are  5+ years old. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also found a blog from 2009 which contextually appears the same as &quot;Detecting trends from a stream of words based on frequency analysis of word counts&quot;. The blog author states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I used Wordle to make the &quot;word cloud&quot; below out of the text from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; President Obama's speech to Congress. I chose a setting to display the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 25 most frequently used words in his speech. Glad to see that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; education made the top 25 of his verbal agenda!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.peterpappas.com/2009/02/president-obamas-address-to-congress-22409-education-in-the-top-25.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure about the 'Generating time sequence' step mind you. Any ideas how a 'Generating time sequence' would appear in prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps a bit&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5920" RevisionGUID="8f836ebe-b998-4444-85ed-394bdeffdbee" CreationDate="2014-01-24T15:06:13.723" UserId="7725" Text="I found a Microsoft patent which might be related. 'Ranking search results using click-based data':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication number	US8370337 B2&#xD;&#xA;Application number	US 12/762,929&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US8370337?dq=using+data+to+search&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=_HviUprvKILfkAXI7YDgBw&amp;ved=0CGsQ6AEwCA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent include capturing click-based data which influences subsequent search result, so in a sense it is building its on trending data source. I have noticed this type of behavior when searching via Google, where my previous searches influence my subsequent search results. Internally it would be building trending data about my searching profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The one bit of the IBM patent which I cant wrap my head around is 'trend data indicating content creation trends'. This seems very Content Management System (CMS) focused, in the sense, a user authors content then searches. I wonder if the use case which lead to the patent was as a helper function to CMS content producers. for example, I only create sport related articles, therefore when I search previous articles I'd like my results focused on sport (could a be a helper to find references and citations or maybe my previous articles) &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5921" RevisionGUID="d068604e-8a98-4b35-aba8-de64010da956" CreationDate="2014-01-24T17:34:22.220" UserId="3076" Text="This is covered in the USPTO MPEP:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2591    Intervening Rights in Reinstated Patents**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Intervening rights in reinstated patents are provided by 35 U.S.C.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 41(c)(2) which is reproduced in MPEP § 2501. No patent, the term of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which has been maintained as a result of the acceptance of a late&#xD;&#xA;&gt; payment of a maintenance fee, shall abridge or affect the right of any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; person or his or her successors in business who made, purchased,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; imported, or used after the 6-month grace period but prior to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; acceptance of the late maintenance fee anything protected by the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent, to continue the use or importation of, or to sell to others to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be used or sold, the specific things made, purchased, imported, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; used. A court before which such matter is in question may provide for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the continued manufacture, use, importation, or sale of the thing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; made, purchased, imported, or used as specified, or for the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; manufacture, use, importation, or sale of which substantial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; preparation was made after the 6-month grace period but before the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; acceptance of the late maintenance fee, and it may also provide for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the continued practice of any process, practiced, or for the practice&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of which substantial preparation was made, after the 6-month grace&#xD;&#xA;&gt; period but prior to the acceptance of the late maintenance fee, to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; extent and under such terms as the court deems equitable for the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; protection of investments made or business commenced after the 6-month&#xD;&#xA;&gt; grace period but before the acceptance of the late maintenance fee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5914" RevisionGUID="72b72a54-7bb2-4068-a869-c4f9460dbcad" CreationDate="2014-01-24T19:08:35.430" UserId="3076" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="You say you aren't sure if you checked the box. The box is on the ADS form, if you filed electronically you would have uploaded that form as a PDF. You should be able to look at the PDF and see if you checked that box or not. If you did not check it there is no way to change it for *this* application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the USPTO's MPEP 1122  Requests for Nonpublication&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **A nonpublication request must be filed upon the filing of the application. &lt; This is a statutory requirement and cannot be waived. &gt;** For example, a nonpublication request filed with a request under 37 CFR 1.53(c)(3) to convert a provisional application to a nonprovisional application will not be accepted as timely filed because the nonprovisional application would be accorded the original filing date of the provisional application if the request to convert is granted. The nonpublication request must also be included with the application papers. **The nonpublication request cannot be filed separately on the same date as the filing date of the application**(e.g., the nonpublication request is filed in a different “Express Mail” package than the package that contains the application). &lt; If the Office mistakenly accepts an improper nonpublication request, applicants should notify the Pre-Grant Publication Division and rescind the request immediately. See MPEP § 1730 for contact information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it were critical, one could file the whole thing all over again - with the box checked - today. You would get a new application number and the filing date would be the same. After you are sure every thing was correct in the second filing, the first application could expressly abandoned. Of course you would be paying the fees all over again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of this is tricky and please don't act solely on this educational information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5768" RevisionGUID="ea870023-c4a4-4075-8852-d555eaf5bfdc" CreationDate="2014-01-24T21:31:08.180" UserId="3076" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="Two or three issues involved with this. A patent that expired due to non-payment of maintance fee can be revived by petition as either unintentional or unavoidable. Unintentional has a two-year limit and unavoidable is very hard to establish. Only the patent owner can file these, not just anyone who comes along. Even if revived there are intervening rights (after the 6 mo. grace period) to anyone who started practicing the patent while it was dead to keep doing what they were doing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of this pertains to the claimed subject matter. Anything taught in the patent that was never claimed is &quot;dedicated to the public&quot; right away. Of course something taught but not claimed in patent X might very well be patented in some other patent Y." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5923" RevisionGUID="f9e1591c-03dc-4869-8335-e7461fec3fe6" CreationDate="2014-01-24T23:08:11.560" UserId="7728" Text="Would publishing an idea to an invention (on the internet) act as a prior art with a priority date in a later fild patent application? For how long such protection lasts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if someone has an idea to an invention such as a software application but still need time and money to acually reduce it to practice, so he cant yet file a full patent application. A US provisional patent application is a possible solution but also involve fees and allows only one year to file actual application which inventor thinks not sufficient. would publishing the idea behind such invention act as a first defense allowing more time for inventor at a lower cost than provisional application of patent? What disclosure options count? Recognized Websites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Help much appreciated" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15433" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5923" RevisionGUID="f9e1591c-03dc-4869-8335-e7461fec3fe6" CreationDate="2014-01-24T23:08:11.560" UserId="7728" Text="Public disclosure, then patent filing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15434" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5923" RevisionGUID="f9e1591c-03dc-4869-8335-e7461fec3fe6" CreationDate="2014-01-24T23:08:11.560" UserId="7728" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5826" RevisionGUID="74251b14-ccef-4a45-b819-f52407e68b08" CreationDate="2014-01-24T23:33:40.243" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON prioritizing search results based on content creation trends of terms in the search results** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving search results in response to a search query, ranking the search results, retrieving trend data related to terms in the search results, weighting the ranked search results according to the trend data, and displaying the weighted ranked search results! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ranking search results based on trend data related to terms in the search results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - **Trend data** indicates an extent to which a content associated with the terms in the **search query** and/or **search results** have been requested and/or retrieved by other users, or created by other users for example in the form of **blog entries**, **wiki pages**, **news stories**, **twitter tweets** and the like, and can be provided by a **trend service** such as the &quot;Insights&quot; (TM'') tool provided by Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Weighting rank of search results based on trend data related to terms in the search results**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving search results in response to a search query, ranking the search results according to a ranking factor, retrieving trend data that indicates a degree to which documents associated with the terms in the search results have been created, weighting the rank of the search results based on the trend data, and displaying the weighted rank of the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120323879 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/411,579&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/18/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for ranking search results based upon content creation trends, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a result set of results from a search engine produced in response to a search engine query of a plurality of search terms;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Ranking the results of the result set according to at least one ranking factor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Retrieving trend data indicating content creation trends from a trend feed offered by a commercial trend service for terms associated with the results of the result set, the trend data including data indicating a degree to which documents in the form of blog entries, wiki pages, news stories, and twitter tweets associated with the plurality of search terms corresponding to the results of the result set have been created;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Weighting the ranked results in the result set according to the retrieved trend data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying the weighted ranked results in response to the search engine query.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for ranking search results, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving search results from a search engine in response to a search query;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Ranking the search results based on a ranking factor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3a. Retrieving trend data related to search terms of the search results,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3b. The trend data indicates a degree to which contents related to terms in the search results have been created;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Weighting the ranked search results according to trend data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying the weighted search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Weight for each rank corresponding to the search results is computed based upon a combination of 1. a mutual expectation function that measures how likely a search term of the search query giving rise to the corresponding search results and an additional search term not included in the search query will occur together, 2. a mutual dependency function measuring how strongly the additional search term relates to the search terms in current content creation, and 3. a relevancy function calculating relevancy of the search terms to the corresponding search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Prioritizing search results based on terms in the search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/UNF7yfX.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;900&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120323879&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120323879#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=06%2F14%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5873" RevisionGUID="d54f8746-7bae-4edc-8b45-ec32f4905832" CreationDate="2014-01-24T23:33:52.180" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON offering coupons based on an item of interest at a user's location** - This application from [Ebay][6] seeks to patent the idea of...determining the geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item at the geographic location, and generating an incentive offered by a merchant based on the determined geographic location and the identified item.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 3/17/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Presenting incentives offered by nearby merchants based on an item identified at the geographic location of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Incentives may be discounts, sales, rebates, coupons, **item recommendations** etc. A user may specify an item of interest using various input means of a mobile device such as **text identification**, **audio identification**, **machine-readable symbol identification**, **image identification**, or **video identification**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining incentives related to items identified at user location**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Determining geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item specified via the mobile device at the determined geographic location, generating an incentive offered by a merchant within a fixed geographic area based on the determined geographic location and the identified item, and expanding the fixed geographic area when the generated incentive is not related to the identified item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120239483 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/339,235&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Ebay&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a first module configured to determine a geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a second module configured to identify an item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device via an optical input of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a processor-implemented incentive module configured to generate a limited-time incentive offer from at least one merchant within a predefined geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device, the limited-time incentive offer based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device, and to expand the predefined geographic area when the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device does not correspond to any item identified in the at least one limited-time incentive offer of the at least one merchant within the predefined geographic area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising various modules to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identify an item specified at the determined geographic location via an **optical** input to the mobile device (the example given is the phone reading the bar code of the item using its camera);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Generate limited-time incentive offers from merchants within a fixed geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Expand the fixed geographic area if the generated limited-time incentive offers are not related to the specified item,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * The limited-time incentive offers are based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A user preference setting to define a search radius and preferred merchants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Offering incentives related to an item based on geographic location of the item&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NioC9f0.png&quot; width=&quot;450&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120239483&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ebayinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120239483#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=03%2F17%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5900" RevisionGUID="07cafa80-8167-4d4a-a669-51600f3dc5f3" CreationDate="2014-01-24T23:34:06.463" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON arranging transport amongst parties through use of mobile devices** - This application from [Uber][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Enabling customers to order drivers from a mobile phone and tracking the location of the driver as it arrives! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/4/2009** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Mobile phone-based taxi services&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Location of driver is displayed on a map on user's phone, user and driver can communicate with one another prior to pickup, and/or user is able to provide feedback on driver's service after the ride.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Arranging transportation among parties at different locations using a mobile phone**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] User at one location requests driver.  From a pool of candidate drivers, the user chooses a driver to pick him up.  The user's location is communicated to the driver, the driver's location is communicated to the user as the vehicle progresses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20110313804 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/961,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Uber&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/4/2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer implemented method for arranging transport amongst parties located at different locations, the method being implemented by one or more processors of a server and comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, at the server from a customer device at a first geographic location a request for transport, the request including information about the first geographic location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. In response to receiving the request, from a pool of candidate respondents, selecting, by the server and for a customer operating the customer device, a driver at a second geographic location based, at least in part, on location information of the candidate driver;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Communicating, by the server, an invitation to a corresponding device of the driver, the invitation enabling the driver to accept the invitation to provide transport for the customer and including (i) the first geographic location, and (ii) identification information of the customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Communicating, from the server to the customer device, a status of fulfilling the request for the customer, including communicating one or more notifications that informs the customer that the server is selecting the driver; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Once the dirver has accepted the invitation, communicating, from the server to the customer device, a location of the driver as the driver progresses to or arrives at the first geographic location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for arranging transport amongst parties located at different locations, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, a request for transport, the request including information about the first geographic location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a driver at a second geographic location from a pool of candidate driveres based, at least in part, on the location of the driver&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Inviting the driver to provide transport for the customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Informing the customer that the server is selecting the driver; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Communicating the location of the driver as the driver progresses to or arrives at the first geographic location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/4/2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Displaying driver location on a map, feedback system for user to rate driver (and vice-versa) after trip&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;User-interfaces as transportation is requested and provided&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/G2VcnfE.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Uber does not deserve this overly broad set of claims!  As just one example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **US 6,356,838 System and method for determining an efficient transportation route**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The driver then proceeds to the pickup point. As the driver continues on her way, she may update the passenger 170 of any changes to the arrival time estimate including, for example, the fact that she has arrived at the pickup point. &quot; from [US6356838][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you help find more Prior Art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110313804&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.uber.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20110313804#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=12%2F06%2F2010&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6356838&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5881" RevisionGUID="63bd7db9-0eb2-40d4-8f98-a2a180255e34" CreationDate="2014-01-24T23:34:23.260" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON initiating a vendor check-in procedure on a customer's mobile device** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving a customer's location, comparing the customer location with a list of vendor locations, and identifying vendors based on the comparison! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 4/1/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Identifying vendors based on customer location and initiating check-in for an identified vendor on customer's mobile device &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Check-in includes displaying a vendor's **promotional video**, displaying a vendor's **threshold reward status**, updating **game status** of the customer, etc. on the customer's **mobile device**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Initiating vendor check-in or displaying a map of nearby vendors on a customer's mobile device based on location of the customer**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving location of a customer from a mobile device of the customer, comparing the location of the customer with a list of vendor locations, initiating vendor check-in on the mobile device if the customer corresponds to a vendor associated with the list of vendor locations, and displaying a map showing location of vendors within a fixed distance of the customer location if the customer location does not correspond to any of the vendor locations in the list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120253902 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/435,115&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 4/1/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/2/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A location-based marketing method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, by a computing device, a participating customer location from a mobile communication device of said participating customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Comparing, by said computing device, said participating customer location to a list of participating vendor locations;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. If said participating customer location corresponds to one of said participating vendor locations, initiating by said computing device a vendor check-in procedure on said mobile communication; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. If said participating customer location does not correspond to one of said participating vendor locations, initiating by said computing device, a map displaying participating vendor locations within a predetermined distance of said participating customer location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for location-based marketing comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving customer location from a mobile  device of the participating customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Comparing location of the participating customer to a list of participating vendor locations;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Initiating a vendor check-in procedure on the mobile  device if the location of the participating customer corresponds to any of the participating vendor locations; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Displaying a map showing locations of participating vendors within a fixed distance from the location of the participating customer if the location of the participating customer does not correspond to any of the participating vendor locations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 4/1/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Designating one or more identified vendors under various categories of a **marketing game** played by the customer on the **mobile device**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Initiate vendor check-in on a customer's mobile device&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/bTHjUMs.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120253902&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120253902#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=04%2F01%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="2914c2cc-948a-428b-b318-60471c1dbb8c" CreationDate="2014-01-24T23:34:40.873" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions** - This application from [Smart Destinations, Inc][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Enhanced data collection and reporting for improved ticket pricing and marketing. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/15/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Enhanced data collection related to a customer's travel path in order to improve ticket pricing and marketing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Dynamically pricing and validating access to goods, services, attractions, events and other items&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Method for enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving an identification of a location of a user and a **first attraction** selected for access by a user, determining a **travel path** between the location of the user and the **first attraction**, identifying a **second attraction** within a predetermined distance from the **travel path**, and transmitting an offer of access to the **second attraction** to a computing device of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120323691 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/523,213&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Smart Destinations, Inc.][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/15/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/18/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, by a first device, an identification of a location of a user and a first attraction selected for access by a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining, by a path analyzer, a travel path between the location of the user and the first attraction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identifying, by the path analyzer, a second attraction within a predetermined distance from the travel path; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmitting, by the first device to a computing device of the user, an offer of access to the second attraction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for better customer marketing based on customer path data between attractions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receive an identification of a user's location and a first attraction selected for access by the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determine a travel path between the location of the user and the first attraction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identify a second attraction within a predetermined distance from the travel path; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmit an offer of access to the second attraction to a computing device of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/15/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Identifying the second attraction based on a net price. The  net price being below a net price threshold or an average customer visit time of the second attraction being above a visit time threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Location-based marketing for attraction access&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/gIUuqQa.png&quot; width=&quot;315&quot; height=&quot;458&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120323691&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.smartdestinations.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120323691" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5924" RevisionGUID="18e51cd6-b919-446b-b010-6be30f4b6314" CreationDate="2014-01-24T23:54:10.193" UserId="3076" Text="The current fee for filing a U.S. provisional application is $65 if you qualify as a &quot;micro-entity&quot;, otherwise is $130 for a small entity. If that difference ($65) seems like a lot to you I am guessing you qualify for micro entity. The criteria are (1) income in previous year less that $150,000. (2) Not have filed more that four U.S. patents ever, not including provisional applications and applications done for an employer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new AIA U.S. patent law does allow a publication by the inventor to be used to keep other people's work that is exactly the same or almost exactly the same from being used as prior art for a year. It is more complicated than that however and the provisional application is well worth the $65 if you later plan to file on it. It can be filed on line. If you do not want to file for rights to your idea, just keep other from being able to file, then publish it instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5925" RevisionGUID="ee340efc-0191-4c51-9172-b00ee9a2507d" CreationDate="2014-01-25T02:49:30.167" UserId="7725" Text="Here are some notes from my research. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a product called CallGuard which is in a similar space. The difference is that the apparatus defined in the patent application stops the real-time DTMF tones being sent to the callee's phone. Therefore the callee is never exposed to the DTMF tones where as CallGuard appears stops the callee seeing (via CTI) them and the call recorder recording them but doesn't mention the actual tones being passed to the callee's phone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears the patent applicant is applying the technology to the Voip/SIP world therefore I'd expect this pattern of hiding DTMF to reside in a Session Border Controller (SBC) or the real-time configuring of the SBC if it were prior art. I wonder if there is also prior art in the PSTN world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree, this application is overbroad. The special sauce looks to be detecting when PCI impacting values are entered via DTMF and removing them from the data stream but passing through general DTMF tones which dont have PCI impacts. Something a-kin what a firewall does in terms of rules/pattern matching.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application looks to define the general problem space and not novel bits. I'd expect it to be &quot;A method for matching DTMF tones based on rules&quot;. The real-time turning off/on DTMF is neither-nor-there and is a feature id expect from SBCs or like configurable devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.callguard.co/callguard/how-callguard-works/&#xD;&#xA;http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/routers/asr1000/configuration/guide/sbcu/sbc_dtmf.html#wp1168784" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5926" RevisionGUID="12fe13b9-1eb5-4cc9-b0cc-9c4b1c6cb7d1" CreationDate="2014-01-25T04:10:53.367" UserId="7725" Text="Would the use case defined in the patent application be analogous to automated taxi dispatching. Where the patent refers to a 'shipped package' this is not to dissimilar to a taxi driver who is driving round without a passenger, in the sense they have already shipped their service/product/package to a region and don't have a delivery address (as there is no passenger).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found these patents which are related to taxi dispatching:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 'Taxi dispatching to a region' (US8469153 B2) filed in 2010. &#xD;&#xA; - 'Taxi dispatching system and dispatching method' (US20060034201 A1) filed 2005&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Amazon patent does appear to broad. It looks like the special sauce would be determining which packages to preemptively send to a region not the actual process of delivery as defined in the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure if the taxi analogy holds up but it sounds like the same problem/solution just a different context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US8469153?dq=taxi+dispatching+location&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=8DTjUqCuI8GdkwX1koDYBw&amp;ved=0CGAQ6AEwBQ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US20060034201?pg=PA9&amp;dq=taxi+dispatching+location&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=LzfjUtLZIMihkAXqioHACA&amp;ved=0CGcQ6AEwBg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5926" RevisionGUID="38777dfc-c490-4948-9e25-5896835bc852" CreationDate="2014-01-25T05:40:12.367" UserId="7490" Comment="Too not to" Text="Would the use case defined in the patent application be analogous to automated taxi dispatching. Where the patent refers to a 'shipped package' this is not to dissimilar to a taxi driver who is driving round without a passenger, in the sense they have already shipped their service/product/package to a region and don't have a delivery address (as there is no passenger).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found these patents which are related to taxi dispatching:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 'Taxi dispatching to a region' (US8469153 B2) filed in 2010. &#xD;&#xA; - 'Taxi dispatching system and dispatching method' (US20060034201 A1) filed 2005&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Amazon patent does appear too broad. The special sauce would be determining which packages to preemptively send to a region not the actual process of delivery as defined in the application. Not sure if the taxi analogy holds up but it sounds like the same problem/solution just a different context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US8469153?dq=taxi+dispatching+location&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=8DTjUqCuI8GdkwX1koDYBw&amp;ved=0CGAQ6AEwBQ&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US20060034201?pg=PA9&amp;dq=taxi+dispatching+location&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=LzfjUtLZIMihkAXqioHACA&amp;ved=0CGcQ6AEwBg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15449" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5926" RevisionGUID="38777dfc-c490-4948-9e25-5896835bc852" CreationDate="2014-01-25T05:40:12.367" Comment="Proposed by 7490 approved by 7725 edit id of 489" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5928" RevisionGUID="592f2e64-a7cf-4d4a-8cc5-56b0a9cec762" CreationDate="2014-01-25T14:37:16.493" UserId="7608" Text="Simple old fashioned way - completely and in detail describe your idea/invention on the paper, put everything to the postal letter, glue - take to the Post office and send it to YOURSELF. When you will receive your own letter on your address - do not open it, save in that closed way for the court. The official postal date stamp on letter is the only and main proof of the date of invention, this letter must be given to the hands of judge - which can open it and make sure that you're the first author and all registered patents will be forced to reflect this discovery.&#xD;&#xA;The notarial registration of the copy can also be used.&#xD;&#xA;This is very old primitive but effective way and many patenting troll companies are really fear such things like unknown author which can show anytime to bring the claims for the invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5930" RevisionGUID="5451e3d4-b7aa-4eb7-b566-adb41b40034d" CreationDate="2014-01-25T14:54:30.113" UserId="7608" Text="Hm, &quot;The invention described herein was made in the performance of work under a **NASA contract**&quot; but no info about that contract...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, american taxpayers paid for this, without knowing that everything was later used to make a personal intellectual property for some people.&#xD;&#xA;As i know all inventions what was made by NASA for taxpayers money can be used by any american company in special request to use as prior art and etc. One startup effectively used this bureaucratic procedure for their own project of new space shuttle. It's easy in fact." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5931" RevisionGUID="5f66e0ff-cfe4-419e-aae4-ab81af04fc1c" CreationDate="2014-01-25T15:09:58.777" UserId="7608" Text="Thomas Edison tried to sue many early Hollywood studios for using invention of 35mm film (registered on his name in USA, but he's not the inventor of cinema at all), but without big effectiveness and that's why Hollywood was founded near mexican border in Los Angeles - everyone who can be fined by court marshals easily just running through the border and later returns back." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5932" RevisionGUID="4c16601c-b81c-47e3-b49a-f5be01b3c3de" CreationDate="2014-01-25T21:46:31.090" UserId="3076" Text="Near the front of many patents there is a statement saying the work was partially or fully supported by a U.S. Government grant. Does that mean that the U.S. Government automatically owns all that IP?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15462" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5932" RevisionGUID="4c16601c-b81c-47e3-b49a-f5be01b3c3de" CreationDate="2014-01-25T21:46:31.090" UserId="3076" Text="Are all U.S. patents that state they were developed with support of a U.S. government grant essentially owned by the U.S" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15463" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5932" RevisionGUID="4c16601c-b81c-47e3-b49a-f5be01b3c3de" CreationDate="2014-01-25T21:46:31.090" UserId="3076" Text="&lt;government-rights&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5933" RevisionGUID="b0f7b494-98b8-4ae2-8283-34d736f5529b" CreationDate="2014-01-25T21:52:20.577" UserId="3076" Text="No, under the Bayh-Dole act the law was changed to permit the grantee to own the IP but, of course any deliverables under the grant need to be provided to the granting agency. Before 1980 *all* IP developed with government $ belonged to the U.S. This change was made to spur the economy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Bayh–Dole Act or Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act (Pub. L. 96-517, December 12, 1980) is United States legislation dealing with intellectual property arising from federal government-funded research. Sponsored by two senators, Birch Bayh of Indiana and Bob Dole of Kansas, the Act was adopted in 1980, is codified at 94 Stat. 3015, and in 35 U.S.C. § 200-212,[1] and is implemented by 37 C.F.R. 401.[2]&#xD;&#xA;The key change made by Bayh-Dole was in ownership of inventions made with federal funding. Before the Bayh–Dole Act, federal research funding contracts and grants obligated inventors (where ever they worked) to assign inventions they made using federal funding to the federal government.[3] Bayh-Dole permits a university, small business, or non-profit institution to elect to pursue ownership of an invention in preference to the government.[4]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15465" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5932" RevisionGUID="35a3beb2-70b7-48e2-b493-21454d1cf0a4" CreationDate="2014-01-25T22:05:52.627" UserId="3076" Comment="edited title" Text="Are all U.S. patents that state they were developed with support of a U.S. government grant essentially owned by the U.S?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5937" RevisionGUID="811fc4b6-c7f3-4f22-8d30-0fca72f916f7" CreationDate="2014-01-26T12:28:26.493" UserId="7740" Text="Although the invention has been defined using the appended claims, these claims are exemplary in that the invention may be intended to include the elements and steps described herein in any combination or sub combination. Accordingly, there are any number of alternative combinations for defining the invention, which incorporate one or more elements from the specification, including the description, claims, and drawings, in various combinations or sub combinations. It will be apparent to those skilled in the relevant technology, in light of the present specification, that alternate combinations of aspects of the invention, either alone or in combination with one or more elements or steps defined herein, may be utilized as modifications or alterations of the invention or as part of the invention. It may be intended that the written description of the invention contained herein covers all such modifications and alterations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15480" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5937" RevisionGUID="811fc4b6-c7f3-4f22-8d30-0fca72f916f7" CreationDate="2014-01-26T12:28:26.493" UserId="7740" Text="is this typical,for a patent, to describe 'any and all combinations' of all aforementioned technologies" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15481" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5937" RevisionGUID="811fc4b6-c7f3-4f22-8d30-0fca72f916f7" CreationDate="2014-01-26T12:28:26.493" UserId="7740" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5937" RevisionGUID="7f96db38-f2d9-486a-9518-a78268b1f693" CreationDate="2014-01-26T12:34:50.700" UserId="7740" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="Although the invention has been defined using the appended claims, these claims are exemplary in that the invention may be intended to include the elements and steps described herein in any combination or sub combination. Accordingly, there are any number of alternative combinations for defining the invention, which incorporate one or more elements from the specification, including the description, claims, and drawings, in various combinations or sub combinations. It will be apparent to those skilled in the relevant technology, in light of the present specification, that alternate combinations of aspects of the invention, either alone or in combination with one or more elements or steps defined herein, may be utilized as modifications or alterations of the invention or as part of the invention. It may be intended that the written description of the invention contained herein covers all such modifications and alterations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.it/patents/US7227511" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5939" RevisionGUID="a10c58bb-99a2-46dd-9ecb-ce0c65bd471d" CreationDate="2014-01-26T16:53:07.313" UserId="3076" Text="It is typical to have some sort of &quot;boilerplate&quot; language. It doesn't usually help the patentee very much. I listened to the oral arguments in an patent appeal case and, paraphrasing, a judge said to one of the attorneys &quot;Are you asking us to give weight to language in about half of all patents that we have always ignored?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This specific language about combining features of alternate versions can be useful. Let's say three versions of a hammer are described in detail. If a claim is broad enough to cover any of the heads on any of the handles, the applicant would hate to have some combination declared as something not mentioned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5940" RevisionGUID="d332a904-c95a-4bc3-af83-859ce05e286f" CreationDate="2014-01-26T19:44:27.513" UserId="7742" Text="What are the key elements needed to prove Concept after getting a provisional patent filing accepted in order to complete a final filing documents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15490" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5940" RevisionGUID="d332a904-c95a-4bc3-af83-859ce05e286f" CreationDate="2014-01-26T19:44:27.513" UserId="7742" Text="Final Patent Filing Procedure" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15491" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5940" RevisionGUID="d332a904-c95a-4bc3-af83-859ce05e286f" CreationDate="2014-01-26T19:44:27.513" UserId="7742" Text="&lt;procceures&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5937" RevisionGUID="9e2f0265-f07a-4159-b957-9c976de786fb" CreationDate="2014-01-26T19:59:09.683" UserId="3076" Comment="added claim 1" Text="Although the invention has been defined using the appended claims, these claims are exemplary in that the invention may be intended to include the elements and steps described herein in any combination or sub combination. Accordingly, there are any number of alternative combinations for defining the invention, which incorporate one or more elements from the specification, including the description, claims, and drawings, in various combinations or sub combinations. It will be apparent to those skilled in the relevant technology, in light of the present specification, that alternate combinations of aspects of the invention, either alone or in combination with one or more elements or steps defined herein, may be utilized as modifications or alterations of the invention or as part of the invention. It may be intended that the written description of the invention contained herein covers all such modifications and alterations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.it/patents/US7227511&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. In a computer system including a host computer,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a main display unit and a remote peripheral device having an auxiliary display unit, the remote peripheral device communicating with the host computer, a method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;providing at the remote peripheral device notification of an event received from a source application at the host computer;&#xD;&#xA;responsive to a first user input at the remote peripheral device, &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;displaying on the auxiliary display unit information associated with the event;&#xD;&#xA;forming a query based upon the first user input;&#xD;&#xA;responsive to a second user input at the remote peripheral device, &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;executing the query to cause the source application to be launched by the host computer;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;displaying on the auxiliary display unit a plurality of first soft labels representing a plurality of applications, including an application associated with the event;&#xD;&#xA;responsive to actuation of a first button on the remote peripheral device associated with one of the first soft labels representing the application, &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;displaying on the auxiliary display unit a plurality of second soft labels, each second soft label representing a different function within the application, the second soft labels replacing the first soft labels on the auxiliary display unit; and&#xD;&#xA;responsive to actuation of a second button on the remote peripheral device associated with one of the second soft labels, &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;executing a function within the application on the remote peripheral device,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the first user input includes actuation of the first button followed by actuation of the second button." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15493" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5937" RevisionGUID="9e2f0265-f07a-4159-b957-9c976de786fb" CreationDate="2014-01-26T19:59:09.683" UserId="3076" Comment="added claim 1" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5939" RevisionGUID="6412b504-af31-4af4-a71b-c52de51fee13" CreationDate="2014-01-26T20:02:29.120" UserId="3076" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="It is typical to have some sort of &quot;boilerplate&quot; language. It doesn't usually help the patentee very much. I listened to the oral arguments in an patent appeal case and, paraphrasing, a judge said to one of the attorneys &quot;Are you asking us to give weight to language in about half of all patents that we have always ignored?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This specific language about combining features of alternate versions can be useful. Let's say three versions of a hammer are described in detail. If a claim is broad enough to cover any of the heads on any of the handles, the applicant would hate to have some permutation of head and handle declared as something not mentioned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5942" RevisionGUID="733c336e-c1c1-487f-9567-eac51df3d7f0" CreationDate="2014-01-26T23:07:11.620" UserId="3076" Text="A patent application, to have any real value, needs to show that you are &quot;in possession of the invention&quot;, and needs to &quot;teach someone skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation&quot;. It does *not* need to show a particularly efficient or production-ready implementation. It does *not* need to be down to the detail of manufacturing drawings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the provisional application does not contain this level of information it might not do you as much good as you think it does.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5942" RevisionGUID="9e95ea31-93b4-4674-b07a-5b1954256860" CreationDate="2014-01-27T00:31:09.670" UserId="3076" Comment="added 526 characters in body" Text="You do not need to *prove* the concept by documenting experiments unless it involves biology or possibly chemistry. You do to have the solution in hand, requiring no further invention. But it can all be on paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent application, to have any real value, needs to show that you are &quot;in possession of the invention&quot;, and needs to &quot;teach someone skilled in the art how to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation&quot;. It does *not* need to show a particularly efficient or production-ready implementation. You &#xD;&#xA;can't  hold back critical details of whatever you think is the best way to do it. The patent application does *not* need to be down to the detail of manufacturing drawings as long as you are not hiding the &quot;secret sauce&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although a provisional application does not need the same formality of a non-provisional application, it does need contain this same level of content or it might not do you as much good as you think it does if you end up needing to rely on it to establish a priority date.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5939" RevisionGUID="dd37a013-0776-4e0a-9af8-456dfb036a91" CreationDate="2014-01-27T00:42:51.227" UserId="3076" Comment="added 204 characters in body" Text="It is typical to have some sort of &quot;boilerplate&quot; language. It doesn't usually help the patentee very much. I listened to the oral arguments in an patent appeal case and, paraphrasing, a judge said to one of the attorneys &quot;Are you asking us to give weight to language in about half of all patents that we have always ignored?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This specific language about combining features of alternate versions can be useful. Let's say three versions of a hammer are described in detail. If a claim is broad enough to cover any of the heads on any of the handles, the applicant would hate to have some permutation of head and handle declared as something even not mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can also help in wording of a patent that might later be used for priority in a European patent application. They can be very strict about claim amendments drawn to variations not mentioned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5939" RevisionGUID="30e2f3b3-13ee-43cd-9e70-107c605928ff" CreationDate="2014-01-27T02:00:25.897" UserId="3076" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="This is not part of the claims. It is boilerplate wording to try to get the claims to be seen broadly with respect to the specification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is typical to have some sort of boilerplate language. It doesn't usually help the patentee very much. I listened to the oral arguments in an patent appeal case and, paraphrasing, a judge said to one of the attorneys &quot;Are you asking us to give weight to language in about half of all patents that we have always ignored?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This specific language about combining features of alternate versions can be useful. Let's say three versions of a hammer are described in detail. If a claim is broad enough to cover any of the heads on any of the handles, the applicant would hate to have some permutation of head and handle declared as something even not mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can also help in wording of a patent that might later be used for priority in a European patent application. They can be very strict about claim amendments drawn to variations not mentioned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5942" RevisionGUID="be400f03-2565-46d2-8a06-e04a029f7b09" CreationDate="2014-01-27T04:56:49.320" UserId="3076" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="You do not need to *prove* the concept by documenting experiments unless it involves biology or possibly chemistry. You do to have the solution in hand, requiring no further invention. But it can all be on paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent application, to have any real value, needs to show that you are &quot;in possession of the invention&quot;, and needs to &quot;teach someone skilled in the art how to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation&quot;. It does *not* need to show a particularly efficient or production-ready implementation. You &#xD;&#xA;can't  hold back critical details of whatever you think is the best way to do it. The patent application does *not* need to be down to the detail of manufacturing drawings as long as you are not hiding the &quot;secret sauce&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although a provisional application does not need the same formality of a non-provisional application, it does need to &#xD;&#xA;contain this same level of content or it might not do you as much good as you think it does if you end up needing to rely on it to establish a priority date.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15507" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5937" RevisionGUID="6cd1af71-5f82-40d8-b949-d905f073aafe" CreationDate="2014-01-27T08:22:43.963" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to patent, fixed some typos and caps and punctuation." Text="Words quoted from the patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Although the invention has been defined using the appended claims, these claims are exemplary in that the invention may be intended to include the elements and steps described herein in any combination or sub combination. Accordingly, there are any number of alternative combinations for defining the invention, which incorporate one or more elements from the specification, including the description, claims, and drawings, in various combinations or sub combinations. It will be apparent to those skilled in the relevant technology, in light of the present specification, that alternate combinations of aspects of the invention, either alone or in combination with one or more elements or steps defined herein, may be utilized as modifications or alterations of the invention or as part of the invention. It may be intended that the written description of the invention contained herein covers all such modifications and alterations.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.it/patents/US7227511&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. In a computer system including a host computer,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a main display unit and a remote peripheral device having an auxiliary display unit, the remote peripheral device communicating with the host computer, a method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;providing at the remote peripheral device notification of an event received from a source application at the host computer;&#xD;&#xA;responsive to a first user input at the remote peripheral device, &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;displaying on the auxiliary display unit information associated with the event;&#xD;&#xA;forming a query based upon the first user input;&#xD;&#xA;responsive to a second user input at the remote peripheral device, &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;executing the query to cause the source application to be launched by the host computer;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;displaying on the auxiliary display unit a plurality of first soft labels representing a plurality of applications, including an application associated with the event;&#xD;&#xA;responsive to actuation of a first button on the remote peripheral device associated with one of the first soft labels representing the application, &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;displaying on the auxiliary display unit a plurality of second soft labels, each second soft label representing a different function within the application, the second soft labels replacing the first soft labels on the auxiliary display unit; and&#xD;&#xA;responsive to actuation of a second button on the remote peripheral device associated with one of the second soft labels, &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;executing a function within the application on the remote peripheral device,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the first user input includes actuation of the first button followed by actuation of the second button." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15508" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5937" RevisionGUID="6cd1af71-5f82-40d8-b949-d905f073aafe" CreationDate="2014-01-27T08:22:43.963" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to patent, fixed some typos and caps and punctuation." Text="Is this typical, for a patent, to describe 'any and all combinations' of all aforementioned technologies?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15509" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5937" RevisionGUID="6cd1af71-5f82-40d8-b949-d905f073aafe" CreationDate="2014-01-27T08:22:43.963" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to patent, fixed some typos and caps and punctuation." Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;us7227511&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5891" RevisionGUID="197d43f9-e71d-44f9-a03a-e112a59382e9" CreationDate="2014-01-27T16:57:37.523" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON performing frequency analysis on the occurrence of target words in a stream of words** - This application from [Citizennet][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Generating a discrete time sequence of counts for a target word, performing frequency analysis of the generated discrete time sequence, and determining that the target keyword is a trending keyword based on the frequency analysis! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/7/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Detecting trends from a stream of words based on frequency analysis of word counts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Streams of words are taken from **word sources** such as **news stories**, tweets, posts on **social networking sites**, or **blog entries**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determine whether a target word is a trending keyword based on frequency analysis of discrete time sequence of counts for the target word**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Generating a discrete time sequence of counts for a target word from a stream of words, performing frequency analysis of the generated discrete time sequence to determine contributions of frequency components within different frequency ranges, and determining that the target keyword is a trending keyword based on the frequency analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130036107 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/568,851&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Citizennet&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/7/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for trend detection, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Generating a discrete time sequence of word counts for a target word using a trend detection device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Performing frequency analysis of the discrete time sequence of word counts to determine contributions of frequency components within different frequency ranges to the discrete time sequence of word counts using the trend detection device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Detecting that the target word is a trending keyword based upon at least the frequency analysis of the discrete time sequence of word counts for the target word using the trend detection device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for trend detection, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Generating a discrete time sequence of counts for a target word;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Performing frequency analysis of the generated discrete time sequence to measure frequency of target word counts within different frequency ranges; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Detecting that the target word is a trending keyword based on the frequency analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/7/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Performing **frequency analysis** refers to applying **discrete Fourier transform** to the **discrete time sequence** of counts for the target word(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Trend detection using frequency analysis of streams of words&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/UBd9kRB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;650&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130036107&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://citizennet.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130036107#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=08%2F07%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5826" RevisionGUID="cd6f7802-7898-4532-965f-fce3caa23bea" CreationDate="2014-01-27T16:57:50.163" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON prioritizing search results based on content creation trends of terms in the search results** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving search results in response to a search query, ranking the search results, retrieving trend data related to terms in the search results, weighting the ranked search results according to the trend data, and displaying the weighted ranked search results! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ranking search results based on trend data related to terms in the search results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - **Trend data** indicates an extent to which a content associated with the terms in the **search query** and/or **search results** have been requested and/or retrieved by other users, or created by other users for example in the form of **blog entries**, **wiki pages**, **news stories**, **twitter tweets** and the like, and can be provided by a **trend service** such as the &quot;Insights&quot; (TM'') tool provided by Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Weighting rank of search results based on trend data related to terms in the search results**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving search results in response to a search query, ranking the search results according to a ranking factor, retrieving trend data that indicates a degree to which documents associated with the terms in the search results have been created, weighting the rank of the search results based on the trend data, and displaying the weighted rank of the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120323879 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/411,579&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/18/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for ranking search results based upon content creation trends, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a result set of results from a search engine produced in response to a search engine query of a plurality of search terms;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Ranking the results of the result set according to at least one ranking factor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Retrieving trend data indicating content creation trends from a trend feed offered by a commercial trend service for terms associated with the results of the result set, the trend data including data indicating a degree to which documents in the form of blog entries, wiki pages, news stories, and twitter tweets associated with the plurality of search terms corresponding to the results of the result set have been created;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Weighting the ranked results in the result set according to the retrieved trend data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying the weighted ranked results in response to the search engine query.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for ranking search results, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving search results from a search engine in response to a search query;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Ranking the search results based on a ranking factor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3a. Retrieving trend data related to search terms of the search results,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3b. The trend data indicates a degree to which contents related to terms in the search results have been created;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Weighting the ranked search results according to trend data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying the weighted search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Weight for each rank corresponding to the search results is computed based upon a combination of 1. a mutual expectation function that measures how likely a search term of the search query giving rise to the corresponding search results and an additional search term not included in the search query will occur together, 2. a mutual dependency function measuring how strongly the additional search term relates to the search terms in current content creation, and 3. a relevancy function calculating relevancy of the search terms to the corresponding search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Prioritizing search results based on terms in the search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/UNF7yfX.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;900&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120323879&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120323879#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=06%2F14%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5873" RevisionGUID="cc0e8776-52e0-48a3-a6f0-e4c9b97b0046" CreationDate="2014-01-27T16:58:00.463" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON offering coupons based on an item of interest at a user's location** - This application from [Ebay][6] seeks to patent the idea of...determining the geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item at the geographic location, and generating an incentive offered by a merchant based on the determined geographic location and the identified item.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 3/17/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Presenting incentives offered by nearby merchants based on an item identified at the geographic location of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Incentives may be discounts, sales, rebates, coupons, **item recommendations** etc. A user may specify an item of interest using various input means of a mobile device such as **text identification**, **audio identification**, **machine-readable symbol identification**, **image identification**, or **video identification**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining incentives related to items identified at user location**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Determining geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item specified via the mobile device at the determined geographic location, generating an incentive offered by a merchant within a fixed geographic area based on the determined geographic location and the identified item, and expanding the fixed geographic area when the generated incentive is not related to the identified item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120239483 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/339,235&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Ebay&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a first module configured to determine a geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a second module configured to identify an item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device via an optical input of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a processor-implemented incentive module configured to generate a limited-time incentive offer from at least one merchant within a predefined geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device, the limited-time incentive offer based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device, and to expand the predefined geographic area when the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device does not correspond to any item identified in the at least one limited-time incentive offer of the at least one merchant within the predefined geographic area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising various modules to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identify an item specified at the determined geographic location via an **optical** input to the mobile device (the example given is the phone reading the bar code of the item using its camera);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Generate limited-time incentive offers from merchants within a fixed geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Expand the fixed geographic area if the generated limited-time incentive offers are not related to the specified item,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * The limited-time incentive offers are based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A user preference setting to define a search radius and preferred merchants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Offering incentives related to an item based on geographic location of the item&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NioC9f0.png&quot; width=&quot;450&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120239483&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ebayinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120239483#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=03%2F17%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5881" RevisionGUID="2ce5dfb9-9881-42d6-bf3e-f7ace76fa045" CreationDate="2014-01-27T16:58:16.103" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON initiating a vendor check-in procedure on a customer's mobile device** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving a customer's location, comparing the customer location with a list of vendor locations, and identifying vendors based on the comparison! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 4/1/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Identifying vendors based on customer location and initiating check-in for an identified vendor on customer's mobile device &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Check-in includes displaying a vendor's **promotional video**, displaying a vendor's **threshold reward status**, updating **game status** of the customer, etc. on the customer's **mobile device**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Initiating vendor check-in or displaying a map of nearby vendors on a customer's mobile device based on location of the customer**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving location of a customer from a mobile device of the customer, comparing the location of the customer with a list of vendor locations, initiating vendor check-in on the mobile device if the customer corresponds to a vendor associated with the list of vendor locations, and displaying a map showing location of vendors within a fixed distance of the customer location if the customer location does not correspond to any of the vendor locations in the list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120253902 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/435,115&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 4/1/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/2/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A location-based marketing method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, by a computing device, a participating customer location from a mobile communication device of said participating customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Comparing, by said computing device, said participating customer location to a list of participating vendor locations;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. If said participating customer location corresponds to one of said participating vendor locations, initiating by said computing device a vendor check-in procedure on said mobile communication; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. If said participating customer location does not correspond to one of said participating vendor locations, initiating by said computing device, a map displaying participating vendor locations within a predetermined distance of said participating customer location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for location-based marketing comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving customer location from a mobile  device of the participating customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Comparing location of the participating customer to a list of participating vendor locations;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Initiating a vendor check-in procedure on the mobile  device if the location of the participating customer corresponds to any of the participating vendor locations; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Displaying a map showing locations of participating vendors within a fixed distance from the location of the participating customer if the location of the participating customer does not correspond to any of the participating vendor locations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 4/1/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Designating one or more identified vendors under various categories of a **marketing game** played by the customer on the **mobile device**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Initiate vendor check-in on a customer's mobile device&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/bTHjUMs.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120253902&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120253902#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=04%2F01%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5946" RevisionGUID="7ac1ec1f-ab11-42b6-9cc6-81bb90488f70" CreationDate="2014-01-27T19:36:57.520" UserId="5886" Text="To whom it may concern; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a new invention that it will help a coffee machine to be more hygienic and more practical. I am confused and I don't know whether this is a design patent or utility patent. Please help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best Regards, &#xD;&#xA;Foruzan&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Foruzan_m@yahoo.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15525" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5946" RevisionGUID="7ac1ec1f-ab11-42b6-9cc6-81bb90488f70" CreationDate="2014-01-27T19:36:57.520" UserId="5886" Text="Should I file for a design patent or an utility patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15526" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5946" RevisionGUID="7ac1ec1f-ab11-42b6-9cc6-81bb90488f70" CreationDate="2014-01-27T19:36:57.520" UserId="5886" Text="&lt;design&gt;&lt;utility&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5947" RevisionGUID="a25c21a3-c0b1-4fe2-90af-cf6f3c027433" CreationDate="2014-01-27T19:57:55.017" UserId="3076" Text="A design patent covers the visual impression of a product while a utility patent covers the structure and functioning of a product. If you have something new and not obvious that provides a benefit, that  would be a utility patent application. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5946" RevisionGUID="1590f59e-3586-4b9d-8207-81998583c130" CreationDate="2014-01-27T21:55:56.327" UserId="3076" Comment="removed preamble and signature" Text="I have a new invention that it will help a coffee machine to be more hygienic and more practical. I am confused and I don't know whether this is a design patent or utility patent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5947" RevisionGUID="5518a20a-29b1-4fcd-92c2-81e8e5ecc925" CreationDate="2014-01-27T21:56:42.753" UserId="3076" Comment="clarified a little" Text="A design patent covers the visual impression of a product while a utility patent covers the structure and functioning of a product. If you have something new and not obvious that provides a functional benefit, that  would be a utility patent application. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5014" RevisionGUID="91d2622d-6346-464f-aa66-58d87caa30b2" CreationDate="2014-01-27T22:35:49.097" UserId="1767" Comment="added 335 characters in body" Text="![Official USPTO Prior Art][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** in this answer! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sounds a lot like the amazon wishlist. &#xD;&#xA;And I found a lot of articles and blog entries about this amazon feature predating 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.amazon.com/wishlist&#xD;&#xA;You can add text descriptions, for example a URI to an other online shop item, to your wishlist also (&quot;Include items from any website&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uvXcn.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/201038072/US-20130159222-A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4833" RevisionGUID="89ae2099-1cc3-42dc-a88f-a60f30e43434" CreationDate="2014-01-27T22:42:55.240" UserId="1767" Comment="added 411 characters in body; edited tags" Text="  ![enter image description here][9]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** below!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON collaborative virtual shopping** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...individuals shopping together online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/13/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - individuals shopping together online with multiple shopping carts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves sharing information between users, such as shopping lists, price lists, or item comparisons between users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Collaborative virtual shopping**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for shopping together online.  Users participate in a **collaborative shopping session** using multiple **virtual shopping carts** and share information with one another&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130211953 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/372,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/13/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/11/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for collaborative shopping, comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A plurality of shopping devices interconnected by a network, the shopping devices being used by shoppers in a collaborative shopping session; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A plurality of virtual shopping carts respectively associated with the shopping devices for sharing information on items of interest among the shoppers and enabling the shoppers to collaborate on the shopping&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for shopping together online, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Devices (e.g. computers or smartphones or fancy in-store shopping carts) connected together by a network, used by shoppers in a collaborative shopping session&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Virtual shopping carts associated with each device for sharing information between shoppers (e.g. price lists, shopping lists, comparisons, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/13/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming sharing information between users, such as shopping lists, price lists, or comparisons between shopping cart items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Collaborative Virtual Shopping from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/nmc2wu8.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130211953&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/201038072/US-20130159222-A1&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15532" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4833" RevisionGUID="89ae2099-1cc3-42dc-a88f-a60f30e43434" CreationDate="2014-01-27T22:42:55.240" UserId="1767" Comment="added 411 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;ibm&gt;&lt;us20130211953&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4833" RevisionGUID="8dac4017-c30b-4dc4-b939-1616e935fa31" CreationDate="2014-01-27T22:52:29.720" UserId="1767" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="  ![enter image description here][9]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** below!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON collaborative virtual shopping** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...individuals shopping together online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/13/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - individuals shopping together online with multiple shopping carts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves sharing information between users, such as shopping lists, price lists, or item comparisons between users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Collaborative virtual shopping**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for shopping together online.  Users participate in a **collaborative shopping session** using multiple **virtual shopping carts** and share information with one another&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130211953 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/372,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/13/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/11/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for collaborative shopping, comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A plurality of shopping devices interconnected by a network, the shopping devices being used by shoppers in a collaborative shopping session; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A plurality of virtual shopping carts respectively associated with the shopping devices for sharing information on items of interest among the shoppers and enabling the shoppers to collaborate on the shopping&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for shopping together online, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Devices (e.g. computers or smartphones or fancy in-store shopping carts) connected together by a network, used by shoppers in a collaborative shopping session&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Virtual shopping carts associated with each device for sharing information between shoppers (e.g. price lists, shopping lists, comparisons, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/13/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming sharing information between users, such as shopping lists, price lists, or comparisons between shopping cart items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Collaborative Virtual Shopping from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/nmc2wu8.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130211953&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/202660987/US20130211953A1-Form-892&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5014" RevisionGUID="a07a87ba-1b4f-41a1-891f-75ffc92429d1" CreationDate="2014-01-27T22:52:40.813" UserId="1767" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="![Official USPTO Prior Art][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** in this answer! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Sounds a lot like the amazon wishlist. &#xD;&#xA;And I found a lot of articles and blog entries about this amazon feature predating 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.amazon.com/wishlist&#xD;&#xA;You can add text descriptions, for example a URI to an other online shop item, to your wishlist also (&quot;Include items from any website&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uvXcn.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/202660987/US20130211953A1-Form-892" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5014" RevisionGUID="d1f9eecc-9e24-446a-b364-9d494f6d0d72" CreationDate="2014-01-27T22:58:34.687" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="![Official USPTO Prior Art][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** in this answer! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Sounds a lot like the amazon wishlist. &#xD;&#xA;And I found a lot of articles and blog entries about this amazon feature predating 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.amazon.com/wishlist&#xD;&#xA;You can add text descriptions, for example a URI to an other online shop item, to your wishlist also (&quot;Include items from any website&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uvXcn.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/202660987/US20130211953A1-Form-892" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4833" RevisionGUID="aa89c2a7-ecf9-4e72-b8e7-a969318d5039" CreationDate="2014-01-27T22:58:45.390" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="  ![enter image description here][9]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** below!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON collaborative virtual shopping** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...individuals shopping together online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/13/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - individuals shopping together online with multiple shopping carts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves sharing information between users, such as shopping lists, price lists, or item comparisons between users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Collaborative virtual shopping**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for shopping together online.  Users participate in a **collaborative shopping session** using multiple **virtual shopping carts** and share information with one another&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130211953 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/372,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/13/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/11/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for collaborative shopping, comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A plurality of shopping devices interconnected by a network, the shopping devices being used by shoppers in a collaborative shopping session; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A plurality of virtual shopping carts respectively associated with the shopping devices for sharing information on items of interest among the shoppers and enabling the shoppers to collaborate on the shopping&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for shopping together online, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Devices (e.g. computers or smartphones or fancy in-store shopping carts) connected together by a network, used by shoppers in a collaborative shopping session&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Virtual shopping carts associated with each device for sharing information between shoppers (e.g. price lists, shopping lists, comparisons, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/13/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming sharing information between users, such as shopping lists, price lists, or comparisons between shopping cart items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Collaborative Virtual Shopping from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/nmc2wu8.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130211953&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/202660987/US20130211953A1-Form-892&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4537" RevisionGUID="083f1f2a-a673-4c3d-9677-7d272be337dd" CreationDate="2014-01-27T22:59:30.143" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" ![enter image description here][9]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** below!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed.   **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ONLINE SEARCH** - This application from [Yahoo!][6] seeks to patent the idea of... user editing search results for themselves and other users! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 19, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Accepting **USER EDITS** to **SEARCH RESULTS**; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Modifying the **SEARCH RESULTS PAGE** based on its **USER EDITS** with a **DRAG AND DROP** interface;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves user edits applying **GLOBALLY** to other users’ search results pages, **REMOVING DUPLICATE RESULTS** or a **DRAG AND DROP INTERFACE** to proposed user edits to search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: EDITORIAL CURATION OF SEARCH RESULTS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of modifying search results pages based on user edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159222 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/330,405&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 19, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for editorial curation of search results, comprising steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; using a processor device configured to perform:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a search results page rendered in response to a search query;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. receiving user edits comprising changes to objects in the search results page; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. applying the user edits to the search results page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for curating search results using a computer, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a search results page in response to a search query&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving user edits to objects in the search results page; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Applying the user edits to the search results page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming user edits applying **GLOBALLY** to other users’ search results pages, **REMOVING DUPLICATE RESULTS** or a **DRAG AND DROP INTERFACE** to proposed user edits to search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Drag and Drop User Curated Search Results Pages from Yahoo!**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/JCCnb.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130159222&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/201038072/US-20130159222-A1&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5954" RevisionGUID="a415322c-e15b-4695-86a6-a8936c1d5329" CreationDate="2014-01-29T00:57:23.693" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON determining user opinions related to a product or service from online contents** - This application from [Metavana][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying keywords from social media contents, determining a category related to the identified keywords, and determining sentiments associated with the identified keywords! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/30/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining sentiments expressed in social media contents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Category refers to products, people, hotels, events, services, places, or **real world** objects. Social media content refers to contents from websites (for e.g. **amazon.com**, **bestbuy.com**, **yelp.com**, **tripAdvisor.com** etc.), blogs, **micro-blogging** sites .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE:** Providing opinions about various categories based on sentiments expressed in social media contents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying keywords in a sentence from social media contents, identifying polarity of the identified keywords using phase transition formula, determining categories related to the identified keywords, and determining sentiments corresponding to the categories related to the identified keywords.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130091117 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/632,011&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Metavana&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for sentiment analysis from social media content, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Crawling, by a processor, a plurality of websites to obtain metadata from social media content;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Extracting, by a processor, the metadata from the social media content by identifying a polarity of the sentiment-bearing keywords in a sentence from social media content using a phase transition formula;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining at least one category corresponding to the at least one sentiment-bearing keyword of the sentence; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining at least one sentiment corresponding to the at least one category based on the at least one sentiment-bearing keyword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for analyzing sentiments expressed in social media contents, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Visiting a plurality of websites to obtain metadata from social media contents;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying polarity of keywords that express sentiments in a sentence from social media contents;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining categories related to the keywords; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining sentiments associated with the determined categories based on the keywords. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Calculating a number of online documents that include a keyword, and number of instances of the keyword in the online documents, to determine relevancy of the keyword&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Determining public opinion based on social media contents&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/EWRrVjl.png&quot; width=&quot;750&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130091117&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.metavana.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130091117#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=09%2F30%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15567" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5954" RevisionGUID="a415322c-e15b-4695-86a6-a8936c1d5329" CreationDate="2014-01-29T00:57:23.693" UserId="1767" Text="Social Networks - Determining sentiments expressed in social media content (Metavana) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15568" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5954" RevisionGUID="a415322c-e15b-4695-86a6-a8936c1d5329" CreationDate="2014-01-29T00:57:23.693" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;social-networking&gt;&lt;us20130091117a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5956" RevisionGUID="f14ab61c-7fdc-45ee-be26-73fd0c5d0968" CreationDate="2014-01-29T03:00:14.543" UserId="7760" Text="If the patent is applied in India, but the country I would like to use the technology is included in Designated States, of which country's expiration date do you have to calculate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Application number: WO2012IB57364 20121217   &#xD;&#xA;Priority number(s): IN2011MU03650 20111224&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and no other applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15573" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5956" RevisionGUID="f14ab61c-7fdc-45ee-be26-73fd0c5d0968" CreationDate="2014-01-29T03:00:14.543" UserId="7760" Text="Patent expiration date of WO patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15574" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5956" RevisionGUID="f14ab61c-7fdc-45ee-be26-73fd0c5d0968" CreationDate="2014-01-29T03:00:14.543" UserId="7760" Text="&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5958" RevisionGUID="fd45dd79-9f55-4e2b-a8b6-0d41a560a3b4" CreationDate="2014-01-29T04:01:24.587" UserId="3076" Text="I haven't located that specific document. It appears to be a PCT application and they, nominally, expire 30 months from the earliest claimed priority date. However that varies by the specific country and WIPO has a page that lists the time limit by jurisdiction. In that chart you will see that many places have a super script to the number of months. These indicate locations that allow late entry into the national stage under various circumstances. You will need to find out if the country you want to practice the technology in has any leeway in their 30 or 31 month deadline.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5956" RevisionGUID="5ed42ec2-3afb-4f11-b52b-b4d7421f37f4" CreationDate="2014-01-29T04:57:21.773" UserId="3076" Comment="Added title, application and publication numbers " Text="If the patent is applied in India, but the country I would like to use the technology is included in Designated States, of which country's expiration date do you have to calculate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Application number: WO2012IB57364 20121217   &#xD;&#xA;Priority number(s): IN2011MU03650 20111224&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and no other applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: it is WO2013093751 PACKAGING FOR LINEZOLID &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Pub. No.:	  	WO/2013/093751	  	International Application No.:	  	PCT/IB2012/057364&#xD;&#xA;Publication Date:	27.06.2013	International Filing Date:	17.12.2012&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5958" RevisionGUID="b3f7088d-2568-4673-b798-c0d2bd9c50f9" CreationDate="2014-01-29T05:59:06.073" UserId="3076" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="I haven't located that specific document. It appears to be a PCT application and they, nominally, expire 30 months from the earliest claimed priority date. However that varies by the specific country and [WIPO has a page][1]that lists the time limit by jurisdiction. In that table you will see that many places have a super script to the number of months. These indicate locations that allow late entry into the national stage under various circumstances. You will need to find out if the country you want to practice the technology in has any leeway in their 30 or 31 month deadline.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/time_limits.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15585" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5956" RevisionGUID="068db07c-0021-4e33-b2c3-0404b2313743" CreationDate="2014-01-29T06:00:31.873" UserId="3076" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the expiration date of WO PCT applications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5958" RevisionGUID="0d1e3dc8-853e-48d8-8430-7b7cf2d44282" CreationDate="2014-01-29T06:04:29.887" UserId="3076" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="This is a PCT application and they, nominally, expire 30 months from the earliest claimed priority date. However that varies by the specific country and [WIPO has a page][1] that lists the time limit by jurisdiction. In that table you will see that many places have a super script to the number of months. These indicate locations that allow late entry into the national stage under various circumstances. You will need to find out if the country you want to practice the technology in has any leeway in their 30 or 31 month deadline.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The priory date of this application seems to be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priority Data:	3650/MUM/2011	 	24.12.2011	 	IN&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the PCT deadline calculator the 30 month deadline would be June 24 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/time_limits.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5968" RevisionGUID="e82e7d72-e641-48cc-91ea-0e02a23b1242" CreationDate="2014-01-29T13:00:50.117" UserId="7725" Text="SAS Inc offer a product name 'SAS Sentiment Analysis' which was an acquisition of a company called 'Teragram Corporation'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This product won the Business Wire product of the year award for its excellence in innovation. Below is an extract of from the press release, which describes the SAS Sentiment Analysis feature set / benefits which sound very similar to what the Metavana patent details:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SAS Sentiment Analysis’ high-performance crawler locates and extracts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sentiment from digital content sources, including mainstream websites,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; social media outlets, internal servers and incoming news feeds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of how the crawled content is processed to locate sentiment it states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SAS’ unique hybrid approach combines powerful statistical techniques&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with linguistics rules to improve accuracy to the detailed feature&#xD;&#xA;&gt; level. It summarizes the sentiment expressed in all available text&#xD;&#xA;&gt; collections – identifying trends and creating graphical reports that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; describe the expressed feelings of consumers, partners, employees and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; competitors in real time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above description makes the products sentiment analysis capabilities seem more advanced than the categories and keyword approach detailed in the patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I researched further to see if I could find more information on the SAS product related to categories and keywords as a method to locate sentiment and found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) a post on the SAS blog called 'Predicting American Idol results based on Twitter sentiment' which details that keywords can be used. The post it states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Generating the scores was easy enough with SAS Sentiment Analysis. I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; used a SAS macro to copy two weeks of Tweets about the final six&#xD;&#xA;&gt; contestants. From there, I took an existing Sentiment project (about&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an actual business), and copied over the list of generic positive and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; negative keywords. I ran the model and then added in a few extra rules&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to account for the nuances of Twitter-speak (turns out most&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Twitter-speak consists of shortenings of &quot;love&quot; and &quot;sucks&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) an article titled 'SAS Text Analytics and Teragram', which refers to the 'Content Categorization function' as described below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another important point is that SAS Text Analytics includes four&#xD;&#xA;&gt; components. There is the SAS Enterprise Content Categorization&#xD;&#xA;&gt; function. The system parses content and identifies entities. Metadata&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are created along with category rules. The second function is SAS&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sentiment Analysis. A number of companies are competing in this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sector. The SAS approach sucks in emails, tweets, and other documents.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The system identifies various subjective shades in the source content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know the SAS product intimately but it very much appears to perform everything described in the patent application. The sources I have used are not perfect and they describe the SAS product from the user point of view as opposed to an informed objective one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It actually looks like the SAS is far more advanced than what the patent describes which appears quite rudimentary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing to note: I couldn't find any SAS or Teragram patents to uses as sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Business Wire Press Release][1] July 26, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[SAS Blog describing keywords as a component of locating sentiment][2] May 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Article describing categories as a component of locating sentiment][3] May 28, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100726005306/en/SAS%C2%AE-Sentiment-Analysis-Software-Named-Product-Year#.Uujx9hB9LaQ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blogs.sas.com/content/text-mining/2011/05/12/predicting-american-idol-results-based-on-twitter-sentiment/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/2010/05/28/sas-text-analytics-and-teragram/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5971" RevisionGUID="36348802-0318-4ec9-bb60-26a5d88a6873" CreationDate="2014-01-29T19:30:31.540" UserId="7773" Text="What is the proper use of the phrases &quot;claim priority from&quot; and &quot;claim the benefit of&quot;?  Can they be used interchangeably?  When should both be used, if ever?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this definition make sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;PATENT RIGHTS&quot; shall mean [list of patent applications], the claims stated in said patent application(s), and any U.S. or foreign patent applications (including divisional and continuation applications) claiming the benefit of or priority from the referenced application(s), and any patents issuing thereon, and any reissues, reexaminations, and extensions of such patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How could this definition be improved? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15639" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5971" RevisionGUID="36348802-0318-4ec9-bb60-26a5d88a6873" CreationDate="2014-01-29T19:30:31.540" UserId="7773" Text="Priority vs. benefit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15640" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5971" RevisionGUID="36348802-0318-4ec9-bb60-26a5d88a6873" CreationDate="2014-01-29T19:30:31.540" UserId="7773" Text="&lt;priority&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5972" RevisionGUID="4e28597d-04d2-4d11-a8aa-e80bc796a154" CreationDate="2014-01-29T20:03:42.863" UserId="7774" Text="I want to know the date of expiration of VanWinkel's Liquid Mask patent 5618582." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15642" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5972" RevisionGUID="4e28597d-04d2-4d11-a8aa-e80bc796a154" CreationDate="2014-01-29T20:03:42.863" UserId="7774" Text="Expirationd date of patent 5618582?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15643" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5972" RevisionGUID="4e28597d-04d2-4d11-a8aa-e80bc796a154" CreationDate="2014-01-29T20:03:42.863" UserId="7774" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15645" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5972" RevisionGUID="f80619c0-dbe7-4f32-82d5-0ddd083212bc" CreationDate="2014-01-29T22:09:59.903" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to patent" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;us5618582&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5977" RevisionGUID="25bb3084-0908-4ae8-ae69-70d33f4a04df" CreationDate="2014-01-30T11:54:13.167" UserId="7778" Text="Where are the drawings for this patent: Sex toy in shape of penis, comprising base with socket for insertion of ball shaped rear end&#xD;&#xA;DE 202005010768 U1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to know because I am trying to patent something similar. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15665" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5977" RevisionGUID="25bb3084-0908-4ae8-ae69-70d33f4a04df" CreationDate="2014-01-30T11:54:13.167" UserId="7778" Text="where are the drawings for DE 202005010768 U1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15666" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5977" RevisionGUID="25bb3084-0908-4ae8-ae69-70d33f4a04df" CreationDate="2014-01-30T11:54:13.167" UserId="7778" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15667" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5972" RevisionGUID="0373655d-218d-4418-9fc3-05bc814d76f5" CreationDate="2014-01-30T13:54:23.630" UserId="1259" Comment="typo" Text="Expiration date of patent 5618582?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15668" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5977" RevisionGUID="6d9f3576-d271-461e-955f-fb4566b2d05d" CreationDate="2014-01-30T18:13:13.413" UserId="1767" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1259,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ron J.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1767,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Micah Siegel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="15669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5873" RevisionGUID="ad8d872b-7e68-44ff-b182-87c2196d743a" CreationDate="2014-01-31T02:22:10.320" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON offering coupons based on an item of interest at a user's location** - This application from [Ebay][6] seeks to patent the idea of...determining the geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item at the geographic location, and generating an incentive offered by a merchant based on the determined geographic location and the identified item.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 3/17/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Presenting incentives offered by nearby merchants based on an item identified at the geographic location of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Incentives may be discounts, sales, rebates, coupons, **item recommendations** etc. A user may specify an item of interest using various input means of a mobile device such as **text identification**, **audio identification**, **machine-readable symbol identification**, **image identification**, or **video identification**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining incentives related to items identified at user location**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Determining geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item specified via the mobile device at the determined geographic location, generating an incentive offered by a merchant within a fixed geographic area based on the determined geographic location and the identified item, and expanding the fixed geographic area when the generated incentive is not related to the identified item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120239483 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/339,235&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Ebay&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a first module configured to determine a geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a second module configured to identify an item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device via an optical input of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a processor-implemented incentive module configured to generate a limited-time incentive offer from at least one merchant within a predefined geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device, the limited-time incentive offer based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device, and to expand the predefined geographic area when the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device does not correspond to any item identified in the at least one limited-time incentive offer of the at least one merchant within the predefined geographic area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising various modules to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identify an item specified at the determined geographic location via an **optical** input to the mobile device (the example given is the phone reading the bar code of the item using its camera);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Generate limited-time incentive offers from merchants within a fixed geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Expand the fixed geographic area if the generated limited-time incentive offers are not related to the specified item,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * The limited-time incentive offers are based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A user preference setting to define a search radius and preferred merchants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Offering incentives related to an item based on geographic location of the item&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NioC9f0.png&quot; width=&quot;450&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120239483&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ebayinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120239483#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=03%2F17%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="a6601dc0-d1f9-4792-8192-e0eb3fcda4f4" CreationDate="2014-01-31T02:22:36.010" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 59 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions** - This application from [Smart Destinations, Inc][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Enhanced data collection and reporting for improved ticket pricing and marketing. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/15/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Enhanced data collection related to a customer's travel path in order to improve ticket pricing and marketing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Dynamically pricing and validating access to goods, services, attractions, events and other items&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Method for enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving an identification of a location of a user and a **first attraction** selected for access by a user, determining a **travel path** between the location of the user and the **first attraction**, identifying a **second attraction** within a predetermined distance from the **travel path**, and transmitting an offer of access to the **second attraction** to a computing device of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120323691 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/523,213&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Smart Destinations, Inc.][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/15/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, by a first device, an identification of a location of a user and a first attraction selected for access by a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining, by a path analyzer, a travel path between the location of the user and the first attraction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identifying, by the path analyzer, a second attraction within a predetermined distance from the travel path; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmitting, by the first device to a computing device of the user, an offer of access to the second attraction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for better customer marketing based on customer path data between attractions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receive an identification of a user's location and a first attraction selected for access by the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determine a travel path between the location of the user and the first attraction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identify a second attraction within a predetermined distance from the travel path; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmit an offer of access to the second attraction to a computing device of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/15/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Identifying the second attraction based on a net price. The  net price being below a net price threshold or an average customer visit time of the second attraction being above a visit time threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Location-based marketing for attraction access&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/gIUuqQa.png&quot; width=&quot;315&quot; height=&quot;458&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120323691&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.smartdestinations.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120323691" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5900" RevisionGUID="2fe63c53-1587-4857-a93a-2610cd16761b" CreationDate="2014-01-31T02:22:54.557" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON arranging transport amongst parties through use of mobile devices** - This application from [Uber][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Enabling customers to order drivers from a mobile phone and tracking the location of the driver as it arrives! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/4/2009** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Mobile phone-based taxi services&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Location of driver is displayed on a map on user's phone, user and driver can communicate with one another prior to pickup, and/or user is able to provide feedback on driver's service after the ride.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Arranging transportation among parties at different locations using a mobile phone**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] User at one location requests driver.  From a pool of candidate drivers, the user chooses a driver to pick him up.  The user's location is communicated to the driver, the driver's location is communicated to the user as the vehicle progresses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20110313804 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/961,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Uber&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/4/2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer implemented method for arranging transport amongst parties located at different locations, the method being implemented by one or more processors of a server and comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, at the server from a customer device at a first geographic location a request for transport, the request including information about the first geographic location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. In response to receiving the request, from a pool of candidate respondents, selecting, by the server and for a customer operating the customer device, a driver at a second geographic location based, at least in part, on location information of the candidate driver;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Communicating, by the server, an invitation to a corresponding device of the driver, the invitation enabling the driver to accept the invitation to provide transport for the customer and including (i) the first geographic location, and (ii) identification information of the customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Communicating, from the server to the customer device, a status of fulfilling the request for the customer, including communicating one or more notifications that informs the customer that the server is selecting the driver; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Once the dirver has accepted the invitation, communicating, from the server to the customer device, a location of the driver as the driver progresses to or arrives at the first geographic location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for arranging transport amongst parties located at different locations, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, a request for transport, the request including information about the first geographic location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a driver at a second geographic location from a pool of candidate driveres based, at least in part, on the location of the driver&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Inviting the driver to provide transport for the customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Informing the customer that the server is selecting the driver; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Communicating the location of the driver as the driver progresses to or arrives at the first geographic location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/4/2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Displaying driver location on a map, feedback system for user to rate driver (and vice-versa) after trip&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;User-interfaces as transportation is requested and provided&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/G2VcnfE.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Uber does not deserve this overly broad set of claims!  As just one example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **US 6,356,838 System and method for determining an efficient transportation route**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The driver then proceeds to the pickup point. As the driver continues on her way, she may update the passenger 170 of any changes to the arrival time estimate including, for example, the fact that she has arrived at the pickup point. &quot; from [US6356838][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you help find more Prior Art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110313804&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.uber.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20110313804#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=12%2F06%2F2010&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6356838&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5978" RevisionGUID="ff659693-fc4b-4716-9995-0a70e080db8c" CreationDate="2014-01-31T04:41:50.453" UserId="7785" Text="Patent US 7539685 B2 concerns the normalization of btree index keys in a database management system. There is no citation of the 1977 paper &quot;An Encoding Method for Multifield Sorting and Indexing&quot; in the patent. However, it seems very similar, and could be very convincingly argued to be prior art. As far as I can tell, the only difference is that the 1977 paper doesn't describe how the same technique can be used with a variety of binary types such that they can also be concatenated, but this is so obvious as to be redundant. Further, the omission of a citation of that paper is glaring, because it was produced by a group of researchers working on the seminal IBM System R RDBMS, which is widely influential. The influence of that system on Microsoft SQL server (which the patent references - it's from Microsoft research) is widely acknowledged and undeniable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any advice on having the patent invalidated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15673" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5978" RevisionGUID="ff659693-fc4b-4716-9995-0a70e080db8c" CreationDate="2014-01-31T04:41:50.453" UserId="7785" Text="Index key normalization - Prior Art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15674" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5978" RevisionGUID="ff659693-fc4b-4716-9995-0a70e080db8c" CreationDate="2014-01-31T04:41:50.453" UserId="7785" Text="&lt;databases&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15675" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5978" RevisionGUID="9c7bf186-c2d1-451a-96ba-7edb73f4a7b2" CreationDate="2014-01-31T06:07:59.073" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;databases&gt;&lt;us7539685&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5978" RevisionGUID="29b5148a-0246-4586-943b-1a229e7a7758" CreationDate="2014-01-31T06:13:46.840" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="Patent [US 7539685 B2][3] concerns the normalization of btree index keys in a database management system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no citation of the 1977 paper [&quot;An Encoding Method for Multifield Sorting and Indexing&quot;][1] by Blasgen, Casey and Eswaran in the subject issued patent from [Microsoft][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the  subject seems very similar, and could be very convincingly argued to be prior art. As far as I can tell, the only difference is that the 1977 paper doesn't describe how the same technique can be used with a variety of binary types such that they can also be concatenated, but this is so obvious as to be redundant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, the omission of a citation of that paper is glaring, because it was produced by a group of researchers working on the seminal IBM System R RDBMS, which is widely influential. The influence of that system on Microsoft SQL server (which the patent references - it's from Microsoft research) is widely acknowledged and undeniable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim of '685 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A system for index key normalization in a database comprising a processor adapted for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - (a) Selecting an index key for normalization, wherein the index key contains more than one column, and wherein each column of the index key has a type, and wherein the index key contains more than one type of column type;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - (b) Tracking column normalization, wherein tracking column normalization comprises:&#xD;&#xA;creating a tracking variable, wherein the tracking variable has a maximum value determined by a number of columns in the index key;&#xD;&#xA;incrementing the tracking variable value each time one of the columns of the index key is normalized; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining that normalization of the index key is complete when the maximum value of the tracking variable value is reached;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - generating a normalized value for the index key, wherein generating the normalized value for the index key comprises:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - - determining a column type for a column; and&#xD;&#xA;determining an associated transformative function relating to the type of the column; and&#xD;&#xA;applying the associated transformative function to a value of the column resulting in the normalized column value;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - - generating a marker corresponding to the column, wherein the marker acts as a header for the normalized column value;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - - storing a normalized index key value, wherein the normalized index key value is updated for each column value that is normalized; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - - appending the marker and the normalized column value to a previously generated marker and normalized column value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any advice on having the patent invalidated?  What is involved, what does it cost?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=359892&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7539685" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15677" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5978" RevisionGUID="29b5148a-0246-4586-943b-1a229e7a7758" CreationDate="2014-01-31T06:13:46.840" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="Index key normalization (Microsoft) - Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5978" RevisionGUID="7d5de23c-1832-4f82-8c9e-60e31922d08d" CreationDate="2014-01-31T06:19:14.897" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="Patent [US 7539685 B2][3] concerns the normalization of btree index keys in a database management system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no citation of the 1977 paper [&quot;An Encoding Method for Multifield Sorting and Indexing&quot;][1] by Blasgen, Casey and Eswaran in the subject issued patent from [Microsoft][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the citation seems relevant and could be very convincingly argued to be prior art. As far as I can tell, the only difference is that the 1977 paper doesn't describe how the same technique can be used with a variety of binary types such that they can also be concatenated, but this is so obvious as to be redundant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, the omission of a citation of that paper is glaring, because it was produced by a group of researchers working on the seminal IBM System R RDBMS, which is widely influential. The influence of that system on Microsoft SQL server (which the patent references - it's from Microsoft research) is widely acknowledged and undeniable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim of '685 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A system for index key normalization in a database comprising a processor adapted for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - (a) Selecting an index key for normalization, wherein the index key contains more than one column, and wherein each column of the index key has a type, and wherein the index key contains more than one type of column type;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - (b) Tracking column normalization, wherein tracking column normalization comprises:&#xD;&#xA;creating a tracking variable, wherein the tracking variable has a maximum value determined by a number of columns in the index key;&#xD;&#xA;incrementing the tracking variable value each time one of the columns of the index key is normalized; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining that normalization of the index key is complete when the maximum value of the tracking variable value is reached;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - generating a normalized value for the index key, wherein generating the normalized value for the index key comprises:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - - determining a column type for a column; and&#xD;&#xA;determining an associated transformative function relating to the type of the column; and&#xD;&#xA;applying the associated transformative function to a value of the column resulting in the normalized column value;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - - generating a marker corresponding to the column, wherein the marker acts as a header for the normalized column value;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - - storing a normalized index key value, wherein the normalized index key value is updated for each column value that is normalized; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - - appending the marker and the normalized column value to a previously generated marker and normalized column value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any advice on having the patent invalidated?  What is involved, what does it cost?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=359892&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7539685" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5980" RevisionGUID="a212e9f1-8d1f-446f-b35a-5b0fe72c1839" CreationDate="2014-01-31T08:27:37.307" UserId="3076" Text="Getting this or any issued U.S. patent's claims narrowed or all of its claims made null can be done in one of two proceedings at the USPTO called an ex parte reexamination or an Inter Parte Review. The least expensive is the ex parte reexam. The filing fee is a minimum of $6000 for an ex part petition. That is just the filing fee, you will also want professional help in putting it together. With this you get to throw your rock and then have no further involvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inter Parte Review is a much bigger deal. It is a quasi-judical proceeding before the appeals board within the USPTO that you participate in. The min. fee is a non-refundable $9K + another $14K that you do get back if the boards decides not to take on the case at all. And those amounts are small in comparison to your legal bill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To literally be invalidated takes a court action and you would only be in court if the patentee was suing you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5980" RevisionGUID="878fbb56-9b9f-4386-bb9d-690b085a62f8" CreationDate="2014-01-31T18:34:08.300" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Getting this or any issued U.S. patent's claims narrowed or all of its claims made null can be done in one of two proceedings at the USPTO called an ex parte reexamination or an Inter Parte Review. The least expensive is the ex parte reexam. The filing fee is a minimum of $6000 for an ex parte petition. That is just the filing fee, you will also want professional help in putting it together. With this you get to throw your rock and then have no further involvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inter Parte Review is a much bigger deal. It is a quasi-judical proceeding before the appeals board within the USPTO that you participate in. The min. fee is a non-refundable $9K + another $14K that you do get back if the boards decides not to take on the case at all. And those amounts are small in comparison to your legal bill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To literally be invalidated takes a court action and you would only be in court if the patentee was suing you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5982" RevisionGUID="edfda900-7e7c-4d83-a0fa-93d0871231a1" CreationDate="2014-02-01T01:50:55.200" UserId="7794" Text="My question is regarding the above patent number (CN 202852656 U); does this patent prevent anyone from making and selling glass bottles filled with lights?  The reason I ask is because I am interested in inserting lights into bottles and decorating the outside of the bottle.  Would I be able to make these decorated bottles and sell them, or is that infringement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you,&#xD;&#xA;Melissa" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15690" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5982" RevisionGUID="edfda900-7e7c-4d83-a0fa-93d0871231a1" CreationDate="2014-02-01T01:50:55.200" UserId="7794" Text="CN 202852656 U_ Glass Bottle Light Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15691" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5982" RevisionGUID="edfda900-7e7c-4d83-a0fa-93d0871231a1" CreationDate="2014-02-01T01:50:55.200" UserId="7794" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5983" RevisionGUID="d90939fc-0be7-4f4d-8fe9-41217bb8682d" CreationDate="2014-02-01T03:06:16.183" UserId="7546" Text="I don't have access to the whole article, and nominally the first paragraphs are about scanning license plates, but, what they are talking about here sounds promising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Advances in Grid and Pervasive Computing&#xD;&#xA;Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume 4459, 2007, pp 730-737&#xD;&#xA;Image Streaming and Recognition for Vehicle Location Tracking Using Mobile Devices&#xD;&#xA;Jin-Suk Kang, Taikyeong T. Jeong, Sang Hyun Oh, Mee Young Sung&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The image of a license plate is scanned by the camera attached to a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mobile PDA device and the numbers on the plate are detected by the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; image processing parts in the proposed Mobile system. Then the numbers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and the location of a mobile PDA device are encoded and transmitted&#xD;&#xA;&gt; along with the location information to a remote server through a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wireless communication network. Finally, the server decodes the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transmitted data as a text format and transmits it to the destination&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user. Consequently, this paper contributes a case study on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; embedded system for designing of intelligent interface between a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; moving vehicle and a mobile PDA device, using a spatial relative&#xD;&#xA;&gt; distance scheme. The experimental results show that detection and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tracking of a location of moving vehicle can be conducted efficiently&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with a mobile PDA device in real-time through wireless communication&#xD;&#xA;&gt; system and Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-540-72360-8_65&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5983" RevisionGUID="9c659a6f-1618-4a7f-949f-2376e66ed3bd" CreationDate="2014-02-01T04:28:47.460" UserId="7546" Comment="added 262 characters in body" Text="I don't have access to the whole article, and nominally the first paragraphs are about scanning license plates, but, what they are talking about here sounds promising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Advances in Grid and Pervasive Computing&#xD;&#xA;Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume 4459, 2007, pp 730-737&#xD;&#xA;Image Streaming and Recognition for Vehicle Location Tracking Using Mobile Devices&#xD;&#xA;Jin-Suk Kang, Taikyeong T. Jeong, Sang Hyun Oh, Mee Young Sung&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The image of a license plate is scanned by the camera attached to a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mobile PDA device and the numbers on the plate are detected by the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; image processing parts in the proposed Mobile system. Then the numbers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and the location of a mobile PDA device are encoded and transmitted&#xD;&#xA;&gt; along with the location information to a remote server through a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wireless communication network. Finally, the server decodes the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transmitted data as a text format and transmits it to the destination&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user. Consequently, this paper contributes a case study on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; embedded system for designing of intelligent interface between a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; moving vehicle and a mobile PDA device, using a spatial relative&#xD;&#xA;&gt; distance scheme. The experimental results show that detection and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tracking of a location of moving vehicle can be conducted efficiently&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with a mobile PDA device in real-time through wireless communication&#xD;&#xA;&gt; system and Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-540-72360-8_65&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ALso this is a 1993 patent for using gps to track vehicles in urban areas that mentions communicating the tracking using mobile http://www.google.com/patents?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;vid=USPAT5225842&amp;id=JT0fAAAAEBAJ&#xD;&#xA;It also has a very thorough looking list of prior art.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15702" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5982" RevisionGUID="51271550-1418-41cf-b438-38e8ba493b66" CreationDate="2014-02-01T07:21:34.487" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag to patent" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;cn202852656&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5986" RevisionGUID="0bf99ff2-2fc0-451e-9aa8-97704ce9b82e" CreationDate="2014-02-01T07:26:44.690" UserId="3076" Text="This is a Chinese patent document number. Patents are territorial rights so unless you are planning to make, sell, import, or use this in China this isn't relevant. There may be similar patents in other locations but this one is just enforceable in China." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5987" RevisionGUID="ac6af63b-557c-4a82-a383-12ee8c44c543" CreationDate="2014-02-01T07:38:00.237" UserId="7800" Text="The patent description sounds almost exactly like an iPhone app called Taxi Magic, released 2008 time:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://techcrunch.com/2008/12/16/taxi-magic-hail-a-cab-from-your-iphone-at-the-push-of-a-button/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5990" RevisionGUID="34670471-795a-416e-b91f-cf482478263a" CreationDate="2014-02-01T12:09:17.147" UserId="7546" Text="An example of a common situation where people want to use streams of words and analyze their frequencies and how those frequencies change over time is the analysis of search terms that people use to find a website (i.e. If I went to Google or Bing and searched for &quot;patent discussion&quot; and then clicked on the result, the site I went to would want to know those are the terms I searched rather than say &quot;patent debate&quot;).  In the search engine optimization industry this is known as organic search and traditionally the search engines have provided this information via the http request. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far back as 2005 [Webalizer][1] (an open source application for analyzing server logs) allowed the analysis of frequency of search terms by time. There are many forks of Webalizer some of which since 2005 have further enhanced this aspect of the analysis of the logs (e.g. http://ostermiller.org/webalizer/  http://www.stonesteps.ca/).  See also http://www.daydream.co.uk/webalizer_guide.asp#webalizer_top_and_total_search_strings  -- the whole page discusses the use of Webalizer to identify trends.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Awstats][2] is another application for doing this. There are many extensions to Awstats that provide more complex analyses of trending search terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.webalizer.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.awstats.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5983" RevisionGUID="5f49f316-6f34-4b17-ae2f-33b914c994ef" CreationDate="2014-02-01T14:15:46.553" UserId="7546" Comment="added another possible piece of prior art." Text="I don't have access to the whole article, and nominally the first paragraphs are about scanning license plates, but, what they are talking about here sounds promising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Advances in Grid and Pervasive Computing&#xD;&#xA;Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume 4459, 2007, pp 730-737&#xD;&#xA;Image Streaming and Recognition for Vehicle Location Tracking Using Mobile Devices&#xD;&#xA;Jin-Suk Kang, Taikyeong T. Jeong, Sang Hyun Oh, Mee Young Sung&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The image of a license plate is scanned by the camera attached to a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mobile PDA device and the numbers on the plate are detected by the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; image processing parts in the proposed Mobile system. Then the numbers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and the location of a mobile PDA device are encoded and transmitted&#xD;&#xA;&gt; along with the location information to a remote server through a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wireless communication network. Finally, the server decodes the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transmitted data as a text format and transmits it to the destination&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user. Consequently, this paper contributes a case study on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; embedded system for designing of intelligent interface between a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; moving vehicle and a mobile PDA device, using a spatial relative&#xD;&#xA;&gt; distance scheme. The experimental results show that detection and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tracking of a location of moving vehicle can be conducted efficiently&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with a mobile PDA device in real-time through wireless communication&#xD;&#xA;&gt; system and Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-540-72360-8_65&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ALso this is a 1993 patent for using gps to track vehicles in urban areas that mentions communicating the tracking using mobile http://www.google.com/patents?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;vid=USPAT5225842&amp;id=JT0fAAAAEBAJ&#xD;&#xA;It also has a very thorough looking list of prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also this patent from https://www.google.com/patents/CN101079792B?cl=en with a 2007 priority date involves using mobile and as I read it lets the customer choose between taxis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5918" RevisionGUID="df7aae59-f293-47a5-8e5d-d43ec8ff590e" CreationDate="2014-02-01T14:52:08.187" UserId="7546" Comment="added 188 characters in body" Text="I see a couple of things. One is that they are just putting some of the UI in different places, the columns to the left of the table and the rows above and  &quot;in the same window' as the table, as opposed to in a separate window the way it is in Excel. Also notice how it's not just a list of fields, it's a box with all the properties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(And they seem to claim the color thing is important, not sure what that is about).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we'd want to find something that that same window feature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know that all of that is new  different enough, but it is definitely different.  But, I'm thinking there probably is something else out there that isn't Excel. I haven't looked at Tableau yet but that could be it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The date on the first github commit of this is too late, but I think this is in line with that they are talking about, http://nicolas.kruchten.com/pivottable/examples/mps_prepop.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5977" RevisionGUID="b1237497-865a-4685-900a-290560051324" CreationDate="2014-02-01T18:17:12.677" UserId="7799" Comment="I want to know where I can find the three drawings referred to in DE200520010768" Text="Hi. I'm sorry for not being clear the first time.  I have an invention that I want to patent, but it sounds similar to DE200520010768. I'm hoping that photos of diagrams of DE200520010768 will be helpful to me in figuring out whether this is what I am trying to patent so that I don't go forward with mine. The line 0010 of the patent refers to three drawings. I am trying to find out where I can see these drawings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you so much for any help you can provide, even if it is referring me elsewhere to search for the drawings themselves. I tagged this as patent-infringement because that is what I am trying to avoid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Monica&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where are the drawings for this patent: Sex toy in shape of penis, comprising base with socket for insertion of ball shaped rear end&#xD;&#xA;DE 202005010768 U1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to know because I am trying to patent something similar. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15716" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5977" RevisionGUID="b1237497-865a-4685-900a-290560051324" CreationDate="2014-02-01T18:17:12.677" Comment="Proposed by 7799 approved by 1259, 3076 edit id of 491" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5771" RevisionGUID="cc0beb6f-1a61-48a1-a782-a491b45f9e6a" CreationDate="2014-02-01T22:25:53.307" UserId="7546" Comment="Added a link and a tag" Text="This [patent][1] is comprised of mainly open source technologies all put together. Can open source items be patent in this manner without a reference? The open source project I'm referencing is Kegbot (http://www.kegbot.org, https://github.com/Kegbot). This open source project does the exact same thing this patent specifies and has been in existence since 2010. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130314244" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15718" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5771" RevisionGUID="cc0beb6f-1a61-48a1-a782-a491b45f9e6a" CreationDate="2014-02-01T22:25:53.307" UserId="7546" Comment="Added a link and a tag" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;us20130314244&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15719" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5771" RevisionGUID="cc0beb6f-1a61-48a1-a782-a491b45f9e6a" CreationDate="2014-02-01T22:25:53.307" Comment="Proposed by 7546 approved by 1767 edit id of 492" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5991" RevisionGUID="52ef819b-9690-46f3-8c59-7a7fd7a07b1d" CreationDate="2014-02-02T11:41:32.807" UserId="7806" Text="**Google Analytics** Dashboard/Reporting UI is your best bet to block this one. I'm fairly certain there was a demo of their tool at I/O 2010 or earlier? that showed off exactly the screen above. But also Qlikview, Power Pivot, COGNOS, and Adobe SiteCatalyst are great places to start.  I've had training and experience with all of them, and they're all auto producing element/dimension/segment tools that let you drag/drop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are literally hundred's of books out there that provide training to Marketing professionals on the use of Google's Drag and Drop dashboard (going back to The Google Api v2, when it wasn't one large ecosystem.... And specifically, the bits on segments are what I think would seal the deal.  That's the biggest difference between Pivot tables... you could set a table filter, but those couldn't be dragged around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But of course... Excel Pivot Tables...**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5992" RevisionGUID="a19eae26-832c-4645-af99-89e93ee4b78f" CreationDate="2014-02-02T16:02:24.197" UserId="7808" Text="I've got an innovative but simple idea to defeat or avoid SPI (Shallow Packet Inspection) and even DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) as well and can be explained in a single paragraph. Actually it may have many security and anti-censorship applications. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1)How can I publish and protect my idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2)Is there any Company going to pay for just this idea if it can be proved technically practical?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks you all," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15724" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5992" RevisionGUID="a19eae26-832c-4645-af99-89e93ee4b78f" CreationDate="2014-02-02T16:02:24.197" UserId="7808" Text="Anti Packet Inspection Idea" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15725" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5992" RevisionGUID="a19eae26-832c-4645-af99-89e93ee4b78f" CreationDate="2014-02-02T16:02:24.197" UserId="7808" Text="&lt;idea&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15726" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5992" RevisionGUID="e4ae00e8-53c0-419a-9d98-48937fda9a77" CreationDate="2014-02-02T16:14:48.880" UserId="7808" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;internet&gt;&lt;protect&gt;&lt;network&gt;&lt;security&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5993" RevisionGUID="96e14ad7-c3c1-4b8f-bb12-ff1f38f8d818" CreationDate="2014-02-02T19:56:10.893" UserId="3076" Text="If you want to protect your idea you would get a solid US patent application on file *before* you publish anything about it. You might want to delve more into the practicality of the idea before publishing anything. One approach would be to file first on what you already have in mind and then do more thinking/work on possible implementations and file again on those details before publishing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have an acquaintance who says &quot;companies steal ideas but they buy product lines&quot;. I'm not sure how true that is but I imagine proving that your scheme is practical and that there is a market of willing customers would enhance its value. Of course, doing a good search to see how novel the idea really is should be one of your first steps. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5996" RevisionGUID="149241c7-0960-4b96-836e-6760b1112d65" CreationDate="2014-02-03T15:45:43.787" UserId="7815" Text="I want to download thousands of patent documents in pdf format for  a patent search system. I want them in a zipped file which have 1000 of patents..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do google bulk patent provides it ? Note I want the patents in PDF format. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So please suggest a solution for my issue ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15735" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5996" RevisionGUID="149241c7-0960-4b96-836e-6760b1112d65" CreationDate="2014-02-03T15:45:43.787" UserId="7815" Text="Is there any site to download patents in bulk as PDF format?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15736" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5996" RevisionGUID="149241c7-0960-4b96-836e-6760b1112d65" CreationDate="2014-02-03T15:45:43.787" UserId="7815" Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5998" RevisionGUID="a58041f8-75a1-4b85-b3b2-127df1df99c0" CreationDate="2014-02-03T17:24:52.793" UserId="1186" Text="I want to protect my invention in gulf and US both. Now shall I first file in Gulf (GCC) and then move to USPTO or the V.V ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15740" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5998" RevisionGUID="a58041f8-75a1-4b85-b3b2-127df1df99c0" CreationDate="2014-02-03T17:24:52.793" UserId="1186" Text="Out of USPTO and GCC which one should be filed first?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15741" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5998" RevisionGUID="a58041f8-75a1-4b85-b3b2-127df1df99c0" CreationDate="2014-02-03T17:24:52.793" UserId="1186" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;priority&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15742" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="5977" RevisionGUID="31654748-15d7-48fe-8e74-a90da8169864" CreationDate="2014-02-03T17:48:32.713" UserId="1767" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3076,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George White&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1767,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Micah Siegel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="15743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5996" RevisionGUID="f199fe45-9b07-4c79-a88a-d59b10819509" CreationDate="2014-02-03T17:48:52.050" UserId="6" Comment="deleted 83 characters in body; edited title" Text="I want to download thousands of patent documents in PDF format for a patent search system. I want them in zipped files which have thousands of patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does Google bulk patent provide this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15744" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5996" RevisionGUID="f199fe45-9b07-4c79-a88a-d59b10819509" CreationDate="2014-02-03T17:48:52.050" UserId="6" Comment="deleted 83 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is there any site to download patents in bulk in PDF format?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5977" RevisionGUID="777670b7-fe15-4294-8ce5-297911cf5d6a" CreationDate="2014-02-03T17:49:04.980" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm sorry for not being clear the first time.  I have an invention that I want to patent, but it sounds similar to DE200520010768. I'm hoping that photos of diagrams of DE200520010768 will be helpful to me in figuring out whether this is what I am trying to patent so that I don't go forward with mine. The line 0010 of the patent refers to three drawings. I am trying to find out where I can see these drawings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you so much for any help you can provide, even if it is referring me elsewhere to search for the drawings themselves. I tagged this as patent-infringement because that is what I am trying to avoid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Monica&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where are the drawings for this patent: Sex toy in shape of penis, comprising base with socket for insertion of ball shaped rear end&#xD;&#xA;DE 202005010768 U1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to know because I am trying to patent something similar. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15746" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5977" RevisionGUID="777670b7-fe15-4294-8ce5-297911cf5d6a" CreationDate="2014-02-03T17:49:04.980" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-figures&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5999" RevisionGUID="19ee47aa-b35f-4aa0-835d-20396d039c40" CreationDate="2014-02-03T18:26:39.187" UserId="3076" Text="Yes, google makes several different [downloads][1] available in a zip format. This data is from the USPTO and does not include OCR'd version of older patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6001" RevisionGUID="2538eb15-7bab-4289-8180-2fd33bf9c903" CreationDate="2014-02-03T21:52:22.627" UserId="7793" Text="For patent # 5,584,962 I have developed a tensioned hub for the supply roll that fits these machines.  This mainly concerns figure 8.  My hub design is different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, is the tensioned function patented?  Or the hub design?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, when would this patent expire?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15757" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6001" RevisionGUID="2538eb15-7bab-4289-8180-2fd33bf9c903" CreationDate="2014-02-03T21:52:22.627" UserId="7793" Text="What is enforceable on this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15758" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6001" RevisionGUID="2538eb15-7bab-4289-8180-2fd33bf9c903" CreationDate="2014-02-03T21:52:22.627" UserId="7793" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6001" RevisionGUID="b6d32a47-8e34-4e0f-af64-9341377f3342" CreationDate="2014-02-03T22:42:05.180" UserId="1767" Comment="added 58 characters in body; edited tags" Text="For patent # 5,584,962 I have developed a tensioned hub for the supply roll that fits these machines.  This mainly concerns figure 8.  My hub design is different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. How can I tell what is patented in 5,586,962.  Is the tensioned function patented?  Is the hub design?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Also, when would this patent expire?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15760" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6001" RevisionGUID="b6d32a47-8e34-4e0f-af64-9341377f3342" CreationDate="2014-02-03T22:42:05.180" UserId="1767" Comment="added 58 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;us5584962&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6003" RevisionGUID="3d4435c3-763d-4235-ad84-0532c4f08fb3" CreationDate="2014-02-04T01:41:58.660" UserId="3076" Text="As with all patents, it is the claims that define what thpoole inventor &quot;owns&quot;. In both indepent claims there are elements a - h. *All* of the eight elements must be present for something to infringe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like this would have expired 17 years from issue which was Dec. of 2013." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15773" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="06f4ae4e-9f20-470e-b749-ee8075db835c" CreationDate="2014-02-04T17:43:21.343" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **Patent Application: **US20140019842** from Bank of America **reminds me a lot of [Software from Tableau](http://www.tableausoftware.com/)**.  I'm looking for a Tableau or other reference which can be given to the patent examiner to help block or narrow this patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overview: &quot;A set of measure/dimension boxes in an &quot;available fields&quot; region, which can then be dragged to &quot;Row&quot; or &quot;Column&quot; region.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was published before **7/11/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An apparatus, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a processor operable to:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Determine** a plurality of field identifiers of a data set, the data set comprising a plurality of data entries, a data entry comprising one or more data values, a data value associated with a field identifier of the plurality of field identifiers;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Generate** a plurality of field cells that each correspond to a field identifier of the plurality of field identifiers;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Display** the plurality of field cells within an available fields region; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Display** a column field region and a row field region, the column field region operable to define one or more columns of a pivot table, the row field region operable to define one or more rows of the pivot table; and&#xD;&#xA;an interface operable to accept a first input from a user; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wherein the processor is further operable to:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Move** a first field cell of the plurality of field cells from the available fields region to the column field region or the row field region in response to the first input from a user; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Update** the pivot table to include one or more rows or columns corresponding to the first field cell upon detection of the movement of the first field cell to the column field region or the row field region.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FIGURE FROM PATENT APPLICATION IN QUESTION&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FIGURE FROM &quot;Tableau&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question**: Can anyone find a reference to patents from Tableau (or any other company) which predates the subject patent application from Bank of America (filed 7/11/2012).  It definitely does not seem novel to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/fRd99.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/lzOS1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5900" RevisionGUID="96aee522-4de1-46bd-a2f4-f3e944b6a543" CreationDate="2014-02-04T17:43:42.673" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON arranging transport amongst parties through use of mobile devices** - This application from [Uber][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Enabling customers to order drivers from a mobile phone and tracking the location of the driver as it arrives! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/4/2009** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Mobile phone-based taxi services&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Location of driver is displayed on a map on user's phone, user and driver can communicate with one another prior to pickup, and/or user is able to provide feedback on driver's service after the ride.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Arranging transportation among parties at different locations using a mobile phone**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] User at one location requests driver.  From a pool of candidate drivers, the user chooses a driver to pick him up.  The user's location is communicated to the driver, the driver's location is communicated to the user as the vehicle progresses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20110313804 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/961,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Uber&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/4/2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer implemented method for arranging transport amongst parties located at different locations, the method being implemented by one or more processors of a server and comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, at the server from a customer device at a first geographic location a request for transport, the request including information about the first geographic location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. In response to receiving the request, from a pool of candidate respondents, selecting, by the server and for a customer operating the customer device, a driver at a second geographic location based, at least in part, on location information of the candidate driver;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Communicating, by the server, an invitation to a corresponding device of the driver, the invitation enabling the driver to accept the invitation to provide transport for the customer and including (i) the first geographic location, and (ii) identification information of the customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Communicating, from the server to the customer device, a status of fulfilling the request for the customer, including communicating one or more notifications that informs the customer that the server is selecting the driver; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Once the dirver has accepted the invitation, communicating, from the server to the customer device, a location of the driver as the driver progresses to or arrives at the first geographic location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for arranging transport amongst parties located at different locations, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, a request for transport, the request including information about the first geographic location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a driver at a second geographic location from a pool of candidate driveres based, at least in part, on the location of the driver&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Inviting the driver to provide transport for the customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Informing the customer that the server is selecting the driver; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Communicating the location of the driver as the driver progresses to or arrives at the first geographic location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/4/2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Displaying driver location on a map, feedback system for user to rate driver (and vice-versa) after trip&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;User-interfaces as transportation is requested and provided&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/G2VcnfE.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Uber does not deserve this overly broad set of claims!  As just one example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **US 6,356,838 System and method for determining an efficient transportation route**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The driver then proceeds to the pickup point. As the driver continues on her way, she may update the passenger 170 of any changes to the arrival time estimate including, for example, the fact that she has arrived at the pickup point. &quot; from [US6356838][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you help find more Prior Art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110313804&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.uber.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20110313804#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=12%2F06%2F2010&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6356838&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5873" RevisionGUID="1d255ca3-59da-42eb-b151-cf539d521116" CreationDate="2014-02-04T17:43:54.127" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON offering coupons based on an item of interest at a user's location** - This application from [Ebay][6] seeks to patent the idea of...determining the geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item at the geographic location, and generating an incentive offered by a merchant based on the determined geographic location and the identified item.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 3/17/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Presenting incentives offered by nearby merchants based on an item identified at the geographic location of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Incentives may be discounts, sales, rebates, coupons, **item recommendations** etc. A user may specify an item of interest using various input means of a mobile device such as **text identification**, **audio identification**, **machine-readable symbol identification**, **image identification**, or **video identification**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining incentives related to items identified at user location**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Determining geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item specified via the mobile device at the determined geographic location, generating an incentive offered by a merchant within a fixed geographic area based on the determined geographic location and the identified item, and expanding the fixed geographic area when the generated incentive is not related to the identified item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120239483 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/339,235&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Ebay&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a first module configured to determine a geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a second module configured to identify an item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device via an optical input of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a processor-implemented incentive module configured to generate a limited-time incentive offer from at least one merchant within a predefined geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device, the limited-time incentive offer based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device, and to expand the predefined geographic area when the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device does not correspond to any item identified in the at least one limited-time incentive offer of the at least one merchant within the predefined geographic area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising various modules to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identify an item specified at the determined geographic location via an **optical** input to the mobile device (the example given is the phone reading the bar code of the item using its camera);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Generate limited-time incentive offers from merchants within a fixed geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Expand the fixed geographic area if the generated limited-time incentive offers are not related to the specified item,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * The limited-time incentive offers are based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A user preference setting to define a search radius and preferred merchants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Offering incentives related to an item based on geographic location of the item&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NioC9f0.png&quot; width=&quot;450&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120239483&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ebayinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120239483#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=03%2F17%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15776" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4537" RevisionGUID="e1e0bed1-f62a-41bf-bac5-100e99b35b45" CreationDate="2014-02-04T17:44:24.190" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  ![enter image description here][9]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** below!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed.   **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ONLINE SEARCH** - This application from [Yahoo!][6] seeks to patent the idea of... user editing search results for themselves and other users! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 19, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Accepting **USER EDITS** to **SEARCH RESULTS**; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Modifying the **SEARCH RESULTS PAGE** based on its **USER EDITS** with a **DRAG AND DROP** interface;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves user edits applying **GLOBALLY** to other users’ search results pages, **REMOVING DUPLICATE RESULTS** or a **DRAG AND DROP INTERFACE** to proposed user edits to search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: EDITORIAL CURATION OF SEARCH RESULTS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of modifying search results pages based on user edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159222 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/330,405&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 19, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for editorial curation of search results, comprising steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; using a processor device configured to perform:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a search results page rendered in response to a search query;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. receiving user edits comprising changes to objects in the search results page; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. applying the user edits to the search results page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for curating search results using a computer, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a search results page in response to a search query&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving user edits to objects in the search results page; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Applying the user edits to the search results page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming user edits applying **GLOBALLY** to other users’ search results pages, **REMOVING DUPLICATE RESULTS** or a **DRAG AND DROP INTERFACE** to proposed user edits to search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Drag and Drop User Curated Search Results Pages from Yahoo!**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/JCCnb.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130159222&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/201038072/US-20130159222-A1&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5873" RevisionGUID="c8e5b654-15df-4c4f-8bb0-8d9e66bfdd91" CreationDate="2014-02-04T21:55:06.143" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON offering coupons based on an item of interest at a user's location** - This application from [Ebay][6] seeks to patent the idea of...determining the geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item at the geographic location, and generating an incentive offered by a merchant based on the determined geographic location and the identified item! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 3/17/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Presenting incentives offered by nearby merchants based on an item identified at the geographic location of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Incentives may be discounts, sales, rebates, coupons, **item recommendations** etc. A user may specify an item of interest using various input means of a mobile device such as **text identification**, **audio identification**, **machine-readable symbol identification**, **image identification**, or **video identification**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining incentives related to items identified at user location**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Determining geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item specified via the mobile device at the determined geographic location, generating an incentive offered by a merchant within a fixed geographic area based on the determined geographic location and the identified item, and expanding the fixed geographic area when the generated incentive is not related to the identified item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120239483 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/339,235&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Ebay&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a first module configured to determine a geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a second module configured to identify an item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device via an optical input of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a processor-implemented incentive module configured to generate a limited-time incentive offer from at least one merchant within a predefined geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device, the limited-time incentive offer based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device, and to expand the predefined geographic area when the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device does not correspond to any item identified in the at least one limited-time incentive offer of the at least one merchant within the predefined geographic area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising various modules to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identify an item specified at the determined geographic location via an **optical** input to the mobile device (the example given is the phone reading the bar code of the item using its camera);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Generate limited-time incentive offers from merchants within a fixed geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Expand the fixed geographic area if the generated limited-time incentive offers are not related to the specified item,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * The limited-time incentive offers are based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A user preference setting to define a search radius and preferred merchants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Offering incentives related to an item based on geographic location of the item&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NioC9f0.png&quot; width=&quot;450&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120239483&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ebayinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120239483#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=03%2F17%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6005" RevisionGUID="2e44fa8e-5c81-4cff-ae88-f4404fefce59" CreationDate="2014-02-05T03:54:13.597" UserId="7824" Text="&#xD;&#xA;A patent application that I wrote issued as a patent in August 2013. I have not claimed a few features that were disclosed in the specification. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to file a continuation / divisional patent application to claim the features that were left out?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are my other options?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15781" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6005" RevisionGUID="2e44fa8e-5c81-4cff-ae88-f4404fefce59" CreationDate="2014-02-05T03:54:13.597" UserId="7824" Text="Can I file a continuation / divisional on an issued patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15782" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6005" RevisionGUID="2e44fa8e-5c81-4cff-ae88-f4404fefce59" CreationDate="2014-02-05T03:54:13.597" UserId="7824" Text="&lt;continuation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6006" RevisionGUID="49d74b75-bd71-489f-bde1-e8f516bd49b0" CreationDate="2014-02-05T06:31:55.973" UserId="3076" Text="To be a divisional or a continuation an application has to have overlapping pendency with the &quot;parent&quot; application. Pendency ends the day of issue so, unless you filed something while it was pending, there is no way to file a divisional or continuation. It might still be possible to re-file a new application and claim the subject matter that was left unclaimed. Your previous application can be used against a new application starting one year from its publication. If the first time the information in the old application saw the light of day was the day of issue then you have until August. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6008" RevisionGUID="43ffa9b6-2b73-4651-954b-56bd82e120fa" CreationDate="2014-02-05T12:43:04.200" UserId="7827" Text="What happens when a patent is granted to an inventor but it is shown that the product actually has existed for some time, has not been patented, yet has been available to the public since before the inventor filed for the patent? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15788" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6008" RevisionGUID="43ffa9b6-2b73-4651-954b-56bd82e120fa" CreationDate="2014-02-05T12:43:04.200" UserId="7827" Text="Codevelopment of a product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15789" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6008" RevisionGUID="43ffa9b6-2b73-4651-954b-56bd82e120fa" CreationDate="2014-02-05T12:43:04.200" UserId="7827" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6009" RevisionGUID="b93a770d-bc08-4dcb-a6e3-b63f15534e31" CreationDate="2014-02-05T14:25:18.560" UserId="7828" Text="I am looking through Google Patents and reading the paperwork of various patents. In what section can I see under which country the patent is valid? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15791" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6009" RevisionGUID="b93a770d-bc08-4dcb-a6e3-b63f15534e31" CreationDate="2014-02-05T14:25:18.560" UserId="7828" Text="Where can I see in which country a patent is valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15792" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6009" RevisionGUID="b93a770d-bc08-4dcb-a6e3-b63f15534e31" CreationDate="2014-02-05T14:25:18.560" UserId="7828" Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;validity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6010" RevisionGUID="8dc06b29-c924-472b-a4e9-0857a550b0f4" CreationDate="2014-02-05T15:19:31.867" UserId="1622" Text="Patents are only valid in the country that issues the patent.  There are no international patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, a US patent is only valid in the US.  Likewise, a Japanese patent is only valid in Japan.  Same with a German patent or a French patent or whatever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To see what country issued the patent, check the front page of the patent.  Typically the top of the front page will identify the type of document.  Like &quot;United States Patent&quot; or similar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6011" RevisionGUID="95b5169f-106e-4c1c-b994-60148b58870d" CreationDate="2014-02-05T17:29:47.740" UserId="3076" Text="The patent would be much less valuable. Patents don't automatically go away because someone says it shouldn't have been issued but the patent owner would not have much incentive to assert the patent if it was pretty clear it would be found invalid in court. There are proceedures to ask the patent office to take another look at it but the lowest cost way to do that has a $6000 USPTO fee. Also, there may still be some aspect or version of the invention that isn't obvious under the old knowledge that can still stand up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6012" RevisionGUID="088b1215-462d-4f0a-b4d1-7673c1feed89" CreationDate="2014-02-05T19:19:54.543" UserId="7829" Text="This may or may not apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.esaim-ps.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&amp;aid=8211879&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ESAIM: Probability and Statistics / Volume 13 / July 2009, pp 328-342" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6013" RevisionGUID="3079cf92-1892-402e-a1be-52fee030fe23" CreationDate="2014-02-05T19:27:03.667" UserId="7830" Text="When does editing the disclosure and/or claims for use in ***nonprovisional*** app, said disclosure and claims first disclosed in a ***provisional*** patent, constitute the addition of &quot;New matter?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Said in another way, must one repeat, verbatim, the disclosure of the provisional application to avoid the charge of &quot;introduction of new matter?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, can you &quot;clean up&quot; or edit any claims in the nonprovisional app that were first stated in the provisional application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I primarily want to clean up language, etc., and rewrite claims more &quot;efficiently&quot; but without changing the semantics of the claims (at least that is the intent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to maintain claimed priority to the provisional and do not want to &quot;introduce new matter.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15797" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6013" RevisionGUID="3079cf92-1892-402e-a1be-52fee030fe23" CreationDate="2014-02-05T19:27:03.667" UserId="7830" Text="Avoiding &quot;New matter&quot; when leveraging PPA in nonprovisional app" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15798" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6013" RevisionGUID="3079cf92-1892-402e-a1be-52fee030fe23" CreationDate="2014-02-05T19:27:03.667" UserId="7830" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6014" RevisionGUID="1f0ed731-8890-41ab-a1c5-7bdc59cd463d" CreationDate="2014-02-05T23:29:16.600" UserId="3076" Text="**You are in luck. This is a non-issue.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A non-provisional patent can get the benefit of one or more provisional applications and there is almost always more information in the non-provisional. The new matter restriction occurs in two cases. One is that once filed, an application can be amended but nothing can add new matter to what was originally filed. Second, an application that you designate as a continuation or divisional application can't have new mater relative to the chain of patent applications. Make the non-provisional as good as you can with as much information as relevant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6015" RevisionGUID="f629b3d0-c11c-4f7d-8f62-7205223e91f2" CreationDate="2014-02-05T23:32:58.977" UserId="3076" Text="While any single granted patent is granted in a specific jurisdiction and only enforceable there, the applicant may very well have filed duplicate applications in any number of other countries. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15805" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6015" RevisionGUID="dc4ef1af-ed8f-4152-857a-c1c6d5b2ca84" CreationDate="2014-02-06T01:32:06.230" UserId="3076" Comment="added link and screen shot of The Lens" Text="While any single granted patent is granted in a specific jurisdiction and only enforceable there, the applicant may very well have filed duplicate applications in any number of other countries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not every patent document is an issued patent. If the number has an &quot;A&quot; at the end it is an application. If it ends in a &quot;B&quot; that indicates an issued patent. But issued may not mean enforceable. It may have expired at then end of its term or renewal fees may not have been paid and it may have expired early. The two letter code and the A or B suffix are international standards. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google patents will not necessarily show all related patents. One way to get a bigger picture is to use the INAPOC database. You can get to it in several ways. One [free patent search site, The Lens,][1] says it covers 90 patent jurisdictions. When you look up and find a patent document it has a series of tabs. From the tabs you can seen where it has been filed (if it is a matter of public record at the time) and it also shows if renewal fees have been paid. A screen shot shows a map of the world showing the cove range of a particular semi-random pick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ImVKy.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6017" RevisionGUID="37ae84db-c141-497a-985d-3c6360c1e7c3" CreationDate="2014-02-06T04:00:47.620" UserId="7824" Text="&#xD;&#xA;A patent application that I filed in July 2010 was issued as a patent in August 2013. I have not claimed one feature that was disclosed in the specification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I claim this feature now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15809" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6017" RevisionGUID="37ae84db-c141-497a-985d-3c6360c1e7c3" CreationDate="2014-02-06T04:00:47.620" UserId="7824" Text="How can I claim a feature that was disclosed in the specification of an issued patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15810" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6017" RevisionGUID="37ae84db-c141-497a-985d-3c6360c1e7c3" CreationDate="2014-02-06T04:00:47.620" UserId="7824" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6017" RevisionGUID="19aca49b-f853-4515-b846-bd37474a5aec" CreationDate="2014-02-06T05:11:51.770" UserId="1767" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="A patent application that I filed in July 2010 was issued as a patent in August 2013. There is a feature that was disclosed in the specification which was not been claimed in the issued patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I claim this feature now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6015" RevisionGUID="0044e6a7-50be-4618-ad46-322933510c60" CreationDate="2014-02-06T05:27:43.240" UserId="3076" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="While any single granted patent is granted in a specific jurisdiction and only enforceable there, the applicant may very well have filed duplicate applications in any number of other countries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not every patent document is an issued patent. If the number has an &quot;A&quot; at the end it is an application. If it ends in a &quot;B&quot; that indicates an issued patent. But issued may not mean enforceable. It may have expired at the end of its term or renewal fees may not have been paid and it may have expired early. The two letter country code and the A or B suffix are international standards. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google patents will not necessarily show all related patents. One way to get a bigger picture is to use the INAPOC database. You can get to it in several ways. One [free patent search site, The Lens,][1] says it covers 90 patent jurisdictions. When you look up and find a patent document it has a series of tabs. From the tabs you can seen where it has been filed (if it is a matter of public record at the time) and it also shows if renewal fees have been paid. A screen shot shows a map of the world showing the coverage of a particular semi-random pick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ImVKy.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6017" RevisionGUID="0ae5d240-a67e-4b88-a5b2-99de80f28f7e" CreationDate="2014-02-06T08:21:33.667" UserId="7824" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="A patent application that I filed in July 2010 was issued as a patent in August 2013. There is a feature that was disclosed in the specification and not claimed in the issued patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I claim this feature now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6019" RevisionGUID="04972443-05d6-436b-a070-fd31602acba0" CreationDate="2014-02-06T19:16:53.837" UserId="3076" Text="The best way to claim an unclaimed aspect of an application is in a divisional or continuation application. Unfortunately they need to be filed during the pendency of a parent application. Since that wasn't done there are other possibilities. If the original application was not published and nothing was sold or made public before the patent issued, then you have until August 2014 to file a new application (can be just like the orig. but with different claims). Your own work can't be used against you until it has been &quot;out&quot; for a year. If it was published or otherwise made public or sold then you have until a year from that point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6014" RevisionGUID="8dbfb35f-f721-420c-adcd-2eb5e853107a" CreationDate="2014-02-07T00:09:30.553" UserId="3076" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="**You are in luck. This is a non-issue.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A non-provisional patent application can get the benefit of one or more provisional applications and there is almost always more information in the non-provisional. The new matter restriction occurs in two cases. One is that, once filed, an application can be amended but nothing can add new matter to *that application* beyond what was originally filed. Second, an application that you designate as a continuation or divisional application can't have new mater relative to the chain of parent patent applications it comes from. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Make the non-provisional as good as you can with as much information as is relevant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6020" RevisionGUID="5cabcbf5-161b-49a4-8787-24c1690a5c04" CreationDate="2014-02-07T05:01:52.677" UserId="7838" Text="I was the original inventor and became partners w(co-inventor). The initial application was denied in 2005. I left the company and just found out that the initial application was approved 2012 with my name removed from patent. Do I have any recourse? There plenty of documentation that I was inventor on web. What should I do? Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15822" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6020" RevisionGUID="5cabcbf5-161b-49a4-8787-24c1690a5c04" CreationDate="2014-02-07T05:01:52.677" UserId="7838" Text="Inventor/Co-inventor later removed from application and patent without knowledge" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15823" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6020" RevisionGUID="5cabcbf5-161b-49a4-8787-24c1690a5c04" CreationDate="2014-02-07T05:01:52.677" UserId="7838" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6021" RevisionGUID="286b5f76-a9d0-4c91-918e-9a9128de69fc" CreationDate="2014-02-07T06:03:02.453" UserId="7824" Text="&#xD;&#xA;A patent application that I filed in June 2010 was published in February 2012. It issued as a patent in October 2013. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to claim an element disclosed in the specification in February 2014. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a. Is there any way of claiming the element now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b. Can I reopen the prosecution and amend the independent claim with the element?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15825" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6021" RevisionGUID="286b5f76-a9d0-4c91-918e-9a9128de69fc" CreationDate="2014-02-07T06:03:02.453" UserId="7824" Text="How can I claim an element after the patent has issued?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15826" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6021" RevisionGUID="286b5f76-a9d0-4c91-918e-9a9128de69fc" CreationDate="2014-02-07T06:03:02.453" UserId="7824" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6022" RevisionGUID="954330e9-60b4-4e44-863a-b617d550573f" CreationDate="2014-02-07T12:40:52.247" UserId="7824" Text="I introduced a claim limitation during patent prosecution to overcome prior art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to **partially** cancel this claim limitation in a reissue patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will the recapture doctrine still apply and prevent me from even **partially cancelling** the claim limitation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15828" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6022" RevisionGUID="954330e9-60b4-4e44-863a-b617d550573f" CreationDate="2014-02-07T12:40:52.247" UserId="7824" Text="Amending a claim in a reissue patent application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15829" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6022" RevisionGUID="954330e9-60b4-4e44-863a-b617d550573f" CreationDate="2014-02-07T12:40:52.247" UserId="7824" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;recapture&gt;&lt;reissue&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6023" RevisionGUID="73f0104d-4516-448e-9a3e-384d54dbd1cc" CreationDate="2014-02-07T12:43:41.280" UserId="7840" Text="http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/297663/new_phone-based_taxi_payment_service_launches/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://taxis.net.au/system.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the article, the service was already implemented at 1st of April 2009. The only thing that apparently is missing is the constant update on the position of the driver. Since a web browser for mobile phone is also considered an application I see no other reasons why this wouldn't fit the description of the patent. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6024" RevisionGUID="b70c0982-6ed2-4444-acc1-22f1b7a812b2" CreationDate="2014-02-07T18:29:42.327" UserId="3076" Text="There is a section of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) that covers this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **[1412.02   Recapture of Canceled Subject Matter**][1]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;A reissue will *not* be granted to &quot;recapture&quot; claimed subject matter which was surrendered in an application to obtain the original patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does go on to list a three-part test to see if this applies. It may be possible to add a claim that broadens or removes the limitation in question as long as there is some other significant narrowing in another aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1412.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6025" RevisionGUID="061875af-0ff4-478b-800c-50e530a2539a" CreationDate="2014-02-07T21:54:13.060" UserId="3076" Text="I would talk to an attorney. Business partners and co-inventors are two different things entirely. Everyone who made a *conceptual contribution* to something *claimed* in an application should be named as an inventor. It is possible, if you were co-inventors, that a new application was filed that only claimed things that you did not contribute to. Otherwise it is improper. Yet a different issue is the ownership. Inventors and co-inventors are automatic owners but they may have an agreement to assign their rights to a company, partnership or to one of the inventors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6025" RevisionGUID="6f6fab2a-924a-4244-a434-86b62109f7a4" CreationDate="2014-02-07T22:36:07.537" UserId="3076" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I would talk to an attorney. Business partners and co-inventors are two different things entirely. Everyone who made a *conceptual contribution* to something *claimed* in an application should be named as an inventor. It is possible, if you were co-inventors, that a new application was filed that only claimed things that you did *not* contribute to. Otherwise it is improper. Yet a different issue is the ownership. Inventors and co-inventors are automatic owners but they may have an agreement to assign their rights to a company, partnership or to one of the inventors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6026" RevisionGUID="473bb410-8c72-4eac-8e00-8897bbe62aa6" CreationDate="2014-02-08T06:50:50.177" UserId="7845" Text="OKCupid.com has filed for a patent, which is still pending on their matching algorithm. The &quot;patent pending&quot; claim is found here: https://www.okcupid.com/help/match-percentages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence reads, &quot;...there’s a patent pending, so no funny business.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've searched using Google's patent search, as well as the Application search found here: http://patft.uspto.gov/ I can't find the patent application for OKCupid or their parent company IAC/InterActiveCorp. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could anyone point me in the right direction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15840" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6026" RevisionGUID="473bb410-8c72-4eac-8e00-8897bbe62aa6" CreationDate="2014-02-08T06:50:50.177" UserId="7845" Text="How do I find the patent application for OKCupid's Match algorithm?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15841" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6026" RevisionGUID="473bb410-8c72-4eac-8e00-8897bbe62aa6" CreationDate="2014-02-08T06:50:50.177" UserId="7845" Text="&lt;patent-search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6027" RevisionGUID="69e920cc-6f23-4336-a928-669ad04c89b7" CreationDate="2014-02-08T13:55:02.347" UserId="7846" Text="To me it seems that what this application is, in effect, claiming is the use of 1-context-sensitivity to increase the precision of data-flow analyses for factory methods. This is the most trivial possible application of the general concept of context-sensitive data-flow analysis, which has been known since more than 35 years, as can be seen in this article:&#xD;&#xA;https://archive.org/details/twoapproachestoi00shar&#xD;&#xA;So how is this a novel invention by the IBM?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15843" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6027" RevisionGUID="69e920cc-6f23-4336-a928-669ad04c89b7" CreationDate="2014-02-08T13:55:02.347" UserId="7846" Text="Prior art from 35 years ago: context-sensitive data-flow analysis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15844" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6027" RevisionGUID="69e920cc-6f23-4336-a928-669ad04c89b7" CreationDate="2014-02-08T13:55:02.347" UserId="7846" Text="&lt;us20130086561&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6027" RevisionGUID="2e5bb2ca-cbdb-4093-b8cf-0d22076b56d8" CreationDate="2014-02-08T18:21:35.620" UserId="3076" Comment="Added claim 12" Text="To me it seems that what this application is, in effect, claiming is the use of 1-context-sensitivity to increase the precision of data-flow analyses for factory methods. This is the most trivial possible application of the general concept of context-sensitive data-flow analysis, which has been known since more than 35 years, as can be seen in this article:&#xD;&#xA;https://archive.org/details/twoapproachestoi00shar&#xD;&#xA;So how is this a novel invention by the IBM?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 12&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12. A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a bottleneck identifier configured to identify a data-flow bottleneck within a first data-flow propagation graph; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a static analyzer configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;apply a first level of abstraction to model a plurality of run-time objects of a computer software application, thereby producing a set of object abstractions, and&#xD;&#xA;perform static data-flow analysis of the computer software application using the set of object abstractions, thereby producing the first data-flow propagation graph;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;apply a second level of abstraction to model any of the run-time objects having in the set of object abstractions a corresponding object abstraction that is traceable to the data-flow bottleneck, where applying the second level of abstraction decomposes the corresponding object abstraction into a plurality of object abstractions, thereby modifying the set of object abstractions, and&#xD;&#xA;perform static data-flow analysis of the computer software application using the modified set of object abstractions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="005ae142-c1fc-4b96-bedf-b3c4d69aceca" CreationDate="2014-02-08T21:37:23.597" UserId="-1" Comment="Removed shouting, removed signature, added [video] tag" Text="I have a product I would like to patent which is a process to achieve a repair. A similar process has previously been patented and has since lapsed. My patent is an improvement on the previous patent and has 3 distinct areas of improvement. One of these areas is an instructional video to show how to apply the process. &#xD;&#xA;Without the DVD I don’t think the process would be of any use to the greater number of people as it is too difficult to teach the process from written instructions. The previous patent never had the video instructions.&#xD;&#xA;I want to stop someone from using the previous patent with video instructions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I protect the video teaching as part of the patent? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15847" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="005ae142-c1fc-4b96-bedf-b3c4d69aceca" CreationDate="2014-02-08T21:37:23.597" UserId="-1" Comment="Removed shouting, removed signature, added [video] tag" Text="Instructional video" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15848" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="005ae142-c1fc-4b96-bedf-b3c4d69aceca" CreationDate="2014-02-08T21:37:23.597" UserId="-1" Comment="Removed shouting, removed signature, added [video] tag" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;video&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15849" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="005ae142-c1fc-4b96-bedf-b3c4d69aceca" CreationDate="2014-02-08T21:37:23.597" Comment="Proposed by 91.176.250.212|4d387142-e6d8-4ac6-8a62-7d49a68dc48c approved by 3076, 1767 edit id of 494" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6028" RevisionGUID="bc7919a8-4851-424e-9ee1-6b4ea852e323" CreationDate="2014-02-09T19:11:06.323" UserId="7854" Text="Almost every &quot;OLAP tool&quot; around 2005 had some kind of pivot table (which almost but not quite looked like Excel) with slightly different user interfaces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good candidate seems to be &quot;Holos&quot; by Seagate Software / Crystal Decisions / Business Objects which is now discontinued:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://resources.businessobjects.com/support/communitycs/TechnicalPapers/worksheet.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6029" RevisionGUID="854387a8-b9a0-4fbc-8fa0-a37d1ca05f4b" CreationDate="2014-02-09T19:19:14.247" UserId="7853" Text="I found a patent [Methods of storing information using nucleic acids][1] (link goes to Google Patents). After cursory reading it seems to me it describes the content of the scientific article [Next-Generation Digital Information Storage in DNA][2] published in journal Science. The supplementary materials which illustrate the procedure are available publicly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They take a computer file, split it into chunks of 96 bits, replace zero bits with either A or C nucleotide and ones with either G or T. Then they prepped 19 nucleotides to signify the position of the fragment in the source file and finally a 22 bp sequences at the beginning and end to allow them to amplify the segments using PCR. This is all that is to the encoding scheme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me too simple to be actually patentable. Is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2014014991A2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6102/1628.abstract" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15852" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6029" RevisionGUID="854387a8-b9a0-4fbc-8fa0-a37d1ca05f4b" CreationDate="2014-02-09T19:19:14.247" UserId="7853" Text="Is the patent &quot;Methods of storing information using nucleic acids&quot; sufficiently innovative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15853" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6029" RevisionGUID="854387a8-b9a0-4fbc-8fa0-a37d1ca05f4b" CreationDate="2014-02-09T19:19:14.247" UserId="7853" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15854" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6029" RevisionGUID="608509b6-d59d-435c-85a4-83710c0b8ca7" CreationDate="2014-02-09T20:42:33.327" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;wo2014014991&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15855" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6029" RevisionGUID="4f301158-887c-4760-adb4-c1619ec964da" CreationDate="2014-02-09T23:28:34.273" UserId="3076" Comment="At this point (Feb. 2014) the document is an international application for a patent, not an issued patent." Text="I found a patent [Methods of storing information using nucleic acids][1] (link goes to Google Patents). After cursory reading it seems to me it describes the content of the scientific article [Next-Generation Digital Information Storage in DNA][2] published in journal Science. The supplementary materials which illustrate the procedure are available publicly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They take a computer file, split it into chunks of 96 bits, replace zero bits with either A or C nucleotide and ones with either G or T. Then they prepped 19 nucleotides to signify the position of the fragment in the source file and finally a 22 bp sequences at the beginning and end to allow them to amplify the segments using PCR. This is all that is to the encoding scheme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me too simple to be actually patentable. Is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of storing information using nucleotides comprising&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;converting a format of information into a plurality of bit sequences of a bit stream with each having a corresponding bit barcode,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;converting the plurality of bit sequences to a plurality of corresponding oligonucleotide sequences using one bit per base encoding,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;synthesizing the plurality of corresponding oligonucleotide sequences, and&#xD;&#xA;storing the synthesized plurality of corresponding oligonucleotide sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2014014991A2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6102/1628.abstract" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6030" RevisionGUID="2c94ddad-6aee-4e6f-a5a8-3b4662a05b5a" CreationDate="2014-02-09T23:32:23.540" UserId="3076" Text="The lead author of the article in Science *is* the inventor if this international application. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6030" RevisionGUID="b308d7f8-0330-4725-98a7-6fdbf5d0250c" CreationDate="2014-02-09T23:53:42.433" UserId="3076" Comment="added 283 characters in body" Text="To be patentable something's needs to be new and non-obvious compared to what came *before* it. The lead author of the article in Science *is* the inventor if this international application and the article was first published *after* the filing of the application. To see if the application is &quot;innovative enough&quot; we need to compare to the state of the art on the day of filing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6031" RevisionGUID="38cb5622-4084-45de-a366-bbc7746644c6" CreationDate="2014-02-10T00:38:45.887" UserId="1360" Text="The Application Data tab for this patent on the Public Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) site (http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair) indicates &quot;Patent Expired Due to NonPayment of Maintenance Fees Under 37 CFR 1.362&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6032" RevisionGUID="8ae2e0a2-4dad-4ba8-a79c-9aa39778b497" CreationDate="2014-02-10T00:57:23.557" UserId="1360" Text="The European Patent Office issued a search report (http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservicepdf_pct/id00000023922733.pdf) on February 6, 2014 noting two prior WIPO publications (i.e., WO2004/088585 and WO2003/025123) as &quot;X&quot; references, i.e., documents of particular relevance.  These are examples of the state of the art that George White is referring to..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15860" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6030" RevisionGUID="10d0e579-98ae-4da4-8265-09e553a52317" CreationDate="2014-02-10T02:46:38.657" UserId="3076" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="To be patentable something needs to be new and non-obvious compared to what came *before* it. The lead author of the article in Science *is* the inventor of this international application and the Science article was first published *after* the filing of the application. To see if the application is &quot;sufficiently innovative&quot; we need to compare its claims to the known state of the art on the day of filing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6034" RevisionGUID="cbeef116-4e49-4e82-b3bf-a0b28c9de397" CreationDate="2014-02-10T08:29:44.543" UserId="7788" Text="I have an idea to do with Mobile cloud services. I'm not versed on the subject but I am technically inclined (I study computer engineering). How would I go about obtaining a patent for my idea?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15867" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6034" RevisionGUID="cbeef116-4e49-4e82-b3bf-a0b28c9de397" CreationDate="2014-02-10T08:29:44.543" UserId="7788" Text="How does one start patenting an idea in the India?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15868" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6034" RevisionGUID="cbeef116-4e49-4e82-b3bf-a0b28c9de397" CreationDate="2014-02-10T08:29:44.543" UserId="7788" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;india&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15869" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6034" RevisionGUID="3e5914cd-2b63-4a4a-b1cc-109056ae6a86" CreationDate="2014-02-10T12:13:07.120" UserId="7857" Comment="India is a Country. No need for 'the'" Text="How does one start patenting an idea in India?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15870" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6034" RevisionGUID="3e5914cd-2b63-4a4a-b1cc-109056ae6a86" CreationDate="2014-02-10T12:13:07.120" Comment="Proposed by 7857 approved by 7788 edit id of 495" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6035" RevisionGUID="739ed81e-1353-451b-963c-439b21ca8f51" CreationDate="2014-02-10T12:18:55.687" UserId="7857" Text="The Indian Patent Office has a eFiling system. Check the folowing link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Intelectual Property India][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[User Guide][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ipindiaservices.gov.in&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ipindiaservices.gov.in/epatentfiling/UsefullDownloads/Comprehensive%20efiling%20manual" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6036" RevisionGUID="878dd6e0-73a5-473a-9148-26a3f60b7e36" CreationDate="2014-02-10T15:29:41.460" UserId="7858" Text="I wanted to patent something but found that it already existed on google patents.  Now I would  like to get in touch with whomever patented it to see if I can use the patent -- but I am not sure how to find the person or manufacturer. Does anyone know how I can contact or find them based on the patent itself? Or are there any other ways/sites to get in touch?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15873" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6036" RevisionGUID="878dd6e0-73a5-473a-9148-26a3f60b7e36" CreationDate="2014-02-10T15:29:41.460" UserId="7858" Text="How to get rights to use a patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15874" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6036" RevisionGUID="878dd6e0-73a5-473a-9148-26a3f60b7e36" CreationDate="2014-02-10T15:29:41.460" UserId="7858" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="63433371-35e3-498f-b0ae-164dc79fa98d" CreationDate="2014-02-11T00:24:28.490" UserId="7862" Text="This patent if for a invention that my father created. And I seen the patent fee has lapsed. I was wondering how someone can go by obtaining the patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15888" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="63433371-35e3-498f-b0ae-164dc79fa98d" CreationDate="2014-02-11T00:24:28.490" UserId="7862" Text="How to Obtain Patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15889" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="63433371-35e3-498f-b0ae-164dc79fa98d" CreationDate="2014-02-11T00:24:28.490" UserId="7862" Text="&lt;us5240307&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6040" RevisionGUID="0cdde3bd-cadd-43d3-803e-0e99696d46cf" CreationDate="2014-02-11T00:52:29.813" UserId="3076" Text="In general, the *owner* would need to petition the USPTO to allow payment of the maintenance fee late on the grounds of &quot;unavoidable&quot; delay. An alternate reason, &quot;unintentional&quot; delay is easier but cannot be used after two years. **In this specific case, the patent would have normally expired in 2012 anyway.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15891" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="f7968974-e04b-4d43-9ee4-d38d606b2d20" CreationDate="2014-02-11T01:40:23.703" UserId="3076" Comment="edited title" Text="How to get rights to lapsed Patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="1053a801-1d01-474a-8076-9cd6dbad58b1" CreationDate="2014-02-11T05:00:16.783" UserId="3076" Comment="Typos" Text="This patent if for a invention that my father created. And I see that the patent has lapsed due to non-payment of fees. I was wondering how someone can go about obtaining the patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6044" RevisionGUID="a88a83f3-e52a-482f-b5ac-f1e61576a04a" CreationDate="2014-02-12T02:24:19.547" UserId="7872" Text="I am developing an app for iOS devices which has almost the same guided view type reader for comic panels. There are a lot of posts on the web about fights between Marvel and Comixology regarding the patent of this viewer. I was wondering if my reader app can violate the patent guidelines. Secondly, if it does, still in wiki the technology has been written as &quot;patent-pending&quot;and if I can publish my app right now, will It still be an offensive app?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15907" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6044" RevisionGUID="a88a83f3-e52a-482f-b5ac-f1e61576a04a" CreationDate="2014-02-12T02:24:19.547" UserId="7872" Text="Will my comic reader app violate Comixology patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15908" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6044" RevisionGUID="a88a83f3-e52a-482f-b5ac-f1e61576a04a" CreationDate="2014-02-12T02:24:19.547" UserId="7872" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;computer-graphics&gt;&lt;ios&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15909" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6044" RevisionGUID="ac0cecda-cfdf-468b-b946-9b7c7c08f763" CreationDate="2014-02-12T07:24:05.890" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag to patent" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;computer-graphics&gt;&lt;ios&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;us8301999&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6045" RevisionGUID="9fd8214e-2a61-4ef9-af67-7eda39cb9ee4" CreationDate="2014-02-12T07:33:27.410" UserId="3076" Text="To try to understand what it protects, read the claims. A basics of patents is that they have one or more numbered claims and each claim stakes out some territory the patent owner claims. To infringe a patent one must do everything stated in at least one of the claims. One way to get some understanding of what a patent *doesn't* cover is to look at the documents the patent examiner brought up during the USPTO process. Anything well covered in any of those documents must be something different than the patent in question or, in theory, the patent would not have been granted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15911" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6044" RevisionGUID="9c780bce-3912-40df-9f5d-b467c48116dc" CreationDate="2014-02-12T07:44:35.263" UserId="3076" Comment="Fixed tag" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;computer-graphics&gt;&lt;ios&gt;&lt;us20100318895&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6045" RevisionGUID="f1102533-ed26-48e3-b2ce-6ec8261c7974" CreationDate="2014-02-12T07:49:57.007" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 255 characters in body" Text="[Systems, Methods, and Media for Presenting Panel-Based Electronic Documents&#xD;&#xA;US 20100318895][1] is an application, not yet an issued patent. Some of the web articles that mention it also note that Marvel (via Disney) has an issued patent that covers similar teritory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20100318895" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6045" RevisionGUID="0e6db102-8079-4b2f-947f-932732e1684b" CreationDate="2014-02-12T07:57:54.027" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 255 characters in body" Text="[Systems, Methods, and Media for Presenting Panel-Based Electronic Documents&#xD;&#xA;US 20100318895][1] is an application, *not* yet an issued patent. Some of the web articles that mention it also note that Marvel (via Disney) has an issued patent that covers similar territory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entire history of the prosecution of any recent patent or application can be seen at USPTO Public PAIR. The current status of the Comixology application seen there is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has had a long history now of many rejections and corresponding claim amendments and arguments. Anyone can follow the progress there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20100318895&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/FADoC.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6045" RevisionGUID="d7baa64a-528f-4b59-a3d7-159da3282777" CreationDate="2014-02-12T08:03:04.973" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 255 characters in body" Text="[Systems, Methods, and Media for Presenting Panel-Based Electronic Documents&#xD;&#xA;US 20100318895][1] is an application, *not* yet an issued patent. Some of the web articles that mention it also note that Marvel (via Disney) has an issued patent US 8301999 that covers similar territory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entire history of the prosecution of any recent patent or application can be seen at USPTO Public PAIR. The current status of the Comixology application seen there is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has had a long history now of many rejections and corresponding claim amendments and arguments. Anyone can follow the progress there. Unless and until a patent is granted its owner has no right to stop anyone. Of course, once issued, the fact that something is already shipping isn't relevant to whether or not it infringes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20100318895&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/FADoC.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6046" RevisionGUID="9d0c18ad-464d-490e-965a-990148dbbce2" CreationDate="2014-02-12T09:26:15.183" UserId="7875" Text="Isn't this patent basically talking about picture phone and a server capable of storing photos combined? i mean both of these technologies are already known before this patent, then how were they able to get this patent??" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15916" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6046" RevisionGUID="9d0c18ad-464d-490e-965a-990148dbbce2" CreationDate="2014-02-12T09:26:15.183" UserId="7875" Text="Isn't this patent basically talking about picture phone and a server capable of storing photos combined?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15917" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6046" RevisionGUID="9d0c18ad-464d-490e-965a-990148dbbce2" CreationDate="2014-02-12T09:26:15.183" UserId="7875" Text="&lt;us6038295&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6049" RevisionGUID="42fcceb6-ce14-47d0-b259-0ff4bb9408c9" CreationDate="2014-02-12T23:27:11.000" UserId="7882" Text="The Tower Garden, with patent number 7,055,282 describes a vertical aeroponic garden device. Many people have made similar devices over the years and there have been patents for some of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have created a vertical garden that reuses plastic drinking bottles. The garden has similarities in the way it functions, i.e., it has a pump to deliver water from a reservoir to the top and the water drips down over the plant roots. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that all the vertical gardens have these elements, so what must I avoid to not be violating a patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks, Dan" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15927" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6049" RevisionGUID="42fcceb6-ce14-47d0-b259-0ff4bb9408c9" CreationDate="2014-02-12T23:27:11.000" UserId="7882" Text="how can I tell what elements of the Tower Garden are protected under a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15928" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6049" RevisionGUID="42fcceb6-ce14-47d0-b259-0ff4bb9408c9" CreationDate="2014-02-12T23:27:11.000" UserId="7882" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6029" RevisionGUID="bed2ec4b-ce70-41b1-bb37-48298d0923e7" CreationDate="2014-02-12T23:30:26.580" UserId="7853" Comment="wrong word use" Text="I found a patent [Methods of storing information using nucleic acids][1] (link goes to Google Patents). After cursory reading it seems to me it describes the content of the scientific article [Next-Generation Digital Information Storage in DNA][2] published in journal Science. The supplementary materials which illustrate the procedure are available publicly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They take a computer file, split it into chunks of 96 bits, replace zero bits with either A or C nucleotide and ones with either G or T. Then they prepend 19 nucleotides to encode the position of the fragment in the source file and finally a 22 bp sequences at the beginning and end to allow them to amplify the segments using PCR. This is all that is to the encoding scheme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me too simple to be actually patentable. Is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of storing information using nucleotides comprising&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;converting a format of information into a plurality of bit sequences of a bit stream with each having a corresponding bit barcode,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;converting the plurality of bit sequences to a plurality of corresponding oligonucleotide sequences using one bit per base encoding,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;synthesizing the plurality of corresponding oligonucleotide sequences, and&#xD;&#xA;storing the synthesized plurality of corresponding oligonucleotide sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2014014991A2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6102/1628.abstract" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6050" RevisionGUID="28086143-b508-41de-a1bb-6e03ea26ad34" CreationDate="2014-02-12T23:39:27.093" UserId="1767" Text="The Title and Abstract can give you a sense of the overall subject matter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[7,055,282][2] - Hydroponic plant cultivating apparatus and the Abstract&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the [**Patent Claims**][1] describe precisely, in technical terms, the extent of the protection conferred by a patent. For example, Claim 1 of '282 claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A hydroponic plant cultivating apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - 1) a planting column having a hollow interior for receiving a planting medium;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - 2) at least one planting port included in said planting column for receiving plants at least partially into said hollow interior for engaging said planting medium;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - 3) a conduit integrally formed within and carried by said planting column extending axially through said hollow interior and said planting medium for channeling fluid from a bottom portion to a top portion of said column;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - 4) a reservoir for holding fluid;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - 6) a platform carried by said reservoir engaging said bottom portion of said planting column to mount said planting column in a generally vertical orientation atop said reservoir in fluid communication;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - 7) a supply line connecting said reservoir in fluid communication to said conduit for directing fluid from said reservoir upward through said conduit; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - 8) a fluid distributor mounted atop said planting column in fluid communication with said conduit for distributing said fluid into said hollow interior;&#xD;&#xA;whereby fluid may be circulated through said planting column to provide nutrients to said planting medium for growing plants inserted into said planting ports of said column.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A device only infringes Claim 1 if it contains **all** of the 8 elements of the claim above.  A device infringes a patent if it infringes **at least one** of the claims in that patent.  So one would need to look at the other claims as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the title of the patent is often significantly broader than what is actually claimed by the patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim_%28patent%29&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7055282" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15931" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6049" RevisionGUID="0ba660ef-4857-42ad-b26f-1f5e8ef8fd06" CreationDate="2014-02-12T23:39:55.940" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;us7055282&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15932" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6049" RevisionGUID="0ba660ef-4857-42ad-b26f-1f5e8ef8fd06" CreationDate="2014-02-12T23:39:55.940" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="How can I determine which specific elements of the Tower Garden product are protected by Patent US7,055,282?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6052" RevisionGUID="a52504c6-b234-4208-9b9f-b801375ce201" CreationDate="2014-02-13T08:22:32.583" UserId="6070" Text="I have recently requested for an international preliminary examination authority from the Korean Intellectual Property Office. It is over 20 months from my earliest priority date.&#xD;&#xA;Is there any guidelines how fast IPEA has to finnish an examination?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When should I expect to receive the examination?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15938" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6052" RevisionGUID="a52504c6-b234-4208-9b9f-b801375ce201" CreationDate="2014-02-13T08:22:32.583" UserId="6070" Text="KIPO IPEA Timeline, IPEA processing times" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15939" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6052" RevisionGUID="a52504c6-b234-4208-9b9f-b801375ce201" CreationDate="2014-02-13T08:22:32.583" UserId="6070" Text="&lt;ipea&gt;&lt;kipo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6054" RevisionGUID="752ac80b-626e-4e98-903f-4da769e28096" CreationDate="2014-02-13T13:16:44.167" UserId="7888" Text="A handful of Apple engineers thought that adding a proprietary protocol to request new disposable email addresses automatically from the email client was such a groundbreaking invention that it merited a software patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application can be seen [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In keeping with the usual standard for software patents the claims are vague and broad and count 30 items making it too long to quote here but take a look for yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is how is this lame patent application best debunked? It should be pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that something as trivial as adding a 'request creation of new e-mail address'-protocol to the known concept of disposable e-mail addresses is not particularly novel but I guess you can never be sure with the appalling standards of the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&amp;r=14&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=%28709/206.CCLS.%20AND%2020140213.PD.%29&amp;OS=ccl/709/206%20and%20pd/2/13/2014&amp;RS=%28CCL/709/206%20AND%20PD/20140213%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15944" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6054" RevisionGUID="752ac80b-626e-4e98-903f-4da769e28096" CreationDate="2014-02-13T13:16:44.167" UserId="7888" Text="How to debunk Apple's trivial extension of disposable e-mail addresses" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15945" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6054" RevisionGUID="752ac80b-626e-4e98-903f-4da769e28096" CreationDate="2014-02-13T13:16:44.167" UserId="7888" Text="&lt;apple&gt;&lt;disposableemailaddresses&gt;&lt;smtp&gt;&lt;email&gt;&lt;spam&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15946" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6054" RevisionGUID="c89c75d2-645f-4145-8f3a-2e12f5b034e9" CreationDate="2014-02-13T13:27:53.827" UserId="7888" Comment="added tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;disposableemailaddresses&gt;&lt;email&gt;&lt;spam&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6054" RevisionGUID="c89c75d2-645f-4145-8f3a-2e12f5b034e9" CreationDate="2014-02-13T13:27:53.827" UserId="7888" Comment="added tags" Text="A handful of Apple engineers thought that adding a proprietary protocol to request new disposable email addresses automatically from the email client was such a groundbreaking invention that it merited a software patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application can be seen [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In keeping with the usual standard for software patents the claims are vague and broad and count 30 items making it too long to quote here but take a look for yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the abstract for what it's worth:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An integrated system allows easily creating and using disposable email&#xD;&#xA;&gt; addresses. The disposable email address is created by an email server,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which manages correspondence using the disposable email address to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; avoid exposing the associated non-disposable email address. Context&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information may be associated with a disposable email address, where&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the context information is not visible in email sent using the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disposable email address. Expiration information may also be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; associated with the disposable email address, where the expiration&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information defines conditions that cause the disposable email address&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to expire. Should the disposable address be misused, the associated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; context may allow a user to recognize what correspondent exposed the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disposable address to misuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is how is this lame patent application best debunked? It should be pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that something as trivial as adding a 'request creation of new e-mail address'-protocol to the known concept of disposable e-mail addresses is not particularly novel but I guess you can never be sure with the appalling standards of the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&amp;r=14&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=%28709/206.CCLS.%20AND%2020140213.PD.%29&amp;OS=ccl/709/206%20and%20pd/2/13/2014&amp;RS=%28CCL/709/206%20AND%20PD/20140213%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6055" RevisionGUID="8c0e2b6e-8310-4d43-b562-c3d8bb327a73" CreationDate="2014-02-13T14:24:57.707" UserId="7889" Text="Reviewing patent application # 20130293680 , and it appears that no thorough investigation has been made for prior works as well as public domain knowledge and adoption of techniques.  Should companies that have been performing the function detailed in patent application # 20130293680  contact the patent office to provide proof of prior works before a final application decision is made, or is it more appropriate to wait for the patent office to make its judgment and then possibly consider the appeal process?  Who does the patent office contact to ensure no prior works or technology overlaps with the patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15949" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6055" RevisionGUID="8c0e2b6e-8310-4d43-b562-c3d8bb327a73" CreationDate="2014-02-13T14:24:57.707" UserId="7889" Text="Can one file a patent application (e.g. 20130293680) without public and prior works research?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15950" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6055" RevisionGUID="8c0e2b6e-8310-4d43-b562-c3d8bb327a73" CreationDate="2014-02-13T14:24:57.707" UserId="7889" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15951" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6055" RevisionGUID="539cd1ed-7891-438c-af88-56b23f1834aa" CreationDate="2014-02-13T16:31:05.667" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag " Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;us20130293680&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6056" RevisionGUID="2f7dd83b-9d53-4239-bdf2-047bb4ec212a" CreationDate="2014-02-13T16:59:09.570" UserId="3076" Text="There is no requirement that an applicant perform a search before submitting an application. However, an applicant must inform the USPTO of anything they do know that is relevant to judging the novelty or obviousness of the claimed subject matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent examiner does a search as a key part of the examination process. That search is a &quot;paper&quot; search and does not involve contacting anyone outside the patent office.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the new (2011) AIA patent law there is procedure for third party submission of documents to the examiner during a particular time window of the examination process. The Ask Patents site was created to help crowd source documents for that new process. The submissions are limited to published prior art and some comments on the applicability of the prior art documents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6057" RevisionGUID="a5522a03-b583-414d-ad5b-b9f64b7af4f8" CreationDate="2014-02-13T18:12:39.667" UserId="7881" Text="**Roger Tomlinson**, who died 4 days ago, is known as the &quot;Father of GIS&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He initially defined the art *over 50 years ago*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.gislounge.com/phrase-geographic-information-systems/&#xD;&#xA;http://www.esri.com/news/arcnews/fall12articles/the-fiftieth-anniversary-of-gis.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6058" RevisionGUID="fd90844d-fba9-471c-b316-b4a94ea3cd54" CreationDate="2014-02-13T18:28:00.970" UserId="7840" Text="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spamgourmet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The service is available since 2000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From wikipedia: Available via an Artistic License, the source code of Spamgourmet is downloadable on SourceForge. While the code is available in its most current state from the SVN repository, the Spamgourmet team has not made a formal release of the code since 2007.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_email_address&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6059" RevisionGUID="f6eeee43-d5e7-4ab3-80a3-713f4dfc6801" CreationDate="2014-02-13T19:01:01.517" UserId="7840" Text="It talks about taking pictures with your phone and uploading those to a server. It has been filed in 1997 and considering that the first camera phone was sold in 2000 in Japan, 3 years after the patent was filed and the same year it was published, I don't see where the issue lies in awarding this patent to Siemens." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6060" RevisionGUID="97a009e7-dbfa-4a01-b87d-b2314bd3c5d1" CreationDate="2014-02-13T21:28:29.807" UserId="3076" Text="From the WIPO rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; THE INTERNATIONAL PRELIMINARY REPORT ON PATENTABILITY (CHAPTER II OF THE PCT)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Article 35(1) Rule 69.2	10.074.**   When must the international preliminary report on patentability (Chapter II of the PCT) be established?  The time limit for establishment of the international preliminary report on patentability (Chapter II of the PCT) is whichever of the following which expires last:  *28 months from the priority date*;  six months from the time provided under Rule 69.1 for the start of the international preliminary examination;  or six months from the date of receipt by the International Preliminary Examining Authority of the translation furnished under Rule 55.2 (see paragraphs 10.051 to 10.055). Thus, under normal circumstances, the applicant receives the report, at the latest, two months before national processing at the elected Offices may start.  This ensures that he has time to consider whether, and in which elected Offices, he wants to enter the national phase and to prepare the necessary action (for details, see National Phase).**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15957" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6054" RevisionGUID="8d4f3538-e8b0-491e-acaf-3108eb26adc6" CreationDate="2014-02-13T21:41:48.000" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to patent" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;disposableemailaddresses&gt;&lt;email&gt;&lt;us20140047043&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6054" RevisionGUID="8d4f3538-e8b0-491e-acaf-3108eb26adc6" CreationDate="2014-02-13T21:41:48.000" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to patent" Text="A handful of Apple engineers thought that adding a proprietary protocol to request new disposable email addresses automatically from the email client was such a groundbreaking invention that it merited a software patent application (US 20140047043).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application can be seen [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In keeping with the usual standard for software patents the claims are vague and broad and count 30 items making it too long to quote here but take a look for yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the abstract for what it's worth:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An integrated system allows easily creating and using disposable email&#xD;&#xA;&gt; addresses. The disposable email address is created by an email server,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which manages correspondence using the disposable email address to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; avoid exposing the associated non-disposable email address. Context&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information may be associated with a disposable email address, where&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the context information is not visible in email sent using the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disposable email address. Expiration information may also be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; associated with the disposable email address, where the expiration&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information defines conditions that cause the disposable email address&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to expire. Should the disposable address be misused, the associated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; context may allow a user to recognize what correspondent exposed the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disposable address to misuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is how is this lame patent application best debunked? It should be pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that something as trivial as adding a 'request creation of new e-mail address'-protocol to the known concept of disposable e-mail addresses is not particularly novel but I guess you can never be sure with the appalling standards of the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&amp;r=14&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=%28709/206.CCLS.%20AND%2020140213.PD.%29&amp;OS=ccl/709/206%20and%20pd/2/13/2014&amp;RS=%28CCL/709/206%20AND%20PD/20140213%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6054" RevisionGUID="13009d24-645c-4e08-a95d-7edf1501ffe2" CreationDate="2014-02-13T21:48:10.327" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to patent added text of claim 11 and 13" Text="A handful of Apple engineers thought that adding a proprietary protocol to request new disposable email addresses automatically from the email client was such a groundbreaking invention that it merited a software patent application (US 20140047043).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application can be seen [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In keeping with the usual standard for software patents the claims are vague and broad and count 30 items making it too long to quote all of here but take a look for yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the text of one of the independent claims followed by one of its dependent claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 11.** A non-transitory program storage device, readable by one or more programmable control devices, comprising instructions stored thereon for causing one or more of the programmable control devices to: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;allocate a disposable email address, the disposable email address independent of a non-disposable email address; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;associate the disposable email address with the non-disposable email address; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;associate a context information with the disposable email address, external to the disposable email address; &lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;associate an expiration information with the disposable email address, external to the disposable email address;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;receive an email message addressed to the disposable email address; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;rewrite the email message, replacing the disposable email address with the non-disposable email address;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;provide the email message to an email client; &lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;provide the context information to the email client; &lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;receive a reply to the email message; and &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;rewrite the reply, replacing the non-disposable email address with the disposable email address. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 13.** The program storage device of claim **11**, wherein the instructions stored thereon further comprise instructions for causing one or more of the programmable control devices to: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;provide the context information with the email message to the email client.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the abstract for what it's worth:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An integrated system allows easily creating and using disposable email&#xD;&#xA;&gt; addresses. The disposable email address is created by an email server,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which manages correspondence using the disposable email address to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; avoid exposing the associated non-disposable email address. Context&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information may be associated with a disposable email address, where&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the context information is not visible in email sent using the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disposable email address. Expiration information may also be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; associated with the disposable email address, where the expiration&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information defines conditions that cause the disposable email address&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to expire. Should the disposable address be misused, the associated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; context may allow a user to recognize what correspondent exposed the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disposable address to misuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is how is this lame patent application best debunked? It should be pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that something as trivial as adding a 'request creation of new e-mail address'-protocol to the known concept of disposable e-mail addresses is not particularly novel but I guess you can never be sure with the appalling standards of the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&amp;r=14&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=%28709/206.CCLS.%20AND%2020140213.PD.%29&amp;OS=ccl/709/206%20and%20pd/2/13/2014&amp;RS=%28CCL/709/206%20AND%20PD/20140213%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6061" RevisionGUID="0d2a876e-47c3-4cd4-941a-6cdc462ca01b" CreationDate="2014-02-13T23:22:58.550" UserId="3076" Text="A direct answer to the question: The best way to keep the application from eventually turning into an issued patent would be to search for (and solicit others to search for) documents that qualify technically to be used as prior art against the application in question and either individually, or taken together show that the most substantive things claimable under the disclosure are not new or are obvious. A patent examiner rejects on lack of novelty by finding a *single* embodiment in a single document from the past where the single embodiment teaches all elements of a proposed claim. They reject as obviousness by finding one or more documents that, together, contain all of the elements of a claim. Then they need to explain why someone would and could put those elements together to reach the claimed invention as a whole." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6061" RevisionGUID="f5d62c31-ebb2-4692-b963-d540b3b7378b" CreationDate="2014-02-14T00:31:31.613" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="A direct answer to the question: The best way to keep the application from eventually turning into an issued patent would be to search for (and solicit others to search for) documents that qualify technically to be used as prior art against the application in question and either individually, or taken together show that the most substantive things claimable under the disclosure are not new or are obvious. A patent examiner rejects on lack of novelty by finding a *single* embodiment in a *single document* from the past where the single embodiment teaches all elements of a proposed claim. They reject as obvious by finding one or more documents that, together, contain all of the elements of a claim. Then they need to explain why someone would and could put those elements together to reach the claimed invention as a whole." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6063" RevisionGUID="f7cb3066-1df6-42d3-8076-4c9df2d35593" CreationDate="2014-02-14T08:55:21.933" UserId="7893" Text="I'm intriguid as to how a patent so broad as this can be.  This is a very generic method of holding an object and seems to have not invention, why is this patent here?&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone enlighten me, I feel I don't understand the process or maybe I'm not reading it correct, however, the limited description of anything specific in the concept tells me there is nothing here to protect.&#xD;&#xA;I'm sorry if I seem naive, I am open to sensible explanations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you&#xD;&#xA;Simon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15968" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6063" RevisionGUID="f7cb3066-1df6-42d3-8076-4c9df2d35593" CreationDate="2014-02-14T08:55:21.933" UserId="7893" Text="How can a patent so broad be accepted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15969" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6063" RevisionGUID="f7cb3066-1df6-42d3-8076-4c9df2d35593" CreationDate="2014-02-14T08:55:21.933" UserId="7893" Text="&lt;usd679716&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6064" RevisionGUID="457b1713-436b-4d7c-a435-48c6bcc3e126" CreationDate="2014-02-14T13:13:53.637" UserId="7895" Text="How can I submit prior art to the USPTO when I do not know the patent application number? There is a competitor that I know is trying to patent an invention that is partially based on my prior art. Do US only (unpublished) patents eventually become published at some point in the process? I do know that I can e-file 3rd party prior art, but one must know the application number or patent number." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15971" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6064" RevisionGUID="457b1713-436b-4d7c-a435-48c6bcc3e126" CreationDate="2014-02-14T13:13:53.637" UserId="7895" Text="Submitting prior art when patent application number is not known" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15972" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6064" RevisionGUID="457b1713-436b-4d7c-a435-48c6bcc3e126" CreationDate="2014-02-14T13:13:53.637" UserId="7895" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6065" RevisionGUID="481c3d44-330d-489d-81c1-8e1b4d6620da" CreationDate="2014-02-14T17:42:46.673" UserId="7897" Text="It's very trivial to think of some of this patent, which more or less amounts to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Find a keyframe and/or scene change within a given timestamp range, and split at this point.&#xD;&#xA;2) Encode all N chunks in parallel with slightly overlapping bits, and at different qualities.&#xD;&#xA;3) Recombine these chunks (either concat, or via HLS or DASH).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone even slightly familiar with digital video could think of this, and I have indeed implemented something like this myself (perhaps I can submit prior art?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also things like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://omion.dyndns.org/x264farm/x264farm.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which long predate this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15974" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6065" RevisionGUID="481c3d44-330d-489d-81c1-8e1b4d6620da" CreationDate="2014-02-14T17:42:46.673" UserId="7897" Text="US20130272374 - How is this at all novel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15975" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6065" RevisionGUID="481c3d44-330d-489d-81c1-8e1b4d6620da" CreationDate="2014-02-14T17:42:46.673" UserId="7897" Text="&lt;us20130272374&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6066" RevisionGUID="71e00b32-4a0b-488a-afdc-21770fa40ac6" CreationDate="2014-02-14T19:22:37.050" UserId="3076" Text="This is not what you normaly think of as a patent. It is a **design patent**. Design patents, unlike the better known **utility patents**, do *not* protect functionality. Design patents only protect the *look* of an item. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6068" RevisionGUID="7f401bb6-1126-440f-8b9b-5b4b0f08a3fa" CreationDate="2014-02-14T19:33:10.330" UserId="3076" Text="If an applicant declares at the time of filing that they have decided to only file in the U.S., then they can check a box on the application form requesting non-publication. In that case the time window for the AIA third party submissions will never open." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6069" RevisionGUID="526ec8af-9279-4aaa-9b88-ed503bed55f7" CreationDate="2014-02-14T22:12:53.860" UserId="7898" Text="It sounds amazingly similar to what we have been doing at Spamex (http://www.spamex.com) since 2000.  Spamex has a browser plugin to create Disposable Email Addresses, Spamex is Bi-Directional (replies are routed through Spamex and ths re-anonymized), Spamex routes mail sent to Disposable Email Addresses to any of the Real Email Addresses registered with the service so you do not have to check additional accounts, Spamex even allows the addition of your own Domain Names to the service so that you do not have to use those provided by Spamex.  I'll have to reread and rearead the patent to see where the novelty here is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Justin Greene&#xD;&#xA;CEO / The Spamex Disposable Email Address Service" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6054" RevisionGUID="d92ae07e-ca75-4abc-83cf-7492d343ea03" CreationDate="2014-02-14T23:49:40.237" UserId="1767" Comment="added 44 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="A handful of Apple engineers have applied for a software patent application (US20140047043) on the idea of **adding a proprietary protocol to request new disposable email addresses automatically from an email client**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication Number: [**US20140047043**][1]&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;Title: Disposable Email Address Generation and Mapping to a Regular Email Account &#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;Assignee: Apple, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application can be seen [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the text of one of the independent claims followed by one of its dependent claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 11.** A non-transitory program storage device, readable by one or more programmable control devices, comprising instructions stored thereon for causing one or more of the programmable control devices to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Allocate a **disposable email address**, the disposable email address independent of a non-disposable email address; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Associate the disposable email address with the non-disposable email address; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Associate a **context information** with the disposable email address, external to the disposable email address; &lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Associate an **expiration information** with the disposable email address, external to the disposable email address;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Receive an email message addressed to the disposable email address; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Rewrite the email message, replacing the disposable email address with the non-disposable email address;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Provide the email message to an email client; &lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Provide the context information to the email client; &lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Receive a reply to the email message; and &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Rewrite the reply, replacing the non-disposable email address with the disposable email address. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 13.** The program storage device of claim **11**, wherein the instructions stored thereon further comprise instructions for causing one or more of the programmable control devices to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Provide the context information with the email message to the email client.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the abstract for what it's worth:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An integrated system allows easily creating and using disposable email&#xD;&#xA;&gt; addresses. The disposable email address is created by an email server,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which manages correspondence using the disposable email address to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; avoid exposing the associated non-disposable email address. Context&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information may be associated with a disposable email address, where&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the context information is not visible in email sent using the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disposable email address. Expiration information may also be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; associated with the disposable email address, where the expiration&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information defines conditions that cause the disposable email address&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to expire. Should the disposable address be misused, the associated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; context may allow a user to recognize what correspondent exposed the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disposable address to misuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that adding a 'request creation of new e-mail address'-protocol to the known concept of disposable e-mail addresses is not particularly novel, looking for specific references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone help find Prior Art (**prior to 8/13/12**) on this patent application US20140047043 to provide to the US Patent Office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&amp;r=14&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=%28709/206.CCLS.%20AND%2020140213.PD.%29&amp;OS=ccl/709/206%20and%20pd/2/13/2014&amp;RS=%28CCL/709/206%20AND%20PD/20140213%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/cDsIH.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15984" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6054" RevisionGUID="d92ae07e-ca75-4abc-83cf-7492d343ea03" CreationDate="2014-02-14T23:49:40.237" UserId="1767" Comment="added 44 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Disposable email addresses (Apple, Inc.) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15985" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6054" RevisionGUID="d92ae07e-ca75-4abc-83cf-7492d343ea03" CreationDate="2014-02-14T23:49:40.237" UserId="1767" Comment="added 44 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;email&gt;&lt;us20140047043&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6065" RevisionGUID="ab8d6677-c081-4dd8-a603-08a203e7c82d" CreationDate="2014-02-15T00:16:39.473" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1395 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Title: **Scalable, live transcoding with support for adaptive streaming and failover**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assignee: **Google**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication Number: [US20130272374][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Search for Prior art using: [Google Prior Art Finder][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like there is prior art for the basic idea, which more or less amounts to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Find a keyframe and/or scene change within a given timestamp range, and split at this point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Encode all N chunks in parallel with slightly overlapping bits, and at different qualities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Recombine these chunks (either concat, or via HLS or DASH).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1. A system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - A memory that stores computer executable components;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - A processor that executes the following computer executable components stored in the memory:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - A segment identification component that identifies segment boundaries within an interval of input streams for a plurality of transcoding pipelines;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - A transcoding component that transcodes the input streams of the plurality of transcoding pipelines; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - A segmentation component that segments the input streams into equivalent chunks based on the segment boundaries identified, wherein the input streams include different transcode qualities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone even slightly familiar with digital video could think of this, and I have indeed implemented something like this myself (perhaps I can submit prior art?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also things like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://omion.dyndns.org/x264farm/x264farm.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which long predate this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking for specific Prior Art references below **predating 4/11/12** which can be provided to the USPTO through Ask Patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130272374&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130272374#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=04%2F11%2F2012&amp;t=1failover.1input%20streams.1pipelines.0support.0support%20for%20adaptive.0parallel%20pipelines.0adaptive%20streaming.0transcoding.0main%20stream.0segments.&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/UIVuR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15988" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6065" RevisionGUID="ab8d6677-c081-4dd8-a603-08a203e7c82d" CreationDate="2014-02-15T00:16:39.473" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1395 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Transcoding and Adaptive Failover (Google) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15989" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6065" RevisionGUID="ab8d6677-c081-4dd8-a603-08a203e7c82d" CreationDate="2014-02-15T00:16:39.473" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1395 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;google&gt;&lt;us20130272374&gt;&lt;transcoding&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15990" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6054" RevisionGUID="559003b1-fe8e-43c7-9f8e-50ca03ed7561" CreationDate="2014-02-15T00:23:26.207" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Disposable email addresses (Apple) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6066" RevisionGUID="b97ed61f-3948-4fcd-a1c2-52140571d9f6" CreationDate="2014-02-15T00:30:57.633" UserId="1767" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="This is not what you normaly think of as a patent. It is a **design patent**. Design patents, unlike the better known **utility patents**, do *not* protect functionality. Design patents only protect the *look* of an item. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/8tDJu.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6071" RevisionGUID="787fd86b-2b38-459a-ab99-2fbc5279493a" CreationDate="2014-02-15T13:01:28.903" UserId="7815" Text="I want a web site to search for a patent classification by entering the classification code .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example , if I enter G02 then I have to get optics ,  G02C5/14 -&gt;  Side members like that.. Is any site available like that . (it may be either US classification codes or International classification codes )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found some site who indexed classification , but don't provide a search system.. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15998" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6071" RevisionGUID="787fd86b-2b38-459a-ab99-2fbc5279493a" CreationDate="2014-02-15T13:01:28.903" UserId="7815" Text="Is there any web site to give Patent Classification by entering the Classificatoin code.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15999" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6071" RevisionGUID="787fd86b-2b38-459a-ab99-2fbc5279493a" CreationDate="2014-02-15T13:01:28.903" UserId="7815" Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;us-class&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6073" RevisionGUID="20e086ff-a892-40c0-a3aa-b35c6222557e" CreationDate="2014-02-15T17:53:28.510" UserId="7902" Text="I am new to this patent protected deal and do not understand. I was looking to make some wind spinners like the ones described like this patent. Is this patent 4578291 still protected and valid. It is passed the 20 years from original posting... but does someone else own it or can anyone use this idea to make/sell this kind of thing ? There seems to be assignments and assignees what does this mean and do they still own the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16005" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6073" RevisionGUID="20e086ff-a892-40c0-a3aa-b35c6222557e" CreationDate="2014-02-15T17:53:28.510" UserId="7902" Text="Patent protected" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16006" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6073" RevisionGUID="20e086ff-a892-40c0-a3aa-b35c6222557e" CreationDate="2014-02-15T17:53:28.510" UserId="7902" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16007" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6073" RevisionGUID="1866dab3-f5d0-4890-9b81-bd352dc4127c" CreationDate="2014-02-15T20:08:12.610" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;us4578291&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6074" RevisionGUID="fda7b8c7-5e1c-4729-83d0-cd49b2ece69e" CreationDate="2014-02-15T20:54:28.533" UserId="3160" Text="Patent [US 8255828 B2][1] (publication US 10/955,967, assigned to Microsoft), *Command user interface for displaying selectable software functionality controls*, is the main patent protecting the [Ribbon UI][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent is heavily contested by the open-source software community, and I'm sure there's prior art out there. Have you seen anything **published before August 16, 2004** that discusses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a tabbed toolbar, each tab containing a logical group of buttons, check boxes, drop-down boxes, and other UI controls for a related set of functions (such as editing a table inserted into a Word document)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question, one piece of prior art per answer. If you have several pieces of prior art, you may submit multiple answers, each describing a particular piece of prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Diagram 1 shows Windows Explorer in Windows 8.1, which contains an example of the Ribbon UI, and demonstrates a function covered in claim 1 of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim of the aforementioned patent is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for providing functionality from a software application by displaying an improved user interface at a display device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;organizing a plurality of software functionalities according to tasks to be performed by the software application, the tasks being identified textually by user interface tabs;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  upon receiving an indication of a selection of a first user interface tab, providing a plurality of selectable controls associated with a first task, each selectable control being presented by a graphic representation and a textual representation;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  grouping the plurality of selectable controls into logical groupings of the plurality of selectable controls, wherein each of the logical groupings combine a subset of functionalities associated with the selected first user interface tab;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  dynamically adjusting a layout of at least one of the logical groupings to accommodate the user interface, wherein dynamically adjusting the layout of the at least one logical grouping comprises reducing a size of the graphical representation of at least one selectable control within the logical grouping eliminating the textual representation of at least one selectable control associated with the at least one logical grouping, and preserving the graphical representation associated with the at least one selectable control associated with the at least one logical grouping;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  upon receiving an indication of a selection of a second user interface tab, providing in the user interface a plurality of additional selectable controls for selecting functionalities organized under a second task associated with the second user interface tab;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  after providing in the user interface the plurality of additional selectable controls for selecting functionalities organized under the second task, receiving an indication of a selection of one of the additional selectable controls organized under the second task;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  applying functionality associated with the selected additional selectable control to a selected object; and&#xD;&#xA;when the second user interface tab is not selected in the user interface, providing in the user interface the plurality of selectable controls organized under the first task associated with the selected first user interface tab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More simply, this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A user interface for a software application with the following characteristics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - consists of a series of tabs each representing a set of functions to be performed by the application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - provides a set of UI controls relevant to a particular task when the user selects a particular tab, with each control consisting of an icon and text&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - where the controls in each tab are placed into a series of subgroups&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - where the text for at least one UI control in a tab may be hidden as required, leaving only the icon for that control(s) (*see Diagram 1*)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - provides a second set of UI controls relevant to a different task when the user clicks on a second tab&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - accepts user selection of one of the UI controls in the second set after displaying the controls in the second tab&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - performs the function associated with a UI control in the second tab when the user selects it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - displays the UI controls in the first selected tab when a second tab is not selected&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that followed all of these steps before August 16, 2004.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Diagram 1&#xD;&#xA;![Diagram 1: Windows Explorer in Windows 8.1: Shrinking the controls in the Ribbon to adapt to a smaller window by removing text from UI controls][3]&#xD;&#xA;*Windows Explorer in Windows 8.1: Shrinking the controls in the Ribbon to adapt to a smaller window by removing text from UI controls*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- FAQ link replaced with link to help center --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see the [help center][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US issued patents.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8255828&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribbon_%28computing%29&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/zbpR1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+post-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16009" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6074" RevisionGUID="fda7b8c7-5e1c-4729-83d0-cd49b2ece69e" CreationDate="2014-02-15T20:54:28.533" UserId="3160" Text="PRIOR ART REQUEST: Issued patent US 8255828 B2 (Microsoft): Ribbon UI" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16010" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6074" RevisionGUID="fda7b8c7-5e1c-4729-83d0-cd49b2ece69e" CreationDate="2014-02-15T20:54:28.533" UserId="3160" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;user-interface&gt;&lt;us8296673b2&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6074" RevisionGUID="ef3dcf1e-22cc-4ec0-b4ba-0706d5afdc87" CreationDate="2014-02-15T21:00:14.717" UserId="3160" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Patent [US 8255828 B2][1] (publication US 10/955,967, assigned to Microsoft), *Command user interface for displaying selectable software functionality controls*, is the main patent protecting the [Ribbon UI][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent is heavily contested by the open-source software community, and I'm sure there's prior art out there. Have you seen anything **published before August 16, 2004** that discusses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a tabbed toolbar, each tab containing a series of logical groups of buttons, check boxes, drop-down boxes, and other UI controls for a related set of functions (such as editing a table inserted into a Word document)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question, one piece of prior art per answer. If you have several pieces of prior art, you may submit multiple answers, each describing a particular piece of prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Diagram 1 shows Windows Explorer in Windows 8.1, which contains an example of the Ribbon UI, and demonstrates a function covered in claim 1 of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim of the aforementioned patent is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for providing functionality from a software application by displaying an improved user interface at a display device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;organizing a plurality of software functionalities according to tasks to be performed by the software application, the tasks being identified textually by user interface tabs;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  upon receiving an indication of a selection of a first user interface tab, providing a plurality of selectable controls associated with a first task, each selectable control being presented by a graphic representation and a textual representation;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  grouping the plurality of selectable controls into logical groupings of the plurality of selectable controls, wherein each of the logical groupings combine a subset of functionalities associated with the selected first user interface tab;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  dynamically adjusting a layout of at least one of the logical groupings to accommodate the user interface, wherein dynamically adjusting the layout of the at least one logical grouping comprises reducing a size of the graphical representation of at least one selectable control within the logical grouping eliminating the textual representation of at least one selectable control associated with the at least one logical grouping, and preserving the graphical representation associated with the at least one selectable control associated with the at least one logical grouping;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  upon receiving an indication of a selection of a second user interface tab, providing in the user interface a plurality of additional selectable controls for selecting functionalities organized under a second task associated with the second user interface tab;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  after providing in the user interface the plurality of additional selectable controls for selecting functionalities organized under the second task, receiving an indication of a selection of one of the additional selectable controls organized under the second task;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  applying functionality associated with the selected additional selectable control to a selected object; and&#xD;&#xA;when the second user interface tab is not selected in the user interface, providing in the user interface the plurality of selectable controls organized under the first task associated with the selected first user interface tab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More simply, this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A user interface for a software application with the following characteristics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - consists of a series of tabs each representing a set of functions to be performed by the application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - provides a set of UI controls relevant to a particular task when the user selects a particular tab, with each control consisting of an icon and text&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - where the controls in each tab are placed into a series of subgroups&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - where the text for at least one UI control in a tab may be hidden as required, leaving only the icon for that control(s) (*see Diagram 1*)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - provides a second set of UI controls relevant to a different task when the user clicks on a second tab&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - accepts user selection of one of the UI controls in the second set after displaying the controls in the second tab&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - performs the function associated with a UI control in the second tab when the user selects it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - displays the UI controls in the first selected tab when a second tab is not selected&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that followed all of these steps before August 16, 2004.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Diagram 1&#xD;&#xA;![Diagram 1: Windows Explorer in Windows 8.1: Shrinking the controls in the Ribbon to adapt to a smaller window by removing text from UI controls][3]&#xD;&#xA;*Windows Explorer in Windows 8.1: Shrinking the controls in the Ribbon to adapt to a smaller window by removing text from UI controls*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- FAQ link replaced with link to help center --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see the [help center][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US issued patents.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8255828&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribbon_%28computing%29&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/zbpR1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+post-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16012" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6074" RevisionGUID="ef3dcf1e-22cc-4ec0-b4ba-0706d5afdc87" CreationDate="2014-02-15T21:00:14.717" UserId="3160" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;user-interface&gt;&lt;us8255828b2&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16013" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6074" RevisionGUID="20575729-abe6-4d6e-869d-8688f3650e04" CreationDate="2014-02-15T21:11:27.193" UserId="3160" Comment="Tag correction for reachability from Google Patents" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;user-interface&gt;&lt;us8255828&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6074" RevisionGUID="b9cfb793-ba2b-4acd-aa23-85ffaf520d85" CreationDate="2014-02-15T23:11:09.497" UserId="3160" Comment="added 12 characters in body; deleted 49 characters in body" Text="Patent [US 8255828 B2][1] (publication US 10/955,967, assigned to Microsoft), *Command user interface for displaying selectable software functionality controls*, is the main patent protecting the [Ribbon UI][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent is heavily contested by the open-source software community, and I'm sure there's prior art out there. Have you seen anything **published before August 16, 2004** that discusses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a tabbed toolbar, each tab containing a series of logical groups of buttons, check boxes, drop-down boxes, and other UI controls for a related set of functions (such as editing a table inserted into a Word document)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question, one piece of prior art per answer. If you have several pieces of prior art, you may submit multiple answers, each describing a particular piece of prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Diagram 1 shows Windows Explorer in Windows 8.1, which contains an example of the Ribbon UI, and demonstrates a function covered in claim 1 of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim of the aforementioned patent is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for providing functionality from a software application by displaying an improved user interface at a display device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;organizing a plurality of software functionalities according to tasks to be performed by the software application, the tasks being identified textually by user interface tabs;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  upon receiving an indication of a selection of a first user interface tab, providing a plurality of selectable controls associated with a first task, each selectable control being presented by a graphic representation and a textual representation;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  grouping the plurality of selectable controls into logical groupings of the plurality of selectable controls, wherein each of the logical groupings combine a subset of functionalities associated with the selected first user interface tab;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  dynamically adjusting a layout of at least one of the logical groupings to accommodate the user interface, wherein dynamically adjusting the layout of the at least one logical grouping comprises reducing a size of the graphical representation of at least one selectable control within the logical grouping eliminating the textual representation of at least one selectable control associated with the at least one logical grouping, and preserving the graphical representation associated with the at least one selectable control associated with the at least one logical grouping;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  upon receiving an indication of a selection of a second user interface tab, providing in the user interface a plurality of additional selectable controls for selecting functionalities organized under a second task associated with the second user interface tab;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  after providing in the user interface the plurality of additional selectable controls for selecting functionalities organized under the second task, receiving an indication of a selection of one of the additional selectable controls organized under the second task;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  applying functionality associated with the selected additional selectable control to a selected object; and&#xD;&#xA;when the second user interface tab is not selected in the user interface, providing in the user interface the plurality of selectable controls organized under the first task associated with the selected first user interface tab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More simply, this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A user interface for a software application which:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - consists of a series of tabs each representing a set of functions to be performed by the application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - provides a set of UI controls relevant to a particular task when the user selects a particular tab, with each control consisting of an icon and text&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - arranges the controls in each tab into a series of subgroups&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - if necessary, hides the text for at least one UI control in a tab, leaving only the icon for that control(s) (*see Diagram 1*)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - provides a second set of UI controls relevant to a different task when the user clicks on a second tab&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - accepts user selection of one of the UI controls in the second set after displaying the controls in the second tab&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - performs the function associated with a UI control in the second tab when the user selects it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - displays the UI controls in the first selected tab when a second tab is not selected&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that followed all of these steps before August 16, 2004.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Diagram 1&#xD;&#xA;![Diagram 1: Windows Explorer in Windows 8.1: Shrinking the controls in the Ribbon to adapt to a smaller window by removing text from UI controls][3]&#xD;&#xA;*Windows Explorer in Windows 8.1: Shrinking the controls in the Ribbon to adapt to a smaller window by removing text from UI controls*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- FAQ link replaced with link to help center --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see the [help center][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US pending and issued patents.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8255828&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribbon_%28computing%29&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/zbpR1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+post-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6076" RevisionGUID="dc813f82-5a6d-4fd9-8b88-2fd829c9169c" CreationDate="2014-02-16T03:03:54.667" UserId="3160" Text="Lotus eSuite (1991, [source][1]) had an early implementation of a tabbed toolbar highly similar to Microsoft's current Ribbon UI:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Esuite_spreadsheet.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/jbaqp.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6074" RevisionGUID="fb31536b-8208-4635-b8eb-a34e6ea7ec47" CreationDate="2014-02-16T04:20:21.013" UserId="3160" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="Patent [US 8255828 B2][1] (publication US 10/955,967, assigned to Microsoft), *Command user interface for displaying selectable software functionality controls*, is the main patent protecting the [Ribbon UI][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent is heavily contested by the open-source software community, and I'm sure there's prior art out there. Have you seen anything **published before August 16, 2004** that discusses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a tabbed toolbar, each tab containing a series of logical groups of buttons, check boxes, drop-down boxes, and other UI controls for a related set of functions (such as editing a table inserted into a Word document)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question, one piece of prior art per answer. If you have several pieces of prior art, you may submit multiple answers, each describing a particular piece of prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Diagram 1 shows Windows Explorer in Windows 8.1, which contains an example of the Ribbon UI, and demonstrates a function covered in claim 1 of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim of the aforementioned patent is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for providing functionality from a software application by displaying an improved user interface at a display device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;organizing a plurality of software functionalities according to tasks to be performed by the software application, the tasks being identified textually by user interface tabs;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  upon receiving an indication of a selection of a first user interface tab, providing a plurality of selectable controls associated with a first task, each selectable control being presented by a graphic representation and a textual representation;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  grouping the plurality of selectable controls into logical groupings of the plurality of selectable controls, wherein each of the logical groupings combine a subset of functionalities associated with the selected first user interface tab;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  dynamically adjusting a layout of at least one of the logical groupings to accommodate the user interface, wherein dynamically adjusting the layout of the at least one logical grouping comprises reducing a size of the graphical representation of at least one selectable control within the logical grouping eliminating the textual representation of at least one selectable control associated with the at least one logical grouping, and preserving the graphical representation associated with the at least one selectable control associated with the at least one logical grouping;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  upon receiving an indication of a selection of a second user interface tab, providing in the user interface a plurality of additional selectable controls for selecting functionalities organized under a second task associated with the second user interface tab;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  after providing in the user interface the plurality of additional selectable controls for selecting functionalities organized under the second task, receiving an indication of a selection of one of the additional selectable controls organized under the second task;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  applying functionality associated with the selected additional selectable control to a selected object; and&#xD;&#xA;when the second user interface tab is not selected in the user interface, providing in the user interface the plurality of selectable controls organized under the first task associated with the selected first user interface tab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More simply, this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A user interface for a software application which:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - consists of a series of tabs each representing a set of functions to be performed by the application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - provides a set of UI controls relevant to a particular task when the user selects a particular tab, with each control consisting of an icon and text&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - arranges the controls in each tab into a series of subgroups&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - if necessary, hides the text for at least one UI control in a tab, leaving only the icon for that control(s), while retaining the text and graphics for other controls (*see Diagram 1*)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - provides a second set of UI controls relevant to a different task when the user clicks on a second tab&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - accepts user selection of one of the UI controls in the second set after displaying the controls in the second tab&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - performs the function associated with a UI control in the second tab when the user selects it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - displays the UI controls in the first selected tab when a second tab is not selected&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that followed all of these steps before August 16, 2004.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Diagram 1&#xD;&#xA;![Diagram 1: Windows Explorer in Windows 8.1: Shrinking the controls in the Ribbon to adapt to a smaller window by removing text from UI controls][3]&#xD;&#xA;*Windows Explorer in Windows 8.1: Shrinking the controls in the Ribbon to adapt to a smaller window by removing text from UI controls*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- FAQ link replaced with link to help center --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see the [help center][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US pending and issued patents.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8255828&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribbon_%28computing%29&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/zbpR1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+post-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6079" RevisionGUID="0fce66c1-0764-48a7-b840-4601e57cdf16" CreationDate="2014-02-17T02:15:25.357" UserId="7914" Text="Can a user of a patented product make changes to the product for their own use (not reselling product) in their business ?  From drilling holes to lighten weight or making their own parts for the product to make it work better.  Can the patent holder legally prevent this in USA? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16027" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6079" RevisionGUID="0fce66c1-0764-48a7-b840-4601e57cdf16" CreationDate="2014-02-17T02:15:25.357" UserId="7914" Text="Modification and improvement of a patented product by the user of the product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16028" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6079" RevisionGUID="0fce66c1-0764-48a7-b840-4601e57cdf16" CreationDate="2014-02-17T02:15:25.357" UserId="7914" Text="&lt;modification&gt;&lt;improvement&gt;&lt;obstruction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6080" RevisionGUID="6b5aa070-c85b-44f6-839c-bfcee3034f84" CreationDate="2014-02-17T03:27:36.573" UserId="7915" Text="is this application means that no one else can manufacture or sell electronic cigarettes with vitamins in them??&#xD;&#xA;I was thinking its a great start up and I couldn't really find any out there, so is it because of this patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm referring to pantent us20100200008 by the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance..&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16030" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6080" RevisionGUID="6b5aa070-c85b-44f6-839c-bfcee3034f84" CreationDate="2014-02-17T03:27:36.573" UserId="7915" Text="That means no one else can produce or sell E-Cigs with vitamin in them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16031" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6080" RevisionGUID="6b5aa070-c85b-44f6-839c-bfcee3034f84" CreationDate="2014-02-17T03:27:36.573" UserId="7915" Text="&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6081" RevisionGUID="4d5db1bd-81c9-4822-acea-ad8f08ef5560" CreationDate="2014-02-17T05:21:47.603" UserId="7916" Text="depends on whether the patent holder meets the criteria of domestic industry; if the holder meets the criteria, then the modification, change or any kind of alterations on the patented product may cause the patent holder's attention (especially when the salse is big enough)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6080" RevisionGUID="ace029ed-176c-4d15-9cf5-9e2e43b826a1" CreationDate="2014-02-17T05:26:37.543" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body; edited tags" Text="is this application means that no one else can manufacture or sell electronic cigarettes with vitamins in them??&#xD;&#xA;I was thinking its a great start up and I couldn't really find any out there, so is it because of this patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm referring to pantent us20100200008 by the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16034" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6080" RevisionGUID="ace029ed-176c-4d15-9cf5-9e2e43b826a1" CreationDate="2014-02-17T05:26:37.543" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;us20100200008&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6080" RevisionGUID="89863bda-ee78-44a3-a121-2c8811a67f24" CreationDate="2014-02-17T05:47:42.583" UserId="1767" Comment="added 847 characters in body" Text="Does this US Patent Application mean that no one else can manufacture or sell electronic cigarettes with vitamins in them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was thinking vitamins combined with e-cigarettes would be a great idea for a great start up company and I couldn't really find any out there.  Is it because of this patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent: [**US20100200008**][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Title:  **E-Cigarette With Vitamin Infusion**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An electronic cigarette comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a main elongated cylindrical body for enclosing said electronic cigarette, said body having an anterior and distal end;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a cartridge, having atomization means, and a liquid supplying bottle wherein liquid in said liquid supplying bottle is in contact with said atomization means;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a power source having a smart chip, control panel and a lithium ion rechargeable battery for transferring heat to said liquid in said liquid supplying bottle;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an IC switch for releasing a signal to activate and deactivate said power source; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an LED indicator light positioned at said distal end for simulating the tip of a traditionally lit cigarette when said power source is activated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20100200008&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16037" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6080" RevisionGUID="89863bda-ee78-44a3-a121-2c8811a67f24" CreationDate="2014-02-17T05:47:42.583" UserId="1767" Comment="added 847 characters in body" Text="Does this Patent mean that no one else can produce or sell E-Cigs with vitamin in them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4919" RevisionGUID="f05a20f7-591e-464c-8b55-207014cf5067" CreationDate="2014-02-17T05:57:00.733" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 80 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][8]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application has received a **final rejection** by the US Patent Office!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON targeting messages to users based on based on distance between user and a location** - This application from [a self-proclaimed &quot;Internet visionary&quot;][6] seeks to patent the idea of...geo-targeting messages to users! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/11/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using location between a user and a location to send messages to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO a radiofrequency tags are used to identify the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Delivering messages to users based on their location**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for delivering ads to users based on location: if user's device is within a predetermined distance of a location, sending the user a message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130179263 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/348,282&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:[a self-proclaimed &quot;Internet visionary&quot;][6] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/7/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for linking a person to a location, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a computer determining that a device of a person is within a predetermined distance of a location, based on data received from the device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the computer identifying the at least one of the person and the device, based on the received data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. the computer associating the at least one of the person and the device with the location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. the computer generating a message based on the association; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. the computer communicating the message to the person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for delivering ads to users based on user's location:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine with user is within predetermined distance of a location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identify the user or device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Associate (presumably in a database) the user with the location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generate a message for the user and send the message to the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Using RFID tags to identify the device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Communicating promotional content from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/BlZj7kI.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130179263?dq=US20130179263A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://gawker.com/5516162/visionary-eric-leebow-thinks-he-invented-the-social-network&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130179263&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6082" RevisionGUID="df31f421-b993-4ff1-8a16-86eb8560e6a0" CreationDate="2014-02-17T06:04:58.383" UserId="3076" Text="In general, once a product is legitimately sold in the U.S., the patent holder has exhausted any and all patent rights. The purchaser can do anything they like with the object. Exceptions would include situation where ownership doesn't transfer like packaged software. It is licensed with conditions. In oral arguments in a Supreme Court case the justices seemed to agree that if a seller wants to put conditions on a sale of an object they should lease the object, retaining ownership of the item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A separate question involves the rights of third parties. If Smith buys a cup from Jones and drills three holes in the bottom that would not be of any concern to Jones. However Mr. X may have a patent to cups with three holes. Theoretically, Smith can be infringing Mr. X's apparatus patent. Also, Mr. Y might have a method patent on using a cup as a planter for orchids. So, with no modification at all, Smith might put the cup to a use that is covered by a patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6083" RevisionGUID="4e391d5f-faf6-4691-a96e-42e56c49bdba" CreationDate="2014-02-17T06:33:54.627" UserId="3076" Text="This is a patent *application*, as the questioner says. Patent applications provide no enforceable rights, only a granted and issued patent give its owner any rights to try to stop someone from doing something. I looked this application up in the [USPTO Public PAIR][1] database and see that it has gone abandoned for lack of a response to an Office Action from the USPTO. The primary rejection was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hon (US 2007/026731&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6084" RevisionGUID="d4537ebd-74a3-4dac-a8ca-d4f5687b58d3" CreationDate="2014-02-17T12:21:05.050" UserId="7840" Text="Jun 2, 1998	FP	Expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee	&#xD;&#xA;Effective date: 19980325&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like the patent is public domain now. Now, that doesn't mean that another patent which incorporates some of the parts of patent 4578291 is not in force and still valid. Look up the REFERENCED BY section of 4578291 and see if you find something that matches what you're trying to build." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6086" RevisionGUID="ef7690c9-f3ac-4a55-9e07-c16b17d344cd" CreationDate="2014-02-18T12:35:37.587" UserId="7927" Text="I've implemented a new way of sharing files upto 1GB with friends, in real-time. Can patents be applied to this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If yes, I'm from India, and I'm a student, 14yr old, and I want to apply for a patent regarding the file sharing. What's the best and cheapest way of applying a patent in India.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, will that patent be a patent outside India ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Website where I've implemented the file sharing is http://nettpals.in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16048" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6086" RevisionGUID="ef7690c9-f3ac-4a55-9e07-c16b17d344cd" CreationDate="2014-02-18T12:35:37.587" UserId="7927" Text="Can I Apply for patent for this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16049" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6086" RevisionGUID="ef7690c9-f3ac-4a55-9e07-c16b17d344cd" CreationDate="2014-02-18T12:35:37.587" UserId="7927" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16059" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6089" RevisionGUID="87cb405a-58b2-4ab7-a7f1-18e119346f90" CreationDate="2014-02-18T23:03:03.160" UserId="7932" Text="Let's suppose I write a book, (invent a gizmo) a miracle happens, and I get a movie deal (or a manufacturing deal). Can I walk into a real estate title search agency to check on liens and claims against my intellectual property? In other words, if I get sued behind my back how do I locate the court papers?   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16060" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6089" RevisionGUID="87cb405a-58b2-4ab7-a7f1-18e119346f90" CreationDate="2014-02-18T23:03:03.160" UserId="7932" Text="Can I Do A Title Search On A Patent or a Copyright Like With Real Estate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16061" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6089" RevisionGUID="87cb405a-58b2-4ab7-a7f1-18e119346f90" CreationDate="2014-02-18T23:03:03.160" UserId="7932" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6090" RevisionGUID="ac21f958-b722-463b-8da0-a44935be2d66" CreationDate="2014-02-19T02:24:27.793" UserId="7935" Text="I had made 2 inventions and has done all paper works (write ups and drawings) required to file a patent. The patent was to be filed in my boss name as first author (though hes not the inventor) and me as 2nd author. The required application forms with signatures of us were given to the patent lawyer for filing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But after few months, I realize the patent has been filed in my boss name and my name had been omitted out. The lawyer and my boss claims, it might have happened as a mistake to omit my name and they refuse to add my inventorship claiming additional charges. In this kind of situation what can I do. Where can I prove my inventorship? thanks for the replies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16063" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6090" RevisionGUID="ac21f958-b722-463b-8da0-a44935be2d66" CreationDate="2014-02-19T02:24:27.793" UserId="7935" Text="Patent filed under boss name" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16064" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6090" RevisionGUID="ac21f958-b722-463b-8da0-a44935be2d66" CreationDate="2014-02-19T02:24:27.793" UserId="7935" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6091" RevisionGUID="000ab95d-df34-4070-a063-13f2b2bc87b8" CreationDate="2014-02-19T04:52:24.470" UserId="3076" Text="This is a U.S. answer. Unlike authorship, inventorship is controlled by law. Writing it up and making drawing might make you an author but, alone, does not make one an inventor. Being the boss does not make one an inventor. Making a conceptual contribution to something in a claim is what makes one an inventor. All true inventors must be listed and no one else. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Including the name of someone who made no conceptual contribution is completely improper as is leaving off the name of so done who did make a conceptual contribution. The patent attorney knows this. The only way his/her actions are legal and ethical would be if the boss was the sole conceptual contributor of what ended up being claimed and they do not think you are technically an inventor but don't want to get in an argument with you about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Up until 2011, changing inventorship usually required a statement that the error was &quot;not with deceptive intent&quot;. That no longer is the case. Fixing inventorship can be done with a smile form and transmittal letter with no USPTO fees due." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6092" RevisionGUID="2a03c0c1-bd27-4c9b-9d3b-4a98ae14727d" CreationDate="2014-02-19T06:19:40.410" UserId="7937" Text="who is the author of the patent number CN 101463502 B## Heading ## entitled Pineapple leaf fiber biochemical degumming technique?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16067" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6092" RevisionGUID="2a03c0c1-bd27-4c9b-9d3b-4a98ae14727d" CreationDate="2014-02-19T06:19:40.410" UserId="7937" Text="who is the of author of CN 101463502 B?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16068" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6092" RevisionGUID="2a03c0c1-bd27-4c9b-9d3b-4a98ae14727d" CreationDate="2014-02-19T06:19:40.410" UserId="7937" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6091" RevisionGUID="558a2668-4a49-47b7-bece-82f1083b94c5" CreationDate="2014-02-19T06:39:05.383" UserId="3076" Comment="Clean up typos" Text="This answer assumes you are talking about a filing with the USPTO. Unlike authorship, inventorship is controlled by law. Writing it up and making drawing might make you an author but, alone, does not make one an inventor. Being the boss does not make one an inventor. Making a conceptual contribution to something in a claim is what makes one an inventor. All true inventors must be listed and no one else. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Including the name of someone who made no conceptual contribution is completely improper as is leaving off the name of someone who did make a conceptual contribution. The patent attorney knows this. The only way his/her actions are legal and ethical would be if the boss believably claims to be the sole conceptual contributor of what ended up being claimed and the attorney does not think you are technically an inventor but doesn't  want to get in an argument with you about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Up until 2011, changing inventorship usually required a statement that the error was &quot;not with deceptive intent&quot;. That no longer is the case. Fixing inventorship can be done with a simple form and transmittal letter with no USPTO fees due." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6093" RevisionGUID="5f50ee56-fcde-4304-acd9-2d68ba14c696" CreationDate="2014-02-19T06:50:31.240" UserId="3076" Text="Patents do not have *authors*, they have *inventors* and they have *applicants*. Typing the document number into google patents immediately brings the answer up. Only Chinese names of the inventors are shown.&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/4F014.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6094" RevisionGUID="50efef7e-5461-489e-b6f3-0eefb0aa62f8" CreationDate="2014-02-19T08:19:48.400" UserId="7910" Text="I am from India and want to apply for patent from uspto with or without the help of lawyer whichever can fasten the process. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16072" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6094" RevisionGUID="50efef7e-5461-489e-b6f3-0eefb0aa62f8" CreationDate="2014-02-19T08:19:48.400" UserId="7910" Text="How quickly a patent can be granted from uspto with the help of lawyers etc if I am from India?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16073" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6094" RevisionGUID="50efef7e-5461-489e-b6f3-0eefb0aa62f8" CreationDate="2014-02-19T08:19:48.400" UserId="7910" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;india&gt;&lt;lawyers&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5968" RevisionGUID="91765ab2-7fe0-4fa9-93bf-b4a77e51cac4" CreationDate="2014-02-19T10:04:00.960" UserId="7725" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="SAS Inc offer a product name 'SAS Sentiment Analysis' which was an acquisition of a company called 'Teragram Corporation'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This product won the Business Wire product of the year award for its excellence in innovation. Below is an extract of from the press release, which describes the SAS Sentiment Analysis feature set / benefits which sound very similar to what the Metavana patent details:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SAS Sentiment Analysis’ high-performance crawler locates and extracts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sentiment from digital content sources, including mainstream websites,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; social media outlets, internal servers and incoming news feeds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of how the crawled content is processed to locate sentiment it states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SAS’ unique hybrid approach combines powerful statistical techniques&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with linguistics rules to improve accuracy to the detailed feature&#xD;&#xA;&gt; level. It summarizes the sentiment expressed in all available text&#xD;&#xA;&gt; collections – identifying trends and creating graphical reports that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; describe the expressed feelings of consumers, partners, employees and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; competitors in real time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above description makes the products sentiment analysis capabilities seem more advanced than the categories and keyword approach detailed in the patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I researched further to see if I could find more information on the SAS product related to categories and keywords as a method to locate sentiment and found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) a post on the SAS blog called 'Predicting American Idol results based on Twitter sentiment' which details that keywords can be used. The post it states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Generating the scores was easy enough with SAS Sentiment Analysis. I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; used a SAS macro to copy two weeks of Tweets about the final six&#xD;&#xA;&gt; contestants. From there, I took an existing Sentiment project (about&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an actual business), and copied over the list of generic positive and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; negative keywords. I ran the model and then added in a few extra rules&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to account for the nuances of Twitter-speak (turns out most&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Twitter-speak consists of shortenings of &quot;love&quot; and &quot;sucks&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) an article titled 'SAS Text Analytics and Teragram', which refers to the 'Content Categorization function' as described below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another important point is that SAS Text Analytics includes four&#xD;&#xA;&gt; components. There is the SAS Enterprise Content Categorization&#xD;&#xA;&gt; function. The system parses content and identifies entities. Metadata&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are created along with category rules. The second function is SAS&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sentiment Analysis. A number of companies are competing in this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sector. The SAS approach sucks in emails, tweets, and other documents.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The system identifies various subjective shades in the source content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know the SAS product intimately but it very much appears to perform everything described in the patent application. The sources I have used are not perfect and they describe the SAS product from the user point of view as opposed to an informed objective one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It actually looks like the SAS is far more advanced than what the patent describes which appears quite rudimentary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing to note: I couldn't find any SAS or Teragram patents to use as sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Business Wire Press Release][1] July 26, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[SAS Blog describing keywords as a component of locating sentiment][2] May 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Article describing categories as a component of locating sentiment][3] May 28, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100726005306/en/SAS%C2%AE-Sentiment-Analysis-Software-Named-Product-Year#.Uujx9hB9LaQ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blogs.sas.com/content/text-mining/2011/05/12/predicting-american-idol-results-based-on-twitter-sentiment/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/2010/05/28/sas-text-analytics-and-teragram/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6095" RevisionGUID="474dfa7f-648a-4273-a882-4eed9e4f84c3" CreationDate="2014-02-19T10:37:46.237" UserId="1186" Text="As for the Indian Patent,  Section 3 in [MANUAL OF PATENT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE][1] describes what are not inventions:&#xD;&#xA;And 3 (k) specifically mention that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a mathematical or business method or a computer program per se or &#xD;&#xA;&gt; algorithms;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;So keeping this in mind you should try to know if your invention is merely a method or computer program. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I have seen many patents which are softwares that run with a dedicated hardware. So software with a hardware (with some meaningful purpose), can be filed (or is worth filing). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also before you think you have a novel way of sharing the files, you should get it searched on known data bases (both free and paid) by professionals or you can do it your self (at least on free databases).       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ipindia.nic.in/ipr/patent/Patent_Manual_Feedback/WO_Ga_34_China.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6097" RevisionGUID="d573a8ad-4c44-4f9f-914f-aaba96abe581" CreationDate="2014-02-19T11:39:13.570" UserId="7939" Text="Guerillamail has an API for creating a new email address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://api.guerrillamail.com/ajax.php?f=get_email_address&amp;ip=127.0.0.1&amp;agent=Mozilla_foo_bar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.guerrillamail.com/GuerrillaMailAPI.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When this was reviewed by a journalist, the most obvious use was indeed what Apple is trying to patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://blog.programmableweb.com/2011/05/10/guerilla-mail-an-api-that-helps-stop-spam/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It allows the same functionality as the website, and some additional tricks such as setting the e-mail address to one of the user’s choice. This API might allow, as an example, a developer to make a truly paranoid web browser, integrating Guerilla Mail into it for website registering purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mailinator has the same type of API.  This API used in a testing framework:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://github.com/technicalpickles/mailinator-spec&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6097" RevisionGUID="d266ed93-5afc-46b8-9185-72bafcec7c54" CreationDate="2014-02-19T11:58:24.180" UserId="7939" Comment="Going through the claims" Text="Guerillamail has an API for creating a new email address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://api.guerrillamail.com/ajax.php?f=get_email_address&amp;ip=127.0.0.1&amp;agent=Mozilla_foo_bar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.guerrillamail.com/GuerrillaMailAPI.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When this was reviewed by a journalist, the most obvious use was indeed what Apple is trying to patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://blog.programmableweb.com/2011/05/10/guerilla-mail-an-api-that-helps-stop-spam/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It allows the same functionality as the website, and some additional tricks such as setting the e-mail address to one of the user’s choice. This API might allow, as an example, a developer to make a truly paranoid web browser, integrating Guerilla Mail into it for website registering purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mailinator has the same type of API.  This API used in a testing framework:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://github.com/technicalpickles/mailinator-spec&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Claim 11. A non-transitory program storage device, readable by one or more programmable control devices, comprising instructions stored thereon for causing one or more of the programmable control devices to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Allocate a disposable email address, the disposable email address independent of a non-disposable email address;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is available in the APIs above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Associate the disposable email address with the non-disposable email address;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two above is done for example in HushMail where nyms can be requested using an UI.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Associate a context information with the disposable email address, external to the disposable email address;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All systems do this, otherwise they cannot possibly function correcctly.  APIs have cookies, account info etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Associate an expiration information with the disposable email address, external to the disposable email address;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The guerillamail API supports this.  I haven't checked the others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Receive an email message addressed to the disposable email address;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Rewrite the email message, replacing the disposable email address with the non-disposable email address;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might not be done by the existing solutions, but if this is a requirement, it seems trivial to get around.  Why was this put into the claims? Was it because prior art on everything else exists and this should be a patent without any protection ability?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Provide the email message to an email client;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything that reads an email is an email client, so.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Provide the context information to the email client;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context information can be anything, so just the info that you are logged into your email client (your name in the upper right corner) is context information attached to the email address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Receive a reply to the email message; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Rewrite the reply, replacing the non-disposable email address with the disposable email address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here again, there is this strange requirement that the &quot;real&quot; email address must be used.  By just informing the user of the disposable email address, then the real email address can also be shown, since this isn't a rewrite of the &quot;email-address&quot;, it is just showing context information (the real email address).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Claim 13. The program storage device of claim 11, wherein the instructions stored thereon further comprise instructions for causing one or more of the programmable control devices to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Provide the context information with the email message to the email client.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6061" RevisionGUID="d0b0e454-2aa1-4548-a4d2-1d34870d3ae4" CreationDate="2014-02-19T22:39:01.560" UserId="3076" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="A direct answer to the question as originally posted: The best way to keep the application from eventually turning into an issued patent would be to search for (and solicit others to search for) documents that qualify technically to be used as prior art against the application in question and either individually, or taken together show that the most substantive things claimable under the disclosure are not new or are obvious. A patent examiner rejects on lack of novelty by finding a *single* embodiment in a *single document* from the past where the single embodiment teaches all elements of a proposed claim. They reject as obvious by finding one or more documents that, together, contain all of the elements of a claim. Then they need to explain why someone would and could put those elements together to reach the claimed invention as a whole." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6098" RevisionGUID="17358518-0521-4c5f-9c5e-5ef8dd54edcf" CreationDate="2014-02-20T02:37:57.853" UserId="7943" Text="Just I want to know this patent just for US market or Worldwide,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And i noticed the patent owner has not paid the fee since 2011. does it mean the patent is now expried(unvalid) ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6558681&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thanks a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;kem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16085" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6098" RevisionGUID="17358518-0521-4c5f-9c5e-5ef8dd54edcf" CreationDate="2014-02-20T02:37:57.853" UserId="7943" Text="Is this patent just for US or Worldwide ? and expried?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16086" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6098" RevisionGUID="17358518-0521-4c5f-9c5e-5ef8dd54edcf" CreationDate="2014-02-20T02:37:57.853" UserId="7943" Text="&lt;usa&gt;&lt;uk&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6100" RevisionGUID="e756134b-2d90-46fc-9d4d-8486e3da97a8" CreationDate="2014-02-20T17:47:55.243" UserId="7945" Text="Thomas Paul Eversole was an employee of thelamco, inc. at the time this application for patent was rendered.  He has never been a principle of thelamco and had no authorization from thelamco to sign away any rights we had for developing this product.  We share seek to challenge this patent on the grounds that it has been unlawfully gained without our authorization.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16094" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6100" RevisionGUID="e756134b-2d90-46fc-9d4d-8486e3da97a8" CreationDate="2014-02-20T17:47:55.243" UserId="7945" Text="Vestcom stole the technology from thelamco, inc. without pre-authorization" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16095" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6100" RevisionGUID="e756134b-2d90-46fc-9d4d-8486e3da97a8" CreationDate="2014-02-20T17:47:55.243" UserId="7945" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6101" RevisionGUID="2b0aaed8-1d35-40a7-9376-f760a8c838b8" CreationDate="2014-02-20T18:39:13.270" UserId="5599" Text="This is an obvious increment on the traditional phone someone up and book the cab who would then log it into a computer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As GPS equipped devices have become the norm, doing it this way it as obvious as sending a letter by courier instead of carrier pigeon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6102" RevisionGUID="1c250117-86e1-4895-b3a3-e94168594d05" CreationDate="2014-02-20T18:48:28.013" UserId="5599" Text="This is a bad patent for a number of reasons, first and foremost it a practice that has been happening for many years.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Any AOL cd from the mid 90's used a web browser view to display the connection interface. This was a web page as it was defined s html, and it was embedded because needed a network connection to see it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you press the need for network connectivity, I suggest you lookup Opera mini for the traditional idea of a web browser with embedded content of if your definition of a browser is more fluid, Teleca Symphony have a product that has done that since at least 2003.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way this question is worded, you could define the Lynx start page or the Firefox compiled in landing page as prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6103" RevisionGUID="565dd3fa-3f04-4a60-91c0-8a8e59162377" CreationDate="2014-02-20T18:55:19.897" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON location-based online marketplaces** - This application from [Zaarly, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...An online marketplace which associates a geographic location with each listing and and **search radius** with a prospective buyer or seller! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/3/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Online marketplaces which specify location of items and a radius of interest for buyer or seller &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Geographic interest may be specificed by **search radius** and items for sale may be assigned to **keyword categories**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Proximity-based online marketplace**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] An online marketplace where each listing is associated with a geographic target areas; potential buyers are shown example listings based on their location and target area of each listing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20120284143 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/414,278&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Zaarly, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/3/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An online system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A database storing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    * Example listings, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    * A geographic target area associated with each of the example listings; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A server configured to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    * Detect a location of a client device accessing the system over a network,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    * Identify a set of the example listings based on the detected location and the geographic target areas, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    * Provide the identified set of example listings to the client device over the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A proximity-based online marketplace, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A database storing listings and a geographic target area associated with each listing; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A server configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - Detect the location of a client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - Identify a set of listings based on the detected location and the geographic target area; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - Provide the listings to the client&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/3/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Assigning items to keyword categories, showing example listing and using demographic information about buyer to target items to potential buyers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Network &quot;architecture&quot; for proximity-based online marketplace&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/VpFMWt8.png&quot; width=&quot;550&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120284143&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.zaarly.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120284143#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=03%2F07%2F2012&amp;t=1online%20marketplace.1proximity.1example.0listings.0sellers.0buyers.0allow%20listings.0offer.0post%20listings.0detected%20location%20data." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16099" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6103" RevisionGUID="565dd3fa-3f04-4a60-91c0-8a8e59162377" CreationDate="2014-02-20T18:55:19.897" UserId="1767" Text="Proximity-based online marketplace - Connecting nearby buyers and sellers (Zaarly, Inc.) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16100" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6103" RevisionGUID="565dd3fa-3f04-4a60-91c0-8a8e59162377" CreationDate="2014-02-20T18:55:19.897" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;geo-target&gt;&lt;us20120284143a1&gt;&lt;zaarly&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6103" RevisionGUID="06512183-f404-4486-bf20-6728933ed5d4" CreationDate="2014-02-20T19:13:31.497" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON location-based online marketplaces** - This application from [Zaarly, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...An online marketplace which associates a geographic location with each listing and and **search radius** with a prospective buyer or seller! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/3/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Online marketplaces which specify location of items and a radius of interest for buyer or seller &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Geographic interest may be specificed by **search radius** and items for sale may be assigned to **keyword categories**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Proximity-based online marketplace**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] An online marketplace where each listing is associated with a geographic target areas; potential buyers are shown example listings based on their location and target area of each listing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120284143 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/414,278&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Zaarly, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/3/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An online system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A database storing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    * Example listings, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    * A geographic target area associated with each of the example listings; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A server configured to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    * Detect a location of a client device accessing the system over a network,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    * Identify a set of the example listings based on the detected location and the geographic target areas, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    * Provide the identified set of example listings to the client device over the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A proximity-based online marketplace, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A database storing listings and a geographic target area associated with each listing; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A server configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - Detect the location of a client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - Identify a set of listings based on the detected location and the geographic target area; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - Provide the listings to the client&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/3/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Assigning items to keyword categories, showing example listing and using demographic information about buyer to target items to potential buyers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Network &quot;architecture&quot; for proximity-based online marketplace&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/VpFMWt8.png&quot; width=&quot;550&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120284143&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.zaarly.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120284143#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=03%2F07%2F2012&amp;t=1online%20marketplace.1proximity.1example.0listings.0sellers.0buyers.0allow%20listings.0offer.0post%20listings.0detected%20location%20data." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6104" RevisionGUID="b6578e16-ebb0-4e6e-9377-d596f93a79e4" CreationDate="2014-02-20T21:32:53.423" UserId="998" Text="There is no such thing as a &quot;worldwide patent&quot; rather, each jurisdiction has self control over patents covering its territorial region. Thus, a US patent offers exclusive rights to the covered invention within the US while a European patent offers exclusive rights to the invention in Europe, etc.  Someone with a valuable invention can get patent protection in each jurisdiction, but that involves a step-by-step approach of seeking protection in each place. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once a patent issues, the patentee must continue to pay regular &quot;maintenance&quot; or &quot;renewal&quot; fees in order to keep the patent enforceable. This is something like a property tax. The patent will be deemed abandoned and unenforceable if the maintenance fees are unpaid. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the USPTO records, the patent you referenced (US6558681) has been abandoned for failure and therefore it is no longer infringement for someone to use the invention in the US without the patentee's permission. One important caveat here is the patentee can revive an abandoned patent fairly easily if it has been abandoned less than 24-months. This patent was abandoned back in 2011 (more than 24-months ago) and therefore can be revived only if the patentee proves that its delay was &quot;unavoidable&quot; despite &quot;reasonable care.&quot;  That turns out to be a difficult standard to meet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also looked up the worldwide patent family and found that there are a number of corresponding patents throughout Europe (including the UK) and Canada. I did not do a comprehensive search, but I did find that the Renewal fees are current in the UK ([UKIPO Records][1]). This means that the patent is still in force in the UK and perhaps throughout Europe as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bottom Line: The US patent is expired; The corresponding UK patent is still in force; and Other European and Canadian versions may also still be in force. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2346557" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6105" RevisionGUID="3486eb81-9321-438e-999f-b385fd010cef" CreationDate="2014-02-20T21:37:32.070" UserId="998" Text="The US Patent Office has a Procedure known as both &quot;[Track I][1]&quot; and Prioritized Examination.  That is currently the most effective way to accelerate through the process.  If everything works smoothly, that process takes about 9 months from the day you file your application to the day that the patent issues. The fee for prioritized examination is $2,000 for small entities, $1,000 for micro entities, and $4,000 for large entities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/Track_One.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6106" RevisionGUID="861d3b4c-50a4-4c95-9d88-b11c946daba1" CreationDate="2014-02-20T21:57:29.637" UserId="998" Text="Partial Answer: Yes but its a bit tricky - A good transactional lawyer can help you. In the US, ownership of patent rights are typically recorded with the US Patent &amp; Trademark Office in what they call the [Assignment Database][1].  However, liens and other security interests might be recorded with the USPTO but they might instead (or also) be recorded locally (in the debtor's location) as would be done with personal property and other intangibles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your patents are seen as property interests that can be attached to pay your debts. So, if you owe someone money and you refuse to pay, the court could order a transfer of title of your patent rights. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6107" RevisionGUID="cd7f7369-7753-458b-ae5c-593dfa7ad910" CreationDate="2014-02-21T03:12:23.010" UserId="7950" Text="Can somebody patent a lock to be opened by wireless method?  I would assume not, but it seems like there are a lot of companies that claim they have patented this technology to open the lock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can somebody help answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mike" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16107" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6107" RevisionGUID="cd7f7369-7753-458b-ae5c-593dfa7ad910" CreationDate="2014-02-21T03:12:23.010" UserId="7950" Text="Bluetooth door locks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16108" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6107" RevisionGUID="cd7f7369-7753-458b-ae5c-593dfa7ad910" CreationDate="2014-02-21T03:12:23.010" UserId="7950" Text="&lt;bluetooth&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6109" RevisionGUID="413afaad-668c-43f6-a4fd-2427705dbe82" CreationDate="2014-02-21T04:25:31.120" UserId="3076" Text="I don't see why you would think this was a subject area that was immune to patents. There are dozens of issued U.S. patents involving wireless control of locks. Each has its own twist. One of them is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deadbolt lock&#xD;&#xA;US 7963134 B2&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Master Lock&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ABSTRACT&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;A deadbolt lock includes a deadbolt, a user rotatable actuator, and a lock interface. The user rotatable actuator is operatively connected with the deadbolt for movement of the deadbolt between locked and unlocked conditions when the actuator is changed from an inoperable condition to an operable condition. The lock interface is configured to change the actuator from the inoperable condition to the operable condition in response to proper user manipulation of the lock interface.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6110" RevisionGUID="ef3278b2-de09-4c48-b0a6-f5c1bca0dd99" CreationDate="2014-02-21T04:41:30.027" UserId="7952" Text="Apple has an application pending that would probably go into iPhones.  The idea is that you have the camera or fingerprint scanner or other electronic component behind a window that can be turned transparent or opaque (probably an LCD layer).  The window could also be behind the LCD screen itself, so the display would be normal, but then could selectively show the camera through the display when needed.  The publication is 2012/0258773.  I've seen some articles talking about this application, so I feel it may be one that Apple is paying attention to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any prior art publications or products?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16114" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6110" RevisionGUID="ef3278b2-de09-4c48-b0a6-f5c1bca0dd99" CreationDate="2014-02-21T04:41:30.027" UserId="7952" Text="Switchably transparent/opaque window hiding electronic component (fingerprint scanner, camera) - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16115" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6110" RevisionGUID="ef3278b2-de09-4c48-b0a6-f5c1bca0dd99" CreationDate="2014-02-21T04:41:30.027" UserId="7952" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;security&gt;&lt;iphone&gt;&lt;lcd&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6110" RevisionGUID="f2503781-5214-4884-83cd-0caf5ae41705" CreationDate="2014-02-21T04:50:31.633" UserId="7952" Comment="added 686 characters in body" Text="Apple has an application pending that would probably go into iPhones.  The idea is that you have the camera or fingerprint scanner or other electronic component behind a window that can be turned transparent or opaque (probably an LCD layer).  The window could also be behind the LCD screen itself, so the display would be normal, but then could selectively show the camera through the display when needed.  The publication is 2012/0258773.  I've seen some articles talking about this application, so I feel it may be one that Apple is paying attention to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any prior art publications or products?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - An electronic device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;      - a window configured to selectively become transparent or opaque;&#xD;&#xA;      - a component disposed behind the window, wherein the component comprises an image capture device, a strobe flash, a biometric   &#xD;&#xA;   sensor, a light sensor, a proximity sensor, or a solar panel, or a   &#xD;&#xA;   combination thereof; &#xD;&#xA;      - data processing circuitry configured to determine when an event requesting that the component be exposed occurs; and&#xD;&#xA;      - a window controller configured to cause the window to become transparent to expose the component upon the occurrence of the event &#xD;&#xA;   requesting that the component be exposed. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6111" RevisionGUID="eb694344-c132-4f27-9b61-0cd38ac16990" CreationDate="2014-02-21T04:54:31.507" UserId="7952" Text="Be aware of the law in India (your attorney can help you with that).  I vaguely recall that Indian citizens must first file in India before filing in other countries.  This is the case with US citizens, I believe.  For US citizens, the PTO grants a foreign filing license after you file in the US." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6112" RevisionGUID="ce678956-05ae-4bea-8a75-e0a67ef1d156" CreationDate="2014-02-21T05:09:30.497" UserId="7952" Text="Design patents are designated with a &quot;D&quot; in front of them, like &quot;D432100.  The standard 7 digit patent number is a utility patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can go to:&#xD;&#xA;https://ramps.uspto.gov/eram/patentMaintFees.do&#xD;&#xA;to check out the status of an application's maintenance fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent (6676109) is based off of Application 10/412,585, and appears currently paid up and in force.  If the next fee is paid in 2015, it will stay in force until 04/14/2023." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6110" RevisionGUID="eceba3bd-b1f5-41b1-a58d-48fdd615398b" CreationDate="2014-02-21T05:16:49.023" UserId="7952" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="Apple has an application pending that would probably go into iPhones.  The idea is that you have the camera or fingerprint scanner or other electronic component behind a window that can be turned transparent or opaque (probably an LCD layer).  The window could also be behind the LCD screen itself, so the display would be normal, but then could selectively show the camera through the display when needed.  The publication is 2012/0258773.  I've seen some articles talking about this application, so I feel it may be one that Apple is paying attention to.  It seems cool, but is it really patent-worthy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any prior art publications or products?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - An electronic device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;      - a window configured to selectively become transparent or opaque;&#xD;&#xA;      - a component disposed behind the window, wherein the component comprises an image capture device, a strobe flash, a biometric   &#xD;&#xA;   sensor, a light sensor, a proximity sensor, or a solar panel, or a   &#xD;&#xA;   combination thereof; &#xD;&#xA;      - data processing circuitry configured to determine when an event requesting that the component be exposed occurs; and&#xD;&#xA;      - a window controller configured to cause the window to become transparent to expose the component upon the occurrence of the event &#xD;&#xA;   requesting that the component be exposed. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6113" RevisionGUID="440654f3-f104-4db0-937c-72109bf6f418" CreationDate="2014-02-21T10:15:13.467" UserId="7954" Text="I want to make a one handed shovel for my college project. I have thought of substantial modifications from what has been described here. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The idea has already been described in patent US646472.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Will I be infringing any rights?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16121" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6113" RevisionGUID="440654f3-f104-4db0-937c-72109bf6f418" CreationDate="2014-02-21T10:15:13.467" UserId="7954" Text="Can I use the idea of a one handed shovel in my non-commercial project?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16122" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6113" RevisionGUID="440654f3-f104-4db0-937c-72109bf6f418" CreationDate="2014-02-21T10:15:13.467" UserId="7954" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6114" RevisionGUID="8ee99645-b496-424c-803f-c07af526ae8c" CreationDate="2014-02-21T11:47:10.287" UserId="7952" Text="The broad idea of a &quot;one-handed shovel&quot; is not preempted by the patent. The patent only protects what is described in the claims.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also,  it appears you mis-typed the patent number,as that patent has nothing to do with a one-handed shovel, and would have expired about 100 years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, though, just because a use is &quot;non-commercial&quot; is not a great defense to infringement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6115" RevisionGUID="b8fe7a89-a3a0-419b-b8b1-abfd80e70bb9" CreationDate="2014-02-21T13:26:22.440" UserId="7958" Text="How about eBay's location search, which looks to be around since at least 2007.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a link to the WayBackmachine's archive from 2007 showing you could search for an item based on postcode and distance.&#xD;&#xA;https://web.archive.org/web/20070812210201/http://pages.ebay.co.uk/help/buy/search_region.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6115" RevisionGUID="ebbb17ac-5ae8-4623-9e94-9663cf5100a0" CreationDate="2014-02-21T13:32:07.187" UserId="7958" Comment="edited body" Text="How about eBay's location search, which looks to be around since at least 2005.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a link to the WayBackmachine's archive from 2007 showing you could search for an item based on postcode and distance.&#xD;&#xA;https://web.archive.org/web/20070812210201/http://pages.ebay.co.uk/help/buy/search_region.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16126" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6110" RevisionGUID="9aee7ecf-58b6-4caf-87e6-8f2a92b373da" CreationDate="2014-02-21T16:36:50.753" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;security&gt;&lt;us20120258773&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6110" RevisionGUID="9aee7ecf-58b6-4caf-87e6-8f2a92b373da" CreationDate="2014-02-21T16:36:50.753" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="Apple has an application pending that would probably go into iPhones.  The idea is that you have the camera or fingerprint scanner or other electronic component behind a window that can be turned transparent or opaque (probably an LCD layer).  The window could also be behind the LCD screen itself, so the display would be normal, but then could selectively show the camera through the display when needed.  The publication is 2012/0258773.  I've seen some articles talking about this application, so I feel it may be one that Apple is paying attention to.  It seems cool, but is it really patent-worthy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any prior art publications or products?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - An electronic device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;      - a window configured to selectively become transparent or opaque;&#xD;&#xA;      - a component disposed behind the window, wherein the component comprises an image capture device, a strobe flash, a biometric   &#xD;&#xA;   sensor, a light sensor, a proximity sensor, or a solar panel, or a   &#xD;&#xA;   combination thereof; &#xD;&#xA;      - data processing circuitry configured to determine when an event requesting that the component be exposed occurs; and&#xD;&#xA;      - a window controller configured to cause the window to become transparent to expose the component upon the occurrence of the event &#xD;&#xA;   requesting that the component be exposed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/evxXN.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16128" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6110" RevisionGUID="9aee7ecf-58b6-4caf-87e6-8f2a92b373da" CreationDate="2014-02-21T16:36:50.753" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="Switchably transparent/opaque window hiding electronic fingerprint scanner, camera (Apple) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6110" RevisionGUID="0a64b707-fa4d-4ab1-853f-d44854971d51" CreationDate="2014-02-21T16:47:13.287" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="Apple has an application pending that would probably go into iPhones.  The idea is that you have the camera or fingerprint scanner or other electronic component behind a window that can be turned transparent or opaque (probably an LCD layer).  The window could also be behind the LCD screen itself, so the display would be normal, but then could selectively show the camera through the display when needed.  The publication is 2012/0258773.  I've seen some articles talking about this application, so I feel it may be one that Apple is paying attention to.  It seems cool, but is it really patent-worthy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any prior art publications or products prior to **April 7, 2011**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link to **[Patent Application US20120258773][2]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link to **[Google Prior Art Finder][3]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1 reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - An electronic device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;      - A window configured to selectively become transparent or opaque;&#xD;&#xA;      - A component disposed behind the window, wherein the component comprises an image capture device, a strobe flash, a biometric   &#xD;&#xA;   sensor, a light sensor, a proximity sensor, **or** a solar panel, or a   &#xD;&#xA;   combination thereof; &#xD;&#xA;      - Data processing circuitry configured to determine when an event requesting that the component be exposed occurs; and&#xD;&#xA;      - A window **controller configured to cause the window to become transparent** to expose the component upon the occurrence of the event &#xD;&#xA;   requesting that the component be exposed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/evxXN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120258773&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120258773#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=04%2F07%2F2011&amp;t=1internal%20component.1providing%20access.1window.0biometric%20sensor.0window%20controller.0strobe%20flash.0devices.0event.0devices%20and%20methods%20for%20providing.0pldc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6116" RevisionGUID="ffe3fd79-f4e2-4493-9e7e-f55fed0678c8" CreationDate="2014-02-21T18:35:05.660" UserId="3076" Text="If you were trying to refer to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One handed shovel for handicapped&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[US 6464272][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google patents says it expired in 2006 due to non-payment of maintenance fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6464272" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6117" RevisionGUID="f9a194da-d433-435d-b415-78c26335a613" CreationDate="2014-02-21T19:13:54.680" UserId="7963" Text="My name was transcribed in the database record with the town that I live in as my last name instead of my actual last name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am listed as the primary inventor on the actual document." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16132" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6117" RevisionGUID="f9a194da-d433-435d-b415-78c26335a613" CreationDate="2014-02-21T19:13:54.680" UserId="7963" Text="I am the inventor but my name was typed in wrong into the online database record" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16133" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6117" RevisionGUID="f9a194da-d433-435d-b415-78c26335a613" CreationDate="2014-02-21T19:13:54.680" UserId="7963" Text="&lt;us20130066839&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6118" RevisionGUID="6a8b47e9-d3b1-4985-979a-1f038dfac699" CreationDate="2014-02-21T19:21:26.540" UserId="7964" Text="While in college, I merged two forms of open to the public technology and created a new method for sharing information for a particular use that has not been used before and it's not patented. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know or understand everything about patents, but I purposely didn't want to patent the method because I personally don't believe it should be patented and I want other people to use it as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what qualifies as &quot;publicized&quot;, but my technology has been shared on numerous websites, youtube videos, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to find out if it's possible for someone to create a similar concept, try to patent it and then even come after me even if I've been using it years before them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't want a patent troll to come after me when I can't even defend myself because I can't afford a lawyer.  I would prefer the technology to be open, forever." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16135" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6118" RevisionGUID="6a8b47e9-d3b1-4985-979a-1f038dfac699" CreationDate="2014-02-21T19:21:26.540" UserId="7964" Text="If I have already publicized my technology could someone else patent it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16136" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6118" RevisionGUID="6a8b47e9-d3b1-4985-979a-1f038dfac699" CreationDate="2014-02-21T19:21:26.540" UserId="7964" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16137" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6117" RevisionGUID="7f38e81f-8053-47be-8e66-b62055c1e942" CreationDate="2014-02-21T19:22:18.117" UserId="1767" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1767,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Micah Siegel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="16138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6119" RevisionGUID="9fbccdbc-8497-4fe3-a6c4-2437ec600705" CreationDate="2014-02-21T20:04:02.853" UserId="7965" Text="Spoons are one-handed shovels.  And off-patent.  Whether you would be infringing ANY in-force patents with something more complicated, like 6464272, is a complicated question that might take many hours to answer, and then the answer would never be definitive.  That's life.  But unless you sell a million on the internet, it won't make economic sense for any patent owner to sue you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6120" RevisionGUID="e9457be8-69d0-43ec-9652-6860307d7097" CreationDate="2014-02-21T20:53:16.360" UserId="3076" Text="The issue is not *publicized* but *published*. Technically anything posted on the internet that is reliably dateable and is an &quot;enabling&quot; discloser is prior art that should keep someone from getting a patent on that subject matter. However, if the patent examiner does not come across it in their search it wouldn't factor in to the prosecution of the patent application. The best way for it to be stumbled across in the examiner's search is for it to be a published patent application. You could right this up as an application and file it with an early publication request. Once it is published in a couple of months you can abandon the application. If you like, you can put pointers in the application to the web posting URLs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone could get a patent in error and try to stop you or others from practicing it. You can use the information posted on the web to defend yourself, of course. However, a third party could patent a twist on your idea that was not in any posting or not on any dateable posting and that would be hard to defend against.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, without doing a thorough search yourself how do you know you were the first to do this and that no patent currently exists?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6120" RevisionGUID="9d5d33d5-7f03-4b60-b9af-f23940f545e8" CreationDate="2014-02-21T23:17:28.573" UserId="3076" Comment="added 162 characters in body" Text="The issue is not *publicized* but *published*. Technically anything posted on the internet that is reliably dateable and is an &quot;enabling&quot; discloser is prior art that should keep someone from getting a patent on that subject matter. However, if the patent examiner does not come across it in their search it wouldn't factor in to the prosecution of the patent application. The best way for it to be stumbled across in the examiner's search is for it to be a published patent application. You could write this up as an application and file it with an early publication request. The USPTO fees for this are a small number of hundreds of dollars, and less if you qualify as a micro-entity. Once it is published in a couple of months you can abandon the application. If you like, you can put pointers in the application to the web posting URLs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the examiner doesn't see your previous work, someone could get a patent in error and try to stop you or others from practicing it. You can use the information you posted on the web to defend yourself, of course. However, a third party could patent a twist on your idea that was not in any posting or not on any dateable posting and that would be hard to defend against.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, without doing a thorough search yourself how do you know you were the first to do this and that no patent currently exists?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6117" RevisionGUID="75109daf-a427-41ba-b997-d86592003989" CreationDate="2014-02-22T01:22:04.043" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="My name was transcribed in the database record with the town that I live in as my last name instead of my actual last name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this type of error at the USPTO fixed ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6121" RevisionGUID="6d1b7c6c-02b5-4424-987e-d6cb1b0bfa64" CreationDate="2014-02-22T13:53:50.540" UserId="7967" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Let's say there is a software company. This company is developing a Digital Signal Processing software library. The library doesn't constitute an application itself but it is meant to be sold to be used in a bigger software.&#xD;&#xA;For simplicity, we assume that the library has been written from scratch, without the use of any other external libraries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway the library implements some algorithms that have been patented for specific applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the company has to care about patents at all?&#xD;&#xA;Does the company has to warn the client about the specific patented applications?&#xD;&#xA;Since the  library has been written from scratch, may the client pretend to use the library to implement a patented application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16143" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6121" RevisionGUID="6d1b7c6c-02b5-4424-987e-d6cb1b0bfa64" CreationDate="2014-02-22T13:53:50.540" UserId="7967" Text="software library company with no patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16144" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6121" RevisionGUID="6d1b7c6c-02b5-4424-987e-d6cb1b0bfa64" CreationDate="2014-02-22T13:53:50.540" UserId="7967" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;library&gt;&lt;develop&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6122" RevisionGUID="1183eb37-b16a-4796-9b66-c47dc1c58a99" CreationDate="2014-02-22T18:39:15.527" UserId="3076" Text="&quot;Written from scratch&quot; gets around copyrights but not around patents. In very general terms patents protect the functionality of something while copyrights protect a specific expression that might or might not be functional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you deliver might infringe a claim in a patent. Or what you deliver might intent a claim whenever it is executed. Or what you deliver might infringe a claim when used with certain data or certain other bits of software. In this last case you might be ok because your part has many other non-infrging uses, or you might be in trouble because you market your product specifically for an infringing use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6122" RevisionGUID="0c375c16-8c93-49fe-ac56-96bd56ae2f20" CreationDate="2014-02-22T18:44:20.180" UserId="3076" Comment="added 195 characters in body" Text="&quot;Written from scratch&quot; gets around copyrights but not around patents. In very general terms patents protect the functionality of something while copyrights protect a specific expression that might or might not be functional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you deliver might infringe a claim in a patent. Or what you deliver might intent a claim whenever it is executed. Or what you deliver might infringe a claim when used with certain data or certain other bits of software. In this last case you might be ok because your part has many other non-infrging uses, or you might be in trouble because you market your product specifically for an infringing use. The wording of a claim in question is key. You might infringe directly or might contribute to you customer's infringement. Or you might induce your customer's infringement. Or you might be fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6123" RevisionGUID="ab646a3f-6cf7-40c8-9ad0-735e7dc2720f" CreationDate="2014-02-22T22:01:24.797" UserId="7972" Text="Eventbrite, a &quot;marketplace&quot; for event tickets had a similar system in place before 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They detected the location of the archive.org crawler as San Francisco and outputted matching events:&#xD;&#xA;2010: https://web.archive.org/web/20101202033950/http://www.eventbrite.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They still do this today." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6121" RevisionGUID="358f3c3b-4370-47d0-8e9b-d533d6e0f113" CreationDate="2014-02-22T22:15:05.913" UserId="7967" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Let's say there is a software company. This company is developing a Digital Signal Processing software library. The library doesn't constitute an application itself but it is meant to be sold to be used in a bigger software.&#xD;&#xA;For simplicity, we assume that the library has been written from scratch, without the use of any other external libraries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway the library implements some algorithms that have been patented, from other entities, for specific applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the company has to care about patents at all?&#xD;&#xA;Does the company has to warn the client about the specific patented applications?&#xD;&#xA;Since the  library has been written from scratch, may the client pretend to use the library to implement a patented application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6123" RevisionGUID="013863c1-09bd-4770-8072-17b7017447dc" CreationDate="2014-02-22T22:40:00.333" UserId="7972" Comment="Added Groupon eg" Text="Eventbrite, a &quot;marketplace&quot; for event tickets had a similar system in place before 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They detected the location of the archive.org crawler as San Francisco and outputted matching events:&#xD;&#xA;2010: https://web.archive.org/web/20101202033950/http://www.eventbrite.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They still do this today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Groupon also had something similar in place:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; While the API itself is relatively simple, Groupon does a few things&#xD;&#xA;&gt; behind the scenes to help streamline development. For example, Tagbulb&#xD;&#xA;&gt; simplifies tag search by aggregating content from developers are not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; required to provide geolocation information to the Deals API, in which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; case Groupon will try to return local deals based on the caller’s IP&#xD;&#xA;&gt; address. This might be helpful for mobile app developers who want to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; provide their traveling users with local deals wherever they happen to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be.&#xD;&#xA;2010-05-27: http://blog.programmableweb.com/2010/05/27/groupon-opens-api-to-help-developers-share-the-wealth/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6124" RevisionGUID="ddff4138-71be-4ab7-b329-6485330d37df" CreationDate="2014-02-23T01:22:27.580" UserId="7973" Text="I'm sure that the ideas present in this patent application are either already invented, too obvious or too simple. Disposable email, as an anti-spam solution, has been around for over a decade now, and many variations have been built over the years. Here are some things in this patent that I see as already indented:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Analyze web page and identify email address entry field&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern browsers such as chrome &amp; Firefox already scan forms for email address entry fields and offer to use the previous email address used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Offer to use disposable address&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disposable email addresses look no different to normal email addresses. If a disposable email was previously used, then modern browsers such as Chrome or Firefox will offer that as a choice when an email entry field is detected. In that case, the user can choose whenever to use a disposable email address or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Obtain context and expiration for disposable address&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a &quot;TarshMail.net for Google Chrome&quot; extension which allows automatic fill in of email fields with a disposable address where the user makes a choice by simply clicking a pop-up menu. It allows the user to set expiry and other parameters.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;You can enter context by choosing the address part of the address, eg. set it to login.somespammydomain.com@disposablemail.com - next time spam arrives to this address, you know that it was leaked from somespammydomain.com  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(A variation of this practice is possible many others, including Google's Gmail, where disposable addresses can be created by post-fixing them with with a + character and a label, eg. username+somespammydomain.com@gmail.com )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Description and screenshots of Trash Mail extension are here https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/trashmailnet-for-google-c/lpkbealomjndjpckajbnpakcoeelbpcf&#xD;&#xA;There's no date when it was first published, but first review shows &quot;Nov 28, 2010&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, the idea of using a unique email address for registration to determine if a service will be a source of spam is nothing new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rewrite the reply, replacing the non-disposable email address with the disposable email address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is nothing more than a proxy. For example, Craigslist provides disposable email addresses for their ads. When someone replies to an ad, craigslist will forward the email to the real email address. When the user replies back, the email will be forwarded through craigslist where the reply-to addresses will be changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See http://www.craigslist.org/about/help/email-relay&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other similar mechanisms are those offered by &quot;Anonymous Remailer&quot; type services. Description of these can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_remailer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6123" RevisionGUID="ce385b7d-447e-4644-979a-451f3b3401cf" CreationDate="2014-02-23T05:36:47.883" UserId="7972" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Eventbrite, a &quot;marketplace&quot; for event tickets had a similar system in place before 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They detected the location of the archive.org crawler as San Francisco and outputted matching events:&#xD;&#xA;2010: https://web.archive.org/web/20101202033950/http://www.eventbrite.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They still do this today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Groupon also had something similar in place:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; While the API itself is relatively simple, Groupon does a few things&#xD;&#xA;&gt; behind the scenes to help streamline development. For example, Tagbulb&#xD;&#xA;&gt; simplifies **tag search** by aggregating content from developers are **not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; required** to provide geolocation information to the Deals API, in which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; case Groupon will try to **return local deals based on the caller’s IP&#xD;&#xA;&gt; address**. This might be helpful for mobile app developers who want to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; provide their traveling users with local deals wherever they happen to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be.&#xD;&#xA;2010-05-27: http://blog.programmableweb.com/2010/05/27/groupon-opens-api-to-help-developers-share-the-wealth/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6124" RevisionGUID="1827cd27-1d30-4613-97b6-9a1941452585" CreationDate="2014-02-23T05:38:54.513" UserId="7973" Comment="added 137 characters in body" Text="I'm sure that the ideas present in this patent application are either already invented, too obvious or too simple. Disposable email, as an anti-spam solution, has been around for over a decade now, and many variations have been built over the years. Here are some things in this patent that I see as already indented:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Analyze web page and identify email address entry field&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern browsers such as chrome &amp; Firefox already scan forms for email address entry fields and offer to use the previous email address used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Offer to use disposable address&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disposable email addresses look no different to normal email addresses. If a disposable email was previously used, then modern browsers such as Chrome or Firefox will offer that as a choice when an email entry field is detected. In that case, the user can choose whenever to use a disposable email address or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Obtain context and expiration for disposable address&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a &quot;TarshMail.net for Google Chrome&quot; extension which allows automatic fill in of email fields with a disposable address where the user makes a choice by simply clicking a pop-up menu. It allows the user to set expiry and other parameters.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;You can enter context by choosing the address part of the address, eg. set it to login.somespammydomain.com@disposablemail.com - next time spam arrives to this address, you know that it was leaked from somespammydomain.com  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(A variation of this practice is possible many others, including Google's Gmail, where disposable addresses can be created by post-fixing them with with a + character and a label, eg. username+somespammydomain.com@gmail.com )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Description and screenshots of Trash Mail extension are here https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/trashmailnet-for-google-c/lpkbealomjndjpckajbnpakcoeelbpcf&#xD;&#xA;There's no date when it was first published, but first review shows &quot;Nov 28, 2010&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, the idea of using a unique email address for registration to determine if a service will be a source of spam is nothing new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rewrite the reply, replacing the non-disposable email address with the disposable email address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is nothing more than a proxy. For example, Craigslist provides disposable email addresses for their ads. When someone replies to an ad, craigslist will forward the email to the real email address. When the user replies back, the email will be forwarded through craigslist where the reply-to addresses will be changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See http://www.craigslist.org/about/help/email-relay&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other similar mechanisms are those offered by &quot;Anonymous Remailer&quot; type services. Description of these can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_remailer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:&#xD;&#xA;Here is a description of another similar service&#xD;&#xA;http://blog.aclarke.eu/introducing-33mailcom-unlimited-disposable-email-addresses/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6125" RevisionGUID="ec00b3e0-6476-4864-a78c-36dcf318f682" CreationDate="2014-02-23T07:27:16.010" UserId="1186" Text="I am asking in connection with USPTO filing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lets say my patent is filed by a US attorney (I am not a US citizen).&#xD;&#xA;Now it goes through examination, and office action is sent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to know is it legally necessary that my entire office actions will be handled by the attorney only?&#xD;&#xA;Can I send the replies directly now? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16159" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6125" RevisionGUID="ec00b3e0-6476-4864-a78c-36dcf318f682" CreationDate="2014-02-23T07:27:16.010" UserId="1186" Text="Is it necessary that the reply to office action be made by attorney" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16160" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6125" RevisionGUID="ec00b3e0-6476-4864-a78c-36dcf318f682" CreationDate="2014-02-23T07:27:16.010" UserId="1186" Text="&lt;examination&gt;&lt;attorney&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6126" RevisionGUID="5107b3d8-8122-4a7c-a7c5-5311efe428e7" CreationDate="2014-02-23T16:54:14.433" UserId="3076" Text="You are free to retract the Power of Attorney you signed and take over the case but you will need to do that before you send in anything. The USPTO will not deal with you while your attorney is still empowered. Also you can change attorneys. There is no requirement to stick with the practitioner who originally filed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Writing a patent well is hard for a layman but so is responding to an office action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6127" RevisionGUID="225d4b44-e751-4bf8-a210-ee53c5634064" CreationDate="2014-02-23T20:53:15.467" UserId="7976" Text="I am the great great Grandson of the person who registered this patent. How would I go about getting this patent assigned to me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16164" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6127" RevisionGUID="225d4b44-e751-4bf8-a210-ee53c5634064" CreationDate="2014-02-23T20:53:15.467" UserId="7976" Text="Re Patent us194726 - I am a direct descendant of William Adolphus Ross - how do I go about claiming ownership of this patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16165" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6127" RevisionGUID="225d4b44-e751-4bf8-a210-ee53c5634064" CreationDate="2014-02-23T20:53:15.467" UserId="7976" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6127" RevisionGUID="859d6125-a4b3-4952-bf4b-931da862e8e6" CreationDate="2014-02-23T21:02:27.543" UserId="7976" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="I am a direct descendant of the person who registered this patent. How would I go about getting this patent assigned to me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6129" RevisionGUID="62314e88-7e2b-48d3-b67c-7a6a3cf569bb" CreationDate="2014-02-23T22:04:03.367" UserId="1360" Text="George makes a good point, you can identify the person or firm that prosecuted the patent in question by reviewing the materials in the image file wrapper that is available via Public PAIR.  Then, you can reach out to the patent owner's representative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is to go to the USPTO's &quot;Assignments on the Web&quot; site at http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/?db=pat.  Then, enter the patent number and hit the &quot;search&quot; button to identify the owner.  Note, however, this works only if the patent owner has recorded an assignment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16171" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6127" RevisionGUID="7b7fdb36-88fe-406b-ba42-60d536b142c9" CreationDate="2014-02-23T22:35:59.120" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to patent" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;us19472&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6130" RevisionGUID="f5cc50b8-f6ac-4d43-8c67-cce0dc580ceb" CreationDate="2014-02-23T22:38:38.240" UserId="3076" Text="This patent for a lathe was issued in 1858 and expired before the beginning of the last century. There are no rights left at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6132" RevisionGUID="e7730f28-9d33-4279-9dce-0ef75a310744" CreationDate="2014-02-23T23:30:50.283" UserId="1360" Text="Not sure if this is what you are looking for, but the USPTO provides a classification structure that you can navigate through here ==&gt; http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/selectnumwithtitle.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6133" RevisionGUID="560a87e2-f54d-4f50-8d19-59a46cf84181" CreationDate="2014-02-23T23:44:53.743" UserId="1360" Text="As best as I can understand your question, it seems you may have made an error by claiming either too broadly or too narrowly.  You might want to consider pursuing a reissue application.  See MPEP Chapter 1400 ==&gt; http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-1400.html.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the future, ideally, you should file a continuation patent application prior to issuance of a patent.  This allows you to continue to mine the specification for additional claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6134" RevisionGUID="dcde003f-c278-45df-83ea-5116e95501bb" CreationDate="2014-02-23T23:50:54.133" UserId="1360" Text="I agree with George, the best thing to do is to maintain a pending continuation patent application, which allows you the ability to continue to mine the specification for additional claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it sounds like you may have mistakenly claimed less than you believe you were entitled to claim, at this point, one option might be to consider filing a reissue application.  See MPEP Chapter 1400 ==&gt; http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-1400.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6135" RevisionGUID="b797b1cf-0962-491a-99b7-3c7bfb5edb14" CreationDate="2014-02-24T00:05:23.940" UserId="1360" Text="You might want to consider pursuing a reissue application. See MPEP Chapter 1400 ==&gt; http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-1400.html." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6130" RevisionGUID="677f2525-f89d-4c6f-a9f1-8a0e664d92fe" CreationDate="2014-02-24T00:13:12.310" UserId="3076" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="This patent for a way of making part of a clock was issued in 1858 and expired before the beginning of the last century. There are no rights left at all. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6136" RevisionGUID="577bb961-5b3d-4b3c-a01d-6929b175cb99" CreationDate="2014-02-24T00:16:09.947" UserId="1360" Text="If you **reside** in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) country, e.g., Saudi Arabia, then you would typically file in your home jurisdiction first (e.g., via The Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf) and then use the Paris Convention or the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) to pursue patent protection abroad while maintaining the benefit of priority to your home country filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you **reside** in the US, then you would typically perform your first filing with the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6137" RevisionGUID="0dcb9de0-bbb3-45dd-ae7d-97a8576664c5" CreationDate="2014-02-24T00:29:11.870" UserId="1360" Text="The patent application was filed on June 7, 1995 and issued on April 8, 1997.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US patents issuing from patent applications **filed on or after June 8, 1995** have a term of 20 years from the earliest non-provisional patent application priority date.  US patents issuing from patent applications **filed prior to June 8, 1995** have a term equal to the greater of 17 years from issuance or 20 years from the earliest non-provisional patent application priority date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, since 17 years after issuance is greater, the patent expires on April 9, 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6138" RevisionGUID="378d23ed-82d4-411e-8a68-215bf87fcfd9" CreationDate="2014-02-24T00:41:44.590" UserId="1360" Text="This language looks like it came from a patent license agreement and is pretty typical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think &quot;claim priority from&quot; could be interpreted as a **direct** priority claim, whereas &quot;claim the benefit of&quot; is a bit broader as  it more naturally includes indirect priority claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an example of a definition I've used that includes both phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*“Patents” shall mean: (i) the patents and patent applications identified on Exhibit A and any and all foreign counterparts of any of the foregoing; (ii) any and all patents that have issued or may issue from any of the patents or patent applications described in (i) of this definition; (iii) any and all patents and patent applications that, in whole or in part, claim priority to (directly or indirectly), or the benefit of the filing date of, any of the patents or patent applications described in (i) or (ii) of this definition, including any and all child, continuation, continuation-in-part, continuing prosecution, divisional, provisional, non-provisional, reissue, reexamination, substitution, extension and counterpart patents and patent applications of any of the patents or patents applications described in (i) or (ii) of this definition; (iv) any and all patents and patent applications from which any of the patents or patent applications described in (i) or (ii) of this definition, in whole or in part, claim the benefit of priority (directly or indirectly) or otherwise claim the benefit of the filing date, including any and all parent patents or patent applications of any of the patents or patent applications described in (i) or (ii) of this definition; and (v) any and all extensions or renewals of any of the patent or patent applications covered by this definition.  Any one of the foregoing is a “Patent”.*    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6139" RevisionGUID="babf9226-bf14-438d-8fbb-78d3d1f4a2ce" CreationDate="2014-02-24T01:21:52.577" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON online advertisements being displayed on a webpage based on a timer** - This application from [Yahoo! Inc][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Displaying a primary advertisement on a first web page, initiating a timer to measure a first predetermined time period for which the primary advertisement is displayed, detecting a user reaction, and switching the primary advertisement with a second advertisement based  on the user responses.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Changing advertisements on a webpage based on the user responses and expiration of a timer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - User responses may be expiration of the **first time period**, detecting **user interaction** with the **first web page**, lack of detection of **user interaction** with the **primary advertisement**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Switching advertisements on a webpage based on the timer and the user responses**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Displaying a **primary advertisement** on a **first web page**, initiating a timer to measure a **first predetermined time period** for which the **primary advertisement** is displayed, switching the **primary advertisement** with a **second advertisement** based on responses such as expiration of the **first predetermined time period**, detecting **user interaction** with the **first web page**, lack of detection of **user interaction** with the **primary advertisement**. Further, receiving a request to recall the **primary advertisement** after the switching has occurred, and switching the **secondary advertisement** with the **primary advertisement**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120158519 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/973,954&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/18/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for placing online advertisements on a display of a computer device coupled to a communication network, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying a primary advertisement on at least a portion of a first web page on the display;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Initiating a timer to measure a first predetermined period of time that the first web page is displayed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Responsive to &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - (i) Expiration of the first predetermined period of time, &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - (ii) Detecting user interaction with the first web page, and (iii)lack of detection of user interaction with the primary advertisement, switching the primary advertisement to display a secondary advertisement on the portion of the first web page on the display;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving a request to recall the primary advertisement after the switching has occurred; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Switching the secondary advertisement with the primary advertisement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying a primary advertisement on a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Initiating a timer to measure a first time period for which the primary advertisement is displayed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Switching the primary advertisement with a secondary advertisement based on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - 3a. Expiration of the first time period, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - 3b. Detecting a user interaction with the first web page, and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - 3c. Detecting that user is **not** interacting with the primary advertisement;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving a request to recall the primary advertisement after the switching has occurred; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Switching the secondary advertisement with the primary advertisement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming The primary and secondary advertisements are targeted advertisements that are tailored to a user, an identified location,  and a current time of day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Online advertisements &quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/v9rdeQb.png&quot; width=&quot;406&quot; height=&quot;469&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120158519&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.yahoo.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120158519#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=12%2F21%2F2010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16186" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6139" RevisionGUID="babf9226-bf14-438d-8fbb-78d3d1f4a2ce" CreationDate="2014-02-24T01:21:52.577" UserId="1767" Text="Online ads - Switching online advertisements based on a Timer (Yahoo!) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16187" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6139" RevisionGUID="babf9226-bf14-438d-8fbb-78d3d1f4a2ce" CreationDate="2014-02-24T01:21:52.577" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;online-advertising&gt;&lt;yahoo&gt;&lt;us20120158519a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6139" RevisionGUID="b1aea47e-cbca-4775-a0a7-ebecc1438817" CreationDate="2014-02-24T01:29:35.560" UserId="1767" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON online advertisements being displayed on a webpage based on a timer** - This application from [Yahoo! Inc][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Displaying a primary advertisement on a first web page, initiating a timer to measure a first predetermined time period for which the primary advertisement is displayed, detecting a user reaction, and switching the primary advertisement with a second advertisement based  on the user responses.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Changing advertisements on a webpage based on the user responses and expiration of a timer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - User responses may be expiration of the **first time period**, detecting **user interaction** with the **first web page**, lack of detection of **user interaction** with the **primary advertisement**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Switching advertisements on a webpage based on the timer and the user responses**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Displaying a **primary advertisement** on a **first web page**, initiating a timer to measure a **first predetermined time period** for which the **primary advertisement** is displayed, switching the **primary advertisement** with a **second advertisement** based on responses such as expiration of the **first predetermined time period**, detecting **user interaction** with the **first web page**, lack of detection of **user interaction** with the **primary advertisement**. Further, receiving a request to recall the **primary advertisement** after the switching has occurred, and switching the **secondary advertisement** with the **primary advertisement**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120158519 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/973,954&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/18/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for placing online advertisements on a display of a computer device coupled to a communication network, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying a primary advertisement on at least a portion of a first web page on the display;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Initiating a timer to measure a first predetermined period of time that the first web page is displayed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Responsive to &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - (i) Expiration of the first predetermined period of time, &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - (ii) Detecting user interaction with the first web page, and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - (iii) Lack of detection of user interaction with the primary advertisement, switching the primary advertisement to display a secondary advertisement on the portion of the first web page on the display;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving a request to recall the primary advertisement after the switching has occurred; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Switching the secondary advertisement with the primary advertisement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying a primary advertisement on a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Initiating a timer to measure a first time period for which the primary advertisement is displayed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Switching the primary advertisement with a secondary advertisement based on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - 3a. Expiration of the first time period, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - 3b. Detecting a user interaction with the first web page, and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - 3c. Detecting that user is **not** interacting with the primary advertisement;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving a request to recall the primary advertisement after the switching has occurred; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Switching the secondary advertisement with the primary advertisement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming The primary and secondary advertisements are targeted advertisements that are tailored to a user, an identified location,  and a current time of day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Online advertisements &quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/v9rdeQb.png&quot; width=&quot;406&quot; height=&quot;469&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120158519&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.yahoo.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120158519#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=12%2F21%2F2010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5182" RevisionGUID="84833c78-b89a-41bf-bdd6-0252fe2cadb4" CreationDate="2014-02-24T01:40:22.817" UserId="1767" Comment="added 437 characters in body; edited tags" Text="  ![enter image description here][9]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **Final Rejection** by the US Patent Office!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** below!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON** tracking and managing group expenditures - This application from Google seeks to patent the idea of...dividing expenses among members of a group! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally filed by Google on March 30, 2012, made public Oct 3, 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US Patent Application 20130262294][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And covered by [GeekWire][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art Date: Seeking Prior Art predating **March 30, 2012**.&#xD;&#xA; - **Patent Publication Number**: [US 20130262294 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA; - **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/3/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for tracking payment transactions of a group of users, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. establishing, by a computer system a group including at least three users; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. maintaining, by the computer system, a transaction record for the group including a plurality of payment transactions involving the users of the group, each of the plurality of payment transactions associated with a payment amount;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. responsive to receiving information on a payment transaction involving a user of the group and associated with a payment amount, determining, by the computer system, whether the payment transaction occurred within a range of dates provided for the group;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. responsive to determining the payment transaction occurred within the range o dates, updating, by a computer system, the transaction record for the group to include the payment transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. updating, by the computer system, a total balance maintained for the transaction record based on payment amounts associated with the payment transactions included in the transaction record; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. responsive to a settlement event, settling, by the computer system, the total balance by initiating fund transfers between the users of the group for the payment transactions occurring within the date range&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English the means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for tracking payment transactions of a group of users, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Establishing a group of at least three users; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Maintaining a transaction record for the group which includes at least one payment transaction among group members and a payment amount for that transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving information about a payment transaction involving the group that occurs within a **range of dates** provided for by the group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Updating the transaction record for the group to include the payment transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Updating a **total balance** maintained for the transaction record; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Settling the total balance by initiating fund transfers between the users of the group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 3/30/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Fig 4. A table illustrating balances of users of a group&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/fx5dI.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130262294&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.geekwire.com/2013/joke-google-seeks-patent-splitting-restaurant-bills/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/208793068/US20130262294-A1-Form-892&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16190" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5182" RevisionGUID="84833c78-b89a-41bf-bdd6-0252fe2cadb4" CreationDate="2014-02-24T01:40:22.817" UserId="1767" Comment="added 437 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;google&gt;&lt;us20130262294&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5195" RevisionGUID="bf78a5ae-1991-4b99-93cb-7c9cf23804da" CreationDate="2014-02-24T01:42:02.603" UserId="1767" Comment="added 343 characters in body" Text="![Official USPTO Prior Art][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **Final Rejection** by the US Patent Office! The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** in this answer! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cover all the pieces of Claim 1, as well as some of the other claims. You might want to make sure to refer to the [amended version](https://s3.amazonaws.com/SplitwiseBlogJB/13436491.pdf), which I just linked to, and you can also find on &quot;Public Pair&quot; of the USPTO by searching this publication number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# CLAIM 1: #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bullets 1&amp;2: Establish at least a group of three users sharing a total balance in a group, with a list of transactions and payments, and have the list of transactions and total balance list be reactive to payment transactions added by group members. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk, Jan 2006: [TechCrunch](http://techcrunch.com/2006/01/20/billmonk-social-money/)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;SplitTheRent, June 2011: [New York Times](http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/a-new-tool-splittherent-com-for-roommates)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Conmigo, Sept 2011: [Lifehacker](http://lifehacker.com/5843961/conmigo-helps-you-split-your-expenses-with-your-roommates)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;PayDivvy, May 2011: [VentureBeat](http://venturebeat.com/2011/05/11/no-more-deadbeat-friends-paydivvy-launches-social-bill-service/)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and many others (SplitMyBill.ie, WeSplit.it, Wie Betaalt Wat, KittySplit, etc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Splitwise Screenshot from NYT](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/04/27/business/splittherentscreenshot/splittherentscreenshot-blog480.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bullets 4&amp;5: All of the previous software update total balances and react to payment transactions, but here are some clean examples in screenshot form:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, June 2011: [Splitwise Blog](http://blog.splitwise.com/2011/06/06/upcoming-redesign/)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Conmigo, Sept 2011: [Lifehacker](http://lifehacker.com/5843961/conmigo-helps-you-split-your-expenses-with-your-roommates)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![Conmingo](http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18ixc8llklhzajpg/original.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bullet 6: Fund transfer was done by Billmonk/Obopay and PayDivvy prior to 2012.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk, Jan 2007: [TechCrunch](http://techcrunch.com/2007/01/30/minimerger-obopay-aquires-billmonk/) describes online settlement as the point of the acquisition.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk, Jan 2007: [Billmonk Blog showing online settlement](http://billmonk.wordpress.com/2007/01/30/billmonk-is-now-an-obopay-company-settle-up-online/)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;PayDivvy, May 2011: [VentureBeat](http://venturebeat.com/2011/05/11/no-more-deadbeat-friends-paydivvy-launches-social-bill-service/) Describes bank settlement.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![Billmonk / Obopay](http://billmonk.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/obopay_settleup.png?w=450) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bullet 3: Using a range of dates was used for recurring expenses in SplitMyBill.ie, and done in a couple ways at Splitwise prior to 2012.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;SplitMyBill.ie, Apr 2009: [Wayback Machine / SplitMyBill.ie Tour](http://web.archive.org/web/20090403110658/http://www.splitmybill.ie/tour.html)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, Mar 5th 2012: [Splitwise Blog](http://blog.splitwise.com/2012/03/05/the-new-monthly-summary-and-google-charts/). Splitwise uses a date range to sort balances into monthly totals within each group.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, Dec 2011: [Forbes](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbittner/2011/12/07/do-you-vacation-like-a-capitalist-or-a-socialist/) / [Splitwise Blog](http://blog.splitwise.com/2011/12/07/announcing-the-travel-calculator/). Splitwise publishes a calculator that uses a range of dates to tell how a given expense should be divided among which members of a group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![SplitMyBill.ie](http://splitmybill.ie/images/loan.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Travel calculator link](http://www.allmyfaves.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/splitwise-split-bills-with-friends-and-roommates.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Other Claims#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the patent [as amended](https://s3.amazonaws.com/SplitwiseBlogJB/13436491.pdf)*, we should also look at Claims 2, 6, and 10. Claims 11-25 are basically variations on a theme, with the phrases &quot;computer software&quot; exchanged with &quot;method&quot; or &quot;system&quot; or the idea of &quot;additional users&quot; added to the other claims. The idea of an &quot;additional user&quot; (doing something as part of an invitation, does this mean?) being able to do things was a feature in BillMonk, SplitMyBill.ie, Splitwise, and others, and combining that with other features is probably fairly obvious to someone skilled in the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## CLAIM 2: Individual Balances&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 2 brings in the idea of &quot;individual balances&quot;, as distinct from &quot;total balances,&quot; which could mean non-total balances as shown in Figure 4. But Billmonk pioneered the idea that you could track both individual and total balances within the group and reduce it to a total balance at the users discretion.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk, Aug 2007: [Billmonk Blog](http://billmonk.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/debt-shuffling/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Individual Debts](http://billmonk.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/before1.png?w=450)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##CLAIM 6-9&lt;br&gt;Claim 1 + &quot;inquiring from the additional user whether to add the additional payment transaction to the record&quot;, &quot;responsive to a user device&quot;, and &quot;electronic system of a financial account&quot;.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This was all done by PayDivvy. In the screenshot below, you can see the connections to real bank accounts, from a user device (a laptop), with a permission based system for new bills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PayDivvy, Sept 2011: [Finovate](http://www.finovate.com/spring11vid/paydivvy.html)/[ApartmentTherapy](http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/tech-to-help-keep-the-peace-wi-156378). See the &quot;Pay or Decline&quot; options in the screenshot. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![PayDivvy](http://i-cdn.apartmenttherapy.com/uimages/unplggd/092011_roomietechpeace3.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#CLAIM 10: &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 + &quot;settlement event is at least one of the following: an end date being reached, a user of the group requested settlement, and a total balance reaching a set amount.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User requesting settlement:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Wie Betaalt Wat, Aug 2010: [FrankWatching](http://www.frankwatching.com/gespot/wiebetaaltwat-nl-verreken-je-gezamenlijke-uitgaven/) (in Dutch)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, Oct 2011: [New York Times]()/[Splitise Blog](http://splitwise.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/screen-shot-2011-10-30-at-9-39-20-pm.png?w=640&amp;h=511) (based on months)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specific time:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;PayDivvy, Sept 2011: [Finovate](http://www.finovate.com/spring11vid/paydivvy.html) (due dates for each divvy)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, Oct 2011: [Splitise Blog](http://splitwise.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/screen-shot-2011-10-30-at-9-39-20-pm.png?w=640&amp;h=511) Monthly balances with settlement alarms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Balance-based: May be the only claim in the patent that is not built in a pre-existing product, though someone may have described it in a press article or interview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Splitwise with reminders and dates](http://splitwise.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/screen-shot-2011-10-30-at-9-39-20-pm.png?w=640&amp;h=511)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# FIGURE 4&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk was the first to widely publicize the simplification of a set of &quot;X owes Y&quot; into its simplest form, but the feature is also in Splitwise, Billsup, and many other apps. Look at this image from the [Billmonk Blog](http://billmonk.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/debt-shuffling/) in August 2007 and compare it to the official Figure 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Billmonk](http://billmonk.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/debtsettlescreenshot.png?w=450)&#xD;&#xA;![Official Figure 4](http://i.stack.imgur.com/fx5dI.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uvXcn.png&#xD;&#xA;[8]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/208793068/US20130262294-A1-Form-892" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16192" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6139" RevisionGUID="e0792798-df83-462f-976c-324d72d7cb93" CreationDate="2014-02-24T01:45:22.930" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Online Ads - Switching online advertisements based on a Timer (Yahoo!) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6139" RevisionGUID="e0792798-df83-462f-976c-324d72d7cb93" CreationDate="2014-02-24T01:45:22.930" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON online advertisements being displayed on a webpage based on a timer** - This application from [Yahoo! Inc][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Displaying a primary advertisement on a first web page, initiating a timer to measure a first predetermined time period for which the primary advertisement is displayed, detecting a user reaction, and switching the primary advertisement with a second advertisement based  on the user responses.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Changing advertisements on a webpage based on user's responses and expiration of a timer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - User responses may be expiration of the **first time period**, detecting **user interaction** with the **first web page**, lack of detection of **user interaction** with the **primary advertisement**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Switching advertisements on a webpage based on the timer and the user responses**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Displaying a **primary advertisement** on a **first web page**, initiating a timer to measure a **first predetermined time period** for which the **primary advertisement** is displayed, switching the **primary advertisement** with a **second advertisement** based on responses such as expiration of the **first predetermined time period**, detecting **user interaction** with the **first web page**, lack of detection of **user interaction** with the **primary advertisement**. Further, receiving a request to recall the **primary advertisement** after the switching has occurred, and switching the **secondary advertisement** with the **primary advertisement**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120158519 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/973,954&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/18/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for placing online advertisements on a display of a computer device coupled to a communication network, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying a primary advertisement on at least a portion of a first web page on the display;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Initiating a timer to measure a first predetermined period of time that the first web page is displayed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Responsive to &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - (i) Expiration of the first predetermined period of time, &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - (ii) Detecting user interaction with the first web page, and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - (iii) Lack of detection of user interaction with the primary advertisement, switching the primary advertisement to display a secondary advertisement on the portion of the first web page on the display;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving a request to recall the primary advertisement after the switching has occurred; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Switching the secondary advertisement with the primary advertisement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying a primary advertisement on a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Initiating a timer to measure a first time period for which the primary advertisement is displayed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Switching the primary advertisement with a secondary advertisement based on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - 3a. Expiration of the first time period, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - 3b. Detecting a user interaction with the first web page, and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - 3c. Detecting that user is **not** interacting with the primary advertisement;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving a request to recall the primary advertisement after the switching has occurred; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Switching the secondary advertisement with the primary advertisement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming The primary and secondary advertisements are targeted advertisements that are tailored to a user, an identified location,  and a current time of day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Online advertisements &quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/v9rdeQb.png&quot; width=&quot;406&quot; height=&quot;469&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120158519&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.yahoo.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120158519#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=12%2F21%2F2010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16194" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6127" RevisionGUID="049bb2b4-37de-4184-8fa5-6b09bfa4c198" CreationDate="2014-02-24T01:47:44.293" UserId="3076" Comment="corrected tag" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;us194726&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6130" RevisionGUID="9cefe2cf-37a5-46c8-af8a-22175675f2ea" CreationDate="2014-02-24T01:51:11.260" UserId="3076" Comment="corrected to be about the intended patent" Text="This patent is for an improved bottling machine was issued in 1877 and expired before the beginning of the last century. There are no rights left at all. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6130" RevisionGUID="b86c9a10-fb64-40f4-943e-43fe80829a93" CreationDate="2014-02-24T02:08:40.580" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="This patent for an improved bottling machine was issued in 1877 and expired before the beginning of the last century. There are no rights left at all. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16197" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="6117" RevisionGUID="6b354a95-e3e4-4acb-9b0b-c9c5f1452132" CreationDate="2014-02-24T02:53:42.083" UserId="1767" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3076,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George White&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1767,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Micah Siegel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="16200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6140" RevisionGUID="cf53ea6f-a830-4dea-9cfd-62d002ba683d" CreationDate="2014-02-24T11:12:33.007" UserId="7982" Text="The answer is if any function your program causes any computer to perform infringes on anyone's patent, then you're wide open to a lawsuit from the patent holder. It doesn't matter that the code is original since it's the functionalty,(in reality an idea), that is patented. So if your code causes the patented functionality to be performed, stop thinking- you've infringed, case closed. There is no escaping exposure to liabilty. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that software patents are in reality patents on ideas, and common ideas at that is the reason developers are so against them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You always have the option of not selling software where software patents are permitted. Other than doing that, there is no way out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6141" RevisionGUID="6aca06d4-7bbb-47cd-a282-65c5ff010e4e" CreationDate="2014-02-24T12:38:11.463" UserId="1186" Text="What is the fees for **online filing** of a patent application in USPTO, by an individual who is not a US citizen, assuming the patent is already filed in the native country?   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16202" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6141" RevisionGUID="6aca06d4-7bbb-47cd-a282-65c5ff010e4e" CreationDate="2014-02-24T12:38:11.463" UserId="1186" Text="USPTO online filing fees" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16203" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6141" RevisionGUID="6aca06d4-7bbb-47cd-a282-65c5ff010e4e" CreationDate="2014-02-24T12:38:11.463" UserId="1186" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6142" RevisionGUID="8b557210-b637-48b0-9231-a44e733b652b" CreationDate="2014-02-24T18:23:02.987" UserId="1360" Text="The current USPTO fee schedule can be found here ==&gt; http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee010114.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will have to pay a basic filing fee, a search fee and an examination fee, presumably at the small entity or micro entity rate.  Note that additional fees are required if you have greater than three independent claims or greater than twenty total claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Citizenship of the inventor(s) and whether there is a priority application do not affect the fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6139" RevisionGUID="e60825dc-4a77-4175-ab6e-b96c8893c47a" CreationDate="2014-02-24T21:52:59.560" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON online advertisements being displayed on a webpage based on a timer** - This application from [Yahoo! Inc][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Displaying a primary advertisement on a first web page, initiating a timer to measure a first predetermined time period for which the primary advertisement is displayed, detecting a user reaction, and switching the primary advertisement with a second advertisement based  on the user responses.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Changing advertisements on a webpage based on user's responses and expiration of a timer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - User responses may be expiration of the **first time period**, detecting **user interaction** with the **first web page**, lack of detection of **user interaction** with the **primary advertisement**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Switching advertisements on a webpage based on the timer and the user responses**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Displaying a **primary advertisement** on a **first web page**, initiating a timer to measure a **first predetermined time period** for which the **primary advertisement** is displayed, switching the **primary advertisement** with a **second advertisement** based on responses such as expiration of the **first predetermined time period**, detecting **user interaction** with the **first web page**, lack of detection of **user interaction** with the **primary advertisement**. Further, receiving a request to recall the **primary advertisement** after the switching has occurred, and switching the **secondary advertisement** with the **primary advertisement**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120158519 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/973,954&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/18/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for placing online advertisements on a display of a computer device coupled to a communication network, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying a primary advertisement on at least a portion of a first web page on the display;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Initiating a timer to measure a first predetermined period of time that the first web page is displayed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Responsive to &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - (i) Expiration of the first predetermined period of time, &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - (ii) Detecting user interaction with the first web page, and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - (iii) Lack of detection of user interaction with the primary advertisement, switching the primary advertisement to display a secondary advertisement on the portion of the first web page on the display;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving a request to recall the primary advertisement after the switching has occurred; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Switching the secondary advertisement with the primary advertisement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying a primary advertisement on a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Initiating a timer to measure a first time period for which the primary advertisement is displayed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Switching the primary advertisement with a secondary advertisement based on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - 3a. Expiration of the first time period, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - 3b. Detecting a user interaction with the first web page, and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - 3c. Detecting that user is **not** interacting with the primary advertisement;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving a request to recall the primary advertisement after the switching has occurred; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Switching the secondary advertisement with the primary advertisement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming The primary and secondary advertisements are targeted advertisements that are tailored to a user, an identified location,  and a current time of day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Online advertisements &quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/v9rdeQb.png&quot; width=&quot;406&quot; height=&quot;469&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120158519&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.yahoo.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120158519#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=12%2F21%2F2010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5182" RevisionGUID="dfde39e8-2df2-41c8-bd87-54aae8bbcf18" CreationDate="2014-02-24T21:53:14.280" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" ![enter image description here][9]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **Final Rejection** by the US Patent Office!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** below!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON** tracking and managing group expenditures - This application from Google seeks to patent the idea of...dividing expenses among members of a group! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally filed by Google on March 30, 2012, made public Oct 3, 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US Patent Application 20130262294][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And covered by [GeekWire][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art Date: Seeking Prior Art predating **March 30, 2012**.&#xD;&#xA; - **Patent Publication Number**: [US 20130262294 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA; - **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/3/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for tracking payment transactions of a group of users, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. establishing, by a computer system a group including at least three users; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. maintaining, by the computer system, a transaction record for the group including a plurality of payment transactions involving the users of the group, each of the plurality of payment transactions associated with a payment amount;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. responsive to receiving information on a payment transaction involving a user of the group and associated with a payment amount, determining, by the computer system, whether the payment transaction occurred within a range of dates provided for the group;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. responsive to determining the payment transaction occurred within the range o dates, updating, by a computer system, the transaction record for the group to include the payment transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. updating, by the computer system, a total balance maintained for the transaction record based on payment amounts associated with the payment transactions included in the transaction record; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. responsive to a settlement event, settling, by the computer system, the total balance by initiating fund transfers between the users of the group for the payment transactions occurring within the date range&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English the means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for tracking payment transactions of a group of users, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Establishing a group of at least three users; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Maintaining a transaction record for the group which includes at least one payment transaction among group members and a payment amount for that transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving information about a payment transaction involving the group that occurs within a **range of dates** provided for by the group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Updating the transaction record for the group to include the payment transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Updating a **total balance** maintained for the transaction record; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Settling the total balance by initiating fund transfers between the users of the group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 3/30/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Fig 4. A table illustrating balances of users of a group&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/fx5dI.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130262294&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.geekwire.com/2013/joke-google-seeks-patent-splitting-restaurant-bills/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/208793068/US20130262294-A1-Form-892&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6144" RevisionGUID="1265365b-b88c-44a8-8d3a-f120fdf7dd24" CreationDate="2014-02-25T12:47:26.230" UserId="7997" Text="does the government pay royalties to patent holders? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a special process or formality for the US government or other governments under its umbrella to pay royalties or compensate a patent holder?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16216" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6144" RevisionGUID="1265365b-b88c-44a8-8d3a-f120fdf7dd24" CreationDate="2014-02-25T12:47:26.230" UserId="7997" Text="public sector, does government pay royalties to patent holders?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16217" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6144" RevisionGUID="1265365b-b88c-44a8-8d3a-f120fdf7dd24" CreationDate="2014-02-25T12:47:26.230" UserId="7997" Text="&lt;royalty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6146" RevisionGUID="8b1ca1e8-7871-4592-8e39-b5a3ac6c1143" CreationDate="2014-02-25T14:59:08.127" UserId="5071" Text="http://nearbygamers.com does all these things. It's not &quot;buyer&quot; and &quot;seller&quot;, but those words don't appear in the claims list. Looks like it was built in 2007 http://push.cx/2007/announcing-nearbygamers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6147" RevisionGUID="256c58db-5c7f-4d11-bfd6-12b752fdba03" CreationDate="2014-02-25T19:52:31.233" UserId="998" Text="Each government is different on this point. In general, governments claim sovereign immunity against lawsuits. However, many government, including the US, have waived sovereignty as to certain issues, including patent infringement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US, the particular statute on point is 28 U.S.C. § 1498. That statute provides that a patentee can sue the United States in the Court of Federal Claims for the recovery its &quot;reasonable and entire compensation&quot; when the US Government uses a patented invention without license. Just today, I received a note from the US Department of Justice because they are looking to hire more patent litigators to defend these section 1498 lawsuits.  Outside of a lawsuit, each US agency typically handles its own licensing and are often willing to take a license when infringement is clear. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US, each of the 50-states are also considered sovereign, and it turns out to be much more difficult to sue a state in Federal Court. Here, the 11th Amendment to the US Constitution is also on point. Thus, state universities regularly claim sovereign immunity when sued for patent infringement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6148" RevisionGUID="b4f6ae43-3b3f-4231-82eb-8cbc1f05b809" CreationDate="2014-02-26T01:18:35.417" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON exploring social connections from an in-memory database** - This application from [SAP][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying an attribute in a profile associated with a first user, executing a query including the identified attribute, and identifying a second user based on the query! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/5/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Implementing social networking based on data objects in an in-memory database&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Attributes may include **contact information**, expertise, **past projects**, **current projects**, manager, supervisor etc. Data objects may include a variety of objects that store **business data**, **reference data** from **content sources**, such as **web content**, feeds, **REST services**, **business data** repositories, reports, status updates, discussions, wikis, blogs etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Identifying social networks within an organization based on business data of the organization stored in an in-memory database**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying an attribute in a profile associated with a first user, executing a query including the identified attribute against data objects stored in an in-memory database, identifying a second user from the results of query based on a relationship between data objects associated with the second user and the attribute of the first user, and displaying information of the second user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144957 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/310,913&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: SAP&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/5/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method performed with a computing system for exploring social connections in an in-memory database, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying an attribute in a user profile associated with a first user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Executing a query against a data element stored in an in-memory database, the query including the attribute in the user profile;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identifying a second user from results of the query, the second user associated with the data element based on a relationship between the second user and the first user defined by the attribute; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generating displayable information associated with the second user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for exploring social connections in an in-memory database, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying an attribute in the profile of a first user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Executing a query against data objects stored in an in-memory database, where the query includes the identified attribute;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identifying a second user based on a relationship between data objects associated with the second user and attribute of the first user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Displaying information related to the second user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/5/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Data sources from various enterprise systems are replicated to the in-memory database before executing the query against the data element stored in the in-memory database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Exploring social connections from an in-memory database&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/XpChjTN.png&quot; width=&quot;550&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130144957&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.sap.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130144957#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=12%2F05%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16226" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6148" RevisionGUID="b4f6ae43-3b3f-4231-82eb-8cbc1f05b809" CreationDate="2014-02-26T01:18:35.417" UserId="1767" Text="Real-time social networking - Social networking within an organization (SAP) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16227" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6148" RevisionGUID="b4f6ae43-3b3f-4231-82eb-8cbc1f05b809" CreationDate="2014-02-26T01:18:35.417" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;social-networking&gt;&lt;sap&gt;&lt;us20130144957a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6148" RevisionGUID="151bb400-5766-4798-8c80-f89f20483f21" CreationDate="2014-02-26T01:29:16.707" UserId="1767" Comment="added 500 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON exploring social connections from an in-memory database** - This application from [SAP][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying an attribute in a profile associated with a first user, executing a query including the identified attribute, and identifying a second user based on the query! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/5/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Implementing social networking based on data objects in an in-memory database&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Examples of attributes may include **contact information**, expertise, **past projects**, **current projects**, manager, supervisor etc. Data objects may include a variety of objects that store **business data**, **reference data** from **content sources**, such as **web content**, feeds, **REST services**, **business data** repositories, reports, status updates, discussions, wikis, blogs etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Identifying social networks within an organization based on business data of the organization stored in an in-memory database**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying an attribute in a profile associated with a first user, executing a query including the identified attribute against data objects stored in an in-memory database, identifying a second user from the results of query based on a relationship between data objects associated with the second user and the attribute of the first user, and displaying information of the second user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144957 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/310,913&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: SAP&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/5/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method performed with a computing system for exploring social connections in an in-memory database, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying a user profile associated with a first user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying one or more updates to one or more attributes of the user profile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Updating, in real-time, the user profile, based on the one or more updates, as the one or more updates are identified;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Identifying a particular attribute of the one or more attributes in the updated user profile that is associated with the first user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Executing a query against a data element stored in an in-memory database, the query including the particular attribute in the updated user profile;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Identifying a second user from results of the query, the second user associated with the data element based on a relationship between the second user and the first user defined by the attribute; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Generating displayable information associated with the second user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for exploring social connections in an in-memory database, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying the profile of a first user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying updates to the first user profile;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Updating the user profile based on the updates;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Identifying a particular attribute of the updated profile and executing a a database query (in an in-memory database) for the particular attribute;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Identifying a second user based on a relationship between data objects associated with the second user and the first user defined by the particular attribute; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Displaying information related to the second user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/5/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Data sources from various enterprise systems are replicated to the in-memory database before executing the query against the data element stored in the in-memory database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Exploring social connections from an in-memory database&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/XpChjTN.png&quot; width=&quot;550&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130144957&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.sap.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130144957#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=12%2F05%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6139" RevisionGUID="91e1aef3-73b9-44b9-af88-7e99350efb66" CreationDate="2014-02-26T06:58:39.267" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON online advertisements being displayed on a webpage based on a timer** - This application from [Yahoo! Inc][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Displaying a primary advertisement on a first web page, initiating a timer to measure a first predetermined time period for which the primary advertisement is displayed, detecting a user reaction, and switching the primary advertisement with a second advertisement based  on the user responses.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Changing advertisements on a webpage based on user's responses and expiration of a timer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - User responses may be expiration of the **first time period**, detecting **user interaction** with the **first web page**, lack of detection of **user interaction** with the **primary advertisement**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Switching advertisements on a webpage based on the timer and the user responses**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Displaying a **primary advertisement** on a **first web page**, initiating a timer to measure a **first predetermined time period** for which the **primary advertisement** is displayed, switching the **primary advertisement** with a **second advertisement** based on responses such as expiration of the **first predetermined time period**, detecting **user interaction** with the **first web page**, lack of detection of **user interaction** with the **primary advertisement**. Further, receiving a request to recall the **primary advertisement** after the switching has occurred, and switching the **secondary advertisement** with the **primary advertisement**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120158519 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/973,954&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/18/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for placing online advertisements on a display of a computer device coupled to a communication network, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying a primary advertisement on at least a portion of a first web page on the display;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Initiating a timer to measure a first predetermined period of time that the first web page is displayed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Responsive to &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - (i) Expiration of the first predetermined period of time, &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - (ii) Detecting user interaction with the first web page, and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - (iii) Lack of detection of user interaction with the primary advertisement, switching the primary advertisement to display a secondary advertisement on the portion of the first web page on the display;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving a request to recall the primary advertisement after the switching has occurred; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Switching the secondary advertisement with the primary advertisement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying a primary advertisement on a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Initiating a timer to measure a first time period for which the primary advertisement is displayed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Switching the primary advertisement with a secondary advertisement based on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - 3a. Expiration of the first time period, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - 3b. Detecting a user interaction with the first web page, and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - 3c. Detecting that user is **not** interacting with the primary advertisement;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving a request to recall the primary advertisement after the switching has occurred; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Switching the secondary advertisement with the primary advertisement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming The primary and secondary advertisements are targeted advertisements that are tailored to a user, an identified location,  and a current time of day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Online advertisements &quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/v9rdeQb.png&quot; width=&quot;406&quot; height=&quot;469&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120158519&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.yahoo.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120158519#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=12%2F21%2F2010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6150" RevisionGUID="ec690629-13a8-4977-8313-3d0d4dadb980" CreationDate="2014-02-26T08:30:31.797" UserId="8009" Text="Voxhub have prior art dating back well before this application. Herenow engine specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Due to the rule of posting I have to make a post that reashes a quality standard. Since I have nothing more to say, this is a difficult task.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Way back I was one of the early Internet software people and it amazes me that these patents of yours (USA) are so good at stifling innovation. Come on, this patent application for a programmable proxy is 2013, if it was 2003 you would be applauded but it is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16237" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6150" RevisionGUID="ec690629-13a8-4977-8313-3d0d4dadb980" CreationDate="2014-02-26T08:30:31.797" UserId="8009" Text="us20130304913: Programmable Proxy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16238" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6150" RevisionGUID="ec690629-13a8-4977-8313-3d0d4dadb980" CreationDate="2014-02-26T08:30:31.797" UserId="8009" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6152" RevisionGUID="451fefce-2c1b-40bd-9c78-b1f8d0d4fb21" CreationDate="2014-02-26T13:15:24.367" UserId="8014" Text="We've been doing this at Streetbank.com since 2009. The user signs up, we detect their location, then we show them things in their area. The things are usually to be given away rather than sold though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16241" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6152" RevisionGUID="3fb68fd5-4d9f-45d3-bed9-bc054c31a298" CreationDate="2014-02-26T15:10:58.277" UserId="8014" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="We've been doing this at Streetbank.com since 2009. The user signs up, we detect their location, then we show them things in their area. The things are usually to be given away rather than sold though. We do allow tradespeople and shops to advertise their wares to local people." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6153" RevisionGUID="763f1e9e-8d36-4263-8a0b-9d6356c372f2" CreationDate="2014-02-26T15:28:05.747" UserId="8016" Text="KSL classifieds www.ksl.com/classifieds has had this feature for years.  Enter your location and a search radius and there you go." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16243" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6150" RevisionGUID="1043e9ae-2d50-447c-8467-d86323990e2b" CreationDate="2014-02-26T15:49:43.083" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20130304913&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6150" RevisionGUID="d5237448-1a1f-4b5c-ac7b-2cb7d5f56d2c" CreationDate="2014-02-26T20:21:54.777" UserId="1767" Comment="added 665 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="[US20130304913][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you seen anything prior to **Sept 26, 2003** which relates to Programmable Proxies for Determining a Presence Status of a User:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Obtaining presence information from a plurality of presence data stores, wherein the presence information provides a clue as to a presence status of a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Translating the presence information into a standard format, yielding translated presence information; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining the presence status based on the translated presence information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that Voxhub has prior art dating back well before this application. For example, the Herenow engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Way back I was one of the early Internet software people and it amazes me that this could be allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Link to Google Prior Art Search** -- [Find Prior Art][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130304913&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130304913#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=07%2F16%2F2013&amp;t=1presence%20status.1presence%20information.1standard%20format.0clue.0rules.0programmable%20presence.0presence%20proxy.0proxy%20for%20determining.0determining%20a%20presence.0user-specified%20rules." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16253" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6150" RevisionGUID="d5237448-1a1f-4b5c-ac7b-2cb7d5f56d2c" CreationDate="2014-02-26T20:21:54.777" UserId="1767" Comment="added 665 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Proxy Server for Determining Presence Status of a User (Avaya) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16254" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6150" RevisionGUID="d5237448-1a1f-4b5c-ac7b-2cb7d5f56d2c" CreationDate="2014-02-26T20:21:54.777" UserId="1767" Comment="added 665 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130304913&gt;&lt;avaya&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6150" RevisionGUID="b4398415-0b57-4900-ac32-aefdaf68fefd" CreationDate="2014-02-26T20:50:14.147" UserId="3076" Comment="made it consistent with previous edit in the question &quot;knowing&quot; the correct priority date" Text="[US20130304913][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you seen anything prior to **Sept 26, 2003** which relates to Programmable Proxies for Determining a Presence Status of a User:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Obtaining presence information from a plurality of presence data stores, wherein the presence information provides a clue as to a presence status of a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Translating the presence information into a standard format, yielding translated presence information; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining the presence status based on the translated presence information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that Voxhub has prior art. For example, the Herenow engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Link to Google Prior Art Search** -- [Find Prior Art][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130304913&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130304913#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=07%2F16%2F2013&amp;t=1presence%20status.1presence%20information.1standard%20format.0clue.0rules.0programmable%20presence.0presence%20proxy.0proxy%20for%20determining.0determining%20a%20presence.0user-specified%20rules." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16256" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6150" RevisionGUID="b4398415-0b57-4900-ac32-aefdaf68fefd" CreationDate="2014-02-26T20:50:14.147" UserId="3076" Comment="made it consistent with previous edit in the question &quot;knowing&quot; the correct priority date" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130304913&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6156" RevisionGUID="ba460065-e83b-4fad-bc8f-86b48ae6b76d" CreationDate="2014-02-26T20:53:36.770" UserId="8020" Text="Is it Possible/legal to gain a copyright/Patent over an Idea that was somebody else's, but you have changed/improved/altered significantly? Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16258" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6156" RevisionGUID="ba460065-e83b-4fad-bc8f-86b48ae6b76d" CreationDate="2014-02-26T20:53:36.770" UserId="8020" Text="Gaining a copyright/Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16259" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6156" RevisionGUID="ba460065-e83b-4fad-bc8f-86b48ae6b76d" CreationDate="2014-02-26T20:53:36.770" UserId="8020" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6150" RevisionGUID="53004a30-0311-4c49-aa81-dccc229af2bc" CreationDate="2014-02-26T20:57:12.627" UserId="3076" Comment="made it consistent with previous edit in regard to the question &quot;knowing&quot; the correct priority date" Text="[US20130304913][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Filing date	-  **Jul 16, 2013**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Priority date - **Sep 26, 2003**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you seen anything prior to **Sept 26, 2003** which relates to Programmable Proxies for Determining a Presence Status of a User:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Obtaining presence information from a plurality of presence data stores, wherein the presence information provides a clue as to a presence status of a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Translating the presence information into a standard format, yielding translated presence information; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining the presence status based on the translated presence information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that Voxhub has prior art. For example, the Herenow engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Link to Google Prior Art Search** -- [Find Prior Art][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130304913&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130304913#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=07%2F16%2F2013&amp;t=1presence%20status.1presence%20information.1standard%20format.0clue.0rules.0programmable%20presence.0presence%20proxy.0proxy%20for%20determining.0determining%20a%20presence.0user-specified%20rules." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6157" RevisionGUID="0ae0c3f9-0d5a-4f32-8f87-cf868c7f672c" CreationDate="2014-02-26T21:42:38.617" UserId="3076" Text="This site, and my expertise, is confined to patents so I will not address copyrights. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents cover inventions - the structure of an apparatus, the steps to take to achieve a result, the configuration and operation of a system are examples. The patent law's broad list what can count as an invention ends with the words *&quot;or any new and useful improvement thereof&quot;*. Yes, improvements to an existing idea are patentable if they are truly new and not obvious. Most patented inventions can be seen as improvements to something that went before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, you get a patent on your improved dishwasher. That does *not* mean you can make and sell that improved dishwasher. The older, existing, dishwasher you are improving might have patents on aspects that the improved one you make and sell also has within it. If I have a patent on the power lawnmower and you add a seat, it is new and patentable by you, but it is still a power lawnmower. Neither you or I can make the improved lawnmower without a deal with the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also - there are myths floating around about needing to make &quot;a 15% change&quot; to something existing in order to be able to get a patent on your new version. Of course there is no precise ruler to measure a percentage of change to an invention and the patent system does not think in that way. Sometimes a small change makes a big, and surprising, difference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6158" RevisionGUID="ba6d9b48-3a86-4a51-8bd4-24f609d5faac" CreationDate="2014-02-27T02:47:18.007" UserId="3076" Text="It looks like (from the Public PAIR database) the USPTO made a mistake re-typing information from the ad hoc Application Data Sheet the attorneys used. Most people now use the &quot;live&quot; PDF form the USPTO provides. With that form the data goes in via XML untouched by human hands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your (big name firm)  attorneys need to point the out the error made by the USPTO to them in writing and request a new updated filing receipt." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6159" RevisionGUID="02831934-b984-49ac-85a0-9331765bfa43" CreationDate="2014-02-27T02:48:50.383" UserId="8022" Text="AdWords already has several 'scheduling' features detailed in the following link. Sounds very similar to the 'timer' claim this patent seeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://support.google.com/adwords/answer/2404244?hl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://support.google.com/adwords/answer/2404244?hl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A post on a Drupal plugin that lists &quot;activation/expiration scheduling based on time, clicks or views&quot; from 2006&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://drupal.org/project/ad&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;This free JavaScript supports an unlimited number of banners, the ability to refresh (change) the ads every n milliseconds, where n is an interval you set, as well as the facility to specify a banner or set of banners for rotation at a particular location, or have them rotate randomly. You can set an expiry date for a banner as well, where a particular banner is removed from display after a certain date. Different sets of banners can also be assigned to different parts of your web page, and the script is able to avoid displaying the same banner in different spots on the same page. You can set the sizes of the banners (overriding the default size for the banner), cause the links for each banner to open either in the same window/tab or a new browser window/tab, etc. The script is released under the GNU General Public License, which means that it's open source. &quot; -2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.thefreecountry.com/javascript/banner-rotation.shtml&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a piece of the code described above dated 2009. Full link is at&#xD;&#xA;http://www.spyka.net/scripts/javascript/simple-banner-rotator&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        /**&#xD;&#xA;        This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify&#xD;&#xA;        it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by&#xD;&#xA;        the Free Software Foundation, either version 2 of the License, or&#xD;&#xA;        (at your option) any later version.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,&#xD;&#xA;        but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of&#xD;&#xA;        MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the&#xD;&#xA;        GNU General Public License for more details.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License&#xD;&#xA;        along with this program.  If not, see &lt;http://www.gnu.org/licenses/&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    	--------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    	&#xD;&#xA;    	Simple banner rotator. Version: 1.4.0&#xD;&#xA;    	Download and support: http://www.spyka.net &#xD;&#xA;    	(c) Copyright 2008, 2009 spyka Web Group&#xD;&#xA;    	&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    	For full documentation:  http://www.spyka.net/docs/simple-banner-rotator&#xD;&#xA;    	For support:			 http://www.spyka.net/forums&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    **/&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    //								EDIT FROM HERE&#xD;&#xA;    ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    /**&#xD;&#xA;    		Script settings&#xD;&#xA;    **/&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    var settings = {&#xD;&#xA;    	&#xD;&#xA;    	'force_size':			0,         		// 	if set to 1 all banners will be resized to the width and height in the next to settings&#xD;&#xA;    	'img_width':			468,			//	width to resize all banners to, only takes effect if above is 1&#xD;&#xA;    	'img_height':			60, 			// 	height to resize all banners to, only takes effect if above is 1&#xD;&#xA;    	&#xD;&#xA;    	'refresh_time':			5000,			//	the seconds between refreshs of the banners - use 0 to disable&#xD;&#xA;    	'refresh_max':			100,				//	maximum number of refreshs on each page load&#xD;&#xA;    	&#xD;&#xA;    	'duplicate_banners':	0,				//	keep as 0 to make sure the same banner won't show on the same page. will only take effect&#xD;&#xA;    											//  if show_banners(); is used more than once. You must make sure you have enough banners to fill&#xD;&#xA;    											//  all the slots else the browser may freeze or give a stack overflow error&#xD;&#xA;    	&#xD;&#xA;    	'location_prefix': 		'adLocation-',	//	The prefix of the IDs of the &lt;div&gt; which wraps the banners - this div is generated dynamically.&#xD;&#xA;    											//  a number will be added on the end of this string. adLocation- was used by default before version 1.4.x&#xD;&#xA;    											&#xD;&#xA;    	'location_class':		'swb',			//  A class to add to all of the &lt;div&gt;s which wrap the banners, ideal to use for styling banners - use .swb img in your CSS	&#xD;&#xA;    	&#xD;&#xA;    	'window': 				'_self',		//	Window to open links in, _self = current, _blank = new. Use _top if in a frame!		&#xD;&#xA;    	&#xD;&#xA;    	'default_ad_loc':		'default'		//	The default adLocation. This is assigned to any banners not given an adLocation in the below banner list&#xD;&#xA;    											//  There is no real reason to need to change this&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    /**&#xD;&#xA;    		Banners&#xD;&#xA;    **/&#xD;&#xA;    // banner list syntax: new banner(website_name, website_url, banner_url, show_until_date, adlocation),  DATE FORMAT: dd/mm/yyyy&#xD;&#xA;    // if you're not using adlocations just leave it empty like '' as in the last example here&#xD;&#xA;    // to make sure a banner is always rotating, just set the date far into the future, i.e. year 3000&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    var banners = [&#xD;&#xA;    	new banner('AwesomeStyles',			'http://www.awesomestyles.com', 			'images/4.jpg', 	'30/04/2019',	'bottom'),&#xD;&#xA;    	new banner('Just Free Templates',	'http://www.justfreetemplates.com', 		'images/5.jpg',		'10/04/2019',	'bottom'),&#xD;&#xA;    	new banner('Flashden', 				'http://www.flashden.net/?ref=spykawg', 	'images/3.jpg',		'30/04/2019',	'top'),&#xD;&#xA;    	new banner('ThemeForest', 			'http://www.themeforest.net/?ref=spykawg', 	'images/2.jpg', 	'10/04/2019',	'top'),&#xD;&#xA;    	new banner('GraphicRiver', 			'http://www.graphicriver.net/?ref=spykawg', 'images/1.jpg', 	'30/04/2019',	'top'),&#xD;&#xA;    	new banner('Dreamhost',				'http://www.dreamhost.com/r.cgi?259541',	'images/6.gif',		'30/04/2019',	'')&#xD;&#xA;    ]&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    //         				There is no need to edit below here&#xD;&#xA;    ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////&#xD;&#xA;    var used=0;var location_counter=0;var refresh_counter=1;var map=new Array();function banner(a,b,c,d,e){this.name=a;this.url=b;this.image=c;this.date=d;this.active=1;this.oid=0;if(e!=''){this.loc=e}else{this.loc=settings.default_ad_loc}}function show_banners(a){location_counter=location_counter+1;if(a!=''&amp;&amp;a!=undefined){map[location_counter]=a}else{map[location_counter]=settings.default_ad_loc}var b='&lt;div id=&quot;'+settings.location_prefix+location_counter+'&quot; class=&quot;'+settings.location_class+'&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;';document.write(b);display_banners(location_counter)}function display_banners(a){var b=new Array();if(a==''||!a||a&lt;0){return}var c=banners.length;if((c==used)&amp;&amp;settings.duplicate_banners==0){return}for(i=0;i&lt;(banners.length);i++){banners[i].oid=i;if((banners[i].loc==map[a])&amp;&amp;(banners[i].active==1)){b.push(banners[i])}}var d=Math.floor(Math.random()*b.length);var e=b[d];var f=(settings.force_size==1)?' width=&quot;'+settings.img_width+'&quot; height=&quot;'+settings.img_height+'&quot;':'';var g='&lt;a href=&quot;'+e.url+'&quot; title=&quot;'+e.name+'&quot; target=&quot;'+settings.window+'&quot;&gt;&lt;img border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;'+e.image+'&quot;'+f+' alt=&quot;'+e.name+'&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;';var h=new Date();var j=e.date;j=j.split('/',3);var k=new Date();k.setFullYear(parseInt(j[2]),parseInt(j[1])-1,parseInt(j[0]));if((h&lt;k)&amp;&amp;e.active==1){var l=document.getElementById(settings.location_prefix+a);if(l==null){alert('spyka Webmaster banner rotator\nError: adLocation doesn\'t exist!')}else{l.innerHTML=g;if(settings.duplicate_banners==0){banners[e.oid].active=0;used++}return}}else{display_banners(a)}return}function refresh_banners(){if((refresh_counter==settings.refresh_max)||settings.refresh_time&lt;1){clearInterval(banner_refresh)}used=0;for(j=0;j&lt;(banners.length);j++){banners[j].active=1}for(j=1;j&lt;(location_counter+1);j++){display_banners(j)}refresh_counter++}var banner_refresh=window.setInterval(refresh_banners,settings.refresh_time);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6158" RevisionGUID="5cefbca0-75cc-43c8-9b28-3f1a62ce1362" CreationDate="2014-02-27T02:53:29.970" UserId="3076" Comment="added 422 characters in body" Text="It looks like (from the [USPTO Public PAIR][1] database) the USPTO made a mistake re-typing information from the ad hoc Application Data Sheet the attorneys used. It is correct on the ADS. Most people now use the &quot;live&quot; PDF form the USPTO provides. With that form the data goes in via XML, untouched by human hands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your (very big name firm) attorneys need to point out the error made by the USPTO to them in writing and request a new, updated filing receipt.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not a recordation issue. Recordations are kept track of separately by a different corner of the USPTO. The record doesn't show any assignment recorded with then so far but I imagine you have already signed it all over to Carbonate since they are the applicant for all countries except the U.S. in the PCT application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6160" RevisionGUID="571b76d8-a025-444d-b7ea-8de7a33d5ddb" CreationDate="2014-02-27T03:53:48.603" UserId="8023" Text="  Is it possible to patent the game play for a game which can only be played on the internet and doesn't exist already?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  I assume the answer is yes, but since the game is played using computer software i'm not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  If it is possible,  what type of patent would be used?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16266" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6160" RevisionGUID="571b76d8-a025-444d-b7ea-8de7a33d5ddb" CreationDate="2014-02-27T03:53:48.603" UserId="8023" Text="Can I patent a new internet based game which doesn't exist already?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16267" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6160" RevisionGUID="571b76d8-a025-444d-b7ea-8de7a33d5ddb" CreationDate="2014-02-27T03:53:48.603" UserId="8023" Text="&lt;design-games&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6163" RevisionGUID="e5d6feff-b356-4299-a197-21acba1074c7" CreationDate="2014-02-27T22:02:29.747" UserId="3076" Text="Yes it is possible. There are many, many existing patents related to games played on standalone computers and on networked computers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Community poker card game online playing system&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[US 8388428][1] B&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pen-One, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mar 5, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you go to google patents and search for &quot;game internet&quot; and restrict the search to granted patents and to U.S. patents you will see many more examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You ask &quot;what kind of patent?&quot; Between *design* patents, *utility* patents and the somewhat obscure *plant* patents, the only choice for something functional is a utility patent. Within a utility patent there can be method claims to the steps involved, system claims, apparatus claims and claims to the recorded media with the software on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Avoiding your claims being seen *now* as merely an abstract idea takes quite a bit of expertise in patent drafting. Avoiding them being seen as abstract by judges in the future requires a crystal ball. A case pending now at the Supreme Court may clear it up somewhat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8388428" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6164" RevisionGUID="d139c8f1-2a1c-43b2-a6f4-f1655d8bb61f" CreationDate="2014-02-27T22:38:39.137" UserId="8026" Text="I wanted to develop a product based on my Ph.D. research carried out in 2002. I published a paper about my design in &quot;Review of Scientific Instruments&quot; in 2002. However, I just found out that a competitor's company had filed a patent in 2004, which partially claimed part of my design. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My paper was about ion beam production from a special plasma source. Competitor's design is the same as mine, but they claim it for plasma cleaning purpose. There was an original general patent from another company regarding using downstream plasma to clean microscopes. This patent didn't specify the detailed design of the plasma source. But his patent has already expired. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I believe I have the right to develop a product based on my published design for microscope cleaning application since the original general patent about plasma cleaning for microscope has expired. Am I right? Can I challenge the competitor's patent claim since their design is the same as my design that I published 2 years earlier even though they claim it for a different purpose. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16278" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6164" RevisionGUID="d139c8f1-2a1c-43b2-a6f4-f1655d8bb61f" CreationDate="2014-02-27T22:38:39.137" UserId="8026" Text="Someone patent a design 2 years after I published a research papers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16279" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6164" RevisionGUID="d139c8f1-2a1c-43b2-a6f4-f1655d8bb61f" CreationDate="2014-02-27T22:38:39.137" UserId="8026" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6165" RevisionGUID="b24d8b52-a8ca-4373-a104-3264a51ff537" CreationDate="2014-02-28T02:03:43.170" UserId="8027" Text="OUR APP: A US patent application, whose provisional date is Apr. 8, 2004. Assigned to Motorola. Has 5 inventors, A - E. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I received a 103 rejection citing PA1 and PA2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PA1: A document published in Canada, not a patent. Looks like a publication resulting from a conference. Appears to be published on March 8, 2004 (one month before OUR APP). The &quot;Source&quot; shown on the doc say Motorola, and then gives 2 motorola email addresses, showing names like john.doe@motorola.com. One name is clearly the same as inventor A. The other looks like a different inventor, say inventor F.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is PA1 prior art to OUR APP?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Can inventorship be considered the same if you have one common inventor? so then 102B grace period would apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Is there a way to use 103c?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks, &#xD;&#xA;iris.barr@gmail.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16281" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6165" RevisionGUID="b24d8b52-a8ca-4373-a104-3264a51ff537" CreationDate="2014-02-28T02:03:43.170" UserId="8027" Text="Potential prior art document has 1 common inventor &amp; was published a month before patent app. Prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16282" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6165" RevisionGUID="b24d8b52-a8ca-4373-a104-3264a51ff537" CreationDate="2014-02-28T02:03:43.170" UserId="8027" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6166" RevisionGUID="0d0e29f4-3f9e-48b2-925e-c0d45d00c364" CreationDate="2014-02-28T06:04:23.250" UserId="7546" Text="Well, a quick patent search reveals existing patents for parts of this prior to the date. I think the interesting part of the claim is that it deals with having multiple devices that a user may be present on.  This is one prior patent that deals with the issue of messaging an multiple devices http://www.google.com/patents/US5928325.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this  could also be relevant http://www.google.com/patents/US20050074101 in dealing with the idea of not being available in one device/mode and so looking for others. This one also http://www.google.com/patents/US20020065894  has the concept of globally being available but actually being on any of a number of devices." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6168" RevisionGUID="ebe4525d-9b50-4b8a-8e06-335197401619" CreationDate="2014-02-28T17:28:37.900" UserId="1114" Text="Addressing question 2 first, 103(c) only applies to 102(e) art, which only includes patents.  If PA1 wasn't a patent, then 102(e) (and therefore, 103(c)) doesn't apply.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For question 1, because it is under 102(a), the inventor is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether it was available to the public.  So no luck there either. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, because it is only 102(a), if the date of invention is before the date of publication, you can &quot;swear behind&quot; the reference with a declaration.  http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s715.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6169" RevisionGUID="ee5a8031-7e88-4d8f-b354-186e57f5cc60" CreationDate="2014-02-28T17:54:43.947" UserId="1114" Text="In theory, you are correct: you, or any member of the public, has the right to produce a product as described in a publication that came out more than a year before the patent.  However, George White's comments are important to note: how the situation would play out in litigation (which would ultimately determine whether you have a right or not) depends on the scope of your competitor's claims, the detail of the previous publications, and the state of the art at the time.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether someone can patent a prior art design but for a different purpose is likewise complicated.  Briefly, if it's just a newly discovered use or advantage of an identical prior art product, then it isn't patentable.  However, modifying an existing product for a new purpose, or using the same product in a different way, are both potentially patentable.  The devil is in the details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6170" RevisionGUID="7bea9a66-d4da-45bd-a6c9-2d5b2b3fe796" CreationDate="2014-02-28T22:35:31.053" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON asking friends for advice while shopping** - This application from [Turnto Network][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Displaying, to a user  who is engaged in a commercial activity on a commercial online site, a computer stored information that is associated with another user of the online site, would be private to the other user, relates to the commercial activity of the user, and is controlled by the site! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/2/2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Users asking other users for shopping advice online&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Transaction may include **purchases of products**, **money-based transactions**, retail, wholesale, **business sales activities**, lending, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transaction information on online sites**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Exposing, to a user  who is engaged in a **commercial activity** on a **commercial online site**, information that is associated with one user of the **commercial online site**, would be private to the other user, relates to the **commercial activity** of the first user, and is controlled by the **commercial online site**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120233020 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/393,008&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Turnto Network&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/2/2008&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 3/12/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. exposing, to a user who is engaged in a commercial activity on a commercial online site, computer-stored information that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - a. is associated with another user of the online site,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - b. would otherwise be private to the other user, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - c. relates to the commercial activity of the user, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - d. is controlled by the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying, to a user who is engaged in a commercial activity on a commercial online site, a computer-stored information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - a. Associated with the another user of the online site,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - b. Private to the other user, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - c. Related to the Commercial activity of the user, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - d. Controlled by the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/2/2008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Commercial activity includes shopping for a product or service &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Information transaction on online sites&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/GSteZbG.png&quot; width=&quot;827&quot; height=&quot;537&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120233020&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.turntonetworks.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120233020#c=0&amp;d1=01%2F02%2F2008" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16291" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6170" RevisionGUID="7bea9a66-d4da-45bd-a6c9-2d5b2b3fe796" CreationDate="2014-02-28T22:35:31.053" UserId="1767" Text="Social Shopping - Asking friends for shopping advice online (Turnto Network) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16292" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6170" RevisionGUID="7bea9a66-d4da-45bd-a6c9-2d5b2b3fe796" CreationDate="2014-02-28T22:35:31.053" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;social-networking&gt;&lt;us20120233020&gt;&lt;turnto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6170" RevisionGUID="795e01f1-356d-4c6e-9fd6-3dc02716069e" CreationDate="2014-02-28T22:42:29.263" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON asking friends for advice while shopping** - This application from [Turnto Network][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Displaying, to a user who is engaged in a commercial activity on an online site, information that is associated with another user of the online site, would normally be private to the other user, relates to the commercial activity of the user, and is controlled by the site! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/2/2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Users asking other users for shopping advice online&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Transaction may include **purchases of products**, **money-based transactions**, retail, wholesale, **business sales activities**, lending, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transaction information on online sites**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Exposing, to a user  who is engaged in a **commercial activity** on a **commercial online site**, information that is associated with one user of the **commercial online site**, would be private to the other user, relates to the **commercial activity** of the first user, and is controlled by the **commercial online site**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120233020 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/393,008&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Turnto Network&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/2/2008&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 3/12/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. exposing, to a user who is engaged in a commercial activity on a commercial online site, computer-stored information that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - a. is associated with another user of the online site,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - b. would otherwise be private to the other user, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - c. relates to the commercial activity of the user, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - d. is controlled by the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying, to a user who is engaged in a commercial activity on a commercial online site, a computer-stored information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - a. Associated with the another user of the online site,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - b. Private to the other user, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - c. Related to the Commercial activity of the user, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - d. Controlled by the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/2/2008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Commercial activity includes shopping for a product or service &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Information transaction on online sites&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/RNOLhZT.png&quot; width=&quot;827&quot; height=&quot;537&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120233020&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.turntonetworks.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120233020#c=0&amp;d1=01%2F02%2F2008" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6174" RevisionGUID="6b2d27a3-cffc-4ee1-8d21-a0d40003879d" CreationDate="2014-03-01T08:02:56.817" UserId="3076" Text="One issue is that 102(a) is conditioned on &quot;by another&quot;, meaning other than by the present inventors. If you can establish and submit affidavits showing that the second author did not make only an editorial contribution or no actual contribution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, journal articles do *not* have inventors - they have authors. Academic authorship does not necessarily imply any particular-type or level of contribution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6175" RevisionGUID="867ab0c4-49e3-4944-aa32-d4f84d09de46" CreationDate="2014-03-01T13:00:28.897" UserId="8035" Text="I have developed a new technology in the field of 3D positional audio. I have a working prototype.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been working closely with a company specialising in acoustic simulation, and they have offered to co-author an academic paper for presentation at an acoustics conference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like the idea of this, as I have never published an academic paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I have another option: I have just been introduced to an investor who has the necessary know-how and financial resources to to put a patent on the technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I am considering inviting him to go 50:50 on a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: Will publishing invalidate the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The submission deadline for the paper is in a fortnight.  Is it possible to set the patent wheels in motion, so that the paper can be delivered detailing a &quot;Patent Pending&quot; technology?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16310" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6175" RevisionGUID="867ab0c4-49e3-4944-aa32-d4f84d09de46" CreationDate="2014-03-01T13:00:28.897" UserId="8035" Text="Is it possible to publish an academic paper and file a patent simultaneously?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16311" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6175" RevisionGUID="867ab0c4-49e3-4944-aa32-d4f84d09de46" CreationDate="2014-03-01T13:00:28.897" UserId="8035" Text="&lt;patent-pending&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6176" RevisionGUID="a4f0c2c5-073f-4162-8970-594d579e78c6" CreationDate="2014-03-02T02:34:55.817" UserId="3076" Text="To preserve your rights to ultimately file in any country (that is part of the Paris Convention or abides by it - essentially everywhere) you need to file *somewhere* by the day of publication. It Can be a regular application or can be a provisional application. A very few countries, notably the U.S., have a grace period allowing filing up to a year after the article is published." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6174" RevisionGUID="632ad0cd-72ff-4649-b315-ca1bc5337434" CreationDate="2014-03-02T02:48:45.130" UserId="3076" Comment="edited body" Text="One issue is that 102(a) is conditioned on &quot;by another&quot;, meaning other than by the present inventors. If you can establish and submit affidavits showing that the second author did not make only an editorial contribution or no actual contribution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, journal articles do *not* have inventors - they have authors. Academic authorship does not necessarily imply any particular type or level of contribution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6178" RevisionGUID="c3bda83b-710a-4515-9bb1-f6114bbf20bc" CreationDate="2014-03-02T20:45:24.247" UserId="7546" Text="As I said in my comment, there were dozens of applications with similar user facing functionality long before 2011. If what is important is that it is in memory and that the data is a cube, I will say that way back in 1992 the social network analysis software UCINet could do 2-Mode network analysis in DOS.  2-Mode analysis means that there are nodes of two types (like individuals and projects).  It can handle multiple networks and does profile similarity analysis too. https://sites.google.com/site/ucinetsoftware/history, http://www.analytictech.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6097" RevisionGUID="99d5590f-da6c-4671-ae86-27ebc9a10ebb" CreationDate="2014-03-03T10:05:27.767" UserId="7939" Comment="More prior art from LEAP.  Mark it as an UPDATE" Text="Guerillamail has an API for creating a new email address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://api.guerrillamail.com/ajax.php?f=get_email_address&amp;ip=127.0.0.1&amp;agent=Mozilla_foo_bar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.guerrillamail.com/GuerrillaMailAPI.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When this was reviewed by a journalist, the most obvious use was indeed what Apple is trying to patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://blog.programmableweb.com/2011/05/10/guerilla-mail-an-api-that-helps-stop-spam/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It allows the same functionality as the website, and some additional tricks such as setting the e-mail address to one of the user’s choice. This API might allow, as an example, a developer to make a truly paranoid web browser, integrating Guerilla Mail into it for website registering purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mailinator has the same type of API.  This API used in a testing framework:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://github.com/technicalpickles/mailinator-spec&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Claim 11. A non-transitory program storage device, readable by one or more programmable control devices, comprising instructions stored thereon for causing one or more of the programmable control devices to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Allocate a disposable email address, the disposable email address independent of a non-disposable email address;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is available in the APIs above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Associate the disposable email address with the non-disposable email address;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two above is done for example in HushMail where nyms can be requested using an UI.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Associate a context information with the disposable email address, external to the disposable email address;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All systems do this, otherwise they cannot possibly function correcctly.  APIs have cookies, account info etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Associate an expiration information with the disposable email address, external to the disposable email address;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The guerillamail API supports this.  I haven't checked the others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Receive an email message addressed to the disposable email address;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Rewrite the email message, replacing the disposable email address with the non-disposable email address;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might not be done by the existing solutions, but if this is a requirement, it seems trivial to get around.  Why was this put into the claims? Was it because prior art on everything else exists and this should be a patent without any protection ability?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Provide the email message to an email client;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything that reads an email is an email client, so.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Provide the context information to the email client;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context information can be anything, so just the info that you are logged into your email client (your name in the upper right corner) is context information attached to the email address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Receive a reply to the email message; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Rewrite the reply, replacing the non-disposable email address with the disposable email address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here again, there is this strange requirement that the &quot;real&quot; email address must be used.  By just informing the user of the disposable email address, then the real email address can also be shown, since this isn't a rewrite of the &quot;email-address&quot;, it is just showing context information (the real email address).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Claim 13. The program storage device of claim 11, wherein the instructions stored thereon further comprise instructions for causing one or more of the programmable control devices to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Provide the context information with the email message to the email client.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: I found some additional art. I have not checked whether this is prior art or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Auto alias pairs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How would auto alias pairs work? Imagine users Alice and Bob. Alice wants to correspond with Bob but doesn’t want either her service provider or Bob’s service provider to be able to record the association. She also doesn’t want a network observer to be able to map the association.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When Alice first sends a message to Bob, Alice’s client will initiate the following chain of events on her behalf, automatically and behind the scenes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Alice’s client requests a new alias from her service provider. If her normal address is alice@domain.org, she receives an alias hjj3fpwv84fn@domain.org that will forward messages to her account.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Alice’s client uses automatic key discovery and validation to find Bob’s public key and discover if Bob’s service provider supports map resistant routing.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    If Bob does support it, Alice’s client will then send a special message, encrypted to Bob’s key, that contains Alice’s public address and her private alias.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    When Bob’s client encounters this special message, it records a mapping between Alice’s public address (alice@domain.org) and the private alias she has created for Bob’s use (hjj3fpwv84fn@domain.org).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Bob’s client then creates an alias for Bob and sends it to Alice.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Alice’s client receives this alias, and records the mapping between Bob’s public address and his private alias.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Alice’s client then relays the original message to Bob’s alias.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Subsequently, whenever Alice or Bob want to communicate, they use the normal public addresses for one another, but behind the scenes their clients will rewrite the source and recipient of the messages to use the private aliases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This scheme is backwards compatible with existing messaging protocols, such as SMTP and XMPP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://leap.se/en/docs/tech/routing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6148" RevisionGUID="d2ba4064-e68a-4338-a5ff-b68123bed8b9" CreationDate="2014-03-03T17:29:08.567" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON exploring social connections from an in-memory database** - This application from [SAP][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying an attribute in a profile associated with a first user, executing a query including the identified attribute, and identifying a second user based on the query! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/5/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Implementing social networking based on data objects in an in-memory database&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Examples of attributes may include **contact information**, expertise, **past projects**, **current projects**, manager, supervisor etc. Data objects may include a variety of objects that store **business data**, **reference data** from **content sources**, such as **web content**, feeds, **REST services**, **business data** repositories, reports, status updates, discussions, wikis, blogs etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Identifying social networks within an organization based on business data of the organization stored in an in-memory database**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying an attribute in a profile associated with a first user, executing a query including the identified attribute against data objects stored in an in-memory database, identifying a second user from the results of query based on a relationship between data objects associated with the second user and the attribute of the first user, and displaying information of the second user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144957 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/310,913&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: SAP&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/5/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method performed with a computing system for exploring social connections in an in-memory database, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying a user profile associated with a first user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying one or more updates to one or more attributes of the user profile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Updating, in real-time, the user profile, based on the one or more updates, as the one or more updates are identified;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Identifying a particular attribute of the one or more attributes in the updated user profile that is associated with the first user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Executing a query against a data element stored in an in-memory database, the query including the particular attribute in the updated user profile;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Identifying a second user from results of the query, the second user associated with the data element based on a relationship between the second user and the first user defined by the attribute; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Generating displayable information associated with the second user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for exploring social connections in an in-memory database, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying the profile of a first user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying updates to the first user profile;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Updating the user profile based on the updates;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Identifying a particular attribute of the updated profile and executing a a database query (in an in-memory database) for the particular attribute;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Identifying a second user based on a relationship between data objects associated with the second user and the first user defined by the particular attribute; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Displaying information related to the second user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/5/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Data sources from various enterprise systems are replicated to the in-memory database before executing the query against the data element stored in the in-memory database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Exploring social connections from an in-memory database&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/XpChjTN.png&quot; width=&quot;550&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130144957&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.sap.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130144957#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=12%2F05%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6170" RevisionGUID="9adc83a5-8892-419b-900d-252fe0408a57" CreationDate="2014-03-03T17:29:24.550" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON asking friends for advice while shopping** - This application from [Turnto Network][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Displaying, to a user who is engaged in a commercial activity on an online site, information that is associated with another user of the online site, would normally be private to the other user, relates to the commercial activity of the user, and is controlled by the site! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/2/2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Users asking other users for shopping advice online&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Transaction may include **purchases of products**, **money-based transactions**, retail, wholesale, **business sales activities**, lending, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transaction information on online sites**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Exposing, to a user  who is engaged in a **commercial activity** on a **commercial online site**, information that is associated with one user of the **commercial online site**, would be private to the other user, relates to the **commercial activity** of the first user, and is controlled by the **commercial online site**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120233020 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/393,008&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Turnto Network&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/2/2008&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 3/12/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. exposing, to a user who is engaged in a commercial activity on a commercial online site, computer-stored information that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - a. is associated with another user of the online site,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - b. would otherwise be private to the other user, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - c. relates to the commercial activity of the user, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - d. is controlled by the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying, to a user who is engaged in a commercial activity on a commercial online site, a computer-stored information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - a. Associated with the another user of the online site,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - b. Private to the other user, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - c. Related to the Commercial activity of the user, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - d. Controlled by the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/2/2008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Commercial activity includes shopping for a product or service &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Information transaction on online sites&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/RNOLhZT.png&quot; width=&quot;827&quot; height=&quot;537&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120233020&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.turntonetworks.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120233020#c=0&amp;d1=01%2F02%2F2008" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6139" RevisionGUID="18e2164c-8b67-4044-ab22-84e7581bfcea" CreationDate="2014-03-03T17:29:57.367" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON online advertisements being displayed on a webpage based on a timer** - This application from [Yahoo! Inc][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Displaying a primary advertisement on a first web page, initiating a timer to measure a first predetermined time period for which the primary advertisement is displayed, detecting a user reaction, and switching the primary advertisement with a second advertisement based  on the user responses.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Changing advertisements on a webpage based on user's responses and expiration of a timer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - User responses may be expiration of the **first time period**, detecting **user interaction** with the **first web page**, lack of detection of **user interaction** with the **primary advertisement**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Switching advertisements on a webpage based on the timer and the user responses**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Displaying a **primary advertisement** on a **first web page**, initiating a timer to measure a **first predetermined time period** for which the **primary advertisement** is displayed, switching the **primary advertisement** with a **second advertisement** based on responses such as expiration of the **first predetermined time period**, detecting **user interaction** with the **first web page**, lack of detection of **user interaction** with the **primary advertisement**. Further, receiving a request to recall the **primary advertisement** after the switching has occurred, and switching the **secondary advertisement** with the **primary advertisement**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120158519 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/973,954&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/18/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for placing online advertisements on a display of a computer device coupled to a communication network, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying a primary advertisement on at least a portion of a first web page on the display;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Initiating a timer to measure a first predetermined period of time that the first web page is displayed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Responsive to &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - (i) Expiration of the first predetermined period of time, &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - (ii) Detecting user interaction with the first web page, and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - (iii) Lack of detection of user interaction with the primary advertisement, switching the primary advertisement to display a secondary advertisement on the portion of the first web page on the display;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving a request to recall the primary advertisement after the switching has occurred; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Switching the secondary advertisement with the primary advertisement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying a primary advertisement on a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Initiating a timer to measure a first time period for which the primary advertisement is displayed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Switching the primary advertisement with a secondary advertisement based on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - 3a. Expiration of the first time period, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - 3b. Detecting a user interaction with the first web page, and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - 3c. Detecting that user is **not** interacting with the primary advertisement;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving a request to recall the primary advertisement after the switching has occurred; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Switching the secondary advertisement with the primary advertisement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming The primary and secondary advertisements are targeted advertisements that are tailored to a user, an identified location,  and a current time of day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Online advertisements &quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/v9rdeQb.png&quot; width=&quot;406&quot; height=&quot;469&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120158519&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.yahoo.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120158519#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=12%2F21%2F2010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6181" RevisionGUID="c5b709af-59bd-4771-8e5f-2b4f0eb74d02" CreationDate="2014-03-03T20:50:14.130" UserId="8005" Text="I have a friend that has invented an idea but he is under 18,&#xD;&#xA;So can he make a patent number on his name?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16334" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6181" RevisionGUID="c5b709af-59bd-4771-8e5f-2b4f0eb74d02" CreationDate="2014-03-03T20:50:14.130" UserId="8005" Text="Making a patent number underage," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16335" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6181" RevisionGUID="c5b709af-59bd-4771-8e5f-2b4f0eb74d02" CreationDate="2014-03-03T20:50:14.130" UserId="8005" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6182" RevisionGUID="3fec4c6b-18ef-4f3a-aa8b-476632bc5772" CreationDate="2014-03-03T23:21:09.093" UserId="8049" Text="I am trying to find out when a patent for MANTT First Class from company LASP was first lodged.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16337" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6182" RevisionGUID="3fec4c6b-18ef-4f3a-aa8b-476632bc5772" CreationDate="2014-03-03T23:21:09.093" UserId="8049" Text="MANTT First Class when was this first done" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16338" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6182" RevisionGUID="3fec4c6b-18ef-4f3a-aa8b-476632bc5772" CreationDate="2014-03-03T23:21:09.093" UserId="8049" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6183" RevisionGUID="8fa62b25-0067-46e0-a044-2283cdc51d37" CreationDate="2014-03-04T01:35:08.990" UserId="3076" Text="If you are referring to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Kit for a telescopic roof with a snow melting device translated from German&#xD;&#xA;[DE 60201004][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has an October 11 2001 priority date. You can search in google patents advanced and enter LASP as the applicant to dig deeper yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/DE60201004T2?cl=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16340" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6182" RevisionGUID="463827d7-969f-4a8c-8bb7-d808c1ba82bf" CreationDate="2014-03-04T03:14:18.503" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;mantt&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16341" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6182" RevisionGUID="463827d7-969f-4a8c-8bb7-d808c1ba82bf" CreationDate="2014-03-04T03:14:18.503" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="I am trying to find out when a patent for MANTT First Class from company LASP was first filed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6184" RevisionGUID="acd45b99-23ac-48a2-9cd1-56b313dc1787" CreationDate="2014-03-04T18:04:43.303" UserId="1360" Text="I'm not aware of any age limitations relating to inventorship.  In fact, this FAQ notes a patent was issued to a four-year-old inventor... http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blkidprimer2.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bigger issue would likely be assigning the invention in view of limitations on contracting with minors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6170" RevisionGUID="990db4ea-4625-4859-8760-1b6aa9b8fc2b" CreationDate="2014-03-04T18:40:38.433" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON asking friends for advice while shopping** - This application from [Turnto Network][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Displaying, to a user who is engaged in a commercial activity on an online site, information that is associated with another user of the online site, would normally be private to the other user, relates to the commercial activity of the user, and is controlled by the site! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/2/2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Users asking other users for shopping advice online&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Transaction may include **purchases of products**, **money-based transactions**, retail, wholesale, **business sales activities**, lending, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transaction information on online sites**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Exposing, to a user  who is engaged in a **commercial activity** on a **commercial online site**, information that is associated with one user of the **commercial online site**, would be private to the other user, relates to the **commercial activity** of the first user, and is controlled by the **commercial online site**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120233020 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/393,008&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Turnto Network&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/2/2008&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 3/12/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. exposing, to a user who is engaged in a commercial activity on a commercial online site, computer-stored information that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - a. is associated with another user of the online site,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - b. would otherwise be private to the other user, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - c. relates to the commercial activity of the user, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - d. is controlled by the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying, to a user who is engaged in a commercial activity on a commercial online site, a computer-stored information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - a. Associated with the another user of the online site,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - b. Private to the other user, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - c. Related to the Commercial activity of the user, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - d. Controlled by the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/2/2008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Commercial activity includes shopping for a product or service &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Information transaction on online sites&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/RNOLhZT.png&quot; width=&quot;827&quot; height=&quot;537&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120233020&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.turntonetworks.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120233020#c=0&amp;d1=01%2F02%2F2008" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6148" RevisionGUID="75677d31-3357-4c56-b21f-96756fbd9312" CreationDate="2014-03-04T18:41:00.263" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON exploring social connections from an in-memory database** - This application from [SAP][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying an attribute in a profile associated with a first user, executing a query including the identified attribute, and identifying a second user based on the query! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/5/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Implementing social networking based on data objects in an in-memory database&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Examples of attributes may include **contact information**, expertise, **past projects**, **current projects**, manager, supervisor etc. Data objects may include a variety of objects that store **business data**, **reference data** from **content sources**, such as **web content**, feeds, **REST services**, **business data** repositories, reports, status updates, discussions, wikis, blogs etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Identifying social networks within an organization based on business data of the organization stored in an in-memory database**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying an attribute in a profile associated with a first user, executing a query including the identified attribute against data objects stored in an in-memory database, identifying a second user from the results of query based on a relationship between data objects associated with the second user and the attribute of the first user, and displaying information of the second user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144957 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/310,913&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: SAP&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/5/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method performed with a computing system for exploring social connections in an in-memory database, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying a user profile associated with a first user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying one or more updates to one or more attributes of the user profile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Updating, in real-time, the user profile, based on the one or more updates, as the one or more updates are identified;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Identifying a particular attribute of the one or more attributes in the updated user profile that is associated with the first user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Executing a query against a data element stored in an in-memory database, the query including the particular attribute in the updated user profile;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Identifying a second user from results of the query, the second user associated with the data element based on a relationship between the second user and the first user defined by the attribute; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Generating displayable information associated with the second user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for exploring social connections in an in-memory database, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying the profile of a first user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying updates to the first user profile;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Updating the user profile based on the updates;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Identifying a particular attribute of the updated profile and executing a a database query (in an in-memory database) for the particular attribute;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Identifying a second user based on a relationship between data objects associated with the second user and the first user defined by the particular attribute; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Displaying information related to the second user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/5/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Data sources from various enterprise systems are replicated to the in-memory database before executing the query against the data element stored in the in-memory database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Exploring social connections from an in-memory database&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/XpChjTN.png&quot; width=&quot;550&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130144957&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.sap.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130144957#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=12%2F05%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6185" RevisionGUID="3b3c4672-ad11-4c11-8035-40fdac78571a" CreationDate="2014-03-04T21:19:18.977" UserId="7939" Text="Adding another answer to avoid clogging my already verbose answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I have found almost exactly this functionality at vfemail.net&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is prior art in rewriting of the email From address, and completely hiding it from the email UI/client.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.vfemail.net/faq.php#twentyone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What is the Metadata Mitigator™?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    In short, it prevents the NSA (or any other eavesdropper) from tracking your communications back to you, or profiling your communications, based on email 'envelope' information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    The long version with all the details:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Email is in plain text by default. It is also structured much like regular postal mail. The email you compose is essentially 'stuffed' into an envelope. On that envelope is written the sender and the recipient. During delivery, servers then add the 'postmark' (timestamp and sending IP), just like the post office does. That information is called 'metadata'. It can be read almost as easily as you can read the outside of a sealed envelope. Except with email, that data can be stored in logs for any amount of time, and any government agency can request that data and practically be assured they will receive it. The United States National Security Agency in 2013 has been exposed as collecting and using that data to catalog email traffic and create associations based on who is communicating with whom.&#xD;&#xA;    VFEmail's Metadata Mitigator™ automatically rewrites the 'From' address on the envelope to a unique address for each email sent - creating virtual forwarding PO Boxes - which renders the gathering and cataloging useless as your real email address is never shown. Your recipients will still see the email is from you (they have 'opened' the envelope), and they can reply to your regular address without any addiitonal steps. No changes need to be made to your email client to enable this feature either. In addition, any bounced or rejected email will still be returned to you. This feature is availabe, and automatically enabled, for all Gold and Platinum users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6188" RevisionGUID="25d0fe23-eb33-4151-8b47-3de847694d0c" CreationDate="2014-03-05T00:25:58.730" UserId="1360" Text="I can't speak to your first question, but can help with your question regarding whether the patent is still active.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent application was filed on August 17, 2000, claims priority to a provisional application filed on August 17, 1999 and issued on August 23, 2005.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US patents issuing from patent applications **filed on or after June 8, 1995** have a term of 20 years from the earliest non-provisional patent application priority date. US patents issuing from patent applications **filed prior to June 8, 1995** have a term equal to the greater of 17 years from issuance or 20 years from the earliest non-provisional patent application priority date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, the term is 20 years from the filing date of August 17, 2000 and (assuming all maintenance fees are paid) the patent will expire on August 17, 2020.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6190" RevisionGUID="452725b0-548f-4918-b453-b9926ac0d86f" CreationDate="2014-03-05T15:34:18.790" UserId="8058" Text="I am seeking to build this item and looking to sell it in the market and it looks like this patent is expired. Is that true? Can I purchase the patent for this item?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16360" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6190" RevisionGUID="452725b0-548f-4918-b453-b9926ac0d86f" CreationDate="2014-03-05T15:34:18.790" UserId="8058" Text="Expiration of whether a patent is expired or not" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16361" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6190" RevisionGUID="452725b0-548f-4918-b453-b9926ac0d86f" CreationDate="2014-03-05T15:34:18.790" UserId="8058" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6190" RevisionGUID="72b3cc48-f90a-46ca-a9cf-92028f6a3530" CreationDate="2014-03-05T15:46:41.113" UserId="8058" Comment="included patent number" Text="I am seeking to build this item and looking to sell it in the market and it looks like this patent is expired. Is that true? Can I purchase the patent for this item? The patent number is US 20050243651 A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16363" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6190" RevisionGUID="2c076e16-16d8-4bd1-a57d-73158d29fe64" CreationDate="2014-03-05T16:42:07.633" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;us20050243651&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6170" RevisionGUID="62f954a9-d0e7-4a47-92cf-a0f8686e1c4a" CreationDate="2014-03-05T17:03:39.007" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON asking friends for advice while shopping** - This application from [Turnto Network][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Displaying, to a user who is engaged in a commercial activity on an online site, information that is associated with another user of the online site, would normally be private to the other user, relates to the commercial activity of the user, and is controlled by the site! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/2/2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Users asking other users for shopping advice online&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Transaction may include **purchases of products**, **money-based transactions**, retail, wholesale, **business sales activities**, lending, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transaction information on online sites**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Exposing, to a user  who is engaged in a **commercial activity** on a **commercial online site**, information that is associated with one user of the **commercial online site**, would be private to the other user, relates to the **commercial activity** of the first user, and is controlled by the **commercial online site**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120233020 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/393,008&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Turnto Network&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/2/2008&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 3/12/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. exposing, to a user who is engaged in a commercial activity on a commercial online site, computer-stored information that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - a. is associated with another user of the online site,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - b. would otherwise be private to the other user, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - c. relates to the commercial activity of the user, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - d. is controlled by the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying, to a user who is engaged in a commercial activity on a commercial online site, a computer-stored information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - a. Associated with the another user of the online site,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - b. Private to the other user, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - c. Related to the Commercial activity of the user, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - d. Controlled by the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/2/2008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Commercial activity includes shopping for a product or service &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Information transaction on online sites&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/RNOLhZT.png&quot; width=&quot;827&quot; height=&quot;537&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120233020&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.turntonetworks.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120233020#c=0&amp;d1=01%2F02%2F2008" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6148" RevisionGUID="c0802e04-d529-4e62-87f5-3c7584413c1e" CreationDate="2014-03-05T17:03:55.507" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON exploring social connections from an in-memory database** - This application from [SAP][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying an attribute in a profile associated with a first user, executing a query including the identified attribute, and identifying a second user based on the query! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/5/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Implementing social networking based on data objects in an in-memory database&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Examples of attributes may include **contact information**, expertise, **past projects**, **current projects**, manager, supervisor etc. Data objects may include a variety of objects that store **business data**, **reference data** from **content sources**, such as **web content**, feeds, **REST services**, **business data** repositories, reports, status updates, discussions, wikis, blogs etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Identifying social networks within an organization based on business data of the organization stored in an in-memory database**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying an attribute in a profile associated with a first user, executing a query including the identified attribute against data objects stored in an in-memory database, identifying a second user from the results of query based on a relationship between data objects associated with the second user and the attribute of the first user, and displaying information of the second user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144957 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/310,913&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: SAP&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/5/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method performed with a computing system for exploring social connections in an in-memory database, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying a user profile associated with a first user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying one or more updates to one or more attributes of the user profile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Updating, in real-time, the user profile, based on the one or more updates, as the one or more updates are identified;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Identifying a particular attribute of the one or more attributes in the updated user profile that is associated with the first user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Executing a query against a data element stored in an in-memory database, the query including the particular attribute in the updated user profile;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Identifying a second user from results of the query, the second user associated with the data element based on a relationship between the second user and the first user defined by the attribute; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Generating displayable information associated with the second user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for exploring social connections in an in-memory database, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying the profile of a first user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying updates to the first user profile;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Updating the user profile based on the updates;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Identifying a particular attribute of the updated profile and executing a a database query (in an in-memory database) for the particular attribute;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Identifying a second user based on a relationship between data objects associated with the second user and the first user defined by the particular attribute; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Displaying information related to the second user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/5/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Data sources from various enterprise systems are replicated to the in-memory database before executing the query against the data element stored in the in-memory database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Exploring social connections from an in-memory database&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/XpChjTN.png&quot; width=&quot;550&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130144957&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.sap.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130144957#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=12%2F05%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6191" RevisionGUID="78aded2e-5cc4-41a7-bae0-c49f94c4e510" CreationDate="2014-03-05T17:36:04.200" UserId="3076" Text="The &quot;patent&quot; number you have cited - US2005/0243651 is *not* the number of an issued patent. It is a patent *application* publication number. As it happens, that application did end up producing an issued patent US 7,029,170. Google patents shows this in the upper right hand corner under &quot;also published as&quot; when you go to the US2005/0243651 publication. The issued did expire due to non-payment of maintenance fees on Jun 8, 2010. That information is shown by google patents also. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there is no one with rights to this expired patent, there is no one to buy rights from. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6192" RevisionGUID="c60cc576-b140-4e83-9c0e-0e1d1447ba5d" CreationDate="2014-03-05T19:44:43.857" UserId="8060" Text="This patent was owned by my Uncle, Albert Floyd Old. Which now has passed away. I was interested in who is the owner now?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16368" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6192" RevisionGUID="c60cc576-b140-4e83-9c0e-0e1d1447ba5d" CreationDate="2014-03-05T19:44:43.857" UserId="8060" Text="Can you tell me who owns this patent now?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16369" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6192" RevisionGUID="c60cc576-b140-4e83-9c0e-0e1d1447ba5d" CreationDate="2014-03-05T19:44:43.857" UserId="8060" Text="&lt;us3039165&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6193" RevisionGUID="a49f9a78-7d93-4f1e-ae0e-bd686440c4f9" CreationDate="2014-03-05T20:26:31.003" UserId="3076" Text="*No one owns it*. This patent was issued on Jun 19, 1962. It would have expired in the 1970's. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6194" RevisionGUID="786599b9-a0ac-4eed-bb24-c09bcc4430f4" CreationDate="2014-03-05T22:36:40.093" UserId="7956" Text="Have you looked into Microsoft TV, WebTV for Windows, and/or the earlier &quot;Microsoft Guide&quot; project? The dates I have for Microsoft TV and WebTV for Windows are 1998, and you're looking for something before October 1996, but the 1998 date is approximate. &quot;Microsoft Guide&quot; was earlier than that, but I don't know how public it was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I briefly wrote about these in relation to an earlier EFF request relating to podcasting, episodes, etc. in US 7,568,213, as an example of uncovering software prior art through reverse engineering of software binaries:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.softwarelitigationconsulting.com/articles/open-to-inspection-using-reverse-engineering-to-uncover-software-prior-art-part-2/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;... As an example, take a patent claim with the following limitations: media channel, predefined episodes, subscribing, downloading updates, checking available space, and deleting earlier episodes; the patent claims priority to applications filed in Nov. 2003.[16]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A search was conducted across a limited set of Microsoft products for combinations of text including the following terms: episode, channel, subscribe, update, and download. Results were found in a Windows 98 program named tvx.exe and in two modules it references, named commmstv.dll and msepg.ocx. These 1998 files refer to “Microsoft TV Services” and “WebTV for Windows”. The tvx.exe file contains embedded SQL source code for manipulating a SQL database of television data. Further searching among Microsoft products, including a 1998 Microsoft “Platform SDK” (software development kit), yielded publically-available source-code files related to a TV project from the early 1990s named “Microsoft Guide”, an EPG (Electronic Program Guide) with support for episodes, channels, subscriptions, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[16] This example was selected, more or less at random, from US Patent 7,568,213, which has been reported as a “patent for podcasting” ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16372" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6194" RevisionGUID="f145af6b-6e1b-4902-b6c3-bc6ee8677981" CreationDate="2014-03-05T22:36:40.093" UserId="7956" />
  <row Id="16373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6195" RevisionGUID="b6a47b2d-e3a7-4d1a-a488-38ea04a02a8b" CreationDate="2014-03-05T23:19:09.737" UserId="7956" Text="Someone has already mentioned Java NetBeans. I too came across this, using the following search in a software prior-art database (named CodeClaim) that I'm building:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;((instance or instantiate) w/100 object w/100 (generate or autogen or builder or ide) w/100 fields w/100 (display or gui or show or ui))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first hit was in this file:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Java\jdk1.7.0_09\lib\visualvm\profiler\modules\org-netbeans-modules-profiler-heapwalker.jar -&gt; org\netbeans\modules\profiler\heapwalk\ui\FieldsBrowserControllerUI.class&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which also contains InstancesControllerUI. So from this quick check, it sounds like the following would be promising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Netbeans Profiler Heapwalk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Copyright date in the source code is 1997-2007, and there are 2008 file dates for versions on the web, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.java2s.com/Open-Source/Java/IDE-Netbeans/profiler/org/netbeans/modules/profiler/heapwalk/ui/Catalogui.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Andrew&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6191" RevisionGUID="29503bb6-ab69-49e2-9cb9-8ef945576fd8" CreationDate="2014-03-06T00:09:08.970" UserId="1360" Comment="clarification" Text="The &quot;patent&quot; number you have cited - US2005/0243651 is *not* the number of an issued patent. It is a patent *application* publication number. As it happens, that application did end up producing an issued patent US 7,029,170. Google patents shows this in the upper right hand corner under &quot;also published as&quot; when you go to the US2005/0243651 publication. The issued patent subsequently expired due to non-payment of maintenance fees on Jun 8, 2010. That information is shown by google patents also. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there is no one with rights to this expired patent, there is no one to buy rights from. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16375" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6191" RevisionGUID="29503bb6-ab69-49e2-9cb9-8ef945576fd8" CreationDate="2014-03-06T00:09:08.970" Comment="Proposed by 1360 approved by 3076 edit id of 498" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="faa6d584-58b9-40fd-a86a-6d350ddb4112" CreationDate="2014-03-06T15:01:31.960" UserId="4279" Text="A lot of this patent feels like it has prior art in existing tools such as disassemblers and profilers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Patent text][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8516467" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16381" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="faa6d584-58b9-40fd-a86a-6d350ddb4112" CreationDate="2014-03-06T15:01:31.960" UserId="4279" Text="How much of this profiler patent lacks prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16382" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="faa6d584-58b9-40fd-a86a-6d350ddb4112" CreationDate="2014-03-06T15:01:31.960" UserId="4279" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us8516467&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6198" RevisionGUID="3d179392-106a-443c-a444-247595641d65" CreationDate="2014-03-06T15:01:31.960" UserId="4279" Text="IDA Pro seems to cover claims 2a, 2b, 4 and 5.&#xD;&#xA;The profiler in Visual studio seems to cover claim 14 and Visual Studio in general seems to cover most of claim 17 and 18." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16384" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="d2f890c7-8528-4398-bf59-a0fc657a1380" CreationDate="2014-03-06T15:46:41.167" UserId="1360" Comment="clarification" Text="How much of this profiler patent (US Patent No. 8,516,467) distinguishes over prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16385" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="d2f890c7-8528-4398-bf59-a0fc657a1380" CreationDate="2014-03-06T15:46:41.167" Comment="Proposed by 1360 approved by 4279 edit id of 499" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="0e730a68-cb14-4589-a97f-540e2417eb65" CreationDate="2014-03-06T16:11:55.420" UserId="3076" Comment="Added claim 1" Text="A lot of this patent feels like it has prior art in existing tools such as disassemblers and profilers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Patent text][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8516467&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for detecting a time complexity associated with an executable program stored in a computer memory device, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(1) automatically analyzing said stored program with a computer processor to detect the time complexity of said program based on loops in the code;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(2) automatically analyzing said stored program with said processor to detect the time complexity of said program based on a code flow and a destination of branching instructions in the program;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;automatically determining the minimum time complexity between the time complexity detected in (1) and the time complexity detected in (2) as the time complexity of said program." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16387" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="3717ee2e-5b6c-4f55-ab7d-50a92e81887d" CreationDate="2014-03-06T16:23:16.090" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;us8516467&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="835f87fc-fcad-4a66-8a96-8240041277a5" CreationDate="2014-03-06T16:40:21.343" UserId="3076" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="A lot of this patent feels like it has prior art in existing tools such as disassemblers and profilers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Patent text][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8516467&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for detecting a time complexity associated with an executable program stored in a computer memory device, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(1) automatically analyzing said stored program with a computer processor to detect the time complexity of said program based on loops in the code;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(2) automatically analyzing said stored program with said processor to detect the time complexity of said program based on a code flow and a destination of branching instructions in the program;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;automatically determining the minimum time complexity between the time complexity detected in (1) and the time complexity detected in (2) as the time complexity of said program." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6003" RevisionGUID="a3b9a47c-ca62-4adb-bdee-540d087ae3ba" CreationDate="2014-03-06T19:58:46.580" UserId="3076" Comment="typos cleaned up" Text="As with all patents, it is the claims that define what the inventor &quot;owns&quot;. In both independent claims there are elements a - h. *All* of the eight elements must be present for something to infringe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like this would have expired 17 years from issue which was Dec. of 2013." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6199" RevisionGUID="950e2685-30c7-4e2e-8c45-03f31379441e" CreationDate="2014-03-06T20:31:19.657" UserId="7956" Text="The patent application cites one reference for SIP &amp; presence (though the date provided looks odd, at any rate this is prior art already known at the time of the application):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; See, J. Rosenberg et al., “SIP Extensions for Presence,” IETF Internet Draft, dragft-rosenberg-impp-presence-00.txt (Jun. 15, 1300).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the application does not mention other pre-Sept. 2003 SIP presence documents, and these might be fruitful places to look. In particular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RFC3863 defined a standard Presence Information Data Format (PIDF). The earliest date I can find for the draft is May 2003:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-08&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also possibly relevant (and also not cited in the patent application) is a Presence Event Package for SIP, Jan. 2003, with a Presence User Agent (PUA), which manipulates presence information for a &quot;presentity&quot; (presence entity):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-simple-presence-10&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If these seem promising, the documents would of course need to be aligned with the limitations of the claim. If nothing else, perhaps these ought to have been cited in the patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6201" RevisionGUID="5d477fdc-99cc-4291-a319-30b33f4eb1a6" CreationDate="2014-03-06T22:32:18.757" UserId="8067" Text="You can't patent shopping together with friends.  Online or off.  I'm pretty sure.  If you could, my wife would be very upset." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4952" RevisionGUID="049b4174-bd0d-4238-89da-f0671d2483f1" CreationDate="2014-03-07T05:47:22.663" UserId="3076" Comment="Removed incorrect link" Text="Apple was recently granted patent 8,528,072:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, apparatus, and system for accessing at least a portion of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; device based upon an access input. An access input is received. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; access input includes information for gaining access to one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; functions of the device. A user access mode of the device is changed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from a first access mode to a second access mode based upon at least&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in part on the access input. An application is selected in the device&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in response to changing from the first access mode to the second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; access mode. At least a portion of the output of the selected&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application is provided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It reads like they are talking about having different accounts having access to different apps. Sounds like they are talking about monitoring activities on a mobile device that is already done on a desktop, or other device, which should not deem this activity patentable. (We need to expunge all these &quot;new inventions&quot; that should not be accepted just because it's on a mobile device. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that Android has a way now to manage profiles and only let certain people have access to certain kinds of apps. Even though the original patent was filed in 2010 but again desktops have had functionality for different logins/privileges long before then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe apple is trying to get to the point of where people don't have to enter a password to &quot;log in&quot; to a device. Maybe they want people to use *gestures* to &quot;log in&quot;. That doesn't make it innovative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wanted to see what anyone else thought? This patent was just granted on Tuesday so it is really new. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for changing the an operational mode of a device, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;receiving a first gesture from a user while the device is in a locked mode, wherein while in the locked mode all applications except an unlocking application are inaccessible to the user, wherein the unlocking application grants access to at least one application that was heretofore inaccessible, wherein the first gesture is associated with a first unlocked mode of the device; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;determining if the first gesture is recognized by the device;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA; changing the operational mode of the device from the locked mode to the first unlocked mode using the unlocking application in response to the first gesture only when the first gesture is recognized, wherein while in the first unlocked mode at least a first application associated with the first gesture becomes accessible; receiving a second gesture from the user while the device is in the first unlocked mode, the second gesture associated with a second unlocked mode of the device; determining if the second gesture is recognized by the device; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;and changing the operational mode of the device from the first unlocked mode to the second unlocked mode in response to the second gesture only when the second gesture is recognized, wherein while in the second unlocked mode at least a second application associated with the second gesture becomes accessible, wherein the first unlocked mode allows access to applications in a first group of applications, the second unlocked mode allows access to applications in a second group of applications, and the first group of applications and the second group of applications are mutually exclusive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6202" RevisionGUID="697082ad-e26e-4d81-a306-682cb0583ac5" CreationDate="2014-03-07T13:02:40.743" UserId="8069" Text="Here's an excerpt of an abstract for a presentation given at the O'Reilly Where 2.0 Conference on April 1st 2010. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Once shoppers have compared price and availability and selected their&#xD;&#xA;&gt; item, it is placed on hold to be picked up at a convenient retail&#xD;&#xA;&gt; location. The service can then deliver “on the way” ads based on a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; customer’s current location, and time-based coupons to motivate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; purchases. These apps are doing something no other mobile shopping app&#xD;&#xA;&gt; has done until now: they complete the triangle between media,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; advertisers and consumers in a way not possible before. And by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tracking customer actions through the buying cycle from search to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; purchase, they enhance marketers’ knowledge of customer behavior in a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; powerfully concrete way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Using Local Search and Geolocation Technology to Link Brands and Consumers][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://whereconf.com/where2010/public/schedule/detail/11049" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6204" RevisionGUID="141edf4d-a180-4d9f-a803-b29c7a273ea9" CreationDate="2014-03-07T16:28:01.253" UserId="8070" Text="I cannot understand how this patent was awarded. It's a copy of a previous US patent, 5,600,892 and the products advertised as protected by the 8272136 patent is an absolute copy of the product built on the original patent. How could the USPO overlooked such a counterfeited set of claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16402" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6204" RevisionGUID="141edf4d-a180-4d9f-a803-b29c7a273ea9" CreationDate="2014-03-07T16:28:01.253" UserId="8070" Text="patent US 8,272,136 is a copy of patent US 5600892" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16403" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6204" RevisionGUID="141edf4d-a180-4d9f-a803-b29c7a273ea9" CreationDate="2014-03-07T16:28:01.253" UserId="8070" Text="&lt;us8272136&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6205" RevisionGUID="8bc1d74a-3408-4224-83a0-70c6cc270aeb" CreationDate="2014-03-07T18:48:27.463" UserId="8071" Text="Suppose one files a provisional that describes methods A and B, then publishes a paper describing methods A and B, then files a non-provisional that claims the benefit of the provisional and describes method A only, then more than a year after publishing the paper files a continuation of the non-provisional that describes method B and makes a claim related to method B.  Does the paper count as prior art against the continuation?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16406" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6205" RevisionGUID="8bc1d74a-3408-4224-83a0-70c6cc270aeb" CreationDate="2014-03-07T18:48:27.463" UserId="8071" Text="Provisional, publication and continuation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16407" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6205" RevisionGUID="8bc1d74a-3408-4224-83a0-70c6cc270aeb" CreationDate="2014-03-07T18:48:27.463" UserId="8071" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;continuation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6206" RevisionGUID="85645a76-c74e-4ae5-a8e9-5763e0454b8c" CreationDate="2014-03-07T20:28:29.140" UserId="8073" Text="Is infringing of this design the exact copy of the design? Can a part of the design CHOICE be copied, for instance the way that the handles stack/nest? If the shape of the handles would be different, but they do nest the same as these ones, is that infringing of the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16409" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6206" RevisionGUID="85645a76-c74e-4ae5-a8e9-5763e0454b8c" CreationDate="2014-03-07T20:28:29.140" UserId="8073" Text="what exactly covers 'the ornamental design of nesting cups'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16410" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6206" RevisionGUID="85645a76-c74e-4ae5-a8e9-5763e0454b8c" CreationDate="2014-03-07T20:28:29.140" UserId="8073" Text="&lt;usd686037&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6207" RevisionGUID="6b867e19-0b89-4a0d-9f33-a03af20f8b58" CreationDate="2014-03-07T22:53:45.937" UserId="3076" Text="Yes, you can chain back through the first non-povisional to get benefit of the provisional.  But you *do* need to specify the chain of applications in the new appellation. The USPTO has a [summary of the rules for this here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/benefitclaims.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6208" RevisionGUID="ad8513f1-5330-4fe4-a4c2-327bd6f1c04b" CreationDate="2014-03-08T08:34:22.287" UserId="3076" Text="Determining the scope of a design patent is difficult. How close something needs to be in order to infringe a design patent depends on what came *before* the patent. If the patented design is very different from what came before it, it is interpreted more broadly than it would be if it was a small change from what came before. If all drinking glasses were cylindrical and you came up with the first square glass you might have coverage for a relatively wide range of square shaped glasses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6204" RevisionGUID="afd7dd23-ac9a-46f7-a62d-b6189e4ddc9a" CreationDate="2014-03-08T08:46:14.020" UserId="3076" Comment="added figures and changed tone of the question" Text="I cannot understand how this patent was awarded. It seems very similar to a previous US patent, 5,600,892 and the products advertised as protected by the 8272136 patent is very similar to the product built on the original patent. How could the USPTO not have found the '892 patent when examining the application that resulted in the '136 patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the cover figures of each.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/e03eV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/M7iza.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16415" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6204" RevisionGUID="afd7dd23-ac9a-46f7-a62d-b6189e4ddc9a" CreationDate="2014-03-08T08:46:14.020" UserId="3076" Comment="added figures and changed tone of the question" Text="patent US 8,272,136 is a copy of patent US 5,600,892" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6209" RevisionGUID="9a3172a7-da37-49cf-9369-9ec83452b6c8" CreationDate="2014-03-08T16:47:51.377" UserId="8076" Text="A similar but not identical idea was presented in the movie [Minority Report][1].&#xD;&#xA;Where facial recognition on billboards would change ads to a specific individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NEC and IBM used RFID and facial recognition to create bill boards that change to offer ads tailored to who walked by.    The [Telegraph reported][2] this on &#xD;&#xA;Aug 1, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_Report_%28film%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7920057/Minority-Report-style-advertising-billboards-to-target-consumers.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6207" RevisionGUID="9d32f4e1-611f-4503-aae4-42d57ea70a85" CreationDate="2014-03-08T19:21:13.010" UserId="3076" Comment="Typo" Text="Yes, you can chain back through the first non-povisional to get benefit of the provisional.  But you *do* need to specify the chain of applications in the new application. The USPTO has a [summary of the rules for this here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/benefitclaims.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6207" RevisionGUID="eb185671-390e-4e5a-9885-c057823262ab" CreationDate="2014-03-08T22:00:00.330" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="You can chain back through the first non-povisional to get benefit of the provisional.  But you *do* need to specify the chain of applications in the new application. The USPTO has a [summary of the rules for this here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/benefitclaims.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16420" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6204" RevisionGUID="60ac71ba-ac1e-40c9-8e7c-c8217eea4c3b" CreationDate="2014-03-08T22:01:22.070" UserId="3076" Comment="edited title" Text="The invention in patent US 8,272,136 looks essentially the same patent US 5,600,892" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16421" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6204" RevisionGUID="c427bf33-52b1-4427-929b-e023ace241e0" CreationDate="2014-03-09T00:56:21.733" UserId="3076" Comment="edited title" Text="The invention in patent US 8,272,136 looks essentially the same as patent US 5,600,892" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6211" RevisionGUID="274525af-0004-496e-b5af-16c8960727a2" CreationDate="2014-03-10T04:46:58.150" UserId="8084" Text="can anyone tell me when the 5971475 patent expires? Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16429" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6211" RevisionGUID="274525af-0004-496e-b5af-16c8960727a2" CreationDate="2014-03-10T04:46:58.150" UserId="8084" Text="When does Patent 5,971,475 expire" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16430" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6211" RevisionGUID="274525af-0004-496e-b5af-16c8960727a2" CreationDate="2014-03-10T04:46:58.150" UserId="8084" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16431" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6211" RevisionGUID="8a2e3dd9-5075-4c5e-a184-8ab2397014a5" CreationDate="2014-03-10T05:08:46.660" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;us5971475&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6213" RevisionGUID="604618af-9a3c-4ad4-a944-7947cf0d3692" CreationDate="2014-03-10T15:48:31.710" UserId="8089" Text="Foursquare existed before this patent, and that's their entire business model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do web archive links count as prior art? Here's a page describing their geotargeted advertising: http://web.archive.org/web/20100102013959/http://foursquare.com/businesses/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3916" RevisionGUID="bbda53a6-e7f4-4672-9fd7-e6e619c422c5" CreationDate="2014-03-10T16:44:14.703" UserId="-1" Comment="added information about BBS scene going back to the late 80's" Text="What about one of the episodic / serial ASCII / ANSI / art / &quot;Demo Scene&quot; newsletters that were were part of the &quot;BBS&quot; culture? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They frequently included music audio, but even Text was listed above as one of the formats in the patent. Here is a page with links to the monthly installments of ACID, I believe it included visuals and music. Dated 1995:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.acid.org/archives/archives.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a page with URLs to these files, which can be downloaded to a client device (your computer?) dated 1995.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another good index of various art packs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://artscene.textfiles.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example here is the yearly and monthly &quot;packs&quot; from Ice Art. Also included Text, Art and Music, starting in 1992. Either this page existed back then, or there would have been an index page linking to each of the packs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://artscene.textfiles.com/ice/icepacks/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More about Artpack and the &quot;Computer Art Scene&quot; if someone has some more time to do some digging:&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_art_scene#Underground_status&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Artscene_groups&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the BBS scene goes even further back - to the late 1980's. already on the Commodore 64 there were many of them, hosting amongst other things: regularly released scene-magazines (digital, not paper) and the afforementioned graphics and music compilation series and of course &quot;Demos&quot; - demonstrations of coding prowess, which often had sequels.&#xD;&#xA;here is a link to the longest running C64-BBS in history &quot;Antidote&quot; (1994 – 5 June 1999, 3 October 2003 -&gt; present)&#xD;&#xA;http://www.triad.se/antidote&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16444" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3916" RevisionGUID="bbda53a6-e7f4-4672-9fd7-e6e619c422c5" CreationDate="2014-03-10T16:44:14.703" Comment="Proposed by 95.143.93.132|8ab7c617-dc9f-4ca9-9001-4506f496b619 approved by 1767 edit id of 502" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6214" RevisionGUID="caddb19d-52fd-4724-8930-5242ff63ea16" CreationDate="2014-03-10T18:49:50.037" UserId="4028" Text="The patent issued on 10/26/99.  The patent was filed on 12/4/97, but has a priority date of 12/5/96 due to the benefit of prior filed Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/032,110.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on 2701 Patent Term&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2701.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this patent falls under the &quot;on or after 6/8/95 rule&quot; which is 20 years from the priority date.  So that would be 12/5/16.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the priority date had been prior to 6/8/95, then its expiration would have been the later of the 20 years from the priority date or 17 years from the date of issuance.  So this would be the later of 12/5/16 or 10/26/16 so would still end up being 12/5/16 in this situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;George, is there something tricky about this patent or its history?  You know this stuff much better than I so I'm sure I'm missing something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16446" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6214" RevisionGUID="27f5e983-a85d-47fb-8e1b-5fe7b0c2b4db" CreationDate="2014-03-10T18:58:35.827" UserId="4028" Comment="added info on maintenance fees" Text="The patent issued on 10/26/99.  The patent was filed on 12/4/97, but has a priority date of 12/5/96 due to the benefit of prior filed Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/032,110.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on 2701 Patent Term&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2701.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this patent falls under the &quot;on or after 6/8/95 rule&quot; which is 20 years from the priority date.  So that would be 12/5/16.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the priority date had been prior to 6/8/95, then its expiration would have been the later of the 20 years from the priority date or 17 years from the date of issuance.  So this would be the later of 12/5/16 or 10/26/16 so would still end up being 12/5/16 in this situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other reasons the patent could expire, such as not paying maintenance fees, but this patent appears to have had its maintenance fees paid in a timely manner (according to Google Patents &quot;legal events&quot; section).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;George, is there something tricky about this patent or its history?  You know this stuff much better than I so I'm sure I'm missing something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6217" RevisionGUID="0170edb7-98a3-4c4d-be4b-fc7356ad63f2" CreationDate="2014-03-11T14:43:11.750" UserId="8094" Text="I came across an article stating that the co-founder of Molo rewards has sued Google for allegedly infringing US Patent No. 7,298,271([Link to the patent][1]). On looking into the patent, it is clear that, the patent holder uses a RFID tag for reward points. Is it possible to get a patent for a scheme that uses existing technologies to satisfy one purpose ? If yes, under what category(like design) should I apply such a patent ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7298271" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16456" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6217" RevisionGUID="0170edb7-98a3-4c4d-be4b-fc7356ad63f2" CreationDate="2014-03-11T14:43:11.750" UserId="8094" Text="Can a patent be applied for use a already available techniques to be used on a specific purpose?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16457" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6217" RevisionGUID="0170edb7-98a3-4c4d-be4b-fc7356ad63f2" CreationDate="2014-03-11T14:43:11.750" UserId="8094" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16458" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6217" RevisionGUID="ffef45ae-a5e2-454b-8549-5fc2672e9c07" CreationDate="2014-03-11T15:28:21.613" UserId="8094" Comment="edited title" Text="Can a patent be applied for a scheme or product, that uses available techniques, to satisfy a specific purpose?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16459" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6217" RevisionGUID="b8f78089-b809-425b-a815-9cc03178442e" CreationDate="2014-03-11T16:11:57.513" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to patent added claim 1" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;us7298271&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6217" RevisionGUID="b8f78089-b809-425b-a815-9cc03178442e" CreationDate="2014-03-11T16:11:57.513" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to patent added claim 1" Text="I came across an article stating that the co-founder of Molo rewards has sued Google for allegedly infringing US Patent No. 7,298,271([Link to the patent][1]). On looking into the patent, it is clear that, the patent holder uses a RFID tag for reward points. Is it possible to get a patent for a scheme that uses existing technologies to satisfy one purpose ? If yes, under what category(like design) should I apply such a patent ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 of that patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of providing awards comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(a) placing one or more electronic data storage elements containing directions to an award processing center at one or more locations;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(b) providing participants in an awards program with electronic data storage element readers;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(c) reading said directions to said award processing center from said electronic data storage element with said electronic data storage element reader;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(d) utilizing said directions to access said award processing center;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(e) identifying said participant; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(f) providing an award to said participant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7298271" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6218" RevisionGUID="7d08563a-c878-4ec4-bce5-4b592a764529" CreationDate="2014-03-11T16:17:36.417" UserId="3076" Text="Most inventions use a collection of known elements put together in a unique way to achieve some functional result. Patents can be awarded for new uses of old things. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When one applies for a patent there is no need to state a &quot;category&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6221" RevisionGUID="6ab51877-b01e-4f29-9410-91efcf8eec32" CreationDate="2014-03-11T22:41:36.117" UserId="8100" Text="&quot;We claim the ornamental design for an electronic device, substantially as shown and described.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![&quot;FIG. 1 is a top perspective view of an electronic device in accordance with the present design&quot;][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![&quot;FIG. 9 is an exemplary diagram of the use of the electronic device thereof the broken lines being shown for illustrative puposes [sic] only and form no part of the claimed design.&quot;][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/YdX3n.png&#xD;&#xA; [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/LqSPN.png&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16470" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6221" RevisionGUID="6ab51877-b01e-4f29-9410-91efcf8eec32" CreationDate="2014-03-11T22:41:36.117" UserId="8100" Text="Is this patent for the aesthetic of the iPad?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16471" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6221" RevisionGUID="6ab51877-b01e-4f29-9410-91efcf8eec32" CreationDate="2014-03-11T22:41:36.117" UserId="8100" Text="&lt;usd504889&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6222" RevisionGUID="e1f2609f-fb05-4cdd-907b-cb21cc658fbc" CreationDate="2014-03-11T22:46:20.727" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6223" RevisionGUID="d58108f0-622f-4221-9653-c931e896c637" CreationDate="2014-03-11T22:46:20.727" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6224" RevisionGUID="97336b7c-8382-462f-b522-47269f5d22cd" CreationDate="2014-03-11T23:46:13.370" UserId="8101" Text="I was briefly looking at this patent and don't quite understand how it is at all feasible.  There are numerous successful companies that seem to have incorporated the technology that is being claimed here including Polyvore and Asos.  Are the claims in this patent so tight and specific that competitors have little chance of infringing? I f this is the case what is the point at filing at all? If you would be so kind as to offer any insight on this matter I would be extremely appreciative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;James" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16475" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6224" RevisionGUID="97336b7c-8382-462f-b522-47269f5d22cd" CreationDate="2014-03-11T23:46:13.370" UserId="8101" Text="It seems that there is numerous infrinign by major companies, with so much prior art how is this patent possible?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16476" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6224" RevisionGUID="97336b7c-8382-462f-b522-47269f5d22cd" CreationDate="2014-03-11T23:46:13.370" UserId="8101" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6225" RevisionGUID="318457a2-09ef-4afd-a8d0-4cffc4361511" CreationDate="2014-03-12T00:06:59.313" UserId="3076" Text="Yes it is. It is a &quot;design patent&quot; which is very different from what we normally think of a patent. &quot;Regular&quot; patents are called Utility patents. Design patents just cover the look of something, not the function. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6224" RevisionGUID="ffb05ee1-15f6-49da-a2ee-65d9f57e057a" CreationDate="2014-03-12T00:15:28.957" UserId="3076" Comment="tried to make it more on-topic" Text="I was briefly looking at this patent and don't quite understand its applicability.  There are numerous successful companies that seem to have incorporated the technology that is being claimed here including Polyvore and Asos.  Under the way the U.S. patent system works, are the claims in this patent interpreted so tightly and specifically that competitors can easily get around them? If this is the case, why would someone, in general, file a patent application that was easy to get around? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16479" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6224" RevisionGUID="ffb05ee1-15f6-49da-a2ee-65d9f57e057a" CreationDate="2014-03-12T00:15:28.957" UserId="3076" Comment="tried to make it more on-topic" Text="It seems this is being used by major companies. How broadly or narrowly are patents interpreted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6222" RevisionGUID="913446de-820e-44db-a25e-a8d705c51a43" CreationDate="2014-03-12T04:15:00.983" UserId="8100" Comment="created description of patent including its claim, assignee, and inventors." Text="Patent claim: &quot;We claim the ornamental design for an electronic device, substantially as shown and described.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assignee: Apple Computer, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inventors: Bartley K. Andre, Daniel J. Coster, Daniele De Iuliis, Richard P. Howarth, Jonathan P. Ive, Steve Jobs, Shin Nishibori, Duncan Robert Kerr, Matthew Dean Rohrbach, Douglas B. Satzger, Calvin Q. Seid, Christopher J. Stringer, Eugene Anthony Whang, and Rico Zörkendörfer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16486" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6222" RevisionGUID="913446de-820e-44db-a25e-a8d705c51a43" CreationDate="2014-03-12T04:15:00.983" Comment="Proposed by 8100 approved by 1767 edit id of 504" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6223" RevisionGUID="91de6c27-e7eb-48ec-91f7-34f0414128de" CreationDate="2014-03-12T04:15:05.250" UserId="8100" Comment="created description of patent including its claim, assignee, and inventors." Text="Patent claim: We claim the ornamental design for an electronic device, substantially as shown and described." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16488" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6223" RevisionGUID="91de6c27-e7eb-48ec-91f7-34f0414128de" CreationDate="2014-03-12T04:15:05.250" Comment="Proposed by 8100 approved by 1767 edit id of 503" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6229" RevisionGUID="32ccfb72-42b1-4bea-a26a-5ea7b1002478" CreationDate="2014-03-12T16:59:58.890" UserId="4454" Text="KDE 3.0 included UI tab elements that could be placed wherever you liked for whatever purpose (including tabbed toolbars).  You could also select whether or not you wanted to display text, icons, or text+icons.   99% of the time applications put these tabs on the left or right of the page but I don't think that matters from the standpoint of the patent claims (it doesn't say &quot;horizontal tabs&quot;).  I believe this encompasses every claim of the patent.  Here's a screenshot from the [KDE 3.1 New Feature Guide][1] (published January 28th, 2003) demonstrating a mix of icon and text tabbed toolbars (in the Quanta application):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, if you navigate that tree on the left you'll end up adding or removing icons from the view leaving just text behind (which I believe satisfies the dynamic sizing/text/icons aspect of the patent but maybe not).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's another screenshot demonstrating tabbed toolbars on the left (in the Konqueror application):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To meet with the claim regarding hiding text but preserving icons, if you were to resize the window so that some of the icons would not fit an icon would appear which you could click to provide a drop-down menu where you could select those toolbar items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an alternative method of the dynamic resizing (preserving some icons while showing text+icons in other areas), here's a screenshot of Konqueror demonstrating a tab on the left (the active one) showing text while the others show only icons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That &quot;show the text on the active sidebar tab&quot; feature was introduced in KDE 3.2 which was in development at the end of 2003 and [released in 2004][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.kde.org/info/3.1/feature_guide_flat.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/e58cX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/8g6pY.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/kA3eI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.kde.org/screenshots/kde320shots.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6232" RevisionGUID="de770bd3-27e8-4af8-a94d-b91064fefe50" CreationDate="2014-03-13T06:58:18.547" UserId="8114" Text="The patent as described at http://www.google.com/patents/US20130318182 seems to describe a service already offered by Foursquare, and probably by Facebook and Google. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It claims to cover a server sending messages to mobile devices based on their geo-location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So are FS/FB/etc. in breach? What's going on here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16513" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6232" RevisionGUID="de770bd3-27e8-4af8-a94d-b91064fefe50" CreationDate="2014-03-13T06:58:18.547" UserId="8114" Text="Don't existing service providers already do this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16514" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6232" RevisionGUID="de770bd3-27e8-4af8-a94d-b91064fefe50" CreationDate="2014-03-13T06:58:18.547" UserId="8114" Text="&lt;us20130318182&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6233" RevisionGUID="248f1783-a72e-4524-951d-97216cfbbd35" CreationDate="2014-03-13T10:03:01.087" UserId="8115" Text="Hi can i ask if this patent is granted? I see a publication date, but not sure if it was granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am thinking for a flipping metaphor similar to Flipboard&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/xySch.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16516" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6233" RevisionGUID="248f1783-a72e-4524-951d-97216cfbbd35" CreationDate="2014-03-13T10:03:01.087" UserId="8115" Text="Is Patent 13/284,678 Granted? Patent granted for Flipboard flipping?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16517" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6233" RevisionGUID="248f1783-a72e-4524-951d-97216cfbbd35" CreationDate="2014-03-13T10:03:01.087" UserId="8115" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6234" RevisionGUID="d4da0589-3998-4cc2-98d1-7604f41baa94" CreationDate="2014-03-13T12:20:28.837" UserId="8109" Text="In patent no, 7,206,756, I am unable to get what is the new thing in Joshua's method of commercial transaction over Internet as compared to prior arts. I need to prepare a claim chart for claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My objective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;identify and list five infringement &#xD;&#xA;targets that map onto the subject matter disclosed in Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this is the first time I making claim chart. Can someone help?&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.co.in/patents/US7206756" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16519" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6234" RevisionGUID="d4da0589-3998-4cc2-98d1-7604f41baa94" CreationDate="2014-03-13T12:20:28.837" UserId="8109" Text="claim chart for patent no 7,206,756" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16520" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6234" RevisionGUID="d4da0589-3998-4cc2-98d1-7604f41baa94" CreationDate="2014-03-13T12:20:28.837" UserId="8109" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6234" RevisionGUID="6a14f266-17b3-4e24-93f0-1d15b225ca89" CreationDate="2014-03-13T13:11:40.863" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="In [patent no. 7,206,756][1], I am unable to get what is the new thing in Joshua's method of commercial transaction over Internet as compared to prior arts. I need to prepare a claim chart for claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My objective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;identify and list five infringement &#xD;&#xA;targets that map onto the subject matter disclosed in Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this is the first time I making claim chart. Can someone help?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.co.in/patents/US7206756" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16522" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6234" RevisionGUID="6a14f266-17b3-4e24-93f0-1d15b225ca89" CreationDate="2014-03-13T13:11:40.863" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;us7206756&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6235" RevisionGUID="821784ef-639b-4106-9011-d987535bdb61" CreationDate="2014-03-13T17:07:46.480" UserId="526" Text="This application was not granted and is still pending. Additionally, the Patent Office has not made any determinations yet as to whether the invention is new and not obvious. The application has been waiting for examination for a few years now (since 2011), so it should be reviewed by the Patent Office in (relatively) short order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find more details at [http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair][1] by completing the CAPTCHA and entering in the application number (13/284678). The &quot;Transaction History&quot; and &quot;Image File Wrapper&quot; tabs contain the history and documents, respectively, of the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16527" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6233" RevisionGUID="a068581a-1347-434c-8fbf-a15f697bcacf" CreationDate="2014-03-13T17:20:13.567" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag for application." Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;us20130111395&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6224" RevisionGUID="471227cb-faf0-4fdd-9bba-7f571dcb3064" CreationDate="2014-03-13T19:21:14.833" UserId="8101" Comment="added 470 characters in body" Text="I was briefly looking at the patent 8438081 (Methods and Systems for Online Shopping) and don't quite understand its applicability.  There are numerous successful companies that seem to have incorporated the technology (social network outfit sharing) that is being claimed here including Polyvore and Asos (two extremely successful companies).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asos&#xD;&#xA;![Outfit creation][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Polyvore&#xD;&#xA;![outfit creation][2]&#xD;&#xA;Under the way the U.S. patent system works, are the claims in this patent interpreted so tightly and specifically that competitors can easily get around them? If this is the case, why would someone, in general, file a patent application that was easy to get around? I am an undergraduate computer science student at the University of Toronto doing a research project on software patents.  Any prior art or explanation for this patent would be much appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/MLRZ1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/rJHGE.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16530" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6224" RevisionGUID="ed3c69c7-00ad-4327-9ade-90f8d418dd5e" CreationDate="2014-03-13T20:14:11.197" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag for patent number added claim 1" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us8438081&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6224" RevisionGUID="ed3c69c7-00ad-4327-9ade-90f8d418dd5e" CreationDate="2014-03-13T20:14:11.197" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag for patent number added claim 1" Text="I was briefly looking at the patent 8438081 (Methods and Systems for Online Shopping) and don't quite understand its applicability.  There are numerous successful companies that seem to have incorporated the technology (social network outfit sharing) that is being claimed here including Polyvore and Asos (two extremely successful companies).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asos&#xD;&#xA;![Outfit creation][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Polyvore&#xD;&#xA;![outfit creation][2]&#xD;&#xA;Under the way the U.S. patent system works, are the claims in this patent interpreted so tightly and specifically that competitors can easily get around them? If this is the case, why would someone, in general, file a patent application that was easy to get around? I am an undergraduate computer science student at the University of Toronto doing a research project on software patents.  Any prior art or explanation for this patent would be much appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/MLRZ1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/rJHGE.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for managing an outfit over a network comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;providing, over the network, a navigation of an electronic media source while simultaneously &lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;providing, over the network, a virtual closet widget representative of outfit data for display on at least one device;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;providing an activation component within the virtual closet widget to configure a panel for &lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;providing a selectable catalog of items that are configured to be added into the outfit data;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;in response to adding an item, providing a visual indication of the item on the virtual closet widget, wherein the item comprises at least one unset attribute for setting through the virtual closet; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;wherein adding the item comprises receiving network data comprising a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) representative of the item and a configuration of the item within the outfit, wherein the URI is received from an electronic media source other than an electronic media source displaying the virtual closet widget, and wherein the URI is provided in the electronic media source as a link attached to a multimedia item representative of the item or outfit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6237" RevisionGUID="f377bd8c-f977-42e3-b5ef-a7229fc16f7f" CreationDate="2014-03-13T20:26:05.480" UserId="3076" Text="I have added the wording of claim 1 to the question. In order to be directly infringing a patent someone, without the patentee's permission, needs to do *all* of the steps listed in at least one of the claims - assuming it is a method claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be that these companies do not do all of these steps, or that one or both has licensed the patent from the patentee. If you look at this patent in google patents you will see the current owner is a company called Retail Royalty. They have several patents in this area. You will also see a list of dozens of things (patents, patent applications &amp; articles) the applicant and the USPTO acknowledge as being in the general area and happening before this application was filed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6238" RevisionGUID="04cff0a0-c83c-489a-84fd-b7576a7d0a07" CreationDate="2014-03-13T20:58:06.967" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON implementing a CAPTCHA test based on an advertisement** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Providing a CAPTCHA test which includes an advertisement and a question related to the advertisement and determining a reward for the user based on the response. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 3/23/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - CAPTCHA tests which include questions on advertisements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Questions are selected based on **demographic information** associated with a user or a **random number**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining rewards based on CAPTCHA test**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving a request to access content from a user, providing a **CAPTCHA test** which includes an advertisement and a question related to the advertisement based on the **user response**, receiving a response to the question appearing in the provided **CAPTCHA test**, and determining a reward for the user based on the response and the **reward level** associated with the provided CAPTCHA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120246008 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/070,065&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 3/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 3/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for implementing CAPTCHA tests, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, using at least one computing device, a request to access content from a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Providing, using the at least one computing device, a CAPTCHA test to the user in response to the request, the CAPTCHA test comprising an advertisement and a question related to the advertisement, wherein the providing comprises:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2a. determining a demographic to which the user belongs, wherein the demographic is a measure of a level of potential familiarity with subject matter of the CAPTCHA test,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2b. determining a current affiliation level of the user, wherein an affiliation level comprises a measure of a level of access to the content allowed for the user,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2c. selecting a random number,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2d. determining whether the random number is even or odd,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2e. if the random number is even, fetching all CAPTCHA tests having an associated reward level that matches a next affiliation level as compared to the current affiliation level, remove therefrom any CAPTCHA tests not matching the demographic to yield a first remaining set of CAPTCHA tests, and providing a CAPTCHA test having a lowest impression count of the first remaining set of CAPTCHA tests, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2f. if the random number is odd, fetching all CAPTCHA tests having an associated reward level that matches the current affiliation level, remove therefrom all CAPTCHA tests matching the demographic to yield a second remaining set of CAPTCHA tests, and providing a CAPTCHA test having a lowest impression count of the second remaining set of CAPTCHA tests;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving, using the at least one computing device, a response to the question appearing in the provided CAPTCHA test;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining a reward for the user based on the response and the reward level&#xD;&#xA; associated with the provided CAPTCHA.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for implementing CAPTCHA tests, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a request from a user to access content;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Providing a CAPTCHA test to the user in response to the request, the CAPTCHA test includes an advertisement and a question related to the advertisement, the providing a CAPTCHA test comprises:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2a. Determining a demographic to which the user belongs,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2b. Determining a current affiliation level of the user,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2c. Selecting a random number,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2d. Determining whether the random number is even or odd,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2e. If the random number is even, fetching all CAPTCHA tests having an associated reward level that matches a next affiliation level as compared to the current affiliation level, remove therefrom any CAPTCHA tests not matching the demographic to yield a first remaining set of CAPTCHA tests, and providing a CAPTCHA test having a lowest impression count of the first remaining set of CAPTCHA tests, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2f. If the random number is odd, fetching all CAPTCHA tests having an associated reward level that matches the current affiliation level, remove therefrom all CAPTCHA tests matching the demographic to yield a second remaining set of CAPTCHA tests, and providing a CAPTCHA test having a lowest impression count of the second remaining set of CAPTCHA tests;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving a response to the question appearing in the provided CAPTCHA test;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining a reward for the user based on the response and the reward level&#xD;&#xA; associated with the provided CAPTCHA.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 3/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Granting a level of access to the content for the user based on an elapsed time for the user to input the response&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Offering rewards based on CAPTCHA test related to advertisements&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/PTBRIIb.png&quot; width=&quot;950&quot; height=&quot;539&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Offering rewards based on CAPTCHA test related to advertisements&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/lwIj55Z.png&quot; width=&quot;950&quot; height=&quot;539&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120246008&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com/us/en/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120246008#c=0&amp;d1=03%2F23%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16534" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6238" RevisionGUID="04cff0a0-c83c-489a-84fd-b7576a7d0a07" CreationDate="2014-03-13T20:58:06.967" UserId="1767" Text="Online Advertisement - CAPTCHA test including an advertisement (IBM) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16535" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6238" RevisionGUID="04cff0a0-c83c-489a-84fd-b7576a7d0a07" CreationDate="2014-03-13T20:58:06.967" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;ibm&gt;&lt;online-advertising&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6237" RevisionGUID="6b8cf04f-b4df-4f2e-b690-69a4893d13ae" CreationDate="2014-03-13T20:58:08.530" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 40 characters in body" Text="I have added the wording of claim 1 to the question. In order to be directly infringing a patent someone, without the patentee's permission, needs to do *all* of the steps listed in at least one of the claims - assuming it is a method claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be that these companies do not do all of these steps, or that one or both has licensed the patent from the patentee. If you look at this patent in google patents you will see the current owner is a company called Retail Royalty. You will also see a list of dozens of things (patents, patent applications &amp; articles) the applicant and the USPTO acknowledge as being in the general area and happening before this application was filed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6234" RevisionGUID="61e464e6-baed-45a1-a773-4df245b8c477" CreationDate="2014-03-13T21:00:53.273" UserId="3076" Comment="added claim 1" Text="In [patent no. 7,206,756][1], I am unable to get what is the new thing in Joshua's method of commercial transaction over Internet as compared to prior arts. I need to prepare a claim chart for claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My objective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;identify and list five infringement &#xD;&#xA;targets that map onto the subject matter disclosed in Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this is the first time I making claim chart. Can someone help?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.co.in/patents/US7206756&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, employing a browser in data communication over a network with a server, for determining a price of a product, said method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;providing information concerning said product for display in a browser window, said information including a first offered price of said product;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;receiving information from said browser indicating an agreement by a user of the browser of said first offered price for said product;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;storing product related information including said first offered price, wherein said product is configured with multiple features, said stored product related information includes said features of said product and said stored product related information is associated with an identification code corresponding to said user of the browser;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;receiving a purchase request associated with said identification code, wherein the purchase request indicates an agreement to purchase said product for said first offered price;&#xD;&#xA;prior to responding to said purchase request, determining if an event has occurred prior to receiving said purchase request to cause modification of the first offered price, wherein the event that caused modification of the first offered price is unrelated to any data received from said user subsequent to storing said product related information; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;changing said first offered price of said product to a second offered price of said product in response to said event that caused modification of the first offered price." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6239" RevisionGUID="3ae9adf0-95c1-4547-8c28-d202a376e6da" CreationDate="2014-03-13T21:05:22.977" UserId="3076" Text="A claim chart is a table with two columns and a row for each element of the claim + one row at the top for the preamble. The preamble and claim elements go top to bottom in the boxes on the left. On the right, opposite each of those boxes, you briefly state what in the allegedly infringing system meets that particular claim element. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16539" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6238" RevisionGUID="fc03cb3c-808a-42be-83e5-9c82a14fe10c" CreationDate="2014-03-13T21:10:13.153" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;ibm&gt;&lt;online-advertising&gt;&lt;us20120246008&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6240" RevisionGUID="fe96dbba-92ac-4c17-a76d-e0598815cfa8" CreationDate="2014-03-13T22:19:06.063" UserId="5749" Text="The idea of advertisements as CAPTCHAs is not new. For example, Solve Media [filed a patent for this in 2010](https://www.google.com/patents/WO2011053967A1?cl=en&amp;dq=solve+media&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=Zy0iU7_4IKmR0QHLoIHICA&amp;ved=0CD4Q6AEwAQ). However, I am not sure whether they have the additional complexity of customizing the ads for each user and using ads to give rewards, but given that Solve Media existed a long time before the IBM patent, that seems pretty obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Screenshots of their clients' advertisements](http://solvemedia.com/client-showcase)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Solve Media on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solve_Media)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6241" RevisionGUID="8baab546-b7b0-4781-a98a-584e0f9a9b60" CreationDate="2014-03-13T22:28:58.557" UserId="8121" Text="So, you've asked essentially 2 different questions, (1) what's the inventive aspect to the '756 and (2) how to create a claim chart against 5 products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the first question, it may be helpful to read the examiner's reason for allowance in the file history wrapper.  He wrote about 8 pages on the topic on Dec 6, 2006.  It's available in Public Pair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the second question, google the phrase &quot;patent claim chart generator&quot; for online solutions.  Otherwise, build a 2-column table where the first column contains the claim elements and the second column contains that element in a product.  There's a real art involved here, so if it's your first stab, you may want to learn from someone who's done them before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you know this patent was litigated in EdTX, Right?  See Versata Software, Inc. et al v. Internet Brands, Inc. f/k/a CarsDirect.com, 2:08-CV-313-TJW.  Looks like this case is being appealed as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;May be an exercise in futility.  Good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6242" RevisionGUID="7c4fa10c-8a1a-4756-89ca-7d10cbc46397" CreationDate="2014-03-13T23:21:41.227" UserId="1767" Text="Following up on George's answer above, this is the basic cartoon idea of a Claim Chart. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, each element of the claim is underlined and the analogous element of the product is also underlined for emphasis.  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;A f&amp;#x332;u&amp;#x332;z&amp;#x332;z&amp;#x332;y&amp;#x332; &amp;#x332;s&amp;#x332;t&amp;#x332;r&amp;#x332;u&amp;#x332;c&amp;#x332;t&amp;#x332;u&amp;#x332;r&amp;#x332;e&amp;#x332;  that fetches a ball, comprising:&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Shady Mills Puppy Farm operates a dog kennel website through which it sells  s&amp;#x332;h&amp;#x332;a&amp;#x332;g&amp;#x332;g&amp;#x332;y&amp;#x332; &amp;#x332;d&amp;#x332;o&amp;#x332;g&amp;#x332;s&amp;#x332; that fetch balls.  The f&amp;#x332;u&amp;#x332;z&amp;#x332;z&amp;#x332;y&amp;#x332; &amp;#x332;s&amp;#x332;t&amp;#x332;r&amp;#x332;u&amp;#x332;c&amp;#x332;t&amp;#x332;u&amp;#x332;r&amp;#x332;e&amp;#x332; depicted below is one of these Shady Mills dogs&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/wwPzi.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6243" RevisionGUID="d5dde42a-fa4f-43e4-a5a2-78622d04130d" CreationDate="2014-03-13T23:23:12.063" UserId="3076" Text="What format is used in laying out a patent's claim against a product's features to do a good side-by-side comparison?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this is a [link][1] to the spreadsheet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ebookbrowsee.net/apple-7-479-949-palm-pre-infringement-claim-chart-xlsx-d488599852" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16544" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6243" RevisionGUID="d5dde42a-fa4f-43e4-a5a2-78622d04130d" CreationDate="2014-03-13T23:23:12.063" UserId="3076" Text="When comparing a product to a patent's claim what visual aide is used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16545" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6243" RevisionGUID="d5dde42a-fa4f-43e4-a5a2-78622d04130d" CreationDate="2014-03-13T23:23:12.063" UserId="3076" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6244" RevisionGUID="ac3b02d4-b536-45f1-be4a-401d39aef804" CreationDate="2014-03-13T23:23:12.063" UserId="3076" Text="Usually a table called a &quot;claim chart&quot; is created. It is literally side-by-side, element-by-element. I am including an example:&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/lyaAS.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16547" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6243" RevisionGUID="a9663472-47e0-4246-96c0-fbf9f943ea6d" CreationDate="2014-03-13T23:36:48.523" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;claim-chart&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6244" RevisionGUID="4dde4f30-2e0e-4abd-8d6c-4540e1516d85" CreationDate="2014-03-13T23:41:29.803" UserId="3076" Comment="added link to spreadsheet" Text="Usually a table called a &quot;claim chart&quot; is created. It is literally side-by-side, element-by-element. I am including an example:&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[a link to the spreadsheet.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/lyaAS.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ebookbrowsee.net/apple-7-479-949-palm-pre-infringement-claim-chart-xlsx-d488599852" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6243" RevisionGUID="9e63e35f-c509-41a5-ba34-9bbf623a6d95" CreationDate="2014-03-13T23:42:34.183" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 143 characters in body" Text="What format is used in laying out a patent's claim against a product's features to do a good side-by-side comparison?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6247" RevisionGUID="340b1423-58f8-4623-974d-af42c78bf531" CreationDate="2014-03-15T17:34:55.633" UserId="8131" Text="&gt;I am a healthcare professional (RMT) in Ontario with many patients who come to me concerned with their cellulite. I also educate the public about cellulite and provide treatments geared specifically treating cellulite and also provide detailed personalized home-care instructions. In practice my daily work involves manipulating and augmenting the fascia/connective tissue/E CM Extra Cellular Matrix, scar tissue, muscle and joints. I do so to assist patients to heal better and faster from minor to severe muscoloskeletal injuries such as RSI repetitive strains injuries and MVA motor vehicle accident injuries.&#xD;&#xA;I also include movement therapies and exercises to reset kinetic movement patterns and posture alignments.&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I see, palpate and understand how cellulite accumulates and adheres in the tissues. I understand my patients concerns and want to help them much more.&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In practice my clinical results (approx.3x wk./2-3 wk) present a small percentage in terms of overall desired results for treating cellulite compared to a 95% percent track record for patients (compliant) with injuries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I understand how DMSO works in the process of cellulite elimination. The body renders the toxic adipocytes to apoptosis after being exposed to DMSO. Macrophages eat up toxic dead fat cells.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When will this patent be available for clinical use and application by healthcare professionals?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16561" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6247" RevisionGUID="340b1423-58f8-4623-974d-af42c78bf531" CreationDate="2014-03-15T17:34:55.633" UserId="8131" Text="When will this patent be availabe for clinical application by healthcare professionals?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16562" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6247" RevisionGUID="340b1423-58f8-4623-974d-af42c78bf531" CreationDate="2014-03-15T17:34:55.633" UserId="8131" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4770" RevisionGUID="79245bdf-b0b9-40d2-b197-2da0f6a19f6b" CreationDate="2014-03-17T21:47:35.043" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" is the Examiner aware of the prior art on diffraction range finders in the publication list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;http://www.3dewitt.com/2/patent02.html&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taken from the [Prior Art Request Template](http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/a/146/1767).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If another user (or the original poster) could complete for US20120281086 it would be very helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**HELP SAVE [INDUSTRY THREATENED BY OVERLY BROAD APPLICATION IN QUESTION]** - This application from [Assignee name] seeks to patent [quick, sensational description of invention described by application]! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent application before it becomes a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before {Priority Date}** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - [Description of stated invention, in plain English *note: include more than 1 bullet if multi-step process is essential to invention*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question -- one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Include a reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO {extra detail of stated invention that appears tangentially essential to idea}. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: **Distance measurement apparatus and distance measurement method**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [A multi-sentence description of the invention described in the patent application translated into plain old English. Feel free to borrow liberally from the application's Abstract.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US US20120281086][5]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Nov 9, 2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** through [Final Challenge Date *note: this date is typically as soon as six months after the publication date, but sometimes earlier and sometimes later. See [here][2] for more info.]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 14 requires each and every aspect of the following claim wording.**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA; (1-13 were canceled before the application was published, there are two other independent claims.)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A distance measurement apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a) an imaging device which captures an image;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b) a diffractive optical device which has a curved surface and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; diffracts a subject image; &lt;p&gt; c) an optical system which forms, on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said imaging device, the image from the subject image diffracted by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said diffractive optical device; and &lt;p&gt; d) a distance measurement&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unit configured to measure a distance to a subject using the image&#xD;&#xA;&gt; captured by said imaging device, wherein said distance measurement&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unit is configured to measure the distance to the subject based on an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interval between diffraction figures of the subject image which are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; created by said diffractive optical device, the interval being on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; image captured by said imaging device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. [First device  of claim 1 translated into plain old English]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. [Second step of claim 1 translated into plain old English]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. [Third step of claim 1 translated into plain old English]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to [Priority Date].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and including [extra detail provided in Extra Credit section].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Image *note: this is where you may choose to upload a diagram taken from the patent application. We recommend uploading an image that is eye-catching, and quickly communicates the essence of the invention described in the patent application.*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ](http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request) on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/posts/146/edit&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120281086&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120281086&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6238" RevisionGUID="d3cbca26-a6c9-450f-a731-7a3b0fa0f714" CreationDate="2014-03-17T21:47:48.717" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON implementing a CAPTCHA test based on an advertisement** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Providing a CAPTCHA test which includes an advertisement and a question related to the advertisement and determining a reward for the user based on the response. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 3/23/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - CAPTCHA tests which include questions on advertisements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Questions are selected based on **demographic information** associated with a user or a **random number**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining rewards based on CAPTCHA test**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving a request to access content from a user, providing a **CAPTCHA test** which includes an advertisement and a question related to the advertisement based on the **user response**, receiving a response to the question appearing in the provided **CAPTCHA test**, and determining a reward for the user based on the response and the **reward level** associated with the provided CAPTCHA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120246008 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/070,065&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 3/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 3/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for implementing CAPTCHA tests, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, using at least one computing device, a request to access content from a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Providing, using the at least one computing device, a CAPTCHA test to the user in response to the request, the CAPTCHA test comprising an advertisement and a question related to the advertisement, wherein the providing comprises:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2a. determining a demographic to which the user belongs, wherein the demographic is a measure of a level of potential familiarity with subject matter of the CAPTCHA test,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2b. determining a current affiliation level of the user, wherein an affiliation level comprises a measure of a level of access to the content allowed for the user,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2c. selecting a random number,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2d. determining whether the random number is even or odd,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2e. if the random number is even, fetching all CAPTCHA tests having an associated reward level that matches a next affiliation level as compared to the current affiliation level, remove therefrom any CAPTCHA tests not matching the demographic to yield a first remaining set of CAPTCHA tests, and providing a CAPTCHA test having a lowest impression count of the first remaining set of CAPTCHA tests, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2f. if the random number is odd, fetching all CAPTCHA tests having an associated reward level that matches the current affiliation level, remove therefrom all CAPTCHA tests matching the demographic to yield a second remaining set of CAPTCHA tests, and providing a CAPTCHA test having a lowest impression count of the second remaining set of CAPTCHA tests;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving, using the at least one computing device, a response to the question appearing in the provided CAPTCHA test;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining a reward for the user based on the response and the reward level&#xD;&#xA; associated with the provided CAPTCHA.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for implementing CAPTCHA tests, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a request from a user to access content;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Providing a CAPTCHA test to the user in response to the request, the CAPTCHA test includes an advertisement and a question related to the advertisement, the providing a CAPTCHA test comprises:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2a. Determining a demographic to which the user belongs,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2b. Determining a current affiliation level of the user,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2c. Selecting a random number,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2d. Determining whether the random number is even or odd,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2e. If the random number is even, fetching all CAPTCHA tests having an associated reward level that matches a next affiliation level as compared to the current affiliation level, remove therefrom any CAPTCHA tests not matching the demographic to yield a first remaining set of CAPTCHA tests, and providing a CAPTCHA test having a lowest impression count of the first remaining set of CAPTCHA tests, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2f. If the random number is odd, fetching all CAPTCHA tests having an associated reward level that matches the current affiliation level, remove therefrom all CAPTCHA tests matching the demographic to yield a second remaining set of CAPTCHA tests, and providing a CAPTCHA test having a lowest impression count of the second remaining set of CAPTCHA tests;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving a response to the question appearing in the provided CAPTCHA test;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining a reward for the user based on the response and the reward level&#xD;&#xA; associated with the provided CAPTCHA.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 3/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Granting a level of access to the content for the user based on an elapsed time for the user to input the response&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Offering rewards based on CAPTCHA test related to advertisements&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/PTBRIIb.png&quot; width=&quot;950&quot; height=&quot;539&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Offering rewards based on CAPTCHA test related to advertisements&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/lwIj55Z.png&quot; width=&quot;950&quot; height=&quot;539&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120246008&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com/us/en/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120246008#c=0&amp;d1=03%2F23%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6252" RevisionGUID="783fb76f-eb8a-427e-a5cc-6557c846b55b" CreationDate="2014-03-17T21:56:56.187" UserId="1767" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON employing a forwarding service to track online recommendations** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Tracking online product recommendations by modifying a URL when user forwards recommendation to another user and tracking a recommendation flow from the recommending user to the consuming user! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/18/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Tracking of a recommendation to a consuming user by replacing original URL with a trackable URL&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Recommendation may be of product, service, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Forwarding services for tracking online recommendations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving a **recommended resource identifier** from a  **recommending user**, generating a **first trackable recommendation identifier** based on the **recommended resource identifier** that is different from the **recommended resource identifier**, sending the **first trackable recommendation identifier** to the **recommending user**, receiving the **first trackable recommendation identifier** from a **first consuming user** other than the **recommending user**, generating a **second trackable recommendation identifier** based on the **first trackable recommendation identifier** that is different from the **first trackable recommendation identifier**, receiving the **second trackable recommendation identifier** from a **second consuming user** other than the **first consuming user** and the **recommending user**, and tracking a recommendation flow from the **recommending user** to the **first consuming user** and from the **first consuming user** to the **second consuming user** by looking up the **second trackable recommendation identifier**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110313833 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/818,170&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/18/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/19/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One or more computer-readable storage media encoding computer-executable instructions for executing a computing process on a computer system, the computing process comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving, from a recommending user, a recommended resource identifier that identifies a network resource;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. generating a first trackable recommendation identifier based on the recommended resource identifier, wherein the first trackable recommendation identifier is different than the recommended resource identifier and is mapped to the network resource and the recommending user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. sending the first trackable recommendation identifier to the recommending user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. receiving the first trackable recommendation identifier from a first consuming user other than the recommending user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. generating a second trackable recommendation identifier based on the first trackable recommendation identifier, wherein the second trackable recommendation identifier is different than the first trackable recommendation identifier and is mapped to the network resource, the first consuming user, and the recommending user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. receiving the second trackable recommendation identifier from a second consuming user other than the first consuming user and the recommending user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. tracking a recommendation flow from the recommending user to the first consuming user and from the first consuming user to the second consuming user by looking up the second trackable recommendation identifier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computing method comprises:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a recommended resource identifier from a  recommending user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Generating a first trackable recommendation identifier based on the recommended resource identifier that is different from the recommended resource identifier,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - 2a. The first trackable recommendation identifier is mapped to the network resource and the recommending user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Sending the first trackable recommendation identifier to the recommending user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving the first trackable recommendation identifier from a first consuming user other than the recommending user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Generating a second trackable recommendation identifier based on the first trackable recommendation identifier that is different than the first trackable recommendation identifier,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - 5a. The second trackable recommendation identifier is mapped to the network resource, the first consuming user, and the recommending user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Receiving the second trackable recommendation identifier from a second consuming user other than the first consuming user and the recommending user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Tracking a recommendation flow from the recommending user to the first consuming user and from the first consuming user to the second consuming user by looking up the second trackable recommendation identifier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/18/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming the idea of crediting the recommending user for sending recommendations which are clicked by another user. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Online recommendations tracking through forwarding service&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/odtGNfA.png&quot; width=&quot;622&quot; height=&quot;610&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110313833&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/default.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20110313833#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=06%2F18%2F2010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16586" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6252" RevisionGUID="783fb76f-eb8a-427e-a5cc-6557c846b55b" CreationDate="2014-03-17T21:56:56.187" UserId="1767" Text="Social Networking - Tracking product recommendations through a URL forwarding service (Microsoft) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16587" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6252" RevisionGUID="783fb76f-eb8a-427e-a5cc-6557c846b55b" CreationDate="2014-03-17T21:56:56.187" UserId="1767" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;social-networking&gt;&lt;us20110313833&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6253" RevisionGUID="f75189a9-b7ba-44db-9712-0717679c13f6" CreationDate="2014-03-17T23:23:53.170" UserId="768" Text="Twitter and other social networking services have been replacing regular URLs with trackable URLs (or, more broadly and obviously, using ANY method of tracking user clicks on a site to see who is recommending what) for many years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is just the first article I was able to find: http://techcrunch.com/2009/08/25/twitter-wants-to-track-your-clicks/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not only is TechCrunch the premier news source for Silicon Valley programmer types, but in 2009 Twitter was already the Social Network to Beat. This style of click tracking -- for recommendations and other huge swaths of consumer behavior -- has been obvious for many years if not decades. I'm sure Amazon has been finding clever ways of tracking recommendations via URLs since its inception in 1994.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Article about Amazon's appetite for recommendation tracking: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2005/03/67034 -- if Amazon didn't use URL replacement for this, it's only because they didn't have to or found a better way. Frankly I'm surprised that URL forwarders are still a thing; it's much more elegant to use Javascript." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6254" RevisionGUID="c8e52c5a-daf7-4fa8-9258-97a748964498" CreationDate="2014-03-17T23:49:47.563" UserId="768" Text="This area of e-commerce is called, among other things, &quot;Social Shopping&quot; and was a hot trend around this time. Now it's cooled off a bit and you see plenty of people connecting their Facebook accounts to a website to see what their friends have bought (talk about patent trolling opportunity) but back then it was still pretty hot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the first article I found on social shopping prior to 2008: http://mashable.com/2007/08/08/social-shopping-2/ -- many of these sites would show individual names alongside a product (a) which, without such a feature, would indeed otherwise have been private (b). The idea of hooking this in via Facebook instead of just using the e-commerce site's own database seems to be the only thing unique about this patent, but even that is startlingly obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only reason everyone didn't do this on Day One of e-commerce / social networking was because it felt creepy and intrusive; not because it represented a novel invention. I'm sure there's a speech or paper written decades ago about how &quot;in the future you'll be able to&quot; do what this patent mentions, and more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6254" RevisionGUID="d2cb10df-447a-4a91-b47c-33bfc67c8292" CreationDate="2014-03-17T23:55:57.270" UserId="768" Comment="deleted 89 characters in body" Text="Here's the first article I found on social shopping prior to 2008: http://mashable.com/2007/08/08/social-shopping-2/ -- many of these sites would show individual names alongside a product (a) which, without such a feature, would indeed otherwise have been private (b). The idea of hooking this in via Facebook instead of just using the e-commerce site's own database seems to be the only thing unique about this patent, but even that is startlingly obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only reason everyone didn't do this on Day One of e-commerce / social networking was because it felt creepy and intrusive; not because it represented a novel invention. I'm sure there's a speech or paper written decades ago about how &quot;in the future you'll be able to&quot; do what this patent mentions, and more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, the second article I found mentions this explicitly: &quot;This may be the only way you shop for clothes in the future, by seeing what your friends and other people are wearing&quot; http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/11/technology/11ecom.html?_r=0 -- Claim 1 doesn't mention the whole &quot;ask friends for advice&quot; thing, so I don't see how this is novel or non-obvious at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third article I found even seems to mention &quot;asking friends for advice&quot; directly: &quot;Users can create a profile, post questions and product review information to forums or even get gift ideas from fellow shoppers.&quot; http://www.bizreport.com/2006/11/sears_launches_social_shopping_site.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry, Turnto Network." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6256" RevisionGUID="6e616b95-f496-4e17-bdd0-13eb6d8e2ced" CreationDate="2014-03-18T14:24:04.007" UserId="8146" Text="I cannot determine if this patent application has terminated or still under review.&#xD;&#xA;The law firm that initially handled it on behalf of Ricoh Co. Ltd. (in Japan) in the US said it was an old patent and had no more records for this patent. Does this mean this patent is no longer under review?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US20010032084&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks in advance&#xD;&#xA;Neil" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16596" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6256" RevisionGUID="6e616b95-f496-4e17-bdd0-13eb6d8e2ced" CreationDate="2014-03-18T14:24:04.007" UserId="8146" Text="Is this Patent Application withdrawn? - Status is unclear" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16597" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6256" RevisionGUID="6e616b95-f496-4e17-bdd0-13eb6d8e2ced" CreationDate="2014-03-18T14:24:04.007" UserId="8146" Text="&lt;us20010032084&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6257" RevisionGUID="1ab96dea-27ea-422e-8bdd-b28ec30275f1" CreationDate="2014-03-18T15:20:15.883" UserId="987" Text="Haven't  Yelp and CitySearch both been doing this since 2008?  There's a [screenshot from December 2008 here](http://techcrunch.com/2008/12/10/citysearch-vs-yelp-on-the-iphone-can-you-tell-them-apart/) showing the interface with a &quot;0.1&quot; miles&quot; from here tag on listings.   The article text says &quot;Both tap into the iPhone’s GPS to let you find nearby restaurants, bars, clubs, hotels, and stores. &quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6258" RevisionGUID="2e19488a-37a1-4831-a98c-27bc74fc2dde" CreationDate="2014-03-18T17:03:29.043" UserId="3076" Text="By looking this application up in the USPTO's Public PAIR database you can see that it went abandoned for lack of a response in 2005.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/moPhV.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6261" RevisionGUID="850af1c2-4f4a-44af-bcfd-0c93bed72ff0" CreationDate="2014-03-18T20:25:48.257" UserId="8152" Text="The expiry date for the Patent USUS5971475A is 2017-12-04" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6262" RevisionGUID="a4bce728-f832-405b-9b8c-c879952b3142" CreationDate="2014-03-18T23:40:10.940" UserId="8154" Text="The first claim seems to be pretty much what you would want to do in a real-time system where you want to automatically determine whether a given piece of code will fulfill the real-time requirements you have. This would be known as static profiling to determine the worst case execution time (WCET).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One likely prior art reference could be the following publication: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&amp;arnumber=4032336&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D4032336&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't read anything past the abstract, but the abstract may be broad enough to invalidate the first claim alone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6261" RevisionGUID="2f3e0da5-aeb6-4387-9deb-0a72006bcbb2" CreationDate="2014-03-19T12:31:51.000" UserId="1259" Comment="typo fixed" Text="The expiry date for the Patent US5971475A is 2017-12-04" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6265" RevisionGUID="e2569a29-3ccb-43bb-8a58-52adb7420b99" CreationDate="2014-03-19T20:15:14.620" UserId="8165" Text="I'm not sure what kind of a patent to get. Let's say the sticker fad in the culture is to buy a quantity of stickers that are sold on a sheet of peel away paper, and that was the only way of buying them. All of a sudden a guy comes along with the idea to sell single individual stickers in packets rather than on a sheet altogether. Can a patent be placed to rule out the competitors from copying stickers being sold individually this way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16616" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6265" RevisionGUID="e2569a29-3ccb-43bb-8a58-52adb7420b99" CreationDate="2014-03-19T20:15:14.620" UserId="8165" Text="Curious about what kind of patent to get?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16617" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6265" RevisionGUID="e2569a29-3ccb-43bb-8a58-52adb7420b99" CreationDate="2014-03-19T20:15:14.620" UserId="8165" Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6267" RevisionGUID="0f0b9b4e-cf46-493a-a4ea-25501e655361" CreationDate="2014-03-19T22:18:22.873" UserId="3076" Text="Very doubtful unless there was a technical hurdle to overcome to have them exist individually." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6261" RevisionGUID="8f6e0db6-f562-43ca-8596-f69c62ec9aba" CreationDate="2014-03-20T05:32:41.427" UserId="8152" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="The expiry date for the Patent US5971475A is 2017-12-04" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6271" RevisionGUID="b3d58beb-1308-4445-beb9-832fcb5fc8e1" CreationDate="2014-03-20T17:04:53.753" UserId="8169" Text="This patent application filed by Apple claims to invent a power management system that includes a system microcontroller (SMC) and a charger. During operation, the power management system accepts power from power adapters and/or solar panels. It then supplies power to components in electronic devices without a converter circuit between the solar panel and the power management system. Letting this patent issue in its current form could allow Apple to prevent anyone else from using power management systems with the claimed features and harm the adoption of solar power for mobile devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BASIC APPLICATION DATA**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	Title: “Power management systems for accepting adapter and solar power in electronic devices” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	Application Number: 13/597452&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	Publication Number: US20130290743 A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	Assignee: Apple Inc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	Priority Date: April 27, 2012 (prior art must predate this) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	Availability for Challenge: Open until at least April 30, 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**APPLICATION OVERVIEW**: This patent application from Apple seeks to patent a power management system in electronic devices using solar power without using a converter circuit between the solar panel and the power management system. Specifically, the application claims to invent a power management system that supplies power using maximum power point tracking (MPPT) for the solar panel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims are 1-4 and 7 are illustrative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Claim 1. A method for supplying power to components in an electronic device, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;providing a power management system in the electronic device for accepting power from at least one of a power adapter and a solar panel; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;using the power management system to supply the power to the components without using a converter circuit between the solar panel and the power management system.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein using the power management system to supply the power to the components involves: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;tracking a maximum power point of the solar panel.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Claim 3. The method of claim 2, wherein tracking the maximum power point of the solar panel involves: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;measuring one or more output powers associated with at least one of the solar panel and the power management system; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;adjusting an input voltage of the power management system based on the one or more output powers.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Claim 4. The method of claim 3, wherein measuring the one or more output powers involves at least one of: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;calculating a first output power of the solar panel based on the input voltage and an input current to the power management system; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;tracking a second output power of the power management system by measuring an inductor current of an inductor in the power management system.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Claim 7. The method of claim 4, wherein adjusting the output voltage of the power management system based on the one or more output powers involves at least one of: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;adjusting the input voltage at a first rate and a first step size based on the first output power; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;adjusting the input voltage at a second rate that is higher than the first rate and a second step size that is smaller than the first step size based on the second output power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS**: This is a very broad patent application with the potential to exclude people from doing what they are already doing with solar power in mobile electronics. It appears that claimed techniques have been in use for years, for example in the One Laptop Per Child Project (http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Mppt and http://wiki.laptop.org/images/3/33/Mppt.pdf) Please help us PROVE with documentation that this technology was known for solar powered devices before April 27, 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION**: Have you seen anything that was published before April 27, 2012, that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	A power management system in electronic devices that accepts and supplies adapter and/or solar power by way of tracking the maximum power point of the solar panel? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	In which the tracking of the maximum power point of the solar panel involves a hill climber algorithm and/or adaptive incremental conductance algorithm?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	In which gross adjustments are made based on the output of the power management system and fine-tuning is done based on the input to the power management system (e.g. the output of the solar panel)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit the documents describing this technology as an answer to this question. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16637" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6271" RevisionGUID="b3d58beb-1308-4445-beb9-832fcb5fc8e1" CreationDate="2014-03-20T17:04:53.753" UserId="8169" Text="Power Management Systems for Accepting Solar Power in Electronic Devices – Patent Application – PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16638" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6271" RevisionGUID="b3d58beb-1308-4445-beb9-832fcb5fc8e1" CreationDate="2014-03-20T17:04:53.753" UserId="8169" Text="&lt;apple&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;mobile-phone&gt;&lt;solar&gt;&lt;laptop&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6272" RevisionGUID="38993595-16de-44bf-9d74-188eba42e894" CreationDate="2014-03-20T17:48:31.437" UserId="8170" Text="In the USA, if you submit a novel iPad app to Apple for inclusion on App Store, does that count as a public disclosure? i.e. Does the clock start ticking (for the one-year grace period during which you can still apply for a patent) when your app is *submitted* to Apple, or only when it appears on the public-facing App Store?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I guess it may depend on the wording of the agreement between Apple and the developer submitting an app. Perhaps someone here has knowledge about that?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16640" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6272" RevisionGUID="38993595-16de-44bf-9d74-188eba42e894" CreationDate="2014-03-20T17:48:31.437" UserId="8170" Text="Submitting to App Store = public disclosure?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16641" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6272" RevisionGUID="38993595-16de-44bf-9d74-188eba42e894" CreationDate="2014-03-20T17:48:31.437" UserId="8170" Text="&lt;apple&gt;&lt;uspublication&gt;&lt;nda&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16642" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6271" RevisionGUID="4c37b93e-b55e-46f7-9b40-d80d10694691" CreationDate="2014-03-21T00:42:44.653" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;mobile-phone&gt;&lt;laptop&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6273" RevisionGUID="2cc37e25-e7fc-4a8a-a1b3-9232de037deb" CreationDate="2014-03-21T03:18:12.663" UserId="8173" Text="This is just location based advertising (LBA), and people have been doing it and debating the ethics of it for years. There are gobs of papers discussing the idea, many from the 2007 time frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent application [US20020046084](https://www.google.com/patents/US20020046084?dq=US20020046084&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=fa0rU_jbCO6T0gGbjYGQCA&amp;ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA) - *Remotely configurable multimedia entertainment and information system with location based advertising* filed in 1999 describes these features with several other ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[0108] Location Based Advertising Business Method&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[0109] Using the computer controlled multimedia entertainment and information system 10 described above or some other suitable network, a method for transmission of location based advertising is provided. Although the following description refers to multimedia entertainment and information system 10 and multimedia device 20, the location based advertising methods described in this application could apply to any communications system or any wireless communication device, including without limitation, pagers, cellular phones, two-way radios, PDAs, laptops, etc. The key aspect of this method is trading location based consumer preference or behavior profile information on various products or services for a number of advertisements transmitted to the system 10. Such a method is based upon advertisement selection criteria, user location information, and proximity of users and vendors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and here's a bit about using transaction history to target ads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [0149] (...) The system optimises advertising by including other purchase history, and helps build the demographics, or the spending habits of this person. The method of delivery of an ad may be a short textual message. Other data protocols can be used, such as voice ads." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6279" RevisionGUID="7e99ed28-3606-4d9b-853d-64216b2efaf2" CreationDate="2014-03-21T20:55:16.977" UserId="8181" Text="US 20090083619 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A method in a data processing system, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;receiving a document containing numerical values;&#xD;&#xA;receiving indications of characteristics of the numerical values, the characteristics including a unit and a magnitude; and&#xD;&#xA;adding the received indications into the document as tags associated with the numerical values to create a markup document." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16665" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6279" RevisionGUID="7e99ed28-3606-4d9b-853d-64216b2efaf2" CreationDate="2014-03-21T20:55:16.977" UserId="8181" Text="US 20090083619 markup document generation prior art request" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16666" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6279" RevisionGUID="7e99ed28-3606-4d9b-853d-64216b2efaf2" CreationDate="2014-03-21T20:55:16.977" UserId="8181" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6280" RevisionGUID="0c0a544b-e4ab-47f1-ad98-68e7e7c82a1b" CreationDate="2014-03-21T22:06:09.690" UserId="8165" Text="I have a product i'm looking to get out into the market soon and i'm unsure of what kind of provisional to get. I want to sell the product internationally. Anyone know how to go about this? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16668" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6280" RevisionGUID="0c0a544b-e4ab-47f1-ad98-68e7e7c82a1b" CreationDate="2014-03-21T22:06:09.690" UserId="8165" Text="What kind of provisional patent should I get if I want to sell internationally?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16669" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6280" RevisionGUID="0c0a544b-e4ab-47f1-ad98-68e7e7c82a1b" CreationDate="2014-03-21T22:06:09.690" UserId="8165" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;patent-pending&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6282" RevisionGUID="2e73e298-cc3d-4175-ac8e-873d39de1961" CreationDate="2014-03-22T01:25:03.487" UserId="8165" Text="Is there a way to get international protection when registering for a provisional patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16675" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6282" RevisionGUID="2e73e298-cc3d-4175-ac8e-873d39de1961" CreationDate="2014-03-22T01:25:03.487" UserId="8165" Text="Is there a way to get international protection on a provisional patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16676" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6282" RevisionGUID="2e73e298-cc3d-4175-ac8e-873d39de1961" CreationDate="2014-03-22T01:25:03.487" UserId="8165" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6283" RevisionGUID="b4565f50-ce21-45c5-83ad-5f45225d3404" CreationDate="2014-03-22T05:24:23.813" UserId="3076" Text="There is no such thing as international protection in the sense of world-wide protection. Each country issues its own patents based on its own patent laws and its patents are enforceable only in its courts. There are regional bodies like the EPO for Europe that offer the possibility to go through a single examination and end up with patents issued by several countries. And there are many international treaties that are helpful to someone who wants protection in more than a single country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest thing to international protection is a PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) application. Filing a PCT application gives someone the ability to eventually file that application's content in over 140 countries. Each location will later need to be separately addressed (money and an examination procedure) to get any rights. PCT applications can get priority from a provisional application if the PCT application is filed with one year of the provisional application's filing. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6286" RevisionGUID="7036dc36-34d4-4717-99ce-d33778e50cf7" CreationDate="2014-03-22T20:58:48.577" UserId="8094" Text="What is the average cost of drafting and filing a patent incurred when hiring an agent ? This can give an idea to me if I'm over charged for the service" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16694" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6286" RevisionGUID="7036dc36-34d4-4717-99ce-d33778e50cf7" CreationDate="2014-03-22T20:58:48.577" UserId="8094" Text="Cost for drafting and filing a patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16695" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6286" RevisionGUID="7036dc36-34d4-4717-99ce-d33778e50cf7" CreationDate="2014-03-22T20:58:48.577" UserId="8094" Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6287" RevisionGUID="306b31e9-6f5c-42b6-b70b-f39698d3e907" CreationDate="2014-03-23T03:06:57.750" UserId="8191" Text="Ok, this is the first time I'm thinking about filing a patent, and I don't know where to start. First of all I'm not from the USA but I want to file a patent with the USPTO without a patent attorney as I can't afford one.&#xD;&#xA;Can be a patent filed onlne? Where can I get detailed information about the procedures and fees? And most important, if there is a similar patent, can I be sued from the owner? Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16698" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6287" RevisionGUID="306b31e9-6f5c-42b6-b70b-f39698d3e907" CreationDate="2014-03-23T03:06:57.750" UserId="8191" Text="Patent filing procedure without a patent attorney" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16699" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6287" RevisionGUID="306b31e9-6f5c-42b6-b70b-f39698d3e907" CreationDate="2014-03-23T03:06:57.750" UserId="8191" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6288" RevisionGUID="b147a249-a707-4e25-a2b3-54648f007fde" CreationDate="2014-03-23T03:09:36.573" UserId="886" Text="The patent claims a provisional application date of Nov 29 2009.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16701" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6288" RevisionGUID="b147a249-a707-4e25-a2b3-54648f007fde" CreationDate="2014-03-23T03:09:36.573" UserId="886" Text="Relevant Prior Art for &quot;Time domain reflectometer touch screen sensor&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16702" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6288" RevisionGUID="b147a249-a707-4e25-a2b3-54648f007fde" CreationDate="2014-03-23T03:09:36.573" UserId="886" Text="&lt;us20110128257&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6289" RevisionGUID="5a6bd804-2742-4be7-9068-3b4f4b8b45af" CreationDate="2014-03-23T03:09:36.573" UserId="886" Text="It seems that there is prior art at least for claims 1 and 2:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[Huang, C.F. Precise Location of Touch Panel by Employing the Time-Domain Reflectometry. SID Symposium Digest of Technical Papers, 40(1), June 2009, pp. 1291-1293.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and possibly &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Collins, Ryan V. Methods and apparatus for receiving user&#xD;&#xA;input via time domain reflectometry. US-Patent 2004/0239616 A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, the general principle of touch sensing using TDR has already been described in 1964:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;In exposed circuits one can touch the line to produce an added echo.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then, by running the point of contact along the line till this added&#xD;&#xA;&gt; echo coincides with the system echoes, one can literally put his&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fingers on the troubles. In a coaxial cable, one can produce a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reflection by squeezing the cable.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Oliver, B. M. Time Domain Reflectometry, HP Journal 15(6), 1964.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1889/1.3256532/abstract&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.hpl.hp.com/hpjournal/pdfs/IssuePDFs/1964-02.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6290" RevisionGUID="0386b347-ed70-40a9-b6e4-b56455b2bbe9" CreationDate="2014-03-23T13:17:54.723" UserId="8194" Text="How can I find out if this patent (WO 2011160165 A1) has been implemented in any hardware devices and whether it's available for licensing? Thank you. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16705" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6290" RevisionGUID="0386b347-ed70-40a9-b6e4-b56455b2bbe9" CreationDate="2014-03-23T13:17:54.723" UserId="8194" Text="licensing and/or Implementations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16706" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6290" RevisionGUID="0386b347-ed70-40a9-b6e4-b56455b2bbe9" CreationDate="2014-03-23T13:17:54.723" UserId="8194" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6291" RevisionGUID="a820e492-1105-4794-9046-25787845a2ab" CreationDate="2014-03-23T14:49:02.873" UserId="8188" Text="Regarding your first point, consider this document; seems state of the art: http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/bq24650.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other Controllers that should accept both adapter and solar power. The combination of two different ways of power transmission in one chip for electronic devices isn't new, it's integrated in most charge-controllers for inductive power transfer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6292" RevisionGUID="1e02ba1f-e05a-4c16-90d1-0536b85c9535" CreationDate="2014-03-23T18:49:38.490" UserId="8197" Text="I'm reading a combinatorics books, and I was searching for assignments (questions) on Elementary Symmetric Functions, which are quite simply fundamental functions that have the property of swapping variables doesn't change what it is, for example x+y is symmetric, x^2+y^2 is another x^2y+y^2x is, and so forth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finding them isn't difficult, it's not the nicest algorithm to implement but iterating over permutations is not hard. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found http://www.google.com/patents/US8332185 this. Now.... there's A LOT of crap in this, like  http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US8332185B2/US08332185-20121211-D00002.png that picture, and talks about how a computer able to calculate this may be networked. Why is this in a patent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there's stuff like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bus 212 allows data communication between central processor 214 and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; system memory 216, which may include both read only memory (ROM) or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; flash memory (neither shown), and random access memory (RAM) (not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shown)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They've not invented a computer ONLY able to carry out this task! That is how a computer works, portable code.... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gets more weird:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and secondary symmetric function calculation module 202 employed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; therewith may be stored in computer-readable storage media such as one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or more of system memory 216, fixed disk 244, optical disk 242, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; floppy disk 238. Additionally, computer system 210 may be any kind of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computing device, and so includes personal data assistants (PDAs),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; network appliances, X-window terminals or other such computing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; devices. The operating system provided on computer system 210 may be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MS-DOS®, MS-WINDOWS®, OS/2®, UNIX®, LINUX®, and the like. Computer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; system 210 also supports a number of Internet access tools, including,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for example, an HTTP-compliant web browser having a JavaScript&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interpreter, such as NETSCAPE NAVIGATOR®, MICROSOFT EXPLORER®, MOZILLA&#xD;&#xA;&gt; FIREFOX® and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not quite sure why that is in a patent, that's like inventing something and describing a &quot;planetary body&quot; with which you made it on as a part of the setup. Is it relevant? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is possible to implement the processes of FIGS. 4-6B in computer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; software program code executable by a computer processor. By way of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; example, one manner of implementing the steps of FIGS. 6A-6B&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (expressed in pseudo-code) follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does a patent have a minimum word count? It's not just &quot;it is possible to do this&quot; but on a computer software program! For execution by a computer processor! (so doing it in an interpreted languages? or VM targeting language?) &quot;OMG!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Now I'm a little worried, if I made a program that spat out these polynomials for me (rather than me iterating by hand on some scrap paper) then stuck some free-software license and gave it to the world, am I infringing on their patent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am extra-shocked because while software-patenting is horrific in the EU it cannot be patented, as it falls under &quot;mathematics&quot;, so can someone that appears in chapter 1 of almost every combinatorics book be patented?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Iterating over permutations isn't far from counting (a permutation of numbers represent something), they have made it such a choir to read, I gave up and skimmed!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I suppose my question is, how is this allowed? They have put some stuff in about where they might use these polynomials, but not how, surely - if anything - using them in a certain way is the invention! I wouldn't call it an invention, but the case is surely stronger?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16709" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6292" RevisionGUID="1e02ba1f-e05a-4c16-90d1-0536b85c9535" CreationDate="2014-03-23T18:49:38.490" UserId="8197" Text="Mathematics patented (first post here, very shocked)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16710" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6292" RevisionGUID="1e02ba1f-e05a-4c16-90d1-0536b85c9535" CreationDate="2014-03-23T18:49:38.490" UserId="8197" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6293" RevisionGUID="f04e52ce-89d5-416e-91f1-dd67339fdff4" CreationDate="2014-03-23T20:39:20.707" UserId="3076" Text="The short answer is that patents have many sections but it is only the claims that draw a line between what is old or abstract or only mathematical and what is considered the protectable invention. I am inserting claim 1 here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of updating estimated locations and velocities for a swarm of target objects within a Cardinalized Probability Hypothesis Density (CPHD) multi-target tracker environment including a plurality of signal detectors, said method&#xD;&#xA;comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;detecting a plurality of signals with the plurality of signal detectors, the plurality of signals including target reflected signals comprising signals transmitted from one or more transmitters and reflected from the target objects;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;processing the detected signals with a processing device communicatively coupled with the signal detectors to generate a set {Z} comprising a total of m positive real numerical elements, each element of set {Z} representing a likelihood that a signal detected by one of the signal detectors is associated with a target object divided by a likelihood of such detected signal being noise or clutter, wherein z(i) denotes the ith element of set {Z} indexed by number i;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;obtaining a plurality of elementary symmetric functions for set {Z}, wherein esf(j) denotes the jth elementary symmetric function of set {Z} indexed by number j;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;determining a plurality of secondary symmetric functions for set {Z}, wherein for each value of index i, ssf(j,i) denotes the jth elementary symmetric function of a subset {Z\z(i)} comprising set {Z} with element z(i) removed from set {Z}, and wherein for a particular value of index i, the secondary symmetric functions are determined in accordance with a recursive relationship among the secondary symmetric function to be determined, a previously determined secondary symmetric function, one of the obtained elementary symmetric functions, and the element z(i) removed from set {Z}; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;outputting the plurality of secondary symmetric functions for set {Z}.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not pure mathematics. It is a specific application of mathematics that presumably was new at the time. Neither U.S. or EPO patent law allows for the patenting of a mathematical truth. Both allow for a patent that includes calculating steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The passages you quote are explanatory of implementations of the invention, not expressions of what is new. An applicant is advised to explain a way of accomplishing the invention in as detailed a way as possible. Of course many steps in an implementation of something new are, themselves, old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the U.S. there is a duty to describe an invention so that someone skilled in the art can make it and use it without undue experimentation. Also there is a duty to include the &quot;best&quot; way to carry out the invention in the opinion of the inventor. This can lead to seemingly irrelevant details being included in the specification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6294" RevisionGUID="20b6f85a-6b7b-4e10-8d23-eb77890ef238" CreationDate="2014-03-24T04:37:16.373" UserId="8179" Text="Received a Design Patent from the USPTO a three years ago. Put the Design on the market for licensing. Noted a Major Manufacturers applied for published application in 2013 for a invention to be installed in their product. A portion of their invention looks like a portion of my design. If they are granted the patent for their invention and use portion of my design. Is that consider patent infringement by using non-expired design for their invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16713" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6294" RevisionGUID="20b6f85a-6b7b-4e10-8d23-eb77890ef238" CreationDate="2014-03-24T04:37:16.373" UserId="8179" Text="patent Infringement question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16714" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6294" RevisionGUID="20b6f85a-6b7b-4e10-8d23-eb77890ef238" CreationDate="2014-03-24T04:37:16.373" UserId="8179" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6296" RevisionGUID="d4751a69-0391-4703-b10e-199b1085068c" CreationDate="2014-03-24T17:44:01.727" UserId="8204" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Is the following document &quot;Robocasting Development in Robocasting of Ceramic Multimaterial Deposition&quot; Prior Art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it seems to cover the same points but was published some time in the 1990's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://utwired.engr.utexas.edu/lff/symposium/proceedingsArchive/pubs/Manuscripts/1998/1998-80-Cesarano.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16719" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6296" RevisionGUID="d4751a69-0391-4703-b10e-199b1085068c" CreationDate="2014-03-24T17:44:01.727" UserId="8204" Text="Is Robocasting Development in Ceramic Multimaterial Deposition Prior Art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16720" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6296" RevisionGUID="d4751a69-0391-4703-b10e-199b1085068c" CreationDate="2014-03-24T17:44:01.727" UserId="8204" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6296" RevisionGUID="eeb830fa-ff5e-438b-b25c-967aeb4161c7" CreationDate="2014-03-24T17:50:24.020" UserId="8204" Comment="added 27 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is the following document &quot;Robocasting Development in Robocasting of Ceramic Multimaterial Deposition&quot; Prior Art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it seems to cover the same points as patent US20100327479 A1 but was published some time in the 1990's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://utwired.engr.utexas.edu/lff/symposium/proceedingsArchive/pubs/Manuscripts/1998/1998-80-Cesarano.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16723" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6296" RevisionGUID="eeb830fa-ff5e-438b-b25c-967aeb4161c7" CreationDate="2014-03-24T17:50:24.020" UserId="8204" Comment="added 27 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is Robocasting Development in Ceramic Multimaterial Deposition Prior Art? US20100327479 A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16724" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6296" RevisionGUID="f0aafaef-c417-4d60-a5ed-5cdb7f253756" CreationDate="2014-03-24T18:35:58.397" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to patent doc." Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20100327479&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16725" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6296" RevisionGUID="4dcae233-25c0-4ecb-9b05-7c9f378b36a7" CreationDate="2014-03-24T18:41:50.080" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to patent doc. added claim 1" Text="Is the following document &quot;Robocasting Development in Robocasting of Ceramic Multimaterial Deposition&quot; Prior Art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it seems to cover the same points as patent US20100327479 A1 but was published some time in the 1990's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://utwired.engr.utexas.edu/lff/symposium/proceedingsArchive/pubs/Manuscripts/1998/1998-80-Cesarano.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 of the '479 application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A compounding system for forming a customized consumable material, the compounding system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a controller configured to operably receive a user input related to one or more user-selected material characteristics;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a plurality of drive mechanisms configured to operably communicate with the controller, and further configured to **feed a plurality of stock materials at independent feed rates** that are determined based at least in part upon the user input; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;an extrusion component configured to receive the plurality of fed stock materials, and further configured to at **least partially melt and blend the received stock materials to provide the customized consumable materia**l in an extrudable state, wherein upon solidifying the customized consumable material exhibits the one or more user-selected material characteristics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6297" RevisionGUID="53b5d95a-fbe0-44ef-9465-5e6215278c5e" CreationDate="2014-03-24T18:45:29.330" UserId="3076" Text="The dates of the references would technically allow it to be cited as prior art but a quick look through the paper doesn't show anything about multiple feeds of material at different rates that are blended together in a user-adjustable ratio. An the patent does not seem to be about ceramic material, the subject of the paper." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="7aee0b85-70fe-44ca-8a7e-6cab00f2a72d" CreationDate="2014-03-24T23:02:43.577" UserId="1767" Comment="added 637 characters in body; edited tags" Text="![enter image description here][8]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An **initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the grounds for rejection (can be seen in Public PAIR) are based on prior art from [Lycos][9], [Yahoo][12], [Oracle][10], and [Microsoft's own patent applications][11].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Applying administrator defined ranking rules to alter the ranking of search results** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Applying a user-defined ranking rule on search results and re-ordering the search results based on the ranking rule! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Re-ordering search results based on rules defined by a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Graphical User Interface allows a user to: configure the **ranking rules** such as to enter **key/value restrictions** or set a **boost value**,  preview an application of one or more of the **ranking rules**, specify a portion of results from which statistics such as **standard deviation**, **average score** are calculated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: User-configured rules to re-order search results.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving search results, applying user-defined re-ranking rules to the search results, and re-ranking the search results based on the user-defined re-ranking rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130198174 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/360,536&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/28/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for re-ranking search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results that are ranked; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. applying a ranking rule defined by a user to the search results that re-ranks the search results, wherein the ranking rule includes user specified parameters that influence how a result within the search results is re-ranked using statistical information relating to the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for re-ordering search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results in an order in response to a search query executed using a search engine;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.    applying a re-ordering rule defined by a user to re-order the search results, where the re-ordering rule defines ordering a result within the search results on the basis of statistical information related to search results; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. re-ordering the search results on the basis of user-defined re-ordering rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A Graphical User Interface (GUI) displays options for a user to set search parameters to re-rank search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;User defined re-ordering of search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Ie8wCzF.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130198174&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130198174#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=01%2F27%2F2012&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6012053&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7996392&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20090006358&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8412702" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16732" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="7aee0b85-70fe-44ca-8a7e-6cab00f2a72d" CreationDate="2014-03-24T23:02:43.577" UserId="1767" Comment="added 637 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;us20130198174&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6299" RevisionGUID="8dac2e95-ae9c-4ece-806a-7184698eccda" CreationDate="2014-03-24T23:27:13.133" UserId="8191" Text="What is the worst situation in which I could find myself in the case my patent is very similar or identical to another, without doing it intentionally?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I be sued from the other inventor, or can I just lose my patent's ownership?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16734" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6299" RevisionGUID="8dac2e95-ae9c-4ece-806a-7184698eccda" CreationDate="2014-03-24T23:27:13.133" UserId="8191" Text="Similar patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16735" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6299" RevisionGUID="8dac2e95-ae9c-4ece-806a-7184698eccda" CreationDate="2014-03-24T23:27:13.133" UserId="8191" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6300" RevisionGUID="3cb34aee-5468-43c5-b266-0ab6044d1690" CreationDate="2014-03-25T01:41:06.337" UserId="8208" Text="Kodak has a camera that comes with a case using a solar cell to charge from via USB&#xD;&#xA;http://resources.kodak.com/support/pdf/en/manuals/accessories/ks100/KS100_EN.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6301" RevisionGUID="93c4f506-7afa-4fc8-9623-b74c5eebb32e" CreationDate="2014-03-25T01:57:47.553" UserId="8210" Text="I believe the One Laptop Per Child system used this:&#xD;&#xA;http://one.laptop.org/about/specs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6302" RevisionGUID="b5ad3801-b33e-40b2-ab7a-0d4a3b0bc383" CreationDate="2014-03-25T02:23:22.490" UserId="8184" Text="I've been browsing the site for a while looking at questions and I think I have enough questions of my own to post now: (also thanks everyone for the help and this site is really great)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me provide an example that produces the same questions I have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If i wanted to produce sticky fore-arm straps that wrap around the fore-arms for competitors to use in the worlds-strongest-man competition to get a better grip when they pick up big circular stones (think wrapping duct tape around fore arms). The tape-like wraps would be rubber on the outside to give a better grip so the rocks do not slide away from their forearms when they pick them up. We can assume something like this does not exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. For an invention like this, do i need a design patent, utility patent, or both?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would not be creating any new materials. It would be essentially sticky rubber tape - the big differentiator would be the shape of the tape and where it would be placed on the forearm - think uniquely shaped duct-tape-like stickers that are meant to be placed on specific locations of the forearm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If i need a design patent - how many different design patents should i file to make sure no one can produce something similar to my idea? i.e. different design patents with different shapes and sizes of the forearm grips? Or how do I make sure no one can produce something similar?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If i create a design template do i need to list the exact material of the sticky rubber? Do i need to list exactly what the sticky material that sticks to the forearm is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Should i do a drawing or take pictures of something like this when filing for the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is my getting started post and I have absolutely no experience with patents, so feel free to give any other advice to a question i am not asking. Thanks everyone!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16739" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6302" RevisionGUID="b5ad3801-b33e-40b2-ab7a-0d4a3b0bc383" CreationDate="2014-03-25T02:23:22.490" UserId="8184" Text="Design or utility patent? Do I need to file multiple variations to protect my idea? Do I need create an exact working example of my idea? and more" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16740" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6302" RevisionGUID="b5ad3801-b33e-40b2-ab7a-0d4a3b0bc383" CreationDate="2014-03-25T02:23:22.490" UserId="8184" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;utility&gt;&lt;patent-infringment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6304" RevisionGUID="1063d060-f289-4391-8a03-71e5b8ec317e" CreationDate="2014-03-25T06:35:15.843" UserId="8212" Text="So is something like this...  (SMC, two sources, no inverter) http://www.steca.com/index.php?DC_solar_home_systems " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6306" RevisionGUID="0898ab0e-7f2b-47ad-b9ae-25c923915835" CreationDate="2014-03-25T10:32:38.970" UserId="8215" Text="This kickstarter project seems prior art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/wakawakalight/wakawaka-is-the-coolest-solar-led-light?ref=users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was funded on Jan 7, 2012, so way before the April 2012 of the patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sequel project (which is a solar charger itself) is interesting too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/wakawakalight/wakawaka-power-the-best-compact-solar-power-statio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the details of the algorithm that could reject the patent I think the project creator could answer more clearly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I've contacted him already)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6307" RevisionGUID="4144ef03-ea95-4a93-9417-1626e283955b" CreationDate="2014-03-25T12:45:05.627" UserId="8217" Text="Google Custom Search  was &quot;Released on October 24, 2006&quot; according to &#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Custom_Search&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://developers.google.com/custom-search/docs/ranking  &quot;This page describes how to tweak the ranking of the search results returned by your search engines.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6309" RevisionGUID="938cf218-e779-457e-93ca-1f56f2cddbbb" CreationDate="2014-03-25T14:07:56.707" UserId="8219" Text="Seiko Solar watches appear to have this functionality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.seiko-cleanenergy.com/watches/solar/index.html &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.seikowatches.com/support/faq/solar_1.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6310" RevisionGUID="7218689d-600c-4593-bbb6-9ccff256a0b9" CreationDate="2014-03-25T15:15:04.200" UserId="8220" Text="**Patent**: http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US20070233477&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prior art**: http://encode.ru/threads/256-Spec-for-portable-PAQ?p=4703&amp;viewfull=1#post4703&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...The text of the patent is directly plagiarized from: http://cs.fit.edu/~mmahoney/compression/cs200516.pdf written in 2005 by Matt Mahoney. The patent application was May 24, 2006...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**History**: http://www.c10n.info/archives/415&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The company also has a history of plagiarising code:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...The end of their party came on 7th April when Dwing and Johan De Bock figured out that Infima was nothing more than all the major command-line compression tools combined together under a buggy GUI, a massive copyright/gpl violation...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent plagiarizes prior art. Why does it still exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16757" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6310" RevisionGUID="7218689d-600c-4593-bbb6-9ccff256a0b9" CreationDate="2014-03-25T15:15:04.200" UserId="8220" Text="This patent plagiarizes prior art. Why does it still exist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16758" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6310" RevisionGUID="7218689d-600c-4593-bbb6-9ccff256a0b9" CreationDate="2014-03-25T15:15:04.200" UserId="8220" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20070233477&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6311" RevisionGUID="681172dc-c66b-40dd-b445-72037d2f12e4" CreationDate="2014-03-25T15:49:49.763" UserId="8221" Text="There is quite a few military products using this form of MPPT with the single input path for hard source(adapter) or source for a few years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.protonex.com/products/spm-611 This is a common device in the field.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.protonex.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/Protonex-SPM-611-SpecSheet1.pdf It's been around since at least 2009." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6310" RevisionGUID="76bc93ee-6bc3-4da4-bfe1-a36315bd975b" CreationDate="2014-03-25T16:25:15.350" UserId="8220" Comment="added 843 characters in body" Text="**Patent**: http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US20070233477&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prior art**: http://encode.ru/threads/256-Spec-for-portable-PAQ?p=4703&amp;viewfull=1#post4703&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...The text of the patent is directly plagiarized from this technical report: http://cs.fit.edu/~mmahoney/compression/cs200516.pdf written in 2005 by Matt Mahoney [sic]. The patent application was May 24, 2006...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example of a plagiarized paragraph:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...Until recently the best data compressors were based on&#xD;&#xA;PPM, prediction by partial match (Bell, Witten and Cleary &#xD;&#xA;1989) with arithmetic coding of the symbols. In PPM, &#xD;&#xA;contexts consisting of suffixes of the history with lengths &#xD;&#xA;from 0 up to n (typically 5 to 8 bytes) are mapped to &#xD;&#xA;occurrence counts for each symbol in the alphabet. &#xD;&#xA;Symbols are assigned probabilities in proportion to their &#xD;&#xA;counts. If a count in the n-th order context is zero, then &#xD;&#xA;PPM falls back to lower order models until a nonzero &#xD;&#xA;probability can be assigned. PPM variants differ mainly in &#xD;&#xA;how much code space is reserved at each level for unseen &#xD;&#xA;symbols. The best programs use a variant of PPMZ &#xD;&#xA;(Bloom 1998) which estimates the &quot;zero frequency&quot; &#xD;&#xA;probability adaptively based on a small context...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Company filing the patent has plagiarised code before**: http://www.c10n.info/archives/415&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...The end of their party came on 7th April when Dwing and Johan De Bock figured out that Infima was nothing more than all the major command-line compression tools combined together under a buggy GUI, a massive copyright/gpl violation...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent plagiarizes prior art. Why does it still exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6314" RevisionGUID="29cf64b0-ba67-425d-8efb-3b49844bbcec" CreationDate="2014-03-25T17:27:31.627" UserId="3076" Text="This &quot;patent&quot; does **not** &quot;still exist&quot;. It *never* existed as a granted patent. It is a publication of an *application* for a patent. No patent was granted and this application went abandoned in 2010 (see USPTO Public PAIR). The rejection it got cited Mahoney. Once published, a patent document remains in the databases of patent documents, of course, and serves as a record of what happened when.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also plagiarism, as such, is not a patent issue. Plagiarism means stealing wording. Patents are concerned with ideas not specific wording and borrowing background information from another patent or other source will generally not have anything to do with patent validity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6315" RevisionGUID="8d2565df-1c80-4fb9-bfd2-bab3f435572b" CreationDate="2014-03-25T20:29:23.930" UserId="8165" Text="Let's say I have an idea about tape. This tape has always had the capability to be sold in color, but never into different shapes. It has always been sold in a straight line. I want to make them in many different shapes and sizes, but that could be as many as 50 different designs. Does this mean I would have to get individual design patents on each and every one  I created or could I get some sort of protection that could cover all of them being sold together? I'm very confused as to what option to shoot towards. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16774" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6315" RevisionGUID="8d2565df-1c80-4fb9-bfd2-bab3f435572b" CreationDate="2014-03-25T20:29:23.930" UserId="8165" Text="Can I patent this? and if so what could be done?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16775" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6315" RevisionGUID="8d2565df-1c80-4fb9-bfd2-bab3f435572b" CreationDate="2014-03-25T20:29:23.930" UserId="8165" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;confused&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6316" RevisionGUID="bb391b41-531e-461b-b2a4-3bb28cc3bc44" CreationDate="2014-03-26T01:51:04.907" UserId="8227" Text="Wind and light complementary household electric power unit&#xD;&#xA;CN 2859897 FROM 2005" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16780" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6314" RevisionGUID="37815645-00ef-4e7f-8e73-e70f94aa3ab7" CreationDate="2014-03-26T06:08:42.000" UserId="3076" Comment="clarified the &quot;exact wording doesn't matter&quot;" Text="This &quot;patent&quot; does **not** &quot;still exist&quot;. It *never* existed as a granted patent. It is a publication of an *application* for a patent. No patent was granted and this application went abandoned in 2010 (see USPTO Public PAIR). The rejection it got cited Mahoney. Once published, a patent document remains in the databases of patent documents, of course, and serves as a record of what happened when.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also plagiarism, as such, is not a patent issue. Plagiarism means stealing wording. Patents are concerned with ideas not usually with the specific expression of the ideas in the wording in the specification. Borrowing background information from another patent or other source will generally not have anything to do with patent validity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16793" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6071" RevisionGUID="86bf0a8b-c20e-4201-bef6-1206ac0226e3" CreationDate="2014-03-26T20:25:10.203" UserId="8199" Comment="corrected typo in title" Text="Is there any web site to give Patent Classification by entering the Classification code?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16794" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6071" RevisionGUID="86bf0a8b-c20e-4201-bef6-1206ac0226e3" CreationDate="2014-03-26T20:25:10.203" Comment="Proposed by 8199 approved by 1767 edit id of 508" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6322" RevisionGUID="7512f10b-a0fa-4069-b06a-437ba6f3a6d1" CreationDate="2014-03-27T08:35:12.803" UserId="3692" Text="Filing a patent as Small Entity &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Basic filing fee - Utility (electronic filing): $70&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Utility Search Fee: $300&#xD;&#xA; - Utility Examination Fee: $360&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;( http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee010114.htm )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My patent attorney charges $6-8K for drafting a patent application, and $2K for each Office Action response. In my patents, the number of responses has been at least 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the total cost would be around $10K" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6323" RevisionGUID="4359d6f8-6495-470d-89d0-a47dff9838f4" CreationDate="2014-03-27T08:48:06.913" UserId="3692" Text="Filing a patent with USPTO is an easy part, and you can definitely do it yourself. It costs around $800 to file as a Small Entity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current USPTO fees can be found here:&#xD;&#xA;  http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee010114.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you'd most likely need an attorney to draft a patent application and respond to Office Actions during patent prosecution (when your claims get rejected, etc.) &#xD;&#xA;That's where it gets really expensive. I cut costs by finding a patent attorney on sites like Elance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6324" RevisionGUID="956fcbf6-7209-4dab-8e3c-af387c1f5a55" CreationDate="2014-03-27T16:43:17.850" UserId="8239" Text="This patent, US 6831556 B1, basically says that these guys are entitled to be the only company who can package off-the-shelf video and audio recording devices with cameras in a police car and market it as such. That is ludicrous and it makes me wonder how a patent is acquired for such non-sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not a competitor but a consumer and received a letter from this company (patent holder) who essentially markets their system by threatening consumers with patent infringement if they buy a competitors product instead of theirs. When I looked to verify the patent, I was confused and amazed that such a patent could even be acquired. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They sent a nice but passive aggressive cover letter with their catalog saying that they heard we may be in the market for such systems and, oh, by the way, you may want to consider buying from us because we will sue the heck out of you if you buy from someone else. Effectively saying, &quot;We are the only people who can legally pair a camera, microphone, and digital recorder together as a system inside a cop car.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, the company doesn't even manufacture any of those products, AND, they are not the first people to have done it. This thing came about after the year 2000. I know cops who were putting cameras in cop cars in the 80's. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shame on you U.S. patent office. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16804" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6324" RevisionGUID="956fcbf6-7209-4dab-8e3c-af387c1f5a55" CreationDate="2014-03-27T16:43:17.850" UserId="8239" Text="How can someone get a patent on a system of off-the-shelf components such as this patent utilizes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16805" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6324" RevisionGUID="956fcbf6-7209-4dab-8e3c-af387c1f5a55" CreationDate="2014-03-27T16:43:17.850" UserId="8239" Text="&lt;us6831556&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6325" RevisionGUID="193f8808-3037-41f2-a75d-e7dfbe016010" CreationDate="2014-03-27T23:13:08.687" UserId="8241" Text="In the following reference;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Crocker, P., &amp; Walters, M. (2011). Enable location-aware event&#xD;&#xA;&gt; processing with WebSphere business events. IBM Business Process&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Management Journal, January 20, 2011 (Issue 3.1), Retrieved from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/websphere/bpmjournal/1101_crocker/1101_crocker.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example 3 is very similar to the claim; Transaction history is used to identify previous purchases at a current retail location (supplied by the mobile device) and an offer is made via the mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The scenario is triggered by a person moving near a retail&#xD;&#xA;&gt; location--in this example, a coffee shop. The system identifies that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the person has made previous purchase at this location and, therefore,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; has in the past been interested in what they have to sell, such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coffee. If records show that they haven’t made any purchases in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; past month then they are issued an offer to encourage them to return&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the store. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Figure 3. Location-based marketing scenario**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure 3. Location-based marketing scenario][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/zkvT6.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6326" RevisionGUID="2f11b166-d29f-4bf1-ab0d-00cf3d991464" CreationDate="2014-03-27T23:46:48.517" UserId="8181" Text="in order to infringe, your system must due/comprise the following as claime,                 &#xD;&#xA;1. A surveillance system for an emergency response vehicle, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a device for capturing at least two of video, audio, and data information, said device provided in the emergency response vehicle, and&#xD;&#xA;a server for digitally integrating the captured information into one data stream and storing the data stream in the emergency response vehicle,&#xD;&#xA;wherein said server is operative to transfer the data stream from the emergency response vehicle to a second location." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16810" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6326" RevisionGUID="21f3dedb-cd0f-43e8-94eb-f79b58b03a25" CreationDate="2014-03-27T23:52:36.430" UserId="8181" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="in order to infringe, a system must due/comprise the following as claimed,                 &#xD;&#xA;1. A surveillance system for an emergency response vehicle, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a device for capturing at least two of video, audio, and data information, said device provided in the emergency response vehicle, and&#xD;&#xA;a server for digitally integrating the captured information into one data stream and storing the data stream in the emergency response vehicle,&#xD;&#xA;wherein said server is operative to transfer the data stream from the emergency response vehicle to a second location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you as a user in most cases are not going to be a infringer, it is usually the maker of that product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;side note: claimed invention is pretty narrow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16811" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="6302" RevisionGUID="95653578-32ab-485a-8f6f-aa45e6187bbc" CreationDate="2014-03-28T00:03:29.400" UserId="8184" Comment="23" />
  <row Id="16812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6327" RevisionGUID="064794cf-bece-411e-8be8-6c553cad006f" CreationDate="2014-03-28T11:16:28.590" UserId="8242" Text="This may be useful, year 2007:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US20070146129&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A power saving device for a GPS device is to utilize acceleration of gravity sensor to continue detecting the acceleration variation of the GPS device; if an acceleration value is larger than a threshold value, a GPS signal receiver is then started; if the acceleration value is smaller than the threshold value, the GPS signal receiver is then shut. This allows the GPS device to be power saving and not need to facilitate an extra oscillation switch therein to save the production cost. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6328" RevisionGUID="01e064d2-08e4-495f-92ef-4626a09066b2" CreationDate="2014-03-28T14:20:40.890" UserId="1047" Text="Media Streaming - Media Streaming through a Session Initiated Protocol (SIP) (Intellectual Ventures) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST&#xD;&#xA;US 20140059238 A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seen this before? Media streaming over an SIP - Bogus #Patent Application #Intellectual Ventures #priorartrequest &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON streaming media through a session initiation protocol** - This application from [Intellectual Ventures][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Sending a first session initiation protocol (SIP) message from a first device to a second device, receiving a second SIP message from the second device at the first device, sending a third SIP message from the first device to the second device, and receiving the requested media stream from the second device at the first device.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/30/2002** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Streaming media based on streaming parameters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - The streaming parameters may include range, scale, speed, **a length of the requested media stream**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Session initiation Protocol for media streaming**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Sending a **first session initiation protocol (SIP) message** from a **first device** to a **second device**, a **first header field** of the **first SIP message** includes a **first indicator** indicating a request for a **media stream** and a source of the requested **media stream**, receiving a **second SIP message** from the **second device** at the **first device**, a **second header field** of the **second SIP message** includes a **second indicator** indicating acceptance of the request for the **media stream**, sending a **third SIP message** from the **first device** to the **second device**, a **third header field** of the **third SIP message** includes a **third indicator** indicating that the **second device** initiate streaming of the requested **media stream**, and receiving the requested **media stream** from the **second device** at the **first device**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20140059238 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 14/069,817&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Intellectual Ventures&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/30/2002&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 8/26/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. sending a first session invitation protocol (SIP) message from a first device to a second device, wherein a first header field of the first SIP message includes a first indicator indicating a request for a media stream and a source of the requested media stream;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. receiving a second SIP message from the second device at the first device, wherein a second header field of the second SIP message includes a second indicator indicating acceptance of the request for the media stream;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. sending a third SIP message from the first device to the second device, wherein a third header field of the third SIP message includes a third indicator indicating that the second device initiate streaming of the requested media stream; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. receiving the requested media stream from the second device at the first device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1a. Sending a first session initiation protocol (SIP) message from a first device to a second device,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1b. A first header field of the first SIP message includes a first indicator indicating a request for a media stream and a source of the requested media stream;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2a. Receiving a second SIP message from the second device at the first device, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2b. A second header field of the second SIP message includes a second indicator indicating acceptance of the request for the media stream;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3a. Sending a third SIP message from the first device to the second device, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3b. A third header field of the third SIP message includes a third indicator indicating that the second device initiate streaming of the requested media stream; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving the requested media stream from the second device at the first device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/30/2002&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Receiving a third SIP message at the first device from the second device, wherein the third SIP message includes streaming parameters for the requested media stream&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Streaming Media through a session initiation protocol messages&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/bmln1jy.png&quot; width=&quot;824&quot; height=&quot;1148&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140059238&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.intellectualventures.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20140059238#c=0&amp;d1=12%2F30%2F2002" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16814" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6328" RevisionGUID="01e064d2-08e4-495f-92ef-4626a09066b2" CreationDate="2014-03-28T14:20:40.890" UserId="1047" Text="Media Streaming - Media Streaming through a Session Initiated Protocol (SIP) (Intellectual Ventures) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16815" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6328" RevisionGUID="01e064d2-08e4-495f-92ef-4626a09066b2" CreationDate="2014-03-28T14:20:40.890" UserId="1047" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20140059238a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6302" RevisionGUID="23cb934e-6d8d-4e86-b548-a89c7544e335" CreationDate="2014-03-28T15:33:24.630" UserId="7747" Comment="removed introduction-like, improved gramar" Text="If I wanted to produce sticky fore-arm straps that wrap around the fore-arms for competitors to use in the worlds-strongest-man competition to get a better grip when they pick up big circular stones (think wrapping duct tape around fore arms). The tape-like wraps would be rubber on the outside to give a better grip so the rocks do not slide away from their forearms when they pick them up. We can assume something like this does not exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. For an invention like this, do I need a design patent, utility patent, or both?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I would not be creating any new materials. It would be essentially sticky rubber tape - the big differentiator would be the shape of the tape and where it would be placed on the forearm - think uniquely shaped duct-tape-like stickers that are meant to be placed on specific locations of the forearm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If I need a design patent - how many different design patents should I file to make sure no one can produce something similar to my idea? i.e. different design patents with different shapes and sizes of the forearm grips? Or how do I make sure no one can produce something similar?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If I create a design template do I need to list the exact material of the sticky rubber? Do I need to list exactly what the sticky material that sticks to the forearm is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Should I do a drawing or take pictures of something like this when filing for the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is my getting started post and I have absolutely no experience with patents, so feel free to give any other advice to a question I am not asking.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16817" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6302" RevisionGUID="23cb934e-6d8d-4e86-b548-a89c7544e335" CreationDate="2014-03-28T15:33:24.630" Comment="Proposed by 7747 approved by 1767 edit id of 509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6329" RevisionGUID="388d0cf1-69da-4f25-ab27-e4824a6d9bbf" CreationDate="2014-03-28T16:15:58.223" UserId="8245" Text="Not specifically in a phone, but the Delorme handheld GPS (released in 2010) uses the accelerometer to sense when the device is not in motion and can disable the GPS to save battery life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://gpstracklog.com/2010/11/delorme-earthmate-pn-60w-review.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6330" RevisionGUID="9c898a84-59d8-42ff-952e-f244d8a4a91e" CreationDate="2014-03-28T16:18:39.700" UserId="8247" Text="College solar car race teams used maximum power tracking back in the nineties. I don't know too much about it since the team disbanded as joined in 2001-2002, but the website has been preserved.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.rose-hulman.edu/SolarPhantom/&#xD;&#xA;And the EE Faculty Adviser, Marc Herniter, who taught maximum power tracking is still there.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.rose-hulman.edu/academics/academic-departments/electrical-computer-engineering/faculty-staff.aspx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16820" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6328" RevisionGUID="2afb25de-ab5e-4e5c-b58f-392df8ae8cdf" CreationDate="2014-03-28T18:33:57.180" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20140059238a1&gt;&lt;intellectual-ventures&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6328" RevisionGUID="2afb25de-ab5e-4e5c-b58f-392df8ae8cdf" CreationDate="2014-03-28T18:33:57.180" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON streaming media through a session initiation protocol** - This application from [Intellectual Ventures][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Sending a first session initiation protocol (SIP) message from a first device to a second device, receiving a second SIP message from the second device at the first device, sending a third SIP message from the first device to the second device, and receiving the requested media stream from the second device at the first device.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/30/2002** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Streaming media based on streaming parameters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - The streaming parameters may include range, scale, speed, **a length of the requested media stream**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Session initiation Protocol for media streaming**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Sending a **first session initiation protocol (SIP) message** from a **first device** to a **second device**, a **first header field** of the **first SIP message** includes a **first indicator** indicating a request for a **media stream** and a source of the requested **media stream**, receiving a **second SIP message** from the **second device** at the **first device**, a **second header field** of the **second SIP message** includes a **second indicator** indicating acceptance of the request for the **media stream**, sending a **third SIP message** from the **first device** to the **second device**, a **third header field** of the **third SIP message** includes a **third indicator** indicating that the **second device** initiate streaming of the requested **media stream**, and receiving the requested **media stream** from the **second device** at the **first device**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20140059238 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 14/069,817&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Intellectual Ventures&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/30/2002&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 8/26/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. sending a first session invitation protocol (SIP) message from a first device to a second device, wherein a first header field of the first SIP message includes a first indicator indicating a request for a media stream and a source of the requested media stream;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. receiving a second SIP message from the second device at the first device, wherein a second header field of the second SIP message includes a second indicator indicating acceptance of the request for the media stream;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. sending a third SIP message from the first device to the second device, wherein a third header field of the third SIP message includes a third indicator indicating that the second device initiate streaming of the requested media stream; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. receiving the requested media stream from the second device at the first device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1a. Sending a first session initiation protocol (SIP) message from a first device to a second device,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1b. A first header field of the first SIP message includes a first indicator indicating a request for a media stream and a source of the requested media stream;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2a. Receiving a second SIP message from the second device at the first device, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2b. A second header field of the second SIP message includes a second indicator indicating acceptance of the request for the media stream;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3a. Sending a third SIP message from the first device to the second device, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3b. A third header field of the third SIP message includes a third indicator indicating that the second device initiate streaming of the requested media stream; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving the requested media stream from the second device at the first device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/30/2002&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Receiving a third SIP message at the first device from the second device, wherein the third SIP message includes streaming parameters for the requested media stream&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Streaming Media through a session initiation protocol messages&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/bmln1jy.png&quot; width=&quot;824&quot; height=&quot;1148&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140059238&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.intellectualventures.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20140059238#c=0&amp;d1=12%2F30%2F2002" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6328" RevisionGUID="aa8fe6be-2553-4f53-866a-8cf7f2420625" CreationDate="2014-03-28T18:56:07.303" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 82 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON streaming media through a session initiation protocol** - This application from [Intellectual Ventures][1] seeks to patent the idea of...Sending a first session initiation protocol (SIP) message from a first device to a second device, receiving a second SIP message from the second device at the first device, sending a third SIP message from the first device to the second device, and receiving the requested media stream from the second device at the first device.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/30/2002** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Streaming media based on streaming parameters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - The streaming parameters may include range, scale, speed, **a length of the requested media stream**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Session initiation Protocol for media streaming**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Sending a **first session initiation protocol (SIP) message** from a **first device** to a **second device**, a **first header field** of the **first SIP message** includes a **first indicator** indicating a request for a **media stream** and a source of the requested **media stream**, receiving a **second SIP message** from the **second device** at the **first device**, a **second header field** of the **second SIP message** includes a **second indicator** indicating acceptance of the request for the **media stream**, sending a **third SIP message** from the **first device** to the **second device**, a **third header field** of the **third SIP message** includes a **third indicator** indicating that the **second device** initiate streaming of the requested **media stream**, and receiving the requested **media stream** from the **second device** at the **first device**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20140059238 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 14/069,817&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Intellectual Ventures&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/30/2002&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 8/26/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. sending a first session invitation protocol (SIP) message from a first device to a second device, wherein a first header field of the first SIP message includes a first indicator indicating a request for a media stream and a source of the requested media stream;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. receiving a second SIP message from the second device at the first device, wherein a second header field of the second SIP message includes a second indicator indicating acceptance of the request for the media stream;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. sending a third SIP message from the first device to the second device, wherein a third header field of the third SIP message includes a third indicator indicating that the second device initiate streaming of the requested media stream; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. receiving the requested media stream from the second device at the first device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1a. Sending a first session initiation protocol (SIP) message from a first device to a second device,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1b. A first header field of the first SIP message includes a first indicator indicating a request for a media stream and a source of the requested media stream;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2a. Receiving a second SIP message from the second device at the first device, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2b. A second header field of the second SIP message includes a second indicator indicating acceptance of the request for the media stream;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3a. Sending a third SIP message from the first device to the second device, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3b. A third header field of the third SIP message includes a third indicator indicating that the second device initiate streaming of the requested media stream; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving the requested media stream from the second device at the first device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/30/2002&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Receiving a third SIP message at the first device from the second device, wherein the third SIP message includes streaming parameters for the requested media stream&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Streaming Media through a session initiation protocol messages&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][5].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][6] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.intellectualventures.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140059238&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20140059238#c=0&amp;d1=12%2F30%2F2002&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/lFNge.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16824" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6324" RevisionGUID="d6ea0818-efe6-4b9d-ac74-1a51d96d9dc7" CreationDate="2014-03-28T19:11:43.547" UserId="3076" Comment="added claim 1" Text="This patent, US 6831556 B1, basically says that these guys are entitled to be the only company who can package off-the-shelf video and audio recording devices with cameras in a police car and market it as such. That is ludicrous and it makes me wonder how a patent is acquired for such non-sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not a competitor but a consumer and received a letter from this company (patent holder) who essentially markets their system by threatening consumers with patent infringement if they buy a competitors product instead of theirs. When I looked to verify the patent, I was confused and amazed that such a patent could even be acquired. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They sent a nice but passive aggressive cover letter with their catalog saying that they heard we may be in the market for such systems and, oh, by the way, you may want to consider buying from us because we will sue the heck out of you if you buy from someone else. Effectively saying, &quot;We are the only people who can legally pair a camera, microphone, and digital recorder together as a system inside a cop car.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, the company doesn't even manufacture any of those products, AND, they are not the first people to have done it. This thing came about after the year 2000. I know cops who were putting cameras in cop cars in the 80's. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A surveillance system for an emergency response vehicle, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a device for capturing at least two of video, audio, and data information, said device provided in the emergency response vehicle, and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a server for digitally integrating the captured information into one data stream and storing the data stream in the emergency response vehicle,&#xD;&#xA;wherein said server is operative to transfer the data stream from the emergency response vehicle to a second location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16825" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6324" RevisionGUID="d6ea0818-efe6-4b9d-ac74-1a51d96d9dc7" CreationDate="2014-03-28T19:11:43.547" UserId="3076" Comment="added claim 1" Text="How can someone get a patent on a system of off-the-shelf components such as this patent utilizes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6333" RevisionGUID="6ae81810-fd6a-4449-81c8-ab3944168eb3" CreationDate="2014-03-29T05:27:57.250" UserId="8252" Text="I don't know if its appropriate question here...but I anyway want to try...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have an algorithm in which I have a finite data in which each element is assumed as an element of a metric space with a metric defined. Now its mathematically possible to isometrically embed this specific metric space in an Hilbert space. So I do it on this data to get a vector representation although its infinite dimensional, mathematically, I do it in alogorithmic approximation to get a finite dimensional vector representation, for each data element. In theory, as per math, its possible to isometrically embedd this metric space into an Hilbert space, (metric meets required conditions, but approximation comes when we do it on real data with an algorithm).In practicality this isometric embedding on real data is an approximate one. (I do it via clustering the data with defined metric). Then we go on using this vector representation for further modeling as required by the application. The entire process is basically algorthimic, and the notions of metric space and its isometric embedding in a Hilbert space serves as a mathematical justification/motivation for the design of this particular algorithm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question : I am writing a patent on this algorithm on this, in which I need to submit a document to the patent attorney for her perusal. In this document should I just write the entire algorithm in a mechanical way, just as we write code, without giving any mathematical justification/motivation and without mentioning about the brand new mathematical metric space and its isometric embedding to an Hilbert space. Or should I also include a special section in the document giving all the mathematical justification in pure math terminology. (about metric space and isometric embedding).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I write down only algorithm without explaining the math behind it, it sounds boring. But the attorney is not that math savvy to understand the math. Another point is that the mathematical metric space is something brand new, atleast as I searched on the internet, I couldn't find it anywhere the exact definition being used. So does this have any impact on the patent to mention this mathematical metric space in the patent? Should I mention this math in the document an an extra section? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS : i basically did not know what to tag, so I added a few tags even though they dont seem to be appropriate. Please guide me to a site in case if its not  valid here. But I'd like hear from math people what their opinion on this issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16836" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6333" RevisionGUID="6ae81810-fd6a-4449-81c8-ab3944168eb3" CreationDate="2014-03-29T05:27:57.250" UserId="8252" Text="Necessity of math justification/motivation in a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16837" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6333" RevisionGUID="6ae81810-fd6a-4449-81c8-ab3944168eb3" CreationDate="2014-03-29T05:27:57.250" UserId="8252" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;machine-learning&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6334" RevisionGUID="720bada7-5a9f-4750-89d0-443e87a555a7" CreationDate="2014-03-29T09:01:48.110" UserId="8189" Text="Without having a clear idea of what kind of product, and what kind of design/format/shape we're talking about, I think it depends on two things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether there is a way of protection that is applicable for your case;&#xD;&#xA;That may be patents, but also something like protection of a brand, or a design (as in a logo).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, you need to find out whether the change you make from the common existing product is relevant enough for the kind of protection to apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After clarifying this, there is a lot more to do of course; Like deciding in which areas of the planetyou like to protect it, and doing the above again for each country (or possibly larger area, eg EU).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6335" RevisionGUID="05f20beb-3efc-4ca5-ad86-4dca1326f368" CreationDate="2014-03-29T22:29:27.800" UserId="1360" Text="I agree with OutputLogic that a second patent application filing that is &quot;very similar or identical to another&quot; previously filed patent application should not ultimately issue as a patent; however, it is not uncommon for unrelated inventors pursuing solutions addressing similar technological issues to have patent applications with similar disclosures proceed through the USPTO concurrently without Examiners becoming aware of the conflict.  This can happen when the different inventive groups use different terminology in their patent applications, for example. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending upon the timing of the two patent applications at issue or the issuance of one patent relative to the filing date of the other patent, your patent might become the subject of an interference proceeding, a derivation proceeding and/or a post grant review proceeding (e.g., an *ex parte* reexamination or an *inter partes* review), but you are not going to be &quot;sued&quot; for the mere existence of an issued patent having a similar disclosure to another patent - unless the other party has reason to believe you did something improper, e.g., misappropriated or used improper means to discover a trade secret of theirs, breached a confidentiality agreement or the like. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6336" RevisionGUID="3c47c555-a520-4d88-844f-bf89a6a3915d" CreationDate="2014-03-29T22:59:45.500" UserId="1360" Text="Your question appears to blur the distinction between a third party patent publication and a product of the third party.  A patent might effectively block the implementation of that which is described and/or claimed in another patent publication, but a patent publication cannot &quot;infringe&quot; a patent.  Patent infringement generally requires the making, using, offering to sell, selling of a patented invention within the US or the importation of a patented invention into the US.  See 35 USC Section 271.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the manufacturers you noted above actually incorporate your patented design into a **product**, then you may have grounds for a patent infringement action, but I note you indicate the manufacturers use a &quot;portion&quot; of your design.  While one need not incorporate an *exact* copy of your design into a product to infringe, the design of the product would need to appear to an ordinary observer, taking into account the prior art, to be the substantially same as your patented design. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6337" RevisionGUID="c80bf0a0-cb01-4240-b31e-8c0b7bf4f9e4" CreationDate="2014-03-29T23:21:24.247" UserId="1360" Text="First, you should be aware that a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) application published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is not an issued patent.  It is really only a vehicle for preserving the right to pursue patent protection in PCT &quot;contracting states&quot; by later entering the national/regional phase (i.e., filing a national stage patent application) of the jurisdiction in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, you should be aware that patents are geographical in nature.  A US patent, for example, only provides its owner with exclusionary rights within the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, the published PCT application you cite appears only to have entered into the national phase in Australia (see: http://www.lens.org/lens/patent/WO_2011_160165_A1/family).  So, unless you plan on using the claimed invention in Australia, you may not need a license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may want to look at products of Fetch TV Pty Limited (the assignee) to determine if they have implemented devices incorporating the claimed invention.  The assignee would also be a place to start for determining the availability of a license." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6338" RevisionGUID="f592826a-6dcd-4dd7-a037-6df232aa062c" CreationDate="2014-03-29T23:31:39.420" UserId="1360" Text="Be careful, in the interest of protecting national security, your first patent filing might need to be in a patent office within your country of residence or where the invention was made (conceived).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, a patent application for an invention made in (conceived within) the US must first be filed with the USPTO (or must otherwise have authorization to be filed abroad).  See 35 USC 184 ==&gt; http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s140.html and 35 USC 181 ==&gt; http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e304551&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6339" RevisionGUID="517b2661-6ad8-481e-a00c-85f0f802e7b2" CreationDate="2014-03-30T00:01:29.437" UserId="8257" Text="It is a little unclear just what your tape does.  However, if it has some pattern then that could be copyrighted.  You may also be able to trademark the design.  You could go down those paths even if you are planning to go forward with patent.  Note copyrights and trademarks are cheap and the instructions are easy for anyone to follow.  Don't pay someone more than $100 to copyright your stuff unless that fee is also including some patent research/consultation.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6340" RevisionGUID="132b475d-26b0-488c-af5e-186e380b5b27" CreationDate="2014-03-30T00:33:49.277" UserId="1047" Text="Seen this before? Web Site Mapping - Bogus #Patent Application #Intellectual Ventures #priorartrequest &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON organizing and displaying information about Internet web pages on web maps** - This application from [Intellectual Ventures][6] seeks to patent the idea of...A server system receiving, from a client system, a search request specifying a set of search criteria, the server system performing a search based on the search criteria to obtain a plurality of search results, and the server system providing, to the client system, one or more of the plurality of search results.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 4/15/1999** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Organising and displaying web pages information on web maps&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Web maps may include a **graphical representation of information contained on another Web page**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Web Site Mapping on a Wide Area Network**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving, by a **server system**, a **search request** specifying a **set of criteria** from a **client system**, performing, by a **server system**, a search based on the **search criteria** to obtain a **plurality of results**, providing, to the client system, one or more of the plurality of search results, and one or more search results include a result that specifies a corresponding web page as well as at least one other web page referenced by the corresponding web page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20140052778 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 14/065,308&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Intellectual Ventures&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 4/15/1999&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 8/19/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a server system receiving, from a client system, a search request specifying a set of search criteria;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the server system performing a search based on the search criteria to obtain a plurality of search results; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. the server system providing, to the client system, one or more of the plurality of search results, wherein provided ones of the search results include a result that specifies a corresponding web page as well as at least one other web page referenced by the corresponding web page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, by a server system, a search request specifying a set of criteria from a client system; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Performing, by a server system, a search based on the search criteria to obtain a plurality of results; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3a. Providing, to the client system, one or more of the plurality of search results, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3b. One or more search results include a result that specifies a corresponding web page as well as at least one other web page referenced by the corresponding web page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 4/15/1999&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming The web page referenced by the corresponding web page includes a block of text, and the result further specifies phrases extracted from the block of text&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Web pages information through Web Maps&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/21Zf41B.png&quot; width=&quot;441&quot; height=&quot;622&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140052778&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.intellectualventures.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20140052778#c=0&amp;d1=04%2F15%2F1999" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16845" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6340" RevisionGUID="132b475d-26b0-488c-af5e-186e380b5b27" CreationDate="2014-03-30T00:33:49.277" UserId="1047" Text="Displaying web page information through web maps (Intellectual Ventures) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16846" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6340" RevisionGUID="132b475d-26b0-488c-af5e-186e380b5b27" CreationDate="2014-03-30T00:33:49.277" UserId="1047" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20140052778&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6342" RevisionGUID="ab6acdc2-f946-448a-a319-5e4a6e3c50fc" CreationDate="2014-03-30T11:57:49.610" UserId="8262" Text="The claims made by American Express Travel Services in Patent Application WO2012135174 A1 are so generic that most of them are already widely implemented by a large number of travel companies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prior art exists for nearly all the claims, so I am not sure how narrowly the US Patent Office might grant a portion of this application, or whether it will be rejected in its entirety.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16853" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6342" RevisionGUID="ab6acdc2-f946-448a-a319-5e4a6e3c50fc" CreationDate="2014-03-30T11:57:49.610" UserId="8262" Text="Can the Generalities of WO2012135174 A1 really lead to an issued Patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16854" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6342" RevisionGUID="ab6acdc2-f946-448a-a319-5e4a6e3c50fc" CreationDate="2014-03-30T11:57:49.610" UserId="8262" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6343" RevisionGUID="5afa792d-a3a3-4cd0-8656-3e5fd1bfda24" CreationDate="2014-03-30T13:10:12.370" UserId="8263" Text="Their plan is to make the tees and paint them in different designs. Then they are going to package them and sell online and in the neighborhood.  Is this ok to do?  I know there are several patents for golf tees and I don't wish for them to get into any trouble. Any advice?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16856" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6343" RevisionGUID="5afa792d-a3a3-4cd0-8656-3e5fd1bfda24" CreationDate="2014-03-30T13:10:12.370" UserId="8263" Text="My daughter and her golf team want to make golf tees to sell and raise funds for their season. Is this ok to do or must they seek out permission?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16857" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6343" RevisionGUID="5afa792d-a3a3-4cd0-8656-3e5fd1bfda24" CreationDate="2014-03-30T13:10:12.370" UserId="8263" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16858" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6342" RevisionGUID="2282809b-c0cc-48a4-b1c8-791b2f9588b3" CreationDate="2014-03-30T16:31:20.753" UserId="3076" Comment="Add tag to patent" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;wo2012135174&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6344" RevisionGUID="5d6b2838-ddcf-4056-bdbf-77f9894ce607" CreationDate="2014-03-30T19:40:03.463" UserId="8266" Text="I'm trying to find out about patents involving my Father, Frank William Jandl. He is long deceased, and I'm his daughter and I'm doing the family genealogy hoping to include information on my Father. He was a mechanical engineer mostly based in the Los Angeles CA area during the years 1945-1980. &#xD;&#xA;I'd appreciate any and all information!&#xD;&#xA;Thank You,&#xD;&#xA;Camilla" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16860" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6344" RevisionGUID="5d6b2838-ddcf-4056-bdbf-77f9894ce607" CreationDate="2014-03-30T19:40:03.463" UserId="8266" Text="Frank W. Jandl Engineer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16861" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6344" RevisionGUID="5d6b2838-ddcf-4056-bdbf-77f9894ce607" CreationDate="2014-03-30T19:40:03.463" UserId="8266" Text="&lt;usa&gt;&lt;trademark&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6345" RevisionGUID="aafae3ed-a382-4264-b2aa-b0282a626915" CreationDate="2014-03-30T21:38:23.493" UserId="1360" Text="I think it is best to take a conservative approach.  To be conservative, any **unconstrained** use/disclosure should be considered a public use/disclosure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless there is an obligation on the part of Apple to maintain confidentiality in relation to app submissions, I would recommend that you treat the submission as a public disclosure and that you file your patent application within one year of that date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6346" RevisionGUID="ed5c8e1d-a207-4e6f-a623-6f45269ae1a3" CreationDate="2014-03-30T21:43:26.290" UserId="1360" Text="Camila, doing an inventor search on the USPTO website, I found Frank W. Jandl listed as a co-inventor on US Patent No. 4,110,977.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can download a copy of the patent in PDF form here ==&gt; http://free.patentfetcher.com/Patent-Fetcher.php?submit=Fetch&amp;PN=4110977&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6347" RevisionGUID="69410701-f57e-4e03-ab07-70b093e85a94" CreationDate="2014-03-30T23:13:44.970" UserId="1047" Text="Seen this before? Event based semantic classification of images - Bogus #Patent Application #IV #priorartrequest &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON classifying digital images into semantic categories** - This application from [IV][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Generating time-based event boundaries detected in a plurality of images, computing inter-event durations, grouping events into clusters based on the inter-event durations, and validating that each event belongs to an associated cluster based on event level content based features using a rule-based system.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/19/2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Classification of digital images into event based semantic categories &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Semantic categories may include events, people, places etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Semantic classification of digital images based on events**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Generating **time-based event** boundaries detected in a **plurality of images**, computing **inter-event durations**, grouping events into clusters based on the **inter-event durations**, and validating that each event belongs to an associated cluster based on **event level content** based features using a **rule-based system**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20140046914 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 14/054,954&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IV&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/19/2008&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 8/12/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. generating, using a processor, time-based event boundaries detected in a plurality of images;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. computing inter-event durations;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. grouping events into clusters based on the inter-event durations; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. validating, using a rule-based system, that each event belongs to an associated cluster based on event level content based features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Generating time-based event boundaries detected in a plurality of images;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Computing inter-event durations;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Grouping events into clusters based on the inter-event durations; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Validating whether each event belongs to an associated cluster based on event level content based features using a rule-based system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/19/2008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A location is determined for each image in an event and grouping events into clusters based upon the locations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Semantic classification of digital images&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zbwqM2i.png&quot; width=&quot;710&quot; height=&quot;582&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140046914&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.intellectualventures.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20140046914#c=0&amp;d1=11%2F19%2F2008" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16865" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6347" RevisionGUID="69410701-f57e-4e03-ab07-70b093e85a94" CreationDate="2014-03-30T23:13:44.970" UserId="1047" Text="Classification of digital images - Digital Images classification in semantic categories (IV) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16866" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6347" RevisionGUID="69410701-f57e-4e03-ab07-70b093e85a94" CreationDate="2014-03-30T23:13:44.970" UserId="1047" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;intellectual-ventures&gt;&lt;us20140046914&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6347" RevisionGUID="b22523aa-fc8b-4034-b45a-6d988fa37e39" CreationDate="2014-03-31T00:23:15.733" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 117 characters in body" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON classifying digital images into semantic categories** - This application from [IV][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Generating time-based event boundaries detected in a plurality of images, computing inter-event durations, grouping events into clusters based on the inter-event durations, and validating that each event belongs to an associated cluster based on event level content based features using a rule-based system.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/19/2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Classification of digital images into event based semantic categories &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Semantic categories may include events, people, places etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Semantic classification of digital images based on events**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Generating **time-based event** boundaries detected in a **plurality of images**, computing **inter-event durations**, grouping events into clusters based on the **inter-event durations**, and validating that each event belongs to an associated cluster based on **event level content** based features using a **rule-based system**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20140046914 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 14/054,954&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IV&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/19/2008&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 8/12/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. generating, using a processor, time-based event boundaries detected in a plurality of images;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. computing inter-event durations;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. grouping events into clusters based on the inter-event durations; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. validating, using a rule-based system, that each event belongs to an associated cluster based on event level content based features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Generating time-based event boundaries detected in a plurality of images;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Computing inter-event durations;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Grouping events into clusters based on the inter-event durations; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Validating whether each event belongs to an associated cluster based on event level content based features using a rule-based system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/19/2008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A location is determined for each image in an event and grouping events into clusters based upon the locations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Semantic classification of digital images&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zbwqM2i.png&quot; width=&quot;710&quot; height=&quot;582&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140046914&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.intellectualventures.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20140046914#c=0&amp;d1=11%2F19%2F2008" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6342" RevisionGUID="5ddae6b7-4aa8-483e-b1e4-57b0853f97ed" CreationDate="2014-03-31T00:29:12.707" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="The claims made by American Express Travel Services in Patent Application us20120254261 are so generic that most of them are already widely implemented by a large number of travel companies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prior art exists for nearly all the claims, so I am not sure how narrowly the US Patent Office might grant a portion of this application, or whether it will be rejected in its entirety.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Collecting, by a computer based system for creating a digital travel record, at least one of transaction account data particular to a transaction account, global distribution system data particular to a transaction account holder, and passenger name record data particular to a transaction account holder;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Modifying, by the computer based system, the collected data for integration with a service oriented architecture framework; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Delivering, by the computer based system, the modified data as a module for use by an application.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16869" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6342" RevisionGUID="5ddae6b7-4aa8-483e-b1e4-57b0853f97ed" CreationDate="2014-03-31T00:29:12.707" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Can the Generalities of us20120254261 really lead to an issued Patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16870" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6342" RevisionGUID="5ddae6b7-4aa8-483e-b1e4-57b0853f97ed" CreationDate="2014-03-31T00:29:12.707" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;wo2012135174&gt;&lt;us20120254261&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6348" RevisionGUID="07ac9af6-c14b-4244-8f5f-40c11e526a82" CreationDate="2014-03-31T12:39:37.733" UserId="8269" Text="This patent has, as part of its content about projective geometry, text and diagrams copied from my web site http://www.nct.anth.org.uk/ without permission or acknowledgement.  Is that ethical in a patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N C Thomas" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16873" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6348" RevisionGUID="07ac9af6-c14b-4244-8f5f-40c11e526a82" CreationDate="2014-03-31T12:39:37.733" UserId="8269" Text="Plagiarism in a Patent Application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16874" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6348" RevisionGUID="07ac9af6-c14b-4244-8f5f-40c11e526a82" CreationDate="2014-03-31T12:39:37.733" UserId="8269" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6349" RevisionGUID="dc7e9f27-d849-45f5-86b9-5a6c10a2b6d3" CreationDate="2014-03-31T12:43:41.830" UserId="5071" Text="I would guess that since golf tees have been around for scores of years, that there aren't any patents on them, but in any case, you might not want to copy the look-and-feel of a tee, as it might be a problem on copyright grounds, but that's off-topic for this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6350" RevisionGUID="8e383119-6507-4f19-997d-a40f16129a9c" CreationDate="2014-03-31T18:15:50.787" UserId="1047" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON finding the nearby picture hotspots based on location data and user data ** - This application from [Intellectual Ventures][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Transmit location data and user data over a wireless network via the communication module, and receive notification data from a network connected server over the wireless network in response to the transmitted location data.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 10/28/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining nearby picture hotspots based on location data and user data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - User data may include data retrieved from the digital storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Locating picture hotspots based on location data and user data**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Transmit **location data** and **user data** over a **wireless network** via the **communication module**, the **location data** is provided by the **GPS receiver module** based in part on stored **user data**, receive **notification data** from a network connected server over the **wireless network** in response to the transmitted **location data**, the **notification data** indicates that the device is within a vicinity of a **hot spot location**, and the notification includes **directional information** associated with finding the **hot spot location**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20140032715 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 14/043,934&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Intellectual Ventures&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 10/28/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 7/29/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a communication module;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a GPS receiver module; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a processor configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3a. transmit location data and user data over a wireless network via the communication module, wherein the location data is provided by the GPS receiver module based in part on stored user data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3b. receive notification data from a network connected server over the wireless network in response to the transmitted location data, wherein the notification data indicates that the device is within a vicinity of a hot spot location, wherein the notification includes directional information associated with finding the hot spot location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A communication module;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A GPS receiver module; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A processor configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3a. Transmit location data and user data over a wireless network via the communication module,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3b. The location data is provided by the GPS receiver module based in part on stored user data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3c. Receive notification data from a network connected server over the wireless network in response to the transmitted location data,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3d. The notification data indicates that the device is within a vicinity of a hot spot location, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3e. The notification includes directional information associated with finding the hot spot location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 10/28/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming The notification data includes directional information from a current location to the hotspot location and the current location is based on the location data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Nearby Picture Hotspots&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/XRUCbpF.png&quot; width=&quot;356&quot; height=&quot;604&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140032715&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.intellectualventures.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20140032715#c=0&amp;d1=10%2F28%2F2010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16877" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6350" RevisionGUID="8e383119-6507-4f19-997d-a40f16129a9c" CreationDate="2014-03-31T18:15:50.787" UserId="1047" Text="Locating Picture hotspots - Determining nearby picture hotspots (Intellectual Ventures) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16878" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6350" RevisionGUID="8e383119-6507-4f19-997d-a40f16129a9c" CreationDate="2014-03-31T18:15:50.787" UserId="1047" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;intellectual-ventures&gt;&lt;us20140012609a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6350" RevisionGUID="d26ba293-38ec-48f9-9803-d1598207c439" CreationDate="2014-03-31T19:10:46.290" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON finding the nearby picture hotspots based on location data and user data** - This application from [Intellectual Ventures][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Transmit location data and user data over a wireless network via the communication module, and receive notification data from a network connected server over the wireless network in response to the transmitted location data.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 10/28/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining nearby picture hotspots based on location data and user data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - User data may include data retrieved from the digital storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Locating picture hotspots based on location data and user data**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Transmit **location data** and **user data** over a **wireless network** via the **communication module**, the **location data** is provided by the **GPS receiver module** based in part on stored **user data**, receive **notification data** from a network connected server over the **wireless network** in response to the transmitted **location data**, the **notification data** indicates that the device is within a vicinity of a **hot spot location**, and the notification includes **directional information** associated with finding the **hot spot location**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20140032715 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 14/043,934&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Intellectual Ventures&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 10/28/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 7/29/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a communication module;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a GPS receiver module; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a processor configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3a. transmit location data and user data over a wireless network via the communication module, wherein the location data is provided by the GPS receiver module based in part on stored user data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3b. receive notification data from a network connected server over the wireless network in response to the transmitted location data, wherein the notification data indicates that the device is within a vicinity of a hot spot location, wherein the notification includes directional information associated with finding the hot spot location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A communication module;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A GPS receiver module; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A processor configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3a. Transmit location data and user data over a wireless network via the communication module,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3b. The location data is provided by the GPS receiver module based in part on stored user data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3c. Receive notification data from a network connected server over the wireless network in response to the transmitted location data,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3d. The notification data indicates that the device is within a vicinity of a hot spot location, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3e. The notification includes directional information associated with finding the hot spot location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 10/28/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming The notification data includes directional information from a current location to the hotspot location and the current location is based on the location data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Nearby Picture Hotspots&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/XRUCbpF.png&quot; width=&quot;356&quot; height=&quot;604&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140032715&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.intellectualventures.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20140032715#c=0&amp;d1=10%2F28%2F2010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6351" RevisionGUID="5381fe9a-1127-45b9-97e6-9da65c95c53a" CreationDate="2014-04-01T04:49:16.193" UserId="8274" Text="I am wondering why dont every company keep their product a trade secret instead of patenting since patents expire after 20 years after which anyone can implement your product at no cost" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16884" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6351" RevisionGUID="5381fe9a-1127-45b9-97e6-9da65c95c53a" CreationDate="2014-04-01T04:49:16.193" UserId="8274" Text="Why dont companies keep their product implemenation as trade secret instead of patenting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16885" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6351" RevisionGUID="5381fe9a-1127-45b9-97e6-9da65c95c53a" CreationDate="2014-04-01T04:49:16.193" UserId="8274" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6351" RevisionGUID="84c3801d-93dc-44f9-aa15-378c741d3454" CreationDate="2014-04-01T04:55:17.723" UserId="8274" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="I am wondering why dont every company keep their product a trade secret then almost nobody would be able to replicate your product instead of patenting which reveals the inner working of your products and patents expire after 20 years after which anyone can implement your product at no cost" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6351" RevisionGUID="54f62b6d-0c20-4b2d-bff6-fd822b8f517d" CreationDate="2014-04-01T13:03:21.160" UserId="1259" Comment="spellings, grammer, tags" Text="I am wondering why every company doesn't keep their product a trade secret? Then almost nobody would be able to replicate the product instead of patenting, which reveals the inner working of the products. Patents expire after 20 years after which time anyone can implement the product at no profit to the inventors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16888" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6351" RevisionGUID="54f62b6d-0c20-4b2d-bff6-fd822b8f517d" CreationDate="2014-04-01T13:03:21.160" UserId="1259" Comment="spellings, grammer, tags" Text="Why don't companies keep their product implementation as trade secrets instead of patenting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16889" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6351" RevisionGUID="54f62b6d-0c20-4b2d-bff6-fd822b8f517d" CreationDate="2014-04-01T13:03:21.160" UserId="1259" Comment="spellings, grammer, tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6352" RevisionGUID="ba56835f-3e15-4f7d-857c-8c06ee8a0aad" CreationDate="2014-04-01T14:03:07.707" UserId="8277" Text="Apple has [filed a patent for 'Transparent Texting'](http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?Docid=20140085334&amp;homeurl=http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO2%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsearch-adv.html%2526r%3D3%2526p%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526d%3DPG01%2526S1%3D%252528345%25252F633.CCLS.%252BAND%252B20140327.PD.%252529%2526OS%3Dccl/345/633%252Band%252Bpd/3/27/2014%2526RS%3D%28CCL/345/633%252BAND%252BPD/20140327%29&amp;PageNum=&amp;Rtype=&amp;SectionNum=&amp;idkey=87B05F869C20)  that resembles existing applications such as [Tape n Walk](http://www.type-n-walk.com/) and [Walk N Text](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.incorporateapps.walktext)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16891" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6352" RevisionGUID="ba56835f-3e15-4f7d-857c-8c06ee8a0aad" CreationDate="2014-04-01T14:03:07.707" UserId="8277" Text="US20140085334 - Apple secures patent for transparent texting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16892" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6352" RevisionGUID="ba56835f-3e15-4f7d-857c-8c06ee8a0aad" CreationDate="2014-04-01T14:03:07.707" UserId="8277" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;apple&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16893" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6352" RevisionGUID="a8f3c412-9bcd-40db-90ad-836f8656d4ad" CreationDate="2014-04-01T14:17:45.797" UserId="8277" Comment="Added patent id to tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;us20140085334&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6353" RevisionGUID="66dfe82c-44a5-404c-84be-4bd2acb97227" CreationDate="2014-04-01T15:00:55.117" UserId="1047" Text="Here's an example of potential prior art for this patent application: [US6965614][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6965614?dq=6965614&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=Q9M6U538F6rUsAS96YDwCQ&amp;ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This US patent describes the use of SIP in media streaming and also discusses the process of server-user requests interchange using SIP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are aware of other potential prior art references, please post it here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6354" RevisionGUID="9813bbc0-e471-46f0-a552-59851048797c" CreationDate="2014-04-01T15:06:28.223" UserId="1047" Text="Here's an example of potential prior art for this patent application: [US5649186][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are aware of other potential prior art references, please post it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5649186?dq=5649186&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=dNU6U-7-IdTJsATDmoC4Cw&amp;ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6355" RevisionGUID="a0e95dd7-b89d-49ac-b968-44a6a85423df" CreationDate="2014-04-01T15:12:34.857" UserId="1047" Text="Here's an example of potential prior art for this patent application: [US20070136275][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are aware of other potential prior art references, please post it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20070136275?pg=PA14&amp;dq=US20070136275&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=xNY6U47QNLLPsAT-7oGIBw&amp;ved=0CD4Q6AEwAQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6356" RevisionGUID="61783981-7918-455b-9143-e1fd78a621f0" CreationDate="2014-04-01T15:13:34.177" UserId="1360" Text="I certainly cannot speak to why a particular company chooses one form of intellectual property protection over another, but trade secret law has a few limitations.  First, a trade secret is protected only against **misappropriation** (e.g., acquisition through improper means or breach of confidence).  Therefore, a trade secret provides no protection against **independent development**.  Second, there is some uncertainty with regard to whether a court will ultimately find the information sought to be protected actually constitutes a trade secret.  As such, one doesn't know if one's purported trade secret is truly enforceable until a court tells it so.  The factors considered by courts in evaluating whether information constitutes a trade secret include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The extent to which the information is known outside of the plaintiff's business &#xD;&#xA; - The extent to which the information is known by employees or others in the business &#xD;&#xA; - The extent of the measures taken to protect the secrecy of the information in question &#xD;&#xA; - The value of the information to the business and its competitors &#xD;&#xA; - The amount of effort and/or money invested by the business in developing the information &#xD;&#xA; - The ease or difficulty associated with proper acquisition or duplication of the information by others&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As part of a trade secret claim, the plaintiff also has the burden of proving that the information was wrongfully acquired by the defendant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not every product innovation is incapable of being independently developed (or reverse engineered) given enough time, money and developers.  The exclusionary rights provided by a patent allow a patent holder to enjoin the infringer or receive monetary damages from the infringer, even if they independently developed the infringing technology.  Of course, patents have their negatives as well, including cost and, as you mentioned, the disclosure requirements and limited lifetime.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16898" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6352" RevisionGUID="7e83ec74-a6db-4d78-8ca4-2a70fff242e6" CreationDate="2014-04-01T16:26:04.623" UserId="3076" Comment="correct title" Text="US20140085334 - Apple applies for patent on transparent texting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6357" RevisionGUID="7403ed6b-a9f9-4d53-b89c-d7d3048b52ae" CreationDate="2014-04-01T17:17:17.847" UserId="8094" Text="Is there any website or a forum where I can find patent attorneys or agents who are reliable ? After a lot of searching, I find most of the websites of attorneys very 'spammy looking'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answers from people with previous experience on working with an agent or attorney will help the newbies with this dilemma. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16901" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6357" RevisionGUID="7403ed6b-a9f9-4d53-b89c-d7d3048b52ae" CreationDate="2014-04-01T17:17:17.847" UserId="8094" Text="Where to find patent Agents/Attorneys?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16902" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6357" RevisionGUID="7403ed6b-a9f9-4d53-b89c-d7d3048b52ae" CreationDate="2014-04-01T17:17:17.847" UserId="8094" Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;attorney&gt;&lt;patent-agent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6361" RevisionGUID="ad8c40ff-8679-4bda-b5e2-ee122226d852" CreationDate="2014-04-02T00:36:34.193" UserId="8282" Text="So this patent was filed September 11, 2013. There are two Youtube videos describing the same invention from April 2013 from two different people:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSSvqpBLhGM&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BsaCVg7h_w&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would that be grounds to block this patent application being granted? What would I have to do to accomplish that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16915" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6361" RevisionGUID="ad8c40ff-8679-4bda-b5e2-ee122226d852" CreationDate="2014-04-02T00:36:34.193" UserId="8282" Text="Would this application be invalidated by a youtube video showing the same invention 5 months earlier?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16916" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6361" RevisionGUID="ad8c40ff-8679-4bda-b5e2-ee122226d852" CreationDate="2014-04-02T00:36:34.193" UserId="8282" Text="&lt;us20140076126&gt;&lt;midi&gt;&lt;scale&gt;&lt;diatonic&gt;&lt;chromatic&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6362" RevisionGUID="94643b89-cb34-4dff-8cdb-dc15d9e22621" CreationDate="2014-04-02T03:33:00.177" UserId="1047" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON utilizing a mobile station for the transmission of authorization information in a telecommunication network** - This application from [IV][6] seeks to patent the idea of...A transmitter configured to transmit information to a mobile station, and a processor in communication with the transmitter and configured to generate a verification result indicating a verification status of the transaction, in response to a request received from a verifying device.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/2/2000** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Transmission of authorization information utilizing a mobile station &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Authorization information may refer to information which can be used to verify a **person's right of admission**, **right to use a service**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Authorization information transmission using a mobile station**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A transmitter configured to transmit information to a **mobile station**, the information corresponds to a transaction to be verified, a processor in communication with the transmitter and configured to generate a **verification result** indicating a **verification status** of the transaction, in response to a request received from a **verifying device**, and the **verifying device** is configured to receive information from the **mobile device** and transmit the request to verify the transaction to the **authorization server** based on the information received from the **mobile station**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20140012609 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 14/023,812&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IV&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/2/2000&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 7/8/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An authorization server comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a transmitter configured to transmit information to a mobile station, wherein the information corresponds to a transaction to be verified; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a processor in communication with the transmitter and configured to generate a verification result indicating a verification status of the transaction, in response to a request received from a verifying device, wherein the verifying device is configured to receive information from the mobile device and transmit the request to verify the transaction to the authorization server based on the information received from the mobile station.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1a. A transmitter configured to transmit information to a mobile station,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1b. The information corresponds to a transaction to be verified; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2a. A processor in communication with the transmitter and configured to generate a verification result indicating a verification status of the transaction, in response to a request received from a verifying device, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2b. The verifying device is configured to receive information from the mobile device and transmit the request to verify the transaction to the authorization server based on the information received from the mobile station.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/2/2000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming The receiver comprises a wireless communications receiver to receive the information through a wireless connection&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Authorization Information&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zrsiVIK.png&quot; width=&quot;776&quot; height=&quot;574&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140012609&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.intellectualventures.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20140012609#c=0&amp;d1=05%2F02%2F2000" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16918" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6362" RevisionGUID="94643b89-cb34-4dff-8cdb-dc15d9e22621" CreationDate="2014-04-02T03:33:00.177" UserId="1047" Text="Authorization Information transmission - Transmission of authorization information (IV) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16919" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6362" RevisionGUID="94643b89-cb34-4dff-8cdb-dc15d9e22621" CreationDate="2014-04-02T03:33:00.177" UserId="1047" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;intellectual-ventures&gt;&lt;us20140012609a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16922" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6361" RevisionGUID="269435e7-3a82-415f-ab61-0f332c37f4b7" CreationDate="2014-04-02T13:22:39.680" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20140076126&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6364" RevisionGUID="d5cc453c-72a6-4f20-a34e-954c4af51c50" CreationDate="2014-04-02T19:58:07.783" UserId="8120" Text="First Response was reformulated to include  a new antibody  to hCG beta-core fragment in a digital pregnancy test. Does anyone know whether this new antibody can detect pregnancy any sooner than other tests? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16925" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6364" RevisionGUID="d5cc453c-72a6-4f20-a34e-954c4af51c50" CreationDate="2014-04-02T19:58:07.783" UserId="8120" Text="Does anyone know the patent number for First Response™ Gold™ Digital Pregnancy Test by Church &amp;Dwight?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16926" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6364" RevisionGUID="d5cc453c-72a6-4f20-a34e-954c4af51c50" CreationDate="2014-04-02T19:58:07.783" UserId="8120" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16927" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6364" RevisionGUID="a8de3080-b9b6-4514-8f10-b18c8bd782eb" CreationDate="2014-04-02T20:01:25.727" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6364" RevisionGUID="a8de3080-b9b6-4514-8f10-b18c8bd782eb" CreationDate="2014-04-02T20:01:25.727" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="First Response was reformulated to include  a new antibody to hCG beta-core fragment in a digital pregnancy test. Does anyone know whether Church &amp; Dwight have filed patents on this new test?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6365" RevisionGUID="679c9d9a-f718-40e7-8c5f-d4abadc24957" CreationDate="2014-04-02T21:02:45.077" UserId="1360" Text="Note that the filing date of a patent application is not always the date by which prior art is measured.  Here, the patent application in question claims the benefit of priority to a European Patent Application (EP 12184092.0) filed on September 12, 2012. So, the patent application in question has a priority date of September 12, 2012.  In order to be considered prior art, the YouTube videos in question would have to be dated prior to September 12, 2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best type of prior art is that which has an effective publication date **more than one year before** the earliest priority date to which the patent in question is entitled.  So, you really want to have prior art having an effective date of September 11, 2011 or earlier." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6367" RevisionGUID="817df4d6-9a4e-42a9-9285-0d56f588266c" CreationDate="2014-04-03T05:26:30.663" UserId="8294" Text="I am new to this guys and I was wondering that can i buy patent for a specific gesture used for a specific purpose  in Google glass.&#xD;&#xA;The thing is that i have implemented something in one of my glass apps and i think it would be copied by other developers so i want to stop that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone guide me. i live in Asia and i don't know how to buy a patent and whether it will be valid worldwide or not ? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16937" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6367" RevisionGUID="817df4d6-9a4e-42a9-9285-0d56f588266c" CreationDate="2014-04-03T05:26:30.663" UserId="8294" Text="Can i buy patent for a specific gesture that i have used for specific purpose in google glass app?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16938" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6367" RevisionGUID="817df4d6-9a4e-42a9-9285-0d56f588266c" CreationDate="2014-04-03T05:26:30.663" UserId="8294" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;google&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6367" RevisionGUID="ef8b90ec-59e4-4419-8e69-e6837571281a" CreationDate="2014-04-03T15:02:29.303" UserId="1259" Comment="tags typos" Text="I am new to patents and I was wondering that can I buy patent for a specific gesture used for a specific purpose in Google glass.&#xD;&#xA;The thing is that I have implemented something in one of my glass apps and i think it would be copied by other developers so I want to stop that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone guide me? I live in Asia and I don't know how to buy a patent and whether it will be valid worldwide or not? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16940" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6367" RevisionGUID="ef8b90ec-59e4-4419-8e69-e6837571281a" CreationDate="2014-04-03T15:02:29.303" UserId="1259" Comment="tags typos" Text="Can I buy patent for a specific gesture that I have used for specific purpose in google glass app?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16941" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6367" RevisionGUID="ef8b90ec-59e4-4419-8e69-e6837571281a" CreationDate="2014-04-03T15:02:29.303" UserId="1259" Comment="tags typos" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;process&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6368" RevisionGUID="ba80e604-f8ea-4f8c-9efc-25c31cdaddaa" CreationDate="2014-04-03T17:23:57.157" UserId="1047" Text="Here's an example of potential prior art for this patent application: [US20100002122 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the description, this patent application describes a system and method that provide techniques for sharing digital photos, in which a user of a portable electronic device may seek out a location at which another electronic device was used to capture a photo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are aware of other potential prior art references, please post it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20100002122?dq=US20100002122&amp;ei=85c9U6u4L5TLsASI_oCoAw" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6371" RevisionGUID="8eb3d843-de4f-4a33-b20a-b051b5a8f57a" CreationDate="2014-04-04T07:16:05.813" UserId="8302" Text="Or CamText in the Cydia store for $1.50.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.idownloadblog.com/2014/04/03/camtext/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G_jjWux9A8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6372" RevisionGUID="598e26e6-f02a-470c-bbd7-8f31f57a1e84" CreationDate="2014-04-04T21:18:22.897" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="I have a question about explaining the theory that undergoes an invention: should it be exposed in patent application (Description) and if yes how?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what I have seen patent documents are not intended to explain the theory that lay under the invention and therefore the document is written in a “legalese” style, it is quite succinct, it lacks illustrations other than the ones functional to invention description.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In other words it seems to me that an application is intended exclusively to describe an invention (for claim and legal purposes), not to explain it. This could be effective for mechanical inventions, but in other fields where some theoretic backgrounds is needed to understand the invention is not possible to effectively claim without providing some extra explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence a semantic search related invention could be “packed” in a succinct operational and algorithm description, but the invention wouldn't be well understood if the undergoing theory (that is somehow innovative) is not better explained. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should the inventor write and publish a paper (scientific style) in which the general theory is exposed and then cite it in patent application? In this case should the paper be published before or after patent application? If the paper would be published before patent application, how to be sure that it doesn't invalidate the invention being considered a theory in public domain?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16960" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6372" RevisionGUID="598e26e6-f02a-470c-bbd7-8f31f57a1e84" CreationDate="2014-04-04T21:18:22.897" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="explaining the theory that undergoes an invention in patent description?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16961" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6372" RevisionGUID="598e26e6-f02a-470c-bbd7-8f31f57a1e84" CreationDate="2014-04-04T21:18:22.897" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;description&gt;&lt;state-of-the-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16963" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="6302" RevisionGUID="bac224b3-b502-4df9-9b37-0651b89b6100" CreationDate="2014-04-05T01:45:28.637" UserId="-1" Comment="23" />
  <row Id="16964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6373" RevisionGUID="2e6169fe-0733-43a1-a865-6d46a216200f" CreationDate="2014-04-05T03:53:39.640" UserId="8306" Text="Regarding patent [US7873522][1] (Measurement of spoken language training, learning and testing):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know why dependent claim 18 begins &quot;The method of claim 17...&quot; when claim 17 is not a method claim. Claim 17 is an apparatus claim, and does not, from what I can see, contain any method. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;17. An apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a user interface to receive....&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;18. The method of claim 17, further comprising a computing device to play a benchmark audio...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other two dependent claims that follow claim 18 (19 and 20) both begin, &quot;The apparatus of claim 17...&quot;, as one would expect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia][2] seems to indicate that a dependent claim can have a different &quot;claim type&quot; that the independent claim that it falls under:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Under the European Patent Convention, when a claim in one particular&#xD;&#xA;&gt; category (see below), e.g. a process claim, depends on a claim from a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different category, e.g. a product claim, it is not considered to be a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dependent claim but an independent claim. *Under U.S. law, this is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; still counted as a dependent claim, regardless of the class change*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I can't understand why there is a &quot;class change&quot; in this case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US787352. &#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim_%28patent%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16965" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6373" RevisionGUID="2e6169fe-0733-43a1-a865-6d46a216200f" CreationDate="2014-04-05T03:53:39.640" UserId="8306" Text="A method claim dependent on an apparatus claim? (US7873522)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16966" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6373" RevisionGUID="2e6169fe-0733-43a1-a865-6d46a216200f" CreationDate="2014-04-05T03:53:39.640" UserId="8306" Text="&lt;method&gt;&lt;apparatus&gt;&lt;change&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6375" RevisionGUID="781a98cf-f1b7-40e7-9494-5fd3a2d06acf" CreationDate="2014-04-05T20:17:56.353" UserDisplayName="user8310" Text="I've been developing a software and am now bringing in additional people to the project, who want to work on it for a share of future profit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I founded a company (currently an LLC) to host this project, and am ready to begin the patent process, but I have a few questions first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. How (basically) can I divide ownership of any intellectual property that I plan to patent through the company, so that different people have different guaranteed shares of all future value coming from this new software? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. How much money (USD) might I typically need to spend patenting intellectual property?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. How do I begin? Typically, how does one seek out local legal expertise for a patent process? I'm new to my area and don't know of any patent lawyers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. How can I protect this IP from being stolen by members of the venture or their associates in the mean time? If someone were to attempt to patent this today, could I challenge the patent by proving prior ownership of detailed documentation on the subject? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is all in regards to the US patent system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16972" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6375" RevisionGUID="781a98cf-f1b7-40e7-9494-5fd3a2d06acf" CreationDate="2014-04-05T20:17:56.353" UserDisplayName="user8310" Text="Handling ownership and patent initiation of intellectual property" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16973" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6375" RevisionGUID="781a98cf-f1b7-40e7-9494-5fd3a2d06acf" CreationDate="2014-04-05T20:17:56.353" UserDisplayName="user8310" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;intellectual-property&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6375" RevisionGUID="53b301c1-a733-4c1f-b4bc-ff44e3ed3d78" CreationDate="2014-04-05T20:27:28.477" UserDisplayName="user8310" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="I've been developing a software and am now bringing in additional people to the project, who want to work on it for a share of future profit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I founded a company (currently an LLC) to host this project, and am ready to begin the patent process, but I have a few questions first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. How (basically) can I divide ownership of any intellectual property that I plan to patent through the company, so that different people have different guaranteed shares of all future value coming from this new software? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. How much money (USD) might I typically need to spend patenting intellectual property?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. How do I begin? Typically, how does one seek out local legal expertise for a patent process? I'm new to my area and don't know of any patent lawyers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. How can I protect this IP from being stolen by members of the venture or their associates in the mean time? If someone were to attempt to patent this today, could I challenge the patent by proving prior ownership of detailed documentation on the subject? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is all in regards to the US patent &amp; legal system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6376" RevisionGUID="7fcdc717-df5a-4662-bd2a-15a90a30dae8" CreationDate="2014-04-05T22:36:57.607" UserId="3076" Text="At least in the U.S., a patent application must teach someone skilled in the field how to make and use the invention without undue (for the field) experimentation. It also needs to cover whatever version you and your team think is the best way to do it at the time of filing. Inventors may not always know or correctly know the theory behind the invention. If putting a silver bowl in the dirt for a week results in it coming out clean you may have a &quot;method of cleaning silver&quot; invention with no idea what chemistry is at work. There was a Supreme court case many years ago that said the inventor does not need to present or even have a correct understanding of the underlying science and math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A patentee may be baldly empirical, seeing nothing beyond his&#xD;&#xA;experiments and the result; yet if he has added a new and valuable article to the world's&#xD;&#xA;utilities, he is entitled to the rank and protection of an inventor. And how can it take from&#xD;&#xA;his merit that he may not know all of the forces which he has brought into operation? It is&#xD;&#xA;certainly not necessary that he understand or be able to state the scientific principles&#xD;&#xA;underlying his invention, and it is immaterial whether he can stand a successful&#xD;&#xA;examination as to the speculative ideas involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DIAMOND RUBBER COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Petitioner, v. CONSOLIDATED RUBBER TIRE&#xD;&#xA;COMPANY and Rubber Tire Wheel Company. 1911&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may actually not be advisable to go into the underlying science in a patent application. It can give the reader (judge) the idea that your invention is just a manifestation of a mathematical truth or a law of nature. Neither of those is patentable. Also, sometimes the issue is an &quot;unexpected result&quot; in that the inventor tried something others may not have thought would work - but it does - yea! ~= patent. Expected result, no patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16976" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6373" RevisionGUID="f663aba7-5ca1-45c3-aaba-b201203c2f70" CreationDate="2014-04-05T22:38:47.027" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to patent doc. " Text="&lt;method&gt;&lt;apparatus&gt;&lt;change&gt;&lt;us7873522&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6377" RevisionGUID="6a2a9fb6-b7df-459b-82d1-8e3efa7e33bc" CreationDate="2014-04-05T22:45:52.627" UserId="3076" Text="It is flat wrong. You are correct, a claim of one statutory class cannot depend from a claim of a different statuary class. In this case the wording of claim 18 is actually apparatus wording so the only thing really wrong is the one word &quot;method&quot;. Intel could most likely fix this with a petition for a Certificate of Correction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Separately, a method claim could say: &quot;gouging a hole in the ground *using the apparatus* of claim 1.&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6373" RevisionGUID="24243d94-9021-4a4b-9e76-26dcfa9e3c05" CreationDate="2014-04-05T22:46:37.707" UserId="3076" Comment="fixed link " Text="Regarding patent [US7873522][1] (Measurement of spoken language training, learning and testing):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know why dependent claim 18 begins &quot;The method of claim 17...&quot; when claim 17 is not a method claim. Claim 17 is an apparatus claim, and does not, from what I can see, contain any method. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;17. An apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a user interface to receive....&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;18. The method of claim 17, further comprising a computing device to play a benchmark audio...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other two dependent claims that follow claim 18 (19 and 20) both begin, &quot;The apparatus of claim 17...&quot;, as one would expect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia][2] seems to indicate that a dependent claim can have a different &quot;claim type&quot; that the independent claim that it falls under:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Under the European Patent Convention, when a claim in one particular&#xD;&#xA;&gt; category (see below), e.g. a process claim, depends on a claim from a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different category, e.g. a product claim, it is not considered to be a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dependent claim but an independent claim. *Under U.S. law, this is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; still counted as a dependent claim, regardless of the class change*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I can't understand why there is a &quot;class change&quot; in this case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7873522 &#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim_%28patent%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6380" RevisionGUID="ffebc4d5-c99b-4b7d-ad86-46e19a542fce" CreationDate="2014-04-06T23:42:21.793" UserId="1360" Text="Jonathan,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't suggest divided ownership of the underlying IP as this can get very messy.  Instead, I would recommend providing the contributors with ownership in the LLC that owns the IP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending upon the complexity of the features you want to protect in the software, preparing and filing a patent application could be on the order of $8k to $15k.  Once might spend another $8k to 15k during the prosecution phase (i.e., responding to Office actions issued by the USPTO, possible Requests for Continued Examination and/or Appeal).  Once the patent application is allowed by the USPTO, you must pay an issue fee and then maintenance fees at 3 1/2, 7 1/2 and 11 1/2 years after issuance to maintain the patent in force.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a link to an article about finding a patent attorney ==&gt; http://www.inc.com/guides/finding-patent-lawyer.html.  Most of my business comes from referrals from existing clients.  So, I'm not sure I agree with the advice in the article against seeking such referrals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With respect to protecting the IP from being hijacked by members of the team, I would suggest obtaining an assignment of the IP sooner rather than later.  If a member of the team attempted to file a patent application on your invention, this is something that could be addressed by the new derivation proceeding provided by the America Invents Act.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6381" RevisionGUID="4e106de3-1a04-4b3d-958e-2af87d85dd3f" CreationDate="2014-04-07T04:33:55.003" UserId="8071" Text="I believe US patent 8,625,805, granted to Wickr on January 7, 2014, is&#xD;&#xA;either not novel, or an obvious variation of ordinary encrypted mail&#xD;&#xA;as it has been used for decades.  Here is claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A system, comprising: a processor configured to: request a public&#xD;&#xA;key and a device identifier of at least one recipient from a first&#xD;&#xA;server; encrypt a message containing one or more components using a&#xD;&#xA;symmetric key; encrypt the symmetric key with a public key received in&#xD;&#xA;response to the request; encapsulate the encrypted message, the&#xD;&#xA;encrypted symmetric key, and the device identifier in a digital&#xD;&#xA;security bubble encapsulation; and transmit the digital security&#xD;&#xA;bubble encapsulation to a second server; and a memory coupled to the&#xD;&#xA;processor and configured to provide the processor with instructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;digital security bubble&quot; is a fanciful name for the well known&#xD;&#xA;concept of a &quot;digital envelope&quot;.  See, for example, IETF RFC 5654,&#xD;&#xA;Cryptographic Message Syntax, Section 6.  The only thing unusual is&#xD;&#xA;the claim is the use of a device identifier instead of a user&#xD;&#xA;identifier.  However nothing prevents ordinary encrypted mail from&#xD;&#xA;being addressed to a device instead of a user, in which case the&#xD;&#xA;certificate of the recipient comprises a public key and a device&#xD;&#xA;identifier.  In all likelihood ordinary encrypted mail was addressed&#xD;&#xA;to devices before the patent application was filed, in which case what&#xD;&#xA;is claimed is not novel.  But even if that were not the case,&#xD;&#xA;addressing a message to a device instead of a user would be a trivial&#xD;&#xA;variation on the prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What could be done to challenge this patent?  I've looked at the Post&#xD;&#xA;Grant Review process, but it's extraordinarily complex and expensive.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16989" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6381" RevisionGUID="4e106de3-1a04-4b3d-958e-2af87d85dd3f" CreationDate="2014-04-07T04:33:55.003" UserId="8071" Text="US patent 8,625,805 reinvents encrypted mail" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16990" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6381" RevisionGUID="4e106de3-1a04-4b3d-958e-2af87d85dd3f" CreationDate="2014-04-07T04:33:55.003" UserId="8071" Text="&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;post-grant-review&gt;&lt;obviousness&gt;&lt;encrypted-mail&gt;&lt;secure-messaging&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6382" RevisionGUID="22a62c66-a022-45d9-97df-dcf154b64bea" CreationDate="2014-04-07T16:34:08.923" UserId="1360" Text="Sheraz, patents are geographic in nature.  So, a US patent, for example, only provides the owner with exclusionary rights in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recommend you get in contact with a local patent attorney to discuss.  Many patents have been issued for gestures in the context of touchscreens, trackpads and the like.  See ==&gt; http://io9.com/10-physical-gestures-that-have-been-patented-1251848412&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6383" RevisionGUID="4e5b3e1c-be22-4b07-aca6-e3b903eaffbe" CreationDate="2014-04-07T16:51:25.993" UserId="1360" Text="Francisco, another option to consider is a prior art submission to the USPTO under 37 CFR 1.501 and 35 USC 301.  See ==&gt; http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2205.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This creates a written record of the applicability of the particular patent(s) and/or printed publication(s) submitted.  If the patent owner attempts to assert this patent against a third party, the third party may be able to leverage your submission as part of an invalidity defense and/or as part of its own Post Grant Review filing.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6381" RevisionGUID="e1a826af-6353-487a-818a-60531472546f" CreationDate="2014-04-07T18:02:22.077" UserId="8071" Comment="fixed typo" Text="I believe US patent 8,625,805, granted to Wickr on January 7, 2014, is&#xD;&#xA;either not novel, or an obvious variation of ordinary encrypted mail&#xD;&#xA;as it has been used for decades.  Here is claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A system, comprising: a processor configured to: request a public&#xD;&#xA;key and a device identifier of at least one recipient from a first&#xD;&#xA;server; encrypt a message containing one or more components using a&#xD;&#xA;symmetric key; encrypt the symmetric key with a public key received in&#xD;&#xA;response to the request; encapsulate the encrypted message, the&#xD;&#xA;encrypted symmetric key, and the device identifier in a digital&#xD;&#xA;security bubble encapsulation; and transmit the digital security&#xD;&#xA;bubble encapsulation to a second server; and a memory coupled to the&#xD;&#xA;processor and configured to provide the processor with instructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;digital security bubble&quot; is a fanciful name for the well known&#xD;&#xA;concept of a &quot;digital envelope&quot;.  See, for example, IETF RFC 5654,&#xD;&#xA;Cryptographic Message Syntax, Section 6.  The only thing unusual in&#xD;&#xA;the claim is the use of a device identifier instead of a user&#xD;&#xA;identifier.  However nothing prevents ordinary encrypted mail from&#xD;&#xA;being addressed to a device instead of a user, in which case the&#xD;&#xA;certificate of the recipient comprises a public key and a device&#xD;&#xA;identifier.  In all likelihood ordinary encrypted mail was addressed&#xD;&#xA;to devices before the patent application was filed, in which case what&#xD;&#xA;is claimed is not novel.  But even if that were not the case,&#xD;&#xA;addressing a message to a device instead of a user would be a trivial&#xD;&#xA;variation on the prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What could be done to challenge this patent?  I've looked at the Post&#xD;&#xA;Grant Review process, but it's extraordinarily complex and expensive.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="88fcc376-447d-4f8d-87a0-44d5683d445c" CreationDate="2014-04-07T22:58:41.007" UserId="1767" Comment="added 231 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application has received a **&quot;final rejection&quot;** by the US Patent Office. An applicant has several ways to keep an application in this state alive. They include a request for continuing examination. It just involves paying more fees and responding to the rejection. Appealing the rejection is another avenue. If nothing is done it will go abandoned six months from the final rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** below!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **A PATENT APPLICATION ON updating apps on mobile devices to restricted &quot;dummy&quot; apps** This application from [Good Technologies][2] seeks to patent the idea of...deleting sensitive information on a device by creating dummy apps. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents] (https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A management system for apps on mobile devices where apps are updated to dummy apps that, when invoked, destroy the respective apps' sensitive data.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your company has as &quot;Bring Your Own Device&quot; policy.  The company email app on your personal phone is &quot;updated&quot; to a new version. Then, when you launch that app, it will delete all the company email on your device and present a &quot;YOU'RE FIRED&quot; message instead of an inbox view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Another example would be having version 1.0 of a game updated to a limited trial of version 2.0 that encrypts your old save file on first being run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that standard mobile app management/mobile device management platforms do not necessarily anticipate the invention. That is, **remote deletion of an application and/or data is not sufficient to meet the claim limitations**. It's critical that the prior art disclose updating/modifying the app to a restricted functionality &quot;dummy&quot; version and for the updated app to itself delete/modify the existing data upon being run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System and Method for Remote Management of Applications Downloaded to a Personal Portable Wireless Appliance** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110145932 A1][0]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/975,145&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  [Appcentral, Inc.][1] / [Good Technologies][2] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for downloading and monitoring applications, programs and data structures to a personal portable appliance coupled to a server via a network configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;0. determine that the appliance is connected; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. generating a connection request from the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. authenticating the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. determining that one or more applications must be updated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. receiving at least one updated application comprising a dummy application such that when the application is invoked the data structures of the previous application are manipulated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. modifying the functionality of the application; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. offering the user one or more indications that the application is restricted or limited. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010. (Please note that although that this patent application is a continuation-in-part of earlier-filed parent cases, the claimed invention is not supported by the disclosure of the parent cases, rendering the actual filing date the effective filing date.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A diagram of the application management system&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NhpR6yB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [0]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110145932?dq=US20110145932&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.appcentral.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.good.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/173445073/US-20110145932-A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6385" RevisionGUID="6f82f1ac-fa9a-418a-9548-ed7f9e3fef22" CreationDate="2014-04-07T23:51:32.827" UserId="8322" Text="The GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP) has a very similar UI where you have tabs full of controls that are in subgroups. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to:&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIMP_version_history&#xD;&#xA;Their 2.0 release introduced the &quot;tabs and docks system&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;March 23, 2004:  Many new tool options, GIMP now using GTK+ 2.x&#xD;&#xA;&gt; graphical toolkit. Tabs and docks system introduced. Script-fu&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scripting support improved greatly. Allows text to be re-edited. CMYK&#xD;&#xA;&gt; color support.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did a Google search for &quot;gimp 2.0 ui review&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PC Magazine article July 26, 2004&#xD;&#xA;http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1627539,00.asp&#xD;&#xA;mentions &quot;We especially like what GIMP has done in the way of palettes. First off, the new tabbed palettes are nestable and dockable, making GIMP more streamlined while also making more efficient use of screen real estate.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This article (March 24, 2004) has screenshots:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.mozillaquest.com/OpenSource04/Gimp-2-0-Release_Story01.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6386" RevisionGUID="251d386f-3e83-4093-be23-6d15dd5c185f" CreationDate="2014-04-08T00:05:32.453" UserId="8322" Text="I'm sure there are many military applications of this. In warfare you send in loaded aircraft without knowing where the ordinance will be targeted, but knowing that there's a high chance of &quot;demand&quot; for that ordinance in the area. Then you set targets when they are identified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bit dark maybe, but it's the exact same thing in the abstract sense of anticipating demand in an area and saving time by moving materials before knowing exactly where they'll be needed.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17003" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6381" RevisionGUID="3ed36073-3a23-4758-b164-d1f2434c5266" CreationDate="2014-04-08T01:44:03.017" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to patent doc. " Text="&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;post-grant-review&gt;&lt;encrypted-mail&gt;&lt;secure-messaging&gt;&lt;us8625805&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6387" RevisionGUID="b7fbfebd-35bf-48bb-8ab9-4781a9b7acf7" CreationDate="2014-04-08T03:30:50.647" UserId="8324" Text="I need to get in touch with the person that holds a patent in order to build it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I do this?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17005" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6387" RevisionGUID="b7fbfebd-35bf-48bb-8ab9-4781a9b7acf7" CreationDate="2014-04-08T03:30:50.647" UserId="8324" Text="Wondering about some technical aspects and legal process prior to build a patented structure" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17006" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6387" RevisionGUID="b7fbfebd-35bf-48bb-8ab9-4781a9b7acf7" CreationDate="2014-04-08T03:30:50.647" UserId="8324" Text="&lt;wo2008021980a3&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17007" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6387" RevisionGUID="7d8c1711-052a-4550-97bf-4ab8e70b561b" CreationDate="2014-04-08T03:42:09.597" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;wo2008021980a3&gt;&lt;us7448400&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6388" RevisionGUID="1ce83582-12ef-4f61-9369-090741d03ff2" CreationDate="2014-04-08T05:32:46.313" UserId="1767" Text="You can typically contact the inventor through his or her attorney. The attorney's contact information is available on [Public PAIR][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the subject patent US7448400 the contact information for the attorney is as follows: [Dianoosh Salehi at Snell &amp; Wilmer][3] LLP in Costa Mesa, CA, telephone 714-427-7404 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/KA0pN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/3797/1767&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/KA0pN.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6389" RevisionGUID="545eac5f-a77e-4999-95ef-a3a0cbb3e811" CreationDate="2014-04-08T07:09:27.567" UserId="8326" Text="In UK, displaying your invention or discussing it publicly, such as in a forum, invalidates you from making any patent application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6390" RevisionGUID="654b99a5-9937-432e-92d4-6a03078cec88" CreationDate="2014-04-08T13:35:23.833" UserId="1047" Text="Here's an example of potential prior art for this patent application: [US6223166][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent disclosed a ticket issuing and collection system and method of operation in a distributed information system in which cypher-coded, electronic tickets for an event are issued in hard copy form by a purchaser for authentication at the event by a scanning device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are aware of other potential prior art references, please post it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6223166?dq=6223166&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=XfpDU76aHO3p0QHa94CwDA&amp;ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6393" RevisionGUID="19cdf855-5052-496a-940f-ba1dca3c4352" CreationDate="2014-04-08T22:51:54.493" UserId="8120" Text="I found non-patent literature in the form of a letter to the editor correcting a review article. The correction is on point as 102 art for a currently pending published application which is being currently marketed with a lot of attention given to its novelty. The first examiner rejection did not cite this on point reference which is about 10 years old. Can I bring this to the examiner's attention via Ask Patent instead of a 3rd party submission? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17019" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6393" RevisionGUID="19cdf855-5052-496a-940f-ba1dca3c4352" CreationDate="2014-04-08T22:51:54.493" UserId="8120" Text="What is the best way to bring a relevant 102 prior art reference to an examiner for a published application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17020" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6393" RevisionGUID="19cdf855-5052-496a-940f-ba1dca3c4352" CreationDate="2014-04-08T22:51:54.493" UserId="8120" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;third-party-submission&gt;&lt;pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6394" RevisionGUID="670c2b9c-83d6-43f1-8621-ff1fd220b740" CreationDate="2014-04-08T23:06:23.490" UserId="8120" Text="Optimal protection for your idea  would be to file both a utility and design patent.The utility patent protects the functional aspect of your invention- getting a better grip when a person picks up big circular stones (think wrapping duct tape around fore arms). It also provides broader patent protection against patent infringement should a competitor try to make a variant. (Your utility should cover numerous embodiments). &#xD;&#xA;In contrast, design patents do not protect the functional features of the invention- they protect the appearance of the invention-i.e., the ornamental design- which in your case is the shape of the tape. Since your invention has a unique structure/function coupled with a unique ornamental design, then you should consider filing both a utility patent application and a design patent application. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6395" RevisionGUID="f5bc251a-4936-44d3-b372-b51cc95c3ce0" CreationDate="2014-04-08T23:18:32.797" UserId="8120" Text="Having written and prosecuted numerous applications over 25 years, be aware that pricing is dependent upon whether you are filing a mechanical, electrical, chemical, or biotechnological patent.  If the agent/attorney does not make that distinction, I would definitely seek one that does. Secondly, patentability searches search costs also depend on the field so if you are being quoted an across the board price for a search, that's another reason to get a second opinion. You can contract a comprehensive fee- filing and prosecution upfront or ask for it to be broken down to filing cost followed by separate prosecution cost. &#xD;&#xA;Also find out who is actually doing the work- an associate working for a partner or an agent (just as good as an attorney and many times better) Don't pay partner rates for an associate/agent's work- ask how many partner hours will be billed to review the final product." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6396" RevisionGUID="534070fe-01aa-4858-b3da-a5071a534ce4" CreationDate="2014-04-09T03:16:40.103" UserId="8120" Text="The USPTO maintains a list of attorneys and agents with licenses to practice before the US Patent and Trademark Office.  Currently, there are 10741 active agents and 31669 active attorneys.  All searches reflect current information.  Information concerning a practitioner's status as an attorney is based on records provided to the Office of Enrollment and Discipline and might not reflect the practitioner's status in a State Bar. Individuals interested in a practitioner's status in a State Bar should contact that State Bar for specific information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I strongly recommend searching LinkedIN and reading the profiles of and endorsement of many patent attorneys/agents. I have received another inquiries from my site and i and others will often guide an inventor to a specialist.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Other  sources include AIPLA-the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the American Bar Association, Section of Intellectual Property Law, Martin-Hubbell Lawyer Locator, and Alllaw.com which contains a number of links on finding a patent lawyer for a variety of patent needs, as well as a listing of IP attorneys by state." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="b805a05a-6f1e-48ff-b3c8-875ea0e8da7d" CreationDate="2014-04-09T16:13:50.883" UserId="3359" Text="I am amazed at what law firms will file for people as long as they are paid.  For example, the following Theranos application filed in 2013 is directed to interactive surveys where a picture is shown based on the inputted information.  Companies have been providing this for a number of years now - such as http://www.snapsurveys.com/survey-software/sample-surveys/  Wayback has the page existing prior to filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The offending application attempting to patent other companies' products is -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication number	US20140095189 A1 / Application number	US 14/035,762&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication date	Apr 3, 2014 / Filing date	        Sep 24, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A representative claim -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) presenting, with the aid of a computer system and an interactive display operatively coupled to the computer system, a query to a user, said query relating to said user's dietary consumption, exercise, health condition or mental condition;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) receiving, with the aid of said computer system and interactive display, a response to said query from said user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c) interpreting, with the aid of a computer processor, said response based on a set of reference information, wherein said set of reference information comprises a pictorial depiction of portion size of said dietary consumption, exertion level of said exercise, existing state of said health condition or existing state of said mental condition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you find better prior art than snapsurveys?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17026" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="b805a05a-6f1e-48ff-b3c8-875ea0e8da7d" CreationDate="2014-04-09T16:13:50.883" UserId="3359" Text="Call for prior art US Publication No. 20140095189 (Theranos - Elizabeth Holmes)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17027" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="b805a05a-6f1e-48ff-b3c8-875ea0e8da7d" CreationDate="2014-04-09T16:13:50.883" UserId="3359" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;theranos&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="e5df43bb-5573-4469-b351-ca837b8f1cae" CreationDate="2014-04-09T16:24:56.070" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 85 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="The following application was filed in 2013 and directed to interactive surveys where a picture is shown based on the inputted information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that companies have been providing this for a number of years now - for example, http://www.snapsurveys.com/survey-software/sample-surveys/  Wayback has the page existing prior to the filing date of this application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Application in question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication number	US20140095189 A1&#xD;&#xA;Application number	US 14/035,762&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication date	Apr 3, 2014&#xD;&#xA;Filing date	        **Sep 24, 2013**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A representative claim -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) presenting, with the aid of a computer system and an interactive display operatively coupled to the computer system, a query to a user, said query relating to said user's dietary consumption, exercise, health condition or mental condition;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) receiving, with the aid of said computer system and interactive display, a response to said query from said user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c) interpreting, with the aid of a computer processor, said response based on a set of reference information, wherein said set of reference information comprises a pictorial depiction of portion size of said dietary consumption, exertion level of said exercise, existing state of said health condition or existing state of said mental condition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone find better prior art than snapsurveys?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17029" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="e5df43bb-5573-4469-b351-ca837b8f1cae" CreationDate="2014-04-09T16:24:56.070" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 85 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Interactive Surveys (Theranos) - PATENT APPLICATION - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17030" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="e5df43bb-5573-4469-b351-ca837b8f1cae" CreationDate="2014-04-09T16:24:56.070" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 85 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;theranos&gt;&lt;us20140095189&gt;&lt;surveys&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6401" RevisionGUID="b478c9c0-8446-481a-a0ce-b045dbff5505" CreationDate="2014-04-09T20:33:15.403" UserId="8120" Text="There is a US priority US61/535,608 dated 21.03.2013 docketed for this PCT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the application is still in the PCT stage, the International Search Report was separately issued on 18.03.2013 having the following link: http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detailPdf.jsf?ia=US2012055760&amp;docIdPdf=id00000021572872%3FparSeparator1=&amp;name=WO2013040557RNA+ENGINEERED+T+CELLS+FOR+THE+TREATMENT+OF+CANCER&amp;parSeparator2=&amp;woNum=WO2013040557&amp;prevRecNum=1&amp;nextRecNum=2&amp;recNum=1&amp;queryString=FP%3A%28wo2013040557%29&amp;office=&amp;sortOption=Pub+Date+Desc&amp;prevFilter=&amp;maxRec=1a. There is one X reference (lack of inventive step)Zhao et al. Cancer Research 15 November 2010, Vol. 70(22)pp 9053-9061.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The Written Opinion of the International Search Authority issued 16.03.2014. The link to the opinion is http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservicepdf_pct/id00000024286588.pdf. In summary claims 5-12, 20-27 have meet both the novelty and inventive step requirement over Zhao et al. Claims 1-4, 13-19, 28-30 do not meet the novelty or inventive step requirement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6403" RevisionGUID="5a3e86f7-290d-494e-90f9-244ed9a64233" CreationDate="2014-04-09T21:28:49.480" UserId="8334" Text="I heart that Facebook has rights to Like buttons with thumb up icon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm creating a commercial web-app, so I have a function that people can like something. So may I make &quot;Like&quot; button with thumb up icon (Not exactly like facebook's) or buttons contains &quot;Like with Thumb up icon&quot; is patented&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17049" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6403" RevisionGUID="5a3e86f7-290d-494e-90f9-244ed9a64233" CreationDate="2014-04-09T21:28:49.480" UserId="8334" Text="Does the button &quot;Like&quot; with thumb up icon protected with author rights" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17050" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6403" RevisionGUID="5a3e86f7-290d-494e-90f9-244ed9a64233" CreationDate="2014-04-09T21:28:49.480" UserId="8334" Text="&lt;user-interface&gt;&lt;facebook&gt;&lt;websites&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6404" RevisionGUID="d203dff1-d144-4012-a262-0d1713695aad" CreationDate="2014-04-09T22:13:05.727" UserId="8336" Text="How do you &quot;patent&quot; something that's already being done in industry?  We've been building these since the 70's.  Our limit is -75 F.  But, I don't know that these guys are going there from what I read.  The solutions are all commonly known in this industry.&#xD;&#xA;US 8037700 B2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;us7298271" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17052" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6404" RevisionGUID="d203dff1-d144-4012-a262-0d1713695aad" CreationDate="2014-04-09T22:13:05.727" UserId="8336" Text="How do you patent commonly known technology?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17053" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6404" RevisionGUID="d203dff1-d144-4012-a262-0d1713695aad" CreationDate="2014-04-09T22:13:05.727" UserId="8336" Text="&lt;us7298271&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6406" RevisionGUID="1bbbc09e-abcd-4f0b-a08b-0a62a05760e9" CreationDate="2014-04-10T13:20:56.833" UserId="1047" Text="Here's another potential prior art for this request: [EP1247387][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This European patent is entitled Improved session initiation protocol (SIP). This patent appears to describing the use of SIP in media streaming, as listed in claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP1247387B1?cl=en&amp;dq=ep1247387&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=KZpGU_2-J8Lf0gGy6ICYDg&amp;ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="2eda3d22-ce60-49a6-b657-dcc00344f89c" CreationDate="2014-04-10T14:34:13.320" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" ![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application has received a **&quot;final rejection&quot;** by the US Patent Office. An applicant has several ways to keep an application in this state alive. They include a request for continuing examination. It just involves paying more fees and responding to the rejection. Appealing the rejection is another avenue. If nothing is done it will go abandoned six months from the final rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** below!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **A PATENT APPLICATION ON updating apps on mobile devices to restricted &quot;dummy&quot; apps** This application from [Good Technologies][2] seeks to patent the idea of...deleting sensitive information on a device by creating dummy apps. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents] (https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A management system for apps on mobile devices where apps are updated to dummy apps that, when invoked, destroy the respective apps' sensitive data.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your company has as &quot;Bring Your Own Device&quot; policy.  The company email app on your personal phone is &quot;updated&quot; to a new version. Then, when you launch that app, it will delete all the company email on your device and present a &quot;YOU'RE FIRED&quot; message instead of an inbox view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Another example would be having version 1.0 of a game updated to a limited trial of version 2.0 that encrypts your old save file on first being run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that standard mobile app management/mobile device management platforms do not necessarily anticipate the invention. That is, **remote deletion of an application and/or data is not sufficient to meet the claim limitations**. It's critical that the prior art disclose updating/modifying the app to a restricted functionality &quot;dummy&quot; version and for the updated app to itself delete/modify the existing data upon being run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System and Method for Remote Management of Applications Downloaded to a Personal Portable Wireless Appliance** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110145932 A1][0]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/975,145&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  [Appcentral, Inc.][1] / [Good Technologies][2] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for downloading and monitoring applications, programs and data structures to a personal portable appliance coupled to a server via a network configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;0. determine that the appliance is connected; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. generating a connection request from the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. authenticating the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. determining that one or more applications must be updated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. receiving at least one updated application comprising a dummy application such that when the application is invoked the data structures of the previous application are manipulated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. modifying the functionality of the application; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. offering the user one or more indications that the application is restricted or limited. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010. (Please note that although that this patent application is a continuation-in-part of earlier-filed parent cases, the claimed invention is not supported by the disclosure of the parent cases, rendering the actual filing date the effective filing date.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A diagram of the application management system&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NhpR6yB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [0]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110145932?dq=US20110145932&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.appcentral.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.good.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/173445073/US-20110145932-A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17060" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6350" RevisionGUID="9ddef7d8-b7fa-47ab-8a3a-a6d509e59876" CreationDate="2014-04-10T14:34:46.830" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON finding the nearby picture hotspots based on location data and user data** - This application from [Intellectual Ventures][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Transmit location data and user data over a wireless network via the communication module, and receive notification data from a network connected server over the wireless network in response to the transmitted location data.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 10/28/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining nearby picture hotspots based on location data and user data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - User data may include data retrieved from the digital storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Locating picture hotspots based on location data and user data**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Transmit **location data** and **user data** over a **wireless network** via the **communication module**, the **location data** is provided by the **GPS receiver module** based in part on stored **user data**, receive **notification data** from a network connected server over the **wireless network** in response to the transmitted **location data**, the **notification data** indicates that the device is within a vicinity of a **hot spot location**, and the notification includes **directional information** associated with finding the **hot spot location**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20140032715 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 14/043,934&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Intellectual Ventures&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 10/28/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 7/29/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a communication module;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a GPS receiver module; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a processor configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3a. transmit location data and user data over a wireless network via the communication module, wherein the location data is provided by the GPS receiver module based in part on stored user data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3b. receive notification data from a network connected server over the wireless network in response to the transmitted location data, wherein the notification data indicates that the device is within a vicinity of a hot spot location, wherein the notification includes directional information associated with finding the hot spot location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A communication module;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A GPS receiver module; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A processor configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3a. Transmit location data and user data over a wireless network via the communication module,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3b. The location data is provided by the GPS receiver module based in part on stored user data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3c. Receive notification data from a network connected server over the wireless network in response to the transmitted location data,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3d. The notification data indicates that the device is within a vicinity of a hot spot location, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3e. The notification includes directional information associated with finding the hot spot location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 10/28/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming The notification data includes directional information from a current location to the hotspot location and the current location is based on the location data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Nearby Picture Hotspots&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/XRUCbpF.png&quot; width=&quot;356&quot; height=&quot;604&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140032715&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.intellectualventures.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20140032715#c=0&amp;d1=10%2F28%2F2010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17061" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4888" RevisionGUID="a1ffe6d4-68c8-4371-ad29-391209e1893c" CreationDate="2014-04-10T14:35:23.650" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON using acceleration sensor to turn on/off GPS receiver on a phone only when it has moved** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...persistent motion tracking on a smartphone by using acceleration sensor to turn on/off GPS receiver! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/30/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using acceleration sensors and GPS sensors together&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO creates profiles of users based on where they are at rest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Using acceleration sensor to turn on/off GPS receiver**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A battery-saving technique of turning on/off the GPS receiver on a phone based on signal from acceleration sensor on phone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130085861 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/629,299&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Scott Dunlop&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 10/1/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A mobile device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a geopositioning receiver configured to determine a geoposition of the mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. an accelerometer configured to determine an acceleration rate of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a processor in communication with the geopositioning receiver and the accelerometer, the processor configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. determine, using the accelerometer, whether the mobile device is in motion based on a duration of movement, an acceleration rate, and/or a velocity, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. engage the geopositioning receiver upon determining that the mobile device is in motion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A mobile device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. GPS receiver&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. An accelerometer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A program which determines whether the mobile devices is in motion and engages the GPS receiver if it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming creating user profiles based on where the phone is at rest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;GPS Receiver and Accelerometer Flowchart from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/3MuCLT9.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130085861?dq=US20130085861A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130085861" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="36b39254-c0ed-4f78-a6ab-9c4fa7f06610" CreationDate="2014-04-10T14:35:38.377" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" ![enter image description here][8]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An **initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the grounds for rejection (can be seen in Public PAIR) are based on prior art from [Lycos][9], [Yahoo][12], [Oracle][10], and [Microsoft's own patent applications][11].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Applying administrator defined ranking rules to alter the ranking of search results** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Applying a user-defined ranking rule on search results and re-ordering the search results based on the ranking rule! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Re-ordering search results based on rules defined by a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Graphical User Interface allows a user to: configure the **ranking rules** such as to enter **key/value restrictions** or set a **boost value**,  preview an application of one or more of the **ranking rules**, specify a portion of results from which statistics such as **standard deviation**, **average score** are calculated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: User-configured rules to re-order search results.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving search results, applying user-defined re-ranking rules to the search results, and re-ranking the search results based on the user-defined re-ranking rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130198174 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/360,536&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/28/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for re-ranking search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results that are ranked; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. applying a ranking rule defined by a user to the search results that re-ranks the search results, wherein the ranking rule includes user specified parameters that influence how a result within the search results is re-ranked using statistical information relating to the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for re-ordering search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results in an order in response to a search query executed using a search engine;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.    applying a re-ordering rule defined by a user to re-order the search results, where the re-ordering rule defines ordering a result within the search results on the basis of statistical information related to search results; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. re-ordering the search results on the basis of user-defined re-ordering rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A Graphical User Interface (GUI) displays options for a user to set search parameters to re-rank search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;User defined re-ordering of search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Ie8wCzF.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130198174&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130198174#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=01%2F27%2F2012&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6012053&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7996392&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20090006358&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8412702" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6148" RevisionGUID="6735c6af-a58e-4cea-8076-b6a4a7f2bbe0" CreationDate="2014-04-10T14:36:26.867" UserId="1767" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON exploring social connections from an in-memory database** - This application from [SAP][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying an attribute in a profile associated with a first user, executing a query including the identified attribute, and identifying a second user based on the query! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/5/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Implementing social networking based on data objects in an in-memory database&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Examples of attributes may include **contact information**, expertise, **past projects**, **current projects**, manager, supervisor etc. Data objects may include a variety of objects that store **business data**, **reference data** from **content sources**, such as **web content**, feeds, **REST services**, **business data** repositories, reports, status updates, discussions, wikis, blogs etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Identifying social networks within an organization based on business data of the organization stored in an in-memory database**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying an attribute in a profile associated with a first user, executing a query including the identified attribute against data objects stored in an in-memory database, identifying a second user from the results of query based on a relationship between data objects associated with the second user and the attribute of the first user, and displaying information of the second user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144957 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/310,913&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: SAP&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/5/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method performed with a computing system for exploring social connections in an in-memory database, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying a user profile associated with a first user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying one or more updates to one or more attributes of the user profile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Updating, in real-time, the user profile, based on the one or more updates, as the one or more updates are identified;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Identifying a particular attribute of the one or more attributes in the updated user profile that is associated with the first user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Executing a query against a data element stored in an in-memory database, the query including the particular attribute in the updated user profile;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Identifying a second user from results of the query, the second user associated with the data element based on a relationship between the second user and the first user defined by the attribute; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Generating displayable information associated with the second user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for exploring social connections in an in-memory database, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying the profile of a first user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying updates to the first user profile;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Updating the user profile based on the updates;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Identifying a particular attribute of the updated profile and executing a a database query (in an in-memory database) for the particular attribute;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Identifying a second user based on a relationship between data objects associated with the second user and the first user defined by the particular attribute; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Displaying information related to the second user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/5/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Data sources from various enterprise systems are replicated to the in-memory database before executing the query against the data element stored in the in-memory database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Exploring social connections from an in-memory database&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/XpChjTN.png&quot; width=&quot;550&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130144957&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.sap.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130144957#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=12%2F05%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6407" RevisionGUID="477c8b3e-8be9-4642-97c9-02e7d7d61eb9" CreationDate="2014-04-10T16:35:46.887" UserId="8339" Text="Suppose somebody created the world's first intelligent robot. It can wash your dishes, clean your house, etc. Can that person patent the robot, so that no one else makes intelligent robots? If so, to what extent does a patent apply (can it cover the software, hardware, or overall design of the product)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, do patents stop people from copying your product, or does it allow people to copy as long as they pay you?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17065" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6407" RevisionGUID="477c8b3e-8be9-4642-97c9-02e7d7d61eb9" CreationDate="2014-04-10T16:35:46.887" UserId="8339" Text="Can robots be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17066" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6407" RevisionGUID="477c8b3e-8be9-4642-97c9-02e7d7d61eb9" CreationDate="2014-04-10T16:35:46.887" UserId="8339" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6408" RevisionGUID="ff34bf74-2271-42ff-8118-eeb82b7cb821" CreationDate="2014-04-10T17:16:45.460" UserId="1360" Text="One could certainly patent various new and non-obvious features of such a robot (including, software processes, the hardware architecture and/or the ornamental appearance), but not the **abstract idea** or **concept** of such a robot.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A US patent provides the owner with &quot;exclusionary&quot; rights - the right to exclude others from making, using, selling or offering for sale the claimed invention within the US or importing the claimed invention into the US.  The mere existence of a patent, of course, is not going to stop people from copying, but if they do, the patent owner can sue to obtain a reasonable royalty or an injunction to enjoin further infringement (assuming the owner is not a non-practicing entity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6409" RevisionGUID="79b2d354-788b-417c-85cb-df4489aa7aef" CreationDate="2014-04-10T17:27:51.407" UserId="1360" Text="Unless the Examiner is reading this site, posting prior art here is not going to do much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest considering either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - a third party submission under MPEP 1134 (if applicable).  See ==&gt; http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1134.html; or&#xD;&#xA; - a prior art submission to the USPTO under 37 CFR 1.501 and 35 USC 301. See ==&gt; http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2205.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6409" RevisionGUID="231705a9-678a-463d-a103-21f3e6c54758" CreationDate="2014-04-10T17:34:04.183" UserId="1360" Comment="Added additional information" Text="Unless the Examiner is reading this site, posting prior art here is not going to do much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest considering either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - a third party submission under MPEP 1134 (if applicable).  See ==&gt; http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1134.html; or&#xD;&#xA; - a prior art submission to the USPTO under 37 CFR 1.501 and 35 USC 301. See ==&gt; http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2205.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another dirty trick is to provide a copy of the reference to the patent attorney prosecuting the patent application and/or one or more of the inventors as they have an obligation to bring to the attention of the USPTO any prior art of which they are aware that is material to patentability.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6410" RevisionGUID="25a8ef82-9a1e-4e35-882c-ef6508ec1c0a" CreationDate="2014-04-10T21:49:25.083" UserId="8339" Text="It surprised me to learn that algorithms can be patented. If that's the case, why aren't famous algorithms like [Djikstra's algorithm][1] patented? More importantly, how would they be enforced - wouldn't you need to look at the source good of all suspectible programs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dijkstra%27s_algorithm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17071" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6410" RevisionGUID="25a8ef82-9a1e-4e35-882c-ef6508ec1c0a" CreationDate="2014-04-10T21:49:25.083" UserId="8339" Text="How are algorithm patents enforced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17072" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6410" RevisionGUID="25a8ef82-9a1e-4e35-882c-ef6508ec1c0a" CreationDate="2014-04-10T21:49:25.083" UserId="8339" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6411" RevisionGUID="3842027b-0d84-4f9d-bed9-8319eea5b6c4" CreationDate="2014-04-10T22:59:51.317" UserId="8342" Text="Would like to know if the US Patent, 5,714,464 is still a valid Patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17074" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6411" RevisionGUID="3842027b-0d84-4f9d-bed9-8319eea5b6c4" CreationDate="2014-04-10T22:59:51.317" UserId="8342" Text="Would like to know if US patent 5,714,464 is still a valid Patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17075" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6411" RevisionGUID="3842027b-0d84-4f9d-bed9-8319eea5b6c4" CreationDate="2014-04-10T22:59:51.317" UserId="8342" Text="&lt;us5714464&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6412" RevisionGUID="dfe480eb-0fc2-47d0-8015-315931f95195" CreationDate="2014-04-11T00:10:16.730" UserId="8332" Text="The provisional application should have enough details to back up the claims that you make later. You cannot later add to the specification or the drawings in any material way. If you do, then that part of the invention gets a later priority date of when you actually file the document - as another provisional or as a regular application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be safe, you may want to think out your claims, although you don't actually have to provide any with the provisional application. Also, think of any fallback position you might want to take if the examiner finds prior art or if prior art is found after the patent grant. If you don't do the thinking early on, then you may not have enough disclosure to get the priority date of the provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If nothing else, give lots of details and example of the 'invention', that is the part that you figured out. Also think about how someone else could bypass it. Everything else required to complete a regular application probably already has prior art so can be introduced with the regular application if needed.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6414" RevisionGUID="e497e8ac-a8a4-4005-9387-b32a3b0a1b5e" CreationDate="2014-04-11T14:51:20.560" UserId="1360" Text="It appears the patent owner did not pay the 12th-year maintenance fee that was due by 2/3/10 with a surcharge.  The USPTO's PAIR site indicates &quot;Patent Expired Due to NonPayment of Maintenance Fees Under 37 CFR 1.362.&quot;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6410" RevisionGUID="6957b68c-37ec-47c3-84e1-cc59c2b9127b" CreationDate="2014-04-11T14:52:23.633" UserId="1360" Comment="corrected typo" Text="It surprised me to learn that algorithms can be patented. If that's the case, why aren't famous algorithms like [Djikstra's algorithm][1] patented? More importantly, how would they be enforced - wouldn't you need to look at the source code of all suspectible programs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dijkstra%27s_algorithm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6415" RevisionGUID="f789f79d-e312-4180-a6ea-d2b7e331f1e0" CreationDate="2014-04-11T15:10:04.727" UserId="1360" Text="I think you've hit on a good point for those considering pursuing patents. Before investing large sums of money on patenting, it is important to figure out how you will identify infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, product data sheets, technical specifications, user guides, administrator guides, white papers, case studies and/or other technical and marketing literature are of use, but other times the under-the-hood details are unavailable and reverse engineering and/or discovery is required to confirm infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I recommend considering at least the following factors in connection with performing a cost/benefit analysis before pursuing a particular patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Likelihood of use by others&#xD;&#xA;2.	Ease of detecting infringement (e.g., reverse engineering, marketing materials, product specifications)&#xD;&#xA;3.	Novelty and breadth of coverage&#xD;&#xA;4.	Likelihood the invention will be used in current/future product(s)/service(s) of the patentee&#xD;&#xA;5.	Useful life of the invention (“stop gap” vs. foundational)&#xD;&#xA;6.	Cost of patent application(s) - preparation and prosecution&#xD;&#xA;7.	Extent to which the invention is in an emerging field of technology&#xD;&#xA;8.	Importance of the particular product(s)/service(s) in which the invention is used&#xD;&#xA;9.	Importance of the invention to the particular product(s)/service(s) in which it is used (e.g., does it affect the consumer’s buying decision?, are there reasonable non-infringing alternatives?)&#xD;&#xA;10.	License or cross-license potential&#xD;&#xA;11.	Availability of trade secret as an alternative (e.g., is the invention exposed to the outside world?)&#xD;&#xA;12.	Importance of a patent in strengthening the overall patent portfolio&#xD;&#xA;13.	Importance of a patent to fundraising activities (e.g., venture capital or other investors may require IP protection before considering investing)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6410" RevisionGUID="f983c680-c6ea-4099-a22b-444040512db2" CreationDate="2014-04-11T18:51:12.920" UserId="8347" Comment="spelling/phrasing" Text="It surprised me to learn that algorithms can be patented. If that's the case, why aren't famous algorithms like [Dijkstra's algorithm][1] patented? More importantly, how would they be enforced - wouldn't you need to look at the source code of all suspicious programs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dijkstra%27s_algorithm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17085" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6410" RevisionGUID="f983c680-c6ea-4099-a22b-444040512db2" CreationDate="2014-04-11T18:51:12.920" Comment="Proposed by 8347 approved by 1360, 5071 edit id of 515" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6416" RevisionGUID="ce8d2ec6-3a8d-4ca1-be49-d0d7e646cfac" CreationDate="2014-04-12T07:20:22.223" UserId="8349" Text="Page 3 of this patent wasn't scanned properly, and only a small portion of the top of Page 3 shows.  How do we get this patent PDF repaired?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google used to have a &quot;Report Issue&quot; tool on all their patents, but removed it for some reason a couple of years ago when they reformatted their patent webpages (making them less user-friendly for older patents).  That important reporting tool needs to be restored, even if only in abbreviated form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance!  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17088" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6416" RevisionGUID="ce8d2ec6-3a8d-4ca1-be49-d0d7e646cfac" CreationDate="2014-04-12T07:20:22.223" UserId="8349" Text="How can we get this patent repaired (page 3 of 5)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17089" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6416" RevisionGUID="ce8d2ec6-3a8d-4ca1-be49-d0d7e646cfac" CreationDate="2014-04-12T07:20:22.223" UserId="8349" Text="&lt;us2560198&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6417" RevisionGUID="f4e8a0b6-15c9-4ec3-971f-646f8197120a" CreationDate="2014-04-12T18:57:45.393" UserId="8352" Text=" Do you agree that xxxxx was an employee of xxxxx when he convinced&#xD;&#xA;owner to file for a patent on product formerly used in cosmetics soley) based on all the discovery work and results we got and dutifully reported the results to xxxxx. We were able to use xxxx as an oil based products for cleaning  presses and cars a market corporation was never in. Corporation did not pay any costs either did co inventor for our research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;co- inventor went for years with our bottler &amp; us than deceided to make product and create a competitor. How does the letter from the law firm addressed to me  stating co/inventor had no legal right to assigen or or sell patent ? effect &#xD;&#xA;patent now soley in my name. Owner of patent who put it in my name now says there is a grey cloud over my patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frank " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17091" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6417" RevisionGUID="f4e8a0b6-15c9-4ec3-971f-646f8197120a" CreationDate="2014-04-12T18:57:45.393" UserId="8352" Text="Can employee whose company filed for patent name himself as co patent holder?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17092" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6417" RevisionGUID="f4e8a0b6-15c9-4ec3-971f-646f8197120a" CreationDate="2014-04-12T18:57:45.393" UserId="8352" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6418" RevisionGUID="3e2b9bbe-289c-4de6-95c7-0324e6cc9323" CreationDate="2014-04-12T20:57:41.433" UserId="1193" Text="In most cases (US at least) first-to-file is the decisive factor as to whom owns the patent, and the filer decides who is listed as the inventors of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are an employee of the company, you most likely have signed away any rights to inventions, and made your company the default assignee for any work related inventions an patents -- i.e. your company owns the result of your work regardless of whether it is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot yourself ask for being a co-inventor after the patent is files, only the filing authority can do that, and usually that is not done." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6418" RevisionGUID="05c890a9-3159-42b8-86e2-2f47b2d4148e" CreationDate="2014-04-13T00:34:35.003" UserId="1193" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="In most cases (US at least) first-to-file is the decisive factor as to whom owns the patent, and the filer decides who is listed as the inventors of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are an employee of the company, you most likely have signed away any rights to inventions, and made your company the default assignee for any work related inventions and patents -- i.e. your company owns the result of your work regardless of whether it is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot yourself ask for being a co-inventor after the patent is filed, only the filing authority can do that, and usually that is not done." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6419" RevisionGUID="d0be0af4-4707-4d9c-93c5-ea1e8197af46" CreationDate="2014-04-13T00:39:47.130" UserId="1193" Text="If the patent is published as a US patent, you should be able to go to http://www.uspto.gov/ and find the official version of the patent (the google website is not an official version)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6420" RevisionGUID="7cac17f1-18ba-4f8a-a779-b5355e03141a" CreationDate="2014-04-13T01:38:17.100" UserId="8354" Text="I had an idea for an invention.  I found nothing similar on uspto.gov.  Then I discovered Google Patents.  I immediately found that someone from Canada is filing a patent for the same invention on the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application is active and the most recent payment was a &quot;Maintenance Fee - Application - New Act&quot; paid in Feb of this year with a &quot;due date&quot; coming up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I then found that they have also filed an international patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am so so so disappointed as I have already put in time and have been excited beyond belief about starting this business. I already have a first draft business plan and a home made prototypem not to mention hours of patent search and educating myself.  And I thought everything was fine when there was no prior art on uspto.gov (thank goodness for Google Patents)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I have any options?  Can I go ahead with the business anyway and hope I am not sued? Scary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the Canadian guy's patent is rejected, can I try? (His application is badly written, definitely not by an attorney) His &quot;description&quot; is different from my idea but his &quot;claim&quot; is so broad that it encompasses mine easily with no loopholes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any advice appreciated. About anything. I'm a total newbie.&#xD;&#xA;sophie" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17097" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6420" RevisionGUID="7cac17f1-18ba-4f8a-a779-b5355e03141a" CreationDate="2014-04-13T01:38:17.100" UserId="8354" Text="Can I file a patent in US if someone in Canada is in process of filing one there?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17098" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6420" RevisionGUID="7cac17f1-18ba-4f8a-a779-b5355e03141a" CreationDate="2014-04-13T01:38:17.100" UserId="8354" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;canada&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6420" RevisionGUID="696fcb0c-266f-475d-9ff1-03151b643267" CreationDate="2014-04-13T01:49:22.377" UserId="8354" Comment="edited and asked extra question " Text="I had an idea for an invention.  I found nothing similar on uspto.gov.  Then I discovered Google Patents.  I immediately found that someone from Canada is filing a patent for the same invention on the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application is active and the most recent payment was a &quot;Maintenance Fee - Application - New Act&quot; paid in Feb of this year with a &quot;due date&quot; coming up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I then found that they have also filed an international patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am so so so disappointed as I have already put in time and have been excited beyond belief about starting this business. I already have a first draft business plan and a home made prototype not to mention hours of patent search and educating myself.  And I thought everything was fine when there was no prior art on uspto.gov (thank goodness for Google Patents)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I have any options?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I go ahead with the business anyway and hope I am not sued? Scary. How often does this happen successfully/unsucessfully?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the Canadian guy's patent is rejected, can I try? (His application is badly written, definitely not by an attorney) His &quot;description&quot; is different from my idea but his &quot;claim&quot; is so broad that it encompasses mine easily with no loopholes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given where he is in the process, how do I find out if his application is rejected? If it is, I know he has a chance to edit and reapply. But if he drops it, then its public domain right? And no one can patent it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any advice appreciated. About anything. Even if you just have part of the answer to my post. I really want to do this business. Please help!&#xD;&#xA;sophie" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17100" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6420" RevisionGUID="696fcb0c-266f-475d-9ff1-03151b643267" CreationDate="2014-04-13T01:49:22.377" UserId="8354" Comment="edited and asked extra question " Text="Sad! Help! Canadian and intl patent application-in-process beat me to it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6422" RevisionGUID="788c8afb-5d1c-4d41-b49b-623a1f4d00b6" CreationDate="2014-04-13T15:03:11.533" UserId="8353" Text="As I look through patents, how do you tell if it is a utility patent or a design patent and are pending patents on the USPTO website...or just issued patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17107" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6422" RevisionGUID="788c8afb-5d1c-4d41-b49b-623a1f4d00b6" CreationDate="2014-04-13T15:03:11.533" UserId="8353" Text="How do you tell what type of patent it is?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17108" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6422" RevisionGUID="788c8afb-5d1c-4d41-b49b-623a1f4d00b6" CreationDate="2014-04-13T15:03:11.533" UserId="8353" Text="&lt;identifying&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6423" RevisionGUID="bfe32749-2659-4fc0-86d2-2a4e958de47c" CreationDate="2014-04-13T17:48:50.183" UserId="1360" Text="Utility patents have all numeric patent numbers (e.g., 8,561,134), whereas the patent numbers of design patents are prefixed with a 'D' (e.g., D696,021).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both pending and issued patents are available for searching on the USPTO website.  Subject to certain exceptions (e.g., the application was filed with a nonpublication rquest), nonprovisional utility and plant patent applications are generally published 18-months after the earliest priority date to which the application claims the benefit of priority.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6424" RevisionGUID="8debfe2b-14bc-4e9c-829d-8a36e83c1136" CreationDate="2014-04-13T18:20:14.950" UserId="1360" Text="A pending patent application does not provide the owner with any enforceable exclusionary rights to stop others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the claimed invention.  So, you cannot be sued for infringement until a patent issues, if ever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a patent application is laid open (published) in Canada, the prosecution history (the communications between the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) Examiner and the patent applicant) are also available for public inspection.  I assume the prosecution history is available via the patent database available on the CIPO website." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6425" RevisionGUID="e0682ac2-d4bb-49a2-af56-fd71f3cf2723" CreationDate="2014-04-14T00:33:52.480" UserId="8358" Text="This is very similar to &quot;named entity recognition&quot;: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Named-entity_recognition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Named entity recognition searches a text for known strings or string patterns, e.g. gene names (like &quot;bco2&quot;), and attaches markup (in other words: tags) to them in the text. You could use the named entity recognition functionality of the open-source tool KNIME to construct a recognizer that recognizes string patterns that represent numbers (using regular expressions) and search for the &quot;characteristics&quot; (e.g. unit) as classic named entities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://tech.knime.org/named-entity-recognizer-and-tag-cloud-example" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6426" RevisionGUID="7ad0fb00-bbaa-44b9-8925-eea93b52074a" CreationDate="2014-04-14T02:37:44.067" UserId="8359" Text="So I have a question that I could find an answer to. The question is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to be prosecuted under patent infringement laws, the patent holder has to show that the defendant had full knowledge of the patented system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that true?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17113" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6426" RevisionGUID="7ad0fb00-bbaa-44b9-8925-eea93b52074a" CreationDate="2014-04-14T02:37:44.067" UserId="8359" Text="Prosecuting someone under patent laws" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17114" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6426" RevisionGUID="7ad0fb00-bbaa-44b9-8925-eea93b52074a" CreationDate="2014-04-14T02:37:44.067" UserId="8359" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;patent-infringment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17116" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6426" RevisionGUID="75a902ec-1d35-43b9-994a-11ae0470b1ba" CreationDate="2014-04-14T13:06:05.383" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6426" RevisionGUID="78207520-f4a8-4068-a026-2f15f5251e84" CreationDate="2014-04-14T15:02:29.737" UserId="1360" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="So I have a question that I couldn't find an answer to. The question is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it true that in order to be prosecuted under patent infringement laws, the patent holder has to show that the defendant had full knowledge of the patented system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6427" RevisionGUID="a55f532e-a1d1-4dde-8bb3-0cd0f349adb3" CreationDate="2014-04-14T15:14:02.850" UserId="1360" Text="Patent infringement is defined by 35 USC Section 271 ==&gt; http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the statute does not state any requirement for intent, case law requires proof (circumstantial or otherwise) of intent (knowledge of the patent and that the actions would lead to infringement) for both **inducement** (Section 271(b)) and **contributory infringement** (Section 271(c)); however, **direct infringement** (Section 271(a)) does not require a showing of intent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6431" RevisionGUID="03975567-cb39-4a45-8f38-26e6ca19db42" CreationDate="2014-04-15T20:35:23.873" UserId="8370" Text="I came across two applications for the same thing, are you allowed to do this. Wouldn't the 2009 be considered prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17130" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6431" RevisionGUID="03975567-cb39-4a45-8f38-26e6ca19db42" CreationDate="2014-04-15T20:35:23.873" UserId="8370" Text="US2009/0183782 is the same as US2014/0048148, is that allowed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17131" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6431" RevisionGUID="03975567-cb39-4a45-8f38-26e6ca19db42" CreationDate="2014-04-15T20:35:23.873" UserId="8370" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6381" RevisionGUID="d349edde-30b1-439e-a53c-cac58971b1c5" CreationDate="2014-04-16T04:12:03.793" UserId="8071" Comment="Fixing a mistake: the RFC number of Cryptographic Message Syntax is 5652 (I had written 5654)." Text="I believe US patent 8,625,805, granted to Wickr on January 7, 2014, is&#xD;&#xA;either not novel, or an obvious variation of ordinary encrypted mail&#xD;&#xA;as it has been used for decades.  Here is claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A system, comprising: a processor configured to: request a public&#xD;&#xA;key and a device identifier of at least one recipient from a first&#xD;&#xA;server; encrypt a message containing one or more components using a&#xD;&#xA;symmetric key; encrypt the symmetric key with a public key received in&#xD;&#xA;response to the request; encapsulate the encrypted message, the&#xD;&#xA;encrypted symmetric key, and the device identifier in a digital&#xD;&#xA;security bubble encapsulation; and transmit the digital security&#xD;&#xA;bubble encapsulation to a second server; and a memory coupled to the&#xD;&#xA;processor and configured to provide the processor with instructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;digital security bubble&quot; is a fanciful name for the well known&#xD;&#xA;concept of a &quot;digital envelope&quot;.  See, for example, IETF RFC 5652,&#xD;&#xA;Cryptographic Message Syntax, Section 6.  The only thing unusual in&#xD;&#xA;the claim is the use of a device identifier instead of a user&#xD;&#xA;identifier.  However nothing prevents ordinary encrypted mail from&#xD;&#xA;being addressed to a device instead of a user, in which case the&#xD;&#xA;certificate of the recipient comprises a public key and a device&#xD;&#xA;identifier.  In all likelihood ordinary encrypted mail was addressed&#xD;&#xA;to devices before the patent application was filed, in which case what&#xD;&#xA;is claimed is not novel.  But even if that were not the case,&#xD;&#xA;addressing a message to a device instead of a user would be a trivial&#xD;&#xA;variation on the prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What could be done to challenge this patent?  I've looked at the Post&#xD;&#xA;Grant Review process, but it's extraordinarily complex and expensive.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6435" RevisionGUID="73571379-92e8-4e15-a185-37ae45304857" CreationDate="2014-04-16T13:51:56.293" UserId="8120" Text="I went on to PUBLIC PAIR and checked the status of both applications. US2009/0183782 was abandoned on 2-10-2014 in response to a non-final office action. US2014/0048148 was filed as a continuation-in- part of 2009/0183782 (meaning new information was added to the application) on 10-25-2013. So there is only one application covering the subject matter being examined by the USPTO. Since the 2014 application cites the 2009 in its continuity chain, the inventors have properly filed and 2009 will not be cited as prior art.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6436" RevisionGUID="2de626c9-2ead-40f9-8b43-55bd04e48321" CreationDate="2014-04-16T14:20:02.650" UserId="8375" Text="I know there is a lot debate about it. Even in USA, a country very well know to be patent friendly, have not sure if software are patentable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how is the interpretation to allow software patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am &quot;assuming&quot; here that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Software is a computer program.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Computer program is a coded (set of) algorithm which a &quot;computer&quot; can execute to perform a specified task.&#xD;&#xA; 3. An algorithm is a computational process which can be defined by a Turing machine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, we can &quot;consider&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. A computer is a restricted type of machine, a &quot;discrete deterministic device&quot; that can blindly follow some instructions.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Any computer program can be embedded directly in computer hardware. Also, a computer program can be coded in any general purpose language such as general purpose hardware description language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17148" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6436" RevisionGUID="2de626c9-2ead-40f9-8b43-55bd04e48321" CreationDate="2014-04-16T14:20:02.650" UserId="8375" Text="Are Softwares Patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17149" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6436" RevisionGUID="2de626c9-2ead-40f9-8b43-55bd04e48321" CreationDate="2014-04-16T14:20:02.650" UserId="8375" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6436" RevisionGUID="bd44aec2-c291-4130-9549-693a38317d14" CreationDate="2014-04-16T20:49:33.250" UserId="8375" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="I know there are a lot debate about it. Even in USA, a country very well know to be patent friend, have not sure if softwares are patentable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how is the interpretation to allow software patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am &quot;assuming&quot; here that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Software is a computer program.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Computer program is a coded (set of) algorithm which a &quot;computer&quot; can execute to perform a specified task.&#xD;&#xA; 3. An algorithm is a computational process which can be defined by a Turing machine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, we can &quot;consider&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. A computer is a restricted type of machine, a &quot;discrete deterministic device&quot; that can blindly follow some instructions.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Any computer program can be embedded directly in computer hardware. Also, a computer program can be coded in any general purpose language such as general purpose hardware description language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6437" RevisionGUID="32d9b4e6-6bdb-4544-b711-23b6c93c3c47" CreationDate="2014-04-17T00:16:33.897" UserId="8380" Text=" &#xD;&#xA;[US Patent &amp; Trademark Office, Patent Full Text and Image Database] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Home] [Boolean Search] [Manual Search] [Number Search] [Help]  &#xD;&#xA;[Bottom]  &#xD;&#xA;[View Shopping Cart] [Add to Shopping Cart]  &#xD;&#xA;[Image]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ( 1 of 1 ) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;United States Patent  8,559,894 &#xD;&#xA; Walker    October 15, 2013  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Klystron transmitter &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abstract&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Klystron transmitter for use in weather radar systems has a transmitter module for operating with any of various Klystron tubes designed for different frequency ranges, such as a low S-Band range, a high S-Band range, and a C-Band range. Each of the Klystron tubes is designed to have similar operating characteristics, such as output power and operating voltages. In addition, the transmitter module has driver circuitry for driving the Klystron tube of the transmitter, and such driver circuitry is operable over a wide frequency range so that the same driver circuitry can be used for any of the contemplated bands. Accordingly, the same core transmitter circuitry can be used for any of the Klystron tubes allowing a manufacturer to control which of the contemplated bands is implemented by selecting the appropriate Klystron tube and stable local oscillator (STALO) for the desired band. By using the same core design of the transmitter circuitry for all of the Klystron tubes, the overall manufacturing and implementation costs of Klystron transmitters can be significantly reduced. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inventors:&#xD;&#xA;Walker; William H. (Madison, AL)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applicant: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Name&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;City&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;State&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Country&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Type&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walker; William H.  &#xD;&#xA;Madison  &#xD;&#xA;AL  &#xD;&#xA;US   &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assignee:&#xD;&#xA;Baron Services, Inc. (Huntsville, AL) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Family ID: &#xD;&#xA;47752023  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Appl. No.: &#xD;&#xA;13/223,942 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Filed: &#xD;&#xA;September 1, 2011 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior Publication Data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Document Identifier&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication Date&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; US 20130055552 A1 Mar 7, 2013 &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current U.S. Class: 455/91 ; 29/592.1; 315/5.16; 455/143 &#xD;&#xA;Current CPC Class:  H01J 25/10 (20130101) &#xD;&#xA;Current International Class:  H04B 1/02 (20060101) &#xD;&#xA;Field of Search:  ;29/592.1,600,601 ;455/91,143 ;315/3.5,39.3,5.43-5.47,505 ;342/137,5,36D,201-202 ;330/45,149,277,286  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References Cited [Referenced By]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;U.S. Patent Documents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3461401 August 1969 Williams &#xD;&#xA;3904917 September 1975 Ueda &#xD;&#xA;4764710 August 1988 Friedlander &#xD;&#xA;4897609 January 1990 Mallavarpu &#xD;&#xA;5932972 August 1999 Symons &#xD;&#xA;6360084 March 2002 Laquer &#xD;&#xA;7583222 September 2009 O'Hora et al. &#xD;&#xA;7592948 September 2009 Walker &#xD;&#xA;2009/0174596 July 2009 Gekat &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Primary Examiner: Trinh; Minh &#xD;&#xA;Attorney, Agent or Firm: Dennen; Ann I. Lanier, Ford Shaver &amp; Payne P.C. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, therefore, the following is claimed: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. A Klystron transmitter, comprising: a first Klystron tube for amplifying pulses in a first band; and universal core circuitry having a driver amplifier, an attenuator, a Klystron tube socket, and a stable oscillator (STALO) socket, the universal core circuitry compatible with a first STALO for oscillating in the first band, a second STALO for oscillating in a second band, a third STALO for oscillating in a third band, the universal core circuitry configured for connection to a second Klystron tube for amplifying pulses in the second band, and a third Klystron tube for amplifying pulses in the third band, wherein the driver amplifier is coupled to the attenuator, wherein the first Klystron tube is inserted into the Klystron tube socket, wherein the first STALO is inserted into the STALO socket, wherein the driver amplifier is configured to drive the first Klystron tube with pulses received from the first STALO, wherein the pulses received from the first STALO pass through the attenuator and are compatible with each of the first, second, and third Klystron tubes, wherein the Klystron transmitter is capable of transmitting pulses in the second band by replacing the first Klystron tube with the second Klystron tube and by replacing the first STALO with the second STALO, wherein the Klystron transmitter is capable of transmitting pulses in the third band by replacing the first Klystron tube with the third Klystron tube and by replacing the first STALO with the third STALO, wherein the first, second, and third bands are non-overlapping, wherein one of the bands is between 2.7 Giga-Hertz and 3.0 GHz, wherein one of the bands is between 3.4 GHz and 3.7 GHz, and wherein one of the bands is a C-band. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. The transmitter of claim 1, wherein an output power of the first Klystron tube is at least 1.0 Mega-Watts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. The transmitter of claim 1, wherein the C-band is between 5.6 and 5.65 GHz. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. The transmitter of claim 1, wherein the second S-band is between 3.6 and 3.7 GHz. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. The transmitter of claim 4, wherein the first S-band is between 2.7 and 2.9 GHz. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Description&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RELATED ART &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A weather radar system transmits at a specific frequency, typically between 2.7 Giga-Hertz (GHz) and 3.0 GHz, pulses that reflect from various meteorological scatterers, such as rain, snow, hail, and/or sleet. The weather radar system receives and measures the pulse returns to provide weather data indicative of meteorological events within range of the system. Typically, the weather data is grouped into bins, and each bin is associated with a particular geographic region. In this regard, each bin indicates the measured reflectivity of pulses that are reflected from the associated region, and such measured reflectivity is indicative of the type of meteorological scatterers, if any, within such region. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Many weather radar systems use a Klystron transmitter to generate the pulses used for reflectivity measurements. As known in the art, a Klystron transmitter uses a linear-beam vacuum tube, referred to as a &quot;Klystron,&quot; that is used to amplify the pulses for transmission. In general, Klystron tubes allow precise control of output amplitude, frequency, and phase relative to other types of transmitters. In weather applications, Klystron tubes are operated at high power, and the Klystron tube, as well as the circuitry for driving the Klystron tube, are expensive. Techniques for improving performance and reducing the costs of weather radar systems are generally desired. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The disclosure can be better understood with reference to the following drawings. The elements of the drawings are not necessarily to scale relative to each other, emphasis instead being placed upon clearly illustrating the principles of the disclosure. Furthermore, like reference numerals designate corresponding parts throughout the several views. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary embodiment of a weather radar system using a Klystron transmitter having universal core circuitry designed for a plurality of frequency ranges, such as a low S-band, a high S-band, and a C-band. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary embodiment of processing circuitry, such as is depicted by FIG. 1. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary embodiment of a transmitter module for a Klystron transmitter, such as is depicted by FIG. 1. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; FIG. 4 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary embodiment of splitter circuitry, such as is depicted by FIG. 1. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; FIG. 5 is a flow chart illustrating an exemplary method of manufacturing a batch of Klystron transmitters for use in weather radar applications. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DETAILED DESCRIPTION &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The present disclosure generally relates to Klystron transmitters for use in weather radar systems. In one exemplary embodiment, a Klystron transmitter has a transmitter module for operating with any of various Klystron tubes designed for different frequency ranges, such as a low S-band between about 2.7 GHz and 3.0 GHz, a high S-band between about 3.4 GHz and 3.7 GHz, and a C-band between about 5.6 and 5.65 GHz. Each of the Klystron tubes is designed to have similar operating characteristics, such as output power and operating voltages. As an example, in one embodiment, each Klystron tube is designed to have the same output power (e.g., about 1 Mega-Watts (MW) or greater) and the same operating voltage (e.g., about 70 kilo-Volts (kV)). In addition, the transmitter module has driver circuitry for driving the Klystron tube of the transmitter, and such driver circuitry is operable over a wide frequency range so that the same driver circuitry can be used for any of the contemplated bands. Accordingly, the same core transmitter circuitry can be used for any of the Klystron tubes allowing a manufacturer to control which of the contemplated bands is implemented by selecting the appropriate Klystron tube and stable local oscillator (STALO) for the desired band. By using the same core design of the transmitter circuitry for all of the Klystron tubes, the overall manufacturing and implementation costs of Klystron transmitters can be significantly reduced. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; FIG. 1 depicts an exemplary embodiment of a weather radar system 10 employing a Klystron transmitter 12 having universal core circuitry 14 for enabling the transmitter 12 to transmit pulses in any of a plurality of contemplated frequency ranges depending on the type of Klystron tube connected to the circuitry 14, as will be described in more detail hereafter. In one exemplary embodiment, the Klystron transmitter 12 is designed to transmit at any frequency within a low S-band between about 2.7 GHz and 3.0 GHz, a high S-band between about 3.4 GHz and 3.7 GHz, and a C-band between about 5.6 and 5.65 GHz, depending on the type of Klystron tube connected to the circuitry 14. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In this regard, if the transmitter 12 is to be used to transmit pulses in the low S-band, then the universal core circuitry 14 is connected, as shown, to a Klystron tube 15 and a STALO 25 that are both designed for communication in the low S-band. However, if the transmitter 12 is to be used to transmit pulses in the high S-band, then the universal core circuitry 14 is connected to a Klystron tube 16 and a STALO 26 that are both designed for communication in the high S-band in lieu of the Klystron tube 15 and STALO 25 shown by FIG. 1. If the transmitter 12 is to be used to transmit pulses in the C-band, then the universal core circuitry 14 is connected to a Klystron tube 17 and a STALO 27 that are both designed for communication in the C-band in lieu of the Klystron tube 15 and STALO 25 shown by FIG. 1. In other embodiments, other types of Klystron tubes and STALOs may be used to enable the transmitter 12 to transmit pulses in other frequency ranges. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Accordingly, to enable the transmitter 12 to transmit pulses in one of the contemplated frequency ranges (low S-band, high S-band, or C-band), a user connects the universal core circuitry 14 to the appropriate Klystron tube and STALO for communication in the desired frequency range. So connecting the appropriate Klystron tube and STALO configures the transmitter 12 for transmitting pulses in the desired frequency range without requiring the user to make further changes or adjustments to the universal core circuitry 14. In this regard, each Klystron tube 15-17 is designed to have overlapping input characteristics relative to the other Klystron tubes 15-17 so that the universal core circuitry 14 can provide the same operational inputs to any of the Klystron tubes 15-17. As an example, the universal core circuitry 14 may comprise driver circuitry 33 that drives the connected Klystron tube with pulses of the same amplitude and power regardless of which Klystron tube 15-17 and STALO 25-27 are actually connected to the circuitry 14. The universal core circuitry 14 also may be configured to provide the same operating voltage (e.g., about 70 kV) to the connected Klystron tube regardless of which Klystron tube 15-17 and STALO 25-27 are actually connected to the circuitry 14. Further, the universal core circuitry 14 is designed to drive the connected Klystron tube with pulses in any of the contemplated frequency ranges. Thus, a user may change the transmit frequency of the transmitter 12 merely by swapping the connected Klystron tube 15 and STALO 25 with a different Klystron tube (16 or 17) and STALO (26 or 27) designed to operate in a different band. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Referring to FIG. 1, the system 10 has processing circuitry 36 that is configured to generate pulses at a frequency based on the STALO 25 that is connected to the transmitter 12. For example, when the STALO 25 is connected to the transmitter 12, as shown by FIG. 1, the processing circuitry 36 transmits pulses in the low S-band. However, when the STALO 26 is connected to the transmitter 12 instead of the STALO 25, the processing circuitry 36 transmits pulses in the high S-band. Further, when the STALO 27 is connected to the transmitter 12 instead of the STALO 25, the processing circuitry 36 transmits pulses in the C-band. For illustrative purposes, it will be assumed hereafter unless otherwise indicated that the STALO 25 is connected to the transmitter 12, as shown by FIG. 1, such that the processing circuitry 36 transmits pulses in the low S-band. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The pulses generated by the processing circuitry 36 are received and amplified by the driver circuitry 33, which drives the connected Klystron tube 15 with the amplified pulses. In one exemplary embodiment, the Klystron tube 15 amplifies the pulses to a high power state, such as about 1 MW or greater, though other power ranges are possible in other embodiments. The amplified pulses pass through splitter circuitry 41 to antenna 44 from which the pulses wirelessly propagate. As the pulses propagate through the atmosphere, they reflect from objects, such as meteorological scatterers, and return to the antenna 44. The splitter circuitry 41 separates such returns from the pulses output by the Klystron tube 15 and transmits the returns to a receiver 49. Such returns are measured by the processing circuitry 36, and the circuitry 36 processes the returns to define weather data 55 indicative of meteorological events within range of the system 10. Such data is transmitted to a weather data processing system 52, which uses the data for weather applications, such as displaying a radar weather map. Commonly-assigned U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/472,773, entitled &quot;Systems and Methods for Calibrating Dual Polarization Radar Systems&quot; and filed on Apr. 7, 2011, which is incorporated herein by reference, describes exemplary techniques for processing returns and forming weather data. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Note that since the universal core circuitry 14 is operable for any of the contemplated frequency ranges, manufacturing of a large number of Klystron transmitters 12 is facilitated. In this regard, it is unnecessary for a manufacturer to match different Klystron tubes 15-17 with different versions of the core circuitry 14 during manufacturing since the same universal core circuitry 14 can be used with any of the Klystron tubes 15-17. Further, since a larger number of manufactured units will utilize the same parts, better pricing of the parts for the circuitry 14 can likely be obtained. In addition, publishing an operator's manual for the circuitry 14 of the transmitter 12 is simplified since the same version of the core circuitry 14 is used for each transmitter 12. Various other benefits and savings may be realized by using the same universal core circuitry 14 regardless of which contemplated frequency range is desired. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; FIG. 2 depicts an exemplary embodiment of the processing circuitry 36. The processing circuitry 36 comprises a coherent oscillator (COHO) 63 that generates pulses at a specific frequency. For illustrative purposes, assume that the desired transmit frequency for the transmitter 12 is about 3.0 GHz and that the COHO frequency is about 30 Mega-Hertz (MHz), though other frequencies may be used in other embodiments. As shown by FIG. 2, the COHO 63 is coupled to a pulse modulator 66 that receives the pulses generated by the COHO 63. The pulse modulator 66 is configured to perform pulse code modulation to provide a conditioned pulse at the COHO frequency, which is 30 MHz in the current example. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The pulse modulator 66 is coupled to a STALO socket 69, which is configured to receive the STALO 25 (FIG. 1) after the universal core circuitry 14 has been manufactured. Thus, a user may select which STALO 25-27 he or she desires to use based on the desired transmit frequency for the transmitter 12 and plug the selected STALO 25-27 into the socket 69, thereby electrically coupling such selected STALO 25-27 to the universal core circuitry 14, receiver 49, and other components of the processing circuitry 36. The pulse modulator 66 is coupled to a mixer 71 (FIG. 3). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; FIG. 3 depicts an exemplary embodiment of a transmitter module 72 on which the universal core circuitry 14 resides. Referring to FIG. 3, the mixer 71 mixes the pulses from the modulator 66 (FIG. 2) with pulses generated by the STALO 25 (FIG. 1), which as described above is selected to provide the desired transmit frequency for the transmitter 12. In the current example in which the COHO frequency is about 30 MHz and the desired transmit frequency for the transmitter 12 is about 3.0 GHz, the STALO frequency may be about 2970 MHz. The pulses output by the mixer 71 are at the desired transmit frequency for the transmitter 12 (i.e., 3.0 GHz in the current example). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; As shown by FIG. 3, the mixer 71 is coupled to a bandpass filter 74, which filters the pulses output by the mixer 71. In one exemplary embodiment, the filter 74 has a relatively narrow passband, such as about 30 MHz or less centered around the desired transmit frequency (e.g., 3.0 GHz in the current example), but other passbands are possible in other embodiments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The bandpass filter 74 is coupled to a broadband attenuator 77 of the driver circuitry 33, and the broadband attenuator 77 attenuates the pulses for input to a driver amplifier 79. In one exemplary embodiment, the broadband attenuator 77 is a high-power radio frequency (RF) resistor, but other types of attenuators are possible. The driver amplifier 79 is a broadband device capable of amplifying pulses at least in the contemplated frequency ranges (e.g., at least between 2.7 GHz and 5.65 GHz in the instant embodiment) with sufficient power to drive the Klystron tubes 15-17. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The driver amplifier 79 is coupled via a control line 81 (FIG. 1) to a signal processor 82 (FIG. 2) of the processing circuitry 36, which controls the on/off state of the amplifier 79. In this regard, the signal processor 82 turns on the amplifier 79 just before a pulse arrives at the input of the amplifier 79 and turns off the amplifier 79 just after the pulse leaves the amplifier 79. Accordingly, while a pulse is at the input of the amplifier 79, the amplifier 79 is turned on and amplifies the pulse. However, shortly after a pulse leaves the driver amplifier 79, the amplifier 79 is turned off until just before the arrival of the next pulse. Thus, between pulses, the driver amplifier 79 is prevented from outputting electrical energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The output of the driver amplifier 79 is coupled to a broadband attenuator 85, which attenuates the pulses output by such amplifier 79. In one exemplary embodiment, during the time period that a pulse is at the input of the amplifier 79, the amplifier 79 saturates such that the output is at a precise voltage (i.e., the amplifier's saturation voltage). Further, the broadband attenuator 85 attenuates the output of the amplifier 79 such that the output voltage is lowered to a particular voltage within a desired input range for the Klystron tube 15. Note that this voltage is the same regardless of which Klystron tube 15-17 is actually connected to the driver circuitry 33. In one exemplary embodiment, the broadband attenuator 85 is a high-power RF resistor, but other types of attenuators are possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; As shown by FIG. 3, the broadband attenuator 85 is coupled to a Klystron tube socket 89, which is configured to receive the Klystron tube 15 (FIG. 1) after the universal core circuitry 14 has been manufactured. Thus, a user may select which Klystron tube 15-17 he or she desires to use based on the desired transmit frequency for the transmitter 12 and plug the selected Klystron tube 15-17 into the socket 89, thereby electrically coupling such selected Klystron tube 15-17 to the universal core circuitry 14 and, specifically to at least to the broadband attenuator 85, as well as other components of the transmitter module 72, as will be described in more detail hereafter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The Klystron tube 15 is configured to amplify the pulse provided by the driver circuitry 33, thereby significantly increasing the pulse's power. As an example, in one exemplary embodiment, the pulse provided by the driver circuitry 33 is about 50 Watts (W), and the Klystron transmitter 15 amplifies the pulse to about 1.0 MW or greater. The other Klystron tubes 16 and 17 are configured to similarly amplify pulses from the driver circuitry 33 to the same power level when either such tube 16 or 17 is used in lieu of the Klystron tube 15. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The Klystron tube socket 89 is coupled to an arc detector 90, which is configured to detect whether there is an arc present in the output of the Klystron tube 15. If such an arc is present, the arc detector 90 turns off the Klystron tube 15 such that it is prevented from operating at least temporarily. The presence of an arc in the tube's output is indicative of an abnormal condition that could damage the Klystron tube 15 or other equipment, and the detector 90 may be configured to provide a warning, such as an audio or visual message, in response to an arc detection. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; As shown by FIG. 3, pulse generation circuitry 91 is coupled to the Klystron tube socket 89 and provides electrical power to the Klystron tube 15 through the socket 89. In one exemplary embodiment, the voltage of the power signal supplied by the circuitry 91 is about 70 kV, but other voltages are possible in other embodiments. To provide such a high voltage, the circuitry 91 comprises a direct current (DC) power supply 94 that provides a DC power signal at a specific voltage, such as about 15 kV. The DC power supply 94 is coupled to a high power modulator 96, which modulates the power signal to provide a series of pulses at approximately the same frequency as those amplified by the Klystron tube 15, as will be described in more detail hereafter. The modulator 96 is coupled to a transformer 99, which increases the voltage of the pulses to the desired operating voltage of the Klystron tube 15 (e.g., 70 kV in the instant example). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The modulator 96 is coupled via a control line 101 (FIG. 1) to the signal processor 82 (FIG. 2) of the processing circuitry 36, which controls the modulation performed by the modulator 96. In this regard, the signal processor 82 controls the timing and frequency of the pulses output by the modulator 96 such that these pulses, which control the on/off state of the Klystron tube 15, arrive at the Klystron tube 15 at about the same time as the pulses from the driver amplifier 79. Specifically, a high power pulse from the modulator 96 arrives at and turns on the Klystron tube 15 just before a pulse arrives at the Klystron tube 15 from the driver amplifier 79. Further, the Klystron tube 15 stops receiving the high power pulse from the modulator 96, thereby turning off the Klystron tube 15, just after the Klystron tube 15 stops receiving the pulse from the driver amplifier 79. Accordingly, while a pulse from the driver amplifier 79 is at the input of the Klystron tube 15, the Klystron tube 15 is turned on and amplifies the pulse. However, shortly after a pulse from the driver amplifier 79 leaves the Klystron tube 15, the Klystron tube 15 is turned off until just before the arrival of the next pulse from the driver amplifier 79. Thus, between pulses from the driver amplifier 79, the Klystron tube 15 is prevented from outputting electrical energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; As shown by FIG. 3, the Klystron tube socket 89 is coupled to a heat supply 111, a vac-ion supply 112, and a solenoid supply 113. The heat supply 111 is configured to provide heat for the Klystron tube 15, and the vac-ion supply 112 is configured to provide a vacuum for the Klystron tube 15. Further, the solenoid supply 113 has an electromagnet 114 that is used to focus the beam of the Klystron tube 15, and the electromagnet 114 operates under the control of a solenoid 115 within the supply 113. In one exemplary embodiment, the power, heat, vacuum, and electromagnetic field respectively provided by the pulse generation circuitry 91, the heat supply 111, the vac-ion supply 112, and the solenoid supply 113 are not dependent on which Klystron tube 15-17 is plugged into the socket 89. Accordingly, any of the Klystron tubes 15-17 may be plugged into the socket 89 without having to adjust the configuration or operation of the pulse generation circuitry 91, the heat supply 111, the vac-ion supply 112, and the solenoid supply 113. In other embodiments, other configurations are possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; FIG. 4 depicts an exemplary embodiment of the splitter circuitry 41. The splitter circuitry 41 comprises a circulator 122 that is coupled to the Klystron tube socket 89 and receives the pulses output by the Klystron tube 15 that is plugged into the socket 89. The pulses pass through the circulator 122 to a tuner 126, a bandpass filter 127, and a harmonic filter 128 before being wirelessly transmitted via the antenna 44 (FIG. 1). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Reflections of the pulses are received by the antenna 44 and pass through the harmonic filter 128, the bandpass filter 127, and the tuner 126 to the circulator 122. The circulator 122 separates the reflections from the pulses output by the Klystron tube 15. Such reflections are transmitted to the receiver 49, which filters and processes the reflections before they are received by the signal processor 82 (FIG. 2). The signal processor 82 then uses the received reflections to define the weather data 55. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; As described above, either of the Klystron tubes 16 or 17 may be used in lieu of the Klystron tube 15. Further if the Klystron tube 16 is used, the STALO 26 associated with such tube 16 is preferably used in lieu of the STALO 25. If the Klystron tube 17 is used, the STALO 27 associated with such tube 17 is preferably used in lieu of the STALO 27. In such embodiments, the operation of the transmitter 12 is the same as that described above except that pulses are generated at a different frequency. For example, if the Klystron tube 16 and STALO 26 are used, then pulses in the high S-band are generated. If the Klystron tube 17 and STALO 27 are used, then pulses in the C-band are generated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In the embodiments described above, the Klystron tubes 15-17 (and associated STALOs 25-27) are configured for operation in the bands of 2.7 to 3.0 GHz (low S-band), 3.4 to 3.7 GHz (high S-band), and 5.6 to 5.65 GHz (C-band), respectively. In other embodiments, other frequency ranges are possible. As a mere example, in one exemplary embodiment, the Klystron tubes 15-17 (and associated STALOs 25-27) are configured for operation in the bands of 2.7 to 2.9 GHz (low S-band), 3.6 to 3.7 GHz (high S-band), and 5.6 to 5.65 (C-band), respectively. Such bands may be less susceptible to interference and, thus, provide better overall performance. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In this regard, the band from about 3.0 GHz to about 3.7 GHz is generally reserved for military operation. However, the band from about 3.4 GHz to about 3.7 GHz is not currently used by the military at least to a significant extent, and it is possible that the military would grant a petition to use such band for weather radar applications. However, limiting the low S-band to less than 2.9 GHz and the high S-band to greater than 3.6 GHz provides guard-bands that help to separate the pulses generated by the transmitter 12 from the signals currently used by the military from about 3.0 GHz to about 3.4 GHz. Accordingly, the pulses generated by the transmitter 12 are less &#xD;&#xA; As shown by block 212 of FIG. 5, a batch of Klystron transmitter modules 72 are manufactured without a Klystron tube for the socket 89 or a STALO for the socket 69. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17153" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6437" RevisionGUID="32d9b4e6-6bdb-4544-b711-23b6c93c3c47" CreationDate="2014-04-17T00:16:33.897" UserId="8380" Text="Has this patent application (8,559,894) been granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17154" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6437" RevisionGUID="32d9b4e6-6bdb-4544-b711-23b6c93c3c47" CreationDate="2014-04-17T00:16:33.897" UserId="8380" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6437" RevisionGUID="bbd8d4b8-6da0-469f-b91b-8333ae5f637c" CreationDate="2014-04-17T03:40:46.863" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 26741 characters in body" Text="Has this patent [8,559,894](https://www.google.com/patents/US8559894) been granted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;United States Patent  8,559,894 &#xD;&#xA; Walker    October 15, 2013  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Klystron transmitter &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abstract&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Klystron transmitter for use in weather radar systems has a transmitter module for operating with any of various Klystron tubes designed for different frequency ranges, such as a low S-Band range, a high S-Band range, and a C-Band range. Each of the Klystron tubes is designed to have similar operating characteristics, such as output power and operating voltages. In addition, the transmitter module has driver circuitry for driving the Klystron tube of the transmitter, and such driver circuitry is operable over a wide frequency range so that the same driver circuitry can be used for any of the contemplated bands. Accordingly, the same core transmitter circuitry can be used for any of the Klystron tubes allowing a manufacturer to control which of the contemplated bands is implemented by selecting the appropriate Klystron tube and stable local oscillator (STALO) for the desired band. By using the same core design of the transmitter circuitry for all of the Klystron tubes, the overall manufacturing and implementation costs of Klystron transmitters can be significantly reduced. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inventors:&#xD;&#xA;Walker; William H. (Madison, AL)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Madison, AL   US   &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assignee:&#xD;&#xA;Baron Services, Inc. (Huntsville, AL) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Family ID: &#xD;&#xA;47752023  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Appl. No.: &#xD;&#xA;13/223,942 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Filed: &#xD;&#xA;September 1, 2011 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior Publication Data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication Date&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; US 20130055552 A1 Mar 7, 2013 &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17157" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6437" RevisionGUID="bbd8d4b8-6da0-469f-b91b-8333ae5f637c" CreationDate="2014-04-17T03:40:46.863" UserId="1767" Comment="deleted 26741 characters in body" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;us8559894&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6440" RevisionGUID="53663421-a9fd-4f6f-ad21-3e14de69b2d4" CreationDate="2014-04-17T19:43:21.667" UserId="1360" Text="**Yes**, probably a bit confusing with all the numbers and dates, but the patent application was filed on September 1, 2011, was assigned Application No.13/223,942, was published as US Pub. No. 2013/005552 on March 7, 2013 and issued on October 15, 2013 as US Patent No. 8,559,894." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6442" RevisionGUID="1bed570e-b7f1-4a02-bfbb-32c1b728d82e" CreationDate="2014-04-19T23:17:26.150" UserId="3481" Text="Assume there is a Patent Application filed at Jan 2012 with USPTO and I think its claims are too much broad and vague. It has not been granted yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I have an idea that is totally similar to the claims of that Patent Application but with at least one further innovative step which makes the claimed method much more strict and feasible then is it possible for me to file a new Patent Application with a Patent Organization in another country which that country is committed to Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17171" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6442" RevisionGUID="1bed570e-b7f1-4a02-bfbb-32c1b728d82e" CreationDate="2014-04-19T23:17:26.150" UserId="3481" Text="Patent Application and Paris convention priority right" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17172" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6442" RevisionGUID="1bed570e-b7f1-4a02-bfbb-32c1b728d82e" CreationDate="2014-04-19T23:17:26.150" UserId="3481" Text="&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6442" RevisionGUID="097f1a73-eca6-456a-b55a-2b90811ab1a3" CreationDate="2014-04-19T23:22:35.230" UserId="3481" Comment="clarifying" Text="Assume there is a Patent Application filed at Jan 2012 with USPTO and I think its claims are too much broad and vague. It has not been granted yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I have an idea that is totally similar to the claims of that Patent Application but with at least one further innovative step which makes the claimed method much more strict and feasible then is it possible for me to file a new Patent Application with a Patent Organization in another country which that country is committed to Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I wait to see if that Patent Application is granted and then proceed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I do? what can I do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6442" RevisionGUID="aef8ad64-a418-4ec6-aa03-5f75988f4bb3" CreationDate="2014-04-20T00:36:12.853" UserId="3481" Comment="clarifying" Text="Assume there is a Patent Application filed at Jan 2012 with USPTO and I think its claims are too much broad and vague. It has not been granted yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I have an idea that is totally similar to the claims of that Patent Application but with at least one further innovative step which makes the claimed method much more strict and feasible then is it possible for me to file a new Patent Application with a Patent Organization in another country which that country is committed to Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I wait to see if that Patent Application is granted (or not) and then proceed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I do? what can I do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6444" RevisionGUID="7238129f-fe76-471c-825a-8f56fa76dbc3" CreationDate="2014-04-21T07:42:29.493" UserId="8394" Text="I am not a US citizen. I filled  an application in USPTO through an Attorney based in US.&#xD;&#xA;I do not have any intent to go further for examination,office action etc  with this attorney, because I would like to transfer this to another attorney .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is what all documents should I collect from the first attorney after he files the application in USPTO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I would like that this transfer should go smoothly without any conflict with the first Attorney. So is there any thing that should be mentioned in the Power of Attorney ,such as &quot; This  PoA is granted only for filing the application&quot; something like this ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17182" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6444" RevisionGUID="7238129f-fe76-471c-825a-8f56fa76dbc3" CreationDate="2014-04-21T07:42:29.493" UserId="8394" Text="Avoiding issues while changing the attorney?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17183" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6444" RevisionGUID="7238129f-fe76-471c-825a-8f56fa76dbc3" CreationDate="2014-04-21T07:42:29.493" UserId="8394" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;attorney&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6447" RevisionGUID="d8b89857-530b-4e51-97a7-5f4c7c671287" CreationDate="2014-04-21T17:00:11.347" UserId="8120" Text="If you are certain the claims are too broad and that upon examination by an examiner you will be forced to limit the claims,I would refile the current provisional with the limited claims. The advantage of this strategy is  to avoid estoppel by limiting the claims in response to an examiner's rejection which can be difficult in case of patent litigation if the patent is granted. I would do this before filing a PCT as the broad claims n the existing application the PCT is examined. The PCT examiner would probably be the same examiner for the provisional who would reject the claims so your problem would not be avoided." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6448" RevisionGUID="03640cd6-ac50-4ed0-ad89-e5176eef02ae" CreationDate="2014-04-21T17:27:09.520" UserId="8120" Text="Claims 4-8, 16, 17, and 20 were deemed allowable under the firs examiner rejection  for the provisional corresponding to US8037700 B2. The remaining claims were rejected over US 6606872 to Smith as well as being known in the art. Applicant showed the difference between their claims and Smith and what is known in the art and the claims allowed with no further prosecution. Interestingly,  US8037700 was originally filed as a PCT WO2007/087248 in 2007 and rejected under lack of inventiveness under US 6463747 and US 5291745. The inventors amended their claims before filing their US provisional- probably based on comments from the PCT examiner and the application issued. I suggest you read the image file wrapper in Public Pair to see the course of prosecution. Since this patent was filed before AIA first to file rules and you could prove you invented first, you might challenge the validity of the issued patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6449" RevisionGUID="26963147-87c5-493e-acc7-8603b6e6b54e" CreationDate="2014-04-21T20:46:49.500" UserId="8404" Text="When there is a patent application submitted for an idea that has been around for years and is common knowledge what can you do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17191" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6449" RevisionGUID="26963147-87c5-493e-acc7-8603b6e6b54e" CreationDate="2014-04-21T20:46:49.500" UserId="8404" Text="Patent application is in the Public Domain" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17192" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6449" RevisionGUID="26963147-87c5-493e-acc7-8603b6e6b54e" CreationDate="2014-04-21T20:46:49.500" UserId="8404" Text="&lt;public-domain&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6450" RevisionGUID="8f12de16-85aa-4ff7-a40b-f0e8c3073c39" CreationDate="2014-04-21T20:50:09.317" UserId="8120" Text="To get the benefit o the provisional filing date, the provisional must encompass an enabling disclosure meeting all the requirements for a non-provisional. Since we are under the first to file, you want your original filing date. In addition, you do not want to get put in the position of losing your 0ne year grace period under the AIA for the regular application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are treading in deep waters by filing a &quot;makeshift&quot; provisional that an examiner reviews and write a rejection. If you use the rejection to narrow claims in your nonprovisional, you have the issue of estoppel if the nonprovisional issues and is challenged. If you abandon the the provisional and lose the filing date, the nonprovisional may be held against you as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do yourself a favor and hire a patent agent to file the provisional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6381" RevisionGUID="0c154540-57f0-4c4c-a440-03b8c079894d" CreationDate="2014-04-21T21:37:43.443" UserId="8071" Comment="Added an update" Text="I believe US patent 8,625,805, granted to Wickr on January 7, 2014, is&#xD;&#xA;either not novel, or an obvious variation of ordinary encrypted mail&#xD;&#xA;as it has been used for decades.  Here is claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A system, comprising: a processor configured to: request a public&#xD;&#xA;key and a device identifier of at least one recipient from a first&#xD;&#xA;server; encrypt a message containing one or more components using a&#xD;&#xA;symmetric key; encrypt the symmetric key with a public key received in&#xD;&#xA;response to the request; encapsulate the encrypted message, the&#xD;&#xA;encrypted symmetric key, and the device identifier in a digital&#xD;&#xA;security bubble encapsulation; and transmit the digital security&#xD;&#xA;bubble encapsulation to a second server; and a memory coupled to the&#xD;&#xA;processor and configured to provide the processor with instructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;digital security bubble&quot; is a fanciful name for the well known&#xD;&#xA;concept of a &quot;digital envelope&quot;.  See, for example, IETF RFC 5652,&#xD;&#xA;Cryptographic Message Syntax, Section 6.  The only thing unusual in&#xD;&#xA;the claim is the use of a device identifier instead of a user&#xD;&#xA;identifier.  However nothing prevents ordinary encrypted mail from&#xD;&#xA;being addressed to a device instead of a user, in which case the&#xD;&#xA;certificate of the recipient comprises a public key and a device&#xD;&#xA;identifier.  In all likelihood ordinary encrypted mail was addressed&#xD;&#xA;to devices before the patent application was filed, in which case what&#xD;&#xA;is claimed is not novel.  But even if that were not the case,&#xD;&#xA;addressing a message to a device instead of a user would be a trivial&#xD;&#xA;variation on the prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What could be done to challenge this patent?  I've looked at the Post&#xD;&#xA;Grant Review process, but it's extraordinarily complex and expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**: Following the advice in the answer given by Phoenix88, I studied the patent in detail, and I filed a submission of prior art under 37 CFR 1.501 and 35 USC 301.  As I was studying the patent, I realized that there were other issues besides prior art; in particular, claim 16 illustrates a problem specific to security claims that I don't think has been discussed before.  Also, after being told by George White in his comment that US 8,625,805 was a Track I case, I also filed a response to the current USPTO call for comments on crowdsourcing of prior art pointing out loopholes that prevent third party scrutiny of applications.  I have written a [blog post][1] about all this, since it would be off-topic to discuss it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://pomcor.com/2014/04/21/patent-illustrates-five-different-problems-with-software-patents/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6451" RevisionGUID="6e282033-596e-4420-97f9-b7690e80cb28" CreationDate="2014-04-21T22:09:00.703" UserDisplayName="user8405" Text="This looks like a patent on all native advertising systems. Has anyone seen any prior art to this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Patent application title: PRESS RELEASE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM&#xD;&#xA;    Inventors:&#xD;&#xA;    Assignees:  NATIVO INC.&#xD;&#xA;    IPC8 Class:&#xD;&#xA;    USPC Class: 705 1445&#xD;&#xA;    Class name:&#xD;&#xA;    Publication date: 2013-09-19&#xD;&#xA;    Patent application number: 20130246165&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Abstract:&#xD;&#xA;    A press release distribution system provides press release and other news to forum sites as posts. The forum software that runs at forum sites includes press release interface software or is adapted to receive press release interface plug-in modules for interfacing with the press release distribution system. The press release interface software or plug-in module may also monitor and/or analyze user data of forum members and/or forum activities of the users. The monitored user data and forum activities may be provided to the press release distribution system for analysis and generation of user profiles. Using the result of the analysis (e.g., user profiles), the press release distribution system can target particular users or forums to direct the press releases, news, or advertisements for most effective advertising campaign.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Claims:&#xD;&#xA;    1. A press release distribution system configured to deliver advertisements as sponsored news content to a plurality of web sites that each includes non-sponsored content, the press release distribution system comprising: a distributor module on a server computer, the distributor module being adapted to distribute the sponsored news content to a related one or more of the web sites over a communications network; at least one input handler module on the server computer, the at least one input handler module adapted to receive the sponsored news content from one or more advertisers over the communications network, and to provide the sponsored news content to the distributor module; and at least one poster module adapted to run at the related one or more of the web sites, wherein the at least one poster module is adapted to receive the sponsored news content from the server computer over the communications network, and to post the sponsored news content among the non-sponsored content at each of the related one or more of the web sites, wherein the at least one poster module is further adapted to track one or more of impressions, clicks, click-through rate, or user actions with respect to the sponsored news content, and wherein the sponsored news content is not a banner advertisement.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    2. The press release distribution system of claim 1, wherein the sponsored news content comprises a press release, news, announcement, message, news feed, or non-&quot;press&quot; event.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    3. The press release distribution system of claim 1, wherein the non-sponsored content comprises one or more of messages, postings, posts, or threads.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    4. The press release distribution system of claim 1, wherein the communications network is the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    5. The press release distribution system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of web sites comprise forum sites, fan sites, popular sites, enthusiast sites, message forums, user forums, or popular forums.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    6. The press release distribution system of claim 1, wherein the at least one poster module comprises a corresponding at least one press release plug-in module.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    7. The press release distribution system of claim 1, wherein the at least one poster module is further adapted to monitor user data or user activity at the related one or more of the web sites.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    8. The press release distribution system of claim 7, wherein the press release distribution system is further configured to generate user profiles from the monitored user data or user activity at the related one or more of the web sites.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    9. The press release distribution system of claim 7, wherein the user activity at the related one or more of the web sites comprises one or more of posts, reads of posts, or searches at the related one or more of the web sites.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    10. The press release distribution system of claim 1, wherein the sponsored news content comprises one or more of text, video, or images.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    11. A method of electronically delivering advertisements as sponsored news content to a plurality of web sites that each includes non-sponsored content, the method comprising: electronically receiving the sponsored news content by a server computer from one or more advertisers over a communications network; electronically distributing the sponsored news content by the server computer to a related one or more of the web sites over the communications network; electronically receiving the sponsored news content by the one or more web sites from the server computer over the communications network; electronically posting the sponsored news content among the non-sponsored content at each of the related one or more of the web sites; and electronically tracking one or more of impressions, clicks, click-through rate, or user actions with respect to the sponsored news content at the related one or more of the web sites, wherein the sponsored news content is not a banner advertisement.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    12. The method of claim 11, wherein the sponsored news content comprises a press release, news, announcement, message, news feed, or non-&quot;press&quot; event.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    13. The method of claim 11, wherein the non-sponsored content comprises one or more of messages, postings, posts, or threads.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    14. The method of claim 11, wherein the communications network is the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    15. The method of claim 11, wherein the plurality of web sites comprise forum sites, fan sites, popular sites, enthusiast sites, message forums, user forums, or popular forums.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    16. The method of claim 11 further comprising electronically monitoring user data or user activity at the related one or more of the web sites.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    17. The method of claim 16 further comprising electronically generating user profiles from the monitored user data or user activity at the related one or more of the web sites.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    18. The method of claim 16, wherein the user activity at the related one or more of the web sites comprises one or more of posts, reads of posts, or searches at the related one or more of the web sites.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    19. The method of claim 11, wherein the sponsored news content comprises one or more of text, video, or images.&#xD;&#xA;    Description:&#xD;&#xA;    CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    [0001] This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 11/772,014 filed Jun. 29, 2007, which claimed the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/817,771 filed Jun. 29, 2006, the entire content of which is incorporated by reference herein.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    FIELD OF THE INVENTION&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    [0002] The present invention relates to online brand marketing and monitoring.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Read more: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20130246165&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17196" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6451" RevisionGUID="6e282033-596e-4420-97f9-b7690e80cb28" CreationDate="2014-04-21T22:09:00.703" UserDisplayName="user8405" Text="Press release distribution system Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17197" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6451" RevisionGUID="6e282033-596e-4420-97f9-b7690e80cb28" CreationDate="2014-04-21T22:09:00.703" UserDisplayName="user8405" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;online-advertising&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6453" RevisionGUID="18a0ca40-1678-404a-af2c-6aa8121ddd29" CreationDate="2014-04-22T06:01:26.530" UserId="8409" Text="I know there are a lot of strange and bogus software patents out there today, for instance if i remember correctly Microsoft owns a patent for browser plugins (which basically would mean Adobe Flash infriges this patent), another one off the top of my head was relating to drawing regions on a display device, which could apply to any modern GUI.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to compile down the most interesting and strange software patents out there that are still valid today, and see what prior art there is to them, so i would ask of you to post any software patent that is broad, ambiguous or has known prior art, or just any software patent in general, most likely it has prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17202" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6453" RevisionGUID="18a0ca40-1678-404a-af2c-6aa8121ddd29" CreationDate="2014-04-22T06:01:26.530" UserId="8409" Text="Most ambiguous software patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17203" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6453" RevisionGUID="18a0ca40-1678-404a-af2c-6aa8121ddd29" CreationDate="2014-04-22T06:01:26.530" UserId="8409" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6455" RevisionGUID="7bd7823b-f7a2-4762-831c-fbf643000e24" CreationDate="2014-04-22T17:33:25.563" UserId="1360" Text="One option to consider is a prior art submission to the USPTO under 37 CFR 1.501 and 35 USC 301. See ==&gt; http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2205.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This creates a written record of the applicability of the particular patent(s) and/or printed publication(s) submitted. If the patent owner attempts to assert this patent against a third party, the third party may be able to leverage your submission as part of an invalidity defense and/or as part of its own Post Grant Review filing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6456" RevisionGUID="125ee3e3-cdb0-41f3-a77e-2b07d4e9f03e" CreationDate="2014-04-22T20:02:49.140" UserId="8120" Text="When a process or composition has been in the public domain, an inventor can still file an application on what is considered &quot;an improvement patent&quot; that fills an unmet need by todays' users. This is quite common. It may be a less expensive manufacturing process, results which are more precise i.e., look at all the OTC pregnancy tests, a test that can be used at home or in the field, etc. Before considering submitting prior art to the USPTO since what you submit may actually illustrate the need in the industry or &quot;unmet need&quot; proceed with caution an analyze whether a PCT has been filed. I will assume you mean a published provisional, so here are focused steps to follow:&#xD;&#xA;1.Go to Public PAIR and Enter the publication number.&#xD;&#xA;2. Look at the tab &quot;Image File Wrapper&quot; and see if it is currently being examined and what its status is;&#xD;&#xA;3. Next to to the Continuity tab and see if a PCT was filed earlier. If so click on view and you will be directed to the WIPO site.&#xD;&#xA;4. Once there click on the last tab denoting &quot;Documents&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;5. Under documents, you will be able to view the search report termed ISR and the Preliminary Examination Report and Written Opinion of the PCT examiner. These items can provide a wealth of information as to whether the application is truly state of the art or an improvement of the art or product by process claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you get a better idea, then repost your question for ideas on how to proceed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6459" RevisionGUID="4373a855-42f6-4bf7-a472-4ed1f6266555" CreationDate="2014-04-23T00:22:25.233" UserId="8120" Text="Any client has the right to change attorneys at will. However, before you fire your present attorney I am wondering why you are continuing with this attorney to file the application? You should carefully think about why you are switching attorneys? Please answer the following questions:Do you have a contract with your current attorney? Will changing attorneys be detrimental to your application? Are you unhappy with your lawyer's performance- do you feel he does not understand your case (if so, why let him file it and why do you think your new attorney will have a better understanding?) You say you are not a US citizen but your current attorney is. Is the attorney you are planning to switch to a US attorney or from your country? Knowing this will help provide a more focused answer. But if you are determined to change attorneys, you should review your contract with the current attorney and check to be sure whether it addresses steps to be taken for terminating the relationship. Your new attorney, if you have hired one, should see the contract. You should ask him if he/she will take the responsibility for getting your files from your old attorney. When you are ready to sever your relationship with your old attorney, you should send a certified/registered letter to him clearly stating you are terminating the relationship and that all pending matters will be handled by the new attorney. Set a deadline for transfer and the means for how they will be transferred. Without knowing further details (ie any money owed, was there a contingency fee, etc.) &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="676c7d31-b1e4-4bef-8b6e-f4668534453f" CreationDate="2014-04-23T03:04:28.953" UserId="3076" Text="Your invention may be a patentable improvement on the invention of the other person's patent. They may or may not get a patent and you may or may not get a patent. If you both get patents you might not be able to make and sell your invention because, even though patented, it might infringe on the other patent. If you think it has commercial potential, just file now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17226" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6404" RevisionGUID="57833701-1b6a-4442-b0c0-e18fe410c8d6" CreationDate="2014-04-23T03:07:40.947" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to patent - deleted tag and mention of irrelevant patent" Text="&lt;us8037700&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6404" RevisionGUID="57833701-1b6a-4442-b0c0-e18fe410c8d6" CreationDate="2014-04-23T03:07:40.947" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to patent - deleted tag and mention of irrelevant patent" Text="How do you &quot;patent&quot; something that's already being done in industry?  We've been building these since the 70's.  Our limit is -75 F.  But, I don't know that these guys are going there from what I read.  The solutions are all commonly known in this industry.&#xD;&#xA;US 8037700 B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6463" RevisionGUID="34cec538-eab9-43d6-9e6d-178537699f31" CreationDate="2014-04-23T14:01:35.120" UserId="8417" Text="I beleive Wordpress (wordpress.com) does all the features described above. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you replace &quot;press release&quot; with article or posting, it seems to me that wordpress covers all the items listed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Hope that helps" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6464" RevisionGUID="f7840cc9-286e-4d50-94a7-da511155a0ff" CreationDate="2014-04-23T14:10:49.873" UserId="8417" Text="I am not sure if this qualifies as prior art, but there is an app &quot;MealSnap&quot; that takes a picture of food and gives you calories and such information about the food. It looks realitvly knew so may not qualify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also sounds like some of this conflicts with Google's image search. Which allows you to upload an image(query) and recieve search results of that image. (In my opion this conflicts with &quot;said response based on a set of reference information, wherein ...&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/insidesearch/features/images/searchbyimage.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17233" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6451" RevisionGUID="4b939822-81d1-4285-898e-2a41eefb07ec" CreationDate="2014-04-23T15:47:18.640" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag to application" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;online-advertising&gt;&lt;us20130246165&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6466" RevisionGUID="3c5d08fb-ea1e-4524-ac8b-f9c00de91a4c" CreationDate="2014-04-24T00:32:32.220" UserId="8419" Text="I believe an automated RSS feed poster meets a lot of these claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's one for SMF, dated January 2007: http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=624&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a similar one for WordPress from 2006: http://en.support.wordpress.com/widgets/rss-widget/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="ca4deabd-d42f-4238-abec-e21787067168" CreationDate="2014-04-24T00:41:24.713" UserId="8419" Text="This link (dated 2012 from archive.org) might be useful: https://web.archive.org/web/20120827014645/http://www.eatthismuch.com/?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This also looks very similar: https://web.archive.org/web/20120210130034/http://www.webmd.com/diet/food-fitness-planner/default.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6468" RevisionGUID="56fe0d69-33ab-4fb1-b06e-11414dec73c8" CreationDate="2014-04-24T00:57:21.540" UserId="8419" Text="[This TED talk from 2007][1] shows a system that detects if images are related spatially, not by GPS, but by analyzing the image. It also provides directionality information. [GPS information is also generated][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ted.com/talks/blaise_aguera_y_arcas_demos_photosynth&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://photosynth.net/discussion.aspx?cat=6b63cb81-8b57-4d5d-a978-41d5509bf59a&amp;dis=6dcaca05-1232-41da-9089-471d7485689f" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6469" RevisionGUID="233e4731-eacf-460b-a81f-01d12227113e" CreationDate="2014-04-24T01:02:57.080" UserId="8419" Text="[This patent from 2005][1] also seems to contain prior art and references to prior art. Ex:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[5] So far, there have been quite a bit of research suggesting differing methods of clustering photo data. Basically, those methods include clustering photos according to the photographed time, and methods of clustering photos based on contents-based feature information. As further developments, research on methods of clustering photos based on events of the photos, and methods of clustering photos based on the actual people in the photos, have been carried out.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2006080755A1?cl=en&amp;dq=group%20photos%20time&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=L2JYU8bSHISP8AHnrYGoCA&amp;ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6470" RevisionGUID="a82553eb-11b3-49b1-be26-b4d19bce2454" CreationDate="2014-04-24T01:13:06.450" UserId="8419" Text="This seems like probably a good place to start: https://www.google.com/patents/US20090313679?dq=travel+website&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=XmRYU4CQKuar2QXuuYCQCw&amp;ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A template may provide a layout for pictures and information about the flights he took, hotels he stayed at, places he visited, restaurants he went to, people he met, and other activities on the trip. The website may automatically abstract the user's flight information from a travel website and fill in the information at places for such information on the template.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6471" RevisionGUID="62d79b30-085d-4f82-a7c4-d47c4bf6ffca" CreationDate="2014-04-24T01:17:13.153" UserId="8419" Text="[This][1] seems to at least partially fit the bill:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;In a virtual shopping mall system, customers can conduct a search for a set of products by designating a particular product category as a search key...Receiving the product search screen data from the mall server, the customer terminal displays a product search screen including a category selection menu to provide the customer with a list of selectable categories. The customer issues a search request after selecting one category from the list. A product searching unit searches the product master table for the products that fall under the selected category. The customer terminal displays a product list screen upon receipt of the product list screen data from the mall server.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6125353?dq=server%20search&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=oWVYU82yC-Xu2AWcoYGwBg&amp;ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6472" RevisionGUID="a6e95ae7-ff7c-4ae8-8779-3fe646816646" CreationDate="2014-04-24T03:11:59.487" UserId="8423" Text="I've seen in the news that US Patent 6,199,048 has been upheld several times in disputes over the use of QR Codes with URL shorteners (or QR Code &quot;clearinghouses&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading the claims of 6,199,048 makes me think of the DNS system outlined in RFC 1034 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1034).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would the DNS system (resolving short/memorable identifiers against an indexed database to establish connection with a remote computer) constitute prior art, invalidating this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17246" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6472" RevisionGUID="a6e95ae7-ff7c-4ae8-8779-3fe646816646" CreationDate="2014-04-24T03:11:59.487" UserId="8423" Text="Is RFC 1034 Prior Art for US 6,199,048" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17247" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6472" RevisionGUID="a6e95ae7-ff7c-4ae8-8779-3fe646816646" CreationDate="2014-04-24T03:11:59.487" UserId="8423" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;qr-code&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6473" RevisionGUID="bf691a39-ae8c-457e-893e-f084342d7339" CreationDate="2014-04-24T03:27:20.840" UserId="8424" Text="Suppose that I am providing a SaaS on the web. What happens if someone (after working with my service and getting familiar with it), develops the software (and ideas used in it) and patents it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17249" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6473" RevisionGUID="bf691a39-ae8c-457e-893e-f084342d7339" CreationDate="2014-04-24T03:27:20.840" UserId="8424" Text="What happens if I develop a software and provide it as an online service and someone else patents it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17250" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6473" RevisionGUID="bf691a39-ae8c-457e-893e-f084342d7339" CreationDate="2014-04-24T03:27:20.840" UserId="8424" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;software-as-a-service&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6474" RevisionGUID="f91ea27c-4294-45ff-bc34-85f3f1d4f8d5" CreationDate="2014-04-24T03:29:22.940" UserId="8427" Text="The shark-search algorithm:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;This paper introduces the “shark search” algorithm, a refined version of one of the first dynamic Web search algorithms, the “fish search”. The shark-search has been embodied into a dynamic Web site mapping that enables users to tailor Web maps to their interests. Preliminary experiments show significant improvements over the original fish-search algorithm.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169755298000385" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6475" RevisionGUID="785e8e14-920d-4037-8bf0-5784e8df3291" CreationDate="2014-04-24T03:32:09.370" UserId="8427" Text="WebCutter: A System for &#xD;&#xA;Dynamic and Tailorable Site Mapping&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Conventional information discovery tools can be classified as being either search oriented or browse oriented. In the context of the Web, search-oriented tools employ text-analysis techniques to find Web documents based on user-specified queries, whereas browse-oriented ones employ site mapping and visualization techniques to allow users to navigate through the Web. This paper presents a unique approach that tightly integrates searching and browsing in a manner that improves both paradigms. When browsing is the primary task, it enables semantic content-based tailoring of Web maps in both the generation and the visualization phases. When search is the primary task, it enables one to contextualize the results by augmenting them with the documents' neighborhoods. The approach is embodied in WebCutter, a client-server system fully integrated with Web software. WebCutter consists of a map generator running off a standard Web server and a map visualization client implemented as a Java applet runnable from any standard Web browser and requiring no installation or external plug-in application. WebCutter is in beta stage and is in the process of being integrated into the Lotus Domino.Applications product line.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.geckil.com/~harvest/www6/Technical/Paper040/Paper40.html&#xD;&#xA;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169755297000500" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6476" RevisionGUID="a71ecd80-9dff-4f4e-8798-85c36f0ab793" CreationDate="2014-04-24T03:35:09.123" UserId="8424" Text="For example I have an idea to serve customer request which lets businesses handle a greater variety of customers or an idea which helps customers achieve what they want easier and in a shorter time. Can these ideas be patented? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17254" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6476" RevisionGUID="a71ecd80-9dff-4f4e-8798-85c36f0ab793" CreationDate="2014-04-24T03:35:09.123" UserId="8424" Text="How can I know if my idea is patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17255" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6476" RevisionGUID="a71ecd80-9dff-4f4e-8798-85c36f0ab793" CreationDate="2014-04-24T03:35:09.123" UserId="8424" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;business&gt;&lt;customers&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6477" RevisionGUID="a6491604-dea7-4c7a-be60-cce95f9923cf" CreationDate="2014-04-24T04:59:05.967" UserId="8435" Text="I don't think that the DNS system would count as prior art which could invalidate 6,199,048, because it has nothing to do with scanning reflected light off of something based on a standardized pattern. Patents very frequently build off of related ideas; in fact, this patent specifically references URLs, which are built on top of the domain name system, so it was obvious at the time of examination that it was based on DNS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to be patentable, an invention doesn't have to be completely out of the blue with no basis in prior inventions. It just has to introduce some novel element, that hasn't been invented before. So, while DNS had existed before, it would have been possible to patent the URL, which builds on DNS but adds several more features. Or likewise, it's possible to patent something that builds on the existing inventions, of a URL and a bar code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, many of us in the tech community would say that that is something that's obvious to someone skilled in the art; combining a URL and a bar code takes no real skill at at all. But I think that many of us in the tech industry are at odds with the current stance of the patent office and jurisprudence on the topic, so that doesn't help you very much." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6478" RevisionGUID="dd98a830-d3e4-4cc1-9950-9557d0edbab3" CreationDate="2014-04-24T05:04:05.190" UserId="8437" Text="It sounds like this describes what RealVideo was going back in the 90s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This excerpt][1] from O'Reilly's Building Internet Firewalls Second Edition [which was released in June 2000][2] describes the handshake which happens before the stream is initiated&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The table on this page describes the requests back and forth, and the part which mentions session initiation is...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; RealAudio and RealVideo by default use a system where a TCP&#xD;&#xA;&gt; connection, initiated by the client, is used for session control,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; while the actual data is transferred using UDP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://docstore.mik.ua/orelly/networking_2ndEd/fire/ch15_07.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9781565928718.do" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6479" RevisionGUID="14e451d7-8061-4a8d-b45f-af56ae29b845" CreationDate="2014-04-24T05:19:20.447" UserId="8437" Text="Every app in [this list of Diet Tracking Apps][1] does what is described in the patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list was published in August 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://mashable.com/2012/08/25/diet-tracking-apps/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6480" RevisionGUID="3711a90e-0bab-40ae-9bd2-920c85db24f5" CreationDate="2014-04-24T05:28:53.840" UserId="2029" Text="If the PTO examiner does not find your website while doing their prior art search, your competitor might still be able to get the patent and even sue other companies with it. I'm assuming that if they are dishonest enough to steal your idea and apply for a patent for it, they will be very happy to sue companies left and right. It takes a few years for a patent to issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At that time if you get sued you will have the option of trying to invalidate his patent by claiming your website was prior art. However, it may be a tedious and costly process and since it will be in like 5 years you will have to prove your website was here before he applied for the patent. Also, if for some reason you are out of business in 5 years, a lot of companies will be unfairly sued. It's good to have dated public records detailing your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My thoughts on this are that if you think your invention is patentable, you should try to patent it. If you want no one else to patent it, you can also file for the patent and then abandon the application once it's been published since that is the strongest and easiest to find prior art. The latter case acts like a defensive publication to prevent people from patenting the idea. Or you could try and get the patent yourself, then only use it as to counter-sue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway I'm not a lawyer so you'll probably get better advice from the actual practitioners on here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6481" RevisionGUID="3ed064ba-42ab-42f3-980a-375e5d3004d6" CreationDate="2014-04-24T05:35:56.387" UserId="8439" Text="I've created a wireless parking space sensor using a specific microcontroller and other components. I'm sure the same components used can be utilized in a different manner by others just with a change of firmware so I was wondering, what exactly is patentable? Would it be the combination of components with dimensions of PCB board? Would it be just the firmware programmed on the microcontroller? Would it be the specific purpose for the combination of components and firmware?&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17261" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6481" RevisionGUID="3ed064ba-42ab-42f3-980a-375e5d3004d6" CreationDate="2014-04-24T05:35:56.387" UserId="8439" Text="Parking Space Sensors" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17262" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6481" RevisionGUID="3ed064ba-42ab-42f3-980a-375e5d3004d6" CreationDate="2014-04-24T05:35:56.387" UserId="8439" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;programming&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17263" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6481" RevisionGUID="4ad6ec88-15c5-4abc-8d99-3c44c48ed828" CreationDate="2014-04-24T06:01:19.997" UserId="8439" Comment="edited title" Text="Patenting firmware along with sensor design. How do I start?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6482" RevisionGUID="ead2fd24-6261-4612-bb2f-fdb9f04f7b9e" CreationDate="2014-04-24T07:29:13.620" UserId="8443" Text="There are several characteristics that a patent office will look at to determine whether the invention is patentable. These are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Novelty&#xD;&#xA; 2. Inventive Step/Non-Obviousness&#xD;&#xA; 3. Industrial Applicability/Utility&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should also have a patentable subject matter. &#xD;&#xA;You can search your innovation in the existing patent (Google Patent Search or http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/index.html/) list. If there is no existing patent as per you idea then yes it is patentable. But it must pass all predefined test to get patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6483" RevisionGUID="83b87dce-2c78-4c17-b8a9-cad1c48a3834" CreationDate="2014-04-24T07:32:50.730" UserId="8419" Text="[This][1] seems like it might be relevant, though it seems to cover regular cameras, not necessarily video cameras. Maybe that's an &quot;obvious&quot; leap. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to one aspect, a device may include a lens assembly and a display to present a first image that is being received via the lens assembly. In addition, the device may include a processor to receive a second image via the lens assembly, transform the second image, superimpose the transformed second image on the first image that is being presented on the display, provide the superimposed images on the display, and capture the first image. ... Additionally, the device may include a camera phone or a camera. According to another aspect, a method may include receiving a background image, capturing the background image, receiving a subject image, modifying the background image, superimposing the modified background image on the subject image to obtain a composite image, displaying the composite image, and capturing the subject image.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This][2] might also be relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A mobile device comprising: an imager configured to provide a depth image including a foreground and an original background; a sensor configured to sense movement of the mobile device; and a processor configured to separate the foreground from the original background, to replace the original background with a substitute background to form a substitute image, and to change the substitute background based on the sensed movement of the mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And [this][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. A method for video background replacement in real time, comprising: obtaining a video; transmitting the obtained video; receiving the transmitted video; and rendering the transmitted video with a replaced background on a monitor, wherein the method further comprises obtaining an advertising content and one of:&#xD;&#xA;(a) segmenting a background from the video and replacing the segmented background with the advertising content after obtaining the video and prior to transmitting the obtained video;&#xD;&#xA;(b) segmenting a background from the video prior to transmitting the obtained video and replacing the segmented background with the advertising content after receiving the transmitted video; or&#xD;&#xA;(c) segmenting a background from the video and replacing the segmented background with the advertising content after receiving the transmitted video.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems like all of these are close, but probably not the whole cigar. It really comes down to whether replacing part of a background video with a foreground image is the same as putting text on top of the background video.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP2241105A1?cl=en&amp;dq=camera%20phone%20background&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=fbRYU-CmFMST8AGzsIDYBA&amp;ved=0CH0Q6AEwCTgK&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2009155204A2?cl=en&amp;dq=phone+background+camera&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=xLxYU5K1HOrm8AH40YDABQ&amp;ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2008039371A2?cl=en&amp;dq=video%20background&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=2rdYU9S3Burm8AH40YDABQ&amp;ved=0CE4Q6AEwAw" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6486" RevisionGUID="115edbd7-dca9-4a90-b662-f68a4811e297" CreationDate="2014-04-24T12:36:05.677" UserId="8460" Text="There's also a [ton of similar apps][1] in the Windows Phone app store, which is still seen as the most backwards of app stores by most people. The oldest &quot;last updated&quot; date I was quickly able to find seems to be [Transparant Message][2] from the 21th of Januari 2012, more than seven months prior the date mentioned in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.windowsphone.com/nl-nl/store/search?q=transparent+messaging&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.windowsphone.com/s?appid=f39be60e-0e3c-4b21-bc89-63592033fada" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6487" RevisionGUID="ef732b12-7ae4-4645-8765-3ecb8330b7c5" CreationDate="2014-04-24T15:26:40.383" UserId="8471" Text="This patent is not novel because of this software from 2003&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camfrog" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17275" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="6453" RevisionGUID="d2e54861-cc07-4a65-a8e4-5c944bf8a2aa" CreationDate="2014-04-24T15:40:12.510" UserId="8409" Comment="25" />
  <row Id="17276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6489" RevisionGUID="773ef26e-f6a6-46fa-90a3-cbf0b9f0dee8" CreationDate="2014-04-24T16:40:19.457" UserId="1779" Text="If you're trying to invalidate a patent because it was obtained in violation of an employment contract, through fraud, or through inequitable conduct, you're going to have to file a lawsuit in your local US [Federal] District Court; I highly recommend you get the help of a lawyer to do so.  The USPTO will reexamine a patent only if it's being challenged on the basis of prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6490" RevisionGUID="c3115b18-c5db-489c-bb43-d464bcad7f01" CreationDate="2014-04-24T16:49:11.577" UserId="8476" Text="Skimlinks is a ad network that replaces links (like Amazon products) with links with the referral ID in them (or another affiliate network ID).  They have been around since 2006 according to Crunchbase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crunchbase profile:  http://www.crunchbase.com/organization/skimlinks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Company website:  http://skimlinks.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6493" RevisionGUID="2381e22f-2588-47b3-87bc-740ce428a9da" CreationDate="2014-04-24T23:49:37.727" UserId="8486" Text="It looks like PayPal implemented this on March 24, 2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/gen/referral-faq-outside" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6494" RevisionGUID="be31f234-5044-4e66-886e-cdbc0a1f50a6" CreationDate="2014-04-24T23:55:02.063" UserId="8486" Text="GPS devices have for years (and are required by law) to turn themselves off if they are going too fast. This is to prevent them from being used on missiles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a link from 2011: http://brokensecrets.com/2011/08/20/your-gps-will-disable-itself-if-its-going-too-fast/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6495" RevisionGUID="bf07d7cf-fbde-4484-bfe9-c9cc205dd7f3" CreationDate="2014-04-24T23:57:31.890" UserId="8486" Text="Patent for location-based advertising: http://www.google.com/patents/US20080133336" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6496" RevisionGUID="eab1963d-e154-4e73-9a68-ce7462d00d1c" CreationDate="2014-04-25T03:59:21.650" UserId="8419" Text="[Here][1]'s an example from 2006 of changing the 'hotness' of a returned item over time based on updates to that item and adjusting search engine results accordingly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A search engine has a query server (50) arranged to receive a search query from a user and return search results, the query server being arranged to identify one or more of the content items relevant to the query, to access a record of changes over time of occurrences of the identified content items, and rank the search results according to the record of changes. TMs can help find those content items which are currently active, and to track or compare the popularity of content items. This is particularly useful for content items whose subjective value to the user depends on them being topical or fashionable. A content analyzer (100) creates a fingerprint database of fingerprints, to compare the fingerprints to determine a number of occurrences of a given content item at a given time, and to record the changes over time of the occurrences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2007042840A1?cl=en&amp;dq=change+item%27s+status+based+on+content+change&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=etxZU8jUNdDS2wW85YGQDQ&amp;ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6498" RevisionGUID="7e1ec4af-0bf9-4440-8ff2-54b70e6d70ac" CreationDate="2014-04-25T18:20:12.860" UserId="8498" Text="Patent US 8370511 B2 appears to be primarily a copy and paste reference of the TDS documentation. The Claims presented also don't have any innovation, they just describe what the TDS protocol does. In fact, Claim 1 says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a database having an interface for receiving database requests that are formatted according to a tabular data stream (TDS) protocol that comprises ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To infringe on Claim 1, you would have to specifically implement the TDS protocol it would appear. It seems like this is what copyright is for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also appears the claims don't make any sense with regard to prior art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Claim 2 states support for the Server to notify the client of changes. This is what PostgreSQL has supported from 2000 (well before this patent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Claim 3 claims chucking data type within the stream. I fail to see innovation here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Claims 4 and 5 are simply rudimentary server to client notifications that are present in many products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Claim 6 just states the client has a method to stop the server from sending more data without dropping the connection. Like any full duplex network protocol has done for how long?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Claim 7 states the client can do RPC. The 1980s called, Hello?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Claim 8 is saying the client can make a requests that effects how the database query is executed. Nothing new here, just the same old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Claim 9 dresses up database parameters without actually doing anything new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Claim 10 says the protocol can change password on login. I again fail to see anything remotely innovative here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Claim 11 says the protocol can handle multiple result sets sent to the client on the same TCP connection, each result set in a TDS format multiplexed using MARS. My SQL supports &quot;more results&quot; from around the same time as this patent. I'm sure there are other prior art for multiple things going through the same channel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Claim 12 appears to say MARS can be used with query notification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see how any of these claims are new or innovative by themselves. And if this combination somehow makes it patent-able, then almost any piece of non-trivial software would be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How did this get approved by the patent office?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17295" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6498" RevisionGUID="7e1ec4af-0bf9-4440-8ff2-54b70e6d70ac" CreationDate="2014-04-25T18:20:12.860" UserId="8498" Text="Data Protocol - TDS Protocol. Appears to have substantial prior art, nothing new" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17296" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6498" RevisionGUID="7e1ec4af-0bf9-4440-8ff2-54b70e6d70ac" CreationDate="2014-04-25T18:20:12.860" UserId="8498" Text="&lt;us8370511&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6501" RevisionGUID="6f81013f-319b-4d34-b329-0741ba0464ea" CreationDate="2014-04-25T22:13:56.723" UserId="8419" Text="[This one with a priority date in 2008][1] seems to fit the bill, at least on the parallel nature of it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A method for decoding a video bitstream is disclosed. The method comprises: entropy decoding a first portion(112-1) of a video bitstream(52), wherein first portion(112-1) of video bitstream is associated with a video frame(110), thereby producing a first portion(112-1) of decoded data; entropy decoding a second portion(112-2) of video bitstream(52), wherein second portion(112-2) of video bitstream(52) is associated with video frame(110), thereby producing a second portion(112-2) of decoded data, wherein entropy decoding second portion(112-2) of video bitstream(52) is independent of entropy decoding first portion(112-1) of video bitstream(52); and reconstructing a first portion(112-1) of video frame(110) associated with video bitstream(52) using first portion(112-1) of decoded data and second portion(112-2) of decoded data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2009119888A1?cl=en&amp;dq=parallel%20video%20transcoding&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=Sd1aU5vdMeXu2AWcoYGwBg&amp;ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6502" RevisionGUID="22f7b11b-85f7-4e4d-a06a-84f50332b303" CreationDate="2014-04-25T23:30:21.067" UserDisplayName="user8310" Text="What are the terms of a US software patent approval? For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to patent a technology in the form of a JavaScript API. The technology makes it easier, cheaper, and faster for developers to do something than they can do it without the API. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to patent this technology, but I don't know what questions I should ask myself about the technology to decide whether or not it can be patented, beyond the obvious: &quot;Does a patent exist similar to this already?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17308" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6502" RevisionGUID="22f7b11b-85f7-4e4d-a06a-84f50332b303" CreationDate="2014-04-25T23:30:21.067" UserDisplayName="user8310" Text="What are the terms of a US software patent approval?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17309" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6502" RevisionGUID="22f7b11b-85f7-4e4d-a06a-84f50332b303" CreationDate="2014-04-25T23:30:21.067" UserDisplayName="user8310" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;usa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6503" RevisionGUID="8121dbeb-9f95-4607-bf5e-cb2074d18184" CreationDate="2014-04-25T23:39:43.670" UserId="8503" Text="Someone created an application that does something resembling an application I'm working on. He claims that his application has a pending patent, but does not mention the patent application number. Searching his name on the USPTO website yields no results. How do I know whether or not he really has a pending patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17311" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6503" RevisionGUID="8121dbeb-9f95-4607-bf5e-cb2074d18184" CreationDate="2014-04-25T23:39:43.670" UserId="8503" Text="Pending Patent Claim" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17312" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6503" RevisionGUID="8121dbeb-9f95-4607-bf5e-cb2074d18184" CreationDate="2014-04-25T23:39:43.670" UserId="8503" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;patent-pending&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6505" RevisionGUID="d941a2f3-d073-4232-b217-6bd93120a021" CreationDate="2014-04-26T16:26:07.573" UserId="3076" Text="There isn't a reliable way to find this out other than the person sending you a copy of their filing receipt. The default is that non-provisional patent applications  publish 18 months after the earliest filing/priority date. During that time the application is not publically visible. An applicant can request non-publication at the time of filing if they assert they have no plans to file out of the U.S. In that case, the first time it is visible is the day it issues as a granted patent, if ever.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They may have filed a provisional patent application. They do not publish at all and give the applicant 12 months to file a non-provisonal application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6506" RevisionGUID="ac5408b9-bbd1-430c-b08f-6b3ff9b70037" CreationDate="2014-04-26T16:32:48.707" UserId="3076" Text="First it needs to be new. That doesn't mean no one has a patent. It means no one has done it, published it, applied for a patent that was published and turned down, or has a patent. All of that in any country. If you pass that, it is new. Then it must be non-obvious in light of all the things that have been publicly done or published. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For software, you must be able to claim it in the context of hardware. Pure software is not patentable but since software without hardware is not very useful this is not hard to do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6498" RevisionGUID="e1803fcc-12aa-4387-87b5-9194e9b672ca" CreationDate="2014-04-26T16:37:17.753" UserId="3076" Comment="Added entire claim 1" Text="Patent US 8370511 B2 appears to be primarily a copy and paste reference of the TDS documentation. The Claims presented also don't have any innovation, they just describe what the TDS protocol does. In fact, Claim 1 says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A server comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a processor; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a database having an interface for receiving database requests that are formatted according to a tabular data stream (TDS) protocol that comprises:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a multiple active result set (MARS) header that identifies that multiple active result sets are to be generated in response to the execution of queries in a number of pending requests received over a single database connection, and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a data field that is part of the MARS header that identifies the number of pending requests active over the single database connection known by a client to the server, wherein the server uses the MARS header to synchronize execution of queries from the pending active requests for communication between the client and the server, regardless of buffer size for the client and the server such that the client is enabled to send a plurality of active requests to the server using a single database connection to be executed concurrently,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the server, while the database connection is open, receives a reset request from the client and thereafter resets the database connection;&#xD;&#xA;wherein the server further receives a subsequent database request over the same database connection that has been reset; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;wherein the server uses the interface to receive the database requests, including the subsequent database request over the same database connection after the database connection has been reset.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To infringe on Claim 1, you would have to specifically implement the TDS protocol it would appear. It seems like this is what copyright is for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also appears the claims don't make any sense with regard to prior art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Claim 2 states support for the Server to notify the client of changes. This is what PostgreSQL has supported from 2000 (well before this patent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Claim 3 claims chucking data type within the stream. I fail to see innovation here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Claims 4 and 5 are simply rudimentary server to client notifications that are present in many products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Claim 6 just states the client has a method to stop the server from sending more data without dropping the connection. Like any full duplex network protocol has done for how long?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Claim 7 states the client can do RPC. The 1980s called, Hello?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Claim 8 is saying the client can make a requests that effects how the database query is executed. Nothing new here, just the same old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Claim 9 dresses up database parameters without actually doing anything new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Claim 10 says the protocol can change password on login. I again fail to see anything remotely innovative here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Claim 11 says the protocol can handle multiple result sets sent to the client on the same TCP connection, each result set in a TDS format multiplexed using MARS. My SQL supports &quot;more results&quot; from around the same time as this patent. I'm sure there are other prior art for multiple things going through the same channel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Claim 12 appears to say MARS can be used with query notification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see how any of these claims are new or innovative by themselves. And if this combination somehow makes it patent-able, then almost any piece of non-trivial software would be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How did this get approved by the patent office?**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6498" RevisionGUID="e6c761c4-94cb-4273-8635-94e25936b271" CreationDate="2014-04-26T16:44:16.267" UserId="3076" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Patent US 8370511 B2 appears to be primarily a copy and paste reference of the TDS documentation. The Claims presented also don't have any innovation, they just describe what the TDS protocol does. In fact, Claim 1 says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A server comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a processor; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a database having an interface for receiving database requests that are formatted according to a tabular data stream (TDS) protocol that comprises:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a multiple active result set (MARS) header that identifies that multiple active result sets are to be generated in response to the execution of queries in a number of pending requests received over a single database connection, and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a data field that is part of the MARS header that identifies the number of pending requests active over the single database connection known by a client to the server, wherein the server uses the MARS header to synchronize execution of queries from the pending active requests for communication between the client and the server, regardless of buffer size for the client and the server such that the client is enabled to send a plurality of active requests to the server using a single database connection to be executed concurrently,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;wherein the server, while the database connection is open, receives a reset request from the client and thereafter resets the database connection;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;wherein the server further receives a subsequent database request over the same database connection that has been reset; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;wherein the server uses the interface to receive the database requests, including the subsequent database request over the same database connection after the database connection has been reset.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To infringe on Claim 1, you would have to specifically implement the TDS protocol it would appear. It seems like this is what copyright is for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also appears the claims don't make any sense with regard to prior art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Claim 2 states support for the Server to notify the client of changes. This is what PostgreSQL has supported from 2000 (well before this patent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Claim 3 claims chucking data type within the stream. I fail to see innovation here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Claims 4 and 5 are simply rudimentary server to client notifications that are present in many products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Claim 6 just states the client has a method to stop the server from sending more data without dropping the connection. Like any full duplex network protocol has done for how long?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Claim 7 states the client can do RPC. The 1980s called, Hello?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Claim 8 is saying the client can make a requests that effects how the database query is executed. Nothing new here, just the same old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Claim 9 dresses up database parameters without actually doing anything new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Claim 10 says the protocol can change password on login. I again fail to see anything remotely innovative here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Claim 11 says the protocol can handle multiple result sets sent to the client on the same TCP connection, each result set in a TDS format multiplexed using MARS. My SQL supports &quot;more results&quot; from around the same time as this patent. I'm sure there are other prior art for multiple things going through the same channel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Claim 12 appears to say MARS can be used with query notification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see how any of these claims are new or innovative by themselves. And if this combination somehow makes it patent-able, then almost any piece of non-trivial software would be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How did this get approved by the patent office?**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6507" RevisionGUID="e2128427-d23d-4139-aa1d-ee6f8b0d27a2" CreationDate="2014-04-26T16:48:27.660" UserId="3076" Text="The complete history of the back-and -forth between Microsoft and the USPTO can be seen in Public PAIR. The last change the applicant made before the examiner allowed it was the addition of the three &quot;wherein&quot; clauses at the end of claim 1 involving a specific sequence relating to database reset." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17322" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6472" RevisionGUID="6ee55136-84e7-4a99-8cb6-fefe52bfcb05" CreationDate="2014-04-26T16:50:47.737" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;qr-code&gt;&lt;us6199048&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6506" RevisionGUID="f74e3e38-a702-45ab-9d55-5c4f369dcf27" CreationDate="2014-04-26T20:37:35.093" UserId="3076" Comment="added 553 characters in body" Text="First it needs to be new. That doesn't mean no one has a patent. It means no one has done it, published it, applied for a patent that was published and turned down, or has a patent. All of that in any country. If you pass that, it is new. Then it must be non-obvious in light of all the things that have been publicly done or published. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For software, you must be able to claim it in the context of hardware. Pure software is not patentable but since software without hardware is not very useful this is not hard to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT based on a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A major case on the patentability of software is being decided at the U.S. Supreme Court right now (Spring 2014). Many many software related patents have got though the system by a claim like: &quot;A computer system with a processor and memory where the memory contains instructions that, when executed, . . .&quot; or &quot;A method of providing a programming interface to a logic module executing on a computer, the method comprising: step 1 ...; step 2 ...&quot;. But now, all bets are off until we hear from the court in a month or two." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6509" RevisionGUID="509364b1-3450-4e17-a534-8de204c34eec" CreationDate="2014-04-27T18:54:29.363" UserId="8515" Text="I'm a french college student having a school project where we have to build an existing data glove from a public domain patent.&#xD;&#xA;We chose US5280265 which has been published in 1990 using strain gauges (as most of affordable data gloves available on market).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, one of my team member showed us the patent: US20080129694&#xD;&#xA;which has been published in 1994, and is almost identical to the previous one.&#xD;&#xA;We can't figure out the differences between both, and we are allowed to use only public domain technologies in our project, and can't understand how such broad patent (US20080129694) can be accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the links from google patents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;old patent: https://www.google.fr/patents/US8572764&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;controversial patent: https://www.google.fr/patents/US20080129694&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;Salah" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17328" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6509" RevisionGUID="509364b1-3450-4e17-a534-8de204c34eec" CreationDate="2014-04-27T18:54:29.363" UserId="8515" Text="prior art to US20080129694" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17329" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6509" RevisionGUID="509364b1-3450-4e17-a534-8de204c34eec" CreationDate="2014-04-27T18:54:29.363" UserId="8515" Text="&lt;glove&gt;&lt;data&gt;&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;strain&gt;&lt;gesture&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17330" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6509" RevisionGUID="62022bd6-373b-4be1-bd94-4eccfee27e29" CreationDate="2014-04-27T20:17:35.420" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag to patent" Text="&lt;glove&gt;&lt;data&gt;&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;strain&gt;&lt;us5280265&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6509" RevisionGUID="3eec8b29-af43-4897-9364-94f45d70f341" CreationDate="2014-04-27T20:24:17.157" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag to patent links" Text="I'm a french college student having a school project where we have to build an existing data glove from a public domain patent.&#xD;&#xA;We chose [US5280265][1] which has been published in 1990 using strain gauges (as most of affordable data gloves available on market).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, one of my team member showed us the patent: US20080129694&#xD;&#xA;which has been published in 1994, and is almost identical to the previous one.&#xD;&#xA;We can't figure out the differences between both, and we are allowed to use only public domain technologies in our project, and can't understand how such broad patent ([US20080129694][2]) can be accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us5280265&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20080129694" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6510" RevisionGUID="0c61f1f9-9569-4ed9-ba36-d8656868aff8" CreationDate="2014-04-27T20:33:22.017" UserId="3076" Text="The newer document is not a granted patent. It is the publication of an application for a patent. Applications are published with no regard for their substantive content and no implication that they will or will not lead to a granted patent. In this case it did not. The application went abandoned. US patent numbers look like an number in the millions while published application numbers look like a year followed by a number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/UTMLp.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17340" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6509" RevisionGUID="c8c67fdb-d17e-4d16-bad1-bdc60633e868" CreationDate="2014-04-28T13:18:04.533" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20080129694&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6505" RevisionGUID="bce065bc-54fb-45d0-a371-1b7ce6f4a4ac" CreationDate="2014-04-28T16:58:29.920" UserId="3076" Comment="added 223 characters in body" Text="There isn't a reliable way to find this out other than the person sending you a copy of their filing receipt. The default is that non-provisional patent applications  publish 18 months after the earliest filing/priority date. During that time the application is not publically visible. An applicant can request non-publication at the time of filing if they assert they have no plans to file out of the U.S. In that case, the first time it is visible is the day it issues as a granted patent, if ever.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They may have filed a provisional patent application. They do not publish at all and give the applicant 12 months to file a non-provisonal application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe there is a way to petition the USPTO to allow you to read an application that the applicant is specifically threatening you with. As I remember, you need to know the application number and filing date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6516" RevisionGUID="5357a667-ad47-49c4-90a1-8a267955cb91" CreationDate="2014-04-30T16:56:36.740" UserId="5749" Text="There's an [app called Text Vision](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/text-vision-lite!-walk-compose/id350311184?mt=8) that has been _approved on the iOS App Store_ since early 2010." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6517" RevisionGUID="7c5bbe0d-70ca-443c-8536-8a13ad047773" CreationDate="2014-04-30T18:13:26.827" UserId="8534" Text="Design patents protect the &quot;look and feel&quot; of a GUI.  You don't have to show copying the way you do with copyright.  A design patent is infringed if another GUI would be confused for yours by an ordinary observer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example from Apple v Samsung&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Comparison of patented Apple GUI vs Samsung infringing GUI](http://ipwatchdogs.com/images/mn-d2-2.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Samsung GUI was found to be &quot;confusingly similar&quot; to Apple's patent even though there were many differences between the two.  The Blackberry GUI was provided by Apple as an example of a GUI that had the same functionality but was not confusingly similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Design patents can be quite strong if properly written.  Apple's iPhone GUI patent was worth several hundred million dollars.  More information here: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/08/06/strong-design-patents-the-power-of-color/id=44342/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6518" RevisionGUID="6feb2365-dd34-43be-acad-f277999d3b09" CreationDate="2014-04-30T18:28:42.387" UserId="8534" Text="Wow.  Fascinating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Tibetan artifact certainly counts as prior art.  There are many differences, however, between the claimed design and the artifact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Tibetan artifact](http://pic28.nipic.com/20130410/9955881_224956089000_2.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;![Design patent](http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/USD663234S1/USD0663234-20120710-D00000.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tips of the leaves in the patented design, for example, are squared off whereas the tips of the leaves in the Tibetan image are pointed.  The patented design has characters cut through the leaves.  The Tibetan image has raised designs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information on how to draft a strong design patent, see http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/07/30/strong-design-patents-the-power-of-the-broken-line/id=44215/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6519" RevisionGUID="d241fd7c-d280-4fa0-a1bc-74df63065c79" CreationDate="2014-04-30T18:45:13.437" UserId="8534" Text="It is common in patent applications to describe the &quot;background art&quot;.  Proper attribution should be made." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6520" RevisionGUID="5bf22661-324b-4efe-9a3c-3e06bcf4a99f" CreationDate="2014-04-30T19:15:33.493" UserId="8534" Text="Interesting prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This case was rejected on 9/26/14.  The applicant responded on 1/24/14.  The examiner should issue another office action very shortly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theoretically the USPTO is forwarding prior art we cite on Ask Patents to the examiner.  It will be interesting to see if the examiner cites US 2009/0313679 in the next office action.  If the examiner does, that will provide strong motivation to continue to seek prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to see the details of the rejection and response, I've posted them here.  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1KB3j_eVkNwUFMyaUZ4ZlRmcE0/edit?usp=sharing The documents are in reverse chronological order." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6342" RevisionGUID="917fe6c0-cd8a-4f39-98d0-9bc484a6fbf7" CreationDate="2014-04-30T21:29:00.953" UserId="1767" Comment="added 37 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Publication Number: US20120254261&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims made by American Express Travel Services in Patent Application us20120254261 are so generic that most of them are already widely implemented by a large number of travel companies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prior art exists for nearly all the claims, so I am not sure how narrowly the US Patent Office might grant a portion of this application, or whether it will be rejected in its entirety.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Collecting, by a computer based system for creating a digital travel record, at least one of transaction account data particular to a transaction account, global distribution system data particular to a transaction account holder, and passenger name record data particular to a transaction account holder;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Modifying, by the computer based system, the collected data for integration with a service oriented architecture framework; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Delivering, by the computer based system, the modified data as a module for use by an application.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17372" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6342" RevisionGUID="917fe6c0-cd8a-4f39-98d0-9bc484a6fbf7" CreationDate="2014-04-30T21:29:00.953" UserId="1767" Comment="added 37 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Digital Travel Record (American Express) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17373" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6342" RevisionGUID="917fe6c0-cd8a-4f39-98d0-9bc484a6fbf7" CreationDate="2014-04-30T21:29:00.953" UserId="1767" Comment="added 37 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;wo2012135174&gt;&lt;us20120254261&gt;&lt;american-express&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17375" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3666" RevisionGUID="03cd5adc-d583-4a95-a77f-238964e32eed" CreationDate="2014-05-01T13:47:09.863" UserId="118" Comment="Informed that link is soon to be dead" Text="At least for now...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if so, would you recommend it? what are the downsides of it? (other than missing a big market)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(**Note:** seems like bwin.com chose this way (3rd column). It is a huge poker and betting site here in Europe.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6526" RevisionGUID="4114171e-ac5b-46fd-aa05-b978b5d598c7" CreationDate="2014-05-02T06:36:36.157" UserId="8545" Text="This PCT claims the priority date of a US Provisional application from 2012. When I looked it up on uspto.gov, I could not find an application with that title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did the inventors actually do a full US patent application within 12 months of their Provisional? If so, why has it not published? If not, can they still use the benefit of the Provisional filing date for their PCT application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17388" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6526" RevisionGUID="4114171e-ac5b-46fd-aa05-b978b5d598c7" CreationDate="2014-05-02T06:36:36.157" UserId="8545" Text="Where is the US Provisional" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17389" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6526" RevisionGUID="4114171e-ac5b-46fd-aa05-b978b5d598c7" CreationDate="2014-05-02T06:36:36.157" UserId="8545" Text="&lt;wo2014036568a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6527" RevisionGUID="6e3a8f47-9068-423e-8a17-cf044d41bf7b" CreationDate="2014-05-02T06:42:39.473" UserId="8545" Text="For this PCT application from Game Concourse - I have the prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Cellphone changing an electronic display that contains a barcode&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;US patent = 8,532,632. Filed 16 May 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless of the status of their US Provisional from 2012, my patent subsumes theirs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17391" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6527" RevisionGUID="6e3a8f47-9068-423e-8a17-cf044d41bf7b" CreationDate="2014-05-02T06:42:39.473" UserId="8545" Text="I have the prior art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17392" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6527" RevisionGUID="6e3a8f47-9068-423e-8a17-cf044d41bf7b" CreationDate="2014-05-02T06:42:39.473" UserId="8545" Text="&lt;barcode&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6528" RevisionGUID="e9bfaa26-aeef-47e6-ad0b-d09ffaac734d" CreationDate="2014-05-02T13:35:54.367" UserId="8534" Text="Michelle,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To build on George's answer, if you have a new product, no doubt it will be improved as you get customer feedback.  Those improvements may be patentable even if you have been selling your product for more than a year.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6529" RevisionGUID="0092cfd5-247f-4bd4-94fb-97cdcc7d6374" CreationDate="2014-05-02T13:47:20.443" UserId="8534" Text="WIPO has the provisional.  Go to http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf  Put in just the numerals of the publication number in the search field and your record should show up.  You will find a copy of the US provisional on the &quot;documents&quot; tab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inventors can still enter this PCT into the US national stage.  It won't get published in the US until they do this entry." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17395" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="6453" RevisionGUID="fbfb7004-c5c3-42ee-aba0-1b3d6588fb3b" CreationDate="2014-05-02T17:12:56.280" UserId="-1" Comment="25" />
  <row Id="17401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6531" RevisionGUID="76b86c6b-cf34-4fa0-9039-bc59cf9fb6bd" CreationDate="2014-05-03T03:52:19.840" UserId="8553" Text="What if there was an Informal Patent that has a standard  fee and no need for a patent Lawyer or a prototype. If a person pays the fee it get's registered no matter how nutty it is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17402" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6531" RevisionGUID="76b86c6b-cf34-4fa0-9039-bc59cf9fb6bd" CreationDate="2014-05-03T03:52:19.840" UserId="8553" Text="On an informal type of patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17403" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6531" RevisionGUID="76b86c6b-cf34-4fa0-9039-bc59cf9fb6bd" CreationDate="2014-05-03T03:52:19.840" UserId="8553" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6532" RevisionGUID="2f2c1e00-a196-49f0-8a83-6cd18132ea65" CreationDate="2014-05-03T05:47:21.037" UserId="8554" Text="Not exactly what you were looking for, but if Animated GIF counts as video encoding, then GNU plotutils had a weird bastardised version of GIF that used RLE instead of LZW in 1998.  The original Compuserve work on creating GIF was to replace an RLE based graphics format.  LZW was used in GIF instead of RLE because it was considered a more efficient upgrade, but RLE was certainly known to the creators of GIF, and would have been a fairly obvious choice if LZW hadn't been available.  (Obvious in the real world definition, anyway.  Possibly not obvious in the legal sense.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.gnu.org/software/plotutils/manual/en/html_node/History-and-Acknowledgements.html#History-and-Acknowledgements" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17412" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6527" RevisionGUID="2777f085-eba7-46b8-90ec-04beee382518" CreationDate="2014-05-04T07:34:59.287" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to patent " Text="&lt;barcode&gt;&lt;us8532632&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6535" RevisionGUID="7934d571-51c3-490b-8f06-70b712005d54" CreationDate="2014-05-04T14:20:28.003" UserId="8558" Text="Beware. This patent is NOT GOOD. I am the inventor of the power failure protection for this application. Also, I invented the software flow. The assignor failed to pay me for my work, whatsoever, in any lawful way. Moreover, the assignor had me working upon threats (labor trafficking) as well as forged the agreements I signed with him. He tricked me on that he will pay me a salary, same that was not truth. Finally, the assignor lied under oath by not including my name in the list of inventors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17414" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6535" RevisionGUID="7934d571-51c3-490b-8f06-70b712005d54" CreationDate="2014-05-04T14:20:28.003" UserId="8558" Text="Patent US20120213665 NOT Good. Inventor not included - unpaid work delivered under coercion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17415" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6535" RevisionGUID="7934d571-51c3-490b-8f06-70b712005d54" CreationDate="2014-05-04T14:20:28.003" UserId="8558" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6537" RevisionGUID="da0e5a94-31ae-4919-8858-2481ea712fb9" CreationDate="2014-05-05T02:23:32.843" UserId="8560" Text="Silly question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I submitted a PPA with my paragraphs numbered in the style [0001], [0002], etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I'm submitting a regular patent application claiming the benefit of the PPA. This means I'm adding a section titled &quot;CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS&quot;. This adds one paragraph to the top of my specification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I renumber the paragraphs so that the paragraph in the &quot;CROSS REFERENCE...&quot; section starts with [0001]? (The paragraph numbers in the PPA won't match up with the regular PA anymore.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or should I not number it at all? (The paragraph numbers in the PPA will match up with the regular PA.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or should I number it with [0000]? (The paragraph numbers in the PPA will match up with the regular PA.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17420" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6537" RevisionGUID="da0e5a94-31ae-4919-8858-2481ea712fb9" CreationDate="2014-05-05T02:23:32.843" UserId="8560" Text="Do I renumber the paragraphs in my PPA spec when I add a Cross-Reference section for the regular PA?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17421" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6537" RevisionGUID="da0e5a94-31ae-4919-8858-2481ea712fb9" CreationDate="2014-05-05T02:23:32.843" UserId="8560" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6538" RevisionGUID="e1985cb0-cfbc-4709-988c-7fe4263d180a" CreationDate="2014-05-05T02:36:42.860" UserId="8560" Text="I filed a PPA for a product in June 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I publicly disclosed the product in December 2013 by releasing the product online (via a website and Amazon.com).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm filing the regular patent application now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some questions:&#xD;&#xA;Should I mention the product I released in my regular patent application? If so, how?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the PTO know that I released the product after my PPA filing date, so it's not prior art? If not, can I prove to them somehow that it's not prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17423" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6538" RevisionGUID="e1985cb0-cfbc-4709-988c-7fe4263d180a" CreationDate="2014-05-05T02:36:42.860" UserId="8560" Text="I released a product based on my PPA, should I mention it on my regular PA?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17424" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6538" RevisionGUID="e1985cb0-cfbc-4709-988c-7fe4263d180a" CreationDate="2014-05-05T02:36:42.860" UserId="8560" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6539" RevisionGUID="aa46a595-1d88-4c05-b3af-1d3ec27c79ef" CreationDate="2014-05-05T03:05:30.677" UserDisplayName="user1602" Text="Contact a lawyer, or the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have very few &quot;crimes&quot; they consider more serious than mis-stating inventors. We've been told time and time again to ensure we include all inventors, since not doing so is reason enough for invalidation of the patent, regardless of its merits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, if you're not willing to take the necessary action, quit whining. This isn't a soapbox :-) And there's absolutely nothing that _we_ can do to fix it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6541" RevisionGUID="c2c8f86b-47d4-43d7-8a72-26511893c6b0" CreationDate="2014-05-05T18:30:24.013" UserId="3076" Text="The paragraph numbering is conventional but not required. I usually use line numbering with use every 5th line numbered because it is easier in Word. None of this is required.  Either renumbering, using 0000, or removing them is fine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more important issue is why your non-provisional is paragraph-by-paragraph the same as the provisional. Usually an inventor comes up with modifications, improvements, alternate embodiments, better explanations and better drawings during the time between provisional and non-provisonal. Make the non-provisonal as good as it can be without regard for the provisional's format or content. You only get there date of the provisional for the content of the provisional but you get no date and no protection for the things you thought of but didn't put in the non-provisonal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6542" RevisionGUID="6ab3a862-46d5-4461-997b-af7efe27f650" CreationDate="2014-05-05T18:39:48.877" UserId="3076" Text="You let the USPTO know about things that may be prior art that might be significant by listing them on an IDS form that is filed with or shortly after your application. An action *you* took needs to be a year **before** the filing in order to be prior art. If the action only relates to things 100% covered in the provisional then the cut-off is a year before the provisional filing. If the action (product demonstration, shipment, offer for sale) was relative to content beyond what was covered in the provisional but that is covered in the non-provisonal, then the cut-off is a year before the non-provisonal filing date. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like the actions you took do *not* bar patently so you have no need to mention them. If there ever is an issue it would be later, in attempting to enforce your patent, so you should gather and save anything that might help you establish the facts if ever needed≥" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6541" RevisionGUID="e2e84dd5-8b62-4e90-95d9-1c7f947a8411" CreationDate="2014-05-05T19:03:11.880" UserId="3076" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="The paragraph numbering is conventional but not required. I usually use line numbering with  every 5th line numbered because it is easier in Word than the recommend [000]. None of this is required.  Either renumbering, using 0000 for the new first paragraph, or removing them all is fine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more important issue is why your non-provisional is paragraph-by-paragraph the same as the provisional. Usually an inventor comes up with modifications, improvements, alternate embodiments, better explanations and better drawings during the time between provisional and non-provisonal. Make the non-provisonal as good as it can be without regard for the provisional's format or content. You only get there date of the provisional for the content of the provisional but you get no date and no protection for the things you thought of but didn't put in the non-provisonal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6543" RevisionGUID="0fac1c9c-5720-41fc-b5fd-14d52082f1ad" CreationDate="2014-05-05T21:37:49.383" UserId="8564" Text="sorry to ask this but unless I've missed something fundamental in that massively overly complicated and distracting description (sorry, i lost the will to live half way through it...) of a setup that, with probably small adjustments in lighting positions, is already used in photographic studios all over the world.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i was always under the impression that a for something to be patentable it &quot;must be new, or novel, and different from what's gone before:. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Photographing subjects against a white background, where that background is lit to, in effect, be overexposed and thus providing what is known as a high key image is a standard technique.  see the following link for more info.. in fact looking at the pictorial description it looks remarkably similar..&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;http://photography.tutsplus.com/tutorials/the-complete-beginners-guide-to-shooting-high-key--photo-2949&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;perhaps the addition of a reflective floor is the differentiator - not really - its so common its seen in many stock photographs that anyone can buy.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.123rf.com/photo_2037813_4-glasses-of-ice-water-on-a-reflective-surface-vertical--high-key.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;can someone point out what's new. novel or different from what's gone before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17442" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6543" RevisionGUID="0fac1c9c-5720-41fc-b5fd-14d52082f1ad" CreationDate="2014-05-05T21:37:49.383" UserId="8564" Text="how can amazon claim to have invented an then ask for a patent on a standard, used for years, lighting technique?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17443" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6543" RevisionGUID="0fac1c9c-5720-41fc-b5fd-14d52082f1ad" CreationDate="2014-05-05T21:37:49.383" UserId="8564" Text="&lt;us8676045&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6543" RevisionGUID="521794fc-f311-47d3-a54f-fc4d5dd848a7" CreationDate="2014-05-05T23:52:06.107" UserId="1767" Comment="added 2357 characters in body; edited tags" Text="sorry to ask this but unless I've missed something fundamental in that massively overly complicated and distracting description of a setup that, with probably small adjustments in lighting positions, is already used in photographic studios all over the world.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was always under the impression that a for something to be patentable it &quot;must be new, or novel, and different from what's gone before:. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Photographing subjects against a white background, where that background is lit to, in effect, be overexposed and thus providing what is known as a high key image is a standard technique.  see the following link for more info.. in fact looking at the pictorial description it looks remarkably similar..&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;http://photography.tutsplus.com/tutorials/the-complete-beginners-guide-to-shooting-high-key--photo-2949&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;perhaps the addition of a reflective floor is the differentiator? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.123rf.com/photo_2037813_4-glasses-of-ice-water-on-a-reflective-surface-vertical--high-key.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone point out what's new. novel or different from what's gone before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Title: **Studio Arrangement** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Assignee: Amazon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Priority Date: 11/9/11&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1. A studio arrangement, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a background comprising a white cyclorama;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a front light source positioned in a longitudinal axis intersecting the background, the longitudinal axis further being substantially perpendicular to a surface of the white cyclorama;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an image capture position located between the background and the front light source in the longitudinal axis, the image capture position comprising at least one image capture device equipped with an eighty-five millimeter lens, the at least one image capture device further configured with an ISO setting of about three hundred twenty and an f-stop value of about 5.6;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an elevated platform positioned between the image capture position and the background in the longitudinal axis, the front light source being directed toward a subject on the elevated platform;&#xD;&#xA;a first rear light source aimed at the background and positioned between the elevated platform and the background in the longitudinal axis, the first rear light source positioned below a top surface of the elevated platform and oriented at an upward angle relative to a floor level;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a second rear light source aimed at the background and positioned between the elevated platform and the background in the longitudinal axis, the second rear light source positioned above the top surface of the elevated platform and oriented at a downward angle relative to the floor level;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a third rear light source aimed at the background and positioned in a lateral axis intersecting the elevated platform and being substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the third rear light source further positioned adjacent to a side of the elevated platform; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a fourth rear light source aimed at the background and positioned in the lateral axis adjacent to an opposing side of the elevated platform relative to the third rear light source; wherein&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a top surface of the elevated platform reflects light emanating from the background such that the elevated platform appears white and a rear edge of the elevated platform is substantially imperceptible to the image capture device; and&#xD;&#xA;the first rear light source, the second rear light source, the third rear light source, and the fourth rear light source comprise a combined intensity greater than the front light source according to about a 10:3 ratio." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17445" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6543" RevisionGUID="521794fc-f311-47d3-a54f-fc4d5dd848a7" CreationDate="2014-05-05T23:52:06.107" UserId="1767" Comment="added 2357 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;us8676045&gt;&lt;amazon&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17446" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6542" RevisionGUID="ddc448df-622a-4ac8-abf2-b56570b05b7c" CreationDate="2014-05-06T05:18:35.817" UserId="3076" Comment="edited body" Text="You let the USPTO know about things that may be prior art that might be significant by listing them on an IDS form that is filed with or shortly after your application. An action *you* took needs to be a year **before** the filing in order to be prior art. If the action only relates to things 100% covered in the provisional then the cut-off is a year before the provisional filing. If the action (product demonstration, shipment, offer for sale) was relative to content beyond what was covered in the provisional but that is covered in the non-provisonal, then the cut-off is a year before the non-provisonal filing date. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like the actions you took do *not* bar patently so you have no need to mention them. If there ever is an issue it would be later, in attempting to enforce your patent, so you should gather and save anything that might help you establish the facts if ever needed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6544" RevisionGUID="2801802e-4e73-4e2c-8497-52866515ffe9" CreationDate="2014-05-06T09:23:14.183" UserId="1514" Text="I am submitting a patent application to be filed. The USPTO asks to tick appropriate services&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Filing | Search | Exam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I need to select and pay all of them at this stage OR *for example* `Exam` is needed after completing the `Search` step?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I need to pay all items for a new patent submission?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NOTE: Please do not advise to hire a patent attorney, as I wish to learn/do the process by myself. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17448" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6544" RevisionGUID="2801802e-4e73-4e2c-8497-52866515ffe9" CreationDate="2014-05-06T09:23:14.183" UserId="1514" Text="What to pay for an initial patent submission?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17449" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6544" RevisionGUID="2801802e-4e73-4e2c-8497-52866515ffe9" CreationDate="2014-05-06T09:23:14.183" UserId="1514" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6545" RevisionGUID="94df4bcc-70e4-4030-8a40-9c9ea2fd7616" CreationDate="2014-05-06T13:34:35.483" UserId="8568" Text="This patent may be specific, but certainly not novel.  See Avedon, or any product photo in recent years.  This is a great example of the system off its rails restraining innovation, and this is from someone who love Amazon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6546" RevisionGUID="4a6ab0bb-405a-4502-95e1-01f39eb41f79" CreationDate="2014-05-06T15:19:57.947" UserId="3076" Text="You need to pay all three in order for your application to move forward. They are listed separately in the fee schedule but, other than for one very specific case, it is best to think of them as one fee. The fees do not need to be paid at the time of filing but if not paid then there is a surcharge and you will get a notice that it must be paid by a certain date - usually a month or two after the date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will recommend that you get the book &quot;Patent it yourself&quot;. Patenting is a deep, subtle and confusing field but with that you have a fighting chance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6547" RevisionGUID="da48c944-f02c-4dab-98bc-da3afc60f525" CreationDate="2014-05-06T16:36:16.610" UserId="8570" Text="This patent utilizes the most common portrait lens, the 85mm, on a lighting setup that has been in common use for decades.  This would only make sense to someone who knows nothing about commercial photography.  I see it was filed in 2011 so it isn't like they were short on time to do a thorough review.  There is nothing new or novel about this procedure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17453" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6543" RevisionGUID="67533cb5-e0f6-4841-a68b-728caa6510d1" CreationDate="2014-05-06T18:45:12.590" UserId="8569" Comment="Tagged with prior art request." Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;amazon&gt;&lt;us8676045&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17454" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6543" RevisionGUID="67533cb5-e0f6-4841-a68b-728caa6510d1" CreationDate="2014-05-06T18:45:12.590" Comment="Proposed by 8569 approved by 1767 edit id of 534" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17455" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6543" RevisionGUID="247d8a4c-b2ad-46c1-a820-2c04c01f48bc" CreationDate="2014-05-06T18:46:35.820" UserId="1767" Comment="edited title" Text="Photography lighting (Amazon) - Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6555" RevisionGUID="8457fe45-3433-45a5-942e-813042133c55" CreationDate="2014-05-08T17:56:57.610" UserId="8588" Text="I am a student and wanted to do some research on graphene on how to mass produce it and I was wondering before starting my project on the wondrous material. So my question is, Is this a free patent? Am I allowed to test graphene?   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17479" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6555" RevisionGUID="8457fe45-3433-45a5-942e-813042133c55" CreationDate="2014-05-08T17:56:57.610" UserId="8588" Text="Am I allowed to test and research with Graphene" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17480" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6555" RevisionGUID="8457fe45-3433-45a5-942e-813042133c55" CreationDate="2014-05-08T17:56:57.610" UserId="8588" Text="&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;freedom-to-operate&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6558" RevisionGUID="b4e97890-25fc-4fdc-b87b-136d53115a9e" CreationDate="2014-05-08T23:56:35.200" UserId="8597" Text="Nobody can stop you from playing with Graphene-- it is in your pencil. Graphene wasn't invented, it was discovered. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Means of producing graphene (such as in sheets) and ways to use it are being patented. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can do experiments on it and ways to produce it. If you want to develop and commercialize your own way to produce or use it, then you need to consider a strategy for dealing with the IP. I won't advise you on those legal issues, but here is one nice reference: &#xD;&#xA;http://www.neustel.com/Patent-Infringement/How-To-Avoid-Patent-Infringement.aspx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6561" RevisionGUID="4bbadc37-dfac-4186-8f85-ee5e4dac26f2" CreationDate="2014-05-09T02:39:24.750" UserId="8598" Text="I had a very similiar idea with a few small production changes but would have had the same use.  Would this patent stop me from legally producing a similiar item and what are the legal consequences?  I dont want to dump a lot of money into anything I can lose if they take a patent back or for an item that is no longer patentable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks all!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17493" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6561" RevisionGUID="4bbadc37-dfac-4186-8f85-ee5e4dac26f2" CreationDate="2014-05-09T02:39:24.750" UserId="8598" Text="Patent #US7032911 - does this block me from doing something very similiar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17494" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6561" RevisionGUID="4bbadc37-dfac-4186-8f85-ee5e4dac26f2" CreationDate="2014-05-09T02:39:24.750" UserId="8598" Text="&lt;lapsed-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17495" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6561" RevisionGUID="a862ced8-c338-4331-b843-7882976cdd4f" CreationDate="2014-05-09T06:32:25.237" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to patent " Text="&lt;lapsed-patent&gt;&lt;us7032911&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6562" RevisionGUID="1a5e5363-e1d0-40f2-b787-bd9c17cb005f" CreationDate="2014-05-09T06:54:47.563" UserId="3076" Text="You have two questions: Will you get in trouble if you make and sell a particular handle extender, and can you patent an improvement on an already known handle extenter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The questions are not as tied together as you might think. As you noticed, US7032911 has gone abandoned for lack of paying maintance fees. A patentee can petition to have a patent revived by claiming the missed payment was either unintentional or unavoidable. Unavoidable is very hard to prove and unintentional does not fly at all after two years. This one is close to two years right now. As a patent no longer in force, this patent can't be used against you. But the thing you plan to make might very well infringe some other patent that is still in force.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Improvements to known things can be granted a patent if the improvement is new and non-obvious. What that amounts to is very specific to the details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6563" RevisionGUID="a76467da-eb0d-48d6-8ce1-e17b9930aff3" CreationDate="2014-05-09T09:37:05.847" UserId="8602" Text="Contact the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not correctly identifying inventors may have serious consequences, and in certain circumstances, such mistakes can result in the patent being revoked under 35 USC 116 (US). There is a lot of case law on the web surrounding this legislation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US it is only possible to correct errors in issued patents surrounding inventorship if they occurred without deceptive intent 35 USC 256 (US).  Because ownership and inventorship are separate concepts, an error in inventorship cannot be resolved through a transfer of ownership, or through assignment to the true inventor(s). The requirements for the correction of inventorship of an issued patent is outlined in Rule 324, which requires a statement from each person added that the error occurred without deceptive intent, and a statement from each inventor consenting to these changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck with it all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6564" RevisionGUID="9576bd47-5d19-4f6e-94e6-d9fefb8f7333" CreationDate="2014-05-09T09:48:33.477" UserId="8602" Text="Further to this, experimental use of patented inventions does not generally constitute infringement under the doctrine of experimental use. It is part of the *quid pro quo* bargain of patent systems." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6566" RevisionGUID="9c657c20-56da-4375-b6c1-baabc62eb04d" CreationDate="2014-05-09T15:08:07.457" UserId="8608" Text="Anyone shooting with Tri-X Pan Professional (roll or sheet film), would have used ISO 320 film. And maybe ISO 400 is &quot;about&quot; 320.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;85mm is a good focal length for upper body portraits using 35mm film and is recommended by lots of people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For years, Kodak published a detailed book on portrait lighting setups. I'm not finding a good reference right now, but here is one on eBay, to give an idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ebay.com/itm/Kodak-O-4-Professional-Data-Book-Studio-Techniques-for-Portrait-Photography-/171318361092" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6568" RevisionGUID="7960e1d0-a2ee-49a8-889a-183a5e6b4073" CreationDate="2014-05-09T15:56:34.203" UserId="8610" Text="I don't think they've got a very strong case, here. Heck, my company released an app in May, 2009 that does basically this: [Email 'n Walk][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/email-n-walk-**as-seen-on/id313095174?mt=8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6569" RevisionGUID="8e7bbd8f-fc97-458e-b41e-29d7acbbcf40" CreationDate="2014-05-09T16:41:46.680" UserId="8608" Text="Also, I don't think that specific prior art is the issue here. Given the problem this is solving, a person skilled in the art would have come to this solution. Therefore, it is not an invention. There is no inventive step, only application of the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wikipedia page says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Further, the combination of previously known elements can be considered obvious. As stated by Winner Int'l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d. 1340, 1348 (Fed. Cir., 2000), there must be a suggestion or teaching in the prior art to combine elements shown in the prior art in order to find a patent obvious. Thus, in general the critical inquiry is whether there is something in the prior art to suggest the desirability, and thus the obvious nature, of the combination of previously known elements.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any portrait or studio lighting book prior to 2001 should resolve this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is so easy to defend against that I would ignore it as a &quot;junk patent&quot;. If they try to enforce this, laugh at them. They are the ones who wasted money on this useless document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6570" RevisionGUID="a838d9fa-55e3-40fe-9764-ff4bdf4710bf" CreationDate="2014-05-09T18:51:27.770" UserId="8612" Text="As far as prior art, here is a post from 2007 describing this as a &quot;classic method&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://photo.net/photography-lighting-equipment-techniques-forum/00JWlT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specifics of the settings are built in settings on the camera and that is probably the most commonly used portrait lens so nothing is being invented.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put it another way, this would be like patenting illumination of a room with a centrally located ceiling hung light fixture by setting the wall lightswitch to the &quot;on&quot; position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, there is nothing new being done here, method wise, and no new equipment being used either." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6572" RevisionGUID="21b88254-5855-440f-8913-59c0f90af5e1" CreationDate="2014-05-09T23:25:54.303" UserId="8615" Text="&quot;If you go to Amazon's own pages, go to books, then put in &quot;studio photography&quot; you will&#xD;&#xA;turn up dozens of books in which this very approach is detailed...it has been done this way&#xD;&#xA;as long as camera has existed.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- my dad, a professional photographer who for 40+ years.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6578" RevisionGUID="7aaa0359-ea7d-49cb-bd8e-25fd952aa5ed" CreationDate="2014-05-11T19:26:48.810" UserId="8629" Text="I'm no expert on patent law, but I don't think their claims are very specific at all. From the patent: &quot;It is to be understood that the numerical data is presented herein and used for convenience and brevity, and thus, should be interpreted in a flexible manner to include not only the numerical values explicitly recited as the only workable parameters, but also to include all the individual numerical values that can be employed in a studio arrangement to achieve the desired effect discussed herein.&quot; So basically, any similar arrangement that produces the same results. &#xD;&#xA;There is nothing new here at all. There are a range of setups to achieve a blown out background with a shiny floor, and this falls well within the standard setups that have been used for years. Here's an example from 2007: http://www.gregrphoto.com/blog/2007/01/14/shooting-with-a-white-background/comment-page-1/ And his description next to the diagram: &quot;I usually use a platform that’s about 10 inches high.  I cover the platform with white seamless paper, and then put the plexiglass on top of it.  The model stands on top of all of this.  Once you do this, you effectively hide the part of the background that is most difficult to light (the part on the floor), and the plexiglass foreground reflects the background light…with no seam.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6401" RevisionGUID="061b1b7b-581e-4195-bb1a-b946d71e2d95" CreationDate="2014-05-12T13:48:15.420" UserId="8630" Comment="Removed exposed links, reworded sentence" Text="There is a US priority US61/535,608 dated 21.03.2013 docketed for this PCT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the application is still in the PCT stage, the International Search Report was separately issued on 18.03.2013 having the following [link][1]. There is one X reference (lack of inventive step)Zhao et al. Cancer Research 15 November 2010, Vol. 70(22)pp 9053-9061.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The [Written Opinion of the International Search Authority issued 16.03.2014][2]. In summary claims 5-12, 20-27 have both met the novelty and inventive step requirement over Zhao et al. Claims 1-4, 13-19, 28-30 do not meet the novelty or inventive step requirement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detailPdf.jsf?ia=US2012055760&amp;docIdPdf=id00000021572872?parSeparator1=&amp;name=WO2013040557RNA%20ENGINEERED%20T%20CELLS%20FOR%20THE%20TREATMENT%20OF%20CANCER&amp;parSeparator2=&amp;woNum=WO2013040557&amp;prevRecNum=1&amp;nextRecNum=2&amp;recNum=1&amp;queryString=FP:%28wo2013040557%29&amp;office=&amp;sortOption=Pub%20Date%20Desc&amp;prevFilter=&amp;maxRec=1a&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservicepdf_pct/id00000024286588.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17531" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6401" RevisionGUID="061b1b7b-581e-4195-bb1a-b946d71e2d95" CreationDate="2014-05-12T13:48:15.420" Comment="Proposed by 8630 approved by 3076, 1259 edit id of 537" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17547" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="6543" RevisionGUID="cb943ca1-daea-4b40-ac64-d2c73a30cca8" CreationDate="2014-05-12T17:40:05.673" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6584" RevisionGUID="cc56e0dd-a4e0-446e-bd63-2aeaa39f13fc" CreationDate="2014-05-13T15:05:12.257" UserId="8640" Text="If there is a company in the market that has been using numerous of the methods in matching up LKQ products and a coordinating database how does that effect this potential patent?  If the person seeking the patent did not disclose the known company that has been doing this since 1993 what effect would that have on the patent if issued? Many of the claims of the patent are very broad and seem like they could cause infringement issues for many businesses.  Do they seem reasonable to be allowed by the patent office?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17556" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6584" RevisionGUID="cc56e0dd-a4e0-446e-bd63-2aeaa39f13fc" CreationDate="2014-05-13T15:05:12.257" UserId="8640" Text="Patent Application WO 2013155313 A2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17557" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6584" RevisionGUID="cc56e0dd-a4e0-446e-bd63-2aeaa39f13fc" CreationDate="2014-05-13T15:05:12.257" UserId="8640" Text="&lt;wo2013155313a2&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6585" RevisionGUID="a033524e-ebb9-42fa-bdf1-a8ea6930bb14" CreationDate="2014-05-13T18:15:56.630" UserId="3076" Text="The WO number referenced in the tag is an international PCT application. There is also a corresponding U.S. application US20140025433. It has not been examined yet but the applicant has filed an Information Disclosure Statement listing things they know that might be relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applicants need to disclose *only what they know about* so omission of some possible prior art is not held against the applicant unless it can be shown that they knew about it, knew it was relevant and purposely didn't disclose it. Of course the prior art, when unearthed, itself can be used against the application or issued patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/0dr1h.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6587" RevisionGUID="a7ff3f22-4f5b-4b3a-b3f5-7638e155d681" CreationDate="2014-05-14T05:26:15.303" UserId="8645" Text="I have many ideas in the past... and I've failed many of them. But I have a newer idea that believe could hold some value, would rather take an experts opinion on the idea to disprove it or find what I'm missing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I discuss my idea to a scientist that I know, through a website? I have important information of that person(name, e-mail, university,pictures) and will document everything,and most importantly will let him pledge not to give any information to anyone without permission.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't afford a lawyer, or file a patent because I'm not sure if this idea would work. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17563" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6587" RevisionGUID="a7ff3f22-4f5b-4b3a-b3f5-7638e155d681" CreationDate="2014-05-14T05:26:15.303" UserId="8645" Text="Can I discuss my idea with experts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17564" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6587" RevisionGUID="a7ff3f22-4f5b-4b3a-b3f5-7638e155d681" CreationDate="2014-05-14T05:26:15.303" UserId="8645" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;physics&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6588" RevisionGUID="332895fb-8519-4bba-b725-b2948c589626" CreationDate="2014-05-14T07:06:29.220" UserId="8646" Text="See this IBM patent for &quot;Hyperlinks in an audio file&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=39&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=redman.IN.&amp;s2=%22Cedar+Park%22.INCI.&amp;OS=IN/redman+AND+IC/%22Cedar+Park%22&amp;RS=IN/redman+AND+IC/%22Cedar+Park%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17566" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6587" RevisionGUID="c4b06534-2bb4-44cb-8f3b-73e4857ca36e" CreationDate="2014-05-14T12:58:36.500" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;physics&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6589" RevisionGUID="735f11d9-e60b-4cc5-a9ef-1abe4ca4ea93" CreationDate="2014-05-14T13:33:47.303" UserId="8648" Text="This patent has been cited as an example of patenting a rounded rectangle, as the solid lines appear to form only a rounded rectangular frontal shape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, do the &quot;glossy&quot; shading lines on the front surface also count?  In other words, is this actually a patent for a shiny flat rounded rectangular front?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17568" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6589" RevisionGUID="735f11d9-e60b-4cc5-a9ef-1abe4ca4ea93" CreationDate="2014-05-14T13:33:47.303" UserId="8648" Text="usd670286 - Do glossy lines on a surface count in a design patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17569" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6589" RevisionGUID="735f11d9-e60b-4cc5-a9ef-1abe4ca4ea93" CreationDate="2014-05-14T13:33:47.303" UserId="8648" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6591" RevisionGUID="ac62bb0f-794a-4ee1-885c-9b203d053b4a" CreationDate="2014-05-15T04:59:40.720" UserId="3076" Text="Yes, the glossy surface is part of the claimed design. As is the radius of the curved corners, the ratio of length to height, the thickness, the curve of the back and everything else drawn in solid lines." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6588" RevisionGUID="2d3701b6-36d6-4f60-9004-76f717bf24f8" CreationDate="2014-05-15T05:06:30.297" UserId="3076" Comment="changed long uspto link to short google/patents" Text="See this IBM patent for &quot;Hyperlinks in an audio file&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US20070192673" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6588" RevisionGUID="cd75e04e-fe85-428f-b071-eacaf96477f6" CreationDate="2014-05-15T05:16:25.943" UserId="3076" Comment="cleaned up link" Text="[&quot;Hyperlinks in an audio file&quot;][1] IBM patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20070192673" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6589" RevisionGUID="ecff02ab-812b-4d24-8486-18ac377dbcff" CreationDate="2014-05-15T13:15:05.983" UserId="1259" Comment="tag added" Text="This patent has been cited as an example of patenting a rounded rectangle, as the solid lines appear to form only a rounded rectangular frontal shape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, do the &quot;glossy&quot; shading lines on the front surface also count?  In other words, is this actually a patent for a shiny flat rounded rectangular front?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17577" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6589" RevisionGUID="ecff02ab-812b-4d24-8486-18ac377dbcff" CreationDate="2014-05-15T13:15:05.983" UserId="1259" Comment="tag added" Text="USD670286 - Do glossy lines on a surface count in a design patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17578" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6589" RevisionGUID="ecff02ab-812b-4d24-8486-18ac377dbcff" CreationDate="2014-05-15T13:15:05.983" UserId="1259" Comment="tag added" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;usd670286&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6592" RevisionGUID="f8316144-bd8e-49d4-b8a9-cc17f1ff7839" CreationDate="2014-05-15T15:45:57.603" UserId="8652" Text="There is no issue date on this patent.  The application was filed in April of 2005, so how long can a person hold an idea that has yet to be patent? Can a person manufacture and sell an item that isn't exact to these specifications if an individual has filed a patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17580" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6592" RevisionGUID="f8316144-bd8e-49d4-b8a9-cc17f1ff7839" CreationDate="2014-05-15T15:45:57.603" UserId="8652" Text="NO PATENT ISSUED AFTER FILING NINE YEARS AGO, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17581" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6592" RevisionGUID="f8316144-bd8e-49d4-b8a9-cc17f1ff7839" CreationDate="2014-05-15T15:45:57.603" UserId="8652" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6592" RevisionGUID="9d385602-cd3e-4cca-890a-befc67a98fe6" CreationDate="2014-05-15T15:52:39.797" UserId="8652" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="There is no issue date on this patent.  The application was filed in April of 2005, so how long can a person hold an idea that has yet to be patent? Can a person manufacture and sell an item that isn't exact to these specifications if an individual has filed a patent application?&#xD;&#xA;This is the publication number and application number, (Publication number	US20060246805 A1)  (Application number	US 11/115,458)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6593" RevisionGUID="aa2d2959-932f-4d33-bb27-35f327a53683" CreationDate="2014-05-15T19:41:14.900" UserId="8654" Text="- this claim is about attaching semantics to numerical values found in a text.&#xD;&#xA;- there's lots of ways this can be done, for example with microformats:&#xD;&#xA;example (from: http://microformats.org/wiki/measure):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;&lt;p class=&quot;hmeasure&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  The &lt;span class=&quot;item&quot;&gt;action figure&lt;/span&gt; has a &lt;span class=&quot;type&quot;&gt;height&lt;/span&gt; of&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;span class=&quot;num&quot;&gt;5&lt;/span&gt; &lt;span class=&quot;unit&quot;&gt;in&lt;/span&gt;.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/p&gt; =&gt; markup:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`&lt;p class=&quot;hmeasure&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  The &lt;span class=&quot;item&quot;&gt;action figure&lt;/span&gt; has a &lt;span class=&quot;type&quot;&gt;height&lt;/span&gt; of&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;span class=&quot;num&quot;&gt;5&lt;/span&gt; &lt;span class=&quot;unit&quot;&gt;in&lt;/span&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17588" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6592" RevisionGUID="8e52752a-3474-4b95-b14f-ac1f50365992" CreationDate="2014-05-16T04:51:23.250" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;us20060246805&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6595" RevisionGUID="15ff2623-8d43-46e3-a719-ea0c045077d4" CreationDate="2014-05-16T05:02:50.930" UserId="3076" Text="In most cases, it means no patent will ever issue and the application has gone abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addressing some misconceptions - Filing a patent application does not &quot;hold&quot; an idea in any official way. What someone sells need not correspond to their patent application or granted patent at all. Patents are not the right to sell, they are the right to try to stop others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reasonable conclusion looking at a published application that old that doesn't have a corresponding patent, is that the application was rejected, at some point the applicant decided not to fight it and it has gone abandoned. Better than a reasonable guess is looking the application up at a corner of the USPTO site called Public PAIR. I looked this application up there and it went abandoned in 2007.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/tJT75.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6596" RevisionGUID="ab6e4daf-8358-493b-b552-8a11cba882fa" CreationDate="2014-05-16T12:42:04.233" UserId="8657" Text="Till the time patent application (or one of its family members claiming priority eg. continuation patent application) is alive, it is not recommended to manufacture or sell the product that covers features overlapping with the disclosed subject matter and claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, parent patent application is abandoned and no other child patent application is claiming priority from this, it will be safe to manufacture or sell the product. But following points need to be checked carefully before proceeding further:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Sometimes there are co-pending and multiple related patent applications (sometimes filed on same date) covering similar subject matter and different claims, it is always better to conduct search of the same inventor or applicant so as to locate any other alive patent application which might not be in the family data but claiming similar features.  &#xD;&#xA;2. In case one of the family members is alive, please be aware that subject matter or claims per se in family members or continuation applications may differ. Also, granted patent may have different claims as compared to original filed patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answered by [TTConsultants][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ttconsultants.co.in/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6596" RevisionGUID="63200d9a-aece-4291-bb50-8317785f3edb" CreationDate="2014-05-16T13:12:30.320" UserId="1259" Comment="advertisement signature removed" Text="Till the time patent application (or one of its family members claiming priority eg. continuation patent application) is alive, it is not recommended to manufacture or sell the product that covers features overlapping with the disclosed subject matter and claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, parent patent application is abandoned and no other child patent application is claiming priority from this, it will be safe to manufacture or sell the product. But following points need to be checked carefully before proceeding further:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Sometimes there are co-pending and multiple related patent applications (sometimes filed on same date) covering similar subject matter and different claims, it is always better to conduct search of the same inventor or applicant so as to locate any other alive patent application which might not be in the family data but claiming similar features.  &#xD;&#xA;2. In case one of the family members is alive, please be aware that subject matter or claims per se in family members or continuation applications may differ. Also, granted patent may have different claims as compared to original filed patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17595" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4938" RevisionGUID="0a50cce6-fb34-4327-8547-07d8a617f1d5" CreationDate="2014-05-17T20:59:30.220" UserId="1767" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1767,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Micah Siegel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6598" RevisionGUID="aaa42903-b0e5-4c4b-a224-5118269a4122" CreationDate="2014-05-18T03:01:38.783" UserId="8663" Text="The patent 101,875 is missing pages 3 and 4.  Is there any way to obtain the missing pages?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17598" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6598" RevisionGUID="aaa42903-b0e5-4c4b-a224-5118269a4122" CreationDate="2014-05-18T03:01:38.783" UserId="8663" Text="Where are missing pages 3 and 4 for patent 101,875?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17599" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6598" RevisionGUID="aaa42903-b0e5-4c4b-a224-5118269a4122" CreationDate="2014-05-18T03:01:38.783" UserId="8663" Text="&lt;specification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6592" RevisionGUID="de9bd06b-218e-4957-b2a9-b5399ac9bf5a" CreationDate="2014-05-18T04:01:25.897" UserId="8652" Comment="deleted 128 characters in body; edited tags" Text="There is no issue date on this patent.  The application was filed in April of 2005, so how long can a person hold an idea that has yet to be patent? Can a person manufacture and sell an item that isn't exact to these specifications if an individual has filed a patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17601" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6592" RevisionGUID="de9bd06b-218e-4957-b2a9-b5399ac9bf5a" CreationDate="2014-05-18T04:01:25.897" UserId="8652" Comment="deleted 128 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6603" RevisionGUID="bd52cadb-1cab-4afc-8994-ab5a8f839bee" CreationDate="2014-05-19T12:40:51.723" UserId="8534" Text="You are right!  They are missing from my version too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should contact the &quot;office of publications&quot; at the USPTO at www.uspto.gov.  If the pages are missing from the electronic files, they were probably are missing from original official gazette paper publication.  In that case, you would have to order a copy of the &quot;file wrapper&quot;.  This is a collection of all of the papers filed by the applicant as well as the examiner's response(s).  That would have the full original disclosure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just curious, how did you come upon this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6608" RevisionGUID="e1eecc15-2590-4a20-a1d0-ae90c323b8c9" CreationDate="2014-05-20T17:59:56.627" UserId="8678" Text="This seems to be the rules on mailing a codebase for a software application on CD, it seems it needs to be on ASCII format.  The reason to mail a cd of codebase is to show that you know how to build your invention concept.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am unclear if it needs to be in .txt format, or if you can send in the original codebase file format. For example, for python scripted software, the extension is in .py format.  To open it, the office would probably need to use special reader software, or perhaps can open in notepad but lose some of the formating.  Should it be in .txt format, or is specialized file format of the original codebase okay?  When they say you can provide specialized instructions for interpreting cd material, does that mean you can say you need to use xx program to open it, which you can download at xx.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does providing software code work that is over a certain amount of lines where they ask you to send on cd?  Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html#d0e51838&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AND:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e318327&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Recordable (CD-R) in compliance with this paragraph. A CD-ROM is a “read-only” medium on which the data is pressed into the disc so that it cannot be changed or erased. A CD-R is a “write once” medium on which once the data is recorded, it is permanent and cannot be changed or erased.&#xD;&#xA;(3)&#xD;&#xA;(i) Each compact disc must conform to the International Standards Organization (ISO) 9660 standard, and the contents of each compact disc must be in compliance with the American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII). CD-R discs must be finalized so that they are closed to further writing to the CD-R.&#xD;&#xA;(ii) Each compact disc must be enclosed in a hard compact disc case within an unsealed padded and protective mailing envelope and accompanied by a transmittal letter on paper in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section. The transmittal letter must list for each compact disc the machine format ( e.g., IBM-PC, Macintosh), the operating system compatibility ( e.g., MS-DOS, MS-Windows, Macintosh, Unix), a list of files contained on the compact disc including their names, sizes in bytes, and dates of creation, plus any other special information that is necessary to identify, maintain, and interpret ( e.g., tables in landscape orientation should be identified as landscape orientation or be identified when inquired about) the information on the compact disc. Compact discs submitted to the Office will not be returned to the applicant.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17626" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6608" RevisionGUID="e1eecc15-2590-4a20-a1d0-ae90c323b8c9" CreationDate="2014-05-20T17:59:56.627" UserId="8678" Text="Sending a CD with Codebase" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17627" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6608" RevisionGUID="e1eecc15-2590-4a20-a1d0-ae90c323b8c9" CreationDate="2014-05-20T17:59:56.627" UserId="8678" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;cd&gt;&lt;mailing&gt;&lt;codebase&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6612" RevisionGUID="ea35ad2b-da5a-40ea-ba99-d5f99445a7ef" CreationDate="2014-05-21T15:48:35.553" UserId="8684" Text="I'm working in a startup with a limited amount of investment. We'd like to file for a US provisional patent. My understanding is that after 12 months, I can upgrade to a PCT application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this specific invention, I believe that most of my market is outside of the USA. That being said, I'd like to file in the USA first because we're based in Canada, it's cheaper, it buys us 12 months, and it can be upgraded to a PCT later buying us even more time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: if I file a provisional patent application in the USA, what's stopping someone from scooping it up and going international before I'm able to file a PCT? If so, in the first 12 months should I avoid doing international business? Or, should I skip the US patent altogether, knowing our market is international?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17640" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6612" RevisionGUID="ea35ad2b-da5a-40ea-ba99-d5f99445a7ef" CreationDate="2014-05-21T15:48:35.553" UserId="8684" Text="If I file a provisional patent application, could someone else file a PCT application for the same invention during the first 12 months?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17641" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6612" RevisionGUID="ea35ad2b-da5a-40ea-ba99-d5f99445a7ef" CreationDate="2014-05-21T15:48:35.553" UserId="8684" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6613" RevisionGUID="e85499de-1587-446b-a736-433e5533db36" CreationDate="2014-05-21T18:32:03.983" UserId="8685" Text="Seems like there's some pretty clear prior art here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://pdf.aminer.org/000/642/555/odefs_a_file_system_interface_to_an_object_oriented_database.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17643" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6613" RevisionGUID="e85499de-1587-446b-a736-433e5533db36" CreationDate="2014-05-21T18:32:03.983" UserId="8685" Text="Any comments on prior art for File system interface for CIM (us8458236)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17644" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6613" RevisionGUID="e85499de-1587-446b-a736-433e5533db36" CreationDate="2014-05-21T18:32:03.983" UserId="8685" Text="&lt;us8458236&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6615" RevisionGUID="c7d760f8-cae0-4f93-84b7-c918cb71945c" CreationDate="2014-05-22T03:48:31.653" UserId="3076" Text="As soon as your product is on the market a competitor could start the process of copying it, making it and selling it. Since you will file some application somewhere before you let it out to the public, you can and should mark the product or packaging &quot;Patent Pending&quot;. That may slow down a copier who thinks why gear up to copy you if it is highly likely that a patent will issue and they will need to stop then. Or, if it is a huge hit and the start-up/tooling costs are low, they may just go for it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this happens you can file the PCT without waiting the year to speed things up. Without an issued patent in whatever country they are selling into **you can't stop them**. Presuming you do follow up with a PCT or a non-provisional patent application, your patent application will most likely be published by a patent office 18 months from the earliest priority date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone who files after you will/should not get a patent because their thing is old at the time it was filed. Of course the more time you &quot;buy&quot; the longer until it is very findable by a patent examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if information about your product itself is very findable by a patent examiner, the bad guy would/should not get a patent independent of the state of your patenting activities. There application will be dated after you shipped and therefore will not be new." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6616" RevisionGUID="f6572b2f-44d8-4590-aa08-ee9815363e97" CreationDate="2014-05-22T04:45:15.107" UserId="8688" Text="My question is in regards to this [patent](https://www.google.com/patents/US20130242109?dq=US20130242109+A1&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=aX99U_vdOoOF8gXR3YGYAw&amp;ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA). They are claiming that their method of exclusive or'ing a set of vectors to estimate camera network topology. Is it fundamentally valid to patent such a method for anything?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I can see, all this patent claims is that:&#xD;&#xA;If one cameras field of view (window), is occupied, and simulatenously another cameras field of view isn't, then they are not connected. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is just logic which can be applied to anything. What do you guys think?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17651" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6616" RevisionGUID="f6572b2f-44d8-4590-aa08-ee9815363e97" CreationDate="2014-05-22T04:45:15.107" UserId="8688" Text="Is it valid to patent exclusive or of a set of vectors?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17652" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6616" RevisionGUID="f6572b2f-44d8-4590-aa08-ee9815363e97" CreationDate="2014-05-22T04:45:15.107" UserId="8688" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17653" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6616" RevisionGUID="c678166b-cdd6-4019-b431-248eff0e58d7" CreationDate="2014-05-22T13:02:53.280" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;us20130242109&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6615" RevisionGUID="ef753e69-9922-4a7a-8690-9acaa82f3ee1" CreationDate="2014-05-22T17:19:33.687" UserId="3076" Comment="edited body" Text="As soon as your product is on the market a competitor could start the process of copying it, making it and selling it. Since you will file some application somewhere before you let it out to the public, you can and should mark the product or packaging &quot;Patent Pending&quot;. That may slow down a copier who thinks why gear up to copy you if it is highly likely that a patent will issue and they will need to stop then. Or, if it is a huge hit and the start-up/tooling costs are low, they may just go for it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this happens you can file the PCT without waiting the year to speed things up. Without an issued patent in whatever country they are selling into **you can't stop them**. Presuming you do follow up with a PCT or a non-provisional patent application, your patent application will most likely be published by a patent office 18 months from the earliest priority date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone who files after you will/should not get a patent because their thing is old at the time it was filed. Of course the more time you &quot;buy&quot; the longer until it is very findable by a patent examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if information about your product itself is very findable by a patent examiner, the bad guy would/should not get a patent independent of the state of your patenting activities. Their application will be dated after you shipped and therefore will not be new." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6618" RevisionGUID="0c3debf0-2c61-4467-b2ba-f4d0d87f2fe4" CreationDate="2014-05-22T17:25:45.507" UserId="3076" Text="The document you reference is a patent application, *not* a granted patent. I see the same inventors do have an issued patent [US8396250][1] based on the same disclosure. The application you have referenced is a follow-on application that seems to attempting to get greater coverage then they got in US8396359. That issued patent has a much longer and narrower claim 1 that puts more specificity into what they and the examiner thought was new and not obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8396250" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6619" RevisionGUID="eecb9f9d-f4da-49a0-8869-aff92e0ac46e" CreationDate="2014-05-22T18:21:36.547" UserId="3129" Text="**Q: What is your seasoned opinion on how to best proceed to negotiate a profitable and fair licensing deal under the following circumstances.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I most appreciate opinions from those who have actually gone through this process, at least once.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Situation:&#xD;&#xA;I have one PCT patent application under prosecution (Phase I) and multiple provisional applications active. The provisionals are essentially continuations-in-part (possibly divisionals) of the PCT invention. Omnibus claims are included in the provisionals for the primary purpose of satisfying technicalities in international law but are probably far from what would be claimed in a regular or PCT patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To add more layers, the provisionals contain multiple inventions (as is allowed by US patent law). These multiple inventions are all in a related field but certainly different inventions (lack unity of invention). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have demonstrated two of my inventions to and am in discussions with a major corporation regarding licensing. The licensing is more appropriately associated with the latter provisionals (CIP's). At this point, I have been asked to divulge my patent apps and I responded with an OFFER to divulge my full PCT app, LESS CLAIMS, and to divulge EXCISED versions of my provisionals (where I had cut out text for other inventions in the provisionals that had not been marketed to this potential licensee). The inventions of primary interest are in one of the provisionals. I upped the bar, also asking them to honor (sign) an invention submission agreement that mitigates them &quot;designing around,&quot; or modifying and patenting based on my fundamental IP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have paused and did not yet agree to accept access to my PCT and provisionals and instead are asking &quot;what claims&quot; I have in my patent applications. (privately, the answer for this is &quot;no, claims, really. The specification awaits being further claimed against!&quot;). Negotiations are quite friendly, at this point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a money/strategy/patenting/sales kind of thing. But isn't compensation the true and ultimate objective of all those participating in this site? Of course, I would only engage in ethical and truthful negotiations. But, the real question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is your seasoned opinion on strategy as to best proceed to negotiate a profitable and fair licensing deal under these circumstances.** (I have had trouble even finding an attorney that I like to even answer my initial emails - they must be swamped helping the big corporations, is all I can think).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17661" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6619" RevisionGUID="eecb9f9d-f4da-49a0-8869-aff92e0ac46e" CreationDate="2014-05-22T18:21:36.547" UserId="3129" Text="Licensing Strategies and Negotiaitons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17662" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6619" RevisionGUID="eecb9f9d-f4da-49a0-8869-aff92e0ac46e" CreationDate="2014-05-22T18:21:36.547" UserId="3129" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6620" RevisionGUID="0916b30d-1bd3-4416-9e0b-26e69070b08d" CreationDate="2014-05-23T03:44:02.240" UserId="8694" Text="I realise the application has already been finally rejected, but I want to add another important piece of prior art anyway: [JPEG2000][1], from… 2000. Any compliant decoder must be able to scale and composite an image stored at multiple resolutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jpeg2000" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6623" RevisionGUID="9daece03-d4a9-48be-ab8f-6ba8d4288d7b" CreationDate="2014-05-24T13:23:07.097" UserId="8700" Text="Does the mere holding of the original document/certificate from the U.S.  patent office make you the owner of it? As in, like a stock certificate or U.S. bond left by elders to children not of the same name?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   To put it another way ... say you found a u.s. patent, original document, would you then be the owner of said patent??" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17673" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6623" RevisionGUID="9daece03-d4a9-48be-ab8f-6ba8d4288d7b" CreationDate="2014-05-24T13:23:07.097" UserId="8700" Text="Rights of ownership," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17674" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6623" RevisionGUID="9daece03-d4a9-48be-ab8f-6ba8d4288d7b" CreationDate="2014-05-24T13:23:07.097" UserId="8700" Text="&lt;us3447950&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6624" RevisionGUID="f7413ba0-f2ef-479d-bdeb-f87256578df3" CreationDate="2014-05-24T16:58:06.560" UserId="3775" Text="Imagine I synthesize and characterize a molecule for the first time, but for which I also do not know if it has any application. Is this, under EPC, patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17676" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6624" RevisionGUID="f7413ba0-f2ef-479d-bdeb-f87256578df3" CreationDate="2014-05-24T16:58:06.560" UserId="3775" Text="Is a new chemical substance without known application be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17677" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6624" RevisionGUID="f7413ba0-f2ef-479d-bdeb-f87256578df3" CreationDate="2014-05-24T16:58:06.560" UserId="3775" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17678" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6624" RevisionGUID="07701d25-75a9-4abb-a7cc-58dac10f3448" CreationDate="2014-05-24T22:32:06.683" UserId="3775" Comment="edited title" Text="Can a new chemical substance without known application be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6625" RevisionGUID="47fbbbb0-a5df-426e-8515-e5dcd9678a42" CreationDate="2014-05-26T06:51:52.380" UserId="8703" Text="When the inventor shown at US Patent and Trademark Office website is Millard R. Bell. Bell did assign rights to B.F.Goodrich in June 1942 for $1. I HAVE THE UNCASHED CHECK. Why the discrepancy in the records, when my father, Millard Bell, was obviously the inventor?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you &#xD;&#xA;Jon Bell&#xD;&#xA;Chandler, AZ&#xD;&#xA;jcbell3@hotmail.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17680" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6625" RevisionGUID="47fbbbb0-a5df-426e-8515-e5dcd9678a42" CreationDate="2014-05-26T06:51:52.380" UserId="8703" Text="Why does it show inventor of Patent us2394492 as Elmer Scharenberg with assignee B.F, Goodrich?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17681" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6625" RevisionGUID="47fbbbb0-a5df-426e-8515-e5dcd9678a42" CreationDate="2014-05-26T06:51:52.380" UserId="8703" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17692" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6625" RevisionGUID="0b0cc05d-b562-4dd0-94ac-2cd7b9dd8fda" CreationDate="2014-05-26T17:06:31.977" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;us2394492&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6629" RevisionGUID="869f936a-d13e-4aeb-b6b6-1bdd5febc113" CreationDate="2014-05-27T08:23:11.433" UserId="8710" Text="I'm developed an algorithm for constructing heat maps (eg, maps clicks heatmap) , going to implement. Found that there is already a patent for this method of visualization [www.google.com/patents/US8669994][1] (aka [www.google.com/patents/US20110141118][2]), which is similar by ~80 % with my algorithm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The algorithm I came up with not knowing about this patent (though it already existed ). From a legal standpoint, will be a claims that I stole algorithm?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(More Technical Question) What &quot;Google Analytics&quot; (for example) are doing with such patents in their heat maps? Comes up with something completely new or just ignores the presence of patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8669994&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110141118" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17694" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6629" RevisionGUID="869f936a-d13e-4aeb-b6b6-1bdd5febc113" CreationDate="2014-05-27T08:23:11.433" UserId="8710" Text="What if I use my algorithm, which is similar by 80% to the another already patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17695" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6629" RevisionGUID="869f936a-d13e-4aeb-b6b6-1bdd5febc113" CreationDate="2014-05-27T08:23:11.433" UserId="8710" Text="&lt;algorithms&gt;&lt;heatmap&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6633" RevisionGUID="d8475fa7-13d9-423e-8611-3475bee219f2" CreationDate="2014-05-27T18:47:18.570" UserId="8719" Text="Some of these patents have been patent back in the mid 1900's. How do I know if these people are still alive? And if not, how can I take over the patent? Are the patents moved on to the next family member? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17706" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6633" RevisionGUID="d8475fa7-13d9-423e-8611-3475bee219f2" CreationDate="2014-05-27T18:47:18.570" UserId="8719" Text="What if the inventor of the patent is dead?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17707" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6633" RevisionGUID="d8475fa7-13d9-423e-8611-3475bee219f2" CreationDate="2014-05-27T18:47:18.570" UserId="8719" Text="&lt;us2527955&gt;&lt;dead&gt;&lt;death&gt;&lt;living&gt;&lt;alive&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6635" RevisionGUID="0c62bae2-b264-4968-97fc-bef688768b64" CreationDate="2014-05-28T10:02:33.960" UserId="8724" Text="In US 7904356 patent claims 1&amp; 8  are in black, others in grey. Is there any meaning of the   difference? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17720" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6635" RevisionGUID="0c62bae2-b264-4968-97fc-bef688768b64" CreationDate="2014-05-28T10:02:33.960" UserId="8724" Text="Why some claims are shown in grey while others in black?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17721" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6635" RevisionGUID="0c62bae2-b264-4968-97fc-bef688768b64" CreationDate="2014-05-28T10:02:33.960" UserId="8724" Text="&lt;us7904356&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17722" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6633" RevisionGUID="8bdc4597-5bab-4da8-9acc-59123de09172" CreationDate="2014-05-28T12:55:11.730" UserId="1259" Comment="Changed &quot;patent&quot; into &quot;idea&quot; (see comment) and edited tags" Text="What if the inventor of the idea is dead?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17723" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6633" RevisionGUID="8bdc4597-5bab-4da8-9acc-59123de09172" CreationDate="2014-05-28T12:55:11.730" UserId="1259" Comment="Changed &quot;patent&quot; into &quot;idea&quot; (see comment) and edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;assignee&gt;&lt;us2527955&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6636" RevisionGUID="d91579af-2051-4633-8be8-f8396bb84d49" CreationDate="2014-05-28T12:55:55.647" UserId="5071" Text="If the patent was patented in the mid 1900's, then the patent is expired. No one can &quot;take over&quot; the patent because the patent information is now in the public and free for everyone to use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17725" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6636" RevisionGUID="ee3c9df4-1e36-4e0d-9d6f-1d231a7ac93c" CreationDate="2014-05-28T12:57:19.983" UserId="1259" Comment="grammar" Text="If the patent was issued in the mid 1900's, then the patent is long expired. No one can &quot;take over&quot; the patent because the patent information is now in the public domain and free for everyone to use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6637" RevisionGUID="8c3f66bb-c963-4af8-9c33-d8b22feff48f" CreationDate="2014-05-28T17:39:27.733" UserId="8728" Text="Could the community help by supplying a relevant **manual for a vehicle power system**?  Any vehicle, could be **any make or model of car**. It should show the power supply available to the accessories, such as on-board computer, during states such as car off, brake pedal depressed, key in ignition, starting car, driving, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent application uses characteristics of a vehicle power supply to decide when to download software updates to the on-board computer.  **The power supply conditions are illustrated in figure 3** and other figures.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17727" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6637" RevisionGUID="8c3f66bb-c963-4af8-9c33-d8b22feff48f" CreationDate="2014-05-28T17:39:27.733" UserId="8728" Text="Vehicle power systems - prior art request" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17728" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6637" RevisionGUID="8c3f66bb-c963-4af8-9c33-d8b22feff48f" CreationDate="2014-05-28T17:39:27.733" UserId="8728" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20120124571&gt;&lt;vehicle&gt;&lt;power-supply&gt;&lt;software-updating&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17733" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6637" RevisionGUID="5d12bf55-47a7-4b0a-9c7c-5414ca63ecb3" CreationDate="2014-05-28T18:01:42.343" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20120124571&gt;&lt;vehicle&gt;&lt;power-supply&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6639" RevisionGUID="4d792502-b489-467b-8a8e-a154a87641e4" CreationDate="2014-05-28T18:10:49.153" UserId="8728" Text="Search for assignment of patents and patent applications in the [USPTO assignments database][1].  The first assignor is usually the inventor (a human being), and the first assignee is whoever owns the patent (usually a corporation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching for an Assignee Name of IAC yielded dozens of hits, mostly for IAC SEARCH &amp; MEDIA, INC. based in Oakland Ca, and [one assignment for IAC/InterActiveCorp.][2]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent assigned to IAC/InterActiveCorp. is [7,062,457 &quot;Method and system for entertainment production financing&quot;][3].  This doesn't look like the &quot;critical&quot; patent for OKCupid's dating site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching for an Assignee Name of OKCupid yielded zero hits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may have additional success in searching for the possible inventors' names under Assignor Name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&amp;asned=IAC/INTERACTIVECORP&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7062457" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6640" RevisionGUID="0480f4bb-454b-4a04-a684-3a4e702e3e17" CreationDate="2014-05-28T21:30:55.440" UserId="3076" Text="You are looking at google's enhanced, value added view of the patent, not the patent as issued. They hight the independent claims for readability. Click download PDF to see the actual patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6641" RevisionGUID="e263458d-ed0a-4005-b8f2-5e97fda31fd0" CreationDate="2014-05-28T21:42:10.620" UserId="3076" Text="**If you are worried about accidentally infringing an existing patent my answer is:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It depends on the 80%. It is all about the other person's claims. If you do everything that any one of the claims requires then you probably infringe. Basic patent infringement does not require previous knowledge of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If you want a patent my answer is**:&#xD;&#xA;There is*no percentage of change to get a patent over something that already is out there. To get a patent your concept must be novel and non-obvious. Almost any functional or structural change gets past novelty. Harder - Is it obvious to a hypothetical someone of average skilled in the art but complete knowledge of everything published in the field ever?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A simple substation of one known sort technique by another known technique in the middle of a complex system will be seen as obvious - Unless it makes a significant and unexpected change in the system as a whole.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6640" RevisionGUID="082b7282-e817-42a8-b875-6326f7885bd3" CreationDate="2014-05-28T21:42:39.947" UserId="3076" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="You are looking at google's enhanced, value added view of the patent, not the patent as issued. They highlight the independent claims for readability. Click download PDF to see the actual patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6642" RevisionGUID="16ccb927-ea0f-4c41-ac93-d3c958853cef" CreationDate="2014-05-29T08:00:44.927" UserId="8732" Text="http://patent.ipexl.com/inventor/scott_ernest_george_1.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hold several original patents in their original leather covers belonging to earnest George Scott. This one is the patent for  The improvements in the manufacture of acetic acid dated 1897. No 12952.&#xD;&#xA;I was just hoping someone could help by telling me keep them or throw them. Or might a museum be interested. Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17740" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6642" RevisionGUID="16ccb927-ea0f-4c41-ac93-d3c958853cef" CreationDate="2014-05-29T08:00:44.927" UserId="8732" Text="Old patents worth any value" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17741" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6642" RevisionGUID="16ccb927-ea0f-4c41-ac93-d3c958853cef" CreationDate="2014-05-29T08:00:44.927" UserId="8732" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6643" RevisionGUID="35e1934f-209d-4200-a18b-e0ef82b49aaf" CreationDate="2014-05-30T07:19:40.833" UserId="8736" Text="Patent US 7706365 B2 has, according to Google a priority date of date of Nov 25, 2003. I found a [paper][1] containing the invention described in the patent presented by the authors of the paper in a [conference][2] that was between October 1 - Friday, October 3, 2003 and another [paper][3] from a conference around 4 July 2003.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this to be considered prior art for the patent? If so how to request a re-examination of the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent has some potential of becoming [important][4], so better to clarify it validity early on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.58.1873&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.comm.csl.uiuc.edu/~koetter/allerton/allerton03/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.13.1693&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/14/05/29/2237211/how-mit-and-caltechs-coding-breakthrough-could-accelerate-mobile-network-speeds" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17744" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6643" RevisionGUID="35e1934f-209d-4200-a18b-e0ef82b49aaf" CreationDate="2014-05-30T07:19:40.833" UserId="8736" Text="Randomized distributed network coding - Date for prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17745" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6643" RevisionGUID="35e1934f-209d-4200-a18b-e0ef82b49aaf" CreationDate="2014-05-30T07:19:40.833" UserId="8736" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6644" RevisionGUID="8502bb70-1758-4123-9391-163ca3aa4deb" CreationDate="2014-05-30T13:37:37.960" UserId="8738" Text="EDIT: In hindsight, I fear I might have answered the wrong question.  Too late to retract now I suppose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An approach I have seen people use is to analyze the chemical properties and guess at what it might be used for.  Is it aryl?  Improved perfume synthesis! Does it have nitrogen next to benzene?  A new way to synthesis drugs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brainstorming in this way can often lead you to both casting a wide net and find applications.  All you need is one use case and then they explode by being inter-related.  &#xD;&#xA;The new process of synthesizing the chemical is patentable.  You still need the useful angle, but I am sure you had that in mind when you started?  (Why would you just randomly invent something that costs $100k of dollars without a purpose?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Polymer patents also are very much based on &quot;I set out to make a chemical with variable properties X Y and Z on range of blah blah blah by varying A B C from here to there, and this is how I make it.&quot;  Suddenly you have locked out a large application area, an industrial process, and set ridiculously broad ranges that are unreasonable and block anyone else from entering.  (This would theoretically apply to your process patent as well.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as the scientific scrutiny part goes, the art of BS'ing and telling a good story goes a lot further than the data.  The data part comes 2 years later after the initial filing.  Plenty of time to, uh, tweak the results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I am no lawyer, but I can tell you this is how the big companies do it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6646" RevisionGUID="54c7460c-3d18-4603-9d74-4d605f767cbf" CreationDate="2014-05-31T04:26:13.317" UserId="8735" Text="A museum might be interested but I'm not sure if they have much/any value. I'm sure they're worth a few dollars. If you're just going to throw them away, I'd be interested in them. I'm brand new here so I don't know if you can PM me, but if you can . . ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6647" RevisionGUID="a2807ad0-85bd-47b0-9586-26243fca92cc" CreationDate="2014-05-31T12:33:40.697" UserId="3775" Text="Many (pharmaceutical) companies have their own IP department employing many patent attorneys. On espacenet, which search field allows me to look for patents issued by a specific patent attorney at a specific pharmaceutical company? Usually, the PA is not the inventor, so I guess &quot;inventor&quot; is not where I should enter the PA." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17753" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6647" RevisionGUID="a2807ad0-85bd-47b0-9586-26243fca92cc" CreationDate="2014-05-31T12:33:40.697" UserId="3775" Text="Find patents by a specific patent attorney" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17754" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6647" RevisionGUID="a2807ad0-85bd-47b0-9586-26243fca92cc" CreationDate="2014-05-31T12:33:40.697" UserId="3775" Text="&lt;espacenet&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17755" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6641" RevisionGUID="1619742c-7485-4082-9aad-c9c68b5cbff3" CreationDate="2014-06-01T20:06:40.170" UserId="3076" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="**If you are worried about accidentally infringing an existing patent my answer is:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It depends on the 80%. It is all about the other person's claims. If you do everything that any one of the claims requires then you probably infringe. Basic patent infringement does not require previous knowledge of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If you want a patent my answer is**:&#xD;&#xA;There is*no percentage of change to get a patent over something that already is out there. To get a patent your concept must be novel and non-obvious. Almost any functional or structural change gets past novelty. Harder - Is it obvious to a hypothetical someone of average skilled in the art but complete knowledge of everything published in the field ever?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A simple substitution of one known sort technique by another known technique in the middle of a complex system will be seen as obvious - Unless it makes a significant and unexpected change in the system as a whole.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6648" RevisionGUID="0a0a1347-c346-451d-aa07-6e8e0cd4ac30" CreationDate="2014-06-02T04:51:33.437" UserId="8746" Text="It was recently used in litigation against Netflix, but I don't think that has been resolved yet. It feels like there ought to be prior art related to this functionality.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17757" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6648" RevisionGUID="0a0a1347-c346-451d-aa07-6e8e0cd4ac30" CreationDate="2014-06-02T04:51:33.437" UserId="8746" Text="Is US7103906 a valid patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17758" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6648" RevisionGUID="0a0a1347-c346-451d-aa07-6e8e0cd4ac30" CreationDate="2014-06-02T04:51:33.437" UserId="8746" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6649" RevisionGUID="5a13b1f2-cc89-457a-9283-9c16362cb4fc" CreationDate="2014-06-02T05:11:59.440" UserId="8728" Text="Short answer: The first paper has a prior art date under 35 USC 102(a), however, the second paper does not have a prior art date under 35 USC 102.  Furthermore, both of these papers have already been considered by the Examiner ([see second page of the patent][1]).  If I understand correctly, a re-examination is for new material not considered by the Examiner.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US Patent 7,706,365][2] claims priority to a provisional application (60/524,926) filed on November 25, 2003.  For the purpose of this question, it is assumed that the provisional application has support for the claims (if not, then the application would only have priority from it's filing date).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent's &quot;inventive entity&quot; consists of five inventors: Effors, Ho, Karger, Koetter, and Medard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The first paper (&quot;On Randomized Network Coding&quot;)][3] has a [publication date][4] of October 1, 2003&#xD;&#xA;and authorship of Ho, Medard, Shi, Effros, Karger.&#xD;&#xA;Because &quot;Ralf Koetter&quot; is an inventor on the patent, while &quot;Jun Shi&quot; is an author of the paper, it is understood that the paper is written by &quot;others&quot;, as that term is used in pre-AIA USC 102, the statute that spells out which documents are prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The second paper (&quot;The Benefits of Coding over Routing in a Randomized Setting&quot;)][5] has a publication date of June 29, 2003 and an authorship of Ho, Koetter, Medard, Karger, and Effros.  The authors of this paper are the same as the inventors of the patent, and therefore this activity is not by &quot;others&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first paper has a prior art date under 35 USC 102(a) because the activity (publication) is by others, and not by the inventive entity named in the patent.  However, this paper has already been considered by the Examiner and may not be eligible for a re-examination (see the second page of the patent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second paper does not have a prior art date under 35 USC 102(a) because the activity is by the inventors, and not by others.  Before the AIA(America Invents Act of 2011), activity by the inventors had a 1-year grace period before becoming prior art against the inventors' own patent.  Publications more than 1 year before the patent filing date were known as a &quot;statutory bar&quot; under 35 USC 102(b).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below are some citations to patent law and the patent examining manual.&#xD;&#xA;I hope that helps!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[MPEP \[Manual of Patent Examining Procedure\] 2132][6]&#xD;&#xA;**Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **(a)** the invention was known or used **by others** in this country, or patented or **described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country**, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[MPEP 2133][7]&#xD;&#xA;**Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(b)** the invention was patented or **described in a printed publication** in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, **more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US7706365.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US7706365.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.58.1873&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.comm.csl.uiuc.edu/~koetter/allerton/allerton03/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.jsp?reload=true&amp;punumber=8703&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2132.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2133.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17767" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6648" RevisionGUID="73e1e421-382d-4c13-aa39-4284d395337e" CreationDate="2014-06-02T13:46:13.740" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us7103906&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6652" RevisionGUID="13771421-743d-4102-9126-71638eee1348" CreationDate="2014-06-02T17:15:58.587" UserId="8752" Text="My patent expired some years back. I was not knowledgeable as to how to market it back then.&#xD;&#xA;Could I create a new version of it and patent that?&#xD;&#xA;I know I could easily market it, as is, on Youtube now. It is very easy to rip off though.&#xD;&#xA;I had paid its maintenance dues through the years, and it expired because of the 17 year life of the patent protection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17769" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6652" RevisionGUID="13771421-743d-4102-9126-71638eee1348" CreationDate="2014-06-02T17:15:58.587" UserId="8752" Text="My patent expired before I successfully marketed it, can I successfully market it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17770" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6652" RevisionGUID="13771421-743d-4102-9126-71638eee1348" CreationDate="2014-06-02T17:15:58.587" UserId="8752" Text="&lt;expired&gt;&lt;marketing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17772" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="6654" RevisionGUID="17ae6863-97f8-4bf8-8442-121dea3e0624" CreationDate="2014-06-03T15:33:19.437" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/208/help-finding-prior-art-for-us13-135-467-3d-computer-graphics-object-and-method" />
  <row Id="17773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6654" RevisionGUID="18c8955b-cc1d-4678-ae98-9d1008b3357f" CreationDate="2014-02-24T18:02:07.037" UserId="7978" Text="This application (US13135467) is attempting to patent a broad concept of defining &quot;templates&quot; of graphical objects using natural language text: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130009944&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not only is this obvious and not new, but other companies like Microsoft have done this for years. This pHD paper from a Microsoft researcher is from 2006 (the application in question is from 2011) and covers the same idea:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ftp://ftp.heanet.ie/disk1/download.sourceforge.net/pub/sourceforge/v/ve/vedaviz/text%20to%203d%20animation%20PhD%20-%20m%20a%20thesis.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have submitted a form to USPTO using their &quot;Third-Party Preissuance Submission under 37 CFR 1.290&quot; process but it got rejected because I did not state the &quot;The concise description of relevance is missing or is improper&quot; criteria was not met.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps someone with more experience filing these forms can help me out? Or, perhaps, even more obvious prior art exists. It would be a shame if this was patented because it seems very general." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17774" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6654" RevisionGUID="18c8955b-cc1d-4678-ae98-9d1008b3357f" CreationDate="2014-02-24T18:02:07.037" UserId="7978" Text="Help finding prior art for US13/135,467 (3D computer graphics object and method)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17775" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6654" RevisionGUID="18c8955b-cc1d-4678-ae98-9d1008b3357f" CreationDate="2014-02-24T18:02:07.037" UserId="7978" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6655" RevisionGUID="aaff478f-f89c-4e7f-98ac-546a0f708a64" CreationDate="2014-06-03T17:33:47.463" UserId="8753" Text="You can patent a new and improved version of your original patent if the novel claims are not obvious from your prior patent and the other prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17782" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="f12e66c1-1ef2-4c9a-8306-904901fc4385" CreationDate="2014-06-03T18:15:29.963" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;us8069073&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="f12e66c1-1ef2-4c9a-8306-904901fc4385" CreationDate="2014-06-03T18:15:29.963" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Patent has been [invalidated by the US District Court in Southern District of New York][8].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON that describes a seemingly obvious process where by **two parties input their preferences and a recommendation is given** based on a best fit algorithm. Would greatly help alleviate the burden of defense on dozens of start-ups trying to help consumers with recommendation and matching algorithms.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/23/1999** that would invalidate claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Patent Number**: [US8069073][1]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: [Dalton Sentry, LLC][2] appears to have no business other than suing 20 operating companies such as TheLadders, Jobvite, FindTheBest, Monster, etc.&#xD;&#xA; - **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 23, 1999&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for facilitating evaluation, in connection with the procurement or delivery of products or services, in a context of at least one of (i) a financial transaction and (ii) operation of an enterprise, such context involving a first class of parties in a first role and a second class of counterparties in a second role, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. in a first computer process, retrieving first preference data from a first digital storage medium, the first preference data including attribute levels derived from choices made by at least one of the parties in the first class;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.  in a second computer process, retrieving second preference data from a second digital storage medium, the second preference data including attribute levels derived from choices made by at least one of the counterparties in the second class;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. in a third computer process, for a selected party, performing **multilateral analyses** of the selected party's **preference data** and the preference data of each of the counterparties, and computing a **closeness-of-fit** value based thereon;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. and in a fourth computer process, using the computed closeness-of-fit values to derive and provide a **list matching the selected party** and at least one of the counterparties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English overview (at a high level, please read original claims to understand the actual patent):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for evaluating parties in a transaction, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Retrieving preference data about individual(s) in a first group, derived in part from choices made by the individuals (e.g. &quot;do you prefer drama or comedy?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Retrieving preference data about individual(s) in a second group, derived in part from choices made by the individual (e.g. &quot;do you prefer sushi or pasta&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. For a selected individual, performing **multi-lateral analysis** (or **conjoint analysis** to determine **closeness-of-fit** between the subject individual and other individuals of either the first or the second party.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Using **closeness-of-fit** to create a list of individuals well-matched to the subject individual (&quot;people like you are well-matched to the following list of people who also prefer comedy and sushi&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Recommendation &amp; Decision Making - Surveying Users for Preferences&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/UebApW2.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[More background about the '073 patent and 20 lawsuits in which it appears][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us8069073&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/#q=dalton+sentry+llc+lawsuits&amp;safe=off&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://read.bi/1cgdRYa&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/838993-findthebest-judges-ruling.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6656" RevisionGUID="4e3806ba-8551-47d4-8eba-1f9e561dc331" CreationDate="2014-06-03T18:55:05.323" UserId="8757" Text="An ex-employee has taken confidential drawings and designs and applied for a patent that infringes on our companies prior patents. What do I do to stop this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17785" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6656" RevisionGUID="4e3806ba-8551-47d4-8eba-1f9e561dc331" CreationDate="2014-06-03T18:55:05.323" UserId="8757" Text="US patent appl. # us20140027014 is in violation of Laminar Technologies patent # 5842617." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17786" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6656" RevisionGUID="4e3806ba-8551-47d4-8eba-1f9e561dc331" CreationDate="2014-06-03T18:55:05.323" UserId="8757" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17787" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6656" RevisionGUID="764c9557-f3d2-4f13-92ac-682ac7c750e7" CreationDate="2014-06-04T03:25:24.357" UserId="3076" Comment="added tags to patent docs" Text="US patent appl. # us20140027014 is in violation of Laminar Technologies patent # 5842617" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17788" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6656" RevisionGUID="764c9557-f3d2-4f13-92ac-682ac7c750e7" CreationDate="2014-06-04T03:25:24.357" UserId="3076" Comment="added tags to patent docs" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;us20140027014&gt;&lt;us5842617&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6657" RevisionGUID="a1e5f870-5d06-4292-b379-228164831cef" CreationDate="2014-06-04T03:31:07.200" UserId="3076" Text="In google patents US5842617 for it says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Date	Code	Event	Description&#xD;&#xA;    Jan 18, 2011	FP	Expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the patent expired three years ago. They appear to be trying to solve related problems.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6658" RevisionGUID="94e684f8-d3ce-4d2d-bb6f-7ef9cb2f1409" CreationDate="2014-06-04T05:45:10.063" UserId="8165" Text="I have filed a trademark with the USPTO in the past few months, and I'm unsure of if I would be committing illegal action based on what I put on the description for my trademark details. What I described for my trademark was that I was claiming gold filled text outlined in black. Now because I claimed it was &quot;gold&quot; and the picture shows a orange colored gold instead of a shiny metallic gold, could I use metallic shiny gold when I choose to label my products for making cards of the trademark for advertisement purposes? Or is it too late from this point and would I be committing some sort of illegal action being I didn't label my trademark claims as &quot;metallic gold&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17791" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6658" RevisionGUID="94e684f8-d3ce-4d2d-bb6f-7ef9cb2f1409" CreationDate="2014-06-04T05:45:10.063" UserId="8165" Text="Is this of concern with my Trademark?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17792" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6658" RevisionGUID="94e684f8-d3ce-4d2d-bb6f-7ef9cb2f1409" CreationDate="2014-06-04T05:45:10.063" UserId="8165" Text="&lt;trademark&gt;&lt;confused&gt;&lt;help&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6660" RevisionGUID="2bbb9296-fcd2-4af2-becf-88768b94a8b9" CreationDate="2014-06-04T08:55:47.993" UserId="8761" Text="1. What are the differnet types of patent one can have on a molecule&#xD;&#xA;2. What is the difference between composition patent and polymorphic patent&#xD;&#xA;3. How to know if a particular patent is Method of Use or Polymorphic patent&#xD;&#xA;4. Is there a way to know if there is a Para-IV/ FTF filing on a patented molecule&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks &amp; Regards" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17797" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6660" RevisionGUID="2bbb9296-fcd2-4af2-becf-88768b94a8b9" CreationDate="2014-06-04T08:55:47.993" UserId="8761" Text="Different types of patent in Pharma" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17798" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6660" RevisionGUID="2bbb9296-fcd2-4af2-becf-88768b94a8b9" CreationDate="2014-06-04T08:55:47.993" UserId="8761" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6665" RevisionGUID="01e47b16-829b-427b-b92e-83f1eb9ab1ea" CreationDate="2014-06-04T21:36:08.517" UserId="8767" Text="It shouldn't. even if you didn't label it metallic gold, you should be able to use it if you can prove you are the owner and forgot to specify it. Or see if you can edit your TM." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6666" RevisionGUID="b83d05e1-7d65-4268-b840-83a5f7196fec" CreationDate="2014-06-04T21:50:36.920" UserId="8768" Text="To Further &quot;Alex's&quot; point (and to a degree George White's comment), I would have to agree that based upon claim 6 of this patent, claim 6 does indeed &quot;completely contradict&quot; the language of claim 1 of this patent.&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 clearly calls for mutual rotation of the 2 parts/plates(?) around the shaft. It doesn't say both parts rotate around an &quot;axis&quot;, it says &quot;the two plates (Ai, Bi) of each pair are coupled by a horizontal shaft (13) allowing the mutual rotation of the two plates around said **shaft**, which the only way this would be possible would be for both plates to NOT be affixed, attached, pinned, glued, or otherwise &quot;Rigidly fixed&quot; to either of the 2 plates.&#xD;&#xA;Then claim 6, which is a dependent claim from claim 1 states &quot;the horizontal coupling shaft (13) of the two plates (Ai, Bi) of a pair is rigidly fixed, by one of its ends, to a first of the plates (Ai)&quot;, it's over at this point.  As George and Alex have said, you can't have something that is fixed to a shaft, also be able to rotate around the shaft that it's &quot;rigidly fixed&quot; to? I would have to think that since claim 1 is just flat out impossible to achieve, that all other claims related to claim 1 would have to be invalid as well? It looks like somebody snuck one past the PTO on this one. This is a real head scratcher as to how the PTO wouldn't catch this??  IMHO   M. Jackson NSPE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6667" RevisionGUID="c1f10543-6608-4c77-b184-99119101796f" CreationDate="2014-06-05T00:17:47.907" UserId="8289" Text="You can easily search for patents on [Google Patents][1] using their publication number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See http://google.com/patents/us3039165:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Method and apparatus for production of lightweight aggregate from dust**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Publication number: US3039165 A&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Publication type:	Grant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Publication date:	Jun 19, 1962&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Filing date:	Apr 28, 1954&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priority date:	Apr 28, 1954&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to be used to be owned by [Solite Corp][2] but patents expire in 20 years, which means everyone is free to use it since 1982.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://google.com/patents&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com.sg/search?q=solite%20corp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6667" RevisionGUID="0912a427-2544-445d-a432-05044d4efc50" CreationDate="2014-06-05T00:23:24.970" UserId="8289" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="You can easily search for patents on [Google Patents][1] using their publication number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [Google.com/patents/us3039165][2] (it even has a link to *this* page):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Method and apparatus for production of lightweight aggregate from dust**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Publication number: US3039165 A&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Publication type:	Grant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Publication date:	Jun 19, 1962&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Filing date:	Apr 28, 1954&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priority date:	Apr 28, 1954&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to be used to be owned by [Solite Corp][3] but patents expire in 20 years, which means everyone is free to use it since 1982.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://google.com/patents&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://Google.com/patents/us3039165&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com.sg/search?q=solite%20corp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6667" RevisionGUID="29155730-fadb-4021-bf4f-97f5985fc885" CreationDate="2014-06-05T02:20:44.877" UserId="8289" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="You can easily search for patents on [Google Patents][1] using their publication number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [Google.com/patents/us3039165][2] (it even has a link to *this* page):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Method and apparatus for production of lightweight aggregate from dust**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Publication number: US3039165 A&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Publication type:	Grant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Publication date:	Jun 19, 1962&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Filing date:	Apr 28, 1954&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priority date:	Apr 28, 1954&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to be used to be owned by [Solite Corp][3] but [old patents expire 17 years after grant or 20 years from filing, whichever greater][4]. This means that everyone has been free to use it since 1979.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://google.com/patents&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://Google.com/patents/us3039165&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com.sg/search?q=solite%20corp&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3803/8289" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6668" RevisionGUID="3e9bf011-40b1-4305-a910-92a3ee3ab6f7" CreationDate="2014-06-05T02:40:36.650" UserId="8289" Text="The [challenge on Microsoft's patent US 20130063492][1] states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Availability for Challenge: Open Until at least Sept 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is the &quot;available for challenge&quot; date obtained?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What steps must we take to extend the challenge date of an application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/3566/8289" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17818" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6668" RevisionGUID="3e9bf011-40b1-4305-a910-92a3ee3ab6f7" CreationDate="2014-06-05T02:40:36.650" UserId="8289" Text="How can the challenge date of an application be extended?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17819" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6668" RevisionGUID="3e9bf011-40b1-4305-a910-92a3ee3ab6f7" CreationDate="2014-06-05T02:40:36.650" UserId="8289" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;challenge&gt;&lt;date&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17823" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6658" RevisionGUID="b3ffa8d0-892f-4ea4-ab32-52914d02a986" CreationDate="2014-06-05T05:20:29.740" UserId="118" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;trademark&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6672" RevisionGUID="ef373d33-9a93-4da6-93bf-c961b872485a" CreationDate="2014-06-05T11:29:36.140" UserId="8777" Text="us3611966 patent .&#xD;&#xA;please clarifiy if this patent is still valid .&#xD;&#xA;When the answer is positive ,is there any provided expiration date?&#xD;&#xA;l.marchisio&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17831" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6672" RevisionGUID="ef373d33-9a93-4da6-93bf-c961b872485a" CreationDate="2014-06-05T11:29:36.140" UserId="8777" Text="IS THE US 3611966 PATENT STIL ACTIVE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17832" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6672" RevisionGUID="ef373d33-9a93-4da6-93bf-c961b872485a" CreationDate="2014-06-05T11:29:36.140" UserId="8777" Text="&lt;us3611966&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6673" RevisionGUID="196ff14a-08fc-459b-9c9c-e9abe7e769c1" CreationDate="2014-06-05T11:47:36.593" UserId="8778" Text="I have just been looking at the patent for the aquaponics farm and wondered does the patent cover all aquaponic type products or only that particular product?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kind Regards,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jon " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17834" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6673" RevisionGUID="196ff14a-08fc-459b-9c9c-e9abe7e769c1" CreationDate="2014-06-05T11:47:36.593" UserId="8778" Text="Do patents apply to the product or the concept?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17835" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6673" RevisionGUID="196ff14a-08fc-459b-9c9c-e9abe7e769c1" CreationDate="2014-06-05T11:47:36.593" UserId="8778" Text="&lt;us20140047767&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6674" RevisionGUID="e38a3027-ce5f-43dd-a5c1-492ee4b9284b" CreationDate="2014-06-05T16:49:16.193" UserId="8645" Text="What if an idea was preposed, and not patented... and someone stole it and claimed it of their own, what could be the outcome?&#xD;&#xA;Can the developer of that idea take that patent for their own? Or basically, take back all their rights for the patent? What about the person/company that stole it, can they possible benefit from it? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17840" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6674" RevisionGUID="e38a3027-ce5f-43dd-a5c1-492ee4b9284b" CreationDate="2014-06-05T16:49:16.193" UserId="8645" Text="What if someone stole an idea and patented it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17841" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6674" RevisionGUID="e38a3027-ce5f-43dd-a5c1-492ee4b9284b" CreationDate="2014-06-05T16:49:16.193" UserId="8645" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6675" RevisionGUID="a377f653-5e5a-4a6a-9f99-989826059aae" CreationDate="2014-06-05T19:41:43.020" UserId="8781" Text="I came across a product that is solid almost exclusively in Europe with no reach or patenting in the USA. Am I able to pursue production and sale of this product in the USA? Do European patents apply to US markets?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17843" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6675" RevisionGUID="a377f653-5e5a-4a6a-9f99-989826059aae" CreationDate="2014-06-05T19:41:43.020" UserId="8781" Text="Is a patented European product able to be produced in US?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17844" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6675" RevisionGUID="a377f653-5e5a-4a6a-9f99-989826059aae" CreationDate="2014-06-05T19:41:43.020" UserId="8781" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6677" RevisionGUID="99bd7d14-aa33-4914-93cb-3ab21849bb6d" CreationDate="2014-06-05T21:29:08.567" UserId="8767" Text="Like what George said: 	&#xD;&#xA;Basically they cover whatever the wording of the claims say. so you might want to include the concept in it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17852" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2122" RevisionGUID="97aba40f-db43-4907-81af-00db43b2d81d" CreationDate="2014-06-06T02:07:12.610" UserId="8289" Comment="added &quot;status&quot; tag" Text="&lt;usa&gt;&lt;search&gt;&lt;status&gt;&lt;us20050015326&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17853" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2122" RevisionGUID="97aba40f-db43-4907-81af-00db43b2d81d" CreationDate="2014-06-06T02:07:12.610" Comment="Proposed by 8289 approved by 1259, 3076 edit id of 548" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17854" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5595" RevisionGUID="b97a65e7-c0c4-4873-9cd6-b8fc1971c5b1" CreationDate="2014-06-06T02:07:22.497" UserId="8289" Comment="corrected link to google" Text="How do I get the current status of [this patent][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Publication number	WO2006064303 A1&#xD;&#xA;    Publication type	Application&#xD;&#xA;    Application number	PCT/IB2004/004129&#xD;&#xA;    Publication date	Jun 22, 2006&#xD;&#xA;    Filing date	        Dec     15, 2004&#xD;&#xA;    Priority date	    Dec 15, 2004&#xD;&#xA;    Also published as	EP1824719A1&#xD;&#xA;    Inventors	        Sudesh Kumar Mittal, Mehar Alam Shamshi, Sandeep Kalra, Bal Kishor Sharma&#xD;&#xA;    Applicant	        Council Scient Ind Res, 4 More »&#xD;&#xA;    Export Citation	    BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Patent Citations (4), Non-Patent Citations (1), Classifications (5), Legal Events (7)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it pending or granted? What is current situation? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2006064303A1&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17855" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5595" RevisionGUID="b97a65e7-c0c4-4873-9cd6-b8fc1971c5b1" CreationDate="2014-06-06T02:07:22.497" Comment="Proposed by 8289 approved by 1259, 3076 edit id of 546" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6679" RevisionGUID="0733dcd2-003d-4fe4-bcc6-53c9a296a661" CreationDate="2014-06-06T04:25:40.107" UserId="8783" Text="You can't patent a concept if by concept you mean an idea. The concept has to be applicable in industrial use and it has to be expressed as a product (manufacture) or a process" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6680" RevisionGUID="594a3796-7440-4581-ae57-ee713b48b7b7" CreationDate="2014-06-06T04:29:41.820" UserId="8783" Text="One of the criteria for evaluating patent applications is novelty. The idea described in an application is not novel if it has been disclosed previously in whatever form - oral, written, through use or demonstration. Even a granted patent can be invalidated if it's proven to have been prematurely disclosed " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17860" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="309" RevisionGUID="7dbacc1d-74be-4088-b88b-874614c6c86a" CreationDate="2014-06-06T12:59:14.363" UserId="8289" Comment="added important information which if left out, leaves the post as borderline misleading" Text="&gt;Should I patent my idea before posting it on public internet forums?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you post it on a public forum, then it becomes prior art for the others. So they can't patent it! You, on the other hand, have only one year to file before it becomes prior art for you as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Could someone who sees my post beat me to it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theoretically, `No`. Even if someone tries to *beat you to it*, you can always post the prior art (which you yourself posted) to nullify it [Ref:[America Invents Act of 2011](http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_patentreformact2011.html)]. There's a good probability that the patent agent reviewing an application might miss the prior art you posted and grant the patent but this reform should take care of that discrepancy for the `US`. For other countries, you'll have to do a little research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT-** It seems the US is changing to first-to-file [(active 16 March 2013)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent#The_USA.27s_change_to_first-to-file)  which means that the one year grace period is gone, so that after posting online, it immediately becomes prior art for the poster too [**unless you file a provisitional application which costs $125**][1]. So if you want to patent your idea, you just shouldn't post it before filing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/282/should-i-patent-my-idea-before-posting-it-on-the-internet?rq=1#comment-266" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17861" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="309" RevisionGUID="7dbacc1d-74be-4088-b88b-874614c6c86a" CreationDate="2014-06-06T12:59:14.363" Comment="Proposed by 8289 approved by 1259, 5071 edit id of 547" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6684" RevisionGUID="18693d3c-ed23-41bc-889c-784cfb780b9a" CreationDate="2014-06-07T13:26:41.780" UserId="8794" Text="Suppose there is a patent whose first claim essentially covers &quot;a system comprising *a* computing device having code usable by said computing device, said code comprising: code configured to do A; code configured to do B&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now if I implement a system with *two* computers such that computer 1 has the code to do A and computer 2 has the code to do B, and the computers are connected via ethernet or similar, do I violate this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it help if I can reasonably justify that the two-computer implementation is more natural (because of physical distance between the stuff needed for A and B, and also fault tolerance) and therefore it would have been built like that, even if the patent had not existed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia [says][1]: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;An apple&quot; never means more than one apple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I trust that this is true in the patent context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A related but not identical question: [Does plurality mean that it must have more than 1 camera?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_%28grammar%29#Indefinite_article&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/2045/does-plurality-mean-that-it-must-have-more-than-1-camera" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17874" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6684" RevisionGUID="18693d3c-ed23-41bc-889c-784cfb780b9a" CreationDate="2014-06-07T13:26:41.780" UserId="8794" Text="Does the singular indefinite article &quot;a&quot; mean no more than one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17875" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6684" RevisionGUID="18693d3c-ed23-41bc-889c-784cfb780b9a" CreationDate="2014-06-07T13:26:41.780" UserId="8794" Text="&lt;terminology&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17876" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6674" RevisionGUID="ac4f87d1-17da-4605-96e8-25078e9f2a1e" CreationDate="2014-06-07T13:35:03.787" UserId="8713" Comment="more succinict tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17877" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6674" RevisionGUID="ac4f87d1-17da-4605-96e8-25078e9f2a1e" CreationDate="2014-06-07T13:35:03.787" Comment="Proposed by 8713 approved by 3076, 1259 edit id of 549" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6686" RevisionGUID="5fbed2c4-3f60-45fe-8279-2de77a0ec976" CreationDate="2014-06-08T01:42:29.057" UserId="8795" Text="Is this patent expired or still in use? How do I find out if this design patent is still valid" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17880" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6686" RevisionGUID="5fbed2c4-3f60-45fe-8279-2de77a0ec976" CreationDate="2014-06-08T01:42:29.057" UserId="8795" Text="Availability of patent 361, 211" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17881" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6686" RevisionGUID="5fbed2c4-3f60-45fe-8279-2de77a0ec976" CreationDate="2014-06-08T01:42:29.057" UserId="8795" Text="&lt;design&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6687" RevisionGUID="ba7b0764-7d87-4ed7-9435-bd78a4797ccc" CreationDate="2014-06-08T05:00:06.083" UserId="8796" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I understand that drug patents are worth a lot of money.  However, I wonder what the most valuable computer patents in history have been, both hardware and software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's almost surely not PageRank.  Beside the fact that it is just the first principal component and may or may not hold up, iterating a few times over the matrix will give a result that is almost as good.  Bing is not hampered by lack of access to PageRank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The blue LED was ultimately worth only $9 million to its inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe the transistor?  Or IC's?  Or ... ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know patents can be difficult to value, but many were directly licensed.  Others were the foundations of companies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the top-10 list here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17883" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6687" RevisionGUID="ba7b0764-7d87-4ed7-9435-bd78a4797ccc" CreationDate="2014-06-08T05:00:06.083" UserId="8796" Text="What are the most valuable computer patents in history?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17884" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6687" RevisionGUID="ba7b0764-7d87-4ed7-9435-bd78a4797ccc" CreationDate="2014-06-08T05:00:06.083" UserId="8796" Text="&lt;value&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6690" RevisionGUID="e0627625-c871-43b9-b485-334ec64b2fd1" CreationDate="2014-06-08T17:10:45.520" UserId="8800" Text="What are some tips to get software patent application approved by USPO?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm responsible for the software development at a startup, and to protect our Intellectual Property I need to submit multiple software inventions to our 3rd party patent attorney company for patent applications to USPO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inventions are for embedded software, mobile GUI apps, and backend system management.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17892" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6690" RevisionGUID="e0627625-c871-43b9-b485-334ec64b2fd1" CreationDate="2014-06-08T17:10:45.520" UserId="8800" Text="tips on how to get software patent application approved" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17893" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6690" RevisionGUID="e0627625-c871-43b9-b485-334ec64b2fd1" CreationDate="2014-06-08T17:10:45.520" UserId="8800" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7689" RevisionGUID="f941723c-e864-4491-b886-3d9a933ab5e7" CreationDate="2014-06-08T18:29:32.817" UserId="9799" Text="This patent looks like it does the same think as mine.patent #12/674,848&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know more about the other patent. Mabe we could work together to help Cattle Farmers around the World Grow better stock.&#xD;&#xA;Thank you &#xD;&#xA;Forrest V Jones" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18889" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7689" RevisionGUID="f941723c-e864-4491-b886-3d9a933ab5e7" CreationDate="2014-06-08T18:29:32.817" UserId="9799" Text="Two people can't have the same technology ? It looks the same to me from what I can see" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18890" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7689" RevisionGUID="f941723c-e864-4491-b886-3d9a933ab5e7" CreationDate="2014-06-08T18:29:32.817" UserId="9799" Text="&lt;us8276545&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7690" RevisionGUID="ab835376-cd60-460b-b459-43fb363bdcbc" CreationDate="2014-06-09T09:03:46.443" UserId="8751" Text="Usually your patent attorney, assuming he has good prior experience in this domain, will ask you the right set of questions to ready your application and as an inventor you must do your best to answer those questions as clearly and accurately as possible. One tip based on some common issues faced in software prosecution in my experience is to be as clear as possible on meanings of terms, buzz words, etc. to fall back on to differentiate against the ample publication in this space. Vague usage and being vague on the details on how the invention can be implemented can be hurtful. An example or use cases also help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If possible, consider having the 3rd party do a preliminary prior art search on the inventions so you have an early understanding of whats out there in that domain and also some understanding of how prosecution at USPTO works - such as how existing knowledge can be used in unexpected ways against your invention during prosecution. In my experience, prior art searches often help inventors structure their thought process and provide clearer details on novel features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6527" RevisionGUID="c7e1d7f8-3f99-4263-bc23-35ceb27055fc" CreationDate="2014-06-09T14:26:00.890" UserId="9801" Comment="Updating post language to meet Q&amp;A and adding appropriate links." Text="It seems that there exists prior art for [PCT/US2013/057893 by Game Concourse, Inc.][1] (filed Sep 3, 2013)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone refer to [US 13/068,782 by Wesley Boudville][2] (filed May 16, 2011) and confirm the same?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless of the status of their US Provisional from 2012, my patent subsumes theirs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2014036568A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8532632" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18893" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6527" RevisionGUID="c7e1d7f8-3f99-4263-bc23-35ceb27055fc" CreationDate="2014-06-09T14:26:00.890" UserId="9801" Comment="Updating post language to meet Q&amp;A and adding appropriate links." Text="Possible Prior Art for PCT/US2013/057893" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18894" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6527" RevisionGUID="c7e1d7f8-3f99-4263-bc23-35ceb27055fc" CreationDate="2014-06-09T14:26:00.890" UserId="9801" Comment="Updating post language to meet Q&amp;A and adding appropriate links." Text="&lt;barcode&gt;&lt;us8532632&gt;&lt;wo2014036568a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18895" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6527" RevisionGUID="c7e1d7f8-3f99-4263-bc23-35ceb27055fc" CreationDate="2014-06-09T14:26:00.890" Comment="Proposed by 9801 approved by 5071, 1259 edit id of 550" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7691" RevisionGUID="fe8884ac-d468-4f07-aed0-9372ce5a6af9" CreationDate="2014-06-09T15:22:13.920" UserId="8767" Text=" If the patent application filing date was on or before June 8, 1995, the nominal expiration date is the longer of 17 years from the date of issue or 20 years from the earliest non-provisional priority claim.&#xD;&#xA;So it should have expired **unless** the owner renewed the patent. &#xD;&#xA;(I can't find the renewal date, but it was filed on June 4, 1969)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7693" RevisionGUID="7d246053-046d-41fe-8b60-66a9de9c370a" CreationDate="2014-06-09T20:06:16.543" UserId="9804" Text="I would like to leverage an existing (and patented) research methodology, but use it in a different way. The current patented methodology relies on a specific process of humans prescribing assignments and asking questions of other humans, whereas I believe that this process could be conducted in a different way online (in mass quantity) and become more scalable and more accurate. I want to give credit and recognition to the original patent holder. I'm just wondering how much say they will/should have in the deployment of a modified process that takes their original concept to the next level, and how much it will likely cost to leverage their original invention. Thanks in advance for your help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18900" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7693" RevisionGUID="7d246053-046d-41fe-8b60-66a9de9c370a" CreationDate="2014-06-09T20:06:16.543" UserId="9804" Text="Can I build a new research methodology or application that leverages an existing research methodology?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18901" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7693" RevisionGUID="7d246053-046d-41fe-8b60-66a9de9c370a" CreationDate="2014-06-09T20:06:16.543" UserId="9804" Text="&lt;research&gt;&lt;marketing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7695" RevisionGUID="a17e505d-a9bd-4d8b-9e64-8ee905adaadd" CreationDate="2014-06-10T02:43:37.837" UserId="9806" Text="Am I able to submit an idea for a patent and then have a service that involves checking the originality of the idea / probability that it can be developed without interfering with other similar existing patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18906" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7695" RevisionGUID="a17e505d-a9bd-4d8b-9e64-8ee905adaadd" CreationDate="2014-06-10T02:43:37.837" UserId="9806" Text="Verifying originality/unique-ness of idea- without stepping on the toes of another idea" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18907" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7695" RevisionGUID="a17e505d-a9bd-4d8b-9e64-8ee905adaadd" CreationDate="2014-06-10T02:43:37.837" UserId="9806" Text="&lt;verification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7696" RevisionGUID="915dec0a-a65b-4578-a609-b01bc2f17009" CreationDate="2014-06-10T04:53:55.417" UserId="3076" Text="It seems like one question but you are asking two questions somewhat twisted together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; One question is how do you assess the chances of getting a patent on your clever concept. People usually have a novelty search on the clever concept done by a professional searcher or work with a patent attorney or patent agent who might do the search in house or might subcontract with a search company. A searcher can find things and send to you but not give an opinion. Of course the patent office will also do a search as part of deciding if a patent is deserved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other question is if you ship your complete product - clever parts and ordinary parts - will the the complete product or some part of it infringe on an in force patent. For this you need a search called a clearance search or a freedom to operate search on all aspects of the shipping product, not just the part you think is clever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two answers are complete separate. It could be yes/no, no/yes, yes/yes or no/no." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="43fd3eab-9a6d-4395-b00e-e836cf3e58d9" CreationDate="2014-06-10T17:57:34.570" UserId="9810" Text="Is there any way to find out if a patent application is connected to results from a hackathon? For example, it has been said that DropBox, Inc. filed two patent applications (password strength meter, two party authentication process) based on the results from an company-wide hackathon. I am trying to find out if any other companies have similar results from hackathons. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18926" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="43fd3eab-9a6d-4395-b00e-e836cf3e58d9" CreationDate="2014-06-10T17:57:34.570" UserId="9810" Text="Generation of patent ideas" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18927" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="43fd3eab-9a6d-4395-b00e-e836cf3e58d9" CreationDate="2014-06-10T17:57:34.570" UserId="9810" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;idea&gt;&lt;generation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7702" RevisionGUID="215185ae-e02b-443c-a4bd-afee42b017d4" CreationDate="2014-06-10T20:12:28.997" UserId="9811" Text="This application is claiming everything that is involved in Bitcoin mining or any other cryptocurrency mining using Asic chips where the block chain is segmented and hashed by multiple parallel hash units and then recombined.  I would like to make sure open source cryptocurrency is not patented.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there should be something out there that teaches how to speed up mining with the use of GPU or Asic chips that is before July 11th, 2012.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any Help would be appreciated! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18929" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7702" RevisionGUID="215185ae-e02b-443c-a4bd-afee42b017d4" CreationDate="2014-06-10T20:12:28.997" UserId="9811" Text="BITCOIN and CRYPTOCURRENCY Mining prior art requested for US2014/0019693 help opensource" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18930" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7702" RevisionGUID="215185ae-e02b-443c-a4bd-afee42b017d4" CreationDate="2014-06-10T20:12:28.997" UserId="9811" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;opensource&gt;&lt;bitcoin&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18934" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7702" RevisionGUID="f2fecf9a-15ca-4f51-b850-ed4fc5998529" CreationDate="2014-06-11T04:21:31.523" UserId="3076" Comment="added tags to patent doc" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;opensource&gt;&lt;bitcoin&gt;&lt;us20140019693&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18935" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="7702" RevisionGUID="eaff021b-d072-400c-a6ce-38f3ee33d0b3" CreationDate="2014-06-11T05:05:06.293" UserId="1767" Comment="26" />
  <row Id="18936" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7702" RevisionGUID="f3c16d37-6bbb-4e92-bfa4-f1e822ed549c" CreationDate="2014-06-11T05:05:28.200" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;opensource&gt;&lt;bitcoin&gt;&lt;us20140019693&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7705" RevisionGUID="74674dd9-3d88-4497-b7bc-3405375497b8" CreationDate="2014-06-11T09:08:11.453" UserId="9816" Text="Is there any on-going research on this potentially useful invention? Why has it not been developed to practical use? patent: us5676977" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18944" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7705" RevisionGUID="74674dd9-3d88-4497-b7bc-3405375497b8" CreationDate="2014-06-11T09:08:11.453" UserId="9816" Text="Is there any on-going research on this potentially useful invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18945" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7705" RevisionGUID="74674dd9-3d88-4497-b7bc-3405375497b8" CreationDate="2014-06-11T09:08:11.453" UserId="9816" Text="&lt;develop&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7708" RevisionGUID="0bd92038-f8ef-4a88-8dfd-bc44d38d7125" CreationDate="2014-06-11T22:26:57.283" UserId="9821" Text="Assuming you mean the design patent, D361,211: this issued in 1995 and expired 17 years later in 2012. So it's dead and cannot be revived.&#xA;&#xA;http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PALL&amp;RefSrch=yes&amp;Query=PN/D361211" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7709" RevisionGUID="6459af19-1802-4cec-9bbd-1f810f49c77e" CreationDate="2014-06-11T23:42:22.683" UserId="8360" Text="I have the service manual for a 1987 Honda Civic. There are three sections I've made a copy of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. [Electrical Service][1]&#xD;&#xA; 2. [Electrical Wiring Diagrams][2]&#xD;&#xA; 3. [Electrical Troubleshooting][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of the three, it would seem to me that the Troubleshooting section would be of the most help, since it describes the state of the electrical system when certain conditions are present (so you can determine where the fault is occurring). Unfortunately, this section had some problems when it was originally scanned, and some of the pages are just black on the bottom, due to corrupted data. Most of the 326 pages of information is accessible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully they can all be of help. Leave me a comment if you would like to see if I can get a copy of a manual for the electrical system of a newer vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://onedrive.live.com/download.aspx?resid=AA7F13B575BFA25!4642&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://onedrive.live.com/download.aspx?resid=AA7F13B575BFA25!4641&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://onedrive.live.com/download.aspx?resid=AA7F13B575BFA25!4643" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18955" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7705" RevisionGUID="4f0e919a-7b77-4da0-be4a-8b7197397284" CreationDate="2014-06-12T02:16:19.207" UserId="3076" Comment="added tags to patent doc" Text="&lt;develop&gt;&lt;us5676977&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7712" RevisionGUID="b114418b-b43f-4ded-a3e4-b9e20ed9acf9" CreationDate="2014-06-12T22:22:08.333" UserId="9828" Text="Regarding &quot;if the Canadian guy's patent is rejected, can I try&quot;, I assume you mean &quot;can I try to patent it&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is no, insofar as what you want to patent is contained in (or obvious in light of) his patent application. You can only get a patent for something that is new, not something that is already in public knowledge (e.g. published for all to see). His patent application is published for all to see (as you correctly pointed out), so whatever he described is no longer patentable, even if he eventually abandons his application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, you say that his patent application is badly written, so it could be that he left out some important parts of the invention. If those things he left out are inventive (not something that would be obvious based on his application) and not known to the public, you may be able to protect those things with a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your right to commercialise the application, it really depends where you want to do it and where he enters national phase with his international application. You need to transform your international application into a national one in all the countries you want a patent in. In almost all countries, the deadline is 30 or 31 months from the original filing date (it can go to 42 in Canada, but that is an exception and he already has an application there). So if it's been long enough, you'll be able to check whether he got a patent pending in the market you want to commercialize in. If he doesn't, you're clear in that market as far as that patent holder is concerned. (Be aware that there can be some delays before national phases are published.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7713" RevisionGUID="4a747cc4-7bf1-4857-9a70-7fefe8fd3b10" CreationDate="2014-06-13T08:08:48.070" UserId="9829" Text="This idea (us20140112139) is actually described in RFC6748, which was published as a draft on January 12 2012.&#xD;&#xA;[IETF RFC6748 draft][1]&#xD;&#xA;None of the &quot;inventors&quot; are listed in the RFC draft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea is actually much older:&#xD;&#xA;[ILNP website][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this classify as prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-adv-00&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ilnp.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18967" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7713" RevisionGUID="4a747cc4-7bf1-4857-9a70-7fefe8fd3b10" CreationDate="2014-06-13T08:08:48.070" UserId="9829" Text="Is it prior art if the idea has been published as RFC draft before the filing date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18968" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7713" RevisionGUID="4a747cc4-7bf1-4857-9a70-7fefe8fd3b10" CreationDate="2014-06-13T08:08:48.070" UserId="9829" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18969" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7713" RevisionGUID="e65abb55-0654-4a69-9817-dc242899010d" CreationDate="2014-06-13T13:23:15.833" UserId="1259" Comment="tag" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20140112139&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7714" RevisionGUID="e9e1e738-cc6e-4de0-93b5-a68cf243fcbc" CreationDate="2014-06-13T20:59:46.787" UserId="5055" Text="Please note that **prior art only means relevant information satisfying the priority constraint**. The patent application's first claim is quite long and to invalidate this application with a single prior art document (e.g. the RFC), every aspect of the claim must be described in the document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The IETF RFC6748 draft definitely is relevant to the claimed invention. And the applicant actually mentioned this RFC in their IDS filing to the USPTO, they actually acknowledged it is prior art. Yet, they believe the RFC draft doesn't restrict the novelty of their invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record, this invention was first filed in the US, then a PCT application was filed, with a search report drafted by the EPO. The EPO found more prior art, including a US patent and a US patent application, but only in category &quot;A&quot; (not particularly relevant)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7715" RevisionGUID="168b9241-aa3f-4388-a9a3-5dd62c548da3" CreationDate="2014-06-14T05:30:35.777" UserId="9832" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I looked at the patent 4636489 in google patents and found inconsistencies.&#xD;&#xA;Is it eglin or elgin? &#xD;&#xA;In the patent title it is spelled one way and in the text the other way. &#xD;&#xA;How should it be?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18984" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7715" RevisionGUID="168b9241-aa3f-4388-a9a3-5dd62c548da3" CreationDate="2014-06-14T05:30:35.777" UserId="9832" Text="Is it eglin or elgin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18985" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7715" RevisionGUID="168b9241-aa3f-4388-a9a3-5dd62c548da3" CreationDate="2014-06-14T05:30:35.777" UserId="9832" Text="&lt;us4636489&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7717" RevisionGUID="9b796838-f7cd-45bc-865e-9ee7e336b1e1" CreationDate="2014-06-16T09:30:42.853" UserId="9842" Text="What does a published PCT number mean exactly? (Of the form  PCT/IB2011/nnnnnn).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it grant any legal/intellectual rights in any way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it have any effect in this regard that a WO2013nnnnnnA1 number is also assigned?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18991" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7717" RevisionGUID="9b796838-f7cd-45bc-865e-9ee7e336b1e1" CreationDate="2014-06-16T09:30:42.853" UserId="9842" Text="What is a PCT number?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18992" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7717" RevisionGUID="9b796838-f7cd-45bc-865e-9ee7e336b1e1" CreationDate="2014-06-16T09:30:42.853" UserId="9842" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7720" RevisionGUID="539ef0be-c1d7-481b-acb2-e4dd7ef5d8df" CreationDate="2014-06-16T19:37:08.543" UserId="3076" Text="The PCT/111111 is an application number assigned at the time an application is filed. The corresponding WO/ number is a PCT publication number. It labels the document issued by WIPO that has the content of the application. Neither implies any rights other than the right to file other things within specific time frames. PCT is an application process - not a granting process - only governments (with courts for enforcement) can issue a patent right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7723" RevisionGUID="1d42b837-4cf3-4ca6-9f02-d026262866db" CreationDate="2014-06-17T03:57:07.377" UserId="9848" Text="Well, you could look at companies that you know hold hackathons, search through only their patents, and then maybe search for patents with a high number of inventors, or something like that. But you'd probably still be left with a lot to hand-parse. I think your better bet would be to ask the companies directly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7726" RevisionGUID="a00be1ac-8f17-494f-9a35-8b2692f7fc10" CreationDate="2014-06-17T22:06:40.017" UserId="9855" Text="https://www.google.com/patents/US20140038722&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of transforming a virtual entity from a first game to be useable in a second game comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a. Obtaining a set&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of created correlations between characteristics defining the virtual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; entity in the first game with characteristics available in the second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; game to define a virtual entity;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  b. applying the correlations to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; characteristics defining the virtual entity in the first game to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; create a set correlated characteristics;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  c. creating a new virtual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; entity in the second game with the correlated characteristics&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  d. the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; created correlations and applying the correlations to create the new&#xD;&#xA;&gt; virtual entity being independent of a player selection or input, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  e. storing the created correlations in a non-transitory memory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This appears to apply to video games in a series that allow you to import saves from previous games. Mass Effect 2 (2010) is a recent example. Quest for Glory 2 (1990) was one of the first games to allow this. Are these valid examples of prior art for this patent? Are there any earlier examples?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19016" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7726" RevisionGUID="a00be1ac-8f17-494f-9a35-8b2692f7fc10" CreationDate="2014-06-17T22:06:40.017" UserId="9855" Text="Prior Art Request for US 20140038722 A1 &quot;Universal virtual entity transformation&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19017" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7726" RevisionGUID="a00be1ac-8f17-494f-9a35-8b2692f7fc10" CreationDate="2014-06-17T22:06:40.017" UserId="9855" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19018" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7726" RevisionGUID="0d724898-508d-40a0-974e-d3a76f233f74" CreationDate="2014-06-17T22:20:35.160" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20140038722&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7727" RevisionGUID="506442d4-1af9-4305-8ba7-fd8d918f2288" CreationDate="2014-06-17T23:14:25.857" UserId="9856" Text="Ultima 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_V:_Warriors_of_Destiny) allowed the import of characters from Ultima 4.  This was mentioned in a review http://spoonyexperiment.com/game-reviews/ultima-5-warriors-of-destiny/ around the 7:14 mark.  The game was made in 1988." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7729" RevisionGUID="a1d5e789-1fad-4992-92c3-6bee5a234a56" CreationDate="2014-06-18T01:36:49.543" UserId="8184" Text="Does anyone have any patent drawing experience? I'm looking to do it on my own and I figure there's some decent software out there somewhere. Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19024" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7729" RevisionGUID="a1d5e789-1fad-4992-92c3-6bee5a234a56" CreationDate="2014-06-18T01:36:49.543" UserId="8184" Text="What is the best free reliable patent drawing software?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19025" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7729" RevisionGUID="a1d5e789-1fad-4992-92c3-6bee5a234a56" CreationDate="2014-06-18T01:36:49.543" UserId="8184" Text="&lt;drawing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7730" RevisionGUID="e46663fb-f0de-4241-8e68-38f30d3f58e2" CreationDate="2014-06-18T02:27:35.197" UserId="9858" Text="I would think that Pokemon is another example of prior art, yes?  It's possible to take a pokemon from [Pokemon FireRed all the way through to Pokemon X][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember Baldur's Gate II allowed you to import your character from Baldur's Gate I, too.  It even works on the modernized [Enhanced Editions][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thonky.com/pokemon/trade-from-firered-to-x/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://steamcommunity.com/app/257350/discussions/0/666826250797787467/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7732" RevisionGUID="d7b8a7e0-b0ca-46d8-affa-1f09d84570c5" CreationDate="2014-06-19T12:15:32.440" UserId="9871" Text="I'm a professional pentester and generally conduct a lot of webapplication assessments where we use the described techniques for detecting vulnerabilities. These techniques are not new and the patent basically describes the general approach every pentester uses to assess their web applications. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my eyes the patent granted is a bit like as if someone suddenly would take a patent on writing words to a piece of paper with pen using the latin alphabet. It does not make sense to me that this exists and was granted in the first place. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder what this patent effetively means for all security professionals performing security assessments on Web Applications (or creators of automated tools such as Portswigger's Burp, IBM's Appscan or OWASP's Zed Attack Proxy (ZAP)).  Are we to be worried that Google can start demanding money for creating automated tools using these techniques or even from consultants? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19031" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7732" RevisionGUID="d7b8a7e0-b0ca-46d8-affa-1f09d84570c5" CreationDate="2014-06-19T12:15:32.440" UserId="9871" Text="Google's patent for &quot;Detecting security vulnerabilities in web applications&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19032" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7732" RevisionGUID="d7b8a7e0-b0ca-46d8-affa-1f09d84570c5" CreationDate="2014-06-19T12:15:32.440" UserId="9871" Text="&lt;us8695098&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7732" RevisionGUID="41283a5b-b182-4134-87c2-6512d5725117" CreationDate="2014-06-19T12:21:17.883" UserId="9871" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body; edited title" Text="I'm a professional pentester and generally conduct a lot of webapplication assessments where we use the described techniques for detecting vulnerabilities. These techniques are not new and the patent basically describes the general approach every pentester uses to assess their web applications. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my eyes the patent granted is a bit like as if someone suddenly would take a patent on writing words to a piece of paper with pen using the latin alphabet. It does not make sense to me that this exists and was granted in the first place. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder what this patent effetively means for all security professionals performing security assessments on Web Applications (or creators of automated tools such as Portswigger's Burp or OWASP's Zed Attack Proxy (ZAP)).  Are we to be worried that IBM can start demanding money for creating automated tools using these techniques or even from consultants? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19034" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7732" RevisionGUID="41283a5b-b182-4134-87c2-6512d5725117" CreationDate="2014-06-19T12:21:17.883" UserId="9871" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body; edited title" Text="IBM's patent for &quot;Detecting security vulnerabilities in web applications&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7732" RevisionGUID="584abf49-40bd-465e-9cfd-1fab08d8263f" CreationDate="2014-06-19T17:42:41.480" UserId="3076" Comment="Added claim 1" Text="I'm a professional pentester and generally conduct a lot of webapplication assessments where we use the described techniques for detecting vulnerabilities. These techniques are not new and the patent basically describes the general approach every pentester uses to assess their web applications. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my eyes the patent granted is a bit like as if someone suddenly would take a patent on writing words to a piece of paper with pen using the latin alphabet. It does not make sense to me that this exists and was granted in the first place. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder what this patent effetively means for all security professionals performing security assessments on Web Applications (or creators of automated tools such as Portswigger's Burp or OWASP's Zed Attack Proxy (ZAP)).  Are we to be worried that IBM can start demanding money for creating automated tools using these techniques or even from consultants? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a black-box tester comprising a hardware processor configured to interact with a web application during its execution to identify a web page exposed by the web application, the web application being hosted by a server and accessible by a client computer;&#xD;&#xA;a constraint manager configured to:&#xD;&#xA;receive the web page identified by the black-box tester;&#xD;&#xA;statically analyze the web page to identify a hidden parameter within the web page that is constrained by a client-side validation measure and that is to be sent to the web application, the hidden parameter to indicate an authorization level of a user of the client computer; and&#xD;&#xA;determine a server-side validation measure to be applied to the hidden parameter comprising the web application checking for a correlation between a value of the hidden parameter and a value of at least one other parameter from the user; and&#xD;&#xA;a static analyzer configured to:&#xD;&#xA;statically analyze the web application to identify a location within the web application where the hidden parameter is input into the web application;&#xD;&#xA;query the constraint manager for the server-side validation measure to be applied to the hidden parameter;&#xD;&#xA;determine whether the web application checks for the correlation between the value of the hidden parameter and the value of the least one other client-supplied parameter according to the server-side validation measure from the constraint manager prior to the hidden parameter being used in a security-sensitive operation; and&#xD;&#xA;identify the hidden parameter as a security vulnerability where the web application does not check for the correlation between the value of the hidden parameter and the value of the at least one other client-supplied parameter prior to the hidden parameter being used in the security-sensitive operation.&#xD;&#xA;2. The system of claim 1 wherein the static analyzer is further configured to statically analyze the web application by building a control-flow model and a data-flow model of the web application.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7733" RevisionGUID="d7858161-eec5-41fd-a73f-717f9bc09e6b" CreationDate="2014-06-19T18:10:41.967" UserId="9874" Text="Why would somebody allow such a valuable patent to lapse for non-payment of maintenance fees?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19037" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7733" RevisionGUID="d7858161-eec5-41fd-a73f-717f9bc09e6b" CreationDate="2014-06-19T18:10:41.967" UserId="9874" Text="Why would somebody allow such a valuable patent to lapse?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19038" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7733" RevisionGUID="d7858161-eec5-41fd-a73f-717f9bc09e6b" CreationDate="2014-06-19T18:10:41.967" UserId="9874" Text="&lt;lapsed-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7733" RevisionGUID="4de7b42f-99c7-47f6-ace9-6f856559ba90" CreationDate="2014-06-19T18:20:06.737" UserId="9874" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Why would somebody allow such a valuable patent as USP6293874 to lapse for non-payment of maintenance fees?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19040" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7733" RevisionGUID="4de7b42f-99c7-47f6-ace9-6f856559ba90" CreationDate="2014-06-19T18:20:06.737" UserId="9874" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Why would somebody allow USP6293874 to lapse?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7734" RevisionGUID="4c69fc39-07a9-4ca9-a996-749960f3110b" CreationDate="2014-06-19T21:57:01.703" UserId="9876" Text="I just restricted google search results for &quot;GPU bitcoin mining&quot; from 1/1/2009 to 7/10/2012.  Here's what I got:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/search?q=gpu+bitcoin+mining&amp;safe=active&amp;es_sm=93&amp;biw=1920&amp;bih=971&amp;source=lnt&amp;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2009%2Ccd_max%3A7%2F10%2F2012&amp;tbm=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quite a few references are made." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19042" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7733" RevisionGUID="50b5b7d6-e530-4173-b1d3-46e2cdc25773" CreationDate="2014-06-19T22:24:19.820" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to patent" Text="&lt;lapsed-patent&gt;&lt;us6293874&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7735" RevisionGUID="40912dbe-0a78-495e-ae49-23986c5e5241" CreationDate="2014-06-19T22:36:31.303" UserId="9877" Text="What about all the character converters that have already been published?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Pathfinder](http://paizo.com/products/btpy89m6?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Conversion-Guide)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Shadowrun](http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/116922/Shadowrun-Fifth-Edition-Character-Conversion-Guide)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Some homebrew converter](http://www.easydamus.com/BasicD20toChaosium.pdf)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7744" RevisionGUID="f2f8509a-a29d-474b-9d45-7a770fabf5b3" CreationDate="2014-06-22T15:16:49.127" UserId="8356" Text="&#xD;&#xA;SolidWorks, Alibre and Sketchup etc can be used. Please visit this site for a similar discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://inventorspotforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=43&amp;t=3513" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7745" RevisionGUID="075559d6-b08a-4b66-91b4-05850ffc1ec7" CreationDate="2014-06-22T15:50:03.340" UserId="9895" Text="Digital Generation, Inc. (aka DG, later DG FastChannel, and now Extreme Reach by acquisition) was founded in 1991. Beginning in the early 1990's, DG used the internet for the distribution of radio commercials and other content to stations across the United States through a network of up loaders (recording studios and content creators), DG servers, and downloaders (radio &amp; TV stations, and other end users). The DG business model included notification by FAX and/or email of new content for download, tracking of the upload/download process, and at some point in time online access to notices/catalogs/histories/content. In some instances, content was automatically delivered (pushed) by internet download to terminals installed at radio stations. In other instances, stations (pulled) manually downloaded newly available files or retrieved older content from DG servers after losing it or flushing out the on site terminal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used the early DG system in 1993 as an uploader and have used it continuously through it's current evolution into Extreme Reach. Followup with early founders of DG may reveal information about their possible consideration of patents and prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19075" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="7745" RevisionGUID="1c2804a0-1d9d-4d77-b565-7629c6bf78b2" CreationDate="2014-06-22T15:50:03.340" UserId="9895" />
  <row Id="19076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7746" RevisionGUID="afdf784c-1db0-48e5-aca1-8b39417e79ab" CreationDate="2014-06-22T23:32:18.827" UserId="9897" Text="Philips is suing Nintendo for infringing patent number 8537231, in relation to the Wii and Wii U. The patent was filed in 2009, 3 or 4 years after the release of the Wii, although the priority date was in 2002, it wasn't filed until the date stated above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can Philips get away with this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19077" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7746" RevisionGUID="afdf784c-1db0-48e5-aca1-8b39417e79ab" CreationDate="2014-06-22T23:32:18.827" UserId="9897" Text="Philips suing Nintendo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19078" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7746" RevisionGUID="afdf784c-1db0-48e5-aca1-8b39417e79ab" CreationDate="2014-06-22T23:32:18.827" UserId="9897" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7747" RevisionGUID="39b438de-c3c4-4eb0-82e7-b02f808dfb23" CreationDate="2014-06-23T02:40:27.640" UserId="9898" Text="How could the goverment grant this patent number w0199603864a1,when  Rodney M McGee Sr. invented this in patent number 4858456 in 1988." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19080" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7747" RevisionGUID="39b438de-c3c4-4eb0-82e7-b02f808dfb23" CreationDate="2014-06-23T02:40:27.640" UserId="9898" Text="Copy someone else Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19081" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7747" RevisionGUID="39b438de-c3c4-4eb0-82e7-b02f808dfb23" CreationDate="2014-06-23T02:40:27.640" UserId="9898" Text="&lt;wo1996038643a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7748" RevisionGUID="f9ff8011-3854-4fc8-b076-67aff7f9da78" CreationDate="2014-06-23T04:05:41.553" UserId="3076" Text="The easy answer to the question is **No patent has been granted**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The document you are referring to, W0199603864a1 is not a granted patent. It is not even a U.S. national patent application at this point. Documents starting with WO are international PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) applications. I have not compared the substance of the two documents but any new application should not ultimately issue as a patent unless its claims define something new and non-obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes a claim is written so specifically and narrowly that while it is different than what was was done in the past, but nobody cares. A very narrow claim can generally be gotten around easily. The claim 1 in W0199603864a1 is one of the longest claims I have seen and may be in that category. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7745" RevisionGUID="687b8f27-b8b3-4ac0-9f39-62c3a2c92702" CreationDate="2014-06-23T19:00:56.303" UserId="9895" Comment="clarity" Text="Digital Generation, Inc. (aka DG, later DG FastChannel, and now Extreme Reach by acquisition) was founded in 1991. Beginning in the early 1990's, DG used the internet for the distribution of radio commercials and other content (music releases and possibly episodic radio shows) to stations across the United States through a network of up loaders (recording studios and content creators), DG servers, and downloaders (radio &amp; TV stations, and other end users). The DG business model included notification by FAX and/or email of new content for download, tracking of the upload/download process, and at some point in time online access to notices/catalogs/histories/content. In some instances, content was automatically delivered (pushed) by internet download to terminals installed at radio stations. In other instances, stations manually downloaded (pulled) newly available files or retrieved older content from DG servers after losing it or flushing it out the on site terminal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used the early DG system in 1993 as an uploader and have used it continuously through it's current evolution into Extreme Reach. Followup with early founders of DG may reveal information about their possible consideration of patents and prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7751" RevisionGUID="005ba0af-0d9b-4aa3-a337-b5de5a33f05c" CreationDate="2014-06-24T11:07:35.043" UserId="9905" Text="Patents are territorial rights. If EP patent is not being filed or protected in US then you are free to do production and sale in US market.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7761" RevisionGUID="89be0979-7d99-4409-8169-2564cac77441" CreationDate="2014-06-26T03:07:54.877" UserId="9925" Text="link - http://goo.gl/4VLWQV&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did a school project where we had to invent a product and a Photochromic windshield was my idea. So I was wondering if it was already patented by someone else? Thanks for the help " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19129" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7761" RevisionGUID="89be0979-7d99-4409-8169-2564cac77441" CreationDate="2014-06-26T03:07:54.877" UserId="9925" Text="Does this patent mean that I can't create a transition windshield?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19130" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7761" RevisionGUID="89be0979-7d99-4409-8169-2564cac77441" CreationDate="2014-06-26T03:07:54.877" UserId="9925" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7764" RevisionGUID="d831ab39-0057-431c-8cc9-52ad18f2230f" CreationDate="2014-06-26T06:35:18.157" UserId="8560" Text="I received a &quot;Notice to File Missing Parts of Nonprovisonal Application&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It states: &quot;A mailing address for each inventor has not been submitted. A new application data sheet (ADS) ... is required&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My original ADS stated the inventors' mailing addresses (I used the online ADS form on EFS Web which autogenerates a PDF ADS form). For whatever reason, the USPTO only picked up the last inventor's address (out of 3 inventors).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I called the USPTO today, and they said these errors sometimes happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The missing parts notice further states: &#xD;&#xA;“”&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Replies must be received in the USPTO within the set time period or must include a proper Certificate of Mailing or Transmission under 37 CFR 1.8 with a mailing or tramission date within the set time period. For more information and a suggested format, see Form PTO/SB/92 and MPEP 512.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Replies should be mailed to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;address&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Registered users of EFS-Web may alternatively submit their reply to this notice via EFS-Web, including a copy of this Notice and selecting the document description &quot;Applicant response to Pre-Exam Formalities Notice”.&#xD;&#xA;“”&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I properly a reply on EFS-Web?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking I write a short letter saying I've attached a new ADS (despite my old ADS having the mailing addresses of all inventors). I add a copy of the notice to that letter. Then, I upload that as one PDF file under the document description “Applicant response to Pre-Exam Formalities Notice”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, I upload a new ADS under the Application Part -&gt; Application Data Sheet category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’m not sure if I can or should upload a Certificate of Transmission as well. I’ve only found the one for mailing (PTO/SB/92) and facsimile transmission (PTO/SB/97), not one for EFS-Web if I understand correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [MPEP 512][1], there is a sentence saying &quot;The correspondence includes a certificate for each piece of correspondence stating the date of deposit or transmission.&quot;, which may imply I need a Certificate of Transmission for each uploaded part? That seems wrong, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s512.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19138" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7764" RevisionGUID="d831ab39-0057-431c-8cc9-52ad18f2230f" CreationDate="2014-06-26T06:35:18.157" UserId="8560" Text="How to create an Applicant Response to Pre-Exam Formalities Notice" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19139" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7764" RevisionGUID="d831ab39-0057-431c-8cc9-52ad18f2230f" CreationDate="2014-06-26T06:35:18.157" UserId="8560" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7765" RevisionGUID="f15018f6-5b21-4f56-a374-7e1f7c388437" CreationDate="2014-06-26T10:59:52.693" UserId="9929" Text="Sorry for what may be to some a silly question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a friend who has as idea for a product based on technology he invented. The problem is that we have seen another company that basically does the same thing, although it works differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is: Can my friend legally sell his product and get a patent, or does the fact that someone else owns a patent for a product that does the same thing stop him from doing so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I searched and see patents for similar ideas, but none of them seem to be in the market. I see they received patents, but further searches do not show me that the products are actually being sold anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The product I am talking about is owned and patented by a major US company. They install this is all their new products. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is hard for me to be more specific without betraying my friend and his idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, there are many cell phones out there. Did one company ever have the patent for cell phones? Or could someone make a new cell phone that works a little differently?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This product is a product for retrieving stolen property. As I mentioned, it is already offered by a very large US company. My friend has the same idea, meaning to retrieve the stolen property by making the product useless. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example. I have a computer (just an example). Someone steals my computer. A company out there already has a patented product that will locate the computer, and render it useless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot imagine that the idea itself would get a patent. Everyone would like to have such a product. SO is the IDEA patented in general, or is the specific way it works patented?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the company that now owns a patent and sells a similar product stop my friend from doing the same thing but in a different way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, sorry for being so naive. I am trying to understand how it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for any help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19141" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7765" RevisionGUID="f15018f6-5b21-4f56-a374-7e1f7c388437" CreationDate="2014-06-26T10:59:52.693" UserId="9929" Text="Do Patents cover the idea or the specific technology?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19142" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7765" RevisionGUID="f15018f6-5b21-4f56-a374-7e1f7c388437" CreationDate="2014-06-26T10:59:52.693" UserId="9929" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7767" RevisionGUID="9cd3b4bc-2c6a-45eb-b96f-1ba31d440446" CreationDate="2014-06-26T16:02:10.523" UserId="9934" Text="If GPI company got granted this patent can it be still be sued by Canon if they think that  this infringe Canon patent? &#xD;&#xA;Is it save to buy this product from this company when patent is granted? Can it still infringe  other patents if it have granted patent?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19147" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7767" RevisionGUID="9cd3b4bc-2c6a-45eb-b96f-1ba31d440446" CreationDate="2014-06-26T16:02:10.523" UserId="9934" Text="Is it save to buy this product from this company when patent is granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19148" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7767" RevisionGUID="9cd3b4bc-2c6a-45eb-b96f-1ba31d440446" CreationDate="2014-06-26T16:02:10.523" UserId="9934" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7768" RevisionGUID="980619c8-66e4-4d42-9f10-5a8418ff710f" CreationDate="2014-06-26T19:54:48.057" UserId="3076" Text="Certificate of transmission is for things you mail in or fax in not for EFS web. In order to submit by EFS-web you need to be a registered user with a customer #, pki security file and password. Otherwise it is the mail or fax." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7767" RevisionGUID="78693a51-0fbb-486f-b5fa-a915d8c7d703" CreationDate="2014-06-26T20:22:01.720" UserId="9934" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="If GPI company got granted this patent US 6173146 can it be still be sued by Canon if they think that  this infringe Canon patent? &#xD;&#xA;Is it save to buy this product from this company when patent is granted? Can it still infringe  other patents if it have granted patent?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7772" RevisionGUID="67761d84-afc1-4253-a66b-9fb2c42202be" CreationDate="2014-06-29T22:49:49.120" UserId="9947" Text="I resigned from an Australian employer (Company-X) sometime back. During the course of my employment, I developed and partly implemented some ideas as a software application. I was the sole inventor of these ideas. Since leaving the company, I have developed these ideas significantly further and now this is patentable. I am planning to file the patent in Australia &amp; USA assigning the patent rights to my company (Company-Y) that I set up with my wife after leaving Company-X. &#xD;&#xA;My employment letter with Company-X had the following clause which I complied with fully in letter and spirit. In fact, I mentioned several times during the course of my employment with Company-X that my work has IP value, but the company didn't ask me to do anything special, most likely because they didn't see any such value in my ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Patents and Designs&#xD;&#xA;If in the performance of your duties you make any inventions, improvements or discoveries in connection with any machinery or other plant, or any process used or which might be used in the business of the Company or any subsidiary or affiliated company, you must fully, freely and immediately communicate the same to the company and if so desired by the Company execute all documents and do all acts and things at the Company's cost which may be necessary or desirable for the purpose of vesting the same in the company.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not planning to tell the Company-X about my patent filing at all. In the future, depending upon the situation, I am happy to grant Company-X 'Shop rights' to parts of the patent. This way, Company-X will be able to use my patent ideas without paying me anything while I will be able to license the patent or the software I develop based on that to other companies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will not be using the source code that I implemented at Company-X at all. Instead, I will be hiring a freelance software developer to develop the code on a completely different platform altogether. As mentioned, I have significantly developed my initial ideas further after leaving Company-X. In the worst case, I could be accused of using some of the general ideas that I developed first at Company-X.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please advise if you can think of any complications with &#xD;&#xA;a) Company-X challenging the validity of my patent.&#xD;&#xA;b) Company-X claiming that they have rights to the software that I am going to develop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't want to discuss these issues with Company-X as their default position will be that all the IP rights belong to them. &#xD;&#xA;Do you have any other suggestions for me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19160" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7772" RevisionGUID="67761d84-afc1-4253-a66b-9fb2c42202be" CreationDate="2014-06-29T22:49:49.120" UserId="9947" Text="Query regarding filing patent for ideas developed while with former employer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19161" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7772" RevisionGUID="67761d84-afc1-4253-a66b-9fb2c42202be" CreationDate="2014-06-29T22:49:49.120" UserId="9947" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7774" RevisionGUID="565d1313-8b32-4054-bd91-540fdba9dda7" CreationDate="2014-06-30T05:32:48.823" UserId="3076" Text="You say &quot;During the course of my employment . . . &quot; and &quot;I was the sole *inventor* of these ideas.&quot; while at company X. Later in the question you downplay the earlier work but whatever you &quot;invented&quot; while at company X probably belongs to company X. It will depend on the laws in the jurisdiction you were in when the initial inventing took place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you developed on top of that starting point might belong to you but they might take the view that you only could have develop beyond the starting point by essentially using their trade secrets. A clean-room redevelopment of code is done to addresses copyright issues, not patent issues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7776" RevisionGUID="fd19d658-d9b7-439a-adf6-81e796bdbd6e" CreationDate="2014-06-30T08:32:09.490" UserId="9847" Text="Does the term exemplary mean 'the ideal example', or just 'an example'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is the latter, but would like to be certain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19170" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7776" RevisionGUID="fd19d658-d9b7-439a-adf6-81e796bdbd6e" CreationDate="2014-06-30T08:32:09.490" UserId="9847" Text="What Does Exemplary Mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19171" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7776" RevisionGUID="fd19d658-d9b7-439a-adf6-81e796bdbd6e" CreationDate="2014-06-30T08:32:09.490" UserId="9847" Text="&lt;terminology&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7779" RevisionGUID="eb170a58-67de-4af5-a9f2-d4f2efe490aa" CreationDate="2014-06-30T19:46:53.063" UserId="3076" Text="In the past it was always understood to mean 'example' and that is what the drafter of the patent application surely meant. But more recently when people started to be wary of &quot;preferred embodiment&quot; possibly being taken by a judge as &quot;only embodiment&quot; they also realized the other meaning of the word exemplary. If preferred embodiment might be a problem then exemplary in the sense of 'the ideal example' might also be a problem. I have stopped using it partly for that reason and partly because it sounds affected.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="6ff43ef0-8f98-4199-8f15-31658e4f1259" CreationDate="2014-07-01T11:24:45.047" UserId="3418" Text="I will try to file a test patent, basically a null patent for familiarizing with the filing process without spending any money. Is there any legal issue with this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19190" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="6ff43ef0-8f98-4199-8f15-31658e4f1259" CreationDate="2014-07-01T11:24:45.047" UserId="3418" Text="Can I file test/ null provisional/ non provisional patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19191" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="6ff43ef0-8f98-4199-8f15-31658e4f1259" CreationDate="2014-07-01T11:24:45.047" UserId="3418" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7784" RevisionGUID="45062629-9ce4-40d9-b0ba-994b61cf86ea" CreationDate="2014-07-01T12:28:02.537" UserId="9958" Text="A US patent issued having a &quot;summary of invention&quot; NOT covering the claims (e.g. describing different materials).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it valid?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19193" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7784" RevisionGUID="45062629-9ce4-40d9-b0ba-994b61cf86ea" CreationDate="2014-07-01T12:28:02.537" UserId="9958" Text="Is a wrong summary of the invention relevant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19194" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7784" RevisionGUID="45062629-9ce4-40d9-b0ba-994b61cf86ea" CreationDate="2014-07-01T12:28:02.537" UserId="9958" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;usa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7785" RevisionGUID="b06a3b98-7755-4aee-874a-a5457612a3a5" CreationDate="2014-07-01T16:19:22.213" UserId="3076" Text="A &quot;summary of the invention&quot; section is *not* a hard requirement of a patent application. During prosecution claims get amended and in a follow-on application the claims might be directed to some aspect that is covered but not focused on in the initial application. The specification is usually not amended in order to avoid a concern over introducing &quot;new matter&quot; so the claims and the summary end up out of sync. The more important issue is whether the application as filed, as a whole, suficently supports the claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if a summary sections says &quot;my invention is a _____&quot;, some judges will use that to further narrow their interpretation of the claims to a _____. That is one reason some people are leaving off summary sections altogether." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7786" RevisionGUID="13086758-0149-423c-af49-5ed8e3de77bb" CreationDate="2014-07-01T16:37:21.153" UserId="3076" Text="The Manual for Patent Examination (MPEP) has some sections that mention that anything submitted &quot;is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, . . &quot;.  A famous not really an application is &quot;Method and instrument for proposing marriage to an individual&quot; [US 20070078663 A1][1] .  I wouldn't file anything that seemed to be signed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20070078663" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7789" RevisionGUID="899b3269-1710-40fb-8535-ba03466676dd" CreationDate="2014-07-02T12:08:01.257" UserId="9964" Text="The patent application claimed that if it was applied recursively,&#xD;&#xA;a ﬁle could be reduced to almost nothing. With a little thought you should convince yourself that this is not possible, at least if the source messages can contain any bit-sequence. We can see this by a simple counting argument. Lets consider all 1000 bit messages, as an example. There are 2 power 1000 different messages we can send, each which needs to be distinctly identiﬁed by the decoder. It should be clear we can’t represent that many different messages by sending 999 or fewer bits for all the messages — 999 bits would only allow us to send 2 power 999 distinct messages. The truth is that if any one message is shortened by an algorithm, then some other message needs to be lengthened.&#xD;&#xA;You can verify this in practice by running GZIP on a GIF ﬁle. It is, in fact, possible to go further and show that for a set of input messages of ﬁxed length, if one message is compressed, then the average length of the compressed messages over all possible inputs is always going to be longer than the original input messages. Consider, for example, the 8 possible 3 bit messages. If one is compressed to two bits, it is not hard to convince yourself that two messages will have to expand to 4 bits, giving an average of 3 1/8 bits. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19206" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7789" RevisionGUID="899b3269-1710-40fb-8535-ba03466676dd" CreationDate="2014-07-02T12:08:01.257" UserId="9964" Text="simply impossible" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19207" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7789" RevisionGUID="899b3269-1710-40fb-8535-ba03466676dd" CreationDate="2014-07-02T12:08:01.257" UserId="9964" Text="&lt;us5533051&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7790" RevisionGUID="a5f710f6-9fbc-406c-84dd-c1cded540ca2" CreationDate="2014-07-02T13:36:49.677" UserId="9965" Text="This object (Non-lethal arrow) has been in use for over 30 years in the various medieval combat sports.  A review of the Non-lethal arrow - US 8449413 B1 patent does not demonstrate any significant change from what is currently available from many vendors.  What does this patent imply for the various national sports that currently use this type of gear?   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19209" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7790" RevisionGUID="a5f710f6-9fbc-406c-84dd-c1cded540ca2" CreationDate="2014-07-02T13:36:49.677" UserId="9965" Text="Non-lethal arrow - US 8449413 B1 - How do you patent something that is already widley used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19210" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7790" RevisionGUID="a5f710f6-9fbc-406c-84dd-c1cded540ca2" CreationDate="2014-07-02T13:36:49.677" UserId="9965" Text="&lt;us8449413&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7793" RevisionGUID="91b63e80-0717-4dd1-9ec5-489945f9c4df" CreationDate="2014-07-02T19:46:43.140" UserId="9969" Text="The initial patent application was just for a foam tipped arrow, and was rejected.  The claim was amended to have &quot;shaft connection end includes an elongate cylindrical portion, wherein said elongate cylindrical portion defines a hollow tube sized and configured to receive an end of said shaft&quot;, and the claim was then allowed.  Do the previous foam tipped arrows have detachable heads?  And if so do they attach to an elongated hollow cylinder?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one believes the answer is yes, one can either file a request for reexamination ($3000 fee) which may invalidate the patent, or simply use the patented arrow and then assert invalidity as a defense to infringement if the patent owner sues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7795" RevisionGUID="3efbe4e2-45af-423b-9c20-10806e51b250" CreationDate="2014-07-02T20:23:00.647" UserId="9969" Text="If the **claims** were directed to something that is mathematically impossible, then they would be invalid under the requirement that a patent be useful.  However, the claims don't require that the compression process work on all inputs or work repeatedly.  They simply discuss a series of steps you can apply to data.  What the **specification** says incorrectly cannot render the claims invalid -- it is sufficient that there exists any situation in which the claimed method would be useful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7801" RevisionGUID="e15c6161-f930-4ece-bc90-b1518fc8199c" CreationDate="2014-07-03T11:32:34.633" UserId="9977" Text="I want to know how to register a new patent and from where i can register my new patent? what are the lifetime period will be of any registerd patent .. thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19237" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7801" RevisionGUID="e15c6161-f930-4ece-bc90-b1518fc8199c" CreationDate="2014-07-03T11:32:34.633" UserId="9977" Text="Register a new patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19238" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7801" RevisionGUID="e15c6161-f930-4ece-bc90-b1518fc8199c" CreationDate="2014-07-03T11:32:34.633" UserId="9977" Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;register&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7801" RevisionGUID="15e713e4-a104-4292-8f48-e27f12080b93" CreationDate="2014-07-03T12:55:07.840" UserId="1259" Comment="tag and typo" Text="I want to know how to register a new patent and from where I can register my new patent? What will be the lifetime of a registered patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19244" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7801" RevisionGUID="15e713e4-a104-4292-8f48-e27f12080b93" CreationDate="2014-07-03T12:55:07.840" UserId="1259" Comment="tag and typo" Text="Registering a new patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19245" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7801" RevisionGUID="15e713e4-a104-4292-8f48-e27f12080b93" CreationDate="2014-07-03T12:55:07.840" UserId="1259" Comment="tag and typo" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7803" RevisionGUID="96ba7d06-a98b-430e-9356-24b9320ab14c" CreationDate="2014-07-03T15:22:50.217" UserId="8800" Text="Anything else other than the list at the bottom?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to do a lot of software patent applications for a hi-tech startup.&#xD;&#xA;Management wants 100 this year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For software patents of our embedded product with firmware, inter-system communication, and backend computers, the present major sections of each application are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Major sections of a software patent application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE&#xD;&#xA;PROBLEM&#xD;&#xA;SOLUTION&#xD;&#xA;DEFINITION OF TERMS (JARGON)&#xD;&#xA;METHOD DETAILS&#xD;&#xA;EXAMPLE USAGE&#xD;&#xA;SUMMARY&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's missing?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19247" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7803" RevisionGUID="96ba7d06-a98b-430e-9356-24b9320ab14c" CreationDate="2014-07-03T15:22:50.217" UserId="8800" Text="what should be the major sections of a software patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19248" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7803" RevisionGUID="96ba7d06-a98b-430e-9356-24b9320ab14c" CreationDate="2014-07-03T15:22:50.217" UserId="8800" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7804" RevisionGUID="d252ce97-058f-4b01-b13f-1df580275550" CreationDate="2014-07-03T16:02:41.430" UserId="5317" Text="In patent application US 2012/0262358 of title &quot;BEAM FORMING ANTENNA&quot; one finds a very clever, I think very novel and useful new way to arrange vertical elements into a Yagi-Uda array.  Irregardless of the fact the first claims are often way way broad in scope, I puzzle over the wording in the claims.  To wit claim #1...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;1. A high frequency (HF) beam antenna comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a set of radiating vertical monopole elements;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a set of horizontal dipole elements;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Wherein said horizontal dipole elements are parasitically&#xD;&#xA;&gt;coupled to corresponding radiating vertical monopole elements&#xD;&#xA;&gt;and are configured to counterpoise radiation from the radiating&#xD;&#xA;&gt;vertical monopole elements and to effectively isolate the&#xD;&#xA;&gt;vertical monopole elements from the underlying ground.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase &quot;horizontal dipole elements&quot; is most certainly defined by practitioners in the art as an antenna element with opposing voltages at the ends and a continuous current through the middle.  This is an electrical specification, not mechanical.  You find similar a definition for other things like a polarized water molecule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know from looking at the design and some of the various articles put out by the author the entire horizontal element is not a dipole, but only a counterpoise to the vertical element.  The opposing voltage requirement for a dipole appears at the tip of the vertical and the opposite and equal ends of the horizontal member.  In other words, this is a form of vertical dipole... there is no horizontal dipole anywhere in this design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;Wherein said horizontal dipole elements...&quot; wording clumsily attempts to un-define the dipole aspect and correctly redefine as a counterpoise - which has equal voltages at the tips and is more akin to the familiar radials we see beneath many other monopole antennas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's as if he uses the term &quot;horizontal dipole&quot; to mechanically describe the horizontal member and then un-defines this to change it electrically to a counterpoise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know darn well the inventor knows better than this making me wonder who in their right mind wrote these contradictory clumsy claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much of my clumsy claims, claim (no pun intended) depends on how one defines things in the claims.  I am antenna designer by trade and these claims are knee slappers.  Are technically odd words in claims actually not a problem when viewed by the legal eye?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who decides what is legally correct in claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19250" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7804" RevisionGUID="d252ce97-058f-4b01-b13f-1df580275550" CreationDate="2014-07-03T16:02:41.430" UserId="5317" Text="Definitions of phrases in claims - Who get's to decide?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19251" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7804" RevisionGUID="d252ce97-058f-4b01-b13f-1df580275550" CreationDate="2014-07-03T16:02:41.430" UserId="5317" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;definitions&gt;&lt;communications-antennas&gt;&lt;us20120262358&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7806" RevisionGUID="ed92c4ad-c93a-423a-8456-3c09357d95e6" CreationDate="2014-07-03T22:38:17.633" UserId="3076" Text="Ultimately a judge decides what any disputed claim terms mean and with that as a given, a jury decides if a particular thing someone is making, selling, using or importing falls within a claim's boundaries. In theory the judge is discerning what someone skilled in the art would understand it to mean. Of course most people skilled in the art would have horrible time trying to understand the average claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several reasons for that. One is that each claim must be a single sentence according to patent rules. That contributes to making them convoluted. There are also magic words like &quot;comprising&quot; and &quot;means&quot; that may not mean what you think they mean. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Case law has said that &quot;a&quot; usually, but not always, means one or more and that &quot;a portion of X is covered&quot; does not  necessarily include the case of all of X being covered. There are hundreds of these and new ones are declared every month. Last month a case determined that &quot;a patient&quot;, in the context of a particular claim, did not encompass the case of a single patient. It meant patients in general or most patients.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Figuring out what a claim covers is called claim construction. (Actually conducting claims is claim drafting.) There are several contradictory pairs of canons of claim construction. One is that a claim is read in light of the specification and drawings. Another is that the plain meaning of claim words governs and it is impermissible to import limitations from the specification into a claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there is English or any other natural language. It is not always easy to write an unambiguous sentence especially when you know it will be in someone else's interest to point out an alternate meaning. That gives us &quot;respectively&quot; and &quot;and&quot; where in normal English there would be an &quot;or&quot;. But it really should be and.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take the frequent situation where you need to convey that that might be one or more of something - say a handle. You quickly end up with &quot;. . . the box having one or more handles where at least one of the one or more handles is blue.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm an EE who went into a computer science track to get out of E&amp;M, antennas, etc. so I can't knowledgeably comment on the claim you mention. It is possible that the patent practitioner didn't understand antennas very well and the inventor assumed they couldn't add any value by trying to parse the claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7807" RevisionGUID="4564685b-dd22-4ebe-91d9-58fe29c1b700" CreationDate="2014-07-04T10:21:55.067" UserId="9981" Text="Checkout http://dronecast.us&#xD;&#xA;They use quadcopters to display vinyl banners with illuminated LEDs on the drone" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19257" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7807" RevisionGUID="4564685b-dd22-4ebe-91d9-58fe29c1b700" CreationDate="2014-07-04T10:21:55.067" UserId="9981" Text="Does DroneCast infringe on this IP (US 3683530 A)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19258" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7807" RevisionGUID="4564685b-dd22-4ebe-91d9-58fe29c1b700" CreationDate="2014-07-04T10:21:55.067" UserId="9981" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7808" RevisionGUID="be1b3c32-1913-471c-b6e0-62094aac63e6" CreationDate="2014-07-04T15:23:29.317" UserId="8753" Text="If person A in the United States calls a member of the public in Japan and offers to sell a product 14 months prior to A filing a nonprovisional application for a utility patent, would that be a 102(b) bar or would that be considered a sale that is not in the United States?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19260" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7808" RevisionGUID="be1b3c32-1913-471c-b6e0-62094aac63e6" CreationDate="2014-07-04T15:23:29.317" UserId="8753" Text="preAIA 102(b) bar question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19261" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7808" RevisionGUID="be1b3c32-1913-471c-b6e0-62094aac63e6" CreationDate="2014-07-04T15:23:29.317" UserId="8753" Text="&lt;pre-aia&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19262" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7808" RevisionGUID="7d988da5-3017-48d7-a551-401ab32960bf" CreationDate="2014-07-04T22:04:44.340" UserId="8753" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Would an offer for sale that originates in the US on the phone with someone in Japan create a preAIA 102(b) bar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19263" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7808" RevisionGUID="7d988da5-3017-48d7-a551-401ab32960bf" CreationDate="2014-07-04T22:04:44.340" UserId="8753" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;on-sale&gt;&lt;pre-aia&gt;&lt;102b&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19264" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7807" RevisionGUID="cf34e645-aae1-42be-bf93-442d2e8dcad6" CreationDate="2014-07-04T23:36:40.477" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag to patent" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;us3683530&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7809" RevisionGUID="6bf222a3-4a34-432f-806b-2489f3d52c67" CreationDate="2014-07-04T23:38:47.043" UserId="3076" Text="No. In fact it is impossible to infringe this patent in this century. It would have expired in 1992." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7808" RevisionGUID="028992b2-c22e-4ee9-9f21-2f008d3b777c" CreationDate="2014-07-05T00:33:54.037" UserId="8753" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="If person A in the United States calls a member of the public in a foreign country and offers to sell a product 14 months prior to A filing a nonprovisional application for a utility patent, would that be a 102(b) bar or would that be considered a sale that is not in the United States?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7816" RevisionGUID="8ceeb51e-6c48-4316-aa19-8fb4c8ad21b4" CreationDate="2014-07-07T16:57:06.767" UserId="9995" Text="Is the &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Blockquote&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;USD388287&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Blockquote&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; S patent expired? I am looking to design something similar to this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19286" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7816" RevisionGUID="8ceeb51e-6c48-4316-aa19-8fb4c8ad21b4" CreationDate="2014-07-07T16:57:06.767" UserId="9995" Text="Is this patent expired?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19287" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7816" RevisionGUID="8ceeb51e-6c48-4316-aa19-8fb4c8ad21b4" CreationDate="2014-07-07T16:57:06.767" UserId="9995" Text="&lt;expired-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7817" RevisionGUID="cafb4b3b-2795-47f2-aca6-748733ce9728" CreationDate="2014-07-07T19:53:15.873" UserId="9996" Text="HELP SAVE MOBILE COMPUTING - [This application][1] from Apple seeks to patent location-based security.  10 minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent application before it becomes a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTION - Have you seen anything that was published before December 31, 2012 that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Adjusting a phone's security settings based on the phone's physical location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question -- one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: **LOCATION-SENSITIVE SECURITY LEVELS AND SETTING PROFILES BASED ON DETECTED LOCATION**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Abstract**:  The security level and/or other device behavior, configurations, or settings on a mobile device can be modified based on the location of the mobile device. The location of the mobile device can be determined by analyzing location aspects present at a location, where any parameters or attributes of a location that can assist in identifying a particular location may be used as location aspects. In a setup process, the mobile device identifies available aspects at a location and can use the available aspects to determine a location context associated with a location. In a use example, the device identifies available aspects at a location and determines whether the available aspects match a previously defined location context. If the available aspects match the previously defined location context, device behavior, configurations, or settings on a mobile device can be modified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [20140187200][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Apple&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 31, 2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220140187200%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20140187200&amp;RS=DN/20140187200&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220140187200%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20140187200&amp;RS=DN/20140187200" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19289" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7817" RevisionGUID="cafb4b3b-2795-47f2-aca6-748733ce9728" CreationDate="2014-07-07T19:53:15.873" UserId="9996" Text="LOCATION-SENSITIVE SECURITY LEVELS (Apple) - 20140187200 - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19290" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7817" RevisionGUID="cafb4b3b-2795-47f2-aca6-748733ce9728" CreationDate="2014-07-07T19:53:15.873" UserId="9996" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;us20140187200&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7818" RevisionGUID="173a6be7-b6d2-4589-a8a2-822f76ab0acf" CreationDate="2014-07-07T19:53:15.873" UserId="9996" Text="[`Autoprotect`][1] is a jailbreak app that disables a phone's lock/PIN when the phone is connected to known wifi networks, such as at home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.iphonehacks.com/2012/05/autoprotect-disables-iphone-passcode-when-connected-to-home-wifi-network.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7806" RevisionGUID="4f3b8386-020e-483c-aeb9-f3678dfcc29f" CreationDate="2014-07-07T19:57:03.133" UserId="3076" Comment="typos" Text="Ultimately a judge decides what any disputed claim terms mean and with that as a given, a jury decides if a particular thing someone is making, selling, using or importing falls within a claim's boundaries. In theory the judge is discerning what someone skilled in the art would understand it to mean. Of course most people skilled in the art would have horrible time trying to understand the average claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several reasons for that. One is that each claim must be a single sentence according to patent rules. That contributes to making them convoluted. There are also magic words like &quot;comprising&quot; and &quot;means&quot; that may not mean what you think they mean. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Case law has said that &quot;a&quot; usually, but not always, means one or more and that &quot;a portion of X is covered&quot; does not  necessarily include the case of all of X being covered. There are hundreds of these and new ones are declared every month. Last month a case determined that &quot;a patient&quot;, in the context of a particular claim, did not encompass the case of a single patient. It meant patients in general or most patients.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Figuring out what a claim covers is called claim construction. (Actually constucting claims is claim drafting.) There are several contradictory pairs of canons of claim construction. One is that a claim is read in light of the specification and drawings. Another is that the plain meaning of claim words governs and it is impermissible to import limitations from the specification into a claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there is English or any other natural language. It is not always easy to write an unambiguous sentence especially when you know it will be in someone else's interest to point out an alternate meaning. That gives us &quot;respectively&quot; and &quot;and&quot; where in normal English there would be an &quot;or&quot;. But it really should be and.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take the frequent situation where you need to convey that there might be one or more of something - say a handle. You quickly end up with &quot;. . . the box having one or more handles where at least one of the one or more handles is blue.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm an EE who went into a computer science track to get out of E&amp;M, antennas, etc. so I can't knowledgeably comment on the claim you mention. It is possible that the patent practitioner didn't understand antennas very well and the inventor assumed they couldn't add any value by trying to parse the claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7819" RevisionGUID="52efb9d7-1e73-4ba6-aeaa-27e594d6cff3" CreationDate="2014-07-07T20:10:44.407" UserId="3076" Text="A comment on an article about Autoprotect mentions an earlier program called CleverPin. There is a review of it dated April 21 2011 on the iJailbreak site. http://www.ijailbreak.com/cydia/cleverpin-tweak-make-your-idevice-ask-for-a-passcode-intelligently/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CleverPin allows you to make your iDevice ask for a passcode intelligently: you can choose to automatically disable it while you’re connected to your home network (more than one network supported), listening music or charging battery. You will never need to waste time again to disable the passcode, because you’re iDevice will ask you for it only when it’s actually needed. You can also choose to automatically re-activate the passcode after a certain time of inactivity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7821" RevisionGUID="645dc0b0-1ec8-49b8-9df2-78f985df027d" CreationDate="2014-07-08T14:57:13.837" UserId="1193" Text="Patents are typically granted for 20 years, which for this patents still have a few years to go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent is a design patent, and it looks to me that the what is patented is the exact liking -- so you may be Ok to design something similar as long as it is not exactly the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7822" RevisionGUID="6e853453-a6d4-4374-ae2f-074973c5a46c" CreationDate="2014-07-08T15:27:12.803" UserId="9998" Text="I asked this question of a patent attorney, but never got a great response - I heard that great NPR show about patents (referenced by Joel on a podcast) and had this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US5771354&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to David Martin (Chairman at M-Cam):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.m-cam.com/news/m-cam-chairman-featured-american-life-when-patents-attackpart-two&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are &quot;5,303&quot; other patents doing &quot;The. Exact. Same. Thing.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He talks about it starting @ 13:22 in this story: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/496/when-patents-attack-part-two &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As phase 0 of reform, all I'm asking is that when those 5,303 other patents are being issued, they do a look up in their own system to evaluate if there's overlap. Not too much to ask!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, why wouldn't the owner of the FIRST patent issued immediately claim that all these other patents had prior art (his patent) - wouldn't that massively collapse the problem?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19299" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7822" RevisionGUID="6e853453-a6d4-4374-ae2f-074973c5a46c" CreationDate="2014-07-08T15:27:12.803" UserId="9998" Text="Why Are There STILL 5,303 Overlaps for A Patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19300" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7822" RevisionGUID="6e853453-a6d4-4374-ae2f-074973c5a46c" CreationDate="2014-07-08T15:27:12.803" UserId="9998" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7823" RevisionGUID="888a32a3-712a-4736-b0a6-da13dbedae3a" CreationDate="2014-07-08T15:28:45.890" UserId="9999" Text="How can a patent be granted for &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Standard industry practice for the last 20 years - For example the Livechart format that uses the exact same method for both proprietary cell/chart/map data and expanded to include S57 encoded data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. These methods are obvious to anyone knowledgeable in the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another failing in the patent checking system for prior art or obvious work?&#xD;&#xA;Worse the applicant Chersoft must have known about prior art anyway!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19302" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7823" RevisionGUID="888a32a3-712a-4736-b0a6-da13dbedae3a" CreationDate="2014-07-08T15:28:45.890" UserId="9999" Text="Patent us8686880 No checking of prior art or obviousness to a practioner" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19303" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7823" RevisionGUID="888a32a3-712a-4736-b0a6-da13dbedae3a" CreationDate="2014-07-08T15:28:45.890" UserId="9999" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7824" RevisionGUID="a977bb15-215d-4b74-b470-074daeb878d9" CreationDate="2014-07-08T15:35:55.760" UserId="1193" Text="Any [geofencing][1] prior art would most likely be relevant.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most likely prior art would be something akin to where-is-my-child which is also listed as an example on wikipedia [here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=0&amp;f=S&amp;l=50&amp;TERM1=geofencing&amp;FIELD1=&amp;co1=AND&amp;TERM2=&amp;FIELD2=&amp;d=PTXT&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo-fence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7825" RevisionGUID="f3fc8fb8-4132-40e4-8c82-c31bf8787405" CreationDate="2014-07-08T15:50:31.890" UserId="1193" Text="Patents are granted for innovative ideas and non-obvious enhancements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is often a subjective matter to determine if an enhancement is non-obvious -- taking two well known ideas and combining them does not necessarily make the new combination obvious in it self.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence patent examiners will in some cases allow a patent, as a grant is not the final decision anyway -- anybody who feel that they have prior art can always challenge a patent validity in the court, and if they are successful then the patent is invalidated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7826" RevisionGUID="769730c2-30ad-49d2-a150-7de902b12d61" CreationDate="2014-07-08T16:03:26.367" UserId="10000" Text="An application is being filed as a continuation application. After filing that can it be changed to a Divisional applicaiton at a later stage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19307" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7826" RevisionGUID="769730c2-30ad-49d2-a150-7de902b12d61" CreationDate="2014-07-08T16:03:26.367" UserId="10000" Text="Continuation to Divisional" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19308" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7826" RevisionGUID="769730c2-30ad-49d2-a150-7de902b12d61" CreationDate="2014-07-08T16:03:26.367" UserId="10000" Text="&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19309" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7823" RevisionGUID="82cc0d57-44e3-42b0-b4c5-3723f141ad28" CreationDate="2014-07-08T17:35:31.910" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to patent added claim 1" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us8686880&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19310" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7823" RevisionGUID="82cc0d57-44e3-42b0-b4c5-3723f141ad28" CreationDate="2014-07-08T17:35:31.910" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to patent added claim 1" Text="How can a patent be granted for &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Standard industry practice for the last 20 years - For example the Livechart format that uses the exact same method for both proprietary cell/chart/map data and expanded to include S57 encoded data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. These methods are obvious to anyone knowledgeable in the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another failing in the patent checking system for prior art or obvious work?&#xD;&#xA;Worse the applicant Chersoft must have known about prior art anyway!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of communicating electronic map data to a remote vehicle, comprising a first data processing terminal interfaced with a vehicle-borne map data processing terminal over a network connection, the method performed at the first data processing terminal comprising the steps of;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;compiling map data as at least one cell comprising a plurality of vector data records and a plurality of feature data records;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;compressing the compiled cell data;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;encrypting and digitally &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;signing the compressed cell data; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;transmitting the encrypted and digitally signed cell data over the network;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*characterised in that the step of compiling comprises the further step o*f &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;reducing the respective bit length of a plurality of vector data values." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7827" RevisionGUID="08aff0a1-80d7-46ac-86b3-f1520a39b083" CreationDate="2014-07-08T18:02:39.857" UserId="3076" Text="In looking at the history of this application in USPTO Public PAIR the applicant informed the patent office of two things that they thought were in the ball park.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA; And the examininer's search turned up six more references of interest. What is somewhat out of the ordinary is that no rejection was issued along the way - it was allowed as filed. My experience is that this happens about 1 in 20 applications and it does make me wonder how hard the examiner was paying attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a &quot;reasons for allowably&quot; section the examiner said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Devries fails&#xD;&#xA;to teach a method of communicating electronic map data to a remote vehicle that&#xD;&#xA;comprises a first data processing terminal interfaced with a vehicle- borne map data&#xD;&#xA;processing terminal over a network connection, the is configured to compile map data&#xD;&#xA;as at least one cell comprising a plurality of vector data records and a plurality of feature&#xD;&#xA;data records, compress the compiled cell data, encrypts and digitally signs the&#xD;&#xA;compressed cell data, and transmits the encrypted and digitally signed cell data over&#xD;&#xA;the network; the step of compiling and another step of instructions recorded on a data&#xD;&#xA;carrying medium can also be configured to reduce the respective bit length of a plurality&#xD;&#xA;of vector data values.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/OMhN4.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/eibBR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7828" RevisionGUID="86669952-f964-42ea-a86b-cc0a106ffb86" CreationDate="2014-07-08T18:34:57.610" UserId="3076" Text="Yes, the owner of the first issued patent would try to get the other 5,303 patents into a reexamination process a the USPTO if the owner thought his/her IP was valuable enough. This alone makes the assertion questionable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Sticking to facts - on the audio clip the expert said there were (by some undisclosed search method) 5303 things *going through the system* at the same time that had an overlap.Breaking that down - that is not saying that all 53023 applications made it out as issued patents or that those that were eventually granted were required to make claim amendments before being deemed worthy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there is the word &quot;overlap&quot;. What patents cover is layer out in their claims. The territory covered by a claim is notoriously difficult to determine by a human reader. My opinion is that whatever overlap meant it could not have meant &quot;claims that cover the same territory.&quot; That would be way to hard for a computer to determine.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is claim 1 of the patent in question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An online computer system providing commercial backup services to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; remote customer computers over the Internet by performing the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; following steps: &lt;p&gt; (a) providing at least one remote storage area&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for use in storing customer backup information; &lt;p&gt; (b) establishing a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first online Internet session with a customer's computer; &lt;p&gt; (c)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; allowing the customer to sign up for backup services over the first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; online Internet session, including the step of establishing a customer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identifier and associated password for the customer; &lt;p&gt; (d)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; establishing a second online Internet session with the customer's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computer; &lt;p&gt; (e) requesting the customer to input the customer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identifier and associated password established by step (c); &lt;p&gt; (f)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; validating the customer identifier and password requested by step (e);&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;p&gt; (g) conditioned at least in part on validating step (f), allowing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the customer to access the remote storage area over the second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Internet session substantially as if the remote storage area was a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; backup storage device physically and/or locally attached to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; customer's computer, including the steps of: &lt;p&gt; (1) encrypting backup&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data provided by the customer's computer, &lt;p&gt; (2) transmitting the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; encrypted backup data to the online backup service provider over the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; second online Internet session, and &lt;p&gt; (3) storing the backup data in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the remote storage area provided by the online backup service&#xD;&#xA;&gt; provider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a very long claim with many required steps. For someone to infringe this claim they need to do **everything** the claim says. It is not broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7829" RevisionGUID="246d3bf4-2c93-44d8-a9ee-4f6eaf154b36" CreationDate="2014-07-08T23:00:35.337" UserId="1698" Text="To search the current status of a PCT application, based on the publication number, start at http://patentscope.wipo.int/ Type in the publication number without the final A1. Click on the publication number to view the application information. Move across the header to NATIONAL PHASE and click. Look down the list to see if any national stage applications have been filed, and if any patents have issued. This application entered the national stage at the European Patent Office, but was withdrawn and never issued, and in India. No Indian patent has yet issued." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7823" RevisionGUID="368ff5a5-cafa-47cf-b072-ea7338fecb04" CreationDate="2014-07-09T00:35:18.827" UserId="3076" Comment="edited body" Text="How can a patent be granted for &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Standard industry practice for the last 20 years - For example the Livechart format that uses the exact same method for both proprietary cell/chart/map data and expanded to include S57 encoded data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. These methods are obvious to anyone knowledgeable in the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another failing in the patent checking system for prior art or obvious work?&#xD;&#xA;Worse the applicant Chersoft must have known about prior art anyway!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of communicating electronic map data to a remote vehicle, comprising a first data processing terminal interfaced with a vehicle-borne map data processing terminal over a network connection, the method performed at the first data processing terminal comprising the steps of;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;compiling map data as at least one cell comprising a plurality of vector data records and a plurality of feature data records;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;compressing the compiled cell data;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;encrypting and digitally &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;signing the compressed cell data; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;transmitting the encrypted and digitally signed cell data over the network;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*characterised in that the step of compiling comprises the further step of* &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;reducing the respective bit length of a plurality of vector data values." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7830" RevisionGUID="c0062012-e990-4ba9-8596-5848206f3b2d" CreationDate="2014-07-09T05:49:58.450" UserId="10003" Text="Design patents filed before Dec 18, 2013 have a patent term of 14 years from the date of grant. See http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2701.html#sect2701.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The design patent you listed was granted on Dec 30, 1997 and so it expired Dec 30, 2011." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7831" RevisionGUID="ef83b303-c958-4fee-9382-8cfe5c5b38b8" CreationDate="2014-07-09T07:09:24.967" UserId="8751" Text="Continuation and divisional applications originate under different conditions. Divisional application is typically carved out from the original application when the examiner issues a restriction requirement if the original application is shown to have more than one distinct inventions. Continuation application is filed when you would like to file additional claims for the invention disclosed in the parent - this you can initiate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can have a divisional application carved out from that application if the examiner issues a restriction requirement and based on that requirement but you cannot voluntarily file or convert the continuation to divisional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7832" RevisionGUID="b1544a9d-f417-4a26-805e-07099a132f95" CreationDate="2014-07-09T08:57:32.900" UserId="3721" Text="If I publish my trade secrets in a patent, surely it will be copied and the cost of litigation will be on me. Microsoft is a good example of a patent vampire" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19318" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7832" RevisionGUID="b1544a9d-f417-4a26-805e-07099a132f95" CreationDate="2014-07-09T08:57:32.900" UserId="3721" Text="Which is better, to patent or keep secret" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19319" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7832" RevisionGUID="b1544a9d-f417-4a26-805e-07099a132f95" CreationDate="2014-07-09T08:57:32.900" UserId="3721" Text="&lt;litigation&gt;&lt;secret&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7832" RevisionGUID="65e72efd-b788-440d-b5c2-d7c23a6cbda8" CreationDate="2014-07-09T10:20:00.340" UserId="3721" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="If I publish my trade secrets in a patent, surely it will be copied and the cost of litigation will be on me. Microsoft is a good example of a patent vampire&#xD;&#xA;I did look into registering a US patent from South Africa but decided against it&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7833" RevisionGUID="5a91e9b9-3363-46ef-af2e-86a50dab0b14" CreationDate="2014-07-09T10:36:28.183" UserId="10005" Text="What exactly is protected under this patent US 20130001878A1. I have built a similar product but it's fill mechanism is automatic in nature. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19322" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7833" RevisionGUID="5a91e9b9-3363-46ef-af2e-86a50dab0b14" CreationDate="2014-07-09T10:36:28.183" UserId="10005" Text="What is protected under this patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19323" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7833" RevisionGUID="5a91e9b9-3363-46ef-af2e-86a50dab0b14" CreationDate="2014-07-09T10:36:28.183" UserId="10005" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7834" RevisionGUID="370058f2-4096-47f7-9165-0f855aff4d8d" CreationDate="2014-07-09T12:21:14.980" UserId="1193" Text="Any patent protects what is listed in the _claims_ -- no more -- no less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best way to start is to compare &quot;Claim 1&quot; word-for-word and see if your product matches the description -- if your product differs in just one matter of what is described in the fist claim, then it is likely not covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, making something &quot;automatic&quot; could be an innovative enhancement and patentable in it's own right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7835" RevisionGUID="5e79d39b-d884-491f-8ecd-ef10b8adb253" CreationDate="2014-07-09T14:48:00.393" UserId="5317" Text="I seek to catalog prior-art for this patent application for a Yagi-Uda style antenna using a collection of ground plane style elements resulting in a slick vertical polarization beam antenna system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the Yagi patent goes back to 1926 or so and there has been lots of development since then, this search will likely go way way back in time to find the relevant nuggets. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19326" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7835" RevisionGUID="5e79d39b-d884-491f-8ecd-ef10b8adb253" CreationDate="2014-07-09T14:48:00.393" UserId="5317" Text="Prior Art Request - Beam Forming Antenna - US20120262358" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19327" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7835" RevisionGUID="5e79d39b-d884-491f-8ecd-ef10b8adb253" CreationDate="2014-07-09T14:48:00.393" UserId="5317" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;communications-antennas&gt;&lt;us20120262358&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7835" RevisionGUID="462dfdf0-c30a-4666-8f4a-251ca1d78355" CreationDate="2014-07-09T14:55:28.043" UserId="5317" Comment="Added a few links to current prior-art finds." Text="I seek to catalog prior-art for this patent application for a Yagi-Uda style antenna using a collection of ground plane style elements resulting in a slick vertical polarization beam antenna system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the Yagi patent goes back to 1926 or so and there has been lots of development since then, this search will likely go way way back in time to find the relevant nuggets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far these patents portray the topology and relationships shown in the application antenna array as if they are public knowledge...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US2982959][1] - Antenna for both horizontally and vertically polarized waves&#xD;&#xA; - [US4223317][2] - Dual polarization antenna couplets&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both patents focus on providing a way to select either horizontal or vertical polarization.  That doesn't apply to the current patent application, but it is interesting to note the topology of antenna elements is precisely what is portrayed in the &quot;beam forming antenna&quot; application.  This suggests the authors of the 1960 and 1977 patents were improving the very system the recent application is attempting to patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone else seen a Yagi-Uda array composed of sets of conductors, one vertical, two horizontal, arranged in the beam forming array?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US2982959&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4223317" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7835" RevisionGUID="354fbe52-461b-4a8e-9f34-968f4985cfe8" CreationDate="2014-07-09T15:12:22.843" UserId="5317" Comment="Added one more patent." Text="I seek to catalog prior-art for this patent application for a Yagi-Uda style antenna using a collection of ground plane style elements resulting in a slick vertical polarization beam antenna system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the Yagi patent goes back to 1926 or so and there has been lots of development since then, this search will likely go way way back in time to find the relevant nuggets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far these patents portray the topology and relationships shown in the application antenna array as if they are public knowledge...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US2982959][1] - Antenna for both horizontally and vertically polarized waves&#xD;&#xA; - [US3821742][2] - Dual polarized antenna with triangular wire reflector&#xD;&#xA; - [US4223317][3] - Dual polarization antenna couplets&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These patents focus on providing/adding a way to select either horizontal or vertical polarization to what they seem to infer as previously known vertical pol. Yagi-Uda array.  This switchable polarization doesn't apply, or need to apply, to the current patent application, but it is interesting to note the topology of antenna elements is precisely what is portrayed in the &quot;beam forming antenna&quot; application.  This suggests the authors of the 1960 and 1977 patents were improving the very system the recent application is attempting to patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone else seen a Yagi-Uda array composed of sets of conductors, one vertical, two horizontal, arranged in the beam forming array?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US2982959&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US3821742&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4223317" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7828" RevisionGUID="cebe7a16-7c93-4671-b93b-0d2b4732eaab" CreationDate="2014-07-09T16:13:27.077" UserId="3076" Comment="clean up typos etc." Text="Yes, the owner of the first issued patent would try to get the other 5,303 patents into a reexamination process a the USPTO if the owner thought his/her IP was valuable enough. This alone makes the assertion of such &quot;overlap&quot; questionable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sticking to facts - on the audio clip the expert said there were (by some undisclosed search method) 5,303 things *going through the system* at the same time that had an overlap.Breaking that down - that is not saying that all 5,303 applications made it out as issued patents or taking into consideration that those that were eventually granted were required to make claim amendments before being deemed worthy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there is the word &quot;overlap&quot;. What patents cover is laid out in their claims. The territory covered by a claim is notoriously difficult to determine by a human reader. My opinion is that whatever overlap meant it could not have meant &quot;claims that cover the same territory.&quot; That would be way to hard for a computer to determine.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is claim 1 of the patent in question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An online computer system providing commercial backup services to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; remote customer computers over the Internet by performing the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; following steps: &lt;p&gt; (a) providing at least one remote storage area&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for use in storing customer backup information; &lt;p&gt; (b) establishing a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first online Internet session with a customer's computer; &lt;p&gt; (c)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; allowing the customer to sign up for backup services over the first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; online Internet session, including the step of establishing a customer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identifier and associated password for the customer; &lt;p&gt; (d)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; establishing a second online Internet session with the customer's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computer; &lt;p&gt; (e) requesting the customer to input the customer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identifier and associated password established by step (c); &lt;p&gt; (f)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; validating the customer identifier and password requested by step (e);&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;p&gt; (g) conditioned at least in part on validating step (f), allowing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the customer to access the remote storage area over the second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Internet session substantially as if the remote storage area was a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; backup storage device physically and/or locally attached to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; customer's computer, including the steps of: &lt;p&gt; (1) encrypting backup&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data provided by the customer's computer, &lt;p&gt; (2) transmitting the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; encrypted backup data to the online backup service provider over the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; second online Internet session, and &lt;p&gt; (3) storing the backup data in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the remote storage area provided by the online backup service&#xD;&#xA;&gt; provider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a very long claim with many required steps. For someone to infringe this claim they need to do **everything** the claim says. It is not broad. When the voices on This American Life say it seems to cover so many things they are noticing that many things are described. That is not &quot;covering&quot;. Only the claims state what the inventors see as new and non-obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7837" RevisionGUID="ff18a2e3-fc12-4256-98e8-48bb48e39944" CreationDate="2014-07-09T16:42:34.103" UserId="3076" Text="As of 7/9/2014 the application in question has an outstanding non-final rejection that was issued in June. It cites:&#xD;&#xA;[US3179943 Log periodic monopole array and image ground plane ...][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several other references mentioned in the Office Action. You can look up the whole history of published patent applications and patents (if filed in the last 10 years or so) at USPTO Public PAIR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US3179943&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/YDzBy.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7828" RevisionGUID="ca7cca96-860d-471b-8b20-6178130bc329" CreationDate="2014-07-09T17:00:39.667" UserId="3076" Comment="added link to detailed report on claim comparisons " Text="Yes, the owner of the first issued patent would try to get the other 5,303 patents into a reexamination process a the USPTO if the owner thought his/her IP was valuable enough. This alone makes the assertion of such &quot;overlap&quot; questionable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sticking to facts - on the audio clip the expert said there were (by some undisclosed search method) 5,303 things *going through the system* at the same time that had an overlap.Breaking that down - that is not saying that all 5,303 applications made it out as issued patents or taking into consideration that those that were eventually granted were required to make claim amendments before being deemed worthy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there is the word &quot;overlap&quot;. What patents cover is laid out in their claims. The territory covered by a claim is notoriously difficult to determine by a human reader. My opinion is that whatever overlap meant it could not have meant &quot;claims that cover the same territory.&quot; That would be way to hard for a computer to determine.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is claim 1 of the patent in question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An online computer system providing commercial backup services to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; remote customer computers over the Internet by performing the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; following steps: &lt;p&gt; (a) providing at least one remote storage area&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for use in storing customer backup information; &lt;p&gt; (b) establishing a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first online Internet session with a customer's computer; &lt;p&gt; (c)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; allowing the customer to sign up for backup services over the first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; online Internet session, including the step of establishing a customer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identifier and associated password for the customer; &lt;p&gt; (d)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; establishing a second online Internet session with the customer's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computer; &lt;p&gt; (e) requesting the customer to input the customer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identifier and associated password established by step (c); &lt;p&gt; (f)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; validating the customer identifier and password requested by step (e);&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;p&gt; (g) conditioned at least in part on validating step (f), allowing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the customer to access the remote storage area over the second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Internet session substantially as if the remote storage area was a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; backup storage device physically and/or locally attached to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; customer's computer, including the steps of: &lt;p&gt; (1) encrypting backup&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data provided by the customer's computer, &lt;p&gt; (2) transmitting the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; encrypted backup data to the online backup service provider over the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; second online Internet session, and &lt;p&gt; (3) storing the backup data in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the remote storage area provided by the online backup service&#xD;&#xA;&gt; provider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a very long claim with many required steps. For someone to infringe this claim they need to do **everything** the claim says. It is not broad. When the voices on This American Life say it seems to cover so many things they are noticing that many things are described. That is not &quot;covering&quot;. Only the claims state what the inventors see as new and non-obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDITED&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following up o this topic I went to the site of the firm that was used to do the analysis that produced the 5,303 number. In their [detailed report][1] they do analyze the claim of the patent in question to the *two* other patents they boiled the 5,303 list down to.&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.m-cam.com/sites/www.m-cam.com/files/20110729%20-%20Chris%20Crawford,%20Intellectual%20Ventures,%20Oasis%20Research.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Uz8Kj.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7840" RevisionGUID="da1212db-5487-499b-bcb1-17085b26dc3c" CreationDate="2014-07-09T22:15:57.400" UserId="10011" Text="There are certainly merits to each. Keeping something a trade secret is great if you can, well, keep it a secret. That means a couple things: you want to make sure you don't tell anyone who will tell anyone, and you want to make sure that your invention can't be reverse engineered. A classic example of a trade secret is the Coca-Cola formula. You can drink as much Coke as you want, but you won't come out suddenly knowing the formula. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most a trade secret can do is help with litigation if someone maliciously tells competitors your process. That means that if an employee of yours leaves and tells a competitor how to do whatever you want to do, you'll have no hope of recovering the secret and it will forever be public knowledge. You'll be able to sue the former employee, but that's likely not going to replenish your financial loss. On the plus side, a trade secret can last for as long as you can keep it secret. There's no expiry date on a trade secret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, yes, patents let you (or force you, rather) to publish every intimate detail about your invention in exchange for an exclusive usage license for a set number of years. That gives you the most protection, and although the cost of litigation can be heavy, it's likely not to be a big issue unless your field is very busy with harsh competition. And if that's the case, a trade secret will likely not suffice anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's really a business decision and inherently subjective. It depends on what *kind* of thing you're looking to protect, as well as how much you expect to make from it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7841" RevisionGUID="cd23f02c-9adf-4c04-9d10-11793189ea4d" CreationDate="2014-07-10T00:55:09.967" UserId="5317" Text="I heard you can request the examiner formulate one claim for you.  When is this a good idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the goal of a patent is to merely document the existence of some novelty without trying to claim the world while you are at it, can an examiner's claim speed the process along?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you never intend to prosecute your patent can an examiner's claim make granting more likely?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume if the examiner writes that one claim for you it is pretty darn narrow right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19344" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7841" RevisionGUID="cd23f02c-9adf-4c04-9d10-11793189ea4d" CreationDate="2014-07-10T00:55:09.967" UserId="5317" Text="Claims - When is it a good idea to let the Patent Examiner make one for you?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19345" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7841" RevisionGUID="cd23f02c-9adf-4c04-9d10-11793189ea4d" CreationDate="2014-07-10T00:55:09.967" UserId="5317" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;examiner&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7833" RevisionGUID="46e0f3e8-ed8f-4f8d-816c-6c594e72cf59" CreationDate="2014-07-10T01:26:28.770" UserId="1193" Comment="Link patent" Text="What exactly is protected under this patent [US 20130001878A1][1]. I have built a similar product but it's fill mechanism is automatic in nature. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130001878" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19347" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7833" RevisionGUID="46e0f3e8-ed8f-4f8d-816c-6c594e72cf59" CreationDate="2014-07-10T01:26:28.770" Comment="Proposed by 1193 approved by 3076, 1259 edit id of 563" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7816" RevisionGUID="6035cdb0-b39d-497c-8c5e-802275d6eb56" CreationDate="2014-07-10T01:26:34.537" UserId="1193" Comment="Formatting, and making the patent # link to URL" Text="Is the &#xD;&#xA;[USD388287 S][1]&#xD;&#xA;patent expired? I am looking to design something similar to this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/USD388287" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19349" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7816" RevisionGUID="6035cdb0-b39d-497c-8c5e-802275d6eb56" CreationDate="2014-07-10T01:26:34.537" Comment="Proposed by 1193 approved by 3076, 1259 edit id of 562" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8842" RevisionGUID="e855d2c0-1e25-402c-887d-6a7c819301c9" CreationDate="2014-07-10T04:07:24.687" UserId="3418" Text="AFAIK, method claim is weak against manufacturer because only end user may use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OTOH, invention using all old hardware but only new way to use it, e.g merging different inputs from different sources and then using boolean logic on the inputs. What is the best way to protect against manufacturer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I must consider the fact that unauthorized software could have the same function for free but can not go after them (very hard to catch them, user can download it from anywhere..)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example, smartphone with dedicated face recognition, can't claim smartphone with camera (already exist), a method claim could be done but very weak in practice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20351" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8842" RevisionGUID="e855d2c0-1e25-402c-887d-6a7c819301c9" CreationDate="2014-07-10T04:07:24.687" UserId="3418" Text="Method vs apparatus for electronics hardware, pros and cons?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20352" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8842" RevisionGUID="e855d2c0-1e25-402c-887d-6a7c819301c9" CreationDate="2014-07-10T04:07:24.687" UserId="3418" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;hardware-patents&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8843" RevisionGUID="59ddb5e2-93ac-4a29-ba32-b6fe2900fac3" CreationDate="2014-07-10T04:13:35.427" UserId="3418" Text="I will file provisional patent, then publish it. Can I file PCT application after that based on US provisional priority date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If yes, what is the maximum time I can have before filing PCT application? Is that 12 months or more?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20354" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8843" RevisionGUID="59ddb5e2-93ac-4a29-ba32-b6fe2900fac3" CreationDate="2014-07-10T04:13:35.427" UserId="3418" Text="Can I file US provisional patent, and publish the invention, then file for PCT after that? For how long can it be legal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20355" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8843" RevisionGUID="59ddb5e2-93ac-4a29-ba32-b6fe2900fac3" CreationDate="2014-07-10T04:13:35.427" UserId="3418" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8844" RevisionGUID="8176bc45-56d1-4f73-8f5c-bb99d9004268" CreationDate="2014-07-10T04:20:06.710" UserId="5317" Text="I have a Design patent and a Provisional patent in play at the moment.  I looked at the progress in PAIR for both and things seem to be hunky dory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I decided to have a look at the drawings portion in the &quot;image file wrapper&quot; section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;quality&quot; of the drawings in the Design Patent are markedly much much better than the quality in the Provisional drawings.  Resolution appears to be the big difference and the provisional drawings are so horrible, some of the details that are crystal clear in the PDF I sent are pretty much just some black dots here and there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The quality in the Design patent drawings are better, but again some details are lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the patent office only use these partially digested drawings later or do they later try their best to use the actual quality sent to them via PDF?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why would the provisional drawings be so much worse than the ones in the design patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20357" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8844" RevisionGUID="8176bc45-56d1-4f73-8f5c-bb99d9004268" CreationDate="2014-07-10T04:20:06.710" UserId="5317" Text="Drawing quality after the PTO gets done with them" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20358" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8844" RevisionGUID="8176bc45-56d1-4f73-8f5c-bb99d9004268" CreationDate="2014-07-10T04:20:06.710" UserId="5317" Text="&lt;drawing&gt;&lt;quality&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9847" RevisionGUID="158c304c-decd-4c4a-ba25-f023a8f78d61" CreationDate="2014-07-10T12:52:35.950" UserId="11013" Text="[&quot;Locale&quot; by Two Forty Four AM][1] is a software that allows the user to set up actions in response to events, where one of the built in &quot;event plugins&quot; is GPS location (also available is a cell-tower location). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Event handlers can include a lot of things, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...automatically enable your lockpattern. For example, disable your unlock pattern at home... [November 15, 2011][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...enable and disable the lock pattern... [January 16, 2011][3] ([also here][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... Home (Location): Wifi on, Ringer volume 100%, Password lockscreen off... [April 25, 2011][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.twofortyfouram.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.willemstoker.ScreenLocker&amp;hl=en&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.jmcountryman.localelockscreen&amp;hl=en&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.jmcountryman.com/projects/locale-lockscreen-plugin/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://noswap.com/blog/locale" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9847" RevisionGUID="787a4de4-3d8d-4e46-b03d-2c58baf95570" CreationDate="2014-07-10T13:07:35.480" UserId="11013" Comment="Added &quot;tasker&quot; as another prior art" Text="[&quot;Locale&quot; by Two Forty Four AM][1] is a software that allows the user to set up actions in response to events, where one of the built in &quot;event plugins&quot; is GPS location (also available is a cell-tower location). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Event handlers can include a lot of things, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...automatically enable your lockpattern. For example, disable your unlock pattern at home... [November 15, 2011][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...enable and disable the lock pattern... [January 16, 2011][3] ([also here][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... Home (Location): Wifi on, Ringer volume 100%, Password lockscreen off... [April 25, 2011][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&quot;Tasker&quot;][6] is another such application, which has this capability built in, as described in the article &quot;[Disable Keyguard When At Home][7]&quot; (January 14, 2012). The Task change log describes &quot;action Keyguard Pattern&quot; as early as [11/05/2010 (v0.26b)][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.twofortyfouram.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.willemstoker.ScreenLocker&amp;hl=en&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.jmcountryman.localelockscreen&amp;hl=en&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.jmcountryman.com/projects/locale-lockscreen-plugin/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://noswap.com/blog/locale&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://tasker.dinglisch.net/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://tasker.wikidot.com/disable-keyguard-when-at-home&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://tasker.dinglisch.net/changes/prereleasechanges.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7828" RevisionGUID="247ca33c-115e-446d-b7cf-87e11c7b2e8d" CreationDate="2014-07-10T22:59:30.840" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Yes, the owner of the first issued patent would try to get the other 5,303 patents into a reexamination process at the USPTO if the owner thought his/her IP was valuable enough. This alone makes the assertion of such &quot;overlap&quot; questionable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sticking to facts - on the audio clip the expert said there were (by some undisclosed search method) 5,303 things *going through the system* at the same time that had an overlap.Breaking that down - that is not saying that all 5,303 applications made it out as issued patents or taking into consideration that those that were eventually granted may have been required to make claim amendments before being deemed worthy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there is the word &quot;overlap&quot;. What patents cover is laid out in their claims. The territory covered by a claim is notoriously difficult to determine by a human reader. My opinion is that whatever overlap meant it could not have meant &quot;claims that cover the same territory.&quot; That would be way to hard for a computer to determine.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is claim 1 of the patent in question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An online computer system providing commercial backup services to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; remote customer computers over the Internet by performing the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; following steps: &lt;p&gt; (a) providing at least one remote storage area&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for use in storing customer backup information; &lt;p&gt; (b) establishing a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first online Internet session with a customer's computer; &lt;p&gt; (c)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; allowing the customer to sign up for backup services over the first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; online Internet session, including the step of establishing a customer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identifier and associated password for the customer; &lt;p&gt; (d)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; establishing a second online Internet session with the customer's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computer; &lt;p&gt; (e) requesting the customer to input the customer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identifier and associated password established by step (c); &lt;p&gt; (f)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; validating the customer identifier and password requested by step (e);&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;p&gt; (g) conditioned at least in part on validating step (f), allowing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the customer to access the remote storage area over the second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Internet session substantially as if the remote storage area was a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; backup storage device physically and/or locally attached to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; customer's computer, including the steps of: &lt;p&gt; (1) encrypting backup&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data provided by the customer's computer, &lt;p&gt; (2) transmitting the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; encrypted backup data to the online backup service provider over the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; second online Internet session, and &lt;p&gt; (3) storing the backup data in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the remote storage area provided by the online backup service&#xD;&#xA;&gt; provider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a very long claim with many required steps. For someone to infringe this claim they need to do **everything** the claim says. It is not broad. When the voices on This American Life say it seems to cover so many things they are noticing that many things are described. That is not &quot;covering&quot;. Only the claims state what the inventors see as new and non-obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDITED&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following up on this topic I went to the site of the firm that was used to do the analysis that produced the 5,303 number. In their [detailed report][1] they do analyze the claim of the patent in question to the *two* other patents they boiled the 5,303 list down to.&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.m-cam.com/sites/www.m-cam.com/files/20110729%20-%20Chris%20Crawford,%20Intellectual%20Ventures,%20Oasis%20Research.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Uz8Kj.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7832" RevisionGUID="89d0c2ac-7e2b-4ac5-bd4c-d3364e1ed1e2" CreationDate="2014-07-11T01:06:37.307" UserId="3721" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="If I publish my trade secrets in a patent, surely it will be copied and the cost of litigation will be on me. Microsoft is a good example of a patent vampire.&#xD;&#xA;I did look into registering a US patent from South Africa but decided against it&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9848" RevisionGUID="cbaf2cdd-a8af-482b-a5e0-be0df12c0ab2" CreationDate="2014-07-11T10:57:25.803" UserId="10011" Text="Um, are you a patent agent or attorney? I'm not, but those don't look anything like the fields I would expect to see in a patent. I'm also in the United States, so I suppose that could be different. But a patent should consist of an Abstract, a Specification, Claims, and Drawings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could be totally misunderstanding your question, and I'll gladly remove or adjust this answer if I am. But assuming you're looking to file a non-provisional for it, those are the main parts you'll have to worry about." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9849" RevisionGUID="1ac81993-afa6-4efc-95f7-ef742bfc162a" CreationDate="2014-07-11T11:15:24.727" UserId="11019" Text="I have recently thought of an interesting and potentially very successful idea that could be implemented in 2-3 years. It would have at least a EU, or even a worldwide span. However, I have no experience at all, don't really have enough money to even file a patent according to the current EU patent office fees, no real registered company and no partners. Should I look for money to get a patent, and if not, what steps should I undertake first?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21381" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9849" RevisionGUID="1ac81993-afa6-4efc-95f7-ef742bfc162a" CreationDate="2014-07-11T11:15:24.727" UserId="11019" Text="Is it possible to patent something that is purely an idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21382" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9849" RevisionGUID="1ac81993-afa6-4efc-95f7-ef742bfc162a" CreationDate="2014-07-11T11:15:24.727" UserId="11019" Text="&lt;idea&gt;&lt;abstract&gt;&lt;wide-span&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9850" RevisionGUID="0ef1b396-89b2-4e91-8f1c-fc8b13103f72" CreationDate="2014-07-11T19:35:44.403" UserId="11021" Text="I have some design ideas that I want to bring to life that could potentially save lives. Just like the child seat mats, I want to create a pair one for the parent and the other for the car seat, so when the parent gets up from the mat in their seat, an alarm goes off and the only way to turn off is from the child's mat, thus reminding the parent. I know it isn't much but if I could get in contact with the inventor for the patent US 6924742 B2 I think we could have something. I don't know where else to go, and I am tired of seeing children die each year. if we can have fancy phones why cant there be a device to prevent deaths of children?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21384" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9850" RevisionGUID="0ef1b396-89b2-4e91-8f1c-fc8b13103f72" CreationDate="2014-07-11T19:35:44.403" UserId="11021" Text="This infers to the US 6924742 B2 patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21385" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9850" RevisionGUID="0ef1b396-89b2-4e91-8f1c-fc8b13103f72" CreationDate="2014-07-11T19:35:44.403" UserId="11021" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9851" RevisionGUID="348b72b2-20a0-4cde-8a85-fcb32118e955" CreationDate="2014-07-11T20:30:53.203" UserId="11022" Text="I would like to know if my patent is still valid.  I am going to make a presentation in the next couple weeks, and I want to make sure that my Patent is still valid. I want to make sure no one can legally steal my Idea......" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21387" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9851" RevisionGUID="348b72b2-20a0-4cde-8a85-fcb32118e955" CreationDate="2014-07-11T20:30:53.203" UserId="11022" Text="About the legalism of the Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21388" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9851" RevisionGUID="348b72b2-20a0-4cde-8a85-fcb32118e955" CreationDate="2014-07-11T20:30:53.203" UserId="11022" Text="&lt;us3827221&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9852" RevisionGUID="3a13b960-48fd-40e8-90bc-352405f17b15" CreationDate="2014-07-11T20:44:22.207" UserId="10011" Text="Assuming you're referring to the patent you tagged, it looks like that expired in 1991.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yours was issued before June 7, 1978, so it only lasted 17 years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9853" RevisionGUID="dcbf2172-e83d-4590-9e8b-c5d67f7c1d6d" CreationDate="2014-07-11T20:46:15.193" UserId="11023" Text="I do not know how to tell if the patent application was accepted or declined.  I looked at the legal events on the Google Patents page but I don't understand what the information is saying." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21391" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9853" RevisionGUID="dcbf2172-e83d-4590-9e8b-c5d67f7c1d6d" CreationDate="2014-07-11T20:46:15.193" UserId="11023" Text="Is this patent (US20060098849 A1) still pending?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21392" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9853" RevisionGUID="dcbf2172-e83d-4590-9e8b-c5d67f7c1d6d" CreationDate="2014-07-11T20:46:15.193" UserId="11023" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;patent-pending&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21393" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9852" RevisionGUID="466d2175-b74d-4e9c-8d64-4c6255d84b00" CreationDate="2014-07-11T20:51:28.840" UserId="10011" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="Your patent was issued in 1974, so looks like it expired in 1991.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Utility patents issued before June 7, 1978 only lasted 17 years. Even for newly granted ones it's only twenty years from filing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9854" RevisionGUID="c8d343bc-860e-45b2-af99-8894edb1b514" CreationDate="2014-07-11T21:01:41.760" UserId="10011" Text="If you look in Public Pair you can see that it was abandoned in May 2009. That probably means the filer (or the filer's attorney, as the case may be) failed to respond to an office action. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9855" RevisionGUID="ddc8ec0e-1fa5-4914-8fff-48262401f742" CreationDate="2014-07-11T21:13:37.083" UserId="10011" Text="I'm a little confused of what you're asking here. It sounds like you want to get a patent on your idea using mats instead of the original patent's seatbelts? I fear this post will count as a public disclosure and will likely have a negative effect on your patentability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9856" RevisionGUID="5975819f-4b02-40b7-8289-8ba3b5e6c4a0" CreationDate="2014-07-11T21:18:18.427" UserId="10011" Text="It's hard to know what you should do without knowing what your idea is. So it might be a good idea to speak with a patent attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gist is no. You cannot patent an idea. Patents are on implementations. For instance, you can patent chair, but you can't patent the idea of sitting down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd really suggest your first step to be talking to a patent attorney to figure out the right course." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9848" RevisionGUID="8e4d0464-45fd-42a0-bc70-cac37624c993" CreationDate="2014-07-11T21:22:48.520" UserId="10011" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="Um, are you a patent agent or attorney? I'm not, but those don't look anything like the fields I would expect to see in a patent. I'm also in the United States, so I suppose that could be different. But a patent should consist of an Abstract, a Specification, Claims, and Drawings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could be totally misunderstanding your question, and I'll gladly remove or adjust this answer if I am. But assuming you're looking to file a non-provisional for it, those are the main parts you'll have to worry about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look up MPEP on the USPTO.gov site, you'll find a list of the things you need." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9858" RevisionGUID="c89e77c4-9771-4186-9307-809fa72be341" CreationDate="2014-07-12T00:36:35.160" UserId="11025" Text="It appears the examiner in this case is already familiar with bitcoin mining--there is a rejection based on that (with specific examples) already in the image file wrapper for this application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9859" RevisionGUID="763b055e-5c3a-4e97-8e65-db8dc5e3835c" CreationDate="2014-07-12T00:43:20.530" UserId="11025" Text="From what I have read elsewhere, the medicine mentioned in the patent didn't really work, and the patent has been abandoned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9861" RevisionGUID="342d8497-76d5-4445-b4bf-d9d25e334e8b" CreationDate="2014-07-12T10:25:38.130" UserId="9917" Text="Are you filing in the U.S.?  If so, then you can find the major headings in either the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure[1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, I recommend using the headings provided in the Manual and adding any others that make sense to help the reader understand in the invention.  Often I add Definitions section and an Examples section (if the invention involves experimental descriptions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have a lot of latitude in how you write the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html#d0e43582" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9862" RevisionGUID="691440da-4015-478f-92ec-5d052c96ab7f" CreationDate="2014-07-12T10:28:24.713" UserId="9917" Text="Yes you can.  You must file the PCT claiming priority to the US provisional's filing date within 12 months from the day you file the provisional.  The same is true if you also want to file a US non-provisional application (i.e., one that will be examined) based on the provisional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21408" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9853" RevisionGUID="760d8653-aede-4e8a-a636-f55a590c0a23" CreationDate="2014-07-12T12:47:10.370" UserId="1259" Comment="tags" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;patent-pending&gt;&lt;us20060098849a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9864" RevisionGUID="06fec02b-51aa-4c13-be81-a6d31310cec0" CreationDate="2014-07-12T23:38:59.910" UserId="3076" Text="First - the word &quot;idea&quot; equals &quot;not patentable&quot; - stay away from the word idea. Concept is a much better word to use. Some concepts include a basic implementation and can be patented without you knowing exactly what the dimensions are, the material to use to make it economically. Or you might hire someone to supply non-inventive enablement help. On the other hand some concepts are only a wish that something could exist. That would not be patentable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To take the chair example - If you had the concept &quot;there should be a horizontal surface about as big as your rear-end that is held about 2 feet off of the ground somehow so people could remain in one place without their full weight being supported by their legs and feet&quot; that is not an invention. Add in, &quot;the seat portion will be held up by three or more legs&quot; and may be you have an invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You *can* patent a method of sitting in seat. A novel way might include a hot air balloon to get up over it, ropes to guide you down and someone throwing you sandbags." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9858" RevisionGUID="6e33a3ba-bdf3-4378-b9aa-76ff8bd9bbe9" CreationDate="2014-07-13T00:05:25.710" UserId="3076" Comment="added 217 characters in body" Text="It appears the examiner in this case is already familiar with bitcoin mining--there is a rejection based on that (with specific examples) already in the image file wrapper for this application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDITED&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the non-final OA issued 6/20/2014 (it is a screenshot) this can be accessed via the USPTO's Public PAIR database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ZlQgy.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9865" RevisionGUID="a11f400e-d516-4f38-8f48-59f9d19a4054" CreationDate="2014-07-13T09:32:51.213" UserId="3418" Text="For example, claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1/ A table has 100 legs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2/ The table of claim 1, and having one golden leg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3/ The table of claim 2, and having one diamond leg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is claim 3 a multiple dependent claim? Because IMO, it is based on two other claims, or is it just a dependent claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21416" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9865" RevisionGUID="a11f400e-d516-4f38-8f48-59f9d19a4054" CreationDate="2014-07-13T09:32:51.213" UserId="3418" Text="Is dependent claim of another dependent claim a multiple dependent claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21417" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9865" RevisionGUID="a11f400e-d516-4f38-8f48-59f9d19a4054" CreationDate="2014-07-13T09:32:51.213" UserId="3418" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9866" RevisionGUID="204d323c-d76d-4093-82a2-9d104e5562f2" CreationDate="2014-07-13T14:00:08.993" UserId="3418" Text="AFAIK, US provisional patent is valid for later use even without any claim, but I heard that some countries require patent having claims. So does PCT application accepts US provisional patent without claim as valid priority date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or should I file US provisional with claims (like a formal patent application)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21419" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9866" RevisionGUID="204d323c-d76d-4093-82a2-9d104e5562f2" CreationDate="2014-07-13T14:00:08.993" UserId="3418" Text="Can PCT application based on US provisional patent without claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21420" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9866" RevisionGUID="204d323c-d76d-4093-82a2-9d104e5562f2" CreationDate="2014-07-13T14:00:08.993" UserId="3418" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9867" RevisionGUID="30e0c745-e06a-4625-a308-697df9123183" CreationDate="2014-07-13T14:24:10.687" UserId="11033" Text="Has this patent been awarded or is the patent still pending? It shows in the database as pending, but that was back in 2009. If the idea was abandoned, would the patent still be listed as pending?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21422" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9867" RevisionGUID="30e0c745-e06a-4625-a308-697df9123183" CreationDate="2014-07-13T14:24:10.687" UserId="11033" Text="patent awarded or abandoned?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21423" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9867" RevisionGUID="30e0c745-e06a-4625-a308-697df9123183" CreationDate="2014-07-13T14:24:10.687" UserId="11033" Text="&lt;patent-pending&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9868" RevisionGUID="fce9b863-2523-4f47-b1b7-870bcc112761" CreationDate="2014-07-13T15:00:21.673" UserId="11034" Text="No, that's just a second-level dependent claim. A multiple dependent claim is &quot;[a]ny dependent claim which refers to more than one other claim&quot; in the alternative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;37 C.F.R. 1.75(c):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Any dependent claim which refers to more than one other claim (“multiple dependent claim”) shall refer to such other claims in the alternative only. A multiple dependent claim shall not serve as a basis for any other multiple dependent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, claim 3 would be a multiple dependent claim because it depends on either claim 1 or claim 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A table comprising 100 legs.&#xD;&#xA;2. The table of claim 1, wherein at least one leg is a golden leg.&#xD;&#xA;3. The table of claims 1 or 2, wherein at least one leg is a diamond leg.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9869" RevisionGUID="0c57978c-47b6-4f55-bb0d-f321f58f60c3" CreationDate="2014-07-13T15:05:28.227" UserId="11034" Text="If you check on the USPTO's public PAIR system, you can see the status of a published application. If the application has been abandoned, the status should say, for example: &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9870" RevisionGUID="66c1d2d6-1e88-4915-bf3d-2fe5e92788e3" CreationDate="2014-07-13T16:00:23.260" UserId="11034" Text="I think these other answers are diving into the weeds on patent-eligibility when the poster really means, &quot;Can I patent something that I haven't built yet?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Is it possible to patent something that is purely an idea?&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, it is possible to patent something that you've never actually built. If you've come up with an invention but don't have the money to build it, you merely have to be able to describe it so that an ordinary craftsman in whatever field you're working in could look at what you've described and then build it. Essentially, you don't have to actually *build* a new type of bicycle, you just have to write down /draw enough such that a bicycle builder could look at your patent and know how to build the new type of bicycle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Article 83 of the European Patent Convention:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;. . . the European patent application shall disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by the skilled person . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Should I look for money to get a patent, and if not, what steps should I undertake first?&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is more of a business question than a patent law question and will overwhelmingly require a deeper knowledge of your invention and the industry. Patents are useful in your situation in two ways: (1) the become a piece of property you can sell or license to someone else (who might manufacture your product), or (2) they protect your own business from people copying your idea. In the former case, you'll need to find partners who want to pay you to build your invention. In the latter case, you'll need to actually build a business around your product, and then use the patent as a defensive measure. In either event, you will want to talk to a patent attorney about your specific invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9872" RevisionGUID="a49c6e3b-c4e4-4af4-98e0-f2058d8a98b5" CreationDate="2014-07-13T17:06:37.930" UserId="11034" Text="You can write an **apparatus claim** to cover a combination of hardware and software. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Claim 1. An apparatus comprising: &#xD;&#xA;        a processor; &#xD;&#xA;        a camera; and &#xD;&#xA;        a memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the processor, &#xD;&#xA;    perform steps comprising: &#xD;&#xA;            [dedicated face recognition step 1]; and&#xD;&#xA;            [dedicated face recognition step 2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This covers a manufacturer that sells phones with your software invention already inside them. This gets more complicated if your method involves interacting with a server. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other option is a **computer readable medium claim**, which is an apparatus that *only* claims the above memory element from claim 1. This allows you to extend infringement to anyone who stores a program on a disk that implements your method, such as an App Store, websites like Download.com, github.com, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9873" RevisionGUID="b2848ad5-5d00-4069-a7bf-1fd6026a7ddb" CreationDate="2014-07-13T22:33:21.003" UserId="11036" Text="From my opinion this patent cannot be - half of these things existed before it was filed. The phrases are way too broad, for instance claim 5 negates foursquare completely. Deriving product preferences is what google does for ages as well.&#xD;&#xA;Was it actually been granted? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21432" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9873" RevisionGUID="b2848ad5-5d00-4069-a7bf-1fd6026a7ddb" CreationDate="2014-07-13T22:33:21.003" UserId="11036" Text="Broad patent wo2014100371a1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21433" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9873" RevisionGUID="b2848ad5-5d00-4069-a7bf-1fd6026a7ddb" CreationDate="2014-07-13T22:33:21.003" UserId="11036" Text="&lt;wo2014100371a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9874" RevisionGUID="796dd6d1-739f-49fe-a392-e879d9fa1770" CreationDate="2014-07-13T23:41:56.590" UserId="10011" Text="I think you might be overlooking the specificity in the first claim a bit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A system comprising: a computer processor operable to: receive a preference of a user, the preference relating to a product or service located in a first geographic location; receive an identification of a second geographic location; analyze, based on the preference of the user, a database to identify candidate products or services in the second geographic location; determine, from the candidate products or services, an equivalent product or service at least in part by comparison of the candidate products or services to the preference of the user; and transmit to the user an identification of the equivalent product or service located in the second geographic location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember that patents can be improvements of existing inventions. This does seem related to some of what Google and FourSquare or similar services do, but that doesn't mean it's infringing on whatever patents they may or may not have on that functionality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the sounds of this patent, which yes, was granted, it's for a service which will make suggestions during travel (this is mostly just a hunch) based on a user's previous trends. That's not really something Google or FourSquare do. I see its applicant is Ebay, though, so I don't really know what they were/are up to with that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9875" RevisionGUID="789050cc-b416-44a4-a540-ea20f9420a28" CreationDate="2014-07-14T06:09:33.277" UserId="3076" Text="This document is **not** a granted patent. It is an application for a patent. This is a particular type of application called a PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) application. In one sense a PCT applicant is application to ~150 countries simultaneously and in another way it is an application to nowhere.  The applicant has a year from this month to decide which countries to steer this to by paying fees to enter the national stage in those countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its OK for half of the things a patent mentions to have existed. Most inventions are combinations of old things. The way to understand the rights the application intends to cover is to read the claims. Claims are not very easy to read without some guidance and some practice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This claim 1 essentially says : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;step 1. Tell me a retail location you like in location in town X and &#xD;&#xA;step 2  give us another location, town Y. (maybe the person is traveling from X to Y to or planning on moving there). We will give you the name of a retail location in Y that is a lot like the place you explicitly told us you like in town X.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might or might be new and non-obvious. It is not something I have heard that Google or Foursquare is doing.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9874" RevisionGUID="7cb7ad1b-dec3-4910-9c21-d6a448af670d" CreationDate="2014-07-14T06:13:54.853" UserId="10011" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="I think you might be overlooking the specificity in the first claim a bit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A system comprising: a computer processor operable to: receive a preference of a user, the preference relating to a product or service located in a first geographic location; receive an identification of a second geographic location; analyze, based on the preference of the user, a database to identify candidate products or services in the second geographic location; determine, from the candidate products or services, an equivalent product or service at least in part by comparison of the candidate products or services to the preference of the user; and transmit to the user an identification of the equivalent product or service located in the second geographic location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember that patents can be improvements of existing inventions. This does seem related to some of what Google and FourSquare or similar services do, but that doesn't mean it's infringing on whatever patents they may or may not have on that functionality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the sounds of this application, which no, has not yet been granted, it's for a service which will make suggestions during travel (this is mostly just a hunch) based on a user's previous trends. That's not really something Google or FourSquare do. I see its applicant is Ebay, though, so I don't really know what they were/are up to with that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9879" RevisionGUID="1bdad39b-8167-4245-b066-ce33212461df" CreationDate="2014-07-15T10:02:51.860" UserId="1186" Text="I filed a patent application through a US attorney. He gave me a receipt &quot;Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt&quot; bearing EFS ID, Application Number, Confirmation Number etc.  But I also want to see the status of the filing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is there a way I can do it myself ?   &#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21445" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9879" RevisionGUID="1bdad39b-8167-4245-b066-ce33212461df" CreationDate="2014-07-15T10:02:51.860" UserId="1186" Text="Checking patent application's status before it is published" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21446" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9879" RevisionGUID="1bdad39b-8167-4245-b066-ce33212461df" CreationDate="2014-07-15T10:02:51.860" UserId="1186" Text="&lt;status&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9881" RevisionGUID="3316921d-faa3-4c72-8260-b62c8659198f" CreationDate="2014-07-15T17:00:42.313" UserId="3076" Text="This is covered in the MPEP section 203.08&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inquiries as to the status of applications, by persons entitled to the information, should be answered promptly. Simple letters of inquiry regarding the status of applications will be transmitted from the Office of Patent Application Processing to the TCs for direct action. Such letters will be stamped “Status Letters.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the correspondent is not entitled to the information, in view of 37 CFR 1.14, he or she should be so informed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9883" RevisionGUID="5d075ea3-8c55-49e8-af9c-0ba3803da2e8" CreationDate="2014-07-16T09:19:40.387" UserId="3418" Text="Is there any way to to search classification of patent in CPC or USPC by keyword?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g I want to know what class &quot;computer mouse&quot; is, but it seems the search page assume that I already knew the code for that class. It seems the only way is to read all classification, which is huge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21457" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9883" RevisionGUID="5d075ea3-8c55-49e8-af9c-0ba3803da2e8" CreationDate="2014-07-16T09:19:40.387" UserId="3418" Text="Is there any way to search classification of USPTO?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21458" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9883" RevisionGUID="5d075ea3-8c55-49e8-af9c-0ba3803da2e8" CreationDate="2014-07-16T09:19:40.387" UserId="3418" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;search&gt;&lt;us-class&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9884" RevisionGUID="9735b42d-b6ac-4da1-affa-9fa821191959" CreationDate="2014-07-16T10:04:20.660" UserId="1186" Text="I am doing prior art searching. Now I want to to know do I need to search for patents which are not yet published ? If so how do I do this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A related question is: Can I search all patents which are filed today (or less than 18 months ago) ?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21460" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9884" RevisionGUID="9735b42d-b6ac-4da1-affa-9fa821191959" CreationDate="2014-07-16T10:04:20.660" UserId="1186" Text="Do I need to search for patents which are not yet published ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21461" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9884" RevisionGUID="9735b42d-b6ac-4da1-affa-9fa821191959" CreationDate="2014-07-16T10:04:20.660" UserId="1186" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9885" RevisionGUID="fc552f62-760a-4049-bab5-b8b3370ef2b3" CreationDate="2014-07-16T10:09:36.057" UserId="1186" Text="Suppose I have a private pair account with uspto. Can I see patents filed today by other customers? Or It will show only patents that I have filed ?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21463" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9885" RevisionGUID="fc552f62-760a-4049-bab5-b8b3370ef2b3" CreationDate="2014-07-16T10:09:36.057" UserId="1186" Text="What all can be accessed using Private PAIR?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21464" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9885" RevisionGUID="fc552f62-760a-4049-bab5-b8b3370ef2b3" CreationDate="2014-07-16T10:09:36.057" UserId="1186" Text="&lt;patent-search&gt;&lt;databases&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9888" RevisionGUID="9f354485-928e-4336-8e65-8dce643dc31a" CreationDate="2014-07-16T14:17:00.930" UserId="11048" Text="no, patents which are not published are not available for search" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9889" RevisionGUID="ea15113b-c3e5-46a5-b695-c37f08a586f3" CreationDate="2014-07-16T14:20:24.723" UserId="11034" Text="Patents that aren't yet published aren't searchable unless you're a patent examiner. As an outside searcher, you're limited to issued patents and published applications (in addition to non-patent literature, e.g., everything on the internet).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, you can't search all patents that were filed today. You have to wait until they are published. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9890" RevisionGUID="0825da24-665d-41c1-b158-ae6d6f06b422" CreationDate="2014-07-16T14:23:39.660" UserId="11034" Text="It will only show your patents. You can't use it to access unpublished applications filed by others." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9891" RevisionGUID="6a1647de-2c1e-4869-9d55-6765fd16e2e5" CreationDate="2014-07-16T15:46:20.913" UserId="11034" Text="There is an alphabetical index of USPC classes that you can use. For example, if you look up the word &quot;mouse&quot;, you'll see that they are included in class 345. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspcindex/indextouspc.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="687" RevisionGUID="070dcf41-fb5a-456e-8e82-0062624ce20f" CreationDate="2014-07-17T08:15:30.153" UserId="76" Comment="mention exhaustion doctrine and its limitation, following Luis's comment" Text="This particular patent covers the card reader device. If you purchase such a device and use it, the patent does not apply to you: it would only apply if you wanted to manufacture or sell a device using the same technology. In effect, when you bought the device, you paid for the patent in relation to the specific device that you bought (this is known as [exhaustion doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine) in US jurisprudence).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to [limit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine#Post-Sale_Limitations) what you can do with the device, the manufacturer would have to tie an explicitly restricting contract to the sale, and even then the contract would have to be very carefully worded in order for the manufacturer to have a case against you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Software that you might write to run on the device or to interact with the device is unrelated to patent claims on the device itself. There may, of course, be other applicable patents, from Square or others.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9893" RevisionGUID="da60afa9-5b51-4cb7-ba70-f487852680e3" CreationDate="2014-07-17T08:58:24.020" UserId="8657" Text="Yes, definitely. The PCT accepts US provisional application without any claims. However, it is always advisable to write some broad claims in the Provisional application. It is just an added measure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9894" RevisionGUID="dcf0368e-7d4a-48e6-9f52-7d119f5783f2" CreationDate="2014-07-17T13:05:43.883" UserId="1186" Text="I filed a patent application last month in USPTO through my attorney (I am not a US citizen) . I am now planning to go for early publication. Is this possible now?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also are there any limitations or drawbacks of early publication? Especially since I will be filing in many other countries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please enlighten me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant clause: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1129    Request for Early Publication][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1129.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21479" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9894" RevisionGUID="dcf0368e-7d4a-48e6-9f52-7d119f5783f2" CreationDate="2014-07-17T13:05:43.883" UserId="1186" Text="Are there any limitations and drawbacks of early publication in USPTO" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21480" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9894" RevisionGUID="dcf0368e-7d4a-48e6-9f52-7d119f5783f2" CreationDate="2014-07-17T13:05:43.883" UserId="1186" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;uspublication&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9896" RevisionGUID="038b1565-1f69-4b14-b88d-b01e68be19b0" CreationDate="2014-07-17T21:07:25.140" UserId="11052" Text="Someone suggested that 'copyright' is a means to protect an invention.  &#xD;&#xA;To do this a description, not unlike a patent write up, can be copyrighted protecting it from someone else to file a patent on the subject. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have my doubts. Just publishing it would also prevent someone else to apply for a patent I would think which would cost next to nothing while the copyright people charge a high fee. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please advise. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21488" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9896" RevisionGUID="038b1565-1f69-4b14-b88d-b01e68be19b0" CreationDate="2014-07-17T21:07:25.140" UserId="11052" Text="To use &quot;copywrite&quot; to protect an invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21489" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9896" RevisionGUID="038b1565-1f69-4b14-b88d-b01e68be19b0" CreationDate="2014-07-17T21:07:25.140" UserId="11052" Text="&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9900" RevisionGUID="4e033be6-79cb-4221-9c18-4b63621fe0e9" CreationDate="2014-07-18T19:54:02.443" UserId="11051" Text="I'm trying to find out if this Patent No. USD513117 S1 is still valid.  How can I find out for sure?  Thanks for your help!  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21500" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9900" RevisionGUID="4e033be6-79cb-4221-9c18-4b63621fe0e9" CreationDate="2014-07-18T19:54:02.443" UserId="11051" Text="Patent No. USD513117 S1--Is this still a valid patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21501" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9900" RevisionGUID="4e033be6-79cb-4221-9c18-4b63621fe0e9" CreationDate="2014-07-18T19:54:02.443" UserId="11051" Text="&lt;validity&gt;&lt;expired-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9901" RevisionGUID="886b8c1d-156b-42b0-80dc-27deff1b6c4f" CreationDate="2014-07-18T21:44:37.493" UserId="7433" Text="I believe the concept of two-pointers in a list goes back to the works of Newell and Simon at Carnegie Institute of Technology or Rand Corp. in **1957**. This is probably the first time the term &quot;lists&quot; as a data-structure description is used. This is a bit before LISP was invented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Newell, Allen; Simon, H.A., The logic theory machine -- A complex information processing system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: http://www.textfiles.com/bitsavers/pdf/rand/ipl/P-954_Programming_The_Logic_Theory_Machine_Jan57.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Lists**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Page 5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;There should be no restriction on the nature of the items in a list. These might range from a single symbol or number to an arbitrary list. Thus it should be possible to make lists, lists of lists and lists of lists of lists, etc.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pages 11/12&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Lists are the general units of information in the memory. A list consists of an ordered set of items of information. Any item on a list may be either a list or an element, and these are fundamentally different types of units as we shall see later (the difference arises mostly from the fact that an element is contained in a single JOHNNIAC word) . Since a list is itself an ordered set of items which may themselves he lists, we obtain most of the flexibility we desire in the memory structure. There is no limit to the complexity of the structures that can be built up--provided that one knows how to use them - except the total memory space available. Also, there is no restriction to the number of lists on which an item can appear. For example, if we have a list of items, we can construct one or more indexes (lists) on each of which an arbitrary subset of the items of the original list appears. &#xD;&#xA;With each item located in a given list we may associate descriptive information without disturbing the general structure of the lists. That is, each item can'have a list of description elements associated with it. As many descriptions may be put on the list as desired, and, since they are self-identifying (by means of the description names they contain) they may be put on in any order. Descriptions are associated with the item on a given list; hence, if an item is on several lists, it can have several distinct description lists.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**IPL-V Implementation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2008/RM3739.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Page -4- - IPL-V Coding Sheet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've table-merged it with the data from the patent image.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Name    | SYMB    | LINK      IPL-V - Instruction Structure List / Coding Sheet &#xD;&#xA;    --------+---------+----------&#xD;&#xA;    L1	    | 9-1	  | 100&#xD;&#xA;    100	    | S4	  | 101&#xD;&#xA;    101	    | S5	  | 0&#xD;&#xA;    9-1	    | 0	      | 200&#xD;&#xA;    200	    | A1	  | 201&#xD;&#xA;    201	    | V1	  | 202&#xD;&#xA;    202	    | A2	  | 203&#xD;&#xA;    203     | V2	  | 0&#xD;&#xA;    ---------------------------- The following items are from the patent image.&#xD;&#xA;    PtrAux  | Item    | PtrNext  Using their field names.&#xD;&#xA;    ----------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    112     | 102     | 114&#xD;&#xA;    110     | 104     | 106&#xD;&#xA;    104     | 106     | 108&#xD;&#xA;    ..down  | 108     | 110&#xD;&#xA;    108     | 110     | ..down  Down = downwards arrow, indicating more items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somehow, magically, it's the same structure.&#xD;&#xA;This might constitute Prior Art for the Claim &quot;two pointers next/aux&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The implementation has additional fields PQ next to Name, Symb, Link, but they are only used as indicators or command flags, not used as pointers. This is not applicable for the &quot;tertiary aux pointer&quot; claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claim of &quot;tertiary aux pointers&quot; is not covered here.&#xD;&#xA;Does something like this exist in LISP?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9902" RevisionGUID="f09d36f3-3288-455b-91e1-8b602eae5a4c" CreationDate="2014-07-19T00:05:17.377" UserId="11059" Text="This appears very similar in concept to a display in a windowless craft, superimposing various instrumentation over top of a video of the outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also similar to a heads-up display (HUD) whereby instrumentation is optically superimposed onto a real view, via partial reflection. The reflected instrumentation itself may be produced by an electronic display, but not necessarily so; it could be mechanical instrumentation that glows via fluorescence, or through some form of lighting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The basic concept here is to merge two views together so that a human operator can efficiently divide his or her attention between two information streams without head or eye movement, resulting in increased safety.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea for applying this to texting and walking may be neat, but it is not an invention; it is an application of an existing idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If heads-up displays constitute prior art for text-and-walk applications, then it is decades old prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, I call to your attention [US1871877](http://www.google.com/patents/US1871877) from **1929**: *&quot;Apparatus for correlating spaced points of observation&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Excerpts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;... This invention relates to an apparatus for correlating spaced and separate points of observation utilized in the control of a moving object, to the end that such control may be made more eflicient with a diminution in fatigue in the eye of the observer. &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;... Accordingly, the present invention provides means for projecting the index or symbol appearing in the secondary control field into the normal control field where it may be readily observed at all times.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9903" RevisionGUID="7fa7ea95-3529-48e3-8cda-bb798b3ace0d" CreationDate="2014-07-19T01:08:47.527" UserId="11059" Text="I implemented a system for identifying similar documents, in a version control system called Meta-CVS, in 2002, three years before the initial filing of this patent in 2005.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the basis for the `mcvs grab` command, for importing a snapshot of a document collection into a branch of the repository. The document collection is understood to be derived from the baseline that is already in the branch, but the document contents may have changed. In addition, the tree structure of the documents may have changed (moves and renames), and documents may have been added or removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The software unravels the situation and perform an accurate import, matching the new documents to their correct base documents which are their &quot;near duplicates&quot; (to borrow a term from the patent), and scheduling all the necessary adds, deletes and renames for the new commit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The strategy is to reduce each document to elements, exactly like in the patent, and, furthermore, to determine which elements are more important than others by considering a cluster of documents.  In the case of my implementation, an element is a word-like &quot;token&quot;: important tokens are those that occur only in a small number of documents. Thus, effectively, a binary weight is assigned: some elements get weight 0 (they are ignored because they are considered common, and are not useful in identifying similar documents within the cluster), whereas other elements are weighted as 1 (not ignored, because they are not common).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This refinement to the algorithm did indeed make it more accurate, having the effect of  amplifying the important similarities between two texts (the sharing of rare features, indicators that the pair are near duplicates), while suppressing their unimportant similarities (traits they share with the whole cluster under consideration).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything I coded in that piece of software was obvious stuff that any decent programmer can come up with before breakfast." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9904" RevisionGUID="a5e296af-d456-48e1-ba50-d623e6381fba" CreationDate="2014-07-19T01:50:31.103" UserId="11059" Text="I don't see how this is substantially different from: [US3632865](https://www.google.com/patents/US3632865), *&quot;Predictive video encoding using measured subject velocity&quot;*, a patent filed in **1969**.  This basically claims that the motion of subjects can be tracked between frames, reducing the amount of information needed to communicate video.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9911" RevisionGUID="d1dbbdf5-05f8-4881-aa9e-109aa442a2b8" CreationDate="2014-07-20T15:59:48.943" UserId="11034" Text="According to Google Patents, the owner paid the most recent maintenance fee so the patent is still in effect. Whether or not the patent should be invalidated (ie, whether or not it should have been granted in the first place) is a separate question and would depend on whether there is any litigation that ever invalidated the patent. Google doesn't show any mention of litigation involving this patent, so it would likely still be valid in the eyes of the PTO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/USD513117#legal-events" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9912" RevisionGUID="f0871c08-bac9-402e-92fe-1a2fd0a86dc9" CreationDate="2014-07-20T21:47:50.060" UserId="1461" Text="The following is a patent for `Green Sweet Curry`:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US20040151821&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a discussion with my roommates, I pointed out (in hindsight I guess incorrectly) that recipes are not patented but are protected by keeping them secret. I was surprised when my roommate countered by presenting me with the said link. It indeed seems like a recipe for `Green Sweet Curry`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question that I now have is: how will the owner defend the patent? Is everyone forbidden to cook a curry which may fall within the recipe limits of the patent? Can the owner sue a restaurant which sells such a curry? I am not an expert in food (not even in Indian food), but ingredients in `Table 4` (note that the table has very wide ranges) is one of the ways you can make Indian chicken curry. *Prima facie,* it seems to me that it overlaps with a large number of recipes from a big portion of the continent of Asia. Am I missing something?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21524" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9912" RevisionGUID="f0871c08-bac9-402e-92fe-1a2fd0a86dc9" CreationDate="2014-07-20T21:47:50.060" UserId="1461" Text="How does the owner defend a patent on a recipe?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21525" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9912" RevisionGUID="f0871c08-bac9-402e-92fe-1a2fd0a86dc9" CreationDate="2014-07-20T21:47:50.060" UserId="1461" Text="&lt;food-production&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9913" RevisionGUID="83bcafbe-b150-4ffa-a2af-26f8fe72c096" CreationDate="2014-07-20T22:24:36.913" UserId="446" Text="US patent 8131846 describes Global, location-aware computer security.  Priority date 2009." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9914" RevisionGUID="92483fad-0c2a-4382-a3c3-29583dbd08e4" CreationDate="2014-07-20T22:40:28.070" UserId="446" Text="&#xD;&#xA;US patent 7222359, priority date 2001. System methodology for automatic local network discovery and firewall reconfiguration for mobile computing devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent has to do with changing security policy based on which location you are in as determined by what network you are connected to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9912" RevisionGUID="fe7e4e3d-7bdf-437e-89cb-80e7ef074e39" CreationDate="2014-07-21T04:01:54.173" UserId="1461" Comment="added 445 characters in body" Text="The following is a patent for `Green Sweet Curry`:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US20040151821&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a discussion with my roommates, I pointed out (in hindsight I guess incorrectly) that recipes are not patented but are protected by keeping them secret. I was surprised when my roommate countered by presenting me with the said link. It indeed seems like a recipe for `Green Sweet Curry`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question that I now have is: how will the owner defend the patent? Is everyone forbidden to cook a curry which may fall within the recipe limits of the patent? Can the owner sue a restaurant which sells such a curry? I am not an expert in food (not even in Indian food), but ingredients in `Table 4` (note that the table has very wide ranges) is one of the ways you can make Indian chicken curry. *Prima facie,* it seems to me that it overlaps with a large number of recipes from a big portion of the continent of Asia. Am I missing something?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit 1**: &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the comment made by `George White`, I am adding a different patent (since the original is an application and not a patent):&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US7597917&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The patent is about making shaped snacks from crumbs. However, my original question still stands: is the recipe in the patents protected? For example, in this case, can I make and sell the snacks using the same recipe if I do not shape it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9916" RevisionGUID="c7ed54f4-080a-42b3-a402-791837b3d1b6" CreationDate="2014-07-21T16:39:47.310" UserId="11059" Text="Copyright covers original expression. If you wrote your own original computer program, whether open source or not, it is a copyrighted work, similar to a painting, novel or music recording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Copyright protects expression, not ideas.  If an idea is patented, then all expressions of that idea, whether or original or not, infringe on that patent, unless they are expressions by the patent holder or a licensee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If an algorithm is patented, then any unlicensed third-party implementation of that algorithm infringes on the patent, even though, paradoxically, the developer maintains the copyright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An idea which is not patented can be borrowed by anyone and expressed in their own work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If you think you have an idea which is patentable, it behooves you to keep it a secret.** If, prior to obtaining a patent, you publish an idea so that it passes into use, you may lose eligibility to have it patented, at least in some countries. For instance, take a look at this sciencemag.com article entitled [&quot;Patent First, Publish Later: How Not to Ruin Your Chances of Winning a Patent&quot;](http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2001_10_26/nodoi.5362432760553307018) which claims that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;According to U.S. law, a patent cannot be obtained if an invention was previously known or used by other people in the U.S., or was already patented or published anywhere in the world. Furthermore, publicly using or selling an invention more than 1 year prior to filing a patent application completely bars you from ever winning a patent on that invention.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9918" RevisionGUID="d3a03bb5-94e1-4cf4-8669-1ec44c56f214" CreationDate="2014-07-22T15:25:32.723" UserId="11079" Text="[US Patent 6912559](http://www.google.ca/patents/US6912559) is for what appears to be the Newton-Raphson algorithm for 1/x and 1/sqrt(x) as well as four instructions, two initial-estimate instructions and two NR-step instructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But didn't such instructions exist way before then? The Cray-1 (1975) and Cray X-MP (1982) both had reciprocal estimates, while this MIPS patent's filing and priority dates are both July 30th, 1999.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21538" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9918" RevisionGUID="d3a03bb5-94e1-4cf4-8669-1ec44c56f214" CreationDate="2014-07-22T15:25:32.723" UserId="11079" Text="How was this MIPS US 6912559 patent granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21539" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9918" RevisionGUID="d3a03bb5-94e1-4cf4-8669-1ec44c56f214" CreationDate="2014-07-22T15:25:32.723" UserId="11079" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us6912559&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9918" RevisionGUID="e6c04fe1-d563-40e3-a2b7-cbb67b6754a7" CreationDate="2014-07-22T16:22:51.543" UserId="11079" Comment="Title edited, added link to Cray-1 manual" Text="[US Patent 6912559](http://www.google.ca/patents/US6912559) (filing and priority dates both July 30th, 1999) is for what appears to be the Newton-Raphson algorithm for 1/x and 1/sqrt(x) as well as four instructions, two initial-estimate instructions and two NR-step instructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But didn't such instructions or methods exist way before 1999? The Cray-1 (1975) and Cray X-MP (1982) both did floating-point division using [reciprocal estimates](http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/CRAY-1-HardRefMan/CRAY-1-HRM.html#p3-18), so the concept must not have been unknown at the time.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21541" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9918" RevisionGUID="e6c04fe1-d563-40e3-a2b7-cbb67b6754a7" CreationDate="2014-07-22T16:22:51.543" UserId="11079" Comment="Title edited, added link to Cray-1 manual" Text="Why was this MIPS US 6912559 patent granted given decades-old prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9918" RevisionGUID="4f287503-845f-4588-9618-34715e579899" CreationDate="2014-07-22T21:57:21.777" UserId="11079" Comment="added 754 characters in body" Text="[US Patent 6912559](http://www.google.ca/patents/US6912559) (filing and priority dates both July 30th, 1999) is for what appears to be the Newton-Raphson algorithm for 1/x and 1/sqrt(x) as well as four instructions, two initial-estimate instructions and two NR-step instructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But didn't such instructions or methods exist way before 1999? The Cray-1 (1975) and Cray X-MP (1982) both did floating-point division using [reciprocal estimates](http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/CRAY-1-HardRefMan/CRAY-1-HRM.html#p3-18), so the concept must not have been unknown at the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 1981, the book &quot;[The Architecture of Pipelined Computers](http://books.google.ca/books?id=QR9px-K6qxkC&amp;pg=PA171&amp;lpg=PA171&amp;dq=Reciprocal+estimate+instruction+Cray&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=d7Z3xSpMxM&amp;sig=hNXF5Od35v9RWd8aR8ENaeo94eY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=ZNzOU7faJ4GkyASyp4LYAg&amp;ved=0CDcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&amp;q=Reciprocal%20estimate%20instruction%20Cray&amp;f=false)&quot; by Peter M. Kogge even mentioned of the Cray-1 in a casually throwaway fashion on p. 171 that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Most vector instructions have the same format as their scalar equivalents, that is a 16-bit instruction having a 7-bit opcode and specification of three of the vector registers. The operations that may be specified include add, subtract, multiply, **reciprocal estimate**, logicals, and shifts._&quot; (emphasis added)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9918" RevisionGUID="c73f1d44-3ea1-4024-92a9-09913eb4c625" CreationDate="2014-07-22T22:08:15.853" UserId="11079" Comment="added 161 characters in body" Text="[US Patent 6912559](http://www.google.ca/patents/US6912559) (filing and priority dates both July 30th, 1999) is for what appears to be the Newton-Raphson algorithm for 1/x and 1/sqrt(x) as well as four instructions, two initial-estimate instructions and two NR-step instructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But didn't such instructions or methods exist way before 1999? The Cray-1 (1975) and Cray X-MP (1982) both did floating-point division using [reciprocal estimates](http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/CRAY-1-HardRefMan/CRAY-1-HRM.html#p3-18), so the concept must not have been unknown at the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 1981, the book &quot;[The Architecture of Pipelined Computers](http://books.google.ca/books?id=QR9px-K6qxkC&amp;pg=PA171&amp;lpg=PA171&amp;dq=Reciprocal+estimate+instruction+Cray&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=d7Z3xSpMxM&amp;sig=hNXF5Od35v9RWd8aR8ENaeo94eY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=ZNzOU7faJ4GkyASyp4LYAg&amp;ved=0CDcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&amp;q=Reciprocal%20estimate%20instruction%20Cray&amp;f=false)&quot; by Peter M. Kogge even mentioned of the Cray-1 in a casually throwaway fashion on p. 171 that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Most vector instructions have the same format as their scalar equivalents, that is a 16-bit instruction having a 7-bit opcode and specification of three of the vector registers. The operations that may be specified include add, subtract, multiply, **reciprocal estimate**, logicals, and shifts._&quot; (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 1998 AMD released the AMD K6-2, which implemented the 3DNow! instruction set extensions that contained amongst others a reciprocal/reciprocal square root estimate and step." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9922" RevisionGUID="f8f11ef6-5713-4d0a-85a6-47418fbf5872" CreationDate="2014-07-23T12:41:38.300" UserId="11086" Text="how can this patent exist?&#xD;&#xA;it is such an essential function for aerial vehicles and there are hundreds of patents for aerial vehicles and propulsion mechanisms which utilise thrust vectoring, are they violating this patent?&#xD;&#xA;I would like to file a patent for two-axis thrust vectoring system for fixed wing UAVs, would it conflict with this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thank you for your time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21555" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9922" RevisionGUID="f8f11ef6-5713-4d0a-85a6-47418fbf5872" CreationDate="2014-07-23T12:41:38.300" UserId="11086" Text="Patent WO 2008099192 A1 - thrust vectoring in general?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21556" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9922" RevisionGUID="f8f11ef6-5713-4d0a-85a6-47418fbf5872" CreationDate="2014-07-23T12:41:38.300" UserId="11086" Text="&lt;conflict-of-interest&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9923" RevisionGUID="1f7c8315-a0e0-47d7-ad87-30472f730b42" CreationDate="2014-07-23T13:51:48.237" UserId="11087" Text="This looks like a patent written in 2000 by someone who never lived through the 90's -- AIM and Yahoo IM and all of those are classic examples of applications which would fill this for prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As well, wouldn't patent US6208996 (&quot;Mobile device having notification database in which only those notifications that are to be presented in a limited predetermined time period&quot;) qualify as prior art given that it's talking about roughly the same thing, just in different terms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And let's look at US6591279, &quot;System and method for computer-based notifications of real-world events using digital images.&quot; Same basic design, just condensed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're going to get really crude, US5617526 (&quot;In a computer system&quot;) is a Microsoft patent describing notifications of any sort. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21558" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9923" RevisionGUID="1f7c8315-a0e0-47d7-ad87-30472f730b42" CreationDate="2014-07-23T13:51:48.237" UserId="11087" Text="Isn't IM an example of prior art in US6463131" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21559" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9923" RevisionGUID="1f7c8315-a0e0-47d7-ad87-30472f730b42" CreationDate="2014-07-23T13:51:48.237" UserId="11087" Text="&lt;us6463131&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9923" RevisionGUID="8f73c5a7-10a2-461b-9a62-8d6b945f076b" CreationDate="2014-07-23T14:07:16.307" UserId="11087" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="This looks like a patent written in 2000 by someone who never lived through the 90's -- AIM and Yahoo IM and all of those are classic examples of applications which would fill this for prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As well, wouldn't patent US6208996 (&quot;Mobile device having notification database in which only those notifications that are to be presented in a limited predetermined time period&quot;) qualify as prior art given that it's talking about roughly the same thing, just in different terms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And let's look at US6591279, &quot;System and method for computer-based notifications of real-world events using digital images.&quot; Same basic design, just condensed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're going to get really crude, US5617526 (&quot;In a computer system&quot;) is a Microsoft patent describing notifications of any sort." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21561" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9923" RevisionGUID="8f73c5a7-10a2-461b-9a62-8d6b945f076b" CreationDate="2014-07-23T14:07:16.307" UserId="11087" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us6463131&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9925" RevisionGUID="7ecd3142-61b4-400c-89c3-f57674f66236" CreationDate="2014-07-23T20:31:30.783" UserId="3076" Text="The AMD 3d now! was brought to the attention of the examiner during prosecution. It was NPL ref. #1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/lJ0Bg.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6288" RevisionGUID="84ffdae5-c121-4990-8c3b-80cf31ddad1f" CreationDate="2014-07-24T01:22:14.787" UserId="1193" Comment="remove parent no as tag, added link and actual question to text." Text="Does anybody know of any prior art related to [US20110128257][1] ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent [US20110128257][1] claims a provisional application date of Nov 29 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110128257" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21567" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6288" RevisionGUID="84ffdae5-c121-4990-8c3b-80cf31ddad1f" CreationDate="2014-07-24T01:22:14.787" UserId="1193" Comment="remove parent no as tag, added link and actual question to text." Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21568" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6288" RevisionGUID="84ffdae5-c121-4990-8c3b-80cf31ddad1f" CreationDate="2014-07-24T01:22:14.787" Comment="Proposed by 1193 approved by 5071, 1259 edit id of 1569" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5622" RevisionGUID="e2aacf77-02e1-42b3-9c95-10f224ea0aa5" CreationDate="2014-07-24T01:22:22.527" UserId="1193" Comment="Remove patentid as a tag, added link to google patents" Text="Is patent [US6676109][1] for a rotary valve in favour of Kitz Corporation a design patent or a utility patent? What is it's expiry date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6676109" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21570" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5622" RevisionGUID="e2aacf77-02e1-42b3-9c95-10f224ea0aa5" CreationDate="2014-07-24T01:22:22.527" UserId="1193" Comment="Remove patentid as a tag, added link to google patents" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21571" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5622" RevisionGUID="e2aacf77-02e1-42b3-9c95-10f224ea0aa5" CreationDate="2014-07-24T01:22:22.527" Comment="Proposed by 1193 approved by 5071, 1259 edit id of 1568" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9926" RevisionGUID="3eee639d-0d5e-476d-b9fc-88ca572da32e" CreationDate="2014-07-24T01:33:30.223" UserId="11089" Text="The scope of a patent is defined by the claims. By the same token, what is infringed and what is invalidating prior art is also defined by the claims. So to invalidate a patent you need to find prior art based on the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 of US6463131 is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A system for notifying a user of an incoming communication event, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for determining a characteristic of the communication event; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for selecting a notification based on the characteristic; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for sending the user the selected notification; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for receiving a selection from the user indicating a format for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; delivery of further information regarding the communication event; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for allowing the further information regarding the communication&#xD;&#xA;&gt; event to be sent to the user in the selected format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's an equally broad method claim, but it is not substantially different in terms of scope, so this can suffice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At a high level, this claim is about the rather narrow aspects of notifications that deals with selecting a notification method based on some &quot;characteristic&quot; of a &quot;communication event&quot;, *and* allowing the user to select a format in which to receive &quot;further information&quot; about the event. The meanings of the words in quotes would be defined by the specification, if they have no common meaning as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you want to find prior art that invalidates this claim, you'd need to find one or more (usually up to three) prior art references that, taken together, describe each and every element of the claim. I haven't read the three references you cited, but do any of them, either by themselves or in combination, cover all the elements of this claim?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9927" RevisionGUID="53fecb0b-5ada-427b-a31c-c53b4f7aabff" CreationDate="2014-07-24T04:10:31.303" UserId="11090" Text="The majority of the patents I've looked at read to me as outlines of research projects rather than detailed descriptions of how to make something. (I am a person of ordinary skill in the art; I have a degree in the field) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically the components cited are &quot;motors&quot; or &quot;controllers&quot; or &quot;actuators&quot;. Now, there are two issues here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Broad claims that establish the territory that is claimed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  2. Enablement of those skilled in the art to make the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This language is appropriate for (1), but it is way too vague to satisfy (2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would consider reciting &quot;a motor&quot; without further details, to automatically mean &quot;undue experimentation&quot;, owing to the huge number of conceptual types of motors with widely differing properties, not to mention the sheer number of different components with &quot;motor&quot; in their name that may be bought. (For example, Google patent search gives at least a 1000 matches for US utility patents with &quot;motor&quot; in the title.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, clearly, the &quot;undue experimentation&quot; is an enormous grey area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: why does the patents office errs, in this grey area, on the side of the inventor, rather than on the side of the public?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking for answers here: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html (2164    *The Enablement Requirement*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some relevant excerpts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The test of enablement is not whether any experimentation is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; necessary, but whether, if experimentation is necessary, it is undue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be interpreted by the examiner to say that the inventor shouldn't hold back the details. It's easy to disclose them, right? And if you, the inventor, don't disclose them, the experimentation will be considered undue. (This interpretation is within the English meaning of &quot;undue&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Time and difficulty of experiments are not determinative if they are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; merely routine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It evades me why this statement was considered acceptable to include. It opens up the system to abuse, for example if I specify that &quot;to determine parameter X, the practitioner should try all possible combinations of [some mathematical structure that has very many combinations]&quot; in some routine way, where I have already done this, and know the parameter X. Preferably, the law should compel the inventor to disclose this &quot;shortcut&quot;. (Note that this is not the same as *best mode*, because they will arrive at exactly the same answer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the example that follows the above quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; $50,000 and 6-12 months&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is considered *not undue*, but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; many months or years&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is undue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a court ruling that enablement has not been met because&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “an unreasonable amount of work would be required to arrive at the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; detailed relationships appellant says that he has solved.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is similar to what I'm saying above: the inventor is making it more difficult for the public to practise the invention, by withholding details that they clearly know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But again it highlights the greyness of the grey area, by its use of the term &quot;unreasonable&quot; rather than quantifying what that means in terms of dollars and months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is my complaint repeated in the official text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus, the teachings set forth in the specification provided no more than a “plan” or “invitation” for those of skill in the art to experiment using the technology in other types of cells.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once again they avoid facing the issue of *how much*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No exact numerical standard has been fixed by the courts, but the “amount of required experimentation must, however, be reasonable.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the word &quot;reasonable&quot; rather than numbers of dollars and months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some numbers are quoted, however:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  *  4 hours — reasonable&#xD;&#xA;  * 1 to 2 years — “a clearly unreasonable requirement”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess, given the &quot;6-12 months&quot; above, this means that 1 year is our standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this seems too high to me. Why does the patent office not stipulate this to be, say, 1 week?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be in the public interest, improve the quality of patents, and reduce patent abuse. Would it have any negative consequences? I can't think of any.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another take on this is that the effort (which we can count in the common denominator of dollars, or months of work for one person; which are similar), the effort to create a working solution can be seen as a set of steps, some large, and many small. The law seems to require that each of these steps has a predictable bound, but is reluctant to specify an actual quantitative bound. What is the logic behind this? What does such a shy strategy achieve? Especially in light of the fact that the inventor, if *enablement* is taken into account, must be in full possession of the exact recipe for at least one embodiment. So to require them to disclose it does not seem to be *undue* from the public's point of view. After all, a patent is a contract which exchanges a monopoly for a *full disclosure*, and such full disclosure is easy to make.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the same as asking the inventor to provide a working prototype (clearly, this is often unreasonable), but they should be able to provide a parts list, and a means they would use for obtaining each part (e.g. citing a distributor of a component). So while it may be beyond their means to actually implement a prototype, the test for &quot;invention&quot; rather than a &quot;plan&quot; should be that a specification refers to actual examples of parts and methods (while claims should be allowed to refer to generic parts).  In case of software patents, source code should be provided (into the public domain) as part of the specification, while abstract high-level pseudocode used in the claims. I'm saying this from a commonsense perspective. Clearly, the established convention disagrees. And the question is why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21574" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9927" RevisionGUID="53fecb0b-5ada-427b-a31c-c53b4f7aabff" CreationDate="2014-07-24T04:10:31.303" UserId="11090" Text="&quot;Undue experimentation&quot; - why isn't the patent office more demanding to minimise it (e.g. provide parts list)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21575" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9927" RevisionGUID="53fecb0b-5ada-427b-a31c-c53b4f7aabff" CreationDate="2014-07-24T04:10:31.303" UserId="11090" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;specification&gt;&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;examination&gt;&lt;enablement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9929" RevisionGUID="e580f402-5a54-406d-b2d0-0fadae859283" CreationDate="2014-07-24T19:54:23.087" UserId="11097" Text="For UK patent and patent application specifications published on or after 1 August 1989, copyright remains with the applicant or proprietor (apparently regardless of who drafted the application). (Earlier UK patent and patent application specifications are Crown copyright.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are allowed to copy a UK patent specification to disseminate the information in it. The UK Government can also copy it in order to carry out its duties to publish the specification. You cannot copy a UK patent specification (or a substantial part of it) for any other purpose (subject to any other exceptions to copyright). If you were to copy boilerplate to incorporate it into your own application, you might have to go to court for a ruling as to whether this constituted a substantial part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: &lt;a&gt;http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-other/c-other-faq/c-other-faq-type/c-other-faq-type-patspec.htm&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9930" RevisionGUID="0fa09a4e-d9ee-4fc7-a771-8cb95b08b994" CreationDate="2014-07-24T20:48:42.273" UserId="1193" Text="These all predates and are likely to have relevance to the subject matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 8,145,645	System for identifying geographically relevant advertisements from a search query&#xD;&#xA;* 7,958,228	Behavioral predictions based on network activity locations&#xD;&#xA;* 7,853,270	System for geographically contextualizing data items&#xD;&#xA;* 7,848,764	System for providing location predictive advertising&#xD;&#xA;* 7,844,283	Method of providing location based information to a mobile terminal within a communications network&#xD;&#xA;* 7,774,348	System for providing geographically relevant content to a search query with local intent&#xD;&#xA;* 7,644,098	System and method for identifying advertisements responsive to historical user queries&#xD;&#xA;* 7,616,964	System and method for providing geo-relevant information based on a mobile device&#xD;&#xA;* 7,685,119	System and method for query expansion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9931" RevisionGUID="5658164e-dfb6-423e-876d-27a69f5a66c1" CreationDate="2014-07-25T06:47:08.050" UserId="3076" Text="The USPTO tries to follow the law and the rules. To show a person skilled in the art how to make and use an invention doesn't mean you need to give them production blueprints - especially in the &quot;predictable arts&quot;. Also, the implementation the inventor describes doesn't need to work particularly well. One way to think about it might be &quot;is there more inventing to do to get it to basically work?&quot;. In most cases, which motor is used is irrelevant to the theory of operation. If it does matter, then the applicant should provide the details. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few years ago a patent was invalidated for not giving the brand name of the glue the inventor used. Normally this would not be an issue but the inventor tried dozens of adhesives before finding one that would work at all in the application. You can't leave that kind of thing out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9933" RevisionGUID="61055aca-820f-4fa3-a1a2-a10db61032a0" CreationDate="2014-07-25T16:10:02.163" UserId="1193" Text="The existence of a patent does not necessitate the existence of a product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is very common for patents to be written prior to any product development. The inventor may simply want to protect an idea prior to seeking investment for product development, or the product development may simply stall and never make it to market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In software patents especially, there may never be any intention for the inventor to develop the described product, but the filing of a patent may simply just be a defensive strategy to protect a larger product strategy which can be too difficult (or disallowed) to patent or copyright in its own right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the particular patent it sounds like a [portable microwave oven][1] for which there are plenty on the market, but whether any fits the patent description will have to be judged by an expert.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=portable%20mocrowave%20oven" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9934" RevisionGUID="14b9b8fe-0560-45e5-8149-74cb8859b05b" CreationDate="2014-07-25T22:55:54.763" UserId="3076" Text="This is not an issued patent. It is the publication of an international *application* for a patent that went nowhere. It looks like it was never even put in front of a patent office for examination." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9935" RevisionGUID="bc370a10-6bac-44c2-ae5f-7353d1879761" CreationDate="2014-07-26T15:24:37.173" UserId="11103" Text="Location-based security system for portable electronic device,US patent 8302152 B1,Priority date Feb 17, 2012.In this patent,after detecting location of device security mechanism is activated.If location is familiar than simple mechanism to access device otherwise complex mechanism is used to authenticate user to device.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9936" RevisionGUID="1ef35cbb-ee90-4546-aa6d-1e78da9b8ca1" CreationDate="2014-07-26T20:00:09.977" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="I have noticed that start-up companies that filed patent applications tend to not to publish them before the patent is granted. This can have business strategy motivations and it would be off topic to discuss about them here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just from a patent point of view is there any motivation to not to publish till the patent is granted? (I mean: publishing after patent application filing but before patent grant can in any way interfere with getting the grant or defending it in the future?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21596" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9936" RevisionGUID="1ef35cbb-ee90-4546-aa6d-1e78da9b8ca1" CreationDate="2014-07-26T20:00:09.977" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="Is it better to not to publish untill the patent is granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21597" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9936" RevisionGUID="1ef35cbb-ee90-4546-aa6d-1e78da9b8ca1" CreationDate="2014-07-26T20:00:09.977" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9937" RevisionGUID="8adb9d6c-f46f-4c52-9463-b80bb45bc27a" CreationDate="2014-07-27T00:35:23.423" UserId="1193" Text="Th e publication of a patent is a part of the processes and not something you elect to do.   Generally you file for the patent and as part of the examination and grant process it will automatically be published.   The publication is done by the USPTO and not by you -- you should not publish your own patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The publication has no effect on whether the patent is granted or not, and  it does not affect the patent in any way as the patent is valid from the time it was filed and not from the time is was granted (assuming that it will be granted).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9938" RevisionGUID="59ee8f02-e115-4ef7-9834-f83aa6e77a4b" CreationDate="2014-07-27T21:33:03.403" UserId="11106" Text="In an example scenario when a person purchases a 30 pack of Kleenex then makes and sells lunch packs each of which includes a box of Kleenex.  Is this person protected by the First Sale Doctrine to allow them to repackage the Kleenex as such?  (Though as far as I can tell the FSD is intended for copyright work like audio CDs.)  Or is there some explicit/implicit extension to the trademark/patent of a Kleenex?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21601" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9938" RevisionGUID="59ee8f02-e115-4ef7-9834-f83aa6e77a4b" CreationDate="2014-07-27T21:33:03.403" UserId="11106" Text="First Sale Doctrine applying to physical goods" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21602" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9938" RevisionGUID="59ee8f02-e115-4ef7-9834-f83aa6e77a4b" CreationDate="2014-07-27T21:33:03.403" UserId="11106" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;trademark&gt;&lt;first-sale-doctrine&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9939" RevisionGUID="2165fbed-de3e-44b6-83e9-fd63e23ed01c" CreationDate="2014-07-28T00:30:00.257" UserId="3076" Text="If you plan to file outside the U.S. you do not have a choice, the U.S. will publish 18 months after earliest claimed priority date. If you do not plan to file outside the U.S. you can check a box at the time of filing for &quot;non-publication request&quot;. This used to add $300 to the filing fee but that fee went away. Publishing has some benefits, it can give you rights in some cases to go back (once you have an issued patent) and retroactively get royalties starting from the publication date. The negative it lets people know what you are doing earlier and the publication of your application can be used as prior art against some other filing you might do in the future if it is a similar invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9940" RevisionGUID="699fb637-5fdb-4658-a2a7-6d9a1edc9463" CreationDate="2014-07-28T05:33:54.507" UserId="11107" Text="I looked at this patent and it seems (to me) most claims are too vague and that prior art apply for a lot of them.  &#xD;&#xA;Having a microphone in a stethoscope, sound capturing device or alike in not new, having electronics involving micro-controllers and DSP to do signal processing is not either. It seems also some inventors have also thought about having a central monitoring system. I found the patents below that might be interesting to consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**US4086917 :** Featl Heart Monitoring System (multiple systems connected to central monitoring stations) (May 1978)  &#xD;&#xA;**US5932849 :** Stethoscope having microphone therein (Aug. 1999)  &#xD;&#xA;**US6002777 :** Electronic stethoscope (Dec. 1999)  &#xD;&#xA;**US7818050 :** Passive Phonography Heart Monitor (Oct. 2010)  &#xD;&#xA;**CN2525940 (Y)**  -  Domestic electronic audio monitoring measurer for fetal heart rate   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also found an interesting publication:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Development of a low cost fetal heart sound monitoring system for home care application (Arun Kumar Mittra1, Nitin K. Choudhari2 - October 26, 2009)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe someone could have a more expert reading of this application than mine and share the outcome.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21605" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9940" RevisionGUID="699fb637-5fdb-4658-a2a7-6d9a1edc9463" CreationDate="2014-07-28T05:33:54.507" UserId="11107" Text="Patent wo2011137930a1 : most claims seem not innovative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21606" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9940" RevisionGUID="699fb637-5fdb-4658-a2a7-6d9a1edc9463" CreationDate="2014-07-28T05:33:54.507" UserId="11107" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9922" RevisionGUID="0f1153e0-1834-4d3c-b39d-3eea4c722805" CreationDate="2014-07-28T12:06:26.753" UserId="1193" Comment="Link the application to the question" Text="how can [this][1] patent exist?&#xD;&#xA;it is such an essential function for aerial vehicles and there are hundreds of patents for aerial vehicles and propulsion mechanisms which utilise thrust vectoring, are they violating this patent?&#xD;&#xA;I would like to file a patent for two-axis thrust vectoring system for fixed wing UAVs, would it conflict with this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thank you for your time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com.ar/patents/WO2008099192A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21608" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9922" RevisionGUID="0f1153e0-1834-4d3c-b39d-3eea4c722805" CreationDate="2014-07-28T12:06:26.753" Comment="Proposed by 1193 approved by 3076, 5071 edit id of 1570" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9942" RevisionGUID="704e6749-3ed0-4234-a965-e152486c3f82" CreationDate="2014-07-28T15:19:35.473" UserId="4545" Text="Just to be clear, WO2011137930A1 is not a patent. It's a publication of an &quot;international&quot; **application** for a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would agree that the independent claims appear to be broad (although not necessarily vague) and likely anticipated by prior art. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9943" RevisionGUID="aa279fe9-5ab3-415c-9102-2ed8b7da00b9" CreationDate="2014-07-28T15:41:21.843" UserId="4545" Text="US Patent Application 12/408623 (pre-grant publication US 2010/0238293 A1) is drawn to an on-screen display of real-time power consumption for a television. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Technically, the first independent claim is drawn to an on-screen display of power consumption for any electronic device, but the dependent claims and other independent claim(s) are explicit about the television aspect.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been unable to find any useful prior art in this case. The effective filing date (date to beat) is March 20, 2009. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 is reproduced below: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  A graphical power meter, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  means for measuring, in real time, an internal power consumption value corresponding to power being consumed by an electronic device under at least one operational mode; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  means for displaying a graphical representation of the real-time internal power consumption value from the measuring means to at least one consumer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 21 is also reproduced below: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A graphical power meter, as recited in claim 1,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the electronic device comprises at least one feature selected from a group consisting essentially of an audio feature and a visual feature,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the electronic device comprises a television,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the measuring means comprises a measurement device adapted for use with a measurement technique,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the measurement technique is adapted for use with a set-top box,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the displaying means comprises a graphic user interface,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the graphic user interface comprises:&#xD;&#xA;at least one input feature; and&#xD;&#xA;at least one output feature,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the at least one input feature comprises at least one feature selected from a group consisting essentially of a window for facilitating entry of user-preset parameters and at least one slider feature,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the at least one output feature comprises at least one feature selected from a group consisting essentially of a visual indication, an audible indication, and an olfactory-perceivable indication,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the visual indication comprises at least one feature selected from a group consisting essentially of a dial, a numerical dial, a dial coupled with units of measure, a bar-graph, a bar-graph coupled with numerical data, a bar-graph coupled with units of measure, a dual-axis graph, and a triple-axis graph,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the audible indication comprises at least one feature selected from a group consisting essentially of a beeping sound, a speech output, an adjustable sound adaptable for the hearing-impaired, a sound being in conformance with a hearing-assistive technology, a sound in conformance with at least one federally-regulated telecommunication and rehabilitation requirement,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the speech output comprises at least one informational element selected from a group consisting essentially of a real-time internal energy consumption value and setup information,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the olfactory-perceivable indication comprises at least one element selected from a group consisting essentially of a pleasant natural scent, a “green” scent, a pleasant scent, a consumer-selected scent,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the at least one output feature facilitates adjusting the internal power consumption using at least one consumer preference,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the at least one consumer preference comprises at least one parameter selected from a group consisting essentially of brightness, contrast, color, saturation level, a backlight level, video rendering style, and audio playback levels,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the video rendering style comprises at least one element selected from a group consisting essentially of a vivid display, a cinema display, and a standard display,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the electronic device undergoes an in-store demonstration,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the measuring means is disposed in a manner selected from a group consisting essentially of a primary side of a power supply and a secondary side of a power supply,&#xD;&#xA;wherein a current sensing circuitry switches-off the power supply if a secondary load exceeds a predetermined threshold,&#xD;&#xA;wherein a current sensing circuitry is applied to at least one output on the secondary side, a summation of the power supplied by the at least one output determining a total output power, the summation being made by at least one element selected from a group consisting essentially of a circuit and a processing unit monitor, the total output power being further determined by an input power consumption level, and the input power consumption level being determined by a power conversion efficiency of the power supply,&#xD;&#xA;wherein displaying means comprises an on-screen display,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the displaying means further includes at least one element selected from a group consisting essentially of a feature for facilitating selection of a visual indication feature and a feature for facilitating selection of at least one energy-saving preference,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the at least one consumer is encouraged to operate the electronic device in an environmentally-conscious energy-saving manner,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the at least one consumer participates in an overall management of a carbon footprint of the electronic device, and&#xD;&#xA;wherein the at least one energy-saving preference is a function of at least one element selected from a group consisting essentially of a user's actively-selected preference, a user's need, a user's budget, a setting inherent to the electronic device, and a viewing environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Link: https://www.google.com/patents/US20100238293&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21614" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9943" RevisionGUID="aa279fe9-5ab3-415c-9102-2ed8b7da00b9" CreationDate="2014-07-28T15:41:21.843" UserId="4545" Text="Prior Art Request for US 2010/0238293 A1 (Sony) -- on-screen display of television power consumption" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21615" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9943" RevisionGUID="aa279fe9-5ab3-415c-9102-2ed8b7da00b9" CreationDate="2014-07-28T15:41:21.843" UserId="4545" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9944" RevisionGUID="ef531d7e-e43f-4205-886c-f4525bf95183" CreationDate="2014-07-28T15:46:00.330" UserId="4545" Text="&quot;Why does the patent office not stipulate this to be, say, 1 week?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short answer: because the patent office doesn't make the rules; the patent office merely follows the rules written by Congress and interpreted by the Courts. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9945" RevisionGUID="6161cd94-7a89-4988-8d33-60df124dad7b" CreationDate="2014-07-28T15:58:41.760" UserId="4545" Text="The first independent claim appears to be drawn to a specific method of calculation: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A computer method for approximating the reciprocal square root of a number, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) estimating the reciprocal square root of the number to produce an estimate (Xi);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) multiplying said estimate by the number to produce a first intermediate result (IR1);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c) determining a second intermediate result (IR2) according to the equation: IR2=(1−Xi*IR1)/2;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(d) multiplying said second intermediate result by said estimate to produce a third intermediate result; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(e) adding said third intermediate result to said estimate to produce an approximation of the reciprocal square root of the number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that exactly how any of those previous systems operate? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9948" RevisionGUID="e78576f5-962d-4c0a-a677-494dc6034b2c" CreationDate="2014-07-28T23:31:12.937" UserId="11113" Text="I don't understand how Optimizely (https://www.optimizely.com/) and VWO (https://www.vwo.com/) exist after seeing an A/B testing patent here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US7975000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also what about this: A personal emergency system via a mobile device called Emergensee (http://emergensee.com/). They have patented this method and technology here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/WO2011162927A3?cl=en&amp;dq=emergensee&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=otzWU7OjKanE8AGT3YGoAg&amp;ved=0CCgQ6AEwAQ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this restrict me from making another one with a slight difference? Or what can/can't I do? Can I make an open source version and put it for free on app market?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21629" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9948" RevisionGUID="e78576f5-962d-4c0a-a677-494dc6034b2c" CreationDate="2014-07-28T23:31:12.937" UserId="11113" Text="How restrictive are patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21630" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9948" RevisionGUID="e78576f5-962d-4c0a-a677-494dc6034b2c" CreationDate="2014-07-28T23:31:12.937" UserId="11113" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;wo2011162927a3&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9949" RevisionGUID="688465ab-654c-41ad-a370-d71e6b16414d" CreationDate="2014-07-29T00:54:59.597" UserId="1193" Text="The patent US7975000 describes a specif way of doing A/B testing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that it is that specific method which is patented, and anybody who creates a different method may be free to implement, sell or patent it in it's own right as long as it does not conflict with the specific method already patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The evaluation of if the second implementation is violating the patented method needs a subject matter expert.  The onerousness is on the patent holder to exercise their right to the patent, so if they don't do that out of philosophy or ignorance then other people can get away with implementations which potentially could violate a patent.  Many tech giant has a 'defensive' strategy in their patent portfolio where they aim never to sue anybody unless sued first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively a patent holder could also license their patents and get right to implement the invention in their own environment -- this famously happened with the [one-click patent Amazon][1] licensed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com_controversies" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9949" RevisionGUID="1e10f334-be98-4266-bc59-a443fff10d2c" CreationDate="2014-07-29T06:19:55.530" UserId="1193" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="The patent US7975000 describes a specif way of doing A/B testing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that it is that specific method which is patented, and anybody who creates a different method may be free to implement, sell or patent it in it's own right as long as it does not conflict with the specific method already patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The evaluation of if the second implementation is violating the patented method needs a subject matter expert.  The onerous is on the patent holder to exercise their right to the patent, so if they don't do that out of philosophy or ignorance then other people can get away with implementations which potentially could violate a patent.  Many tech giants has a 'defensive' strategy in their patent portfolio where they aim never to sue anybody unless sued first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively a patent holder could also license their patents and get right to implement the invention in their own environment -- this famously happened with the [one-click patent Amazon][1] licensed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com_controversies" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9949" RevisionGUID="db1a261d-1b5f-459b-a2fd-f9558ae0c310" CreationDate="2014-07-29T06:25:44.297" UserId="1193" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="The patent US7975000 describes a specif way of doing A/B testing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that it is that specific method which is patented, and anybody who creates a different method may be free to implement, sell or patent it in it's own right as long as it does not conflict with the specific method already patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The evaluation of if the second implementation is violating the patented method needs a subject matter expert.  The onerous is on the patent holder to exercise their right to the patent, so if they don't do that out of philosophy or ignorance then other people can get away with implementations which potentially could violate a patent.  Many tech giants has a 'defensive' strategy in their patent portfolio where they aim never to sue anybody unless sued first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively a patent holder could also license their patents and get right to implement the invention in their own environment -- this [famously happened][1] with Amazon's [one-click patent][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com_controversies&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9950" RevisionGUID="7be2594d-1a50-4996-8150-d79bc4d49687" CreationDate="2014-07-29T06:34:11.020" UserId="1193" Text="If the patent was filed in 2007, and your joint paper was written 5 years ago (=2008 or 2009), then I would assume that you had no input on the actual patent -- the patent was written first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, your partner may have included material from his patent into your joint paper -- and if that is the case you would not have any rights to any part of his prior invention, especially since he filed the patent prior to writing your joint paper." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9953" RevisionGUID="017b09c6-a7a8-4e3f-86ab-c8a857f1ed10" CreationDate="2014-07-29T17:12:07.270" UserId="11120" Text="The following patent application claims the business model and methods of Patent Trolling. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent Acquisition and Assertion by a (Non-Inventor) First Party Against a Second Party&#xD;&#xA;=====&#xD;&#xA;**[US 20080270152 A1][1]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Abstract**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Methods for a first party to acquire and assert a patent property&#xD;&#xA;&gt; against a second party are disclosed. The methods include obtaining an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; equity interest in the patent property. The methods further include&#xD;&#xA;&gt; writing a claim within the scope of the patent property. The claim is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; written to cover a product of the second party where the product&#xD;&#xA;&gt; includes a secret aspect. The methods further include filing the claim&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with a patent office. The methods sometimes include offering a license&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the patent property to the second party after the patent property&#xD;&#xA;&gt; issues as a patent with the claim. The methods sometimes include&#xD;&#xA;&gt; asserting infringement of the claim by the second party after the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent property issues as a patent with the claim. The methods&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sometimes include negotiating a cross-license with the second party&#xD;&#xA;&gt; based on the assertion of infringement of the claim, where under the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cross-license the first party obtains a license to an intellectual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; property right from the second party. The methods sometime include&#xD;&#xA;&gt; attempting to obtain a monetary settlement from the second party based&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on the assertion of infringement of the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am curious about prior art. The application has gone through several USPTO rejections and has been appealed as of June 25, 2014.  In light of the USPTO granting so many vague patents, I would wonder why there's so many rejections to this.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for a non-inventor first party to acquire and assert a patent property against a second party, the method including the first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; party performing the following acts: obtaining an equity interest in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the patent property; writing a claim within the scope of the patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; property, the claim being written to cover a product of the second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; party, where the product includes a secret aspect, the secret aspect&#xD;&#xA;&gt; including an unobservable aspect, where writing the claim includes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; performing research using a computer to convert the unobservable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aspect to an observable aspect; filing the claim with a patent office;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; offering a license of the patent property to the second party after&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the patent property issues as a patent with the claim; and attempting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to obtain a monetary settlement from the second party based on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; assertion of infringement of the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 99 total claims that would effectively shut down or monopolize patent trolls by patenting the common methods of patent trolling.  Is this correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20080270152&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21642" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9953" RevisionGUID="017b09c6-a7a8-4e3f-86ab-c8a857f1ed10" CreationDate="2014-07-29T17:12:07.270" UserId="11120" Text="Prior Art - Patent Trolling Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21643" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9953" RevisionGUID="017b09c6-a7a8-4e3f-86ab-c8a857f1ed10" CreationDate="2014-07-29T17:12:07.270" UserId="11120" Text="&lt;us20080270152&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21646" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9943" RevisionGUID="5315e24f-facc-4ab4-8182-f3de881c8f8a" CreationDate="2014-07-29T21:52:09.793" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag for application" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20100238293&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5145" RevisionGUID="2fbf14cf-5350-4d9e-bf5d-44d3a98a8094" CreationDate="2014-07-30T00:36:18.053" UserId="3076" Comment="typos" Text="Almost every patent application gets a letter just like that. Your next step could be to find a patent attorney or patent agent to help you through the process. If, instead, you plan to continue on your own, there is a lot to learn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A document called the MPEP is the &quot;bible&quot; for examiners and applicants in terms of procedures. It has a section on the [manner of making amendments][1]. That covers the mechanics of replying. But first you need to completely understand the Office Action and formulate a plan to get past each specific objection and rejection. If the examiner is correct on some issue you will need to amend, if you are confident she has made an error, you can argue the point rather than amend. In doing that you can't add new matter. Amending claims to cover something explained well in the initial filing is fine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this stage you are entitled to an interview with the examiner and her supervisor, usually by phone. It lasts 1/2 hour and is to give you a chance to understand how she sees the cited prior art as the same as what you are claiming and for you to clarify misunderstandings she may have about your invention. You can talk about your proposed amendments without putting them on record and get her reaction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You draft and submit your response to the office action after getting the benefit of this conversation. This is an unforgiving and arcane process. Please get, and study, *Patent it Yourself* by David Pressman. Also you can look up the history of other patent cases in your field via USPTO Public PAIR to see how responses were formulated. One small tip - if you submit an amendment that is not signed it has about the same effect as not having sent it in at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s714.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9954" RevisionGUID="e41500d5-3e6a-4193-98f9-2bc1211cc159" CreationDate="2014-07-30T00:47:12.893" UserId="3076" Text="To answer one of the posed questions: While it might seem like many vague patents get issued, it is also true that many vague rejections get issued. More to the point, if the applicant keeps responding to rejections on time and paying money for an RCE every two rejections, the process continues. The queue to go before the appeals board is now about 20k applications long. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9955" RevisionGUID="ec038dae-9a0e-42d0-b50c-e6e94634deae" CreationDate="2014-07-30T00:59:10.133" UserId="11121" Text="If a company misses to name an inventor in an already filled patent application, and the inventor requests to be added, is she obliged to assign rights to the company as a prerequisite for having them add her name in the list of inventors in the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we assume she is a true inventor and can prove it.&#xD;&#xA;If the answer is no, but the company insists, what could she do?&#xD;&#xA;If the answer is yes, why is then naming an inventor and assignment of rights correlated?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21650" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9955" RevisionGUID="ec038dae-9a0e-42d0-b50c-e6e94634deae" CreationDate="2014-07-30T00:59:10.133" UserId="11121" Text="Is an inventor obliged to assign patent rights to a company in order to be named as an inventor in the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21651" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9955" RevisionGUID="ec038dae-9a0e-42d0-b50c-e6e94634deae" CreationDate="2014-07-30T00:59:10.133" UserId="11121" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;assignee&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9956" RevisionGUID="20b48c0c-abc3-4e77-8d7d-c7fbbebbc4eb" CreationDate="2014-07-30T01:13:28.167" UserId="1193" Text="You typically sign over any inventions you make in the duties of your job to the company you work for -- this is usually written into your contract, unless something is written as part of local laws.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, the signing of the form that the patent belong to the company is a pro-forma signature, as they have recourse if you refuses to sign it anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you contract does not state that your work they paid for belong to them, then that is a legal blunder on their side, unless there is case law in the country and local laws which states otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US is is very normal that all work you are doing in the cause of your job duties or using resources provided by your employer (such as computers, email accounts etc) belongs to your employer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asking you to sign the associated patent form is quite normal, and usually without drama." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9957" RevisionGUID="2719431a-8063-4af2-b5bd-8da0af322122" CreationDate="2014-07-30T01:18:22.407" UserId="1193" Text="As I recall;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The patent was submitted on April 1 (joke was intended)&#xD;&#xA; 2. The application is an __application__ and there is no grant.&#xD;&#xA; 3. I believe there is plenty of `prior-art` in patent trolling, so it will never get granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9957" RevisionGUID="d6695d70-2b88-4471-a0fe-3873ad98b0e8" CreationDate="2014-07-30T01:27:36.337" UserId="1193" Comment="added 562 characters in body" Text="As I recall;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The patent was submitted on April 1 (joke was intended)&#xD;&#xA; 2. The application is an __application__ and there is no grant.&#xD;&#xA; 3. I believe there is plenty of `prior-art` in patent trolling, so it will never get granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A system where the original inventor has to be present to defend work is un-workable and impractical anyway.  As an example, I have about 30 patents for which I'm listed the inventor -- they were all done in the cause of my job at that time.  Should I be forced to be available if my old company were to defend or use the patent I would essentially be bound to doing work for that company regardless of my employment status.  If a system obliged me to do so it would border &quot;involuntary forced work&quot; a.k.a. &quot;slavery&quot; -- white-collar-slavery, but same nonetheless" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6290" RevisionGUID="b562f565-a288-428a-b1af-5b237785478f" CreationDate="2014-07-30T13:48:05.387" UserId="1193" Comment="Link to application" Text="How can I find out if this patent ([WO 2011160165 A1][1]) has been implemented in any hardware devices and whether it's available for licensing? Thank you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2011160165A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21656" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6290" RevisionGUID="b562f565-a288-428a-b1af-5b237785478f" CreationDate="2014-07-30T13:48:05.387" Comment="Proposed by 1193 approved by 3076, 5071 edit id of 1573" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9940" RevisionGUID="74ba28ef-2e1a-49fd-9c44-7b18a067a7d6" CreationDate="2014-07-30T13:48:19.740" UserId="4545" Comment="added link" Text="I looked at this patent and it seems (to me) most claims are too vague and that prior art apply for a lot of them.  &#xD;&#xA;Having a microphone in a stethoscope, sound capturing device or alike in not new, having electronics involving micro-controllers and DSP to do signal processing is not either. It seems also some inventors have also thought about having a central monitoring system. I found the patents below that might be interesting to consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**US4086917 :** Featl Heart Monitoring System (multiple systems connected to central monitoring stations) (May 1978)  &#xD;&#xA;**US5932849 :** Stethoscope having microphone therein (Aug. 1999)  &#xD;&#xA;**US6002777 :** Electronic stethoscope (Dec. 1999)  &#xD;&#xA;**US7818050 :** Passive Phonography Heart Monitor (Oct. 2010)  &#xD;&#xA;**CN2525940 (Y)**  -  Domestic electronic audio monitoring measurer for fetal heart rate   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also found an interesting publication:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Development of a low cost fetal heart sound monitoring system for home care application (Arun Kumar Mittra1, Nitin K. Choudhari2 - October 26, 2009)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe someone could have a more expert reading of this application than mine and share the outcome.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Google link: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2011137930A1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21658" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9940" RevisionGUID="74ba28ef-2e1a-49fd-9c44-7b18a067a7d6" CreationDate="2014-07-30T13:48:19.740" Comment="Proposed by 4545 approved by 3076, 5071 edit id of 1572" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9958" RevisionGUID="2e1aec1e-2b05-4515-bece-3e27520af8a3" CreationDate="2014-07-30T15:23:32.733" UserId="3721" Text="I am a resident in Cape Town , SA, what steps would I need to take to register a provisional patent in the US?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21660" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9958" RevisionGUID="2e1aec1e-2b05-4515-bece-3e27520af8a3" CreationDate="2014-07-30T15:23:32.733" UserId="3721" Text="Provisional patent registration in US for SA resident" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21661" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9958" RevisionGUID="2e1aec1e-2b05-4515-bece-3e27520af8a3" CreationDate="2014-07-30T15:23:32.733" UserId="3721" Text="&lt;usa&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9960" RevisionGUID="510f1418-a382-480e-8323-00dfb72d3fa6" CreationDate="2014-07-30T20:45:09.820" UserId="1193" Text="The process for filing a provisional patent application is [described][1] on the USPTO website; it is basically just a complete and precise write up of the invention without any claims.   The final patent can only claim material which is clearly described in the provisional patent, so having a complete description is in your interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some countries (UK for example) makes it illegal to file for inventions with a foreign nation without first making the invention known to that country -- if that is the case for SA you may need to first file a SA patent before you can legally file a US patent, and if so you would not file a US provisional patent as the invention has already been disclosed -- instead you would just file a regular US patent claiming priority date from the SA filing of the SA patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/types/provapp.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9962" RevisionGUID="83bd7b43-bb1a-45a6-ae2a-40946d552239" CreationDate="2014-07-31T05:27:28.120" UserId="3076" Text="The answer to your primary question as I see it is that inventorship is completely determined by who actually conceived of the claimed invention and is a separate issue from any assignment. If you invented something that is claimed you are required to be shown as an inventor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9963" RevisionGUID="077c7c46-2410-447e-be40-29e606144565" CreationDate="2014-07-31T10:01:07.957" UserId="11128" Text="My name is on a patent application as first inventor. My friend's name is on a patent application as second inventor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm planning to file a divisional patent application. Does his name have to be included in the divisional patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21669" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9963" RevisionGUID="077c7c46-2410-447e-be40-29e606144565" CreationDate="2014-07-31T10:01:07.957" UserId="11128" Text="Is a co-inventor listed in a patent application have to be a co-inventor in a divisional patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21670" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9963" RevisionGUID="077c7c46-2410-447e-be40-29e606144565" CreationDate="2014-07-31T10:01:07.957" UserId="11128" Text="&lt;continuation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9964" RevisionGUID="73d0ff6e-9238-4fa7-83d2-9bc63c2c6383" CreationDate="2014-07-31T10:41:09.143" UserId="11129" Text="Download the [International Preliminary Report on Patentability Chapter I](http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2011137930&amp;recNum=1&amp;tab=PCTDocuments&amp;maxRec=1&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=Pub+Date+Desc&amp;queryString=FP%3A%28WO2011137930%29) from patentscope. Claim 1 lacks novelty in light of four prior art documents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9960" RevisionGUID="e1b591dc-0272-48f6-ab80-5fe6cfe37ea3" CreationDate="2014-07-31T13:49:58.920" UserId="1193" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="The process for filing a provisional patent application is [described][1] on the USPTO website; it is basically just a complete and precise write up of the invention without any claims.   The final patent can only benefit from priority date of material which is clearly described in the provisional patent, so having a complete description is in your interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some countries (UK for example) makes it illegal to file for inventions with a foreign nation without first making the invention known to that country -- if that is the case for SA you may need to first file a SA patent before you can legally file a US patent, and if so you would not file a US provisional patent as the invention has already been disclosed -- instead you would just file a regular US patent claiming priority date from the SA filing of the SA patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/types/provapp.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9965" RevisionGUID="a2c14499-9129-499d-9789-1d14edcb7c81" CreationDate="2014-07-31T18:14:16.267" UserId="3076" Text="The true inventors who made conceptual contributions to the subject of any claim being pursued must be listed. If you both made conceptual contributions to claims that appear in the divisional you both are inventors in that application. If the the election you made in the first application in response to the restriction requirement left only claims that a single one of you contributed to then only that person should be on the original. The same thing goes for the divisional. Maybe it is your name that should be left off the divisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Also, to patent law the order of the inventors names is meaningless. Either someone is an inventor or they are not. The rights they get are not apportioned by the amount of their contribution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9962" RevisionGUID="749b0b1f-0517-4529-8406-0d8e6fe2b3b9" CreationDate="2014-07-31T18:17:00.550" UserId="3076" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="The answer to your primary question as I see it is that inventorship is completely determined by who actually conceived of the claimed invention and is a separate issue from any assignment. If you invented something that is claimed you are required to be shown as an inventor if an application is filed. You might have run over a fellow employee in the parking lot and be in jail, but if you are an inventor you need to be named." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9965" RevisionGUID="a62f791a-cf17-472e-a8e2-20c876abe0d4" CreationDate="2014-07-31T18:19:57.643" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The true inventors who made conceptual contributions to the subject of any claim being pursued must be listed. If you both made conceptual contributions to claims that appear in the divisional you both are inventors in that application. If the the election you made in the first application in response to the restriction requirement left only claims that a single one of you contributed to then only that person should be on the original. The same thing goes for the divisional. Maybe it is your name that should be left off the divisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Also, to patent law, the order of the inventors names is meaningless. Either someone is an inventor or they are not. The rights they get are not apportioned by the amount of their contribution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9966" RevisionGUID="de40a670-946e-469b-9745-039d0c879ce5" CreationDate="2014-07-31T18:50:09.460" UserId="1193" Text="As far as I can tell -- claim 1 describes a [energy monitor][1] which is just a specialized form of an amp-meter they have been available on the market for as long as I can remember -- the fact that energy monitors have their own LCD to display the energy consumption should probably be irrelevant and claim 1 does not make that distinction.  Claim 21 is a dependent claim citing claim 1, so if claim 1 is excluded then claim 21 would also be excluded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The wikipedia page for &quot;[Kill-a-watt][2]&quot; has reference material dated from at least 2005.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=energy%20monitor&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_A_Watt" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9966" RevisionGUID="f74b3b84-21b1-4679-81be-bef05b670c10" CreationDate="2014-07-31T18:56:40.867" UserId="1193" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="As far as I can tell -- claim 1 describes a [energy monitor][1] which is just a specialized form of an [amp-meter][2] they have been available on the market for as long as I can remember -- the fact that energy monitors have their own LCD to display the energy consumption should probably be irrelevant as claim 1 does not make that distinction.  Claim 21 is a dependent claim (citing claim 1), so if claim 1 is excluded then claim 21 would also be excluded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The wikipedia page for &quot;[Kill-a-watt][3]&quot; has reference material dated from at least 2005.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=energy%20monitor&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampere-meter&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_A_Watt" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9967" RevisionGUID="441e36e0-29c3-4296-a8ff-624746f36f67" CreationDate="2014-07-31T19:32:05.063" UserId="11073" Text="[Intel PowerTop][1] was released in 2007. Amongst other things, it displays the current power usage of a laptop. Moreover, there have been numerous “power monitor” utilities on laptop computers and cellphones over the years. My (post 2009) cellphone displays realtime power use, so an analogous power monitor app on a pre-2009 cell phone (such as an iPhone 3G or earlier) would also demonstrate prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerTOP&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9968" RevisionGUID="36d10677-25ad-49d6-8e69-e669efc88b1e" CreationDate="2014-08-01T02:44:53.383" UserId="11134" Text="Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Marijuana is a schedule 1 drug according to the federal govermnet but this patent says they own the patent on a natural substance, process and plant- cannabinoids" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21681" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9968" RevisionGUID="36d10677-25ad-49d6-8e69-e669efc88b1e" CreationDate="2014-08-01T02:44:53.383" UserId="11134" Text="How is this patent legal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21682" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9968" RevisionGUID="36d10677-25ad-49d6-8e69-e669efc88b1e" CreationDate="2014-08-01T02:44:53.383" UserId="11134" Text="&lt;us6630507&gt;&lt;marijuana&gt;&lt;cannabis&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9972" RevisionGUID="65abc5a0-7ea9-4c09-9c0a-aa97c87a9bd2" CreationDate="2014-08-02T01:12:48.867" UserId="11073" Text="From the point of view of patentability, how specialized is “the art” of the “person having ordinary skill in the art” (PHOSITA)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if I attempt to patent a widget that connects between the thingumajig and the doohickey in a marine engine, it may be obvious to a marine engine designer, curious to an auto engine designer, and baffling to a random mechanical engineer. How do patent examiners determine how specific the field of an invention is?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21695" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9972" RevisionGUID="65abc5a0-7ea9-4c09-9c0a-aa97c87a9bd2" CreationDate="2014-08-02T01:12:48.867" UserId="11073" Text="How specialized is a PHOSITA?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21696" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9972" RevisionGUID="65abc5a0-7ea9-4c09-9c0a-aa97c87a9bd2" CreationDate="2014-08-02T01:12:48.867" UserId="11073" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;examination&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9974" RevisionGUID="a39c0bf9-924d-4730-98b3-42055502df30" CreationDate="2014-08-03T02:55:24.790" UserId="11144" Text="If “A” files a patent in US and also file international patent application, but fail to get patent granted in China, can “B” in China use the technology disclosed in this international patent application to develop and market its product in China?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21701" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9974" RevisionGUID="a39c0bf9-924d-4730-98b3-42055502df30" CreationDate="2014-08-03T02:55:24.790" UserId="11144" Text="international patent application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21702" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9974" RevisionGUID="a39c0bf9-924d-4730-98b3-42055502df30" CreationDate="2014-08-03T02:55:24.790" UserId="11144" Text="&lt;china&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7715" RevisionGUID="4279917a-9260-48ca-ab9f-65940c125de0" CreationDate="2014-08-03T13:32:41.897" UserId="11127" Comment="The Elgin Pat. June 8, 97 (1897)" Text="I looked at the patent 4636489 in google patents and found inconsistencies.&#xD;&#xA;Is it eglin or elgin? &#xD;&#xA;In the patent title it is spelled one way and in the text the other way. &#xD;&#xA;How should it be?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21711" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7715" RevisionGUID="4279917a-9260-48ca-ab9f-65940c125de0" CreationDate="2014-08-03T13:32:41.897" UserId="11127" Comment="The Elgin Pat. June 8, 97 (1897)" Text="Is it the elgin threading tool" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21712" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7715" RevisionGUID="4279917a-9260-48ca-ab9f-65940c125de0" CreationDate="2014-08-03T13:32:41.897" Comment="Proposed by 11127 approved by 3076, 7393 edit id of 1574" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9978" RevisionGUID="2ebcfe73-63a4-4146-9c33-10d77e0266c2" CreationDate="2014-08-03T14:48:07.910" UserId="11120" Text="**Method for packing wine or a similar beverage, products obtained using said method and device for carrying out the method**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**US 20030019364 A1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Abstract**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The present invention relates to a method of packaging wine or a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; similar beverage, to products obtained by the method, and to apparatus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for implementing the method. The present invention provides a method&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of packaging wine or a similar beverage in a receptacle in the form of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a drinking glass (9), in which method said receptacle is made of glass&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and said glass receptacle is closed by means of a disposable capsule&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) having very low overall permeability to oxygen after being closed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; onto said receptacle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent application appears to be a continuation of a foriegn patent. This patent application was the foundation for &quot;Patended Technology&quot; as seen on Shark Tank with Copa Di Vino wines. Mr James Martin claims he was the patentee of the enhanced single serve bottled wine glasses and he never once said &quot;Patent Pending&quot; during the 3 episodes he appeared on, he eluded to having &quot;Patented Technology&quot;.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no vested interest in this, yet I find the methods to be similar to individual packaging of apple sauce, baby foods, yogurts, puddings, and other self serve containers that have been in existence for quite some time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please share any prior art you may have. I feel this patent was improperly represented in front of millions of viewers and investors as &quot;Patented&quot; when in fact it appears to be &quot;Patent Pending&quot; with no guarantee of a grant based on the rejection of the claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21714" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9978" RevisionGUID="2ebcfe73-63a4-4146-9c33-10d77e0266c2" CreationDate="2014-08-03T14:48:07.910" UserId="11120" Text="Prior Art Request - Self Serve Wine Glasses" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21715" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9978" RevisionGUID="2ebcfe73-63a4-4146-9c33-10d77e0266c2" CreationDate="2014-08-03T14:48:07.910" UserId="11120" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20030019364&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9979" RevisionGUID="289eb6d6-0e62-4f8b-a250-163159048dcf" CreationDate="2014-08-03T14:56:04.537" UserId="11120" Text="The patent title has very little of anything to do with the enforceable part of the patent: The Claims.   Dwelling over a patent title, it's abstract or even description is a moot point.  Go straight to the claims and read them, if you have any dispute or questions, update your post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9980" RevisionGUID="68b2a912-3a0e-4078-8e63-17d6a22f8613" CreationDate="2014-08-03T15:00:38.253" UserId="11120" Text="Assuming the patent was fully rejected in China and no further appeals or litigation of the patent will occur, you *might* be able to use the patented technology in China.  However, if there is a US patent and your china based company decides to distribute the product in a country where the patent is valid, you may still face patent infringement.  This is not legal advice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21718" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9978" RevisionGUID="330a2c16-96da-426f-afe7-ed81c49b4513" CreationDate="2014-08-03T16:15:28.550" UserId="11120" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20030019364&gt;&lt;us20100092623&gt;&lt;us20070294983&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9983" RevisionGUID="6a483c8a-7fe8-4112-9124-33c389d4b141" CreationDate="2014-08-04T05:44:59.860" UserId="3076" Text="Patents can be obtained for things that are not legal. A patent does *not* mean you can do it. It means you can keep others from doing it. Also, something occurring in nature cannot be patented in its natural state. All of these claims start off with &quot;A method of treating deceases . . . &quot;.  That is not at all claiming a natural substance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9985" RevisionGUID="5ea75546-33cd-456a-8998-bc9df053cbd8" CreationDate="2014-08-04T19:31:44.137" UserId="1193" Text="It looks like the German version of the patent has been granted &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/DE60011927T2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So on that basis, im sure he can claim that he has a patent -- as long as he does not claim he has a US patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21743" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9978" RevisionGUID="5c275a49-e7b0-4eed-87d0-cf628779b8f5" CreationDate="2014-08-04T21:16:47.827" UserId="1767" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;us20030019364&gt;&lt;us20070294983&gt;&lt;us20100092623&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9987" RevisionGUID="5a9a5c07-54df-46df-8591-a5609287a09c" CreationDate="2014-08-04T22:24:23.933" UserId="7957" Text="One of my conspiracy theory-loving friends posted about this patent, thinking the government created ebola for the purposes of population control. This is obviously hogwash, but I don't quite get the dense language - what is the point of this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21745" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9987" RevisionGUID="5a9a5c07-54df-46df-8591-a5609287a09c" CreationDate="2014-08-04T22:24:23.933" UserId="7957" Text="What is the purpose of this ebola-related patent of the US government?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21746" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9987" RevisionGUID="5a9a5c07-54df-46df-8591-a5609287a09c" CreationDate="2014-08-04T22:24:23.933" UserId="7957" Text="&lt;us20120251502&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9988" RevisionGUID="2e9f8030-7dac-49eb-a6f1-befa1960d520" CreationDate="2014-08-05T00:03:26.490" UserId="1193" Text="Having skimmed though the patent, it looks like it is a patent for a weakened version of the virus, that is taking the existing virus and making it non-threatening -- it is certainly not a patent which is supposedly creating the virus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weakened version of a virus and disease agents in general are desirable for research purposes, so that they can be studied in laboratories without any unnecessary risk to staff or for using it in a vacination effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The process of weakening the virus is known as 'inactivation' and you can read more about it on wikipedia [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your yearly flu short contains flu virus which has been 'inactivated' and you can read more about it [here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exact purpose for the patent is very likely basic research which is why it is being done by the government rather than by some private institution.  As the motivation, it is very likely to gain sufficient information of the virus to defend against it should it ever come to the US as an outbreak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_processing&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_vaccine#Manufacturing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9990" RevisionGUID="1e600a1c-d06a-462b-8a0f-c85394478f66" CreationDate="2014-08-05T07:47:55.010" UserId="11159" Text="The trademark is to protect your symbol, not define the limits of whats legal or illegal for your business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you are relatively safe if the only difference is &quot;orange colored gold&quot; vs &quot;metallic gold&quot; color appearance.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a competitor to your business were to come out with a symbol that was nearly the same as your trademark, except it was slightly orange tinted gold, that would seem to be a pretty clear trademark infringement on your existing trademark. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Not a lawyer.]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9993" RevisionGUID="a696305a-16bc-4161-9f7a-8322c213d8c7" CreationDate="2014-08-05T11:59:47.570" UserId="11161" Text="I am designing a website and i think i have designed and defined a new way of making comment on a given post just from the User Interface point of view. I want that no one else should use same way of commenting in their site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it applicable for patent? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21757" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9993" RevisionGUID="a696305a-16bc-4161-9f7a-8322c213d8c7" CreationDate="2014-08-05T11:59:47.570" UserId="11161" Text="Want to know if it is applicable for patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21758" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9993" RevisionGUID="a696305a-16bc-4161-9f7a-8322c213d8c7" CreationDate="2014-08-05T11:59:47.570" UserId="11161" Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9994" RevisionGUID="3dcbb37b-4090-42b7-988f-ac62f2aded9a" CreationDate="2014-08-05T15:44:56.813" UserId="1193" Text="In reference to [this question][1] which -- what is the legal status of patents filed by and granted to the U.S Federal Government?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that any work done by the Federal government is in the public domain, and can be used by anybody without any licensing -- and hence this would include patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that a correct understanding?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/9987/what-is-the-purpose-of-this-ebola-related-patent-of-the-us-government" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21760" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9994" RevisionGUID="3dcbb37b-4090-42b7-988f-ac62f2aded9a" CreationDate="2014-08-05T15:44:56.813" UserId="1193" Text="Are patents granted to the US government public domain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21761" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9994" RevisionGUID="3dcbb37b-4090-42b7-988f-ac62f2aded9a" CreationDate="2014-08-05T15:44:56.813" UserId="1193" Text="&lt;us20120251502&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9995" RevisionGUID="02131a6b-3de2-466a-9fac-c6fda2c43831" CreationDate="2014-08-05T15:50:01.700" UserId="11162" Text="As we all know, there are many patents in the areas of voice recognition, optical character recognition, face recognition, etc. Many of these same services are on the [Mashape][1] website provided as free/paid API services. I can't imagine all of these services are licensing the respective patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do they think it is unlikely they'll be sued by patent owners? Or would it be too difficult to prove they are infringing on patents? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.mashape.com/explore?query=voice%20recognition" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21763" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9995" RevisionGUID="02131a6b-3de2-466a-9fac-c6fda2c43831" CreationDate="2014-08-05T15:50:01.700" UserId="11162" Text="Patent Infringement on Mashape" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21764" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9995" RevisionGUID="02131a6b-3de2-466a-9fac-c6fda2c43831" CreationDate="2014-08-05T15:50:01.700" UserId="11162" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9995" RevisionGUID="7980dcbf-61cf-4455-84c2-a3c1feb9e05e" CreationDate="2014-08-05T16:14:02.747" UserId="11162" Comment="added 144 characters in body" Text="As we all know, there are many patents in the areas of voice recognition, optical character recognition, face recognition, etc. Many of these same services are on the [Mashape][1] website provided as free/paid API services. I can't imagine all of these services are licensing the respective patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do they think it is unlikely they'll be sued by patent owners? Or would it be too difficult to prove they are infringing on patents? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;I should point out that this scenario obviously isn't only going on with the API services of Mashape. It just works well as an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.mashape.com/explore?query=voice%20recognition" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9997" RevisionGUID="8e47dac1-2c64-419e-b969-a8c5bab8c4f1" CreationDate="2014-08-05T18:26:48.453" UserId="11164" Text="I am in search of finding the manufacturer of a patented product. I have found a supplier of the product, but the price they want to charge is quite high.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a sample of the product from the supplier I mentioned above, along with the patent number. I have searched the inventors, but am unable to find any contact info.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contacted the lawyers that were involved in a recent patent with one of the inventors, but have not heard anything back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any other way to either find a manufacturer that creates the product, or contact info for the inventors?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21770" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9997" RevisionGUID="8e47dac1-2c64-419e-b969-a8c5bab8c4f1" CreationDate="2014-08-05T18:26:48.453" UserId="11164" Text="How to find manufacturer of patented product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21771" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9997" RevisionGUID="8e47dac1-2c64-419e-b969-a8c5bab8c4f1" CreationDate="2014-08-05T18:26:48.453" UserId="11164" Text="&lt;findmanufacturer&gt;&lt;inventor&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9998" RevisionGUID="0db76cc8-ab6c-437e-b2de-f94c580fd02f" CreationDate="2014-08-05T20:49:26.840" UserId="1193" Text="If it is innovative, non-obvious and not already public knowledge then it may be possible to patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have already used it on your web site, then it may already be considered public knowledge depending on whether it is visible to an outside observer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9999" RevisionGUID="c5e1929a-d84f-4379-a03f-aa3165ca32d3" CreationDate="2014-08-05T21:12:13.607" UserId="3076" Text="If you are asking about patenting in the U.S. then it is probably patentable subject matter. However the Supreme Court and the USPTO in response to the Supreme Court are cutting back on what is an isn't patentable subject matter in a potentially confusing and subjective way. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10001" RevisionGUID="d5e17e25-2581-4a08-b5ed-bfbba0ac6e13" CreationDate="2014-08-06T01:30:12.320" UserId="3076" Text="No, they are owned by the U.S. and controlled by the specific agency where the inventing happened. However, there is a policy of licensing. It is covered in 35 USC 209.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; §209. Licensing federally owned inventions&#xD;&#xA;(a) Authority.—A Federal agency **may** grant an exclusive or partially exclusive license on a federally owned invention under section 207(a)(2) only if—&#xD;&#xA;(1) granting the license is a reasonable and necessary incentive to—&#xD;&#xA;(A) call forth the investment capital and expenditures needed to bring the invention to practical application; or&#xD;&#xA;(B) otherwise promote the invention's utilization by the public;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(2) the Federal agency finds that the public will be served by the granting of the license, as indicated by the applicant's intentions, plans, and ability to bring the invention to practical application or otherwise promote the invention's utilization by the public, and that the proposed scope of exclusivity is not greater than reasonably necessary to provide the incentive for bringing the invention to practical application, as proposed by the applicant, or otherwise to promote the invention's utilization by the public;&#xD;&#xA;(3) the applicant makes a commitment to achieve practical application of the invention within a reasonable time, which time may be extended by the agency upon the applicant's request and the applicant's demonstration that the refusal of such extension would be unreasonable;&#xD;&#xA;(4) granting the license will not tend to substantially lessen competition or create or maintain a violation of the Federal antitrust laws; and&#xD;&#xA;(5) in the case of an invention covered by a foreign patent application or patent, the interests of the Federal Government or United States industry in foreign commerce will be enhanced." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10001" RevisionGUID="ec04a1b3-8674-4ae9-b809-c505345f78b4" CreationDate="2014-08-06T02:03:43.693" UserId="3076" Comment="added 274 characters in body" Text="No, they are owned by the U.S. and controlled by the specific agency where the inventing happened. However, there is a policy of licensing. It is covered in 35 USC 209. The logic behind this is that the U.S. would like the public to benefit from the invention and if anybody can do it, it may very well be that no one actually does it. Without some exclusivity it may be that no one will be able to justify the investment to enter the market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; §209. Licensing federally owned inventions&#xD;&#xA;(a) Authority.—A Federal agency **may** grant an exclusive or partially exclusive license on a federally owned invention under section 207(a)(2) only if—&#xD;&#xA;(1) granting the license is a reasonable and necessary incentive to—&#xD;&#xA;(A) call forth the investment capital and expenditures needed to bring the invention to practical application; or&#xD;&#xA;(B) otherwise promote the invention's utilization by the public;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(2) the Federal agency finds that the public will be served by the granting of the license, as indicated by the applicant's intentions, plans, and ability to bring the invention to practical application or otherwise promote the invention's utilization by the public, and that the proposed scope of exclusivity is not greater than reasonably necessary to provide the incentive for bringing the invention to practical application, as proposed by the applicant, or otherwise to promote the invention's utilization by the public;&#xD;&#xA;(3) the applicant makes a commitment to achieve practical application of the invention within a reasonable time, which time may be extended by the agency upon the applicant's request and the applicant's demonstration that the refusal of such extension would be unreasonable;&#xD;&#xA;(4) granting the license will not tend to substantially lessen competition or create or maintain a violation of the Federal antitrust laws; and&#xD;&#xA;(5) in the case of an invention covered by a foreign patent application or patent, the interests of the Federal Government or United States industry in foreign commerce will be enhanced." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10002" RevisionGUID="29c2a7d9-62cb-46f8-827e-f6db5adca0fd" CreationDate="2014-08-06T10:00:57.573" UserId="3418" Text="As I know, companies are required to mark they product with patent numbers or they will lose any damage. But I tried to search iphone patent mark and it seems Apple doesn't mark their patent, isn't it? E.g what patent is used in iphone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if I infringe a patent but doesn't know it, must patent owners notice me first before claim any damage, or they can claim damage immediately?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21781" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10002" RevisionGUID="29c2a7d9-62cb-46f8-827e-f6db5adca0fd" CreationDate="2014-08-06T10:00:57.573" UserId="3418" Text="Patent marking and infringement damage question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21782" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10002" RevisionGUID="29c2a7d9-62cb-46f8-827e-f6db5adca0fd" CreationDate="2014-08-06T10:00:57.573" UserId="3418" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;false-marking&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10003" RevisionGUID="643babd6-f88a-4222-a24f-09782e31e73a" CreationDate="2014-08-06T10:08:27.480" UserId="3418" Text="A good strategy is filing continuing patent to close holes in claims, so here is my question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can continuing patent application be filed the same as the prior application or it must have some changes in claim?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the first is allowed then filing continuing application is much easier to keep application alive for following market's design-around, just file it again and again. If it is not allowed then should the first application be filed with maximum scope, or keep something for continuing application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21784" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10003" RevisionGUID="643babd6-f88a-4222-a24f-09782e31e73a" CreationDate="2014-08-06T10:08:27.480" UserId="3418" Text="Continuing patent application strategy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21785" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10003" RevisionGUID="643babd6-f88a-4222-a24f-09782e31e73a" CreationDate="2014-08-06T10:08:27.480" UserId="3418" Text="&lt;continuation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10005" RevisionGUID="3da8ee36-59bb-4a54-ba37-d0f1c5efaf05" CreationDate="2014-08-07T08:50:30.250" UserId="11175" Text="Isn't there royalties insued by the inventors family if the patent is re-purchased?&#xD;&#xA;     It seems The National Tea Company , not in existence, still owes my family money." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21792" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10005" RevisionGUID="3da8ee36-59bb-4a54-ba37-d0f1c5efaf05" CreationDate="2014-08-07T08:50:30.250" UserId="11175" Text="my grandfather invented the first automated tea bag machine" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21793" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10005" RevisionGUID="3da8ee36-59bb-4a54-ba37-d0f1c5efaf05" CreationDate="2014-08-07T08:50:30.250" UserId="11175" Text="&lt;patent-infringment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10006" RevisionGUID="a618ae6d-75fa-422f-b0dc-f298ec7f457d" CreationDate="2014-08-07T12:05:39.853" UserId="1193" Text="Companies are NOT required to mark their product with patent numbers, but if they do they can demonstrate willful infringement on the patent if you decide to copy the product." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10007" RevisionGUID="9055d0d2-874a-47b8-977c-90231caed41e" CreationDate="2014-08-07T12:29:42.157" UserId="1193" Text="The most likely is that they are unaware of infringing on any patents, or do not believe that any of the patents applies to their situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot just patent &quot;voice recognition&quot; -- you have to patent a non-obvious and novel way of doing so, and since there can be many novel ways they may have implemented something which is not covered by any patent, or outright hold their own patent on their novel and innovative way of doing the task, or maybe implement a method which is in the public domain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general anything which is prior-art / public domain cannot be patented --  so for example simply using a Fourier Transformation for voice spectrum analysis cannot be patented as it is public domain and prior-art.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence patents for such technology will cover very specific algorithms and methods which is not applicable to all implementations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10008" RevisionGUID="b5ec759b-d169-4c81-afa3-122d8e98a526" CreationDate="2014-08-07T14:08:21.483" UserId="11176" Text="i m an engineering student, As per academic i m doing project on spin flash dryer but as per rule i have to upload 5 patents related to that topic but in free patents Google the patent is in Chinese language please help me &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;what should i do to get that patent in English version ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21798" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10008" RevisionGUID="b5ec759b-d169-4c81-afa3-122d8e98a526" CreationDate="2014-08-07T14:08:21.483" UserId="11176" Text="Patent language change help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21799" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10008" RevisionGUID="b5ec759b-d169-4c81-afa3-122d8e98a526" CreationDate="2014-08-07T14:08:21.483" UserId="11176" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;data-processing-language&gt;&lt;change&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10010" RevisionGUID="71b3dd63-22a1-4411-84ea-cb57a2540664" CreationDate="2014-08-07T14:21:21.077" UserId="11178" Text="A person who is familiar with thingumajig and doohickey - the person needs to be familiar with the prior art (as this is the current state of the art), so an engineer, who has never seen a doohickey would not be skilled in that art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it is rather specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As another example:&#xD;&#xA;If you make a new mouse trap, then the art is &quot;making traps for animals&quot;. If someone, who is skilled in making traps for animals reads all prior art about _mouse traps_, would he come easily to the conclusion, how to make the new mouse trap from the prior art of mouse traps and his skill?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10011" RevisionGUID="e0f3bbac-2b02-4fd8-b0ae-dc40624b1b72" CreationDate="2014-08-07T17:33:42.433" UserId="3076" Text="PHOSTIA is a hypothetical person having omniscient knowledge in the field as of the day of filing but ordinary skill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During examination at the USPTO what level this person might be is usually glossed over. In court it becomes an issue of debate. Each side tries to convince the judge that their view of the level of expertise need to be a PHOSITA is correct. One side argues it needs to be a PH.D. in biology to design rat traps the other that only one shop class with no high school diploma is the correct level for a PHOSITA." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21805" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10011" RevisionGUID="7b9da29e-9aa9-43d6-87c8-c774c55346c0" CreationDate="2014-08-07T21:12:25.563" UserId="3076" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="PHOSTIA is a hypothetical person having omniscient knowledge of publications in the field as of the day of filing but ordinary skill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During examination at the USPTO what level this person might be is usually glossed over. In court it becomes an issue of debate. Each side tries to convince the judge that their view of the level of expertise need to be a PHOSITA is correct. One side argues it needs to be a PH.D. in biology to design rat traps the other that only one shop class with no high school diploma is the correct level for a PHOSITA." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21806" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4993" RevisionGUID="60251232-440b-4d82-94ad-15f9e5e19704" CreationDate="2014-08-08T22:11:18.677" UserId="11174" Comment="Adding the US tag so it's available from google's patent page too" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;wo2001053721&gt;&lt;us20010032522&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21807" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4993" RevisionGUID="60251232-440b-4d82-94ad-15f9e5e19704" CreationDate="2014-08-08T22:11:18.677" Comment="Proposed by 11174 approved by 3076, 7393 edit id of 1576" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6672" RevisionGUID="b834d49c-85da-40f4-b826-d2675c81a0d9" CreationDate="2014-08-09T22:29:48.607" UserId="11183" Comment="Capitalization" Text="Is US patent 3611966 still valid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If yes, is there any provided expiration date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21824" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6672" RevisionGUID="b834d49c-85da-40f4-b826-d2675c81a0d9" CreationDate="2014-08-09T22:29:48.607" UserId="11183" Comment="Capitalization" Text="Is US patent 3611966 still active?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21825" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6672" RevisionGUID="b834d49c-85da-40f4-b826-d2675c81a0d9" CreationDate="2014-08-09T22:29:48.607" Comment="Proposed by 11183 approved by 7393, 3076 edit id of 1577" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10016" RevisionGUID="99f799d2-8852-4db4-915c-ee2673030209" CreationDate="2014-08-11T02:02:20.057" UserId="11200" Text="I believe the question is asking if prior art encompasses both refernces cited in the 892 and the examiner's search report.&#xD;&#xA;The prior art in the search report is all the references which showed up during the examiner's search.&#xD;&#xA;The prior art in the 892 is the references which the examiner considered and are part of the patent application record." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10017" RevisionGUID="5523efc3-c1e7-49d8-9f42-e863ef0ff095" CreationDate="2014-08-11T02:03:51.863" UserId="11201" Text="Try looking for the Chinese patent number in http://gpsn.uspto.gov/ for an English translation , or I believe the chinese website SIPO has english translations of their patents.  Also you can check to see http://www.epo.org/searching/asian/china/faq.html for how to navigate the chinese patent database websites and maybe extract the spec in chinese and run that through google translate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6289" RevisionGUID="143e7adb-bc15-473b-aa03-37b80be12f88" CreationDate="2014-08-11T08:13:49.857" UserId="886" Comment="update on granted patent" Text="It seems that there is prior art at least for claims 1 and 2:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[Huang, C.F. Precise Location of Touch Panel by Employing the Time-Domain Reflectometry. SID Symposium Digest of Technical Papers, 40(1), June 2009, pp. 1291-1293.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and possibly &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Collins, Ryan V. Methods and apparatus for receiving user&#xD;&#xA;input via time domain reflectometry. US-Patent 2004/0239616 A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, the general principle of touch sensing using TDR has already been described in 1964:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;In exposed circuits one can touch the line to produce an added echo.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then, by running the point of contact along the line till this added&#xD;&#xA;&gt; echo coincides with the system echoes, one can literally put his&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fingers on the troubles. In a coaxial cable, one can produce a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reflection by squeezing the cable.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Oliver, B. M. Time Domain Reflectometry, HP Journal 15(6), 1964.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** According to the Public PAIR, the patent examiner struck down claims 1-5 as being already described by [Kozik et al. (US 5149918)][3]. The patent only refers to optical TDR now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1889/1.3256532/abstract&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.hpl.hp.com/hpjournal/pdfs/IssuePDFs/1964-02.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5149918" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6288" RevisionGUID="eadb908c-d990-4f0c-b35b-0e9e5fcb1150" CreationDate="2014-08-11T08:18:56.003" UserId="886" Comment="question resolved" Text="**Resolved** - patent examiner independently struck down claims - see comment below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anybody know of any prior art related to [US20110128257][1] ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent [US20110128257][1] claims a provisional application date of Nov 29 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110128257" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5059" RevisionGUID="ae55887c-5487-426c-a8fa-d26a174ab456" CreationDate="2014-08-11T08:24:17.180" UserId="7762" Comment="Make it more general, that way it can be a duplicate target." Text="I am looking to contact a person who patented something. I am really interested in the vehicle covering system patent (US8430444) and would like to contact the inventor. Is there any way to get their contact information?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21843" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5059" RevisionGUID="ae55887c-5487-426c-a8fa-d26a174ab456" CreationDate="2014-08-11T08:24:17.180" UserId="7762" Comment="Make it more general, that way it can be a duplicate target." Text="How can I contact the inventor of a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21844" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5059" RevisionGUID="ae55887c-5487-426c-a8fa-d26a174ab456" CreationDate="2014-08-11T08:24:17.180" UserId="7762" Comment="Make it more general, that way it can be a duplicate target." Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21845" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5059" RevisionGUID="ae55887c-5487-426c-a8fa-d26a174ab456" CreationDate="2014-08-11T08:24:17.180" Comment="Proposed by 7762 approved by 76, 4959 edit id of 1578" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7689" RevisionGUID="209a3db1-52c1-45f8-9550-c246838fc92b" CreationDate="2014-08-11T08:25:34.200" UserId="7747" Comment="removed unrelated content" Text="This patent looks like it does the same think as mine.patent #12/674,848&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know more about the other patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21847" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7689" RevisionGUID="209a3db1-52c1-45f8-9550-c246838fc92b" CreationDate="2014-08-11T08:25:34.200" Comment="Proposed by 7747 approved by -1 edit id of 1583" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7689" RevisionGUID="f87a5674-1f72-462f-a86c-de1648a1eb24" CreationDate="2014-08-11T08:25:34.200" UserId="4959" Comment="spelling" Text="This patent looks like it does the same think as my patent #12/674,848&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know more about the other patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10006" RevisionGUID="93493fcb-b812-4b79-ab1c-9ff72f7da71c" CreationDate="2014-08-11T14:42:45.020" UserId="-1" Comment="Code reference" Text="Companies are NOT required to mark their product with patent numbers, but if they do they can demonstrate willful infringement on the patent if you decide to copy the product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:&#xD;&#xA;Acutally from 35 U.S. Code § 287&#xD;&#xA;http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/287&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the event of failure so to mark, no damages shall be recovered by the patentee in any action for infringement, except on proof that the infringer was notified of the infringement and continued to infringe thereafter, in which event damages may be recovered only for infringement occurring after such notice" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21850" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10006" RevisionGUID="93493fcb-b812-4b79-ab1c-9ff72f7da71c" CreationDate="2014-08-11T14:42:45.020" Comment="Proposed by 27.72.41.236|b2a79f39-8563-49a3-9a8e-7003c0f7a239 approved by -1 edit id of 1586" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10006" RevisionGUID="2f22464d-2e99-42a3-81a1-ca5c8f5066ca" CreationDate="2014-08-11T14:42:45.020" UserId="1193" Comment="Code reference" Text="Companies are NOT required to mark their product with patent numbers, but if they do they can demonstrate willful infringement on the patent if you decide to copy the product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Edit:__&#xD;&#xA;From 35 U.S. Code § 287&#xD;&#xA;http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/287&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the event of failure so to mark, no damages shall be recovered by the patentee in any action for infringement, except on proof that the infringer was notified of the infringement and continued to infringe thereafter, in which event damages may be recovered only for infringement occurring after such notice" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21852" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6503" RevisionGUID="b63ec17b-8674-4a20-8e51-8cf159269c26" CreationDate="2014-08-11T14:44:06.473" UserId="11194" Comment="Title fix up." Text="How do I verify that a patent pending claim is real?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21853" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6503" RevisionGUID="b63ec17b-8674-4a20-8e51-8cf159269c26" CreationDate="2014-08-11T14:44:06.473" Comment="Proposed by 11194 approved by 4959, 1193 edit id of 1580" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21861" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9867" RevisionGUID="7df3ffa4-44a5-40be-9f5d-4b6a91e4430c" CreationDate="2014-08-11T14:53:08.007" UserId="11194" Comment="title fix up" Text="How to find out if a patent has been awarded or abandoned?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21862" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9867" RevisionGUID="7df3ffa4-44a5-40be-9f5d-4b6a91e4430c" CreationDate="2014-08-11T14:53:08.007" Comment="Proposed by 11194 approved by 4959, 1193 edit id of 1579" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5844" RevisionGUID="9f9651ae-c4e7-4e60-8fec-8db87f85df35" CreationDate="2014-08-11T14:53:22.363" UserId="11194" Comment="format list" Text="Does prior art encompass both:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - published applications with search report, and&#xD;&#xA; - closed applications, too?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21864" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5844" RevisionGUID="9f9651ae-c4e7-4e60-8fec-8db87f85df35" CreationDate="2014-08-11T14:53:22.363" Comment="Proposed by 11194 approved by 4959, 1193 edit id of 1582" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="538" RevisionGUID="a38163ec-6dd7-4a8c-903c-d331e4306e21" CreationDate="2014-08-11T14:53:29.387" UserId="11194" Comment="Misc. fix ups" Text="Assuming a company will work on and submit its patents, independently of whether its patents / patents pending are publicized or not (e.g. in its software and website), are there real benefits in publicizing your patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean, a competing company can't say it can break another's patents because it didn't know they existed, right? So, are there pros and cons on publicizing the patents? Is the investment of publicizing them worthwhile?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21866" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="538" RevisionGUID="a38163ec-6dd7-4a8c-903c-d331e4306e21" CreationDate="2014-08-11T14:53:29.387" UserId="11194" Comment="Misc. fix ups" Text="What are the pros and cons of publicizing patents / patents pending?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21867" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="538" RevisionGUID="a38163ec-6dd7-4a8c-903c-d331e4306e21" CreationDate="2014-08-11T14:53:29.387" Comment="Proposed by 11194 approved by 4959, 1193 edit id of 1581" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10019" RevisionGUID="2ba91507-e5ef-4d22-95df-d5f69905ab66" CreationDate="2014-08-11T17:03:08.167" UserId="11206" Text="When I read Patent ,I don't get novality of that specially with CIP, CP applications &#xD;&#xA;Is it by checking Backward Citations and  compare with present claims?&#xD;&#xA; Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21872" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10019" RevisionGUID="2ba91507-e5ef-4d22-95df-d5f69905ab66" CreationDate="2014-08-11T17:03:08.167" UserId="11206" Text="How to check the Novality in the Patent ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21873" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10019" RevisionGUID="2ba91507-e5ef-4d22-95df-d5f69905ab66" CreationDate="2014-08-11T17:03:08.167" UserId="11206" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;validity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10020" RevisionGUID="95cc1013-01f4-4394-84e0-01de7d9bd8ff" CreationDate="2014-08-11T17:13:57.280" UserId="11206" Text="IF I need to invalidate the patent that is CIP.Taking priority from `CIP-&gt;CIP-&gt;DP-&gt;CP-&gt;Parent`.&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21875" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10020" RevisionGUID="95cc1013-01f4-4394-84e0-01de7d9bd8ff" CreationDate="2014-08-11T17:13:57.280" UserId="11206" Text="how to check the priority date of the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21876" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10020" RevisionGUID="95cc1013-01f4-4394-84e0-01de7d9bd8ff" CreationDate="2014-08-11T17:13:57.280" UserId="11206" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;validity&gt;&lt;utility&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10022" RevisionGUID="5504b814-c69c-441d-922f-df3b661c6a85" CreationDate="2014-08-11T19:49:56.217" UserId="11208" Text="I am a researcher wanting to examine how companies assign patents for tax planning purposes.  As I search databases like Google Patents, I see a ton of data, and the PDF of the patent itself.  However, it does not appear that Google captures the location of the inventor(s) or the assignee of the patent. This is also not in the NBER patent data. Does anyone know a database where I can get data on both the name of the assignee, as well as the location of the assignee, and the location of the inventors (preferably in one large dataset that could be downloaded all at once)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21879" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10022" RevisionGUID="5504b814-c69c-441d-922f-df3b661c6a85" CreationDate="2014-08-11T19:49:56.217" UserId="11208" Text="Where can I get data on the location both the investors and the assignees?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21880" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10022" RevisionGUID="5504b814-c69c-441d-922f-df3b661c6a85" CreationDate="2014-08-11T19:49:56.217" UserId="11208" Text="&lt;databases&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10023" RevisionGUID="a58bbd23-cf55-4567-b03d-20b5ac7723ce" CreationDate="2014-08-11T22:18:28.553" UserId="3076" Text="For assignee information the USPTO has that data in XML form. To relieve their servers they have a deal with Reed Tech. to host the data, unchanged and for free. Look at http://patents.reedtech.com/assignment.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10024" RevisionGUID="79197bd7-cc18-4acb-8df5-d5829bf4d420" CreationDate="2014-08-12T01:07:20.020" UserId="11209" Text="For what it's worth (and, may not be what you're looking for) US published applications are also available at the European Patent Organisation's Espacenet website.  These links are a little easier to parse and construct, for example &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&amp;NR=2014123456A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, CC= country code, which is US; NR = publication number, replace with your own; KC = kind code which is A1 for published applications; FT - I don't know what that is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that the publication number format presently used by Espacenet is year + SIX digits, and you must add kind code A1 at the end (don't know why kind code is needed twice in the URL).  Whereas, the USPTO has transitioned to year + SEVEN digits for the same publication numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps someone!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10025" RevisionGUID="734a0b42-a7c3-41b8-b2cd-67ec1fdded2a" CreationDate="2014-08-12T01:41:51.067" UserId="11209" Text="In situations where priority is claimed to a document having different text, priority is determined on a claim-by-claim basis.  That is, different claims of a CIP patent may have different priority dates, depending on when the corresponding subject matter was introduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you have to go through one claim at a time, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;claim 1: contains some elements that were present in a parent filed Jan 1, 2006 and other elements that first appeared on July 2, 2006 =&gt; priority date is July 2, 2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;claim 2 dependent on claim 1: additional elements of this claim were present on Jan 1, 2006. =&gt; priority date is still July 2, 2006 because the dependent claim includes all elements of its parent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;claim 3 dependent on claim 1: additional element was not introduced until Dec 3, 2006 =&gt; priority date is Dec 3, 2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can invalidate some or all claims of a patent.  The patent would only be regarded as invalidated when all its claims have been invalidated.  A dependent claim can remain valid after its parent independent claim has been invalidated (which is a leading reason why patents contain so many dependent claims).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that this discussion pertains to US patents only.  Many other countries do not have a provision for CIP.  Also please note that similar considerations apply where a patent claims priority to a provisional filing.  Without examining the provisional, you don't really know whether the claimed priority date (filing date of provisional) is good, or whether the correct priority date for a particular claim should be the later filing date of the utility application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, sometimes it can be difficult to determine the proper priority date. For example an earlier document discloses a key concept of a claim but may not be sufficiently enabling, while a later document provides a fuller description." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10026" RevisionGUID="82f3aa03-b0f3-48a9-bc96-3ee6a38620da" CreationDate="2014-08-12T01:54:54.447" UserId="11209" Text="&quot;I searched and see patents for similar ideas, but none of them seem to be in the market.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether the other patents are in the marketplace has very little to do with whether your friend's invention can be patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;we have seen another company that basically does the same thing, although it works differently.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it works differently, then there is hopefully something you can claim in your patent that has not previously been disclosed publicly.  Public disclosure includes claims of issued patents, the written description of issued patents or published applications, other publications including on the Internet.  If your claim has elements A, B, C, and A and B are previously described but C has never been described anywhere, then you're in good shape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10027" RevisionGUID="df1f3820-4cdf-40f5-8722-274d5d11b2e6" CreationDate="2014-08-12T02:56:14.360" UserId="11209" Text="We were trained to start by reading claims, but claims are often hard to decipher. So, here's a few tips that may help you. 1 and 2 are the easiest, while 5 is probably the most authoritative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Look at the last 1 or 2 elements in the claim. &quot;Claim 1: Blah ... blah ... blah ... [all very ordinary standard items] WHEREIN [something special, this may be what you want]&quot;.  A good thing about starting with the claim is that you can see what the examiner agreed was novel and inventive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Look at the last paragraph of the background section.  Many times this will help to focus on what problem the inventors were trying to solve, and provide useful context for understanding the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Look at the lowest-numbered figure that is not labeled &quot;prior art&quot; and find the parts of the description that describe what's in the figure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Now that you understand the first claim and first figure, you can go back and compare with the other prior art described in the background section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. For US patents numbered above approximately 6,800,000 the File History is available from USPTO Public PAIR.  You can download the entire record of communication between Inventor and Examiner as a PDF from the &quot;Image File Wrapper&quot; tab.  This will show all the points Examiner raised why the patent application should not be allowed, and also all the arguments and amendments made by the Inventor to get the claims allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note, among people working in the patent field, &quot;novelty&quot; and &quot;inventiveness&quot; refer to two distinct things.  Roughly speaking &quot;novelty&quot; means what is claimed has not been previously described as a whole.  Roughly speaking &quot;inventiveness&quot; means what is claimed was not obvious from the prior art.  Many times, claims can pass a novelty test, but fail an inventiveness (obviousness) test.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I am not a lawyer (IANAL), and this is not legal advice!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10028" RevisionGUID="460661fa-5b43-4530-baad-7a00b517630f" CreationDate="2014-08-12T04:36:20.093" UserId="11209" Text="Firstly, a dependent claim is always completely included in its parent claim. (That answers the first question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, (as I'm sure you're aware) a compound having first_R2 = H and second_R2 = CH3 is included in claim 1 but not claim 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if somebody shows up with prior art having first_R2 = H and second_R2 = CH3 then that could invalidate claim 1, but claim 2 could still be good. (Hopefully that answers the second question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to why someone would do it this way instead of having two separate independent claims -- in the US, 3 independent claims (and 20 claims total) are included in the USPTO basic filing fee -- you pay extra if you exceed the 3/20 count.  And an extra independent claim is approximately 5x the cost of an extra dependent claim.  (Search for 37 CFR 1.16(h) and 1.16(i)).  So people try to conserve the number of independent claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately the different ways of organizing claims aren't exactly equivalent.  For instance, in your example, a prior art compound with both R2 = H would knock out both claim 1 and claim 2, leaving no patent protection for the H/CH3 compound.  It would be nice if there was a claim 3 directed to the H/CH3 compound only!  (But it looks like there isn't.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10030" RevisionGUID="a1bf975b-113a-4aeb-aed7-1f83fb790ca8" CreationDate="2014-08-12T10:42:43.143" UserId="11212" Text="Re: us5417445  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This looks like a remarkable invention.  It seems to turn the current thinking of indepenent suspension on its head.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was this ever put into production?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mike&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21891" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10030" RevisionGUID="a1bf975b-113a-4aeb-aed7-1f83fb790ca8" CreationDate="2014-08-12T10:42:43.143" UserId="11212" Text="Was this ever taken to production?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21892" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10030" RevisionGUID="a1bf975b-113a-4aeb-aed7-1f83fb790ca8" CreationDate="2014-08-12T10:42:43.143" UserId="11212" Text="&lt;novelty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10031" RevisionGUID="0f61235f-40b9-4664-a006-b008c705deb3" CreationDate="2014-08-12T16:40:23.613" UserId="11213" Text="This is important - A lot of the info on the Internet about this is out of date.  They changed the rule on this recently.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Recently = effective December 18, 2013)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This web page summarizes the details.  http://www.clm.com/publication.cfm?ID=489&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The short version is that if a patent holder pays both the maintenance fee and a late fee, they can revive a lapsed patent any time at all, until the 20-years-from-filing date on which the patent would have expired anyway.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This 20-year limit can also be changed by a terminal disclaimer, and by PTE patent term extension or PTA patent term adjustment, and there's a different 17-years-from-issue expiration date for patents filed before June 8, 1995. But, that's a separate story; see http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/patent_term_calculator.jsp#heading-3 for details.)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;~~~~ &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Excerpt, http://www.clm.com/publication.cfm?ID=489:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Zombie Patents: Stronger Than Ever**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Client Advisory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;May 14, 2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;by John M. Griem, Jr. and Theodore Y. McDonough &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Until recently, a patent which expired for failure to pay a maintenance fee could only be revived as unintentionally abandoned within 24 months of the date the maintenance fee was due. While a petition to revive an unavoidably abandoned patent could be made at any time after the patent’s expiration, the “unavoidable” standard was almost impossible to meet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recent changes to Title 35 of the U.S. Code effected by the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-211, 126 Stat. 1527, eliminate the unavoidable standard and remove the 24-month time limit to reinstate an unintentionally abandoned patent. Now, any patent which has expired for failure to pay a maintenance fee can be revived, at any time, upon a statement that the delay in paying the maintenance fee was unintentional. 35 U.S.C. § 41(c)(1). Similarly, any patent application that has gone abandoned for an unintentional failure to file a timely response can be revived at any time. 35 U.S.C. § 27; 37 C.F.R. 1.137.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;~~~~&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10032" RevisionGUID="26cd69a7-40f4-4a37-b78d-8ac503d7c501" CreationDate="2014-08-12T16:46:41.817" UserId="11213" Text="If you're sure that the patent has really expired, then the specific invention in the patent is no longer patent-protected, so the patent holder can't sue over it.  However, make sure of this, because figuring out when a patent has really expired can be complicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, keep in mind that patents can overlap, which means that even if that one specific patent you're looking at has expired, there may still be other patents out there that will block some features, or maybe all features, of the invention that you were thinking about using or selling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, you asked if someone can restore a patent that has expired due to failure to pay the maintenance fees (although &quot;lapsed&quot; or &quot;abandoned&quot; might be a more technically accurate term).  The answer is yes.  See http://www.clm.com/publication.cfm?ID=489 for the details (I also posted a longer answer to this question on http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/10031/11213)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10033" RevisionGUID="d877ad9d-b050-409d-8831-4c429977f0ed" CreationDate="2014-08-12T18:02:30.280" UserId="11216" Text="how long is this patent protection 6092612&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21896" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10033" RevisionGUID="d877ad9d-b050-409d-8831-4c429977f0ed" CreationDate="2014-08-12T18:02:30.280" UserId="11216" Text="how many years is patent good for 6092612" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21897" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10033" RevisionGUID="d877ad9d-b050-409d-8831-4c429977f0ed" CreationDate="2014-08-12T18:02:30.280" UserId="11216" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21906" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10033" RevisionGUID="cfc9a271-0bc1-4b0b-a18e-8f4ff8c1264a" CreationDate="2014-08-12T23:17:31.973" UserId="1193" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;us6092612&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10035" RevisionGUID="31a0c8d2-2bee-4ea1-afcf-5982ecba9c69" CreationDate="2014-08-12T23:27:11.930" UserId="1193" Text="Patents have a term that is the greater of the 20-year term from filing or 17 years from issuance. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was filed in 1998, 20 years from that makes 2018.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was assigned in 2002, 17 years from that makes 2019.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So 2019.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21908" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="10035" RevisionGUID="bb0f351a-29c5-428d-a68c-19937f0156f3" CreationDate="2014-08-12T23:28:00.000" UserId="1193" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1193,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Soren&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="21909" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="10035" RevisionGUID="ad9ec0a0-aa56-4c78-b030-7c45307fedd6" CreationDate="2014-08-12T23:30:31.227" UserId="1193" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1193,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Soren&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="21910" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10035" RevisionGUID="387ef8bc-1300-4939-aac9-b12c8b107ddc" CreationDate="2014-08-12T23:32:17.670" UserId="1193" Comment="deleted 101 characters in body" Text="Patents have a term patent is 20 years from the earliest filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was filed in 1998, 20 years from that makes 2018.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10035" RevisionGUID="a5fbd0af-cd29-47ff-aff9-d8d1976a73cd" CreationDate="2014-08-12T23:37:53.867" UserId="1193" Comment="deleted 101 characters in body" Text="Patents have a term of 20 years from the earliest filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was filed in 1998, 20 years from that makes 2018.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Note: terms for design patents is different and is 14 years from date of grant. (15 years if filed after 2013)_&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21912" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10030" RevisionGUID="07a1dda1-a8b2-4bbe-8b26-280e48ae2684" CreationDate="2014-08-12T23:39:23.080" UserId="1193" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;us5417445&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10036" RevisionGUID="2852f207-25da-4831-8edc-72a3cb129859" CreationDate="2014-08-12T23:46:14.447" UserId="1193" Text="Looking at google images -- I see a great deal of cycle frames with similarities&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/search?q=cycle+suspension&amp;tbm=isch&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However i'm not sufficient a domain expert to determin if it is exactly the same as described in the patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10037" RevisionGUID="e0009506-a5a1-48fd-8ace-1fc572675a12" CreationDate="2014-08-13T04:49:57.553" UserId="11219" Text="I came to an design that has same structure to this one(US7717717 B1). That patent claimed the inner thin plastic piece with conductive traces.&#xD;&#xA;My design also has same structure with the inner plastic piece, but the traces on it are designed differently and my design has additional ICs for faster speed.&#xD;&#xA;Can I apply for patent without infringement?&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for your replies. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21915" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10037" RevisionGUID="e0009506-a5a1-48fd-8ace-1fc572675a12" CreationDate="2014-08-13T04:49:57.553" UserId="11219" Text="Design has same structure but different inner design to an existing patent. Can I apply for patent for my design?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21916" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10037" RevisionGUID="e0009506-a5a1-48fd-8ace-1fc572675a12" CreationDate="2014-08-13T04:49:57.553" UserId="11219" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4736" RevisionGUID="3da0732b-1e1c-4f80-a596-d1dd524b444f" CreationDate="2014-08-13T05:17:08.793" UserId="3076" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text="**EDIT The PLT has made parts of my answer no longer the state of the law**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;. A patent that has expired due to non-payment of maintenance fees can theoretically be revived by its owner by petition to the USPTO. The grounds are &quot;unavoidable&quot; and &quot;unintentional&quot;. The criteria for establishing that it was unavoidable are a high bar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (from 37 [C.F.R. 1.378 ][1] ) 3)  a showing that the delay was unavoidable since reasonable care was taken to ensure that the maintenance fee would be paid timely and that the petition was filed promptly after the patentee was notified of, or otherwise became aware of, the expiration of the patent. The showing must enumerate the steps taken to ensure timely payment of the maintenance fee, the date and the manner in which patentee became aware of the expiration of the patent, and the steps taken to file the petition promptly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unintentional is much easier to satisfy, at least initially to the USPTO. However the same CFR 1.378 says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Any petition to accept an unintentionally delayed payment of a maintenance fee filed under paragraph (a) of this section must be filed **within twenty-four months** after the six-month grace period . . . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the inventor is no longer living, the patent rights were most likely part of his estate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The net of this is it seems very unlikely this could be revived. Even if it was revived, anyone who started production while it was expired may have &quot;intervening rights&quot; that would allow them to continue what they were doing.  Of course this patent being dead doesn't mean there are not other patents that might cover the specific embodiments it describes or other aspects of something you might make.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2590.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10039" RevisionGUID="5d78b58c-6807-4a05-93a4-60cb72f9af63" CreationDate="2014-08-13T17:24:30.690" UserId="11209" Text="First off, infringement refers to use of an earlier patent by a later product.  So no infringement occurs through your applying for a patent or even getting the patent.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, your product might infringe an earlier patent regardless of whether you have a patent or not.  This can happen when your patent claim is a subset of an earlier patent claim - that is, earlier claim included elements A and B, and your patent claims A+B+C - presumably an improvement!  In this case, any product (even yours!) having all elements A, B, C will infringe both patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now as to your question, for your patent application you will want to find some feature T2 (hopefully your differently designed traces) that are not disclosed anywhere in the earlier patent - not in the claims, not in the written description - and put this feature T2 in your claims.  Be aware that there could be some other design for the traces - let's call it T3 - that would also work - in which case a new competitor could easily design a product with T3 that would not infringe a claim written just for T2.  Then it gets to a question whether you can assert that the product using T3 is equivalent to your invention - if it gets to court that could go either way.  Anyway, in your patent application try to cover as much ground as you can without overlapping the other patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, keep in mind that even if your claims with T2 are different from anything disclosed in the earlier patent, the PTO may still reject your applications because (a) it would be an obvious modification, or (b) your T2 traces are used in some other prior art and would be obvious to try.  For this, try to add more features and description in your application, so you can have a fallback position to narrow your claims to something the PTO will agree to allow.  Keep in mind that the narrower the claim, the less valuable it is.  Also, the broader the claim, the easier it is to be invalidated by prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably a longer reply than you need or want.  Hope it helps.  Good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10040" RevisionGUID="03009fa3-c1b4-494f-8311-5ab2b87ffe87" CreationDate="2014-08-13T17:55:34.993" UserId="11222" Text="This is a continuation of patent EP 0198288 A3 .The last legal event recorded for the continuation patent is an expiration in 2006 due to failure to pay a maintenance fee. Does this mean that the newer patent is expired but the original still stands? How can I find out if the continuation was revived? Would that have been recorded in the list of legal events?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21923" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10040" RevisionGUID="03009fa3-c1b4-494f-8311-5ab2b87ffe87" CreationDate="2014-08-13T17:55:34.993" UserId="11222" Text="Is US 5278057 A still in force?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21924" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10040" RevisionGUID="03009fa3-c1b4-494f-8311-5ab2b87ffe87" CreationDate="2014-08-13T17:55:34.993" UserId="11222" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10041" RevisionGUID="7fb41b5c-2fee-4a6c-aafa-65c30eb4c671" CreationDate="2014-08-13T18:12:14.770" UserId="11222" Text="According to the publication date, this patent should have expired in 2006. The last legal event recorded however is a correction made in 2007. Does this mean that is was renewed? Would an inventor correct an expired patent? Why would a renewal not be recorded as a legal event?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21926" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10041" RevisionGUID="7fb41b5c-2fee-4a6c-aafa-65c30eb4c671" CreationDate="2014-08-13T18:12:14.770" UserId="11222" Text="Was EP 0198288 A3 renewed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21927" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10041" RevisionGUID="7fb41b5c-2fee-4a6c-aafa-65c30eb4c671" CreationDate="2014-08-13T18:12:14.770" UserId="11222" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10042" RevisionGUID="c2a9c01b-f58c-4eed-a1ae-e6e7423a42b5" CreationDate="2014-08-13T18:34:48.160" UserId="11209" Text="Not sure what you mean by &quot;renewed&quot;.  However this page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP86104213&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;says Status=withdrawn which means it's not an active patent and may never have been actually issued.  Normally we would click on &quot;all documents&quot; on the left to get the full records, but in this case it says files have been destroyed, which supports the idea that it's not active.  My expectation is that if something of interest had happened in 2007, the file would not have been destroyed.  In any case, this stems from a 1986 application.  While I am far from being an expert on EPO matters, it seems unlikely that any protection to anything would linger after 28 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have also asked about the US counterpart US5278057.  Looking at USPTO PAIR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it is showing as expired in 2006 due to non-payment of maintenance fees, in 2006.  Even if the assignees had paid the fees it would have expired in 2010 (there is a terminal disclaimer on the face of the patent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10043" RevisionGUID="754b8621-2823-4767-9d6f-13ddead3c926" CreationDate="2014-08-14T01:15:40.237" UserId="11223" Text="I have what I think is a novel idea for a mobile app, and I would like to develop it but having a day job this could take a year or two or three. Instead of starting developing now I am considering filing a patent, my thinking being that once patent is filed I could develop the app at my leisure. I would file the patent myself and it didn't work out I would not be heartbroken. Does this make any kind of sense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thanks in advance,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eric" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21930" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10043" RevisionGUID="754b8621-2823-4767-9d6f-13ddead3c926" CreationDate="2014-08-14T01:15:40.237" UserId="11223" Text="Patent mobile app prior to development?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21931" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10043" RevisionGUID="754b8621-2823-4767-9d6f-13ddead3c926" CreationDate="2014-08-14T01:15:40.237" UserId="11223" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10045" RevisionGUID="73a2c9d1-c49e-4b4a-bca1-9bf8c4facfc6" CreationDate="2014-08-14T16:05:25.720" UserId="11226" Text="Once the application is posted how long will it be before we find out if we have the patent.   If there are similar patents but no documentation of testing to prove it works will we be approved , as far as novelty is concerned ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21936" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10045" RevisionGUID="73a2c9d1-c49e-4b4a-bca1-9bf8c4facfc6" CreationDate="2014-08-14T16:05:25.720" UserId="11226" Text="when will it be approved if it'sgoing to be" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21937" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10045" RevisionGUID="73a2c9d1-c49e-4b4a-bca1-9bf8c4facfc6" CreationDate="2014-08-14T16:05:25.720" UserId="11226" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10047" RevisionGUID="fab9a8d1-4aa1-4ac6-945b-2370eec8122e" CreationDate="2014-08-14T19:58:56.803" UserId="11229" Text="Good day,&#xD;&#xA;Recently I started small busines of bracelet making and now I got told, that there's another company, that is making almost the same product and they have design patent for it![It's theur bracelet][1]&#xD;&#xA;And I'm making almost the same bracelet by myself, but it have one different knot and one mark is in different place attaching foto for it![my bracelet][2]&#xD;&#xA;What do you think, do I brake the patent by maing my bracelet?&#xD;&#xA;btw. sorry for my mistakes..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ntyFx.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/yApM3.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21942" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10047" RevisionGUID="fab9a8d1-4aa1-4ac6-945b-2370eec8122e" CreationDate="2014-08-14T19:58:56.803" UserId="11229" Text="Is it posible to bypass design patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21943" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10047" RevisionGUID="fab9a8d1-4aa1-4ac6-945b-2370eec8122e" CreationDate="2014-08-14T19:58:56.803" UserId="11229" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10048" RevisionGUID="a95fef2b-51f8-4ea1-851f-d580bb3c67ac" CreationDate="2014-08-14T20:12:45.120" UserId="11230" Text="This is perhaps a highly ambiguous question, so let's use an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;say I have stumbled upon this new billion dollar idea which is stackexchange (assume it is exactly what it is now just that it hasn't been created yet), I have done a brief patent search and it appears no one has done this yet, and I have covered all the angles, from the creation of multiple modules based on topic (computer, patents etc), to the idea of using the up/down arrows to mark a question's worthiness. Basically, I have this product (or project) all mapped out, and all we have to do now is to roll up the sleeves and do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;now assume that I wish to file a provisional patent application to lock in an prior date for this wonderful idea, but immediately there are problems,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which exactly the aspects of stackexchange can I use as claims? also, while we are certainly going to include as much description and detail of the functionality of the software as we can in the specifications, there are certainly thousands of ways to describe the same process from different perspectives, how can I be sure that my description is the most &quot;legally correct&quot; one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and this brings us back to my original question, just how serious a provisional patent application is? Undoubtedly, the more it looks like a non-provisional patent, the better. But if this is the level of prevision we should aspire to then why not just apply for a non-provisional parent directly? so from a functionalist perspective, is it right to think of the PPA as somewhat an &quot;official memo&quot; sent to and kept at the patent office, so that within a year you could file a non-provisional and point to the similarities it shares with the &quot;memo&quot; so as to demonstrate the original idea was invented several months (but less than 12) ago?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21945" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10048" RevisionGUID="a95fef2b-51f8-4ea1-851f-d580bb3c67ac" CreationDate="2014-08-14T20:12:45.120" UserId="11230" Text="How much effort should be put into preparing a provisional patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21946" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10048" RevisionGUID="a95fef2b-51f8-4ea1-851f-d580bb3c67ac" CreationDate="2014-08-14T20:12:45.120" UserId="11230" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10049" RevisionGUID="2b27da5b-7063-4859-b164-edd9b659e7a3" CreationDate="2014-08-14T20:55:31.570" UserId="1193" Text="The backlog for patents examinations are &quot;many years&quot;, your patent attorney who have helped you preparing the filing will be able to give you a better estimate for your particular field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once it is examined, it will most likely be rejected with a number of objections, which at that time you will have to respond to and possible make corrections to clarify what exactly you are seeking a patent on and how that differs from the prior art the examiner have found." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10050" RevisionGUID="bcdbd52c-90b2-4071-81b2-b68366b69d54" CreationDate="2014-08-14T21:58:18.683" UserId="11231" Text="http://www.google.com/patents/US20140108489&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I work on [a system](http://charmplusplus.org) that closely resembles the invention described in the above application. It in fact shares a common intellectual lineage, dating back [over 25 years](http://ppl.cs.illinois.edu/papers). The principals of the assignee, ET International, and at least some of the inventors are definitely aware of our work, since we interact with them regularly at academic conferences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to try to lay out an answer describing the correspondence between the claims presented and prior art produced by my lab and others before the date of priority. I'll appreciate any help I can get in presenting that properly, and adding references I'm unaware of. Thus, I'll leave the answer as Community Wiki, to share credit for help knocking this dangerous application down." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21949" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10050" RevisionGUID="bcdbd52c-90b2-4071-81b2-b68366b69d54" CreationDate="2014-08-14T21:58:18.683" UserId="11231" Text="US20140108489 A1 &quot;Flowlet-based processing&quot; - Quite like my own lab's work" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21950" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10050" RevisionGUID="bcdbd52c-90b2-4071-81b2-b68366b69d54" CreationDate="2014-08-14T21:58:18.683" UserId="11231" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;data-processing-software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10051" RevisionGUID="bec45fd7-7034-4794-a6ed-b17db55816c6" CreationDate="2014-08-14T21:58:18.683" UserId="11231" Text="&gt; Claims(21)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***What is claimed is:***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) A method of performing data processing in a distributed computing system the method including: instantiating plural flowlets associated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with a workflow, the workflow implementing a program for accomplishing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at least one data processing task, on multiple compute nodes of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; distributed computing system; and interconnecting, the flowlets&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between one or more data sources and data sinks to form at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; directed acyclic graph between the at one or more data sources and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data sinks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://charm.cs.illinois.edu/newPapers/06-18/paper.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@inproceedings{orch06,&#xD;&#xA;    Author = &quot;Chao Huang and Laxmikant V. Kale&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;    Title = &quot;Charisma: Orchestrating Migratable Parallel Objects&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;    booktitle = &quot;Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Distributed Computing (HPDC)&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;    year = 2007,&#xD;&#xA;    month = &quot;July&quot;&#xD;&#xA;}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The background runtime system environment is a distributed computer system, and the benchmarks in this and many earlier papers clearly show execution on multiple compute nodes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 'Chares' of our work correspond to 'flowlets' in the claimed invention. Our much earlier 'chare arrays' (circa 2001) correspond to &quot;plural flowlets associated with a workflow&quot;. The Charisma language described in this paper and subsequent publications prior to this filing provides the interconnection between data sources and sinks that forms a DAG among them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I wanted to really press the point, our much earlier work with Charm++ and Structured Dagger reads on this base claim as well, with the DAG being induced by the codified pattern of source objects directing messages to receiving objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) The method of claim 1, Wherein the interconnecting includes using key/value pairs to route data among flowlets, wherein a key maps to a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; particular compute node, and a value represents data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 'Group' and 'NodeGroup' constructs of basic Charm++ (1990's) describe this exactly - they are collections of objects identified with particular compute processors and nodes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3) The method of claim 1, wherein the interconnecting includes routing output data from one or more flowlets to one or more inputs of one or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more other flowlets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reduction, multicast, scatter, gather, and permute operations of Charisma read on this exactly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4) The method of claim 3, further comprising implementing flow control between at least one flowlet of the one or more flowlets and at least&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one of the one or more other flowlets to whose inputs data is directly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or indirectly routed from the at least one flowlet of the one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; flowlets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've got nothing off the top of my head for control flow, but this can be revisited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5) The method of claim 4, wherein the flow control includes one or more techniques selected from the group consisting of throttling of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rate of data processing by the at least one flowlet of the one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; flowlets; determination of when to start or stop processing of data by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the at least one flowlet of the one or more flowlets; determination of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; when to send data from the at least one flowlet of the one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; flowlets to the one or more other flowlets; and window-based flow&#xD;&#xA;&gt; control; signaling one or more upstream direct or indirect data&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sources of a flowlet to start, stop, throttle up, or throttle down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6) The method of claim 1, further comprising storing a state of at least one flowlet to provide fault tolerance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7) The method of claim 6, wherein storing a state comprises storing the state in a compute node other than a compute node on which a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; corresponding flowlet is instantiated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8) The method of claim 7, further comprising instantiating the at least one flowlet on more than one compute node, wherein storing the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; state in a compute node other than a compute node on which a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; corresponding flowlet is instantiated includes storing the state in a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compute node on which the corresponding flowlet has a second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; instantiation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9) The method of claim 1, further comprising: locking a local state store on a compute node such that it can only be accessed by a single&#xD;&#xA;&gt; worker thread of the compute node on which the at least one flowlet is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; run; and unlocking the local state store after the contents of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; local state store have been stored in a state store on a second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compute node.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10) The method of claim 1, wherein multiple flowlets are instantiated on a single compute node of the plurality of compute nodes, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein the method further includes implementing at least one load&#xD;&#xA;&gt; balancing technique among the flowlets instantiated on the single&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compute node.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 11) The method of claim 1, further comprising implementing a preemption scheme among tasks of different priorities for at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; worker thread of at least one of the compute nodes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12) A distributed computing system including: a plurality of compute nodes, wherein a compute node includes at least one processor and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; memory; wherein a plurality of flowlets associated with a workflow,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the workflow implementing a program for accomplishing at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data processing task, are instantiated on at least a subset of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compute nodes; and wherein the plurality of flowlets are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interconnected to form one or more directed acyclic graphs between one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or more data sources and one or more data sinks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 13) The system of claim 12, further including one or more state stores on at least one of the plurality of compute nodes, wherein the at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least one state store is configured to store a state of a flowlet&#xD;&#xA;&gt; during processing of data by the flowlet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 14) The system of claim 13, wherein at least one of the one or more state stores is configured to store a state of a flowlet running on a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different compute node from the compute node on which the at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the one or more state stores is implemented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15) The system of claim 12, wherein key/value pairs are used to interconnect the flowlets, wherein a key maps to a particular compute&#xD;&#xA;&gt; node, and a value represents data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 16) The system of claim 15, further including at least one key/value store configured to be shared among multiple compute nodes of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plurality of compute nodes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 17) The system of claim 16, wherein the at least one key/value store is distributed among multiple compute nodes of the plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compute nodes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 18) The system of claim 12, wherein at least one of the compute nodes includes at least two priority-based task queues configured to store&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tasks to be performed by at least one worker thread of the respective&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compute node, wherein the at least one worker thread is configured to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; preempt a lower-priority task with a higher-priority task and to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; enqueue the lower-priority task on a lower-priority one of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; priority-based task queues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 19) A computer-readable medium containing executable instructions configured to cause one or more processors to implement the method of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 20) The method of claim 1, further including downloading executable instructions configured to implement said instantiating and said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; implementing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 21) The method of claim 1, further including providing for download executable instructions configured to implement said instantiating and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said implementing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21952" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="10051" RevisionGUID="bec45fd7-7034-4794-a6ed-b17db55816c6" CreationDate="2014-08-14T21:58:18.683" UserId="11231" />
  <row Id="21953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10051" RevisionGUID="1d395e33-b909-4fe2-9ea5-518c1c8765b7" CreationDate="2014-08-14T22:30:55.357" UserId="11231" Comment="Expand contents" Text="&gt; Claims(21)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***What is claimed is:***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) A method of performing data processing in a distributed computing system the method including: instantiating plural flowlets associated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with a workflow, the workflow implementing a program for accomplishing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at least one data processing task, on multiple compute nodes of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; distributed computing system; and interconnecting, the flowlets&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between one or more data sources and data sinks to form at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; directed acyclic graph between the at one or more data sources and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data sinks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://charm.cs.illinois.edu/newPapers/06-18/paper.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@inproceedings{orch06,&#xD;&#xA;    Author = &quot;Chao Huang and Laxmikant V. Kale&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;    Title = &quot;Charisma: Orchestrating Migratable Parallel Objects&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;    booktitle = &quot;Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Distributed Computing (HPDC)&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;    year = 2007,&#xD;&#xA;    month = &quot;July&quot;&#xD;&#xA;}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The background runtime system environment is a distributed computer system, and the benchmarks in this and many earlier papers clearly show execution on multiple compute nodes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 'Chares' of our work correspond to 'flowlets' in the claimed invention. Our much earlier 'chare arrays' (circa 2001) correspond to &quot;plural flowlets associated with a workflow&quot;. The Charisma language described in this paper and subsequent publications prior to this filing provides the interconnection between data sources and sinks that forms a DAG among them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I wanted to really press the point, our much earlier work with Charm++ and Structured Dagger reads on this base claim as well, with the DAG being induced by the codified pattern of source objects directing messages to receiving objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) The method of claim 1, Wherein the interconnecting includes using key/value pairs to route data among flowlets, wherein a key maps to a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; particular compute node, and a value represents data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 'Group' and 'NodeGroup' constructs of basic Charm++ (1990's) describe this exactly - they are collections of objects where a key directly identifies particular compute processors and nodes. The location management scheme of our chare arrays may also read on this, in that an index in a collection maps to the compute node hosting the corresponding object. That location is used to pass values through remote method calls on those objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3) The method of claim 1, wherein the interconnecting includes routing output data from one or more flowlets to one or more inputs of one or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more other flowlets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reduction, multicast, scatter, gather, and permute operations of Charisma read on this exactly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4) The method of claim 3, further comprising implementing flow control between at least one flowlet of the one or more flowlets and at least&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one of the one or more other flowlets to whose inputs data is directly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or indirectly routed from the at least one flowlet of the one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; flowlets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5) The method of claim 4, wherein the flow control includes one or more techniques selected from the group consisting of throttling of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rate of data processing by the at least one flowlet of the one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; flowlets; determination of when to start or stop processing of data by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the at least one flowlet of the one or more flowlets; determination of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; when to send data from the at least one flowlet of the one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; flowlets to the one or more other flowlets; and window-based flow&#xD;&#xA;&gt; control; signaling one or more upstream direct or indirect data&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sources of a flowlet to start, stop, throttle up, or throttle down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've got nothing off the top of my head for flow control, but this can be revisited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6) The method of claim 1, further comprising storing a state of at least one flowlet to provide fault tolerance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7) The method of claim 6, wherein storing a state comprises storing the state in a compute node other than a compute node on which a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; corresponding flowlet is instantiated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://ppl.cs.illinois.edu/research/ft&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dozens of papers, dating as far back as 2004. One of the oldest, 04-06, reads on both of these claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8) The method of claim 7, further comprising instantiating the at least one flowlet on more than one compute node, wherein storing the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; state in a compute node other than a compute node on which a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; corresponding flowlet is instantiated includes storing the state in a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compute node on which the corresponding flowlet has a second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; instantiation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is classical 'replica' based fault tolerance, which has been implemented by many systems. [Our implementation](http://charm.cs.illinois.edu/gerrit/gitweb?p=charm.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/replica_ft) starts almost contemporary with the earliest claimed priority (2012-10-29 &quot;First commit to enable replica logic&quot;). Given the much earlier work on both replica FT and our flowlet-like system, this was also an obvious combination in the *KSR v. Teleflex* sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9) The method of claim 1, further comprising: locking a local state store on a compute node such that it can only be accessed by a single&#xD;&#xA;&gt; worker thread of the compute node on which the at least one flowlet is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; run; and unlocking the local state store after the contents of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; local state store have been stored in a state store on a second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compute node.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll have to dig a little deeper to find something matching the &quot;lock; copy elsewhere; unlock&quot; pattern, but I think I can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10) The method of claim 1, wherein multiple flowlets are instantiated on a single compute node of the plurality of compute nodes, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein the method further includes implementing at least one load&#xD;&#xA;&gt; balancing technique among the flowlets instantiated on the single&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compute node.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first clause describes our very old notions of processor virtualization and overdecomposition. Our early-2000's implementation of load balancing chares between processing elements would seem to apply for the processing elements and their chares within a single compute node.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 11) The method of claim 1, further comprising implementing a preemption scheme among tasks of different priorities for at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; worker thread of at least one of the compute nodes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our `immediate` entry methods read on this. They no longer appear in our documentation because they were deprecated as a bad idea several years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12) A distributed computing system including: a plurality of compute nodes, wherein a compute node includes at least one processor and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; memory; wherein a plurality of flowlets associated with a workflow,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the workflow implementing a program for accomplishing at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data processing task, are instantiated on at least a subset of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compute nodes; and wherein the plurality of flowlets are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interconnected to form one or more directed acyclic graphs between one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or more data sources and one or more data sinks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once again, Charm++ code with chare arrays in general, and their induced DAGs, and Structured Dagger and Charisma more specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 13) The system of claim 12, further including one or more state stores on at least one of the plurality of compute nodes, wherein the at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least one state store is configured to store a state of a flowlet&#xD;&#xA;&gt; during processing of data by the flowlet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not exactly sure how to read this claim. Is the &quot;state store&quot; describing 'workspace' or 'scratchpad' memory, or something else? Does [our work with the Cell processor](http://ppl.cs.illinois.edu/people/davidkunzman) and the SPE-local memory &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 14) The system of claim 13, wherein at least one of the one or more state stores is configured to store a state of a flowlet running on a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different compute node from the compute node on which the at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the one or more state stores is implemented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is further from what we've worked on, but seems like it might read directly on things like Apache Hadoop that ET International is explicitly competing with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15) The system of claim 12, wherein key/value pairs are used to interconnect the flowlets, wherein a key maps to a particular compute&#xD;&#xA;&gt; node, and a value represents data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 16) The system of claim 15, further including at least one key/value store configured to be shared among multiple compute nodes of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plurality of compute nodes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 17) The system of claim 16, wherein the at least one key/value store is distributed among multiple compute nodes of the plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compute nodes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 18) The system of claim 12, wherein at least one of the compute nodes includes at least two priority-based task queues configured to store&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tasks to be performed by at least one worker thread of the respective&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compute node, wherein the at least one worker thread is configured to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; preempt a lower-priority task with a higher-priority task and to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; enqueue the lower-priority task on a lower-priority one of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; priority-based task queues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 19) A computer-readable medium containing executable instructions configured to cause one or more processors to implement the method of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 20) The method of claim 1, further including downloading executable instructions configured to implement said instantiating and said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; implementing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 21) The method of claim 1, further including providing for download executable instructions configured to implement said instantiating and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said implementing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10051" RevisionGUID="31fb03fc-5906-493c-9574-3cdf26c63c39" CreationDate="2014-08-14T22:53:38.610" UserId="11231" Comment="Expand contents" Text="&gt; Claims(21)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***What is claimed is:***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) A method of performing data processing in a distributed computing system the method including: instantiating plural flowlets associated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with a workflow, the workflow implementing a program for accomplishing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at least one data processing task, on multiple compute nodes of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; distributed computing system; and interconnecting, the flowlets&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between one or more data sources and data sinks to form at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; directed acyclic graph between the at one or more data sources and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data sinks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://charm.cs.illinois.edu/newPapers/06-18/paper.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@inproceedings{orch06,&#xD;&#xA;    Author = &quot;Chao Huang and Laxmikant V. Kale&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;    Title = &quot;Charisma: Orchestrating Migratable Parallel Objects&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;    booktitle = &quot;Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Distributed Computing (HPDC)&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;    year = 2007,&#xD;&#xA;    month = &quot;July&quot;&#xD;&#xA;}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The background runtime system environment is a distributed computer system, and the benchmarks in this and many earlier papers clearly show execution on multiple compute nodes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 'Chares' of our work correspond to 'flowlets' in the claimed invention. Our much earlier 'chare arrays' (circa 2001) correspond to &quot;plural flowlets associated with a workflow&quot;. The Charisma language described in this paper and subsequent publications prior to this filing provides the interconnection between data sources and sinks that forms a DAG among them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I wanted to really press the point, our much earlier work with Charm++ and Structured Dagger reads on this base claim as well, with the DAG being induced by the codified pattern of source objects directing messages to receiving objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) The method of claim 1, Wherein the interconnecting includes using key/value pairs to route data among flowlets, wherein a key maps to a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; particular compute node, and a value represents data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 'Group' and 'NodeGroup' constructs of basic Charm++ (1990's) describe this exactly - they are collections of objects where a key directly identifies particular compute processors and nodes. The location management scheme of our chare arrays may also read on this, in that an index in a collection maps to the compute node hosting the corresponding object. That location is used to pass values through remote method calls on those objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3) The method of claim 1, wherein the interconnecting includes routing output data from one or more flowlets to one or more inputs of one or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more other flowlets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reduction, multicast, scatter, gather, and permute operations of Charisma read on this exactly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4) The method of claim 3, further comprising implementing flow control between at least one flowlet of the one or more flowlets and at least&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one of the one or more other flowlets to whose inputs data is directly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or indirectly routed from the at least one flowlet of the one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; flowlets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5) The method of claim 4, wherein the flow control includes one or more techniques selected from the group consisting of throttling of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rate of data processing by the at least one flowlet of the one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; flowlets; determination of when to start or stop processing of data by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the at least one flowlet of the one or more flowlets; determination of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; when to send data from the at least one flowlet of the one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; flowlets to the one or more other flowlets; and window-based flow&#xD;&#xA;&gt; control; signaling one or more upstream direct or indirect data&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sources of a flowlet to start, stop, throttle up, or throttle down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've got nothing off the top of my head for flow control, but this can be revisited. I suspect that stream analytics implementations competing with ET International's might read on this, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6) The method of claim 1, further comprising storing a state of at least one flowlet to provide fault tolerance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7) The method of claim 6, wherein storing a state comprises storing the state in a compute node other than a compute node on which a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; corresponding flowlet is instantiated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://ppl.cs.illinois.edu/research/ft&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dozens of papers, dating as far back as 2004. One of the oldest, 04-06, reads on both of these claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8) The method of claim 7, further comprising instantiating the at least one flowlet on more than one compute node, wherein storing the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; state in a compute node other than a compute node on which a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; corresponding flowlet is instantiated includes storing the state in a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compute node on which the corresponding flowlet has a second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; instantiation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is classical 'replica' based fault tolerance, which has been implemented by many systems. [Our implementation](http://charm.cs.illinois.edu/gerrit/gitweb?p=charm.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/replica_ft) starts almost contemporary with the earliest claimed priority (2012-10-29 &quot;First commit to enable replica logic&quot;). Given the much earlier work on both replica FT and our flowlet-like system, this was also an obvious combination in the *KSR v. Teleflex* sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9) The method of claim 1, further comprising: locking a local state store on a compute node such that it can only be accessed by a single&#xD;&#xA;&gt; worker thread of the compute node on which the at least one flowlet is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; run; and unlocking the local state store after the contents of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; local state store have been stored in a state store on a second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compute node.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll have to dig a little deeper to find something matching the &quot;lock; copy elsewhere; unlock&quot; pattern, but I think I can. I'd welcome others' input on this point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10) The method of claim 1, wherein multiple flowlets are instantiated on a single compute node of the plurality of compute nodes, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein the method further includes implementing at least one load&#xD;&#xA;&gt; balancing technique among the flowlets instantiated on the single&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compute node.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first clause describes our very old well-published notions of processor virtualization and overdecomposition. Our early-2000's implementation of load balancing chares between processing elements would seem to apply for the processing elements and their chares within a single compute node.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 11) The method of claim 1, further comprising implementing a preemption scheme among tasks of different priorities for at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; worker thread of at least one of the compute nodes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our `immediate` entry methods read on this. They no longer appear in our documentation because they were deprecated as a bad idea several years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12) A distributed computing system including: a plurality of compute nodes, wherein a compute node includes at least one processor and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; memory; wherein a plurality of flowlets associated with a workflow,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the workflow implementing a program for accomplishing at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data processing task, are instantiated on at least a subset of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compute nodes; and wherein the plurality of flowlets are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interconnected to form one or more directed acyclic graphs between one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or more data sources and one or more data sinks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once again, Charm++ code with chare arrays in general, and their induced DAGs, and Structured Dagger and Charisma more specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 13) The system of claim 12, further including one or more state stores on at least one of the plurality of compute nodes, wherein the at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least one state store is configured to store a state of a flowlet&#xD;&#xA;&gt; during processing of data by the flowlet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not exactly sure how to read this claim. Is the &quot;state store&quot; describing 'workspace' or 'scratchpad' memory, or something else? Does [our work with the Cell processor](http://ppl.cs.illinois.edu/people/davidkunzman) and the SPE-local memory &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 14) The system of claim 13, wherein at least one of the one or more state stores is configured to store a state of a flowlet running on a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different compute node from the compute node on which the at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the one or more state stores is implemented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is further from what we've worked on, but seems like it might read directly on things like Apache Hadoop that ET International is explicitly competing with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15) The system of claim 12, wherein key/value pairs are used to interconnect the flowlets, wherein a key maps to a particular compute&#xD;&#xA;&gt; node, and a value represents data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a combination of the execution model of Charm++-like systems and the logical design of MapReduce/Hadoop applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 16) The system of claim 15, further including at least one key/value store configured to be shared among multiple compute nodes of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plurality of compute nodes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hadoop hooked up to any NoSQL database, perhaps?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 17) The system of claim 16, wherein the at least one key/value store is distributed among multiple compute nodes of the plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compute nodes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that NoSQL database is distributed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, my predecessor's and my own [published work on 'Multiphase Shared Arrays'](http://ppl.cs.illinois.edu/papers/11-41) could also read on claims 15 through 17.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 18) The system of claim 12, wherein at least one of the compute nodes includes at least two priority-based task queues configured to store&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tasks to be performed by at least one worker thread of the respective&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compute node, wherein the at least one worker thread is configured to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; preempt a lower-priority task with a higher-priority task and to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; enqueue the lower-priority task on a lower-priority one of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; priority-based task queues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our implementation doesn't do this (see above; we've stepped away from preemption), but I bet someone else has made such a configuration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 19) A computer-readable medium containing executable instructions configured to cause one or more processors to implement the method of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 20) The method of claim 1, further including downloading executable instructions configured to implement said instantiating and said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; implementing.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 21) The method of claim 1, further including providing for download executable instructions configured to implement said instantiating and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said implementing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;19-21 seem to be the standard 'do it on a computer' boilerplate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21955" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="10048" RevisionGUID="b92ed221-46fd-40c8-b9aa-489d42cf49c6" CreationDate="2014-08-15T01:15:45.060" UserId="11230" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:11230,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;user11230&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="21962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10054" RevisionGUID="a358bc4f-36ec-4094-99a7-528f6fe0ce39" CreationDate="2014-08-15T13:08:39.987" UserId="11236" Text="I would have thought my published prior art disclosures would invalidate this patent. I only published these to keep the technology open so that I could return to it once the world and the consequential market for personal worn biometric authenticators came around to my way of thinking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Joe Rice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://homepage.ntlworld.com/joseph.rice/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.society.privacy/gynQOQHXzmQ/6LpJubLOWmwJ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://fingerchip.pagesperso-orange.fr/biometrics/types/vein_JoeRice.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21963" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10054" RevisionGUID="a358bc4f-36ec-4094-99a7-528f6fe0ce39" CreationDate="2014-08-15T13:08:39.987" UserId="11236" Text="What about these prior Art disclosures" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21964" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10054" RevisionGUID="a358bc4f-36ec-4094-99a7-528f6fe0ce39" CreationDate="2014-08-15T13:08:39.987" UserId="11236" Text="&lt;us20140196131&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10054" RevisionGUID="d5d1ac54-054f-4769-9467-adfd3d87e875" CreationDate="2014-08-15T13:31:43.910" UserId="11236" Comment="added 2243 characters in body" Text="Re User authentication based on a wrist vein pattern&#xD;&#xA;US 20140196131 A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would have thought my published prior art disclosures would invalidate this patent. I only published these disclosures to keep the technology open so that I could return to it once the world and the consequential market for personal worn biometric authenticators came around to my way of thinking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Joe Rice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/joseph.rice/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.society.privacy/gynQOQHXzmQ/6LpJubLOWmwJ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://fingerchip.pagesperso-orange.fr/biometrics/types/vein_JoeRice.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My view in more detail:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I put the Open Source Biowatch project up some years ago to try and spur some interest in an open source project to develop a biometric wristwatch, but I had no interest in the project from any sources. However, now in 2014 I am getting lots of interest in the Biowatch. Its interesting that the US patent Office judging by the patents its granting doesn't seem to read anything by me on the subject of the Biowatch or wrist worn vein based biometric systems, I have been publishing stuff in the public domain (internet) since 1996 and they never cite it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I first published my ideas for the development of a wrist worn biometric authenticator on my website in 1996 see http://homepage.ntlworld.com/joseph.rice/ and subsequently I presented a paper on the subject at the Biometric Summit in Washing DC in 1999. It seems strange to me that although my talk was at an international conference and it was subsequently published in an industry journal the US patent Office seems to be granting patents on all sorts of stuff that I have previously disclosed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My talk at the Biometric Summit was to put a marker down for the Biowatch I had received no interest in the idea nor did I have any chance of funding, plus the BTG ( British Technology Group) were retiring my vein pattern patents early as there was no interest in the technology. My talk did not go down well the place was filled largely by police and security organisations, none of them wanted a biometric system that the people owned and controlled themselves!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I knew I was right and the Biowatch would succeed I just wondered when, so my talk was aimed at keeping the ideas open and putting a marker down for the future so I could pursue this project again once the world had come around to my way of thinking. However, during the long years of being overlooked I began to wonder whether that day would be long after my death. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, that time now seems to have come so I will start again with interested collaborators in developing personal worn biometric systems based on vein patterns and my  work on this technology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;J.Rice August 14 2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10055" RevisionGUID="9e3044d9-6148-4db9-867e-fe257d88104c" CreationDate="2014-08-15T17:26:17.197" UserId="11230" Text="I am considering filing a PPA on my own, two questions,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1, if PPAs are never examined, is it correct to assume that I get a &quot;patent pending&quot; on whatever (since it is not published at the time of filing) immediately after I submit the pdf files and pay the fee?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2, suppose that I file at T=0, I disclose at T=+3 days, and I file for a non-provisional at T=+10 months, and somehow the PTO decides that the original PPA isn't valid enough to serve as a prior date, can I simply file another PPA or a new non-provisional immediately, given that I am still within one year of the disclosure, and that others haven't filed a similar application from T+3 days to t+10 months,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this question refers to the following two paragraphs, from USPTO and wikiepdia,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Beware that an applicant who publicly discloses his or her invention (e.g., publishes, uses, sells, or otherwise makes available to the public) during the 12 month provisional application pendency period may lose more than the benefit of the provisional application filing date if the 12 month provisional application pendency period expires before a corresponding nonprovisional application is filed. **Such an applicant may also lose the right to ever patent the invention. See 35 U.S.C. §§102(a)(1) and (b)(1)**.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;If a non-provisional application is not expected to be filed within one year, and the patent is not otherwise barred by law, another provisional application may also be filed at any time and start another one-year period (but this does not work in all cases).[10] However, the original priority date of any expired provisional applications will be forfeited.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the rationale behind this question is somewhat a fail safe measure. That is, in the scenario that a PPA is invalidated, can I simply, within a few days, file a new application, thereby continuing to protect the invention even the initial PPA is wasted,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3, how likely is it for the PPA to be invalidated? is it as frequent as a regular patent application, or somewhat less strict? if I accurately describe all the aspects I can think of to describe (specify) my invention, and give at least a clear picture of what I am trying to sell here, does it count as a good enough PPA? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21967" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10055" RevisionGUID="9e3044d9-6148-4db9-867e-fe257d88104c" CreationDate="2014-08-15T17:26:17.197" UserId="11230" Text="PPA validity questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21968" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10055" RevisionGUID="9e3044d9-6148-4db9-867e-fe257d88104c" CreationDate="2014-08-15T17:26:17.197" UserId="11230" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;validty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10055" RevisionGUID="bd78b644-df9b-4fd7-a8f6-aa73038cd42b" CreationDate="2014-08-15T17:44:58.327" UserId="11230" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I am considering filing a PPA on my own, three questions,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1, if PPAs are never examined, is it correct to assume that I get a &quot;patent pending&quot; on whatever (since it is not published at the time of filing) immediately after I submit the pdf files and pay the fee?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2, suppose that I file at T=0, I disclose at T=+3 days, and I file for a non-provisional at T=+10 months, and somehow the PTO decides that the original PPA isn't valid enough to serve as a prior date, can I simply file another PPA or a new non-provisional immediately, given that I am still within one year of the disclosure, and that others haven't filed a similar application from T+3 days to t+10 months,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this question refers to the following two paragraphs, from USPTO and wikiepdia,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Beware that an applicant who publicly discloses his or her invention (e.g., publishes, uses, sells, or otherwise makes available to the public) during the 12 month provisional application pendency period may lose more than the benefit of the provisional application filing date if the 12 month provisional application pendency period expires before a corresponding nonprovisional application is filed. **Such an applicant may also lose the right to ever patent the invention. See 35 U.S.C. §§102(a)(1) and (b)(1)**.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;If a non-provisional application is not expected to be filed within one year, and the patent is not otherwise barred by law, another provisional application may also be filed at any time and start another one-year period (but this does not work in all cases).[10] However, the original priority date of any expired provisional applications will be forfeited.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the rationale behind this question is somewhat a fail safe measure. That is, in the scenario that a PPA is invalidated, can I simply, within a few days, file a new application, thereby continuing to protect the invention even the initial PPA is wasted,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3, how likely is it for the PPA to be invalidated? is it as frequent as a regular patent application, or somewhat less strict? if I accurately describe all the aspects I can think of to describe (specify) my invention, and give at least a clear picture of what I am trying to sell here, does it count as a good enough PPA? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21972" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="10048" RevisionGUID="e843f14b-2d4a-4e50-a346-c98f75d10a19" CreationDate="2014-08-15T19:07:20.913" UserId="11230" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:11230,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;lukzx591&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="21973" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10055" RevisionGUID="a307c419-c7bd-443b-bdd6-e9e32d5a90e5" CreationDate="2014-08-15T19:16:44.527" UserId="11230" Comment="sorry, unfamiliar with the UI, re-edited to remove questions asked in my previous post" Text="I am considering filing a PPA on my own, two questions,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1, if PPAs are never examined, is it correct to assume that I get a &quot;patent pending&quot; on whatever (since it is not published at the time of filing) immediately after I submit the pdf files and pay the fee?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2, suppose that I file at T=0, I disclose at T=+3 days, and I file for a non-provisional at T=+10 months, and somehow the PTO decides that the original PPA isn't valid enough to serve as a prior date, can I simply file another PPA or a new non-provisional immediately, given that I am still within one year of the disclosure, and that others haven't filed a similar application from T+3 days to t+10 months,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this question refers to the following two paragraphs, from USPTO and wikiepdia,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Beware that an applicant who publicly discloses his or her invention (e.g., publishes, uses, sells, or otherwise makes available to the public) during the 12 month provisional application pendency period may lose more than the benefit of the provisional application filing date if the 12 month provisional application pendency period expires before a corresponding nonprovisional application is filed. **Such an applicant may also lose the right to ever patent the invention. See 35 U.S.C. §§102(a)(1) and (b)(1)**.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;If a non-provisional application is not expected to be filed within one year, and the patent is not otherwise barred by law, another provisional application may also be filed at any time and start another one-year period (but this does not work in all cases).[10] However, the original priority date of any expired provisional applications will be forfeited.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the rationale behind this question is somewhat a fail safe measure. That is, in the scenario that a PPA is invalidated, can I simply, within a few days, file a new application, thereby continuing to protect the invention even the initial PPA is wasted,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10056" RevisionGUID="48219575-e543-46e2-9e95-4dbb5cc031ee" CreationDate="2014-08-15T20:27:59.170" UserId="11240" Text="I previously was the lead developer in a software project.  They have contacted me and attempted to trick me into signing a patent assignment.  It says &quot;in consideration of good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the undersigned hereby sell, assign, and transfer..&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So before signing it I asked them for this consideration.  They said that refers to my previous compensation.  Well, I am pretty doubtful of that.. how could I have sold those rights so far in advance? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the people listed as an &quot;inventor&quot; on the patent is quite wealthy and has a very high profile job.  What actions can I take that will enable me to receive &quot;monetary consideration&quot; for signing this patent assignment form?  If I cannot receive this, how can I block or protest or interfere with this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It says US application number 14/272,114 and attorney docket no 16170/1.  Can't figure out how to find that in the patent database, searching for those numbers doesn't show it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to be clear, I was the original creator of this software on a freelance basis, and more than half of the elements referred to in the drawings are actually features that I architected or implemented." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21975" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10056" RevisionGUID="48219575-e543-46e2-9e95-4dbb5cc031ee" CreationDate="2014-08-15T20:27:59.170" UserId="11240" Text="How can I receive &quot;good consideration&quot; as mentioned in this assignment document?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21976" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10056" RevisionGUID="48219575-e543-46e2-9e95-4dbb5cc031ee" CreationDate="2014-08-15T20:27:59.170" UserId="11240" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10057" RevisionGUID="274eb009-588d-4ef2-9ee2-5a7c5008a084" CreationDate="2014-08-15T21:02:28.907" UserId="1193" Text="Your provisional patent should be as complete and clear as possible for the final non-provisional patent to benefit from the earlier filing data -- so as much effort as you can, making the description as clear and precise as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, the final patent can somewhat differ from the provisional patent, however the subject matter which is different will not benefit from the earlier filing data, but will be valid from the filing date of the non-provisional patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US your have a one year grace period from the invention until you have to file a patent to gain protection -- so it may not be necessary to file a provisional patent at all -- and in that case the provisional patent just servers as what you call &quot;an official memo&quot; which makes it easy to document the original date of the invention for the later filing of the non-provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The benefit of the provisional patent, is that you can do it yourself as it does not require any special legal language or claims, but can be written in a plain technical format -- and it is cheap -- the filing fee if you do it yourself is $65 (or $130 depending on what size entity you are).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you get an attorney involved he will most likely shy away from doing a provisional patent as the attorney likely will have internal standards which applies equally to provisional and non-provisional patents and hence the work is almost the same for him.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21983" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10054" RevisionGUID="e14448b5-a38b-4960-ae2e-a48129d4d237" CreationDate="2014-08-16T15:01:05.587" UserId="11236" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the point of prior art disclosures if they are ignored" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10054" RevisionGUID="e14448b5-a38b-4960-ae2e-a48129d4d237" CreationDate="2014-08-16T15:01:05.587" UserId="11236" Comment="edited title" Text="Re User authentication based on a wrist vein pattern&#xD;&#xA;US 20140196131 A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would have thought my published prior art disclosures would invalidate this patent. I only published these disclosures to keep the technology open so that I could return to it once the world and the consequential market for personal worn biometric authenticators came around to my way of thinking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Joe Rice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/joseph.rice/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.society.privacy/gynQOQHXzmQ/6LpJubLOWmwJ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://fingerchip.pagesperso-orange.fr/biometrics/types/vein_JoeRice.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My view in more detail:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I put the Open Source Biowatch project up some years ago to try and spur some interest in an open source project to develop a biometric wristwatch, but I had no interest in the project from any sources. However, now in 2014 I am getting lots of interest in the Biowatch. Its interesting that the US patent Office judging by the patents its granting doesn't seem to read anything by me on the subject of the Biowatch or wrist worn vein based biometric systems, I have been publishing stuff in the public domain (internet) since 1996 and they never cite it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I first published my ideas for the development of a wrist worn biometric authenticator on my website in 1996 see http://homepage.ntlworld.com/joseph.rice/ and subsequently I presented a paper on the subject at the Biometric Summit in Washing DC in 1999. It seems strange to me that although my talk was at an international conference and it was subsequently published in an industry journal the US patent Office seems to be granting patents on all sorts of stuff that I have previously disclosed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My talk at the Biometric Summit was to put a marker down for the Biowatch I had received no interest in the idea nor did I have any chance of funding, plus the BTG ( British Technology Group) were retiring my vein pattern patents early as there was no interest in the technology. My talk did not go down well the place was filled largely by police and security organisations, none of them wanted a biometric system that the people owned and controlled themselves!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I knew I was right and the Biowatch would succeed I just wondered when, so my talk was aimed at keeping the ideas open and putting a marker down for the future so I could pursue this project again once the world had come around to my way of thinking. However, during the long years of being overlooked I began to wonder whether that day would be long after my death. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, that time now seems to have come so I will start again with interested collaborators in developing personal worn biometric systems based on vein patterns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;J.Rice August 14 2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10058" RevisionGUID="f67d5e4e-f2cd-4a39-b6a5-ff1ee3c67006" CreationDate="2014-08-16T15:16:45.183" UserId="1193" Text="I believe it would come down to what your employment contract says -- if it states that all the work you perform as part of your job (or some similar words), then both morally and legally would you need to assign the patent to your employer. The other thing to ask yourself -- what would you gain (making life difficult for others is not a &quot;gain&quot;) by NOT signing it? Do you expect to use the invention somewhere else, or somehow benefit from it in other ways? If no, then the best you could do was to suggest that you were to get a bonus if the patent were to be sold or licensed to somebody else." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10059" RevisionGUID="4015497a-2c2b-404f-b049-c123389a4119" CreationDate="2014-08-16T16:28:59.107" UserId="1193" Text="First, having content on a webpage is not evidence of prior art, unless such material can be independently verified and dated.  I can see pages on archive.org dating from 2000 but not earlier than that -- archive.org is an indication, but not evidence unless archive.org provides a document of authenticity.  A reference to the British patent you are citing would be much better -- but looking at the UK patent database I don't see any patents listed in your name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, A brief look at you page, you are talking about that vein images can be used to authenticate a person -- so you are describing what can be done, but I don't see anything about how it can be done -- e.g a description of machinery to do such detection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot patent a naturally occurring phenomenon, but you can patent a technology to detect or create such phenomenon -- so if I discover a new shade of red, I cannot patent that shade but I can patent a process to produce it or I can patent a technology to detect it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent you are citing looks to me (but i'm not an expert in this field) as a description of technology on how to obtain and detect the vein patterns.  The fact that there is prior art on documenting that such patterns exits is kind of irrelevant as that is not what is patented.  The fact is that most new inventions builds on non-obvious and innovative extensions to prior inventions, which is exactly what is expected from an inventor and the patent process." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10060" RevisionGUID="ce0b1a46-2445-47ae-875f-384a7bfdff15" CreationDate="2014-08-16T18:18:27.007" UserId="3076" Text="1. Yes - you can refer to the subject matter covered in a filed provisional application patent pending. The fee payment doesn't need to be paid to have a filing date - you get a couple of months to get that in before the application will go abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. This may help you see the answer to your question: (a) If a disclosure (by you) is made and a year goes by without any kind of an application being filed by you, then you are bared from patenting the disclosed material.(b) Unless a non-provisonal application is filed within a year of a provisional application being filed that points back to the provisional, it is as if the provisional was never filed.(c)  No one-to-one correspondence between provisional and non-provisonal applications is required or assumed. You can file a provisional application with constant or changing content every month for N months and then file one or more non-provisonals that claim the benefit of any relevant provisional that is less than a year old that day. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10061" RevisionGUID="cdf97605-9a34-4455-88ff-13a13ce175a4" CreationDate="2014-08-16T21:48:28.207" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="In the field of IR I was considering US8214361 B1: if I can resume the claims in two words the invention is a search engine interface that not only provides a set of results but also a set of categories in which results are grouped, and it allows the user to customize the categories so that the next time she would search she will be provided the customized set of categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- how this can be considered not obvious? It's a simple combination of features well known to everybody. Isn't it like to say that I want to patent a car painted with yellow and purple stripes: just because nobody did before is it innovative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- in the case somebody would like to implement such a system the point actually would be the algorithm that makes possible to categorize search engine results in a meaningful way. In this invention instead this algorithm is completely abstracted. Isn't it like to say that I want to patent time machine. A system and method for travel in time, not saying anything about how this would be possible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- if such kinds of patents are granted, given that somebody estimates that every day 110 software patents are granted by USPTO, then how to be sure that every kind of web interaction somebody would want to implement in her web application isn't yet patented? Patent search isn't always reliable and it can also be that patent application hasn't been yet published. I mean: if somebody puts money and efforts to develop a web product there's the risk that somebody else has filed the same idea less than 18 months before. This risk can be acceptable if limited to real invention (how the time machine work) but instead becomes too high if extended to such broad concepts (time machine itself).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21989" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10061" RevisionGUID="cdf97605-9a34-4455-88ff-13a13ce175a4" CreationDate="2014-08-16T21:48:28.207" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="US8214361 B1 How can it considered to be not obvious?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21990" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10061" RevisionGUID="cdf97605-9a34-4455-88ff-13a13ce175a4" CreationDate="2014-08-16T21:48:28.207" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;business-methods&gt;&lt;obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21991" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10061" RevisionGUID="494eeff8-201d-4eb3-a73f-25a9c65aeef9" CreationDate="2014-08-16T22:05:49.070" UserDisplayName="user8305" Comment="edited title" Text="US8214361 B1 How can it be considered not obvious?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21993" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10047" RevisionGUID="ab2fc51c-0524-4c94-a5b0-f8d5cfb170e4" CreationDate="2014-08-17T00:04:24.200" UserId="11237" Comment="Correcting mistakes." Text="Recently I started small business of bracelet making and now I got told, that there's another company, that is making almost the same product and they have design patent for it![It's their bracelet][1]&#xD;&#xA;And I'm making almost the same bracelet by myself, but it have one different knot and one mark is in different place attaching photo for it![my bracelet][2]&#xD;&#xA;What do you think, do I brake the patent by making my bracelet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ntyFx.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/yApM3.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21994" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10047" RevisionGUID="ab2fc51c-0524-4c94-a5b0-f8d5cfb170e4" CreationDate="2014-08-17T00:04:24.200" UserId="11237" Comment="Correcting mistakes." Text="Is it possible to bypass design patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21995" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10047" RevisionGUID="ab2fc51c-0524-4c94-a5b0-f8d5cfb170e4" CreationDate="2014-08-17T00:04:24.200" Comment="Proposed by 11237 approved by 3076, 1193 edit id of 1587" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10060" RevisionGUID="4138a464-f886-4fb9-97fd-489ccb511724" CreationDate="2014-08-17T00:40:28.723" UserId="3076" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="1. Yes - you can refer to the subject matter covered in a filed provisional application patent pending. The fee actually doesn't need to be paid on that day for it to count as the filing date - you get a couple of months to get the $$ in before the application will go abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. This may help you see the answer to your question: (a) If a disclosure (by you) is made and a year goes by without any kind of an application being filed by you, then you are bared from patenting the disclosed material. Period. (b) Unless a non-provisonal application is filed within a year of a provisional application being filed that points back to the provisional, it is as if the provisional was never filed.(c)  No one-to-one correspondence between provisional and non-provisonal applications is required or assumed. You can file a provisional application with constant or changing content every month for N months and then file one or more non-provisonals that claim the benefit of any relevant provisional that is less than a year old that day. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21997" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10061" RevisionGUID="83011077-fb03-4dc7-9baf-2ee99d38dc78" CreationDate="2014-08-17T02:07:41.797" UserId="1193" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;business-methods&gt;&lt;obviousness&gt;&lt;us8214361&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10062" RevisionGUID="15e817be-2653-4dde-9066-330f88985678" CreationDate="2014-08-17T02:17:29.653" UserId="1193" Text="We reading a patent for innovation and non-obvious, you will need to read it with bias of the date it was filed -- that is you need to put your self in 2008 and look at whether the subject matter was innovative at that time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Things when successful are pretty quickly becoming accepted and &quot;obvious&quot;, but that does not mean that they were obvious at the time the patent were written -- in fact everything which is a good invention becomes &quot;common knowledge&quot; very quickly -- that is a sign of that it is working well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way search engines have evolved to make result more relevant has been fast evolving over the last decade.  10 years ago search result were presented just as a list pf results with no context and no history to add relevance -- both Yahoo, Microsoft and Google have had significant research projects in how to make it a better experience for users -- I guess this is just one of the many inventions, and I'm sure that you can find similar patents files by both Microsoft and Yahoo in the same area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I'm not arguing for or against this particular patent -- you should ask yourself if you can find an example of what they are describing dated 2007 or before that.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10062" RevisionGUID="ce10bae9-3110-4f2b-8f9a-969a1f45d22b" CreationDate="2014-08-17T05:09:25.520" UserId="3076" Comment="typo" Text="When reading a patent for innovation and non-obvious, you will need to read it with bias of the date it was filed -- that is you need to put your self in 2008 and look at whether the subject matter was innovative at that time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Things when successful are pretty quickly becoming accepted and &quot;obvious&quot;, but that does not mean that they were obvious at the time the patent were written -- in fact everything which is a good invention becomes &quot;common knowledge&quot; very quickly -- that is a sign of that it is working well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way search engines have evolved to make result more relevant has been fast evolving over the last decade.  10 years ago search result were presented just as a list pf results with no context and no history to add relevance -- both Yahoo, Microsoft and Google have had significant research projects in how to make it a better experience for users -- I guess this is just one of the many inventions, and I'm sure that you can find similar patents files by both Microsoft and Yahoo in the same area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I'm not arguing for or against this particular patent -- you should ask yourself if you can find an example of what they are describing dated 2007 or before that.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10061" RevisionGUID="c27792a8-791d-4477-be76-daba39e2f875" CreationDate="2014-08-17T07:47:10.860" UserDisplayName="user8305" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="In the field of IR I was considering US8214361 B1: if I can resume the claims in two words the invention is a search engine interface that not only provides a set of results but also a set of categories in which results are grouped, and it allows the user to customize the categories so that the next time she would search she will be provided the customized set of categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- how this can be considered not obvious? It's a simple combination of features well known to everybody. Isn't it like to say that I want to patent a car painted with yellow and purple stripes: just because nobody did before is it  an invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- in the case somebody would like to implement such a system the point actually would be the algorithm that makes possible to categorize search engine results in a meaningful way. In this invention instead this algorithm is completely abstracted. Isn't it like to say that I want to patent time machine. A system and method for travel in time, not saying anything about how this would be possible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- if such kinds of patents are granted, given that somebody estimates that every day 110 software patents are granted by USPTO, then how to be sure that every kind of web interaction somebody would want to implement in her web application isn't yet patented? Patent search isn't always reliable and it can also be that patent application hasn't been yet published. I mean: if somebody puts money and efforts to develop a web product there's the risk that somebody else has filed the same idea less than 18 months before. This risk can be acceptable if limited to real invention (how the time machine work) but instead becomes too high if extended to such broad concepts (time machine itself).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10066" RevisionGUID="c1c7e09f-5d03-4cf7-b72a-ce3f650131c1" CreationDate="2014-08-18T11:40:10.053" UserId="11237" Text="&gt; The patent for a time machine has been filed with the United States&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patent and Trademark Office by one Dr. Marvin B. Pohlman of Tulsa,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Oklahoma.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; By creating an artificial wormhole time travel is possible.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; glance, such a thing might be too fantastic a notion to believe, yet&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pohlman does hold a Bachelor of Science in Engineering Physics, an MBA&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from Lexington Business School, and a PhD in computer science from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Trinity University. He's also a member of Portland Mensa, and is a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Licensed Professional Engineer, Certified Information Systems Auditor,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Certified Information Security Manager and Certified Information&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Systems security professional. Perhaps he invented the time machine&#xD;&#xA;&gt; because he discovered he hasn't enough time to squeeze in everything&#xD;&#xA;&gt; he wants to accomplish?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anybody know if [US20060073976][1] describe how to built the time machine? And how it's possible that this patent was filled without any issues?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US20060073976][2] at Google Patents&#xD;&#xA; - [Patent US20060073976 - Method of gravity distortion and time displacement][3] at Reddit&#xD;&#xA; - [U.S. Scientist Patents Time Machine][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20060073976&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20060073976&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/28vr5t/patent_us20060073976_method_of_gravity_distortion/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2011/10/u-s-scientist-patents-time-machine-1216437.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22012" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10066" RevisionGUID="c1c7e09f-5d03-4cf7-b72a-ce3f650131c1" CreationDate="2014-08-18T11:40:10.053" UserId="11237" Text="Does US20060073976 really describe how to built the time machine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22013" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10066" RevisionGUID="c1c7e09f-5d03-4cf7-b72a-ce3f650131c1" CreationDate="2014-08-18T11:40:10.053" UserId="11237" Text="&lt;us20060073976&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10067" RevisionGUID="168a5087-5b1d-4c08-93a8-3d5b992a3301" CreationDate="2014-08-18T13:50:25.033" UserId="4545" Text="Anyone can file an application for a patent with whatever material they wish. No actual patent has been granted in this case (it was rejected in 2007 and abandoned in 2008). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FYI, any publication number with the format US YEAR/7DIGITS (e.g., US 2006/0073976) is a pre-grant publication of an application as filed, not an actual patent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10068" RevisionGUID="5268ede0-e616-40ce-92c1-68ee64144c45" CreationDate="2014-08-18T13:53:17.840" UserId="4545" Text="And just to be clear, the publication to which you refer (US 20140196131 A1) is not a patent. It's pre-grant publication of an application for a patent. It has not been examined, yet alone granted/allowed. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10069" RevisionGUID="04681f56-90e1-4256-bf56-2f7cdb67d154" CreationDate="2014-08-18T14:01:13.060" UserId="4545" Text="US 5278057 has expired (it would have had no effect past January 2010 even if the maintenance fees were paid, due to the terminal disclaimer). The EP application was never patented. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10070" RevisionGUID="fcd05a9e-f4dc-4615-9a7b-8eb7d157475b" CreationDate="2014-08-18T22:30:42.233" UserId="11248" Text="Has patent #US6926341 expired due to nonpayment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22035" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10070" RevisionGUID="fcd05a9e-f4dc-4615-9a7b-8eb7d157475b" CreationDate="2014-08-18T22:30:42.233" UserId="11248" Text="Has patent # US6926341 expired due to non-payment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22036" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10070" RevisionGUID="fcd05a9e-f4dc-4615-9a7b-8eb7d157475b" CreationDate="2014-08-18T22:30:42.233" UserId="11248" Text="&lt;maintenance&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22040" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10070" RevisionGUID="d90710cb-9419-44ff-86b8-8623819fad93" CreationDate="2014-08-19T03:07:25.660" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to patent" Text="&lt;maintenance&gt;&lt;us6926341&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10072" RevisionGUID="b6b52872-cb07-4097-9324-21e1cf4fee8f" CreationDate="2014-08-19T03:11:48.020" UserId="3076" Text="Yes, that is true, and it is very easy to get this information using google/patents. If that patent number is entered at [google/patents][1] and you look at the very bottom of the page you will see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/C3jIM.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10073" RevisionGUID="9360496c-354d-440f-b4b7-428cbf99be42" CreationDate="2014-08-19T08:09:06.203" UserId="11251" Text="This is a question concerning patent [ca2741523a1][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Okay, now that Ebola is breaking out and spreading everywhere I want to know if this patent which publicly lists compositions and methods thereof for creating an ebola virus could be used by scientists to create Ebola.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know enough about genetic virus programming to know if the information publicly listed on this patent is enough information to know how to create the biological warfare weapon of mass destruction known as ebola.  Since this is publicly listed on the Internet my query is to inquire whether or not this public information is enough to enable any standard genetic scientists to construct this weapon ebola just by looking up the patent information on google or whether it is not enough information to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/CA2741523A1?cl=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22043" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10073" RevisionGUID="9360496c-354d-440f-b4b7-428cbf99be42" CreationDate="2014-08-19T08:09:06.203" UserId="11251" Text="Question concerning Ebola Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22044" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10073" RevisionGUID="9360496c-354d-440f-b4b7-428cbf99be42" CreationDate="2014-08-19T08:09:06.203" UserId="11251" Text="&lt;method&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10074" RevisionGUID="0e5582b3-67d8-49c1-8f1c-40f47993a30a" CreationDate="2014-08-19T13:44:59.517" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="A provisional application is filed to USPTO and something turns out to be wrong and therefore has to be modified when the following non-provisional application is filed. In this case one problem is that the non-provisional patent application will not be able to claim priority to the provisional patent application filing date. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can other problems arise like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) what has been disclosed in the provisional application can interfere with the non-provisional application constituting prior art? (In this case the one year grace period wouldn't apply because the non-provisional would not the be prosecution of the same invention.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) if the provisional application has also been disclosed to somebody else than USPTO  (like VCs) before non-provisional application filing (which is then modified as described above) then can it interfere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the provisional application filed to USPTO something turns out to be wrong is it possible to send a second modified provisional application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then the non-provisional application has to be filed within a year from the filing date of the first or the second provisional application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about the problems (a) and (b) in this case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22046" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10074" RevisionGUID="0e5582b3-67d8-49c1-8f1c-40f47993a30a" CreationDate="2014-08-19T13:44:59.517" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="Provisional application problems" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22047" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10074" RevisionGUID="0e5582b3-67d8-49c1-8f1c-40f47993a30a" CreationDate="2014-08-19T13:44:59.517" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10075" RevisionGUID="8ab350fd-ff7d-4af5-969c-c65211006eb5" CreationDate="2014-08-19T15:44:44.957" UserId="4545" Text="The portions of the non-provisional that are not supported by (i.e., are different from) the provisional will not get the benefit of the provisional application's date. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A) A provisional application is not available to the public and can not be [directly] used as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;B) The one-year grace period should prevent your own work from being used against you (assuming you file within a year of any sort of public disclosure or sale). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can always file a new provisional application, but as noted above, the newly added (different) material will be granted a filing date as of the date of the new application (whether provisional or non-provisional). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10077" RevisionGUID="2b345f39-39fc-4199-872c-019e75986136" CreationDate="2014-08-19T19:51:46.347" UserDisplayName="user11257" Text="The process of using a laser to create piano rolls was being discussed in April of 2003 in Mechanical Music Digest (MMD), when Mr. Gerety appeared for the first time in this discussion and announced that he had just been granted a patent on the topic being discussed. He said that he had a device for sale that put the process into practice, and anyone could buy the device from him and create piano rolls. He hadn't posted in the MMD before and hasn't posted since, and nobody has seen the device, been quoted a price nor created a piano roll with this device. The most visible effect that over the eleven years since this patent was granted, the idea of using a laser to create a piano roll has not been discussed; Mr. Gerety did not offer to license his patent and nobody could expect to make enough from creating piano rolls today to offset the cost of this (unseen) device nor litigation if they tried to do this on their own and risk a patent infringement situation. My question is, since the only measurable effect of this patent was to stop development of the patented process, and Mr. Gerety doesn't appear to have made a single penny on this patent, what would it take to disallow or eliminate this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22053" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10077" RevisionGUID="2b345f39-39fc-4199-872c-019e75986136" CreationDate="2014-08-19T19:51:46.347" UserDisplayName="user11257" Text="Laser-Cut Piano Roll patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22054" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10077" RevisionGUID="2b345f39-39fc-4199-872c-019e75986136" CreationDate="2014-08-19T19:51:46.347" UserDisplayName="user11257" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10078" RevisionGUID="884ea812-f9b6-43a9-839e-38c0c219093a" CreationDate="2014-08-19T21:11:34.000" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="Given that a software patent can be implemented in different ways, languages and platforms then what are the license requirements of the implemented pieces of software?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible that the patent owner releases an open source implementation or this would necessary invalid the patent rights because open source licenses grant freedom of use, distribution and modification?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since Apache License allows to distribute derivative works under a proprietary license, then is it compatible with the patent rights to build an implementation of the patent software as a derivative work from a piece of software released under Apache license? What about the mandatory copyright notices?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference in this regard if instead of a derivative work as a whole an extension module is released? In this case the proprietary module wouldn't work without the Apache license parent application, but isn't it almost the same when somebody releases a proprietary application in PHP (the application wouldn't work without the under running open source PHP interpreter)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the best license to release an implementation of a software patent to not interfering with patent protection?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22056" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10078" RevisionGUID="884ea812-f9b6-43a9-839e-38c0c219093a" CreationDate="2014-08-19T21:11:34.000" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="Software patent implementations license" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22057" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10078" RevisionGUID="884ea812-f9b6-43a9-839e-38c0c219093a" CreationDate="2014-08-19T21:11:34.000" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;opensource&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10080" RevisionGUID="83858a5a-2442-4aeb-a07b-3b935f2532d0" CreationDate="2014-08-19T22:06:15.117" UserId="11258" Text="I had an idea for a patent and I reached out to a friend and put me in touch with a patent lawyer to discuss with the patentability of the concept. He advised that it would cost a lot of money to file and he didn't think it would go through (even though he wouldn't say so in those exact words). &#xD;&#xA;So I gave up on the patenting as I didn't have the money and tried to produce the product from the ground up and look into the patent later when I had the funds. &#xD;&#xA;I just found that my EXACT product idea was filed for months later. I have email regarding trying to patent this idea with a patent lawyer; do I have any rights here? I mean it is probably coincidence but there is a chance its not... Maybe he told a friend in passing, maybe not. &#xD;&#xA;Is there anything I can do? I don't want to reach back out to the same person but I don't have anyone else to ask... &#xD;&#xA;ANY ADVICE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22062" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10080" RevisionGUID="83858a5a-2442-4aeb-a07b-3b935f2532d0" CreationDate="2014-08-19T22:06:15.117" UserId="11258" Text="I had an idea for a patent, told a select few and then saw my idea on the US patent site" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22063" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10080" RevisionGUID="83858a5a-2442-4aeb-a07b-3b935f2532d0" CreationDate="2014-08-19T22:06:15.117" UserId="11258" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22064" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10080" RevisionGUID="7c314355-2687-4c7d-aba1-4885e8ab1a6c" CreationDate="2014-08-19T22:23:47.923" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10081" RevisionGUID="859b126e-ee48-4380-955f-683eff9b4642" CreationDate="2014-08-19T22:41:43.867" UserId="3076" Text="I assume you are referring to patent document US 2003022057. The top part of the front page is below. In the upper right hand corner it says Pub. No.: That is an abbreviation for Publication number. This document itself is an *application* for a patent, not evidence that a patent was issued. This is the only document that comes up with a search of the inventors name, the word piano and the word laser. *No corresponding granted patent comes up.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see below further below the status of this application as of 2006 was abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/kiKks.png&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/qYD8v.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10083" RevisionGUID="a68e96fc-985f-4afd-91fe-43ef516e6e9b" CreationDate="2014-08-20T05:58:51.183" UserId="10011" Text="Unless you can show that your attorney violated privilege, you're probably out of luck. The system works on a first-to-file basis these days, which means the first person to file for a patent (or to file a provisional that gets carried through to a non-provisional, if we're being technical about it) is the one who gets the initial rights to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given your particular case, I'm curious of how you came across the patent you're now talking about. Remember that patents take quite some time to actually get issued, so are you sure you looked at the *filing* date, and not the date of issuance? Furthermore, the default time (and I do mean default, it can be varied for one reason or another) that the patent office keeps applications secret for is eighteen months. That's why I ask about which date you looked at, because &quot;months later&quot; sounds like there could have been an error there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the &quot;showing that your attorney violated privilege&quot; part, since I imagine that's most of what you're after, you really don't have many options beyond common sense. This patent (or application, as the case may be) that you found, was it filed by the attorney? Was it filed in the same city as where you met the attorney? Look into those sorts of options. Of course, there are no guarantees, but that's going to be your best bet at finding a breach of trust." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10084" RevisionGUID="16b425d6-a1d5-4d2d-87e6-8dcd4d48574e" CreationDate="2014-08-20T06:52:28.443" UserId="11263" Text="Is the UI interface on Paper53 something than can be duplicated without worry?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They've come up with a very intuitive way of browsing a book, though it is so intuitive one can say it pretty much just emulates the way a real book works, so is there an originality to it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22078" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10084" RevisionGUID="16b425d6-a1d5-4d2d-87e6-8dcd4d48574e" CreationDate="2014-08-20T06:52:28.443" UserId="11263" Text="UI Interface on Paper53?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22079" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10084" RevisionGUID="16b425d6-a1d5-4d2d-87e6-8dcd4d48574e" CreationDate="2014-08-20T06:52:28.443" UserId="11263" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;user-interface&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10086" RevisionGUID="b3d51a0a-bbf4-4ec9-b2a1-3c1b6b0c7a8d" CreationDate="2014-08-20T15:35:21.497" UserId="11266" Text="I am in the process of creating a website, that provides a service that is more generic than another &quot;similar&quot; website.  The website only provides a service for a particular service, where my website would serve the particular service and including a broader range of services.  Could there be any infringement conflicts between my website and the other website?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also like to note that the user interface is completely different between my website and the other website, but the workflow is somewhat similar.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This also begs the question.  Are website workflows patentable?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22084" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10086" RevisionGUID="b3d51a0a-bbf4-4ec9-b2a1-3c1b6b0c7a8d" CreationDate="2014-08-20T15:35:21.497" UserId="11266" Text="Website Workflow and Service Patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22085" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10086" RevisionGUID="b3d51a0a-bbf4-4ec9-b2a1-3c1b6b0c7a8d" CreationDate="2014-08-20T15:35:21.497" UserId="11266" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;websites&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10088" RevisionGUID="6bf7465a-9683-4cd6-8db2-022858a87aff" CreationDate="2014-08-20T17:54:56.400" UserId="11266" Text="You should of had both your friend and the patent lawyer sign a **Non Disclosure agreement** before telling them any intricate details of your invention.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've waited to long, it might be to late to stop them. Perhaps if you have documentation that you met up with a patent lawyer, and also have documented what was disclosed, and then somehow draw a connection between the inventor and asignee of the filed patent.  You just **might** be able to determine if it was the lawyer who leaked your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Be Cautious about telling &quot;friends&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will tell you a story about two &quot;friends&quot; who were talking at lunch one day.  One of the two worked at Facebook, and was telling their friend about a graph algorithm system and method for doing social processing.  The friend who was being told this thought to himself, &quot;I wonder if that is patented&quot;. So the friend went to do a patent search and low and behold, there was no existing patent yet.  Hence, the &quot;friend&quot; went and filed a patent application, taking the companies invention that he heard through a &quot;friend&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The moral of the story is, be careful who you disclose information to.  If it's your invention, then even if you've been best friends for years on end, make them sign a Non Disclosure Agreement before talking to them about it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10089" RevisionGUID="7272d5ba-982c-425f-a7f1-5ca8b8aeb00b" CreationDate="2014-08-20T17:58:55.020" UserId="11268" Text="Perhaps not entirely on-target, but Genome@Home was active at least as far back as 2001:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://web.stanford.edu/group/pandegroup/genome/science/index.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latter link includes the following references:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Larson SM, Snow CD, Shirts MR, Pande VS. (2003) &quot;Folding@Home and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Genome@Home: Using distributed computing to tackle previously&#xD;&#xA;&gt; intractable problems in computational biology.&quot; to appear in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Computational Genomics, Richard Grant, editor, Horizon Press [pdf] &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Talk: March 2001, Carleton University Biochemistry &amp; Chemistry&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Society, Ottawa, ON. &quot;Folding@home and Genome@home: Protein folding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and design with distributed computing.&quot; [ppt]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the idea of using remote computers for analysis is not new; though the direct (or semi-direct) connection of sequencers to those remote computers is not covered by this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10090" RevisionGUID="545a2ea9-13c8-4fe6-8a3c-7b22c8605845" CreationDate="2014-08-20T18:05:29.313" UserId="11269" Text="What percentage of difference needs to take place for a design not to infringe on an existing patent? I have an invention that mirrors the claims of this one but my design might be different, I wish there were more detail in their drawing. Any help is greatly appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US8191365?dq=intercooler&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=A8L0U_yJKo3-yQT7moG4DA&amp;ved=0CDgQ6AEwBA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John Crosetto" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22092" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10090" RevisionGUID="545a2ea9-13c8-4fe6-8a3c-7b22c8605845" CreationDate="2014-08-20T18:05:29.313" UserId="11269" Text="Similar design of my invention" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22093" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10090" RevisionGUID="545a2ea9-13c8-4fe6-8a3c-7b22c8605845" CreationDate="2014-08-20T18:05:29.313" UserId="11269" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10091" RevisionGUID="77d2efd7-ff57-4885-8805-c6f59001004d" CreationDate="2014-08-20T18:15:04.603" UserId="3076" Text="There is no % difference concept in patent law. The claims state what the patent owner has as his exclusive territory - drawings are just examples of a way to carry it out but the words of the claims set the boundaries between what you can and can't do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10093" RevisionGUID="65d125e6-8073-456c-b5f4-05c23b8a0b60" CreationDate="2014-08-20T21:42:26.147" UserId="11273" Text="I have an idea/product that I want to patent, but I live outside the US and I don't have the money for all the huge expense that is to patent something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there investors that are interested in sponsoring a patent? By sponsor I mean, they will pay for all the patent procedures and costs and later they will have a percentage of the profits on the patent/product sale." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22099" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10093" RevisionGUID="65d125e6-8073-456c-b5f4-05c23b8a0b60" CreationDate="2014-08-20T21:42:26.147" UserId="11273" Text="Patent Sponsorship" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22100" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10093" RevisionGUID="65d125e6-8073-456c-b5f4-05c23b8a0b60" CreationDate="2014-08-20T21:42:26.147" UserId="11273" Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;sponsor&gt;&lt;cost&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10094" RevisionGUID="f5ddfe7a-f342-4291-83a5-26740e79336d" CreationDate="2014-08-21T02:53:31.820" UserId="11274" Text="... that I am wanting international coverage but cannot as the time to do so has expired. I have designed a new component that works with the old claims as a single unit. Can I resume international patents and thereby get some degree of &quot;perceived&quot; protection on the original idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thanks in advance for any feedback!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22102" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10094" RevisionGUID="f5ddfe7a-f342-4291-83a5-26740e79336d" CreationDate="2014-08-21T02:53:31.820" UserId="11274" Text="Older US Utility Application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22103" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10094" RevisionGUID="f5ddfe7a-f342-4291-83a5-26740e79336d" CreationDate="2014-08-21T02:53:31.820" UserId="11274" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;utility&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10084" RevisionGUID="00441eb6-04b9-4183-97a0-68cbea31530f" CreationDate="2014-08-21T08:15:28.123" UserId="11263" Comment="Clarified question" Text="Is the UI interface on Paper53 patented? Specifically, the screen with the open book where you flip between the pages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10097" RevisionGUID="0f66939a-ec04-40c5-a90f-1d9ba70ff60b" CreationDate="2014-08-21T16:24:00.867" UserId="11284" Text="I think this is what you are after:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can a U.S. provisional patent application be used for foreign priority purposes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. A U.S. provisional patent application is recognized internationally in all major countries (e.g. Australia, Singapore, Japan, UK, China and New Zealand). Please keep in mind that a non-provisional foreign application must be filed within 12-months of the provisional applicationâ€™s filing date to retain the earlier priority filing date. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) recognizes provisional patent applications for the purposes of priority also.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.patentwizard.com/faq.aspx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10080" RevisionGUID="93771f88-f748-47eb-b879-c8155498e271" CreationDate="2014-08-21T17:06:20.647" UserId="10011" Comment="Formatting changes, made it a little more professional" Text="I had an idea for a patent and I reached out to a friend and put me in touch with a patent lawyer to discuss with the patentability of the concept. He advised that it would cost a lot of money to file and he didn't think it would go through (even though he wouldn't say so in those exact words). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I gave up on the patenting as I didn't have the money and tried to produce the product from the ground up and look into the patent later when I had the funds. &#xD;&#xA;I just found that my *exact* product idea was filed for months later. I have email regarding trying to patent this invention with a patent lawyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I have any rights here? It is probably coincidence but there is a chance its not. Maybe he told a friend in passing, maybe not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there anything I can do? I don't want to reach back out to the same person but I don't have anyone else to ask." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22118" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10080" RevisionGUID="93771f88-f748-47eb-b879-c8155498e271" CreationDate="2014-08-21T17:06:20.647" Comment="Proposed by 10011 approved by 3076, 1193 edit id of 1589" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10098" RevisionGUID="afc9841b-ec75-47b9-bf69-4f3f8b66a23d" CreationDate="2014-08-21T22:00:28.023" UserId="1193" Text="It is unlikely that you will find an investor who would pay for the patent -- typically investors are investing in a company and team to build a product and business. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a provisional patent you are able to file for very little money which you have 12 month to build a successful product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents are too easy to write (relatively speaking) for the majority to be worth anything without a product and business to prove their value.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10099" RevisionGUID="73e95c22-7bf7-41ef-b52c-adc6cdda4d31" CreationDate="2014-08-21T22:18:12.210" UserId="1193" Text="While not directly answering the question, then this may give you pointers for where to get more information...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jason Hoffman who was the CTO for Joyent (a San Francisco based cloud company) always cited his motivations for founding Joyent as having a cloud environment for DNA research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://gigaom.com/2012/10/12/how-jason-hoffman-helped-save-his-moms-life-and-along-the-way-came-up-with-a-new-way-to-build-computers/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In 2005, Hoffman’s mother was diagnosed with breast cancer. [....] it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; combined research on specific cancers with genetic analysis on his&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mom. That genetic analysis required a lot of computing power [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; supplied with his hosting company, Joyent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="a6749902-1b73-420b-95eb-165c9e94ec35" CreationDate="2014-08-22T17:28:05.680" UserId="11293" Text="Myself and a co-worker developed the methodology for performing a process (software development), and we even helped author the claims for the provisional patent application, yet we have been left off the patent as inventors.  What kind of recourse do we have on this type of situation?  I mainly just want my name listed as an inventor on this patent.  Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22129" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="a6749902-1b73-420b-95eb-165c9e94ec35" CreationDate="2014-08-22T17:28:05.680" UserId="11293" Text="Developed methodology listed in patent claims, yet not listed as an inventor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22130" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="a6749902-1b73-420b-95eb-165c9e94ec35" CreationDate="2014-08-22T17:28:05.680" UserId="11293" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;inventor&gt;&lt;methodology&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10105" RevisionGUID="f6172076-8849-4698-b76b-c4ddf2d336b3" CreationDate="2014-08-23T11:03:06.443" UserId="11121" Text="If an inventor is *intentionally* not named in a patent, that is, there is no dispute she is an inventor but for subjective reasons is left out of the inventor's list, how does one go towards invalidating that patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference in the procedure if the patent is published/pending/granted?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are good attorney firms that have solid experience with similar situations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22139" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10105" RevisionGUID="f6172076-8849-4698-b76b-c4ddf2d336b3" CreationDate="2014-08-23T11:03:06.443" UserId="11121" Text="I want to invalidate a pending patent (not granted yet) because of an intentional omission of an inventor. What is the exact procedure?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22140" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10105" RevisionGUID="f6172076-8849-4698-b76b-c4ddf2d336b3" CreationDate="2014-08-23T11:03:06.443" UserId="11121" Text="&lt;invalidate&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10106" RevisionGUID="18da1bef-6142-42fe-840b-f6cebe7d503a" CreationDate="2014-08-23T14:45:03.800" UserId="11300" Text="I've come up with a unique way to give tourists their pictures. It's a specific workflow that utilizes properties specific to the Microsoft Surface 3 tablet. I  am certain that the steps of my process have never been combined to provide the service I plan to offer. Since the Surface is a relatively new product, and I don't think anyone's used a tablet in exactly the same way, do I stand a chance of getting a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22142" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10106" RevisionGUID="18da1bef-6142-42fe-840b-f6cebe7d503a" CreationDate="2014-08-23T14:45:03.800" UserId="11300" Text="Can I patent a specific workflow?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22143" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10106" RevisionGUID="18da1bef-6142-42fe-840b-f6cebe7d503a" CreationDate="2014-08-23T14:45:03.800" UserId="11300" Text="&lt;workflow&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10107" RevisionGUID="b47347c2-4b28-447c-8f4a-65bfe42740e1" CreationDate="2014-08-23T16:03:17.940" UserId="4545" Text="A method or process can indeed be patented. As for whether your workflow in particular is patent-eligible, that would depend on the details of the workflow and how it is claimed, as you'll discover during the patent prosecution process. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10108" RevisionGUID="32afa92a-5837-417f-8442-39b9f453d9b6" CreationDate="2014-08-23T20:46:20.010" UserId="11034" Text="Yes, you can patent a specific process like a workflow. But in your case there are three potential stumbling blocks: one legal, one practical, and one economic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Legal**: you can only patent a nonobvious process, so stringing together conventional activities into a workflow would likely be insufficient to receive a patent. Novelty (&quot;the steps of my process have never been combined to provide the service I plan to offer&quot;) is not enough, in and of itself, to be rewarded with a right to exclude others; it has to be nonobvious too. See 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Knowing whether something is nonobvious is a very factually intensive process and depends on the specific steps you're attempting to protect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Practical**: the backlog in reviewing patent applications is so long (3+ years) that by the time any patent you filed was granted the Microsoft Surface 3 tablet would likely be obsolete. Filing applications covering processes that will only be relevant for a short period of time greatly reduces the value of any patent you receive. See [&quot;Average Pendency of US Patent Applications.&quot;](http://patentlyo.com/patent/2013/03/average-pendency-of-us-patent-applications.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Economic**: filing for, obtaining, and leveraging a patent is extraordinarily expensive. Even an extremely simple invention such as a coat hanger could cost $5,000 to $7,000 in attorneys fees to obtain a patent. See [The Cost of Obtaining a Patent in the US](http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/01/28/the-cost-of-obtaining-patent/id=14668/). You would be in a better position to know the value of your invention, but most patents are worth less than $10,000, which in many cases means it costs more to obtain them than they're worth once granted. See [&quot;A Patent Is Worth Having, Right? Well, Maybe Not.&quot;](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/business/yourmoney/15proto.html?_r=0)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10109" RevisionGUID="2e482c34-c91f-444e-bb22-99e309e88c80" CreationDate="2014-08-23T21:14:39.293" UserId="1193" Text="There is only one kind of provisional patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each patent application cover only a geographical area (like the USA), so international filling in each jurisdiction is needed if you must have international protection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10110" RevisionGUID="e576e2d0-38d9-4f38-8f10-fc9605069323" CreationDate="2014-08-23T21:19:22.317" UserId="1193" Text="http://www.google.com/patents/US20130318182 is an &quot;Application&quot; -- that is the patent has not been granted (yet).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The priority date is &quot;May 25, 2012&quot; so any implementation which provides exactly claimed would be in violation of the patent was it ever granted if such service were started after that date, but would be fine and possibly invalidate the patent if such service were started before that date.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10111" RevisionGUID="c4104ce0-723b-4e50-9b01-3e176ab08548" CreationDate="2014-08-24T20:35:25.197" UserId="11306" Text="So I have an Idea/Potential Patent, but someone else has a similar patent out. Our inventions are substantially different in design. One of their claims is very very general and seems to exclude an entire market. Are you allowed to list a non-descriptive function of your product as a claim? For example, here's a similar claim if their invention were a solar panel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Any device using silicone technology to generate power for electronic consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this type of sweeping claim valid? Do I have a new patent if I use a new and different type of silicone technology?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Daniel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22150" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10111" RevisionGUID="c4104ce0-723b-4e50-9b01-3e176ab08548" CreationDate="2014-08-24T20:35:25.197" UserId="11306" Text="Similar Patents, Sweeping Claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22151" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10111" RevisionGUID="c4104ce0-723b-4e50-9b01-3e176ab08548" CreationDate="2014-08-24T20:35:25.197" UserId="11306" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;restricted-claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10113" RevisionGUID="47892959-6271-4d05-bad4-5f972b3478f1" CreationDate="2014-08-25T00:06:20.757" UserId="11309" Text="I would like to use the method disclosed (via claims) in this patent for my invention [http://www.google.com/patents/US8568309][1] .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, I am creating a glucometer, using this inventor's method for rendering blood glucose values, but this is just one purpose of my glucometer. My innovation is not the method this patent divulges. My innovation is that I am adding functionality to this preexisting glucometer (for the sake of argument, lets say that I am inventing a glucometer that can ALSO turn water into wine). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this be considered infringement? If so, how does anything get created in the world if inventors can't create technology that is derivative (but not the same) as previous technology?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if this is not infringement, should I even include a description of his method in my patent? Should I claim his method and use his software block diagrams in my figures?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8568309" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22156" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10113" RevisionGUID="47892959-6271-4d05-bad4-5f972b3478f1" CreationDate="2014-08-25T00:06:20.757" UserId="11309" Text="How to Use Patented Method Without Infringing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22157" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10113" RevisionGUID="47892959-6271-4d05-bad4-5f972b3478f1" CreationDate="2014-08-25T00:06:20.757" UserId="11309" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;method&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10114" RevisionGUID="ccdf8c11-a7a9-4c39-80ab-a7f032ed772b" CreationDate="2014-08-25T01:57:20.517" UserId="11310" Text="If I understand your question correctly you should be able to find all the information on that topic here:&#xD;&#xA;[http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/improvement-patents-new-use-patents-30250.html][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/improvement-patents-new-use-patents-30250.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10116" RevisionGUID="644ae28a-1cd9-4c32-8209-79dca267f819" CreationDate="2014-08-25T08:36:11.547" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="Given that software  should be shown and claimed in a hardware context software patents typically include a boilerplate, both in figures and text, identifying PC, servers, internet connections, cloud hosts, etc. Those boilerplate differ a lot in scope and level of detail and some seem to rely to really dated architectures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that almost always patent application aren't copyrighted and it's possible to reuse freely snips of them, then are there some preferred/recommended snips of text and figures to describe the hardware and software architectures on which a software patent embodiment is embodied at the state of the art of 2014?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to describe the IT architecture embodiment such that is enough detailed to be actually considered “embodied” but also abstract enough to not to tie on technologies that would be obsolete in a few years (sure before the 20 years patent life)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22163" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10116" RevisionGUID="644ae28a-1cd9-4c32-8209-79dca267f819" CreationDate="2014-08-25T08:36:11.547" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="Software patent boilerplates" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22164" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10116" RevisionGUID="644ae28a-1cd9-4c32-8209-79dca267f819" CreationDate="2014-08-25T08:36:11.547" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22165" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10116" RevisionGUID="10df28c5-419a-4b44-8f1c-a92f6e04c724" CreationDate="2014-08-25T08:53:16.343" UserDisplayName="user8305" Comment="edited title" Text="Software patent boilerplate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22171" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10093" RevisionGUID="a3fbead2-86d8-432d-bbb6-5d76feb0044a" CreationDate="2014-08-25T14:23:24.057" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3076,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George White&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22176" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10070" RevisionGUID="c8a152f7-1374-4151-a452-d90ec0345700" CreationDate="2014-08-25T14:29:59.233" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[3801],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3076,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George White&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1193,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Soren&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10047" RevisionGUID="be784a61-97df-447f-9d9f-ae9de6116f49" CreationDate="2014-08-25T17:32:14.023" UserId="11229" Comment="deleted 478 characters in body" Text="sdfsdfasdfdsfasdfasdfsdfsadfasdfasdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10117" RevisionGUID="f92853da-9a13-4d7d-bc30-cee23ecb7e97" CreationDate="2014-08-25T21:14:06.973" UserId="11314" Text="Is there a way to track the history of this patent? It was my Great Grandfather's and we never knew he held a patent.  I'm interested in learning more, such as whether he ever sold the patent/technology to a company or another person.  Any help would be appreciated.  Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22180" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10117" RevisionGUID="f92853da-9a13-4d7d-bc30-cee23ecb7e97" CreationDate="2014-08-25T21:14:06.973" UserId="11314" Text="Tracking patent history" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22181" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10117" RevisionGUID="f92853da-9a13-4d7d-bc30-cee23ecb7e97" CreationDate="2014-08-25T21:14:06.973" UserId="11314" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10118" RevisionGUID="acc8843d-56aa-4bdb-8736-22ca0188841b" CreationDate="2014-08-25T21:38:24.760" UserId="3076" Text="Unless you are doing *all* of the steps of a claim you are not infringing it. Claim 1 of US8568309 requires putting voltage through a test strip, and getting readings from 3-axis accelerometers to determine the person's activity level, and sending this all off by a GPRS radio, and at least two other steps. If you are just measuring blood glucose values the way they mention that is no where near doing all of the claimed steps. If you *did do all* of the steps AND you turned water into wine you could get a patent on your device but it would still infringe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10119" RevisionGUID="0f064a0f-a52d-4784-b54c-4f5b59591947" CreationDate="2014-08-26T14:07:56.800" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="Often in software patents “A method, apparatus and system ...” is claimed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With reference to USCT 35 – section 101 then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - is “method” used as synonymous for “process”? &#xD;&#xA; - are “apparatus and system” both used as synonymous for “machine”?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often software is claimed as a process. If I have a web server that is an hardware machine running an instance of an application (service) capable of accepting request from the client and give response accordingly, and I have an invention to claim that is a new process that a new service is able to perform on a web server,  then I see three entities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - hardware (like PC)&#xD;&#xA; - software (like OS + web server + web services)&#xD;&#xA; - steps of process performed by the service (like receiving an HTTP request, processing the HTTP request, sending an HTTP response).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now when the formula “A method, apparatus and system ...” is used is it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - “apparatus” = hardware &#xD;&#xA; - “ method” = software + steps&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or is it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - “apparatus” =  hardware + software&#xD;&#xA; - “ method” =  steps?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is “system”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22184" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10119" RevisionGUID="0f064a0f-a52d-4784-b54c-4f5b59591947" CreationDate="2014-08-26T14:07:56.800" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="&quot;A method, apparatus and system ...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22185" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10119" RevisionGUID="0f064a0f-a52d-4784-b54c-4f5b59591947" CreationDate="2014-08-26T14:07:56.800" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10119" RevisionGUID="cca81628-be16-4a22-a3be-4fb383fcd7fa" CreationDate="2014-08-26T14:19:18.900" UserDisplayName="user8305" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Often in software patents “A method, apparatus and system ...” is claimed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With reference to USC 35 – section 101 then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - is “method” used as synonymous for “process”? &#xD;&#xA; - are “apparatus and system” both used as synonymous for “machine”?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often software is claimed as a process. If I have a web server that is an hardware machine running an instance of an application (service) capable of accepting request from the client and give response accordingly, and I have an invention to claim that is a new process that a new service is able to perform on a web server,  then I see three entities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - hardware (like PC)&#xD;&#xA; - software (like OS + web server + web services)&#xD;&#xA; - steps of process performed by the service (like receiving an HTTP request, processing the HTTP request, sending an HTTP response).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now when the formula “A method, apparatus and system ...” is used is it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - “apparatus” = hardware &#xD;&#xA; - “ method” = software + steps&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or is it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - “apparatus” =  hardware + software&#xD;&#xA; - “ method” =  steps?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is “system”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10120" RevisionGUID="7d0a878c-c514-4424-b237-33acdd2481c7" CreationDate="2014-08-26T16:02:20.023" UserId="3076" Text="Method is synonymous with process and both apparatus and system would fall under machine. Something like a micro-controler with specific software flashed into it might be seen an article of manufacture or as a machine. The distinction between the various names for a &quot;thing&quot; do not end up mattering much but the distinction between a thing and a method/process is important. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In claiming a client/server service you might have &quot;thing&quot; claims to the client, the server, both together (a system), and the software (a database retrieval module that feeds is output to a sorting module). Method claims are a serious of steps (retrieving address from the database; sorting the retrieved addresses). One method claim could be just in terms of steps performed by the client, another is just steps performed by the server, and a third could be the steps performed by both." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10122" RevisionGUID="37286880-b691-4703-ad9f-99a12354bb5f" CreationDate="2014-08-26T18:21:26.817" UserId="11318" Text="I'm looking for prior art related to following patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196015.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; DECLARATION OF LIFETIME OF RESOURCE REFERENCE  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A language extension that advances safety in system programming by specifying a lifetime of a reference that represents a resource. In accordance with the language extension, the lifetime references a particular scope in a manner that the compiler generates computer-executable instructions that enforce the lifetime of the reference to be a function of (e.g., no longer than) the lifetime of the particular scope. Accordingly, the resource lifetime may be specified in advance to have a particular scope. This helps in performing resource management as typical managed language programs can allow resources to exist indefinitely. Furthermore, because the resources have a defined finite lifetime, they might be more conveniently allocated on a stack, instead of on a heap, for much more efficient processing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NOTE: I'm not sure what exactly is the patent number, so I left those out of the question title. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22194" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10122" RevisionGUID="37286880-b691-4703-ad9f-99a12354bb5f" CreationDate="2014-08-26T18:21:26.817" UserId="11318" Text="Looking for prior art for patent &quot;Declaration of Lifetime resource reference&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22195" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10122" RevisionGUID="37286880-b691-4703-ad9f-99a12354bb5f" CreationDate="2014-08-26T18:21:26.817" UserId="11318" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10122" RevisionGUID="bfbf2764-5f7b-4a72-b499-fed11f03c141" CreationDate="2014-08-26T18:51:39.727" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag to patent application " Text="I'm looking for prior art related to following patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196015.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; DECLARATION OF LIFETIME OF RESOURCE REFERENCE  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A language extension that advances safety in system programming by specifying a lifetime of a reference that represents a resource. In accordance with the language extension, the lifetime references a particular scope in a manner that the compiler generates computer-executable instructions that enforce the lifetime of the reference to be a function of (e.g., no longer than) the lifetime of the particular scope. Accordingly, the resource lifetime may be specified in advance to have a particular scope. This helps in performing resource management as typical managed language programs can allow resources to exist indefinitely. Furthermore, because the resources have a defined finite lifetime, they might be more conveniently allocated on a stack, instead of on a heap, for much more efficient processing. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22197" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10122" RevisionGUID="bfbf2764-5f7b-4a72-b499-fed11f03c141" CreationDate="2014-08-26T18:51:39.727" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag to patent application " Text="Looking for prior art for patent application US20140196015 &quot;Declaration of Lifetime resource reference&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22198" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10122" RevisionGUID="bfbf2764-5f7b-4a72-b499-fed11f03c141" CreationDate="2014-08-26T18:51:39.727" UserId="3076" Comment="Added tag to patent application " Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;us20140196015&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10123" RevisionGUID="d1462a1c-32af-40c0-b124-af5a41174b65" CreationDate="2014-08-26T20:47:34.960" UserId="11321" Text="Besides a subject matter problem for trying to patent &quot;prostitution via the web,&quot; there are other examples.  Some cited here:  http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21611074-how-new-technology-shaking-up-oldest-business-more-bang-your-buck  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adultnet.com, mentioned in the article, appears to have been around since 1995. Can't say I'm familiar with the features of that site first hand.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10124" RevisionGUID="efd00546-71fe-4c6e-8b7d-3649b299806c" CreationDate="2014-08-26T21:23:15.777" UserId="11322" Text="The [D programming language](http://dlang.org/) has scope classes, shown [here](http://dlang.org/class.html) in the &quot;Scope Classes&quot; section. (quoted for convenience)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###Scope Classes&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A scope class is a class with the scope attribute, as in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     scope class Foo { ... }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The scope characteristic is inherited, so if any classes derived from a scope class are also scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;An scope class reference can only appear as a function local variable. It must be declared as being scope:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     scope class Foo { ... }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     void func() {&#xD;&#xA;&gt;       Foo f;    // error, reference to scope class must be scope&#xD;&#xA;&gt;       scope Foo g = new Foo(); // correct&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When an scope class reference goes out of scope, the destructor (if any) for it is automatically called. This holds true even if the scope was exited via a thrown exception. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oldest history I can find quickly for this is in [the earliest commit of the Dlang.org website on Github](https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/blob/4542ef3a1def67d4bc16cd959ccb7a93baac813a/class.d#L802,L829), dated 9 March 2008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, the [Rust programming language](http://www.rust-lang.org/) has explicit lifetimes for pointer variables." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10120" RevisionGUID="52d1cc91-2957-41e4-a9dd-52b98173da0d" CreationDate="2014-08-26T21:42:23.607" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Method is synonymous with process and both apparatus and system would fall under machine. Something like a micro-controler with specific software flashed into it might be seen an article of manufacture or as a machine. The distinction between the various names for a &quot;thing&quot; do not end up mattering much but the distinction between a thing and a method/process is important. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In claiming a client/server service you might have &quot;thing&quot; claims to the client, the server, both together (a system), and the software (a database retrieval module that feeds is output to a sorting module). Method claims are a series of steps (retrieving address from the database; sorting the retrieved addresses). One method claim could be just in terms of steps performed by the client, another is just steps performed by the server, and a third could be the steps performed by both." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10122" RevisionGUID="66aeb113-8c1a-452f-8025-9fc1c1bad3e6" CreationDate="2014-08-26T21:52:34.203" UserId="3076" Comment="added claim 1" Text="I'm looking for prior art related to following patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196015.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; DECLARATION OF LIFETIME OF RESOURCE REFERENCE  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A language extension that advances safety in system programming by specifying a lifetime of a reference that represents a resource. In accordance with the language extension, the lifetime references a particular scope in a manner that the compiler generates computer-executable instructions that enforce the lifetime of the reference to be a function of (e.g., no longer than) the lifetime of the particular scope. Accordingly, the resource lifetime may be specified in advance to have a particular scope. This helps in performing resource management as typical managed language programs can allow resources to exist indefinitely. Furthermore, because the resources have a defined finite lifetime, they might be more conveniently allocated on a stack, instead of on a heap, for much more efficient processing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CLAIM 1&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A computer-implemented method for declaring that a particular reference in a software program has a finite lifetime, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;an act of accessing a software program under construction that includes a reference that defines a resource; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;an act of annotating a reference of the software program to be associated with a particular scope having a finite lifetime,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the annotation is structured such that the compiler enforces a lifetime of the reference to be a function of the lifetime of the particular scope.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10125" RevisionGUID="764b1791-46fe-4cba-a19d-b9676f5d30d4" CreationDate="2014-08-27T00:20:08.357" UserId="11327" Text="Prior art: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;GNU's GCC cleanup extension for C, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Acquisition_Is_Initialization#GCC_.22cleanup.22_extension_for_C&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any C++ code using RAII that is then compiled through CFront.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any C or C++ code using a macro to limit lifetime of anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any code generator in any language that generates RAII.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The time claim is spurious and satisfied by practically all RAII implementations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no innovation here.  The concept itself is contained within http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Acquisition_Is_Initialization#CITEREFStroustrup1994.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims of this patent are liken to the claiming of a patent on a wooden wheel spoke in the case it is produced by a lathe rather than hand carved.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10125" RevisionGUID="053c2388-faaa-45cc-94d2-579f1311a521" CreationDate="2014-08-27T00:36:51.037" UserId="11327" Comment="added Go's defer statement as prior art." Text="Prior art: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;GNU's GCC cleanup extension for C, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Acquisition_Is_Initialization#GCC_.22cleanup.22_extension_for_C&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google's Go language, defer statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any C++ code using RAII that is then compiled through CFront.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any C or C++ code using a macro to limit lifetime of anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any code generator in any language that generates RAII.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The time claim is spurious and satisfied by practically all RAII implementations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no innovation here.  The concept itself is contained within http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Acquisition_Is_Initialization#CITEREFStroustrup1994.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims of this patent are liken to the claiming of a patent on a wooden wheel spoke in the case it is produced by a lathe rather than hand carved.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10126" RevisionGUID="229479ba-05d7-43f0-b014-b1e26d28001b" CreationDate="2014-08-27T09:44:36.677" UserId="11330" Text="Ok, so i know that once i start selling the app and it is out in the open i can't apply for a patent. I now also see there are various stages in the application process: file, search and examination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At what point is the process started so that once i start selling i don't invalidate my own patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22206" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10126" RevisionGUID="229479ba-05d7-43f0-b014-b1e26d28001b" CreationDate="2014-08-27T09:44:36.677" UserId="11330" Text="At what point can you then start selling the app after applying for the patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22207" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10126" RevisionGUID="229479ba-05d7-43f0-b014-b1e26d28001b" CreationDate="2014-08-27T09:44:36.677" UserId="11330" Text="&lt;pre-grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10127" RevisionGUID="539db4f5-4917-4d9e-a63d-e2c3e7de7217" CreationDate="2014-08-27T11:53:42.553" UserId="5782" Text="Prior art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Microsoft's Stack Semantics for Reference types, first reference in VS2005&#xD;&#xA;http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms177191(v=vs.80).aspx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When you create an instance of a reference type using stack semantics, the compiler does internally create the instance on the garbage collected heap (using gcnew).  &#xD;&#xA;When the signature or return type of a function includes an instance of a by-value reference type, the function will be marked in the metadata as requiring special handling (with modreq). This special handling is currently only provided by Visual C++ clients; other languages do not currently support consuming functions or data that use reference types created with stack semantics.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10128" RevisionGUID="d2d38ae2-686f-4951-bb62-bdfcc2242694" CreationDate="2014-08-27T12:43:10.807" UserId="11333" Text="http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196008.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;At least some embodiments described herein relate to a language extension that advances safety in system programming. In accordance with the language extension, an entire type may be declared to be immutable in the case in which all instances of that type are immutable. The immutable type declaration automatically causes any instances of that type to be treated as immutable, and automatically causes all directly or indirectly reachable members (e.g., fields, methods, properties) of the instance to also be treated as immutable.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22210" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10128" RevisionGUID="d2d38ae2-686f-4951-bb62-bdfcc2242694" CreationDate="2014-08-27T12:43:10.807" UserId="11333" Text="Prior art for US patent application 20140196008 'IMMUTABLE OBJECT TYPES '" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22211" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10128" RevisionGUID="d2d38ae2-686f-4951-bb62-bdfcc2242694" CreationDate="2014-08-27T12:43:10.807" UserId="11333" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10129" RevisionGUID="837fc53c-fbf7-4763-b92e-a90fb9740545" CreationDate="2014-08-27T14:39:45.887" UserId="11346" Text="Page turning was one of the 3d effects that I used in Pinnacle Studio video editing software circa 1999-2001. The effect was identifical to iBooks, so I was surprised to see this patent; I thought it was lifted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10130" RevisionGUID="f33b705c-117f-473a-9994-5452299aef15" CreationDate="2014-08-27T14:48:45.297" UserId="11348" Text="JavaScript's Object.freeze(obj) was released June 2011 n ES 5.1:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-15.2.3.9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10131" RevisionGUID="56d7f034-0280-475a-88fd-90cb0f688a5a" CreationDate="2014-08-27T14:49:27.993" UserId="11347" Text="I might be wrong, but I think there is prior art from Microsoft Research itself in the form of the Vault programming language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/downloads/ee56884c-b946-4c35-b12d-d84bd4269235/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the [only document I can find now](http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~simhaweb/security/spring2009/papers/vault.pdf) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In short, the benefit of giving an object a tracked type is that the&#xD;&#xA;Vault type checker can trace the availability and state of that object&#xD;&#xA;throughout the program’s text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(the paper also cites the &quot;Typestate&quot; paper which was also the original inspiration for Rust, IIRC)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10132" RevisionGUID="cebdb430-9cb4-44f0-bed4-ec9250b87dd1" CreationDate="2014-08-27T15:28:46.177" UserId="11350" Text="Perl's Moose object system has had immutability since 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://search.cpan.org/~stevan/Moose-1.00/lib/Moose/Meta/Class.pm&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22217" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10128" RevisionGUID="ac276b11-175f-45e0-acd7-142348c517d3" CreationDate="2014-08-27T15:35:20.207" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to patent" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20140196008&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10133" RevisionGUID="37c42419-1d41-40a7-a30a-f7b66154bba5" CreationDate="2014-08-27T15:56:15.130" UserId="11353" Text="D has had immutable types for years, very similar in definition to the patent claim: http://dlang.org/const3.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10134" RevisionGUID="5c163507-8702-411e-b993-b6e927c7f1bd" CreationDate="2014-08-27T16:13:38.517" UserId="11356" Text="I am able to find references to immutable objects in Java dating back to at least 2003/2004 here...&lt;http://www.javaranch.com/journal/2003/04/immutable.htm&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also for another source of immutability in D, page 159 starts the section on immutability in Ali Cehreli's Programming in D which is copyrighted 2009-2012 &lt;http://ddili.org/ders/d.en/Programming_in_D.pdf&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10135" RevisionGUID="85af730c-ad11-47f6-85b5-1fd84f3a3d1c" CreationDate="2014-08-27T19:14:19.523" UserId="11365" Text="The first release of D 2.000 in 2007 had transitive immutable types in it. https://dlang.org/changelog.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10136" RevisionGUID="727a464e-2fb8-48a1-9c47-30ed37c35762" CreationDate="2014-08-27T20:13:57.960" UserId="11369" Text="Ada95 introduced *constant*, which was far as I can tell was the first implementation of immutable type in the Object Oriented Design paradigm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immutable&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing like trying to patent a +20 year old idea. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10137" RevisionGUID="2bd32071-5db7-4b2a-81dc-79f6702de64e" CreationDate="2014-08-27T20:36:31.693" UserId="11370" Text="Google has maintained a public open source set of immutable data structures since Spring of 2008, and used them extensively internally long before that.  Presently part of their [Guava library][1], it was originally released as part of the [Google Collections library][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Immutable Collections Explained][3]&#xD;&#xA;* [ImmutableList API][4] - &quot;*Since: 2.0 (imported from Google Collections Library)*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* [Original Open Source Commit][5] - &quot;*long, long overdue*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://code.google.com/p/google-collections/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/wiki/ImmutableCollectionsExplained&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://docs.guava-libraries.googlecode.com/git-history/release/javadoc/com/google/common/collect/ImmutableList.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://code.google.com/p/google-collections/source/detail?r=47&amp;path=/trunk/src/com/google/common/collect/ImmutableList.java" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10138" RevisionGUID="3a621ebc-f77a-4525-ad38-5d5884f5b95b" CreationDate="2014-08-27T21:01:20.070" UserId="11371" Text="Quite new to patents. Is it possible to file one for a service that is the first to serve a certain geographical area? Say...a software-centric service." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22226" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10138" RevisionGUID="3a621ebc-f77a-4525-ad38-5d5884f5b95b" CreationDate="2014-08-27T21:01:20.070" UserId="11371" Text="Being the first to provide a service in a Geographical Area" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22227" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10138" RevisionGUID="3a621ebc-f77a-4525-ad38-5d5884f5b95b" CreationDate="2014-08-27T21:01:20.070" UserId="11371" Text="&lt;first&gt;&lt;geographical&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10139" RevisionGUID="574b02bd-0cd9-4a70-97e5-97367ab303a4" CreationDate="2014-08-27T23:24:37.500" UserId="11378" Text="Object immutability is nothing new. C and C++ have had the `const` qualifier for years, which achieves exactly what's mentioned in the excerpt you posted and can be imbued in a type by means of a `typedef`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the abstract from the page you linked mentions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... Furthermore, any construction time reference that allows for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; field assignment of the instance is not permitted to survive beyond&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the point at which the instance becomes accessible to its creator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't read the whole thing, but this might be where the novelty of the patent is: it somehow doesn't let modifiable references to an immutable object escape the object's constructor (which is something I don't believe the other examples posted here do, though I might be wrong.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10140" RevisionGUID="0c94eb8b-409b-4a6e-b2c9-5304cbbbf5bf" CreationDate="2014-08-28T04:17:30.123" UserId="11383" Text="[ML](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML_%28programming_language%29) has had immutable values (by default) since the early 70's. There are hundreds to thousands of commercial and academic dialects that have been made since then. Particularly relevant here is OCaml, which has &quot;objects&quot;, with a keyword to enable mutability. A large percentage of all programming languages today are based on ML in one way or another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Java](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_(programming_language)) (one of the world's most used programming languages) has objects and optional immutability through the &quot;final&quot; keyword. It existed since the early 90's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More lately, Rust and Scala have immutable types with various mechanisms for qualification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10142" RevisionGUID="a7f124c4-2e34-47f8-97aa-a2c89149d8c1" CreationDate="2014-08-28T11:03:24.640" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="I'm considering the case in which I have an invention and the subject matter is a (computer) web server.&#xD;&#xA;So: the first exemplary embodiment would be based on a “web server”, but since I don't want to introduce any limitation I'd like to claim it just as “server”. &#xD;&#xA;I draft a broadest possible claim and a state:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A server apparatus and system comprising …..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I want to claim a “server” then I have to specify the term “server 100” in the “DETAILED DESCRIPTION” section  and in the drawings. But actually the first exemplary embodiment would be a “web server”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in the detailed description of the embodiment, should I:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - include a “web server 101” in the block diagram of the “server 100” like in FIG.1? I've seen this way done in some patent application but I think that the it's not so logically true that something that is a “web server” is included in a “server”. It would be like saying that a “red car” it's included in a “car”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![FIG. 1 ][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Having a first embodiment with a &quot;server&quot; like in FIG. 1 and the having a second embodiment with a &quot;web server&quot; like FIG. 2? Doing this way the first embodiment wouldn't be fully specified then because it's actually possible to do a detailed description just for the second embodiment, for which is possible to enter in other limitating details like HTTP protocol and so on. So isn't there the possibility that the first enbodiment would be considered as not fully detailed and therefor not valid as a basis for claim terms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![FIG.1 and FIG. 2 ][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any other suggested way to do what described above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/h2KAz.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/jqzHC.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22249" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10142" RevisionGUID="a7f124c4-2e34-47f8-97aa-a2c89149d8c1" CreationDate="2014-08-28T11:03:24.640" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="Defining broadest term for claiming" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22250" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10142" RevisionGUID="a7f124c4-2e34-47f8-97aa-a2c89149d8c1" CreationDate="2014-08-28T11:03:24.640" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;specification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10137" RevisionGUID="5c5985c5-3dfd-4ed8-91ca-c7669a2bbb7d" CreationDate="2014-08-28T20:26:55.593" UserId="11370" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Google has maintained a public open source set of immutable data structures for Java since Spring of 2008, and used them extensively internally long before that.  Presently part of their [Guava library][1], it was originally released as part of the [Google Collections library][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Immutable Collections Explained][3]&#xD;&#xA;* [ImmutableList API][4] - &quot;*Since: 2.0 (imported from Google Collections Library)*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* [Original Open Source Commit][5] - &quot;*long, long overdue*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://code.google.com/p/google-collections/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/wiki/ImmutableCollectionsExplained&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://docs.guava-libraries.googlecode.com/git-history/release/javadoc/com/google/common/collect/ImmutableList.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://code.google.com/p/google-collections/source/detail?r=47&amp;path=/trunk/src/com/google/common/collect/ImmutableList.java" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10140" RevisionGUID="e9ccbbf2-25ac-4cbb-af16-440707a96508" CreationDate="2014-08-29T01:33:37.023" UserId="11383" Comment="added 193 characters in body" Text="[ML](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML_%28programming_language%29) has had immutable values (by default) since the early 70's. There are hundreds to thousands of commercial and academic dialects that have been made since then. Particularly relevant here is OCaml, which has &quot;objects&quot;, with a keyword to enable mutability. A large percentage of all programming languages today are based on ML in one way or another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Java](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_(programming_language)) (one of the world's most used programming languages) has objects and optional immutability through the &quot;final&quot; keyword. It existed since the early 90's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [E](http://erights.org/), it's typical to construct &quot;transitive immutable&quot; versions of objects by pattern, but I can't remember if it has a particular construct to do this automatically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More lately, Rust and Scala have immutable types with various mechanisms for qualification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10143" RevisionGUID="317f5537-277e-4465-9e6e-e76a6b06fd09" CreationDate="2014-08-29T02:38:07.217" UserId="11326" Text="Rust uses a lifetime system based on region typing to statically verify the lifetimes of references. It prevents reference / iterator invalidation at compile-time without any overhead - no reference counting required. Most of this is dealt with by the compiler's lifetime inference, but non-trivial function signatures need to be marked with named lifetimes - as mentioned in this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://doc.rust-lang.org/guide-lifetimes.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of the answers mention destructors / smart pointers, but I think that's off the mark. Rust does have types with destructors / move semantics (affine types) too, but it's a different language feature than lifetimes. Destructors manage the lifetime of a specific owned object by tying it to a scope and don't need any of this fancy lifetime analysis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10143" RevisionGUID="3698607f-ee50-4b6f-9f5c-887ed1ce87f8" CreationDate="2014-08-29T02:43:36.680" UserId="11326" Comment="added 550 characters in body" Text="Rust uses a lifetime system based on region typing to statically verify the lifetimes of references. It prevents reference / iterator invalidation at compile-time without any overhead - no reference counting required. Most of this is dealt with by the compiler's lifetime inference, but non-trivial function signatures need to be marked with named lifetimes - as mentioned in this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://doc.rust-lang.org/guide-lifetimes.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of the answers mention destructors / smart pointers, but I think that's off the mark. Rust does have types with destructors / move semantics (affine types) too, but it's a different language feature than lifetimes. Destructors manage the lifetime of a specific owned object by tying it to a scope and don't need any of this fancy lifetime analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, Rust's `Rc&lt;T&gt;` type has a destructor and thus has move semantics, so ownership is tied to a variable but can be transferred elsewhere. A reference count is done by calling `clone` to create a new owner, and there is a concept of a non-owning `Weak&lt;T&gt;` reference. None of that falls under this patent - what *does* is the ability to take a lightweight reference into the `Rc&lt;T&gt;` and then pass that to functions only aware of `&amp;T` and not `Rc` - *without* any memory unsafety, even in cases where references deeper inside are returned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10144" RevisionGUID="2d5ab9d0-b1a1-4ced-a162-6c1547b55efc" CreationDate="2014-08-29T12:31:23.187" UserId="11408" Text="This survival bracelet was posted in May 2011 on this (link below) and other online forums. It was the first to include the scraping device and ferrocerium toggle. http://www.wilderness-survival.net/forums/showthread.php?16290-Best-paracord-survival-bracelet-firesteel-tinder-scraper-and-sling&amp;s=5e1b1a7057a93dcc3676f8a9bb55f581&amp;p=298207&amp;viewfull=1#post298207" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10145" RevisionGUID="e885af33-8bc7-44f5-8142-57f07dd812c0" CreationDate="2014-08-29T15:23:20.293" UserId="11416" Text="To my understanding the third sentence that you quoted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The immutable type declaration automatically causes...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;does not necessarily imply what other users here call *transitive immutability*. It rather depends on how you define *directly or indirectly reachable members*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it seems that some users don't understand that it's not about declaring objects or instances constant but rather declaring a type in such a fashion that all instances of that type are constant by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you are looking for is *limited types* in Ada (since Ada83). In Ada there is no assignment operation defined for limited types, which prevents any assignment to objects of limited types or assigments to objects of which you have a limited view. The actual specification is rather more intricate and detailed. Here are some references, knock yourselves out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikibooks, Ada Programming][1] (imcomplete but simple explanation of limited types)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ada83 LRM, 7.4.4 Limited Types][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ada95 LRM, 7.5 Limited Types][3] (Completely revamped specification)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ada05 LRM, 7.5 Limited Types][4] (There were lot's of changes concerning initialization in this version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ada95 Rationale, 7.3 Limited Types][5] (Contains some discussion about limited views)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ada_Programming/Types/limited&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://archive.adaic.com/standards/83lrm/html/lrm-07-04.html#7.4.4&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://rm.ada.cx/95/RM-7-5.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://rm.ada.cx/05/RM-7-5.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.adaic.org/resources/add_content/standards/95rat/rat95html/rat95-p2-7.html#3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22265" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="10047" RevisionGUID="862d67ac-f59b-4d32-be16-897f6f4f8833" CreationDate="2014-08-29T18:47:07.737" UserId="110" Comment="Rollback to [ab2fc51c-0524-4c94-a5b0-f8d5cfb170e4]" Text="Recently I started small business of bracelet making and now I got told, that there's another company, that is making almost the same product and they have design patent for it![It's their bracelet][1]&#xD;&#xA;And I'm making almost the same bracelet by myself, but it have one different knot and one mark is in different place attaching photo for it![my bracelet][2]&#xD;&#xA;What do you think, do I brake the patent by making my bracelet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ntyFx.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/yApM3.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10149" RevisionGUID="f6a8fc15-65f8-4b69-9e07-abba8e02eb6b" CreationDate="2014-08-29T19:34:38.060" UserId="11287" Text="In my patent searches, I have found some patents with upwards of 300 claims. This has me impressed. I'm wondering what the *world record* for the greatest number of claims in any patent is. Does anyone know the patent that holds this record?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22271" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10149" RevisionGUID="f6a8fc15-65f8-4b69-9e07-abba8e02eb6b" CreationDate="2014-08-29T19:34:38.060" UserId="11287" Text="What is the Largest Number of Claims in any Granted Patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22272" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10149" RevisionGUID="f6a8fc15-65f8-4b69-9e07-abba8e02eb6b" CreationDate="2014-08-29T19:34:38.060" UserId="11287" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10150" RevisionGUID="86f06781-8600-4a0b-bb06-229365f3bfe7" CreationDate="2014-08-29T20:27:43.820" UserId="3076" Text="This should address your question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 A method for XYZ comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(a) receiving a request; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(b) transmitting a response. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 2 The method for XYZ where the request is an HTTP request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 3 The method of claim 1 where the request is an FTP request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 4. The method of claim 3 further comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;retrieving the requested data from a data base;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and where the transmitting includes the retrieved data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10153" RevisionGUID="618be58e-0b5c-4b22-a0b6-0eb8d95f0360" CreationDate="2014-08-30T03:05:04.557" UserId="11424" Text="The idea simply involves using compressed air to spin (a) stator/rotor(s) and, in  turn, charge (a) battery (ies) that powers the electric motor. I want to contact these people and move the ideas/patent into the market. Any ideas on how to start locating these people?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22285" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10153" RevisionGUID="618be58e-0b5c-4b22-a0b6-0eb8d95f0360" CreationDate="2014-08-30T03:05:04.557" UserId="11424" Text="I Have an idea , it is similar to a couple of other patented ideas" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22286" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10153" RevisionGUID="618be58e-0b5c-4b22-a0b6-0eb8d95f0360" CreationDate="2014-08-30T03:05:04.557" UserId="11424" Text="&lt;idea&gt;&lt;airstatorrotor&gt;&lt;seeks&gt;&lt;development&gt;&lt;help&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10150" RevisionGUID="eae0dab4-a826-4aae-b089-727658bfad37" CreationDate="2014-08-30T16:32:57.670" UserId="3076" Comment="added longer explanation to the example" Text="In this framework example XYZ is a result. Results are not patentable but methods of achieving results can be patentable. Some claims are independent claims which means they stand alone and do *not* represent a narrowing of some other claim. Dependent claims refer back to a preceding claim that is then narrowed by adding more steps or more details to the existing steps (assuming a method claim). Dependent claims can depend from a a chain of dependent claims back up to a top-level indecent claims. Each dependent claim takes on all the limitations (you call features of the claims in the path from it back to the independent claim. If 3 depends on 2 which depends on one, then 3 has requires all the limitations in 1, 2, and 3 to be infringed. In another case 2, 3, 4, &amp; 5 might each depend directly from 1. in that case there is no interaction between 2 and 3 or 3 and 4. Arbitrary trees can be constructed. However, nothing in the dependent claims can remove a limitation in something above it and must do some narrowing. If claim 1 says a vehicle system having an airplane and a X horsepower engine, claim 2 can *not* say &quot;The vehicle of claim 1 where the vehicle is a boat rather than an airplane.&quot; To change remove the airplane requirement would take a new top level independent claim. This is one area of patent law that is logical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 A method for XYZ comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(a) receiving a request; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(b) transmitting a response. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 2 The method for XYZ where the request is an HTTP request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 3 The method of claim 1 where the request is an FTP request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 4. The method of claim 3 further comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;retrieving the requested data from a data base;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and where the transmitting includes the retrieved data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22292" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10128" RevisionGUID="282f52c5-f766-4202-8828-c533cdac7fd2" CreationDate="2014-08-31T00:38:04.707" UserId="6081" Comment="Add pre-grant tag" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20140196008&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22293" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10128" RevisionGUID="282f52c5-f766-4202-8828-c533cdac7fd2" CreationDate="2014-08-31T00:38:04.707" Comment="Proposed by 6081 approved by 3076, 1193 edit id of 1591" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10156" RevisionGUID="fc7e6040-27f4-475a-9471-2d746c22f5a9" CreationDate="2014-08-31T11:09:15.183" UserId="11434" Text="I am unsure if that counts as prior art, but I once made a proposal to add transitive immutability to RedHat's new  ceylon language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is available here (will no longer work easily):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://github.com/simonthum/ceylon-spec/commits/immutable2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but it is fairly easy to see that it assigns an immutability category to every RVALUE and program construct (with the programmer able to declare if the default is not desired), checks if these match with the code, inheritance etc, and generates errors if mismatches are found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gist is in there:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://github.com/simonthum/ceylon-spec/commit/3bd5f1af616b0973a1c4ca787693bf2a4e53fd5c#diff-f6110180082431fb2f6a437ba3e0d2b5R76&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That amounts to transitive immutability, although the approach is finer-grained. I don't believe I could possibly be the first to execute this simple corollary of immutability in a mutable environment, but so far, it seems to me, no suggestions seem to have matched as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I don't know if my work counts (it was on github all the time, was publicly proposed to the ceylon team, but that may not be regarded enough), it never really worked, and is relatively new. I just hope it might help to fend off this silly patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10158" RevisionGUID="17de692b-8a48-49dd-b109-ba2472d865ef" CreationDate="2014-08-31T17:12:28.503" UserId="11437" Text="I have an invention that I want to patent, but it sounds similar to wo2004066851a2. I'm hoping that the drawings of wo2004066851a2 will be helpful to me in figuring out whether this is what I am trying to patent so that I don't go forward with mine. &#xD;&#xA;Understanding the explanations and the claims of wo2004066851a2 is impossible without seeng the drawings. &#xD;&#xA;Rafael Sirkis &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22301" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10158" RevisionGUID="17de692b-8a48-49dd-b109-ba2472d865ef" CreationDate="2014-08-31T17:12:28.503" UserId="11437" Text="Where are the drawings for wo2004066851a2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22302" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10158" RevisionGUID="17de692b-8a48-49dd-b109-ba2472d865ef" CreationDate="2014-08-31T17:12:28.503" UserId="11437" Text="&lt;drawing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10159" RevisionGUID="56fdf37c-d3ae-4ef4-8b60-3428ad7567b4" CreationDate="2014-08-31T18:32:38.090" UserId="11438" Text="Object Recognition? Does a vehicle numberplate count as an object?&#xD;&#xA;Stored in a Database? No Problem&#xD;&#xA;Environmental Data? Datetime and physical location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police-enforced_ANPR_in_the_UK&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;plus many other sites&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22304" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10158" RevisionGUID="a9e0aaf8-9399-490b-a69b-204127b03734" CreationDate="2014-08-31T20:18:31.277" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags an removed signature" Text="&lt;drawing&gt;&lt;wo2004066851&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10158" RevisionGUID="a9e0aaf8-9399-490b-a69b-204127b03734" CreationDate="2014-08-31T20:18:31.277" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags an removed signature" Text="I have an invention that I want to patent, but it sounds similar to wo2004066851a2. I'm hoping that the drawings of wo2004066851a2 will be helpful to me in figuring out whether this is what I am trying to patent so that I don't go forward with mine. &#xD;&#xA;Understanding the explanations and the claims of wo2004066851a2 is impossible without seeng the drawings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10138" RevisionGUID="a0d2cffd-37c4-457a-b03f-5086333106b0" CreationDate="2014-09-01T00:40:07.767" UserId="1193" Comment="Added clarification from the comments." Text="Quite new to patents. Is it possible to file one for a service that is the first to serve a certain geographical area? Say...a software-centric service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify, I want to patent locally something which is already done elsewhere in the world." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10161" RevisionGUID="3ffbca4a-a32f-48f7-b443-8c267813bb77" CreationDate="2014-09-01T00:47:50.220" UserId="1193" Text="Contact information (for US patents) can be found in the PAIR database -- http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10128" RevisionGUID="addaa1df-baff-49ff-ad78-5b66cb365102" CreationDate="2014-09-01T00:51:40.443" UserDisplayName="user8623" Comment="That space in the title and lack of block quote have been bothering me." Text="http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196008.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At least some embodiments described herein relate to a language extension that advances safety in system programming. In accordance with the language extension, an entire type may be declared to be immutable in the case in which all instances of that type are immutable. The immutable type declaration automatically causes any instances of that type to be treated as immutable, and automatically causes all directly or indirectly reachable members (e.g., fields, methods, properties) of the instance to also be treated as immutable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22310" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10128" RevisionGUID="addaa1df-baff-49ff-ad78-5b66cb365102" CreationDate="2014-09-01T00:51:40.443" UserDisplayName="user8623" Comment="That space in the title and lack of block quote have been bothering me." Text="Prior art for US patent application 20140196008 'IMMUTABLE OBJECT TYPES'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22311" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10128" RevisionGUID="addaa1df-baff-49ff-ad78-5b66cb365102" CreationDate="2014-09-01T00:51:40.443" Comment="Proposed by 8623 approved by 3076, 1193 edit id of 1592" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10162" RevisionGUID="fc0dcbfe-21ff-4932-8356-b86506054408" CreationDate="2014-09-01T08:46:08.987" UserId="11447" Text="We are a new start-up team based in Europe and have few or none knowledge on usage of patents and patented technology. We designed a chemical process that includes buying and using a patented technology (US patent) for ONLY a part of the entire process. We have doubts concerning the legacy of using this technology. If we buy the technology from the producer that possess the patent, do we also have to buy a license for the patent? The producer has a company specifically selling the technology we need.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for the help! &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22313" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10162" RevisionGUID="fc0dcbfe-21ff-4932-8356-b86506054408" CreationDate="2014-09-01T08:46:08.987" UserId="11447" Text="Can I buy and use a patented technology without incurring in troubles?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22314" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10162" RevisionGUID="fc0dcbfe-21ff-4932-8356-b86506054408" CreationDate="2014-09-01T08:46:08.987" UserId="11447" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;chemistry&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10163" RevisionGUID="8834bc00-27dc-4c7e-bbcc-665248caf1fa" CreationDate="2014-09-01T21:12:12.760" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="Is it more common for a patent attorney/agent to commit a patentability search to a search firm or to do it in house?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of committing to a search firm:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - which prices are fair?&#xD;&#xA; - how to choose the firm?&#xD;&#xA; - how to evaluate the results? (I mean: if a list of the 10 closest application is povided how can I know how trustable is this list?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22316" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10163" RevisionGUID="8834bc00-27dc-4c7e-bbcc-665248caf1fa" CreationDate="2014-09-01T21:12:12.760" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="Patent search firms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22317" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10163" RevisionGUID="8834bc00-27dc-4c7e-bbcc-665248caf1fa" CreationDate="2014-09-01T21:12:12.760" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22323" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10153" RevisionGUID="03ef5670-6ef9-4727-b9fa-6e5980f38a7c" CreationDate="2014-09-02T15:18:13.863" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5059],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1193,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Soren&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10165" RevisionGUID="00d492f3-6be3-46db-a2d2-caa533be8439" CreationDate="2014-09-02T15:29:13.090" UserId="11458" Text="Google has a bunch of pattents listed under&#xD;&#xA;[image Object recognition][1] before that date, such as ''Method and system for object detection in digital images'' and ''Method for warped image object recognition'' which was awarded in 2005, and seems to be the same thing as what Sony published. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also this looks like [Augmented Reality.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=image%20Object%20recognition&amp;biw=1745&amp;bih=868&amp;source=lnt&amp;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Cptsdt%3Ai%2Ccd_min%3A%2Ccd_max%3A11%2F14%2F2011&amp;tbm=pts&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110090252?dq=augmented%20reality&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=BuIFVPj3K8nlsASjjoGIBg&amp;ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22335" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5147" RevisionGUID="8dfc5e4a-6deb-4f75-8e9a-24e47fc555d6" CreationDate="2014-09-02T16:01:03.447" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5059],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3076,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George White&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1193,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Soren&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22340" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9850" RevisionGUID="e70e6165-f630-4a3e-a691-3150e452ad72" CreationDate="2014-09-02T16:11:27.470" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5059],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1259,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ron J.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3076,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George White&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1193,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Soren&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22353" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6658" RevisionGUID="47c4998f-d28e-40a8-994b-1188a57e82c7" CreationDate="2014-09-02T16:20:29.947" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1259,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ron J.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3076,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George White&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1193,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Soren&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22378" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6288" RevisionGUID="474c63c2-82d7-4847-8134-1bfca710cb39" CreationDate="2014-09-02T16:48:13.217" UserId="1" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1259,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ron J.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3076,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George White&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1193,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Soren&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22379" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6100" RevisionGUID="6fd2dab5-2dcf-441c-ac81-abdc109697a5" CreationDate="2014-09-02T16:48:35.957" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1259,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ron J.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3076,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George White&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1193,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Soren&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22381" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6290" RevisionGUID="f58ace65-0ecf-4b94-a8e0-d95113501ce2" CreationDate="2014-09-02T16:49:28.163" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1259,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ron J.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3076,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George White&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1193,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Soren&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22382" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6344" RevisionGUID="25fcaf23-76a5-4cf4-90a4-f0aab6a908e7" CreationDate="2014-09-02T16:50:40.143" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1259,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ron J.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3076,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George White&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1193,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Soren&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22383" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5802" RevisionGUID="01b2b955-6dd4-44f8-8a9e-4ab51df37482" CreationDate="2014-09-02T16:51:01.883" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1259,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ron J.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22385" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5538" RevisionGUID="52d47808-5e45-4d2e-8e0b-fb87132ea754" CreationDate="2014-09-02T16:52:22.400" UserId="1" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1259,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ron J.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1193,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Soren&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22386" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5263" RevisionGUID="f2338ed8-0502-4d30-88e4-f0582caee387" CreationDate="2014-09-02T16:53:08.497" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5059],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1259,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ron J.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1193,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Soren&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22395" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7789" RevisionGUID="6a42e15a-82b2-481f-9523-059505ba07ec" CreationDate="2014-09-02T17:30:00.280" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1259,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ron J.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1193,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Soren&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22397" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="312" RevisionGUID="317e6a8b-4f02-4356-8873-36ff2469027c" CreationDate="2014-09-02T17:32:00.817" UserId="1" Comment="edited title; edited tags" Text="How long are patents valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22398" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="312" RevisionGUID="317e6a8b-4f02-4356-8873-36ff2469027c" CreationDate="2014-09-02T17:32:00.817" UserId="1" Comment="edited title; edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22401" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6672" RevisionGUID="5028e648-6342-4177-8a9b-71e8ffe04839" CreationDate="2014-09-02T17:34:51.890" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[3801],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1259,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ron J.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1193,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Soren&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22406" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6686" RevisionGUID="34e1a9bc-58b9-4f58-be70-2cda891cbfef" CreationDate="2014-09-02T17:43:36.153" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[3801],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1259,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ron J.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1193,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Soren&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22409" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6247" RevisionGUID="3b1fb620-7730-47f2-8da0-c377ae3b522f" CreationDate="2014-09-02T17:45:47.617" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1259,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ron J.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1193,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Soren&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22412" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5733" RevisionGUID="db42d2a2-dfe7-420f-a62c-212632d6dc50" CreationDate="2014-09-02T17:47:40.460" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5059],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1259,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ron J.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1193,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Soren&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22417" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6089" RevisionGUID="633123ec-96e6-4e19-ae95-7991ee1cb4d1" CreationDate="2014-09-02T17:49:23.230" UserId="1" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1259,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ron J.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1193,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Soren&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22420" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5059" RevisionGUID="bf6b6304-17c0-49a6-af71-64780f74a4f9" CreationDate="2014-09-02T17:50:45.670" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[4149],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1259,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ron J.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1193,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Soren&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22421" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5383" RevisionGUID="e8cd85f2-022d-4358-9707-2ac65eaa2f13" CreationDate="2014-09-02T17:51:24.823" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5059],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1259,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ron J.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1193,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Soren&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22422" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9853" RevisionGUID="8cd599c7-b7e2-42e2-880b-7ff40262bbeb" CreationDate="2014-09-02T17:53:52.253" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[9867],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22424" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6232" RevisionGUID="50cab59b-11e8-4438-afed-4047d22eb07f" CreationDate="2014-09-02T17:55:59.060" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1259,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ron J.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1193,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Soren&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10166" RevisionGUID="1b20d3ab-6907-48f7-a504-752120e3661f" CreationDate="2014-09-02T20:26:28.753" UserId="11454" Text="Do I need a specific kind of patent lawyer to handle a software patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that the advanced computer terminology involved in patenting software would require a patent lawyer that specializes in the area. Is this the case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22427" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10166" RevisionGUID="1b20d3ab-6907-48f7-a504-752120e3661f" CreationDate="2014-09-02T20:26:28.753" UserId="11454" Text="Do I need a specific kind of patent lawyer to handle a software patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22428" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10166" RevisionGUID="1b20d3ab-6907-48f7-a504-752120e3661f" CreationDate="2014-09-02T20:26:28.753" UserId="11454" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10169" RevisionGUID="1167a379-895b-498b-bc6c-1b31c31a77b6" CreationDate="2014-09-03T19:34:48.027" UserId="1193" Text="There is no requirement in using a lawyer, but unless you have the expertise you would probably not want tot do it yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you want is a person intimately familiar with the process and the required way for formatting and wording a patent -- the rules are strict unless what you file is a provisional patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a person could be a lawyer, but he does not have to be a lawyer.   As with all lawyers they each specialize in certain area (tax, criminal matters, etc) and so the lawyer you would need would have to specialize in patent and be knowledgeable about the subject matter you want to patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10170" RevisionGUID="40b7f0ee-9edf-497b-8107-feb7ecdbf74a" CreationDate="2014-09-03T22:15:19.400" UserId="11315" Text="I'd like to know whether there is a word limit for the patent description (summary and detailed summary)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not, is there an overall paper/word limit before fees accrue? That is, after how many patent pages will you be charged for going over?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22437" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10170" RevisionGUID="40b7f0ee-9edf-497b-8107-feb7ecdbf74a" CreationDate="2014-09-03T22:15:19.400" UserId="11315" Text="Patent Word Limit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22438" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10170" RevisionGUID="40b7f0ee-9edf-497b-8107-feb7ecdbf74a" CreationDate="2014-09-03T22:15:19.400" UserId="11315" Text="&lt;fees&gt;&lt;word-limit&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10171" RevisionGUID="e6df8757-fc44-40db-bd5d-f2a2f87c4ea1" CreationDate="2014-09-03T22:45:23.723" UserId="11468" Text="To answer your first question, whether this is a joke or not, see the last paragraph, which states: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lastly, it should be noted that because pulling alternately on one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chain and then the other resembles in some measure the movements one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would use to swing from vines in a dense jungle forest, the swinging&#xD;&#xA;&gt; method of the present invention may be referred to by the present&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inventor and his sister as “Tarzan” swinging. The user may even choose&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to produce a Tarzan-type yell while swinging in the manner described,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which more accurately replicates swinging on vines in a dense jungle&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forest. Actual jungle forestry is not required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess that pretty much sums it up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10172" RevisionGUID="809ef19d-8fb6-4f51-8f41-667984cf24ca" CreationDate="2014-09-04T01:46:32.600" UserId="3076" Text="The answer from the USPTO's current fee schedule:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.16(s)&#xD;&#xA;Utility Application Size Fee - for each additional 50 sheets that exceeds 100 sheets	&lt;p&gt;Large entity $400.00;	Small entity $200.00;	Micro entry $100.00&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every piece of paper (or virtual page) is counted including the claims and abstract and drawings.  If you give them a program listing or DNA sequence a CD those pages don't count." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10173" RevisionGUID="41a78348-5a7f-426b-a573-ee49b3558109" CreationDate="2014-09-04T17:38:38.283" UserId="11454" Text="I'm planning to attempt patent for a software product that performs a very large range of operations, and there is nothing like it out there. However, I'm sure that out of the giant sea of patents on just about every simple web-operation task out there, a few patents will cover some of the functionality of what my product does on a larger scale in a very new and useful way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I judge whether or not my new use or improvement of various patented software technologies will constitute a new patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [Google was sued for Drive][1], on account that there is a patent on *&quot;technology that allows quick access to a common disk on multiple computers&quot;*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among many other things, my technology certainly allows quick access to a common disk on multiple computers. That's easy. It's called loading the file into a server and reading / writing any streamed changes. So I'm trying to figure out what exactly is required for part of an invention to be considered new use or improvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://coolrom.com/queue.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22452" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10173" RevisionGUID="41a78348-5a7f-426b-a573-ee49b3558109" CreationDate="2014-09-04T17:38:38.283" UserId="11454" Text="How is it decided whether an improvement or new use is good enough?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22453" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10173" RevisionGUID="41a78348-5a7f-426b-a573-ee49b3558109" CreationDate="2014-09-04T17:38:38.283" UserId="11454" Text="&lt;improvement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10173" RevisionGUID="1ba8df39-1151-4e93-9550-84b738e8e00c" CreationDate="2014-09-04T17:47:55.307" UserId="11454" Comment="added 314 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm planning to attempt patent for a software product that performs a very large range of operations, and there is nothing like it out there. However, I'm sure that out of the giant sea of patents on just about every simple web-operation task out there, a few patents will cover some of the functionality of what my product does on a larger scale in a very new and useful way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How can I judge whether or not my new use or improvement of various patented software technologies will constitute a new patent?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [Google was sued for Drive][1], on account that there is a patent on *&quot;technology that allows quick access to a common disk on multiple computers&quot;*. I would think that Drive certainly would be considered as a &quot;new use&quot; for the very simple technology needed to quickly access a common disk on multiple computers. It seems as if patents like this are too simple and would damage any new progress in the industry of web streaming services for documents and files. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among many other things, my technology certainly allows quick access to a common disk on multiple computers. That's easy. It's called loading the file into a server and reading / writing any streamed changes. So *I'm trying to figure out what exactly is required for part of an invention to be considered new use or improvement.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://coolrom.com/queue.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22455" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10173" RevisionGUID="1ba8df39-1151-4e93-9550-84b738e8e00c" CreationDate="2014-09-04T17:47:55.307" UserId="11454" Comment="added 314 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;improvement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10174" RevisionGUID="c27656a3-9a3b-4424-a01c-f786cef9f8b6" CreationDate="2014-09-04T19:34:35.570" UserId="4545" Text="I assume you're referring to [EEC's suit against Google from a few years ago][1]. EEC claimed Google infringed upon US Patent 5918244, claim 1 of which reads: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A caching system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a network;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a plurality of computers interacting as a VMScluster on said network,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; each computer having a memory;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a plurality of I/O devices connected to said network;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a plurality of cache drivers, each resident in one of said computers,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for creating a cache in the memory of the computer in which the cache&#xD;&#xA;&gt; driver resides for caching data from selected ones of said I/O&#xD;&#xA;&gt; devices, each cache driver including executable remote messaging code&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that forms a computer communication channel with a cache driver on any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of said computers for sending messages relating to caching and means&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for listening on said network for a request from a new computer to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; connect to said network, said executable remote messaging code further&#xD;&#xA;&gt; saving a remote connection address for each of the communication&#xD;&#xA;&gt; channels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can argue about the scope of the patent claims and whether or not it should have been granted (note that the priority on the case dates back to 1994), but it very clearly is not a general patent on &quot;technology that allows quick access to a common disk on multiple computers&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/96159142/Google-Drive-Patent-Copy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10173" RevisionGUID="089f82a4-e896-4283-b5a1-d3372bf2d6f9" CreationDate="2014-09-04T20:43:08.080" UserId="11454" Comment="deleted 40 characters in body" Text="I'm planning to attempt patent for a software product that performs a very large range of operations, and there is nothing like it out there. However, I'm sure that out of the giant sea of patents on just about every simple web-operation task out there, a few patents will cover some of the functionality of what my product does on a larger scale in a very new and useful way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How can I judge whether or not my new use or improvement of various patented software technologies will constitute a new patent?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [Google was sued for Drive][1], on account that there is a patent on *&quot;technology that allows quick access to a common disk on multiple computers&quot;*. I would think that Drive certainly would be considered as a &quot;new use&quot; for the very simple technology needed to quickly access a common disk on multiple computers. It seems as if patents like this are too simple and would damage any new progress in the industry of web streaming services for documents and files. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among many other things, my technology certainly allows quick access to a common disk on multiple computers. That's easy. It's called loading the file into a server and reading / writing any streamed changes. So *I'm trying to figure out what exactly is required for part of an invention to be considered new use or improvement.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405442,00.asp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10175" RevisionGUID="2baeb6b4-556a-4c9a-a5d5-a3afb7669cac" CreationDate="2014-09-04T22:37:28.653" UserId="11470" Text="Alexander Graham Bell patented many of them from US and Europe without one by one he really did it?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22459" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10175" RevisionGUID="2baeb6b4-556a-4c9a-a5d5-a3afb7669cac" CreationDate="2014-09-04T22:37:28.653" UserId="11470" Text="HOW they managed their monpoly .In old days when there was no any PCT applications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22460" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10175" RevisionGUID="2baeb6b4-556a-4c9a-a5d5-a3afb7669cac" CreationDate="2014-09-04T22:37:28.653" UserId="11470" Text="&lt;patent-jurisprudence&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10176" RevisionGUID="aef641ea-22cd-44b1-b6ab-9e953cc44f24" CreationDate="2014-09-04T23:43:54.127" UserId="1193" Text="Patents has been around for a [long time][1] .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents for international purposes has only really gained importance with the raise in efficient global trade and even then for most purposes it is sufficient to have a US patent as that will block transgressions of copying an invention and export it into the US market which historically have been the largest and most important market for any international companies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So sure, somebody may have copied an Graham Bell invention in some local market but it didn't really matter unless that Graham Bell intended to explore that overseas market, which were unlikely as there were too little money to be made in most overseas markets compared to the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#History" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10180" RevisionGUID="3f16ac87-35ea-4a68-82ca-e582671bba1e" CreationDate="2014-09-05T16:18:32.457" UserId="3418" Text="From 35 U.S. Code § 287 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/287&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;In the event of failure so to mark, no damages shall be recovered by the patentee in any action for infringement, except on proof that the infringer was notified of the infringement and continued to infringe thereafter, in which event damages may be recovered only for infringement occurring after such notice&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it seems in practice, nearly no one mark their patents. How can Apple sue Samsung if it did not mark its patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22474" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10180" RevisionGUID="3f16ac87-35ea-4a68-82ca-e582671bba1e" CreationDate="2014-09-05T16:18:32.457" UserId="3418" Text="Is company required to mark patent to ask for damage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22475" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10180" RevisionGUID="3f16ac87-35ea-4a68-82ca-e582671bba1e" CreationDate="2014-09-05T16:18:32.457" UserId="3418" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10175" RevisionGUID="53d516fa-c183-426f-b39b-4bad6ac4fee3" CreationDate="2014-09-05T18:30:49.317" UserId="1767" Comment="added 200 characters in body; edited title" Text="Many inventors seemed to have protected their inventions worldwide, prior to the introduction of the PCT application.  For example, Alexander Graham Bell.  How did these individual inventors protect their inventions in the US and Europe with filing patent applications one-by-one all around the world?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22479" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10175" RevisionGUID="53d516fa-c183-426f-b39b-4bad6ac4fee3" CreationDate="2014-09-05T18:30:49.317" UserId="1767" Comment="added 200 characters in body; edited title" Text="How did inventors protect their inventions worldwide before there were PCT applications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10181" RevisionGUID="4e583983-fb90-4382-b2f7-5ce03da4ad6b" CreationDate="2014-09-05T22:08:13.833" UserId="3076" Text="You can mark it on the packaging and now you can mark a url that leads to a list of the patents. Also, this requirement does not apply if only method claims are being asserted- nothing to mark." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10182" RevisionGUID="31304f21-d555-4c27-b9b6-f03d2180c9d6" CreationDate="2014-09-05T22:09:32.387" UserId="3076" Text="It is important to get someone comfortable and experienced with the technology involved in your invention but there are no official labels for different types of patent lawyers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10183" RevisionGUID="98508db9-92ef-4bb1-9605-5731725889d4" CreationDate="2014-09-05T22:11:00.470" UserId="3076" Text="A novelty search can cost from $299 to $2,000 depending on the technology area and what you are expecting to get back. It could be a list of ten things or it could be a list broken down into &quot;A&quot;, &quot;B&quot; and &quot;C&quot; items with explanations as to what aspects got things on the A list. You should get info on the search strategy used. If you go to a patent attorney or agent you could also (pay more for and) get a &quot;patentability opinion&quot;. No search can find everything that might be relevant that was ever made, sold, patented, or in a publication since the beginning of writing on a world-wide basis. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10184" RevisionGUID="d5ec2ee8-514b-4422-b96c-36cd946dbc87" CreationDate="2014-09-05T22:12:36.643" UserId="3076" Text="Patents give the owner the right to exclude others from making, selling, importing and using the patented technology within the country that granted the patent. If the patents are U.S. patents they have no force outside the U.S. If you will only use the technology in Europe you may not need to worry about the U.S. patents at all. In general if you buy a patented apparatus from a legitimate source you would be getting an implied license from the patentee to use it. This can be modified by contract and gets into a somewhat murky area of patent law call exhaustion of rights." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10185" RevisionGUID="222f94b1-21b7-4d6a-9484-db69cf5cb1e2" CreationDate="2014-09-05T22:14:14.977" UserId="3076" Text="The rules are different for the U.S. and almost everywhere else. In the rest of the world when a patent is applied for the claimed subject matter needs to be new compared to whatever has been known the the public. In the U.S. we have a one year grace period before your own work can be used against you. If you file in the U.S. and then disclose, you can still file a foreign application if it is done within a year. Regarding dates - only the filing date matters. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10186" RevisionGUID="48374afa-231b-4ff8-9c1c-e994a7a4d179" CreationDate="2014-09-05T22:15:30.450" UserId="3076" Text="In some places it is important to be detailed to be sure that you have enabled someone to make and use the invention. That enabled use does not need to be state-of-the art for ennoblement purposes but does need to meet the &quot;best mode&quot; requirement. However, never use &quot;the invention&quot; in regard to something that is just an example of one way to do it. Presenting multiple, different, specific ways to do something usually better supports broader claims than one abstract way of doing it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10187" RevisionGUID="2b45faff-3ed5-4d17-96de-ae3f029eb9da" CreationDate="2014-09-05T22:16:45.897" UserId="3076" Text="If a registered patent practitioner (patent attorney or patent agent) is involved with the filing of an application that they know has a true inventor intentionally omitted they are doing something they know is unethical. I do not know anyone who would risk loosing their registration with the USPTO by doing that. Also, any resulting patent would have a legal weak link if it ever came to be enforced. Is it possible that all claims to which you made a conceptual contribution to have been removed? If so that would legitimately remove you as an inventor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10188" RevisionGUID="69e3861b-46e0-4143-b48f-9428ac94936a" CreationDate="2014-09-05T22:17:48.700" UserId="3076" Text="If you have something now that, as a whole, is novel, has an inventive step (an inventive step beyond everything that has ever been done including your old version) and industrial applicability and that whole has not yet been publicly disclosed then go for it. If you make and sell the new version very successfully someone who looks into it might realize that they could compete with you by making the old version or they might not figure that out. Also, if people would rather have the new version and the improvement doesn't add a lot of cost, that would be a factor in your market success." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10189" RevisionGUID="26076b8a-d55d-4c89-ac87-30e9824c6d90" CreationDate="2014-09-05T22:22:44.713" UserId="3076" Text="Examiners do search for earlier patents and patent applications but searching doesn't guarantee finding. It doesn't matter who you are or where you live or where you filed first. In Ask Patents meta there are instructions for the 3rd party submission process. meta.patents.stackexchange.com/questions/105/…. Also, the 20140196131 is not a patent. It is the publication of an application for a patent and has not yet show that it has been searched or examined." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10190" RevisionGUID="1695a207-0ffd-41b3-ac4b-f7ad644e915e" CreationDate="2014-09-05T22:24:28.467" UserId="3076" Text="If your budget dictates you are going to do it yourself I would get a patent it yourself book, study it and follow it as if you were creating a regular application - other than claiming. Aiming high might help you get close to target when you are done. If the date is needed (if not the provisional didn't end up coming into play at all) to show that the topic in question was described to a required level of depth, the words of the provisional will be evaluated exactly as they would be in studying a regular application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10191" RevisionGUID="b12378c6-6940-4374-ab58-04da76eb0547" CreationDate="2014-09-05T22:25:51.533" UserId="3076" Text="Any patent from that time from would have long long ago expired and the time to sue anyone for infringement during the time it was in force is also long gone. A patent can be sold outright by the inventor to a company or they could agree on a royalty of some sort. That is all between the inventor and the licensee or assignee." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10192" RevisionGUID="1151dc7c-8534-4964-8e3f-fa3874a24d70" CreationDate="2014-09-05T22:29:28.800" UserId="3076" Text="Copyright is mostly irrelevant. Anything published that explains an invention will prevent anyone who files the next day from getting a patent - if the examiner sees it. Copyrighting does not mean it was necessarily published." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10193" RevisionGUID="4c5fde51-029e-4551-a276-13a65c7d4b42" CreationDate="2014-09-05T22:30:34.083" UserId="3076" Text="This is a complex area. If the end user necessarily infringes the method claims of a patent by using the app or hardware as-is from the publisher, then a direct infringement has occurred if there is even one end user you can point to. As long as somebody has directly infringed, other entities can be guilty of contributory infringement and/or inducement of infringement which are indirect infringements. So you establish that end users directly infringed so that you can go after the manufacture/publisher for indirect infringement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22493" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7767" RevisionGUID="826361fe-ee36-446a-a840-6a3155740e90" CreationDate="2014-09-05T22:32:16.003" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Is it safe to buy this product from this company when patent is granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22494" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7767" RevisionGUID="826361fe-ee36-446a-a840-6a3155740e90" CreationDate="2014-09-05T22:32:16.003" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;us6173146&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7767" RevisionGUID="826361fe-ee36-446a-a840-6a3155740e90" CreationDate="2014-09-05T22:32:16.003" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="If GPI company got granted this patent US 6173146 can it be still be sued by Canon if they think that  this infringe Canon patent? &#xD;&#xA;Is it safe to buy this product from this company when patent is granted? Can it still infringe  other patents if it have granted patent?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10194" RevisionGUID="b9d3a92c-b0f5-4ce2-8774-0682ca3cd1e6" CreationDate="2014-09-05T22:33:09.237" UserId="3076" Text="The priority date counts. On that day Philips filed something in the European Patent Office. As long as the material that application covered is essentially the same as that of 8537231 it is just as if the specific application that turned into 8537231 was filed in 2002. A quick search did not turn up the 2002 document but PCT application WO 200404701 does have a 2003 filing date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10195" RevisionGUID="cf2feff7-3f05-4563-ac9d-a089fa659eba" CreationDate="2014-09-05T22:34:24.903" UserId="3076" Text="It all depends on the claim wording in their issued patent. You must do everything that at least one claim says in order to infringe. The claims specify what they own." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10196" RevisionGUID="ff85c4f6-1dda-4702-ab7e-678ffd87c80c" CreationDate="2014-09-05T22:35:54.083" UserId="3076" Text="It would depend on the exact language of the claim and how that language might be interpreted under the plain meaning of the words and in light of the specification and the prosecution history. I know that means &quot;it depends&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10197" RevisionGUID="d56db96a-e367-484f-9ec4-a1f6b785e23f" CreationDate="2014-09-05T22:38:57.543" UserId="3076" Text="Not in the US due the &quot;useful&quot; requirement. In the rest of the world they have a requirement for &quot;industrial applicability&quot; so I imagine the answer in the EPC is also no. I heard a patent attorney teaching a class say &quot;pour it on the grass, it might be a herbicide or a plant growth enhancer. Or maybe it peels paint.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10199" RevisionGUID="ee8e70fd-e728-4885-9f1c-16eb0a251a51" CreationDate="2014-09-06T00:33:02.257" UserId="8071" Text="The examiner of one of the patent applications that I am prosecuting is not following the rules.  First, he ignored a request for a preliminary interview.  Then he made unwarranted objections, first to the claims and later to the specification, citing portions of the MPEP that were not applicable.  Finally, he reopened prosecution without supervisory approval after I filed a notice of appeal followed by an appeal brief.  (Approval by a supervisory examiner is required for reopening prosecution after appeal brief, according to MPEP 1207.04, which includes paragraph 12.187 to be used by the examiner; the examiner used the language in paragraph 12.187, but omitted the sentence &quot;A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:&quot; and the SPE's signature.)  In reopening prosecution, the examiner filed an office action with new grounds for rejection and cited additional patent literature.  Prosecution had already been reopened once before, after a pre-appeal brief conference following an earlier notice of appeal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I intend to respond to the office action, but I want to make sure that the examiner will not reopen prosecution again if I need to file a second appeal brief.  What is the best way of achieving that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, what recourse do applicants have when examiners don't follow the rules?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22508" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10199" RevisionGUID="ee8e70fd-e728-4885-9f1c-16eb0a251a51" CreationDate="2014-09-06T00:33:02.257" UserId="8071" Text="What to do when the examiner does not follow the rules" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22509" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10199" RevisionGUID="ee8e70fd-e728-4885-9f1c-16eb0a251a51" CreationDate="2014-09-06T00:33:02.257" UserId="8071" Text="&lt;examiner&gt;&lt;appeal&gt;&lt;reopen-prosecution&gt;&lt;recourse&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10200" RevisionGUID="cc4c7488-efa4-413f-b9e8-b59eab9288d0" CreationDate="2014-09-06T14:39:07.030" UserId="4545" Text="Call the examiner's supervisor (SPE). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10202" RevisionGUID="55c275b2-7e90-48bd-8533-a977e16c1fc3" CreationDate="2014-09-07T17:32:35.420" UserId="11483" Text="According to http://www.amazon.com/Paderno-World-Cuisine-A4982799-Tri-Blade/dp/B0007Y9WHQ/ref=zg_bs_289783_1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this product is patented: https://www.google.com/patents/CN202723661U?cl=en&amp;dq=utility+patent+is+201220380804.5&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=_W7gUuCYL7SqsASc9oC4CQ&amp;ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why are there so many exact copies of this product found on Amazon.com under different brand names?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the patent not valid? Or is there a legal way around selling this product under a different name?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for your advice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best Regards,&#xD;&#xA;D.K&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22515" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10202" RevisionGUID="55c275b2-7e90-48bd-8533-a977e16c1fc3" CreationDate="2014-09-07T17:32:35.420" UserId="11483" Text="Plastic Spiral Vegetable Slicer Patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22516" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10202" RevisionGUID="55c275b2-7e90-48bd-8533-a977e16c1fc3" CreationDate="2014-09-07T17:32:35.420" UserId="11483" Text="&lt;amazon&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10203" RevisionGUID="0d5105dc-74a3-469c-bdb9-d48167359c28" CreationDate="2014-09-07T17:54:03.840" UserId="3076" Text="The patent document you are referring to seems to be a pre-grant publication of an application for a Chinese Utility model.  I do not see a coresponding U.S. patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10204" RevisionGUID="6b079476-9214-45fc-81e7-e35943bc36c9" CreationDate="2014-09-07T17:58:09.383" UserId="11484" Text="I noticed in the Legal Events portion of this patent it says that it has expired due to lack of payment. I was wondering if that entitles anyone and everyone to this idea now that it has expired from the previous patent holder. Is there anyway that I could find myself in a sticky situation using an idea similar in a project of mine?? Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22519" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10204" RevisionGUID="6b079476-9214-45fc-81e7-e35943bc36c9" CreationDate="2014-09-07T17:58:09.383" UserId="11484" Text="Is this patent in the public domain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22520" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10204" RevisionGUID="6b079476-9214-45fc-81e7-e35943bc36c9" CreationDate="2014-09-07T17:58:09.383" UserId="11484" Text="&lt;us4475856&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10203" RevisionGUID="62589da9-dd43-49a6-b7c5-10fa430744f9" CreationDate="2014-09-07T17:59:41.627" UserId="3076" Comment="added 182 characters in body" Text="The patent document you are referring to seems to be a pre-grant publication of an application for a Chinese Utility model. CN202723661 U. I do not see a corresponding U.S. patent. Even if it were a granted patent in China that would not affect anything in the U.S. Maybe the company in China is selling it to many branded distributors in the U.S." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22522" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10202" RevisionGUID="0c06ea5c-2b86-4963-a3fd-a246581c6092" CreationDate="2014-09-07T18:00:52.387" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to patent doc." Text="&lt;amazon&gt;&lt;cn202723661&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10206" RevisionGUID="c506a2ad-5ff8-4feb-872d-f0d790f8cbf4" CreationDate="2014-09-08T00:25:18.923" UserId="3076" Text="If the SPE doesn't help, call the ombudsman's office or the TC director." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10207" RevisionGUID="b770419f-f497-4b9c-be7f-16fb5d7a0d3a" CreationDate="2014-09-08T02:07:43.687" UserId="11487" Text="Clojure is mentioned in the es-discuss thread [ES6,ES7,ES8 and beyond. A Proposed Roadmap.][1] as having these features. It's functional but also has some imperative characteristics. Somebody knowing the language well could probably study the case and determine whether there's anything corresponding to the patent application's notion of safety (which seems to make sense only from an imperative point of view).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://esdiscuss.org/topic/es6-es7-es8-and-beyond-a-proposed-roadmap" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10208" RevisionGUID="1b4c9739-26a1-42a3-afac-a4d6a5b1646c" CreationDate="2014-09-08T09:39:30.220" UserId="11490" Text="Is this patent Valid and which countries it is?&#xD;&#xA;Can I realize an application that create a communication between two mobile phone using radio waves and sell it on android or iOs?&#xD;&#xA;Do I have to pay some fees?Do I need any kind of agreement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22530" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10208" RevisionGUID="1b4c9739-26a1-42a3-afac-a4d6a5b1646c" CreationDate="2014-09-08T09:39:30.220" UserId="11490" Text="Validity of US5481539" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22531" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10208" RevisionGUID="1b4c9739-26a1-42a3-afac-a4d6a5b1646c" CreationDate="2014-09-08T09:39:30.220" UserId="11490" Text="&lt;us5481539&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10210" RevisionGUID="076219a1-ed86-4609-92cc-fd96a87aabf7" CreationDate="2014-09-08T14:01:11.053" UserId="4545" Text="The patent has expired (lapsed back in 2000). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10211" RevisionGUID="a3b674dc-b6a1-4553-a48f-3b053993f229" CreationDate="2014-09-08T14:20:30.080" UserId="4545" Text="Once the patent has expired/lapsed, it is indeed put into the public domain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, someone else may have a current patent on an improved version of the expansion screw, so you're not necessarily in the clear if you're using a similar design. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10212" RevisionGUID="d6a0e3cb-5549-461d-ab34-615ab0da076d" CreationDate="2014-09-08T16:15:56.703" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="To committ a search to a search firm is it necessary to sign a confidentiality agreement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results for non-english language patents are confined just to abstracts and title  or search firms usually also translate foreign patents and search into them?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22538" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10212" RevisionGUID="d6a0e3cb-5549-461d-ab34-615ab0da076d" CreationDate="2014-09-08T16:15:56.703" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="Patent search firms #2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22539" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10212" RevisionGUID="d6a0e3cb-5549-461d-ab34-615ab0da076d" CreationDate="2014-09-08T16:15:56.703" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10213" RevisionGUID="378283fb-40d9-49bd-b0cc-4ee176194bc7" CreationDate="2014-09-08T17:33:14.357" UserId="3076" Text="You will want a confidentiality agreement to protect your rights. Most patent search engines now include an automatic machine translation from a variety of languages and you should get that from the search firm. Sometimes you can't determine what you need without a human or assisted translation. You could contract for that separately." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10214" RevisionGUID="b4c17b0e-de5e-4286-abd9-584218eef222" CreationDate="2014-09-09T16:12:50.953" UserId="6081" Text="The Lambda-the-Ultimate discussion yielded a couple new answers.&#xD;&#xA;One is about Mezzo/ATS, and there are various others which might be relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other one says that this patent is a copy of work done in prior art in BitC:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As far as I can tell, this work is a direct transcription of explanations I made to people at Microsoft about BitC immutability. The particular approach to immutability that they have applied to patent has been discussed multiple times on the BitC programming language list, not as something that we had any doubts or difficulties with, but as something that we took for granted as obviously doable. We even discussed the escape analysis necessary to ensure constructor safety.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is the second case of a patent application by someone on the Midori group since my departure that appears to be directly based on my own work and/or my discussions at Microsoft regarding my prior work and the prior work of others. I do know that Duffy has done a bunch of work on resolving some issues in C# that preclude proper implementation of readonly, but he is not the inventor of either the notion of transitive immutability in a programming language nor of immutability permitting construction. Both were discussed on the BitC list prior to my arrival at Microsoft, including a much more general form of immutable initialization relying on confinement. I discussed this work with Duffy while I was at Microsoft. Heck, I've done a Ph.D. dissertation and two formal verification efforts on this topic; it's hardly new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Given this, I think there is a problem insofar as the patent fails to credit an inventor at Microsoft (me), but more to the point, the patent application fails to cite prior art about which they knew: BitC, EROS, and KeyKOS. Given the prior work, I would have refused to support this filing on the basis of prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Many people at Microsoft hold the view that outsiders can't do anything interesting. They are, in my experience, appallingly unaware of prior art in the field, and sincerely believe that they have invented many things that have existed for some time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/5028#comment-82141&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can guess, Duffy must be the first inventor in the patent, &quot;Duffy, John J. (Seattle, WA, US)&quot;. This makes the statement much more important." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10215" RevisionGUID="7de4c6d6-ca55-478f-9ba6-41410fbec506" CreationDate="2014-09-09T16:31:00.350" UserId="11494" Text="I've been working for a company for a year now. About 2 months ago, I had an idea for creating a manifold. My idea has saved the company thousands of dollars in manpower, resources, and time. I was the sole inventor in creating the idea, and implementing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've looked into some things and I can confirm that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-I have not signed any sort of agreement with my employer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-No where in my employee handbook does it say that my IP belongs to the company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-I was not contracted for creating this; I am a full time employee to the company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if I'm right in believing that I have a valid base for filing a patent. And even if I am right and I do file the patent, and am approved, what then? My company already uses my invention, where would I go then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22546" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10215" RevisionGUID="7de4c6d6-ca55-478f-9ba6-41410fbec506" CreationDate="2014-09-09T16:31:00.350" UserId="11494" Text="Am I eligible for a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22547" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10215" RevisionGUID="7de4c6d6-ca55-478f-9ba6-41410fbec506" CreationDate="2014-09-09T16:31:00.350" UserId="11494" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;process&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;validity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10216" RevisionGUID="8b68c3b6-df9d-4a0e-b982-ea171dd7b552" CreationDate="2014-09-09T20:48:04.660" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="Is filing a patent effective as defensive disclosure if the the patent is not granted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any application is published after 18 months (except publication delay request) or if the patent doesn't pass a preliminary examination is dropped out by the Office without publication?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22549" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10216" RevisionGUID="8b68c3b6-df9d-4a0e-b982-ea171dd7b552" CreationDate="2014-09-09T20:48:04.660" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="Patent application as defensive disclosure" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22550" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10216" RevisionGUID="8b68c3b6-df9d-4a0e-b982-ea171dd7b552" CreationDate="2014-09-09T20:48:04.660" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;defensive-publications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10217" RevisionGUID="17998c77-4023-4b64-84ff-8fbc32805d16" CreationDate="2014-09-09T22:36:02.617" UserId="3076" Text="If you meet all the formal requirements the application will publish. I believe they have also eliminated the fee for requesting early publication so you don't need to wait 18 months." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10218" RevisionGUID="1eb675a4-b178-4750-af04-57f51eae3739" CreationDate="2014-09-10T04:56:32.510" UserId="11496" Text="According to this, a dual bearing nut for a pedal has already been done: http://www.bikemag.com/blog/tested-momentum-bicycle-flypaper-pedals/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22553" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10218" RevisionGUID="1eb675a4-b178-4750-af04-57f51eae3739" CreationDate="2014-09-10T04:56:32.510" UserId="11496" Text="What is new about this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22554" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10218" RevisionGUID="1eb675a4-b178-4750-af04-57f51eae3739" CreationDate="2014-09-10T04:56:32.510" UserId="11496" Text="&lt;bicycles&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10218" RevisionGUID="bbfe4503-0ec9-4ccc-ad9f-c7a4379879ee" CreationDate="2014-09-10T17:10:38.133" UserId="3076" Comment="added ref to patent" Text="According to this, a dual bearing nut for a pedal has already been done: http://www.bikemag.com/blog/tested-momentum-bicycle-flypaper-pedals/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need to study about patent no US3695017" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22557" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10218" RevisionGUID="bbfe4503-0ec9-4ccc-ad9f-c7a4379879ee" CreationDate="2014-09-10T17:10:38.133" UserId="3076" Comment="added ref to patent" Text="What is new about this patent US3695017?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22558" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10218" RevisionGUID="bbfe4503-0ec9-4ccc-ad9f-c7a4379879ee" CreationDate="2014-09-10T17:10:38.133" UserId="3076" Comment="added ref to patent" Text="&lt;bicycles&gt;&lt;us3695017&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10220" RevisionGUID="2780c7b6-26bb-4257-85b3-341bbbfbb245" CreationDate="2014-09-10T19:15:00.717" UserId="11499" Text="You can certainly apply for the patent, but any reasonable interpretation of the situation will demand that it is assigned to your company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any work you do for your employer, as an employee, during work time, using the employers equipment and facilities is the employers property.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, you may be able to negotiate some kind of reward with your employer, but that's a different story and up to their discretion and your negotiation skills." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10221" RevisionGUID="8219ae7a-5c62-4983-80ec-9a9e041b2bca" CreationDate="2014-09-10T20:26:51.920" UserId="3076" Text="That patent was submitted in 1969, issued in 1970 and would have expired in 1987. In patenting the idea must be &quot;new&quot; as of the date of filing. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22561" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10222" RevisionGUID="fccfa984-d4e2-4dac-8a16-af96712c4876" CreationDate="2014-09-10T20:36:31.820" UserId="3076" Text="This does vary from state-to-state. I believe that in most states the invention &quot;belongs&quot; to the employer if you signed that away when first hired or if you were hired to invent or assigned to come up with this particular thing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Even in cases where there is no agreement and you were not hired to invent, if you did it on the company's time and/or equipment, and/or facilities, the employer may have &quot;shop rights&quot;. That means they have the right to royalty-free use of the invention, even if it ends up belonging to you. It is easy to find more information about this on the web." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10225" RevisionGUID="d0b362e9-aa54-465f-989a-466a6948fc3e" CreationDate="2014-09-13T13:32:36.787" UserId="11514" Text="I discovered recently that the hazard pointer technique has a patent application if not an actual patent assigned to it.  Can I get clarification on this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, would like some indication on whether the following idea would even remotely violate any possible patent on the hazard pointer technique:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Some structure containing pointers to objects which can be iterated.  Take some tree or map as an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Some set of threads which iterate the tree using a reader writer lock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  The readers need to keep the read lock held for a long time thus writers get starved in this system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solution:&#xD;&#xA;Readers and writers obtain a handle to resource before starting to access the resource and drop the handle after accessing the resource.  The handle is obtained from an array of counters.  These counters serve as the &quot;hazard pointer&quot;.  Each active array entry is an indication of a thread with interest in a set of objects potentially marked for deletion.  This is described below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a writer updates an entry it doesn't update in place. Instead, the original entry is marked as deleted and stamped with the the current handle counter value of the handle system and placed on a delete queue.  The writer then stores a new value into the structure and the handle counter is incremented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When readers obtain a handle, the current handle counter is stored in a slot in the handle array assigned to the reader.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how is the data the reader has a pointer to protected?  Via the counter handle. The processor of the deletion queue ensures that no value in the handle counter array is less or equal to the counter value stamped on the item to be deleted before actually deleting it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The handle counter is a 64 bit integer which won't overflow easily.  I have a procedure for re-setting the counter in the event of imminent overflow but I won't describe it here in the interest of space.  ( Ala Fermat's last theorem. )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22642" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10225" RevisionGUID="d0b362e9-aa54-465f-989a-466a6948fc3e" CreationDate="2014-09-13T13:32:36.787" UserId="11514" Text="Patent status of hazard pointers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22643" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10225" RevisionGUID="d0b362e9-aa54-465f-989a-466a6948fc3e" CreationDate="2014-09-13T13:32:36.787" UserId="11514" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22644" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10225" RevisionGUID="9e3d105c-bbc1-4618-9124-2042637c8bc9" CreationDate="2014-09-13T14:13:27.437" UserId="11514" Comment="edited title" Text="Patent status of hazard pointers: us20040107227" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10226" RevisionGUID="36615ae9-7850-4146-b3af-6890b13a9c33" CreationDate="2014-09-13T20:29:26.727" UserId="7403" Text="Is [Article One Partners][1] a scam or not? See [this][2] for two conflicting opinions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://articleonepartners.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.law-forums.org/post368943.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22646" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10226" RevisionGUID="36615ae9-7850-4146-b3af-6890b13a9c33" CreationDate="2014-09-13T20:29:26.727" UserId="7403" Text="Is Article One Partners a scam?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22647" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10226" RevisionGUID="36615ae9-7850-4146-b3af-6890b13a9c33" CreationDate="2014-09-13T20:29:26.727" UserId="7403" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10226" RevisionGUID="6fb04d53-f551-4e44-b326-0ffb0bf56790" CreationDate="2014-09-13T20:37:21.687" UserId="7403" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="Is [Article One Partners][1] a scam or not? See [this][2] for two conflicting opinions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://articleonepartners.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.law-forums.org/does-article-one-partners-pay-for-the-time-you-put-into-doing-a-search-for-them-t33626.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22649" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10226" RevisionGUID="6fb04d53-f551-4e44-b326-0ffb0bf56790" CreationDate="2014-09-13T20:37:21.687" UserId="7403" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10229" RevisionGUID="7c12ee47-b1ef-43da-9a8f-613f1df1e9aa" CreationDate="2014-09-14T03:30:19.913" UserId="11522" Text="Not a scam. I've been researching for them for several years, and have been very pleased with the experience. You don't get paid for your time...it's more of a contest. You submit relevant research and the highest quality submissions win cash awards. There are numerous types of awards (and one category of guaranteed payments for invited &quot;Experts&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the time you don't win, but when you do, you can earn thousands of dollars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;David" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10230" RevisionGUID="d71216df-09b9-4ca8-befc-bc0695d1be31" CreationDate="2014-09-14T08:39:05.793" UserId="3588" Text="Seeking priority date by referring to your own provisional application, is it okay if your provisional has more &quot;ingredients&quot; included in the description of the invention, and you choose in your real application, to claim a system that &quot;drops&quot; some of the ingredients included in the description contained in the provisional application you have made?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In one case - the motivation may be to restrict the invention to a leaner core, leaving the &quot;dropped&quot; ingredients to become just possible embodiments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22658" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10230" RevisionGUID="d71216df-09b9-4ca8-befc-bc0695d1be31" CreationDate="2014-09-14T08:39:05.793" UserId="3588" Text="Referencing your own provisional application in your real application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22659" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10230" RevisionGUID="d71216df-09b9-4ca8-befc-bc0695d1be31" CreationDate="2014-09-14T08:39:05.793" UserId="3588" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10230" RevisionGUID="c04eb1d1-36c8-43a4-a836-4842fccd88c7" CreationDate="2014-09-14T08:44:41.257" UserId="3588" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="Seeking priority date by referring to your own provisional application, is it okay if your provisional has more &quot;ingredients&quot; included in the description of the invention, and you choose in your real application, to claim a system that &quot;drops&quot; some of the ingredients included in the description contained in the provisional application you have made?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In one case - the motivation may be to restrict the invention to a leaner core, leaving the &quot;dropped&quot; ingredients to become just parts included in _possible_ embodiments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10233" RevisionGUID="3ec6a624-9b2f-42a0-b46d-6c05a03adafa" CreationDate="2014-09-15T02:26:36.090" UserId="3076" Text="There is no need to have all of the provisional in the non-provisional and also you are not limited to what was in the provisional. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only scenario where a provisional application becomes relevant is if, in the course of examining a non-provisonal application, a prior art reference turns up that was published *before* the non-provisonal filing but *after* the provisional filing. In that case you look at the provisional trying to find solid support for the claimed matter that is being knocked out by that in-between dated prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10234" RevisionGUID="f3711c8f-d3ba-4fde-b1a4-d9e69b3d893a" CreationDate="2014-09-15T04:07:07.653" UserId="11527" Text="I am interested in contacting the authors. Please help if possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22669" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10234" RevisionGUID="f3711c8f-d3ba-4fde-b1a4-d9e69b3d893a" CreationDate="2014-09-15T04:07:07.653" UserId="11527" Text="I would like to receive the contact details of the Authors for Patent WO2014067081A" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22670" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10234" RevisionGUID="f3711c8f-d3ba-4fde-b1a4-d9e69b3d893a" CreationDate="2014-09-15T04:07:07.653" UserId="11527" Text="&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10235" RevisionGUID="8df3ee28-5931-47a4-83f0-c65f9ca10c0c" CreationDate="2014-09-15T05:46:25.707" UserId="3076" Text="You can look at the papers filed by the applicants with the PatentScope link. This is one page from the &quot;Request&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Pw2hp.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10238" RevisionGUID="de7e1a9d-5053-4254-b34d-11461a090e30" CreationDate="2014-09-16T03:53:01.107" UserId="11532" Text="[This LA Times article from July 8th, 1996][1] looks promising. It first describes &quot;TheDJ Player&quot;, a Windows 95 app that lets you select from 20,000 songs, listen to them on demand, and optionally purchase a CD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also makes mention to [lalive.com][2] which has a browsable archive of past live concerts that it streamed. The oldest snapshot archive.org is in early 2007, but the above article mentions it's past archive playback service existing at that time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://articles.latimes.com/1996-07-08/business/fi-22107_1_realaudio-radio-programs&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://web.archive.org/web/19970108204644/http://www.lalive.com/pastshows.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22679" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="10238" RevisionGUID="c9c876c1-8371-4b06-8ccd-19a45159a262" CreationDate="2014-09-16T03:53:01.107" UserId="11532" />
  <row Id="22683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10240" RevisionGUID="5e8744b2-b0b5-48c2-83cc-e03210a033df" CreationDate="2014-09-16T13:42:35.333" UserId="11535" Text="How about an existing patent from 1996 for online maps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US6240360&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is another one that might be relevant: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US20080162407?dq=ininventor:%22Sean+Phelan%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=2D0YVL2gBILX7AbIzICYBw&amp;ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22685" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="5059" RevisionGUID="19523869-8fae-436b-b2ed-03b322c5104f" CreationDate="2014-09-16T16:07:08.443" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22686" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5059" RevisionGUID="1a31a24e-ab88-4112-a8a9-264a1a5f2d60" CreationDate="2014-09-16T16:07:44.363" UserId="1" Comment="edited title" Text="How can I contact the owner of a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22687" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4149" RevisionGUID="7d475d11-6d8b-4f72-9ffc-ad43a8ed8a22" CreationDate="2014-09-16T16:08:02.920" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5059],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22688" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10234" RevisionGUID="84bb5962-e1fe-4fd9-879f-9edacd50a7f8" CreationDate="2014-09-16T16:08:47.103" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5059],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10242" RevisionGUID="00094b2e-867d-4955-a4c9-30831471a7e1" CreationDate="2014-09-17T07:50:04.093" UserId="3588" Text="In some patent applications, it is not clear whether the disclosed system produces a satisfactory, working, result. Or, the results can be very poor in quality terms (think _software_). Can an examiner determine an invention is useful, even if they cannot determine whether it really works? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22698" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10242" RevisionGUID="00094b2e-867d-4955-a4c9-30831471a7e1" CreationDate="2014-09-17T07:50:04.093" UserId="3588" Text="Can an examiner determine an invention is useful, even if they cannot determine whether it really works?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22699" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10242" RevisionGUID="00094b2e-867d-4955-a4c9-30831471a7e1" CreationDate="2014-09-17T07:50:04.093" UserId="3588" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10243" RevisionGUID="24a93b16-4be3-496d-b492-169b5fe9188b" CreationDate="2014-09-17T07:53:22.470" UserId="3588" Text="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International&#xD;&#xA;Does Alice Corp v.s. CLS Bank really change anything about software patents? looks like it was just a cancellation of a patent that failed to comply with several requirements of patent law, not anything that is a real precedent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22701" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10243" RevisionGUID="24a93b16-4be3-496d-b492-169b5fe9188b" CreationDate="2014-09-17T07:53:22.470" UserId="3588" Text="Does Alice Corp v.s. CLS Bank really change anything?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22702" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10243" RevisionGUID="24a93b16-4be3-496d-b492-169b5fe9188b" CreationDate="2014-09-17T07:53:22.470" UserId="3588" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10242" RevisionGUID="89b8ace6-c9bc-4f2c-bf7c-bd0143cedec7" CreationDate="2014-09-17T08:09:09.527" UserId="3588" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="In some patent applications, it is not clear whether the disclosed system produces a satisfactory, working, result. Or, the results can be very poor in quality terms (think _software_). Can an examiner determine an invention is useful, even if they cannot determine whether it really works, or works sensibly well enough? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10244" RevisionGUID="060fc79d-1eb7-4c69-8964-75a55fc43504" CreationDate="2014-09-17T09:30:25.003" UserId="11542" Text="The answer is YES. A published patent application will act as a defensive disclosure (prior art) to any future patent application(s). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent application gets published after 18 months from the date of filing (or priority date, whichever is earlier), unless an early publication is requested. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent application is published even if the patent is not granted. However, some countries (ex: US) provide the option of withholding publication even beyond 18 months, if a foreign application is not filed.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a subject matter to be patentable, it should satisfy 5 criteria namely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Patentable subject matter&#xD;&#xA; 2. Novelty&#xD;&#xA; 3. Non-obviousness/inventive-step &#xD;&#xA; 4. Industrial application&#xD;&#xA; 5. Enablement &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The publication of your application will have an impact on the novelty and inventive step requirements of patentability with respect to future applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may want to refer the article at the below link to get insight on strategy one could adopt based on the requirement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/are-patents-always-best-way-protect-inventions  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information about patentability refer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/how-can-i-find-out-whether-my-invention-patentable" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10245" RevisionGUID="f77693dd-4413-4705-b00b-d8a3637e33fb" CreationDate="2014-09-17T23:02:37.750" UserId="3076" Text="It doesn't need to work optimally or even well. The &quot;useful&quot; criteria is used to reject perpetual motion machines and things that claim to cure all sicknesses. In medicine and biology they do want experiments you have carried out to show it does what you say it does. In mechanical or electronic fields it only has to be plausible - they do not have a lab to test anything out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10246" RevisionGUID="690fb931-64df-48db-b41d-d16fb10d784d" CreationDate="2014-09-18T05:46:03.980" UserId="7403" Text="Use the following [iMacros plugin][1] script to download PDFs of every patent on a Google patents search results page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    TAG POS={{!loop}} TYPE=A ATTR=TXT:Overview&#xD;&#xA;    TAG POS=1 TYPE=DIV ATTR=ID::4&#xD;&#xA;    BACK&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, suppose your search is https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&amp;tbm=pts&amp;hl=en&amp;q=ininventor:%22Nikola+Tesla%22&amp;num=100 . This patent search returned 94 results, so I make sure &quot;num=100&quot; (or any number ≥94). Change the &quot;Max&quot; field of iMacro's &quot;Play&quot; tab to the number of results (94 in this example) and click the &quot;Play (Loop)&quot; button. iMacro will download all the PDFs. ☺&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://imacros.net/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22708" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10246" RevisionGUID="a105de54-ae3a-45f2-9d12-b85e49a8b861" CreationDate="2014-09-18T05:58:43.050" UserId="7403" Comment="minor code edit" Text="Use the following [iMacros plugin][1] script to download PDFs of every patent on a Google patents search results page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    TAG POS={{!loop}} TYPE=A ATTR=TXT:Overview&#xD;&#xA;    EVENT TYPE=CLICK SELECTOR=&quot;#\\:4&quot; BUTTON=0&#xD;&#xA;    BACK&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, suppose your search is https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&amp;tbm=pts&amp;hl=en&amp;q=ininventor:%22Nikola+Tesla%22&amp;num=100 . This patent search returned 94 results, so I make sure &quot;num=100&quot; (or any number ≥94). Change the &quot;Max&quot; field of iMacro's &quot;Play&quot; tab to the number of results (94 in this example) and click the &quot;Play (Loop)&quot; button. iMacro will download all the PDFs. ☺&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://imacros.net/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10247" RevisionGUID="b445cebc-6f69-4c96-939f-d27a66c0759a" CreationDate="2014-09-18T06:04:39.867" UserId="11543" Text="It is okay to have more ingredients in the provisional application and drop few ingredients from the complete application. There are no hard and fast rules which state that what appears in the provisional application should/must appear in the complete application. &#xD;&#xA;A provisional application is beneficial in setting a priority date for a complete patent application. Ideally, while drafting a provisional application one should ensure that the subject matter to be claimed by a complete application is “enabled” in the provisional application. Otherwise, a claim in the complete application that was not enabled in the provisional application but included in the complete application may not be entitled to the benefits of the priority date established by the provisional application. &#xD;&#xA;You may refer to the article at the below link to strategize your filing options:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/which-stage-should-i-apply-patent&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10248" RevisionGUID="472ecf36-d97f-4031-bfb2-308a62679342" CreationDate="2014-09-18T06:10:20.560" UserId="11542" Text="Regarding the first query, the patenting expenses in total (including professional fee) will be much higher than expenses involved in defensive disclosure. For example, IP.com charges about USD 225 for a 17 page disclosure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opting for defensive disclosure will establish your invention as prior art thereby preventing others from patenting your invention. However, you cannot prevent or stop others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing a product or process based on your invention disclosed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trade secrets have their pros and cons, and should ideally be used as a strategy when there is a good probability of maintaining the information as a trade secret.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10250" RevisionGUID="238fd131-9131-4b36-80cb-6e2ec13ad602" CreationDate="2014-09-18T18:49:55.143" UserId="11549" Text="I would like to get permission for reusing Figure 26 of the United States Patent US20130256198, &quot;Magnetic separation of electrochemical cell materials&quot;, in my review paper and thesis, with slight modifications. This paper is a part of my thesis. My review paper will be submitted to the Journal of Applied Electrochemistry soon. The title of my paper is “Recycling of Graphite Anodes for the Next Generation of Lithium Ion Batteries”. Dr. Gerardine G. Botte, professor at Ohio University, is the corresponding author of this journal article. Please advice me in this regard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best,&#xD;&#xA;Bahar Moradi Ghadi &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22715" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10250" RevisionGUID="238fd131-9131-4b36-80cb-6e2ec13ad602" CreationDate="2014-09-18T18:49:55.143" UserId="11549" Text="Copyright clearance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22716" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10250" RevisionGUID="238fd131-9131-4b36-80cb-6e2ec13ad602" CreationDate="2014-09-18T18:49:55.143" UserId="11549" Text="&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10251" RevisionGUID="83e849f0-913e-40ad-8e06-c33e74754c6f" CreationDate="2014-09-18T23:53:09.020" UserId="11551" Text="Multiple claims are made in this patent application that could be summarized as follows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Show travel routes between two or more events on a map with a display&#xD;&#xA; 2. Optimize a schedule based on the most efficient route between two or more events/appointments, displaying the result on map&#xD;&#xA; 3. Using the start/end time of an event, determine the best route between two or more events/appointments producing a schedule&#xD;&#xA; 4. Show points of interest on a map, enriched based on their source (for instance, a restaurant shown on the map from Zagat's restaurant guides would be enriched with Zagat's reviews). These points of interest can be added to your schedule and optimized like other events.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of these things are groundbreaking, and I think there should be plenty of examples of prior art out there to present to the examiner. Prior art needs to be from before Feb 4, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google Patent Page for US20120203457 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Systems and methods for visualizing events together with points of interest on a map and routes there between**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Publication number**:	US20120203457 A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Publication type**:	Application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Application number**:	US 13/366,964&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Publication date**:	Aug 9, 2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Filing date**:	Feb 6, 2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Priority date**:	Feb 4, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Inventors**:	Richard P. CASEY, Sandipsinh G. Ghummad&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Original Assignee**:	The Casey Group&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ABSTRACT:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This disclosure relates to providing systems and methods for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; visualizing events together with points of interest on a map and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; routes there between. The disclosure includes a data processing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparatus having a display and a processor, where the processor is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; configured to run a module stored in memory. The module is configured&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to obtain event information associated with a plurality of events, to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain a schedule of the plurality of events, to obtain travel routes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between at least two consecutive events of the schedule, and to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; instruct the display to display the travel routes between the at least&#xD;&#xA;&gt; two consecutive events of the schedule on a map. The module can be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; further configured to obtain location information on a plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; points of interest (POIs), to obtain tag information associated with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the plurality of POIs from at least one directory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a processor, in communication with the one or more interfaces, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; configured to run a module stored in memory that is configured to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain event information associated with a plurality of events,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein the event information includes a start time for one of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plurality of events, to obtain travel routes between at least two&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consecutive events, and to instruct the display to display the travel&#xD;&#xA;&gt; routes between the at least two consecutive events on a map.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 11**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: receiving event information associated with a&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plurality of events;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving event information associated with a plurality of events;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtaining a schedule of the plurality of events, wherein the schedule&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is based on the event information associated with the plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; events; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtaining travel routes between at least two consecutive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; events; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and displaying the travel routes on a map.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 15**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An apparatus comprising: one or more interfaces configured to provide&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; communication with a computing device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a processor, in communication with the one or more interfaces, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; configured to run a module stored in memory that is configured to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receive a schedule request from the computing device, the schedule&#xD;&#xA;&gt; request including event information associated with a plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; events, the event information including a start time and an end time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for a schedule of the plurality of events, to obtain distance&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information between at least one pair of the plurality of events, to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; determine the schedule of the plurality of events based on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; distance information, and the start time and the end time for the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; schedule, and to provide a schedule response to the computing device,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the schedule response including the schedule of the plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; events.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 21**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A data processing apparatus comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a display; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a processor configured to run a module stored in memory that is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; configured to obtain location information of a first point of interest&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (POI), to obtain tag information associated with the first POI from a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; directory, to instruct the display to display the first POI on a map,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and to instruct the display to display a portion of the tag&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information associated with the first POI, wherein the portion of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tag information is determined based on the directory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120203457?dq=casey%20group&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=tCQbVOKQEYqtyASn54CADw&amp;ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22718" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10251" RevisionGUID="83e849f0-913e-40ad-8e06-c33e74754c6f" CreationDate="2014-09-18T23:53:09.020" UserId="11551" Text="Prior art request for US20120203457 A1 - Showing a calendar on a map with route optimization between points" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22719" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10251" RevisionGUID="83e849f0-913e-40ad-8e06-c33e74754c6f" CreationDate="2014-09-18T23:53:09.020" UserId="11551" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20120203457&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10252" RevisionGUID="fcf55ae2-c489-4c20-987e-7206b626a009" CreationDate="2014-09-19T04:00:31.377" UserId="11553" Text="Go to &quot;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/&quot; and find the application, and find the drawings under &quot;Mosaics&quot;(there are two pages of drawings).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure is it acceptable to provide a direct link in Ask patents, otherwise I could provide the direct link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;:-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10253" RevisionGUID="676b603b-37fe-4111-9624-46ca878d9dc4" CreationDate="2014-09-19T09:28:12.530" UserId="11553" Text="For more information about patents, copyrights, tradmarks please visit &quot;http://www.invntree.com/blog&quot; and &quot;http://www.invntree.com&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You do not want to get permission to use that particular figure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a patent application texts, drawings and other contents are not Copyright protected unless a &quot;Copyright or mask work protection notice is added&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information please go through &quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_on_the_content_of_patents_and_in_the_context_of_patent_prosecution#cite_note-2&quot;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html#sect608.01v&quot; -- see 37 C.F.R. 1.84   Standards for drawings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10253" RevisionGUID="e6496175-b3bc-47f1-b85b-04c11a5b5c0f" CreationDate="2014-09-19T09:42:50.153" UserId="11553" Comment="deleted 301 characters in body" Text="You need not obtain permission to use the figure as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_on_the_content_of_patents_and_in_the_context_of_patent_prosecution#cite_note-2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may visit the below link to know more about patent drawings:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/patent-drawings-and-their-importance-in-a-patent-specification" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10254" RevisionGUID="89036fa6-4523-4b6c-933e-f05631bd66ce" CreationDate="2014-09-19T09:46:46.420" UserId="11555" Text="I am from South Africa, and I want to import something to the markets here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found a patent on it, but not sure if it applies to the international market, it sure does not look like it.I could not find any documentations that with regards to an international patent.&#xD;&#xA;Patent number is US20020187719 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I certainly do not want to be guilty of infringment....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know they have an international trademark... but If I change the name, can I import/manufacture it here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking forward to a response. :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22724" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10254" RevisionGUID="89036fa6-4523-4b6c-933e-f05631bd66ce" CreationDate="2014-09-19T09:46:46.420" UserId="11555" Text="No international patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22725" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10254" RevisionGUID="89036fa6-4523-4b6c-933e-f05631bd66ce" CreationDate="2014-09-19T09:46:46.420" UserId="11555" Text="&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10255" RevisionGUID="a38c1e48-65da-4838-92fa-79aacac8981d" CreationDate="2014-09-19T11:01:38.260" UserId="11543" Text="An invention, as long as it is capable of being made or used in an industry, or, in other words has/satisfies “utility”, is considered useful, irrespective of whether the results delivered by it is poor in terms of quality. &#xD;&#xA;“Utility” or “Industrial Applicability” is one of the requirements of patentability. While reviewing a patent application, the Examiner looks at whether the disclosed subject matter, is capable of being made or used in an industry, irrespective of the quality of outcome. &#xD;&#xA;You can refer to the links below for more information on patentability requirements and non patentable subject matter under Indian Patent Act.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/what-can-be-patented-and-what-cannot-be-patented&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/how-can-i-find-out-whether-my-invention-patentable&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10256" RevisionGUID="de8b9fbc-8900-4908-a987-dd4728c75227" CreationDate="2014-09-19T15:20:40.007" UserId="998" Text="The US patent statute requires that an invention be &quot;useful.&quot; 35 U.S.C. 101. Under the law, an inveention's utility must be &quot;specific, substantial, and credible&quot; and an invention lacking utility cannot be patented. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a matter of practice, the utility doctrine is applied quite differently depending upon the context.  For example, the US Patent Office requires evidence that a new pharmaceutical will work for its intended purpose rather than simply trusting the patent applicants claims that it works. On the other hand, the Patent Office's general practice has been to trust the applicant that the invention would actually work for its intended purpose.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result then is that for software, the USPTO simply assumes utility in the vast majority of cases. I should say here that I expect that this will change over the next decade, but that is a long horizon. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10257" RevisionGUID="3379dc62-43ea-44a1-9195-bdb16a32e8b7" CreationDate="2014-09-19T15:35:49.530" UserId="998" Text="I asked for some clarification above.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to the particular patent application above, the invention has been patented in the US as [Patent No. 6666740][1]. The inventor does not appear to have obtained any patents outside of the US. [Link to ESPACE FAMILY SEARCH][2]. You won't be infringing the US patent as long as you don't make/use/sell/import any of the toys into the US. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if you are planning to make a direct knock-off version of an existing product. But, if so, there may also be some legal issues stemming from trademark and counterfeiting law. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com.ar/patents/US6666740&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?compact=false&amp;ST=singleline&amp;query=09264294&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;DB=worldwide.espacenet.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10258" RevisionGUID="890e36eb-b004-4d93-862f-e506cfdb1717" CreationDate="2014-09-19T15:46:22.107" UserId="998" Text="The application that you cited is owned by IBM but was been abandoned after the USPTO Examiner identified prior art that would have blocked the patenting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To find this information, I looked up the application docket (File history) using the USPTO's system known as PAIR: [http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10259" RevisionGUID="bba9429e-ff84-449f-bea0-866950b24b99" CreationDate="2014-09-19T16:10:29.137" UserId="998" Text="Design law varies significantly from country to country and so it is impossible to answer this question with any precision.  Design rights are generally based upon the look and feel of a product and in many countries the question considers whether a consumer would be confused about the origin of the product. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It generally works to avoid infringing another's design patent if you either: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Base your design on prior art that came before your competitor's design.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Modify your design so the difference between your product and the design right are readily apparent to consumers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10261" RevisionGUID="a00925e0-6fa7-41bf-92dc-d99b8475708b" CreationDate="2014-09-21T01:58:13.123" UserId="11560" Text="in the patent application for chinese patent CN1470762 I found the following note:  &#xD;&#xA;Sep 3, 2008	C02	Deemed withdrawal of patent application after publication (patent law 2001)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need to know what that means and what effect it has on other patents including as prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22739" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10261" RevisionGUID="a00925e0-6fa7-41bf-92dc-d99b8475708b" CreationDate="2014-09-21T01:58:13.123" UserId="11560" Text="this patent has a legal action that I need explained" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22740" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10261" RevisionGUID="a00925e0-6fa7-41bf-92dc-d99b8475708b" CreationDate="2014-09-21T01:58:13.123" UserId="11560" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10262" RevisionGUID="6b991455-8cc1-42a4-ac4c-b4cb33461073" CreationDate="2014-09-21T05:12:23.123" UserId="758" Text="###The law&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This decision was about section 101 of the patent law, which reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Interpretation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The courts have read this is excluding completely abstract ideas, such as mathematical formulas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Court has long held that §101, which defines the subject matter eligible for patent protection, contains an implicit exception for ‘ “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.’ ”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prime example for years has been Einstein's discovery of the equation E=mc&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. Clearly this was new and useful, but even though various processes, machines, compositions of matter (etc.) have *stemmed* from it, it's not any of those in itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One final point about interpretation: the courts are required to treat each section of the law as defining unique requirements, so they *can't* (for example) treat §101 as just re-stating the same requirements as §102, 103 and/or 112. The court *can't* just analyze the case based upon §102, 103 and 112. If there's any way to do so at all, they *have* to interpret the law in a way that gives real meaning to §101 (and more generally, to every section of every law they deal with).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Previous rules/rulings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To deal with the question of whether something should be excluded for this reason, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit *had* devised a &quot;specific machine or transformation of matter&quot; test, that said for something to qualify as patentable, something had to be related to either a specific machine, or to some transformation of matter (e.g., a chemical process to produce a new compound). On that basis, they had ruled that a patent in a previous case was not allowed, because it described only a business method (for hedging in a market) without describing it as being carried out by any particular machine (or involving any transformation of matter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That case was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the rule the CAFC had formulated was a useful *indicator* of whether something could be patented, but that it could *not* be used as an absolute or final determination. In the end, however, they agreed that the patent in question should not be allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Current Case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current case is *somewhat* similar. The patent describes a way of using a third party escrow service (or similar) to facilitate a transaction between businesses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The CAFC concluded that the patent wasn't valid--but there was a great deal of divergence in the decision. The ruling has (if memory serves--it's been a while since I read it) something like 4 or 5 separate opinions given, and while the majority did agree that the patent should be found invalid, that was nearly the only point on which even that many agreed. Some of the dissenting opinions were that some of the claims should be rejected, and others accepted. Chief Judge Rader opined that all the claims should be accepted (and included a bit of reminiscing about &quot;when in doubt, read the statute&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Predictably, the case was then appealed to the Supreme Court. They (again) agreed with the decision the CAFC had reached: that the patent should not be allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Rationale for the Decision&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Supreme Court devised a &quot;framework&quot; within which to determine this difference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In applying the §101 exception, this Court must distinguish patents that claim the “ ‘buildin[g] block[s]’ ” of human ingenuity, which are ineligible for patent protection, from those that integrate the building blocks into something more, thereby qualifying for patent protection. [citations elided]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then they formulated two steps to carry out to make the determination:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Using this framework, the Court must first determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. If so, the Court then asks whether the claim’s elements, considered both individually and “as an ordered combination,” “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. [citation elided]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, they concluded that in this case, the claim itself was directed to using an escrow to facilitate a transaction, and that about all that was added (and all that directed it to something like a machine, such as the statute cites) was basically: &quot;and do that on a computer.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, at least as stated by the SCOTUS, the conclusion was basically that taking something that wasn't patent-eligible otherwise, and saying: &quot;and do that on a computer&quot; shouldn't qualify as making it patent eligible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, I'd say it changes very little at all. The &quot;bright line&quot; rules the CAFC had attempted to formulate had already been been thrown out, leaving a fair amount of uncertainty about what really is or isn't patentable. This decision leaves quite a bit of uncertainty in the area--but it doesn't really seem to make it a whole lot more or less certain than it already had been." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10262" RevisionGUID="52dfcccd-5a9a-4f38-aaea-7b74d9205dda" CreationDate="2014-09-21T05:18:24.627" UserId="758" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="###The law&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This decision was about section 101 of the patent law, which reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Interpretation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The courts have read this is excluding completely abstract ideas, such as mathematical formulas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Court has long held that §101, which defines the subject matter eligible for patent protection, contains an implicit exception for ‘ “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.’ ”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prime example for years has been Einstein's discovery of the equation E=mc&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. Clearly this was new and useful, but even though various processes, machines, compositions of matter (etc.) have *stemmed* from it, it's not any of those in itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One final point about interpretation: the courts are required to treat each section of the law as defining unique requirements, so they *can't* (for example) treat §101 as just re-stating the same requirements as §102, 103 and/or 112. The court *can't* just analyze the case based upon §102, 103 and 112. If there's any way to do so at all, they *have* to interpret the law in a way that gives real meaning to §101 (and more generally, to every section of every law they deal with).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Previous rules/rulings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To deal with the question of whether something should be excluded for this reason, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit *had* devised a &quot;specific machine or transformation of matter&quot; test, that said for something to qualify as patentable, something had to be related to either a specific machine, or to some transformation of matter (e.g., a chemical process to produce a new compound). On that basis, they had ruled that a patent in a previous case was not allowed, because it described only a business method (for hedging in a market) without describing it as being carried out by any particular machine (or involving any transformation of matter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That case was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the rule the CAFC had formulated was a useful *indicator* of whether something could be patented, but that it could *not* be used as an absolute or final determination. In the end, however, they agreed that the patent in question should not be allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Current Case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current case is *somewhat* similar. The patent describes a way of using a third party escrow service (or similar) to facilitate a transaction between businesses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The CAFC concluded that the patent wasn't valid--but there was a great deal of divergence in the decision. The ruling has (if memory serves--it's been a while since I read it) something like 4 or 5 separate opinions given, and while the majority did agree that the patent should be found invalid, that was nearly the only point on which even that many agreed. Some of the dissenting opinions were that some of the claims should be rejected, and others accepted. Chief Judge Rader opined that all the claims should be accepted (and included a bit of reminiscing about &quot;when in doubt, read the statute&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Predictably, the case was then appealed to the Supreme Court. They (again) agreed with the decision the CAFC had reached: that the patent should not be allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Rationale for the Decision&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Supreme Court devised a &quot;framework&quot; within which to determine what should or shouldn't be allowed under §101:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In applying the §101 exception, this Court must distinguish patents that claim the “ ‘buildin[g] block[s]’ ” of human ingenuity, which are ineligible for patent protection, from those that integrate the building blocks into something more, thereby qualifying for patent protection. [citations elided]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then they formulated two steps to carry out to make the determination:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Using this framework, the Court must first determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. If so, the Court then asks whether the claim’s elements, considered both individually and “as an ordered combination,” “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. [citation elided]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, they concluded that in this case, the claim itself was directed to using an escrow to facilitate a transaction, and that about all that was added (and all that directed it to something like a machine, such as the statute cites) was basically: &quot;and do that on a computer.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, at least as stated by the SCOTUS, the conclusion was basically that taking something that wasn't patent-eligible otherwise, and saying: &quot;and do that on a computer&quot; shouldn't qualify as making it patent eligible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, I'd say it changes very little at all. The &quot;bright line&quot; rules the CAFC had attempted to formulate had already been been thrown out, leaving a fair amount of uncertainty about what really is or isn't patentable. This decision leaves quite a bit of uncertainty in the area--but it doesn't really seem to make it a whole lot more or less certain than it already had been." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10263" RevisionGUID="8d299376-e6b3-4c8f-bc30-59c0573e3ff6" CreationDate="2014-09-21T08:43:19.500" UserId="11561" Text="Which is the first country to file patent on DIRECTLY COMPRESSIBLE GRANULAR MICROCRYSTALLINE CELLULOSE BASED EXCIPIENT, MANUFACTURING PROCESS AND USE THEREOF &#xD;&#xA;ie. patent no. EP2376067 and whether the patent is granted or not..??" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22744" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10263" RevisionGUID="8d299376-e6b3-4c8f-bc30-59c0573e3ff6" CreationDate="2014-09-21T08:43:19.500" UserId="11561" Text="First country to file patent EP2376067" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22745" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10263" RevisionGUID="8d299376-e6b3-4c8f-bc30-59c0573e3ff6" CreationDate="2014-09-21T08:43:19.500" UserId="11561" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22746" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10263" RevisionGUID="b3569c32-e42e-4076-b752-d492e5a61ed7" CreationDate="2014-09-21T10:59:00.723" UserId="1193" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;ep2376067&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10265" RevisionGUID="e9d6c073-8a89-4e9f-99eb-c20adbf42fff" CreationDate="2014-09-21T18:42:58.713" UserId="3076" Text="It looks like the first filing was a US provisional application 61/116,025	filed 19.11.2008. That was followed by a PCT application with Filing Date:	16.11.2009 published as WO/2010/059534 on	27.05.2010. On the same day, Nov 16, 2009, a US application published as US20110288146 was filed. Later, the national stage  in several countries was entered.  I do not see that any have issued as patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/yfDJ8.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10266" RevisionGUID="38208c9e-4d80-4ad7-99d7-be686aa74f81" CreationDate="2014-09-21T18:46:34.050" UserId="1193" Text="If the patent have been published it can be used a prior art, regardless of the status of the application.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Filing patents without follow up is sometime done as a defensive measure -- See also the answers [here][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/10216/patent-application-as-defensive-disclosure" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10253" RevisionGUID="93c2fa24-f8b8-484e-a77e-c85cf6341f36" CreationDate="2014-09-21T18:51:07.843" UserId="1193" Comment="added 140 characters in body" Text="You need not obtain permission to use the figure as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_on_the_content_of_patents_and_in_the_context_of_patent_prosecution#cite_note-2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, see answers to this previous question; http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/44/are-text-and-images-in-the-patent-copyrighted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may visit the below link to know more about patent drawings:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/patent-drawings-and-their-importance-in-a-patent-specification" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10250" RevisionGUID="cd76e5db-9ecd-4c26-810e-2cc281c3c703" CreationDate="2014-09-21T18:51:38.427" UserId="1193" Comment="deleted 28 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I would like to get permission for reusing Figure 26 of the United States Patent US20130256198, &quot;Magnetic separation of electrochemical cell materials&quot;, in my review paper and thesis, with slight modifications. This paper is a part of my thesis. My review paper will be submitted to the Journal of Applied Electrochemistry soon. The title of my paper is “Recycling of Graphite Anodes for the Next Generation of Lithium Ion Batteries”. Dr. Gerardine G. Botte, professor at Ohio University, is the corresponding author of this journal article. Please advice me in this regard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22754" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10250" RevisionGUID="cd76e5db-9ecd-4c26-810e-2cc281c3c703" CreationDate="2014-09-21T18:51:38.427" UserId="1193" Comment="deleted 28 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;us20130256198&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10267" RevisionGUID="0b829594-6b11-4c6f-b43d-cfbc524516da" CreationDate="2014-09-21T23:18:21.133" UserId="11565" Text="I am going to write an application and send it to WIPO, because I want patent coverage in different countries, including United States.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to discover what page layout my patent specification should have. As I see there are two main types of layouts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. One column (very close to LaTeX `uspatent` style layout) like this one: http://www.lens.org/images/patent/US/6067383/A/US_6067383_A.pdf&#xD;&#xA;![one column layout][1]&#xD;&#xA; 2. Two column layout, like this one: http://www.lens.org/images/patent/WO/1998047290/A1/WO_1998_047290_A1.pdf&#xD;&#xA;![two column layout][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What layout should I prefer and where I may found detailed page layout and typography requirements for patent specification?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/R5ZWj.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/UtEKG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22756" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10267" RevisionGUID="0b829594-6b11-4c6f-b43d-cfbc524516da" CreationDate="2014-09-21T23:18:21.133" UserId="11565" Text="Patent specification page layout" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22757" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10267" RevisionGUID="0b829594-6b11-4c6f-b43d-cfbc524516da" CreationDate="2014-09-21T23:18:21.133" UserId="11565" Text="&lt;specification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10268" RevisionGUID="9a187f37-b57c-484d-ac1e-4656eddd41ea" CreationDate="2014-09-22T01:30:31.223" UserId="11566" Text="Anyway i'm the  one who did the McGee patent and I know Chicago lock Co. tried to  patent it after I did.Also cam lock from over seas came to  america and started making the  lock..I also did two patents in one,to try and  block this  type of  action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;McGee" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10269" RevisionGUID="5555c506-0670-4c4b-ab17-ad6d19156b9d" CreationDate="2014-09-22T01:36:38.777" UserId="11567" Text="This blog post says that this patent has now been filed: http://labs.hybris.com/patent-pending/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I view the patent on a database anywhere? I'm going to attempt to look for prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22760" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10269" RevisionGUID="5555c506-0670-4c4b-ab17-ad6d19156b9d" CreationDate="2014-09-22T01:36:38.777" UserId="11567" Text="Where can I view this patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22761" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10269" RevisionGUID="5555c506-0670-4c4b-ab17-ad6d19156b9d" CreationDate="2014-09-22T01:36:38.777" UserId="11567" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10270" RevisionGUID="b55c38c5-c3f3-425d-a8a6-96a01b205bf8" CreationDate="2014-09-22T04:04:29.290" UserId="11568" Text="Phrased another way, how weighted/important are the prior arts when a patent application is filed? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone, or an internal search report shows many possible reference citations (is this the same thing?) is there any way to gauge the future lifecycle of said patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd also welcome any steering into/away from correct subjects here if I'm way off with this line of questioning...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22764" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10270" RevisionGUID="b55c38c5-c3f3-425d-a8a6-96a01b205bf8" CreationDate="2014-09-22T04:04:29.290" UserId="11568" Text="Can a patent still be granted with many prior arts (ref citatations/isr etc )?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22765" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10270" RevisionGUID="b55c38c5-c3f3-425d-a8a6-96a01b205bf8" CreationDate="2014-09-22T04:04:29.290" UserId="11568" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10272" RevisionGUID="a36118c6-cfa5-4008-81ef-edbbeb4a0b58" CreationDate="2014-09-22T05:01:32.797" UserId="11569" Text="If I look at claim 4, is this not trivial?&#xD;&#xA;In my middle school days, I build a wireless FM transmitter transmitting stereo audio, and I had two receivers connecting to two different speakers… but using only one of stereo channel in each of those ….. I just do not understand what is trivial and what is not in a patent. A person familiar with technology should find this concept trivial. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22768" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10272" RevisionGUID="a36118c6-cfa5-4008-81ef-edbbeb4a0b58" CreationDate="2014-09-22T05:01:32.797" UserId="11569" Text="How do we know if claims are nontrivial" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22769" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10272" RevisionGUID="a36118c6-cfa5-4008-81ef-edbbeb4a0b58" CreationDate="2014-09-22T05:01:32.797" UserId="11569" Text="&lt;us8768252&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10274" RevisionGUID="d083901f-9930-4145-9343-4e4d0aa9cefe" CreationDate="2014-09-23T01:34:46.470" UserId="3076" Text="The inventors, patent practitioners and everyone else involved in the project of trying to get a U.S. patent are under a duty of disclosure to the USPTO of everything they know of that might form the core of a rejection. There is no requirement to do a search - it is what you know. The duty to disclose exists from the day of filing until the patent goes abandoned or is issued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact criteria of what to send in and what not to send in is not 100% clear. Until a couple of years ago patents were being invalidated by courts because something wasn't sent in that would not have made any difference if it had been sent it. Under that threat, people sent in anything they knew of that was remotely relevant. The patent office themselves would rather only get the on-target ones to make their lives easier. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then the examiner does one or more searches. All of the inventor supplied and examiner found references are listed on the front of a patent as things that were considered in the granting of the patent. Of course if any single reference or combination of references made for a rejection that was not overcome, then the no patent issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may not be entirely logical but when I see dozens of references on the front page of a patent I start thinking it must be solid because of the volume of things that didn't knock it out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22773" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10272" RevisionGUID="b3790415-a5fa-4bde-bc54-65ced3f2b95c" CreationDate="2014-09-23T01:39:24.907" UserId="3076" Comment="added claim 1" Text="If I look at claim 4, is this not trivial?&#xD;&#xA;In my middle school days, I build a wireless FM transmitter transmitting stereo audio, and I had two receivers connecting to two different speakers… but using only one of stereo channel in each of those ….. I just do not understand what is trivial and what is not in a patent. A person familiar with technology should find this concept trivial. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDITED&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1. A wireless audio system configured to receive audio information wirelessly transmitted by an audio source, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; a first wireless transceiver, that is configured to establish a bidirectional secondary wireless link with the audio source for receiving and acknowledging receipt of the audio information;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a second wireless transceiver, wherein said first and second wireless transceivers are configured to communicate with each other via a primary wireless link; and&#xD;&#xA;wherein said first wireless transceiver is configured to communicate at least one communication parameter to said second wireless transceiver via said primary wireless link, wherein the communication parameter is to enable said second wireless transceiver to establish unidirectional wireless communication with said audio source in order to receive the audio information transmitted by said audio source via said secondary wireless link." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10275" RevisionGUID="308420cb-c07f-4b1b-88fe-4604e7c96b9a" CreationDate="2014-09-23T01:59:07.837" UserId="3076" Text="Dependent claims like claim 4 that reference a previous claim inherit all of the limitations of the referenced chain of claims. In this case it is just to independent claim 1. That means that by definition claim 4 is narrower than claim 1. If claim 4 is seen as too broad, claim 1 is broader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 requires the first receiver to have a *bidirectional* link with the audio source and the first receiver to also communicate over a *different wireless link* with a second receiver. Over that channel the *first receiver tells the second receiver* how to get a unidirectional broadcast of the audio from the audio source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea if this was novel and non obvious on the day in 2010 when its priority document was filed. Luckily the patent system is open. Anyone can go the the USPTO Public PAIR web portal and look up the entire history of the paperwork back and forth between Apple and the patent office. That lets the public see what the examiner came up as the closest reference and how the applicant argued or amended or both to get around it. To really get to the bottom of your question you could do that research for this patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10261" RevisionGUID="d027d4fc-5be9-42b9-865f-174cc6a29b06" CreationDate="2014-09-23T02:00:24.267" UserId="8717" Comment="Added [cn1470762] tag, improved capitalization" Text="In the patent application for Chinese patent CN1470762 I found the following note:  &#xD;&#xA;Sep 3, 2008	C02	Deemed withdrawal of patent application after publication (patent law 2001)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need to know what that means and what effect it has on other patents including as prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22776" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10261" RevisionGUID="d027d4fc-5be9-42b9-865f-174cc6a29b06" CreationDate="2014-09-23T02:00:24.267" UserId="8717" Comment="Added [cn1470762] tag, improved capitalization" Text="This patent has a legal action that I need explained" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22777" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10261" RevisionGUID="d027d4fc-5be9-42b9-865f-174cc6a29b06" CreationDate="2014-09-23T02:00:24.267" UserId="8717" Comment="Added [cn1470762] tag, improved capitalization" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;cn1470762&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22778" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10261" RevisionGUID="d027d4fc-5be9-42b9-865f-174cc6a29b06" CreationDate="2014-09-23T02:00:24.267" Comment="Proposed by 8717 approved by 1193, 3076 edit id of 1598" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10254" RevisionGUID="d6bba239-e876-481e-be61-f7e16a16483d" CreationDate="2014-09-23T02:00:32.367" UserId="8717" Comment="Edited tags, removed thanks (see http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/behavior)" Text="I am from South Africa, and I want to import something to the markets here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found a patent on it, but not sure if it applies to the international market, it sure does not look like it.I could not find any documentations that with regards to an international patent.&#xD;&#xA;Patent number is US20020187719 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I certainly do not want to be guilty of infringment....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know they have an international trademark... but If I change the name, can I import/manufacture it here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22780" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10254" RevisionGUID="d6bba239-e876-481e-be61-f7e16a16483d" CreationDate="2014-09-23T02:00:32.367" UserId="8717" Comment="Edited tags, removed thanks (see http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/behavior)" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;us20020187719&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22781" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10254" RevisionGUID="d6bba239-e876-481e-be61-f7e16a16483d" CreationDate="2014-09-23T02:00:32.367" Comment="Proposed by 8717 approved by 1193, 3076 edit id of 1599" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10276" RevisionGUID="bd11101f-2d22-4b57-9221-21c641853937" CreationDate="2014-09-23T02:09:26.280" UserId="3076" Text="The easiest to use patent database is google/patents. A little harder but more powerful is google patents advanced search. You could search for key words that you expect to be in the application. It might have been filed in the name of that company or some principals in that company may be listed as inventors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they have only filed a provisional application it will not be visible. A non-provisional application might not be visible for 18 months from filing. If they state to the USPTO  they are not patenting out of the country they could have elected to have it not be visible until the day it issues - if it issues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10277" RevisionGUID="64ae0e4e-d6a5-4191-a4c2-910e220ee986" CreationDate="2014-09-23T02:17:05.777" UserId="3076" Text="Do not use the second format. That is the way the U.S. patent office formats it when they print it, not the way any patent office wants to get it from you.  WIPO's format requirements are in the PCT Applicant's Guide. I am having trouble pasting in the URL but it comes up on a google search. It is written in a very bureaucratic manner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22785" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10250" RevisionGUID="2d30043f-467e-4a06-bc84-e00c947c29e4" CreationDate="2014-09-23T14:41:05.287" UserId="1" Comment="edited title" Text="How to get Copyright permission for a figure in a patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10278" RevisionGUID="46884e22-36cf-4ad3-bdf5-b53d32b7308d" CreationDate="2014-09-23T22:23:03.350" UserId="11574" Text="I think my father is the inventor of patent number 3605913 Dust suppressor for rotary drills.. he passed away in 1985.. Id like to know more .. or how can I find more info ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22791" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10278" RevisionGUID="46884e22-36cf-4ad3-bdf5-b53d32b7308d" CreationDate="2014-09-23T22:23:03.350" UserId="11574" Text="patent number 3605913 Dust suppressor for rotary drills" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22792" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10278" RevisionGUID="46884e22-36cf-4ad3-bdf5-b53d32b7308d" CreationDate="2014-09-23T22:23:03.350" UserId="11574" Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22793" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10278" RevisionGUID="5e303520-dc1e-48d7-a4ac-ccf00772c798" CreationDate="2014-09-23T23:22:13.197" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;us3605913&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10279" RevisionGUID="4febf6bc-d1f9-482c-bdcc-35c2f86ed419" CreationDate="2014-09-23T23:27:02.120" UserId="3076" Text="You can look it up at google/patents. I put the patent number in the tag region of your question and that causes a link to come up in the right column here. From there you can download a pdf of the patent. If you want to know more there is a way to order the &quot;file wrapper&quot; from the USPTO or other companies that offer that service. It can get expensive depending on its length. A file wrapper contains copies of all of the back and forth between the applicant and the USPTO." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10281" RevisionGUID="9698696c-ef1e-4abf-9cc3-e23032bcf0a4" CreationDate="2014-09-24T07:13:37.107" UserId="11575" Text="Aren't bunch of [claims][1] related to javascript onsubmit/onchange functionality, and normal web communication? It's just ridiculous. Also, prior art cites plain recipe search sites, but not recipes by ingredients sites, like cocktailbuilder.com. Also, using phone to interact with communication, and voice? Are these things new art??? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20080300993" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22799" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10281" RevisionGUID="9698696c-ef1e-4abf-9cc3-e23032bcf0a4" CreationDate="2014-09-24T07:13:37.107" UserId="11575" Text="Computerized method and system for recipe presentation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22800" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10281" RevisionGUID="9698696c-ef1e-4abf-9cc3-e23032bcf0a4" CreationDate="2014-09-24T07:13:37.107" UserId="11575" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;network&gt;&lt;audio&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10282" RevisionGUID="975a11dc-005e-45f0-af1f-1296e1a2ada5" CreationDate="2014-09-24T16:26:05.147" UserId="5317" Text="Is is possible to write a decent patent using only flow charts to describe a novel method that can be incorporated into larger software systems?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22802" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10282" RevisionGUID="975a11dc-005e-45f0-af1f-1296e1a2ada5" CreationDate="2014-09-24T16:26:05.147" UserId="5317" Text="Patenting a method using just flow charts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22803" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10282" RevisionGUID="975a11dc-005e-45f0-af1f-1296e1a2ada5" CreationDate="2014-09-24T16:26:05.147" UserId="5317" Text="&lt;method&gt;&lt;program-flow&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10282" RevisionGUID="8abba2ee-8982-41d5-ac86-e85c8dcd908c" CreationDate="2014-09-24T16:59:37.757" UserId="5317" Comment="Emphasizing the point of using only flow charts in the patent figures." Text="Is is possible to write a decent patent using &quot;only flow charts&quot; to describe a novel method that can be incorporated into larger software systems?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10283" RevisionGUID="add50ebe-e996-4458-a284-ef69ae73ab65" CreationDate="2014-09-24T18:18:22.520" UserId="11578" Text="Many companies such as Climator &quot;http://www.climator.com/files/products/climsel-c58.pdf&quot; resolve the supper cooling, conductivity, separation and other problems of sodium acetate trihydrate within passed 20 years. Why this patent &quot;Publication number	CN103666378 A&quot; can certified?   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22806" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10283" RevisionGUID="add50ebe-e996-4458-a284-ef69ae73ab65" CreationDate="2014-09-24T18:18:22.520" UserId="11578" Text="Why an old material can certified as a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22807" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10283" RevisionGUID="add50ebe-e996-4458-a284-ef69ae73ab65" CreationDate="2014-09-24T18:18:22.520" UserId="11578" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10284" RevisionGUID="32590fa2-ffb6-4f11-b4cc-7df9535f6cfd" CreationDate="2014-09-24T19:07:56.233" UserId="3076" Text="That document CN103666378 A is patent application submitted to China's patent office. The A at the end, by international convention, means it is a *publication of an application*. That document is *not* a granted patent. From its page at google/patents (reachable by the link on the right) it looks like it is the only publication so far." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22809" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10283" RevisionGUID="0c44aa4e-1b50-423d-a3d4-4d96abd94a8f" CreationDate="2014-09-24T19:08:12.433" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;cn103666378&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10285" RevisionGUID="866995e5-834f-4b49-8eb5-7b0e2d5f099d" CreationDate="2014-09-24T19:11:30.837" UserId="3076" Text="In the U.S. we have something called the &quot;written description requirement&quot;, so no. In general the patent application needs to teach &quot;how to make and use&quot; the invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10286" RevisionGUID="b25bbdfe-e0a3-4ba5-ab31-3bbf0d1ff7f0" CreationDate="2014-09-24T21:35:28.573" UserId="11580" Text="A consistent and important element in all the independent claims is the &quot;data carrier&quot;.  Claims should be &quot;given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification&quot;, so we need to look to the specification regarding what the data carrier is.  While the term &quot;data carrier&quot; is not used specifically in the specification, we can understand that it is some type of standard barcode that can be read by a user device.  Given that this adds to any RFC 1034 standards used, it seems that the RFC 1034 standard may have narrowed the claims but does not invalidate any of the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To gain a deeper appreciation of the scope of the term &quot;data carrier&quot; you could also study the Image File Wrapper detailing the prosecution history with the USPTO." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22812" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10281" RevisionGUID="eff9db69-9d54-4a41-8da4-1c1ed4784dd9" CreationDate="2014-09-25T15:05:53.603" UserId="1193" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;network&gt;&lt;audio&gt;&lt;us20080300993&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10287" RevisionGUID="9d560238-38e7-442f-8dd8-c25553ee868f" CreationDate="2014-09-25T15:14:32.280" UserId="1193" Text="The patent-application looks like a description of an actual implementation of a cooking website. What he is trying to patent is not &quot;..javascript onsubmit/onchange functionality..&quot; but the functionality of the website as a whole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key here is that this is an &quot;application&quot; for a patent and it is not &quot;granted&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the USPTO [PAIR database][1] you can see the history of the examination of the application, which shows that it was initially rejected in 2009, and then finally abandoned in 2010 when the applicant failed to follow up on the initial rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence there is no patent grant of this application and there never will be a grant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/jNHoH.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10289" RevisionGUID="061105ec-1139-4689-8704-94ae1ab1abd7" CreationDate="2014-09-26T16:09:34.623" UserId="3418" Text="Just curious&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK, patent is only protected on the granting territory. If I patent an internet thing in USA, e.g web UI, does it get protected if other company uses it but sets its server outside of USA?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22823" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10289" RevisionGUID="061105ec-1139-4689-8704-94ae1ab1abd7" CreationDate="2014-09-26T16:09:34.623" UserId="3418" Text="Patent about internet tech, does territory count?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22824" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10289" RevisionGUID="061105ec-1139-4689-8704-94ae1ab1abd7" CreationDate="2014-09-26T16:09:34.623" UserId="3418" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;internet&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10290" RevisionGUID="2225e933-aba5-4fb6-b191-07244a34940d" CreationDate="2014-09-26T16:27:09.543" UserId="3418" Text="I want to file to USPTO, and I am foreign independent inventor (not American). My question is, do I need to prove micro entity status to uspto? If yes, then how?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22826" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10290" RevisionGUID="2225e933-aba5-4fb6-b191-07244a34940d" CreationDate="2014-09-26T16:27:09.543" UserId="3418" Text="Do I need to prove micro entity status to USPTO?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22827" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10290" RevisionGUID="2225e933-aba5-4fb6-b191-07244a34940d" CreationDate="2014-09-26T16:27:09.543" UserId="3418" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;micro-entity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22832" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="10251" RevisionGUID="d5a1e718-a47a-4eb2-b32d-aed8ed5dc566" CreationDate="2014-09-26T18:29:18.430" UserId="11551" Comment="28" />
  <row Id="22837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10293" RevisionGUID="4ecbbf40-8579-43d9-b644-704999758c3b" CreationDate="2014-09-27T20:44:22.380" UserId="11563" Text="A quick search found this URL&#xD;&#xA;http://wiki.ekiga.org/index.php/Fun_Numbers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It contains a specific sip number: sip:*266305@ekiga.net	Blueface Music (Ireland)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to be part of the Ekiga sip network . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can call the number to get streaming music.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar url can be found here: http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/Phone+Numbers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also contains a number to call and get music.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10295" RevisionGUID="bc57ab02-661d-495a-b687-eb87f6957c5f" CreationDate="2014-09-28T19:13:01.830" UserId="11594" Text="Can anyone tell me if there is a multiple Patent for more than one product but in the same field of work? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22841" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10295" RevisionGUID="bc57ab02-661d-495a-b687-eb87f6957c5f" CreationDate="2014-09-28T19:13:01.830" UserId="11594" Text="Patent for more than one product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22842" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10295" RevisionGUID="bc57ab02-661d-495a-b687-eb87f6957c5f" CreationDate="2014-09-28T19:13:01.830" UserId="11594" Text="&lt;multipal&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10297" RevisionGUID="d171388f-58e7-406e-b18c-5400bac51481" CreationDate="2014-09-29T01:17:59.100" UserId="11597" Text="My grandfather is the inventor. My late father and his son told me my grandfather sold the patent, but I don't see that someone else holds it. Could you tell me more about it? Thanks ahead of time. B. L. Lindsey&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;us3266443" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22847" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10297" RevisionGUID="d171388f-58e7-406e-b18c-5400bac51481" CreationDate="2014-09-29T01:17:59.100" UserId="11597" Text="Who has the rights this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22848" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10297" RevisionGUID="d171388f-58e7-406e-b18c-5400bac51481" CreationDate="2014-09-29T01:17:59.100" UserId="11597" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10298" RevisionGUID="761ff496-fdff-431c-8a8f-0aa1e3735434" CreationDate="2014-09-29T07:22:48.197" UserId="10011" Text="A single patent can (and does) have multiple claims, but it sounds like what you'd want is just multiple patents. In some cases, an examiner will instruct you to separate out your claims (or a claim, mostly likely if an inexperienced person drafts the application) into multiple patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, it just depends on what sort of coverage you want, and how diverse the &quot;products&quot; are. But a patent is on an invention, so the different aspects would have to be part of the same invention. No surprise, your best bet is probably to meet with a patent professional to decide which aspects are worth patenting, and how you might be able to handle that in an affordable way (assuming that's why you'd want to fit it all into one)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10299" RevisionGUID="2a7b6238-2ab3-4129-a98c-6d590054419c" CreationDate="2014-09-29T10:48:49.553" UserId="11542" Text="I am assuming that you intend to include a detailed description, and only flow charts as drawings. If this is case, then yes, only flow charts can be included as drawings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if you intend to include only flow charts, and not a written description, then it will not be acceptable.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Enablement of the proposed invention in the patent specification is one of the important criteria to be fulfilled for the proposed invention to be patentable. The patent specification has to enable a person having ordinary skills in the relevant field of the proposed invention to practice it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may want to refer the article at the below link to get insight on different criteria to be satisfied for an invention to be patentable&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/how-can-i-find-out-whether-my-invention-patentable" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10300" RevisionGUID="37eb1470-8fe0-4b46-a8f3-49548b574a86" CreationDate="2014-09-30T00:45:52.530" UserId="11602" Text="My deceased father was the inventor of the patent number US3601948 A. I want to know who is the rightful owner of this patent since he has past?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22853" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10300" RevisionGUID="37eb1470-8fe0-4b46-a8f3-49548b574a86" CreationDate="2014-09-30T00:45:52.530" UserId="11602" Text="Deceased father's patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22854" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10300" RevisionGUID="37eb1470-8fe0-4b46-a8f3-49548b574a86" CreationDate="2014-09-30T00:45:52.530" UserId="11602" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10301" RevisionGUID="e80c32c4-ef40-40bc-8d27-0821b5556209" CreationDate="2014-09-30T07:56:02.677" UserId="11604" Text="My condolences.  If your father did not assign (sell) his rights to the patent then it is his personal property and like anything else he owned becomes part of his estate.  Ownership of the patent rights passes to his heirs (or devisees if he had a will) according the laws of your state, like all his other personal property.  &#xD;&#xA;If he assigned the patent before it was issued this is usually but not always shown on the patent itself.  You can look up whether he ever assigned the patent at http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat.&#xD;&#xA;A patent is generally good for, has a term of 20 years from the earliest date of filing.  If you or yours have become the new owners be aware that patents need to have fees paid at intervals to keep them valid, roughly at years 3, 7 and 11 years from the date of issuance, otherwise the patent will expire early (terminate the patent rights early)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10303" RevisionGUID="4934b7cd-2b5f-4590-92d9-69008ad2cb87" CreationDate="2014-09-30T08:37:42.663" UserId="11604" Text="No but you do have to swear under penalty of perjury that you qualify as a micro-entity. You use a USPTO form to declare this status.  I am not certain but that could possibly jeopardize the validity of any patent that issues on the application later if you are untruthful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10304" RevisionGUID="9f56b52a-9246-4889-9505-fd9f299bb390" CreationDate="2014-09-30T10:42:22.543" UserId="3935" Text="This is perhaps oversimplified, but a playlist is just a list, yes? And if you manually update that list on the server side, and manual refresh on the client side, isn't that essentially what running a playlist is, except without automation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, there is nothing that I see in the claim that has anything to do with automation. It only suggests that a file is maintained and changed, and that then the file is requested, and when there are changes, a subsequent request would reflect those changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By that definition, then, a simple list that is updated would fulfill this definition, without any automation. The claimants original company was, in fact, not automated, but instead was hand assembled and delivered list of content on tape - the opposite of automation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the &lt; list &gt; tag was included in the 1993 HTML spec, would not then its mere existence preclude this particular patent from being valid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order for there to be something patentable, you'd have to *automate* that obvious and already included function. Without automation, you simply have the Internet and HTML as it was originally designed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I wrong with this argument?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22861" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="10304" RevisionGUID="b58cb15b-5e1d-4b94-b825-61e4dedb22aa" CreationDate="2014-09-30T10:42:22.543" UserId="3935" />
  <row Id="22868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10307" RevisionGUID="cda2bac8-b618-4656-a134-b6a6936d48c1" CreationDate="2014-09-30T17:50:52.670" UserId="11607" Text="I had designed a similar invention but, have found this patent already in force.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to have lapsed and been re-instated several times... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you determine the current status?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;JP" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22869" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10307" RevisionGUID="cda2bac8-b618-4656-a134-b6a6936d48c1" CreationDate="2014-09-30T17:50:52.670" UserId="11607" Text="Has this patent expired? 5,934,963" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22870" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10307" RevisionGUID="cda2bac8-b618-4656-a134-b6a6936d48c1" CreationDate="2014-09-30T17:50:52.670" UserId="11607" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10308" RevisionGUID="5b87ba62-3f37-407a-8ef7-bd4bc49e73f6" CreationDate="2014-09-30T20:19:59.063" UserId="10011" Text="No, the patent has not expired. It was filed for in 1998 so it will probably be active through most of 2018.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Patents [shows](https://www.google.com/patents/US5934963?dq=5,934,963&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=FQ8rVKnWDabRiwKqq4CwBA&amp;ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA) that it expired September 27, 2011 due to failure to pay a maintenance fee, but that a petition for late payment was granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your best bet is likely to look into differentiating your invention, or licensing that patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10309" RevisionGUID="74a812f3-5327-4e13-aa7b-cbde46f9d375" CreationDate="2014-09-30T20:33:43.607" UserId="11608" Text="In particular, there's a patent - http://www.google.com/patents/US5129654&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Filling year - 1991 (23 years old), fee status - paid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing mentioned about that patent being expired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could anybody explain, if the mentioned patent is expired?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22875" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10309" RevisionGUID="74a812f3-5327-4e13-aa7b-cbde46f9d375" CreationDate="2014-09-30T20:33:43.607" UserId="11608" Text="Can a patent be filled more than 20 years ago and still be valid at the present moment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22876" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10309" RevisionGUID="74a812f3-5327-4e13-aa7b-cbde46f9d375" CreationDate="2014-09-30T20:33:43.607" UserId="11608" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10297" RevisionGUID="2ca03258-c1df-497c-b8ed-cc2e3a5dd3f1" CreationDate="2014-09-30T20:42:48.037" UserId="10011" Comment="Add patent to tags, rm thanks" Text="My grandfather is the inventor. My late father and his son told me my grandfather sold the patent, but I don't see that someone else holds it. Could you tell me more about it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;us3266443" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22878" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10297" RevisionGUID="2ca03258-c1df-497c-b8ed-cc2e3a5dd3f1" CreationDate="2014-09-30T20:42:48.037" UserId="10011" Comment="Add patent to tags, rm thanks" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;us3266443&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22879" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10297" RevisionGUID="2ca03258-c1df-497c-b8ed-cc2e3a5dd3f1" CreationDate="2014-09-30T20:42:48.037" Comment="Proposed by 10011 approved by -1 edit id of 1602" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22880" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10297" RevisionGUID="b0db04df-2bbe-4051-a249-0c9d7c9c8b6c" CreationDate="2014-09-30T20:42:48.037" UserId="76" Comment="Add patent to tags, rm thanks" Text="My grandfather is the inventor. My late father and his son told me my grandfather sold the patent, but I don't see that someone else holds it. Could you tell me more about it?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22881" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10297" RevisionGUID="b0db04df-2bbe-4051-a249-0c9d7c9c8b6c" CreationDate="2014-09-30T20:42:48.037" UserId="76" Comment="Add patent to tags, rm thanks" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;us3266443&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10055" RevisionGUID="f21aa63d-d860-4b48-84b2-e60a2579a712" CreationDate="2014-09-30T20:44:51.867" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am considering filing a PPA on my own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. if PPAs are never examined, is it correct to assume that I get a &quot;patent pending&quot; on whatever (since it is not published at the time of filing) immediately after I submit the pdf files and pay the fee?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. suppose that I file at T=0, I disclose at T=+3 days, and I file for a non-provisional at T=+10 months, and somehow the PTO decides that the original PPA isn't valid enough to serve as a prior date, can I simply file another PPA or a new non-provisional immediately, given that I am still within one year of the disclosure, and that others haven't filed a similar application from T+3 days to t+10 months,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am asking this after reading the following two paragraphs, from USPTO and Wikiepdia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Beware that an applicant who publicly discloses his or her invention (e.g., publishes, uses, sells, or otherwise makes available to the public) during the 12 month provisional application pendency period may lose more than the benefit of the provisional application filing date if the 12 month provisional application pendency period expires before a corresponding nonprovisional application is filed. **Such an applicant may also lose the right to ever patent the invention. See 35 U.S.C. §§102(a)(1) and (b)(1)**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a non-provisional application is not expected to be filed within one year, and the patent is not otherwise barred by law, another provisional application may also be filed at any time and start another one-year period (but this does not work in all cases).[10] However, the original priority date of any expired provisional applications will be forfeited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rationale behind this question is somewhat a fail safe measure. That is, in the scenario that a PPA is invalidated, can I simply, within a few days, file a new application, thereby continuing to protect the invention even the initial PPA is wasted?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22883" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10055" RevisionGUID="f21aa63d-d860-4b48-84b2-e60a2579a712" CreationDate="2014-09-30T20:44:51.867" UserId="76" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;patent-pending&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;priority&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10310" RevisionGUID="d9b26aa3-fa63-42a1-b553-154ae37079d7" CreationDate="2014-09-30T20:52:25.087" UserId="76" Text="Lee John B is listed as inventor and original assignee of the patent. The inventor is the person who made the invention. The assignee is the person or organization that owns the economic rights to the patent — primarily the right to demand money if someone uses the invention. Assigneeship can be sold and is very often conferred to the employer by contract when the invention was made as part of a job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Economic rights last about 20 years, depending on the country and exact circumstances. This is called the [term](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent) of a patent. For this patent, the term expired in 1984, 20 years after filing. Therefore the invention has been in the public domain for 30 years. At this point, there are no rights to be had.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22886" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10300" RevisionGUID="aec221e2-3169-44ff-ab99-fe346db8ef80" CreationDate="2014-09-30T22:07:20.863" UserId="11610" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;us3601948a&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22887" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10300" RevisionGUID="aec221e2-3169-44ff-ab99-fe346db8ef80" CreationDate="2014-09-30T22:07:20.863" Comment="Proposed by 11610 approved by 1 edit id of 1604" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10036" RevisionGUID="a8544f31-b06a-4487-9e16-dc8ac10b70fe" CreationDate="2014-09-30T22:11:27.613" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="Looking at google images -- I see [a great deal of cycle frames](https://www.google.com/search?q=cycle+suspension&amp;tbm=isch) with similarities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However i'm not sufficient a domain expert to determin if it is exactly the same as described in the patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22889" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10036" RevisionGUID="a8544f31-b06a-4487-9e16-dc8ac10b70fe" CreationDate="2014-09-30T22:11:27.613" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1193 edit id of 1611" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10307" RevisionGUID="54d1144b-7a02-44e8-bdee-c549e58c76a1" CreationDate="2014-09-30T22:12:47.333" UserId="10011" Comment="rm thanks, tag patent number" Text="I had designed a similar invention but, have found this patent already in force.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to have lapsed and been re-instated several times... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you determine the current status?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22892" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10307" RevisionGUID="54d1144b-7a02-44e8-bdee-c549e58c76a1" CreationDate="2014-09-30T22:12:47.333" UserId="10011" Comment="rm thanks, tag patent number" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;us5934963a&gt;&lt;specific-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22893" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10307" RevisionGUID="54d1144b-7a02-44e8-bdee-c549e58c76a1" CreationDate="2014-09-30T22:12:47.333" Comment="Proposed by 10011 approved by 76, 1193 edit id of 1603" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22895" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6343" RevisionGUID="3f780850-ee7c-42e3-a0ae-754f5a41dd93" CreationDate="2014-09-30T22:16:43.927" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10311" RevisionGUID="19546df5-56f8-43b8-96af-20cf2c916f9c" CreationDate="2014-09-30T23:53:25.033" UserId="10011" Text="This patent has expired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no record because the USPTO doesn't change expired patents' statuses, but it definitely is. Since it was before 1995, it would either have expired after 17 or 20 years, and you're fine in either case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10313" RevisionGUID="4e6de123-de6f-46c4-af46-8763fe746966" CreationDate="2014-10-01T03:16:02.267" UserId="11612" Text="If I shared an idea with someone I trusted, and my idea was stolen by that someone... can I still get my patent back? Assumed I have strong evidence proving so? Like e-mails printed/saved prior to the patent being filed for to that person's name, or voice recording or video recordings? Can I get that patent cancelled/under my name?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22903" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10313" RevisionGUID="4e6de123-de6f-46c4-af46-8763fe746966" CreationDate="2014-10-01T03:16:02.267" UserId="11612" Text="Can I still get my patent back? If someone stole it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22904" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10313" RevisionGUID="4e6de123-de6f-46c4-af46-8763fe746966" CreationDate="2014-10-01T03:16:02.267" UserId="11612" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4998" RevisionGUID="167d309a-3afc-4c80-9fa2-bab5c5b6f5f3" CreationDate="2014-10-01T04:45:23.927" UserId="9939" Comment="removed &quot;thanks&quot;" Text="For example, I want to patent &quot;square shape wheel&quot;. How I can check this idea has been patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22906" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4998" RevisionGUID="167d309a-3afc-4c80-9fa2-bab5c5b6f5f3" CreationDate="2014-10-01T04:45:23.927" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1193, 1770 edit id of 1607" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6211" RevisionGUID="85242037-cf22-4151-94c0-5048551b33b4" CreationDate="2014-10-01T04:46:02.093" UserId="9939" Comment="removed &quot;thanks&quot;" Text="Can anyone tell me when the 5971475 patent expires?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22908" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6211" RevisionGUID="85242037-cf22-4151-94c0-5048551b33b4" CreationDate="2014-10-01T04:46:02.093" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1193, 1770 edit id of 1606" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5904" RevisionGUID="b9cd150b-03f7-4edc-a87d-1b1bc3fed1cc" CreationDate="2014-10-01T04:46:49.527" UserId="9939" Comment="removed &quot;thanks&quot;" Text="Could you please tell me whether patent number US5715629 is still in force?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22910" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5904" RevisionGUID="b9cd150b-03f7-4edc-a87d-1b1bc3fed1cc" CreationDate="2014-10-01T04:46:49.527" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1193, 1770 edit id of 1613" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3588" RevisionGUID="ef280c1b-9279-468d-ac59-e026c1f7f9c9" CreationDate="2014-10-01T04:47:48.563" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="I can't think of a way of making it clearer than above. Would this patent for cystic fibrosis suscptible transgenic mice apply in th UK i.e. prevent a similiar patent from being granted in the UK?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22916" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3588" RevisionGUID="ef280c1b-9279-468d-ac59-e026c1f7f9c9" CreationDate="2014-10-01T04:47:48.563" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by -1 edit id of 1634" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3588" RevisionGUID="ee7aa0f6-c4ae-4302-af9b-20b751d1fa44" CreationDate="2014-10-01T04:47:48.563" UserId="1770" Comment="edited body" Text="I can't think of a way of making it clearer than above. Would this patent for cystic fibrosis susceptible transgenic mice apply in th UK i.e. prevent a similar patent from being granted in the UK?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10314" RevisionGUID="647b7126-f42e-47a5-bc9b-c79280655225" CreationDate="2014-10-01T08:54:44.133" UserId="11615" Text="See http://www.legalzoom.com/patents-faq/when-file-provisional-application-patent.html which appears to disagree. I think they're wrong, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10315" RevisionGUID="110e2f60-3779-42f1-8ea4-64f6e6af616c" CreationDate="2014-10-01T09:15:56.773" UserId="11615" Text="When the patent was issued its term was 17 years from the date it was issued.  Thus, the patent expired long ago, and no one has any exclusive rights to the invention anymore. It is in the public domain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10316" RevisionGUID="4265104a-be94-497e-ab4c-2920d9460c97" CreationDate="2014-10-01T09:19:36.503" UserId="11615" Text="It expired long ago and is in the public domain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4505" RevisionGUID="93d2da01-070a-4883-928e-f65ba4bf32f0" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:56:58.847" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt;In February 2014, key patents that currently prevent competition in the market for the most advanced and functional 3D printers will expire, says Duann Scott, design evangelist at 3D printing company Shapeways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;These patents cover a technology known as “laser sintering,” the lowest-cost 3D printing technology. Because of its high resolution in all three dimensions, laser sintering can produce goods that can be sold as finished products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[Source](http://qz.com/106483/3d-printing-will-explode-in-2014-thanks-to-the-expiration-of-key-patents/)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone could shed light on which patents those are exactly, it would be great.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22922" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4505" RevisionGUID="93d2da01-070a-4883-928e-f65ba4bf32f0" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:56:58.847" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1 edit id of 1633" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7744" RevisionGUID="167c8592-39d3-4b2d-bb92-31044a4f883c" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:57:24.000" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="SolidWorks, Alibre and Sketchup etc can be used. Please visit [this site](http://inventorspotforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=43&amp;t=3513) for a similar discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22924" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7744" RevisionGUID="167c8592-39d3-4b2d-bb92-31044a4f883c" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:57:24.000" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1 edit id of 1626" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5116" RevisionGUID="2746eb7a-18db-4c75-997c-1303da539f77" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:57:30.727" UserId="9939" Comment="removed &quot;thanks&quot;" Text="I did my own research on a product that I can't find anywhere in the Internet.  &#xD;&#xA;Do I need to file for both design and utility at the same time?  &#xD;&#xA;Do I file for a patent over seas meaning China at same time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22926" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5116" RevisionGUID="2746eb7a-18db-4c75-997c-1303da539f77" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:57:30.727" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1 edit id of 1636" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3249" RevisionGUID="14058b6a-427f-4e00-8f88-f48872539542" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:57:33.323" UserId="9939" Comment="removed &quot;thanks&quot;" Text="This is a Microsoft Patent [us7167910][1] filed in 2002 and issued in 2007, when Web 2.0 was in its infancy. Is someone aware of similar work in the course of next 5/6 years from the issue date. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us7167910" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22928" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3249" RevisionGUID="14058b6a-427f-4e00-8f88-f48872539542" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:57:33.323" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1770, 1 edit id of 1631" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4949" RevisionGUID="4897b761-3b03-4aac-9933-74c9df56c0a7" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:57:35.593" UserId="9939" Comment="removed &quot;thanks&quot;" Text="Does this patent prevent another party from developing an electronic tactile metronome, or is it just protecting the particular configuration described?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22930" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4949" RevisionGUID="4897b761-3b03-4aac-9933-74c9df56c0a7" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:57:35.593" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1770, 1 edit id of 1623" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22931" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9922" RevisionGUID="52906a13-5c07-4bc5-a3f5-2d3e36ccb39f" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:57:38.517" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="How can [this][1] patent exist?  &#xD;&#xA;It is such an essential function for aerial vehicles and there are hundreds of patents for aerial vehicles and propulsion mechanisms which utilise thrust vectoring, are they violating this patent?  &#xD;&#xA;I would like to file a patent for two-axis thrust vectoring system for fixed wing UAVs, would it conflict with this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com.ar/patents/WO2008099192A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22932" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9922" RevisionGUID="52906a13-5c07-4bc5-a3f5-2d3e36ccb39f" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:57:38.517" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1 edit id of 1630" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22933" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10020" RevisionGUID="07e61808-286a-4900-8e32-80038be69d4d" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:57:41.427" UserId="9939" Comment="removed &quot;thanks&quot;" Text="IF I need to invalidate the patent that is CIP.Taking priority from `CIP-&gt;CIP-&gt;DP-&gt;CP-&gt;Parent`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22934" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10020" RevisionGUID="07e61808-286a-4900-8e32-80038be69d4d" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:57:41.427" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1193, 1 edit id of 1608" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3723" RevisionGUID="ffb70e5d-c131-4092-9f26-8fe076fc0858" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:57:44.420" UserId="9939" Comment="removed &quot;thanks&quot;" Text="RE:  [US 20060112899 A1][1] - I'm developing a similar product, not specifically for pet care use.  Would this be viewed as a totally separate and legally patentable product, since it would be more all-purpose?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20060112899" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22936" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3723" RevisionGUID="ffb70e5d-c131-4092-9f26-8fe076fc0858" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:57:44.420" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1770, 1 edit id of 1627" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7761" RevisionGUID="0fc9a38e-1208-475e-8805-634ad51eb04a" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:57:50.063" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="[Link to this patent.](http://goo.gl/4VLWQV)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did a school project where we had to invent a product and a Photochromic windshield was my idea. So I was wondering if it was already patented by someone else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22938" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7761" RevisionGUID="0fc9a38e-1208-475e-8805-634ad51eb04a" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:57:50.063" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1770, 1 edit id of 1624" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5270" RevisionGUID="9e030707-eb89-4e9e-87d5-e52af4a4efe1" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:57:58.870" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="I saw a recent [patent application publication](http://www.google.com/patents/WO2013062965A1) (by Microsoft) where it looks like a a same or equivalent application was submitted to the U.S. patent office and the Chinese equivalent, on the same day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering what might be the tactic or strategy here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22940" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5270" RevisionGUID="9e030707-eb89-4e9e-87d5-e52af4a4efe1" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:57:58.870" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1770, 1 edit id of 1629" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3994" RevisionGUID="b1820a6e-9efd-4a95-a04c-ff3dc970b2f0" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:01.123" UserId="9939" Comment="removed &quot;thanks&quot;" Text="Does anyone know who filed the  Swiftkey (TouchType Ltd) or Summly (the firm brought by Yahoo for $30 MM)... Both companies are based in London, so I guess it will be a London firm.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22942" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3994" RevisionGUID="b1820a6e-9efd-4a95-a04c-ff3dc970b2f0" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:01.123" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1770, 1 edit id of 1625" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22943" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10019" RevisionGUID="53c4db74-5645-4abf-b386-965a623d1a52" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:04.813" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="When I read Patent, I don't get novality of that specially with CIP, CP applications.  &#xD;&#xA;Is it by checking Backward Citations and  compare with present claims?&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22944" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10019" RevisionGUID="53c4db74-5645-4abf-b386-965a623d1a52" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:04.813" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="How to check the Novality in the Patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22945" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10019" RevisionGUID="53c4db74-5645-4abf-b386-965a623d1a52" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:04.813" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1 edit id of 1617" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22946" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5383" RevisionGUID="b005b957-c60b-45d0-9120-02e58480d8cf" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:07.233" UserId="9939" Comment="removed &quot;thanks&quot;" Text="I would like to know more about this patent, likehow much it cost or if it is possible to work with it to produce new projects and products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22947" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5383" RevisionGUID="b005b957-c60b-45d0-9120-02e58480d8cf" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:07.233" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1770, 1 edit id of 1616" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6107" RevisionGUID="6750d696-f34e-425b-a722-f22a3afa1816" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:09.720" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="Can somebody patent a lock to be opened by wireless method?  I would assume not, but it seems like there are a lot of companies that claim they have patented this technology to open the lock." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22949" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6107" RevisionGUID="6750d696-f34e-425b-a722-f22a3afa1816" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:09.720" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1770, 1 edit id of 1619" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10309" RevisionGUID="adc70219-acb7-49e9-9e69-27a9000575bc" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:12.067" UserId="10011" Comment="Use complete sentences, add patent number to tags" Text="I'm asking in particular about [this patent](http://www.google.com/patents/US5129654).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The filing year was 1991, so it is currently 23 years old. However, the fee status says &quot;paid.&quot; Google Patents also does not mention anything about that patent being expired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that patent expired, and if so, why does it not say so?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22951" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10309" RevisionGUID="adc70219-acb7-49e9-9e69-27a9000575bc" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:12.067" UserId="10011" Comment="Use complete sentences, add patent number to tags" Text="Can a patent filed more than 20 years ago still be valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22952" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10309" RevisionGUID="adc70219-acb7-49e9-9e69-27a9000575bc" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:12.067" UserId="10011" Comment="Use complete sentences, add patent number to tags" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;us5129654&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22953" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10309" RevisionGUID="adc70219-acb7-49e9-9e69-27a9000575bc" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:12.067" Comment="Proposed by 10011 approved by 1770, 1 edit id of 1639" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2071" RevisionGUID="45b944fe-def7-45f7-a80d-585f88647d20" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:14.447" UserId="9939" Comment="removed &quot;thanks&quot;" Text="I would like to know is patent &quot;[US6323569 B1][1]&quot; still valid? its end date? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6323569" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22955" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2071" RevisionGUID="45b944fe-def7-45f7-a80d-585f88647d20" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:14.447" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1 edit id of 1614" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3440" RevisionGUID="cb5ceec1-861c-47bf-843e-fb7c3fb4205e" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:16.823" UserId="9939" Comment="removed &quot;thanks&quot;" Text="Attorney wants to get declarations executed with respect to the provisional application, then hold it in the file until utility is filed.  This is done in case an inventor leaves the company.  Thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22957" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3440" RevisionGUID="cb5ceec1-861c-47bf-843e-fb7c3fb4205e" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:16.823" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1770, 1 edit id of 1615" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5217" RevisionGUID="5fc407b1-603d-411b-a5bb-15705ed92e59" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:19.547" UserId="9939" Comment="removed &quot;thanks&quot;" Text="Can somebody tell me differences between novelty 35 USC 102 AIA and Old act besides first to file and first to invent? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22959" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5217" RevisionGUID="5fc407b1-603d-411b-a5bb-15705ed92e59" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:19.547" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1770, 1 edit id of 1620" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4672" RevisionGUID="b8e257ca-1fe4-4f18-8a98-6d938747f99d" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:25.063" UserId="9939" Comment="removed &quot;thanks&quot;" Text="I am thinking of designing a particular phone case. My question is normally what is the process between the design stage up to pitching the design? Is it simply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Design product&#xD;&#xA;Get a patent on design&#xD;&#xA;Pitch design to company&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also how much does a patent cost in £?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22963" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4672" RevisionGUID="b8e257ca-1fe4-4f18-8a98-6d938747f99d" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:25.063" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1 edit id of 1637" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3428" RevisionGUID="1cf5535e-9e63-458d-9bb3-3c39db962ce1" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:27.720" UserId="9939" Comment="removed &quot;thanks&quot;" Text="I would like to obtain and become the sole distributor of a product/service that is patented in the US.&#xD;&#xA;What is the best way to go about this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22965" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3428" RevisionGUID="1cf5535e-9e63-458d-9bb3-3c39db962ce1" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:27.720" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1 edit id of 1618" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10030" RevisionGUID="aa66e534-920a-4494-bba7-55b68b8a2b19" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:30.523" UserId="9939" Comment="removed &quot;thanks&quot;" Text="Re: us5417445  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This looks like a remarkable invention.  It seems to turn the current thinking of indepenent suspension on its head.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was this ever put into production?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22967" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10030" RevisionGUID="aa66e534-920a-4494-bba7-55b68b8a2b19" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:30.523" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1193, 1 edit id of 1610" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10269" RevisionGUID="23f9ef4c-ce8c-4abf-91b4-83bbcf8fb4d4" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:34.077" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="This [blog post says](http://labs.hybris.com/patent-pending/) that this patent has now been filed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I view the patent on a database anywhere? I'm going to attempt to look for prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22969" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10269" RevisionGUID="23f9ef4c-ce8c-4abf-91b4-83bbcf8fb4d4" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:34.077" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1 edit id of 1632" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22970" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9900" RevisionGUID="f41d6bb3-bacd-4a72-83a4-394557d2d6ac" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:37.383" UserId="9939" Comment="removed &quot;thanks&quot;" Text="I'm trying to find out if this Patent No. USD513117 S1 is still valid.  How can I find out for sure?   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22971" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9900" RevisionGUID="f41d6bb3-bacd-4a72-83a4-394557d2d6ac" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:37.383" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1 edit id of 1622" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22972" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5297" RevisionGUID="5a4ae631-a681-49c4-9ea5-9a98c381d054" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:53.213" UserId="9939" Comment="removed &quot;thanks&quot;" Text="If a product is already in the market for a specific purpose and is found to be useful in another function by someone else can that person apply for a patent for that new  function? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22973" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5297" RevisionGUID="5a4ae631-a681-49c4-9ea5-9a98c381d054" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:53.213" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1 edit id of 1621" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6160" RevisionGUID="1d6f5a52-9b68-4e30-b985-c7f39fd884bf" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:56.053" UserId="9939" Comment="removed &quot;thanks&quot;" Text="  Is it possible to patent the game play for a game which can only be played on the internet and doesn't exist already?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  I assume the answer is yes, but since the game is played using computer software i'm not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  If it is possible,  what type of patent would be used?  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22975" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6160" RevisionGUID="1d6f5a52-9b68-4e30-b985-c7f39fd884bf" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:56.053" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1770, 1 edit id of 1635" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4893" RevisionGUID="700d5194-f311-4053-bcbd-747e2896a3de" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:58.803" UserId="9939" Comment="removed &quot;thanks&quot;" Text="Is there a public database that show whether a US patent was reexamined or challenged in any other way? If so where is it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22977" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4893" RevisionGUID="700d5194-f311-4053-bcbd-747e2896a3de" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:58:58.803" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1193, 1 edit id of 1612" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6098" RevisionGUID="987bdf0b-1f6b-4100-9850-780d365c874d" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:59:01.707" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="I would like to know [this patent](http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6558681) just for US market or Worldwide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I noticed the patent owner has not paid the fee since 2011.  &#xD;&#xA;Does it mean the patent is now expried(invalid) ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22979" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6098" RevisionGUID="987bdf0b-1f6b-4100-9850-780d365c874d" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:59:01.707" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1 edit id of 1638" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10317" RevisionGUID="fb653b01-db7e-49bf-82fc-4ed2c47a47e8" CreationDate="2014-10-01T17:12:39.883" UserId="11620" Text="Why the patent drawings are not shown on Google posting of this dismissed patent application DE 10353118 A1?&#xD;&#xA; Do missing-drawings provide for infringement on other patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22982" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10317" RevisionGUID="fb653b01-db7e-49bf-82fc-4ed2c47a47e8" CreationDate="2014-10-01T17:12:39.883" UserId="11620" Text="Missing Drawing in a 10 year old patent application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22983" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10317" RevisionGUID="fb653b01-db7e-49bf-82fc-4ed2c47a47e8" CreationDate="2014-10-01T17:12:39.883" UserId="11620" Text="&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;patent-infringment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22987" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10317" RevisionGUID="77c436f0-610b-45b4-87f8-e6a1ddb4e5fb" CreationDate="2014-10-01T20:53:29.647" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;patent-infringment&gt;&lt;de0353118&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10319" RevisionGUID="20df3531-e7a9-4234-98c4-0ba8f54e61c7" CreationDate="2014-10-02T05:02:19.130" UserId="3418" Text="I read a guide that removing component from claim is not allowed, e.g. consider these claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1/ A table comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ A screen&#xD;&#xA;+ A touch panel panel attached to the screen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2/ The table of claim 1, but don't have touch panel, the table also comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Camera to detect touch&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cant remove a component like that. So I am trying to find a way to write a similar claim, because if I can remove component then I can lower the number of independent claim, by making independent claims depends on other independent claim. E.g&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1/ A table comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ A screen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ A touch detection component attached to the table, the touch detection component is a touch panel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2/ The table of claim 1, where the touch detection component is a camera&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I change removing component to replacing component, is this acceptable? Is there any other way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22989" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10319" RevisionGUID="20df3531-e7a9-4234-98c4-0ba8f54e61c7" CreationDate="2014-10-02T05:02:19.130" UserId="3418" Text="Best way to remove component in dependent claim" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22990" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10319" RevisionGUID="20df3531-e7a9-4234-98c4-0ba8f54e61c7" CreationDate="2014-10-02T05:02:19.130" UserId="3418" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10320" RevisionGUID="98897b4d-9a2d-41c2-bf96-eb34c201be9c" CreationDate="2014-10-02T06:51:37.553" UserId="3076" Text="The guide you read is correct. A dependent claim has all of the limitations of all claims above it in the chain to an independent claim. You can address this by using just  &quot;touch detector&quot; in claim 1. Claim 2 says &quot;where the touch detector is a camera&quot;. Claim 3 says &quot;where the touch detector is a touch panel&quot;. This only works if your claim 1 is novel and non-obvious with the generic term in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise you can say in claim 1 that the touch detection is either a camera or a touch screen. Then narrow to a specific one of them in claim 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Writing claims is hard and the laws changes monthly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10322" RevisionGUID="4d2e9757-2cdd-4023-a51c-f62a151ff881" CreationDate="2014-10-02T13:40:32.923" UserId="11624" Text="Over the course of my adult life, I've thought of a myriad of &quot;inventions&quot;; that is, until I did a patent search only to find someone has already beaten me to it.  Some examples were my Triple Bunk Beds, Bicycle Seat without the piece that hurts your crotch and most recently, a Stink Bug Trap.  While each is not exactly like mine, it is enough like it that anyone could potentially cause legal problems for me if it made it to market.  I only have two questions:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is it worth pursuing a patent for something that seems like a variation of what someone else has already submitted an application, advertised, published, created or marketed, etc?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. How &quot;different&quot; must an invention be (i.e. how is it defined) from one that is similar to be legally patented by someone else?&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22996" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10322" RevisionGUID="4d2e9757-2cdd-4023-a51c-f62a151ff881" CreationDate="2014-10-02T13:40:32.923" UserId="11624" Text="Everything I think of has been invented!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22997" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10322" RevisionGUID="4d2e9757-2cdd-4023-a51c-f62a151ff881" CreationDate="2014-10-02T13:40:32.923" UserId="11624" Text="&lt;design&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10323" RevisionGUID="fe178b80-fb9a-48de-9d37-8d8584f49566" CreationDate="2014-10-02T13:58:32.127" UserId="3418" Text="AFAIK, at USPTO, there are requirements on font size and format for non provisional application. Is there any requirement applying to provisional application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because I want to combine many unrelated inventions into a single provisional patent, and they limit it to 100 pages (or additional fee is added). So I will try to squeeze text size and format to increase text per page. I think since I will file electronically, the info will not lose, so I will write as small as possible (unlike filing in paper where small text can lose information)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22999" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10323" RevisionGUID="fe178b80-fb9a-48de-9d37-8d8584f49566" CreationDate="2014-10-02T13:58:32.127" UserId="3418" Text="Is there any requirement on font size and format of provisional patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23000" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10323" RevisionGUID="fe178b80-fb9a-48de-9d37-8d8584f49566" CreationDate="2014-10-02T13:58:32.127" UserId="3418" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6156" RevisionGUID="470bce21-cfaa-48d3-b58b-1a0fe0cff4fc" CreationDate="2014-10-02T14:27:48.080" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="Is it possible / legal to gain a copyright / patent over a somebody's else idea, changing / improving / altering something significantly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23002" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6156" RevisionGUID="470bce21-cfaa-48d3-b58b-1a0fe0cff4fc" CreationDate="2014-10-02T14:27:48.080" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1 edit id of 1640" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10202" RevisionGUID="e5f41c3b-c2ae-44cc-8ad8-755cb0261831" CreationDate="2014-10-02T14:27:54.110" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="According to [Amazon.com](http://www.amazon.com/Paderno-World-Cuisine-A4982799-Tri-Blade/dp/B0007Y9WHQ/ref=zg_bs_289783_1), [this product](https://www.google.com/patents/CN202723661U?cl=en&amp;dq=utility+patent+is+201220380804.5&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=_W7gUuCYL7SqsASc9oC4CQ&amp;ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA) is patented: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why are there so many exact copies of this product found on Amazon.com under different brand names?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the patent not valid? Or is there a legal way around selling this product under a different name?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23004" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10202" RevisionGUID="e5f41c3b-c2ae-44cc-8ad8-755cb0261831" CreationDate="2014-10-02T14:27:54.110" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1 edit id of 1642" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6403" RevisionGUID="caaad352-8476-4be2-b1b7-eef84e1497c2" CreationDate="2014-10-02T14:28:01.123" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="I heard that Facebook has rights to Like buttons with thumb up icon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm creating a commercial web-app, in which users can Like something. So can I make &quot;Like&quot; button with thumb up icon (not exactly like facebook's) or buttons contains &quot;Like with Thumb up icon&quot; patented?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23006" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6403" RevisionGUID="caaad352-8476-4be2-b1b7-eef84e1497c2" CreationDate="2014-10-02T14:28:01.123" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1 edit id of 1641" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10322" RevisionGUID="9fc0b12a-bcf8-4865-8d56-05f76ed571cd" CreationDate="2014-10-02T14:32:30.430" UserId="1" Comment="made title  a question, put the questions first followed by the anecdote " Text="Is it worth pursuing a patent for something that seems like a variation of what someone else has already submitted an application, advertised, published, created or marketed, etc?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How &quot;different&quot; must an invention be (i.e. how is it defined) from one that is similar to be legally patented by someone else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over the course of my adult life, I've thought of a myriad of &quot;inventions&quot;; that is, until I did a patent search only to find someone has already beaten me to it.  Some examples were my Triple Bunk Beds, Bicycle Seat without the piece that hurts your crotch and most recently, a Stink Bug Trap.  While each is not exactly like mine, it is enough like it that anyone could potentially cause legal problems for me if it made it to market.  I only have two questions:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23008" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10322" RevisionGUID="9fc0b12a-bcf8-4865-8d56-05f76ed571cd" CreationDate="2014-10-02T14:32:30.430" UserId="1" Comment="made title  a question, put the questions first followed by the anecdote " Text="How &quot;different&quot; must an invention be to be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23010" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10307" RevisionGUID="b1e25f95-c225-4f7d-bff3-41f0fd8c0e5b" CreationDate="2014-10-02T14:34:24.943" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[3801],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="23011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10324" RevisionGUID="571c73b6-b862-414f-a736-5f67eab68479" CreationDate="2014-10-02T19:15:57.820" UserId="11628" Text="In the magazine Science they (Nenad Bozinovic) are talking about&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Terabit-Scale Orbital Angular Momentum Mode Division Multiplexing in Fibers&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Which is another way to multiplex light in fiber optics,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It isn’t difficult to see that what happens in light happens in other electro magnetic waves as well, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this article make wireless multiplexing schemes patents based on this scheme void (if filed after this date)? or is this kind of symmetries/relationships in physics is not necessary obvious to patent examiners?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to what extent people writing articles should state that their research extends to other other areas (in this case, to wireless transmission) to make clear some of the relationships in physics which might not be obvious to patent examiners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand if one found a relationship between light and say biology, that could be made into interesting creative products, but if the relationship is very direct, would it be inventive? or if it was not clear then but it is clear now, would that invalidate the patent in the future?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23012" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10324" RevisionGUID="571c73b6-b862-414f-a736-5f67eab68479" CreationDate="2014-10-02T19:15:57.820" UserId="11628" Text="To what extent can one use scientific articles in other fields as previous art - example from fiber optics to wireless" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23013" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10324" RevisionGUID="571c73b6-b862-414f-a736-5f67eab68479" CreationDate="2014-10-02T19:15:57.820" UserId="11628" Text="&lt;wireless&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10325" RevisionGUID="16705a49-bcba-4592-9730-0e7e714bbb17" CreationDate="2014-10-02T21:17:23.250" UserId="10011" Text="That becomes a trademark issue, rather than patents as this site is about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in essence, the idea of a trademark is to protect consumers from potential confusion. Speaking in somewhat abstract terms, you might a high-end restaurant that begins using McDonald's *Golden Arches* logo as their own. You can imagine a consumer driving by, seeing that logo, thinking it was McDonald's, eating, being charged $40 for a single meal, and never wanting to eat at McDonald's again, never knowing that they hadn't actually *been* to a McDonald's. Similarly, if I started sowing shirts and selling them with a NIKE Swoosh on them, consumers would likely be confused to find that a NIKE-branded article of clothing was falling apart with every touch. In many cases, trademark violations are bad for both parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So ultimately, that's what you have to look at. Will your &quot;like&quot; button be misleading to consumers? There are certainly a number of companies out there (including [TIVO](http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=75681412&amp;caseType=SERIAL_NO&amp;searchType=statusSearch)) that use a thumbs-up as an icon for &quot;I like this,&quot; and it's a tough trademark to register due to its innate cultural relevance, so you can almost definitely get away with it. Just make sure it doesn't try to imitate the Facebook version and you should be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not actually 100% certain whether Facebook holds a registered Trademark on the &quot;like&quot; button, but regardless, you should probably still try to differentiate it just as a branding strategy, if nothing else." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10326" RevisionGUID="84326bde-aa82-4223-a5e3-29e57eab2a97" CreationDate="2014-10-02T21:32:07.120" UserId="1193" Text="Typically what is patented is a specific implementation of machinery, since naturally occurring phenomenon such as light and electromagnetic waves cannot be patented.  A specific implementation to harness such phenomenons are however patent-able.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23021" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10317" RevisionGUID="a2011ddf-402a-4f5a-bec8-0275bdbbf1a5" CreationDate="2014-10-03T15:03:05.360" UserId="10011" Comment="As I understand it, this question does not fit the tag wiki for &quot;rejected.&quot;" Text="Why are the patent drawings not shown on the Google Patents page for this dismissed patent application DE 10353118 A1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do missing drawings provide for infringement on other patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23022" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10317" RevisionGUID="a2011ddf-402a-4f5a-bec8-0275bdbbf1a5" CreationDate="2014-10-03T15:03:05.360" UserId="10011" Comment="As I understand it, this question does not fit the tag wiki for &quot;rejected.&quot;" Text="&lt;patent-infringment&gt;&lt;de0353118&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23023" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10317" RevisionGUID="a2011ddf-402a-4f5a-bec8-0275bdbbf1a5" CreationDate="2014-10-03T15:03:05.360" Comment="Proposed by 10011 approved by 1 edit id of 1644" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10322" RevisionGUID="221cca0f-5245-4bbb-99f3-1575805fc47b" CreationDate="2014-10-03T15:03:48.200" UserId="9939" Comment="this was to be removed" Text="Is it worth pursuing a patent for something that seems like a variation of what someone else has already submitted an application, advertised, published, created or marketed, etc?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How &quot;different&quot; must an invention be (i.e. how is it defined) from one that is similar to be legally patented by someone else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over the course of my adult life, I've thought of a myriad of &quot;inventions&quot;; that is, until I did a patent search only to find someone has already beaten me to it.  Some examples were my Triple Bunk Beds, Bicycle Seat without the piece that hurts your crotch and most recently, a Stink Bug Trap.  While each is not exactly like mine, it is enough like it that anyone could potentially cause legal problems for me if it made it to market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23025" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10322" RevisionGUID="221cca0f-5245-4bbb-99f3-1575805fc47b" CreationDate="2014-10-03T15:03:48.200" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1193, 1 edit id of 1643" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10329" RevisionGUID="028aa35a-23a4-431a-8967-270ce4d050ec" CreationDate="2014-10-03T15:49:51.583" UserId="9939" Text="Quoting from http://www.bitlaw.com/patent/requirements.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If an invention is not exactly the same as prior products or processes (which are referred to as the &quot;prior art&quot;), then it is considered novel. However, in order for an invention to be patentable, it must not only be novel, but it must also be a nonobvious improvement over the prior art. This determination is made by deciding whether the invention sought to be patented would have been obvious &quot;to one of ordinary skill in the art.&quot; In other words, the invention is compared to the prior art and a determination is made whether the differences in the new invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the type of technology used in the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As can be imagined, the determination of whether a particular change or improvement is &quot;obvious&quot; is one of the most difficult determinations in patent law. In order to make such a determination, an examiner in the patent office will normally review previous patents to find those patents which are closest to the invention in which a patent is sought. If all the features of the invention can be found in a single patent, the examiner will reject the patent as lacking novelty (that is, it is exactly the same as what was previously known and therefore is not new). If no patent contains all of the features, the examiner will attempt to combine two or more prior patents, and attempt to find all of the features in a combination of those prior patents. If the examiner is successful in finding such a combination, the examiner will generally reject the invention as an obvious combination of items known in the prior art. However, there must be some reason to combine the two references, and often a rejection based on such a combination can be overcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Some changes to known products which would not normally be patentable are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the substitution of one material for another, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - changes in size.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5351" RevisionGUID="4d3ffc9d-653d-4a3d-86d8-31207f5ade84" CreationDate="2014-10-03T19:12:40.107" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body" Text="I'm answering this question as a **general** guide on how to access contact information for patents that have issued, and applications that have published. Following these steps you can find the contact information on record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Go to Public Pair: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA; 3. Input the Patent Number, Publication Number, or Application Number. You probably won't be searching by PCT Number or Control Number.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Now you can click on the tab that says &quot;Address and Attorney/Agent.&quot; This will give you the contact information for the Attorney or Agent that prosecuted the case before the USPTO. Or, you can go to the &quot;Image File Wrapper&quot; tab and look for the document entitled &quot;Oath or Declaration filed.&quot; There you should find the inventor's name and address. In this case it is on the third page of the document. Alternatively, under the &quot;Image File Wrapper&quot; you could search for the &quot;Application Data Sheet,&quot; and the inventor name and address is on the first page." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10330" RevisionGUID="5b46c8aa-e6d6-4d93-a19e-4d02a6cf06fd" CreationDate="2014-10-03T19:26:25.390" UserId="1193" Text="Google is not an authoritative source for patent information -- It is only an convenient copy, which may at some time be out of date or incomplete.  For the authoritative patent, you should look up the patent in the appropriate country specific database -- in this case the German Patent database. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the notes in the google version of the patent it looks like it was rejected on Jun 16, 2011 -- not sure if that help you with your query regarding infringement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23036" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="10251" RevisionGUID="a60d9f1f-e669-4578-a77c-eb95b81444ed" CreationDate="2014-10-04T19:38:15.893" UserId="-1" Comment="28" />
  <row Id="23037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10333" RevisionGUID="cb90fbfd-eb6d-4ec0-97ee-6a505cc8bd72" CreationDate="2014-10-04T21:42:45.420" UserId="11640" Text="Five weeks ago, I disclosed my invention to a multi-national corporation (let's call it Company A) without any kind of NDA (they don't accept NDAs) in a **conference call and email**. I am worried that Company A will tell one of their hundred partner companies (Company B) about my invention, and Company B will patent my invention before me. (I was able to partner with Company A though.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I talked to my attorney who said that I can still patent in the U.S. and some European countries, so I dished out $15k to get a non-provisional patent, which is still being drafted. But if Company B gets a provisional patent before I file my non-provisional patent, do I lose rights to my own invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I spent the last 10 months day and night building it, so I would really appreciate some clarity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23038" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10333" RevisionGUID="cb90fbfd-eb6d-4ec0-97ee-6a505cc8bd72" CreationDate="2014-10-04T21:42:45.420" UserId="11640" Text="Can someone patent my invention before me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23039" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10333" RevisionGUID="cb90fbfd-eb6d-4ec0-97ee-6a505cc8bd72" CreationDate="2014-10-04T21:42:45.420" UserId="11640" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10334" RevisionGUID="20437200-b666-4b0a-a078-0e148a870a24" CreationDate="2014-10-04T23:02:01.117" UserId="11641" Text="The Prior Art (e.g. US4289625, 1981) cited by the patent application US20130203144 already discloses the process of feeding a &quot;pyrolysis syngas&quot; to an &quot;anaerobic digester&quot;, however the Prior Art covers pyrolysis gases within the scope of products of a thermal gasifier.  Pyrolysis is one reaction within an overall gasification process, therefore gasification products contain pyrolysis syngas.   Yet the application US20130203144 offers an overly broad Claim 1 - a) producing a synthesis gas from pyrolysis of a feedstock; and, b) adding the synthesis gas to an anaerobic digester.  There exists a large opportunity to explore the beneficial interaction between thermal and biological anoxic/anaerobic processes.  Granting this Claim 1 would restrict most such innovation to be the sole property of the Applicant for this patent.  While the rest of the patent may have substantial merit, the primary Claim 1 is very dangerous and must not be granted. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23041" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10334" RevisionGUID="20437200-b666-4b0a-a078-0e148a870a24" CreationDate="2014-10-04T23:02:01.117" UserId="11641" Text="Can anaerobic digestion of syngas be considered as a primary claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23042" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10334" RevisionGUID="20437200-b666-4b0a-a078-0e148a870a24" CreationDate="2014-10-04T23:02:01.117" UserId="11641" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10335" RevisionGUID="849071a3-2998-45e1-b77a-9fd38bacbb1e" CreationDate="2014-10-05T00:22:00.847" UserId="10011" Text="In the United States, the system currently works on a first-to-file basis. It used to be first to invent, but that was hard to prove and maintain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of that, you'll probably be out of luck if they file a provisional before you, and there will be no way for you to know until your application receives an office action (provisionals are kept secret by default, like non-provisional applications). Your best bet is just to, as you've said, get filed ASAP and hope they were slower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond that, it's just a matter of trying to invalidate their patent, and that could prove tricky." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="264" RevisionGUID="1396e891-de09-4b56-a658-fe24008cb722" CreationDate="2014-10-05T17:32:36.047" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="I know &quot;it depends...&quot; But what are some general principles on what is patentable and what isn't?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have various ideas, as do we all, some of them good, as do we all, but I don't want to keep running to a patent attorney to see if something is a defensible patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know I'll always need advice, but I'd at least be able to triage my ideas...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23047" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="264" RevisionGUID="1396e891-de09-4b56-a658-fe24008cb722" CreationDate="2014-10-05T17:32:36.047" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 3076, 1114 edit id of 1655" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5727" RevisionGUID="8fb23d5f-c314-4cc9-b66b-ebf3c8a39841" CreationDate="2014-10-05T17:32:49.877" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="I am aware of a patent application that has been filed that I wish to challenge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know the application number, but the it was recently filed and is not publicly available for review on the USPTO website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to understand how long it usually takes before such applications become available for review and comment, and how that process works in general so I can best prepare information to present regarding prior art.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23049" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5727" RevisionGUID="8fb23d5f-c314-4cc9-b66b-ebf3c8a39841" CreationDate="2014-10-05T17:32:49.877" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 3076, 1114 edit id of 1647" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6063" RevisionGUID="f24446cb-0465-4361-a840-edc30cb5294e" CreationDate="2014-10-05T17:37:53.137" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="I'm intriguid as to how a patent so broad as this can be.  This is a very generic method of holding an object and seems to have not invention, why is this patent here?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone enlighten me, I feel I don't understand the process or maybe I'm not reading it correct, however, the limited description of anything specific in the concept tells me there is nothing here to protect.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sorry if I seem naive, I am open to sensible explanations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23051" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6063" RevisionGUID="f24446cb-0465-4361-a840-edc30cb5294e" CreationDate="2014-10-05T17:37:53.137" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 3076, 1114 edit id of 1667" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23052" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3492" RevisionGUID="bee78990-9413-42dc-9f01-6bdb61713bfe" CreationDate="2014-10-05T17:38:03.813" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="I would like to know how is the status of patent number US 4396600? I read that this patent was reexamined in 1986 and I wonder why this patent was canceled since I didn't see any justification writing inside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I mean when the examiner said that the clains 1-23 are cancelled? Is it represent that all the patent was cancelled? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23053" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3492" RevisionGUID="bee78990-9413-42dc-9f01-6bdb61713bfe" CreationDate="2014-10-05T17:38:03.813" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 3076, 1114 edit id of 1673" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23056" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10334" RevisionGUID="9c22f782-ab8a-45fd-8a7c-34b007910c11" CreationDate="2014-10-05T19:04:26.913" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20130203144&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10334" RevisionGUID="10fc387a-431f-45de-b995-0bed42e3c91d" CreationDate="2014-10-06T00:17:26.447" UserId="11641" Comment="Removed commentary" Text="The Prior Art (e.g. US4289625, 1981) cited by the patent application US20130203144 already discloses the process of feeding a &quot;pyrolysis syngas&quot; to an &quot;anaerobic digester&quot;, however the Prior Art covers pyrolysis gases within the scope of products of a thermal gasifier.  Pyrolysis is one reaction within an overall gasification process, therefore gasification products contain pyrolysis syngas.   Yet the application US20130203144 offers an overly broad Claim 1 - a) producing a synthesis gas from pyrolysis of a feedstock; and, b) adding the synthesis gas to an anaerobic digester.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10335" RevisionGUID="07fdecad-a6af-4636-96da-2c794cbcd31b" CreationDate="2014-10-06T02:57:06.973" UserId="3076" Comment="changed &quot;like&quot; to &quot;unlike&quot; the default is publishing non-provisonal applications" Text="In the United States, the system currently works on a first-to-file basis. It used to be first to invent, but that was hard to prove and maintain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of that, you'll probably be out of luck if they file a provisional before you, and there will be no way for you to know until your application receives an office action (provisionals are kept secret by default, unlike non-provisional applications). Your best bet is just to, as you've said, get filed ASAP and hope they were slower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond that, it's just a matter of trying to invalidate their patent, and that could prove tricky." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23059" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10336" RevisionGUID="67c738ca-2f84-4f04-93c3-aabb169e610d" CreationDate="2014-10-07T11:59:11.257" UserId="998" Text="Patents are primarily enforced on a country-by-country basis, although Europe has a new European Patent Court starting this year.  The general rule (with exceptions below) is that an action only counts as infringement if it occurs within the borders of the country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent attorneys understand this issue and have a few tricks, such as drafting patents that focus on small parts of a system - such as aspects of the user device or display or server side processes - rather than the system as a whole. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One exception to the territorial rule is that many countries, including the US, might still find infringement if only a portion of the activities were outside of the US.  A few years ago this happened in a case against Blackberry. In that case, the users were in the US, but the servers were in Canada. The US Court of Appeals held that the patented system was still being infringed in the US because the system was being controlled in the US and US entities were receiving its benefit.  I wrote about that case back in 2005: [LINK][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patentlyo.com/patent/2005/08/blackberry_case.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23060" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10022" RevisionGUID="04bb27f5-a818-417d-8e22-30cf678c5776" CreationDate="2014-10-07T14:48:09.813" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="I am a researcher wanting to examine how companies assign patents for tax planning purposes.  As I search databases like Google Patents, I see a ton of data, and the PDF of the patent itself.  However, it does not appear that Google captures the location of the inventor(s) or the assignee of the patent. This is also not in the NBER patent data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know a database where I can get data on both the name of the assignee, as well as the location of the assignee, and the location of the inventors (preferably in one large dataset that could be downloaded all at once)? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23061" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10022" RevisionGUID="04bb27f5-a818-417d-8e22-30cf678c5776" CreationDate="2014-10-07T14:48:09.813" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1114, 5071 edit id of 1680" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10037" RevisionGUID="a3766ff8-cdf5-48ec-a8dc-a54fad3d7eeb" CreationDate="2014-10-07T14:48:17.043" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="I came to an design that has same structure to this one(US7717717 B1). That patent claimed the inner thin plastic piece with conductive traces.&#xD;&#xA;My design also has same structure with the inner plastic piece, but the traces on it are designed differently and my design has additional ICs for faster speed.&#xD;&#xA;Can I apply for patent without infringement?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23063" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10037" RevisionGUID="a3766ff8-cdf5-48ec-a8dc-a54fad3d7eeb" CreationDate="2014-10-07T14:48:17.043" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 3076, 5071 edit id of 1664" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6256" RevisionGUID="a30218a9-cedf-4616-8ee3-37c178d3fbe5" CreationDate="2014-10-07T14:48:25.827" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="I cannot determine if [this patent application](http://www.google.com/patents/US20010032084) has terminated or still under review.&#xD;&#xA;The law firm that initially handled it on behalf of Ricoh Co. Ltd. (in Japan) in the US said it was an old patent and had no more records for this patent. Does this mean this patent is no longer under review?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23065" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6256" RevisionGUID="a30218a9-cedf-4616-8ee3-37c178d3fbe5" CreationDate="2014-10-07T14:48:25.827" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 3076, 5071 edit id of 1665" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1944" RevisionGUID="26fe9ba6-dfa0-4148-8cb0-4c6f9063c1c0" CreationDate="2014-10-07T14:48:33.367" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="US8261231 &quot;claims benefit to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/472,609, which was filed on Apr. 6, 2011... The contents of the above-identified applications are incorporated by reference in their entirety as if recited in full herein.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am having difficulty finding the provisional patent application, so that we can examine its contents and know what portions of US8261231 are effective February 14, 2012 and what portions are effective April 6, 2011. Anyone know how we can search for US provisional patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23067" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1944" RevisionGUID="26fe9ba6-dfa0-4148-8cb0-4c6f9063c1c0" CreationDate="2014-10-07T14:48:33.367" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1114, 5071 edit id of 1674" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6660" RevisionGUID="731c2ca1-c5e7-47dd-8b5f-dde3717fae8f" CreationDate="2014-10-07T14:48:43.500" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="1. What are the differnet types of patent one can have on a molecule?&#xD;&#xA;2. What is the difference between composition patent and polymorphic patent?&#xD;&#xA;3. How to know if a particular patent is Method of Use or Polymorphic patent?&#xD;&#xA;4. Is there a way to know if there is a Para-IV/ FTF filing on a patented molecule?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23069" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6660" RevisionGUID="731c2ca1-c5e7-47dd-8b5f-dde3717fae8f" CreationDate="2014-10-07T14:48:43.500" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1114, 5071 edit id of 1648" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5606" RevisionGUID="48808aa5-d912-4b41-92b4-70d42fd120bd" CreationDate="2014-10-07T14:48:54.143" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="I'd like to patent a niche idea for a software product. I'm just an individual developer. I have no access to a legal team or expensive legal services.  What is the best option for applying for software patent in this case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the actual cost of the patent is &lt;$1000 total but i'd have to prepare the patent myself, I assume.  Is there a recommended way to do this or some guideline to follow?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no patent experience so I appreciate your patience with my question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23073" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5606" RevisionGUID="48808aa5-d912-4b41-92b4-70d42fd120bd" CreationDate="2014-10-07T14:48:54.143" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1114, 5071 edit id of 1669" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23074" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3467" RevisionGUID="a6564338-8ed3-44a1-8556-f5a0621dc3f4" CreationDate="2014-10-07T14:48:56.693" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="I was having a conversation with my supervisor yesterday. He mentioned something about patent memo. Something that you can write your idea down, date it, have some witnesses to sign it and put it away. In case some day you need to patent the idea but someone else wants to patent the same idea. So that you can present the patent memo to prove that you have the idea first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to Google it, but nothing came up. Can anyone confirm such thing exists and is valid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23075" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3467" RevisionGUID="a6564338-8ed3-44a1-8556-f5a0621dc3f4" CreationDate="2014-10-07T14:48:56.693" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1114, 5071 edit id of 1656" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5992" RevisionGUID="6c830e14-8f86-431a-ae52-ee3aac6b1a42" CreationDate="2014-10-07T14:49:13.940" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="I've got an innovative but simple idea to defeat or avoid SPI (Shallow Packet Inspection) and even DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) as well and can be explained in a single paragraph. Actually it may have many security and anti-censorship applications. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - How can I publish and protect my idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is there any Company going to pay for just this idea if it can be proved technically practical?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23077" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5992" RevisionGUID="6c830e14-8f86-431a-ae52-ee3aac6b1a42" CreationDate="2014-10-07T14:49:13.940" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1114, 5071 edit id of 1671" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6561" RevisionGUID="79d42721-f0c7-4e53-b898-98c85d5069c1" CreationDate="2014-10-07T14:49:20.263" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="I had a very similiar idea with a few small production changes but would have had the same use.  Would this patent stop me from legally producing a similiar item and what are the legal consequences?  I dont want to dump a lot of money into anything I can lose if they take a patent back or for an item that is no longer patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23079" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6561" RevisionGUID="79d42721-f0c7-4e53-b898-98c85d5069c1" CreationDate="2014-10-07T14:49:20.263" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1114, 5071 edit id of 1675" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10126" RevisionGUID="8c170bc9-4c9b-4084-a67c-26940bb0469e" CreationDate="2014-10-07T14:49:33.047" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="I know that once I start selling the app and it is out in the open I can't apply for a patent. I now also see there are various stages in the application process: file, search and examination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At what point is the process started so that once I start selling I don't invalidate my own patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23081" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10126" RevisionGUID="8c170bc9-4c9b-4084-a67c-26940bb0469e" CreationDate="2014-10-07T14:49:33.047" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1114, 5071 edit id of 1676" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5701" RevisionGUID="243d8c58-1b2f-4063-a690-864ebb840931" CreationDate="2014-10-07T14:49:43.253" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="I'm wondering what the best way to match prior art to a claim you feel is invalid.  I have found examples applicants use with the USPTO, so I would imagine using that same format to invalidate a claim may be helpful. Do you have any suggestions on what would be useful in the right column, while keeping it short and simple? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/1dM9a.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23083" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5701" RevisionGUID="243d8c58-1b2f-4063-a690-864ebb840931" CreationDate="2014-10-07T14:49:43.253" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1114, 5071 edit id of 1662" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6346" RevisionGUID="b6be33ec-0f83-437e-9af1-e6dc6cd5bb20" CreationDate="2014-10-07T14:50:06.270" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="Camila, doing an inventor search on the USPTO website, I found Frank W. Jandl listed as a co-inventor on US Patent No. 4,110,977.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can download a copy of the patent in PDF form [here](http://free.patentfetcher.com/Patent-Fetcher.php?submit=Fetch&amp;PN=4110977).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23085" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6346" RevisionGUID="b6be33ec-0f83-437e-9af1-e6dc6cd5bb20" CreationDate="2014-10-07T14:50:06.270" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 3076, 5071 edit id of 1672" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10162" RevisionGUID="e3608c38-ba9b-4c46-a069-12527c7da7eb" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:36:59.067" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="We are a new start-up team based in Europe and have few or none knowledge on usage of patents and patented technology. We designed a chemical process that includes buying and using a patented technology (US patent) for ONLY a part of the entire process. We have doubts concerning the legacy of using this technology. If we buy the technology from the producer that possess the patent, do we also have to buy a license for the patent? The producer has a company specifically selling the technology we need.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23087" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10162" RevisionGUID="e3608c38-ba9b-4c46-a069-12527c7da7eb" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:36:59.067" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1 edit id of 1677" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3721" RevisionGUID="91605486-3357-4ddc-a3ec-d720f78aa892" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:37:02.823" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="What is the best method to request use of a patented technology for use in a specific project? Is it possible to develop a simple agreement for a specific project or is it necessay to enter into a general technology licensing/royalty agreement, provided the patent holder is willing. Also who do you contact? I'm interesting in using font recognition software in the development of a mobile and desktop application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23089" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3721" RevisionGUID="91605486-3357-4ddc-a3ec-d720f78aa892" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:37:02.823" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1 edit id of 1660" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6416" RevisionGUID="81cf2e37-dda9-4d74-9ef3-f89ac2b9a5e4" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:37:05.877" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="Page 3 of this patent wasn't scanned properly, and only a small portion of the top of Page 3 shows.  How do we get this patent PDF repaired?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google used to have a &quot;Report Issue&quot; tool on all their patents, but removed it for some reason a couple of years ago when they reformatted their patent webpages (making them less user-friendly for older patents).  That important reporting tool needs to be restored, even if only in abbreviated form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23091" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6416" RevisionGUID="81cf2e37-dda9-4d74-9ef3-f89ac2b9a5e4" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:37:05.877" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 5071, 1 edit id of 1670" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6690" RevisionGUID="030cc31c-e756-41b8-a1ea-7d53df2c86ed" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:37:08.443" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="What are some tips to get software patent application approved by USPO?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm responsible for the software development at a startup, and to protect our Intellectual Property I need to submit multiple software inventions to our 3rd party patent attorney company for patent applications to USPO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inventions are for embedded software, mobile GUI apps, and backend system management.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23093" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6690" RevisionGUID="030cc31c-e756-41b8-a1ea-7d53df2c86ed" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:37:08.443" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Tips on how to get software patent application approved" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23094" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6690" RevisionGUID="030cc31c-e756-41b8-a1ea-7d53df2c86ed" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:37:08.443" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1114, 1 edit id of 1661" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5032" RevisionGUID="702aec88-a67c-4cd3-ac31-a15251681595" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:37:16.787" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="See information on MS Windows briefcase below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://support.microsoft.com/kb/142574&#xD;&#xA;* http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307885&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This functionality was available in Windows 95, 98 and XP.  Note that it mentions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;a set of files&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* laptop is the &quot;client device&quot; for the briefcase&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;storage system&quot; is floppy drive in briefcase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23098" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5032" RevisionGUID="702aec88-a67c-4cd3-ac31-a15251681595" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:37:16.787" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 5071, 1 edit id of 1650" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3631" RevisionGUID="64c64b9b-4f5a-4926-a715-c378b95fb928" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:37:19.693" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="I am a college student, I want to know why there is a structure change of US applied patent around 1985?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been analyzing all the datas of US applied patent from 1963-2011, then I found out there is a structure change around 1985.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone knows what happened to the patent at that time? Or any law influenced? Why there is a dip?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23100" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3631" RevisionGUID="64c64b9b-4f5a-4926-a715-c378b95fb928" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:37:19.693" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 5071, 1 edit id of 1659" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10204" RevisionGUID="32581e47-614b-42ee-af4d-d337139db7e7" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:37:38.610" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="I noticed in the Legal Events portion of this patent it says that it has expired due to lack of payment. I was wondering if that entitles anyone and everyone to this idea now that it has expired from the previous patent holder. Is there anyway that I could find myself in a sticky situation using an idea similar in a project of mine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23104" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10204" RevisionGUID="32581e47-614b-42ee-af4d-d337139db7e7" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:37:38.610" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1 edit id of 1649" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10117" RevisionGUID="0e6346ed-a64a-4430-b124-e758b8ed8fbf" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:37:40.897" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="Is there a way to track the history of this patent? It was my Great Grandfather's and we never knew he held a patent.  I'm interested in learning more, such as whether he ever sold the patent/technology to a company or another person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23106" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10117" RevisionGUID="0e6346ed-a64a-4430-b124-e758b8ed8fbf" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:37:40.897" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1114, 1 edit id of 1652" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5001" RevisionGUID="b1c11f5d-ad51-4fd7-b46d-6b673578edcc" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:37:43.573" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="I'm trying to understand the difference between a patent published in europe (or a publication with any [country code][1]) and an EP publication (published in EPO). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference between publications starting with EP and publications starting with other country codes (DE, GR etc')? Does publications starting with the country code EP we're first published in one country and then published by the EPO?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ep.espacenet.com/help?topic=countrycodes&amp;method=handleHelpTopic&amp;locale=en_ep&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23108" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5001" RevisionGUID="b1c11f5d-ad51-4fd7-b46d-6b673578edcc" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:37:43.573" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1 edit id of 1653" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1905" RevisionGUID="74763ff3-a53f-497e-905d-9f52e8b1f520" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:37:45.973" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="Is [this patent][1] under the public domain? Does a patent being on &quot;public domain&quot; mean it can be used by anyone without a license from the patent holder? Or that it has been published by the patent office? A lot of HYIP are claiming it's &quot;(under public domain)&quot;, and they may claim usage of the word &quot;public domain&quot; as being published on Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I confirm if a patent is under the public domain (free for use to anyone)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6578010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23110" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1905" RevisionGUID="74763ff3-a53f-497e-905d-9f52e8b1f520" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:37:45.973" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1114, 1 edit id of 1668" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="c5a80ac9-5b66-48e2-b773-9b7208acffde" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:37:48.683" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="Myself and a co-worker developed the methodology for performing a process (software development), and we even helped author the claims for the provisional patent application, yet we have been left off the patent as inventors.  What kind of recourse do we have on this type of situation?  I mainly just want my name listed as an inventor on this patent.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23112" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="c5a80ac9-5b66-48e2-b773-9b7208acffde" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:37:48.683" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 5071, 1 edit id of 1658" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5043" RevisionGUID="e17fa5e7-1983-48e1-acbe-1bfa352be895" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:37:51.510" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="I need some input regarding Prior Art. I have found some abandoned patents with almost similar invention to a US Patent with number WO2005065109A3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to invalidate the patent by using previous patent from European country since the invention is no longer new anymore, and they were already exist that kind technology in German, French and  Netherlands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please give some advices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Patent number that can be prior art documents are : &#xD;&#xA;- DE 19708178 (German) &#xD;&#xA;- EP 1477326 A1 (Netherland)&#xD;&#xA;- EP 1657676 A2 (French)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23114" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5043" RevisionGUID="e17fa5e7-1983-48e1-acbe-1bfa352be895" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:37:51.510" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 3076, 1 edit id of 1657" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3359" RevisionGUID="cc79ec06-20fc-48b3-acb6-956b25079d6b" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:37:54.210" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="I am filing a patent application (pro se) and am wondering whether it is a good idea to assign it to an LLC that I own or to just keep it under my name. I'm assuming here for this question that it will get approved. The main con with the LLC is that if it goes under, I'm afraid I will lose ownership of the patent. On the other hand, I'm not sure if having a patent under my name exposes me to some liability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, can an individual get sued for owning a patent on something and then somehow be forced to pay fines? Both in the case where he has licensed the patent and in the case where the patent is just sitting there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23116" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3359" RevisionGUID="cc79ec06-20fc-48b3-acb6-956b25079d6b" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:37:54.210" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 5071, 1 edit id of 1678" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3835" RevisionGUID="db32472c-445d-49dc-a33d-a6dd04083cc4" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:37:59.720" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick google search found the website **www.whatsyourprice.com** that offers at least a very similar service (and seems more dignified about it than the inventor's site). Whois says the web site was registered in 1999.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site is by the inventor also. The first wayback machine capture with the current type of comtent is April 2. 2011. So it was before filing but since it was his own work it falls within the 1 year grace period.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;icann record of whatsyourprice.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/DY1vQ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23118" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3835" RevisionGUID="db32472c-445d-49dc-a33d-a6dd04083cc4" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:37:59.720" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 1114, 1 edit id of 1666" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6481" RevisionGUID="2ce15f78-e053-41a2-987a-548f9e9bd317" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:38:04.703" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="I've created a wireless parking space sensor using a specific microcontroller and other components. I'm sure the same components used can be utilized in a different manner by others just with a change of firmware so I was wondering:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What exactly is patentable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Would it be the combination of components with dimensions of PCB board? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Would it be just the firmware programmed on the microcontroller? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Would it be the specific purpose for the combination of components and firmware?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23120" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6481" RevisionGUID="2ce15f78-e053-41a2-987a-548f9e9bd317" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:38:04.703" Comment="Proposed by 9939 approved by 5071, 1 edit id of 1663" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23122" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9900" RevisionGUID="631406ae-c27a-4f39-9c82-d134c520a233" CreationDate="2014-10-07T16:39:28.063" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[3801],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1193,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Soren&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="23126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3314" RevisionGUID="acafdaab-dcbe-438c-8ab8-2bdb960f9c33" CreationDate="2014-10-07T18:27:28.030" UserId="9939" Comment="deleted 53 characters in body" Text="I saw [this patent for Medbox][1] and I was wondering how it doesn't violate [EP 2174251 B1][2] which is for a medicine dispensing machine called Pyxis Medstation. They are similar machines however one dispenses pharmaceuticals while the other dispenses marijuana. But they both dispense medicine. Don't see much of the distinction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7844363&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/EP2174251B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6020" RevisionGUID="c699394b-218a-4839-887a-50b5b6b4a304" CreationDate="2014-10-07T18:28:51.813" UserId="9939" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I was the original inventor and became partners w(co-inventor). The initial application was denied in 2005. I left the company and just found out that the initial application was approved 2012 with my name removed from patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I have any recourse? There plenty of documentation that I was inventor on web.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6090" RevisionGUID="af9536c5-c3a0-4508-bf49-be1d7f148d09" CreationDate="2014-10-07T18:30:01.297" UserId="9939" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body" Text="I had made 2 inventions and has done all paper works (write ups and drawings) required to file a patent. The patent was to be filed in my boss name as first author (though hes not the inventor) and me as 2nd author. The required application forms with signatures of us were given to the patent lawyer for filing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But after few months, I realize the patent has been filed in my boss name and my name had been omitted out. The lawyer and my boss claims, it might have happened as a mistake to omit my name and they refuse to add my inventorship claiming additional charges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this kind of situation what can I do? Where can I prove my inventorship?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4305" RevisionGUID="2dfbec7f-53bc-4c1e-a929-97ede5c69d7d" CreationDate="2014-10-07T18:32:45.120" UserId="9939" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Here's a [reference](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1088989) to a paper published in 1975 studying the effects of ice massage on localized skin, specifically titled &quot;The cooling, analgesic, and rewarming effects of ice massage on localized skin&quot;: " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3871" RevisionGUID="fa5b3847-903d-4d26-8b3f-746de18298b8" CreationDate="2014-10-07T18:33:48.263" UserId="9939" Comment="deleted 32 characters in body" Text="I have recently been interested in creating a &quot;better&quot; solution for transporting bikes within a vehicle, specifically an SUV. Without getting into details, I believe that I have designed a completely universal bike rack which would fit any SUV on the market today. It seems that someone had the same idea and has build/patented a design, that being said I have a few questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, Google says the patent number is [ep1582406a1][1]. If you put this into google search you can see the document I have been viewing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent number does not register in the US patent database, what does this mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent valid in the US even though it was filed in Germany?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My product is different in design but similar in function, should I be concerned?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/ep1582406a1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10111" RevisionGUID="24213d0e-0692-4b80-8f7c-64bebfd05152" CreationDate="2014-10-07T18:34:44.387" UserId="9939" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body" Text="I have an Idea/Potential Patent, but someone else has a similar patent out. Our inventions are substantially different in design. One of their claims is very very general and seems to exclude an entire market. Are you allowed to list a non-descriptive function of your product as a claim? For example, here's a similar claim if their invention were a solar panel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Any device using silicone technology to generate power for electronic consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this type of sweeping claim valid? Do I have a new patent if I use a new and different type of silicone technology?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7693" RevisionGUID="7477617a-a043-422a-acb5-27ab011b1019" CreationDate="2014-10-07T18:35:30.490" UserId="9939" Comment="deleted 29 characters in body" Text="I would like to leverage an existing (and patented) research methodology, but use it in a different way. The current patented methodology relies on a specific process of humans prescribing assignments and asking questions of other humans, whereas I believe that this process could be conducted in a different way online (in mass quantity) and become more scalable and more accurate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to give credit and recognition to the original patent holder. I'm just wondering how much say they will/should have in the deployment of a modified process that takes their original concept to the next level, and how much it will likely cost to leverage their original invention. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10337" RevisionGUID="4d78c6a1-5b0e-466c-9cba-4848c0f516cf" CreationDate="2014-10-07T21:14:04.680" UserId="11648" Text="Legally, they are not supposed to file a patent if the invention is not theirs.  Part of a patent filing is a declaration that you are the inventor (signed under penalty of perjury).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But as George points out, the world is first to file now.  Which means that if they file first, they would have superior rights to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, if they derived their filing from yours, you could challenge it in a &quot;derivation proceeding&quot; and claim that they effectively &quot;stole&quot; your invention.  However, that is very difficult to prove, and time consuming too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So your best bet is to quickly file a provisional application including all the data  you disclosed to Company A, and then file a utility patent with all the details as soon as that is complete.  The provisional filing should not cost you a lot in addition to the utility filing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10338" RevisionGUID="95279126-fc36-4f65-a29b-4bae2d20ead3" CreationDate="2014-10-07T21:29:32.530" UserId="11648" Text="The answer is &quot;maybe.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming that you are talking about a patent application, rather than a granted patent?  And that this was relatively recently?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of legal paths to do this, including petitioning to the Patent Office to add you as an inventor, suing the person, etc.  However, all these paths are quite expensive and time consuming, so think hard about whether it's worth it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10339" RevisionGUID="c4aea5d6-1df3-4408-bc9b-aa9930ef1ea3" CreationDate="2014-10-07T21:47:11.430" UserId="11648" Text="There are no requirements for provisional application filings beyond including a specification, and optionally drawings. There are no format requirements.  However, they scan and font that is small enough to be damaged by compression is a bad idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And seriously, it costs $40 per each additional 50 pages. Don't squeeze it.  It's not worth it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10340" RevisionGUID="b2c6b7f4-5de6-4241-b602-bd6045d50c21" CreationDate="2014-10-07T21:50:16.407" UserId="11648" Text="1/ A table comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A screen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A touch detection component attached to the table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2/ The table of claim 1, where the touch detection component is a touch panel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3/ The table of claim 1, where the touch detection component is a camera&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1/ A table comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A screen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A touch detection component attached to the table, where the touch detection component is one of a touch panel and a camera." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23160" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="9987" RevisionGUID="f19ff310-e3ae-41c7-bae0-4ccc903a7c05" CreationDate="2014-10-09T15:17:11.347" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="23183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10352" RevisionGUID="9ac6f832-a302-4f1c-8e2f-650f82916940" CreationDate="2014-10-11T01:00:51.870" UserId="11668" Text="When this application first published on Google with those latest drawings? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The published application on Google is greatly different from what is on reputable USPTO, which cited the original from Taiwan. While EPO doesn't cite the original application number and EPO copy is identical to Google copy. &#xD;&#xA;Do those difference cast doubt on the EPO publication / Google publication as both don't cite the original national document which is cited in USPTO. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23184" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10352" RevisionGUID="9ac6f832-a302-4f1c-8e2f-650f82916940" CreationDate="2014-10-11T01:00:51.870" UserId="11668" Text="EP 1544461A1 , A questionable modified prior art," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23185" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10352" RevisionGUID="9ac6f832-a302-4f1c-8e2f-650f82916940" CreationDate="2014-10-11T01:00:51.870" UserId="11668" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10352" RevisionGUID="db1d7b2e-3bdb-4989-b8c1-51244fa28810" CreationDate="2014-10-11T01:05:55.883" UserId="11668" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="When this application first published on Google? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The published application on Google is identical to published on EPO, and both are greatly different from what is on reputable USPTO, which cited the original from Taiwan, while Google and EPO didn't. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do those difference cast doubt on EPO/ Google publications as both identical, EPO publication is a few months after USPTO, and EPO and Google don't cite the original national document which is cited in USPTO? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10354" RevisionGUID="090e7121-8697-4c94-a24d-54d15fda7a5e" CreationDate="2014-10-11T05:56:36.933" UserId="11672" Text="Inventor wants to file improvement patent on his own patent , there are newly&#xD;&#xA;discovered structural components and can justify their novelty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inventor has been warned about Jepson claims, but in this&#xD;&#xA;specific case in seems appropriate that the Inventor use a Jepson&#xD;&#xA;Claim in the new patent and clearly claim the improvements and&#xD;&#xA;justifications to avoid a possible double patent rejection&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please address this from all the various angles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23194" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10354" RevisionGUID="090e7121-8697-4c94-a24d-54d15fda7a5e" CreationDate="2014-10-11T05:56:36.933" UserId="11672" Text="Inventor&quot;s Improvement Patent of his own Issued Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23195" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10354" RevisionGUID="090e7121-8697-4c94-a24d-54d15fda7a5e" CreationDate="2014-10-11T05:56:36.933" UserId="11672" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10358" RevisionGUID="6d03f248-bbf5-414b-8f3a-5965c415aefe" CreationDate="2014-10-12T07:06:26.817" UserId="11648" Text="Actually, the priority date for this patent is Jun 7, 1995, which predates the switch from 17-years from issue to 20-years from filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For applications filed before June 8, 1995 and for patents that were&#xD;&#xA;&gt; still in force on June 8, 1995, the patent term is either 17 years&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from the issue date or 20 years from the filing date of the earliest&#xD;&#xA;&gt; U.S. or international (PCT) application to which priority is claimed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (excluding provisional applications), the longer term applying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the term would either be 2017, since it was issued in 2000, or 2015, because its priority date is 1995, the choice would be the Patent Owner's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one additional factor you need to be aware of, which is patent term extensions.  Sometimes, if the Patent Office moves too slowly, they give extra time to the patent.  You can look this up at the USPTO on PAIR: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair.  (I'd look it up but it's down for maintenance)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10359" RevisionGUID="7f69967c-5fd0-4915-bc85-f54dd5e94b5f" CreationDate="2014-10-12T07:21:45.080" UserId="11648" Text="That means that the patent application was abandoned in China.  But as Soren points out, this does not change its value as prior art. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10360" RevisionGUID="f33d4f74-5214-47a5-ba61-c0496f0d6740" CreationDate="2014-10-12T07:36:50.677" UserId="11648" Text="There is no upside to using the Jepson format, and there is a significant risk.  The risk is that anything in that preamble (before the &quot;wherein the improvement comprises:&quot;) will be considered to be part of the admitted prior art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is really no cost to writing the claim in the traditional form, reciting the existing elements, and then the novel improvement as the final clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know any US attorney who would use a Jepson claim.  They are used quite often overseas, though, because some countries do require identification of the novel subparts of the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A note for the readers:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Jepson claim is in the format of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A preamble comprising a general description of all the elements or steps of the claimed combination which are conventional or known, followed by a phrase such as “wherein the improvement comprises,” and the novel elements.  So for example for an improved rocking chair it might read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rocking chair with a seating area, arms, a back, and curved legs, wherein the improvement comprises: a stopper at the end of the curved leg to prevent tipping over backward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is an easier format to write, but a riskier one in almost all circumstances." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23207" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5743" RevisionGUID="73d408f4-feb7-44d8-9721-3fff4c92fe8f" CreationDate="2014-10-12T10:23:56.593" UserId="9939" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;us20100332310&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10361" RevisionGUID="403b6021-d72f-4b4a-84e8-28c8296bf52c" CreationDate="2014-10-12T14:28:09.717" UserId="11684" Text="Since inventor is improving own patent within one year&#xD;&#xA;and therefore previous work not considered to be prior art,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When inventor uses traditional format in claims for&#xD;&#xA;new patent reciting existing elements first&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;what language is used in the Prior Art section of the&#xD;&#xA;specification ? If not prior art how does the original inventor&#xD;&#xA;address his own work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23209" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10361" RevisionGUID="403b6021-d72f-4b4a-84e8-28c8296bf52c" CreationDate="2014-10-12T14:28:09.717" UserId="11684" Text="Inventor Improves own Patent issued 6 months ago" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23210" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10361" RevisionGUID="403b6021-d72f-4b4a-84e8-28c8296bf52c" CreationDate="2014-10-12T14:28:09.717" UserId="11684" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10362" RevisionGUID="d5099e29-17f9-4c4c-9aa6-9501ffd3e8a5" CreationDate="2014-10-12T18:32:43.140" UserId="11686" Text="So apparently it can take years for a patent to be approved. Assume I make an invention and file a provisional application for patent right after the invention is public.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it okay and possible for other people / companies to take the idea before I follow up and file my non-provisional application for patent and before the patent gets approved?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If my non-provisional application for patent is not approved yet, can I still legally sue or stop other companies which take my idea because my patent is pending?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23212" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10362" RevisionGUID="d5099e29-17f9-4c4c-9aa6-9501ffd3e8a5" CreationDate="2014-10-12T18:32:43.140" UserId="11686" Text="Can someone copy my idea If i released and filed a patent first but the patent isn't approved yet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23213" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10362" RevisionGUID="d5099e29-17f9-4c4c-9aa6-9501ffd3e8a5" CreationDate="2014-10-12T18:32:43.140" UserId="11686" Text="&lt;patent-pending&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10363" RevisionGUID="7e872195-cc08-47c3-9dd6-e498f4d054c8" CreationDate="2014-10-12T18:51:22.077" UserId="11686" Text="Assume I made an invention and I filed a provisional application for patent in Canada and US and follow up by filing a non-provisional application for patent within a few months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone files a patent for basically the exact same thing in China, and there patent gets approved, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) will I be able to do anything about it since I filed for a patent in US and Canada first?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Will I be able to still 'create / publish' my invention in China even though someone else has it patented in China?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23215" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10363" RevisionGUID="7e872195-cc08-47c3-9dd6-e498f4d054c8" CreationDate="2014-10-12T18:51:22.077" UserId="11686" Text="I file for a patent in Canada and US. if someone files a patent in China before me, can I still 'publish' idea in China?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23216" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10363" RevisionGUID="7e872195-cc08-47c3-9dd6-e498f4d054c8" CreationDate="2014-10-12T18:51:22.077" UserId="11686" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10361" RevisionGUID="c4f5366e-9696-4e4b-b4d8-7d03404a86fb" CreationDate="2014-10-12T21:23:47.520" UserId="10011" Comment="Fix up English while trying to retain original wording, rm thanks" Text="The inventor is improving his or her own patent within one year, so previous work would not be considered prior art, and the inventor uses a traditional format in claims for a new patent, reciting existing elements first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What language should be used in the Prior Art section of the specification? If not prior art how does the original inventor address his own work?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10364" RevisionGUID="cf42aff9-765d-486f-b772-2f5781a09169" CreationDate="2014-10-13T02:34:28.487" UserId="3076" Text="Google does not &quot;publish&quot; patent documents. It just stores and allows retrieval of copies of patent documents previously published by either the USPTO or the EPO. Google does have its own way of presenting that data and puts the patent document itself and some of the legal history together. To see the actual patent document click Download PDF.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see two similar but distinct patent families (with a common title) here. The one your question refers to, EP1544461 filed in 2003, did not result in a patent. The renewal fees were not paid and it died in 2006. It clearly couldn't have cited or mentioned TW20090141529 - a filing that happened six years *after* its filing in *2009*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicant did later file a second family of patent application that includes the issued patents CA272836C and EP2330295C  both filed November 29, 2010, and US8446028 filed March 20, 2010. All three of these claim priority to TW20090141529 that was filed on December 4th, 2009. This is not a &quot;citation&quot; of prior art, it is a claim that the Canadian, European and US. application should be treated as if they were filed on the day of the Taiwan filing.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10365" RevisionGUID="04db4736-936f-4106-b0f6-12f494a74c10" CreationDate="2014-10-13T02:42:58.637" UserId="3076" Text="The basic idea of a patent is that the patentee can keep others from making, selling, importing and using their invention in that territory. Just taking *&quot;someone else has it patented in China&quot;* from your question and it is clear that you can't make, sell, import or use it in China. As long as someone else has a China patent. I'm not sure what create/publish means but if if it is one of those four things, then no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you had requested early publication in the U.S. non-provisional, a patent filed late in China should not have issued because your publication would have been prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10366" RevisionGUID="b8a94fac-0939-4159-9c39-b573b8fe6b6a" CreationDate="2014-10-13T02:46:39.070" UserId="3076" Text="Only an issued patent can be used to stop someone from selling, making, importing or using an invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10367" RevisionGUID="dbba6130-2db9-40a0-9e8b-e16ced48f6ca" CreationDate="2014-10-13T02:55:26.940" UserId="3076" Text="There is *no* requirement for a prior art section and current practice is to have a very general &quot;Background&quot; section or not have such a section at all. You are required to inform the USPTO of anything you know of that you think might cause them to generate a rejection. The way to do that is include it on an IDS form submitted with or shortly after, the patent application. If your own work was published, used  or in a submitted patent then you should include it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10370" RevisionGUID="50ad009f-0aa5-4e14-9522-3bb7ccf402b4" CreationDate="2014-10-13T17:47:51.713" UserId="11693" Text="Has anyone considered the work done by RTC (Radio Computing Services)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They delivered talk- and music-based software to radio stations, starting in 1979.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a wiki on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Computing_Services&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In essence, the same general idea of podcasting which included the automatic delivery of new content via a subscriber service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They're still in existence today: http://www.rcsworks.com/en/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23231" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="10370" RevisionGUID="7577520e-b4d1-4e8c-9e37-dfc8701ce995" CreationDate="2014-10-13T17:47:51.713" UserId="11693" />
  <row Id="23237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10364" RevisionGUID="561d4a87-4427-4fd2-ba0a-c52e463764b9" CreationDate="2014-10-14T01:08:59.720" UserId="3076" Comment="fixed my confusion that the inventors were the same person." Text="Google does not &quot;publish&quot; patent documents. It just stores and allows retrieval of copies of patent documents previously published by either the USPTO or the EPO. Google does have its own way of presenting that data and puts the patent document itself and some of the legal history together. To see the actual patent document click Download PDF. The document you mention EP1544461 was filed in 2003&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDITED**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may be looking at another patent family filed by  a different inventor but with the same title. It resulted in the issuance of a Canada patent, an EP patent and a US patent (US8446028 B2) and does get priority from a TW application. The U.S. application was filed in 2010." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10372" RevisionGUID="4e266b84-de4b-4dbb-ad58-8e16918ae282" CreationDate="2014-10-14T03:26:57.467" UserId="11695" Text="Can you re-file a patent for an idea that has a status of &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot;? Can you do this even if you didn't originally file the patent? Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23239" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10372" RevisionGUID="4e266b84-de4b-4dbb-ad58-8e16918ae282" CreationDate="2014-10-14T03:26:57.467" UserId="11695" Text="Re-file a Patent deemed Abandoned?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23240" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10372" RevisionGUID="4e266b84-de4b-4dbb-ad58-8e16918ae282" CreationDate="2014-10-14T03:26:57.467" UserId="11695" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10373" RevisionGUID="90b1a929-e004-48bb-9c30-6c50d694a793" CreationDate="2014-10-14T03:43:49.210" UserId="3076" Text="No -- Patents are to encourage and reward inventors of new things. I presume you are not the original inventor of the technology in question. Now that it has been published, anyone who came up with it now would not be coming up with something new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *owner* of an abandoned patent application in the US can petition to have it revived on the basis that the non-response causing the abandonment was unintential. If it is not revived then you or anyone else could make, sell, and import the invention.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10376" RevisionGUID="f56742fb-22ac-404b-add7-4cd613fc2b51" CreationDate="2014-10-14T12:37:10.787" UserId="11698" Text="Incredibly excited to find this web site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My design patent was filed on Jul. 19, 2013, in the United States.  I received some bad advice and did not file for an EU patent (huge market potential for my product there.)  So I was wondering, if someone in England were to submit my patented widget to the European Patent Office, would the prior art in my US Patent of my widget prevent them from receiving an EU version of my US widget patent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!!!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;George&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23247" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10376" RevisionGUID="f56742fb-22ac-404b-add7-4cd613fc2b51" CreationDate="2014-10-14T12:37:10.787" UserId="11698" Text="Art from US Patent prevent patent in other countries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23248" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10376" RevisionGUID="f56742fb-22ac-404b-add7-4cd613fc2b51" CreationDate="2014-10-14T12:37:10.787" UserId="11698" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;foreign&gt;&lt;european&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10377" RevisionGUID="c273981f-80d4-437b-b0b7-122ae94e221e" CreationDate="2014-10-14T15:36:18.080" UserId="11701" Text="From the site patentscope.wipo.int I searched for a publication #.   The site made a find and when I clicked on the publication # the header had only five tabs on the header.  “National Biblo. Data”, “Description”, ”Claims”, ”Drawings”, ”Documents”.  It did not have a &quot;National Phase&quot; tab.  How can I determine the status of the application?  Thanks Steve" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23250" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10377" RevisionGUID="c273981f-80d4-437b-b0b7-122ae94e221e" CreationDate="2014-10-14T15:36:18.080" UserId="11701" Text="Application Status" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23251" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10377" RevisionGUID="c273981f-80d4-437b-b0b7-122ae94e221e" CreationDate="2014-10-14T15:36:18.080" UserId="11701" Text="&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10378" RevisionGUID="9bea0da4-a1bb-48bd-b453-995dd231ded8" CreationDate="2014-10-14T18:09:22.187" UserId="11702" Text="The patent is https://www.google.com/patents/US20110201238. Would that patent preclude any sort of electric motor with a jet drive system from being created for stand-up paddle boards? It mentions &quot;similar small watercraft&quot;. Well, a paddle board isn't a watercraft, nor is a surfboard. Does this intentionally vague wording end up hurting their case against future &quot;inventors&quot; who happen to create a similar product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23253" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10378" RevisionGUID="9bea0da4-a1bb-48bd-b453-995dd231ded8" CreationDate="2014-10-14T18:09:22.187" UserId="11702" Text="Is it possible that this patent covers every possible board type, due to it's ambiguous wording (how is this legal, btw)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23254" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10378" RevisionGUID="9bea0da4-a1bb-48bd-b453-995dd231ded8" CreationDate="2014-10-14T18:09:22.187" UserId="11702" Text="&lt;motor&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10379" RevisionGUID="308b4a56-d214-41d2-a3d1-1e185b0b62d4" CreationDate="2014-10-14T18:23:43.213" UserId="3076" Text="Design patents just cover the ornamental aspects of a product, not the functional aspects. Many locations including the EU do not have an exact equivalent of a U.S. design patent. Instead they have systems for the protection of &quot;industrial designs&quot; that are often completely separate from their patent system .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Europe this is handled by the [OHIM][1] (an agency of the EU) rather than the EPO (*not* an agency of the EU). The search is not as extensive as a search done by a patent office but if they find your granted, published, design patent it may keep the other person's design from being registered.  However, it is granting and publishing of your U.S. patent that will provide &quot;prior art&quot;, not just the fact that it was filed. No one can see it until it is issued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://oami.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23256" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10378" RevisionGUID="3fb80aff-e4b6-4044-9037-f80632de7a4a" CreationDate="2014-10-14T18:24:18.313" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag" Text="&lt;motor&gt;&lt;us20110201238&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10380" RevisionGUID="f9d75de2-f2f9-4bea-9091-7f7af243d54e" CreationDate="2014-10-14T18:31:43.330" UserId="3076" Text="This document is not a granted issued patent. Rather, it is an application for a patent that has not yet been granted. To see its current state you can look up the whole history of the case in the USPTO's Public PAIR database. Other answers here explain how to do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it *were* a granted patent (for educational purposes) what it would cover is not defined but what is merely &quot;mentioned&quot;. To infringe a patent one must have or do *everything* in at least on of its claims. I have edited in claim 1. It is very very detailed. If it were a granted patent one would need to make, sell, import or use something that had everything in the claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10378" RevisionGUID="e6b224c6-9b5e-4f7c-9c9e-2b16f00e4ec1" CreationDate="2014-10-14T18:33:27.517" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to document and claim 1" Text="The patent is https://www.google.com/patents/US20110201238. Would that patent preclude any sort of electric motor with a jet drive system from being created for stand-up paddle boards? It mentions &quot;similar small watercraft&quot;. Well, a paddle board isn't a watercraft, nor is a surfboard. Does this intentionally vague wording end up hurting their case against future &quot;inventors&quot; who happen to create a similar product?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim  1. A powered small watercraft, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a battery pack with seated terminals and casing preventing current leakage into ambient water;&#xD;&#xA;a water-jet pump powered by the battery pack;&#xD;&#xA;an electronic control unit powered by the battery pack and controlling the water-jet pump, comprising&#xD;&#xA;a wireless receiver,&#xD;&#xA;a programmable motor controller,&#xD;&#xA;an information storage element with instructions for nuanced control of the water-jet pump,&#xD;&#xA;a microprocessor interpreting signals received by the wireless receiver, reading the instructions on the information storage element, and issuing commands to the motor controller according to the instructions being read.&#xD;&#xA;a body assembly comprising&#xD;&#xA;a body of a size and shape similar to a conventional unpowered version of the watercraft, modified with cavities and channels fitting the battery pack, the water-jet pump, the electronic control unit, and associated electrical connections, and&#xD;&#xA;a plurality of covers configured to confine and protect the battery pack, the water-jet pump, the electronic control unit, and the associated electrical connections inside the cavities and channels,&#xD;&#xA;where&#xD;&#xA;the cavities are configured to distribute the weight of intended contents so that the drag coefficient, balance, and center of gravity of the powered watercraft resembles those of a conventional unpowered version of the watercraft, and&#xD;&#xA;when fully assembled, the shape of the powered watercraft substantially resembles that of a conventional unpowered version of the watercraft; and further comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a wireless controller comprising&#xD;&#xA;a switch,&#xD;&#xA;a wireless transmitter controlled by the switch, and&#xD;&#xA;a waterproof support structure supporting the switch and the wireless transmitter, where&#xD;&#xA;the wireless transmitter communicates with the wireless receiver in the electronic control unit, and&#xD;&#xA;the support structure positions the switch to be operable without disrupting an operator's normal postures and gestures conventionally associated with piloting the watercraft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23259" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10378" RevisionGUID="e6b224c6-9b5e-4f7c-9c9e-2b16f00e4ec1" CreationDate="2014-10-14T18:33:27.517" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to document and claim 1" Text="Is it possible that this patent covers every possible board type, due to its possibly ambiguous wording?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10380" RevisionGUID="006f4a22-bc4f-42d4-ab1a-eba26ed46f09" CreationDate="2014-10-14T18:36:47.937" UserId="3076" Comment="added 120 characters in body" Text="No - it does not cover every possible board type and its claim wording is not particularity ambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This document is not a granted issued patent. Rather, it is an application for a patent that has not yet been granted. To see its current state you can look up the whole history of the case in the USPTO's Public PAIR database. Other answers here explain how to do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it *were* a granted patent (for educational purposes) what it would cover is not defined but what is merely &quot;mentioned&quot;. To infringe a patent one must have or do *everything* in at least on of its claims. I have edited in claim 1. It is very very detailed. If it were a granted patent one would need to make, sell, import or use something that had *everything* in the claim to infringe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10381" RevisionGUID="ada1f653-3db7-40c8-a44b-ea5b361f2fe2" CreationDate="2014-10-14T19:37:54.720" UserId="11703" Text="I was taught, and have seen it successful in patent procurement, to only go into the background or &quot;creation&quot; of ones invention to the extent that it is required for the reader to understand how to make and use the invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not mean misleading the reader, but you don't need to go out of your way to &quot;explain&quot; how you arrived at the invention in a kind of storytelling way (for example:  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;and then I thought to myself, gee, what if I....&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10382" RevisionGUID="ad39076f-4525-459c-b77d-54ecf7785709" CreationDate="2014-10-14T21:24:50.217" UserId="5639" Text="Further to George's answer, you don't have firm ground to stand on until the patent has been issued.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Until then, you can try to scare the other party away from infringing the not-yet-in-existence-patent: **get a lawyer's help** to write a cease-and-desist letter, advising the other party that you have applied for this patent, and advising that when it is granted you will vigorously defend your patent and seek damages retroactive to the date of your patent application date, unless they C&amp;D immediately.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10384" RevisionGUID="ed0f7923-d1d3-4c2d-ad9a-70017f3e6a02" CreationDate="2014-10-14T22:07:00.210" UserId="11704" Text="Who has the right to enforce patent us7503696&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imported a product from China that is sold on ebay and amazon and many trade shows. Now a company in the US is threatening to close me down due to infringing on a similar product they sell that has a us utility patent owned by someone in S Korea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23267" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10384" RevisionGUID="ed0f7923-d1d3-4c2d-ad9a-70017f3e6a02" CreationDate="2014-10-14T22:07:00.210" UserId="11704" Text="Utility Patent enforcing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23268" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10384" RevisionGUID="ed0f7923-d1d3-4c2d-ad9a-70017f3e6a02" CreationDate="2014-10-14T22:07:00.210" UserId="11704" Text="&lt;us7503696&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10386" RevisionGUID="d2e6284d-f063-4fd4-93da-c1e907f2a044" CreationDate="2014-10-15T04:17:02.723" UserId="11706" Text="I used to work for company A, and during my employment, company A filed a patent application (to my knowledge, no patent has been issued yet) and I was listed as an inventor. While employed by company A, I signed various documents assigning the patent to company A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Company A was acquired by company B, and company B are, to put it mildly, d-bags. I resigned from company B a few months after the acquisition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Company B recently sent me some papers they want me to sign, one of which looks like the original assignment papers, but assign the patent to company B; the other looks like a boilerplate declaration for the USPTO (I am the named inventor, patent apps can lead to identity theft, stuff like that). The assignment form has a filing date in mid September, long after I had left the company. Someone from company B called me today, and asked when I would get this signed and back to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I need to sign this? What happens if I don't? Could I open myself up to legal action by not signing this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not interested in any kind of compensation, though I think it's a bad patent (it's for a software system), and I don't feel like I owe company B anything more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23273" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10386" RevisionGUID="d2e6284d-f063-4fd4-93da-c1e907f2a044" CreationDate="2014-10-15T04:17:02.723" UserId="11706" Text="Former employer wants a patent assignment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23274" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10386" RevisionGUID="d2e6284d-f063-4fd4-93da-c1e907f2a044" CreationDate="2014-10-15T04:17:02.723" UserId="11706" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;employer&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10387" RevisionGUID="0b20939a-bc57-4a85-b7a4-b1135227db7d" CreationDate="2014-10-15T04:43:53.880" UserId="10011" Text="It depends on a few a things, mostly what your employment contracts said with Company A  *and* (if different) Company B. The Company A one is probably a little more relevant, but you'd definitely want to dig up any contracts you signed that could pertain to their rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, that's pretty well the end of what I can think to suggest. It really depends on those. You'll want to look for anything that talks about getting you to help them get any patents that you work on. A lot of companies require that you assign any IP to them that you develop during your employment, and if you signed something like that, yes, you'll probably have to sign it, because this is likely a Continuation of your previous application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your best bet, per usual, is probably to speak with a patent professional who can read over your contracts and what they're asking you to sign now. But yes, it is *possible* that you'll have to sign it to avoid legal action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10388" RevisionGUID="1ee78475-da6f-4f29-afc7-c9670ce2072f" CreationDate="2014-10-15T06:04:02.480" UserId="3076" Text="I assume you saw at google patents that it was assigned last year:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     LEGAL EVENTS        Date   	Code	Event	 Description&#xD;&#xA;                      Jun 28, 2013	  AS        	Assignment	&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Owner name: DAE SUNG HI-TECH CO., LTD, KOREA, REPUBLIC OF&#xD;&#xA;Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:SEHYANG INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD;REEL/FRAME:030710/0859&#xD;&#xA;Effective date: 20130509&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A U.S. patent gives the owner the right to stop others from making, selling, using in the U.S. or importing into the U.S." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10389" RevisionGUID="c77517bd-8abe-434d-9167-fa3f6fa59c88" CreationDate="2014-10-15T06:08:51.393" UserId="7617" Text="Can someone else copy, use and sell or import the subject-matter contained in la refused app? Is a refused app part of prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23278" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10389" RevisionGUID="c77517bd-8abe-434d-9167-fa3f6fa59c88" CreationDate="2014-10-15T06:08:51.393" UserId="7617" Text="Application refused" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23279" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10389" RevisionGUID="c77517bd-8abe-434d-9167-fa3f6fa59c88" CreationDate="2014-10-15T06:08:51.393" UserId="7617" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10390" RevisionGUID="d274af51-ca40-4736-a7a1-ecc8142a3bfb" CreationDate="2014-10-15T07:14:10.957" UserId="11543" Text="Regarding the first question - will I be able to do anything about it since I filed for a patent in US and Canada first?&#xD;&#xA;There is always scope for invalidating the patent granted in China. In order to invalidate the Chinese patent using your patent application, your application should have been published before the effective filing date of the Chinese patent.&#xD;&#xA;It shall be noted that only non provisional applications are published. Hence, the filing date of your provisional application may not have an impact over the validity of the Chinese patent, as opposed to the publication date of your non-provisional application, which may have an impact over the validity of the Chinese patent, if it was published before the effective filing date of the Chinese patent.&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the second question - Will I be able to still 'create / publish' my invention in China even though someone else has it patented in China?&#xD;&#xA;You can always publish your application without being liable for infringement. &#xD;&#xA;However, if you make, use, sell or offer for sale in China, any product or process covered by the granted Chinese patent, then you may be liable for infringement. &#xD;&#xA;You may refer to the link provided below for further details.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/my-product-infringing-others-patents &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards,&#xD;&#xA;Subhasmita&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10391" RevisionGUID="94cf95c6-abc4-4df1-80d0-73d5f13d3f68" CreationDate="2014-10-15T08:56:44.933" UserId="11542" Text="Worthiness of a patent having a variation (marginal/drastic) can be gauged in different terms. However it is advisable to gauge worthiness of patent in terms of technological advancement, consumer demand and monetary benefits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a proposed invention to be patentable it has to fulfill novelty and non-obviousness criteria.&#xD;&#xA;Since the device that you propose to patent is in some form different from existing technology, the question is whether those differences would be sufficient to make your device non-obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The invention can pass the non-obviousness criteria, if it has technical advancement that is not obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the field of the proposed invention, in light of existing technology. It shall be noted that, non-obviousness is determined on a case-to-case basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may want to refer the article at the below link to get insight on patentability of an invention. &#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/how-can-i-find-out-whether-my-invention-patentable&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10393" RevisionGUID="4013e1a8-1a59-4342-a63a-f83844089d9f" CreationDate="2014-10-15T17:33:45.183" UserId="3076" Text="Only a granted patent provides any right of enforcement and **everything** published is potentially prior art. A magazine article, a newspaper story,a blog entry, a granted patent, a published application that went abandoned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10399" RevisionGUID="36e26ecd-abdd-4f15-bdc3-c56a08e1dd3a" CreationDate="2014-10-16T06:45:31.810" UserId="11716" Text="SERIAL # 282104 ...Call me stupid, but is it worth anything today? It has to do with time navigation on the ocean(I think?)... How can I find out if its worth anything? Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23302" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10399" RevisionGUID="36e26ecd-abdd-4f15-bdc3-c56a08e1dd3a" CreationDate="2014-10-16T06:45:31.810" UserId="11716" Text="I found an old patent of my Uncles from 1954 for the GREENWICH TIME FINDER" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23303" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10399" RevisionGUID="36e26ecd-abdd-4f15-bdc3-c56a08e1dd3a" CreationDate="2014-10-16T06:45:31.810" UserId="11716" Text="&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10400" RevisionGUID="e493d1d9-2ff8-4167-9270-ed8e735aaaca" CreationDate="2014-10-16T08:16:01.347" UserId="11718" Text="I have made one inspire-able  sentence which is very helpful in living life for inspiration, because with the help of inspiration everything is possible. So shall i apply and get the patent for that sentence which i made.  If yes tell me procedure abut that, hope you do for needful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards,&#xD;&#xA;Kishan" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23305" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10400" RevisionGUID="e493d1d9-2ff8-4167-9270-ed8e735aaaca" CreationDate="2014-10-16T08:16:01.347" UserId="11718" Text="Want to know may i appy for the patent or not" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23306" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10400" RevisionGUID="e493d1d9-2ff8-4167-9270-ed8e735aaaca" CreationDate="2014-10-16T08:16:01.347" UserId="11718" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10401" RevisionGUID="1209f94f-2040-4d63-9095-b0271b9f0c98" CreationDate="2014-10-16T09:45:06.063" UserId="11719" Text="The term of a patent is 20 years from the filing date. The legal status of the patent will be &quot;expired&quot; in the case of a patent filed in 1991,. This is because the term of the patent has been more than 20 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, once a patent is granted, it is must for a patentee to pay the prescribed renewal fees to keep the patent in force until the completion of the patent term. The procedure and rules for payment of the renewal fees varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It has to be noted that non payment of the renewal fees will lead to revocation of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/can-lapsed-patent-be-restored-india&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, the fee payment status is being shown as paid because renewal fees of the patent has been paid till the patent was in force." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10403" RevisionGUID="bea5d70e-6cad-42de-afc4-e69ea8e2706d" CreationDate="2014-10-16T11:14:37.293" UserId="11542" Text="A sentence cannot be patented. It can be protected under copyrights. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent is granted to an invention which has new and inventive solution to a technical problem. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may want to refer the article at the below link to get insight on what can be patented and what cannot be patented:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/what-can-be-patented-and-what-cannot-be-patented" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10404" RevisionGUID="da69cd37-d385-4459-80cf-066f6fc84eee" CreationDate="2014-10-16T14:40:32.933" UserId="1145" Text="It was valid until 1974 years assuming renewal fees were paid &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the patent may be worth something in a nice frame&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]](http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&amp;NR=2694522A&amp;KC=A&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=3&amp;date=19541116&amp;DB=EPODOC&amp;locale=en_EP)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uHW5m.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10376" RevisionGUID="8adb6a82-c7be-497d-8b4c-69d29c93e8a7" CreationDate="2014-10-16T19:21:45.833" UserId="1145" Comment="Removed fluff" Text="My design patent was filed on Jul. 19, 2013, in the United States.  I received some bad advice and did not file for an EU patent (huge market potential for my product there.)  So I was wondering, if someone in England were to submit my patented widget to the European Patent Office, would the prior art in my US Patent of my widget prevent them from receiving an EU version of my US widget patent? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23318" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10376" RevisionGUID="8adb6a82-c7be-497d-8b4c-69d29c93e8a7" CreationDate="2014-10-16T19:21:45.833" Comment="Proposed by 1145 approved by 3076, 9939 edit id of 1684" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23319" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10399" RevisionGUID="5c8d74c3-6e81-44e7-a3dd-ede83d615c0e" CreationDate="2014-10-16T19:23:04.720" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;us282104&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10405" RevisionGUID="be6f3618-cc7e-4818-8f84-4419bbce0f26" CreationDate="2014-10-16T19:27:44.270" UserId="3076" Text="As an expired patent it has no value. In 1956 patents had a term of 17 years from the date of grant, and maintenance fees did not exist in the US until 1980 or so. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23321" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10399" RevisionGUID="d720be58-3e20-46c3-98a1-4e3297417400" CreationDate="2014-10-16T19:28:52.640" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;term&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10399" RevisionGUID="a133bdb7-162e-4b8f-b0d6-344d6da6a8ea" CreationDate="2014-10-16T19:35:18.947" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag patent" Text="US2694522 ...Call me stupid, but is it worth anything today? It has to do with time navigation on the ocean(I think?)... How can I find out if its worth anything? Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23323" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10399" RevisionGUID="a133bdb7-162e-4b8f-b0d6-344d6da6a8ea" CreationDate="2014-10-16T19:35:18.947" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag patent" Text="&lt;term&gt;&lt;us2694522&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10404" RevisionGUID="b6931619-e7f9-41bd-8a27-c0888c610f2d" CreationDate="2014-10-16T20:25:33.617" UserId="1145" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="A patent is valid for 20 years (17 then) today assuming renewal fees are paid &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now this patent may be worth something in a nice frame&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]](http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&amp;NR=2694522A&amp;KC=A&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=3&amp;date=19541116&amp;DB=EPODOC&amp;locale=en_EP)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uHW5m.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10405" RevisionGUID="4124b185-ed4c-494a-aecb-b0aabf931e8a" CreationDate="2014-10-16T21:39:54.667" UserId="3076" Comment="added 169 characters in body" Text="As an expired patent it has no value. In 1956 patents had a term of 17 years from the date of *grant*, and maintenance fees did not exist in the US until 1980 or so. Today patents terminate 20 years after the day of the application *filing*. If a patent took 3 years before being granted, it would end up being in-force for 17 years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10399" RevisionGUID="aa2858dd-2487-478f-8928-581a322f1cdd" CreationDate="2014-10-16T22:56:57.280" UserId="10011" Comment="added 88 characters in body; edited title" Text="I recently came across a patent of my Uncle's from 1954, and I'm wondering whether it could be worth anything today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe it has to do with time navigation in the ocean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I find out whether it's worth anything? The patent number is US2694522." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23327" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10399" RevisionGUID="aa2858dd-2487-478f-8928-581a322f1cdd" CreationDate="2014-10-16T22:56:57.280" UserId="10011" Comment="added 88 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is a 1954 patent still worth anything?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10405" RevisionGUID="7952f30d-e2d3-4f04-a828-3e52ae0d343a" CreationDate="2014-10-17T05:57:36.323" UserId="3076" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="As an expired patent it has *no value*. In 1956 patents had a term of 17 years from the date of *grant*, and maintenance fees did not exist in the US until 1980 or so. Today patents terminate 20 years after the day of the application *filing*. If a patent took 3 years before being granted, it would end up being in-force for 17 years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10411" RevisionGUID="c1822d36-32c8-48b3-84e2-6f04c6ded39d" CreationDate="2014-10-17T17:33:48.177" UserId="11731" Text="Is the patent Usd471730 valid? This is the polyprop chair but the patent is quite recent, much more so than the chair's invention in 1963. I am puzzled." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23344" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10411" RevisionGUID="c1822d36-32c8-48b3-84e2-6f04c6ded39d" CreationDate="2014-10-17T17:33:48.177" UserId="11731" Text="Is this patent valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23345" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10411" RevisionGUID="c1822d36-32c8-48b3-84e2-6f04c6ded39d" CreationDate="2014-10-17T17:33:48.177" UserId="11731" Text="&lt;validity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23346" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10411" RevisionGUID="8373a772-47d7-47e1-ac88-0c1a650d8966" CreationDate="2014-10-17T17:34:36.177" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;validity&gt;&lt;usd471730&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10412" RevisionGUID="3e89499a-e524-4c65-9dee-b39988065272" CreationDate="2014-10-17T17:42:58.903" UserId="3076" Text="This is a design patent. Unlike utility patents (what you normally think of as a patent) design patents are *not* related to functionality but just to the esthetic design. As you can see, the examiner looked at a few dozen similar looking chairs, including the 1963 Polyprop chair. Whatever differentiates the this design from the Polyprop, Eames, Alvar Alalto, etc. designs is what is covered. If the differences are small, then the breadth of coverage is also small." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10415" RevisionGUID="959d5fc6-a603-4d6c-a745-cdf164c97f01" CreationDate="2014-10-18T13:13:01.370" UserId="11734" Text="In a strict sense no it is not; if you provide something really good i.e. something that knocks out a patent then you will get paid (in around 3 or 4 months) when you do a validity search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But as with all things in life, there is a down side to it. Try to avoid state of the art searches as they are the easiest ones and usually a winner is awarded &quot;instantly&quot;, if you are a &quot;member&quot;. What I noticed is that even if you provide 3 really good references, AOP will not increase your submissions (or will increase it 2 days beore the search ends) and thus you will not have a chance to submit more, whilst &quot;members&quot; will have this option and win the prize. In this way the house always wins. Use these searches to increase your in scope submissions which has to be 10% or more in order to be eligible for the prize.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The validity searches are the most promising. As I said earlier, you have to find a really good reference in order to get the award which is not 4500 but 2000 USD while at the same time beating competition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always you never know what other people have submitted or how many submissions have been made; you are always in the dark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps to clarify free labour in the digital world..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10420" RevisionGUID="c3dad1d0-3ad4-405b-9589-9791c13b1d2f" CreationDate="2014-10-20T00:30:50.047" UserId="11741" Text="In the patent application US20070040653, it appears that patent US20060187055 &quot;Containers including radio frequency shielding&quot; might be prior art. Is this the case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23373" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10420" RevisionGUID="c3dad1d0-3ad4-405b-9589-9791c13b1d2f" CreationDate="2014-10-20T00:30:50.047" UserId="11741" Text="Isn't this prior art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23374" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10420" RevisionGUID="c3dad1d0-3ad4-405b-9589-9791c13b1d2f" CreationDate="2014-10-20T00:30:50.047" UserId="11741" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23376" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10420" RevisionGUID="959268ba-447c-448c-8d5c-fad06fba2973" CreationDate="2014-10-20T04:32:31.187" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to document add all (both) claims" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20070040653&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10420" RevisionGUID="959268ba-447c-448c-8d5c-fad06fba2973" CreationDate="2014-10-20T04:32:31.187" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to document add all (both) claims" Text="In the patent application US20070040653, it appears that patent US20060187055 &quot;Containers including radio frequency shielding&quot; might be prior art. Is this the case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of preventing unauthorized electromagnetic access to an RFID device embedded within a card comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;providing at least one length of electromagnetic shielding material; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;substantially surrounding the card having the RFID device embedded therein with the length of electromagnetic shielding material.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. An apparatus for preventing unauthorized electronic access to an RFID device embedded within a card comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;at least one length of electromagnetic shielding material; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;means for positioning the length of electromagnetic shielding material in a surrounding relationship with respect to the card having the RFID device embedded therein.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10421" RevisionGUID="3347fe5d-4486-412a-844c-8122b2beeb9e" CreationDate="2014-10-20T04:54:05.120" UserId="3076" Text=" This patent application was declared abandoned in 2010. That information is visible at a USPTO site called Public PAIR. It allows the public to see *all* of the paperwork back-and-forth between the applicant and the examiner. I am inserting a screen shot of the status of this application.&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Mwy4l.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10422" RevisionGUID="a4c6953f-d52c-4210-91b2-2a24290bbe1e" CreationDate="2014-10-20T12:19:22.053" UserId="11743" Text="Earlier this year I submitted a utility patent application at the USPTO in respect of a manual cutting device for which I recently received the first Office Action. The report of the examiner includes claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 on the basis of 'obviousness' supported in the usual way by inclusions of prior art. The examiner has cited three historical patents (A, B &amp; C) ,the main thrust of his argument states it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine some elements of  B &amp; C in order to achieve the principle inventive step of the apparatus subject to my own application. However, having carefully studied the specification, claims and drawings of citation B it is completely obvious that the apparatus to which it refers under all circumstances would be totally dysfunctional (It couldn't possibly work).&#xD;&#xA;Before responding to the 'Office Action' I would like to know if the USPTO has particular protocols  a patent applicant should adhere to under such circumstances, the last thing I wish to do to worsen my argument by undermining the relevant examiner. Can you please advise. Many thanks Robert  Czech Republic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23380" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10422" RevisionGUID="a4c6953f-d52c-4210-91b2-2a24290bbe1e" CreationDate="2014-10-20T12:19:22.053" UserId="11743" Text="USPTO Citation referring to a dysfunctional invnetion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23381" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10422" RevisionGUID="a4c6953f-d52c-4210-91b2-2a24290bbe1e" CreationDate="2014-10-20T12:19:22.053" UserId="11743" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10423" RevisionGUID="628273af-b6f9-4ac5-bd05-0f84db32cc32" CreationDate="2014-10-20T21:16:29.977" UserId="8684" Text="I'm writing a provisional patent which has many variations. Several of the properties that make up a number of dependant claims are independent of one another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I do one claim for every combination of options I want to patent, it seems that there would be an exponential number of claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there legitimate way to avoid having to write an exponential number of claims for my patent when there is indeed an exponential number of variations caused by many independent options?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23383" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10423" RevisionGUID="628273af-b6f9-4ac5-bd05-0f84db32cc32" CreationDate="2014-10-20T21:16:29.977" UserId="8684" Text="Combinations of independent variations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23384" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10423" RevisionGUID="628273af-b6f9-4ac5-bd05-0f84db32cc32" CreationDate="2014-10-20T21:16:29.977" UserId="8684" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23385" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10423" RevisionGUID="eef7fa2c-15c4-4587-a147-f8fb70bbc652" CreationDate="2014-10-20T21:29:41.867" UserId="8684" Comment="edited title" Text="Combinations of independent options creating exponentially numerous claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10424" RevisionGUID="5b4d928d-7c7d-4290-9d58-aedce3a3a92e" CreationDate="2014-10-20T23:23:29.283" UserId="11648" Text="Claims are designed to be built up like a tree.  So the claim structure should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  A thing with a feature X.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  The thing of claim 1, where the feature X is of a type Z.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  The thing of claim 2, where the type Z is A, B, or C.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should be able to collapse the variations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you do get to define your own terms in a patent, as long as you actually *define* the terms.  So you can call &quot;feature X&quot; Bob, if you want, as long as it's clear for someone reading the patent what Bob refers to.  This enables you to group conceptually." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10426" RevisionGUID="63524923-b0db-41ff-a50f-687fe550df08" CreationDate="2014-10-21T16:32:06.430" UserId="11748" Text="I am developing something identical to this system. it does have differences and additions but the base network and sensing devices are similar. how would i get a patent if mine is the same idea but different parts used and different way of building the system. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23391" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10426" RevisionGUID="63524923-b0db-41ff-a50f-687fe550df08" CreationDate="2014-10-21T16:32:06.430" UserId="11748" Text="Developing something similar. How do i get mine patented with this patent in place" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23392" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10426" RevisionGUID="63524923-b0db-41ff-a50f-687fe550df08" CreationDate="2014-10-21T16:32:06.430" UserId="11748" Text="&lt;us7714742&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10427" RevisionGUID="e70462f7-979f-4942-a9d8-48781797efa2" CreationDate="2014-10-21T21:30:26.087" UserId="5639" Text="a key point here is that you've now been made aware that you're in violation of a US patent.  Assuming you agree that the patent covers the item in question, even though it may seem unfair (given the availability of the item), you should stop using it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the patent owner will give you a use license if you send them a payment?  If you can't come to an agreement with the patent owner (or their assignee), you've got to stop using/selling the item in the US, or you're open to damages, if they were to proceed and try to sue you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10428" RevisionGUID="cd125af9-302d-4346-9419-8a153360b4a0" CreationDate="2014-10-21T21:39:37.633" UserId="5639" Text="If they bought out Company A, they probably bought out A's IP.  Which would include the patent rights that you signed over to A a long time ago.  If push comes to shove, they can surely find documents that would prove their ownership of the patent.  If they lost the paper trail, that's their problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, on acquisition, you signed over the rights to a bunch of patents to B, then you can claim it's their incompetence that they didn't include the subject patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've found a way to invalidate the patent, you should write them back that in your opinion, the patent's not valid anyway because of reason XXX.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to screw with them, ask them for a consultation fee so that you can review all relevant documents, and run the documents past your lawyer.  Don't forget also to ask them for all relevant documents, including any paperwork that you signed initially.  If they can't provide it to you, they probably don't have it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23401" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10422" RevisionGUID="1a516718-494e-43f2-9591-101caa8c235a" CreationDate="2014-10-22T02:43:49.833" UserId="1" Comment="edited title" Text="USPTO Citation referring to a dysfunctional invention" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10429" RevisionGUID="24b73710-0812-4884-9d26-9d16fef40e41" CreationDate="2014-10-22T03:35:29.907" UserId="11749" Text="There are at minimum 12 manufactures currently producing and selling systems identical to what Ortery Technologies, Inc. has listed in its claims (US20070172216). There are current systems on the market from multiple vendors that employ serial, USB and wireless communications between PC and camera and that are capable of automated picture taking and synchronizing control exactly as claimed by Ortery. Many of these companies have been offering what is claimed in this patent since 1999. Also, multiple software companies offer object vr automated control software designed to work with these various vendors turntables in the exact communications manner that is described in the claims. I don't understand how they can make attempt to patent this. I'd like to make a turntable like this and maybe sell some. US20070172216 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23407" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10429" RevisionGUID="24b73710-0812-4884-9d26-9d16fef40e41" CreationDate="2014-10-22T03:35:29.907" UserId="11749" Text="Ortery Technologies Object VR turntable claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23408" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10429" RevisionGUID="24b73710-0812-4884-9d26-9d16fef40e41" CreationDate="2014-10-22T03:35:29.907" UserId="11749" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20070172216&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10429" RevisionGUID="30508693-9373-4210-b456-a1fd96b9bb4c" CreationDate="2014-10-22T03:46:30.430" UserId="11749" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="There are at minimum 12 manufactures currently producing and selling systems identical to what Ortery Technologies, Inc. has listed in its claims (US20070172216). There are current systems on the market from multiple vendors that employ serial, USB and wireless communications between PC and camera and that are capable of automated picture taking and synchronizing control exactly as claimed by Ortery. Many of these companies have been offering what is claimed in this patent since 1999. Also, multiple software companies offer object vr automated control software designed to work with these various vendors turntables in the exact communications manner that is described in the claims. I don't understand how Ortery can make an attempt to patent this. I was thinking about designing a turntable that was compatible with software currently on the market. If i did, and sold some would I be infringing on the claims in US20070172216. Or is this patent destined not to be granted? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10430" RevisionGUID="72998024-5be5-4bcd-9565-0c87872ed3bd" CreationDate="2014-10-22T04:38:38.973" UserId="11750" Text="If you are the first to file a patent, then don't worry too much. But if they filed a patent before you did, you got some uphill battle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10431" RevisionGUID="5525c826-14e4-4193-a1d1-e85ea54eab6a" CreationDate="2014-10-22T04:43:38.983" UserId="11750" Text="I'm a newbie and I'm hoping to get some pretty interesting ideas from you guys about patent searching and the different tools and techniques I can use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23412" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10431" RevisionGUID="5525c826-14e4-4193-a1d1-e85ea54eab6a" CreationDate="2014-10-22T04:43:38.983" UserId="11750" Text="Ideas on how to do patent searching" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23413" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10431" RevisionGUID="5525c826-14e4-4193-a1d1-e85ea54eab6a" CreationDate="2014-10-22T04:43:38.983" UserId="11750" Text="&lt;patent-search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10432" RevisionGUID="9695f531-c40b-4b4e-a688-4e86ae52bb60" CreationDate="2014-10-22T11:30:01.887" UserId="11751" Text="What are the possible sanctions from US court if a EU company decides that continuing software patent litigation is useless but is not willing to make a deal with accusing party. In other words ignores the litigation or the court ruling if ruling is in favor of accusing party. Are there any precedents like that? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without getting into details the patent litigation in US is so frustrating. Defending party lawyers failing to adequately represent defending party, accusing party lawyers are putting forward plain stupid/inadequate arguments... Seeking justice becomes too painful mentally and money-wise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23416" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10432" RevisionGUID="9695f531-c40b-4b4e-a688-4e86ae52bb60" CreationDate="2014-10-22T11:30:01.887" UserId="11751" Text="Possible US court sanctions over EU company in patent infringment case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23417" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10432" RevisionGUID="9695f531-c40b-4b4e-a688-4e86ae52bb60" CreationDate="2014-10-22T11:30:01.887" UserId="11751" Text="&lt;european&gt;&lt;litigation&gt;&lt;us&gt;&lt;sanctions&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23418" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10432" RevisionGUID="2eb7e174-b925-4793-ae2c-d4fa82193a70" CreationDate="2014-10-22T11:41:46.157" UserId="11751" Comment="edited title" Text="Possible US court sanctions over EU company in software patent infringment case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10433" RevisionGUID="40f582bf-d7b9-4fd6-9c97-f246cbe427b1" CreationDate="2014-10-22T11:47:58.400" UserId="11751" Text="Is the idea of combining inventions elements B &amp; C is obvious enough? That is in practice do people use those features (either from patented &quot;inventions&quot; or similar devices) to achieve what you are patenting? (Having in mind that all combinations of features will require some adjustments.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10434" RevisionGUID="d6e3cdad-de6a-44ae-ab8b-a7efca6cf628" CreationDate="2014-10-22T17:34:44.520" UserId="3076" Text="You can argue that no one would think to combine B and C because B flat doesn't work. A difficulty in that approach is that anything claimed in an issued U.S. patent is presumed to be &quot;enabled&quot;, and therefore work to at least some degree. Even if you get past that, any reference is &quot;good for what it teaches&quot;. That means even though B, as a whole, doesn't work, some sub-part of it described in the patent might combine with C to produce your invention. A good response to an obviousness rejection is often a difficult exercise," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10435" RevisionGUID="4b1e1f1b-da16-477d-83d7-3e96b704686b" CreationDate="2014-10-22T17:43:23.043" UserId="3076" Text="From your question, I think you know that document US20070172216 is a publication of an application for a patent, not a document representing an issued patent. I looked it up in the USPTO's Public PAIR database and that application went abandoned in 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/eUZws.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10436" RevisionGUID="d636a427-ccc5-456f-a010-bec65c5135e4" CreationDate="2014-10-22T19:01:00.883" UserId="11753" Text="How long after a patent gets a FINAL REJECTION does it appear as such on Google Patents or before the final rejection is made public? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23423" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10436" RevisionGUID="d636a427-ccc5-456f-a010-bec65c5135e4" CreationDate="2014-10-22T19:01:00.883" UserId="11753" Text="How long after a patent gets a FINAL REJECTION does it appear as such on Google Patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23424" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10436" RevisionGUID="d636a427-ccc5-456f-a010-bec65c5135e4" CreationDate="2014-10-22T19:01:00.883" UserId="11753" Text="&lt;public&gt;&lt;general&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10437" RevisionGUID="27fe3d98-0f7b-4062-b684-d5583e9bfd31" CreationDate="2014-10-23T00:19:13.123" UserId="3076" Text="As of now (10/2014) google patents **never** directly shows a final rejection or any other status change regarding an application. What they re-publish is the USPTO publication of the application. It is not a &quot;living document&quot; like a web page, it is a fixed thing like physical book. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time an application is published by the USPTO its entire history and future are available to the public. To see the complete record look the application up in the USPTO's Public PAIR database. Then select the Image File Wrapper tab.&#xD;&#xA;In most cases that means the public can know anything that happens the day it happens, if you look it up every day to see if anything happened. If an application gets rejected before it is published (either an accelerated examination or a non-publication request), that rejection or other action will not be visible because the whole application is not visible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, a &quot;final rejection&quot; is only final until you pay more money and file more paperwork. Abandoned is the status that means it is dead - even then an applicant can petition for revival under the grounds of unintentional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10440" RevisionGUID="9e797c06-26c6-4f53-a793-01eb438ca675" CreationDate="2014-10-23T16:31:26.920" UserId="11761" Text="Gustave F Ockrassa is my great-grandfather as well and I would like to know if there are any other patents under his name and the status of this existing patent.  Never knew this existed and would appreciate any other information that may be available." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23438" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10440" RevisionGUID="9e797c06-26c6-4f53-a793-01eb438ca675" CreationDate="2014-10-23T16:31:26.920" UserId="11761" Text="Gustave F Ockrassa is my great-grandfather" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23439" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10440" RevisionGUID="9e797c06-26c6-4f53-a793-01eb438ca675" CreationDate="2014-10-23T16:31:26.920" UserId="11761" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10441" RevisionGUID="c73065ec-9abf-4877-8e73-3138284a2158" CreationDate="2014-10-23T17:29:14.823" UserId="11762" Text="ive been researching on how to renew an expired patent and all i get for results are maintenance fees for patents filed on or after December 12th 1980. I am hoping someone would have an idea or an answer or even a good source for me to look into it. Thanks for reading and helping me out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23441" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10441" RevisionGUID="c73065ec-9abf-4877-8e73-3138284a2158" CreationDate="2014-10-23T17:29:14.823" UserId="11762" Text="How can you renew an expired patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23442" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10441" RevisionGUID="c73065ec-9abf-4877-8e73-3138284a2158" CreationDate="2014-10-23T17:29:14.823" UserId="11762" Text="&lt;help&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10442" RevisionGUID="4e4c889a-504e-4e9f-8d7d-51377d5e4eed" CreationDate="2014-10-23T19:14:44.733" UserId="10011" Text="No, unfortunately once a patent has expired, that's the end of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The philosophy behind patenting something is that in exchange for sharing your invention with the world, the government will give you the ability to stop others from making it for those twenty years. So if they let you extend it more and more, that wouldn't fit to that particularly well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your best bet is to come up with a viable improvement and re-file, although of course that isn't realy the same thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10447" RevisionGUID="c69db872-c568-4bab-9ffe-89c11eb2c595" CreationDate="2014-10-24T01:59:34.543" UserId="11767" Text="[Jeff Skierka Designs post in facebook in may 2012][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.facebook.com/JeffSkierkaDesigns/photos/a.221660404619664.47826.221657327953305/221660407952997/?type=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dosen't this public display of the same idea by a different author before the presentation date of this publication constitutes nulifies this patent and makes it public domain? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23462" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10447" RevisionGUID="c69db872-c568-4bab-9ffe-89c11eb2c595" CreationDate="2014-10-24T01:59:34.543" UserId="11767" Text="Is this a possible patent infrigment? - publicly disclosed by different author before patent presentation date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23463" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10447" RevisionGUID="c69db872-c568-4bab-9ffe-89c11eb2c595" CreationDate="2014-10-24T01:59:34.543" UserId="11767" Text="&lt;cassette&gt;&lt;jeff&gt;&lt;skierka&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;usd697343&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10448" RevisionGUID="c594bef5-c20a-4406-a14d-f24978d83aed" CreationDate="2014-10-24T02:20:28.877" UserId="11640" Text="My boss wants me to use that phrase, but I'm reluctant as &quot;patented&quot; infers that the technology has already been granted a patent, whereas &quot;patent pending&quot; which is clearer. I referred to our technology as &quot;patent pending&quot; numerous times in a document. To reduce the repetition, they want me to refer to our technology as &quot;patented&quot; later on. E.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Our patent-pending technology empowers your business to ____.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] (several paragraphs later) Moreover, with our patent-pending technology, you can ____. [...] (two sentences later) Our patented technology enables ...." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23465" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10448" RevisionGUID="c594bef5-c20a-4406-a14d-f24978d83aed" CreationDate="2014-10-24T02:20:28.877" UserId="11640" Text="Can I write &quot;our patented solution&quot; for patent pending?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23466" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10448" RevisionGUID="c594bef5-c20a-4406-a14d-f24978d83aed" CreationDate="2014-10-24T02:20:28.877" UserId="11640" Text="&lt;patent-pending&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10449" RevisionGUID="4c7033d7-c8cd-40b9-b96d-7a98e3e1ec05" CreationDate="2014-10-24T06:45:41.233" UserId="11750" Text="It is basically a question of different is your idea from the patented one. You have a different way of building but is the way of using it in order to achieve the goal different from the patented one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10450" RevisionGUID="3b9b6f89-5a02-47da-8b4e-f727ac5f30ed" CreationDate="2014-10-24T06:52:21.200" UserId="11750" Text="How will your idea bring benefits over the patented one is one way to assess whether your idea can be patented. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10451" RevisionGUID="f68f5a9b-b2d0-44ac-ab2b-81486e67eb19" CreationDate="2014-10-24T07:03:19.230" UserId="11648" Text="Your analysis is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you file a patent application you have a &quot;patent pending,&quot; and therefore you can use that language.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should not say &quot;our patented technology&quot; unless a patent has actually been issued.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If getting a patent issued rapidly is very important to you, there are numerous ways to speed up the process." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10455" RevisionGUID="db16629f-5d0a-45d1-8798-604bc4bf9aa9" CreationDate="2014-10-25T15:41:30.447" UserId="679" Text="It could be prior art if published before the filing date unless derived from the inventor. See the Core77 web page showing the date [25 May 2012](http://www.core77.com/blog/furniture_design/things_that_look_like_other_things_mixtape_table_by_jeff_skierka_22544.asp).  The design patent [USD697343](http://www.google.com/patents/USD697343) has a priority date of Jun 23, 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [MPEP 2128 II](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2128.html) ELECTRONIC PUBLICATIONS AS PRIOR ART, [35 U.S. Code § 102](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102) - Conditions for patentability; novelty, [35 U.S. Code § 172](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/172) - Right of priority, [35 U.S. Code § 119](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/119) - Benefit of earlier filing date; right of priority (There are no earlier foreign patent applications cited) and [35 U.S. Code § 171](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/171 &quot;35 U.S. Code § 171&quot;) - Patents for designs, wherein novelty is binding on design patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has the appearance of prior art subject to a finding by a court of law or Patent Office action. (See [35 U.S. Code § 282](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/282) - Presumption of validity; defenses).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the law is meant to be readable and understandable by the public if you have an interest in this matter you'd be better served seeking legal advice from a patent attorney rather than asking for an unqualified response here. It's meaning is also subject to case law." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10456" RevisionGUID="8dd54349-9559-4e69-b0d3-fdbca9d25110" CreationDate="2014-10-25T18:26:15.017" UserId="3076" Text="If a patent is no longer in force due to its owner unintentionally missing a maintenance payment the owner can petition for its revival. If it expired at the end of its term it is done. If you are a third party looking to take over a lapsed patent that you had nothing to do with, then it is a very big no." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10457" RevisionGUID="8aa98d0d-de68-4a6c-b4e9-835375b5a847" CreationDate="2014-10-25T23:03:32.773" UserId="3076" Text="A patent doesn't become spontaneously invalid by someone posting undiscovered killer prior art. Until they go to court with someone for infringement or a third party pays the fees for an interpartes review by the USPTO, the status of the patent doesn't change. In practice, if the patentee knew about this they would probably decide it was not reasonable to threaten anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also possible that the legs we can't see in the photo are distinctive and very different in looks from the patented table. In that case it might not be &quot;killer&quot; prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10458" RevisionGUID="14116547-8f40-4f7b-a916-d814477b1d4a" CreationDate="2014-10-26T16:14:42.943" UserId="11776" Text="How can a patent be granred if key terms in independent claims are mentioned only in the background, with no explanations provided for them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;mutual displacement&quot; is one,&quot;assigning controls&quot; is another, and I was taught that each term appearing in the claims should be clarified in the detailed description, or rely on common knowledge tp explain it..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23490" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10458" RevisionGUID="14116547-8f40-4f7b-a916-d814477b1d4a" CreationDate="2014-10-26T16:14:42.943" UserId="11776" Text="Aebitrary terms in the Claims...?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23491" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10458" RevisionGUID="14116547-8f40-4f7b-a916-d814477b1d4a" CreationDate="2014-10-26T16:14:42.943" UserId="11776" Text="&lt;us8764443&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10459" RevisionGUID="4cc99b49-2905-4930-9de3-c17f9a4bac12" CreationDate="2014-10-27T00:34:38.647" UserId="3076" Text="A claim must convey its meaning to *someone knowledgeable in the field*. I did a quick google patents search with &quot;control mutual displacement implant -ininventor:&quot;jan hall&quot;&quot;.  I didn't write that out but built the search with google patents advanced. It narrows to patents with the words control, mutual, displacement and implant and without the inventor of the patent in question. It gets thousands of hits. If narrowed to the class/subclass of the patent in question it still gets four hits. I would assume from this that the terms are used and understood the field." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10460" RevisionGUID="7e3dfce6-2832-41f2-8047-c3dd8a22ef40" CreationDate="2014-10-27T01:58:07.620" UserId="11780" Text="The two patents in question are the following: the claim 1 is the one that is similar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(new one)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US20130032594?dq=ininventor:%22Jeremy+Smith%22+active+cover+plate&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=qpBNVO6EJsf4yQTkooGIBg&amp;ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and (older)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US4617613?dq=Illuminated+electrical+outlet+cover+plate&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=uJFNVNz8FIS7yQST3YGgCA&amp;ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23495" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10460" RevisionGUID="7e3dfce6-2832-41f2-8047-c3dd8a22ef40" CreationDate="2014-10-27T01:58:07.620" UserId="11780" Text="A active US patent has claims that are very similar to a lapsed older Patent?Does this negate the newer patent claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23496" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10460" RevisionGUID="7e3dfce6-2832-41f2-8047-c3dd8a22ef40" CreationDate="2014-10-27T01:58:07.620" UserId="11780" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10461" RevisionGUID="ff6d7801-93c2-420a-b8e1-d8be12f631db" CreationDate="2014-10-27T10:39:50.387" UserId="11780" Text="[possible prior art(old lapsed patent A)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Active patent #1][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Active patent #2][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Application patent #3][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4617613?dq=ILLUMINATED%20ELECTRICAL%20OUTLET%20COVER%20PLATE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=UB5OVNSpBtKzoQSxpoDABg&amp;ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8668347?dq=8,668,347&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=ALVNVPzqI4f7oQSX-YH4DA&amp;ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6087588?dq=6087588&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=IRNOVKLYKcHsoAS11YGwAg&amp;ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130032594?dq=active%20cover%20plate&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=8BVOVKulGc7hoAT6g4G4CA&amp;ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am curious as to how the new patents were able to get approval on their claim 1 when it is very similar to a lapsed patent claim 1. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23499" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10461" RevisionGUID="ff6d7801-93c2-420a-b8e1-d8be12f631db" CreationDate="2014-10-27T10:39:50.387" UserId="11780" Text="Is the following claim 1 from patent (old lapsed patent A) considered prior art for the following patents &amp; application(patents 1-4)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23500" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10461" RevisionGUID="ff6d7801-93c2-420a-b8e1-d8be12f631db" CreationDate="2014-10-27T10:39:50.387" UserId="11780" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;validity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10461" RevisionGUID="febcd474-d036-481d-aab6-83c61f0f3d59" CreationDate="2014-10-27T10:45:40.130" UserId="11780" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="[possible prior art(old lapsed patent A)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Active patent #1][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Active patent #2][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Application patent #3][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4617613?dq=ILLUMINATED%20ELECTRICAL%20OUTLET%20COVER%20PLATE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=UB5OVNSpBtKzoQSxpoDABg&amp;ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8668347?dq=8,668,347&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=ALVNVPzqI4f7oQSX-YH4DA&amp;ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6087588?dq=6087588&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=IRNOVKLYKcHsoAS11YGwAg&amp;ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130032594?dq=active%20cover%20plate&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=8BVOVKulGc7hoAT6g4G4CA&amp;ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am curious as to how the new patents were able to get approval on their claim 1 when it is very similar to a lapsed patent claim 1 and how possibly can the application may get approval? . " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10458" RevisionGUID="e2061dc9-60bb-4aec-8d8c-5be7c18049f6" CreationDate="2014-10-27T13:11:10.343" UserId="7546" Comment="Fix spelling" Text="How can a patent be granted if key terms in independent claims are mentioned only in the background, with no explanations provided for them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Mutual displacement&quot; is one,&quot;assigning controls&quot; is another, and I was taught that each term appearing in the claims should be clarified in the detailed description, or rely on common knowledge to explain it..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23503" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10458" RevisionGUID="e2061dc9-60bb-4aec-8d8c-5be7c18049f6" CreationDate="2014-10-27T13:11:10.343" UserId="7546" Comment="Fix spelling" Text="Arbitrary terms in the Claims...?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23504" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10458" RevisionGUID="e2061dc9-60bb-4aec-8d8c-5be7c18049f6" CreationDate="2014-10-27T13:11:10.343" Comment="Proposed by 7546 approved by 5071, 9939 edit id of 1688" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10466" RevisionGUID="d5f6c918-1e29-40e4-b779-16f57b2923fd" CreationDate="2014-10-28T03:18:53.153" UserId="11750" Text="You cannot patent a sentence. Here are the list of ideas or innovations that cannot be patented. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Laws of nature&#xD;&#xA; - Physical phenomena&#xD;&#xA; - Abstract ideas Literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works (these can be Copyright protected)&#xD;&#xA; - Inventions which are: &#xD;&#xA;     Not useful (such as perpetual motion machines); or Offensive to public morality" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10467" RevisionGUID="007db131-9492-4eb8-bfb6-e2c0a42c1fcc" CreationDate="2014-10-28T03:25:41.050" UserId="11750" Text="Provisional patent means you have superior right in the patent application which means no one else can get a patent on the same idea unless yours is rejected. But this doesn't prevent others from using, selling or distributing your idea until the patent is granted. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10468" RevisionGUID="8243ee8c-5663-44b3-84d4-3c3bb026a7da" CreationDate="2014-10-28T07:54:53.910" UserId="3906" Text="US8832436, &quot;Obtaining targeted services using a unique identification header (uidh)&quot; states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; store the unique identifier in the request to create a modified request; provide the modified request to a content provider identified by the request&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds like it would match &quot;adding a header to an HTTP request&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, the patent text mentions &quot;UIDH&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ad provider 155 may receive request 635 and may determine that the UIDH, obtained from request 635, matches a UIDH that is stored in a memory associated with Ad server 155. Ad server 155 may retrieve, from the memory, targeted content 640 (FIG. 6) that corresponds to the stored UIDH and may provide targeted content 640 to content provider 150. Content provider 150 may receive targeted content 640 and may combine the content &#xD;&#xA;&gt; with targeted content 640 to create a response 645 (FIG. 6). Content provider 150 may transmit, as response 645, the content and/or targeted content 640 to user device 110 via CMDS 210 and/or PGW 120. User device 110 may receive response 645 and may display the content and/or targeted content 640 on user device 110.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is this the patent supporting [the actions referenced here](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8500131)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grant: http://www.google.com/patents/US8832436  &#xD;&#xA;Application: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130318346" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23523" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10468" RevisionGUID="8243ee8c-5663-44b3-84d4-3c3bb026a7da" CreationDate="2014-10-28T07:54:53.910" UserId="3906" Text="Is US 20130318346 A1 (Verizon) the patent currently used in adding X-UIDH to web traffic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23524" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10468" RevisionGUID="8243ee8c-5663-44b3-84d4-3c3bb026a7da" CreationDate="2014-10-28T07:54:53.910" UserId="3906" Text="&lt;us8832436&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10469" RevisionGUID="bac07072-e8d9-44ed-8895-c3f8ccff19d2" CreationDate="2014-10-28T11:17:18.837" UserId="11789" Text="There are multiple ways to do so. Firstly you need to find out the keywords what you are searching for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need use the various sites Google patents, free patents etc. Also, you can make the alternative keywords to search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It all depends what you are searching for and what you want to achieve by searching. If your intention is to just search for learning and research, you will have a different strategy but if you have a new idea and want to check if its really and someone have already patented it or not, you need to devise a different strategy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10470" RevisionGUID="9f9460f7-0f0a-4a87-9a09-402c6fac18d6" CreationDate="2014-10-28T15:59:44.547" UserId="11790" Text="The title is mostly self explanatory, but I have never been through the patent process before.  I have a specific concept for a piece of software that fits the criteria of someone else being able to go out and create it with my description, and have done my own patent search.  There are 2-3 patents that are similar enough that I can see an examiner questioning them, but I can confidently refute.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to include an addendum referencing these patents with the initial application and explaining how clearly different those are from mine?  I feel like this would save immense time vs. receiving non-final rejects, submitting amendments and reconsideration, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23530" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10470" RevisionGUID="9f9460f7-0f0a-4a87-9a09-402c6fac18d6" CreationDate="2014-10-28T15:59:44.547" UserId="11790" Text="Possible to include information in patent application refuting similar patents ahead of time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23531" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10470" RevisionGUID="9f9460f7-0f0a-4a87-9a09-402c6fac18d6" CreationDate="2014-10-28T15:59:44.547" UserId="11790" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10471" RevisionGUID="ed08f53c-ce87-49e1-939f-f402945fde38" CreationDate="2014-10-28T18:36:19.497" UserId="11792" Text="You almost certainly need to submit the references in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS).  But I would refrain from characterizing anything whatsoever until you are forced to do so.  That is, wait for the Examiner to force you to explain any differences, do not volunteer information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10472" RevisionGUID="5c6c3c30-1be1-4fb3-8d6b-7f5b3d550480" CreationDate="2014-10-28T18:42:58.710" UserId="11792" Text="Depending on the technology area, Google Scholar is about the best you can do for free.  You'll end up getting hits on papers that are not free, but a lot of the scholarly papers are available for free.  Google Scholar also searches patents at the same time, so its use is both time and cost effective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10400" RevisionGUID="bd4e913d-aced-459f-ae74-c30f7dd74bc8" CreationDate="2014-10-28T19:45:55.380" UserId="11791" Comment="Helped make it more clear" Text="I have made one inspire-able  sentence which is very helpful in living life for inspiration, because with the help of inspiration everything is possible. So shall I apply and get the patent for that sentence which I made.  If yes tell me procedure abut that, hope you do for needful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards,&#xD;&#xA;Kishan" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23535" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10400" RevisionGUID="bd4e913d-aced-459f-ae74-c30f7dd74bc8" CreationDate="2014-10-28T19:45:55.380" UserId="11791" Comment="Helped make it more clear" Text="Want to know if I may apply for the patent or not" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23536" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10400" RevisionGUID="bd4e913d-aced-459f-ae74-c30f7dd74bc8" CreationDate="2014-10-28T19:45:55.380" Comment="Proposed by 11791 approved by -1 edit id of 1690" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10400" RevisionGUID="4fb7ea63-d239-46e7-8114-69e61d0ed77f" CreationDate="2014-10-28T19:45:55.380" UserId="9939" Comment="deleted 20 characters in body" Text="I have made one inspire-able  sentence which is very helpful in living life for inspiration, because with the help of inspiration everything is possible. So shall I apply and get the patent for that sentence which I made.  If yes tell me procedure abut that, hope you do for needful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10473" RevisionGUID="cc704b65-9ff3-4fa3-88ee-6027825cee2a" CreationDate="2014-10-29T10:39:59.440" UserId="11796" Text=" This application from 	VIROVEK INCORPORATION seeks to patent a method of healing cancer! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent application before it becomes a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2013/08/15** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The use of a insect cell for a baculovirus, a retrovirus, an adenovirus, an adeno-associated virus production. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The use of a toxic gene for mammals not expressed in insect cells.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Include a reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO the use of a gene in a viral vector expressed in a insect cell or method of obtaining it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: **VECTORS HARBORING TOXIC GENES, METHODS AND USES THEREFOR**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  The present disclosure describes nucleic acids, and viruses comprising such nucleic acids, for growing a toxic gene in an insect cell. These nucleic acids comprise a sequence encoding a toxic polypeptide, and an intron that interrupts the sequence, whereby the intron is spliced in mammalian cells but not in insect cells. Infection of mammalian cells but not insect cells with the nucleic acids or viruses can lead to expression of toxic levels of the toxic polypeptide in mammalian cells but not in insect cells. Viruses, such as an AAV or a baculovirus comprising a nucleic acid can be grown in insect cell lines in vitro and can be administered to a subject in need of therapy, such as a subject in need of cancer therapy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US2014296324](https://www.google.com/patents/US20140296324?dq=US2014296324&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=orxQVJDJLKHQygOK2YCIBw&amp;ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: CHEN HAIFENG; VIROVEK INC&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 16 Oct. 2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2 Apr. 2015&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims verbatim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A nucleic acid comprising: a sequence encoding a toxic polypeptide; and an intron that interrupts the sequence, whereby the intron is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spliced in mammalian cells but not in insect cells to form an mRNA&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that is translated to form cell-toxic levels of the toxic polypeptide&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in mammalian cells but not in insect cells.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A nucleic acid in accordance with claim 1, wherein the toxic polypeptide is selected from the group consisting of diphtheria toxin&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (DT-A), barnase, ricin, abrin, and Pseudomonas exotoxin.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A nucleic acid in accordance with claim 1, wherein the toxic polypeptide is diphtheria toxin (DT-A).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. A nucleic acid in accordance with claim 1, wherein the toxic polypeptide is a barnase polypeptide.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. A nucleic acid in accordance with claim 1, further comprising at least one expression element operably linked to the sequence.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. A nucleic acid in accordance with claim 5, wherein the expression element is selected from the group consisting of a promoter, an IRES,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an enhancer and a combination thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. A nucleic acid in accordance with claim 5, wherein the expression element is selected from the group consisting of a CMV promoter, an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; AFP promoter, an AFP enhancer, an hSURV promoter, a CXCR4 promoter, an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hTERT promoter, a COX2 promoter, and a CCKAR promoter.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. A nucleic acid in accordance with claim 5, wherein the expression element is selected from the group consisting of an hSURV promoter and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a CXCR4 promoter.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9. A nucleic acid in accordance with any one of claims 1-8, wherein the intron is an artificial intron.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10. A nucleic acid in accordance with any one of claims 1-8, wherein, the intron is a human growth hormone intron.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 11. A nucleic acid in accordance with any one of claims 1-8, wherein the intron is a SV40 large T-antigen intron.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 13. A nucleic acid in accordance with any one of claims 1-8, comprising, in 5′ to 3′ order, a first ITR, a promoter, a first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; portion of a toxic gene, an intron, a second portion of the toxic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gene, a polyadenylation signal, and a second ITR.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 14. A nucleic acid in accordance with claim 13, wherein the first ITR is an AAV ITR.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15. A nucleic acid in accordance with claim 13, wherein the second ITR is an AAV ITR.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 16. A nucleic acid in accordance with claim 13, wherein the promoter is a CMV promoter.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 17. A nucleic acid in accordance with claim 13, wherein the promoter is a hSURV promoter.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 18. A nucleic acid in accordance with claim 13, wherein the promoter is a hCXCR4 promoter.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 19. A nucleic acid in accordance with claim 13, wherein the promoter is a hAFP promoter.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 20. A nucleic acid in accordance with claim 13, wherein the toxin gene encodes DT-A.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 21. A nucleic acid in accordance with claim 13, wherein the toxic gene encodes Barnase.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 22. A viral vector comprising the nucleic acid of any one of claims 1-8.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 23. A viral vector in accordance with claim 22, wherein the vector is selected from the group consisting of a baculovirus, a retrovirus, an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adenovirus, an adeno-associated virus (AAV) and a combination thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 24. A viral vector in accordance with claim 22, wherein the vector is a baculovirus, an adeno-associated virus (AAV), or a combination&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 25. A viral vector in accordance with claim 22, wherein the vector is an adeno-associated virus (AAV).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 26. A viral vector in accordance with claim 22, wherein the vector is an AAV2.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 27. A viral vector in accordance with claim 22, wherein the vector is an AAV9.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 28. A viral vector in accordance with claim 22, wherein the vector comprises an ITR.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 29. An insect cell in vitro comprising the nucleic acid of any one of claims 1-8.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 30. An insect cell in accordance with claim 29, wherein the cell is selected from the group consisting of a Trichoplusia ni BTI-Tn-5B1-4&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cell, a Spodoptera frugiperda Sf9 cell and a Spodoptera frugiperda&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sf21 cell.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 31. An insect cell in accordance with claim 29, wherein the nucleic acid is comprised by a viral genome.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 32. An insect cell in accordance with claim 29, wherein the nucleic acid is comprised by a virus.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 33. An insect cell in accordance with claim 29, wherein the cell is stably transformed with the nucleic acid of any one of claims 1-8.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 34. A cell culture comprising: a plurality of cells of claim 29; and a culture medium.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 35. A cell culture in accordance with claim 34, wherein unconcentrated culture medium comprises greater than 109 viral genomes/ml.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 36. A cell culture in accordance with claim 34, wherein unconcentrated culture medium comprises greater than 1010 viral genomes/ml.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 37. A cell culture in accordance with claim 34, wherein unconcentrated culture medium comprises greater than 1011 viral genomes/ml.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 38. A cell culture in accordance with claim 34, wherein unconcentrated culture medium comprises greater than 1012 viral genomes/ml.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 39. A cell culture in accordance with claim 34, wherein unconcentrated culture medium comprises a baculovirus greater than 106 PFU/ml.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 40. A cell culture in accordance with claim 34, wherein unconcentrated culture medium comprises a baculovirus greater than 107 PFU/ml.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 41. A cell culture in accordance with claim 34, wherein unconcentrated culture medium comprises a baculovirus greater than 108 PFU/ml.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 42. A cell culture in accordance with claim 34, wherein unconcentrated culture medium comprises a baculovirus greater than 109 PFU/ml.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 43. A method of growing a vector comprising a toxic gene in vitro, comprising: providing a cell culture comprising insect cells;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; infecting or transfecting the cells with a nucleic acid of any one of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims 1-8; and incubating the cells under conditions suitable for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; virus production.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 44. A method of treating a cancer, comprising administering to a subject in need of therapy a therapeutically effective amount of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nucleic acid of any one of claims 1-8.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 45. A method of treating a cancer, comprising administering a therapeutically effective amount of an adeno-associated virus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comprising the nucleic acid of any one of claims 1-8 to a subject in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; need of therapy.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 46. A method of treating a cancer in accordance with claim 45 wherein the cancer is selected from the group consisting of prostate cancer,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; breast cancer, brain tumor, cervical cancer and nasopharyngeal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; carcinoma.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 47. Use of a nucleic acid of any one of claims 1-8 for the treatment of a cancer.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 48. A nucleic acid in accordance with any one of claims 1-8 for use in the treatment of a cancer.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 49. Use of a nucleic acid of any one of claims 1-8 in the manufacture of a medicament for treatment of a cancer.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 50. Use of a viral vector of claim 22 for the treatment of a cancer.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 51. The viral vector of claim 22 for use in the treatment of a cancer.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 52. Use of a viral vector of claim 22 in the manufacture of a medicament for treatment of a cancer.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 53. A method of producing AAV comprising a toxic gene in vitro, comprising: providing a cell culture comprising insect cells;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; infecting the cells with a virus vector of claim 24 and with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bac-inCap-inRep for at least about 1 day; and lysing the cells to form&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a lysate comprising the AAV.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 54. A method in accordance with claim 53, wherein the infecting the cells for at least about 1 day comprises infecting the cells for at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least 2 days.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 55. A method in accordance with claim 53, wherein the infecting the cells for at least about 1 day comprises infecting the cells for at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least 3 days.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 56. A method in accordance with claim 53, wherein the infecting the cells for at least about 1 day comprises infecting the cells for about&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3 days.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 57. A method in accordance with claim 53, wherein the infecting the cells for at least about 1 day comprises infecting the cells for at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least 4 days.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 58. A method in accordance with claim 53, wherein the infecting the cells for at least about 1 day comprises infecting the cells for at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least 5 days.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 59. A method in accordance with claim 53, wherein the infecting the cells for at least about 1 day comprises infecting the cells for up to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; about 5 days.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 60. A method in accordance with claim 53, wherein the infecting the cells for at least about 1 day comprises infecting the cells for up to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; about 6 days.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 61. A method in accordance with claim 53, wherein the infecting the cells for at least about 1 day comprises infecting the cells for up to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; about 7 days.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 62. A method in accordance with claim 53, further comprising digesting the cellular debris with benzonase.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 63. A method in accordance with claim 53, wherein the AAV is AAV2.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 64. A method in accordance with claim 53, wherein the AAV is AAV9.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 65. A method in accordance with claim 53, wherein the insect cells are selected from the group consisting of Trichoplusia ni BTI-Tn-5B1-4&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cells, Spodoptera frugiperda Sf9 cells, Spodoptera frugiperda Sf21&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cells, and any combination thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 66. A method in accordance with claim 53, wherein the insect cells are Spodoptera frugiperda Sf9 cells.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here there is an image how the claims are related (from the [espacenet web](http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/claims?DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&amp;ND=3&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;FT=D&amp;date=20141002&amp;CC=US&amp;NR=2014296324A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;tree=true)):&#xD;&#xA;![Relation between claims][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it might infringe many other patents. My concern is about using some of the information from these patent in other diseases. Also what does here the toxic gene mean? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: It is my first post here, I might be confused but I followed this [guide][2] and it might be not really what I should do. If I can improve my question, please let me know. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Oim9N.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/a/146/11796" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23540" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10473" RevisionGUID="cc704b65-9ff3-4fa3-88ee-6027825cee2a" CreationDate="2014-10-29T10:39:59.440" UserId="11796" Text="Prior Art Request for US20140296324 A1 (Virovek Incorporation) —Vectors harboring toxic genes, methods and uses therefor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23541" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10473" RevisionGUID="cc704b65-9ff3-4fa3-88ee-6027825cee2a" CreationDate="2014-10-29T10:39:59.440" UserId="11796" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;us20140296324&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10474" RevisionGUID="33c12c6f-da75-4ab1-af8a-ba725bbdf4de" CreationDate="2014-10-29T11:22:31.903" UserId="11543" Text="You can include multiple independent claims of varying scope in a patent application. Each of these independent claims can have several dependent claims that are written using terminologies that may be common to multiple variations that can be grouped together. The terminologies can be described in detail in the description to cover the variations. &#xD;&#xA;The grouping can be done in such a way that it is easier to elect in case objection is raised during prosecution. &#xD;&#xA;All variations can be included in the description using multiple embodiments by using terminologies that are consistent with the ones used in the claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/why-should-patent-specifications-be-drafted-by-patent-professionals&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10475" RevisionGUID="c0cc31fb-d81f-4efa-849f-e22f65cde918" CreationDate="2014-10-29T11:26:37.590" UserId="11796" Text="Suppose I find a patent (A1) with claims 1, 2 and 3. Claim 2 is dependent from claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;If I find a prior reference that invalidate claim 1. What happens with claim 2? Is still valid? Should they rearrange that claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23544" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10475" RevisionGUID="c0cc31fb-d81f-4efa-849f-e22f65cde918" CreationDate="2014-10-29T11:26:37.590" UserId="11796" Text="Finding prior art that invalidates an independent claim" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23545" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10475" RevisionGUID="c0cc31fb-d81f-4efa-849f-e22f65cde918" CreationDate="2014-10-29T11:26:37.590" UserId="11796" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10476" RevisionGUID="1bdfe971-947a-4355-91a4-5bdfefab536b" CreationDate="2014-10-29T12:07:15.130" UserId="11542" Text="A dependent claim is ALWAYS valid when its independent claim is valid. However, if an independent claim is invalidated, that DOES NOT ALWAYS necessarily mean that dependent claim is also invalid. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the procedure for amending the independent claim by including limitations from the dependent claim(s), and the process of examining the patentability of the amended claim can vary from one country to another. &#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/how-conduct-patent-search" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10477" RevisionGUID="05e7947f-4ad3-4211-905f-26ce4ab52ec2" CreationDate="2014-10-29T14:30:33.257" UserId="3143" Text="I had an idea for an invention at work, briefly discussed it with collegues and my boss said &quot;write it up and send it to so-and-so&quot; - which I'm about to do. Maybe what I invented is already SOTA somewhere but none of us at the office had ever seen such a thing as my idea and we probably would know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm in Germany, local law says I'm obliged to report any invention stemming from my work to my employer, that I'm entitled to be named as inventor and that either my employer patents and uses the invention (and pays me) or releases the invention so I can patent it and earn money myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'm about to write up what my idea looks like as completely as possible (the law also says that the invention has to be &quot;finished&quot;, though I'm not sure what this means exactly). I looked around the internet and found a sort of short boilerplate-header by some university that they use for their scientists to report inventions so I know what information to include.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My known knowns are a basic outline of the law as can be found online&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My known unknown is wether my invention is patentable, I'm reasonable sure that it's not SOTA and not trivial but I'm not a patent lawyer and did not do a thorough research.   &#xD;&#xA;My other known unknown is wether I actually had a good idea that my company wants to build and market - that's for so-and-so, to whom I should report the invention, to decide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are my unknown unknowns, what else should I be aware of? Has someone here gone through the process and can share some insights? l" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23548" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10477" RevisionGUID="05e7947f-4ad3-4211-905f-26ce4ab52ec2" CreationDate="2014-10-29T14:30:33.257" UserId="3143" Text="I made an invention at work (maybe). What do I need to know?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23549" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10477" RevisionGUID="05e7947f-4ad3-4211-905f-26ce4ab52ec2" CreationDate="2014-10-29T14:30:33.257" UserId="3143" Text="&lt;employer&gt;&lt;inventor-declaration&gt;&lt;germany&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10479" RevisionGUID="e6388053-2214-4148-a16d-025e49e29ca0" CreationDate="2014-10-29T19:59:22.507" UserId="3076" Text="If the document ends in A1 it represents the publication for an application, not a granted patent. If the application is still in the prosecution stage and this prior art was known the the examiner claim 1 would be rejected. The applicant could respond in a number of ways including amending claim to also include the limitations of claim 2 (and canceling claim 2). Or claim 1 could be amended in some other way that gets it past the reference. During prosecution a claim is not invalidated, just objected to and/or rejected. Invalidation is something a judge does in an environment (court) that doesn't allow for amending." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10480" RevisionGUID="fc8ec297-6c6e-416a-937f-cd7aa6aaa3be" CreationDate="2014-10-29T23:46:43.950" UserId="9802" Text="Patent examiners are people and are capable of making mistakes.  One potential reason for missing the '892 patent is that the search was limited to classifications, and the search did not include any of the classifications of the '892 patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The '892 patent was classified as: &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;- 30/292; 30/293; 30/294; and 83/883.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;To determine what classification fields were searched, we can look at a pdf version of the '136 patent under the **Field of Classification Search** heading or look at the prosecution details in [Public PAIR](http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, the following fields were searched:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 33/27.03; 33/32.1; 33/32.2; 33/32.3; 33/33; 33/41.1; 33/42;&#xD;&#xA;- 30/280; and 30/28.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fields searched are available on Public PAIR under the document code:&#xD;&#xA;**SRFW** (Search info including classification, databases, and other search related notes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, additional details can also be found under document code: &#xD;&#xA;**SRNT** (Examiner’s Search Strategy and Results).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are no documents coded with SRNT, so it is not clear whether a keyword search was not performed, or just not documented.  The examiner may have believed that it would be difficult to accurately describe the subject matter with a text query and elected to only do a classified search.  This is described in the [Manual of Patent Examining Procedure](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s904.html) under section 904.02: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“Examiners will recognize that it is sometimes difficult to express search needs accurately in textual terms. This occurs often, though not exclusively, in mechanical arts where, for example, spatial relationships or shapes of mechanical components constitute important aspects of the claimed invention.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, it is hard to say how considering the '892 patent would have affected the prosecution of the '136 patent. While they are similar, there are elements in the '136 patent that are not taught in the earlier one.  &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10481" RevisionGUID="ace00a3b-fb34-4a37-9416-6d2f75cb7ab5" CreationDate="2014-10-30T00:20:17.603" UserId="9802" Text="I am not sure there is an official world record, but doing a quick search using [AcclaimIP](http://www.acclaimip.com), here are the top 3*:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. 887: [US6684189](http://www.google.com/patents/US6684189) Apparatus and method using front-end network gateways and search criteria for efficient quoting at a remote location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. 868: [US5095054](http://www.google.com/patents/US5095054) Polymer compositions containing destructurized starch&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. 803: [US7096160](http://www.google.com/patents/US7096160) System and method for measuring and monitoring wireless network performance in campus and indoor environments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Granted patents, US/JP/EP/DE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10482" RevisionGUID="a4208374-566c-42bf-b71e-c55c67b94221" CreationDate="2014-10-30T02:34:17.210" UserId="11750" Text="Before you start your patent search, here's some tips for you for an an effective patent searching.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Brainstorm on terms that describe the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Search for relevant terms related to the subject matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Verify The relevancy of terms retrieved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Establish  the scope of the relevant classifications to distiguish the most relevant from the least relevent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Using the search terms, retreive and review patent issued, published patent applications and patent documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Online database like https://www.patexia.com/ip-research allows you to search for patents using different criteria and they got visualization to help you analyze the results." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10483" RevisionGUID="3156b472-9787-403b-8def-3c39fb97851f" CreationDate="2014-10-30T02:47:00.057" UserId="11750" Text="As a patent owner, you can leverage in enforcing patent against an infringer and negotiating or maintaining the terms of a license agreement by using the validity or invalidity of a patent claim as the basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once issued, a patent is presumed valid, this is as mandated by the U.S. patent statutes. This means that each claim is presumed valid independently from any other claims. Which also means that even if the independent claim is considered invalid, the dependent claim  is still valid and enforceable and would require a separate validity analysis.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10484" RevisionGUID="d4abd188-9e05-4e5b-aa4e-49f60c4e3705" CreationDate="2014-10-30T11:11:43.950" UserId="11751" Text="Where is the line telling that a litigation is basically a bullying tool for a patent holder? &#xD;&#xA;Accusing party is providing software patent infringement arguments that are laughable to one skilled in art but sounds legit to a lawyer. A simple example is infringement chart construction by accusing party including blunt terminology misinterpretation - obviously a work of a lawyer or a council not someone skilled in art. The position of accusing party is filled with examples like this.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way of showing the case is a fraud?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23560" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10484" RevisionGUID="d4abd188-9e05-4e5b-aa4e-49f60c4e3705" CreationDate="2014-10-30T11:11:43.950" UserId="11751" Text="When a patent infringment litigation is considered frivolous" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23561" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10484" RevisionGUID="d4abd188-9e05-4e5b-aa4e-49f60c4e3705" CreationDate="2014-10-30T11:11:43.950" UserId="11751" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;litigation&gt;&lt;frivolous&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23562" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10484" RevisionGUID="b72c8fa2-e6a7-48a8-b7e6-bd40f817d760" CreationDate="2014-10-30T11:29:44.143" UserId="8074" Comment="Question mark added to the question title." Text="When a patent infringment litigation is considered frivolous?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23563" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10484" RevisionGUID="b72c8fa2-e6a7-48a8-b7e6-bd40f817d760" CreationDate="2014-10-30T11:29:44.143" Comment="Proposed by 8074 approved by 11751 edit id of 1691" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10473" RevisionGUID="060c07e3-946e-4afd-a205-bb0c78d18b3a" CreationDate="2014-10-30T12:25:21.697" UserId="11796" Comment="deleted 40 characters in body" Text=" This application from 	VIROVEK INCORPORATION seeks to patent a method of healing cancer! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent application before it becomes a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2013/08/15** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The use of a insect cell for a baculovirus, a retrovirus, an adenovirus, an adeno-associated virus production. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The use of a toxic gene for mammals not expressed in insect cells.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Include a reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO the use of a gene in a viral vector expressed in a insect cell or method of obtaining it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: **VECTORS HARBORING TOXIC GENES, METHODS AND USES THEREFOR**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  The present disclosure describes nucleic acids, and viruses comprising such nucleic acids, for growing a toxic gene in an insect cell. These nucleic acids comprise a sequence encoding a toxic polypeptide, and an intron that interrupts the sequence, whereby the intron is spliced in mammalian cells but not in insect cells. Infection of mammalian cells but not insect cells with the nucleic acids or viruses can lead to expression of toxic levels of the toxic polypeptide in mammalian cells but not in insect cells. Viruses, such as an AAV or a baculovirus comprising a nucleic acid can be grown in insect cell lines in vitro and can be administered to a subject in need of therapy, such as a subject in need of cancer therapy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US2014296324](https://www.google.com/patents/US20140296324?dq=US2014296324&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=orxQVJDJLKHQygOK2YCIBw&amp;ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: CHEN HAIFENG; VIROVEK INC&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 16 Oct. 2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2 Apr. 2015&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims verbatim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A nucleic acid comprising: a sequence encoding a toxic polypeptide; and an intron that interrupts the sequence, whereby the intron is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spliced in mammalian cells but not in insect cells to form an mRNA&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that is translated to form cell-toxic levels of the toxic polypeptide&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in mammalian cells but not in insect cells.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A nucleic acid in accordance with claim 1, wherein the toxic polypeptide is selected from the group consisting of diphtheria toxin&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (DT-A), barnase, ricin, abrin, and Pseudomonas exotoxin.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A nucleic acid in accordance with claim 1, wherein the toxic polypeptide is diphtheria toxin (DT-A).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. A nucleic acid in accordance with claim 1, wherein the toxic polypeptide is a barnase polypeptide.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. A nucleic acid in accordance with claim 1, further comprising at least one expression element operably linked to the sequence.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. A nucleic acid in accordance with claim 5, wherein the expression element is selected from the group consisting of a promoter, an IRES,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an enhancer and a combination thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. A nucleic acid in accordance with claim 5, wherein the expression element is selected from the group consisting of a CMV promoter, an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; AFP promoter, an AFP enhancer, an hSURV promoter, a CXCR4 promoter, an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hTERT promoter, a COX2 promoter, and a CCKAR promoter.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. A nucleic acid in accordance with claim 5, wherein the expression element is selected from the group consisting of an hSURV promoter and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a CXCR4 promoter.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9. A nucleic acid in accordance with any one of claims 1-8, wherein the intron is an artificial intron.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10. A nucleic acid in accordance with any one of claims 1-8, wherein, the intron is a human growth hormone intron.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 11. A nucleic acid in accordance with any one of claims 1-8, wherein the intron is a SV40 large T-antigen intron.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 13. A nucleic acid in accordance with any one of claims 1-8, comprising, in 5′ to 3′ order, a first ITR, a promoter, a first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; portion of a toxic gene, an intron, a second portion of the toxic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gene, a polyadenylation signal, and a second ITR.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 14. A nucleic acid in accordance with claim 13, wherein the first ITR is an AAV ITR.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15. A nucleic acid in accordance with claim 13, wherein the second ITR is an AAV ITR.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 16. A nucleic acid in accordance with claim 13, wherein the promoter is a CMV promoter.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 17. A nucleic acid in accordance with claim 13, wherein the promoter is a hSURV promoter.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 18. A nucleic acid in accordance with claim 13, wherein the promoter is a hCXCR4 promoter.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 19. A nucleic acid in accordance with claim 13, wherein the promoter is a hAFP promoter.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 20. A nucleic acid in accordance with claim 13, wherein the toxin gene encodes DT-A.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 21. A nucleic acid in accordance with claim 13, wherein the toxic gene encodes Barnase.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 22. A viral vector comprising the nucleic acid of any one of claims 1-8.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 23. A viral vector in accordance with claim 22, wherein the vector is selected from the group consisting of a baculovirus, a retrovirus, an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adenovirus, an adeno-associated virus (AAV) and a combination thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 24. A viral vector in accordance with claim 22, wherein the vector is a baculovirus, an adeno-associated virus (AAV), or a combination&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 25. A viral vector in accordance with claim 22, wherein the vector is an adeno-associated virus (AAV).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 26. A viral vector in accordance with claim 22, wherein the vector is an AAV2.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 27. A viral vector in accordance with claim 22, wherein the vector is an AAV9.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 28. A viral vector in accordance with claim 22, wherein the vector comprises an ITR.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 29. An insect cell in vitro comprising the nucleic acid of any one of claims 1-8.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 30. An insect cell in accordance with claim 29, wherein the cell is selected from the group consisting of a Trichoplusia ni BTI-Tn-5B1-4&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cell, a Spodoptera frugiperda Sf9 cell and a Spodoptera frugiperda&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sf21 cell.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 31. An insect cell in accordance with claim 29, wherein the nucleic acid is comprised by a viral genome.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 32. An insect cell in accordance with claim 29, wherein the nucleic acid is comprised by a virus.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 33. An insect cell in accordance with claim 29, wherein the cell is stably transformed with the nucleic acid of any one of claims 1-8.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 34. A cell culture comprising: a plurality of cells of claim 29; and a culture medium.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 35. A cell culture in accordance with claim 34, wherein unconcentrated culture medium comprises greater than 109 viral genomes/ml.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 36. A cell culture in accordance with claim 34, wherein unconcentrated culture medium comprises greater than 1010 viral genomes/ml.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 37. A cell culture in accordance with claim 34, wherein unconcentrated culture medium comprises greater than 1011 viral genomes/ml.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 38. A cell culture in accordance with claim 34, wherein unconcentrated culture medium comprises greater than 1012 viral genomes/ml.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 39. A cell culture in accordance with claim 34, wherein unconcentrated culture medium comprises a baculovirus greater than 106 PFU/ml.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 40. A cell culture in accordance with claim 34, wherein unconcentrated culture medium comprises a baculovirus greater than 107 PFU/ml.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 41. A cell culture in accordance with claim 34, wherein unconcentrated culture medium comprises a baculovirus greater than 108 PFU/ml.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 42. A cell culture in accordance with claim 34, wherein unconcentrated culture medium comprises a baculovirus greater than 109 PFU/ml.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 43. A method of growing a vector comprising a toxic gene in vitro, comprising: providing a cell culture comprising insect cells;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; infecting or transfecting the cells with a nucleic acid of any one of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims 1-8; and incubating the cells under conditions suitable for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; virus production.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 44. A method of treating a cancer, comprising administering to a subject in need of therapy a therapeutically effective amount of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nucleic acid of any one of claims 1-8.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 45. A method of treating a cancer, comprising administering a therapeutically effective amount of an adeno-associated virus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comprising the nucleic acid of any one of claims 1-8 to a subject in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; need of therapy.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 46. A method of treating a cancer in accordance with claim 45 wherein the cancer is selected from the group consisting of prostate cancer,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; breast cancer, brain tumor, cervical cancer and nasopharyngeal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; carcinoma.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 47. Use of a nucleic acid of any one of claims 1-8 for the treatment of a cancer.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 48. A nucleic acid in accordance with any one of claims 1-8 for use in the treatment of a cancer.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 49. Use of a nucleic acid of any one of claims 1-8 in the manufacture of a medicament for treatment of a cancer.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 50. Use of a viral vector of claim 22 for the treatment of a cancer.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 51. The viral vector of claim 22 for use in the treatment of a cancer.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 52. Use of a viral vector of claim 22 in the manufacture of a medicament for treatment of a cancer.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 53. A method of producing AAV comprising a toxic gene in vitro, comprising: providing a cell culture comprising insect cells;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; infecting the cells with a virus vector of claim 24 and with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bac-inCap-inRep for at least about 1 day; and lysing the cells to form&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a lysate comprising the AAV.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 54. A method in accordance with claim 53, wherein the infecting the cells for at least about 1 day comprises infecting the cells for at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least 2 days.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 55. A method in accordance with claim 53, wherein the infecting the cells for at least about 1 day comprises infecting the cells for at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least 3 days.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 56. A method in accordance with claim 53, wherein the infecting the cells for at least about 1 day comprises infecting the cells for about&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3 days.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 57. A method in accordance with claim 53, wherein the infecting the cells for at least about 1 day comprises infecting the cells for at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least 4 days.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 58. A method in accordance with claim 53, wherein the infecting the cells for at least about 1 day comprises infecting the cells for at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least 5 days.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 59. A method in accordance with claim 53, wherein the infecting the cells for at least about 1 day comprises infecting the cells for up to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; about 5 days.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 60. A method in accordance with claim 53, wherein the infecting the cells for at least about 1 day comprises infecting the cells for up to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; about 6 days.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 61. A method in accordance with claim 53, wherein the infecting the cells for at least about 1 day comprises infecting the cells for up to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; about 7 days.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 62. A method in accordance with claim 53, further comprising digesting the cellular debris with benzonase.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 63. A method in accordance with claim 53, wherein the AAV is AAV2.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 64. A method in accordance with claim 53, wherein the AAV is AAV9.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 65. A method in accordance with claim 53, wherein the insect cells are selected from the group consisting of Trichoplusia ni BTI-Tn-5B1-4&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cells, Spodoptera frugiperda Sf9 cells, Spodoptera frugiperda Sf21&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cells, and any combination thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 66. A method in accordance with claim 53, wherein the insect cells are Spodoptera frugiperda Sf9 cells.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here there is an image how the claims are related (from the [espacenet web](http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/claims?DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&amp;ND=3&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;FT=D&amp;date=20141002&amp;CC=US&amp;NR=2014296324A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;tree=true)):&#xD;&#xA;![Relation between claims][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think many claims might are invalidated. I doubt these system has never been thought before. Or the terminology is not clear enough, what does here the toxic gene mean? My concern is about using some of the information from these patent in other diseases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: If I can improve my question, please let me know. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Oim9N.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/a/146/11796" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23565" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10475" RevisionGUID="4eed2954-9d1b-4d6a-b7e2-dc0489e29d2a" CreationDate="2014-10-30T12:30:55.760" UserId="11796" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;usa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10475" RevisionGUID="4eed2954-9d1b-4d6a-b7e2-dc0489e29d2a" CreationDate="2014-10-30T12:30:55.760" UserId="11796" Comment="edited tags" Text="Suppose I find a patent (A1) with claims 1, 2 and 3. Claim 2 is dependent from claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;If I find a prior reference that rejects claim 1. What happens with claim 2? Is still valid? Should they rearrange that claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23567" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10475" RevisionGUID="4eed2954-9d1b-4d6a-b7e2-dc0489e29d2a" CreationDate="2014-10-30T12:30:55.760" UserId="11796" Comment="edited tags" Text="Finding prior art rejects an independent claim" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10485" RevisionGUID="03cd5423-f1e0-40de-8fea-eeee2b7deea6" CreationDate="2014-10-30T16:47:04.713" UserId="11790" Text="You can go to the PTO website and do a search, or do a more user friendly search via google at: google.com/patents .  Just search your great grandfather's name and if he does have a patent in his name, it should pop up.  Assuming it's quite old, the patent text may be distorted if google tried to read the text which was on paper at the time.  In that case, google should also link to the source documents at the PTO in which you can then see the original document scans.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23569" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6315" RevisionGUID="6bfbafae-e7a2-48f7-afe6-6ead70571db4" CreationDate="2014-10-30T21:17:57.667" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Design patents for tapes of varying shapes and sizes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23570" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6315" RevisionGUID="6bfbafae-e7a2-48f7-afe6-6ead70571db4" CreationDate="2014-10-30T21:17:57.667" UserId="76" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23587" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9983" RevisionGUID="d9934e3f-0ac6-4953-834c-00c20fe61e29" CreationDate="2014-10-31T18:21:36.733" UserId="3076" Comment="fixed typo added emphasis" Text="Patents *can* be obtained for things that are not legal. A patent does *not* mean you can do it. It means you can keep others from doing it. Also, something occurring in nature cannot be patented in its natural state. All of these claims start off with &quot;A method of treating diseases . . . &quot;.  That is not at all claiming a natural substance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10489" RevisionGUID="c49758d0-fd08-4563-8ea6-739c60ff79f8" CreationDate="2014-11-02T06:35:09.883" UserDisplayName="user11808" Text="Back in July, I had an idea for a new product. I set up a quick landing page, bought a domain and ran some ads to validate the idea. It went well. I moved to phase 2 and actually built out a site with some beta product, which launched in Late August. Encouraged by sales and feedback, I went ahead and procured my exact match domain from a broker and went live with my 'public launch' about 3 weeks ago from today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe 10 days ago I noticed a crowd funding campaign go up for my product from a random seller in another state. Oh, well. The product is slightly different and much much worse than the one I sell for many reasons I won't go into, mostly to do with manufacturing process. The goal the creator set was so high it would never get funded so I wasnt worried.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should note that at this point I was reviewing logs and noticed a lot of direct traffic from a handful of devices that had IP's originating in the creators city, going back to the phase 1 validation landing page. Strange...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also note that during my launch I got a sale to an address in that area and went ahead and shipped it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, fast forward to earlier this week - the creator cancels his original campaign with the high unachievable goal and relaunches a new one with a much much smaller goal citing differences in manufacturing and mentioning the exact material / stuff that I make mine out of. At this point, I'm figuring he received my package and reverse engineered my product and realized he didn't need as much dough to make it happen. Bummer, but what can i do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, I just received a notice from his 'laywer' that claims he has filed a patent application for the product and to cease operating my business or risk being sued off of the face of the earth. I did search the USPTO website for pending applications in the creators name and found none. The lawyer also did not include the document / application ID, as I believe is customary when attempting to enforce such a thing. I am not even sure if he really filed it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been told about 'prior art' clauses in the patent process for challenging validity of the patent and so on. I had originally contacted a lawyer friend in July and he told me the idea was far too generic to be patentable, but if I secured the exact match .com domain and registered a business called the same thing I could maybe file for a trademark and get some copyright protection (the creator is using my brand name to describe his product).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23598" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10489" RevisionGUID="c49758d0-fd08-4563-8ea6-739c60ff79f8" CreationDate="2014-11-02T06:35:09.883" UserDisplayName="user11808" Text="Is a Website Able to Prove Patent Invalid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23599" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10489" RevisionGUID="c49758d0-fd08-4563-8ea6-739c60ff79f8" CreationDate="2014-11-02T06:35:09.883" UserDisplayName="user11808" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10491" RevisionGUID="ff3676ce-8faa-4cbf-9b6f-f005cfe1ddc3" CreationDate="2014-11-02T12:01:10.283" UserId="11648" Text="1.  You can't enforce a patent application.  You can simply respond politely inviting him to bug off, or more usefully to let you know if a patent ever issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  You can't file a patent application after someone else has published the invention in the US.  So your website would count as prior art, as would the products you shipped, any documentation you published, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Collect your papers now, while you still remember where everything is.  Document, document, document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  Consider filing a patent yourself.  You have one year from your first disclosure to file a patent application. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10492" RevisionGUID="3c4ac378-2cea-49ca-83d8-53ec47647b2f" CreationDate="2014-11-03T02:56:37.840" UserId="11648" Text="You can search here:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/?tbm=pts#tbm=pts&amp;q=ininventor%3A%22Ockrassa%22&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?ST=singleline&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;submitted=true&amp;DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&amp;query=Ockrassa&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are no other patents, other than the one design patent for a shoe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23603" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="10442" RevisionGUID="c4098b32-fe5e-4e42-b67e-c5e6ca02ad53" CreationDate="2014-11-03T02:58:20.457" UserId="10011" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="23604" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="10442" RevisionGUID="a90265f2-cbd4-4d82-abcc-17c5bc859521" CreationDate="2014-11-03T03:01:02.897" UserId="10011" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="23605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10493" RevisionGUID="1e6b7a3e-5f54-406d-9be9-de1b6b32e4bc" CreationDate="2014-11-03T03:42:38.927" UserId="11750" Text="Unlike trademarks, patents are not renewable. Once the patent has expired or the has ended then that's it. But as what Matthew said, the best thing to do is to think of any improvement on the patent and file it again." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10494" RevisionGUID="1cdd4775-2e98-4b94-9aee-f6622b8a8af1" CreationDate="2014-11-03T06:10:00.663" UserId="11648" Text="There is no bright line.  Effectively, you would have to convince a judge &amp; jury that the contentions were on-their-face frivolous, that no one who took a look at the claims &amp; product could reasonably believe that infringement was legitimate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The chart is generally created by lawyers, but with the assistance of technical experts.  I would be surprised if they had created the chart without knowing what the terms mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you believe it's extremely egregious, see if you can't ask for sanctions against the other party.  Remember that everything handed to the court is effectively sworn-to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10495" RevisionGUID="c956fadd-0094-43d6-bf31-2e9a71ac939d" CreationDate="2014-11-03T08:00:14.377" UserId="11813" Text="The patent us 2010/0073978 is clearly NOT an invention of a German company.&#xD;&#xA;To see how it had been used in volt meters in 1998, visit:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;http://www.chipinfo.ru/literature/radio/199801/p29.html&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To have the material proof of the working bipolar transistor rectifier bridge exactly as shown on patent drawings, I can provide a power supply of my grandfather's radio, made in 1965. The synchronous rectifiers on germanium transistors were especially efficient at the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The us20100073978 is a common knowledge and not an invention of the 21st century." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23608" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10495" RevisionGUID="c956fadd-0094-43d6-bf31-2e9a71ac939d" CreationDate="2014-11-03T08:00:14.377" UserId="11813" Text="Isn't this invention half-century old?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23609" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10495" RevisionGUID="c956fadd-0094-43d6-bf31-2e9a71ac939d" CreationDate="2014-11-03T08:00:14.377" UserId="11813" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10496" RevisionGUID="88c68d4e-10c0-4cc4-93c4-f60b90bc21ef" CreationDate="2014-11-03T10:15:51.983" UserId="3418" Text="US20100073938 is just an application for patent, it is not granted as patent yet. See here http://www.google.com/patents/US20100073978&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under publication type you can see it is just application. For example, see this granted patent:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US5834678&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see under publication it is grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10497" RevisionGUID="98a2da0c-7e3f-4614-a4ed-802986e10d23" CreationDate="2014-11-03T10:26:28.363" UserId="3418" Text="I read some patents, it seems they were divided from a single application as the detailed descriptions are the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1/ The question is, when an application is divided into multiple applications because the lack of unity of invention, do they must retain the same description as the original application? Or they can add or remove some parts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2/ My feeling says they must have the same description, as adding or removing any material may change the scope of the invention, but I am not sure. For example, because the lack of unity, the divisional application can remove the part that unrelated to the invention, is it acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3/ If they must retain the same description, then what make them different? Is that they are only different in claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23612" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10497" RevisionGUID="98a2da0c-7e3f-4614-a4ed-802986e10d23" CreationDate="2014-11-03T10:26:28.363" UserId="3418" Text="Are divisional applications have the same detailed description?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23613" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10497" RevisionGUID="98a2da0c-7e3f-4614-a4ed-802986e10d23" CreationDate="2014-11-03T10:26:28.363" UserId="3418" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;continuation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10498" RevisionGUID="464f1c3a-768b-420f-8b50-5907e4f64086" CreationDate="2014-11-03T11:52:42.870" UserId="11543" Text="&#xD;&#xA;A patent has a term of twenty years from the date of its first filing. It should be noted that once these twenty years are over, a patent is no longer in force.&#xD;&#xA;However, there are certain scenarios where a patent has &quot;lapsed&quot; or &quot;ceased to have effect&quot; or “expired” even before its 20 years term, due to non-payment of annuity/maintenance fee associated with it. Upon failing to pay that fee, a patent may lapse or cease to have effect.&#xD;&#xA;In some countries, a lapsed patent can be reinstated/restored by paying an additional fee plus the maintenance fee, and reasoning that delay or nonpayment of the maintenance fee within the prescribed period was unintentional.  &#xD;&#xA;The Indian Patent Act also has similar provision for restoration of lapsed patents.&#xD;&#xA;The following link can be referred for more details on the Indian Patent Act's provision for restoration of a lapsed patent.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/options-restore-lapsed-patents-india&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10499" RevisionGUID="02477db4-c983-4b44-962c-9a7692e8b9c3" CreationDate="2014-11-03T12:23:44.670" UserId="11814" Text="Software or computer program can be protected by copyright law and patent law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under copyright law, software or the computer program is usually regarded as a &quot;literary work&quot;. The unique characteristic of computer programs that differentiate them from other literary works is their dynamic essence, which usually includes algorithms or mathematical formulae's or logical condition etc, which manipulate symbols producing certain virtual or physical effects,etc. Copyright law provides protection to the software or the computer program´s expression and not the functional aspects of the software. Hence, computer programs differ from other copyright-able subject matter, in the sense that the text is not the most important aspect; rather the importance lies in the functions established by the program code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent: Patent is becoming the method of protection for computer program's, software or E-commerce website.  Patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, which satisfies the patentability criteria. In order to meet patent-ability criteria, the invention must be novel or confers a new solution to a technical problem, and non- obvious to one of &quot;ordinary skill&quot; in the field of invention. The protection conferred by the patent is limited in time, generally 20 years since the filing of the patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So one might say that a computer program or software protected under copyright law protects an original work in the tangible fixed form in which it has been set down, whereas a computer program or software protected under the patent law protects the creation of inventive concepts as well as their practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details please check the link below&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/are-software-inventions-patentable-india&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards &#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;Vinay" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10500" RevisionGUID="b29fc101-930e-4444-9367-8edba5780a01" CreationDate="2014-11-03T22:04:30.300" UserId="3076" Text="In the context of patent cases, this recently went to the Supreme Court. The case is Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health &amp; Fitness, Inc. T&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA; This summary is from www.oyez.org.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Conclusion &#xD;&#xA;Decision: 9 votes for Octane Fitness, 0 vote(s) against&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Legal provision: Section 285 of the Patent Act&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Yes. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion for the 9-0 majority.** The Court held that the appellate court construed the attorney fees statute in a manner that was unduly rigid. Restricting the grant of reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in all but two exceptions would render the statute meaningless and would contradict patent litigation norms. The appellate court’s interpretation of the statute would also impermissibly encumber the district court’s discretionary power to award such fees. The Court also held that an “exceptional” case is simply one that stands out from others because of its frivolous nature relating to the legal arguments or merits of the claim. District courts may determine exceptionalness by considering the totality of the circumstances on a case-by-case basis. Finally, the Court rejected the appellate court’s “clear and convincing evidence” standard that successful patent litigants would have to establish in order to receive fees. Instead, the Court held that a simple discretionary inquiry would serve to determine whether granting attorney fees is appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Justice Scalia did not join footnotes 1-3." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23619" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10495" RevisionGUID="3a2e82df-9bf7-4332-826c-973f043ea991" CreationDate="2014-11-04T00:35:35.540" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to patent document" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20100073978&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10501" RevisionGUID="ae23f209-2754-4f88-a4a4-1d9e1aef6a74" CreationDate="2014-11-04T00:47:36.167" UserId="3076" Text="This application was rejected and ended up going abandoned in 2011 (you can look it up in Public PAIR at the USPTO). The primary reference used against it was [US 3,434034 ][1]- A Universal AC or DC to DC converter - by H-P in 1967.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3434034" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10441" RevisionGUID="6e23201c-020f-451f-93b1-cba423867174" CreationDate="2014-11-04T07:08:25.553" UserId="11791" Comment="cleaned it up a little to make it more readable" Text="I've been researching on how to renew an expired patent, and all I get for results are maintenance fees for patents filed on or after December 12th 1980.  I am hoping someone would have an idea or an answer or even a good source for me to look into it.  Thanks for reading and helping me out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23625" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10441" RevisionGUID="6e23201c-020f-451f-93b1-cba423867174" CreationDate="2014-11-04T07:08:25.553" Comment="Proposed by 11791 approved by -1 edit id of 1694" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10441" RevisionGUID="b3373851-7d07-4b66-9fd7-b2a38ba55965" CreationDate="2014-11-04T07:08:25.553" UserId="9939" Comment="deleted 38 characters in body" Text="I've been researching on how to renew an expired patent, and all I get for results are maintenance fees for patents filed on or after December 12th 1980.  I am hoping someone would have an idea or an answer or even a good source for me to look into it.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10503" RevisionGUID="30f35b4c-a462-4aa6-8cf4-4ceb1a98a2f3" CreationDate="2014-11-04T10:06:43.887" UserId="1193" Text="They are divided into multiple patent, exactly for the reason you mention -- the description contains multiple ideas which cannot be patented as a single invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no requirement for having a single description between each divisional patent, but there is no harm either -- the description is just that &quot;a description&quot; -- which frames the context of the invention but have no legal standing.   Reducing the description therefore serves no purpose between divisional patents and it only adds risk for that you leave something out or introduces new subject matter which you may forget to patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10499" RevisionGUID="c2fa6239-1e3a-4096-a06c-533f85d5919c" CreationDate="2014-11-04T10:19:05.427" UserId="1193" Comment="remove signature line" Text="Software or computer program can be protected by copyright law and patent law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under copyright law, software or the computer program is usually regarded as a &quot;literary work&quot;. The unique characteristic of computer programs that differentiate them from other literary works is their dynamic essence, which usually includes algorithms or mathematical formulae's or logical condition etc, which manipulate symbols producing certain virtual or physical effects,etc. Copyright law provides protection to the software or the computer program´s expression and not the functional aspects of the software. Hence, computer programs differ from other copyright-able subject matter, in the sense that the text is not the most important aspect; rather the importance lies in the functions established by the program code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent: Patent is becoming the method of protection for computer program's, software or E-commerce website.  Patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, which satisfies the patentability criteria. In order to meet patent-ability criteria, the invention must be novel or confers a new solution to a technical problem, and non- obvious to one of &quot;ordinary skill&quot; in the field of invention. The protection conferred by the patent is limited in time, generally 20 years since the filing of the patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So one might say that a computer program or software protected under copyright law protects an original work in the tangible fixed form in which it has been set down, whereas a computer program or software protected under the patent law protects the creation of inventive concepts as well as their practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details please check the link below&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/are-software-inventions-patentable-india&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10501" RevisionGUID="42503afe-42b3-4b74-9ba7-55d9f0f056a0" CreationDate="2014-11-04T11:11:18.697" UserId="11791" Comment="added full corp name and corrected abbrev  to help searches" Text="This application was rejected and ended up going abandoned in 2011 (you can look it up in Public PAIR at the USPTO). The primary reference used against it was [US 3,434034 ][1]- A Universal AC or DC to DC converter - by Hewlett Packard (HP) in 1967.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3434034" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23633" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10501" RevisionGUID="42503afe-42b3-4b74-9ba7-55d9f0f056a0" CreationDate="2014-11-04T11:11:18.697" Comment="Proposed by 11791 approved by 9939, 81 edit id of 1693" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10507" RevisionGUID="7330cd27-37bb-410d-9164-69e18c74d635" CreationDate="2014-11-04T17:03:57.517" UserId="11764" Text="Publication number	US20130128027 A1&#xD;&#xA;Publication type	Application&#xD;&#xA;Application number	US 13/653,469&#xD;&#xA;Publication date	May 23, 2013&#xD;&#xA;Filing date	Oct 17, 2012&#xD;&#xA;Priority date	Nov 18, 2011&#xD;&#xA;Also published as	CN103124358A, EP2595375A1&#xD;&#xA;Inventors	Masaaki Katsurada, Keisuke Nagoshi&#xD;&#xA;Original Assignee	Keyence Corporation&#xD;&#xA;Export Citation	BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23645" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10507" RevisionGUID="7330cd27-37bb-410d-9164-69e18c74d635" CreationDate="2014-11-04T17:03:57.517" UserId="11764" Text="what are the possible reasons for this application [ Application number US 13/653,469 ] to be REJECTED under US Patent Laws?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23646" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10507" RevisionGUID="7330cd27-37bb-410d-9164-69e18c74d635" CreationDate="2014-11-04T17:03:57.517" UserId="11764" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;us20130128027&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10508" RevisionGUID="8b7ff499-29a7-429b-9e85-2d4a8560cc8b" CreationDate="2014-11-04T18:53:05.300" UserId="11825" Text="Is US4620479 patent number still valid or can this product manufactured free on the open market?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23648" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10508" RevisionGUID="8b7ff499-29a7-429b-9e85-2d4a8560cc8b" CreationDate="2014-11-04T18:53:05.300" UserId="11825" Text="Aircraft trash compactor and box therefor US 4620479 A" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23649" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10508" RevisionGUID="8b7ff499-29a7-429b-9e85-2d4a8560cc8b" CreationDate="2014-11-04T18:53:05.300" UserId="11825" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10507" RevisionGUID="e7c81c51-c5ee-4fc6-8c03-c281a41a94d7" CreationDate="2014-11-04T21:19:35.297" UserId="11791" Comment="improved formatting" Text="    Publication number	US20130128027 A1&#xD;&#xA;    Publication type	Application&#xD;&#xA;    Application number	US 13/653,469&#xD;&#xA;    Publication date	May 23, 2013&#xD;&#xA;    Filing date	Oct 17, 2012&#xD;&#xA;    Priority date	Nov 18, 2011&#xD;&#xA;    Also published as	CN103124358A, EP2595375A1&#xD;&#xA;    Inventors	Masaaki Katsurada, Keisuke Nagoshi&#xD;&#xA;    Original Assignee	Keyence Corporation&#xD;&#xA;    Export Citation	BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23651" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10507" RevisionGUID="e7c81c51-c5ee-4fc6-8c03-c281a41a94d7" CreationDate="2014-11-04T21:19:35.297" UserId="11791" Comment="improved formatting" Text="What are the possible reasons for this application [ Application number US 13/653,469 ] to be rejected under US Patent Laws?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23652" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10507" RevisionGUID="e7c81c51-c5ee-4fc6-8c03-c281a41a94d7" CreationDate="2014-11-04T21:19:35.297" Comment="Proposed by 11791 approved by -1 edit id of 1696" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10507" RevisionGUID="312b1ef4-6d4c-4056-b607-4469b9ea37e4" CreationDate="2014-11-04T21:19:35.297" UserId="9939" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="    Publication number	US20130128027 A1&#xD;&#xA;    Publication type	Application&#xD;&#xA;    Application number	US 13/653,469&#xD;&#xA;    Publication date	May 23, 2013&#xD;&#xA;    Filing date	        Oct 17, 2012&#xD;&#xA;    Priority date	    Nov 18, 2011&#xD;&#xA;    Also published as	CN103124358A, EP2595375A1&#xD;&#xA;    Inventors	        Masaaki Katsurada, Keisuke Nagoshi&#xD;&#xA;    Original Assignee	Keyence Corporation&#xD;&#xA;    Export Citation	    BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23654" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10497" RevisionGUID="405839ef-2539-4eaa-ad24-05c0bb3b3965" CreationDate="2014-11-04T21:20:22.317" UserId="11791" Comment="fixed obvious grammer error in title" Text="Do divisional applications have the same detailed description?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23655" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10497" RevisionGUID="405839ef-2539-4eaa-ad24-05c0bb3b3965" CreationDate="2014-11-04T21:20:22.317" Comment="Proposed by 11791 approved by -1 edit id of 1697" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10497" RevisionGUID="f72dcc70-faa5-4f4e-bacb-b17d7fee7c4e" CreationDate="2014-11-04T21:20:22.317" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="I read some patents, it seems they were divided from a single application as the detailed descriptions are the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The question is, when an application is divided into multiple applications because the lack of unity of invention, do they must retain the same description as the original application? Or they can add or remove some parts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. My feeling says they must have the same description, as adding or removing any material may change the scope of the invention, but I am not sure. For example, because the lack of unity, the divisional application can remove the part that unrelated to the invention, is it acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If they must retain the same description, then what make them different? Is that they are only different in claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10508" RevisionGUID="7965f9d4-be4e-44c2-aa8c-fdfb2ded2541" CreationDate="2014-11-04T22:22:06.290" UserId="11791" Comment="made more legible" Text="Is US4620479 patent number still valid or can this product be manufactured free on the open market?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23658" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10508" RevisionGUID="7965f9d4-be4e-44c2-aa8c-fdfb2ded2541" CreationDate="2014-11-04T22:22:06.290" UserId="11791" Comment="made more legible" Text="Is this patent still valid? Aircraft trash compactor and box US 4620479 A" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23659" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10508" RevisionGUID="7965f9d4-be4e-44c2-aa8c-fdfb2ded2541" CreationDate="2014-11-04T22:22:06.290" Comment="Proposed by 11791 approved by 9939, 3076 edit id of 1695" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23660" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10508" RevisionGUID="29755a96-7bcc-4f71-8009-24465ce94245" CreationDate="2014-11-04T22:58:34.147" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;us4620479&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10509" RevisionGUID="fead7cc0-ed3d-4d94-8fcb-ed44699c41fe" CreationDate="2014-11-04T23:01:57.353" UserId="10011" Text="This patent was issued in 1986, so it *probably* expired in 2003. But no, in any event, this patent is no longer valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I can see, you should be able to do with it as you please.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, no patent would last more than twenty years. The rules have changed a bit over the years (including since that patent was issued), and there can be some exceptions in events where patents were, for example, delayed in excess at the hand of the USPTO. But in general, something that's over twenty years is *probably* expired." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10511" RevisionGUID="3a591cd7-1724-451c-b47f-02617cbf8dca" CreationDate="2014-11-05T02:18:04.327" UserId="11750" Text="If the patent has expired already, then, it has become a public domain and anyone can use it. But always be cautious in using the patent. Don't assume that when a patent has expired you can freely use it without liability. Always make sure that the owner of such patent did not file for any continuation, another similar patent or improvement and let the original patent expire. Always do in depth research on protected patents to avoid liability for infringement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10513" RevisionGUID="2ea9311a-7b6f-4807-927f-784d836a487b" CreationDate="2014-11-05T03:00:08.127" UserId="11750" Text="You don't have to worry that much about Patent trolls anymore, now the the court has come up with an action to prevent frivolous patent infringement lawsuits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US supreme court has a new ruling, which means that if you are a defendant in a patent infringement case and you win, you can recover attorney's fees from the the abusive patent litigants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's a good news, since patent trolls will surely have some second thoughts in filing a case against businesses and other inventors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10484" RevisionGUID="83cb957d-c4e0-4dfd-872e-0986c0a7cf33" CreationDate="2014-11-05T14:08:09.157" UserId="11751" Comment="grammar" Text="Where is the line telling that a litigation is basically a bullying tool for a patent holder? &#xD;&#xA;Accusing party is providing software patent infringement arguments that are laughable to one skilled in art but sound legit to a lawyer. A simple example is infringement chart construction by accusing party including blunt terminology misinterpretation - obviously a work of a lawyer or a council not someone skilled in art. The position of accusing party is filled with examples like this.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way of showing the case is a fraud?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10516" RevisionGUID="bca4b32f-889d-4a92-b059-7f73b259e92c" CreationDate="2014-11-06T03:21:28.847" UserId="11750" Text="The patent has already expired since it is more than 20 years. And once a patent term has ended it is not renewable. But just because a patent has expired doesn't mean it is already a public domain. Search if the owner has filed a continuation or improvement patent similar to the expired one. This is mostly done by inventors to extend their exclusive rights on the patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10517" RevisionGUID="a2b960b8-027e-4a27-b5b9-ccb6ab3ce931" CreationDate="2014-11-06T03:27:42.047" UserId="11750" Text="Basically, a single patent is granted to one products. But as what Matthew said, you can have multiple claims in one patent. Claims are important in patent application, it is where you put the details on the extent of protection you want for your patents. Each claim in examined individually if it is valid or invalid." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10519" RevisionGUID="24ca0ce3-07d0-4f22-beba-574f2f378b43" CreationDate="2014-11-06T11:21:02.243" UserId="11543" Text="Any key/critical term used in the claims must be sufficiently well defined in the specification such that any departure from common usage of such word(s) would be so understood, from the disclosure, by a person of experience in the field of the invention.&#xD;&#xA;One can define the terms one wants to use in the claims to give them the meaning one intends. Unless certain critical terminologies are not well defined, the terminologies are presumed to take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them by those of ordinary skill in the art.&#xD;&#xA;The background is a part of the specification and if the background section is able to convey the intended meaning of the term(s) used in the claims than the terms may be considered well defined and eventually a patent may be granted. &#xD;&#xA;You may refer to the link below for details &#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/why-should-patent-specifications-be-drafted-by-patent-professionals&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10519" RevisionGUID="484e8ef5-81f6-4662-82de-7598b48adf03" CreationDate="2014-11-06T11:44:01.800" UserId="11543" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="Any key/critical term used in the claims must find support in the specification. One can define the terms one wants to use in the claims to give them the meaning one intends. However any departure from common usage of such word(s) should be defined well enough in the the disclosure, such that the intended meaning would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the invention. Unless certain critical terminologies are well defined, the terminologies are presumed to take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them by those of ordinary skill in the art.&#xD;&#xA;The background is a part of the specification and if the background section is able to convey the intended meaning of the term(s) used in the claims than the terms may be considered well defined and eventually a patent may be granted. &#xD;&#xA;You may refer to the link below for details &#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/why-should-patent-specifications-be-drafted-by-patent-professionals" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10521" RevisionGUID="15ca7cd6-a5fa-47e6-adc9-c51706fed22b" CreationDate="2014-11-06T14:59:05.633" UserId="11838" Text="How long dose it take to get a patent finalized? I have had a patent filed since July 2013, and I'm still waiting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23691" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10521" RevisionGUID="15ca7cd6-a5fa-47e6-adc9-c51706fed22b" CreationDate="2014-11-06T14:59:05.633" UserId="11838" Text="How long for patent to get finalize?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23692" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10521" RevisionGUID="15ca7cd6-a5fa-47e6-adc9-c51706fed22b" CreationDate="2014-11-06T14:59:05.633" UserId="11838" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4978" RevisionGUID="daf33205-5f06-4f1d-956d-8cce4f422289" CreationDate="2014-11-06T17:31:09.443" UserId="9939" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="[Delivery.com has had &quot;Group Ordering&quot; since at least November 9th, 2011.](http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=8080951)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10522" RevisionGUID="e215cfb7-359b-4294-9c65-76ce84fce987" CreationDate="2014-11-06T18:51:21.480" UserId="11840" Text="What if one combines two existing technologies in a new way. For instance combining a  word processing program with features from a web site analytics program? Both ideas already exist but the combination is something new. How does this work in general?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23700" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10522" RevisionGUID="e215cfb7-359b-4294-9c65-76ce84fce987" CreationDate="2014-11-06T18:51:21.480" UserId="11840" Text="Can one patent the combination of two existing technologies as a new invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23701" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10522" RevisionGUID="e215cfb7-359b-4294-9c65-76ce84fce987" CreationDate="2014-11-06T18:51:21.480" UserId="11840" Text="&lt;existing&gt;&lt;tech&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10523" RevisionGUID="020ef999-94c4-408c-a044-bc153f3f7151" CreationDate="2014-11-06T18:56:43.357" UserId="11840" Text="If one has a software idea with perhaps several features that could be patented individually would it be best to file a single patent that describes all the features or to combine all of the features in one patent? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23703" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10523" RevisionGUID="020ef999-94c4-408c-a044-bc153f3f7151" CreationDate="2014-11-06T18:56:43.357" UserId="11840" Text="Multiple patents or a single patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23704" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10523" RevisionGUID="020ef999-94c4-408c-a044-bc153f3f7151" CreationDate="2014-11-06T18:56:43.357" UserId="11840" Text="&lt;multiple&gt;&lt;single&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10524" RevisionGUID="4d2a25d5-a3f4-4502-8f65-4c82e2c2294a" CreationDate="2014-11-06T19:03:14.983" UserId="4545" Text="The short answer is no, due to 35 USC 103(a).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The longer answer depends on the specifics of the combination. In general, if it would have been beyond the skill of an ordinary programmer to import the features of the web site analytics software into the word processing program without a great deal of experimental effort, then it might be patentable (with respect to the prior art; there may still be 101/112 issues). On the other hand, if the combination functions in an expected way and/or offers unsurprising results, it's probably not patentable. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10525" RevisionGUID="76293e85-9586-4708-bd84-3e499e1b3429" CreationDate="2014-11-06T19:07:32.817" UserId="4545" Text="If the features all apply to a single base product, it would be significantly less expensive and probably less troublesome to file a single application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that the 2014 Alice v. CLS Bank Supreme Court decision effectively eliminates patent protection for many kinds of &quot;software&quot; inventions under a revised understanding of 35 USC 101. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10526" RevisionGUID="189e10c1-3d5a-417d-bce1-5fb5a511b6f2" CreationDate="2014-11-06T19:13:41.693" UserId="4545" Text="Are you saying you submitted an application for a patent in July 2013? The average time until a first office action (which is a rejection in over 95% of new applications) is about 18 months, but it varies depending on the technology area. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the perspective of granted patents (in 2013), the average time from filing until allowance is around 30 months. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: http://www.uspto.gov/about/stratplan/ar/USPTOFY2013PAR.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10527" RevisionGUID="009def7c-d67a-41ad-93be-9deee5b4c871" CreationDate="2014-11-06T20:19:12.617" UserId="11843" Text="**Background**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I worked for a US based defense contractor by the name of Meggitt Defense Systems, Inc. (MDSI).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because the parent firm, Meggitt Plc was British, MDSI had to be incorporated with it's own board of directors so as to create a fire wall on what we were doing from the foreign entity that owned us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We were also separate from the approximately 36 other divisions that Meggitt Plc owned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:**  Is my Proprietary Agreement with MDSI limited solely to MDSI as I believe, or can Meggitt Plc claim that my Proprietary Agreement with the solely owned division MDSI extends to all divisions and their individual business interests - even thought there may be some interactions between the divisions at times?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During my employment, I came up with a novel invention that allows a Fire Suppression Bottle to function in any orientation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my Proprietary Agreement with MDSI, Section C4 describes where I own any inventions developed on my own time, to include those none-relevant to MDSI's business interests in Section C4a.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; C4  Notwithstanding the above, MDSI agrees, pursuant to law, that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; paragraph C.3. Above, does not apply to an invention that Employee&#xD;&#xA;&gt; developed entirely on Employee's own time without using MDSI's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for those inventions that either:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a. Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice to MDSI's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; business, or to actual or demonstrably anticipated research or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; development of MDSI: or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blockquote&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the Proprietary Agreement states 42 times the agreement is between myself and MDSI, Meggitt is now claiming the agreement extends to all divisions.  I have nothing in writing that states as such from my time of employment with MDSI.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My employment and compensation came solely from MDSI, no other division.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23709" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10527" RevisionGUID="009def7c-d67a-41ad-93be-9deee5b4c871" CreationDate="2014-11-06T20:19:12.617" UserId="11843" Text="Does my Proprietary Agreement with a solely owned Inc. Division extend to all divisions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23710" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10527" RevisionGUID="009def7c-d67a-41ad-93be-9deee5b4c871" CreationDate="2014-11-06T20:19:12.617" UserId="11843" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10528" RevisionGUID="7a35ceef-42c2-4f9a-96c7-22c592181f41" CreationDate="2014-11-06T20:25:52.617" UserId="11843" Text="**Background**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I worked for a US based defense contractor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because the parent firm was British, the division had to be incorporated with it's own board of directors so as to create a fire wall on what we were doing from the foreign entity that owned us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We were also separate from the approximately 36 other divisions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During my employment, I came up with a novel invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although this Proprietary Agreement states 42 times the agreement is between myself and the Incorporated Division, Corporate is now claiming the agreement extends to all divisions.  I have nothing in writing that states as such from my time of employment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** By disclosing the invention to an engineer from a division other than the solely Incorporated Div I work for, did I put the invention into public domain?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dialogue occurred around summer of 2012." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23712" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10528" RevisionGUID="7a35ceef-42c2-4f9a-96c7-22c592181f41" CreationDate="2014-11-06T20:25:52.617" UserId="11843" Text="Dialogue puts invention into public domain" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23713" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10528" RevisionGUID="7a35ceef-42c2-4f9a-96c7-22c592181f41" CreationDate="2014-11-06T20:25:52.617" UserId="11843" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10530" RevisionGUID="51eca6c2-699e-498c-a6c6-9fad038a4aa0" CreationDate="2014-11-07T02:16:12.857" UserId="11750" Text="The average time in processing a patent usually takes for about 2-3 years from the official date of filing. You will be informed of the official date of filing by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office within 8 weeks or if done electronically, you will have the application number within minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you have your patents granted, you will have exclusive right to the patents for 20 years provided you are paying the maintenance fee regularly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10531" RevisionGUID="ad0e344b-6257-470b-ac3b-9646a73df07a" CreationDate="2014-11-07T02:31:42.243" UserId="11750" Text="That's the problem when you disclose your invention to the other party without the written agreement or NDA, you have no rights over an invention and you can't stop if they want to disclose it to the public or if they want to claim them as their own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But one leverage you have is if you have filed a patent for your invention. But it seems you have not. I suggest that you talk to an expert regarding your situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10532" RevisionGUID="3b98b381-0810-4b25-a6a9-383832889636" CreationDate="2014-11-07T05:08:07.523" UserId="11845" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent on the legal events shows it has ceased on the 22 Jan 2009.&#xD;&#xA;Can this be revived by paying the fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also how long are patent granted for 15 years or 20 years and is this from the date o publication or from the date of Granting of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the German patent or an European patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23723" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10532" RevisionGUID="3b98b381-0810-4b25-a6a9-383832889636" CreationDate="2014-11-07T05:08:07.523" UserId="11845" Text="Can the patent be revived EPO 639878 B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23724" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10532" RevisionGUID="3b98b381-0810-4b25-a6a9-383832889636" CreationDate="2014-11-07T05:08:07.523" UserId="11845" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10533" RevisionGUID="af594bee-6c95-4c39-8ef0-24a476155313" CreationDate="2014-11-07T07:14:25.310" UserId="11542" Text="The time required to get a patent depends on various factors, some of which are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The country in which the patent application has been filed&#xD;&#xA; - The field of technology to which the patent application relates&#xD;&#xA; - Steps taken to expedite the patenting process&#xD;&#xA; - Number of independent and dependent claims in the patent application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get an insight on time taken for getting a patent granted, you may refer to this link&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/how-long-does-it-take-get-patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10532" RevisionGUID="0f420963-3a66-4f60-9061-f2081c374a71" CreationDate="2014-11-07T07:18:26.060" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="This patent on the legal events shows it has ceased on the 22 Jan 2009.&#xD;&#xA;Can this be revived by paying the fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also how long are patent granted for 15 years or 20 years and is this from the date o publication or from the date of Granting of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the German patent or an European patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23727" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10532" RevisionGUID="0f420963-3a66-4f60-9061-f2081c374a71" CreationDate="2014-11-07T07:18:26.060" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10534" RevisionGUID="f372f3ad-8f21-4ba0-80c4-8210f984e366" CreationDate="2014-11-07T07:56:20.183" UserId="11846" Text="I am making a website code that will display popup when user tries to leave website. Javascript code is used for that. A solution how to detect mouse leave window was published 5 years ago inside Stackoverflow ([link to solution][1]). The solution doesn't mention to show popup, it is just how to detect user leaving the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What worries me is Bounce Exchange company has a patent to display popup when user leaves window.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Use action in the form of movement of a tracking device on a webpage, represented by cursor gestures on the webpage, is used to detect it a user intends to leave the webpage. Upon detection of an intent to leave the webpage, an advertisement may be displayed to a use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Patent url][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you think I can use the solution mentioned inside Stackoverflow for displaying popup? The solution also uses cursor gestures to track exit intend. But it doesn't say anything about displaying popup. So that worries me because Bounce Exchange claims to have a patent of using similar solution to display popup.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/923299/how-can-i-detect-when-the-mouse-leaves-the-window&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20140222502" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23729" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10534" RevisionGUID="f372f3ad-8f21-4ba0-80c4-8210f984e366" CreationDate="2014-11-07T07:56:20.183" UserId="11846" Text="Website exit intend detection technology patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23730" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10534" RevisionGUID="f372f3ad-8f21-4ba0-80c4-8210f984e366" CreationDate="2014-11-07T07:56:20.183" UserId="11846" Text="&lt;websites&gt;&lt;internet&gt;&lt;programming&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23731" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10534" RevisionGUID="0861eee9-1f0b-41a2-acbf-ce25eae5f7af" CreationDate="2014-11-07T08:35:09.093" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;websites&gt;&lt;internet&gt;&lt;programming&gt;&lt;us20140222502&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10535" RevisionGUID="0ffc9049-3e7d-4376-a1ad-cffb8ec3b900" CreationDate="2014-11-07T14:26:04.820" UserId="8074" Text="Is there a way to get court trial documents for specific case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23733" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10535" RevisionGUID="0ffc9049-3e7d-4376-a1ad-cffb8ec3b900" CreationDate="2014-11-07T14:26:04.820" UserId="8074" Text="Where to get patent litigation dockets?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23734" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10535" RevisionGUID="0ffc9049-3e7d-4376-a1ad-cffb8ec3b900" CreationDate="2014-11-07T14:26:04.820" UserId="8074" Text="&lt;litigation&gt;&lt;docket&gt;&lt;court&gt;&lt;documents&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10536" RevisionGUID="3cfcec75-03e4-43f4-ade1-395b9d50b4b1" CreationDate="2014-11-07T14:29:47.070" UserId="11751" Text="There is [PACER][1], but it's not free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there is [search.rpxcorp.com][2] - patent litigation search. You 'll just need to register an account for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.pacer.gov/findcase.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://search.rpxcorp.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23736" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10528" RevisionGUID="49ce2025-3e13-4b29-8c1c-de8bcec9382d" CreationDate="2014-11-07T15:23:06.277" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[10527],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="23737" PostHistoryTypeId="37" PostId="10528" RevisionGUID="a02eb417-496c-4b8a-ae8c-f60a2d22078a" CreationDate="2014-11-07T15:23:23.857" UserId="1" Comment="to http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/10527/does-my-proprietary-agreement-with-a-solely-owned-inc-division-extend-to-all-di" />
  <row Id="23738" PostHistoryTypeId="38" PostId="10531" RevisionGUID="a02eb417-496c-4b8a-ae8c-f60a2d22078a" CreationDate="2014-11-07T15:23:23.857" UserId="1" Comment="from http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/10528/dialogue-puts-invention-into-public-domain" />
  <row Id="23739" PostHistoryTypeId="38" PostId="10527" RevisionGUID="a02eb417-496c-4b8a-ae8c-f60a2d22078a" CreationDate="2014-11-07T15:23:23.857" UserId="1" Comment="from http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/10528/dialogue-puts-invention-into-public-domain" />
  <row Id="23740" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="10528" RevisionGUID="f47a023b-2030-4900-85b8-082122fd59ee" CreationDate="2014-11-07T15:23:23.857" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="23741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10537" RevisionGUID="56aa06b8-d8b0-4479-9010-bfcba26944e8" CreationDate="2014-11-07T17:25:09.430" UserId="3076" Text="This document is *not* a granted patent. It is the publication of a patent application. If it is issued as a patent in the future the key will be the wording of the claims, not the abstract or other parts of the document." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7834" RevisionGUID="271ccfaf-f40e-4a58-9264-a2cc8af85ef4" CreationDate="2014-11-07T17:26:54.037" UserId="11791" Comment="probably meant first claim, not fist claim, but both sound interesting... then needed 6 letters to change, so added text" Text="Any patent protects what is listed in the _claims_ -- no more -- no less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best way to start is to compare &quot;Claim 1&quot; word-for-word and see if your product matches the description -- if your product differs in just one matter of what is described in the first claim, then it is likely not covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, making something &quot;automatic&quot; could be an innovative enhancement and patentable in it's own right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23743" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7834" RevisionGUID="271ccfaf-f40e-4a58-9264-a2cc8af85ef4" CreationDate="2014-11-07T17:26:54.037" Comment="Proposed by 11791 approved by -1 edit id of 1702" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7834" RevisionGUID="44931344-374b-462d-b58a-06ba5435e95a" CreationDate="2014-11-07T17:26:54.037" UserId="3076" Comment="probably meant first claim, not fist claim, but both sound interesting... then needed 6 letters to change, so added text" Text="Any patent protects what is listed in the _claims_ -- no more -- no less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best way to start is to compare &quot;Claim 1&quot; word-for-word and see if your product matches the description -- if your product differs in just one matter of what is described in the first claim, then it is likely not covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, making something &quot;automatic&quot; could be an innovative enhancement and patentable in it's own right.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10313" RevisionGUID="8c75d2e5-2474-4dfe-849d-4331a816b7fa" CreationDate="2014-11-07T18:06:14.690" UserId="11791" Comment="cleaned it up a little to make more sense" Text="If I shared an idea with someone I trusted, and my idea was stolen by that someone, can I still get my patent back? Assuming I have strong evidence proving so? Like e-mails printed/saved prior to the patent being filed for to that person's name, or voice recording or video recordings? Can I get that patent cancelled or placed under my name?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23746" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10313" RevisionGUID="8c75d2e5-2474-4dfe-849d-4331a816b7fa" CreationDate="2014-11-07T18:06:14.690" UserId="11791" Comment="cleaned it up a little to make more sense" Text="Can I get my patent back if someone stole it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23747" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10313" RevisionGUID="8c75d2e5-2474-4dfe-849d-4331a816b7fa" CreationDate="2014-11-07T18:06:14.690" Comment="Proposed by 11791 approved by 10011, -1 edit id of 1701" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10313" RevisionGUID="2d4cc6be-b60e-4e10-91d2-d75b5523c643" CreationDate="2014-11-07T18:06:14.690" UserId="9939" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="If I shared an idea with someone I trusted, and my idea was stolen by that someone, can I still get my patent back? Assuming I have strong evidence proving this (like e-mails printed/saved prior to the patent being filed for to that person's name, or voice recording or video recordings) can I get that patent cancelled or placed under my name?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10538" RevisionGUID="407b3b20-5536-4744-809a-babff84e950f" CreationDate="2014-11-07T20:31:28.427" UserId="11850" Text="The patent on the hoverboard is far too broad and should not be approved.  I have 2 videos on YouTube demonstrating how a supermagnet will bounce off of a conductive surface.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://youtu.be/xTWYAFJuq7M&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://youtu.be/iABmUEH5s0k&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one was done over 7 years ago and 1.4 million people have viewed it.  A lot of other projects have been underway for many years to do similar things for various purposes.  Granting his patent for a hoverboard skateboard should be a single patent and not extended to all other uses and purposes as it has tried to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;George Mizzell&#xD;&#xA;SuperMagnetMan" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23750" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10538" RevisionGUID="407b3b20-5536-4744-809a-babff84e950f" CreationDate="2014-11-07T20:31:28.427" UserId="11850" Text="Hover board patent way too vague" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23751" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10538" RevisionGUID="407b3b20-5536-4744-809a-babff84e950f" CreationDate="2014-11-07T20:31:28.427" UserId="11850" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10540" RevisionGUID="3c7f4488-0da0-4e32-8546-e99c2dbd786b" CreationDate="2014-11-08T21:20:54.083" UserId="11855" Text="I have applied for nonprovisional us patent for my product. I want to contact with investors to show them a working product. Is it possible that after my patent application is rejected and investors patent application for the same product is accepted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23758" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10540" RevisionGUID="3c7f4488-0da0-4e32-8546-e99c2dbd786b" CreationDate="2014-11-08T21:20:54.083" UserId="11855" Text="I have functional prototype at hand. Should I wait for patent application be finalized?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23759" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10540" RevisionGUID="3c7f4488-0da0-4e32-8546-e99c2dbd786b" CreationDate="2014-11-08T21:20:54.083" UserId="11855" Text="&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10541" RevisionGUID="35521d03-3c85-444f-b6ac-ed8b37a93532" CreationDate="2014-11-09T01:42:18.100" UserId="3076" Text="This task would be very similar to validity search suplimented with an analysis by a patent practitioner or to the comprehensive search and report required for accelerated examination. I would guess the validity search + analysis would be $3,000 or more and the accelerated examination search and report (without all the formalities required by the USPTO) might be about $5,000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You didn't mention your overall goal but it could be thwarted by ignoring the applicant's ability to amend." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10541" RevisionGUID="efcbff4b-89a0-479b-9cae-3a5a230321af" CreationDate="2014-11-09T01:54:40.870" UserId="3076" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="This task would be very similar to validity search suplimented with an analysis by a patent practitioner or to the comprehensive search and report required for accelerated examination. I would guess the validity search + analysis would be $3,000 or more and the accelerated examination search and report (without all the formalities required by the USPTO) might be about $5,000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You didn't mention your overall goal but it could be thwarted by ignoring the applicant's ability to amend and create a movinG target." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10542" RevisionGUID="d3fdec3a-430f-4da0-9046-13aa9670380d" CreationDate="2014-11-09T02:00:45.733" UserId="3076" Text="If someone stold your idea and filed it, your rejected application, assuming it published, would be easy to find prior art that the bad guys would not be able to get around. If they made a patentable change to your invention and were only claiming that new part, they would be legit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10545" RevisionGUID="1283c82b-9f60-4a80-b2b7-d8a8ac538008" CreationDate="2014-11-09T20:32:11.650" UserId="11860" Text="Curcumin nano crystallization preparation and&#xD;&#xA;preparation method thereof&#xD;&#xA;CN 101361713 B" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23770" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10545" RevisionGUID="1283c82b-9f60-4a80-b2b7-d8a8ac538008" CreationDate="2014-11-09T20:32:11.650" UserId="11860" Text="what is the First Filled Country of patent CN 101361713 B?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23771" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10545" RevisionGUID="1283c82b-9f60-4a80-b2b7-d8a8ac538008" CreationDate="2014-11-09T20:32:11.650" UserId="11860" Text="&lt;espacenet&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10546" RevisionGUID="61b2a430-92df-4b04-b300-0d56132eeb26" CreationDate="2014-11-09T21:09:59.317" UserId="11861" Text="Can the drawings in a provisional application be less detailed than the drawings that will be submitted in a corresponding non-provisional patent as long as there are no material differences between the two, or is it typical that you use the same drawings from your provisional application when filing a corresponding non provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23773" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10546" RevisionGUID="61b2a430-92df-4b04-b300-0d56132eeb26" CreationDate="2014-11-09T21:09:59.317" UserId="11861" Text="provisional application drawings vs non provisional patent drawings" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23774" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10546" RevisionGUID="61b2a430-92df-4b04-b300-0d56132eeb26" CreationDate="2014-11-09T21:09:59.317" UserId="11861" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10541" RevisionGUID="29aabf82-af0d-4a9c-9dd7-2346ecfa1860" CreationDate="2014-11-09T21:58:39.523" UserId="3076" Comment="edited body" Text="This task would be very similar to validity search suplimented with an analysis by a patent practitioner or to the comprehensive search and report required for accelerated examination. I would guess the validity search + analysis would be $3,000 or more and the accelerated examination search and report (without all the formalities required by the USPTO) might be about $5,000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You didn't mention your overall goal but it could be thwarted by ignoring the applicant's ability to amend and create a moving target." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10547" RevisionGUID="08c23ae8-5dd3-4cac-907a-7bc42e0720d4" CreationDate="2014-11-10T02:52:45.090" UserId="11750" Text="According to the USPTO 37 C.F.R. 1.45 Application for patent by joint inventors, you can apply for joint inventorship provided you have contributed in the development of the patent and each inventors must make an inventor's oath or declaration as required by Section 1.63. Inventors can apply for a joint patent even though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) They did not physically work together or at the same time;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Each inventor did not make the same type or amount of contribution; or&#xD;&#xA;(3) Each inventor did not make a contribution to the subject matter of every claim of the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the author did not include you and your co-worker as an inventor of the patent, you have the right to file a case against the author. Ask an expert for the right thing to do in such situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10548" RevisionGUID="80ed85cd-bfdb-4221-b0b9-f5ad1c3c7095" CreationDate="2014-11-10T03:03:11.217" UserId="11750" Text="Generally a software is protected under the copyright law. And a copyright protection is much simple rather than filing a patent. A copyright is automatically granted to creator of the software. But a copyright protection extends only to expressions, and not to ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such and if you want protection in the underlying ideas in the computer program, you can file for a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you have to weigh your product if it is really worth patenting or you would settle for copyright protection. Patent application is a complex process and only few software patents are granted but it is really useful if your program has a considerable commercial value. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10549" RevisionGUID="8ef8a374-9ec2-4fa2-8333-a4e48631d521" CreationDate="2014-11-10T03:08:53.390" UserId="11750" Text="If you filed the patent before the investors did and you comply all the necessary documents regarding your patent. It would be hard for them to get a patent grant for the similar products because of the first-to-file basis. But as what George said, if ever your patent is rejected and prior art is a good defense to prevent other from filing a patent over your invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10550" RevisionGUID="112d71a0-30da-43c1-90ef-92c77b6162b7" CreationDate="2014-11-10T11:08:44.473" UserId="11543" Text="In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 103(a), if the combination of the known elements as a whole is something that is obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention/combination was made, then the invention is not patentable.&#xD;&#xA;Combining a word processing program with features from a web site analytics program may be considered obvious, if there is a suggestion or teaching in the prior art (may be a single prior art or a combination of prior arts) that may motivate one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements already existing/known in the prior art. &#xD;&#xA;If the combination is obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time the combination was made and if each element in combination merely would perform the same function as it did separately and whether such combination of previously known elements yields a predictable result is something that has to be considered by an Examiner while determining obviousness. If all of the above points are satisfied, then an invention is considered obvious and thus non patentable. &#xD;&#xA;If the way you have combined the known elements is something that involves inventive step and if the outcome of such a combination is not obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art given the teachings of the prior art, then your invention may be considered patentable.&#xD;&#xA;Obviousness, however, is determined by several other factors. For details, you may visit the links provided below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/determination-obviousnessinventive-step-european-patent-office&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/determination-obviousnessinventive-step-indian-approach&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/determination-obviousnessinventive-step-united-states-america&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10551" RevisionGUID="1e0057b2-7ba1-47cb-8eea-fdb676513908" CreationDate="2014-11-10T12:02:59.787" UserId="11751" Text="Having in mind recent supreme court [ruling][1] (Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health &amp; Fitness, Inc. case)  in favor of defendant in patent infringement case several questions arise. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What Octane attorneys did wrong for appellate court to keep the the district court decision not to classify case as exceptional after evaluating supreme court response? &#xD;&#xA;Was it the appeal formulation?.. One of appellate court rejection argument (see [docket][2] #241): &quot;Octane challenged only the propriety of our standard for finding a patent case exceptional under Brooks Furniture; Octane did not challenge the factual findings and conclusions underlying the district court’s denial of its § 285 motion.&quot; It seams that appellate court was not willing to reevaluate the facts using new standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a lesson to be learned from this? Is appellate court ignoring significantly lowered standards explained by supreme court? Or is it a mistake by defense attorneys?&#xD;&#xA;Or provided arguments were not sufficient to show bad faith?..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Defense bad faith arguments (see [docket][2] #241): &quot;(i) an email exchange between two ICON sales executives suggesting that the litigation was undertaken as a matter of commercial strategy; and (ii) the fact that ICON is a larger company that never commercialized its ’710 patent. Id. at *4.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_12_1184&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://search.rpxcorp.com/lit/mndce-105109-icon-health-fitness-v-octane-fitness" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23781" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10551" RevisionGUID="1e0057b2-7ba1-47cb-8eea-fdb676513908" CreationDate="2014-11-10T12:02:59.787" UserId="11751" Text="Supreme court decision in favor of Octane Fitness any good?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23782" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10551" RevisionGUID="1e0057b2-7ba1-47cb-8eea-fdb676513908" CreationDate="2014-11-10T12:02:59.787" UserId="11751" Text="&lt;court&gt;&lt;frivolous&gt;&lt;bad&gt;&lt;faith&gt;&lt;supreme&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10552" RevisionGUID="497b0dd2-caa9-4f8f-a2be-ce3ee88c91ab" CreationDate="2014-11-10T12:14:31.637" UserId="11751" Text="What is the meaning of &quot;simple discretionary inquiry&quot; in supreme court [opinion][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Finally, the Court rejected the appellate court’s “clear and convincing evidence” standard that successful patent litigants would have to establish in order to receive fees. Instead, the Court held that a **simple discretionary inquiry** would serve to determine whether granting attorney fees is appropriate.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_12_1184" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23784" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10552" RevisionGUID="497b0dd2-caa9-4f8f-a2be-ce3ee88c91ab" CreationDate="2014-11-10T12:14:31.637" UserId="11751" Text="What does &quot;discretionary inquiry&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23785" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10552" RevisionGUID="497b0dd2-caa9-4f8f-a2be-ce3ee88c91ab" CreationDate="2014-11-10T12:14:31.637" UserId="11751" Text="&lt;court&gt;&lt;supreme&gt;&lt;discretionary&gt;&lt;inquiry&gt;&lt;opinion&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23788" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10538" RevisionGUID="36e14f69-dab2-43a0-9911-1ef807e4fc7b" CreationDate="2014-11-10T13:55:20.290" UserId="1" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3076,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George White&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:9939,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;nicael&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="23789" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10552" RevisionGUID="a9edced9-2106-4dab-81fc-a38659a07e58" CreationDate="2014-11-10T14:10:51.577" UserId="11791" Comment="removed supreme tag and added supreme-court tag" Text="&lt;court&gt;&lt;discretionary&gt;&lt;inquiry&gt;&lt;opinion&gt;&lt;supreme-court&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23790" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10552" RevisionGUID="a9edced9-2106-4dab-81fc-a38659a07e58" CreationDate="2014-11-10T14:10:51.577" Comment="Proposed by 11791 approved by 5071, 11751 edit id of 1705" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23791" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10551" RevisionGUID="6bfeaf36-6ca9-4750-b118-7fc4ef05ee09" CreationDate="2014-11-10T14:11:57.913" UserId="11751" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;court&gt;&lt;frivolous&gt;&lt;supreme-court&gt;&lt;bad-faith&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10551" RevisionGUID="6bfeaf36-6ca9-4750-b118-7fc4ef05ee09" CreationDate="2014-11-10T14:11:57.913" UserId="11751" Comment="edited tags" Text="Having in mind recent supreme court [ruling][1] (Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health &amp; Fitness, Inc. case)  in favor of defendant in patent infringement case several questions arise. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What Octane attorneys did wrong for appellate court to keep the the district court decision not to classify case as exceptional after evaluating supreme court response? &#xD;&#xA;Was it the appeal formulation?.. One of appellate court rejection argument (see [docket][2] #241): &quot;Octane challenged only the propriety of our standard for finding a patent case exceptional under Brooks Furniture; Octane did not challenge the factual findings and conclusions underlying the district court’s denial of its § 285 motion.&quot; It seams that appellate court was not willing to reevaluate the facts using new standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a lesson to be learned from this? Is appellate court ignoring significantly lowered standards explained by supreme court? Or is it a mistake by defense attorneys?&#xD;&#xA;Or provided arguments were not sufficient to show bad faith?..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bad faith arguments according to Octane (see [docket][2] #241): &quot;(i) an email exchange between two ICON sales executives suggesting that the litigation was undertaken as a matter of commercial strategy; and (ii) the fact that ICON is a larger company that never commercialized its ’710 patent. Id. at *4.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_12_1184&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://search.rpxcorp.com/lit/mndce-105109-icon-health-fitness-v-octane-fitness" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23793" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10552" RevisionGUID="f79b7a70-6b61-481c-a66b-e95f92d9ee0f" CreationDate="2014-11-10T14:15:08.653" UserId="8074" Comment="Suggested tag edit" Text="&lt;supreme-court&gt;&lt;discretionary&gt;&lt;inquiry&gt;&lt;opinion&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23794" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10552" RevisionGUID="f79b7a70-6b61-481c-a66b-e95f92d9ee0f" CreationDate="2014-11-10T14:15:08.653" Comment="Proposed by 8074 approved by 11751 edit id of 1706" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23795" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10552" RevisionGUID="65c20bd6-2304-4bf2-a7f4-22c4e0ce0aaa" CreationDate="2014-11-10T14:16:11.900" UserId="11751" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;supreme-court&gt;&lt;discretionary&gt;&lt;inquiry&gt;&lt;opinion&gt;&lt;appellate-court&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23796" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10545" RevisionGUID="caed2593-3578-46c7-a1a6-3b995e4cba8d" CreationDate="2014-11-10T17:42:38.083" UserId="11791" Comment="I think the op means &quot;filed&quot;, not &quot;filled&quot;" Text="What is the first filed country of patent CN 101361713 B?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23797" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10545" RevisionGUID="caed2593-3578-46c7-a1a6-3b995e4cba8d" CreationDate="2014-11-10T17:42:38.083" Comment="Proposed by 11791 approved by 5071, 9939 edit id of 1703" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10546" RevisionGUID="f514a569-bcbe-4121-8a1c-61a1cfc8bcf9" CreationDate="2014-11-10T17:42:51.380" UserId="11791" Comment="fixed looooong runon sentence! :)" Text="Can the drawings in a provisional application be less detailed than the drawings that will be submitted in a corresponding non-provisional patent as long as there are no material differences between the two?   Or is it typical that you use the same drawings from your provisional application when filing a corresponding non provisional application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23799" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10546" RevisionGUID="f514a569-bcbe-4121-8a1c-61a1cfc8bcf9" CreationDate="2014-11-10T17:42:51.380" UserId="11791" Comment="fixed looooong runon sentence! :)" Text="Provisional application drawings vs non provisional patent drawings" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23800" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10546" RevisionGUID="f514a569-bcbe-4121-8a1c-61a1cfc8bcf9" CreationDate="2014-11-10T17:42:51.380" Comment="Proposed by 11791 approved by 5071, 9939 edit id of 1704" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10552" RevisionGUID="5f4b213d-38de-4239-af1c-e3ba4cd6f32b" CreationDate="2014-11-10T17:44:39.267" UserId="9939" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="What is the meaning of &quot;simple discretionary inquiry&quot; in supreme court [opinion][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Finally, the Court rejected the appellate court’s “clear and convincing evidence” standard that successful patent litigants would have to establish in order to receive fees. Instead, the Court held that a **simple discretionary inquiry** would serve to determine whether granting attorney fees is appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_12_1184" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10553" RevisionGUID="d48b2270-c343-4b79-a510-705f79e03f43" CreationDate="2014-11-10T18:56:45.507" UserId="10011" Text="They definitely *can* be less detailed, but the standard is that the provisional has to be &quot;enabling.&quot; So if you have to work out some details and you want to get the gist out there in your provisional, just make sure the application hits that (albeit subjective) bar, and you should be all set. Provisionals aren't even required to have drawings, either (not that non-provisionals are in theory, but they certainly are in practice).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That all said, it is pretty typical to use the same (or very similar) drawings in a provisional and non-provisional, just to be sure it does enable. But there's no rule to that effect, and by the tense of what you've said, I'm guessing that you're in the process of getting a non-provisional written and already have a provisional, so I would just say make the non-provisional drawings as descriptive as you can and it should be fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10545" RevisionGUID="02cee83f-568d-4728-beec-5d14d4173ec4" CreationDate="2014-11-10T18:58:11.150" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Curcumin nano crystallization preparation and&#xD;&#xA;preparation method thereof&#xD;&#xA;CN101361713B" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23804" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10545" RevisionGUID="02cee83f-568d-4728-beec-5d14d4173ec4" CreationDate="2014-11-10T18:58:11.150" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;espacenet&gt;&lt;cn101361713b&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10554" RevisionGUID="4eea8334-3d4e-4142-ab2e-c42a65aaed63" CreationDate="2014-11-10T22:26:52.070" UserId="11764" Text="Help kill bad patent applications by providing evidence of prior art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication number	US20130128027 A1&#xD;&#xA;Publication type	Application&#xD;&#xA;Application number	US 13/653,469&#xD;&#xA;Publication date	May 23, 2013&#xD;&#xA;Filing date	Oct 17, 2012&#xD;&#xA;Priority date	Nov 18, 2011&#xD;&#xA;Also published as	CN103124358A, EP2595375A1&#xD;&#xA;Inventors	Masaaki Katsurada, Keisuke Nagoshi&#xD;&#xA;Original Assignee	Keyence Corporation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23806" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10554" RevisionGUID="4eea8334-3d4e-4142-ab2e-c42a65aaed63" CreationDate="2014-11-10T22:26:52.070" UserId="11764" Text="What are the prior arts of US20130128027 A1?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23807" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10554" RevisionGUID="4eea8334-3d4e-4142-ab2e-c42a65aaed63" CreationDate="2014-11-10T22:26:52.070" UserId="11764" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10555" RevisionGUID="27d0d581-0442-457a-879c-a46e16041e41" CreationDate="2014-11-10T23:20:23.673" UserId="11865" Text="This patent (us7983979 at https://www.google.com/patents/US7983979) is basically the *concept* of  asking someone for a pin they previously provided- known only to them, of course! -  in order to confirm their identity.  And this is a patentable invention in 2006.  I know I must be missing something.  Can anyone who understands the patent process please explain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23809" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10555" RevisionGUID="27d0d581-0442-457a-879c-a46e16041e41" CreationDate="2014-11-10T23:20:23.673" UserId="11865" Text="How is this not overly obvious?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23810" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10555" RevisionGUID="27d0d581-0442-457a-879c-a46e16041e41" CreationDate="2014-11-10T23:20:23.673" UserId="11865" Text="&lt;security&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10556" RevisionGUID="89595408-5168-483e-a284-be07a772a7bf" CreationDate="2014-11-11T02:27:23.613" UserId="11750" Text="Demands for a &quot;simple discretionary inquiry&quot; happens when a court disagree with the Federal circuit imposition of a “clear and convincing evidence” standard on a party seeking to establish entitlement to attorney’s fees. The demands for a &quot;simple discretionary inquiry&quot; is under section 285, which means it imposes no specific evidentiary burden, much less such a high one.”  to attorney’s fees should be made by preponderance of the evidence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23812" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10555" RevisionGUID="0d455eb3-5058-4107-b77a-ea44809aeb00" CreationDate="2014-11-11T02:32:34.317" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;security&gt;&lt;us7983979&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10557" RevisionGUID="543a6ac7-0bb6-407b-aeb5-eabbda54737c" CreationDate="2014-11-11T02:33:17.783" UserId="11750" Text="Did you contribute to any claims to the said invention? Have you been included as a joint inventor of the invention? If yes, then being a joint inventor will give the right over an invention. The best thing to do is to consult an expert on what legal process you could take to excercise your right to the invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10558" RevisionGUID="3370a776-14cb-4de4-be88-524839701dcc" CreationDate="2014-11-11T02:40:50.550" UserId="10011" Text="The real standard for obviousness--and anything, really--is in the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main claim in this patent, claim 1, reads as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for establishing a credit account comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;receiving initial information from a consumer sufficient to permit a trusted third party to establish said consumer as a subscriber of said trusted third party's services;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; establishing said consumer as a subscriber of said trusted third party, wherein the number for accessing a communication device of said subscriber is retained on one or more hardware devices by said trusted third party;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said subscriber requesting a credit account from an account provider;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said account provider contacting a credit bureau and requesting said subscriber's credit file;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said credit bureau providing said account provider with said subscriber's credit file containing contact information for said trusted third party and identifying information for said subscriber;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said account provider requesting authorization from said trusted third party to open said subscriber's account;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said trusted third party contacting said subscriber on said subscriber's communication device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said subscriber providing said trusted third party with confirmation that said subscriber desires said account provider to be provided access to said credit file; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said trusted third party authorizing said account provider to proceed in opening said account on behalf of said subscriber.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phew, that was a mouthful. As you can notice, this is a little more specific than its abstract may suggest. It's difficult to know with complete certainty what any *one* patent is meant to represent, but here it sounds like it's a form of two-factor authentication where a user's cell phone (or equivalent) is used to provide security for a user opening a credit account. It sounds like it would be useful for a service like [LifeLock](http://www.lifelock.com/) or a bank interested in avoiding fraudulent accounts being opened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23815" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10554" RevisionGUID="49b1fc70-37cd-4731-bc28-8b9b20c33f5c" CreationDate="2014-11-11T05:06:50.437" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20130128027&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10551" RevisionGUID="6c3137ac-b49e-4da7-aead-14c4e47dc536" CreationDate="2014-11-11T06:37:20.883" UserId="8074" Comment="Blockquote formatting applied." Text="Having in mind recent supreme court [ruling][1] (Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health &amp; Fitness, Inc. case)  in favor of defendant in patent infringement case several questions arise. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What Octane attorneys did wrong for appellate court to keep the the district court decision not to classify case as exceptional after evaluating supreme court response? &#xD;&#xA;Was it the appeal formulation?.. One of appellate court rejection argument (see [docket][2] #241):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Octane challenged only the propriety of our standard for finding a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent case exceptional under Brooks Furniture; Octane did not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; challenge the factual findings and conclusions underlying the district&#xD;&#xA;&gt; court’s denial of its § 285 motion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seams that appellate court was not willing to reevaluate the facts using new standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a lesson to be learned from this? Is appellate court ignoring significantly lowered standards explained by supreme court? Or is it a mistake by defense attorneys?&#xD;&#xA;Or provided arguments were not sufficient to show bad faith?..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bad faith arguments according to Octane (see [docket][2] #241): &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (i) an email exchange between two ICON sales executives suggesting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that the litigation was undertaken as a matter of commercial strategy;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and (ii) the fact that ICON is a larger company that never&#xD;&#xA;&gt; commercialized its ’710 patent. Id. at *4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_12_1184&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://search.rpxcorp.com/lit/mndce-105109-icon-health-fitness-v-octane-fitness" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23817" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10551" RevisionGUID="6c3137ac-b49e-4da7-aead-14c4e47dc536" CreationDate="2014-11-11T06:37:20.883" Comment="Proposed by 8074 approved by 10011, 3076 edit id of 1707" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10552" RevisionGUID="2b7ce0f5-8621-49ca-8e17-342f03776b13" CreationDate="2014-11-11T09:37:06.613" UserId="11751" Comment="added 331 characters in body" Text="What is the meaning of &quot;simple discretionary inquiry&quot; in supreme court [opinion][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Finally, the Court rejected the appellate court’s “clear and convincing evidence” standard that successful patent litigants would have to establish in order to receive fees. Instead, the Court held that a **simple discretionary inquiry** would serve to determine whether granting attorney fees is appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What will the court actions be to meet simple discretionary inquiry standard next time it will have to decide entitlement to attorney’s fees? Is there a definition for simple discretionary inquiry? Is there a precedent explaining steps court takes when it performs discretionary inquiry? Is it a common self-explanatory term?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_12_1184" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10559" RevisionGUID="47e4ee4e-c377-4283-bc96-6f590d5a3bcb" CreationDate="2014-11-11T14:08:18.053" UserId="11867" Text="How come such a patent was already used under the Coors design and that the formalisation is taking that long, applied for in 2011 and no decision yet while two years would be a more than reasonable to come to a verdict.&#xD;&#xA;we are a competitor being kept waiting, personally be believe this design is not new." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23820" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10559" RevisionGUID="47e4ee4e-c377-4283-bc96-6f590d5a3bcb" CreationDate="2014-11-11T14:08:18.053" UserId="11867" Text="Pivotting Mandrel Stolle Machinery Old in a new coat, Patent WO 2011156052 A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23821" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10559" RevisionGUID="47e4ee4e-c377-4283-bc96-6f590d5a3bcb" CreationDate="2014-11-11T14:08:18.053" UserId="11867" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10526" RevisionGUID="1d2bdec9-720a-4b22-b647-c261410f947f" CreationDate="2014-11-11T16:06:54.167" UserId="4545" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="Are you saying you submitted an application for a patent in July 2013? The average time until a first office action (which is a rejection in about 87% of new applications) is about 18 months, but it varies depending on the technology area. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the perspective of granted patents (in 2013), the average time from filing until allowance is around 30 months. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: http://www.uspto.gov/about/stratplan/ar/USPTOFY2013PAR.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Up-to-date source: http://www.uspto.gov/dashboards/patents/main.dashxml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10561" RevisionGUID="23a4114c-7352-4da9-973a-79d97e235d45" CreationDate="2014-11-11T21:08:54.300" UserId="1698" Text="The provided arguments were not enough to show bad faith, even under the lower threshold. Your listed arguments for bad faith are not really bad faith. Litigation as commercial strategy is a business decision every business has to make. Either you stand on your rights through litigation or you give those rights up. And there is no legal requirement in the US for a patent owner to commercial a patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10561" RevisionGUID="725ac7ff-dcfa-4133-a79f-5f38b21344c1" CreationDate="2014-11-11T21:23:51.180" UserId="3076" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="The provided arguments were not enough to show bad faith, even under the lower threshold. Your listed arguments for bad faith are not really bad faith. Litigation as commercial strategy is a business decision every business has to make. Either you stand on your rights through litigation or you give those rights up. And there is no legal requirement in the US for a patent owner to commercialize their patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10562" RevisionGUID="670730a6-4e23-4c82-a5ed-7e442ecd7daa" CreationDate="2014-11-11T21:25:37.997" UserId="3076" Text="A patent owner may not even have the right to practice their patent if it is an add-on or improvement to something else's patented base item." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23829" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10559" RevisionGUID="5c704d43-5ac0-4a73-a37c-bae50e2a3507" CreationDate="2014-11-12T02:13:28.360" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;wo2011156052&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10563" RevisionGUID="63cd072d-b9cf-436c-95d1-a18d4c1aa0e3" CreationDate="2014-11-12T02:29:00.920" UserId="3076" Text="The patent document number WO2011156052 represents an international patent application, called a PCT application. It can result in one or more patents if offshoots of it in countries selected by the applicant (each one cost $$$) are found patentable in that country. From the google patents page you can see &quot;Also published as&quot;. Two of those represent patent application in applications in China and Europe. One is a patent application in the U.S. and one is [granted U.S. patent number US8596624.][1] It has been out for just about a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Separately, 3 years is not an unusually long time from application to grant. Most of that is queue time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8596624" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10564" RevisionGUID="0214634a-a1b6-4900-9e26-f9ec222e7d07" CreationDate="2014-11-12T04:02:05.800" UserId="11750" Text="There are many factors for an invention to get a patent. If a similar patent exist, a patent can still be granted to an invention provided it is an improvement of the existing one. Improvement patent are issued if you add something new to an existing patent. Let's say you have incorporated new technology to the old patent or find a different use to it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10354" RevisionGUID="76a9b629-bb62-4538-a2ef-6ffc3d05f446" CreationDate="2014-11-12T07:15:49.703" UserId="11791" Comment="cleaned it up a little" Text="Inventor wants to file improvement patent on his own patent; there are newly&#xD;&#xA;discovered structural components and can justify their novelty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inventor has been warned about Jepson claims, but in this&#xD;&#xA;specific case it seems appropriate that the Inventor use a Jepson&#xD;&#xA;Claim in the new patent and clearly claim the improvements and&#xD;&#xA;justifications to avoid a possible double patent rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please address this from all the various angles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23833" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10354" RevisionGUID="76a9b629-bb62-4538-a2ef-6ffc3d05f446" CreationDate="2014-11-12T07:15:49.703" UserId="11791" Comment="cleaned it up a little" Text="Inventors Improvement Patent of his own Issued Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23834" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10354" RevisionGUID="76a9b629-bb62-4538-a2ef-6ffc3d05f446" CreationDate="2014-11-12T07:15:49.703" Comment="Proposed by 11791 approved by -1 edit id of 1708" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10354" RevisionGUID="e6eea949-768b-4bce-ac9d-6237f7d77112" CreationDate="2014-11-12T07:15:49.703" UserId="9939" Comment="cleaned it up a little" Text="Inventor wants to file improvement patent on his own patent; there are newly&#xD;&#xA;discovered structural components and can justify their novelty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inventor has been warned about Jepson claims, but in this&#xD;&#xA;specific case it seems appropriate that the Inventor use a Jepson&#xD;&#xA;Claim in the new patent and clearly claim the improvements and&#xD;&#xA;justifications to avoid a possible double patent rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please address this from all the various angles." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="0380e3df-91de-457e-a9b8-4e4072f49700" CreationDate="2014-11-12T10:57:35.000" UserId="11751" Text="What would generally indicate **bad faith** of the patent litigation? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say accusing party knows their patents are very weak/narrow but pretends that proper interpretation is the widest one. Would showing the fact that accusing party knew patents were narrow and purposely did not provide proper infringement arguments be sufficient to show bad faith?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are necessary factors showing bad faith in US patent litigation, any precedents? What real world actions/facts/context constitute **bad faith**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.&#xD;&#xA;[Bad faith definition][1] from Cornell univ.:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A term that generally describes dishonest dealing.  Depending on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exact setting, bad faith may mean a dishonest belief or purpose,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; untrustworthy performance of duties, neglect of fair dealing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; standards, or a fraudulent intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bad_faith" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23837" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="0380e3df-91de-457e-a9b8-4e4072f49700" CreationDate="2014-11-12T10:57:35.000" UserId="11751" Text="Patent infringement case - bad faith" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23838" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="0380e3df-91de-457e-a9b8-4e4072f49700" CreationDate="2014-11-12T10:57:35.000" UserId="11751" Text="&lt;litigation&gt;&lt;bad-faith&gt;&lt;precedent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="f48f8633-3547-495f-825e-a879b68f444b" CreationDate="2014-11-12T11:08:18.517" UserId="8074" Comment="Minor styling changes" Text="What would generally indicate accusing party's **bad faith** in patent litigation? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say accusing party knows their patents are very weak/narrow but pretends that proper interpretation is the widest one. Would showing the fact that accusing party knew patents were narrow and purposely did not provide proper infringement arguments be sufficient to show **bad faith**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are necessary factors showing bad faith in US patent litigation, any precedents? What real world actions/facts/context constitute **bad faith**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bad faith definition][1] from Cornell univ.:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A term that generally describes dishonest dealing.  Depending on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exact setting, bad faith may mean a dishonest belief or purpose,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; untrustworthy performance of duties, neglect of fair dealing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; standards, or a fraudulent intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bad_faith" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23840" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="f48f8633-3547-495f-825e-a879b68f444b" CreationDate="2014-11-12T11:08:18.517" UserId="8074" Comment="Minor styling changes" Text="&lt;litigation&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;bad-faith&gt;&lt;precedent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23841" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="f48f8633-3547-495f-825e-a879b68f444b" CreationDate="2014-11-12T11:08:18.517" Comment="Proposed by 8074 approved by 11751 edit id of 1709" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="d61cc1b7-1506-44b9-ae01-da8aed3c2c19" CreationDate="2014-11-12T11:10:41.470" UserId="11751" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="What would generally indicate accusing party's **bad faith** in patent litigation? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say accusing party knows their patents are very weak/narrow but pretends that proper interpretation is the widest one. Would showing the fact that accusing party knew patents were narrow and purposely did not provide proper infringement arguments be sufficient to show **bad faith**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are necessary factors showing bad faith in US patent litigation, any precedents? What real world actions/facts/context constitute **bad faith**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bad faith definition][1] by Cornell univ.:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A term that generally describes dishonest dealing.  Depending on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exact setting, bad faith may mean a dishonest belief or purpose,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; untrustworthy performance of duties, neglect of fair dealing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; standards, or a fraudulent intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bad_faith" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6419" RevisionGUID="7f51b5e6-2fc6-46c4-9a04-ebc0da385972" CreationDate="2014-11-12T11:17:27.363" UserId="1193" Comment="added 641 characters in body" Text="If the patent is published as a US patent, you should be able to go to http://www.uspto.gov/ and find the official version of the patent (the google website is not an official version).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO offers image scans of older patents (US256198 is from 1948).  The USPTO scan of [US256198 found here][1] and it is clearly not scanned correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should contact the USPTO directly to obtain a copy of the original official patent if you need the full copy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&amp;docid=02560198&amp;IDKey=FCD38CDD44F0&amp;HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DPALL%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsrchnum.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526s1%3D2560198.PN.%2526OS%3DPN%2F2560198%2526RS%3DPN%2F2560198" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10566" RevisionGUID="184d928c-534c-4a4b-b45a-2e1420eae29f" CreationDate="2014-11-12T11:32:40.990" UserId="1193" Text="Bad Faith in patent litigation is as far as I know commonly related to the infringer rather than the litigator/accuser; that is somebody has willfully infringed on a patent as opposed as accidentally not being aware of the patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reverse would probably be know as merritless litigation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="a3bd0053-0bc5-48d8-a98d-6d8a371dac2c" CreationDate="2014-11-12T11:40:59.580" UserId="11751" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="What would generally indicate accusing party's **bad faith** in patent litigation? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say accusing party knows their patents are very weak/narrow but pretends that proper interpretation is the widest one. Would showing the fact that accusing party knew patents were narrow and purposely did not provide proper infringement arguments be sufficient to sue litigator to show **bad faith** in original infringement case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are necessary factors showing bad faith in US patent litigation, any precedents? What real world actions/facts/context constitute **bad faith**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bad faith definition][1] by Cornell univ.:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A term that generally describes dishonest dealing.  Depending on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exact setting, bad faith may mean a dishonest belief or purpose,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; untrustworthy performance of duties, neglect of fair dealing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; standards, or a fraudulent intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bad_faith" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23846" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="0c5bfba7-5b65-4243-b6a5-0edaa3998397" CreationDate="2014-11-12T11:48:01.217" UserId="11751" Comment="edited title" Text="Patent infringement litigation - bad faith" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10567" RevisionGUID="5af67c9a-d625-4c62-a9d5-3c15849ecccf" CreationDate="2014-11-12T11:56:26.330" UserId="1193" Text="&gt;What real world actions/facts/context constitute bad faith?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any communication (internal or otherwise) showing that the defendant were aware of the patent and that they willfully chose to ignore it.  The communication could either be internal emails, internal documentation or in software; the source code for a product -- which is why these items are usually subpoenaed by the litigator to prove any guilt.   Similarly, depositions can be a source of such evidence, so even if it was never written down, as simple question of &quot;have you ever discussed patent XXX&quot; if answered affirmatively can prove that the defendant were aware of the subject matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10556" RevisionGUID="5b9ce658-8531-4f7e-8900-abf5d7f31669" CreationDate="2014-11-12T12:42:40.133" UserId="11751" Comment="Rephrasing for clarity." Text="Demands for a &quot;simple discretionary inquiry&quot; happens when a court disagree with the Federal circuit imposition of a “clear and convincing evidence” standard on a party seeking to establish entitlement to attorney’s fees.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The demands for a &quot;simple discretionary inquiry&quot; is under section 285, which means it imposes no specific evidentiary burden, much less such a high one. Attorney’s fees should be awarded by [preponderance of the evidence][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/preponderance_of_the_evidence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23854" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10556" RevisionGUID="5b9ce658-8531-4f7e-8900-abf5d7f31669" CreationDate="2014-11-12T12:42:40.133" Comment="Proposed by 11751 approved by 1 edit id of 1710" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10552" RevisionGUID="88ac1127-0926-4e21-9943-b40046316132" CreationDate="2014-11-12T13:52:41.280" UserId="9939" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="What is the meaning of &quot;simple discretionary inquiry&quot; in supreme court [opinion][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Finally, the Court rejected the appellate court’s “clear and convincing evidence” standard that successful patent litigants would have to establish in order to receive fees. Instead, the Court held that a **simple discretionary inquiry** would serve to determine whether granting attorney fees is appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What will the court actions be to meet simple discretionary inquiry standard next time it will have to decide entitlement to attorney’s fees? Is there a definition for simple discretionary inquiry? Is there a precedent explaining steps court takes when it performs discretionary inquiry? Is it a common self-explanatory term?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_12_1184" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10569" RevisionGUID="58094da0-a680-4bf9-9b27-e75e932a692c" CreationDate="2014-11-12T18:53:28.177" UserId="3076" Text="Before Octane the standard was “objectively baseless”. Looking portions of the transcript of the case there was an attempt to find words to use to draw a line. Octane proposed:  “meritless;” “objectively meritless;” “without substantial merit;” “low likelihood of success;” “unreasonable;” “unreasonably weak;” “a little bit lower than [the Rule 11] standard” and “something more than frivolous.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scalia said &quot;it occurs to me that you really cannot answer the question of what adjectives should be attached to “meritless.&quot; And then went on to say that in one case the patent might have huge holes in it and in another case it might have medium sized holes in it AND the lawyers acted horribly. The totality of the circumstances being exceptional seems like a good summary of the ruling. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I am not an attorney, but in learning patent law to pass the patent bar exam I quickly saw that law doesn't have much &quot;if A, then B&quot;. The idea that one person saying one thing would be determinative, is trying to draw a bright line where none exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10571" RevisionGUID="441f9fb6-4ed5-4daf-9e99-0eff00b9f524" CreationDate="2014-11-12T20:06:29.543" UserId="11873" Text="I'm trying to work out how many virtual reality patents are assigned each year, and how the size of the market has changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also want to work out how many patents are reassigned each year, and how much they are sold for. The idea is to work out the activity of the patent market around a specific field of invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What techniques would you use for this kind of research?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23863" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10571" RevisionGUID="441f9fb6-4ed5-4daf-9e99-0eff00b9f524" CreationDate="2014-11-12T20:06:29.543" UserId="11873" Text="How big is the US patent market in Virtual Reality patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23864" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10571" RevisionGUID="441f9fb6-4ed5-4daf-9e99-0eff00b9f524" CreationDate="2014-11-12T20:06:29.543" UserId="11873" Text="&lt;assignment-history&gt;&lt;market&gt;&lt;activity&gt;&lt;virtual-reality&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10572" RevisionGUID="004b41a1-4133-4246-bd23-602421e48f33" CreationDate="2014-11-12T22:32:32.690" UserId="9802" Text="Or, how long after an application is published by the USPTO is it included in the Google Patent database?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, as of today, 2014-11-12, the most recent utility application was published 2014-11-06 (US20140331368).  It looks like the most recent application available on Google was published 2014-10-09 (US20140304863), which would it at least 4 weeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Google Patents help page](http://support.google.com/faqs/answer/2539193) just says that it covers the &quot;entire collection&quot;. No clarification on the [Wikipedia article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Patents) either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23866" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10572" RevisionGUID="004b41a1-4133-4246-bd23-602421e48f33" CreationDate="2014-11-12T22:32:32.690" UserId="9802" Text="How often is Google Patents updated?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23867" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10572" RevisionGUID="004b41a1-4133-4246-bd23-602421e48f33" CreationDate="2014-11-12T22:32:32.690" UserId="9802" Text="&lt;patent-search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10556" RevisionGUID="9d8dcce3-d841-442a-ad8b-dabe8a0797fc" CreationDate="2014-11-13T01:18:05.673" UserId="11750" Comment="deleted 74 characters in body" Text="Demands for a &quot;simple discretionary inquiry&quot; happens when a court disagree with the Federal circuit imposition of a “clear and convincing evidence” standard on a party seeking to establish entitlement to attorney’s fees.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The demands for a &quot;simple discretionary inquiry&quot; is under section 285, which means it imposes no specific evidentiary burden, much less such a high one. Attorney’s fees should be awarded by preponderance of the evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10573" RevisionGUID="81ee923b-095b-4ce7-b8e6-9ccd46ec47e3" CreationDate="2014-11-13T01:25:18.923" UserId="11750" Text="As far as I know, Google update their database every other month and the data they input in their database are a couple of months late. It is still best the you search for patents in the USPTO or in other patent database that are more updated than Google patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10574" RevisionGUID="196d2852-918b-41d6-8431-64f691214a4c" CreationDate="2014-11-13T01:48:46.733" UserId="11750" Text="Check different patent database and make a note on your search. Here is a guide on how you can search for patents according to USPTO website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Brainstorm Terms Describing the Invention&#xD;&#xA;2.  Index to the U.S. Patent Classification (USPC) System&#xD;&#xA;3.  U.S. Patent Class Schedule in the Manual of Classification&#xD;&#xA;4.  U.S. Patent Classification Definitions&#xD;&#xA;5.  Retrieve and Review Issued Patents and Published Patent Applications Using the USPC Classification(s) Identified&#xD;&#xA;6.  Find Relevant CPCs (Cooperative Patent Classifications) Using Statistical Mapping from USPC to CPC; Retrieve and Review U.S. Patent Documents &#xD;&#xA;7.  Conduct a Classification Search of CPC Class Schemes on the EPO’s Espacenet Website to Find Additional CPC Classifications, if Needed.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10575" RevisionGUID="1bcdc312-2526-4ca6-9e08-aa909336c5a5" CreationDate="2014-11-13T06:15:33.590" UserId="3076" Text="The overall field is called patent analytics. Academics do quite a bit of it. One site that has some useful tools is see-the-forest. I am including a chart I just made there. Unfortunately to get really useful data you need to be a paid user.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ygcdF.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10577" RevisionGUID="cce5368d-1ec9-452c-95f5-ecb812c14423" CreationDate="2014-11-13T17:26:57.073" UserId="11879" Text="Why is it legal to sell a patent in the first place?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't seem right that someone who had nothing to do with a product being invented be granted the de facto title of &quot;inventor&quot; that holding a patent provides.  This type of non-inventing inventorship seems to serve only trolls.  Before the rights that patents provide and are legally upheld in court are argued, can anyone provide a good reason for the legality of patent sale in the first place?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23879" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10577" RevisionGUID="cce5368d-1ec9-452c-95f5-ecb812c14423" CreationDate="2014-11-13T17:26:57.073" UserId="11879" Text="Legality of patent sale (in general)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23880" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10577" RevisionGUID="cce5368d-1ec9-452c-95f5-ecb812c14423" CreationDate="2014-11-13T17:26:57.073" UserId="11879" Text="&lt;patent-sale&gt;&lt;legal&gt;&lt;sale&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10578" RevisionGUID="8e8a9f19-522d-4c3a-ac20-ec72484f43a5" CreationDate="2014-11-13T17:50:50.820" UserId="3076" Text="A purchaser of a patent becomes the *owner* of the patent. Only the true inventors are inventors no matter who owns the patent. If you look at the first page of a patent you will see one spot labeled inventor and another labeled assignee. The ownership changing hands has no effect on the solidness of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the inventor can't license or sell their rights, the ways they can get value for their contribution are limited." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23882" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10538" RevisionGUID="59ecb96d-9a06-4994-ad33-f5b6869550a6" CreationDate="2014-11-13T19:47:18.073" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;pctus2014019956&gt;&lt;wo2014149626a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10538" RevisionGUID="59ecb96d-9a06-4994-ad33-f5b6869550a6" CreationDate="2014-11-13T19:47:18.073" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="The patent on the hoverboard is far too broad and should not be approved.  I have 2 videos on YouTube demonstrating how a supermagnet will bounce off of a conductive surface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://youtu.be/xTWYAFJuq7M&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://youtu.be/iABmUEH5s0k&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one was done over 7 years ago and 1.4 million people have viewed it.  A lot of other projects have been underway for many years to do similar things for various purposes.  Granting his patent for a hoverboard skateboard should be a single patent and not extended to all other uses and purposes as it has tried to do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10579" RevisionGUID="4c5c2b30-80e3-4b87-912c-8a220efe9f90" CreationDate="2014-11-13T21:28:23.370" UserId="11792" Text="No, it would not cover every possible type of *watercraft*.  But I have trouble seeing how a paddleboard practicing all limitations of the claim would not infringe.  The scope of the claims are governed primarily by the disclosure.  The drawings depict a surfboard, and written description also discusses surfboards.  What is a paddleboard but a large displacement, floaty surfboard capable of being paddled on flat water?  Further, I see paddleboard surfers all the time (i.e. paddlers riding waves in the surf and then paddling back out).  I think it would be difficult to argue that a paddleboard is not within the scope of the claims.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, independent claim 15 recites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;15. The watercraft of claim 1, where the conventional unpowered version of the watercraft is a surfboard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, independent claim 1 was presumably intended to have different scope than claim 15.  Since the &quot;watercraft&quot; of claim 15 is expressly recited as a &quot;surfboard,&quot; the watercraft of claim 1 can presumably be something other than a surfboard.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taken together, I believe an embodiment of claim 1 implemented on a paddleboard is most likely within the scope of the claims.  That is a paddleboard that practices EVERY limitation of claim 1 would infringe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, claim 1 recites, among other things, a programmable motor controller, an information storage element with instructions for nuanced control of the water-jet pump,and a microprocessor interpreting signals received by the wireless receiver, reading the instructions on the information storage element, and issuing commands to the motor controller according to the instructions being read.  An electric waterjet powered paddleboard would not infringe claim 1 if the motor controller was not programmable.  There are certainly any number of motor controls available that could throttle the motor up and down and *not* be programmable.  For example, though certainly not a good design choice, something as simple as a rheostat could be used as a throttle control.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can see, because claim 1 has so many limitations, it may be relatively easy to design around the claim.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10580" RevisionGUID="e03276e8-ba77-4bde-80a1-5556b881ec3b" CreationDate="2014-11-14T00:21:17.047" UserId="11882" Text="I had this idea many many years ago and worked with a company on it briefly but they wanted too much money to do the research.  I would like to know who the original inventor is because I had this idea before the patent date! WAY BEFORE!!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23886" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10580" RevisionGUID="e03276e8-ba77-4bde-80a1-5556b881ec3b" CreationDate="2014-11-14T00:21:17.047" UserId="11882" Text="THIS IS MY IDEA!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23887" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10580" RevisionGUID="e03276e8-ba77-4bde-80a1-5556b881ec3b" CreationDate="2014-11-14T00:21:17.047" UserId="11882" Text="&lt;us7159254&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10581" RevisionGUID="3fdc7cb5-e710-4614-8bb9-e2d813812955" CreationDate="2014-11-14T00:28:59.557" UserId="10011" Text="The inventor listed on that patent is named Aric R. Voorting, but to invalidate it you'd need to prove not only that you came up with it, but that that person actually took it from you, which can be a challenge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back in the day, the USPTO worked off of a first-to-invent system. In essence, if you came up with it first, it was yours. Nowadays, however, it's first-to-file. That means that the first person to send in the paperwork is the one to get the patent (in laymen's terms, at least).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you *do* know this Aric fellow, and if he did, in fact, steal the idea from you, you'll want hard evidence: timestamps emails or correspondence, etc.. Your best option is to speak with a patent professional--likely attorney--to discuss your options. But remember, that's only relevant if he actually stole it from you. If he came up with it independently, unfortunately, there's nothing you can do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10582" RevisionGUID="d5b3ebf4-3a65-4a7d-89de-bb0b43370e78" CreationDate="2014-11-14T01:07:15.940" UserId="3076" Text="A high proportion of the population has at one time seen a new invention and said &quot;hey - I thought of that first&quot;. Many famous inventions have been made by two independent groups at about the same time. The next time you get a great idea you can put in the time and money to protect and monetize it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10581" RevisionGUID="7c252474-627a-4a73-bf42-a637bfa9b6ab" CreationDate="2014-11-14T01:08:49.143" UserId="10011" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="The inventor listed on that patent is named Aric R. Voorting, but to invalidate it you'd need to prove not only that you came up with it, but that that person actually took it from you, which can be a challenge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back in the day, the USPTO worked off of a first-to-invent system. In essence, if you came up with it first, it was yours. Nowadays, however, it's first-to-file. That means that the first person to send in the paperwork is the one to get the patent (in laymen's terms, at least).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As George White has politely pointed out to me (oops!), this is old enough to be under those old rules, and first to invent is the relevant portion here. That means you'll want hard evidence, like timestamps emails or correspondences, etc.. Your best option is to speak with a patent professional--likely attorney--to discuss your options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in any event, you'll be facing a financial burden, and it'll be extremely difficult to prove. It's, as anything is, a business decision whether to actually push through and try to get it invalidated. Essentially, you'd likely be calling your own work prior art to the patent, but again, that's probably only worth it if you were intending to make money off of it and this has disrupted those plans." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10580" RevisionGUID="222cd81b-4efb-4bbb-b9cd-3af584899597" CreationDate="2014-11-14T01:12:39.070" UserId="10011" Comment="added 35 characters in body; edited title" Text="I had this idea many many years ago and worked with a company on it briefly, but they wanted much more money than I was prepared to front to do any research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know who the original inventor is, because I had this idea before the patent's date of issuance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23892" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10580" RevisionGUID="222cd81b-4efb-4bbb-b9cd-3af584899597" CreationDate="2014-11-14T01:12:39.070" UserId="10011" Comment="added 35 characters in body; edited title" Text="Another person filed a patent on something I came up with. What can I do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10583" RevisionGUID="0ebcbb13-d45f-4b3a-bab9-80872d28238c" CreationDate="2014-11-14T02:17:48.773" UserId="11750" Text="USPTO has this rule in a patent that whoever filed a patent first(first-to-file basis) with all the requirement met, will have the advantage of getting the patent. And as what others have pointed out, you will have some very difficult time proving that you own the idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10584" RevisionGUID="821904db-5dd8-4e49-b4c0-3b22e35ec1ef" CreationDate="2014-11-14T02:22:57.813" UserId="11750" Text="You can't file a patent that you think are abandoned or expired. But if you really want to patent an invention similar what's already patented. Probably, you could file an improvement patent application. You can add something new to the existing patent, new technology or new use perhaps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10585" RevisionGUID="34d538c4-d2c3-4236-8018-4c295bba4988" CreationDate="2014-11-14T02:28:31.190" UserId="11750" Text="Once you file a patent, it will take at least 24 months from the day the application date is issued before you know if your patent application is granted or not. The USPTO will inform if your patent is rejected and what cause the rejection. So to avoid wasting money in a patent application, make sure you have met all the requirements for a patent grant and you have a good chance for a patent grant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10586" RevisionGUID="eef0dc43-5eb4-4f10-bda8-955dd188ec6a" CreationDate="2014-11-14T03:18:12.803" UserId="11883" Text="Simplex noise is patented in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US6867776&quot;&gt;US6867776 B2&lt;/a&gt; but it was published in Mar 15, 2005 before &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International&quot;&gt;Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International&lt;/a&gt; in 2014 where the US Supreme Court said that merely saying apply it with a computer is not enough to confer patent eligibility. Does this mean that the Simplex noise patent is invalid? The patent (IMHO) just says apply the formula with a computer for generating images and display them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23899" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10586" RevisionGUID="eef0dc43-5eb4-4f10-bda8-955dd188ec6a" CreationDate="2014-11-14T03:18:12.803" UserId="11883" Text="Patentablity of Simplex noise" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23900" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10586" RevisionGUID="eef0dc43-5eb4-4f10-bda8-955dd188ec6a" CreationDate="2014-11-14T03:18:12.803" UserId="11883" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10586" RevisionGUID="a6f52fcb-530d-464e-a5e8-96591ab118e2" CreationDate="2014-11-14T03:26:36.463" UserId="11883" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplex_noise&quot;&gt;Simplex noise&lt;/a&gt; is patented in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US6867776&quot;&gt;US6867776 B2&lt;/a&gt; but it was published in Mar 15, 2005 before &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International&quot;&gt;Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International&lt;/a&gt; in 2014 where the US Supreme Court said that merely saying apply it with a computer is not enough to confer patent eligibility. Does this mean that the Simplex noise patent is invalid? The patent (IMHO) just says apply the formula with a computer for generating images and display them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10587" RevisionGUID="f463c392-515c-4681-b078-9bb35b8967e9" CreationDate="2014-11-14T03:58:38.563" UserId="11884" Text="Aside from the creator of the patent, are the colleague in the research/development in-tilted to the patent? Or any legal decision on it?  Or is it all to the creator of the patent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can they sell this to other parties/organization since they we're a part of development? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23903" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10587" RevisionGUID="f463c392-515c-4681-b078-9bb35b8967e9" CreationDate="2014-11-14T03:58:38.563" UserId="11884" Text="Who has rights to the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23904" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10587" RevisionGUID="f463c392-515c-4681-b078-9bb35b8967e9" CreationDate="2014-11-14T03:58:38.563" UserId="11884" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10589" RevisionGUID="695e8cbe-38b1-4d2f-8488-08a2b387ca53" CreationDate="2014-11-14T06:17:50.783" UserId="11866" Text="Only the persons named as inventors in the patent application are entitled to the patent and no one else. Others cannot sell, license or do any kind of transaction with respect to the patent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10590" RevisionGUID="5147954e-6830-47de-8256-6d9fbb02752c" CreationDate="2014-11-14T06:51:36.250" UserId="3076" Text="It all starts with the true inventors owning all the rights. However, very high % of patents are assigned to the inventors' employer as soon as, or even before, they issue. Then the employer can do what they like with the assigned patent rights - and the inventors are out of the picture. The new AIA patent law now allows the original applicant of an application to be an organization or person that has the rights by virtue of pre-assignment by the inventors. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23910" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10586" RevisionGUID="54ff00cc-5492-489f-8d51-c49bea94daf0" CreationDate="2014-11-14T06:52:37.587" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to patent" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;us6867776&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10591" RevisionGUID="44ad86f5-10fd-4840-ad4e-456a79e6d479" CreationDate="2014-11-14T06:58:58.857" UserId="3076" Text="Alice is more complicated than that, and the fallout of the ruling is just starting. Some issues are: Can you do it in your head? Is what the computer is doing something old or something new? Until a court of the USPTO takes some action, all granted patents stand in force." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10592" RevisionGUID="dd1fb559-1c41-4bc4-bfb3-638ca12c27dd" CreationDate="2014-11-14T06:59:42.067" UserId="11542" Text="In India,  form 5 (declaration as to inventorship) has to be filed by the applicant(s) stating that they are the true and first inventor(s). Additional inventor(s) whose name is not mentioned in the application has to give an approval to pursue the complete specification of the stated application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the assignee or the licensee of the patent can exercise the patent right conferred to them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may refer to this link for Form-5: http://www.ipindia.nic.in/ipr/patent/manual/HTML%20AND%20PDF/Manual%20of%20Patent%20Office%20Practice%20and%20Procedure%20-%20html/Forms/Form-5.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may refer to this link to understand the patent filing process in India:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/patent-application-filing-procedureprocess-india&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10595" RevisionGUID="aba79660-2fcf-4f53-b09b-baebfd654698" CreationDate="2014-11-14T16:00:25.230" UserId="3418" Text="I asked [this question][1] and it seems there divisional applications can have the same detailed description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that before the patent is issued, I can file another application claim priority date of the first application, e.g. continuation or divisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I am trying to do is filing a application with multiple unrelated inventions (see the image below). I will pursue an invention but repeat the whole detailed description about multiple invention. While I pursue one invention, I will try to find commercial potential of other inventions. If another invention has commercial potential, I will file continuation application about it. It seems this will be perfectly legal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an independent inventor, I hope that strategy will reduce cost, as I only pursue just one invention instead of pursuing multiple ones at the same time. But in practice, they are unrelated inventions, so can I file continuation application like that?&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/10497/do-divisional-applications-have-the-same-detailed-description &quot;this&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/l0HU7.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23922" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10595" RevisionGUID="aba79660-2fcf-4f53-b09b-baebfd654698" CreationDate="2014-11-14T16:00:25.230" UserId="3418" Text="Chaining unrelated inventions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23923" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10595" RevisionGUID="aba79660-2fcf-4f53-b09b-baebfd654698" CreationDate="2014-11-14T16:00:25.230" UserId="3418" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;continuation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10596" RevisionGUID="f36e6eac-e1c0-48d1-a74b-32128ada22f8" CreationDate="2014-11-14T18:31:34.670" UserId="11890" Text="Is this a real patent? The more I research patents, the more I am astounded. I am starting to believe that none of these patents are real. Perhaps this is an elaborate art project created by Google. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23925" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10596" RevisionGUID="f36e6eac-e1c0-48d1-a74b-32128ada22f8" CreationDate="2014-11-14T18:31:34.670" UserId="11890" Text="Is this a real patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23926" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10596" RevisionGUID="f36e6eac-e1c0-48d1-a74b-32128ada22f8" CreationDate="2014-11-14T18:31:34.670" UserId="11890" Text="&lt;us5356330&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10597" RevisionGUID="3597fb58-7da6-4db6-b237-27537e4be496" CreationDate="2014-11-14T19:00:35.230" UserId="3076" Text="A less strange way of doing this would be to put them all in one provisional application, and within a year filing a provisional describing and claiming invention 1. It would incorporate the whole provisional by reference. A continuation of that application could claim priority chained back to the provisional. I think it should work but if the inventions were completely unrelated I wouldn't recommend doing it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10598" RevisionGUID="1be7c1fd-108f-49a3-8bab-f17f9a576edf" CreationDate="2014-11-14T20:07:29.620" UserId="11891" Text="I was just really wondering if there was a picture I could view of this invention WO2004085005A3?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23929" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10598" RevisionGUID="1be7c1fd-108f-49a3-8bab-f17f9a576edf" CreationDate="2014-11-14T20:07:29.620" UserId="11891" Text="Can I please see a picture of this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23930" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10598" RevisionGUID="1be7c1fd-108f-49a3-8bab-f17f9a576edf" CreationDate="2014-11-14T20:07:29.620" UserId="11891" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10599" RevisionGUID="cb057232-d54c-4e5f-9f6d-ac4d1a0bffd5" CreationDate="2014-11-15T07:31:24.107" UserId="11895" Text="for filing patent outiside india directly inventor (citizen of india) need to get permission from indian patent office in prescribed form 25&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10600" RevisionGUID="10b556c7-df76-4297-9278-8bb95a05f3d1" CreationDate="2014-11-15T10:54:04.423" UserId="11895" Text="It specifically depends on inventive concept to have a patent portfolio is a good idea but, if you have more than one different inventions then cover same in different patent. keep in mind that slight improvements are not separate invention one has to overcome inventive step to get patent granted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10601" RevisionGUID="eacff437-6ab6-4154-9220-b3a885775202" CreationDate="2014-11-15T13:28:27.060" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="How come sometimes USPTO application/grant has many numbers form the same patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US6334845 (B1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; is &quot;also published as&quot; US6422996(B2) and as US6413211(B2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I understand that the same pantent has different numbers for different contry offices. But how is it that the same patent can have different numbers in the USPTO for different phases (B1 and B2) or even for the same phase (2 names for B2)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23939" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10601" RevisionGUID="eacff437-6ab6-4154-9220-b3a885775202" CreationDate="2014-11-15T13:28:27.060" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="USPTO different numbers for the same patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23940" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10601" RevisionGUID="eacff437-6ab6-4154-9220-b3a885775202" CreationDate="2014-11-15T13:28:27.060" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;number&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10602" RevisionGUID="a362bd67-bbaf-4bf5-b3c4-4c3ddf631b3d" CreationDate="2014-11-15T16:32:49.800" UserId="11900" Text="actually i am astonished to read about that patent. Since 2003 mostlikely Tuningboxes/Powerboxes are available on the market. The way they are operating is exactly the same as described in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pub. No.:	  	WO/2008/130257	  	&#xD;&#xA;International Application No.:	  	PCT/PL2008/000021&#xD;&#xA;Publication Date:	30.10.2008	&#xD;&#xA;International Filing Date:	10.03.2008&#xD;&#xA;IPC: B60R 25/042 (2013.01), F02D 41/24 (2006.01), F02M 59/36 (2006.01)	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is nicely described and does not bring any attention of Tuningboxes where bunch of manufactures where already doing this before the patent application time.&#xD;&#xA;Not sure, if this has been checked correctly by patent authority.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Google Patent search there are already some legal events:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/WO2008130257A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know, where to look those events up?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, since it is NO innovation and the usual procedure as tons of other Tuningbox manufactures is this patent still valid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can all those guys who where doing business since ever fear about beeing sued?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this unit is handling only 1 Channel, how about using 2 Channel. Will it still infringe this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks,&#xD;&#xA;Luca&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23942" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10602" RevisionGUID="a362bd67-bbaf-4bf5-b3c4-4c3ddf631b3d" CreationDate="2014-11-15T16:32:49.800" UserId="11900" Text="WO/2008/130257 Diesel Engine Tuningboxes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23943" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10602" RevisionGUID="a362bd67-bbaf-4bf5-b3c4-4c3ddf631b3d" CreationDate="2014-11-15T16:32:49.800" UserId="11900" Text="&lt;wo2012120312a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23951" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10045" RevisionGUID="f37bd3cb-a050-48ed-add1-66b27bd53437" CreationDate="2014-11-16T08:07:45.910" UserId="11791" Comment="fixed title" Text="When will patent be approved, if it's going to be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23952" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10045" RevisionGUID="f37bd3cb-a050-48ed-add1-66b27bd53437" CreationDate="2014-11-16T08:07:45.910" Comment="Proposed by 11791 approved by -1 edit id of 1715" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10045" RevisionGUID="86901137-3077-4ae5-a6d3-2b482c0a59ad" CreationDate="2014-11-16T08:07:45.910" UserId="9939" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Once the application is posted how long will it be before we find out if we have the patent?&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;If there are similar patents but no documentation of testing to prove it works will we be approved, as far as novelty is concerned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10604" RevisionGUID="6024ba89-9d6a-4d12-826f-817a7c055c09" CreationDate="2014-11-16T13:43:36.467" UserId="11906" Text="Are those patents still valid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. US7774976&#xD;&#xA;2. US2009000183&#xD;&#xA;3. US7774976&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also cited under:&#xD;&#xA;DE10259651 (as we know, it expired due to no-payment, so how can above patents be applied for or granted?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23955" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10604" RevisionGUID="6024ba89-9d6a-4d12-826f-817a7c055c09" CreationDate="2014-11-16T13:43:36.467" UserId="11906" Text="Are the enclosed patents still valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23956" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10604" RevisionGUID="6024ba89-9d6a-4d12-826f-817a7c055c09" CreationDate="2014-11-16T13:43:36.467" UserId="11906" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10605" RevisionGUID="18e086a3-2b5e-4ab9-b385-1b2afad55b4f" CreationDate="2014-11-16T16:08:05.933" UserId="11909" Text="My patent was filed as an EPO originating in the USA and it took almost five years to prosecute. It has ultimately resulted in award of USA patent only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two questions...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) is there any jurisdiction covered by an EPO filing that would allow a patent application to be revived several years after the individual country application dates have expired? This assumes there is a deep pocket investor willing to pay for the privilage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Having discovered that a clearly infringing (read obviously invalid) foreign patent has been issued in Germany. Given that situation, must I still file suit to defend my patent holder rights in the US? To my best understanding (not being familiar with German patent law) I am sure we would prevail if the case were brought forth. But I do not see a clear financial upside to me other than to clearly define me as the inventor (which I am!) Note that the invention is not trivial!!! It may be worth billions!!! Also note that the priority date for the US patent greatly predates the German patent. Indeed the German priority date is not till several months after the one year mark passed on the US application and caused the US application to be published.  Also note that the German patent has already been used to establish a company. Thank you - Inventor333" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23958" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10605" RevisionGUID="18e086a3-2b5e-4ab9-b385-1b2afad55b4f" CreationDate="2014-11-16T16:08:05.933" UserId="11909" Text="Patent issued in USA only, infringing patent issued in Germany" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23959" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10605" RevisionGUID="18e086a3-2b5e-4ab9-b385-1b2afad55b4f" CreationDate="2014-11-16T16:08:05.933" UserId="11909" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;foreign&gt;&lt;germany&gt;&lt;invalid&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23963" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10601" RevisionGUID="38577448-7b28-4cd1-8e7d-1ba5141e37f0" CreationDate="2014-11-16T18:11:28.400" UserId="11791" Comment="fixed spelling errors" Text="How come sometimes a USPTO application/grant has many numbers form the same patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US6334845 (B1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; is &quot;also published as&quot; US6422996(B2) and as US6413211(B2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that the same patent has different numbers for different country offices. But how is it that the same patent can have different numbers in the USPTO for different phases (B1 and B2) or even for the same phase (2 names for B2)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23964" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10601" RevisionGUID="38577448-7b28-4cd1-8e7d-1ba5141e37f0" CreationDate="2014-11-16T18:11:28.400" Comment="Proposed by 11791 approved by 9939, 8305 edit id of 1717" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10610" RevisionGUID="f74a9084-863f-4350-8d4e-9b2120944d7f" CreationDate="2014-11-16T19:53:59.767" UserId="3076" Text="When Google patents says &quot;also published as&quot; it is not being precise and that is a primary cause for the confusion. As you are aware, each country has its own system of patent numbering. More fundementaly, the have their own entirs patsnt systems. A Canadian patent number is not just a different name given to a U.S. patent. They may have the same specificaion and drawings, but different claims. Even if the claim wording is the same, the words are interpreted under each countries laws. The same words can lead to very different scope of claimed material. There are two more Dememsions to the multiplicity of numbers. First, these are publication numbers. If the only difference is the number in the suffix, it is a different publication of the same patent. If it is a completely different number but in the same country, the spec. and drawings mat be the same but the claims are to different aspects of the invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23975" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10604" RevisionGUID="ef60ca41-8a29-4b81-9fb9-c572fe45572c" CreationDate="2014-11-16T20:00:48.137" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;us7774976&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10611" RevisionGUID="f7920edc-c9e1-418b-8fac-a738d3870be8" CreationDate="2014-11-17T00:03:46.393" UserId="11913" Text="I have a very similar product to a product that was abandoned during the pattent application. Can I somehow claim that application and add my changes thus laying claim to the whole thing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23977" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10611" RevisionGUID="f7920edc-c9e1-418b-8fac-a738d3870be8" CreationDate="2014-11-17T00:03:46.393" UserId="11913" Text="I am interested in an abandoned pattent application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23978" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10611" RevisionGUID="f7920edc-c9e1-418b-8fac-a738d3870be8" CreationDate="2014-11-17T00:03:46.393" UserId="11913" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10612" RevisionGUID="e4b07d5a-ecb8-4942-90a0-668c1c66444e" CreationDate="2014-11-17T06:08:52.337" UserId="11915" Text="I was wondering if I could get a phone number of a reputable person to assist with a patent. Whenever I go online I end up with a lot of junkmail and annoying phone called. Any assistanct to help guide me in the direction achieving a patent without my information being passed or sold to solicitors. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23981" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10612" RevisionGUID="e4b07d5a-ecb8-4942-90a0-668c1c66444e" CreationDate="2014-11-17T06:08:52.337" UserId="11915" Text="advice to achieve a patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23982" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10612" RevisionGUID="e4b07d5a-ecb8-4942-90a0-668c1c66444e" CreationDate="2014-11-17T06:08:52.337" UserId="11915" Text="&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10596" RevisionGUID="fa675736-2371-43a3-b183-74276c45bc6a" CreationDate="2014-11-17T06:17:43.170" UserId="11791" Comment="put the number they provided in tag into title and text so their question makes sense without the tag" Text="Is patent US 5356330 a real patent? The more I research patents, the more I am astounded. I am starting to believe that none of these patents are real. Perhaps this is an elaborate art project created by Google. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23984" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10596" RevisionGUID="fa675736-2371-43a3-b183-74276c45bc6a" CreationDate="2014-11-17T06:17:43.170" UserId="11791" Comment="put the number they provided in tag into title and text so their question makes sense without the tag" Text="Is patent US 5356330 a real patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23985" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10596" RevisionGUID="fa675736-2371-43a3-b183-74276c45bc6a" CreationDate="2014-11-17T06:17:43.170" Comment="Proposed by 11791 approved by 3076, 10011 edit id of 1716" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23986" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9884" RevisionGUID="db86c29c-f0f9-4f25-a4ff-c46a27624473" CreationDate="2014-11-17T06:18:14.210" UserId="267" Comment="Tidied grammar, particularly stray spaces before question marks. Valid French punctuation; invalid English." Text="I am doing prior art searching. I want to to know whether I need to search for patents which are not yet published. If so, how do I do this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A related question is: Can I search all patents which are filed today (or less than 18 months ago)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23987" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9884" RevisionGUID="db86c29c-f0f9-4f25-a4ff-c46a27624473" CreationDate="2014-11-17T06:18:14.210" UserId="267" Comment="Tidied grammar, particularly stray spaces before question marks. Valid French punctuation; invalid English." Text="Do I need to search for patents which are not yet published?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23988" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9884" RevisionGUID="db86c29c-f0f9-4f25-a4ff-c46a27624473" CreationDate="2014-11-17T06:18:14.210" Comment="Proposed by 267 approved by 9939, 10011 edit id of 1713" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5152" RevisionGUID="a978589c-652c-4f8a-bcde-067f940e44e6" CreationDate="2014-11-17T06:18:46.883" UserId="267" Comment="Corrected grammar in title." Text="I am working on developing a very specific patent for the defence industry. My idea requires the use of a synthetic material only manufactured by one company. They will not sell the raw material to anyone in bulk, or in any other configuration than their finished product. How do I go about protecting my idea, but have them manufacture it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23990" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5152" RevisionGUID="a978589c-652c-4f8a-bcde-067f940e44e6" CreationDate="2014-11-17T06:18:46.883" UserId="267" Comment="Corrected grammar in title." Text="How can I use another company's product in my patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23991" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5152" RevisionGUID="a978589c-652c-4f8a-bcde-067f940e44e6" CreationDate="2014-11-17T06:18:46.883" Comment="Proposed by 267 approved by 9939, 10011 edit id of 1714" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10613" RevisionGUID="3a98c162-4ef0-47ae-8288-56a8fa0a834c" CreationDate="2014-11-17T06:32:21.017" UserId="11866" Text="You could search for USPTO registered patent agents at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/.  &#xD;&#xA;If you sign NDA (Non-disclosure Agreement) with the agent, then the agent would be bound under law and would not pass your information to anyone. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10614" RevisionGUID="837604ec-7528-4d8c-a3c5-d9a6d2619da4" CreationDate="2014-11-17T06:33:13.530" UserId="3076" Text="Patents do *not* infringe patents. To infringe a patent someone needs to actually make, sell, use or import something that falls under the wording of a claim in a patent that was issued by *the country* the making, selling, using or importing occurs. If you do not have a German patent then, by definition, no actions in Germany can be an infringement on your patent rights. You don't have any rights there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone else has a patent issued by the German Patent Office and you think it should not have been granted due to your published prior art, you need to take it up in Germany. And as you say, even if you are successful you don't get anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you intentionally dropped the EPO application there might not be able to revive it. You need an EPO agent or attorney to answer that question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the infringement in the U.S. represents big $$, you might just concentrate here.  An aside is that patent infringement is not an illegal activity. Illegal activities are policed by a government and can result in the goverment exacting punishment. Infringment of a patent is policed by the patent owner, the government doesn't care." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10613" RevisionGUID="c1eb32ea-c377-4410-8268-4d5bf69945cd" CreationDate="2014-11-17T06:39:09.777" UserId="3076" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="You could search for USPTO registered patent agents at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/.  &#xD;&#xA;If you sign NDA (Non-disclosure Agreement) with the agent, then the agent would be bound by contract, and would not pass your information to anyone. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10615" RevisionGUID="bdd16f76-4562-4ab3-a5db-557e50196910" CreationDate="2014-11-17T06:43:02.400" UserId="3076" Text="No. You can only patent what *you* invent. Of course, you can buy patent rights from someone who has them. If the original applicant could legitamtly revive the application and get a patent, he could sell it to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10616" RevisionGUID="26e12663-b8e7-4be4-af7b-abb1ada31525" CreationDate="2014-11-17T09:07:57.340" UserId="11542" Text="Firstly, Form 25 (Request for permission for making patent application outside India) has to be filed in the Indian Patent Office before filing the patent application in other countries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of USPTO, different options to expedite the examination process of patent application are Prioritized examination, Accelerated examination, First Action Interview Pilot Program and Patent Prosecution Highway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Prioritized examination&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional fee:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Micro entity – USD 1,000&#xD;&#xA;    Small entity – USD 2,000&#xD;&#xA;    Non-small entity – USD 4,000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prioritized examination can be availed at the time of filing original utility and plant patent applications. Prioritized examination for newly filed original utility and plant patent application is also known as “Track One Prioritized examination”. On opting for prioritized examination, the patent application would be granted special status during prosecution of the application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Accelerated examination&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional fee:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Micro entity – $35&#xD;&#xA;    Small entity – $70&#xD;&#xA;    Non-small entity – $140&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accelerated examination is one of the procedures established by the USPTO under which examination of a patent application may be accelerated.  A grantable petition has to be filed by the applicant to make special under the accelerated examination program to advance an application out of turn for examination. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  First Action Interview Pilot Program&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional fee: None&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An applicant has to file a request to participate in the First Action Interview (FAI) Pilot program within six months life of the program and at least one day prior to appearance of first office action on the merits of the application in the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4.  Patent Prosecution Highway&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional fee: None&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) program was established by the participating intellectual property offices to expedite the examination process of a patent application which has been filed in one or more of the participating patent offices. USPTO is a member of Global Patent Prosecution Highway and IP5 PPH program. No additional fee has to be paid for applications seeking accelerated examination under PPH program. A PPH request has to be submitted via EFS-Web. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In furtherance to the above discussed processes for expediting prosecution, a patent application can be made special and patent prosecution can be accelerated on petition to make special based on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The applicant’s age&#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA; - The applicant’s health&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - The invention which enhances the quality of environment&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - The invention that contributes to the development or conservation of energy resources&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - The invention that contributes to counter-terrorism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may refer to this link to get more insight on different ways to expedite examination of a patent application filed in US &#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/ways-to-expedite-examination-of-a-patent-application-filed-in-us" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23997" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10616" RevisionGUID="ed206cd6-a994-415d-9722-52dbb7ccd008" CreationDate="2014-11-17T09:13:45.983" UserId="11542" Comment="In the second sentence of the post, the following words were added - by the resident of India. " Text="Firstly, Form 25 (Request for permission for making patent application outside India) has to be filed by the resident of India in the Indian Patent Office before filing the patent application in other countries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of USPTO, different options to expedite the examination process of patent application are Prioritized examination, Accelerated examination, First Action Interview Pilot Program and Patent Prosecution Highway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Prioritized examination&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional fee:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Micro entity – USD 1,000&#xD;&#xA;    Small entity – USD 2,000&#xD;&#xA;    Non-small entity – USD 4,000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prioritized examination can be availed at the time of filing original utility and plant patent applications. Prioritized examination for newly filed original utility and plant patent application is also known as “Track One Prioritized examination”. On opting for prioritized examination, the patent application would be granted special status during prosecution of the application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Accelerated examination&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional fee:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Micro entity – $35&#xD;&#xA;    Small entity – $70&#xD;&#xA;    Non-small entity – $140&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accelerated examination is one of the procedures established by the USPTO under which examination of a patent application may be accelerated.  A grantable petition has to be filed by the applicant to make special under the accelerated examination program to advance an application out of turn for examination. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  First Action Interview Pilot Program&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional fee: None&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An applicant has to file a request to participate in the First Action Interview (FAI) Pilot program within six months life of the program and at least one day prior to appearance of first office action on the merits of the application in the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4.  Patent Prosecution Highway&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional fee: None&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) program was established by the participating intellectual property offices to expedite the examination process of a patent application which has been filed in one or more of the participating patent offices. USPTO is a member of Global Patent Prosecution Highway and IP5 PPH program. No additional fee has to be paid for applications seeking accelerated examination under PPH program. A PPH request has to be submitted via EFS-Web. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In furtherance to the above discussed processes for expediting prosecution, a patent application can be made special and patent prosecution can be accelerated on petition to make special based on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The applicant’s age&#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA; - The applicant’s health&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - The invention which enhances the quality of environment&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - The invention that contributes to the development or conservation of energy resources&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - The invention that contributes to counter-terrorism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may refer to this link to get more insight on different ways to expedite examination of a patent application filed in US &#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/ways-to-expedite-examination-of-a-patent-application-filed-in-us" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23998" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10598" RevisionGUID="bcfd8319-fd60-4e01-8465-4c9fc595e4db" CreationDate="2014-11-17T15:18:51.207" UserId="5071" Comment="Tag is wrong" Text="&lt;help&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10612" RevisionGUID="888d3919-4722-4b62-b0f7-e598bb642a9b" CreationDate="2014-11-17T15:31:53.557" UserId="1" Comment="retagged, clarified text, and removed personal solicitation." Text="I was wondering where I can find a reputable person to assist with a patent. Whenever I go online, I end up with a lot of junk mail and annoying phone calls. How do I find someone to help guide me in the direction achieving a patent without my information being passed or sold to solicitors?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24000" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10612" RevisionGUID="888d3919-4722-4b62-b0f7-e598bb642a9b" CreationDate="2014-11-17T15:31:53.557" UserId="1" Comment="retagged, clarified text, and removed personal solicitation." Text="Where can I find a reputable agent to help me with a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24001" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10612" RevisionGUID="888d3919-4722-4b62-b0f7-e598bb642a9b" CreationDate="2014-11-17T15:31:53.557" UserId="1" Comment="retagged, clarified text, and removed personal solicitation." Text="&lt;patent-agent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24006" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="10538" RevisionGUID="be89aef4-3297-44e7-8a62-43b6b704e8ca" CreationDate="2014-11-17T15:48:13.523" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3076,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George White&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:9939,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;nicael&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10617" RevisionGUID="afc94ea1-1cd2-40ed-91b0-dc498df20f76" CreationDate="2014-11-17T17:04:38.927" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="In ESPACENET search results, under the section Bibliographic data, with &quot;also published as&quot; an &quot;ESPACENET family&quot; is retrieved and all the documents having (exactly) the same priority numbers are listed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, according to the fact that three several application have been submitted claiming the (exactly) same set of priority numbers, then the following US pubblications are grouped in the same ESPACENET family:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - US6334845 (B1)&#xD;&#xA; - US2001037052 (A1) + US6413211 (B2)&#xD;&#xA; - US2001041826 (A1) + US6422996 (B2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;each line listing different phases of a different application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24008" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10598" RevisionGUID="9b74327b-f4cf-438e-bdb9-e18bc41adb7f" CreationDate="2014-11-17T19:50:48.720" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;help&gt;&lt;wo2004085005&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10618" RevisionGUID="7ff4586b-862d-4834-a028-337b8a996159" CreationDate="2014-11-17T19:55:32.923" UserId="3076" Text="If you are looking at the google patents page, there is a link at the bottom of the gray box &quot;External Links: Patentscope, Espacenet&quot;. Either can lead you to the documents published in the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/tWs9a.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10619" RevisionGUID="5ec7e761-c3b0-4f9d-9983-e36eee99ce00" CreationDate="2014-11-17T20:08:32.217" UserId="3076" Text="	&#xD;&#xA;The U.S. requirements are *useful*, not already done (*novelty*), and *not obvious* in light of what has already been published. A big improvement, industrial applicability, and earth-shattering are not requirements under U.S. patent law. In this case someone has the right to exclude others from making, selling or using this thing that probably nobody wants to make, sell or use anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10620" RevisionGUID="a41696c5-c298-46f7-bccf-483973667213" CreationDate="2014-11-17T20:21:20.630" UserId="3076" Text="It sounds like the places you are responding to online are invention submission companies. Both the [USPTO][1] and the [Federal Trade Commission][2] have information warning about the practices of many firms in that industry. You will also see inventors on-line who have got their own patent through the system and are now holding themselves out as qualified to help other inventors. The only people who have been blessed by the USPTO to do this are &quot;registered patent practitioners&quot;. The complete list is at [https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/][3]. You could search that list by city or zip code and find someone nearby.  Or you could use that list the net time you see something on-line that looks interesting to se if the person is registered. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.uspto.gov/inventors/scam_prevention/index.jsp&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0184-invention-promotion-firms&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10621" RevisionGUID="bd27f88a-08c3-43f6-a503-3d19d9be57c4" CreationDate="2014-11-18T01:21:40.913" UserId="3076" Text="The legal events were just the publication of two European patent applications that were branched off this international patent application. There is nothing in the google patents page that indicates any patent in any country was ever granted based on these applications. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24013" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10573" RevisionGUID="d5d64448-b68c-4aa3-97a5-4450955c1577" CreationDate="2014-11-18T07:05:50.843" UserId="9802" Comment="minor grammar fix" Text="As far as I know, Google updates their database every other month and the data they input in their database are a couple of months late. It is still best that you search for patents in the USPTO or in other patent databases that are more regularly updated than Google patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24014" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10573" RevisionGUID="d5d64448-b68c-4aa3-97a5-4450955c1577" CreationDate="2014-11-18T07:05:50.843" Comment="Proposed by 9802 approved by 3076, 9939 edit id of 1718" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10622" RevisionGUID="421cf46f-7947-4f55-902d-85c6d5cd9ea4" CreationDate="2014-11-18T10:18:11.020" UserId="11919" Text="Let's say I file for a PCT (or even a US/EU/China Patent)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then I advertise about my technology on my website, way before anything is granted (including details)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this count as prior art and invalidate my patent ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or does the &quot;patent pending&quot; status protects me from self prior arting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks !" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24016" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10622" RevisionGUID="421cf46f-7947-4f55-902d-85c6d5cd9ea4" CreationDate="2014-11-18T10:18:11.020" UserId="11919" Text="PCT and Prior Art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24017" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10622" RevisionGUID="421cf46f-7947-4f55-902d-85c6d5cd9ea4" CreationDate="2014-11-18T10:18:11.020" UserId="11919" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10623" RevisionGUID="cdfc39a1-b06c-45eb-ada7-1ba509e072f2" CreationDate="2014-11-18T15:12:49.280" UserId="3418" Text="AFAIK, the patent application must disclosure enough so that an average man in the art can understand and make the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is, does it apply to the invention or apply to the final produce?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, an invention on an untested concept, while it disclosures enough for those in the art to understand what and how to make the invention, but the invention is not practical, e.g. it needs other technology achievement to work, does this match the sufficiency of disclosure?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, let say the invention is about a zig zag gun barrel, for example to shoot through complex corner or shield. While the concept of the invention is easy to understand and make, there is no material strong enough to withstand that design, which means the invention can not be made in practice. So is this disclosure sufficient at the time it filed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24019" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10623" RevisionGUID="cdfc39a1-b06c-45eb-ada7-1ba509e072f2" CreationDate="2014-11-18T15:12:49.280" UserId="3418" Text="Sufficiency of disclosure for untested invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24020" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10623" RevisionGUID="cdfc39a1-b06c-45eb-ada7-1ba509e072f2" CreationDate="2014-11-18T15:12:49.280" UserId="3418" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10624" RevisionGUID="9734c68b-649a-4267-99ab-f068070f57c9" CreationDate="2014-11-18T15:28:08.260" UserId="3418" Text="AFAIK, if you advertise after you file for patent, then it does not invalidate your patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The risk is that after you disclosure you invention, you can not add new element, because those elements are in public domain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even you disclosure you invention before filing an application, you will have 12 months (in most territories) to claim your invention from public domain, aka filing application. Some territories don't accept this, so better filing an application before disclosure it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10623" RevisionGUID="21c035ce-723a-4558-a39c-54261ce8f435" CreationDate="2014-11-18T15:39:40.977" UserId="3418" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="AFAIK, the patent application must disclose enough so that an average man in the art can understand and make the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is, does it apply to the invention or apply to the final produce?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, an invention on an untested concept, while it discloses enough for those in the art to understand what and how to make the invention, but the invention is not practical, e.g. it needs other technology achievement to work, does this match the sufficiency of disclosure?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, let say the invention is about a zigzag gun barrel, for example to shoot through complex corner or shield. While the concept of the invention is easy to understand and make, there is no material strong enough to withstand that design, which means the invention can not be made in practice. So is this disclosure sufficient at the time it filed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10622" RevisionGUID="6fcd14ef-85b9-41a7-a4a3-182c59d76c53" CreationDate="2014-11-18T18:18:27.437" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="Let's say I file for a PCT (or even a US/EU/China Patent)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then I advertise about my technology on my website, way before anything is granted (including details)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this count as prior art and invalidate my patent ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or does the &quot;patent pending&quot; status protects me from self prior arting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10624" RevisionGUID="cdde9c0e-8008-4836-8f0c-c18403f41773" CreationDate="2014-11-18T18:21:00.813" UserId="3076" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="AFAIK, if you advertise after you file for patent, then it isnt prior art because it wasn't *prior* to your filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The risk is that after you disclosure your invention, you can not add new element, because those elements are in public domain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even you disclosure you invention before filing an application, you will have 12 months (in most territories) to claim your invention from public domain, aka filing application. Some territories don't accept this, so better filing an application before disclosure it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10625" RevisionGUID="fbac653e-b275-4ced-ae48-d58e20573bc4" CreationDate="2014-11-18T18:31:47.103" UserId="3076" Text="Anything that happens the day after you file isn't *prior* to filing. It isn't prior art by definition. Your application will publish in 18 months for all to see, so you are asking what diffence would it be to publish it yourself right away vs. a patent office publishing it in 18 months. It is a business strategy question. Would the information being widespread or confidential during that 18 months better serve your business plans? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10599" RevisionGUID="96d02a31-1e64-4733-8fba-8f158b333e78" CreationDate="2014-11-18T22:40:48.863" UserId="1698" Comment="fixed grammar and focused answer to show relevance to the question." Text="To file a patent application outiside india directly (meaning the first application filed anywhere in the world on that invention), the inventor (if a citizen of india) needs to get permission from indian patent office using prescribed form 25.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10627" RevisionGUID="0e93ad8b-15d4-4e8d-a3b0-514781fc30fe" CreationDate="2014-11-18T22:47:06.010" UserId="11921" Text="Is it legal (in the US) to modify and resell a patented item? For example, if I buy a patented guitar pickup, substantially modify it, then install it in a guitar and sell it, is that legal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24030" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10627" RevisionGUID="0e93ad8b-15d4-4e8d-a3b0-514781fc30fe" CreationDate="2014-11-18T22:47:06.010" UserId="11921" Text="Can I modify and resell patented product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24031" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10627" RevisionGUID="0e93ad8b-15d4-4e8d-a3b0-514781fc30fe" CreationDate="2014-11-18T22:47:06.010" UserId="11921" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10628" RevisionGUID="08447f1c-fec6-45ba-91e5-f34a2aaf90d1" CreationDate="2014-11-18T22:49:41.947" UserId="3076" Text="At the time of filing, the application needs to teach how to make it use it with the available technology. If further invention is needed before it can be made and used *at all*, you haven't invented it yet. However, with the information and technology at the time of filing it does not need to work well or be ready for production. In the U.S. it still required to include the best way you know to make it and build it - no holding back the secret sauce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the zig zag barrel it may be that no material is ever developed with the required characteristics for it to work at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10629" RevisionGUID="ac3bde99-560c-46c0-91e4-d70ffe126d15" CreationDate="2014-11-18T23:00:40.193" UserId="3076" Text="If you do *not* modify it, and are a reseller of a legit made and sold item- no problem unless the manufacturer had you enter into a contract that said you can't - even then you probably can unless it is software. What are the modifications? Do they turn it into a new patented item? Is the method of modification patented? These potential problem patents may or may not not be owned by original manufacturer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10623" RevisionGUID="1877278d-f5cc-4d33-bc7e-a56f444e5dcf" CreationDate="2014-11-19T00:56:20.477" UserId="3076" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="AFAIK, the patent application must disclose enough so that an average person in the art can understand how to make the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is, does it apply to the invention or apply to the final produce?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, an invention on an untested concept, while it discloses enough for those in the art to understand what and how to make the invention, but the invention is not practical, e.g. it needs other technology achievement to work, does this match the sufficiency of disclosure?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, let say the invention is about a zigzag gun barrel, for example to shoot through complex corner or shield. While the concept of the invention is easy to understand and make, there is no material strong enough to withstand that design, which means the invention can not be made in practice. So is this disclosure sufficient at the time it filed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10630" RevisionGUID="2c1323aa-d12f-42c2-a2fb-e0aad9867bbc" CreationDate="2014-11-19T01:02:51.220" UserId="11922" Text="Is it possible to patent a communication protocol, like HTTP or IMAP or SMTP, etc..?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How about a sequence of REST APIs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not, is there anyway to prevent others developing clone applications that will be compatible with my application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If yes, any pointers to a similar patent would be highly appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24036" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10630" RevisionGUID="2c1323aa-d12f-42c2-a2fb-e0aad9867bbc" CreationDate="2014-11-19T01:02:51.220" UserId="11922" Text="Can I patent a communication protocol?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24037" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10630" RevisionGUID="2c1323aa-d12f-42c2-a2fb-e0aad9867bbc" CreationDate="2014-11-19T01:02:51.220" UserId="11922" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;legal&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10631" RevisionGUID="67e6894f-88b1-48f7-90b4-cc8deb16488a" CreationDate="2014-11-19T03:35:17.060" UserId="3076" Text="Last year the answer for protocols was yes. It might still be yes at the USPTO but now it is likely for a judge with no technical background to say &quot;it is just doing what computers do&quot;. APIs have not been found patentable but they are copyrightable - unless the case that Google wants to take to the Supreme Court goes the other way. Some links. [PatentlyO on Google vs Oracle/Sun][1], [PatentlyO on are API's patentable or copyrightable][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/11/copyrighting-software-oracle.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/05/copyright-subject-matter.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10632" RevisionGUID="03de8d00-8c9d-4abb-af2a-defb8ebe7075" CreationDate="2014-11-19T04:05:39.577" UserId="11542" Text="As George has mentioned, novelty aspect of the invention will be examined first before examining the inventive step of the invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The proposed invention will be announced as novel, if it has not been anticipated by information available in public domain prior to the priority date (first filling date) of a patent application for the proposed invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not every inventive step will lead to something new. In a scenario where the inventive step is new and the end product is same as what already exists, then the inventive step has to be protected. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: A product-by-process claim is considered to be novel only if the product mentioned in the preamble is novel. For example, a product-by-process claim claims a product X prepared by a process Y. Product X is known in art, whereas the process Y for manufacturing the product X in new. Even though the process Y is not known in the art, the product-by-process claim will lack novelty because the product X is known in the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is therefore advisable to claim a process for obtaining the product by a process claim, rather than claiming the product using a product-by-process claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may refer to this link to get an insight on protecting a product by process claims:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/understanding-product-by-process-claims&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may refer to this link to get an insight on the importance of drafting a patent specification by patent professionals:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/why-should-patent-specifications-be-drafted-by-patent-professionals&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10633" RevisionGUID="c68b402a-36ef-402b-997e-7cd2a6cdaabd" CreationDate="2014-11-19T13:12:14.723" UserId="11923" Text="I am about launching a mobile application soonest (in 5 days time) but I am really scared about others using the idea behind the whole system because the few people I have spoken to about investing in it always say they want to buy the whole system out-rightly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I built the whole app myself to avoid ideas leakage and it has taken months to complete. I am starting the whole thing small and later, new features will be added. I don't want somebody to rush in and build a more powerful app on my ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a social app that is built in a way to generate income. I want to protect the idea generally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Can I apply for a patent to protect the idea?&#xD;&#xA;2. or what can I do to avoid other people using the idea to build a similar app?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for guidance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24041" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10633" RevisionGUID="c68b402a-36ef-402b-997e-7cd2a6cdaabd" CreationDate="2014-11-19T13:12:14.723" UserId="11923" Text="Can I patent a mobile application or protect the idea" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24042" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10633" RevisionGUID="c68b402a-36ef-402b-997e-7cd2a6cdaabd" CreationDate="2014-11-19T13:12:14.723" UserId="11923" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10637" RevisionGUID="00712c24-0003-4647-852b-5a6dfa645ad7" CreationDate="2014-11-19T22:19:36.507" UserId="11764" Text="Prior Art Request for US20130100291 A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication number	US20130100291 A1&#xD;&#xA;Publication type	Application&#xD;&#xA;Application number	US 13/654,728&#xD;&#xA;Publication date	Apr 25, 2013&#xD;&#xA;Filing date	Oct 18, 2012&#xD;&#xA;Priority date	Oct 21, 2011&#xD;&#xA;Also published as	EP2584425A1&#xD;&#xA;Inventors	Chee Seng Tan, Rahunandan KANDASAMY, Tee Meng PANG&#xD;&#xA;Original Assignee	Wincor Nixdorf International Gmbh&#xD;&#xA;Export Citation	BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24053" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10637" RevisionGUID="00712c24-0003-4647-852b-5a6dfa645ad7" CreationDate="2014-11-19T22:19:36.507" UserId="11764" Text="What are the Prior Arts for US20130100291 A1 ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24054" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10637" RevisionGUID="00712c24-0003-4647-852b-5a6dfa645ad7" CreationDate="2014-11-19T22:19:36.507" UserId="11764" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20130100291&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10638" RevisionGUID="95c097b9-72fe-44f7-bc84-2e62eaa34c79" CreationDate="2014-11-20T01:26:09.397" UserId="11792" Text="You have provided very little information about what you your app is doing.  But based on what you have provided, I believe it is unlikely that you could receive patent protection.  Generally speaking, a patent cannot be used to patent an idea, but rather the concrete manifestation of that idea.  Said another way, to be patent eligible, an invention must be more than an abstract concept implemented on a general purpose computer (I believe a smart phone would qualify as a general purpose computer).   You can read about the most recent and impactful decision in this area of patent law here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though your idea and implementation may not directly map to those at issue in the Alice case, a large number of other cases and PTO decisions have been handed down based on Alice, and which also likely would put your invention in a bad light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should obtain a confidential consult with a patent attorney or agent to be certain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24060" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10637" RevisionGUID="23e5d2f8-e8b3-41ac-9160-adc3a93ab4a8" CreationDate="2014-11-20T14:07:54.190" UserDisplayName="user8623" Comment="Wrap text in pre tag to get formatted layout in text." Text="Prior Art Request for US20130100291 A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Publication number	US20130100291 A1&#xD;&#xA;Publication type	Application&#xD;&#xA;Application number	US 13/654,728&#xD;&#xA;Publication date	Apr 25, 2013&#xD;&#xA;Filing date	Oct 18, 2012&#xD;&#xA;Priority date	Oct 21, 2011&#xD;&#xA;Also published as	EP2584425A1&#xD;&#xA;Inventors	Chee Seng Tan, Rahunandan KANDASAMY, Tee Meng PANG&#xD;&#xA;Original Assignee	Wincor Nixdorf International Gmbh&#xD;&#xA;Export Citation	BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24061" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10637" RevisionGUID="23e5d2f8-e8b3-41ac-9160-adc3a93ab4a8" CreationDate="2014-11-20T14:07:54.190" UserDisplayName="user8623" Comment="Wrap text in pre tag to get formatted layout in text." Text="What are the Prior Arts for US20130100291 A1?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24062" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10637" RevisionGUID="23e5d2f8-e8b3-41ac-9160-adc3a93ab4a8" CreationDate="2014-11-20T14:07:54.190" Comment="Proposed by 8623 approved by 10011, -1 edit id of 1719" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10637" RevisionGUID="a67750f1-7e65-439b-82cf-1356f9b9c6c4" CreationDate="2014-11-20T14:07:54.190" UserId="9939" Comment="And indent it." Text="Prior Art Request for US20130100291 A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Publication number	US20130100291 A1&#xD;&#xA;Publication type	Application&#xD;&#xA;Application number	US 13/654,728&#xD;&#xA;Publication date	Apr 25, 2013&#xD;&#xA;Filing date	        Oct 18, 2012&#xD;&#xA;Priority date	    Oct 21, 2011&#xD;&#xA;Also published as	EP2584425A1&#xD;&#xA;Inventors	        Chee Seng Tan, Rahunandan KANDASAMY, Tee Meng PANG&#xD;&#xA;Original Assignee	Wincor Nixdorf International Gmbh&#xD;&#xA;Export Citation    	BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24064" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10637" RevisionGUID="c3a849ff-2da5-4b7f-bb49-7df64bc23bd8" CreationDate="2014-11-20T17:02:52.463" UserId="3076" Comment="edited title" Text="Please help me find Prior Art for US20130100291 A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10639" RevisionGUID="618fc12e-f426-48ac-89db-c88bab1a46c7" CreationDate="2014-11-20T18:21:44.790" UserId="11935" Text="80% of a patent you can write yourself.  I have written over 50.  The process is very straight forward as long as you understand how to organize it.  I have probably saved over $100,000 writing my own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The part you absolutely want to have a lawyer do (keyword: absolutely!) is drafting your claims. This language is key to obtaining your patent and getting your claims accepted.  It is an &quot;art form&quot; few master with out considerable experience.  I would also advise having a lawyer submit your patent as the submittal, and follow on correspondence, can be tricky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10641" RevisionGUID="6cf47b7b-cc76-432f-ba79-9eff71c91d75" CreationDate="2014-11-22T14:18:18.833" UserId="11940" Text="*[When does US Patent 6,905,424 expire?][1]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3283/when-does-us-patent-5-720-421-expire" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24075" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10641" RevisionGUID="6cf47b7b-cc76-432f-ba79-9eff71c91d75" CreationDate="2014-11-22T14:18:18.833" UserId="11940" Text="expiring date of the US 6905424 B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24076" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10641" RevisionGUID="6cf47b7b-cc76-432f-ba79-9eff71c91d75" CreationDate="2014-11-22T14:18:18.833" UserId="11940" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10642" RevisionGUID="1610a865-7661-4ca3-a0fc-c1071a4c362c" CreationDate="2014-11-22T23:37:19.097" UserId="11942" Text="After a 2.5 year wait the patent office has finally responded to my patent application with an election restriction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While writing the application with my lawyer, it was obvious from the beginning that there are three different inventions playing on the same physical principals.  This is especially true when the prior art is taken into consideration.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have always wanted to proceed with claims 15 to 20 first.  Filing a traverse isn't a good strategic choice, so this should be a very simple reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be fantastic if someone could just briefly tell me how to respond myself to this election restriction.  There doesn't seem to be a return letter form in the email.  A simple 'I choose invention 3 with claims 15-20' shouldn't cost 875$!!!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EXCERPT FROM MY OFFICE ACTION LETTER:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in&#xD;&#xA;this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search&#xD;&#xA;and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons&#xD;&#xA;apply:&#xD;&#xA;(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;&#xD;&#xA;(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent&#xD;&#xA;subject matter;&#xD;&#xA;(c) the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses&#xD;&#xA;or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries);&#xD;&#xA;Application/Control Number: 13/585,682&#xD;&#xA;Art Unit: 4166&#xD;&#xA;Page 3&#xD;&#xA;(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;&#xD;&#xA;(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and-or 35&#xD;&#xA;U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an&#xD;&#xA;election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR&#xD;&#xA;1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.&#xD;&#xA;The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition,&#xD;&#xA;the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out&#xD;&#xA;supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without&#xD;&#xA;traverse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;..so how do I reply?  Submit some online form?  Send them a letter?  Or call the patent examiner with the phone # listed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24078" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10642" RevisionGUID="1610a865-7661-4ca3-a0fc-c1071a4c362c" CreationDate="2014-11-22T23:37:19.097" UserId="11942" Text="How are election restrictions answered? My lawyer wants $1000USD just to tell them to proceed with claims 15-20" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24079" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10642" RevisionGUID="1610a865-7661-4ca3-a0fc-c1071a4c362c" CreationDate="2014-11-22T23:37:19.097" UserId="11942" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10643" RevisionGUID="497d5a06-53ce-4ae9-bbd5-b4655444f7eb" CreationDate="2014-11-23T02:48:43.660" UserId="7403" Text="How do I find all patents citing a certain article using the [Derwent Innovations Index][1] / [Web of Science][2]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://apps.webofknowledge.com/DIIDW_GeneralSearch_input.do?product=DIIDW&amp;search_mode=AdvancedSearch&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://webofknowledge.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24081" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10643" RevisionGUID="497d5a06-53ce-4ae9-bbd5-b4655444f7eb" CreationDate="2014-11-23T02:48:43.660" UserId="7403" Text="How do I find all patents citing a certain article?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24082" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10643" RevisionGUID="497d5a06-53ce-4ae9-bbd5-b4655444f7eb" CreationDate="2014-11-23T02:48:43.660" UserId="7403" Text="&lt;databases&gt;&lt;research&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10645" RevisionGUID="7db05974-4f07-4384-a2bf-c983247d3b4b" CreationDate="2014-11-23T11:03:16.460" UserId="11945" Text="I know that when I file a patent application, a research will be done on novelty. This research covers (theoretically) all known publications, existing patents and applications up to the date of filing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, does it also includes patent applications that are yet unpublished?&#xD;&#xA;I assume not, because then an inventor gets notified of unpublished patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But does this imply that an inventor can file multiple applications that are based on the same innovative thought?&#xD;&#xA;For example: suppose I invented a new type of measurement system and filed a patent application. After a couple of months I discovered an even further improved system that is not covered by the &quot;old&quot; application. Filing a new one may be rejected because technically it only differs a little. But if the old application is not included in the research it will not pose a problem.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24088" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10645" RevisionGUID="7db05974-4f07-4384-a2bf-c983247d3b4b" CreationDate="2014-11-23T11:03:16.460" UserId="11945" Text="Filing a second patent after a first one" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24089" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10645" RevisionGUID="7db05974-4f07-4384-a2bf-c983247d3b4b" CreationDate="2014-11-23T11:03:16.460" UserId="11945" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10646" RevisionGUID="75dc89b3-8397-4b4a-a871-e4c4d2d27950" CreationDate="2014-11-23T18:35:26.530" UserId="11947" Text="I am working on software process patent. There is a significant body of prior art, which I believe is inferior. But proving that would require to go into a lot of technical details of prior art. Should I do that in my application or just state believe in my solution superiority?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24091" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10646" RevisionGUID="75dc89b3-8397-4b4a-a871-e4c4d2d27950" CreationDate="2014-11-23T18:35:26.530" UserId="11947" Text="Knocking prior art, is it necessary?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24092" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10646" RevisionGUID="75dc89b3-8397-4b4a-a871-e4c4d2d27950" CreationDate="2014-11-23T18:35:26.530" UserId="11947" Text="&lt;data-processing-software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24093" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10646" RevisionGUID="82e0503c-8c51-4ee1-83d3-8925ad3dd3d6" CreationDate="2014-11-23T18:42:26.487" UserId="11947" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;data-processing-software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10649" RevisionGUID="eec9a048-77d5-4e0f-aa63-7c5559fa5547" CreationDate="2014-11-24T02:57:30.957" UserId="11750" Text="Most patents granted today are improvement patents. Improvement on patents depends on whether or not the patentable differences provide you with a worthwhile competitive advantage. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10650" RevisionGUID="46f0612a-f4a8-4052-b71d-e6a71a7201c3" CreationDate="2014-11-24T04:00:17.113" UserId="3418" Text="AFAIK, The disclosed things in application must be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1/ New&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2/ Non obvious for those in the art&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then I read about enablement, so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3/ Enablement so those in the art can make the same thing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any legal or technical requirement for an application to get a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24102" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10650" RevisionGUID="46f0612a-f4a8-4052-b71d-e6a71a7201c3" CreationDate="2014-11-24T04:00:17.113" UserId="3418" Text="How to get a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24103" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10650" RevisionGUID="46f0612a-f4a8-4052-b71d-e6a71a7201c3" CreationDate="2014-11-24T04:00:17.113" UserId="3418" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10651" RevisionGUID="967e4ddd-8220-43c8-8acf-7f7605433052" CreationDate="2014-11-24T04:59:59.833" UserId="3076" Text="No - the current trend is not to even mention prior art. Importantly there is *no requirement to be better* that what was already done. If it isn't better you might have a hard time selling it, but thats you concern, not the UPTO's. If it is novel and not obvious you can get a patent. Explaining how it *differs* from what was done in the past and why that difference is non-obvious will be needed. But it will be in response to the examiner saying &quot;I think putting the concepts of X and Y and Z put together somehow makes yours obvious.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We no longer mention prior art for several reasons. One is the concept of prior art itself. There are requirements a document must meet to technically be prior art. But if you say it is prior art then it is - even if it wouldn't otherwise qualify. If you bash a particular thing from the past over a feature and you get a patent, a judge might say that anything with that feature can't possibly be your thing and is outside your claims even if it otherwise would be covered. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10652" RevisionGUID="5ba298e0-dc88-43d2-8089-1be42006fe58" CreationDate="2014-11-24T05:06:46.800" UserId="3076" Text="Yes  -- there are laws and rules and it changes monthly. You have hit the big requirements except for *useful*. My hardcopy of the Manual for Patent Examining Procedures (MPEP) is about 3&quot; thick." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10653" RevisionGUID="02058935-6f75-4f09-9335-7bdd75bafea1" CreationDate="2014-11-24T05:18:29.377" UserId="3076" Text="A short letter to the Commissioner of patents that says the applicant herby elects invention number X which covers claims Y-Z without traverse. It must identify the application, best if it has application number, filing date and control number. It must be signed to be considered as even existing. You can mail it or FAX it to them or try to figure out the Electronic Filing System." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10655" RevisionGUID="e479def9-e826-4a09-a9ea-745f44f60509" CreationDate="2014-11-24T06:36:58.100" UserId="11542" Text="The patent system in essence is designed to encourage improvement in science and technology. In order to encourage such improvement, innovators are given an incentive, i.e. patent rights for 20 years, in exchange for disclosure of their technology. By making these disclosures available to the public, the system enables public at large to understand state of the art and bring about further improvements. Therefore, the fundamentals of the patent system do not permit grant of patent rights while preventing public access to details disclosed in the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may refer to this link to understand enablement requirement of patentability:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/enablement-requirement-of-patentability&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may also refer to this link: http://www.invntree.com/blogs/can-details-my-invention-disclosed-patent-application-be-maintained-secret&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10656" RevisionGUID="e9fd0526-2671-4831-9d18-c33cce45d9bf" CreationDate="2014-11-24T06:43:40.817" UserId="7403" Text="I know Russians do patents now, but did the Soviets of the USSR do them? When did the patent system start in Russia?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24110" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10656" RevisionGUID="e9fd0526-2671-4831-9d18-c33cce45d9bf" CreationDate="2014-11-24T06:43:40.817" UserId="7403" Text="Did the Soviets do patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24111" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10656" RevisionGUID="e9fd0526-2671-4831-9d18-c33cce45d9bf" CreationDate="2014-11-24T06:43:40.817" UserId="7403" Text="&lt;history&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10657" RevisionGUID="337fd85b-831b-4868-af0f-f73a223c8405" CreationDate="2014-11-24T07:08:48.130" UserId="11543" Text="For improvement over a patent pending product or process, you may go ahead with filing Continuation-In-Part Application (CIP, under the US patent system) during the pendency (before issuance or abandonment) of the earlier filed patent application (parent application). CIP application is mainly filed in situations where a patent application (parent application) has been filed for an invention, and where another related invention, which may be a variation of the earlier filed patent application, is later developed, but the variation may not be distinct or inventive enough to qualify for an independent patent in light of the earlier filed parent application. The parent patent application may not be used as prior art for the CIP application. &#xD;&#xA;For more details on CIP applications you may visit the link provided below.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/patent-protection-for-improvements-made-over-your-previously-filed-patent-application&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10658" RevisionGUID="156fa2d3-7960-42f0-8aeb-16c9b3bae388" CreationDate="2014-11-24T07:22:25.703" UserId="11750" Text="I recently attended a seminar about copyrighted and infringement laws. One of the topics they discussed were the basics in patenting or how owners should patent their works. Here's how:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, carefully record your inventions. Then, make sure that your inventions qualifies for patent protection. Third, assess its commercial potential. Show how it works and must be different from all your previous inventions. Also, do some research about the earlier development in your field. Then, file an application in USPTO." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10660" RevisionGUID="32125225-3c4f-42c5-9844-c62a1bb1ce4c" CreationDate="2014-11-24T10:58:19.233" UserId="11895" Text="Adding to the answer, applicant doesnot need to say about priorart at the time of drafting application but he may submit IDS- information disclosure statement. In some instances if prior art too close as you feel best would be characterize or identify atleast one example wherein you get clear articulated result to show significant superiority." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10661" RevisionGUID="88e9f285-4973-4803-a67c-ca8ad8a20d74" CreationDate="2014-11-24T11:05:36.203" UserId="11895" Text="I believe you got the concept wrong and right both ways. if patent application is filed in same patent office then unpublished application also gets a cite as prior art. one of the earlier answer clearly states if your later application is not a type of CIP you will get a trouble. &#xD;&#xA;Now if your earlier application is in country X and not published then in country Y you can file patent application and it will not get a prior cite as patent offices are different. keep in mind that if you take PCT or direct convention application entry in country X your prior application will be cited against new application provided it was not abandoned(withdrawan) before publication.&#xD;&#xA;NOTE:- you loose earlier priority in such methods." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24123" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10641" RevisionGUID="20876679-9d38-41ec-bd06-1f8d6d16a80b" CreationDate="2014-11-24T15:25:50.223" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[3801],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10651" RevisionGUID="45ea2f8a-94b9-4707-9e94-147f9c7b92c7" CreationDate="2014-11-24T15:29:55.033" UserId="11791" Comment="fixed a couple spelling errors and added commas" Text="No - the current trend is not to even mention prior art. Importantly, there is *no requirement to be better* that what was already done. If it isn't better, you might have a hard time selling it, but that's your concern, not the UPTO's. If it is novel and not obvious, you can get a patent. Explaining how it *differs* from what was done in the past, and why that difference is non-obvious will be needed. But it will be in response to the examiner saying &quot;I think putting the concepts of X and Y and Z put together somehow makes yours obvious.&quot;      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We no longer mention prior art for several reasons. One is the concept of prior art itself. There are requirements a document must meet to technically be prior art. But if you say it is prior art then it is - even if it wouldn't otherwise qualify. If you bash a particular thing from the past over a feature and you get a patent, a judge might say that anything with that feature can't possibly be your thing and is outside your claims even if it otherwise would be covered. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24127" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10651" RevisionGUID="45ea2f8a-94b9-4707-9e94-147f9c7b92c7" CreationDate="2014-11-24T15:29:55.033" Comment="Proposed by 11791 approved by 9939, 1 edit id of 1720" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10663" RevisionGUID="b64e7bdf-0bef-4d10-a95c-1a4c6cdc359e" CreationDate="2014-11-24T16:43:10.733" UserId="11950" Text="Don't these already exist from the 1980's, if not before then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I do a simple image Google search for &quot;turbofan wheels&quot; I get examples of wheels and hubcaps that show that these have existed for a long time before this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24132" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10663" RevisionGUID="b64e7bdf-0bef-4d10-a95c-1a4c6cdc359e" CreationDate="2014-11-24T16:43:10.733" UserId="11950" Text="Don't these wheels and hubcaps already exist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24133" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10663" RevisionGUID="b64e7bdf-0bef-4d10-a95c-1a4c6cdc359e" CreationDate="2014-11-24T16:43:10.733" UserId="11950" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10664" RevisionGUID="18078175-bc9d-40ad-b4c5-88d50c3634e1" CreationDate="2014-11-24T20:55:45.257" UserId="11945" Text="Suppose a patent application is filed, claiming a method+device that solves some problem. &#xD;&#xA;In the patent text it is written that the method can solve A &amp; B, but it explicitly mentions that it cannot solve C.&#xD;&#xA;A device is claimed that implements the method. The claim is however written too generic, and nothing is mentioned about the fact that C cannot be solved. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose I invented a new different method, that actually can solve C. I implement it in the same type of device with similar steps as mentioned in the claim of the previous patent. So the claim of the previous patent may block my new patent, as my new invention is (strictly speaking) covered by the claim of the other patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to successfully obtain a patent on my new invention? Can I for instance refer to the patent text of the previous application and point out that it explicitly mentions that it cannot solve C?&#xD;&#xA;How to deal with this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24135" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10664" RevisionGUID="18078175-bc9d-40ad-b4c5-88d50c3634e1" CreationDate="2014-11-24T20:55:45.257" UserId="11945" Text="New invention covered by claim of other invention" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24136" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10664" RevisionGUID="18078175-bc9d-40ad-b4c5-88d50c3634e1" CreationDate="2014-11-24T20:55:45.257" UserId="11945" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10665" RevisionGUID="2b88f223-89c8-4a0b-963d-ad39ddd76522" CreationDate="2014-11-24T20:58:28.890" UserId="9802" Text="A full answer to the particular case will likely require a contract lawyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, there is an implied warranty under UCC §2-312:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless **otherwise agreed*** a seller that is a merchant regularly dealing in goods of the kind warrants that the goods shall be delivered free of the rightful claim of any third person by way of infringement or the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a buyer that furnishes specifications to the seller must hold the seller harmless against any such claim that arises out of compliance with the specifications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* In many cases, there will be a specific Intellectual Property Indemnification clause in the terms of sale contract which can change the rights and liabilities of each party significantly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, in this particular case, any company incorporating Bluetooth wireless technology into products, using the technology to offer goods and services or simply rebranding a product with Bluetooth technology, must become a member of the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG). The Bluetooth SIG is the organisation that oversees development of Bluetooth standards and the licensing of Bluetooth technologies and trademarks. Part of the membership agreement is a Bluetooth Patent/Copyright License agreement, which contains a clause covering the case when one member files suit against another member for patent infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-312&#xD;&#xA; - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth_Special_Interest_Group&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.bluetooth.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10666" RevisionGUID="dc6b913a-326f-4eee-8409-3ca97d52a67a" CreationDate="2014-11-24T23:52:20.057" UserId="11942" Text="I agree completely with Ken S (the above poster), and couldn't put it better.  I have also drafted my own patent application, and my lawyer has had to change very little.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Writing the claims is something else.  It seems to require a different, more strategic approach, than the descriptions.  Those are truly just technical documents detailing your invention and illustrating the novel aspects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, going it alone might not always be a bad choice.  The claims I had written, but not shown, to my lawyer were nearly identical to her wording and substance as well.  Either she is a bad lawyer or I've grasped something about the process.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Studying approved patents, and also what happened to those products, is great practice whether you lawyer-up or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10667" RevisionGUID="32e4ab8e-2109-4d2a-8b6a-a3245ae5c872" CreationDate="2014-11-25T02:47:21.700" UserId="11750" Text="It is possible to obtain a patent on your new invention as long as that new invention of yours is totally different from the previous inventions that you have. Show how it works to show that it is different from all your previous inventions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10668" RevisionGUID="4ea013dd-39c9-4c91-a970-0e3cd26894d9" CreationDate="2014-11-25T06:42:49.157" UserId="11750" Text="I attended a seminar last month about Patent and Intellectual property issues. One of the speaker from Patexia discussed the history of patent and cited some countries. One of the countries mentioned was Russia. FIY, Russia has a &quot;first-to-file&quot; patent system. Russian patent law is fairly comprehensive, offering protection to most products and technologies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10669" RevisionGUID="d536889c-d3f6-4e02-be6d-dd865ee25bd7" CreationDate="2014-11-25T06:53:11.120" UserId="3076" Text="First - Patent applications are not primary judged by the problem they solve, but how they solve it. You invent one way to capture energy from the Sun's rays, and I do to. Both solve the same problem but from what I have written we have no idea if the structures or steps taken have any correspondence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second - a claim is going to pin down what the apparatus is - it might also say something like - &quot;for towing cars&quot; but that is just an intended use, not a limitation. And no one would ever write, &quot;but it is horrible for towing boats.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last - Yes you can get a patent for an invention that it turns out you can't actually make because your invention is a clever optimization or special case of a claim someone already has patented. You have something new, but it falls under something older and patented. I patent a knife and you patent a jack knife. If my claims are drafted well, your jack knife is still a knife as far as my claims go, and you are *not* free and clear to make it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or your invention has a clever part that you get a patent on and also many boring parts (to you) that someone else has a patent on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10554" RevisionGUID="1115b8a7-d62d-4bca-b4de-51e1ded52c02" CreationDate="2014-11-25T07:00:30.707" UserId="3076" Comment="added application title and claim 1 wording" Text="Help kill bad patent application &quot;Image Processing Apparatus And Image Processing Method&quot; by providing evidence of prior art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication number	US20130128027 A1&#xD;&#xA;Publication type	Application&#xD;&#xA;Application number	US 13/653,469&#xD;&#xA;Publication date	May 23, 2013&#xD;&#xA;Filing date	Oct 17, 2012&#xD;&#xA;Priority date	Nov 18, 2011&#xD;&#xA;Also published as	CN103124358A, EP2595375A1&#xD;&#xA;Inventors	Masaaki Katsurada, Keisuke Nagoshi&#xD;&#xA;Original Assignee	Keyence Corporation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CLAIM 1. An image processing apparatus, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;an imaging unit having &lt;p&gt;an imaging element for imaging an inspection object; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;an image processing unit for executing image processing on image data captured by the imaging unit, wherein&#xD;&#xA;the imaging unit converts a color image imaged by the imaging element to an HDR image based on a conversion characteristic for expanding a dynamic range, to output the HDR image, and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the image processing unit includes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;an inverse conversion portion for inversely converting color component values with respect to each pixel of the HDR image, outputted from the imaging unit, based on the conversion characteristic,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a calculation portion for calculating brightness and a ratio of the color component values with respect to each pixel, from the inversely converted color component values, and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a post-correction HDR image generating portion for converting the calculated brightness based on the conversion characteristic, to generate a post-correction HDR image based on a ratio of the converted brightness and the calculated color component values." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10670" RevisionGUID="f420709e-8b19-4db1-b3d4-3cfa45bbaef2" CreationDate="2014-11-25T10:59:53.793" UserId="11543" Text="At the time of filing your patent application, it is not mandatory to state the difference between your invention and the prior art that you have, in the application. You may, however, have to differentiate your invention from the prior art while filing a response to an Office Action issued by the Examiner if the Examiner cites that particular reference questioning the patentability of your invention. The Examiner would be interested in the novelty and non obviousness/inventiveness of your invention in light of the above mentioned prior art, and describing how your solution is superior may further your cause. &#xD;&#xA;However, as a duty you may disclose this particular piece of prior art in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) to the PTO. You may disclose any kind of relevant (material) information to the PTO which you may come to know of while or after filing the patent application, through the IDS to avoid facing negative consequences later. For details on the duty to disclose relevant information to the PTO and the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), you may visit http://www.invntree.com/blogs/duty-of-disclosure-in-a-patent-application&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24144" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10663" RevisionGUID="c4f249cb-efe6-442b-a46c-18780b769361" CreationDate="2014-11-25T13:52:03.547" UserId="1" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10672" RevisionGUID="307095e8-a2c2-413f-bfcd-078b2fb23ab8" CreationDate="2014-11-26T06:19:25.043" UserId="11750" Text="Citation databases make it possible to search cited references; that is, they search for references that are listed in the bibliographies of research publications. In here, users can follow a particular cited reference, or cited author, forward in time to find other articles that have also cited that author or work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10673" RevisionGUID="47da25d9-9735-47a9-a854-c63169d08322" CreationDate="2014-11-26T10:35:50.237" UserId="11543" Text="Enablement requirement of patentability requires one to describe the invention in a clear and complete manner such that a person skilled in the art would be able to perform the invention by referring the disclosure. Another requirement of patentability is that the invention has to be useful, in other words, the invention should be feasible to be made and used in an industry. Now when you say “there is no material strong enough to withstand that design, which means the invention cannot be made in practice”, it may mean that with existing technology or materials available or mentioned in the prior art, the invention may not be successfully made or used in an industry, hence may face rejections from the Examiner on grounds of insufficient disclosure during Office Action.  &#xD;&#xA;You may visit the link http://www.invntree.com/blogs/enablement-requirement-of-patentability for details on sufficiency of disclosure/enablement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10674" RevisionGUID="d5e5eadb-a548-4373-bbfa-a849bbe3a87a" CreationDate="2014-11-26T10:59:41.327" UserId="11542" Text="Patent applications which are not published will not be available for search. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Refer to this link to understand on how to conduct a prior art search: http://www.invntree.com/blogs/how-conduct-patent-search" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24156" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10663" RevisionGUID="f5dc146a-b8b8-4323-96b9-4c4b2d66c5a1" CreationDate="2014-11-26T19:18:32.567" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20140191565&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10676" RevisionGUID="e9cd95ab-b78a-4e20-a3aa-e5201a965df9" CreationDate="2014-11-27T02:05:18.750" UserId="11750" Text="A patent claim document must include a data input device comprising: an input surface adapted to be locally exposed to a pressure or pressure force, a sensor means disposed below the input surface for detecting the position of the pressure or pressure force on the input surface and for outputting an output signal representing said position and, an evaluating means for evaluating the output signal of the sensor means." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10677" RevisionGUID="3890c204-b2bd-4720-a2e7-e05b123abb95" CreationDate="2014-11-27T15:54:10.983" UserId="11966" Text="It says filing date 1999 but publication date 2004&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication number	US6706023 B1&#xD;&#xA;Publication type	Grant&#xD;&#xA;Application number	US 09/454,138&#xD;&#xA;Publication date	Mar 16, 2004&#xD;&#xA;Filing date	Dec 3, 1999&#xD;&#xA;Priority date	Dec 3, 1999&#xD;&#xA;Fee status	Paid" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24161" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10677" RevisionGUID="3890c204-b2bd-4720-a2e7-e05b123abb95" CreationDate="2014-11-27T15:54:10.983" UserId="11966" Text="Is this patent still active" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24162" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10677" RevisionGUID="3890c204-b2bd-4720-a2e7-e05b123abb95" CreationDate="2014-11-27T15:54:10.983" UserId="11966" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10678" RevisionGUID="ab8ccf6c-b429-427f-b35f-7edadc99eb08" CreationDate="2014-11-27T16:31:28.997" UserId="11967" Text="I would like to know where the title &quot;improvement in drill-bit&quot; came from, the applicant or the USPTO. Nowhere in the text does the applicant refer to the devise as a drill-bit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24164" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10678" RevisionGUID="ab8ccf6c-b429-427f-b35f-7edadc99eb08" CreationDate="2014-11-27T16:31:28.997" UserId="11967" Text="US38119 patent question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24165" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10678" RevisionGUID="ab8ccf6c-b429-427f-b35f-7edadc99eb08" CreationDate="2014-11-27T16:31:28.997" UserId="11967" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10679" RevisionGUID="9694c92a-2ce9-46c8-94b4-96675af06b2d" CreationDate="2014-11-27T16:55:07.887" UserId="11968" Text="My family has some original patent paperwork from 1916. My grandfather is curious as to whether the original paperwork and drawings has any value other than its age. Also curious as to whether the Patent Office can authenticate the publishing date and topic. Thanks for your help " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24167" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10679" RevisionGUID="9694c92a-2ce9-46c8-94b4-96675af06b2d" CreationDate="2014-11-27T16:55:07.887" UserId="11968" Text="Original Patent Paper Work" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24168" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10679" RevisionGUID="9694c92a-2ce9-46c8-94b4-96675af06b2d" CreationDate="2014-11-27T16:55:07.887" UserId="11968" Text="&lt;us1174605&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10680" RevisionGUID="de6c5af6-3928-4fc1-9118-7a7e651391ea" CreationDate="2014-11-27T18:23:00.630" UserId="679" Text="USPTO Patent [FAQ](http://www.uspto.gov/main/faq/index.html &quot;FAQ&quot;), [PATENTS - Basic Process](http://www.uspto.gov/main/faq/faq000a.htm#p2), [How long does patent protection last?](http://www.uspto.gov/main/faq/p120013.htm) -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, utility and plant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patents are granted for a term which begins with the date of the grant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and usually ends 20 years from the date you first applied for the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent subject to the payment of appropriate maintenance fees. Design&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patents last 14 years from the date you are granted the patent. Note:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patents in force on June 8 and patents issued thereafter on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applications filed prior to June 8, 1995 automatically have a term&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that is the greater of the twenty year term discussed above or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; seventeen years from the patent grant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent [US 6706023 B1](http://www.google.com/patents/US6706023) has a filing date of Dec 3, 1999, which is after June 8, 1995. Patent protection would extend to 20 years from the filing date of Dec 3, 1999." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10681" RevisionGUID="fd55165a-111c-4dc4-9b83-e50765fa218c" CreationDate="2014-11-27T19:30:06.777" UserId="10011" Text="That patent was published in 1863. It was a simpler time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But ultimately I'm not really sure what you're asking. The applicant was (probably) the one that came up with the title, but it doesn't strike me as too odd that he used &quot;drill&quot; and &quot;drill bit&quot; interchangeably. That's not super uncommon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10682" RevisionGUID="50342616-54e6-483e-ab66-3efc6d2fcd93" CreationDate="2014-11-27T19:36:56.130" UserId="10011" Text="No, unfortunately, they probably don't have any value. Patents documents become public domain (although that's a point of disagreement with some, but practically applicable either way) after they're published, so anyone could go on Google Patents and print out a copy. They're cool, and indeed often beautiful, but not worth much, financially speaking. That's not to say they wouldn't necessarily make some neat artwork if you framed it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that brings me to your next curiosity. Google Patents [does in fact](http://www.google.com/patents/us1174605) have the patent that it appears you're asking about on file. If you're interested in validating your own copy, that's probably your best bet. You could also check on Public Pair, but if you have paper copies of what the Google Patents file says, I'd imagine them to be real. I don't imagine you'll have any way of confirming that they're original papers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10684" RevisionGUID="bc12283f-afd6-4555-80db-d98310cb2415" CreationDate="2014-11-28T02:08:08.117" UserId="11750" Text="In this case, UPSTO has their policies and laws in terms of patenting a paper work depending on its date and topic. I suggest you read this: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2128.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10685" RevisionGUID="557a4c99-7058-4717-a46b-04e3d442f7ac" CreationDate="2014-11-28T06:01:34.707" UserId="11750" Text="As far as I know, an examiner in the patent office will normally review previous patents to find those patents which are closest to the invention in which a patent is sought. If all the features of the invention can be found in a single patent, the examiner will reject the patent as lacking novelty (that is, it is exactly the same as what was previously known and therefore is not new)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10686" RevisionGUID="5097625b-36e4-439c-a794-6e55e4ace3ee" CreationDate="2014-11-28T12:08:40.683" UserId="11895" Text="At the time of filing you wont be able to search it, best way is to file a patent and do a weekly search with already designed keyword till 20 month you will eventually reach to cover all prior art till filing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10689" RevisionGUID="f9edc5af-db24-4823-a472-be344ac4d6fa" CreationDate="2014-11-29T04:51:25.253" UserId="11977" Text="This particular application is all over the news today: [HAND-HELD VIDEO GAME PLATFORM EMULATION](http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=2&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=Nintendo.AS.&amp;OS=AN/Nintendo&amp;RS=AN/Nintendo)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm approaching this out of sheer curiosity. It is my understanding that emulating other hardware is a concept that predates the internet, *and* Nintendo, and more to the point of this patent, emulation of Nintendo's video game consoles has been done for [quite literally every console the company has ever released](http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/best-emulators/), by various individuals and groups.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent makes one claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. A method of adapting an emulator, the method comprising: executing, on a processor, an emulator capable of running a plurality different binary applications; recognizing, by the processor, an identity of a binary application based on an inspection of the binary application; automatically adapting, by the processor, a behavior of the emulator to the binary application based on the recognized identity of the binary application; and generating, by the processor, an audio visual presentation using the adapted behavior of the emulator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds like the exact behavior of any of the programs from the second link above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24192" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10689" RevisionGUID="f9edc5af-db24-4823-a472-be344ac4d6fa" CreationDate="2014-11-29T04:51:25.253" UserId="11977" Text="Nintendo's recent emulation patent: why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24193" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10689" RevisionGUID="f9edc5af-db24-4823-a472-be344ac4d6fa" CreationDate="2014-11-29T04:51:25.253" UserId="11977" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10689" RevisionGUID="23656011-b4a1-411a-8e9f-ceb962acfc3b" CreationDate="2014-11-29T04:59:35.810" UserId="11977" Comment="added 463 characters in body" Text="This particular application is all over the news today: [HAND-HELD VIDEO GAME PLATFORM EMULATION](http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=2&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=Nintendo.AS.&amp;OS=AN/Nintendo&amp;RS=AN/Nintendo)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm approaching this out of sheer curiosity. It is my understanding that emulating other hardware is a concept that predates the internet, *and* Nintendo, and more to the point of this patent, emulation of Nintendo's video game consoles has been done for [quite literally every console the company has ever released](http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/best-emulators/), by various individuals and groups.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent makes one claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. A method of adapting an emulator, the method comprising: executing, on a processor, an emulator capable of running a plurality different binary applications; recognizing, by the processor, an identity of a binary application based on an inspection of the binary application; automatically adapting, by the processor, a behavior of the emulator to the binary application based on the recognized identity of the binary application; and generating, by the processor, an audio visual presentation using the adapted behavior of the emulator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds like the exact behavior of any of the programs from the second link above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A description of any modern emulator:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It loads specially-formatted binary files, in the form of ROM images. These images contain information as to the format of the rest of the data in their headers, as well as a name that's used to trigger special behavior from the emulator, these can take the form of compatibility or speed workarounds to deal with certain code in the program being emulated. The result of this executed code is then output to a monitor and speakers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10690" RevisionGUID="791a2f9e-6f0f-49f6-8075-142ce33883a1" CreationDate="2014-11-29T06:17:39.980" UserId="3076" Text="From that claim, it looks like they have a universal emulator that decides which console it emulates by looking at the game's binaries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10692" RevisionGUID="edfea81e-28fd-4348-8baf-7e47f02d36a5" CreationDate="2014-11-29T12:54:23.853" UserId="11981" Text="All description in this claim is very ordinary and common, why is it be authorized?&#xD;&#xA;For example, claim1, almost every monitoring device (includes parameter of EtCO2) has the function of it. Why this function can be authorized?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24200" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10692" RevisionGUID="edfea81e-28fd-4348-8baf-7e47f02d36a5" CreationDate="2014-11-29T12:54:23.853" UserId="11981" Text="doubt on patent WO 2010052608 A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24201" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10692" RevisionGUID="edfea81e-28fd-4348-8baf-7e47f02d36a5" CreationDate="2014-11-29T12:54:23.853" UserId="11981" Text="&lt;wo2010052608a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10693" RevisionGUID="357f3da5-726c-4eea-8965-e4eef9330660" CreationDate="2014-11-29T17:21:30.933" UserId="11982" Text="How may one, such as I, contact the patent's owner?&#xD;&#xA;Is the current patent owner developing the patent, or interested in the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24203" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10693" RevisionGUID="357f3da5-726c-4eea-8965-e4eef9330660" CreationDate="2014-11-29T17:21:30.933" UserId="11982" Text="Fitaly patent owner - ongoing development" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24204" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10693" RevisionGUID="357f3da5-726c-4eea-8965-e4eef9330660" CreationDate="2014-11-29T17:21:30.933" UserId="11982" Text="&lt;us20030014239&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10694" RevisionGUID="a534387a-04d4-438e-9ae8-94401d011829" CreationDate="2014-11-29T17:31:40.983" UserId="5381" Text="WO 2010052608 A1 is an application, not a grant. You can apply for a patent on anything you want -- that doesn't mean it will be granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think there's prior art for this, depending on your jurisdiction (i.e. where you are) you may be able to register your opposition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10695" RevisionGUID="162e271d-7b91-4e55-af1c-13d50922284c" CreationDate="2014-11-29T17:44:00.527" UserId="5381" Text="The USPTO entry for the patent has a correspondence address listed for the IP law attorneys. You can contact them if you have questions about the owner's interest in pursuing the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link to the USPTO entry for this patent application is: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=20030014239.PGNR." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10696" RevisionGUID="bf6d9965-0511-4d65-be71-16b66cd1ae25" CreationDate="2014-11-29T21:18:03.657" UserId="11983" Text="I studied this patent (pending) and it seems obvious to me that prior art apply on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**System for organizing and displaying information on a display device &#xD;&#xA;WO2014122535A2       &#xD;&#xA;US20140223313**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm very knowledgeable in User interface paradigms, I'm coauthor of several patents in UI/UX, and I see no innovation here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent is about user interface: grouping, docking and transforming windows (move, rotate, scale) together by layering system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know at least some prior art that I would like to see confirmed and submitted to Examiner before this becomes an issued Patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Publication in 1995: Directness and Liveness in the Morphic User Interface Construction Environment&#xD;&#xA;John H. Maloney Randall B. Smith&#xD;&#xA;Apple Computer, Inc**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This paper explain morphic UI, and way to organize and transform user interface in a hierarchical manner, exactly as &quot;layering&quot; does in the patent.&#xD;&#xA;Those techniques have been implemented with graphical objects and windows in the software **Smalltalk Squeak before 2009.**&#xD;&#xA;**http://www.squeak.org/&#xD;&#xA;Books, documentation and videos exist on Squeak for many years.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other prior art may be found, but this one should be sufficient to oppose to the main claims. &#xD;&#xA;Zooming and unzooming layers/Windows is so well known in CAD and UI systems that it cannot justify innovation even by juxtaposition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me know if you think this pertinent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24208" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10696" RevisionGUID="bf6d9965-0511-4d65-be71-16b66cd1ae25" CreationDate="2014-11-29T21:18:03.657" UserId="11983" Text="Patent WO 2014122535 A2 : User Interface, prior art exists" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24209" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10696" RevisionGUID="bf6d9965-0511-4d65-be71-16b66cd1ae25" CreationDate="2014-11-29T21:18:03.657" UserId="11983" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;user-interface&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10696" RevisionGUID="f8c3d034-5418-4e90-988d-ab9586a17e41" CreationDate="2014-11-29T21:35:37.793" UserId="11983" Comment="added 304 characters in body" Text="I studied this patent (pending) and it seems obvious to me that prior art apply on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**System for organizing and displaying information on a display device &#xD;&#xA;[WO2014122535A2][1]       &#xD;&#xA;[US20140223313][2]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm very knowledgeable in User interface paradigms, I'm coauthor of several patents in UI/UX, and I see no innovation here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent is about user interface: grouping, docking and transforming windows (move, rotate, scale) together by layering system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know at least some prior art that I would like to see confirmed and submitted to Examiner before this becomes an issued Patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Publication in 1995: [Directness and Liveness in the Morphic User Interface Construction Environment][3]&#xD;&#xA;John H. Maloney Randall B. Smith&#xD;&#xA;Apple Computer, Inc**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This paper explain morphic UI, and way to organize and transform user interface in a hierarchical manner, exactly as &quot;layering&quot; does in the patent.&#xD;&#xA;Those techniques have been implemented with graphical objects and windows in the software **Smalltalk Squeak before 2009.**&#xD;&#xA;**http://www.squeak.org/&#xD;&#xA;Books, documentation and [videos][4] exist on Squeak for many years.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other prior art may be found, but this one should be sufficient to oppose to the main claims. &#xD;&#xA;Zooming and unzooming layers/Windows is so well known in CAD and UI systems that it cannot justify innovation even by juxtaposition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me know if you think this pertinent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140223313?hl=fr&amp;dq=dizmo&amp;ei=fTt6VL_MK_HksASKvYLYBQ&amp;cl=fr&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140223313?hl=fr&amp;dq=dizmo&amp;ei=fTt6VL_MK_HksASKvYLYBQ&amp;cl=fr&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://web.media.mit.edu/~jmaloney/papers/DirectnessAndLivenessInMorphic.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.youtube.com/user/sparaig?feature=watch" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10696" RevisionGUID="578ed295-56f0-4dcc-ba6a-6e1eb89bba17" CreationDate="2014-11-29T22:14:59.983" UserId="11983" Comment="added 210 characters in body" Text="I studied this patent (pending) and it seems obvious to me that prior art apply on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**System for organizing and displaying information on a display device &#xD;&#xA;[WO2014122535A2][1]       &#xD;&#xA;[US20140223313][2]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm very knowledgeable in User interface paradigms, I'm coauthor of several patents in UI/UX, and I see no innovation here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent is about user interface: grouping, docking and transforming windows (move, rotate, scale) together by layering system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know at least some prior art that I would like to see confirmed and submitted to Examiner before this becomes an issued Patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Publication in 1995: [Directness and Liveness in the Morphic User Interface Construction Environment][3]&#xD;&#xA;John H. Maloney Randall B. Smith&#xD;&#xA;Apple Computer, Inc**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This paper explain morphic UI, and way to organize and transform user interface in a hierarchical manner, exactly as &quot;layering&quot; does in the patent.&#xD;&#xA;Those techniques have been implemented with graphical objects and windows in the software **Smalltalk Squeak before 2009.**&#xD;&#xA;**http://www.squeak.org/&#xD;&#xA;Books, documentation and [videos][4] exist on Squeak for many years.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2000, from the same author:&#xD;&#xA;[An Introduction to Morphic: The Squeak User Interface Framework&#xD;&#xA;John Maloney Walt Disney Imagineering][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other prior art may be found, but this one should be sufficient to oppose to the main claims. &#xD;&#xA;Zooming and unzooming layers/Windows is so well known in CAD and UI systems that it cannot justify innovation even by juxtaposition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me know if you think this pertinent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140223313?hl=fr&amp;dq=dizmo&amp;ei=fTt6VL_MK_HksASKvYLYBQ&amp;cl=fr&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140223313?hl=fr&amp;dq=dizmo&amp;ei=fTt6VL_MK_HksASKvYLYBQ&amp;cl=fr&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://web.media.mit.edu/~jmaloney/papers/DirectnessAndLivenessInMorphic.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.youtube.com/user/sparaig?feature=watch&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://coweb.cc.gatech.edu/squeakbook/uploads/morphic2.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10696" RevisionGUID="7e0b03cb-6112-44bb-a59d-2c29ca6fb02a" CreationDate="2014-11-30T14:19:03.810" UserId="11983" Comment="added 162 characters in body" Text="I studied this patent (pending) and it seems obvious to me that prior art apply on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**System for organizing and displaying information on a display device &#xD;&#xA;[WO2014122535A2][1]       &#xD;&#xA;[US20140223313][2]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(PCT) &#xD;&#xA;Pub. No.:	  	WO/2014/122535	  	International Application No.:	  	PCT/IB2014/000684&#xD;&#xA;Publication Date:	14.08.2014	International Filing Date:	04.02.2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm very knowledgeable in User interface paradigms, I'm coauthor of several patents in UI/UX, and I see no innovation here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent is about user interface: grouping, docking and transforming windows (move, rotate, scale) together by layering system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know at least some prior art that I would like to see confirmed and submitted to Examiner before this becomes an issued Patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Publication in 1995: [Directness and Liveness in the Morphic User Interface Construction Environment][3]&#xD;&#xA;John H. Maloney Randall B. Smith&#xD;&#xA;Apple Computer, Inc**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This paper explain morphic UI, and way to organize and transform user interface in a hierarchical manner, exactly as &quot;layering&quot; does in the patent.&#xD;&#xA;Those techniques have been implemented with graphical objects and windows in the software **Smalltalk Squeak before 2009.**&#xD;&#xA;**http://www.squeak.org/&#xD;&#xA;Books, documentation and [videos][4] exist on Squeak for many years.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2000, from the same author:&#xD;&#xA;[An Introduction to Morphic: The Squeak User Interface Framework&#xD;&#xA;John Maloney Walt Disney Imagineering][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other prior art may be found, but this one should be sufficient to oppose to the main claims. &#xD;&#xA;Zooming and unzooming layers/Windows is so well known in CAD and UI systems that it cannot justify innovation even by juxtaposition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me know if you think this pertinent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140223313?hl=fr&amp;dq=dizmo&amp;ei=fTt6VL_MK_HksASKvYLYBQ&amp;cl=fr&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140223313?hl=fr&amp;dq=dizmo&amp;ei=fTt6VL_MK_HksASKvYLYBQ&amp;cl=fr&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://web.media.mit.edu/~jmaloney/papers/DirectnessAndLivenessInMorphic.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.youtube.com/user/sparaig?feature=watch&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://coweb.cc.gatech.edu/squeakbook/uploads/morphic2.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10696" RevisionGUID="35af72d5-f46b-4e6d-bc2e-bc4582b65f68" CreationDate="2014-11-30T15:22:12.373" UserId="11983" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="I studied this patent (pending) and it seems obvious to me that prior art apply on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**System for organizing and displaying information on a display device &#xD;&#xA;[WO2014122535A2][1]       &#xD;&#xA;[US20140223313][2]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Application number US 14/172,685**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(PCT) &#xD;&#xA;Pub. No.:	  	WO/2014/122535	  	International Application No.:	  	PCT/IB2014/000684&#xD;&#xA;Publication Date:	14.08.2014	International Filing Date:	04.02.2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm very knowledgeable in User interface paradigms, I'm coauthor of several patents in UI/UX, and I see no innovation here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent is about user interface: grouping, docking and transforming windows (move, rotate, scale) together by layering system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know at least some prior art that I would like to see confirmed and submitted to Examiner before this becomes an issued Patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Publication in 1995: [Directness and Liveness in the Morphic User Interface Construction Environment][3]&#xD;&#xA;John H. Maloney Randall B. Smith&#xD;&#xA;Apple Computer, Inc**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This paper explain morphic UI, and way to organize and transform user interface in a hierarchical manner, exactly as &quot;layering&quot; does in the patent.&#xD;&#xA;Those techniques have been implemented with graphical objects and windows in the software **Smalltalk Squeak before 2009.**&#xD;&#xA;**http://www.squeak.org/&#xD;&#xA;Books, documentation and [videos][4] exist on Squeak for many years.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2000, from the same author:&#xD;&#xA;[An Introduction to Morphic: The Squeak User Interface Framework&#xD;&#xA;John Maloney Walt Disney Imagineering][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other prior art may be found, but this one should be sufficient to oppose to the main claims. &#xD;&#xA;Zooming and unzooming layers/Windows is so well known in CAD and UI systems that it cannot justify innovation even by juxtaposition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me know if you think this pertinent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140223313?hl=fr&amp;dq=dizmo&amp;ei=fTt6VL_MK_HksASKvYLYBQ&amp;cl=fr&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140223313?hl=fr&amp;dq=dizmo&amp;ei=fTt6VL_MK_HksASKvYLYBQ&amp;cl=fr&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://web.media.mit.edu/~jmaloney/papers/DirectnessAndLivenessInMorphic.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.youtube.com/user/sparaig?feature=watch&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://coweb.cc.gatech.edu/squeakbook/uploads/morphic2.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24214" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10696" RevisionGUID="35af72d5-f46b-4e6d-bc2e-bc4582b65f68" CreationDate="2014-11-30T15:22:12.373" UserId="11983" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="Patent WO 2014122535 A2 (US 14/172,685): User Interface, prior art exists" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24216" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10696" RevisionGUID="1d067f4a-cf2d-4843-abe7-95eed7c97423" CreationDate="2014-11-30T21:57:04.177" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;user-interface&gt;&lt;wo-2014122535&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10699" RevisionGUID="851055dc-b26b-46ad-ab05-bb44fb035608" CreationDate="2014-11-30T23:36:31.433" UserId="11988" Text="I think the Patents office is slipshod or very keen on encouraging pirating and patenting of indigenous knowledge. There is NOTHING unique or special requiring any exercise of intelligence in saying Clerodendrum viscosum is used in India extensively to treat a method for treating cervical cancer and is used extensively in Ayurveda. These are well known facts. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerodendrum_infortunatum#Ayurvedic_and_Siddha_medicines, http://www.toxicologycentre.com/english/plants/Botanical/perigalam.html and many other resources that I was able to find by the simple act of googling. Is the patenting of traditional knowledge allowed when it is in use extensively. This is against Indian law also. This is an illegal act and should be rescinded forthwith.&#xD;&#xA;This sort of incompetent action can lead to international conflict in patents and US strong arm methods may not work any more in this field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;will the patent office notice this fact and rescind the patent? How can i go about filing a complaint?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24221" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10699" RevisionGUID="851055dc-b26b-46ad-ab05-bb44fb035608" CreationDate="2014-11-30T23:36:31.433" UserId="11988" Text="US20140134731 - illegal patent for" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24222" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10699" RevisionGUID="851055dc-b26b-46ad-ab05-bb44fb035608" CreationDate="2014-11-30T23:36:31.433" UserId="11988" Text="&lt;misuse&gt;&lt;of&gt;&lt;indigenous&gt;&lt;knowledge&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10700" RevisionGUID="da1a6830-81c1-4232-bbdb-cad285c23f6e" CreationDate="2014-12-01T02:59:25.717" UserId="11990" Text="Imagine the situation: you are part of a software development company who makes and sells Fantastic Product. Then one day a letter arrives to inform you that part of Fantastic Product infringes on a patent held by Evil Corporation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this situation, Evil Corporation will most likely attempt to either get you to pay to license it, or sue you, depending on the country. You decide to modify your product so it doesn't infringe on their patents because you don't want to pay the fee. My question out of curiosity is what does the law say about a reasonable time to do this? Obviously software development isn't an overnight process and you would need time to redesign, test, and then roll out the replacement. Are you even entitled to any time, or is it at the discretion of the patent holder?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24224" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10700" RevisionGUID="da1a6830-81c1-4232-bbdb-cad285c23f6e" CreationDate="2014-12-01T02:59:25.717" UserId="11990" Text="How long would a software developer reasonably have to modify patent-infringing software once a claim is made?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24225" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10700" RevisionGUID="da1a6830-81c1-4232-bbdb-cad285c23f6e" CreationDate="2014-12-01T02:59:25.717" UserId="11990" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10701" RevisionGUID="70657e5f-edd1-4d3f-abf6-dc815fc7af45" CreationDate="2014-12-01T05:08:33.680" UserId="11719" Text="To obtain a patent, the invention should not be available in the public domain prior to filing a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the scenario is different in USA, in United states one can file for a patent within  1 year grace period after the invention has been disclosed in the public domain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, one can sell an app immediately once it is filed. Although there are various stages involved for granting a patent, but this stages do not restrict for commercial exploitation of the app. It shall be noted that a commercializing the app after filing will not act as a prior art to invalidate the patent application.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/which-stage-should-i-apply-patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10702" RevisionGUID="8e48dadb-d345-45ce-93bf-757f4b45d044" CreationDate="2014-12-01T05:56:34.053" UserId="11814" Text="The software development company may consider the following options in the same order mentioned below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Patent infringement analysis&#xD;&#xA; 2. Invalidation  &#xD;&#xA; 3. Product re-engineering&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent infringement analysis:&#xD;&#xA;In patent law, it is the &quot;claims&quot; that defines the metes and bounds of an invention. In other words, claims define the scope of patent right.Infringement analysis is performed to determine whether a product or a process infringes upon an existing patent claim.In infringement analysis, the scope of the claim should be determined and should be checked whether all elements of the claim are present in the product or process. &#xD;&#xA;Infringement analysis is started by reading the claims mainly concentrated on the independent claims, if you don't infringe the independent claims, you won't be infringing the dependent claims (which are narrower, by definition). If you are not infringing on the independent claims then you may argue during the litigation that your fantastic product is not infringing on the patent owned by the Evil corporation. In-case, you are infringing on the independent claim then you may consider the next step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next step is invalidating the patent owned by Evil corporation.**Invalidation** means proving that a patent was wrongly granted and having the same revoked. This approach can be used when there is a good probability of  invalidating the relevant patent(s). Invalidation, is an effective approach in some cases, it can be a time-consuming affair, as invalidation proceedings are generally carried out in courts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The final step that can be considered is product re-engineering. During this step a freedom to operate study may be advised. A **Freedom to operate** provides an analysis to minimize the risk of getting sued by others. Further, also dig out patents, which have &#xD;&#xA;expired (in most countries its 20 years). There may be many useful technologies which can be used from these expired patents. Finally,  you may find a list of patents that are relevant to your product/technology and helps you craft a strategy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details please check the link below&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/my-product-infringing-others-patents&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/why-freedom-operate-study-must-technology-companies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;Vinay&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10703" RevisionGUID="f4a10635-541e-427f-a20d-aac6b314feba" CreationDate="2014-12-01T06:14:00.547" UserId="11884" Text="If one would obtain a patent in the U.S, does it become international? No one else can use/build it without the inventor's permission? Globally In other words, **when an inventor obtains a patent in a country(for example the U.S) will it secure the invention globally for the inventors alone?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, will a patent exclude a government(international/local) form using/developing the inventor's patent without their permission? And will the legal system support the inventor due to their patent's support?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24231" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10703" RevisionGUID="f4a10635-541e-427f-a20d-aac6b314feba" CreationDate="2014-12-01T06:14:00.547" UserId="11884" Text="International Patent and it's legal power?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24232" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10703" RevisionGUID="f4a10635-541e-427f-a20d-aac6b314feba" CreationDate="2014-12-01T06:14:00.547" UserId="11884" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24234" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10693" RevisionGUID="8f0ad295-ffc4-4605-b9a4-0b319b66bca9" CreationDate="2014-12-01T17:35:49.527" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5059],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10704" RevisionGUID="a0e94b65-2f96-42fd-a4d4-83947eeefbc6" CreationDate="2014-12-01T18:15:10.497" UserId="3076" Text="No, a U.S. patent only applies to activities in the U.S. Each country has it own patent system, laws, and courts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24240" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10699" RevisionGUID="704cc657-d94e-43c7-aeba-55703287c363" CreationDate="2014-12-01T18:16:09.603" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;indigenous&gt;&lt;knowledge&gt;&lt;misuse&gt;&lt;of&gt;&lt;us20140134731&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10705" RevisionGUID="a7f37ff1-997c-4d2e-9c54-587f23931f1e" CreationDate="2014-12-01T18:52:22.780" UserId="11983" Text="Even for PCT process: The decision on whether or not to grant a patent on the invention remains in the hands of the national Offices before which the applicant has entered the national phase and a patent is finally granted if the application is patentable under the specific national law. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6451" RevisionGUID="5d364eed-b81e-4cd8-a536-959d261c5ef6" CreationDate="2014-12-01T20:22:02.973" UserId="11388" Comment="code -&gt; quote" Text="This looks like a patent on all native advertising systems. Has anyone seen any prior art to this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patent application title: PRESS RELEASE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Inventors:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Assignees:  NATIVO INC. IPC8 Class: USPC Class: 705 1445 Class name:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Publication date: 2013-09-19 Patent application number: 20130246165&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abstract: A press release distribution system provides press release&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and other news to forum sites as posts. The forum software that runs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at forum sites includes press release interface software or is adapted&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to receive press release interface plug-in modules for interfacing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with the press release distribution system. The press release&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interface software or plug-in module may also monitor and/or analyze&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user data of forum members and/or forum activities of the users. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; monitored user data and forum activities may be provided to the press&#xD;&#xA;&gt; release distribution system for analysis and generation of user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; profiles. Using the result of the analysis (e.g., user profiles), the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; press release distribution system can target particular users or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forums to direct the press releases, news, or advertisements for most&#xD;&#xA;&gt; effective advertising campaign.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claims:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A press release distribution system configured to deliver advertisements as sponsored news content to a plurality of web sites&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that each includes non-sponsored content, the press release&#xD;&#xA;&gt; distribution system comprising: a distributor module on a server&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computer, the distributor module being adapted to distribute the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sponsored news content to a related one or more of the web sites over&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a communications network; at least one input handler module on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; server computer, the at least one input handler module adapted to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receive the sponsored news content from one or more advertisers over&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the communications network, and to provide the sponsored news content&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the distributor module; and at least one poster module adapted to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; run at the related one or more of the web sites, wherein the at least&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one poster module is adapted to receive the sponsored news content&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from the server computer over the communications network, and to post&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the sponsored news content among the non-sponsored content at each of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the related one or more of the web sites, wherein the at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; poster module is further adapted to track one or more of impressions,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; clicks, click-through rate, or user actions with respect to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sponsored news content, and wherein the sponsored news content is not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a banner advertisement.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The press release distribution system of claim 1, wherein the sponsored news content comprises a press release, news, announcement,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; message, news feed, or non-&quot;press&quot; event.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The press release distribution system of claim 1, wherein the non-sponsored content comprises one or more of messages, postings,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; posts, or threads.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The press release distribution system of claim 1, wherein the communications network is the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. The press release distribution system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of web sites comprise forum sites, fan sites, popular sites,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; enthusiast sites, message forums, user forums, or popular forums.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. The press release distribution system of claim 1, wherein the at least one poster module comprises a corresponding at least one press&#xD;&#xA;&gt; release plug-in module.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. The press release distribution system of claim 1, wherein the at least one poster module is further adapted to monitor user data or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user activity at the related one or more of the web sites.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. The press release distribution system of claim 7, wherein the press release distribution system is further configured to generate user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; profiles from the monitored user data or user activity at the related&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one or more of the web sites.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9. The press release distribution system of claim 7, wherein the user activity at the related one or more of the web sites comprises one or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more of posts, reads of posts, or searches at the related one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the web sites.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10. The press release distribution system of claim 1, wherein the sponsored news content comprises one or more of text, video, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; images.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 11. A method of electronically delivering advertisements as sponsored news content to a plurality of web sites that each includes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non-sponsored content, the method comprising: electronically receiving&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the sponsored news content by a server computer from one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; advertisers over a communications network; electronically distributing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the sponsored news content by the server computer to a related one or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more of the web sites over the communications network; electronically&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving the sponsored news content by the one or more web sites from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the server computer over the communications network; electronically&#xD;&#xA;&gt; posting the sponsored news content among the non-sponsored content at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; each of the related one or more of the web sites; and electronically&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tracking one or more of impressions, clicks, click-through rate, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user actions with respect to the sponsored news content at the related&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one or more of the web sites, wherein the sponsored news content is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not a banner advertisement.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12. The method of claim 11, wherein the sponsored news content comprises a press release, news, announcement, message, news feed, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non-&quot;press&quot; event.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 13. The method of claim 11, wherein the non-sponsored content comprises one or more of messages, postings, posts, or threads.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 14. The method of claim 11, wherein the communications network is the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15. The method of claim 11, wherein the plurality of web sites comprise forum sites, fan sites, popular sites, enthusiast sites,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; message forums, user forums, or popular forums.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 16. The method of claim 11 further comprising electronically monitoring user data or user activity at the related one or more of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the web sites.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 17. The method of claim 16 further comprising electronically generating user profiles from the monitored user data or user activity&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at the related one or more of the web sites.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 18. The method of claim 16, wherein the user activity at the related one or more of the web sites comprises one or more of posts, reads of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; posts, or searches at the related one or more of the web sites.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 19. The method of claim 11, wherein the sponsored news content comprises one or more of text, video, or images. Description:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [0001] This application is a continuation of application Ser. No.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 11/772,014 filed Jun. 29, 2007, which claimed the benefit of U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Provisional Application No. 60/817,771 filed Jun. 29, 2006, the entire&#xD;&#xA;&gt; content of which is incorporated by reference herein.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; FIELD OF THE INVENTION&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [0002] The present invention relates to online brand marketing and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; monitoring.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Read more: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20130246165&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24243" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6451" RevisionGUID="5d364eed-b81e-4cd8-a536-959d261c5ef6" CreationDate="2014-12-01T20:22:02.973" Comment="Proposed by 11388 approved by 1 edit id of 1722" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24244" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10689" RevisionGUID="24ab786c-97fe-46a6-873f-cad4b7d5640f" CreationDate="2014-12-01T20:22:09.803" UserId="5381" Comment="Add tag with application number " Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;us20140349751&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24245" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10689" RevisionGUID="24ab786c-97fe-46a6-873f-cad4b7d5640f" CreationDate="2014-12-01T20:22:09.803" Comment="Proposed by 5381 approved by 3076, 1 edit id of 1721" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24246" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="10663" RevisionGUID="c9813a3c-7dc2-4db6-8442-fe83ed599bea" CreationDate="2014-12-01T20:23:17.160" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:9939,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;nicael&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10708" RevisionGUID="4899976b-4d8a-42bf-90da-652fe025e290" CreationDate="2014-12-02T06:12:06.337" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10709" RevisionGUID="8b7ae38d-5031-44b8-9d56-97cf086d3a07" CreationDate="2014-12-02T06:12:06.337" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10712" RevisionGUID="0c873e9b-b7ee-4c50-a466-a2b1e41335e9" CreationDate="2014-12-02T12:16:42.227" UserId="11996" Text="Should a software service or framework be patented or protected? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, at what point? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24263" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10712" RevisionGUID="0c873e9b-b7ee-4c50-a466-a2b1e41335e9" CreationDate="2014-12-02T12:16:42.227" UserId="11996" Text="When should a software service or framework be patented or protected?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24264" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10712" RevisionGUID="0c873e9b-b7ee-4c50-a466-a2b1e41335e9" CreationDate="2014-12-02T12:16:42.227" UserId="11996" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10713" RevisionGUID="022a4196-2ca7-4f14-80fe-6f58cf45911a" CreationDate="2014-12-02T12:27:10.713" UserId="11996" Text="What is the difference between something that is patented and protected? Are these basically interchangeable words? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24266" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10713" RevisionGUID="022a4196-2ca7-4f14-80fe-6f58cf45911a" CreationDate="2014-12-02T12:27:10.713" UserId="11996" Text="Difference between patented and protected" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24267" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10713" RevisionGUID="022a4196-2ca7-4f14-80fe-6f58cf45911a" CreationDate="2014-12-02T12:27:10.713" UserId="11996" Text="&lt;terminology&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10715" RevisionGUID="0d73b7f1-b696-4b90-8334-7bbb3236e3b0" CreationDate="2014-12-02T18:55:02.080" UserId="3076" Text="This is a publication of an *application* for a patent. It is not a granted patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10716" RevisionGUID="56d75105-ea73-4074-8660-5457317e2a7f" CreationDate="2014-12-02T20:22:46.173" UserId="11999" Text="This patent is an implementation of [RCF3835][1] that at first appears specific to Press Releases, but then in claim 2 is broadened to any content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 3 to 5 just describe a webpage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 6 is a description of a Data Provider in [RCF3835][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 7 to 10 is the application of analytics to &quot;Sponsored Content&quot; Which Google has been using in Adwords since 2002, and other companies have been using much longer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From claim 11 onward they are describing Google Adwords which first appeared in 2002&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3835 &quot;RFC3835&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24274" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10317" RevisionGUID="23097151-dab9-49ae-8603-5d1ee0e11f30" CreationDate="2014-12-03T00:56:54.760" UserId="3076" Comment="fixed typo in tag to patent" Text="&lt;patent-infringment&gt;&lt;de10353118&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10717" RevisionGUID="90452486-dd9f-4484-b630-1db48399d579" CreationDate="2014-12-03T01:06:14.887" UserId="3076" Text="There are no drawings &quot;missing&quot; from this patent document at google patents. Only in the case of U.S. patent documents are drawings and a PDF of the original document provided at all. They aren't missing, they just aren't directly shown at google patents for any non-U.S. patent document. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For non-U.S. documents google provides a link to a location that has the definitive information. In this case, both a link to the German patent office and to the European patent office are included at the bottom of the gray box on the upper right.  At Espacenet (database for the EPO) the drawings are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/rPPU6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10719" RevisionGUID="6f29d662-62e9-4482-9b9c-1827a4734f6b" CreationDate="2014-12-03T06:07:33.403" UserId="11814" Text="Software service provided by a computer program or a software can be protected by copyright law and patent law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under copyright law, software or the computer program is usually regarded as a &quot;literary work&quot;. The unique characteristic of computer programs that differentiate them from other literary works is their dynamic essence, which usually includes algorithms or mathematical formulae's or logical condition etc, which manipulate symbols producing certain virtual or physical effects,etc. Copyright law provides protection to the &#xD;&#xA;software or the computer program´s expression and not the functional aspects of the software. Hence, computer programs differ from other copyright-able subject matter, in the sense that the text is not the most important aspect; rather the importance lies in the functions established by the program code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent: Patent is becoming the method of protection for computer program's or software. The Patent Act offers patent protection to product or process (if they satisfy various requirements of patent-ability) as long as they do not fall under non-patent-able subject matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, software protected under the patents act should satisfy the patentability criteria.In order to meet patent-ability criteria, the software or the computer program executed on a computer processor must be novel or confers a new solution to a technical problem, and non- obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Regarding exclusion of patenting software**:The Patent office have been granting patents to computer implemented inventions or software related inventions based on the technical solution provided to the technical problem, generally known as the technical character. So one of the keys for successfully having a patent granted for software innovation lies in the ability to present the software innovation in such a way that the it includes technical character.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a computer program or software protected under copyright law protects an original work in the tangible fixed form in which it has been set down, whereas a computer program or software protected under the patent law protects the creation of inventive concepts as well as their practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second question :&#xD;&#xA;The patent office expects the patent to disclose information about the invention for which patent protection is sought, to an extent that a person with ordinary skill in the technology, to which the proposed invention relates, can use the provided information to make and use the proposed invention.So, one of the important questions that inventors should ask themselves is whether they have sufficient information about the invention to enable a person skilled in the technology to which the invention relates, to make and use the proposed invention. If sufficient information is available, then the time might be right to apply for a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details please check the link below&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/are-software-inventions-patentable-india&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/disclosure-requirements-for-software-patents&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/which-stage-should-i-apply-patent&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/territorial-jurisdiction-software-patents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards &#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;Vinay" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10720" RevisionGUID="0298a115-8042-4266-9d69-0cd86596db04" CreationDate="2014-12-03T07:09:38.257" UserId="11543" Text="Patents are jurisdiction specific. Hence any patent filed in the U.S will protect your invention only in the U.S. Different countries follow their respective law set forth to be taken into consideration for granting a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to seek patent protection for your invention in multiple countries then you can adopt the PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) route. The PCT enables you to seek patent protection for an invention in 148 countries (which are the PCT contracting nations) by filing an “international” patent application. However, the decision as to whether to grant a patent remains under the control of the national Patent Offices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/what-are-different-patent-filing-options&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10721" RevisionGUID="c3540b52-5e61-4dfb-ab07-2e3c07019c1f" CreationDate="2014-12-03T11:53:23.700" UserId="11542" Text="For 2d drawings- Draftsight. For 3d drawings- google sketchup. These two software are available for free to use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may refer to this link to understand the importance of patent drawings in a patent specification:http://www.invntree.com/blogs/patent-drawings-and-their-importance-in-a-patent-specification" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10722" RevisionGUID="a27c0155-701d-4931-89f6-6e21f8f444bd" CreationDate="2014-12-03T22:59:23.063" UserId="12006" Text="I'm currently developing a dating app. It has some features similar to Grindr/Tindr, but the overall idea is incredibly different. I found that Zoosk, Grindr, and JDate all have patents on certain gps/matching features, and I'm wondering how strict patent law is in this regards. There are HUNDREDS of apps, and THOUSANDS of websites utilizing features that would seemingly go against these broad patents, but not really any law suits that I've heard of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this because the apps/websites are just small fish at the moment?&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps they have licenses from those patent holders?&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps they changed the methodology of getting such matches, etc?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't understand how such simple ideas such as &quot;if A likes B, and B likes A, message and let them both know&quot; can be patented... But JDate does have such a patent and it's been active for 14 years now... Wouldn't EVERY single App like OKCupid, Tinder conflict?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grind has SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING LOCATION-BASED CASCADING DISPLAYS US 8,606,297 B1 (12/2013).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;JDATE has METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DETECTION OF RECIPROCAL INTERESTS OR FEELINGS AND SUBSEQUENT NOTIFICATION 5,950,200 (9/1999). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zoosk has SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING NEARBY’ COMPATIBLE USERS US2013/0145288A1 (6/2014)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24285" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10722" RevisionGUID="a27c0155-701d-4931-89f6-6e21f8f444bd" CreationDate="2014-12-03T22:59:23.063" UserId="12006" Text="Dating App Patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24286" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10722" RevisionGUID="a27c0155-701d-4931-89f6-6e21f8f444bd" CreationDate="2014-12-03T22:59:23.063" UserId="12006" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;online-dating&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10723" RevisionGUID="1c2ab086-15d7-4bb8-bc9e-c02fd7580429" CreationDate="2014-12-04T00:10:04.147" UserId="10011" Text="First and foremost, it's quite common for companies to cross-license patents. In that situation, for a totally hypothetical example, Grindr might approach Zoosk and say &quot;we have [this patent] that we think you'd be interested in, and you have [this patent] that we're interested in, how about we allow each other to use the other's at no cost?&quot; It's much more complicated than that, and generally there is a financial aspect (&quot;our patent brings $20 worth of value, but yours is only $10. Pay us $10 in addition to rights to use your patent&quot;), but that's the gist. So it's quite possible that that's gone on here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the smaller dating apps, it's possible that they're either doing things subtly differently, or else yes, they likely have licensing deals. Obviously there's no necessity for a patent holder to enforce it, so it's possible that these big players don't consider them lawsuit-worthy, but in most cases there would be licensing going on of some sort. So to answer your series of questions, yes, it's probably one of those three. Unfortunately I don't know details about *which* it might be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, admittedly, in a majority of cases, I look at questions like this and find that the patents are actually quite specific, but you've got me with these ones. They are pretty broad. Not unreasonably so--I don't know off-hand of any prior art for them--but broad all the same. So yeah, I'd hazard a guess that they probably have licensing set up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10724" RevisionGUID="e5649d28-bbaf-4cb9-bf9d-69ccf8c84d83" CreationDate="2014-12-04T07:19:26.677" UserId="12009" Text="Right, not a scam. But the award given may be unfair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The award given is based on the &quot;area,&quot; where the patent in the study being searched or its relevant litigation is mainly involved. I am also a researcher on AOP. This is what I've observed so far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check the winner page to know this. Over 90% of the cases meet this situation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10724" RevisionGUID="a32895ff-adff-42c3-8f39-4cf48ee794a4" CreationDate="2014-12-04T07:31:25.167" UserId="12009" Comment="added 234 characters in body" Text="Right, not a scam. But the award given may be unfair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The award given is based on the &quot;area,&quot; where the patent in the study being searched or its relevant litigation is mainly involved. I am also a researcher on AOP. This is what I've observed so far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check the winner page to know this. Over 90% of the cases meet this situation. Basically, in most studies AOP has assumed and decided the winner will be from the US or non-US region in advance although they, of course, never admit it. But I can always predict that a winner of a study will be from the US or not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10724" RevisionGUID="988acd8c-d8ea-4e39-b768-e396f5ac95cf" CreationDate="2014-12-04T07:37:37.007" UserId="12009" Comment="added 234 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe, not a scam. But the award given may be unfair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10725" RevisionGUID="77eb833b-5b1a-4c77-8650-ca27d1efa35d" CreationDate="2014-12-04T12:55:43.790" UserId="12011" Text="I have two questions regarding the functioning of the patent application examination process. Hopefully someone can shed some light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1)If a patent application has been filed but not yet published, does it show up in the database used by the examiner for his/her search for prior art? In other words, can a filed but not yet published patent application be included as a reference?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2)Is it possible that a citation is made to a patent whose priority date is subsequent to the priority date of the patent under examination? I thought that the priority date is used as a time threshold to look for prior art. Yet, I found examples that contradict this statement. For instance, patent US8056267, whose priority date is 21 November 2006 cites patent US7838425 whose priority date is 16 June 2008. How can an invention not-yet-made be defined as prior art? Even allowing for a one-year grace period between actual invention and filing of the application, the two dates in this example are time-incoherent. Am I getting the priority story completely wrong?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks a lot to anyone who might help! By the way, you have a great service here!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24294" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10725" RevisionGUID="77eb833b-5b1a-4c77-8650-ca27d1efa35d" CreationDate="2014-12-04T12:55:43.790" UserId="12011" Text="Examiner's search for prior art. Does it include non-published applications and patents younger than the priority date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24295" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10725" RevisionGUID="77eb833b-5b1a-4c77-8650-ca27d1efa35d" CreationDate="2014-12-04T12:55:43.790" UserId="12011" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;examiner&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10725" RevisionGUID="cbd7d1db-2244-47be-a12a-8c9836984365" CreationDate="2014-12-04T13:46:45.387" UserId="12011" Comment="edited body" Text="I have two questions regarding the functioning of the patent application examination process. Hopefully someone can shed some light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1)If a patent application has been filed but not yet published, does it show up in the database used by the examiner for his/her search for prior art? In other words, can a filed but not yet published patent application be included as a reference?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2)Is it possible that a citation is made to a patent whose priority date is subsequent to the priority date of the patent under examination? I thought that the priority date is used as a time threshold to look for prior art. Yet, I found examples that contradict this statement. For instance, patent US8056257, whose priority date is 21 November 2006 cites patent US7838425 whose priority date is 16 June 2008. How can an invention not-yet-made be defined as prior art? Even allowing for a one-year grace period between actual invention and filing of the application, the two dates in this example are time-incoherent. Am I getting the priority story completely wrong?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks a lot to anyone who might help! By the way, you have a great service here!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10727" RevisionGUID="29633169-99b7-4b1e-abd7-9990a14ee373" CreationDate="2014-12-04T16:58:40.190" UserId="12014" Text="Is there any worth to original patent sketches?   It is the same as show on your sight.&#xD;&#xA;Design/Inventor by JB Gruelle , Doll, Application filled May 28 1915/ Patented Sept. 7, 1915 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24301" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10727" RevisionGUID="29633169-99b7-4b1e-abd7-9990a14ee373" CreationDate="2014-12-04T16:58:40.190" UserId="12014" Text="I think I have original sketch of patent 47789 - Rag doll" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24302" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10727" RevisionGUID="29633169-99b7-4b1e-abd7-9990a14ee373" CreationDate="2014-12-04T16:58:40.190" UserId="12014" Text="&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10728" RevisionGUID="5ad79ef0-08f5-4e87-ac61-5d786fb65bb0" CreationDate="2014-12-05T02:45:35.070" UserId="3076" Text="Before publication, the examiner can't cite it. After it publishes, it can be used as prior art, back dated with the *date of the filing or priority date*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To contrast a patent with other publications: There is a delay between when a a paper is submitted to a journal and when it publishes. Its date for counting as prior art is the day the first copy of the journal reaches a subscriber. Not so for patent applications. At first it is not available for the world to see, but when it becomes visible, it is not the date of visibility that is used, but the date of filing. In Europe they only use the filing date to show something wasn't novel when filed, but they use the publication date when considering obviousness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list of cited references are not necessarily proper prior art, maybe they came up in a search the examiner did without correct time frame criteria and he just copied and pasted the list from the search into the &quot;cited by examiner&quot; form. But this is ridiculous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way something with too late a date could become actual prior art is by admission of the inventor. It is called &quot;admitted prior art&quot;. If you say it is, then fine with them, it is. This is one of many reasons I try to not have inventors I'm representing talk to the examiner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10732" RevisionGUID="79ca6ebd-e39d-4df8-8a9a-0dfd17040e34" CreationDate="2014-12-05T09:21:14.637" UserId="10011" Text="I don't think I've ever heard &quot;protected&quot; as a legal term, at least in this context. Parents are a *form* of protection, but I definitely wouldn't call them synonymous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would help to see an example where &quot;protected&quot; is used in lieu of &quot;patented,&quot; but pending that, I'm inclined to say that this is a marketing ploy to make it sound like the invention is patented, when in reality it is not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10733" RevisionGUID="5c6ebbea-6da5-4317-aee1-cc6af6b9538c" CreationDate="2014-12-05T09:47:32.513" UserId="11542" Text="A patent search is most often the first step in achieving different objectives, some of which are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Determining the probability of having a patent granted to a proposed invention&#xD;&#xA;    Determining if you have the freedom to operate&#xD;&#xA;    Determining if a granted patent can be invalidated&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the objective, the search strategy can vary to some extent. Also, in addition to conducting a search in patent databases, a search can be conducted to identify relevant non-patent literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of free online patent databases I suggest are:&#xD;&#xA;    Espacenet: Good data coverage&#xD;&#xA;    Freepatentsonline: Good search interface. Patent data coverage is not as good as Espacenet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using any of the above mentioned search databases, you can use various search strategies to identify relevant patent publications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Top 5 patent search strategies:&#xD;&#xA;    Key string search&#xD;&#xA;    Patent classification search&#xD;&#xA;    Citation based search&#xD;&#xA;    Assignee based search&#xD;&#xA;    Inventor based search&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may refer to the below link to understand more about the top 5 patent search strategies:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/how-conduct-patent-search" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24311" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10733" RevisionGUID="108270aa-4fad-48b7-a1eb-78bba00ffeea" CreationDate="2014-12-05T10:11:52.870" UserId="11542" Comment="Improved formatting" Text="A patent search is most often the first step in achieving different objectives, some of which are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Determining the probability of having a patent granted to a proposed invention&#xD;&#xA;    Determining if you have the freedom to operate&#xD;&#xA;    Determining if a granted patent can be invalidated&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the objective, the search strategy can vary to some extent. Also, in addition to conducting a search in patent databases, a search can be conducted to identify relevant non-patent literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of free online patent databases I suggest are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Espacenet: Good data coverage&#xD;&#xA;    Freepatentsonline: Good search interface. Patent data coverage is not as good as Espacenet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using any of the above mentioned search databases, you can use various search strategies to identify relevant patent publications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Top 5 patent search strategies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Key string search&#xD;&#xA;    Patent classification search&#xD;&#xA;    Citation based search&#xD;&#xA;    Assignee based search&#xD;&#xA;    Inventor based search&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may refer to the below link to understand more about the top 5 patent search strategies:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/how-conduct-patent-search" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10734" RevisionGUID="6419136c-eddd-496f-9dd2-fdf829b78632" CreationDate="2014-12-05T10:15:11.597" UserId="11814" Text="The patent system is essentially designed to encourage advancement in science and technology. The patent office expects the applicant of a patent to disclose information about the invention for which patent protection is sought, to an extent that a person with ordinary skill in the technology, to which the proposed invention relates, can use the provided information to make and use the proposed invention. This disclosure of information to the public would ideally enable others to explore improvements over existing technology, and thereby lead to advancement in science and technology. &#xD;&#xA;One of the requirements of a patent to be granted is 'sufficiency of disclosure' or 'enablement'. &#xD;&#xA;One of the important questions that inventors should ask themselves is whether they have sufficient information about the invention to enable a person skilled in the technology to which the invention relates, to make and use the proposed invention. If sufficient information is available, then the time might be right to apply for a patent. One the other hand, if sufficient information is not available, then the inventor should ideally work towards gathering/generating such information, so that the same can be provided in the patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details please check the link below&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/which-stage-should-i-apply-patent&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/disclosure-requirements-for-software-patents&#xD;&#xA;Regards,&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;Vinay" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24317" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10727" RevisionGUID="a5c85b1f-03d6-4e5a-af78-a030b444e9fe" CreationDate="2014-12-05T17:39:48.257" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[10679],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9939,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;nicael&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3076,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George White&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10725" RevisionGUID="d6913e64-0c53-459f-9f89-8781b79dec81" CreationDate="2014-12-05T18:56:12.543" UserId="9939" Comment="deleted 72 characters in body" Text="I have two questions regarding the functioning of the patent application examination process. Hopefully someone can shed some light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If a patent application has been filed but not yet published, does it show up in the database used by the examiner for his/her search for prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In other words, can a filed but not yet published patent application be included as a reference?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Is it possible that a citation is made to a patent whose priority date is subsequent to the priority date of the patent under examination?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  I thought that the priority date is used as a time threshold to look for prior art. Yet, I found examples that contradict this statement. For instance, patent US8056257, whose priority date is 21 November 2006 cites patent US7838425 whose priority date is 16 June 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; How can an invention not-yet-made be defined as prior art? Even allowing for a one-year grace period between actual invention and filing of the application, the two dates in this example are time-incoherent. Am I getting the priority story completely wrong?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10732" RevisionGUID="d572eebb-bf2b-456c-a82c-00773f51e3f0" CreationDate="2014-12-05T18:57:44.950" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="I don't think I've ever heard &quot;protected&quot; as a legal term, at least in this context. Patents are a *form* of protection, but I definitely wouldn't call them synonymous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would help to see an example where &quot;protected&quot; is used in lieu of &quot;patented&quot;, but pending that, I'm inclined to say that this is a marketing ploy to make it sound like the invention is patented, when in reality it is not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10736" RevisionGUID="8994aa32-e19c-4827-92e8-df07ddd6b299" CreationDate="2014-12-05T21:35:51.310" UserId="12019" Text="Can a patent for the media used to grow a specific bacteria be as broad as this?  This patent claims all animal free media is covered by this patent, how can that be?  Is the claim here that no one can use soy in a media to grow C. tetani without a patent infringement (unless they add in at least 10% animal product) despite different media components and proportions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24324" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10736" RevisionGUID="8994aa32-e19c-4827-92e8-df07ddd6b299" CreationDate="2014-12-05T21:35:51.310" UserId="12019" Text="Is this a legit claim for a patent for a media to grow bacteria?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24325" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10736" RevisionGUID="8994aa32-e19c-4827-92e8-df07ddd6b299" CreationDate="2014-12-05T21:35:51.310" UserId="12019" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;soy&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10737" RevisionGUID="3b61a292-92e6-48f9-b129-c130db546e8b" CreationDate="2014-12-06T05:01:14.793" UserId="12022" Text="A patent application that has been submitted but not published will not be publicly available through the USPTO website, Google Patent Search, or anywhere else. It is possible that his application has been submitted and is pending examination, but has not yet been published. If true, this brings good and bad news:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bad news is that you have no way to access his patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The good news is that it's possible to submit a protest against this pending patent application, as described in [MPEP 1901](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1901.html). Note that protests may only be submitted prior to the patent application being published, which might leave you wondering, &quot;How am I supposed to know that a bogus patent application exists if it hasn't been published yet?&quot; Good question! If you see a logical inconsistency here, then you probably understand the rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the chapter linked above, it is stated:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If the protestor is unable to specifically identify the application to which the protest is directed, but, nevertheless, believes such an application to be pending, the protest should be directed to the attention of the Office of Petitions (using Mail Stop Petition), along with as much identifying data for the application as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you wish, you may submit a protest to the USPTO and include a description of the supposed patent application, the inventor's name, and relevant evidence of prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All this being said, William Steele in his post was clear about only intending to use his patent to restrict commercial use of his invention, and still wishes to make the design available to the DIY/hobbyist community." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10738" RevisionGUID="f1997892-b8c6-400f-a73a-afa78b67ac9a" CreationDate="2014-12-06T05:16:52.093" UserId="9848" Text="Assuming you're talking about the US, patents are essentially unrelated to products. A patent might cover one product or a hundred, and a product may reflect one patent or a hundred -- and, in fact, a patent might not cover any product at all, and a product may not reflect any patent at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10739" RevisionGUID="546156cb-31db-41f5-a957-21d04f17cfa3" CreationDate="2014-12-06T05:22:42.420" UserId="9848" Text="Protection is not a formal statutory category, or anything. Well, it's not a category at all, nor a formal concept at all. People refer to &quot;patent protection&quot; as the general sense of protection provided by a patent -- that you get to keep your idea as your own, in some ways, and not have others take it from you, is in some ways a type of security. People talk about &quot;copyright protection&quot; in a similar way. But there is no separate class of intellectual property called &quot;protected stuff,&quot; nor any right known as &quot;protection.&quot; If somebody tells you their code is &quot;protected,&quot; that person might not even mean that there is intellectual property involved -- he might just be saying that he slapped some DRM onto it and you're a big meanie if you try to break it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10740" RevisionGUID="6a0ac0c1-13e2-4496-979b-713df65f489b" CreationDate="2014-12-06T05:27:46.307" UserId="9848" Text="Building on what George said -- there will be some argument about this, and it is a good question. But generally, the PHOSITA will be somewhat specific to the field. There have been cases where the PHOSITA was described narrowly enough that only a few people on the planet fit the definition -- you just have to argue that it's a highly specialized field, and that that is the appropriate light in which to view the situation. Often times you will see that PHOSITA will be expected to have a Ph.D., but sometimes not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So... really, the best answer to your question is that there is no general answer. It's a good question. Argue it case-by-case. You won't win every time -- examiners have experience and precedent to work with -- but you can certainly try. Good luck." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10741" RevisionGUID="dbaf3665-df4a-4200-88f4-bf2d294277a0" CreationDate="2014-12-06T05:33:49.470" UserId="9848" Text="&gt; As we all know, there are many patents in the areas of voice&#xD;&#xA;&gt; recognition, optical character recognition, face recognition, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the areas. Those patents tend to be very complex, and refer to very specific things within those field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of those services you linked to might be infringing, but voice recognition in general is not patented, nor is optical character recognition or face recognition. In some of those cases, somebody somewhere might have a patent that might cover some obscure portion of what some of those programs do, and patent holders often have people scouring the internet looking for such instances of infringement. Sometimes they find people, send cease and desist letters, and work out a license. Sometimes they don't work out a license, and they sue. Sometimes, they never find those people. And often times, they don't bother, because finding somebody and deciding, earnestly, that that person might be infringing your patent is not the easiest thing to do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10372" RevisionGUID="6cd8ad1d-711c-4e7f-9aeb-30fdbae249a3" CreationDate="2014-12-06T13:19:58.143" UserId="9939" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="Can you re-file a patent for an idea that has a status of &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you do this even if you didn't originally file the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10633" RevisionGUID="ca6de323-515f-454e-aa58-8dfb39a8f197" CreationDate="2014-12-06T15:03:47.033" UserId="9939" Comment="deleted 31 characters in body" Text="I am about launching a mobile application soonest (in 5 days time) but I am really scared about others using the idea behind the whole system because the few people I have spoken to about investing in it always say they want to buy the whole system out-rightly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I built the whole app myself to avoid ideas leakage and it has taken months to complete. I am starting the whole thing small and later, new features will be added. I don't want somebody to rush in and build a more powerful app on my ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a social app that is built in a way to generate income. I want to protect the idea generally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Can I apply for a patent to protect the idea?&#xD;&#xA;2. or what can I do to avoid other people using the idea to build a similar app?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7765" RevisionGUID="b86779c6-bb65-49b9-ab99-8798ab0139c0" CreationDate="2014-12-06T15:05:12.473" UserId="9939" Comment="deleted 170 characters in body" Text="I have a friend who has as idea for a product based on technology he invented. The problem is that we have seen another company that basically does the same thing, although it works differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is: Can my friend legally sell his product and get a patent, or does the fact that someone else owns a patent for a product that does the same thing stop him from doing so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I searched and see patents for similar ideas, but none of them seem to be in the market. I see they received patents, but further searches do not show me that the products are actually being sold anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The product I am talking about is owned and patented by a major US company. They install this is all their new products. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is hard for me to be more specific without betraying my friend and his idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, there are many cell phones out there. Did one company ever have the patent for cell phones? Or could someone make a new cell phone that works a little differently?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This product is a product for retrieving stolen property. As I mentioned, it is already offered by a very large US company. My friend has the same idea, meaning to retrieve the stolen property by making the product useless. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example. I have a computer (just an example). Someone steals my computer. A company out there already has a patented product that will locate the computer, and render it useless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot imagine that the idea itself would get a patent. Everyone would like to have such a product. SO is the IDEA patented in general, or is the specific way it works patented?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the company that now owns a patent and sells a similar product stop my friend from doing the same thing but in a different way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6165" RevisionGUID="c29b4462-5ae9-447b-8af5-8553a449672e" CreationDate="2014-12-06T15:05:49.600" UserId="9939" Comment="deleted 31 characters in body" Text="OUR APP: A US patent application, whose provisional date is Apr. 8, 2004. Assigned to Motorola. Has 5 inventors, A - E. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I received a 103 rejection citing PA1 and PA2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PA1: A document published in Canada, not a patent. Looks like a publication resulting from a conference. Appears to be published on March 8, 2004 (one month before OUR APP). The &quot;Source&quot; shown on the doc say Motorola, and then gives 2 motorola email addresses, showing names like john.doe@motorola.com. One name is clearly the same as inventor A. The other looks like a different inventor, say inventor F.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is PA1 prior art to OUR APP?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Can inventorship be considered the same if you have one common inventor? so then 102B grace period would apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Is there a way to use 103c?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10743" RevisionGUID="93fe9a5c-5ee5-45da-ac9b-9e3341b83e7c" CreationDate="2014-12-06T22:46:38.387" UserId="12022" Text="The following Apple patent application is published and pending examination:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title: Reversible usb connector with compliant member to spread stress and increase contact normal force**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication number:**	[US20140235095 A1](https://www.google.com/patents/US20140235095)&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication type:**		Application&#xD;&#xA;- **Application number:**	US 14/183,254&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication date:**	Aug 21, 2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Filing date:**		Feb 18, 2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Priority date:**	Feb 15, 2013&#xD;&#xA;- **First named Applicant:**	Apple Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note, the nearly identical patents [US20140206209 A1](https://www.google.com/patents/US20140206209) and [WO2014116694 A2](https://www.google.com/patents/US20140206209), **Reversible usb connector**. For the remainder of this document, only the first-listed patent application will be referenced, but the information provided is similarly applicable to these additional patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Prior Art#&#xD;&#xA;The following is **evidence of prior art** which should render this patent application invalid:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;##Item 1:##&#xD;&#xA;**Patent [US7094086](https://www.google.com/patents/US7094086)**, &quot;Reversible universal serial bus (USB) device and connector&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication date:**	Aug 22, 2006&#xD;&#xA;- **Priority date:**	Aug 2, 2004&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Images and descriptions are nearly identical between this patent and the patent application in concern. Even if the claims are not identical, they are so close in both description and in variety of embodiments that this patent, recognized as prior art, is only trivially different from the ideas expressed in Apple's application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not only is Apple's patent application nearly identical, it is in many ways of inferior quality. In many cases, the 2006 patent has significantly more implementation detail, while Apple's application leaves out key information that is necessary to create a functional device. Example: Apple's Fig 11A, 11B, 15A, 15B and associated text describes a &quot;crossover contact frame&quot; design that would inevitably cause a short-circuit between all four pins via the receptacle's metal shell (this is bad). In comparison, patent US7094086 demonstrates a nearly identical embodiment in Fig. 3a-f and associated text, while providing one particular solution to the short-circuit problem.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;##Item 2:##&#xD;&#xA;**Patent [US7717717](https://www.google.com/patents/US7717717)**, &quot;User-friendly USB connector&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication date:**	May 18, 2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Priority date:**	Jun 26, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent describes a specific implementation which is described in both the first patent (Fig. 4a-g in patent US7094086) and Apple's patent application (Fig. 14a-b). This patent was quite probably granted in error, as it clearly infringes on the patent in Item 1, but this does not excuse the Apple patent application from infringing on both of them.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;##Item 3:##&#xD;&#xA;[Flipper USB](http://www.flipperusb.com/), a product line of reversible USB thumb drives, Type A adapters, and male connector parts, covered by patent US7717717 (Item 2). This product has been in public view since 2010, as evidenced by the news articles linked on the Flipper USB website. To be clear, Flipper USB is a commercial product that implements the embodiments described in Fig. 4a-g of patent US7094086 (Item 1) and Fig. 14a-b of US20140235095 (Apple's patent application).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Any tips, suggestions, or additional information would be greatly appreciated!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24345" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10743" RevisionGUID="93fe9a5c-5ee5-45da-ac9b-9e3341b83e7c" CreationDate="2014-12-06T22:46:38.387" UserId="12022" Text="US20140235095 - Apple Inc - Reversible usb connector with compliant member to spread stress and increase contact normal force" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24346" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10743" RevisionGUID="93fe9a5c-5ee5-45da-ac9b-9e3341b83e7c" CreationDate="2014-12-06T22:46:38.387" UserId="12022" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;apple&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10744" RevisionGUID="976356e4-ab81-4133-bec9-32b386156295" CreationDate="2014-12-07T04:30:19.193" UserId="12028" Text="If a US patent is published prior to 2001 do I use Kind Code &quot;A&quot; or &quot;B1/B2&quot; on my patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24348" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10744" RevisionGUID="976356e4-ab81-4133-bec9-32b386156295" CreationDate="2014-12-07T04:30:19.193" UserId="12028" Text="If a US patent is published prior to 2001 do I use Kind Code &quot;A&quot; or &quot;B1/B2&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24349" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10744" RevisionGUID="976356e4-ab81-4133-bec9-32b386156295" CreationDate="2014-12-07T04:30:19.193" UserId="12028" Text="&lt;kindcode&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10745" RevisionGUID="ef96a5c6-383e-4d5b-aea1-7ffb6c62c61a" CreationDate="2014-12-07T04:45:49.553" UserId="12028" Text="Do I have to reference a patent application in my patent if the patent has already been granted? For example, if a patent application &quot;Kind Code A1&quot; is published in 2010 and the patent is granted in 2011. Do I have to reference both the application number and the patent number?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24351" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10745" RevisionGUID="ef96a5c6-383e-4d5b-aea1-7ffb6c62c61a" CreationDate="2014-12-07T04:45:49.553" UserId="12028" Text="Do I have to reference a patent application if the patent is already granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24352" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10745" RevisionGUID="ef96a5c6-383e-4d5b-aea1-7ffb6c62c61a" CreationDate="2014-12-07T04:45:49.553" UserId="12028" Text="&lt;patentapplicationnumber&gt;&lt;patentnumber&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10747" RevisionGUID="6f69695d-6745-4126-bdd8-497fafb7b687" CreationDate="2014-12-07T05:00:19.730" UserId="12028" Text="When I write my own patent, I have to reference someone. Do I use the inventor or the assignee when referencing patents? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24355" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10747" RevisionGUID="6f69695d-6745-4126-bdd8-497fafb7b687" CreationDate="2014-12-07T05:00:19.730" UserId="12028" Text="When I reference a patent, do I use the Asignee or Inventor if they are not the same" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24356" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10747" RevisionGUID="6f69695d-6745-4126-bdd8-497fafb7b687" CreationDate="2014-12-07T05:00:19.730" UserId="12028" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;referencingpatent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10748" RevisionGUID="25b334b9-0b79-42c0-9311-e73abf0a6dc6" CreationDate="2014-12-07T05:19:12.210" UserId="3076" Text="Mentioning a patent or publication number in the body of your application is fulfilling you duty of disclosure, but it does not automatically get the examiner to look at and check off that they looked at it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reference should be put on an IDS form. It is set up to have patent number, inventors name and date of publication. Use the first inventor's name, not the initial assignee. Either listing the publication or the patent is sufficient unless you have the very odd situation that the issued patent is missing relevant content that is present in the publication." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10749" RevisionGUID="85fbdc0d-915d-4122-9b99-42ac0954e98c" CreationDate="2014-12-07T05:26:39.167" UserId="3076" Text="No reason to even include the document type. If you do, use the designation that appears on the face of the document you are looking at." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10750" RevisionGUID="cd55c741-2833-4e76-a1be-008301a8ee4c" CreationDate="2014-12-07T10:34:19.490" UserId="12029" Text="There are Soviet Union patent documents prior to 1989. Their numbering starts with SU, i.e. a typical application number has the form SU-12345. You should be able to find them at the EPO database. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10752" RevisionGUID="bd116e27-bd7a-4ad6-bfea-adbf7a5978e5" CreationDate="2014-12-08T04:08:56.883" UserId="11814" Text="Consider an example, a patented software invention in the United States covering a “improving the financial transaction” method and system. A competitor enables users in the United States to download an application onto a mobile device. The user accesses the application to browse through products. The activity of the user is sent to a server located in India. The server processes the information in India and provides product recommendations. The product recommendations would then be available to the user on his device in the United States.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An owner of such a software patent can enforce the patent rights against the alleged infringer in the United states, even though the competitors argument is that part of their systems was outside the jurisdiction of the patents. The patent rights may be enforced even though one of the elements in the claimed system or method is located outside the territory of the patent, provided that the beneficial use of the system occurs within the territory of the patent granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details please check the link below&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/territorial-jurisdiction-software-patents&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/disclosure-requirements-for-software-patents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards &#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;Vinay" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10753" RevisionGUID="25ff2a25-90f5-464d-a3f3-14f601289d6c" CreationDate="2014-12-08T05:56:05.263" UserId="11542" Text="I assume that you are referring to prior art references which you are planning to include in the patent application of yours. &#xD;&#xA;You may cite the patent publication number or the patent application number of the prior art reference. This will be of convenience to the examiner or anyone who reads your patent application to understand the prior art references you are referring to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quite often patent applicants are hesitant in revealing in their patent application, prior art references that may have an adverse impact on the patentability of their patent application. Further, some of the applicants may reveal such references while filing an application, however, they may ignore informing the patent office any additional relevant references that they may come to know of after filing the patent application but before the patent is issued. Failure to reveal relevant prior art references that the applicant is aware of to the patent office can have an adverse impact on the validity of a patent that was obtained by concealing such information.       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To understand the importance of disclosing prior art references in the patent application, you may refer to this link:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/duty-of-disclosure-in-a-patent-application " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10754" RevisionGUID="e0513b99-22de-4eac-9446-c3005c9c72ad" CreationDate="2014-12-08T08:35:51.447" UserId="12036" Text="US patent 5938197 shows that it is expired due to non-payment (according to the search here: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent has several children/continuations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the fact that the parent has expired due to non-payment automatically mean that the children have expired as well?  They do not all show expired when I search for them, but I am not sure to what extent a continuation is connected to it's parent patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24368" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10754" RevisionGUID="e0513b99-22de-4eac-9446-c3005c9c72ad" CreationDate="2014-12-08T08:35:51.447" UserId="12036" Text="Parent patent expired due to non-payment - are issued continuations still valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24369" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10754" RevisionGUID="e0513b99-22de-4eac-9446-c3005c9c72ad" CreationDate="2014-12-08T08:35:51.447" UserId="12036" Text="&lt;continuation&gt;&lt;expired-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24370" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10754" RevisionGUID="81fb6118-274e-45f5-8a65-43f217882653" CreationDate="2014-12-08T09:22:48.650" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;continuation&gt;&lt;expired-patent&gt;&lt;us5938197&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10755" RevisionGUID="141731fb-7e0d-4d00-8fde-52ec3f87b19c" CreationDate="2014-12-08T09:30:42.310" UserId="11543" Text="You may cite in your patent application any prior art reference as a duty of disclosure to the PTO. If the reference you are citing is a granted patent, you may state, in your patent application, the name of the inventor(s), patent number, and issue date or you may also state the patent application publication number, and publication date.&#xD;&#xA;The reference can be made in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS). &#xD;&#xA;To know more about an IDS and the duty of disclosure, you may refer to: http://www.invntree.com/blogs/duty-of-disclosure-in-a-patent-application&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10757" RevisionGUID="4e2003d5-023c-4d70-acc4-ffc1490239be" CreationDate="2014-12-08T12:07:38.460" UserId="11895" Text="In India Patent Act (YES); Indian patent system allows a person to file application in prescribed FORM and controller (generally a examiner) grants after evaluation of merits." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10758" RevisionGUID="0daa40a4-c504-481f-a5fc-ff748774b1e3" CreationDate="2014-12-08T14:47:18.830" UserId="12037" Text="Has patent EP2298800A1 been approved and if so, what is the expiry date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24377" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10758" RevisionGUID="0daa40a4-c504-481f-a5fc-ff748774b1e3" CreationDate="2014-12-08T14:47:18.830" UserId="12037" Text="Approval and expiry date" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24378" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10758" RevisionGUID="0daa40a4-c504-481f-a5fc-ff748774b1e3" CreationDate="2014-12-08T14:47:18.830" UserId="12037" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;patent-pending&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10758" RevisionGUID="8ea6de13-37cf-452c-bb45-2f3a726d2d24" CreationDate="2014-12-08T17:08:09.233" UserId="9939" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body" Text="Has patent EP2298800A1 been approved and if so, what is the expiry date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24386" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10758" RevisionGUID="20f591e1-a761-4233-95b4-843220aaedc6" CreationDate="2014-12-09T00:55:30.020" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;patent-pending&gt;&lt;ep2298800a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10761" RevisionGUID="9fe3eae3-1eac-43b0-b777-0b86550947ea" CreationDate="2014-12-09T03:05:12.830" UserId="12041" Text="Patent 5714045 has been assigned to the FDOT and they use this product in every pier repair in their territory. It feel like a circular formula when programming in excel.... I &quot;invent&quot; it and patent it and then I specify it for use in my infrastructure??? Puzzled" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24388" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10761" RevisionGUID="9fe3eae3-1eac-43b0-b777-0b86550947ea" CreationDate="2014-12-09T03:05:12.830" UserId="12041" Text="Isn't this conflict of interest?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24389" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10761" RevisionGUID="9fe3eae3-1eac-43b0-b777-0b86550947ea" CreationDate="2014-12-09T03:05:12.830" UserId="12041" Text="&lt;validity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10762" RevisionGUID="60373bdc-adce-4ed0-9b4b-7a1a847c0ae4" CreationDate="2014-12-09T04:19:46.660" UserId="12042" Text="this is my art(decorative wine bottle covers)that I sell on etsy. I recently had someone ask to collaborate with them by selling them partially made wine bottle covers that they could finish with their own beads and sell on their site. That made me worry that anyone could just copy my idea and just start making their own? Should I patent? Can I patent? I started by patent-search-googling decorative wine bottle skirts and found this patent...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help. I feel like these are my special idea, and I hate to think someone could also make them and sell them in the same marketplace.![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/bOJ5R.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24391" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10762" RevisionGUID="60373bdc-adce-4ed0-9b4b-7a1a847c0ae4" CreationDate="2014-12-09T04:19:46.660" UserId="12042" Text="Is my item to similar to US 20070068895 A1 for me to get a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24392" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10762" RevisionGUID="60373bdc-adce-4ed0-9b4b-7a1a847c0ae4" CreationDate="2014-12-09T04:19:46.660" UserId="12042" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10763" RevisionGUID="ed37455d-1412-4b86-b0b6-bbb3e704dcaa" CreationDate="2014-12-09T04:34:41.807" UserId="11814" Text="Mobile application or software or the computer program can be protected by copyright law and patent law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under copyright law, software or the computer program is usually regarded as a &quot;literary work&quot;. The unique characteristic of computer programs that differentiate them from other literary works is their dynamic essence, which usually includes algorithms or mathematical formulae's or logical condition etc, which manipulate symbols producing certain virtual or physical effects,etc. Copyright law provides protection to the software or the computer program´s expression and not the functional aspects of the software. Hence, computer programs differ from other copyright-able subject matter, in the sense that the text is not the most important aspect; rather the importance lies in the functions established by the program code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent: Patent is becoming the method of protection for computer program's, software or mobile application. A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, which comprises a product or process. The invention must be novel or confers a new solution to a technical problem. Further, the Invention is a solution to a technical problem in the field of technology. An invention may relate to a product or a process. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent office have been granting patents to computer implemented inventions or software related inventions based on the technical solution provided to the technical problem, known as the technical character. So one of the keys for successfully having a patent granted for software innovation lies in the ability to present the software innovation in such a way that it includes technical character.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, software protected under the patents act should satisfy the patentability criteria.In order to meet patent-ability criteria, the software or the computer program executed on a computer processor must be novel or confers a new solution to a technical problem, and non- obvious to one of &quot;ordinary skill&quot; in the field of invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more important point that needs to be noted is 'enablement'. The patent office expects the patent to disclose information about the invention for which patent protection is sought, to an extent that a person with ordinary skill in the technology, to which the proposed invention relates, can use the provided information to make and use the proposed invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a computer program or software protected under copyright law protects an original work in the tangible fixed form in which it has been set down, whereas a computer program or software protected under the patent law protects the creation of inventive concepts as well as their practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details please check the link below&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/are-software-inventions-patentable-india&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/disclosure-requirements-for-software-patents&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/software-innovations-patent-or-copyright-what-should-you-file&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards &#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;Vinay" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10764" RevisionGUID="64a8ac72-5c9f-476e-937b-c665b762830f" CreationDate="2014-12-09T06:15:57.783" UserId="11814" Text="First i want to answer your question related to publishing as a technical paper before applying for a patent.&#xD;&#xA;In USPTO, prior art exception are made by the US Patent Law under the AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) for novelty AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). These exceptions limit the use of an inventor's own work as prior art, when the inventor's own work has been publicly disclosed by the inventor, a joint inventor, or another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor not more than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) provides that a disclosure which would otherwise qualify as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is not prior art if the disclosure was made:&#xD;&#xA; **(1) One year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; and (2) by the inventor or a joint inventor, or by another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding others trying to make use of your paper, it is not possible, since the technical paper that has been published will be conbsidered has an prior art by the patent examiner during the examination process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details please check the link below&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2153.html&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/can-publicly-disclosed-inventions-be-patented-in-india&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards &#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;Vinay" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10766" RevisionGUID="14644311-38bd-40f5-860e-da6291ead466" CreationDate="2014-12-09T08:22:22.443" UserId="11895" Text="No patent is under examination" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10767" RevisionGUID="a8023e29-59d1-4beb-b5d2-fff16d85ffe2" CreationDate="2014-12-09T10:16:21.220" UserId="10011" Text="The line between design patents and copyrights can be a little difficult to grasp sometimes, but the difference ultimately comes down to whether the design has a function.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A classic example of a copyright might be a photograph. The only function of a photograph is looking nice. On the other hand, a good example of a design patent might be the grill of a car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without knowing more about the actual function of what you're selling, and given that, I'm tempted to say that it's more of a copyright candidate. That's out of the scope of this site, but I'll be brief. Copyrights are immediately granted upon creation of the work, so you already have one! There are some significant advantages to registering your copyright early, but you can do that at any time. If you haven't already copyrighted your best-selling work, I would suggest it. It's something like $35, so it's probably worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that said, that will only protect you in the case of this very implementation. I could slightly alter the design of your product and avoid infringing on your copyright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure there will be a way to protect this specific product in a broader way, unfortunately. I'm disregarding the bar of public disclosure, which I imagine would be a hindrance anyway (if you publicly disclosed your product over a year ago, it's no longer patentable), but in order to get true protection in most cases, you'd want a full-on utility patent. As the name suggests, however, utility patents need to have some utility. Again, from my limited understanding of your product, I'm not sure your product would meet that requirement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking more particularly of the application (and that's an important note: this is an application, not a patent), I'd be a little surprised to see it go through. If nothing else, I'd be quite surprised to learn that there wasn't significant prior art that would make it &quot;obvious&quot; (quotes because it's a buzz-word with patents) to anyone in the field. It's also not a particularly well-worded patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it did go through, you'd have to look at whether you were infringing, regardless of the patentability of your own implementation. Now, finally, I'm getting a bit to the title of your question, and their similarities. I imagine you're far more familiar with your own designs than I am, but the key is to read the claims. They're the important part of any patent application. The first claim to the one you're referencing reads as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An accessory for covering an object, said accessory comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a plurality of strands having a neck region and a skirt region, wherein said plurality of strands in said neck region are connected together so as to form an opening through which an object may be inserted, and wherein said plurality of strands in said skirt region are configured to hang loosely from said neck region and to cover said object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the image you've uploaded and that claim, I'm inclined to say that you wouldn't be infringing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've said a lot, some of it may be immediately relevant to you and some might not be, but I hope you can piece together something from all this information that will help you find the appropriate course of action. From what little I've seen, I would suggest a copyright." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10768" RevisionGUID="492cc8c4-e4a2-4b1e-950f-8f7e64549edc" CreationDate="2014-12-09T10:25:13.920" UserId="10011" Text="I have to admit, I'm extremely unclear on what you're asking here. But there are certainly no issues with someone using a patent that they are granted. In fact, in a majority of cases that's really the purpose of patents. Not all, mind you, but that's what I'd probably describe as the &quot;purest use&quot; of the patent system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did a quick (admittedly, very quick) search online to find the circumstances you're describing, and couldn't find anything. Perhaps it would help if you explained a bit more of what's going on and which part is confusing you, I could help get you a better answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24401" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10761" RevisionGUID="108d1553-648b-4e8f-9f1d-33ec8a531c3e" CreationDate="2014-12-09T10:25:36.817" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;validity&gt;&lt;us5714045&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10769" RevisionGUID="12d9d056-9b93-463d-8794-afcdd43a991b" CreationDate="2014-12-09T15:24:56.583" UserId="12045" Text="I know about a product that holds this patent, but I also know that there's some prior art that seem to go against it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.vintagedrum.com/museum/images/duw000s.jpg&#xD;&#xA;http://www.vintagedrum.com/museum/museum_snares03.htm&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ctpropercussion.com/image/data/DSC01323.JPG&#xD;&#xA;https://www.ctpropercussion.com/index.php?route=product/category&amp;path=17_22&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This kind of reinforced hoop is already seen in products from 1910, that had a regular distribution and are even in a museum, and still sold now as vintage products.&#xD;&#xA;In these old model a metal guard was placed over the wooden hoop of the drum to protect it, basically with one of the designs used to define this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you give an opinion about it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24405" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10769" RevisionGUID="12d9d056-9b93-463d-8794-afcdd43a991b" CreationDate="2014-12-09T15:24:56.583" UserId="12045" Text="I this prior product similar to Patent us7462770" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24406" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10769" RevisionGUID="12d9d056-9b93-463d-8794-afcdd43a991b" CreationDate="2014-12-09T15:24:56.583" UserId="12045" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24407" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10769" RevisionGUID="190d853f-9dd6-41b2-ba78-955e7a925b63" CreationDate="2014-12-09T16:03:58.583" UserId="12045" Comment="Title change, patent reference added" Text="Is this prior product similar to Patent us7462770?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24408" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10769" RevisionGUID="190d853f-9dd6-41b2-ba78-955e7a925b63" CreationDate="2014-12-09T16:03:58.583" UserId="12045" Comment="Title change, patent reference added" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us7462770&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10769" RevisionGUID="190d853f-9dd6-41b2-ba78-955e7a925b63" CreationDate="2014-12-09T16:03:58.583" UserId="12045" Comment="Title change, patent reference added" Text="I know about a product that holds this patent, but I also know that there's some prior art that seem to go against it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.vintagedrum.com/museum/images/duw000s.jpg&#xD;&#xA;http://www.vintagedrum.com/museum/museum_snares03.htm&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ctpropercussion.com/image/data/DSC01323.JPG&#xD;&#xA;https://www.ctpropercussion.com/index.php?route=product/category&amp;path=17_22&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This kind of reinforced hoop is already seen in products from 1910, that had a regular distribution and are even in a museum, and still sold now as vintage products.&#xD;&#xA;In these old model a metal guard was placed over the wooden hoop of the drum to protect it, basically with one of the designs used to define this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you give an opinion about it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent I'm referring to:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US7462770" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10754" RevisionGUID="946d3cb5-6be2-48cb-8e5b-31877a5c5fdf" CreationDate="2014-12-09T19:57:01.980" UserId="12036" Comment="added further info/examples of my confusion" Text="US patent 5938197 shows that it is expired due to non-payment (according to the search here: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent has several children/continuations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the fact that the parent has expired due to non-payment automatically mean that the children have expired as well?  They do not all show expired when I search for them, but I am not sure to what extent a continuation is connected to it's parent patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example of what is causing my confusion, here is a continuation which says it is still a patented case (rather than saying expired due to non-payment): 6,123,332 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is a continuation of THAT patent which is expired due to non-payment:  	6,318,720 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So 6,318,720 (expired) is a continuation of 6,123,332 (not expired??), which is a continuation of 5938197 (expired).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example: d455462 does not say it is expired.  It is a division of D436635 which does not say it is expired and is a continuation of 5,938,197 which is the original one mentioned expired due to non-payment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10770" RevisionGUID="55823fdc-5fa2-4648-8d60-8052449bcec8" CreationDate="2014-12-10T03:40:52.500" UserId="11814" Text="A patent specification is a techno-legal document based on which patent rights are decided. The patent document includes several section, which includes, title, abstract,specification, drawings and always one or more claims. Claims are the ones that defines the metes and bounds of an invention. In other words, claims define the scope of patent right. Claims are drafted such that it defines the boundaries of the invention with a purpose of providing clear notice of the claimed invention. Basically claims provide notice to the public, usually a business entity seeking to avoid a patent of what patent covers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are basically two types of options available for filing a patent application, a provisional application and a complete application. A provisional application is also a techno-legal document filed in the patent office. The provisional application establishes an early filing date, but does not mature into an issued patent unless the applicant files a regular non-provisional patent application within one year.The provisional application includes a specification, i.e. a description, and drawing(s) of an invention  but does not require formal patent claims.&#xD;&#xA;The main difference between a provisional and a complete patent application is, a complete application(non-provisional patent application) will have a “claim” section, whereas the claim section will be absent in a provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details please check the link below&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/what-are-different-patent-filing-options&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/why-should-patent-specifications-be-drafted-by-patent-professionals&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/disclosure-requirements-for-software-patents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards &#xD;&#xA;-- &#xD;&#xA;Vinay" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10770" RevisionGUID="a1cdb70e-b13b-4bf6-bc53-4e4d334709f0" CreationDate="2014-12-10T04:07:25.677" UserId="11542" Comment="Improved the answer by specifying the importance of explaining an algorithm of software patents in understandable forms." Text="A patent specification is a techno-legal document based on which patent rights are decided. The patent document includes several section, which includes, title, abstract,specification, drawings and always one or more claims. Claims are the ones that defines the metes and bounds of an invention. In other words, claims define the scope of patent right. Claims are drafted such that it defines the boundaries of the invention with a purpose of providing clear notice of the claimed invention. Basically claims provide notice to the public, usually a business entity seeking to avoid a patent of what patent covers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are basically two types of options available for filing a patent application, a provisional application and a complete application. A provisional application is also a techno-legal document filed in the patent office. The provisional application establishes an early filing date, but does not mature into an issued patent unless the applicant files a regular non-provisional patent application within one year.The provisional application includes a specification, i.e. a description, and drawing(s) of an invention  but does not require formal patent claims.&#xD;&#xA;The main difference between a provisional and a complete patent application is, a complete application(non-provisional patent application) will have a “claim” section, whereas the claim section will be absent in a provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a computer related invention, the patent application may disclose a computer processor or hardware that may be sufficient for enabling a general computing function. However, mentioning a computer processor or hardware may not be sufficient for enabling a structure for performing a specific function, since novelty in computer related inventions most often resides in the software or the computer program that is being executed on the computer processor or the hardware, not the hardware itself. Generally, in inventions related to technologies, such as mechanical engineering, the corresponding structure for functional claim is easily identifiable. However, when it comes to identifying the “corresponding structure” for a computer related invention (ex: means for selecting a data file), an “algorithm” is the one which carries out the claimed function, and is usually regarded as the corresponding structure for a computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The algorithm need not necessarily be in the form of source code; the algorithm may be expressed in any understandable terms, such as mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if an encoder is claimed using functional language, disclosure of a computer processor or hardware may not be sufficient for enabling a structure for performing the claimed encoding function. The specification must describe in detail, may be by using a flow chart, the method of carrying out the function recited in the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details please check the link below&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/what-are-different-patent-filing-options&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/why-should-patent-specifications-be-drafted-by-patent-professionals&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/disclosure-requirements-for-software-patents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards &#xD;&#xA;-- &#xD;&#xA;Vinay" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10771" RevisionGUID="ce3051d6-0d16-4fdd-a09a-05b7b7512357" CreationDate="2014-12-10T07:12:18.277" UserId="11895" Text="Ok first thing First all patents except US6,123,332 have expired for non-payment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to dig more for your next question about parent expiry affecting child expiry with respect to maintenance fee. though i doubt that happens&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NOW to main question in US patents wherein Parent child relation exist generally a terminal disclaimer is seen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If parent patent expires due to non-payment of fee then child patent continues to term as defined in terminal disclaimer. Ref below case of more details:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. Orchid Chems. &amp; Pharms. Ltd. (D-NJ 2011) http://www.paulhastings.com/assets/pdfs/Roche_v_Orchid.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10772" RevisionGUID="60ab0d93-7674-4db8-971b-c60022ec8169" CreationDate="2014-12-10T09:18:15.397" UserId="12053" Text="I am interested to use this product and manufacture it in South Africa. I wont be obtaining full rights of the patent, just distributing rights. How does one come about doing something like that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24417" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10772" RevisionGUID="60ab0d93-7674-4db8-971b-c60022ec8169" CreationDate="2014-12-10T09:18:15.397" UserId="12053" Text="South African Distributing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24418" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10772" RevisionGUID="60ab0d93-7674-4db8-971b-c60022ec8169" CreationDate="2014-12-10T09:18:15.397" UserId="12053" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10774" RevisionGUID="90542483-c482-4960-8e74-f671d7b0e56d" CreationDate="2014-12-10T16:21:46.980" UserId="12057" Text="Given the following patent application from Stripe: [http://www.google.com/patents/US20130117185][1],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it seems to me that a similar method (client-side credit card tokenization) is already adapted and implemented by many payment providers (braintree, cardvault, vantageB2B, payleap, ...), unless I missed some subletities of the aforementionned patent which would allow to distinguish Stripe from the compeition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone help to clarify which part of the Stripe patent application is really unique compared to what competition does?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130117185" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24421" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10774" RevisionGUID="90542483-c482-4960-8e74-f671d7b0e56d" CreationDate="2014-12-10T16:21:46.980" UserId="12057" Text="Stripe patent and competition" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24422" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10774" RevisionGUID="90542483-c482-4960-8e74-f671d7b0e56d" CreationDate="2014-12-10T16:21:46.980" UserId="12057" Text="&lt;patent-pending&gt;&lt;us20130117185&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3940" RevisionGUID="1c93e192-399a-4a27-9e56-66ca9a79b33a" CreationDate="2014-12-10T21:06:59.640" UserId="267" Comment="US middle-endian date style is always horribly confusing, the more so when it's applied to an Irish subject." Text="*RTÉ To Everywhere* was a project started in 1994 to distribute news broadcasts from Ireland to ex-pats around the world. Two broadcasts a day were made available via ftp, initially in *.au format, with a week's worth available at any given time. There were mirror sites in the UK, Sweden, the US and Australia. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further information at http://chien-noir.com/rte.html. Looks like the Sunsite UNC mirror is still up: a snapshot of 29th November 1995: ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/languages/gaelic/Rte/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10776" RevisionGUID="3b2ffcd2-91e2-4c05-806b-b5be15e9730b" CreationDate="2014-12-11T03:57:11.610" UserId="12062" Text="The design and accompanying illustration appear very similar to, and derivative of the seat frame used on the Bell UH-1H(and previous models) helicopter developed in the 1960s. While there is an obvious difference in application (helicopter vs. recumbent bicycle) the basic design of the frame, plus the use of tensioned nylon mesh suggests the bicycle seat was adapted from the helicopter seat.&#xD;&#xA;Please see the attached photos:![UH-1 seat frame][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/nMD0K.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24432" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10776" RevisionGUID="3b2ffcd2-91e2-4c05-806b-b5be15e9730b" CreationDate="2014-12-11T03:57:11.610" UserId="12062" Text="How does this design differ materially from an existing mesh covered seat frame?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24433" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10776" RevisionGUID="3b2ffcd2-91e2-4c05-806b-b5be15e9730b" CreationDate="2014-12-11T03:57:11.610" UserId="12062" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10774" RevisionGUID="4257c260-d1e8-49f2-87d5-5577846fda27" CreationDate="2014-12-11T04:48:59.413" UserId="267" Comment="Clarified title. Improved grammar in question body." Text="[Patent application US20130117185 from Stripe](http://www.google.com/patents/US20130117185) is for a “Method for conducting a transaction between a merchant site and a customer’s electronic device without exposing payment information to a server-side application of the merchant site”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that a similar method (client-side credit card tokenization) is already adopted and implemented by many payment providers (Braintree, CardVault, VantageB2B, PayLeap, and many others), unless I missed some subtleties of the aforementioned patent which would allow distinguishing Stripe from the competition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone help to clarify which part of the Stripe patent application is really unique compared to what the competition does?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24435" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10774" RevisionGUID="4257c260-d1e8-49f2-87d5-5577846fda27" CreationDate="2014-12-11T04:48:59.413" UserId="267" Comment="Clarified title. Improved grammar in question body." Text="How does Stripe's patent application differ from its competition?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24436" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10774" RevisionGUID="4257c260-d1e8-49f2-87d5-5577846fda27" CreationDate="2014-12-11T04:48:59.413" Comment="Proposed by 267 approved by 10011, 11543 edit id of 1727" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="858" RevisionGUID="d61c09e1-6a0b-4892-872d-f903020b8e4a" CreationDate="2014-12-11T09:35:05.853" UserId="267" Comment="Tidied grammar. Inlined link text." Text="The answer can be derived from [the register of European patents](https://register.epo.org/espacenet/regviewer). It tells you that examination was requested in March, and that in May the applicant filed amended claims (and thus the application is still pending). Further, if you click on the 'all documents' tab in the left upper corner of the page, you will be directed to the file itself where you can view or download al documents from the file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is impossible to tell how long it will take before a decision is issued. First of all, how soon the Examiner will take up the file and issue the first Office Action will depend on their workload; and then how long it will take before the application is accepted or refused will depend on the nature of the claims and the objections against those claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25435" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="858" RevisionGUID="d61c09e1-6a0b-4892-872d-f903020b8e4a" CreationDate="2014-12-11T09:35:05.853" Comment="Proposed by 267 approved by 10011, 9939 edit id of 1726" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10777" RevisionGUID="5989c2f0-dc82-4126-a3c9-129d4c872d53" CreationDate="2014-12-11T12:15:05.040" UserId="11719" Text="To obtain a patent for an invention, it should pass through various toll gates  such as a)Novelty  b)Obviousness  c)Enablement  d)subject matter  and e)Industrial application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to overcome the novelty criteria, the invention should be new.It should not be available in the public domain prior to filing for a patent.Such law relating to novelty is enforced in India and Europe.The patent law in India and Europe states that an invention should be anticipated by a prior art prior to its filing in any form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Few exceptions are provided in the Indian Patent Act under which the patent application ( in case of complete specification) can be filed despite public disclosure, and such public disclosure will not be considered to have been anticipated.However, the patent application should be filed within twelve months from such disclosure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.      Anticipation by previous publication (Sec. 29)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.      Anticipation by previous communication to the government (Sec. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.      Anticipation by public display (Sec. 31)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.      Anticipation by public working (Sec. 32)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.      Anticipation by use and publication after provisional specification (Sec. 33)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The law is different in USPTO,there is a grace period of 1 year within which one can file a patent application(provisional or non provisional) even after the invention is made available in the public domain.Americans Inventors act (AIA) 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) provides that a disclosure which would otherwise qualify as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is not prior art if the disclosure was made: (1) One year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; and (2) by the inventor or a joint inventor, or by another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2153.html http://www.invntree.com/blogs/can-publicly-disclosed-inventions-be-patented-in-india&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10777" RevisionGUID="83b8c923-e389-42cf-b5f4-abb5bc8d6b96" CreationDate="2014-12-12T03:45:59.450" UserId="11719" Comment="deleted 36 characters in body" Text="To obtain a patent for an invention, it should pass through various toll gates  such as a)Novelty  b)Obviousness  c)Enablement  d)subject matter  and e)Industrial application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to overcome the novelty criteria, the invention should be new.It should not be available in the public domain prior to filing for a patent.Such law relating to novelty is enforced in India and Europe.The patent law in India and Europe states that an invention should be anticipated by a prior art prior to its filing in any form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Few exceptions are provided in the Indian Patent Act under which the patent application  can be filed despite public disclosure, and such public disclosure will not be considered to have been anticipated.However, the patent application should be filed within twelve months from such disclosure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.      Anticipation by previous publication (Sec. 29)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.      Anticipation by previous communication to the government (Sec. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.      Anticipation by public display (Sec. 31)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.      Anticipation by public working (Sec. 32)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.      Anticipation by use and publication after provisional specification (Sec. 33)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The law is different in USPTO,there is a grace period of 1 year within which one can file a patent application(provisional or non provisional) even after the invention is made available in the public domain.Americans Inventors act (AIA) 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) provides that a disclosure which would otherwise qualify as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is not prior art if the disclosure was made: (1) One year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; and (2) by the inventor or a joint inventor, or by another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2153.html http://www.invntree.com/blogs/can-publicly-disclosed-inventions-be-patented-in-india&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25439" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="856" RevisionGUID="3e61915f-c1e2-4258-965a-7de664eb3c2e" CreationDate="2014-12-12T04:07:44.460" UserId="11791" Comment="made it clear in title that this question applies to a specific patent" Text="Is patent EP2382885 awarded or pending?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25440" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="856" RevisionGUID="3e61915f-c1e2-4258-965a-7de664eb3c2e" CreationDate="2014-12-12T04:07:44.460" Comment="Proposed by 11791 approved by 10011, 11814 edit id of 1728" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10778" RevisionGUID="6d738d68-7cd1-47be-b1c0-9389f0699e78" CreationDate="2014-12-12T06:23:23.020" UserId="11719" Text="I suppose you mean that you have filed a patent application in UK (not granted yet) and want to seek protection in US as well. If such is the scenario, the reply is yes, there is a way out for a UK patent application to be recognized in US. In order, to have a patent in US for the same invention (that was filed in UK) one has to file a patent application in US. If you wish to protect your invention in different countries, then you will have to submit a patent application in each of those countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two different filing options-&#xD;&#xA; a) Conventional filing route or filing in a foreign country.&#xD;&#xA; b) Filing a PCT application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a)  **Conventional filing route or filing in a foreign country:**&#xD;&#xA;In conventional filing there are two ways of filing a patent application-&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, filing a provisional application in any convention country i.e UK  and file a complete application in  each of the foreign countries one needs to seek protection( suppose US) within 12 months from the provisional being filed. Please note that the provisional application filed will help in securing a priority date.&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, filing a complete application in any of the convention country (to secure priority date) and further filing a complete application in each of the foreign countries in which you wish to protect your invention within 12 months from the priority date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) **PCT route**&#xD;&#xA;Filing a PCT application is a good strategy if you wish to protect your invention in more number of countries. By filing a PCT application, you get 30 months duration (sometimes even 31 months depending on the country) from the priority date to file patent applications in each country in which you wish to protect your invention. Suppose you have filed a patent application in UK on 12/12/14, then you have to file a PCT application within the twelve months from 12/12/14. It shall be note that a PCT application is always a complete application.&#xD;&#xA;The advantage of filing PCT application is that you will have 30 months duration (sometimes even 31 months depending on the country) from the priority date to file patent applications in each country in, which you wish to protect your invention (in your case say its US).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please read the link provided for detail understanding of the aforementioned filing options&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/what-are-different-patent-filing-options&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10778" RevisionGUID="7c05f428-14ea-41e8-9b23-ac1f2c3e6e4a" CreationDate="2014-12-12T06:35:39.847" UserId="11719" Comment="added 162 characters in body" Text="I suppose you mean that you have filed a patent application in UK (not granted yet) and want to seek protection in US as well. If such is the scenario, the reply is yes, there is a way out for a UK patent application to be recognized in US. In order, to have a patent in US for the same invention (that was filed in UK) one has to file a patent application in US. If you wish to protect your invention in different countries, then you will have to submit a patent application in each of those countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two different filing options-&#xD;&#xA; a) Conventional filing route or filing in a foreign country.&#xD;&#xA; b) Filing a PCT application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a)  **Conventional filing route or filing in a foreign country:**&#xD;&#xA;In conventional filing there are two ways of filing a patent application-&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, filing a provisional application in any convention country i.e UK  and file a complete application in  each of the foreign countries one needs to seek protection( suppose US) within 12 months from the provisional being filed. Please note that the provisional application filed will help in securing a priority date.&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, filing a complete application in any of the convention country (to secure priority date) and further filing a complete application in each of the foreign countries in which you wish to protect your invention within 12 months from the priority date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) **PCT route**&#xD;&#xA;Filing a PCT application is a good strategy if you wish to protect your invention in more number of countries. By filing a PCT application, you get 30 months duration (sometimes even 31 months depending on the country) from the priority date to file patent applications in each country in which you wish to protect your invention. Suppose you have filed a patent application in UK on 12/12/14, then you have to file a PCT application within the twelve months from 12/12/14. It shall be note that a PCT application is always a complete application.&#xD;&#xA;The advantage of filing PCT application is that you will have 30 months duration (sometimes even 31 months depending on the country) from the priority date to file patent applications in each country in, which you wish to protect your invention (in your case say its US).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please read the link provided for detail understanding of the aforementioned filing options&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/what-are-different-patent-filing-options&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reply to the second question, there is no agreements between countries. The aforementioned route has to be followed to seek protection in different countries.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10779" RevisionGUID="5d49c911-5ba1-4514-9b2d-843b6861f355" CreationDate="2014-12-12T11:35:36.770" UserId="12066" Text="I build a connected wiki and mind map application ([www.vis-a-wiki.org][1]). In the process of releasing it I learned about software patents and that I might get in trouble there (though I don't know of any concrete patent I may infringe).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be possible to release it as a private person for free and closed source but for private use only without risking to get into troubles?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vis-a-wiki.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25445" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10779" RevisionGUID="5d49c911-5ba1-4514-9b2d-843b6861f355" CreationDate="2014-12-12T11:35:36.770" UserId="12066" Text="Release software for private use only" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25446" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10779" RevisionGUID="5d49c911-5ba1-4514-9b2d-843b6861f355" CreationDate="2014-12-12T11:35:36.770" UserId="12066" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;private-use&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10780" RevisionGUID="3afa5227-4aae-440a-a953-7842863d5514" CreationDate="2014-12-12T12:07:52.990" UserId="10011" Text="Knowingly infringing a patent can lead to treble damages, so if you're worried enough to post here, I would personally advise adjusting your methods to get out of the risk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean, sure, if you're using it just personally, &quot;nobody's gonna find out,&quot; but it's still a legal risk that I strongly suspect isn't worth taking. Someone will inevitably find out, and it doesn't matter whether you're doing it for profit or not--you'll still be liable either way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25448" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10776" RevisionGUID="50db1414-a58e-4fc5-8ac1-eac0eaab04e3" CreationDate="2014-12-12T13:50:48.607" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:9939,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;nicael&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="25450" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10772" RevisionGUID="ac8a26a2-2840-449a-b809-e9f91884ba24" CreationDate="2014-12-12T13:52:07.117" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5059],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="25454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10781" RevisionGUID="30512b68-bb83-43e7-abad-05e5a4c99943" CreationDate="2014-12-12T17:03:23.180" UserId="4545" Text="As an update, you may want to consider the decisions in the following three recent (late 2014) court cases on the eligibility of &quot;software&quot; patents: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. [Alice v. CLS Bank (Supreme Court)][1]&#xD;&#xA; 2. [DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com (Federal Circuit)][2]&#xD;&#xA; 3. [Ultramercial v. Hulu (Federal Circuit)][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There isn't a simple meaningful answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/13-1505.Opinion.12-3-2014.1.PDF&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1544.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10782" RevisionGUID="91e0bcd1-a3ef-4bd7-83a3-ef32d6bf6e15" CreationDate="2014-12-12T21:51:58.353" UserId="12068" Text="My colleagues in China and I (in a US University) has filed provisional application (both names are in the applcation) to the US Patent Office. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: Can my colleauges in China file the a patent application using the exact contents and claims as we filed in US to Chinese Patent office?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stanley60Wang" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25456" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10782" RevisionGUID="91e0bcd1-a3ef-4bd7-83a3-ef32d6bf6e15" CreationDate="2014-12-12T21:51:58.353" UserId="12068" Text="Can a same provisional application be filed in two different countries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25457" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10782" RevisionGUID="91e0bcd1-a3ef-4bd7-83a3-ef32d6bf6e15" CreationDate="2014-12-12T21:51:58.353" UserId="12068" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10787" RevisionGUID="7df157d9-503a-48c6-8582-33caf77a59bc" CreationDate="2014-12-14T12:09:07.903" UserId="12074" Text="We will file the application in US through the PCT.&#xD;&#xA;We prepare the documents&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;/Specification(in English)&#xD;&#xA;/Claims&#xD;&#xA;/Abstract&#xD;&#xA;/Drawings&#xD;&#xA;/ApplicationDataSheet&#xD;&#xA;/PrimaryAmendment&#xD;&#xA;/IDS&#xD;&#xA;/pto-1390&#xD;&#xA;/sb0020glbl&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Do we have any documents required for the other through the EFS-Web ? &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;We must submit the PCT in foreign country?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25475" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10787" RevisionGUID="7df157d9-503a-48c6-8582-33caf77a59bc" CreationDate="2014-12-14T12:09:07.903" UserId="12074" Text="the application in US through the PCT" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25476" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10787" RevisionGUID="7df157d9-503a-48c6-8582-33caf77a59bc" CreationDate="2014-12-14T12:09:07.903" UserId="12074" Text="&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10788" RevisionGUID="31e37a6d-9ca2-44b0-b1f7-b739dc1f669b" CreationDate="2014-12-15T06:51:28.920" UserId="11543" Text="It is a good practice to include multiple independent claims of varying type (system, method, means etc) in a patent application. One should not restrict the invention by claiming it in only one form. It is advisable to claim an invention in multiple forms in order to ensure the broadest possible protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To determine infringement of a patent by a product/process, one has to go through the claims. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The claims have to be analyzed in detail to find out if a product/process infringes upon the rights of a patentee. Depending on the nature of the claim, the claim may include a number of elements or process steps. Thereafter, your product/process has to be compared with the elements/process steps of the claim. The above comparison helps you determine whether the claimed elements/steps exist in your product/process.&#xD;&#xA;A claim is said to be infringed if all the elements of the claim exists in your product. Similarly, a claim that includes process steps is said to be infringed, if all the process steps are present in the process that you intend to follow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details you may visit the links provided below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/my-product-infringing-others-patents&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/why-should-patent-specifications-be-drafted-by-patent-professionals&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10789" RevisionGUID="81a475aa-d27b-4927-bb34-c1ca46094f7e" CreationDate="2014-12-15T07:37:24.210" UserId="11543" Text="A provisional application is filed to secure an early priority date for your invention. Once you have filed a provisional application you may go ahead and file a complete application within 12 months of filing the provisional application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that a provisional cannot claim priority from another provisional and for priority the earliest filing date (if it is your provisional filing date) will be considered hence it is of no use to file more than one provisional for the same invention.  Of course it would make sense to file another provisional provided the content of the later application differs from the previous one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that you have already filed a provisional application in the US, you may go ahead with the PCT route or Paris Convention route to claim protection for your invention in multiple countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that the PCT application has to be a complete application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To know more about PCT and Paris convention filing option, please visit the link http://www.invntree.com/blogs/what-are-different-patent-filing-options" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10790" RevisionGUID="26e938cd-6843-4ab2-b0c9-2a052a7fd397" CreationDate="2014-12-15T08:37:11.807" UserId="11814" Text="Software can be protected by copyright law and patent law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under copyright law, software or the computer program is usually regarded as a &quot;literary work&quot;. The unique characteristic of computer programs that differentiate them from other literary works is their dynamic essence, which usually includes algorithms or mathematical formulae's or logical condition etc, which manipulate symbols producing certain virtual or physical effects,etc. Copyright law provides protection to the software or the computer program´s expression and not the functional aspects of the software. Hence, computer programs differ from other copyright-able subject matter, in the sense that the text is not the most important aspect; rather the importance lies in the functions established by the program code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent: Patent is becoming the method of protection for computer program's, software or E-commerce website. The Patent Act offers patent protection to product or process (if they satisfy various requirements of patentability) as long as they do not fall under non-patentable subject matter. Any method/process relating to non-technological field shall not be considered patentable. Further, software protected under the patents act should satisfy the patentability criteria.In order to meet patent-ability criteria, the software or the computer program executed on a computer processor must be novel or confers a new solution to a technical problem, and non- obvious to one of &quot;ordinary skill&quot; in the field of invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding exclusion of patenting softwares:The Patent office have been granting patents to computer implemented inventions or software related inventions based on the technical solution provided to the technical problem, generally known as the technical character. So one of the keys for successfully having a patent granted for software innovation lies in the ability to present the software innovation in such a way that the it includes technical character.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a computer program or software protected under copyright law protects an original work in the tangible fixed form in which it has been set down, whereas a computer program or software protected under the patent law protects the creation of inventive concepts as well as their practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details please check the link below&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/are-software-inventions-patentable-india&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/disclosure-requirements-for-software-patents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;Vinay&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10791" RevisionGUID="c7ea3e64-65a4-4f15-8627-bba3bf622e56" CreationDate="2014-12-15T10:17:45.173" UserId="11543" Text="There are three forms of continuing applications- Divisional, Continuation and Continuation-In-Part (CIP). It is important for a patentee to understand the difference between the three.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A divisional application is often filed as a result of a restriction requirement made by the examiner. The divisional application must claim the benefit of the prior nonprovisional application.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Continuation applications involve filing a patent application before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on his or her earlier nonprovisional application, based on an earlier filed patent application wherein there is no new disclosure, but which may contain new or additional set of claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;continuation-in-part&quot; application (&quot;CIP&quot; or &quot;CIP application&quot;) is one in which the applicant adds subject matter not disclosed in the parent, but repeats substantial portion of the parent's specification. A CIP is also filed  before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on his or her earlier nonprovisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all the three forms of continuing applications as understood from their brief descriptions, the claims or at least some of the claims may remain same as that of the parent (prior non provisional) application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A divisional can be filed after a rejection requirement is issued by an Examiner, a continuation and a CIP however should be filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on his or her earlier nonprovisional application. Hence a a continuation and a CIP cannot be filed after termination of proceedings (allowance of claims) or issue of patent for the parent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details on CIP applications you may visit the link, http://www.invntree.com/blogs/patent-protection-for-improvements-made-over-your-previously-filed-patent-application&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10792" RevisionGUID="b00f8856-f50a-46de-86bd-dab20307762d" CreationDate="2014-12-15T11:24:00.693" UserId="11719" Text="Note that a continuation application has to be filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on his or her earlier non provisional application, based on an earlier filed patent application, wherein there is no new disclosure. However, a additional set of features can be claimed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a divisional application is filed on a scenario, if a patent application lacks unity of invention.Generally such application is filed upon issuance of restriction requirement or upon asked by the examiner stating that application lacks unity of invention.Even a divisional  application has to be filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on his or her earlier non provisional application, based on an earlier filed patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, one cannot file for continuation or divisional application to claim additional features because the parent application has been granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/patent-protection-for-improvements-made-over-your-previously-filed-patent-application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10793" RevisionGUID="baebdf50-fe8a-418c-8fc0-a0dfcfd2b8c4" CreationDate="2014-12-15T11:38:47.857" UserId="11542" Text="Ideally, while drafting a provisional application one should ensure that the subject matter to be claimed by a complete application is “enabled” in the provisional application. Otherwise, a claim in the complete application that was not enabled in the provisional application but included in the complete application may not be entitled to the benefits of the priority date established by the provisional application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent drawings in patent applications are the visual form of Patent description or Invention; they aid in understanding the invention clearly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example a description such as  *a spatial logical toy is formed from a total of eighteen toy elements, out of which two sets of eight identical toy elements two connecting elements are provided. The elements of the two sets have cam members with hollows with spherical convex or concave surfaces in-between. The elements are connected by the aid of the cams and the two remaining centrally positioned substantially identical connecting elements each having a T-shape cross-section and when assembled the toy is in the form of a regular or an irregular solid.&#xD;&#xA;Fixation is performed by one single screw passing through bores in the connecting elements. In such a manner the toy elements forming the lateral faces of the spatial logical toy can be rotated along the spatial axes and by yielding several variation possibilities the toy is well suitable for stimulating logical thinking activity.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will one be able to understand the product described above? Most likely, not. The product being described is a “Rubik's Cube”, and the construction of the same can be better understood when the description is read in light of the drawings provided below.&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let the provisional patent application be as detailed as possible. Later while drafting a non-provisional patent application, you may narrow down or include everything disclosed in the provisional patent application. It is advisable to give importance for drawings and not just to the description of the invention in the provisional patent specification. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ROGDv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may refer to this link to understand the importance of drawings in a patent specification: http://www.invntree.com/blogs/patent-drawings-and-their-importance-in-a-patent-specification&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may refer to this link to understand enablement requirement of patentability: http://www.invntree.com/blogs/enablement-requirement-of-patentability&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10792" RevisionGUID="a379aa6d-ea6f-41ed-a575-0febbf836de2" CreationDate="2014-12-15T11:55:59.650" UserId="11719" Comment="added 416 characters in body" Text="Note that a continuation application has to be filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on his or her earlier non provisional application, based on an earlier filed patent application, wherein there is no new disclosure. However, a additional set of features can be claimed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a divisional application is filed on a scenario, if a patent application lacks unity of invention.Generally such application is filed upon issuance of restriction requirement or upon asked by the examiner stating that application lacks unity of invention.Even a divisional  application has to be filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on his or her earlier non provisional application, based on an earlier filed patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, one cannot file for continuation or divisional application to claim additional features because the parent application has been granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/patent-protection-for-improvements-made-over-your-previously-filed-patent-application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a another way out wherein the applicant may surrender the issued patent and refile the original application to correct the defect for example, if he fails to claim the full scope of the invention. However, he can file an application with broaden claims within 2 years from the date of the patent application being grant.Please note that no new matter can be disclosed in the application being re -filed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25487" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10787" RevisionGUID="706d26c4-bb46-46c7-bf48-e4e00cec9c0a" CreationDate="2014-12-15T16:41:24.160" UserId="1" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="25497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10796" RevisionGUID="88841a59-117e-4b1a-86d0-e1011c6bbfb9" CreationDate="2014-12-15T22:26:31.893" UserId="12084" Text="Inventor files new patent improving his own&#xD;&#xA;work in recently issued patent; uses novel new components&#xD;&#xA;and some existing components, can prove advantages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the original patent issued inventor&#xD;&#xA;used prior art to differentiate novelty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If Inventor leaves out prior art section in new&#xD;&#xA;application does he put the information in his&#xD;&#xA;Information Disclosure Statement concerning his&#xD;&#xA;own previous work and the previous prior art; or&#xD;&#xA;does Information Disclosure cover the prior art&#xD;&#xA;without mention ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also; my current new claims use the identical&#xD;&#xA;format of the original successful patent claims&#xD;&#xA;except of course new names for all the new components&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What language is needed acknowledging the&#xD;&#xA;reuse of existing components in the claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;could you give an example what it look like?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25498" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10796" RevisionGUID="88841a59-117e-4b1a-86d0-e1011c6bbfb9" CreationDate="2014-12-15T22:26:31.893" UserId="12084" Text="Inventor improves own Patent issued 8 months ago" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25499" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10796" RevisionGUID="88841a59-117e-4b1a-86d0-e1011c6bbfb9" CreationDate="2014-12-15T22:26:31.893" UserId="12084" Text="&lt;improvement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10797" RevisionGUID="36afc0c6-fc23-4c44-a776-2354666ed834" CreationDate="2014-12-16T04:06:13.223" UserId="12085" Text="You can take already existing things (natural, man-made) and patent new uses. There are many patents and pending patents for THC or marijuana." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10798" RevisionGUID="69fc4e15-1986-480b-832f-ea795acc4a7a" CreationDate="2014-12-16T05:37:43.690" UserId="8601" Text="I'm posting this here in order to draw this incident to the attention of the AP community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2011/05/11/us-patent-6098180/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Daniel Stenberg, the author of `curl`, a popular portable open-source file-transfer tool and library, is being consulted on a possible infringement of a mechanism for resuming interrupted file transfers.  His blog has details, including already a substantial list of prior art which should hopefully be sufficient to overthrow the patent.  Still, it would be useful to scrutinize the patent and at least verify his findings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The blog is from 2011 and I am not sure what the present status of the litigation is.  I was unable to find any further information by googling the case number.  Has the case been dismissed?  Or decided?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25504" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10798" RevisionGUID="69fc4e15-1986-480b-832f-ea795acc4a7a" CreationDate="2014-12-16T05:37:43.690" UserId="8601" Text="Resuming interrupted file transfers (2011 patent troll / libcurl)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25505" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10798" RevisionGUID="69fc4e15-1986-480b-832f-ea795acc4a7a" CreationDate="2014-12-16T05:37:43.690" UserId="8601" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;internet&gt;&lt;us6098180&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10800" RevisionGUID="ba3a4594-a0b2-430f-aff8-0e0b7f0c086c" CreationDate="2014-12-17T01:33:35.427" UserId="12090" Text="As the title says, how can various American scientists be named as the inventors on this patent if the United States government is adamant they never created the virus? If the virus is naturally occurring what gives them the  right to patent it? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25512" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10800" RevisionGUID="ba3a4594-a0b2-430f-aff8-0e0b7f0c086c" CreationDate="2014-12-17T01:33:35.427" UserId="12090" Text="if the virus was not created by the Us government what right do they have to a patent of the virus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25513" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10800" RevisionGUID="ba3a4594-a0b2-430f-aff8-0e0b7f0c086c" CreationDate="2014-12-17T01:33:35.427" UserId="12090" Text="&lt;usa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25514" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10800" RevisionGUID="5ddb4966-55ad-4675-9a0f-ef8e23769b99" CreationDate="2014-12-17T01:39:15.080" UserId="12090" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;us20120251502&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10771" RevisionGUID="2b03f523-48ab-4ab7-95af-3430a1054984" CreationDate="2014-12-17T05:10:19.887" UserId="11895" Comment="clearity" Text="Ok first thing First all patents except US6,123,332 have expired for non-payment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to dig more for your next question about parent expiry affecting child expiry with respect to maintenance fee. though i doubt that happens&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NOW to main question in US patents wherein Parent child relation exist generally a terminal disclaimer is seen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If parent patent expires due to non-payment of fee then child patent continues to term as defined in terminal disclaimer. Ref below case of more details:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. Orchid Chems. &amp; Pharms. Ltd. (D-NJ 2011) http://www.paulhastings.com/assets/pdfs/Roche_v_Orchid.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;D436635 expires 23 jan 2015&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;D455462 expires 4 sept 2016&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US6,123,332 expires without taking terminal disclaimer in account 6 Jan 2018&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;terminal disclaimer is not accessible in above case. There is no precedence wherein parent expiry effected child expiry so above should hold ground. On the other hand you are free to use all other patent but not '332.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;disclaimer just for educational purpose, claims no liability on information provided please consult US attorney for qualified guidance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10801" RevisionGUID="352bda6a-e47f-47b9-b776-cac96aedbea2" CreationDate="2014-12-17T05:59:54.200" UserId="11543" Text="Term of a patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed at the US Patent Office. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Continuing Patent Applications (continuation, CIP and divisional) claim benefit from the earlier filed non provisional application (parent application). The term of any patent issuing from a continuation, CIP or divisional application is 20 years from the filing date of the earlier filed non provisional application (parent application) for which a benefit is claimed, which means continuing applications will have shorter patent term as they expire with their parent patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maintenance fee or renewal fee has to be paid for all utility patents to maintain them in force. Failure to pay such a fee on time as set forth by the US patent Law, leads to the expiry of the patent even before the term of 20 years mentioned above. In US, maintenance fee can be paid three times during the life of a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It shall be noted that in US, maintenance has to be paid for all continuing applications  to maintain them in force. When a parent expires due to non payment of renewal fee it may not cause all continuing applications in the chain claiming benefit from the parent or from another continuing application to expire if the maintenance fee for the continuing applications are paid on time. Similarly, any continuing application in chain may cease to have effect due to non payment of fee without causing other applications in the chain to lapse if maintenance fee for the other applications are paid on time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The time of payment of maintenance fee for all utility patents may be found in the link provided below-&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-2500.html &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also to know more on CIP patents you may visit the link http://www.invntree.com/blogs/patent-protection-for-improvements-made-over-your-previously-filed-patent-application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10611" RevisionGUID="66da0752-e9fe-4979-a65d-35d7e2f615f1" CreationDate="2014-12-17T07:21:57.970" UserId="11895" Comment="clarity on the content spelling errors" Text="I have a very similar product to a product that was abandoned during the patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I claim that application and improve and add new changes I have &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thereby providing new claims to the patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25519" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10611" RevisionGUID="66da0752-e9fe-4979-a65d-35d7e2f615f1" CreationDate="2014-12-17T07:21:57.970" UserId="11895" Comment="clarity on the content spelling errors" Text="I am interested in an abandoned patent application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25520" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10611" RevisionGUID="66da0752-e9fe-4979-a65d-35d7e2f615f1" CreationDate="2014-12-17T07:21:57.970" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by -1 edit id of 1730" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10611" RevisionGUID="b77a7214-a9a8-4cb6-9ce3-f142e23c933e" CreationDate="2014-12-17T07:21:57.970" UserId="11543" Comment="clarity on the content spelling errors" Text="I have a very similar product to a product that was disclosed in an abandoned patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I improve and add new changes to that application thereby providing new claims to the patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10802" RevisionGUID="7e05e686-3e40-4abb-b09b-fb111831f61a" CreationDate="2014-12-17T07:22:14.140" UserId="11895" Text="Yes provided your changes are novel and not obvious over prior art. you might get new patent but you can't benefit from this patent priority or filing date. Alternatively you can contact inventor and sell him your idea he might be interested in CIP of reference patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10803" RevisionGUID="7c05e1e6-ce57-4326-ac74-711fb2821e79" CreationDate="2014-12-17T10:09:01.193" UserId="11866" Text="Has inventor claimed priority from the recently issued patent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If yes, then the earlier issued patent will not be prior art for the new application. If the priority is not claimed, then the earlier issued patent and other relevant prior art documents would be considered as prior art against the new application. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25524" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10782" RevisionGUID="c2b88191-0a3a-408f-9d56-de9c33857dd7" CreationDate="2014-12-17T10:19:44.807" UserId="11895" Comment="edited tag" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25525" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10782" RevisionGUID="c2b88191-0a3a-408f-9d56-de9c33857dd7" CreationDate="2014-12-17T10:19:44.807" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 11814, -1 edit id of 1731" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10782" RevisionGUID="ab95106d-1f3a-43bf-8805-f35dea6bb228" CreationDate="2014-12-17T10:19:44.807" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tag" Text="My colleagues in China and I (in a US University) has filed provisional application (both names are in the applcation) to the US Patent Office. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can my colleauges in China file the a patent application using the exact contents and claims as we filed in US to Chinese Patent office?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10805" RevisionGUID="fd981b1e-cc6d-4b56-9e10-5f749989a0be" CreationDate="2014-12-18T05:28:06.973" UserId="11895" Text="Possible duplicate...&#xD;&#xA;Answered earlier by user Soren&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having skimmed though the patent, it looks like it is a patent for a weakened version of the virus, that is taking the existing virus and making it non-threatening -- it is certainly not a patent which is supposedly creating the virus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weakened version of a virus and disease agents in general are desirable for research purposes, so that they can be studied in laboratories without any unnecessary risk to staff or for using it in a vacination effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The process of weakening the virus is known as 'inactivation' and you can read more about it on wikipedia here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your yearly flu short contains flu virus which has been 'inactivated' and you can read more about it here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exact purpose for the patent is very likely basic research which is why it is being done by the government rather than by some private institution. As the motivation, it is very likely to gain sufficient information of the virus to defend against it should it ever come to the US as an outbreak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/9987/what-is-the-purpose-of-this-ebola-related-patent-of-the-us-government" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10790" RevisionGUID="3cea90cc-edb6-4ca3-8c45-576f2efa62cd" CreationDate="2014-12-18T09:47:23.340" UserId="11814" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body" Text="Software can be protected by copyright law and patent law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under copyright law, software or the computer program is usually regarded as a &quot;literary work&quot;. The unique characteristic of computer programs that differentiate them from other literary works is their dynamic essence, which usually includes algorithms or mathematical formulae's or logical condition etc, which manipulate symbols producing certain virtual or physical effects,etc. Copyright law provides protection to the software or the computer program´s expression and not the functional aspects of the software. Hence, computer programs differ from other copyright-able subject matter, in the sense that the text is not the most important aspect; rather the importance lies in the functions established by the program code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent: Patent is becoming the method of protection for computer program's, software or E-commerce website. The Patent Act offers patent protection to product or process (if they satisfy various requirements of patentability) as long as they do not fall under non-patentable subject matter. Any method/process relating to non-technological field shall not be considered patentable. Further, software protected under the patents act should satisfy the patentability criteria.In order to meet patent-ability criteria, the software or the computer program executed on a computer processor must be novel or confers a new solution to a technical problem, and non- obvious to one of &quot;ordinary skill&quot; in the field of invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding exclusion of patenting softwares:The Patent office have been granting patents to computer implemented inventions or software related inventions based on the technical solution provided to the technical problem, generally known as the technical character. So one of the keys for successfully having a patent granted for software innovation lies in the ability to present the software innovation in such a way that the it includes technical character.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a computer program or software protected under copyright law protects an original work in the tangible fixed form in which it has been set down, whereas a computer program or software protected under the patent law protects the creation of inventive concepts as well as their practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details please check the link below&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/are-software-inventions-patentable-india&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/disclosure-requirements-for-software-patents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25535" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10796" RevisionGUID="383f0b90-f0b3-469d-952b-9b930e12e2b0" CreationDate="2014-12-18T19:11:26.917" UserId="11895" Comment="tags edited for more " Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;improvement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25536" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10796" RevisionGUID="383f0b90-f0b3-469d-952b-9b930e12e2b0" CreationDate="2014-12-18T19:11:26.917" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 1 edit id of 1732" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10806" RevisionGUID="f735ce11-20a2-4af1-a7dd-593d1181f485" CreationDate="2014-12-18T21:11:32.060" UserId="12098" Text="I have a contract with a company to enhance my software.  The contract states that my company owns all of the IP, Trade Secrets, know-how, drawings, etc of the original and add-on software as outlined in the Agreement.  We did the add-ons to my software. We delivered the software and source code to the company.  We never got paid. Now the company has filed a patent on my IP and received a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I get the patent changed to reflect that my company owns the patent and is the inventor as well?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25538" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10806" RevisionGUID="f735ce11-20a2-4af1-a7dd-593d1181f485" CreationDate="2014-12-18T21:11:32.060" UserId="12098" Text="Inventorship and Ownership" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25539" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10806" RevisionGUID="f735ce11-20a2-4af1-a7dd-593d1181f485" CreationDate="2014-12-18T21:11:32.060" UserId="12098" Text="&lt;inventor&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10808" RevisionGUID="036f82eb-96d0-4a53-9e6e-e511b543db84" CreationDate="2014-12-19T02:49:24.537" UserId="12100" Text="The patent states that a cubemap with the lowest resolution of for faces chosen can be used to gather diffuse illumination by doing dot product with the visible faces. Why was that patented, if the patent is in other words the application of Haar wavelet, in which the lowest level is chosen for each side, and with the dot product being the identical operation? There was nothing new, why was that allowed? For reference, Haar wavelet had been discovered years before the patent mentioned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25544" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10808" RevisionGUID="036f82eb-96d0-4a53-9e6e-e511b543db84" CreationDate="2014-12-19T02:49:24.537" UserId="12100" Text="Why was it patented, even allowed to be so - Patent US7508391" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25545" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10808" RevisionGUID="036f82eb-96d0-4a53-9e6e-e511b543db84" CreationDate="2014-12-19T02:49:24.537" UserId="12100" Text="&lt;us7508391&gt;&lt;haar&gt;&lt;wavelet&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10809" RevisionGUID="724b9e1d-5d28-4cd1-9554-cc1ed19738eb" CreationDate="2014-12-19T03:24:14.833" UserId="11542" Text="The claims section of a patent document describes in detail, the scope of protection granted to a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A claim is said to be infringed if all the elements of the claim exists in your product. Similarly, a claim that includes process steps is said to be infringed, if all the process steps are present in the process that you intend to follow. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In other words, if all the elements in the claims of the patent map on to the features of your product, your product is infringing upon the patent rights of the patentee.&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted that, if your product does not have at least one element of the claim, then your product does not infringe upon the patent rights of the patentee. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may refer to this link for more information: http://www.invntree.com/blogs/my-product-infringing-others-patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10809" RevisionGUID="c0b4bc48-ec6e-4090-bb5c-6d0e8e3b6233" CreationDate="2014-12-19T05:05:22.317" UserId="11542" Comment="Addition of doctrine of equivalents to the answer. " Text="The claims section of a patent document describes in detail, the scope of protection granted to a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A claim is said to be infringed if all the elements of the claim exists in your product. Similarly, a claim that includes process steps is said to be infringed, if all the process steps are present in the process that you intend to follow. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In other words, if all the elements in the claims of the patent map on to the features of your product, your product is infringing upon the patent rights of the patentee.&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted that, if your product does not have at least one element of the claim, then your product does not infringe upon the patent rights of the patentee. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Infringement of a product/process can also be analyzed by doctrine of equivalents. If the accused product/process does not literally infringe patented invention, the accused product or process may be found to infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accused product/process is said to be infringed under doctrine of equivalents if the substitute element of the accused product/process matches the function, way and result of the claimed element. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may refer to this link for more information: http://www.invntree.com/blogs/my-product-infringing-others-patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10810" RevisionGUID="e5b761c4-3124-4534-9ead-1e274717211c" CreationDate="2014-12-19T05:07:36.430" UserId="11895" Text="As per information provided you can sue them in federal court for contract breach, wherein they owned the IP from you. secondly since some of the financial part was not fullfilled by company you will get either IP or Money for your work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as you know invention requires inventors a organization cant invent itself dont sign any of the patent application form to further restrict their filings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just in case please check your agreement with company and see if copyrights are listed as one of the IP get a copyright for your code and they are DONE.&#xD;&#xA;hope it helps" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10787" RevisionGUID="099c6cfb-3095-46c5-a75f-24481c57a5a5" CreationDate="2014-12-19T05:41:31.803" UserId="11543" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="We are filing the national stage application in US through the PCT.&#xD;&#xA;We have prepared the documents&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;/Specification(in English)&#xD;&#xA;/Claims&#xD;&#xA;/Abstract&#xD;&#xA;/Drawings&#xD;&#xA;/ApplicationDataSheet&#xD;&#xA;/PrimaryAmendment&#xD;&#xA;/IDS&#xD;&#xA;/pto-1390&#xD;&#xA;/sb0020glbl&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;What additional documents are required to be submitted through the EFS-Web ? &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;We must submit the PCT in foreign country?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25553" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="10787" RevisionGUID="0e176c5c-cfab-47e4-945a-84ab9487fb13" CreationDate="2014-12-19T17:01:12.550" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:11543,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Subhasmita Baro&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="25554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10811" RevisionGUID="4a9dd79d-90d3-4036-a7ec-67d49a1873b1" CreationDate="2014-12-19T19:08:51.800" UserId="1777" Text="Frankly, I believe the patent may be even a lot worse than you think. Claim 1 does not even specify anything relating to wavelets. On top of this, it contains completely unclear terminology galore. &quot;Framing abstraction&quot;, &quot;minor/major lights&quot;, &quot;n-sides&quot;, &quot;ambient value&quot; (what VALUE? dollar value of the patent?), &quot;value related to&quot;, &quot;associating values with&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, aside from &quot;light&quot;, &quot;model&quot;, and &quot;pixel&quot;, there is not a single standard computer graphics term in the entire claim. Despite the fact that well-established, decades-old terminology exists for virtually all concepts alluded to therein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A computing system for displaying a graphical model comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a processor that employs instructions to perform actions, including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/* we have some sort of containers, e.g. cube maps or general textures (&quot;n-sides&quot; - whatever that means. 2D? 3D?), for pre-baked lighting */&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;determining a plurality of framing abstractions in a virtual environment, wherein the framing abstractions having n-sides with n being an integer value greater than two;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/* some lights get baked into the light maps, and some others are not */&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for each framing abstraction, determining major and minor lights from a plurality of lights incident to the framing abstraction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/* baking the effects of some light sources into the light maps */&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for each framing abstraction, calculating ambient values, each ambient value being related to an aggregate light illumination at a respective side of the framing abstraction by the minor lights, and associating the ambient values with the framing abstraction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/* selecting a light map */&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;selecting a framing abstraction based on a location of the model;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/* combining per-pixel illumination using the &quot;major lights&quot; and the pre-baked values in the light map (&quot;minor lights&quot;) */&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;determining the light illumination caused by the major lights for a pixel of the model; and&#xD;&#xA;modifying the determined light illumination by a value related to one or more of the ambient values associated with the selected framing abstraction; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/* display on screen */&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a display screen arranged to display the model based on the modified light illumination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, no wavelets in the claim. In effect, the claim pretty much covers any rendering technique which combines any sort of pre-baked light maps with per-pixel lighting. Regardless of what part of the rendering pipeline (if any) is real-time and what part (if any) is an offline pre-process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A determined patentee could fairly easily claim that virtually every existing 3D computer graphics system, from real-time game engines to movie VFX, infringes their &quot;invention&quot;. Let's see what the East Texas jurors have to say about &quot;framing abstractions&quot; having &quot;n-sides&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hilariously, the USPTO also granted further independent claims explicitly covering pre-baked lighting in any sort of networked rendering, and on any game device. Despite the fact that claim 1 in any case also already covers these. Just to make sure, I guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another USPTO masterpiece, and yet more proof that the system is coming apart at the seams." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10811" RevisionGUID="8e5673e6-1f67-44f1-9965-51def3baad1a" CreationDate="2014-12-19T19:15:20.587" UserId="1777" Comment="Removed OT remark." Text="Frankly, I believe the patent may be even a lot worse than you think. Claim 1 does not even specify anything relating to wavelets. On top of this, it contains completely unclear terminology galore. &quot;Framing abstraction&quot;, &quot;minor/major lights&quot;, &quot;n-sides&quot;, &quot;ambient value&quot; (what VALUE? dollar value of the patent?), &quot;value related to&quot;, &quot;associating values with&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, aside from &quot;light&quot;, &quot;model&quot;, and &quot;pixel&quot;, there is not a single standard computer graphics term in the entire claim. Despite the fact that well-established, decades-old terminology exists for virtually all concepts alluded to therein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A computing system for displaying a graphical model comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a processor that employs instructions to perform actions, including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/* we have some sort of containers, e.g. cube maps or general textures (&quot;n-sides&quot; - whatever that means. 2D? 3D?), for pre-baked lighting */&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;determining a plurality of framing abstractions in a virtual environment, wherein the framing abstractions having n-sides with n being an integer value greater than two;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/* some lights get baked into the light maps, and some others are not */&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for each framing abstraction, determining major and minor lights from a plurality of lights incident to the framing abstraction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/* baking the effects of some light sources into the light maps */&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for each framing abstraction, calculating ambient values, each ambient value being related to an aggregate light illumination at a respective side of the framing abstraction by the minor lights, and associating the ambient values with the framing abstraction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/* selecting a light map */&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;selecting a framing abstraction based on a location of the model;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/* combining per-pixel illumination using the &quot;major lights&quot; and the pre-baked values in the light map (&quot;minor lights&quot;) */&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;determining the light illumination caused by the major lights for a pixel of the model; and&#xD;&#xA;modifying the determined light illumination by a value related to one or more of the ambient values associated with the selected framing abstraction; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/* display on screen */&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a display screen arranged to display the model based on the modified light illumination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, no wavelets in the claim. In effect, the claim pretty much covers any rendering technique which combines any sort of pre-baked light maps with per-pixel lighting. Regardless of what part of the rendering pipeline (if any) is real-time and what part (if any) is an offline pre-process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A determined patentee could fairly easily claim that virtually every existing 3D computer graphics system, from real-time game engines to movie VFX, infringes their &quot;invention&quot;. Let's see what the East Texas jurors have to say about &quot;framing abstractions&quot; having &quot;n-sides&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hilariously, the USPTO also granted further independent claims explicitly covering pre-baked lighting in any sort of networked rendering, and on any game device. Despite the fact that claim 1 in any case also already covers these. Just to make sure, I guess." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10813" RevisionGUID="555f50ff-e198-4783-8fa1-2ef97390f730" CreationDate="2014-12-19T21:09:43.613" UserId="12106" Text="It is always hard to weed out of patent-speak what is really going on, but on the surface, as I read the claims, I keep thinking &quot;are we not already doing that?&quot;. Maybe there are people who could point out what I am missing. I see that my question is similar to others asking about patents on electronic forums." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25560" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10813" RevisionGUID="555f50ff-e198-4783-8fa1-2ef97390f730" CreationDate="2014-12-19T21:09:43.613" UserId="12106" Text="How is this patent different from existing long term online forums, email lists and the like?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25561" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10813" RevisionGUID="555f50ff-e198-4783-8fa1-2ef97390f730" CreationDate="2014-12-19T21:09:43.613" UserId="12106" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;email&gt;&lt;wo2014116726a1&gt;&lt;email-lists&gt;&lt;forums&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10814" RevisionGUID="01f64fd5-38c7-41d9-aa3c-15efaf639c93" CreationDate="2014-12-19T21:48:30.663" UserId="1777" Text="This is not a patent, but a published patent application. The claims are published as originally filed. If and when the patent is actually granted, the scope of the independent claim will likely be further limited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the PCT application was originally sent to the EPO, but they declared lack of competence because it was considered to relate to business methods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subsequent International Search Report prepared by the USPTO seems to indicate that the USPTO may be inclined to grant claim 11. This claim specifies an automatically updated display of online conversations across multiple devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently considered an invention - in January 2013." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10811" RevisionGUID="af6f645a-6f9e-4647-a342-c48893d1e7fd" CreationDate="2014-12-19T22:26:46.530" UserId="1777" Comment="accounted for priority date, added links to possible prior art" Text="To summarize my discussion below: I believe this patent is even broader and effectively covers ANY rendering technique combining pre-computed light maps with any other form of illumination calculations. It must however be noted that the priority date is in 2004.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, links such as the following illustrate that light maps were already common in real-time applications before that time:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://joshbeam.com/articles/dynamic_lightmaps_in_opengl/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.bigpanda.com/trinity/article1.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second link is actually from 1998 (cf. http://www.bigpanda.com/trinity/) and explicitly mentions combining light maps with other advanced forms of lighting (middle of page). To be more specific, see &quot;Each bump map is the light map for the polygon as dynamically lit from a particular range of angles.&quot; and &quot;The pixel color is equal to the static light map plus the dynamic bump maps, multiplied by the texture map&quot;. The presence of multiple locations / levels with their own light maps is implied by the mention of Quake 3. IMHO this pretty much anticipates claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Original discussion to follow:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly, I believe the patent is even a lot worse than you think. Claim 1 does not even specify anything relating to wavelets. In addition to this, it contains lots of vague and non-standard terminology. &quot;Framing abstraction&quot;, &quot;minor/major lights&quot;, &quot;n-sides&quot;, &quot;ambient value&quot;, &quot;value related to&quot;, &quot;associating values with&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, aside from &quot;light&quot;, &quot;model&quot;, and &quot;pixel&quot;, there is not a single standard computer graphics term in the entire claim - despite the fact that well-established terminology existed at the priority date for the concepts alluded to in the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A computing system for displaying a graphical model comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a processor that employs instructions to perform actions, including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/* we have some sort of containers, e.g. cube maps or general textures (&quot;n-sides&quot; - whatever that means. 2D? 3D?), for pre-baked lighting */&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;determining a plurality of framing abstractions in a virtual environment, wherein the framing abstractions having n-sides with n being an integer value greater than two;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/* some lights get baked into the light maps, and some others are not */&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for each framing abstraction, determining major and minor lights from a plurality of lights incident to the framing abstraction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/* baking the effects of some light sources into the light maps */&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for each framing abstraction, calculating ambient values, each ambient value being related to an aggregate light illumination at a respective side of the framing abstraction by the minor lights, and associating the ambient values with the framing abstraction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/* selecting a light map */&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;selecting a framing abstraction based on a location of the model;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/* combining per-pixel illumination using the &quot;major lights&quot; and the pre-baked values in the light map (&quot;minor lights&quot;) */&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;determining the light illumination caused by the major lights for a pixel of the model; and&#xD;&#xA;modifying the determined light illumination by a value related to one or more of the ambient values associated with the selected framing abstraction; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/* display on screen */&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a display screen arranged to display the model based on the modified light illumination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, no wavelets in the claim. In effect, the claim pretty much covers any rendering technique which combines any sort of pre-baked light maps with any sort of per-pixel lighting. Regardless of what part of the rendering pipeline (if any) is real-time and what part (if any) is an offline pre-process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many existing 3D computer graphics systems, from real-time game engines to movie VFX, likely fall under the scope of the claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10814" RevisionGUID="ca74664b-2865-4160-8daa-338581263f3e" CreationDate="2014-12-19T22:36:03.707" UserId="1777" Comment="language revisions" Text="This is not a patent, but a published patent application. The claims are published as originally filed. If and when the patent is actually granted, the scope of the independent claim will likely be further limited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the PCT application was originally sent to the EPO, but they declared lack of competence, possibly because it was considered to relate to business methods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subsequent International Search Report prepared by the USPTO seems to indicate that the USPTO may be inclined to grant claim 11. This claim specifies the automatically updated display of persistent online conversations across multiple devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure if this can be considered an invention in January 2013." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10815" RevisionGUID="f16c85b7-066c-40d8-8e3a-76a05ef98fe2" CreationDate="2014-12-19T22:52:14.933" UserId="12108" Text="If a patent is granted, what risk does the inventor (call them 'Inventor A') have that a large firm with a patent in a related area files suit saying that the patent office granted the patent to Inventor A in error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm trying to determine is whether Inventor A's patent is at risk particularly since a large firm would likely be able to outspend Investor A on legal resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for your help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25566" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10815" RevisionGUID="f16c85b7-066c-40d8-8e3a-76a05ef98fe2" CreationDate="2014-12-19T22:52:14.933" UserId="12108" Text="Legal risk on granted patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25567" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10815" RevisionGUID="f16c85b7-066c-40d8-8e3a-76a05ef98fe2" CreationDate="2014-12-19T22:52:14.933" UserId="12108" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10816" RevisionGUID="4f7bb61f-f02e-4143-8753-c24f87b7c5c6" CreationDate="2014-12-19T23:06:54.937" UserId="10011" Text="I'm not sure anyone will be able to give you a good quantified &quot;risk&quot; of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's certainly true that there's always risk that you'll be infringing on a bigger player's patent, and if you file a patent and manage to have it go through even though it *directly conflicts* with a previously existent patent, that's one issue. But that doesn't happen much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more realistic issue comes in a small (but very important) distinction of the rights that a patent gives you. A patent *does not* give you the right to practice your invention. What it does, rather, is gives you the right to stop others from practicing it. It's called a negative right, since you're taking someone else's rights away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's easiest to understand through an example. This isn't a brilliant example, as you'll notice, but I think it conveys the theory sufficiently: imagine if I invented a system for collecting questions from people seeking answers and got a patent on it, and you invented a system for collecting answers for people who have read questions, and you got a patent on that. Neither patent is invalid, but it's pretty useless to have an answering mechanism without a questioning one, and vice-versa. In cases like that, we'd usually set up a cross-license that allows each of us to use the other's patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of that negative right, there's a good chance that a case like the one you're describing wouldn't actually hit the USPTO directly. Most cases of infringement like this would be where the practice of your patent requires use of another one, and the USPTO doesn't really care about that. They care about the contents of the patent, more than their implications (mostly, there are a few exceptions, but generally).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That was a long-winded way of saying that Inventor A's patent is probably irrelevant in this, except on the off-chance that it could be used to mitigate charges through a cross-licensing arrangement if the bigger firm had interest in its invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And because of *that*, this is pretty difficult to really answer. There are a number of factors involved in patent litigation cases--like if Inventor A was knowingly infringing--but of course there is always a risk involved in practicing an invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also definitely possible that the larger firm, as you've said, will outspend you legally, but that's also true if you, say, slip on a wet floor in their lobby. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10817" RevisionGUID="d05e569f-c76a-45b1-bc46-52be766a187f" CreationDate="2014-12-20T01:18:43.757" UserId="11947" Text="My patent application describes software method. I wrote the code just to test it. It is stripped down embodiment, as real things would be more complex and depending on particular implementation.&#xD;&#xA;All software patents I read don't have code attached. I am reluctant to submit my code as it is not simple and require a lot of explaining. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25571" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10817" RevisionGUID="d05e569f-c76a-45b1-bc46-52be766a187f" CreationDate="2014-12-20T01:18:43.757" UserId="11947" Text="do I need submit the code for software patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25572" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10817" RevisionGUID="d05e569f-c76a-45b1-bc46-52be766a187f" CreationDate="2014-12-20T01:18:43.757" UserId="11947" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10818" RevisionGUID="c33b852d-0ced-4ff9-842e-e220e8bd70cf" CreationDate="2014-12-20T02:45:46.433" UserId="10011" Text="&gt; I am reluctant to submit my code as it is not simple and require a lot of explaining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's a good reason *to* submit code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your patent (and consequently application) should give other people the ability to practice your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So no, you do not need to include code, and as you said, many people do not, but you should (almost definitely, and &quot;almost&quot; is a technicality) include some form of code. It doesn't have to be compilable, but you should have some flow chart, pseudo-code, or, yes, actual source code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't an actual standard or anything, but in general I would set your goal as that for anyone who's read your application, your code shouldn't require a lot of explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think ultimately of how you would explain the invention to a fellow developer. Would you include source code, or just drawings on a white board?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10821" RevisionGUID="8527d987-02df-4c4c-a596-5976cba16110" CreationDate="2014-12-20T10:48:14.797" UserId="12111" Text="This is the most broad description of a patent that I have ever seen, and for a liquid cooling block at that. Patenting a cooling block &quot;with an integrated pump&quot; is the most mind boggling thing out there. How can we let someone patent an integrated pump design without saying any specifics besides that the loop with have &quot;one dc or ac motor&quot; and an inlet or outlet in the water reservoir. This stuff is preposterous, and the patent being granted should not have stood unless it was truly revolutionary, which this is most definitely not. If, by some chance, they were indeed the first people to patent a closed loop cooler for a cpu then we should thank them for inventing it, but not prevent anyone else from making a closed loop cooler. That is simply a monopoly, and having to pay for a generic description of a cooler is ridiculous when the company themselves merely license the rights to obtain wealth. Yes, yes, they do produce waterblocks themselves, but if someone has a more efficient block or a new pump design they cannot simply sue them out of production because they are also producing a closed loop cooler! They need to innovate, not file generic patents to obstruct competition in the market." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25581" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10821" RevisionGUID="8527d987-02df-4c4c-a596-5976cba16110" CreationDate="2014-12-20T10:48:14.797" UserId="12111" Text="Why is this patent allowed? (US8240362)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25582" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10821" RevisionGUID="8527d987-02df-4c4c-a596-5976cba16110" CreationDate="2014-12-20T10:48:14.797" UserId="12111" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10822" RevisionGUID="cf6f73ef-a6ce-4d69-aff1-6338223a19a3" CreationDate="2014-12-20T13:15:21.510" UserId="1777" Text="Not my area of expertise, so I cannot assess the patent's novelty. However, I am not sure what you are referring to when you mention the &quot;description&quot; of the patent. It seems the indepent claim is a lot more specific than you state. Also note that the priority date of the patent is in 2003, when liquid CPU cooling systems were not nearly as common as today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A cooling system for a computer system processing unit, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;an integrated element including a heat exchanging interface, a reservoir, and a pump, wherein&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the reservoir is configured to receive a cooling liquid from outside the reservoir through an inlet and pass the cooling liquid to the outside through an outlet, the reservoir including an upper chamber and a lower chamber, the upper chamber and the lower chamber being vertically displaced chambers that are separated from each other by at least a horizontal wall and fluidly coupled together by a plurality of substantially circular passages, at least one of the plurality of substantially circular passages being positioned on the horizontal wall, a boundary wall of the lower chamber being formed by the heat exchanging interface;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the heat exchanging interface is adapted to provide separable thermal contact between the processing unit and the cooling liquid such that heat is dissipated from the processing unit to the cooling liquid as the cooling liquid passes through the lower chamber of the reservoir; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the pump is adapted to direct the cooling liquid through the upper chamber and the lower chamber of the reservoir, the pump including a motor having a rotor, a stator and an impeller having a plurality of curved blades, the impeller being positioned within the reservoir;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a heat radiator spaced apart from the integrated element, the heat radiator being fluidly coupled to the outlet and the inlet of the reservoir, the heat radiator being configured to circulate the cooling liquid therethrough and exhaust heat from the cooling liquid; and&#xD;&#xA;a fan configured to direct air through the heat radiator, the fan being driven by a motor separate from the motor of the pump." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10823" RevisionGUID="8cd25de5-c488-465d-9aaa-0ad0dad6f223" CreationDate="2014-12-20T17:05:43.537" UserId="1777" Text="Priority is a tricky issue. Just because an applicant claims priority from some other application does not automatically mean it is valid. The examiner may find the priority claim to be unfounded. This is for instance the case if the claim contains subject-matter that is not contained in the priority document. Applicants often try to sneak in additional aspects later, in particular if they have become aware of relevant prior art, and claim the earlier priority date anyway. In particular in the case of US applicants, the original provisional application is sometimes no more than a 2 page business plan, while subsequent patent applications claiming it as priority may be dozens of pages long and contain claims with practically no basis at all in the provisional application. Unfortunately, even if the examiner finds the priority claim to be invalid, the incorrect priority date remains in the bibliographical data of the published patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also special problems arising in the case of international applications. In this case, the examiner may not initially have access to the priority document at all, or there is a delay until a translation becomes available. The validity of the priority is then undetermined at the time when the search report is established." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25587" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10823" RevisionGUID="af83e581-9fff-4daf-8894-7094b686a4ac" CreationDate="2014-12-20T17:42:20.627" UserId="1777" Comment="added comments relating to US8056257" Text="Priority is a tricky issue. Just because an applicant claims priority from some other application does not automatically mean it is valid. The examiner may find the priority claim to be unfounded. This is for instance the case if the claim contains subject-matter that is not contained in the priority document. Applicants often try to sneak in additional aspects later, in particular if they have become aware of relevant prior art, and claim the earlier priority date anyway. In particular in the case of US applicants, the original provisional application is sometimes no more than a 2 page business plan, while subsequent patent applications claiming it as priority may be dozens of pages long and contain claims with practically no basis at all in the provisional application. Unfortunately, even if the examiner finds the priority claim to be invalid, the incorrect priority date remains in the bibliographical data of the published patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also special problems arising in the case of international applications. In this case, the examiner may not initially have access to the priority document at all, or there is a delay until a translation becomes available. The validity of the priority is then undetermined at the time when the search report is established.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the specific case of US8056257, it seems from PAIR that there was actually some confusion concerning the validity of priority. For all I understand, the examiner indicated following a phone interview on 9.9.2011 that he had no foreign priority document at his disposal (although the file wrapper shows earlier submissions of the Japanese priority document). Following another phone interview on 22.9.2011, the examiner then acknowledged the validity of the priority. This appears to have been the reason for the citation of post-published prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25588" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10821" RevisionGUID="ac7f282b-ab32-4797-bfc5-77dabaec9a60" CreationDate="2014-12-20T21:29:48.887" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;us8240362&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10824" RevisionGUID="58d041e0-a6e5-45cd-9b66-83fae68940b9" CreationDate="2014-12-21T10:40:19.423" UserId="12029" Text="If by negate you mean that the new application and its claims are not going to be granted then it will depend on whether the patent examiner at the USPTO will also detect and consider the old application as disclosing the claims of the new application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="beae1db1-0c1a-43dd-98f8-f35bec3c4aad" CreationDate="2014-12-21T15:34:20.030" UserId="12115" Text="I visualize a way to modify - but principally leave intact - (only) one component of an existing patented, mult-component, commercial, marketed product whose conceived, intended, advertized, and actual use is **completely unrelated** to the use to which my modified version of this one component (of this existing patented item) would be put. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g., taking the chassis of a name-brand automobile off its manufacturer's assembly line, significantly modifying it (in appearance &amp; function) to instead use it as the structural foundation/base frame for a large commercial air conditioning unit (of the size typically used on the roof of a large building)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25594" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="beae1db1-0c1a-43dd-98f8-f35bec3c4aad" CreationDate="2014-12-21T15:34:20.030" UserId="12115" Text="Criteria for patenting an item whose main part uses the design of a patent's part but whose function is diffrent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25595" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="beae1db1-0c1a-43dd-98f8-f35bec3c4aad" CreationDate="2014-12-21T15:34:20.030" UserId="12115" Text="&lt;modification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10828" RevisionGUID="9db777b9-94ef-4eed-a66e-bd8cd3cea777" CreationDate="2014-12-21T17:56:42.303" UserId="4545" Text="A representative claim from the new patent is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A cover for an electrical receptacle comprising: a faceplate; a first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transmission tab configured to be electrically connected to a first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; power line of the electrical receptacle; a second transmission tab&#xD;&#xA;&gt; configured to be electrically connected to a second power line of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electrical receptacle; and a device in communication with the first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transmission tab and the second transmission tab; wherein at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the first and the second transmission tabs is configured as an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; elongated, rigid or semi-flexible tab extending from a back side of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the faceplate; and wherein the at least one transmission tab comprises&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one or more conductive surface structures configured to face a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conductive portion of the electrical receptacle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A representative claim from the older patent is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An illuminated cover plate for replacing a non-illuminated cover plate of an electrical outlet, said outlet having at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electrical outlet device with at least one feed terminal screw head&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and a grounded support bracket, comprising a body portion molded from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a dielectrical plastic material having; openings formed for receiving&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a portion of the electrical outlet device, one or more tentacular&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electrical conductors with spring properties mounted on an insulator&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on the back of the cover plate, the tentacular electrical conductors&#xD;&#xA;&gt; located and designed in such a manner as to make proper automatic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electrical contact with at least one feed terminal screw head on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electrical outlet device when installed on the outlet with the same&#xD;&#xA;&gt; attachment means used for the non-illuminated cover plate, one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tantacular electrical conductors with spring properties mounted on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; back of the cover plate and located and designed in such a manner as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to make proper automatic electrical contact with the grounded&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electrical outlet support bracket when installed on the outlet with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the same attachment means used for the non-illuminated cover plate, an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; illuminating device on the cover plate connected by an appropriate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electric circuit to the feed and ground pick-up tentacular electrical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conductors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not agree that the claims are especially similar. Both are directed to electrical wall outlets, certainly, but each has significantly different features from the other. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10829" RevisionGUID="cb4db26f-6aec-418a-98ad-0ac75bcd1da6" CreationDate="2014-12-22T02:22:47.693" UserId="12118" Text="Does a product on the market have to state that it is patented? I need to know if this product is patented.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25605" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10829" RevisionGUID="cb4db26f-6aec-418a-98ad-0ac75bcd1da6" CreationDate="2014-12-22T02:22:47.693" UserId="12118" Text="Does a product on the market have to state that it is patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25606" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10829" RevisionGUID="cb4db26f-6aec-418a-98ad-0ac75bcd1da6" CreationDate="2014-12-22T02:22:47.693" UserId="12118" Text="&lt;legal&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10830" RevisionGUID="d8ae9c94-5935-421c-9ee7-ba4d878e2818" CreationDate="2014-12-22T06:49:58.647" UserId="11543" Text="In a computer related invention, the patent application may disclose a computer processor or other hardware that may be sufficient for enabling a general computing function. However, mentioning a computer processor or hardware may not be sufficient for enabling a structure for performing a specific function, since novelty in computer related inventions most often resides in the software or the computer program that is being executed on the computer processor and not the hardware itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to identifying the “corresponding structure” for a computer related invention, an “algorithm or code” is the one which carries out the claimed function, and therefore the specification must disclose the &quot;algorithm&quot; that can be used to perform the claimed function.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The algorithm however, need not necessarily be in the form of source code; the algorithm may be expressed in any understandable terms, such as mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may visit the link http://www.invntree.com/blogs/disclosure-requirements-for-software-patents for further details on disclosure requirements of software patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10831" RevisionGUID="8e3cba6d-1e5f-454c-8553-cee13ffdb467" CreationDate="2014-12-22T07:22:31.153" UserId="11895" Text="1. Its not mandatory, but if a organization wants to notify potential competitor on infringement risk they can write the patent information on products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;keep in mind that false representation of patent can leads to penalties under IP laws.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. if you want to know if product is patented then you need to search about same in patent databases, it involves skilled person to dig out this information for you. in 90% of instances you get the patent by applicant name search if you are not getting any close patent for your search then your search is incomplete." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10833" RevisionGUID="57882a42-7008-42e7-97f2-b4f085a12416" CreationDate="2014-12-22T11:39:36.157" UserId="11542" Text="1. Not really necessary to notify a product with the words such as &quot;patent pending&quot;, &quot;patent applied for&quot;  or &quot;patented product&quot;. These words do not provide any legal protection against infringement. However, it may dissuade potential competitors from copying feature(s) of the product or the product as a whole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may refer to this link for more information: http://www.invntree.com/blogs/using-patents-marketing-tool-%E2%80%93-good-bad-and-ugly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. You may have to carry out search to find out if the product has been patented or not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of free online patent databases I suggest are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Espacenet: Good data coverage&#xD;&#xA;    Freepatentsonline: Good search interface. Patent data coverage is not as good as Espacenet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Using any of the above mentioned search databases, you can use various search strategies to identify relevant patent publications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Top 5 patent search strategies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Key string search&#xD;&#xA;    Patent classification search&#xD;&#xA;    Citation based search&#xD;&#xA;    Assignee based search&#xD;&#xA;    Inventor based search&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may refer to below link to get an insight on how to conduct patent search: http://www.invntree.com/blogs/how-conduct-patent-search &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other useful links: &#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/why-freedom-operate-study-must-technology-companies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/5-options-available-if-your-product-infringing-patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10837" RevisionGUID="aef6f393-14bc-496d-9ec8-e9c0368b33fa" CreationDate="2014-12-23T21:22:57.800" UserId="12128" Text="I would like to ask for a contact to patent DE4038611 A1 (Mr.Bojanovsky)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;best regards&#xD;&#xA;Dusan Slosar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25627" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10837" RevisionGUID="aef6f393-14bc-496d-9ec8-e9c0368b33fa" CreationDate="2014-12-23T21:22:57.800" UserId="12128" Text="Patent DE4038611 A1 - request" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25628" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10837" RevisionGUID="aef6f393-14bc-496d-9ec8-e9c0368b33fa" CreationDate="2014-12-23T21:22:57.800" UserId="12128" Text="&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10839" RevisionGUID="32f8e686-b666-48e5-8ce9-a068abce11c0" CreationDate="2014-12-24T01:34:44.053" UserId="12124" Text="Is it legal to purchase a patented product and then modify it to create a totally different (Non Obvious) product, and then get a patent for the new use of the new product?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25633" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10839" RevisionGUID="32f8e686-b666-48e5-8ce9-a068abce11c0" CreationDate="2014-12-24T01:34:44.053" UserId="12124" Text="Modifying an existing patented product to create a totally new non obvious product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25634" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10839" RevisionGUID="32f8e686-b666-48e5-8ce9-a068abce11c0" CreationDate="2014-12-24T01:34:44.053" UserId="12124" Text="&lt;legal&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10837" RevisionGUID="b592c55a-0f91-4353-994e-b31cfbdc20d4" CreationDate="2014-12-24T10:10:18.720" UserId="9939" Comment="deleted 29 characters in body" Text="I would like to ask for a contact to patent DE4038611 A1 (Mr.Bojanovsky)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10840" RevisionGUID="9b14b0a1-150a-4379-998a-149f9ef2d90c" CreationDate="2014-12-24T12:20:20.673" UserId="1777" Text="You can look up German patent data in DPMARegister:&#xD;&#xA;https://register.dpma.de/DPMAregister/pat/einsteiger?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There you will find the full name and registered city of residence of the inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, note that DE4038611 A1 is merely a published patent application (hence the A1 kind code). No patent was ever granted based on this application, the status of which is &quot;lapsed&quot;. I would therefore guess that even the city listed in DPMARegister may not be correct anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, no search report was ever established because the applicant stopped paying the required annual fees." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25637" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10837" RevisionGUID="fb418bd2-9781-4ffb-a01f-058e5420f343" CreationDate="2014-12-24T14:02:51.197" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5059],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:9939,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;nicael&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="25640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10841" RevisionGUID="6c48cee4-bcb8-437f-809f-9388fff2513c" CreationDate="2014-12-24T18:25:33.937" UserId="12133" Text="I have a question about a product that is already out on the market made by POST IT brand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My idea is essentially using the same product but changing the package design and the purpose for which it is intended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this an infringement on their patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25641" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10841" RevisionGUID="6c48cee4-bcb8-437f-809f-9388fff2513c" CreationDate="2014-12-24T18:25:33.937" UserId="12133" Text="modifying an existing patent product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25642" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10841" RevisionGUID="6c48cee4-bcb8-437f-809f-9388fff2513c" CreationDate="2014-12-24T18:25:33.937" UserId="12133" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10843" RevisionGUID="e4eaee3b-a901-461c-818e-fbf5262150d2" CreationDate="2014-12-24T21:41:09.580" UserId="12134" Text="Microsoft's patent on virtual desktops (US7010755) is unlawful, Microsoft did not invent, develop or own this, as clearly shown on the design diagrams the gnome logo and interface can be seen which was developed for Linux AND NOT Microsoft, so far the earliest instance I can find of Linux having virtual desktops is in 1998 and this patent was filed for in 2002,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I fully understand that Linux and many of its features are under the GPL but that shouldn't mean that anyone can just patent it and claim it to be theirs as it is a direct violation of the GPL" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25647" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10843" RevisionGUID="e4eaee3b-a901-461c-818e-fbf5262150d2" CreationDate="2014-12-24T21:41:09.580" UserId="12134" Text="How can Microsoft get away with this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25648" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10843" RevisionGUID="e4eaee3b-a901-461c-818e-fbf5262150d2" CreationDate="2014-12-24T21:41:09.580" UserId="12134" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;illegal&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25649" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10843" RevisionGUID="9bcf1dba-4f71-4f2c-a267-f30aa4eec0bb" CreationDate="2014-12-25T01:28:10.727" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;illegal&gt;&lt;us7010755&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10844" RevisionGUID="07ba1061-ec48-42b2-a2c5-f1a6b2f70cd9" CreationDate="2014-12-25T01:34:01.863" UserId="10011" Text="Yes, this sounds like it would be an infringement. A patent is on an invention, not the implementation of said invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just a quick example, in case I'm misunderstanding your question, if you invented a four-legged table and got it patented, then I came and said &quot;that four-legged table, but used as a chair instead,&quot; that would be an infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The packaging is also irrelevant. That would be a copyright issue in all likelihood, perhaps trademark. But it doesn't impact the patent itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might be able to come up with a patentable improvement, but that's a different matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10847" RevisionGUID="5edc9958-0db8-4f87-9199-f2f373f7320c" CreationDate="2014-12-25T19:08:44.230" UserId="1777" Text="The figures have nothing to do with the claimed scope of the invention. Moreover, the figure with the gnome logo is explicitly labelled prior art (Fig. 1C). If you would like to address novelty, discuss the independent claim. As always with these types of discussions, it is enormously helpful to understand the absolute basics of how to read a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 as granted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Method for presenting multiple virtual desktops in a single graphical user interface formed on a display of a computer system, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;receiving an indication from a user to preview the multiple virtual desktops;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;displaying multiple panes on the display, each pane containing a scaled virtual desktop having dimensions that are proportionally less than the dimensions of a corresponding full-size virtual desktop, each scaled virtual desktop being displayed with one or more scaled application windows if the corresponding full-size virtual desktop has one or more corresponding application windows that are active, each scaled virtual desktop being displayed with a taskbar with one or more task buttons which correspond to one or more application windows;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;receiving an indication from a user to share an application window;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;displaying a task button representing the application window in a first virtual desktop in which the application window is opened, the task button being displayed in other virtual desktops besides the first virtual desktop in which the application window is opened and being selectable from any virtual desktop to switch from another running application window to the application window;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;receiving a selection event by the task button from a second virtual desktop;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;displaying the application window in the second virtual desktop;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;removing the presentation of the application window from the first virtual desktop while maintaining the presentation of the task button representing the application window in the first virtual desktop;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;receiving an indication from a user to refrain from sharing the application window; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;displaying the task button representing the application window in the second virtual desktop in which the application window is opened, the task button being removed from other virtual desktops so that the task button cannot be selected from other virtual desktops to switch from another running application window to the application window." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10847" RevisionGUID="f70aceff-3a87-4ff9-8bca-d4af0a0e7572" CreationDate="2014-12-26T01:14:54.027" UserId="253" Comment="make it a proper quote" Text="The figures have nothing to do with the claimed scope of the invention. Moreover, the figure with the gnome logo is explicitly labelled prior art (Fig. 1C). If you would like to address novelty, discuss the independent claim. As always with these types of discussions, it is enormously helpful to understand the absolute basics of how to read a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 as granted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Method for presenting multiple virtual desktops in a single graphical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user interface formed on a display of a computer system, the method&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving an indication from a user to preview the multiple virtual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; desktops;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; displaying multiple panes on the display, each pane containing a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scaled virtual desktop having dimensions that are proportionally less&#xD;&#xA;&gt; than the dimensions of a corresponding full-size virtual desktop, each&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scaled virtual desktop being displayed with one or more scaled&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application windows if the corresponding full-size virtual desktop has&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one or more corresponding application windows that are active, each&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scaled virtual desktop being displayed with a taskbar with one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; task buttons which correspond to one or more application windows;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving an indication from a user to share an application window;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; displaying a task button representing the application window in a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first virtual desktop in which the application window is opened, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; task button being displayed in other virtual desktops besides the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first virtual desktop in which the application window is opened and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; being selectable from any virtual desktop to switch from another&#xD;&#xA;&gt; running application window to the application window;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving a selection event by the task button from a second virtual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; desktop;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; displaying the application window in the second virtual desktop;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; removing the presentation of the application window from the first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; virtual desktop while maintaining the presentation of the task button&#xD;&#xA;&gt; representing the application window in the first virtual desktop;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving an indication from a user to refrain from sharing the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application window; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; displaying the task button representing the application window in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; second virtual desktop in which the application window is opened, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; task button being removed from other virtual desktops so that the task&#xD;&#xA;&gt; button cannot be selected from other virtual desktops to switch from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; another running application window to the application window." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25663" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10847" RevisionGUID="f70aceff-3a87-4ff9-8bca-d4af0a0e7572" CreationDate="2014-12-26T01:14:54.027" Comment="Proposed by 253 approved by 1 edit id of 1734" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10848" RevisionGUID="759ffb76-1915-4185-b096-b5c1c0012007" CreationDate="2014-12-26T08:12:04.067" UserId="12144" Text="Patents are there to give the &quot;inventor&quot; an exclusive right to manufacture &quot;products&quot; for a certain period.&#xD;&#xA;So if you &quot;buy&quot; an item of a product, you can do what you like with it, the original inventor has already got his money. So it's generally fairly pointless for example buying bicycles, cutting and re-welding the frames to make tandem bicycles, unless you can make an additional profit from tandem cycles , then it's good luck to you. &#xD;&#xA;If you want to file a patent, then this has to be for the design of your &quot;novel&quot; product, but to actually benefit from a patent you need to be able to **manufacture your product**, however the costs of manufacture and patenting your &quot;new&quot; product may be less economic than actually modifying them. (Speaking from experience, having imported a container load of items then swapping a small PCB for one of my own)&#xD;&#xA;So in your patent you need to refer to the bicycle patent as prior art. If your design is sufficiently &quot;novel&quot; then the patent will be granted , eventually, but most often will be rejected as just an obvious extension of prior art. &#xD;&#xA;Note that if you do get a patent granted for your &quot;tandem&quot; , if you then sell it , minus all the tandem parts, you will be infringing the &quot;bicycle&quot; patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The intent of the patent process is to encourage improvements to existing ways of doing things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also important to carefully read the &quot;claims&quot; in the patent you are improving upon, sometimes it seems from the description that the applicant has described all sorts of features, but only claimed one subtle feature. For example the patent of the bicycle might talk about all things, but the only claims are &quot;having two springs in the seat&quot; , so just make your tandem claim have &quot;two seats with suspension means&quot; and have secondary claims mentioning suspension means of foam monoblocks, and another with a &quot;plurality of springs&quot; , so the worst the original bike inventor can do is make one of your subclaims restricted to one spring or 3 or more.&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10849" RevisionGUID="0850a025-1ef7-4fed-92a8-b77c1cfaae0e" CreationDate="2014-12-26T08:45:37.430" UserId="12144" Text="There are alternatives to patenting.&#xD;&#xA;If you are for example intending to use most of the original product, then consider using a registered design, this varies from country to country, but is way cheaper and quicker. The registered design is for the &quot;look and feel&quot; of the product (patents are more about function).&#xD;&#xA;Then you advertise it, sell a handful,  once it generates a bit of interest, go back to to original manufacturer and parley with them. They can make your improved design , and **sell to you at OEM prices**, you get to pocket the markup to retail typically half the sticker price. &#xD;&#xA;So two options &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (a) Patent your new approach, setup manufacturing activity, work&#xD;&#xA;   years of 18hr days, fight off the original inventor, spend $100k,&#xD;&#xA;   have a turnover of $110k in 5 years time, net profit = 10k. &#xD;&#xA; - (b) Do some mods to existing device, register design ($100/year), pay&#xD;&#xA;   original inventor $50k/year to make product you can sell in one years&#xD;&#xA;   time for $100k/year, year after that sell the registered design to &#xD;&#xA;   original inventor for $20k , walk away after 2 years with $120k in   &#xD;&#xA;   your pocket.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent gives one the &quot;right to manufacture&quot; , a registered design gives you the &quot;right to sell&quot; (assuming customers want to buy your faddish variant).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10850" RevisionGUID="201d5054-8647-4ceb-aaef-b11c9f2f433e" CreationDate="2014-12-26T09:02:32.003" UserId="12145" Text="Is it possible to patent an improvement of a language ( new method to write it) in order to sell the improvement to Microsoft or others. &#xD;&#xA;Thanks. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25670" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10850" RevisionGUID="201d5054-8647-4ceb-aaef-b11c9f2f433e" CreationDate="2014-12-26T09:02:32.003" UserId="12145" Text="Patentability of language improvement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25671" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10850" RevisionGUID="201d5054-8647-4ceb-aaef-b11c9f2f433e" CreationDate="2014-12-26T09:02:32.003" UserId="12145" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;data-processing-language&gt;&lt;improvement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10851" RevisionGUID="97360566-578c-4e3d-9e07-97768d2c4933" CreationDate="2014-12-26T09:21:26.433" UserId="12144" Text="As others have mentioned, publication happens pretty much by itself.&#xD;&#xA;There are some critical features to understand. &#xD;&#xA;You really need to have sufficient resources to be able to push through from provisional/ application all the way to filing as soon as possible. You cannot **add** to the application when making your claims, so many inventors tend to include all possible variants in the original application description, however if your claims are reduced during examination, then you have **published** all this extra information, that you could have possibly used in a latter invention.&#xD;&#xA;Ideally you want your patent examined and granted before the application gets published, overwise your competitors will know what you are doing and while you are dithering about, will be actively generating spinoffs based on your published ideas, or worse patenting enabling technology that your invention needs.&#xD;&#xA;Imagine inventing a 3d printer, but neglecting to patent the means to manufacture the filament the machine needs as a necessary feedstock. You only sell a machine once, but you sell consumables forever. Imagine inventing shoes, and competitors making twice your margin selling socks. Or a competitor patenting non-slip soles for your shiny leather shoes.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10852" RevisionGUID="95654d85-56e1-4bf9-8d78-d5ae0f693795" CreationDate="2014-12-26T12:08:29.543" UserId="12144" Text="Sweeping claims don't automatically preclude improvements.&#xD;&#xA;For example consider a patent claiming a combination of round disks with central holes, and long circular rods. and a second sweeping claim where the first part of claim one includes all round objects. &#xD;&#xA;If you invent the pneumatic tyre , you haven't infringed on the wheel patent just because your tyre is round.  Neither have you infringed on the beach ball patent (it's round and filled with air). Your invention is clearly novel, and useful, and not immediately obvious from the prior art. &#xD;&#xA;Broad sweeping claims need to be read in the context of the primary claim. So in the example above, if you make your wheels from oak instead of pine, and put the nails in at an angle, and paint them green, then they are still round things that function as wheels. So the broad sweeping claim is intended to pick up the obvious things like changing the color.&#xD;&#xA;Patented inventions describe the **means** to achieve a specific **end**. But, if you can arrive at the same end by using different (and novel and non obvious) means, then the means is patentable, you will probably have to re-use some elements of the other patent, (like screws, and wire and bits of brass) but there is no infringement if these items were re-used in obvious and well known ways. &#xD;&#xA;Also be wary of broad sweeping claims that try to tie down the end use but not the means to get there. &#xD;&#xA;So for your solar example (I'm assuming you meant *silicon*, as making PV cells from a rubbery silicone polymer would certainly be revolutionary), &quot;making electricity from sunshine&quot; is talking about the **end** , tossing the word silicon in there doesn't make a broad claim enforcable. The claim needs to indicate a **specific process** or manufacturing step, that for example [improves the capture of sunshine into the cell] or [improves the quantum efficiency] or [improves the way the electricity is extracted]. Also the PV effect is a natural process, so you can't patent that, only applications utilising the effect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10853" RevisionGUID="f59f3bd1-82c9-454e-bc1e-3fe5c9fcc081" CreationDate="2014-12-26T12:36:06.583" UserId="12144" Text="In contrast to Arthur C Clarke, look at the story of Hedy Lamarr and Spread Spectrum. She patented this back in WW2, but the valve radio technology of the time wasn't quite up to the task. See US2,292,387&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Situation 3 is a where there are vague descriptions of the ground station in the patent, but a more detailed description has been published, some times accidently, and some times deliberately &quot;published&quot; in some obscure newspaper in Hicktown, or presented as a poster paper at some conference.  The original inventors realised it was going to be difficult to get enforcable definitive claims in for the ground station, but prevented other blocking patents by clever use of public domain. Another situation (which actually happened to a client) was having the fancy control room open to guided tours, so anything the [non employee] visitors could see is in the public domain. Anything hidden in electronic racks is still patentable. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10854" RevisionGUID="80d4fd66-3d56-4479-b916-573e7e7081f6" CreationDate="2014-12-26T13:08:06.770" UserId="12144" Text="Hang on,&#xD;&#xA;You can't patent &quot;ideas&quot; , only their reduction to practice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you need to be able to disclose the exact detail of the device or method that is required to achieve the end result. So you need to guess at a way of getting your idea to work and patent that. If you guess wrong and slip up so it won't work as described then your patent is worthless. Having said that, there are a lot of &quot;patent trolls&quot; out there, filing &quot;submarine patents&quot; that lurk just below the surface, ready to sink any newcomer or at least ransom some critical IP. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've worked for a company with fairly strong patent protection ina particular area, they saw a potential workaround for competitors, and we patented that approach too. Sometimes, on the road to discovering the best method, you discover second best and third best methods. So patenting these also-ran methods blocks others, although you have no need of them. A bit like playing chess, the also-rans are the pawns in your patent portfolio." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10855" RevisionGUID="6cc4e5a4-8853-4f93-8c59-3de562084ff5" CreationDate="2014-12-26T13:58:37.877" UserId="12144" Text="Some of my best friends are academics, but.. academics like to talk a lot, and have an imperative to publish, other than that, academics are an excellent choice. Many Universities also have innovation centres attached, and will usually offer free 30min consultations if you are prepared to go to the effort of fronting up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your idea requires some kind of actual gadget/machine to make it work, I'd recommend talking to an engineer. Engineers of all fields are usually pretty good at spotting ideas that won't work, engineers also work with a lot of confidential technical material, so are used to handling this, and most importantly, don't derive their income from patents. And you can get a lot of advice for the price of a beer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't expect all ideas to lead to patents, I've had maybe 10,000 ideas over the decades, yet have only 5 patents, your mileage may vary. I've made money by using &quot;ideas&quot; to solve client's problems, so they make products that work, get income from this, and pay me. Fortunately the magic is in the electronics in the box, so no real need to patent these products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10850" RevisionGUID="761ce60d-3aad-4f9d-9a2f-3ec3aa8a6bd5" CreationDate="2014-12-27T05:58:00.847" UserId="12143" Comment="Improved Question" Text="Is it possible to patent an improvement of a Programming language ( new method to write it) in order to sell the improvement to Microsoft or others. &#xD;&#xA;Thanks. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25680" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10850" RevisionGUID="761ce60d-3aad-4f9d-9a2f-3ec3aa8a6bd5" CreationDate="2014-12-27T05:58:00.847" Comment="Proposed by 12143 approved by 1777, 10011 edit id of 1736" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10307" RevisionGUID="190eb25a-5532-4a25-b14f-f7bd0347d47a" CreationDate="2014-12-27T14:06:27.210" UserId="12143" Comment="Formatting" Text="I had designed a similar invention like the Patent [`US5,934,963`][1] but have found this patent was already in force.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to have lapsed and been re-instated several times... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you determine the current status?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5934963" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25682" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10307" RevisionGUID="190eb25a-5532-4a25-b14f-f7bd0347d47a" CreationDate="2014-12-27T14:06:27.210" UserId="12143" Comment="Formatting" Text="Know that Patent expired or not" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25683" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10307" RevisionGUID="190eb25a-5532-4a25-b14f-f7bd0347d47a" CreationDate="2014-12-27T14:06:27.210" Comment="Proposed by 12143 approved by 1777, 79 edit id of 1735" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10857" RevisionGUID="83e32845-d20e-4c97-b9b7-c049d52925f1" CreationDate="2014-12-27T23:30:34.713" UserId="12124" Text="Their is liquid formula that is patent pending on the market but I have also developed a formula which works the same way but has totally different ingredients. Am I still eligible for a patent?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25688" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10857" RevisionGUID="83e32845-d20e-4c97-b9b7-c049d52925f1" CreationDate="2014-12-27T23:30:34.713" UserId="12124" Text="Their is liquid formula that is patent pending on the market. Can i also get a patent for a similar formula?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25689" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10857" RevisionGUID="83e32845-d20e-4c97-b9b7-c049d52925f1" CreationDate="2014-12-27T23:30:34.713" UserId="12124" Text="&lt;legal&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10858" RevisionGUID="a8cfbba2-8fc3-4b5f-a650-20daef220e9d" CreationDate="2014-12-27T23:44:32.057" UserId="12124" Text="I Modified an existing patented formula to create a totally new non obvious formula product and in a different field. Their product formula is in cosmetics and my modified formula is in let's say automotive. Is this also patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25691" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10858" RevisionGUID="a8cfbba2-8fc3-4b5f-a650-20daef220e9d" CreationDate="2014-12-27T23:44:32.057" UserId="12124" Text="Modifying an existing patented formula to create a totally new non obvious product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25692" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10858" RevisionGUID="a8cfbba2-8fc3-4b5f-a650-20daef220e9d" CreationDate="2014-12-27T23:44:32.057" UserId="12124" Text="&lt;legal&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10859" RevisionGUID="79f79b1d-3399-4574-aaff-1703c63fc39b" CreationDate="2014-12-27T23:49:31.663" UserId="10011" Text="It really depends on how different the formula is. The best bet is probably to speak with a patent professional to whom you can disclose your invention and discuss patentability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might be able to edit your question to give some more details, but be careful not to tell too much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like you're probably going to be able to get something, because formulas can be patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth noting that the other way around wouldn't be patentable, if you were looking to use an existing formula for a different purpose, but I know that's not what you had said." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10857" RevisionGUID="f4d41520-f24e-40e9-b73f-2ee09f77a8da" CreationDate="2014-12-28T01:33:34.473" UserId="10011" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="There is liquid formula that is patent pending on the market but I have also developed a formula which works the same way but has totally different ingredients. Am I still eligible for a patent?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25695" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10857" RevisionGUID="f4d41520-f24e-40e9-b73f-2ee09f77a8da" CreationDate="2014-12-28T01:33:34.473" UserId="10011" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="There is liquid formula that is patent pending on the market. Can i also get a patent for a similar formula?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25696" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10857" RevisionGUID="f4d41520-f24e-40e9-b73f-2ee09f77a8da" CreationDate="2014-12-28T01:33:34.473" UserId="10011" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;legal&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10860" RevisionGUID="55559651-b2e5-430a-ab44-452f9131c930" CreationDate="2014-12-28T12:02:06.700" UserId="12144" Text="Given the &quot;chassis&quot; is already existing then it is prior art in terms of your patent. The tricky question is whether only 5/6ths of your concept is patentable, or the whole lot of it. &#xD;&#xA;If the &quot;chassis&quot; is only an extant example of a component required to make your concept functional, then generally the whole concept would be patentable, the relevant claim needs to refer to that part by its function, and note that parts of that type are currently available. The only time it would get difficult is where there are (a) specific features of the &quot;chassis&quot; that are claimed in the original, and (b) these features aren't obvious to &quot;someone skilled in the art&quot; , and (c) you must have these features.&#xD;&#xA;The original patent needs to be referred to in &quot;prior art&quot;, and in the description section you can identify the specific part. A sloppy claim for the &quot;chassis&quot; in your patent may make it easier for others to circumvent your patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example you might be using the &quot;chassis&quot; for your prototyping and experimentation because it's convenient, but in mass production you would make your own parts with a similar interface. You wouldn't think to make your own screws and nuts and washers, and ignition coils or pumps or plumbing connectors, at some point you have to draw the line between buying sub-assemblys and making them in-house. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A secondary issue arises as to whether you could actually make and sell your product. The actual spare part may not be available on the market to buy. The original maker might raise the price. The original maker might sue you for &quot;defacing&quot; his product. If you make an identical copy of the part then you will be breaching copyright. If you make something that is functionally similar to the &quot;chassis&quot;, but retains say the dimensions of the mounting holes, and otherwise designed by yourself from the ground up and looks vaguely the same from a distance, then copyright is not infringed. The functionality of the &quot;chassis&quot; is irrelevant from a copyright perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to draw a line between inspiration and imitation, so you can't patent tractor tubes as pool toys, but inflatable donut shaped pool toys could be patented (assuming no one has been seen in public using tractor tyres in the pool prior), even if they are the same dimensions as a standard tractor tube." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10862" RevisionGUID="0ee2332d-b9fc-4823-9437-1d465ad40496" CreationDate="2014-12-29T01:59:16.123" UserId="12124" Text="Would it be wise and economical to get one patent for a formula that has three totally different uses in three different categories&#xD;&#xA;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25702" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10862" RevisionGUID="0ee2332d-b9fc-4823-9437-1d465ad40496" CreationDate="2014-12-29T01:59:16.123" UserId="12124" Text="Multiple uses in different gategories for one formula" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25703" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10862" RevisionGUID="0ee2332d-b9fc-4823-9437-1d465ad40496" CreationDate="2014-12-29T01:59:16.123" UserId="12124" Text="&lt;legal&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25704" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10862" RevisionGUID="23f7f518-0aca-49b7-a68b-a9f1d1673cef" CreationDate="2014-12-29T02:04:24.613" UserId="12124" Comment="edited title" Text="Multiple uses in different categories for one formula" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10863" RevisionGUID="a8e6f1d3-2866-4da0-b3e5-db5e171eff91" CreationDate="2014-12-29T02:38:39.483" UserId="10011" Text="I mentioned this very briefly in [my answer to your previous question](http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/10859/10011), but from the sound of what you're asking, that's probably not only your best option, but it might be your *only* option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent is on an invention, not an implementation or use-case for that invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good way of thinking of that differentiation is if I designed a table. Now, of course, I use the word &quot;table&quot; here because we both know what that is, but the actual patent application would likely refer more to a flat surface with four legs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's worth understanding here, is that my patent here for &quot;a table&quot; really wouldn't say anything about how I use it. It would say &quot;a flat surface with four legs,&quot; and it would then be up to manufacturers to make it useful for something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you came along and said &quot;I'm going to use that flat surface and those four legs, but in my version, it's for people to sit on,&quot; that would *not* be patentable. You'd still be infringing on my patent if you tried to use it for something different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Utility patents *do* require their invention to have a use (utility, in other words), but the patent is on the invention itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bringing it back to your question about formulas, the same thing applies. You can't patent a formula's use any more than I could patent the table as a piece of furniture meant to hold objects. Your patent will be for a specific chemical formula (I imagine), then uses for that will be up to you and anyone who buys your product or licenses the patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10865" RevisionGUID="8118a962-61eb-476c-959a-63c588ee4230" CreationDate="2014-12-29T18:54:08.153" UserId="12164" Text="The payment part is described in this MIT article on M-PESA as a way to pay for taxi fares from a mobile phone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... e‐float transfers are often used to pay directly for goods and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; services, from electricity bills to taxi‐cab fares ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.mit.edu/~tavneet/M-PESA.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10865" RevisionGUID="3577448d-dcd7-4e24-bdf3-8e30578fcb71" CreationDate="2014-12-29T19:12:05.767" UserId="12164" Comment="Academic and Commercial Prior Art from 2001 to 2008" Text="The payment part is described in this MIT article on M-PESA as a way to pay for taxi fares from a mobile phone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... e‐float transfers are often used to pay directly for goods and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; services, from electricity bills to taxi‐cab fares ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.mit.edu/~tavneet/M-PESA.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Avego in 2008 released a similar system. It's now called Carma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://mashable.com/2008/09/08/avego/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Location, Navigation, Planning a Route, Identifying Persons or Objects, Location Sensitive Billing, and Advertising are covered in this paper from 2006:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://sourceforge.net/projects/jump-pilot/files/w_other_freegis_documents/articles/lbs_lecturenotes_steinigeretal2006.pdf/download&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pull services, such as ordering a taxi are described in a 2001 paper bt Virrantus et al.:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot; Pull services deliver information directly requested from the user. This is similar to &gt;call a website in the Internet by fill in its address in the web browser-address field. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For pull services a further separation can&#xD;&#xA;&gt;be done into functional services, like ordering a taxi or an ambulance by just pressing a &gt;button on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt;device, or information services, like the search for a close Chinese restaurant (Virrantaus et al. 2001). &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Virrantaus, K., Markkula, J., Garmash, A., Terziyan, Y.V., 2001. Developing GIS-Supported LocationBased&#xD;&#xA;Services. In: Proc. of WGIS’2001 – First International Workshop on Web Geographical Information&#xD;&#xA;Systems., Kyoto, Japan. , 423–432.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More info on Location Based Services can be found here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Location-based_service" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10865" RevisionGUID="39089ff8-cd8d-412f-8e6d-374dfba9ffea" CreationDate="2014-12-29T19:21:33.447" UserId="12164" Comment="deleted 128 characters in body" Text="The payment part is described in this MIT article on M-PESA as a way to pay for taxi fares from a mobile phone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... e‐float transfers are often used to pay directly for goods and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; services, from electricity bills to taxi‐cab fares ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.mit.edu/~tavneet/M-PESA.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Avego in 2008 released a similar system. It's now called Carma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://mashable.com/2008/09/08/avego/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Location, Navigation, Planning a Route, Identifying Persons or Objects, Location Sensitive Billing, and Advertising are covered in this paper from 2006:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://sourceforge.net/projects/jump-pilot/files/w_other_freegis_documents/articles/lbs_lecturenotes_steinigeretal2006.pdf/download&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pull services, such as ordering a taxi are described in a 2001 paper bt Virrantus et al.:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot; Pull services deliver information directly requested from the user. ... a further separation can be done into **functional services, like ordering a taxi or an ambulance by just pressing a button on the device**, or information services, like the search for a close Chinese restaurant (Virrantaus et al. 2001). &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Virrantaus, K., Markkula, J., Garmash, A., Terziyan, Y.V., 2001. Developing GIS-Supported LocationBased&#xD;&#xA;Services. In: Proc. of WGIS’2001 – First International Workshop on Web Geographical Information&#xD;&#xA;Systems., Kyoto, Japan. , 423–432.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More info on Location Based Services can be found here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Location-based_service" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10866" RevisionGUID="d19aac7d-e149-4b28-9c89-292e59b5c777" CreationDate="2014-12-30T17:57:17.597" UserId="12170" Text="I am doing patent search first time and struggling to establish if ep1020784a2 patent is withdrawn or expired?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would appreciate feedback from anyone experienced out there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;regards&#xD;&#xA;Kamesh" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25718" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10866" RevisionGUID="d19aac7d-e149-4b28-9c89-292e59b5c777" CreationDate="2014-12-30T17:57:17.597" UserId="12170" Text="is this patent ep1020784a2 expired?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25719" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10866" RevisionGUID="d19aac7d-e149-4b28-9c89-292e59b5c777" CreationDate="2014-12-30T17:57:17.597" UserId="12170" Text="&lt;expired-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10867" RevisionGUID="d838df1d-fa38-4ced-a6ce-77088b193ffd" CreationDate="2014-12-30T22:45:43.263" UserId="1777" Text="Application has been deemed withdrawn since 2004 according to EP Register: https://register.epo.org/application?lng=en&amp;number=EP00300235" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10868" RevisionGUID="35757147-f783-4946-8917-dcc7d7414566" CreationDate="2014-12-30T22:54:20.243" UserId="1777" Text="The European Patent Office, which acted as International Search Authority for this PCT application, seems to agree with you, as they found all claims to be unallowable over multiple prior art documents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/WO2010052608&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10869" RevisionGUID="ef6fbd8b-9cca-4897-a204-170977fdd9b7" CreationDate="2014-12-30T23:05:11.187" UserId="1777" Text="That blog post you link to also does not make any sense. They announce their intention to file for patent &quot;in September&quot; in a post dated July - complete with a fairly detailed system diagram. They better hope the examiner does not become aware of this, as this would constitute prior art for their own application! In any case, since they brag about their upcoming patent application publicly on their blog, why not ask them directly about their application serial number? In any case, as George already wrote, if they only filed this past September, it will take a while until the application is published." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10870" RevisionGUID="645c1577-899e-4272-9719-ebfc9cb74057" CreationDate="2014-12-30T23:24:05.903" UserId="1777" Text="For all I can see, the PCT application (WO/2013/098829) does not actually claim any priority:&#xD;&#xA;http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/WO2013098829&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its effective date therefore is in any case its own filing date, i.e., December 30, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, according to the OP, said Indian patent application is post-published after the effective date on February 1, 2013. It will therefore normally not be considered as prior art unless in the same jurisdiction. (E.g., a post-published EP application with an earlier priority date is valid prior art for another EP application for the purpose of evaluating novelty; however, the same does not apply to post-published US applications with an earlier priority date).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such documents, if they are cited at all, should be listed in the section &quot;certain documents cited&quot; (Box VI.) in the PCT IPRP / IPER, so that the national offices can evaluate them according to their own law in the national phase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10872" RevisionGUID="00551fbb-8877-4ee6-a6a9-bef17e418575" CreationDate="2015-01-01T11:07:05.427" UserId="12179" Text="How to determine total vertical stress sigma V due to weight of overburden rock, and minor horizontal total stress sigma hmin from density log." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25734" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10872" RevisionGUID="00551fbb-8877-4ee6-a6a9-bef17e418575" CreationDate="2015-01-01T11:07:05.427" UserId="12179" Text="Geomechanical Rock" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25735" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10872" RevisionGUID="00551fbb-8877-4ee6-a6a9-bef17e418575" CreationDate="2015-01-01T11:07:05.427" UserId="12179" Text="&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;post-grant-review&gt;&lt;grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10873" RevisionGUID="ff86feac-0b32-4c94-ac0f-b72d4e1eb439" CreationDate="2015-01-01T23:35:51.873" UserId="12181" Text="Where may I find information regarding the history of this tool from 1949 to 2014?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25737" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10873" RevisionGUID="ff86feac-0b32-4c94-ac0f-b72d4e1eb439" CreationDate="2015-01-01T23:35:51.873" UserId="12181" Text="Well fluid stabilizer by A.C. Hartsell" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25738" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10873" RevisionGUID="ff86feac-0b32-4c94-ac0f-b72d4e1eb439" CreationDate="2015-01-01T23:35:51.873" UserId="12181" Text="&lt;us2739652&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10875" RevisionGUID="ab02db02-1bc8-49ce-8732-889c735435bf" CreationDate="2015-01-02T10:25:04.017" UserId="1777" Text="Without wanting to state the obvious here, but if you really think your invention is economically valuable and you have no prior experience in the patent field at all, you would be well advised to seek professional representation. As always, if you cannot or do not want to invest a few thousand dollars and / or a share of potential future profits, it is probably best to stay out of the patent game and use alternative strategies for the monetization and protection of your R&amp;D efforts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25743" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10873" RevisionGUID="06d632e1-959e-4aff-88c7-b406b0007999" CreationDate="2015-01-02T19:19:53.527" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="25744" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10872" RevisionGUID="14f73763-2efe-4cc2-835d-fe568003a675" CreationDate="2015-01-02T19:20:12.503" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="25746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10876" RevisionGUID="f825dba7-bc07-4f0d-bb53-c631608f6fa3" CreationDate="2015-01-03T01:04:12.530" UserId="12185" Text="I have a 70884 nail extractor for over 64 years while growing up in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Columbia,Connecticut.  Is this different from the 708841?  Maybe a prototype?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And therefore more of an antique? If so what would it's value be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Thank you.....Frank Baker  301-854 0729&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                7299 Brown's Bridge Road&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                Fulton, Maryland  20759" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25747" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10876" RevisionGUID="f825dba7-bc07-4f0d-bb53-c631608f6fa3" CreationDate="2015-01-03T01:04:12.530" UserId="12185" Text="forged pat no 70884 steel nail extractor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25748" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10876" RevisionGUID="f825dba7-bc07-4f0d-bb53-c631608f6fa3" CreationDate="2015-01-03T01:04:12.530" UserId="12185" Text="&lt;us708841&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10877" RevisionGUID="25f560d1-56b2-41e2-b665-1200b69ba443" CreationDate="2015-01-03T01:22:10.163" UserId="12124" Text="I Modified an existing chemical formula by adding ingredients to create a new product formula (gel)} in a totally unrelated field. Would this be legal ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25750" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10877" RevisionGUID="25f560d1-56b2-41e2-b665-1200b69ba443" CreationDate="2015-01-03T01:22:10.163" UserId="12124" Text="Modifying an existing chemical formula to create a new product (formula) in an unrelated field" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25751" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10877" RevisionGUID="25f560d1-56b2-41e2-b665-1200b69ba443" CreationDate="2015-01-03T01:22:10.163" UserId="12124" Text="&lt;legal&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10879" RevisionGUID="b945dbee-e92d-42e9-9bd1-a8b8811ffbaa" CreationDate="2015-01-03T03:28:35.837" UserId="3128" Text="US patent 708841 is indeed for a nail extractor, the patent being granted in 1902.  The application number was 110073 (basically, granted numbers run sequentially, while application numbers restart every few years in the US).  US patent 70884 is completely unrelated, for a 'Hat and Coat Hook' and was granted in 1867.&#xD;&#xA;Looking online at pictures of some Bridgeport nail pullers, the last digit of the patent number on the article does not look as deeply formed as the other digits. It's quite possible that the markings were stamped on the tool after it had been forged, and sometimes the impression is uneven.  I strongly suspect that the '1' was lightly formed and/or has been rubbed away.  Perhaps if you look closely you may see a trace of it.&#xD;&#xA;Beyond that, I'm afraid valuation is beyond my sphere of ignorance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10880" RevisionGUID="ff6548ce-404f-4c31-a212-d73d91181c42" CreationDate="2015-01-03T11:15:29.990" UserId="1777" Text="According to USPTO PAIR, patent 6,098,180 (application 08/804,114), &quot;ROBUST DELIVERY SYSTEM&quot;, is listed as &quot;patented case&quot;. Fees appear to have been paid, and the patent therefore appears to be in force.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The corresponding European Patent application (publication number EP1026866), &quot;Robust File Transfer System&quot;, has been withdrawn following a negative search report.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the &quot;patent troll&quot; allegation in the question title, I am not sure I can agree. The patent was filed by Kobata and Tonchev of ATABOK Inc. (also known as e-parcel), a former division of Mitsubishi Electric, which is described as &quot;provid[ing] secure file transfer services to the corporations in the United States and internationally&quot;. See: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=3043964&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that the patent was granted in 2000, with a priority date of 1997, and not in 2011 as implied by the OP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should also be noted that for those reasons, the patent should only be valid for another two years, until 2017, at the most." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10881" RevisionGUID="6593ca3d-d4da-4bc5-9487-af99b0c438dd" CreationDate="2015-01-03T11:31:09.233" UserId="1777" Text="Well, there appears to be a corresponding PCT application from STRIPE with a seemingly identical claim set, WO2013067121. For this PCT application, the USPTO acted as the International Searching Authority and found all claims to lack inventive step in light of multiple prior art documents. See Documents -&gt; &quot; International Preliminary Report on Patentability Chapter I&quot; of 06.05.2014 here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/WO2013067121&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears the US application mentioned by the OP is processed by a different examiner. I am not sure how good the USPTO IT systems are at automatically alerting examiners of co-pending international applications from the same applicant sharing the same (partial) priority claims. I guess time will tell..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10882" RevisionGUID="c345dba1-e07c-42c4-8a07-c951f0e90369" CreationDate="2015-01-03T11:38:21.263" UserId="1777" Text="Well, obviousness is a tricky issue and at the core of (proper) examination work. Reams of case law exist on the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a fairly good introduction in the corresponding Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond that, one would have to look at the **exact wording of a given independent claim** and evaluate it in the context of the **specific most relevant prior art in this case**. General statements based on single-sentence summaries of what one observer believes to be a fair representation of the &quot;idea behind&quot; a given patent are impossible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10876" RevisionGUID="36297091-9b75-4255-a6e6-4f6206078f03" CreationDate="2015-01-04T00:44:08.860" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 130 characters in body" Text="I have a 70884 nail extractor for over 64 years while growing up in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Columbia,Connecticut.  Is this different from the 708841?  Maybe a prototype?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And therefore more of an antique? If so what would it's value be?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10884" RevisionGUID="3f56f421-68f9-465d-9153-777fa18427b7" CreationDate="2015-01-04T08:19:16.723" UserId="1777" Text="The priority date is the date when the first application describing the same invention was originally filed by the same applicant. Thus it is documented that the applicant had already made the invention by the priority date. The fact that the later application leading to a granted patent was made at a later point of time is rather bureaucratic in nature and has nothing to do with the question when the invention was made. So no &quot;getting away&quot; with anyting. This is how patents work in general, btw." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10885" RevisionGUID="acbd7be4-c869-4e5b-af3f-46dc612aa43c" CreationDate="2015-01-04T22:25:31.053" UserId="12198" Text="The inventors are named and the organization is a non profit. who will eventually profit from this patent if it is granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25769" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10885" RevisionGUID="acbd7be4-c869-4e5b-af3f-46dc612aa43c" CreationDate="2015-01-04T22:25:31.053" UserId="12198" Text="Profit from biomass gasification patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25770" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10885" RevisionGUID="acbd7be4-c869-4e5b-af3f-46dc612aa43c" CreationDate="2015-01-04T22:25:31.053" UserId="12198" Text="&lt;ca2827105a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10891" RevisionGUID="844343bd-ec23-47a9-ada4-90105e701164" CreationDate="2015-01-05T14:27:41.370" UserId="12206" Text="Bruce Percival Warburton is my Grandfather. My Grandmother knew of his invented drill bit but she did not know it was patented. How, out of interest, are these patents located - and now about 50 years later who has the rights to this patent? Bruce is dead, by the way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25793" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10891" RevisionGUID="844343bd-ec23-47a9-ada4-90105e701164" CreationDate="2015-01-05T14:27:41.370" UserId="12206" Text="This is my Grandfather's patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25794" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10891" RevisionGUID="844343bd-ec23-47a9-ada4-90105e701164" CreationDate="2015-01-05T14:27:41.370" UserId="12206" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10893" RevisionGUID="d6c3d96f-608c-454c-8848-73bc2f2b7793" CreationDate="2015-01-05T16:28:44.297" UserId="1500" Text="For the purpose of this answer, I'm assuming you are in the United States.  Patent law varies country to country so this is important, if you aren't in the US, please edit your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Locating a Patent by Inventor Name**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To locate your grandfather's patent, you can just use Google!&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- http://www.google.com/advanced_patent_search&#xD;&#xA; - Enter your Grandfather's name as &quot;Inventor&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- [Here's a patent!][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Who owns the right to the patent?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost certainly nobody.  Patent rights, from patents filed earlier than 1996 (this is complicated, I'm ignoring for these purposes), expire 17 years from the date the patent was issued.  Using the linked patent above, which issued in 1965, all of the rights expired in the early 1980s.  Still cool though!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3186501?dq=ininventor:Bruce%20ininventor:Warburton&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=irqqVMGQGc-vyATwsYCoAw&amp;ved=0CDsQ6AEwBA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10894" RevisionGUID="16cef4ce-2942-4d08-8cb3-2ab990cd751a" CreationDate="2015-01-06T01:30:41.447" UserId="12207" Text="I am looking for the patent WO2004007523=TWI333957;&#xD;&#xA;however, I do not see TWI333957 listed on the Google patent.&#xD;&#xA;My question is: is it because of non-payment of fee of the patent in TW, TWI333957 removed from google patent search? &#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;![Search by WO number][1]&#xD;&#xA;![Espacenet result][2]&#xD;&#xA;![Legal status][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/buLto.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ZPAYy.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/8PSdn.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25803" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10894" RevisionGUID="16cef4ce-2942-4d08-8cb3-2ab990cd751a" CreationDate="2015-01-06T01:30:41.447" UserId="12207" Text="Legal status concerning about payment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25804" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10894" RevisionGUID="16cef4ce-2942-4d08-8cb3-2ab990cd751a" CreationDate="2015-01-06T01:30:41.447" UserId="12207" Text="&lt;legal-status&gt;&lt;payment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10895" RevisionGUID="9397b2d7-fd74-4ec7-94cb-0ac5ba40d688" CreationDate="2015-01-06T06:54:23.613" UserId="11895" Text="Google Patent search does not include Taiwan patents now, therefore it has nothing to do with legal status of said patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently Google search covers United States, Europe, International (WIPO), China, Germany and Canada. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;hope it answers your query." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10897" RevisionGUID="0630058a-2d0e-464c-b588-f1345298a1cb" CreationDate="2015-01-06T10:05:59.150" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10898" RevisionGUID="9710947e-8399-48d1-b340-a839f45c0710" CreationDate="2015-01-06T10:05:59.150" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10898" RevisionGUID="18311dd8-34a1-4d46-8f67-9f31ddd8d74e" CreationDate="2015-01-06T17:40:03.453" UserId="12212" Comment="added 155 characters in body" Text="Publication number for US Patent US8837662 B2 for a tremendously High energy proton or neutron source. All with reference to http://phoenixnuclearlabs.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25820" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10898" RevisionGUID="18311dd8-34a1-4d46-8f67-9f31ddd8d74e" CreationDate="2015-01-06T17:40:03.453" Comment="Proposed by 12212 approved by 1 edit id of 1739" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10901" RevisionGUID="c6ae2c24-ee21-466e-badc-5260da7a6143" CreationDate="2015-01-06T19:04:29.363" UserId="12216" Text="What does the Also Published As field indicate on Google patents? For example, for a single European patent application, there are multiple US patents listed under this field." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25826" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10901" RevisionGUID="c6ae2c24-ee21-466e-badc-5260da7a6143" CreationDate="2015-01-06T19:04:29.363" UserId="12216" Text="What does the Also Published As field stand for on Google patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25827" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10901" RevisionGUID="c6ae2c24-ee21-466e-badc-5260da7a6143" CreationDate="2015-01-06T19:04:29.363" UserId="12216" Text="&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10902" RevisionGUID="48e1695b-c2e6-4c52-9560-7a3dc45abd02" CreationDate="2015-01-06T22:58:40.900" UserId="9802" Text="The &quot;Also Published As&quot; field on Google Patents relates to patent families - i.e. patent documents that share a priority number and an associated priority date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several different ways to define a patent family, depending on how documents with multiple priority numbers are treated (see http://www.epo.org/searching/essentials/patent-families/definitions.html). I am not sure which method Google uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, it means that those documents are related. It may be the application and grant within a particular country, or the corresponding documents for the same invention in different countries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11901" RevisionGUID="b8484c0f-aa8f-4977-99c5-045e73ecd027" CreationDate="2015-01-07T04:28:55.363" UserId="11895" Text="Patent granted on application covers &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A target game with a fluid indicator, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;a container capable of containing a fluid indicator;&#xD;&#xA;the container having a top and a bottom;&#xD;&#xA;the top of the container oriented above the bottom of the container;&#xD;&#xA;the container assembled below a horizontal bar;&#xD;&#xA;the bottom of the container having a fluid indicator escape opening;&#xD;&#xA;an actuation housing assembled with the horizontal support bar;&#xD;&#xA;the actuation housing having a top vertical opening, a bottom vertical opening, a left horizontal opening, and a right horizontal opening;&#xD;&#xA;the bottom vertical opening located inside the container;&#xD;&#xA;an actuation rod passing through the top vertical opening and emerging from the bottom vertical opening;&#xD;&#xA;the actuation rod having a cap on an end emerging from the top vertical opening;&#xD;&#xA;the actuation rod assembled with a spring;&#xD;&#xA;the actuation rod having a valve on an end emerging from the bottom vertical opening and the valve suspended inside of the container;&#xD;&#xA;the valve removably engaging with the fluid indicator escape opening;&#xD;&#xA;the valve moving between an engaged position and a disengaged&#xD;&#xA;position;&#xD;&#xA;wherein in the engaged position, the valve obstructs the fluid indicator&#xD;&#xA;escape opening; and wherein in the disengaged position, the valve&#xD;&#xA;unobstructs the fluid indicator escape opening;&#xD;&#xA;a swing arm assembled above the actuation housing and applying&#xD;&#xA;pressure to the cap; the swing arm connected to a target;&#xD;&#xA;such that when the target is struck by a projectile, the swing arm releases the applied pressure on the cap causing the spring to release potential energy and disengaging the valve from the fluid indicator escape opening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;hope it helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11902" RevisionGUID="40f3056c-7061-4e1e-bc81-8927d07f871d" CreationDate="2015-01-07T08:14:21.543" UserId="12207" Text="Usually I check INPADOC legal status on Espacenet for payment info; however, if there isn't any I will check PAIR on USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering if there is better way to find more info and more detail about payment status?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, how to interpret &quot;Designated state&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26827" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11902" RevisionGUID="40f3056c-7061-4e1e-bc81-8927d07f871d" CreationDate="2015-01-07T08:14:21.543" UserId="12207" Text="How to search for patent payment information" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26828" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11902" RevisionGUID="40f3056c-7061-4e1e-bc81-8927d07f871d" CreationDate="2015-01-07T08:14:21.543" UserId="12207" Text="&lt;payment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11904" RevisionGUID="99df5c44-8152-45a4-9d77-7413b75cb957" CreationDate="2015-01-07T14:41:38.113" UserId="13218" Text="I had published an article in a journal about an invention i was working on with my co-author. now, that we have been able to finish our project and came up with the drug. we want to apply for its patent in India. Can that article be regarded as a prior publication and in that case whether prior art by same inventors can be used to refuse a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26833" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11904" RevisionGUID="99df5c44-8152-45a4-9d77-7413b75cb957" CreationDate="2015-01-07T14:41:38.113" UserId="13218" Text="prior publication(if at all) by inventor can defeat novelty" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26834" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11904" RevisionGUID="99df5c44-8152-45a4-9d77-7413b75cb957" CreationDate="2015-01-07T14:41:38.113" UserId="13218" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11905" RevisionGUID="d3b779dc-efa7-4fa2-94fd-fa88f2a8d604" CreationDate="2015-01-07T16:03:25.607" UserId="1777" Text="Generally speaking, it does not matter who the authors of a prior art document are. If a prior publication was made by the inventors applying for a patent themselves, it is generally just as novelty destroying as somebody else's relevant publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some countries, notably the US, a &quot;grace period&quot; of 6-12 months exists, during which inventors may still apply for a patent on subject-matter previously disclosed by themselves:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelty_%28patent%29#Grace_period&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, most countries do not have such a grace period. I do not know what the specific rules are in India.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, unfortunately, I think your own prior publication of your invention will preclude you from obtaining a patent on it in most jurisdictions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11905" RevisionGUID="c022d19c-b01e-46a9-afe0-babfb0e3804a" CreationDate="2015-01-07T16:27:49.800" UserId="1777" Comment="additional comments concerning further steps" Text="Generally speaking, it does not matter who the authors of a prior art document are. If a prior publication was made by the inventors applying for a patent themselves, it is generally just as novelty destroying as somebody else's relevant publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some countries, notably the US, a &quot;grace period&quot; of 6-12 months exists, during which inventors may still apply for a patent on subject-matter previously disclosed by themselves:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelty_%28patent%29#Grace_period&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, most countries do not have such a grace period. I do not know what the specific rules are in India.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, unfortunately, I think your own prior publication of your invention will preclude you from obtaining a patent on it in most jurisdictions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your journal publication was within the last 6-12 months, your best course of action might be to apply for a patent in those jurisdictions which offer a grace period. Also, frankly, given the mistake which has already been made, seeking professional representation would probably also been advisable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, the patent game does not provide the room to wait and see how a project turns out in the long run. You invent, you file, then you publish." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11905" RevisionGUID="5f4e3737-c11c-4179-a60c-e6c2d9aa6ede" CreationDate="2015-01-07T16:34:03.023" UserId="1777" Comment="additional comments concerning further steps" Text="Generally speaking, **it does not matter who the authors of a prior art document are**. If a prior **publication was made by the inventors applying for a patent themselves, it is generally just as novelty-destroying** as somebody else's relevant publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some countries, notably the US, a &quot;grace period&quot; of 6-12 months exists, during which inventors may still apply for a patent on subject-matter previously disclosed by themselves:&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelty_%28patent%29#Grace_period&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, most countries do not have such a grace period. I do not know what the specific rules are in India.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, unfortunately, I think your own prior publication of your invention will preclude you from obtaining a patent on it in most jurisdictions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your journal publication was within the last 6-12 months, your best course of action might be to apply for a patent in those jurisdictions which offer a grace period. Also, frankly, given the mistake which has already been made, seeking professional representation would probably also be advisable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, the patent game does not provide the room to wait and see how a project turns out in the long run. You invent, you file, then you publish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional remark: However, you might want to consider whether any substantial improvements over the published subject-matter were necessary to actually realize the drug during the later stages of the project (i.e., any practical aspects or non-disclosed modifications, even if they may seem &quot;minor&quot; at first glance). If these were not described in the journal publication, you might still be able to obtain a patent by claiming these additional, non-published aspects." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11904" RevisionGUID="829f320b-da23-4400-ad76-87a9bd03bb61" CreationDate="2015-01-07T16:38:00.357" UserId="1777" Comment="Corrected grammar and spelling, added tags." Text="I had published an article in a journal about an invention I was working on with my co-author. Now that we have been able to finish our project and came up with the drug, we want to apply for a patent on it in India. Can that article be regarded as a prior publication, and in that case can prior art by the same inventors be used to refuse a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26842" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11904" RevisionGUID="829f320b-da23-4400-ad76-87a9bd03bb61" CreationDate="2015-01-07T16:38:00.357" UserId="1777" Comment="Corrected grammar and spelling, added tags." Text="Can a prior publication by the inventors themselves defeat novelty?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26843" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11904" RevisionGUID="829f320b-da23-4400-ad76-87a9bd03bb61" CreationDate="2015-01-07T16:38:00.357" UserId="1777" Comment="Corrected grammar and spelling, added tags." Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;india&gt;&lt;inventor&gt;&lt;grace&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11906" RevisionGUID="19cc369c-0a1d-4cf4-9c6a-f2862b22bfe9" CreationDate="2015-01-07T16:54:42.447" UserId="1777" Text="For European Patent (applications), you can get more detailed payment information in EPregister:&#xD;&#xA;https://register.epo.org/regviewer?lng=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, there you can also see warnings due to late or non-payment of fees by clicking on &quot;All Documents&quot; in the menu on the left when inspecting a given file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For an EP, &quot;designated states&quot; are the countries in which the granted patent would eventually be valid. Since there is no real unitary patent (quite yet!), a granted EP will be converted into a bundle of national patents in a selection (or all) of the member states of the European Patent Organisation. See here for more information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grant_procedure_before_the_European_Patent_Office#Designation_of_States_and_request_for_examination&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see 1. paragraph here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Patent_Convention&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see last paragraph here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Patent_Convention#Unified_prosecution_phase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11907" RevisionGUID="3f6ef1c3-b773-4cf5-b97b-0c23d624d02f" CreationDate="2015-01-07T17:58:26.603" UserId="9802" Text="One source for finding information on patent litigation is RPX: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://search.rpxcorp.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Information on this particular case can be found here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://search.rpxcorp.com/lit/txwdce-474315-content-delivery-solutions-v-cdnetworks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particular case was closed is listed as Closed in Posttrial as of January 3, 2013.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can create a free account to access all the information, including the docket entries. It appears as though each of the defendants settled out of court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the initial complaint, the plaintiff, Content Delivery Solutions, LLC claims to be the exclusive licensee of the patents in question. This company is tagged by RPX as a non-practicing entity (i.e. patent troll).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11908" RevisionGUID="13b2a84b-9b2b-44cf-88b5-719c6f22db24" CreationDate="2015-01-07T18:40:46.933" UserId="1777" Text="Anecdotal evidence suggests that patenting activity in the field of virtual reality has sharply increased in the recent past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would not use the US classification system for patent analytics anymore, as it is essentially obsolete and is being replaced by the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC). All published patent applications and patents also have International Patent Classification (IPC) codes. Codes specific to virtual reality were recently introduced to reflect the increased activity in the area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some classification codes often used for VR-related documents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Head-mounted Displays:&#xD;&#xA;    IPC: G02B27/01&#xD;&#xA;    CPC: G02B27/017&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    VR Input&#xD;&#xA;    IPC: G06F3/01,  G06F3/0354&#xD;&#xA;    CPC: G06F3/011, G06F3/0346&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Head-mounted Displays:&#xD;&#xA;    IPC: G02B27/01&#xD;&#xA;    CPC: G02B27/017&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    3D graphics in general:&#xD;&#xA;    IPC: G06T19/00&#xD;&#xA;    CPC: G06T19/00 and also specifically G06T19/006 (mixed reality)&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Games with virtual camera coupled to tracked HMD:&#xD;&#xA;    CPC / IPC: A63F13/5255, often in combination with A63F13/211&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information see here:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.cooperativepatentclassification.org/cpcSchemeAndDefinitions/table.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and here:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/en/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11907" RevisionGUID="f02a9bd2-bfde-48e7-aa73-9236a2150ef0" CreationDate="2015-01-07T18:45:54.953" UserId="9802" Comment="added additional research on patent troll claim" Text="One source for finding information on patent litigation is RPX: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://search.rpxcorp.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Information on this particular case can be found here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://search.rpxcorp.com/lit/txwdce-474315-content-delivery-solutions-v-cdnetworks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particular case was closed is listed as Closed in Posttrial as of January 3, 2013.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can create a free account to access all the information, including the docket entries. It appears as though each of the defendants settled out of court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the initial complaint, the plaintiff, Content Delivery Solutions, LLC claims to be the exclusive licensee of the patents in question. This company is tagged by RPX as a non-practicing entity (i.e. patent troll).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**: After a little more digging, it appears that Content Delivery Solutions, LLC, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Acacia Research Group LLC, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of [Acacia Research Corporation](http://acaciaresearch.com/). Content Delivery Solutions admits to never deriving any revenue from selling software, not generating revenue since its formation and that its sole business is the monetization and licensing of patents[1],[2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://search.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/9489456&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://search.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/9489489&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11907" RevisionGUID="0d5e204a-dce2-444e-9ca6-d36b3cd6706e" CreationDate="2015-01-07T19:02:52.910" UserId="9802" Comment="reformatted for clarity" Text="This particular case was is listed as Closed in Posttrial as of January 3, 2013.  &#xD;&#xA;It appears as though each of the defendants settled out of court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One source for finding information on patent litigation is [RPX](http://search.rpxcorp.com/), and information on this particular case can be found [here](http://search.rpxcorp.com/lit/txwdce-474315-content-delivery-solutions-v-cdnetworks).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can create a free account to access all the information, including the docket entries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the initial complaint, the plaintiff, Content Delivery Solutions, LLC claims to be the exclusive licensee of the patents in question. This company is tagged by RPX as a non-practicing entity (i.e. patent troll).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**: After a little more digging, it appears that Content Delivery Solutions, LLC, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Acacia Research Group LLC, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of [Acacia Research Corporation](http://acaciaresearch.com/). Content Delivery Solutions admits to never deriving any revenue from selling software, not generating revenue since its formation and that its sole business is the monetization and licensing of patents[1],[2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://search.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/9489456&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://search.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/9489489&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11911" RevisionGUID="240de891-1747-44d3-8d81-8d8f3a341d50" CreationDate="2015-01-08T03:03:35.810" UserId="13222" Text="You wouldn't have to buy the company.  Just buy the abandoned application. As the assignee, you will be able to revive the abandoned application.  That is, if the application can be revived.  Since an abandoned patent application is almost valueless to the original owner, you should be able to acquire it very inexpensively. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11915" RevisionGUID="3be703f9-15f8-4e99-8782-21cdfdb78d64" CreationDate="2015-01-08T12:15:49.383" UserId="11895" Text="Tumbs up for above info -- below is just addition to make answer complete&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that INPADOC is just a depository and they publish data given by respective patent offices. Most of the time this data may not be updated. Best source is respective patent office.&#xD;&#xA;Also keep in mind that there is reissue / reviival procedure after lapse of patent which is of limited time but eventually can backfire a ignorant researcher. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11919" RevisionGUID="541eae35-f126-4c13-a719-a4099ffe9d49" CreationDate="2015-01-08T21:48:48.707" UserId="13230" Text="Was looking to design a ornamental vehicle steering wheel rim that Illuminate a light source don't know if this have been patented or produced by the auto manufacturers yet.  How do I start my design project." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26884" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11919" RevisionGUID="541eae35-f126-4c13-a719-a4099ffe9d49" CreationDate="2015-01-08T21:48:48.707" UserId="13230" Text="Want to design a great idea" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26885" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11919" RevisionGUID="541eae35-f126-4c13-a719-a4099ffe9d49" CreationDate="2015-01-08T21:48:48.707" UserId="13230" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11920" RevisionGUID="6ea25b9f-0fd7-4205-aa3d-ee27ce40110c" CreationDate="2015-01-08T22:16:33.807" UserId="12181" Text="My father invented this tool.  I am not sure if it has an assignee or is public property now. Can you help me?  Also wondered what company last used it, possibly Halliburton?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26887" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11920" RevisionGUID="6ea25b9f-0fd7-4205-aa3d-ee27ce40110c" CreationDate="2015-01-08T22:16:33.807" UserId="12181" Text="Fathers patent status" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26888" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11920" RevisionGUID="6ea25b9f-0fd7-4205-aa3d-ee27ce40110c" CreationDate="2015-01-08T22:16:33.807" UserId="12181" Text="&lt;us2739652&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11919" RevisionGUID="79187911-c849-4545-b895-abced594cc3b" CreationDate="2015-01-08T22:55:23.957" UserId="10011" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="I have been looking to design an ornamental vehicle steering wheel rim that illuminates from a light source, but I don't know if this have been patented or produced by the auto manufacturers yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I determine whether my design will infringe on existent design patents? What is the bar for design patent novelty?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26891" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11919" RevisionGUID="e7bdfa71-cc0c-4cd0-9b9f-60f38f24aed9" CreationDate="2015-01-09T01:08:24.713" UserId="10011" Comment="edited title" Text="How can I make sure my design doesn't infringe on existing design patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10694" RevisionGUID="e50d155e-f8cd-47b9-9769-7aee924d05af" CreationDate="2015-01-09T06:05:32.677" UserId="-1" Comment="Corrections as per comments" Text="WO 2010052608 A1 is an application, not a grant. You can apply for a patent on anything you want -- that doesn't mean it will be granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think there's prior art for this you may be able to register your observations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26893" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10694" RevisionGUID="e50d155e-f8cd-47b9-9769-7aee924d05af" CreationDate="2015-01-09T06:05:32.677" Comment="Proposed by 192.104.67.121|0a64be76-d6b7-4a1d-a621-84add744cc63 approved by 1777, 11542 edit id of 1740" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11922" RevisionGUID="17502922-9a29-4bb2-a435-22f3ce32ea20" CreationDate="2015-01-09T07:09:22.037" UserId="13233" Text="If the patent you are referencing is this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well fluid stabilizer&#xD;&#xA;US 2739652 A&#xD;&#xA;Hartsell Arlis C&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US2739652&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then it is long expired.  It issued in 1956, and had a 17 year lifetime from that point.  It is now in the public domain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was not assigned on its face, and because of its age the assignment data is not available online.  You can go to the USPTO and find the physical file if you want to find out who it was later assigned to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11923" RevisionGUID="77146caa-1e97-4cbd-b098-2323e345a4f0" CreationDate="2015-01-09T07:15:04.370" UserId="13233" Text="Design patent is evaluated for novelty and non-obviousness, just like utility patents.  However, what is being compared is the &quot;appearance&quot; rather than the functionality, in design patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hard to conclusively determine whether there is a patent out there on which your design may infringe.  But there are some products out there for an illuminated steering wheel. For example:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/USD623571&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/USD526255&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seeing those should give you a feel for how similar/dissimilar designs need to be to be patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to designs, there are some utility patents on how to create illuminated steering wheels, like this one:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US6296380&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, in-cab lighting is restricted in most states, and you should do your research on that aspect of law as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11924" RevisionGUID="4062d811-0b94-4e64-ab92-57898d705d72" CreationDate="2015-01-09T07:25:18.577" UserId="13233" Text="At this point this is only a pending PCT filing.  You could file one for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and it would get published.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it sounds like you are aware of some relevant prior art, and feel strongly about not allowing this case to move forward.  If you are willing to spend the time, you can submit Third Party Observations to the World Patent Organization.  The process is described here:  http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/pct/en/epct/pdf/epct_observations.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US and EPO also accept such third party observations, and have their own procedures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if the patent does issue, you can challenge it through specialized procedures in many countries.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11925" RevisionGUID="65202d1f-579a-4fc5-9b47-aff59056c693" CreationDate="2015-01-09T08:31:33.410" UserId="1777" Text="The link provided by the OP leads to the *application* (kind code **A2**), not the granted patent. The granted patent (kind code **B1**) is available at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&amp;date=20051207&amp;DB=&amp;&amp;CC=EP&amp;NR=1148681B1&amp;KC=B1&amp;ND=1&amp;locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Select &quot;6/17 Claims&quot; in the drop-down list next to &quot;Page&quot; near the top.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/EP1148681B1?cl=en&amp;hl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The independent claim as granted therefore is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of transferring resource related information from a first mobile wireless communication terminal (1a) to a second mobile wireless communication terminal (1b, 1c), said first and second terminals operating in a wireless communication network (50), wherein at least the first terminal is a client of a server (20) connected to an external network and also to the wireless communication network which includes the first and second terminals, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; connecting the first terminal to the external network to contact a resource;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the first terminal negotiating a communication connection between the first and second terminals; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; subsequently transferring information relating to the resource to the second terminal over the communication connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contrary to popular myths, there is **no general provision in the EPC which &quot;prohibits software patents&quot;**. The granted claim specifies two wireless mobile communication terminals, a wireless communication network, etc., which clearly confer fundamental technical character to the claim. However, the assessment of inventive step is impacted if claim features related to a computer program are present (i.e., in general the hurdle gets higher).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further reading see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_ii_3_6.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and in particular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_vii_5_4.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11926" RevisionGUID="325fc96d-227b-43a4-b924-8680242da039" CreationDate="2015-01-09T13:21:39.053" UserId="13234" Text="Does not seem novel to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possible prior art:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.adaez.com/files/yalepress.pdf (Designing a Door Energy Harvesting Device, 2010, Joey Brink, Ryan Carlisle, Kenny Leveille, ... Yale, MENG 489).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26904" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11926" RevisionGUID="325fc96d-227b-43a4-b924-8680242da039" CreationDate="2015-01-09T13:21:39.053" UserId="13234" Text="Is US20110252845 really novel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26905" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11926" RevisionGUID="325fc96d-227b-43a4-b924-8680242da039" CreationDate="2015-01-09T13:21:39.053" UserId="13234" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11929" RevisionGUID="9a44421e-350d-489f-9737-e07edec1819a" CreationDate="2015-01-09T19:29:52.413" UserId="9802" Text="It is not uncommon to find out that someone has a patent related to your idea. But that doesn't necessarily mean that you can't make the invention or obtain your own patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Does the US6536828 patent mean that I can't create a transition windshield?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It depends on the patent claims. Your windshield design may be sufficiently different so that it does not infringe. If it does infringe, it may be possible to modify the design enough so that it doesn't infringe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your design does infringe **and** you are not able to change the design **and** you still want to import/build/sell that design, you still have a couple of options. You may be able to license the patent or purchase the original patent outright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Does the US6536828 patent mean that I can't get a patent on my transition windshield design?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, it depends on the particulars of your invention.  If it isn't covered by this or any other similar patent out there, and it is not an obvious combination, you still may be able to obtain a patent.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may also be able to improve upon an existing design and obtain a patent for that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11926" RevisionGUID="b3967e3e-0231-466c-858a-5c7dade5a2b9" CreationDate="2015-01-09T19:46:31.043" UserId="9802" Comment="added link, tag" Text="[US20110252845](http://www.google.com/patents/US20110252845) does not seem novel to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possible prior art:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.adaez.com/files/yalepress.pdf (Designing a Door Energy Harvesting Device, 2010, Joey Brink, Ryan Carlisle, Kenny Leveille, ... Yale, MENG 489).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26912" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11926" RevisionGUID="b3967e3e-0231-466c-858a-5c7dade5a2b9" CreationDate="2015-01-09T19:46:31.043" UserId="9802" Comment="added link, tag" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20110252845&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26913" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11926" RevisionGUID="b3967e3e-0231-466c-858a-5c7dade5a2b9" CreationDate="2015-01-09T19:46:31.043" Comment="Proposed by 9802 approved by 10011 edit id of 1741" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11930" RevisionGUID="a19aae69-5509-44e9-a876-765bbaa73af4" CreationDate="2015-01-10T23:21:08.693" UserId="1777" Text="Application was filed in 1986 and withdrawn in 1990. No patent was granted, since the applicant failed to respond to a communication from the examining division. Also, no renewal fee was paid after 1990. The 2007 change seems to merely relate to an update of the inventor record in the database. It has nothing to do with the application still being pending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, the &quot;A3&quot; kind code you mentioned refers to the *search report* when published separately. The published application itself is EP0198288 A2." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11931" RevisionGUID="8b9fb8fc-da61-4b62-ba57-271703e66bbb" CreationDate="2015-01-11T00:45:50.413" UserId="13233" Text="This is the patent:  https://www.google.com/patents/US3186501&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like it was filed in the US and Germany, and assigned to P &amp; V Mining &amp; Engineering Ltd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As EntropyWins said, the patent issued in 1965, and thus is long expired, so no one now &quot;owns it&quot; in a meaningful sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11932" RevisionGUID="f78ceb64-b09d-48dc-9bd5-7b9995c99bc1" CreationDate="2015-01-11T00:50:06.980" UserId="13233" Text="The organization could sell the patent, license it, or otherwise collect revenue from it. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Being a non-profit doesn't mean they can't make money, it means that the company uses surplus revenues to achieve its goals rather than distributing them as profit or dividends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Denver Zoological Foundation can quite happily make money from this patent, if and when it issues: http://www.google.com/patents/CA2827105A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11933" RevisionGUID="d350206d-9a2e-481c-89af-c54bde7f8b54" CreationDate="2015-01-11T01:40:57.903" UserId="13241" Text="My idea consists of a particular 'architecture' involving:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- few Open Source software technologies&#xD;&#xA;- some code written by myself&#xD;&#xA;- WordPress API&#xD;&#xA;- TV screen and a PlayStation controller&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is an idea such as this 'patentable'? Or can I only apply for a patent on the code that I have wrote myself?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26923" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11933" RevisionGUID="d350206d-9a2e-481c-89af-c54bde7f8b54" CreationDate="2015-01-11T01:40:57.903" UserId="13241" Text="Can you patent an idea involving software &amp; hardware?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26924" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11933" RevisionGUID="d350206d-9a2e-481c-89af-c54bde7f8b54" CreationDate="2015-01-11T01:40:57.903" UserId="13241" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;utility-model&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11934" RevisionGUID="6a2468fe-69e1-4e51-aeb8-4a4298afe796" CreationDate="2015-01-11T03:39:15.293" UserId="13233" Text="Can you write a patent application for an idea that includes existing technologies?  Absolutely.  Can you get a patent for something that just adds together existing technologies, and doesn't add anything new?  Nope, not very likely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So let's say you use Open Source tech, code, WordPress, Playstation, and the TV screen to create a brand new way of interacting with your television using interpretive dance.  You could most likely get a patent for that.  But using those same elements to give you a nicer menu listing for the TV programs is unlikely to be patentable, given what's already out there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, using existing technologies doesn't impact patentability.  The question is what is the new stuff, and is it novel &amp; non-obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, if you are using Open Source, be aware that different types of Open Source have different impact on your own code.  GPL v. 3 requires patent licenses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11937" RevisionGUID="e107d011-0315-48c5-96ed-0fdb632bb9fe" CreationDate="2015-01-11T15:37:31.290" UserId="13245" Text="I'm trying to build a **hexapod** with several new capabilities and all the features used are *not my original creation* but the idea of *combining them together* to form a bot is my idea, and there is no bot that can do what mine does (as far as I researched). So will this be considered as *novelty* or *just some new addon* to the existing technology???" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26934" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11937" RevisionGUID="e107d011-0315-48c5-96ed-0fdb632bb9fe" CreationDate="2015-01-11T15:37:31.290" UserId="13245" Text="To determine the novelty of the idea" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26935" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11937" RevisionGUID="e107d011-0315-48c5-96ed-0fdb632bb9fe" CreationDate="2015-01-11T15:37:31.290" UserId="13245" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;idea&gt;&lt;existing&gt;&lt;technology&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11938" RevisionGUID="5ba5de7c-ed82-4d90-b3ed-438abc9b4d2c" CreationDate="2015-01-11T17:47:47.567" UserId="13246" Text="I am interested in knowing if the Whitesel family still owns this patent on the wire stretcher from 1915?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you ,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;James Whitesel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26940" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11938" RevisionGUID="5ba5de7c-ed82-4d90-b3ed-438abc9b4d2c" CreationDate="2015-01-11T17:47:47.567" UserId="13246" Text="Patent # US 1152583 A" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26941" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11938" RevisionGUID="5ba5de7c-ed82-4d90-b3ed-438abc9b4d2c" CreationDate="2015-01-11T17:47:47.567" UserId="13246" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11938" RevisionGUID="2987f72d-e322-446b-b466-a075fd5e76c9" CreationDate="2015-01-11T21:34:25.547" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 35 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am interested in knowing if the Whitesel family still owns this patent on the wire stretcher from 1915?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26943" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11938" RevisionGUID="2987f72d-e322-446b-b466-a075fd5e76c9" CreationDate="2015-01-11T21:34:25.547" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 35 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;us1152583a&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11941" RevisionGUID="88e73a41-6ee0-4fd1-8092-ec20b7bfcb63" CreationDate="2015-01-12T11:06:48.927" UserId="12029" Text="If the all the characteristics of your invention are not found in one prior art single document then your invention is considered new. However, it might not be considered inventive if the combination of all these characteristics  would be considered something straightforward to the skilled man in that technology area. As you might suspect this has to be seen on a case to case basis whether or not the combination of all the characteristics of your invention would be arise naturally when comparing documents from the know prior art. You can check the site of the USPTO or the EPO for more details on this matter. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11943" RevisionGUID="1724ac82-dbf6-4fb4-88bc-3716715902db" CreationDate="2015-01-12T16:59:59.610" UserId="13251" Text="I am trying to find out if this patent exist or is it pending" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26956" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11943" RevisionGUID="1724ac82-dbf6-4fb4-88bc-3716715902db" CreationDate="2015-01-12T16:59:59.610" UserId="13251" Text="Is US 2014/0060450 A1 patented or pending" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26957" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11943" RevisionGUID="1724ac82-dbf6-4fb4-88bc-3716715902db" CreationDate="2015-01-12T16:59:59.610" UserId="13251" Text="&lt;patent-pending&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11944" RevisionGUID="dd39aeb1-63aa-4fde-8c44-a9a1c6fa15ac" CreationDate="2015-01-12T17:46:36.660" UserId="12124" Text="If a company is thinking that you infringed on their patented chemical formula with your Trade Secret chemical formula and sends you a &quot;cease and desist&quot; letter what choices do I have? Especially if I know that that my undisclosed Trade secret chemical formula is very different. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26959" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11944" RevisionGUID="dd39aeb1-63aa-4fde-8c44-a9a1c6fa15ac" CreationDate="2015-01-12T17:46:36.660" UserId="12124" Text="So Called &quot;infringement&quot; on their patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26960" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11944" RevisionGUID="dd39aeb1-63aa-4fde-8c44-a9a1c6fa15ac" CreationDate="2015-01-12T17:46:36.660" UserId="12124" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;legal&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11945" RevisionGUID="708db9fe-193b-4b09-a9cf-ee2358741d3c" CreationDate="2015-01-12T19:31:29.563" UserId="9802" Text="Determining whether or not an innovation is novel is usually based on a **novelty search**.  This means performing a comprehensive search of the prior art, which includes not only existing products, but also patents, patent applications, and other published literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many patents and applications never result in an actual product, so there may be prior art out there that describes your innovation without the actual robot ever being constructed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically, combining known elements together is challenging to patent, unless there is a non-obvious inventive step required to combine them, or the combination yields some sort of unexpected result." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11946" RevisionGUID="bc92e5e7-b7e6-48c3-8ffe-a000d493cc6d" CreationDate="2015-01-12T19:58:57.397" UserId="13252" Text="I would like to contact the holder of the patent&#xD;&#xA;I'm French so this website is difficult for me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/EP1870511A1?cl=from&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26963" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11946" RevisionGUID="bc92e5e7-b7e6-48c3-8ffe-a000d493cc6d" CreationDate="2015-01-12T19:58:57.397" UserId="13252" Text="to contact the holder of the patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26964" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11946" RevisionGUID="bc92e5e7-b7e6-48c3-8ffe-a000d493cc6d" CreationDate="2015-01-12T19:58:57.397" UserId="13252" Text="&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11946" RevisionGUID="b1e27f9d-6b57-4616-ae44-b844604ba1c5" CreationDate="2015-01-12T22:01:56.003" UserId="10011" Comment="Clarify distinction from canonical question" Text="I'm interested in contacting the owner of [EP1870511A1](http://www.google.com/patents/EP1870511A1?cl=from). Where can I find information to do so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've reviewed &quot;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5059/how-can-i-contact-the-owner-of-a-patent,&quot; but it appears to only cover American patents and applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26966" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11946" RevisionGUID="b1e27f9d-6b57-4616-ae44-b844604ba1c5" CreationDate="2015-01-12T22:01:56.003" UserId="10011" Comment="Clarify distinction from canonical question" Text="How can I contact the owner of a French patent or application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26967" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11946" RevisionGUID="b1e27f9d-6b57-4616-ae44-b844604ba1c5" CreationDate="2015-01-12T22:01:56.003" UserId="10011" Comment="Clarify distinction from canonical question" Text="&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;ep1870511a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26970" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3483" RevisionGUID="8b9f743f-08a7-4f3f-bdcd-8699f91cce8d" CreationDate="2015-01-13T07:11:43.493" UserId="9802" Comment="edited title to improve understanding" Text="What constitutes enough of a change in a design patent for me to construct something for personal use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26971" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3483" RevisionGUID="8b9f743f-08a7-4f3f-bdcd-8699f91cce8d" CreationDate="2015-01-13T07:11:43.493" Comment="Proposed by 9802 approved by 1777, 11814 edit id of 1742" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11947" RevisionGUID="f2a8c157-556c-44f6-ac01-41f8070e3852" CreationDate="2015-01-13T07:59:38.130" UserId="11895" Text="There are many options but certainly you have to do following to avoid any liabilities:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Hire qualified attorney and get clear picture of patented claims, process, methods etc. they cover. it may seem to you that you have different product but you might be infringing other claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Contact a legal counsel and reply to letter based on provided deadlines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. if patent is in-fact infringing follow procedure and evaluation of re-examination or invalidation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Go back to your books and see are you performing this activity before priority of said patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Get relief from local court on notice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. I am not sure but US court have closed proceedings deciding cases related to trade secrets. they are covered with confidentiality and no details are shared with other party.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note above comment is very much right that you require legal counsel in present case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11948" RevisionGUID="80a00d3a-723d-4a62-ae45-bab3bf891804" CreationDate="2015-01-13T08:05:07.770" UserId="11895" Text="Patent application abandoned on 2 Jan 2015 because of failure to respond action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11949" RevisionGUID="f6acb741-396d-4618-8530-8fd3ac565e10" CreationDate="2015-01-13T08:41:07.787" UserId="1794" Text="One patent I have as inventor my institution got first at the European level, and later at the USA level; can I then say that I have two patents or just one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26975" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11949" RevisionGUID="f6acb741-396d-4618-8530-8fd3ac565e10" CreationDate="2015-01-13T08:41:07.787" UserId="1794" Text="Patent in two different countries; two patents or one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26976" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11949" RevisionGUID="f6acb741-396d-4618-8530-8fd3ac565e10" CreationDate="2015-01-13T08:41:07.787" UserId="1794" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11950" RevisionGUID="ea65382b-3bc5-495d-bafa-0705dfb5d9f2" CreationDate="2015-01-13T09:33:51.053" UserId="10011" Text="If you have a patent in Europe and one in the United States, you *do* have two patents. That's how the patent system works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond that, the question just becomes what &quot;can I then say&quot; means. If you're speaking in the legal sense, it's more or less indisputable that you have two separate patents. On the other hand, if you're speaking in the *marketing* sense, that's a little more subjective. I would probably stick to saying &quot;I have an invention patented in two countries,&quot; just since &quot;I have two patents&quot; is, while accurate, fairly misleading. Ultimately, it's just a matter of context. But I'd generally side on the more verbose, less misleading phrasing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11951" RevisionGUID="d74c3000-ba6c-4dde-aa29-b0566d36040c" CreationDate="2015-01-13T10:22:23.517" UserId="13255" Text="I would like to know how many patents are in my name." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26979" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11951" RevisionGUID="d74c3000-ba6c-4dde-aa29-b0566d36040c" CreationDate="2015-01-13T10:22:23.517" UserId="13255" Text="Jesse L Culpepper. What are the patents assigned to this name?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26980" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11951" RevisionGUID="d74c3000-ba6c-4dde-aa29-b0566d36040c" CreationDate="2015-01-13T10:22:23.517" UserId="13255" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11952" RevisionGUID="0f88c9cb-2d0f-4000-82a3-0a87e7e92d4d" CreationDate="2015-01-13T15:17:26.943" UserId="12207" Text="there are several types of drug patents, such as salt, formulation, composition, combination, dose, isomers, polymorphs, active metabolites/prodrug, method of treatment and second use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: as a generic pharmaceutical company, we sell our active ingredients to other countries. Which types of drug patents that we should most concern about in order that our API do not infringe others?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26982" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11952" RevisionGUID="0f88c9cb-2d0f-4000-82a3-0a87e7e92d4d" CreationDate="2015-01-13T15:17:26.943" UserId="12207" Text="Different types of drug patents but which is most related to APIs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26983" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11952" RevisionGUID="0f88c9cb-2d0f-4000-82a3-0a87e7e92d4d" CreationDate="2015-01-13T15:17:26.943" UserId="12207" Text="&lt;drugpatent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11951" RevisionGUID="450ecd00-158d-482e-b0d4-880c9ac8e11c" CreationDate="2015-01-13T15:43:11.280" UserId="1" Comment="added 30 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="My name is Jesse L Culpepper. I would like to know how many patents are in my name." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26985" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11951" RevisionGUID="450ecd00-158d-482e-b0d4-880c9ac8e11c" CreationDate="2015-01-13T15:43:11.280" UserId="1" Comment="added 30 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Is it possible to search patents by asignee?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26986" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11951" RevisionGUID="450ecd00-158d-482e-b0d4-880c9ac8e11c" CreationDate="2015-01-13T15:43:11.280" UserId="1" Comment="added 30 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26987" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11951" RevisionGUID="bdb27b96-b19b-4135-aae3-2134f725193d" CreationDate="2015-01-13T20:53:51.870" UserId="10011" Comment="edited title" Text="Is it possible to search patents by assignee?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10766" RevisionGUID="9a0c055c-fe5f-4d54-907e-c05fcce7288e" CreationDate="2015-01-14T04:14:46.357" UserId="11895" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="As per EPO register patent is under examination" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11943" RevisionGUID="be3ba03f-8475-4852-b919-57aebe4db7de" CreationDate="2015-01-14T06:19:24.410" UserId="10011" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I am trying to find out if this patent exist or is it pending." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26990" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11943" RevisionGUID="be3ba03f-8475-4852-b919-57aebe4db7de" CreationDate="2015-01-14T06:19:24.410" UserId="10011" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Is US 2014/0060450 A1 patented or pending?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26991" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11943" RevisionGUID="be3ba03f-8475-4852-b919-57aebe4db7de" CreationDate="2015-01-14T06:19:24.410" UserId="10011" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;patent-pending&gt;&lt;us20140060450&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10766" RevisionGUID="ac92fa42-3dfe-4c8f-9c93-0fd7a7e1e170" CreationDate="2015-01-14T07:49:07.060" UserId="11895" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="As per EPO register patent is under examination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP10014361&amp;tab=main&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11953" RevisionGUID="3958e79f-b053-4e25-9120-fc5ae31cfab7" CreationDate="2015-01-14T07:53:29.973" UserId="11895" Text="If you are only exporting API (active ingredient), then you should check following patents Salts, process of making, isomer, impurities, polymorphs, active metabolites, prodrugs.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if its combination of API then you have to cover formulation, composition, combination patents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11954" RevisionGUID="6350b68e-93d0-45df-bdb4-b255ff48240a" CreationDate="2015-01-14T07:59:14.697" UserId="11895" Text="Hi you can check them using patent search websites. under applicant, inventors, assignee heads. for more information please visit-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://application.epo.org/wbt/espacenet/assistant.php?lg=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11948" RevisionGUID="9ec966c8-18c1-4ca9-b72f-f60869cb70ef" CreationDate="2015-01-14T08:02:15.997" UserId="11895" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="As per USPTO PAIR &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent application abandoned on 2 Jan 2015 because of failure to respond action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11955" RevisionGUID="47eb35e0-2291-457c-8546-3daedf7b5c2e" CreationDate="2015-01-14T19:05:23.530" UserId="13257" Text="Here's my take on it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Step 1:** Draw your design. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Step 2:** Get a perspective on what being ornamental in nature is. Understand what being in the public domain means. I suggest the following reads, which will take you 30-60 minutes to read and digest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [How close is too close?][1]&#xD;&#xA;2. [Design Patent Functionality][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll want to understand the basics of *Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From 35 USC 171: *&quot;Whoever invents any new, original and **ornamental** design for an article of manufacture may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this mean? Well, there are two tests to perform, thanks to *Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Ordinary observer test*&#xD;&#xA;&quot;two designs are *substantially the same*, if the *resemblance* is such as to *deceive an observer, inducing* him to purchase one *supposing it to be the other*&quot; --&gt; Your widget looks like my widget.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;appropriate the novelty in the patented device which *distinguishes it from the prior art*.&quot; --&gt; …however, both of our widgets look extremely close to generic widgets, so the scope of the design claim is significantly narrowed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would say, if you put your steering wheel on the shelf at Walmart and it was mistakenly purchased by a Walmart shopper who thought he was getting Company B's steering wheel, you fail step 1. Step 2 is for patentability, and that would mean if you made a wheel with christmas lights, well, both steering wheels and lights exist, so its not new and different enough in the field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, things don't need to look close in your opinion. Step 1 is infringed here because the Walmart shopper thought &quot;I'm buying Crocs!&quot;, and step 2 was also infringed because Crocs were the first of their kind, arguably: ![enter image description here][3]*From designpatentattorney.com*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other times, you'll scratch your head: ![enter image description here][4] *From designpatentattorney.com*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Step 3:** Begin your design IP search. Another post in this thread [identifies design patents][5] for illuminated steering wheels. Look at the IP, and look at the class/subclass. I've pasted both below: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[CLASS D12, TRANSPORTATION][6]**&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   400	PARTS, ACCESSORIES AND ATTACHMENTS NOT ELSEWHERE SPECIFIED:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   174	. Control element&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   175	.. Steering wheel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **177	... Element or attachment**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In google patents, you can now filter patents by searching &quot;D12/177&quot;, and selecting &quot;design patents&quot; only. [Searching this way][7], you've only got three pages of results to begin filtering through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will want to try out a few different keywords around your design, look at the class, and repeat your search. Furthermore, you can use the term **&quot;inassignee:&quot;ASSIGNEE_NAME&quot;** if you find a company that is heavy in design IP for your field. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Step 4:** Review your results. Step 2 will teach you how to calibrate ornamental design while discounting the utility aspect. I suggest making a google spreadsheet and use the function &quot;=image(&quot;url&quot;) to put in all the images that are similar, so that you can compare in real-time. Then you need to think of all the features (lights, location of lights, shape, etc...) and compare your design to references designs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, of random note: remember that dotted lines are *optional*, meaning you can ignore them from comparing your design to the IP. This is important, as can be seen below. The reason Samsung infringed on Apple's design IP is because the dotted line on the *side view* shows that the back of the cell phone can be any shape, same with the dotted line on the push-button circle:![enter image description here][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are starting from the beginning, this will take you 2-8 days of solid work to do properly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://designpatentattorney.com/design-patent-infringement-how-close-is-too-close-an-empirical-study/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.mcandrews-ip.com/files/designpatentfunctionalityoptimized.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/sIzNH.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/IHddx.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD526255&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspcd12/schedd12.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22D12/177%22&amp;num=50&amp;hl=en&amp;biw=1440&amp;bih=801&amp;tbs=ptst:d,sbd:1&amp;tbm=pts&amp;source=lnt&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=lLi2VNOOO6TnsAS7ooCgBg&amp;ved=0CBYQpwU&amp;dpr=2&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Me1rJ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26997" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11944" RevisionGUID="06b571b7-3886-42b7-8a57-8423b81f4f71" CreationDate="2015-01-14T19:36:45.157" UserId="11895" Comment="new tag for edit" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;legal&gt;&lt;trade-secret&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26998" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11944" RevisionGUID="06b571b7-3886-42b7-8a57-8423b81f4f71" CreationDate="2015-01-14T19:36:45.157" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 11542, 1777 edit id of 1743" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27005" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="9968" RevisionGUID="655ad7a1-0a69-4d5d-8f7c-6c95e68ef024" CreationDate="2015-01-15T03:15:02.710" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11957" RevisionGUID="39356cc1-2bda-4e61-bf9d-726875ced899" CreationDate="2015-01-15T04:46:04.747" UserId="3418" Text="The patentability requirements are mostly novel, non obvious, and useful, which doesn't say enablement, i.e. anything that novel, non obvious, and useful can be patented. But to get the patent it needs to teach skilled man in the art how to make and use the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(1) What if it does not teach the man in the art but man in higher skilled art?** For example, let say a new fan, which implements a new aerodynamics method for higher efficiency. This is not easy to understand for ordinary fan maker, but it is just a normal knowledge for aerodynamics engineers, e.g. plane designer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, from aerodynamics engineers point of view, it is very hard to teach normal fan maker to understand and calculation in higher aerodynamics, which may require a very lengthy description, e.g. full courses of maths to learn from normal physics to higher physics, which is very unrealistic for a patent description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the actual underlying problem is very simple, just hire an aerodynamics engineer to solve it and make it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(2) Can this method be used in patent description, e.g. just hire someone out there, because the art is already exist.** And save a lengthy description, because there is no need to describe something already known.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(3) So who can choose which art the invention is related to?** If it needs to teach ordinary fan maker to understand the complex aerodynamics then it is quire hard to acquire that patent. But if it is considered an higher aerodynamics field then it can be very short and easy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(4) What if the inventor chooses the wrong art?** E.g. the inventor describes the invention for aerodynamics engineer, short and abstract, but the uspto chooses that it belongs to fan maker, which require a very long description. Is there any court on this matter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27007" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11957" RevisionGUID="39356cc1-2bda-4e61-bf9d-726875ced899" CreationDate="2015-01-15T04:46:04.747" UserId="3418" Text="Patentability vs enablement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27008" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11957" RevisionGUID="39356cc1-2bda-4e61-bf9d-726875ced899" CreationDate="2015-01-15T04:46:04.747" UserId="3418" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;enablement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11958" RevisionGUID="b36d517d-f5b8-43b9-9f3b-5e177a7fe364" CreationDate="2015-01-15T09:59:17.817" UserId="11719" Text="Please note that its not a new patent that is registered.The question should be Can I file for a patent for my invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It shall be noted that it is an invention which has to be filed for a patent.Filing a patent application does not mean that a patent has been granted for the invention.In order, to obtain a patent for an application it has to over come patent prosecution toll gate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second question should be where can I file for a patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can file a patent application in the patent office of the respective country where one need's to protect  his invention.Lets for example consider that one need to file a patent application in India then he has to file for a patent in the Indian patent office. Indian patent offices are located at Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai and Chennai. The patent application has to be filed in the appropriate office based on your/your company’s location. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coming to the third question i.e the life term of a patent, a patent is granted for a term of 20 years from the date of filing the patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/patent-application-filing-procedureprocess-india" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11963" RevisionGUID="6ecd02c2-daa5-4337-912e-9d85d32c5a25" CreationDate="2015-01-16T15:18:18.703" UserId="1622" Text="This is a neat set of questions.  Here are some of my thoughts related to it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1)**  In your example, you are making a fan with very specialized fan blades.  I don't think that a normal fan maker is someone of ordinary skill in the art.  Because the patent is related to aerodynamics issues for making a very specific and specialized fan blade, one of the art would be the aerodynamics engineer and not an &quot;ordinary fan maker&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you would write the specification based on the assumption that someone knows how to make a fan, but describes the special fan blade using the aerodynamics concepts known to the engineer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2)** There is a requirement in the US patent system to have a description that allows one of ordinary skill to make and use the patented device.  So, you can't have a description that just says &quot;hire an engineer.  They can figure it out.&quot;  The description is there to describe what you have solved/created so that other people don't have to figure it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if the stuff in the patent is &quot;already known&quot;, then the patent would be failing the  novelty part of the equation because someone else already knows about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3)** While the patent is being examined, the patent examiner and the lawyers for the application determine the field of art for the application.  If they disagree, the application will end up going into the court system to make that determination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**4)** If the USPTO disagrees with the description as being to vague or whatnot, they would issue a rejection/objection to parts of the patent application.  There are multiple ways that the problems could be fixed.  I won't go into into the different ways since this is more a theory question than detail question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Finally**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a link to the USPTO website with the part of the MPEP directly related to the Enablement Requirement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Section 2164.05(b) talks about the person of skill in the art.  It even discusses how different sections of on application might apply to people from different arts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sections 2164.06(a), (b), and (c) talk about various court decisions related to if a specification was or was not enabling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11964" RevisionGUID="daaabb2f-a0b3-49ae-adc2-acc7d5a893c1" CreationDate="2015-01-16T16:18:40.933" UserId="1777" Text="The application you mention is not a French national application, but a European patent application. The applicant's contact information is available through EPregister:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP06012952&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that the patent was granted with publication number EP 1870511 B1." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27030" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11946" RevisionGUID="d848aed2-f253-48a1-9f00-de1ba85e46f2" CreationDate="2015-01-16T16:20:30.263" UserId="1777" Comment="corrected title, added tags" Text="How can I contact the inventor or applicant of a European patent or application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27031" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11946" RevisionGUID="d848aed2-f253-48a1-9f00-de1ba85e46f2" CreationDate="2015-01-16T16:20:30.263" UserId="1777" Comment="corrected title, added tags" Text="&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;inventor&gt;&lt;ep1870511a1&gt;&lt;european&gt;&lt;applicant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11965" RevisionGUID="24271aeb-7e88-48dc-9234-1175d51d069c" CreationDate="2015-01-16T16:52:16.690" UserId="13270" Text="&#xD;&#xA;They are amending this patent to include 2 inventors not on the patent that should have been.  How long does it take before the USPO adds that amendment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US20120100313][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120100313" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27033" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11965" RevisionGUID="24271aeb-7e88-48dc-9234-1175d51d069c" CreationDate="2015-01-16T16:52:16.690" UserId="13270" Text="How long does it take to amend inventorship on a published patent after the paperwork is submitted to the USPO?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27034" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11965" RevisionGUID="24271aeb-7e88-48dc-9234-1175d51d069c" CreationDate="2015-01-16T16:52:16.690" UserId="13270" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11968" RevisionGUID="ef21ee26-690d-492c-950c-05f4e0c9654f" CreationDate="2015-01-17T14:21:12.093" UserId="13277" Text="**Preface:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When talking about file formats (= data formats intended for files), it is easy to confuse the data format and the algorithm used to produce or decode this format. This is mostly due to the fact that for many data formats, there is only one (known) algorithm to produce this data format in a way that makes sense. For this reason, very often the algorithm and the data format are - informally - known under one and the same name. A very good example is MP3, which is both, a certain class of algorithms for encoding/decoding audio data and a file format for storing, besides other information, the data encoded using an MP3-encoding algorithm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly, it is not impossible to obtain a patent for an algorithm. However, my question concerns the file (data) formats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to obtain a patent on a file format, or a data format in general?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27049" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11968" RevisionGUID="ef21ee26-690d-492c-950c-05f4e0c9654f" CreationDate="2015-01-17T14:21:12.093" UserId="13277" Text="Can patents on computer file formats be obtained?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27050" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11968" RevisionGUID="ef21ee26-690d-492c-950c-05f4e0c9654f" CreationDate="2015-01-17T14:21:12.093" UserId="13277" Text="&lt;computer&gt;&lt;file-format&gt;&lt;data-format&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11968" RevisionGUID="2c7a4fcc-efe6-48a6-a401-b19ad8607611" CreationDate="2015-01-17T14:53:28.843" UserId="13277" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="**Preface**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When talking about file formats (= data formats intended for files), it is easy to confuse the data format and the algorithm used to produce or decode this format. This is mostly due to the fact that for many data formats, there is only one (known) algorithm to produce this data format in a way that makes sense. For this reason, very often the algorithm and the data format are - informally - known under one and the same name. A very good example is MP3, which is both, a certain class of algorithms for encoding/decoding audio data and a file format for storing, besides other information, the data encoded using an MP3-encoding algorithm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly, it is not impossible to obtain a patent for an algorithm. However, my question concerns the file (data) formats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to obtain a patent on a file format, or a data format in general?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27082" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="6476" RevisionGUID="6338eac2-0f60-4b93-af05-11b5f8662fbe" CreationDate="2015-01-19T21:05:55.063" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11975" RevisionGUID="417937b7-769a-4163-9061-30da68fe1d7e" CreationDate="2015-01-19T22:19:41.443" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="Is providing &quot;search services&quot; (like patent search, patent landscape, freedom to operate analysis and so on) reserved to patent agents or patent attorneys or is it a service that any company can provide?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27084" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11975" RevisionGUID="417937b7-769a-4163-9061-30da68fe1d7e" CreationDate="2015-01-19T22:19:41.443" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="Is patent search reserved to agents or attorneys?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27085" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11975" RevisionGUID="417937b7-769a-4163-9061-30da68fe1d7e" CreationDate="2015-01-19T22:19:41.443" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;attorney&gt;&lt;patent-agent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11975" RevisionGUID="6572f44f-60cc-48ae-b290-091ba245976d" CreationDate="2015-01-19T22:28:53.487" UserDisplayName="user8305" Comment="added 148 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is providing &quot;search services&quot; (like patent search, patent landscape, freedom to operate analysis and so on) reserved to patent agents or patent attorneys or is it a service that any company can provide?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is searcher accountable if she makes a mistake? Is it legal for searcher to provide service with a Limitation and Exclusion of Liability clause?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27087" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11975" RevisionGUID="6572f44f-60cc-48ae-b290-091ba245976d" CreationDate="2015-01-19T22:28:53.487" UserDisplayName="user8305" Comment="added 148 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is patent search reserved to agents or attorneys? Is searcher accountable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11976" RevisionGUID="56c70426-2729-46bf-83e2-221f0b527713" CreationDate="2015-01-20T03:24:33.610" UserId="10011" Text="Searching is a highly debated process, and a lot of patent professionals will argue that you shouldn't do a search, or that you have to. I know that's not your question, but it's an important piece of the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The short answers to your questions are: any company can provide a searching service, maybe, and yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, the entirety of the burden falls on the filer, or filing attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The standards for searching are pretty straight-forward:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You don't have to do a search.&#xD;&#xA;* If you do a search and find something, you have to tell the patent office.&#xD;&#xA;* If you submit too much, you can get in trouble for trying to hide relevant parts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone can do a search. I could do a search right now, just using some search engine. You don't have to be a patent professional to do that. People who know how to search often are professionals, but there's no requirement there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond that, the liability comes only through your contract with the provider. The USPTO is holding you accountable for what you give them, so if you fail to disclose something you find, that's on you, and not on the searcher. However, of course, if they're giving some sort of guarantee on their searches, you could then hold them liable for not pulling through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To avoid that, yes, they could offer a contract that reduces their liability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27089" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6036" RevisionGUID="19d38087-7cf2-4b50-b1ab-3ae7d1dc96a4" CreationDate="2015-01-20T08:23:36.423" UserId="10011" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5059],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11978" RevisionGUID="196c1602-5514-4321-a34d-ed49a984abc1" CreationDate="2015-01-21T03:23:19.540" UserId="13302" Text="What does &quot;Docketed New Case - Ready for Examination&quot; mean? My utility patent application has been given this status. What does that mean and what should I expect next?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27096" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11978" RevisionGUID="196c1602-5514-4321-a34d-ed49a984abc1" CreationDate="2015-01-21T03:23:19.540" UserId="13302" Text="Docketed New Case - Ready for Examination" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27097" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11978" RevisionGUID="196c1602-5514-4321-a34d-ed49a984abc1" CreationDate="2015-01-21T03:23:19.540" UserId="13302" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11980" RevisionGUID="19d710ad-3e4e-4a90-9179-5c2f6fd883c0" CreationDate="2015-01-21T17:21:07.187" UserId="13305" Text="We want to know if this an active patent or simply just an application, not a granted patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27103" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11980" RevisionGUID="19d710ad-3e4e-4a90-9179-5c2f6fd883c0" CreationDate="2015-01-21T17:21:07.187" UserId="13305" Text="We need to know more about patnet WO2006112733 A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27104" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11980" RevisionGUID="19d710ad-3e4e-4a90-9179-5c2f6fd883c0" CreationDate="2015-01-21T17:21:07.187" UserId="13305" Text="&lt;inventor&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11981" RevisionGUID="df090a40-5fc7-4aa3-8faa-0a86bb18493e" CreationDate="2015-01-21T19:28:17.820" UserId="13306" Text="This means that your utility patent application has been assigned to an examiner, placed in their docket and that an Office Action will be forthcoming.   If you know the technology center where your application has been assigned, you can go to this link and determine approximately when you will receive an Office Action.   http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/2015/week03/TOC.htm#ref16" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11982" RevisionGUID="2a06e5f6-e8fb-4d45-8a55-5eb5dc773913" CreationDate="2015-01-21T22:24:27.707" UserId="13306" Text="According to EPO database, the application issued as national patents in various countries in Europe and Hong Kong, then the patents lapsed due to nonpayment.   There are also patent applications in New Zealand and the US for this invention.  According to PAIR, the US application is still pending and a non final office action has been sent.  I do not know the status of the New Zealand application. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11983" RevisionGUID="4cccb44f-7714-41e3-a5e8-f0bbbc2a5c46" CreationDate="2015-01-21T22:58:24.550" UserId="13307" Text="I am a designer. One of the companies that I contract with is applying for patents.  What is the protocol for a contractor to sign over the rights of the IP.  The company owner says that they would never have pursued patents if I were not in agreement to this, but it was never discussed prior to now.  What difference does it make to assign rights of a patent to a manufacturer as opposed to keeping it in the names of myself and the company owner?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mark&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27108" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11983" RevisionGUID="4cccb44f-7714-41e3-a5e8-f0bbbc2a5c46" CreationDate="2015-01-21T22:58:24.550" UserId="13307" Text="Do I need to assign the rights of a patent to the company I consult with?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27109" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11983" RevisionGUID="4cccb44f-7714-41e3-a5e8-f0bbbc2a5c46" CreationDate="2015-01-21T22:58:24.550" UserId="13307" Text="&lt;inventor&gt;&lt;assignee&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11984" RevisionGUID="f3b5befe-041e-4a3f-a2dd-f3f8d6b05832" CreationDate="2015-01-21T23:08:42.843" UserId="7489" Text="Are pre-sales like crowd funding considered an actual sale which would start the clock on the one year grace period?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically I'm thinking about crowd funding websites like kickstarter.com where funding for a project can be acquired by pre-selling units or licences etc without fully disclosing or delivering on the invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27111" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11984" RevisionGUID="f3b5befe-041e-4a3f-a2dd-f3f8d6b05832" CreationDate="2015-01-21T23:08:42.843" UserId="7489" Text="Do pre-sales also start the clock on the one year grace period?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27112" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11984" RevisionGUID="f3b5befe-041e-4a3f-a2dd-f3f8d6b05832" CreationDate="2015-01-21T23:08:42.843" UserId="7489" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;grace-period&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11987" RevisionGUID="208d3222-273f-49af-ab69-a2627458ab0d" CreationDate="2015-01-22T06:56:37.150" UserId="13310" Text="Some of the above answers are a bit outdated, though still generally useful. As of the America Invents Act (AIA), effective March 16, 2013, 35 USC 103(a) is deprecated.  Also, as of KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) there need be no &quot;teaching, suggestion or motivation&quot;, found in the prior art, for a combination of known elements to be found obvious.  &#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, it remains true that an invention *may* be judged &quot;obvious&quot; in view of a combination of known elements functioning in a predictable way.  However, if the combination results in an unpredictable function/structure/benefit, satisfies a long-felt need, or benefits from a certain amount of commercial success, it *may* be patentable.  Also, if the two known elements are combined in a novel manner (e.g., a novel interface between the word processor and analytics), the combination may be patentable.  Note, however, that each of the elements  combined, if individually patented themselves, may prevent the combination from being practiced without a license." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11988" RevisionGUID="69e42ad2-8f84-4763-bbf9-e6eb04753bf4" CreationDate="2015-01-22T07:27:34.320" UserId="13310" Text="Interesting question.  “Only an offer which rises to the level of a commercial offer for sale, one which the other party could make into a binding contract by simple acceptance (assuming consideration), constitutes an offer for sale under [35 USC] §102(b).” *Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc.*, 254 F.3d 1041,1048 (Fed. Cir. 2001).   However, “[i]t is not necessary that a sale be consummated for the bar to operate.” *Buildex v. Kason Indus.,Inc.*, 849 F.2d 1461, 1463-64 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).  That is, delivery of the invention is not necessary to bar patentability.  Depending on the amount of disclosure at the crowd-funding site, the disclosure itself might start the 1 year clock.  If the public can figure out how to make and use the invention from such disclosure, the clock is ticking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11990" RevisionGUID="fd0028c0-f69f-42f4-aba7-b063517831f7" CreationDate="2015-01-22T12:12:49.863" UserId="13314" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8726746][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this 2002 journal article, &quot;[An integrated piezo-acoustic shear-force distance sensor with nanometer resolution for a micropipette tool][2]&quot; ([pdf][3]), demonstrate prior art? The authors document a sensing system comprised of *two* piezo-electric elements coupled to a pipette: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;One of the piezos excites the pipette at the mechanical resonance of its tapered tip while the other piezo is used for detection of the vibration.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inventors of the '746 patent claim a method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;coupling an ultrasonic signal into the wall of the suction tube, wherein said ultrasonic signal is generated by a piezo actuator disposed between said wall of said suction tube and an additional mass, said piezo actuator mounted on said wall of said suction tube, said piezo actuator in contact with said additional mass on a side facing away from said suction tube;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Note that the inventors claim the use of only one piezo element (which they suggest can be used to both generate vibrations and sense them), whereas the prior work used two piezo elements;&#xD;&#xA;* the inventors claim their invention is useful for determining the volume of fluid inside the pipette tip, while the prior work documented using the piezo system for sensing the distance of the tip from a fluid sample;&#xD;&#xA;* the inventors claim the use of a &quot;plurality of frequencies&quot; although the prior work also involved a plurality of frequencies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior work:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The outer electrode of one of the piezos is connected to a frequency generator (model 8550, Tabor Electronics Inc., USA) and excites the pipette at its mechanical resonance in the frequency range of 10± 150 kHz and at amplitudes between 50 mVpp and 5 Vpp. The second piezo-element serves as piezo-acoustic detector and is connected to a lock-in amplifier (model 5302, EG&amp;G Inc., USA) to measure magnitude and phase shift of the system response.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'746:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;measuring the frequency-dependent damping of the ultrasonic signal in the wall of the suction tube in a predefined frequency range comprising a plurality of frequencies as a function of the frequency;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8726746&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924424702004065&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/223451562_An_integrated_piezo-acoustic_shear-force_distance_sensor_with_nanometer_resolution_for_a_micropipette_tool" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27127" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11990" RevisionGUID="fd0028c0-f69f-42f4-aba7-b063517831f7" CreationDate="2015-01-22T12:12:49.863" UserId="13314" Text="Prior art from 2002 for Piezoelectric pipette sensor 2008 patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27128" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11990" RevisionGUID="fd0028c0-f69f-42f4-aba7-b063517831f7" CreationDate="2015-01-22T12:12:49.863" UserId="13314" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us8726746&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11991" RevisionGUID="2824cb7a-3e2c-49b6-9167-91ba8d2fd882" CreationDate="2015-01-22T12:13:22.760" UserId="13315" Text="I would like to ask about the status of a patent if a dependent claim is found to have been anticipated by a previous patent. For example, what would be the position of a particular US patent if at some point following the issue of the patent, claim 1 is found to be invalid because of the late discovery of an earlier patent covering the subject matter of that claim, but claim 2 which is dependent on claim 1 is a valid patentable concept. Clearly the patent can no longer be seen as valid from the point of view of claim 1 but is it legally enforceable with respect to claim 2? I.e. if someone infringes claim 2, can the inventor use the patent to protect his or her right to the subject matter in claim 2? &#xD;&#xA; Or does claim 2 become invalid on account of the fact that it has a dependent claim that is not valid. In that circumstance can the inventor do anything to maintain patent cover with respect to claim 2?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27130" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11991" RevisionGUID="2824cb7a-3e2c-49b6-9167-91ba8d2fd882" CreationDate="2015-01-22T12:13:22.760" UserId="13315" Text="Is a patent enforceable based on a claim with a dependent claim that is not enforceable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27131" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11991" RevisionGUID="2824cb7a-3e2c-49b6-9167-91ba8d2fd882" CreationDate="2015-01-22T12:13:22.760" UserId="13315" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11991" RevisionGUID="f61e9d62-888a-4235-8f9f-b230af539138" CreationDate="2015-01-22T15:43:09.027" UserId="13315" Comment="added 19 characters in body; edited title" Text="I would like to ask about the status of a patent if an independent claim is found to have been anticipated by a previous patent but the claim that is dependent on it has not. For example, what would be the position of a particular US patent if at some point following the issue of the patent, claim 1 is found to be invalid because of the late discovery of an earlier patent covering the subject matter of that claim, but claim 2 which is dependent on claim 1 does not appear to have been anticipated. Clearly the patent can no longer rely on  claim 1 but is it legally enforceable with respect to claim 2? I.e. if someone infringes claim 2, can the inventor use claim 2 to protect his or her right to the subject matter in that claim? &#xD;&#xA; Or does claim 2 become invalid on account of the fact that it is dependent on an invalid claim. In that circumstance can the inventor do anything to maintain patent cover with respect to claim 2?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27133" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11991" RevisionGUID="f61e9d62-888a-4235-8f9f-b230af539138" CreationDate="2015-01-22T15:43:09.027" UserId="13315" Comment="added 19 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is a patent enforceable based on a claim that is dependent on an independent claim that is not enforceable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11991" RevisionGUID="5ea3837d-05ef-4ec8-8631-94f0c06b34a0" CreationDate="2015-01-22T16:25:54.727" UserId="13315" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I would like to ask about the status of a patent if an independent claim is found to have been anticipated by a previous patent but a claim that is dependent on it has not. For example, what would be the position of a particular US patent if at some point following the issue of the patent, claim 1 is found to be invalid because of the late discovery of an earlier patent covering the subject matter of that claim, but claim 2 which is dependent on claim 1 does not appear to have been anticipated. Clearly the patent can no longer rely on  claim 1 but is it legally enforceable with respect to claim 2? I.e. if someone infringes claim 2, can the inventor use claim 2 to protect his or her right to the subject matter in that claim? &#xD;&#xA; Or does claim 2 become invalid on account of the fact that it is dependent on an invalid claim. In that circumstance can the inventor do anything to maintain patent cover with respect to claim 2?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11992" RevisionGUID="2cf4ef3b-27d1-47ef-868f-2ecd632a146e" CreationDate="2015-01-22T16:39:06.973" UserId="13318" Text="Eric, yes it does make sense.  Have you continued to develop the application or work on pursuing patent protection.  You should consider performing a patentability search and then filing a provisional patent application or a non-provisional patent application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11993" RevisionGUID="ca83ecf2-8ed3-49c7-ac11-315cf9549429" CreationDate="2015-01-22T16:41:16.243" UserId="13318" Text="Have you already shipped the app? You should consider performing a patentability search and then filing a provisional patent application or a non-provisional patent application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11994" RevisionGUID="0a34ca1e-0365-4a9d-a942-8d597fa6fee2" CreationDate="2015-01-22T16:45:32.003" UserId="13318" Text="I believe that the answer is yes and that you should consider that an offer for sale." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11995" RevisionGUID="0ae35984-ccb7-416e-98e3-0c9d4f2a6794" CreationDate="2015-01-22T16:51:05.927" UserId="13318" Text="Recently, the Federal Circuit issued a decision related to this point.  The case is related to the generation of an improved device profile.  The court held that combining two data sets into a device profile was abstract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/13-1600.Opinion.7-9-2014.1.PDF][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/13-1600.Opinion.7-9-2014.1.PDF" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11996" RevisionGUID="c06bdcc1-6923-4c86-984d-89337b9b3014" CreationDate="2015-01-22T16:57:41.360" UserId="13318" Text="You would likely want to perform a patentability search to determine how different your system is from prior art already out there including 7,714,742." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11997" RevisionGUID="53123297-02df-4160-b5e2-651af55de892" CreationDate="2015-01-22T17:22:57.000" UserId="13318" Text="Each claim in a patent stands on its own.  Claim 1 may be invalid but claim 2 may be valid and infringed.  In other words, even if independent claim 1 is anticipated, claim 2 may be valid and infringed. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11998" RevisionGUID="f0cc6bdf-b3f5-4ab9-adf0-1769c365c9cd" CreationDate="2015-01-22T18:18:43.610" UserId="13306" Text="Keeping the patent in your name and that of the company owner would create a joint ownership allowing either of you to exploit the patent.   Generally patent ownership is a question of state law and you should consult an attorney versed in the state where the verbal contract was executed.  Absent a written contract, the issue may well be determined as to who is actually the inventor.   If you are not an inventor, then you would not have an interest in the patent rights.  You state that you were commissioned as a designer.   The level of contribution of your efforts to the actual claims of the patent might need to be determined.   If you were merely creating a design of a product based on the explicit directions of the company, then you might not actually be an inventor.   On the other hand, if you were only given very general directions and you created a product that was mostly dependent upon your efforts, then you may well be either the inventor, or one of the inventors and have an interest in the ownership of any patent that might issue.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you and the company owner are able to jointly agree upon the question of ownership and/or inventorship, then that question may not be able to answered, until a patent application is filed and claims allowed.  At that time, the question of inventorship and ownership might be determined.   Of course someone will need to pay the costs of the patent application and prosecution first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11998" RevisionGUID="ddffc94a-4b17-4d05-b9d4-0f601a2b2149" CreationDate="2015-01-22T18:25:20.663" UserId="13306" Comment="Reread the question and added further clarification" Text="Keeping the patent in your name and that of the company owner would create a joint ownership allowing either of you to exploit the patent. I am assuming that the manufacturer is the company that is owned by the company owner.  If you did not assign your rights to the company, then you would have the right to sell rights to the patent to other companies, or to go into competition against the company.&#xD;&#xA;  Generally patent ownership is a question of state law and you should consult an attorney versed in the state where the verbal contract was executed. It seems that the company agrees that you are an inventor.   If that is in question, then they could claim that you are not actually an inventor and have no ownership claim.   Absent a written contract, the issue may well be determined as to who is actually the inventor.   If you are not an inventor, then you would not have an interest in the patent rights.  You state that you were commissioned as a designer.   The level of contribution of your efforts to the actual claims of the patent might need to be determined.   If you were merely creating a design of a product based on the explicit directions of the company, then you might not actually be an inventor.   On the other hand, if you were only given very general directions and you created a product that was mostly dependent upon your efforts, then you may well be either the inventor, or one of the inventors and have an interest in the ownership of any patent that might issue.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you and the company owner are able to jointly agree upon the question of ownership and/or inventorship, then that question may not be able to answered, until a patent application is filed and claims allowed.  At that time, the question of inventorship and ownership might be determined.   Of course someone will need to pay the costs of the patent application and prosecution first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11999" RevisionGUID="f1e1236d-aaae-4725-9e84-0088d20c2ef9" CreationDate="2015-01-22T20:13:21.557" UserId="13310" Text="As to the specific question &quot;is this prior art?&quot;, the 2002 article is, on its face, prior in time, and appears to be germane to the subject matter of the '746 patent.  Thus, yes, it appears to be prior art with respect to '746.  However, that doesn't in itself tell us much.  Is the article sufficient to anticipate (under Pre-AIA 35 USC 102) each and every element, arranged identically as in the claims of '746?  Probably not, based on your explanation alone, and thus insufficient alone to invalidate the '746 patent.  But it may well be tht the article could be applied in combination with another reference, or in view of common sense, or in view of well-known features, as rendering the claims of '746 obvious (under Pre-AIA 35 USC 103), as might be identified and argued in a reexamination, post grant review proceeding, or in court." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11991" RevisionGUID="ed2c7176-cc08-41e2-ab73-b63171591b2e" CreationDate="2015-01-22T20:18:16.483" UserId="10011" Comment="added 12 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I would like to ask about the status of a patent if an independent claim is found to have been anticipated by a previous patent but a claim that is dependent on it has not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, what would be the position of a particular US patent if at some point following the issue of the patent, claim 1 is found to be invalid because of the late discovery of an earlier patent covering the subject matter of that claim, but claim 2 which is dependent on claim 1 does not appear to have been anticipated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly the patent can no longer rely on claim 1, but is it legally enforceable with respect to claim 2? That is, if someone infringes claim 2, can the inventor use claim 2 to protect his or her right to the subject matter in that claim? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or does claim 2 become invalid on account of the fact that it is dependent on an invalid claim. In that circumstance can the inventor do anything to maintain patent cover with respect to claim 2?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27145" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11991" RevisionGUID="ed2c7176-cc08-41e2-ab73-b63171591b2e" CreationDate="2015-01-22T20:18:16.483" UserId="10011" Comment="added 12 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12000" RevisionGUID="5ee2ca47-217c-4a71-9169-2a95df4415d7" CreationDate="2015-01-22T20:27:18.753" UserId="13310" Text="Specific to the question asked, however, WO2006112733 A1 is itself an international patent application under the Paris Convention Treaty (PCT).  This type of application does not itself mature into an issued patent.  However, as Patent Pending Guide indicates in another answer here, based on the PCT application a &quot;national stage&quot; patent application may be filed, within (usually) 30 months from the PCT filing, in countries that are signatories of the Treaty.  These national stage applications may eventually issue as patents, depending on the results of examination in each country.  Each national stage application is subject to the fees in the respective country and typically requires the applicant to utilize a patent professional registered/licensed by that country and/or intellectual property office." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11993" RevisionGUID="c2081290-67a3-44af-97a0-543f7084badb" CreationDate="2015-01-23T02:59:32.880" UserId="13318" Comment="added 1703 characters in body" Text="There is not a simple answer to this question.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you already shipped the app? In the US, you only have one year to file a patent application after the invention has been [on sale][1].  As a result, the clock may be ticking.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Bobfango said, you cannot patent an idea.  However, you could attempt to protect your application if it is directed toward patent eligible subject matter (see below) and includes a novel and non obvious aspect.  As an example, your application may perform a method that includes A, B, C, and D.  There may be one piece of prior art that teaches A, B, and C.  If A, B, C, and D is both novel and non obvious, then your method may be patent eligible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bobfango also brought up a recent Supreme Court case: [Alice][2].  In Alice, the Court found that the software related claims were directed toward an abstract idea.  Since Alice was handed down, courts have been rather hard on some software related patents unless they include &quot;something more&quot; than the abstract idea.  As an example, courts are not allowing applicants to receive patents on things that could be done on pen and paper, but use a computer.  However, the law related to eligible subject matter is experiencing a ton of changes right now.  Keep in mind that if you were to file a patent application, the USPTO would not even examine your application for 2-3 years.  The law related to eligible subject matter will likely be different by then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the above information, you could consider performing a patentability search.  If the outcome of the search is positive, then you could consider filing a provisional patent application or a non-provisional patent application.  Try reaching out to a patent attorney or agent for more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-sale_bar&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11996" RevisionGUID="e976fc5c-4ad2-4488-951e-e877004fc1ab" CreationDate="2015-01-23T03:09:33.107" UserId="13318" Comment="added 431 characters in body" Text="If your system is &quot;identical&quot; to this other patent then you would likely be out of luck.  However, you noted that &quot;it does have differences and additions.&quot;  If these &quot;differences and additions&quot; make the system novel and non-obvious, then you may have a chance at obtaining a patent.  You would need to have someone evaluate your invention, the other patent, and look for other prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may want to perform a patentability search to determine how different your system is from prior art already out there including 7,714,742.  Try reaching out to a patent attorney or agent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11992" RevisionGUID="2f2d373b-7692-44ca-9370-63fa14967ef0" CreationDate="2015-01-23T16:16:18.823" UserId="13318" Comment="added 962 characters in body" Text="Eric, yes it does make sense.  Have you continued to develop the application or work on pursuing patent protection since you posted this question?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You do not need to have a full working application in order to file a patent application.  You could file a patent application while you are in the early parts of the development stage as long as you have conceived of how to make and use the invention.  Conception is complete when the idea is clearly defined in your mind and only &quot;ordinary skill in the art&quot; would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, e.g., write the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are at that stage, you should consider performing a patentability search to see what else is out there and make sure that your invention is novel and non-obvious.  If the results of the patentability search are positive, then you can consider filing a provisional patent application or a non-provisional patent application.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because you are talking about software, there also may be considerations related to patent eligible subject matter.  Recently, courts and the patent office have clamped down on certain software-related patent applications for reciting claims that are too &quot;abstract.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Try reaching out to a patent attorney or agent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12002" RevisionGUID="4ccd4db7-2449-4d9c-a2d8-2c2430e3589f" CreationDate="2015-01-23T20:21:44.437" UserId="13322" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5803317][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5803317  When does this patent expire?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27153" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12002" RevisionGUID="4ccd4db7-2449-4d9c-a2d8-2c2430e3589f" CreationDate="2015-01-23T20:21:44.437" UserId="13322" Text="Patent US 5803317" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27154" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12002" RevisionGUID="4ccd4db7-2449-4d9c-a2d8-2c2430e3589f" CreationDate="2015-01-23T20:21:44.437" UserId="13322" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12003" RevisionGUID="1de29352-5059-433e-9e50-b1124965a290" CreationDate="2015-01-23T20:30:09.593" UserId="13323" Text="My application requested for an existing U.S. patent was filed,&#xD;&#xA; I received a copy personally signed by a certifying officer in the mail.&#xD;&#xA;Does this mean I have been granted the use of this patent. Or is it just a basic copy of the patent.&#xD;&#xA; I am starting up a recycling plant and am in desperate need of this specific patent in order to export the End Use waste capturing products and to prevent added waste into landfill sites.&#xD;&#xA;Please guide me so I can accelerate to commercialisation &#xD;&#xA;Thank you " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27156" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12003" RevisionGUID="1de29352-5059-433e-9e50-b1124965a290" CreationDate="2015-01-23T20:30:09.593" UserId="13323" Text="Patent enquiry for Eco friendly products" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27157" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12003" RevisionGUID="1de29352-5059-433e-9e50-b1124965a290" CreationDate="2015-01-23T20:30:09.593" UserId="13323" Text="&lt;assignee&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12002" RevisionGUID="71354d3e-cd5d-4bab-9188-3bc645de2d1e" CreationDate="2015-01-23T20:49:55.287" UserId="1" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5803317][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; When does this patent expire?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5803317 &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27159" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12002" RevisionGUID="d65f7f2f-704a-4b5d-8f17-2fea8cf4cdb1" CreationDate="2015-01-23T20:51:57.923" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[3801],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12005" RevisionGUID="2775db7d-98b6-4b8e-8edc-03459ca8f84a" CreationDate="2015-01-24T06:52:05.653" UserId="13230" Text="Reference to patent: USD623,571 noted Legal Events for this patent. Why are assignments given for this patent design. You can see the Assignors on the Google webpage, but not on the USPTO website. Does it means that the patent was transferred over to others, or there is some sort of conflicts of ownership here. Can design patents actually have assignments. I was thinking that process was only given for Utility Applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27164" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12005" RevisionGUID="2775db7d-98b6-4b8e-8edc-03459ca8f84a" CreationDate="2015-01-24T06:52:05.653" UserId="13230" Text="Assignment data" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27165" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12005" RevisionGUID="2775db7d-98b6-4b8e-8edc-03459ca8f84a" CreationDate="2015-01-24T06:52:05.653" UserId="13230" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27166" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12005" RevisionGUID="b905f944-b427-424a-a189-05217d13c887" CreationDate="2015-01-24T08:06:21.950" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;usd623571&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12005" RevisionGUID="b905f944-b427-424a-a189-05217d13c887" CreationDate="2015-01-24T08:06:21.950" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="Reference to patent: USD623,571&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking at the noted Legal Events for this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why are assignments given for this design patent? You can see the sssignors on the Google webpage, but not on the USPTO website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this mean that the patent was transferred over to others, or there is some sort of conflicts of ownership here? Can design patents actually have assignments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I always thought that process was only given for Utility Applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27168" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12005" RevisionGUID="b905f944-b427-424a-a189-05217d13c887" CreationDate="2015-01-24T08:06:21.950" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="Why does this design patent list assignments?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12006" RevisionGUID="7a85005c-1bd6-481c-9ea2-023da10b7401" CreationDate="2015-01-25T10:06:38.400" UserId="13330" Text="A product that I'm developing implements half of the 28 claims mentioned in this patent application:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.co.il/patents/WO2014111933A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I infringing the patent if it is granted? or do I need to implement all claims to infringe it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the chance of this patent actually being granted as the 1st Claim basically describes any medical records software out there ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27173" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12006" RevisionGUID="7a85005c-1bd6-481c-9ea2-023da10b7401" CreationDate="2015-01-25T10:06:38.400" UserId="13330" Text="Patent Infringement requires all claims to infringe or just one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27174" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12006" RevisionGUID="7a85005c-1bd6-481c-9ea2-023da10b7401" CreationDate="2015-01-25T10:06:38.400" UserId="13330" Text="&lt;infrigment&gt;&lt;granted&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12008" RevisionGUID="df09cf3d-ad25-484c-97f3-778e831680a0" CreationDate="2015-01-25T23:10:58.947" UserId="13334" Text="Alright, with more than 1.2 million apps on the app store, it's become increasingly difficult to find new app ideas that don't already exist. My question is; can simple app concepts that aren't original or revolutionary be patented or copyrighted? By simple, unoriginal and not revolutionary I mean toDo list apps that let the user assign a level of priority to tasks for example. So can apps such as this one be patented or copyrighted for their idea or concept or are they something that cannot be copyrighted? If they can, how long do these copyrights last? My logic tells me they can't, take dating websites or social media websites for example, they're all to a certain extent the exact same thing. I'm looking forward to your answers, thanks a lot guys and gals!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27179" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12008" RevisionGUID="df09cf3d-ad25-484c-97f3-778e831680a0" CreationDate="2015-01-25T23:10:58.947" UserId="13334" Text="Can mobile app concepts get a patent or copyright?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27180" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12008" RevisionGUID="df09cf3d-ad25-484c-97f3-778e831680a0" CreationDate="2015-01-25T23:10:58.947" UserId="13334" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12009" RevisionGUID="68f45b68-e9ba-4dcb-8978-34b7c4b3b2bd" CreationDate="2015-01-26T04:53:51.253" UserId="5317" Text="I ask this with the understanding that most patents are not worth the trouble to litigate and defend.  However, going through the many decades of previous patents offers a rewarding trip through time while examining often wonderful previous technical achievements.  I hope to add a few things to this singularly unique and well archived resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If my only real goal with the application for a design or utility patent is to insert its description into the rather amazing and very useful technical library of current patents... is that a bad thing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27186" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12009" RevisionGUID="68f45b68-e9ba-4dcb-8978-34b7c4b3b2bd" CreationDate="2015-01-26T04:53:51.253" UserId="5317" Text="Another purpose of patents - Public record?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27187" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12009" RevisionGUID="68f45b68-e9ba-4dcb-8978-34b7c4b3b2bd" CreationDate="2015-01-26T04:53:51.253" UserId="5317" Text="&lt;purpose&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12010" RevisionGUID="14aa9946-c841-49b2-88d3-6277ba4e3ff5" CreationDate="2015-01-26T05:15:02.390" UserId="10011" Text="Nope!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's actually, believe it or not, part of the goal of the patent system. It's a big part of it, in fact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent system is built as a trade. You get protection for a number of years, *in return for sharing your invention with the world.* That's part of why improvements are patentable, under certain circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am personally pro-patent, but in the interest of displaying other sides, many will point out that the internet and modern culture reduce the dependency on the patent system to share in that way. But it's definitely true that having a patent on something will inject it into a pretty cool library of innovation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking to your plans, some people also get patents with the express purpose of allowing their invention to be shared. In other words, if I invent something that I want everyone to have, I can stop anyone else from patenting it by getting the protection myself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12010" RevisionGUID="5c42e2e2-4952-4cf3-b702-cb6cdd02ef5c" CreationDate="2015-01-26T05:26:37.220" UserId="10011" Comment="added 460 characters in body" Text="Nope!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's actually, believe it or not, part of the goal of the patent system. It's a big part of it, in fact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the [United States Constitution](http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html), with emphasis mine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,** by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of the patent system, built right into the constitution, lies in sharing information and inventions with others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the patent system is built as a trade. You get protection for a number of years, *in return for sharing your invention with the world.* That's part of why improvements are patentable, under certain circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am personally pro-patent, but in the interest of displaying other sides, many will point out that the internet and modern culture reduce the dependency on the patent system to share in that way. But it's definitely true that having a patent on something will inject it into a pretty cool library of innovation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking to your plans, some people also get patents with the express purpose of allowing their invention to be shared. In other words, if I invent something that I want everyone to have, I can stop anyone else from patenting it by getting the protection myself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12011" RevisionGUID="320a0d43-1e2e-4e45-a305-260cae7d09ca" CreationDate="2015-01-26T06:08:37.480" UserId="10011" Text="Yes, mobile apps can still get patents and copyrights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Copyrights aren't actually on-topic here on Ask Patents, so I won't get into those too much, but in brief, a copyright is on an artistic work. If your artwork looks different from others (and that includes the appearance of an app), you can get a copyright. I don't know the times off-hand, but they last dozens of years, on the order of seventy or one hundred. They're *fairly* literal, though, so it's pretty easy to get around a copyright if you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents are a little different. Patents last twenty years from the date of filing these days. A patent is on a novel, non-obvious invention. A simple to-do list probably won't have anything patentable behind it. But your other example of a dating app might. If a dating app company developed, say, a new algorithm for matching members, that could very well be considered non-obvious and novel. Of course, I can also imagine a &quot;simple&quot; to-do app that introduces some new way of sorting or inferring to-do items, and that might be patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, no, you probably can't &quot;patent an app,&quot; but you might be able to patent certain workflows within the app. Just as long as nobody's done it before, and someone with experience in the field wouldn't come by it without &quot;undue experimentation,&quot; it should be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly there's a lot going on right now in the world of software patenting, and some will argue that you simply can't patent software. But some things are going through, so it's worth thinking about." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12012" RevisionGUID="643397cc-a09c-4be6-9f11-5bb474a49532" CreationDate="2015-01-26T07:19:18.347" UserId="13335" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20130240651][1]&#xD;&#xA;how can i upload the hammer-crushers.net's pdf to google?&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130240651&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27192" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12012" RevisionGUID="643397cc-a09c-4be6-9f11-5bb474a49532" CreationDate="2015-01-26T07:19:18.347" UserId="13335" Text="how can i upload the hammer-crushers.net's pdf to google?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27193" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12012" RevisionGUID="643397cc-a09c-4be6-9f11-5bb474a49532" CreationDate="2015-01-26T07:19:18.347" UserId="13335" Text="&lt;us20130240651&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27194" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12012" RevisionGUID="59b7627e-bb37-40f4-b69a-50cacc4aab98" CreationDate="2015-01-26T07:28:27.833" UserId="10011" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12012" RevisionGUID="59e7b323-9e37-448a-b38c-9aeafe981f29" CreationDate="2015-01-26T07:35:43.697" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body; edited title" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20130240651][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I upload a PDF to Google patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130240651" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27196" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12012" RevisionGUID="59e7b323-9e37-448a-b38c-9aeafe981f29" CreationDate="2015-01-26T07:35:43.697" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body; edited title" Text="How can I upload a PDF to Google patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27197" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="12012" RevisionGUID="56ab6e9f-2e52-4fdc-8db0-102e5bee8288" CreationDate="2015-01-26T07:37:45.413" UserId="10011" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12014" RevisionGUID="fdbd39ae-a757-4df9-9752-2cfcce617e48" CreationDate="2015-01-26T19:57:30.300" UserId="13341" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8336498][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8336498&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This US patent describes a system very similar to a system patented in Spain. When the applicants wanted the same system patented in the EU it was discharged due to a tiny similarity a US patent. For details about the patent see:&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&amp;date=20070816&amp;DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;CC=ES&amp;NR=2257122B2&amp;KC=B2&amp;ND=4&#xD;&#xA;When the page is open please push Download and you will see the Spanish patent accepted 23th July 2007.&#xD;&#xA;The English version not accepted by EU patent office you can open on:&#xD;&#xA;https://data.epo.org/publication-server/result-page?iAction=3&amp;pn=1676477&amp;ki=A1&amp;cc=EP&#xD;&#xA;and push pdf.&#xD;&#xA;Does this mean that a Spansih patent with a very similar systemm is not considered to cancel the novelty of a later patent proposal?&#xD;&#xA;Victor&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27202" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12014" RevisionGUID="fdbd39ae-a757-4df9-9752-2cfcce617e48" CreationDate="2015-01-26T19:57:30.300" UserId="13341" Text="A US PATENT VERY SIMILAR TO A SPANISH PATENT" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27203" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12014" RevisionGUID="fdbd39ae-a757-4df9-9752-2cfcce617e48" CreationDate="2015-01-26T19:57:30.300" UserId="13341" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12014" RevisionGUID="e1c96e5b-34ce-4c52-9370-9c199876355b" CreationDate="2015-01-26T20:11:36.250" UserId="11972" Comment="removed shouting" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8336498][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8336498&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This US patent describes a system very similar to a system patented in Spain. When the applicants wanted the same system patented in the EU it was discharged due to a tiny similarity a US patent. For details about the patent see:&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&amp;date=20070816&amp;DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;CC=ES&amp;NR=2257122B2&amp;KC=B2&amp;ND=4&#xD;&#xA;When the page is open please push Download and you will see the Spanish patent accepted 23th July 2007.&#xD;&#xA;The English version not accepted by EU patent office you can open on:&#xD;&#xA;https://data.epo.org/publication-server/result-page?iAction=3&amp;pn=1676477&amp;ki=A1&amp;cc=EP&#xD;&#xA;and push pdf.&#xD;&#xA;Does this mean that a Spanish patent with a very similar system is not considered to cancel the novelty of a later patent proposal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27205" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12014" RevisionGUID="e1c96e5b-34ce-4c52-9370-9c199876355b" CreationDate="2015-01-26T20:11:36.250" UserId="11972" Comment="removed shouting" Text="An US patent very similar to a spanish patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27206" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12014" RevisionGUID="e1c96e5b-34ce-4c52-9370-9c199876355b" CreationDate="2015-01-26T20:11:36.250" Comment="Proposed by 11972 approved by -1 edit id of 1747" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27207" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12014" RevisionGUID="afb338e2-fd06-4f41-b8c5-feff77a7a85f" CreationDate="2015-01-26T20:11:36.250" UserId="10011" Comment="removed shouting" Text="A US patent very similar to a Spanish patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12016" RevisionGUID="fa86fac3-606a-46ab-b834-312a29f7ee88" CreationDate="2015-01-26T21:47:07.513" UserId="13343" Text="I have been thinking about patenting a product that I have been developing together with a friend, and was wondering if you guys could help me out with some question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Am I able to patent something on behalf of a friend through PCT even if I am not a lawyer or patent proffesional? (I put their name on the form and pay for them etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Am I allowed to file a patent in any country I want to, regardless of where I am living? (If i live in the USA, but want to file a patent in the EU)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If I patent something through PCT, do I have to define from the beginning which national entities I want to file it with?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is there software available to help me write a patent application that I can send to the national offices of the countries I want to file in, without having to hire a lawyer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27214" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12016" RevisionGUID="fa86fac3-606a-46ab-b834-312a29f7ee88" CreationDate="2015-01-26T21:47:07.513" UserId="13343" Text="File Patent Internationally on Behalf of Others" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27215" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12016" RevisionGUID="fa86fac3-606a-46ab-b834-312a29f7ee88" CreationDate="2015-01-26T21:47:07.513" UserId="13343" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;trademark&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12018" RevisionGUID="3cf3ed23-e959-45ee-9eb3-5e2d51c13734" CreationDate="2015-01-27T05:00:29.450" UserId="11895" Text="**Am I able to patent something on behalf of a friend through PCT even if I am not a lawyer or patent professional? (I put their name on the form and pay for them etc.)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes you can file patent if you are one of the inventors. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you are not one of the inventors you will need assignment to file the patent and list your name as address of correspondence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you are only acting as input guy then sure you can file but all address and correspondence should be with inventors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Am I allowed to file a patent in any country I want to, regardless of where I am living? (If i live in the USA, but want to file a patent in the EU)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can file patent directly to PCT or any other countries regardless where you live. however keep in mind that where you live that national patent act might have some additional requirement to allow direct patent filing. (to quickly view this requirement please visit http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/nat_sec.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If I patent something through PCT, do I have to define from the beginning which national entities I want to file it with?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes PCT is international application to provide extended window to various countries, you need to specify countries you are interested. it is recommended to include all countries listed. Keep in mind that few countries are not PCT members you need to file application directly on PCT filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there software available to help me write a patent application that I can send to the national offices of the countries I want to file in, without having to hire a lawyer?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Software may give you separate sections or heading but matter and content requires human inputs. Lawyer helps in pinpointing novelty and inventive step which a software might not. Even as inventor you are well versed with your invention but making it big and out of loopholes you should consult lawyer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27225" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12016" RevisionGUID="640f5ee3-2763-41e5-a915-a0d0e414d58b" CreationDate="2015-01-27T06:59:49.250" UserId="11895" Comment="trademark is not correct tag" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27226" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12016" RevisionGUID="640f5ee3-2763-41e5-a915-a0d0e414d58b" CreationDate="2015-01-27T06:59:49.250" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 10011 edit id of 1748" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12020" RevisionGUID="f9f06688-44a5-4342-9853-391bf182de68" CreationDate="2015-01-27T09:23:20.527" UserId="11895" Text="there are no option for uploading pdf document in said section. Patent application can be downloaded using google patents.&#xD;&#xA;please further clarify your question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12022" RevisionGUID="af1e54e7-ddc3-4c2b-a4e3-63d458abc298" CreationDate="2015-01-27T19:48:35.400" UserId="9802" Text="In general, a patent examiner may suggest or require a change to the title of a patent in order to make it more descriptive of the claimed invention. (See [MPEP 606](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s606.html))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may have been changed to make the patent easier to search. (Especially since at the time searching would have involved leafing through paper copies in a filing cabinet.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case, a twist drill is a type of drill bit. Given the age of the patent, it is probably pretty difficult to determine whether the title was changed. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10678" RevisionGUID="06180f11-0945-4f6a-967f-3970d86179ba" CreationDate="2015-01-27T21:16:29.163" UserId="9802" Comment="spelling; more descriptive title; Google Patent Link" Text="I would like to know where the title &quot;improvement in drill-bit&quot; came from in [US38119](http://www.google.com/patents/US38119), the applicant or the USPTO. Nowhere in the text does the applicant refer to the device as a drill-bit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27233" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10678" RevisionGUID="06180f11-0945-4f6a-967f-3970d86179ba" CreationDate="2015-01-27T21:16:29.163" UserId="9802" Comment="spelling; more descriptive title; Google Patent Link" Text="US38119 Patent Title" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27234" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10678" RevisionGUID="06180f11-0945-4f6a-967f-3970d86179ba" CreationDate="2015-01-27T21:16:29.163" UserId="9802" Comment="spelling; more descriptive title; Google Patent Link" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;title&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27235" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10678" RevisionGUID="06180f11-0945-4f6a-967f-3970d86179ba" CreationDate="2015-01-27T21:16:29.163" Comment="Proposed by 9802 approved by 10011 edit id of 1750" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12018" RevisionGUID="72d4efdd-3d0f-4914-9fd3-cdf2e994e939" CreationDate="2015-01-28T05:02:25.487" UserId="11895" Comment="more clarification on who can file patent" Text="**Am I able to patent something on behalf of a friend through PCT even if I am not a lawyer or patent professional? (I put their name on the form and pay for them etc.)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NO on behalf of others you cant file, as helping hand if you are only acting as input guy then sure you can file but all address and correspondence should be with inventors. it will be not called as behalf,, further ePCT will be of inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you can file patent if you are one of the inventors. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you are not one of the inventors, but you are a employee of same organization you file application as 'common representative'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you want to file patent as representative you need to be either applicant legal entity (IP right are assigned to you), Patent agent of the receiving office (RO).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Am I allowed to file a patent in any country I want to, regardless of where I am living? (If i live in the USA, but want to file a patent in the EU)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can file patent directly to PCT or any other countries regardless where you live. however keep in mind that where you live that national patent act might have some additional requirement to allow direct patent filing. (to quickly view this requirement please visit http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/nat_sec.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If I patent something through PCT, do I have to define from the beginning which national entities I want to file it with?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes PCT is international application to provide extended window to various countries, you need to specify countries you are interested. it is recommended to include all countries listed. Keep in mind that few countries are not PCT members you need to file application directly on PCT filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there software available to help me write a patent application that I can send to the national offices of the countries I want to file in, without having to hire a lawyer?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Software may give you separate sections or heading but matter and content requires human inputs. Lawyer helps in pinpointing novelty and inventive step which a software might not. Even as inventor you are well versed with your invention but making it big and out of loopholes you should consult lawyer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12018" RevisionGUID="37b62b04-d4fe-4dfb-96b8-17d43282a78c" CreationDate="2015-01-28T05:09:33.740" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="**Am I able to patent something on behalf of a friend through PCT even if I am not a lawyer or patent professional? (I put their name on the form and pay for them etc.)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NO on behalf of others you can not file. But as helping hand you can draft you can add epct but all address and correspondence should be with inventors. it will be not called as on behalf,, in this case ePCT will be of inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you can file patent if you are one of the inventors. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you are not one of the inventors, but you are a employee of same organization you file application as 'common representative'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you want to file patent as representative you need to be either applicant legal entity (IP right are assigned to you), Patent agent of the receiving office (RO).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Am I allowed to file a patent in any country I want to, regardless of where I am living? (If i live in the USA, but want to file a patent in the EU)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can file patent directly to PCT or any other countries regardless where you live. however keep in mind that where you live that national patent act might have some additional requirement to allow direct patent filing. (to quickly view this requirement please visit http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/nat_sec.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If I patent something through PCT, do I have to define from the beginning which national entities I want to file it with?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes PCT is international application to provide extended window to various countries, you need to specify countries you are interested. it is recommended to include all countries listed. Keep in mind that few countries are not PCT members you need to file application directly on PCT filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there software available to help me write a patent application that I can send to the national offices of the countries I want to file in, without having to hire a lawyer?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Software may give you separate sections or heading but matter and content requires human inputs. Lawyer helps in pinpointing novelty and inventive step which a software might not. Even as inventor you are well versed with your invention but making it big and out of loopholes you should consult lawyer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12026" RevisionGUID="ff8a3c1d-2621-4f33-bb16-56ef70b7f3ec" CreationDate="2015-01-28T17:27:48.560" UserId="6038" Text="In reference to the patent: [US3535082][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3535082&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who filed this patent? Who was the patent attorney in the U.S.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27256" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12026" RevisionGUID="ff8a3c1d-2621-4f33-bb16-56ef70b7f3ec" CreationDate="2015-01-28T17:27:48.560" UserId="6038" Text="&quot;Method for utilizing nuclear energy in the production of hydrogen&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27257" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12026" RevisionGUID="ff8a3c1d-2621-4f33-bb16-56ef70b7f3ec" CreationDate="2015-01-28T17:27:48.560" UserId="6038" Text="&lt;us3535082&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27261" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12026" RevisionGUID="c50a5dfe-9f93-4ae5-9de9-a4b5b3748eb5" CreationDate="2015-01-28T20:13:56.653" UserId="10011" Comment="edited title" Text="How can I find out who filed for a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12028" RevisionGUID="c07d3a0c-10eb-478e-9e6f-20d00192bd78" CreationDate="2015-01-28T21:23:16.753" UserId="4914" Text="Looking for prior art on this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US20130290834&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best answered by IC design people who use that kind of software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically looking for what's in the main figure, two windows showing two different layers that represent adjacent dies. So, when a change is made to the top one for example, the effects on the other are made and shown in the second window.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27263" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12028" RevisionGUID="c07d3a0c-10eb-478e-9e6f-20d00192bd78" CreationDate="2015-01-28T21:23:16.753" UserId="4914" Text="EDA software (IC design)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27264" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12028" RevisionGUID="c07d3a0c-10eb-478e-9e6f-20d00192bd78" CreationDate="2015-01-28T21:23:16.753" UserId="4914" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;eda&gt;&lt;ic&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27265" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12028" RevisionGUID="25533db8-9a9b-4c0c-a043-a8fb59def428" CreationDate="2015-01-28T21:49:55.083" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Looking for prior art on this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US20130290834&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best answered by IC design people who use that kind of software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically looking for what's in the main figure, two windows showing two different layers that represent adjacent dies. So, when a change is made to the top one for example, the effects on the other are made and shown in the second window.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27266" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12028" RevisionGUID="25533db8-9a9b-4c0c-a043-a8fb59def428" CreationDate="2015-01-28T21:49:55.083" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20130290834&gt;&lt;eda&gt;&lt;ic&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12029" RevisionGUID="7c76e19a-6633-4990-95d0-f5c36fa8c44b" CreationDate="2015-01-28T22:02:07.090" UserId="13359" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2012125157A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2012125157A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where can I find the Figures for this patent.  Google search only shows the text?&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;Sunil" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27268" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12029" RevisionGUID="7c76e19a-6633-4990-95d0-f5c36fa8c44b" CreationDate="2015-01-28T22:02:07.090" UserId="13359" Text="Figures for this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27269" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12029" RevisionGUID="7c76e19a-6633-4990-95d0-f5c36fa8c44b" CreationDate="2015-01-28T22:02:07.090" UserId="13359" Text="&lt;wo2012125157a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12030" RevisionGUID="2a514f9f-978f-4885-afd0-9858b874ce03" CreationDate="2015-01-28T22:43:13.040" UserId="4914" Text="https://www.google.com/patents/US20130346950&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see associated US applciation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12031" RevisionGUID="5276b303-489d-45bd-bd0b-c91a826ade13" CreationDate="2015-01-28T23:10:52.477" UserId="9802" Text="This application from Samsung seeks to patent a method for using one type of wireless connection, such as Bluetooth, to setup a second wireless connection such as Wi-Fi Direct.  10 minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent application before it becomes a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2013-Apr-16** that describes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using one wireless protocol to setup a second wireless connection&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using Bluetooth to setup a Wi-Fi Direct connection&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question — one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title**: Communication control method and electronic device implementing the same&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: A method for communicating with an electronic device. The method includes  establishing a communication channel between two devices and sending data through that channel in order to establish a second communication channel. This could include, for example, using Bluetooth to setup a Wi-Fi direct connection for transmitting image data from a smartphone to a tv.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20140308898](http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20140308898&amp;OS=20140308898&amp;RS=20140308898) (**NOTE**: Not available on Google Patent as of 2015-Jan-28)&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: 14/254,860&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2013-Apr-16&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO**: Open through ~2015-Apr-16. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A communication control method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. establishing, at a source device, a preliminary channel via a first communications module;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. communicating data for establishing a communication channel through the preliminary channel, the communication channel being established via a second communication module; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. establishing the communication channel via the second communication channel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2013-Apr-16.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is good prior art? Please see the [FAQ](http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request) on other questionable US Patent Applications.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27272" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12031" RevisionGUID="5276b303-489d-45bd-bd0b-c91a826ade13" CreationDate="2015-01-28T23:10:52.477" UserId="9802" Text="Using Bluetooth to setup Wifi (Samsung) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27273" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12031" RevisionGUID="5276b303-489d-45bd-bd0b-c91a826ade13" CreationDate="2015-01-28T23:10:52.477" UserId="9802" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;samsung&gt;&lt;us20140308898&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12031" RevisionGUID="d0f7ed3d-e3ec-4d9c-b7fd-d32948697c83" CreationDate="2015-01-28T23:16:20.073" UserId="9802" Comment="added prior art from information disclosure statement" Text="This application from Samsung seeks to patent a method for using one type of wireless connection, such as Bluetooth, to setup a second wireless connection such as Wi-Fi Direct.  10 minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent application before it becomes a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2013-Apr-16** that describes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using one wireless protocol to setup a second wireless connection&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using Bluetooth to setup a Wi-Fi Direct connection&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question — one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title**: Communication control method and electronic device implementing the same&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: A method for communicating with an electronic device. The method includes  establishing a communication channel between two devices and sending data through that channel in order to establish a second communication channel. This could include, for example, using Bluetooth to setup a Wi-Fi direct connection for transmitting image data from a smartphone to a tv.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20140308898](http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20140308898&amp;OS=20140308898&amp;RS=20140308898) (**NOTE**: Not available on Google Patent as of 2015-Jan-28)&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: 14/254,860&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2013-Apr-16&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO**: Open through ~2015-Apr-16. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A communication control method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. establishing, at a source device, a preliminary channel via a first communications module;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. communicating data for establishing a communication channel through the preliminary channel, the communication channel being established via a second communication module; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. establishing the communication channel via the second communication channel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2013-Apr-16.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is good prior art? Please see the [FAQ](http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request) on other questionable US Patent Applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior art cited by applicants:&#xD;&#xA;KR 10-2008-0071379&#xD;&#xA;KR 10-2013-009088" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12030" RevisionGUID="17f181dd-e4cb-451e-a69b-58b297d0e338" CreationDate="2015-01-29T01:14:29.853" UserId="10011" Comment="added 430 characters in body" Text="Check the associated US patent application, [US20130346950](https://www.google.com/patents/US20130346950).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By reviewing the details section on Ask Patents, you can find the &quot;Also published as&quot; listings for this application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![screenshot from Google Patents][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There, you can see that this was also filed in the United States, as application number [US20130346950](https://www.google.com/patents/US20130346950). By clicking that link, you can find the five images associated with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/D5cf6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12032" RevisionGUID="9093186a-5f86-4730-81b4-a780c875d517" CreationDate="2015-01-29T05:38:37.707" UserId="13363" Text="I have a patent I, ( pending )that covers a certain subject matter, with specification A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I need to extend the specification to include further embodiments as well as a extension of the subject matter ( known as patent II ), but with the base of the patent in I.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, should I apply for a divisional application for this patent II from parent of application of patent I, or file a brand new application, or is there any way I can handle this with achieve protection from both patent I and patent II ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27278" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12032" RevisionGUID="9093186a-5f86-4730-81b4-a780c875d517" CreationDate="2015-01-29T05:38:37.707" UserId="13363" Text="divisional application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27279" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12032" RevisionGUID="9093186a-5f86-4730-81b4-a780c875d517" CreationDate="2015-01-29T05:38:37.707" UserId="13363" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12032" RevisionGUID="3476063d-df95-4173-b337-3a12e8f876d3" CreationDate="2015-01-29T08:16:48.760" UserId="10011" Comment="Format a bit, fix up some English" Text="I've filed an application that covers a certain subject matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since filing for that patent, I've developed a need to extend the specification to include further embodiments as well as an extension of the subject matter, but with a base of the first application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, should I:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Apply for a divisional application for the second patent with a parent application of the first one, or&#xD;&#xA;* File a brand new application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is there any way I can handle this and get protection for both aspects of the invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27281" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12032" RevisionGUID="3476063d-df95-4173-b337-3a12e8f876d3" CreationDate="2015-01-29T08:16:48.760" UserId="10011" Comment="Format a bit, fix up some English" Text="&lt;divisional-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27282" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12032" RevisionGUID="3476063d-df95-4173-b337-3a12e8f876d3" CreationDate="2015-01-29T08:16:48.760" UserId="10011" Comment="Format a bit, fix up some English" Text="How can I add onto my existing patent in a signficant way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12033" RevisionGUID="b3e75512-4544-4dcd-ad9f-55a39603972f" CreationDate="2015-01-29T09:38:13.620" UserId="13365" Text="WAP push maybe? It would send some initial message via SMS for example and request the phone to set up an IP channel. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27284" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12032" RevisionGUID="088eb620-986e-4f7b-bedd-217f73617f12" CreationDate="2015-01-29T10:41:15.093" UserId="10011" Comment="edited title" Text="How can I add onto my existing application in a signficant way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12034" RevisionGUID="e74281cb-4f2c-46d4-a668-16805b133118" CreationDate="2015-01-29T11:14:48.800" UserId="11895" Text="It depends on your Jurisdiction where you have filled patent application. in most of the cases Divisional application is done when question on unity of invention is raised during examination. As name suggest it is corresponds to dividing existing patent application and may have restriction requirement for additional matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If you are asking for US application please file continuation in part application with additional matter.&#xD;&#xA;2. If you are asking for Indian application please file Patent of addition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you could try fresh patent application filing if novelty, inventive step can be maintained on your claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12035" RevisionGUID="453797c8-47d0-4568-983d-af913f3348f4" CreationDate="2015-01-29T11:24:16.267" UserId="11895" Text="You can use any of the methods:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Via  WIPO:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Check drawing section [Link][1] &#xD;&#xA; 2. Download the pdf version, from documents tab&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Via EPO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Check mosaic section of [Link][2]&#xD;&#xA;2. download original document in pdf form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/WO2012125157&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?FT=D&amp;date=20120920&amp;DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;CC=WO&amp;NR=2012125157A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;ND=5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12037" RevisionGUID="6aa6d785-a0ff-4a79-9d6d-f023f0a28d83" CreationDate="2015-01-29T19:46:20.507" UserId="13369" Text="In reference to the patent: [US465972][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US465972" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27293" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12037" RevisionGUID="6aa6d785-a0ff-4a79-9d6d-f023f0a28d83" CreationDate="2015-01-29T19:46:20.507" UserId="13369" Text="How could Thomas Edison file a patent before he was born?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27294" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12037" RevisionGUID="6aa6d785-a0ff-4a79-9d6d-f023f0a28d83" CreationDate="2015-01-29T19:46:20.507" UserId="13369" Text="&lt;error-detection&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12042" RevisionGUID="139ee493-7841-4510-8c20-645fb4130fa3" CreationDate="2015-01-30T05:09:51.717" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12043" RevisionGUID="4b5f4393-7819-4a36-8142-7506a227f645" CreationDate="2015-01-30T05:09:51.717" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12044" RevisionGUID="28e47dbe-3de8-4ac2-91b6-dace985dcfea" CreationDate="2015-01-30T05:26:07.497" UserId="11895" Text="Filing date mentioned in Google Patent is wrong, actual filing year is 1889 actual pdf file contains correct date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;due to error in OCR software it is incorrectly mentioned as 1939.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/8k0fq.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12037" RevisionGUID="cd7f35ef-205a-4de0-8a50-c74a56e02f9b" CreationDate="2015-01-30T11:07:45.047" UserId="10011" Comment="added 173 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [US465972][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've noticed that this Google Patents page lists the filing date of a patent as Apr 10, 1839, but that's before the inventor, Thomas Edison, was born. How could this be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US465972" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12045" RevisionGUID="30965d67-1658-4941-9fa5-7112c79895ce" CreationDate="2015-01-30T11:34:25.860" UserId="11895" Text="Trade secrets are only safe until they are not public. Like your question if someone else invents the same method and files patent application then based on novelty and inventive step they might get a grant from patent office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any patent issued before September 16, 2011 applicant can sue trade secret holder for infringement. outcome of such suit will depend on many factors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under AIA any patent issued after September 16, 2011 trade secret holder can invoke prior use and avoid infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12043" RevisionGUID="d8a9bb23-84bf-467d-88cd-03cbd00a403e" CreationDate="2015-01-30T13:59:56.830" UserId="11895" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="World Intellectual Property right application, and question relates to procedures and rules followed in PCT." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27320" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12043" RevisionGUID="d8a9bb23-84bf-467d-88cd-03cbd00a403e" CreationDate="2015-01-30T13:59:56.830" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 1 edit id of 1751" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12047" RevisionGUID="eeaacefd-ce8b-491e-b64b-c2095ee8f13b" CreationDate="2015-01-30T19:59:33.650" UserId="13383" Text="I had an idea for a product a couple years ago and I worked on the product at home then I presented it to my employer. They were not really interested, I have now made some modifications and have a better product. What I really want to do is patent it myself. Would they be able to claim it? I signed some paperwork saying that anything discussed at work is there property." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27325" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12047" RevisionGUID="eeaacefd-ce8b-491e-b64b-c2095ee8f13b" CreationDate="2015-01-30T19:59:33.650" UserId="13383" Text="If I work for a company and present an Idea and they reject it, can I go on my own and patent that idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27326" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12047" RevisionGUID="eeaacefd-ce8b-491e-b64b-c2095ee8f13b" CreationDate="2015-01-30T19:59:33.650" UserId="13383" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;product&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12050" RevisionGUID="726c6aa7-8b42-4170-824f-b54f35c3b672" CreationDate="2015-01-30T23:10:37.400" UserId="9802" Text="What factors should an inventor consider when deciding whether or not to include references to other art in the background section of their patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It no longer seems to be a common practice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27337" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12050" RevisionGUID="726c6aa7-8b42-4170-824f-b54f35c3b672" CreationDate="2015-01-30T23:10:37.400" UserId="9802" Text="Citing art in body of application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27338" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12050" RevisionGUID="726c6aa7-8b42-4170-824f-b54f35c3b672" CreationDate="2015-01-30T23:10:37.400" UserId="9802" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;drafting&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12051" RevisionGUID="672e5c91-ba5b-443a-9d22-e77dd604ee46" CreationDate="2015-01-31T00:15:15.970" UserId="11947" Text="I understand that agent doesn't have a law degree, but can she represent the inventor?&#xD;&#xA;I am writing my patent application by myself but want a professional to look it over and make corrections, especially claims. Probably lawyer's fees are too high for me and patent agent should be able to do the job. But all I can find are law offices." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27342" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12051" RevisionGUID="672e5c91-ba5b-443a-9d22-e77dd604ee46" CreationDate="2015-01-31T00:15:15.970" UserId="11947" Text="What is the difference between Patent agent and Patent lawyer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27343" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12051" RevisionGUID="672e5c91-ba5b-443a-9d22-e77dd604ee46" CreationDate="2015-01-31T00:15:15.970" UserId="11947" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;patent-agent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12052" RevisionGUID="757e5980-988c-4cfc-9749-2267cc5a33ca" CreationDate="2015-01-31T00:42:28.200" UserId="10011" Text="To the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO, as I'm sure you know it) in the context of patents (that is, not for trademarks), a registered patent agent is pretty well the same as a patent attorney. They can both file the paperwork, and there aren't any patent skills implicit to someone who's gone to law school, let alone passed the bar, that a well-taught agent wouldn't also have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, **an agent will be able to do what you're looking for.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Attorneys become necessary when you want to do some other things, like write an assignment agreement or, interestingly, file a trademark. But for just doing the filing or review of an application, you don't need someone with a law degree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I wouldn't jump so quickly to the conclusion that a lawyer's fees will be higher than those of an agent (they often are, but be careful assuming it), but either should suffice. I'm sure you've done your research, but I just want to say that to be extra clear. Because &quot;esquire&quot; status doesn't allow for any more behaviors in this context, it's quite reasonable for a patent agent to charge similar rates to an attorney." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12054" RevisionGUID="3de7172f-e7b6-460b-b023-78f233ed7129" CreationDate="2015-02-01T03:21:07.713" UserId="13395" Text="&quot;Allaire's HomeSite software. This was for webdesigning, was later sold asMacromedia Homesite)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;importantly, in the tabbed toolbar, see  &quot;Quick Tab&quot;,&quot;Fonts&quot;.&quot;Tables&quot; tabs. It is prior art of ribbon UI&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Allaire's HomeSite app for web designers](http://web.archive.org/web/20150201030839/http://home.ubalt.edu/abento/homesite/screen-view.gif)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also enlarge this picture![another pic](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/01/Macromedia_HomeSite.png)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12055" RevisionGUID="4109b876-6a77-416e-88b6-e59d49234370" CreationDate="2015-02-01T16:30:59.830" UserId="13398" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140234791][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140234791&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People have been making candles from recycled bottles for years. Is putting a lid on the candle really different enough to warrant a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27354" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12055" RevisionGUID="4109b876-6a77-416e-88b6-e59d49234370" CreationDate="2015-02-01T16:30:59.830" UserId="13398" Text="Aren't Recycled bottle candles in the public domain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27355" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12055" RevisionGUID="4109b876-6a77-416e-88b6-e59d49234370" CreationDate="2015-02-01T16:30:59.830" UserId="13398" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12056" RevisionGUID="2633e0b9-ce6a-4a48-bbed-41fc1ae9bccd" CreationDate="2015-02-01T20:32:27.837" UserId="3143" Text="Germany has a law called [Arbeitnehmererfinderrecht][1], employee-inventors right that handles the rights of an employee who invents something at work. Basically, it says as an amployee you have to report a (possible) invention that is connected to your work. You employee ca nthen decide wether to apply for a patent, treat the invention as an inernal trade secret, or leave the invention to the inventor (who may then apply for the patent). If the employer patents the invention, the employee has the right to be named as inventor in the patent to receive some compensation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, my (german) employer has an American parent company. So I wonder if, should I ever make a proper invention at work, there's anything legal that stops my employer from handing the idea up the chain to the parent company, leaving me out of the loop*. **I'm not asking for a definite legal advice on the topic. I'm asking wether there are maybe relevant cases that can give me an indication what protection the law ofers me, and what I should look out for.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbeitnehmererfindung" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27357" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12056" RevisionGUID="2633e0b9-ce6a-4a48-bbed-41fc1ae9bccd" CreationDate="2015-02-01T20:32:27.837" UserId="3143" Text="How does the German Arbeitnehmererfinderrecht protect my rights when my employer has a foreign parent company?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27358" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12056" RevisionGUID="2633e0b9-ce6a-4a48-bbed-41fc1ae9bccd" CreationDate="2015-02-01T20:32:27.837" UserId="3143" Text="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;employer&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12057" RevisionGUID="76cf30ed-84e1-40fb-b4ef-cc6c8120ea96" CreationDate="2015-02-01T21:49:21.677" UserId="5317" Text="I did this with one of my drawings...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  https://archive.org/details/KX4O000049&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a free service.  I don't know much about it, but seemed to serve my goals of getting something in front of the world via a 3rd party web site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google searches on some terms in the title drawing bring this design up quick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, I do have a design patent in process and a provisional in place within the one year limit for the design described in the drawing.  This is my first foray into patents, etc.  I wanted to be sure if I do not prevail on my patent efforts, it enters the public domain quickly.  Hopefully, I've achieved this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12057" RevisionGUID="b8aec7b2-9c65-441f-98ff-e93bee608870" CreationDate="2015-02-01T21:56:21.567" UserId="5317" Comment="Not sure about being totally free.  It's been a while since I put the drawing archive.org." Text="I did this with one of my drawings...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  https://archive.org/details/KX4O000049&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a free service (I think).  I don't know much about it, but seemed to serve my goals of getting something in front of the world via a 3rd party web site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google searches on some terms in the title drawing bring this design up quick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, I do have a design patent in process and a provisional in place within the one year limit for the design described in the drawing.  This is my first foray into patents, etc.  I wanted to be sure if I do not prevail on my patent efforts, it enters the public domain quickly.  Hopefully, I've achieved this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27361" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12055" RevisionGUID="d0b40707-f69b-48ad-8103-dab748ac93ff" CreationDate="2015-02-02T02:50:59.893" UserId="1" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27362" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12055" RevisionGUID="6fb8e42a-2104-477d-bd12-86d6ae9c47e2" CreationDate="2015-02-02T04:11:07.187" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;us20140234791&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12058" RevisionGUID="a8819065-c707-46d2-9559-bc4373d1f090" CreationDate="2015-02-02T04:58:25.263" UserId="11895" Text="No one can leave inventor out of loop, organization cant invent of its own. in all patent jurisdiction inventors signature is required to file patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case Person is not mentioned as inventor then he can file petition/application in patent office for claim. for more information on subject please visit [Link][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further to your second query on legal cases you might have to look into using German court specific databases and its out of patent exchange forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But just for heads up, local applicable law will work on German firm, even though owner is american firm. German firm might have given right to file intellectual property but as i said earlier inventor will be credited for IP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2137.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12060" RevisionGUID="7bcd00dc-7f87-4fe5-bd7b-a86d012f8a0f" CreationDate="2015-02-02T13:00:26.393" UserId="13403" Text="I am currently doing some research about elevators driven by flat belts. There seem to be a few patents regarding the use of flat belts for elevator suspension means. I found patents [US8157058](http://www.google.co.ug/patents/US8157058)and [WO2003086931-A3](http://www.google.gm/patents/WO2003086931A3?cl=en) which seem to prevent other companies building elevators driven with flat belts. But I cant find for how long the patents are valid and if the patent can be prolonged. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patents belongs to Otis, but Schindler made a deal so they can also build belt driven elevators. The strange thing is other companies (Orona and Sodimas) are building elevators driven by belts in the EU. I hope someone can answer if its legal to build belt driven elevators in the EU with the [Contitech Poly Rope](http://www.contitech.de/pages/news/aktuelles/140821_polyrope_en.html) for example. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27368" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12060" RevisionGUID="7bcd00dc-7f87-4fe5-bd7b-a86d012f8a0f" CreationDate="2015-02-02T13:00:26.393" UserId="13403" Text="Elevator driven by flat belt in EU" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27369" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12060" RevisionGUID="7bcd00dc-7f87-4fe5-bd7b-a86d012f8a0f" CreationDate="2015-02-02T13:00:26.393" UserId="13403" Text="&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;expired-patent&gt;&lt;design&gt;&lt;intellectual-property&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12052" RevisionGUID="ea0a57a4-288c-477a-986e-46430147e068" CreationDate="2015-02-02T18:48:36.583" UserId="11895" Comment="improved answer and given usptp agent search" Text="To the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO, as I'm sure you know it) in the context of patents (that is, not for trademarks), a registered patent agent is pretty well the same as a patent attorney. They can both file the paperwork, and there aren't any patent skills implicit to someone who's gone to law school, let alone passed the bar, that a well-taught agent wouldn't also have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, **an agent will be able to do what you're looking for.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Attorneys become necessary when you want to do some other things, like write an assignment agreement or, interestingly, file a trademark. But for just doing the filing or review of an application, you don't need someone with a law degree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I wouldn't jump so quickly to the conclusion that a lawyer's fees will be higher than those of an agent (they often are, but be careful assuming it), but either should suffice. I'm sure you've done your research, but I just want to say that to be extra clear. Because &quot;esquire&quot; status doesn't allow for any more behaviors in this context, it's quite reasonable for a patent agent to charge similar rates to an attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can locate patent agent using USPTO register:- [link][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27374" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12052" RevisionGUID="ea0a57a4-288c-477a-986e-46430147e068" CreationDate="2015-02-02T18:48:36.583" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 1 edit id of 1752" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12063" RevisionGUID="9b4fd3c1-0728-4bbc-bad4-8b72f152ab4d" CreationDate="2015-02-03T06:57:21.110" UserId="13406" Text="What if someone has a 'workable' idea for an invention that could be developed into a real 'device' or process that solves some important problems or an idea that can be marketed ; and one actually puts this idea in a story, like a science fiction story? What if the person uses pictures and diagrams of his idea and other background information all that is sufficient to make the 'invention' all woven into his story?  If he promotes it as part of his story and other readers actually use the idea to make the invention in real life with or without his permission would the author be entitled to any of the profits ( even if he didn't give permission to use the idea)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27384" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12063" RevisionGUID="9b4fd3c1-0728-4bbc-bad4-8b72f152ab4d" CreationDate="2015-02-03T06:57:21.110" UserId="13406" Text="When someone writes about an invention in a story that is actually a 'workable' idea or it can be developed as such" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27385" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12063" RevisionGUID="9b4fd3c1-0728-4bbc-bad4-8b72f152ab4d" CreationDate="2015-02-03T06:57:21.110" UserId="13406" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;idea&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12064" RevisionGUID="08881737-a2c5-487d-ba0b-38895295681a" CreationDate="2015-02-03T07:52:54.787" UserId="11895" Text="Any illustrated teaching provided in current patent system will used as prior art and based on this information patent will not get a grant. &#xD;&#xA;In US there was system for reduction to practice or working model within 12 months of disclosure patent can be filied. Now said 'someone' can file patent if 12 months are not past.&#xD;&#xA;US patent system grants patents to true inventors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in present question particular case law exist for fictional art named as the donald duck ping pong case which was dealt in danish patent office more on [link][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/priorart/donaldduck/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12065" RevisionGUID="37da5174-6356-46cf-8d00-1a88b88b6e24" CreationDate="2015-02-03T20:37:42.953" UserId="5317" Text="Elsewhere on this site I see this quote...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;According to U.S. law, a patent cannot be obtained if an invention was&#xD;&#xA;&gt;previously known or used by other people in the U.S., or was already&#xD;&#xA;&gt;patented or published anywhere in the world. Furthermore, publicly using&#xD;&#xA;&gt;or selling an invention more than 1 year prior to filing a patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt;application completely bars you from ever winning a patent on that&#xD;&#xA;&gt;invention.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All day long I find examples on the Internet when well meaning people use the GPL or any other copyright mechanism to make a pretend patent and then try to say &quot;for non-commercial use only&quot; or other some such directive.  Here is one example from ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  http://www.g0ksc.co.uk/2013-yagis/5el-73mhz-radio-astronomy.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;COMMERICALLY AVAILABLE FROM INNOVANTENNAS.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;NO OTHER COMPANY HAS COMMERCIAL USE RIGHTS OF ANY KIND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short of obtaining an actual patent on the design they are &quot;expressing&quot; via their build diagram and/or detailing in their antenna model files, are they simply placing their design into the public domain via publication?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more general question is...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone tries to use a copyright to protect their design and then publishes it on their web site, have they just lost all rights to their design?  Have they lost all control over who can use their design?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27388" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12065" RevisionGUID="37da5174-6356-46cf-8d00-1a88b88b6e24" CreationDate="2015-02-03T20:37:42.953" UserId="5317" Text="Using copyrights as cheap patents - the folly of mankind?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27389" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12065" RevisionGUID="37da5174-6356-46cf-8d00-1a88b88b6e24" CreationDate="2015-02-03T20:37:42.953" UserId="5317" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;spillage&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12066" RevisionGUID="de0e84c9-bea8-4721-bd0b-8be34fdaff43" CreationDate="2015-02-04T03:57:55.300" UserId="10011" Text="I think you're misunderstanding what a copyright *does*. No, a copyright is no substitution for a patent, in any way, shape, or form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I posted an answer a few months ago on [Startups Stack Exchange](http://startups.stackexchange.com) which roughly describes the difference between these two mechanisms of intellectual property protection, [&quot;Can you copyright a program you have made from scratch?&quot;](http://startups.stackexchange.com/a/826/59) Clearly, that question is asking about code, rather than antennas, but the same theories apply nicely here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What that disclaimer (&quot;COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE...&quot;) is referring to is the *plans*. Looking at their designs as an amateur radio operator, I'm not seeing anything that looks to meet the bar for patentability, but I'm especially not seeing any patent numbers, or even &quot;patent pending&quot; footnotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Copyrights are not on-topic for Ask Patents, so I won't say too much here (although I will urge you to check out the answer I linked to before), but essentially, the protection this website is getting is on the graphics, text, and related artwork they've used. By law, copyrights aren't on anything *useful*--they're just for artwork (text, images, songs, movies, dances, and such). If I opened my own antenna store, basically, I wouldn't be allowed to copy and paste these images to sell this kind of antenna.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What they are *not* protecting, is the antenna itself. In this hypothetical store, I *would* be allowed to sell the type of antenna, indeed with even the same measurements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's true that by publishing these plans, they are barring someone else from getting a patent on the same antenna, although in this particular case, as I said, it's unlikely that anyone would be able to get one anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking to your general questions, they really depend on how you define &quot;design.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm seeing two possible definitions, to which the answers would vary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The design of the plans.&#xD;&#xA;2. The design of the antenna, in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first case, *nope*! The copyright is still theirs, so they can stop someone else, as I've described, from using the verbatim scripts on their own website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second case, *it depends*! The quote you cited does refer to the United States grace-period of one year, which is relevant here. It is, however, true that once you publish your work publicly, you stand the risk of someone else getting some valuable market time before your patent goes through (which can take a little while). You'll be able to stop them once your patent does come through, but sometimes that's too late. Marking your invention &quot;patent pending&quot; is really the best form of protection in that early stage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So ultimately, no. A copyright is not any form of protection towards the underlying utility of a product." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12065" RevisionGUID="a9acf6b3-5ca5-49d8-8e28-1dc38ef77bd4" CreationDate="2015-02-04T04:13:36.193" UserId="10011" Comment="added 78 characters in body; edited title" Text="Elsewhere on this site I see this quote...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to U.S. law, a patent cannot be obtained if an invention was previously known or used by other people in the U.S., or was already patented or published anywhere in the world. Furthermore, publicly using or selling an invention more than 1 year prior to filing a patent application completely bars you from ever winning a patent on that invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All day long I find examples on the Internet when well-meaning people use the GPL or any other copyright mechanism to make a pretend patent and then try to say &quot;for non-commercial use only&quot; or other some such directive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is [one example from an antenna website](http://www.g0ksc.co.uk/2013-yagis/5el-73mhz-radio-astronomy.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;COMMERICALLY AVAILABLE FROM INNOVANTENNAS. NO OTHER COMPANY HAS COMMERCIAL USE RIGHTS OF ANY KIND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short of obtaining an actual patent on the design they are &quot;expressing&quot; via their build diagram and/or detailing in their antenna model files, are they simply placing their design into the public domain via publication?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My more general questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Can a copyright be used to protect someone's design?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if so,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If anyone tries to use a copyright to protect their design and then publishes it on their web site, have they just lost all rights to their design?&#xD;&#xA;* Have they lost all control over who can use their design?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27392" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12065" RevisionGUID="a9acf6b3-5ca5-49d8-8e28-1dc38ef77bd4" CreationDate="2015-02-04T04:13:36.193" UserId="10011" Comment="added 78 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can a copyright be used as a substitute for a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12067" RevisionGUID="6d998877-20b9-4a27-8492-dd6b7cb01c5e" CreationDate="2015-02-04T19:03:44.887" UserId="13414" Text="This patent, US767004, was issued to my great grandfather, Karol Muchowicz in 1904.  How can I determine whether and to whom it  was assigned? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27394" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12067" RevisionGUID="6d998877-20b9-4a27-8492-dd6b7cb01c5e" CreationDate="2015-02-04T19:03:44.887" UserId="13414" Text="Dispensation of US767004" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27395" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12067" RevisionGUID="6d998877-20b9-4a27-8492-dd6b7cb01c5e" CreationDate="2015-02-04T19:03:44.887" UserId="13414" Text="&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12068" RevisionGUID="203e9dd8-05be-4031-ac75-bdd9afc5a460" CreationDate="2015-02-04T19:11:49.217" UserId="11947" Text="when talking to a patent professional do I need her to sign NDA or non-disclosure is implied?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27397" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12068" RevisionGUID="203e9dd8-05be-4031-ac75-bdd9afc5a460" CreationDate="2015-02-04T19:11:49.217" UserId="11947" Text="Do I need NDA when talking to a patent professional?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27398" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12068" RevisionGUID="203e9dd8-05be-4031-ac75-bdd9afc5a460" CreationDate="2015-02-04T19:11:49.217" UserId="11947" Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12069" RevisionGUID="e73f336a-0a59-4d06-9ea0-69fd3cebe3e6" CreationDate="2015-02-04T19:19:57.447" UserId="9802" Text="[FirstToDisclose.org](http://firsttodisclose.org/) is a defensive publication service that is provided to users free of charge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is one of the services that Google suggested the USPTO use to [help examiners find relevant prior art](http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/comments/pa_e_google_20140314.pdf)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12070" RevisionGUID="a83f04be-4051-4b2c-a7bf-91e458ea965f" CreationDate="2015-02-04T19:50:07.463" UserId="13416" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2013041665A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013041665A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent WO2013041665A1 is a copy of the multiplication method: Sustainable Sugarcane Initiative (SSI). No presents innovation, this multiplication system is of public knowledge in Brazil, India and other countries.&#xD;&#xA;There is already a lot of publication on this multiplication system.&#xD;&#xA;So this patent application should not be approved. It copies of public knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publications, sugarcane multiplication system using bud chip:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://agridr.in/expert_system/sugar/ssi.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsQouBXWNBc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.agsri.com/index.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27401" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12070" RevisionGUID="a83f04be-4051-4b2c-a7bf-91e458ea965f" CreationDate="2015-02-04T19:50:07.463" UserId="13416" Text="The patent WO2013041665A1 is a copy of public knowledge" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27402" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12070" RevisionGUID="a83f04be-4051-4b2c-a7bf-91e458ea965f" CreationDate="2015-02-04T19:50:07.463" UserId="13416" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27407" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12067" RevisionGUID="cfb86abb-23f1-4642-90dd-198190c372e1" CreationDate="2015-02-04T21:34:18.493" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;us767004&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12072" RevisionGUID="162769fe-7830-42af-99a5-78256318b08a" CreationDate="2015-02-04T22:54:25.730" UserId="13419" Text="In reference to the patent: [US4218107][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4218107" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27409" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12072" RevisionGUID="162769fe-7830-42af-99a5-78256318b08a" CreationDate="2015-02-04T22:54:25.730" UserId="13419" Text="can the female plate be used in conjunction with other equipment and then sold legally? does that break this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27410" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12072" RevisionGUID="162769fe-7830-42af-99a5-78256318b08a" CreationDate="2015-02-04T22:54:25.730" UserId="13419" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12074" RevisionGUID="4bd607d7-3f6a-4bd4-8ab4-45ff51f58779" CreationDate="2015-02-04T23:21:35.703" UserId="5317" Text="Are folks who publish design details, implementing an idea, putting that idea's implementation into the public domain?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Put another way... have these publishers, whether they wanted to or not:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - created a &quot;defensive publication&quot; of the idea,&#xD;&#xA; - put this idea's implementation into the public domain?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27415" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12074" RevisionGUID="4bd607d7-3f6a-4bd4-8ab4-45ff51f58779" CreationDate="2015-02-04T23:21:35.703" UserId="5317" Text="Defensive publication and public domain" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27416" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12074" RevisionGUID="4bd607d7-3f6a-4bd4-8ab4-45ff51f58779" CreationDate="2015-02-04T23:21:35.703" UserId="5317" Text="&lt;defensive-publications&gt;&lt;public-domain&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12077" RevisionGUID="05a8b2cd-3f2d-4934-94e3-b35f176ca512" CreationDate="2015-02-05T04:55:24.507" UserId="11895" Text="Defensive Publication in short means information is published as such without any peer review or editing by editorial board. So therefore information or data will be as intended by author.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general people goes for defensive publication because of following reasons:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Data, figures, details, observations, interpretations etc will not get altered by second person or publisher.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Publication will be available but in protected mode i.e. paid and sometimes information of viewer will be shared by author (doubtful but possible).&#xD;&#xA; 3. Cost less than file and procecute patent application. dont create junk or paper IPR.&#xD;&#xA; 4. After filing of patent, defensive publication can be made to protect onself so that no one else will get patent on same information. (overlapping other country applications).&#xD;&#xA; 5. In case of minor improvements inventive step cannot be satisfied and its doubtful that patent will get a grant, therefore in such scenario people goes for these publication to make information as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen people opt for above option 4. therefore a person has to keep in mind that overlapping active patent can be present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Now as per query:-**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No defensive publication doesnot always mean disclosure is of public use without any infringement.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12078" RevisionGUID="1b888d45-8dcf-4ffb-a9d9-79eaf22c0d7e" CreationDate="2015-02-05T05:00:27.080" UserId="11895" Text="Patent expired long ago so no problem will be faced." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12079" RevisionGUID="95352762-066d-4d83-b66d-6b253eadcfb3" CreationDate="2015-02-05T05:16:02.077" UserId="11895" Text="In PCT system objections to a WIPO application can be registered using **Third Party Observation** method.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This system allows third parties to make observations through [ePCT&#xD;&#xA;&gt; public services][1] referring to prior art which they believe to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; relevant to the question of whether the invention claimed in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; international application is novel and/or involves an inventive step. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is no fee for this service.  For a comprehensive user guide, see&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ePCT Third Party Observations][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third party observations may be submitted at any time after the date of publication of the international application and before the expiration of 28 months from the priority date, provided that the application is not withdrawn or considered withdrawn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Answer to query:-**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;patent application list very general method of propagation but as per inventor use of specific polymer makes it novel as none of the prior art uses the said invented polymer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;since 28 months as past no observation can be made in PCT but in case you are interested you can file observation in countries application has entered (i.e. AU and US).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://pct.wipo.int/LoginForms/pctpublic.jsp&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/epct/pdf/epct_observations.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12080" RevisionGUID="e92a25b7-249a-4713-b38d-1b567a05a359" CreationDate="2015-02-05T05:32:33.480" UserId="11895" Text="Patent professional can be:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Patent Agent&#xD;&#xA; 2. Attorney&#xD;&#xA; 3. Paralegal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of Attorney and member of BAR a person need not to go for confidentiality NDA agreement, as per law they are bound by the law and ethics  to keep information confidential unless you ask them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case inventor if dealing directly with Agent or Para legal (non- law firm), he is right to ask for confidentiality NDA agreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general for law firm confidentiality NDA agreement are not required. they will include agent and paralegals but employee secrecy agreement will be in place to safe guard inventors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12081" RevisionGUID="35d9c8ae-449b-4c24-b72d-69eef415a7d3" CreationDate="2015-02-05T05:36:02.267" UserId="13245" Text="I have a concept and I would like to patent it. So is there any website available to cross verify that my concept is not in violation with already patented concept?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any other sources will also be appreciable!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27432" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12081" RevisionGUID="35d9c8ae-449b-4c24-b72d-69eef415a7d3" CreationDate="2015-02-05T05:36:02.267" UserId="13245" Text="Is there any website to cross verify?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27433" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12081" RevisionGUID="35d9c8ae-449b-4c24-b72d-69eef415a7d3" CreationDate="2015-02-05T05:36:02.267" UserId="13245" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;verification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12082" RevisionGUID="9bd29f86-bb42-4355-a5b2-5448181d6783" CreationDate="2015-02-05T05:57:08.660" UserId="11895" Text="Skillful patent search requires carefully designed keywords. you can find relevant information using databases like:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. [Google Patents][1]&#xD;&#xA; 2. [Google Scholar][2]&#xD;&#xA; 3. [European Patent Office][3]&#xD;&#xA; 4. [US Patents][4] &#xD;&#xA; 5. [WIPO][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that you need to see search help of respective databases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.co.in/advanced_patent_search&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://scholar.google.co.in/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/advancedSearch?locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/index.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12083" RevisionGUID="398def2a-2052-4bce-b4dc-ec317dbee15f" CreationDate="2015-02-05T09:24:26.223" UserDisplayName="user13426" Text="After filing US application how much time applicant should wait to file PCT application? What are the benefits of filing early or late?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27436" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12083" RevisionGUID="398def2a-2052-4bce-b4dc-ec317dbee15f" CreationDate="2015-02-05T09:24:26.223" UserDisplayName="user13426" Text="Patent filing via international PCT system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27437" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12083" RevisionGUID="398def2a-2052-4bce-b4dc-ec317dbee15f" CreationDate="2015-02-05T09:24:26.223" UserDisplayName="user13426" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12084" RevisionGUID="89ed4060-7b74-47b8-a305-434fd184873a" CreationDate="2015-02-05T10:26:49.043" UserId="13427" Text="I am thinking of making my own product. Twizzers with Camera that transmit video image to cell-phone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent valid ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27439" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12084" RevisionGUID="89ed4060-7b74-47b8-a305-434fd184873a" CreationDate="2015-02-05T10:26:49.043" UserId="13427" Text="Is this patent approved and valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27440" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12084" RevisionGUID="89ed4060-7b74-47b8-a305-434fd184873a" CreationDate="2015-02-05T10:26:49.043" UserId="13427" Text="&lt;us20090303320&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12087" RevisionGUID="ee4d5d5d-02aa-49b7-85a0-e9c34910688c" CreationDate="2015-02-05T16:51:41.463" UserId="13318" Text="You referred to the patent application publication.  The patent issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,427,535 on April 23, 2013." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12088" RevisionGUID="6817332d-9698-428e-91d8-99c25965fee0" CreationDate="2015-02-05T17:06:49.520" UserId="5317" Text="If someone publishes build instructions for an idea on their web site, and never pursues patent protection, does that idea and its implementation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Enter the public domain?&#xD;&#xA; - If so, when?&#xD;&#xA; - If not, why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27452" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12088" RevisionGUID="6817332d-9698-428e-91d8-99c25965fee0" CreationDate="2015-02-05T17:06:49.520" UserId="5317" Text="Do patentless idea implementations published on a web site enter the public domain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27453" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12088" RevisionGUID="6817332d-9698-428e-91d8-99c25965fee0" CreationDate="2015-02-05T17:06:49.520" UserId="5317" Text="&lt;public-domain&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12090" RevisionGUID="3a2917dd-f26a-4faa-923b-c3e43ee5e7a6" CreationDate="2015-02-05T18:28:11.233" UserId="1777" Text="Well, if it has been published on a web site, at least nobody (the website author or anybody else) can obtain a patent on the same idea. I am not sure if this is what you mean by &quot;entering the public domain&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12093" RevisionGUID="3617e0fa-06b6-4e4f-bddb-5d149456af0e" CreationDate="2015-02-06T06:14:32.937" UserId="11895" Text="**Patentless:-** no patent application or overlapping application was filed, pending, granted; No other IP protection was made, *viz* copyright, trademark,  geographical indications, design patents; information is not from out of contract as illegal disclosure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prior Art:-** anything published before priority date, may include website, patents, research articles etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on above definitions:- Patentless publication can be used freely by public.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of Prior Art being patent then after its expiry and all other overlapping patents expiry disclosure is open to public use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12094" RevisionGUID="6565cff5-2a3b-4bea-9a50-6dab4af9f9b6" CreationDate="2015-02-06T07:57:03.950" UserDisplayName="user13426" Text="Ideal time is to file application is within 12 months from priority. Early filing sometimes speeds up examination." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12095" RevisionGUID="3fb7bc09-e831-4a41-a475-39766cbd0586" CreationDate="2015-02-06T13:49:19.123" UserId="13434" Text="In reference to the patent: [US6074673][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6074673&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to have Informations about the inventor of the patent and if it is possible to contact him." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27471" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12095" RevisionGUID="3fb7bc09-e831-4a41-a475-39766cbd0586" CreationDate="2015-02-06T13:49:19.123" UserId="13434" Text="Does anybody have any information about the inventor Manuel Guillen?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27472" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12095" RevisionGUID="3fb7bc09-e831-4a41-a475-39766cbd0586" CreationDate="2015-02-06T13:49:19.123" UserId="13434" Text="&lt;inventor&gt;&lt;inventor-declaration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12096" RevisionGUID="d6e8fde4-39ea-4255-8eca-37910d3128e7" CreationDate="2015-02-06T16:49:44.097" UserId="9802" Text="A general answer for contacting patent owners can be found [here](https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5059/how-can-i-contact-the-owner-of-a-patent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, the image file wrapper is not available electronically.  If you wanted a physical copy of the application data sheet with the inventors address when the application was filed, you could order a copy of the file wrapper from the USPTO or another provider for a fee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, a [Google search](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=manuel+guillen+fairfax+va) of the inventors name and city listed on the patent may point you in the right direction." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12097" RevisionGUID="c67df37f-cb47-4ac7-8aa4-464154908363" CreationDate="2015-02-06T18:48:13.920" UserId="9802" Text="'In the public domain' means that a work is free of all intellectual property rights (i.e., they have expired, been forfeited, or are inapplicable.) Prior art needs to be publicly accessible, but it isn't necessarily in the public domain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Illustrative timeline:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Public disclosure:**&#xD;&#xA;An inventor discloses an invention and an implementation on their website.  Since the invention is now publicly available, it is considered prior art as of this date against other inventors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**One-year after public disclosure:**&#xD;&#xA;In the US, under AIA § 102(b)(1)(A), an inventor has one year from the time he or she discloses an invention within which to file a patent application. So if the inventor has not filed an application within a year, the disclosure becomes prior art against the inventor as well and the invention is no longer patentable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Up to 30 months after public disclosure:**&#xD;&#xA;If the inventor does choose to file, it could be up to 30 months after the time of the public disclosure that the application is published and you know the inventor is pursuing a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Potentially long time after public disclosure:**&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the type of disclosure, other intellectual property rights may still cover part or all of the disclosure. For example, IP rights on the idea may have been forfeited, but there could still be copyright or some other right associated with the implementation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Publicly accessible doesn't necessarily mean free. (e.g. paid journal articles)&#xD;&#xA; - A public disclosure doesn't necessarily mean that a different inventor doesn't already have a patent application or grant covering the idea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12098" RevisionGUID="a01bb340-29de-4df3-8ca2-25249fdd7944" CreationDate="2015-02-06T19:18:04.370" UserId="9802" Text="The [USPTO assignment search tool](http://legacy-assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat) won't be much help in this case, since it only has data from August 1980 onward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, from MPEP 301.01 (a)(2):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;All records of assignments of patents recorded before May 1, 1957, are maintained by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The records are open to public inspection. Certified and uncertified copies of those assignment records are provided by NARA upon request and payment of the fees required by NARA.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;All assignment records from 1837 to April 30, 1957 for patents are now maintained and are open for public inspection in the National Archives Research Room located at the Washington National Records Center Building, 4205 Suitland Road, Suitland, Maryland 20746. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27476" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12095" RevisionGUID="4ade05d4-16d4-4609-b3f1-635dcdcfb3cf" CreationDate="2015-02-06T20:25:59.150" UserId="10011" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5059],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12099" RevisionGUID="9ffab76c-4566-4609-a988-fb729b742ba8" CreationDate="2015-02-06T20:37:50.217" UserId="13437" Text="I need to know what these are exactly and if they are enforceable. Is there a way to know if the PCT has an expire date or how many times it's been filed and published? Or how to know if anyone has ever been prosecuted for infringing them?&#xD;&#xA;I understand that PCT is a patent application, from what date can it be enforced if approved?&#xD;&#xA;Can both these be disputed?&#xD;&#xA;Note that these products are common for several years and I'm amazed they are patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=EP11198826&amp;recNum=1&amp;maxRec=&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=&amp;queryString=&amp;tab=NationalBiblio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2013178747&amp;recNum=1&amp;maxRec=&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=&amp;queryString=&amp;tab=PCT+Biblio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27478" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12099" RevisionGUID="9ffab76c-4566-4609-a988-fb729b742ba8" CreationDate="2015-02-06T20:37:50.217" UserId="13437" Text="What is difference between PCT and EP and can they be disputed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27479" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12099" RevisionGUID="9ffab76c-4566-4609-a988-fb729b742ba8" CreationDate="2015-02-06T20:37:50.217" UserId="13437" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12102" RevisionGUID="e4304037-02b2-4b50-8d8f-1b28c5f9cbea" CreationDate="2015-02-08T04:13:07.450" UserId="11895" Text="You should know that patent application filed in a  country will not be a prior art in second country unless its published. Now it will serve same purpose as defensive publication in filed country but not for other countries. So in my opinion it does not serve as same purpose. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12102" RevisionGUID="3b315fe8-36c3-4aaf-ba2e-d97d81c5cc04" CreationDate="2015-02-08T04:38:13.760" UserId="11895" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="You should know that patent application filed in a  country will not be a prior art in second country unless its published. Now it will serve same purpose as defensive publication in filed country but not for other countries. After publication of application it will serve same purpose of defensive publication i.e. after 18 months in normal course. So in my opinion it does not serve as same purpose. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12104" RevisionGUID="a36c43b7-a43a-450a-bcdd-e26972ebd363" CreationDate="2015-02-08T20:22:19.633" UserId="11947" Text="Reading published applications I noticed a practice of putting &quot;; and&quot; before last statement  in a claim, like&#xD;&#xA;&quot;the settlement processor automatically generating a settlement message for a market-based financial settlement, and transmitting the settlement message to at least one of a financial institution, a market participant, a grid operator, and/or a utility; and&#xD;&#xA;the settlement processor sending or receiving an IP-based message over the network, the IP-based message further including information about a financial settlement for participation of at least one grid element within the electric power grid.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time all previous statements are separated just by &quot;;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What gives?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27504" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12104" RevisionGUID="a36c43b7-a43a-450a-bcdd-e26972ebd363" CreationDate="2015-02-08T20:22:19.633" UserId="11947" Text="&quot;; and&quot; in claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27505" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12104" RevisionGUID="a36c43b7-a43a-450a-bcdd-e26972ebd363" CreationDate="2015-02-08T20:22:19.633" UserId="11947" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12106" RevisionGUID="0168a192-2b9b-47c3-9b29-d4935bb3b000" CreationDate="2015-02-09T02:43:49.077" UserId="13449" Text="Can I patent a specific financial structure? For example, imagine that I want to patent an ETF (exchange traded fund) with certain specific characteristics in terms of the structure. &#xA;&#xA;The question applies to US and Europe. Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27508" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12106" RevisionGUID="0168a192-2b9b-47c3-9b29-d4935bb3b000" CreationDate="2015-02-09T02:43:49.077" UserId="13449" Text="Patent of specific financial structure" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27509" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12106" RevisionGUID="0168a192-2b9b-47c3-9b29-d4935bb3b000" CreationDate="2015-02-09T02:43:49.077" UserId="13449" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;legal&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12107" RevisionGUID="77b9765e-69b7-40ae-8a1b-d97640928753" CreationDate="2015-02-09T05:06:57.130" UserId="13451" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140267936][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140267936&#xD;&#xA;Will you provide me with the exact info referenced in paragraph three under description referring to a previous application please?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27514" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12107" RevisionGUID="77b9765e-69b7-40ae-8a1b-d97640928753" CreationDate="2015-02-09T05:06:57.130" UserId="13451" Text="Paragraph three under description" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27515" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12107" RevisionGUID="77b9765e-69b7-40ae-8a1b-d97640928753" CreationDate="2015-02-09T05:06:57.130" UserId="13451" Text="&lt;novelty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12107" RevisionGUID="fc47d833-251a-4868-bcf4-447c3d0db677" CreationDate="2015-02-09T05:24:13.253" UserId="11895" Comment="making question self explainatory so that person doesnot refer to citated patent" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140267936][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140267936&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applicant mention a citation :-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another approach is disclosed in copending **U.S. application Ser. No.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ______, (Docket SPC0936PA)** filed on even date herewith&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this citation mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27517" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12107" RevisionGUID="fc47d833-251a-4868-bcf4-447c3d0db677" CreationDate="2015-02-09T05:24:13.253" UserId="11895" Comment="making question self explainatory so that person doesnot refer to citated patent" Text="Citation Explainination of Paragraph three under description" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27518" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12107" RevisionGUID="fc47d833-251a-4868-bcf4-447c3d0db677" CreationDate="2015-02-09T05:24:13.253" UserId="11895" Comment="making question self explainatory so that person doesnot refer to citated patent" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;citation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12108" RevisionGUID="42b01fd0-1e5f-4a8b-9b17-131142be1760" CreationDate="2015-02-09T05:32:01.230" UserId="11895" Text="Cited reference is applicant another application which he does not know US application number. all he had a internal reference number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to get cited patent you need to search in patent filed by applicant/ inventor within month, most likely it was filed earlier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Present application internal reference number was **SPC0954PA**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![describe image][1]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;do post a comment if you find that patent application to help someone having same question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/oB36u.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12109" RevisionGUID="a04a83d5-93c7-4ab6-9136-8692c0c0c542" CreationDate="2015-02-09T06:39:11.327" UserId="8657" Text="In answer to your question &quot;Am I allowed to file a patent in any country I want to, regardless of where I am living? (If i live in the USA,but want to file a patent in the EU)?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, you are allowed to directly file a patent in any other countries regardless where you live. You may either go directly to any other OR you can go ahead and first file a PCT application. Further, there are some local patent rules, which you have to comply with to allow direct patent filing in some foreign country. If you are an Indian citizen and have developed something in India but willing to file a patent in any other country, you have to first get a FFC (Foreign filing Certificate) from patent office before you take that invention out for patent filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;If I patent something through PCT, do I have to define from the beginning which national entities I want to file it with?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, we should understand the fact that there is no term called “International Patent”. PCT is a route through which one can file a patent application in multiple countries with an extended time window of 30-31 months. It’s mandatory to declare all the countries at the time of PCT filing where you would like to file that same application but one should realize that it will cost much higher if we are going to file in each and every country which is a member of PCT. Companies should do the selection of countries based on their business operations in a particular country." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12110" RevisionGUID="35222ee4-c460-44a5-95f6-8e4c6689dfac" CreationDate="2015-02-09T06:41:18.590" UserId="8657" Text="To get in touch with the inventor or applicant of a European patent or application you need to accesses the European patent register. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.epo.org/searching/free/register.html &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After which open the EP register and click on advanced search https://register.epo.org/advancedSearch?lng=en &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Enter EP1870511 in the publication number bracket and you’ll get the results. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this is helpful to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12111" RevisionGUID="ce08a853-8ac8-4eec-849a-d8f737f66353" CreationDate="2015-02-09T06:48:57.137" UserId="8657" Text="You can get to know about the applicant of this patent by searching on espacenet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/?locale=en_EP &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In regard to finding out the patent attorney - As this patent is very old, information about the attorney might not be available online. The best possible way could be to write an email to the USPTO to get information about the attorney who was working on this case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope you find this useful!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12112" RevisionGUID="6c39bfa4-6873-44d6-8e6a-6bd65f36c407" CreationDate="2015-02-09T07:07:41.200" UserId="8657" Text="It depends on the nature of additions which you want to make to your invention. If the new additions accounts to a substantially new invention which does not take basis from original application then you file but you lose your priority in that case. If the new addition takes the priority from the parent application which is more likely the case from your words, you have two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. File a Divisional: The divisional application are generally filed when there are two inventions in the parent disclosure. Usually, Divisional applications are the result of a restriction requirement made by an examiner in an Office action. It is filed with the same disclosure as the parent application but with claims directed to different subject matter compared to the parent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. File a CIP: The CIP application adds new subject matter to the parent application with claims directed to the new subject matter. This allows inventors to include “enhancements” to the original design that were developed after the parent application was filed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12113" RevisionGUID="3cbf5f3f-2db2-4636-a90f-3dfd97f2b406" CreationDate="2015-02-09T07:12:09.143" UserId="8657" Text="The short answer is preparing the claim charts. Map the claims of the subject patent with the prior art in a feature by feature manner. You can use color mapping or different text mapping which suits your purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the prior art is a patent, then also include the indexing i.e from where you got the matter from the patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the prior art is a non-patent, then do include the pictures of the products." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12115" RevisionGUID="09cfaf25-f51d-45fe-9c33-09e48b43371a" CreationDate="2015-02-09T08:55:21.713" UserId="8657" Text="You would need to very thoroughly and clearly describe your concept and match it part by part to existing patents if you really want to patent it. This is a very detailed process and should be done very carefully before you file your patent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12116" RevisionGUID="e4ea1274-2191-4aa9-8106-618123de61cf" CreationDate="2015-02-09T16:58:37.743" UserId="13456" Text="It depends on the current standing. Anything that is publicly disclosed that describes the claims, in part or all, before the priority date of a patent application MAY potentially invalidate the patent being issued or awarded. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12117" RevisionGUID="bad023fc-d67c-476f-bb0d-dd2e88ef72b1" CreationDate="2015-02-09T17:27:04.427" UserId="13456" Text="1. From my experience in banking and securities, most core intellectual property were copyrighted and/or kept confidential (as proprietary tech) in the form of formulas comprising of derivatives, economic indices, quantitative analysis, and numerous other combinations of data sources. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Any form of securities (stocks and bonds, annuities, etc) is highly regulated and under a lot of scrutiny nowadays. There are many legal issues in regarding full disclosures and waivers to potential investors, such as forward looking statements.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Consult a Securities Attorney.  They are not cheap, but it may keep you out of jail or prison. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12118" RevisionGUID="511d3d32-634c-4748-aa72-9ec1378cd1b5" CreationDate="2015-02-09T20:05:45.043" UserId="1777" Text="When aiming for an EP, beware of exclusion from patentability as business method under Art. 52 EPC. Be careful how you word your claim so that you do not end up like these guys, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP06250751&amp;lng=en&amp;tab=doclist&#xD;&#xA;https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP07252629&amp;lng=en&amp;tab=doclist" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12120" RevisionGUID="5b037225-eac7-4cfe-887c-264647098fe4" CreationDate="2015-02-09T22:39:42.503" UserId="11394" Text="When you are reciting a list, it is conventional to put &quot;and&quot; before the last element, e.g., I own a dog, a cat, and a fish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims are each required to be written as a single sentence. They are frequently very long, and written in a form like so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A widget comprising:   &#xD;&#xA;     A;  &#xD;&#xA;     B;   &#xD;&#xA;     C; and  &#xD;&#xA;     D.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where A, B, C, and D are usually long phrases which recite different elements in the claim. The semicolons are used instead of commas to help distinguish the breaks between claim elements, because the claim element descriptions themselves frequently contain commas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at some of your claims and see if you can identify this pattern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Aldo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12120" RevisionGUID="aea724e4-1e13-444b-b9ad-90d1b19d743f" CreationDate="2015-02-09T22:53:47.643" UserId="10011" Comment="Removed signature" Text="When you are reciting a list, it is conventional to put &quot;and&quot; before the last element, e.g., I own a dog, a cat, and a fish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims are each required to be written as a single sentence. They are frequently very long, and written in a form like so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A widget comprising:   &#xD;&#xA;     A;  &#xD;&#xA;     B;   &#xD;&#xA;     C; and  &#xD;&#xA;     D.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where A, B, C, and D are usually long phrases which recite different elements in the claim. The semicolons are used instead of commas to help distinguish the breaks between claim elements, because the claim element descriptions themselves frequently contain commas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at some of your claims and see if you can identify this pattern." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12122" RevisionGUID="24df5736-439d-4715-a7b9-4feeaacdaae7" CreationDate="2015-02-10T05:35:01.907" UserId="11895" Text="The only statutory requirement for claims is found in 35 U.S. Code § 112. which says &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The specification shall conclude with **one or more claims particularly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter** which the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now for Single Sentence Claim We can find one direction under **MPEP 608.01(m)** which states that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; While **there is no set statutory form for claims**, the present Office&#xD;&#xA;&gt; practice is to insist that each claim must be the object of a sentence&#xD;&#xA;&gt; starting with “I (or we) claim,” “The invention claimed is” (or the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; equivalent). If, at the time of allowance, the quoted terminology is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not present, it is inserted by the Office of Data Management. **Each&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period.** Periods may&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Fressola v.Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995).** Where a claim sets&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claim should be separated by a line indentation, [37 CFR 1.75(i)][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To satisfy Single Sentence Claim there are many strategies reported one of which is using semicolon to properly structure the claim. Based on preamble of claim (i.e. comprising, consisting, at least, group, steps of etc.) semicolon and linkers (i.e. **and** ,,  **or**) are used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These so called linkers after semicolons are used to provide simplified, distinct meaning. In this particular format the claim is very short, so it would most likely be placed entirely within the same sentence. Its very important be sure that the first letter of each &quot;line&quot; remains lower case. Note too that it is possible to have layers of semicolons. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e320269" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12104" RevisionGUID="b4415831-eb1f-4561-969b-d54927118bae" CreationDate="2015-02-10T06:03:27.330" UserId="11895" Comment="clarification of question with proper formatting" Text="I have noticed a practice of putting &quot;; and&quot; before last statement in a claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Example in [US20140180885][1] (*claim modified to clarify question*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the settlement processor automatically generating a settlement message&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for a market-based financial settlement, and transmitting the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; settlement message to **at least one of** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a financial institution;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a market participant; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a grid operator; and/or &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a utility **; and** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the settlement processor sending or receiving an IP-based message over&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the network, the IP-based message further including information about&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a financial settlement for participation of at least one grid element&#xD;&#xA;&gt; within the electric power grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time all previous statements are separated just by &quot;;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this type of structuring mean? Why they are required? Why to use **; and**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20140180885" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27545" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12104" RevisionGUID="5214ea22-3e2b-4148-a96c-b5666b3c5371" CreationDate="2015-02-10T06:09:45.960" UserId="11895" Comment="edited title" Text="Single Sentence claim and use of semicolon -linker &quot;; and&quot; in claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12124" RevisionGUID="ae3d5515-21cf-46a3-848a-348a8d084012" CreationDate="2015-02-10T07:59:07.700" UserId="13461" Text="I'm confused about this:  &quot;Confidentiality has been a key strategy for Microsoft&quot; &#xD;&#xA;From an article about Microsoft patents and Android.  Link: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/02/microsoft-and-samsung-settle-android-patent-royalties-dispute/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The part that I'm confused about is that it sounds like Microsoft isn't releasing the information about the patents that Samsung.  Even if the confidentiality is between Microsoft and Samsung, it's still confusing to me.  The reason it's confusing is how would a person (or business) know if they are developing something that's in violation of Microsoft's patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand (could be wrong) that during the approval process the patent information can be private, but after a patent is approved, wouldn't Microsoft be forced to say exactly what patents are at issue?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second part: Can a person claim a patent on a product without saying what the patent covers?  In other words, file a patent, build the product, identify that the product is patent pending and not have any obligation to say what is covered by the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not, what exactly is confidential about what Microsoft is doing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27548" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12124" RevisionGUID="ae3d5515-21cf-46a3-848a-348a8d084012" CreationDate="2015-02-10T07:59:07.700" UserId="13461" Text="Confidentiality in patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27549" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12124" RevisionGUID="ae3d5515-21cf-46a3-848a-348a8d084012" CreationDate="2015-02-10T07:59:07.700" UserId="13461" Text="&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;patent-confidentiality&gt;&lt;confidentiality&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12125" RevisionGUID="e79599db-33ec-44b6-aaf0-09ec127fdb14" CreationDate="2015-02-10T07:59:11.210" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="In EPO site there's a [definition of patent families][1] and relating to this in other pages it's stated about [ESPACENET equivalents][2] that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Definition of the Espacenet equivalent**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The equivalent rule in Espacenet is that, for two documents to be described as equivalents, all their priorities must be the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; and about and this is the definition of &quot;The simple patent family&quot; among the ones given in the definition pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [The &quot;extended&quot; (INPADOC) patent family][3] page is also clearly stated that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unlike the &quot;also published as&quot; feature in Espacenet, which only shows &quot;equivalents&quot;, i.e. almost identical documents, an INPADOC family search should retrieve all documents relating in any way to the root document. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I queried ESPACENET for US2014345521 (A1) and I got:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ESPACENET &quot;also published as&quot;: 118 results&#xD;&#xA; - ESPACENET &quot;INPADOC&quot; patent family: 71 results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and querying OPS:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - OPS Published Data Service_equivalents: 71 results&#xD;&#xA; - OPS Family Service_number: 118 results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: in both cases the 118 results set is reduced to 71 results by applying the same rule: the patent publication having the same doc-number but different kinds (i.e. CA2513291 (A1) and CA2513291 (A4)) are not listed twice in the smaller set. So, from the point of view of the patent family criterion we could say that the four sets are the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I analyzed the priorities of the 71 results, and I found that they all share a priority (AU20030900180) but they for sure don't have the same priorities (they don't match the &quot;Definition 1&quot; definition as they should according to EPO's statements).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also couldn't say for sure if they match the patent family &quot;Definition 2&quot; or the &quot;Definition 3&quot; (INPADOC family), being that even trying with other patents I was never able to find out a set of results which didn't match &quot;Definition 2&quot; and &quot;Definition 3&quot; together, all sets sharing at least one common results and at the same time all sets encompassing all patent publications sharing at least one priority with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can somebody say why ESPACENET &quot;also published as&quot;, and OPS &quot;Published Data Service equivalents&quot; don't follow the &quot;Definition 1 &quot; criterion as they should?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can somebody provide a patent publication for which the set of &quot;also published as&quot; or &quot;INPADOC family&quot; ESPACENET results could indicate without doubt if the &quot;Definition 2&quot; or the &quot;Definition 3&quot; is followed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.epo.org/searching/essentials/patent-families/definitions.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.epo.org/searching/essentials/patent-families/espacenet.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.epo.org/searching/essentials/patent-families/inpadoc.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27551" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12125" RevisionGUID="e79599db-33ec-44b6-aaf0-09ec127fdb14" CreationDate="2015-02-10T07:59:11.210" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="ESPACENET/OPS patent families" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27552" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12125" RevisionGUID="e79599db-33ec-44b6-aaf0-09ec127fdb14" CreationDate="2015-02-10T07:59:11.210" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="&lt;epo&gt;&lt;espacenet&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12125" RevisionGUID="acb12f2a-f170-4d81-bd2d-659b8bd91ef0" CreationDate="2015-02-10T09:19:12.550" UserDisplayName="user8305" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="In EPO site there's a [definition of patent families][1] and relating to this in other pages it's stated about [ESPACENET equivalents][2] that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Definition of the Espacenet equivalent**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The equivalent rule in Espacenet is that, for two documents to be described as equivalents, all their priorities must be the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; and about and this is the definition of &quot;The simple patent family&quot; among the ones given in the definition pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [The &quot;extended&quot; (INPADOC) patent family][3] page is also clearly stated that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unlike the &quot;also published as&quot; feature in Espacenet, which only shows &quot;equivalents&quot;, i.e. almost identical documents, an INPADOC family search should retrieve all documents relating in any way to the root document. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I queried ESPACENET for US2014345521 (A1) and I got:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ESPACENET &quot;also published as&quot;: 118 results&#xD;&#xA; - ESPACENET &quot;INPADOC&quot; patent family: 71 results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and querying OPS:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - OPS Published Data Service_equivalents: 71 results&#xD;&#xA; - OPS Family Service_number: 118 results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: in both cases the 118 results set is reduced to 71 results by applying the same rule: the patent publication having the same doc-number but different kinds (i.e. CA2513291 (A1) and CA2513291 (A4)) are not listed twice in the smaller set. So, from the point of view of the patent family criterion we could say that the four sets are the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I analyzed the priorities of the 71 results, and I found that they all share a priority (AU20030900180) but they for sure don't have the same priorities (they don't match the &quot;Definition 1&quot; definition as they should according to EPO's statements).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also couldn't say for sure if they match the patent family &quot;Definition 2&quot; or the &quot;Definition 3&quot; (INPADOC family), being that even trying with other patents I was never able to find out a set of results which didn't match both &quot;Definition 2&quot; and &quot;Definition 3&quot;, all sets sharing at least one common results and at the same time all sets encompassing all patent publications sharing at least one priority with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can somebody say why ESPACENET &quot;also published as&quot;, and OPS &quot;Published Data Service equivalents&quot; don't follow the &quot;Definition 1 &quot; criterion as they should?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can somebody provide a patent publication for which the set of &quot;also published as&quot; or &quot;INPADOC family&quot; ESPACENET results could indicate without doubt if the &quot;Definition 2&quot; or the &quot;Definition 3&quot; is followed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.epo.org/searching/essentials/patent-families/definitions.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.epo.org/searching/essentials/patent-families/espacenet.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.epo.org/searching/essentials/patent-families/inpadoc.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12106" RevisionGUID="2614b790-17ec-47dd-b964-98c5e3d4de25" CreationDate="2015-02-10T09:58:07.677" UserId="13449" Comment="Be more specific with my question" Text="Can I patent a kind of financial structure? For example, imagine that I want to patent a kind of ETF (exchange traded fund) with certain specific characteristics in terms of the structure. The new structure will solve a common problem in current ETFs through a combination of administrative, organizational or business solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question applies to US and Europe. Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12126" RevisionGUID="2378881c-657c-498a-a7b1-f56fa87e1bf1" CreationDate="2015-02-10T11:53:35.880" UserId="11895" Text="&gt;  1. Is there a way to know if the PCT has an expire date or how many times it's been filed and published?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PCT is international application, it is not granted patent so expiry is calculated in terms of national phase entry. In general national phase entry can be made withing 20,30,31,40 months from priority dated based on jurisdiction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no comprehensive way to check if national phase patent application is filed from PCT. WIPO does list national phase entry but not all country report back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2. how to know if anyone has ever been prosecuted for infringing them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User has to search court related databases or applicant filed cases. There are many paid legal search engine for same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  3. I understand that PCT is a patent application, from what date can it be enforced if approved?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of India Patent granted on the basis of PCT national phase entry can is enforced from PCT filing date (ID 22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  4. Can both these be disputed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any patent application granted earlier can be disputed in patent law provided, a valid question on novelty, inventive-step is present.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12128" RevisionGUID="b89e20f8-3d58-4938-ae3c-1d5a46782c38" CreationDate="2015-02-10T15:02:31.937" UserId="1" Text="It is  the **agreements and licensing arrangements** that are confidential; not the patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;confidential patent&quot; is almost an oxymoron. The idea of a patent is that an inventor will receive limited exclusive rights to their invention in exchange for detailed public disclosure of how it works. That is how we leave in place the incentives to invent (so the inventor can benefit from their invention without hording their trade secrets to themselves) while allowing society as a whole to innovate and improve upon earlier works." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12129" RevisionGUID="1b4794e6-d7ac-4b63-a666-299aec675880" CreationDate="2015-02-10T16:39:46.863" UserId="4545" Text="Please note that the referenced document is the publication of an APPLICATION for a patent. It has not yet been examined, nor has a patent been granted. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12130" RevisionGUID="d9779031-da7d-4986-9210-6f05f77aa9c1" CreationDate="2015-02-10T16:49:26.153" UserId="4545" Text="It's not an issue of EU v. Spain v. USA. &#xD;&#xA;To the best of my understanding (and my limited Spanish language skills),  the Spanish document does not appear to anticipate the invention described in the US patent. Specifically, the invention described in the US patent appears to be concerned with the doubly sloped bottom of each of the raceways. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12128" RevisionGUID="61e3c8b1-c99e-47a4-82e6-40c9f795cb3e" CreationDate="2015-02-10T16:51:29.643" UserId="1" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="It is  the **agreements and licensing arrangements** that are confidential; not the patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;confidential patent&quot; is almost an oxymoron. The idea of a patent is to allow an inventor to benefit from limited exclusive rights to their invention in exchange for detailed public disclosure of how it works. That is how we leave in place the incentives to invent (so the inventor can benefit from their invention without hording their trade secrets to themselves) while allowing society as a whole to innovate and improve upon earlier works." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12128" RevisionGUID="94c7e593-34cd-4ecc-a1a9-04dbf8d9354d" CreationDate="2015-02-10T18:12:56.260" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="It is  the **agreements and licensing arrangements** that are confidential; not the patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;confidential patent&quot; is almost an oxymoron. The idea of a patent is to allow an inventor to benefit from limited exclusive rights to their invention in exchange for detailed public disclosure of how it works. That is how we leave in place the incentives to invent (so the inventor can benefit from their inventions without hording their trade secrets to themselves) while allowing society as a whole to innovate and improve upon earlier works." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12125" RevisionGUID="5b2c67de-0ae6-48ef-8bf4-89e7a4817978" CreationDate="2015-02-10T20:37:45.047" UserDisplayName="user8305" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="In EPO site there's a [definition of patent families][1] and relating to this in other pages it's stated about [ESPACENET equivalents][2] that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Definition of the Espacenet equivalent**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The equivalent rule in Espacenet is that, for two documents to be described as equivalents, all their priorities must be the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and this matches the definition of &quot;The simple patent family&quot; among the ones given in the definition pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [The &quot;extended&quot; (INPADOC) patent family][3] page is also clearly stated that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unlike the &quot;also published as&quot; feature in Espacenet, which only shows &quot;equivalents&quot;, i.e. almost identical documents, an INPADOC family search should retrieve all documents relating in any way to the root document. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I queried ESPACENET for US2014345521 (A1) and I got:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ESPACENET &quot;also published as&quot;: 118 results&#xD;&#xA; - ESPACENET &quot;INPADOC&quot; patent family: 71 results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and querying OPS:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - OPS Published Data Service_equivalents: 71 results&#xD;&#xA; - OPS Family Service_number: 118 results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: in both cases the 118 results set is reduced to 71 results by applying the same rule: the patent publication having the same doc-number but different kinds (i.e. CA2513291 (A1) and CA2513291 (A4)) are not listed twice in the smaller set. So, from the point of view of the patent family criterion we could say that the four sets are the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I analyzed the priorities of the 71 results, and I found that they all share a priority (AU20030900180) but they for sure don't have the same priorities (they don't match the &quot;Definition 1&quot; definition as they should according to EPO's statements).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also couldn't say for sure if they match the patent family &quot;Definition 2&quot; or the &quot;Definition 3&quot; (INPADOC family), being that even trying with other patents I was never able to find out a set of results which didn't match both &quot;Definition 2&quot; and &quot;Definition 3&quot;, all sets sharing at least one common results and at the same time all sets encompassing all patent publications sharing at least one priority with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can somebody say why ESPACENET &quot;also published as&quot;, and OPS &quot;Published Data Service equivalents&quot; don't follow the &quot;Definition 1 &quot; criterion as they should?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can somebody provide a patent publication for which the set of &quot;also published as&quot; or &quot;INPADOC family&quot; ESPACENET results could indicate without doubt if the &quot;Definition 2&quot; or the &quot;Definition 3&quot; is followed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.epo.org/searching/essentials/patent-families/definitions.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.epo.org/searching/essentials/patent-families/espacenet.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.epo.org/searching/essentials/patent-families/inpadoc.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12132" RevisionGUID="1a7692bc-292c-45d7-a058-3e3194569645" CreationDate="2015-02-11T00:47:58.573" UserId="13466" Text="In reference to the patent: [EP1195548A2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP1195548A2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27576" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12132" RevisionGUID="1a7692bc-292c-45d7-a058-3e3194569645" CreationDate="2015-02-11T00:47:58.573" UserId="13466" Text="Is this patent valid in USA or Australia?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27577" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12132" RevisionGUID="1a7692bc-292c-45d7-a058-3e3194569645" CreationDate="2015-02-11T00:47:58.573" UserId="13466" Text="&lt;usa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27578" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12104" RevisionGUID="8e8986fb-2168-4cfa-88ea-7a217a99789e" CreationDate="2015-02-11T01:51:55.690" UserId="9802" Comment="previous edit changing commas to semi-colons confused question" Text="I have noticed a practice of putting &quot;; and&quot; before last statement in a claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Example in [US20140180885][1] (*claim simplified to clarify question*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;27. A method for ... comprising the steps of **:**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;providing ...  **;**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;... receiving ...  **;**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... generating ... at least one of a financial institution, a market participant, a grid operator, and/or a utility **; and**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... sending or receiving ...  **.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time all previous statements are separated just by &quot;;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this type of structuring mean? Why they are required? Why to use **; and**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20140180885" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27579" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12104" RevisionGUID="8e8986fb-2168-4cfa-88ea-7a217a99789e" CreationDate="2015-02-11T01:51:55.690" UserId="9802" Comment="previous edit changing commas to semi-colons confused question" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;grammar&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27580" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12104" RevisionGUID="8e8986fb-2168-4cfa-88ea-7a217a99789e" CreationDate="2015-02-11T01:51:55.690" Comment="Proposed by 9802 approved by 10011 edit id of 1755" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12134" RevisionGUID="156a818b-04b5-44fd-a39a-fc9cb40920a2" CreationDate="2015-02-11T05:35:56.820" UserId="11895" Text="In accordance of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a):-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patented invention, within the United States or imports into the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; United States any patented invention during the term of the patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; therefor, infringes the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On number of claims to access are defined by case law as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To prove direct infringement, the plaintiff must establish by a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; preponderance of the evidence that **one or more claims** of the patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; read on the accused device literally or under the doctrine of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; equivalents. *Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Scimed Life Sys.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Inc., 261 F.3d 1329, 1336 (Fed.Cir.2001)* [Link][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Form Method or Process base claim, every step is to be present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Literal infringement requires that **each and every limitation set forth&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in a claim appear in an accused product**. *Franks Casing Crew &amp; Rental&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tools, Inc. v. Weatherford Int'l, Inc., 389 F.3d 1370, 1378&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Fed.Cir.2004)* [Link][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://openjurist.org/261/f3d/1329&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://openjurist.org/389/f3d/1370" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12135" RevisionGUID="2c13b3b6-3f52-4015-8b4a-e813c6e412eb" CreationDate="2015-02-11T07:18:40.693" UserId="11895" Text="in Accordance of MPEP 2163 Every claim should have support in description, therefore definition should be drawn in patent description body. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that terminology or body you use  to define in claim might be absent in description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even in case when examiner raise issue on claim you wont be able to support it if matter was not explained in description." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12136" RevisionGUID="a413b27c-c62a-4640-b60a-2bd97af75b74" CreationDate="2015-02-11T07:30:26.373" UserId="11895" Text="According to MPEP 213 and 35 U.S.C. 119  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Benefit of earlier filing date; right of priority.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) An application for patent for an invention filed in this country&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by any person who has, or whose legal representatives or assigns have, previously&#xD;&#xA;&gt; regularly filed an application .......................... if the application in this country is filed within **twelve months** from the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; earliest date on which such foreign application was filed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case if twelve month have expired you will not to able to file application in US. In case you have filed PCT application time limit exceeds to 30 month from priority date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12137" RevisionGUID="a4145d81-e9c0-4c5e-9826-588ad4c32d0b" CreationDate="2015-02-11T09:43:40.633" UserId="11895" Text=" 1. What are the formats and ways to file US patent application and where to file?&#xD;&#xA; 2. List of Documents required to file Patent application?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27589" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12137" RevisionGUID="a4145d81-e9c0-4c5e-9826-588ad4c32d0b" CreationDate="2015-02-11T09:43:40.633" UserId="11895" Text="How and where to file USPTO Patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27590" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12137" RevisionGUID="a4145d81-e9c0-4c5e-9826-588ad4c32d0b" CreationDate="2015-02-11T09:43:40.633" UserId="11895" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12125" RevisionGUID="d6ccbb02-e54c-41d2-adc7-fe115ef5b8d9" CreationDate="2015-02-11T11:14:17.350" UserDisplayName="user8305" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="In EPO web site there's a [definition of patent families][1] page and, relating to this definitions, in other pages of the site it's stated about [ESPACENET equivalents][2] that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Definition of the Espacenet equivalent**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The equivalent rule in Espacenet is that, for two documents to be described as equivalents, all their priorities must be the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and this statement matches the definition of &quot;The simple patent family&quot; among the ones given in the definitions page linked above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [The &quot;extended&quot; (INPADOC) patent family][3] page is also clearly stated that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unlike the &quot;also published as&quot; feature in Espacenet, which only shows &quot;equivalents&quot;, i.e. almost identical documents, an INPADOC family search should retrieve all documents relating in any way to the root document. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I queried ESPACENET for US2014345521 (A1) and I got:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ESPACENET &quot;also published as&quot;: 118 results&#xD;&#xA; - ESPACENET &quot;INPADOC&quot; patent family: 71 results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and querying OPS:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - OPS Published Data Service_equivalents: 71 results&#xD;&#xA; - OPS Family Service_number: 118 results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: in both cases the 118 results set is reduced to 71 results by applying the same rule: the patent publication having the same doc-number but different kinds (i.e. CA2513291 (A1) and CA2513291 (A4)) are not listed twice in the smaller set. So, from the point of view of the patent family criterion we could say that the four sets are the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I analyzed the priorities of the 71 results, and I found that they all share a priority (AU20030900180) but they for sure don't have the same priorities (they don't match the &quot;Definition 1&quot; definition as they should according to EPO's statements).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also couldn't say for sure if they match the patent family &quot;Definition 2&quot; or the &quot;Definition 3&quot; (INPADOC family), being that even trying with other patents I was never able to find out a set of results which didn't match both &quot;Definition 2&quot; and &quot;Definition 3&quot;, all sets sharing at least one common results and at the same time all sets encompassing all patent publications sharing at least one priority with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can somebody say why ESPACENET &quot;also published as&quot;, and OPS &quot;Published Data Service equivalents&quot; don't follow the &quot;Definition 1 &quot; criterion as they should?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can somebody provide a patent publication for which the set of &quot;also published as&quot; or &quot;INPADOC family&quot; ESPACENET results could indicate without doubt if the &quot;Definition 2&quot; or the &quot;Definition 3&quot; is followed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.epo.org/searching/essentials/patent-families/definitions.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.epo.org/searching/essentials/patent-families/espacenet.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.epo.org/searching/essentials/patent-families/inpadoc.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12138" RevisionGUID="ba74b9b8-98d8-44b9-8e97-66299ae8c146" CreationDate="2015-02-11T12:33:06.317" UserId="8657" Text="It is recommended to have a NDA in place before you discuss your invention with a patent professional. A patent professional can either be an attorney OR a part of search firm. &#xD;&#xA;Normally, it is an obligation for all patent attorneys to maintain the confidential of anyone’s invention under the law and they have to abide by the rules of law but in case of a search firm, as a normal practice, please do sign a NDA before you send any disclosure to them for prior art search purpose. Further, do verify if the search firm has a valid ISO27001 certification OR not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are discussing your invention with an investor, as a best practice, it is important to file a provisional application before disclosing the details of an invention. If disclosing your invention to a potential shareholder or a business associate before filing a provisional application is inevitable, an invention disclosure should be accompanied by a NDA. It should also be kept in mind that applying early for patent protection will generally be helpful when seeking financial support to commercialize an invention.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12139" RevisionGUID="75ea2447-4be5-46da-a130-4c0fa6502cbc" CreationDate="2015-02-11T12:38:44.273" UserId="8657" Text="No, the author is not entitled to any share of the profits as he /she has not protected his/her idea. Also, if the reader is thinking about getting a patent on that idea, he or she cannot as that idea has already been disclosed along with the story. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12140" RevisionGUID="673705fd-ecc9-4428-8212-a1a75d1fbda2" CreationDate="2015-02-11T16:14:13.927" UserId="13468" Text="If an inventor submittes an idea and it has been accepted, and he makes no tangible device (it remains intellectual rather than carried out). But then the inventor does not pay the maintenance fees, does the invention become public domain, or is it possible to patent the idea again?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27595" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12140" RevisionGUID="673705fd-ecc9-4428-8212-a1a75d1fbda2" CreationDate="2015-02-11T16:14:13.927" UserId="13468" Text="Failure to pay maintenance fees" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27596" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12140" RevisionGUID="673705fd-ecc9-4428-8212-a1a75d1fbda2" CreationDate="2015-02-11T16:14:13.927" UserId="13468" Text="&lt;fees&gt;&lt;expired&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12142" RevisionGUID="7b26ec65-8515-4314-b296-6503a2eb9987" CreationDate="2015-02-11T18:29:07.407" UserId="13470" Text="1. You can file online:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/index.jsp&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or you can send it in by mail to USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s501.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Depends on what you want to file. Are you looking to file a provisional or a utility or a design patent? In any case, you can find it here:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s601.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MPEP is the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure and you can search it for most answers you have about patent procedures." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12143" RevisionGUID="679219ed-3aee-447c-b772-3e41223b52db" CreationDate="2015-02-11T19:18:48.700" UserId="13471" Text="We were recently introduced to the game Nine Square in the Air by some friends. We decided to try it out at our non-profit camp, so we built our own version. Later on, someone brought it to our attention that the game design may be patented. What do we do now?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27602" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12143" RevisionGUID="679219ed-3aee-447c-b772-3e41223b52db" CreationDate="2015-02-11T19:18:48.700" UserId="13471" Text="If we have constructed a game and later found out it is patented, what do we do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27603" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12143" RevisionGUID="679219ed-3aee-447c-b772-3e41223b52db" CreationDate="2015-02-11T19:18:48.700" UserId="13471" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27606" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="12106" RevisionGUID="8dc96e5e-f651-40ef-9dbf-f356a66f633b" CreationDate="2015-02-11T23:45:25.743" UserId="13449" Comment="29" />
  <row Id="27607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12144" RevisionGUID="bd7a4eb5-00c5-4589-a47a-aa43f51ce941" CreationDate="2015-02-12T01:14:13.153" UserId="11717" Text="One year is the **maximum** time permitted under the rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your desire is to increase the market value of your patent application, you should file PCT as fast as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If possible file PCT first and US later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for this is that for most US patent applications no action starts until about two years are passed so their is no way to asses their market value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast PCT gives you an opinion on the patentability of various claims within six to nine months of the filling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The PCT report, being independent and treated with respect in most countries, will allow you to market the patent with a greater confidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ashok&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12144" RevisionGUID="f46044bb-d454-4d1a-b8e5-f565c56366c4" CreationDate="2015-02-12T01:23:07.283" UserId="10011" Comment="rm signature" Text="One year is the **maximum** time permitted under the rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your desire is to increase the market value of your patent application, you should file PCT as fast as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If possible file PCT first and US later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for this is that for most US patent applications no action starts until about two years are passed so their is no way to asses their market value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast PCT gives you an opinion on the patentability of various claims within six to nine months of the filling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The PCT report, being independent and treated with respect in most countries, will allow you to market the patent with a greater confidence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12145" RevisionGUID="a7944b41-901c-4480-ae35-4607e6341bfe" CreationDate="2015-02-12T03:49:37.867" UserId="13473" Text="I'm considering patenting a method (a business model + software + UI, for use on personal computers).  The method itself and the functions included in the method can be accomplished in various ways, and I can get into specifics to prove that I can accomplish this method and these more specific functions (I can detail algorithms, describe inputs and outputs, etc.), but I'd like to also protect the more general method (and the more general of the functions) from being stolen (down the road) if they are not part of the prior art.  (I don't want to steal other peoples' or the public's property.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it a fine line to walk?  How specific can/should I get in order to maintain my rights to the more general claim(s).  I don't want to seem like I'm just trying to claim everything.  I simply have never filed a patent before and don't know what's already out there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if there are other ways of performing the method or the more general functions I'm claiming (which I'd estimate that there probably are), do I still have rights to the more general functions if those functions are indeed new and non-obvious?  Will the patent protect against reverse-engineering of those more general functions?  (I'm using &quot;function&quot; in a broad sense, not a strictly computational or mathematical sense.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27611" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12145" RevisionGUID="a7944b41-901c-4480-ae35-4607e6341bfe" CreationDate="2015-02-12T03:49:37.867" UserId="13473" Text="If I claim a specific method in a utility patent, do my more general methods also get protected?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27612" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12145" RevisionGUID="a7944b41-901c-4480-ae35-4607e6341bfe" CreationDate="2015-02-12T03:49:37.867" UserId="13473" Text="&lt;method&gt;&lt;specific-patent&gt;&lt;general&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12148" RevisionGUID="96ee37e3-c54d-4987-81e4-4d9efa3da124" CreationDate="2015-02-12T09:20:09.750" UserId="11895" Text="Attorney and Inventor can draft broader claims provided it has sufficient basis in description, have novelty and non-obvious. Broader claims provide the inventor with a more valuable patent. Excessively broad claims run a greater risk of being rejected by USPTO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **MPEP 608.01(i)(d)(1)** The claim or claims must conform to the invention&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be ascertainable by reference to the description (See § 1.58(a).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To satisfy prescribed requirement, the claims “must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning&#xD;&#xA;of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description.” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The lack of specificity in broad claims provides patent examiners with more room for claim interpretation and a more expansive wealth of prior art that anticipate the claims. &#xD;&#xA;Regardless of how broad the claims may be, their scope cannot extend beyond what is disclosed in the rest of the specification. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The MPEP states step for examiner that **MPEP 2173.01** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; .....a claim must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ordinary skill in the art.....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Broader claims should be more carefully drafted they eventually covers the specific features. A inventor need not worry about specific feature if it is possible to secure broader claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If any how inventor wish for specific claims he can go for dependent claims. in case broader claims get objection from examiner inventor can fallback to dependent claim and include features in independent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents claiming process are vulnerable for reverse-engineer and modifications. but if broader claim covers product itself then inventor has a game." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12149" RevisionGUID="71a94ab9-719f-4d19-a0ff-fdbd42c4be8e" CreationDate="2015-02-12T09:34:37.947" UserId="13477" Text="https://www.google.com/patents/US6570389?dq=patent:US6570389&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=7HHcVObON47XoATlvICoAQ&amp;ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent was filed in Jun 2001, claimed a method of vacuum testing of power supplies. I am thinking if it is a standard procedure in the industry and any prior art available." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27624" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12149" RevisionGUID="71a94ab9-719f-4d19-a0ff-fdbd42c4be8e" CreationDate="2015-02-12T09:34:37.947" UserId="13477" Text="Prior art for Vacuum Testing of Power Supply" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27625" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12149" RevisionGUID="71a94ab9-719f-4d19-a0ff-fdbd42c4be8e" CreationDate="2015-02-12T09:34:37.947" UserId="13477" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;validity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12150" RevisionGUID="b7775434-1035-431d-96c2-e9d6669b3caf" CreationDate="2015-02-12T10:21:54.833" UserId="11895" Text="9 Square lists two design patents, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. [D656995][1], issued April 3, 2012&#xD;&#xA; 2. [D650445][2], issued December 13, 2011. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now being Non-Profit and controlled use you might have some option for security, but certainly you have to consult attorney about further use of this game. Alternatively if you have been not given notice stop the use and try alternative of present game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further For infringement of design patents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; design patent infringement test is not a minute analysis of detail but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rather a test that asks whether the overall appearance of the patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and accused designs are substantially same in the eyes of an ordinary&#xD;&#xA;&gt; observer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you feel that your modifications are out of the above test then consult a legal expert either to file patent application or get opinion on further use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/USD656995&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/USD650445&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.9squareintheair.com/store/terms-of-use/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12151" RevisionGUID="5b4c4b40-d722-4422-a5e6-bc454ceee929" CreationDate="2015-02-12T10:34:26.263" UserId="11895" Text="If inventor doesnot pay the maintenance fees then patent cease to have effect. As per [MPEP 2590][1] Fee can be paid within 24 months and patent application can be revived subject to additional petition and requirements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;therefore even after not paying maintenance fee patent can be revived, however after expiry of 2 years from non-payment patent will be in public domain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No its not possible to claim exactly same features, however improvements having novelty and non-obviousness can be patent.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2590.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12152" RevisionGUID="30c7ef81-7ec1-4043-adda-2ae4628a31ef" CreationDate="2015-02-12T10:44:55.040" UserId="8657" Text="Any idea can be patented provided that it is novel and non-obvious. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, the question herein is incomplete as it does not explicitly mention that whether the financial structure is a computer/machine implemented structure or some manually implemented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is a computer/machine implemented structure and also novel and non-obvious then there are fair chances of getting a patent on the financial structure / business method in United states.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in Europe the scenario is somewhat different. If the invention disclose some schemes, rules and methods for doing business (as specified in Article 52 (2) (c)) and  does not solve any technical problem which might have potentially required an inventive step to overcome the same then it would become very difficult to get a patent in Europe. &#xD;&#xA;If financial structure comprises of calculations or equations which are human driven then it would be very difficult to get a patent for the same. In this case, the person should proceed for filing a copyright, etc.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27629" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6596" RevisionGUID="ebc99aab-2d96-4f87-aacc-57bb6c8069fc" CreationDate="2015-02-12T10:48:31.380" UserId="8657" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Till the time patent application (or one of its family members claiming priority eg. continuation patent application) is alive, it is not recommended to manufacture or sell the product that covers features overlapping with the disclosed subject matter and claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, parent patent application is abandoned and no other child patent application is claiming priority from this, it will be safe to manufacture or sell the product. But following points need to be checked carefully before proceeding further:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Sometimes there are co-pending and multiple related patent applications (sometimes filed on same date) covering similar subject matter and different claims, it is always better to conduct search of the same inventor or applicant so as to locate any other alive patent application which might not be in the family data but claiming similar features.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. In case one of the family members is alive, please be aware that subject matter or claims per se in family members or continuation applications may differ. Also, granted patent may have different claims as compared to original filed patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12153" RevisionGUID="6439c266-12c2-41c4-98e9-70a1cfb2093d" CreationDate="2015-02-12T10:49:14.147" UserId="11895" Text="Patents are territorial rights  and European patent will have no effect on US and Australia. Now based on patent family it can be said that no equivalent patent was filed in US or AU.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Finding Patent Families**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An INPADOC patent family is defined as comprising all the documents&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sharing directly or indirectly (e.g. via a third document) at least&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one priority. This includes all the patent documents resulting from a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent application submitted as a first filing with a patent office&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and from the same patent application filed within the priority year&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with a patent office in any other country. In Espacenet these can be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; found by selecting INPADOC patent family from the left-hand sidebar in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the bibliographic data view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/6Y5rF.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12154" RevisionGUID="9dfbf43c-2948-4bb1-9667-ade256c87867" CreationDate="2015-02-12T15:28:26.527" UserId="13481" Text="Company A files an application for a design patent in January 3013. This is an improvement to an existing, widely sold product and the same type of improvement was previously added by others to similar products in the same industry. Company B makes a virtually identical product to Company A's to which they made the same improvement then published it in a catalog and sold  it to the public starting in January 2014. Company A's design patent is issued in July 2014. Can Company A enforce their patent against Company B?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27632" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12154" RevisionGUID="9dfbf43c-2948-4bb1-9667-ade256c87867" CreationDate="2015-02-12T15:28:26.527" UserId="13481" Text="Is this design patent enforcable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27633" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12154" RevisionGUID="9dfbf43c-2948-4bb1-9667-ade256c87867" CreationDate="2015-02-12T15:28:26.527" UserId="13481" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12154" RevisionGUID="464e9ef3-2d8a-4b5a-9c51-b580dd8433d6" CreationDate="2015-02-12T19:36:50.143" UserId="10011" Comment="edited body" Text="Company A files an application for a design patent in January 2013. This is an improvement to an existing, widely sold product and the same type of improvement was previously added by others to similar products in the same industry. Company B makes a virtually identical product to Company A's to which they made the same improvement then published it in a catalog and sold  it to the public starting in January 2014. Company A's design patent is issued in July 2014. Can Company A enforce their patent against Company B?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12149" RevisionGUID="dced6d49-3a74-4a26-b442-e62836cc40b0" CreationDate="2015-02-12T20:16:57.687" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In reference to the patent: [US6570389](https://www.google.com/patents/US6570389)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent claims a method of vacuum testing of power supplies, and it was filed in June 2001.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering whether this is a standard procedure in the industry. Is there any prior art available?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27636" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12149" RevisionGUID="dced6d49-3a74-4a26-b442-e62836cc40b0" CreationDate="2015-02-12T20:16:57.687" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;validity&gt;&lt;us6570389&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12156" RevisionGUID="6217a21f-5c43-4aa4-8a10-09b09bc0e215" CreationDate="2015-02-13T01:39:07.887" UserId="13483" Text="If a patent has been claimed expired/ceased due to failure to pay maintenance fees, and I come in and assign the patent to myself (is this possible) I would also pay all the fees up to date. The patent was issued in 2005 but was did not pay its 8 year fees. The patent is assigned to a company out of business- can I step in assign the patent to me and pay the fees to bring it up to date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27642" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12156" RevisionGUID="6217a21f-5c43-4aa4-8a10-09b09bc0e215" CreationDate="2015-02-13T01:39:07.887" UserId="13483" Text="Patent issued in 2005 and now is ceased/expired due to failure to pay maintenance fees" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27643" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12156" RevisionGUID="6217a21f-5c43-4aa4-8a10-09b09bc0e215" CreationDate="2015-02-13T01:39:07.887" UserId="13483" Text="&lt;fees&gt;&lt;maintenance&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12157" RevisionGUID="be18c50d-1908-4d28-85c1-7ee69175fd61" CreationDate="2015-02-13T01:52:38.973" UserId="13484" Text="15 years ago I filed a provisional patent to establish myself as first in line to patent an idea for a novel internet business. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I then submitted the idea (my working notes and flowchart) &#xD;&#xA;to a leading internet incubator without an NDA to see if they would be interested in outright purchase or development. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They declined and after the 2000 bubble eventually folded. However the VP that I spoke with would go on to have a stellar career in and around this idea of mine and during his tenure as CEO of a very large web company the latter Co. was granted a patent for my idea from 1999. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the week before I disclosed the idea (1999) I contacted a friend of a friend who was in a similar industry to get his opinion on what direction I should take vis a vis funding or selling the idea. I mention in the email that I was keen or excited about the upcoming phone conference with the incubator co. and I describe the idea in great working detail (beyond obvious) for his opinion, again without an NDA. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have retained copies of two of these lengthy conversations with him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I prove prior art ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27645" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12157" RevisionGUID="be18c50d-1908-4d28-85c1-7ee69175fd61" CreationDate="2015-02-13T01:52:38.973" UserId="13484" Text="Prior art - email correspondence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27646" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12157" RevisionGUID="be18c50d-1908-4d28-85c1-7ee69175fd61" CreationDate="2015-02-13T01:52:38.973" UserId="13484" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27650" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12157" RevisionGUID="730f6193-4084-4e08-a17a-b78b67fa63a1" CreationDate="2015-02-13T04:49:56.220" UserId="11895" Comment="edited title" Text="Objecting granted Patent based on own e-mail correspondence as Prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12159" RevisionGUID="9d3536d1-3031-4660-af58-2d2fb04a7242" CreationDate="2015-02-13T05:56:04.840" UserId="11895" Text="&gt; 15 years ago I filed a provisional patent to establish myself as first in line to patent an idea for a novel internet business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the status of this application?. if this application was filed by you and was published then it contains matter to destroy novelty it can be used as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding Mail being prior art **MPEP 2128.1** states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carella v. Starlight Archery, 804 F.2d 135, 231 USPQ 644 (Fed. Cir.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1986) (Starlight Archery argued that Carella’s patent claims to an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; archery sight were anticipated under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) by an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; advertisement in a Wisconsin Bow Hunter Association (WBHA) magazine&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and a WBHA mailer prepared prior to Carella’s filing date. However,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there was no evidence as to when the mailer was received by any of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; addressees. Plus, the magazine had not been mailed until 10 days after&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carella’s filing date. The court held that since there was no proof&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that either the advertisement or mailer was accessible to any member&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the public before the filing date there could be no rejection under&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a).).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further **MPEP 2128.02** states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A publication disseminated by mail is not prior art until it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; received by at least one member of the public. Thus, a magazine or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technical journal is effective as of the date when first person&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receives it, not the date it was mailed or sent to the publisher. In&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reSchlittler, 234 F.2d 882, 110 USPQ 304 (CCPA 1956).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now its important to note that if your mail signature contains any confidentiality clause than it will not be called as public disclosure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12159" RevisionGUID="825beb71-5e9f-41cd-9f52-9c26c6fb0d39" CreationDate="2015-02-13T06:33:27.467" UserId="11895" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="&gt; 15 years ago I filed a provisional patent to establish myself as first in line to patent an idea for a novel internet business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the status of this application?. if this application was filed by you and was published and if it contains matter to destroy novelty than it can be used as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding Mail being prior art **MPEP 2128.1** states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carella v. Starlight Archery, 804 F.2d 135, 231 USPQ 644 (Fed. Cir.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1986) (Starlight Archery argued that Carella’s patent claims to an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; archery sight were anticipated under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) by an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; advertisement in a Wisconsin Bow Hunter Association (WBHA) magazine&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and a WBHA mailer prepared prior to Carella’s filing date. However,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there was no evidence as to when the mailer was received by any of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; addressees. Plus, the magazine had not been mailed until 10 days after&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carella’s filing date. The court held that since there was no proof&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that either the advertisement or mailer was accessible to any member&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the public before the filing date there could be no rejection under&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a).).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further **MPEP 2128.02** states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A publication disseminated by mail is not prior art until it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; received by at least one member of the public. Thus, a magazine or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technical journal is effective as of the date when first person&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receives it, not the date it was mailed or sent to the publisher. In&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reSchlittler, 234 F.2d 882, 110 USPQ 304 (CCPA 1956).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now its important to note that if your mail signature contains any confidentiality clause than it will not be called as public disclosure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12080" RevisionGUID="2819456e-9b45-441f-8864-0e72345f7c42" CreationDate="2015-02-13T06:37:38.220" UserId="11895" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="Patent professional can be:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Patent Agent&#xD;&#xA; 2. Attorney&#xD;&#xA; 3. Paralegal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of Attorney and member of BAR a person need not to go for confidentiality NDA agreement, as per law they are bound by the law and ethics  to keep information confidential unless you ask them. [US attorney]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case inventor if dealing directly with Agent or Para legal (non- law firm), he is right to ask for confidentiality NDA agreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general for law firm confidentiality NDA agreement are not required. they will include agent and paralegals but employee secrecy agreement will be in place to safe guard inventors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case you can ask for confidentiatliy agreement if you want to be perfectly sure about it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12128" RevisionGUID="0d5aedad-cbe0-4c48-9f73-e086911e3bf8" CreationDate="2015-02-13T07:22:35.187" UserId="11895" Comment="added 270 characters in body" Text="It is  the **agreements and licensing arrangements** that are confidential; not the patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;confidential patent&quot; is almost an oxymoron. The idea of a patent is to allow an inventor to benefit from limited exclusive rights to their invention in exchange for detailed public disclosure of how it works. That is how we leave in place the incentives to invent (so the inventor can benefit from their inventions without hording their trade secrets to themselves) while allowing society as a whole to innovate and improve upon earlier works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12160" RevisionGUID="bd85541c-34c4-447f-a880-694d6b2d72e3" CreationDate="2015-02-13T07:30:21.210" UserId="11895" Text="According to confidentiality clause of agreement between licensed company and Microsoft&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Microsoft-Samsung contract is expressly intended to remain secret: Its&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terms are declared to be “Confidential Information,” prohibiting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Samsung from making “any public statement regarding the specific terms&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of {the} Agreement” without Microsoft’s consent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent list never came public.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;China disclosed the patent list since its  not bound with confidentiality. [Patent List word document][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since Microsoft itself not indulging in Android phone manufacturing it need not to list patents relevant to said product. Sometime listing patent may lead to design around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://images.mofcom.gov.cn/pep/201404/20140408143159274.docx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11954" RevisionGUID="0f2511cc-85a9-4459-a296-25d374143e8e" CreationDate="2015-02-13T11:07:14.063" UserId="11895" Comment="added 316 characters in body" Text="You can check them using various patent search websites. under applicant, inventors, assignee heads. for more information please visit-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://application.epo.org/wbt/espacenet/assistant.php?lg=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example European Patent office provides [Link][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;wherein a researcher can enter keywords designed with name and find patents listed under that term&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/advancedSearch?locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/TIWVE.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12106" RevisionGUID="5c24c787-6b07-4f57-ac27-971f7c75aa61" CreationDate="2015-02-13T12:15:39.347" UserId="13449" Comment="Be more specific with my question" Text="Can I patent a kind of financial structure?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular I would like to patent a kind of ETF (exchange traded fund) with certain specific characteristics in terms of the structure. As many of you know, an ETF is a lot of things put together, like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. A specific legal structure for the fund (with different taxation&#xD;&#xA;    for dividends, e.g. UCITS funds)&#xD;&#xA; 2. A method of replicating the benchmark index, e.g. using a swap with an investment bank &#xD;&#xA; 3. A way of managing the collateral in case of swap replication&#xD;&#xA; 4. A way of managing the dividends, usually reinvesting or distributing them&#xD;&#xA; 5. A way of listing the ETF (e.g. multiple exchanges, one exchange...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And many other things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new structure that I would like to patent is a combination of the elements such as the above, that currently does not exist, and will solve a common problem in current ETFs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to be clear: I don't want to patent a computer system or algorithm, is just a new way of combining elements that exist already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question applies to US and Europe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12162" RevisionGUID="1c3e0c73-6f48-401b-9949-8cd620e83d1f" CreationDate="2015-02-13T18:29:10.263" UserId="13449" Text="What is the total cost of patenting a medical device in Europe? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have also heard that the cost will significantly reduce with a new system. Is that already in place? If not, will it be in place any time soon?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27665" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12162" RevisionGUID="1c3e0c73-6f48-401b-9949-8cd620e83d1f" CreationDate="2015-02-13T18:29:10.263" UserId="13449" Text="Cost of patenting in Europe" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27666" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12162" RevisionGUID="1c3e0c73-6f48-401b-9949-8cd620e83d1f" CreationDate="2015-02-13T18:29:10.263" UserId="13449" Text="&lt;cost&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12163" RevisionGUID="f461a030-813e-47dc-b238-216748ee513c" CreationDate="2015-02-13T18:38:57.137" UserId="13449" Text="I would like to know about timelines for patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. How long does it take to patent a product and how do I start the process?&#xD;&#xA;2. At what stage of the patenting process can I start showing my product without the risk of someone copying it? How many months for that since I start the process?&#xD;&#xA;3. Once my product is patented, for how long is the product patented? We are speaking about a medical device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know it for both **Europe and USA**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27668" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12163" RevisionGUID="f461a030-813e-47dc-b238-216748ee513c" CreationDate="2015-02-13T18:38:57.137" UserId="13449" Text="Timelines for patenting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27669" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12163" RevisionGUID="f461a030-813e-47dc-b238-216748ee513c" CreationDate="2015-02-13T18:38:57.137" UserId="13449" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12164" RevisionGUID="4759379a-a08e-46bf-86d8-b1ecf2381b04" CreationDate="2015-02-13T18:44:19.513" UserId="13449" Text="Do I need to build a prototype for patenting something **in Europe**? I know that in USA you don't need it, but would like to know what is the case in Europe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27671" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12164" RevisionGUID="4759379a-a08e-46bf-86d8-b1ecf2381b04" CreationDate="2015-02-13T18:44:19.513" UserId="13449" Text="Prototype for patenting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27672" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12164" RevisionGUID="4759379a-a08e-46bf-86d8-b1ecf2381b04" CreationDate="2015-02-13T18:44:19.513" UserId="13449" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12167" RevisionGUID="7642de36-99ec-4aa0-99ab-144845c0c999" CreationDate="2015-02-14T07:10:01.343" UserId="11895" Text="The request for grant of a European Patent includes a prescribed request form and elaboration of a patent application. The patent application may or may not contain claims, but later on you have to provide claims. These can be filed subsequently within the prescribed term. A prototype has not to be presented. By filing European patent applications it has to be paid attention if national laws of the state in which the applicant has his domicile or residence prescribes the filing via internal offices." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12168" RevisionGUID="57795db7-9c11-4d82-8a48-f20dfd41b980" CreationDate="2015-02-14T07:30:42.773" UserId="11895" Text="&gt; How long does it take to patent a product and how do I start the process?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It all depends on the quality of invention and number of examination reports issued for said patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Europe**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The European patent grant procedure takes about three to five years from the date your application is filed. It is made up of two main stages. The first comprises a formalities examination, the preparation of the search report and the preliminary opinion on whether the claimed invention and the application meet the requirements of the EPC. The second involves substantive examination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**US**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently average wait time after filing patent application at USPTO is about 21 months. The average time it takes to obtain a patent from the patent office at this time is about 32 months or a little under 3 years. An applicant can also apply for a fast track prioritized examination (i.e. [Track One][1]), to be considered for the prioritized examination, the applicant must pay additional large fee to USPTO. time limit for eaxmination report is 12 month in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At what stage of the patenting process can I start showing my product&#xD;&#xA;&gt; without the risk of someone copying it? How many months for that since&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I start the process?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all jurisdiction you can start marketing or promoting your product right after filing your patent application and disclosure will not hamper novelty of application. However you have to keep in mind that all embodiment of inventions are mentioned in application. if you add matter on later date and your prior disclosure had same feature examiner might grill you on novelty and inventive step. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Once my product is patented, for how long is the product patented? We&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are speaking about a medical device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;question has been already replied :- [How do you determine a patent's expiration date?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/usptos-prioritized-patent-examination-program&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3801/how-do-you-determine-a-patents-expiration-date" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12169" RevisionGUID="663953cf-8a95-4689-84c9-f61c0904838c" CreationDate="2015-02-14T08:07:48.130" UserId="11895" Text="Opinon based answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent could be enforced if Pith and Marrow of the design is same, consider example of Apple vs Samsung. phone layout was same. if improvements doesnot contributes to new features on design primary features patented earlier than YES its high chance that company will enforce patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12168" RevisionGUID="82011e6d-384e-4e33-bc56-bc6d61d06dd7" CreationDate="2015-02-14T13:40:28.837" UserId="11895" Comment="added 176 characters in body" Text="&gt; How long does it take to patent a product and how do I start the process?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It all depends on the quality of invention and number of examination reports issued for said patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Europe**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The European patent grant procedure takes about three to five years from the date your application is filed. It is made up of two main stages. The first comprises a formalities examination, the preparation of the search report and the preliminary opinion on whether the claimed invention and the application meet the requirements of the EPC. The second involves substantive examination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**US**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently average wait time after filing patent application at USPTO is about 21 months. The average time it takes to obtain a patent from the patent office at this time is about 32 months or a little under 3 years. An applicant can also apply for a fast track prioritized examination (i.e. [Track One][1]), to be considered for the prioritized examination, the applicant must pay additional large fee to USPTO. time limit for eaxmination report is 12 month in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At what stage of the patenting process can I start showing my product&#xD;&#xA;&gt; without the risk of someone copying it? How many months for that since&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I start the process?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all jurisdiction you can start marketing or promoting your product right after filing your patent application and disclosure will not hamper novelty of application. However you have to keep in mind that all embodiment of inventions are mentioned in application. if you add matter on later date and your prior disclosure had same feature examiner might grill you on novelty and inventive step. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Once my product is patented, for how long is the product patented? We&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are speaking about a medical device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;question has been already replied :- [How do you determine a patent's expiration date?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;Almost all European patents expiry &#xD;is lot simpler it is 20 years from filing date (inid 22). However in some countries it can be upto 25 years on payment of additional fee.  &#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/usptos-prioritized-patent-examination-program&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3801/how-do-you-determine-a-patents-expiration-date" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12172" RevisionGUID="3b178b0d-1735-4699-aed5-a696f24eaded" CreationDate="2015-02-15T09:19:55.367" UserId="13497" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20100273821][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20100273821&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pharmacological effects on each of the opioid receptors is different and the potency of available opioid agents at each of these receptors and indeed whether they have agonist or antagonist properties at each, is highly variable. It is therefore not possible to generalise beyond the agents for which the inventors have provided experimental data. Which is none.  And in any case, the generality is all there in the Zagon patent, with this applicant's mentioning absence of moxifloxacin appearing to be an arbitrary attempt to enable patentability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27694" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12172" RevisionGUID="3b178b0d-1735-4699-aed5-a696f24eaded" CreationDate="2015-02-15T09:19:55.367" UserId="13497" Text="How is this inventive over Zagon application ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27695" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12172" RevisionGUID="3b178b0d-1735-4699-aed5-a696f24eaded" CreationDate="2015-02-15T09:19:55.367" UserId="13497" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;patentabilityus201002738&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27696" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12172" RevisionGUID="3cd95e73-7931-4bc3-ad75-48083dca61b9" CreationDate="2015-02-15T09:32:55.843" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;us201002738&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27697" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12172" RevisionGUID="06dae532-60bd-469a-8dc2-e80b2dd38c4a" CreationDate="2015-02-15T09:33:04.733" UserId="10011" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12172" RevisionGUID="16f55a8f-12db-40ce-b179-fc7d842d7821" CreationDate="2015-02-15T09:45:28.637" UserId="13497" Comment="clearer statement on conclusion and invitation for discussion" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20100273821][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20100273821&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pharmacological effects on each of the opioid receptors is different and the potency of available opioid agents at each of these receptors and indeed whether they have agonist or antagonist properties at each, is highly variable. It is therefore not possible to generalise beyond the agents for which the inventors have provided experimental data. Which is none.  And in any case, the generality is all there in the Zagon patent, with this applicant's mentioning absence of moxifloxacin appearing to be an arbitrary attempt to enable patentability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore as far as I can see the examiner should reject all of the claims, unless I am missing something ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27699" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12172" RevisionGUID="16f55a8f-12db-40ce-b179-fc7d842d7821" CreationDate="2015-02-15T09:45:28.637" UserId="13497" Comment="clearer statement on conclusion and invitation for discussion" Text="How is this inventive over Zagon application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12168" RevisionGUID="a02517ad-04ab-4cf9-aef4-357d849b6224" CreationDate="2015-02-15T12:59:49.353" UserId="11895" Comment="added 1254 characters in body" Text="&gt; How long does it take to patent a product and how do I start the process?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It all depends on the quality of invention and number of examination reports issued for said patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Europe**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The European patent grant procedure takes about three to five years from the date your application is filed. It is made up of two main stages. The first comprises a formalities examination, the preparation of the search report and the preliminary opinion on whether the claimed invention and the application meet the requirements of the EPC. The second involves substantive examination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**US**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently average wait time after filing patent application at USPTO is about 21 months. The average time it takes to obtain a patent from the patent office at this time is about 32 months or a little under 3 years. An applicant can also apply for a fast track prioritized examination (i.e. [Track One][1]), to be considered for the prioritized examination, the applicant must pay additional large fee to USPTO. time limit for eaxmination report is 12 month in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At what stage of the patenting process can I start showing my product&#xD;&#xA;&gt; without the risk of someone copying it? How many months for that since&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I start the process?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all jurisdiction you can start marketing or promoting your product right after filing your patent application and disclosure will not hamper novelty of application. However you have to keep in mind that all embodiment of inventions are mentioned in application. if you add matter on later date and your prior disclosure had same feature examiner might grill you on novelty and inventive step. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Once my product is patented, for how long is the product patented? We&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are speaking about a medical device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;question has been already replied :- [How do you determine a patent's expiration date?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost all European patents expiry &#xD;&#xA;is lot simpler it is 20 years from filing date (inid 22). However in some countries it can be upto 25 years on payment of additional fee.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;according to Article 63 of EPC&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;(1)&#xD;&#xA;The term of the European patent shall be 20 years from the date of filing of the application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;(2)&#xD;&#xA;Nothing in the preceding paragraph shall limit the right of a Contracting State to extend the term of a European patent, or to grant corresponding protection which follows immediately on expiry of the term of the patent, under the same conditions as those applying to national patents: &#xD;&#xA;(a)&#xD;&#xA;in order to take account of a state of war or similar emergency conditions affecting that State; &#xD;&#xA;(b)&#xD;&#xA;if the subject-matter of the European patent is a product or a process for manufacturing a product or a use of a product which has to undergo an administrative authorisation procedure required by law before it can be put on the market in that State. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;(3)&#xD;&#xA;Paragraph 2 shall apply mutatis mutandis to European patents granted jointly for a group of Contracting States in accordance with Article 142.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;(4)&#xD;&#xA;A Contracting State which makes provision for extension of the term or corresponding protection under paragraph 2(b) may, in accordance with an agreement concluded with the Organisation, entrust to the European Patent Office tasks associated with implementation of the relevant provisions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/usptos-prioritized-patent-examination-program&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3801/how-do-you-determine-a-patents-expiration-date" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12173" RevisionGUID="f097851a-7520-4292-85f7-1ae9b9259db5" CreationDate="2015-02-15T17:36:14.830" UserId="13449" Text="I would like to patent a new device that solves a new problem, which uses some components which are already patented. Can I file that patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case I licence it, do I need to arrive to an agreement with the owners of the patents of the components?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question applies for Europe and USA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27702" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12173" RevisionGUID="f097851a-7520-4292-85f7-1ae9b9259db5" CreationDate="2015-02-15T17:36:14.830" UserId="13449" Text="Patenting something that uses components already patented" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27703" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12173" RevisionGUID="f097851a-7520-4292-85f7-1ae9b9259db5" CreationDate="2015-02-15T17:36:14.830" UserId="13449" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27704" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="12172" RevisionGUID="6ca279c1-7603-4076-bef7-81501159fe8b" CreationDate="2015-02-15T21:25:02.647" UserId="10011" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12174" RevisionGUID="cf98d520-3be5-441e-b856-5082443dbcc2" CreationDate="2015-02-15T23:51:14.337" UserId="11394" Text="The factors to be considered are (1) setting a background or context for the state of the art in the field of the invention and setting up the problem which the invention solves, and (2) giving the examiner admitted prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While a thorough description of the prior art may be good on a scientific level (showing that the inventor really understands the field and the problems in it), in patent prosecution (i.e., getting one) and litigation (i.e., enforcing one) it's dangerous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If an application meets the statutory subject matter requirements for a patent and it is not identically disclosed elsewhere (35 USC 101 &amp; 102), it will still frequently be rejected as obvious over a combination of references in the prior art (35 USC 103). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicants, if they don't agree, can then try argue (among other things) that one or more of the references do not, in fact, constitute prior art. For example, in an application in the art of baking, if the examiner found a reference disclosing a critical step, but the reference was in the field of nuclear physics, the applicants could argue that nuclear physics is unrelated to baking, and an ordinary baker would have no knowledge of art in nuclear physics. However, if you state in the application that something is prior art, then it is - and it's practically impossible to undo it later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the practice of citation of specific prior art in the Background section of the application is becoming less common because there is no real benefit to it for the purposes of either getting a patent or enforcing one, and there are potentially serious negative consequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Aldo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12175" RevisionGUID="37bc0a9a-26af-43db-aeb1-6c707752db2a" CreationDate="2015-02-16T01:41:30.843" UserId="13499" Text="In reference to the patent: [CA2699138A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/CA2699138A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have fibromyalgia and am very intrigued by this patent and the studies/research it is built upon. What has ever happened to this patent? Is there a way to get hold of the author/inventor Paul Jenkins to learn more (example about clinical trials, or to just communicate).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paula Gregg, Ph.D. (psychologist)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27709" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12175" RevisionGUID="37bc0a9a-26af-43db-aeb1-6c707752db2a" CreationDate="2015-02-16T01:41:30.843" UserId="13499" Text="Author/Inventor contact" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27710" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12175" RevisionGUID="37bc0a9a-26af-43db-aeb1-6c707752db2a" CreationDate="2015-02-16T01:41:30.843" UserId="13499" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12153" RevisionGUID="e4d26a65-c2f6-4d2a-8f75-e639934fad87" CreationDate="2015-02-16T04:54:00.067" UserId="11895" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="Patents are territorial rights  and European patent will have no effect on US and Australia. Now based on patent family it can be said that no equivalent patent was filed in US or AU.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Finding Patent Families**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Search patent number in &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/?locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Find your patent in result list  and locate family member.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An INPADOC patent family is defined as comprising all the documents&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sharing directly or indirectly (e.g. via a third document) at least&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one priority. This includes all the patent documents resulting from a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent application submitted as a first filing with a patent office&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and from the same patent application filed within the priority year&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with a patent office in any other country. In Espacenet these can be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; found by selecting INPADOC patent family from the left-hand sidebar in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the bibliographic data view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/6Y5rF.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12176" RevisionGUID="162f10b3-facd-4834-9164-3df37b78dac2" CreationDate="2015-02-16T04:56:31.680" UserId="11895" Text="For finding applicant or inventor information please follow these procedures&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Find Family members of patent: [Link][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Find US patent member&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Find Inventors or attorney address [Link][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/12153/11895&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/5351/11895" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11953" RevisionGUID="f36dd944-4401-45d7-8b06-fb2b764b78f4" CreationDate="2015-02-16T05:18:33.090" UserId="11895" Comment="added 130 characters in body" Text="If you are only exporting API (active ingredient), then you should check following patents Salts, process of making, isomer, impurities, polymorphs, active metabolites, prodrugs, hydrates, reagents, reaction conditions, catalysts, purification methods, assay techniques.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if its combination of API then you have to cover formulation, composition, combination patents, formulations, excipients, packaging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27720" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12175" RevisionGUID="fb5dca6f-7915-4ee6-83f3-c92f14b57281" CreationDate="2015-02-16T05:59:13.337" UserId="10011" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5059],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12175" RevisionGUID="f09189a2-ae4f-4f5d-9030-c0c9d7f641f8" CreationDate="2015-02-16T05:59:28.980" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [CA2699138A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/CA2699138A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have fibromyalgia and am very intrigued by this patent and the studies/research it is built upon. What has ever happened to this patent? Is there a way to get hold of the author/inventor Paul Jenkins to learn more (example about clinical trials, or to just communicate)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12178" RevisionGUID="c44bf86b-79ce-41b7-bf37-c9bcfe7cf75d" CreationDate="2015-02-16T09:55:03.377" UserId="11895" Text="Cost of Filing Patent change from time to time, at present cost of filing application can be found at following EP interactive tool:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Schedule of Fees][1]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then selecting the **Fee Group** based on your requirement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your reference filing a application and related cost on various matter will be as follows:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that these fees are official fees and does not involve attorney costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.epoline.org/portal/portal/default/epoline.Scheduleoffees&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Oouy1.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12178" RevisionGUID="b414f217-31a4-4e7f-a480-c4837c2911e0" CreationDate="2015-02-16T10:08:36.253" UserId="11895" Comment="added 317 characters in body" Text="Cost of Filing Patent change from time to time, at present cost of filing application can be found at following EP interactive tool:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Schedule of Fees][1]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then selecting the **Fee Group** based on your requirement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your reference filing a application and related cost on various matter will be as follows:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that these fees are official fees and does not involve attorney costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In normal course as fresh filing You need to provide fee for CODE 1 (only one online or physical filing), 2 and 5. if claims are more than 15 additional fee as CODE 15; If certified copy is to be provided then code 29; if page exceeds 36 CODE 501; and if divisional is filed CODE 552-555 based on applicability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.epoline.org/portal/portal/default/epoline.Scheduleoffees&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Oouy1.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12178" RevisionGUID="7c8fc152-bc6c-46a9-81a1-614e2c3f9f9a" CreationDate="2015-02-16T10:47:47.490" UserId="11895" Comment="added 329 characters in body" Text="&gt; What is the total cost of patenting a medical device in Europe?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cost of Filing Patent change from time to time, at present cost of filing application can be found at following EP interactive tool:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Schedule of Fees][1]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then selecting the **Fee Group** based on your requirement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your reference filing a application and related cost on various matter will be as follows:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that these fees are official fees and does not involve attorney costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In normal course as fresh filing You need to provide fee for CODE 1 (only one online or physical filing), 2 and 5. if claims are more than 15 additional fee as CODE 15; If certified copy is to be provided then code 29; if page exceeds 36 CODE 501; and if divisional is filed CODE 552-555 based on applicability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have also heard that the cost will significantly reduce with a new&#xD;&#xA;&gt; system. Is that already in place? If not, will it be in place any time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; soon?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At present No fee changes notification are given and most likely they wont change in recent time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.epoline.org/portal/portal/default/epoline.Scheduleoffees&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Oouy1.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12179" RevisionGUID="708f18c2-4c3b-40ef-b380-aca238df915b" CreationDate="2015-02-16T12:11:28.997" UserId="8657" Text="Claims are required to be written in a single sentence form by the USPTO ([MPEP 608.01(m)][1]). Claims are also written in a complex manner and usually describe multiple aspects of an invention and tie the invention together. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A period may only be used in case of an abbreviation or to signify the end of one claim. An invention may have multiple discrete parts that require description in a single claim. Each part’s description maybe a long phrase and the semicolon facilitates the incorporation and differentiation of multiple phrases in a single sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The semicolon (;) thus, allows one to incorporate multiple discrete parts of an invention into one claim while conforming to MPEP guidelines regarding the form of claims ([MPEP 608.01(m)][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“And” is used in claim to signify that the following part/phrase is the last part/phrase in the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example see claim 11 of [US20140030523][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;11. Hydrous aripiprazole having an endothermic curve comprising a first endothermic peak at about 71° C. and a second endothermic peak around 60° C. to 120° C. in a thermogravimetric or differential thermal analysis (heating rate 5° C./min) and one or more of the following properties:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a powder x-ray diffraction spectrum comprising characteristic peaks at 2θ=12.6°, 15.4°, 17.3°, 18.0°, 18.6°, 22.5°, and 24.8° using a Cu Kα x-ray; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;an infrared absorption spectrum comprising infrared absorption bands at 2951, 2822, 1692, 1577, 1447, 1378, 1187, 963, and 784 cm−1 on the IR (KBr) spectrum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The preamble of the claim states that the invention is described by one or more of the following properties and goes on to list 2 different properties.&#xD;&#xA;1) A powder x-ray diffraction spectrum &#xD;&#xA;2) An infrared absorption spectrum&#xD;&#xA;The two phrases are separated by a semicolon signifying that they are both part of the same sentence and yet are discrete. The second phrase “an infrared absorption spectrum” is preceded by “; and” indicating that the next phrase is the last phrase in the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html#d0e45061&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html#d0e45061&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140030523" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12180" RevisionGUID="982456b5-b1aa-449c-bccc-0010723c652d" CreationDate="2015-02-16T12:32:45.940" UserId="11895" Text="You are right that Examiner can write claim but as applicant you can not request them for same. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as per **MPEP 707.07(j)   State When Claims Are Allowable**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When, during the examination of a *pro se* application **it becomes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparent to the examiner that there is patentable subject matter&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disclosed in the application**, the examiner should draft one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims for the applicant and indicate in his or her action that such&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **claims would be allowed if incorporated in the application by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; amendment.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general in case examiner provides opinion like this applicant or inventor should have call or oral proceeding with examiner to understand his/her view. If applicant feels that claims are sufficient it can be filed as amended." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12162" RevisionGUID="089494e9-36a7-4b1a-8301-02755fd893b3" CreationDate="2015-02-16T13:15:20.943" UserId="13449" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="What is the total cost of patenting a medical device in Europe? Of all the costs, which ones are compulsory?&#xA;&#xA;I have also heard that the cost will significantly reduce with a new system. Is that already in place? If not, will it be in place any time soon?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12181" RevisionGUID="f71c6201-19b3-4c82-bf18-cb95f3792c74" CreationDate="2015-02-16T16:28:23.407" UserId="13502" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8230232][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8230232&#xD;&#xA;How can it be that this patent was granted if there is http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-44871-6_29#page-1 and  http://www.google.com/patents/US5557686" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27733" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12181" RevisionGUID="f71c6201-19b3-4c82-bf18-cb95f3792c74" CreationDate="2015-02-16T16:28:23.407" UserId="13502" Text="Prior Art existing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27734" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12181" RevisionGUID="f71c6201-19b3-4c82-bf18-cb95f3792c74" CreationDate="2015-02-16T16:28:23.407" UserId="13502" Text="&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12182" RevisionGUID="438cf816-ecc9-4888-a84d-afc442a94f4b" CreationDate="2015-02-16T20:11:36.497" UserId="13504" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140207087][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US 20130180449 A1 precedes this claimed patent and is a direct copy of my original design. What steps are available to me to discredit this patent filing? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a link to our original patent: -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.co.uk/patents/US20130180449?dq=US-2013-0180449-A1&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=ezziVKSLFKnU7AbhzYCADA&amp;ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The picture attached is the same booth (Opus 4 - our booth) manufactured here in the UK to my original drawings and protected by patent [US 20130180449][2]. Drawings were issued to Norvell so they could manufacture under license. They have made certain modifications by adding a peristaltic fluid pump (known technology) and Turbine Blower (known technology) to generate fluid deliver and air flow to the spray nozzle but the mechanics and areas protected by our patent are identical and therefore infringe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Norvell in full knowledge of our patent have also failed to include our patent in their Citation reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is our next step in removing this Norvell patent and taking action to recover any costs that may have resulted in additional sales that we are now aware of outside the terms of our![Opus 4 Automatic Spray Tan Booth][3] manufacturing agreement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140207087&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.co.uk/patents/US20130180449?dq=US-2013-0180449-A1&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=ezziVKSLFKnU7AbhzYCADA&amp;ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/EBqcf.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27736" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12182" RevisionGUID="438cf816-ecc9-4888-a84d-afc442a94f4b" CreationDate="2015-02-16T20:11:36.497" UserId="13504" Text="This is a direct copy of a previous patent we own" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27737" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12182" RevisionGUID="438cf816-ecc9-4888-a84d-afc442a94f4b" CreationDate="2015-02-16T20:11:36.497" UserId="13504" Text="&lt;us20140207087&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12183" RevisionGUID="9753886e-e8d5-4b54-a05e-c9427ec0d58f" CreationDate="2015-02-16T21:48:23.477" UserId="13503" Text="I am named as an inventor on a patent that I assigned to company **A** 17 years ago.  At the time, I was employed by a contracting firm, company **B**, which was under contract to company **A**.  Some time after the contract between company **A** and company **B** concluded, company **A** filed for bankruptcy, and its intellectual property was acquired by company **C**, which later changed its name to company **D**, and was later acquired by company **E**.  The patent now has a long chain of assignments.  Over the years, the patent has undergone several continuations and divisionals without my knowledge or involvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Company **E** is now the plaintiff in a lawsuit involving the patent and wishes to file a new divisional that will include different claims.  According to them, I am required to sign a new declaration due to recent changes in U.S. patent law prompted by the AIA.  The new declaration is essentially identical to the original declaration, but with a new statement that the prior application was authorized by me.  I'm not sure why the original declaration does not cover this.  They claim that I have an obligation to assist with the filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What obligates me to assist company **E**?  Does my obligation to company **A** via the contract with company **B** extend to company **E**?  Does the original declaration of assignment to company **A** obligate me to assist company **E**?  If so, why am I now required to sign a new declaration?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27739" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12183" RevisionGUID="9753886e-e8d5-4b54-a05e-c9427ec0d58f" CreationDate="2015-02-16T21:48:23.477" UserId="13503" Text="Obligation to sign new declaration for new continuation application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27740" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12183" RevisionGUID="9753886e-e8d5-4b54-a05e-c9427ec0d58f" CreationDate="2015-02-16T21:48:23.477" UserId="13503" Text="&lt;continuation&gt;&lt;obligation&gt;&lt;divisional&gt;&lt;acquisition&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27741" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="12183" RevisionGUID="b87d6d40-cbb0-4a26-8c41-49b52d7dc6da" CreationDate="2015-02-16T21:48:55.827" UserId="13503" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:13503,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;pat&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27742" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="12183" RevisionGUID="fb56fb1a-ea4b-4723-87ce-fa5b7590cb83" CreationDate="2015-02-16T21:49:50.267" UserId="13503" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:13503,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;pat&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12185" RevisionGUID="a02e9fb5-c769-4001-903b-3504870520be" CreationDate="2015-02-17T08:40:46.923" UserId="11895" Text="Your question involves to many possible answers in some of them you are bound to sign and in some you can deny signing the declaration. If you have assigned all rights of patent to organization then authorized representative can sign instead of you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you have not assigned the IP rights then you can visit the amended new claims and see if they were really in your mind while filing application, or inventive subject matter was your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case your application had other co-inventor you can suggest Company E to take signature from them, its admissible in USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also visit http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/america-invents-act-aia/america-invents-act-aia-frequently-asked&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Specifically, the inventor's declaration must state that the inventor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (i) is an original inventor of the claimed invention; and (ii)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authorized the filing of the patent application for the claimed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention. The inventor's declaration also must contain an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; acknowledgement that any willful false statement made in such&#xD;&#xA;&gt; declaration is punishable under section 1001 of title 18 by fine or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both. It is unlikely that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the declaration from the parent application contains these statements&#xD;&#xA;&gt; since they were not required by pre-AIA law." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12186" RevisionGUID="e3bd6706-dde3-4598-8b63-e3d514bc620c" CreationDate="2015-02-17T08:51:40.590" UserId="11895" Text="First of all both are patent applications and not granted Patent. So there is no question of infringement for now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you feel that inventive concept they are claiming was disclose and obvious over your application you can file third party submission in WIPO. [already answered][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will be more helpful if you include some more references based on their claim (i.e. pperistaltic fluid pump).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind of publication dates. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/12079/11895" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12187" RevisionGUID="fb6ae839-7090-4bca-a98b-969cd1c89cc7" CreationDate="2015-02-17T12:45:34.320" UserId="11895" Text="You have to check if combination of known elements yields more than just predictable results. In other words if your solution to new problem was achieveable by prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per **MPEP:2143    Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness&#xD;&#xA;&gt; include:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield&#xD;&#xA;&gt; predictable results; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite&#xD;&#xA;&gt; number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; expectation of success;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information you can visit [MPEP][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2143.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27757" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12187" RevisionGUID="84893ece-ec2f-4227-baa7-afdb891f349b" CreationDate="2015-02-17T15:47:00.370" UserId="11895" Comment="added 487 characters in body" Text="&gt; Can I file that patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Query answer is subjective in nature, You have to check if combination of known elements yields more than just predictable results. In other words if your solution to new problem was achieveable by prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per **MPEP:2143    Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness&#xD;&#xA;&gt; include:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield&#xD;&#xA;&gt; predictable results; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite&#xD;&#xA;&gt; number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; expectation of success;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information you can visit [MPEP][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do I need to arrive to an agreement with the owners?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again this question is subjective in nature, If product patent claims all components and there is no way to design around it you require a license to use it. In case you can exclude any component then you need not require a license for said claim. However there are many other ways to protect product e.g. method of making, using, arrangements, design patents etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2143.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12190" RevisionGUID="4888ef2e-2c11-4b7f-971b-9108ef604b93" CreationDate="2015-02-17T17:45:16.497" UserId="11895" Text="Patent was granted by USPTO. prima facie it seems that it is related to inventive method on use of naltrexone or naloxone. Not the earlier  application claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 1** :- A method of treating dry eye in a subject in need of such treatment,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comprising topical administration to the eye or eyes of said subject a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; composition comprising an effective **amount of naltrexone, naloxone or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a pharmaceutically acceptable salt** thereof and a pharmaceutically&#xD;&#xA;&gt; acceptable carrier." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12191" RevisionGUID="50a5e716-3bf8-414a-afa0-77c8f2ec90ef" CreationDate="2015-02-17T18:20:38.560" UserId="11895" Text="Equity trading system can be patented subject to patent-ability conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Equity security deals with platforms which are based on codes and certain set of methods&#xD;&#xA;used for calculation and data processing that can locate and show unseen opportunities in&#xD;&#xA;the market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now in case, all criteria of invention are satesfied like Novelty, Inventive step then certainly these can be patented in US and under certain circumstances in Europe too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Europe:- **Article 52 (2)** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the meaning of paragraph 1:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; .......... &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; games or doing business, **and programs for computers;** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ............&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Paragraph 2 shall exclude the patentability of the subject-matter or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; activities referred to therein only to the extent to which a European&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or activities as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EP also says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On the other hand, &quot;schemes, rules and methods for (...) doing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; business&quot; are not patentable; but a **new method which solves a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technical, rather than a purely administrative, problem may indeed be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patentable**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for more information please visit EPO [explanation][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I feel that Since Patents are relatively risky to acquire and pretty hard to defend and execute it is recommended that you should also go for copyright and if possible integrate it with logical circuit design. Patents have shorter life span 20 years and have risk of being narrowed by examiner or invalidated by competitor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.epo.org/news-issues/issues/software.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12192" RevisionGUID="459ab48b-cb6e-4532-ad2f-4752ab054300" CreationDate="2015-02-17T21:38:24.777" UserId="9802" Text="Yes, the ownership of a design patent can be transferred to someone else (i.e. assigned) just like a utility patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent ownership and assignment are covered in [35 U.S.C. 261](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title35/html/USCODE-2011-title35-partIII-chap26.htm) and discussed in [Chapter 300 of the MPEP](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-0300.html). The right to patent a design comes from [35 U.S.C 171](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title35/html/USCODE-2011-title35-partII-chap16-sec171.htm) which states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The provisions of this title relating to patents for inventions shall apply to patents for designs, except as otherwise provided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are differences in the rights of priority and the term, but not in assignment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;For this particular design patent, there is no assignment data in [USPTO PAIR](http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair) or the [USPTO Assignment Search Tool](http://assignment.uspto.gov/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the Advanced Search function of the USPTO Assignment Search Tool, I was able to find the assignments that correspond to the Reel/Frame of the ones listed in Google Patent. The document they have in common is [US20100179089](http://www.google.com/patents/US20100179089), which appears to have nothing to do with the design patent. However, Google Patent lists the exact same assignment information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, best guess? The assignments that Google Patent lists for USD623,571 are an error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12157" RevisionGUID="3ab1799e-a44a-49bc-941c-02ba70830ba0" CreationDate="2015-02-18T00:40:01.967" UserId="10011" Comment="appended answer 12165 as supplemental" Text="15 years ago I filed a provisional patent to establish myself as first in line to patent an idea for a novel internet business. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I then submitted the idea (my working notes and flowchart) &#xD;&#xA;to a leading internet incubator without an NDA to see if they would be interested in outright purchase or development. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They declined and after the 2000 bubble eventually folded. However the VP that I spoke with would go on to have a stellar career in and around this idea of mine and during his tenure as CEO of a very large web company the latter Co. was granted a patent for my idea from 1999. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the week before I disclosed the idea (1999) I contacted a friend of a friend who was in a similar industry to get his opinion on what direction I should take vis a vis funding or selling the idea. I mention in the email that I was keen or excited about the upcoming phone conference with the incubator co. and I describe the idea in great working detail (beyond obvious) for his opinion, again without an NDA. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have retained copies of two of these lengthy conversations with him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I prove prior art ?&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;The provisional expired and it's not really my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am asking if the personal email dialogues I had with various individuals about the idea (strategies to go VC route or sell) can be considered as prior art? There were no NDA's and no confidential statements below the email signature. I spoke freely with these people to gain feedback/advice and trusted them because they were friends of friends.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;Sory it was an inventor's disclosure (Form 19-2), which I was told is no longer used by the US Patent Office but at that time was valid for 2 years. To my knowledge it was never published nor any record kept after expiry except for the copy that I hold. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12191" RevisionGUID="5c8bf761-7686-47df-8138-89fe0d92a429" CreationDate="2015-02-18T01:26:03.247" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 197 characters in body" Text="Financial structures can be patented subject to patent-ability conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now in case, all criteria of invention are satesfied like Novelty, Inventive step then certainly these can be patented in US and under certain circumstances in Europe too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Europe:- **Article 52 (2)** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the meaning of paragraph 1:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; .......... &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; games or doing business, **and programs for computers;** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ............&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Paragraph 2 shall exclude the patentability of the subject-matter or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; activities referred to therein only to the extent to which a European&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or activities as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EP also says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On the other hand, &quot;schemes, rules and methods for (...) doing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; business&quot; are not patentable; but a **new method which solves a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technical, rather than a purely administrative, problem may indeed be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patentable**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for more information please visit EPO [explanation][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I feel that Since Patents are relatively risky to acquire and pretty hard to defend and execute it is recommended that you should also go for copyright and if possible integrate it with logical circuit design. Patents have shorter life span 20 years and have risk of being narrowed by examiner or invalidated by competitor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.epo.org/news-issues/issues/software.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12195" RevisionGUID="f3fcf364-53da-4e57-9e8a-44193b7b49f3" CreationDate="2015-02-18T04:13:32.520" UserId="13512" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140256789][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140256789&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aren't they just performing a query to a location on the map of the genome and describing a feature that exists at a given location?  The patent above covers mapping the genome and doing topological analysis (including any sort of annotation)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27772" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12195" RevisionGUID="f3fcf364-53da-4e57-9e8a-44193b7b49f3" CreationDate="2015-02-18T04:13:32.520" UserId="13512" Text="Prior Art - probe to genomic location is a map query" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27773" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12195" RevisionGUID="f3fcf364-53da-4e57-9e8a-44193b7b49f3" CreationDate="2015-02-18T04:13:32.520" UserId="13512" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12191" RevisionGUID="d7a1474f-5312-4ba6-859b-582b04fe0a30" CreationDate="2015-02-18T04:58:59.243" UserId="11895" Comment="added 251 characters in body" Text="Financial structures can be patented subject to patent-ability conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now in case, all criteria of invention are satesfied like Novelty, Inventive step then certainly these can be patented in US and under certain circumstances in Europe too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Europe:- **Article 52 (2)** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the meaning of paragraph 1:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; .......... &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; games or doing business, **and programs for computers;** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ............&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Paragraph 2 shall exclude the patentability of the subject-matter or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; activities referred to therein only to the extent to which a European&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or activities as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EP also says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On the other hand, &quot;schemes, rules and methods for (...) doing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; business&quot; are not patentable; but a **new method which solves a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technical, rather than a purely administrative, problem may indeed be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patentable**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for more information please visit EPO [explanation][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I feel that Since Patents are relatively risky to acquire and pretty hard to defend and execute it is recommended that you should also go for copyright and if possible integrate it with logical circuit design. Patents have shorter life span 20 years and have risk of being narrowed by examiner or invalidated by competitor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;please have a look on page 5-6 on [book][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.epo.org/news-issues/issues/software.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=wepc2ljYrJEC&amp;lpg=PP1&amp;ots=z76X6TMFzy&amp;dq=%22financial%20structure%22%20adding%20fund%20patent%20europe%20MPEP&amp;lr&amp;pg=PA5#v=onepage&amp;q=financial%20structure&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12196" RevisionGUID="5781a1fd-2520-4f2b-ad5b-787b8db2859b" CreationDate="2015-02-18T06:15:28.273" UserId="13515" Text="This is my father's invention. dad was a Stihl chainsaw agent at the time and I know that he showed them/took this to them at the time.  Shortly afterwards he became ill. Interestingly Stihl now have a product and have for many years now, a very profitable product that I have always believed was developed because of Dad's design. My question is, is there any way to check or research or claim whether Dad or Dad's estate should have received payment or royalties from Stihl as a result? &#xD;&#xA;Thanks so much, &#xD;&#xA;Sofia Tolley (nee Matey)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27776" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12196" RevisionGUID="5781a1fd-2520-4f2b-ad5b-787b8db2859b" CreationDate="2015-02-18T06:15:28.273" UserId="13515" Text="has this product been used by Stihl chainsaws to develop their current models" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27777" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12196" RevisionGUID="5781a1fd-2520-4f2b-ad5b-787b8db2859b" CreationDate="2015-02-18T06:15:28.273" UserId="13515" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12196" RevisionGUID="845ac5b5-54c7-4972-80cc-c49803b0130d" CreationDate="2015-02-18T06:26:51.627" UserId="10011" Comment="Just cleared a bit of the wording up, and highlighted the question" Text="Stihl, a popular manufacturer of power tools, has a very profitable product on the market that I've always believed to be the result of a design my father presented to them. He worked at Stihl at the time, and became ill shortly after showing his work, but he was never compensated for what he put into the project.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any way to claim the payment or royalties that I believe are due to my father's estate from the company?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27779" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12196" RevisionGUID="845ac5b5-54c7-4972-80cc-c49803b0130d" CreationDate="2015-02-18T06:26:51.627" UserId="10011" Comment="Just cleared a bit of the wording up, and highlighted the question" Text="Can I claim royalties on this invention that was stolen from my father?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12197" RevisionGUID="9d347a39-ddb2-4817-b578-b3acc3f9e6f3" CreationDate="2015-02-18T06:50:53.907" UserId="13516" Text="In reference to the patent: [US4364234][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4364234" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27783" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12197" RevisionGUID="9d347a39-ddb2-4817-b578-b3acc3f9e6f3" CreationDate="2015-02-18T06:50:53.907" UserId="13516" Text="Can I buy this patent? it looks like it has expired due to not paying the fees?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27784" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12197" RevisionGUID="9d347a39-ddb2-4817-b578-b3acc3f9e6f3" CreationDate="2015-02-18T06:50:53.907" UserId="13516" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12198" RevisionGUID="5c270dc6-c6d1-412c-95ac-910bec3b70ea" CreationDate="2015-02-18T07:41:07.190" UserId="13320" Text="I was trying to get a list of my patents for updating my CV/resume and because of my common name searching scholar.google.com  and/or usto or other websites I get 100+ patents out of which only &lt;10 are mine, is there an easy way to get a list of only my patent ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even better can it be a live list so I can put the list on my website.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27786" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12198" RevisionGUID="5c270dc6-c6d1-412c-95ac-910bec3b70ea" CreationDate="2015-02-18T07:41:07.190" UserId="13320" Text="Is there an easy way to get a list of all my patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27787" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12198" RevisionGUID="5c270dc6-c6d1-412c-95ac-910bec3b70ea" CreationDate="2015-02-18T07:41:07.190" UserId="13320" Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;patent-search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27788" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12198" RevisionGUID="2553df16-9ac7-4fb8-b978-41cadff55f14" CreationDate="2015-02-18T08:58:39.127" UserId="11895" Comment="edited title" Text="How to find all patents of inventor and get automatic update" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27789" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12197" RevisionGUID="bfcf64e7-a33d-4c7d-9e17-aa047af90f0e" CreationDate="2015-02-18T08:59:40.670" UserId="11895" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [US4364234][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I require to get license of patent even after expiry of patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4364234" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12199" RevisionGUID="5f905cdc-1a06-4755-aeb5-4d13fc94a49b" CreationDate="2015-02-18T09:14:00.567" UserId="11895" Text="There are vast method to cover all patents filed by inventor, It depends on indexing of database, truncation or errors made while filing or indexing, language etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A person has to design various keywords to cover all possibilities. Still researcher may not get complete information if patent office is not included in searchable database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To search inventor you can visit [Ask Patent Previous Answer][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may include Family Patents of results [Ask Patent Previous Answer][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To Get Automatic update if new patents are listed on your search term You need to have RSS reader. To get update you need to click on RSS icon as below image and subscribe the same-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/11954/11895&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/12153/11895&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/aE3vC.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12200" RevisionGUID="51771626-21ba-43b9-9840-9246646114a1" CreationDate="2015-02-18T15:12:13.183" UserId="4545" Text="The patent in question has expired. No fees or licenses are due for what it covered. However, it is possible that your product infringes on other, newer, in-force patents. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12201" RevisionGUID="0baf7134-c7a4-4f09-a84d-4e16a1e05d3b" CreationDate="2015-02-18T19:56:24.723" UserId="9802" Text="Probably not, but it depends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most employers have a written agreement with their employees that assigns the ownership of inventions developed during employment to the employer. This means the inventor is not entitled to any payment or royalties. (Though some companies offer financial and/or other incentives.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the absence of a written agreement, it comes down to applicable state law and the particulars of the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few things to consider before talking to a lawyer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Did your father have an agreement with his employer that assigned patent rights?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Did the employer obtain a patent on the idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Do you possess proof that your father invented the idea? It would need to be written, dated, and with enough detail for someone skilled in the art to build the invention. Bonus if it was also witnessed by one, or preferably two, others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12202" RevisionGUID="7c9941b1-8022-4381-ab1c-86f34648c6a1" CreationDate="2015-02-18T20:28:27.290" UserId="9802" Text="Ordering a certified copy of a patent from the patent office does not grant the right to practice the invention. It is simply a copy. Certified copies are commonly used when filing in a different country or when the patent is required in court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to practice the invention, you need to either own the patent or have permission from the owner. Purchasing a patent may be prohibitively expensive, or simply not possible.  The the more likely course of action is to negotiate a license. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In either case, you will need to contact the owner of the patent. See [How can I contact the owner of a patent?](http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/5351/9802) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12203" RevisionGUID="99876c92-9001-456c-8de0-5af93443a750" CreationDate="2015-02-19T04:59:07.860" UserId="8657" Text="To start with one needs to understand the basic difference between copyrights and patents. Copyright is an intellectual property right that grants exclusivity to authors for “original works” in literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, graphic designs, sculpture, photographs, movies, sound recordings and similar domains (the work can be both in published and unpublished form). A copyright protects the “expression” of the author rather than the actual content/subject matter of the work. In other words, a catalogue/website description of a particular seller selling an object/product can be a copyrighted work; however it would only prevent others (say other sellers) from exactly copying the description, but cannot prevent them from writing their own description or the use of object/product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand a patent grants exclusive rights to an inventor/assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for detailed public revealing of his/her invention. The invention should be novelty, non-obviousness (at the time of invention) and should have an industrial applicability. This exclusivity gives the inventor/assignee the right to prevent others, from commercially making, using, selling, importing, or distributing the product without inventor/assignee permission. Patents can be further classified on the basis of utility and design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A design patent gives protection to any new, original and ornamental design of a manufacturable article/object (improves only the aesthetic appearance of the article/object). And if invention is new/novel or the design/ any other modification to the known prior art that improves the function of the object, then one can be granted a utility patent protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, not being a professional in antennas i really cannot comment on the novelty and non-obviousness of the g0ksc antennas (and if they are then there could be a patent applied/pending for the same), and the mere “expression” of the design can be a copyrighted work. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although copyrights and patents offer two different type of exclusivities, but both can overlap to some extent ([Design Patent/Copyright Overlap][1]). For instance, a code for software can be copyright protected as a form of expression however it can become a subject matter for patent eligibility only if it offers certain functional aspects (e.g implemented in a device to produce certain functional outcomes) and must be novel and non-obvious. (for detailed study: [The Problem With Intellectual Property Rights: Subject Matter Expansion][2] can be a good reference).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1512.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1754781" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12199" RevisionGUID="c7a897dd-efb3-4c70-88b6-43eeff5d7768" CreationDate="2015-02-19T05:48:09.847" UserId="13521" Comment="fixed links descriptions" Text="There are vast method to cover all patents filed by inventor, It depends on indexing of database, truncation or errors made while filing or indexing, language etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A person has to design various keywords to cover all possibilities. Still researcher may not get complete information if patent office is not included in searchable database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To search inventor you can visit [Is it possible to search patents by assignee?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may include Family Patents of results [Is this patent valid in USA or Australia?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To Get Automatic update if new patents are listed on your search term You need to have RSS reader. To get update you need to click on RSS icon as below image and subscribe the same-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/11954/11895&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/12153/11895&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/aE3vC.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27798" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12199" RevisionGUID="c7a897dd-efb3-4c70-88b6-43eeff5d7768" CreationDate="2015-02-19T05:48:09.847" Comment="Proposed by 13521 approved by -1 edit id of 1756" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12199" RevisionGUID="dc599224-11d9-47f4-9c5d-4faf4d19afef" CreationDate="2015-02-19T05:48:09.847" UserId="10011" Comment="fixed links descriptions" Text="There are vast method to cover all patents filed by inventor, It depends on indexing of database, truncation or errors made while filing or indexing, language etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A person has to design various keywords to cover all possibilities. Still researcher may not get complete information if patent office is not included in searchable database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To search inventor you can visit [&quot;Is it possible to search patents by assignee?&quot;][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may include Family Patents of results [&quot;Is this patent valid in USA or Australia?&quot;][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To Get Automatic update if new patents are listed on your search term You need to have RSS reader. To get update you need to click on RSS icon as below image and subscribe the same-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/11954/11895&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/12153/11895&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/aE3vC.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12207" RevisionGUID="3f8472ff-fc39-4983-8d0c-eaf984009c5b" CreationDate="2015-02-19T15:47:46.383" UserId="11764" Text="Please help find Prior Arts for US20130128968 A1. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication number	US20130128968 A1&#xD;&#xA;Publication type	Application&#xD;&#xA;Application number	US 13/680,740&#xD;&#xA;Publication date	May 23, 2013&#xD;&#xA;Filing date	        Nov 19, 2012&#xD;&#xA;Priority date	    Nov 17, 2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27811" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12207" RevisionGUID="3f8472ff-fc39-4983-8d0c-eaf984009c5b" CreationDate="2015-02-19T15:47:46.383" UserId="11764" Text="Prior Art for US20130128968 A1 ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27812" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12207" RevisionGUID="3f8472ff-fc39-4983-8d0c-eaf984009c5b" CreationDate="2015-02-19T15:47:46.383" UserId="11764" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27814" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12207" RevisionGUID="682c4b8e-3243-4056-8cdd-f06d99eb768e" CreationDate="2015-02-19T20:05:48.723" UserId="10011" Comment="added 24 characters in body; edited title" Text="Please help find Prior Arts for US20130128968 A1. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Publication number	US20130128968 A1&#xD;&#xA;    Publication type	Application&#xD;&#xA;    Application number	US 13/680,740&#xD;&#xA;    Publication date	May 23, 2013&#xD;&#xA;    Filing date	        Nov 19, 2012&#xD;&#xA;    Priority date	    Nov 17, 2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27815" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12207" RevisionGUID="682c4b8e-3243-4056-8cdd-f06d99eb768e" CreationDate="2015-02-19T20:05:48.723" UserId="10011" Comment="added 24 characters in body; edited title" Text="Prior Art for US20130128968 A1?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27816" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="12106" RevisionGUID="ec3e8818-09cc-4239-a122-b6df353581f6" CreationDate="2015-02-20T01:21:49.237" UserId="-1" Comment="29" />
  <row Id="27819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12208" RevisionGUID="7a50d8c1-c602-4e7b-a07b-96d0a1019440" CreationDate="2015-02-20T04:24:08.197" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12209" RevisionGUID="5af155ec-bf0f-4617-a2ba-a4d841fb1a31" CreationDate="2015-02-20T04:24:08.197" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12209" RevisionGUID="d04e0486-0c72-4270-a5a9-fb704df5b1d5" CreationDate="2015-02-20T07:44:30.767" UserId="11895" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="Related to opposition of patent before grant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27822" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12209" RevisionGUID="d04e0486-0c72-4270-a5a9-fb704df5b1d5" CreationDate="2015-02-20T07:44:30.767" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 10011 edit id of 1757" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12210" RevisionGUID="5070c5c0-3700-41c6-a76f-fde5d95549c3" CreationDate="2015-02-20T08:29:00.623" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12211" RevisionGUID="3e976b55-d662-4a61-b10c-d12fd1401b7e" CreationDate="2015-02-20T08:29:00.623" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12212" RevisionGUID="8fa3d5ee-fcf9-46fd-b79d-09d794afe917" CreationDate="2015-02-20T08:30:34.307" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12213" RevisionGUID="7351a187-7822-4de4-98a1-038f53af1d49" CreationDate="2015-02-20T08:30:34.307" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12214" RevisionGUID="9328b3d7-5528-44c6-a8ed-8f723641d3ae" CreationDate="2015-02-20T08:31:35.053" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12215" RevisionGUID="69f83b8e-6e54-49a3-9beb-618b618540a5" CreationDate="2015-02-20T08:31:35.053" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12216" RevisionGUID="cabfed0f-943c-4870-b77e-3ebbe2ecfe9d" CreationDate="2015-02-20T08:32:22.943" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12217" RevisionGUID="4d2fcbb1-3aa7-49da-b0f4-6e34df235b23" CreationDate="2015-02-20T08:32:22.943" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12218" RevisionGUID="8b3bc80c-1b1d-48e3-b275-e5ba3ccb1f7e" CreationDate="2015-02-20T08:33:05.747" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12219" RevisionGUID="f69793ea-208c-429d-855b-3d4d4ac3ef66" CreationDate="2015-02-20T08:33:05.747" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12220" RevisionGUID="3458f3c8-4d5b-4296-b9bd-4820e9ae72f1" CreationDate="2015-02-20T08:34:10.750" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12221" RevisionGUID="6ff194bc-ef74-4399-aaca-be5b11475c62" CreationDate="2015-02-20T08:34:10.750" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12222" RevisionGUID="d6e192c1-7166-47c3-9404-41c3e9c3c25c" CreationDate="2015-02-20T08:35:12.943" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12223" RevisionGUID="aaa4b8a7-1768-4bc5-8f18-0d43a6a543fd" CreationDate="2015-02-20T08:35:12.943" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12224" RevisionGUID="ab6ac28a-baa2-49c9-b623-7f059bc01953" CreationDate="2015-02-20T08:36:13.073" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12225" RevisionGUID="6b1c933a-8203-4ab3-ac07-2f1bc9f8f79a" CreationDate="2015-02-20T08:36:13.073" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12223" RevisionGUID="ec351260-05e1-4f5c-a258-1c0d72d64b6d" CreationDate="2015-02-20T16:13:50.423" UserId="11895" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="Related to patents filed, licensed or prosecuted by Applicant MICROSOFT" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27842" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12223" RevisionGUID="ec351260-05e1-4f5c-a258-1c0d72d64b6d" CreationDate="2015-02-20T16:13:50.423" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 1 edit id of 1764" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12217" RevisionGUID="8c420d00-7770-485c-a676-e50611306e96" CreationDate="2015-02-20T16:13:53.860" UserId="11895" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="Related to Patent application, rules, formats and specific requirements." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27844" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12217" RevisionGUID="8c420d00-7770-485c-a676-e50611306e96" CreationDate="2015-02-20T16:13:53.860" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 1 edit id of 1761" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12211" RevisionGUID="5854deec-ecce-4e06-868a-7f08969d4079" CreationDate="2015-02-20T16:13:59.873" UserId="11895" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="Related to opposition of patent after grant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27846" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12211" RevisionGUID="5854deec-ecce-4e06-868a-7f08969d4079" CreationDate="2015-02-20T16:13:59.873" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 1 edit id of 1758" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12221" RevisionGUID="50dd39ae-fdac-4e59-95f6-5702a3491184" CreationDate="2015-02-20T16:14:02.993" UserId="11895" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="Related to patents filed, licensed or prosecuted by Applicant APPLE INC." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27848" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12221" RevisionGUID="50dd39ae-fdac-4e59-95f6-5702a3491184" CreationDate="2015-02-20T16:14:02.993" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 1 edit id of 1763" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12219" RevisionGUID="0b408ac1-078e-42cf-ad2b-a1664554ca75" CreationDate="2015-02-20T16:14:08.057" UserId="11895" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="Related to ownership of Patent and its requirements." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27850" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12219" RevisionGUID="0b408ac1-078e-42cf-ad2b-a1664554ca75" CreationDate="2015-02-20T16:14:08.057" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 1 edit id of 1762" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12215" RevisionGUID="365467c4-4e22-4433-b746-2c8b097e4d93" CreationDate="2015-02-20T16:14:11.933" UserId="11895" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="For patent or any document filing to patent offices" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27852" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12215" RevisionGUID="365467c4-4e22-4433-b746-2c8b097e4d93" CreationDate="2015-02-20T16:14:11.933" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 1 edit id of 1760" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12213" RevisionGUID="5e45036a-2152-45bc-bfba-96b1830b9851" CreationDate="2015-02-20T16:14:18.393" UserId="11895" Comment="added 121 characters in body" Text="Related to claims definition, interpretation, technical terms, the extent, scope, of the protection conferred to a patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27854" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12213" RevisionGUID="5e45036a-2152-45bc-bfba-96b1830b9851" CreationDate="2015-02-20T16:14:18.393" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 1 edit id of 1759" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27855" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12225" RevisionGUID="c2721eb5-2dd7-4f04-ad1d-fb27e98165cc" CreationDate="2015-02-20T16:14:28.697" UserId="11895" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="Related to patents filed, licensed or prosecuted by Applicant GOOGLE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27856" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12225" RevisionGUID="c2721eb5-2dd7-4f04-ad1d-fb27e98165cc" CreationDate="2015-02-20T16:14:28.697" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 1 edit id of 1765" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12227" RevisionGUID="c129a29a-fc4e-41d4-b079-8ff936b20e3d" CreationDate="2015-02-21T04:31:42.170" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12228" RevisionGUID="203a2dff-2bfc-48a6-9586-7da098e2593e" CreationDate="2015-02-21T04:31:42.170" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12229" RevisionGUID="707499b2-2116-402a-bb07-a521124b6130" CreationDate="2015-02-21T04:32:14.243" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12230" RevisionGUID="e306f9e0-240f-44cd-9175-0a5916424f03" CreationDate="2015-02-21T04:32:14.243" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12231" RevisionGUID="d616616d-8518-4501-98d8-768ec42b507b" CreationDate="2015-02-21T04:33:11.290" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12232" RevisionGUID="1a928824-d599-44b6-9d6f-fb8f6d7ab1d8" CreationDate="2015-02-21T04:33:11.290" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12233" RevisionGUID="00facd53-78b3-4d74-8b84-bd3d46d2be55" CreationDate="2015-02-21T04:34:09.420" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12234" RevisionGUID="cb2352f6-e07d-4724-9e39-27b905530f21" CreationDate="2015-02-21T04:34:09.420" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12235" RevisionGUID="34782234-f291-451c-b880-c4abe69d81b1" CreationDate="2015-02-21T04:34:52.173" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12236" RevisionGUID="d1b99db3-0406-4355-9d60-8f1ec1befb88" CreationDate="2015-02-21T04:34:52.173" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12237" RevisionGUID="e4a20a4c-1c4a-466a-9e7b-e21e1e95a79d" CreationDate="2015-02-21T04:36:04.130" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12238" RevisionGUID="a2abb8d3-c6bd-4e59-b4ff-010d64e7475d" CreationDate="2015-02-21T04:36:04.130" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12228" RevisionGUID="f6e46ec5-1da1-4371-9307-f3a2a9acace0" CreationDate="2015-02-21T10:21:03.867" UserId="11895" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="Question related to Provisional specification filing and rules thereof" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27876" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12228" RevisionGUID="f6e46ec5-1da1-4371-9307-f3a2a9acace0" CreationDate="2015-02-21T10:21:03.867" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 10011 edit id of 1766" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3694" RevisionGUID="2be457d5-a85a-44be-bbef-20597ccd82bd" CreationDate="2015-02-21T10:43:18.147" UserId="11895" Comment="corrected link format title for question instead of url" Text="Help **kill bad patent applications by providing evidence of prior art**. Making a difference is as simple as using Google to find literature relevant to a pending application.  10 minutes of your time can kill a bad patent. Please submit prior art as answers below and follow [@AskPatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) for a feed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions on which to use the [tag:prior-art-request] tag:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Prior Art Searches:** Any time you are soliciting help in searching for examples of prior art for a given US Patent application or US Patent.  Please follow the format suggested in this answer: [How Do I Write a Prior Art Request for a U.S. Patent Application?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **US Patent Applications** also should be tagged with [tag:pre-grant]&#xD;&#xA; - **US Patents** also should be tagged with [tag:post-grant]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/47/11895" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27878" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3694" RevisionGUID="2be457d5-a85a-44be-bbef-20597ccd82bd" CreationDate="2015-02-21T10:43:18.147" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 10011 edit id of 1772" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27879" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12207" RevisionGUID="f481c019-ff43-4866-a337-7e9f8ad4b5b6" CreationDate="2015-02-21T11:38:24.250" UserId="11895" Comment="tag added" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20130128968&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12240" RevisionGUID="8ef884a7-3d6f-49f6-83f3-75148485f0a4" CreationDate="2015-02-21T15:24:48.373" UserId="13535" Text="In reference to the patent: [US257885][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent has the word MODEL written at the top left corner of the patent. Dose it mean &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that the inventor presented a model before getting his patent approved? &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US257885" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27885" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12240" RevisionGUID="8ef884a7-3d6f-49f6-83f3-75148485f0a4" CreationDate="2015-02-21T15:24:48.373" UserId="13535" Text="Did the inventor present a working model for this patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27886" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12240" RevisionGUID="8ef884a7-3d6f-49f6-83f3-75148485f0a4" CreationDate="2015-02-21T15:24:48.373" UserId="13535" Text="&lt;file-format&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12241" RevisionGUID="0006e945-f07a-4d7a-9111-f86c0413907d" CreationDate="2015-02-21T21:40:03.667" UserId="13537" Text="I would like to know if this patent was ever accepted or not. How can I do that?&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to check the outcome of the decision process? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US20100195872][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20100195872&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27888" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12241" RevisionGUID="0006e945-f07a-4d7a-9111-f86c0413907d" CreationDate="2015-02-21T21:40:03.667" UserId="13537" Text="How to know if this patent was accepted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27889" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12241" RevisionGUID="0006e945-f07a-4d7a-9111-f86c0413907d" CreationDate="2015-02-21T21:40:03.667" UserId="13537" Text="&lt;us20100195872&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12241" RevisionGUID="fa15a788-0aaf-4a70-bd2e-b6eb679d86e8" CreationDate="2015-02-21T22:52:52.743" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I would like to know whether this patent application was granted or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I do that? Is there a way to check the status?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US20100195872][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20100195872&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27891" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12241" RevisionGUID="fa15a788-0aaf-4a70-bd2e-b6eb679d86e8" CreationDate="2015-02-21T22:52:52.743" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How can I determine the status of a patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27892" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12241" RevisionGUID="fa15a788-0aaf-4a70-bd2e-b6eb679d86e8" CreationDate="2015-02-21T22:52:52.743" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20100195872&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12240" RevisionGUID="dcc5b295-592d-427f-8558-33fb5a93f68e" CreationDate="2015-02-21T22:58:54.070" UserId="10011" Comment="added 182 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In reference to the patent: [US257885][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent has the word &quot;Model&quot; written at the top left corner of its first page. What does that indicate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a screenshot of the patent's PDF, accessed from Google Patents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![Screenshot of the patent][2]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Does it mean that the inventor presented a model before getting his patent approved?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US257885&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/zQmTU.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27895" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12240" RevisionGUID="dcc5b295-592d-427f-8558-33fb5a93f68e" CreationDate="2015-02-21T22:58:54.070" UserId="10011" Comment="added 182 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;file-format&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12236" RevisionGUID="46757f8e-a854-49c1-9536-8c5a3997584d" CreationDate="2015-02-21T23:00:08.990" UserId="11895" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="Question related to validity of any proceeding done in patent office." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27897" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12236" RevisionGUID="46757f8e-a854-49c1-9536-8c5a3997584d" CreationDate="2015-02-21T23:00:08.990" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 10011 edit id of 1770" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12232" RevisionGUID="660fd68c-d00e-4b58-afb6-9625817bc1a9" CreationDate="2015-02-21T23:01:15.810" UserId="11895" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="Question related to Inventorship and rules thereof" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27899" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12232" RevisionGUID="660fd68c-d00e-4b58-afb6-9625817bc1a9" CreationDate="2015-02-21T23:01:15.810" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by -1 edit id of 1768" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12232" RevisionGUID="1cb16012-fb26-4b58-b72e-ac6f055d094d" CreationDate="2015-02-21T23:01:15.810" UserId="10011" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="For questions relating to the rules and standards of inventorship, as indicated and used by the United States Patent Office." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12242" RevisionGUID="00e17b61-b0a6-4d8f-9f50-f9346de3ba0c" CreationDate="2015-02-22T08:14:09.273" UserId="13540" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140183937][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140183937&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a thread discussing the claims of this patent on Experts Exchange&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.experts-exchange.com/Other/Math_Science/Q_28621494.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the claim involves a violation of Conservation of Energy, would this raise special scrutiny at the USPTO?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27905" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12242" RevisionGUID="00e17b61-b0a6-4d8f-9f50-f9346de3ba0c" CreationDate="2015-02-22T08:14:09.273" UserId="13540" Text="Patent with claims violating Conservation of Energy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27906" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12242" RevisionGUID="00e17b61-b0a6-4d8f-9f50-f9346de3ba0c" CreationDate="2015-02-22T08:14:09.273" UserId="13540" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12234" RevisionGUID="7c1d5ffb-7bdd-40eb-89ab-de358bd12c67" CreationDate="2015-02-22T12:43:38.197" UserId="11895" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="Question on Novelty related aspect of invention, patent, application and interpretation of respective laws/rules." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27912" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12234" RevisionGUID="7c1d5ffb-7bdd-40eb-89ab-de358bd12c67" CreationDate="2015-02-22T12:43:38.197" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by -1 edit id of 1769" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12234" RevisionGUID="2f185593-e0a8-4255-a8b5-e9f6b26530c7" CreationDate="2015-02-22T12:43:38.197" UserId="10011" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="For questions relating to &quot;novelty,&quot; as related to patents. Specifically, the bar for novelty in patents and patent applications, and interpretations thereof. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12238" RevisionGUID="0db60316-3d17-483b-8519-02ba727c0ce6" CreationDate="2015-02-22T12:45:25.717" UserId="11895" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="Question related to patent applications such as drafting, scope, requirement, rules etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27915" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12238" RevisionGUID="0db60316-3d17-483b-8519-02ba727c0ce6" CreationDate="2015-02-22T12:45:25.717" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by -1 edit id of 1771" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12238" RevisionGUID="8b83dbbe-0dae-48f1-90a5-f56cccbf176d" CreationDate="2015-02-22T12:45:25.717" UserId="10011" Comment="added 252 characters in body" Text="For questions relating to the preliminary steps of a patent, wherein an inventor or attorney files a draft of the patent either for review by a patent examiner, or in the case of provisional applications, for use later. Useful for questions relating to the drafting, scope, requirement, rules, and other such aspects of patent applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12244" RevisionGUID="a208db1e-08bc-43b7-86c1-a76dcd65d0c9" CreationDate="2015-02-22T16:41:37.223" UserId="11895" Text="&gt; I would like to know whether this patent application was granted or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Quick Info**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every Patent application In US is provided with code tags which can be helpful to get quick information (not being final info) These can be following&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A1** - Published Patent Application (also to granted patented before year 2001)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**B1** - Patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**B2** - Patent for which a earlier application publication was made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to get exact information for patent STATUS Grant or not you need to visit respective patent office website wherein Patent Register is stored. For US Patent office it can be found in below link:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[USPTO Public PAIR][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How can I do that? Is there a way to check the status?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Example:- For your query:-&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;Apart from Status Following info can be seen:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Transaction History:- all patent related transaction notification&#xD;&#xA; 2. Image File Wrapper:- all document scan copies&#xD;&#xA; 3. Continuity Data:- all related patent applications (priorities)&#xD;&#xA; 4. Published Documents :- all related published applications&#xD;&#xA; 5. Address &amp; Attorney/Agent:- patent agents or attorney details&#xD;&#xA; 6. Assignments:- any assignments made on application&#xD;&#xA; 7. Display Reference&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/qWS83.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12245" RevisionGUID="e1de6a78-288f-49b4-bb5f-2a770692936d" CreationDate="2015-02-22T17:48:09.170" UserId="11895" Text="**Yes** working model was provided at examiner interview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If no models are given then drawings specifically mentiones (No Model)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for example next Patent ([US257886][1]) mentioned it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US257886&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/HlGK6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27919" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12196" RevisionGUID="ba3963a5-c19e-4dfa-9596-3b4d26bc95a3" CreationDate="2015-02-22T17:54:11.207" UserId="11895" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;royalty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12246" RevisionGUID="8d5833e8-b533-47b2-b9af-7e8b44f2c138" CreationDate="2015-02-22T17:54:55.960" UserId="11895" Text="Springer article was published on June 4-6, 2003; US patent in question has priority of May 2 2003; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for second art it seems to be Keystroke and Biometric definitions are different and keystroke might not anticipate Biometric verification" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12247" RevisionGUID="b4e6ceae-b2c6-4ea1-b674-5ed9efbdff24" CreationDate="2015-02-22T18:10:22.333" UserId="11895" Text="Your Query contains Two Issues:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **1. Can Any person revive Patent after not paying Maintenance fees?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;YES but in certain circumstances and not after 2 years.&#xD;&#xA;For more information see [Failure to pay maintenance fees][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **MPEP2590    Acceptance of Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in Expired Patent to Reinstate Patent** &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;II.   UNINTENTIONAL DELAY Under 35 U.S.C. 41(c)(1), the Director of&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; the Office may accept late payment of any maintenance fee filed within&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; 24 months after the 6-month grace period, if the delay in payment is&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; shown to the satisfaction of the Director of the Office to have been&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; unintentional. See MPEP § 711.03(c) for a general discussion of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;“unintentional” delay standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **2. Assignment and payment of dues to patent office**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;YES after acquiring IP right rightful holder should pay all fees, but the person should keep in mind that patent register should be updated for this assignments. i.e. patent office should be notified that IP transfer has been made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/12140/11895" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12248" RevisionGUID="e72a1200-f53f-4bf0-8eab-121fc25fa10d" CreationDate="2015-02-23T03:20:44.327" UserId="13542" Text="I was looking to patent an idea I had, but I came across this one pre-existing US patent while doing some research. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was filed over 20 years ago and has since &quot;lapsed&quot;. However, it was extremely broad with everything it claimed. Also, I've never seen or heard of a product on the market utilizing the idea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any way to get around this unfairly broad patent? Is there a chance I could file a patent for my idea, but be way more specific? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a utility patent by the way. It's nothing super complex or technology related. And sorry, I don't feel comfortable posting the publication #.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for any advice &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27923" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12248" RevisionGUID="e72a1200-f53f-4bf0-8eab-121fc25fa10d" CreationDate="2015-02-23T03:20:44.327" UserId="13542" Text="Possible to file for a patent, despite super broad, expired patent already existing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27924" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12248" RevisionGUID="e72a1200-f53f-4bf0-8eab-121fc25fa10d" CreationDate="2015-02-23T03:20:44.327" UserId="13542" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;expired-patent&gt;&lt;lapsed-patent&gt;&lt;broad&gt;&lt;broad-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12248" RevisionGUID="df5fbde2-9159-466c-9eb9-3fa0b4516501" CreationDate="2015-02-23T04:31:30.067" UserId="11895" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="I was looking to patent an invention I feel have novelty, but I came across this one pre-existing US patent while doing some research. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was filed over 20 years ago and has since &quot;lapsed&quot;. However, it was extremely broad with everything it claimed. Also, I've never seen or heard of a product on the market utilizing the idea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any way to get around this unfairly broad patent? Is there a chance I could file a patent for my idea, but be way more specific? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a utility patent by the way. It's nothing super complex or technology related. And sorry, I don't feel comfortable posting the publication #.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for any advice &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12249" RevisionGUID="c8ccbd81-3829-438f-a9ed-d3edf5affcfd" CreationDate="2015-02-23T04:34:00.760" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12250" RevisionGUID="9ff404bb-935e-47eb-b675-684bd4faf272" CreationDate="2015-02-23T04:34:00.760" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12248" RevisionGUID="4a1bd2ed-6e45-49ce-a6df-c4f88861a13e" CreationDate="2015-02-23T05:59:30.830" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 36 characters in body" Text="I was looking to patent an invention I feel to have novelty, but I came across this one pre-existing US patent while doing some research. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was filed over 20 years ago and has since &quot;lapsed&quot;. However, it was extremely broad with everything it claimed. Also, I've never seen or heard of a product on the market utilizing the idea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any way to get around this unfairly broad patent? Is there a chance I could file a patent for my idea, but be way more specific? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a utility patent by the way. It's nothing super complex or technology related. And sorry, I don't feel comfortable posting the publication #.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12230" RevisionGUID="8b9a12e1-92b1-4706-9dc1-813b19751b9b" CreationDate="2015-02-23T06:19:48.303" UserId="11895" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="Question related to process of USPTO and rules thereof" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27930" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12230" RevisionGUID="8b9a12e1-92b1-4706-9dc1-813b19751b9b" CreationDate="2015-02-23T06:19:48.303" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by -1 edit id of 1767" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27931" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12230" RevisionGUID="3ed527b6-4f9e-4693-a2b8-970e908db4e1" CreationDate="2015-02-23T06:19:48.303" UserId="10011" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="For questions relating to the process of filling for or obtaining patents through the United States Patent and Trademark Office." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12250" RevisionGUID="44bd5b5c-5c19-4ae9-97b0-071160aaf1e2" CreationDate="2015-02-23T06:21:55.347" UserId="11895" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="Question related to Provisional specification requirements, drafting and rules thereof." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27933" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12250" RevisionGUID="44bd5b5c-5c19-4ae9-97b0-071160aaf1e2" CreationDate="2015-02-23T06:21:55.347" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by -1 edit id of 1773" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12250" RevisionGUID="d88cca93-57fd-4939-b97e-731073df9619" CreationDate="2015-02-23T06:21:55.347" UserId="10011" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="For questions relating to the requirements for filing, and effects or functions of, provisional applications " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12251" RevisionGUID="79fe9c2b-e039-444b-a289-6e2ea3b38949" CreationDate="2015-02-23T08:34:54.763" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12252" RevisionGUID="332871c9-3d22-4a87-ac69-e1e04675e77b" CreationDate="2015-02-23T08:34:54.763" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12253" RevisionGUID="6625e87f-4632-4044-99a9-8f03b866d2fe" CreationDate="2015-02-23T11:59:43.893" UserId="11895" Text="&gt; **I don't know where to start?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For starter you should read the USPTO patent applicant checklist on filing patent and its basic requirements and gather information listed therein. [LINK][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **what if inventor or applicant is not from the USA?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the countries prohibit direct filing of patent application to foreign countries. These are called security restriction. It depends on your resident country. TO better evaluate situation inventor has to check respective country ACT and Rules before filing a patent application in foreign country. PCT has listed respective sections of some countries -- [following link][2]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **How to file a patent with the USPTO without a patent attorney?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can file patent application using [EFS-WEB][3] provided you are inventor of invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Can be a patent filed onlne?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;YES USPTO application can be filed online at [EFS-WEB][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Where can I get detailed information about the procedures and fees?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Detailed information are available on [Fee][5] &#xD;&#xA;Detailed information on filing forms and their respective formats can be found [at Link][6] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **if there is a similar patent, can I be sued from the owner?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Infringement is based on actions defined in &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 35 U.S.C. 271 Infringement of patent. (a) Except as otherwise provided&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;into the United States any patented invention during the term of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;patent therefor, infringes the patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now if you are filing patent application Its not an act of infringement. But if you are filing for regulatory approval and product is patented in US its called as act of infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/inventors/Checklist_for_Filing_a_Nonprovisional_Utility.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/nat_sec.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/file-online&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/file-online&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payments&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12252" RevisionGUID="b4fb8a75-9550-459f-a1e2-a56b156c2b5c" CreationDate="2015-02-23T16:08:29.290" UserId="11895" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="Questions related to The Patent Cooperation Treaty based applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27943" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12252" RevisionGUID="b4fb8a75-9550-459f-a1e2-a56b156c2b5c" CreationDate="2015-02-23T16:08:29.290" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 1 edit id of 1774" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12255" RevisionGUID="a25a7ab4-12e6-4de5-afe7-28e865a4e8fe" CreationDate="2015-02-23T18:21:50.727" UserId="13257" Text="Short answer is no. Long answer is it sounds like you need to spend $500-$3k and ask a patent agent or attorney to review your technology and your prior art search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want to shell out the cash, here's what you can do yourself for free:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Information gathering phase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Read the specification carefully. List out each embodiment with all elements, and all combinations. &#xD;&#xA;- Go on USPTO PAIR and review the prosecution history (click on Image File Wrapper). You need to read the rejections and understand why the technology was rejected. &#xD;&#xA;- Do another prior art search. It sounds highly unlikely that 20 years have gone by and there is no literature whatsoever on your topic. News articles, academic journals, books, etc...something exists. &#xD;&#xA;- list out the elements of your invention in its preferred embodiment. What are the key features to make your invention enabling? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Analysis phase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take each of your key features/elements and try to map a product, product feature, patent element, or prosecution history argument to your elements. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pivot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you found that in the analysis phase, every feature of your preferred embodiment was &quot;anticipated&quot;, aka someone else thought of it, then you can't patent it. If you found out through the file history review + prior art search that perhaps elements A+B+C were unpatentable because they were too broad, and that your idea includes element D, then you can patent it as A+B+C+D. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's really not short answer to this question. Your question is too broad to answer in detail, so you'll have to do the legwork yourself and come to a reasonable conclusion if its worth your time to even pursue such a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12203" RevisionGUID="a61613e7-fedb-4c38-86ee-9ca656434c35" CreationDate="2015-02-24T06:56:03.877" UserId="8657" Comment="deleted 209 characters in body" Text="To start with one needs to understand the basic difference between copyrights and patents. Copyright is an intellectual property right that grants exclusivity to authors for “original works” in literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, graphic designs, sculpture, photographs, movies, sound recordings and similar domains (the work can be both in published and unpublished form). A copyright protects the “expression” of the author rather than the actual content/subject matter of the work. In other words, a catalogue/website description of a particular seller selling an object/product can be a copyrighted work; however it would only prevent others (say other sellers) from exactly copying the description, but cannot prevent them from writing their own description or the use of object/product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand a patent grants exclusive rights to an inventor/assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for detailed public revealing of his/her invention. The invention should be novelty, non-obviousness (at the time of invention) and should have an industrial applicability. This exclusivity gives the inventor/assignee the right to prevent others, from commercially making, using, selling, importing, or distributing the product without inventor/assignee permission. Patents can be further classified on the basis of utility and design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A design patent gives protection to any new, original and ornamental design of a manufacturable article/object (improves only the aesthetic appearance of the article/object). And if invention is new/novel or the design/ any other modification to the known prior art that improves the function of the object, then one can be granted a utility patent protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although copyrights and patents offer two different type of exclusivities, but both can overlap to some extent ([Design Patent/Copyright Overlap][1]). For instance, a code for software can be copyright protected as a form of expression however it can become a subject matter for patent eligibility only if it offers certain functional aspects (e.g implemented in a device to produce certain functional outcomes) and must be novel and non-obvious. (for detailed study: [The Problem With Intellectual Property Rights: Subject Matter Expansion][2] can be a good reference).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disclaimer: For a better legal opinion, please consult a lawyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1512.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1754781" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12261" RevisionGUID="27365795-bb5f-48e9-9c0e-5b047a0aba6a" CreationDate="2015-02-24T09:26:13.693" UserId="13555" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5504946][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5504946" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27968" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12261" RevisionGUID="27365795-bb5f-48e9-9c0e-5b047a0aba6a" CreationDate="2015-02-24T09:26:13.693" UserId="13555" Text="I own this patent and would like to know how to update my UK address details. i don't have a lawyer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27969" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12261" RevisionGUID="27365795-bb5f-48e9-9c0e-5b047a0aba6a" CreationDate="2015-02-24T09:26:13.693" UserId="13555" Text="&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27970" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12261" RevisionGUID="af202f8d-3c52-4847-ae49-485eadfb4c42" CreationDate="2015-02-24T09:44:54.983" UserId="10011" Comment="added 170 characters in body; edited title" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5504946][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I own this patent and would like to know how to update my UK address details. I do not have a lawyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What steps should I take to update my address with the USPTO?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5504946" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27971" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12261" RevisionGUID="af202f8d-3c52-4847-ae49-485eadfb4c42" CreationDate="2015-02-24T09:44:54.983" UserId="10011" Comment="added 170 characters in body; edited title" Text="How do I update the address on a patent I own?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12262" RevisionGUID="dfc484b6-783c-42d8-a4a0-862878fde2f1" CreationDate="2015-02-24T10:03:19.253" UserId="11895" Text="You can open a EFS-WEB account in [USPTO online filing system][1]. This account requires you to have digital certificate which can be obtained freely from [USPTO LINK][2] also read [HELP][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to know more about How to file address change request you can visit [USPTO help Presentation][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/file-online&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://dcm.uspto.gov/UserRegistration/do/Home&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/getting-started-new-users&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ebc/portal/efs/cbt/efs-web-training.ppt" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12265" RevisionGUID="a1619862-1f79-4d8a-9ccd-48dbdc326c6e" CreationDate="2015-02-24T20:35:36.040" UserId="13561" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7123424][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7123424&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to make a similar product, but I do not know if I am violating their patent.  It is very broad and obviously trying to protect it from being recreated. Their patent discusses reproduction for HD, DVD, cd, ETC. My priority would be to create a recording device and transmit signal via bluetooth or some other medium to be used for reproduction for teaching and learning methods, both in education, medical, and entertainment purposes. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27984" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12265" RevisionGUID="a1619862-1f79-4d8a-9ccd-48dbdc326c6e" CreationDate="2015-02-24T20:35:36.040" UserId="13561" Text="Would I be violating the patent if I produced a similar product with completely different methods and had different intentions for product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27985" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12265" RevisionGUID="a1619862-1f79-4d8a-9ccd-48dbdc326c6e" CreationDate="2015-02-24T20:35:36.040" UserId="13561" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27986" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12265" RevisionGUID="619aa638-e688-4595-ab21-691dcbf9057f" CreationDate="2015-02-24T20:44:57.777" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12266" RevisionGUID="453ca419-b2ea-406e-bc4d-f65012b5610d" CreationDate="2015-02-24T21:36:51.120" UserId="13562" Text="My cousin made a cartogram depicting world population in microsoft paint. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![]()![world population cartogram][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It became [quite popular][2] and he he was contacted by the author of an earlier world population cartogram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author of the early cartogram insisted that my cousin's work violated his copyright. My cousin acquiesced and listed the earlier author as the copyright holder of the newer map.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems wrong to me.  My cousin's work seems original.  But the lawyer at his university said that it is not.  Who is right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/cTdpa.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandsoda/2015/01/28/381971608/india-grows-russia-shrinks-mapping-countries-by-population&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/VC0iq.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27988" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12266" RevisionGUID="453ca419-b2ea-406e-bc4d-f65012b5610d" CreationDate="2015-02-24T21:36:51.120" UserId="13562" Text="Can my cousin copyright his world population cartogram?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27989" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12266" RevisionGUID="453ca419-b2ea-406e-bc4d-f65012b5610d" CreationDate="2015-02-24T21:36:51.120" UserId="13562" Text="&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;maps&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27990" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12266" RevisionGUID="5049d7bf-0bfb-4a50-9258-6151d2ddadbc" CreationDate="2015-02-24T21:37:17.080" UserId="10011" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12268" RevisionGUID="ce2e0ee3-ca4d-4056-96de-bbad1754f924" CreationDate="2015-02-25T00:52:57.713" UserId="13564" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8897091][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8897091&#xD;&#xA;I, Zabih Toosky, am the primary inventor of the circuit in this patent. Why Andy Burstein's name appears first?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks,&#xD;&#xA;Zabih Toosky" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27995" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12268" RevisionGUID="ce2e0ee3-ca4d-4056-96de-bbad1754f924" CreationDate="2015-02-25T00:52:57.713" UserId="13564" Text="Primary Inventor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27996" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12268" RevisionGUID="ce2e0ee3-ca4d-4056-96de-bbad1754f924" CreationDate="2015-02-25T00:52:57.713" UserId="13564" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27997" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12268" RevisionGUID="651e6160-677a-4c07-b787-0860e890bb53" CreationDate="2015-02-25T01:39:01.267" UserId="10011" Comment="added 18 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8897091][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, Zabih Toosky, am the primary inventor of the circuit in this patent. Why does Andy Burstein's name appear first on Google Patents' list of inventors?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8897091" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27998" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12268" RevisionGUID="651e6160-677a-4c07-b787-0860e890bb53" CreationDate="2015-02-25T01:39:01.267" UserId="10011" Comment="added 18 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Why does Google Patents not display the primary inventor's name first?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27999" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12268" RevisionGUID="651e6160-677a-4c07-b787-0860e890bb53" CreationDate="2015-02-25T01:39:01.267" UserId="10011" Comment="added 18 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;google-patents&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12269" RevisionGUID="03373e15-6271-4351-aa03-a98cfb8a91fe" CreationDate="2015-02-25T01:40:36.007" UserId="10011" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12270" RevisionGUID="26d58c86-596a-44c9-8aae-6b5af42c58da" CreationDate="2015-02-25T01:40:36.007" UserId="10011" Text="Not to be confused with [google]. For questions relating to use of the Google Patents search engine. Use only for specific questions that primarily relate to use of Google Patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12272" RevisionGUID="bca2e7a4-231a-42ec-a742-bf9895145770" CreationDate="2015-02-25T04:52:57.900" UserId="11895" Text="Google has nothing to do with the order of inventor, they host just display and index tools. it displays the exact order as listed in USPTO granted patent. Most likely your attorney/agent has listed name in alphabetical order.&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to second obvious question you can see MPEP 602.01(c)(2)   Correcting or Updating Inventor Name 37 CFR 1.48(f) – Request Filed On or After September 16, 2012 [R-11.2013]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (f) Correcting or updating the name of an inventor: Any request to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; correct or update the name of the inventor or a joint inventor, or the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **order of the names of joint inventors**, in a nonprovisional application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; must include: (1) An application data sheet in accordance with §1.76&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name in the desired&#xD;&#xA;&gt; order; and (2) The processing fee set forth in §1.17(i).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;................. and allows an applicant to adjust the order of the names of joint &gt;&gt;inventors (e.g., to control the order of names on a printed patent). 37 CFR 1.48(f) &gt;&gt;specifically provides that any request to correct or update the name of the inventor or &gt;&gt;a joint inventor, or the order of the names of joint inventors, in a nonprovisional &gt;&gt;application must include: (1) an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 &gt;&gt;that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name in the desired order; and (2) &gt;&gt;the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i). The request should also identify the &gt;&gt;desired inventor name change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for more information please visit [MPEP][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/j7lep.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s602.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12272" RevisionGUID="7a46d77c-f067-4871-b787-d0a7e99d783e" CreationDate="2015-02-25T05:15:06.450" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="Google has nothing to do with the order of inventor, they host just display and index tools. it displays the exact order as listed in USPTO granted patent. Most likely your attorney/agent has listed name in alphabetical order.&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to second obvious question you can see MPEP 602.01(c)(2)   Correcting or Updating Inventor Name 37 CFR 1.48(f) – Request Filed On or After September 16, 2012 [R-11.2013]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (f) Correcting or updating the name of an inventor: Any request to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; correct or update the name of the inventor or a joint inventor, or the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **order of the names of joint inventors**, in a nonprovisional application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; must include: (1) An application data sheet in accordance with §1.76&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name in the desired&#xD;&#xA;&gt; order; and (2) The processing fee set forth in §1.17(i).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;................. and allows an applicant to adjust the order of the names of joint inventors (e.g., to control the order of names on a printed patent). 37 CFR 1.48(f) specifically provides that any request to correct or update the name of the inventor or a joint inventor, or the order of the names of joint inventors, in a nonprovisional application must include: (1) an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name in the desired order; and (2) the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i). The request should also identify the desired inventor name change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for more information please visit [MPEP][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/j7lep.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s602.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28009" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12268" RevisionGUID="e29442f5-8ee3-466a-9432-c56e5a97c4dc" CreationDate="2015-02-25T05:16:11.003" UserId="11895" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;format&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12273" RevisionGUID="69767d7b-bc81-4d64-9472-31e6fb56d728" CreationDate="2015-02-25T07:22:30.543" UserId="13567" Text="As many I had and idea and I would like to patent it. However I found that a previous patent with design nearly identical to mine already exists. Of course I immediately thought about giving up, if not, after reading such patent I realized the whole scale of the system proposed is others of magnitudes different from mine.&#xD;&#xA;In fact the system I envision is on the centimeter scale while the one patented is the micrometer scale. As a result the application of the preexisting patent on the cm scale would make most of their embodiments and claims unfeasible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example lets assume I am trying to patent a cup.&#xD;&#xA;Both my cup and the patented (microscopic) ones do the same thing, they hold water, and they do it via the same principles, however a microscopic scale cups cannot be built in the same way; with a bigger cup you might be able to control how much water it can carry or its temperature. Also microscopic cups are only described as an ordered array of cups rather than single cups, instead macroscopic ones could but don't have to be assemble or built into an ordered structure, further more, in principle, the surfaces of the big cup could be made of smaller (microscopic) cups because in such way the water might taste better or would make the bigger cup easier to clean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for your help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28012" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12273" RevisionGUID="69767d7b-bc81-4d64-9472-31e6fb56d728" CreationDate="2015-02-25T07:22:30.543" UserId="13567" Text="Macroscopic vs Microscopic patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28013" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12273" RevisionGUID="69767d7b-bc81-4d64-9472-31e6fb56d728" CreationDate="2015-02-25T07:22:30.543" UserId="13567" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12274" RevisionGUID="202d8d3d-85cf-44e4-9f3e-e1e809c4290b" CreationDate="2015-02-25T08:52:53.853" UserId="10011" Text="*This question is really hard to answer as it is, without knowing what your invention is, and what the other patent is about. But, after drafting this in comments, I've come to the conclusion that we might be able to lend at least a bit of insight to help you.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I think the best way for us to be able to help you, if this answer isn't sufficient, would be if you could post a new question with the patent number you're looking at. We'd then be able to give you an interpretation of its claims, to give you a more solid idea of what it actually covers.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, in thinking about the differences between something produced at macro- versus micro-scale, it's worth noting a couple fundamental aspects of the patenting system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Claims are key.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You wrote,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As a result the application of the preexisting patent on the cm scale would make most of their embodiments and claims unfeasible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you clearly understand the claims of the previous patent or application, and they are solely dependent on the original scale of the invention, you can pretty well stop reading right now, and you should be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent is only as good as its claims, so if they're for something other than what you're going for, it's pretty well irrelevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#You can't patent an idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Section TL;DR:** If the implementations differ enough between varied scales, you're *probably* alright, depending on the patent's text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can only patent an invention, or in other words, an implementation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To extend your example, I can't patent &quot;a way of holding water,&quot; but I might be able to patent &quot;a water-tight cylinder with one closed end.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference here is fairly subtle, but you can imagine it more in a more serious case, of, for instance, a (looking at the thing in front of me), keyboard backlight. If I wanted to get a patent on my keyboard's backlight, hypothetically of course, I couldn't file an application claiming &quot;a means to illuminating the keys on a keyboard.&quot; Rather, I'd have to claim something like &quot;using a light source, from an LED or other form of illumination, mounted underneath individual keys on a keyboard.&quot; Neither of these are perfect examples, but they illustrate my point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An invention needs utility to be patented, and to have utility, it needs an implementation. On top of that, patents need to be enabling, and to enable someone, you need something to enable them to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, that speaks to your situation, and exactly what you mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your second paragraph, you talk about the differences in *implementations* between a bigger and smaller cup. Because the implementations differ, it's conceivable that the oppositely-sized version might not fall under the same patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back to my point, though, you might still have some options. Consider your own example of a large cup being comprised of a collection of smaller ones. *That* might be patentable, in its own right. Because the implementation is novel and has utility, it could theoretically be patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Patents give a negative right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Section TL;DR:** If your implementation at a larger scale has improvements or special aspects to it, you might be able to patent those, even if the other patent still applies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at your situation from another angle, it's good to think about what specifically patents *do* for the assignee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent doesn't give you the right to perform your invention, it gives you the right to stop others from doing it. That's called a &quot;negative right.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does that mean? Let's look at another example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say I hold a patent on a chair: &quot;four legs and a seat.&quot; You come along, then, and you invent a way of making that a bit more comfortable. You file for a patent on &quot;putting a pillow on top of a chair.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now things get interesting. You can't perform your invention without infringing on mine, and I can't put pillows on my chairs without infringing on yours. That's often when &quot;cross-licensing&quot; deals come up, but that's out of the scope of this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking from *this* approach, the fact that someone may hold a patent on the oppositely-sized version of your invention may not hinder your own patenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking back at your example of compiling a large cup from many smaller ones, you might be able to get a patent on that, even in light of the previous patent on a cylinder with a closed end. If you did that, you wouldn't be able to start creating those cups, but you might gain some leverage in licensing deals to be able to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, as I've said a few times now, it really just comes down to the claims of the previous patent. It could go either way. If the patent claims something as broad as &quot;a water-tight cylinder with one closed end,&quot; that doesn't depend on size, so you might be blocked without licensing. If the patent claims something more specific to the implementation at some given scale, then you might be alright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In situations like this, the best solution is often to speak with a patent professional, disclose your invention and the other patent you found, and get a professional opinion on what your best course of action might be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to, or *perhaps* even instead of, that, I really would suggest, if you're comfortable with it, posting a new question that provides the patent number and asks for help understanding it. Patents are notoriously difficult to write, and can be difficult to fully comprehend in reading as well. So if you aren't completely certain you understand it, I'd definitely leverage our community here to help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12273" RevisionGUID="cf391b48-f00f-494e-b368-401de5f1b3d4" CreationDate="2015-02-25T08:56:57.577" UserId="10011" Comment="rm thanks" Text="As many I had and idea and I would like to patent it. However I found that a previous patent with design nearly identical to mine already exists. Of course I immediately thought about giving up, if not, after reading such patent I realized the whole scale of the system proposed is others of magnitudes different from mine.&#xD;&#xA;In fact the system I envision is on the centimeter scale while the one patented is the micrometer scale. As a result the application of the preexisting patent on the cm scale would make most of their embodiments and claims unfeasible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example lets assume I am trying to patent a cup.&#xD;&#xA;Both my cup and the patented (microscopic) ones do the same thing, they hold water, and they do it via the same principles, however a microscopic scale cups cannot be built in the same way; with a bigger cup you might be able to control how much water it can carry or its temperature. Also microscopic cups are only described as an ordered array of cups rather than single cups, instead macroscopic ones could but don't have to be assemble or built into an ordered structure, further more, in principle, the surfaces of the big cup could be made of smaller (microscopic) cups because in such way the water might taste better or would make the bigger cup easier to clean." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12275" RevisionGUID="316e252d-757a-4d88-81ed-6b069e0d5467" CreationDate="2015-02-25T10:25:07.280" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12276" RevisionGUID="2bbcb6ab-842a-4d38-b7f9-2cf1bb2f3a71" CreationDate="2015-02-25T10:25:07.280" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12277" RevisionGUID="28939e38-c9ea-4063-b70d-9ee086e5d481" CreationDate="2015-02-25T10:28:04.787" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12278" RevisionGUID="b3760040-fcf3-4096-a689-22e6875881e6" CreationDate="2015-02-25T10:28:04.787" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12280" RevisionGUID="cdb64786-20ab-4e65-ae91-4ec8dcb4cd31" CreationDate="2015-02-25T14:06:07.180" UserId="13570" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2006045047A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2006045047A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When does this patent stop, or comes free?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please answer by marconiessink31@hotmail.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in Advance7A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28024" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12280" RevisionGUID="cdb64786-20ab-4e65-ae91-4ec8dcb4cd31" CreationDate="2015-02-25T14:06:07.180" UserId="13570" Text="End of patent Self Cleaning condenser" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28025" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12280" RevisionGUID="cdb64786-20ab-4e65-ae91-4ec8dcb4cd31" CreationDate="2015-02-25T14:06:07.180" UserId="13570" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12280" RevisionGUID="04fc993b-51c6-4d50-9c51-54c690d6b943" CreationDate="2015-02-25T18:27:38.263" UserId="1" Comment="removed the personal solicitation to be contacted off site." Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2006045047A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2006045047A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When does this patent stop, or comes free?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28031" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12280" RevisionGUID="eba787ec-8df2-4003-95da-f32132ba7048" CreationDate="2015-02-25T18:28:43.313" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[312],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12276" RevisionGUID="3116c92f-b714-4670-bf5a-16a3f542f0e4" CreationDate="2015-02-25T20:08:42.017" UserId="11895" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="Question relates to Infringement of patent rights as defined in claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28037" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12276" RevisionGUID="3116c92f-b714-4670-bf5a-16a3f542f0e4" CreationDate="2015-02-25T20:08:42.017" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 1 edit id of 1776" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12277" RevisionGUID="87b16a77-974b-4c10-ae1f-a374baebcea1" CreationDate="2015-02-25T20:08:48.150" UserId="11895" Comment="added 155 characters in body" Text="Question should quote relevant section of Act and Direct link to official page listing quoted text. A user should articulate question after such citation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28039" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12277" RevisionGUID="87b16a77-974b-4c10-ae1f-a374baebcea1" CreationDate="2015-02-25T20:08:48.150" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 1 edit id of 1777" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12275" RevisionGUID="03d04c6e-b795-4ea0-8f6b-ee3670e306ed" CreationDate="2015-02-25T20:10:52.227" UserId="11895" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="Infringement questions could be related to scope of US Patent Act and rules related to infringement. This tag should not be used for claim interpretation, scope evaluation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28041" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12275" RevisionGUID="03d04c6e-b795-4ea0-8f6b-ee3670e306ed" CreationDate="2015-02-25T20:10:52.227" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 1 edit id of 1775" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12284" RevisionGUID="324cd102-441a-458c-9fdd-f996d5dec98d" CreationDate="2015-02-25T21:36:16.823" UserId="13576" Text="I am not sure about, what is counting. But the latest submission date for the conference papers was Dec. 2002. http://www.aerfai.es/media/uploads/ibpria03/homepage.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28050" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6287" RevisionGUID="8ad65960-67fd-4587-9ab6-23a9a8bbf555" CreationDate="2015-02-26T07:16:25.420" UserId="11895" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;mpep&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12287" RevisionGUID="5f3015de-9e20-4a5d-bab6-8f33cb41db62" CreationDate="2015-02-26T18:33:48.540" UserId="13578" Text="Go to USPTO PAIR: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;Type in Patent Number and run search &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check Status: If Status Says&quot;Patent Case&quot; Then it means Patent Granted &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Status:	Patented Case&#xD;&#xA;Status Date:	02-03-2010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12288" RevisionGUID="e49c47fb-8213-48b3-9ae3-682aa652a0d0" CreationDate="2015-02-26T21:11:44.423" UserId="13449" Text="I want to see if an idea can work in the **European** market, but I want to protect it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I fill a provisional patent application in Europe, and then if the idea does not work just disregard the patent and not pay the full cost?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that is the case, what is the cost of the provisional patent and for how long will it protect my product?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where can I start looking at it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28063" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12288" RevisionGUID="e49c47fb-8213-48b3-9ae3-682aa652a0d0" CreationDate="2015-02-26T21:11:44.423" UserId="13449" Text="Provisional Patent in Europe" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28064" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12288" RevisionGUID="e49c47fb-8213-48b3-9ae3-682aa652a0d0" CreationDate="2015-02-26T21:11:44.423" UserId="13449" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12289" RevisionGUID="b01e072f-3e5f-4160-bd75-2b459da8a520" CreationDate="2015-02-26T21:16:59.120" UserId="13449" Text="Can a non US citizen file a provisional patent in US? Does he need to hire an attorney or can he do it himself?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does he need to do to convert the provisional patent into a final patent? (meaning: will he need an attorney?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28066" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12289" RevisionGUID="b01e072f-3e5f-4160-bd75-2b459da8a520" CreationDate="2015-02-26T21:16:59.120" UserId="13449" Text="Provisional Patent in US for non US citizen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28067" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12289" RevisionGUID="b01e072f-3e5f-4160-bd75-2b459da8a520" CreationDate="2015-02-26T21:16:59.120" UserId="13449" Text="&lt;usa&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;attorney&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12290" RevisionGUID="52cc9ef8-c2de-43fa-8f4a-429cb292aa64" CreationDate="2015-02-26T21:44:54.420" UserId="13580" Text="So far I have gathered that one can apply for an [Unitary Patents(UP)][1] when the [Unified Patent Court (UPC)][2] comes in to existences. this will come in to existence when:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **either** on the first day of the 4th month after the deposit of the 13th instrument of ratification or accession (whereby France, Germany and the United Kingdom must be included among these 13 states),&#xD;&#xA; - **or** on the first day of the 4th month after the date of entry into force of the amendments to *Regulation (EC) 1215/2012 (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20.12.2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJEU L351/1 of  20.12.2010), including any subsequent amendments)* concerning its relationship with this Agreement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well I would like to file for such a patent yet information is scarce. So far I found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [This document on the site of the UPC][3] saying the court won't be here in 2015&#xD;&#xA; - [This site showing the number of states that have ratified this court][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, what does it all mean and when can I file for such a patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_patent&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.unified-patent-court.org&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.unified-patent-court.org/images/documents/roadmap-201409.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents-publications/agreements-conventions/agreement/?aid=2013001" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28069" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12290" RevisionGUID="52cc9ef8-c2de-43fa-8f4a-429cb292aa64" CreationDate="2015-02-26T21:44:54.420" UserId="13580" Text="When will the Unified Patent Court come into existence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28070" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12290" RevisionGUID="52cc9ef8-c2de-43fa-8f4a-429cb292aa64" CreationDate="2015-02-26T21:44:54.420" UserId="13580" Text="&lt;european&gt;&lt;unitary-patents&gt;&lt;inified-patent-court&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12292" RevisionGUID="d1533fa0-8b78-41ad-8761-f6aac898041a" CreationDate="2015-02-27T04:41:56.250" UserId="11895" Text="In Short You dont need a attorney if you are inventor of invention. All patent offices can deal with the inventor/applicant itself. Its the local address requirement which makes it harder or to require attorney (because of confidentiality). However for filing you can follow my earlier answer here [Patent filing procedure without a patent attorney](http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/6287/11895)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some relevant excerpts are:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **what if inventor or applicant is not from the USA?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the countries prohibit direct filing of patent application to foreign countries. These are called security restriction. It depends on your resident country. TO better evaluate situation inventor has to check respective country ACT and Rules before filing a patent application in foreign country. PCT has listed respective sections of some countries -- [following link][2]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **How to file a patent with the USPTO without a patent attorney?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can file patent application using [EFS-WEB][3] provided you are inventor of invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Can be a patent filed onlne?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;YES USPTO application can be filed online at [EFS-WEB][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Where can I get detailed information about the procedures and fees?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Detailed information are available on [Fee][5] &#xD;&#xA;Detailed information on filing forms and their respective formats can be found [at Link][6] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/inventors/Checklist_for_Filing_a_Nonprovisional_Utility.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/nat_sec.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/file-online&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/file-online&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payments&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12292" RevisionGUID="019d3cce-80cd-49a9-9777-187cc31275ce" CreationDate="2015-02-27T04:53:52.880" UserId="11895" Comment="added 415 characters in body" Text="In Short You dont need a attorney if you are inventor of invention. All patent offices can deal with the inventor/applicant itself. Its the local address requirement which makes it harder or to require attorney (because of confidentiality). However for filing you can follow my earlier answer here [Patent filing procedure without a patent attorney](http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/6287/11895)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some relevant excerpts are:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **what if inventor or applicant is not from the USA?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the countries prohibit direct filing of patent application to foreign countries. These are called security restriction. It depends on your resident country. TO better evaluate situation inventor has to check respective country ACT and Rules before filing a patent application in foreign country. PCT has listed respective sections of some countries -- [following link][2]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **How to file a patent with the USPTO without a patent attorney?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can file patent application using [EFS-WEB][3] provided you are inventor of invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Can be a patent filed onlne?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;YES USPTO application can be filed online at [EFS-WEB][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can open a EFS-WEB account in [USPTO online filing system][7]. This account requires you to have digital certificate which can be obtained freely from [USPTO LINK][8] also read [HELP][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Where can I get detailed information about the procedures and fees?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Detailed information are available on [Fee][5] &#xD;&#xA;Detailed information on filing forms and their respective formats can be found [at Link][6] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/inventors/Checklist_for_Filing_a_Nonprovisional_Utility.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/nat_sec.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/file-online&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/file-online&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payments&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012&#xD;&#xA;[7]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/file-online&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://dcm.uspto.gov/UserRegistration/do/Home&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/getting-started-new-users" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12287" RevisionGUID="668e5f18-994a-4841-9270-b6079e9ae388" CreationDate="2015-02-27T06:20:10.343" UserId="11895" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="For US patents please visit USPTO PAIR: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;Type in Patent Number and run search &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check Status: If Status Says&quot;Patent Case&quot; Then it means Patent Granted &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Status:	Patented Case&#xD;&#xA;Status Date:	02-03-2010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12292" RevisionGUID="fe7acca0-3c71-4d4a-8c98-974400718bf2" CreationDate="2015-02-27T06:24:16.287" UserId="11895" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="In Short You dont need a attorney if you are inventor of invention. All patent offices can deal with the inventor/applicant itself. Its the local address requirement which makes it harder or to require attorney (because of confidentiality). However for filing you can follow my earlier answer here [Patent filing procedure without a patent attorney](http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/6287/11895)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some relevant excerpts are:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **what if inventor or applicant is not from the USA?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the countries prohibit direct filing of patent application to foreign countries. These are called security restriction. It depends on your resident country. TO better evaluate situation inventor has to check respective country ACT and Rules before filing a patent application in foreign country. PCT has listed respective sections of some countries -- [following link][2]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **How to file a patent with the USPTO without a patent attorney?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can file patent application using [EFS-WEB][3] provided you are inventor of invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Can be a patent filed online?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;YES USPTO application can be filed online at [EFS-WEB][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can open a EFS-WEB account in [USPTO online filing system][7]. This account requires you to have digital certificate which can be obtained freely from [USPTO LINK][8] also read [HELP][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Where can I get detailed information about the procedures and fees?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Detailed information are available on [Fee][5] &#xD;&#xA;Detailed information on filing forms and their respective formats can be found [at Link][6] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/inventors/Checklist_for_Filing_a_Nonprovisional_Utility.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/nat_sec.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/file-online&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/file-online&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payments&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012&#xD;&#xA;[7]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/file-online&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://dcm.uspto.gov/UserRegistration/do/Home&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/getting-started-new-users" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12293" RevisionGUID="d14cfb13-d0c8-4657-aa81-3ef566fc2e37" CreationDate="2015-02-27T10:10:40.070" UserId="11895" Text="**Can I fill a provisional patent application in Europe?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EPC:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Abandon Provisional application?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EPC:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**what is the cost of the provisional patent application?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;already answered:- [Cost of patenting in Europe](http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/12162/11895)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How long it will protect my product?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If granted patent will protect your product for 20 years from date of filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Where to look?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Guide for applicants, Part 1](http://www.epo.org/applying/european/Guide-for-applicants.html): How to get a European patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Requirement of Attorney?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have your residence or principal place of business in a contracting state, you may act on your own behalf in proceedings before the EPO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have neither a residence nor your principal place of business in a contracting state, you must appoint a representative and act through him in all proceedings before the EPO other than in filing your European patent application and paying the fees. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12293" RevisionGUID="de32c5e0-3bd1-4ae7-be82-732b7a91f502" CreationDate="2015-02-27T10:19:21.840" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="you can file patent application online using EPO online. however they are require you to provide complete application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**what is the cost of the provisional patent application?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;already answered:- [Cost of patenting in Europe](http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/12162/11895)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How long it will protect my product?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If granted patent will protect your product for 20 years from date of filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Where to look?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Guide for applicants, Part 1](http://www.epo.org/applying/european/Guide-for-applicants.html): How to get a European patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Requirement of Attorney?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have your residence or principal place of business in a contracting state, you may act on your own behalf in proceedings before the EPO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have neither a residence nor your principal place of business in a contracting state, you must appoint a representative and act through him in all proceedings before the EPO other than in filing your European patent application and paying the fees. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12293" RevisionGUID="55c838e1-f156-4210-bfa8-9486dca505c2" CreationDate="2015-02-27T11:46:49.800" UserId="11895" Comment="added 459 characters in body" Text="you can file patent application online using EPO online. however they are require you to provide complete application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**what is the cost of the provisional patent application?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;already answered:- [Cost of patenting in Europe](http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/12162/11895)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If patent application has 15 claims and 35 pages then official cost for natural person will be approximately 600 EUR. see [Article 78][1], [Rule 17][2] and [Article 14(4)][3]. Time limit for providing fee is one month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How long it will protect my product?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If granted patent will protect your product for 20 years from date of filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Where to look?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Guide for applicants, Part 1](http://www.epo.org/applying/european/Guide-for-applicants.html): How to get a European patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Requirement of Attorney?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have your residence or principal place of business in a contracting state, you may act on your own behalf in proceedings before the EPO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have neither a residence nor your principal place of business in a contracting state, you must appoint a representative and act through him in all proceedings before the EPO other than in filing your European patent application and paying the fees. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/ar78.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/r17.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/ar14.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12294" RevisionGUID="6d34e0b2-a189-4387-b490-a1917932a20e" CreationDate="2015-02-27T12:00:44.303" UserId="13585" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2013093909A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013093909A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hello my name is Cristina Pellegrino. I am an engineer working at Enerplanet Ltd in Malta.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to get in contact with the Company  Or Hama Energy Ltd. or its owner.&#xD;&#xA;But it seems that a website nor contact info is available.&#xD;&#xA;Could you give me any info on the above?&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;BR" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28086" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12294" RevisionGUID="6d34e0b2-a189-4387-b490-a1917932a20e" CreationDate="2015-02-27T12:00:44.303" UserId="13585" Text="Contact information" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28087" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12294" RevisionGUID="6d34e0b2-a189-4387-b490-a1917932a20e" CreationDate="2015-02-27T12:00:44.303" UserId="13585" Text="&lt;websites&gt;&lt;public&gt;&lt;knowledge&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12295" RevisionGUID="95a03641-6f70-4f67-ae0a-771f7de09894" CreationDate="2015-02-27T12:33:15.923" UserId="11895" Text="For WIPO application Contact Details-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Go to Patent Scope (WIPO Search interface) https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Input publication number details&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. open respective patent application &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Go to Documents Tab and download Declaration; It will contain contact details &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g.&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/e6vG1.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28089" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12294" RevisionGUID="bf0947e7-b684-486b-94fc-866742d078a8" CreationDate="2015-02-27T12:34:26.020" UserId="11895" Comment="edited title" Text="Contact information of WIPO application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12294" RevisionGUID="77543ca6-9f7d-4f70-87ed-ed7bc1e38ea2" CreationDate="2015-02-27T12:46:41.920" UserId="11895" Comment="improvement in question" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2013093909A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013093909A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to get in contact with the Company  Or Hama Energy Ltd. or its owner.&#xD;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12297" RevisionGUID="a9775972-b948-4f38-9838-a785673a0f11" CreationDate="2015-02-27T17:25:13.367" UserId="13587" Text="I recently built an exit intent popup that provides users with a coupon if they provide their e-mail address. Then I found out that a company, BounceExchange, already has a granted patent on this type of behavior.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent link is here: [http://www.google.com/patents/US8160925][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8160925&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, am I infringing on their patent? It seems crazy that something that has been done for ages has been patented..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about these other sites:&#xD;&#xA;1. exitmonitor.com&#xD;&#xA;2. picreel.com&#xD;&#xA;3. getrooster.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are they also infringing on that patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28095" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12297" RevisionGUID="a9775972-b948-4f38-9838-a785673a0f11" CreationDate="2015-02-27T17:25:13.367" UserId="13587" Text="Am I infringing on this exit-intent patent if I build something similar on my own site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28096" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12297" RevisionGUID="a9775972-b948-4f38-9838-a785673a0f11" CreationDate="2015-02-27T17:25:13.367" UserId="13587" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28097" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12294" RevisionGUID="69d579ef-dc8f-4e7e-9c76-927d31e39868" CreationDate="2015-02-27T17:54:41.293" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28101" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12297" RevisionGUID="5a30b67d-adde-4110-80f9-62d13426382f" CreationDate="2015-02-27T19:52:21.263" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;us8160925&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12297" RevisionGUID="3457b588-7333-409c-96e9-7df5154fb853" CreationDate="2015-02-27T21:13:00.230" UserId="13587" Comment="edited body" Text="I recently built an exit intent popup that provides users with a coupon if they provide their e-mail address. Then I found out that a company, BounceExchange, already has a granted patent on this type of behavior.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent link is here: [http://www.google.com/patents/US8645212][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8645212&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, am I infringing on their patent? It seems crazy that something that has been done for ages has been patented..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about these other sites:&#xD;&#xA;1. exitmonitor.com&#xD;&#xA;2. picreel.com&#xD;&#xA;3. getrooster.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are they also infringing on that patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28103" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12297" RevisionGUID="3457b588-7333-409c-96e9-7df5154fb853" CreationDate="2015-02-27T21:13:00.230" UserId="13587" Comment="edited body" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;us8645212&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12298" RevisionGUID="90cf077c-4e9f-46b8-98f6-cfeae8aed129" CreationDate="2015-02-28T18:42:39.677" UserId="13588" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7036684][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7036684" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28107" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12298" RevisionGUID="90cf077c-4e9f-46b8-98f6-cfeae8aed129" CreationDate="2015-02-28T18:42:39.677" UserId="13588" Text="what is the purpose of this bottle and what industry/sector is it aimed at" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28108" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12298" RevisionGUID="90cf077c-4e9f-46b8-98f6-cfeae8aed129" CreationDate="2015-02-28T18:42:39.677" UserId="13588" Text="&lt;ibotta&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12303" RevisionGUID="7d5811d6-ab63-42a4-8075-0d65d16ce81a" CreationDate="2015-03-02T01:28:03.110" UserId="13596" Text="In reference to the patent: [USD433631][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD433631&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the patent on the idea of a label that rips in the middle of the jar? Is there any way to find out more information about this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28127" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12303" RevisionGUID="7d5811d6-ab63-42a4-8075-0d65d16ce81a" CreationDate="2015-03-02T01:28:03.110" UserId="13596" Text="What exactly is the patent on?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28128" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12303" RevisionGUID="7d5811d6-ab63-42a4-8075-0d65d16ce81a" CreationDate="2015-03-02T01:28:03.110" UserId="13596" Text="&lt;specification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28129" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12303" RevisionGUID="9691a99f-b733-42b9-ace0-ead8f712ba9c" CreationDate="2015-03-02T01:41:36.560" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;specification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12304" RevisionGUID="190ffcd1-e461-46d6-b1c0-0763cf03150f" CreationDate="2015-03-02T04:49:27.787" UserId="11895" Text="Design Patent Claims:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ornamental design for a peanut butter jar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in my opinion It has something to do with opening of Jar with tear strip seal if it has been opened label will rip off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to search inventor in Google but nothing extra ordinary came up. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12305" RevisionGUID="4f89d012-ad77-4462-9110-cbc77b1026c1" CreationDate="2015-03-02T04:56:04.530" UserId="11895" Text="In accordance with Description one of the intended use is:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The function of displaying ingredients for marketing purposes, as well&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as the containment and dispersal of the ingredients is thus met in a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; simple unified bottle design achieving great functional and aesthetic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; appeal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simple google search states it has to be used in food industry, sauce bottle, Jams and like" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12294" RevisionGUID="a1819597-b0b4-49f8-8118-72d20a90a79b" CreationDate="2015-03-02T06:05:03.187" UserId="10011" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2013093909A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013093909A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to get in contact with the Company or Hama Energy Ltd. or its owner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5059/how-can-i-contact-the-owner-of-a-patent, but it applies only to United States patents. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28134" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12294" RevisionGUID="a1819597-b0b4-49f8-8118-72d20a90a79b" CreationDate="2015-03-02T06:05:03.187" UserId="10011" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="How do I contact the owner of a WIPO applications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28135" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="12294" RevisionGUID="9d48d3a3-6629-4c52-9851-4ae8686d33d6" CreationDate="2015-03-02T06:05:03.443" UserId="10011" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:11895,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Pushpak&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12306" RevisionGUID="e0c824ef-0e8b-4771-b763-cc07961acc16" CreationDate="2015-03-02T08:49:20.957" UserId="11895" Text="Espacenet doesnot provide search interface for legal representative filed applications. However PAID databases like Orbit, Thomson Reutors total patents etc provide such services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further if you wish you can search in WIPO search as they provide search for patent applications filed by legal representative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Z5oh4.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12307" RevisionGUID="89bc4c32-d957-4ff9-9054-4ebcbb164ea9" CreationDate="2015-03-02T09:21:56.323" UserId="13600" Text="I would like help finding prior art for WO2014027990 A1 http://www.google.com/patents/WO2014027990A1?cl=en, please.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent &quot;Performance tests in a continuous deployment pipeline&quot; by some employees of HP (filed Aug 13 2012, published Feb 20, 2014) describes how to establish automated performance testing in a deployment pipeline, which is an approach I was first aware of in 2008 when working with Dave Farley. In July 2010 Dave Farley and Jez Humble published the book &quot;Continuous Delivery&quot; which described in detail how to create an automated pipeline including automated latency, throughput, and soak testing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I consider the patent to be without merit and am looking for help in finding prior art other than the &quot;Continuous Delivery&quot; book, preferably pre-2010 and certainly pre-2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28138" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12307" RevisionGUID="89bc4c32-d957-4ff9-9054-4ebcbb164ea9" CreationDate="2015-03-02T09:21:56.323" UserId="13600" Text="Find prior art for WO2014027990 A1 &quot;Performance tests in a continuous deployment pipeline&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28139" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12307" RevisionGUID="89bc4c32-d957-4ff9-9054-4ebcbb164ea9" CreationDate="2015-03-02T09:21:56.323" UserId="13600" Text="&lt;continuous&gt;&lt;delivery&gt;&lt;pipeline&gt;&lt;performance&gt;&lt;testing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12307" RevisionGUID="a3caab15-108f-4922-8f9e-abb9e3bbf3ad" CreationDate="2015-03-02T09:27:45.803" UserId="13600" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I would like help finding prior art for WO2014027990 A1 http://www.google.com/patents/WO2014027990A1?cl=en, please.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent &quot;Performance tests in a continuous deployment pipeline&quot; by some employees of HP (filed Aug 13 2012, published Feb 20, 2014) describes how to establish automated performance testing in a deployment pipeline, which is an approach I was first aware of in 2008 when working with Dave Farley. In July 2010 Dave Farley and Jez Humble published the book &quot;Continuous Delivery&quot; which described in detail how to create an automated pipeline including automated latency, throughput, and soak testing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I consider the patent to be without merit and am looking for help in finding prior art from the &quot;Continuous Delivery&quot; book and/or prior to book publication, preferably pre-2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12308" RevisionGUID="6145ec0c-21b2-4837-b14e-bb94cdecc7d1" CreationDate="2015-03-02T09:39:29.163" UserId="13600" Text="My own answer is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;Continuous Delivery&quot; book by Dave Farley and Jez Humble published 27 July 2010 describes in detail performance testing in a Continuous Delivery pipeline. The publication date is 2 years prior to patent filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0321601912&#xD;&#xA;Name: Continuous Delivery&#xD;&#xA;Authors: Dave Farley and Jez Humble&#xD;&#xA;Publisher: Addison Wesley; 1 edition (27 July 2010)&#xD;&#xA;Language: English&#xD;&#xA;ISBN-10: 0321601912&#xD;&#xA;ISBN-13: 978-0321601919&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chapter 9: &quot;Testing Nonfunctional Requirements&quot; (pages 225-248) contains the following subsections:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &quot;The Capacity Testing Environment&quot; - describes how to create an environment for testing performance requirements, such as latency and throughput expectations&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;Automating Capacity Testing&quot; - describes how to automate that performance testing process&#xD;&#xA; 3. &quot;Adding Capacity Tests To The Deployment Pipeline&quot; - describes how to configure a deployment pipeline such that performance testing is an automated testing stage pre-production, with performance results compared against an expected threshold to determine success&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that &quot;continuous delivery pipeline&quot; and &quot;continuous deployment pipeline&quot; are synonyms, as are &quot;performance testing&quot; and &quot;capacity testing&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28142" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12307" RevisionGUID="3a362fab-0ac8-4b72-baf7-becb038e07e9" CreationDate="2015-03-02T09:41:44.993" UserId="13600" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;continuous&gt;&lt;delivery&gt;&lt;performance&gt;&lt;pipeline&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28143" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12307" RevisionGUID="1c39cd18-9a69-49be-9c62-8e9277b762e9" CreationDate="2015-03-02T09:48:58.457" UserId="11895" Comment="edited title" Text="Prior art request for WO2014027990 &quot;Performance tests in a continuous deployment pipeline&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28145" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12307" RevisionGUID="ba50822a-9839-45c6-952b-656dab40524e" CreationDate="2015-03-02T10:30:33.420" UserId="13600" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;continuous&gt;&lt;delivery&gt;&lt;performance&gt;&lt;wo2014027990a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12308" RevisionGUID="1127124f-06af-4f35-a046-b8b2667beb61" CreationDate="2015-03-02T13:51:02.820" UserId="13600" Comment="added 270 characters in body" Text="My own answer is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;Continuous Delivery&quot; book by Dave Farley and Jez Humble published 27 July 2010 describes in detail performance testing in a Continuous Delivery pipeline. The publication date is 2 years prior to patent filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0321601912&#xD;&#xA;Name: Continuous Delivery&#xD;&#xA;Authors: Dave Farley and Jez Humble&#xD;&#xA;Publisher: Addison Wesley; 1 edition (27 July 2010)&#xD;&#xA;Language: English&#xD;&#xA;ISBN-10: 0321601912&#xD;&#xA;ISBN-13: 978-0321601919&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chapter 9: &quot;Testing Nonfunctional Requirements&quot; (pages 225-248) contains the following subsections:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &quot;The Capacity Testing Environment&quot; - describes how to create an environment for testing performance requirements, such as latency and throughput expectations&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;Automating Capacity Testing&quot; - describes how to automate that performance testing process&#xD;&#xA; 3. &quot;Adding Capacity Tests To The Deployment Pipeline&quot; - describes how to configure a deployment pipeline such that performance testing is an automated testing stage pre-production, with performance results compared against an expected threshold to determine success&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that &quot;continuous delivery pipeline&quot; and &quot;continuous deployment pipeline&quot; are synonyms, as are &quot;performance testing&quot; and &quot;capacity testing&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: A 2007 paper from ThoughtWorks Studios by Dave Farley called &quot;The Deployment Pipeline&quot; refers to performance testing in a Continuous Delivery pipeline. See http://continuousdelivery.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/The-Deployment-Pipeline-by-Dave-Farley-2007.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12310" RevisionGUID="ad5af74f-34d8-4157-9459-e72ea36b240a" CreationDate="2015-03-02T13:53:33.580" UserId="13605" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2013115797A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent from Hewlett-Packard relates to automatically running a set of tests against a &quot;plurality of code changes&quot; to determine &quot;the failed code change&quot; by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;removing at least one of the plurality of code changes from the subset each time the subset fails the set of tests&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;management tool&quot; claim reads like the use of a Continuous Integration tool, e.g. CruiseControl available since 2001.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;decision engine&quot; claim reads like the use of &quot;**git bisect run**&quot;, available since at least 2007, possibly earlier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earliest article I can find on the web about the use of git-bisect's &quot;run&quot; feature is &quot;[An introduction to the git bisect feature][2]&quot; by [Nicolas Trangez][3], published in August 2007, an excerpt of which is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No[w] the magic can start:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; $ git-bisect run ./testcase.sh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; running ./testcase.sh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; d6514e8d9fe55827fe78d650548d948a4647fc50 is first bad commit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bisect run success&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exactly, like it should, it figured out commit 16 [...] broke our application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have examples of &quot;git bisect run&quot; (or similar) used in an automated manner, perhaps as part of a continuous integration/delivery tool, prior to 2012?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013115797A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.eikke.com/index.php/ikke/2007/08/09/an_introduction_to_the_git_bisect_featur.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://stackoverflow.com/users/1285443/nicolas-trangez" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28149" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12310" RevisionGUID="ad5af74f-34d8-4157-9459-e72ea36b240a" CreationDate="2015-03-02T13:53:33.580" UserId="13605" Text="Prior art request for WO2013115797A1 &quot;Identifcation of a failed code change&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28150" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12310" RevisionGUID="ad5af74f-34d8-4157-9459-e72ea36b240a" CreationDate="2015-03-02T13:53:33.580" UserId="13605" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;wo2013115797a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12311" RevisionGUID="de46b55f-f61d-4926-8de5-001ba89d1c21" CreationDate="2015-03-02T15:07:41.527" UserId="13608" Text="Here's a video from 2011 of Chuck Rossi describing how they do exactly this at Facebook: http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/30/facebook-source-code/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12310" RevisionGUID="7820b0ac-21ca-4909-8272-a7a6531a05a2" CreationDate="2015-03-02T16:45:46.113" UserId="13605" Comment="Added [sic] after misspelt word in patent title. Added link to 2009 Atlassian blog entry." Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2013115797A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent from Hewlett-Packard relates to automatically running a set of tests against a &quot;plurality of code changes&quot; to determine &quot;the failed code change&quot; by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;removing at least one of the plurality of code changes from the subset each time the subset fails the set of tests&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;management tool&quot; claim reads like the use of a Continuous Integration tool, e.g. CruiseControl available since 2001.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;decision engine&quot; claim reads like the use of **`git bisect run`**, available since at least 2007, possibly earlier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earliest article I can find on the web about the use of `git-bisect`'s `run` feature is &quot;[An introduction to the git bisect feature][2]&quot; by [Nicolas Trangez][3], published in August 2007, an excerpt of which is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No[w] the magic can start:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; $ git-bisect run ./testcase.sh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; running ./testcase.sh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; d6514e8d9fe55827fe78d650548d948a4647fc50 is first bad commit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bisect run success&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exactly, like it should, it figured out commit 16 [...] broke our application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2009, Atlassian's Justus Pendleton [blogged about][4] using `git bisect run`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have examples of `git bisect run` (or similar) used in an automated manner, perhaps as part of a continuous integration/delivery tool, prior to 2012?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013115797A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.eikke.com/index.php/ikke/2007/08/09/an_introduction_to_the_git_bisect_featur.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://stackoverflow.com/users/1285443/nicolas-trangez&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://blogs.atlassian.com/2009/01/git_bisect/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28154" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12310" RevisionGUID="7820b0ac-21ca-4909-8272-a7a6531a05a2" CreationDate="2015-03-02T16:45:46.113" UserId="13605" Comment="Added [sic] after misspelt word in patent title. Added link to 2009 Atlassian blog entry." Text="Prior art request for WO2013115797A1 &quot;Identifcation [sic] of a failed code change&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12314" RevisionGUID="5e22a130-b1aa-4f4e-8a92-0288344006e9" CreationDate="2015-03-02T19:55:28.727" UserId="13522" Text="On the grant / rejection rate, [The Register][1] gave these figures for the EPO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The total number of filings grew by 3.1 per cent in 2014 to more than&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 274,000, of which 64,600 patents were granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which implies 76% have either been rejected, or are still under consideration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/27/samsung_goes_inventioncrazy_files_more_patents_than_anyone_else_in_the_eu_again/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12290" RevisionGUID="f6339c39-41d6-415a-8cf6-bacdb44b00a9" CreationDate="2015-03-02T21:54:27.333" UserId="13580" Comment=" put EU in title" Text="So far I have gathered that one can apply for an [Unitary Patents(UP)][1] when the [Unified Patent Court (UPC)][2] comes into existences. This will come into existence when:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **either** on the first day of the 4th month after the deposit of the 13th instrument of ratification or accession (whereby France, Germany and the United Kingdom must be included among these 13 states),&#xD;&#xA; - **or** on the first day of the 4th month after the date of entry into force of the amendments to *Regulation (EC) 1215/2012 (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20.12.2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJEU L351/1 of  20.12.2010), including any subsequent amendments)* concerning its relationship with this Agreement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well I would like to file for such a patent yet information is scarce. So far I found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [This document on the site of the UPC][3] saying the court won't be here in 2015&#xD;&#xA; - [This site showing the number of states that have ratified this court][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, what does it all mean and when can I file for such a patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_patent&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.unified-patent-court.org&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.unified-patent-court.org/images/documents/roadmap-201409.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents-publications/agreements-conventions/agreement/?aid=2013001" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28161" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12290" RevisionGUID="f6339c39-41d6-415a-8cf6-bacdb44b00a9" CreationDate="2015-03-02T21:54:27.333" UserId="13580" Comment=" put EU in title" Text="When will the EU Unified Patent Court come into existence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12315" RevisionGUID="fbd7de62-baa8-4762-878e-08f4e2d2f368" CreationDate="2015-03-03T00:34:03.483" UserId="13613" Text="The Phoronix Test Suite has offered automated bisect support using Git in an automated manner since 2008~2009. Some of the details via http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&amp;item=linux_perf_regressions&amp;num=1 among other articles." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12307" RevisionGUID="946e4663-fc04-4a00-968b-4a14721aeb3f" CreationDate="2015-03-03T03:54:20.540" UserId="13614" Comment="Pre-grant request, removed unnecessary tags, also linked up the text correctly." Text="I would like help finding prior art for [WO2014027990 A1](http://www.google.com/patents/WO2014027990A1), please.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent &quot;Performance tests in a continuous deployment pipeline&quot; by some employees of HP (filed Aug 13 2012, published Feb 20, 2014) describes how to establish automated performance testing in a deployment pipeline, which is an approach I was first aware of in 2008 when working with Dave Farley. In July 2010 Dave Farley and Jez Humble published the book &quot;Continuous Delivery&quot; which described in detail how to create an automated pipeline including automated latency, throughput, and soak testing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I consider the patent to be without merit and am looking for help in finding prior art from the &quot;Continuous Delivery&quot; book and/or prior to book publication, preferably pre-2012." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28166" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12307" RevisionGUID="946e4663-fc04-4a00-968b-4a14721aeb3f" CreationDate="2015-03-03T03:54:20.540" UserId="13614" Comment="Pre-grant request, removed unnecessary tags, also linked up the text correctly." Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;wo2014027990a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28167" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12307" RevisionGUID="946e4663-fc04-4a00-968b-4a14721aeb3f" CreationDate="2015-03-03T03:54:20.540" Comment="Proposed by 13614 approved by 10011 edit id of 1779" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28168" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4757" RevisionGUID="3c3a927e-99e7-457b-add2-fff6dc5b432c" CreationDate="2015-03-03T08:07:21.007" UserId="11895" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;us7222078&gt;&lt;lodsys&gt;&lt;expiry&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12317" RevisionGUID="6b9f063d-963b-43f9-b9c7-c65e9170427c" CreationDate="2015-03-03T09:51:13.977" UserId="13233" Text="As George points out, this is merely a published application.  It has not yet been examined or allowed.  For what it's worth, the inventor is an Indian national.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are concerned about its allowance, I recommend you work with one of the organizations that is dedicated to protecting indigenous knowledge and file a statement with the Patent Office.  They accept third party information.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12318" RevisionGUID="a56c77af-c55d-47cf-a29f-f54eeda44f72" CreationDate="2015-03-03T09:57:34.627" UserId="13233" Text="On the Google Patent page, on the right hand side you can see &quot;Also published as.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This shows what other forms of this application have been published.  This case has been published in the European Patent Office, as an A1, meaning pending application.  That means it has not been filed outside the European Patent Office, otherwise there would also be a listing for example for Japan, the US, or India.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The classification (A1, B, C, etc.) can be found here: http://www.thomsonfilehistories.com/docs/RESOURCES_Kind%20Codes%20by%20Country.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally As are applications, Bs are patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So no, this application has not yet issued.  In fact, checking on the EPO site, it has been withdrawn:  http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=EP&amp;NR=1824719A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=4&amp;date=20070829&amp;DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&amp;locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	Event date : 	2012/11/14&#xD;&#xA;  	Event code : 	18D&#xD;&#xA;  	Code Expl.: 	-   DEEMED TO BE WITHDRAWN&#xD;&#xA;  	EFFECTIVE DATE : 	20120524&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, no patent will issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12319" RevisionGUID="850bbb42-89b4-41d5-ae85-481536a09b58" CreationDate="2015-03-03T11:07:30.160" UserId="11895" Text="&gt; How can i go about filing a complaint?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use EFS -WEB public submission for prior art to raise objection against it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[EFS-WEB Unregistered filer][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://efs.uspto.gov/EFSWebUIUnregistered/EFSWebUnregistered&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ZcES1.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10699" RevisionGUID="d855ba44-39f6-4e4a-928d-11815190fd7f" CreationDate="2015-03-03T11:10:05.473" UserId="11895" Comment="added 88 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Reference to [US20140134731][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the Patents office is slipshod or very keen on encouraging pirating and patenting of indigenous knowledge. There is NOTHING unique or special requiring any exercise of intelligence in saying Clerodendrum viscosum is used in India extensively to treat a method for treating cervical cancer and is used extensively in Ayurveda. These are well known facts. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerodendrum_infortunatum#Ayurvedic_and_Siddha_medicines, http://www.toxicologycentre.com/english/plants/Botanical/perigalam.html and many other resources that I was able to find by the simple act of googling. Is the patenting of traditional knowledge allowed when it is in use extensively. This is against Indian law also. This is an illegal act and should be rescinded forthwith.&#xD;&#xA;This sort of incompetent action can lead to international conflict in patents and US strong arm methods may not work any more in this field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;will the patent office notice this fact and rescind the patent? How can i go about filing a complaint?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.co.in/patents/US20140134731" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28176" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10699" RevisionGUID="d855ba44-39f6-4e4a-928d-11815190fd7f" CreationDate="2015-03-03T11:10:05.473" UserId="11895" Comment="added 88 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Submitting prior art against US patent application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28177" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10699" RevisionGUID="d855ba44-39f6-4e4a-928d-11815190fd7f" CreationDate="2015-03-03T11:10:05.473" UserId="11895" Comment="added 88 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;indigenous&gt;&lt;us20140134731&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12320" RevisionGUID="72f4068d-7f62-49b5-b892-906bad43c27a" CreationDate="2015-03-03T11:55:18.900" UserId="13617" Text="We (Dynatrace) have been talking and doing this for years. Back in 2010 we published the following blog post showing how we do this internally: http://apmblog.dynatrace.com/2010/01/27/eating-our-own-dog-food-how-dynatrace-does-continuous-apm-internally-in-development-with-dynatrace-ta-lead-stefan-frandl/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also implemented specific features in our product that automatically takes performance and unit test KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) and measures them per build. We also baseline these metrics and alert in case there is a degradation in one of these measures&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this is useful input for you&#xD;&#xA;Andi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12320" RevisionGUID="ac7a10f7-19e4-4eb5-9dc6-b64464545e55" CreationDate="2015-03-03T11:59:36.920" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 39 characters in body" Text="We (Dynatrace) have been talking and doing this for years. Back in 2010 we published the following blog post showing how we do this internally: http://apmblog.dynatrace.com/2010/01/27/eating-our-own-dog-food-how-dynatrace-does-continuous-apm-internally-in-development-with-dynatrace-ta-lead-stefan-frandl/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also implemented specific features in our product that automatically takes performance and unit test KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) and measures them per build. We also baseline these metrics and alert in case there is a degradation in one of these measures&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12321" RevisionGUID="50e1264a-6f77-4fcf-896f-688018ec7121" CreationDate="2015-03-03T13:37:48.360" UserId="13618" Text="As early as 2007 this was common practice on projects at ThoughtWorks, where both, Jez and Dave, worked at the time. One example we talked about publicly is the project to rebuild the Guardian website, guardian.co.uk back then, theguardian.com now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an interview with Software Engineering Radio, published in May 2008, Mat Wall and I describe the exact technique of including performance tests in a build pipeline. At 39:28 I say &quot;The build pipeline in the case of the Guardian project, of course, continues; with the performance test.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later on in the same interview the host, Markus Völter, remarks that the Eclipse team is using a similar technique.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interview can be found here: http://www.se-radio.net/2008/05/episode-95-the-new-guardian-co-uk-website-with-matt-wall-and-erik-doernenburg/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12322" RevisionGUID="6365d3fa-168b-4363-86da-40374944aed6" CreationDate="2015-03-03T18:11:53.683" UserId="13621" Text="In reference to the patent: [USD563530][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD563530&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just trying to do some more research into this product and see what else is available out there. Thanks!!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28183" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12322" RevisionGUID="6365d3fa-168b-4363-86da-40374944aed6" CreationDate="2015-03-03T18:11:53.683" UserId="13621" Text="Is there an ornamental patent that goes along with this product or only a design patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28184" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12322" RevisionGUID="6365d3fa-168b-4363-86da-40374944aed6" CreationDate="2015-03-03T18:11:53.683" UserId="13621" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12322" RevisionGUID="deb1df64-8bff-4bf7-b445-f462dab9bc5b" CreationDate="2015-03-03T19:06:18.517" UserId="10011" Comment="added 96 characters in body; edited title" Text="In reference to the patent: [USD563530][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've come across this patent, and I'd like to find out what other patents are on this product. Specifically, I'd like to find any design patents that relate to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How might I be able to find those?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD563530" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28186" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12322" RevisionGUID="deb1df64-8bff-4bf7-b445-f462dab9bc5b" CreationDate="2015-03-03T19:06:18.517" UserId="10011" Comment="added 96 characters in body; edited title" Text="How can I determine what other patents are on a product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12323" RevisionGUID="d4a14dbc-8214-4ac8-9f41-d1b4bd488a4b" CreationDate="2015-03-03T19:46:19.170" UserId="13623" Text="In reference to the patent: [USD259587][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD259587&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hello. I was wondering if there was any way I could figure out the current legal ownership status of this patent? Thank you! Any and all help is appreciated. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28188" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12323" RevisionGUID="d4a14dbc-8214-4ac8-9f41-d1b4bd488a4b" CreationDate="2015-03-03T19:46:19.170" UserId="13623" Text="Ownership of patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28189" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12323" RevisionGUID="d4a14dbc-8214-4ac8-9f41-d1b4bd488a4b" CreationDate="2015-03-03T19:46:19.170" UserId="13623" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12324" RevisionGUID="faa4edbf-73a1-401a-a4f8-f91f37230caa" CreationDate="2015-03-04T02:11:53.570" UserId="13233" Text="    Publication number	USD259587 S&#xD;&#xA;    Publication type	Grant&#xD;&#xA;    Application number	US 06/001,968&#xD;&#xA;    Publication date	Jun 16, 1981&#xD;&#xA;    Filing date	Jan 8, 1979&#xD;&#xA;    Inventors	Philip E. Jergenson&#xD;&#xA;    Original Assignee	Proto Plant Inc.&#xD;&#xA;    Export Citation	BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent is long expired.  It is a design patent, which are only valid for 14 years, and it issued in 1981.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was owned by Proto Plant, Inc. as can be seen at the link at Google Patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12325" RevisionGUID="f1a4858b-14e5-4f5a-bff9-8c9f3d5b211c" CreationDate="2015-03-04T02:15:54.417" UserId="13233" Text="The patent you linked is a design patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is two ways to find out what patents cover a product.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  You can rely on marking (hoping the patent owner includes the patent numbers on the product), or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  You can search for the patent.  In this case, I would recommend searching for the inventor &amp; assignee combination on this patent, to see if there are other patents covering the same invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12326" RevisionGUID="434e06df-ee1a-4b36-ae46-30d4cb8e4666" CreationDate="2015-03-04T02:18:33.577" UserId="13233" Text="This is a design patent, so it's a patent that protects the appearance of this &quot;peanut butter jar&quot; with a tear-off strip in the middle.  It doesn't protect a label that rips in the middle of the jar, because that's not what is illustrated.  And what is protected is exactly what is shown in the figures." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12323" RevisionGUID="afcd6641-890d-4a14-8b6f-710f8e350b22" CreationDate="2015-03-04T04:34:29.450" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 93 characters in body; edited title" Text="In reference to the patent: [USD259587][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD259587&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ways to figure out the current legal ownership status of patent? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28199" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12323" RevisionGUID="afcd6641-890d-4a14-8b6f-710f8e350b22" CreationDate="2015-03-04T04:34:29.450" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 93 characters in body; edited title" Text="How to Find current Ownership of a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12328" RevisionGUID="4bee626c-3072-4008-9588-8352bad71a55" CreationDate="2015-03-04T04:51:07.663" UserId="11895" Text="In addition to Judith reply There are few easy way to find related applications:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. From applicant reference:- generally applicant itself cite patent application number in their utility patent. &#xD;&#xA;therefore by using forward citation you can get some of the application&#xD;&#xA;2. researching on priority data:- since this patent itself cite french application you can research over it and get related application&#xD;&#xA;3. rely on family patent indexing on ESPACENET.&#xD;&#xA;4. view all examiner cited application as he thinks they are related to subject patent.&#xD;&#xA;5. research on inventor and applicant in patent databases&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12328" RevisionGUID="a1df4133-5cc5-4d10-b466-a10c3dd5f684" CreationDate="2015-03-04T05:03:05.010" UserId="11895" Comment="added 574 characters in body" Text="In addition to Judith reply There are few easy way to find related applications:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. From applicant reference:- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. generally applicant itself cite patent application number in their utility patent, therefore by using forward citation you can get some of the application. &#xD;&#xA;B. viewing Patent Register of application (USPTO PAIR)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example they cite [US6561549][2] patent in one of their PAIR submissions. Further you can extend same approach to this utility patent and get its family. ([14 applications][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. researching on priority data:- since this patent itself cite french application you can research over it and get related application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. rely on family patent indexing on ESPACENET. See [Find family memeber](http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/12153/11895)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example this patent was also listed in Canada [CA99099][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. view all examiner cited application as he thinks they are related to subject patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. research on inventor and applicant in patent databases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?CC=US&amp;NR=6561549B1&amp;KC=B1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=3&amp;date=20030513&amp;DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&amp;locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6561549&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/CA99099" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12329" RevisionGUID="5d2c4f28-db30-4bbc-a264-815db6378601" CreationDate="2015-03-04T05:46:27.060" UserId="11895" Text="Patents are rights which can be transferred from one entity to another. After assignment of such rights its important to notify patent office about such assignments. for US Patent these assignments are listed in [Assignment database][1]. you are recommended to read help on [how to search][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way to find such information is to look into [PUBLIC PAIR][3] assignment Tab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Go to Public Pair: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA; 2. Input the Patent Number, Publication Number, or Application Number. You probably won't be searching by PCT Number or Control Number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for example this patent application PAIR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DRAWBACK:- Sometime reporting of assignment is not done then such changes wont be listed in database. In such case your best bet will be News or paid databases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://assignment.uspto.gov/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://assignment.uspto.gov/#/about&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/MIoeJ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12328" RevisionGUID="83aac510-c472-4a80-8b05-cece7070403c" CreationDate="2015-03-04T05:48:56.657" UserId="11895" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In addition to Judith reply There are few easy way to find related applications:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. From applicant reference:- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. generally applicant itself cite patent application number in their utility patent, therefore by using forward citation you can get some of the application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B. viewing Patent Register of application (USPTO PAIR)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example they cite [US6561549][2] patent in one of their PAIR submissions. Further you can extend same approach to this utility patent and get its family. ([14 applications][1]). DO forward citation and Backward citation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. researching on priority data:- since this patent itself cite french application you can research over it and get related application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. rely on family patent indexing on ESPACENET. See [Find family memeber](http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/12153/11895)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example this patent was also listed in Canada [CA99099][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. view all examiner cited application as he thinks they are related to subject patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. research on inventor and applicant in patent databases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?CC=US&amp;NR=6561549B1&amp;KC=B1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=3&amp;date=20030513&amp;DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&amp;locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6561549&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/CA99099" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28204" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12323" RevisionGUID="29018d31-8978-4ac7-b13a-6aa691c6546a" CreationDate="2015-03-04T07:15:27.660" UserId="11895" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;assignment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12330" RevisionGUID="ce6b36a1-0be8-4ec5-a4c7-f944970126c5" CreationDate="2015-03-04T08:36:28.363" UserId="13631" Text="Here's a DrDobb's article from 2008 talking about adding performance testing into a Continuous Integration environment: http://www.drdobbs.com/tools/continuous-integration-and-performance-t" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12330" RevisionGUID="bb47bab3-e2b5-4924-b19a-0d288e356047" CreationDate="2015-03-04T09:01:19.717" UserId="11895" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Here's a DrDobb's article from 2008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Talking about adding performance testing into a Continuous Integration environment: http://www.drdobbs.com/tools/continuous-integration-and-performance-t" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12331" RevisionGUID="fcc26597-e7d1-42c2-92dd-8fc2375d5b9a" CreationDate="2015-03-04T10:09:40.623" UserId="11895" Text="These arts are already know for application:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. [US20100005341][1] Automatic detection and notification of test regression with automatic on-demand capture of profiles for regression analysis &#xD;&#xA; 2. [US20080270998][2] Application integration testing &#xD;&#xA; 3. [US20100103839][3] Testing of Transmitters for Communication Links by Software Simulation of Reference Channel and/or Reference Receiver&#xD;&#xA; 4. [US20060146318][4] Method and apparatus for self-testing of test equipment &#xD;&#xA; 5. [KR101166128][5] SOFTWARE TESTING DEVICE AND METHOD THEREOF  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20100005341&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20080270998&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20100103839&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20060146318&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&amp;II=0&amp;ND=3&amp;adjacent=true&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;FT=D&amp;date=20120723&amp;CC=KR&amp;NR=101166128B1&amp;KC=B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12330" RevisionGUID="392b2f87-6c9e-47f3-9ab9-98e8bb7b84db" CreationDate="2015-03-04T11:12:40.033" UserId="13605" Comment="Correct URL, was truncated" Text="Here's a DrDobb's article from 2008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Talking about adding performance testing into a Continuous Integration environment: http://www.drdobbs.com/tools/continuous-integration-and-performance-t/206105978" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28209" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12330" RevisionGUID="392b2f87-6c9e-47f3-9ab9-98e8bb7b84db" CreationDate="2015-03-04T11:12:40.033" Comment="Proposed by 13605 approved by -1 edit id of 1780" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12330" RevisionGUID="d49f0e3f-9ac4-49b0-bb07-19743d7822e8" CreationDate="2015-03-04T11:12:40.033" UserId="11895" Comment="Correct URL, was truncated" Text="Here's a DrDobb's article from 2008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Talking about adding performance testing into a Continuous Integration environment: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Continuous Integration and Performance Testing][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.drdobbs.com/tools/continuous-integration-and-performance-t/206105978" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12321" RevisionGUID="69c79c5f-c794-4bd3-814e-acfb8ff888dc" CreationDate="2015-03-04T11:16:28.640" UserId="11895" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="As early as 2007 this was common practice on projects at ThoughtWorks, where both, Jez and Dave, worked at the time. One example we talked about publicly is the project to rebuild the Guardian website, guardian.co.uk back then, theguardian.com now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an interview with Software Engineering Radio, published in May 2008, Mat Wall and I describe the exact technique of including performance tests in a build pipeline. At 39:28 I say &quot;The build pipeline in the case of the Guardian project, of course, continues; with the performance test.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later on in the same interview the host, Markus Völter, remarks that the Eclipse team is using a similar technique.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interview can be found here:&#xD;&#xA;[Episode 95: The New Guardian.co.uk website with Matt Wall and Erik DoernenBurg][1]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.se-radio.net/2008/05/episode-95-the-new-guardian-co-uk-website-with-matt-wall-and-erik-doernenburg/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12320" RevisionGUID="c70cbab9-2927-4c5e-ac31-a96961c38839" CreationDate="2015-03-04T11:17:24.327" UserId="11895" Comment="added 141 characters in body" Text="We (Dynatrace) have been talking and doing this for years. Back in 2010 we published the following blog post showing how we do this internally: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Eating Our Own Dog Food: How dynaTrace does Continuous APM Internally in Development with dynaTrace TA Lead Stefan Frandl][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also implemented specific features in our product that automatically takes performance and unit test KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) and measures them per build. We also baseline these metrics and alert in case there is a degradation in one of these measures&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://apmblog.dynatrace.com/2010/01/27/eating-our-own-dog-food-how-dynatrace-does-continuous-apm-internally-in-development-with-dynatrace-ta-lead-stefan-frandl/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12332" RevisionGUID="c25ed737-b631-4a5b-ba17-d9940ebe7766" CreationDate="2015-03-04T15:55:44.487" UserId="13635" Text="Jez, Dan and myself published a paper at the Agile 2006 conference that covered this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://chrisread.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/deployment_production_line.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12333" RevisionGUID="d4ca72f6-8d47-4190-b2d0-9bef04e80965" CreationDate="2015-03-04T17:14:58.353" UserId="13639" Text="In my web article on Continuous Integration I mention staged build / build pipeline and that you can use that to introduce performance testing into the regular build process. That first appeared when I revised the article in May 2006" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12334" RevisionGUID="dbd403c0-353d-4f18-beaf-4c87390da538" CreationDate="2015-03-04T17:38:00.897" UserId="13640" Text="Note that I can't take credit - these are links sent to me by Jack Shirazi (author of Java Performance Tuning) when I asked him about prior art in this area. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IBM (2003) describes the procedure, but for performance tuning prior to deployment, not for comparisons across deployments in their Enterprise Java Performance: Best Practices p35 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.13.1040&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BEA in 2005 http://www.oracle.com/au/products/database/performance-testing-095962.html &#xD;&#xA;&quot; It is always a good idea to run a series of baseline tests first to establish a known, controlled environment to compare your changes with later. &quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12332" RevisionGUID="bd9bf3c1-cf65-4c3c-bec8-81728894b44d" CreationDate="2015-03-04T17:46:50.790" UserId="11895" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="Jez, Dan and myself published a paper at the Agile 2006 conference that covered this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Deployment Production Line - Continuous Delivery][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chrisread.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/deployment_production_line.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12331" RevisionGUID="1353d562-d006-42e3-a94a-b75bdabbd130" CreationDate="2015-03-04T17:56:12.153" UserId="11895" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="These arts are already known for application:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. [US20100005341][1] Automatic detection and notification of test regression with automatic on-demand capture of profiles for regression analysis &#xD;&#xA; 2. [US20080270998][2] Application integration testing &#xD;&#xA; 3. [US20100103839][3] Testing of Transmitters for Communication Links by Software Simulation of Reference Channel and/or Reference Receiver&#xD;&#xA; 4. [US20060146318][4] Method and apparatus for self-testing of test equipment &#xD;&#xA; 5. [KR101166128][5] SOFTWARE TESTING DEVICE AND METHOD THEREOF  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20100005341&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20080270998&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20100103839&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20060146318&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&amp;II=0&amp;ND=3&amp;adjacent=true&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;FT=D&amp;date=20120723&amp;CC=KR&amp;NR=101166128B1&amp;KC=B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12310" RevisionGUID="b33323f5-6adf-49dc-a5ef-a338cbd26a41" CreationDate="2015-03-04T18:45:43.600" UserId="13605" Comment="Add mozregression, an example of prior art from ~2010." Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2013115797A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent from Hewlett-Packard relates to automatically running a set of tests against a &quot;plurality of code changes&quot; to determine &quot;the failed code change&quot; by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;removing at least one of the plurality of code changes from the subset each time the subset fails the set of tests&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;management tool&quot; claim reads like the use of a Continuous Integration tool, e.g. CruiseControl available since 2001.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;decision engine&quot; claim reads like the use of **`git bisect run`**, available since at least 2007, possibly earlier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earliest article I can find on the web about the use of `git-bisect`'s `run` feature is &quot;[An introduction to the git bisect feature][2]&quot; by [Nicolas Trangez][3], published in August 2007, an excerpt of which is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No[w] the magic can start:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; $ git-bisect run ./testcase.sh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; running ./testcase.sh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; d6514e8d9fe55827fe78d650548d948a4647fc50 is first bad commit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bisect run success&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exactly, like it should, it figured out commit 16 [...] broke our application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2009, Atlassian's Justus Pendleton [blogged about][4] using `git bisect run`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since [early 2010][5] Mozilla have provided the open source [mozregression][6] tool, used as a regression range finder for their nightly builds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have examples of `git bisect run` (or similar) used in an automated manner, perhaps as part of a continuous integration/delivery tool, prior to 2012?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013115797A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.eikke.com/index.php/ikke/2007/08/09/an_introduction_to_the_git_bisect_featur.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://stackoverflow.com/users/1285443/nicolas-trangez&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://blogs.atlassian.com/2009/01/git_bisect/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://github.com/mozilla/mozregression/commit/d50509b36cb6ba45d7c54917f528bdf482d2c5e6&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://mozilla.github.io/mozregression/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12330" RevisionGUID="5c8b17ef-4265-4524-b2e4-d5c07dac9b19" CreationDate="2015-03-05T09:41:45.683" UserId="13631" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Here's a DrDobb's article from 2008 talking about adding performance testing into a Continuous Integration environment: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Continuous Integration and Performance Testing][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.drdobbs.com/tools/continuous-integration-and-performance-t/206105978" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12339" RevisionGUID="8d5ff606-6b9e-40e6-a6a2-c8a40ab53960" CreationDate="2015-03-05T14:17:19.727" UserId="13649" Text="In reference to the patent: [USD679492][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD679492&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent just for the collar of the cane in 5  horizontal lines or for any crystals applied to any cane in any design ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28239" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12339" RevisionGUID="8d5ff606-6b9e-40e6-a6a2-c8a40ab53960" CreationDate="2015-03-05T14:17:19.727" UserId="13649" Text="Is this patent just for the collar of the cane in 5 horizontal lines or for any crystals" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28240" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12339" RevisionGUID="8d5ff606-6b9e-40e6-a6a2-c8a40ab53960" CreationDate="2015-03-05T14:17:19.727" UserId="13649" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12341" RevisionGUID="830af488-566e-4edf-931d-aeae966182f0" CreationDate="2015-03-05T19:12:19.517" UserId="9802" Text="Since this is a design patent, the patent covers the particular design shown in the figures and any design substantially similar enough that someone would be deceived into buying it believing they were getting the one described in the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it certainly covers 5 horizontal lines of crystals around the collar of a cane, but not necessarily any crystal applied to any cane in any design.  In order to get a better idea of what might be substantially similar, see [this answer](http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/11955/9802) to [How can I make sure my design doesn't infringe on existing design patents?](http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/11919/9802)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12341" RevisionGUID="da8c9d50-7808-4e78-9622-51053b22b41a" CreationDate="2015-03-05T19:20:02.163" UserId="9802" Comment="added clarification of claimed elements" Text="Since this is a design patent, the patent covers the particular design shown in the figures and any design substantially similar enough that someone would be deceived into buying it believing they were getting the one described in the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it certainly covers 5 horizontal lines of crystals around the collar of a cane, but not necessarily any crystal applied to any cane in any design.  In order to get a better idea of what might be substantially similar, see [this answer](http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/11955/9802) to [How can I make sure my design doesn't infringe on existing design patents?](http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/11919/9802)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in this case, the dotted lines mean that the handle is not claimed as part of the design. The two collars at the bottom are included, in addition to the crystals at the top.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12342" RevisionGUID="9fba51a5-8948-4139-874e-6de460ed2bb2" CreationDate="2015-03-05T20:12:23.677" UserId="9802" Text="When an utility patent application is examined, there are four legal requirements that must be satisfied: statutory class, utility, novelty and unobviousness. In this case, there are concerns with the first two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prosecution status of a published applications can be checked using the [USPTO Public PAIR](http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair) service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of 2015-02-25, the examiner has issued a non-final rejection, rejecting claims 1-3 under 35 USC § 101 for not being directed to patent eligible subject matter and for lacking utility. In other words, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea and the disclosed invention is inoperative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner goes on to say &quot;It is seemingly possible that applicant's test setup has calculated and measured an AC rms value that excludes the DC bias at the input, while the output AC rms has been calculated and measured to include the DC offset in the AC rms calculation, which, per the cited references, will show a larger value, and appear to create more output energy than input energy.  It would thus appear that applicant's alleged discovery of the violation of the conservation of energy due to the presence of an offset is a result of improper use of measurement equipment and the improper use of calculation and measurement techniques.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, when an examiner questions the operability of an invention, it is up to the inventor to produce a logical, technical explanation on while it will work or bring the invention in for a demonstration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to note that this is just an application, not a granted patent. Perpetual motion machines and free energy generators can be filed as applications, but will likely get rejected upon examination. However, questionable inventions have slipped through in the past, so just because a patent is granted doesn't mean that the underlying invention will work. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12343" RevisionGUID="66906290-274d-4cc6-9af3-afc8a00cd365" CreationDate="2015-03-06T01:34:02.767" UserId="11947" Text="There are a lot of discussions about Software Patents in the Post-Alice environment. People suggested that it introduces great uncertainty in what could be claimed, if anything. I found this http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/abstract_idea_examples.pdf publication that seems to clarify the issue. What do you think?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28247" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12343" RevisionGUID="66906290-274d-4cc6-9af3-afc8a00cd365" CreationDate="2015-03-06T01:34:02.767" UserId="11947" Text="Software Patents after Alice decision" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28248" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12343" RevisionGUID="66906290-274d-4cc6-9af3-afc8a00cd365" CreationDate="2015-03-06T01:34:02.767" UserId="11947" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28249" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12343" RevisionGUID="85999ffc-a4da-4d48-a937-82eaf763b742" CreationDate="2015-03-06T01:38:29.597" UserId="10011" Comment="105" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12344" RevisionGUID="98da22bd-f534-4562-9b10-71f15bad9195" CreationDate="2015-03-06T06:52:20.317" UserId="13653" Text="I have an app that introduces an innovative user interface &amp; features and I would like to take steps to protect it. From my understanding it is possible to patent/copyright user interfaces and individual unique features. Please bear with me as I'm a software guy :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;App itself is not unique in a sense that its a general utility app, and there are many other similar apps on the market. My app however introduces a unique &amp; innovative UI that sets it apart from competition. I would like to protect the user interface from being copied as a whole or as individual parts / screens. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally my app has 2-3 special/unique features that involve somewhat more complex data elements &amp; processing - I would like to be able to protect these features from being copied as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would I go about getting started to file a patent for my UI &amp; features, any online services you'd recommend? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And how extensively can I go to protect maximum elements of my app, as in what else I should be considering or thinking about? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28255" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12344" RevisionGUID="98da22bd-f534-4562-9b10-71f15bad9195" CreationDate="2015-03-06T06:52:20.317" UserId="13653" Text="Protecting App UI &amp; Features" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28256" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12344" RevisionGUID="98da22bd-f534-4562-9b10-71f15bad9195" CreationDate="2015-03-06T06:52:20.317" UserId="13653" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;app&gt;&lt;ui&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12345" RevisionGUID="a763d613-519b-40a6-bf21-0ae571646d8f" CreationDate="2015-03-06T14:58:45.960" UserId="13658" Text="Few years ago we used this http://blogs.atlassian.com/2009/05/bamboo_jmeter_aggregator_getti/ to have baseline performance tests in CI/CD pipelines. This plugin existed in 2009 and can break builds when certain baseline thresholds values are exceeded, which pretty much shows this was a pattern not invented by HP, but in practice surely before.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12343" RevisionGUID="1c3556dc-6a54-47cf-93de-2af916eb5eb6" CreationDate="2015-03-06T19:10:50.303" UserId="11947" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text="There are a lot of discussions about Software Patents in the Post-Alice environment. People suggested that it introduces great uncertainty in what could be claimed, if anything. I found this http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/abstract_idea_examples.pdf publication that seems to clarify the issue. If an applicant follow patterns outlined in the examples can s/he be certain that the application passes the test?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12343" RevisionGUID="0d1231ba-e262-4105-bfbf-6ffc4e82829f" CreationDate="2015-03-06T19:22:39.310" UserId="10011" Comment="added 138 characters in body; edited tags" Text="There are a lot of discussions about Software Patents in the Post-Alice environment. People suggested that it introduces great uncertainty in what could be claimed, if anything. I found a [USPTO publication of some examples](http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/abstract_idea_examples.pdf) that seem to clarify the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can an applicant do to improve his or her chances of having a software patent approved, in light of Alice? If someone were to follow the examples set forth in this document, would that improve the chances of being allowed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28263" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12343" RevisionGUID="0d1231ba-e262-4105-bfbf-6ffc4e82829f" CreationDate="2015-03-06T19:22:39.310" UserId="10011" Comment="added 138 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;alice&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12347" RevisionGUID="707c0855-983c-4ddb-8a7c-aef0139a7231" CreationDate="2015-03-06T20:01:00.260" UserId="8306" Text="Audio-visual learning system &#xD;&#xA;US 20130177891 A1&#xD;&#xA;Filing date: July 2, 2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am searching for Prior Art on the application listed above. &#xD;&#xA;Below is prior art that I am aware of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims in patent application &quot;US 20130177891 A1&quot; describe technology that has been publicly available, as an online application, since at least 2005, when Yabla Inc. began offering to the public LoMasTv.Com and clic.yabla.com and ola.yabla.com. (These sites now operating as http://spanish.yabla.com and http://french.yabla.com, aka &quot;Yabla Spanish&quot; and &quot;Yabla French&quot;). Subsequent to 2005 and prior to 2012 other firms have publicly offered similar technology that also matches claims in application US 20130177891 A1, services such as yappr.com, englishcentral.com, papagei.com, and others, some of whom no longer exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To employ the use of time stamps and meta data in a database associated with a video as a means of finding &quot;jump to&quot; points for caption based back and forward navigation has been publicly demonstrated in the &quot;Yabla Player&quot; since 2005 — which long-time early customers of Yabla, such the University of Michigan could easily attest to. The idea of being able to search the meta-data and being able to jump to the time stamp associated with that data is not new, and neither is storing the metadata and time stamps separately from the video media itself. The idea of associating a separate set of audio as time stamped metadata is not new, yappr.com has been doing it for years (e.g. a differently pronounced audio presentation of the caption text). The idea of having a dictation mode (a game) wherein the user types in a caption word (or words) and the input is compared to the known correct caption word or words has been in publicly practice by Yabla Inc (&quot;The Yabla Player&quot;)since 2005 and, again, was also practiced by other commercial services subsequent to 2005 and before 2012. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A youtube video&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxKO8cXaHw&#xD;&#xA;dated 08/27/2010 demonstrates the &quot;Yabla Player&quot; in use on the Yabla Inc. owned site &quot;LoMásTv.Com&quot; — and demonstrate many of its features that coincide with the claims of this application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further examples of prior art relating to this patent application and its claims are appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28266" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12347" RevisionGUID="707c0855-983c-4ddb-8a7c-aef0139a7231" CreationDate="2015-03-06T20:01:00.260" UserId="8306" Text="Prior Art US 20130177891 A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28267" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12347" RevisionGUID="707c0855-983c-4ddb-8a7c-aef0139a7231" CreationDate="2015-03-06T20:01:00.260" UserId="8306" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;meta-data&gt;&lt;time-stamp&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12348" RevisionGUID="44be758f-0496-4cf3-b060-ce8656d637c6" CreationDate="2015-03-06T20:09:32.017" UserId="13660" Text="Let's say that I had an idea, which I soon turned into reality but then discovered that it is patented already... So the question is:&#xD;&#xA;Can I still **legally** sell my product although it is patented by someone else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not, I have an important follow up question:&#xD;&#xA;Let's take Kickstarter for example, people are selling 3D printers as their **inventions** but there already so many patents on 3D printers and some aspects of 3D printing, so how is it possible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28269" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12348" RevisionGUID="44be758f-0496-4cf3-b060-ce8656d637c6" CreationDate="2015-03-06T20:09:32.017" UserId="13660" Text="Can I produce and sell an already patented product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28270" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12348" RevisionGUID="44be758f-0496-4cf3-b060-ce8656d637c6" CreationDate="2015-03-06T20:09:32.017" UserId="13660" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12349" RevisionGUID="b53ebff1-c82b-434d-ba8a-95ffdb2a9de9" CreationDate="2015-03-06T20:42:46.970" UserId="13603" Text="I would like some help in finding prior art for patent WO2013165367A8 'Prioritization of continuous deployment pipeline tests'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 2009 paper by Jiang et al describes prioritization of tests: http://www.cs.hku.hk/research/techreps/document/TR-2009-09.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What other examples of prior art for CI test case prioritization are there? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Related to: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/12307/prior-art-request-for-wo2014027990-performance-tests-in-a-continuous-deployment)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [WO2013165367A8][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013165367A8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28272" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12349" RevisionGUID="b53ebff1-c82b-434d-ba8a-95ffdb2a9de9" CreationDate="2015-03-06T20:42:46.970" UserId="13603" Text="Prior art needed to counter WO2013165367A8 'Prioritization of continuous deployment pipeline tests'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28273" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12349" RevisionGUID="b53ebff1-c82b-434d-ba8a-95ffdb2a9de9" CreationDate="2015-03-06T20:42:46.970" UserId="13603" Text="&lt;wo2013165367a8&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28274" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12347" RevisionGUID="30384017-6f39-44bd-8e26-6c279d37ba8c" CreationDate="2015-03-06T21:45:38.047" UserId="3076" Comment="added tag to appl" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;meta-data&gt;&lt;us20130177891&gt;&lt;time-stamp&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12350" RevisionGUID="9ee49c4a-84b1-40b1-96ff-aec4edc06949" CreationDate="2015-03-06T22:37:52.690" UserId="13619" Text="There are already plenty of resources here, but I have to mention a book, that seems from today's perspective quite &quot;devopsy&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mike Clark (2004), &quot;Pragmatic Project Automation: How to Build, Deploy, and Monitor Java Applications&quot;, p55:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;How Frequently Should a Build Run?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;On a real-world project you’ll probably have different types of tests: unit tests, acceptance tests, performance tests, etc. You don’t want to wait for all of&#xD;&#xA;those tests to run just to see if your unit tests passed. To&#xD;&#xA;avoid that, each type of test would have a different&#xD;&#xA;Ant target and you’d configure CruiseControl to run&#xD;&#xA;each target on a different schedule.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author, Mike Clark,  also created JUnitPerf, a tool that is introduced in the &quot;Java Extreme Programming Cookbook&quot; (Burke, E. and Coyner, B., 2003, p187) with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;These tools [JProbe etc] are not designed to execute automatically as part of a continuous integration process—which is where JUnitPerf enters the picture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;JUnitPerf, available from http://www.clarkware.com/software/JUnitPerf.html, is a tool for continuous performance testing.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28282" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="12343" RevisionGUID="2d48a2d1-3278-47a5-88cd-3b9d9f0bdbea" CreationDate="2015-03-07T04:19:08.790" UserId="10011" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12351" RevisionGUID="30a6c94e-fd0a-43d4-a8fa-14e7e99a7e74" CreationDate="2015-03-07T05:50:53.690" UserId="11895" Text="&gt; Can I legally sell product although it is patented?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents are territorial rights so therefore if product is patented in US and not patent exist in Canada you can sell product produced in canada. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in US you cannot sell product. It also covers you cannot manufacture in US and export to canada.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3D printers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure about your question but it seems that if basic technology is covered by same specific patents then licenses might be issued. there might be instances that basic hardware was purchased from innovator and essembeled with some kind of contract. if basic technology is out of protection then method or process of production should be different for all manufacturers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in nut shell it depends on claims of patent which covers 3D printing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12352" RevisionGUID="8985de96-7070-4398-a1cb-be8f60b5efdb" CreationDate="2015-03-07T05:59:23.420" UserId="11895" Text="Not an answer but Following arts are already known for this application:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. [US20090138856][1] System and method for software performance testing and determining a frustration index&#xD;&#xA; 2. [US20080256392][2] Techniques for prioritizing test dependencies&#xD;&#xA; 3. [US20060129994][3] Method and apparatus for prioritizing software tests &#xD;&#xA; 4. [US20090265693][4] Method and system for test run prioritization for software code testing in automated test execution &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20090138856&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20080256392&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20060129994&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20090265693" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12353" RevisionGUID="9a7cd456-55d5-479a-ac76-c5f296396ea6" CreationDate="2015-03-07T06:38:24.483" UserId="13665" Text="I wrote a paper in 2002 which used the term 'continuous deployment': [Making Web Services that work](http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2002/HPL-2002-274.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this is the first *written* use of the term, though it was an obvious extension of Continuous Integration. indeed, it was based on Cruise Control. Which I covered along with Apache Gump in the 2001 book *Ant in Action*, proving that I was clearly aware of that prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't recall explicitly mentioning perf testing, but automated tests during the deployment process are certainly called out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This paper was written while I was working at HP in 2002. This raises an interesting question: does this actually count as a disclosure of the technique prior to the current patent application being filed? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12354" RevisionGUID="b5927a0f-6ebb-4c65-9dd1-0d5730b6a896" CreationDate="2015-03-07T06:43:47.310" UserId="13584" Text="&#xD;&#xA; A patent attorney has several patents to her name in very diverse fields. Some inventions are routine utilities, while others are highly technical &amp; domain specific. The latter makes me wonder what's the source of inspiration. Could it be abandoned patents from clients or could it be a work of interns from different fields who didn't get credit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28287" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12354" RevisionGUID="b5927a0f-6ebb-4c65-9dd1-0d5730b6a896" CreationDate="2015-03-07T06:43:47.310" UserId="13584" Text="Is it a red flag for a patent attorney to be a prolific inventor in diverse fields" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28288" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12354" RevisionGUID="b5927a0f-6ebb-4c65-9dd1-0d5730b6a896" CreationDate="2015-03-07T06:43:47.310" UserId="13584" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;attorney&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12356" RevisionGUID="f6e44ad2-6faa-4c41-9b42-da1bc034bcc0" CreationDate="2015-03-07T16:41:57.180" UserId="13671" Text="The following research paper from 1999 seems very related:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Andreas Zeller. &quot;Yesterday, my program worked. Today, it does not. Why?&quot; In _Proceedings 7th European Software Engineering Conference / 7th ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering_. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1687, Springer 1999, ISBN 3-540-66538-2, pp 253-267.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Abstract**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Imagine some program and a number of changes. If none of these changes is applied (“yesterday”), the program works. If all changes are applied (“today”), the program does not work. Which change is responsible for the failure? We present an efficient algorithm that determines the minimal set of failure-inducing changes. Our delta debugging prototype tracked down a single failure-inducing change from 178,000 changed GDB lines within a few hours._ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Links:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Citations and on line versions: [Scholar](https://scholar.google.nl/citations?view_op=view_citation&amp;hl=en&amp;user=-Qytr_YAAAAJ&amp;citation_for_view=-Qytr_YAAAAJ:IjCSPb-OGe4C), &#xD;&#xA;* Official site: [Springer](http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/3-540-48166-4_16), &#xD;&#xA;* PDF: [preprint](https://www.st.cs.uni-saarland.de/publications/files/zeller-esec-1999.pdf)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12357" RevisionGUID="614a402e-537a-47b7-92ba-bf5ffe4fcfc8" CreationDate="2015-03-07T18:50:27.443" UserId="13673" Text="This should really be a comment on the question (or better yet, the question should be edited to reflect this), but: No patent or prior art can be reasonably discussed without studying the claims. This is not a patent on the &quot;idea&quot; of performance tests as part of continuous delivery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim is representative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A processor implemented method to perform a set of performance tests on an application in a continuous deployment pipeline, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- identifying, with a decision engine, a set of code changes between a baseline build and a new build, the baseline build and the new build being two distinct builds in a performance test environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- obtaining, with a test engine, a baseline test result by executing a set of customized test scripts on the baseline build in a performance test environment, the baseline build including a first code base that successfully completed the set of performance tests in the continuous deployment pipeline;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- testing, with the test engine, the new build by executing the set of customized test scripts on the new build in a performance test environment to obtain a new test result, the new build including a second code base being tested in the continuous deployment pipeline; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- determining, with a decision engine, a performance value by comparing the baseline test result and the new test result. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this fairly readable, but at a high level, this is about getting a diff between two builds, one of which is a &quot;baseline&quot; build that has successfully passed the performance tests, running the same tests on the new build, and comparing the performance test results. Further dependent claims talk about actually interesting things like attributing performance changes to specific code changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So relevant prior art would include one or more prior art references that teach *each and every one* of these steps alone or in combination. So far most of the answers talk about the general &quot;idea&quot;, but this link in a comment above seems to come closest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://apmblog.dynatrace.com/2009/05/04/performance-management-in-continuous-integration/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant snippet:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Regression Analysis**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The second part of Continuous Integration Performance Management is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; regression analysis.  Regression analysis points out performance&#xD;&#xA;&gt; degredations caused by changing parts of the application code.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In order have the basis for regression analysis we need to collect&#xD;&#xA;&gt; performance diagnosis data for each automated test run – or at regular&#xD;&#xA;&gt; intervals like at the end of each development iteration. These test&#xD;&#xA;&gt; runs are then automatically compared analyzing differences in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; execution behavior of test cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not mention comparing against &quot;baseline build&quot; but it should be straightforward to find other prior art references teaching that baselines are sensible things to have, the combination of which can support a 103 obviousness type rejection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28295" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12310" RevisionGUID="5f353d8c-2685-4520-889e-642e920a0782" CreationDate="2015-03-07T20:28:58.443" UserId="13603" Comment="Added USPO reference for searchability" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;wo2013115797a1&gt;&lt;us20140372989&gt;&lt;cn104081359a&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28296" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12310" RevisionGUID="5f353d8c-2685-4520-889e-642e920a0782" CreationDate="2015-03-07T20:28:58.443" Comment="Proposed by 13603 approved by 13605 edit id of 1782" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12358" RevisionGUID="80dce479-06ad-4a2a-8f20-55fc6d03a147" CreationDate="2015-03-07T21:22:58.987" UserId="13674" Text="I didn't look at the patent details (and would perhaps not be able to understand the subtleties), but I would say that many Eclipse Foundation projects were doing continuous integration and automated performance tests back in 2006-2008. I would think it must be possible to get references from presentations at former EclipseCon Conferences.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12359" RevisionGUID="53cde42a-e924-41b6-a257-cb505cec4947" CreationDate="2015-03-07T21:35:05.143" UserId="13675" Text="I published a pair of relevant blog posts in February 2012 (6-ish months before they filed). The posts walked through adding load testing of a website to a working, sample Continuous Delivery process. It walked through the scripts to perform the load testing, how to use prior runs as baselines, and the actual implementation in a Jenkins build process for a Continuous Delivery pipeline that had been built over 9 prior posts, starting in late 2011. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[LessThanDot.com - Implementing WCAT to Load Test a Website][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[LessThanDot.com - Continuous Delivery - Adding the Load Testing Stage][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I found this quote in the definitions interesting from an &quot;awareness of prior art&quot; perspective:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Load and performance tests are rarely included in the tests due to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cost and time constraints since the execution time of performance and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; load tests are longer than unit tests and application programming&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interface tests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my mind, &quot;rarely&quot; means &quot;non-0&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IANAL, but here's my take on the claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.1: The build server/source control defines the distinct builds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.2: As pointed out in the post, prior builds (codebases) are the baseline to compare against&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.3: The load test scripts outlined in the posts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.4: Uses a set of numbers for the performance value, including metrics around transactions, requests, and response time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2: see 1.4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3: I don't have an answer for this one.** It doesn't make sense that you would simultaneously load test two builds and I don't believe their description assumes simultaneity either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4: Build server monitoring source control&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5: Specifically called out in the first post, see bolded &quot;Tripwire&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6: 2 of these: source control, build history&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7: build history and the produced chart/trend&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8: not covered because running a build for a prior changeset was so obvious as to not be called out in this post (though it may be in prior ones)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9: build history&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10: the first post&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;11: .1 and .2 are already covered, .3 is source control (unless HP doesn't use source control and instead is trying to reverse engineer how it got into the current state from a saved prior state, ie no source control)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**11.4: I don't think I have this.** it sounds like they would expect me to calculate a diff value between the two results which is not as useful as a trend of actual values because it limits you to one and only one baseline instead of an ongoing trend - but then they are also running their load testing simultaneously, so outside the magical world of &quot;in theory they won't impact each other&quot;, their data is already a mess&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12: build history + chart over time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;13: build server&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;14: I did 14.3, generating a performance report&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;15: the article deploys to a VM and web server instance specifically for the load test prior to running the load tests against it, from a system dedicated for the CD process&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see where they could claim that claim 3 and 11.4 make this hold water. It is non-obvious (to me at least) that one would run two load tests simultaneously and that you would store the results of each run as a delta from the very first baseline run. Because that seems like a very expensive way to make this whole process not very useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blogs.lessthandot.com/index.php/EnterpriseDev/application-lifecycle-management/implementing-wcat-for-load-testing/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blogs.lessthandot.com/index.php/EnterpriseDev/application-lifecycle-management/continuous-delivery-adding-the-load/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28299" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="12307" RevisionGUID="0572a7ec-eb43-43c6-97d9-b95eafdeea43" CreationDate="2015-03-07T21:35:05.143" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12351" RevisionGUID="754f20f4-35de-4a61-8a64-f7b8af56a0de" CreationDate="2015-03-08T06:29:44.823" UserId="11895" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="&gt; Can I legally sell product although it is patented?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents are territorial rights so therefore if product is patented in US and no patent exist in Canada you can sell product produced in canada. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in US you cannot sell product. US patent also covers manufacturing - so you cannot manufacture in US and export to canada.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3D printers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure about your question but it seems that if basic technology is covered by same specific patents then licenses might be issued. there might be instances that basic hardware was purchased from innovator and assembled with some kind of contract. if basic technology is out of protection then method or process of production should be different for all manufacturers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in nut shell it depends on claims of patent which covers 3D printing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12360" RevisionGUID="0b5cc4d5-31ab-4a44-b3aa-9411b4309bcc" CreationDate="2015-03-08T08:22:41.147" UserId="13676" Text="Atlassian added support for test prioritisation to Clover 2.4 in November 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From http://blogs.atlassian.com/2008/11/stop_testing_so_much/:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The second approach, used in conjunction with the first or independently, is to __prioritise those tests that are run__, so as to flush out any test failures as quickly as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Clover 2.4’s new test optimization can dramatically reduce your build times, __taking the load off your CI server__" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12361" RevisionGUID="30973ef3-86b8-45a9-8b70-46ed9dd71e0f" CreationDate="2015-03-08T08:56:41.413" UserId="13676" Text="The 2006 paper &quot;Time-Aware Test Suite Prioritization&quot; by Kristen R. Walcott and Mary Lou Soffa of University of Virginia, and Gregory M. Kapfhammer and Robert S. Roos of Allegheny College states in its abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Regression test prioritization is often performed in a time&#xD;&#xA;constrained execution environment in which testing only occurs&#xD;&#xA;for a fixed time period. For example, many organizations&#xD;&#xA;rely upon nightly building and regression testing of&#xD;&#xA;their applications every time source code changes are committed&#xD;&#xA;to a version control repository. This paper presents&#xD;&#xA;a regression test prioritization technique that uses a genetic&#xD;&#xA;algorithm to reorder test suites in light of testing time constraints&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12362" RevisionGUID="09889ae0-2ec2-4613-941f-24ca68289d3d" CreationDate="2015-03-08T21:49:25.233" UserId="13682" Text="I am a software engineering researcher (read: academic) and my expertise includes regression testing techniques. I'm mostly interested in academic publications, so the context of patent is definitely to me. As far as papers go, however, the earliest prioritisation **paper** that I'm aware of goes back to 1999:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rothermel G, Untch RH, Chu C, Harrold MJ. Test case prioritization: An empirical study. Proceedings of International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM 1999), IEEE Computer Society Press, 1999; 179–188.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I don't know what qualifies for the &quot;Continuous Integration&quot; part. If you mean prioritisation as part of an established CI tools, such as Jenkins, than very little academic work will count for that. However, if you broadly mean the context of regression testing (where you are testing the new version using, partly, the existing test suite from the previous versions), then the above is definitely one of the earliest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To see a bit more detailed timeline, I'd recommend the following paper, which is a survey of regression testing techniques, and also happens to be written by yours truly: [http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2284813][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2284813" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12364" RevisionGUID="a5272cb0-a94f-45d9-a9a0-11832f24b329" CreationDate="2015-03-09T05:39:48.620" UserId="11895" Text="Primarily Opinion based answer:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Attorney or legal firm can be **applicant** for number of inventions in diversified filed. as it only right transfer i.e. rights are purchased and inventor is compensated for inventive subject matter. such transfer as via assignments, bonds etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now comes to attorney or agent being **inventor** of diversified filed, Patent law as such doesnot restrict patent grant based on opinion that person has filed application in unrelated technologies. However in such case person interested can object inventor being not true inventor but evidences of not being inventor has to be produced in front of USPTO. e.g. affidavits of true inventors, declaration, misconduct of incorrect submissions etc. Keep in mind that a person can file patent in diversified field like great Thomas Edison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think its best to inform you that [USPTO][1] and BAR requires some [ethics standard][2] for registered practitioner to be follow rules. And I really doubt that practitioner as you mentioned will jeopardize his/her carrier by doing misconduct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/04/03/2013-07382/changes-to-representation-of-others-before-the-united-states-patent-and-trademark-office#h-30&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/04/03/2013-07382/changes-to-representation-of-others-before-the-united-states-patent-and-trademark-office#h-30" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12364" RevisionGUID="371096de-92be-468a-9923-7c621d10b476" CreationDate="2015-03-09T05:55:29.703" UserId="11895" Comment="added 595 characters in body" Text="Primarily Opinion based answer:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Attorney or legal firm can be **applicant** for number of inventions in diversified filed. as it only right transfer i.e. rights are purchased and inventor is compensated for inventive subject matter. such transfer as via assignments, bonds etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now comes to attorney or agent being **inventor** of diversified filed, Patent law as such doesnot restrict patent grant based on opinion that person has filed application in unrelated technologies. However in such case person interested can object inventor being not true inventor but evidences of not being inventor has to be produced in front of USPTO. e.g. affidavits of true inventors, declaration, misconduct of incorrect submissions etc. Keep in mind that a person can file patent in diversified field like great Thomas Edison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think its best to inform you that [USPTO][1] and BAR requires some [ethics standard][2] for registered practitioner to be follow rules. And I really doubt that practitioner as you mentioned will jeopardize his/her carrier by doing misconduct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inspiration:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Invention is what being novel and not obvious, in fact almost all invention are based on prior arts (published), by definition if a person has conceived the invention he/she is inventor. I believe that it depends on proving the fact that if attorney has filed application based on arts or teachings which were not published at that time but later on resurface then attorney can be of incorrect inspiration misconduct. If filled application being published and based on that new invention is made which is novel and inventive, then I really doubt that attorney is at fault.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/04/03/2013-07382/changes-to-representation-of-others-before-the-united-states-patent-and-trademark-office#h-30&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/04/03/2013-07382/changes-to-representation-of-others-before-the-united-states-patent-and-trademark-office#h-30" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10008" RevisionGUID="c4d1a52c-6649-4e7c-b3ed-8f9360d71719" CreationDate="2015-03-09T09:40:22.137" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 31 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I wish to read Chinese patent and does not know how to read Chinese language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What should i do to get that patent in English version ?&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - How to translate Chinese Patent?&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - What will be the authenticity of such translation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28314" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10008" RevisionGUID="c4d1a52c-6649-4e7c-b3ed-8f9360d71719" CreationDate="2015-03-09T09:40:22.137" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 31 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Ways to translate and read Chinese patent in English" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28315" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10008" RevisionGUID="c4d1a52c-6649-4e7c-b3ed-8f9360d71719" CreationDate="2015-03-09T09:40:22.137" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 31 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;language&gt;&lt;chinese-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12365" RevisionGUID="93c20102-00eb-459d-bdd1-c97dbf54a400" CreationDate="2015-03-09T10:05:37.800" UserId="11895" Text="There are many ways to get translated version of Chinese patent some of them are listed below:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. [PAID WAY] Get a  certified translator service; (certified copy can be obtained from person and will be accepted in front of non-Chinese authorities)&#xD;&#xA; 2. [FREE WAY 1] (via - Chinese Patent Office); (using - machine translation):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Visit [chinese patent office official site][1] &#xD;&#xA; - locate patent search tab &#xD;&#xA; - input your search term; eg patent number&#xD;&#xA; - Click on relevant result&#xD;&#xA; - Locate a button called **Machine Translation** at bottom of page.&#xD;&#xA; - Navigate using 'First, Prev, Next, Last' hyper link in page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. [FREE WAY 2] via- Espacenet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Search and find patent using Espacenet service;&#xD;&#xA; - Go to description tab&#xD;&#xA; - use Pattranslate button to get english version&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Most of the Time a person can get English version of the translation using above 2 free methods. but in case no translation can be achieved then you have to download PDF version of the patent. Get a OCR run on that PDF file. Software to use in such case is to be Acrobat Professional prefrably above 9 Pro version. After successful OCR use Google translate to get english version of text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://english.sipo.gov.cn/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/V2rTd.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/zga4E.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12366" RevisionGUID="c4d4045b-ab66-4e49-a890-88aef13f54cb" CreationDate="2015-03-09T10:35:13.847" UserId="13688" Text="On Jan 3rd 2007, [Dennis Byrne][1], [Kent Spillner][2], [myself][3] and a few other people from [ThoughtWorks][4] created a open source project called [ProTest][5]. Protest stands for Prioritized Tests. It is an intelligent test ordering tool, which aims to improve the test-feedback-cycles for the developers. ProTest maintains a history of test runs and knows what code changes affect which tests. ProTest is able to run the mostly-likely-to-fail tests first and hence is more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dennisbyrne&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://kent.spillner.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://nareshjain.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.thoughtworks.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://sourceforge.net/projects/protest/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12371" RevisionGUID="b183fd3c-7e54-436c-a934-fbe8cfead445" CreationDate="2015-03-09T15:57:50.083" UserId="13695" Text="During the *&quot;[5th Google Test Automation Conference](http://sites.gtac.biz/gtac2010/)&quot;* (October 28-29, 2010), Chirstian Couder presented a talk named &quot;Git Bisect and Testing&quot;, where he describes the use of `git-bisect` as a way to find the first &quot;bad commit&quot; that generates a regression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Abstract**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;git bisect&quot; is a command that is part of the Git distributed version control system. This command enables software users, developers and testers to easily find the commit that introduced a regression. This is done by performing a kind of binary search between a known good and a known bad commit. In the manual mode, at each step, a commit is checked out, and the user is asked to test the current state of the code. This can be automated with &quot;git bisect run&quot;, so that a simple script or a command instead of the user can test the current state. Some developers out there are very happy with automated bisection, because it saves them a lot of time, it makes it easy and worthwhile for them to improve their test suite, and overall it efficiently improves software quality. &quot;git bisect&quot; makes test suites more useful and in turn test suites make it easier and simpler to use &quot;git bisect&quot;. So using them together creates a virtuous circle. Another nice thing is that &quot;git bisect&quot; and test suites can be used together to reduce the number of tests that have to be performed while improving test coverage. In the end, bisecting can be an important part of a software quality process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49OYaF_v7EA)&#xD;&#xA;- [Talks outline](http://sites.gtac.biz/gtac2010/selected-talks)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![relevant slide][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/TN27H.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28328" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12310" RevisionGUID="98a11a27-f39f-4a2a-983c-03ac87115303" CreationDate="2015-03-09T20:48:18.783" UserId="13605" Comment="Add pre-grant tag as the status of this patent is &quot;published&quot; and has yet to be granted." Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;cn104081359a&gt;&lt;us20140372989&gt;&lt;wo2013115797a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12372" RevisionGUID="75275055-d905-4798-a2f2-d5f7e7efffb1" CreationDate="2015-03-09T20:51:28.670" UserId="13318" Text="At this point, the best advice is to look at the [example &quot;Abstract Idea&quot; claims provided by the USPTO][1].  The examples show what the USPTO believes to be patent eligible and patent ineligible when analyzed under the 2014 Interim Guidance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/abstract_idea_examples.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12374" RevisionGUID="3d17574e-e4da-4002-a745-b257d492956c" CreationDate="2015-03-10T00:36:37.003" UserId="11947" Text=" I am wondering if I should explicitly refer to processor in software method claims, like &quot;...comprising executing on a processor the steps of...&quot; or it is enough to say &quot;computer-implemented method&quot; to cover processor, storage, memory, input/output etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28335" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12374" RevisionGUID="3d17574e-e4da-4002-a745-b257d492956c" CreationDate="2015-03-10T00:36:37.003" UserId="11947" Text="role of &quot;processor&quot; in software method claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28336" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12374" RevisionGUID="3d17574e-e4da-4002-a745-b257d492956c" CreationDate="2015-03-10T00:36:37.003" UserId="11947" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;method&gt;&lt;data-processing-software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12375" RevisionGUID="5fd182f0-26e8-4b36-a0e2-0beed528685d" CreationDate="2015-03-10T03:20:05.743" UserId="13698" Text="The answer by George White appears to be correct. I know I maybe too late to reply, but I too encounter the same type of restriction as Jonas/The inquirer. I am a pro se type of inventor, without a patent attorney. However, you could actually reply within the Electronic Filing System under &quot;Electronic Filing&quot;, and then enter your &quot;Application Number&quot; and &quot;Confirmation Number&quot;. Once authenticated, it will bring you to a &quot;EFS Registered&quot; page, where you can browse for the simple reply of what George has pointed out above. I have consulted two different patent attorneys and both also made the some points of George. Once you have selected your pdf file, then under the &quot;Document and Description&quot;, look for &quot;Response to Election / Restriction Filed&quot;. Click on &quot;Upload and Validate&quot; once all files have been selected/added. Then contact the examiner to verify the upload on their end. To avoid any abandonment, better make sure to look under the &quot;Transaction History&quot;, to make certain that the server recorded the transaction. Above all, make sure to reply within the time window allocated or else risk abandonment. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12376" RevisionGUID="ca08cf4f-f81e-432d-aed6-32177a716f3b" CreationDate="2015-03-10T05:05:14.197" UserId="11895" Text="Firstly it depends on your definition defined in specification and limitations associated with it. Based on State of the Art and judicial claim construction i believe &quot;computer-implemented method&quot; have broader interpretation and careful drafting of dependent claims and specification will cover all your objects 'processor, storage, memory, input/output etc.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Atser Research Technologies, Inc. v. Raba-Kistner Consultants Inc., et al., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25294 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 27, 2009). It was stated that &quot;computer-implemented method&quot; will cover steps performed using a computer, which include processor and other peripherals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand 'executing on processor steps' will cover all steps performed in processor only. You can improve processor definitiaon or phrase as such by including all component used in steps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12379" RevisionGUID="2df2abde-c8a6-4c06-a4a7-ef9200724bfc" CreationDate="2015-03-10T14:55:45.210" UserId="13693" Text="I saw your call for help. I will be short, as I have only some experience in these matters and sometimes confuse myself. Like any patent, you can patent any part of your app, as long as no aspect of it is already under patent, for a small fee. All you need to do to provide extra protection for your app it to be more detailed in the description and specify potential code variants you also want protection. The more you protect, the more it is protected." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12379" RevisionGUID="8fa7b524-0fda-491a-9afa-d8b2dcecb081" CreationDate="2015-03-10T17:01:34.903" UserId="11895" Comment="improved over answer" Text="Like any patent, you can patent any part of your app, as long as no aspect of it is already in public domain (prior art), for a small fee. All you need to do to provide extra protection for your app it to be more detailed in the description and specify potential code variants you also want protection. The more you disclose and efficiently draft and claim, the more it is protected." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12381" RevisionGUID="e7669cc2-35e1-457f-8b44-c131eff036db" CreationDate="2015-03-11T00:52:56.917" UserId="13704" Text="I would like help finding prior art for [WO2014035410A1][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent (filed Aug 30, 2012) describes using feature switches to toggle software features:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The global feature library includes a feature switch for each of the plurality of features. ... The feature switch includes a feature value that turns a feature associated with the feature switch on and off based on a global value rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems like a standard industry practice well before the filing date, so I would like to document examples of prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014035410A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28360" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12381" RevisionGUID="e7669cc2-35e1-457f-8b44-c131eff036db" CreationDate="2015-03-11T00:52:56.917" UserId="13704" Text="Prior art for WO2014035410A1 &quot;Global feature library useable with continuous delivery&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28361" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12381" RevisionGUID="e7669cc2-35e1-457f-8b44-c131eff036db" CreationDate="2015-03-11T00:52:56.917" UserId="13704" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;wo2014035410a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12382" RevisionGUID="eab1961b-7e40-46c1-85e1-5d8523c6ea33" CreationDate="2015-03-11T00:52:56.917" UserId="13704" Text="I've found several good examples already, simply from the Wikipedia entry for [&quot;feature toggle&quot;][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a Flickr blog post from 2009: [Flipping Out][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Martin Fowler in 2010: [FeatureToggle][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And another from Disqus in 2010: [Partial Deployment with Feature Switches][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these seem indicate that this was a wide-spread industry practice well before the 2012 filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_toggle&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://code.flickr.net/2009/12/02/flipping-out/&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://martinfowler.com/bliki/FeatureToggle.html&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://blog.disqus.com/post/789540337/partial-deployment-with-feature-switches&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12383" RevisionGUID="6b381586-bcb0-4217-bde9-1a126ddf8946" CreationDate="2015-03-11T02:50:43.660" UserId="11895" Text="Following arts are already known for this patent application:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. [WO1999060487][1] System and methods for object-oriented control of diverse electromechanical systems using a computer network&#xD;&#xA; 2. [US20120191760][2] System and method for generating automatic user interface for arbitrarily complex or large databases &#xD;&#xA; 3. [US20080295045][3] Method for Creating Hdl Description Files of Digital Systems, and Systems Obtained &#xD;&#xA; 4. [US20090319472][4]  Event based organization and access of digital photos &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO1999060487A9?cl=zh&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.co.in/patents/US20120191760&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.co.in/patents/US20080295045&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.co.in/patents/US20090319472" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12384" RevisionGUID="58ab7b12-e722-4fec-b2a0-c458c60780d4" CreationDate="2015-03-11T05:24:34.463" UserId="3418" Text="[It seems][1] USPTO allows shading but, for example, the Chinese's counterpart doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1/ So what is the best way to do drawing internationally? I.e. if the application with shaded drawing is filed in the US first, then will it be accepted in China later? Or is it must be rewritten?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2/ In case the drawing must be redrawn, is the priority date of the US application accepted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess using a non shaded drawing is the best option to avoid the headache. But I still want to know, just in case it is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another problem is that, the type of shaded perspective view that is required by USPTO is not supported by CAD software. That type requires shading by line and dot, while most computer software fills the surface with color (see the image below). How the hell can I draw that type of drawing? It requires artistic skill and time consuming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3/ So what is the best way to draw shaded surface for patent application using computer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4/ What is the consequence, if I draw shaded surface using gray area (this method is supported by software)? Will this be considered color drawing and accepted by USPTO?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://nbgdrafting.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/news_vol3.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Fj3oY.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28369" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12384" RevisionGUID="58ab7b12-e722-4fec-b2a0-c458c60780d4" CreationDate="2015-03-11T05:24:34.463" UserId="3418" Text="Color and shading in patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28370" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12384" RevisionGUID="58ab7b12-e722-4fec-b2a0-c458c60780d4" CreationDate="2015-03-11T05:24:34.463" UserId="3418" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;drawing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12385" RevisionGUID="4d4e5394-8715-4845-88b1-077082aab392" CreationDate="2015-03-11T05:33:44.547" UserId="13706" Text="Assuming this is in the U.S., start with only &quot;a computer implemented method&quot; because it's broader than reciting that a processor performs the steps.  Better yet, simply recite &quot;a method&quot; (which is broadest) and then wait until examination to make any further limitations.  The Examiner may or may not require further limitations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Want more insider info on patents? Check out the [Patents Demystified Blog][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentsdemystified.com/?page_id=124" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12385" RevisionGUID="90b78901-2574-4b7c-a5ac-2a18b8ab5c52" CreationDate="2015-03-11T05:39:20.787" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 150 characters in body" Text="Assuming this is in the U.S., start with only &quot;a computer implemented method&quot; because it's broader than reciting that a processor performs the steps.  Better yet, simply recite &quot;a method&quot; (which is broadest) and then wait until examination to make any further limitations.  The Examiner may or may not require further limitations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12385" RevisionGUID="27d270a9-29b8-4d9c-9319-22ffc5055cc7" CreationDate="2015-03-11T05:42:12.947" UserId="13706" Comment="edit signature" Text="Assuming this is in the U.S., start with only &quot;a computer implemented method&quot; because it's broader than reciting that a processor performs the steps.  Better yet, simply recite &quot;a method&quot; (which is broadest) and then wait until examination to make any further limitations.  The Examiner may or may not require further limitations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Dylan O. Adams&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For more insider info on patents check out the [Patents Demystified Blog][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentsdemystified.com/?page_id=124" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12386" RevisionGUID="eb9ffd59-ddf3-4645-bfaf-697532326dd1" CreationDate="2015-03-11T05:50:14.967" UserId="13706" Text="In the U.S. drawings must be black and white only (no grayscale). For utility patent applications, any type of shading is typically fine (stipple or linear).  However, the shading rules for design patent applications are often more strict, or at least they are enforced more strictly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For more insider info on patents check out the [Patents Demystified Blog][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentsdemystified.com/?page_id=124" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12387" RevisionGUID="aba20ab2-02b2-465b-bd08-672e81469ea9" CreationDate="2015-03-11T06:12:05.603" UserId="13706" Text="The first step is to determine whether your idea is actually &quot;patented&quot; as you assume.  Make sure that the patent you are referring to is an issued patent (as opposed to a published application) and that if it is issued, that it's still enforceable. Also, the scope of patent protection is determined by the claims of an issued patent, not what is in the drawings and/or specification.  I would suggest you talk with a patent attorney before making any determinations regarding patentability and/or potential infringement of your idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For more info on determining whether an idea is patentable check out this blog post: [Are Ideas Patentable? Is Your Idea Patentable?][1]) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your second question, patents may relate to a given technology (e.g., 3D printing), but the patent coverage is typically more narrow that it initially seems based on the specification and drawings (again, the patent claims define the true scope of protection).  In short, all these 3D printer patents that you refer to protect their own discrete aspects of of a given technology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentsdemystified.com/?p=129" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12389" RevisionGUID="0b41e943-4d21-4757-a6da-65e9d8706791" CreationDate="2015-03-11T07:18:58.397" UserId="11895" Text="To find out EP applicant or inventor or representative communication details you need to visit EP Register. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. search european patent in http://worldwide.espacenet.com/?locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;2. access EP register tab on biblographic page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;steps are compiled in following image&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/p49On.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12385" RevisionGUID="6dabfe58-291b-4f7b-8f8e-59558d6a60f0" CreationDate="2015-03-11T07:25:42.250" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 162 characters in body" Text="Assuming this is in the U.S., start with only &quot;a computer implemented method&quot; because it's broader than reciting that a processor performs the steps.  Better yet, simply recite &quot;a method&quot; (which is broadest) and then wait until examination to make any further limitations.  The Examiner may or may not require further limitations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12386" RevisionGUID="910f1992-8936-4299-b4ae-1aec3f953908" CreationDate="2015-03-11T07:25:55.117" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 141 characters in body" Text="In the U.S. drawings must be black and white only (no grayscale). For utility patent applications, any type of shading is typically fine (stipple or linear).  However, the shading rules for design patent applications are often more strict, or at least they are enforced more strictly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12384" RevisionGUID="3aee17d0-310e-491d-bc9b-948f064babcd" CreationDate="2015-03-11T07:35:38.823" UserId="10011" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="[It seems][1] USPTO allows shading but, for example, the Chinese's counterpart doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. So what is the best way to do drawing internationally? I.e. if the application with shaded drawing is filed in the US first, then will it be accepted in China later? Or is it must be rewritten?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. In case the drawing must be redrawn, is the priority date of the US application accepted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I guess using a non shaded drawing is the best option to avoid the headache. But I still want to know, just in case it is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Another problem is that, the type of shaded perspective view that is required by USPTO is not supported by CAD software. That type requires shading by line and dot, while most computer software fills the surface with color (see the image below). How the hell can I draw that type of drawing? It requires artistic skill and time consuming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. So what is the best way to draw shaded surface for patent application using computer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. What is the consequence, if I draw shaded surface using gray area (this method is supported by software)? Will this be considered color drawing and accepted by USPTO?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://nbgdrafting.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/news_vol3.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Fj3oY.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12390" RevisionGUID="1a47d068-2eee-46c5-9d28-e39354c69b81" CreationDate="2015-03-11T09:34:59.817" UserId="11895" Text="&gt; **Who filed this patent?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Applicant**:- Kernforschungsanlage Juelich&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Inventors**:- Hans Wolfgang Nurnberg, Gerhard Wolff&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Who was the patent attorney in the U.S.?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that this applicant has taken many attorney services. Since they have filed two patent applications on same priority date i assume that they might not have changed the US attorney. In the matter of [US3558047][1] having same priority date and context attorney was **Michael S. Striker** [OEDCI][2] database states contact details as follows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;its and assumption and analysis based answer might not be correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&amp;II=15&amp;ND=3&amp;adjacent=true&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;FT=D&amp;date=19710126&amp;CC=US&amp;NR=3558047A&amp;KC=A&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/hzz0d.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12391" RevisionGUID="d8aa70b3-0a16-472d-9b7a-33744e80800b" CreationDate="2015-03-11T13:52:55.697" UserId="13709" Text="i work for a company and all my work, even it is outside of work, is owned by company. signed this common agreement while joining. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;now, i have an idea that i want to patent on my own. Since i cannot file on my name (company can claim it is thier's), i want to file with my Mom's name. does this have any complications ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28384" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12391" RevisionGUID="d8aa70b3-0a16-472d-9b7a-33744e80800b" CreationDate="2015-03-11T13:52:55.697" UserId="13709" Text="Can i file a patent on my Mother's name since i work for a company?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28385" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12391" RevisionGUID="d8aa70b3-0a16-472d-9b7a-33744e80800b" CreationDate="2015-03-11T13:52:55.697" UserId="13709" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28386" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12391" RevisionGUID="887331c6-8a93-484f-aea4-fbdb00769076" CreationDate="2015-03-11T14:40:18.140" UserId="11895" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12391" RevisionGUID="887331c6-8a93-484f-aea4-fbdb00769076" CreationDate="2015-03-11T14:40:18.140" UserId="11895" Comment="edited tags" Text="i am employee of a company and all my work, even it is outside of work, is owned by company. signed this common agreement while joining. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;now, i have an idea that i want to patent on my own. Since i cannot file on my name (company can claim it is thier's), i want to file with my Relatives's name. does this have any complications ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12392" RevisionGUID="bb56438d-b964-45ef-bebc-7382eb9e35a7" CreationDate="2015-03-11T14:52:08.753" UserId="13710" Text="In reference to the patent: [US163625][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US163625" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28389" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12392" RevisionGUID="bb56438d-b964-45ef-bebc-7382eb9e35a7" CreationDate="2015-03-11T14:52:08.753" UserId="13710" Text="Inventor's name is misspelled. It should be Ariette Baird" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28390" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12392" RevisionGUID="bb56438d-b964-45ef-bebc-7382eb9e35a7" CreationDate="2015-03-11T14:52:08.753" UserId="13710" Text="&lt;inventor&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28391" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12393" RevisionGUID="9acacd7e-88fd-46c8-ade6-422981ed29de" CreationDate="2015-03-11T14:58:42.290" UserId="11895" Text="Google OCR sometimes have problems, You are right actual patent has same spelling. Any ways its not direct link to Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However To correct inventor name in patent, you can see MPEP 602.01(c)(2)   Correcting or Updating Inventor Name 37 CFR 1.48(f) – Request Filed On or After September 16, 2012 [R-11.2013]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (f) Correcting or updating the name of an inventor: Any request to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **correct or update the name of the inventor** or a joint inventor, or the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; order of the names of joint inventors, in a nonprovisional application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; must include: (1) An application data sheet in accordance with §1.76&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name in the desired&#xD;&#xA;&gt; order; and (2) The processing fee set forth in §1.17(i).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;................. and allows an applicant to adjust the order of the names of joint inventors (e.g., to control the order of names on a printed patent). 37 CFR 1.48(f) specifically provides that any request to correct or update the name of the inventor or a joint inventor, or the order of the names of joint inventors, in a nonprovisional application must include: (1) an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name in the desired order; and (2) the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i). The request should also identify the desired inventor name change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for more information please visit [MPEP][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/j7lep.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s602.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12392" RevisionGUID="9118cacd-87db-4385-a94e-2aa5bedcfba1" CreationDate="2015-03-11T15:04:19.013" UserId="11895" Comment="added 31 characters in body; edited title" Text="In reference to the patent: [US163625][1]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;It should be Ariette Baird&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US163625" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28393" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12392" RevisionGUID="9118cacd-87db-4385-a94e-2aa5bedcfba1" CreationDate="2015-03-11T15:04:19.013" UserId="11895" Comment="added 31 characters in body; edited title" Text="Inventor's name is misspelled in Google Patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12394" RevisionGUID="ec629bf1-0946-4f8a-96e9-f0b7b110e2ab" CreationDate="2015-03-11T17:44:34.090" UserId="13714" Text="The patented technology seems trivial.  The owner has already sued 42 companies.  I assume their settlement requests are small enough that it wouldn't make sense to defend a case.  Perhaps someone would stand up to Plaintiffs if there were proof of prior art.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone out there implement this idea before Mar 12, 2004?  I was thinking the web archive could be a source of proof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent is US 7,356,606 ([link](https://www.google.com/patents/US7356606)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Learn more about the litigation campaign on search.rpxcorp.com ([link](https://search.rpxcorp.com/advanced_search/search_litigations#searchq=case_key_texts%3A%28txedce-158027+OR+txedce-158035+OR+txedce-158019+OR+txedce-158024+OR+txedce-158028+OR+txedce-158005+OR+txedce-158023+OR+txedce-158010+OR+txedce-158033+OR+txedce-158021+OR+txedce-158040+OR+txedce-158034+OR+txedce-158032+OR+txedce-158009+OR+txedce-158030+OR+txedce-158008+OR+txedce-158007+OR+txedce-158031+OR+txedce-158026+OR+txedce-158029+OR+txedce-158020+OR+txedce-158038+OR+txedce-150321+OR+txedce-150307+OR+txedce-150301+OR+txedce-150319+OR+txedce-150312+OR+txedce-150310+OR+txedce-150311+OR+txedce-150315+OR+txedce-150318+OR+txedce-150309+OR+txedce-150305+OR+txedce-150320+OR+txedce-150316+OR+txedce-150308+OR+txedce-150323+OR+txedce-150313+OR+txedce-150317+OR+txedce-150306+OR+txedce-150322+OR+txedce-150303%29))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28396" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12394" RevisionGUID="ec629bf1-0946-4f8a-96e9-f0b7b110e2ab" CreationDate="2015-03-11T17:44:34.090" UserId="13714" Text="US 7,356,606 – this patent must be invalid" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28397" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12394" RevisionGUID="ec629bf1-0946-4f8a-96e9-f0b7b110e2ab" CreationDate="2015-03-11T17:44:34.090" UserId="13714" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12387" RevisionGUID="4378b848-0bb0-42cd-978a-1cb7a46400c6" CreationDate="2015-03-11T18:20:25.660" UserId="13706" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="The first step is to determine whether your idea is actually &quot;patented&quot; as you assume.  Make sure that the patent you are referring to is an issued patent (as opposed to a published application) and that if it is issued, that it's still enforceable. Also, the scope of patent protection is determined by the claims of an issued patent, not what is in the drawings and/or specification, so you need to look to the claims to determine whether your idea is actually patented.  I would suggest you talk with a patent attorney before making any determinations regarding patentability and/or potential infringement of your idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For more info on determining whether an idea is patentable check out this blog post: [Are Ideas Patentable? Is Your Idea Patentable?][1]) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your second question, patents may relate to a given technology (e.g., 3D printing), but the patent coverage is typically more narrow that it initially seems based on the specification and drawings (again, the patent claims define the true scope of protection).  In short, all these 3D printer patents that you refer to protect their own discrete aspects of of a given technology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentsdemystified.com/?p=129" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12394" RevisionGUID="53ebf358-e56b-46c7-90d5-4e4283fcabf1" CreationDate="2015-03-11T19:54:50.237" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body; edited tags" Text="The patented technology seems trivial.  The owner has already sued 42 companies.  I assume their settlement requests are small enough that it wouldn't make sense to defend a case.  Perhaps someone would stand up to Plaintiffs if there were proof of prior art.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone out there implement this idea before Mar 12, 2004?  I was thinking the web archive could be a source of proof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent is [US 7,356,606](https://www.google.com/patents/US7356606).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Learn more about the litigation campaign on search.rpxcorp.com ([link](https://search.rpxcorp.com/advanced_search/search_litigations#searchq=case_key_texts%3A%28txedce-158027+OR+txedce-158035+OR+txedce-158019+OR+txedce-158024+OR+txedce-158028+OR+txedce-158005+OR+txedce-158023+OR+txedce-158010+OR+txedce-158033+OR+txedce-158021+OR+txedce-158040+OR+txedce-158034+OR+txedce-158032+OR+txedce-158009+OR+txedce-158030+OR+txedce-158008+OR+txedce-158007+OR+txedce-158031+OR+txedce-158026+OR+txedce-158029+OR+txedce-158020+OR+txedce-158038+OR+txedce-150321+OR+txedce-150307+OR+txedce-150301+OR+txedce-150319+OR+txedce-150312+OR+txedce-150310+OR+txedce-150311+OR+txedce-150315+OR+txedce-150318+OR+txedce-150309+OR+txedce-150305+OR+txedce-150320+OR+txedce-150316+OR+txedce-150308+OR+txedce-150323+OR+txedce-150313+OR+txedce-150317+OR+txedce-150306+OR+txedce-150322+OR+txedce-150303%29))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28400" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12394" RevisionGUID="53ebf358-e56b-46c7-90d5-4e4283fcabf1" CreationDate="2015-03-11T19:54:50.237" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;us7356606&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12387" RevisionGUID="b34ea932-fa1c-4201-8c89-eb39d5a8956d" CreationDate="2015-03-11T19:56:17.473" UserId="13706" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="The first step is to determine whether your idea is actually &quot;patented&quot; as you assume.  Make sure that the patent you are referring to is an issued patent (as opposed to a published application) and that if it is issued, that it's still enforceable. Also, the scope of patent protection is determined by the claims of an issued patent, not what is in the drawings and/or specification, so you need to look to the claims to determine whether your idea might actually be covered by this patent.  I would suggest you talk with a patent attorney before making any determinations regarding patentability and/or potential infringement of your idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For more info on determining whether an idea is patentable check out this blog post: [Are Ideas Patentable? Is Your Idea Patentable?][1]) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your second question, patents may relate to a given technology (e.g., 3D printing), but the patent coverage is typically more narrow that it initially seems based on the specification and drawings (again, the patent claims define the true scope of protection).  In short, all these 3D printer patents that you refer to protect their own discrete aspects of of a given technology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentsdemystified.com/?p=129" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12395" RevisionGUID="6c111b29-0d16-4e9d-8b9e-58acef28fb46" CreationDate="2015-03-11T20:16:29.160" UserId="13706" Text="Yes, some ideas can be patentable, but not all ideas.  This post explores the basics of what differentiates patentable and non-patentable ideas and gives suggestions on how to determine whether your idea might be patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is an idea?**&#xD;&#xA;First, let’s define what “idea” means. For our purposes here, we are talking about thoughts or conceptions that are primarily the result of mental activity, but that have not yet become physical products or prototypes.  In other words, an idea is the earliest stage of the inventing process, where an invention is still only in the mind or has only been written about or sketched out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Patents Can Only Protect Certain Types of Ideas.**&#xD;&#xA;Some ideas will not be patentable simply because they are not the right kind of idea. For example, if you have an idea for an awesome movie, a new book, the perfect product name, or a catchy slogan for your company, these ideas will not be patentable simply because patents do not protect these sorts of things.  On the other hand, such ideas might be protectable by copyrights or trademarks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents can protect ideas for utilitarian products like mechanical devices, computer hardware and software, biotechnology, and even methods of making or using a product.  However, patent law has carved out some exceptions of utilitarian inventions that cannot be patented, including laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. For example, without more, mathematical equations and common processes being implemented on a computer are likely not patentable because they are considered abstract ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if an idea is related to the right subject matter, patent law also requires that the idea be (1) describable in sufficient detail such that an average person in the field would be able to make and use the proposed product or method; and (2) the described product or method must be new and non-obvious compared to known technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Are ideas patentable?**&#xD;&#xA;Sufficient Description of Idea&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately, the requirement is not that the inventor be able to sufficiently describe the invention, and in many cases, an idea can be patentable even if the inventor would not know how to implement it.  For example, if the inventor can describe an idea to a patent attorney such that the patent attorney is able to then add sufficient detail, then the idea might be patentable.  The required level of detail required for patentability changes dramatically depending on the type of invention, so talking with a patent attorney as early as possible is the best way to determine if you have enough detail to patent your idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Product or Method Must Be New And Non-Obvious.**&#xD;&#xA;The patent system does not afford protection to ideas or inventions that are already publicly known or that would be obvious in view of what is already publicly known. Being “publicly known” refers not only to existing products, but also to any technology disclosure such as a patent publication, a blog post, a video, a live presentation, or the like (collectively known as “prior art”). For more information, an in-depth discussion of prior art and patentability can be found in Patents Demystified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How Can You Find Out if Your Idea Is Patentable?**&#xD;&#xA;This post should give you an understanding of the analysis that goes into determining whether an idea or invention is patentable, but the best and most reliable way to know is to seek the counsel of a trusted patent attorney.  For some, filing a patent application may be possible much sooner than expected, whereas for others, an idea may need to be substantially more developed.  Just as much as inventors should not waste their time and money if an idea is not patentable, they should also not wait longer than necessary to file a patent application.  Luckily, such an initial evaluation of an idea or invention can be done extremely fast, and most patent attorneys will even do it free of charge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12396" RevisionGUID="c3d959c5-3402-4806-acdf-e7259d0bb589" CreationDate="2015-03-11T21:07:28.757" UserId="13715" Text="In reference to the patent: [US6735595][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent appears to describe various implementations of what is usually known in the computer science community as an [order statistic tree][2].  In particular, the two pseudocode algorithms in the patent document - &quot;ORDINAL&quot; and &quot;FINDKEY&quot; - are fairly straightforward adaptations of &quot;OS-RANK&quot; and &quot;OS-SELECT&quot; from [3] (section 14.1).  Many papers from before the issue of this patent (for instance, [5], [6] and [7]) reference the first edition of that text [4], published in 1990, when describing their use of order-statistic trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From reading the patent, I can find nothing within the claims that goes significantly beyond a normal understanding of order-statistic trees, such as may be obtained by reading [4].  The patent's descriptions are couched mainly in the language of B-trees and digital (i.e. prefix) trees, rather than the binary trees described in [4], but it is clear that the core idea (and supposed innovation) - that of storing an item count at the head of every subtree and using it to rank/unrank keys - is invariant to the type of tree.  Am I right in thinking that this constitutes prior art for this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6735595&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Order_statistic_tree&amp;oldid=640671014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: Cormen, Thomas H.; Leiserson, Charles E., Rivest, Ronald L., Stein, Clifford (2001) [1990]. Introduction to Algorithms (2nd ed.). MIT Press and McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-262-03293-7.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [4]:  Thomas H. Cormen, Charles E. Leiserson, and Ronald L. Rivest. Introduction to Algorithms. MIT Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Series. MIT Press and McGraw-Hill, Cambridge, Massachusetts and New York, New York, 1990.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~ava/NORSIG96.pdf - Valmari, Antti. &quot;Optimality results for median computation.&quot; Proceedings of Nordic Signal Processing Symposium. 1996.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.cs.umn.edu/tech_reports_upload/1993/HidingJitter.pdf - Frankowski, Daniel, and John Riedl. Hiding jitter in an audio stream. Technical Report No. TR-93-50, Department of Computer Science, University of Minnesota, 1993.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.textfiles.com/bitsavers/pdf/mit/lcs/tr/MIT-LCS-TR-638.pdf - Ernst, Michael D. Serializing parallel programs by removing redundant computation. MS thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 1992.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28404" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12396" RevisionGUID="c3d959c5-3402-4806-acdf-e7259d0bb589" CreationDate="2015-03-11T21:07:28.757" UserId="13715" Text="Does [CORMEN90] demonstrate prior art for this order statistic tree patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28405" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12396" RevisionGUID="c3d959c5-3402-4806-acdf-e7259d0bb589" CreationDate="2015-03-11T21:07:28.757" UserId="13715" Text="&lt;us6735595&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28406" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12396" RevisionGUID="77bdfa36-4f63-4610-9c2e-a8b669157103" CreationDate="2015-03-11T21:12:39.820" UserId="13715" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us6735595&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12397" RevisionGUID="a6163a25-abc8-4991-af60-2fbc5a41ad1d" CreationDate="2015-03-11T23:14:40.707" UserId="13706" Text="In the U.S., the true inventors must be named in a patent application, even if the application is ultimately assigned to a company.  Failing to name all the true inventors or naming inventors who did not have an inventive contribution is considered fraud against the Patent Office and can result in invalidation of a patent that might issue from the application.  Be sure to consult a patent attorney before moving forward." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12398" RevisionGUID="12d2b442-cdb2-43ae-a1bc-638a3064b159" CreationDate="2015-03-11T23:22:21.837" UserId="13706" Text="Determining infringement is best done with the assistance of a trusted patent attorney.  This analysis comprises comparing the claims of the issued patent in question to the product and/or activities being performed.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Matthew correctly points out, it's impossible to say whether there might be infringement without knowing the details of what you (or these other companies) are doing and then making a comparison to the claims of this patent.  Plus, such an analysis is out of the scope of what is possible in this forum." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12399" RevisionGUID="df912053-8f77-4d72-a78a-1040241ee218" CreationDate="2015-03-11T23:27:15.053" UserId="13706" Text="Determining infringement is best done with the assistance of a trusted patent attorney. This analysis comprises comparing the claims of the issued patent in question to the product and/or activities being performed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's impossible to say whether there might be infringement without knowing the details of what you are/would be doing and then making a comparison to the claims of this patent. Plus, such an analysis is out of the scope of what is possible in this forum." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12394" RevisionGUID="b2b6781e-42a3-48fa-8c4f-3732273e195b" CreationDate="2015-03-11T23:37:06.177" UserId="13714" Comment="Changed to sound less promotional." Text="The patented technology seems trivial.  The owner has already sued 42 companies.  I assume their settlement requests are small enough that it wouldn't make sense to defend a case.  Perhaps someone would stand up to Plaintiffs if there were proof of prior art.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone out there implement this idea before Mar 12, 2004?  I was thinking the web archive could be a source of proof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent is [US 7,356,606](https://www.google.com/patents/US7356606).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Learn more about the litigation campaign [here](https://search.rpxcorp.com/advanced_search/search_litigations#searchq=case_key_texts%3A%28txedce-158027+OR+txedce-158035+OR+txedce-158019+OR+txedce-158024+OR+txedce-158028+OR+txedce-158005+OR+txedce-158023+OR+txedce-158010+OR+txedce-158033+OR+txedce-158021+OR+txedce-158040+OR+txedce-158034+OR+txedce-158032+OR+txedce-158009+OR+txedce-158030+OR+txedce-158008+OR+txedce-158007+OR+txedce-158031+OR+txedce-158026+OR+txedce-158029+OR+txedce-158020+OR+txedce-158038+OR+txedce-150321+OR+txedce-150307+OR+txedce-150301+OR+txedce-150319+OR+txedce-150312+OR+txedce-150310+OR+txedce-150311+OR+txedce-150315+OR+txedce-150318+OR+txedce-150309+OR+txedce-150305+OR+txedce-150320+OR+txedce-150316+OR+txedce-150308+OR+txedce-150323+OR+txedce-150313+OR+txedce-150317+OR+txedce-150306+OR+txedce-150322+OR+txedce-150303%29)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12392" RevisionGUID="d79151e9-2331-476e-8d08-cef9aea1f266" CreationDate="2015-03-12T01:02:08.140" UserId="1" Comment="Since we are not Google and cannot fix this information, made the question more generally useful for future reference.." Text="In reference to the patent: [US163625][1]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The Inventor's name should be &quot;Ariette Baird.&quot; How does this happen, and is there any way to correct copy errors in patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US163625" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28412" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12392" RevisionGUID="d79151e9-2331-476e-8d08-cef9aea1f266" CreationDate="2015-03-12T01:02:08.140" UserId="1" Comment="Since we are not Google and cannot fix this information, made the question more generally useful for future reference.." Text="How do you correct errors in Google Patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28413" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12392" RevisionGUID="d79151e9-2331-476e-8d08-cef9aea1f266" CreationDate="2015-03-12T01:02:08.140" UserId="1" Comment="Since we are not Google and cannot fix this information, made the question more generally useful for future reference.." Text="&lt;google-patents&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12400" RevisionGUID="b95235d4-8ca9-4f22-87a0-9f4ec7725ae0" CreationDate="2015-03-12T01:02:32.597" UserId="1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12401" RevisionGUID="934fc29b-1d2f-4cab-aa64-a81eb279fcdb" CreationDate="2015-03-12T01:02:32.597" UserId="1" Text="For questions about the &quot;Google Patents&quot; service." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12402" RevisionGUID="5f71c606-511a-4559-abd3-0b94162c27a6" CreationDate="2015-03-12T02:43:28.477" UserId="13717" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20120195235][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120195235&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this different from existing SDP attribute &quot;a=lang&quot; as given in&#xD;&#xA;[RFC 4566](http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4566.txt)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28417" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12402" RevisionGUID="5f71c606-511a-4559-abd3-0b94162c27a6" CreationDate="2015-03-12T02:43:28.477" UserId="13717" Text="Query on existing SDP attribute related to this patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28418" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12402" RevisionGUID="5f71c606-511a-4559-abd3-0b94162c27a6" CreationDate="2015-03-12T02:43:28.477" UserId="13717" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12403" RevisionGUID="d17ca24d-fb8b-4430-b8c9-d3a604983cac" CreationDate="2015-03-12T03:37:15.880" UserId="13719" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20030154017][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20030154017" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28420" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12403" RevisionGUID="d17ca24d-fb8b-4430-b8c9-d3a604983cac" CreationDate="2015-03-12T03:37:15.880" UserId="13719" Text="Now is 2015 but the priority date is 1996 and the patent is in Application status, how come?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28421" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12403" RevisionGUID="d17ca24d-fb8b-4430-b8c9-d3a604983cac" CreationDate="2015-03-12T03:37:15.880" UserId="13719" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;priority&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12376" RevisionGUID="defc562f-09fa-4a4f-8df4-93245006745c" CreationDate="2015-03-12T04:44:47.803" UserId="11895" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="Firstly it depends on your definition defined in specification and limitations associated with it. Based on State of the Art and judicial claim construction i believe &quot;computer-implemented method&quot; have broader interpretation and careful drafting of dependent claims and specification will cover all your objects 'processor, storage, memory, input/output etc.' alternatively You can use preamble 'A Method'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Atser Research Technologies, Inc. v. Raba-Kistner Consultants Inc., et al., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25294 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 27, 2009). It was stated that &quot;computer-implemented method&quot; will cover steps performed using a computer, which include processor and other peripherals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand 'executing on processor steps' will cover all steps performed in processor only. You can improve processor definition or phrase as such by including all component used in steps.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12402" RevisionGUID="c75d1a96-1e09-47f4-902e-431fa00fb9b5" CreationDate="2015-03-12T08:12:50.753" UserId="10011" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20120195235][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120195235&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this different from existing SDP attribute &quot;a=lang&quot; as given in&#xD;&#xA;[RFC 4566](http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4566.txt)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28424" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12402" RevisionGUID="c75d1a96-1e09-47f4-902e-431fa00fb9b5" CreationDate="2015-03-12T08:12:50.753" UserId="10011" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;us20120195235&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12403" RevisionGUID="1a045d5d-a2c0-4711-a27b-827a800eac6d" CreationDate="2015-03-12T08:24:08.587" UserId="11895" Comment="added 94 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20030154017][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Priority date is 1996 and based on number the patent is in Application status, how come?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20030154017" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28426" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12403" RevisionGUID="1a045d5d-a2c0-4711-a27b-827a800eac6d" CreationDate="2015-03-12T08:24:08.587" UserId="11895" Comment="added 94 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Understanding File History and child parent of a Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28427" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12403" RevisionGUID="1a045d5d-a2c0-4711-a27b-827a800eac6d" CreationDate="2015-03-12T08:24:08.587" UserId="11895" Comment="added 94 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;priority&gt;&lt;continuation-in-part&gt;&lt;child-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12405" RevisionGUID="86888a12-f896-43d1-b9fe-333e93c57ab8" CreationDate="2015-03-12T09:31:46.910" UserId="13722" Text="US20030154017 is already abandoned on Feb. 23, 2005&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12408" RevisionGUID="fc8b3a45-eda2-4bdb-828c-d8456305d9b0" CreationDate="2015-03-12T19:13:12.903" UserId="7197" Text="Public PAIR ( http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair ) is a website provided by the USPTO that allows anybody to monitor and inspect the prosecution of US published patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Public PAIR not only displays information regarding application status but also - for applications filed after (about) 2000 - gives access to the prosecution history, i.e., all correspondence associated with a particular patent application. This information in Public PAIR is also referred to as the Image File Wrapper and accessible using a tab of the same name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By way of example, the screenshot represents the Image File Wrapper of US patent application 11/161,345:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Image File Wrapper][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The documents are sorted in chronological order, the most recent document on the top. You can click on the link provided in the column &quot;Document Description&quot; to view a single document. Or you can download the documents. The system also permits to download a selection or all documents at once. To download all documents, 1. click the checkbox and 2. click the &quot;PDF&quot; button. Documents are provided in PDF format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you downloaded all documents at once, you'll end up with a single PDF file containing bookmarks (or a table of contents, TOC). If your favorite PDF viewer supports TOC, you can navigate through the documents by clicking on TOC entries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If you have a large Image File Wrapper PDF containing the full prosecution history, how do you split it out into single documents?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to follow the instructions provided here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  https://answers.acrobatusers.com/how-split-multipage-pdf-file-q100034.aspx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but they are not helpful with regard to the Image File Wrapper PDF. The &quot;split document&quot; function aborts when the TOC entry can not be used as file name or if the file already exists. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/RRCHT.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28445" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12408" RevisionGUID="fc8b3a45-eda2-4bdb-828c-d8456305d9b0" CreationDate="2015-03-12T19:13:12.903" UserId="7197" Text="How to split a file wrapper pdf downloaded from Public PAIR into single PDF files" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28446" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12408" RevisionGUID="fc8b3a45-eda2-4bdb-828c-d8456305d9b0" CreationDate="2015-03-12T19:13:12.903" UserId="7197" Text="&lt;pair&gt;&lt;file-history&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12408" RevisionGUID="242c6c49-88f2-4f65-b893-392ce3fb3148" CreationDate="2015-03-12T19:20:26.193" UserId="7197" Comment="typo" Text="Public PAIR ( http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair ) is a website provided by the USPTO that allows anybody to monitor and inspect the prosecution of US published patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Public PAIR not only displays information regarding application status but also - for applications filed after (about) 2000 - gives access to the prosecution history, i.e., all correspondence associated with a particular patent application. This information in Public PAIR is also referred to as the Image File Wrapper and accessible using a tab of the same name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By way of example, the screenshot represents the Image File Wrapper of US patent application 11/161,345:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Image File Wrapper][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The documents are sorted in chronological order, the most recent document on the top. You can click on the link provided in the column &quot;Document Description&quot; to view a single document. The system also permits to download a selection or all documents at once. To download all documents, 1. click the checkbox and 2. click the &quot;PDF&quot; button. Documents are provided in PDF format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you downloaded all documents at once, you'll end up with a single PDF file which includes bookmarks (or a table of contents, TOC) for each document. If your favorite PDF viewer supports bookmarks/TOC, you can quickly navigate through the PDF by clicking on the corresponding bookmark/TOC of the document you want to see.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If you have a large Image File Wrapper PDF containing the full prosecution history, how do you split it out into single PDF files?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to follow the instructions provided here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  https://answers.acrobatusers.com/how-split-multipage-pdf-file-q100034.aspx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but they are not helpful with regard to the Image File Wrapper PDF. The &quot;split document&quot; function aborts when the TOC entry can not be used as file name or if the file already exists. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/RRCHT.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12409" RevisionGUID="a7905d78-249c-41de-b148-6ea1279d1b7c" CreationDate="2015-03-12T19:31:08.047" UserId="7197" Text="As a self-appointed Unix guru ;-)  and in accordance with StackExchange's roots, I ended up using command-line tools like &quot;pdftk&quot; and &quot;perl&quot; to solve this problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On an Apple Mac&#xD;&#xA;1. install &quot;[pdftk][1]&quot; command-line tool (directly or via [MacPorts][2])&#xD;&#xA;2. &lt;strike&gt;install perl&lt;/strike&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. copy this script into a text file and run it with a path to the Image File Wrapper PDF as argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#!/usr/bin/perl&#xD;&#xA;## Splits a PDF file according to its bookmarks (aka. table of contents) into&#xD;&#xA;# several smaller files. Uses &quot;pdftk&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;# V1.0&#xD;&#xA;# Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted.&#xD;&#xA;# This software is provided &quot;as is&quot; and any express or implied warranties, including, &#xD;&#xA;# but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a &#xD;&#xA;# particular purpose are disclaimed. In no event shall the copyright holder or &#xD;&#xA;# contributors be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, exemplary, or&#xD;&#xA;# consequential damages arising in any way out of the use of this software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;use strict;&#xD;&#xA;use warnings;&#xD;&#xA;$0 =~ s(^.*/)();&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sub usage {&#xD;&#xA;  print &quot;usage: $0 [-n] &lt;filewrapper.pdf&gt;\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;  print &quot;  -n    dry run\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;  exit(0);&#xD;&#xA;}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sub get_bookmarks { # ($filename, \%bookmarks, \$number_of_pages)&#xD;&#xA;  my $filename = shift;&#xD;&#xA;  my $ref_bookmarks = shift;&#xD;&#xA;  my $ref_max = shift;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  open(PIPE, &quot;-|&quot;, &quot;pdftk&quot;, $filename, &quot;dump_data&quot;) || return 1;&#xD;&#xA;  chomp(my @lines = &lt;PIPE&gt;);&#xD;&#xA;  close(PIPE);&#xD;&#xA;  return 2 if ($?);&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  #NumberOfPages: 163&#xD;&#xA;  #BookmarkBegin&#xD;&#xA;  #BookmarkTitle: 2012-10-09 Non-Final Rejection&#xD;&#xA;  #BookmarkLevel: 1&#xD;&#xA;  #BookmarkPageNumber: 1&#xD;&#xA;  #BookmarkBegin&#xD;&#xA;  #BookmarkTitle: 2012-10-09 List of references cited by examiner&#xD;&#xA;  #BookmarkLevel: 1&#xD;&#xA;  #BookmarkPageNumber: 20&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  %$ref_bookmarks = ();&#xD;&#xA;  my $page = &quot;&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;  my $title = &quot;&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;  $$ref_max = 0;&#xD;&#xA;  foreach my $line (@lines) {&#xD;&#xA;    my @fields = split(/:\s+/, $line, 2);&#xD;&#xA;    if ($fields[0] eq &quot;BookmarkBegin&quot;) {&#xD;&#xA;      $page = $title = &quot;&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;    } elsif ($fields[0] eq &quot;BookmarkTitle&quot;) {&#xD;&#xA;      $title = $fields[1];&#xD;&#xA;    } elsif ($fields[0] eq &quot;BookmarkPageNumber&quot;) {&#xD;&#xA;      $page = $fields[1];&#xD;&#xA;    } elsif ($fields[0] eq &quot;NumberOfPages&quot;) {&#xD;&#xA;      $$ref_max = $fields[1];&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;    if ($page ne &quot;&quot; &amp;&amp; $page &gt; 0 &amp;&amp; $title ne &quot;&quot;) {&#xD;&#xA;      $$ref_bookmarks{ $page } = $title;&#xD;&#xA;      $page = $title = &quot;&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;  }&#xD;&#xA;}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;my $dry_run = 0;&#xD;&#xA;if ($ARGV[0] eq &quot;-n&quot;) {&#xD;&#xA;  $dry_run = 1;&#xD;&#xA;  shift(@ARGV);&#xD;&#xA;}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if (@ARGV != 1) {&#xD;&#xA;  print &quot;Error: check commandline!\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;  usage();&#xD;&#xA;}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;my $filename = $ARGV[0];&#xD;&#xA;if (! -r $filename) {&#xD;&#xA;  die (&quot;Error: Could not open '$filename'.\n&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;my %bookmarks = ();&#xD;&#xA;my $max = 0;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;my $error = get_bookmarks($filename, \%bookmarks, \$max);&#xD;&#xA;if ($error) {&#xD;&#xA;  die(&quot;Error: Could not run 'pdftk'.\n&quot;) if ($error == 1);&#xD;&#xA;  die(&quot;Error: pdftk reported an error. Aborting.\n&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;print &quot;Processing &quot; . $max . &quot; pages...\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;my @pages_sorted = sort {$b &lt;=&gt; $a} keys %bookmarks; # reverse sort&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if (@pages_sorted == 0) {&#xD;&#xA;  print &quot;No table of contents found.\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;  exit(0);&#xD;&#xA;}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;my $begin = &quot;&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;my $end = &quot;end&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;$error = 0;&#xD;&#xA;my @new_files = ();&#xD;&#xA;for (my $i = 0; $i &lt; @pages_sorted; $i++) {&#xD;&#xA;  $begin = $pages_sorted[$i];&#xD;&#xA;  my($date, $new_filename) = split (/\s+/, $bookmarks{ $begin }, 2);&#xD;&#xA;  # sanitize filename&#xD;&#xA;  # add characters which your filesystem dislikes into [ ] brackets&#xD;&#xA;  $new_filename =~ s([/;\\])(_)g;&#xD;&#xA;  $new_filename =  $date . &quot; &quot; . sprintf(&quot;%03d&quot;, $i + 1) . &quot; &quot; . $new_filename . &quot;.pdf&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;  push(@new_files, $new_filename);&#xD;&#xA;  my @cmd = ( &quot;pdftk&quot;, $filename, &quot;cat&quot;, $begin . &quot;-&quot; . $end, &quot;output&quot;, $new_filename );&#xD;&#xA;  $end = $begin - 1;&#xD;&#xA;  if ($dry_run) {&#xD;&#xA;    print join(&quot; &quot;, @cmd) . &quot;\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;  } else {&#xD;&#xA;    print $bookmarks{ $begin } . &quot;\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;    system @cmd;&#xD;&#xA;    if ($?) {&#xD;&#xA;      $error++;&#xD;&#xA;    } else {&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;  }&#xD;&#xA;}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if ($error) {&#xD;&#xA;  die(&quot;Errors occurred during processing of $error file(s).\n&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;} elsif (! $dry_run) {&#xD;&#xA;  print &quot;Checking for completeness...&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;  my $page_count = 0;&#xD;&#xA;  foreach my $pdf (@new_files) {&#xD;&#xA;    my $c = 0;&#xD;&#xA;    get_bookmarks($pdf, {} , \$c );&#xD;&#xA;    $page_count += $c;&#xD;&#xA;  }&#xD;&#xA;  if ($page_count == $max) {&#xD;&#xA;    print &quot;No errors.\nCreated &quot; . @pages_sorted . &quot; PDF files containing a total of $page_count pages.\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;  } else {&#xD;&#xA;    print &quot;\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;    print &quot;Error: All documents have been extracted but the total number of pages\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;    print &quot;       in all extracted documents is $page_count and does not match the number\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;    print &quot;       of $max pages in the source document '$filename'.\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;  }&#xD;&#xA;}&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.pdflabs.com/tools/pdftk-server/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.macports.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12409" RevisionGUID="9cce857d-b659-4c8f-99dc-85563f853ab3" CreationDate="2015-03-12T19:38:04.250" UserId="7197" Comment="list style applied" Text="As a self-appointed Unix guru ;-)  and in accordance with StackExchange's roots, I ended up using command-line tools like &quot;pdftk&quot; and &quot;perl&quot; to solve this problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On an Apple Mac:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. install &quot;[pdftk][1]&quot; command-line tool (directly or via [MacPorts][2])&#xD;&#xA; 2. &lt;strike&gt;install perl&lt;/strike&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 3. copy this script into a text file and run it with a path to the Image File Wrapper PDF as argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#!/usr/bin/perl&#xD;&#xA;## Splits a PDF file according to its bookmarks (aka. table of contents) into&#xD;&#xA;# several smaller files. Uses &quot;pdftk&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;# V1.0&#xD;&#xA;# Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted.&#xD;&#xA;# This software is provided &quot;as is&quot; and any express or implied warranties, including, &#xD;&#xA;# but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a &#xD;&#xA;# particular purpose are disclaimed. In no event shall the copyright holder or &#xD;&#xA;# contributors be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, exemplary, or&#xD;&#xA;# consequential damages arising in any way out of the use of this software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;use strict;&#xD;&#xA;use warnings;&#xD;&#xA;$0 =~ s(^.*/)();&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sub usage {&#xD;&#xA;  print &quot;usage: $0 [-n] &lt;filewrapper.pdf&gt;\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;  print &quot;  -n    dry run\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;  exit(0);&#xD;&#xA;}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sub get_bookmarks { # ($filename, \%bookmarks, \$number_of_pages)&#xD;&#xA;  my $filename = shift;&#xD;&#xA;  my $ref_bookmarks = shift;&#xD;&#xA;  my $ref_max = shift;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  open(PIPE, &quot;-|&quot;, &quot;pdftk&quot;, $filename, &quot;dump_data&quot;) || return 1;&#xD;&#xA;  chomp(my @lines = &lt;PIPE&gt;);&#xD;&#xA;  close(PIPE);&#xD;&#xA;  return 2 if ($?);&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  #NumberOfPages: 163&#xD;&#xA;  #BookmarkBegin&#xD;&#xA;  #BookmarkTitle: 2012-10-09 Non-Final Rejection&#xD;&#xA;  #BookmarkLevel: 1&#xD;&#xA;  #BookmarkPageNumber: 1&#xD;&#xA;  #BookmarkBegin&#xD;&#xA;  #BookmarkTitle: 2012-10-09 List of references cited by examiner&#xD;&#xA;  #BookmarkLevel: 1&#xD;&#xA;  #BookmarkPageNumber: 20&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  %$ref_bookmarks = ();&#xD;&#xA;  my $page = &quot;&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;  my $title = &quot;&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;  $$ref_max = 0;&#xD;&#xA;  foreach my $line (@lines) {&#xD;&#xA;    my @fields = split(/:\s+/, $line, 2);&#xD;&#xA;    if ($fields[0] eq &quot;BookmarkBegin&quot;) {&#xD;&#xA;      $page = $title = &quot;&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;    } elsif ($fields[0] eq &quot;BookmarkTitle&quot;) {&#xD;&#xA;      $title = $fields[1];&#xD;&#xA;    } elsif ($fields[0] eq &quot;BookmarkPageNumber&quot;) {&#xD;&#xA;      $page = $fields[1];&#xD;&#xA;    } elsif ($fields[0] eq &quot;NumberOfPages&quot;) {&#xD;&#xA;      $$ref_max = $fields[1];&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;    if ($page ne &quot;&quot; &amp;&amp; $page &gt; 0 &amp;&amp; $title ne &quot;&quot;) {&#xD;&#xA;      $$ref_bookmarks{ $page } = $title;&#xD;&#xA;      $page = $title = &quot;&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;  }&#xD;&#xA;}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;my $dry_run = 0;&#xD;&#xA;if ($ARGV[0] eq &quot;-n&quot;) {&#xD;&#xA;  $dry_run = 1;&#xD;&#xA;  shift(@ARGV);&#xD;&#xA;}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if (@ARGV != 1) {&#xD;&#xA;  print &quot;Error: check commandline!\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;  usage();&#xD;&#xA;}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;my $filename = $ARGV[0];&#xD;&#xA;if (! -r $filename) {&#xD;&#xA;  die (&quot;Error: Could not open '$filename'.\n&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;my %bookmarks = ();&#xD;&#xA;my $max = 0;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;my $error = get_bookmarks($filename, \%bookmarks, \$max);&#xD;&#xA;if ($error) {&#xD;&#xA;  die(&quot;Error: Could not run 'pdftk'.\n&quot;) if ($error == 1);&#xD;&#xA;  die(&quot;Error: pdftk reported an error. Aborting.\n&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;print &quot;Processing &quot; . $max . &quot; pages...\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;my @pages_sorted = sort {$b &lt;=&gt; $a} keys %bookmarks; # reverse sort&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if (@pages_sorted == 0) {&#xD;&#xA;  print &quot;No table of contents found.\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;  exit(0);&#xD;&#xA;}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;my $begin = &quot;&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;my $end = &quot;end&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;$error = 0;&#xD;&#xA;my @new_files = ();&#xD;&#xA;for (my $i = 0; $i &lt; @pages_sorted; $i++) {&#xD;&#xA;  $begin = $pages_sorted[$i];&#xD;&#xA;  my($date, $new_filename) = split (/\s+/, $bookmarks{ $begin }, 2);&#xD;&#xA;  # sanitize filename&#xD;&#xA;  # add characters which your filesystem dislikes into [ ] brackets&#xD;&#xA;  $new_filename =~ s([/;\\])(_)g;&#xD;&#xA;  $new_filename =  $date . &quot; &quot; . sprintf(&quot;%03d&quot;, $i + 1) . &quot; &quot; . $new_filename . &quot;.pdf&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;  push(@new_files, $new_filename);&#xD;&#xA;  my @cmd = ( &quot;pdftk&quot;, $filename, &quot;cat&quot;, $begin . &quot;-&quot; . $end, &quot;output&quot;, $new_filename );&#xD;&#xA;  $end = $begin - 1;&#xD;&#xA;  if ($dry_run) {&#xD;&#xA;    print join(&quot; &quot;, @cmd) . &quot;\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;  } else {&#xD;&#xA;    print $bookmarks{ $begin } . &quot;\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;    system @cmd;&#xD;&#xA;    if ($?) {&#xD;&#xA;      $error++;&#xD;&#xA;    } else {&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;  }&#xD;&#xA;}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if ($error) {&#xD;&#xA;  die(&quot;Errors occurred during processing of $error file(s).\n&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;} elsif (! $dry_run) {&#xD;&#xA;  print &quot;Checking for completeness...&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;  my $page_count = 0;&#xD;&#xA;  foreach my $pdf (@new_files) {&#xD;&#xA;    my $c = 0;&#xD;&#xA;    get_bookmarks($pdf, {} , \$c );&#xD;&#xA;    $page_count += $c;&#xD;&#xA;  }&#xD;&#xA;  if ($page_count == $max) {&#xD;&#xA;    print &quot;No errors.\nCreated &quot; . @pages_sorted . &quot; PDF files containing a total of $page_count pages.\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;  } else {&#xD;&#xA;    print &quot;\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;    print &quot;Error: All documents have been extracted but the total number of pages\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;    print &quot;       in all extracted documents is $page_count and does not match the number\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;    print &quot;       of $max pages in the source document '$filename'.\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;  }&#xD;&#xA;}&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.pdflabs.com/tools/pdftk-server/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.macports.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12409" RevisionGUID="b9c6d3f3-99cf-48ff-bfc4-d552df5afa97" CreationDate="2015-03-12T19:47:31.017" UserId="7197" Comment="code formatting issues" Text="As a self-appointed Unix guru ;-)  and in accordance with StackExchange's roots, I ended up using command-line tools like &quot;pdftk&quot; and &quot;perl&quot; to solve this problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On an Apple Mac:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. install &quot;[pdftk][1]&quot; command-line tool (directly or via [MacPorts][2])&#xD;&#xA; 2. &lt;strike&gt;install perl&lt;/strike&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 3. copy this script into a text file and run it with a path to the Image File Wrapper PDF as argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# &#xD;&#xA;    #!/usr/bin/perl&#xD;&#xA;    # Splits a PDF file according to its bookmarks (aka. table of contents) into&#xD;&#xA;    # several smaller files. Uses &quot;pdftk&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;    # V1.0&#xD;&#xA;    # Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted.&#xD;&#xA;    # This software is provided &quot;as is&quot; and any express or implied warranties, including, &#xD;&#xA;    # but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a &#xD;&#xA;    # particular purpose are disclaimed. In no event shall the copyright holder or &#xD;&#xA;    # contributors be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, exemplary, or&#xD;&#xA;    # consequential damages arising in any way out of the use of this software.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    use strict;&#xD;&#xA;    use warnings;&#xD;&#xA;    $0 =~ s(^.*/)();&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    sub usage {&#xD;&#xA;      print &quot;usage: $0 [-n] &lt;filewrapper.pdf&gt;\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;      print &quot;  -n    dry run\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;      exit(0);&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    sub get_bookmarks { # ($filename, \%bookmarks, \$number_of_pages)&#xD;&#xA;      my $filename = shift;&#xD;&#xA;      my $ref_bookmarks = shift;&#xD;&#xA;      my $ref_max = shift;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;      open(PIPE, &quot;-|&quot;, &quot;pdftk&quot;, $filename, &quot;dump_data&quot;) || return 1;&#xD;&#xA;      chomp(my @lines = &lt;PIPE&gt;);&#xD;&#xA;      close(PIPE);&#xD;&#xA;      return 2 if ($?);&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;      #NumberOfPages: 163&#xD;&#xA;      #BookmarkBegin&#xD;&#xA;      #BookmarkTitle: 2012-10-09 Non-Final Rejection&#xD;&#xA;      #BookmarkLevel: 1&#xD;&#xA;      #BookmarkPageNumber: 1&#xD;&#xA;      #BookmarkBegin&#xD;&#xA;      #BookmarkTitle: 2012-10-09 List of references cited by examiner&#xD;&#xA;      #BookmarkLevel: 1&#xD;&#xA;      #BookmarkPageNumber: 20&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;      %$ref_bookmarks = ();&#xD;&#xA;      my $page = &quot;&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;      my $title = &quot;&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;      $$ref_max = 0;&#xD;&#xA;      foreach my $line (@lines) {&#xD;&#xA;        my @fields = split(/:\s+/, $line, 2);&#xD;&#xA;        if ($fields[0] eq &quot;BookmarkBegin&quot;) {&#xD;&#xA;          $page = $title = &quot;&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;        } elsif ($fields[0] eq &quot;BookmarkTitle&quot;) {&#xD;&#xA;          $title = $fields[1];&#xD;&#xA;        } elsif ($fields[0] eq &quot;BookmarkPageNumber&quot;) {&#xD;&#xA;          $page = $fields[1];&#xD;&#xA;        } elsif ($fields[0] eq &quot;NumberOfPages&quot;) {&#xD;&#xA;          $$ref_max = $fields[1];&#xD;&#xA;        }&#xD;&#xA;        if ($page ne &quot;&quot; &amp;&amp; $page &gt; 0 &amp;&amp; $title ne &quot;&quot;) {&#xD;&#xA;          $$ref_bookmarks{ $page } = $title;&#xD;&#xA;          $page = $title = &quot;&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;        }&#xD;&#xA;      }&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    my $dry_run = 0;&#xD;&#xA;    if ($ARGV[0] eq &quot;-n&quot;) {&#xD;&#xA;      $dry_run = 1;&#xD;&#xA;      shift(@ARGV);&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    if (@ARGV != 1) {&#xD;&#xA;      print &quot;Error: check commandline!\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;      usage();&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    my $filename = $ARGV[0];&#xD;&#xA;    if (! -r $filename) {&#xD;&#xA;      die (&quot;Error: Could not open '$filename'.\n&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    my %bookmarks = ();&#xD;&#xA;    my $max = 0;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    my $error = get_bookmarks($filename, \%bookmarks, \$max);&#xD;&#xA;    if ($error) {&#xD;&#xA;      die(&quot;Error: Could not run 'pdftk'.\n&quot;) if ($error == 1);&#xD;&#xA;      die(&quot;Error: pdftk reported an error. Aborting.\n&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    print &quot;Processing &quot; . $max . &quot; pages...\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    my @pages_sorted = sort {$b &lt;=&gt; $a} keys %bookmarks; # reverse sort&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    if (@pages_sorted == 0) {&#xD;&#xA;      print &quot;No table of contents found.\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;      exit(0);&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    my $begin = &quot;&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;    my $end = &quot;end&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;    $error = 0;&#xD;&#xA;    my @new_files = ();&#xD;&#xA;    for (my $i = 0; $i &lt; @pages_sorted; $i++) {&#xD;&#xA;      $begin = $pages_sorted[$i];&#xD;&#xA;      my($date, $new_filename) = split (/\s+/, $bookmarks{ $begin }, 2);&#xD;&#xA;      # sanitize filename&#xD;&#xA;      # add characters which your filesystem dislikes into [ ] brackets&#xD;&#xA;      $new_filename =~ s([/;\\])(_)g;&#xD;&#xA;      $new_filename =  $date . &quot; &quot; . sprintf(&quot;%03d&quot;, $i + 1) . &quot; &quot; . $new_filename . &quot;.pdf&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;      push(@new_files, $new_filename);&#xD;&#xA;      my @cmd = ( &quot;pdftk&quot;, $filename, &quot;cat&quot;, $begin . &quot;-&quot; . $end, &quot;output&quot;, $new_filename );&#xD;&#xA;      $end = $begin - 1;&#xD;&#xA;      if ($dry_run) {&#xD;&#xA;        print join(&quot; &quot;, @cmd) . &quot;\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;      } else {&#xD;&#xA;        print $bookmarks{ $begin } . &quot;\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;        system @cmd;&#xD;&#xA;        if ($?) {&#xD;&#xA;          $error++;&#xD;&#xA;        } else {&#xD;&#xA;        }&#xD;&#xA;      }&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    if ($error) {&#xD;&#xA;      die(&quot;Errors occurred during processing of $error file(s).\n&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;    } elsif (! $dry_run) {&#xD;&#xA;      print &quot;Checking for completeness...&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;      my $page_count = 0;&#xD;&#xA;      foreach my $pdf (@new_files) {&#xD;&#xA;        my $c = 0;&#xD;&#xA;        get_bookmarks($pdf, {} , \$c );&#xD;&#xA;        $page_count += $c;&#xD;&#xA;      }&#xD;&#xA;      if ($page_count == $max) {&#xD;&#xA;        print &quot;No errors.\nCreated &quot; . @pages_sorted . &quot; PDF files containing a total of $page_count pages.\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;      } else {&#xD;&#xA;        print &quot;\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;        print &quot;Error: All documents have been extracted but the total number of pages\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;        print &quot;       in all extracted documents is $page_count and does not match the number\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;        print &quot;       of $max pages in the source document '$filename'.\n&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;      }&#xD;&#xA;    }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.pdflabs.com/tools/pdftk-server/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.macports.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12410" RevisionGUID="e9139307-2d3f-448f-a997-1fadbe5b7552" CreationDate="2015-03-13T04:20:34.123" UserId="13728" Text="I've got this code in mathematica that could be used in other programming languages. Would a patent protect me against people transferring the mathematical formulas I've developed into other programming languages ? Books are written in different languages but the content stays the same. Can I patent a mathematical formula ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've developed a bit of mathematica code that can find primes within a range of numbers. For example, if I wanted all the primes between one million and two million, it could do that. Of what use is this code I invented ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only thing I could think of was that if one wanted to find two primes of a certain size for cryptography keys. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the code could be used to test a specific number for primality, quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just invented this last week,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Copy the following into Mathematica, select all, right-click on Convert To, choose StandardForm.&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;N[Sum[2/10^((n*(Floor[c/n] + 1) - c)*s), {n, 1, Floor[Sqrt[ c]]}] + Sum[ 2/(10^((n*(Floor[c/n] + 1) - c)*s)* (10^(ns) - 1)), {n, 1, Floor[Sqrt[ c]]}] + Sum[2/(10^((o^2 - o - c) s)*(10^(o*s) - 1)), {o, Floor[Sqrt[c]] + 1, max}], ((max + 1)^2 - c)*s]; AbsoluteTiming[Flatten[ Position[Partition[ RealDigits[%][[1]], s, s, -1], {(0) .., 2}]]] + c&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-end&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c=crossover s=spacing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The crossover is the number which you want to surpass. The spacing is difficult to determine, so I'll say that in general, if you use a number which is equal to the number of digits of the max^2, you should be safe. So for all primes up to 100^2 = 10000, that is five digits, so use a 5 for the spacing. Follow this rule and you should be safe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those who are wondering, the code is based on a bigger structure of numbers formed by the Sieve of Eratosthenes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28453" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12410" RevisionGUID="e9139307-2d3f-448f-a997-1fadbe5b7552" CreationDate="2015-03-13T04:20:34.123" UserId="13728" Text="Does a computer code patent hold against development in other computer languages?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28454" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12410" RevisionGUID="e9139307-2d3f-448f-a997-1fadbe5b7552" CreationDate="2015-03-13T04:20:34.123" UserId="13728" Text="&lt;math&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12410" RevisionGUID="12b8686b-fbad-4b0a-b23b-db5c7a623ee5" CreationDate="2015-03-13T04:56:59.453" UserId="11895" Comment="removed disclosure so that it wont stay in public" Text="I've got this code in mathematica that could be used in other programming languages. Would a patent protect me against people transferring the mathematical formulas I've developed into other programming languages ? Books are written in different languages but the content stays the same. Can I patent a mathematical formula ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've developed a bit of mathematica code that can find primes within a range of numbers. For example, if I wanted all the primes between one million and two million, it could do that. Of what use is this code I invented ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; the code is based on a bigger structure of numbers formed by the Sieve of Eratosthenes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12411" RevisionGUID="29e672d1-2b54-4fee-b076-45435b8f2057" CreationDate="2015-03-13T07:30:57.667" UserId="10011" Text="You can't patent ideas, and &quot;finding prime numbers&quot; unfortunately isn't really a tangible process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'd be better off going for a patent on a use for that formula. Coming up with a use for such a thing is out of the scope of this site, but I'd suggest looking into encryption. As far as I know, that's the heaviest use of prime numbers out there. I don't know, granted, whether your formula would be useful there or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking to the part of your question that *is* on-topic, however, inventions need to have practical utility to be patentable. &quot;Utility&quot; is, of course, a somewhat subjective term, and it leaves a lot up for interpretations by the patent office and, ultimately, courts. But speaking as broadly as I may through a format such as this, it would be difficult to argue a theoretical mathematical formula as innately having real-world applicability. You'd likely have more luck digging for an implementation of that formula, then somehow patenting the use of that formula to achieve that practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's an interesting grey-area in one, [reported in a story in the New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/03/business/patents-appeals-court-says-mathematical-formula-can-be-patented-if-it-moneymaker.html), where a financial formula was deemed as having direct real-world applications because a court found it to directly make money. It's, unfortunately, unlikely that your pure-math formula would find a similar conclusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as cross-applicability over platforms is concerned, that's another interesting question. That depends a bit on how the patent is phrased.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your best bet, rather unsurprisingly, would be to speak with a patent professional about your specific invention and its uses, then go from there. Many such professionals offer fairly cheap (or even free) initial consultations, where you could get a very good idea of what options you may have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a side note, and I know Pushpak mentioned this in comments, it is extremely important that you don't disclose your invention publicly prior to speaking with a patent professional and filing an application. In the United States, you're lucky enough to be given a one-year grace period from the time of public disclosure to the time of filing, but even in light of that, you're giving up some rights, including the ability to file elsewhere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12411" RevisionGUID="318a3e04-1a7b-4ee7-9bbf-d6696bc92477" CreationDate="2015-03-13T07:40:19.697" UserId="10011" Comment="added 128 characters in body" Text="You can't patent ideas, and &quot;finding prime numbers&quot; unfortunately isn't really a tangible process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'd be better off going for a patent on a use for that formula. Coming up with a use for such a thing is out of the scope of this site, but I'd suggest looking into encryption. As far as I know, that's the heaviest use of prime numbers out there. I don't know, granted, whether your formula would be useful there or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking to the part of your question that *is* on-topic, however, inventions need to have practical utility to be patentable. &quot;Utility&quot; is, of course, a somewhat subjective term, and it leaves a lot up for interpretations by the patent office and, ultimately, courts. But speaking as broadly as I may through a format such as this, it would be difficult to argue a theoretical mathematical formula as innately having real-world applicability. You'd likely have more luck digging for an implementation of that formula, then somehow patenting the use of that formula to achieve that practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's an interesting grey-area in one, [reported in a story in the New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/03/business/patents-appeals-court-says-mathematical-formula-can-be-patented-if-it-moneymaker.html), where a financial formula was deemed as having direct real-world applications because a court found it to directly make money. It's, unfortunately, unlikely that your pure-math formula would find a similar conclusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as cross-applicability over platforms is concerned, that's another interesting question. That depends a bit on how the patent is phrased. I suspect you'd be able to get something, as long as you could overcome the inherent struggle of patenting a formula like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your best bet, rather unsurprisingly, would be to speak with a patent professional about your specific invention and its uses, then go from there. Many such professionals offer fairly cheap (or even free) initial consultations, where you could get a very good idea of what options you may have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a side note, and I know Pushpak mentioned this in comments, it is extremely important that you don't disclose your invention publicly prior to speaking with a patent professional and filing an application. In the United States, you're lucky enough to be given a one-year grace period from the time of public disclosure to the time of filing, but even in light of that, you're giving up some rights, including the ability to file elsewhere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12412" RevisionGUID="3910aaf0-de40-44a9-b5ab-4c6ca477520c" CreationDate="2015-03-13T16:15:08.937" UserId="13730" Text="I believe I have a patent, originally filed Sept 30, 2010, that helps cover this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US8489929" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12413" RevisionGUID="d46dcafa-e5b3-4fd2-96a6-b4efaf9392fe" CreationDate="2015-03-13T16:36:04.547" UserId="13731" Text="Do I need permission to print an image from the above 1941 patent? Is it public domain?  Printing would be on vinyl wallcovering and installed in college building." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28460" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12413" RevisionGUID="d46dcafa-e5b3-4fd2-96a6-b4efaf9392fe" CreationDate="2015-03-13T16:36:04.547" UserId="13731" Text="printing the patent image from US patent 2,249,572 wearable bone-conduction hearing aid 1941" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28461" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12413" RevisionGUID="d46dcafa-e5b3-4fd2-96a6-b4efaf9392fe" CreationDate="2015-03-13T16:36:04.547" UserId="13731" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12412" RevisionGUID="6d6135f7-1055-4910-a67d-9885f68a302d" CreationDate="2015-03-13T18:36:41.020" UserId="11895" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="I believe I have a patent, originally filed Sept 30, 2010, that helps cover this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US8489929][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8489929" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12414" RevisionGUID="f4066c31-d597-4dc0-bd2f-dd2fc5ca8325" CreationDate="2015-03-13T20:56:16.037" UserId="13733" Text="Depends on how the claim is worded. In the US, isolated and purified DNA is not patentable per se, though it used to be. The rationale being that its a &quot;natural product&quot; even though isolated DNA isn't, nevertheless, the Supreme Court said the differences weren't great enough to make it patentable.  cDNA by contrast is patentable.  &#xD;&#xA;However, specific uses for isolated and purified DNA are likely to still be patentable.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Fed. Cir. recently went to town on this question and said a pair of primers isn't patentable either, although pairs of primers don't exit in nature, and the current Guidance doesn't even address the issue.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This area of law has been rapidly changing and can be expected to change again.  Meanwhile, there are many ways to avoid these results and get meaningful claim coverage.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/14-1361.Opinion.12-15-2014.1.PDF&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12415" RevisionGUID="3c9b0579-eafe-40a9-b2a1-2e789333241d" CreationDate="2015-03-14T01:04:50.013" UserId="9802" Text="Unless it has a specific copyright notice, patent images are in the public domain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [Are text and images in the patent copyrighted?](http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/44/9802)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12413" RevisionGUID="606cfced-d22b-45e5-bfa4-f0d2e7d575b7" CreationDate="2015-03-14T10:49:29.940" UserId="11895" Comment="added 123 characters in body; edited title" Text="IN reference to :- [US2249572][1] Wearable bone-conduction hearing aid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I need permission to print an image from patent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it public domain?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;USE:- Printing would be on vinyl wallcovering and installed in college building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US2249572" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28471" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12413" RevisionGUID="606cfced-d22b-45e5-bfa4-f0d2e7d575b7" CreationDate="2015-03-14T10:49:29.940" UserId="11895" Comment="added 123 characters in body; edited title" Text="Printing the patent image from US patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28472" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12413" RevisionGUID="af260d1c-18d2-429e-ab7c-af92915cfc28" CreationDate="2015-03-15T01:32:59.260" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[44],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12416" RevisionGUID="00ce552a-eef6-4ee2-8ce2-e0588f8b7b6e" CreationDate="2015-03-15T08:35:51.310" UserId="13522" Text="All depends where in the world you lurk. Ignoring the originality of your idea, algorithms are only patentable in a very small number of jurisdictions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not patentable you could investigate whether you could copyright the algorithm, again this will depend on territory, as the [WIPO treaty (1996)][1] explicitly excluded &quot;mathematical concepts&quot; from copyright. But some jurisdictions offer some protection eg. [Ibcos Computers Ltd -v- Barclays Mercantile Highland Finance Ltd; ChD 1994][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If neither of these cover you you may, again depending on territory, go down the trade secret / confidence route, assuming you're algorithm is still a secret. You'll simply need to ensure anyone you reveal your algorithm to has first signed a nondisclosure agreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=295166#P51_3806&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://swarb.co.uk/ibcos-computers-ltd-v-barclays-mercantile-highland-finance-ltd-chd-1994/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12417" RevisionGUID="66a5c4ad-a55c-4430-a347-8cbfba6bff0b" CreationDate="2015-03-15T08:48:19.253" UserId="13739" Text="In reference to the patent: [CA2726258A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/CA2726258A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like this patent application was actually a report done on a study about the efficacy of using THC and CBD on Cancer cell.&#xD;&#xA;The results are certainly great and very well serve to add to the knowledge base, but could someone please tell me what exactly was invented here? All I see is an application to own something that has been used in exactly this way for thousands of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the new part?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I can see, the only thing original here is that this person is the first to apply for a patent, to do the same thing that others have done for ages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28476" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12417" RevisionGUID="66a5c4ad-a55c-4430-a347-8cbfba6bff0b" CreationDate="2015-03-15T08:48:19.253" UserId="13739" Text="What is the invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28477" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12417" RevisionGUID="66a5c4ad-a55c-4430-a347-8cbfba6bff0b" CreationDate="2015-03-15T08:48:19.253" UserId="13739" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12417" RevisionGUID="f913542e-73c9-4d7e-9a8c-d5eb8efad1cf" CreationDate="2015-03-15T09:55:54.930" UserId="11895" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [CA2726258A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/CA2726258A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like this patent application was actually a report done on a study about the efficacy of using THC and CBD on Cancer cell.&#xD;&#xA;The results are certainly great and very well serve to add to the knowledge base, but could someone please tell me what exactly was invented here? All I see is an application to own something that has been used in exactly this way for thousands of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the inventive subject Matter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I can see, the only thing original here is that this person is the first to apply for a patent, to do the same thing that others have done for ages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12418" RevisionGUID="ac59ff56-2201-456b-ad3f-d944fecd9575" CreationDate="2015-03-15T10:28:22.327" UserDisplayName="user250" Text="I have worked on something a developed intellectual property. Anyhow, I do not have a patent as it takes a lot of time and money, especially international patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible for me to contact a company to whom I want to sell the intellectual property too, and sell it to them without having a patent on it?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28480" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12418" RevisionGUID="ac59ff56-2201-456b-ad3f-d944fecd9575" CreationDate="2015-03-15T10:28:22.327" UserDisplayName="user250" Text="Is it possible to sell an intellectual property without having a patent on it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28481" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12418" RevisionGUID="ac59ff56-2201-456b-ad3f-d944fecd9575" CreationDate="2015-03-15T10:28:22.327" UserDisplayName="user250" Text="&lt;intellectual-property&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12419" RevisionGUID="e77f453c-8d3a-4eaf-9918-c07bc9230a22" CreationDate="2015-03-15T11:24:02.597" UserId="10011" Text="Is it possible? Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it likely to happen and/or likely to turn out as you want? Maybe, maybe not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can certainly sell things as you wish. There are some caveats in contract law about what selling something really means, and all that good stuff, but those aren't really covered by the scope of your question or this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trouble with selling an unprotected invention, however, is two-fold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* First, **you** don't have protection for it. You might be able to get away with an NDA, or some other form of contract that keeps the recipient company from stealing your invention and running with it, but nothing will protect you like a patent.&#xD;&#xA;* Second, **the company** won't have protection for it. This is a little more serious. You can't NDA *everyone*, which means the company will be unprotected and other places will start popping up, selling your invention. That said, I can imagine a contract that involves the company funding a patent in lieu of some payment to you. Bear in mind, however, that such a deal would likely leave them in control of the patent, more than if they were simply licensing it from you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, there's a reason the patent system exists, and it's really difficult to get good protection for inventions whilst evading it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, if you were to pursue such a path, you'd need to be extremely careful in dealings with any company looking to buy the unprotected invention, and indeed you likely wouldn't get as good of a deal as if you were the holder of a patent (or application).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would heavily advise that you speak with a patent professional before making any moves, including, particularly since you mentioned international patents, talking to any potential customers of the invention rights. You might find that a provisional patent application is a more viable alternative to get started, or that professional may have experience in a similar case as yours." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12419" RevisionGUID="0aea68c8-46ba-4daa-9aff-d75c9cbf5582" CreationDate="2015-03-15T15:36:17.180" UserId="11895" Comment="minor improvements and removing doubt on cost and grace period" Text="Is it possible? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Yes**. But will be less lucrative for inventor. A patent application will give inventor a upper hand in $$ negotiation, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it likely to happen and/or likely to turn out as you want? Maybe, maybe not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can certainly sell things as you wish. There are some caveats in contract law about what selling something really means, and all that good stuff, but those aren't really covered by the scope of your question or this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trouble with selling an unprotected invention, however, is two-fold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* First, **you** don't have protection for it. You might be able to get away with an NDA, or some other form of contract that keeps the recipient company from stealing your invention and running with it, but nothing will protect you like a patent.&#xD;&#xA;* Second, **the company** won't have protection for it. This is a little more serious. You can't NDA *everyone*, which means the company will be unprotected and other places will start popping up, selling your invention. That said, I can imagine a contract that involves the company funding a patent in lieu of some payment to you. Bear in mind, however, that such a deal would likely leave them in control of the patent, more than if they were simply licensing it from you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, there's a reason the patent system exists, and it's really difficult to get good protection for inventions whilst evading it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, if you were to pursue such a path, you'd need to be extremely careful in dealings with any company looking to buy the unprotected invention, and indeed you likely wouldn't get as good of a deal as if you were the holder of a patent (or application).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would heavily advise that you speak with a patent professional or at least go for provisional patent filing before making any moves, including, particularly since you mentioned international patents, talking to any potential customers of the invention rights. You might find that a provisional patent application is a more viable alternative to get started, or that professional may have experience in a similar case as yours. You will be surprised to know that filing a provisional patent is not that expensive as you think. it also gives you 12 months for complete patent filing, by that time I am sure you will struck a more promising deal. Wish you a very Good Luck." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12419" RevisionGUID="24a33d34-e966-42ca-a0fa-038b5601dc70" CreationDate="2015-03-15T16:14:34.100" UserId="10011" Comment="Fix some English, emphasize that a provisional application is not a patent" Text="Is it possible? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. But in general, it will be less lucrative for inventor--a patent or application will generally give the inventor a upper hand in negotiations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it likely to happen and/or likely to turn out as you want? Maybe, maybe not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can certainly sell things as you wish. There are some caveats in contract law about what selling something really means, and all that good stuff, but those aren't really covered by the scope of your question or this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trouble with selling an unprotected invention, however, is two-fold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* First, **you** don't have protection for it. You might be able to get away with an NDA, or some other form of contract that keeps the recipient company from stealing your invention and running with it, but nothing will protect you like a patent.&#xD;&#xA;* Second, **the company** won't have protection for it. This is a little more serious. You can't NDA *everyone*, which means the company will be unprotected and other places will start popping up, selling your invention. That said, I can imagine a contract that involves the company funding a patent in lieu of some payment to you. Bear in mind, however, that such a deal would likely leave them in control of the patent, more than if they were simply licensing it from you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, there's a reason the patent system exists, and it's really difficult to get good protection for inventions whilst evading it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, if you were to pursue such a path, you'd need to be extremely careful in dealings with any company looking to buy the unprotected invention, and indeed you likely wouldn't get as good of a deal as if you were the holder of a patent (or application).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would heavily advise that you speak with a patent professional or at least go for provisional patent filing before making any moves, including, particularly since you mentioned international patents, talking to any potential customers of the invention rights. You might find that a provisional patent application is a more viable alternative to get started, or that professional may have experience in a similar case as yours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may be surprised to learn that filing a provisional patent application is not as expensive as you think. And with a lifetime of 12 months, such applications are a fantastic means of temporary protection while you work to struck a more promising deal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28485" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12417" RevisionGUID="0431ee66-f801-43c8-bb20-10407df39bc4" CreationDate="2015-03-15T16:15:10.970" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12422" RevisionGUID="f47e6ce1-c444-4a67-96a2-1e4fcf140b3e" CreationDate="2015-03-15T21:53:07.507" UserId="13742" Text="In reference to the patent: [EP1807053A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP1807053A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the expiration date of this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28493" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12422" RevisionGUID="f47e6ce1-c444-4a67-96a2-1e4fcf140b3e" CreationDate="2015-03-15T21:53:07.507" UserId="13742" Text="Expiry Date of the patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28494" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12422" RevisionGUID="f47e6ce1-c444-4a67-96a2-1e4fcf140b3e" CreationDate="2015-03-15T21:53:07.507" UserId="13742" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12423" RevisionGUID="6276c8e3-56ec-41ea-b570-a7a3438816f8" CreationDate="2015-03-15T23:44:14.120" UserId="13744" Text="This is the patent that Planet Labs, Inc. holds for a constellation of satellites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US20140027576&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It only contains a single independent claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for use in spatial imaging of planetary bodies through a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; series of steps comprising;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a) implementation into space a network of,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ranging from a singular to plural, constellation of orbital elements;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b) enabling said constellation of orbital elements, through an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; algorithmic calculated means, to jointly achieve a desired revisit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rate and spatial coverage;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; c) controlling said constellation through a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; remote transmission means;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is, if that claim doesn't cover any constellation of satellites that are imaging the earth? Would that mean, that the patent covers nothing but prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent even states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The largest Earth-observation satellite constellation as of July 2013&#xD;&#xA;&gt; contained 6 satellites (Disaster Monitoring Constellation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - These satellites constitute a constellation, that images the eart&#xD;&#xA; - They are certainly controlled by some algorithm&#xD;&#xA; - They may revisit spots of the earths surface&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this mean, that this constellation may also be covered by the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the Disaster Monitoring Constellation satellites were launched prior to the patent date of the aforementioned patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28496" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12423" RevisionGUID="6276c8e3-56ec-41ea-b570-a7a3438816f8" CreationDate="2015-03-15T23:44:14.120" UserId="13744" Text="Planet Labs Satellite Constellation Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28497" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12423" RevisionGUID="6276c8e3-56ec-41ea-b570-a7a3438816f8" CreationDate="2015-03-15T23:44:14.120" UserId="13744" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28498" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12422" RevisionGUID="f892d973-de25-49d1-9116-3d58099d48cd" CreationDate="2015-03-16T04:39:48.160" UserId="11895" Comment="edited title" Text="Expiry Date of a European patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12424" RevisionGUID="7b36384b-c8f5-471e-a336-8935fd0a0d4e" CreationDate="2015-03-16T04:48:49.203" UserId="11895" Text="According European Patent convention expiry of European patent if it is not withdrawn, abandoned, revoked or lapsed is 20 year from filing date; it can be extended by contracting state;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Article 63[ 53 ] Term of the European patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Art. 2&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) The term of the European patent shall be **20 years from the date of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; filing of the application.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2) Nothing in the preceding paragraph&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shall limit the right of a Contracting State to extend the term of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; European patent, or to grant corresponding protection which follows&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immediately on expiry of the term of the patent, under the same&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conditions as those applying to national patents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;European patent status can be quickly seen at EPO register. through direct link given on Google Patents (see below image); or by using search page [European Patent Register][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Form example query application was withdrawn hence not active.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://register.epo.org/regviewer&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Lk8Tr.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28502" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12423" RevisionGUID="df0e666e-f838-43f6-a09d-b4a1c2eb44ef" CreationDate="2015-03-16T10:15:13.390" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;us20140027576&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12423" RevisionGUID="b693d3a9-fe69-43fa-b644-43a76d4b7dc5" CreationDate="2015-03-16T11:09:23.560" UserId="11895" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="This is the patent that Planet Labs, Inc. holds for a constellation of satellites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US20140027576][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It only contains a single independent claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for use in spatial imaging of planetary bodies through a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; series of steps comprising;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a) implementation into space a network of,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ranging from a singular to plural, constellation of orbital elements;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b) enabling said constellation of orbital elements, through an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; algorithmic calculated means, to jointly achieve a desired revisit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rate and spatial coverage;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; c) controlling said constellation through a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; remote transmission means;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is, if that claim doesn't cover any constellation of satellites that are imaging the earth? Would that mean, that the patent covers nothing but prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent even states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The largest Earth-observation satellite constellation as of July 2013&#xD;&#xA;&gt; contained 6 satellites (Disaster Monitoring Constellation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - These satellites constitute a constellation, that images the eart&#xD;&#xA; - They are certainly controlled by some algorithm&#xD;&#xA; - They may revisit spots of the earths surface&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this mean, that this constellation may also be covered by the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the Disaster Monitoring Constellation satellites were launched prior to the patent date of the aforementioned patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20140027576" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12425" RevisionGUID="378f84c3-7d84-4160-a4c5-705bf6e42b27" CreationDate="2015-03-16T20:35:22.277" UserId="9818" Text="I have a patent application that was poorly written. There have been no office actions on the merits and the application has not published. I want to basically rewrite the app, or at least change it significantly (for instance, they discussed their invention in the background section). I was thinking I could let the original app. go abandoned and file a continuation before abandonment, however, my concern is that I want to rewrite a lot of the specification. Can I do that (rewrite a lot of the spec)? Is there a better way to do it that still keeps the filing date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or should I file a CIP and rewrite most of the spec?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28505" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12425" RevisionGUID="378f84c3-7d84-4160-a4c5-705bf6e42b27" CreationDate="2015-03-16T20:35:22.277" UserId="9818" Text="Fixing a poorly written patent application that has not been published" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28506" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12425" RevisionGUID="378f84c3-7d84-4160-a4c5-705bf6e42b27" CreationDate="2015-03-16T20:35:22.277" UserId="9818" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;continuation&gt;&lt;continuation-in-part&gt;&lt;bad&gt;&lt;rewrite&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12426" RevisionGUID="f5325b97-1993-46c1-8864-6da4b9a99088" CreationDate="2015-03-16T22:28:40.013" UserId="13748" Text="As the title. Where can I sell my patent ? Is there a free website ? I searched around, but nothing found." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28508" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12426" RevisionGUID="f5325b97-1993-46c1-8864-6da4b9a99088" CreationDate="2015-03-16T22:28:40.013" UserId="13748" Text="Where can I sell my patent ? Is there a free website?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28509" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12426" RevisionGUID="f5325b97-1993-46c1-8864-6da4b9a99088" CreationDate="2015-03-16T22:28:40.013" UserId="13748" Text="&lt;sellpatent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12425" RevisionGUID="f7755f3a-44ff-4bde-9584-49e9cf08cd27" CreationDate="2015-03-16T23:51:16.860" UserId="10011" Comment="rm thanks" Text="I have a patent application that was poorly written. There have been no office actions on the merits and the application has not published. I want to basically rewrite the app, or at least change it significantly (for instance, they discussed their invention in the background section). I was thinking I could let the original app. go abandoned and file a continuation before abandonment, however, my concern is that I want to rewrite a lot of the specification. Can I do that (rewrite a lot of the spec)? Is there a better way to do it that still keeps the filing date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or should I file a CIP and rewrite most of the spec?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28514" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12425" RevisionGUID="f7755f3a-44ff-4bde-9584-49e9cf08cd27" CreationDate="2015-03-16T23:51:16.860" UserId="10011" Comment="rm thanks" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;continuation&gt;&lt;continuation-in-part&gt;&lt;rewrite&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12416" RevisionGUID="0a7962db-5282-472c-adef-53cd856121f5" CreationDate="2015-03-17T11:24:17.423" UserId="13522" Comment="typo" Text="All depends where in the world you lurk. Ignoring the originality of your idea, algorithms are only patentable in a very small number of jurisdictions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not patentable you could investigate whether you could copyright the algorithm, again this will depend on territory, as the [WIPO treaty (1996)][1] explicitly excluded &quot;mathematical concepts&quot; from copyright. But some jurisdictions offer some protection eg. [Ibcos Computers Ltd -v- Barclays Mercantile Highland Finance Ltd; ChD 1994][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If neither of these cover you you may, again depending on territory, go down the trade secret / confidence route, assuming your algorithm is still a secret. You'll simply need to ensure anyone you reveal your algorithm to has first signed a nondisclosure agreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=295166#P51_3806&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://swarb.co.uk/ibcos-computers-ltd-v-barclays-mercantile-highland-finance-ltd-chd-1994/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12429" RevisionGUID="1576a296-0a5e-42e6-9134-c842083ade8b" CreationDate="2015-03-17T11:57:05.197" UserId="13522" Text="Alternatively only release / distribute your App to territories that do not permit software patents, or where the inventor hasn't sought protection. This will obviously require a separate search in each [jurisdiction][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wipo.int/directory/en/urls.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12430" RevisionGUID="55b96963-9e1d-4692-8130-8e5f97b159e9" CreationDate="2015-03-17T12:38:50.700" UserId="13522" Text="Mathematical / Algorithmic / Abstract Concept patents, AND/OR methods for calculating / performing them are only available in a limited number of territories (but the list includes the: USA, JPN, KOR, AUS, SGP), most jurisdictions expressly forbid any attempt to [patent][1] or [copyright][2] a purely abstract concept or algorithm.&#xD;&#xA;Anyway numerous **famous** algorithms have obtained a US patent, or have outstanding applications covering their calculation eg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Lempel–Ziv–Welch][3]&#xD;&#xA;- [RSA][4]&#xD;&#xA;- [BMI][5] (methods for calculating: [sliderule][6], [central processing unit][7]...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=295166#P51_3806&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lempel%E2%80%93Ziv%E2%80%93Welch&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_(cryptosystem)&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.google.co.uk/patents/US20080234552?dq=bmi&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=1hoIVazIO5HKaLvTgSg&amp;ved=0CEkQ6AEwBQ&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.co.uk/patents/US20080051679?dq=bmi%20body%20mass%20index&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=1xwIVaCzM43saomSgMgI&amp;ved=0CIIBEOgBMA0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12431" RevisionGUID="96e5d0a6-aa64-4683-bcab-7d2b4349407d" CreationDate="2015-03-17T12:54:15.853" UserId="11895" Text="&gt; What are the differnet types of patent one can have on a molecule?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Product Claims&#xD;&#xA; 2. Isomer&#xD;&#xA; 3. Synthetic Derivatives&#xD;&#xA; 4. Proportion of Different Products&#xD;&#xA; 5. Impurity profile&#xD;&#xA; 6. Structure&#xD;&#xA; 7. Physical form of molecule&#xD;&#xA; 8. Size of crystal&#xD;&#xA; 9. Use of molecule&#xD;&#xA; 10. Dosage forms&#xD;&#xA; 11. Treatment methods using molecules&#xD;&#xA; 12. Delivery methods (doubtful)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is the difference between composition patent and polymorphic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Composition patent involves two or more chemically distinct products and there physical mixture; wherein Polymorphic patents crystallization structure of product is changed by way of process modification it has different crystallization profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How to know if a particular patent is Method of Use or Polymorphic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mostly by reading claim preamble it is evident if it is of use or structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there a way to know if there is a Para-IV/ FTF filing on a patented&#xD;&#xA;&gt; molecule?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to crosscheck the FDA website [ORANGE BOOK][1] for patent listings. And [ANDA  lists published on FDA][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ob/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/HowDrugsareDevelopedandApproved/ApprovalApplications/AbbreviatedNewDrugApplicationANDAGenerics/ucm147166.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28526" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3707" RevisionGUID="236374e8-30ac-44e2-b9e7-9cce8310a8f9" CreationDate="2015-03-17T15:45:53.687" UserId="13522" Comment="added the &quot;Software&quot; tag" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28527" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3707" RevisionGUID="236374e8-30ac-44e2-b9e7-9cce8310a8f9" CreationDate="2015-03-17T15:45:53.687" Comment="Proposed by 13522 approved by 11895, 1 edit id of 1786" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28528" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12410" RevisionGUID="14547dae-728f-4aee-8336-6415cd05e2a2" CreationDate="2015-03-17T15:45:58.217" UserId="13522" Comment="added the &quot;Software&quot; tag" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;math&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28529" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12410" RevisionGUID="14547dae-728f-4aee-8336-6415cd05e2a2" CreationDate="2015-03-17T15:45:58.217" Comment="Proposed by 13522 approved by 1 edit id of 1784" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28530" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6410" RevisionGUID="023c3ee3-d1da-4b5d-9c7f-613093f70ed7" CreationDate="2015-03-17T15:46:01.487" UserId="13522" Comment="added the &quot;Software&quot; tag" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28531" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6410" RevisionGUID="023c3ee3-d1da-4b5d-9c7f-613093f70ed7" CreationDate="2015-03-17T15:46:01.487" Comment="Proposed by 13522 approved by 11895, 1 edit id of 1788" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28532" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5489" RevisionGUID="8f14b8b0-1186-43e7-8154-f2414ec49e78" CreationDate="2015-03-17T15:46:03.970" UserId="13522" Comment="added the &quot;Software&quot; tag" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;intellectual-property&gt;&lt;android&gt;&lt;ios&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28533" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5489" RevisionGUID="8f14b8b0-1186-43e7-8154-f2414ec49e78" CreationDate="2015-03-17T15:46:03.970" Comment="Proposed by 13522 approved by 11895, 1 edit id of 1787" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12432" RevisionGUID="58ea774e-63d1-4a9e-9826-6b4b8fce81e6" CreationDate="2015-03-17T16:52:07.370" UserId="13522" Text="Just read [Top 10 (US) Patents for 2014][1] and spotted one that essentially covers a business process that's only really applicable outside of the US: Bank of America’s the Foreign Currency Solution (U.S. Patent No. 8818868)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ignoring whether the subject matter is patentable, as it was granted post Alice. I'm wondering if holding a **US only** patent on a software implemented business method that will only ever be used outside of the US has any merit? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Per my comment to the article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Correct me if I’m wrong but the only legal tender in the US of A is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the USD, so irrespective of where you are in the US (reach of the US&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent office), the only currency a device implementing the patented&#xD;&#xA;&gt; method will ever select, based on location, is the USD. This rather&#xD;&#xA;&gt; renders all the text relating to a second account / currency /&#xD;&#xA;&gt; processing unit…… a bit redundant, and I suspect is unlikely to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; copied/implemented by a rival.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially the new / novel bit of the patent will only ever come into play outside of the US, and therefore the jurisdiction of any protections offered by a US patent.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also wondering what the legal position of offloading the account selection logic to a remote / cloud based server, outside the US would be. You could obviously circumvent the US patent, but if the service / code / implementation has never been in the US, and the phone (mobile device) at the time is not in the US, how would the Bank of America enforce an infringement claim against a US rival, offering an equivalent service to their US resident customers? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/12/30/52944/id=52944/#comment-2697945" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28535" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12432" RevisionGUID="58ea774e-63d1-4a9e-9826-6b4b8fce81e6" CreationDate="2015-03-17T16:52:07.370" UserId="13522" Text="Jurisdiction of a US patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28536" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12432" RevisionGUID="58ea774e-63d1-4a9e-9826-6b4b8fce81e6" CreationDate="2015-03-17T16:52:07.370" UserId="13522" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28537" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12432" RevisionGUID="c3dcab5a-9f8f-486f-a839-7c0e2ace1eba" CreationDate="2015-03-17T17:11:15.793" UserId="13522" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12433" RevisionGUID="34e02079-71e2-4e08-8b6e-7b18fa80bbd9" CreationDate="2015-03-17T17:35:56.477" UserId="13750" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20040108409][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20040108409&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to purchase rights to this patent if the inventor is interested.  Can you please point me in the right direction?  Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28539" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12433" RevisionGUID="34e02079-71e2-4e08-8b6e-7b18fa80bbd9" CreationDate="2015-03-17T17:35:56.477" UserId="13750" Text="Question on rights to patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28540" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12433" RevisionGUID="34e02079-71e2-4e08-8b6e-7b18fa80bbd9" CreationDate="2015-03-17T17:35:56.477" UserId="13750" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12434" RevisionGUID="0dbd84e6-6ea1-4e07-81f1-7e1650244301" CreationDate="2015-03-17T17:41:50.223" UserId="13522" Text="An application is not a patent, so until granted there's nothing stopping you going to market, but there obviously could be issues down the line. As to the WIPO patent **[APPLICATION][1]** in question, the reason you can't find a USPTO reference is they haven't included the US in the list of: ***Designated States*** they are considering seeking protection in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the [EU][2], if you look at the status you'll see: &quot;***the application is deemed to be withdrawn***&quot; 2015-01-21&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2013061289&amp;recNum=1&amp;maxRec=&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=&amp;queryString=&amp;tab=PCTDescription&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP12808889" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12435" RevisionGUID="bfa89f0e-cd95-4e22-9c2f-0f5beaa38bec" CreationDate="2015-03-17T17:44:56.673" UserId="13522" Text="There's a name and address on all [applications][1] ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=20040108409.PGNR." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12436" RevisionGUID="632e6c11-587b-499f-9e6c-b01e5c924ab2" CreationDate="2015-03-17T20:17:52.397" UserId="10011" Text="I'm not sure you're asking the right question here. No, I don't know of any websites for sharing and licensing patents, but that's probably with pretty good reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you might be oversimplifying the problem here. Patents are amongst the most advanced and technical parts of the law. Very few people disagree with that statement, in my experience. There are many nuances how patents are used, and what sorts of contracts need to be drawn to support them. It would be difficult to accurately capture the use-cases of every licensing deal through a free website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reality, at a potentially more relatable level, you'd be highly unlikely to get a good deal for your patent on such a website. To license IP, people have to know about it, know about you, and want it. Just as companies like Microsoft *probably* don't buy their server equipment on Craigslist, it's unlikely that the most lucrative of your potential licensees would happen across your posting on such a site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Websites like that thrive off the volume of mass-marketing, and that's decidedly *not* how the patent system works.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your only viable bet would be to sell to someone who then sold to a larger company, and aside from the inherent risk in such a position for the middle-man (a risk some would take on, no doubt), you'd likely be at a loss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best option in any legal situation in generally to speak with an attorney, and I'd suggest you do that in your situation. It's possible that an attorney would suggest to you, &quot;I know this great free website for licensing your patents,&quot; but that's fairly unlikely. With an attorney who feels confident enough in your patent's value, you might be able to strike a deal based on equity if money is a concern, that would give you a good review of any contracts, and perhaps some hand-holding through the licensing and presenting process." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28544" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12426" RevisionGUID="48156ddc-37e9-43ec-a322-64e41b2d30a0" CreationDate="2015-03-17T20:20:27.137" UserId="10011" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28545" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12433" RevisionGUID="5ef8d9b9-e39f-4049-ac22-ea9678776988" CreationDate="2015-03-17T21:27:07.353" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5059],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28546" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="770" RevisionGUID="0475a826-c21a-4af8-bb12-3309ede1a2ac" CreationDate="2015-03-18T01:41:04.167" UserId="13522" Comment="add a &quot;Software&quot; tag" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;data-processing-database&gt;&lt;business-methods&gt;&lt;us20100325182&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28547" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="770" RevisionGUID="0475a826-c21a-4af8-bb12-3309ede1a2ac" CreationDate="2015-03-18T01:41:04.167" Comment="Proposed by 13522 approved by 11895, 10011 edit id of 1789" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12432" RevisionGUID="b865133b-1043-4c7c-9189-3a018b318d78" CreationDate="2015-03-18T07:30:20.303" UserId="11895" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="Just read [Top 10 (US) Patents for 2014][1] and spotted one that essentially covers a business process that's only really applicable outside of the US: Bank of America’s the Foreign Currency Solution (U.S. Patent No. [8818868][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ignoring whether the subject matter is patentable, as it was granted post Alice. I'm wondering if holding a **US only** patent on a software implemented business method that will only ever be used outside of the US has any merit? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Per my comment to the article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Correct me if I’m wrong but the only legal tender in the US of A is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the USD, so irrespective of where you are in the US (reach of the US&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent office), the only currency a device implementing the patented&#xD;&#xA;&gt; method will ever select, based on location, is the USD. This rather&#xD;&#xA;&gt; renders all the text relating to a second account / currency /&#xD;&#xA;&gt; processing unit…… a bit redundant, and I suspect is unlikely to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; copied/implemented by a rival.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially the new / novel bit of the patent will only ever come into play outside of the US, and therefore the jurisdiction of any protections offered by a US patent.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also wondering what the legal position of offloading the account selection logic to a remote / cloud based server, outside the US would be. You could obviously circumvent the US patent, but if the service / code / implementation has never been in the US, and the phone (mobile device) at the time is not in the US, how would the Bank of America enforce an infringement claim against a US rival, offering an equivalent service to their US resident customers? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/12/30/52944/id=52944/#comment-2697945&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8818868" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12437" RevisionGUID="015dc3e9-09f9-4615-88e5-5331f05978a7" CreationDate="2015-03-18T07:34:42.903" UserId="11895" Text="Such cloud based activities can be an act of infringement under&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**35 U.S. Code § 271 - Infringement of patent**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (g) Whoever without authority **imports into the United States** or offers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to sell, sells, or uses within the United States a product **which is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; made by a process patented in the United States** shall be liable as an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; infringer, if the importation, offer to sell, sale, or use of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; product occurs during the term of such process patent. In an action&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for infringement of a process patent, no remedy may be granted for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; infringement on account of the noncommercial use or retail sale of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; product unless there is no adequate remedy under this title for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; infringement on account of the importation or other use, offer to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sell, or sale of that product. A product which is made by a patented&#xD;&#xA;&gt; process will, for purposes of this title, not be considered to be so&#xD;&#xA;&gt; made after— &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1) it is materially changed by subsequent processes; or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) it becomes a trivial and nonessential component of another&#xD;&#xA;&gt; product." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12438" RevisionGUID="ec8e461a-f230-4795-ab88-326610289252" CreationDate="2015-03-18T07:41:25.443" UserId="11895" Text="you need to check if invention was identified in provisional or complete application as filed, if what you are thinking now is out of the scope then you have only option of CIP. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think drafter may have forgot to differentiate background and description, if yes then you could in a way improve specification via amendments. further these amendments should not add out of scope subject matter. e.g. drafter said CUP and later on amends to CONTAINER which is broader and out of scope." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12432" RevisionGUID="4e122f92-b208-40ad-b19a-d349c1be8cec" CreationDate="2015-03-18T09:10:46.917" UserId="13522" Comment="Add a bit or prior art, for a giggle" Text="Just read [Top 10 (US) Patents for 2014][1] and spotted one that essentially covers a business process that's only really applicable outside of the US: Bank of America’s the Foreign Currency Solution (U.S. Patent No. [8818868][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ignoring whether the subject matter is patentable, as it was granted post Alice. I'm wondering if holding a **US only** patent on a software implemented business method that will only ever be used outside of the US has any merit? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Per my comment to the article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Correct me if I’m wrong but the only legal tender in the US of A is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the USD, so irrespective of where you are in the US (reach of the US&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent office), the only currency a device implementing the patented&#xD;&#xA;&gt; method will ever select, based on location, is the USD. This rather&#xD;&#xA;&gt; renders all the text relating to a second account / currency /&#xD;&#xA;&gt; processing unit…… a bit redundant, and I suspect is unlikely to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; copied/implemented by a rival.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially the new / novel bit of the patent will only ever come into play outside of the US, and therefore the jurisdiction of any protections offered by a US patent.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also wondering what the legal position of offloading the account selection logic to a remote / cloud based server, outside the US would be. You could obviously circumvent the US patent, but if the service / code / implementation has never been in the US, and the phone (mobile device) at the time is not in the US, how would the Bank of America enforce an infringement claim against a US rival, offering an equivalent service to their US resident customers? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh I'm ignoring the mountain of prior art that would probably invalidate this patent, if ever challenged e.g [Mondex][3] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/12/30/52944/id=52944/#comment-2697945&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8818868&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://cryptome.org/jya/mondex-chip.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12439" RevisionGUID="cfcf58d8-a101-45b2-a04e-1ef8fa30dc5e" CreationDate="2015-03-18T12:03:13.723" UserId="11895" Text="Inventive Subject Matter is using &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and Cannabidiol (CBD) in a ratio of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;20:1 to 1:20 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5:1 to 1:5 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2:1 to 1:2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1:1." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12440" RevisionGUID="fd5581e2-162a-4116-b792-c25bdfc16cf0" CreationDate="2015-03-18T12:06:16.840" UserId="13522" Text="Why isn't there a requirement that all software / business method patent applications be ***[formally specified][1]*** ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***[Formal methods][2]*** has been around / best practice in the [Software] Engineering spheres for 30+ years, the methods and syntax are [codified][3], and there are automated tool to verify whether a specification is complete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm aware there's a steep learning curve, and formally specifying a concept / system is time consuming, and obviously by the very nature of being formally specified the domain (scope) of any specification will explicitly stated / limited. So may require multiple derivative variants to be produced for different domains.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway if the only valid software patents are now those requested via a means plus function application, that includes a robust technical disclosure and complete algorithm, this approach appears well suited to ensure the application contains both a robust technical disclosure and complete algorithm, for the limited means stated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most formal methods are also very bad at defining ***abstract concepts***, as they rely on paradigms, so if you're having difficulty specifying a concept it's pretty likely patent ineligible subject matter is involved (or you should change your day job). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://Formal_specification&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_methods&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=21573" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28554" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12440" RevisionGUID="fd5581e2-162a-4116-b792-c25bdfc16cf0" CreationDate="2015-03-18T12:06:16.840" UserId="13522" Text="Why isn't there a requirement for all software / business method patent applications to be &quot;formally specified&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28555" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12440" RevisionGUID="fd5581e2-162a-4116-b792-c25bdfc16cf0" CreationDate="2015-03-18T12:06:16.840" UserId="13522" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;business-methods&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12441" RevisionGUID="f4acacc1-c4e8-4c68-9493-3da9bb5ecee0" CreationDate="2015-03-18T14:00:10.020" UserId="13522" Text="Novel is the key, as the Ford Motor company engaged J. Lyons and Co. in 1956 to provide time on one of their remotely hosted [Lyons Electronic Office I][1] computers, to run it's payroll, so there's a fair bit of SaaS/IaaS prior art that can used to invalidate many new Business method applications. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly talkers / chat rooms, Usenet, MUD's..... and numerous other Social Network pre-runners have been out there for 40+ years, and pre-date the patentability of both Software and Business methods in the US. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If software patents had been around in the 1970's it's highly unlikely there would be an: Apple, Microsoft, CISCO, VMware... as the underlying principles and UI of their offering have for decades directly lifted ideas and code from the then unpatentable work of AT&amp;T and Xerox PARC, amongst others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally Apple claimed some 30+ year old [prior art][2] when challenged over the design of their iPod, even a device superficially similar to the iPad was around in 1996 ([NewsPad][3]), initiated in 1994.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if an idea is novel (a lazy examiners definition may be: not covered by a granted patent ;-) ), even if obvious, you may at one time have received a US patent for it. Adding to @GeorgeWhite granted patents, Amazon obtained a US patent on [1-CLick][4] purchases, and BT obtained a US patent on the [Hyperlink][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LEO_(computer)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4667088&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chrisacorns.computinghistory.org.uk/AcornPics/newspad.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Telecommunications_Plc._v._Prodigy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12440" RevisionGUID="c9e30c2c-ac59-44c9-b37a-85a8e9a56a3a" CreationDate="2015-03-18T16:21:36.617" UserId="13522" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Why isn't there a requirement that all software / business method patent applications be ***[formally specified][1]*** ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***[Formal methods][2]*** has been around / best practice in the [Software] Engineering spheres for 30+ years, the methods and syntax are [codified][3], and there are automated tool to verify whether a specification is complete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm aware there's a steep learning curve, and formally specifying a concept / system is time consuming, and obviously by the very nature of being formally specified the domain (scope) of any specification will be explicitly stated / limited. So may require multiple derivative variants to be produced for different domains.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway if the only valid software patents are now those requested via a means plus function application, that includes a robust technical disclosure and complete algorithm, this approach appears well suited to ensure the application contains both a robust technical disclosure and complete algorithm, for the limited means stated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most formal methods are also very bad at defining ***abstract concepts***, as they rely on paradigms, so if you're having difficulty specifying a concept it's pretty likely patent ineligible subject matter is involved (or you should change your day job). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://Formal_specification&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_methods&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=21573" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12432" RevisionGUID="cec322be-4108-41fd-a299-94e8bcfa685c" CreationDate="2015-03-18T16:24:52.730" UserId="13522" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="Just read [Top 10 (US) Patents for 2014][1] and spotted one that essentially covers a business process that's only really applicable outside of the US: Bank of America’s the Foreign Currency Solution (U.S. Patent No. [8818868][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ignoring whether the subject matter is patentable, as it was granted post Alice. I'm wondering if holding a **US only** patent on a software implemented business method that will only ever be used outside of the US has any merit? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Per my comment to the article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Correct me if I’m wrong but the only legal tender in the US of A is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the USD, so irrespective of where you are in the US (reach of the US&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent office), the only currency a device implementing the patented&#xD;&#xA;&gt; method will ever select, based on location, is the USD. This rather&#xD;&#xA;&gt; renders all the text relating to a second account / currency /&#xD;&#xA;&gt; processing unit…… a bit redundant, and I suspect is unlikely to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; copied/implemented by a rival.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially the new / novel bit of the patent will only ever come into play outside of the US, and therefore the jurisdiction of any protections offered by a US patent.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also wondering what the legal position of offloading the account selection logic to a remote / cloud based server, outside the US would be. You could obviously circumvent the US patent, but if the service / code / implementation has never been in the US, and the phone (mobile device) at the time is not in the US, how would the Bank of America enforce an infringement claim against a US rival, offering an equivalent service to their US resident customers, while outside the US? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh I'm ignoring the mountain of prior art that would probably invalidate this patent, if ever challenged e.g [Mondex][3] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/12/30/52944/id=52944/#comment-2697945&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8818868&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://cryptome.org/jya/mondex-chip.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12443" RevisionGUID="e78a0ddf-f702-4d00-8136-4879fe9cacf7" CreationDate="2015-03-18T17:04:50.120" UserId="4545" Text="First, the US Constitution and Title 35 of the United States Code treat patenting inventions as a right, rather than a privilege. Adding additional requirements of the sort you would like would require the passage of new legislation (i.e., it's not something that can be changed by the United States Patent Office). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, &quot;software patents&quot; are already limited in scope by their claim limitations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you provide an example of a software patent that you find problematic and how defining the invention via formal methods would beneficial? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12446" RevisionGUID="461d1f40-799a-4881-b053-c60e0f2ac378" CreationDate="2015-03-19T05:50:31.460" UserId="13759" Text="This is the owner of the patent listed above. Our mother was the original inventor and was going to pay the maintenance fees, but never did. So, we were told that we lost the patent.&#xD;&#xA;Could you please tell me if there is any way to pay the fees to bring the status current again?&#xD;&#xA;Please send me an email at tken241@cox.net. &#xD;&#xA;Thank you,&#xD;&#xA;Tracy Kennedy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28574" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12446" RevisionGUID="461d1f40-799a-4881-b053-c60e0f2ac378" CreationDate="2015-03-19T05:50:31.460" UserId="13759" Text="How do we reinstate our patent 5341526" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28575" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12446" RevisionGUID="461d1f40-799a-4881-b053-c60e0f2ac378" CreationDate="2015-03-19T05:50:31.460" UserId="13759" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12446" RevisionGUID="8b02127b-5631-4bdd-a07c-193b4ea5df4b" CreationDate="2015-03-19T06:37:58.593" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 74 characters in body" Text="I am the owner of the patent listed above. Our mother was the original inventor and was going to pay the maintenance fees, but never did. So, we were told that we lost the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you please tell me if there is any way to pay the fees to bring the status current again?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12447" RevisionGUID="5a1d15d3-213e-45e8-b450-f555fe293d5e" CreationDate="2015-03-19T08:34:05.313" UserId="11895" Text="Patents are territorial rights and for limited period of time(i.e. 20 years). subject query patent was filed in 1992 granted in 1994 and expired way back. Since your Mother assigned you patent in 1999 you could have paid fee till 2000. There is no point to revive the application which has passed its term. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12448" RevisionGUID="dd2cdfc9-1359-474b-bd98-9155889d5702" CreationDate="2015-03-19T14:31:47.983" UserId="13765" Text="I have an item I invented over 5 years ago. I assume it would be considered a &quot;design-patent&quot; since what I have invented is a new design on an old item.  The item (design) has never been published in any media or made for sale to the public, however I did sell one to a friend and I have shown it to some people.  I have 4 prototypes in my possession and am in the process of meeting with an engineer to design a mold for manufacturing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28579" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12448" RevisionGUID="dd2cdfc9-1359-474b-bd98-9155889d5702" CreationDate="2015-03-19T14:31:47.983" UserId="13765" Text="Can I patent a 5 year old invention" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28580" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12448" RevisionGUID="dd2cdfc9-1359-474b-bd98-9155889d5702" CreationDate="2015-03-19T14:31:47.983" UserId="13765" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12449" RevisionGUID="c665dfbf-bca7-41f2-b22b-23d3d22200b0" CreationDate="2015-03-19T14:45:57.207" UserId="13522" Text="Just read &quot;[this-is-a-direct-copy-of-a-previous-patent-we-own][1]&quot;, in conjunction with &quot;[Are text and images in the patent copyrighted?][2]&quot;, and &quot;[Can I copy texts from other applications into my application?][3]&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm curious if anyone has attempted to force an application or patent to be: un-published / revoked / re-examined on the grounds the patent application itself infringes on someone else's copyrighted material. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you revoke a patent simply by issuing a DMCA takedown notice against a patent hosted on the USPTO site (if the details can't be published, there's no way to avoid infringement, so the patent would obviously become invalid).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/12182/this-is-a-direct-copy-of-a-previous-patent-we-own&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/44/are-text-and-images-in-the-patent-copyrighted?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3952/can-i-copy-texts-from-other-applications-into-my-application/3968#3968" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28582" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12449" RevisionGUID="c665dfbf-bca7-41f2-b22b-23d3d22200b0" CreationDate="2015-03-19T14:45:57.207" UserId="13522" Text="Has anyone used copyright infringement in the application, as grounds to block / revoke / force the re-examination of a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28583" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12449" RevisionGUID="c665dfbf-bca7-41f2-b22b-23d3d22200b0" CreationDate="2015-03-19T14:45:57.207" UserId="13522" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12450" RevisionGUID="e988c330-cf31-49b2-883d-df2290ef6681" CreationDate="2015-03-19T14:56:09.787" UserId="13766" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2014081967A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014081967A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The commercial product described in the following presentation, by TEL, (see link below) appear to describe a system with many, if not all of the claims in this patent application. I have not seen any reference to this system in the prior art however, the date on the presentation (Oct, 2012) precedes the priority date of this patent. Assuming that this product was commercially available prior to the priority claim of this patent application, and to the extent that the system described by TEL consitutes prior art, I would assume that the claims presented in this patent application will not hold? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://dds.tet.tw/tetoerl/aboutus.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.solardds.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28585" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12450" RevisionGUID="e988c330-cf31-49b2-883d-df2290ef6681" CreationDate="2015-03-19T14:56:09.787" UserId="13766" Text="How is prior art defined?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28586" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12450" RevisionGUID="e988c330-cf31-49b2-883d-df2290ef6681" CreationDate="2015-03-19T14:56:09.787" UserId="13766" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12452" RevisionGUID="c7b88d4d-7c18-48d6-bf0a-d4a95f62ac43" CreationDate="2015-03-20T02:08:06.917" UserId="13769" Text="I am employed with big IT consulting firm or IT services industry in USA (IT and business consulting) at Sr manager level (I am not hired to develop software or IT/non IT products, but only do consulting and management) and need help in understanding my patent and idea rights. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have signed a pre employment NDA which says following things listed below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot; &#xD;&#xA;Employer and Employee agree that &quot;Inventions,&quot; is defined in this Agreement to include any and all new or useful ideas, developments, discoveries, improvements, designs, formulas, modifications, trademarks, service marks, trade secrets, and other intellectual property, whether patentable or not (including without limitation any technology, computer programs, software, software program code, logic diagrams, flowcharts, procedural diagrams, computer programming techniques, test, concept, idea, process, method, composition of matter, formula or technique), and all knowhow related thereto, which Employee conceives, makes, reduces to practice, or develops, solely or jointly with others (i) which relate to the actual or contemplated business, work or activities of the Company, (ii) which result from or are suggested by any work which Employee has done or may do on behalf of the Company, or by any information that Employee may receive by virtue of Employee's employment by the Company, or (iii) which are developed, tested, improved or investigated either in part or entirely on time for which Employee was paid by the Company, or with the use of premises, equipment or property provided, owned, leased, or contracted for by or on behalf of the Company &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I want to work on my ideas/concept on the weekends and other non-working hours, and don't want to use my company assets (computer, software, hardware) or workplace (I work from home or work directly on client site)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are my patent rights and ownership options in the scenarios listed below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1)   What ideas and concept can be patented by me on my name like electronic gadget, hardware's, home appliance unit, toys or any non-IT service based ideas. Do I need to disclose/assign such kind of ideas with the company or can directly patent on my name&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2)   If I want to develop a software/mobile application based idea and patent it that has nothing to do with my company business model or its service offerings, then what’s my rights to patent such idea&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for your answers or suggestions&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28591" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12452" RevisionGUID="c7b88d4d-7c18-48d6-bf0a-d4a95f62ac43" CreationDate="2015-03-20T02:08:06.917" UserId="13769" Text="Question regarding employee vs employer patent ownership" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28592" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12452" RevisionGUID="c7b88d4d-7c18-48d6-bf0a-d4a95f62ac43" CreationDate="2015-03-20T02:08:06.917" UserId="13769" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12452" RevisionGUID="3b7c4b22-d8ed-4d3c-8c84-822c80bbe0f1" CreationDate="2015-03-20T04:09:03.703" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 50 characters in body" Text="I am employed by a big IT consulting firm or IT services industry in USA (IT and business consulting) at the senior management level (I am not hired to develop software or IT/non IT products, but only do consulting and management) and need help in understanding my patent and idea rights. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have signed a pre employment NDA which says following things listed below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Employer and Employee agree that &quot;Inventions,&quot; is defined in this Agreement to include any and all new or useful ideas, developments, discoveries, improvements, designs, formulas, modifications, trademarks, service marks, trade secrets, and other intellectual property, whether patentable or not (including without limitation any technology, computer programs, software, software program code, logic diagrams, flowcharts, procedural diagrams, computer programming techniques, test, concept, idea, process, method, composition of matter, formula or technique), and all knowhow related thereto, which Employee conceives, makes, reduces to practice, or develops, solely or jointly with others (i) which relate to the actual or contemplated business, work or activities of the Company, (ii) which result from or are suggested by any work which Employee has done or may do on behalf of the Company, or by any information that Employee may receive by virtue of Employee's employment by the Company, or (iii) which are developed, tested, improved or investigated either in part or entirely on time for which Employee was paid by the Company, or with the use of premises, equipment or property provided, owned, leased, or contracted for by or on behalf of the Company &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I want to work on my ideas/concept on the weekends and other non-working hours, and don't want to use my company assets (computer, software, hardware) or workplace (I work from home or work directly on client site)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are my patent rights and ownership options in the scenarios listed below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What ideas and concept can be patented by me on my name like electronic gadget, hardware's, home appliance unit, toys or any non-IT service based ideas. Do I need to disclose/assign such kind of ideas with the company or can directly patent on my name?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If I want to develop a software/mobile application based idea and patent it that has nothing to do with my company business model or its service offerings, then what’s my rights to patent such idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28597" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12450" RevisionGUID="b38b07f0-0635-4048-bc6e-5c4f895098b6" CreationDate="2015-03-20T04:59:48.793" UserId="11895" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Applicability of prior art for WO2014081967A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28598" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12450" RevisionGUID="b38b07f0-0635-4048-bc6e-5c4f895098b6" CreationDate="2015-03-20T04:59:48.793" UserId="11895" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;wo2014081967a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12454" RevisionGUID="2aa33a12-f597-45a7-8db5-1821e4a055f1" CreationDate="2015-03-20T06:18:40.000" UserId="13771" Text="My first question has to do with patent #5,580,417.  I believe this patent is expired, but are there any other patents in force using the same technology?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My second question is in regards to the tensioning cap in Figure 5.  Is this technology or concept expired?  Is it in force in another patent?  Or is it too broad to be patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28604" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12454" RevisionGUID="2aa33a12-f597-45a7-8db5-1821e4a055f1" CreationDate="2015-03-20T06:18:40.000" UserId="13771" Text="Expiration of patent 5,580,417 as well as technology used in tensioning cap in Figure 5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28605" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12454" RevisionGUID="2aa33a12-f597-45a7-8db5-1821e4a055f1" CreationDate="2015-03-20T06:18:40.000" UserId="13771" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;expired-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12455" RevisionGUID="630e112f-bcee-46f3-82d7-f889e7554704" CreationDate="2015-03-20T11:50:28.817" UserId="13772" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20130033156][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130033156&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My name is Lesley Anne Targett, widow of Kenneth Stanley Targett.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have received a letter from the United States Patent and Trade Mark Office re patent application no: 13/564,752 to say that the application has been abandoned. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application was made by Kenneth Stanley Targett for inventors Kenneth Stanley Targett and Paul william Brown.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It states that a letter was mailed on 03 September 2014. This letter was not received.&#xD;&#xA;Kenneth Stanley Targett died on the 20th September 2014. He was very ill prior to his death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any way this application can be reinstated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yours Sincerely&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mrs Lesley Anne Targett" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28609" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12455" RevisionGUID="630e112f-bcee-46f3-82d7-f889e7554704" CreationDate="2015-03-20T11:50:28.817" UserId="13772" Text="Letter received re abandonment of patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28610" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12455" RevisionGUID="630e112f-bcee-46f3-82d7-f889e7554704" CreationDate="2015-03-20T11:50:28.817" UserId="13772" Text="&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12456" RevisionGUID="d0e24974-1e7e-47a5-b91d-d1dc29ef5a61" CreationDate="2015-03-20T13:14:00.337" UserId="13773" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8745544][1], is there any difference from [US8694923][2]. If yes then what is the difference?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8745544&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.co.in/patents/US8694923" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28612" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12456" RevisionGUID="d0e24974-1e7e-47a5-b91d-d1dc29ef5a61" CreationDate="2015-03-20T13:14:00.337" UserId="13773" Text="Differentiate US8745544 from US8694923" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28613" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12456" RevisionGUID="d0e24974-1e7e-47a5-b91d-d1dc29ef5a61" CreationDate="2015-03-20T13:14:00.337" UserId="13773" Text="&lt;us8745544&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12457" RevisionGUID="4c376366-3ae3-46c1-af0d-7fbe4b5719f2" CreationDate="2015-03-20T14:38:03.460" UserId="13774" Text="How can someone patent something they didn't invent? Magnetic shielding is a science fiction mainstay. Even I have included this device in short stories written decades before this patent, and I believe that a working version of hull polarisation already exists. Is this patent legal? Most science fiction TV series includes various forms of polarisation protection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28615" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12457" RevisionGUID="4c376366-3ae3-46c1-af0d-7fbe4b5719f2" CreationDate="2015-03-20T14:38:03.460" UserId="13774" Text="US8550406 - How can you patent something that exists?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28616" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12457" RevisionGUID="4c376366-3ae3-46c1-af0d-7fbe4b5719f2" CreationDate="2015-03-20T14:38:03.460" UserId="13774" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12458" RevisionGUID="3a8c4a24-1807-418f-bae6-76cdda543965" CreationDate="2015-03-20T20:24:28.100" UserId="11947" Text="I use some math notation in my software/method patent application to make the description precise. I am not claiming any mathematical operations. Could it be that just the usage of math notations causes application rejection?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28619" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12458" RevisionGUID="3a8c4a24-1807-418f-bae6-76cdda543965" CreationDate="2015-03-20T20:24:28.100" UserId="11947" Text="Should I use math notation in a patent application in light of Alice decision." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28620" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12458" RevisionGUID="3a8c4a24-1807-418f-bae6-76cdda543965" CreationDate="2015-03-20T20:24:28.100" UserId="11947" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;method&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12459" RevisionGUID="7e1e431b-68c0-44c7-8953-8d87e7c4d713" CreationDate="2015-03-20T22:48:12.180" UserId="13775" Text="First, you can't patent something you didn't invent.  Period.  In order to get a patent you have to sign a document under penalty of perjury saying you were the inventor.  If you weren't the inventor, you can be prosecuted.  However, after the America Invents Act changed our system from &quot;First to Invent&quot; to &quot;First to File&quot;, it is now possible for an inventor to get a patent on something that somebody else invented first.  Inventor 1 invents on January 1 and files for a patent on March 1.  Inventor 2 invents on February 1 and files for a patent the same day.  In this case, Inventor 2 gets the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you can't patent an abstract idea, an abstract idea is also normally not going to be prior art for the purposes of preventing somebody from getting a patent.  For example, the abstract idea of the Star Trek &quot;Holodeck&quot; is not going to prevent somebody from getting a patent on technology that actually implements a Holodeck-like environment.  If you were to find science fiction that tracks the claims (hard sci-fi writers might be a good place to look), then you could potentially find valid prior art to knock out a patent.  Using the patent you cited as an example, the issued claim covers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A spacecraft magnetic shield apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;an armature having a first end and a second end, the first end adapted for being connected to a spacecraft;&#xD;&#xA;an electromagnet connected to the second end of the armature;&#xD;&#xA;a computer determining the position of the armature and electromagnet in relation to the spacecraft; and&#xD;&#xA;a power source powering the electromagnet;&#xD;&#xA;wherein the positioning of the electromagnet is generally in line with incoming charged particles or ion radiation and powering of the electromagnet creates a magnetic field that deflects a percentage of the incoming charged particles or ion radiation from directly impacting the spacecraft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So just hearing Captain Archer tell the Enterprise crew to &quot;polarize the hull plating&quot; is not enough to anticipate two-ended armature with an electromagnet and a computer for determining position of the magnet, etc.  However, if there was an episode where they said &quot;we need to fix the polarizer for the hull plating, the arm with the electromagnet on the end isn't coupled to the computer or power source any more, so it isn't deflecting the radiation&quot; -- well, that might present a patentability problem for the '406 patent you reference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12460" RevisionGUID="22443383-bb7f-4ab1-a148-061f86e466c3" CreationDate="2015-03-20T22:51:41.597" UserId="13775" Text="You need to hire a patent lawyer to answer this question.  Making that all the more annoying, even the best patent lawyers are just guessing at how Alice will be implemented going forward.  For my own inventions, if I have code, formulas, etc., that are helpful to others understanding the invention, I include them.  Even before Alice, you couldn't claim laws of nature, so I don't know that Alice really changes things in this aspect.  But until the implications of Alice shake out -- and until the Supreme Court lets patent law kind of settle down before taking new cases -- well, talk to a patent lawyer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12461" RevisionGUID="47a5f830-cdef-42d4-b7d9-d3ae0a601838" CreationDate="2015-03-20T22:59:07.520" UserId="13775" Text="You should call a patent lawyer on this.  The rules for reinstating applications should be readily familiar to a patent attorney.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I pulled up the application at http://portal.uspto.gov and it looks like it was deemed abandoned for failure to respond to an office action -- but the office action was a restriction requirement.  This is a very simple type of office action.  It basically says &quot;you're trying to claim more than one invention at once, please pick just one for us to review&quot;.  It looks like the inventor was representing himself, which explains why this happened (it would raise real malpractice questions if a lawyer failed to respond to a restriction requirement without specific instructions from a client to that effect).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next step is for you to call a patent lawyer.  I can refer you to my patent lawyer if you want, but assuming you're from New Hampshire, you might do better finding a local one.  Good luck." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12462" RevisionGUID="5d166a9a-945a-43e8-98e0-916b28cdf2cd" CreationDate="2015-03-20T23:12:25.723" UserId="13775" Text="My gut tells me that in most cases you can't get the government to take down an official filing, but let's imagine an even more egregious example:  Say I file for a patent that provides some functionality similar to the holodeck on Star Trek (perhaps an occulus-rift type of tech), and I take all of the scripts from the various Star Trek series and movies and include them within the text of the patent application.  Doing this would probably be so obnoxious that I doubt I'd ever get that patent, but the question is whether Paramount has remedies in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There has been litigation over the use of copyrighted materials in filings with the USPTO as well as in copying materials for use in preparing filings.  You might find an answer there.  http://patentlyo.com/patent/2012/04/copyright-lawsuit-against-patent-firms-continue-firms-claim-fair-use-and-copyright-misuse.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12463" RevisionGUID="c5c9e440-13b0-4259-9b7f-4bc18730b744" CreationDate="2015-03-20T23:15:38.633" UserId="13775" Text="Normally, there is an &quot;on sale bar&quot;, so one year after a sale you can't file for a patent.  But your situation seems to potentially have some nuance (sold to a friend -- was the friend under a non-disclosure obligation?  was it really a sale or did you provide it at cost?  was it for testing? etc).  I'm not too optimistic about the chances, but it is worth talking with a licensed patent lawyer to get a definitive answer.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12464" RevisionGUID="ec8e84ca-aedf-41cc-92c4-3ea8734d7545" CreationDate="2015-03-20T23:23:25.003" UserId="13775" Text="A January 2013 priority date isn't going to help these guys get to allowance.  According to portal.uspto.gov, the application is on final rejection (mailed 11/28/2014).  This is the fourth rejection in this file's history (it was given a non-final rejection, then a final rejection, then a request for continued examination was filed, then a non-final rejection was issued, and now it is on final rejection again).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think you have prior art that would impact patentability, you can always provide it to the patent lawyers who are prosecuting the application (search Public Pair at http://portal.uspto.gov and search for 13/748,526).  Because patent applications are ex-parte proceedings, the lawyers have an obligation to provide a copy of material prior art to the patent office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But bottom line is that while there is always a chance that a patent application on its fourth rejection will eventually issue, this isn't one that is currently well positioned for issuance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12465" RevisionGUID="5190dc12-d6b3-44f3-8cc1-5304a3a0cf61" CreationDate="2015-03-20T23:50:14.340" UserId="11947" Text="It depends on the state. E.g. California has copyright law most favorable to employees. I think such NDA would be invalid in California. But if idea and patent it that has nothing to do with your company business you are safe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12466" RevisionGUID="093d9e71-614e-41ee-80bc-6d30c17764f8" CreationDate="2015-03-21T01:10:06.270" UserId="13775" Text="You left off the last part of the paragraph (I think), where it says &quot;is owned by the company&quot;.  This language is going to be important because of a Supreme Court case called Stanford v. Roche.  Basically, even if the contract says you're obligated to assign your invention to the company, the company would need to enforce that right by suing (under state law) to force the inventor to actually execute the assignment.  Most companies reworked their agreements after Stanford v. Roche came down, but if you provide the full agreement to your lawyer, the lawyer should be able to tell you what it means in light of that case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a part of that agreement that I think many courts would have issues with.  Basically, the portion that says the company owns any ideas generation by use of &quot;any information that Employee may receive by virtue of Employee's employment by the Company&quot;  This raises the issue of residual information.  That is, you may learn things at the company which you use 20 years later in a different invention.  You may not even know where the information came from by the time you use it.  I think that provision may run into some overbreadth issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, if you're looking at developing anything valuable, it is totally worth talking to a patent lawyer in advance.  Alternatively, if the company is willing to contractually release you from the obligations, you're home free -- and it never hurts to ask, does it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12467" RevisionGUID="68b36d46-43ed-45ed-baee-000aa44abc6a" CreationDate="2015-03-21T01:12:13.027" UserId="13775" Text="But rest assured that the America Invents Act legitimately requires new declarations for continuations in situations where I hadn't previously been required to sign them.  So this doesn't immediately jump out at me as a red flag or anything like that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12468" RevisionGUID="8cdc732a-7145-49c5-93d8-e24806a33082" CreationDate="2015-03-21T01:20:05.773" UserId="13775" Text="You are asking about a doctrine called &quot;patent exhaustion&quot; or the &quot;exhaustion doctrine&quot;.  Basically, once you pay the license fee by buying a properly licensed patented article, the patent to the article is exhausted and no longer stands in the way.  So you should be able to modify it.  The more interesting question is repairs to patented articles -- for example, if a portion of the guitar pickup broke off and you build a new part, have you infringed the patent by fixing it with the new part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd google &quot;exhaustion doctrine&quot; and &quot;patent exhaustion&quot;.  If that doesn't answer the question for you, you should probably ask a patent lawyer.  Of course, as a practical matter, unless you're going to mass market the modified part, I don't know of any patentee who would sue an individual for infringing a patent with regard to a single guitar pickup installed on just one guitar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12469" RevisionGUID="c8743511-e4b5-48bc-8332-eed907a3e6dd" CreationDate="2015-03-21T01:24:12.590" UserId="13775" Text="Three words:  Statute of limitations.  A patent normally takes years to issue.  The statute of limitations for suing on a written contract varies by state, but let's just use four years for purposes of illustration.  If they failed to pay more than four years ago, your remedies may be quite limited.  If they failed to pay more recently, you need to get into court quickly - before the statute of limitations on breach of contract runs out - and get an order establishing ownership of the patent.  This was one of the issues in the lower court decisions that led up to the Supreme Court's Stanford v. Roche decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bottom line:  Get yourself to a lawyer, pronto.  Your options will narrow with the passage of time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12470" RevisionGUID="017d8dbf-7a36-4081-8cef-1de1e40c4cff" CreationDate="2015-03-21T01:28:06.983" UserId="13775" Text="If the DVD only provides instructions about how to do the process described in an expired patent, nothing can or should be done (at least based on patent law).  The whole idea of patents is that the inventor gets a monopoly in exchange for showing the world how to build the invention, so that once the patent expires, anybody can do it, teach it, build it, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if somebody is distributing a video that shows people how to do the patented portions of the process that you invented and that are still in force, you should ask a patent litigator about potential claims for inducing infringement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12471" RevisionGUID="829cc5fa-1214-4e9c-83d6-62d7b5ca6f3a" CreationDate="2015-03-21T01:31:40.153" UserId="13775" Text="You can't really rewrite a patent application in a continuation.  You're thinking of a continuation in part.  This is a complex situation and one that a good patent lawyer can provide a lot of help with.  You'll definitely want to move on this prior to publication.  This is one where taking advice over the internet is not the way to go.  Get a properly licensed patent lawyer to fix this.  I know from many personal experiences that leaving things out of a specification can severely limit your claims later.  You want this done right.  That means shelling out cash for a patent lawyer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12452" RevisionGUID="0b63db8b-b8b4-4350-b378-8b1bccc56de1" CreationDate="2015-03-21T19:19:38.413" UserId="10011" Comment="appended answer 12475 as supplemental" Text="I am employed by a big IT consulting firm or IT services industry in USA (IT and business consulting) at the senior management level (I am not hired to develop software or IT/non IT products, but only do consulting and management) and need help in understanding my patent and idea rights. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have signed a pre employment NDA which says following things listed below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Employer and Employee agree that &quot;Inventions,&quot; is defined in this Agreement to include any and all new or useful ideas, developments, discoveries, improvements, designs, formulas, modifications, trademarks, service marks, trade secrets, and other intellectual property, whether patentable or not (including without limitation any technology, computer programs, software, software program code, logic diagrams, flowcharts, procedural diagrams, computer programming techniques, test, concept, idea, process, method, composition of matter, formula or technique), and all knowhow related thereto, which Employee conceives, makes, reduces to practice, or develops, solely or jointly with others (i) which relate to the actual or contemplated business, work or activities of the Company, (ii) which result from or are suggested by any work which Employee has done or may do on behalf of the Company, or by any information that Employee may receive by virtue of Employee's employment by the Company, or (iii) which are developed, tested, improved or investigated either in part or entirely on time for which Employee was paid by the Company, or with the use of premises, equipment or property provided, owned, leased, or contracted for by or on behalf of the Company &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I want to work on my ideas/concept on the weekends and other non-working hours, and don't want to use my company assets (computer, software, hardware) or workplace (I work from home or work directly on client site)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are my patent rights and ownership options in the scenarios listed below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What ideas and concept can be patented by me on my name like electronic gadget, hardware's, home appliance unit, toys or any non-IT service based ideas. Do I need to disclose/assign such kind of ideas with the company or can directly patent on my name?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If I want to develop a software/mobile application based idea and patent it that has nothing to do with my company business model or its service offerings, then what’s my rights to patent such idea?&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;Thanks for your comments. I did asked the company but they kept forwarding me the NDA rather then answering to my specific question. I live in state of Georgia. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12477" RevisionGUID="cb537d9a-69af-4f8b-be32-ede8dd9cde6d" CreationDate="2015-03-21T21:41:18.547" UserId="13781" Text="IMHO the answer is No*.  The way a method is described should not effect whether it is simply a digitization of an &quot;abstract idea&quot; or not.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*But it is possible that the use of math notation will make it ***seem*** more like and abstract idea, and that could draw attention to it if it were a borderline case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that consulting a patent lawyer about this may be a good idea, but I would personally focus primarily on adding language that highlights reasons why your patent is more than just a digitization of an abstract concept.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main advantage gained by avoiding math notation would be a potentially increased probability of a weak patent flying under the radar, and the value of this stealth would depend on the costs and risks of utilizing the weak patent.  If the patented software or method is easy to implement this could actually add significant value, especially if it would be produced/used even without the patent. But adding stealth to a weak patent would add little to no value if implementing the requires a major financial investment that could not be recouped if the patent were invalidated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12478" RevisionGUID="2f9a62f9-1668-4cd4-b2f4-4c7ea15cecab" CreationDate="2015-03-21T23:58:29.353" UserId="13782" Text="I am a little confused about the laws of patent in the UK and Scotland. for example; &#xD;&#xA; How would using the equipment of others, e.g. a company effect applying for a patent? &#xD;&#xA; If I was to tell someone about my invention and they filed for a patent, what would happen?- would it be my fault, could I sue? &#xD;&#xA; Also, if a company made my invention without my permission, what would happen?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28658" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12478" RevisionGUID="2f9a62f9-1668-4cd4-b2f4-4c7ea15cecab" CreationDate="2015-03-21T23:58:29.353" UserId="13782" Text="Are Scottish/UK Patent Laws a lot different from US ones?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28659" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12478" RevisionGUID="2f9a62f9-1668-4cd4-b2f4-4c7ea15cecab" CreationDate="2015-03-21T23:58:29.353" UserId="13782" Text="&lt;inventor&gt;&lt;uk&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12479" RevisionGUID="7e045d78-f3d1-497a-abf8-5b6a612eb231" CreationDate="2015-03-22T00:14:46.823" UserId="13783" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2009094726A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2009094726A1&#xD;&#xA;the patent claims that:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Finally the ScCDUP gene was amplified with the primers SEQ ID NO: 91 and SEQ ID NO: 92 from the plasmid pHHT-CDUP-ΔPF1 1_0037 (Maier et al. (2006) Molecular &amp; Biochemical Parasitology 150, 118-121 ) and cloned Xho I/Xma I into the cut pDC-1 to replace the HsTK gene with the ScCDUP gene.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no mention of a plasmid named pHHT-CDUP-ΔPF1 1_0037 in the cited reference.  The cited reference is similarly unreliable in describing construction of the plasmids mentioned therein" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28661" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12479" RevisionGUID="7e045d78-f3d1-497a-abf8-5b6a612eb231" CreationDate="2015-03-22T00:14:46.823" UserId="13783" Text="incorrect information in patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28662" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12479" RevisionGUID="7e045d78-f3d1-497a-abf8-5b6a612eb231" CreationDate="2015-03-22T00:14:46.823" UserId="13783" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28663" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12479" RevisionGUID="c3664aa5-ed17-4b42-aabf-258d20937181" CreationDate="2015-03-22T02:54:22.453" UserId="10011" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[12392],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12478" RevisionGUID="25f1bac5-0e72-4bdb-b37f-457ac42801a4" CreationDate="2015-03-22T02:59:17.143" UserId="10011" Comment="Quick formatting change to make questions a little more readable" Text="I am a little confused about the laws of patent in the UK and Scotland. for example;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* How would using the equipment of others, e.g. a company effect applying for a patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If I was to tell someone about my invention and they filed for a patent, what would happen? Would it be my fault, or could I sue? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If a company made my invention without my permission, what would happen?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12480" RevisionGUID="983d5b87-6e72-4e87-a7d7-e7e028666739" CreationDate="2015-03-22T04:37:23.193" UserId="13784" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20120227389][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120227389&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is it possible to apply and expect a grant with 353 claims and 545 figures? This person has granted patents but this application bewilders me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28668" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12480" RevisionGUID="983d5b87-6e72-4e87-a7d7-e7e028666739" CreationDate="2015-03-22T04:37:23.193" UserId="13784" Text="353 claims and 545 figures?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28669" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12480" RevisionGUID="983d5b87-6e72-4e87-a7d7-e7e028666739" CreationDate="2015-03-22T04:37:23.193" UserId="13784" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12480" RevisionGUID="d23f275b-ca91-47f6-83a1-22c0282594c3" CreationDate="2015-03-22T04:51:38.957" UserId="11895" Comment="added 48 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20120227389][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120227389&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is it possible to apply and expect a grant with 353 claims and 545 figures? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why They are allowed? What are benefits?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This person has granted patents but this application bewilders me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28671" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12480" RevisionGUID="d23f275b-ca91-47f6-83a1-22c0282594c3" CreationDate="2015-03-22T04:51:38.957" UserId="11895" Comment="added 48 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Why Large number of claims and figures are allowed and its Benefits?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28672" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12480" RevisionGUID="d23f275b-ca91-47f6-83a1-22c0282594c3" CreationDate="2015-03-22T04:51:38.957" UserId="11895" Comment="added 48 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;format&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12481" RevisionGUID="884d05fa-8d7d-4c4c-890c-a9b856dff29d" CreationDate="2015-03-22T06:53:40.450" UserId="13785" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO1997013970A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO1997013970A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent still active/ enforceable? I think this design is too similar to a detroit diesel 71 series uniflow engine. There are at least two other patents for a reverse uniflow engine, these are for spark-ignited versions while this patent is for compression ignition. I have a design for a reverse uniflow compression ignition engine which is significantly different. How can somebody get a patent for such a broad catagory that is already well known in prior art?  Another question i have is shouldn't it be a requirement to build a prototype or do some type of computer modeling/ simulations? There is no proof that this concept even works, they have no experimental data to support their claims. I know from my research they are missing some very important details. In my opinion, a prototype or advanced computer modeling should be required for something as complicated as a internal combustion engine to support your claims. I also think there needs to be some type of effort to actually build and manufacture your invention. It seems very counter-productive and unfair to issue patents to companies or individuals who have no intention of ever building/ using their invention. As we know from some recent cases, some companies hoard patents and sue others who actually make use of these developments. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28674" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12481" RevisionGUID="884d05fa-8d7d-4c4c-890c-a9b856dff29d" CreationDate="2015-03-22T06:53:40.450" UserId="13785" Text="Is this patent still active/enforceable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28675" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12481" RevisionGUID="884d05fa-8d7d-4c4c-890c-a9b856dff29d" CreationDate="2015-03-22T06:53:40.450" UserId="13785" Text="&lt;wo1997013970a1&gt;&lt;reverse&gt;&lt;uniflow&gt;&lt;engine&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12486" RevisionGUID="1bfd3139-cac6-480d-b9cb-e1bff3b1109e" CreationDate="2015-03-22T12:03:16.117" UserId="13788" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2013153173A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013153173A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where can I find illustrations for this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28688" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12486" RevisionGUID="1bfd3139-cac6-480d-b9cb-e1bff3b1109e" CreationDate="2015-03-22T12:03:16.117" UserId="13788" Text="Missing illustrations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28689" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12486" RevisionGUID="1bfd3139-cac6-480d-b9cb-e1bff3b1109e" CreationDate="2015-03-22T12:03:16.117" UserId="13788" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12487" RevisionGUID="73e20c04-55cd-4204-a3b5-e743d21b1c4f" CreationDate="2015-03-22T13:04:11.357" UserId="11895" Text="Google sometimes doesnot provide drawings or pdf in such cirumstances please use external link to directly go to patent database and download original scan copy which will contain all information like drawings etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example in this case:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/cm985.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28691" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12481" RevisionGUID="fe1653fc-2f6c-4f22-91c7-4681ea0d5514" CreationDate="2015-03-22T13:12:58.177" UserId="11895" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Prototype requirement and patent enablement wrt written description requirements" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28692" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12481" RevisionGUID="fe1653fc-2f6c-4f22-91c7-4681ea0d5514" CreationDate="2015-03-22T13:12:58.177" UserId="11895" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;enablement&gt;&lt;wo1997013970a1&gt;&lt;prototype&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12488" RevisionGUID="7d77d121-c4e2-4fd1-a389-6b29322c3ed0" CreationDate="2015-03-22T15:48:02.927" UserId="13529" Text="[According to Wikipedia][1], the patents for Moissanite expire in 2015.&#xD;&#xA;Does it mean that the Moissanite jewelry will become cheaper?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moissanite#Applications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28694" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12488" RevisionGUID="7d77d121-c4e2-4fd1-a389-6b29322c3ed0" CreationDate="2015-03-22T15:48:02.927" UserId="13529" Text="Would expired patents for Moissanite reduce jewelry prices?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28695" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12488" RevisionGUID="7d77d121-c4e2-4fd1-a389-6b29322c3ed0" CreationDate="2015-03-22T15:48:02.927" UserId="13529" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12489" RevisionGUID="9b54060b-7393-4ac9-a78a-1594e0ce8861" CreationDate="2015-03-22T17:02:32.570" UserId="13775" Text="In the United States, your patent application must be enabling, meaning that somebody of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention after reading the patent application.  There is no requirement for a prototype to be submitted.  A patent cannot issue if the underlying invention doesn't work, because patents can only issue for inventions that are useful -- although as a practical matter if an invention doesn't work, there is no harm to issuing a patent, since it would cover something that doesn't function, meaning that nobody would ever want to infringe it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is required is at least &quot;constructive reduction to practice&quot;.  For example, if you invented the GPS system in 1950, you could describe the system, including geosynchronous satellites, timing, triangulation, etc., and if you described it well enough that somebody skilled in the art could build it, your application should have resulted in a patent.  This, despite the fact that you did not have the resources to actually launch the satellites, test the system, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the old days, a working model was required.  This is no longer the case in the USA." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12491" RevisionGUID="2d7c7882-df55-403f-a65c-1ca1b7714806" CreationDate="2015-03-22T17:08:35.837" UserId="13775" Text="The patent office in the USA discourages large numbers of claims by charging extra for each independent claim greater than 3.  So the applicant must believe that there are valuable claims that are worth the extra application cost.  Of course, having too many claims makes it much more likely that the USPTO will issue a restriction requirement, forcing the applicant to choose one species of invention from among multiple inventions contained in the claim set.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Figures are also expensive to have drawn, so the applicant must believe they are helpful.  One side benefit of adding a lot of figures is that figures are the key piece in a design patent application, so if this applicant intends to get a design patent issued, lots of figures are helpful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12493" RevisionGUID="aea2264a-3bc6-461d-bc08-4b1421ea675e" CreationDate="2015-03-22T17:41:39.727" UserId="13775" Text="Patents can be grouped by &quot;families&quot;.  Typically, an inventor files a parent application and then continuations are filed based on that parent.  The patent family you reference has about a dozen members (Apple apparently owns it, and they can afford many continuations).  You can see the relationships by going to http://portal.uspto.gov and using &quot;Public PAIR&quot;, then clicking on the Continuity tab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The differences between patents in the same family (with some exceptions, like continuations in part) are typically in the claims only.  In some cases, the title or abstract will change as well.  But unless you regularly work with patents and know what to look for, patents in the same family will look at first glance to be identical.  Sometimes the patent office itself finds the claims to be close in meaning to each other and they refuse to allow the application based on something called a &quot;non-statutory double patenting rejection&quot;.  Even though the inventor may not agree with this determination, typically the inventor will agree to file something called a &quot;terminal disclaimer&quot;, which overcomes that rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short answer:  Patents in the same family are essentially identical except for the part that can be enforced in court:  The claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12494" RevisionGUID="25f2d23a-e9f5-4da1-92fb-8553e1c1fd6d" CreationDate="2015-03-22T18:38:35.280" UserId="13790" Text="My great grandmother Lizzie M. Adams sold her patent to C. H. Munson in the early 1900s, I think. I have a newspaper article of the sale but no date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28704" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12494" RevisionGUID="25f2d23a-e9f5-4da1-92fb-8553e1c1fd6d" CreationDate="2015-03-22T18:38:35.280" UserId="13790" Text="When patent no. 680,106 sold" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28705" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12494" RevisionGUID="25f2d23a-e9f5-4da1-92fb-8553e1c1fd6d" CreationDate="2015-03-22T18:38:35.280" UserId="13790" Text="&lt;history&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12494" RevisionGUID="439b0408-91aa-4966-84c4-3d37510e26d4" CreationDate="2015-03-23T01:00:49.033" UserId="10011" Comment="added 17 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="My great grandmother Lizzie M. Adams sold her patent (number 680,106) to C. H. Munson in the early 1900s, I think. I have a newspaper article of the sale but no date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28708" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12494" RevisionGUID="439b0408-91aa-4966-84c4-3d37510e26d4" CreationDate="2015-03-23T01:00:49.033" UserId="10011" Comment="added 17 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How can I determine the date of a patent sale?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28709" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12494" RevisionGUID="439b0408-91aa-4966-84c4-3d37510e26d4" CreationDate="2015-03-23T01:00:49.033" UserId="10011" Comment="added 17 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;history&gt;&lt;us680106&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12495" RevisionGUID="631d54f3-566c-43a7-80c3-684571128f6f" CreationDate="2015-03-23T03:44:28.130" UserId="13791" Text="The book Patent It Yourself states: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;I recommend that your PPA contain at least one claim (to) prevent any challenge to your PPA by foreign patent offices for failure to claim the invention as of your earliest filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which countries would pose an issue for a PCT filling if my PPA doesn't have a claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28711" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12495" RevisionGUID="631d54f3-566c-43a7-80c3-684571128f6f" CreationDate="2015-03-23T03:44:28.130" UserId="13791" Text="Which countries require a claim for using a PPA as priority date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28712" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12495" RevisionGUID="631d54f3-566c-43a7-80c3-684571128f6f" CreationDate="2015-03-23T03:44:28.130" UserId="13791" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12496" RevisionGUID="5d28fba1-dac8-4a35-8de0-3908cfc7684f" CreationDate="2015-03-23T19:12:17.343" UserId="13775" Text="In the past, patents have issued that cover data compression and encryption mechanisms that are part of a file format (see MPEG-LA http://www.mpegla.com/main/pages/media.aspx and also reference the $100 million jpg patent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG#Patent_issues).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the Supreme Court has been very actively revisiting what satisfies the requirements for patentable subject matter (i.e. 101 eligibility) and nobody really knows how far they will eventually go with regard to things like software-implemented compression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;File formats are also very likely to be considered essential patents with regard to a standard set by a standards organization, and members of that organization may face additional issues when trying to enforce or license the patent.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12497" RevisionGUID="76113ad7-2f78-483b-b4da-51be3876490a" CreationDate="2015-03-23T19:26:05.050" UserId="13775" Text="Bear in mind that a very common response to allegations of infringement is an &quot;inequitable conduct&quot; defense, which basically says that the inventor OR the patent lawyer withheld material information from the patent examiner.  You really want to be on good terms with any lawyer who had a part in prosecuting the patent.  I doubt that a good lawyer would commit perjury just to get even (i.e. &quot;yeh, I knew about that prior art but we withheld it on purpose&quot;), but why take the risk?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've switched lawyers on many of my patent applications, but I've always done it with respect and courtesy.  Lawyers understand that clients sometimes want to or need to switch, so as long as you handle it kindly, you should avoid problems." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12498" RevisionGUID="a275ba68-3ebd-4346-8891-dc2e9782b506" CreationDate="2015-03-23T20:12:02.627" UserId="11947" Text="I have an independent claim in my application for software patent that could be rejected on grounds like &quot;abstract idea&quot;. There are a few dependent claims with limitations that hopefully pass the bar. Still I want to keep independent claim in case if somebody will try to patent it and I won't have any recourse because it is less limiting.&#xD;&#xA;So assume my independent claim is rejected, but dependent claims are granted, does it mean that the independent claim will be excluded from the grant? Then somebody would be able to patent it if his reviewer is more lenient." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28716" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12498" RevisionGUID="a275ba68-3ebd-4346-8891-dc2e9782b506" CreationDate="2015-03-23T20:12:02.627" UserId="11947" Text="What happened to dependent claims if referred independent claim rejected?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28717" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12498" RevisionGUID="a275ba68-3ebd-4346-8891-dc2e9782b506" CreationDate="2015-03-23T20:12:02.627" UserId="11947" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12499" RevisionGUID="aed099c5-4a16-4fbb-ba4c-c6261e954ee8" CreationDate="2015-03-23T20:34:34.250" UserId="13775" Text="If you're working with a patent lawyer, you should speak with her or him about this because this is the kind of thing that patent lawyers are quite good at navigating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the way to think about patent claims:  The independent claim must stand on its own.  The claim must be novel, not obvious, useful, and must satisfy the section 101 requirements for patentable subject matter.  Dependent claims incorporate all of the limitations of the independent claim from which they depend, so if the independent claim is patentable, the dependent claims should also be patentable.  However, a dependent claim cannot depend from a non-patentable independent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if your independent claim is rejected, but the limitations in a dependent claim would overcome the reasons for rejection (for example, the independent claim is obvious, but the dependent claim adds a non-obvious element), you will probably get an office action from the USPTO saying basically that if you rewrite the independent claim to incorporate the limitations of the dependent claim, they'll allow it to issue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to the other part of your question, once you have filed for a patent on a claim, it becomes &quot;prior art&quot; to subsequently filed patent applications and it will prevent them from issuing (assuming no errors in the examination process)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12500" RevisionGUID="51b3d774-3912-4fe2-ac7c-268dd467c2c6" CreationDate="2015-03-24T02:11:18.140" UserId="13775" Text="The USPTO online database only goes back to 1980.  One option you have is to call the USPTO and ask if they can help you.  If they don't voluntarily help, you could also send them a freedom of information act request seeking a copy of the document." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12501" RevisionGUID="eb9a404b-92d0-486a-8df6-374534cb7ecb" CreationDate="2015-03-24T04:56:18.400" UserId="11895" Text="I will come to the point that how the patent is examined see examiner first check application for NOVELTY and finds some document he comes back with few references as you said its already disclosed. This leads to NON FINAL REJECTION you try to amend it with dependent claim and he comes with OBVIOUSNESS based FINAL REJECTION you file RCE request with your reply and hopefully he comes with response which requires more amendment and that make you case more weaker and costly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it has been always great to make it fair and wise that you put your best foot forward. Put claim you feel novel its going to create good case and at least two good chances to convince examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now since you have disclosed 'matter' it in your specification it cant be used as such to get a patent on. yes it becomes prior art. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12502" RevisionGUID="0499e80f-92f8-49ea-b5d1-2cde0c2b746a" CreationDate="2015-03-24T05:12:01.673" UserId="11895" Text="In simple layman terms invention is defined by claims and not by disclosure. So if no claims are in provisional application means that invention has not been identified but priority has been claimed. In patent office its allowed that inventor first file all enabling disclosure as provisional patent application and  then come up with attorney of his choice and file all forms and claims according to ACT. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now when you to file same provisional as patent application in different country patent offices says that you are claiming a priority and invention 'claim' is not their. And if you add claim it comes with change of priority date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in my understanding no patent office allows patent application without claim. But they  allow you to file a claim but priority date of such claim will change." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12503" RevisionGUID="72137f32-df31-4d60-856f-ec4eaaa65c1a" CreationDate="2015-03-24T05:19:31.133" UserId="11895" Text="Patent sale date can be determined in following ways:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Check the respective patent office Patent Register e.g. US patent [USPTO Assignment Database][1]&#xD;&#xA; 2. Check online News Articles or Press releases.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Contact the attorney of the Application&#xD;&#xA; 4. Contact the inventor/applicant of the application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to query you cannot find it in online database as case is too old and if patent office direct contact doesnot provide you concrete information than you need to contact publisher of newspaper for date. Most likely it should be enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://assignment.uspto.gov/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12504" RevisionGUID="db32a061-c3a9-4ecd-9637-01155682c75d" CreationDate="2015-03-24T05:23:39.213" UserId="11895" Text="In most cases Patent expiry does not mean that things will get cheaper. Owner of IP doesnot reduce the price on its own it happens due to market pressure via competitor. if more number of players comes with same product at cheaper price then owner decides for lowering the price.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On separate note if patent lasts for its term that means patent was indeed strong and there are very good chances that owner might have some kind of IP portfolio to extend its market dominance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12501" RevisionGUID="b1b4f38d-7b24-4b69-94d1-639b518f7fe6" CreationDate="2015-03-24T07:38:45.823" UserId="11895" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="I will come to the point that how the patent is examined, see examiner first check application for NOVELTY and finds some document he comes back with few references as you said its already disclosed or abstract idea. This leads to NON FINAL REJECTION you try to amend it with dependent claim and he comes with OBVIOUSNESS based FINAL REJECTION you file RCE request (good fee) with your reply and hopefully he comes with response which requires more amendment and that make you case more weaker and costly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it has been always great to make it fair and wise that you put your best foot forward. Put claim you feel novel its going to create good case and at least two good chances to convince examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now since you have disclosed 'matter' it in your specification it cant be used as such to get a patent on. yes it becomes prior art. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12505" RevisionGUID="13a2a1d0-aae9-4b34-9bc4-9d483244d943" CreationDate="2015-03-24T13:58:14.840" UserId="13796" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8516220][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8516220&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The broader claims of patent US7644114 include the idea described int the later patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28726" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12505" RevisionGUID="13a2a1d0-aae9-4b34-9bc4-9d483244d943" CreationDate="2015-03-24T13:58:14.840" UserId="13796" Text="Isn't this patent just a specialization of patent US7644114 B2?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28727" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12505" RevisionGUID="13a2a1d0-aae9-4b34-9bc4-9d483244d943" CreationDate="2015-03-24T13:58:14.840" UserId="13796" Text="&lt;us8516220&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28728" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11968" RevisionGUID="34f1846a-b374-4e46-8fd7-188c4a01d839" CreationDate="2015-03-24T15:42:29.183" UserId="13522" Comment="Add software tag" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;computer&gt;&lt;file-format&gt;&lt;data-format&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28729" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11968" RevisionGUID="34f1846a-b374-4e46-8fd7-188c4a01d839" CreationDate="2015-03-24T15:42:29.183" Comment="Proposed by 13522 approved by 13277 edit id of 1790" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12506" RevisionGUID="b10ad6d4-827e-4565-9bce-4262197212ef" CreationDate="2015-03-24T16:54:49.117" UserId="13775" Text="The '114 patent status (according to the USPTO's Public PAIR system) is &quot;Patent Expired Due to NonPayment of Maintenance Fees Under 37 CFR 1.362&quot;.  7/8/2005 is the priority date for this patent's parent application (according to PAIR).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like the priority date of the '220 patent is 11/5/2010.  I haven't compared the '114 to the '220, but the '114 is prior art to the '220, so if the claims of the '220 patent are anticipated by the '114 patent, the validity of the '220 can be challenged based on the '114.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few different ways to challenge patent validity, but if that is something you want to do, your next step is to discuss it with a patent lawyer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12507" RevisionGUID="9d3cfe27-6a92-44e1-86ff-36c7b97ae029" CreationDate="2015-03-24T17:59:02.793" UserId="11947" Text="My invention is a better solution to existing problem. There are a few other patents and publication that tried to solve the same problem, but as far as I know none was implemented. Only known to me documentation describing the solution actually used by the industry is available online in the form of web pages.&#xD;&#xA;Can I use the url when referring to the prior art in my application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28732" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12507" RevisionGUID="9d3cfe27-6a92-44e1-86ff-36c7b97ae029" CreationDate="2015-03-24T17:59:02.793" UserId="11947" Text="Can I provide online prior art reference in my application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28733" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12507" RevisionGUID="9d3cfe27-6a92-44e1-86ff-36c7b97ae029" CreationDate="2015-03-24T17:59:02.793" UserId="11947" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12509" RevisionGUID="8bf30e70-4dba-45cf-a14d-fecd221befb9" CreationDate="2015-03-24T22:49:16.717" UserId="5639" Text="An idea can't be patented, and somebody else having had an idea doesn't prevent somebody else from patenting it.  A patent explains the exact method of how to do something.  The government grants patents to people because they are a benefit to society-- somebody figures out a novel way of doing something, so the government grants them a time-limited monopoly in exchange for the inventor telling everybody *how* they did it, so that *anybody* can do it after the patent expires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back to the Future featured the &quot;Mr. Fusion&quot; device, which made tons of energy out of food waste that was stuck into it.  It doesn't exist, and the fact that it was created for a sci-fi movie won't preclude any inventors from making and patenting a device that happens to do the same thing.  And here's the key point: you can patent a Mr Fusion because the sci-fi authors didn't publish exactly how it works.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12510" RevisionGUID="b82963e2-fd86-478f-8cc5-db10ce1cd6ad" CreationDate="2015-03-25T04:45:42.077" UserId="13315" Text=" 	&#xD;&#xA;I am in the process of prosecuting a U.S. Patent application and have a concern regarding the way the examiner wants to change the wording of three of my claims. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The examiner states that the claims lack antecedent basis and that “the” should be amended to “a” in these claims. However, this change would introduce a confusing element to the claims in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;One of the claims in question is claim 3 in which the point at issue comes a little over half way through the claim….&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;3. (Currently amended) A device according to claim 1, wherein the indicator member comprises a linear indicator extending through the single point, the static member comprises a substantially transparent sphere for containing the linear indicator so that the linear indicator is constrained to rotate about the single point located at the center of the sphere (THE EXAMINER WANTS 'A' CENTER OF THE SPHERE), and the actuator arrangement is configured to generate an electromagnetic field, and the linear indicator is adapted to respond to changes in the electromagnetic field to rotate about the single point.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;As indicated above the examiner wants to change “the center of the sphere” to “a center of the sphere”.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The problem I have with this is that the grammatical use of the indefinite article “a” in  “a center of the sphere” in the context of this sentence indicates one of a plurality of centers without giving preference to a specific one. Of course a sphere can only have one center and therefore “a center of the sphere” is confusing since it suggests that a sphere could have more than one center which is an impossibility.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I pointed out to the examiner that I thought I had introduced antecedent basis for &quot;the&quot; center of the sphere with “a substantially transparent sphere” (see claim 3 above) because a sphere must of necessity have a center. If a sphere MUST have a center, then I would have thought that by introducing &quot;a sphere&quot;, an antecedent basis for it's center is introduced.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;However the examiner was unimpressed with that argument and stated.....&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; “A substantially transparent sphere” is just a transparent sphere,  you need to “a center of a sphere” first before you may claim “the center of the sphere”.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The examiner states that the basis for rejection of my preference for “the” rather than “a” comes from  35 U.S.C. 122(b) which states that….&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.”&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I want claim 3 (and the two other claims in question that relate to other necessary properties of a sphere) to be clear and precise in meaning and I am concerned that the examiners recommended change lacks clarity of meaning.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;My question is …. Is there a way that I can irrefutably back up my argument that I am introducing antecedent basis for &quot;the center of the sphere&quot; with the introduction of “a substantially transparent sphere” …. because a sphere MUST have a center. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like if possible a killer argument that forces him to agree with me!! Perhaps there is a precedent that I could quote.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Or alternatively, could anyone suggest a form of words that I could use that would satisfy the examiner and at the same time give the claim the clear and precise meaning that I require.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28739" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12510" RevisionGUID="b82963e2-fd86-478f-8cc5-db10ce1cd6ad" CreationDate="2015-03-25T04:45:42.077" UserId="13315" Text="I have a problem about the US Patent Examiner's requirement for the use of &quot;a&quot; rather than &quot;the&quot; in three of my claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28740" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12510" RevisionGUID="b82963e2-fd86-478f-8cc5-db10ce1cd6ad" CreationDate="2015-03-25T04:45:42.077" UserId="13315" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10844" RevisionGUID="9243bc55-3328-4e52-92ea-d5f69579655d" CreationDate="2015-03-25T04:58:35.220" UserId="11895" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="Yes, this sounds like it would be an infringement if you use any of the POST IT claims. A patent is on an invention, not the implementation of said invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just a quick example, in case I'm misunderstanding your question, if you invented a four-legged table and got it patented, then I came and said &quot;that four-legged table, but used as a chair instead,&quot; that would be an infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The packaging is also irrelevant. That would be a copyright issue in all likelihood, perhaps trademark. But it doesn't impact the patent itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another alternative answer is NO if your invention is about package dispensing POST IT which i think you might be intending too. IN this case you should not use any of the POST IT product or claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10841" RevisionGUID="ace9e099-e32f-40f9-95fb-e399c6aebcf6" CreationDate="2015-03-25T04:59:27.627" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; edited title" Text="I have a question about a product that is already out on the market made by POST IT brand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My idea is essentially using the same product but changing the package design and the purpose for which it is intended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this an infringement on their patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28743" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10841" RevisionGUID="ace9e099-e32f-40f9-95fb-e399c6aebcf6" CreationDate="2015-03-25T04:59:27.627" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; edited title" Text="Package modification of an existing patent product and infringement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28748" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="313" RevisionGUID="f7407742-097e-4708-8b8e-67369b33c0e6" CreationDate="2015-03-25T07:57:31.830" UserId="13522" Comment="add a &quot;software&quot; tag" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;european&gt;&lt;uk&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28749" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="313" RevisionGUID="f7407742-097e-4708-8b8e-67369b33c0e6" CreationDate="2015-03-25T07:57:31.830" Comment="Proposed by 13522 approved by 11895, 10011 edit id of 1791" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28750" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5483" RevisionGUID="1b33cff5-6d73-4de0-92fc-1d2c34b0254f" CreationDate="2015-03-25T07:57:39.693" UserId="13522" Comment="add a software tag" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28751" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5483" RevisionGUID="1b33cff5-6d73-4de0-92fc-1d2c34b0254f" CreationDate="2015-03-25T07:57:39.693" Comment="Proposed by 13522 approved by 11895, 10011 edit id of 1794" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28754" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6348" RevisionGUID="6acb13f1-7878-4b08-bab8-effe749a4b54" CreationDate="2015-03-25T07:58:19.320" UserId="13522" Comment="Add copyright tag" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28755" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6348" RevisionGUID="6acb13f1-7878-4b08-bab8-effe749a4b54" CreationDate="2015-03-25T07:58:19.320" Comment="Proposed by 13522 approved by 11895, -1 edit id of 1792" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6348" RevisionGUID="e20463b2-536a-44d5-afe7-1c575fc235ca" CreationDate="2015-03-25T07:58:19.320" UserId="10011" Comment="Add copyright tag" Text="This patent has, as part of its content about projective geometry, text and diagrams copied from my web site http://www.nct.anth.org.uk/ without permission or acknowledgement.  Is that ethical in a patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28757" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6034" RevisionGUID="151722c9-6490-4d6d-9047-4b0d12daa767" CreationDate="2015-03-25T07:58:32.713" UserId="13522" Comment="Add a &quot;software&quot; tag" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;india&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28758" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6034" RevisionGUID="151722c9-6490-4d6d-9047-4b0d12daa767" CreationDate="2015-03-25T07:58:32.713" Comment="Proposed by 13522 approved by 11895, 10011 edit id of 1795" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6034" RevisionGUID="2e891d45-8c53-428d-8e7f-134c0004834e" CreationDate="2015-03-25T08:14:08.067" UserId="11895" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="I have an invention to do with Mobile cloud services. I'm not versed on the subject but I am technically inclined (I study computer engineering). How would I go about obtaining a patent for my invention?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12440" RevisionGUID="a2cfea5f-685f-4b9b-b438-71ca0cec39a8" CreationDate="2015-03-25T08:35:06.553" UserId="13522" Comment="fix link" Text="Why isn't there a requirement that all software / business method patent applications be ***[formally specified][1]*** ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***[Formal methods][2]*** has been around / best practice in the [Software] Engineering spheres for 30+ years, the methods and syntax are [codified][3], and there are automated tool to verify whether a specification is complete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm aware there's a steep learning curve, and formally specifying a concept / system is time consuming, and obviously by the very nature of being formally specified the domain (scope) of any specification will be explicitly stated / limited. So may require multiple derivative variants to be produced for different domains.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway if the only valid software patents are now those requested via a means plus function application, that includes a robust technical disclosure and complete algorithm, this approach appears well suited to ensure the application contains both a robust technical disclosure and complete algorithm, for the limited means stated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most formal methods are also very bad at defining ***abstract concepts***, as they rely on paradigms, so if you're having difficulty specifying a concept it's pretty likely patent ineligible subject matter is involved (or you should change your day job). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_specification&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_methods&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=21573" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12513" RevisionGUID="6446cee1-18bb-43b1-bc7e-66205cd55ab5" CreationDate="2015-03-25T09:16:05.680" UserId="13522" Text="Not in Europe, New Zealand, India..... where a patent must have an inventive step, and be of a technical character (excludes software per se)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12515" RevisionGUID="e6c9355d-cc9f-4cb7-a670-d4bdba844c76" CreationDate="2015-03-25T10:12:59.030" UserId="13522" Text="Just wondering why there is no requirement for foreign entities seeking to patent an idea / technology in a territory be obliged to manufacture, license and / or offer to sell a product based on the patent in the territory?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents obviously grant a monopoly on a particular technology, for a defined period. Primarily to allow the inventor time to recoup the development costs and profit from their labours, and to foster further innovation, but if an entity simply seeks a patent to block / prevent a technology being used in a territory for 20 years, what possible benefit is there for the territory to grant the monopoly?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no conceivable benefit then why isn't there an explicit requirement that an entity seeking a patent must either: manufacture, license and / or offer to sell a product based on the technology in the territory, within a defined time frame, or the patent will expire." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28768" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12515" RevisionGUID="e6c9355d-cc9f-4cb7-a670-d4bdba844c76" CreationDate="2015-03-25T10:12:59.030" UserId="13522" Text="Why is there no requirement that a foreign entity manufactures / licenses and / or offer to sell in a territory?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28769" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12515" RevisionGUID="e6c9355d-cc9f-4cb7-a670-d4bdba844c76" CreationDate="2015-03-25T10:12:59.030" UserId="13522" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12513" RevisionGUID="7cabcc0b-43ad-436f-b0ad-d85ceca4935c" CreationDate="2015-03-25T10:21:05.867" UserId="13522" Comment="quote - Article 52 (2)" Text="Not in Europe, New Zealand, India..... where a patent must have an inventive step, and be of a technical character (excludes software per se) e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EU - excluded matter defined in - Article 52 (2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the meaning of paragraph 1:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (b) aesthetic creations;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (d) presentations of information.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12517" RevisionGUID="94f6d8f3-dc12-4ce1-a1b1-331f6f0183ac" CreationDate="2015-03-25T17:36:05.900" UserId="13529" Text="With or without patents, polished Moissanite is *very* cheap, so while Moissanite by itself may become cheaper (see Pushpak's answer), jewelry prices won't be affected at all from this patent expiration." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12518" RevisionGUID="8b7b12a1-4b04-4b47-91ec-d0fce76ce5e4" CreationDate="2015-03-25T19:30:39.227" UserId="13306" Text="The rejection can easily be overcome by simply amending the claim to &quot;a substantially transparent sphere having a center&quot;.  However if you insist on extending the argument, the best case for your argument would probably be  Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d 1354, 1359, 61 USPQ2d 1216, 1218-19 (Fed. Cir 2001) (holding that recitation of “an ellipse” provided antecedent basis for “an ellipse having a major diameter” because “[t]here can be no dispute that mathematically an inherent characteristic of an ellipse is a major diameter”)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12519" RevisionGUID="16801889-52bd-416e-bba4-4a6a05174fc0" CreationDate="2015-03-25T22:55:03.993" UserId="13775" Text="&quot;Patent Pending Guide's&quot; answer is short but good.  I would just add that no patent examiner wants to allow a patent that gets invalidated in court.  In this case, I think the examiner is trying to be helpful, including helping to avoid problems later with antecedent basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One approach is to take the offered allowance (i.e. make the change the examiner suggests) and, if you really want claims issued with &quot;a&quot; instead of &quot;the&quot;, file a continuation application prior to issuance.  There is some additional cost associated with doing it this way, but an issued patent with wording you don't love and a pending continuation with the wording you prefer is better than a rejected patent with perfect wording." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12520" RevisionGUID="466ffbd8-10d8-4925-8e16-67481db0a279" CreationDate="2015-03-25T23:04:01.457" UserId="13775" Text="This is a patent application, not an issued patent.  It has already received a first office action, a non-final rejection.  You can check on this app's status by looking on Public PAIR.  It is actually a pretty serious rejection -- the examiner objected to the drawings, lectured the applicant on how an application should be written, then rejected all of the claims based on improper claims and prior art.  I wouldn't spend a whole lot of time worrying about the claims as they were filed (there are 10 pending claims currently), since it is a near impossibility that they will issue in their current form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inventions intended for use in space are also subject to special rules about when they are infringed -- https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/105" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="84e3311f-8488-44bf-8aa0-33274728c82f" CreationDate="2015-03-26T00:48:25.027" UserId="13795" Text="I'm following an Inter Partes Review where the petitioner is trying to invalidate every independent claim of a patent based on prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is successful, some dependent claims will remain. Some are as simple as &quot;the system of claim 1 where the {thing} calls a script&quot;. &quot;the system of claim 1 where the {thing} is incorporated into a web browser&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's my understanding that each claim is considered alone so the 'web browser' claim still stands even if its independent parent is invalid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that using a web browser is almost essential it therefore seems like the patent owner is left with an enforceable patent by adding the words 'in a web browser' to prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If EvilCorp decided to sue based on its surviving dependent claim how would infringement likely be evaluated? Would a court disregard the bulk of the invalid claim and only consider whether the addition of a web browser or the use of a script is sufficiently non-obvious?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, is trying to sue based on a dependent claim from an invalid independent claim a much weaker legal position?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28782" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="84e3311f-8488-44bf-8aa0-33274728c82f" CreationDate="2015-03-26T00:48:25.027" UserId="13795" Text="Dependent claim from invalid independent claim" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28783" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="84e3311f-8488-44bf-8aa0-33274728c82f" CreationDate="2015-03-26T00:48:25.027" UserId="13795" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12518" RevisionGUID="803f795b-5078-4e98-aed9-c728d229c627" CreationDate="2015-03-26T04:40:19.593" UserId="11895" Comment="added 282 characters in body" Text="The rejection can easily be overcome by simply amending the claim to &quot;a substantially transparent sphere having a center&quot;. You are currently limited by prosecution history estoppel. A telecon or interview with examiner is your best shot currently as any way you are going to amend claim based on his recommendation but He might have more clear understanding if you have personal one-to-one interaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However if you insist on extending the argument, the best case for your argument would probably be  Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d 1354, 1359, 61 USPQ2d 1216, 1218-19 (Fed. Cir 2001) (holding that recitation of “an ellipse” provided antecedent basis for “an ellipse having a major diameter” because “[t]here can be no dispute that mathematically an inherent characteristic of an ellipse is a major diameter”)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12255" RevisionGUID="e7de0931-5ca2-4ad1-ab91-cfd3b31e7e77" CreationDate="2015-03-26T04:56:29.530" UserId="11895" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="Short answer is no. Long answer is possible based on novelty and inventivestep it sounds like you need to spend $500-$3k and ask a patent agent or attorney to review your technology and your prior art search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want to shell out the cash, here's what you can do yourself for free:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Information gathering phase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Read the specification carefully. List out each embodiment with all elements, and all combinations. &#xD;&#xA;- Go on USPTO PAIR and review the prosecution history (click on Image File Wrapper). You need to read the rejections and understand why the technology was rejected. &#xD;&#xA;- Do another prior art search. It sounds highly unlikely that 20 years have gone by and there is no literature whatsoever on your topic. News articles, academic journals, books, etc...something exists. &#xD;&#xA;- list out the elements of your invention in its preferred embodiment. What are the key features to make your invention enabling? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Analysis phase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take each of your key features/elements and try to map a product, product feature, patent element, or prosecution history argument to your elements. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pivot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you found that in the analysis phase, every feature of your preferred embodiment was &quot;anticipated&quot;, aka someone else thought of it, then you can't patent it. If you found out through the file history review + prior art search that perhaps elements A+B+C were unpatentable because they were too broad, and that your idea includes element D, then you can patent it as A+B+C+D. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's really not short answer to this question. Your question is too broad to answer in detail, so you'll have to do the legwork yourself and come to a reasonable conclusion if its worth your time to even pursue such a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28787" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10432" RevisionGUID="08f86753-c754-4e18-9b91-34fe2189fe22" CreationDate="2015-03-26T05:15:45.100" UserId="13522" Comment="add a &quot;software&quot; tag" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;litigation&gt;&lt;european&gt;&lt;us&gt;&lt;sanctions&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28788" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10432" RevisionGUID="08f86753-c754-4e18-9b91-34fe2189fe22" CreationDate="2015-03-26T05:15:45.100" Comment="Proposed by 13522 approved by 10011 edit id of 1799" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28789" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4399" RevisionGUID="26451487-6672-4e46-a9b7-a70063d035b5" CreationDate="2015-03-26T05:16:12.150" UserId="13522" Comment="add a software tag" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28790" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4399" RevisionGUID="26451487-6672-4e46-a9b7-a70063d035b5" CreationDate="2015-03-26T05:16:12.150" Comment="Proposed by 13522 approved by 10011 edit id of 1796" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12523" RevisionGUID="3c97c8ac-0c76-4302-95b5-856fddf9faa1" CreationDate="2015-03-26T16:42:18.643" UserId="13795" Text="Although I'm not a lawyer, I have tried to research this in relation to the UK. Other European countries may be different. I'd be interested if anyone knows if any of the following is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a default judgement is issued by a US court it is not directly enforceable in the UK. The judgement may be a monetary award and/or an injunction preventing further sale of the infringing product in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the UK court to recognise that the US court has jurisdiction over the defendant one of the following must be satisfied&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The defendant has voluntarily entered into US court proceedings&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - The defendant was present or had a place of business in the US at the&#xD;&#xA;   start of proceedings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The defendant has submitted to the jurisdiction of the US court in a &#xD;&#xA;   contract&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The UK cases Cape vs Adams [1990] and Lucas Film vs Ainsworth [2011] are the best examples of this being tested. In both cases the court ruled that the US did not have jurisdiction over the defendant as he / it was not present in the US as the start of court proceedings. In Lucas Film vs Ainsworth it was established that selling to US customers is not a 'presence in the US'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, for the UK at least, if none of the above conditions are met, a US judgement cannot be enforced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether the plaintiff would then start sending cease and desist letters to your web hosts and payment providers is another matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question discussed 'continuing patent litigation' which implies that US proceedings have already been entered into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that UK companies with no presence in the US should think very carefully whether it's worth entering into US proceedings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12524" RevisionGUID="595e525d-823a-47de-ad79-00b102d36449" CreationDate="2015-03-26T19:33:44.373" UserId="13809" Text="Patent [US8943201: Method for establishing encrypted channel][2] primarily deals with securely resolving domain names to set up communications. The whole concept of secure domain names is encapsulated in the DNSSEC RFC series. The claims of this patent read like [RFC 4033][1], but that RFC is from 2005 whereas this 2011 patent claims a priority date of 1998.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I wrong that these concepts are practically identical?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.rfc-archive.org/getrfc.php?rfc=4033&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8943201" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28797" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12524" RevisionGUID="595e525d-823a-47de-ad79-00b102d36449" CreationDate="2015-03-26T19:33:44.373" UserId="13809" Text="How similar is US 8,943,201 to RFC 4033 (DNSSEC)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28798" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12524" RevisionGUID="595e525d-823a-47de-ad79-00b102d36449" CreationDate="2015-03-26T19:33:44.373" UserId="13809" Text="&lt;us8943201&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10855" RevisionGUID="bf656423-f8c1-40c3-8d7c-ef051f91fc5b" CreationDate="2015-03-27T04:55:01.140" UserId="11895" Comment="added 211 characters in body" Text="YES you can discuss but with proper Confidentiality and non disclosure agreement. Keep records of presentations and take duly authorized signature of same. ideal would be audio or video recording of meeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of my best friends are academics, but.. academics like to talk a lot, and have an imperative to publish, other than that, academics are an excellent choice. Many Universities also have innovation centres attached, and will usually offer free 30min consultations if you are prepared to go to the effort of fronting up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your idea requires some kind of actual gadget/machine to make it work, I'd recommend talking to an engineer. Engineers of all fields are usually pretty good at spotting ideas that won't work, engineers also work with a lot of confidential technical material, so are used to handling this, and most importantly, don't derive their income from patents. And you can get a lot of advice for the price of a beer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't expect all ideas to lead to patents, I've had maybe 10,000 ideas over the decades, yet have only 5 patents, your mileage may vary. I've made money by using &quot;ideas&quot; to solve client's problems, so they make products that work, get income from this, and pay me. Fortunately the magic is in the electronics in the box, so no real need to patent these products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12525" RevisionGUID="0818891f-e821-4f29-9dfb-b67e074bbe86" CreationDate="2015-03-27T06:04:38.393" UserId="13812" Text="You can cite a URL that refers to prior art on an information disclosure statement [IDS] using form PTO-892. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;URLs in the specification are 'impermissible.' You should not put a URL in your specification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MPEP 608.01(VII) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If hyperlinks and/or other forms of browser-executable code are embedded in the text of the patent application, examiners should object to the specification and indicate to applicants that the embedded hyperlinks and/or other forms of browser-executable code are impermissible and that references to web sites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. This requirement does not apply to electronic documents listed on forms PTO-892 and PTO/SB/08 where the electronic document is identified by reference to a URL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/608_01.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12525" RevisionGUID="f82e4e1a-19fb-444a-bf7d-1c616d3b9672" CreationDate="2015-03-27T07:13:06.677" UserId="11895" Comment="added 930 characters in body" Text="You can cite a URL that refers to prior art on an information disclosure statement [IDS] using form PTO-892. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;URLs in the specification are 'impermissible.' You should not put a URL in your specification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MPEP 608.01(VII) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If hyperlinks and/or other forms of browser-executable code are embedded in the text of the patent application, examiners should object to the specification and indicate to applicants that the embedded hyperlinks and/or other forms of browser-executable code are impermissible and that references to web sites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. This requirement does not apply to electronic documents listed on forms PTO-892 and PTO/SB/08 where the electronic document is identified by reference to a URL.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The attempt to incorporate subject matter into the patent application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by reference to a hyperlink and/or other forms of browser-executable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; code is considered to be an improper incorporation by reference. See&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 37 CFR 1.57(d) and MPEP § 608.01(p), paragraph I regarding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; incorporation by reference. Where the hyperlinks and/or other forms of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; browser-executable codes themselves rather than the contents of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; site to which the hyperlinks are directed are part of applicant’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention and it is necessary to have them included in the patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application in order to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, *and applicant does&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not intend to have these hyperlinks be active links, examiners should&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not object to these hyperlinks. The Office will disable these&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hyperlinks when preparing the text to be loaded onto the USPTO Web&#xD;&#xA;&gt; database.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/608_01.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12527" RevisionGUID="abcd4cae-2c3b-4ed3-94c5-194e1945e176" CreationDate="2015-03-27T09:54:41.180" UserId="13813" Text="I would like to know, if a basic search of patent database will give me an idea on whether my idea is patent-able? or I need to perform any specific patentiblity search?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28807" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12527" RevisionGUID="abcd4cae-2c3b-4ed3-94c5-194e1945e176" CreationDate="2015-03-27T09:54:41.180" UserId="13813" Text="Mobile App Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28808" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12527" RevisionGUID="abcd4cae-2c3b-4ed3-94c5-194e1945e176" CreationDate="2015-03-27T09:54:41.180" UserId="13813" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;app&gt;&lt;prior&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12528" RevisionGUID="fd44e341-e5ff-4a69-b540-6df90d05582a" CreationDate="2015-03-27T11:23:28.617" UserId="13815" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140302201][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140302201&#xD;&#xA;THE USE OF GUM ARABIC IN WINE IS ALLOWED FOR A LONG TIME SEE THE CODEX OEUNOLGIC STATU I DO NOT UNDERSTAND IN WHAT WAY THIS INVENTION IS &quot; AN INVENTION&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28810" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12528" RevisionGUID="fd44e341-e5ff-4a69-b540-6df90d05582a" CreationDate="2015-03-27T11:23:28.617" UserId="13815" Text="ABOUT REGULATION" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28811" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12528" RevisionGUID="fd44e341-e5ff-4a69-b540-6df90d05582a" CreationDate="2015-03-27T11:23:28.617" UserId="13815" Text="&lt;us20140302201&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28815" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12528" RevisionGUID="ee7e063a-a5d3-4dc3-8051-ce8cb177862e" CreationDate="2015-03-27T14:51:21.403" UserId="81" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body; edited title" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140302201][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140302201&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of gum arabic in wine has been allowed for a long time (see the Codex Oeunolgic Statu)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this invention an 'invention'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28816" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12528" RevisionGUID="ee7e063a-a5d3-4dc3-8051-ce8cb177862e" CreationDate="2015-03-27T14:51:21.403" UserId="81" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body; edited title" Text="What constitutes an invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12530" RevisionGUID="c3d2c939-9f1d-4a47-ab7f-5a7f2d1f2715" CreationDate="2015-03-27T15:10:08.043" UserId="13318" Text="You can perform a patentability search by searching on Google patents and on the [USPTO][1] to figure out generally what has already been patented and what patent applications have been filed.  However, in the US you when you file a patent application you can elect to not have anything published until the application issued as a patent as long as you agree to not file outside of the United States.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can spend a small amount of time searching or a very large amount of time searching and may find some things but you may miss other things.  Performing a search is generally a good idea, but it is not a failsafe.  Keep in mind that you do not have to perform a search before filing an application, but it may save you time and money down the road because you may decide to not move forward with filing an application.  In addition, if you do perform a search, and find related prior art, you have the duty of disclosing the related prior art to the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12532" RevisionGUID="866ae252-79d7-4270-9dd6-c5ec550741ad" CreationDate="2015-03-27T20:54:58.780" UserId="13819" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5669982][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5669982" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28822" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12532" RevisionGUID="866ae252-79d7-4270-9dd6-c5ec550741ad" CreationDate="2015-03-27T20:54:58.780" UserId="13819" Text="When will this Patent expire 5,669,982" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28823" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12532" RevisionGUID="866ae252-79d7-4270-9dd6-c5ec550741ad" CreationDate="2015-03-27T20:54:58.780" UserId="13819" Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;date&gt;&lt;expiry&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12534" RevisionGUID="1da08db3-f151-43a2-b92b-eac7ad43d1c7" CreationDate="2015-03-27T21:58:42.027" UserId="8071" Text="CFR 1.78(a)(6) says that, if a non-provisional application claims the benefit of a provisional application filed before March 16, 2013 and contains, or contained at any time, a claim that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, the applicant must file a statement to that effect within a certain time period.  What happens if the statement is not filed within the stipulated time period?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28828" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12534" RevisionGUID="1da08db3-f151-43a2-b92b-eac7ad43d1c7" CreationDate="2015-03-27T21:58:42.027" UserId="8071" Text="What if statement about claims with effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013 is not submitted in time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28829" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12534" RevisionGUID="1da08db3-f151-43a2-b92b-eac7ad43d1c7" CreationDate="2015-03-27T21:58:42.027" UserId="8071" Text="&lt;examination&gt;&lt;pre-aia&gt;&lt;aia&gt;&lt;march-16-2013&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28839" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12532" RevisionGUID="455630e7-c5c6-4952-99d4-f6cfa4ea9a4a" CreationDate="2015-03-28T04:28:11.957" UserId="10011" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[3801],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12536" RevisionGUID="9bcf238e-060b-4d83-a95b-626ee7de83e3" CreationDate="2015-03-28T10:40:27.503" UserId="13823" Text="I have been working on a product for many years now by myself. I know that a Patent is to protect someone else stealing your ideas. But if I publicly release my product do I still need a Patent, or is it something I need forever to protect my ideas. Because we don't have much money in our budget. If I do require one, how much will it cost(Australia?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks, Jayden" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28843" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12536" RevisionGUID="9bcf238e-060b-4d83-a95b-626ee7de83e3" CreationDate="2015-03-28T10:40:27.503" UserId="13823" Text="Do i need a patent after publicly releasing my product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28844" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12536" RevisionGUID="9bcf238e-060b-4d83-a95b-626ee7de83e3" CreationDate="2015-03-28T10:40:27.503" UserId="13823" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12538" RevisionGUID="b794326e-4b8b-4aa7-9e9f-2cde820e14e9" CreationDate="2015-03-28T15:30:05.330" UserId="13522" Text="Wondering what the scope of a worldwide grant / transfer of all IP, either via an employment contract or explicit transfer is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ask as a number of countries are not members of the WIPO, others have either not signed or ratified any of the international IP treaties, and a few have no local IP law. In addition patents, and trademarks are territorial and / or context based." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28849" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12538" RevisionGUID="b794326e-4b8b-4aa7-9e9f-2cde820e14e9" CreationDate="2015-03-28T15:30:05.330" UserId="13522" Text="Scope of a worldwide grant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28850" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12538" RevisionGUID="b794326e-4b8b-4aa7-9e9f-2cde820e14e9" CreationDate="2015-03-28T15:30:05.330" UserId="13522" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;trademark&gt;&lt;scope&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12536" RevisionGUID="be1e2014-5c81-48d2-bcf4-fa844a30e93e" CreationDate="2015-03-28T19:25:37.420" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body" Text="I have been working on a product for many years now by myself. I know that a Patent is to protect someone else stealing your ideas. But if I publicly release my product do I still need a Patent, or is it something I need forever to protect my ideas. Because we don't have much money in our budget. If I do require one, how much will it cost(Australia?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12539" RevisionGUID="a16f5b71-e720-445b-bcb7-4127adb9d14e" CreationDate="2015-03-28T23:12:45.580" UserId="13825" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7755660][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7755660&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How long did it take overall?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28854" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12539" RevisionGUID="a16f5b71-e720-445b-bcb7-4127adb9d14e" CreationDate="2015-03-28T23:12:45.580" UserId="13825" Text="How long did it take overall?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28855" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12539" RevisionGUID="a16f5b71-e720-445b-bcb7-4127adb9d14e" CreationDate="2015-03-28T23:12:45.580" UserId="13825" Text="&lt;us7755660&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12540" RevisionGUID="7fea4630-4b1a-4ed5-893a-2f09f1c238ee" CreationDate="2015-03-29T03:54:09.133" UserId="11895" Text="It took them &amp; years 2 months and 10 days from priority days for grant. patent prosecution involved one Request for examination." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12541" RevisionGUID="38c407bb-8655-42ab-b49b-d3940595a000" CreationDate="2015-03-29T04:15:14.793" UserId="11895" Text="&gt; I have been working on a product for many years now by myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent protection depends on novelty if your work was published in any way or any one has the publication which effect this factor you might loose the patent protection. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if I publicly release my product do I still need a Patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No generally One does not require a patent to sell product, but it helps you in two ways first it can be used as protective tool to keep out the competition. Secondly on other hand by using generalized claims in application you will come to know which patents are close to your invention and evaultate does any patents are infringed by using said product. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I need forever to protect my ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents are for 20 years only, you cant protect it for forever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; how much will it cost(Australia?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am afraid this is not under scope of 'Ask Patents' but you can find this information on [Australian patent office][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/get-the-right-ip/patents/time-and-costs/fees/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12022" RevisionGUID="011df7c5-7ba9-4017-ae8b-ec39417e3dc0" CreationDate="2015-03-29T05:02:01.890" UserId="11895" Comment="added 347 characters in body" Text="In general, a patent examiner may suggest applicant or require a change to the title of a patent in order to make it more descriptive of the claimed invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **606.01   Examiner May Require Change in Title [R-11.2013]** &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Where the title is not descriptive of the invention claimed, the examiner should&#xD;&#xA;&gt; require the substitution of a new title that is clearly indicative of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the invention to which the claims are directed. Form paragraphs 6.11&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and 6.11.01 may be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may have been changed to make the patent easier to search. (Especially since at the time searching would have involved leafing through paper copies in a filing cabinet.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case, a twist drill is a type of drill bit. Given the age of the patent, it is probably pretty difficult to determine whether the title was changed. But certainly above method was used since specification does not have exact phrase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12542" RevisionGUID="caa7a059-3094-4825-97c6-bd140e830aea" CreationDate="2015-03-29T05:19:10.770" UserId="11895" Text="In short an assignment of IP rights with scope of worldwide means that all rights of IP are assigned to second party. Further it also comes to specific clauses of assignments which can restrict to exclusive or non-exclusive mode, specific patent number or portfolio. to cut short if exclusive rights are given then all IP belongs to new holder along with responsibility of maintaining and enforcing the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On your other query as WIPO not being filed or applicable on some country. Please note WIPO is an application only and doesnot mean that patent has been granted in designated country. Applicant has 20, 30 or 31 months to enter in designated state. Assignment of WIPO application means that new holder can file in designated state but cannot in non-designated state. Further if parent application is part of assignment and 12 months has not passed new holder of IP can enter directly into national phase using Conventional application method.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Countries having no IP or limited laws cannot be considered as it becomes out of scope of assignment if not specifically mentioned in its clauses. In general I have seen annexes of countries wherein said transfer is applicable and one can include all countries as per desire irrespective of IP laws." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28860" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12540" RevisionGUID="64cde9e8-77ea-4810-80b1-bfc45936ea0a" CreationDate="2015-03-29T10:45:06.613" UserId="11895" Comment="edited body; edited body" Text="It took them 7 years 2 months and 10 days from priority date for grant. patent prosecution involved one Request for examination." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12543" RevisionGUID="88234d20-fd63-40e4-bb70-4f4794b10532" CreationDate="2015-03-29T13:58:49.540" UserId="13828" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20110209929][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110209929" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28862" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12543" RevisionGUID="88234d20-fd63-40e4-bb70-4f4794b10532" CreationDate="2015-03-29T13:58:49.540" UserId="13828" Text="What is the procedure to use the patent as a reference for our presentation in a conference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28863" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12543" RevisionGUID="88234d20-fd63-40e4-bb70-4f4794b10532" CreationDate="2015-03-29T13:58:49.540" UserId="13828" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12544" RevisionGUID="a53772d4-b963-4842-bfc4-bedc62c6195a" CreationDate="2015-03-29T17:19:38.847" UserId="11895" Text="Patents can be cited freely in educational activities. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12545" RevisionGUID="8ff9ad95-0413-480a-bef8-61c5d728cd7a" CreationDate="2015-03-29T18:18:39.963" UserId="13522" Text="Wikipedia has a page on this: [Copyright on the content of patents and in the context of patent prosecution][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But depending on where you are in the world / US there may be restrictions on using the inventors name e.g. [California Right of Publicity Law][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_on_the_content_of_patents_and_in_the_context_of_patent_prosecution#cite_note-2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-right-publicity-law" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28881" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12393" RevisionGUID="964e318c-357b-4f03-98a9-928ac8eaac5a" CreationDate="2015-03-30T09:12:34.860" UserId="11895" Comment="added 122 characters in body" Text="Google OCR sometimes have problems, You are right actual patent has same spelling. Any ways 'Ask Patent' is not direct link to Google. you can use '**Send Feedback**' of Google patents to report this error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However To correct inventor name in patent, you can see MPEP 602.01(c)(2)   Correcting or Updating Inventor Name 37 CFR 1.48(f) – Request Filed On or After September 16, 2012 [R-11.2013]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (f) Correcting or updating the name of an inventor: Any request to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **correct or update the name of the inventor** or a joint inventor, or the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; order of the names of joint inventors, in a nonprovisional application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; must include: (1) An application data sheet in accordance with §1.76&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name in the desired&#xD;&#xA;&gt; order; and (2) The processing fee set forth in §1.17(i).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;................. and allows an applicant to adjust the order of the names of joint inventors (e.g., to control the order of names on a printed patent). 37 CFR 1.48(f) specifically provides that any request to correct or update the name of the inventor or a joint inventor, or the order of the names of joint inventors, in a nonprovisional application must include: (1) an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name in the desired order; and (2) the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i). The request should also identify the desired inventor name change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for more information please visit [MPEP][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/itDSj.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s602.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12549" RevisionGUID="da5d5614-7394-44fb-9ade-35724062245b" CreationDate="2015-03-30T10:00:57.017" UserId="13833" Text="What are the best way to search closest prior art and how to identify closest prior arts from prosecution file history for pharmaceutical patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28883" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12549" RevisionGUID="da5d5614-7394-44fb-9ade-35724062245b" CreationDate="2015-03-30T10:00:57.017" UserId="13833" Text="Prior Art search" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28884" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12549" RevisionGUID="da5d5614-7394-44fb-9ade-35724062245b" CreationDate="2015-03-30T10:00:57.017" UserId="13833" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;prior&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12550" RevisionGUID="de8563bc-635a-4fc1-af11-68dd63ad6573" CreationDate="2015-03-30T12:16:09.717" UserId="11895" Text="&gt; What are the best way to search closest prior art&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Too broad to specify it depends on how well are keywords designed. If you are referring to searching a prior art for specific patent application then following are methods generally used to get documents:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Browse documents using all classes listed in respective patent&#xD;&#xA; 2. Further limit is using inventive feature synonyms.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Use alternative language like German and Korean etc this is useful for NPL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; how to identify closest prior arts from prosecution file history for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pharmaceutical patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;apart from above methods&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Use ISR or examination report documents as base, design keywords based on abstract of same.&#xD;&#xA; 2. review search strategy used by USPTO examiner to see if any loopholes present.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Pool all ISR and applicant cited documents and use forward and reverse citation on them.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Check all examination reports of subject Patent family.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Use IDS document as additional source.&#xD;&#xA; 6. Pay special attention to examiner cited documents and review cited documents prosecution history for NPL and additional documents.&#xD;&#xA; 7. Pay special attention to abandoned applications for prior claiming." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12554" RevisionGUID="14571474-827c-4117-b7d8-bcf7a9116387" CreationDate="2015-03-30T15:54:56.297" UserId="13836" Text="Shouldn't an obvious prior art of this claim be any smart phone / mobile phone with video screen, speaker and a port which load images for display?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is claimed is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An electronic media production system comprising: modules, each including: a presentation system including one or more of a speaker&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and a video screen; a port; and one or more connectors; and actuators,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; each actuator, in use, being coupled Without&#xD;&#xA;&gt; soldering to are spectate connector, Wherein, in use, the presentation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; system of each module&#xD;&#xA;&gt; operates in response to the actuator or actuators coupled to said each module,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the presentation system:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if the presentation system includes the speaker, producing sounds derived&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from data obtained via the port; and if the presentation system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; includes the video screen,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; displaying images derived from data obtained via the port.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US8964397][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8964397" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28892" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12554" RevisionGUID="14571474-827c-4117-b7d8-bcf7a9116387" CreationDate="2015-03-30T15:54:56.297" UserId="13836" Text="An obvious prior art… mobile phone" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28893" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12554" RevisionGUID="14571474-827c-4117-b7d8-bcf7a9116387" CreationDate="2015-03-30T15:54:56.297" UserId="13836" Text="&lt;mobile-phone&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28908" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="299" RevisionGUID="9c8952cc-073c-45f8-acf2-31024162a07e" CreationDate="2015-03-30T18:01:34.927" UserId="13522" Comment="add a &quot;software&quot; tag" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28909" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="299" RevisionGUID="9c8952cc-073c-45f8-acf2-31024162a07e" CreationDate="2015-03-30T18:01:34.927" Comment="Proposed by 13522 approved by 1 edit id of 1798" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28910" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10664" RevisionGUID="1ded906b-7e28-4d34-a811-f7b8045f4bf9" CreationDate="2015-03-30T18:01:47.850" UserId="13522" Comment="add a prior-art tag" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28911" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10664" RevisionGUID="1ded906b-7e28-4d34-a811-f7b8045f4bf9" CreationDate="2015-03-30T18:01:47.850" Comment="Proposed by 13522 approved by 1 edit id of 1797" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12554" RevisionGUID="25c01f50-61a1-49bd-8ec7-392cefb94c5d" CreationDate="2015-03-30T18:26:39.677" UserId="10011" Comment="added 47 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Shouldn't an obvious prior art of this claim be any smart phone / mobile phone with video screen, speaker and a port which load images for display?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is claimed is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An electronic media production system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  modules, each including: a presentation system including one or more of a speaker and a video screen; a port; and one or more connectors; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  actuators, each actuator, in use, being coupled without soldering to a respective connector,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  wherein, in use, the presentation system of each module operates in response to the actuator or actuators coupled to said each module, the presentation system:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; if the presentation system includes the speaker, producing sounds derived from data obtained via the port; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;if the presentation system includes the video screen, displaying images derived from data obtained via the port.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US8964397][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8964397" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28913" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12554" RevisionGUID="25c01f50-61a1-49bd-8ec7-392cefb94c5d" CreationDate="2015-03-30T18:26:39.677" UserId="10011" Comment="added 47 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;mobile-phone&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28914" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="12558" RevisionGUID="2c6a7165-1f97-4c7d-bb48-2f2ee730aaf2" CreationDate="2015-03-30T18:41:20.280" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/42640/naming-new-inventors-when-converting-a-provisional-patent-to-a-full-patent" />
  <row Id="28915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12558" RevisionGUID="79ab719f-a1f8-445d-9888-572f90ffa246" CreationDate="2015-03-30T15:56:52.033" UserId="13845" UserDisplayName="user1042928" Text="If I file a provisional patent application in the US and then convert it to a full patent in 1 year, can I name additional inventors on that full patent application? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I am not sure if this is the right stack for this question but I was not sure where else to ask." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28916" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12558" RevisionGUID="79ab719f-a1f8-445d-9888-572f90ffa246" CreationDate="2015-03-30T15:56:52.033" UserId="13845" UserDisplayName="user1042928" Text="Naming New Inventors when Converting a Provisional Patent to a Full Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28917" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12558" RevisionGUID="79ab719f-a1f8-445d-9888-572f90ffa246" CreationDate="2015-03-30T15:56:52.033" UserId="13845" UserDisplayName="user1042928" Text="&lt;untagged&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12559" RevisionGUID="6733485f-5481-487f-8b86-63ff3e953f19" CreationDate="2015-03-30T18:45:04.433" UserId="13812" Text="US 20140302201 is a published patent application waiting for examination. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During examination the examiner will consider whether or not the invention, as defined by the claims, defines a patentable invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12560" RevisionGUID="2ac72322-193e-4628-a7c3-c633ae5cb914" CreationDate="2015-03-30T19:37:08.223" UserId="4545" Text="https://www.google.com/patents/US20050220286 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The independent claim is drawn primarily to **protocol conversion of the data link layer and the application layer of a communication without conversion of intermediate layer(s)** (network layer, transport layer). There are some additional limitations, but the heart of the matter seems to be this element. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are numerous pieces of prior art that disclose protocol conversion at the data link layer. There are also numerous pieces of prior art that disclose protocol conversion at the application layer. There are even numerous pieces of prior art that disclose protocol conversion at both the data link layer and at the application layer. I am, however, unable to find a reference that explicitly or incontrovertibly documents conversion at the data link layer and at the application layer **without** any conversion of intermediate layers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The date to beat is March 28, 2005. Your assistance is appreciated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Entirety of independent claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    1. An integrated communications device including hardware components, the device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;    a first processor configured to control a first hardware component function;&#xD;&#xA;    a second processor configured to run an abstraction interface and a client application, the client application providing a user interface;&#xD;&#xA;    wherein the abstraction interface is adapted to make a direct conversion between protocols used by the first processor and protocols used by the client application, by converting data link layer protocols and application layer protocols without converting at least one of network layer protocols and transport lay protocols, to permit control of the first hardware component function via the client application, and &#xD;&#xA;    wherein the client application is adapted to output data using at least one of session layer protocols, presentation layer protocols, or application layer protocols.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28920" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12560" RevisionGUID="2ac72322-193e-4628-a7c3-c633ae5cb914" CreationDate="2015-03-30T19:37:08.223" UserId="4545" Text="Network Protocol Conversion -- Prior Art Request for US 2005/0220286 A1 (Verizon)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28921" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12560" RevisionGUID="2ac72322-193e-4628-a7c3-c633ae5cb914" CreationDate="2015-03-30T19:37:08.223" UserId="4545" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;internet&gt;&lt;network&gt;&lt;protocol&gt;&lt;us20050220286&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12561" RevisionGUID="5c38e593-8ea9-464c-a7fa-2fcb83f7fb3f" CreationDate="2015-03-30T20:40:40.660" UserId="13230" Text="Company A obtained a design patent(unpublished)in 1990 which was granted and enforce. Company B during the enforcement period of 1995, decided to apply for a utility patent, using the methods of reconstructing the design, now both A and B designs are for a article of manufacturing and both have similarities in design. Company B after extensive prosecution was able to obtain a utility patent for their invention design in 1998. Company A design patent expired in 2003 (14 years Period), which is now become public domain. Company C wanted to manufacture Company A design, not knowing that Comp B used the design for their invention. Comp. B filed suit against Comp. C in federal court, allegations of infringement.  Can B successfully sued C for a design patent which is public domain and why are Patent Designs not Published." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28923" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12561" RevisionGUID="5c38e593-8ea9-464c-a7fa-2fcb83f7fb3f" CreationDate="2015-03-30T20:40:40.660" UserId="13230" Text="Patent Design Public Domains" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28924" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12561" RevisionGUID="5c38e593-8ea9-464c-a7fa-2fcb83f7fb3f" CreationDate="2015-03-30T20:40:40.660" UserId="13230" Text="&lt;design&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12563" RevisionGUID="79db2f6c-e896-4f2e-92f7-8fbad161913b" CreationDate="2015-03-30T21:03:59.163" UserId="13843" Text="Can I use exact same independent claim in a Continuation patent that I used in my original issued patent, but with different dependent claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if my issued patent had independent claim of &quot;self-driving car&quot;, with dependent claim of &quot;uses gasoline engine&quot;, in Continuation, could I use  independent claim of &quot;self-driving car&quot;, but with dependent claim of &quot;uses electric engine&quot;? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28929" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12563" RevisionGUID="79db2f6c-e896-4f2e-92f7-8fbad161913b" CreationDate="2015-03-30T21:03:59.163" UserId="13843" Text="Can I use exact same independent claim in a Continuation as my original granted patent, but with different dependent claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28930" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12563" RevisionGUID="79db2f6c-e896-4f2e-92f7-8fbad161913b" CreationDate="2015-03-30T21:03:59.163" UserId="13843" Text="&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12564" RevisionGUID="4105d5af-b854-4312-9a30-dd3e80f86a92" CreationDate="2015-03-30T21:12:36.193" UserId="13775" Text="In 1990, patent **applications** were not published until they were granted.  If they actually obtained a design patent, it should have been published as a patent grant. Certain granted patents are not published, but that is a very narrow category (basically national security).  If you provide some of the patent numbers, you will probably get much better answers. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12565" RevisionGUID="87b4a724-d84d-47d2-95cb-6b119e327e0a" CreationDate="2015-03-30T21:21:31.450" UserId="13812" Text="When you say &quot;...and then convert it to a full patent in 1 year...&quot; I assume you mean you would like to file a non-provisional application and claim the benefit of (domestic) priority under [35 U.S.C. 119(e)][1] to the prior-filed provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is yes, you can add inventor(s) to the non-provisional application. The provisional and non-provisional need only have one inventor in common. See [MPEP 211.01(a)][2] which states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...each prior-filed provisional application must have the same inventor or at least one joint inventor in common with the later-filed application...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302921&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s211.html#ch200_d1ff71_20a5e_149" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12566" RevisionGUID="075f41ce-05bc-4b2a-b292-3ad5b9949145" CreationDate="2015-03-30T21:25:42.390" UserId="13775" Text="Honestly, I've never considered doing that.  Absent unusual circumstances, you want to have at least some variation in claim scope so that if the original patent filing claim is invalidated, the continuation claim isn't automatically going to be considered invalid.  It is very common to have independent claims in a continuation application that presents a small amount of variation from the previously issued patent.  When that happens, you will normally receive a &quot;non-statutory double patenting rejection&quot;.  &quot;Non-statutory&quot; because it is entirely a judicially created bar to patentability.  You normally overcome this rejection by filing a &quot;terminal disclaimer&quot; where you limit the enforceability of the continuation patent so that it has the same term and is enforced by the same owners as the parent patent.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12567" RevisionGUID="30639978-d583-4f34-b7db-bb487ac7ec0d" CreationDate="2015-03-30T21:46:30.613" UserId="5500" Text="I implemented a Google internal variant of bisect in 2008. There are no external references to it, but the code might still be lurking around at Google." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12568" RevisionGUID="0ccf3477-e9b3-4630-905c-2c70e06f7b3a" CreationDate="2015-03-30T22:21:03.157" UserId="13812" Text="You wouldn't want to file identical claims. Identical claims will receive a &quot;Statutory Double Patenting&quot; rejection. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike the &quot;Non-Statutory Double Patenting&quot; rejection referred to by Gary, the you can not overcome the Statutory Double Patenting rejection with a terminal disclaimer. You must amend the claims. See [MPEP 804.02(I)][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Understand that in order to file a continuing application, the originally filed application, or an continuation/divisional/continuation-in-part based on the originally filed application must be pending (i.e., not abandoned, not issued). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are filing another application as a result of an examiner's requirement for restriction, the application would be called a divisional application rather than a continuing application. Statutory double patenting is prohibited in divisional applications resulting from an examiner's requirement for restriction. See [MPEP 804.01][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s804.html#d0e101356&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s804.html#d0e101210" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12559" RevisionGUID="f3df8295-681e-4982-9c1a-d82ef9f79f70" CreationDate="2015-03-30T23:44:11.050" UserId="13812" Comment="clarification." Text="US 20140302201 is a published patent application waiting for examination. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During examination the examiner will consider whether or not the applicant's claimed invention, as defined by the claims, defines a patentable invention. If the combination of elements required by applicant's claims was taught by the prior art (e.g., the Codex Oeunoligic), I would expect the examiner to reject the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To issue as a patent, the applicant would then need to a amend the claims to be non-obvious over the prior art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12559" RevisionGUID="114f1471-d770-44b7-b7c5-0460cceb0d91" CreationDate="2015-03-30T23:51:33.980" UserId="13812" Comment="additional information, MPEP citations." Text="US 20140302201 is a published patent application waiting for examination. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During examination the examiner will consider whether or not the applicant's claimed invention, as defined by the claims, defines a patentable invention. If the combination of elements required by applicant's claims was taught by the prior art (e.g., the Codex Oeunoligic), I would expect the examiner to reject the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To issue as a patent, the applicant would then need to a amend the claims to be non-obvious over the prior art. How an examiner determines whether or not the claimed invention is obvious is discussed in [MPEP 2143][1]. Also see [MPEP 2144.05][2] which discusses the obviousness of ranges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2143.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2144.html#d0e211255" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28939" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="12569" RevisionGUID="690d726b-af8a-4f77-a696-b28cc61d2843" CreationDate="2015-03-31T01:04:22.150" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/36684/how-does-this-patent-affect-bitcoin" />
  <row Id="28940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12569" RevisionGUID="0f05cff5-cbfa-470c-aca3-417c971a99f2" CreationDate="2015-03-31T00:49:28.607" UserDisplayName="John Brown" Text="We found a patent that seems to cover sending and receiving funds via Bitcoin - how does this affect Bitcoin and Bitcoin based companies ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US20080195499&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;A system for peer-to-peer commerce includes electronic wallets 14 for storing electronic token files 12. The electronic tokens can be passed from wallet to wallet without oversight of a third party. At any time, the owner of a token can verify the validity of a token for a fee, but such verification is not needed to conduct commerce. The electronic tokens include a field which can be used to restrict tokens to a specific purpose or to prevent use on specific goods and services.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would love to hear feedback on this!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28941" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12569" RevisionGUID="0f05cff5-cbfa-470c-aca3-417c971a99f2" CreationDate="2015-03-31T00:49:28.607" UserDisplayName="John Brown" Text="How does this patent affect Bitcoin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28942" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12569" RevisionGUID="0f05cff5-cbfa-470c-aca3-417c971a99f2" CreationDate="2015-03-31T00:49:28.607" UserDisplayName="John Brown" Text="&lt;legal&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28943" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12569" RevisionGUID="b6a4809f-3860-4cbd-8b59-914095124850" CreationDate="2015-03-31T01:12:52.237" UserId="10011" Comment="Clarify question a little, add claim" Text="In reference to the patent application: [US20080195499](http://www.google.com/patents/US20080195499)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We found a patent that seems to cover sending and receiving funds via Bitcoin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The abstract reads,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for peer-to-peer commerce includes electronic wallets 14 for storing electronic token files 12. The electronic tokens can be passed from wallet to wallet without oversight of a third party. At any time, the owner of a token can verify the validity of a token for a fee, but such verification is not needed to conduct commerce. The electronic tokens include a field which can be used to restrict tokens to a specific purpose or to prevent use on specific goods and services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim reads,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of performing commerce over a network comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at a first processing device: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;receiving electronic token files having a specified value at a first processing device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sending an appropriate set of electronic token files over the network to a second processing device in return for a desired good or service;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at a second processing device:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;receiving the set of electronic token files from the first processing device over the network; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;optionally verifying the authenticity of one or more of the set of electronic token files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm curious of how this might affect Bitcoin and existing companies that use it. Namely,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Will any companies have to modify what they're doing already if this application is granted?&#xD;&#xA;* Might Bitcoin qualify as prior art to this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28944" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12569" RevisionGUID="b6a4809f-3860-4cbd-8b59-914095124850" CreationDate="2015-03-31T01:12:52.237" UserId="10011" Comment="Clarify question a little, add claim" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;legal&gt;&lt;us20080195499&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28946" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12569" RevisionGUID="1423ffc7-4184-4056-b1f5-00abfbb93fea" CreationDate="2015-03-31T01:20:58.107" UserId="10011" Comment="edited body" Text="In reference to the patent application: [US20080195499](http://www.google.com/patents/US20080195499)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We found a patent that seems to cover sending and receiving funds via Bitcoin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm curious of how this might affect Bitcoin and existing companies that use it. Namely,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Will any companies have to modify what they're doing already if this application is granted?&#xD;&#xA;* Might Bitcoin qualify as prior art to this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The abstract reads,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for peer-to-peer commerce includes electronic wallets 14 for storing electronic token files 12. The electronic tokens can be passed from wallet to wallet without oversight of a third party. At any time, the owner of a token can verify the validity of a token for a fee, but such verification is not needed to conduct commerce. The electronic tokens include a field which can be used to restrict tokens to a specific purpose or to prevent use on specific goods and services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the first claim,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of performing commerce over a network comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at a first processing device: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;receiving electronic token files having a specified value at a first processing device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sending an appropriate set of electronic token files over the network to a second processing device in return for a desired good or service;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at a second processing device:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;receiving the set of electronic token files from the first processing device over the network; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;optionally verifying the authenticity of one or more of the set of electronic token files.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12569" RevisionGUID="502c2acc-3916-473d-9067-abdb34db8735" CreationDate="2015-03-31T01:27:06.433" UserId="10011" Comment="edited body" Text="In reference to the patent application: [US20080195499](http://www.google.com/patents/US20080195499)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We found a patent that seems to cover sending and receiving funds via Bitcoin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm curious of how this might affect Bitcoin and existing companies that use it. Namely, might Bitcoin qualify as prior art to this? I'd also like to know, if not, whether the approval of this application could lead to existing companies having to change their ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The abstract reads,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for peer-to-peer commerce includes electronic wallets 14 for storing electronic token files 12. The electronic tokens can be passed from wallet to wallet without oversight of a third party. At any time, the owner of a token can verify the validity of a token for a fee, but such verification is not needed to conduct commerce. The electronic tokens include a field which can be used to restrict tokens to a specific purpose or to prevent use on specific goods and services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the first claim,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of performing commerce over a network comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at a first processing device: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;receiving electronic token files having a specified value at a first processing device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sending an appropriate set of electronic token files over the network to a second processing device in return for a desired good or service;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at a second processing device:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;receiving the set of electronic token files from the first processing device over the network; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;optionally verifying the authenticity of one or more of the set of electronic token files.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12569" RevisionGUID="ea296519-a135-49fc-b65c-a32b8cf55923" CreationDate="2015-03-31T01:30:15.237" UserId="10011" Comment="added 86 characters in body; edited title" Text="In reference to the patent application: [US20080195499](http://www.google.com/patents/US20080195499)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We found a patent that seems to cover sending and receiving funds via Bitcoin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm curious of how this might affect Bitcoin and existing companies that use it. Namely,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is this patent directly related to Bitcoin?&#xD;&#xA;* And if not, could Bitcoin qualify as prior art to this? I know Satoshi published his code in 2008 and this application was filed in 2005.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd also like to know, if not to either of those, whether the approval of this application could lead to existing companies having to change their ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The abstract reads,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for peer-to-peer commerce includes electronic wallets 14 for storing electronic token files 12. The electronic tokens can be passed from wallet to wallet without oversight of a third party. At any time, the owner of a token can verify the validity of a token for a fee, but such verification is not needed to conduct commerce. The electronic tokens include a field which can be used to restrict tokens to a specific purpose or to prevent use on specific goods and services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the first claim,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of performing commerce over a network comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at a first processing device: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;receiving electronic token files having a specified value at a first processing device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sending an appropriate set of electronic token files over the network to a second processing device in return for a desired good or service;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at a second processing device:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;receiving the set of electronic token files from the first processing device over the network; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;optionally verifying the authenticity of one or more of the set of electronic token files.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28950" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12569" RevisionGUID="ea296519-a135-49fc-b65c-a32b8cf55923" CreationDate="2015-03-31T01:30:15.237" UserId="10011" Comment="added 86 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the relationship between US20080195499 and Bitcoin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28954" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12554" RevisionGUID="17c0ebaf-3c95-488f-8dd3-96514383d7eb" CreationDate="2015-03-31T03:58:35.453" UserId="13836" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;mobile-phone&gt;&lt;obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12568" RevisionGUID="12bae356-d553-4a1a-9088-798e597f2912" CreationDate="2015-03-31T04:32:40.923" UserId="11895" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="You wouldn't want to file identical claims. Identical claims will receive a &quot;Statutory Double Patenting&quot; rejection. &#xD;On other note why to pay fee twice on claim already filed and pending.&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike the &quot;Non-Statutory Double Patenting&quot; rejection referred to by Gary, the you can not overcome the Statutory Double Patenting rejection with a terminal disclaimer. You must amend the claims. See [MPEP 804.02(I)][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Understand that in order to file a continuing application, the originally filed application, or an continuation/divisional/continuation-in-part based on the originally filed application must be pending (i.e., not abandoned, not issued). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are filing another application as a result of an examiner's requirement for restriction, the application would be called a divisional application rather than a continuing application. Statutory double patenting is prohibited in divisional applications resulting from an examiner's requirement for restriction. See [MPEP 804.01][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s804.html#d0e101356&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s804.html#d0e101210" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12560" RevisionGUID="dd778d58-7dd7-48b6-8c76-fa72e18b47a6" CreationDate="2015-03-31T14:54:52.340" UserId="1" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="https://www.google.com/patents/US20050220286 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The independent claim is drawn primarily to **protocol conversion of the data link layer and the application layer of a communication without conversion of intermediate layer(s)** (network layer, transport layer). There are some additional limitations, but the heart of the matter seems to be this element. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are numerous pieces of prior art that disclose protocol conversion at the data link layer. There are also numerous pieces of prior art that disclose protocol conversion at the application layer. There are even numerous pieces of prior art that disclose protocol conversion at both the data link layer and at the application layer. I am, however, unable to find a reference that explicitly or incontrovertibly documents conversion at the data link layer and at the application layer **without** any conversion of intermediate layers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The date to beat is March 28, 2005. Your assistance is appreciated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Entirety of independent claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    1. An integrated communications device including hardware components, the device comprising:  &#xD;&#xA;    a first processor configured to control a first hardware component function;  &#xD;&#xA;    a second processor configured to run an abstraction interface and a client application, the client application providing a user interface;  &#xD;&#xA;    wherein the abstraction interface is adapted to make a direct conversion between protocols used by the first processor and protocols used by the client application, by converting data link layer protocols and application layer protocols without converting at least one of network layer protocols and transport lay protocols, to permit control of the first hardware component function via the client application, and  &#xD;&#xA;    wherein the client application is adapted to output data using at least one of session layer protocols, presentation layer protocols, or application layer protocols.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12572" RevisionGUID="4a999e13-cbe5-425a-8417-6003bacf6bd1" CreationDate="2015-03-31T17:25:50.783" UserId="13852" Text="Reading through Facebook's [PATENTS][1] file in its React library and several [discussions on Hacker News][2] have left me confused about the implications this file which is included in several open-source libraries made by Facebook.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The primary question is: does losing the license mean the individual or company distributing a product using this library has to stop using React entirely and reimplement their product without it, or does it only affect your ability to defend your own patents that may rely on the patents covering the library?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, what is the breadth of the phrase &quot;other actions&quot; in the first sentence of the second paragraph? Claim is defined as a &quot;lawsuit, assertion or other action&quot; which sounds extremely broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/dcf415c2b91ce52fd5d4dd02b70875ba9d33290f/PATENTS&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8985541" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28961" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12572" RevisionGUID="4a999e13-cbe5-425a-8417-6003bacf6bd1" CreationDate="2015-03-31T17:25:50.783" UserId="13852" Text="Implications of Termination of Patent in an Open Source Library" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28962" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12572" RevisionGUID="4a999e13-cbe5-425a-8417-6003bacf6bd1" CreationDate="2015-03-31T17:25:50.783" UserId="13852" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;opensource&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12573" RevisionGUID="04121964-8570-49af-b7f3-abe2c969e843" CreationDate="2015-03-31T18:06:54.653" UserId="4545" Text="I can't say whether or not the invention is novel or non-obvious, but from Public Pair ( http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair ) it seems the point of differentiation over the prior art the Examiner found was in the actuator and in particular how the actuator was attached to the respective connector. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12574" RevisionGUID="7d5258fb-3436-48a1-af44-7f9ace6d7bef" CreationDate="2015-03-31T22:06:11.370" UserId="13854" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7713314][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7713314" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28966" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12574" RevisionGUID="7d5258fb-3436-48a1-af44-7f9ace6d7bef" CreationDate="2015-03-31T22:06:11.370" UserId="13854" Text="What subsequent patents reference this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28967" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12574" RevisionGUID="7d5258fb-3436-48a1-af44-7f9ace6d7bef" CreationDate="2015-03-31T22:06:11.370" UserId="13854" Text="&lt;usa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12576" RevisionGUID="b58f1aea-5b1a-46da-b106-fd988ccc5242" CreationDate="2015-04-01T07:00:58.327" UserId="11895" Text="Currently No patent cite this patent as reference. below is quick method to check forward citations:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ouCXU.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12577" RevisionGUID="611f2342-3962-4c0f-bbb0-2a95595d43b8" CreationDate="2015-04-01T13:15:35.207" UserId="13856" Text="In reference to the patent: [US26919][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US26919&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A number of non-firearm patents cite this patent but they actually refer to the reissue patent R26919 in the text. This is probably a common problem when the numbers overlap. (https://www.google.com/patents/USRE26919)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28977" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12577" RevisionGUID="611f2342-3962-4c0f-bbb0-2a95595d43b8" CreationDate="2015-04-01T13:15:35.207" UserId="13856" Text="Erroneous citatations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28978" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12577" RevisionGUID="611f2342-3962-4c0f-bbb0-2a95595d43b8" CreationDate="2015-04-01T13:15:35.207" UserId="13856" Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;citation&gt;&lt;reissue&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28979" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12577" RevisionGUID="538527c7-a114-414a-91ae-2dc9a4ae868b" CreationDate="2015-04-01T13:57:25.153" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[12392],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28980" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5202" RevisionGUID="e8366906-9301-4a31-8dab-cd0d6d3781d3" CreationDate="2015-04-01T14:00:29.757" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[12392],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12578" RevisionGUID="464076c5-ca3e-4b0b-98bd-52c3b83fc597" CreationDate="2015-04-01T14:45:51.323" UserId="13857" Text="In reference to the patent: [US6730252][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6730252" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28982" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12578" RevisionGUID="464076c5-ca3e-4b0b-98bd-52c3b83fc597" CreationDate="2015-04-01T14:45:51.323" UserId="13857" Text="is this patent time over?..can I continue the work mentioned in it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28983" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12578" RevisionGUID="464076c5-ca3e-4b0b-98bd-52c3b83fc597" CreationDate="2015-04-01T14:45:51.323" UserId="13857" Text="&lt;continuation&gt;&lt;continuation-in-part&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12579" RevisionGUID="94d5e5d0-d0d5-4281-9768-8cb5c36fbd84" CreationDate="2015-04-01T16:05:29.400" UserId="13859" Text="There is an incredibly useful device that is used in [capsule endoscopy][1].&#xA;&#xA;I am curious to know whether such a device is already patented, as they cannot be purchased and neither do I have physical access to a medical professional which does.&#xA;&#xA;The device features a miniature camera, LED lights and a storage device, all fitted in a compact capsule casing, small enough to safely pass through your digestive tract.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsule_endoscopy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28985" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12579" RevisionGUID="94d5e5d0-d0d5-4281-9768-8cb5c36fbd84" CreationDate="2015-04-01T16:05:29.400" UserId="13859" Text="Are endoscopic capsules patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28986" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12579" RevisionGUID="94d5e5d0-d0d5-4281-9768-8cb5c36fbd84" CreationDate="2015-04-01T16:05:29.400" UserId="13859" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28987" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12578" RevisionGUID="0dbb9b8d-4b16-4623-aab5-1cc02e005ea9" CreationDate="2015-04-01T17:17:04.960" UserId="10011" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[3801],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12579" RevisionGUID="8b5c949d-619e-4066-96a0-bf770779ae8e" CreationDate="2015-04-01T17:25:54.540" UserId="11895" Comment="added 56 characters in body; edited title" Text="There is an incredibly useful device that is used in [capsule endoscopy][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am curious to know whether such a device is already patented, as they cannot be purchased and neither do I have physical access to a medical professional which does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The device features a miniature camera, LED lights and a storage device, all fitted in a compact capsule casing, small enough to safely pass through your digestive tract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to search such patents any quick methods?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsule_endoscopy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28989" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12579" RevisionGUID="8b5c949d-619e-4066-96a0-bf770779ae8e" CreationDate="2015-04-01T17:25:54.540" UserId="11895" Comment="added 56 characters in body; edited title" Text="How to find patents for endoscopic capsules?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12580" RevisionGUID="a94236fe-73eb-40c9-acf4-f105f807bf57" CreationDate="2015-04-01T17:33:07.633" UserId="11895" Text="Normal keyword search of &quot;capsule endoscopy&quot; in Google patent will provide you good source of patent list. On quick reference I found [&quot;Recent Patents on Wireless Capsule Endoscopy&quot;](http://catai.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/ec-patents.pdf) which will be of more useful to you. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12581" RevisionGUID="96c98c61-c5e7-4f8b-a0f8-c1dc865fc8c5" CreationDate="2015-04-01T20:31:52.090" UserId="13812" Text="If I understand your question, you have a transitional application for which you did not timely provide the '1.78 statement' required by [37 C.F.R. 1.78][1] and [MPEP 2159.04][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the application data sheet (ADS) form PTO/AIA/14 includes a checkbox for making the statement under 37 C.F.R. 1.78, you *may* still be able to make the statement by filing a corrected/updated ADS. See [MPEP 601.05(a) pertaining to 37 C.F.R. 1.76(b)(5) and 37 C.F.R. 1.76(c)][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see [MPEP 211.04][4], the second paragraph deals with delayed 35 U.S.C. 119(e) benefit claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do not provide the statement at all: your application may be examined according to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102-103 when your application should be examined under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102. As a result, the examiner may not apply (valid) prior art references available under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 but not available under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102-103.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e320662&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2159.html#ch2100_d222e3_140d7_1bb&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s601.html#ch600_d1ff5e_1ae97_96&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s211.html#ch200_d1ff71_24f8b_4a" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12582" RevisionGUID="d6578074-a772-407c-a786-eda68d24a01e" CreationDate="2015-04-01T21:24:14.013" UserId="13812" Text="It looks like you can order these records from [www.archives.gov][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the heading &quot;241.3 - RECORDS OF THE PATENT OFFICE RELATING TO NUMBERED PATENTS 1836-1973&quot; the records appear to include &quot;...Digests relating to assignments of patent property rights, 1837-1905, with indexes, 1837-1923...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/241.html#241.3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12583" RevisionGUID="b9884a67-1f12-4f61-be58-3e35fd940801" CreationDate="2015-04-02T04:27:04.307" UserId="13863" Text="Situation(pertains to US): Patent &quot;P&quot; has 10 claims of which Claims 1, 3, 6 were held to be invalid in Federal Court litigation. What happens to the rest of the claims in the Patent? Can the patentee still assert the rest of the claims, say Claims 2,4,5,7-10, which were not part of the litigation in the Federal litigation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short what is status of claims of a patent which has at least one of its claim invalidated in Federal Court?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28994" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12583" RevisionGUID="b9884a67-1f12-4f61-be58-3e35fd940801" CreationDate="2015-04-02T04:27:04.307" UserId="13863" Text="Validity of Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28995" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12583" RevisionGUID="b9884a67-1f12-4f61-be58-3e35fd940801" CreationDate="2015-04-02T04:27:04.307" UserId="13863" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;litigation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12584" RevisionGUID="65a34e51-74dd-489a-924b-705036f047c3" CreationDate="2015-04-02T04:33:50.900" UserId="11919" Text="I have filed a patent, hopefully it will be granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After filing, I have found an older patent, that is somewhat close to mine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say the patent office doesn't find out about this patent (a thin hypothesis, but who knows)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does holding my patent protects me from this other patent ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I risk being sued by the other older patent owner ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not worried that my patent can be invalidated, I am worried to not be able to use my own invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28997" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12584" RevisionGUID="65a34e51-74dd-489a-924b-705036f047c3" CreationDate="2015-04-02T04:33:50.900" UserId="11919" Text="Does Holding a Patent protects me from other prior Patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28998" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12584" RevisionGUID="65a34e51-74dd-489a-924b-705036f047c3" CreationDate="2015-04-02T04:33:50.900" UserId="11919" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12585" RevisionGUID="c6f7ef55-5c47-4870-8b89-ba611316daea" CreationDate="2015-04-02T04:40:30.237" UserId="11895" Text="Patent rights are exclusion rights which in simpler terms means 'I wont allow others to use my invention without my consent' having said that it does not mean that a patent holder is free to use his own invention. &#xD;&#xA;Take example as X has patent on PEN and Y came up with PEN with non-erasable Ink; Y will get patent on invention as its novel and inventive but he wont be able to practice because X will execute his patent on PEN and exclude Y to make PEN. Though Y may come up selling INK only or wait for expiry of X patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12586" RevisionGUID="9b959716-1949-4984-aee4-7803f8abda5f" CreationDate="2015-04-02T04:45:58.883" UserId="11895" Text="If any of the Claims 2,4,5,7-10 were independent then they will remain to be valid. Please note dependent claim becomes invalid after the decision. you also need to make sure any appeal is pending in USPTO and CP or CIP applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12586" RevisionGUID="7ae23828-75a1-44ff-8deb-2005e4de0558" CreationDate="2015-04-02T11:54:48.860" UserId="11895" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="If any of the Claims 2,4,5,7-10 were independent then they will remain to be valid. Please note dependent claim becomes invalid after the decision provided USPTO and applicant has not re-written them OR withdrawn. you also need to make sure any appeal is pending in USPTO and CP or CIP applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12586" RevisionGUID="c9152735-7374-44e9-97e5-b8670c7ecc9d" CreationDate="2015-04-02T12:03:37.943" UserId="11895" Comment="added 1044 characters in body" Text="Claims 2,4,5,7-10 will remain to be valid. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**35 U.S. Code § 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) In General.— A patent shall be presumed valid. Each claim of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent (whether in independent, dependent, or multiple dependent form)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shall be presumed valid independently of the validity of other claims;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dependent or multiple dependent claims shall be presumed valid even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; though dependent upon an invalid claim. The burden of establishing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party&#xD;&#xA;&gt; asserting such invalidity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also reed book exerpts [Patent Law Essentials][1] page 86-87&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see answer [Is a patent enforceable based on a claim that is dependent on an independent claim that is not enforceable?](http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/11991/11895)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=zfDXAQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA87&amp;dq=The%20presumption%20of%20validity%20applies%20separately%20to%20each%20claim%20of%20a%20patent.%20Even%20if%20Claim%201%20has%20been%20proven%20invalid%20by%20clear%20and%20convincing%20evidence&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=1y4dVajvA42WuATty4HIAQ&amp;ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=The%20presumption%20of%20validity%20applies%20separately%20to%20each%20claim%20of%20a%20patent.%20Even%20if%20Claim%201%20has%20been%20proven%20invalid%20by%20clear%20and%20convincing%20evidence&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29008" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12583" RevisionGUID="d7e1ca13-4e99-4ab6-be08-ebce6cf9c99d" CreationDate="2015-04-02T12:11:40.300" UserId="11895" Comment="edited title" Text="Does Invalidation of Independent claim effect dependent claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29009" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10440" RevisionGUID="09be1592-55f3-41c0-84c6-3101ce54693f" CreationDate="2015-04-02T12:12:41.293" UserId="11895" Comment="edited title" Text="How to search patents using inventors name" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6481" RevisionGUID="1c94c483-6bc0-43c6-8e58-a05de2ef627f" CreationDate="2015-04-02T12:15:36.723" UserId="11895" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I've created a wireless parking space sensor using a specific micro-controller and other components. I'm sure the same components used can be utilized in a different manner by others just with a change of firmware so I was wondering:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What exactly is patentable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Would it be the combination of components with dimensions of PCB board? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Would it be just the firmware programmed on the micro-controller? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Would it be the specific purpose for the combination of components and firmware?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6451" RevisionGUID="e5bb3969-1699-4b53-8289-7ba205ada7d8" CreationDate="2015-04-02T12:16:30.793" UserId="11895" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="This looks like a patent on all native advertising systems. Has anyone seen any prior art to this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patent application title: PRESS RELEASE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Inventors:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Assignees:  NATIVO INC. IPC8 Class: USPC Class: 705 1445 Class name:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Publication date: 2013-09-19 Patent application number: [US20130246165][1]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abstract: A press release distribution system provides press release&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and other news to forum sites as posts. The forum software that runs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at forum sites includes press release interface software or is adapted&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to receive press release interface plug-in modules for interfacing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with the press release distribution system. The press release&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interface software or plug-in module may also monitor and/or analyze&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user data of forum members and/or forum activities of the users. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; monitored user data and forum activities may be provided to the press&#xD;&#xA;&gt; release distribution system for analysis and generation of user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; profiles. Using the result of the analysis (e.g., user profiles), the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; press release distribution system can target particular users or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forums to direct the press releases, news, or advertisements for most&#xD;&#xA;&gt; effective advertising campaign.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claims:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A press release distribution system configured to deliver advertisements as sponsored news content to a plurality of web sites&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that each includes non-sponsored content, the press release&#xD;&#xA;&gt; distribution system comprising: a distributor module on a server&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computer, the distributor module being adapted to distribute the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sponsored news content to a related one or more of the web sites over&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a communications network; at least one input handler module on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; server computer, the at least one input handler module adapted to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receive the sponsored news content from one or more advertisers over&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the communications network, and to provide the sponsored news content&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the distributor module; and at least one poster module adapted to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; run at the related one or more of the web sites, wherein the at least&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one poster module is adapted to receive the sponsored news content&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from the server computer over the communications network, and to post&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the sponsored news content among the non-sponsored content at each of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the related one or more of the web sites, wherein the at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; poster module is further adapted to track one or more of impressions,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; clicks, click-through rate, or user actions with respect to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sponsored news content, and wherein the sponsored news content is not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a banner advertisement.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The press release distribution system of claim 1, wherein the sponsored news content comprises a press release, news, announcement,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; message, news feed, or non-&quot;press&quot; event.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The press release distribution system of claim 1, wherein the non-sponsored content comprises one or more of messages, postings,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; posts, or threads.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The press release distribution system of claim 1, wherein the communications network is the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. The press release distribution system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of web sites comprise forum sites, fan sites, popular sites,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; enthusiast sites, message forums, user forums, or popular forums.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. The press release distribution system of claim 1, wherein the at least one poster module comprises a corresponding at least one press&#xD;&#xA;&gt; release plug-in module.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. The press release distribution system of claim 1, wherein the at least one poster module is further adapted to monitor user data or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user activity at the related one or more of the web sites.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. The press release distribution system of claim 7, wherein the press release distribution system is further configured to generate user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; profiles from the monitored user data or user activity at the related&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one or more of the web sites.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9. The press release distribution system of claim 7, wherein the user activity at the related one or more of the web sites comprises one or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more of posts, reads of posts, or searches at the related one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the web sites.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10. The press release distribution system of claim 1, wherein the sponsored news content comprises one or more of text, video, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; images.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 11. A method of electronically delivering advertisements as sponsored news content to a plurality of web sites that each includes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non-sponsored content, the method comprising: electronically receiving&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the sponsored news content by a server computer from one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; advertisers over a communications network; electronically distributing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the sponsored news content by the server computer to a related one or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more of the web sites over the communications network; electronically&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving the sponsored news content by the one or more web sites from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the server computer over the communications network; electronically&#xD;&#xA;&gt; posting the sponsored news content among the non-sponsored content at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; each of the related one or more of the web sites; and electronically&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tracking one or more of impressions, clicks, click-through rate, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user actions with respect to the sponsored news content at the related&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one or more of the web sites, wherein the sponsored news content is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not a banner advertisement.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12. The method of claim 11, wherein the sponsored news content comprises a press release, news, announcement, message, news feed, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non-&quot;press&quot; event.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 13. The method of claim 11, wherein the non-sponsored content comprises one or more of messages, postings, posts, or threads.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 14. The method of claim 11, wherein the communications network is the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15. The method of claim 11, wherein the plurality of web sites comprise forum sites, fan sites, popular sites, enthusiast sites,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; message forums, user forums, or popular forums.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 16. The method of claim 11 further comprising electronically monitoring user data or user activity at the related one or more of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the web sites.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 17. The method of claim 16 further comprising electronically generating user profiles from the monitored user data or user activity&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at the related one or more of the web sites.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 18. The method of claim 16, wherein the user activity at the related one or more of the web sites comprises one or more of posts, reads of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; posts, or searches at the related one or more of the web sites.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 19. The method of claim 11, wherein the sponsored news content comprises one or more of text, video, or images. Description:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [0001] This application is a continuation of application Ser. No.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 11/772,014 filed Jun. 29, 2007, which claimed the benefit of U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Provisional Application No. 60/817,771 filed Jun. 29, 2006, the entire&#xD;&#xA;&gt; content of which is incorporated by reference herein.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; FIELD OF THE INVENTION&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [0002] The present invention relates to online brand marketing and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; monitoring.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Read more: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20130246165&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130246165" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6463" RevisionGUID="549c8f13-7041-4b54-b325-4130ebdec4f1" CreationDate="2015-04-02T12:16:58.103" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body" Text="I believe Wordpress (wordpress.com) does all the features described above. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you replace &quot;press release&quot; with article or posting, it seems to me that wordpress covers all the items listed.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12588" RevisionGUID="8cdbdb8c-4465-4c11-bcc0-3820f69e13c6" CreationDate="2015-04-02T13:08:39.447" UserId="13813" Text="A patent is more like a negative right assigned to you; thereby you can exclude anyone form using your patent without prior permission; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In no way it will allow you a protection form other existing patents; Any person can approach the patent office for an invalidation against your patent; Instead you can approach any patent research firm, who will do a through research of all existing prior art databases and will let you know if your patent infringes on other patents; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also a **fto** (freedom to operate) study will answer your query of whether you can use your invention or not;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bidyut Ray&#xD;&#xA;Business Developer&#xD;&#xA;Einfolge Technologies pvt ltd" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12589" RevisionGUID="0cd50c92-c08f-42ee-83ec-467ff5ea5a16" CreationDate="2015-04-02T13:47:50.110" UserId="11052" Text="I was advised by an &quot;inventors circle&quot; to protect my idea by copyright rather than obtaining a patent. &#xD;&#xA;First question: Is copyright considered a publication in view of the patenting process? Although I am not aware that copyrighted material needs to be published, it is only marked as such when published. Does a data base exist where content of ‘copyright’ can be searched?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second question: Can copyright exclude others from manufacturing and selling a product when the date of the copyright precedes the date of a patent? Or said differently can copyright void a patent? Can the existence of copyright preclude the issuance of a patent of same nature? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thirdly: If I ‘protect’ my idea by copyright, would it not exclude everybody including myself to obtain a patent on the subject matter if the above holds true? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Forth: Then there is the field of writing a copyright protects which to my knowledge is essentially written text. I argued that point but the answer was that patents are also written text and cannot cover or claim text as new when it has earlier been copyrighted. This point is a bit confusing, is patent text considered intellectual property in the sense of copyright? Which dominates, patent or copyright?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I very much would appreciate the legality of copyright to protect an invention and exclude others form making and selling a product that is described by copyright where its date precedes a patenting date, allowing the inventor to licence and sell his product covered by copyright. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for your answers. &#xD;&#xA;Rolf Pfeiffer &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29015" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12589" RevisionGUID="0cd50c92-c08f-42ee-83ec-467ff5ea5a16" CreationDate="2015-04-02T13:47:50.110" UserId="11052" Text="Does Copyright provide invention protection?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29016" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12589" RevisionGUID="0cd50c92-c08f-42ee-83ec-467ff5ea5a16" CreationDate="2015-04-02T13:47:50.110" UserId="11052" Text="&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12590" RevisionGUID="4dcc4b4b-fc87-4062-8854-a7caa50d1fa3" CreationDate="2015-04-02T16:44:01.543" UserId="13867" Text="Me and my friends came up with an idea, and we're going through with it.&#xD;&#xA;Does a US patent similiar to our idea affect us if we're filing it in a different country?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29018" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12590" RevisionGUID="4dcc4b4b-fc87-4062-8854-a7caa50d1fa3" CreationDate="2015-04-02T16:44:01.543" UserId="13867" Text="Can I patent something similiar to an existing us patent in a different country?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29019" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12590" RevisionGUID="4dcc4b4b-fc87-4062-8854-a7caa50d1fa3" CreationDate="2015-04-02T16:44:01.543" UserId="13867" Text="&lt;foreign&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12591" RevisionGUID="a6c32a73-d00c-424b-9e94-1cb64cdc169d" CreationDate="2015-04-02T17:46:11.867" UserId="4545" Text="If you've invented a new mousetrap, you could certainly copyright a document describing it. However, the copyright would not prevent others from making, using, or selling the mousetrap, but just from making exact copies of the description document. In order to exclude others from making, using, or selling the mousetrap, you would need to patent the mousetrap itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that if you publish or otherwise make available your writings about the mousetrap more than a year prior to applying for a patent on the mousetrap, the writings (copyrighted or not) can be used against your patent application. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29021" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6403" RevisionGUID="8264926f-f354-4109-a6c8-3ef98e23f1d4" CreationDate="2015-04-02T18:24:24.740" UserId="10011" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29022" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12534" RevisionGUID="4b5c4943-1776-4f5d-8089-71f988f78d3f" CreationDate="2015-04-02T18:26:22.997" UserId="13812" Comment="added tag for transitional-application" Text="&lt;examination&gt;&lt;pre-aia&gt;&lt;aia&gt;&lt;march-16-2013&gt;&lt;transitional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29023" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12534" RevisionGUID="4b5c4943-1776-4f5d-8089-71f988f78d3f" CreationDate="2015-04-02T18:26:22.997" Comment="Proposed by 13812 approved by 11895, 1 edit id of 1801" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12588" RevisionGUID="b248dab7-defe-4ba9-aca1-0d2f754d6984" CreationDate="2015-04-03T07:35:35.927" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 61 characters in body" Text="A patent is more like a negative right assigned to you; thereby you can exclude anyone form using your patent without prior permission; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In no way it will allow you a protection form other existing patents; Any person can approach the patent office for an invalidation against your patent; Instead you can approach any patent research firm, who will do a through research of all existing prior art databases and will let you know if your patent infringes on other patents; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also a **fto** (freedom to operate) study will answer your query of whether you can use your invention or not;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12594" RevisionGUID="bc8f99b4-0e3e-45fc-9ea5-a58b6ba3ecdf" CreationDate="2015-04-03T12:23:12.967" UserId="11895" Text="YES it will affect your application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NO Patent** :- If the subject matter was published in any publicly accessible document anywhere in the world (journal; patent; patent application; news etc.) prior to the patent applicant filing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NO Patent** :- If subject matter was publicly known in united states, but not necessarily patented or published, prior to the patent applicant filing. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12594" RevisionGUID="bb5d4eb7-01b1-46aa-a278-99d342d07c57" CreationDate="2015-04-03T12:28:36.113" UserId="11895" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="YES it will affect your application. In what extent is matter of analysis and claims you are filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NO Patent** :- If the subject matter was published in any publicly accessible document anywhere in the world (journal; patent; patent application; news etc.) prior to the patent applicant filing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NO Patent** :- If subject matter was publicly known in united states, but not necessarily patented or published, prior to the patent applicant filing. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12595" RevisionGUID="8efc4f20-c0a1-4a4c-8e47-66fb841c7197" CreationDate="2015-04-03T13:56:50.067" UserId="13522" Text="I periodically see announcements / articles that state X hundred thousand applications were filed in 20##, at the: USPTO, EPO, JPO, KIPO.... and company Y filled Z thousand. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm curious as to the success rates at the various Patent Offices, are there any official statistics on the number of final rejections in a given year, the number of final rejections by company?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29035" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12595" RevisionGUID="8efc4f20-c0a1-4a4c-8e47-66fb841c7197" CreationDate="2015-04-03T13:56:50.067" UserId="13522" Text="Rejection rates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29036" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12595" RevisionGUID="8efc4f20-c0a1-4a4c-8e47-66fb841c7197" CreationDate="2015-04-03T13:56:50.067" UserId="13522" Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12596" RevisionGUID="3100c043-3b3d-4ba5-bc29-35a4c60aae61" CreationDate="2015-04-03T15:12:50.050" UserId="11895" Text="Most of Patent office releases such reports called annual reports. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for USPTO :-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Statistics][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [General Patent Statistics Reports][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For European Patent office:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[European patents and patent applications - 2014 statistics][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Top Patentees][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for JPO:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Japan patent statistics][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/statistics&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/reports.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.epo.org/about-us/annual-reports-statistics/statistics.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.epo.org/about-us/annual-reports-statistics/statistics/patentees.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou_e/toushin_e/kenkyukai_e/pdf/annual_report2014/part5.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29038" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12595" RevisionGUID="2c764fd5-a50e-4582-93fc-74ead36b88d6" CreationDate="2015-04-03T15:14:14.707" UserId="11895" Comment="edited title" Text="Patent office statistics and reports" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29039" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12595" RevisionGUID="a9f7d54c-e900-4bd5-afb9-83f216d125aa" CreationDate="2015-04-03T17:15:59.263" UserId="11895" Comment="edited title" Text="Patent office statistics and reports for rejected Patent applications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10879" RevisionGUID="b9be28f8-3f24-4cb8-ae55-2969e7c8bb41" CreationDate="2015-04-04T04:50:51.273" UserId="11895" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="US patent 708841 is indeed for a nail extractor, the patent being granted in 1902.  The application number was 110073 (basically, granted numbers run sequentially, while application numbers restart every few years in the US).  US patent 70884 is completely unrelated, for a 'Hat and Coat Hook' and was granted in 1867.&#xD;&#xA;Looking online at pictures of some Bridgeport nail pullers, the last digit of the patent number on the article does not look as deeply formed as the other digits. It's quite possible that the markings were stamped on the tool after it had been forged, and sometimes the impression is uneven.  I strongly suspect that the '1' was lightly formed and/or has been rubbed away.  Perhaps if you look closely you may see a trace of it.&#xD;&#xA;Beyond that, I'm afraid valuation is beyond my sphere of ignorance. additionally patents are expired long back." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12598" RevisionGUID="28a1091c-4270-4c65-8fcf-112a129614b5" CreationDate="2015-04-05T05:24:38.007" UserId="13878" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140319036][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140319036&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent is based on my work and I found my name missing from the list of inventors. The patent is issued in the USA, Europe and Korea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have all the proofs and related documents to prove my inventorship. I would highly appreciate if someone can guide me through the process so that the inventorship is corrected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29051" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12598" RevisionGUID="28a1091c-4270-4c65-8fcf-112a129614b5" CreationDate="2015-04-05T05:24:38.007" UserId="13878" Text="I am missing from Patent Inventor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29052" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12598" RevisionGUID="28a1091c-4270-4c65-8fcf-112a129614b5" CreationDate="2015-04-05T05:24:38.007" UserId="13878" Text="&lt;us20140319036&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12601" RevisionGUID="466f29b9-4390-4898-ba93-2e58d55e5aff" CreationDate="2015-04-06T01:52:54.630" UserId="7828" Text="And, a simple Google search would have gave you this [answer][1].&#xA;&#xA;Now, according to this [resource][2] you need to read the fine document, and file a reissue with the changes. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1412.html#d0e138159&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s602.html#d0e4830ss602" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12606" RevisionGUID="8a68938b-7607-4954-ab93-cfc093011419" CreationDate="2015-04-06T07:47:06.023" UserId="13884" Text="Does a business-method become prior art once it is implemented?. Is there a grace period of 1 year from implementation to filing the patent?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29075" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12606" RevisionGUID="8a68938b-7607-4954-ab93-cfc093011419" CreationDate="2015-04-06T07:47:06.023" UserId="13884" Text="If a business plan is implemented does it become prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29076" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12606" RevisionGUID="8a68938b-7607-4954-ab93-cfc093011419" CreationDate="2015-04-06T07:47:06.023" UserId="13884" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;business-methods&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12607" RevisionGUID="f9c89c38-02a7-4bf9-84c0-94605350043c" CreationDate="2015-04-06T08:17:26.790" UserId="13885" Text="HOW IS THE PATENT IN QUESTION MORE BETTER AND NOVEL AS COMPARED TO THE PRIOR ARTS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [WO2000034241A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2000034241A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29078" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12607" RevisionGUID="f9c89c38-02a7-4bf9-84c0-94605350043c" CreationDate="2015-04-06T08:17:26.790" UserId="13885" Text="WHAT ARE THE PRIOR ARTS RELATED TO THE PATENT IN QUESTION" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29079" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12607" RevisionGUID="f9c89c38-02a7-4bf9-84c0-94605350043c" CreationDate="2015-04-06T08:17:26.790" UserId="13885" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12607" RevisionGUID="3ed567bd-f72b-4975-8ca2-68ad5e430847" CreationDate="2015-04-06T08:44:15.513" UserId="8717" Comment="Remove shouting" Text="How is the patent in question more better and novel as compared to the prior arts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [WO2000034241A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2000034241A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29082" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12607" RevisionGUID="3ed567bd-f72b-4975-8ca2-68ad5e430847" CreationDate="2015-04-06T08:44:15.513" UserId="8717" Comment="Remove shouting" Text="What are the prior arts related to the patent in question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29083" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12607" RevisionGUID="3ed567bd-f72b-4975-8ca2-68ad5e430847" CreationDate="2015-04-06T08:44:15.513" Comment="Proposed by 8717 approved by 10011 edit id of 1803" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29084" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12607" RevisionGUID="b315e623-9c55-4176-bce6-ca8c41ca2642" CreationDate="2015-04-06T08:44:47.233" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;wo2000034241a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12609" RevisionGUID="316fa27a-9f6c-432e-b115-0c57c0282f5f" CreationDate="2015-04-06T10:07:31.207" UserId="11895" Text="I think below articles are good prior-arts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Pyrrolidides: synthesis and structure-activity relationship as inhibitors of dipeptidyl peptidase IV][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2-cyanopyrrolidides as potent, stable inhibitors of dipeptidyl peptidase IV][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0223523497890824&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0960894X96001904" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12610" RevisionGUID="856d1fcb-0eb3-453c-a840-b1d00bbc2620" CreationDate="2015-04-06T21:43:21.603" UserId="13888" Text="I am working on a provisional patent.  For an invention.  Lets say my invention is a file folder box. And that I am inventing the box and the file folders that go into the box.  Each could be sold separately, and each can be used by itself without the other and still be helpful and beneficial to the user.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So do I need to write two provisional patents?  One for the file folders?  And one for the file folder box?  Or can I just write one provisional patent and it covers both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to be clear if this product goes to market I would be selling the two parts separately.  If I just had wrote one provisional patent.  Could both parts say patent pending on them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for the help.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29096" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12610" RevisionGUID="856d1fcb-0eb3-453c-a840-b1d00bbc2620" CreationDate="2015-04-06T21:43:21.603" UserId="13888" Text="provisional patent question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29097" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12610" RevisionGUID="856d1fcb-0eb3-453c-a840-b1d00bbc2620" CreationDate="2015-04-06T21:43:21.603" UserId="13888" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12022" RevisionGUID="b7f7cf33-ae3b-4d68-abd1-39abf15d415b" CreationDate="2015-04-06T23:55:41.547" UserId="9802" Comment="fixed grammar of edit; removed change of meaning" Text="In general, a patent examiner may suggest or require an applicant to change the title of a patent in order to make it more descriptive of the claimed invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **606.01   Examiner May Require Change in Title [R-11.2013]** &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Where the title is not descriptive of the invention claimed, the examiner should&#xD;&#xA;&gt; require the substitution of a new title that is clearly indicative of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the invention to which the claims are directed. Form paragraphs 6.11&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and 6.11.01 may be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case, given the age of the patent, it is probably pretty difficult to determine whether the title was changed. A twist drill is a type of drill bit, so the title may have been changed to make the patent easier to search. (Especially since at the time searching would have involved leafing through paper copies in a filing cabinet.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12610" RevisionGUID="66f73d33-7912-4df2-92f4-191c27ffadd2" CreationDate="2015-04-07T04:46:28.637" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 97 characters in body; edited title" Text="My invention is a file folder box and I am inventing the box and the file folders that go into the box.  Each could be sold separately, and each can be used by itself without the other and still be helpful and beneficial to the user.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So do I need to write two provisional patents?  One for the file folders?  And one for the file folder box?  Or can I just write one provisional patent and it covers both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to be clear if this product goes to market I would be selling the two parts separately.  If I just had wrote one provisional patent.  Could both parts say patent pending on them?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29111" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12610" RevisionGUID="66f73d33-7912-4df2-92f4-191c27ffadd2" CreationDate="2015-04-07T04:46:28.637" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 97 characters in body; edited title" Text="provisional patent question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12613" RevisionGUID="b7fb2864-6094-44fa-a1ca-2f7138314d42" CreationDate="2015-04-07T12:05:08.310" UserId="11895" Text="I recently came across a beautiful public tool which shows patents (currently indexed) citing research article. I have not tested in details but seems to work for me. I also believe it doesnot list all the patents but nice way to start.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this requires following steps:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Search your citation in [NCBI PUBMED][1].&#xD;&#xA; 2. Locate the reference in list of result.&#xD;&#xA; 3. open the article landing page.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Go to bottom **LinkOut** section.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Check if '**Cited by Patents in - The Lens**' is present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If yes then voila you follow the link and it will list all the patents citing that specific research article.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/PQwZ8.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29115" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10643" RevisionGUID="c1e9bc48-a49e-4a61-80fa-b662cb4e8d20" CreationDate="2015-04-07T12:13:06.420" UserId="11895" Comment="edited title" Text="How do I find patents citing a certain article?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12614" RevisionGUID="e88dc692-3ca4-4f6f-8dd8-eb7cf321e798" CreationDate="2015-04-08T00:51:34.983" UserId="13233" Text="For provisional patents, you can write a single one.  It makes no difference, the Patent Office doesn't look at it either way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will want to separately **claim** the box &amp; the file folders, when you file your utility application.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But yes, if the provisional patent describes both parts of your design &amp; supports claims for both then both could have &quot;patent pending&quot; on them after you file your provisional application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12615" RevisionGUID="8040bce4-cf17-4319-9116-25b3557351e1" CreationDate="2015-04-08T02:29:31.517" UserId="13233" Text="1.  Yes, a business method, product, or process, becomes &quot;prior art&quot; once it is publicly disclosed, used, or sold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Yes, the US provides a one year grace period from the time of initial disclosure, sale, or public use to file a patent application.  However, the US is now a first-to-file country, so it's not a good idea to wait." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12594" RevisionGUID="ea9db9f9-920f-4fe3-a295-7ca999f196de" CreationDate="2015-04-08T05:56:55.573" UserId="11895" Comment="added 221 characters in body" Text="YES it will affect your application. In what extent is matter of analysis and claims you are filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NO Patent** :- If the subject matter was published in any publicly accessible document anywhere in the world (journal; patent; patent application; news etc.) prior to the patent applicant filing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NO Patent** :- If subject matter was publicly known in united states, but not necessarily patented or published, prior to the patent applicant filing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:-There are certain rules which allow a person to file and get patent if disclosure is by inventor itself under certain special circumstances and time limits. but it certainly effect the international filings and grant.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29122" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12583" RevisionGUID="066ab901-dbe5-4bf0-ac30-26b0c703e0b7" CreationDate="2015-04-08T19:39:30.357" UserId="9802" Comment="corrected grammar" Text="Does Invalidation of Independent claim affect dependent claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29123" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12583" RevisionGUID="066ab901-dbe5-4bf0-ac30-26b0c703e0b7" CreationDate="2015-04-08T19:39:30.357" Comment="Proposed by 9802 approved by 11895, 10011 edit id of 1804" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12620" RevisionGUID="056bfff5-aeec-4e04-ac3c-b8019232c748" CreationDate="2015-04-09T19:33:06.887" UserId="13906" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140272267][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140272267&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing this in response to a recently filed patent application US 20120272267 A1; titled “Trauma Reduction without Ballistic Performance Reduction.” This patent, filed by Honeywell International Inc., specifically Bradley Grunden, James Thagard, and Ashok Bhatnagar, claims the reduction of blunt trauma in personal armor materials through use of composite fiber laminates with varying orientations throughout. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent application incorporates my architectural layup implicitly within its framework. This technology, which I developed and refined, was shared publicly, and outwardly in both literature and conference proceedings as a means of transition to the manufacturing industry. This included sharing the specifics with Honeywell, specifically those named in the patent application above. Therefore, we purposefully did not seek to generate IP. If this patent application from Honeywell is left to come to finalization, however, it will cause lasting impact and implications for others in the armor industry that wish to use the technologies I have generated and shared openly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below is an excerpt from their patent application; Claim 20&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	The panel of claim 19 wherein the fibers of the first composite and the fibers of the second composite are substantially coated with a polymeric binder; wherein the first composite and the second composite are attached to each other such that an outer ply of the first composite is attached to an outer ply of the second composite, and wherein the longitudinal fiber direction of the fibers in the outer ply of the first composite is oriented at an angle of 22.5°/112.5°, or 45.0°/135.0° or 67.5°/157.5° relative to the longitudinal fiber direction of the fibers in the outer ply of the second composite; and wherein the first composite comprises from about 60% to about 75% of the total combined areal density of the first composite and the second composite, and the second composite comprises from about 25% to about 40% of the total combined areal density of the first composite and the second composite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the final paragraphs: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	The data also illustrates that: 1) shifting the orientation of the layers in the back half (25% by weight) of the panel at 22.5° increments for every two layers of product appears more effective in reducing measured 9 mm BFS than shifting the orientation of the back 25% by weight of the panel by 45°…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a direct reference to my “X Hybrid” laminate configuration. I compiled the prior art which was publicly disseminated describing my invention prior to their application date of 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Manuscript for the 27th Army Science Conference, titled “Innovative Materials and Design for the Improvement of Warfighter Head Protection,” published December, 2010. &#xD;&#xA;Citation: Vargas-Gonzalez, L., &amp; Walsh, S. M. (2010, December). Innovative Materials and Design for the Improvement of Warfighter Head Protection. In 27th Army Science Conference Proceedings, Orlando, FL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This article is the first instance of public disclosure (this paper is Unclassified Public Release) of the architecture described above. Excerpt from Section 2.1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	“For the architecture evaluation, HB25 plies were laid down in a quasi-isotropic fashion, with every two plies rotated clockwise by 22.5°. The panels oriented in this manner were not necessarily symmetric; however, there were no issues with out of plane warpage. Several panels were made with a mixture of both [0/90] and quasi-isotropic layers, where for instance 75% of the panel would be [0/90], and 25% would be quasi-isotropic.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, this already highlights the exact configuration that Honeywell describes in their application above. The use of 22.5° turns in the rear 25% of the composite had been established, and various other configurations were presented, including oriented layers on the strike face instead of the rear, and at varying weight percentages of the total panel weight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	Manuscript for SAMPE Tech 2011, titled “Examining the Relationship Between Ballistic and Structural Properties of Lightweight Thermoplastic Unidirectional Composite Laminates,” published in August of 2011 in both the SAMPE 2011 Proceedings and as a Reprint in ARL Technical Publications. &#xD;&#xA;  Citation: Vargas-Gonzalez, L. R., Walsh, S. M., &amp; Gurganus, J. C. (2011). Examining the Relationship Between Ballistic and Structural Properties of Lightweight Thermoplastic Unidirectional Composite Laminates (No. ARL-RP-0329). ARMY RESEARCH LAB ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD WEAPONS AND MATERIALS RESEARCH DIRECTORATE.&#xD;&#xA;  Link:http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&amp;metadataPrefix=html&amp;identifier=ADA549235&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This article was a fully Unclassified Public Release published and presented for a non-DoD industry-led audience. Therefore this is freely available for everyone to see. The conclusions state:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	“The results culminated in the discovery and development of the ARL X Hybrid architecture, which consists of 1) the balance of architecture in the panel being 75% [0°/90°] and 25% oriented, and 2) the use of the [0°/90°] side as the strike face. By implementing the X Hybrid architecture, UHMWPE materials retained 96-99% of the [0°/90°] architecture's ballistic performance, while also reducing the BFD by 36-41%.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are four other instances of published works with the ARL X Hybrid architecture prior to the March 15, 2013 filing date for the Honeywell application. They are listed below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	ARL Technical Report titled “Impact and Ballistic Response of Hybridized Thermoplastic Laminates,” published February 2011. &#xD;&#xA;  Citation: Vargas-Gonzalez, L., Walsh, S. M., &amp; Wolbert, J. (2011). Impact and Ballistic Response of Hybridized Thermoplastic Laminates (No. ARL-MR-0769). ARMY RESEARCH LAB ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD WEAPONS AND MATERIALS RESEARCH DIRECTORATE.&#xD;&#xA;  Link: http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&amp;metadataPrefix=html&amp;identifier=ADA538498&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Manuscript for the 27th International Symposium on Ballistics, titled “Balancing Ballistic and Back-Face Deformation in Helmets: The Role of Alternative Resins, Fibers, and Fiber Architecture in Mass-Efficient Head Protection” published September 2011. &#xD;&#xA;  Link: http://proceedings.ndia.org/1210/12086.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	Manuscript for the NDIA Classified Warheads and Ballistics Symposium, titled “Influence of Composite Architecture on the Ballistic and Impact Performance of Ceramic/Composite Targets” published August 2012 &#xD;&#xA;  NOTE: While this paper is limited in distribution, Honeywell is a DoD contractor and as such is freely able to obtain this article and the one below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.	ARL Technical Report titled “Multi-Hit Performance of Personal Armor With Complex Composite Backing Architectures” published February 2013. ARL-TR-6833 &#xD;&#xA;  NOTE: While this paper is limited in distribution, Honeywell is a DoD contractor and as such is freely able to obtain this article and the one below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, my work for the use of architecture for ballistic applications has been cited in a recent National Academies of Science report (“Review of Department of Defense Test Protocols for Combat Helmets”) on page 13 of the report in the last paragraph.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	Another factor in helmet protection is the way the constituent materials are assembled. Previous research results suggest that, in unidirectional UHMWPE panels, varying fiber orientation and fiber architecture can provide better balance between resistance-to-penetration and deformation mitigation. Vargas-Gonzalez et al. (2011) have explored this issue for panels that had more architectural complexity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the reference listed in the quote above is for the ARL Technical Report re-print of the SAMPE Tech 2011 proceedings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has also been cited in a recent article by M.R. O’ Masta:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020768314003709&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	The performance is dependent upon the composite architecture as well as fiber and (to lesser extent) matrix properties (Vargas-Gonzalez et al., 2011a, Vargas-Gonzalez et al., 2011b, Lee et al., 1994, Lee et al., 2001 and Karthikeyan et al., 2013b).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This work has been ongoing, and since their filing date, there have been other publications on the architectural orientation effects, including the notion of blunt trauma mitigation: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ARL Public Release Poster including references to blunt trauma and architecture:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.arl.army.mil/opencampus/sites/default/files/WM18_OCOH_Vargas_Poster.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Vargas-Gonzalez, L., Gurganus, J., •Influence of Composite Architecture on Stress Transmittance in Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene Composite Armor Proceedings of the 28th International Symposium on Ballistics, September 22–26, 2014, Atlanta, GA. &#xD;&#xA;  Link: http://www.destechpub.com/links/catalogs/bookstore/ballistics-3/ballistics-2014/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29137" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12620" RevisionGUID="056bfff5-aeec-4e04-ac3c-b8019232c748" CreationDate="2015-04-09T19:33:06.887" UserId="13906" Text="Not original work" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29138" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12620" RevisionGUID="056bfff5-aeec-4e04-ac3c-b8019232c748" CreationDate="2015-04-09T19:33:06.887" UserId="13906" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12620" RevisionGUID="809c4f37-21be-49e8-ab63-6e2876b78bcc" CreationDate="2015-04-09T19:42:19.750" UserId="13906" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140272267][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140272267&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing this in response to a recently filed patent application US 20120272267 A1; titled “Trauma Reduction without Ballistic Performance Reduction.” This patent, filed by Honeywell International Inc., specifically Bradley Grunden, James Thagard, and Ashok Bhatnagar, claims the reduction of blunt trauma in personal armor materials through use of composite fiber laminates with varying orientations throughout. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent application incorporates my architectural layup implicitly within its framework. This technology, which I developed and refined, was shared publicly, and outwardly in both literature and conference proceedings as a means of transition to the manufacturing industry. This included sharing the specifics with Honeywell, specifically those named in the patent application above. Therefore, we purposefully did not seek to generate IP. If this patent application from Honeywell is left to come to finalization, however, it will cause lasting impact and implications for others in the armor industry that wish to use the technologies I have generated and shared openly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below is an excerpt from their patent application; Claim 20&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	The panel of claim 19 wherein the fibers of the first composite and the fibers of the second composite are substantially coated with a polymeric binder; wherein the first composite and the second composite are attached to each other such that an outer ply of the first composite is attached to an outer ply of the second composite, and wherein the longitudinal fiber direction of the fibers in the outer ply of the first composite is oriented at an angle of 22.5°/112.5°, or 45.0°/135.0° or 67.5°/157.5° relative to the longitudinal fiber direction of the fibers in the outer ply of the second composite; and wherein the first composite comprises from about 60% to about 75% of the total combined areal density of the first composite and the second composite, and the second composite comprises from about 25% to about 40% of the total combined areal density of the first composite and the second composite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the final paragraphs: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	The data also illustrates that: 1) shifting the orientation of the layers in the back half (25% by weight) of the panel at 22.5° increments for every two layers of product appears more effective in reducing measured 9 mm BFS than shifting the orientation of the back 25% by weight of the panel by 45°…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a direct reference to my “X Hybrid” laminate configuration. I compiled the prior art which was publicly disseminated describing my invention prior to their application date of 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Manuscript for the 27th Army Science Conference, titled “Innovative Materials and Design for the Improvement of Warfighter Head Protection,” published December, 2010. &#xD;&#xA;Citation: Vargas-Gonzalez, L., &amp; Walsh, S. M. (2010, December). Innovative Materials and Design for the Improvement of Warfighter Head Protection. In 27th Army Science Conference Proceedings, Orlando, FL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This article is the first instance of public disclosure (this paper is Unclassified Public Release) of the architecture described above. Excerpt from Section 2.1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	“For the architecture evaluation, HB25 plies were laid down in a quasi-isotropic fashion, with every two plies rotated clockwise by 22.5°. The panels oriented in this manner were not necessarily symmetric; however, there were no issues with out of plane warpage. Several panels were made with a mixture of both [0/90] and quasi-isotropic layers, where for instance 75% of the panel would be [0/90], and 25% would be quasi-isotropic.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, this already highlights the exact configuration that Honeywell describes in their application above. The use of 22.5° turns in the rear 25% of the composite had been established, and various other configurations were presented, including oriented layers on the strike face instead of the rear, and at varying weight percentages of the total panel weight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	Manuscript for SAMPE Tech 2011, titled “Examining the Relationship Between Ballistic and Structural Properties of Lightweight Thermoplastic Unidirectional Composite Laminates,” published in August of 2011 in both the SAMPE 2011 Proceedings and as a Reprint in ARL Technical Publications. &#xD;&#xA;  Citation: Vargas-Gonzalez, L. R., Walsh, S. M., &amp; Gurganus, J. C. (2011). Examining the Relationship Between Ballistic and Structural Properties of Lightweight Thermoplastic Unidirectional Composite Laminates (No. ARL-RP-0329). ARMY RESEARCH LAB ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD WEAPONS AND MATERIALS RESEARCH DIRECTORATE.&#xD;&#xA;  Link:http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&amp;metadataPrefix=html&amp;identifier=ADA549235&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This article was a fully Unclassified Public Release published and presented for a non-DoD industry-led audience. Therefore this is freely available for everyone to see. The conclusions state:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	“The results culminated in the discovery and development of the ARL X Hybrid architecture, which consists of 1) the balance of architecture in the panel being 75% [0°/90°] and 25% oriented, and 2) the use of the [0°/90°] side as the strike face. By implementing the X Hybrid architecture, UHMWPE materials retained 96-99% of the [0°/90°] architecture's ballistic performance, while also reducing the BFD by 36-41%.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are four other instances of published works with the ARL X Hybrid architecture prior to the March 15, 2013 filing date for the Honeywell application. They are listed below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	ARL Technical Report titled “Impact and Ballistic Response of Hybridized Thermoplastic Laminates,” published February 2011. &#xD;&#xA;  Citation: Vargas-Gonzalez, L., Walsh, S. M., &amp; Wolbert, J. (2011). Impact and Ballistic Response of Hybridized Thermoplastic Laminates (No. ARL-MR-0769). ARMY RESEARCH LAB ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD WEAPONS AND MATERIALS RESEARCH DIRECTORATE.&#xD;&#xA;  Link: http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&amp;metadataPrefix=html&amp;identifier=ADA538498&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Manuscript for the 27th International Symposium on Ballistics, titled “Balancing Ballistic and Back-Face Deformation in Helmets: The Role of Alternative Resins, Fibers, and Fiber Architecture in Mass-Efficient Head Protection” published September 2011. &#xD;&#xA;  Link: http://proceedings.ndia.org/1210/12086.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	Manuscript for the NDIA Classified Warheads and Ballistics Symposium, titled “Influence of Composite Architecture on the Ballistic and Impact Performance of Ceramic/Composite Targets” published August 2012 &#xD;&#xA;  NOTE: While this paper is limited in distribution, Honeywell is a DoD contractor and as such is freely able to obtain this article and the one below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.	ARL Technical Report titled “Multi-Hit Performance of Personal Armor With Complex Composite Backing Architectures” published February 2013. ARL-TR-6833 &#xD;&#xA;  NOTE: While this paper is limited in distribution, Honeywell is a DoD contractor and as such is freely able to obtain this article and the one below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, my work for the use of architecture for ballistic applications has been cited in a recent National Academies of Science report (“Review of Department of Defense Test Protocols for Combat Helmets”) on page 13 of the report in the last paragraph.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	Another factor in helmet protection is the way the constituent materials are assembled. Previous research results suggest that, in unidirectional UHMWPE panels, varying fiber orientation and fiber architecture can provide better balance between resistance-to-penetration and deformation mitigation. Vargas-Gonzalez et al. (2011) have explored this issue for panels that had more architectural complexity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link:http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18621&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the reference listed in the quote above is for the ARL Technical Report re-print of the SAMPE Tech 2011 proceedings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has also been cited in a recent article by M.R. O’ Masta.&#xD;&#xA;Link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020768314003709&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	The performance is dependent upon the composite architecture as well as fiber and (to lesser extent) matrix properties (Vargas-Gonzalez et al., 2011a, Vargas-Gonzalez et al., 2011b, Lee et al., 1994, Lee et al., 2001 and Karthikeyan et al., 2013b).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This work has been ongoing, and since their filing date, there have been other publications on the architectural orientation effects, including the notion of blunt trauma mitigation: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ARL Public Release Poster including references to blunt trauma and architecture:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.arl.army.mil/opencampus/sites/default/files/WM18_OCOH_Vargas_Poster.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Vargas-Gonzalez, L., Gurganus, J., Influence of Composite Architecture on Stress Transmittance in Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene Composite Armor Proceedings of the 28th International Symposium on Ballistics, September 22–26, 2014, Atlanta, GA. &#xD;&#xA;  Link: http://www.destechpub.com/links/catalogs/bookstore/ballistics-3/ballistics-2014/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12621" RevisionGUID="18a28616-1d8c-49e9-8b33-5bbb46ed4c7f" CreationDate="2015-04-09T19:46:06.313" UserId="13907" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20020043764][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20020043764&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has this patent application been reviewed and registered? I cannot find that information. The assignee is stating it has been, but I have yet to see it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29141" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12621" RevisionGUID="18a28616-1d8c-49e9-8b33-5bbb46ed4c7f" CreationDate="2015-04-09T19:46:06.313" UserId="13907" Text="Has this patent been approved?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29142" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12621" RevisionGUID="18a28616-1d8c-49e9-8b33-5bbb46ed4c7f" CreationDate="2015-04-09T19:46:06.313" UserId="13907" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12622" RevisionGUID="cd6327f6-b645-423d-ab88-c7ae715b9e63" CreationDate="2015-04-09T20:22:11.103" UserId="13812" Text="No, this application will not become a patent. The application went abandoned on 09-08-2003.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find information regarding the status of a US application from the [Public PAIR][1] system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12620" RevisionGUID="40d41920-e0b7-4ab8-9ebf-2e906def27a7" CreationDate="2015-04-09T21:22:04.627" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140272267][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140272267&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing this in response to a recently filed patent application US 20120272267 A1; titled “Trauma Reduction without Ballistic Performance Reduction.” This patent, filed by Honeywell International Inc., specifically Bradley Grunden, James Thagard, and Ashok Bhatnagar, claims the reduction of blunt trauma in personal armor materials through use of composite fiber laminates with varying orientations throughout. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent application incorporates my architectural layup implicitly within its framework. This technology, which I developed and refined, was shared publicly, and outwardly in both literature and conference proceedings as a means of transition to the manufacturing industry. This included sharing the specifics with Honeywell, specifically those named in the patent application above. Therefore, we purposefully did not seek to generate IP. If this patent application from Honeywell is left to come to finalization, however, it will cause lasting impact and implications for others in the armor industry that wish to use the technologies I have generated and shared openly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below is an excerpt from their patent application; Claim 20&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The panel of claim 19 wherein the fibers of the first composite and the fibers of the second composite are substantially coated with a polymeric binder; wherein the first composite and the second composite are attached to each other such that an outer ply of the first composite is attached to an outer ply of the second composite, and wherein the longitudinal fiber direction of the fibers in the outer ply of the first composite is oriented at an angle of 22.5°/112.5°, or 45.0°/135.0° or 67.5°/157.5° relative to the longitudinal fiber direction of the fibers in the outer ply of the second composite; and wherein the first composite comprises from about 60% to about 75% of the total combined areal density of the first composite and the second composite, and the second composite comprises from about 25% to about 40% of the total combined areal density of the first composite and the second composite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the final paragraphs: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The data also illustrates that: 1) shifting the orientation of the layers in the back half (25% by weight) of the panel at 22.5° increments for every two layers of product appears more effective in reducing measured 9 mm BFS than shifting the orientation of the back 25% by weight of the panel by 45°…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a direct reference to my “X Hybrid” laminate configuration. I compiled the prior art which was publicly disseminated describing my invention prior to their application date of 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Manuscript for the 27th Army Science Conference, titled “Innovative Materials and Design for the Improvement of Warfighter Head Protection,” published December, 2010. &#xD;&#xA;Citation: Vargas-Gonzalez, L., &amp; Walsh, S. M. (2010, December). Innovative Materials and Design for the Improvement of Warfighter Head Protection. In 27th Army Science Conference Proceedings, Orlando, FL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This article is the first instance of public disclosure (this paper is Unclassified Public Release) of the architecture described above. Excerpt from Section 2.1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For the architecture evaluation, HB25 plies were laid down in a quasi-isotropic fashion, with every two plies rotated clockwise by 22.5°. The panels oriented in this manner were not necessarily symmetric; however, there were no issues with out of plane warpage. Several panels were made with a mixture of both [0/90] and quasi-isotropic layers, where for instance 75% of the panel would be [0/90], and 25% would be quasi-isotropic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, this already highlights the exact configuration that Honeywell describes in their application above. The use of 22.5° turns in the rear 25% of the composite had been established, and various other configurations were presented, including oriented layers on the strike face instead of the rear, and at varying weight percentages of the total panel weight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	Manuscript for SAMPE Tech 2011, titled “Examining the Relationship Between Ballistic and Structural Properties of Lightweight Thermoplastic Unidirectional Composite Laminates,” published in August of 2011 in both the SAMPE 2011 Proceedings and as a Reprint in ARL Technical Publications. &#xD;&#xA;  Citation: Vargas-Gonzalez, L. R., Walsh, S. M., &amp; Gurganus, J. C. (2011). Examining the Relationship Between Ballistic and Structural Properties of Lightweight Thermoplastic Unidirectional Composite Laminates (No. ARL-RP-0329). ARMY RESEARCH LAB ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD WEAPONS AND MATERIALS RESEARCH DIRECTORATE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link: http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&amp;metadataPrefix=html&amp;identifier=ADA549235&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This article was a fully Unclassified Public Release published and presented for a non-DoD industry-led audience. Therefore this is freely available for everyone to see. The conclusions state:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The results culminated in the discovery and development of the ARL X Hybrid architecture, which consists of 1) the balance of architecture in the panel being 75% [0°/90°] and 25% oriented, and 2) the use of the [0°/90°] side as the strike face. By implementing the X Hybrid architecture, UHMWPE materials retained 96-99% of the [0°/90°] architecture's ballistic performance, while also reducing the BFD by 36-41%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are four other instances of published works with the ARL X Hybrid architecture prior to the March 15, 2013 filing date for the Honeywell application. They are listed below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	ARL Technical Report titled “Impact and Ballistic Response of Hybridized Thermoplastic Laminates,” published February 2011. &#xD;&#xA;  Citation: Vargas-Gonzalez, L., Walsh, S. M., &amp; Wolbert, J. (2011). Impact and Ballistic Response of Hybridized Thermoplastic Laminates (No. ARL-MR-0769). ARMY RESEARCH LAB ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD WEAPONS AND MATERIALS RESEARCH DIRECTORATE.&#xD;&#xA;  Link: http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&amp;metadataPrefix=html&amp;identifier=ADA538498&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Manuscript for the 27th International Symposium on Ballistics, titled “Balancing Ballistic and Back-Face Deformation in Helmets: The Role of Alternative Resins, Fibers, and Fiber Architecture in Mass-Efficient Head Protection” published September 2011. &#xD;&#xA;  Link: http://proceedings.ndia.org/1210/12086.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	Manuscript for the NDIA Classified Warheads and Ballistics Symposium, titled “Influence of Composite Architecture on the Ballistic and Impact Performance of Ceramic/Composite Targets” published August 2012 &#xD;&#xA;  NOTE: While this paper is limited in distribution, Honeywell is a DoD contractor and as such is freely able to obtain this article and the one below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.	ARL Technical Report titled “Multi-Hit Performance of Personal Armor With Complex Composite Backing Architectures” published February 2013. ARL-TR-6833 &#xD;&#xA;  NOTE: While this paper is limited in distribution, Honeywell is a DoD contractor and as such is freely able to obtain this article and the one below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, my work for the use of architecture for ballistic applications has been cited in a recent National Academies of Science report (“Review of Department of Defense Test Protocols for Combat Helmets”) on page 13 of the report in the last paragraph.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another factor in helmet protection is the way the constituent materials are assembled. Previous research results suggest that, in unidirectional UHMWPE panels, varying fiber orientation and fiber architecture can provide better balance between resistance-to-penetration and deformation mitigation. Vargas-Gonzalez et al. (2011) have explored this issue for panels that had more architectural complexity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18621&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the reference listed in the quote above is for the ARL Technical Report re-print of the SAMPE Tech 2011 proceedings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has also been cited in a [recent article by M.R. O’ Masta](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020768314003709).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The performance is dependent upon the composite architecture as well as fiber and (to lesser extent) matrix properties (Vargas-Gonzalez et al., 2011a, Vargas-Gonzalez et al., 2011b, Lee et al., 1994, Lee et al., 2001 and Karthikeyan et al., 2013b).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This work has been ongoing, and since their filing date, there have been other publications on the architectural orientation effects, including the notion of blunt trauma mitigation: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ARL Public Release Poster including [references to blunt trauma and architecture]&#xD;&#xA;(http://www.arl.army.mil/opencampus/sites/default/files/WM18_OCOH_Vargas_Poster.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Vargas-Gonzalez, L., Gurganus, J., Influence of Composite Architecture on Stress Transmittance in Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene Composite Armor Proceedings of the 28th International Symposium on Ballistics, September 22–26, 2014, Atlanta, GA. &#xD;&#xA;  Link: http://www.destechpub.com/links/catalogs/bookstore/ballistics-3/ballistics-2014/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29145" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12620" RevisionGUID="40d41920-e0b7-4ab8-9ebf-2e906def27a7" CreationDate="2015-04-09T21:22:04.627" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20140272267&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12623" RevisionGUID="9fc697b9-e406-46c8-95f2-6d133953ea01" CreationDate="2015-04-10T01:31:27.267" UserId="13910" Text="The original priority date was in 1994 (http://www.google.com/patents/US5662332) so my assumption was that it had expired, but upon searching Public Pair using the application number (US 08/544,306) it comes up that it's under Re-Issue and still patented. So my question is, is the patent actually expired or does the re-issue extend the term somehow, or is there something else that's extending the term beyond the 20 year window that I'm missing?  Thank you for your time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29147" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12623" RevisionGUID="9fc697b9-e406-46c8-95f2-6d133953ea01" CreationDate="2015-04-10T01:31:27.267" UserId="13910" Text="Is Patent#US 5662332 A still actively patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29148" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12623" RevisionGUID="9fc697b9-e406-46c8-95f2-6d133953ea01" CreationDate="2015-04-10T01:31:27.267" UserId="13910" Text="&lt;reissue&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29149" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12620" RevisionGUID="08ad29b7-6736-467f-a0f3-1796d384e571" CreationDate="2015-04-10T01:37:05.933" UserId="10011" Comment="edited title" Text="Does my past work qualify as prior art for US20140272267?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12625" RevisionGUID="5475cffd-1440-4e71-8f0c-d40a985dd92f" CreationDate="2015-04-10T07:26:22.267" UserId="11895" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**MPEP 1405    Reissue and Patent Term [R-11.2013]** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;35 U.S.C. 251 prescribes&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; the effect of reissue on the patent term by stating that &quot;**the Director&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shall… reissue the patent… for the unexpired term of the original&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The maximum term of the original patent is fixed at the time the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent is granted. While the term may be subsequently shortened, e.g.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; through the filing of a terminal disclaimer, **it cannot be extended&#xD;&#xA;&gt; through the filing of a reissue**. Accordingly, a deletion in a reissue&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application of an earlier-obtained benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120&#xD;&#xA;&gt; will not operate to lengthen the term of the patent to be reissued." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12627" RevisionGUID="4b8e368f-aae5-48ac-a9a8-b5f4ac5ccec6" CreationDate="2015-04-10T11:48:41.730" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12628" RevisionGUID="b09f4c3a-c28d-4dc6-a76c-adfa57b692a9" CreationDate="2015-04-10T11:48:41.730" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12629" RevisionGUID="7846a10e-37b8-4248-bce4-62c037e21698" CreationDate="2015-04-10T15:42:57.217" UserId="13914" Text="Good day, listen I emailed my sketch to a protype company after signing an agreement, is that binding and can I mail a picture of my sketch to myself and keep it sealed in case someone wants to patent and copy my idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29165" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12629" RevisionGUID="7846a10e-37b8-4248-bce4-62c037e21698" CreationDate="2015-04-10T15:42:57.217" UserId="13914" Text="I need to find out about keeping my sketch secured" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29166" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12629" RevisionGUID="7846a10e-37b8-4248-bce4-62c037e21698" CreationDate="2015-04-10T15:42:57.217" UserId="13914" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12572" RevisionGUID="4fd29a34-f09d-47c2-9990-f374aeaa550a" CreationDate="2015-04-10T20:12:42.543" UserId="13852" Comment="Terms of license in question have changed." Text="Reading through Facebook's [PATENTS][1] file in its React library and several [discussions on Hacker News][2] have left me confused about the implications this file which is included in several open-source libraries made by Facebook.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The primary question is: does losing the license mean the individual or company distributing a product using this library has to stop using React entirely and reimplement their product without it, or does it only affect your ability to defend your own patents that may rely on the patents covering the library?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, what is the breadth of the phrase &quot;other actions&quot; in the first sentence of the second paragraph? Claim is defined as a &quot;lawsuit, assertion or other action&quot; which sounds extremely broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Facebook has [amended its PATENTS file][3] in order to clarify the scope of the grant. While their library is no longer the subject of this question, I wouldn't mind an explanation of the actual repercussions of losing a license that has been granted through such methods.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[New PATENTS file][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/dcf415c2b91ce52fd5d4dd02b70875ba9d33290f/PATENTS&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8985541&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://code.facebook.com/posts/1639473982937255/updating-our-open-source-patent-grant/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/b8ba8c83f318b84e42933f6928f231dc0918f864/PATENTS" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12630" RevisionGUID="f573a7f6-b8a8-4a1b-8b00-dcccd4a6d7f6" CreationDate="2015-04-12T02:02:35.190" UserId="13230" Text="I was doing research for a newly design ornamental articles for steering wheels designs. Came across the designs for Illuminated Steering Wheels. Two designs in particular were noted to be exactly the same. I check the USPTO Image File Wrapper on both Inventions, and if I am not mistake, both design inventions are the same. Even the claims were similar in the Specifications, the drawings were more specific with the Design Patent, but the Utility Patent have only one detail design of their feature invention. The Design Patent was granted earlier, but the Utility Patent was filed later and granted. How is that possible. Do the Examiners ever check their published designs. D623,571 and US 9,002,563." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29177" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12630" RevisionGUID="f573a7f6-b8a8-4a1b-8b00-dcccd4a6d7f6" CreationDate="2015-04-12T02:02:35.190" UserId="13230" Text="One Patent Design with Two different Numbers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29178" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12630" RevisionGUID="f573a7f6-b8a8-4a1b-8b00-dcccd4a6d7f6" CreationDate="2015-04-12T02:02:35.190" UserId="13230" Text="&lt;post-grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="73a1ca29-b4b6-4bb6-ae23-92c795ecbed7" CreationDate="2015-04-12T15:20:39.567" UserId="13924" Text="I would like some help finding prior art for [US20150066784](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=20150066784.PGNR.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent describes a system focused on the browsewrap vs. clickwrap distinction when it comes to legal agreements, but the entire system seems like a industry best practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I view that the clickwrap implementation (a checkbox with the &quot;I Agree&quot; text) to make sure the user agrees to an agreement has already been best practice for a while now, popularized more and more since the [Zappos lawsuit](http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2012/10/10/how-zappos-user-agreement-failed-in-court-and-left-zappos-legally-naked/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even a system of tracking users to keep track who agreed to certain agreements has been best practice, though not popularized as much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I currently found 2 examples of prior art, but it would be great to see if more prior art exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples of prior art (especially for for 1st and 6th claims):**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*1. A method for monitoring end-user viewing of agreements over a computer network*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*6. A method for monitoring end-user affirmative consent to agreements over a computer network*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hasn't this be already done by the [Agreeable Records plugin for WordPress](http://kraftpress.it/downloads/agreeable-records/)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Need to track when a user logs in and agrees to your terms? Agreeable Records tracks     &#xD;&#xA;    the user’s email and IP address with every login agreement, allowing you to keep &#xD;&#xA;    detailed records of a user’s agreement to your terms &amp; conditions. Requires Agreeable &#xD;&#xA;    plugin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The plugin is specifically built for this, but many other form plugins for WordPress allow developers to add the &quot;I Agree&quot; checkbox on their web forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PrivacyCheq and [its Cliqwrap](http://www.privacycheq.com/?page_id=35805) system is being described similarly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    CliqWrap stores user acceptance of your TOS / EULA, allowing new games to bypass &#xD;&#xA;    requesting duplicate approvals. When your legal agreements change, one button resets &#xD;&#xA;    approvals so all users will see the new terms at next login.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![image of PrivacyCheq][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/PzLOw.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29186" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="73a1ca29-b4b6-4bb6-ae23-92c795ecbed7" CreationDate="2015-04-12T15:20:39.567" UserId="13924" Text="More prior art for US20150066784 &quot;AUTOMATED CLICKWRAP AND BROWSEWRAP SYSTEM&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29187" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="73a1ca29-b4b6-4bb6-ae23-92c795ecbed7" CreationDate="2015-04-12T15:20:39.567" UserId="13924" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29188" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="92dc316a-b5b1-4f2b-87aa-26de29cb649a" CreationDate="2015-04-12T15:41:14.290" UserId="13924" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12635" RevisionGUID="3223b54d-6800-4ae6-adee-3f350e70d77a" CreationDate="2015-04-12T23:51:22.297" UserId="13928" Text="&gt; Also how long are patent granted for 15 years or 20 years and is this from the date o publication or from the date of Granting of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoting the EPO's [website](http://www.epo.org/service-support/faq/procedure-law.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The maximum term of a European patent is **20 years from its filing date**. The patent may lapse earlier if the annual renewal fees are not paid or if the patent is revoked by the patentee or after opposition proceedings.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is the German patent or an European patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, EP applicatons can be filed in english, french and german. Once granted, an EP patent is converted in a bundle of national patents, according to the states the applicant designated. In particular, a german company can file a patent application at the German Patent Office (thus in german), file then a corresponding EP application where Germany is designated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This patent on the legal events shows it has ceased on the 22 Jan 2009. Can this be revived by paying the fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding EP **0**639878 B1, its filing date is 17 Aug 1994. Its validity could have thus run until 17 Aug 2014. However, the owner stopped paying its renewal fees before, losing its protection before that time was reached in all but one country: Germany." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12636" RevisionGUID="593a1764-e197-4a0b-b97d-88b590507449" CreationDate="2015-04-13T05:13:18.753" UserId="11895" Text="Firstly one is design patent [D623571](http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&amp;II=0&amp;ND=3&amp;adjacent=true&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;FT=D&amp;date=20100914&amp;CC=US&amp;NR=D623571S1&amp;KC=S1) and one is Utility Patent [US9002563](http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&amp;II=0&amp;ND=3&amp;adjacent=true&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;FT=D&amp;date=20130523&amp;CC=US&amp;NR=2013131906A1&amp;KC=A1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In design patent specific design is protected but in utility patent protection is defined by Claims and not by disclosure. While reading claim of said utility patent one can make out that claim is not taught or anticipated by earlier Design patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) A method comprising: determining a level of supervisory control of a vehicle required by a driver while the vehicle is employing an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; autonomous driving system, wherein the required level of supervisory&#xD;&#xA;&gt; control is determined by the driver's response to a prompt; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; indicating, on a steering wheel, the level of supervisory control.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (10). A steering wheel, comprising: at least one indicator to indicate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to a driver a level of sufficient supervisory control over a vehicle;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a processor to control the at least one indicator, based on a level of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; supervisory control required to safely operate a vehicle while the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vehicle is employing an autonomous driving system, wherein the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; required level of supervisory control is determined by the driver's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; response to a prompt.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (16) A vehicle system comprising: an autonomous driving system; at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least one indicator on a steering wheel to signal a level of autonomy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; employed by the autonomous driving system in the vehicle; and a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; processor to: provide a prompt to a driver; monitor the driver's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; response to the prompt; and control the indicator's intensity based on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whether the driver exercises sufficient supervisory control of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vehicle, wherein sufficient supervisory control of a vehicle is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; determined by the monitored driver's response to the prompt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;one need to compare above claims with design is it present or thought by same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do the Examiners ever check their published designs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes they check most of the time its limited, as they are published in images and if text of title or abstract or claim does not contain searched keyword it will be missed out. generally with classification search art may popup but due to size of result it is limited by keywords and their lies the chance of missed out potential design prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29199" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12629" RevisionGUID="5d371ad7-bbd6-4c67-9926-b42c1de707ae" CreationDate="2015-04-13T05:59:08.663" UserId="11895" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;protection&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12637" RevisionGUID="9dba8256-3a8a-482b-9cb0-24179064af4c" CreationDate="2015-04-13T07:43:49.727" UserId="11895" Text="[Browsewrap Agreements: Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc.; Tracy, James J.][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not an expert in electronic but Seems to be listing most of the contents with inference and observations. Probably teaching the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Are Browse-Wrap Agreements All They Are Wrapped Up To Be?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/jstl11&amp;div=11&amp;id=&amp;page=&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://kfmlaw.com/library/browsewrapabstract.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29201" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="6990922a-2e21-45ef-8dc4-f790517113cc" CreationDate="2015-04-13T10:32:27.300" UserId="13924" Comment="title updated" Text="PRIOR ART REQUEST: US20150066784 &quot;Automated Clickwrap and Browsewrap System&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="401d1fd1-4cab-4181-8698-61fb90a2a6c2" CreationDate="2015-04-13T10:38:53.673" UserId="13924" Comment="a new example" Text="I would like some help finding prior art for [US20150066784](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=20150066784.PGNR.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent describes a system focused on the browsewrap vs. clickwrap distinction when it comes to legal agreements, but the entire system seems like a industry best practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I view that the clickwrap implementation (a checkbox with the &quot;I Agree&quot; text) to make sure the user agrees to an agreement has already been best practice for a while now, popularized more and more since the [Zappos lawsuit](http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2012/10/10/how-zappos-user-agreement-failed-in-court-and-left-zappos-legally-naked/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even a system of tracking users to keep track who agreed to certain agreements has been best practice, though not popularized as much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I currently found 2 examples of prior art, but it would be great to see if more prior art exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples of prior art (especially for for 1st and 6th claims):**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*1. A method for monitoring end-user viewing of agreements over a computer network*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*6. A method for monitoring end-user affirmative consent to agreements over a computer network*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hasn't this be already done by the [Agreeable Records plugin for WordPress](http://kraftpress.it/downloads/agreeable-records/)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Need to track when a user logs in and agrees to your terms? Agreeable Records tracks     &#xD;&#xA;    the user’s email and IP address with every login agreement, allowing you to keep &#xD;&#xA;    detailed records of a user’s agreement to your terms &amp; conditions. Requires Agreeable &#xD;&#xA;    plugin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The plugin is specifically built for this, but many other form plugins for WordPress allow developers to add the &quot;I Agree&quot; checkbox on their web forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PrivacyCheq and [its Cliqwrap](http://www.privacycheq.com/?page_id=35805) system is being described similarly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    CliqWrap stores user acceptance of your TOS / EULA, allowing new games to bypass &#xD;&#xA;    requesting duplicate approvals. When your legal agreements change, one button resets &#xD;&#xA;    approvals so all users will see the new terms at next login.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![image of PrivacyCheq][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Later update:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [WP E-Signature](https://www.approveme.me/) plugin for WordPress seems similarly, including tracking users who agreed to specific agreements, but users agree to the agreement via their e-signature:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![image for WP E-Signature][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/PzLOw.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.approveme.me/wp-content/themes/marketify-child/img/home-c/home/wordpress-electronic-signature-hero.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12625" RevisionGUID="53a781af-2c9d-430d-8a48-cc6cc830e341" CreationDate="2015-04-13T11:52:28.443" UserId="11895" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="You need to calculate expiry from the US5662332 Re-issue is just publication of information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**MPEP 1405    Reissue and Patent Term [R-11.2013]** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;35 U.S.C. 251 prescribes&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; the effect of reissue on the patent term by stating that &quot;**the Director&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shall… reissue the patent… for the unexpired term of the original&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The maximum term of the original patent is fixed at the time the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent is granted. While the term may be subsequently shortened, e.g.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; through the filing of a terminal disclaimer, **it cannot be extended&#xD;&#xA;&gt; through the filing of a reissue**. Accordingly, a deletion in a reissue&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application of an earlier-obtained benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120&#xD;&#xA;&gt; will not operate to lengthen the term of the patent to be reissued." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12623" RevisionGUID="1fd8cc85-bf2c-4c41-9827-bccfddf0544c" CreationDate="2015-04-13T11:53:56.817" UserId="11895" Comment="added 11 characters in body; edited title" Text="The original priority date was in 1994 [US5662332](http://www.google.com/patents/US5662332) so my assumption was that it had expired, but upon searching Public Pair using the application number (US 08/544,306) it comes up that it's under Re-Issue and still patented. So my question is, is the patent actually expired or does the re-issue extend the term somehow, or is there something else that's extending the term beyond the 20 year window that I'm missing?  Thank you for your time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29205" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12623" RevisionGUID="1fd8cc85-bf2c-4c41-9827-bccfddf0544c" CreationDate="2015-04-13T11:53:56.817" UserId="11895" Comment="added 11 characters in body; edited title" Text="Does Re-issue of US patent have extended expiry?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12625" RevisionGUID="1b8ea41f-1135-45b5-9a91-7972a2a12cf2" CreationDate="2015-04-13T11:58:04.213" UserId="11895" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="You need to calculate expiry from the US5662332 Re-issue is just publication of information. Here is another answer to calculate the same [How do you determine a patent's expiration date?](http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/3801/11895)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**MPEP 1405    Reissue and Patent Term [R-11.2013]** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;35 U.S.C. 251 prescribes&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; the effect of reissue on the patent term by stating that &quot;**the Director&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shall… reissue the patent… for the unexpired term of the original&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The maximum term of the original patent is fixed at the time the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent is granted. While the term may be subsequently shortened, e.g.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; through the filing of a terminal disclaimer, **it cannot be extended&#xD;&#xA;&gt; through the filing of a reissue**. Accordingly, a deletion in a reissue&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application of an earlier-obtained benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120&#xD;&#xA;&gt; will not operate to lengthen the term of the patent to be reissued." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12638" RevisionGUID="8799ac7b-ade3-4d6e-95dd-d8ba826cbc7a" CreationDate="2015-04-13T12:40:47.143" UserId="4959" Text="I found this, it's called [End User License Agreement Detection and Monitoring][1], this is what the abstract says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;An approach is provided for detecting and monitoring end user license&#xD;&#xA;&gt; agreement (EULA) compliance is provided. A request to access a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; executable software code is received from an end user. A EULA version&#xD;&#xA;&gt; corresponding to the requested executable software code is identified.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A determination is made as to whether the end user has accepted the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identified EULA. If the end user has not accepted the identified EULA,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; then an out of date EULA notification is sent to the end user, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; EULA is sent to the end user requesting an acceptance to the EULA. A&#xD;&#xA;&gt; EULA response is received from the end user. If the end user accepts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the EULA, then the end user is allowed access to the executable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; software code.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;hope this helps! :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130185807" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="299b44b9-da68-4a8b-a87d-728d4a5f3918" CreationDate="2015-04-13T20:32:03.723" UserId="13924" Comment="adding dates for prior art examples" Text="I would like some help finding prior art for [US20150066784](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=20150066784.PGNR.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent describes a system focused on the browsewrap vs. clickwrap distinction when it comes to legal agreements, but the entire system seems like a industry best practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I view that the clickwrap implementation (a checkbox with the &quot;I Agree&quot; text) to make sure the user agrees to an agreement has already been best practice for a while now, popularized more and more since the [Zappos lawsuit](http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2012/10/10/how-zappos-user-agreement-failed-in-court-and-left-zappos-legally-naked/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even a system of tracking users to keep track who agreed to certain agreements has been best practice, though not popularized as much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I currently found 2 examples of prior art, but it would be great to see if more prior art exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples of prior art (especially for for 1st and 6th claims):**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*1. A method for monitoring end-user viewing of agreements over a computer network*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*6. A method for monitoring end-user affirmative consent to agreements over a computer network*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hasn't this be already done by the [Agreeable Records plugin for WordPress](http://kraftpress.it/downloads/agreeable-records/), first launched in [Jan 2014](https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/log/agreeable?rev=1133899) ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Need to track when a user logs in and agrees to your terms? Agreeable Records tracks     &#xD;&#xA;    the user’s email and IP address with every login agreement, allowing you to keep &#xD;&#xA;    detailed records of a user’s agreement to your terms &amp; conditions. Requires Agreeable &#xD;&#xA;    plugin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The plugin is specifically built for this, but many other form plugins for WordPress allow developers to add the &quot;I Agree&quot; checkbox on their web forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the Contact Form 7 plugin and its ability to add checkbox for agreements acceptance, [first mentioned in 2012](http://www.fastsecurecontactform.com/agree-to-terms).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PrivacyCheq and [its Cliqwrap](http://www.privacycheq.com/?page_id=35805) system is being described similarly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    CliqWrap stores user acceptance of your TOS / EULA, allowing new games to bypass &#xD;&#xA;    requesting duplicate approvals. When your legal agreements change, one button resets &#xD;&#xA;    approvals so all users will see the new terms at next login.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![image of PrivacyCheq][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [WP E-Signature](https://www.approveme.me/) plugin for WordPress seems similar to this (a public mention of launch was in [May 2014](http://www.businessconsumeralliance.org/report/approveme-esignature--digital-e-signature-for-wordpress-155652277), but the domain name was registered in 2010), including tracking users who agreed to specific agreements, but users agree to the agreement via their e-signature:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![image for WP E-Signature][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/PzLOw.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.approveme.me/wp-content/themes/marketify-child/img/home-c/home/wordpress-electronic-signature-hero.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12639" RevisionGUID="d0714629-3272-402e-8ae7-9fc76019e3dc" CreationDate="2015-04-14T02:03:44.987" UserId="13931" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20120179309][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent covers taking some location information, comparing it to some other location information, and figuring out what the differences/corrections are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Isn't this what has been done by mapmakers, navigators, surveyors, and others for hundreds of years?  Seems too broad and too obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This looks to cover the case of updating OpenStreetMap or Google Maps (&quot;no, this park isn't (lat,long) [position data], it's (otherlat,otherlong)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the application link, looking for prior art dated 2010 or earlier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120179309" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29210" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12639" RevisionGUID="d0714629-3272-402e-8ae7-9fc76019e3dc" CreationDate="2015-04-14T02:03:44.987" UserId="13931" Text="Prior art request for US20120179309 &quot;Data Improvement System and Method&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29211" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12639" RevisionGUID="d0714629-3272-402e-8ae7-9fc76019e3dc" CreationDate="2015-04-14T02:03:44.987" UserId="13931" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12640" RevisionGUID="7d8e5e70-7571-427e-a1ef-e6ed46af4745" CreationDate="2015-04-14T04:31:37.687" UserId="13933" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20050129335][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20050129335&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this patent currently limit such an opportunity as to the making or selling adhesive trash bags, if so how can I bypass it or aquire exlusive ownership rights from the present owner? How would I got about arranging such a sale if it deems necessary? Or is it possible to create my own patent upon trash bags with adhesives that would protect a potentially proprietary product? How can I establish exclusive rights to adhesive trash bags for strong competitive advantage purposes, to keep any other adhesive trash bag competition out of such an area or emerging in the first place?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29213" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12640" RevisionGUID="7d8e5e70-7571-427e-a1ef-e6ed46af4745" CreationDate="2015-04-14T04:31:37.687" UserId="13933" Text="Can I own and create adhesives trash bags/ trash bags with adhesives for use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29214" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12640" RevisionGUID="7d8e5e70-7571-427e-a1ef-e6ed46af4745" CreationDate="2015-04-14T04:31:37.687" UserId="13933" Text="&lt;us20050129335&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12641" RevisionGUID="afaf9905-3c64-431c-a4b2-0937f564f6cb" CreationDate="2015-04-14T07:07:06.273" UserId="11895" Text="&gt; Does this patent currently limit such an opportunity as to the making&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or selling adhesive trash bags, if so how can I bypass it or aquire&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exlusive ownership rights from the present owner?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent Expired :-  Check USPTO Patent Register called [Public PAIR][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12642" RevisionGUID="813ffb2b-c08b-429b-9f39-9a6d5597361f" CreationDate="2015-04-14T09:13:38.880" UserId="11542" Text="A patent is said to be infringed when a product/process violates the rights granted to a patentee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To determine infringement of a patent by a product/process, one has to go through a section of a patent document called the claims. The claims section of a patent document describes in detail, the scope of protection granted to a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims have to be analyzed in detail to find out if a product/process infringes upon the rights of a patentee. Depending on the nature of the claim, the claim would include a number of elements or process steps. Subsequently the scope of each of the elements/process steps has to be determined. Thereafter, your product/process has to be compared with the elements/process steps of the claim. The above comparison helps you determine whether the claimed elements/steps exist in your product/process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A claim is said to be infringed if all the elements of the claim exists in your product. Similarly, a claim that includes process steps is said to be infringed, if all the process steps are present in the process that you intend to follow. In other words, if all the elements in the claims of the patent map on to the features of your product, your product is infringing upon the patent rights of the patentee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted that, if your product does not have at least one element of the claim, then your product does not infringe upon the patent rights of the patentee." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12642" RevisionGUID="4ffd8cc3-4dfc-40da-bbda-daf80519bc57" CreationDate="2015-04-14T09:24:35.803" UserId="11895" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="A patent is said to be infringed when a product/process violates the rights granted to a patentee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To determine infringement of a patent by a product/process, one has to go through a section of a patent document called the claims. The claims section of a patent document describes in detail, the scope of protection granted to a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims have to be analyzed in detail to find out if a product/process infringes upon the rights of a patentee. Depending on the nature of the claim, the claim would include a number of elements or process steps. Subsequently the scope of each of the elements/process steps has to be determined. Thereafter, your product/process has to be compared with the elements/process steps of the claim. The above comparison helps you determine whether the claimed elements/steps exist in your product/process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A claim is said to be infringed if all the elements of the claim exists in your product. Similarly, a claim that includes process steps is said to be infringed, if all the process steps are present in the process that you intend to follow. In other words, if all the elements in the claims of the patent map on to the features of your product, your product is infringing upon the patent rights of the patentee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted that, if your product does not have at least one essential element of the claim and does not fall under obvious replacements, then your product does not infringe upon the patent rights of the patentee." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12650" RevisionGUID="3e520c66-166a-450b-a281-0e2b7399b392" CreationDate="2015-04-15T06:11:35.607" UserId="13944" Text="In reference to the patent: [US194047][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US194047&#xD;&#xA;Who Owns this Patent now?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29246" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12650" RevisionGUID="3e520c66-166a-450b-a281-0e2b7399b392" CreationDate="2015-04-15T06:11:35.607" UserId="13944" Text="Who owns this patent at this point of time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29247" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12650" RevisionGUID="3e520c66-166a-450b-a281-0e2b7399b392" CreationDate="2015-04-15T06:11:35.607" UserId="13944" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;motor&gt;&lt;us20120221930&gt;&lt;bluetooth&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29253" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12650" RevisionGUID="80fecc70-f2c5-4d09-815d-bbb485f83ab6" CreationDate="2015-04-15T06:50:22.303" UserId="11895" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;us20120221930&gt;&lt;motor&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29256" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12650" RevisionGUID="567a99cb-a96e-40e9-83a5-2963e4ba89f2" CreationDate="2015-04-15T09:24:51.637" UserId="10011" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[12323],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29257" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="12331" RevisionGUID="5eaceaaf-fe7a-4ed5-8936-eb9a8fc5f0ca" CreationDate="2015-04-15T12:00:28.717" UserId="11895" />
  <row Id="29258" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="12352" RevisionGUID="e06ddd71-89d2-4369-8e75-b7e05d9a6b39" CreationDate="2015-04-15T12:01:29.103" UserId="11895" />
  <row Id="29272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12655" RevisionGUID="acdb56ae-5bce-4f44-9ae8-44af8599123e" CreationDate="2015-04-16T15:11:09.907" UserId="13953" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2002091307A9][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2002091307A9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A client just received a patent notice for the embedding a barcode in an email/web ticket.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can this really be valid and/or not have prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://me2.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/ApplicationNumber/GB0317362.2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems so general and to have no novel invention but may it's me looking through 2015 glasses?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas / thoughts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29273" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12655" RevisionGUID="acdb56ae-5bce-4f44-9ae8-44af8599123e" CreationDate="2015-04-16T15:11:09.907" UserId="13953" Text="Prior art for PCT/US2002/014748" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29274" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12655" RevisionGUID="acdb56ae-5bce-4f44-9ae8-44af8599123e" CreationDate="2015-04-16T15:11:09.907" UserId="13953" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12659" RevisionGUID="cd4b585a-b511-4113-af8e-676f598b0927" CreationDate="2015-04-17T17:51:51.683" UserId="13961" Text="How does first to file affect multiple inventors? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It used to be that if an author/inventor was not listed on the patent the author could lose the patent rights due to the multiple inventor rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. Advanced Magnetic Closures, Inc. v. Rome Fasteners Corp., 607 F.3d 817 (Fed. Cir. 2010)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29288" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12659" RevisionGUID="cd4b585a-b511-4113-af8e-676f598b0927" CreationDate="2015-04-17T17:51:51.683" UserId="13961" Text="how does first to file affect multiple inventors?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29289" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12659" RevisionGUID="cd4b585a-b511-4113-af8e-676f598b0927" CreationDate="2015-04-17T17:51:51.683" UserId="13961" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;multiple&gt;&lt;first&gt;&lt;file&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29290" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1975" RevisionGUID="d35095fd-4d57-4b91-9823-905300899041" CreationDate="2015-04-17T19:05:28.273" UserId="10011" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[3801],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12659" RevisionGUID="4c53d274-ee5d-469b-a2e3-127357f63d0f" CreationDate="2015-04-18T11:21:55.270" UserId="11895" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="How does first to file affect multiple inventors? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It used to be that if an author/inventor was not listed on the patent the author could lose the patent rights due to the multiple inventor rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. [Advanced Magnetic Closures, Inc. v. Rome Fasteners Corp., 607 F.3d 817 (Fed. Cir. 2010)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://casetext.com/case/advanced-magnetic-closures-v-rome-fastener" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12660" RevisionGUID="6723d6ce-040b-4f5e-afb9-ebbe670eacbc" CreationDate="2015-04-18T19:43:24.720" UserId="13233" Text="This patent application had very broad claims that could have had an impact on Bitcoin (and electronic commerce) if they had been granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the application was abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current status per PAIR:  Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action, as of 10-15-2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as of now, the only impact is that it will act as prior art for any later-filed applications that attempt to claim this that were filed after 2008." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12660" RevisionGUID="a50b40de-91a0-43fa-8a67-0c13da3a1bf9" CreationDate="2015-04-18T20:03:23.163" UserId="13233" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="This patent application had very broad claims that could have had an impact on Bitcoin (and electronic commerce) if they had been granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the application was abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current status per PAIR:  Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action, as of 10-15-2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as of now, the only impact is that it will act as prior art for any later-filed applications that attempt to claim this that were filed after 2006 (the PCT counterpart application is WO2006023599, published in 2006.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12661" RevisionGUID="d9cd5e54-4b01-488b-aa6b-087877ebd1bc" CreationDate="2015-04-18T20:14:18.473" UserId="13233" Text="First to File doesn't have any impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Magnetic Closures was about inequitable conduct, effectively deliberately lying to the Patent Office about the inventorship of an application.  Inequitable conduct can invalidate a patent.  This rule hasn't changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another part of the AIA did impact inventorship, and made correction of inventorship simpler:  http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/message_from_janet_gongola_patent6.  However, this doesn't enable correction of inventorship where the initial false claim was deliberate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12662" RevisionGUID="ec6a8d4c-86a1-48f8-87b9-14c6b8acf6f4" CreationDate="2015-04-18T20:31:39.967" UserId="13233" Text="Yes, absolutely anything you published prior to the filing date of the patent qualifies as prior art.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you believe that Honeywell deliberately named the wrong set of inventors (in other words, that you should have been named as an inventor on these patent applications), there is a process to challenge that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to make sure that the Examiner sees your publications when he or she is examining this patent application, there is a process for that also." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12663" RevisionGUID="2f3a9d3e-5a11-4cff-a583-a204f4f702aa" CreationDate="2015-04-18T21:01:54.323" UserId="13964" Text="One year ago, I started an open source project, which is most popular in these days. This project is mostly used by my area's developers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am expecting great future of this project. Is it advisable to patent the project? I have added more features and released a license version (trying to make it commercial version)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29301" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12663" RevisionGUID="2f3a9d3e-5a11-4cff-a583-a204f4f702aa" CreationDate="2015-04-18T21:01:54.323" UserId="13964" Text="Is it advisable to patent an open source project?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29302" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12663" RevisionGUID="2f3a9d3e-5a11-4cff-a583-a204f4f702aa" CreationDate="2015-04-18T21:01:54.323" UserId="13964" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;opensource&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12664" RevisionGUID="6239df91-812f-4031-8760-c24e320be8bd" CreationDate="2015-04-18T22:11:48.477" UserId="10011" Text="I guess it depends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll answer this on the presumption that your invention is patentable. Note that not everything is, but deciding whether your particular invention is patentable is the job of a patent professional, or at least some more research than falls under the scope of this question. I'm also leaving out anything pertaining to Alice, and patentability of software in general. That's a pretty broad topic, and you'd likely be best to speak with a patent professional about that as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another really important thing to think about is that the United States offers a one-year grace period on patenting something post-public-disclosure, but other countries don't. You say you developed this a year ago, so if it was actually 366 days ago that you launched, or if you're looking for a patent in a country other than the United States, you've already lost your rights to patent anything you announced or made publicly visible at that time. If you're constantly improving or bringing in new features, and those are what you want to patent, that's not an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First off, when talking about software, you should ensure you understand the [differences between copyrighting and patenting your application](http://startups.stackexchange.com/a/826/59). Even that sentence simplifies the matter a bit more than I'd like for it to. I won't get into copyrights, but in essence, registering a copyright (and you don't, strictly speaking, *need* to register it) will protect you from people stealing your code verbatim. Legal practice is always more complicated than legal theory, but that's the fundamental conceit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent offers you protection, and I imagine you know this, to stop others from performing your invention, as described in the patent's claims. That means you'll have control over the algorithm--or whatever it is you're looking to obtain a patent on. In a pure open-source project, that may or may not matter. Particularly if you're going for the MIT license, or something similar that offers other developers a lot of rights, having a patent will probably just cost you money and not gain you anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you mention commercializing the software. If you're doing that, it can be beneficial to own the rights to stop other people from swooping in and stealing your implementations to sell as their own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, I can't tell you whether a patent is the right way to go or not. It's a business decision. Look at what your invention is, decide whether it's patentable (probably by speaking to a professional to whom you can disclose it), look at how much you intend to make, or how much you'd lose from other people stealing your code, and decide whether the (very approximately) $20,000 a patent might cost over its lifetime would be the best way to spend that money." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12665" RevisionGUID="294449ff-e816-444a-92a7-de1df3d99a1e" CreationDate="2015-04-19T02:54:42.800" UserId="13967" Text="someone may be using our molds in China to produce products they do not have permission to do so. what can we do about it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29305" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12665" RevisionGUID="294449ff-e816-444a-92a7-de1df3d99a1e" CreationDate="2015-04-19T02:54:42.800" UserId="13967" Text="Use of invention molds without permission" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29306" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12665" RevisionGUID="294449ff-e816-444a-92a7-de1df3d99a1e" CreationDate="2015-04-19T02:54:42.800" UserId="13967" Text="&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12666" RevisionGUID="1d9901f2-942b-43c4-8795-17cdfeb0aac4" CreationDate="2015-04-19T04:56:57.697" UserId="11895" Text="Patents are territorial rights if the invention was patented in China then you can issue a cease and desist notice covering all aspects which you feel have protection in said territory. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12667" RevisionGUID="b4b41445-735a-4e45-94f3-fcd232f0915f" CreationDate="2015-04-19T16:28:24.413" UserId="13970" Text="A patent claim states a &quot;strap used to suspend the motor&quot;.  Can I use a chain to suspend the motor and not be in violation of the patent.  I looked up the definition of a strap and from what I can tell it does not incorporate a chain.  Or would I be in violation of Doctrine of equivalents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29310" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12667" RevisionGUID="b4b41445-735a-4e45-94f3-fcd232f0915f" CreationDate="2015-04-19T16:28:24.413" UserId="13970" Text="If a patent refers to the use of a &quot;strap&quot;, can I use a &quot;chain&quot; instead and not be in violation of the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29311" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12667" RevisionGUID="b4b41445-735a-4e45-94f3-fcd232f0915f" CreationDate="2015-04-19T16:28:24.413" UserId="13970" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12669" RevisionGUID="88ec11af-7226-45b5-b827-d0420c65c072" CreationDate="2015-04-19T21:59:23.953" UserId="13972" Text="In reference to the patent: [US918884][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US918884&#xD;&#xA;what are the claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29316" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12669" RevisionGUID="88ec11af-7226-45b5-b827-d0420c65c072" CreationDate="2015-04-19T21:59:23.953" UserId="13972" Text="Claims of patent US918884" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29317" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12669" RevisionGUID="88ec11af-7226-45b5-b827-d0420c65c072" CreationDate="2015-04-19T21:59:23.953" UserId="13972" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12670" RevisionGUID="9f50e760-ce35-48f6-9b1c-16816be6f391" CreationDate="2015-04-19T23:05:08.243" UserId="13973" Text="A concept or [software] routine/process has been used previously, but has not been patented. If I successfully patent that concept, will I be able to claim infringement when it is used in a future creation by the same entity that had used it in previous creations before I had filed the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29319" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12670" RevisionGUID="9f50e760-ce35-48f6-9b1c-16816be6f391" CreationDate="2015-04-19T23:05:08.243" UserId="13973" Text="Patenting existing non-patented concept for use against future use of said concept" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29320" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12670" RevisionGUID="9f50e760-ce35-48f6-9b1c-16816be6f391" CreationDate="2015-04-19T23:05:08.243" UserId="13973" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;prior&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12669" RevisionGUID="47e554a7-25a5-4de0-897d-612cd7934baf" CreationDate="2015-04-19T23:16:27.133" UserId="10011" Comment="added 31 characters in body; edited title" Text="In reference to the patent: [US918884][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where can I go to find the claims of this patent? Google Patents appears to have a recursive link for where to find them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US918884" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29322" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12669" RevisionGUID="47e554a7-25a5-4de0-897d-612cd7934baf" CreationDate="2015-04-19T23:16:27.133" UserId="10011" Comment="added 31 characters in body; edited title" Text="How can I find the claims of this patent, which are not listed on Google Patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12671" RevisionGUID="ecd10e58-1b86-4a3a-944f-14b48322a2ce" CreationDate="2015-04-20T05:00:50.907" UserId="11895" Text="A user can find any part of the patent document using one of the following methods:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - View PDF :- this button opens the scan image file on they fly and user can scroll to relevant section for information.&#xD;&#xA; - Download PDF :- this button downloads the PDF copy on device.&#xD;&#xA; - Using the extenrnal Links for USPTO and Espacenet&#xD;&#xA; - External Link USPTO provides text of patent application and user can view images in TIFF format.&#xD;&#xA; - External Link Espacenet provides complete biblography and scaned copy of the document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for your query please follow any of the above methods. Steps are shown below.&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/q5iqP.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12672" RevisionGUID="4de5eaf0-40fd-4fe9-89a0-c8f7f7e9db27" CreationDate="2015-04-20T05:39:29.460" UserId="11895" Text="To get a chance of granted Patent One need to satisfy two basic concepts:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Novelty&#xD;&#xA; - Inventive-step&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a information is already available one cannot get patent over it (except certain rules like 12 month prior and inventor is same). Therefore you cannot get patent over previous disclosures." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="875e8d4b-10cd-4fc4-a4e6-5b079ad3b9a0" CreationDate="2015-04-20T09:10:34.297" UserId="13953" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2002091307A9][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2002091307A9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an international patent which claims a method for issuing over the internet a ticket, wherein the ticket contains a barcode in an image file format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's more, we have just received a letter from Ticketogo Limited inviting us to take a license and indicating that others have already done the same:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://me2.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/ApplicationNumber/GB0317362.2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To a layman (non-legal person), this just seems such an &quot;obvious&quot; solution and I can't see how it could be patentable. Perhaps this is only naivety or hindsight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if anyone else has had similar demands world wide?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And/or ideas about whether there is any prior art, or how we can show this is invalid, etc? Or even if it is indeed valid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A method for issuing a ticket to a user of a communication interface for communicating with a data server over a publicly accessible communication network (4) and formatting data received from the server (7) and of a printer (10) capable of printing information formatted by the communication interface, the method comprising: generating a code number for the ticket; formatting an image file of an image file format, the image file representing an image in that format of a bar code corresponding to the code number; and providing to the communication interface over the publicly accessible communication network (4) by means of a data server ticket data defining the appearance of a ticket, the ticket data including the image file.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adrian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29328" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="875e8d4b-10cd-4fc4-a4e6-5b079ad3b9a0" CreationDate="2015-04-20T09:10:34.297" UserId="13953" Text="Prior art for e-ticketing with a barcode image via the web" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29329" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="875e8d4b-10cd-4fc4-a4e6-5b079ad3b9a0" CreationDate="2015-04-20T09:10:34.297" UserId="13953" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12655" RevisionGUID="bc872143-337e-4df8-b922-b1dcf8f1ca73" CreationDate="2015-04-20T09:14:56.563" UserId="13953" Comment="Added more information" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2002091307A9][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2002091307A9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A client just received a patent notice for the embedding a barcode in an email/web ticket.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can this really be valid and/or not have prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://me2.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/ApplicationNumber/GB0317362.2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems so general and to have no novel invention but may it's me looking through 2015 glasses?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an international patent which claims a method for issuing over the internet a ticket, wherein the ticket contains a barcode in an image file format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's more, we have just received a letter from Ticketogo Limited inviting us to take a license and indicating that others have already done the same:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://me2.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/ApplicationNumber/GB0317362.2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To a layman (non-legal person), this just seems such an &quot;obvious&quot; solution and I can't see how it could be patentable. Perhaps this is only naivety or hindsight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if anyone else has had similar demands world wide?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And/or ideas about whether there is any prior art, or how we can show this is invalid, etc? Or even if it is indeed valid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A method for issuing a ticket to a user of a communication interface for communicating with a data server over a publicly accessible communication network (4) and formatting data received from the server (7) and of a printer (10) capable of printing information formatted by the communication interface, the method comprising: generating a code number for the ticket; formatting an image file of an image file format, the image file representing an image in that format of a bar code corresponding to the code number; and providing to the communication interface over the publicly accessible communication network (4) by means of a data server ticket data defining the appearance of a ticket, the ticket data including the image file.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas / thoughts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2002091307&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29331" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12655" RevisionGUID="bc872143-337e-4df8-b922-b1dcf8f1ca73" CreationDate="2015-04-20T09:14:56.563" UserId="13953" Comment="Added more information" Text="Prior art for PCT/US2002/014748 - e-ticketing with a barcode image via the web" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29332" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12655" RevisionGUID="1583d4a5-9e56-4103-88c3-bfe464344ec8" CreationDate="2015-04-20T14:14:04.277" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[12673],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="7054c23a-8aa0-49e2-90c9-78ea702980dc" CreationDate="2015-04-21T03:16:04.627" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 24 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2002091307A9][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2002091307A9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an international patent which claims a method for issuing over the internet a ticket, wherein the ticket contains a barcode in an image file format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's more, we have just received a letter from Ticketogo Limited inviting us to take a license and indicating that others have already done the same:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://me2.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/ApplicationNumber/GB0317362.2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To a layman (non-legal person), this just seems such an &quot;obvious&quot; solution and I can't see how it could be patentable. Perhaps this is only naivety or hindsight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if anyone else has had similar demands world wide?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And/or ideas about whether there is any prior art, or how we can show this is invalid, etc? Or even if it is indeed valid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for issuing a ticket to a user of a communication interface for communicating with a data server over a publicly accessible communication network (4) and formatting data received from the server (7) and of a printer (10) capable of printing information formatted by the communication interface, the method comprising: generating a code number for the ticket; formatting an image file of an image file format, the image file representing an image in that format of a bar code corresponding to the code number; and providing to the communication interface over the publicly accessible communication network (4) by means of a data server ticket data defining the appearance of a ticket, the ticket data including the image file." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29349" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="7054c23a-8aa0-49e2-90c9-78ea702980dc" CreationDate="2015-04-21T03:16:04.627" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 24 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;wo2002091307a9&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12678" RevisionGUID="ab405576-f30b-463f-b2da-0fcabcb5ac5c" CreationDate="2015-04-21T03:29:17.873" UserId="13978" Text="In reference to the patent: [US1996490][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US1996490" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29351" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12678" RevisionGUID="ab405576-f30b-463f-b2da-0fcabcb5ac5c" CreationDate="2015-04-21T03:29:17.873" UserId="13978" Text="I am the Granddaughter of Wladimir Senutovitch who created the patent. What is the status at this time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29352" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12678" RevisionGUID="ab405576-f30b-463f-b2da-0fcabcb5ac5c" CreationDate="2015-04-21T03:29:17.873" UserId="13978" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12680" RevisionGUID="6d18d2df-92fe-447c-bd47-abacd1896933" CreationDate="2015-04-21T05:50:23.897" UserId="13980" Text="I was actually tracking US7985418 claiming sevelamer compostion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On 30th August on regular updation i n Pair I have seen status as &quot;patent expired on 21.04.2014 due to  nonpayment of maintenance fees&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again on November 4th patent is still alive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have any screen shots to prove this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but will it be possible to track such issues with USPTO PAIR " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29358" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12680" RevisionGUID="6d18d2df-92fe-447c-bd47-abacd1896933" CreationDate="2015-04-21T05:50:23.897" UserId="13980" Text="Is there any way to track Patents which are reinstated after non-payment of maintenance fees" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29359" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12680" RevisionGUID="6d18d2df-92fe-447c-bd47-abacd1896933" CreationDate="2015-04-21T05:50:23.897" UserId="13980" Text="&lt;maintenance&gt;&lt;fees&gt;&lt;reinstated&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12681" RevisionGUID="537afea2-73ea-4c73-bcfb-48919a7061a3" CreationDate="2015-04-21T06:45:26.510" UserId="11895" Text="If patent is lapsed due to non-payment of Maintenance fee one can revive it filing a Petition See Earlier answer [Failure to pay maintenance fees](http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/12140/11895)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now Such Petition is Hard to track As I see no option to find this information on PAIR. If a Petition is filed it is the matter between Patent office and applicant Ideally It should be made available via **Transaction History** of USPTO PAIR, but unfortunately its not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ways the hard way is to weekly check for petition decided in said revival time frame.&#xD;&#xA;One need to browse [USPTO Official Gazette][1] **Notices** Section and further &quot; Notice of Expiration of Patents Due to Failure to Pay Maintenance Fee&quot; and &quot; Patents Reinstated Due to the Acceptance of a Late Maintenance Fee from....&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another quick way to do it using Google Advance search on USPTO OFFICIAL GAZETTE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/official-gazette/official-gazette-patents&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/HD2fW.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="182" RevisionGUID="0261e1d8-b7bd-4c26-b3b1-516ff89d68d7" CreationDate="2015-04-21T07:45:46.833" UserId="10011" Comment="added 79 characters in body" Text="For questions broadly relating to the licensing and legal sharing of patents. Note that questions about specific license agreements are off-topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29363" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12678" RevisionGUID="ad444218-affc-44f4-845c-20ec8bd2d778" CreationDate="2015-04-21T08:37:42.387" UserId="10011" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[3801],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:11895,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Pushpak&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12697" RevisionGUID="c727fb24-0084-4ead-80b7-8bc9559bec87" CreationDate="2015-04-21T21:12:12.250" UserId="13996" Text="Try to check US7066387, is very close to claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12697" RevisionGUID="37a857e5-ec69-4417-b58e-8ed3caffb84d" CreationDate="2015-04-22T03:05:38.187" UserId="13996" Comment="added 192 characters in body" Text="Try to check https://www.google.com/patents/US20020169623, is very close to claim.&#xD;&#xA;The image describe inventive step of mentioned WO2002091307A9 claim 1&#xD;&#xA;![Image from patent US20020169623][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/KR6JU.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12456" RevisionGUID="aed0f6a9-a9b5-4c00-9f2a-08ffe1b03e5b" CreationDate="2015-04-22T06:54:26.887" UserId="11895" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8745544][1], is there any difference from [US8694923][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If yes then what is the difference?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8745544&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.co.in/patents/US8694923" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29448" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12456" RevisionGUID="aed0f6a9-a9b5-4c00-9f2a-08ffe1b03e5b" CreationDate="2015-04-22T06:54:26.887" UserId="11895" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How to quickly find Difference between two Family Patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29449" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12456" RevisionGUID="aed0f6a9-a9b5-4c00-9f2a-08ffe1b03e5b" CreationDate="2015-04-22T06:54:26.887" UserId="11895" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;format&gt;&lt;us8745544&gt;&lt;us8694923&gt;&lt;compare&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12700" RevisionGUID="651a1475-367f-4c40-8187-1bd4906b7939" CreationDate="2015-04-22T07:14:37.433" UserId="11895" Text="A researcher can quickly find difference in both patent applications by comparing both documents one to one. For this researcher can take help of WORD processing document MS office 2010 and above with feature to compare document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steps would include:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Create word file of the document text. preferably from USPTO website.&#xD;&#xA;2. Open word document use Review Pane, Compare document feature.&#xD;&#xA;3. select documents in pop-up window.&#xD;&#xA;3. In advance level select character level tracking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Limitation wont work with Images, Tables, wrongly created word documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g for queried patent:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/TRpSx.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12703" RevisionGUID="6e97e24e-366c-4f1a-80d6-eaec877c03b8" CreationDate="2015-04-22T10:57:39.897" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12704" RevisionGUID="a87b32a8-cd9e-4c73-b15a-871e09d4fc8e" CreationDate="2015-04-22T10:57:39.897" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12705" RevisionGUID="db62ce95-25ff-4750-9050-61f68341be75" CreationDate="2015-04-22T10:58:52.960" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12706" RevisionGUID="96402a5b-d27c-4498-851a-ed3d59a78e19" CreationDate="2015-04-22T10:58:52.960" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12708" RevisionGUID="d7ba0f78-d083-403e-bf7b-f838e599d2c6" CreationDate="2015-04-22T10:59:54.500" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12709" RevisionGUID="80983965-a28c-496a-b1c6-5c588fc95aa2" CreationDate="2015-04-22T10:59:54.500" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12710" RevisionGUID="0451ac2a-ff4a-4ac6-afdf-ba549771fce6" CreationDate="2015-04-22T11:00:25.117" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12711" RevisionGUID="b34bf80a-97eb-4021-902f-f921d33c9dcb" CreationDate="2015-04-22T11:00:25.117" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12712" RevisionGUID="965263f3-c9fb-4b3a-b14d-aeeb59d736f7" CreationDate="2015-04-22T11:01:51.747" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12713" RevisionGUID="a6353085-7db3-4438-9c06-028ece1ff41e" CreationDate="2015-04-22T11:01:51.747" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12711" RevisionGUID="3dfbb954-68c2-4241-a74a-97853489e38d" CreationDate="2015-04-22T13:34:13.213" UserId="11895" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="Related to patents filed, licensed or prosecuted by Applicant AMAZON" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29486" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12711" RevisionGUID="3dfbb954-68c2-4241-a74a-97853489e38d" CreationDate="2015-04-22T13:34:13.213" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 1 edit id of 1811" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12709" RevisionGUID="fc9b39a8-8499-4017-a141-ea4caba73c83" CreationDate="2015-04-22T13:34:17.693" UserId="11895" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="Related to patents filed, licensed or prosecuted by Applicant AMAZON" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29488" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12709" RevisionGUID="fc9b39a8-8499-4017-a141-ea4caba73c83" CreationDate="2015-04-22T13:34:17.693" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 1 edit id of 1810" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12713" RevisionGUID="78e66c31-dfda-4228-98f1-ee3e8fbcf944" CreationDate="2015-04-22T13:34:20.487" UserId="11895" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="Related to patents filed, licensed or prosecuted by Applicant ADOBE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29490" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12713" RevisionGUID="78e66c31-dfda-4228-98f1-ee3e8fbcf944" CreationDate="2015-04-22T13:34:20.487" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 1 edit id of 1812" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12704" RevisionGUID="8a6b789a-a2da-4d14-9f15-e23bcd13971b" CreationDate="2015-04-22T13:34:24.240" UserId="11895" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text="For questions relating to the requirements for specification, sufficiency, enablement and rules." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29492" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12704" RevisionGUID="8a6b789a-a2da-4d14-9f15-e23bcd13971b" CreationDate="2015-04-22T13:34:24.240" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 1 edit id of 1808" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12706" RevisionGUID="427fec17-661d-4317-aeeb-5b7e0dd5f6cf" CreationDate="2015-04-22T13:34:28.560" UserId="11895" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="Related to patents filed, licensed or prosecuted by Applicant FACEBOOK." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29494" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12706" RevisionGUID="427fec17-661d-4317-aeeb-5b7e0dd5f6cf" CreationDate="2015-04-22T13:34:28.560" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 1 edit id of 1809" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12697" RevisionGUID="626bdfb4-6369-4cb2-8714-1f9ac7db4477" CreationDate="2015-04-22T14:27:16.463" UserId="13996" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="1. US6223166 (Nov 26, 1997)- Cryptographic encoded ticket issuing and collection system for remote purchasers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Try to check https://www.google.com/patents/US20020169623, is very close to claim.&#xD;&#xA;The image describe inventive step of mentioned WO2002091307A9 claim 1&#xD;&#xA;![Image from patent US20020169623][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/KR6JU.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12697" RevisionGUID="84be2550-68fc-4b10-91ba-46239b9efd28" CreationDate="2015-04-22T16:47:14.557" UserId="11895" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="1. [US6223166][1] (Priority: Nov 26, 1997 published : 24 Apr 2001)- Cryptographic encoded ticket issuing and collection system for remote purchasers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Try to check https://www.google.com/patents/US20020169623, is very close to claim.&#xD;&#xA;The image describe inventive step of mentioned WO2002091307A9 claim 1&#xD;&#xA;![Image from patent US20020169623][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.co.in/patents/US6223166&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/KR6JU.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12716" RevisionGUID="3d11e85c-1064-4a33-856f-33e747e9b8a9" CreationDate="2015-04-22T19:36:38.217" UserId="14006" Text=" Please, I want to question is it possible exposure to stealing the provisional patent application? If presented to companies through NOLO Company or other, And whether enough contract agreement to prevent a violation of rights?&#xD;&#xA;      Note: I am a foreigner&#xD;&#xA;          Best regards&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29503" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12716" RevisionGUID="3d11e85c-1064-4a33-856f-33e747e9b8a9" CreationDate="2015-04-22T19:36:38.217" UserId="14006" Text="stealing the provisional patent application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29504" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12716" RevisionGUID="3d11e85c-1064-4a33-856f-33e747e9b8a9" CreationDate="2015-04-22T19:36:38.217" UserId="14006" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;us20120221930&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12717" RevisionGUID="3d818846-3ebc-446b-abeb-fbc2d5abd479" CreationDate="2015-04-22T20:22:23.380" UserId="14007" Text="Is it safe to assume that due to this patent below - NO other system, web-based or other, can be put into place to compete?  Can I not build my own MIS system?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US20110123079][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110123079" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29506" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12717" RevisionGUID="3d818846-3ebc-446b-abeb-fbc2d5abd479" CreationDate="2015-04-22T20:22:23.380" UserId="14007" Text="Does this patent mean I cannot build a better system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29507" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12717" RevisionGUID="3d818846-3ebc-446b-abeb-fbc2d5abd479" CreationDate="2015-04-22T20:22:23.380" UserId="14007" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12718" RevisionGUID="71ff1e28-532d-467b-b16a-a177619bcffa" CreationDate="2015-04-22T23:04:52.637" UserId="14010" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5824100][1]&#xD;&#xA;What is the expiration date for this patent?  Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5824100" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29509" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12718" RevisionGUID="71ff1e28-532d-467b-b16a-a177619bcffa" CreationDate="2015-04-22T23:04:52.637" UserId="14010" Text="Expiration date for patent 5824100" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29510" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12718" RevisionGUID="71ff1e28-532d-467b-b16a-a177619bcffa" CreationDate="2015-04-22T23:04:52.637" UserId="14010" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12721" RevisionGUID="0fd71d61-6d79-4d01-b94a-c665d1d719a1" CreationDate="2015-04-23T00:42:14.460" UserId="13996" Text="Looks like on October 30, 2016. &#xD;&#xA;The patent term adjustment does not found in USPTO pair. Use http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/patents/law/How_to_Locate_Patent_Term_Information.docx " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12722" RevisionGUID="8464a179-f8d4-4ec1-9f1b-f17be9261945" CreationDate="2015-04-23T03:11:49.670" UserId="14014" Text="In reference to the patent:email id id [US1588898][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US1588898&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i need to have detailed information about this patent as i wanted to make a project on aerators. my email id is monumagrawal@gmail.com " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29518" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12722" RevisionGUID="8464a179-f8d4-4ec1-9f1b-f17be9261945" CreationDate="2015-04-23T03:11:49.670" UserId="14014" Text="Can I make a product which infringes on a patent for my own use..?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29519" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12722" RevisionGUID="8464a179-f8d4-4ec1-9f1b-f17be9261945" CreationDate="2015-04-23T03:11:49.670" UserId="14014" Text="&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12722" RevisionGUID="4c5086b5-fb5d-49b5-9c6b-5dde50f82a35" CreationDate="2015-04-23T04:49:28.820" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 38 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent:email id id [US1588898][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US1588898&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i need to have detailed information about this patent as i wanted to make a project on aerators. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12723" RevisionGUID="6fb13dbe-7db5-4891-bd9f-d9e10a87750a" CreationDate="2015-04-23T04:54:17.367" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12724" RevisionGUID="5f51fac4-6a4a-4d01-8266-2f8f9edf6e60" CreationDate="2015-04-23T04:54:17.367" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12725" RevisionGUID="7317d611-4a9f-402d-bf94-5321d11a47d4" CreationDate="2015-04-23T04:55:05.357" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12726" RevisionGUID="88795337-b538-46af-a20e-e51c064378b7" CreationDate="2015-04-23T04:55:05.357" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12727" RevisionGUID="52161094-fd41-4e26-870b-1c39dd10c903" CreationDate="2015-04-23T04:55:44.453" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12728" RevisionGUID="8c15ed99-d2bd-4118-adf3-51503884e3de" CreationDate="2015-04-23T04:55:44.453" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12729" RevisionGUID="2c425c7b-4e6a-4253-b7a9-bee0cbb73843" CreationDate="2015-04-23T04:56:19.873" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12730" RevisionGUID="ad009a40-8d7c-4b8b-9f9b-89e21f25b022" CreationDate="2015-04-23T04:56:19.873" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12731" RevisionGUID="22770f97-5ea0-4dad-ad71-320b05f3ee9c" CreationDate="2015-04-23T04:57:16.610" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12732" RevisionGUID="596bd174-5502-4589-92db-4e7f525eb7f3" CreationDate="2015-04-23T04:57:16.610" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29532" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12722" RevisionGUID="efa0b93f-95dc-4316-bae6-7ea5e1d037b0" CreationDate="2015-04-23T08:44:30.803" UserId="10011" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[3801],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:11895,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Pushpak&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29533" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12718" RevisionGUID="d308f7e3-26b3-4d1e-af84-9773e200971c" CreationDate="2015-04-23T08:47:40.950" UserId="10011" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[3801],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:11895,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Pushpak&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12733" RevisionGUID="3e011411-dcec-4e5e-acd5-54c6ca9ef7da" CreationDate="2015-04-23T10:04:06.720" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; Is it safe to assume that due to this patent below - NO other system, web-based or other, can be put into place to compete? Can I not build my own MIS system?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That patent is a &quot;pre-Alice patent&quot;. IANAL, but it appears somewhat unlikely to me that, for example, Claim 1 in that patent is significantly more than an abstract idea. You can also try to find prior art that could be used to invalidate the patent in the event of being sued for infringing it. You can also hire a lawyer to look at several of possible reasons for why the patent might be invalid and get an &quot;opinion of counsel&quot; stating that the patent is likely invalid. Doing so won't invalidate the patent, but it will make it harder to find you at fault for *willfull* infringement. Basically, having the opinion lowers your damages if you happen get sued and lose the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you have basically three options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option one is to give up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option two is to just go ahead and build your own MIS that might infringe, and wait to be sued. Statistically speaking, your MIS system business is much more likely to fail as a business than to be successful enough to be worth suing. The good part is that once you're worth suing, you probably also have enough cash flow to lawyer up. Many patents are found invalid or not infringed in litigation. It's also not the end of the world if you end up having to pay a reasonable royalty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option three is to design a MIS system different enough that it doesn't infringe (and possibly file your own patents on it, if you have an invention that is not abstract in the post-Alice world).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the above assumes you want to start a business. If you just want to make a MIS system for the heck of it and release it as FOSS, then I guess that obviously limits your options in terms of getting appropriate legal advice, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12726" RevisionGUID="34a2fff2-e542-4347-b2f8-71fce7a87949" CreationDate="2015-04-23T18:07:57.480" UserId="11895" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="Related to patents filed, licensed or prosecuted by Applicant SAMSUNG" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29541" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12726" RevisionGUID="34a2fff2-e542-4347-b2f8-71fce7a87949" CreationDate="2015-04-23T18:07:57.480" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 1 edit id of 1814" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12732" RevisionGUID="576bcf6b-f7c9-44d0-acc3-f67979468067" CreationDate="2015-04-23T18:07:59.970" UserId="11895" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="Related to patents filed, licensed or prosecuted by Applicant SONY" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29543" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12732" RevisionGUID="576bcf6b-f7c9-44d0-acc3-f67979468067" CreationDate="2015-04-23T18:07:59.970" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 1 edit id of 1817" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12724" RevisionGUID="2a9d93a3-403d-4871-a0ff-4f6ab4c1dd37" CreationDate="2015-04-23T18:08:02.597" UserId="11895" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="Related to patents filed, licensed or prosecuted by Applicant IBM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29545" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12724" RevisionGUID="2a9d93a3-403d-4871-a0ff-4f6ab4c1dd37" CreationDate="2015-04-23T18:08:02.597" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 1 edit id of 1813" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29546" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12730" RevisionGUID="41477ad3-be78-49d5-8bf1-cf148a9f202e" CreationDate="2015-04-23T18:08:05.303" UserId="11895" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="Related to patents filed, licensed or prosecuted by Applicant EBAY" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29547" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12730" RevisionGUID="41477ad3-be78-49d5-8bf1-cf148a9f202e" CreationDate="2015-04-23T18:08:05.303" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 1 edit id of 1816" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12728" RevisionGUID="b8f85696-8ae3-4ba3-ae5b-d161347f3b11" CreationDate="2015-04-23T18:08:07.860" UserId="11895" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="Related to patents filed, licensed or prosecuted by Applicant YAHOO" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29549" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12728" RevisionGUID="b8f85696-8ae3-4ba3-ae5b-d161347f3b11" CreationDate="2015-04-23T18:08:07.860" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 1 edit id of 1815" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12735" RevisionGUID="473bc13c-6bcf-4d3b-8f43-e63ffd41ab2d" CreationDate="2015-04-23T19:35:11.153" UserId="14021" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8384613][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;what one has to do, if this patent is not new and just gives the same idea patented in 1990?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be greatful on an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8384613" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29551" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12735" RevisionGUID="473bc13c-6bcf-4d3b-8f43-e63ffd41ab2d" CreationDate="2015-04-23T19:35:11.153" UserId="14021" Text="My old patented invention appears to be patented again" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29552" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12735" RevisionGUID="473bc13c-6bcf-4d3b-8f43-e63ffd41ab2d" CreationDate="2015-04-23T19:35:11.153" UserId="14021" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12736" RevisionGUID="f3898d57-68ca-4102-8606-34fe7dcce9c3" CreationDate="2015-04-23T20:48:24.310" UserId="14016" Text="Any claim that covers embodiments rendered obvious by the description of the previous patent is invalid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first glance it appears that the newer patent adds a lot of constraints to the structure; these additional constraints might not be obvious even if the purpose of the invention is the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because a car has already been patented doesn't mean you can't patent a car. You can still patent a car that has specifics to it that are not rendered obvious by any previously described car. You just can't patent a car *at the same level of generality* anymore." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12737" RevisionGUID="d743c265-9693-42d2-85c9-e98ccc49ccf6" CreationDate="2015-04-24T11:35:32.080" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12738" RevisionGUID="969b2b2a-c525-4b47-879a-9883e6585d21" CreationDate="2015-04-24T11:35:32.080" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29561" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12739" RevisionGUID="6bf00379-1078-4165-a9ef-700d8bfcf68e" CreationDate="2015-04-24T11:37:27.047" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12740" RevisionGUID="95ba89f2-b80d-42f6-bf2a-ace70f13d526" CreationDate="2015-04-24T11:37:27.047" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12738" RevisionGUID="3e43984b-7e8f-46fe-b90e-49dff16e103c" CreationDate="2015-04-24T12:26:44.860" UserId="11895" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="Question relates to The Leahy–Smith America Invents Act (AIA), its interpretation, application and discussions thereof" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29564" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12738" RevisionGUID="3e43984b-7e8f-46fe-b90e-49dff16e103c" CreationDate="2015-04-24T12:26:44.860" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 10011 edit id of 1818" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12740" RevisionGUID="0d07522d-f89b-4944-8ca1-9368d4567ba3" CreationDate="2015-04-24T12:26:50.847" UserId="11895" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="Questions related to Abstract of specification rules, formatting and requirements thereof." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29566" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12740" RevisionGUID="0d07522d-f89b-4944-8ca1-9368d4567ba3" CreationDate="2015-04-24T12:26:50.847" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 10011 edit id of 1819" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12741" RevisionGUID="e8393db1-af7a-4091-b168-f82cc8f4b0e7" CreationDate="2015-04-24T14:47:57.790" UserId="14024" Text="I stumbled upon the following patent that appears to patent calculating three checksums instead of one: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130272429&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if the obviousness of the basic idea is not enough to throw this out there should be plenty of prior art available for calculating checksums for each color plane in various old picture and video compression standards, container standards and open source software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rest of the patent seems to be HEVC specific, and boils down to &quot;to calculate the checksum for the image, you have to decode the image like it's HEVC&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29568" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12741" RevisionGUID="e8393db1-af7a-4091-b168-f82cc8f4b0e7" CreationDate="2015-04-24T14:47:57.790" UserId="14024" Text="Patent on calculating three checksums instead of one" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29569" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12741" RevisionGUID="e8393db1-af7a-4091-b168-f82cc8f4b0e7" CreationDate="2015-04-24T14:47:57.790" UserId="14024" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12742" RevisionGUID="2747e906-f3bb-4b64-a759-bd7bab1e48b0" CreationDate="2015-04-24T15:20:26.540" UserId="14025" Text="I am working on a provisional patent for a household object. The invention is a simple item that comes in a large and small size.  Do I need to file separate applications for each size, if they-are otherwise similar in look and function?  I have the techical drawings for both." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29571" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12742" RevisionGUID="2747e906-f3bb-4b64-a759-bd7bab1e48b0" CreationDate="2015-04-24T15:20:26.540" UserId="14025" Text="Multiple sizes both" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29572" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12742" RevisionGUID="2747e906-f3bb-4b64-a759-bd7bab1e48b0" CreationDate="2015-04-24T15:20:26.540" UserId="14025" Text="&lt;sizes&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12743" RevisionGUID="1df296cd-f375-4085-bbd9-eec1377c0404" CreationDate="2015-04-25T01:39:46.500" UserId="14029" Text="This question probably was already asked thousands of times, yet I could not find any similar question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One creates a software.&#xD;&#xA;An innovative one with lots of fancy new things which were never applied.&#xD;&#xA;Lets say, a networking system between Earth and Mars on top of SMTP. That software is fully FOSS, and as such is probably financially poor and its devs have no money to patent things they do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some years later, one does patent the same method of networking as something generic, such as &quot;Interplanetary networking on SMTP&quot;. Does the former need to cease to exist if the one who made the patent demands pay? Also don't forget there's almost no money to fight in court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Nobody would build a networking system on top of a mail transfer protocol, make it a &quot;something which nobody ever made&quot; sort of thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29578" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12743" RevisionGUID="1df296cd-f375-4085-bbd9-eec1377c0404" CreationDate="2015-04-25T01:39:46.500" UserId="14029" Text="Any sort of fair use clause for software using metods years before they get patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29579" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12743" RevisionGUID="1df296cd-f375-4085-bbd9-eec1377c0404" CreationDate="2015-04-25T01:39:46.500" UserId="14029" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29580" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12743" RevisionGUID="3ccd2280-5de8-454c-a46d-7d2bbda55490" CreationDate="2015-04-25T02:24:04.420" UserId="11895" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Any sort of fair use clause for software using methods years before they get patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29581" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12743" RevisionGUID="3ccd2280-5de8-454c-a46d-7d2bbda55490" CreationDate="2015-04-25T02:24:04.420" UserId="11895" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9901" RevisionGUID="87c3f51a-e563-4165-926a-dc679d61d370" CreationDate="2015-04-25T09:05:42.210" UserId="7433" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="I believe the concept of two-pointers in a list goes back to the works of Newell and Simon at Carnegie Institute of Technology or Rand Corp. in **1957**. This is probably the first time the term &quot;lists&quot; as a data-structure description is used. This is a bit before LISP was invented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Newell, Allen; Simon, H.A., The logic theory machine -- A complex information processing system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: http://www.textfiles.com/bitsavers/pdf/rand/ipl/P-954_Programming_The_Logic_Theory_Machine_Jan57.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Lists**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Page 5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There should be no restriction on the nature of the items in a list.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These might range from a single symbol or number to an arbitrary list.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus it should be possible to make lists, lists of lists and lists of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lists of lists, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pages 11/12&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lists are the general units of information in the memory. A list&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consists of an ordered set of items of information. Any item on a list&#xD;&#xA;&gt; may be either a list or an element, and these are fundamentally&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different types of units as we shall see later (the difference arises&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mostly from the fact that an element is contained in a single JOHNNIAC&#xD;&#xA;&gt; word) . Since a list is itself an ordered set of items which may&#xD;&#xA;&gt; themselves he lists, we obtain most of the flexibility we desire in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the memory structure. There is no limit to the complexity of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; structures that can be built up--provided that one knows how to use&#xD;&#xA;&gt; them - except the total memory space available. Also, there is no&#xD;&#xA;&gt; restriction to the number of lists on which an item can appear. For&#xD;&#xA;&gt; example, if we have a list of items, we can construct one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; indexes (lists) on each of which an arbitrary subset of the items of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the original list appears.  With each item located in a given list we&#xD;&#xA;&gt; may associate descriptive information without disturbing the general&#xD;&#xA;&gt; structure of the lists. That is, each item can'have a list of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; description elements associated with it. As many descriptions may be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; put on the list as desired, and, since they are self-identifying (by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means of the description names they contain) they may be put on in any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; order. Descriptions are associated with the item on a given list;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hence, if an item is on several lists, it can have several distinct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; description lists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**IPL-V Implementation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2008/RM3739.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Page 4 (IPL-V Coding Sheet)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've table-merged it with the data from the patent image.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Name    | SYMB    | LINK      IPL-V - Instruction Structure List / Coding Sheet &#xD;&#xA;    --------+---------+----------&#xD;&#xA;    L1	    | 9-1	  | 100&#xD;&#xA;    100	    | S4	  | 101&#xD;&#xA;    101	    | S5	  | 0&#xD;&#xA;    9-1	    | 0	      | 200&#xD;&#xA;    200	    | A1	  | 201&#xD;&#xA;    201	    | V1	  | 202&#xD;&#xA;    202	    | A2	  | 203&#xD;&#xA;    203     | V2	  | 0&#xD;&#xA;    ---------------------------- The following items are from the patent image.&#xD;&#xA;    PtrAux  | Item    | PtrNext  Using their field names.&#xD;&#xA;    ----------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    112     | 102     | 114&#xD;&#xA;    110     | 104     | 106&#xD;&#xA;    104     | 106     | 108&#xD;&#xA;    ..down  | 108     | 110&#xD;&#xA;    108     | 110     | ..down  Down = downwards arrow, indicating more items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somehow, magically, it's the same structure.&#xD;&#xA;This might constitute Prior Art for the Claim &quot;two pointers next/aux&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The implementation has additional fields PQ next to Name, Symb, Link, but they are only used as indicators or command flags, not used as pointers. This is not applicable for the &quot;tertiary aux pointer&quot; claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claim of &quot;tertiary aux pointers&quot; is not covered here.&#xD;&#xA;Does something like this exist in LISP?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12742" RevisionGUID="d6a1340b-e104-4cf5-994d-7319fa1be2f6" CreationDate="2015-04-25T11:56:59.473" UserId="10011" Comment="added 12 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I am working on a provisional patent application for a household object. The invention is a simple item that comes in a large and small size.  Do I need to file separate applications for each size, if they-are otherwise similar in look and function?  I have the techical drawings for both." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29586" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12742" RevisionGUID="d6a1340b-e104-4cf5-994d-7319fa1be2f6" CreationDate="2015-04-25T11:56:59.473" UserId="10011" Comment="added 12 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Should I file multiple provisional patent applications when my invention can span different sizes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29587" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12742" RevisionGUID="d6a1340b-e104-4cf5-994d-7319fa1be2f6" CreationDate="2015-04-25T11:56:59.473" UserId="10011" Comment="added 12 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;sizes&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12746" RevisionGUID="1bbe47f9-2f5a-4215-aa3e-49a83a8db5a9" CreationDate="2015-04-25T19:27:11.317" UserId="11947" Text="If my application was rejected, can I write a new application based on the same idea, or it would be rejected because the old application was considered as a prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29599" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12746" RevisionGUID="1bbe47f9-2f5a-4215-aa3e-49a83a8db5a9" CreationDate="2015-04-25T19:27:11.317" UserId="11947" Text="Can I submit a new application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29600" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12746" RevisionGUID="1bbe47f9-2f5a-4215-aa3e-49a83a8db5a9" CreationDate="2015-04-25T19:27:11.317" UserId="11947" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;priority&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12747" RevisionGUID="280063ca-b5e2-4551-84cd-30cc089cf7c4" CreationDate="2015-04-25T19:39:52.340" UserId="11947" Text="I am working on software patent application and planning to start the business after submitting the application. &#xD;&#xA;What happens if my application is rejected. Now my idea is in the open. Considering if my business working and investments are coming in, can I lawyer up and submit new application for the same idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29602" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12747" RevisionGUID="280063ca-b5e2-4551-84cd-30cc089cf7c4" CreationDate="2015-04-25T19:39:52.340" UserId="11947" Text="How applying for patent affects my business" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29603" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12747" RevisionGUID="280063ca-b5e2-4551-84cd-30cc089cf7c4" CreationDate="2015-04-25T19:39:52.340" UserId="11947" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;software-as-a-service&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12749" RevisionGUID="c497ced2-ea2f-48c3-85cf-b920d798effe" CreationDate="2015-04-26T12:25:06.970" UserId="14035" Text="In reference to the patent: [US552096][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US552096&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the original patent three of them for Mr. John j. Burnshire back in the 1800's for a vehicle and baling press.  Are they of any value to anyone" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29611" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12749" RevisionGUID="c497ced2-ea2f-48c3-85cf-b920d798effe" CreationDate="2015-04-26T12:25:06.970" UserId="14035" Text="original patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29612" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12749" RevisionGUID="c497ced2-ea2f-48c3-85cf-b920d798effe" CreationDate="2015-04-26T12:25:06.970" UserId="14035" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12750" RevisionGUID="c38a31bc-7d3c-4ce5-a8ae-718f45e178ae" CreationDate="2015-04-26T18:22:13.510" UserId="14037" Text="In reference to the patent: [EP2709017A1][1] the summary of the invention states: &quot;the invention provides a device for controlling the access to a cache structure comprising multiple cache sets during the execution of at least one computer program, the device comprising a module for generating seed values during the execution of the at least one computer program; a parametric hash function module for generating a cache set identifier to access the cache structure, the identifier being generated by combining a seed value generated by the module for generating seed values and predetermined bits of an address to access a main memory associated to the cache structure.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Find what appears to be a partial disclosure of the underlying principles of [EP2709017A1][1] before the patent filing date of Sep 14, 2012 in the publication: [F. J. Cazorla, E. Quin ̃ones, T. Vardanega, L. Cucu, B. Triquet, G. Bernat, E. Berger, J. Abella, F. Wartel, M. Houston, L. Santinelli, L. Kosmidis, C. Lo, and D. Maxim. PROARTIS: Probabilistically Analysable Real-Time Systems. Rapport de recherche INIRIA/RR-7869, INRIA, Jan 2012.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP2709017A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://people.cs.umass.edu/~emery/pubs/PROARTIS-TECS.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular see the contents of Page 17 of [PROARTIS: Probabilistically Analysable Real-Time Systems] [2]:  &quot;Fully-associative caches are complex to implement and energy-consuming. However, when using a set-associative (with random replacement) or a direct-map cache, the placement policy is deterministic.  Deterministic placement policies create dependencies and lead to cache risk patterns and hence to time pathological cases.  We devise designs based on set-associative or direct-mapped caches using **random replacement algorithms**, which exhibit a similar behaviour at a lower cost.  **At hardware level, we devise a solution where we can randomise the placement function at program start up.  To that end we XOR the address accessing the cache with a randomly generated number and use the result as the new address to access the cache.  Under every placement setup, the address colliding in the different sets are different.  Hence, different runs will lead to different (random) colliding addresses in each set and hence different (random) conflicts and execution times.** &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see Figure 10 of [PROARTIS: Probabilistically Analysable Real-Time Systems] [2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the above earlier publication invalidate part or all of the EP patent application? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29615" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12750" RevisionGUID="c38a31bc-7d3c-4ce5-a8ae-718f45e178ae" CreationDate="2015-04-26T18:22:13.510" UserId="14037" Text="Partial disclosure of EP2709017A1 before the patent filing date of Sep 14, 2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29616" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12750" RevisionGUID="c38a31bc-7d3c-4ce5-a8ae-718f45e178ae" CreationDate="2015-04-26T18:22:13.510" UserId="14037" Text="&lt;prior&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29617" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12749" RevisionGUID="7daaae6d-c6e5-4f23-9987-b0bd9306df3c" CreationDate="2015-04-26T18:40:01.350" UserId="10011" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[10679],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12751" RevisionGUID="eab033eb-f67f-4c31-a11a-5a13f28c945b" CreationDate="2015-04-26T23:20:11.060" UserId="14038" Text="Your abandoned application may be used as prior art against a later filed patent application if it is published prior to abandonment, and you file the second application more than one year after the date of publication.   However, if you allow the application to become abandoned without filing a continuation application, you open  yourself up to other prior art, such as public disclosure of your product, other similar products coming on the market.  Also, if another inventor files a patent application prior to your later filing, they will be line for the patent even if you invented it prior to them.&#xD;&#xA;That being said, typically for a software patent application, the US Patent Office will probably not examine your application for at least 18 months, and closer to two years in software patent applications, and you can prolong the examination process for several years after that through responses and appeals.   You can also file continuation applications to extend your priority date for a number of years as long as you file the continuation application before the earlier application goes abandoned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12752" RevisionGUID="7825c0ad-0210-4d1f-907c-2a8435a3837c" CreationDate="2015-04-27T02:14:01.963" UserId="14040" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2014140543A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014140543A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can it be that this patent will be granted if there are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-US 20100240990 A1 (http://www.google.com/patents/US20100240990?cl=en)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;-CA 2692570 A1 (http://www.google.com/patents/CA2692570A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29620" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12752" RevisionGUID="7825c0ad-0210-4d1f-907c-2a8435a3837c" CreationDate="2015-04-27T02:14:01.963" UserId="14040" Text="how can it be that this patent will be granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29621" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12752" RevisionGUID="7825c0ad-0210-4d1f-907c-2a8435a3837c" CreationDate="2015-04-27T02:14:01.963" UserId="14040" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12753" RevisionGUID="55d9ca40-a183-4172-84ec-d4c5b8f8f58f" CreationDate="2015-04-27T02:22:29.513" UserId="14040" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140314679][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140314679&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;there exists prior art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- (http://www.google.com/patents/US20100240990?cl=en)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- (http://www.google.com/patents/CA2692570A1?cl=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29623" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12753" RevisionGUID="55d9ca40-a183-4172-84ec-d4c5b8f8f58f" CreationDate="2015-04-27T02:22:29.513" UserId="14040" Text="there exists prior art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29624" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12753" RevisionGUID="55d9ca40-a183-4172-84ec-d4c5b8f8f58f" CreationDate="2015-04-27T02:22:29.513" UserId="14040" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29626" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12752" RevisionGUID="91dff901-1df7-46f5-bab7-26f686be497a" CreationDate="2015-04-27T06:04:28.637" UserId="10011" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[12753],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12753" RevisionGUID="ccfc8bd4-74aa-4fcd-a1ba-4f4ba5419115" CreationDate="2015-04-27T06:07:44.963" UserId="10011" Comment="added 57 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140314679][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140314679&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would the following applications qualify as prior art for this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [US20100240990](http://www.google.com/patents/US20100240990)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- [CA2692570A1](http://www.google.com/patents/CA2692570A1)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29628" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12753" RevisionGUID="ccfc8bd4-74aa-4fcd-a1ba-4f4ba5419115" CreationDate="2015-04-27T06:07:44.963" UserId="10011" Comment="added 57 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Prior art for US20140314679" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29629" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12753" RevisionGUID="ccfc8bd4-74aa-4fcd-a1ba-4f4ba5419115" CreationDate="2015-04-27T06:07:44.963" UserId="10011" Comment="added 57 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20140314679&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12756" RevisionGUID="46d89890-eb8e-4e62-92c7-939849a918ca" CreationDate="2015-04-27T11:53:25.237" UserId="14043" Text="We're working on a mobile app and discovered that a competitor has an active U.S. patent on the same idea and workflow. However, we are in the UK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Does the U.S. patent apply to our works?&#xD;&#xA;- Are we allowed to distribute our app in international App Stores?&#xD;&#xA;- Must we exclude the U.S. from the store markets?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29641" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12756" RevisionGUID="46d89890-eb8e-4e62-92c7-939849a918ca" CreationDate="2015-04-27T11:53:25.237" UserId="14043" Text="U.S. patent for mobile app" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29642" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12756" RevisionGUID="46d89890-eb8e-4e62-92c7-939849a918ca" CreationDate="2015-04-27T11:53:25.237" UserId="14043" Text="&lt;mobile&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12757" RevisionGUID="1ba8d399-7d0d-4051-b696-eca3e82ee87f" CreationDate="2015-04-28T10:14:03.403" UserDisplayName="user4194" Text="I want to find a prior art document based on anticipation. Here is an example claim in two types.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Type 1: The system of claim 1, wherein the specific device is &quot;one of A and B.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Type 2: The system of claim 1, wherein the specific device is &quot;A or B.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I find a Document 1 which is disclosing that &quot;the specific device is A,&quot; could the Document be used as prior art? Or should I find a document describing exactly that &quot;the specific device is A or B?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29644" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12757" RevisionGUID="1ba8d399-7d0d-4051-b696-eca3e82ee87f" CreationDate="2015-04-28T10:14:03.403" UserDisplayName="user4194" Text="How to invalidate &quot;A or B&quot; type claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29645" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12757" RevisionGUID="1ba8d399-7d0d-4051-b696-eca3e82ee87f" CreationDate="2015-04-28T10:14:03.403" UserDisplayName="user4194" Text="&lt;invalidate&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12758" RevisionGUID="85d402e4-eff6-424a-9eb2-25b4d14893d0" CreationDate="2015-04-28T13:47:13.580" UserId="5055" Text="[EP2709017 A1](https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP12184447) is not a patent but a patent application, however [intention to grant was communicated to applicant](https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP12184447&amp;lng=en&amp;tab=event) and the patent will be granted in designated European contracting states as taxes have been paid (actually depending on filed translations).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mention a prior art which is a technical report authored by the inventors and other researchers. This prior art was disclosed in the patent application itself. This is fortunate for them regarding the US patent application, since it is definitely relevant and all inventors are authors of the report, they know about it. Failing to mention relevant prior art to the USPTO that an applicant knows about endangers the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet, without entering into the details, since they refer to this document and explain how the invention improves from what is described the report, and since examiner granted the application, I would say it does not invalidate the invention. It's totally different from a prior art you would have found that was unknown to examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would stress that patented inventions are **limited to what is mentioned in independent claims**, in this case, claims 1 and 7. From a quick look, it seems that the *parametric hash function* is part of the inventive step on top of the technical report you mention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, I wouldn't expect from a public European research institution to try to patent something that would be invalidated by a previously published technical report from the same authors. Authors probably know or were definitely told that they should patent before publication. The [lack of argument with the European examiner](https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP12184447&amp;lng=en&amp;tab=doclist) is surprising (to me, at least) but might hint a very narrow patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12760" RevisionGUID="789ab682-3736-42f3-b16d-aeb7f7cf4a0f" CreationDate="2015-04-28T17:31:48.107" UserId="14051" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2014165349A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014165349A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this patentable? Where is the inventive step? This reminds me of Molecular Pathology vs. Myriad Genetics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29653" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12760" RevisionGUID="789ab682-3736-42f3-b16d-aeb7f7cf4a0f" CreationDate="2015-04-28T17:31:48.107" UserId="14051" Text="Not Novel and Obvious" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29654" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12760" RevisionGUID="789ab682-3736-42f3-b16d-aeb7f7cf4a0f" CreationDate="2015-04-28T17:31:48.107" UserId="14051" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12761" RevisionGUID="610152ef-59a3-440d-8723-abc80c9dfdad" CreationDate="2015-04-28T20:29:33.587" UserId="14052" Text="I would like to know if it is possible to change the order of inventors after a utility patent application is granted by US PTO.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If possible, how can I do the same ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29656" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12761" RevisionGUID="610152ef-59a3-440d-8723-abc80c9dfdad" CreationDate="2015-04-28T20:29:33.587" UserId="14052" Text="How to change the order of inventors after a patent is granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29657" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12761" RevisionGUID="610152ef-59a3-440d-8723-abc80c9dfdad" CreationDate="2015-04-28T20:29:33.587" UserId="14052" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12762" RevisionGUID="8f9338a2-35cf-4ea3-a94c-bfd56b0323bd" CreationDate="2015-04-28T21:35:38.287" UserId="13843" Text="I have filed a Continuation, that focuses on a totally different aspect of the invention, and, if and when granted, expect the Continuation patent to be worth more than the original patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming I want to eventually sell both patents in the putative patent family, would it be OK to try to sell the current patent now to one buyer, or could this severely reduce the value and sales prospects for sale of the second patent to a second buyer?  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29659" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12762" RevisionGUID="8f9338a2-35cf-4ea3-a94c-bfd56b0323bd" CreationDate="2015-04-28T21:35:38.287" UserId="13843" Text="Sell patents from patent family to different buyers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29660" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12762" RevisionGUID="8f9338a2-35cf-4ea3-a94c-bfd56b0323bd" CreationDate="2015-04-28T21:35:38.287" UserId="13843" Text="&lt;continuation&gt;&lt;sellpatent&gt;&lt;family&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12761" RevisionGUID="b2f15904-843b-491a-8ab5-1670be709217" CreationDate="2015-04-28T22:17:54.503" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="Is it possible to change the listed order of inventors after a utility patent application is granted by USPTO? And if so, how could I go about doing that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12763" RevisionGUID="b78eeb9b-32ec-4da4-84ab-22fd4822a39e" CreationDate="2015-04-29T00:16:28.660" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; a Continuation, that focuses on a **totally different aspect** of the invention&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's hope the PTO agrees that it's a &quot;totally different aspect&quot;. If not, you may receive an obviousness-type double-patenting rejection to overcome. Usually, that's done with a terminal disclaimer that will require common ownership of the patents. I would be very wary of selling the first patent before the PTO has even started examining the second application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or could this severely reduce the value and sales prospects for sale of the second patent to a second buyer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problems associated with this scenario are why, 99% of the time, it will be a requirement that common ownership of the patents is maintained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, talk to a real lawyer who can look at all the details of your case and all that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12765" RevisionGUID="2bd06e39-8573-4f85-b503-4c77ab29707f" CreationDate="2015-04-29T00:41:28.583" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; Type 1: The system of claim 1, wherein the specific device is &quot;one of A and B.&quot; Type 2: The system of claim 1, wherein the specific device is &quot;A or B.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If I find a Document 1 which is disclosing that &quot;the specific device is A,&quot; could the Document be used as prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. You only have to find *something* within the scope of the claim to render it invalid by anticipation. You don't have to show that *everything* within the scope of the claim was anticipated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that, if there is anything at all special about B, it would be unusual for a patentee not to have a narrower claim that limits specifically to B. So if you are infringing by using B, you wouldn't usually escape just by finding A in the prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12766" RevisionGUID="233b3ed0-186a-416e-a9f0-fa6896de1cb7" CreationDate="2015-04-29T00:55:18.667" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; If my application was rejected, can I write a new application based on the same idea, or it would be rejected because the old application was considered as a prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depends on the dates. If the old application was published, and more than a year has passed from its publication, you can't file anew. (I'm just blatantly assuming we're talking about the U.S. here since you didn't specify otherwise).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is to not say that you ever *should* file anew. Why would you do that? Did the examiner have a good reason for rejecting? If so, you have to move on from that idea. If not, you have to keep fighting until you are taken final and beyond (RCE and repeat if you need to amend, or appeal if your claims are proper).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I think of it is, every examiner has a certain number of times he/she has to be proved wrong before he/she issues a patent. This is almost always at least 1 and rarely more than 3. So why would you ever want to start over?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12767" RevisionGUID="032e613b-8780-42d0-bbcd-3afe45c286cc" CreationDate="2015-04-29T01:46:24.637" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; That leads me to a question whether a fictious technology mentioned in a science fiction work, when described in sufficient technical detail, can ever be submitted as a valid prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. If **described in sufficient technical detail** means real-world technical detail (rather than fantasy-world technical detail), then it has the possibility of being prior art that a person of ordinary skill in the art could be influenced by to create a claimed invention before its critical date, thus invalidating the patent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Multi-touch computer pads were used throughout the television show Star Trek: The Next Generation, which ran from 1987 to 1994.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. And I'm not aware of anyone having an issued patent claim that just reads &quot;multi-touch computer pad&quot;. The question is, did Star Trek show things that patents actually claim? For example, the &quot;rubber-band&quot; software effect claimed by Apple? Or even capacitive sensor arrays, the basic &quot;technology&quot; behind multi-touch? If not, such claims aren't directly invalidated by it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The general problem with using science fiction as prior art is that the science fiction works usually do *not* describe the technology at all, let alone in detail. The might describe its *use* and *functionality* in great detail. But patent claims rarely recite just the functionality, they usually recite at least a modicum of technical details that produce the functionality. And these are actually quite unlikely to be described in science fiction works." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12768" RevisionGUID="39107036-b145-491d-9827-509c6d2981ad" CreationDate="2015-04-29T02:38:38.093" UserId="8184" Text="I filed for a utility patent and afterward I found someone's utility patent that won't allow mine to be approved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A close example is: applying for a specific design for a shoe and hoping that it would be an all encompassing utility patent for a shoe. Then one finds out someone already patented a more general patent that is anything surrounding the foot with no specific drawing - only a general drawing of a circle around the foot and referencing anything that goes around the foot is the all encompassing shoe patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I now file a specific design patent for my shoe - or will the more specific design that I filed for in my original utility patent cover the specific design, assuming the drawings I provided are specific and detailed? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29670" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12768" RevisionGUID="39107036-b145-491d-9827-509c6d2981ad" CreationDate="2015-04-29T02:38:38.093" UserId="8184" Text="hypothetical situation: utility to design patent - wanted utility patent already gone; can I create a design patent based on existing utility patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29671" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12768" RevisionGUID="39107036-b145-491d-9827-509c6d2981ad" CreationDate="2015-04-29T02:38:38.093" UserId="8184" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;utility&gt;&lt;design&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12769" RevisionGUID="da98cd44-b6d5-4114-a806-2613bb80aaf4" CreationDate="2015-04-29T03:01:02.327" UserId="14016" Text="It's a tricky area legally. I don't think your scenario would even get to legal action, however. It's much more likely that the patent holder would complain to the app store. The most likely outcome of such a complaint is that your app would be summarily delisted, at least from U.S. market, as the app store has little incentive to fight on your behalf and likely incurs liability itself if based in the U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to investigate the legal aspects, here's a link to a relevant article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://jolt.richmond.edu/v14i1/article1.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12770" RevisionGUID="36d142e4-fc0b-4f72-a827-4c0d7a222f6d" CreationDate="2015-04-29T03:14:12.800" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; Should I now file a specific design patent for my shoe[?]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, you should discuss your case with a qualified patent attorney or agent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you insist on self-help, you should ask yourself the key question differentiating utility vs. design patents: does the novelty principally relate to the function or the aesthetics? Keep in mind there may some overlap between function and aesthetics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you still have some useful function described in your patent application, that you think cannot result from the prior patent, and which you believe is not obvious, you should keep pursuing your utility patent but with *appropriately narrowed claims* to exclude that which is obvious in view of the prior art. Sometimes a little creativity in claim drafting is required, which is why you should really consider hiring an attorney at this stage. This will still give you a broader monopoly than a design patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, last time I checked, I think there were cases of design patents based on the drawings of utility patents, and it can be done. Look this up to see how you can claim priority correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the above assumes U.S. law, since you didn't specify otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12770" RevisionGUID="e226337f-adbd-43c3-a741-9f9c7f1c5bc6" CreationDate="2015-04-29T04:23:23.927" UserId="14016" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="&gt; Should I now file a specific design patent for my shoe[?]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, you should discuss your case with a qualified patent attorney or agent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you insist on self-help, you should ask yourself the key question differentiating utility vs. design patents: does the novelty principally relate to the function or the aesthetics? Keep in mind there may some overlap between function and aesthetics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you still have some useful function described in your patent application, that you think cannot result from the prior patent, and which you believe is not obvious, you should keep pursuing your utility patent but with *appropriately narrowed claims* to exclude that which is obvious in view of the prior art. Sometimes a little creativity in claim drafting is required, which is why you should really consider hiring an attorney at this stage. This will still give you a broader monopoly than a design patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, last time I checked, I think there were cases of design patents based on the drawings of utility patents, and it can be done. Look this up to see how you can claim priority correctly (hopefully you haven't passed the one-year limit on prior disclosure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the above assumes U.S. law, since you didn't specify otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12771" RevisionGUID="58e97a51-f8ca-4678-a78d-545a23f73c53" CreationDate="2015-04-29T06:09:24.327" UserId="14059" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20050025364][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20050025364&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hii &#xD;&#xA;         I used this patent as a reference in my thesis report but now it is having different content. please provide me the earlier content regarding length of palm lines and their personality results according to their length ranges mentioned in them. I really need it in my report and I would be very grateful to you for the same" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29677" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12771" RevisionGUID="58e97a51-f8ca-4678-a78d-545a23f73c53" CreationDate="2015-04-29T06:09:24.327" UserId="14059" Text="It was having different content earlier that I am not able to access now" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29678" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12771" RevisionGUID="58e97a51-f8ca-4678-a78d-545a23f73c53" CreationDate="2015-04-29T06:09:24.327" UserId="14059" Text="&lt;validity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12772" RevisionGUID="d3b595ff-6780-405f-abe0-a11bbe607a7d" CreationDate="2015-04-29T06:48:22.383" UserId="14016" Text="In&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **One** creates a software [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some years later, **one** does patent the same method of networking as something generic [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is &quot;one&quot; the same person? And is the patent first submitted &quot;some years later&quot;? If so, that would be an example of &quot;fraud on the patent office&quot; since the patent could only be obtained by withholding key information that the applicant knows about prior use of the method in the U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the patent isn't filed until &quot;years later&quot;, the FOSS would almost certainly be prior art against the patent, and could be used to invalidate it. This is assuming that the FOSS, even in its early versions, really was an example of the patented method.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Does the [innovative software] need to cease to exist if the one who made the patent demands pay? Also don't forget there's almost no money to fight in court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can't fight in court, you are at the complete mercy of the patent holder. But this isn't true only in patent law. Anyone can take you to court for anything, and if you don't defend yourself, you lose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, it's rare that a patentee will file suit against parties who are &quot;sitting on prior art&quot;. Even patent trolls are smarter than that. They may file frivolous lawsuits, but not against victims who actually stand a chance of invalidating their patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, if you're facing such a situation, consult a competent attorney who can drill down to the facts and accurately establish if you have a case rather than blindly continuing infringement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12773" RevisionGUID="ae34c0de-05f5-49b3-8a22-f3d4ad6b7aa2" CreationDate="2015-04-29T07:08:35.247" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; I used this patent as a reference in my thesis report but now it is having different content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlikely. Maybe you didn't scroll down enough? It says, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Assuming that the life line has a 170-pixel length and a 36° slope, the head line has a 150-pixel length and a 1.820° slope, and the heart line has a 160-pixel length, the control section 110 obtains such data at step 1300 and proceeds to display the following results of palm reading on the display section 160:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Health] bla bla bla&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Intellect] bla bla bla&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Character] bla bla bla&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Love] bla bla bla&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Er, good luck with your report ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12774" RevisionGUID="f73f4c53-706d-4a15-9d14-b8eac1ab938f" CreationDate="2015-04-30T09:38:58.510" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; Can I use a chain to suspend the motor and not be in violation of the patent [reciting a strap]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's impossible to tell without reading the patent specification and prosecution history. The content of the filings is generally more controlling than a dictionary definition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, the examiner has cited prior art against the applicant, and the applicant has argued how the invention distinguishes over the prior art in the prosecution history. The statements made in the prosecution history might be sufficient to settle the question of whether a &quot;strap&quot; does or does not include a chain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Or would I be in violation of Doctrine of equivalents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, a question that could only reasonably be answered by looking into the prosecution history, and getting an idea of what the applicant has argued involving the strap. If the strap doesn't relate to the crux of the invention, I'd say it's likely that the doctrine of equivalents applies. If, on the other hand, crucial properties of a strap were relied on to argue un-obviousness, then probably not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the above assumes we're talking about U.S. patent law, and is purely academic discussion. You should consult a patent attorney for real legal advice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12775" RevisionGUID="dd6038d9-eb0b-49b4-b565-018767017bbb" CreationDate="2015-04-30T10:07:56.610" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; The invention is a simple item **that comes in a large and small size**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wrong. Unless you're dead-set on shooting yourself in the foot, the invention can be made in any of a continuous range of sizes. If you plan to manufacture two sizes, that's fine. But I'm guessing your invention could be made to be any size between these, and even somewhat larger than your large size and even somewhat smaller than your small size. The point is the invention is more general and sweeping than the specific examples you're planning to manufacture, and your patent should try to reflect that as much as possible to get a reasonable scope of protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do I need to file separate applications for each size, if they-are otherwise similar in look and function?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can always file a single application to start with. If the PTO decides multiple applications are needed, then they impose a so-called &quot;restriction requirement&quot;, and you have the opportunity at that time to file the multiple applications that are needed. It sounds like this would be unlikely to happen in your case (but keep in mind I don't know the details of your case, and, besides, I'm not a patent attorney either)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12777" RevisionGUID="3fcc740d-a9bb-4ec4-87eb-91be3b2e829f" CreationDate="2015-04-30T13:56:46.533" UserId="14067" Text="In reference to the patent: [US3018134][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3018134" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29689" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12777" RevisionGUID="3fcc740d-a9bb-4ec4-87eb-91be3b2e829f" CreationDate="2015-04-30T13:56:46.533" UserId="14067" Text="How do I find all the newest patents that reference the following patent from 1962: US3018134" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29690" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12777" RevisionGUID="3fcc740d-a9bb-4ec4-87eb-91be3b2e829f" CreationDate="2015-04-30T13:56:46.533" UserId="14067" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12778" RevisionGUID="e7add475-d3fa-43ad-86e2-2001dd3e4812" CreationDate="2015-04-30T14:15:21.873" UserId="14068" Text="I have written software 10 years ago that has a feature that has now been used by many top brands, and I believe it was the first software tool to feature it. It wasnt patented, but is there any retrospective claim I can make?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29692" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12778" RevisionGUID="e7add475-d3fa-43ad-86e2-2001dd3e4812" CreationDate="2015-04-30T14:15:21.873" UserId="14068" Text="software features not patented" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29693" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12778" RevisionGUID="e7add475-d3fa-43ad-86e2-2001dd3e4812" CreationDate="2015-04-30T14:15:21.873" UserId="14068" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;unpatented&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12780" RevisionGUID="ebd2f628-a3ce-4ea1-a53b-9ce6fbae5aa8" CreationDate="2015-04-30T19:23:34.523" UserId="13318" Text="When you file a non-provisional patent application, you can opt out of publication if the application is not prosecuted internationally.  It will not publish until it issues as a patent.  If your application is rejected during prosecution, you can abandon your application and it will never publish. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12781" RevisionGUID="29c07e3c-5595-4ede-acef-57c586e7517d" CreationDate="2015-04-30T19:29:15.623" UserId="13318" Text="A provisional application does not have to include claims and is never examined by the USPTO.  You can file a large provisional application that discloses a number of inventions and then file one or more non-provisional applications that take priority to the provisional application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12782" RevisionGUID="9cd78262-8292-42bb-8407-a9c4abe7044d" CreationDate="2015-04-30T21:54:31.150" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; I have written software 10 years ago [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It wasnt patented, but is there any retrospective claim I can make?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry, but, no, there is no legal claim you can make (at least under U.S. patent law). Only a patent can exclude others from making and using the invention. And you can only file for a patent within one year of the first public disclosure of the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they stole your actual code (not just the concept), you may have some recourse under copyright law, but that doesn't sound like the situation you are in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12783" RevisionGUID="fc95a027-cf91-4fd5-b22f-d9573f301edc" CreationDate="2015-04-30T23:06:21.077" UserId="13775" Text="Google does a pretty good job of identifying forward citations.  See https://www.google.com/patents/US3018134#forward-citations for the patent you identified.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12784" RevisionGUID="6bd4d2c4-6bcc-4e0d-9bfa-7070fab800e5" CreationDate="2015-04-30T23:28:07.347" UserId="13775" Text="One reason why this question may have gone unanswered for so long is that it is a pretty complicated one.  People who favor open source software have been worried about the impact that patents might have on the freedom to use that software.  One response has been to modify open source licensing agreements to require automatic patent licensing by people who contribute to the software.  This creates a weird legal landscape where nobody is really clear about what patents are even licensed by the software agreement (e.g. what if PatentCo contributes to the OSS but doesn't clarify which patents it holds and which of those apply to the software).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we separate the question you posed from the practical and legal issues related to incorporating a mandatory patent license into an OSS agreement, we get this simple question:  What happens if you have a patent license and that license terminates?  The simple answer is that you can be sued for infringement if you continue to infringe.  The more complex answer is that a good lawyer can come up with some defenses.  One defense might be to claim some form of patent exhaustion; another might be to claim estoppel.  The risk you run, though, is that you are going to be on notice of the patent and of your infringement, so you risk the enhanced damages that are available for intentional infringement.  Bottom line:  Yours is the kind of question that keeps patent litigators employed.  There isn't a firm answer to the abstract question as posed because this is the kind of case where the specifics are going to matter.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, Facebook's current policy (from the Patents file you linked to) is apparently to have the patent licenses automatically terminate if the licensee challenges the validity of the patents.  It is unclear to me based on Medimmune http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-608.pdf whether this provision would survive a challenge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12785" RevisionGUID="3249b789-8d09-45e9-94a9-ce0e18192aaa" CreationDate="2015-04-30T23:39:47.767" UserId="13775" Text="One thing that people commonly misunderstand is the geographic reach of patents.  US patent law is only going to apply to things that you do in the US (or import into the us), and you need a US patent for it to apply at all.  If you have a US patent but no UK patent, infringing activities in the UK aren't impacted.  If you have a UK patent but no US patent, infringing activities in the US aren't impacted.  Because of differences in patent laws, it is not uncommon for the actual enforceable part of the patent (the claims) to be different in different jurisdictions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So taking your questions in order:&#xD;&#xA;(1) &quot;How would using the equipment of others .. effect apply for a patent&quot;?  The simple answer is that it probably wouldn't.  For example, if I use a Dell computer to model chemicals and file for a patent on the chemicals, Dell doesn't have any claims.  The more complex answer is that you have to pay attention to the contract terms with the equipment supplier.  The even more complex answer is that government involvement (at least in the US) can impact the patent process (particularly if US government funds are used).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) &quot;If I was to tell someone about my invention and they filed for a patent, what would happen?  Would it be my fault, or could I sue?&quot;  The US recently switched to the same &quot;first inventor to file gets the patent&quot; system that the rest of the world uses.  If you tell somebody else about your invention, even if they file first, they aren't an inventor so they shouldn't get a patent.  But what should happen and what does happen aren't always the same.  If they claim to have invented it, how is the patent office to know they are lying?  The safest thing to do is to file first and talk about it later.  If you can't do that, then at least get a good non-disclosure agreement in place.  Could you sue?  It depends on what you are after.  If you just want to invalidate the patent, you could seek a reexamination.  If you want damages for theft of your idea, you absolutely need to talk with a lawyer about the specifics of the case and figure out if you can sue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) &quot;If a company made my invention without my permission, what would happen?&quot;  The easy answer is &quot;nothing would happen&quot;.  You could have a patent that exactly covers what the infringer is building and still nothing would happen.  A patent doesn't give you the right to build something -- it only gives you the right to stop others from building it.  So you would have to sue the infringer and seek a court order enjoining them from continuing to infringe (and/or damages).  If your invention isn't the subject of an issued patent, you don't have a lot of recourse (although if you disclosed the invention to them under a non-disclosure agreement, you might have a breach of contract claim; there may be other claims as well depending on the specific facts).  This would be a situation where a quick talk with a patent litigator would be helpful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12786" RevisionGUID="6be678b9-acbc-440a-ae3b-7b17eb5276af" CreationDate="2015-04-30T23:45:01.943" UserId="13775" Text="While many &quot;ambiguous software patents&quot; may still be technically valid, the Supreme Court's Alice Corp. decision creates a pretty clear way to challenge them.  Basically, the court has interpreted &quot;section 101&quot; to limit the categories of things that can be patented.  A lot of software patents that have been criticised are in the form of &quot;here is something well known, but let's do it on a computer&quot;.  Those are probably in trouble after Alice.  My thinking is that they would probably have been in trouble because of obviousness too, but that isn't how the Supreme Court approached them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you search Google for &quot;section 101 patent invalidated&quot;, you'll probably find a bunch of examples of the kinds of patent you are looking for -- except that they will all have been invalidated.  Patently-O also sometimes links to 101 decisions -- http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/09/section-decisions-invalid.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12787" RevisionGUID="4b95d269-8c34-406e-ae67-4395693724a3" CreationDate="2015-04-30T23:48:10.533" UserId="13775" Text="Ironically, the EFF's &quot;patent busting project&quot; (https://www.eff.org/patent-busting) can probably be used as a list of high value computer patents.  These are patents that the EFF believes threaten the viability of the internet.  I would just caution that their summary &quot;busted&quot; or &quot;invalidated&quot; notations aren't always accurate.  I know at least one patent that has had claims emerge from re-exam but is still listed as invalidated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12771" RevisionGUID="e3dd3912-445f-4a7e-9a08-9a914dd01699" CreationDate="2015-05-01T01:33:54.733" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 185 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20050025364][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20050025364&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used this patent application as a reference in my thesis report but now it is having different content. Where can I find the content that I saw before?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29707" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12771" RevisionGUID="e3dd3912-445f-4a7e-9a08-9a914dd01699" CreationDate="2015-05-01T01:33:54.733" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 185 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Where can I find a historical copy of an application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29708" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12771" RevisionGUID="e3dd3912-445f-4a7e-9a08-9a914dd01699" CreationDate="2015-05-01T01:33:54.733" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 185 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12777" RevisionGUID="30e02fb1-56f7-45d0-ada0-ec42279503e6" CreationDate="2015-05-01T01:35:12.503" UserId="10011" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [US3018134][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3018134&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where can I go to find newer patents that have references to a given patent number?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="89531877-bb95-453d-85ef-dc18860d12d4" CreationDate="2015-05-01T02:05:18.940" UserId="14073" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5710377][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5710377&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In what countries is patent US5710377A effective/protected currently?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29711" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="89531877-bb95-453d-85ef-dc18860d12d4" CreationDate="2015-05-01T02:05:18.940" UserId="14073" Text="What countries is this patent effective US5710377 A" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29712" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="89531877-bb95-453d-85ef-dc18860d12d4" CreationDate="2015-05-01T02:05:18.940" UserId="14073" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;jurisdiction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29718" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12777" RevisionGUID="0bc6d2ed-e6f5-4e41-a3f3-efd037afebe8" CreationDate="2015-05-01T14:19:39.230" UserId="7" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us3018134&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29719" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12554" RevisionGUID="24c5e908-0673-4b76-8c59-57ed339da989" CreationDate="2015-05-01T14:20:55.990" UserId="7" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;mobile-phone&gt;&lt;obviousness&gt;&lt;us8964397&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29720" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12741" RevisionGUID="c2de6c77-71bf-42ba-9194-493f972aeb5b" CreationDate="2015-05-01T14:21:57.277" UserId="7" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;us20130272429&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29721" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="bcf8066e-ee7a-4752-ae85-b69ca813397e" CreationDate="2015-05-01T14:22:20.800" UserId="7" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;jurisdiction&gt;&lt;us5710377&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12790" RevisionGUID="28d62664-b19c-4ebd-b3f8-4f87ed7c7390" CreationDate="2015-05-01T14:37:25.633" UserId="14077" Text="Russian patent system was officially launched in 1812 by Imperator Alexander I in his &quot;Chartered Rights Manifesto&quot;, however some patent-like preferences were used since 1748. The patent legislation was updated in 1833, 1870, 1896, 1900, and 1912. A Letter Patent might be issued for 15 years and could be challenged by a third party.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After Revolution of 1917 the patent system was destroyed but in 1919 it was re-launched in a significantly changed form. Letter Patent was replaced by Inventor's Certificate. A patented invention was declared to be a state property and the inventor could receive just some incentive from the state. In 1924 Letter Patent as such was reinstated but was used very rarely and mainly it was issued for foreign patent holders, and again was cancelled in 1931. The Soviet Union joined the Paris Convention in 1965 and the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) in 1978. Inventor's Certificate survived some reforms of 1973 and 1978 and it was used till 1990, when the Soviet Union Patent Law was adopted and Letter Patent was back again. In 1991 the Soviet Patent Law was dropped as the Soviet Union disintegrated, and in 1992 the Russian Patent Law was adopted and passed in order to replace the Soviet one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now patent area in Russia is covered by the Civil Code and some additional Regulations.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12792" RevisionGUID="86d3a7f9-09dc-4aa2-a590-32ceaf02c17b" CreationDate="2015-05-02T00:11:33.927" UserId="14080" Text="Looking at it from the other side, what if I saw something, thought it was cool, wanted to have one, immediately realized how it was done, went home and made my own.  Did I steal someone's idea?  If I did, then I guess the simple portrayal of it (as a sci-fi story might) must be patentable.   If, not, then it's &quot;obvious&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example: There's an Android app that lets you find nails in a wall.  I say, &quot;I never though of that!&quot;  But, realizing there's a magnetic compass built into the phone, I know it will detect metal objects.  The rest is a &quot;simple matter of programming&quot;, as we software guys like to say.  Could they come after me for producing such a thing?  Maybe, see above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12793" RevisionGUID="9e32e700-f12f-482a-9c03-74069ae76dd3" CreationDate="2015-05-02T04:03:46.963" UserId="14083" Text="I've been working on an interesting image processing project at work. &#xD;&#xA;I've finally gotten the program to the point that it works, however my employer has put the project on hold due to lack of funds. They don't want to invest any more money/time to buy a robot which we would need to complete the project. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Realistically, it doesn't look like anything further is going to happen with this project. Even though my manager has estimated it would bring a saving of about $300,000 a year. More than enough to pay for the project. I think the problem is that the company is hesitant to take risks at the moment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my employment contract, my software belongs to the company. Although I have not had this checked out by a lawyer. The invention has not yet been patented, and I'm considering buying the IP from my employer and building the robot myself with my own money. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also add that I'm the only one who understands how the software and mathematics work. Also, my employer seems to be concerned to a degree about competitors getting the technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess there are a number of out comes that could come from making them an offer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. My employer recommences the project, but refuses my offer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. My employer decides to sell the IP to me, allowing the project to be completed with no risk to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. We negotiate some kind of shared IP arrangement. (This may be the best option?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. My employer refuses offer, and does not continue project.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. ? some thing else I haven't considered &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any other options I should consider?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which situation is most advantageous? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What steps should I take in approaching them for this offer?&#xD;&#xA;Should I get legal advice? How do I ensure that I get the best advice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of situation No. 4. what other options are available to me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A certain subset of the work that I have done is pure maths. On its own, if published, would not give any competitors an advantage. If I run out of all other options, should I consider just publishing an academic paper?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29734" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12793" RevisionGUID="9e32e700-f12f-482a-9c03-74069ae76dd3" CreationDate="2015-05-02T04:03:46.963" UserId="14083" Text="Buying IP from your employer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29735" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12793" RevisionGUID="9e32e700-f12f-482a-9c03-74069ae76dd3" CreationDate="2015-05-02T04:03:46.963" UserId="14083" Text="&lt;intellectual-property&gt;&lt;employer&gt;&lt;invention&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12795" RevisionGUID="a835ae76-768e-4670-b7df-5b921e9cd169" CreationDate="2015-05-02T09:14:42.997" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; I guess there are a number of out comes that could come from making them an offer:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. My employer refuses offer, and does not continue project.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I believe this is the most likely outcome. Nobody in the chain of command wants to be associated with having let go of something big. It's less risky for everyone's resume to just postpone the project indefinitely due to lack of funds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you still want to float a proposal on the off-chance, by all means, but I'd recommend trying to minimize your costs at this stage. For example, by avoiding expensive legal advice before there's any talk of a deal (see below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  3. We negotiate some kind of shared IP arrangement. (This may be the best option?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ugh. This is a very tricky route. It probably sounds like the best option right now only because the details haven't been fleshed out, and any drawbacks aren't apparent yet. The trouble is, at some point the details will have to be fleshed out, and the drawbacks will become apparent. For example, suppose your employer retains a right to practice (make and sell) the invention according to the shared IP arrangement. Then, after you've done all the work of proving the concept and creating a market, the company can enter and complete with you in the market. Once you've eliminated such undesirable scenarios, my guess is you're left with a solution that looks a lot more like buying the IP rather than sharing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Should I get legal advice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd get legal advice when it looks like a deal might be coming together, and not sooner. You can float something vague about wanting to carry on the project outside the company and being willing compensate the company for the IP with cash or shares, without specifying which or amounts. If you get a &quot;no way&quot; vibe then I guess you're done right there. If you get a &quot;let's talk&quot; vibe then you can get legal advice when putting together the deal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How do I ensure that I get the best advice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's a tough one. Paying more doesn't necessarily get you better advice. And its not like you can get an idea of how good an IP lawyer is by reading contracts he's written. That stuff makes your head hurt to read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If I run out of all other options, should I consider just publishing an academic paper?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With your employer's permission, why not? Make sure you get permission, as even &quot;pure mathematics&quot; can qualify for trade secret protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On its own, if published, would not give any competitors an advantage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the company agrees with this statement, all is well. If not, there may be a protracted legal battle resulting from a difference of opinion on this point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12796" RevisionGUID="19712738-a922-4191-9d5b-89665d9e91c7" CreationDate="2015-05-02T13:44:22.657" UserId="11895" Text="extension of duplicate [Is this patent valid in USA or Australia?](http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/12132/11895) ; A person need to cross-check kind codes of patents for granted patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Limitation:- EPO or INPADOC database might have inherent limitation e.g. non avalability or software errors. try more with inventor and applicant search." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12799" RevisionGUID="0875ea78-120e-4b5a-9cdb-3c07ff97316d" CreationDate="2015-05-03T11:59:57.783" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12800" RevisionGUID="233e86f6-8d32-465c-b8be-c540c2096cc4" CreationDate="2015-05-03T11:59:57.783" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12801" RevisionGUID="ed81ec38-229d-443a-9e9d-81d3f673a2ab" CreationDate="2015-05-03T12:02:11.563" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12802" RevisionGUID="88dc0c65-588c-4ec3-9936-039418947141" CreationDate="2015-05-03T12:02:11.563" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12803" RevisionGUID="07f048b5-8475-4134-94f3-4bdabe3cbeee" CreationDate="2015-05-03T12:02:58.730" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12804" RevisionGUID="988daef2-fb50-4ed7-b93d-5818e001aba4" CreationDate="2015-05-03T12:02:58.730" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12805" RevisionGUID="278aa3d8-12a3-4b48-81c8-99f368de97e9" CreationDate="2015-05-03T17:14:34.827" UserId="14094" Text="I have a patent pending for something I invented while working for my current employer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A provisional and final patent application has been filed with me listed as sole inventor, working through the intellectual property team at my current employer.  Since I work for a corporation, the intellectual property will ultimately be claimed as belonging to the corporation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over a period of years, I have become increasingly unhappy at my job and would like to leave the company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, what happens to my pending patent if I leave the company before the final patent is granted (assuming it is granted...)?  Will I still be able to (legally/ethically) claim that I have a patent on my resume?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I expect that the lawyers at my company would be able to answer this question, but I do not want to let them know that I am thinking of leaving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for your help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29757" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12805" RevisionGUID="278aa3d8-12a3-4b48-81c8-99f368de97e9" CreationDate="2015-05-03T17:14:34.827" UserId="14094" Text="Want to leave my job, but have a patent pending for work I did while working at that corporation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29758" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12805" RevisionGUID="278aa3d8-12a3-4b48-81c8-99f368de97e9" CreationDate="2015-05-03T17:14:34.827" UserId="14094" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12805" RevisionGUID="3451db26-65c6-4ebf-939b-98527b9a2fbe" CreationDate="2015-05-03T17:37:48.173" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 26 characters in body" Text="I have a patent pending for something I invented while working for my current employer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A provisional and final patent application has been filed with me listed as sole inventor, working through the intellectual property team at my current employer.  Since I work for a corporation, the intellectual property will ultimately be claimed as belonging to the corporation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over a period of years, I have become increasingly unhappy at my job and would like to leave the company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, what happens to my pending patent if I leave the company before the final patent is granted (assuming it is granted...)?  Will I still be able to (legally/ethically) claim that I have a patent on my resume?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I expect that the lawyers at my company would be able to answer this question, but I do not want to let them know that I am thinking of leaving.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12806" RevisionGUID="e8007af1-c103-432b-85fa-978ed7102a89" CreationDate="2015-05-03T17:41:17.407" UserId="11895" Text="Most likely an assignment of IP would be in place. You can mention it in your resume as inventor, as you are the inventor. however in future you might have to sign forms if required." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12804" RevisionGUID="85380911-6cf1-4bb1-8863-747b736d55c8" CreationDate="2015-05-03T19:12:36.930" UserId="11895" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="relating to mobile phones, handheld computers, and similar technology." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29763" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12804" RevisionGUID="85380911-6cf1-4bb1-8863-747b736d55c8" CreationDate="2015-05-03T19:12:36.930" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 10011 edit id of 1822" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12802" RevisionGUID="a64ff138-5796-4c4b-9428-90ed88a80f6a" CreationDate="2015-05-03T19:12:55.903" UserId="11895" Comment="added 170 characters in body" Text="Question related to SAMPLE, a first or preliminary version of a device or vehicle from which other forms are developed. its requirement and involvement in Law of patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29765" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12802" RevisionGUID="a64ff138-5796-4c4b-9428-90ed88a80f6a" CreationDate="2015-05-03T19:12:55.903" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 10011 edit id of 1821" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12808" RevisionGUID="540d247b-a360-43f1-ae75-1dd1e81c201a" CreationDate="2015-05-04T08:01:23.337" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; Will I still be able to (legally/ethically) claim that I have a patent on my resume?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a bit ambiguous to use &quot;have&quot;, as it might be interpreted to mean that you own the patent, which it sounds like you wouldn't. Typically, you'd phrase it as something like &quot;I am the inventor / one of the inventors of &amp;lt;superfrob&amp;gt;, for which U.S. Patent &amp;lt;number&amp;gt; was granted&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would not be unethical to have such a statement in your resume even if you left the company the next day after making the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the interim before the patent is granted, you can say something like &quot;My work on &amp;lt;superfrobbing&amp;gt; for my previous employer resulted in techniques believed to be novel that are the subject of a pending patent application.&quot; However, all bets are off as to whether a prospective employer is going to appreciate the value of a pending patent, or whether such statements will seem excessively boastful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12810" RevisionGUID="989695e8-9012-4c81-87bc-05456391ebbf" CreationDate="2015-05-04T11:47:20.223" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12811" RevisionGUID="840046fa-2e54-46bf-a48c-8b2b509df41b" CreationDate="2015-05-04T11:47:20.223" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12812" RevisionGUID="6012e9f6-c905-4dfd-86ce-9f7b8cba6210" CreationDate="2015-05-04T11:51:03.597" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12813" RevisionGUID="cc6e36ba-6e76-4a49-bdd0-a3257ed69d31" CreationDate="2015-05-04T11:51:03.597" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12814" RevisionGUID="ce9b5346-8ceb-41b1-a560-8f1c93836404" CreationDate="2015-05-05T00:54:08.650" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; Since the claim involves a violation of Conservation of Energy, would this raise special scrutiny at the USPTO?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no need for *special* scrutiny of such an application. *All* patent applications must describe inventions that are operable, otherwise they lack &quot;utility&quot; and are not of patentable merit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, what's interesting about this application is that the inventor explicitly states that the invention violates the principle of conservation of energy, both in the abstract and in the claims themselves. This makes it pretty much obligatory for the examiner to question the operability of the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that getting more &quot;output energy&quot; than &quot;input energy&quot; (both in the form of electricity) from a blackbox apparatus, even indefinitely, is not guaranteed to be in violation of the principle of conservation of energy. The blackbox apparatus could instead be converting ambient thermal energy into electricity, in violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Thus, even if the applicant's measurements were accurate, it wouldn't itself be sufficient to prove that the principle of conservation of energy was violated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="e496802c-db5c-46d1-8c4d-c53c10d9b81b" CreationDate="2015-05-05T13:28:15.547" UserId="14100" Text="In reference to the patent: [USD120891][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD120891&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have 2 pictures with this very same patent number D-120891.  The small pictures appear to be of the Catholic Religion.  Would this be of the same Inventor - Charlotte Neuhardt? The designer/inventor of the dress holding patent D-120891." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29790" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="e496802c-db5c-46d1-8c4d-c53c10d9b81b" CreationDate="2015-05-05T13:28:15.547" UserId="14100" Text="Would this Patent D-120891 hold 2 different creations/inventions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29791" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="e496802c-db5c-46d1-8c4d-c53c10d9b81b" CreationDate="2015-05-05T13:28:15.547" UserId="14100" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12813" RevisionGUID="838aaca0-52a1-4c7e-81c2-224410ca5b04" CreationDate="2015-05-05T14:47:50.953" UserId="11895" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="Question relates to the means by which the user and a computer system interact, in particular the use of input devices and software." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29793" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12813" RevisionGUID="838aaca0-52a1-4c7e-81c2-224410ca5b04" CreationDate="2015-05-05T14:47:50.953" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 1 edit id of 1824" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12278" RevisionGUID="0ad12ab1-473d-4d3b-973d-b0ead438ebb2" CreationDate="2015-05-05T14:47:53.373" UserId="11895" Comment="added 140 characters in body" Text="Questions related to interpretation and source relating to the Patent law and rules. This tag should not be used for MPEP related questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29795" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12278" RevisionGUID="0ad12ab1-473d-4d3b-973d-b0ead438ebb2" CreationDate="2015-05-05T14:47:53.373" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 1 edit id of 1825" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12811" RevisionGUID="34f1b0ca-1d0c-4b91-a4a4-8d7b83811ba3" CreationDate="2015-05-05T14:47:56.193" UserId="11895" Comment="added 131 characters in body" Text="Questions related to a particular procedure for accomplishing or approaching something, especially a systematic or established one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29797" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12811" RevisionGUID="34f1b0ca-1d0c-4b91-a4a4-8d7b83811ba3" CreationDate="2015-05-05T14:47:56.193" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 1 edit id of 1823" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12800" RevisionGUID="3b00bba0-e360-421a-9dab-de0f3d1a04ec" CreationDate="2015-05-05T14:47:58.823" UserId="11895" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="estimate, measure, or note the similarity or dissimilarity between specific aspect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29799" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12800" RevisionGUID="3b00bba0-e360-421a-9dab-de0f3d1a04ec" CreationDate="2015-05-05T14:47:58.823" Comment="Proposed by 11895 approved by 1 edit id of 1820" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12818" RevisionGUID="a62ba97c-e79a-4d06-af2e-3d11e87c3ac9" CreationDate="2015-05-05T15:32:46.993" UserId="11895" Text="its slightly unclear what you are asking, if I go with word 'US' here just designate country and D states design patent and number is serial number of the issued patent. Therefore its only one patent not two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be short USD120891. and D-120891 are same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12827" RevisionGUID="b20a99f2-80b6-40b9-8937-2536100e7867" CreationDate="2015-05-06T14:33:42.147" UserId="14109" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140288683][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140288683&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so many applications that do live stats on mobile devices.  Does this patent have the ability to shutdown those hundreds of companies that have done the same thing.  Also wht if a website had the ability to do this, can a browser on a mobile device account for breaching the patent just because live stats are on a mobile browser?  Yahoo was doing live stats on a mobile browser far before this patent was created." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29837" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12827" RevisionGUID="b20a99f2-80b6-40b9-8937-2536100e7867" CreationDate="2015-05-06T14:33:42.147" UserId="14109" Text="Does this patent also include HTML browsers on a mobile device" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29838" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12827" RevisionGUID="b20a99f2-80b6-40b9-8937-2536100e7867" CreationDate="2015-05-06T14:33:42.147" UserId="14109" Text="&lt;us20140288683&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12828" RevisionGUID="734e3a34-f97e-45c9-a9e1-c3c25877c2db" CreationDate="2015-05-06T14:44:36.933" UserId="14110" Text="NFC can be used to pair bluetooth devices. The following paper was published in 2011:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Bluetooth Secure Simple Pairing Using NFC&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://members.nfc-forum.org/resources/AppDocs/NFCForum_AD_BTSSP_1_0.pdf&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12828" RevisionGUID="508737da-cfab-482b-962a-e3fff598bbf8" CreationDate="2015-05-06T16:17:18.377" UserId="11895" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="NFC can be used to pair bluetooth devices. The following paper was published in 2011:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&quot;Bluetooth Secure Simple Pairing Using NFC&quot;][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://members.nfc-forum.org/resources/AppDocs/NFCForum_AD_BTSSP_1_0.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12827" RevisionGUID="da8a5fae-826c-463f-81cd-a88592740dfc" CreationDate="2015-05-06T17:18:45.370" UserId="14109" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140288683][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so many applications that do live stats on mobile devices.  Does this patent have the ability to shutdown those hundreds of companies that have done the same thing.  Also wht if a website had the ability to do this, can a browser on a mobile device account for breaching the patent just because live stats are on a mobile browser?  Yahoo was doing live stats on a mobile browser far before this patent was created.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140288683&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/qEvXs.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12832" RevisionGUID="5ff63bb4-9a88-4f22-8a02-78f77ce58dab" CreationDate="2015-05-06T22:31:01.303" UserId="14114" Text="In reference to the patent: [US9010037][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9010037&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;patent images and pdf file can not be seen or downloaded, how come?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29856" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12832" RevisionGUID="5ff63bb4-9a88-4f22-8a02-78f77ce58dab" CreationDate="2015-05-06T22:31:01.303" UserId="14114" Text="patent images and pdf file can not be seen or downloaded, how come?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29857" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12832" RevisionGUID="5ff63bb4-9a88-4f22-8a02-78f77ce58dab" CreationDate="2015-05-06T22:31:01.303" UserId="14114" Text="&lt;us9010037&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12834" RevisionGUID="72dd42f4-f764-4894-9c75-cb0b13a84231" CreationDate="2015-05-07T04:35:50.103" UserId="11895" Text="You are right that presently Google Patent displays error while viewing or downloading pdf copy of the said patent but, please note they are just information provider you can download the pdf and scan images from other resources like USPTO or Espacenet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for more information on [How do you correct errors in Google Patents?](http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/12392/11895)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For queried patent you can download pdf copy via visiting expacenet or USPTO image database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/xOIcs.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12837" RevisionGUID="b33bb069-82e6-4075-9008-f4998eff8613" CreationDate="2015-05-07T07:53:13.920" UserId="6126" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5628016][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent expired? Can other people now implement SEH on 32-bit without opening themselves up to being sued?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5628016" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29873" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12837" RevisionGUID="b33bb069-82e6-4075-9008-f4998eff8613" CreationDate="2015-05-07T07:53:13.920" UserId="6126" Text="Has the Borland 32-bit SEH patent expired?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29874" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12837" RevisionGUID="b33bb069-82e6-4075-9008-f4998eff8613" CreationDate="2015-05-07T07:53:13.920" UserId="6126" Text="&lt;algorithms&gt;&lt;us5628016&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12840" RevisionGUID="db31710b-2f07-4b77-b577-213f41c92d4a" CreationDate="2015-05-07T12:18:25.510" UserId="13437" Text="When a patent goes into Lapse status in European countries can it be renewd later?&#xD;&#xA;What are the different status a patent can have that make it enforceable at present or in the future?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29885" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12840" RevisionGUID="db31710b-2f07-4b77-b577-213f41c92d4a" CreationDate="2015-05-07T12:18:25.510" UserId="13437" Text="When a patent goes into Lapse status in European countries can it be renewd later?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29886" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12840" RevisionGUID="db31710b-2f07-4b77-b577-213f41c92d4a" CreationDate="2015-05-07T12:18:25.510" UserId="13437" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;lapsed&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12841" RevisionGUID="473e6129-53d8-48bf-9a93-867c2e909843" CreationDate="2015-05-07T12:34:48.597" UserId="13437" Text="Can a company publicise by word of mouth and marketing that they have patents on several products from their competitors, using that to their competitive advantage, to damage the competitors image and scare customers from buying elsewhere, when they have not got those patents or just have patent requests that won't be granted? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this unfair competition with legal action possible?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29888" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12841" RevisionGUID="473e6129-53d8-48bf-9a93-867c2e909843" CreationDate="2015-05-07T12:34:48.597" UserId="13437" Text="What happens if a company publicises they have patents when they have not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29889" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12841" RevisionGUID="473e6129-53d8-48bf-9a93-867c2e909843" CreationDate="2015-05-07T12:34:48.597" UserId="13437" Text="&lt;false-marking&gt;&lt;marketing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29897" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12837" RevisionGUID="b3ad4656-08dd-4539-a50c-41d158b50444" CreationDate="2015-05-07T14:33:05.733" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[3801],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:11895,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Pushpak&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12844" RevisionGUID="b80668f8-57bd-4b9b-a69b-4817933c2a3e" CreationDate="2015-05-07T15:28:02.817" UserId="11895" Text="In US Patent law have provisions for false marketing:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**35 U.S. Code § 292 - False marking**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Whoever, without the consent of the patentee, marks upon, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with anything made,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; used, offered for sale, or sold by such person within the United&#xD;&#xA;&gt; States, or imported by the person into the United States, the name or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; any imitation of the name of the patentee, the patent number, or the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; words “patent,” “patentee,” or the like, with the intent of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; counterfeiting or imitating the mark of the patentee, or of deceiving&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the public and inducing them to believe that the thing was made,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; offered for sale, sold, or imported into the United States by or with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the consent of the patentee; or **Whoever marks upon, or affixes to, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; uses in advertising in connection with any unpatented article, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; word “patent” or any word or number importing that the same is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patented, for the purpose of deceiving the public**; or **Whoever marks&#xD;&#xA;&gt; upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; article, the words “patent applied for,” “patent pending,” or any word&#xD;&#xA;&gt; importing that an application for patent has been made, when no&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application for patent has been made, or if made, is not pending, for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the purpose of deceiving the public— Shall be fined not more than $500&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for every such offense**. Only the United States may sue for the penalty&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authorized by this subsection.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) **A person who has suffered** a competitive injury as a result of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; violation of this section **may file a civil action** in a district court&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the United States for recovery of damages adequate to compensate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for the injury.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) The marking of a product, in a manner described in subsection (a),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with matter relating to a patent that covered that product but has&#xD;&#xA;&gt; expired is not a violation of this section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also see See Clontech Labs. Inc. v. Invitrogen Corp., 406 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed.Cir.2005). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in Europe case is slightly different and not question is raised by IP law on intention to deceive public. I found no promising cases to support false marketing in EU. however i recently came to know that in UK law is in place named [&quot;Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations&quot;][1] Section 5 and 6 , wherein consumer can raise question on deceive under false marketing. It remains doubtful to me how things going to turn&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2008/9780110811574/regulation/5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12845" RevisionGUID="a9b76fa6-bd1a-469b-a4de-ed7c7823d1f8" CreationDate="2015-05-07T17:37:45.033" UserId="14123" Text="In reference to the patent: [US2831289][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US2831289" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29906" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12845" RevisionGUID="a9b76fa6-bd1a-469b-a4de-ed7c7823d1f8" CreationDate="2015-05-07T17:37:45.033" UserId="14123" Text="Hello, I was wondering if this means i can't have a magnet holding a hook in place on a lure? also, when does this patent expire?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29907" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12845" RevisionGUID="a9b76fa6-bd1a-469b-a4de-ed7c7823d1f8" CreationDate="2015-05-07T17:37:45.033" UserId="14123" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29908" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12845" RevisionGUID="99819a5d-36bd-437b-a8df-3a270f0e19c4" CreationDate="2015-05-07T20:44:57.807" UserId="10011" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[3801],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12847" RevisionGUID="307066a4-7f41-49ee-affa-4e3db726d8cc" CreationDate="2015-05-08T13:50:47.427" UserId="14128" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20060184393][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this patent implies that no one trying to collect medical data online can actually do it? Is not this patent too broad and lacking of a discovery? Can you patent a common sense approach to collect data like the one proposed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20060184393" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29914" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12847" RevisionGUID="307066a4-7f41-49ee-affa-4e3db726d8cc" CreationDate="2015-05-08T13:50:47.427" UserId="14128" Text="collection of medical data online" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29915" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12847" RevisionGUID="307066a4-7f41-49ee-affa-4e3db726d8cc" CreationDate="2015-05-08T13:50:47.427" UserId="14128" Text="&lt;us20060184393&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12848" RevisionGUID="b4777fe3-1f3a-431d-a9a5-572e96b15e09" CreationDate="2015-05-08T16:10:10.153" UserId="11895" Text="Yes it is broader but was never granted a patent, applicant failed to reply examiner objections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; status on date 10-23-2009-- Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Office Action&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;presently no child applications are pending for this application and it seems all doors are closed for this application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you are also requested to refer Ask patents another answer on [how to check USPTO patent status on official register.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/4722/11895" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29917" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12847" RevisionGUID="83b8f171-40e9-4b92-b8c8-f00bc46b67e9" CreationDate="2015-05-08T16:13:57.130" UserId="11895" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;pair&gt;&lt;status&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;&lt;expiry&gt;&lt;us20060184393&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12849" RevisionGUID="160c0935-736e-4db1-b487-c412b7308577" CreationDate="2015-05-08T16:40:37.370" UserId="14129" Text="The question was about the OWNER of the patent. The answer explained how to contact the INVENTOR of the patent. Owner is not necessarily the Inventor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first step in determining the current ownership of any issued patent is to search the PTO assignment database, currently available at [http://assignment.uspto.gov/][1]&#xD;&#xA;You can search by patent number. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://assignment.uspto.gov/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will not give you any contact information for the owner but I'm sure you can find any number of articles on the web about how to locate a person. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12851" RevisionGUID="3b423db0-e944-4d56-9d34-23c1886fd075" CreationDate="2015-05-09T00:49:55.760" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; People suggested that it introduces great uncertainty in what could be claimed, **if anything**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the &quot;if anything&quot; there is a little gratuitous. Granted, the *Alice* opinion didn't go very far in clarifying what is or is not an &quot;abstract idea&quot;. But, last time I read it, it certainly implied the possible patentability of claims that purport to &quot;improve the functioning of the computer itself&quot; or &quot;effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this interpretation, the claims in *Alice* failed because &quot;shadow accounts&quot; are not sufficiently technical. Supposedly, if shadow accounts were sufficiently technical, patentability analysis would hinge on 102/103.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What can an applicant do to improve his or her chances of having a software patent approved, in light of Alice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may help formulate good patentability arguments if each claim includes some technical features. This is admittedly quite a subjective guideline." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12756" RevisionGUID="f2f7f37b-85a2-4c40-94f8-2e2644e89674" CreationDate="2015-05-10T09:01:59.133" UserId="14043" Comment="Add note about WIPO patent" Text="We're working on a mobile app and discovered that a competitor has an active U.S. patent on the same idea and workflow. However, we are in the UK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Does the U.S. patent apply to our works?&#xD;&#xA;- Are we allowed to distribute our app in international App Stores?&#xD;&#xA;- Must we exclude the U.S. from the store markets?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** *Some research shows that there is a WIPO patent, too.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12855" RevisionGUID="397b28fb-8dcd-48e7-a53e-564627c05b4a" CreationDate="2015-05-11T19:44:29.337" UserId="14142" Text="There are thousands of granted patents with the same circuit function that all mention the same common electronic components.. resistors, capacitors, MCUs, etc.  (for example circuits with PIR sensors)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My application recently received an office-action that I can't patent my product because it mentions a tiny 1&quot;-square PCBA that contains a few resistors, caps, and one MCU.  The reason is because other separate patents teach the same components.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Examiner is suggesting that we are cherry-picking resistors from one patent, capacitors from another patent, MCU from another, etc. to combine them to make our product.  So our product would conflict with those patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doesn't make sense to me for common components like this.   I'm confused on what to do because again there are thousands of other patents that have the same function, but they are approved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any suggestions on how to deal with this?    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for the help.  Best regards!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29951" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12855" RevisionGUID="397b28fb-8dcd-48e7-a53e-564627c05b4a" CreationDate="2015-05-11T19:44:29.337" UserId="14142" Text="Office-action rejection because of common electronic components? (i.e.: resistor, capacitor, MCU, etc)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29952" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12855" RevisionGUID="397b28fb-8dcd-48e7-a53e-564627c05b4a" CreationDate="2015-05-11T19:44:29.337" UserId="14142" Text="&lt;action&gt;&lt;components&gt;&lt;resistor&gt;&lt;capacitor&gt;&lt;mcu&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12856" RevisionGUID="97823e77-d6c9-4f00-ad51-68c9dddc1fa3" CreationDate="2015-05-11T23:33:20.883" UserId="14016" Text="Is this a U.S. patent application? Will treat as such since you didn't specify otherwise. Please note that I am not a patent agent or attorney, so please treat my remarks as mere kibitzing, and not legal advice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Examiner is suggesting that we are cherry-picking resistors from one patent, capacitors from another patent, MCU from another, etc. to combine them to make our product. So our product would **conflict** with those patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the Examiner is grossly incompetent, he's probably not arguing that your claim &quot;conflicts&quot; with other patents. Rather, the Examiner is arguing that your claimed invention *is rendered obvious by* the disclosures of those prior art patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When combining references, the Examiner *must* give a rationale for combining, not just state that it is obvious. Most likely, the Examiner has done so. Re-read the office action carefully, looking for anything that might be a reason for combining the references. Consider it carefully to understand the Examiner's position. If you misapprehend the Examiner's position, you're not going to get anywhere. Because office actions are almost always written in a hurry, it can be difficult to &quot;decode&quot; them, but it is essential to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two basic ways to traverse an obviousness rejection. The first is to argue that the Examiner has left an element of the claim out of his explanation, or modifications not accounted for would have to be made to the prior art to arrive at a claim element. The second is to argue against the rationale for combining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it looks like you can't do either of these, you'll have to change the claim to better capture the unobvious parts of the invention. Remember, you're not entitled to a claim merely because it includes unobvious embodiments. Rather, a claim must exclude everything that is obvious in view of the prior art to be patentable. This is so tricky to get right that many people choose to hire a professional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm confused on what to do because again there are thousands of other patents that have the same function, but they are approved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't argue in terms of other patents having been approved. Such arguments aren't legally relevant and aren't remotely likely to convince the Examiner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12855" RevisionGUID="8a97d1d0-783e-41f3-9326-616c459e9715" CreationDate="2015-05-12T04:29:12.940" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 40 characters in body" Text="There are thousands of granted patents with the same circuit function that all mention the same common electronic components.. resistors, capacitors, MCUs, etc.  (for example circuits with PIR sensors)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My application recently received an office-action that I can't patent my product because it mentions a tiny 1&quot;-square PCBA that contains a few resistors, caps, and one MCU.  The reason is because other separate patents teach the same components.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Examiner is suggesting that we are cherry-picking resistors from one patent, capacitors from another patent, MCU from another, etc. to combine them to make our product.  So our product would conflict with those patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doesn't make sense to me for common components like this.   I'm confused on what to do because again there are thousands of other patents that have the same function, but they are approved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any suggestions on how to deal with this?    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12134" RevisionGUID="6d8ad536-02ed-416b-9af4-2a1a44f17880" CreationDate="2015-05-12T07:14:50.667" UserId="11895" Comment="added 175 characters in body" Text="Please note WIPO application is just a publication and not granted patent. if its get grant in US with same claim below situations can be made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For US granted patents:-&#xD;&#xA;In accordance of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a):-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patented invention, within the United States or imports into the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; United States any patented invention during the term of the patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; therefor, infringes the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On number of claims to access are defined by case law as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To prove direct infringement, the plaintiff must establish by a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; preponderance of the evidence that **one or more claims** of the patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; read on the accused device literally or under the doctrine of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; equivalents. *Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Scimed Life Sys.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Inc., 261 F.3d 1329, 1336 (Fed.Cir.2001)* [Link][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Form Method or Process base claim, every step is to be present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Literal infringement requires that **each and every limitation set forth&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in a claim appear in an accused product**. *Franks Casing Crew &amp; Rental&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tools, Inc. v. Weatherford Int'l, Inc., 389 F.3d 1370, 1378&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Fed.Cir.2004)* [Link][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://openjurist.org/261/f3d/1329&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://openjurist.org/389/f3d/1370" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12863" RevisionGUID="10569d9b-62bf-4989-b53e-4591fa686e37" CreationDate="2015-05-13T04:06:43.980" UserId="14154" Text="I have made a replication of this foundation. I have also switched out 1 major ingredient and added another. How can I find their patent information to examine more of this formula?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Website is http://www.oxygenetix.com/products.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29988" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12863" RevisionGUID="10569d9b-62bf-4989-b53e-4591fa686e37" CreationDate="2015-05-13T04:06:43.980" UserId="14154" Text="Patent of cosmetic foundation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29989" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12863" RevisionGUID="10569d9b-62bf-4989-b53e-4591fa686e37" CreationDate="2015-05-13T04:06:43.980" UserId="14154" Text="&lt;formula&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12863" RevisionGUID="eab55c9f-2a73-401c-ace6-1c83f3f3ea67" CreationDate="2015-05-13T05:13:00.463" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 52 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I have made a replication of this foundation. I have also switched out 1 major ingredient and added another. How can I find their patent information to examine more of this formula?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29991" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12863" RevisionGUID="eab55c9f-2a73-401c-ace6-1c83f3f3ea67" CreationDate="2015-05-13T05:13:00.463" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 52 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How to find information for a Organization" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29992" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12863" RevisionGUID="eab55c9f-2a73-401c-ace6-1c83f3f3ea67" CreationDate="2015-05-13T05:13:00.463" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 52 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;formula&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12864" RevisionGUID="4ad2f0fb-352a-4265-b67b-99caca3474cc" CreationDate="2015-05-13T05:55:20.823" UserId="9848" Text="First of all, you cannot sell &quot;inventorship,&quot; you can only sell &quot;ownership,&quot; and the exclusionary rights under the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with a system where you can't sell patents is interesting. It essentially means that a patent is only worth money if you use it against somebody. And there are some problems with that...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Solo inventors can't always afford to sue, but they usually can afford to sell.&#xD;&#xA;* Some groups, like universities, hospitals or research groups, don't want to sue, or deal with lawsuits, so they'll just sell. &#xD;&#xA;* Companies want to invest tons of money in research, and if they go under before they turn that research into a product, being able to sell the patent, whether in bankruptcy or because the research didn't pan out so well, really helps cushion the blow. This in turn incentivizes those companies to invest more in research.&#xD;&#xA;* Eh, massive companies play war games with one another all the time. And sometimes, selling the patents to the company that wants them more actually allows more stuff to come to market. So, who cares?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's not to say that it's a perfect system. If you wanted, you could imagine a system where you could neither sell a patent *nor* grant an exclusive license. That might result in a lot more permission... or a lot more trolling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12865" RevisionGUID="900a3741-b04a-40ce-abd8-6d74b00360a6" CreationDate="2015-05-13T14:54:54.653" UserId="14155" Text="I have a question about the delay of publication for patent filing. Hope someone could help to clarify my doubts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am trying to publish a journal containing results that are derived from the use of a material provided by a 3rd party (Provider). Before publishing, I was informed to submit my manuscript to the provider such that any information which is subjected for a patent application must be removed. &#xD;&#xA;I was also told to delay my publication for another 60 days for the provider to file a patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore my question is: &#xD;&#xA;1) Why is there a need to delay my publication for the provider to file a patent application? &#xD;&#xA;2) Is 60 days a standard duration given to provider to file the patent? &#xD;&#xA;3) I have heard that 60 days is not a standard duration, in fact, any duration can be given to the provider for him to file the patent. Why is this so? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29995" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12865" RevisionGUID="900a3741-b04a-40ce-abd8-6d74b00360a6" CreationDate="2015-05-13T14:54:54.653" UserId="14155" Text="Delay of publication before patent filing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29996" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12865" RevisionGUID="900a3741-b04a-40ce-abd8-6d74b00360a6" CreationDate="2015-05-13T14:54:54.653" UserId="14155" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29997" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12863" RevisionGUID="57b7e4bc-7d8b-45d5-a9a5-9fbd7d2b2d80" CreationDate="2015-05-13T17:45:47.600" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[21],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12868" RevisionGUID="22c883e1-a441-46e1-b1b9-48b1a3cc159b" CreationDate="2015-05-13T19:16:52.967" UserId="9818" Text="Can anyone tell me how long it takes the uspto to update public pair? I am trying to determine if a competitor submitted a response to an office action. Pair does not show it to be filed (should have been filed two days ago)in the IFW. The application is published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30007" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12868" RevisionGUID="22c883e1-a441-46e1-b1b9-48b1a3cc159b" CreationDate="2015-05-13T19:16:52.967" UserId="9818" Text="Update in public pair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30008" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12868" RevisionGUID="22c883e1-a441-46e1-b1b9-48b1a3cc159b" CreationDate="2015-05-13T19:16:52.967" UserId="9818" Text="&lt;public&gt;&lt;pair&gt;&lt;update&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12869" RevisionGUID="e3f9cb93-9538-417b-8565-b9a09d24355e" CreationDate="2015-05-14T12:00:44.670" UserId="11895" Text="&gt; 1) Why is there a need to delay my publication for the provider to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; file a patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See Patent systems first main pillar is NOVELY now they are restricting to publish your content which any way destroys the novelty of application. Second pillar is INVENTIVE STEP you publication might make there invention obvious therefore they want you to delay the publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) Is 60 days a standard duration given to provider to file the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No there is no standard duration to file patent; but for a broader picture a week or two is required to evaluate prior arts and what broadest can be patented and a week or two draft most compelling patent application with enabling disclosure. they might have informed you to make informed decision on IP rights to be filed on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3) I have heard that 60 days is not a standard duration, in fact, any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; duration can be given to the provider for him to file the patent. Why&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is this so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;its not standard but keeping account on drafting and prior art evaluation, market situation and analytics its fair amount of time. In fact once patent application has been filed you can have publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;on another note as our esteemed user **Atsby** stated in comment it also depend on what an agreement says? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12869" RevisionGUID="df64a4e9-4931-48bb-ae60-81ba64d020a9" CreationDate="2015-05-14T12:09:37.227" UserId="11895" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="&gt; 1) Why is there a need to delay my publication for the provider to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; file a patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, Patent systems first main pillar is NOVELY, they are restricting you to publish your content which might in any way destroys the novelty of application. Second pillar is INVENTIVE STEP you publication might make there invention obvious therefore they want you to delay the publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) Is 60 days a standard duration given to provider to file the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, there are no standard duration to file patent; but for a broader picture a week or two is required to evaluate prior arts and what broadest can be patented and a week or two draft most compelling patent application with enabling disclosure. they might have informed you 60 days to make informed decision on IP rights to be filed on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3) I have heard that 60 days is not a standard duration, in fact, any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; duration can be given to the provider for him to file the patent. Why&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is this so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its not standard but keeping account on drafting and prior-art evaluation, market situation and analytics its fair amount of time. In fact once patent application has been filed you can have publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;on another note as our esteemed user **Atsby** stated in comment it also depend on what an agreement says? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30022" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12747" RevisionGUID="eaaf8ba2-c231-4280-8a81-6b497307b000" CreationDate="2015-05-14T18:54:30.153" UserId="7546" Comment="Remove wrongly used rejection tag." Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;software-as-a-service&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30023" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12747" RevisionGUID="eaaf8ba2-c231-4280-8a81-6b497307b000" CreationDate="2015-05-14T18:54:30.153" Comment="Proposed by 7546 approved by 1 edit id of 1828" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30024" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12746" RevisionGUID="8b9ec3df-c5de-4ca3-9c0d-5bc3806a4c16" CreationDate="2015-05-14T18:54:33.613" UserId="7546" Comment="Remove wrongly used rejection tag." Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;priority&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30025" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12746" RevisionGUID="8b9ec3df-c5de-4ca3-9c0d-5bc3806a4c16" CreationDate="2015-05-14T18:54:33.613" Comment="Proposed by 7546 approved by 1 edit id of 1827" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12872" RevisionGUID="6cc304f7-0bc1-494e-96ca-4ab161e55cb7" CreationDate="2015-05-15T00:24:01.973" UserId="14163" Text="In reference to the patent: [US383746][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US383746&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the drawing and description it refers to the item as a &quot;Lubricator&quot;, but the title of the patent is shown as &quot;Assigm&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30027" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12872" RevisionGUID="6cc304f7-0bc1-494e-96ca-4ab161e55cb7" CreationDate="2015-05-15T00:24:01.973" UserId="14163" Text="What does the title &quot;Assigm&quot; mean? Is it a typo?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30028" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12872" RevisionGUID="6cc304f7-0bc1-494e-96ca-4ab161e55cb7" CreationDate="2015-05-15T00:24:01.973" UserId="14163" Text="&lt;history&gt;&lt;title&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30029" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12872" RevisionGUID="17a640b7-a4dc-4808-aaf1-5ff57dc35f13" CreationDate="2015-05-15T00:32:01.583" UserId="14163" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;history&gt;&lt;specific-patent&gt;&lt;title&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12766" RevisionGUID="41d9e6d0-4e4f-43ad-b8cc-dcfe42b3a3e9" CreationDate="2015-05-15T04:39:21.230" UserId="11895" Comment="added 217 characters in body" Text="&gt; If my application was rejected, can I write a new application based on the same idea, or it would be rejected because the old application was considered as a prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depends on the dates. If the old application was published, and more than a year has passed from its publication, you can't file anew and it will be considered as prior art. (I'm just blatantly assuming we're talking about the U.S. here since you didn't specify otherwise).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is to not say that you ever *should* file anew. Why would you do that? Did the examiner have a good reason for rejecting? If so, you have to move on from that idea. If not, you have to keep fighting until you are taken final and beyond (RCE and repeat if you need to amend, or appeal if your claims are proper). If timelimit permit you should consider a telephonic interview with examiner and try to understand his point and explain yours, 99% of times one-to-one interaction do miracles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I think of it is, every examiner has a certain number of times he/she has to be proved wrong before he/she issues a patent. This is almost always at least 1 and rarely more than 3. So why would you ever want to start over?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12766" RevisionGUID="8082e784-5bff-4cb1-84bd-c73294a9d135" CreationDate="2015-05-15T04:53:23.280" UserId="14016" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="&gt; If my application was rejected, can I write a new application based on the same idea, or it would be rejected because the old application was considered as a prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depends on the dates. If the old application was published, and more than a year has passed from its publication, you can't file anew and it will be considered as prior art. (I'm just blatantly assuming we're talking about the U.S. here since you didn't specify otherwise).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is to not say that you ever *should* file anew. Why would you do that? Did the examiner have a good reason for rejecting? If so, you have to move on from that idea. If not, you have to keep fighting until you are taken final and beyond (RCE and repeat if you need to amend, or appeal if your claims are proper). If time limits permit you should consider a telephonic interview with examiner and try to understand his point and explain yours. Sometimes one-on-one interaction really helps to clarify positions and identify potentially patentable subject matter in an application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I think of it is, every examiner has a certain number of times he/she has to be proved wrong before he/she issues a patent. This is almost always at least 1 and rarely more than 3. So why would you ever want to start over?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12874" RevisionGUID="6727d499-4bf8-4e8e-b31e-30517722f312" CreationDate="2015-05-15T10:33:02.730" UserId="14164" Text="I want to create a product and I want to know how I can get a patent for that?&#xD;&#xA;Also I want to know this:&#xD;&#xA;Some technologies are already has the patent.&#xD;&#xA;Lets say I will do a doorbell system Smart doorbell.&#xD;&#xA;I want to send a push notification or a message to the useer when someone ring the bell. Somebody ghas already got the patent. So do I need to get permission from the user that i will use their patent in for my product.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30037" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12874" RevisionGUID="6727d499-4bf8-4e8e-b31e-30517722f312" CreationDate="2015-05-15T10:33:02.730" UserId="14164" Text="I need help about a product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30038" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12874" RevisionGUID="6727d499-4bf8-4e8e-b31e-30517722f312" CreationDate="2015-05-15T10:33:02.730" UserId="14164" Text="&lt;doorbell&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12874" RevisionGUID="828fce85-680b-4a6a-902b-4ecfdc88ccf8" CreationDate="2015-05-15T11:52:24.490" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="I want to create a product and I want to know how I can get a patent for that?&#xD;&#xA;Also I want to know this:&#xD;&#xA;Some technologies are already has the patent.&#xD;&#xA;Lets say I will do a doorbell system Smart doorbell.&#xD;&#xA;I want to send a push notification or a message to the user when someone ring the bell. Somebody has already got the patent. So do I need to get permission from the user that i will use their patent in for my product.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30044" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12872" RevisionGUID="644be660-75b4-4df5-b372-b7b9fe36fcc1" CreationDate="2015-05-15T15:06:35.790" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[12392],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:11895,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Pushpak&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12876" RevisionGUID="dc008261-1217-4a50-b9be-5f957a8295af" CreationDate="2015-05-15T15:18:37.567" UserId="14169" Text="In reference to the patent: [EP2196243B1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP2196243B1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the inventor failed to complete the patent is is considered public knowledge and can therefor not be patented?&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone sell this abandoned product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30046" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12876" RevisionGUID="dc008261-1217-4a50-b9be-5f957a8295af" CreationDate="2015-05-15T15:18:37.567" UserId="14169" Text="Occlusion Band for muscle training" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30047" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12876" RevisionGUID="dc008261-1217-4a50-b9be-5f957a8295af" CreationDate="2015-05-15T15:18:37.567" UserId="14169" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30048" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12876" RevisionGUID="ec9bae82-ff72-446b-adaf-1e5092fa4f77" CreationDate="2015-05-15T17:09:17.020" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;ep2196243b1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12876" RevisionGUID="ec9bae82-ff72-446b-adaf-1e5092fa4f77" CreationDate="2015-05-15T17:09:17.020" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="In reference to the patent: [EP2196243B1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP2196243B1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the inventor failed to complete the patent, is it considered public knowledge and therefor not patentable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone sell this abandoned product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30050" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12876" RevisionGUID="ec9bae82-ff72-446b-adaf-1e5092fa4f77" CreationDate="2015-05-15T17:09:17.020" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="Can abandoned patents or applications be refiled or sold?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12879" RevisionGUID="ee8b5eb1-e4a4-4c17-9081-70d8284e7053" CreationDate="2015-05-16T03:10:43.557" UserId="14173" Text="If a I'm filling a broad patent claim and then should I file as a separate patent a specific embodiment I'm more interested in? The reasons for this are that the specific embodiment is easier to defend and has far higher chances of being approved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I dont want to loose out on any advantages accruing due to a broader patent but it will obviously be more challenging. So how does it work, if it does, when I file a embodiment and broader patent similarly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30067" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12879" RevisionGUID="ee8b5eb1-e4a4-4c17-9081-70d8284e7053" CreationDate="2015-05-16T03:10:43.557" UserId="14173" Text="File a broad patent and specific embodiment separately?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30068" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12879" RevisionGUID="ee8b5eb1-e4a4-4c17-9081-70d8284e7053" CreationDate="2015-05-16T03:10:43.557" UserId="14173" Text="&lt;broad-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30074" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12876" RevisionGUID="aa731a30-1f9b-4c8c-8d78-6c953f7eeffe" CreationDate="2015-05-16T17:30:37.183" UserId="10011" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5766],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:11895,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Pushpak&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12881" RevisionGUID="4fbdc159-e572-41d8-809e-2871055fa13a" CreationDate="2015-05-17T22:33:17.463" UserId="14184" Text="I've been looking for Google's patent application number for &quot;Google Now&quot;, the intelligent assistant but with no success. Can any redirect me to the correct link or post the Patent number? Thank you in advance.." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30078" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12881" RevisionGUID="4fbdc159-e572-41d8-809e-2871055fa13a" CreationDate="2015-05-17T22:33:17.463" UserId="14184" Text="&quot;Google Now&quot; Patent Application Number" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30079" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12881" RevisionGUID="4fbdc159-e572-41d8-809e-2871055fa13a" CreationDate="2015-05-17T22:33:17.463" UserId="14184" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;google&gt;&lt;wipo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12883" RevisionGUID="ba89cdd3-3682-4500-b818-60fcf4d501c4" CreationDate="2015-05-18T04:55:14.960" UserId="11895" Text="I am not expert in electronics but I feel below is the patent covers the same_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Title:-Providing digital content based on expected user behavior &#xD;&#xA;[US8271413][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.co.in/patents/US8271413" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12883" RevisionGUID="f9243a1d-fe80-4f90-8516-34c3f591384b" CreationDate="2015-05-18T12:03:52.690" UserId="11895" Comment="added 279 characters in body" Text="I am not expert in electronics but I feel below is the patent covers the same_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Title:-Providing digital content based on expected user behavior &#xD;&#xA;[US8271413][1]&#xD;&#xA; 2. Providing results to parameterless search queries [US8478519][2]&#xD;&#xA; 3. Providing results to parameterless search queries [US8504286][3]&#xD;&#xA; 4. Activating Applications Based on Accelerometer Data [US8065508][4], US8438373, US8464036, US8886921.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;they might have some design patents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.co.in/patents/US8271413&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8478519&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8504286&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8065508" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12885" RevisionGUID="a166a7e8-350f-4e88-b5bc-71772fb39072" CreationDate="2015-05-19T11:25:11.297" UserId="14195" Text="I recently found the patent `System and method for loading objects for object-relational mapping` [US8903797](http://www.google.com/patents/US8903797).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I develop [Ruby on Rails](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_on_Rails) web applications that follow the [Active record pattern](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_record_pattern) for [Object relation mapping](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-relational_mapping).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I understand the patent, it covers this mapping. Is this true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30092" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12885" RevisionGUID="a166a7e8-350f-4e88-b5bc-71772fb39072" CreationDate="2015-05-19T11:25:11.297" UserId="14195" Text="US8903797 - System and method for loading objects for object-relational mapping" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30093" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12885" RevisionGUID="a166a7e8-350f-4e88-b5bc-71772fb39072" CreationDate="2015-05-19T11:25:11.297" UserId="14195" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;data-processing-database&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12892" RevisionGUID="75693b78-bd9f-4978-916f-f13d3aa318cd" CreationDate="2015-05-20T00:05:12.313" UserId="14202" Text="In reference to the patent: [US3731965][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3731965&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent current or expired? If expired is it public domain or can I patent it? If it is current where can I find this item for purchase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30115" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12892" RevisionGUID="75693b78-bd9f-4978-916f-f13d3aa318cd" CreationDate="2015-05-20T00:05:12.313" UserId="14202" Text="Patent status information" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30116" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12892" RevisionGUID="75693b78-bd9f-4978-916f-f13d3aa318cd" CreationDate="2015-05-20T00:05:12.313" UserId="14202" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30117" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12892" RevisionGUID="f6759512-d890-4e3d-bf16-b398a75d12f3" CreationDate="2015-05-20T00:46:12.850" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[3801],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12897" RevisionGUID="abb2cd48-b41b-478a-9629-141d25785782" CreationDate="2015-05-20T13:27:24.080" UserId="14208" Text="I had a key idea to StartUp a company. But I found other company already holding a patent(found in Google patent search) on same idea but different approach to accomplish it.  &#xA;Can I patent the same idea with my own methodology? Is it illegal to use an idea which is already patented? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30133" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12897" RevisionGUID="abb2cd48-b41b-478a-9629-141d25785782" CreationDate="2015-05-20T13:27:24.080" UserId="14208" Text="Patenting same idea with different methodology" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30134" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12897" RevisionGUID="abb2cd48-b41b-478a-9629-141d25785782" CreationDate="2015-05-20T13:27:24.080" UserId="14208" Text="&lt;patent-search&gt;&lt;idea&gt;&lt;illegal&gt;&lt;methodology&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="d6568991-1ec3-43d7-96a5-95b6e26a7a75" CreationDate="2015-05-20T16:53:14.997" UserId="14209" Text="In reference to the patent: [EP2600859A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP2600859A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has this patent been granted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it mean that 1. all combination therapy consisting of beta-3 agonists in combination with muscarinic agonists have been patented by AltheRx OR just &#xD;&#xA;2. Solabegron in combination with muscarinic agonists have been patented by AltheRx?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30143" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="d6568991-1ec3-43d7-96a5-95b6e26a7a75" CreationDate="2015-05-20T16:53:14.997" UserId="14209" Text="Solabegron and antimuscarinic patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30144" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="d6568991-1ec3-43d7-96a5-95b6e26a7a75" CreationDate="2015-05-20T16:53:14.997" UserId="14209" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12900" RevisionGUID="883906d8-a79c-4441-9a16-b48ffea19ca6" CreationDate="2015-05-21T04:08:54.923" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; Can I patent the same idea with my own methodology?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can obtain a patent incorporating the same idea as long as your own methodology is a non-obvious improvement over the prior art (including but not limited to that specific competitor's patent). The claims will have to include some of the methodology details to render them non-obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is it illegal to use an idea which is already patented?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideas themselves cannot be patented. It is an act of infringement to practice a patented invention, as defined by its claims and the relevant statutes governing patent infringement. Patent infringement is not a criminal offense. At most, you would be liable for monetary damages and you may have to cease operations if a patent holder obtains an injunction against you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, you should consult a patent attorney who can look at all the details of your situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="c8b52131-0439-46d2-af5a-1884892d70ed" CreationDate="2015-05-21T04:40:30.440" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [EP2600859A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP2600859A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has this patent been granted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it mean that 1. all combination therapy consisting of beta-3 agonists in combination with muscarinic agonists have been patented by AltheRx OR just &#xD;&#xA;2. Solabegron in combination with muscarinic agonists have been patented by AltheRx?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12901" RevisionGUID="561fdbec-f8d0-4cd6-8866-2e09294e5907" CreationDate="2015-05-21T04:44:34.600" UserId="11895" Text="Patent has not been granted, currently its under examination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you can check the amended claim using EP register" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12901" RevisionGUID="31775f78-e8a4-4735-a004-666749b1e9ab" CreationDate="2015-05-21T07:10:38.247" UserId="11895" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="Patent has not been granted, currently its under examination. Check Status using [STATUS][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you can check the amended claim using EP register **All documents**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP11748801" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12907" RevisionGUID="ed20571e-d421-4f2e-a802-df33e294e379" CreationDate="2015-05-21T19:32:47.397" UserId="4545" Text="This is not a patent. It's a publication of an application for a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for prior art, a quick search comes up with US20120307151 A1, which discloses calculating a checksum for the entire 24-bit YCbCr value. There may be closer references. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FYI, &quot;obviousness&quot; is a far stricter standard than you imply. Obviousness generally refers to a straightforward combination of prior art that would have been realized by a person of ordinary skill in the appropriate discipline -- for example, if one reference discloses performing checksum validations on 8-bit Red, Green and Blue values individually and another reference discloses performing a checksum validation on a 24-bit YCbCr value as a whole, a claim to performing 8-bit Y, Cb, and Cr values individually might be deemed &quot;obvious&quot; in view of the combination of aforementioned references. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12908" RevisionGUID="4dca695d-05dc-4acf-bdfb-00a868cb3a25" CreationDate="2015-05-21T20:01:58.767" UserId="14227" Text="The company I work for is filing a software patent (US and Canada) based on the software that I have created for them. The company is asking me to sign an &quot;Assignment of Invention&quot; so that they own exclusive rights to the patent. I believe that this is fine given the fact that I created the software on company time, however I want to be reassured that the patent will be used in &quot;good faith&quot; (they won't become a patent troll) or they won't sue competition just because they want to create a monopoly in the market. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give some background: we're a SASS startup and our CEO/(potential) investors believe that having a patent means we're more likable for investments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is what I'm looking for reasonable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30178" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12908" RevisionGUID="4dca695d-05dc-4acf-bdfb-00a868cb3a25" CreationDate="2015-05-21T20:01:58.767" UserId="14227" Text="How can I ensure that patents for software I create for my company are used in good faith?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30179" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12908" RevisionGUID="4dca695d-05dc-4acf-bdfb-00a868cb3a25" CreationDate="2015-05-21T20:01:58.767" UserId="14227" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12909" RevisionGUID="e1a6764d-d885-45dd-b4a7-6a2a07ea9c48" CreationDate="2015-05-21T21:45:07.423" UserId="14217" Text="I'm attempting to form a non-provisional utility patent relating to a method and apparatus used for chemical separations. My question is concerning field of invention and subsequently prior art. Here’s an example of my issue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve come up with a novel way for coffee shops to extract caffeine from coffee beans (I.e. make a cup of coffee). My new method and apparatus are substantially different from any of the coffee machines used in the industry today. However, the invention has similarities when compared to industrial caffeine extractors. These industrial extractors are not extracting caffeine with the intent of making cups of coffee, but rather mass producing products such as energy pills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I'm not concerned with my invention being too similar when compared with the industrial extractor. I’m only wondering if the industrial processes should be included within the Background of the Invention. Should I mention these as prior art? Or should I focus on the methods and apparatus used by the coffee shops representing the target application of my invention?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this question isn’t too convoluted to understand. Any help would be greatly appreciated.      &#xD;&#xA;    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30181" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12909" RevisionGUID="e1a6764d-d885-45dd-b4a7-6a2a07ea9c48" CreationDate="2015-05-21T21:45:07.423" UserId="14217" Text="How detailed should the background be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30182" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12909" RevisionGUID="e1a6764d-d885-45dd-b4a7-6a2a07ea9c48" CreationDate="2015-05-21T21:45:07.423" UserId="14217" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;background&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12911" RevisionGUID="4cd44161-7988-4bca-a29b-597bfd3b5b5e" CreationDate="2015-05-21T23:29:18.010" UserId="11052" Text="During the approval process changes to the claims are possible or even encouraged between the applicant and the examiner. During that stage 1 or 2 broad claims would cover your broader scope and the following narrow claims cover your more intricate details. I do not think more than one patent filing would be necessary. Your claims on first submission are not cast in stone. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is an interesting question and I am looking forward to answers by others. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12912" RevisionGUID="e97559a1-1143-4e24-9add-a21ae493d348" CreationDate="2015-05-22T01:11:02.747" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; Now, I'm not concerned with my invention being too similar when compared with the industrial extractor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be worth revisiting this point while taking into account that changes in size or scale almost never justify patentability. I don't have case cites on hand, but they should be easy to dig up. It would only be patentable if some non-obvious adaptations were made in addition to scaling it down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I’m only wondering if the industrial processes should be included within the Background of the Invention. Should I mention these as prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't much matter if you mention them in the specification. What's really important is to include prior art documents describing them in the IDS. The more relevant prior art you show the examiner, the harder it will be to invalidate the patent in court." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12913" RevisionGUID="06fb9e22-e06c-446c-b693-da21aa918052" CreationDate="2015-05-22T02:15:05.083" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; Even if the obviousness of the basic idea is not enough to throw this out there should be plenty of prior art available [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no such thing as &quot;obviousness of the basic idea&quot; in the absence of relevant prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [T]here should be plenty of prior art available for calculating checksums for each color plane in various old picture and video compression standards, container standards and open source software [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That may be, but I wouldn't bet on it. Why would you want to calculate a separate checksum for each color plane? Certainly, it's like that some lossless image compression scheme can be found that involved checksumming a whole image to ensure proper decoding. But why do it separately for each channel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12913" RevisionGUID="d4f4c930-492f-4f17-8650-07d1c73e1757" CreationDate="2015-05-22T02:25:21.967" UserId="14016" Comment="added 661 characters in body" Text="&gt; Even if the obviousness of the basic idea is not enough to throw this out there should be plenty of prior art available [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no such thing as &quot;obviousness of the basic idea&quot; in the absence of relevant prior art. I do not mean to say that this specific patent application is necessarily non-obvious, just that that's not how you determine obviousness in the context of patent law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [T]here should be plenty of prior art available for calculating checksums for each color plane in various old picture and video compression standards, container standards and open source software [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That may be, but I wouldn't bet on it. Why would you want to calculate a separate checksum for each color plane? Certainly, it's likely that some lossless image compression scheme can be found that involved calculating a checksum for a whole image to ensure proper decoding. But why do it separately for each channel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, I'd say there's no clear utility for the patent, and that might be a good reason to attack it without looking too hard at the prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specification does mention that &quot;[t]his checksum may be used by the decoder for compliance testing, bit stream transmission or storage error detection, etc&quot; but it is questionable whether that is a *specific* utility. Any other method of transmitting checksums that covers all of the data achieves these goals equally well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12913" RevisionGUID="759ba100-a104-449a-9259-0a30f048836d" CreationDate="2015-05-22T02:31:02.387" UserId="14016" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="&gt; Even if the obviousness of the basic idea is not enough to throw this out there should be plenty of prior art available [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no such thing as &quot;obviousness of the basic idea&quot; in the absence of relevant prior art. I do not mean to say that this specific patent application is necessarily non-obvious, just that that's not how you determine obviousness in the context of patent law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [T]here should be plenty of prior art available for calculating checksums for each color plane in various old picture and video compression standards, container standards and open source software [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That may be, but I wouldn't bet on it. Why would you want to calculate a separate checksum for each color plane? Certainly, it's likely that some lossless image compression scheme can be found that involved calculating a checksum for a whole image to ensure proper decoding. But why do it separately for each channel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, I'd say there's no clear utility for the patent, and that might be a good rationale for attacking it without looking too hard at the prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specification does mention that &quot;[t]his checksum may be used by the decoder for compliance testing, bit stream transmission or storage error detection, etc&quot; but it is questionable whether that is a *specific* utility. Any other method of transmitting checksums that covers all of the data achieves these goals equally well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12914" RevisionGUID="65ecf116-36af-47f1-a872-c817a5273fbc" CreationDate="2015-05-22T08:53:37.337" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; I want to be reassured that the patent will be used in &quot;good faith&quot; (they won't become a patent troll) or they won't sue competition just because they want to create a monopoly in the market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is what I'm looking for reasonable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not really.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, use of a patent in &quot;good faith&quot; is an extremely subjective guideline. How will &quot;good faith&quot; be determined? Or are you asking for veto rights whenever the company intends to enforce the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, a patent holder is *supposed* to be able to maintain a monopoly (of limited duration) as a reward for innovating. Part of the negotiation process of getting an infringer to pay a reasonable royalty, without going to court over it, is threatening to obtain an injunction in court. If an infringer knows the most you'll ask for in court is a reasonable royalty anyways, he might be much more inclined to spin things out with a costly court case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, you're trying to referee a boxing match with the mantra &quot;no punching&quot;. That'll work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12914" RevisionGUID="7c5c34f6-4c27-4de9-90e0-a7b8f315b5ec" CreationDate="2015-05-22T09:22:06.367" UserId="14016" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="&gt; I want to be reassured that the patent will be used in &quot;good faith&quot; (they won't become a patent troll) or they won't sue competition just because they want to create a monopoly in the market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is what I'm looking for reasonable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not really.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, use of a patent in &quot;good faith&quot; is an extremely subjective guideline. How will &quot;good faith&quot; be determined? Or are you asking for veto rights whenever the company intends to enforce the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, a patent holder is *supposed* to be able to maintain a monopoly (of limited scope and duration) as a reward for innovating. Part of the negotiation process of getting an infringer to pay a reasonable royalty, without going to court over it, is threatening to obtain an injunction in court. If an infringer knows the a patent holder won't ask for more than a reasonable royalty in court anyways, the infringer might be much more inclined to spin things out with a costly court case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, you're trying to referee a boxing match with the mantra &quot;no punching&quot;. That'll work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12916" RevisionGUID="0103e42f-1ba1-42fc-90e5-f8e1a65bbb68" CreationDate="2015-05-22T19:03:45.847" UserId="14220" Text="Apologies in advance if this isn't the right place to ask - I'm new to this forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm building a software product that is similar to an existing product online in some ways. I want to make sure I'm not investing time and money on something that cannot be used. I know there is a Trademark associated to the existing competitive product but I don't know if there are any patents granted for those similarities I'm going for. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help is appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30206" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12916" RevisionGUID="0103e42f-1ba1-42fc-90e5-f8e1a65bbb68" CreationDate="2015-05-22T19:03:45.847" UserId="14220" Text="Find potential patents related / linked to a Trademark" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30207" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12916" RevisionGUID="0103e42f-1ba1-42fc-90e5-f8e1a65bbb68" CreationDate="2015-05-22T19:03:45.847" UserId="14220" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-search&gt;&lt;trademark&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12917" RevisionGUID="18e8dca0-e859-4404-a935-7274bda6522d" CreationDate="2015-05-22T23:59:14.337" UserId="14233" Text="I have an idea for a mechanical over unity that uses magnets with different Tesla values to keep and add energy into a perpetual system.  Thing is I dont have the money for a patent because Im poor and on SSI.  Id like make money off of this were I could have a better life than what I have.  Plus the idea itself, if used could be great for a alternative energy source--and Im really excited about that.  The thing Im wondering is that in this day and age of online blogging and blog sites that publish your material you submit.  In this case two diagrams and a explanation of my idea.  Could a copyright or thus a copyright because the material is published though the site, be used as a viable patent.  If anyone knows the answer to this question please contact me at hymind13@aol.com and we'll work a small payment for your troubles.  Please write me back as soon as possible to give me your opinion.  Thanks and have a good day.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jonas Tyler Doran" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30209" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12917" RevisionGUID="18e8dca0-e859-4404-a935-7274bda6522d" CreationDate="2015-05-22T23:59:14.337" UserId="14233" Text="what is considered a patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30210" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12917" RevisionGUID="18e8dca0-e859-4404-a935-7274bda6522d" CreationDate="2015-05-22T23:59:14.337" UserId="14233" Text="&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12917" RevisionGUID="6b8a4cd6-633c-485c-8367-6798f2c71372" CreationDate="2015-05-23T00:18:26.953" UserId="7747" Comment="removed email, conversation, and details" Text="I have an idea for a mechanical over Unity that uses magnets with different Tesla values to keep and add energy into a perpetual system. I don't have the money for a patent because I'm poor and on SSI. I'd like make money off of this were I could have a better life than what I have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing I'm wondering is that in this day and age of online blogging and blog sites that publish your material you submit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case two diagrams and an explanation of my idea. Could a copyright or thus a copyright because the material is published though the site, be used as a viable patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30215" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12917" RevisionGUID="6b8a4cd6-633c-485c-8367-6798f2c71372" CreationDate="2015-05-23T00:18:26.953" UserId="7747" Comment="removed email, conversation, and details" Text="What is considered a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30216" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12917" RevisionGUID="6b8a4cd6-633c-485c-8367-6798f2c71372" CreationDate="2015-05-23T00:18:26.953" UserId="7747" Comment="removed email, conversation, and details" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30217" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12917" RevisionGUID="6b8a4cd6-633c-485c-8367-6798f2c71372" CreationDate="2015-05-23T00:18:26.953" Comment="Proposed by 7747 approved by 1 edit id of 1830" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30218" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12917" RevisionGUID="4a246f10-f36d-4128-9935-45dea79beec3" CreationDate="2015-05-23T00:20:28.373" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[12065],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12924" RevisionGUID="5b1fe86e-50fe-48d5-af28-ab170ca788f3" CreationDate="2015-05-24T01:47:04.853" UserId="14217" Text="My question is regarding a provisional utility patent. I’ve been told (by non-professionals) that it is advantageous to make your provisional as detailed as possible. The way I understand this advice is that by including excessive detail in your provisional you will be able to pick, choose, and narrow down when it comes time for the non-provisional. However, if you’re too brief/vague in the provisional you may end up being forced to file a non-provisional that provides inadequate protection or filing a new provisional and thus losing priority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this advice is generally sound, and if so, are there any drawbacks to being overly detailed in a provisional utility patent?&#xD;&#xA;Any info would be greatly appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.s. I was surprised that this topic hasn’t been covered on the forum. If it has in fact been covered I apologize for the redundant post.         &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30249" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12924" RevisionGUID="5b1fe86e-50fe-48d5-af28-ab170ca788f3" CreationDate="2015-05-24T01:47:04.853" UserId="14217" Text="How spacific should a provisional utiltiy patent be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30250" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12924" RevisionGUID="5b1fe86e-50fe-48d5-af28-ab170ca788f3" CreationDate="2015-05-24T01:47:04.853" UserId="14217" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;detailed&gt;&lt;specific&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12925" RevisionGUID="63fbb49b-5ddc-4ae4-997a-7abf4b5d1f91" CreationDate="2015-05-24T06:14:40.620" UserId="14240" Text="[Microcontroller-resident software development environment supporting application-level asynchronous event handling, interactive debugging and pin variables for embedded systems](http://www.google.nl/patents/US8117587)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Isn't this one looking too broad? Or is it silly and harmless enough in using a specific combination of flash memory and the BASIC programming language and so on?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's novel here? Haven't similar computer systems been developed before? Have we not had general purpose PC's (and dedicated machines) equipped with various I/O ports and cards controlling other devices and/or capturing data? Does every PC with SSD drive, some compilers installed and some devices attached fall under this one?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30252" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12925" RevisionGUID="63fbb49b-5ddc-4ae4-997a-7abf4b5d1f91" CreationDate="2015-05-24T06:14:40.620" UserId="14240" Text="Too broad/prior art?: Microcontroller-resident software development environment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30253" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12925" RevisionGUID="63fbb49b-5ddc-4ae4-997a-7abf4b5d1f91" CreationDate="2015-05-24T06:14:40.620" UserId="14240" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30261" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="4419" RevisionGUID="98869aab-99ef-4060-8fde-b990e3b8a47a" CreationDate="2015-05-24T16:28:15.067" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12925" RevisionGUID="ef362ada-f8bb-4393-b56d-d6961128ff2d" CreationDate="2015-05-25T04:20:36.810" UserId="11895" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="US8117587 [Microcontroller-resident software development environment supporting application-level asynchronous event handling, interactive debugging and pin variables for embedded systems](http://www.google.nl/patents/US8117587)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Isn't this one looking too broad? Or is it silly and harmless enough in using a specific combination of flash memory and the BASIC programming language and so on?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's novel here? Haven't similar computer systems been developed before? Have we not had general purpose PC's (and dedicated machines) equipped with various I/O ports and cards controlling other devices and/or capturing data? Does every PC with SSD drive, some compilers installed and some devices attached fall under this one?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30267" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12925" RevisionGUID="ef362ada-f8bb-4393-b56d-d6961128ff2d" CreationDate="2015-05-25T04:20:36.810" UserId="11895" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;us8117587&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12928" RevisionGUID="77964e66-3c2c-47b8-816b-91d3c05785c9" CreationDate="2015-05-25T05:57:22.417" UserId="14245" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140359280][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140359280&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is prior art that has been published by myself and colleagues in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;D. W. Chadwick, A. Basden. “Evaluating Trust in a Public Key Certification Authority”, Computers and Security, Vol 20, No 7, (Nov 2001) pp 592-611.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.Ball, D.W Chadwick, A. Basden. “The Implementation of a System for Evaluating Trust in a PKI Environment” in Trust in the Network Economy, Evolaris vol 2. Eds Otto Petrovic, Michael Ksela, Markus Fallenbock, Christian Kitti. Pp 263-279, SpringerWein, 2003. ISBN 3-211-06853-8. Available from  http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/pubs/2003/2126/index.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, does this work invalidate any of this patent?&#xD;&#xA;Does it invalidate any similar patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30271" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12928" RevisionGUID="77964e66-3c2c-47b8-816b-91d3c05785c9" CreationDate="2015-05-25T05:57:22.417" UserId="14245" Text="Prior art on evaluating trust in a certification authority" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30272" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12928" RevisionGUID="77964e66-3c2c-47b8-816b-91d3c05785c9" CreationDate="2015-05-25T05:57:22.417" UserId="14245" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12929" RevisionGUID="0babd12a-6503-4cba-80f7-302557d86e14" CreationDate="2015-05-25T06:10:17.560" UserId="14246" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7305928][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7305928&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I filed for this work on 6/10/2005.  (I can provide the complete package filed.)  The examiner did not like my format, so I paid an attorney to refile, on 4/5/07.  In the meantime Bradley filed the above patent using my work, on Oct 12, 2005.  When I contacted Brunswick, they said Bradley was fired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What rights do I have?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30274" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12929" RevisionGUID="0babd12a-6503-4cba-80f7-302557d86e14" CreationDate="2015-05-25T06:10:17.560" UserId="14246" Text="Patent application intellectual property rights" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30275" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12929" RevisionGUID="0babd12a-6503-4cba-80f7-302557d86e14" CreationDate="2015-05-25T06:10:17.560" UserId="14246" Text="&lt;invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30276" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12929" RevisionGUID="7de88420-6b6c-4897-bf5a-7b4ba64548dc" CreationDate="2015-05-25T07:17:44.153" UserId="11895" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;us7305928&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30277" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12928" RevisionGUID="8488d5a6-a9b3-425d-9033-19522d323b0d" CreationDate="2015-05-25T07:20:15.937" UserId="11895" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20140359280&gt;&lt;evaulation&gt;&lt;interpretation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12924" RevisionGUID="21afb2b9-3204-4376-85be-0faaaf4c9432" CreationDate="2015-05-25T14:42:14.307" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 141 characters in body; edited title" Text="My question is regarding a provisional utility patent. I’ve been told (by non-professionals) that it is advantageous to make your provisional as detailed as possible. The way I understand this advice is that by including excessive detail in your provisional you will be able to pick, choose, and narrow down when it comes time for the non-provisional. However, if you’re too brief/vague in the provisional you may end up being forced to file a non-provisional that provides inadequate protection or filing a new provisional and thus losing priority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this advice is generally sound, and if so, are there any drawbacks to being overly detailed in a provisional utility patent?&#xD;&#xA;Any info would be greatly appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30279" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12924" RevisionGUID="21afb2b9-3204-4376-85be-0faaaf4c9432" CreationDate="2015-05-25T14:42:14.307" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 141 characters in body; edited title" Text="How specific should a provisional utiltiy patent be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12930" RevisionGUID="95916c16-3434-4d15-89dc-e00f028e96cf" CreationDate="2015-05-26T05:35:39.603" UserId="11895" Text="In all  offices its allowed that inventor first file all enabling disclosure (what you have) as provisional  application (not WIPO) and then come up with attorney of your choice and file all forms and claims according to ACT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you have a question which is context based their are two mind sets one says disclose what you have and project what you want and other says provide all components what you have and almost all possible ways to interpret things where it can be applied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if inventor is not sure what broadest claim he can have, he should discloses all info without limiting his interpretation and brief outline in separate paragraph with non limiting objectives with all possible ways where they can be applied. Later he can come up with attorney with proper claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in all cases if your words indicate some limiting subject matter you will end-up narrow claim or PaperIP. its best to have state-of-the art legal IP expert as drafter from start.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier 'Ask Patents' user has answered a similar question [Fixing a poorly written patent application that has not been published](http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/12425/11895)   also see [Which countries require a claim for using a PPA as priority date?](http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/12495/11895) you might also find following question interesting &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Provisional application drawings vs non provisional patent drawings](http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/10546/11895) ;; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How similar does non provisional and provisional patent have to be?](http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/5393/11895) ;; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How detailed should a provisional patent application be? (Software)](http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/3331/11895) ;; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Should I file multiple provisional patent applications when my invention can span different sizes?](http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/12742/11895)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12931" RevisionGUID="f70ac5d0-db35-4d2f-8416-e7d952458f9b" CreationDate="2015-05-26T05:59:06.420" UserId="11895" Text="Its unclear to us whether both subject matter was same and you have priority over inventive subject matter, however if you feel you have the priority and your disclosure was novelty destroying then you can initiate re-examination over granted patent. Keep in mind that the at that time US was first to invent therefore if your reduction to practice was in fact earlier you might get some relief.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you filed application in US therefore it might be screened by US examiner I doubt that he missed your application but just in case please cross check the entire search strategy of the US patent and if your patent application is not listed then you can raise some queries in front of USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12932" RevisionGUID="5c13b484-31ac-4e5e-a70c-d937736d053a" CreationDate="2015-05-26T06:25:09.177" UserId="11895" Text="I am not expert in software patents but i feel they are trying to protect:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a target microcontroller chip as self-contained development environment includes a compiler which runs entirely in the on-chip memory an application-level interrupt handler  an interactive debugger use of “pin variables” bound to the I/O pins of the target microcontroller chip an operating system including a trusted layer which is wholly programmed into the on-chip programmable non-volatile memory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;all in one you should read entire claim 1 and strike out what you find in single object. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12933" RevisionGUID="6d3d43f9-1988-42f8-aa74-267e58027de7" CreationDate="2015-05-26T06:31:44.217" UserId="11895" Text="Starting point for you is to see all the brochures, investor reports, annual reports and website of said company for relevant patent numbers. if you find them its good if not then you switch to patent search websites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to check both utility patents and design patents if related integrated circuits too. the way to search will be searching by organization name as applicant or assignee, if nothing fruitful comes than switch to inventor names for which you can see annual report of organization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you can use following links to search, please read help files to use database effectively:- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [European Patent Office][1] &#xD;&#xA;2. [US patent office][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/advancedSearch?locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/index.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12934" RevisionGUID="fd2dbb2c-8edd-47b8-8861-beb99bc5cd80" CreationDate="2015-05-26T16:22:33.920" UserId="22313" Text="Regarding &quot;World Patents&quot;. I understand that the very basic basic process is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Apply for a world patent. World patent application stands in for an application in all the various countries that the inventor wants protection in.&#xD;&#xA;2) Decide what countries the inventor wants protection in and apply in those countries.&#xD;&#xA;3) Patents in various countries are either granted or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does one tell if the individual patents applied for in each country has been granted or is pending/in some other state?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specific countries I am interested in are: US, EP, CA, ES, AT, PT, BRP, SI, DK, DE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30287" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12934" RevisionGUID="fd2dbb2c-8edd-47b8-8861-beb99bc5cd80" CreationDate="2015-05-26T16:22:33.920" UserId="22313" Text="How to tell if various non US patents are granted vs applications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30288" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12934" RevisionGUID="fd2dbb2c-8edd-47b8-8861-beb99bc5cd80" CreationDate="2015-05-26T16:22:33.920" UserId="22313" Text="&lt;granted&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12936" RevisionGUID="ffe1fb99-abf5-404e-9797-4f2c69a3beec" CreationDate="2015-05-26T17:26:43.843" UserId="14253" Text="In reference to the patent: [USD234017][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD234017" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30293" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12936" RevisionGUID="ffe1fb99-abf5-404e-9797-4f2c69a3beec" CreationDate="2015-05-26T17:26:43.843" UserId="14253" Text="Who owns the rights to plastic spoons now? (US D234017 S) Their patent was only to last 14 years" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30294" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12936" RevisionGUID="ffe1fb99-abf5-404e-9797-4f2c69a3beec" CreationDate="2015-05-26T17:26:43.843" UserId="14253" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12937" RevisionGUID="40e65ffb-c968-41c9-9709-56f398faa279" CreationDate="2015-05-26T20:33:27.667" UserId="13884" Text="To what extent may you respond to an office action?&#xD;&#xA;Can you add new matter?&#xD;&#xA;Can you re-write your patent completely if it is still in the same field of the original invention?&#xD;&#xA;Can you change the definition of your invention?&#xD;&#xA;Kind regards,&#xD;&#xA;Deon.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30296" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12937" RevisionGUID="40e65ffb-c968-41c9-9709-56f398faa279" CreationDate="2015-05-26T20:33:27.667" UserId="13884" Text="Office action response" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30297" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12937" RevisionGUID="40e65ffb-c968-41c9-9709-56f398faa279" CreationDate="2015-05-26T20:33:27.667" UserId="13884" Text="&lt;action&gt;&lt;office&gt;&lt;resply&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12938" RevisionGUID="b48162d3-ca2a-4033-8ed7-3c7d0eb7d0d2" CreationDate="2015-05-26T20:45:01.533" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; To what extent may you respond to an office action?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can traverse the Examiner's rejections, meaning arguing around them. Or you can amend the claims, usually to narrow the claimed invention and exclude what may be considered obvious from the prior art. Amendments to the claims must be supported by the original filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can you add new matter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, you cannot add any new matter after the filing date. That is the strictest rule of the U.S. patent office. You must file a continuation-in-part or a new patent application to do so. However, changes to the specification are not always new matter. Some changes may be supported by the original filing. Such changes are usually limited to small informalities (e.g., spelling errors) that the Examiner has raised objections for. Note that if the original filing is ambiguous, it is generally not possible to later argue that a clarification is supported by the ambiguous filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can you re-write your patent completely if it is still in the same field of the original invention? Can you change the definition of your invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, both of these sound like they would be examples of adding new matter.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12939" RevisionGUID="e69d3d9b-7874-466b-8b45-5863489346ae" CreationDate="2015-05-26T23:35:44.733" UserId="14257" Text="Name is Travis Jay Vincent... I would like to know. I know I have many. Where can I search?...Please and Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30300" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12939" RevisionGUID="e69d3d9b-7874-466b-8b45-5863489346ae" CreationDate="2015-05-26T23:35:44.733" UserId="14257" Text="How do I find out where MY patents are?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30301" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12939" RevisionGUID="e69d3d9b-7874-466b-8b45-5863489346ae" CreationDate="2015-05-26T23:35:44.733" UserId="14257" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12934" RevisionGUID="e9ee9231-7b9c-4a2c-ae82-91428307128f" CreationDate="2015-05-27T04:52:09.093" UserId="11895" Comment="edited body" Text="Regarding &quot;World Patent application&quot;. I understand that the very basic basic process is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Apply for a world patent application it stands in for an application in all the various countries that the inventor wants protection in.&#xD;&#xA;2) Decide what countries the inventor wants protection in and apply in those countries.&#xD;&#xA;3) Patents in various countries are either granted or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does one tell if the individual patents applied for in each country has been granted or is pending/in some other state?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specific countries I am interested in are: US, EP, CA, ES, AT, PT, BRP, SI, DK, DE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12937" RevisionGUID="b58111d0-3985-4f98-92c4-f317e93d87da" CreationDate="2015-05-27T04:53:24.270" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 20 characters in body" Text="To what extent may you respond to an office action?&#xD;&#xA;Can you add new matter?&#xD;&#xA;Can you re-write your patent completely if it is still in the same field of the original invention?&#xD;&#xA;Can you change the definition of your invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12936" RevisionGUID="8cfcb820-f899-4bf3-992a-c7e588dded26" CreationDate="2015-05-27T04:58:50.387" UserId="11895" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [USD234017][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who owns the rights to plastic spoons now? Their patent was only to last 14 years&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD234017" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30305" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12936" RevisionGUID="8cfcb820-f899-4bf3-992a-c7e588dded26" CreationDate="2015-05-27T04:58:50.387" UserId="11895" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;search&gt;&lt;usd234017&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30306" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12936" RevisionGUID="8cfcb820-f899-4bf3-992a-c7e588dded26" CreationDate="2015-05-27T04:58:50.387" UserId="11895" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="Who owns the rights to plastic spoons now? (US D234017 S)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12940" RevisionGUID="cf183ce5-cc3b-4104-b731-39f563b0fcd7" CreationDate="2015-05-27T05:05:43.243" UserId="11895" Text="'Ask Patents' user has already answered a similar question [Expiry date of patent no 6676109](http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/5622/11895) but in your specific case you'll need to apply that answer as follows: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US MPEP 2701    Patent Term [R-11.2013] states that..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Design patents have a term of fourteen years from the date of patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; grant, except for any design patent issued from applications filed on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or after the date of entry into force of the Hague Treaty as to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; United States, has a term of fifteen years from the date of patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; grant (see Pub. L. No. 112-211). See 35 U.S.C. 173 and MPEP § 1505.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;above goes with duly payment of maintenance fee and subject to any invalidation or re-examination proceeding. if all above are full filled then a design patent to last 14 years after the expiry of said term patent will be in public domain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12941" RevisionGUID="5a1682f6-2470-4059-ab58-d3c860bbe771" CreationDate="2015-05-27T05:42:03.233" UserId="14259" Text="Visit here, put your name, select &quot;Inventor Name&quot; from the tab, and search.&#xD;&#xA;http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/index.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12934" RevisionGUID="d477f320-66a7-4019-ba8f-8641258b7530" CreationDate="2015-05-27T05:56:21.007" UserId="10011" Comment="edited body" Text="Regarding &quot;World Patent application&quot;. I understand that the very basic basic process is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Apply for a world patent application it stands in for an application in all the various countries that the inventor wants protection in.&#xD;&#xA;2. Decide what countries the inventor wants protection in and apply in those countries.&#xD;&#xA;3. Patents in various countries are either granted or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does one tell if the individual patents applied for in each country has been granted or is pending/in some other state?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specific countries I am interested in are: US, EP, CA, ES, AT, PT, BRP, SI, DK, DE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12942" RevisionGUID="c7079a81-df2d-4ebe-900d-21cc81d9d11e" CreationDate="2015-05-27T08:08:20.470" UserId="14261" Text="I was interested on Mobile Code/App generators and I landed on google patents. I checked patents related to Code Generators and I saw 4 or more entries that does similar things. So I'm curious why are these patents accepted, since there are others very similar. And if somebody files for a patent, how does one know he/she is not infringing?&#xA;&#xA;Check the entries that is about programming code generation. &#xA;&#xA;https://www.google.com/search?q=code+generator&amp;hl=en&amp;biw=360&amp;bih=567&amp;tbm=pts&amp;ei=-nhlVdK9EIGxogTugIKgCg&amp;start=40&amp;sa=N&amp;dpr=3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30311" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12942" RevisionGUID="c7079a81-df2d-4ebe-900d-21cc81d9d11e" CreationDate="2015-05-27T08:08:20.470" UserId="14261" Text="How to ensure you are not infringing patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30312" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12942" RevisionGUID="c7079a81-df2d-4ebe-900d-21cc81d9d11e" CreationDate="2015-05-27T08:08:20.470" UserId="14261" Text="&lt;programming&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30313" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12939" RevisionGUID="6e1cfee5-6e92-47ca-8549-8b7d279441a9" CreationDate="2015-05-27T13:37:09.647" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[11951],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12943" RevisionGUID="fbb8616c-d057-4a6a-bca4-b07fcfde8ee8" CreationDate="2015-05-28T07:42:37.957" UserId="11895" Text="Short answer:- A person can find out using national patent office patent depository for said application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long answer:- its a analysis based answer and limited to data indexed in web resource database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. WIPO applications are indexed in PATENTSCOPE database and it has a landing page for all applications. In bibliographic page there is a tab called 'National Phase' which lists all national phase entry details, now please note these details may be incorrect as some patent office may not report IB for national phase entry. but if online request of certified WIPO PCT application is made then these details will be updated here (no guarantees).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Now a person has to check if national patent was granted that need to be done using Patent Register of subject country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see below procedure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/JoUqd.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12945" RevisionGUID="e455ccd3-e41e-4c2e-a0a1-60bfdf056f9c" CreationDate="2015-05-28T15:21:33.160" UserId="14223" Text="I am quite interested in trading card games and as a result the patent that Wizards of the Coast holds on the subject interests me. Since it's been about 20 years since the original trading card game (by Wizards of the Coast) was created, I was looking at whether the patent was still active.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I looked at [US5662332](https://www.google.nl/patents/US5662332) and [USRE37957](https://www.google.nl/patents/USRE37957). Following the guide laid out [here](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3801/how-do-you-determine-a-patents-expiration-date) (and ignoring the reissue, since my understanding is that it does not change the term of the patent), I came to the conclusion that the patent was still valid till 17 October 2015 (20 years after 17 October 1995, which is after 8 June 1995).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Wizards recently sued Cryptozoic on the IP in question (though they are suing on Copyright, Trade dress and Patent infringement) and Cryptozoic response ran along the lines of &quot;Now that their Patent has expired, WotC is being the corporate bully&quot; (see [here](http://www.cardboardconnection.com/news/law-cards-cryptozoic-rants-wizards-coast)). This would suggest that this patent has in fact expired, contrary to my own conclusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I looked at the patent again and saw that it was under **also published as** as [CA2128634A1](https://www.google.nl/patents/CA2128634A1) and [CA2128634C](https://www.google.nl/patents/CA2128634C) (one being the application and the other the grant). I think these must be Canadian patents because of the CA prefix. A little googling showed that for Canadian patents, I should also count 20 years from filing. Since this Canadian patent has the filing date of 22 July 1994, that would mean it expired last year. This conclusion lines up neatly with the other evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: What is the status of this patent. Has it expired in Canada while still being active in the United States?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30319" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12945" RevisionGUID="e455ccd3-e41e-4c2e-a0a1-60bfdf056f9c" CreationDate="2015-05-28T15:21:33.160" UserId="14223" Text="Has this patent expired in Canada but not in the US? [US5,662,332]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30320" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12945" RevisionGUID="e455ccd3-e41e-4c2e-a0a1-60bfdf056f9c" CreationDate="2015-05-28T15:21:33.160" UserId="14223" Text="&lt;expired-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12946" RevisionGUID="15fb5ed4-65a9-434f-97ce-7d48909d0997" CreationDate="2015-05-28T15:44:29.153" UserId="14271" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5356811][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5356811&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anybody want to do manufacturing of stabilize aloe vera gel , they can do by its own with another method ? and if they want to do with this methods , they can do ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30322" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12946" RevisionGUID="15fb5ed4-65a9-434f-97ce-7d48909d0997" CreationDate="2015-05-28T15:44:29.153" UserId="14271" Text="Anybody can use this process?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30323" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12946" RevisionGUID="15fb5ed4-65a9-434f-97ce-7d48909d0997" CreationDate="2015-05-28T15:44:29.153" UserId="14271" Text="&lt;us5356811&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12943" RevisionGUID="538009f1-a6c6-46ad-9d0d-e5c17b64149f" CreationDate="2015-05-28T17:36:28.890" UserId="11895" Comment="added 260 characters in body" Text="Short answer:- A person can find out using national patent office patent depository for said application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long answer:- its a analysis based answer and limited to data indexed in web resource database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Decide what countries the inventor wants protection in and apply in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; those countries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. WIPO applications are indexed in PATENTSCOPE database and it has a landing page for all applications. In bibliographic page there is a tab called 'National Phase' which lists all national phase entry details, now please note these details may be incorrect as some patent office may not report IB for national phase entry. but if online request of certified WIPO PCT application is made then these details will be updated here (no guarantees).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patents in various countries are either granted or not.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How does one tell if the individual patents applied&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for in each country has been granted or is pending/in some other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; state?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. In general every patent has a country code followed by patent application or patent number followed by Kind code (e.g. A1, A2, B1 B2 etc) which can indicate status of the patent application. WIPO has provided [such list](http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/standards/en/pdf/07-03-02.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;3. Additionally a person has to check if national patent was granted that need to be done using Patent Register of subject country in case of any lapse, revocation, invalidation, surrender etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12947" RevisionGUID="f0d846da-94ad-4593-9d38-bce7786a9aa9" CreationDate="2015-05-28T21:27:49.140" UserId="14275" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140093916][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140093916&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is new about it? it is just the same as other protein based affinity purification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30326" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12947" RevisionGUID="f0d846da-94ad-4593-9d38-bce7786a9aa9" CreationDate="2015-05-28T21:27:49.140" UserId="14275" Text="The patent claim one benefit of purification and then try to over reach. Nothing new." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30327" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12947" RevisionGUID="f0d846da-94ad-4593-9d38-bce7786a9aa9" CreationDate="2015-05-28T21:27:49.140" UserId="14275" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12950" RevisionGUID="ee69aace-a10c-41cc-bac1-f1c7c38911ad" CreationDate="2015-05-29T08:37:45.933" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; I checked patents related to Code Generators and I saw 4 or more entries that does similar things. So I'm curious why are these patents accepted, since there are others very similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It depends how similar. All you've given us here is a list of patents containing the words &quot;code generator&quot;. I doubt they all do the same thing in the same way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And if somebody files for a patent, how does one know he/she is not infringing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Filing a patent is never an act of infringement. You have to make, use or sell a patented invention to directly infringe. There are forms of indirect infringement, but none extend to mere communication of technical information, which is all that a patent application does." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12951" RevisionGUID="4e0e804a-3dc9-45e5-9197-9f46913b8fbb" CreationDate="2015-05-29T09:36:21.607" UserId="14016" Text="I think there are some gaps between what is shown in your publication and the application's Claim 1, though your publication is clearly not without some relevance to the field of the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other prior art may be needed to fill this gap if you have the time or inclination to find it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Claim 1, what seems like the crux of the method is &quot;for respective certificates issued by the certificating authority, determine a certificate trust level; and according to the certificate trust levels of the certificates issued by the certificating authority, determine a certificating authority trust level of the certificating authority&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, the invention first assigns trust scores to individual issued certificates, and then to the CA based on a calculation on these individual trust scores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the part of the patent specification that discusses why it might make sense to do so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As a fourth such example, some types of exploits may be detectable only by a collective evaluation of many certificates; e.g., the issuance of certificates on behalf of a particular domain concurrently by two or more different certificating authorities 108 may raise a security concern, but the detection of this condition may be difficult to discern from the examination of any particular certificate 106 in isolation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your publication on the other hand does not seem to take individual issued certificates into account at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Myself, I am not able to see *why* the existence of multiple certificates for a domain should reflect poorly on the trustworthiness of the CAs issuing those certificates (assuming they were issued to the same entity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, having skimmed the abstract of your publication, it seems to me that it does not disclose the crux of the claimed method." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30339" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12947" RevisionGUID="86e0b249-0474-4295-94e5-ae3fbcb296d4" CreationDate="2015-05-29T10:49:19.720" UserId="11895" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="The patent claim one benefit of purification and then try to over reach. Nothing new" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30340" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12947" RevisionGUID="86e0b249-0474-4295-94e5-ae3fbcb296d4" CreationDate="2015-05-29T10:49:19.720" UserId="11895" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;obviousness&gt;&lt;us20140093916&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12952" RevisionGUID="65d89cc7-c1f9-4890-883b-11b4a5c3e0c1" CreationDate="2015-05-29T10:55:53.500" UserId="11895" Text="Yes CA2128634 has expired in canada.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;please check Canadian patent office register:- [LINK][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/2128634/financial_transactions.html?type=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12952" RevisionGUID="47814416-4393-4956-b270-ff08d5a77383" CreationDate="2015-05-29T11:09:10.483" UserId="11895" Comment="added 198 characters in body" Text="See patents are territorial rights means country by country basis. In US transition rule of 17 years after grant gave some patent extra protection beyond 20 years which created lot much of doubt in inventors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes CA2128634 has expired in canada.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;please check Canadian patent office register:- [LINK][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/2128634/financial_transactions.html?type=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12945" RevisionGUID="510f39e8-472c-4a9a-96e1-fdf576314fcc" CreationDate="2015-05-29T11:10:21.723" UserId="14223" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="I am quite interested in trading card games and as a result the patent that Wizards of the Coast holds on the subject interests me. Since it's been about 20 years since the original trading card game (by Wizards of the Coast) was created, I was looking at whether the patent was still active.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I looked at [US5662332](https://www.google.nl/patents/US5662332) and [USRE37957](https://www.google.nl/patents/USRE37957). Following the guide laid out [here](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3801/how-do-you-determine-a-patents-expiration-date) (and ignoring the reissue, since my understanding is that it does not change the term of the patent), I came to the conclusion that the patent was still valid till 17 October 2015 (20 years after 17 October 1995, which is after 8 June 1995).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Wizards recently sued Cryptozoic on the IP in question (though they are suing on Copyright, Trade dress and Patent infringement) and Cryptozoic response ran along the lines of &quot;Now that their Patent has expired, WotC is being the corporate bully&quot; (see [here](http://www.cardboardconnection.com/news/law-cards-cryptozoic-rants-wizards-coast)). This would suggest that this patent has in fact expired, contrary to my own conclusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I looked at the patent again and saw that it was under **also published as** as [CA2128634A1](https://www.google.nl/patents/CA2128634A1) and [CA2128634C](https://www.google.nl/patents/CA2128634C) (one being the application and the other the grant). I think these must be Canadian patents because of the CA prefix. A little googling showed that for Canadian patents, I should also count 20 years from filing. Since this Canadian patent has the filing date of 22 July 1994, that would mean it expired last year. This conclusion lines up neatly with the other evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: What is the status of this patent. Has it expired in Canada while still being active in the United States? If it's still active in the U.S. wouldn't the Patent Cooperation Treaty give it validity in Canada as well?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30344" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12945" RevisionGUID="e04f4501-02bd-49fc-98f8-294114a6a3a7" CreationDate="2015-05-29T11:15:53.557" UserId="11895" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;expired-patent&gt;&lt;us5662332&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12952" RevisionGUID="dd5a6ff3-8cbe-44c6-b4d1-f72185c9979a" CreationDate="2015-05-29T11:21:03.907" UserId="11895" Comment="added 516 characters in body" Text="See patents are territorial rights means country by country basis. In US transition rule of 17 years after grant gave some patent extra protection beyond 20 years which created lot much of doubt in inventors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes CA2128634 has expired in canada.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;please check Canadian patent office register:- [LINK][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PCT application is just a window for extra time entry to other countries. if a inventor files a US patent he has only 12 months to enter every other country to make filing valid. If same inventor filed PCT first he has 30-31 months to enter other countries. Now you are right in some countries Expiry is calculated from PCT filing date not The priority filing date, in such country you get one extra year of protection. Like I said its territorial right one need to check relevant LAW and RULES to find out same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/2128634/financial_transactions.html?type=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12954" RevisionGUID="d5abc8f6-d4ce-48ab-b8d6-13d903da197d" CreationDate="2015-05-30T05:18:12.147" UserId="14281" Text="It says lapsed for US6493686.Huh? Can't possibly be. Not updated info?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30355" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12954" RevisionGUID="d5abc8f6-d4ce-48ab-b8d6-13d903da197d" CreationDate="2015-05-30T05:18:12.147" UserId="14281" Text="It says lapsed for US6493686.Huh? Can't possibly be. Not updated info?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30356" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12954" RevisionGUID="d5abc8f6-d4ce-48ab-b8d6-13d903da197d" CreationDate="2015-05-30T05:18:12.147" UserId="14281" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="33d02ed5-075b-4b7d-86e0-19cd72f0cc32" CreationDate="2015-05-30T16:57:20.017" UserId="14286" Text="Is patent CA 2561773 A1 still valid or pending?&#xD;&#xA;Event shows: dead in 2008&#xD;&#xA;Please inform of risk of patent infringement&#xD;&#xA;Regards&#xD;&#xA;Omar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30361" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="33d02ed5-075b-4b7d-86e0-19cd72f0cc32" CreationDate="2015-05-30T16:57:20.017" UserId="14286" Text="How to determine patent life-time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30362" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="33d02ed5-075b-4b7d-86e0-19cd72f0cc32" CreationDate="2015-05-30T16:57:20.017" UserId="14286" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30365" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12954" RevisionGUID="6dc776cd-5517-4e7e-87a1-5d163d8c3072" CreationDate="2015-05-30T21:07:51.513" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;us6493686&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12954" RevisionGUID="6dc776cd-5517-4e7e-87a1-5d163d8c3072" CreationDate="2015-05-30T21:07:51.513" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="It says lapsed for US6493686, but I do not understand why. Is this information up to date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30367" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12954" RevisionGUID="6dc776cd-5517-4e7e-87a1-5d163d8c3072" CreationDate="2015-05-30T21:07:51.513" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="What is the current status of US6493686?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12958" RevisionGUID="bec81c78-1563-4f28-940b-fdac04291be6" CreationDate="2015-06-01T03:57:25.993" UserId="14293" Text="I submitted a continuation patent application. I submitted later a Continuation-In-Part patent application before getting the response from the continuation patent whose claims were rejected.  Can I still respond to the continuation patent application or does the Continuation-In-Part patent application take its place?   In other words, can they both co-exist and be reviewed at the same time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30377" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12958" RevisionGUID="bec81c78-1563-4f28-940b-fdac04291be6" CreationDate="2015-06-01T03:57:25.993" UserId="14293" Text="Simultaneous Continuation and Continuation-In-Part Patent Applications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30378" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12958" RevisionGUID="bec81c78-1563-4f28-940b-fdac04291be6" CreationDate="2015-06-01T03:57:25.993" UserId="14293" Text="&lt;patent-pending&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="fe04fea5-5b98-426a-8dda-e394e48c116e" CreationDate="2015-06-01T04:26:17.993" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is patent CA 2561773 A1 still valid or pending?&#xD;&#xA;Event shows: dead in 2008&#xD;&#xA;Please inform of risk of patent infringement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30380" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="fe04fea5-5b98-426a-8dda-e394e48c116e" CreationDate="2015-06-01T04:26:17.993" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body; edited title" Text="How to determine Canadian patent life-time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12960" RevisionGUID="c6f709ca-36eb-43d9-aac0-271728c10972" CreationDate="2015-06-01T07:22:10.113" UserId="14173" Text="There is this saying that it is always better to consult and work with an attorney to draft patents. It is said that when you self draft a patent you would draft inferior patents, miss out on things where you could have defended the patent better later, or fail to secure a more broader patent &amp; more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any of these things or more can happen. A novice inventor who drafts his patent cannot know the nitty-gritties of drafting a patent and hence can make some very simple mistakes. But in case someone was to draft it by himself what are the 5-10 things the inventor should keep in mind while drafting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30385" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12960" RevisionGUID="c6f709ca-36eb-43d9-aac0-271728c10972" CreationDate="2015-06-01T07:22:10.113" UserId="14173" Text="Things to take care when inventor self drafts the patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30386" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12960" RevisionGUID="c6f709ca-36eb-43d9-aac0-271728c10972" CreationDate="2015-06-01T07:22:10.113" UserId="14173" Text="&lt;attorney&gt;&lt;drafting&gt;&lt;independent-inventor&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12961" RevisionGUID="5c680d1e-fc25-45b3-8f62-5aa4d7762959" CreationDate="2015-06-01T12:19:52.553" UserId="14301" Text="I read allot of the answers to your most question on this website and these where really helpful in getting a general idea of the patent laws.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that someone can help me out with the following question.&#xD;&#xA;I want to sell the following product in EU: Car Seat Gap Filler.&#xD;&#xA;On this item there is a patent WO_2008_144261_A1 and the original product is patented in the US(US20080283565 A1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest question are we allowed to sell this product in the EU and are we not braking the patent with the &quot;Drop Stop&quot; product that is connected to the patent.&#xD;&#xA;Product that we like to sell is sold on Amazon but the delivery happens out of China and also this not answered the question: are we braking laws in selling in EU.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Already thanks in advance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uONzz.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30388" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12961" RevisionGUID="5c680d1e-fc25-45b3-8f62-5aa4d7762959" CreationDate="2015-06-01T12:19:52.553" UserId="14301" Text="Is this patent valid in EU" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30389" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12961" RevisionGUID="5c680d1e-fc25-45b3-8f62-5aa4d7762959" CreationDate="2015-06-01T12:19:52.553" UserId="14301" Text="&lt;european&gt;&lt;valid&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12962" RevisionGUID="22991cb9-fb84-4120-8eb4-a7a1239640ee" CreationDate="2015-06-01T12:26:13.570" UserId="11895" Text="In general there are many requirements and rules which may limit protection if a inventor files patent application of its own. But its a altogether myth that inventor cannot draft good patent application its another issue that he might have shorter claim but that can be covered if drafting is proper:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its my personal recommendation that an Inventor should read at least 20-25 patents in said class of invention to understand how things go. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following things should be considered before drafting of specification (not in specific order):-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Understand and Satisfy legal requirements like FORMS, Affidavits, fee etc.&#xD;&#xA;Legal requirement is key here you need to use terms and formats provided by LAW to make good patent document.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Use Definitions: see [MPEP § 2111.01][1] &#xD;&#xA; 3. Written description requirements:-[MPEP § 2163][2]&#xD;&#xA; 4. Disclosure enablement:- [MPEP § 2164][3]&#xD;&#xA; 5. Use well arranged multiple embodiments covering all scopes to protect work around of invention&#xD;&#xA; 6. Claim drafting complying with [35 U.S.C 112 (b).][4]&#xD;&#xA; 7. Claim Preamble [MPEP § 2111.02][5]&#xD;&#xA; 8. Reviewing as examiner, potential infringer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also check [presentation made by USPTO for inventors][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2111.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2163.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/112&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2111.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/about/offices/ous/Cooper_Union_20130605.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30391" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12963" RevisionGUID="be6c9393-4d6d-4238-8fe0-48f6ebcb41f6" CreationDate="2015-06-01T14:37:07.467" UserId="14301" Text="Please confirm if I do read this correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can fill a patent for a product design and get this granted or not.&#xD;&#xA;When the patent is granted you can find that back on Lens.org with the notification that the patent is a &quot;Granted Patent&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The Patent number change if I am correct from A1 to B2 if the patent is granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the patent is filled in and not granted it is noted as &quot;Patent Application&quot; and this says that the patent is applied for but for now not granted.&#xD;&#xA;Does it also says that when the patent is published in November 2008 that the patent is not granted and is not given.&#xD;&#xA;Now 2015 a good few years after the publishing of the patent and it still stands on &quot;patent application&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;Do I have the right assumption that this international patent is not granted, because it is longer than 18 months?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have a great product idea but after many hours searching we did find this old applied patent and now we are wondering when we are going to develop this product we are not breaking this patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps I do understand the meaning of &quot;patent application&quot; incorrect but please help me and I would be greatfull!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30392" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12963" RevisionGUID="be6c9393-4d6d-4238-8fe0-48f6ebcb41f6" CreationDate="2015-06-01T14:37:07.467" UserId="14301" Text="Are &quot;Patent application&quot; valid patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30393" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12963" RevisionGUID="be6c9393-4d6d-4238-8fe0-48f6ebcb41f6" CreationDate="2015-06-01T14:37:07.467" UserId="14301" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;defensive-publications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30396" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12961" RevisionGUID="f63bdbf0-a946-47f1-a8d0-872d687fcde7" CreationDate="2015-06-01T15:25:24.920" UserId="11895" Comment="edited title" Text="Is WO and US patents valid in EU?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12964" RevisionGUID="28e7ef09-f78f-4969-a805-c89e26c075c3" CreationDate="2015-06-01T15:36:27.233" UserId="11895" Text="In simpler terms if patent is pending under evaluation by Patent Office then is a potential granted patent. Now based on various analysis like prior art search, in-house evaluation, examiner view an inventor or patent attorney can make out how much is grant eligible claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If patent office label application as withdrawn, abandoned, rejected, ceased, lapsed by any one factor then patent is taken as dead. But in that case too a researcher has to see child patents, family patents, overlapping patents and special certificate or other regulatory protection applicability. its a vast area and state of art expert attorney in field can assist you with nominal fees. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12961" RevisionGUID="18493a01-0cd5-4670-91b1-05361486a43e" CreationDate="2015-06-01T15:37:50.530" UserId="11895" Comment="removed content imag,e seems to affect user ignorance" Text="I read allot of the answers to your most question on this website and these where really helpful in getting a general idea of the patent laws.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that someone can help me out with the following question.&#xD;&#xA;I want to sell the following product in EU: Car Seat Gap Filler.&#xD;&#xA;On this item there is a patent WO_2008_144261_A1 and the original product is patented in the US(US20080283565 A1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest question are we allowed to sell this product in the EU and are we not braking the patent with the &quot;Drop Stop&quot; product that is connected to the patent.&#xD;&#xA;Product that we like to sell is sold on Amazon but the delivery happens out of China and also this not answered the question: are we braking laws in selling in EU.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12965" RevisionGUID="c6443cbd-c701-43f3-b6b4-0f4723f523b3" CreationDate="2015-06-01T20:16:31.560" UserId="14302" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8820666][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8820666" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30400" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12965" RevisionGUID="c6443cbd-c701-43f3-b6b4-0f4723f523b3" CreationDate="2015-06-01T20:16:31.560" UserId="14302" Text="Is this patent on the process or on the machinery?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30401" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12965" RevisionGUID="c6443cbd-c701-43f3-b6b4-0f4723f523b3" CreationDate="2015-06-01T20:16:31.560" UserId="14302" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12964" RevisionGUID="1dcde678-2d69-4577-8c66-ec4f83aec430" CreationDate="2015-06-02T04:56:55.473" UserId="11895" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="In simpler terms if patent is pending under evaluation by Patent Office then it is a potential granted patent. Now based on various analysis like prior art search, in-house evaluation, examiner view etc. an inventor or patent attorney can make out how much is grant eligible claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If patent office label application as **withdrawn, abandoned, rejected, ceased, lapsed** by any one factor then patent is taken as dead. But in that case too a researcher has to see **child patents, family patents, overlapping patents and special certificate** or other regulatory protection applicability. its a vast area and state of art expert attorney in field can assist you with nominal fees. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12954" RevisionGUID="58bbbd53-1627-4b9b-97b3-8f4ce20e5011" CreationDate="2015-06-03T10:50:29.957" UserId="10011" Comment="added 143 characters in body" Text="It says lapsed for US6493686, but I do not understand why. Is this information up to date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I determine the reason for this patent having lapsed, for example if it was abandoned for non-payment, where could I find that out?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12971" RevisionGUID="18ab3c04-242f-4bcd-9216-137eafb0e93a" CreationDate="2015-06-03T11:45:06.307" UserId="11895" Text="USPTO PAIR can be found at:- http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;put the patent number and select the corresponding radio button&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;review the information:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example your patent document was expired due to non payment, but its related patent application also called parent application was found to be active. therefore you should know about family patent US5946673;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier an answer has been made to know about family patents See [Find family memeber](http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/12153/11895)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/4zPdj.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12972" RevisionGUID="dbe2701d-6775-46d2-8968-53189596e1bd" CreationDate="2015-06-03T12:58:24.643" UserId="14315" Text="First of all, I ain't a native english speaker so forgive me in advice for any grammar mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it really necessary to patent an app before sending it to the app store and/or play store? (my app is a videogame app by the way)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I heard most top apps aren't copyrighted and haven't had any legal trouble. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ain't interested in stopping people from copying my app idea, everyone can copy me, I really don't care about that, but I am really scared that someone sues me for &quot;copying&quot; his/her idea because she/he has a similar idea copyrighted, or that someone patents/copyrights my app as his/hers and claims ownership of it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far there is no other app that looks like mine that I've heard of, there is an old nintendo 64 minigame that is a LITTLE similar tough. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everyone who's seen my app has loved it, I've put a lot of time and effort in this.&#xD;&#xA;I believe the app has GREAT potential.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am just a young teen developer, and getting something copyrighted is really expensive for me right now /:. Also I ain't from the USA which makes things A LOT more complicated. And if my game is not a hit, I would have lost a lot of money in getting the copyright for a worthless idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What con you suggest me to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30431" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12972" RevisionGUID="dbe2701d-6775-46d2-8968-53189596e1bd" CreationDate="2015-06-03T12:58:24.643" UserId="14315" Text="Avoiding being sued for my mobile app" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30432" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12972" RevisionGUID="dbe2701d-6775-46d2-8968-53189596e1bd" CreationDate="2015-06-03T12:58:24.643" UserId="14315" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12974" RevisionGUID="9b6ed666-d435-4e2c-9415-f793870df51e" CreationDate="2015-06-04T00:55:32.520" UserId="14323" Text="I have used a reference to a website (also as prior art) in my 1st patent application and the patent was issued without any changes.  I also have read mpep 608.01(p) and my understanding is that active hyperlinks are not allowed.  Apparently my text reference to a hyperlink and not an embedded hyperlink itself wasn't triggering any alarms with the patent examiner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12975" RevisionGUID="550ddb7a-7bb7-4c75-abf1-f96ba59ea3ce" CreationDate="2015-06-04T15:00:47.110" UserId="8069" Text="In reference to the patent for the &quot;Batteriser&quot;: [US20120121943][1], is this any different than the old Joule Thief designs that have been all over the web for years? Is it just the clever packaging that is different? If so, is clever packaging enough of a change to get a patent on an old technology?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_thief&#xD;&#xA;  * http://www.instructables.com/id/Make-a-Joule-Thief/&#xD;&#xA;  * http://makezine.com/projects/joule-thief-battery-charger/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120121943" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30439" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12975" RevisionGUID="550ddb7a-7bb7-4c75-abf1-f96ba59ea3ce" CreationDate="2015-06-04T15:00:47.110" UserId="8069" Text="Batteriser vs Joule Thief" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30440" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12975" RevisionGUID="550ddb7a-7bb7-4c75-abf1-f96ba59ea3ce" CreationDate="2015-06-04T15:00:47.110" UserId="8069" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20120121943&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12976" RevisionGUID="c5e094e8-686c-4886-90cb-a345864f9c67" CreationDate="2015-06-04T15:21:02.750" UserId="14326" Text="A number of years in 1978 ago my father created and patented a type of exercise equipment. The patent has been cited by a number of other patent holders and was wondering if this meant there should any sort of royalties paid out. My father is now deceased but if there were and royalties due would my fathers next of kin be eligible to receive these payments? I was just curious and was unable to get an answer to this. Thank you in advance for your time. You may contact me via email at dana060203@gmail.com or on my cell at 347-867-6130.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank You,&#xD;&#xA;Dana Reitano" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30442" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12976" RevisionGUID="c5e094e8-686c-4886-90cb-a345864f9c67" CreationDate="2015-06-04T15:21:02.750" UserId="14326" Text="Are royalties due to a patent holder who's work has been cited by other inventors?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30443" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12976" RevisionGUID="c5e094e8-686c-4886-90cb-a345864f9c67" CreationDate="2015-06-04T15:21:02.750" UserId="14326" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12976" RevisionGUID="6e7c9e3c-969a-481a-97a2-7ac9ba43c148" CreationDate="2015-06-04T17:22:47.257" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 203 characters in body" Text="A number of years ago (in 1978) my father created and patented a type of exercise equipment. The patent has been cited by a number of other patent holders and was wondering if this meant there should any sort of royalties paid out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My father is now deceased but if there were and royalties due would my fathers next of kin be eligible to receive these payments?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12979" RevisionGUID="d822a2b2-fa84-4fd9-9463-6547ac8624ef" CreationDate="2015-06-05T07:25:35.543" UserId="14173" Text="For patent eligibility of software patents in many countries including EU there is a requirement of 'technical effects' on the hardware device. These 'technical effects' are technological advances or improvements to the hardware on which the software runs. Examples are - faster operation, lower memory requirements, better user interface, lower hard disk access etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For software patents, such 'technical effects' need to be listed in the claims section or the detailed specifications? The point being that the claims section might be worded as a method. The 'technical effects' benefits of this method could be listed in detailed specifications. Or for patent eligibility, even the claims should be worded so as to keep the focus primarily on these 'technical effects'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30456" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12979" RevisionGUID="d822a2b2-fa84-4fd9-9463-6547ac8624ef" CreationDate="2015-06-05T07:25:35.543" UserId="14173" Text="'Technical effects' of software patents for eligibility" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30457" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12979" RevisionGUID="d822a2b2-fa84-4fd9-9463-6547ac8624ef" CreationDate="2015-06-05T07:25:35.543" UserId="14173" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;specification&gt;&lt;european&gt;&lt;drafting&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12980" RevisionGUID="51136b39-9330-4c3c-9c61-b63b26a2dbff" CreationDate="2015-06-05T19:57:41.280" UserId="14334" Text="In the United States, is there any way someone can create an open version of a patent for people to use for free? Are patents only for commercial use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I searched and couldn't find anyone who addressed these questions specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say its a general patent for parsing old written financial statements that have been OCRed, and extracting specific data types into a database. Say the language of the patent is not for the software itself, but intended for anyone that will write software to extract the same data types.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I am assuming that anyone can create software and use it themselves for their personal use. But that is a bit nuanced when it comes to software, since someone can use it on a machine or on behalf of someone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Can someone create free software that has a patented version, and allow people to download it online from a place like github and install it themselves? I'm assuming this is not allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Can someone use it as on free website that uses the free version of the software as the back end?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Can someone send me the data, and then I can process the data on my own computer and send it back to them, free of charge?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Can someone do any/all of the above in a country without software patents, with users in the United States?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30459" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12980" RevisionGUID="51136b39-9330-4c3c-9c61-b63b26a2dbff" CreationDate="2015-06-05T19:57:41.280" UserId="14334" Text="Is it legal for anyone to use of free and open versions of a patented software?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30460" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12980" RevisionGUID="51136b39-9330-4c3c-9c61-b63b26a2dbff" CreationDate="2015-06-05T19:57:41.280" UserId="14334" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;legal&gt;&lt;foss&gt;&lt;open&gt;&lt;free&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12980" RevisionGUID="813d9419-52ba-4278-93c3-7c8612ff9a04" CreationDate="2015-06-05T20:03:29.057" UserId="14334" Comment="added 130 characters in body" Text="In the United States, is there no circumstance where someone can use a software patent for free? This may seem obvious, but with software is very nuanced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I searched and couldn't find anyone who addressed these questions specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say it's a general patent for parsing old written financial statements that have been OCRed, and extracting specific data types into a database. Say the language of the patent is not for the software itself, but intended for anyone that will write software to extract the same data types.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I am assuming that anyone can create software and use it themselves for their personal use. But what is nuanced is that someone can use it on a machine or on behalf of someone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Can someone create free software that has a patented version, and allow people to download it online from a place like github and install it themselves? I'm assuming this is not allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Can someone use it as on free website that uses the free version of the software as the back end?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Can someone send me the data, and then I can process the data on my own computer and send it back to them, free of charge?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Can someone do any/all of the above in a country without software patents, with users in the United States?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30462" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12980" RevisionGUID="813d9419-52ba-4278-93c3-7c8612ff9a04" CreationDate="2015-06-05T20:03:29.057" UserId="14334" Comment="added 130 characters in body" Text="Is there no circumstance where people can use free and open versions of software patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12984" RevisionGUID="102c7848-479f-4d93-952c-59831d0cb63b" CreationDate="2015-06-07T03:34:07.460" UserId="14341" Text="  Upon filing a provisional patent application, can the invention become publicly known and sold (such as through public sale), and still retain all patent rights to information disclosed in the provisional patent application? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More simply, &#xD;&#xA;1) if I first file a provisional, &#xD;&#xA;2) then advertise and sell the invention openly to the public,&#xD;&#xA;3) can I still file a regular patent application and be granted a patent? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30484" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12984" RevisionGUID="102c7848-479f-4d93-952c-59831d0cb63b" CreationDate="2015-06-07T03:34:07.460" UserId="14341" Text="Public Disclosure After Provisional Filing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30485" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12984" RevisionGUID="102c7848-479f-4d93-952c-59831d0cb63b" CreationDate="2015-06-07T03:34:07.460" UserId="14341" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;public&gt;&lt;sale&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12986" RevisionGUID="2f2801ab-9f5f-452e-81be-d73e2316ac6c" CreationDate="2015-06-07T12:05:18.127" UserId="14343" Text="Iv'e invented something related to increasing crop growth and need a way to protect my intellectual property. I'm in secondary school and applying for a patent( Iv'e researched on how and where) seems like a load of work. I've got exams near and I really cant afford to spend that time. Many of my teachers and I believe that my invention might have a little potential. Is there any other way to protect my intellectual property? Can I license my invention under a creative commons license like CC BY-NC-SA ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30490" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12986" RevisionGUID="2f2801ab-9f5f-452e-81be-d73e2316ac6c" CreationDate="2015-06-07T12:05:18.127" UserId="14343" Text="Is there an alternative to patenting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30491" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12986" RevisionGUID="2f2801ab-9f5f-452e-81be-d73e2316ac6c" CreationDate="2015-06-07T12:05:18.127" UserId="14343" Text="&lt;science&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12987" RevisionGUID="d427dd63-6da8-42a3-a382-4d487dd5500f" CreationDate="2015-06-07T13:52:00.667" UserId="14208" Text="Can I split patent ownership with my cofounder in the following cases:&#xA;&#xA; 1. A patent owned by me&#xA; 2. A new patent to be applied" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30493" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12987" RevisionGUID="d427dd63-6da8-42a3-a382-4d487dd5500f" CreationDate="2015-06-07T13:52:00.667" UserId="14208" Text="Split patent ownership" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30494" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12987" RevisionGUID="d427dd63-6da8-42a3-a382-4d487dd5500f" CreationDate="2015-06-07T13:52:00.667" UserId="14208" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12989" RevisionGUID="d5ea6192-fbf8-4888-98bf-a030dcffe288" CreationDate="2015-06-07T20:13:13.240" UserId="10011" Text="There's an important distinction to remember when you're looking into &quot;alternate forms of patents:&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The invention.&#xD;&#xA;* Drawings, descriptions, and other tangible explanations of the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two concepts live somewhat separately in the domain, and unfortunately it can sometimes be difficult to remember that they are distinct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The quick answer to your question is &quot;no.&quot; A patent is a patent, and a patent grants you the right to stop others from performing your invention. Other forms of protection may protect you or others in different ways, but nothing will compete with a patent when you're trying to protect an invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people claim that &quot;copyrighting your invention&quot; is a viable alternative. That's similar to what you're questioning about a CC license. What they often mean is to get a copyright on the drawings of your invention. This is extremely misleading, however, because a copyright, or indeed a licensing model like CC offers, is on *artwork*. By definition, you can't copyright an invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's like if I drew a picture of a tree, copyrighted it, then told you that you couldn't grow any trees for yourself. The copyright protects me from you stealing and selling my exact picture of the tree, but you can always go draw your own and sell them, or even sell your own trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's true, and it's unfortunate: patents take a lot of time and money to get right (and to keep right, for that matter, with maintenance fees and possible litigation involved). But they are, in my opinion, a necessary evil when conducting a certain type of business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd suggest you speak with your professors about potentially getting grant money from the school or another source, then speaking with a patent professional about potentially working on a lower-than-usual rate for you. There are fees due to the patent office that you won't be able to get around, but you might be able to get a draft written cheaper than otherwise. I would definitely suggest hiring someone to draft it over doing it yourself, though, fair warning, there's a fine, non-trivial art to writing patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12990" RevisionGUID="f3d0c798-3081-4058-9ec4-d80392fe0da3" CreationDate="2015-06-08T01:20:03.147" UserId="14345" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20150107498][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20150107498&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This process of adding MgO/Mg(OH)2 and/or Ca(NO3)2 to HFO was widely practiced art.  Don't understand prior knowledge can be patented....  As matter of an example - I did not know this patent was filed or pending till today but I gave lecture on fuel additives solution to mitigating SO3 and other gases at plant using Pentol product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read the text of the patent and find it disturbing prior art can be patented! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30502" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12990" RevisionGUID="f3d0c798-3081-4058-9ec4-d80392fe0da3" CreationDate="2015-06-08T01:20:03.147" UserId="14345" Text="Prior knowledge and use" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30503" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12990" RevisionGUID="f3d0c798-3081-4058-9ec4-d80392fe0da3" CreationDate="2015-06-08T01:20:03.147" UserId="14345" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12980" RevisionGUID="594f5167-42ec-4fdf-994e-227678b116f6" CreationDate="2015-06-08T05:27:51.223" UserId="253" Comment="fix enumeration" Text="In the United States, is there no circumstance where someone can use a software patent for free? This may seem obvious, but with software is very nuanced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I searched and couldn't find anyone who addressed these questions specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say it's a general patent for parsing old written financial statements that have been OCRed, and extracting specific data types into a database. Say the language of the patent is not for the software itself, but intended for anyone that will write software to extract the same data types.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. I am assuming that anyone can create software and use it themselves for their personal use. But what is nuanced is that someone can use it on a machine or on behalf of someone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Can someone create free software that has a patented version, and allow people to download it online from a place like github and install it themselves? I'm assuming this is not allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Can someone use it as on free website that uses the free version of the software as the back end?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Can someone send me the data, and then I can process the data on my own computer and send it back to them, free of charge?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Can someone do any/all of the above in a country without software patents, with users in the United States?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30510" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12980" RevisionGUID="594f5167-42ec-4fdf-994e-227678b116f6" CreationDate="2015-06-08T05:27:51.223" Comment="Proposed by 253 approved by 11895, 10011 edit id of 1833" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12994" RevisionGUID="fb597999-45fc-4057-8d6c-139b9279ae24" CreationDate="2015-06-09T04:02:03.123" UserId="14352" Text="is possible to get a patent for a new Web Browser 'Button'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I dont have knowledge about patents and i don't know if this new thing really fits to this thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically i was thinking for example about the standart 'Refresh Button' that every browser have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My vision is to integrate in every browser a new 'Button' and make it a standart just like the 'Refresh button'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This new 'Button' that im talking has a very specific and unique function .. very useful for internet users .. just conceptualize it as a new button near the refresh button that could be very useful for billions of internet users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is this new thing patentable? how can i get the rights for this? or at least a license or something that have to do with the rights?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i know that i can make an extension to let people using this.. but i want to go more far than a simple browser extension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;can somebody help me or suggest me where to look or im in a wrong direction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30520" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12994" RevisionGUID="fb597999-45fc-4057-8d6c-139b9279ae24" CreationDate="2015-06-09T04:02:03.123" UserId="14352" Text="is possible to get a patent for a new Web Browser 'Button'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30521" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12994" RevisionGUID="fb597999-45fc-4057-8d6c-139b9279ae24" CreationDate="2015-06-09T04:02:03.123" UserId="14352" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30536" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6286" RevisionGUID="7fa5d2d0-3404-43d7-918e-f9cd40908382" CreationDate="2015-06-10T05:14:07.760" UserId="14139" Comment="+ &quot;cost&quot; tag" Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;cost&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30537" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6286" RevisionGUID="7fa5d2d0-3404-43d7-918e-f9cd40908382" CreationDate="2015-06-10T05:14:07.760" Comment="Proposed by 14139 approved by 10011 edit id of 1834" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13005" RevisionGUID="b5d47674-436a-4dcb-a156-cbcb3f6b74ee" CreationDate="2015-06-11T21:56:57.323" UserId="14378" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20120239581][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120239581&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent seems to be a copy of my issued patent 20070033108 August 5, 2005 regarding the documentation of products and components in real property. There is no common use of the term &quot;homogenous&quot; in the construction and development industry as in claim 1." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30572" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13005" RevisionGUID="b5d47674-436a-4dcb-a156-cbcb3f6b74ee" CreationDate="2015-06-11T21:56:57.323" UserId="14378" Text="This patent attempts to copy my company software that has been in the public domain since 2005 at www.AxisPointe.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30573" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13005" RevisionGUID="b5d47674-436a-4dcb-a156-cbcb3f6b74ee" CreationDate="2015-06-11T21:56:57.323" UserId="14378" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;prior&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13006" RevisionGUID="3bea82fe-3e85-4ab5-a583-f27f74745917" CreationDate="2015-06-11T22:09:31.603" UserId="14379" Text="I'm creating a book about how to teach to children. Can I patent the method described in my book?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30575" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13006" RevisionGUID="3bea82fe-3e85-4ab5-a583-f27f74745917" CreationDate="2015-06-11T22:09:31.603" UserId="14379" Text="Can a method of pedagogy be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30576" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13006" RevisionGUID="3bea82fe-3e85-4ab5-a583-f27f74745917" CreationDate="2015-06-11T22:09:31.603" UserId="14379" Text="&lt;education&gt;&lt;pedagoy&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30577" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13006" RevisionGUID="34cffd2d-2493-42f7-a0ce-c96733bb6824" CreationDate="2015-06-12T02:04:04.400" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;pedagoy&gt;&lt;education&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13007" RevisionGUID="5987f005-dc31-428d-84ed-5c8e0716f558" CreationDate="2015-06-12T11:48:13.117" UserId="14382" Text="I plan to use the ball pivoting algorithm (US6968299 B1) in a commercial application. Now I'm not sure if I would implement it how it is described in this patent or rather from another source (book, paper, website describing it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, since the method itself is patented, do I have to get the rights from IBM to use it even if I were to only use a description of the method from a website or book?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30579" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13007" RevisionGUID="5987f005-dc31-428d-84ed-5c8e0716f558" CreationDate="2015-06-12T11:48:13.117" UserId="14382" Text="Use of IBMs Ball Pivoting Algorithm in application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30580" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13007" RevisionGUID="5987f005-dc31-428d-84ed-5c8e0716f558" CreationDate="2015-06-12T11:48:13.117" UserId="14382" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;ibm&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13010" RevisionGUID="55d950dc-ce8b-4723-b465-d80fe41e85f3" CreationDate="2015-06-12T16:17:37.873" UserId="14385" Text="I want to make and sell my own electric guitars. However, I have not invented the instrument, nor was I the inventor of any of the major advances in the field. However, I have some changes (mostly aesthetic and stylistic) in mind before selling the guitars to the public in Washington state of the USA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I have to pay the inventors of the components on an electric guitar (such as pickups or dials) or take a lease from them or their equivalent corporate identities in order to make and sell a guitar that draws heavily from existing models by other brands?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Shifted from Law Stack Exchange*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30588" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13010" RevisionGUID="55d950dc-ce8b-4723-b465-d80fe41e85f3" CreationDate="2015-06-12T16:17:37.873" UserId="14385" Text="What patents do I need to buy or lease to make and sell an electric guitar to the public?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30589" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13010" RevisionGUID="55d950dc-ce8b-4723-b465-d80fe41e85f3" CreationDate="2015-06-12T16:17:37.873" UserId="14385" Text="&lt;america&gt;&lt;uspatentlaw&gt;&lt;electricguitar&gt;&lt;luthier&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13011" RevisionGUID="e809ecd1-0def-45fe-8bfb-98248c69cc05" CreationDate="2015-06-12T20:23:20.997" UserId="14386" Text="If a Provisional Application is filed in USPTO, let us say on June 01 2015 and before June 01 2016 a proper PCT Application (an International Provisional Application, this is also a provisional) is filed for this earlier domestic Provisional Application. How much time one would get to 'elect USA' as the first Non Provisional Application country (e.g. the standard 30 months applicable to PCT Applications) or 12 months from the PCT Application in USA? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it necessary that PCT Application filed by June 01 2016 has to be Non Provisional Application of the earlier USPTO filed Provisional Application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially trying to figure out the most effective way to get the maximum amount of time to fill USA Non Provisional Applications and Non Provisional Applications in some other countries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for help on this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Kathryn M" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30592" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13011" RevisionGUID="e809ecd1-0def-45fe-8bfb-98248c69cc05" CreationDate="2015-06-12T20:23:20.997" UserId="14386" Text="PCT Application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30593" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13011" RevisionGUID="e809ecd1-0def-45fe-8bfb-98248c69cc05" CreationDate="2015-06-12T20:23:20.997" UserId="14386" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13014" RevisionGUID="6573cd03-f79c-46a8-b792-d7a6c8931adc" CreationDate="2015-06-13T06:14:43.643" UserDisplayName="user14387" Text="The standard components of an electric guitar, and actually, the electric guitar itself have had their patent term expire. You can use whatever dials, switches, etc... are generically available in electronic shops. Without further specificity on what you're planning to use I can't give a more specific answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're delving into *stylistic* differences/similarities then you'd need to look to see if there are design patents/trademarked looks, etc... that you could run afoul of. But if you're literally asking if you need to pay royalties to GE for using a standard transformer you bought from radio shack then, no, you don't. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13022" RevisionGUID="023392c0-4b35-4ae3-a984-f46d6875a22f" CreationDate="2015-06-13T22:26:49.553" UserId="14388" Text="We have a small company that makes soil amendments from post-consumer food waste, which we compost using acidic anaerobic fermentation, also called Bokashi, the Japanese term, where the technique was perfected. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, as it turns out, a guy in Oregon is trying to patent the process of pickling the garbage and making agricultural amendments out of it. And not only that, he is sending us threatening letters and demands for a licensing fee and royalties, even though, as far as we can tell, his patent application has not yet been approved. His application is patent application #US 2013/0344558.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are millions of people around the world using the process. It is not rocket science. Basically we are pickling garbage in a closed barrel and then using the fermented garbage to make soil for farms, gardens, etc. The process uses Effective Microorganisms (EM1) to activate the fermentation. The patent application (#US 2013/0344558) claims that he &quot;invented&quot; the process, which is a load of B.S. A simple Google search will prove otherwise. There are entire farming schools in Korea that teach and use the practice as the basis for their farming methods. It is widely practiced in Japan, Korea, Germany, New Zealand, and Hawaii! I could go on and on. &#xD;&#xA;I have two questions: First, is it too late to submit prior art in case the USPTO doesn't look for it themselves?&#xD;&#xA;And second, our process is different in a few significant ways from the process he lays out in his patent application. How different does a process need to be in order to not have to worry about it even if his application does get approved? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help. We are diverting tons of food waste from landfills and making it into healthy soil for farmers, using an ancient technique that is not a secret. Please help us defeat this dangerous patent. Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30623" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13022" RevisionGUID="023392c0-4b35-4ae3-a984-f46d6875a22f" CreationDate="2015-06-13T22:26:49.553" UserId="14388" Text="A dangerous patent application may derail a simple technology to compost food waste. Please help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30624" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13022" RevisionGUID="023392c0-4b35-4ae3-a984-f46d6875a22f" CreationDate="2015-06-13T22:26:49.553" UserId="14388" Text="&lt;compost&gt;&lt;soil&gt;&lt;agriculture&gt;&lt;bokashi&gt;&lt;fermentation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13023" RevisionGUID="29be735e-1ed2-46b3-ac51-6c693633a57f" CreationDate="2015-06-14T05:36:11.617" UserId="14389" Text="In this mobile payment patent: http://www.google.com/patents/US8639619, the last 2 steps of claim 1 are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; providing the token and the payment amount to the payment-processing entity, via the communication module, to cause completion of a transaction between the user and the merchant,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein providing the code or token alone does not enable completion of the transaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why does the first step say &quot;providing the token...to cause completion of a transaction&quot; and the second step say &quot;providing the code or token alone does not enable completion of the transaction&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having trouble understanding why the last part of claim 1 is there at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30626" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13023" RevisionGUID="29be735e-1ed2-46b3-ac51-6c693633a57f" CreationDate="2015-06-14T05:36:11.617" UserId="14389" Text="Mobile Payment patent: Why is the last step of Claim 1 there? It seems to contradict the second to last step of Claim 1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30627" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13023" RevisionGUID="29be735e-1ed2-46b3-ac51-6c693633a57f" CreationDate="2015-06-14T05:36:11.617" UserId="14389" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13024" RevisionGUID="bb7a0648-4f0f-46b2-8093-eae5e5ac6dc8" CreationDate="2015-06-14T07:20:02.473" UserId="10011" Text="The key is in &quot;or.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein providing the code **or** token alone does not enable completion of the transaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The token alone can't complete it, and the code alone can't complete it. You need to supply both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the token is supplied with the payment amount, the server is aware of both, so the transaction is completed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13022" RevisionGUID="5cdb4008-cef8-48d5-a0ad-03e3e783bd19" CreationDate="2015-06-14T07:24:38.127" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="We have a small company that makes soil amendments from post-consumer food waste, which we compost using acidic anaerobic fermentation, also called Bokashi, the Japanese term, where the technique was perfected. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, as it turns out, a guy in Oregon is trying to patent the process of pickling the garbage and making agricultural amendments out of it. And not only that, he is sending us threatening letters and demands for a licensing fee and royalties, even though, as far as we can tell, his patent application has not yet been approved. His application is patent application #US 2013/0344558.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are millions of people around the world using the process. It is not rocket science. Basically we are pickling garbage in a closed barrel and then using the fermented garbage to make soil for farms, gardens, etc. The process uses Effective Microorganisms (EM1) to activate the fermentation. The patent application (#US 2013/0344558) claims that he &quot;invented&quot; the process, which is a load of B.S. A simple Google search will prove otherwise. There are entire farming schools in Korea that teach and use the practice as the basis for their farming methods. It is widely practiced in Japan, Korea, Germany, New Zealand, and Hawaii! I could go on and on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have two questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is it too late to submit prior art in case the USPTO doesn't look for it themselves?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Our process is different in a few significant ways from the process he lays out in his patent application. How different does a process need to be in order to not have to worry about it even if his application does get approved? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help. We are diverting tons of food waste from landfills and making it into healthy soil for farmers, using an ancient technique that is not a secret. Please help us defeat this dangerous patent application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30635" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13022" RevisionGUID="5cdb4008-cef8-48d5-a0ad-03e3e783bd19" CreationDate="2015-06-14T07:24:38.127" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;agriculture&gt;&lt;us20130344558&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13024" RevisionGUID="80351849-3a30-4ce9-8ab8-05d1ad7952fa" CreationDate="2015-06-14T07:57:16.103" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="The key is in &quot;or.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein providing the code **or** token alone does not enable completion of the transaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The token alone can't complete it, and the code alone can't complete it. You need to supply both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the token is supplied with the code, the server is aware of both, so the transaction is completed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="d7a07ab1-4c64-4542-9e1b-dfd95818b168" CreationDate="2015-06-15T01:18:26.350" UserId="14395" Text="I am a newbie here, so direct me to the right thread if this question was asked before. I recently talked to an IP lawyer and he stated that any &quot;method&quot; or &quot;program&quot; ran on a &quot;regular computer&quot; is not patentable - citing the 2014 Alice case. I only read the Wikipedia article - [Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International][1] and it didn't clarify anything other than my lawyer wanted to error on the safe side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what I have. I created a very non-obvious Java framework that leverages the latest language features, as well, as several open-source libraries to achieve hundred-times software development productivity companies like Oracle would kill for. I do not want to sell my framework, but solely use it to create my own enterprise software (finance, accounting, and other automation systems often referred as ERP) 100+ times cheaper and better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's using the same building blocks: databases, etc. though in a completely different (from the mainstream) manner. It is simple and compact once one reads the documentation - based on several recent Computer Science ideas, but it doesn't have a single &quot;wow&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it patentable? Perhaps you know some other programming library/framework example (non open source obviously). Or it's gotta be a yet another official &quot;new programming language&quot;, which I am sick of. Patent trolls aside I've seen people patenting finished custom systems they did at work like &quot;automated Mortgage Loan Origination System&quot;. Perhaps the Alice ruling aimed to stop that. It's vague. So where are the boundaries in 2015?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30643" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="d7a07ab1-4c64-4542-9e1b-dfd95818b168" CreationDate="2015-06-15T01:18:26.350" UserId="14395" Text="Patentability of a specialized programming library/framework" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30644" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="d7a07ab1-4c64-4542-9e1b-dfd95818b168" CreationDate="2015-06-15T01:18:26.350" UserId="14395" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;programming&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="bd56af08-3216-43a1-9562-bbd23ac71c3b" CreationDate="2015-06-15T01:48:08.003" UserId="14395" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="I am a newbie here, so direct me to the right thread if this question has been asked before. I recently talked to an IP attorney and he stated that any &quot;method&quot; or &quot;program&quot; ran on a &quot;regular computer&quot; is not patentable - citing the 2014 [Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International][1] case. I only read that Wikipedia article and it didn't clarify anything. Seems my lawyer's wanted to error on the safe side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what I have. I created a very non-obvious Java framework that leverages the latest language features, as well, as several open-source libraries to achieve hundred-times software development productivity companies like Oracle would kill for. I do not want to sell my framework, but solely use it to create my own enterprise software (finance, accounting, and other automation systems often referred to as ERP) 100+ times cheaper and better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's using the same building blocks: databases, etc. though in a completely different (from the mainstream) manner. It is simple and compact once one reads the documentation - based on several recent Computer Science ideas, but it doesn't have a single &quot;wow&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it patentable? Perhaps you know some other programming library/framework example (non open source obviously). Or it's gotta be a yet another official &quot;new programming language&quot;, which I am sick of. Patent trolls aside I've seen people patenting finished custom systems they did at work like &quot;automated Mortgage Loan Origination System&quot;. Perhaps the Alice ruling aimed to stop that. It's vague. So where are the boundaries in 2015?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="f37453fc-c8ac-4d10-8191-86fb31a5656a" CreationDate="2015-06-15T02:13:59.683" UserId="14395" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I am a newbie here, so direct me to the right thread if this question has been asked before. I recently talked to an IP attorney and he stated that any &quot;method&quot; or &quot;program&quot; ran on a &quot;regular computer&quot; is not patentable - citing the 2014 [Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International][1] case. I only read that Wikipedia article and it didn't clarify anything. Seems my lawyer wanted to error on the safe side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what I have. I created a very non-obvious Java framework that leverages the latest language features, as well, as several open-source libraries to achieve hundred-times software development productivity companies like Oracle would kill for. I do not want to sell my framework, but solely use it to create my own enterprise software (finance, accounting, and other automation systems often referred to as ERP) 100+ times cheaper and better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's using the same building blocks: databases, etc. though in a completely different (from the mainstream) manner. It is simple and compact once one reads the documentation - based on several recent Computer Science ideas, but it doesn't have a single &quot;wow&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it patentable? Perhaps you know some other programming library/framework example (non open source obviously). Or it's gotta be a yet another official &quot;new programming language&quot;, which I am sick of. Patent trolls aside I've seen people patenting finished custom systems they did at work like &quot;automated Mortgage Loan Origination System&quot;. Perhaps the Alice ruling aimed to stop that. It's vague. So where are the boundaries in 2015?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13030" RevisionGUID="eb75e7b6-8283-48a2-bb18-ed09f6f2ab5d" CreationDate="2015-06-15T08:57:54.550" UserId="14400" Text="what happens if company A has acquired company B, during which the patents need to be assigned from company A to company B. The signature for this assignment for both the companies has been done by the same person.&#xD;&#xA;What are the laws governing this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30660" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13030" RevisionGUID="eb75e7b6-8283-48a2-bb18-ed09f6f2ab5d" CreationDate="2015-06-15T08:57:54.550" UserId="14400" Text="transfer of patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30661" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13030" RevisionGUID="eb75e7b6-8283-48a2-bb18-ed09f6f2ab5d" CreationDate="2015-06-15T08:57:54.550" UserId="14400" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13031" RevisionGUID="a8434d21-7a2a-40f2-93c4-09a5bbe7c3f0" CreationDate="2015-06-15T11:24:12.113" UserId="14401" Text="I am looking for prior art for US patent 7438306&#xD;&#xA;I belive this patent may have overly broad claims&#xD;&#xA;There is an AME kit that may have a german patent that is prior art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30663" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13031" RevisionGUID="a8434d21-7a2a-40f2-93c4-09a5bbe7c3f0" CreationDate="2015-06-15T11:24:12.113" UserId="14401" Text="prior art for US patent 7438306 motorcycle patent with overly broad claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30664" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13031" RevisionGUID="a8434d21-7a2a-40f2-93c4-09a5bbe7c3f0" CreationDate="2015-06-15T11:24:12.113" UserId="14401" Text="&lt;motorcycle&gt;&lt;steering&gt;&lt;suspension&gt;&lt;neck&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12945" RevisionGUID="90a53f1d-1d13-403c-929f-1bc59e6a16e8" CreationDate="2015-06-15T11:38:19.570" UserId="14223" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="I am quite interested in trading card games and as a result the patent that Wizards of the Coast holds on the subject interests me. Since it's been about 20 years since the original trading card game (by Wizards of the Coast) was created, I was looking at whether the patent was still active.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I looked at [US5662332](https://www.google.nl/patents/US5662332) and [USRE37957](https://www.google.nl/patents/USRE37957). Following the guide laid out [here](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3801/how-do-you-determine-a-patents-expiration-date) (and ignoring the reissue, since my understanding is that it does not change the term of the patent), I came to the conclusion that the patent was still valid till 17 October 2015 (20 years after 17 October 1995, which is after 8 June 1995).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Wizards recently sued Cryptozoic on the IP in question (though they are suing on Copyright, Trade dress and Patent infringement) and Cryptozoic response ran along the lines of &quot;Now that their Patent has expired, WotC is being the corporate bully&quot; (see [here](http://www.cardboardconnection.com/news/law-cards-cryptozoic-rants-wizards-coast)). This would suggest that this patent has in fact expired, contrary to my own conclusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I looked at the patent again and saw that it was under **also published as** as [CA2128634A1](https://www.google.nl/patents/CA2128634A1) and [CA2128634C](https://www.google.nl/patents/CA2128634C) (one being the application and the other the grant). I think these must be Canadian patents because of the CA prefix. A little googling showed that for Canadian patents, I should also count 20 years from filing. Since this Canadian patent has the filing date of 22 July 1994, that would mean it expired last year. This conclusion lines up neatly with the other evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: What is the status of this patent. Has it expired in Canada while still being active in the United States? In other words: if I make a product that does things lined out in this product, am I correct in stating that I *can* sell it in Canada but *cannot* sell it in the U.S.? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the Patent Cooperation Treaty factor into this at all?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13033" RevisionGUID="d0ce42dd-b008-47c3-a8b6-71f7937fe985" CreationDate="2015-06-15T13:31:00.800" UserId="14402" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20150079942][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20150079942&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for prior art for US patent application 20150079942. I believe this invention has overly broad claims.&#xD;&#xA;According to me invention has not at least inventive step. &#xD;&#xA;Could anyone indicate exemplary prior art.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30670" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13033" RevisionGUID="d0ce42dd-b008-47c3-a8b6-71f7937fe985" CreationDate="2015-06-15T13:31:00.800" UserId="14402" Text="prior art for US 20150079942" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30671" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13033" RevisionGUID="d0ce42dd-b008-47c3-a8b6-71f7937fe985" CreationDate="2015-06-15T13:31:00.800" UserId="14402" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13034" RevisionGUID="fc7f96f6-5911-4b8c-9b47-e00b03a7c03e" CreationDate="2015-06-15T16:45:28.493" UserId="14403" Text="i) Patent applicants cite other patents as they are supposed to disclose prior art in the field known to them and  to signify difference or improvement envisaged to be brought about by the new invention.&#xD;&#xA;ii) Citing any patent does not entitle patent holder of the cited patent any compensation/royalty.&#xD;&#xA;iii) Infringement of patent right is to be found out by the patent holder and infringement suit is to be initiated by him for compensation for loss of income etc by the act of the infringer.  &#xD;&#xA;iv) After expiry of patent life cycle the knowledge becomes public property and patent holder has no claim to any right protected so far by grant of patent.&#xD;&#xA;v) These are very basic things related to infringement. With facts put forward it is impossible to advice or suggest. However, it seems there is no case of infringement and hence possibility of any compensation may not arise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13031" RevisionGUID="e4a9d7b9-4955-4681-ad50-7b082eb39883" CreationDate="2015-06-16T05:33:57.550" UserId="11895" Comment="added 59 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am looking for prior art for [US patent 7438306][1]&#xD;&#xA;I belive this patent may have overly broad claims&#xD;&#xA;There is an AME kit that may have a german patent that is prior art&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.co.in/patents/US7438306" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30675" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13031" RevisionGUID="e4a9d7b9-4955-4681-ad50-7b082eb39883" CreationDate="2015-06-16T05:33:57.550" UserId="11895" Comment="added 59 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;steering&gt;&lt;suspension&gt;&lt;motorcycle&gt;&lt;neck&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30676" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13033" RevisionGUID="66334c06-ab21-4ef6-99ba-d72a6c7eda43" CreationDate="2015-06-16T05:39:00.697" UserId="11895" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;us20150079942&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13037" RevisionGUID="094a9098-39ad-42f0-8d03-a164f4767235" CreationDate="2015-06-16T15:19:32.053" UserId="14411" Text="From what I'm gathering, it's not; however, they are patenting their specific implementation of it - a thin sleeve that fits right over a battery and can still go into most sockets - and not the joule thief itself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13039" RevisionGUID="70f43b26-8522-4c1a-975e-dd33f5920539" CreationDate="2015-06-16T18:10:07.180" UserId="13884" Text="You obtain a patent which is a new use for an existing patented invention.&#xD;&#xA;The patent of the existing patent is still in force and valid. &#xD;&#xA;If you want to use your patent, do you have to get a licence from the owner of the of the existing patented invention? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30692" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13039" RevisionGUID="70f43b26-8522-4c1a-975e-dd33f5920539" CreationDate="2015-06-16T18:10:07.180" UserId="13884" Text="new use for a known patented invention" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30693" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13039" RevisionGUID="70f43b26-8522-4c1a-975e-dd33f5920539" CreationDate="2015-06-16T18:10:07.180" UserId="13884" Text="&lt;existing&gt;&lt;invention&gt;&lt;new&gt;&lt;use&gt;&lt;licence&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13040" RevisionGUID="2939cd7c-0807-47da-ac44-048b2f9d81f8" CreationDate="2015-06-16T19:12:07.603" UserId="5317" Text="According to Public Pair, the application has been through a rejection or two.  The applicant appears to be amending the application again (March 2015).  All the details are viewable.  Go to the USPTO website and examine the details... there is lots to read and may alleviate some of your concerns." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13041" RevisionGUID="a6b1b43d-1612-4907-9db6-45e44c88540e" CreationDate="2015-06-16T19:42:34.987" UserId="1" Text="If your invention would be infringing on that *other* patent, then yes, you would have to obtain the rights or license from the patent owner to build or sell your invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All a patent does is give you the rights to &quot;exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing [your] invention.&quot; But a patent does ***not*** guarantee you the right to &quot;make, use, offer for sale, sell or import [your invention].&quot; &amp;mdash; [**What Are Patents, Trademarks, Servicemarks, and Copyrights?**](http://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/general-information-concerning-patents#heading-2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So even if your patent is completely valid, it does not grant you the unencumbered right to build and sell your invention. It only gives you exclusivity to keep *others* from building or selling it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13040" RevisionGUID="d8dd63ae-7e17-447a-be6f-42d9a50dd993" CreationDate="2015-06-16T20:26:59.137" UserId="5317" Comment="Added content to answer one of the questions." Text="According to Public Pair, the application has been through a rejection or two.  The applicant appears to be amending the application again (March 2015).  All the details are viewable.  Go to the USPTO website and examine the details... there is lots to read and may alleviate some of your concerns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have published references and links to prior-art right here on stackexachange for other patents since Google links their patent database straight here.  Later rejections have included the references in the conclusions written by the patent examiner.  Did they read it here?  I will never know for sure, but it can't hurt.  I suggest you include references to both previous patents and non-patent &quot;published&quot; documents from anywhere in the world.  From what I saw on Public Pair, the examiner seems to have found quite a bit of prior-art in the USPTO.  They seem to do this well.  I'm not yet convinced they aggressively search outside the patent database for much.  I hope I'm wrong.  In the meantime, go ahead and put your prior-art references here right away... literally right now as this patent's application process is winding down now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a process to submit prior-art to the USPTO.  I think it changed a bit after after the 2013 changes.  Perhaps someone else (George?) can shed some light on this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13044" RevisionGUID="99860858-801a-4322-8a24-a8c91dd43d73" CreationDate="2015-06-17T03:36:09.423" UserId="14415" Text="Thank you greatly in advance for your time!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a first time inventor/patent filer who had success using EFS-Web filing a provisional application.  A year later, on the anniversary (3 weeks ago), I attempted to file the documents I had worked on for a year but received the following upon validation: &quot;the attached pdf file references a non-embedded font.... (It showed this for various standard fonts multiple times for the specifications, claims, etc.).&quot;  I do not recall this issue when filing the provisional documents a year before.  I attempted the solutions I found online, as well as contacting the different USPTO departments, but no luck.  I did some research and found that an &quot;unintentional delay&quot; allows me 2 additional months.  Now, I'm working to gather the required $850 for the petition.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) Is this a valid reason for &quot;Unintentional Delay,&quot; (37 C.F.R. 1.78b Claiming benefit of earlier filing date and cross-references to other applications.).  Will I have to send them screenshots of my attempts to file the documents and make phone calls requesting assistance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) I'm wondering about how this affects the PCT application which I had planned on filing right after I filed the nonprovisional - If the petition is granted, will I be able to claim the benefit of the early filing date for the PCT application as well. Also, in reference to the PCT, will I need additional forms and fees for that petition as well, or can I use the US nonprovisional filing.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c) I also disclosed the idea as well by submitting to a business competition.  Does the provisional become prior art if the one year anniversary of that submission makes its way around before I am able to pay the $850, file the nonprovisional, and the petition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(d) While raising the $850 petition fee (required upon submission), currently the only concrete delay, am I allowed to edit and add content to my submission.  For example, additional drawings and claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(e) Finally, (especially if I can find professional assistance within the next few months) am I able to amend the claims, drawings, and specifications WITHOUT it affecting the PCT, or do I need to do this all for the PCT application as well? - Asking because I believe an attorney once told me I could use my US nonprovisional as the PCT reference documents (in other words, what happens with the US nonprovisional, happens to the PCT).  I have a feeling it's not that simple. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for any assistance!  I am extremely grateful for any advice!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30707" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13044" RevisionGUID="99860858-801a-4322-8a24-a8c91dd43d73" CreationDate="2015-06-17T03:36:09.423" UserId="14415" Text="Unintentional Delay Petition Validity - Provisional Expired b/c Embedded Font in PDF problem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30708" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13044" RevisionGUID="99860858-801a-4322-8a24-a8c91dd43d73" CreationDate="2015-06-17T03:36:09.423" UserId="14415" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;unintentional&gt;&lt;amend&gt;&lt;font&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13049" RevisionGUID="a36149ed-a6cf-48c0-b047-fac801c4451b" CreationDate="2015-06-17T16:48:59.070" UserId="14192" Text="US20150020824 A1 claims as an invention the formulation of e-cigarette &quot;e-liquid&quot; with nicotine salts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This idea has been a subject of much discussion for many years within the online vaping community - a quick search brings up a few threads on one of the most popular forums:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. https://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/threads/how-efficient-are-e-cigarettes-at-nicotine-delivery.50407/ (2009)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. https://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/threads/types-of-nicotine-base-liquid.241673/#post-4635960&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. https://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/threads/ph-of-unflavored-nic-liquid.201651/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, reading these posts, it appears some manufacturers may already have produced such e-liquid. Nonetheless, would these discussions, had publicly, qualify as prior art to the patent referenced above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nicotine salts in e-liquids may be a very important step in producing e-cigarettes that are more effective for smokers, and the company that produced this patent already sold their previous invention to the tobacco industry (Ploom, sold to JTI). The tobacco industry (Altria) already has a patent on a &quot;nicotine pyruvate&quot; device, which they've sat on for many years. It would be a hideous thing were the tobacco industry to acquire and sit on this technology. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30729" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13049" RevisionGUID="a36149ed-a6cf-48c0-b047-fac801c4451b" CreationDate="2015-06-17T16:48:59.070" UserId="14192" Text="Would this qualify as prior art for US20150020824 A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30730" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13049" RevisionGUID="a36149ed-a6cf-48c0-b047-fac801c4451b" CreationDate="2015-06-17T16:48:59.070" UserId="14192" Text="&lt;nicotine&gt;&lt;e-cigarette&gt;&lt;vaping&gt;&lt;salts&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30736" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13049" RevisionGUID="0836beca-4529-4b48-8721-d9e78f076464" CreationDate="2015-06-17T19:01:30.003" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;e-cigarette&gt;&lt;nicotine&gt;&lt;salts&gt;&lt;vaping&gt;&lt;us20150020824&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13051" RevisionGUID="dcf3ebdf-c488-46cc-8bb6-c980488f1c7e" CreationDate="2015-06-17T21:00:32.500" UserId="14425" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20130195410][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130195410&#xD;&#xA;This was described in a 1989 Paper in Physical Review Letters Volume 62 Number 1 published 2 January 1989 in a paper titled &quot;Transverse Localization of Light&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30739" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13051" RevisionGUID="dcf3ebdf-c488-46cc-8bb6-c980488f1c7e" CreationDate="2015-06-17T21:00:32.500" UserId="14425" Text="not a novel idea" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30740" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13051" RevisionGUID="dcf3ebdf-c488-46cc-8bb6-c980488f1c7e" CreationDate="2015-06-17T21:00:32.500" UserId="14425" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30745" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13051" RevisionGUID="51188286-6a8b-4d39-ad50-71a4d99c9535" CreationDate="2015-06-18T06:00:26.433" UserId="11895" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Prior art request US20130195410" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30746" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13051" RevisionGUID="51188286-6a8b-4d39-ad50-71a4d99c9535" CreationDate="2015-06-18T06:00:26.433" UserId="11895" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20130195410&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13051" RevisionGUID="51188286-6a8b-4d39-ad50-71a4d99c9535" CreationDate="2015-06-18T06:00:26.433" UserId="11895" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20130195410][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was described in a 1989 Paper in Physical Review Letters Volume 62 Number 1 published 2 January 1989 in a paper titled &quot;[Transverse Localization of Light][2]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130195410&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.62.47" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13053" RevisionGUID="a0a28d6e-f4ca-41fb-87e9-5a1b85371240" CreationDate="2015-06-18T07:21:05.873" UserId="13884" Text="Is it possible after receiving a office action amend a product/device claim to a method claim? Where is this discussed in MPEP?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30749" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13053" RevisionGUID="a0a28d6e-f4ca-41fb-87e9-5a1b85371240" CreationDate="2015-06-18T07:21:05.873" UserId="13884" Text="After office action can a device claim be amrnended to a method" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30750" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13053" RevisionGUID="a0a28d6e-f4ca-41fb-87e9-5a1b85371240" CreationDate="2015-06-18T07:21:05.873" UserId="13884" Text="&lt;method&gt;&lt;action&gt;&lt;amend&gt;&lt;office&gt;&lt;device&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13054" RevisionGUID="0d6b57c9-ae86-4443-95b0-7aef6357e751" CreationDate="2015-06-18T07:39:12.830" UserId="14429" Text="US20030173072A1&#xD;&#xA;PATENT APPLICATION NUMBER&#xD;&#xA;HAVING 8958 CLAIMS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards,&#xD;&#xA;Hemant Kumar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13055" RevisionGUID="48ba8d9c-1734-4d1d-a1c2-a938d0c76d0c" CreationDate="2015-06-18T13:47:53.417" UserId="14426" Text="If an inventor and co-inventors are related to a certain patent, who control's the rights our anything related to the invention? The inventors or the co-inventors?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to understand the position/power co-inventors have to a certain invention.&#xD;&#xA;And the economical value/stake who has the rights towards them only the inventor?&#xD;&#xA;Is there such a thing called the original-inventor the person who started the invention and did most of the work, do they surpass the co-inventor's position?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30753" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13055" RevisionGUID="48ba8d9c-1734-4d1d-a1c2-a938d0c76d0c" CreationDate="2015-06-18T13:47:53.417" UserId="14426" Text="Who is in control of the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30754" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13055" RevisionGUID="48ba8d9c-1734-4d1d-a1c2-a938d0c76d0c" CreationDate="2015-06-18T13:47:53.417" UserId="14426" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;invention&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13056" RevisionGUID="28d2f47b-d5c9-4ec9-a1ef-88de867ab994" CreationDate="2015-06-18T20:24:59.870" UserId="14308" Text="I was wondering if someone would kindly help me figure out how to determine the expiration dates for a patent family, and which and how each is still in effect and untjil when. (I don't haveany patent sample)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hoping to learn how to determine all of these considering the PCT, priority, provisional vs. nonprovisional, and the added CIP and CON (what do they do to the expirations. Also, what if they're abandoned?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does abandoned application count if added at the last? What if the first application were abandoned? what would happen to the timeline?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks so much!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30756" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13056" RevisionGUID="28d2f47b-d5c9-4ec9-a1ef-88de867ab994" CreationDate="2015-06-18T20:24:59.870" UserId="14308" Text="Filing, CIP, Con, PCT, Priority, etc and Expiration Date" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30757" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13056" RevisionGUID="28d2f47b-d5c9-4ec9-a1ef-88de867ab994" CreationDate="2015-06-18T20:24:59.870" UserId="14308" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;expiration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13054" RevisionGUID="424bec02-fa95-42c5-b24a-9a1b0c007321" CreationDate="2015-06-18T23:31:44.400" UserId="10011" Comment="added 128 characters in body" Text="##[US20030173072A1](http://google.com/patents/US20030173072A1) (application)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Title:** Forming openings in a hydrocarbon containing formation using magnetic tracking&#xD;&#xA;* **Publication Date:** Sep 18, 2003&#xD;&#xA;* **Claims:** 8,958" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30776" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13056" RevisionGUID="f0f328af-152e-4fac-b859-c8729327c7d0" CreationDate="2015-06-19T09:50:42.637" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body" Text="I was wondering if someone would kindly help me figure out how to determine the expiration dates for a patent family, and which and how each is still in effect and until when. (I don't have any patent sample)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hoping to learn how to determine all of these considering the PCT, priority, provisional vs. non-provisional, and the added CIP and CON (what do they do to the expiration. Also, what if they're abandoned?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does abandoned application count if added at the last? What if the first application were abandoned? what would happen to the timeline?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13067" RevisionGUID="84bb515e-6b8d-48e9-8be1-e70ec3e1fb2c" CreationDate="2015-06-19T19:44:58.930" UserId="13884" Text="If you reply to office action does the same rules apply as in normal amendments?&#xD;&#xA;That is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. That is you may not amend beyond the scope of the original body of the specification.&#xD;&#xA; 2. You may not amend beyond the scope of the original claims.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Your claims must be fairly based on the body of the original application.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30808" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13067" RevisionGUID="84bb515e-6b8d-48e9-8be1-e70ec3e1fb2c" CreationDate="2015-06-19T19:44:58.930" UserId="13884" Text="Replay to office action scope" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30809" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13067" RevisionGUID="84bb515e-6b8d-48e9-8be1-e70ec3e1fb2c" CreationDate="2015-06-19T19:44:58.930" UserId="13884" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;specification&gt;&lt;action&gt;&lt;amend&gt;&lt;office&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30823" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13067" RevisionGUID="269654f6-19d3-4ab1-8a80-c9f9ae21c175" CreationDate="2015-06-20T06:10:36.490" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Reply to office action scope" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30824" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13067" RevisionGUID="269654f6-19d3-4ab1-8a80-c9f9ae21c175" CreationDate="2015-06-20T06:10:36.490" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;specification&gt;&lt;amend&gt;&lt;office-action&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13069" RevisionGUID="4286f4ca-cd94-460d-b0cb-16f9c8ada703" CreationDate="2015-06-20T14:52:44.130" UserId="14203" Text="I was thinking about applying for a provisional patent and seeking funding for to build my prototyped design on a larger scale. &#xA;&#xA;Should funding fall through or there's not much of a market interest, what happens to my provisional patent? &#xA;&#xA;Does it become public? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30829" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13069" RevisionGUID="4286f4ca-cd94-460d-b0cb-16f9c8ada703" CreationDate="2015-06-20T14:52:44.130" UserId="14203" Text="What happens after a provisional patent expires?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30830" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13069" RevisionGUID="4286f4ca-cd94-460d-b0cb-16f9c8ada703" CreationDate="2015-06-20T14:52:44.130" UserId="14203" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;expired-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13071" RevisionGUID="fb660f8b-a5aa-4ba7-8509-c4fb7dfec6b0" CreationDate="2015-06-20T23:47:37.463" UserId="10011" Text="First things first, just a quick clarification, there is no such thing as a provisional *patent*, but rather a provisional *patent application*. It's a slight difference, but an important one. A provisional doesn't give you any direct protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your question, though, no, the provisional application will be made public **if and only if** you proceed to file a non-provisional application and claim the filing date of the provisional. Of course, this typically isn't a big deal since the non-provisional is often a more smoothed out version by that point anyway, and it will be published according to the schedule you select, or at the eighteen-month mark by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't file a non-provisional that claims the original provisional, nothing will happen with it, and it will essentially just disappear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13072" RevisionGUID="bda8fc66-b627-4f0e-b615-3a022ebcf222" CreationDate="2015-06-21T03:01:34.393" UserId="14445" Text="Can all patents records on SIPO website also be found from Google Patent search? Google Patent search says their patents originate from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the European Patent Office (EPO), and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). However, I also found some patent records from Chinese Patent Office (SIPO). Does Google Patent cover all patents from SIPO?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30840" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13072" RevisionGUID="bda8fc66-b627-4f0e-b615-3a022ebcf222" CreationDate="2015-06-21T03:01:34.393" UserId="14445" Text="Does Google Patent cover all Chinese patents records from SIPO or just those who applied for PCT?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30841" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13072" RevisionGUID="bda8fc66-b627-4f0e-b615-3a022ebcf222" CreationDate="2015-06-21T03:01:34.393" UserId="14445" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;chinese-patent&gt;&lt;google-patents&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13073" RevisionGUID="0a404731-cbd9-4805-bc30-8aae79504cfc" CreationDate="2015-06-21T09:30:05.900" UserId="14295" Text="I want to patent an algorithm in India. I have done enough prior art and I am sure that no such algorithm exists till date. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is I have also written a research paper for the same and submitted in a reputed conference. The paper is yet to be accepted and published. After doing some research on Internet I came to know that for getting a patent it must not be in the public domain or published anywhere. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if I file a provisional patent application before the paper (if selected) gets published then are there any chances of patent denial. Is that so that the patent must be granted (which takes around 3 to 4 years long) before it can be published or one can publish it after filing a provisional patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I came to know that even after it gets published in journal one gets a grace period of 12 months to file a patent, [here][1] (Question 10). I really don't have much idea about Section 29-34 as mentioned in the link hence would like to know that in what way it can affect me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ipindia.nic.in/ipr/patent/patents.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30843" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13073" RevisionGUID="0a404731-cbd9-4805-bc30-8aae79504cfc" CreationDate="2015-06-21T09:30:05.900" UserId="14295" Text="File provisional patent application in India before getting published in a Journal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30844" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13073" RevisionGUID="0a404731-cbd9-4805-bc30-8aae79504cfc" CreationDate="2015-06-21T09:30:05.900" UserId="14295" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;independent-inventor&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13071" RevisionGUID="3ee1c8c0-cb62-47e7-a0a0-3b4be2e41cd8" CreationDate="2015-06-22T06:05:09.310" UserId="11895" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="First things first, just a quick clarification, there is no such thing as a provisional *patent*, but rather a provisional *patent application*. It's a slight difference, but an important one. A provisional doesn't give you any direct protection apart from securing a &quot;priority date&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your question, though, no, the provisional application will be made public **if and only if** you proceed to file a non-provisional application and claim the filing date of the provisional. Of course, this typically isn't a big deal since the non-provisional is often a more smoothed out version by that point anyway, and it will be published according to the schedule you select, or at the eighteen-month mark by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't file a non-provisional that claims the original provisional, nothing will happen with it, and it will essentially just disappear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13076" RevisionGUID="28fbbcd1-1fc9-41d1-94b2-fbf500e88020" CreationDate="2015-06-22T08:40:25.010" UserId="14447" Text="yes this analysis is correct your published article would be a prior art on yourself but there is an important regulator which is the way u disclosed about your invention in your published articles if its not detailed enough or if its not enough to make other parties able to know what the invention is and be able to make the invention then u still can file your invention and this publication would not deprive your invention its novelty &gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13076" RevisionGUID="43e620e4-cf57-47a7-b25f-880cb6fd2868" CreationDate="2015-06-22T18:08:11.340" UserId="10011" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Yes, this analysis is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our published article would be prior art against yourself, but there is an important regulator: the way you disclosed your invention in your published articles. If it is not detailed enough or if it is not enough to make other parties able to know what the invention is and be able to make the invention, then you can still file your invention and this publication would not deprive your invention it's novelty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13079" RevisionGUID="3707c6d6-9b56-4ffe-9ef4-6b24e714f22e" CreationDate="2015-06-23T03:46:01.923" UserId="14451" Text="I came up with an idea and after getting it submitted to a patent agent. I found that something similar had been submitted in 1998. I was told by my agent that there is nothing I can do as far as patenting the idea because of it's prior art and the similarities. If I had the rights I would be able to make it the way I envisioned. The owner of this patent has never paid the maintenance fees on this idea but it still hasn't been 20 years for it to actually expire. Though I could be making this idea and marketing it I want the rights so if my product takes off a major corporation can't just take it from me. How do I go about this?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30865" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13079" RevisionGUID="3707c6d6-9b56-4ffe-9ef4-6b24e714f22e" CreationDate="2015-06-23T03:46:01.923" UserId="14451" Text="there a patent on my idea but it is expired how do I get the rights?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30866" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13079" RevisionGUID="3707c6d6-9b56-4ffe-9ef4-6b24e714f22e" CreationDate="2015-06-23T03:46:01.923" UserId="14451" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;expired-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13084" RevisionGUID="1272caa2-5eda-4bcd-a7a9-84f16bf9268b" CreationDate="2015-06-23T20:05:22.060" UserId="4914" Text="Your amendments should always gain support form your specification. Otherwise you are introducing &quot;new matter,&quot; which is not permitted. That being said, keep in mind that you can argue support from things like your Figures, etc. If you &quot;showed&quot; something, you may have adequate support to avoid new matter rejections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can read the relevant sections in the MPEP, try 7.31.01, where the relevant statute that is cited against new matter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13085" RevisionGUID="3e7c0f23-d120-43c4-ba55-3f56f3e05df9" CreationDate="2015-06-23T20:11:43.770" UserId="4914" Text="A quick note, you might not be aware-the filing of your patent application does not require a prototype. You only have to be able to describe it such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand enough to be able to build it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13086" RevisionGUID="ee3cb738-0771-4a88-aa6a-45ec1eb9c6c4" CreationDate="2015-06-23T20:24:21.587" UserId="4914" Text="A few things you should know and research-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've just looked at the current claims, which are what is relevant. Generally, when the examiner rejects the application, they will narrow the scope of the claims to overcome the rejection. The scope is what matters. If they are limited to a point which no longer describes what everyone else is doing, then they would not have a case against those others. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should the case be allowed, and you feel it is improper, I believe you can also petition for a post-grant review within 9 months:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Post grant review is a trial proceeding conducted at the Board to review the patentability of one or more claims in a patent on any ground that could be raised under § 282(b)(2) or (3). Post grant review process begins with a third party filing a petition on or prior to the date that is 9 months after the grant of the patent or issuance of a reissue patent. The patent owner may file a preliminary response to the petition. A post grant review may be instituted upon a showing that, it is more likely than not that at least one claim challenged is unpatentable. If the proceeding is instituted and not dismissed, a final determination by the Board will be issued within 1 year (extendable for good cause by 6 months). The procedure for conducting post grant review took effect on September 16, 2012, and generally applies to patents issuing from applications subject to first-inventor-to-file provisions of the AIA.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/appealing-patent-decisions/trials/post-grant-review" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13087" RevisionGUID="d568adf0-1a16-4830-b883-a1cca42a3237" CreationDate="2015-06-23T22:43:31.773" UserId="3076" Text="If it hasn't been four months since the provisional application was due, you can fix part of your problem. Until something called the Patent Law Treaty went into effect recently, missing the one year date when a provisonal expired meant that is was gone with no recourse at all. Not unintentional, uninteneed, or in a well known case -the patent office in your country (Israel in this case) is closed that day for a holiday that is not also a U.S. Federal hoiday. Under the PLT we now have a proceedure to restore priority. It is under under 37 CFR 1.78(b). A second issue is that the non-provisonl you will file needs claims in it by 4 months from it was filed or 16 from when the provisonal expired. If that is past, it is possible to petition under 37 CFR 1.78(c) due to unintential delay. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your scenario is *not* unintentional delay. Don't have the money or can't figure out EFS, is not unintentional. You intended to do it but didn't. (We can still file by paper.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13088" RevisionGUID="366904f1-689c-4065-b658-56a0576a077e" CreationDate="2015-06-23T22:54:29.973" UserId="1698" Text="First, I suspect you are not receiving replies because you are asking some very technical legal questions that are difficult to answer straight up yes or no. The petition for unintentional delay does not give you a set time for reply.&#xD;&#xA;(a) Maybe. We see this embedded font issue when the PDF is not in PDF/A format. One of the fonts needed to display your PDF file is not embedded in the document, it is on your computer and simply referenced in the document. This is not allowed by the USPTO. The USPTO has the authority to decide if an embedded font problem is sufficient for an unintentional delay. To use this petition, you must end the delay in a reasonable time, once discovered.&#xD;&#xA;(b) It's not the PCT that will be the problem, it's the national stage applications you will want to file later that will be effected. It is my understanding that only the US will accept the petition for delay. It is my understanding that other countries will not accept the petition, so the priority claim to the provisional will be denied for not being made timely. (c) The US Provisional is not a published application, so its prior art status depends on it being made public, such as by making a priority claim to it in a US patent application or a PCT application. (d) You can add new matter to the US application, even if you claim priority to a provisional application. Claims directed to the new matter are only entitled to the filing date of the new application. (e) I don't understand this question. If you are asking if you can add new matter to a PCT application that makes a priority claim, then yes, but claims directed to the new matter are only entitled to the filing date of the PCT application and not the priority date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13087" RevisionGUID="caa17820-5bb5-4388-a964-6fac84cd3f06" CreationDate="2015-06-23T23:13:37.210" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 36 characters in body" Text="Since hasn't been four months since the provisional application was due, you can fix part of your problem. Until something called the Patent Law Treaty went into effect recently, missing the one year date when a provisonal expired meant that is was gone with no recourse at all. Not unintentional, unintentened, or  - in a well known case - the patent office in your country (Israel in this case) is closed that last day for a holiday that is not also a U.S. Federal holiday. Under the PLT we now have a proceedure to restore priority. It is under under 37 CFR 1.78(b). A second issue is that the non-provisonal you will file needs claims in it by 4 months from it was filed or 16 from when the provisonal expired. At the three week pint you are ok on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your scenario is *not* unintentional delay. Don't have the money or can't figure out EFS, is not unintentional. You intended to do it but didn't. (We can still file by paper.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13089" RevisionGUID="c2b964fe-458b-4b78-a993-588291e0d753" CreationDate="2015-06-24T03:22:51.187" UserId="14459" Text="I mean when i search patent for 1 topic. I found alot of patent.&#xD;&#xA;But how i can know which one is important and influential or typical for that topic.&#xD;&#xA;Do you know any score or item that is represent for it.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advanced." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30886" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13089" RevisionGUID="c2b964fe-458b-4b78-a993-588291e0d753" CreationDate="2015-06-24T03:22:51.187" UserId="14459" Text="How to know what is an important patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30887" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13089" RevisionGUID="c2b964fe-458b-4b78-a993-588291e0d753" CreationDate="2015-06-24T03:22:51.187" UserId="14459" Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;analysis&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13089" RevisionGUID="9f0ace64-e406-428b-946c-f8834b2f4097" CreationDate="2015-06-24T03:28:01.537" UserId="14459" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="I mean when i search patent for 1 topic. I found alot of patent.&#xD;&#xA;But how i can know which one is important and influential or typical for that topic.&#xD;&#xA;Do you know any score or item that is represent for it.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advanced.&#xD;&#xA;p/s: My topic is virtual reality " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13089" RevisionGUID="4786a28a-afde-45e3-b9c0-ddad224333a2" CreationDate="2015-06-24T03:51:31.283" UserId="10011" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="When I search for a patent on a topic, I often find a lot of patents that match my criteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I whittle those results down and know which ones are important or influential for that topic? Is there a score or something I can look up?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My topic is virtual reality, if that's relevant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13091" RevisionGUID="8fd03f41-c810-40e0-a6a7-5948b9401939" CreationDate="2015-06-24T13:49:47.973" UserId="14308" Text="the EPO has somany publication datesfor each patent: A1,A2,A3,A4. . . B1, B2,etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which should I use as publication date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30895" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13091" RevisionGUID="8fd03f41-c810-40e0-a6a7-5948b9401939" CreationDate="2015-06-24T13:49:47.973" UserId="14308" Text="EPO publication date" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30896" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13091" RevisionGUID="8fd03f41-c810-40e0-a6a7-5948b9401939" CreationDate="2015-06-24T13:49:47.973" UserId="14308" Text="&lt;epo&gt;&lt;date&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13092" RevisionGUID="94fea2b9-0669-498b-a51c-7936f7e03242" CreationDate="2015-06-24T14:00:01.247" UserId="5317" Text="Unpaid maintenance fees expire the patent I believe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2501.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Unless payment of the applicable maintenance fee is received in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on or before the date the fee is due or within a grace period of 6 months thereafter, the patent will expire as of the end of such grace period.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems either the inventor was lazy, perhaps dead, or purposely desired the idea to enter the public domain quickly whilst memorializing his contribution forever in the patent system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People, including you, are likely free to manufacture the idea described by this patent.  You might consider patenting some subtle and novel improvement.  You should also be wary of others than might have done the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13092" RevisionGUID="56ae9896-819d-4e2a-899c-9c77e91f886b" CreationDate="2015-06-24T14:24:04.817" UserId="5317" Comment="Added link to similar SX post on similar topic." Text="Unpaid maintenance fees expire the patent I believe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2501.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Unless payment of the applicable maintenance fee is received in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on or before the date the fee is due or within a grace period of 6 months thereafter, the patent will expire as of the end of such grace period.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems either the inventor was lazy, perhaps dead, or purposely desired the idea to enter the public domain quickly whilst memorializing his contribution forever in the patent system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People, including you, are likely free to manufacture the idea described by this patent.  You might consider patenting some subtle and novel improvement.  You should also be wary of others than might have done the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see this...&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/12140/failure-to-pay-maintenance-fees&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13094" RevisionGUID="179e042b-d439-41c1-b6f6-ec3908144c5c" CreationDate="2015-06-25T04:29:29.370" UserId="14464" Text="This is only broadly related to patents but maybe someone on here knows. Why is it not required to show a patent number when a product claims to be &quot;patented?&quot; Building off that, if a product claims to be patented, and it turns out that is a lie, is that punishable by law?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if this is the best place for this question, but I couldn't find a more appropriate forum on StackExchange. Hopefully this is on topic enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for any help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30905" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13094" RevisionGUID="179e042b-d439-41c1-b6f6-ec3908144c5c" CreationDate="2015-06-25T04:29:29.370" UserId="14464" Text="Why does the FTC not require patent numbers to be included in television commercials?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30906" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13094" RevisionGUID="179e042b-d439-41c1-b6f6-ec3908144c5c" CreationDate="2015-06-25T04:29:29.370" UserId="14464" Text="&lt;false-marking&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13094" RevisionGUID="3f751331-9fcf-4ab5-8e8b-2b27a1d17fa8" CreationDate="2015-06-25T04:51:51.267" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 191 characters in body; edited tags" Text="This is only broadly related to patents but maybe someone on here knows. Why is it not required to show a patent number when a product claims to be &quot;patented?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Building off that, if a product claims to be patented, and it turns out that is a lie, is that punishable by law?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30908" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13094" RevisionGUID="3f751331-9fcf-4ab5-8e8b-2b27a1d17fa8" CreationDate="2015-06-25T04:51:51.267" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 191 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;false-marketing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13094" RevisionGUID="a44d4a8d-4b96-46b9-82fc-c9e232c83c0e" CreationDate="2015-06-25T14:03:08.910" UserId="14464" Comment="False Marking is the act of False use of patent marking (or Patent False Marking) is statutorily prohibited under 35 U.S.C. § 292.  Section 292 encompasses two elements: (1) marking an unpatented article; and (2) an intent to deceive the public. - See more at: http://www.klemchuk.com/390-Patent-Fals" Text="This is only broadly related to patents but maybe someone on here knows. Why is it not required to show a patent number when a product claims to be &quot;patented?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Building off that, if a product claims to be patented, and it turns out that is a lie, is that punishable by law? I believe this is called False Marking, based on the definition I found [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.klemchuk.com/390-Patent-False-Marking-Generally" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30917" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13094" RevisionGUID="a44d4a8d-4b96-46b9-82fc-c9e232c83c0e" CreationDate="2015-06-25T14:03:08.910" UserId="14464" Comment="False Marking is the act of False use of patent marking (or Patent False Marking) is statutorily prohibited under 35 U.S.C. § 292.  Section 292 encompasses two elements: (1) marking an unpatented article; and (2) an intent to deceive the public. - See more at: http://www.klemchuk.com/390-Patent-Fals" Text="&lt;false-marking&gt;&lt;false-marketing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13099" RevisionGUID="764a4c9b-4d8a-4c84-81fe-ec205185597d" CreationDate="2015-06-26T18:16:05.063" UserId="14475" Text="In reference to the patent: [EP2384964A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP2384964A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Patent claim is the foundation of split boards dating back to the early 1990's. Manufactures of Snowboards have been making woodcores with center plastic, bamboo and other impermeable materials. How would I submit prior art to assure a denial for this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sincerely,&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Dan Watts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30925" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13099" RevisionGUID="764a4c9b-4d8a-4c84-81fe-ec205185597d" CreationDate="2015-06-26T18:16:05.063" UserId="14475" Text="How to submit prior art to contest application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30926" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13099" RevisionGUID="764a4c9b-4d8a-4c84-81fe-ec205185597d" CreationDate="2015-06-26T18:16:05.063" UserId="14475" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13101" RevisionGUID="8cae7010-349a-410d-a215-4474612bbe29" CreationDate="2015-06-26T20:24:57.923" UserId="14403" Text="always the first one. The follow ups are for some admin or legal back logs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13102" RevisionGUID="0050e4bd-8180-4988-b676-a7506c941dd7" CreationDate="2015-06-26T20:39:23.190" UserId="14403" Text="in prior art search; you narrow down your search by using 'key words'. First one or two takes you to your field. Following Key words should represent your adopted means and methodology for solution to the problem you have chosen to solve.   &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13103" RevisionGUID="c64685da-aed3-42d3-8433-cd2336f67031" CreationDate="2015-06-27T04:03:46.827" UserId="14480" Text="The specification, and not the original claims limit the available subject matter of amended claims.  Therefore, new claims may be submitted as long as (per above) no new matter is introduced.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13105" RevisionGUID="882a3af6-d9f6-4fb0-9809-571974c96b32" CreationDate="2015-06-27T11:34:30.120" UserId="3418" Text="I write some provisional patents and I plan to merge them into a single patent application. I need to renumber the figures, merging paragraphs... but not adding any new element. But will it be considered as adding new elements to the patents from the legal point of view?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30951" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13105" RevisionGUID="882a3af6-d9f6-4fb0-9809-571974c96b32" CreationDate="2015-06-27T11:34:30.120" UserId="3418" Text="Is modifying number or merging patents considered adding new element?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30952" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13105" RevisionGUID="882a3af6-d9f6-4fb0-9809-571974c96b32" CreationDate="2015-06-27T11:34:30.120" UserId="3418" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;modification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13106" RevisionGUID="7575c137-b774-4abf-b70f-4fd35a57967d" CreationDate="2015-06-27T12:39:28.120" UserId="14481" Text="In reference to the patent: [US4737638][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4737638&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For USPTO: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you tell me how many people have requested copies of this patent? I would like to contact them to determine if there is market interest in this method of isotope purification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30954" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13106" RevisionGUID="7575c137-b774-4abf-b70f-4fd35a57967d" CreationDate="2015-06-27T12:39:28.120" UserId="14481" Text="Interest in patent US4737638" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30955" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13106" RevisionGUID="7575c137-b774-4abf-b70f-4fd35a57967d" CreationDate="2015-06-27T12:39:28.120" UserId="14481" Text="&lt;practicality&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13101" RevisionGUID="c82884e6-51f6-4979-85de-a8e7ff08acba" CreationDate="2015-06-27T21:30:16.973" UserId="9939" Comment="edited body" Text="Always the first one. The follow ups are for some admin or legal back logs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13030" RevisionGUID="476fbc21-d395-49e3-8f6e-2ed2b1c4e72a" CreationDate="2015-06-28T19:59:01.137" UserId="10011" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="What happens if *Company A* has acquired *Company B*, during which the patents need to be assigned from *Company A* to *Company B*. The signature for this assignment for both the companies has been done by the same person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the laws governing this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13107" RevisionGUID="2e96feb1-d1da-464b-8fcc-12fcdfa7b86c" CreationDate="2015-06-29T02:29:10.833" UserId="5381" Text="In reference to the patent application: [US20040107227][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see any other legal events than the filing in 2002. Did IBM abandon this? Does that mean SMR is nod in the public domain? Does anyone know if IBM has publicly stated that it is not interested in pursuing patent rights for this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any hint/link/definitive answer would be appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20040107227" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30964" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13107" RevisionGUID="2e96feb1-d1da-464b-8fcc-12fcdfa7b86c" CreationDate="2015-06-29T02:29:10.833" UserId="5381" Text="What is the legal status of Safe Memory a Reclamation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30965" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13107" RevisionGUID="2e96feb1-d1da-464b-8fcc-12fcdfa7b86c" CreationDate="2015-06-29T02:29:10.833" UserId="5381" Text="&lt;us20040107227&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13099" RevisionGUID="aca2a5fc-4ff1-4d8b-94ca-5b5d37935eb1" CreationDate="2015-06-29T04:17:07.433" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 24 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [EP2384964A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP2384964A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Patent claim is the foundation of split boards dating back to the early 1990's. Manufactures of Snowboards have been making woodcores with center plastic, bamboo and other impermeable materials. How would I submit prior art to assure a denial for this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30970" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13106" RevisionGUID="58f654b1-c813-4549-8c4b-b4752f174a8b" CreationDate="2015-06-29T04:19:32.680" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="In reference to the patent: [US4737638][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4737638&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For USPTO: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you tell me how many people have requested copies of this patent? I would like to contact them to determine if there is market interest in this method of isotope purification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30971" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13106" RevisionGUID="58f654b1-c813-4549-8c4b-b4752f174a8b" CreationDate="2015-06-29T04:19:32.680" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How to find person Interest in any patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30972" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13106" RevisionGUID="58f654b1-c813-4549-8c4b-b4752f174a8b" CreationDate="2015-06-29T04:19:32.680" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;practicality&gt;&lt;us4737638&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13108" RevisionGUID="bff268c0-f12b-4fa7-affa-7661f981a2ee" CreationDate="2015-06-29T04:26:40.553" UserId="11895" Text="To simplify this patent was denied by examiner and later appealed by applicant till 2010 means they fought a lot to get it grant, but ultimately it was denied and method as such stated in patent application has no protection. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now comes the second part if one patent does not get a grant it really dont mean that other patents are not filed or in line. for this technology itself I see many other patent application either filed or granted to applicant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for more information please see [Goolge search String][1] its just a beginning you might get more patents if you try with more specific keywords.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.co.in/search?tbo=p&amp;tbm=pts&amp;hl=en&amp;q=%22safe%20memory%20reclamation%22&amp;num=10&amp;gws_rd=ssl" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13109" RevisionGUID="b1e14a06-b9f2-4be7-9943-c3c3633dca69" CreationDate="2015-06-29T04:46:32.313" UserId="11895" Text="Thank you for asking an interesting question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general there is no particular or specific way to know who has downloaded or accessed patent. I really don't have clear idea if any log is kept for download counter but that would be a number itself not person specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a certified copy of patent is asked from patent office then definitely one can get this information from patent office. I guess it would be limited and most of the time such copies are taken only by applicant itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To a further extent I feel one can find out through indirect correlation that who else is interested or in same filed by using Citation search like in this patent you can open it in [Espacenet][1] and check forward citation [1][2],  [2][3],  [3][4]  which will guide you to persons or atleast give you a way to dig more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&amp;NR=4737638A&amp;KC=A&amp;FT=D&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/citingDocuments?CC=US&amp;NR=4737638A&amp;KC=A&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=19880412&amp;DB=&amp;&amp;locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/citingDocuments?CC=US&amp;NR=5086225A&amp;KC=A&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=3&amp;date=19920204&amp;DB=&amp;locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/citingDocuments?CC=US&amp;NR=6432174B1&amp;KC=B1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=4&amp;date=20020813&amp;DB=&amp;locale=en_EP" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13108" RevisionGUID="961d4681-17c5-4561-b6df-320881471b02" CreationDate="2015-06-29T04:47:39.317" UserId="133" Comment="fixed grammar; fixed spelling and punctuation; fixed a comma splice sentence " Text="To simplify, this patent was denied by examiner and later appealed by applicant till 2010, which means they fought a lot to get it grant, but ultimately it was denied and the method as stated in the patent application has no protection. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now comes the second part. If a patent doesn't get a grant, it doesn't really mean other patents will not be filed or in line. For this technology itself, I see many other patent application either filed or granted to applicant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information please see this [Google search page][1]. It is just a beginning; you might get more patents if you try with more specific keywords.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.co.in/search?tbo=p&amp;tbm=pts&amp;hl=en&amp;q=%22safe%20memory%20reclamation%22&amp;num=10&amp;gws_rd=ssl" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30976" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13108" RevisionGUID="961d4681-17c5-4561-b6df-320881471b02" CreationDate="2015-06-29T04:47:39.317" Comment="Proposed by 133 approved by 11895 edit id of 1836" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13099" RevisionGUID="318e6139-09b5-4df7-b516-5e10b27f98be" CreationDate="2015-06-29T16:28:20.483" UserId="133" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="[EP2384964A1][1] claims to be the foundation of split boards dating back to the early 1990's. Manufactures of Snowboards have been making woodcores with center plastic, bamboo and other impermeable materials. How would I submit prior art to assure a denial for this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP2384964A1&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30985" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13099" RevisionGUID="318e6139-09b5-4df7-b516-5e10b27f98be" CreationDate="2015-06-29T16:28:20.483" Comment="Proposed by 133 approved by 11895, 1 edit id of 1838" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30986" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12750" RevisionGUID="e35fb722-6869-4012-9f5c-3d1580b1dab4" CreationDate="2015-06-29T16:28:24.437" UserId="133" Comment="improved formatting" Text="The summary of [EP2709017A1][1] states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The invention provides a device for controlling the access to a cache structure comprising multiple cache sets during the execution of at least one computer program, the device comprising a module for generating seed values during the execution of the at least one computer program; a parametric hash function module for generating a cache set identifier to access the cache structure, the identifier being generated by combining a seed value generated by the module for generating seed values and predetermined bits of an address to access a main memory associated to the cache structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Find what appears to be a partial disclosure of the underlying principles of [EP2709017A1][1] before the patent filing date of Sep 14, 2012 in the publication: [F. J. Cazorla, E. Quin ̃ones, T. Vardanega, L. Cucu, B. Triquet, G. Bernat, E. Berger, J. Abella, F. Wartel, M. Houston, L. Santinelli, L. Kosmidis, C. Lo, and D. Maxim. PROARTIS: Probabilistically Analysable Real-Time Systems. Rapport de recherche INIRIA/RR-7869, INRIA, Jan 2012.][2] In particular see the contents of Page 17 of [PROARTIS: Probabilistically Analysable Real-Time Systems] [2]:  &quot;Fully-associative caches are complex to implement and energy-consuming. However, when using a set-associative (with random replacement) or a direct-map cache, the placement policy is deterministic.  Deterministic placement policies create dependencies and lead to cache risk patterns and hence to time pathological cases.  We devise designs based on set-associative or direct-mapped caches using **random replacement algorithms**, which exhibit a similar behaviour at a lower cost.  **At hardware level, we devise a solution where we can randomise the placement function at program start up.  To that end we XOR the address accessing the cache with a randomly generated number and use the result as the new address to access the cache.  Under every placement setup, the address colliding in the different sets are different.  Hence, different runs will lead to different (random) colliding addresses in each set and hence different (random) conflicts and execution times.** &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see Figure 10 of [PROARTIS: Probabilistically Analysable Real-Time Systems] [2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the above earlier publication invalidate part or all of the EP patent application? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP2709017A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://people.cs.umass.edu/~emery/pubs/PROARTIS-TECS.pdf&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30987" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12750" RevisionGUID="e35fb722-6869-4012-9f5c-3d1580b1dab4" CreationDate="2015-06-29T16:28:24.437" Comment="Proposed by 133 approved by 11895, 1 edit id of 1839" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13112" RevisionGUID="77995340-80c3-416a-aef4-376b42033a9f" CreationDate="2015-06-29T17:06:32.327" UserId="14490" Text="&#xD;&#xA;If I have my website created with a third party company and they are infringing any patent, could I be sue, just to be a user of that software or program?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30989" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13112" RevisionGUID="77995340-80c3-416a-aef4-376b42033a9f" CreationDate="2015-06-29T17:06:32.327" UserId="14490" Text="I could be sue for patent infringement just to have my website with a system or platform of a third company?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30990" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13112" RevisionGUID="77995340-80c3-416a-aef4-376b42033a9f" CreationDate="2015-06-29T17:06:32.327" UserId="14490" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13106" RevisionGUID="f1f9db8e-8d44-4ec7-961a-9f2a17cc3605" CreationDate="2015-06-29T19:05:29.990" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [US4737638][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4737638&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I find out how many people have requested copies of this patent? I would like to contact them to determine if there is market interest in this method of isotope purification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31004" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="3432" RevisionGUID="50128f5c-2851-433d-a9f3-6c1903bad0c2" CreationDate="2015-06-30T14:16:03.817" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13119" RevisionGUID="b4251549-26c5-4558-a479-548339c56941" CreationDate="2015-06-30T16:36:53.940" UserId="14492" Text="IANAL,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My father, who owns an ISP, was recently sued for patent infringement because he provided DSL (a type of internet over phone lines), and a patent troll who owned some patents regarding DSL sued him for purchasing and selling to his customers a particular brand of DSL modem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you can be sued. The case was unsuccessful, as there were license grants that trickled down to the DSL modem manufacturer that included the patent, it was simply difficult to trace back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was a case of a patent troll looking to farm settlement money, but it still costs a reasonable amount of money and time to defend against such things." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13120" RevisionGUID="b5cff820-d2c5-4aa3-88e2-a489deb4d67a" CreationDate="2015-06-30T18:22:22.440" UserId="14492" Text="My tools that I use are restricted to the USPTO at this time, all results found are from there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US7111861&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above invention uses a pneumatic piston (as opposed to a semi-perpendicular rod setup) to achieve the same effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US5967538&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above invention uses a pivot ball (as opposed to a semi-perpendicular rod setup) to achieve the same effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US8720928&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above invention uses interchangeable pucks to achieve the same effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US5209319&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above invention uses a bar system to provide a stiff brace, but is not related.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US7360963&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above invention can fixedly change the rake angle, but is not related." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13121" RevisionGUID="03840822-b947-4d53-8948-631b55f75c05" CreationDate="2015-06-30T19:03:12.103" UserId="14492" Text="Here is a cyclical method of performing (what I think is) the method from 1985:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US4491522&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He himself cites several patents that appear to be the method, he is attempting to make an improvement on the method (by shredding the bio material?):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US20040000179 (in particular)&#xD;&#xA;http://www.bokashicycle.com/FAQ.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, the way that claims work, you have to be performing the entirety of the declared claim in order to claim infringement. If you are not performing the claim, or the claim represents an existing method, it will be tossed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13123" RevisionGUID="ceeba4a8-d128-4174-9ce9-cc680babbf02" CreationDate="2015-06-30T21:02:46.433" UserId="14504" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140206488][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140206488&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The invention presented here is actually already available under another name. A cycloid speed reducer has exactly the same construction with an excentric shaft and an inner and outer gear. As can be seen on http://www.darali.com/ these have been produced for years. The actual picture of the patent suggests an involut gear teeth but this is by no means an invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31024" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13123" RevisionGUID="ceeba4a8-d128-4174-9ce9-cc680babbf02" CreationDate="2015-06-30T21:02:46.433" UserId="14504" Text="What is the invention, since there is strong evidence of prior art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31025" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13123" RevisionGUID="ceeba4a8-d128-4174-9ce9-cc680babbf02" CreationDate="2015-06-30T21:02:46.433" UserId="14504" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6667" RevisionGUID="074514e5-0499-4e87-9233-9d50018fdaa1" CreationDate="2015-07-01T03:03:19.970" UserId="8289" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="You can easily search for patents on [Google Patents][1] using their publication number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [Google.com/patents/us3039165][2] (it even has a link to *this* page):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Method and apparatus for production of lightweight aggregate from dust**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Publication number: US3039165 A&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Publication type:	Grant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Publication date:	Jun 19, 1962&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Filing date:	Apr 28, 1954&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priority date:	Apr 28, 1954&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems like it used to be owned by [Solite Corp][3], but [old patents expire 17 years after grant or 20 years from filing, whichever greater][4]. This means that *everyone* has been free to use it since 1979.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://google.com/patents&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://Google.com/patents/us3039165&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com.sg/search?q=solite%20corp&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3803/8289" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5172" RevisionGUID="52b64152-5adc-42d0-b749-a2fc3e1ff919" CreationDate="2015-07-01T15:02:19.247" UserId="133" Comment="removed not necessary words before the answer" Text="It looks likes an increasing mean rate of amount of memory allocated between garbage collections causes a raising of the threshold for garbage collection. Some claims are more specific than others. Regarding examples, an application has to enable someone skilled in the art to make and use the invention without undue experimentation and to not hide whatever way the inventor thinks is the best way of doing it at the time of filing.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31028" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5172" RevisionGUID="52b64152-5adc-42d0-b749-a2fc3e1ff919" CreationDate="2015-07-01T15:02:19.247" Comment="Proposed by 133 approved by 11895, 5071 edit id of 1840" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13124" RevisionGUID="f6ebc230-1387-4b53-b936-50e94751725e" CreationDate="2015-07-01T19:23:40.853" UserId="14505" Text="Patent [WO2008110876 A1][1] discloses a method to enhance the oil production capability of tobacco seeds by means of either mutagenising (chemically inducing mutations) or hybridising existing varieties of tobacco.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can this, essentially random, process be considered sufficiently full disclosure to permit reproduction and thereby fall under the protection of a patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a second item, if the initial claim is bypassed, can any subsequent claim that refers to the initial claim be safely considered to be inapplicable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2008110876A1?cl=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31030" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13124" RevisionGUID="f6ebc230-1387-4b53-b936-50e94751725e" CreationDate="2015-07-01T19:23:40.853" UserId="14505" Text="Is traditional plant material improvement sufficiently descriptive to be considered full disclosure" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31031" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13124" RevisionGUID="f6ebc230-1387-4b53-b936-50e94751725e" CreationDate="2015-07-01T19:23:40.853" UserId="14505" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13126" RevisionGUID="75b8f367-f2b8-43b4-aa46-976107f31099" CreationDate="2015-07-02T00:54:37.667" UserId="14508" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7841131][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7841131&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a design patent? Wouldn't it be expired as the 14 year limit is up?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31036" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13126" RevisionGUID="75b8f367-f2b8-43b4-aa46-976107f31099" CreationDate="2015-07-02T00:54:37.667" UserId="14508" Text="Patent expire limit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31037" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13126" RevisionGUID="75b8f367-f2b8-43b4-aa46-976107f31099" CreationDate="2015-07-02T00:54:37.667" UserId="14508" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13127" RevisionGUID="4fa14a0e-75ed-4726-8bb0-7bfbe9123e3b" CreationDate="2015-07-02T06:37:04.923" UserId="14510" Text="**All co-inventors begin with equal rights to the patent.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  All inventors are co-inventors. As far as the patent office and courts are concerned, all inventors have equal rights.&#xD;&#xA;2. There is no 'original-inventor' in any given patent. A particular innovation may give rise to multiple patents, and the original-inventor may be sole inventor on some and co-inventor on others, in which case they would have more overall control while the solely-owned patents are in force.&#xD;&#xA;3. All co-inventors have equal rights to license the patent UNLESS some or all co-inventors assign their rights to another party. In other words, if you and your friend are co-inventors, you can sell a license to Company ABC to use the patented invention, and your friend can sell a license to Company XYZ (or make it himself). Both licenses/uses are EQUALLY valid. You cannot sue XYZ for infringement, and your friend can't sue ABC. HOWEVER, you and your friend probably will have a harder time licensing the patent or getting a valuable license fee from any company BECAUSE you **WON'T** be able to grant an ***exclusive license***.&#xD;&#xA;4. Any assignees (persons/entities who are assigned a co-inventors ownership interest in the patent) exercise control according to the percentage of the patent rights they aquire.&#xD;&#xA;5. The actual situation can vary greatly - e.g. if you hired a friend as an employee AND had an invention disclosure/transfer agreement, your friend would be obligated to assign his right in the patent to you, and you would then be in full control. If you worked on it together without such a relationship, you could possibly buy his right in the patent and have him assign you his rights. Or you could form a partnership or LLC or Corp or ... and assign both your rights to the new company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FINALLY, the only way to truly understand the ramifications for any given situation is to contact a patent attorney. I have not and cannot give legal advice, only share the rules as explained on the USPTO website and in the US code." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13128" RevisionGUID="e3cb02cf-2997-4516-8dfc-86a6b50c5781" CreationDate="2015-07-02T06:44:24.777" UserId="14510" Text="Yes, it will **most likely** affect you. Most other countries worth the trouble and cost of obtaining a patent in have laws in place that ban patents that are either directly disclosed or made obvious by prior art in any place. Remember, the PCT (patent cooperation treaty) is joined by many larger nations, and they are bringing their laws more into accord with it over time. The AIA (first-to-file, etc.) in the US was primarily a result of various patent treaties we've signed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a US patent exists that either directly discloses your idea or makes it obvious to a person skilled in the art (i.e. someone who is reasonably competent in the industry/field of your idea) then it will *most likely* ban your idea from being patented in most other countries. There are some countries that tend to ignore prior art, just as there are some countries that grant you a patent without really examining your application, and thoroughly examine your application *only* if your patent is actually challenged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't necessarily mean that you can't **market** your idea. A patent only bans marketing in the country patented in and if it is actually claimed in the patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13133" RevisionGUID="565f466e-a1b0-4a8e-a531-2e4b7d33bf33" CreationDate="2015-07-03T09:39:56.073" UserId="14518" Text="Is this patent still in effect? Is it expired? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US1119732][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US1119732" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31063" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13133" RevisionGUID="565f466e-a1b0-4a8e-a531-2e4b7d33bf33" CreationDate="2015-07-03T09:39:56.073" UserId="14518" Text="Is this Patent still in effect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31064" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13133" RevisionGUID="565f466e-a1b0-4a8e-a531-2e4b7d33bf33" CreationDate="2015-07-03T09:39:56.073" UserId="14518" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13134" RevisionGUID="a30083be-ebf0-4a7f-944f-7d09eca8485a" CreationDate="2015-07-03T10:06:15.270" UserId="13884" Text="Where can I find examples and guidance on drafting an algorithm?&#xD;&#xA;This is not for patenting the algorithm as such, which I believe must be attached to hardware.&#xD;&#xA;This has more to do with the procedure to be followed for calibrating an apparatus.&#xD;&#xA;If you claim this procedure in a separate claim how much detail must you give.&#xD;&#xA;Say for instance the first two steps is really the uniqueness of the procedure, the rest is mere mathematical calculation, do you have to give details of the mathematical calculation?&#xD;&#xA;The mathematical calculation is discussed in the body of the specification.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference between an algorithm and procedure?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31066" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13134" RevisionGUID="a30083be-ebf0-4a7f-944f-7d09eca8485a" CreationDate="2015-07-03T10:06:15.270" UserId="13884" Text="Examples and guidance for algorithms and procedures" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31067" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13134" RevisionGUID="a30083be-ebf0-4a7f-944f-7d09eca8485a" CreationDate="2015-07-03T10:06:15.270" UserId="13884" Text="&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;algorihm&gt;&lt;examples&gt;&lt;procedures&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13136" RevisionGUID="c930b108-99ba-421f-b4e3-353be14c46c7" CreationDate="2015-07-03T11:08:11.953" UserId="14520" Text="There is a section of the page you linked which provides that information. Google patents applies the section &quot;referenced by&quot; on its page for every patent publication and patent. There is a link to that section in the gray box at the top right of those pages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of the patent you listed, it's the &quot;referenced by (6)&quot; in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Patent Citations (6), Referenced by (6), Classifications (5)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is the second to last section on that page. Specific to this reference, here is the link to the anchor on that page that brings that section to the top of the browser window: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US3018134#forward-citations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope that helped. &#xD;&#xA;The patent office would love to do this on the paper versions of the issued patents, but it is very difficult to find every printed copy and mark it up when someone else's freshly printed patent or patent publication makes a reference to that document. So they leave it to Google instead. ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31079" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="4207" RevisionGUID="c1118120-7208-4a14-a1ed-876c995f7b9f" CreationDate="2015-07-03T15:19:19.060" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31082" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13133" RevisionGUID="0837c698-1db1-459e-9ab4-cb781e67961c" CreationDate="2015-07-03T15:57:07.257" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[312],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13139" RevisionGUID="42a95612-4931-4bc4-9b94-60ee4c4efbea" CreationDate="2015-07-03T18:55:51.823" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; Say for instance the first two steps is really the uniqueness of the procedure, the rest is mere mathematical calculation, do you have to give details of the mathematical calculation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a very tricky question. The main restriction to eliminating elements from a claim is that the claimed invention must still &quot;work&quot;. In legal terms, it must fulfill the &quot;utility&quot; requirement. For example, claiming just one of a pair of pliers (i.e., one of the two hinged parts) may be problematic if the specification does not disclose a specific utility for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many patents do &quot;fudge&quot; exact calcuations by using phrases like &quot;calculating an adjustment parameter **based on** measurement A and measurement B&quot;. Notice that this recitation says nothing about the nature of the calculation but nevertheless ties measurements A and B to a useful result of obtaining the adjustment parameter. Since such a claim risks attack based on overbreadth (functional claiming), there should also be dependent claims that fill in specific ways of calculating." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13140" RevisionGUID="3f468701-9784-48bb-9934-f36296759b7b" CreationDate="2015-07-03T20:48:36.150" UserId="14525" Text="This patent is the only luggage technology that up links the e ticket from a phone or computer direct to luggage thus it replaces the paper tag for all luggage carry on backpacks in the wolrd" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31085" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13140" RevisionGUID="3f468701-9784-48bb-9934-f36296759b7b" CreationDate="2015-07-03T20:48:36.150" UserId="14525" Text="The Device that up links e ticket direct to luggage display" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31086" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13140" RevisionGUID="3f468701-9784-48bb-9934-f36296759b7b" CreationDate="2015-07-03T20:48:36.150" UserId="14525" Text="&lt;usd633718&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31094" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13140" RevisionGUID="0675165d-2275-4fc5-8ed9-baaa736e6a9f" CreationDate="2015-07-04T14:13:24.503" UserId="10011" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13142" RevisionGUID="9947b0b0-5bb8-4c01-94e8-4b1e5e23a9a7" CreationDate="2015-07-05T00:49:15.307" UserId="14535" Text="This product is a type of therapeutic blanket for animals.  How can I manufacture myself without patent infringement? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31099" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13142" RevisionGUID="9947b0b0-5bb8-4c01-94e8-4b1e5e23a9a7" CreationDate="2015-07-05T00:49:15.307" UserId="14535" Text="Is this patent still legal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31100" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13142" RevisionGUID="9947b0b0-5bb8-4c01-94e8-4b1e5e23a9a7" CreationDate="2015-07-05T00:49:15.307" UserId="14535" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31113" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13142" RevisionGUID="cedf1fbe-5298-4adb-acef-18b03017e05c" CreationDate="2015-07-06T01:30:06.243" UserId="10011" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13146" RevisionGUID="b8327280-57e6-46fe-a20a-ed9d76967b00" CreationDate="2015-07-06T04:13:43.423" UserId="1770" Text="A simple solution that can sometimes work is to take the full name of the inventor and place of residence and search them in Google. Also check in Espacenet to see if there are other patents or applications in other countries. You may well find a company listed there if the inventor was an employee. (yes I know this relates to the inventor, not owner, but it has been linked to from a question re inventor)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13147" RevisionGUID="dfa65a22-481c-4c2b-9ff4-d0e717368d0a" CreationDate="2015-07-06T15:21:04.407" UserId="14543" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7877268][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7877268" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31118" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13147" RevisionGUID="dfa65a22-481c-4c2b-9ff4-d0e717368d0a" CreationDate="2015-07-06T15:21:04.407" UserId="14543" Text="i want to make it for my grandmother(not for commercial use) , please advice what i should be aware/careful of?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31119" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13147" RevisionGUID="dfa65a22-481c-4c2b-9ff4-d0e717368d0a" CreationDate="2015-07-06T15:21:04.407" UserId="14543" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31120" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13147" RevisionGUID="d36033cd-abd1-4f24-bde2-87c065362fd3" CreationDate="2015-07-06T15:47:39.580" UserId="1" Comment="edited title" Text="Can I build a patented item for personal use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13147" RevisionGUID="d36033cd-abd1-4f24-bde2-87c065362fd3" CreationDate="2015-07-06T15:47:39.580" UserId="1" Comment="edited title" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7877268][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would lie to make this item for my grandmother. I would not be offering it to others or selling it for commercial use. Is this legal? What issues should I be aware/careful of?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7877268" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13148" RevisionGUID="5f1b5dc8-43f1-49b8-b6da-486e29a8847e" CreationDate="2015-07-06T15:50:17.573" UserId="8767" Text="If the patent application filing date was on or before June 8, 1995, the nominal expiration date is the longer of 17 years from the date of issue or 20 years from the earliest non-provisional priority claim. )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13149" RevisionGUID="44d83791-2ff1-4294-b96a-ac10afea9771" CreationDate="2015-07-06T15:59:00.097" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; I would lie to make this item [...]. Is this legal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even for personal use, it would be patent infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you sure, however, that your implementation would be doing everything in Claim 1? To me, Claim 1 seems ridiculously specific. It should be very easy to avoid infringement by not implementing some of the more esoteric recitations in Claim 1." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13152" RevisionGUID="2a62bd61-8d49-4c88-8ef2-b826a590e033" CreationDate="2015-07-06T21:36:52.760" UserId="14139" Text="I wrote some DSP stack and would like to share it. I am thinking of licensing the stack under GPLv3 because I like the licence (except the patents clause). I do not own any patents yet. However, since this licence forces the developer to give away his/her patents related to the stack will the licence actually prevent me from applying for and getting a possible patent for an implementation of my stack?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31133" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13152" RevisionGUID="2a62bd61-8d49-4c88-8ef2-b826a590e033" CreationDate="2015-07-06T21:36:52.760" UserId="14139" Text="Will the GPLv3 prevent me to get a new patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31134" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13152" RevisionGUID="2a62bd61-8d49-4c88-8ef2-b826a590e033" CreationDate="2015-07-06T21:36:52.760" UserId="14139" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;licence&gt;&lt;gpl&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13153" RevisionGUID="dc36eaac-ca8c-44ff-a413-51e40423c48a" CreationDate="2015-07-06T23:25:58.483" UserId="14417" Text="If the software you license under the GPLv3 (or any artistic/creative commons license) can be discovered as prior art for an undisclosed invention, then it will absolutely prevent you from obtaining a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your first action should be to get your priority date: file a provisional patent and supply important parts of the source code in that, along with the novel ways it can be applied to solving problems. The provisional will never be opened to third parties, but it will put your stake in the ground on a specific date. You then have one year to publish your application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Treat your source code the same way you treat other patentable unpublished work; keep it private until the disclosure is made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, you need to keep in mind that providing an open source implementation of patented work might be considered to be inducing infringement, which could weaken your case for enforcing licenses of your patent, since you are giving it away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, whenever you publish anything that is associated with a patent, you need to make absolutely certain that your provisional patent number, patent application(s) and/or patent grant(s) are attached to every bit of the code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can always create an open source API around a closed-source library after the fact, but you can never un-publish source code. If you publish such an API (around your closed-source library/service), you may be better off with the Apache or BSD license, because it will be more amenable to commercial use. The GPLv3 is supposed to accommodate commercial use, but it is not well tested." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13154" RevisionGUID="9ab0de8f-cdbc-458c-9f85-9d868700f441" CreationDate="2015-07-07T00:40:14.907" UserId="14547" Text="I need someone to provide me with a detailed explanation for the process for filing a continuation in part within one year of originally filing for a patent. I know you pay the same fees as you did for the original patent... but what's the procedure - do you use the same forms, submit the same way... etc?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance for your help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31137" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13154" RevisionGUID="9ab0de8f-cdbc-458c-9f85-9d868700f441" CreationDate="2015-07-07T00:40:14.907" UserId="14547" Text="What is the process for filing a continuation-in-part?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31138" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13154" RevisionGUID="9ab0de8f-cdbc-458c-9f85-9d868700f441" CreationDate="2015-07-07T00:40:14.907" UserId="14547" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;continuation&gt;&lt;utility&gt;&lt;continuation-in-part&gt;&lt;non-provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13155" RevisionGUID="410199de-5ae4-4a65-a5a4-48c56a0bd375" CreationDate="2015-07-07T02:32:06.663" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; But will it be considered as adding new elements to the patents from the legal point of view?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing prevents an applicant from adding new matter over provisional applications in a new non-provisional application claiming priority to the provisionals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if new matter is added, some claim(s) may not be entitled to the priority date(s) of the provisionals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it turns out that the applicant/patentee must rely on the priority date(s) of the provisional(s), the question will arise whether the provisional(s) are adequate written descriptive support for the claims (on a claim-by-claim basis).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The test for adequate written descriptive support takes into account the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. That is, word-for-word correspondence is not required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I need to renumber the figures, merging paragraphs [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such superficial changes will *usually* not negate written descriptive support.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is in some cases possible that a merger of paragraphs may introduce a new concept; for example, if it creates a combination that was not suggested before." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13156" RevisionGUID="458119dc-096b-476f-b8db-1e9eeec07ea0" CreationDate="2015-07-07T02:53:06.253" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; However, since this licence forces the developer to give away his/her patents related to the stack will the licence actually prevent me from applying for and getting a possible patent for an implementation of my stack?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, releasing under GPLv3 will not directly prevent you from applying for and obtaining a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the GPLv3 patent clauses turn out to work as intended in court, they will limit your ability to target, as infringers, developers and users of code derived from your GPLv3 code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, releasing under GPLv3 may also diminish your patent rights in other respects, chiefly because preserving patent rights is (A) more complicated than the FOSS crowd believes and (B) not something the FOSS crowd loses sleep over anyhow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13157" RevisionGUID="aa960f4a-72c3-441f-9527-6ddaa5bd81bf" CreationDate="2015-07-07T03:48:59.913" UserId="14549" Text="Google is attempting to patent well known concepts in the field of machine learning. Can anyone provide prior art?&#xD;&#xA;[System and method for addressing overfitting in a neural network][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2014105866A1?cl=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31143" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13157" RevisionGUID="aa960f4a-72c3-441f-9527-6ddaa5bd81bf" CreationDate="2015-07-07T03:48:59.913" UserId="14549" Text="Requesting prior art on Google machine learning patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31144" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13157" RevisionGUID="aa960f4a-72c3-441f-9527-6ddaa5bd81bf" CreationDate="2015-07-07T03:48:59.913" UserId="14549" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13157" RevisionGUID="ba5979d4-2dcb-4362-a7ee-032846609180" CreationDate="2015-07-07T04:36:16.500" UserId="11895" Comment="added 14 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Google is attempting to patent well known concepts in the field of machine learning. Can anyone provide prior art?&#xD;&#xA;[System and method for addressing overfitting in a neural network][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;WO2014105866&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2014105866A1?cl=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31146" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13157" RevisionGUID="ba5979d4-2dcb-4362-a7ee-032846609180" CreationDate="2015-07-07T04:36:16.500" UserId="11895" Comment="added 14 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;wo2014105866&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13147" RevisionGUID="c8806990-ed47-43d7-8537-f2b9b5c57ec4" CreationDate="2015-07-07T04:36:55.607" UserId="11895" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7877268][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to make this item for my grandmother. I would not be offering it to others or selling it for commercial use. Is this legal? What issues should I be aware/careful of?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7877268" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13154" RevisionGUID="83629b13-157e-4e43-b241-38b825bfe9fe" CreationDate="2015-07-07T04:37:21.177" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body" Text="I need someone to provide me with a detailed explanation for the process for filing a continuation in part within one year of originally filing for a patent. I know you pay the same fees as you did for the original patent... but what's the procedure - do you use the same forms, submit the same way... etc?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13158" RevisionGUID="132d5f6d-5c82-46a1-a221-44ce6179d71e" CreationDate="2015-07-07T10:27:04.790" UserId="14542" Text="If there were a patent US1111111, which read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **US1111111: A &quot;thing&quot; for doing something.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; The invention claimed is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  1. A &quot;thing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  2. A &quot;thing&quot; of claim 1, which uses a &quot;thing 2&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say product was also a &quot;thing&quot; that instead uses a &quot;thing 3&quot;, would my &quot;thing&quot; infringe on patent US1111111? I am still unsure as to how strict patent claims are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31150" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13158" RevisionGUID="132d5f6d-5c82-46a1-a221-44ce6179d71e" CreationDate="2015-07-07T10:27:04.790" UserId="14542" Text="How strict are patent claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31151" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13158" RevisionGUID="132d5f6d-5c82-46a1-a221-44ce6179d71e" CreationDate="2015-07-07T10:27:04.790" UserId="14542" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13158" RevisionGUID="126e3437-fc14-4bec-824f-93aa01c8b427" CreationDate="2015-07-07T13:28:09.710" UserId="14542" Comment="Grammatical changes." Text="If there were a patent US1111111, which read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **US1111111: A &quot;thing&quot; for doing something.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; The invention claimed is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  1. A &quot;thing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;  2. A &quot;thing&quot; of claim 1, which uses a &quot;thing 2&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say my invention was also a &quot;thing&quot; that instead uses a &quot;thing 3&quot;, would my &quot;thing&quot; infringe on patent US1111111? I am still unsure as to how strict patent claims are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13159" RevisionGUID="0efe9955-c132-41d6-a4e8-b7e9e7e8031c" CreationDate="2015-07-07T17:15:15.233" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; I am still unsure as to how strict patent claims are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If an accused product falls within the literal meaning of at least one of the patent's claims, then the patent is &quot;literally&quot; infringed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. A product that falls outside the literal meaning of the claims may still be considered infringing if it contains an &quot;equivalent&quot; for each claim limitation not literally present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the answer to your question is &quot;yes&quot;, since at least one claim is infringed. It doesn't matter how many other claims you don't infringe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13160" RevisionGUID="f18b65fb-060a-4b79-9608-8e50ad402b31" CreationDate="2015-07-07T17:17:02.297" UserId="14016" Text="Probably too late to help OP specifically, but, for posterity, **OP is right**. MPEP 2173.05(e) has lots of case law for &quot;provid[ing] by implication [or &quot;reasonably&quot;] the antecedent basis&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good compromise is changing &quot;the center of the sphere&quot; to &quot;the center *of **said** substantially transparent sphere*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally stick to the convention of &quot;a&quot; for new element, &quot;said&quot; for referring back to an element introduced with &quot;a&quot;, and &quot;the&quot; for implicitly present antecedent basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My position seems to be nearly identical to Mr. Albrecht's comment on the following page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://ip-updates.blogspot.com/2006/01/when-to-use-said-in-patent-claims.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13161" RevisionGUID="c406aef2-85d2-487b-8bc2-e2ed81d6c3c9" CreationDate="2015-07-07T20:51:38.117" UserId="14552" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20110320926][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110320926&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I worked on a project that became an Apache (open source) project. The functionality and methods described in this patent existed in the Apache XMLBeans project dating back to at least 2004.&#xD;&#xA;Tool Description:&#xD;&#xA;http://xmlbeans.apache.org/docs/2.0.0/guide/tools.html#inst2xsd&#xD;&#xA;Source Code showing date of 2004&#xD;&#xA;http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/xmlbeans/trunk/src/tools/org/apache/xmlbeans/impl/xsd2inst/SampleXmlUtil.java?view=log&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, there were/are other projects and tooling that provide similar functionality to that described in this patent. &#xD;&#xA;This query was posted in 2008, 2 years before the patent filing date.&#xD;&#xA;http://stackoverflow.com/questions/74879/any-tools-to-generate-an-xsd-schema-from-an-xml-instance-document&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Microsoft also has a tool that provides similar functionality (see the XML to XSD section)&#xD;&#xA;https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/x6c1kb0s(VS.80).aspx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't find anything novel or unique about the approach this patent describes, in fact it seems quite similar to the algorithm used by Apache XMLBeans' inst2xsd tool:&#xD;&#xA;http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/xmlbeans/trunk/src/tools/org/apache/xmlbeans/impl/xsd2inst/SampleXmlUtil.java?revision=825680&amp;view=markup&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone see the uniqueness in this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31157" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13161" RevisionGUID="c406aef2-85d2-487b-8bc2-e2ed81d6c3c9" CreationDate="2015-07-07T20:51:38.117" UserId="14552" Text="Prior Art from 2002 for XML to XSD generation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31158" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13161" RevisionGUID="c406aef2-85d2-487b-8bc2-e2ed81d6c3c9" CreationDate="2015-07-07T20:51:38.117" UserId="14552" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;post-grant-review&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13162" RevisionGUID="bdc049c2-3825-466f-a720-6ac9133ff854" CreationDate="2015-07-07T22:48:53.133" UserId="14553" Text="In reference to the patent: [US3137203][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3137203&#xD;&#xA;Why was the inventor's name changed when Google took custody of the document?  Joseph Brown was not the inventors name.  As the grandson of the true inventor, I can tell you this with certainty. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31160" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13162" RevisionGUID="bdc049c2-3825-466f-a720-6ac9133ff854" CreationDate="2015-07-07T22:48:53.133" UserId="14553" Text="Questionable accuracy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31161" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13162" RevisionGUID="bdc049c2-3825-466f-a720-6ac9133ff854" CreationDate="2015-07-07T22:48:53.133" UserId="14553" Text="&lt;history&gt;&lt;google-patents&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13163" RevisionGUID="da0cce59-35f0-4af1-83dc-58d0eedd8cb7" CreationDate="2015-07-08T01:26:39.220" UserId="14417" Text="Regardless of whether you find that the methods published in this application are the same or not, you should note that this is *only* a patent application, *not* a grant. The priority date on the application is from 2010, which is a strong indication that the claims may be substantially revised prior to a grant issuing (if one ever does issue). Until then, there is really nothing to be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a grant does eventually issue from this application, the code you published prior to the priority date (June 28, 2010) will not be encumbered by the patent, and may in fact serve as prior art to invalidate one or more claims of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You only need to look at a small portion of this document to determine whether the method is the same as the one you implemented. The most important paragraphs to examine are the independent claims (Claim 1, Claim 8 and Claim 12). If the method of any of the *independent claims* is nearly identical to the method you implemented prior to the priority date (June 28, 2010), then your source code (specifically, in a form that was publicly available at the time) could serve as prior art to invalidate that claim and all its dependent claims. If all independent claims are found to have prior art (or fail other tests), then the patent itself would be completely invalidated. Again, keep in mind that this would only be relevant if a patent issued, and you would then want to look at the claim language in the *patent document*, *not* the *patent application*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The structure of the dependent claims is fairly weak (`a first element`, `a second element`, `a third element`), and I suspect that this language would not survive unmodified into a patent grant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, there are three independent claims, which is not likely to survive into a WIPO patent (they typically prefer a single independent claim).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, one of the big players (in this case, Oracle) may file a patent application and then abandon it for the sole purpose of serving as prior art, which gives them (and everyone else) freedom to operate by preventing additional patent applications in that space. This in fact benefits the open source community, as well as smaller commercial players, by clearing a space that is free of intellectual property. I attempted to dig up the PAIRS data for this application, but I didn't find anything that wasn't already in the page you supplied, so it appears that the application is still in the prosecution stages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this has answered your question. Feel free to comment and I will be happy to make revisions to clarify any points." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31163" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13162" RevisionGUID="b9ed2238-7c9e-46bb-aacc-da5f2756903f" CreationDate="2015-07-08T01:33:25.547" UserId="10011" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[12392],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13165" RevisionGUID="1e9d881e-2e44-4897-9d7d-1a6f19ff3060" CreationDate="2015-07-08T15:00:29.590" UserId="14542" Text="I am producing a rainwater collection system and am not sure if the current system infringes on Nigel O'driscoll's *Rainwater harvesting system* (EP 2342386 A1):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A system for harvesting the rainwater collected from the roof of a building, comprising: a number of rainwater collectors connected to a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; guttering attached to the roof; a storage tank; and a feed system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; connecting the rainwater collectors to the storage tank; wherein&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the feed system comprises a common pumping system connected to the collectors;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - each rainwater collector comprises a sensor for detecting when a predetermined level of rainwater has been collected; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the feed system comprises means for operating the common pumping system so as to transfer water from the collectors to the storage tank&#xD;&#xA;&gt; only while the amount of water in each of the collectors is greater&#xD;&#xA;&gt; than or equal to the predetermined level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The draft for my patent is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![The invention.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The invention claimed is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. A rain collecting device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - a funnel formed of a polymeric material;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - a rainwater storage device;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - a pipe to channel rainwater into said rainwater storage device; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - a water level meter; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - a tap further comprising: a funnel; and a turning wheel to control supply.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2. A rain collecting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein said funnel is comprised of a tube and a collecting basin.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  3. A rain collecting device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a display system and means of collecting data.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  4. A rain collecting device as claimed in claim 4, wherein said water level meter further comprises a direct control method using a&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     wheel.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  5. A rain collecting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein said tap is arranged such that collected rain will be released when a torque&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     is applied.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  6. A method for storing rainfall measurements comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - a software system using Microsoft Word to export data; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - a web-based system to store subsequent Microsoft Word documents.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  7. A method for storing rainfall measurements as claimed in claim 6, wherein said Microsoft Word documents use a pre-defined template.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does my patent (particularly claims 1 through 5) infringe O'driscoll's patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/iFY0J.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31169" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13165" RevisionGUID="1e9d881e-2e44-4897-9d7d-1a6f19ff3060" CreationDate="2015-07-08T15:00:29.590" UserId="14542" Text="Does my product infringe on claim 1 of EP 2342386 A1?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31170" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13165" RevisionGUID="1e9d881e-2e44-4897-9d7d-1a6f19ff3060" CreationDate="2015-07-08T15:00:29.590" UserId="14542" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13165" RevisionGUID="57cd3c48-7fda-454c-a3dd-1bed756b1b58" CreationDate="2015-07-08T15:07:20.270" UserId="14542" Comment="improved formatting, included picture" Text="I am producing a rainwater collection system and am not sure if the current system infringes on Nigel O'driscoll's [*Rainwater harvesting system* (EP 2342386 A1)][1], which is listed as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Nigel O'driscoll's *Rainwater harvesting system* invention.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A system for harvesting the rainwater collected from the roof of a building, comprising: a number of rainwater collectors connected to a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; guttering attached to the roof; a storage tank; and a feed system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; connecting the rainwater collectors to the storage tank; wherein&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the feed system comprises a common pumping system connected to the collectors;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - each rainwater collector comprises a sensor for detecting when a predetermined level of rainwater has been collected; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the feed system comprises means for operating the common pumping system so as to transfer water from the collectors to the storage tank&#xD;&#xA;&gt; only while the amount of water in each of the collectors is greater&#xD;&#xA;&gt; than or equal to the predetermined level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The draft for my patent is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![My invention drawing.][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The invention claimed is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. A rain collecting device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - a funnel formed of a polymeric material;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - a rainwater storage device;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - a pipe to channel rainwater into said rainwater storage device; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - a water level meter; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - a tap further comprising: a funnel; and a turning wheel to control supply.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2. A rain collecting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein said funnel is comprised of a tube and a collecting basin.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  3. A rain collecting device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a display system and means of collecting data.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  4. A rain collecting device as claimed in claim 4, wherein said water level meter further comprises a direct control method using a&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     wheel.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  5. A rain collecting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein said tap is arranged such that collected rain will be released when a torque&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     is applied.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  6. A method for storing rainfall measurements comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - a software system using Microsoft Word to export data; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - a web-based system to store subsequent Microsoft Word documents.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  7. A method for storing rainfall measurements as claimed in claim 6, wherein said Microsoft Word documents use a pre-defined template.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does my patent (particularly claims 1 through 5) infringe O'driscoll's patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.co.uk/patents/EP2342386A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/espacenetImage.jpg?flavour=firstPageClipping&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;FT=D&amp;date=20081126&amp;CC=GB&amp;NR=2449534A&amp;KC=A&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/iFY0J.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13166" RevisionGUID="74517578-a636-49e2-9b51-d725a72a284a" CreationDate="2015-07-08T17:10:52.743" UserId="14559" Text="I've just been issued a notice of allowance for my patent application. Since we (my attorney and I) filed pre-AIA, before micro entity status existed, we claimed small entity status.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that we've been given an allowance, I've requested that I claim micro-entity status.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My patent attorney wants to charge me $500 for filing the micro-certification form and handling payment of the issue fee. The issue fee will not be coming out of the $500, I have to add additional money for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that $500 seems ridiculous. All the patent attorney is doing is uploading a couple of forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can't I just upload the forms and pay for everything myself? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like I would have to register with the patent office and get my own customer number to do this which would, it seems, remove my patent attorney from this application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31173" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13166" RevisionGUID="74517578-a636-49e2-9b51-d725a72a284a" CreationDate="2015-07-08T17:10:52.743" UserId="14559" Text="Do I need to use a patent attorney to pay an issue fee?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31174" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13166" RevisionGUID="74517578-a636-49e2-9b51-d725a72a284a" CreationDate="2015-07-08T17:10:52.743" UserId="14559" Text="&lt;attorney&gt;&lt;fees&gt;&lt;micro-entity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13168" RevisionGUID="3e81101e-27e5-4504-9ae7-6931f50fa365" CreationDate="2015-07-09T03:23:43.667" UserId="14564" Text="In reference to the patent: [EP2536392A2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP2536392A2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did not even know this had a patent until I searched for it. Have a Similar product but the way to use the product is different.&#xD;&#xA;It is in a cream format with lesser ingredients but a couple of different ingredients and two ingredients are the same. Can I still get the patent? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31181" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13168" RevisionGUID="3e81101e-27e5-4504-9ae7-6931f50fa365" CreationDate="2015-07-09T03:23:43.667" UserId="14564" Text="Same goal but different ingredients and different way of using it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31182" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13168" RevisionGUID="3e81101e-27e5-4504-9ae7-6931f50fa365" CreationDate="2015-07-09T03:23:43.667" UserId="14564" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31183" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13165" RevisionGUID="47b0f95b-8c39-4628-884b-1b80a59de3ae" CreationDate="2015-07-09T08:19:36.280" UserId="14542" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13169" RevisionGUID="5d6623f2-04b0-474b-a636-dcbf69af84e2" CreationDate="2015-07-09T09:01:28.460" UserId="14566" Text="Yes , A patent consists of two parts - method claims and system claims. If you are  third party using an infringed product you are susceptible to being sued by the method claims of the patent .  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13170" RevisionGUID="cbf88cce-5303-4e7a-b277-9a53826a90ec" CreationDate="2015-07-09T16:59:47.503" UserId="391" Text="Yes, you can easily do this yourself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I would consider using an attorney in situations like this relate to the question of what happens if something goes wrong? The attorney is less likely to get things wrong and has insurance to make you whole if they do get it wrong. While costly, your situation may warrant using a patent attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instructions for paying the issue fee will have arrived with the Notice of Allowance. You can write a check for the correct amount and send it along with the forms that were provided to the PTO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Applicants and their attorneys or agents are urged to use the Fee(s) Transmittal form &gt;(PTOL-85B) provided with the Notice of Allowance when submitting their payments. Unless &gt;otherwise directed, all post allowance correspondence should be addressed “Mail Stop &gt;Issue Fee.” http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1306.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your indication that you've applied for micro-entity status suggests that you might have a problem if you pay the lower issue fee ($240) and the PTO fails to get your micro-entity status paperwork processed in due course. Attorneys handle this possibility by maintaining a deposit account that the PTO will tap should there by a shortfall in the amount paid. Since you don't have a deposit account, you need to be correct regardless of how well the PTO has managed its other paperwork.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check the Public Pair database (http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair) to see if your paperwork has been received and processed. If so, pay the lower fee. If not, you can wait a bit to see if that status gets changed appropriately and before the deadline to pay. You can call the PTO (examiner or the help line) to see if this can be hurried along or to find out if there is a problem with your paperwork. Another option is to refile the micro entity status petition with your issue fee, but note that this doesn't ensure that you've paid enough and there is no guarantee that your status will be changed before the deadline to file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you cannot determine whether micro entity status will be assigned in due time, your safest bet is to pay the small entity fee. Note that if all of this goes south, there is a process for reviving an unintentionally abandoned patent, but that is costly. Note also that while refunds from the PTO are possible, they are not likely and even if you do get one, it will take a long time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13171" RevisionGUID="4de31b93-3634-4463-ad77-654f2200b556" CreationDate="2015-07-09T21:04:20.797" UserId="14568" Text="In reference to the patent: [CA2742535A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/CA2742535A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to know if the dog leash in Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Explore-Retractable-26-Feet-Supports-110-Pound/dp/B005NK5DEU/ref=sr_1_1?s=pet-supplies&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1436285688&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=Retractable+Dog+Leash) is referring to this patent when they say &quot;The patented one-hand braking and recoil system&quot; in their leash, as this only mentions weapons." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31187" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13171" RevisionGUID="4de31b93-3634-4463-ad77-654f2200b556" CreationDate="2015-07-09T21:04:20.797" UserId="14568" Text="The patent for dog leashes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31188" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13171" RevisionGUID="4de31b93-3634-4463-ad77-654f2200b556" CreationDate="2015-07-09T21:04:20.797" UserId="14568" Text="&lt;ca2742535a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13172" RevisionGUID="1ac59b9d-d217-4a38-bf8b-22460556c792" CreationDate="2015-07-10T01:46:06.127" UserId="14016" Text="There are several U.S. patents relating to animal leashes with original assignee &quot;Flexi-Bogdahn Technik Gmbh &amp; Co. Kg&quot;; I think most likely they are referring to one of these patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13173" RevisionGUID="b261db15-ffc8-4534-b46d-2c3ad4a95813" CreationDate="2015-07-10T02:14:35.073" UserId="14417" Text="&#xD;&#xA;The following excerpt (with patent links added) is from [Making Sense of New Apple Varieties, Trademarks and Clubs: Current Status][1] (2009):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘Cameo’ (‘Caudle’): An **open release**, this variety was a chance&#xD;&#xA;&gt; seedling discovered in Washington State and once promoted by Dole&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fruits ([USPP#9068][4]). ... Two new more highly colored sports of ‘Cameo’ have been&#xD;&#xA;&gt; discovered, ‘Dudek’ was granted [USPP#19,766][2] in 2008 and ‘Cauflight’&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was granted [USPP#20,942][3] in 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My three part question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Does “open release” mean that the ‘Caudle’ patent is not enforced?&#xD;&#xA; - If no, does an open release weaken a patent?&#xD;&#xA; - If no, how is that not considered to be inducing infringement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nyshs.org/pdf/fq/09fall/NYFQ-FALL-09-pp-9-12.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/USPP19766&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/USPP20942&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/patents/USPP9068" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31191" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13173" RevisionGUID="b261db15-ffc8-4534-b46d-2c3ad4a95813" CreationDate="2015-07-10T02:14:35.073" UserId="14417" Text="How does an “open release” affect enforcement of plant patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31192" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13173" RevisionGUID="b261db15-ffc8-4534-b46d-2c3ad4a95813" CreationDate="2015-07-10T02:14:35.073" UserId="14417" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;plant-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13174" RevisionGUID="feea2e0a-63c9-4576-82f9-c96c598963eb" CreationDate="2015-07-10T02:36:39.003" UserId="14016" Text="The simple answer is that patents never infringe other patents. It is never patent infringement to file a patent, because filing a patent does not fall under the excludable rights of making, using or selling an invention. A patent is just a description, not an actual working device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interesting question is whether it would be possible to build a rain collecting device falling within your Claim 1 and outside O'driscoll's Claim 1. The simplest way to do this would be to omit a &quot;common pumping system&quot; required by O'driscoll's Claim 1 but not by your Claim 1." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13175" RevisionGUID="6b61d3c9-9b61-4fba-a786-345f6bbe4e9e" CreationDate="2015-07-10T02:52:42.287" UserId="14016" Text="Usually, &quot;comprising **a** frob&quot; also covers embodiments with two or more &quot;frobs&quot;, because of the word &quot;comprising&quot;. The word &quot;comprising&quot; means that the recited &quot;frob&quot; can be combined with anything not specifically recited and still infringe the claim. This includes additional &quot;frobs&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as OP points out, the given claim language here seems to require, under a plain interpretation, that a single *computing device* harbor code for doing both A and B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that two (or more) computers connected by an Ethernet cable could, *together and as a unit* be viewed as &quot;a computing device&quot;. This is the part that really depends on the specification and the prosecution history." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13176" RevisionGUID="dfd96dc0-e516-48bc-bc40-0c40f77da3ad" CreationDate="2015-07-10T06:05:19.020" UserId="14569" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2009018016A2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2009018016A2&#xD;&#xA;In this patent no any drawing and no any practical implementation shows. How would I understand the practical concept?   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31196" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13176" RevisionGUID="dfd96dc0-e516-48bc-bc40-0c40f77da3ad" CreationDate="2015-07-10T06:05:19.020" UserId="14569" Text="Drawing and Practical implementation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31197" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13176" RevisionGUID="dfd96dc0-e516-48bc-bc40-0c40f77da3ad" CreationDate="2015-07-10T06:05:19.020" UserId="14569" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13177" RevisionGUID="fd0eee8f-87c3-4fc4-af34-d2d4f8d9900d" CreationDate="2015-07-10T13:46:42.170" UserId="14571" Text="In reference to the patent: [CA2356488A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/CA2356488A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would I get in contact with Mr. Douglas?  I might be interested in buying this patent from him. Any help is greatly appreciated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31199" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13177" RevisionGUID="fd0eee8f-87c3-4fc4-af34-d2d4f8d9900d" CreationDate="2015-07-10T13:46:42.170" UserId="14571" Text="Help Contacting Patent Owner" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31200" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13177" RevisionGUID="fd0eee8f-87c3-4fc4-af34-d2d4f8d9900d" CreationDate="2015-07-10T13:46:42.170" UserId="14571" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31201" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13177" RevisionGUID="396efc24-bdf0-41ed-880a-64dd7605082c" CreationDate="2015-07-10T14:02:12.540" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31202" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="13177" RevisionGUID="c207f131-745e-430f-a461-d78554d8c531" CreationDate="2015-07-10T14:02:55.693" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31203" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13177" RevisionGUID="cdddf293-3109-4dda-837d-0b7b1584194b" CreationDate="2015-07-10T14:03:04.743" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5059],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13178" RevisionGUID="8af29caa-aadb-4d79-a4c9-1f9c29529a96" CreationDate="2015-07-11T14:06:43.777" UserId="14573" Text="In reference to the patent: [US6194720][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6194720&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that patent valid in France?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31209" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13178" RevisionGUID="8af29caa-aadb-4d79-a4c9-1f9c29529a96" CreationDate="2015-07-11T14:06:43.777" UserId="14573" Text="Is Patent US6194720B1 valid in France?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31210" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13178" RevisionGUID="8af29caa-aadb-4d79-a4c9-1f9c29529a96" CreationDate="2015-07-11T14:06:43.777" UserId="14573" Text="&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13180" RevisionGUID="6ae6ed21-cb10-4270-a87e-4510a7f2e581" CreationDate="2015-07-12T09:10:35.867" UserId="14578" Text="Im researching into these V blade slicers and accordingly the first V-blade slicers, mader by Borner, patents expired back in 1989.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However they keep applying for new patents for products with similar features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The product i've researched into is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.amazon.com/Kitchen-Elite-Blade-Mandoline-Slicer/dp/B00KOUH16M/ref=sr_1_7?s=home-garden&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1436691809&amp;sr=1-7&amp;keywords=mandoline+slicer+professional&amp;pebp=1436691808242&amp;perid=00Z1BWXAZ2P9M684NBZW&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quite a few sellers sell this item but not sure would it infringe on any patents from Borner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope someone can help because this situation is rather confusing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ben" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31215" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13180" RevisionGUID="6ae6ed21-cb10-4270-a87e-4510a7f2e581" CreationDate="2015-07-12T09:10:35.867" UserId="14578" Text="Researching this product: V Blade Mandoline Slicer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31216" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13180" RevisionGUID="6ae6ed21-cb10-4270-a87e-4510a7f2e581" CreationDate="2015-07-12T09:10:35.867" UserId="14578" Text="&lt;patent-search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31226" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13180" RevisionGUID="98b2aa52-3949-4281-b57e-cf50792a9476" CreationDate="2015-07-13T04:24:40.383" UserId="10011" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13183" RevisionGUID="2ae84f5b-8887-43ea-b132-c57c1cb5c90b" CreationDate="2015-07-13T11:39:53.187" UserId="14417" Text="US Patent grants are not directly enforceable worldwide. On the page you link to, you'll see an [Espacenet][1] link - that is a link to the EPO version of the patent, which will have the same description but usually a different set of claims. On that Espacenet page, look for the [Legal Status][2] and [Patent Family][3] links for foreign applications. Within the patent family I only see a single document - the US Patent grant US6194720 (B1), so it appears that no WIPO (worldwide, international) or EPO (European) application was filed. This means that the patent is only enforceable in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&amp;NR=6194720B1&amp;KC=B1&amp;FT=D&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=US&amp;NR=6194720B1&amp;KC=B1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=20010227&amp;DB=&amp;&amp;locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?CC=US&amp;NR=6194720B1&amp;KC=B1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=20010227&amp;DB=&amp;locale=en_EP" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13185" RevisionGUID="4ff93e47-cd42-4105-a276-87d2ac989ddf" CreationDate="2015-07-13T22:25:26.853" UserId="14592" Text="http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US5443036&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know the reason why this patent was filed and granted ? It seems just as silly as the famous swinging method example. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31235" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13185" RevisionGUID="4ff93e47-cd42-4105-a276-87d2ac989ddf" CreationDate="2015-07-13T22:25:26.853" UserId="14592" Text="Method for exercising a cat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31236" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13185" RevisionGUID="4ff93e47-cd42-4105-a276-87d2ac989ddf" CreationDate="2015-07-13T22:25:26.853" UserId="14592" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31238" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13185" RevisionGUID="68239b37-e299-4413-a3d6-560be5abdabc" CreationDate="2015-07-14T05:23:59.223" UserId="10011" Comment="added 1050 characters in body; edited tags; edited tags" Text="http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US5443036&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know the reason why this patent was filed and granted? In what way might this game have qualified as non-obvious and novel to the examiner?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is claimed is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of inducing aerobic exercise in an unrestrained cat comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (a) directing an intense coherent beam of invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus to produce a bright highly-focused pattern of light at the intersection of the beam and an opaque surface, said pattern being of visual interest to a cat; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (b) selectively redirecting said beam out of the cat's immediate reach to induce said cat to run and chase said beam and pattern of light around an exercise area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The method of claim 1 wherein said bright pattern of light is small in area relative to a paw of the cat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The method of claim 1 wherein said beam remains invisible between said laser and said opaque surface until impinging on said opaque surface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The method of claim 1 wherein step (b) includes sweeping said beam at an angular speed to cause said pattern to move along said opaque surface at a speed in the range of five to twenty-five feet per second." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31239" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13185" RevisionGUID="68239b37-e299-4413-a3d6-560be5abdabc" CreationDate="2015-07-14T05:23:59.223" UserId="10011" Comment="added 1050 characters in body; edited tags; edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;us5443036&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13187" RevisionGUID="b8be1937-f6a1-487f-8434-4f511d400249" CreationDate="2015-07-14T05:40:13.387" UserId="10011" Text="Unfortunately, the patent system is far from perfect. That's a big part of [why we're here](https://blog.stackexchange.com/2012/09/askpatents-com-a-stack-exchange-to-prevent-bad-patents).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the core of the patent examination process are people: people tasked with searching through the world's literature. In every language. From all time. It's definitely possible for things to slip through those cracks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a case like this, and this is a pretty famous example in the community, it could have been any number of things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. An examiner just couldn't find anything written that fit their bar for what was:&#xD;&#xA; * Non-obviousness: if they couldn't find documentation that proved that someone having ordinary skill in &quot;the art&quot; (which in this case may be a bit of an over-reach) couldn't have reproduced this particular method from previously known methods without undue experimentation.&#xD;&#xA; * Novelty: if they couldn't find anything that matched the claims exactly.&#xD;&#xA;2. An examiner wasn't familiar with the practice, and honestly thought it was novel. Especially if the examiner was new to a culture where this was popular, they might not have been exposed to this before.&#xD;&#xA;3. An examiner who decided to just have fun. I like to think it wasn't this one, but remember: it's just people. Someone easily could have seen that this was done as a joke, known it wouldn't hold up against anyone, and just granted it for fun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure there are resources out there that talk about this specific example and the motives, and perhaps even cause of grant, behind it, but I'd hazard the guess that it was probably filed either in gest, or as an example of the flawed system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reality, though, something like this would be thrown out *pretty quickly* once it hit the courts, in the very unlikely case that the filer behind this patent actually intended to enforce it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you find other patents or applications that fit obviousness or a lack of novelty like this, feel free to post them here on [Ask Patents](http://patents.stackexchange.com/tour) under the tag [tag:prior-art-request] so that we can help avoid some of these edge-cases where the system really does fall short." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31241" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13180" RevisionGUID="1590181a-67b0-45d8-8e42-d8243ced815b" CreationDate="2015-07-14T08:08:51.627" UserId="14578" Comment="added 467 characters in body" Text="Im researching into these V blade slicers and accordingly the first V-blade slicers, mader by Borner, patents expired back in 1989.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a patent they had but expired:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.co.uk/patents/US4290196?dq=borner+v+blade+slicer&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0CFkQ6AEwCDgKahUKEwjx7t61lNrGAhXCzIAKHXwVC7k&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And another:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.co.uk/patents/US5075973?dq=borner+v+blade+slicer&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0CFIQ6AEwBzgKahUKEwjx7t61lNrGAhXCzIAKHXwVC7k&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However they keep applying for new patents for products with similar features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example of patent here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.co.uk/patents/US7322112?dq=v+blade+slicer&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0CCEQ6AEwAGoVChMI37yNu5XaxgIVC40NCh37ggU_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The product i've researched into is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.amazon.com/Kitchen-Elite-Blade-Mandoline-Slicer/dp/B00KOUH16M/ref=sr_1_7?s=home-garden&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1436691809&amp;sr=1-7&amp;keywords=mandoline+slicer+professional&amp;pebp=1436691808242&amp;perid=00Z1BWXAZ2P9M684NBZW&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quite a few sellers sell this item but not sure would it infringe on any patents from Borner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope someone can help because this situation is rather confusing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ben" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13189" RevisionGUID="166aba3e-4ef4-4e42-a1e9-b04c9df3ada4" CreationDate="2015-07-14T11:55:24.240" UserId="14598" Text="A magnitude is measured using some procedure that translates signal to magnitude value using an associated software. The procedure is patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a more general software that translates signal to magnitude value. Users can follow different procedures using my software. One of the procedures can be the patented one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I infringing the patent if users use the patented procedure? I can not control the procedure they are following. Can I be protected of patent infringement if I discourage users (with a warning) of using the patented procedure and recommend another one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31254" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13189" RevisionGUID="166aba3e-4ef4-4e42-a1e9-b04c9df3ada4" CreationDate="2015-07-14T11:55:24.240" UserId="14598" Text="A generic software that can be used to infringe a specific patented procedure" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31255" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13189" RevisionGUID="166aba3e-4ef4-4e42-a1e9-b04c9df3ada4" CreationDate="2015-07-14T11:55:24.240" UserId="14598" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;specific-patent&gt;&lt;procedures&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13190" RevisionGUID="f9a49db0-e013-4ca0-a86e-dd09e8e7ade5" CreationDate="2015-07-14T22:03:12.953" UserId="14600" Text="&#xD;&#xA;On one hand, I want to conversate about useful fresh future ideas with people that have the power to patent those pleasant premises.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, given the messed-up weirdness of IP law, I want some legal footing regarding the so-called intellectual property of what I talk about in those conversations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I have early-stage conversations about probably patentable programming and practices without passing all the power of my premises to people who can purloin the possibilities with patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31257" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13190" RevisionGUID="f9a49db0-e013-4ca0-a86e-dd09e8e7ade5" CreationDate="2015-07-14T22:03:12.953" UserId="14600" Text="Recording a phone conversation about patentable things" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31258" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13190" RevisionGUID="f9a49db0-e013-4ca0-a86e-dd09e8e7ade5" CreationDate="2015-07-14T22:03:12.953" UserId="14600" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13193" RevisionGUID="175ff36c-ff93-4052-8648-3f9c5e4cbb3c" CreationDate="2015-07-15T12:14:45.423" UserId="14417" Text="If your software facilitates the infringement of a patent, then you may be found to be inducing indirect infringement, which could result in damages to both the third party and yourself. However, a proper examination of potential infringement of the claims can only be done from the perspective of prior case law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The law is not yet completely clear on this, and a series of recent rulings have produced mixed results, some that reduce third party liability and others that increase the potential to award damages for third party infringement from *all involved parties*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you add a warning for a third party patent that may be potentially infringed, then you are providing evidence that you were aware of that patent prior to developing your software. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Damages for Indirect Patent Infringement][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But the court also ruled that a party that induces the performance of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; all of the steps by a combination of entities can be liable for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; indirect infringement under these circumstances. This was a surprising result because it allowed for secondary liability when no party could be held liable as a primary infringer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Supreme Court decision clarifies ‘third-party’ infringement of intellectual property rights][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Other courts have been receptive to Akamai's basic argument, says&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bartholomew, using old criminal law decisions to justify imposing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; liability against third-party actors.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “But the Supreme Court was having none of it,” he says. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Acknowledging that it had relied on criminal law analogies to decide&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different intellectual property issues in the past, the Court said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that criminal law had nothing in it to help it resolve this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6081&amp;context=law_lawreview&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://%20http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2014/06/004.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, you *may* be able to work around the issue by providing an alternative method that is provably different from the patented method, while actively discouraging use of the patented method. However, the law could settle on either side of this issue. If this is commercial software and important to your company, then you should seek expert legal advice from a patent attorney." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13195" RevisionGUID="969cf79c-fe59-454b-be42-3302b4703022" CreationDate="2015-07-15T17:15:17.933" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; How can I have early-stage conversations about probably patentable programming and practices without passing all the power of my premises to people who can purloin the possibilities with patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like you're worried about a patent agent or attorney stealing your idea. This is a serious breach of ethics and simply does not happen very often at all. Even if it happens rarely, it's only one of many possible failure modes. You're much more likely to fail by failing to profitably license your invention than to fail by having your idea stolen by a patent agent or attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So try to avoid PGL (paranoia, greed, and lazyness), a common ailment of novice inventors. http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20130513/BIZ/305130330&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, do take reasonable precautions. Don't just randomly e-mail your idea to hundreds of patent attorneys in order to ask for quotes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13196" RevisionGUID="b5c1af4c-bf06-49b0-9aff-ba42ccb987e4" CreationDate="2015-07-15T18:14:18.720" UserId="14606" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140329849][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140329849" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31274" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13196" RevisionGUID="b5c1af4c-bf06-49b0-9aff-ba42ccb987e4" CreationDate="2015-07-15T18:14:18.720" UserId="14606" Text="Since when can you patent a drug class?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31275" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13196" RevisionGUID="b5c1af4c-bf06-49b0-9aff-ba42ccb987e4" CreationDate="2015-07-15T18:14:18.720" UserId="14606" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13197" RevisionGUID="a6929393-a9f6-4516-9c9e-8e16cbc673de" CreationDate="2015-07-15T19:28:40.447" UserId="14016" Text="The referenced patent claims a method of treatment, not the drug class itself (which is old and known). It's a classic example of a &quot;new use&quot; patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13198" RevisionGUID="926b9fd6-bca7-4f8b-82d0-c1703803ccc8" CreationDate="2015-07-15T21:59:33.110" UserId="14609" Text="In reference to the patent: [US488366][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US488366" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31278" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13198" RevisionGUID="926b9fd6-bca7-4f8b-82d0-c1703803ccc8" CreationDate="2015-07-15T21:59:33.110" UserId="14609" Text="I have an old shotgun with this mark and patent number.Wher can I get information on the gun?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31279" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13198" RevisionGUID="926b9fd6-bca7-4f8b-82d0-c1703803ccc8" CreationDate="2015-07-15T21:59:33.110" UserId="14609" Text="&lt;scope&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13199" RevisionGUID="c2c50ef2-137b-47ae-8165-d81234280729" CreationDate="2015-07-16T11:55:31.907" UserId="14417" Text="The inventor on that patent is [Henri Pieper][1], who had several other firearm patents and some automobile patents. His company manufactured guns until 1954. The patent mark does not necessarily indicate the model of the firearm, because multiple models may utilize the same invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, (although less likely at the time), other weapons manufacturers could license the patent (pay royalties) to the assignee to use the invention. I'm not certain what the common practice for marking those would have been at the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Gun Digest post about [Pieper firearms][2] recommends using their &quot;2015 Standard Catalog of Firearms&quot; but the point is, this is something a vintage firearm expert will be able to help with. The patent will only take you so far. You at least know that the gun was manufactured after the Grant date of the patent (December 20, 1892), otherwise you would see a &quot;Patent Pending&quot; mark instead of the grant number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anciens_Etablissements_Pieper&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.gundigest.com/gun-collecting-firearm-collecting/gundigest-9-24-09-pieper" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13200" RevisionGUID="abed38fd-27f8-40d5-b352-029ca8bcbe54" CreationDate="2015-07-16T13:12:01.383" UserId="14611" Text="In reference to the patent: [US6797357][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6797357" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31286" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13200" RevisionGUID="abed38fd-27f8-40d5-b352-029ca8bcbe54" CreationDate="2015-07-16T13:12:01.383" UserId="14611" Text="When will patent US6797357 expire?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31287" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13200" RevisionGUID="abed38fd-27f8-40d5-b352-029ca8bcbe54" CreationDate="2015-07-16T13:12:01.383" UserId="14611" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13201" RevisionGUID="91dbc3c6-0974-45f7-b008-537f9522611f" CreationDate="2015-07-16T13:51:34.743" UserId="14612" Text="In reference to the patent: [USD3003][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD3003&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How did the name of the trademark designer/patent applicant come to be indexed as J. H. Gaknhart, since in the text of the trademark application it is clear his surname was Garnhart?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31289" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13201" RevisionGUID="91dbc3c6-0974-45f7-b008-537f9522611f" CreationDate="2015-07-16T13:51:34.743" UserId="14612" Text="Trademark Designer's Surname?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31290" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13201" RevisionGUID="91dbc3c6-0974-45f7-b008-537f9522611f" CreationDate="2015-07-16T13:51:34.743" UserId="14612" Text="&lt;description&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13202" RevisionGUID="5dce1b63-2767-4fb8-ba0c-d12d03dee28b" CreationDate="2015-07-16T14:41:51.430" UserId="14613" Text="In reference to the patent: [EP2546383A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP2546383A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Respected &#xD;&#xA;        I would like to receive the contact details of the author EP2546383A1 and i would like to know information related to material used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31292" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13202" RevisionGUID="5dce1b63-2767-4fb8-ba0c-d12d03dee28b" CreationDate="2015-07-16T14:41:51.430" UserId="14613" Text="I would like to receive contact details of the author EP2546383A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31293" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13202" RevisionGUID="5dce1b63-2767-4fb8-ba0c-d12d03dee28b" CreationDate="2015-07-16T14:41:51.430" UserId="14613" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13203" RevisionGUID="a515e37c-2e9d-4dc3-bbe8-7649db0d8b85" CreationDate="2015-07-16T18:45:14.527" UserId="14615" Text="In reference to the patent: [USD680805][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD680805&#xD;&#xA;So any flask or bottles like these can't have this type of cap?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31297" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13203" RevisionGUID="a515e37c-2e9d-4dc3-bbe8-7649db0d8b85" CreationDate="2015-07-16T18:45:14.527" UserId="14615" Text="USD680805 Question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31298" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13203" RevisionGUID="a515e37c-2e9d-4dc3-bbe8-7649db0d8b85" CreationDate="2015-07-16T18:45:14.527" UserId="14615" Text="&lt;usd680805&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13204" RevisionGUID="b4e5eb59-1f1c-45f4-ab72-b59ed8aa433e" CreationDate="2015-07-16T21:09:15.577" UserId="14616" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2014105866A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014105866A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31300" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13204" RevisionGUID="b4e5eb59-1f1c-45f4-ab72-b59ed8aa433e" CreationDate="2015-07-16T21:09:15.577" UserId="14616" Text="Can I implement dropout for research purposes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31301" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13204" RevisionGUID="b4e5eb59-1f1c-45f4-ab72-b59ed8aa433e" CreationDate="2015-07-16T21:09:15.577" UserId="14616" Text="&lt;wo2014105866a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13199" RevisionGUID="18682591-5922-4fd9-852c-90e3faa915db" CreationDate="2015-07-16T23:10:47.217" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved content." Text="The information in the patent will only get you so far. You at least know that the gun was manufactured after the Grant date of the patent (December 20, 1892), otherwise you would see a &quot;Patent Pending&quot; mark instead of the grant number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inventor on that patent is [Henri Pieper][1], who had several other firearm patents and some automobile patents. His company manufactured guns until 1954. The patent mark does not necessarily indicate the model of the firearm, because multiple models may utilize the same invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible that another gun manufacturer licensed the patent (paid royalties) to the assignee to use the invention in their own shotgun. I'm not certain what the common practice for marking those would have been at the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is something a vintage firearm expert should be able to help with. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anciens_Etablissements_Pieper&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.gundigest.com/gun-collecting-firearm-collecting/gundigest-9-24-09-pieper" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13205" RevisionGUID="8f4c7932-d6c7-4de6-8852-9678182d518d" CreationDate="2015-07-16T23:29:30.840" UserId="14417" Text="As described and shown in the patent, the design also covers the top shape and relative dimensions of the flask. In order to be infringing on the design, a bottle would need to be extremely similar in appearance, including the relative dimensions and presence of all or very nearly all features. These design patents exist to prevent knock-off products from copying a design in exact detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The broken lines illustrate portions of the wide mouth flask which form no part of the claimed design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/1jlw6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13206" RevisionGUID="66b604a1-816a-4d11-805e-da7bba55771a" CreationDate="2015-07-16T23:53:18.923" UserId="14417" Text="Google is not the company that filed the application. If you examine the [Legal Events][1], the application for this patent was originally filed by a Canadian startup company affiliated with the University of Toronto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST&#xD;&#xA;    ASSIGNOR:THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO&#xD;&#xA;    Effective date: 20130311&#xD;&#xA;    Owner name: DNNRESEARCH INC., CANADA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google acquired DNN Research, Inc.][2] shortly after the patent was filed, which means it had been in development for some time prior to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One additional fact to note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Google previously awarded Hinton's research group $600,000, the University of Toronto added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are looking for prior art on this application (it has not yet granted), a good place to start would be to read through [the inventor's academic publications][3], as well as the publications of conference proceedings that members of his startup attended prior to March 11, 2013. You might specifically focus on publications from 2011 to late 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any prior art would only need to cover the three independent claims in the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140180986#legal-events&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cnet.com/news/google-snaps-up-object-recognition-startup-dnnresearch/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hinton/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13207" RevisionGUID="6ad3e48b-2459-4df0-b2af-ff59d0fbf0a5" CreationDate="2015-07-16T23:58:47.050" UserId="14417" Text="Yes, you may (at least for now) because the patent is only at the application phase, which means it is not yet enforceable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, I would not expect the WIPO application to succeed in its current form because there are multiple independent claims. This usually does not pass examination for software patents at WIPO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please refer to this [other answer][1] if you are looking for more details about this specific patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/13206/14417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13208" RevisionGUID="c3db6c70-6c81-4703-8455-053adc4b40df" CreationDate="2015-07-17T00:42:45.120" UserId="14617" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140338666][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140338666&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How come the images were taken off Google patent? Is this a bad sign?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31307" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13208" RevisionGUID="c3db6c70-6c81-4703-8455-053adc4b40df" CreationDate="2015-07-17T00:42:45.120" UserId="14617" Text="Images were taken off Google Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31308" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13208" RevisionGUID="c3db6c70-6c81-4703-8455-053adc4b40df" CreationDate="2015-07-17T00:42:45.120" UserId="14617" Text="&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13209" RevisionGUID="c0035dd9-7604-4164-879f-f51369c5e571" CreationDate="2015-07-17T02:41:03.660" UserId="14417" Text="Yes, claim amendment is allowed during an Office Action as long as the amended claim language fits within the original disclosure and background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The information you are looking for is in MPEP Chapter 0700 (Section 714) [37 C.F.R. 1.121   Manner of making amendments in application][1], under item (c) *Claims*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s714.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31310" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13205" RevisionGUID="4c22bad5-d4fa-4d2b-a8a1-6464404707eb" CreationDate="2015-07-17T02:52:38.390" UserId="14417" Comment="Added information on a related patent." Text="As described and shown in the patent, the design also covers the top shape and relative dimensions of the flask. In order to be infringing on the design, a bottle would need to be extremely similar in appearance, including the relative dimensions and presence of all or very nearly all features. These design patents exist to prevent knock-off products from copying a design in exact detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The broken lines illustrate portions of the wide mouth flask which form no part of the claimed design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure from USD680805][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note the related design patent [USD688912][2], which reduces the scope of the design to only a few elements of the cap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure from USD688912][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/1jlw6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD688912&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Mhrp9.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31311" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13201" RevisionGUID="f511c847-7239-4a80-9275-728efa171a50" CreationDate="2015-07-17T04:14:26.910" UserId="10011" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[12392],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13210" RevisionGUID="f41629da-3094-43f3-a804-eea3e043443e" CreationDate="2015-07-17T12:26:37.673" UserId="14417" Text="If it is not too late, and if the new claims fit into the existing background (i.e., you have all of the necessary definitions), you may be able to file a continuation patent. There is a [related question][1] that discusses this in detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/571/14417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13211" RevisionGUID="d491b395-4be3-40e2-ab6a-1ffb107a3794" CreationDate="2015-07-18T00:16:19.933" UserId="14417" Text="Unfortunately, it is too late to challenge the patent application outside of court - it has already granted as [US 8,986,810][1]. Instead of focusing on the claims of the application, you should really be looking at the claims in the grant, specifically the independent claims (Claim 1, 17 and 19), which may differ somewhat from those in the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have published prior art for one or more of the independent claims, then a company could challenge the patent in court and potentially render one or more of the independent claims invalid. Of course, this costs money. There is little point in challenging the patent after it has granted; it is out of the hands of the examiners and it will be up to potential infringers to discover the prior art in order to defend themselves in that space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more odd detail about the filing date. On March 16, 2013, the US Patent System switched from a [First to Invent system to a First to File system][2]. The filing date of this patent (March 15, 2013) makes is look like Honeywell may have been anticipating this ruling. This is the kind of coincidence that could raise some questions in court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8986810&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13212" RevisionGUID="30c215c4-3382-42df-a877-022ef961e327" CreationDate="2015-07-18T03:14:00.823" UserId="14417" Text="Google [just released][1] an updated interface for their patent search. This is not the only patent currently affected by the glitch, so it is probably safe to assume it will be corrected in the coming days. It won't hurt to use the Send Feedback link at the bottom of their [Patent Search page][2] to increase their awareness of the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the meantime, the images are still available in the PDF and on several other sites, including the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2015/07/good-patents-support-innovation-while.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13053" RevisionGUID="a10ee1ea-b432-4350-ac81-111794d32177" CreationDate="2015-07-18T07:57:28.990" UserId="14417" Comment="Fixed grammar, corrected spelling, added link and improved tagging." Text="Is it possible to amend a product/device claim to a method claim after receiving an office action? Where is this discussed in [MPEP][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31325" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13053" RevisionGUID="a10ee1ea-b432-4350-ac81-111794d32177" CreationDate="2015-07-18T07:57:28.990" UserId="14417" Comment="Fixed grammar, corrected spelling, added link and improved tagging." Text="Can a device claim be amended to a method after an office action?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31326" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13053" RevisionGUID="a10ee1ea-b432-4350-ac81-111794d32177" CreationDate="2015-07-18T07:57:28.990" UserId="14417" Comment="Fixed grammar, corrected spelling, added link and improved tagging." Text="&lt;claim-amendment&gt;&lt;mpep&gt;&lt;office-action&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31327" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13053" RevisionGUID="a10ee1ea-b432-4350-ac81-111794d32177" CreationDate="2015-07-18T07:57:28.990" Comment="Proposed by 14417 approved by 13884 edit id of 1843" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13213" RevisionGUID="e0074d2f-2645-4b6b-b819-a2dea5bfd878" CreationDate="2015-07-18T13:23:36.783" UserId="14417" Text="The document you are referring to is a Canadian patent application, which has different rules than the US patent system, so it is somewhat unclear in which context you are asking the question. This answer will be in the context of the US patent system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to get the full story on the inventive step, you need to follow the related documents. The claims in patent applications are often narrowed and revised significantly (through a series of Office Actions) prior to being issued in a grant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims in this application are written broadly in this case, and serve as prior art in that space, to prevent similar applications from being filed in the space. The independent claim in that application states only:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Use of a combination of cannabinoids in the manufacture of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; medicament for use in the treatment of cancer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where, as specified in the abstract, the cannabinoids include but are not limited to tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is currently only one grant ([US 8,632,825][1]) based on that patent application. The sole independent claim is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for treating glioblastoma multiforme in a human in need&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thereof consisting essentially of administering to said human&#xD;&#xA;&gt; therapeutically effective amounts of cannabidiol (CBD) and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in combination as pure cannabinoids wherein&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the cannabinoids are in a ratio of from 1:1 to 1:20 (THC:CBD).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to get this patent granted, the inventors needed to narrow their claims to include the specific compounds ([tetrahydrocannabinol][2] and [cannabidiol][3]) within a defined ratio (between 1:1 and 1:2), as well as the specific disease that is being treated ([glioblastoma multiforme][4]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The independent claim is generically &quot;a [method of administering] [discrete compounds] within [defined ratio] to treat [specific disease] in [target species]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is prior art noted for each of the compounds listed in the independent claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [EP1177790][5] (Guzman *et al.*) describes the treatment of cerebral tumours by the administration of a natural or synthetic cannabinoid, specifically THC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The applicant's earlier patent [EP1802274][6] describes the use of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cannabinoid CBD to impede the progress of cancer cells migrating from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their primary tumour location to a secondary site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you can see a more complete story developing. Here we see two European patent grants including two enforceable in Germany ([DE60020111 D1][7] and [DE60020111 T2][8]) from the same inventors (Guzman *et al.*), comprising therapeutic methods involving the individual compounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The assignee for these patents, [GW Pharma Limited][9] is based in the United Kingdom but also operates in the United States. Of particular note is that the previous patents involving the single compounds were applied for but never granted in the United States ([US 20080262099][10] and [US 20120225136][11]). If you examine the priority dates (2004) and the publication dates (2012) you could come to the conclusion that there was a great deal of difficulty pursuing such broad claims in the United States patent system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, in order to gain some amount of patent coverage in the United States, the company applied for a patent using a combination of the two compounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The product that is being covered by this patent is *Sativex*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; GW’s lead product, Sativex, is an oral spray which consists of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; formulated extract of the cannabis sativa plant that contains the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; principal cannabinoids delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cannabidiol, or CBD, as well as other minor cannabinoids and other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; active non-cannabinoid plant components. In order to achieve a fully&#xD;&#xA;&gt; standardized formulation of these complex extracts, GW employs a range&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of advanced analytical technologies to demonstrate batch-to-batch&#xD;&#xA;&gt; uniformity. As a result of these technologies, GW is able to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; standardize the formulation across the extracts as a whole, not simply&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by reference to their key active components.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As noted on their own web site, these compounds do not naturally exist in plants in a uniform ratio necessary for medical applications. By limiting the compounds to a defined set and also limiting to a defined ratio for a specific medical application, you have an inventive step in the US patent system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8632825&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrocannabinol&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabidiol&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glioblastoma_multiforme&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP1177790B1&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP1802274B1&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/DE60020111D1&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.google.com/patents/DE60020111T2&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.gwpharm.com/FAQ.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20080262099&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120225136" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13213" RevisionGUID="270ebd9e-2ca3-44db-a9c9-651edd45ca1f" CreationDate="2015-07-18T13:33:48.830" UserId="14417" Comment="Clarified several points to more precisely answer the question." Text="The document you are referring to is a Canadian patent application, which has different rules than the US patent system, so it is somewhat unclear in which context you are asking the question. This answer will be in the context of the US patent system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to get the full story on the inventive step, you need to follow the related documents. The claims in patent applications are often narrowed and revised significantly (through a series of Office Actions) prior to being issued in a grant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims in this application are written broadly in this case, and serve as prior art in that space, to prevent similar applications from being filed in the space. The independent claim in that application states only:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Use of a combination of cannabinoids in the manufacture of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; medicament for use in the treatment of cancer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where, as specified in the abstract, the cannabinoids include but are not limited to tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is currently only one grant ([US 8,632,825][1]) based on that patent application. The sole independent claim is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for treating glioblastoma multiforme in a human in need&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thereof consisting essentially of administering to said human&#xD;&#xA;&gt; therapeutically effective amounts of cannabidiol (CBD) and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in combination as pure cannabinoids wherein&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the cannabinoids are in a ratio of from 1:1 to 1:20 (THC:CBD).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to get this patent granted, the inventors needed to narrow their claims to include the specific compounds ([tetrahydrocannabinol][2] and [cannabidiol][3]) within a defined ratio (between 1:1 and 1:2), as well as the specific disease that is being treated ([glioblastoma multiforme][4]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The independent claim is generically &quot;a [method of administering] [discrete compounds] within [defined ratio] to treat [specific disease] in [target species]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is prior art noted for each of the compounds listed in the independent claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [EP1177790][5] (Guzman *et al.*) describes the treatment of cerebral tumours by the administration of a natural or synthetic cannabinoid, specifically THC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The applicant's earlier patent [EP1802274][6] describes the use of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cannabinoid CBD to impede the progress of cancer cells migrating from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their primary tumour location to a secondary site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you can see a more complete story developing. Here we see two European patent grants including two enforceable in Germany ([DE60020111 D1][7] and [DE60020111 T2][8]) from the same inventors (Guzman *et al.*), comprising therapeutic methods involving the individual compounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The assignee for these patents, [GW Pharma Limited][9] is based in the United Kingdom but also operates in the United States. Of particular note is that the previous patents involving the single compounds were applied for but never granted in the United States ([US 20080262099][10] and [US 20120225136][11]). If you examine the priority dates (2004) and the publication dates (2012) you could come to the conclusion that there was a great deal of difficulty pursuing such broad claims in the United States patent system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, in order to gain some amount of patent coverage in the United States, the company applied for a patent using a combination of the two compounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The product that is being covered by this patent is *Sativex*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; GW’s lead product, Sativex, is an oral spray which consists of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; formulated extract of the cannabis sativa plant that contains the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; principal cannabinoids delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cannabidiol, or CBD, as well as other minor cannabinoids and other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; active non-cannabinoid plant components. In order to achieve a fully&#xD;&#xA;&gt; standardized formulation of these complex extracts, GW employs a range&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of advanced analytical technologies to demonstrate batch-to-batch&#xD;&#xA;&gt; uniformity. As a result of these technologies, GW is able to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; standardize the formulation across the extracts as a whole, not simply&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by reference to their key active components.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As noted on their own web site, these compounds do not naturally exist in plants in a uniform ratio necessary for medical applications. By limiting the compounds to a defined set and also limiting to a defined, measurable ratio, this necessitates extracting the compounds out from the plant, performing some purification, and validating the concentrations of each compound on a batch-by-batch basis. This is a different method than the traditional approach. Combining this with a specific medical application, you have a step that is considered inventive within the US patent system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8632825&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrocannabinol&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabidiol&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glioblastoma_multiforme&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP1177790B1&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP1802274B1&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/DE60020111D1&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.google.com/patents/DE60020111T2&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.gwpharm.com/FAQ.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20080262099&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120225136" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13214" RevisionGUID="626c3478-6338-423e-9234-ddccae659f68" CreationDate="2015-07-18T13:55:17.353" UserId="14417" Text="The patent was filed on June 14, 2001, which means (because it was filed after June 8, 1995), that the patent is enforceable to 20 years from the filing date, which is June 14, 2021.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the patent grant, you will find the following notice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this patent is extended&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by 0 days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which in this case has no effect on the expiration of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the other thing you need to look at are the Legal Events:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Feb 21, 2008	FPAY	Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;    Year of fee payment: 4&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Feb 24, 2012	FPAY	Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;    Year of fee payment: 8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The maintenance fees have been paid, and the next one isn't due until September 28, 2016. This means that the patent is certainly enforceable until then. After that, you will need to check the Legal Events to see if they paid the next fee. Failure to pay maintenance fees will be noted in the Legal Events and results in a non-enforceable patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13214" RevisionGUID="f0f29c4b-67bb-4897-a4ab-24a6de2cd7aa" CreationDate="2015-07-18T14:05:28.873" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected an error." Text="The patent was filed on June 14, 2001, which normally means (because it was filed after June 8, 1995), that the patent is enforceable to 20 years from the filing date, which is June 14, 2021.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in the Cross References section you will find the following note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This application is a divisional of US. application Ser. No.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 09/082,396, filed May 20, 1998, Which claims the benefit of US.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/055,330, filed Aug. 12, 1997 and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; US. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/047,619, filed May 23, 1997.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now we need to go back to the earliest filing date of these patent applications, which is May 23, 1997. Adding 20 years to that filing date, we now have an expiration of May 23, 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, in the patent grant, you will find the following notice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this patent is extended&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by 0 days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which in this case (0 days) has no effect on the expiration of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the last thing you need to look at are the Legal Events:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Feb 21, 2008	FPAY	Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;    Year of fee payment: 4&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Feb 24, 2012	FPAY	Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;    Year of fee payment: 8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The maintenance fees have been paid, and the next one isn't due until September 28, 2016. This means that the patent is certainly enforceable until then. After that, you will need to check the Legal Events to see if they paid the next fee. Failure to pay maintenance fees will be noted in the Legal Events and results in a non-enforceable patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cost of maintenance fees increases with each payment, and the company may ultimately decide that paying the final maintenance fee on this patent in order to get an additional 8 months of coverage is not worth it. Since they are tending to pay in February, check the legal status in March 2016 to see if they paid the maintenance fee." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13214" RevisionGUID="ffcf91ef-c8fa-411e-85e9-4dbfe9e60237" CreationDate="2015-07-18T14:10:37.480" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected an error." Text="The patent was filed on June 14, 2001, which normally means (because it was filed after June 8, 1995), that the patent is enforceable to 20 years from the filing date, which is June 14, 2021.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in the Cross References section you will find the following note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This application is a divisional of US. application Ser. No.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 09/082,396, filed May 20, 1998, Which claims the benefit of US.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/055,330, filed Aug. 12, 1997 and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; US. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/047,619, filed May 23, 1997.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now we need to go back to the earliest filing date of these patent applications, which is May 20, 1998. Adding 20 years to that filing date, we now have an expiration of May 20, 2018. The provisional filing dates are not included in the calculation, because those are never disclosed to the public.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, in the patent grant, you will find the following notice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this patent is extended&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by 0 days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which in this case (0 days) has no effect on the expiration of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the last thing you need to look at are the Legal Events:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Feb 21, 2008	FPAY	Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;    Year of fee payment: 4&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Feb 24, 2012	FPAY	Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;    Year of fee payment: 8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The maintenance fees have been paid, and the next one isn't due until September 28, 2016. This means that the patent is certainly enforceable until then. After that, you will need to check the Legal Events to see if they paid the next fee. Failure to pay maintenance fees will be noted in the Legal Events and results in a non-enforceable patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cost of maintenance fees increases with each payment, and the company may ultimately decide that paying the final maintenance fee on this patent in order to get an additional 2 years, 8 months of coverage is not worth it. Since they are tending to pay in February, check the legal status in March 2016 to see if they paid the maintenance fee." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13214" RevisionGUID="0d01f974-ff59-4b4d-984e-cffb390bd055" CreationDate="2015-07-18T14:27:03.603" UserId="14417" Comment="Clarified several points to more precisely answer the question." Text="The patent was filed on June 14, 2001, which normally means (because it was filed after June 8, 1995), that the patent is enforceable to 20 years from the filing date, which is June 14, 2021.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in the Cross References section you will find the following note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This application is a divisional of US. application Ser. No.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 09/082,396, filed May 20, 1998, Which claims the benefit of US.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/055,330, filed Aug. 12, 1997 and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; US. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/047,619, filed May 23, 1997.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now we need to go back to the earliest filing date of these patent applications, which is May 20, 1998. Adding 20 years to that filing date, we now have an expiration of May 20, 2018. The provisional filing dates are not included in the calculation, because those are never disclosed to the public. For reference US 09/082,396 is PCT/US1998/010362 application, which is the same as WO1998052458 A1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, in the patent grant, you will find the following notice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this patent is extended&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by 0 days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which in this case (0 days) has no effect on the expiration of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the last thing you need to look at are the Legal Events:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Feb 21, 2008	FPAY	Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;    Year of fee payment: 4&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Feb 24, 2012	FPAY	Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;    Year of fee payment: 8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The maintenance fees have been paid, and the next one isn't due until September 28, 2016. This means that the patent is certainly enforceable until then. After that, you will need to check the Legal Events to see if they paid the next fee. Failure to pay maintenance fees will be noted in the Legal Events and results in a non-enforceable patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cost of maintenance fees increases with each payment, and the company may ultimately decide that paying the final maintenance fee on this patent in order to get an additional 2 years, 8 months of coverage is not worth it. Since they are tending to pay in February, check the legal status in March 2016 to see if they paid the maintenance fee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, they are highly likely to pay the maintenance fee to extend their coverage until May 20, 2018 because they are still pursuing new patents based on [WO1998052458][1] and [WO1998052459][2], which were both filed on May 20, 1998.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, refer to [US 9,040,146][3] which was filed January 17, 2014 and issued May 26, 2015. This patent will only be valid for less than three years. Procter &amp; Gamble have a lot of money invested in this series of patents (over 40 publications with worldwide coverage), and on May 21, 2018 they will no longer be enforceable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO1998052458A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO1998052459A1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9040146" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13215" RevisionGUID="bf1b12c7-ff57-408a-9960-a50c1bba6124" CreationDate="2015-07-18T14:45:04.180" UserId="14417" Text="If you look in the first paragraph of the description of the Utility Patent [US 6,676,109][1], you will find:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This application is a continuation application of Ser. No. 09/861,547, filed May 22, 2001.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is also clearly noted on the first page of the patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Continuation of application No. 09/861,547 filed on May 22, 2001.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The filing date to start counting from is therefore May 22, 2001, which gives an expiration date of May 22, 2021.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also of note is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this patent is extended&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by 0 days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which, since it is 0 days, does not affect the expiration date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, check the Legal Events to ensure the maintenance fees have been paid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Jul 5, 2007	FPAY	Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;    Year of fee payment: 4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Jun 13, 2011	FPAY	Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;    Year of fee payment: 8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fees have been paid, so the patent will remain enforceable until at least January 13, 2016. Since Kitz Corporation is typically paying the fees in June, you may want to re-check the Legal Events next month to see if they have paid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6676109" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13216" RevisionGUID="0d0040ce-1bbb-4a11-b95c-9df1d4595d40" CreationDate="2015-07-18T14:54:40.037" UserId="14417" Text="As of November 27, 2013, this patent had lapsed due to a Failure to Pay Maintenance Fee. As of January 14, 2014, [US 6,323,569][1] is expired and is no longer enforceable, with an effective date of November 27, 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Nov 3, 1999	AS	Assignment	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Dec 24, 2002	CC	Certificate of correction	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    May 5, 2005	FPAY	Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;    Year of fee payment: 4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Apr 29, 2009	FPAY	Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;    Year of fee payment: 8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Jul 5, 2013	REMI	Maintenance fee reminder mailed	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Nov 27, 2013	LAPS	Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Jan 14, 2014	FP	Expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee	&#xD;&#xA;    Effective date: 20131127&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6323569" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13217" RevisionGUID="71a92003-87d3-4b7d-b9ed-79f4c88413c9" CreationDate="2015-07-18T15:22:28.230" UserId="14417" Text="As noted in [an answer][1] [regarding the expiration][2] of [US 6,323,569][3], the effective expiration date of the patent was calculated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The patent application was filed on June 7, 1995 and issued on April&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8, 1997.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; US patents issuing from patent applications filed on or after June 8,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1995 have a term of 20 years from the earliest non-provisional patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application priority date. US patents issuing from patent applications&#xD;&#xA;&gt; filed prior to June 8, 1995 have a term equal to the greater of 17&#xD;&#xA;&gt; years from issuance or 20 years from the earliest non-provisional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent application priority date.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In this case, since 17 years after issuance is greater, the patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; expires on April 9, 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above reasoning is clear. However, the patent is a divisional of a continuation of a continuation-in-part of an abandoned application filed July 25, 1990:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Division of Ser. No. 254,136, Jun. 6, 1994, which is a continuation of Ser. No. 7,664, Jan. 22, 1993, abandoned, which is a continuation of PCT WO 92/02,307 filed Jul. 23, 1991, which is a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 557,104, Jul. 25, 1990, abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, this would affect the expiration date of the patent by using the earliest filing date. In this case, that would appear to be July 25, 1990, giving an expiration date of April 8, 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Legal Status are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Feb 20, 1996	AS	Assignment	&#xD;&#xA;    Owner name: TRIMEX COMPANY, NORTH CAROLINA&#xD;&#xA;    Effective date: 19930521&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Jun 27, 2000	FPAY	Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;    Year of fee payment: 4&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Sep 13, 2004	FPAY	Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;    Year of fee payment: 8&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Sep 25, 2008	FPAY	Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;    Year of fee payment: 12&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do the expiration date rules for divisional patents and continuations not apply to patents filed prior to June 8, 1995?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do abandoned or continuation-in-part normally have any additional effect on the calculation of an expiration date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/6137/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/5972/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6323569" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31337" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13217" RevisionGUID="71a92003-87d3-4b7d-b9ed-79f4c88413c9" CreationDate="2015-07-18T15:22:28.230" UserId="14417" Text="Do divisional, continuation, and continuation-in-part affect patents filed prior to June 8, 1995?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31338" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13217" RevisionGUID="71a92003-87d3-4b7d-b9ed-79f4c88413c9" CreationDate="2015-07-18T15:22:28.230" UserId="14417" Text="&lt;continuation&gt;&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;continuation-in-part&gt;&lt;divisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13218" RevisionGUID="771c59aa-c4d1-46af-8a75-b0dbde51929d" CreationDate="2015-07-18T16:06:34.247" UserId="14417" Text="Personal communications do not qualify as Prior Art, as they are not publicly accessible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the Form 19-2 that you signed is proof of inventorship at a particular time. If you additionally have proof of the e-mail correspondence, then you may have a case against the cited inventors and original assignee of the patent, under MPEP Chapter 0600.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following rules might be of interest to you, as they might be represent viable options for pursuing legal action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MPEP Section 602 Oaths and Declarations [R-11.2013], [602.01(b) Inventor’s Oath or Declaration in Application Filed Before September 16, 2012][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **35 U.S.C. 115  (pre-AIA) Oath of applicant.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The applicant shall make oath that *he believes himself to be the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; original and first inventor* of the process, machine, manufacture, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; composition of matter, or improvement thereof, for which he solicits a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent; and shall state of what country he is a citizen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **37 C.F.R. 1.68   Declaration in lieu of oath.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Any document to be filed in the Patent and Trademark Office and which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is required by any law, rule, or other regulation to be under oath may&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be subscribed to by a written declaration. Such declaration may be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; used in lieu of the oath otherwise required, if, and only if, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; declarant is on the same document, warned that willful false&#xD;&#xA;&gt; statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; both ([18 U.S.C. 1001][2]) and may jeopardize the validity of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application or any patent issuing thereon. The declarant must set&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forth in the body of the declaration that all statements made of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; declarant's own knowledge are true and that all statements made on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information and belief are believed to be true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **35 U.S.C. 25 Declaration in lieu of oath.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Whenever such written declaration is used, the document must warn the declarant that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both ([18 U.S.C. 1001][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s602.html#ch600_d1ffbe_2a437_2a7&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307411" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13219" RevisionGUID="47a947b4-26a3-4ac2-ba04-11608db7af7b" CreationDate="2015-07-18T16:50:34.920" UserId="14417" Text="You need to compare the independent claims of the applications. Let's look at the independent claims of the earlier applications first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**US 20100240990 A1** and **CA2692570 A1** were filed by the same inventors and have identical claims, which makes this analysis slightly easier. I will refer to these simply as 'the earlier application'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 1.** A method of diagnosis and treatment of malignant tumours and comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - locating an area containing lymph systems including sentinel lymph nodes and lymph ducts which drain the area around a tumour;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - injecting a magnetic particle-containing marker compound in the region around said tumour, said compound migrating into said sentinel lymph nodes and lymph system which drain the area around a tumour;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - making images of such area, by methods selected from the group comprising, X-ray, Ultrasound and the like, and identifying locations of sentinel lymph nodes therein;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - conducting biopsies of sentinel lymph nodes responding to said marker compound to determine the tumour status of such sentinel lymph nodes;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - operating to remove both the malignant tumour and tumour-invaded lymph nodes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 comprises injecting a magnetic particle-containing marker compound in the region around a tumor, where the compound migrates into surrounding sentinel lymph nodes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 12.** A compound for marking sentinel lymph nodes in a drainage area around a malignant tumour and comprising; magnetic particles containing marker compound consists of Co+2, Co+3, Fe+2, Fe+3 and/or their oxides including magnetite [Fe(FeO2)2] and/or complexes with Mn, Zn, Cr, and a carrier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**US 20140314679 A1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 1.** A hypoosmotic suspension for medical injection comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - about 13 mg/mL to about 200 mg/mL of magnetic particles;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - and an osmolyte selected from either about 0.01% w/v to about 0.6% w/v of an inorganic salt or about 0.5% w/v to about 1.5% w/v of a glycol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 is limited specifically to the composition of a hypoosmotic suspension of magnetic particles and an osmolyte.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare this to the description of the earlier application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The suspensions can have about 13 mg/mL of magnetic particles, about&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 28 mg/mL of magnetic particles, 56 mg/ml of magnetic particles, 100&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mg/ml of magnetic particles, 140 mg/ml of magnetic particles or about&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 200 mg/mL of magnetic particles.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The suspension can have an osmolality of about 80 mOsm/kg to about 160&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mOsm/kg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact formula is reproduced in the later application, and should certainly be considered Prior Art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 26.** A method of locating a lymph node in a patient, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - providing a hypoosmotic suspension comprising magnetic particles;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - injecting the hypoosmotic suspension into the patient;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - and detecting a lymph node within 10 minutes of injection by detecting the location of the magnetic particles, the detecting sufficient to immediately begin a medical procedure on the lymph node based on the detecting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 26 is broader than Claim 1 of the earlier application because it does not specify the exact composition of the hypoosmotic suspension. It is also written more broadly than Claim 1 of the earlier application because it does not specify any of the following: the presence of a tumor, the location for injection, making images of an area containing lymph nodes, a biopsy or an operation. It is limited specifically to detecting a lymph node within 10 minutes using a hypoosmotic suspension containing magnetic particles. Therefore, Claim 1 of the earlier application should be considered Prior Art for Claim 26 of the later application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, given the independent claims and description of the earlier application, the independent claims of the later application are neither novel nor do they contain an inventive step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I wouldn't be overly concerned about any of these applications, since none of them have yet been granted. The examiners are usually pretty good about finding this material, and in the case of the later patent, I believe the claims are too broad to be considered novel even in the absence of the earlier applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31341" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13218" RevisionGUID="41e94dee-ca1f-4e59-ae19-5025d591fa9a" CreationDate="2015-07-18T17:14:18.177" UserId="14417" Comment="Liked related questions and answers." Text="Personal communications do not qualify as Prior Art, as they are not publicly accessible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the Form 19-2 that you signed is proof of inventorship at a particular time. If you additionally have proof of the e-mail correspondence, then you may have a case against the cited inventors and original assignee of the patent, under MPEP Chapter 0600.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following rules might be of interest to you, as they might be represent viable options for pursuing legal action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MPEP Section 602 Oaths and Declarations [R-11.2013], [602.01(b) Inventor’s Oath or Declaration in Application Filed Before September 16, 2012][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **35 U.S.C. 115  (pre-AIA) Oath of applicant.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The applicant shall make oath that *he believes himself to be the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; original and first inventor* of the process, machine, manufacture, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; composition of matter, or improvement thereof, for which he solicits a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent; and shall state of what country he is a citizen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **37 C.F.R. 1.68   Declaration in lieu of oath.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Any document to be filed in the Patent and Trademark Office and which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is required by any law, rule, or other regulation to be under oath may&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be subscribed to by a written declaration. Such declaration may be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; used in lieu of the oath otherwise required, if, and only if, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; declarant is on the same document, warned that willful false&#xD;&#xA;&gt; statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; both ([18 U.S.C. 1001][2]) and may jeopardize the validity of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application or any patent issuing thereon. The declarant must set&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forth in the body of the declaration that all statements made of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; declarant's own knowledge are true and that all statements made on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information and belief are believed to be true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **35 U.S.C. 25 Declaration in lieu of oath.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Whenever such written declaration is used, the document must warn the declarant that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both ([18 U.S.C. 1001][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an [answer to an related question][4], non-confidential disclosures start a one year clock for filing. I'm not familiar with that section of the MPEP. Perhaps someone else could offer an explanation of that rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s602.html#ch600_d1ffbe_2a437_2a7&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307411&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307411&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3770/14417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13220" RevisionGUID="1ce32a42-24a4-490f-949c-1043864ce97b" CreationDate="2015-07-18T17:46:35.620" UserId="14592" Text="I think there is likely prior art for this design patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example of a 19th century Chinese human hand umbrella handle:&#xD;&#xA;http://ancientpoint.com/inf/13171-19th_c_asian_antique_chinese_ox_bone_carved_parasol_umbrella__s_human_hand_handle.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31343" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13220" RevisionGUID="1ce32a42-24a4-490f-949c-1043864ce97b" CreationDate="2015-07-18T17:46:35.620" UserId="14592" Text="US design patent 697706 - human hand umbrella handle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31344" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13220" RevisionGUID="1ce32a42-24a4-490f-949c-1043864ce97b" CreationDate="2015-07-18T17:46:35.620" UserId="14592" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13221" RevisionGUID="87150029-75b7-48b1-b4bd-02cd3a3f8c78" CreationDate="2015-07-18T17:51:15.617" UserId="14622" Text="Does Prior Art apply to Design Patents, and can they be invalidated based on Prior Art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, if a product has been on the market for twenty years without modification, can an unrelated company obtain a design patent describing part of that product (or even exactly that product)? If not, then how different does a design need to be from existing products?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question was prompted from [a related question][1] regarding a bottle cap that looks remarkably like a [Nalgene cap][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm asking in the broader sense of what constitutes Prior Art for Design Patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/13205/14622&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://store.nalgene.com/v/vspfiles/photos/Wide%20Mouth%20Bottle%20Cap-2.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31346" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13221" RevisionGUID="87150029-75b7-48b1-b4bd-02cd3a3f8c78" CreationDate="2015-07-18T17:51:15.617" UserId="14622" Text="Can a design patent be issued based on an existing product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31347" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13221" RevisionGUID="87150029-75b7-48b1-b4bd-02cd3a3f8c78" CreationDate="2015-07-18T17:51:15.617" UserId="14622" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13222" RevisionGUID="3fff1bb1-51ad-4fb2-831b-39417f0c3097" CreationDate="2015-07-18T18:09:37.557" UserId="14417" Text="For the current rules governing Design Patents, refer to MPEP Chapter 16, [Section 171][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whoever invents any new, original and ornamental design for an article&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of manufacture may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and requirements of this title.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The provisions of this title relating to patents for inventions shall&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apply to patents for designs, except as otherwise provided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, most of the rules governing Utility Patents also apply to Design Patents. This includes Prior Art and novelty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is excerpt from an old article that sums up the basic requirements for a Design Patent. Note that since this is from 1993, there have been several changes to patent law. However, these basic parameters are still in effect. I couldn't really restate it any better than the original:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Silverman, A. 1993. [What Are Design Patents and When Are They Useful?][2] *JOM* **45**(3), p. 63.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To qualify for a design patent, the subject must be new in the sense&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that no single, identical design exists in the prior art, it must&#xD;&#xA;&gt; satisfy the ornamental standards, and it must be original to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inventor or inventors seeking protection. It must also be unobvious on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the basis of any previously existing design or combination of designs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; when viewed through the eyes of a hypothetical designer skilled in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; art. Further, design patents cannot be obtained for ornamental&#xD;&#xA;&gt; features that are not visible when the product is in use. In general,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a design patent is obtained for the aesthetically appealing features&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of a product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, regarding the Nalgene cap, the second figure certainly looks like it incorporates all of the design elements, which means the Nalgene cap should have served as Prior Art for the design. However, further discussion regarding that patent should occur in the [original question][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title35/USCODE-2011-title35-partII-chap16-sec171&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9303.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/13205/14622" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13205" RevisionGUID="2b951635-72bd-4bab-b55b-012dc3e46a2e" CreationDate="2015-07-18T18:21:29.640" UserId="14417" Comment="Incorporated details from a comment." Text="As described and shown in the patent, the design also covers the top shape and relative dimensions of the flask. In order to be infringing on the design, a bottle would need to be extremely similar in appearance, including the relative dimensions and presence of all or very nearly all features. These design patents exist to prevent knock-off products from copying a design in exact detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The broken lines illustrate portions of the wide mouth flask which form no part of the claimed design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure from USD680805][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note the related design patent [US D688,912][2], which reduces the scope of the design to only a few elements of the cap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure from USD688912][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As noted in the comments, this second Design Patent is strikingly similar (if not identical) to the [Nalgene Wide-Mouth Cap][4], which has apparently been around for at least a few decades:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Nalgene Wide-Mouth Cap][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/1jlw6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD688912&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Mhrp9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://store.nalgene.com/v/vspfiles/photos/Wide%20Mouth%20Bottle%20Cap-2.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/eTT0F.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13223" RevisionGUID="f0a085af-b986-470a-bcdd-0f35d4c9e30e" CreationDate="2015-07-18T19:12:54.340" UserId="14622" Text="Just to test the [instructions for finding contact information for inventors][1], I went through the steps and found that searching on [US 2012/0321478][2] led to the appropriate contact information, which is Hitachi, Ltd. IP Group:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    c/o Hitachi, Ltd., Intellectual Property Group&#xD;&#xA;    12th Floor, Marunouchi Center Building, 6-1&#xD;&#xA;    Marunouchi 1-chrome, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo&#xD;&#xA;    100-8220, Japan&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, it would be inappropriate to contact the inventors directly, as they would likely need to vet any information through this group anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/5351/14622&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120321478" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10598" RevisionGUID="c9160cd4-05b4-4800-acbb-ec854223cad3" CreationDate="2015-07-18T19:47:31.563" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and added tag and link. Improved language for clarity." Text="I was just really wondering if there was a picture I could view for the invention in [WO2004085005A3][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://google.com/patents/WO2004085005A3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31352" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10598" RevisionGUID="c9160cd4-05b4-4800-acbb-ec854223cad3" CreationDate="2015-07-18T19:47:31.563" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and added tag and link. Improved language for clarity." Text="Where can I view the figures from WO2004085005A3?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31353" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10598" RevisionGUID="c9160cd4-05b4-4800-acbb-ec854223cad3" CreationDate="2015-07-18T19:47:31.563" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and added tag and link. Improved language for clarity." Text="&lt;help&gt;&lt;patent-figures&gt;&lt;wo2004085005&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13224" RevisionGUID="3b6ce226-4d4b-4db2-9e24-84971b4b4605" CreationDate="2015-07-18T20:44:50.093" UserId="14417" Text="Yes, a different combination of ingredients (possibly including a range of ingredient ratios to comprise a formula) and a specific application are enough to ensure novelty. You will want to cite this patent in your own application in order to make the examiner aware that you are attempting to create a different product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a [similar case][1] where a patent was issued based on a novel ratio of ingredients, with prior art (existing patents) covering the same application using each of the individual ingredients.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/13213/14417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13099" RevisionGUID="a56134ee-e135-4da4-9761-948f5a228851" CreationDate="2015-07-18T21:02:37.070" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag for US application." Text="[EP2384964A1][1] claims to be the foundation of split boards dating back to the early 1990's. Manufactures of Snowboards have been making woodcores with center plastic, bamboo and other impermeable materials. How would I submit prior art to assure a denial for this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP2384964A1&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31356" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13099" RevisionGUID="a56134ee-e135-4da4-9761-948f5a228851" CreationDate="2015-07-18T21:02:37.070" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag for US application." Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20110272920&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13049" RevisionGUID="6a4effe7-47ce-46ae-987b-3f3e10c04c9f" CreationDate="2015-07-18T21:24:36.833" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and summarized links." Text="[US 2015/0020824][1] claims as an invention the formulation of e-cigarette &quot;e-liquid&quot; with nicotine salts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This idea has been a subject of much discussion for many years within the online vaping community. A quick search brings up a few threads on one of the most popular forums:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [How efficient are e-cigarettes at nicotine delivery?][2] (E-Cigarette Forum, November 21, 2009)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Types of nicotine base liquid][3] (E-Cigarette Forum, November 24, 2011)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [pH of unflavored nic liquid?][4] (E-Cigarette Forum, July 2, 2011)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, reading these posts, it appears some manufacturers may already have produced such e-liquid. Nonetheless, would these discussions, had publicly, qualify as prior art to the patent referenced above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nicotine salts in e-liquids may be a very important step in producing e-cigarettes that are more effective for smokers, and the company that produced this patent already sold their previous invention to the tobacco industry (Ploom, sold to JTI). The tobacco industry (Altria) already has a patent on a &quot;nicotine pyruvate&quot; device, which they've sat on for many years. It would be a hideous thing were the tobacco industry to acquire and sit on this technology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20150020824&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/threads/how-efficient-are-e-cigarettes-at-nicotine-delivery.50407/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/threads/types-of-nicotine-base-liquid.241673/#post-4635960&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/threads/ph-of-unflavored-nic-liquid.201651/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31358" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13049" RevisionGUID="6a4effe7-47ce-46ae-987b-3f3e10c04c9f" CreationDate="2015-07-18T21:24:36.833" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and summarized links." Text="Would this qualify as prior art for US20150020824 A1?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31359" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13202" RevisionGUID="fc1dbdb5-9534-433f-a574-9fab3f5718e7" CreationDate="2015-07-18T23:02:27.580" UserId="14622" Comment="Added more appropriate tags, corrected grammar and added links." Text="I would like to receive the contact details of the inventors of [EP2546383A1][1] and I would like to know information related to material used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP2546383A1&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31360" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13202" RevisionGUID="fc1dbdb5-9534-433f-a574-9fab3f5718e7" CreationDate="2015-07-18T23:02:27.580" UserId="14622" Comment="Added more appropriate tags, corrected grammar and added links." Text="Where can I find the contact details of the inventors of EP2546383A1?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31361" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13202" RevisionGUID="fc1dbdb5-9534-433f-a574-9fab3f5718e7" CreationDate="2015-07-18T23:02:27.580" UserId="14622" Comment="Added more appropriate tags, corrected grammar and added links." Text="&lt;meta-data&gt;&lt;us20120321478&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31362" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13202" RevisionGUID="fc1dbdb5-9534-433f-a574-9fab3f5718e7" CreationDate="2015-07-18T23:02:27.580" Comment="Proposed by 14622 approved by 14417, 14016 edit id of 1851" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13220" RevisionGUID="c03b45b9-08c9-4859-88f4-e35e9a06c553" CreationDate="2015-07-18T23:03:09.187" UserId="14622" Comment="Added tag, image and links." Text="I think there is likely prior art for Design Patent [US D697,706][1], &quot;Handle&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figre 3 from US D697,706][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example of a 19th century Chinese human hand umbrella handle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![19th century Chinese human hand umbrella handle][3]&#xD;&#xA;Source: [AncientPoint.com][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD697706&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/AJLNz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/zGHWI.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://ancientpoint.com/inf/13171-19th_c_asian_antique_chinese_ox_bone_carved_parasol_umbrella__s_human_hand_handle.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31364" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13220" RevisionGUID="c03b45b9-08c9-4859-88f4-e35e9a06c553" CreationDate="2015-07-18T23:03:09.187" UserId="14622" Comment="Added tag, image and links." Text="US Design Patent D697706 - human hand umbrella handle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31365" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13220" RevisionGUID="c03b45b9-08c9-4859-88f4-e35e9a06c553" CreationDate="2015-07-18T23:03:09.187" UserId="14622" Comment="Added tag, image and links." Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;usd697706&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31366" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13220" RevisionGUID="c03b45b9-08c9-4859-88f4-e35e9a06c553" CreationDate="2015-07-18T23:03:09.187" Comment="Proposed by 14622 approved by 14417, 14016 edit id of 1850" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13225" RevisionGUID="710b4363-276a-4a25-ac20-a28335345d92" CreationDate="2015-07-18T23:50:42.510" UserId="14417" Text="Public discussions can indeed qualify as Prior Art if the dates of the post are available, and the posts can be proven to pre-date the priority date application in question. This is the case for [US 2015/0020824][1], which has a Priority Date of May 6, 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just so we can be clear on the commercial entities (I was initially confused by the series of legal events), Ploom, Inc. is the original company that produced the IP. JTI later took a minority share in the company. Then, in February 2015 Ploom, Inc. bought back its shares from JTI by transferring the original patents, trademarks and product lines (as the &quot;new&quot; Ploom, Inc.) to JTI. The &quot;old&quot; Ploom, Inc., without the Ploom trademark, was renamed to Jax Labs and retained its newer IP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The newer applications were originally disclosed by Ploom, Inc., which later became Pax Labs. The original Ploom, Inc. patents and Ploom trademark are owned by the &quot;new&quot; Ploom, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of JTI); for reference those issued patents are [US 8,915,254][2] and [US 8,925,555][3]. There may be some Canadian, European and WIPO patents transferred as well, but I am focusing just on the US patents here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**JTI Acquires “Ploom” Intellectual Property Rights from Ploom, Inc.** (Ploom to Adopt New Corporate Identity as PAX Labs, Inc.)][4]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ploom, Inc. announced today that JTI will acquire Ploom’s modelTwo and pods product line – including the “Ploom” trademark – and general intellectual property related to modelTwo and pods. Concurrent with the transaction, Ploom, Inc. will buy back JTI’s minority stake in order to focus on Ploom’s successful PAX business and an expanding product portfolio.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ploom’s new corporate name will be PAX Labs, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The old Ploom, Inc. (now Pax Labs) has several new patent applications. This is the bolus of US patent applications/grants that Pax Labs now owns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US 2013/0042865][6] Low temperature electronic vaporization device and methods&#xD;&#xA; - [US 2014/0060552][7] Methods and devices for delivery and monitoring of tobacco, nicotine, or other substances&#xD;&#xA; - [US 2009/0151717][8] Aerosol devices and methods for inhaling a substance and uses thereof&#xD;&#xA; - [US 2015/0157056][9] Aerosol devices and methods for inhaling a substance and uses thereof&#xD;&#xA; - [US 8,991,402][5] Aerosol devices and methods for inhaling a substance and uses thereof&#xD;&#xA; - [US 2014/0345631][10] Nicotine salt formulations for aerosol devices and methods thereof&#xD;&#xA; - [US 2015/0020824][11] Nicotine salt formulations for aerosol devices and methods thereof&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The one you cited (US 2015/0020824) is actually a Divisional Patent, so you are also likely interested in US 2014/0345631 as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, we can begin to examine the claims. I will first provide comments on the independent claims in light of the forum posts you cited. If these 8 independent claims can be invalidated, then the remainder of the claims will also be invalidated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**US 2014/0345631**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 105.** A method of delivering nicotine to a user comprising&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - (a) deploying an electronic cigarette wherein the electronic cigarette comprises a nicotine salt formulation comprising a nicotine salt in a biologically acceptable liquid carrier wherein an acid used to form said nicotine salt is characterized by a vapor pressure great than or equal to 20 mmHg at 200° C., and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - (b) delivering an inhalable aerosol generated from the nicotine salt formulation heated by the electronic cigarette.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    nicotine delivery: yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    electronic cigarette: yes&#xD;&#xA;    nicotine salt formulation: yes&#xD;&#xA;    biologically acceptable liquid carrier: yes&#xD;&#xA;    acid is used to form nicotine salt: yes&#xD;&#xA;    acid has pressure greater than or equal to 20 mmHg at 200° C: ???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    inhalable aerosol generated from nicotine salt: yes&#xD;&#xA;    aerosol heated by electronic cigarette: yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue to address here is the `pressure greater than or equal to 20 mmHg at 200° C`. If you can find a reference for this and/or prove that it would be an obvious step to one skilled in the art, then you can check of Claim 105 and all of its dependent claims (106-114).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 115.** A method of delivering nicotine to a user comprising&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - (a) deploying an electronic cigarette wherein the electronic cigarette comprises a nicotine salt formulation comprising a nicotine salt in a biologically acceptable liquid carrier wherein an acid used to form said nicotine salt is further characterized by a melting point at least 40° C lower than the operating temperature of the electronic cigarette, and at least a 50° C difference between a melting point of the acid and a boiling point of the acid, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - (b) delivering an inhalable aerosol generated from the nicotine salt formulation heated by the electronic cigarette.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    nicotine delivery: yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    electronic cigarette: yes&#xD;&#xA;    nicotine salt formulation: yes&#xD;&#xA;    biologically acceptable liquid carrier: yes&#xD;&#xA;    acid is used to form nicotine salt: yes&#xD;&#xA;    acid has melting point at least 40° C lower than electronic cigarette: ???&#xD;&#xA;    acid has melting point at least 50° C lower than its boiling point: ???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    inhalable aerosol generated from nicotine salt: yes&#xD;&#xA;    aerosol heated by electronic cigarette: yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue to address here is the melting point and boiling point of the acid relative to the temperature of the electronic cigarette. If you can find a reference for this and/or prove that it would be an obvious step to one skilled in the art, then you can check of Claim 115 and all of its dependent claims (116-122).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 123.** A nicotine salt liquid formulation in an electronic cigarette for generating an inhalable aerosol up on heating in the electronic cigarette, the formulation in the cigarette comprising a nicotine salt in a biologically acceptable liquid carrier wherein an acid used to form said nicotine salt is characterized by vapor pressure of about 20 mmHg to 200 mmHg at 200° C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    nicotine salt formulation: yes&#xD;&#xA;    electronic cigarette: yes&#xD;&#xA;    inhalable aerosol generated from nicotine salt: yes&#xD;&#xA;    aerosol heated by electronic cigarette: yes&#xD;&#xA;    biologically acceptable liquid carrier: yes&#xD;&#xA;    acid is used to form nicotine salt: yes&#xD;&#xA;    acid has pressure between 20 mmHg to 200 mmHg at 200° C: ???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue to address here is the `pressure between 20 mmHg to 200 mmHg at 200° C`. If you can find a reference for this and/or prove that it would be an obvious step to one skilled in the art, then you can check of Claim 123 and all of its dependent claims (124-130). If you can invalidate Claim 105, then Claim 123 would also become invalid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 131**. A nicotine salt liquid formulation in an electronic cigarette for generating an inhalable aerosol up on heating in the electronic cigarette, the formulation in the cigarette comprising a nicotine salt in a biologically acceptable liquid carrier wherein an acid used to form said nicotine salt is further characterized by a melting point at least 40° C. lower than the operating temperature of the electronic cigarette, and at least a 50° C. difference between a melting point of the acid and a boiling point of the acid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    nicotine salt formulation: yes&#xD;&#xA;    electronic cigarette: yes&#xD;&#xA;    inhalable aerosol generated from nicotine salt: yes&#xD;&#xA;    aerosol heated by electronic cigarette: yes&#xD;&#xA;    biologically acceptable liquid carrier: yes&#xD;&#xA;    acid is used to form nicotine salt: yes&#xD;&#xA;    acid has melting point at least 40° C lower than electronic cigarette: ???&#xD;&#xA;    acid has melting point at least 50° C lower than its boiling point: ???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue to address here is the melting point and boiling point of the acid relative to the temperature of the electronic cigarette. If you can find a reference for this and/or prove that it would be an obvious step to one skilled in the art, then you can check of Claim 131 and all of its dependent claims (132-137). This is a broader claim than Claim 115, so if you can invalidate Claim 115, then Claim 131 would also become invalid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, you only need to find Prior Art addressing the boiling point of the acid and the pressure of the acid in order to invalidate the entire application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**US 2015/0020824**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 1.** A method of delivering nicotine to a user comprising deploying an electronic cigarette comprising a nicotine formulation comprising nicotine in a biologically acceptable liquid carrier, wherein operation of the electronic cigarette generates an inhalable aerosol, and wherein inhalation of the aerosol at a rate of about one inhalation per 30 seconds results in a nicotine plasma Tmax from about 3 min to about 8 min.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    nicotine delivery: yes&#xD;&#xA;    electronic cigarette: yes&#xD;&#xA;    nicotine formulation: yes&#xD;&#xA;    biologically acceptable liquid carrier: yes&#xD;&#xA;    electronic cigarette generates inhalable aerosol: yes&#xD;&#xA;    inhalation of aerosol at rate of 1 per 30 seconds: ???&#xD;&#xA;    nicotine plasma Tmax between 3 min and 8 min: ???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, you need to find Prior Art regarding the rate of inhalation and the plasma Tmax. You might note that nicotine salts are not mentioned in this independent claim; however, it is mentioned in dependent Claim 6:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 6.** The method of claim 1, wherein the nicotine formulation comprises a nicotine salt comprising nicotine and an acid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as well as its dependent Claims 7-13.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you either need to knock out Claim 1 or Claim 1+6 (essentially the same problem with the rate of inhalation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 14.** A method of delivering nicotine to a user comprising deploying an electronic cigarette comprising a nicotine salt formulation comprising a nicotine salt in a biologically acceptable liquid carrier, wherein&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - a. operation of the electronic cigarette generates an inhalable aerosol,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - b. inhalation of the aerosol at a rate of about one inhalation per 30 seconds results in a nicotine plasma Tmax from about 3 min to about 8 min,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - c. the nicotine concentration is about 2% (w/w) to about 6% (w/w),&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - d. the nicotine salt comprises nicotine and an acid,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - e. the nicotine formulation comprises monoprotonated nicotine, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - f. the acid does not decompose at room temperature and does not decompose at the operating temperature of the electronic cigarette.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    nicotine delivery: yes&#xD;&#xA;    electronic cigarette: yes&#xD;&#xA;    nicotine salt formulation: yes&#xD;&#xA;    biologically acceptable liquid carrier: yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    electronic cigarette generates inhalable aerosol: yes&#xD;&#xA;    inhalation of aerosol at rate of 1 per 30 seconds: obvious?&#xD;&#xA;    nicotine plasma Tmax between 3 min and 8 min: ???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    nicotine concentration between 2% (w/w) to 6% (w/w): obvious?&#xD;&#xA;    nicotine salt contains nicotine: yes&#xD;&#xA;    nicotine salt contains an acid: yes&#xD;&#xA;    nicotine salt contains monoprotonated nicotine: ???&#xD;&#xA;    acid does not decompose at room temperature: obvious?&#xD;&#xA;    acid does not decompose at operating temperature: obvious?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see here, there are a few additional items to address. The claims here are getting narrower, which is a good thing because it serves to better constrain the scope of the patent to a particular formula. So, in addition to the other Prior Art (inhalation) you also need Prior Art on the stability of the acid from room temperature to operating temperature as well as the nicotine concentration, inhalation rate and Tmax.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 17.** A method of delivering nicotine to a user comprising deploying an electronic cigarette comprising a nicotine salt formulation comprising nicotine benzoate in a biologically acceptable liquid carrier, wherein&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - a. the nicotine concentration is from about 2% (w/w) to about 6% (w/w),&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - b. operation of the electronic cigarette generates an inhalable aerosol, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - c. inhalation of the aerosol at a rate of about one inhalation per 30 seconds results in a nicotine plasma Tmax from about 5 min to about 8 min.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    nicotine delivery: yes&#xD;&#xA;    electronic cigarette: yes&#xD;&#xA;    nicotine salt formulation: yes&#xD;&#xA;    formulation contains nicotine benzoate: ???&#xD;&#xA;    biologically acceptable liquid carrier: yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    nicotine concentration between 2% (w/w) to 6% (w/w): obvious?&#xD;&#xA;    electronic cigarette generates inhalable aerosol: yes&#xD;&#xA;    inhalation of aerosol at rate of 1 per 30 seconds: obvious?&#xD;&#xA;    nicotine plasma Tmax between 5 min and 8 min: ???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By now, we have seen all of these clauses except for nicotine benzoate. You need to find prior art for that clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 18.** A cartridge for use with an electronic cigarette comprising a fluid compartment configured to be in fluid communication with a heating element, the fluid compartment comprising a nicotine formulation comprising nicotine in a biologically acceptable liquid carrier, wherein operation of the electronic cigarette generates an inhalable aerosol, and wherein inhalation of the aerosol at a rate of about one inhalation per 30 seconds results in a nicotine plasma Tmax from about 3 min to about 8 min.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    cartridge for electronic cigarette: yes?&#xD;&#xA;    cartridge in fluid communication with a heating element: yes&#xD;&#xA;    nicotine formulation: yes&#xD;&#xA;    biologically acceptable liquid carrier: yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    nicotine concentration between 2% (w/w) to 6% (w/w): obvious?&#xD;&#xA;    electronic cigarette generates inhalable aerosol: yes&#xD;&#xA;    inhalation of aerosol at rate of 1 per 30 seconds: obvious?&#xD;&#xA;    nicotine plasma Tmax between 5 min and 8 min: ???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one could be an easy target if you can find Prior Art for the nicotine plasma Tmax or claim obviousness to one skilled in the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that about covers it. This could use some additional discussion on the meaning of the plasma Tmax, pressure and melting points, but I hope that this sufficiently points out the remaining Prior Art that needs to be discovered. If you can cover all clauses of each individual independent claim with one or two references, then it should be trivial to invalidate all claims of both patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20150020824&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8915254&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8925555&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150216005085/en/JTI-Acquires-%E2%80%9CPloom%E2%80%9D-Intellectual-Property-Rights-Ploom#.VarHF_l2vyM&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8991402&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130042865&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140060552&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://Aerosol%20devices%20and%20methods%20for%20inhaling%20a%20substance%20and%20uses%20thereof&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20150157056&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20140345631&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20150020824&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13226" RevisionGUID="55c9296a-d82e-40e3-839b-2d2224847b17" CreationDate="2015-07-18T23:53:24.673" UserId="14016" Text="This is a really interesting issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In fact, reading these posts, it appears some manufacturers **may** already have produced such e-liquid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it can be demonstrated that a manufacturer **definitely** produced it before the priority date of the patent application, and made it available to the public (e.g., for sale), then that is strong 102(a)(1) invalidating prior art (unless that manufacturer is the same entity seeking the patent, in which a 1-year grace period may apply).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, speculations by anonymous people on the Internet (who may not even possess a bachelor's in chemistry or an equivalent level of skill in the art) about the possible contents of proprietary formulations is not evidence. Especially when they are going by &quot;gut feel&quot; as their primary source of information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Could be placebo effect, but my **gut says it is not**, it is a real difference, and thus should be explainable by simple chemistry descriptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(above quote from &quot;Kurt&quot;, a &quot;Quantum Vapyre&quot; who mentions &quot;nicotine salts&quot; in his post on one of the linked pages in the question)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nonetheless, would these discussions, had publicly, qualify as prior art to the patent referenced above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They may be. Due to the lack of an actual description of success from including nicotine salts in a vaping formula, such &quot;speculative&quot; prior art can probably only be used in an &quot;obvious to try&quot; rationale. The big question is whether these statements instill &quot;a reasonable expectation of success&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13227" RevisionGUID="62a786e7-5707-4213-a195-fa38536c65a2" CreationDate="2015-07-19T01:46:58.593" UserId="14417" Text="The MPEP contains the rules governing a continuation-in-part. Refer to [Section 201.08   Continuation-in-Part Application \[R-11.2013\]][1]. What differentiates a Continuation from a Continuation-in-Part is the inclusion of Paragraph 2.06: *Possible Status as Continuation-in-Part*. This is an indication that your Continuing Patent Application contains information not disclosed in the original patent. If the paragraph is not present but necessary, you may end up with additional Office Actions to resolve the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't yet had to file a Continuation-in-Part, but from what I can discern from the MPEP, this is the same procedure as a normal Continuing Application, just with the addition of Paragraph 2.06.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that there are some [additional considerations for a Continuation-in-Part][2] since the America Invents Act went into effect. Adding new subject matter at this point can weaken a patent. For instance, consider what this might do to your Priority Date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s201.html#ch200_d1ff71_198a2_222&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ocpatentlawyer.com/preserving-the-first-to-invent-status-of-a-pre-aia-filing-in-a-post-aia-world/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13228" RevisionGUID="f6b8b1d3-2c38-4e17-8dc9-e5bb103443ac" CreationDate="2015-07-19T02:24:15.587" UserId="14417" Text="The manuscript should be considered to be confidential until publication, unless the submission process makes it publicly available (e.g., via a web site). This means that you have time to file a provisional application. Do this as soon as possible, establish your Priority Date and get your Provisional Patent number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mark every publicly accessible copy of publications, presentations, posters, white papers, web sites and software with a disclaimer that the method falls under a provisional patent, and include the provisional patent number, application number or grant number on everything that discloses a part of the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not provide any Open Source implementation of your algorithm, as it will weaken or invalidate your patent claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13201" RevisionGUID="a9a382c3-7326-429f-83bc-301f84a7965f" CreationDate="2015-07-19T02:30:57.897" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag for patent link and revised title." Text="In reference to patent [US D3,003][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How did the name of the trademark designer/patent applicant come to be indexed as J. H. Gaknhart, since in the text of the trademark application it is clear his surname was Garnhart?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD3003" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31372" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13201" RevisionGUID="a9a382c3-7326-429f-83bc-301f84a7965f" CreationDate="2015-07-19T02:30:57.897" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag for patent link and revised title." Text="Trademark designer's surname is indexed incorrectly" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31373" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13201" RevisionGUID="a9a382c3-7326-429f-83bc-301f84a7965f" CreationDate="2015-07-19T02:30:57.897" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag for patent link and revised title." Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;google-patents&gt;&lt;usd3003&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13229" RevisionGUID="e401cc1d-d129-4568-a8e4-9f6b432b1bc5" CreationDate="2015-07-19T03:49:34.917" UserId="14417" Text="There are 3 independent claims in that patent, so you need to examine each of those claims on a clause-by-clause basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 is the &quot;Method&quot; claim embodying  the process that can be implemented in software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 8 is the &quot;System&quot; claim that implements the method on physical hardware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 15 uses the clause &quot;non-transitory&quot;, which is becoming common-place to make it clear that the data is actually stored somewhere in a physical medium and not simply being transmitted over the wire. This clause could in fact be used to argue that since the Active Object and Object Relation patterns are applicable to transitory data as well as *non-transitory* data, that Claim 15 would be obvious over Claim 8 to one skilled in the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The remainder of the clauses for Claims 8 and 15 are identical to those of Claim 1 except for a few inconsequential grammar variations. Therefore, due to the similarity between all of these independent claims, you only need to invalidate Claim 1 in order to invalidate the entire application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 1.** A method for creating data objects, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - performing a first query of a database to locate a first table associated with a first data type to be created;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - loading a plurality of rows from only the first table during the query associated with the first table;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - creating a first set of data objects associated with the first data type, wherein each data object of the first set is created from only data stored in each of the rows loaded from the first table;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - performing a second query of the database to locate a second table associated with a second data type to be created, wherein the second data type depends from the first data type;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - loading a plurality of rows from only the second table during the query associated with the second table;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - creating a second set of data objects associated with the second data type, wherein each data object of the second set is created from only data stored in each of the rows loaded from the second table, wherein the data objects of the second set depend from the data objects of the first set;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and associating each data object of the second set to an associated parent object of the first set, wherein the database is queried only once for the first table and the database is queried only once for the second table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is your checklist for Prior Art on Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    method for creating data objects: yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    perform a first query of database: yes&#xD;&#xA;        locate first table associated with first data type: ???&#xD;&#xA;        load rows from only first table: ???&#xD;&#xA;        create first set of data objects of first data type: ???&#xD;&#xA;            each data object is created only from those rows retrieved: ???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    perform second query of database: ???&#xD;&#xA;        locate second table associated with second data type: ???&#xD;&#xA;            second data type depends on first data type: ???&#xD;&#xA;        load rows from only second table: ???&#xD;&#xA;        create second set of data objects of second data type: ???&#xD;&#xA;            each data object is created only from those rows retrieved: ???&#xD;&#xA;            data objects from second set depend on data objects from first set: ???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    associate each data object from second set with a parent data object from the first set: &#xD;&#xA;    database is queried only once for first table: ???&#xD;&#xA;    database is queried only once for second table: ???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not deeply familiar with the Ruby implementation, so I'll leave it to others to fill in the blanks in the above list. For instance, are there two different data types, or only a single composite data type in the Ruby ActiveRecord inheritance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 8.** A system for creating data objects, the system comprising: a machine comprising a processor, wherein the machine is operable to:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - ...repeated&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 15.** Logic for creating data objects, the logic being embodied in a non-transitory computer-readable medium and when executed operable to:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - ...repeated&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, some things to note. The claims in this application are limited only to retrieval and nothing is claimed for INSERT or UPDATE. The retrieval itself is limited to Single-Table Inheritance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [Stack Overflow answer][1] proves that Ruby ActiveRecord implemented Single-Table Inheritance by 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackoverflow.com/a/1598982/2074605" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13230" RevisionGUID="11818166-d8f6-43c0-9477-82eaee4970a6" CreationDate="2015-07-19T04:08:50.507" UserId="14417" Text="The person who provided both signatures has a Conflict of Interest. I have witnessed one case where the rights to two patents were signed from a university to a company, where the inventor was a member of both organizations and would normally have signing power at the company. The way this was resolved was that the company designated a different signing authority for their side of the transaction. This was, of course, in addition to a Conflict of Interest being declared and the mutually-amenable resolution of the conflict being agreed upon in advance of the transfer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13231" RevisionGUID="d79a79a2-4940-44a1-a607-cad119039733" CreationDate="2015-07-19T08:39:14.643" UserId="14624" Text="In reference to the patent: [US2738257][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US2738257&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has the patent [US2738257] been granted for the complete method or for the compound mixture?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31377" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13231" RevisionGUID="d79a79a2-4940-44a1-a607-cad119039733" CreationDate="2015-07-19T08:39:14.643" UserId="14624" Text="Patent specification" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31378" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13231" RevisionGUID="d79a79a2-4940-44a1-a607-cad119039733" CreationDate="2015-07-19T08:39:14.643" UserId="14624" Text="&lt;disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13232" RevisionGUID="ba3a7f9e-dd20-4782-a445-8ba323207701" CreationDate="2015-07-19T09:00:43.417" UserId="13884" Text="I understand that one cannot claim with reference to a multiple dependent claims as set forth in MPEP 608.01(n) Dependent Claims[R-11.2013].&#xD;&#xA;However can one have claims with reference to a single dependant claim?&#xD;&#xA;In other words:&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1: A gadget comprising .....(independent claim)&#xD;&#xA;Claim 2: A gadget as in claim 1 ..... (dependent claim)&#xD;&#xA;Claim 3: A gadget as in claim 2 ..... (dependent claim)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does one have to stop here or can one continue as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 4: A gadget as in claim 3 ..... (dependent claim)&#xD;&#xA;Claim 5: A gadget as in claim 4 ..... (dependent claim)&#xD;&#xA;Where is this discussed in MPEP?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31380" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13232" RevisionGUID="ba3a7f9e-dd20-4782-a445-8ba323207701" CreationDate="2015-07-19T09:00:43.417" UserId="13884" Text="Claims with reference to single dependent claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31381" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13232" RevisionGUID="ba3a7f9e-dd20-4782-a445-8ba323207701" CreationDate="2015-07-19T09:00:43.417" UserId="13884" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;single&gt;&lt;from&gt;&lt;dependent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13233" RevisionGUID="474b8e86-283a-4572-8975-8f987614ec7f" CreationDate="2015-07-19T09:05:56.627" UserId="14625" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140019309][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140019309&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 5. &quot;The method of providing individuals a first means to shop and purchase items&quot; &#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to patent such a broad claim in 2012?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31383" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13233" RevisionGUID="474b8e86-283a-4572-8975-8f987614ec7f" CreationDate="2015-07-19T09:05:56.627" UserId="14625" Text="Broad claim possible?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31384" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13233" RevisionGUID="474b8e86-283a-4572-8975-8f987614ec7f" CreationDate="2015-07-19T09:05:56.627" UserId="14625" Text="&lt;us20140019309&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13234" RevisionGUID="b958bb6b-9faf-412e-8bcb-d5d07db48bc8" CreationDate="2015-07-19T13:16:25.027" UserId="14417" Text="In this case, the design of the handle is from a cast of a model named Bridget. That is extremely specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Starkweather Bridget Umbrella handles][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [Giving a Hand to the Umbrella Business?][3] (February 24, 2012)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Each Bridget has a handle created from a cast of a model named Bridget, “sanded by hand to a satin finish.” The body of the umbrella is imported from Italy has a black canopy with a translucent amber tip. And each of the 400 Bridgets comes etched with the name “Bridget” and along with a serial number. Suggested retail: $349.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, consider the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an overall design that an ordinary observer would likely find substantially the same&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, [Case No. 11-CV-1846][1], May 14, 2012.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is from the ruling on the *Apple vs. Samsung Electronics* design patent infringement case. Now, I'm not claiming that this is an official test for novelty of a design patent, but if this is how infringement is tested, then it makes sense that the phrase would also apply to novelty tests of new designs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have spent over an hour looking through every image on Google that matched combinations of &quot;hand&quot;, &quot;handle&quot; and &quot;umbrella&quot;, and I am convinced that there are no other umbrellas out there with a similar design. Aside from the actual product line that utilizes this design patent, the one cited in the question is the closest one I could find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The company that filed this design patent creates high-end products, which makes them a target for counterfeiters, and so it is only natural that they would seek to protect their new product lines. This is a perfect case for a Design Patent. It is narrow in scope, and it will be used to do exactly what Design Patents are intended for: to prevent cheap knock-offs that the consumer cannot differentiate between.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to make a judgement call here, and state that the only people who should be concerned about this particular design patent are those who seek to create counterfeit goods based on that exact design. If they want to work around this design patent, they need to produce something that the consumer can differentiate between when making a purchase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Starkweather Bridget Umbrella][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/12-1105.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/vHKCE.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.accessoriesmagazine.com/37294/giving-a-hand-to-the-umbrella-business#.VauVAfl2viw&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/vE5xc.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13222" RevisionGUID="f967855c-06a8-4e3c-9889-878f84b2d1f5" CreationDate="2015-07-19T13:21:41.300" UserId="14417" Comment="Added new reference." Text="For the current rules governing Design Patents, refer to MPEP Chapter 16, [Section 171][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whoever invents any new, original and ornamental design for an article&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of manufacture may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and requirements of this title.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The provisions of this title relating to patents for inventions shall&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apply to patents for designs, except as otherwise provided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, most of the rules governing Utility Patents also apply to Design Patents. This includes Prior Art and novelty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is excerpt from an old article that sums up the basic requirements for a Design Patent. Note that since this is from 1993, there have been several changes to patent law. However, these basic parameters are still in effect. I couldn't really restate it any better than the original:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Silverman, A. 1993. [What Are Design Patents and When Are They Useful?][2] *JOM* **45**(3), p. 63.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To qualify for a design patent, the subject must be new in the sense that **no single, identical design exists in the prior art**, it must satisfy the ornamental standards, and it must be original to the inventor or inventors seeking protection. It must also be unobvious on the basis of any previously existing design or combination of designs when viewed through the eyes of a hypothetical designer skilled in the art. Further, design patents cannot be obtained for ornamental features that are not visible when the product is in use. In general, a design patent is obtained for the aesthetically appealing features of a product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an overall design that an ordinary observer would likely find substantially the same&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, [Case No. 11-CV-1846][3], May 14, 2012.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is from the ruling on the *Apple vs. Samsung Electronics* design patent infringement case. Now, I'm not claiming that this is an official test for novelty of a design patent, but if this is how infringement is tested, then it makes sense that the phrase would also apply to novelty tests of new designs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, regarding the Nalgene cap, the second figure certainly looks like it incorporates all of the design elements, which means the Nalgene cap should have served as Prior Art for the design. However, further discussion regarding that patent should occur in the [original question][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title35/USCODE-2011-title35-partII-chap16-sec171&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9303.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/12-1105.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/13205/14622" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13235" RevisionGUID="c8b533a9-ff1a-488e-906f-6bee70e8bc9e" CreationDate="2015-07-19T14:11:23.397" UserId="14626" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5095151][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5095151&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent granted? If yes, then when is the expiry of the patent or the market exclusivity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31388" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13235" RevisionGUID="c8b533a9-ff1a-488e-906f-6bee70e8bc9e" CreationDate="2015-07-19T14:11:23.397" UserId="14626" Text="Grant of patent? Not OB listed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31389" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13235" RevisionGUID="c8b533a9-ff1a-488e-906f-6bee70e8bc9e" CreationDate="2015-07-19T14:11:23.397" UserId="14626" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13236" RevisionGUID="19e567b9-b1c7-4025-aedb-24f77e25210e" CreationDate="2015-07-19T14:42:43.853" UserId="14417" Text="Removal of the telescoping legs is enough to differentiate from the patented designs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Design Patents [US D656,995][1] and [US D650,445][2] should not have issued based on Prior Art, obviousness, and a lack of an &quot;ornamental design&quot;. This 3x3 grid is purely utilitarian and lacks any ornamental features. These Design Patents both have Priority Dates of July 7, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prior Art**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12/5/2006 12:59:07 AM EDT&#xD;&#xA;[Studio Gear - Build a custom studio shooting table for under $80.00][3]&#xD;&#xA;![Building a Custom Studio Table for under $80][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two more examples that this is a non-ornamental design:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Grid Garden Watering System][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.pinterest.com/pin/464504149040643386/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More obviousness:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Does this double as a jungle gym?][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Where Have You Gone, Monkey Bars?][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviousness: telescoping PVC can be found in many [DIY projects][8].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/USD656995&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/USD650445&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://photography.worth1000.com/tutorials/161222/studio-gear-build-a-custom-studio-shooting-table-for-under-80-00&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/QEyAp.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/BRvWL.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/7PO5j.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://flowershowminis.com/2014/02/02/where-have-you-gone-monkey-bars/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.diyphotography.net/diy-a-telescopic-pvc-boom/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5622" RevisionGUID="d7e3fcd0-ee78-421e-b294-017ab4e0aff8" CreationDate="2015-07-19T16:10:15.657" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and added tag. Improved language for clarity." Text="Is patent [US 6,676,109][1] for a rotary valve in favor of Kitz Corporation a design patent or a utility patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the expiration date of the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6676109" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31392" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5622" RevisionGUID="d7e3fcd0-ee78-421e-b294-017ab4e0aff8" CreationDate="2015-07-19T16:10:15.657" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and added tag. Improved language for clarity." Text="What is the expiration date of patent US 6,676,109?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31393" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5622" RevisionGUID="d7e3fcd0-ee78-421e-b294-017ab4e0aff8" CreationDate="2015-07-19T16:10:15.657" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and added tag. Improved language for clarity." Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;us6676109&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13237" RevisionGUID="5bbb959d-2c77-46e8-b7f5-b84d7f13bba9" CreationDate="2015-07-19T16:12:14.643" UserId="14417" Text="Yes, the patent was granted. It expired on March 10, 2009. It was subject to the pre-June 8, 1995 rules, which means that its term is at least 17 years after its issue date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13235" RevisionGUID="78ffd955-4fcd-466d-b73a-131c3c060fb8" CreationDate="2015-07-19T16:21:22.273" UserId="14417" Comment="Added patent number to tags." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 5,095,151 A][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent granted? If yes, then when is the expiry of the patent or the market exclusivity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5095151" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31396" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13235" RevisionGUID="78ffd955-4fcd-466d-b73a-131c3c060fb8" CreationDate="2015-07-19T16:21:22.273" UserId="14417" Comment="Added patent number to tags." Text="Grant of patent US 5,095,151? Not OB listed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31397" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13235" RevisionGUID="78ffd955-4fcd-466d-b73a-131c3c060fb8" CreationDate="2015-07-19T16:21:22.273" UserId="14417" Comment="Added patent number to tags." Text="&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;us5095151&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3483" RevisionGUID="d3f9a713-b33c-4dfe-bda5-2ae7e5058d88" CreationDate="2015-07-19T17:30:05.177" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag, improved formatting." Text="I have absolutely zero understanding of patent law, and have only just discovered that it's illegal for me to reproduce a game called &quot;9 Square in the Air&quot; for personal use due to two &quot;ornamental design&quot; patents they were able to secure, and because of their price purchasing is out of the question as a college student. It may sound ridiculous, since I'm well aware no one is going to &quot;come after me&quot; over something I build for my backyard, but I'd like to obey the law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My friend has argued that all I have to do is modify the design in some manner in order to achieve enough of a change for it to be legal. My question then stands, what is enough of a change for a patent to no longer apply?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if the result is still 9 squares in the air using PVC piping, does it really matter what else I change since it will perform the same function?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two design patents: [US D650,445][1] and [US D656,995][2]. Also, [US 7,608,000][3] is a patent created by some prior to them for the game idea itself (no idea how they got away with that).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/USD650445&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/USD656995&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7608000" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31399" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3483" RevisionGUID="d3f9a713-b33c-4dfe-bda5-2ae7e5058d88" CreationDate="2015-07-19T17:30:05.177" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag, improved formatting." Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;us7608000&gt;&lt;usd650445&gt;&lt;usd656995&gt;&lt;fair-use&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12885" RevisionGUID="6e0f9e8b-08a1-47d2-8cb1-36718d09fd67" CreationDate="2015-07-19T20:59:04.673" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag, improved formatting." Text="I recently found the patent `System and method for loading objects for object-relational mapping` [US 8,903,797](http://www.google.com/patents/US8903797).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I develop [Ruby on Rails](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_on_Rails) web applications that follow the [Active record pattern](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_record_pattern) for [Object relation mapping](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-relational_mapping).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I understand the patent, it covers this mapping. Is this true?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31410" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12885" RevisionGUID="6e0f9e8b-08a1-47d2-8cb1-36718d09fd67" CreationDate="2015-07-19T20:59:04.673" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag, improved formatting." Text="US 8,903,797 - System and method for loading objects for object-relational mapping" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31411" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12885" RevisionGUID="6e0f9e8b-08a1-47d2-8cb1-36718d09fd67" CreationDate="2015-07-19T20:59:04.673" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag, improved formatting." Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;data-processing-database&gt;&lt;us8903797&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13240" RevisionGUID="40377bb8-1fe3-47db-8f08-25829cbdbb78" CreationDate="2015-07-19T21:08:55.253" UserId="14417" Text="The patent has already granted in Europe as [EP 2384964 B1][1]. However, there is a corresponding United States patent application, [US 2011/0272920][2], that has not yet issued, so there is still time left to challenge it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can collect Prior Art in this community if you'd like (follow the instructions from [this question][3]). These posts will be linked directly from Google Patents. If you want to submit Prior Art directly to the USPTO, please refer to [this answer][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP2384964B1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110272920&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/a/146/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/a/107/14417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3801" RevisionGUID="6870b811-83bc-4069-82ed-2530c3318586" CreationDate="2015-07-19T21:12:02.207" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag, improved title." Text="How can I determine the lifetime of a patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, how can I tell when Patent [US 7,055,282 B2][1] expires?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us7055282" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31414" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3801" RevisionGUID="6870b811-83bc-4069-82ed-2530c3318586" CreationDate="2015-07-19T21:12:02.207" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag, improved title." Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;us7055282&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13099" RevisionGUID="1c91442d-26a7-4123-a450-ba9b6802b2d8" CreationDate="2015-07-19T21:16:04.130" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag for european patent." Text="[EP 2384964 A1][1] claims to be the foundation of split boards dating back to the early 1990's. Manufactures of Snowboards have been making woodcores with center plastic, bamboo and other impermeable materials. How would I submit prior art to assure a denial for this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP2384964A1&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31416" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13099" RevisionGUID="1c91442d-26a7-4123-a450-ba9b6802b2d8" CreationDate="2015-07-19T21:16:04.130" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag for european patent." Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20110272920&gt;&lt;ep2384964&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13200" RevisionGUID="88a7f6c2-3b65-48ed-84fd-96be6eedd71b" CreationDate="2015-07-19T21:48:33.477" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, added patent title and tag." Text="In reference to patent [US 6,797,357][1], &quot;Three dimensional structures useful as cleaning sheets&quot;, when will it expire?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6797357" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31418" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13200" RevisionGUID="88a7f6c2-3b65-48ed-84fd-96be6eedd71b" CreationDate="2015-07-19T21:48:33.477" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, added patent title and tag." Text="When will patent US 6,797,357 expire?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31419" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13200" RevisionGUID="88a7f6c2-3b65-48ed-84fd-96be6eedd71b" CreationDate="2015-07-19T21:48:33.477" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, added patent title and tag." Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;us6797357&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31420" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13220" RevisionGUID="84ab089b-569b-4e49-9aa7-eb48dc053f57" CreationDate="2015-07-19T22:34:28.583" UserId="14417" Comment="Updated title." Text="Design Patent US D697,706 - human hand umbrella handle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13157" RevisionGUID="0a37878b-8b2b-4f19-934d-f0da6cbb4a38" CreationDate="2015-07-19T22:45:42.040" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag for US application." Text="Google is attempting to patent well known concepts in the field of machine learning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone provide prior art for [WO2014105866A1][1] ([US 2014/0180986][2]), &quot;System and method for addressing overfitting in a neural network&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2014105866&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20140180986&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2014105866" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31422" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13157" RevisionGUID="0a37878b-8b2b-4f19-934d-f0da6cbb4a38" CreationDate="2015-07-19T22:45:42.040" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag for US application." Text="Requesting prior art on Google machine learning patent (US 2014/0180986)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31423" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13157" RevisionGUID="0a37878b-8b2b-4f19-934d-f0da6cbb4a38" CreationDate="2015-07-19T22:45:42.040" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag for US application." Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;wo2014105866&gt;&lt;us20140180986&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31424" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3801" RevisionGUID="eb02105d-6789-4764-b67c-2567f6e2fdc7" CreationDate="2015-07-19T22:46:36.377" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved title." Text="How do you determine a patent expiration date (US 7,055,282 B2)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12671" RevisionGUID="7cf0ee9f-2423-4c62-95b2-ed9b68e24ccf" CreationDate="2015-07-19T23:18:55.617" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, fixed spelling and corrected grammar." Text="You can find any part of the patent document using one of the following methods:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - View PDF: this button opens the scan image file on they fly and user can scroll to relevant section for information.&#xD;&#xA; - Download PDF: this button downloads the PDF copy on device.&#xD;&#xA; - Using the external Links for USPTO and Espacenet.&#xD;&#xA; - External Link USPTO: provides text of patent application and user can view images in TIFF format.&#xD;&#xA; - External Link Espacenet: provides a complete bibliography and scanned copy of the document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your query please follow any of the above methods. The steps are shown below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![illustrated step-by-step process to find claims][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/q5iqP.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12669" RevisionGUID="5015502b-34bb-4bfa-8403-432ac0b59e31" CreationDate="2015-07-19T23:20:02.387" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and added tag." Text="In reference to patent [US 918,884][1], where can I go to find the claims of this patent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Patents appears to have a recursive link for where to find them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US918884" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31427" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12669" RevisionGUID="5015502b-34bb-4bfa-8403-432ac0b59e31" CreationDate="2015-07-19T23:20:02.387" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and added tag." Text="How can I find the claims of US 918,884, which are not listed on Google Patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31428" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12669" RevisionGUID="5015502b-34bb-4bfa-8403-432ac0b59e31" CreationDate="2015-07-19T23:20:02.387" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and added tag." Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;us918884&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13233" RevisionGUID="78834bda-c27d-4e30-b044-cc5149643e29" CreationDate="2015-07-19T23:47:39.770" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and added tag." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 2014/0019309][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 5.** The method of providing individuals a first means to shop and purchase items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to patent such a broad claim in 2012?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140019309" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31430" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13233" RevisionGUID="78834bda-c27d-4e30-b044-cc5149643e29" CreationDate="2015-07-19T23:47:39.770" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and added tag." Text="Are such broad claims as in US 2014/0019309 potentially granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31431" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13233" RevisionGUID="78834bda-c27d-4e30-b044-cc5149643e29" CreationDate="2015-07-19T23:47:39.770" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and added tag." Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;us20140019309&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13241" RevisionGUID="01fb8b7a-d61e-4025-b474-402c6f14c007" CreationDate="2015-07-20T00:25:07.113" UserId="14417" Text="In short, no. The independent claims in this patent are so broad that the examiner will find plenty of prior art in the late 80's to early 90's. Some of this is actually cited in the patent itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the claim language in patent applications is usually left intentionally broad in order to get maximum possible coverage in the space (in this case, it was definitely *far* too broad). This application will surely result in a series of Office Actions to narrow the scope of the claims. Office Actions cost time and money to address and file, and they are usually not cheap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming that an Office Action is filed to narrow the claim scope (specifically the independent claims), the inventor will need to rely on the language available in the existing description of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The keywords to note are JavaScript, HTML, affiliate program, comparison shop, vendor contract agreement, multiple stores, advertising space, register affiliate company, receive hyperlinks via affiliate program. Combinations of these terms will likely show up in the independent claim(s) as the result of an Office Action. If a novel independent claim can arise from some combination of those terms, then this inventor may be issued a patent. If something novel comes from this application, I will be truly impressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, before anyone is quick to judge, this is an individual representing herself in the application, without the typical resources that a company might have to provide a more appropriate scope for claims and language for the background. All in all, it is a fine first attempt for a lone individual, but it does highlight the difference between filing on one's own behalf and pooling resources within an organization." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13242" RevisionGUID="42b9ddf8-036e-4be6-83b2-10cd474d9874" CreationDate="2015-07-20T03:37:15.727" UserId="14630" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20130166351][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130166351&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many organizations have market mix models implemented within a defined processing system. How is this different?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31434" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13242" RevisionGUID="42b9ddf8-036e-4be6-83b2-10cd474d9874" CreationDate="2015-07-20T03:37:15.727" UserId="14630" Text="How is this different from a regular market mix model?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31435" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13242" RevisionGUID="42b9ddf8-036e-4be6-83b2-10cd474d9874" CreationDate="2015-07-20T03:37:15.727" UserId="14630" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;general&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13206" RevisionGUID="d67ffceb-e3f5-4042-a525-de6f3d87288e" CreationDate="2015-07-20T13:20:42.793" UserId="14417" Comment="Added independent claims from patent application." Text="Google is not the company that filed the application. If you examine the [Legal Events][1], the application for this patent was originally filed by a Canadian startup company affiliated with the University of Toronto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST&#xD;&#xA;    ASSIGNOR:THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO&#xD;&#xA;    Effective date: 20130311&#xD;&#xA;    Owner name: DNNRESEARCH INC., CANADA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google acquired DNN Research, Inc.][2] shortly after the patent was filed, which means it had been in development for some time prior to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One additional fact to note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Google previously awarded Hinton's research group $600,000, the University of Toronto added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are looking for prior art on this application (it has not yet granted), a good place to start would be to read through [the inventor's academic publications][3], as well as the publications of conference proceedings that members of his startup attended prior to March 11, 2013. You might specifically focus on publications from 2011 to late 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any prior art would only need to cover the three independent claims in the application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 2.** A computer-implemented method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - obtaining a plurality of training cases;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and training a neural network having a plurality of layers on the plurality of training cases,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - each of the layers including one or more feature detectors,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - and each of the feature detectors having a corresponding set of weights,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - wherein training the neural network on the plurality of training cases comprises, for each of the training cases respectively:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - determining one or more feature detectors to disable during processing of the training case,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - disabling the one or more feature detectors in accordance with the determining,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - and processing the training case using the neural network with the one or more feature detectors disabled to generate a predicted output for the training case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 11.** A system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - obtaining a plurality of training cases;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and training a neural network having a plurality of layers on the plurality of training cases,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - each of the layers including one or more feature detectors,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - and each of the feature detectors having a corresponding set of weights,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - wherein training the neural network on the plurality of training cases comprises, for each of the training cases respectively:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - determining one or more feature detectors to disable during processing of the training case,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - disabling the one or more feature detectors in accordance with the determining,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - and processing the training case using the neural network with the one or more feature detectors disabled to generate a predicted output for the training case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 20.** A computer storage medium encoded with a computer program, the program comprising instructions that when executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - obtaining a plurality of training cases;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and training a neural network having a plurality of layers on the plurality of training cases,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - each of the layers including one or more feature detectors,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - and each of the feature detectors having a corresponding set of weights,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - wherein training the neural network on the plurality of training cases comprises, for each of the training cases respectively:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - determining one or more feature detectors to disable during processing of the training case,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - disabling the one or more feature detectors in accordance with the determining,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - and processing the training case using the neural network with the one or more feature detectors disabled to generate a predicted output for the training case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140180986#legal-events&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cnet.com/news/google-snaps-up-object-recognition-startup-dnnresearch/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hinton/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13206" RevisionGUID="bdfa664c-5623-45be-bb5c-8f06e0d89092" CreationDate="2015-07-20T13:34:35.560" UserId="14417" Comment="Added priority date and possible prior art." Text="Google is not the company that filed the application. If you examine the [Legal Events][1], the application for this patent was originally filed by a Canadian startup company affiliated with the University of Toronto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST&#xD;&#xA;    ASSIGNOR:THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO&#xD;&#xA;    Effective date: 20130311&#xD;&#xA;    Owner name: DNNRESEARCH INC., CANADA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google acquired DNN Research, Inc.][2] shortly after the patent was filed, which means it had been in development for some time prior to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One additional fact to note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Google previously awarded Hinton's research group $600,000, the University of Toronto added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are looking for prior art on this application (it has not yet granted), a good place to start would be to read through [the inventor's academic publications][3], as well as the publications of conference proceedings that members of his startup attended prior to March 11, 2013. You might specifically focus on publications from 2011 to late 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any prior art would only need to cover the three independent claims in the application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 2.** A computer-implemented method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - obtaining a plurality of training cases;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and training a neural network having a plurality of layers on the plurality of training cases,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - each of the layers including one or more feature detectors,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - and each of the feature detectors having a corresponding set of weights,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - wherein training the neural network on the plurality of training cases comprises, for each of the training cases respectively:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - determining one or more feature detectors to disable during processing of the training case,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - disabling the one or more feature detectors in accordance with the determining,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - and processing the training case using the neural network with the one or more feature detectors disabled to generate a predicted output for the training case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 11.** A system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - obtaining a plurality of training cases;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and training a neural network having a plurality of layers on the plurality of training cases,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - each of the layers including one or more feature detectors,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - and each of the feature detectors having a corresponding set of weights,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - wherein training the neural network on the plurality of training cases comprises, for each of the training cases respectively:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - determining one or more feature detectors to disable during processing of the training case,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - disabling the one or more feature detectors in accordance with the determining,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - and processing the training case using the neural network with the one or more feature detectors disabled to generate a predicted output for the training case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 20.** A computer storage medium encoded with a computer program, the program comprising instructions that when executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - obtaining a plurality of training cases;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and training a neural network having a plurality of layers on the plurality of training cases,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - each of the layers including one or more feature detectors,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - and each of the feature detectors having a corresponding set of weights,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - wherein training the neural network on the plurality of training cases comprises, for each of the training cases respectively:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - determining one or more feature detectors to disable during processing of the training case,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - disabling the one or more feature detectors in accordance with the determining,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - and processing the training case using the neural network with the one or more feature detectors disabled to generate a predicted output for the training case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Priority Date for this patent application is December 24, 2012, so any material that is intended to serve as Prior Art must be publicly available prior to that date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possible Prior Art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A Basic Introduction to Feedforward Backpropagation Neural Networks][4] (2009)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Weight values associated with individual nodes are also known as biases. Weight values are determined by the iterative flow of training data through the network (i.e., **weight values are established during a training phase in which the network learns how to identify particular classes by their typical input data characteristics**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140180986#legal-events&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cnet.com/news/google-snaps-up-object-recognition-startup-dnnresearch/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hinton/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.webpages.ttu.edu/dleverin/neural_network/neural_networks.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13206" RevisionGUID="ceb2d407-98cb-4ba5-8429-69274e2a3054" CreationDate="2015-07-20T15:17:56.773" UserId="14417" Comment="Added Prior Art and early disclosure." Text="Google is not the company that filed the application. If you examine the [Legal Events][1], the application for this patent was originally filed by a Canadian startup company affiliated with the University of Toronto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST&#xD;&#xA;    ASSIGNOR:THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO&#xD;&#xA;    Effective date: 20130311&#xD;&#xA;    Owner name: DNNRESEARCH INC., CANADA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google acquired DNN Research, Inc.][2] shortly after the patent was filed, which means it had been in development for some time prior to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One additional fact to note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Google previously awarded Hinton's research group $600,000, the University of Toronto added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are looking for prior art on this application (it has not yet granted), a good place to start would be to read through [the inventor's academic publications][3], as well as the publications of conference proceedings that members of his startup attended prior to March 11, 2013. You might specifically focus on publications from 2011 to late 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any prior art would only need to cover the three independent claims in the application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 2.** A computer-implemented method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - obtaining a plurality of training cases;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and training a neural network having a plurality of layers on the plurality of training cases,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - each of the layers including one or more feature detectors,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - and each of the feature detectors having a corresponding set of weights,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - wherein training the neural network on the plurality of training cases comprises, for each of the training cases respectively:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - determining one or more feature detectors to disable during processing of the training case,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - disabling the one or more feature detectors in accordance with the determining,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - and processing the training case using the neural network with the one or more feature detectors disabled to generate a predicted output for the training case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 11.** A system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - obtaining a plurality of training cases;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and training a neural network having a plurality of layers on the plurality of training cases,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - each of the layers including one or more feature detectors,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - and each of the feature detectors having a corresponding set of weights,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - wherein training the neural network on the plurality of training cases comprises, for each of the training cases respectively:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - determining one or more feature detectors to disable during processing of the training case,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - disabling the one or more feature detectors in accordance with the determining,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - and processing the training case using the neural network with the one or more feature detectors disabled to generate a predicted output for the training case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 20.** A computer storage medium encoded with a computer program, the program comprising instructions that when executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - obtaining a plurality of training cases;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and training a neural network having a plurality of layers on the plurality of training cases,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - each of the layers including one or more feature detectors,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - and each of the feature detectors having a corresponding set of weights,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - wherein training the neural network on the plurality of training cases comprises, for each of the training cases respectively:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - determining one or more feature detectors to disable during processing of the training case,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - disabling the one or more feature detectors in accordance with the determining,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - and processing the training case using the neural network with the one or more feature detectors disabled to generate a predicted output for the training case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Priority Date for this patent application is December 24, 2012, so any material that is intended to serve as Prior Art must be publicly available prior to that date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Early Disclosure**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hinton did disclose Dropout prior to the Priority Date of the application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Improving neural networks by preventing co-adaptation of feature detectors*][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Geoffrey E. Hinton, Nitish Srivastava, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, Ruslan R. Salakhutdinov&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Submitted on 3 Jul 2012)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When a large feedforward neural network is trained on a small training set, it typically performs poorly on held-out test data. This &quot;overfitting&quot; is greatly reduced by randomly omitting half of the feature detectors on each training case. This prevents complex co-adaptations in which a feature detector is only helpful in the context of several other specific feature detectors. Instead, each neuron learns to detect a feature that is generally helpful for producing the correct answer given the combinatorially large variety of internal contexts in which it must operate. Random &quot;dropout&quot; gives big improvements on many benchmark tasks and sets new records for speech and object recognition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a second version of the publication has been available since July 7, 2012 on [Hinton's publications page][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither document mentions that the method is proprietary or subject to patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, since Hinton is the inventor, I believe he still had the ability to within one year of first disclosure, which would move the literature search on his work back to December 23, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Prior Art search for those not listed as inventors on the application would still be valid to December 23, 2012. That might include the literature below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possible Prior Art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A Basic Introduction to Feedforward Backpropagation Neural Networks][6] (2009)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Weight values associated with individual nodes are also known as biases. Weight values are determined by the iterative flow of training data through the network (i.e., weight values are established during a training phase in which the network learns how to identify particular classes by their typical input data characteristics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140180986#legal-events&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cnet.com/news/google-snaps-up-object-recognition-startup-dnnresearch/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hinton/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.0580&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hinton/papers.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.webpages.ttu.edu/dleverin/neural_network/neural_networks.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13206" RevisionGUID="1b2beef5-363e-432c-9acd-41139ea218bc" CreationDate="2015-07-20T15:37:28.423" UserId="14417" Comment="Added possible prior art." Text="Google is not the company that filed the application. If you examine the [Legal Events][1], the application for this patent was originally filed by a Canadian startup company affiliated with the University of Toronto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST&#xD;&#xA;    ASSIGNOR:THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO&#xD;&#xA;    Effective date: 20130311&#xD;&#xA;    Owner name: DNNRESEARCH INC., CANADA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google acquired DNN Research, Inc.][2] shortly after the patent was filed, which means it had been in development for some time prior to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One additional fact to note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Google previously awarded Hinton's research group $600,000, the University of Toronto added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are looking for prior art on this application (it has not yet granted), a good place to start would be to read through [the inventor's academic publications][3], as well as the publications of conference proceedings that members of his startup attended prior to March 11, 2013. You might specifically focus on publications from 2011 to late 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any prior art would only need to cover the three independent claims in the application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 2.** A computer-implemented method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - obtaining a plurality of training cases;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and training a neural network having a plurality of layers on the plurality of training cases,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - each of the layers including one or more feature detectors,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - and each of the feature detectors having a corresponding set of weights,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - wherein training the neural network on the plurality of training cases comprises, for each of the training cases respectively:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - determining one or more feature detectors to disable during processing of the training case,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - disabling the one or more feature detectors in accordance with the determining,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - and processing the training case using the neural network with the one or more feature detectors disabled to generate a predicted output for the training case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 11.** A system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - obtaining a plurality of training cases;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and training a neural network having a plurality of layers on the plurality of training cases,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - each of the layers including one or more feature detectors,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - and each of the feature detectors having a corresponding set of weights,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - wherein training the neural network on the plurality of training cases comprises, for each of the training cases respectively:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - determining one or more feature detectors to disable during processing of the training case,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - disabling the one or more feature detectors in accordance with the determining,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - and processing the training case using the neural network with the one or more feature detectors disabled to generate a predicted output for the training case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 20.** A computer storage medium encoded with a computer program, the program comprising instructions that when executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - obtaining a plurality of training cases;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and training a neural network having a plurality of layers on the plurality of training cases,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - each of the layers including one or more feature detectors,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - and each of the feature detectors having a corresponding set of weights,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - wherein training the neural network on the plurality of training cases comprises, for each of the training cases respectively:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - determining one or more feature detectors to disable during processing of the training case,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - disabling the one or more feature detectors in accordance with the determining,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - and processing the training case using the neural network with the one or more feature detectors disabled to generate a predicted output for the training case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Priority Date for this patent application is December 24, 2012, so any material that is intended to serve as Prior Art must be publicly available prior to that date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Early Disclosure**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hinton did disclose Dropout prior to the Priority Date of the application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Improving neural networks by preventing co-adaptation of feature detectors*][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Geoffrey E. Hinton, Nitish Srivastava, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, Ruslan R. Salakhutdinov&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Submitted on 3 Jul 2012)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When a large feedforward neural network is trained on a small training set, it typically performs poorly on held-out test data. This &quot;overfitting&quot; is greatly reduced by randomly omitting half of the feature detectors on each training case. This prevents complex co-adaptations in which a feature detector is only helpful in the context of several other specific feature detectors. Instead, each neuron learns to detect a feature that is generally helpful for producing the correct answer given the combinatorially large variety of internal contexts in which it must operate. Random &quot;dropout&quot; gives big improvements on many benchmark tasks and sets new records for speech and object recognition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a second version of the publication has been available since July 7, 2012 on [Hinton's publications page][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither document mentions that the method is proprietary or subject to patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, since Hinton is the inventor, I believe he still had the ability to within one year of first disclosure, which would move the literature search on his work back to December 23, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Prior Art search for those not listed as inventors on the application would still be valid to December 23, 2012. That might include the literature below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possible Prior Art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A Basic Introduction to Feedforward Backpropagation Neural Networks][6] (2009)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Weight values associated with individual nodes are also known as biases. Weight values are determined by the iterative flow of training data through the network (i.e., weight values are established during a training phase in which the network learns how to identify particular classes by their typical input data characteristics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Fast Network Pruning and Feature Extraction by using the Unit-OBS Algorithm][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. Stahlberger and M. Riedmiller 1997&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unit-OBS has two main advantages: First it is a fast algorithm to prune big nets, because whole units are removed in every step instead of slow pruning weight by weight. On the other side it can be used to do a feature extraction on the input data by removing unimportant  input units. This is helpful for the understanding of unknown problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Pruning Algorithms-A Survey][8] 1993&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mozer and Smolensky [19] describe a method which estimates which units are least important and deletes them during training.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[CS181 Lecture 12 - Neural Network Model Selection][9] March 1, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There's a tradeoff in the number of hidden units used in a neural network. With too few hidden units, the hypothesis space might not be rich enough to represent the actual function being learned, which means that the network might underfit the data. On the other hand, more hidden units means more weights to learn, and makes it more likely that the network will overfit the data. This leads to the question: how many hidden units should we use? In addition, for a given number of hidden units, we could choose to remove some of the edges between the different layers - how many edges should we have in our network?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140180986#legal-events&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cnet.com/news/google-snaps-up-object-recognition-startup-dnnresearch/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hinton/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.0580&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hinton/papers.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.webpages.ttu.edu/dleverin/neural_network/neural_networks.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://papers.nips.cc/paper/1233-fast-network-pruning-and-feature-extraction-by-using-the-unit-obs-algorithm.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://axon.cs.byu.edu/~martinez/classes/678/Papers/Reed_PruningSurvey.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic539621.files/lec12.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13206" RevisionGUID="6f20cd10-f5e4-4a23-a11d-1e0c4d3e9b47" CreationDate="2015-07-20T15:43:23.070" UserId="14417" Comment="Added possible prior art." Text="Google is not the company that filed the application. If you examine the [Legal Events][1], the application for this patent was originally filed by a Canadian startup company affiliated with the University of Toronto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST&#xD;&#xA;    ASSIGNOR:THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO&#xD;&#xA;    Effective date: 20130311&#xD;&#xA;    Owner name: DNNRESEARCH INC., CANADA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google acquired DNN Research, Inc.][2] shortly after the patent was filed, which means it had been in development for some time prior to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One additional fact to note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Google previously awarded Hinton's research group $600,000, the University of Toronto added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are looking for prior art on this application (it has not yet granted), a good place to start would be to read through [the inventor's academic publications][3], as well as the publications of conference proceedings that members of his startup attended prior to March 11, 2013. You might specifically focus on publications from 2011 to late 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any prior art would only need to cover the three independent claims in the application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 2.** A computer-implemented method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - obtaining a plurality of training cases;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and training a neural network having a plurality of layers on the plurality of training cases,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - each of the layers including one or more feature detectors,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - and each of the feature detectors having a corresponding set of weights,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - wherein training the neural network on the plurality of training cases comprises, for each of the training cases respectively:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - determining one or more feature detectors to disable during processing of the training case,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - disabling the one or more feature detectors in accordance with the determining,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - and processing the training case using the neural network with the one or more feature detectors disabled to generate a predicted output for the training case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 11.** A system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - obtaining a plurality of training cases;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and training a neural network having a plurality of layers on the plurality of training cases,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - each of the layers including one or more feature detectors,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - and each of the feature detectors having a corresponding set of weights,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - wherein training the neural network on the plurality of training cases comprises, for each of the training cases respectively:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - determining one or more feature detectors to disable during processing of the training case,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - disabling the one or more feature detectors in accordance with the determining,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - and processing the training case using the neural network with the one or more feature detectors disabled to generate a predicted output for the training case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 20.** A computer storage medium encoded with a computer program, the program comprising instructions that when executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - obtaining a plurality of training cases;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and training a neural network having a plurality of layers on the plurality of training cases,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - each of the layers including one or more feature detectors,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - and each of the feature detectors having a corresponding set of weights,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - wherein training the neural network on the plurality of training cases comprises, for each of the training cases respectively:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - determining one or more feature detectors to disable during processing of the training case,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - disabling the one or more feature detectors in accordance with the determining,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - and processing the training case using the neural network with the one or more feature detectors disabled to generate a predicted output for the training case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Priority Date for this patent application is December 24, 2012, so any material that is intended to serve as Prior Art must be publicly available prior to that date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Early Disclosure**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hinton did disclose Dropout prior to the Priority Date of the application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Improving neural networks by preventing co-adaptation of feature detectors*][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Geoffrey E. Hinton, Nitish Srivastava, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, Ruslan R. Salakhutdinov&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Submitted on 3 Jul 2012)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When a large feedforward neural network is trained on a small training set, it typically performs poorly on held-out test data. This &quot;overfitting&quot; is greatly reduced by randomly omitting half of the feature detectors on each training case. This prevents complex co-adaptations in which a feature detector is only helpful in the context of several other specific feature detectors. Instead, each neuron learns to detect a feature that is generally helpful for producing the correct answer given the combinatorially large variety of internal contexts in which it must operate. Random &quot;dropout&quot; gives big improvements on many benchmark tasks and sets new records for speech and object recognition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a second version of the publication has been available since July 7, 2012 on [Hinton's publications page][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither document mentions that the method is proprietary or subject to patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, since Hinton is the inventor, I believe he still had the ability to within one year of first disclosure, which would move the literature search on his work back to December 23, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Prior Art search for those not listed as inventors on the application would still be valid to December 23, 2012. That might include the literature below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possible Prior Art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A Basic Introduction to Feedforward Backpropagation Neural Networks][6] (2009)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Weight values associated with individual nodes are also known as biases. Weight values are determined by the iterative flow of training data through the network (i.e., weight values are established during a training phase in which the network learns how to identify particular classes by their typical input data characteristics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Fast Network Pruning and Feature Extraction by using the Unit-OBS Algorithm][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. Stahlberger and M. Riedmiller 1997&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unit-OBS has two main advantages: First it is a fast algorithm to prune big nets, because whole units are removed in every step instead of slow pruning weight by weight. On the other side it can be used to do a feature extraction on the input data by removing unimportant  input units. This is helpful for the understanding of unknown problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Pruning Algorithms-A Survey][8] 1993&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mozer and Smolensky [19] describe a method which estimates which units are least important and deletes them during training.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[CS181 Lecture 12 - Neural Network Model Selection][9] March 1, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There's a tradeoff in the number of hidden units used in a neural network. With too few hidden units, the hypothesis space might not be rich enough to represent the actual function being learned, which means that the network might underfit the data. On the other hand, more hidden units means more weights to learn, and makes it more likely that the network will overfit the data. This leads to the question: how many hidden units should we use? In addition, for a given number of hidden units, we could choose to remove some of the edges between the different layers - how many edges should we have in our network?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Remove or disable some connection in Neural Netwrok][10] October 9, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think I can initiate half of the weights of in the network to be zero, and if I can use some training methods that will tune the weight according to the initial weight (just like in every epoch, the new weights are the sum of the current weights and a factor times the current weights), then the weight that equals to 0 initially will keep being 0 finally, that may more or less like those connections are disabled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I just want to remove some connections from a input unit to show hidden unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That is why i want to remove half of them so that it will be 'fair' to all this three models.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; intialize and reinitialize the I1-&gt;H2 and I2-&gt;H1 weights to zero after every epoch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140180986#legal-events&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cnet.com/news/google-snaps-up-object-recognition-startup-dnnresearch/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hinton/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.0580&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hinton/papers.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.webpages.ttu.edu/dleverin/neural_network/neural_networks.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://papers.nips.cc/paper/1233-fast-network-pruning-and-feature-extraction-by-using-the-unit-obs-algorithm.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://axon.cs.byu.edu/~martinez/classes/678/Papers/Reed_PruningSurvey.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic539621.files/lec12.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://cn.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/newsreader/view_thread/262572" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13206" RevisionGUID="1179e914-abf7-407a-80d5-629a9c99431e" CreationDate="2015-07-20T16:44:59.453" UserId="14417" Comment="Added prior art." Text="Google is not the company that filed the application. If you examine the [Legal Events][1], the application for this patent was originally filed by a Canadian startup company affiliated with the University of Toronto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST&#xD;&#xA;    ASSIGNOR:THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO&#xD;&#xA;    Effective date: 20130311&#xD;&#xA;    Owner name: DNNRESEARCH INC., CANADA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google acquired DNN Research, Inc.][2] shortly after the patent was filed, which means it had been in development for some time prior to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One additional fact to note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Google previously awarded Hinton's research group $600,000, the University of Toronto added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are looking for prior art on this application (it has not yet granted), a good place to start would be to read through [the inventor's academic publications][3], as well as the publications of conference proceedings that members of his startup attended prior to March 11, 2013. You might specifically focus on publications from 2011 to late 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any prior art would only need to cover the three independent claims in the application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 2.** A computer-implemented method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - obtaining a plurality of training cases;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and training a neural network having a plurality of layers on the plurality of training cases,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - each of the layers including one or more feature detectors,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - and each of the feature detectors having a corresponding set of weights,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - wherein training the neural network on the plurality of training cases comprises, for each of the training cases respectively:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - determining one or more feature detectors to disable during processing of the training case,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - disabling the one or more feature detectors in accordance with the determining,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - and processing the training case using the neural network with the one or more feature detectors disabled to generate a predicted output for the training case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 11.** A system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - obtaining a plurality of training cases;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and training a neural network having a plurality of layers on the plurality of training cases,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - each of the layers including one or more feature detectors,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - and each of the feature detectors having a corresponding set of weights,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - wherein training the neural network on the plurality of training cases comprises, for each of the training cases respectively:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - determining one or more feature detectors to disable during processing of the training case,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - disabling the one or more feature detectors in accordance with the determining,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - and processing the training case using the neural network with the one or more feature detectors disabled to generate a predicted output for the training case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 20.** A computer storage medium encoded with a computer program, the program comprising instructions that when executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - obtaining a plurality of training cases;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and training a neural network having a plurality of layers on the plurality of training cases,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - each of the layers including one or more feature detectors,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - and each of the feature detectors having a corresponding set of weights,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - wherein training the neural network on the plurality of training cases comprises, for each of the training cases respectively:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - determining one or more feature detectors to disable during processing of the training case,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - disabling the one or more feature detectors in accordance with the determining,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - and processing the training case using the neural network with the one or more feature detectors disabled to generate a predicted output for the training case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Priority Date for this patent application is December 24, 2012, so any material that is intended to serve as Prior Art must be publicly available prior to that date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Early Disclosure**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hinton did disclose Dropout prior to the Priority Date of the application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Improving neural networks by preventing co-adaptation of feature detectors*][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Geoffrey E. Hinton, Nitish Srivastava, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, Ruslan R. Salakhutdinov&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Submitted on 3 Jul 2012)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When a large feedforward neural network is trained on a small training set, it typically performs poorly on held-out test data. This &quot;overfitting&quot; is greatly reduced by randomly omitting half of the feature detectors on each training case. This prevents complex co-adaptations in which a feature detector is only helpful in the context of several other specific feature detectors. Instead, each neuron learns to detect a feature that is generally helpful for producing the correct answer given the combinatorially large variety of internal contexts in which it must operate. Random &quot;dropout&quot; gives big improvements on many benchmark tasks and sets new records for speech and object recognition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a second version of the publication has been available since July 7, 2012 on [Hinton's publications page][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither document mentions that the method is proprietary or subject to patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, since Hinton is the inventor, I believe he still had the ability to within one year of first disclosure, which would move the literature search on his work back to December 23, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Prior Art search for those not listed as inventors on the application would still be valid to December 23, 2012. That might include the literature below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possible Prior Art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A Basic Introduction to Feedforward Backpropagation Neural Networks][6] (2009)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Weight values associated with individual nodes are also known as biases. Weight values are determined by the iterative flow of training data through the network (i.e., weight values are established during a training phase in which the network learns how to identify particular classes by their typical input data characteristics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Fast Network Pruning and Feature Extraction by using the Unit-OBS Algorithm][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. Stahlberger and M. Riedmiller 1997&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unit-OBS has two main advantages: First it is a fast algorithm to prune big nets, because whole units are removed in every step instead of slow pruning weight by weight. On the other side it can be used to do a feature extraction on the input data by removing unimportant  input units. This is helpful for the understanding of unknown problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Pruning Algorithms-A Survey][8] 1993&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mozer and Smolensky [19] describe a method which estimates which units are least important and deletes them during training.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;M. C. Mozer and P. Smolensky. 1989. [Skeletonization: A technique for trimming the fat from a network via relevance assessment][9] in *Advances in Neural Information Processing* (1), D.S. Touretzky, Ed. (Denver 1988), pp. 107-115.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This paper proposes a means of using the knowledge in a network to determine the functionality or relevance of individual units, both for the purpose of understanding the network's behavior and improving its performance. The basic idea is to iteratively train the network to a certain performance criterion, compute a measure of relevance that identifies which input or hidden units are most critical to performance, and automatically trim the least relevant units. This skeletonization technique can be used to simplify networks by eliminating units that convey redundant information; to improve learning performance by first learning with spare hidden units and then trimming the unnecessary ones away, thereby constraining generalization; and to understand the behavior of networks in terms of minimal &quot;rules.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[CS181 Lecture 12 - Neural Network Model Selection][10] March 1, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There's a tradeoff in the number of hidden units used in a neural network. With too few hidden units, the hypothesis space might not be rich enough to represent the actual function being learned, which means that the network might underfit the data. On the other hand, more hidden units means more weights to learn, and makes it more likely that the network will overfit the data. This leads to the question: how many hidden units should we use? In addition, for a given number of hidden units, we could choose to remove some of the edges between the different layers - how many edges should we have in our network?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Remove or disable some connection in Neural Netwrok][11] October 9, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think I can initiate half of the weights of in the network to be zero, and if I can use some training methods that will tune the weight according to the initial weight (just like in every epoch, the new weights are the sum of the current weights and a factor times the current weights), then the weight that equals to 0 initially will keep being 0 finally, that may more or less like those connections are disabled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I just want to remove some connections from a input unit to show hidden unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That is why i want to remove half of them so that it will be 'fair' to all this three models.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; intialize and reinitialize the I1-&gt;H2 and I2-&gt;H1 weights to zero after every epoch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140180986#legal-events&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cnet.com/news/google-snaps-up-object-recognition-startup-dnnresearch/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hinton/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.0580&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hinton/papers.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.webpages.ttu.edu/dleverin/neural_network/neural_networks.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://papers.nips.cc/paper/1233-fast-network-pruning-and-feature-extraction-by-using-the-unit-obs-algorithm.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://axon.cs.byu.edu/~martinez/classes/678/Papers/Reed_PruningSurvey.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://papers.nips.cc/paper/119-skeletonization-a-technique-for-trimming-the-fat-from-a-network-via-relevance-assessment.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic539621.files/lec12.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://cn.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/newsreader/view_thread/262572" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13206" RevisionGUID="0adc1e9e-5106-4542-8197-d6700a5ef19b" CreationDate="2015-07-20T16:56:17.383" UserId="14417" Comment="Added prior art." Text="Google is not the company that filed the application. If you examine the [Legal Events][1], the application for this patent was originally filed by a Canadian startup company affiliated with the University of Toronto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST&#xD;&#xA;    ASSIGNOR:THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO&#xD;&#xA;    Effective date: 20130311&#xD;&#xA;    Owner name: DNNRESEARCH INC., CANADA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google acquired DNN Research, Inc.][2] shortly after the patent was filed, which means it had been in development for some time prior to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One additional fact to note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Google previously awarded Hinton's research group $600,000, the University of Toronto added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are looking for prior art on this application (it has not yet granted), a good place to start would be to read through [the inventor's academic publications][3], as well as the publications of conference proceedings that members of his startup attended prior to March 11, 2013. You might specifically focus on publications from 2011 to late 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any prior art would only need to cover the three independent claims in the application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 2.** A computer-implemented method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - obtaining a plurality of training cases;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and training a neural network having a plurality of layers on the plurality of training cases,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - each of the layers including one or more feature detectors,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - and each of the feature detectors having a corresponding set of weights,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - wherein training the neural network on the plurality of training cases comprises, for each of the training cases respectively:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - determining one or more feature detectors to disable during processing of the training case,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - disabling the one or more feature detectors in accordance with the determining,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - and processing the training case using the neural network with the one or more feature detectors disabled to generate a predicted output for the training case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 11.** A system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... repeated from Claim 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 20.** A computer storage medium encoded with a computer program, the program comprising instructions that when executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... repeated from Claim 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The independent claims are identical (Claim 2: Method, Claim 11: System, Claim 20: Hardware). To knock out all independent claims, you simply need to focus on the clauses of Claim 2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    obtaining a plurality of training cases;&#xD;&#xA;    and training a neural network having a plurality of layers on the plurality of training cases,&#xD;&#xA;        each of the layers including one or more feature detectors,&#xD;&#xA;        and each of the feature detectors having a corresponding set of weights,&#xD;&#xA;        wherein training the neural network on the plurality of training cases comprises, for each of the training cases respectively:&#xD;&#xA;            determining one or more feature detectors to disable during processing of the training case,&#xD;&#xA;            disabling the one or more feature detectors in accordance with the determining,&#xD;&#xA;            and processing the training case using the neural network with the one or more feature detectors disabled to generate a predicted output for the training case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Priority Date for this patent application is December 24, 2012, so any material that is intended to serve as Prior Art must be publicly available prior to that date. I have found no fewer than 5 individual articles that should each be able to individually serve as Prior Art for all independent claims in the method, the earliest being Mozer and Smolensky (1989). These independent claims are the same as their method, which they named &quot;skeletonization&quot;. I believe this one reference can be used as proof that Hinton was not first to invent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Early Disclosure**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hinton did disclose Dropout prior to the Priority Date of the application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Improving neural networks by preventing co-adaptation of feature detectors*][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Geoffrey E. Hinton, Nitish Srivastava, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, Ruslan R. Salakhutdinov&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Submitted on 3 Jul 2012)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When a large feedforward neural network is trained on a small training set, it typically performs poorly on held-out test data. This &quot;overfitting&quot; is greatly reduced by randomly omitting half of the feature detectors on each training case. This prevents complex co-adaptations in which a feature detector is only helpful in the context of several other specific feature detectors. Instead, each neuron learns to detect a feature that is generally helpful for producing the correct answer given the combinatorially large variety of internal contexts in which it must operate. Random &quot;dropout&quot; gives big improvements on many benchmark tasks and sets new records for speech and object recognition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a second version of the publication has been available since July 7, 2012 on [Hinton's publications page][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither document mentions that the method is proprietary or subject to patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, since Hinton is the inventor, I believe he still had the ability to within one year of first disclosure, which would move the literature search on his work back to December 23, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Prior Art search for those not listed as inventors on the application would still be valid to December 23, 2012. That might include the literature below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possible Prior Art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A Basic Introduction to Feedforward Backpropagation Neural Networks][6] (2009)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Weight values associated with individual nodes are also known as biases. Weight values are determined by the iterative flow of training data through the network (i.e., weight values are established during a training phase in which the network learns how to identify particular classes by their typical input data characteristics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Fast Network Pruning and Feature Extraction by using the Unit-OBS Algorithm][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. Stahlberger and M. Riedmiller 1997&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unit-OBS has two main advantages: First it is a fast algorithm to prune big nets, because whole units are removed in every step instead of slow pruning weight by weight. On the other side it can be used to do a feature extraction on the input data by removing unimportant  input units. This is helpful for the understanding of unknown problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Pruning Algorithms-A Survey][8] 1993&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mozer and Smolensky [19] describe a method which estimates which units are least important and deletes them during training.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;M. C. Mozer and P. Smolensky. 1989. [Skeletonization: A technique for trimming the fat from a network via relevance assessment][9] in *Advances in Neural Information Processing* (1), D.S. Touretzky, Ed. (Denver 1988), pp. 107-115.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This paper proposes a means of using the knowledge in a network to determine the functionality or relevance of individual units, both for the purpose of understanding the network's behavior and improving its performance. The basic idea is to iteratively train the network to a certain performance criterion, compute a measure of relevance that identifies which input or hidden units are most critical to performance, and automatically trim the least relevant units. This skeletonization technique can be used to simplify networks by eliminating units that convey redundant information; to improve learning performance by first learning with spare hidden units and then trimming the unnecessary ones away, thereby constraining generalization; and to understand the behavior of networks in terms of minimal &quot;rules.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[CS181 Lecture 12 - Neural Network Model Selection][10] March 1, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There's a tradeoff in the number of hidden units used in a neural network. With too few hidden units, the hypothesis space might not be rich enough to represent the actual function being learned, which means that the network might underfit the data. On the other hand, more hidden units means more weights to learn, and makes it more likely that the network will overfit the data. This leads to the question: how many hidden units should we use? In addition, for a given number of hidden units, we could choose to remove some of the edges between the different layers - how many edges should we have in our network?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Remove or disable some connection in Neural Netwrok][11] October 9, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think I can initiate half of the weights of in the network to be zero, and if I can use some training methods that will tune the weight according to the initial weight (just like in every epoch, the new weights are the sum of the current weights and a factor times the current weights), then the weight that equals to 0 initially will keep being 0 finally, that may more or less like those connections are disabled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I just want to remove some connections from a input unit to show hidden unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That is why i want to remove half of them so that it will be 'fair' to all this three models.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; intialize and reinitialize the I1-&gt;H2 and I2-&gt;H1 weights to zero after every epoch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140180986#legal-events&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cnet.com/news/google-snaps-up-object-recognition-startup-dnnresearch/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hinton/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.0580&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hinton/papers.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.webpages.ttu.edu/dleverin/neural_network/neural_networks.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://papers.nips.cc/paper/1233-fast-network-pruning-and-feature-extraction-by-using-the-unit-obs-algorithm.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://axon.cs.byu.edu/~martinez/classes/678/Papers/Reed_PruningSurvey.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://papers.nips.cc/paper/119-skeletonization-a-technique-for-trimming-the-fat-from-a-network-via-relevance-assessment.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic539621.files/lec12.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://cn.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/newsreader/view_thread/262572" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13243" RevisionGUID="2e5524f5-6832-4a13-8afd-373c659095e7" CreationDate="2015-07-20T17:27:01.213" UserId="14634" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140091685][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140091685&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a provisional application with the USPTO from 1994 for this invention which HAS been to market already.  How is it that my initial invention has been allowed to be patented AFTER the fact and sold?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I know a provisional is does not grant me protection, the fact that this has been sold with this exact design excludes anyone from patenting it henceforth, correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to speak with Mark Greenwood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31445" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13243" RevisionGUID="2e5524f5-6832-4a13-8afd-373c659095e7" CreationDate="2015-07-20T17:27:01.213" UserId="14634" Text="Prior Art and Patent After-The-Fact" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31446" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13243" RevisionGUID="2e5524f5-6832-4a13-8afd-373c659095e7" CreationDate="2015-07-20T17:27:01.213" UserId="14634" Text="&lt;us20140091685&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13203" RevisionGUID="184df008-dd26-47b3-b5b9-a1e242693df2" CreationDate="2015-07-20T19:21:56.673" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved title and tags, added title of patent." Text="In reference to the design patent: [US D680,805][1] &quot;Wide mouth flask&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So any flask or bottles like these can't have this type of cap?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD680805" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31448" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13203" RevisionGUID="184df008-dd26-47b3-b5b9-a1e242693df2" CreationDate="2015-07-20T19:21:56.673" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved title and tags, added title of patent." Text="What is the scope of US D680,805 &quot;Wide mouth flask&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31449" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13203" RevisionGUID="184df008-dd26-47b3-b5b9-a1e242693df2" CreationDate="2015-07-20T19:21:56.673" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved title and tags, added title of patent." Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;scope&gt;&lt;usd680805&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31450" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13203" RevisionGUID="184df008-dd26-47b3-b5b9-a1e242693df2" CreationDate="2015-07-20T19:21:56.673" Comment="Proposed by 14417 approved by 14016, 10011 edit id of 1844" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13157" RevisionGUID="c0173690-7841-4d6e-8f83-f8e4be4afe25" CreationDate="2015-07-20T19:31:13.403" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected tag." Text="Google is attempting to patent well known concepts in the field of machine learning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone provide prior art for [WO 2014/105866 A1][1] ([US 2014/0180986][2]), &quot;System and method for addressing overfitting in a neural network&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2014105866&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20140180986&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2014105866" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31452" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13157" RevisionGUID="c0173690-7841-4d6e-8f83-f8e4be4afe25" CreationDate="2015-07-20T19:31:13.403" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected tag." Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20140180986&gt;&lt;wo2014105866a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13206" RevisionGUID="a64bfb67-1f62-4ffe-8205-41e944df8240" CreationDate="2015-07-20T22:09:00.947" UserId="14417" Comment="Updated to reflect submissions to USPTO." Text="Google is not the company that filed the application. If you examine the [Legal Events][1], the application for this patent was originally filed by a Canadian startup company affiliated with the University of Toronto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST&#xD;&#xA;    ASSIGNOR:THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO&#xD;&#xA;    Effective date: 20130311&#xD;&#xA;    Owner name: DNNRESEARCH INC., CANADA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google acquired DNN Research, Inc.][2] shortly after the patent was filed, which means it had been in development for some time prior to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One additional fact to note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Google previously awarded Hinton's research group $600,000, the University of Toronto added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are looking for prior art on this application (it has not yet granted), a good place to start would be to read through [the inventor's academic publications][3], as well as the publications of conference proceedings that members of his startup attended prior to March 11, 2013. You might specifically focus on publications from 2011 to late 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any prior art would only need to cover the three independent claims in the application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 2.** A computer-implemented method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - obtaining a plurality of training cases;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and training a neural network having a plurality of layers on the plurality of training cases,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - each of the layers including one or more feature detectors,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - and each of the feature detectors having a corresponding set of weights,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - wherein training the neural network on the plurality of training cases comprises, for each of the training cases respectively:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - determining one or more feature detectors to disable during processing of the training case,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - disabling the one or more feature detectors in accordance with the determining,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - and processing the training case using the neural network with the one or more feature detectors disabled to generate a predicted output for the training case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 11.** A system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... repeated from Claim 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 20.** A computer storage medium encoded with a computer program, the program comprising instructions that when executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... repeated from Claim 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The independent claims are identical (Claim 2: Method, Claim 11: System, Claim 20: Hardware). To knock out all independent claims, you simply need to focus on the clauses of Claim 2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    obtaining a plurality of training cases;&#xD;&#xA;    and training a neural network having a plurality of layers on the plurality of training cases,&#xD;&#xA;        each of the layers including one or more feature detectors,&#xD;&#xA;        and each of the feature detectors having a corresponding set of weights,&#xD;&#xA;        wherein training the neural network on the plurality of training cases comprises, for each of the training cases respectively:&#xD;&#xA;            determining one or more feature detectors to disable during processing of the training case,&#xD;&#xA;            disabling the one or more feature detectors in accordance with the determining,&#xD;&#xA;            and processing the training case using the neural network with the one or more feature detectors disabled to generate a predicted output for the training case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Priority Date for this patent application is December 24, 2012, so any material that is intended to serve as Prior Art must be publicly available prior to that date. I have found no fewer than 5 individual articles that should each be able to individually serve as Prior Art for all independent claims in the method, the earliest being Mozer and Smolensky (1989). These independent claims are the same as their method, which they named &quot;skeletonization&quot;. I believe this one reference can be used as proof that Hinton was not first to invent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Early Disclosure**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hinton did disclose Dropout prior to the Priority Date of the application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Improving neural networks by preventing co-adaptation of feature detectors*][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Geoffrey E. Hinton, Nitish Srivastava, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, Ruslan R. Salakhutdinov&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Submitted on 3 Jul 2012)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When a large feedforward neural network is trained on a small training set, it typically performs poorly on held-out test data. This &quot;overfitting&quot; is greatly reduced by randomly omitting half of the feature detectors on each training case. This prevents complex co-adaptations in which a feature detector is only helpful in the context of several other specific feature detectors. Instead, each neuron learns to detect a feature that is generally helpful for producing the correct answer given the combinatorially large variety of internal contexts in which it must operate. Random &quot;dropout&quot; gives big improvements on many benchmark tasks and sets new records for speech and object recognition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a second version of the publication has been available since July 7, 2012 on [Hinton's publications page][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither document mentions that the method is proprietary or subject to patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, since Hinton is the inventor, I believe he still had the ability to within one year of first disclosure, which would move the literature search on his work back to December 23, 2011. Of particular note is that the European rules have a limit of 6 months for non-judicial disclosures. The time interval from the July 2, 2012 non-judicial disclosure to the December 24, 2012 Priority Date is 176 days. If anyone can find an earlier disclosure (even 5 days earlier), then the European patent application may be rejected on [EPC Article 55 (Non-prejudicial disclosures)][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;The Prior Art search for those not listed as inventors on the application would still be valid to December 23, 2012. That might include the literature below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prior Art:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**Submitted to USPTO as Prior Art on July 20, 2015**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - M. C. Mozer and P. Smolensky. 1989. [Skeletonization: A technique for trimming the fat from a network via relevance assessment][10] in *Advances in Neural Information Processing* (1), D.S. Touretzky, Ed. (Denver 1988), pp. 107-115.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This paper proposes a means of using the knowledge in a network to determine the functionality or relevance of individual units, both for the purpose of understanding the network's behavior and improving its performance. The basic idea is to iteratively train the network to a certain performance criterion, compute a measure of relevance that identifies which input or hidden units are most critical to performance, and automatically trim the least relevant units. This skeletonization technique can be used to simplify networks by eliminating units that convey redundant information; to improve learning performance by first learning with spare hidden units and then trimming the unnecessary ones away, thereby constraining generalization; and to understand the behavior of networks in terms of minimal &quot;rules.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**Submitted to USPTO as Prior Art on July 20, 2015**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A. Stahlberger and M. Riedmiller, 1997. [Fast Network Pruning and Feature Extraction by using the Unit-OBS Algorithm][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unit-OBS has two main advantages: First it is a fast algorithm to prune big nets, because whole units are removed in every step instead of slow pruning weight by weight. On the other side it can be used to do a feature extraction on the input data by removing unimportant  input units. This is helpful for the understanding of unknown problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**Submitted to USPTO as Prior Art on July 20, 2015**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Remove or disable some connection in Neural Netwrok][12] October 9, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think I can initiate half of the weights of in the network to be zero, and if I can use some training methods that will tune the weight according to the initial weight (just like in every epoch, the new weights are the sum of the current weights and a factor times the current weights), then the weight that equals to 0 initially will keep being 0 finally, that may more or less like those connections are disabled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I just want to remove some connections from a input unit to show hidden unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That is why i want to remove half of them so that it will be 'fair' to all this three models.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; intialize and reinitialize the I1-&gt;H2 and I2-&gt;H1 weights to zero after every epoch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**The following have not yet been submitted to USPTO as Prior Art:**&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [A Basic Introduction to Feedforward Backpropagation Neural Networks][7] (2009)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Weight values associated with individual nodes are also known as biases. Weight values are determined by the iterative flow of training data through the network (i.e., weight values are established during a training phase in which the network learns how to identify particular classes by their typical input data characteristics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Pruning Algorithms-A Survey][9] 1993&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mozer and Smolensky [19] describe a method which estimates which units are least important and deletes them during training.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [CS181 Lecture 12 - Neural Network Model Selection][11] March 1, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There's a tradeoff in the number of hidden units used in a neural network. With too few hidden units, the hypothesis space might not be rich enough to represent the actual function being learned, which means that the network might underfit the data. On the other hand, more hidden units means more weights to learn, and makes it more likely that the network will overfit the data. This leads to the question: how many hidden units should we use? In addition, for a given number of hidden units, we could choose to remove some of the edges between the different layers - how many edges should we have in our network?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140180986#legal-events&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cnet.com/news/google-snaps-up-object-recognition-startup-dnnresearch/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hinton/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.0580&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hinton/papers.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/ar55.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.webpages.ttu.edu/dleverin/neural_network/neural_networks.html&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://papers.nips.cc/paper/1233-fast-network-pruning-and-feature-extraction-by-using-the-unit-obs-algorithm.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://axon.cs.byu.edu/~martinez/classes/678/Papers/Reed_PruningSurvey.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://papers.nips.cc/paper/119-skeletonization-a-technique-for-trimming-the-fat-from-a-network-via-relevance-assessment.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic539621.files/lec12.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://cn.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/newsreader/view_thread/262572" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13244" RevisionGUID="28961146-ec20-417c-aff7-218e2b95617f" CreationDate="2015-07-20T22:38:25.420" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13245" RevisionGUID="4989a778-0cc1-4e05-b200-7ef82461a3e0" CreationDate="2015-07-20T22:38:25.420" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31456" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13157" RevisionGUID="15240771-1c16-48aa-acf8-7b47569b03a8" CreationDate="2015-07-20T22:41:44.663" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag for google." Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;google&gt;&lt;wo2014105866a1&gt;&lt;us20140180986&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13206" RevisionGUID="bd9a186b-3e56-474d-b1cd-721c93707bf7" CreationDate="2015-07-20T23:26:52.093" UserId="14417" Comment="Added timestamps for early public disclosure." Text="Google is not the company that filed the application. If you examine the [Legal Events][1], the application for this patent was originally filed by a Canadian startup company affiliated with the University of Toronto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST&#xD;&#xA;    ASSIGNOR:THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO&#xD;&#xA;    Effective date: 20130311&#xD;&#xA;    Owner name: DNNRESEARCH INC., CANADA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google acquired DNN Research, Inc.][2] shortly after the patent was filed, which means it had been in development for some time prior to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One additional fact to note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Google previously awarded Hinton's research group $600,000, the University of Toronto added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are looking for prior art on this application (it has not yet granted), a good place to start would be to read through [the inventor's academic publications][3], as well as the publications of conference proceedings that members of his startup attended prior to March 11, 2013. You might specifically focus on publications from 2011 to late 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any prior art would only need to cover the three independent claims in the application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 2.** A computer-implemented method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - obtaining a plurality of training cases;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and training a neural network having a plurality of layers on the plurality of training cases,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - each of the layers including one or more feature detectors,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - and each of the feature detectors having a corresponding set of weights,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - wherein training the neural network on the plurality of training cases comprises, for each of the training cases respectively:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - determining one or more feature detectors to disable during processing of the training case,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - disabling the one or more feature detectors in accordance with the determining,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - and processing the training case using the neural network with the one or more feature detectors disabled to generate a predicted output for the training case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 11.** A system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... repeated from Claim 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 20.** A computer storage medium encoded with a computer program, the program comprising instructions that when executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... repeated from Claim 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The independent claims are identical (Claim 2: Method, Claim 11: System, Claim 20: Hardware). To knock out all independent claims, you simply need to focus on the clauses of Claim 2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    obtaining a plurality of training cases;&#xD;&#xA;    and training a neural network having a plurality of layers on the plurality of training cases,&#xD;&#xA;        each of the layers including one or more feature detectors,&#xD;&#xA;        and each of the feature detectors having a corresponding set of weights,&#xD;&#xA;        wherein training the neural network on the plurality of training cases comprises, for each of the training cases respectively:&#xD;&#xA;            determining one or more feature detectors to disable during processing of the training case,&#xD;&#xA;            disabling the one or more feature detectors in accordance with the determining,&#xD;&#xA;            and processing the training case using the neural network with the one or more feature detectors disabled to generate a predicted output for the training case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Priority Date for this patent application is December 24, 2012, so any material that is intended to serve as Prior Art must be publicly available prior to that date. I have found no fewer than 5 individual articles that should each be able to individually serve as Prior Art for all independent claims in the method, the earliest being Mozer and Smolensky (1989). These independent claims are the same as their method, which they named &quot;skeletonization&quot;. I believe this one reference can be used as proof that Hinton was not first to invent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Early Disclosure**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hinton did disclose Dropout prior to the Priority Date of the application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Improving neural networks by preventing co-adaptation of feature detectors*][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Geoffrey E. Hinton, Nitish Srivastava, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, Ruslan R. Salakhutdinov&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The arXiV record was created on July 3, 2012 02:35:15 EDT, and the earliest document timestamp I have is 7/2/2012 11:25:24 PM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When a large feedforward neural network is trained on a small training set, it typically performs poorly on held-out test data. This &quot;overfitting&quot; is greatly reduced by randomly omitting half of the feature detectors on each training case. This prevents complex co-adaptations in which a feature detector is only helpful in the context of several other specific feature detectors. Instead, each neuron learns to detect a feature that is generally helpful for producing the correct answer given the combinatorially large variety of internal contexts in which it must operate. Random &quot;dropout&quot; gives big improvements on many benchmark tasks and sets new records for speech and object recognition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a second version of the publication has been available since July 7, 2012 on [Hinton's publications page][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither document mentions that the method is proprietary or subject to patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, since Hinton is the inventor, I believe he still had the ability to within one year of first disclosure, which would move the literature search on his work back to December 23, 2011. Of particular note is that the European rules have a limit of 6 months for non-judicial disclosures. The time interval from the July 2, 2012 non-judicial disclosure to the December 24, 2012 Priority Date is 176 days. If anyone can find an earlier disclosure (even 5 days earlier), then the European patent application may be rejected on [EPC Article 55 (Non-prejudicial disclosures)][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;The Prior Art search for those not listed as inventors on the application would still be valid to December 23, 2012. That might include the literature below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prior Art:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**Submitted to USPTO as Prior Art on July 20, 2015**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - M. C. Mozer and P. Smolensky. 1989. [Skeletonization: A technique for trimming the fat from a network via relevance assessment][10] in *Advances in Neural Information Processing* (1), D.S. Touretzky, Ed. (Denver 1988), pp. 107-115.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This paper proposes a means of using the knowledge in a network to determine the functionality or relevance of individual units, both for the purpose of understanding the network's behavior and improving its performance. The basic idea is to iteratively train the network to a certain performance criterion, compute a measure of relevance that identifies which input or hidden units are most critical to performance, and automatically trim the least relevant units. This skeletonization technique can be used to simplify networks by eliminating units that convey redundant information; to improve learning performance by first learning with spare hidden units and then trimming the unnecessary ones away, thereby constraining generalization; and to understand the behavior of networks in terms of minimal &quot;rules.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**Submitted to USPTO as Prior Art on July 20, 2015**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A. Stahlberger and M. Riedmiller, 1997. [Fast Network Pruning and Feature Extraction by using the Unit-OBS Algorithm][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unit-OBS has two main advantages: First it is a fast algorithm to prune big nets, because whole units are removed in every step instead of slow pruning weight by weight. On the other side it can be used to do a feature extraction on the input data by removing unimportant  input units. This is helpful for the understanding of unknown problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**Submitted to USPTO as Prior Art on July 20, 2015**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Remove or disable some connection in Neural Netwrok][12] October 9, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think I can initiate half of the weights of in the network to be zero, and if I can use some training methods that will tune the weight according to the initial weight (just like in every epoch, the new weights are the sum of the current weights and a factor times the current weights), then the weight that equals to 0 initially will keep being 0 finally, that may more or less like those connections are disabled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I just want to remove some connections from a input unit to show hidden unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That is why i want to remove half of them so that it will be 'fair' to all this three models.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; intialize and reinitialize the I1-&gt;H2 and I2-&gt;H1 weights to zero after every epoch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**The following have not yet been submitted to USPTO as Prior Art:**&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [A Basic Introduction to Feedforward Backpropagation Neural Networks][7] (2009)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Weight values associated with individual nodes are also known as biases. Weight values are determined by the iterative flow of training data through the network (i.e., weight values are established during a training phase in which the network learns how to identify particular classes by their typical input data characteristics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Pruning Algorithms-A Survey][9] 1993&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mozer and Smolensky [19] describe a method which estimates which units are least important and deletes them during training.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [CS181 Lecture 12 - Neural Network Model Selection][11] March 1, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There's a tradeoff in the number of hidden units used in a neural network. With too few hidden units, the hypothesis space might not be rich enough to represent the actual function being learned, which means that the network might underfit the data. On the other hand, more hidden units means more weights to learn, and makes it more likely that the network will overfit the data. This leads to the question: how many hidden units should we use? In addition, for a given number of hidden units, we could choose to remove some of the edges between the different layers - how many edges should we have in our network?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140180986#legal-events&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cnet.com/news/google-snaps-up-object-recognition-startup-dnnresearch/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hinton/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.0580&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hinton/papers.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/ar55.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.webpages.ttu.edu/dleverin/neural_network/neural_networks.html&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://papers.nips.cc/paper/1233-fast-network-pruning-and-feature-extraction-by-using-the-unit-obs-algorithm.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://axon.cs.byu.edu/~martinez/classes/678/Papers/Reed_PruningSurvey.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://papers.nips.cc/paper/119-skeletonization-a-technique-for-trimming-the-fat-from-a-network-via-relevance-assessment.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic539621.files/lec12.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://cn.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/newsreader/view_thread/262572" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13206" RevisionGUID="64ba60e6-9938-4235-a034-022864d91a3b" CreationDate="2015-07-20T23:46:03.217" UserId="14417" Comment="Clarified history of the company that filed the application." Text="Google is not the company that filed the application. If you examine the [Legal Events][1], the application for this patent was originally filed by a Canadian startup company affiliated with the University of Toronto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST&#xD;&#xA;    ASSIGNOR:THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO&#xD;&#xA;    Effective date: 20130311&#xD;&#xA;    Owner name: DNNRESEARCH INC., CANADA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[DNNresearch, Inc.][3] was incorporated on November 21, 2012 and was [acquired by Google][2] on March 12, 2013. The provisional patent application was filed on December 24, 2012. Note the Christmas Eve filing date - if they had waited until after the holidays, they would have lost the ability to file a European Patent due to an early public disclosure, described below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One additional fact to note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Google previously awarded Hinton's research group $600,000, the University of Toronto added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are looking for prior art on this application (it has not yet granted), a good place to start would be to read through [the inventor's academic publications][4], as well as the publications of conference proceedings that members of his startup attended prior to March 11, 2013. You might specifically focus on publications from 2011 to late 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any prior art would only need to cover the three independent claims in the application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 2.** A computer-implemented method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - obtaining a plurality of training cases;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and training a neural network having a plurality of layers on the plurality of training cases,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - each of the layers including one or more feature detectors,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - and each of the feature detectors having a corresponding set of weights,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - wherein training the neural network on the plurality of training cases comprises, for each of the training cases respectively:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - determining one or more feature detectors to disable during processing of the training case,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - disabling the one or more feature detectors in accordance with the determining,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - and processing the training case using the neural network with the one or more feature detectors disabled to generate a predicted output for the training case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 11.** A system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... repeated from Claim 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 20.** A computer storage medium encoded with a computer program, the program comprising instructions that when executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... repeated from Claim 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The independent claims are identical (Claim 2: Method, Claim 11: System, Claim 20: Hardware). To knock out all independent claims, you simply need to focus on the clauses of Claim 2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    obtaining a plurality of training cases;&#xD;&#xA;    and training a neural network having a plurality of layers on the plurality of training cases,&#xD;&#xA;        each of the layers including one or more feature detectors,&#xD;&#xA;        and each of the feature detectors having a corresponding set of weights,&#xD;&#xA;        wherein training the neural network on the plurality of training cases comprises, for each of the training cases respectively:&#xD;&#xA;            determining one or more feature detectors to disable during processing of the training case,&#xD;&#xA;            disabling the one or more feature detectors in accordance with the determining,&#xD;&#xA;            and processing the training case using the neural network with the one or more feature detectors disabled to generate a predicted output for the training case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Priority Date for this patent application is December 24, 2012, so any material that is intended to serve as Prior Art must be publicly available prior to that date. I have found no fewer than 5 individual articles that should each be able to individually serve as Prior Art for all independent claims in the method, the earliest being Mozer and Smolensky (1989). These independent claims are the same as their method, which they named &quot;skeletonization&quot;. I believe this one reference can be used as proof that Hinton was not first to invent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Early Disclosure**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hinton did disclose Dropout prior to the Priority Date of the application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Improving neural networks by preventing co-adaptation of feature detectors*][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Geoffrey E. Hinton, Nitish Srivastava, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, Ruslan R. Salakhutdinov&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The arXiV record was created on July 3, 2012 02:35:15 EDT, and the earliest document timestamp I have is 7/2/2012 11:25:24 PM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When a large feedforward neural network is trained on a small training set, it typically performs poorly on held-out test data. This &quot;overfitting&quot; is greatly reduced by randomly omitting half of the feature detectors on each training case. This prevents complex co-adaptations in which a feature detector is only helpful in the context of several other specific feature detectors. Instead, each neuron learns to detect a feature that is generally helpful for producing the correct answer given the combinatorially large variety of internal contexts in which it must operate. Random &quot;dropout&quot; gives big improvements on many benchmark tasks and sets new records for speech and object recognition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a second version of the publication has been available since July 7, 2012 on [Hinton's publications page][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither document mentions that the method is proprietary or subject to patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, since Hinton is the inventor, I believe he still had the ability to within one year of first disclosure, which would move the literature search on his work back to December 23, 2011. Of particular note is that the European rules have a limit of 6 months for non-judicial disclosures. The time interval from the July 2, 2012 non-judicial disclosure to the December 24, 2012 Priority Date is 176 days. If anyone can find an earlier disclosure (even 5 days earlier), then the European patent application may be rejected on [EPC Article 55 (Non-prejudicial disclosures)][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;The Prior Art search for those not listed as inventors on the application would still be valid to December 23, 2012. That might include the literature below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prior Art:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**Submitted to USPTO as Prior Art on July 20, 2015**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - M. C. Mozer and P. Smolensky. 1989. [Skeletonization: A technique for trimming the fat from a network via relevance assessment][8] in *Advances in Neural Information Processing* (1), D.S. Touretzky, Ed. (Denver 1988), pp. 107-115.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This paper proposes a means of using the knowledge in a network to determine the functionality or relevance of individual units, both for the purpose of understanding the network's behavior and improving its performance. The basic idea is to iteratively train the network to a certain performance criterion, compute a measure of relevance that identifies which input or hidden units are most critical to performance, and automatically trim the least relevant units. This skeletonization technique can be used to simplify networks by eliminating units that convey redundant information; to improve learning performance by first learning with spare hidden units and then trimming the unnecessary ones away, thereby constraining generalization; and to understand the behavior of networks in terms of minimal &quot;rules.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**Submitted to USPTO as Prior Art on July 20, 2015**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A. Stahlberger and M. Riedmiller, 1997. [Fast Network Pruning and Feature Extraction by using the Unit-OBS Algorithm][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unit-OBS has two main advantages: First it is a fast algorithm to prune big nets, because whole units are removed in every step instead of slow pruning weight by weight. On the other side it can be used to do a feature extraction on the input data by removing unimportant  input units. This is helpful for the understanding of unknown problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**Submitted to USPTO as Prior Art on July 20, 2015**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Remove or disable some connection in Neural Netwrok][10] October 9, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think I can initiate half of the weights of in the network to be zero, and if I can use some training methods that will tune the weight according to the initial weight (just like in every epoch, the new weights are the sum of the current weights and a factor times the current weights), then the weight that equals to 0 initially will keep being 0 finally, that may more or less like those connections are disabled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I just want to remove some connections from a input unit to show hidden unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That is why i want to remove half of them so that it will be 'fair' to all this three models.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; intialize and reinitialize the I1-&gt;H2 and I2-&gt;H1 weights to zero after every epoch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**The following have not yet been submitted to USPTO as Prior Art:**&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [A Basic Introduction to Feedforward Backpropagation Neural Networks][11] (2009)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Weight values associated with individual nodes are also known as biases. Weight values are determined by the iterative flow of training data through the network (i.e., weight values are established during a training phase in which the network learns how to identify particular classes by their typical input data characteristics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Pruning Algorithms-A Survey][12] 1993&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mozer and Smolensky [19] describe a method which estimates which units are least important and deletes them during training.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [CS181 Lecture 12 - Neural Network Model Selection][13] March 1, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There's a tradeoff in the number of hidden units used in a neural network. With too few hidden units, the hypothesis space might not be rich enough to represent the actual function being learned, which means that the network might underfit the data. On the other hand, more hidden units means more weights to learn, and makes it more likely that the network will overfit the data. This leads to the question: how many hidden units should we use? In addition, for a given number of hidden units, we could choose to remove some of the edges between the different layers - how many edges should we have in our network?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140180986#legal-events&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cnet.com/news/google-snaps-up-object-recognition-startup-dnnresearch/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://opendatacanada.com/corporation.php?id=8356017&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hinton/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.0580&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hinton/papers.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/ar55.html&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://papers.nips.cc/paper/119-skeletonization-a-technique-for-trimming-the-fat-from-a-network-via-relevance-assessment.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://papers.nips.cc/paper/1233-fast-network-pruning-and-feature-extraction-by-using-the-unit-obs-algorithm.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://cn.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/newsreader/view_thread/262572&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.webpages.ttu.edu/dleverin/neural_network/neural_networks.html&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://axon.cs.byu.edu/~martinez/classes/678/Papers/Reed_PruningSurvey.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic539621.files/lec12.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13246" RevisionGUID="93c78ed6-53de-40f8-8a68-96182e233cd0" CreationDate="2015-07-21T00:41:00.010" UserId="14417" Text="A Provisional Application is not considered to be publicly disclosed, as it never published. Therefore, it cannot serve as Prior Art because it is not generally accessible. The Provisional is there as proof that you have created something novel in a particular area by a particular date, the Priority Date. If it had been a full application, it could serve as Prior Art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You probably have a document somewhere that provides your Provisional Patent Number and Priority Date from 1994. That could be helpful in establishing that you were the First to Invent. In order to have been included as an inventor based on the Provisional Application, you would have needed to submit the full application within a year of your Priority Date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this application has not yet been granted. This means there is still time to collect Prior Art and challenge the patent by first collecting Prior Art as described [here][1] and then (or concurrently) submitting the Prior Art to the USPTO as described [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to contact the inventor on this application, you should be able to find the information using the instructions in [this answer][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your last question on novelty, I'm going to give you a qualified &quot;yes&quot;, if there is Prior Art for everything in the application, then it may be enough to invalidate the entire application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there several other important points to consider before you even think about contacting the inventor. First, the claims are the most important section to look at, and in particular, the independent claims. Even if the background and figures read almost identically to an existing design, it is possible to get novel claim language granted. Without seeing the Prior Art, I have no way of answering that question more completely. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing to consider is that novelty is not defined as &quot;every part of a claim must be novel&quot;, but also like &quot;a novel combination of three or more existing things&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applications are often rejected on first examination over claims that are too broad or obvious over existing Prior Art. The inventor has the ability to revise claims after a rejection to attempt to work around the problems. This process may take years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/a/146/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/a/107/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/5351/14417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13243" RevisionGUID="3d19e757-8d25-4b9a-a13b-138cc4fb8ac7" CreationDate="2015-07-21T00:45:51.807" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, removed personal information and improved formatting." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 2014/0091685][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a provisional application with the USPTO from 1994 for this invention which *has* been to market already. How is it that my initial invention has been allowed to be patented *after the fact* and sold?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I know a provisional is does not grant me protection, the fact that this has been sold with this exact design excludes anyone from patenting it henceforth, correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to speak with the person who is listed as inventor on this application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140091685" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31461" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13243" RevisionGUID="3d19e757-8d25-4b9a-a13b-138cc4fb8ac7" CreationDate="2015-07-21T00:45:51.807" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, removed personal information and improved formatting." Text="Prior Art, an older Provisional Application and a new Patent Application (US 2014/0091685)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31462" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13243" RevisionGUID="3d19e757-8d25-4b9a-a13b-138cc4fb8ac7" CreationDate="2015-07-21T00:45:51.807" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, removed personal information and improved formatting." Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;us20140091685&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13246" RevisionGUID="063727fe-3969-46ca-99f4-dfa7dcd4f0eb" CreationDate="2015-07-21T00:50:28.513" UserId="14417" Comment="Clarified some points." Text="A Provisional Application is not considered to be publicly disclosed, as it never published. Therefore, it cannot serve as Prior Art because it is not generally accessible. The Provisional is there as proof that you have created something novel in a particular area by a particular date, the Priority Date. If it had been a full application, it could serve as Prior Art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You probably have a document somewhere that provides your Provisional Patent Number and Priority Date from 1994. That could be helpful in establishing that you were the First to Invent. In order to have been included as an inventor based on the Provisional Application, you would have needed to submit the full application within a year of your Priority Date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this application has not yet been granted. This means there is still time to collect Prior Art and challenge the patent by first collecting Prior Art as described [here][1] and then (or concurrently) submitting the Prior Art to the USPTO as described [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to contact the inventor on this application, you should be able to find the information using the instructions in [this answer][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your last question on novelty, I'm going to give you a qualified &quot;yes&quot;, if there is Prior Art for everything in the application, then it may be enough to invalidate the entire application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there several other important points to consider before you even think about contacting the inventor. First, the claims are the most important section to look at, and in particular, the independent claims. Even if the background and figures read almost identically to an existing design, it is possible to get novel claim language granted. Without seeing the Prior Art, I have no way of answering that question more completely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing to consider is that novelty is not defined as &quot;every part of a claim must be novel&quot;, but also like &quot;a novel combination of three or more existing things&quot;. You will want to have a very close look at the Independent Claims (Claim 1, Claim 10 and Claim 15) in this application. If an Independent Claim is invalidated, then all of its Dependent Claims will also be invalidated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applications are often rejected on first examination over claims that are too broad or obvious over existing Prior Art. The inventor has the ability to revise claims after a rejection through a series of Office Actions to attempt to work around the problems. This process may take years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/a/146/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/a/107/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/5351/14417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13247" RevisionGUID="6071521d-a0a6-4874-ae30-5461d939f572" CreationDate="2015-07-21T01:18:36.603" UserId="14636" Text="How do I protect two new ideas for getting fit? The work outs themselves are, for the most part, common practice in gyms during floor routines, aerobic classes, and step workouts. Only the surfaces on which I do them are my own answer to how to stay in shape, when it is painful to work out in/on conventional environments/surfaces.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31465" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13247" RevisionGUID="6071521d-a0a6-4874-ae30-5461d939f572" CreationDate="2015-07-21T01:18:36.603" UserId="14636" Text="how to I protect a new for of physical fitness, using conventional workout routines and moves, on an nonconventional surface?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31466" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13247" RevisionGUID="6071521d-a0a6-4874-ae30-5461d939f572" CreationDate="2015-07-21T01:18:36.603" UserId="14636" Text="&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12157" RevisionGUID="62dcd618-5252-4f74-83e3-294b6f71b50d" CreationDate="2015-07-21T01:30:43.333" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and corrected spelling." Text="15 years ago I filed a provisional patent to establish myself as first in line to patent an idea for a novel internet business. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I then submitted the idea (my working notes and flowchart) to a leading internet incubator without an NDA to see if they would be interested in outright purchase or development. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They declined and after the 2000 bubble eventually folded. However the VP that I spoke with would go on to have a stellar career in and around this idea of mine and during his tenure as CEO of a very large web company the latter Co. was granted a patent for my idea from 1999. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the week before I disclosed the idea (1999) I contacted a friend of a friend who was in a similar industry to get his opinion on what direction I should take vis-à-vis funding or selling the idea. I mention in the email that I was keen or excited about the upcoming phone conference with the incubator co. and I describe the idea in great working detail (beyond obvious) for his opinion, again without an NDA. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have retained copies of two of these lengthy conversations with him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I prove prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The provisional expired and it's not really my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am asking if the personal email dialogues I had with various individuals about the idea (strategies to go VC route or sell) can be considered as prior art? There were no NDA's and no confidential statements below the email signature. I spoke freely with these people to gain feedback/advice and trusted them because they were friends of friends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was an inventor's disclosure (Form 19-2), which I was told is no longer used by the US Patent Office but at that time was valid for 2 years. To my knowledge it was never published nor any record kept after expiry except for the copy that I hold. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31468" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12157" RevisionGUID="62dcd618-5252-4f74-83e3-294b6f71b50d" CreationDate="2015-07-21T01:30:43.333" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and corrected spelling." Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13247" RevisionGUID="64dbf627-dfed-417f-a796-c4dca4353b34" CreationDate="2015-07-21T02:29:21.217" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="How do I protect two new ideas for getting fit? The work outs themselves are, for the most part, common practice in gyms during floor routines, aerobic classes, and step workouts. Only the surfaces on which I do them are my own answer to how to stay in shape, when it is painful to work out in/on conventional environments/surfaces." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31470" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13247" RevisionGUID="64dbf627-dfed-417f-a796-c4dca4353b34" CreationDate="2015-07-21T02:29:21.217" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="How can I protect a new form of physical fitness, using conventional workout routines and moves, on an non-conventional surface?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31471" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13247" RevisionGUID="64dbf627-dfed-417f-a796-c4dca4353b34" CreationDate="2015-07-21T02:29:21.217" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13248" RevisionGUID="1d08afa3-0efe-428b-bc46-8eac2efa6f6a" CreationDate="2015-07-21T03:01:12.697" UserId="14417" Text="First off, don't disclose any more details about your ideas on the Internet, or to others with a non-disclosure agreement. Almost any public disclosure can be used as Prior Art, which is one way to invalidate patents. You need to keep this information confidential until you have a judicial disclosure (patent, trademark or copyright filing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, document your ideas in as much detail as possible. Collect anything you have written down, sketched on paper or napkins, whatever you have. If the documents have dates on them, even better. Write up any additional details and bring the whole bundle to a Notary to get them notarized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the legal work begins. You had marked your question only with the copyright tag, but I'm going to take it a step further so you know what your other options are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A copyright is good, especially if you have manuals, instructional videos or books. If you additionally have a name and logo, you will want to also seek a Trademark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you also have equipment and a method of using the equipment, you may want to additionally seek a combination of Design Patents and/or Utility Patents. There were some questions recently about the games &quot;[4 Square in the Air][1]&quot; and &quot;[9 Square in the Air][2]&quot;, which covered variations of an outdoor game with two extremely simple Design Patents for the equipment and one Utility Patent for the game(s) itself. I honestly don't know how well those would hold up to infringement, but they were all granted and should be instructive examples for you. For a Utility Patent (this might cover something like equipment and a method of using the equipment) you can use your collected and notarized documents to file a Provisional Patent Application, which doesn't cost much (compared to a full application), doesn't publicly disclose the information, gets you a Priority Date (important!) and gives you one year from filing to complete your Patent Application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, and this may the most important advice, hire a *reputable* patent attorney or patent law firm to prepare, file and offer legal advice. This is not something you should do on your own. Yes, it costs money to hire an expert, but they will prevent you making mistakes (and there are so many mistakes that can be made).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this has been helpful. Feel free to ask additional questions on the process, but do not disclose additional details about your ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/1994/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/1995/14417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13207" RevisionGUID="e4fc0189-3b26-4428-a0fb-5f5d00b9ff5a" CreationDate="2015-07-21T03:20:18.117" UserId="14417" Comment="Expanded on original answer." Text="Yes, you may (at least for now) because the patent is only at the application phase, which means it is not yet enforceable. However, if the patent is granted, then it is retroactive to the Priority Date, which could potentially make you (your institution) liable for damages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would not expect the WIPO application to succeed in its current form because there are multiple independent claims. This usually does not pass examination for software patents at WIPO. It may, however, survive in a narrower form that uses more specific language (the current claim language is overly broad). Also note that there is a separate US application ([US 2014/0180986][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please refer to this [other answer][2] for a detailed analysis of the patent application and its potential Prior Art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is illegal to build a patented design for personal use, even in single quantity copies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, experimental use (research use) is allowed (with caveats).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Studying the invention**][3]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is always permissible to use a patented invention for research purposes. Such study may give new insights in possible uses of the invention, or possible alternatives to what is described in the patent. This might even result in new patents for the alternatives, or in workarounds.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Of course, the &quot;research&quot; should not simply be a commercial exploitation in disguise. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But make sure you also refer to [*Madey v. Duke University*][4], a case where the common law of experimental use was rejected. The criteria for rejection was that the experimental use was within the business of the university, even though it was a non-profit. As the [Wikipedia article on Madey][5] states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Madey v. Duke University, 307 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002)], the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals on October 3, 2002 effectively ended a 170-year-old practice of allowing scientists to freely borrow patented technologies for limited use in basic research that is not aimed at commercial use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The good news is that WIPO is considering extensions to private and non-commercials use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Standing Committee on the Law of Patents Twentieth Session Geneva, January 27 to 31, 2014&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [EXCEPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS TO PATENT RIGHTS: PRIVATE AND/OR NON-COMMERCIAL USE][6]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Promotion of private, creative and academic activity**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9. Some Member States highlighted the additional aspects of the policy objectives to be promoted, in particular, private and academic activity and creativity, personal and family use, research and teaching, as well as dissemination of knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There has not yet been a good test of [35 U.S.C. § 271(a)][7], in the case of private, personal or family use, but academic use is clear via the Madey v. Duke decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20140180986&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/13206/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/crashcourse/rights/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1446&amp;context=btlj&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Madey&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/patent_policy/en/scp_20/scp_20_3.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title35/html/USCODE-2011-title35-partIII-chap28-sec271.htm&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13204" RevisionGUID="783fbe3d-c7e8-452c-83c8-c2080fcb8728" CreationDate="2015-07-21T03:22:16.883" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag and link for equivalent US patent." Text="In reference to the patent: [WO 2014/105866 A1][1] ([US 2014/0180986][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014105866A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20140180986" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31476" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13204" RevisionGUID="783fbe3d-c7e8-452c-83c8-c2080fcb8728" CreationDate="2015-07-21T03:22:16.883" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag and link for equivalent US patent." Text="Can I implement Neural Network Dropout (US 2014/0180986) for research purposes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31477" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13204" RevisionGUID="783fbe3d-c7e8-452c-83c8-c2080fcb8728" CreationDate="2015-07-21T03:22:16.883" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag and link for equivalent US patent." Text="&lt;wo2014105866a1&gt;&lt;us20140180986&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13249" RevisionGUID="89b3a226-85e3-4e72-ab7e-46f55e4a6d3a" CreationDate="2015-07-21T05:22:23.780" UserId="14637" Text="I am currently writing claims for a PCT utility application. It appears my independent claim is rather lengthy and can be broken down into many dependent claims, but that is not what I am after.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My focus is for the independent claim/s to be fairly detailed with clarity because what I am inventing here is an entirely original device. As I am after the broadest exclusivity of this invention, I am wondering what my options are. How expansive can be the independent claims? Is there a certain word limit? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31479" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13249" RevisionGUID="89b3a226-85e3-4e72-ab7e-46f55e4a6d3a" CreationDate="2015-07-21T05:22:23.780" UserId="14637" Text="How detailed can be independent claims in a PCT utility application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31480" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13249" RevisionGUID="89b3a226-85e3-4e72-ab7e-46f55e4a6d3a" CreationDate="2015-07-21T05:22:23.780" UserId="14637" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13248" RevisionGUID="19da6219-982c-4566-b4f2-d3733566efd3" CreationDate="2015-07-21T11:27:36.133" UserId="14417" Comment="Fixed a typo and improved grammar." Text="First off, don't disclose any more details about your ideas on the Internet. Also, don't disclose the idea to others without a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) in place first. Almost any public disclosure can be used as Prior Art, which is one way to invalidate patents. You need to keep this information confidential until you have a judicial disclosure (patent, trademark or copyright filing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, document your ideas in as much detail as possible. Collect anything you have written down, sketched on paper or napkins, whatever you have. If the documents have dates on them, even better. Write up any additional details and bring the whole bundle to a Notary to get them notarized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the legal work begins. You had marked your question only with the copyright tag, but I'm going to take it a step further so you know what your other options are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A copyright is good, especially if you have manuals, instructional videos or books. If you additionally have a name and logo, you will want to also seek a Trademark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you also have equipment and a method of using the equipment, you may want to additionally seek a combination of Design Patents and/or Utility Patents. There were some questions recently about the games &quot;[4 Square in the Air][1]&quot; and &quot;[9 Square in the Air][2]&quot;, which covered variations of an outdoor game with two extremely simple Design Patents for the equipment and one Utility Patent for the game(s) itself. I honestly don't know how well those would hold up to infringement, but they were all granted and should be instructive examples for you. For a Utility Patent (this might cover something like equipment and a method of using the equipment) you can use your collected and notarized documents to file a Provisional Patent Application, which doesn't cost much (compared to a full application), doesn't publicly disclose the information, gets you a Priority Date (important!) and gives you one year from filing to complete your Patent Application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, and this may the most important advice, hire a *reputable* patent attorney or patent law firm to prepare, file and offer legal advice. This is not something you should do on your own. Yes, it costs money to hire an expert, but they will prevent you making mistakes (and there are so many mistakes that can be made).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this has been helpful. Feel free to ask additional questions on the process, but do not disclose additional details about your ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/1994/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/1995/14417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1994" RevisionGUID="c7de5c8a-385f-433f-bd3b-e7cd1921759e" CreationDate="2015-07-21T11:54:17.473" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and added independent claim as requested in question." Text="I invented a game whereby I took the game called 4-Square and raised it 7 feet in the air and so you play it like a 4-way volleyball game ... 4-Square in the air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I obtained Patent [US 7,608,000][1], entitled A System for Playing a game. From the abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A multiplayer game, having rules with aspects of the games of Four Square and Volleyball, is played with an apparatus that can optionally be respectively disassembled and set up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first independent claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 1.** A method for playing a game by a plurality of players, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - providing an apparatus;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - providing a projectile;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - positioning the apparatus upon a playing surface, the apparatus including:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - first and second sets of poles, each of said first and second poles having first and second opposite ends;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - providing means for adjusting the pole between a full length position and a shortened length position;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - and providing means for connecting the second end of each of said poles in the first set of poles to one of the ends of at least two of said poles in the second set of poles;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - positioning each of said poles in the first set in a vertical orientation with the first end thereof resting on the playing surface;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - positioning each of said poles in the second set in a horizontal orientation;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     wherein:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - each of said poles in the first set of poles is in a perpendicular orientation with respect to the poles in the second set of poles;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - (i) extending each of said poles in the first and second sets of poles in the full length position; wherein: the first and second set of poles forming at least four interior playboxes of substantially equal volume;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;       - defining the four interior playboxes by:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;           - (i) a plane extending from each said pole in the first set of poles to intersect with each adjacent said pole in the first set of poles;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;           - (ii) a plane extending from each pole in the second set of poles to intersect with, and be perpendicular to the playing surface; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;           - (iii) a plane extending from each said pole in the second set of poles to intersect with another said pole in the second set of poles that is parallel thereto; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;           - (iv) the playing surface;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;             wherein the plurality of players play the game upon the playing surface within the apparatus by:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;              - (a) placing a player in each of the at least four playboxes upon the playing surface, wherein:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;                   - each said playbox is contiguous and substantially equal in size to all other said playboxes;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;                   - a barrier is positioned at the top of and between any two contiguous said playboxes;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;              - (b) a first player of one of said plurality of players, projecting said projectile by either striking or pushing up and out from the player’s playbox down into one of a second player of the plurality of player’s playbox over the barrier there between;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;              - (c) the second player of the plurality of player’s projecting the projectile up and out from the player’s play box and down into any other of said play boxes over the barrier there between;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;              - (d) repeating (b) and (c), for respective said plurality of players and said play boxes, until a first condition occurs in which the projectile contacts the playing surface;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;              - (e) the player who allows the projectile to contact the playing surface is out,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;              - (f) the remaining players of the plurality of players rotate position and a new player enters one of said play boxes;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;              - (g) the first player to receive a designated point value wins the game and a new game may then be started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently found a game being sold called [9 Square in the Air][2]. It's a copy of my game using 9 squares instead of 4. My patent discloses multiple alternative embodiments of my base design, including embodiments with more than four squares.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9 Square has two design patents, [D656,995][3], issued April 3, 2012, and [D650,445][4], issued December 13, 2011. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How was this guy able to get a patent? Do I have any recourse?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7608000&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.9squareintheair.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/USD656995&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/USD650445" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31483" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1994" RevisionGUID="c7de5c8a-385f-433f-bd3b-e7cd1921759e" CreationDate="2015-07-21T11:54:17.473" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and added independent claim as requested in question." Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;us7608000&gt;&lt;usd650445&gt;&lt;usd656995&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13248" RevisionGUID="9f06766b-6d8d-43da-b371-f317c5e08895" CreationDate="2015-07-21T12:01:59.707" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved answer by clarifiying a few points." Text="First off, don't disclose any more details about your ideas on the Internet. Also, don't disclose the idea to others without a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) in place first. Almost any public disclosure can be used as Prior Art, which is one way to invalidate patents. You need to keep this information confidential until you have a judicial disclosure (patent, trademark or copyright filing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, document your ideas in as much detail as possible. Collect anything you have written down, sketched on paper or napkins, whatever you have. If the documents have dates on them, even better. Write up any additional details and bring the whole bundle to a Notary to get them notarized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the legal work begins. You had marked your question only with the copyright tag, but I'm going to take it a step further so you know what your other options are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A copyright is good, especially if you have manuals, instructional videos or books. If you additionally have a name and logo, you will want to also seek a Trademark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you also have equipment and a method of using the equipment, you may want to additionally seek a combination of Design Patents and/or Utility Patents. There were some questions recently about the games &quot;[4 Square in the Air][1]&quot; and &quot;[9 Square in the Air][2]&quot;, which covered variations of an outdoor game with two extremely simple Design Patents for the equipment and one Utility Patent for the game(s) itself. I honestly don't know how well those would hold up to infringement, but they were all granted and should be instructive examples for you. Of course, read these from the perspective of what can go wrong if claims are written too narrowly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a Utility Patent (this might cover something like equipment and a method of using the equipment) you can use your collected and notarized documents to file a Provisional Patent Application, which doesn't cost much (compared to a full application), doesn't publicly disclose the information, gets you a Priority Date (important!) and gives you one year from filing to complete your Patent Application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, and this may the most important advice, hire a *reputable* patent attorney or patent law firm to prepare, file and offer legal advice. This is not something you should do on your own. Yes, it costs money to hire an expert, but they will prevent you making mistakes (and there are so many mistakes that can be made).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that since the [Bilski Decision][3] in 2010 you may not be able to get &quot;game rule&quot; claims patented unless they are tied directly to hardware/equipment, as described in this [other answer][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this has been helpful. Feel free to ask additional questions on the process, but do not disclose additional details about your ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/1994/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/1995/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3180/14417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13250" RevisionGUID="2fc0f934-4f2e-44e1-b27c-6587f475c2e4" CreationDate="2015-07-21T12:12:30.747" UserId="14417" Text="Independent claims can be extremely long. Refer to the patent for the game &quot;[4 Square in the Air][1]&quot;, which contains a number of sub-clauses that describe the set-up of a playing field, apparatus and some rules of the game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more specific an Independent Claim is, the more likely it is to pass examination on the first pass. However, providing claims that are too narrow are likely to lead to extremely weak protection over your invention, as shown in the above post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically, you want to write claims with as broad coverage as possible (i.e., as broadly as would be non-obvious and novel) in the initial application, and use Office Actions (expensive but useful) as a fallback to narrow the scope of claims do not pass examination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use the independent claims for the purpose they were intended: broad coverage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use the dependent claims to add specific refinements and alternative implementations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/1994/14417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13248" RevisionGUID="cf00b577-b541-4c36-aaeb-6c7249d7c46d" CreationDate="2015-07-21T13:26:38.033" UserId="14417" Comment="Clarified some points." Text="First off, don't disclose any more details about your ideas on the Internet. Also, don't disclose the idea to others without a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) in place first. Almost any public disclosure can be used as Prior Art, which is one way to invalidate patents. You need to keep this information confidential until you have a judicial disclosure (patent, trademark or copyright filing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, document your ideas in as much detail as possible. Collect anything you have written down, sketched on paper or napkins, whatever you have. If the documents have dates on them, even better. Write up any additional details and bring the whole bundle to a Notary to get them notarized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the legal work begins. You had marked your question only with the copyright tag, but I'm going to take it a step further so you know what your other options are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A copyright is good, especially if you have manuals, instructional videos or books. If you additionally have a name and logo, you will want to also seek a Trademark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you also have equipment and a method of using the equipment, you may want to additionally seek a combination of Design Patents and/or Utility Patents. There were some questions recently about the games &quot;[4 Square in the Air][1]&quot; and &quot;[9 Square in the Air][2]&quot;, which covered variations of an outdoor game with two extremely simple Design Patents for the equipment and one Utility Patent for the game(s) itself. I honestly don't know how well those would hold up to infringement, but they were all granted and should be instructive examples for you. Of course, read these from the perspective of what can go wrong if claims are written too narrowly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a Utility Patent (this might cover something like equipment and a method of using the equipment) you can use your collected and notarized documents to file a Provisional Patent Application, which doesn't cost much (compared to a full application), doesn't publicly disclose the information, gets you a Priority Date (important!) and gives you one year from filing to complete your Patent Application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, and this may the most important advice, hire a *reputable* patent attorney or patent law firm to prepare, file and offer legal advice. This is not something you should do on your own. Yes, it costs money to hire an expert, but they will prevent you making mistakes (and there are so many mistakes that can be made).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that since the [Bilski Decision][3] in 2010 you may not be able to get &quot;abstract methods of playing&quot; claims patented unless they are tied directly to hardware/equipment, as described in this [other answer][4]. This likely also ties to exercise, which means your equipment would need to be specified in a non-abstract manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this has been helpful. Feel free to ask additional questions on the process, but do not disclose additional details about your ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/1994/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/1995/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3180/14417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13252" RevisionGUID="f487ddfa-0747-4df2-9b67-650f0aba54f6" CreationDate="2015-07-21T13:46:16.287" UserId="14417" Text="Yes, that is permissible and defined in paragraph 6.18. For instance, [US 7,756,129][1] is a grant with 401 claims, although they are not all in serial as in your example. Keep in mind that writing dependent claims in serial creates easy targets for invalidating large numbers of your claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **[¶ 6.18 Series of Singular Dependent Claims][2]**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; another preceding claim.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It&#xD;&#xA;&gt; should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; preceding independent claim. In general, applicant’s sequence will not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be changed. See [MPEP § 608.01(n)][3].&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; During prosecution, the order of claims may change and be in conflict&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with the requirement that dependent claims refer to a preceding claim.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Accordingly, the numbering of dependent claims and the numbers of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; preceding claims referred to in dependent claims should be carefully&#xD;&#xA;&gt; checked when claims are renumbered upon allowance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7756129&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html#fp-pt-d97e9&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html#d0e45256" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13232" RevisionGUID="b7d9de30-f783-4639-9cdf-5f6da6186338" CreationDate="2015-07-21T14:09:58.760" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="I understand that one cannot claim with reference to a multiple dependent claims as set forth in [MPEP 608.01(n) Dependent Claims\[R-11.2013\]][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, can one have claims with reference to a single dependent claim?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1: A gadget comprising .....(independent claim)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 2: A gadget as in claim 1 ..... (dependent claim)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 3: A gadget as in claim 2 ..... (dependent claim)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does one have to stop here or can one continue as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 4: A gadget as in claim 3 ..... (dependent claim)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 5: A gadget as in claim 4 ..... (dependent claim)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where is this discussed in [MPEP][2]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html#d0e45256&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31492" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13232" RevisionGUID="b7d9de30-f783-4639-9cdf-5f6da6186338" CreationDate="2015-07-21T14:09:58.760" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;&lt;mpep&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12741" RevisionGUID="aec618f5-41f0-44ba-810c-670721273136" CreationDate="2015-07-21T14:16:08.867" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting." Text="I stumbled upon patent [US 2013/0272429][1] that appears to patent calculating three checksums instead of one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if the obviousness of the basic idea is not enough to throw this out there should be plenty of prior art available for calculating checksums for each color plane in various old picture and video compression standards, container standards and open source software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rest of the patent seems to be HEVC specific, and boils down to &quot;to calculate the checksum for the image, you have to decode the image like it's HEVC&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130272429" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31497" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12741" RevisionGUID="aec618f5-41f0-44ba-810c-670721273136" CreationDate="2015-07-21T14:16:08.867" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting." Text="US 2013/0272429, a patent application on calculating three checksums instead of one" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5972" RevisionGUID="59646d72-160e-4012-a32b-f4f704d60ab2" CreationDate="2015-07-21T21:34:24.987" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag and links." Text="I want to know the date of expiration of VanWinkel's Liquid Mask patent [US 5,618,582][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us5618582" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31500" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5972" RevisionGUID="59646d72-160e-4012-a32b-f4f704d60ab2" CreationDate="2015-07-21T21:34:24.987" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag and links." Text="Expiration date of US 5,618,582?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31501" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5972" RevisionGUID="59646d72-160e-4012-a32b-f4f704d60ab2" CreationDate="2015-07-21T21:34:24.987" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag and links." Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;us5618582&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31502" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5972" RevisionGUID="59646d72-160e-4012-a32b-f4f704d60ab2" CreationDate="2015-07-21T21:34:24.987" Comment="Proposed by 14417 approved by 14016, 9802 edit id of 1849" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10040" RevisionGUID="4db13054-7fdd-450d-aa95-0495fcc29117" CreationDate="2015-07-21T21:34:48.280" UserId="14622" Comment="Added synonym tags and link to patent." Text="This is a continuation of patent [EP 0198288 A3][1]. The last legal event recorded for the continuation patent is an expiration in 2006 due to failure to pay a maintenance fee. Does this mean that the newer patent is expired but the original still stands? How can I find out if the continuation was revived? Would that have been recorded in the list of legal events?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP0198288A3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31504" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10040" RevisionGUID="4db13054-7fdd-450d-aa95-0495fcc29117" CreationDate="2015-07-21T21:34:48.280" UserId="14622" Comment="Added synonym tags and link to patent." Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;us5278057&gt;&lt;us5180873&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31505" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10040" RevisionGUID="4db13054-7fdd-450d-aa95-0495fcc29117" CreationDate="2015-07-21T21:34:48.280" Comment="Proposed by 14622 approved by 14417, 9802 edit id of 1852" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13198" RevisionGUID="9503c816-1775-4836-abfa-ae509ef14996" CreationDate="2015-07-21T21:58:15.390" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag and corrected grammar." Text="In reference to the patent: [US488366][1], &quot;Gun-Lock&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US488366" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31507" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13198" RevisionGUID="9503c816-1775-4836-abfa-ae509ef14996" CreationDate="2015-07-21T21:58:15.390" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag and corrected grammar." Text="I have an old shotgun with this mark and patent number. Where can I get information on this gun?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31508" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13198" RevisionGUID="9503c816-1775-4836-abfa-ae509ef14996" CreationDate="2015-07-21T21:58:15.390" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag and corrected grammar." Text="&lt;history&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31509" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13198" RevisionGUID="9503c816-1775-4836-abfa-ae509ef14996" CreationDate="2015-07-21T21:58:15.390" Comment="Proposed by 14417 approved by 14016, 9802 edit id of 1842" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13208" RevisionGUID="bf6274a8-e535-4fb0-9d2d-904d35f20818" CreationDate="2015-07-21T21:58:39.920" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and corrected grammar." Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140338666][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140338666&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How come the images were taken off Google patents? Is this a bad sign?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31511" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13208" RevisionGUID="bf6274a8-e535-4fb0-9d2d-904d35f20818" CreationDate="2015-07-21T21:58:39.920" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and corrected grammar." Text="Images were taken off Google Patent search" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31512" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13208" RevisionGUID="bf6274a8-e535-4fb0-9d2d-904d35f20818" CreationDate="2015-07-21T21:58:39.920" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and corrected grammar." Text="&lt;google-patents&gt;&lt;patent-figures&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31513" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13208" RevisionGUID="bf6274a8-e535-4fb0-9d2d-904d35f20818" CreationDate="2015-07-21T21:58:39.920" Comment="Proposed by 14417 approved by 14016, 9802 edit id of 1845" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12417" RevisionGUID="4b80cc58-9a03-42a5-aeac-75354be878e8" CreationDate="2015-07-21T21:59:24.067" UserId="14417" Comment="Fixed grammar, corrected spelling and improved formatting." Text="In reference to the patent: [CA2726258A1][1], &quot;Anti-tumoural effects of cannabinoid combinations&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/CA2726258A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like this patent application was actually a report done on a study about the efficacy of using THC and CBD on cancer cells.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results are certainly great and very well serve to add to the knowledge base, but could someone please tell me what exactly was invented here? All I see is an application to own something that has been used in exactly this way for thousands of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the inventive subject matter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I can see, the only thing original here is that this person was the first to apply for a patent that describes the same thing that others have done for ages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31515" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12417" RevisionGUID="4b80cc58-9a03-42a5-aeac-75354be878e8" CreationDate="2015-07-21T21:59:24.067" UserId="14417" Comment="Fixed grammar, corrected spelling and improved formatting." Text="What is the inventive step in CA2726258A1?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31516" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12417" RevisionGUID="4b80cc58-9a03-42a5-aeac-75354be878e8" CreationDate="2015-07-21T21:59:24.067" UserId="14417" Comment="Fixed grammar, corrected spelling and improved formatting." Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;invention&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31517" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12417" RevisionGUID="4b80cc58-9a03-42a5-aeac-75354be878e8" CreationDate="2015-07-21T21:59:24.067" Comment="Proposed by 14417 approved by 14016, 9802 edit id of 1846" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11980" RevisionGUID="2dd45e36-ab17-4e10-9796-4de84f09c03f" CreationDate="2015-07-22T02:51:31.413" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags and link." Text="We want to know if [WO 2006/112733 A1][1] &quot;Analysing breath samples for volatile organic compound&quot; is an active patent or simply just an application, not a granted patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2006112733A1&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31522" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11980" RevisionGUID="2dd45e36-ab17-4e10-9796-4de84f09c03f" CreationDate="2015-07-22T02:51:31.413" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags and link." Text="&lt;inventor&gt;&lt;status&gt;&lt;wo2006112733a1&gt;&lt;us20080286830&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31523" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11980" RevisionGUID="2dd45e36-ab17-4e10-9796-4de84f09c03f" CreationDate="2015-07-22T02:51:31.413" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags and link." Text="We need to know more about patnet WO 2006/112733 A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13205" RevisionGUID="8bc8eeed-1588-41f0-a859-9ce881a45296" CreationDate="2015-07-22T11:49:00.703" UserId="14417" Comment="Added a more thorough discussion on Nalgene." Text="As described and shown in the patent, the design also covers the top shape and relative dimensions of the flask. In order to be infringing on the design, a bottle would need to be extremely similar in appearance, including the relative dimensions and presence of all or very nearly all features. These design patents exist to prevent knock-off products from copying a design in exact detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The broken lines illustrate portions of the wide mouth flask which form no part of the claimed design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure from USD680805][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note the related design patent [US D688,912][2], which reduces the scope of the design to only a few elements of the cap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure from USD688912][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As noted in the comments, this second Design Patent is strikingly similar (if not identical) to the [Nalgene Wide-Mouth Cap][4], which has apparently been around for at least a few decades:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Nalgene Wide-Mouth Cap][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nalgene has their own Design Patents and Utility Patents (under [Nalge Nunc International Corporation][6]). However, I did not find any that covered this particular cap design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The FDA shifted its stance on the use of [BPA][7] in food containers on [February 15, 2010][8], which prompted nearly many container manufacturers to immediately change over their product lines (and marketing/branding) to BPA-free equivalents. The effect of this was entire product lines suddenly being disappearing from stores on the internet (Try to find a pre-2010 Nalgene bottle now. Hint: you can't).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, Amazon began selling the new Nalgene bottles in Spring 2010 under a new brand name that differentiated the BPA-free bottle from the original bottle. This effectively wiped out all previous comments on the original product line. However, there are [some comments from May 31, 2010][9] that indicate that the new bottle (with the cap design in question) was indeed being sold at the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Priority Date of the Steel Technology, LLC design patent for the cap is September 17, 2011. By all appearances, the [inventor][10] filed this patent in order to take advantage of the above-described situation. There is obvious prior art, but due to the transition of the Nalgene product line at the time, it is difficult to prove. What would help would be some catalogs with a specific date attached that depict the pre-2011 Nalgene bottle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/1jlw6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD688912&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Mhrp9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://store.nalgene.com/v/vspfiles/photos/Wide%20Mouth%20Bottle%20Cap-2.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/eTT0F.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&amp;tbm=pts&amp;hl=en&amp;q=inassignee:%22Nalge%20Nunc%20International%20Corporation%22&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/programs/endocrine/bpa_initiatives/index.cfm&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/02/bans-sought-for-chemical-bpa-in-baby-toddler-products/1#.Va9-1vl2viw&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.amazon.com/Nalgene-Wide-Mouth-Loop-Top-Lid/product-reviews/B00266D0DU/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_summary?ie=UTF8&amp;showViewpoints=1&amp;sortBy=byRankDescending&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.linkedin.com/pub/travis-rosbach/19/965/9aa" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31525" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13203" RevisionGUID="4cd8bc64-b0d9-4ced-8783-356ef430161f" CreationDate="2015-07-22T11:49:48.620" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag for related design patent." Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;scope&gt;&lt;usd680805&gt;&lt;usd688912&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31526" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11980" RevisionGUID="e77d581b-a83b-4ef8-923b-41b49335d06d" CreationDate="2015-07-22T12:58:20.873" UserId="14417" Comment="Fixed spelling in title." Text="We need to know more about patent WO 2006/112733 A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13198" RevisionGUID="52defc67-3e27-429b-98f6-8fd2c056afd9" CreationDate="2015-07-22T16:17:14.390" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag for patent." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 488,366][1], &quot;Gun-Lock&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US488366" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31529" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13198" RevisionGUID="52defc67-3e27-429b-98f6-8fd2c056afd9" CreationDate="2015-07-22T16:17:14.390" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag for patent." Text="&lt;history&gt;&lt;us488366&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12240" RevisionGUID="75b67210-2978-47d6-bf84-6dbd52abe414" CreationDate="2015-07-22T21:43:29.443" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 257,885][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent has the word &quot;Model&quot; written at the top left corner of its first page. What does that indicate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a screenshot of the patent's PDF, accessed from Google Patents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ![Screenshot of the patent][2]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Does it mean that the inventor presented a model before getting his patent approved?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US257885&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/zQmTU.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31531" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12240" RevisionGUID="75b67210-2978-47d6-bf84-6dbd52abe414" CreationDate="2015-07-22T21:43:29.443" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags." Text="&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;file-format&gt;&lt;us257885&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31532" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12240" RevisionGUID="98892cb2-c38f-4ab6-be8b-31cf0b203cf7" CreationDate="2015-07-22T21:51:42.750" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tags." Text="&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;us257885&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12245" RevisionGUID="8daa7357-e969-43a1-9bee-fe649ac28c9b" CreationDate="2015-07-22T22:14:33.530" UserId="9802" Comment="added additional detail, improved grammar" Text="**Yes**, this means that a model was submitted or presented by the inventor. [Patent models were required in the US from 1790 to 1880][1], but the rules have since changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If no models was provided, then early patent drawings specifically state &quot;(No Model.)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the next patent ([US257886][2]) states (&quot;No Model.)&quot; indicating a model was not provided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on checking out a number of patents, the practise of explicitly stating whether or not a model was presented on the drawings seems to have stopped around 1905.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_model&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US257886&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/HlGK6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12446" RevisionGUID="8d101899-605e-4070-b5ca-0aa60fcd8e60" CreationDate="2015-07-22T22:23:17.010" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and tagging." Text="I am the owner of patent [US 5,341,526][1]. Our mother was the original inventor and was going to pay the maintenance fees, but never did. So, we were told that we lost the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you please tell me if there is any way to pay the fees to bring the status current again?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5341526" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31535" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12446" RevisionGUID="8d101899-605e-4070-b5ca-0aa60fcd8e60" CreationDate="2015-07-22T22:23:17.010" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and tagging." Text="How do we reinstate our patent US 5,341,526" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31536" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12446" RevisionGUID="8d101899-605e-4070-b5ca-0aa60fcd8e60" CreationDate="2015-07-22T22:23:17.010" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and tagging." Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;fees&gt;&lt;maintenance&gt;&lt;us5341526&gt;&lt;reinstatement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13255" RevisionGUID="53cda68f-e62f-4620-ad6a-663198b6a8c7" CreationDate="2015-07-22T22:26:20.857" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13256" RevisionGUID="e29f77e9-377a-4b26-bf45-c15e8f05fc4e" CreationDate="2015-07-22T22:26:20.857" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12680" RevisionGUID="531257da-a3be-4496-bb39-90218857a56a" CreationDate="2015-07-22T22:29:39.087" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected grammar, fixed spelling and improved tagging." Text="I was tracking [US 7,985,418][1] claiming sevelamer compositions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On 30th August on regular update in Pair I have seen status as &quot;patent expired on 21.04.2014 due to nonpayment of maintenance fees&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again on November 4th patent is still alive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have any screen shots to prove this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will it be possible to track such issues with USPTO PAIR?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7985418" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31540" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12680" RevisionGUID="531257da-a3be-4496-bb39-90218857a56a" CreationDate="2015-07-22T22:29:39.087" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected grammar, fixed spelling and improved tagging." Text="Is there any way to track Patents which are reinstated after non-payment of maintenance fees?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31541" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12680" RevisionGUID="531257da-a3be-4496-bb39-90218857a56a" CreationDate="2015-07-22T22:29:39.087" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected grammar, fixed spelling and improved tagging." Text="&lt;fees&gt;&lt;maintenance&gt;&lt;reinstatement&gt;&lt;us7985418&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12455" RevisionGUID="6b41c584-ed77-4b58-8286-0401549a3710" CreationDate="2015-07-22T22:32:46.850" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 2013/0033156][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130033156&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My name is Lesley Anne Targett, widow of Kenneth Stanley Targett.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have received a letter from the United States Patent and Trade Mark Office re patent application no: 13/564,752 to say that the application has been abandoned. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application was made by Kenneth Stanley Targett for inventors Kenneth Stanley Targett and Paul William Brown.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It states that a letter was mailed on 03 September 2014. This letter was not received.&#xD;&#xA;Kenneth Stanley Targett died on the 20th September 2014. He was very ill prior to his death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any way this application can be reinstated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yours Sincerely&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mrs Lesley Anne Targett" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31543" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12455" RevisionGUID="6b41c584-ed77-4b58-8286-0401549a3710" CreationDate="2015-07-22T22:32:46.850" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;reinstatement&gt;&lt;us20130033156&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4735" RevisionGUID="e9dbc698-8365-415a-af40-df39ad1c7928" CreationDate="2015-07-22T22:35:03.457" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and added tag." Text="[US 6,148,942 &quot;Infant stroller safely propelled by DC electronic motor&quot;][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Google Patents, [US 6,148,942][2] is **Lapsed** and according to [Public PAIR][3] its status is **Expired** as of 2008. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Google Patents** - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Public PAIR** -&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does that mean that a self propelled stroller as described in the claims if actually created/sold by third party would not infringe on the subject patent?  What would be required for the the assignee to revive this patent, or is it too late for the assignee to recover his rights?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us6148942&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us6148942&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ma4AD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/JOtiI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31545" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4735" RevisionGUID="e9dbc698-8365-415a-af40-df39ad1c7928" CreationDate="2015-07-22T22:35:03.457" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and added tag." Text="&lt;expired-patent&gt;&lt;lapsed-patent&gt;&lt;reinstatement&gt;&lt;us6148942&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31546" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5916" RevisionGUID="92ed5397-aa52-4edd-9d5a-a470ff9dc59b" CreationDate="2015-07-22T22:36:54.417" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;fees&gt;&lt;reinstatement&gt;&lt;intervening-rights&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31547" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12156" RevisionGUID="748857d2-0cbd-4747-b396-bd19cda3d766" CreationDate="2015-07-22T22:38:35.903" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;fees&gt;&lt;maintenance&gt;&lt;reinstatement&gt;&lt;assignment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31548" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10441" RevisionGUID="7c0937db-e018-4b91-adf2-9a77c40658b3" CreationDate="2015-07-22T22:40:03.320" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;expired-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12140" RevisionGUID="ccb660be-f9e8-4442-873d-a0d8312bc8c5" CreationDate="2015-07-22T22:41:59.247" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and corrected spelling." Text="If an inventor submits an idea and it has been accepted, and he makes no tangible device (it remains intellectual rather than carried out). But then the inventor does not pay the maintenance fees, does the invention become public domain, or is it possible to patent the idea again?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31550" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12140" RevisionGUID="ccb660be-f9e8-4442-873d-a0d8312bc8c5" CreationDate="2015-07-22T22:41:59.247" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and corrected spelling." Text="&lt;fees&gt;&lt;maintenance&gt;&lt;reinstatement&gt;&lt;expired&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31551" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12494" RevisionGUID="304c05da-cf01-4e2e-9ad7-140782304978" CreationDate="2015-07-22T22:43:38.963" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;history&gt;&lt;assignment-history&gt;&lt;us680106&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="8fca1410-c0bf-4059-8bff-bade80677e3f" CreationDate="2015-07-22T22:46:04.500" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and corrected spelling." Text="Patent [US 5,240,307][1] is for a invention that my father created. And I see that the patent has lapsed due to non-payment of fees. I was wondering how someone can go about obtaining the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5240307" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31553" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="8fca1410-c0bf-4059-8bff-bade80677e3f" CreationDate="2015-07-22T22:46:04.500" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and corrected spelling." Text="&lt;expired-patent&gt;&lt;fees&gt;&lt;maintenance&gt;&lt;reinstatement&gt;&lt;us5240307&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31554" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10532" RevisionGUID="7d904474-f458-459a-8af4-28df5b303c97" CreationDate="2015-07-22T22:56:16.847" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;fees&gt;&lt;maintenance&gt;&lt;reinstatement&gt;&lt;ep0639878b1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31555" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10532" RevisionGUID="7d904474-f458-459a-8af4-28df5b303c97" CreationDate="2015-07-22T22:56:16.847" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="Can the patent be revived EP 0639878 B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31556" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12840" RevisionGUID="4f8ccacc-aba8-42c6-9616-b6ea7af9c955" CreationDate="2015-07-22T23:01:12.507" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;reinstatement&gt;&lt;lapsed&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12840" RevisionGUID="4f8ccacc-aba8-42c6-9616-b6ea7af9c955" CreationDate="2015-07-22T23:01:12.507" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="When a patent goes into Lapse status in European countries can it be renewed later?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the different status a patent can have that make it enforceable at present or in the future?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31558" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12840" RevisionGUID="4f8ccacc-aba8-42c6-9616-b6ea7af9c955" CreationDate="2015-07-22T23:01:12.507" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="When a patent goes into Lapse status in European countries can it be renewed later?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13231" RevisionGUID="a5bd7ff9-6b4e-4b80-bfaa-36a136ac8dc1" CreationDate="2015-07-22T23:23:03.620" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 2,738,257][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US2738257&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has the patent been granted for the complete method or for the compound mixture?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31561" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13231" RevisionGUID="a5bd7ff9-6b4e-4b80-bfaa-36a136ac8dc1" CreationDate="2015-07-22T23:23:03.620" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;expired-patent&gt;&lt;us2738257&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13257" RevisionGUID="80c182ae-7078-4028-b966-c1fe44bcfba5" CreationDate="2015-07-23T00:14:15.467" UserId="14417" Text="In order to answer your question, you will need to examine the claims. Most of the claims are detectors and substances, but there are two method claims, shown in full below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I claim:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A carbon monoxide detector substance ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A detector that ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A carbon monoxide detector ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. A detector which ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. A detector which ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. A non-accumulative and self regenerative detector for ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. A gel which ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. An accumulative gel for detecting ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9. A non-accumulative gel for detecting ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10. The method of multiplying the darkening effect of palladium&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compounds upon exposure to carbon monoxide comprising: mixing an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; indicator from the group consisting of sodium alizarin sulfonate and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; orthotolidine with an aqueous solution of palladium salt; absorbing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the mixed solution on the surface of an inorganic carrier, drying the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; carrier from 110° F to 135° F and thereafter baking from 280° F to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 350° F.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 11. A carbon monoxide detector comprising ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12. The method of photoelectrically detecting carbon monoxide&#xD;&#xA;&gt; contamination comprising: depositing a light colored reactive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; substance of mixed sensitivity upon the surface of a granular&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inorganic translucent carrier which substance darkens upon exposure to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; carbon monoxide; disposing the substance upon a transparent plate;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disposing the plate between the light and photoelectric element of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; photoelectric measuring circuit; and continuously exposing the plate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the contaminated atmosphere, said substance having a palladium&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compound that darkens upon exposure to carbon monoxide and also having&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a copper compound that resists said darkening and which tends to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lighten the substance to render the substance self-regenerating and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; independent of time of exposure, said mixed sensitivities being&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtained by differing the relative proportions of palladium and copper&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the substance applied to different granules of carrier.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 13. A carbon monoxide detector substance formed from ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 14. A carbon monoxide detector substance formed as ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15. A tape for use on photoelectric detectors for ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 16. A tape as described in claim 15 wherein ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 17. A continuous carbon monoxide detector and measurer comprising ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that this patent is quite old and has been expired for years, so it is in the Public Domain. All of the methods disclosed in the background, as well as those disclosed in the claims, can be considered Prior Art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13258" RevisionGUID="8ff6ad04-7965-4281-a491-056fe1317197" CreationDate="2015-07-23T00:34:15.380" UserId="14417" Text="The WIPO Application can be downloaded from the [European Patent Register][1]. Select the &quot;International publication of the A2 Pamphlet&quot; entry and click on &quot;Download Selected Documents&quot;. The application is 42 pages and the figures start on page 34.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP08782191&amp;tab=doclist" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13176" RevisionGUID="c5a6de9f-b161-4f08-973f-85b9b852c833" CreationDate="2015-07-23T00:37:41.143" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="In reference to the patent: [WO 2009/018016 A2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this patent there are no drawings and no any practical implementation is shown. How would I understand the practical concept?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2009018016A2&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31565" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13176" RevisionGUID="c5a6de9f-b161-4f08-973f-85b9b852c833" CreationDate="2015-07-23T00:37:41.143" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="Drawings and practical implementation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31566" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13176" RevisionGUID="c5a6de9f-b161-4f08-973f-85b9b852c833" CreationDate="2015-07-23T00:37:41.143" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;epo&gt;&lt;wipo&gt;&lt;wo2009018016a2&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13173" RevisionGUID="73cf4f46-9fda-47d0-8e43-68f6ec529b9c" CreationDate="2015-07-23T01:22:00.940" UserId="14417" Comment="Added more information." Text="The following excerpt (with patent links added) is from [Making Sense of New Apple Varieties, Trademarks and Clubs: Current Status][1] (2009):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘Cameo’ (‘Caudle’): An **open release**, this variety was a chance&#xD;&#xA;&gt; seedling discovered in Washington State and once promoted by Dole&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fruits ([USPP#9068][4]). ... Two new more highly colored sports of ‘Cameo’ have been&#xD;&#xA;&gt; discovered, ‘Dudek’ was granted [USPP#19,766][2] in 2008 and ‘Cauflight’&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was granted [USPP#20,942][3] in 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My three part question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Does “open release” mean that the ‘Caudle’ patent is not enforced?&#xD;&#xA; - If no, does an open release weaken a patent?&#xD;&#xA; - If no, how is that not considered to be inducing infringement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found another example that has more information available. The [“SweeTango” apple variety][5] is patented by [US PP18,812][6] and was not an Open Release. An article was written about this in 2011:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seabrook, J. [Crunch. Building a better apple.][7] *Annals of Agriculture*, November 21, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But instead of an “open release,” which meant that anyone could grow&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the apple, the university decided to release MN 1914 as a “managed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; variety,” or what’s known in the business as a “club apple.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some earlier information from 2009 is available that describes building the brand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alyssa Vance, A. [The Building of an Apple Brand: The SweeTango.][8] *Heavy Table*, October 14, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This indicates that an Open Release means anyone can grow the plant. However, I still do not have any legal references to verify this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nyshs.org/pdf/fq/09fall/NYFQ-FALL-09-pp-9-12.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/USPP19766&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/USPP20942&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/patents/USPP9068&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SweeTango#Trademark_and_patent&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.google.com/patents/USPP18812&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/11/21/crunch&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://heavytable.com/the-building-of-an-apple-brand-the-sweetango/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31568" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13173" RevisionGUID="73cf4f46-9fda-47d0-8e43-68f6ec529b9c" CreationDate="2015-07-23T01:22:00.940" UserId="14417" Comment="Added more information." Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;plant-patent&gt;&lt;open-release&gt;&lt;uspp18812&gt;&lt;uspp9068&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13173" RevisionGUID="a4ce4f2b-fd1f-4ce1-8bab-aa86b0cbe964" CreationDate="2015-07-23T02:07:40.003" UserId="14417" Comment="Added more references." Text="The following excerpt (with patent links added) is from [Making Sense of New Apple Varieties, Trademarks and Clubs: Current Status][1] (2009):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘Cameo’ (‘Caudle’): An **open release**, this variety was a chance&#xD;&#xA;&gt; seedling discovered in Washington State and once promoted by Dole&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fruits ([USPP#9068][2]). ... Two new more highly colored sports of ‘Cameo’ have been&#xD;&#xA;&gt; discovered, ‘Dudek’ was granted [USPP#19,766][3] in 2008 and ‘Cauflight’&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was granted [USPP#20,942][4] in 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My three part question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Does “open release” mean that the ‘Caudle’ patent is not enforced?&#xD;&#xA; - If no, does an open release weaken a patent?&#xD;&#xA; - If no, how is that not considered to be inducing infringement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found another example that has more information available. The [“SweeTango” apple variety][5] is patented by [US PP18,812][6] and was not an Open Release. An article was written about this in 2011:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seabrook, J. [Crunch. Building a better apple.][7] *The New Yorker, Annals of Agriculture*, November 21, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But instead of an “open release,” which meant that anyone could grow&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the apple, the university decided to release MN 1914 as a “managed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; variety,” or what’s known in the business as a “club apple.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some earlier information from 2009 is available that describes building the brand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alyssa Vance, A. [The Building of an Apple Brand: The SweeTango.][8] *Heavy Table*, October 14, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This indicates that an Open Release means anyone can grow the plant. However, I still do not have any legal references to verify this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other References&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;Wang, D. [How growing and marketing apples turned industrial][9]. October 17, 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nyshs.org/pdf/fq/09fall/NYFQ-FALL-09-pp-9-12.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/USPP9068&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/USPP19766&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/USPP20942&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SweeTango#Trademark_and_patent&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.google.com/patents/USPP18812&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/11/21/crunch&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://heavytable.com/the-building-of-an-apple-brand-the-sweetango/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://danwang.co/growing-marketing-apples-turned-industrial/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13173" RevisionGUID="aee4fcec-2253-43bd-aa1c-9d8988ee0441" CreationDate="2015-07-23T02:14:56.657" UserId="14417" Comment="Added references." Text="The following excerpt (with patent links added) is from [Making Sense of New Apple Varieties, Trademarks and Clubs: Current Status][1] (2009):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘Cameo’ (‘Caudle’): An **open release**, this variety was a chance&#xD;&#xA;&gt; seedling discovered in Washington State and once promoted by Dole&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fruits ([USPP#9068][2]). ... Two new more highly colored sports of ‘Cameo’ have been&#xD;&#xA;&gt; discovered, ‘Dudek’ was granted [USPP#19,766][3] in 2008 and ‘Cauflight’&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was granted [USPP#20,942][4] in 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My three part question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Does “open release” mean that the ‘Caudle’ patent is not enforced?&#xD;&#xA; - If no, does an open release weaken a patent?&#xD;&#xA; - If no, how is that not considered to be inducing infringement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found another example that has more information available. The [“SweeTango” apple variety][5] is patented by [US PP18,812][6] and was not an Open Release. An article was written about this in 2011:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seabrook, J. [Crunch. Building a better apple.][7] *The New Yorker, Annals of Agriculture*, November 21, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But instead of an “open release,” which meant that anyone could grow&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the apple, the university decided to release MN 1914 as a “managed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; variety,” or what’s known in the business as a “club apple.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some earlier information from 2009 is available that describes building the brand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alyssa Vance, A. [The Building of an Apple Brand: The SweeTango.][8] *Heavy Table*, October 14, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This indicates that an Open Release means anyone can grow the plant. However, I still do not have any legal references to verify this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other References&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;Wang, D. [How growing and marketing apples turned industrial][9]. October 17, 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Breining, G. [Get a Load of This Apple][10], University of Minnesota, Winter 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nyshs.org/pdf/fq/09fall/NYFQ-FALL-09-pp-9-12.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/USPP9068&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/USPP19766&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/USPP20942&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SweeTango#Trademark_and_patent&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.google.com/patents/USPP18812&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/11/21/crunch&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://heavytable.com/the-building-of-an-apple-brand-the-sweetango/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://danwang.co/growing-marketing-apples-turned-industrial/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.minnesotaalumni.org/s/1118/content.aspx?sid=1118&amp;gid=1&amp;pgid=947&amp;cid=2189&amp;ecid=2189&amp;ciid=13702&amp;crid=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13173" RevisionGUID="d4d25bf4-ca18-482d-a4a1-bd96e64d3011" CreationDate="2015-07-23T02:37:36.030" UserId="14417" Comment="Added references." Text="The following excerpt (with patent links added) is from [Making Sense of New Apple Varieties, Trademarks and Clubs: Current Status][1] (2009):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘Cameo’ (‘Caudle’): An **open release**, this variety was a chance&#xD;&#xA;&gt; seedling discovered in Washington State and once promoted by Dole&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fruits ([USPP#9068][2]). ... Two new more highly colored sports of ‘Cameo’ have been&#xD;&#xA;&gt; discovered, ‘Dudek’ was granted [USPP#19,766][3] in 2008 and ‘Cauflight’&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was granted [USPP#20,942][4] in 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My three part question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Does “open release” mean that the ‘Caudle’ patent is not enforced?&#xD;&#xA; - If no, does an open release weaken a patent?&#xD;&#xA; - If no, how is that not considered to be inducing infringement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found another example that has more information available. The [“SweeTango” apple variety][5] is patented by [US PP18,812][6] and was not an Open Release. An article was written about this in 2011:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seabrook, J. [Crunch. Building a better apple.][7] *The New Yorker, Annals of Agriculture*, November 21, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But instead of an “open release,” which meant that anyone could grow&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the apple, the university decided to release MN 1914 as a “managed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; variety,” or what’s known in the business as a “club apple.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rooksby, J. H. [Sue U][9] *American Association of University Professors*, September-October 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Enter a new species of apple developed at the university. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; university decided to release the apple, branded the SweeTango, as a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “managed variety” rather than an “open release,” which would have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; allowed anyone to grow it without payment to the university. Prior to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Minnesota’s commercialization of the new apple, no university had ever&#xD;&#xA;&gt; released a managed variety of apple in the United States. Under this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; structure, the university selected an exclusive licensee that requires&#xD;&#xA;&gt; anyone wishing to grow the apple to join a consortium it has&#xD;&#xA;&gt; established, hubristically named “Next Big Thing.” Smaller growers in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Minnesota not included in the consortium may grow limited numbers of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the new apple but cannot sell them commercially except directly at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; farmers’ markets, in local grocery stores, and at farm stands. Growers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; outside of Minnesota cannot grow the new apples at all unless they&#xD;&#xA;&gt; join Next Big Thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This indicates that an Open Release means anyone can grow the plant. However, I still do not have any legal references to verify this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other References&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;Wang, D. [How growing and marketing apples turned industrial][11]. October 17, 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alyssa Vance, A. [The Building of an Apple Brand: The SweeTango.][8] *Heavy Table*, October 14, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Breining, G. [Get a Load of This Apple][12], University of Minnesota, Winter 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nyshs.org/pdf/fq/09fall/NYFQ-FALL-09-pp-9-12.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/USPP9068&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/USPP19766&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/USPP20942&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SweeTango#Trademark_and_patent&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.google.com/patents/USPP18812&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/11/21/crunch&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://heavytable.com/the-building-of-an-apple-brand-the-sweetango/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.aaup.org/article/sue-u#.VbBQEfl2viw&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.goodfruit.com/the-rush-to-redness/&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://danwang.co/growing-marketing-apples-turned-industrial/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.minnesotaalumni.org/s/1118/content.aspx?sid=1118&amp;gid=1&amp;pgid=947&amp;cid=2189&amp;ecid=2189&amp;ciid=13702&amp;crid=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13259" RevisionGUID="a697c5a8-5a00-49fd-8f48-3e1f66e846d9" CreationDate="2015-07-23T02:50:17.870" UserId="14417" Text="I've found something close enough to an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The rush to redness][1]. *Apples*, June 2012 Issue, “Varieties” (June 1, 2012).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Honeycrisp went off patent in 2008, but under U.S. patent law, that’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not an issue. Under U.S. law, a **sport**—**a limb or a whole-tree&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mutation**—that occurs in an open-release variety belongs to the owner&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the orchard in which it’s found.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “The United States is the only system I’m aware of that allows someone&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to find a sport and completely make it their own, and it’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; frustrating,” Bedford said in the article in 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Honeycrisp took thirty years from breeding to release, and all it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; takes is someone to happen to notice a little redder limb and suddenly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; they’re the new owner of all that technology. Pretty much everywhere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; else in the world, you have to go through the owner of the variety.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Technologically advanced as we are in this country, we’re behind the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; eight ball in intellectual property protection.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found additional references in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Winston, E. I. 2014. [Sowing the Seeds of Protection][2]. The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Like any seed, apples can be protected through plant patents and utility patents. In addition, through the release of *managed* and *club apples*, trademarks have been used to educate the consumer to request a seed variety by a brand name, rather than a variety name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent law on this is defined in [35 U.S. Code, Section 161 Plant Patents][3] and some [Provisions and Limitations][4] are described by the USPTO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plant found in an uncultivated state, may obtain a patent therefor,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; subject to the conditions and requirements of title. (Amended&#xD;&#xA;&gt; September 3, 1954, 68 Stat. 1190).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.goodfruit.com/the-rush-to-redness/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1791&amp;context=scholar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2010-title35/USCODE-2010-title35-partII-chap15-sec161&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/general-information-about-35-usc-161" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13259" RevisionGUID="29e0c3a9-7ea9-486d-b111-d60ae4930046" CreationDate="2015-07-23T02:59:32.860" UserId="14417" Comment="Completed answer." Text="I've found something close enough to an answer. There are two types of Release of a cultivated strain: Open Release and Managed Release (Club Apple).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An Open Release allows anyone to grow the cultivar. However, the apples themselves may be Trademarked. In a Managed Release, growers of the cultivar must pay royalties, and in addition the apples may be trademarked. This is US law only, and other countries have much different IP protection for cultivars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The rush to redness][1]. *Apples*, June 2012 Issue, “Varieties” (June 1, 2012).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Honeycrisp went off patent in 2008, but under U.S. patent law, that’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not an issue. Under U.S. law, a **sport**—**a limb or a whole-tree&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mutation**—that occurs in an open-release variety belongs to the owner&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the orchard in which it’s found.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “The United States is the only system I’m aware of that allows someone&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to find a sport and completely make it their own, and it’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; frustrating,” Bedford said in the article in 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Honeycrisp took thirty years from breeding to release, and all it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; takes is someone to happen to notice a little redder limb and suddenly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; they’re the new owner of all that technology. Pretty much everywhere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; else in the world, you have to go through the owner of the variety.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Technologically advanced as we are in this country, we’re behind the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; eight ball in intellectual property protection.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found additional references in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Winston, E. I. 2014. [Sowing the Seeds of Protection][2]. The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Like any seed, apples can be protected through plant patents and utility patents. In addition, through the release of *managed* and *club apples*, trademarks have been used to educate the consumer to request a seed variety by a brand name, rather than a variety name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent law on this is defined in [35 U.S. Code, Section 161 Plant Patents][3] and some [Provisions and Limitations][4] are described by the USPTO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plant found in an uncultivated state, may obtain a patent therefor,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; subject to the conditions and requirements of title. (Amended&#xD;&#xA;&gt; September 3, 1954, 68 Stat. 1190).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One final issue that I am not clear on. Apples are not true breeding, that is to say, an apple tree grown from seed will not necessarily produce fruit similar to the tree that produced the seed. This fact seems to be ignored by the US Code, which would indicate that trees grown from the seeds of patented apple tree cultivar/trademarked apple would not be protected by patents or trademarks if the fruit produced by the tree did not match the apple. However, by the time a tree grown from seed produces fruit, the patent may already be expired anyway. I would be interested in any case law or additional details/insight anyone has on these laws, as well as any historic cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.goodfruit.com/the-rush-to-redness/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1791&amp;context=scholar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2010-title35/USCODE-2010-title35-partII-chap15-sec161&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/general-information-about-35-usc-161" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13260" RevisionGUID="a4cfc062-c561-4003-9457-b826c91eea70" CreationDate="2015-07-23T05:19:50.023" UserId="14644" Text=" I have a general idea for a new product that I contacted a invention development company about.  Shortly afterward through a simple google search I found a.product very similar to my idea being sold on internet.  When I informed the invention development company about this they advised me to go ahead with the development because the product in  question is being sold in the UK only and it appears without a patent of any kind  where as my patent  when i get a provisional  patent and market would be in the US.  Also that they could improve on the product.  Is this good advice or the company looking out for their own interests at my expense? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31577" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13260" RevisionGUID="a4cfc062-c561-4003-9457-b826c91eea70" CreationDate="2015-07-23T05:19:50.023" UserId="14644" Text="Question on what is considered applicable prior art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31578" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13260" RevisionGUID="a4cfc062-c561-4003-9457-b826c91eea70" CreationDate="2015-07-23T05:19:50.023" UserId="14644" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13260" RevisionGUID="539bee09-9d4d-48bd-8f85-aa6cc0829093" CreationDate="2015-07-23T11:57:42.787" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved grammar and added tags." Text="I contacted an *invention development company* about a general idea for a new product. Shortly afterward through a simple Google search I found a product very similar to my idea being sold on internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I informed the *invention development company* about this they advised me to go ahead with the development because the product in question is being sold in the UK only and it appears without a patent of any kind, whereas my market would be in the US (when I get a provisional patent). Also, they could improve on the product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this good advice or the is the company looking out for their own interests at my expense? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31583" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13260" RevisionGUID="539bee09-9d4d-48bd-8f85-aa6cc0829093" CreationDate="2015-07-23T11:57:42.787" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved grammar and added tags." Text="What is considered applicable prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31584" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13260" RevisionGUID="539bee09-9d4d-48bd-8f85-aa6cc0829093" CreationDate="2015-07-23T11:57:42.787" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved grammar and added tags." Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;search&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13147" RevisionGUID="16927b52-94dc-4f89-ad38-a3e20ff37a97" CreationDate="2015-07-23T19:05:59.137" UserId="14622" Comment="Added patent tag." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 7,877,268][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to make this item for my grandmother. I would not be offering it to others or selling it for commercial use. Is this legal? What issues should I be aware/careful of?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7877268" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31586" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13147" RevisionGUID="16927b52-94dc-4f89-ad38-a3e20ff37a97" CreationDate="2015-07-23T19:05:59.137" UserId="14622" Comment="Added patent tag." Text="Can I build a patented item (US 7,877,268) for personal use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31587" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13147" RevisionGUID="16927b52-94dc-4f89-ad38-a3e20ff37a97" CreationDate="2015-07-23T19:05:59.137" UserId="14622" Comment="Added patent tag." Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;us7877268&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31588" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13147" RevisionGUID="16927b52-94dc-4f89-ad38-a3e20ff37a97" CreationDate="2015-07-23T19:05:59.137" Comment="Proposed by 14622 approved by 14417, 9802 edit id of 1857" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13149" RevisionGUID="84458bce-6403-4ca7-85cf-ff2b0f76349e" CreationDate="2015-07-23T19:07:05.723" UserId="9802" Comment="minor grammar / spelling" Text="&gt; I would like to make this item [...]. Is this legal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. Even for personal use, it would be patent infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you sure, however, that your implementation would be doing everything in Claim 1? To me, Claim 1 seems ridiculously specific. It should be very easy to avoid infringement by not implementing some of the more esoteric recitations in Claim 1." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13262" RevisionGUID="d4e26376-a531-41cc-9e0f-8c5496ed32bc" CreationDate="2015-07-23T19:50:34.110" UserId="14652" Text="In reference to the patent: [US6368268][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6368268&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wouldn't the *Alice* decision render this patent invalid and unenforceable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31591" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13262" RevisionGUID="d4e26376-a531-41cc-9e0f-8c5496ed32bc" CreationDate="2015-07-23T19:50:34.110" UserId="14652" Text="&quot;On a computer&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31592" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13262" RevisionGUID="d4e26376-a531-41cc-9e0f-8c5496ed32bc" CreationDate="2015-07-23T19:50:34.110" UserId="14652" Text="&lt;us6368268&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13262" RevisionGUID="2c52d578-e3ec-48ac-9721-cf72f6159f77" CreationDate="2015-07-23T21:59:34.257" UserId="14417" Comment="Added reference and improved tagging." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 6,368,268][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wouldn't the [*Alice* decision][2] render this patent invalid and unenforceable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6368268&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Int%27l" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31602" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13262" RevisionGUID="2c52d578-e3ec-48ac-9721-cf72f6159f77" CreationDate="2015-07-23T21:59:34.257" UserId="14417" Comment="Added reference and improved tagging." Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;us6368268&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13264" RevisionGUID="570fe3a7-4be1-4ea0-b785-6e85736ac997" CreationDate="2015-07-23T22:30:24.327" UserId="13884" Text="Am I correct that: &#xD;&#xA;should you claim priority from a provisional application and you disclose features in the subsequent non-provisional application ( which claims priority from the provisional application) those features not disclosed in the non-provisional application have the priority date of the filing of the non-provisional application?&#xD;&#xA;In other words the additional features dis closed in the subsequent non-provisional application are not lost but are allocated the priority date of the filing of the non-provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;Where is this discussed in MPEP?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31604" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13264" RevisionGUID="570fe3a7-4be1-4ea0-b785-6e85736ac997" CreationDate="2015-07-23T22:30:24.327" UserId="13884" Text="Features not disclosed in provisional application priority date" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31605" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13264" RevisionGUID="570fe3a7-4be1-4ea0-b785-6e85736ac997" CreationDate="2015-07-23T22:30:24.327" UserId="13884" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;non-provisional&gt;&lt;features&gt;&lt;disclosed&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13265" RevisionGUID="b890870c-1866-4ad0-891e-8a6514caf1f6" CreationDate="2015-07-24T01:48:31.780" UserId="14655" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2002101622A8][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any link for detail information? Abstract looks good but it would be great if there is any link to get detail information about this patient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;Piyush&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2002101622A8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31607" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13265" RevisionGUID="b890870c-1866-4ad0-891e-8a6514caf1f6" CreationDate="2015-07-24T01:48:31.780" UserId="14655" Text="What is this patient (WO 2002101622 A8) all about?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31608" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13265" RevisionGUID="b890870c-1866-4ad0-891e-8a6514caf1f6" CreationDate="2015-07-24T01:48:31.780" UserId="14655" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13265" RevisionGUID="10ba5fc7-4e2e-43cc-afc3-86e12d87a45b" CreationDate="2015-07-24T03:00:44.927" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="In reference to the patent: [WO 2002/101622 A8][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any link for detailed information about this patent? The abstract looks good but it would be great if there is any link to get detailed information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2002101622A8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31610" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13265" RevisionGUID="10ba5fc7-4e2e-43cc-afc3-86e12d87a45b" CreationDate="2015-07-24T03:00:44.927" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="What is this patent (WO 2002 101622 A8) all about?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31611" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13265" RevisionGUID="10ba5fc7-4e2e-43cc-afc3-86e12d87a45b" CreationDate="2015-07-24T03:00:44.927" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="&lt;google-patents&gt;&lt;wipo&gt;&lt;wo2002101622a1&gt;&lt;ca2456409a1&gt;&lt;wo2002101622a8&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13267" RevisionGUID="3cd4a292-9eb5-4fc6-b48c-3c6801c4aae0" CreationDate="2015-07-24T03:06:46.077" UserId="14417" Text="&#xD;&#xA;The 'A8' part of this patent document identifier is the [Kind Code][1] (the &quot;kind of document&quot;), which in this case indicates that the document is a correction to the title page of the application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[WO 2002/101622 A8][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you are looking for is the 'A1' document (the published patent application itself):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[WO 2002/101622 A1][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the 'Also published as ...' lists several documents, including the [CA 2,456,409 A1][4] being the Canadian application, which should be similar if not identical to the WIPO application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/help?locale=en_EP&amp;method=handleHelpTopic&amp;topic=kindcodes&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2002101622A8&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2002101622A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/patents/CA2456409A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31616" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13265" RevisionGUID="f6f973df-2c81-44db-b0bf-53e14ddba820" CreationDate="2015-07-24T03:07:35.740" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected title." Text="What is this patent (WO 2002/101622 A8) all about?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13268" RevisionGUID="ab071b93-d3a6-413c-b026-c43987626af1" CreationDate="2015-07-24T14:25:22.660" UserId="14657" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20150042260][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20150042260&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent is illegal.&#xD;&#xA;Intellectual properties belong to HECTOR PEREZ TORRES, ARKRESEARCH, PR.&#xD;&#xA;IT HAS BEEN OPEN SOURCED SINCE AT LEAST 1999.&#xD;&#xA;http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Rotoverter&#xD;&#xA;Building specs have been on panaceabocaf.org since 2008&#xD;&#xA;EVGRAY YAHOO GROUP have openly been discussing the rotoverter (RV) for at least 12 years and other free energy groups also.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contact:arkresearch@hotmail.com. &#xD;&#xA;Lastars@icloud.com. &#xD;&#xA;Arkresearch@gmail.com. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31619" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13268" RevisionGUID="ab071b93-d3a6-413c-b026-c43987626af1" CreationDate="2015-07-24T14:25:22.660" UserId="14657" Text="Patent is illegal, open sourced decades ago" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31620" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13268" RevisionGUID="ab071b93-d3a6-413c-b026-c43987626af1" CreationDate="2015-07-24T14:25:22.660" UserId="14657" Text="&lt;illegal&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13268" RevisionGUID="22b894d8-ab1a-40f1-a125-f912f82495a5" CreationDate="2015-07-24T21:00:06.720" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling, improved grammar and formatting." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 2015/0042260][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent is illegal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Intellectual properties belong to HECTOR PEREZ TORRES, ARKRESEARCH, PR.&#xD;&#xA;It has been open sourced since at least 1999.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The building specs have been on panaceabocaf.org since 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [EVGRAY Yahoo Group][2] has openly been discussing the [rotoverter (RV)][3] for at least 12 years and other free energy groups also.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20150042260&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/EVGRAY/info&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Rotoverter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31627" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13268" RevisionGUID="22b894d8-ab1a-40f1-a125-f912f82495a5" CreationDate="2015-07-24T21:00:06.720" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling, improved grammar and formatting." Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20150042260&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13091" RevisionGUID="1760a6c6-9d52-4af7-8ce4-9ec3344bfaca" CreationDate="2015-07-24T22:40:13.067" UserId="14622" Comment="Corrected grammar and added tag." Text="The EPO has so many publication dates for each patent: A1, A2, A3, A4. . . B1, B2, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which should I use as publication date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31629" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13091" RevisionGUID="1760a6c6-9d52-4af7-8ce4-9ec3344bfaca" CreationDate="2015-07-24T22:40:13.067" UserId="14622" Comment="Corrected grammar and added tag." Text="&lt;epo&gt;&lt;date&gt;&lt;documents&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31630" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13091" RevisionGUID="1760a6c6-9d52-4af7-8ce4-9ec3344bfaca" CreationDate="2015-07-24T22:40:13.067" Comment="Proposed by 14622 approved by 14417, 9802 edit id of 1858" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13271" RevisionGUID="fe1f1c3b-b20a-43ae-a836-57f9e0a68415" CreationDate="2015-07-24T22:53:33.697" UserId="9802" Text="You are correct. From [MPEP 211.05 A:][1]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;for a claim in a later filed nonprovisional application to be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the provisional application, the written description and drawing(s) (if any) of the provisional application must adequately support and enable the subject matter of the claim in the later filed nonprovisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s211.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13264" RevisionGUID="16ecd11d-30f1-4622-92ab-0af980390b22" CreationDate="2015-07-25T12:03:08.013" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and tagging." Text="Am I correct that: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should you claim priority from a provisional application and you disclose features in the subsequent non-provisional application (which claims priority from the provisional application) those features not disclosed in the non-provisional application have the priority date of the filing of the non-provisional application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words the additional features disclosed in the subsequent non-provisional application are not lost but are allocated the priority date of the filing of the non-provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where is this discussed in MPEP?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31643" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13264" RevisionGUID="16ecd11d-30f1-4622-92ab-0af980390b22" CreationDate="2015-07-25T12:03:08.013" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and tagging." Text="&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;mpep&gt;&lt;non-provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12735" RevisionGUID="58629adf-76b3-41d0-974d-e73b56f92ccc" CreationDate="2015-07-25T12:07:09.973" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 8,384,613][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What one has to do, if this patent is not new and just gives the same idea patented in 1990?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be grateful on an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8384613" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31645" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12735" RevisionGUID="58629adf-76b3-41d0-974d-e73b56f92ccc" CreationDate="2015-07-25T12:07:09.973" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;process&gt;&lt;us8384613&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13242" RevisionGUID="8ccc3a0d-3776-4862-b671-71dfa576c351" CreationDate="2015-07-25T12:13:51.937" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 2013/0166351 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130166351&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many organizations have market mix models implemented within a defined processing system. How is this different?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31647" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13242" RevisionGUID="8ccc3a0d-3776-4862-b671-71dfa576c351" CreationDate="2015-07-25T12:13:51.937" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;general&gt;&lt;us20130166351&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13274" RevisionGUID="bde86ec2-5df2-404d-8b3c-91ff836a95dd" CreationDate="2015-07-25T17:49:34.003" UserId="14417" Text="Patent applications can't be illegal unless they are disclosing trade secrets that fall under some form of legally binding non-disclosure agreement (NDA). Anyone not under such an NDA can *attempt* to patent whatever they want. However, this is ultimately a negotiation with the patent authorities over what constitutes a novel and non-obvious invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a Patent *Application*, which only means that someone is applying for a patent. If there is Prior Art publicly available, then it is up to the Patent Examiner at the USPTO (or the examiner at WIPO, because there was also a WIPO (Worldwide Patent) applied for, [WO 2013/134161 A1][1]. The examination process exists to prevent patents from being granted over already-existing ideas. The examiners at the USPTO and at WIPO actually do a really excellent job at finding Prior Art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that just because a specific idea is in the title, abstract or description of a patent application (or even in the claims), it doesn't necessarily mean that the Patent Grant(s) will cover it. In an application or grant, the most important things to look at are the independent claims. This is what describes the invention, regardless of anything else in the document. These might go through several revisions before the examiners agree that something novel has been created.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of the application you referred to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 1.** An energy-saving device, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one starting capacitor;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one running capacitor; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one power factor capacitor,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - all in electrical communication with a power supply and at least one induction motor,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - wherein the power supply needs to supply a much smaller input than the output current of the at least one induction motor after the induction motor has been running for at least from one second to about 30 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 6.** An energy-saving device, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one starting capacitor;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one running capacitor; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one power factor capacitor,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - an automatically adjustable tuning system with computer algorithms for progressively interconnecting said starting, running and power factor capacitors to achieve the lowest possible input,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - all in electrical communication with a power supply and at least one induction motor, wherein the power supply is tuned to need a much smaller input than the output current of the at least one induction motor after the induction motor has been running for at least from one second to about 30 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you consider device described in the above claims to already be in the Public Domain, then there are some things you can do to help the patent examiners find the appropriate material, for which you can find references [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013134161A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/13240/14417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13274" RevisionGUID="7692f9ea-999c-4f2f-a83c-468808e71ad9" CreationDate="2015-07-25T18:18:11.367" UserId="14417" Comment="Updated reference." Text="Patent applications can't be illegal unless they are disclosing trade secrets that fall under some form of legally binding non-disclosure agreement (NDA). Anyone not under such an NDA can *attempt* to patent whatever they want. However, this is ultimately a negotiation with the patent authorities over what constitutes a novel and non-obvious invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a Patent *Application*, which only means that someone is applying for a patent. If there is Prior Art publicly available, then it is up to the Patent Examiner at the USPTO (or the examiner at WIPO, because there was also a WIPO (Worldwide Patent) applied for, [WO 2013/134161 A1][1]. The examination process exists to prevent patents from being granted over already-existing ideas. The examiners at the USPTO and at WIPO actually do a really excellent job at finding Prior Art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that just because a specific idea is in the title, abstract or description of a patent application (or even in the claims), it doesn't necessarily mean that the Patent Grant(s) will cover it. In an application or grant, the most important things to look at are the independent claims. This is what describes the invention, regardless of anything else in the document. These might go through several revisions before the examiners agree that something novel has been created.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of the application you referred to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 1.** An energy-saving device, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one starting capacitor;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one running capacitor; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one power factor capacitor,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - all in electrical communication with a power supply and at least one induction motor,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - wherein the power supply needs to supply a much smaller input than the output current of the at least one induction motor after the induction motor has been running for at least from one second to about 30 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 6.** An energy-saving device, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one starting capacitor;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one running capacitor; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one power factor capacitor,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - an automatically adjustable tuning system with computer algorithms for progressively interconnecting said starting, running and power factor capacitors to achieve the lowest possible input,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - all in electrical communication with a power supply and at least one induction motor, wherein the power supply is tuned to need a much smaller input than the output current of the at least one induction motor after the induction motor has been running for at least from one second to about 30 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you consider device described in the above claims to already be in the Public Domain, then there are some things you can do to help the patent examiners find the appropriate material, for which you can find references [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013134161A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/found-prior-art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13276" RevisionGUID="7433194b-5086-4b26-9c12-56894a0acb0f" CreationDate="2015-07-25T20:55:21.013" UserId="14665" Text="Im working with XML from the USPTO bulk download which provides weekly downloads of XML of published patent grants. Im using this documentation to understand the files http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/products/PatentGrantXMLv42-Documentation.pdf. Im having trouble understanding the significations of the us-field-of-classification-search element (see page 26 in the referenced documentation). It seems to be repeating fields that have already been provided, specifically, it seems to be repeating classification information provided by other elements such as those beginning on page 11 of the aforementioned documentation. So whats this " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31656" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13276" RevisionGUID="7433194b-5086-4b26-9c12-56894a0acb0f" CreationDate="2015-07-25T20:55:21.013" UserId="14665" Text="USPTO Patent XML, understanding the us-field-of-classification-search element" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31657" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13276" RevisionGUID="7433194b-5086-4b26-9c12-56894a0acb0f" CreationDate="2015-07-25T20:55:21.013" UserId="14665" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;classification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13277" RevisionGUID="f0f727c3-1460-4967-8027-4595159af2ec" CreationDate="2015-07-25T22:03:28.410" UserId="14666" Text="All Feedback Is Greatly Appreciated. I'm A Very Young Inventor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31659" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13277" RevisionGUID="f0f727c3-1460-4967-8027-4595159af2ec" CreationDate="2015-07-25T22:03:28.410" UserId="14666" Text="Is It Correct That My USPTO Patent Is Not Safe From European Compies?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31660" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13277" RevisionGUID="f0f727c3-1460-4967-8027-4595159af2ec" CreationDate="2015-07-25T22:03:28.410" UserId="14666" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13278" RevisionGUID="0d32b00d-ffed-4167-9381-78f66336f636" CreationDate="2015-07-26T06:39:54.070" UserId="14509" Text="If you are not filing in other places, than your patent is not protected in those countries, which means that they will be bale to produce products there and sell them in all other places where your patent was not filed.&#xD;&#xA;If you file in the US only, you will be protected in the US, European companies will not be allowed to sell here. You will be able to sell everywhere - meaning competing without protection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13277" RevisionGUID="72156236-01e8-44cb-a050-98ab90ade319" CreationDate="2015-07-26T11:35:07.997" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="All feedback is greatly appreciated. I'm a very young inventor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31663" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13277" RevisionGUID="72156236-01e8-44cb-a050-98ab90ade319" CreationDate="2015-07-26T11:35:07.997" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="Is it true that a USPTO patent not safe from European companies?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31664" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13277" RevisionGUID="72156236-01e8-44cb-a050-98ab90ade319" CreationDate="2015-07-26T11:35:07.997" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;freedom-to-operate&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13276" RevisionGUID="4dc2ca61-9db9-4af8-b3d2-25bd4f23d58a" CreationDate="2015-07-26T11:39:23.957" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and corrected spelling." Text="I'm working with XML from the USPTO bulk download which provides weekly downloads of XML of published patent grants. I'm using [this documentation][1] to understand the files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having trouble understanding the significance of the `us-field-of-classification-search` element (see *page 26* in the referenced documentation). It seems to be repeating fields that have already been provided, specifically, it seems to be repeating classification information provided by other elements such as those beginning on *page 11* of the aforementioned documentation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is this element actually providing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/products/PatentGrantXMLv42-Documentation.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31666" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13276" RevisionGUID="4dc2ca61-9db9-4af8-b3d2-25bd4f23d58a" CreationDate="2015-07-26T11:39:23.957" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and corrected spelling." Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;classification&gt;&lt;file-format&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13278" RevisionGUID="c1bc0609-0522-4078-8627-ca16c478ee69" CreationDate="2015-07-26T11:40:55.157" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected spelling." Text="If you are not filing in other places, then your patent is not protected in those countries, which means that they will be able to produce products there and sell them in all other places where your patent was not filed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you file in the US only, you will be protected in the US, European companies will not be allowed to sell here. You will be able to sell everywhere - meaning competing without protection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31668" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="13011" RevisionGUID="b7acd363-c91b-4379-8b65-874fd199eaf3" CreationDate="2015-07-26T12:49:44.083" UserId="14417" Comment="30" />
  <row Id="31669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13011" RevisionGUID="a6c46c89-e47d-4c16-9d6f-38cc927755ed" CreationDate="2015-07-26T13:22:58.017" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="If a Provisional Application is filed in USPTO, let us say on June 01 2015 and before June 01 2016 a proper PCT Application (an International Provisional Application, this is also a provisional) is filed for this earlier domestic Provisional Application. How much time one would get to 'elect USA' as the first Non Provisional Application country (e.g., the standard 30 months applicable to PCT Applications) or 12 months from the PCT Application in USA? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it necessary that PCT Application filed by June 01 2016 has to be Non Provisional Application of the earlier USPTO filed Provisional Application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially trying to figure out the most effective way to get the maximum amount of time to fill USA Non Provisional Applications and Non Provisional Applications in some other countries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for help on this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Kathryn M" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31670" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13011" RevisionGUID="a6c46c89-e47d-4c16-9d6f-38cc927755ed" CreationDate="2015-07-26T13:22:58.017" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13279" RevisionGUID="b0745d05-3a83-40d5-9f72-4d8c8e7a9eb4" CreationDate="2015-07-26T14:37:09.350" UserId="5203" Text="To include production of hydrocarbons in title of this application is over-reaching. Where is the disclosure to support its inclusion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shouldn't there be a way to sanction those who pollute the patent system like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there no teeth in the filing requirements to keep down specious claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31672" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13279" RevisionGUID="b0745d05-3a83-40d5-9f72-4d8c8e7a9eb4" CreationDate="2015-07-26T14:37:09.350" UserId="5203" Text="US 2013/0206605 A1 too broad, little novelty" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31673" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13279" RevisionGUID="b0745d05-3a83-40d5-9f72-4d8c8e7a9eb4" CreationDate="2015-07-26T14:37:09.350" UserId="5203" Text="&lt;broad&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31674" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13279" RevisionGUID="958368a8-9d95-4a69-9281-36ea091daa41" CreationDate="2015-07-27T00:59:26.440" UserId="14417" Comment="Added more appropriate tags." Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;&lt;us20130206605a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13280" RevisionGUID="c67f152b-03da-4882-8aa7-05c39bd13b21" CreationDate="2015-07-27T02:09:32.183" UserId="14669" Text="In reference to the patent: [US6151713][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6151713" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31676" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13280" RevisionGUID="c67f152b-03da-4882-8aa7-05c39bd13b21" CreationDate="2015-07-27T02:09:32.183" UserId="14669" Text="Is this patent expired. Has anyone else patented it. Can I take over the patten and how much would it cost me. Thanks chris" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31677" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13280" RevisionGUID="c67f152b-03da-4882-8aa7-05c39bd13b21" CreationDate="2015-07-27T02:09:32.183" UserId="14669" Text="&lt;us20120221930&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13280" RevisionGUID="efa79d88-710e-4bb6-ac53-5f510d97e228" CreationDate="2015-07-27T02:18:28.193" UserId="14417" Comment="Moved title into body of question. Improved tagging." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 6,151,713][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent expired?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has anyone else patented it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I take over the patent and how much would it cost me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6151713" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31679" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13280" RevisionGUID="efa79d88-710e-4bb6-ac53-5f510d97e228" CreationDate="2015-07-27T02:18:28.193" UserId="14417" Comment="Moved title into body of question. Improved tagging." Text="Status of US 6,151,713" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31680" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13280" RevisionGUID="efa79d88-710e-4bb6-ac53-5f510d97e228" CreationDate="2015-07-27T02:18:28.193" UserId="14417" Comment="Moved title into body of question. Improved tagging." Text="&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;status&gt;&lt;us6151713&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13281" RevisionGUID="54037902-b3a4-4828-83ef-b18506e63929" CreationDate="2015-07-27T02:34:06.463" UserId="14417" Text="If you look at the &quot;Fee Status&quot;, you will see that it is &quot;Lapsed&quot;. This means that the patent is no longer enforceable. The reason for this is found at the bottom of the Google Patents page, in the Legal Events section:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Jan 22, 2004	FPAY	Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;                            Year of fee payment: 4&#xD;&#xA;    May 28, 2008	FPAY	Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;                            Year of fee payment: 8&#xD;&#xA;    Jul 9, 2012 	REMI	Maintenance fee reminder mailed	&#xD;&#xA;    Nov 28, 2012	LAPS	Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees	&#xD;&#xA;    Jan 15, 2013	FP	    Expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee	&#xD;&#xA;                            Effective date: 20121128&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the third maintenance fee was not paid, and the patent lapsed on November 28, 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are no other patent grants in the patent family (e.g., international filings, continuations), and the same claims cannot be re-patented because this patent would serve as Prior Art, making the invention Public Domain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the patent were still enforceable, you could potentially license or purchase the patent from the current assignee. Of course, that is not necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really wanted the patent, there is one slim possibility of working with the assignee to get the maintenance fee paid and revive the patent, but it has been so long (over two years since the failure to pay) that it would probably not be approved. Then you would need to get the patent reassigned with the cooperation of the assignee, and arrange mutually acceptable terms for the cost. This whole &quot;what if&quot; scenario would be expensive, time consuming, would likely fail and would only get a few years of coverage before the patent expires completely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13282" RevisionGUID="d30ff55f-0c22-4dc4-a518-adb04ed2c806" CreationDate="2015-07-27T02:55:57.417" UserId="14417" Text="The title is not part of the claims. In order to determine the scope of the claims, the best place to start is with the Independent Claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 1.** A method for treatment of seawater comprising the step of subjecting the seawater to an ion exchange reaction to exchange H+ ions for Na+ ions in the seawater under conditions sufficient to lower a pH of the seawater to less than about 6.5.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 13.** An electrolytic process for producing carbon dioxide and hydrogen gas from seawater comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - feeding a liquid anolyte into an anode compartment to generate hydrogen ions;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - feeding a liquid catholyte substantially free of hardness ions into a cathode compartment, wherein the central compartment is separated from the anode and cathode compartments by cation exchange membranes;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - feeding seawater into the central compartment;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - acidifying the seawater by exchanging the hydrogen ions for sodium ions therein to produce an acidified seawater effluent from the central compartment;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - reacting the sodium ions with hydroxyl ions in the cathode compartment to produce an effluent comprising sodium hydroxide and hydrogen gas;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - reacting carbonate and bicarbonate ions in the acidified seawater with the hydrogen ions to produce carbon dioxide;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and removing the carbon dioxide from the acidified seawater and removing the hydrogen gas from the cathode compartment effluent.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 32.** A process for treating seawater in an electrolytic reactor to produce carbon dioxide gas and hydrogen gas comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - electrolytically generating hydrogen ions from water in an anode compartment;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - exchanging sodium ions in the seawater with the hydrogen ions in an amount effective to reduce a pH of the seawater to less than 6.5, wherein exchanging the odium ions in the seawater with the hydrogen ions forms carbon dioxide gas;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - electrolytically generating hydroxyl ions and hydrogen gas from water in a cathode compartment;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and forming sodium hydroxide from the hydroxyl ions and the sodium ions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that these claims are part of a Patent *Application* and are not yet granted. They are a starting point for negotiating novel and non-obvious claims of appropriate scope with the USPTO (and in this case, WIPO).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are not satisfied with the scope of these claims and you feel that Prior Art exists that covers these claims, you can revise your question and add the `prior-art-request` tag, or [submit your own list][1] of Prior Art directly to the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/found-prior-art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13283" RevisionGUID="eed5dd0f-2219-4836-b459-92fdcac1f140" CreationDate="2015-07-27T11:26:21.137" UserId="14671" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2010031854A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2010031854A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hi Can you please tell me exactly what is patented on these shopping bag, I have designed a better style, longer lasting and eco friendly...&#xD;&#xA;Is the patent still vaild and in what countires" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31684" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13283" RevisionGUID="eed5dd0f-2219-4836-b459-92fdcac1f140" CreationDate="2015-07-27T11:26:21.137" UserId="14671" Text="Exactly what is patented" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31685" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13283" RevisionGUID="eed5dd0f-2219-4836-b459-92fdcac1f140" CreationDate="2015-07-27T11:26:21.137" UserId="14671" Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13284" RevisionGUID="865c0671-e8b9-432f-873a-4a62b327f7e9" CreationDate="2015-07-27T13:29:32.143" UserId="11855" Text="I will make a patent application. There will be names of two persons in the patent file. We want to share patent right not equally but 80% - 20%. How can that be possible? How can we specify this in the patent application? Or will it be specified in an aggreement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31687" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13284" RevisionGUID="865c0671-e8b9-432f-873a-4a62b327f7e9" CreationDate="2015-07-27T13:29:32.143" UserId="11855" Text="Patent Share between Stakeholders" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31688" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13284" RevisionGUID="865c0671-e8b9-432f-873a-4a62b327f7e9" CreationDate="2015-07-27T13:29:32.143" UserId="11855" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13196" RevisionGUID="2e1ec445-44da-4bdb-8968-fad12ecc1496" CreationDate="2015-07-27T14:23:36.630" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag, improved formatting." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 2014/0329849 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140329849" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31690" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13196" RevisionGUID="2e1ec445-44da-4bdb-8968-fad12ecc1496" CreationDate="2015-07-27T14:23:36.630" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag, improved formatting." Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;us20140329849&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13285" RevisionGUID="72dd0e4d-056a-472c-8319-6850e119877a" CreationDate="2015-07-28T00:16:29.740" UserId="14673" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20100080432][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20100080432&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A paper has been published that would constitute prior art for this patent: &quot;PIB-PET SEGMENTATION FOR AUTOMATIC SUVR NORMALISATION WITHOUT MR INFORMATION&quot; (by Raniga, Bourgeat, Ourselin, Villemagne, O'Keefe, Rowe), presented at the ISBI conference in April 2007. The submission for this conference was 1 Dec 2006, and thus preceded the priority date for this patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this publication invalidate the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;full paper here: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=4193294&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31694" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13285" RevisionGUID="72dd0e4d-056a-472c-8319-6850e119877a" CreationDate="2015-07-28T00:16:29.740" UserId="14673" Text="Prior art seems to exist" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31695" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13285" RevisionGUID="72dd0e4d-056a-472c-8319-6850e119877a" CreationDate="2015-07-28T00:16:29.740" UserId="14673" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20100080432&gt;&lt;pet&gt;&lt;suvr&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13286" RevisionGUID="254c7008-20bc-4d74-a9fc-8a950c6ef49a" CreationDate="2015-07-28T01:57:59.097" UserId="14417" Text="The laws may vary from country to country, but under the United States Code, co-inventors are each considered to have 100% ownership of the invention unless otherwise specified in an agreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, before you start the application process, you should have an agreement in writing that clearly states the terms of co-ownership for each inventor of the patent (percentage royalties, duration, etc.), and have this signed by each inventor. Many organizations (e.g. universities and large corporations) have some established method for this. If you are a small business, the first thing you should do is to hire a patent attorney to make certain nothing goes wrong with this part of the process. If a mistake is made here, it can become costly if not impossible to correct later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13284" RevisionGUID="39f31e26-c6bc-403d-8d62-671dbd7743a8" CreationDate="2015-07-28T02:13:04.033" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag, corrected spelling." Text="I will make a patent application. There will be names of two persons in the patent file. We want to share patent right not equally but 80% - 20%. How can that be possible? How can we specify this in the patent application? Or will it be specified in an agreement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31698" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13284" RevisionGUID="39f31e26-c6bc-403d-8d62-671dbd7743a8" CreationDate="2015-07-28T02:13:04.033" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag, corrected spelling." Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13286" RevisionGUID="75bc7ad3-ec71-4268-99be-2dd47f63006e" CreationDate="2015-07-28T02:22:30.663" UserId="14417" Comment="Added a reference." Text="The laws may vary from country to country, but under the United States Code, co-inventors are each considered to have 100% ownership of the invention unless otherwise specified in an agreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, before you start the application process, you should have an agreement in writing that clearly states the terms of co-ownership for each inventor of the patent (percentage royalties, duration, etc.), and have this signed by each inventor. Many organizations (e.g., universities and large corporations) have some established procedure for this. If you are a small business, the first thing you should do is to hire a patent attorney to make certain nothing goes wrong with this part of the process. If a mistake is made here, it can become costly if not impossible to correct later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each co-inventor will still need to sign a declaration or oath. The USPTO provides these forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source (with links to relevant MPEP sections): Malek, M. [Uncooperative Inventors][1], July, 15 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.legalteamusa.net/tacticalip/2013/07/15/uncooperative-inventors/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13285" RevisionGUID="706513ad-deb7-4d6c-ac0f-3d538a7284d5" CreationDate="2015-07-28T02:25:55.730" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 2010/0080432 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20100080432&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A paper has been published that would constitute prior art for this patent: &quot;PIB-PET SEGMENTATION FOR AUTOMATIC SUVR NORMALISATION WITHOUT MR INFORMATION&quot; (by Raniga, Bourgeat, Ourselin, Villemagne, O'Keefe, Rowe), presented at the ISBI conference in April 2007. The submission for this conference was 1 Dec 2006, and thus preceded the priority date for this patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this publication invalidate the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;full paper here: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=4193294&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31701" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13285" RevisionGUID="706513ad-deb7-4d6c-ac0f-3d538a7284d5" CreationDate="2015-07-28T02:25:55.730" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;us20100080432&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13287" RevisionGUID="b5bf7313-db09-4a0f-a9d1-e43a78a51d12" CreationDate="2015-07-28T02:43:43.167" UserId="14675" Text="In reference to the patent: [US1095168][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US1095168&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My great-grandfather received royalties in the amount of 5/375 interest from this patent, even though his name appears no where in the documentation. Does this mean he contributed in some way to the invention of the device? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He was actually a very successful building contractor his whole life; but he also farmed and owned some stock in a few different companies. As far as I can tell, he was not otherwise connected in a business sense with the persons or the company listed as the inventors of the device patented. Although I am sure he did know the Shriners. He was not in any other way, that I can tell, associated with the undertaker occupation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31703" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13287" RevisionGUID="b5bf7313-db09-4a0f-a9d1-e43a78a51d12" CreationDate="2015-07-28T02:43:43.167" UserId="14675" Text="Does part ownership in a patent mean the owner was a contributor to the invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31704" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13287" RevisionGUID="b5bf7313-db09-4a0f-a9d1-e43a78a51d12" CreationDate="2015-07-28T02:43:43.167" UserId="14675" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13288" RevisionGUID="7a7ef4c6-9dec-4a68-bad2-95724e2f7b3e" CreationDate="2015-07-28T08:33:32.353" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="Suppose that I sell a service and that I haven't disclosed anything about the method/software that I use to produce the service deliverables. It happens that the service has a good commercial success so after a couple of years I decide to file a patent application to protect said method/software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the fact that the product was being sold since years to be considered prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31706" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13288" RevisionGUID="7a7ef4c6-9dec-4a68-bad2-95724e2f7b3e" CreationDate="2015-07-28T08:33:32.353" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="Patenting an invention yet in production" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31707" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13288" RevisionGUID="7a7ef4c6-9dec-4a68-bad2-95724e2f7b3e" CreationDate="2015-07-28T08:33:32.353" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13289" RevisionGUID="53456442-503c-40fa-b2ec-938f44b847f9" CreationDate="2015-07-28T08:51:46.650" UserId="14676" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2013160573A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013160573A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;why the axaminer  has not indicate the tunisian patent TN2010/509 as  a reference like the others&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31709" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13289" RevisionGUID="53456442-503c-40fa-b2ec-938f44b847f9" CreationDate="2015-07-28T08:51:46.650" UserId="14676" Text="this patent is very similar to a tunisian patent TN2010/0509 deposed the 04/11/2010 in Tunisia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31710" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13289" RevisionGUID="53456442-503c-40fa-b2ec-938f44b847f9" CreationDate="2015-07-28T08:51:46.650" UserId="14676" Text="&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13288" RevisionGUID="bf921e2b-236c-4b57-a64e-e479f02dabc0" CreationDate="2015-07-28T10:07:23.723" UserDisplayName="user8305" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="Suppose that I sell a service and that I haven't disclosed anything about the method/software that I use to produce the service deliverables. It happens that the service has a good commercial success so after a couple of years I decide to file a patent application to protect said method/software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the fact that the product was being produced and sold since years to be considered prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13290" RevisionGUID="d3186bcf-f249-455d-b6a4-a8cc795b08cf" CreationDate="2015-07-28T11:09:58.937" UserId="14677" Text="I want to file a US patent for an idea. But I don't know whether it is considered abstract and thus is it patentable or not? I explain it by an example. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just as an example suppose faceted search (which is already known an used). The user enters a query and the system shows different possible meanings of that query. Then user selects the desired meaning and the system refines the results according to the selected meaning. For example, the user enters &quot;JAVA&quot; then the system shows a list of options including: Java Programming Language, Java Island, Java Coffee, Java Dance, etc. Then the user selects Java Island and the system refines the search results according to his selection and shows only the results related to the Java Island.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this example, first different systems and implementations might identify different sets of candidates for possible meanings. Second, they might use different algorithms to refine the results based on the selected meaning. These are open research problems in this search paradigm and their solutions are not proposed by the patent. But the overall structure is described and the definition (input/output) of each component is known but specific implementations are not described.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this system were not publicly known would it be possible to patent it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not, if we just add some very very simple (not practically desirable) way of implementing to it, will it become patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31713" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13290" RevisionGUID="d3186bcf-f249-455d-b6a4-a8cc795b08cf" CreationDate="2015-07-28T11:09:58.937" UserId="14677" Text="Patenting a New Paradigm for Search Engines" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31714" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13290" RevisionGUID="d3186bcf-f249-455d-b6a4-a8cc795b08cf" CreationDate="2015-07-28T11:09:58.937" UserId="14677" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;abstract&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13287" RevisionGUID="22ec0e2b-8be8-4b34-b625-3410e1ca2cce" CreationDate="2015-07-28T11:10:55.583" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 1,095,168 A][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US1095168&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My great-grandfather received royalties in the amount of 5/375 interest from this patent, even though his name appears no where in the documentation. Does this mean he contributed in some way to the invention of the device? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He was actually a very successful building contractor his whole life; but he also farmed and owned some stock in a few different companies. As far as I can tell, he was not otherwise connected in a business sense with the persons or the company listed as the inventors of the device patented. Although I am sure he did know the Shriners. He was not in any other way, that I can tell, associated with the undertaker occupation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31716" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13287" RevisionGUID="22ec0e2b-8be8-4b34-b625-3410e1ca2cce" CreationDate="2015-07-28T11:10:55.583" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags." Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;royalty&gt;&lt;us1095168&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31717" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13290" RevisionGUID="4bd9d421-51cc-4d1b-91cd-ad2117556431" CreationDate="2015-07-28T11:14:29.363" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags." Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13290" RevisionGUID="a368ca19-9de4-4ac0-b6e5-c75d6935d9a8" CreationDate="2015-07-28T11:16:59.457" UserId="14677" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="I want to file a US patent for a new paradigm of search engines. But I don't know whether it is considered abstract and thus is it patentable or not? I explain it by an example. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just as an example suppose faceted search (which is already known an used). The user enters a query and the system shows different possible meanings of that query. Then user selects the desired meaning and the system refines the results according to the selected meaning. For example, the user enters &quot;JAVA&quot; then the system shows a list of options including: Java Programming Language, Java Island, Java Coffee, Java Dance, etc. Then the user selects Java Island and the system refines the search results according to his selection and shows only the results related to the Java Island.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this example, first different systems and implementations might identify different sets of candidates for possible meanings. Second, they might use different algorithms to refine the results based on the selected meaning. These are open research problems in this search paradigm and their solutions are not proposed by the patent. But the overall structure is described and the definition (input/output) of each component is known but specific implementations are not described.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this system were not publicly known would it be possible to patent it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not, if we just add some very very simple (not practically desirable) way of implementing to it, will it become patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13289" RevisionGUID="c61d71ca-9ee7-4f08-a21b-ce6ac0479aba" CreationDate="2015-07-28T11:38:48.797" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags." Text="In reference to the patent: [WO 2013/160573 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why has the examiner has not indicated the Tunisian patent TN2010/0509 as a reference like the others?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013160573A1&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31720" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13289" RevisionGUID="c61d71ca-9ee7-4f08-a21b-ce6ac0479aba" CreationDate="2015-07-28T11:38:48.797" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags." Text="This patent is very similar to a Tunisian patent TN2010/0509 deposed the 04/11/2010 in Tunisia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31721" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13289" RevisionGUID="c61d71ca-9ee7-4f08-a21b-ce6ac0479aba" CreationDate="2015-07-28T11:38:48.797" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags." Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;wipo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13291" RevisionGUID="975a0618-fd32-4809-afc8-65073549c5de" CreationDate="2015-07-28T11:50:44.143" UserId="14417" Text="This [article][1] from the European Patent Office indicates that Tunisia is not an EPO member state, and only in July 2014 was there an agreement formed (not ratified) between Tunisia and EPO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Under the terms of the agreement, signed in Munich on 3 July [2014], European&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent applicants and proprietors will be able to validate the legal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; effects of their European patents and applications on Tunisian&#xD;&#xA;&gt; territory, even though Tunisia is not an EPO member state. Validated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; European patent applications and patents will have the same legal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; effect as Tunisian national applications and patents, and will be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; subject only to Tunisian patent legislation. The agreement has to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ratified before it can enter into force.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article goes on to mention that the group has been working on this agreement since 2004.&#xD;&#xA;The WIPO application you mention has a priority date from 2012, and pre-dates the agreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm certain there are some more specific answers to this question, it depends on how deeply you want to dig into the [WIPO patent legislation][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.epo.org/news-issues/news/2014/20140704.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/profile.jsp?code=TN" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31723" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13290" RevisionGUID="aa3a75b7-43aa-4fec-a0a6-bb1f27f418f3" CreationDate="2015-07-28T12:00:38.063" UserId="14677" Comment="added 346 characters in body" Text="I want to file a US patent for a new paradigm of search engines. But I don't know whether it is considered abstract and thus is it patentable or not? I explain it by an example. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just as an example suppose faceted search (which is already known an used). The user enters a query and the system shows different possible meanings of that query. Then user selects the desired meaning and the system refines the results according to the selected meaning. For example, the user enters &quot;JAVA&quot; then the system shows a list of options including: Java Programming Language, Java Island, Java Coffee, Java Dance, etc. Then the user selects Java Island and the system refines the search results according to his selection and shows only the results related to the Java Island.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this example, first different systems and implementations might identify different sets of candidates for possible meanings. Second, they might use different algorithms to refine the results based on the selected meaning. These are open research problems in this search paradigm and their solutions are not proposed by the patent. But the overall structure is described and the definition (input/output) of each component is known but specific implementations are not described.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this system were not publicly known would it be possible to patent it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example, in this patent I will invent a new destination (faceted search) and explain the steps for reaching it. I say that you will need a car, you will need gas, you will need road, etc. First, fill the car by the gas. Then, start you car. Then, .... But I don't tell what kind of car you must use, what kind of gas you must use, ... .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not, if we just add some very very simple (not practically desirable) way of implementing to it, will it become patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13292" RevisionGUID="b275b3eb-4cea-4915-9c8b-fcba3f0394b4" CreationDate="2015-07-28T13:00:10.287" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="I have seen many different and opposite opinions on this, so I suggest my personal way to try to find out a logic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - if what makes your invention it's a new combination of known elements/methods/technologies then you shouldn't disclose the way of implementing those &quot;blocks&quot;. Think about every computer related patent application: you use a machine comprising an hard disk but you don't explain the hard disk implementation. The risk is that the above combination is obvious and then non patentable; &#xD;&#xA; - if otherway what makes the invention is a new &quot;block&quot;, then you claim generally the new function and provide at least an embodiment description disclosing the detailed implementation. The risk of not providing an enough detailed descritpion is to try to patent the &quot;time machine&quot;: a machine comprising a way of selecting the date to which to transport the traveler and a mean to transport it to that date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13293" RevisionGUID="90a94ba6-bdda-40f2-85cf-2ea4392b93ec" CreationDate="2015-07-28T13:18:51.680" UserId="11751" Text="Is there a practice of demanding lawyer fee discount?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short intro: our company was sued for alleged patent infringement. We provided all the detailed explanation to our lawyers and plaintiff why patent is extremely narrow and infringement allegations are baseless. Plaintiff ignored our arguments in a way like saying 'I have a patent I don't care for details'. Our lawyers for some reason acted as spineless beings playing by the plaintiffs rules - our lawyers were constantly persuading us to agree to plaintiff's settlement agreement, which obviously was not in our favor. Litigation ended after in-person meeting with plaintiffs and one of our layer whining on how we misunderstand litigation in general and so on. Luckily we had more people on board and we explained that in case of a plaintiffs loss they loose patents (or they are severely truncated) if we (defendants) loose, we loose insignificant part of our income.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the issue with our layers is inadequate representation and disproportionate billing. We'd like to demand a discount from our layers for weak stance and distrust in our arguments. Is this possible and if so how should we formulate our demand?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31726" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13293" RevisionGUID="90a94ba6-bdda-40f2-85cf-2ea4392b93ec" CreationDate="2015-07-28T13:18:51.680" UserId="11751" Text="Demanding lawyer fee discount after weak representation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31727" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13293" RevisionGUID="90a94ba6-bdda-40f2-85cf-2ea4392b93ec" CreationDate="2015-07-28T13:18:51.680" UserId="11751" Text="&lt;fees&gt;&lt;weak&gt;&lt;layers&gt;&lt;discount&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10019" RevisionGUID="bfa49b0a-dea4-4817-8b44-d2bb4e3d5d98" CreationDate="2015-07-28T13:33:03.750" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling, improved grammar and formatting." Text="When I read some patents, I often don't understand their novelty, especially with CIP and CP applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it by checking *backward citations* and compare with present claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31729" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10019" RevisionGUID="bfa49b0a-dea4-4817-8b44-d2bb4e3d5d98" CreationDate="2015-07-28T13:33:03.750" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling, improved grammar and formatting." Text="How to check the novelty in a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31730" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10019" RevisionGUID="bfa49b0a-dea4-4817-8b44-d2bb4e3d5d98" CreationDate="2015-07-28T13:33:03.750" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling, improved grammar and formatting." Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13293" RevisionGUID="c72ef46d-e0fc-4deb-a49c-27f39948b04a" CreationDate="2015-07-28T13:33:10.990" UserId="11751" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="Is there a practice of demanding lawyer fee discount?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short intro: our company was sued for alleged patent infringement. We provided all the detailed explanation to our lawyers and plaintiff why patent is extremely narrow and infringement allegations are baseless. Plaintiff ignored our arguments in a way like saying 'I have a patent I don't care for details'. Our lawyers for some reason acted as spineless beings playing by the plaintiffs rules - our lawyers were constantly persuading us to agree to plaintiff's settlement agreement, which obviously was not in our favor. Litigation ended after in-person meeting with plaintiffs and one of our layer whining on how we misunderstand litigation in general and so on. Luckily we had more people on board and we explained that in case of a plaintiffs loss they loose patents (or they are severely truncated) if we (defendants) loose, we loose insignificant part of our income. So the end was dismissal without prejudice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the issue with our layers is inadequate representation and disproportionate billing. We'd like to demand a discount from our layers for weak stance and distrust in our arguments. Is this possible and if so how should we formulate our demand?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31732" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13293" RevisionGUID="09dffb08-171d-4deb-8aa6-56ccc1537428" CreationDate="2015-07-28T14:15:51.467" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31733" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13293" RevisionGUID="01c0c0f0-33a0-4fda-a3c5-3f7ad96ac496" CreationDate="2015-07-28T15:33:51.407" UserId="14417" Comment="Removed 3 tags, which were all new and not relevant to this community." Text="&lt;fees&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31734" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5940" RevisionGUID="13ac1329-d223-4d81-acc1-2abe431e2c0c" CreationDate="2015-07-28T17:56:36.683" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;process&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13295" RevisionGUID="fc1677aa-a1d0-47f5-ad85-b8d292fa1e47" CreationDate="2015-07-28T21:54:51.500" UserId="14678" Text="In reference to the patent: [US6327713][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6327713&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31741" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13295" RevisionGUID="fc1677aa-a1d0-47f5-ad85-b8d292fa1e47" CreationDate="2015-07-28T21:54:51.500" UserId="14678" Text="Is this patent still active? If so, who do I contact to acquire the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31742" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13295" RevisionGUID="fc1677aa-a1d0-47f5-ad85-b8d292fa1e47" CreationDate="2015-07-28T21:54:51.500" UserId="14678" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13274" RevisionGUID="e22e354c-d9f3-4d7a-90ce-6e8456df255b" CreationDate="2015-07-28T23:21:09.117" UserId="14417" Comment="Added more information." Text="Patent applications can't be illegal unless they are disclosing trade secrets that fall under some form of legally binding non-disclosure agreement (NDA). Anyone not under such an NDA can *attempt* to patent whatever they want. However, this is ultimately a negotiation with the patent authorities over what constitutes a novel and non-obvious invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a Patent *Application*, which only means that someone is applying for a patent. If there is Prior Art publicly available, then it is up to the Patent Examiner at the USPTO (or the examiner at WIPO, because there was also a WIPO (Worldwide Patent) applied for, [WO 2013/134161 A1][1]. The examination process exists to prevent patents from being granted over already-existing ideas. The examiners at the USPTO and at WIPO actually do a really excellent job at finding Prior Art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that just because a specific idea is in the title, abstract or description of a patent application (or even in the claims), it doesn't necessarily mean that the Patent Grant(s) will cover it. In an application or grant, the most important things to look at are the independent claims. This is what describes the invention, regardless of anything else in the document. These might go through several revisions before the examiners agree that something novel has been created.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of the application you referred to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 1.** An energy-saving device, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one starting capacitor;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one running capacitor; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one power factor capacitor,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - all in electrical communication with a power supply and at least one induction motor,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - wherein the power supply needs to supply a much smaller input than the output current of the at least one induction motor after the induction motor has been running for at least from one second to about 30 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 6.** An energy-saving device, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one starting capacitor;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one running capacitor; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one power factor capacitor,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - an automatically adjustable tuning system with computer algorithms for progressively interconnecting said starting, running and power factor capacitors to achieve the lowest possible input,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - all in electrical communication with a power supply and at least one induction motor, wherein the power supply is tuned to need a much smaller input than the output current of the at least one induction motor after the induction motor has been running for at least from one second to about 30 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These claims are so broad that they will likely fail several tests for novelty and inventive step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you consider device described in the above claims to already be in the Public Domain, then there are some things you can do to help the patent examiners find the appropriate material, for which you can find references [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, some applications are filed and abandoned solely to put material into the Public Domain in a place that is easily findable by patent examiners, since online forums are not considered to contain persistent material. This effectively prevents anyone else from seeking broad claims in a particular area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013134161A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/found-prior-art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31744" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5224" RevisionGUID="9f722ef5-a427-469f-acdd-34cca331ff38" CreationDate="2015-07-28T23:57:19.440" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;us20130226915&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10552" RevisionGUID="6496e404-c31f-4484-86c4-6460e4576db3" CreationDate="2015-07-29T00:03:59.887" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="What is the meaning of &quot;simple discretionary inquiry&quot; in supreme court [opinion][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Finally, the Court rejected the appellate court’s “clear and convincing evidence” standard that successful patent litigants would have to establish in order to receive fees. Instead, the Court held that a **simple discretionary inquiry** would serve to determine whether granting attorney fees is appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What will the court actions be to meet simple discretionary inquiry standard next time it will have to decide entitlement to attorney’s fees? Is there a definition for simple discretionary inquiry? Is there a precedent explaining steps court takes when it performs discretionary inquiry? Is it a common self-explanatory term?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_12_1184" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31746" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10552" RevisionGUID="6496e404-c31f-4484-86c4-6460e4576db3" CreationDate="2015-07-29T00:03:59.887" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;supreme-court&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13298" RevisionGUID="733df7c8-ce1a-44ba-ad95-e81b52249b38" CreationDate="2015-07-29T07:27:45.303" UserId="14680" Text="In reference to the patents: [US8159357][1] and its citation [US7439887][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patents seemingly have nothing to do with one another, yet the patent examiner added the citation US7439887 (GIF decompression) to US7439887 (Means for prospecting water on heavenly bodies)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, do examiners sometimes 'mess up'? Would this be one of those cases or is there some subtext I do not see? How similar do patents have to be for an examiner to add it as a citation? What is the process in which examiners add citations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8159357&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7439887" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31760" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13298" RevisionGUID="733df7c8-ce1a-44ba-ad95-e81b52249b38" CreationDate="2015-07-29T07:27:45.303" UserId="14680" Text="Miscitation between patents due to human error?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31761" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13298" RevisionGUID="733df7c8-ce1a-44ba-ad95-e81b52249b38" CreationDate="2015-07-29T07:27:45.303" UserId="14680" Text="&lt;examiner&gt;&lt;citation&gt;&lt;us8159357&gt;&lt;us7439887&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13298" RevisionGUID="bdca14bc-6488-4a0e-9c06-a8c87125bce7" CreationDate="2015-07-29T07:32:50.157" UserId="14680" Comment="Added software explaination" Text="In reference to the patents: [US8159357][1] and its citation [US7439887][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patents seemingly have nothing to do with one another, yet the patent examiner added the citation US7439887 (GIF decompression) to US7439887 (Means for prospecting water on heavenly bodies)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, do examiners sometimes 'mess up'? Would this be one of those cases or is there some subtext I do not see? How similar do patents have to be for an examiner to add it as a citation? What is the process in which examiners add citations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the following response from a [different question][3] I gather Google uses ORC to categorize the patents- as such this might not be so much an examiner error such as a software error. However, I would still like to know about human error among examiners&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8159357&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7439887&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/12392/how-do-you-correct-errors-in-google-patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13298" RevisionGUID="0b1c1895-cd24-41ea-83dc-07e5db1f0501" CreationDate="2015-07-29T07:43:50.573" UserId="14680" Comment="Added link to pdf" Text="In reference to the patents: [US8159357][1] and its citation [US7439887][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patents seemingly have nothing to do with one another, yet the patent examiner added the citation US7439887 (GIF decompression) to US7439887 (Means for prospecting water on heavenly bodies)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, do examiners sometimes 'mess up'? Would this be one of those cases or is there some subtext I do not see? How similar do patents have to be for an examiner to add it as a citation? What is the process in which examiners add citations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the following response from a [different question][3] I gather Google uses ORC to categorize the patents- as such this might not be so much an examiner error such as a software error, [although it really doesn't look like it][4]. However, I would still like to know about human error among examiners&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8159357&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7439887&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/12392/how-do-you-correct-errors-in-google-patents&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US8159357.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13299" RevisionGUID="c15d0316-9ba4-476e-aeca-cc414ff64f51" CreationDate="2015-07-29T09:10:40.390" UserId="11804" Text="I am very new to filing patents,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - What is the role of dependent claims?&#xD;&#xA;  - Couldn't I just have one claim with any details required?&#xD;&#xA;  - When I should know that I should break a claim to some dependent claims?&#xD;&#xA;  - Do they regard the whole claims to detect infringement of my patent&#xD;&#xA;  - Do they regard the whole claims to detect others infringements&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31765" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13299" RevisionGUID="c15d0316-9ba4-476e-aeca-cc414ff64f51" CreationDate="2015-07-29T09:10:40.390" UserId="11804" Text="What is the role of dependent claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31766" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13299" RevisionGUID="c15d0316-9ba4-476e-aeca-cc414ff64f51" CreationDate="2015-07-29T09:10:40.390" UserId="11804" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13299" RevisionGUID="7d3fa94f-187f-4938-a710-f9c61fe6d7b8" CreationDate="2015-07-29T11:40:13.890" UserId="11804" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="I am very new to filing patents,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - What is the role of dependent claims?&#xD;&#xA;  - Couldn't I just have one claim with any details required?&#xD;&#xA;  - What is the difference if I have one, two, or ten claims?&#xD;&#xA;  - When I should know that I need break a claim to some dependent claims?&#xD;&#xA;  - Do they regard the whole claims to detect infringement in my patent&#xD;&#xA;  - Do they regard the whole claims to detect others infringements of my patent&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12667" RevisionGUID="5449b0bd-aa81-4fae-9924-3d16c89da5f5" CreationDate="2015-07-29T11:54:19.220" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="A patent claim states a &quot;strap used to suspend the motor&quot;. Can I use a chain to suspend the motor and not be in violation of the patent. I looked up the definition of a strap and from what I can tell it does not incorporate a chain. Or would I be in violation of Doctrine of Equivalents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31769" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12667" RevisionGUID="5449b0bd-aa81-4fae-9924-3d16c89da5f5" CreationDate="2015-07-29T11:54:19.220" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;doctrine-of-equivalents&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13298" RevisionGUID="7865b2eb-a013-48f0-adcd-6fb664596f73" CreationDate="2015-07-29T12:02:30.730" UserId="14680" Comment="Wrong patent numbers" Text="In reference to the patents: [US8159357][1] and its citation [US7439887][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patents seemingly have nothing to do with one another, yet the patent examiner added the citation US7439887 (GIF decompression) __to__ US8159357 (Means for prospecting water on heavenly bodies)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, do examiners sometimes 'mess up'? Would this be one of those cases or is there some subtext I do not see? How similar do patents have to be for an examiner to add it as a citation? What is the process in which examiners add citations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the following response from a [different question][3] I gather Google uses ORC to categorize the patents- as such this might not be so much an examiner error such as a software error, [although it really doesn't look like it][4]. However, I would still like to know about human error among examiners&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8159357&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7439887&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/12392/how-do-you-correct-errors-in-google-patents&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US8159357.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13300" RevisionGUID="b281159b-6717-48ba-ba15-2fd8ce5520a1" CreationDate="2015-07-29T13:29:11.840" UserId="12029" Text="If you look at the priority date of the patent it is 30 January 2007. The conference paper was made available to the public in April 2007. By definition of prior art in the patent law, a document can only be considered prior art with regard to a given patent if the document was made available to the general public before the priority date. In the case you cite, even tough the submission date is prior to the priority date of the patent, the fact that it's content was not made available to the general public until April 2007 implies that this publication cannot be considered as a prior art and therefore does not invalidate the patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13301" RevisionGUID="e4a80b83-dfa8-4b4e-8f23-1b655e0ac108" CreationDate="2015-07-29T14:11:00.497" UserId="14417" Text="This is an obvious error. The US 7,439,877 patent citation is the correct one because it is in the same space and has the same inventor as the patent in question. The two identifiers are only off by a single digit and have the same publication date:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    US7439877	May 18, 2007	Oct 21, 2008	Philip Onni Jarvinen	Total impedance and complex dielectric property ice detection system&#xD;&#xA;    US7439887 *	Feb 13, 2007	Oct 21, 2008	Seiko Epson Corporation	Method and apparatus for GIF decompression using fixed-size codeword table&#xD;&#xA;    * Cited by examiner&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what its worth, using integers as a unique identifier is error-prone (due to OCR errors and human transpositions, as you mention).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I think there are some other interesting issues with this patent grant. Nowhere in the document is there a reference to an application. The priority date and filing date are identical: `March 30, 2009`, which means there was no provisional application. Nowhere in the document does the grant claim the benefit of the priority of other applications or grants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO records and Google Patents records agree on the lack of a recorded patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, looking at the [Espacenet record][1], we see the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Application number: US20090383894 20090330&#xD;&#xA;    Priority number(s): US20090383894 20090330&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the application US20090383894 does not exist in [Google Patents][2] or the [USPTO database][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching in the [USPTO Public Pair system][4] for `12/383894`, we can find some interesting information about the application. It has a lengthy list of actions, including abandonment, withdrawal of abandonment, &quot;Request for Applicant Statement Regarding Potential NASA Interest&quot;, and a request for special consideration due to advanced age of the inventor. The application itself (US 2009/0383894) is also contained in the Image File Wrapper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also in the Image File Wrapper is the Examiner's search strategy and published results:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`04-01-2010 	SRNT 	Examiner's search strategy and results`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is followed on the same day with a document containing US 7,439,887 as Prior Art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`04-01-2010 	892 	List of references cited by examiner 	PRIOR ART`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The terms and class codes that the Examiner searched should not have turned up US 7,439,887. It is in class 341, and search was restricted to class 340. Human error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&amp;NR=8159357B1&amp;KC=B1&amp;FT=D&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20090383894&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?TERM1=20090383894&amp;Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&amp;r=0&amp;f=S&amp;l=50&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31773" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13298" RevisionGUID="f2921fda-bbd1-4ba3-b96d-ffbff0e560c9" CreationDate="2015-07-29T14:12:13.333" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling." Text="In reference to the patents: [US8159357][1] and its citation [US7439887][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patents seemingly have nothing to do with one another, yet the patent examiner added the citation US7439887 (GIF decompression) __to__ US8159357 (Means for prospecting water on heavenly bodies)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, do examiners sometimes 'mess up'? Would this be one of those cases or is there some subtext I do not see? How similar do patents have to be for an examiner to add it as a citation? What is the process in which examiners add citations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the following response from a [different question][3] I gather Google uses OCR to categorize the patents- as such this might not be so much an examiner error such as a software error, [although it really doesn't look like it][4]. However, I would still like to know about human error among examiners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8159357&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7439887&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/12392/how-do-you-correct-errors-in-google-patents&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US8159357.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31774" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13298" RevisionGUID="f2921fda-bbd1-4ba3-b96d-ffbff0e560c9" CreationDate="2015-07-29T14:12:13.333" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling." Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;examiner&gt;&lt;citation&gt;&lt;us7439887&gt;&lt;us8159357&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13245" RevisionGUID="7d79b6fe-fa26-4b72-8a95-d8036344d6d5" CreationDate="2015-07-29T14:53:55.713" UserId="14417" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="A controversial Google patent application on the Dropout method for neural networks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31779" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13245" RevisionGUID="7d79b6fe-fa26-4b72-8a95-d8036344d6d5" CreationDate="2015-07-29T14:53:55.713" Comment="Proposed by 14417 approved by 1 edit id of 1855" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31780" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13283" RevisionGUID="8d87d40c-3d0d-4606-a1e4-b9b7c80a1da3" CreationDate="2015-07-29T14:54:02.860" UserId="14681" Comment="Corrected spelling mistakes, added line breaks" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2010031854A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2010031854A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hi. Can you please tell me exactly what is patented on these shopping bag? I have designed a better style, longer lasting and eco friendly...&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Is the patent still valid, and in what countries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31781" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13283" RevisionGUID="8d87d40c-3d0d-4606-a1e4-b9b7c80a1da3" CreationDate="2015-07-29T14:54:02.860" Comment="Proposed by 14681 approved by 14417, 1 edit id of 1859" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13256" RevisionGUID="92d27183-c337-453d-8c03-1b7f98c6016e" CreationDate="2015-07-29T14:54:08.353" UserId="14417" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="Reinstatement of a patent after a Failure to Pay Maintenance Fees." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31783" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13256" RevisionGUID="92d27183-c337-453d-8c03-1b7f98c6016e" CreationDate="2015-07-29T14:54:08.353" Comment="Proposed by 14417 approved by 1 edit id of 1856" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13244" RevisionGUID="0ad89573-47f8-4b6f-aaa4-2083105e479a" CreationDate="2015-07-29T14:54:12.733" UserId="14417" Comment="added 1281 characters in body" Text="This is one of six Machine Learning patent applications assigned to Google that gained notoriety on Reddit ([&quot;Why Google's New Patent Applications are Alarming&quot;][1]) in July 2015 due the claims having broad coverage over several active areas of research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This prompted several other articles such as Quora's &quot;[Why has Google filed patent applications on several commonly used machine learning techniques about which plenty of prior art exist? What do they want to achieve?][2]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [System and method for addressing overfitting in a neural network][3] ([Dropout][4]) [tag:wo2014105866a1] [tag:us20140180986]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/3cbui2/why_googles_new_patent_applications_are_alarming/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.quora.com/Why-has-Google-filed-patent-applications-on-several-commonly-used-machine-learning-techniques-about-which-plenty-of-prior-art-exist-What-do-they-want-to-achieve&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20140180986&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convolutional_neural_network#Dropout_method&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140180989&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8892488&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140177947&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://Methods%20and%20apparatus%20for%20reinforcement%20learning" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31785" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13244" RevisionGUID="0ad89573-47f8-4b6f-aaa4-2083105e479a" CreationDate="2015-07-29T14:54:12.733" Comment="Proposed by 14417 approved by 1 edit id of 1854" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10069" RevisionGUID="961dcc97-e9cb-41e0-9e4a-5dd6d0f0777f" CreationDate="2015-07-29T14:54:38.420" UserId="14622" Comment="Added information about a second patent grant and the legal events." Text="US 5278057 has expired (it would have had no effect past January 2010 even if the maintenance fees were paid, due to the terminal disclaimer). The EP application was never patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was the correct answer, but I wanted to add the following additional information about the Legal Events, as well as information on a second grant issued from the same application (also expired). The Effective date for the FP codes is the last date the patent was enforcable (January 11, 2006 and January 19, 2005).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**US 5278057**][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Feb 24, 1997	FPAY	Fee payment&#xD;&#xA;                            Year of fee payment: 4&#xD;&#xA;    Feb  7, 2001	FPAY	Fee payment&#xD;&#xA;                            Year of fee payment: 8&#xD;&#xA;    Oct 23, 2001	AS		Assignment&#xD;&#xA;    Jul 27, 2005	REMI	Maintenance fee reminder mailed	&#xD;&#xA;    Jan 11, 2006	LAPS	Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees	&#xD;&#xA;    Mar  7, 2006	FP		Expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee&#xD;&#xA;                            Effective date: 20060111&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**US 5,180,873**][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Jun 17, 1985	AS		Assignment	&#xD;&#xA;                            Owner name: ADVANCED GENETIC SCIENCES, INC., 6701 SAN PABLO AV&#xD;&#xA;                            Effective date: 19850531&#xD;&#xA;    Jul  5, 1990	AS		Assignment	&#xD;&#xA;                            Owner name: DNA PLANT TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, A CORP. OF DE, N&#xD;&#xA;                            Effective date: 19890712&#xD;&#xA;    Apr 22, 1996	FPAY	Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;                            Year of fee payment: 4&#xD;&#xA;    Apr 28, 2000	FPAY	Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;                            Year of fee payment: 8&#xD;&#xA;    Oct 23, 2001	AS		Assignment	&#xD;&#xA;    Aug  4, 2004	REMI	Maintenance fee reminder mailed	&#xD;&#xA;    Jan 19, 2005	LAPS	Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees	&#xD;&#xA;    Mar 15, 2005	FP		Expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee	&#xD;&#xA;                            Effective date: 20050119&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5278057&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5180873&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31787" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10069" RevisionGUID="961dcc97-e9cb-41e0-9e4a-5dd6d0f0777f" CreationDate="2015-07-29T14:54:38.420" Comment="Proposed by 14622 approved by 14417, 1 edit id of 1853" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13302" RevisionGUID="4678d23a-9c1a-429d-a3ce-aa1031ef1a0f" CreationDate="2015-07-29T15:50:47.903" UserId="14670" Text="Is there a case were a patent was denied by an examiner, then later an almost identical patent was granted to another person through a different examiner?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31789" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13302" RevisionGUID="4678d23a-9c1a-429d-a3ce-aa1031ef1a0f" CreationDate="2015-07-29T15:50:47.903" UserId="14670" Text="Examiner's liberal use of anticipation and obviousness" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31790" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13302" RevisionGUID="4678d23a-9c1a-429d-a3ce-aa1031ef1a0f" CreationDate="2015-07-29T15:50:47.903" UserId="14670" Text="&lt;examiner&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31791" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13299" RevisionGUID="cdbde472-9c8d-4faf-90e6-d2184e8e857f" CreationDate="2015-07-29T19:49:51.740" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag." Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13303" RevisionGUID="d2ef8611-fed5-4f06-bcb5-551a6c8b22ed" CreationDate="2015-07-29T20:29:11.830" UserId="14417" Text="When filing a patent, the goal of the Independent Claim(s) is to define the invention as broadly as possible. Your goal is to obtain Freedom to Operate, with enough &quot;white space&quot; around your Preferred Embodiment that competitors cannot change minor details to avoid licensing your patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dependent Claims provide paths to multiple embodiments of your invention, and also provide a means to establish Prior Art for others in the field seeking similar patents. For instance, you can anticipate some refinements that solve a related problem that a competitor might seek to patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims in a patent application are a starting point for negotiation with the patent office on novelty and non-obviousness. Through a series of Office Actions, the Inventor (you) and the Patent Office (e.g., USPTO) negotiate to (optimally) the broadest possible coverage on the independent claims. Often, when an independent claim is too broad, clauses from dependent claims are moved into the independent claim to narrow its scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, you *can* have a patent with a single independent claim and no other claims. I know I've encountered one that granted, but it would be difficult to find it at the moment. A patent defined in this way might be so narrowly defined that another inventor might easily make several modifications and thus obtain Freedom to Operate in your space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are patents granted out there with over 400 claims. I'm uncertain what the maximum is, but if you exceed 10 or so on a PCT application, you will end up paying extra, and that cost adds up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have multiple independent claims (as is common with software patents, which have similar independent claims that cover the method, the system and the hardware implementation), this may multiply the number of dependent claims as well. If your independent claims are too dissimilar to each other, or a single dependent claim adds too much novelty (e.g., a combination of 3 or more non-obvious clauses), and you are filing for an international patent, you may be required by the Examiner to file multiple applications, which will double your cost and add to the difficulty of prosecuting the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your application, you should write as many claims as you think you need to get the amount of &quot;white space&quot; you need to protect your invention from competition. You will probably lose a few through Office Actions. For instance, you might file 40 claims but only 10 are granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A terminology note on your second-to-last question: your patent application cannot &quot;infringe&quot; another patent. I think what you mean is rejection of your application based on Prior Art. With that definition, yes, your claims can be rejected if they match the claims in a patent or application that has an earlier Priority Date. As a matter of fact, any material at all in any publicly accessible documents that describe the invention you are claiming can be used to reject your claims. This is why your independent claims are the most important to get right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This brings up another important point. If your patent is ever challenged, a case might be made that additional Prior Art exists for one or more of your claims, or that some of your claims are considered &quot;obvious&quot;. This may result in one or more of your dependent claims becoming invalid and unenforceable. Therefore, claiming multiple embodiments is a way to defend against challenges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically, whole claims are used to prosecute infringement (e.g., any independent claim or a dependent claim plus all of its dependencies). However, there are a few cases out there where parts of claims were used to judge infringement. It can get complicated, which is why you should seek broad coverage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13299" RevisionGUID="7f0b9742-9757-4c2a-9923-d2eef591142a" CreationDate="2015-07-29T20:46:00.387" UserId="11804" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="I am very new to filing patents,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - What is the role of dependent claims?&#xD;&#xA;  - Couldn't I just have one claim with any details required?&#xD;&#xA;  - What is the difference if I have one, two, or ten claims?&#xD;&#xA;  - When I should know that I need break a claim to some dependent claims?&#xD;&#xA;  - Do they regard the whole claims to reject a patent based on Prior Art or only independent claims?&#xD;&#xA;  - Do they regard the whole claims to detect others infringements of my patent?&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13299" RevisionGUID="4d856816-b439-4439-974c-bd4cfcab0070" CreationDate="2015-07-29T21:07:03.047" UserId="11804" Comment="added 554 characters in body" Text="I am very new to filing patents,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - What is the role of dependent claims?&#xD;&#xA;  - Couldn't I just have one claim with any details required?&#xD;&#xA;  - What is the difference if I have one, two, or ten claims?&#xD;&#xA;  - When I should know that I need break a claim to some dependent claims?&#xD;&#xA;  - Do they regard the whole claims to reject a patent based on Prior Art or only independent claims?&#xD;&#xA;  - Do they regard the whole claims to detect others infringements of my patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's bring an example (note I am naive in writing or understanding claims):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Independent claim 1: It is an awesome equipment to detect X,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; dependent claim 2: the equipment of claim 1 detects X using a fork.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then it means, no one can file a patent to detect X because I already did? even if he uses spoon to detect X? then if I had written it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Independent claim 1: It is an awesome equipment to detect X using a fork&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then another one could file a patent to say *an awesome equipment to detect X using spoon*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13304" RevisionGUID="8d4b5319-42bf-4dc3-b478-2f6441a1c184" CreationDate="2015-07-29T21:18:46.697" UserId="11804" Text="I am going to file a patent about defect detection of a specific equipment based on machine vision (even its technology belongs to X company)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I implemented the system and it works for that equipment, now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Should I just claim about that specific equipment because my system is designed to work for it, OR&#xD;&#xA;  - I can broaden my claim to any similar equipment from any other company (even the method needs minor refinements and adjustments)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, what they look, the implementation and the exact context and equipments or an abstract solution for something? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31796" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13304" RevisionGUID="8d4b5319-42bf-4dc3-b478-2f6441a1c184" CreationDate="2015-07-29T21:18:46.697" UserId="11804" Text="How broad is my patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31797" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13304" RevisionGUID="8d4b5319-42bf-4dc3-b478-2f6441a1c184" CreationDate="2015-07-29T21:18:46.697" UserId="11804" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13303" RevisionGUID="8507a4fc-c4a9-4fd4-9666-23c2b7c22d18" CreationDate="2015-07-29T21:57:11.750" UserId="14417" Comment="Addressed comments." Text="When filing a patent, the goal of the Independent Claim(s) is to define the invention as broadly as possible. Your goal is to obtain Freedom to Operate, with enough &quot;white space&quot; around your Preferred Embodiment that competitors cannot change minor details to avoid licensing your patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dependent Claims provide paths to multiple embodiments of your invention, and also provide a means to establish Prior Art for others in the field seeking similar patents. For instance, you can anticipate some refinements that solve a related problem that a competitor might seek to patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims in a patent application are a starting point for negotiation with the patent office on novelty and non-obviousness. Through a series of Office Actions, the Inventor (you) and the Patent Office (e.g., USPTO) negotiate to (optimally) the broadest possible coverage on the independent claims. Often, when an independent claim is too broad, clauses from dependent claims are moved into the independent claim to narrow its scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, you *can* have a patent with a single independent claim and no other claims. I know I've encountered one that granted, but it would be difficult to find it at the moment. A patent defined in this way might be so narrowly defined that another inventor might easily make several modifications and thus obtain Freedom to Operate in your space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are patents granted out there with over 400 claims. I'm uncertain what the maximum is, but if you exceed 10 or so on a PCT application, you will end up paying extra, and that cost adds up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have multiple independent claims (as is common with software patents, which have similar independent claims that cover the method, the system and the hardware implementation), this may multiply the number of dependent claims as well. If your independent claims are too dissimilar to each other, or a single dependent claim adds too much novelty (e.g., a combination of 3 or more non-obvious clauses), and you are filing for an international patent, you may be required by the Examiner to file multiple applications, which will double your cost and add to the difficulty of prosecuting the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your application, you should write as many claims as you think you need to get the amount of &quot;white space&quot; you need to protect your invention from competition. You will probably lose a few through Office Actions. For instance, you might file 40 claims but only 10 are granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, your claims can be rejected if they match the claims in a patent or application that has an earlier Priority Date. As a matter of fact, any material at all in any publicly accessible documents that describe the invention you are claiming can be used to reject your claims. This is why your independent claims are the most important to get right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This brings up another important point. If your patent is ever challenged, a case might be made that additional Prior Art exists for one or more of your claims, or that some of your claims are considered &quot;obvious&quot;. This may result in one or more of your dependent claims becoming invalid and unenforceable. Therefore, claiming multiple embodiments is a way to defend against challenges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically, whole claims are used to prosecute infringement (e.g., any independent claim or a dependent claim plus all of its dependencies). However, there are a few cases out there where parts of claims were used to judge infringement. It can get complicated, which is why you should seek broad coverage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To address your first example of the independent claim with the dependent claim, you need to answer the following questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is the independent claim novel? &quot;Awesome equipment&quot; may even already exist, but you may claim a novel use of it to solve a different problem (if there is no Prior Art).&#xD;&#xA; - Is the independent claim non-obvious (to someone &quot;skilled in the art&quot;)?&#xD;&#xA; - Is the independent claim too abstract?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of other possible reasons for rejection, but those are the main ones. Typically, a test for novelty is something with no Prior Art, or a combination of three or more known things arranged in a new, non-obvious way to solve a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your second question, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the dependent claim(s):&#xD;&#xA; - Does the dependent claim achieve any technical effect? (e.g., does using a fork actually add functionality?) If not, your dependent claim may be rejected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, for the second example, where the two claims are merged:&#xD;&#xA;If someone else were to claim &quot;an awesome equipment to detect X using spoon?&quot;, the same test for novelty applies. If you or someone else covered such a case anywhere in the patent application, then Prior Art exists. Is it obvious to modify your equipment using a spoon?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, don't confuse patenting with Freedom to Operate. If your claims are not broad enough to cover the &quot;using spoon&quot; clause, then someone else may not be able to patent it, but they may still have Freedom to Operate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's about the best I can do with such an abstract hypothetical set of claims, but I hope its instructive. This is really the reason that patent lawyers exist, to assist with claim construction and help you to get the coverage you need without too many expensive Office Actions. The tests for novelty and non-obviousness are changing year-to-year (and new tests such as abstractness are added), and the patent attorneys are the ones you can rely to stay up to date on those rules." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13303" RevisionGUID="fc860a54-8852-4c6a-a4b8-845b868bd5b5" CreationDate="2015-07-29T22:03:22.853" UserId="14417" Comment="Added a final thought." Text="When filing a patent, the goal of the Independent Claim(s) is to define the invention as broadly as possible. Your goal is to obtain Freedom to Operate, with enough &quot;white space&quot; around your Preferred Embodiment that competitors cannot change minor details to avoid licensing your patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dependent Claims provide paths to multiple embodiments of your invention, and also provide a means to establish Prior Art for others in the field seeking similar patents. For instance, you can anticipate some refinements that solve a related problem that a competitor might seek to patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims in a patent application are a starting point for negotiation with the patent office on novelty and non-obviousness. Through a series of Office Actions, the Inventor (you) and the Patent Office (e.g., USPTO) negotiate to (optimally) the broadest possible coverage on the independent claims. Often, when an independent claim is too broad, clauses from dependent claims are moved into the independent claim to narrow its scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, you *can* have a patent with a single independent claim and no other claims. I know I've encountered one that granted, but it would be difficult to find it at the moment. A patent defined in this way might be so narrowly defined that another inventor might easily make several modifications and thus obtain Freedom to Operate in your space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are patents granted out there with over 400 claims. I'm uncertain what the maximum is, but if you exceed 10 or so on a PCT application, you will end up paying extra, and that cost adds up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have multiple independent claims (as is common with software patents, which have similar independent claims that cover the method, the system and the hardware implementation), this may multiply the number of dependent claims as well. If your independent claims are too dissimilar to each other, or a single dependent claim adds too much novelty (e.g., a combination of 3 or more non-obvious clauses), and you are filing for an international patent, you may be required by the Examiner to file multiple applications, which will double your cost and add to the difficulty of prosecuting the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your application, you should write as many claims as you think you need to get the amount of &quot;white space&quot; you need to protect your invention from competition. You will probably lose a few through Office Actions. For instance, you might file 40 claims but only 10 are granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, your claims can be rejected if they match the claims in a patent or application that has an earlier Priority Date. As a matter of fact, any material at all in any publicly accessible documents that describe the invention you are claiming can be used to reject your claims. This is why your independent claims are the most important to get right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This brings up another important point. If your patent is ever challenged, a case might be made that additional Prior Art exists for one or more of your claims, or that some of your claims are considered &quot;obvious&quot;. This may result in one or more of your dependent claims becoming invalid and unenforceable. Therefore, claiming multiple embodiments is a way to defend against challenges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically, whole claims are used to prosecute infringement (e.g., any independent claim or a dependent claim plus all of its dependencies). However, there are a few cases out there where parts of claims were used to judge infringement. It can get complicated, which is why you should seek broad coverage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To address your first example of the independent claim with the dependent claim, you need to answer the following questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is the independent claim novel? &quot;Awesome equipment&quot; may even already exist, but you may claim a novel use of it to solve a different problem (if there is no Prior Art).&#xD;&#xA; - Is the independent claim non-obvious (to someone &quot;skilled in the art&quot;)?&#xD;&#xA; - Is the independent claim too abstract?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of other possible reasons for rejection, but those are the main ones. Typically, a test for novelty is something with no Prior Art, or a combination of three or more known things arranged in a new, non-obvious way to solve a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your second question, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the dependent claim(s):&#xD;&#xA; - Does the dependent claim achieve any technical effect? (e.g., does using a fork actually add functionality?) If not, your dependent claim may be rejected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, for the second example, where the two claims are merged:&#xD;&#xA;If someone else were to claim &quot;an awesome equipment to detect X using spoon?&quot;, the same test for novelty applies. If you or someone else covered such a case anywhere in the patent application, then Prior Art exists. Is it obvious to modify your equipment using a spoon?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, don't confuse patenting with Freedom to Operate. If your claims are not broad enough to cover the &quot;using spoon&quot; clause, then someone else may not be able to patent it, but they may still have Freedom to Operate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's about the best I can do with such an abstract hypothetical set of claims, but I hope its instructive. This is really the reason that patent lawyers exist, to assist with claim construction and help you to get the coverage you need without too many expensive Office Actions. The tests for novelty and non-obviousness are changing year-to-year (and new tests such as abstractness are added), and the patent attorneys are the ones you can rely to stay up to date on those rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I think a great way to learn more is to read through the claims of existing patents in your space (grants, not applications) and compare them to the claim language of their applications to see what the Examiner allowed and did not allow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13217" RevisionGUID="5cd3ea9e-7b1c-4877-93c8-6056e5becdb5" CreationDate="2015-07-29T23:24:51.690" UserId="14417" Comment="Correction to the patent number." Text="As noted in [an answer][1] [regarding the expiration][2] of [US 5,618,582][3], the effective expiration date of the patent was calculated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The patent application was filed on June 7, 1995 and issued on April&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8, 1997.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; US patents issuing from patent applications filed on or after June 8,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1995 have a term of 20 years from the earliest non-provisional patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application priority date. US patents issuing from patent applications&#xD;&#xA;&gt; filed prior to June 8, 1995 have a term equal to the greater of 17&#xD;&#xA;&gt; years from issuance or 20 years from the earliest non-provisional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent application priority date.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In this case, since 17 years after issuance is greater, the patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; expires on April 9, 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above reasoning is clear. However, the patent is a divisional of a continuation of a continuation-in-part of an abandoned application filed July 25, 1990:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Division of Ser. No. 254,136, Jun. 6, 1994, which is a continuation of Ser. No. 7,664, Jan. 22, 1993, abandoned, which is a continuation of PCT WO 92/02,307 filed Jul. 23, 1991, which is a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 557,104, Jul. 25, 1990, abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, this would affect the expiration date of the patent by using the earliest filing date. In this case, that would appear to be July 25, 1990, giving an expiration date of April 8, 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Legal Status are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Feb 20, 1996    AS      Assignment	&#xD;&#xA;                            Owner name: TRIMEX COMPANY, NORTH CAROLINA&#xD;&#xA;                            Effective date: 19930521&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Jun 27, 2000    FPAY    Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;                            Year of fee payment: 4&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Sep 13, 2004    FPAY    Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;                            Year of fee payment: 8&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Sep 25, 2008    FPAY    Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;                            Year of fee payment: 12&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do the expiration date rules for divisional patents and continuations not apply to patents filed prior to June 8, 1995?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do abandoned or continuation-in-part normally have any additional effect on the calculation of an expiration date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/6137/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/5972/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5618582" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31801" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13217" RevisionGUID="5cd3ea9e-7b1c-4877-93c8-6056e5becdb5" CreationDate="2015-07-29T23:24:51.690" UserId="14417" Comment="Correction to the patent number." Text="&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;continuation&gt;&lt;continuation-in-part&gt;&lt;divisional&gt;&lt;us5618582&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31802" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13217" RevisionGUID="5cd3ea9e-7b1c-4877-93c8-6056e5becdb5" CreationDate="2015-07-29T23:24:51.690" UserId="14417" Comment="Correction to the patent number." Text="Do divisional, continuation, and continuation-in-part affect expiration dates for patents filed prior to June 8, 1995?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12874" RevisionGUID="993164e2-00b8-4fac-afec-bee876290954" CreationDate="2015-07-29T23:29:28.850" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="I want to create a product and I want to know how I can get a patent for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I want to know this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some technologies are already patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lets say I will do a doorbell system Smart doorbell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to send a push notification or a message to the user when someone rings the bell. Somebody has already got the patent. So do I need to get permission from the user that I will use their patent in for my product.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31804" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12874" RevisionGUID="993164e2-00b8-4fac-afec-bee876290954" CreationDate="2015-07-29T23:29:28.850" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13306" RevisionGUID="3200f603-da78-46fd-9405-18bc3f17a673" CreationDate="2015-07-30T02:00:48.813" UserId="14686" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO1999053917A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO1999053917A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it legal for a government/company to own a patent? Compared to a human person?&#xD;&#xA;Does any regular US citizen have the rights to any patent held by their government?&#xD;&#xA;If not, who in government exactly has the exclusive rights to the patent's content?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31809" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13306" RevisionGUID="3200f603-da78-46fd-9405-18bc3f17a673" CreationDate="2015-07-30T02:00:48.813" UserId="14686" Text="Can a government hold a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31810" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13306" RevisionGUID="3200f603-da78-46fd-9405-18bc3f17a673" CreationDate="2015-07-30T02:00:48.813" UserId="14686" Text="&lt;medicine&gt;&lt;cannabis&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13307" RevisionGUID="c8c784dd-b809-460e-b079-cf83fffd61a1" CreationDate="2015-07-30T03:15:29.057" UserId="14687" Text="My question is:&#xD;&#xA;Can I make a request of patent for a time machine that has as principle the use of the gravity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31812" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13307" RevisionGUID="c8c784dd-b809-460e-b079-cf83fffd61a1" CreationDate="2015-07-30T03:15:29.057" UserId="14687" Text="Time Machine based on gravity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31813" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13307" RevisionGUID="c8c784dd-b809-460e-b079-cf83fffd61a1" CreationDate="2015-07-30T03:15:29.057" UserId="14687" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31814" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13299" RevisionGUID="de90b132-e0d7-433f-93c6-fabe4d641bed" CreationDate="2015-07-30T06:06:02.833" UserId="10011" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13308" RevisionGUID="1a9b1858-4c04-477f-9919-bb167a629f71" CreationDate="2015-07-30T06:27:23.653" UserId="10011" Text="Patents are, by law, protections on actual implementations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't patent a theory or idea, and you have to know that your implementation will work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can fulfil that requirement, you should be able to get a patent. But speaking to this particular example, unless you've built a functioning time machine, you probably won't be able to get one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just for good measure, there is also a constraint that patents must, through the same token as that their inventions must work, not exist for &quot;impossible&quot; inventions. For instance, you can't patent a perpetual motion machine. I'm not saying that this is impossible, especially dependent on your definition of a time machine, but that's something important to keep in mind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13307" RevisionGUID="53cd928e-4065-4be5-9041-07ddec44dc5f" CreationDate="2015-07-30T06:27:44.707" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body" Text="Can I make a request of patent for a time machine that has as principle the use of the gravity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31817" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13307" RevisionGUID="53cd928e-4065-4be5-9041-07ddec44dc5f" CreationDate="2015-07-30T06:27:44.707" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body" Text="Can I patent a time machine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13309" RevisionGUID="ec3c0ced-1e29-4a88-ada0-c54a6f8179c9" CreationDate="2015-07-30T06:31:28.743" UserId="11804" Text=" &#xD;&#xA;Let's bring an example (note I am naive in writing or understanding claims):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Independent claim 1: It is an awesome equipment to detect X,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; dependent claim 2: the equipment of claim 1 detects X using a fork.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it mean that no one can file a patent to detect X because I already did? even if he uses spoon to detect X?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31819" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13309" RevisionGUID="ec3c0ced-1e29-4a88-ada0-c54a6f8179c9" CreationDate="2015-07-30T06:31:28.743" UserId="11804" Text="Do they regard the whole claims to detect others infringements of my patent or only independent claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31820" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13309" RevisionGUID="ec3c0ced-1e29-4a88-ada0-c54a6f8179c9" CreationDate="2015-07-30T06:31:28.743" UserId="11804" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13299" RevisionGUID="7a5ee08a-e1fc-422f-83cd-61f24fa02629" CreationDate="2015-07-30T06:36:41.223" UserId="11804" Comment="deleted 184 characters in body" Text="I am very new to filing patents,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - What is the role of dependent claims?&#xD;&#xA;  - Couldn't I just have one claim with any details required? What is the difference if I have one, two, or ten claims?&#xD;&#xA;  - When I should know that I need to break a claim to some dependent claims?&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's bring an example (note I am naive in writing or understanding claims):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Independent claim 1: It is an awesome equipment to detect X using a fork&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Versus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Independent claim 1: It is an awesome equipment to detect X,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; dependent claim 2: the equipment of claim 1 detects X using a fork.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How could I know that I'd better mention fork in a dependent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13310" RevisionGUID="f62b8284-2e2e-4412-8087-3c91cfbefa78" CreationDate="2015-07-30T06:41:36.917" UserId="11804" Text="Let's bring an example (note I am naive in writing or understanding claims):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Independent claim 1: It is an awesome equipment to detect X,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; dependent claim 2: the equipment of claim 1 detects X using a fork.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could they reject it because an equipment to detect X already exists (no matter if they use spoon in their dependent claims)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example if I write it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Independent claim 1: It is an awesome equipment to detect X using a fork&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then could it be accepted because there is &quot;fork&quot; in independent claim while the independent claim of the others was general?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31823" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13310" RevisionGUID="f62b8284-2e2e-4412-8087-3c91cfbefa78" CreationDate="2015-07-30T06:41:36.917" UserId="11804" Text="Do they regard the whole claims to reject a patent based on Prior Art or only independent claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31824" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13310" RevisionGUID="f62b8284-2e2e-4412-8087-3c91cfbefa78" CreationDate="2015-07-30T06:41:36.917" UserId="11804" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31825" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13299" RevisionGUID="6feaac34-41e0-4e6c-956a-f30e17453638" CreationDate="2015-07-30T06:49:12.380" UserId="11804" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="I am very new to filing patents,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - What is the role of dependent claims?&#xD;&#xA;  - Couldn't I just have one claim with any details required? What is the difference if I have one, two, or ten claims?&#xD;&#xA;  - When I should know that I need to break an independent claim to some dependent claims?&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's bring an example (note I am naive in writing or understanding claims):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Independent claim 1: It is an awesome equipment to detect X using a fork&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Versus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Independent claim 1: It is an awesome equipment to detect X,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; dependent claim 2: the equipment of claim 1 detects X using a fork.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How could I know that I'd better mention &quot;fork&quot; in a dependent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13304" RevisionGUID="38de42fd-debc-4ed6-bce8-cd96018b9983" CreationDate="2015-07-30T06:55:13.930" UserId="11804" Comment="added 101 characters in body; edited title" Text="Suppose that I am going to file a patent about defect detection of a specific equipment based on machine vision (even its technology belongs to X company)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I implemented the system and it works for that equipment, now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Should I just claim about that specific equipment because my system is designed to work for it (should I then mention the manufacturer of the equipment or just describe it?), OR&#xD;&#xA;  - I can broaden my claim to any similar equipment from any other company (even if the method needs changes or refinements and adjustments)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, what they look, the implementation and the exact context and equipments or an abstract solution for something?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31827" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13304" RevisionGUID="38de42fd-debc-4ed6-bce8-cd96018b9983" CreationDate="2015-07-30T06:55:13.930" UserId="11804" Comment="added 101 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can I broaden a patent while it is tested to work with specific conditions and environment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31828" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="13299" RevisionGUID="90585b78-2794-4605-a81d-b1b411eb7e06" CreationDate="2015-07-30T06:57:06.527" UserId="10011" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13313" RevisionGUID="757e3858-0598-4227-b885-b58947b3a1ad" CreationDate="2015-07-30T11:42:48.830" UserId="14417" Text="If you look at the Image File Wrapper for application [US 2006/0073976 A1][1], and specifically at the Final Rejection (August 8, 2007) from the Examiner, you will see why it is difficult to obtain such patents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The specification discloses a large amount of theoretical physics that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is unsubstantiated and not generally recognized by the scientific&#xD;&#xA;&gt; community. Examples include the particular nature, creation, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; control of gravitons, the physical reality of de-Sitter space, and the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ability to obtain and control rotating singularities. Therefore, there&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is no evidence before the Office that the current invention is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; operative under accepted scientific knowledge. Inventions that utilize&#xD;&#xA;&gt; previously unknown or evolving scientific principles require some&#xD;&#xA;&gt; degree of evidence that they are operative and, thus, have utility.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person&#xD;&#xA;&gt; skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; contains subject matter that was not described in the specification in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention. Even if the claimed invention is theoretically possible, it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would take undue experimentation for one of ordinary skill to produce&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the claimed steps of obtaining and controlling rotating singularities,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gravitons or the other claimed elements of the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, it is not clear what limitations are involved in the steps of &quot;maintaining one of the singularities&quot;, &quot;a differential electron flow&quot;, &quot;to take advantage of the LenseThirring effect&quot;, &quot;timelike curves&quot;, &quot;under the ... Alcubierre geometry&quot;, and &quot;in accordance with Geroch's theorem&quot;. Also, in claim 2, line 13, &quot;the other&quot; has no antecedent basis in the claims and it is not clear what &quot;other&quot; spacelike boundary is being referenced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20060073976" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13314" RevisionGUID="30bad854-6c0e-4c1a-8d19-11fc45c465f9" CreationDate="2015-07-30T15:29:32.370" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; Could they reject it because an equipment to detect X already exists (no matter if they use spoon in their dependent claims)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, Claim 1 will be rejected if the examiner finds prior art showing that equipment to detect X already exists (and you have a duty to bring such prior art to the examiner's attention if you know of it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dependent Claim 2 will not necessarily be rejected. However, if you cannot overcome the rejection of Claim 1, the patent cannot issue as written. It will be necessary at that time to amend the claims and import the limitations of Claim 2 into Claim 1. Amending claims in this way is always permitted and should never give rise to a new matter rejection. However, patent applicants will usually look for ways to add additional limitations to their independent claim that don't narrow all the way to their dependent claims but still patentably distinguish over the prior art. Of course, this is a lot trickier because of the possible new matter issues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13315" RevisionGUID="87a5cd7e-dec9-4569-9229-5db3e174e1fa" CreationDate="2015-07-30T15:42:38.063" UserId="14694" Text="I am in the process of failing my application online. USPTO guideline says that Petition to Make Special Based on Age (EFS-Web SB130) may be filed at any time during prosecution of the application, but it requires application and conformation numbers, which I don't have as my application wasn't submitted yet. Should I file the petition without the numbers or submit application and wait for the conformation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31836" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13315" RevisionGUID="87a5cd7e-dec9-4569-9229-5db3e174e1fa" CreationDate="2015-07-30T15:42:38.063" UserId="14694" Text="Make Special Based on Age" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31837" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13315" RevisionGUID="87a5cd7e-dec9-4569-9229-5db3e174e1fa" CreationDate="2015-07-30T15:42:38.063" UserId="14694" Text="&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13316" RevisionGUID="a99a1ea8-75b7-4448-9609-241346d71a15" CreationDate="2015-07-30T15:43:52.343" UserId="14016" Text="Anyone should be able to obtain a patent for an invention they made that is novel and non-obvious (indeed, sometimes patents slip through that aren't novel or are obvious). Your patent disclosure's power to prevent others from obtaining *valid* patents is proportional to how much it renders obvious. It would likely not render obvious *all possible equipment for detecting X*, thus allowing others to patent equipment for detecting X that is not based on the technologies described in your patent disclosure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that a limitation specifying an intended use (*to detect X*) is generally not a proper way to limit a claim to a machine (as opposed to a method). In this example, your claim fails to contain any reasonably limiting structural features. Among other possible ways to dispose of the claim, it could be rejected by any example of an &quot;equipment&quot; found in the prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent claims that purport to claim all possible machines or methods for achieving an end invariably turn out to be invalid for one reason or another." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13317" RevisionGUID="dff9e57f-89f9-48ac-9745-42805f20909c" CreationDate="2015-07-30T16:18:35.713" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; Is it legal for a government/company to own a patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the U.S., it is absolutely legal for a company to own and enforce a patent. Every invention must, of course, have inventors (which must be real persons).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the following page, the U.S. government owned 47,220 patents between 1969 and 2008, most assigned to the U.S. Navy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/govt/total_counts/govt_ct_list.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I won't be the one to say this is all illegal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Does any regular US citizen have the rights to any patent held by their government?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I doubt it. Same as you can't just take up residency in a building owned by the government. Of course, if the U.S. government is able to collect some royalties from commercial uses of their patents, then in theory taxes could be a tiny bit lower without running a deficit. So, regular US citizens do benefit indirectly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13315" RevisionGUID="0f9c1431-b4a0-47be-92d3-1059b286e83e" CreationDate="2015-07-30T16:59:29.693" UserId="1500" Comment="failing to &quot;filing&quot; -- although the latter may also be apt, from the rest of the question ;-)" Text="I am in the process of filing my application online. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;USPTO guideline says that Petition to Make Special Based on Age (EFS-Web SB130) may be filed at any time during prosecution of the application, but it requires application and conformation numbers, which I don't have as my application wasn't submitted yet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I file the petition without the numbers or submit application and wait for the conformation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31841" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13315" RevisionGUID="0f9c1431-b4a0-47be-92d3-1059b286e83e" CreationDate="2015-07-30T16:59:29.693" UserId="1500" Comment="failing to &quot;filing&quot; -- although the latter may also be apt, from the rest of the question ;-)" Text="When should I file a Petition to Make Special Based on Age" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31842" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13315" RevisionGUID="0f9c1431-b4a0-47be-92d3-1059b286e83e" CreationDate="2015-07-30T16:59:29.693" Comment="Proposed by 1500 approved by 1 edit id of 1860" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13309" RevisionGUID="c498c27c-8d8c-42e4-af65-adaf4da65f27" CreationDate="2015-07-30T18:42:36.380" UserId="11804" Comment="deleted 32 characters in body; edited title" Text=" &#xD;&#xA;Let's bring an example :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Independent claim 1: It is an awesome equipment to detect X,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; dependent claim 2: the equipment of claim 1 detects X using a fork.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it was granted, would it mean that no one can file a patent to detect X because I already did? even if he uses spoon to detect X?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31849" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13309" RevisionGUID="c498c27c-8d8c-42e4-af65-adaf4da65f27" CreationDate="2015-07-30T18:42:36.380" UserId="11804" Comment="deleted 32 characters in body; edited title" Text="Do they regard the whole claims of my patent for detecting the patentability of others' application or only my independent claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13299" RevisionGUID="69c55088-ea70-4776-b675-ab21320c8952" CreationDate="2015-07-30T19:05:09.367" UserId="11804" Comment="deleted 53 characters in body" Text="I am very new to filing patents,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - What is the role of dependent claims?&#xD;&#xA;  - Couldn't I just have one claim with any details required? What is the difference if I have one, two, or ten claims?&#xD;&#xA;  - When I should know that I need to break an independent claim to some dependent claims?&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's bring an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Independent claim 1: It is an awesome equipment to detect X using a fork&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Versus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Independent claim 1: It is an awesome equipment to detect X,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; dependent claim 2: the equipment of claim 1 detects X using a fork.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How could I know that I'd better mention &quot;fork&quot; in a dependent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31854" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13299" RevisionGUID="9e5ee9f6-b485-4795-93f4-b4bdcc5cc341" CreationDate="2015-07-31T05:38:39.813" UserId="11804" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I am very new to filing patents,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - What is the role of dependent claims?&#xD;&#xA;  - Couldn't I just have one claim with any details required? What is the difference in haveing one, two, or ten claims?&#xD;&#xA;  - When I should know that I need to break an independent claim to some dependent claims?&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's bring an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Independent claim 1: It is an awesome equipment to detect X using a fork&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Versus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Independent claim 1: It is an awesome equipment to detect X,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; dependent claim 2: the equipment of claim 1 detects X using a fork.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How could I know that I'd better mention &quot;fork&quot; in a dependent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13319" RevisionGUID="75ced797-c11a-4195-86aa-597d26c3cbd9" CreationDate="2015-07-31T09:07:43.857" UserId="11804" Text="Prior Art: A system which detects X and makes an alarm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim: A system which detects X" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31857" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13319" RevisionGUID="75ced797-c11a-4195-86aa-597d26c3cbd9" CreationDate="2015-07-31T09:07:43.857" UserId="11804" Text="Is a claim enforceable because it lacks a part that Prior Art include?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31858" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13319" RevisionGUID="75ced797-c11a-4195-86aa-597d26c3cbd9" CreationDate="2015-07-31T09:07:43.857" UserId="11804" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13321" RevisionGUID="fb813007-32bb-45ba-a836-0117a7502f01" CreationDate="2015-07-31T14:31:15.127" UserId="11804" Text="For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. It is a system comprising X, Y, Z&#xD;&#xA;  2. The system of claim 1, wherein X is W&#xD;&#xA;  3. The system of claim 2, wherein Z is P connected to W&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the claim 3, I need to refer to both Z (which is in the claim 1 and I expect it is in the claim 2) and W which is in the claim 2." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31863" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13321" RevisionGUID="fb813007-32bb-45ba-a836-0117a7502f01" CreationDate="2015-07-31T14:31:15.127" UserId="11804" Text="Can I refer to a dependent claim, to a word that is in the claim that the dependent claim depends on?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31864" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13321" RevisionGUID="fb813007-32bb-45ba-a836-0117a7502f01" CreationDate="2015-07-31T14:31:15.127" UserId="11804" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13325" RevisionGUID="64d475d4-3c87-400f-b1af-77e7bd6fbe25" CreationDate="2015-07-31T21:47:13.187" UserId="14700" Text="As part of software product I needed a software utility (library) that I could not find so I built it from scratch.  I think it is unique and has some value and for sure I want to protect it.  Since it is only a web product and this is on the server side it is protected in they can't get to it. If someone breaks into the server we have bigger problems than this utility as we host sensitive customer data.  We are just treating it as a trade secrete.  This product  has been sold for over a year.  It is only sold as a service - they don't license the software.  We are working on a distribution version of the software and cannot stop them from breaking into code once they have it on CD.  Even once they saw how the tables are layed out in the database they would have an idea of how it works.  So finally getting to the question.  Do I have much hope of patenting this utility at this point?   My thought was to just file for a provisional patent and see if the software sells.  I guess I would need to get a full patent even if the distribution software does not sell to protect the web server version." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31876" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13325" RevisionGUID="64d475d4-3c87-400f-b1af-77e7bd6fbe25" CreationDate="2015-07-31T21:47:13.187" UserId="14700" Text="Patent on a technology I am already selling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31877" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13325" RevisionGUID="64d475d4-3c87-400f-b1af-77e7bd6fbe25" CreationDate="2015-07-31T21:47:13.187" UserId="14700" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13326" RevisionGUID="a37f98b1-61f2-41cd-9070-93b6e12a0dc9" CreationDate="2015-07-31T23:06:40.503" UserId="14016" Text="As far as I know, this scenario is not well-settled law in the U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to the changes to patent law introduced by AIA, any patent would almost certainly have been invalid if secret commercial use of the invention by the patentee exceeded one year prior to the filing (or priority) date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After AIA, things aren't so clear; see below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patentlyo.com/patent/2012/10/did-the-aia-eliminate-secret-prior-art.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Myself, I would go ahead and file a patent application, while making the Examiner aware of the prior secret commercial use, of course." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31880" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13325" RevisionGUID="882d0995-238a-4b66-ab67-a7012558052e" CreationDate="2015-08-01T01:36:48.177" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="As part of software product I needed a software utility (library) that I could not find so I built it from scratch. I think it is unique and has some value and for sure I want to protect it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since it is only a web product and this is on the server side it is protected in they can't get to it. If someone breaks into the server we have bigger problems than this utility as we host sensitive customer data. We are just treating it as a trade secret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This product has been sold for over a year. It is only sold as a service - they don't license the software. We are working on a distribution version of the software and cannot stop them from breaking into code once they have it on CD. Even once they saw how the tables are laid out in the database they would have an idea of how it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So finally getting to the question. Do I have much hope of patenting this utility at this point? My thought was to just file for a provisional patent and see if the software sells.  I guess I would need to get a full patent even if the distribution software does not sell to protect the web server version." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31881" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13325" RevisionGUID="882d0995-238a-4b66-ab67-a7012558052e" CreationDate="2015-08-01T01:36:48.177" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="Is it possible to obtain a patent on a technology I am already selling?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31882" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13325" RevisionGUID="882d0995-238a-4b66-ab67-a7012558052e" CreationDate="2015-08-01T01:36:48.177" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31886" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13319" RevisionGUID="61f74f61-1423-4f37-ba90-7d2b127c66ab" CreationDate="2015-08-01T02:29:24.070" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, re-phrased title." Text="Can a claim be rejected if it lacks a clause that Prior Art includes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31887" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13319" RevisionGUID="61f74f61-1423-4f37-ba90-7d2b127c66ab" CreationDate="2015-08-01T02:29:24.070" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, re-phrased title." Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13303" RevisionGUID="f814aae4-7fd3-4bcc-aa69-4e81b63d67dc" CreationDate="2015-08-01T11:49:36.943" UserId="14417" Comment="Addressed comment." Text="When filing a patent, the goal of the Independent Claim(s) is to define the invention as broadly as possible. Your goal is to obtain Freedom to Operate, with enough &quot;white space&quot; around your Preferred Embodiment that competitors cannot change minor details to avoid licensing your patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dependent Claims provide paths to multiple embodiments of your invention, and also provide a means to establish Prior Art for others in the field seeking similar patents. For instance, you can anticipate some refinements that solve a related problem that a competitor might seek to patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims in a patent application are a starting point for negotiation with the patent office on novelty and non-obviousness. Through a series of Office Actions, the Inventor (you) and the Patent Office (e.g., USPTO) negotiate to (optimally) the broadest possible coverage on the independent claims. Often, when an independent claim is too broad, clauses from dependent claims are moved into the independent claim to narrow its scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, you *can* have a patent with a single independent claim and no other claims. I know I've encountered one that granted, but it would be difficult to find it at the moment. A patent defined in this way might be so narrowly defined that another inventor might easily make several modifications and thus obtain Freedom to Operate in your space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are patents granted out there with over 400 claims. I'm uncertain what the maximum is, but if you exceed 10 or so on a PCT application, you will end up paying extra, and that cost adds up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have multiple independent claims (as is common with software patents, which have similar independent claims that cover the method, the system and the hardware implementation), this may multiply the number of dependent claims as well. If your independent claims are too dissimilar to each other, or a single dependent claim adds too much novelty (e.g., a combination of 3 or more non-obvious clauses), and you are filing for an international patent, you may be required by the Examiner to file multiple applications, which will double your cost and add to the difficulty of prosecuting the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your application, you should write as many claims as you think you need to get the amount of &quot;white space&quot; you need to protect your invention from competition. You will probably lose a few through Office Actions. For instance, you might file 40 claims but only 10 are granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, your claims can be rejected if they match the claims in a patent or application that has an earlier Priority Date. As a matter of fact, any material at all in any publicly accessible documents that describe the invention you are claiming can be used to reject your claims. This is why your independent claims are the most important to get right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This brings up another important point. If your patent is ever challenged, a case might be made that additional Prior Art exists for one or more of your claims, or that some of your claims are considered &quot;obvious&quot;. This may result in one or more of your dependent claims becoming invalid and unenforceable. Therefore, claiming multiple embodiments is a way to defend against challenges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically, whole claims are used to prosecute infringement (e.g., any independent claim or a dependent claim plus all of its dependencies). However, there are a few cases out there where parts of claims were used to judge infringement. It can get complicated, which is why you should seek broad coverage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To address your first example of the independent claim with the dependent claim, you need to answer the following questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is the independent claim novel? &quot;Awesome equipment&quot; may even already exist, but you may claim a novel use of it to solve a different problem (if there is no Prior Art).&#xD;&#xA; - Is the independent claim non-obvious (to someone &quot;skilled in the art&quot;)?&#xD;&#xA; - Is the independent claim too abstract?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of other possible reasons for rejection, but those are the main ones. Typically, a test for novelty is something with no Prior Art, or a combination of three or more known things arranged in a new, non-obvious way to solve a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your second question, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the dependent claim(s):&#xD;&#xA; - Does the dependent claim achieve any technical effect? (e.g., does using a fork actually add functionality?) If not, your dependent claim may be rejected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, for the second example, where the two claims are merged:&#xD;&#xA;If someone else were to claim &quot;an awesome equipment to detect X using spoon?&quot;, the same test for novelty applies. If you or someone else covered such a case anywhere in the patent application, then Prior Art exists. Is it obvious to modify your equipment using a spoon?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, don't confuse patenting with Freedom to Operate. If your claims are not broad enough to cover the &quot;using spoon&quot; clause, then someone else may not be able to patent it, but they may still have Freedom to Operate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's about the best I can do with such an abstract hypothetical set of claims, but I hope its instructive. This is really the reason that patent lawyers exist, to assist with claim construction and help you to get the coverage you need without too many expensive Office Actions. The tests for novelty and non-obviousness are changing year-to-year (and new tests such as abstractness are added), and the patent attorneys are the ones you can rely to stay up to date on those rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I think a great way to learn more is to read through the claims of existing patents in your space (grants, not applications) and compare them to the claim language of their applications to see what the Examiner allowed and did not allow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Journal of Intellectual Property Law &amp; Practice* (2013) **8**(8):578-580. doi:[10.1093/jiplp/jpt088][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a ruling over a European patent in which broad claims were deemed enforceable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Genentech Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 93,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Court of Appeal (England and Wales), 21 February 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This ruling confirms that a broad claim in a patent encompassing a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; large number of unexemplified embodiments can be valid and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; enforceable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is generally much easier to overturn a broad claim than a narrow claim. The larger the space an independent claim covers, the more susceptible it will be to challenges on Prior Art and non-enablement (not enough information in the specification to support the claim). If you are certain that there is enough white space (lack of Prior Art) around your independent claim, and that everything you are claiming is supported by your specification, then are probably safe to make the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the Examiner is ultimately the one that you need to convince.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpt088" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13328" RevisionGUID="799802d5-0965-459c-8953-b630facee26f" CreationDate="2015-08-01T11:57:50.663" UserId="11804" Text="Can I write a claim as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Detection of X comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;     - Entering Z by the user,&#xD;&#xA;     - Specifying the dimensions of Y by the user  &#xD;&#xA;     - ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31893" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13328" RevisionGUID="799802d5-0965-459c-8953-b630facee26f" CreationDate="2015-08-01T11:57:50.663" UserId="11804" Text="Is something that a user does, an step of a method" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31894" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13328" RevisionGUID="799802d5-0965-459c-8953-b630facee26f" CreationDate="2015-08-01T11:57:50.663" UserId="11804" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13330" RevisionGUID="6672c511-4a23-4479-a411-7dc73ffb8359" CreationDate="2015-08-01T13:58:16.330" UserId="14622" Text="The [PCT Applicant's Guide (National Phase)][1] is the resource you are looking for. It contains a detailed guide on the WIPO Rules and Articles from the Applicant's perspective, and covers the time limits in detail, with pointers to information on exceptions for certain patent offices and explanations on how to address delays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the table linked via the excerpts below, the time limit for electing the United States is 30 months under PCT Article 22 and also 30 months under PCT Article 39(1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Articles 2(xi), 22&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.001. **What is the time limit for entering the national phase before a designated Office?**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Subject to what is said below, no designated Office may normally process or examine the international application prior to the expiration of 30 months from the priority date and any fees due to a designated Office and any translation of the international application to be furnished to a designated Office will have to be paid and furnished, respectively, only by the expiration of that 30-month period (“priority date” means, where the international application contains a priority claim, the filing date of the application whose priority is claimed, and, where it does not contain such a claim, the filing date of the international application. Where the international application contains two or more claims, “priority date” means the filing date of the earliest application whose priority is claimed). In respect of certain designated Offices, the applicable time limit is 20 months, not 30 months because of the incompatibility, for the time being, of the modified PCT provision (PCT Article 22(1)) with the relevant national law; those Offices made a declaration of incompatibility which will remain in effect until it is withdrawn by the respective Offices. Furthermore, certain designated Offices have fixed time limits expiring even later than 30 months, or 20 months, as the case may be. For regular updates on these applicable time limits, refer to the relevant National Chapters; a [cumulative table][2] is also available from WIPO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Articles 2(xi), 39(1), 64(2), Rule 54bis&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.002. **What is the time limit for entering the national phase before an elected Office?** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The time limit is normally 30 months from the priority date, the same time limit for entering the national phase as that which applies in the case of a designated Office which has not been elected (see paragraph 3.001). In respect of the designated Offices, for which the 20-month time limit applies (see paragraph 3.001), the time limit is 30 months from the priority date if the applicant files a demand for international preliminary examination prior to the expiration of 19 months from the priority date. The national law applied by each elected Office may fix a time limit which expires later than 30 months from the priority date. The National Chapter (Summary) relating to each elected Office in respect of which an extended time limit applies indicates the length of that time limit as does the table referred to in paragraph 3.001. It should be noted that some Offices apply different time limits depending on whether the applicant enters the national phase under Chapter I (Article 22) or Chapter II (Article 39(1)) (for details see the table referred to in paragraph 3.001). In those cases, it is recommended that applicants enter the national phase before elected Offices no later than 30 months from the priority date in order to ensure timely national phase entry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wipo.int/pct/guide/en/gdvol2/pdf/gdvol2.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/time_limits.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31898" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="13011" RevisionGUID="a3fcabf6-2cc9-4556-9c0f-d703b523c3ef" CreationDate="2015-08-01T14:02:14.553" UserId="14417" Comment="30" />
  <row Id="31899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13331" RevisionGUID="a7cdb70c-f5a3-4b40-94e5-d7d88aa96e42" CreationDate="2015-08-01T16:05:38.187" UserId="14705" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20060235071][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20060235071" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31900" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13331" RevisionGUID="a7cdb70c-f5a3-4b40-94e5-d7d88aa96e42" CreationDate="2015-08-01T16:05:38.187" UserId="14705" Text="Can i sale beauty berry extract or essential oil or create a repellant if the isolate of the plant callicarpenal has been patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31901" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13331" RevisionGUID="a7cdb70c-f5a3-4b40-94e5-d7d88aa96e42" CreationDate="2015-08-01T16:05:38.187" UserId="14705" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13331" RevisionGUID="96cdcbb0-1adc-4cd3-a4b9-2c503508d37b" CreationDate="2015-08-02T00:58:29.910" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags and revised title." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 2006/0235071 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20060235071" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31903" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13331" RevisionGUID="96cdcbb0-1adc-4cd3-a4b9-2c503508d37b" CreationDate="2015-08-02T00:58:29.910" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags and revised title." Text="Can I sell beauty berry extract or essential oil or create a repellant if the isolate (callicarpenal) of a plant has been patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31904" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13331" RevisionGUID="96cdcbb0-1adc-4cd3-a4b9-2c503508d37b" CreationDate="2015-08-02T00:58:29.910" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags and revised title." Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;freedom-to-operate&gt;&lt;us20060235071&gt;&lt;wo2006113888a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13332" RevisionGUID="d0a6578c-7384-4c5c-b158-c3eec6ac54ff" CreationDate="2015-08-02T02:56:35.807" UserId="14707" Text="A patent gives the patentee the right to make, sell, use, or import into the USA the patented product.  **You cannot USE the patented product as a starting material** for the synthesis of your own product because you would be infringing the patent.  You may be able to purchase a license from the patentee to buy and use the patented product to make and sell a modified version." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13328" RevisionGUID="e264fd07-f5f6-4111-aefe-fe01e4dad5cf" CreationDate="2015-08-02T07:11:42.817" UserId="11804" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="Can I write a claim as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. A method for detecting X comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;     - Entering Z by the user,&#xD;&#xA;     - Specifying the dimensions of Y by the user  &#xD;&#xA;     - ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13334" RevisionGUID="20638d42-7359-443c-a158-ebc65a48d860" CreationDate="2015-08-02T17:02:32.047" UserId="14713" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2012120036A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2012120036A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good afternoon!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am having only one question: Is this patent valid worldwide and if not in which countries it is valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for your time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have a nice day!&#xD;&#xA;By Rok" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31910" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13334" RevisionGUID="20638d42-7359-443c-a158-ebc65a48d860" CreationDate="2015-08-02T17:02:32.047" UserId="14713" Text="Where is it valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31911" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13334" RevisionGUID="20638d42-7359-443c-a158-ebc65a48d860" CreationDate="2015-08-02T17:02:32.047" UserId="14713" Text="&lt;inventor&gt;&lt;us20120221930&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13335" RevisionGUID="eb50d43e-2d45-4582-b0b9-1fedde32f8c1" CreationDate="2015-08-02T17:30:44.443" UserId="14417" Text="Looking in the [USPTO Public Pair][1] database, this patent application was abandoned on August 31, 2010, which means the claims and specification are now in the Public Domain and you are free to use their method (in the United States). Keep in mind that there was also a WIPO patent application filed. I have not investigated that application, but it does not look like any grants have issued from that one either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if the grant had issued, I believe you would have had Freedom to Operate as long as you weren't using the isolated and purified substance. To answer that question would likely require professional assistance, as it would depend on your exact formula and the (hypothetical) granted claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what its worth, you will probably see far fewer patent applications such as the one you referenced, due to the unanimous Supreme Court decision from 2013, which made it much more difficult to patent natural products, based solely on isolation and purification:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics][2], 569 U.S. 12 (2013)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also the [Wikipedia Article on 569 U.S. 12][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ass%27n_for_Molecular_Pathology_v._Myriad_Genetics,_Inc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31916" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="13337" RevisionGUID="c70db700-6c0c-4665-b2f7-e106d552699c" CreationDate="2015-08-02T18:58:57.660" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://startups.stackexchange.com/questions/5915/how-do-i-go-about-discussing-a-patenable-product-with-a-potential-partner" />
  <row Id="31917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13337" RevisionGUID="b7f2d36e-8bcd-43f8-a45c-df22911a25c2" CreationDate="2015-08-01T18:51:52.793" UserDisplayName="user148298" Text="I met a possible partner who has solid business experience and seems well connected. He appears to be the perfect compliment, but given the changes in patent law, I am afraid to start a discussion about my invention with him. I don't have a patent and can't justify legal expenses this early on. What should I do to protect my IP other than a NDA? Also, does an NDA provide enough protection? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31918" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13337" RevisionGUID="b7f2d36e-8bcd-43f8-a45c-df22911a25c2" CreationDate="2015-08-01T18:51:52.793" UserDisplayName="user148298" Text="How do I go about discussing a patenable product with a potential partner?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31919" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13337" RevisionGUID="b7f2d36e-8bcd-43f8-a45c-df22911a25c2" CreationDate="2015-08-01T18:51:52.793" UserDisplayName="user148298" Text="&lt;untagged&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13337" RevisionGUID="5d8d8c89-c21c-4530-b76e-5bcb5ba2f1af" CreationDate="2015-08-02T19:02:01.143" UserId="10011" Comment="added 11 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I met a possible partner who has solid business experience and seems well-connected. He appears to be the perfect compliment, but given the changes in patent law, I am afraid to start a discussion about my invention with him. I don't have a patent and can't justify legal expenses this early on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does an NDA provide enough protection in this case? What else can I do to protect my IP other than a NDA?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31921" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13337" RevisionGUID="5d8d8c89-c21c-4530-b76e-5bcb5ba2f1af" CreationDate="2015-08-02T19:02:01.143" UserId="10011" Comment="added 11 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;public-disclosure&gt;&lt;non-disclosure-agreements&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13338" RevisionGUID="56b35551-b86b-4d54-ac23-266849fa546f" CreationDate="2015-08-03T11:16:24.890" UserId="14417" Text="Yes, a standard Non-Disclosure Agreement is typically enough to protect your idea. However, NDA's do have time limits, and once they expire they offer no protection at all. A good option in this case is to prepare a Provisional Patent Application, which, once filed, will give you a full year to publish your full Application and will also serve to clearly establish your Priority Date as Inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your potential business partner offers other important ideas that ultimately end up in the patent, then you may need to add him as co-inventor, which would grant him rights to use and practice the invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31933" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13011" RevisionGUID="1e36c957-4769-4ea0-b9f8-728e43fa4221" CreationDate="2015-08-03T17:19:11.007" UserId="14622" Comment="Fixed spelling." Text="If a Provisional Application is filed in USPTO, let us say on June 01 2015 and before June 01 2016 a proper PCT Application (an International Provisional Application, this is also a provisional) is filed for this earlier domestic Provisional Application. How much time one would get to 'elect USA' as the first Non Provisional Application country (e.g., the standard 30 months applicable to PCT Applications) or 12 months from the PCT Application in USA? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it necessary that PCT Application filed by June 01 2016 has to be Non Provisional Application of the earlier USPTO filed Provisional Application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially trying to figure out the most effective way to get the maximum amount of time to file USA Non Provisional Applications and Non Provisional Applications in some other countries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31934" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13011" RevisionGUID="1e36c957-4769-4ea0-b9f8-728e43fa4221" CreationDate="2015-08-03T17:19:11.007" Comment="Proposed by 14622 approved by 14417, 10011 edit id of 1861" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13334" RevisionGUID="0eb3995a-d61e-4170-a204-aa915cbfface" CreationDate="2015-08-03T17:22:46.380" UserId="10011" Comment="Remove greetings" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2012120036A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2012120036A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent valid worldwide and if not in which countries it is valid." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31936" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13295" RevisionGUID="3a0778ad-bcb3-450c-944d-2c0091d2ea68" CreationDate="2015-08-03T17:24:48.113" UserId="10011" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[4499],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31937" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="13295" RevisionGUID="4f8e9038-a797-42c6-9296-b4fc86a66159" CreationDate="2015-08-03T17:25:01.957" UserId="10011" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31938" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13295" RevisionGUID="f342a2ed-c0d3-4b50-83c5-e213d52f70ee" CreationDate="2015-08-03T17:25:33.903" UserId="10011" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[3801],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31939" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10105" RevisionGUID="0163d52c-35e5-491b-afd1-ad50301fc961" CreationDate="2015-08-03T20:06:48.043" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13259" RevisionGUID="69b91824-df1e-4787-b04c-3b5d496d00aa" CreationDate="2015-08-04T12:05:47.953" UserId="14417" Comment="Added reference." Text="I've found something close enough to an answer. There are two types of Release of a cultivated strain: Open Release and Managed Release (Club Apple).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An Open Release allows anyone to grow the cultivar. However, the apples themselves may be Trademarked. In a Managed Release, growers of the cultivar must pay royalties, and in addition the apples may be trademarked. This is US law only, and other countries have much different IP protection for cultivars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The rush to redness][1]. *Apples*, June 2012 Issue, “Varieties” (June 1, 2012).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Honeycrisp went off patent in 2008, but under U.S. patent law, that’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not an issue. Under U.S. law, a **sport**—**a limb or a whole-tree&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mutation**—that occurs in an open-release variety belongs to the owner&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the orchard in which it’s found.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “The United States is the only system I’m aware of that allows someone&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to find a sport and completely make it their own, and it’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; frustrating,” Bedford said in the article in 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Honeycrisp took thirty years from breeding to release, and all it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; takes is someone to happen to notice a little redder limb and suddenly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; they’re the new owner of all that technology. Pretty much everywhere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; else in the world, you have to go through the owner of the variety.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Technologically advanced as we are in this country, we’re behind the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; eight ball in intellectual property protection.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found additional references in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Winston, E. I. 2014. [Sowing the Seeds of Protection][2]. The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Like any seed, apples can be protected through plant patents and utility patents. In addition, through the release of *managed* and *club apples*, trademarks have been used to educate the consumer to request a seed variety by a brand name, rather than a variety name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent law on this is defined in [35 U.S. Code, Section 161 Plant Patents][3] and some [Provisions and Limitations][4] are described by the USPTO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plant found in an uncultivated state, may obtain a patent therefor,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; subject to the conditions and requirements of title. (Amended&#xD;&#xA;&gt; September 3, 1954, 68 Stat. 1190).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Charles, D. [Want To Grow These Apples? You'll Have To Join The Club.][5] NPR. November 10, 2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Less visible is the economic machinery that's helping to drive this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; revolution. An increasing number of these new apples are “club apples”&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — varieties that are not just patented, but also trademarked and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; controlled in such a way that only a select “club” of farmers can sell&#xD;&#xA;&gt; them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One final issue that I am not clear on. Apples are not true breeding, that is to say, an apple tree grown from seed will not necessarily produce fruit similar to the tree that produced the seed. This fact seems to be ignored by the US Code, which would indicate that trees grown from the seeds of patented apple tree cultivar/trademarked apple would not be protected by patents or trademarks if the fruit produced by the tree did not match the apple. However, by the time a tree grown from seed produces fruit, the patent may already be expired anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be interested in any case law or additional details/insight anyone has on these laws, as well as any historic cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.goodfruit.com/the-rush-to-redness/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1791&amp;context=scholar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2010-title35/USCODE-2010-title35-partII-chap15-sec161&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/general-information-about-35-usc-161&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/11/10/358530280/want-to-grow-these-apples-youll-have-to-join-the-club" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13342" RevisionGUID="dc2e3f2d-feb6-46ea-b4d7-41015c87bbc3" CreationDate="2015-08-04T18:40:22.730" UserId="14729" Text="I know that no software can be patented in Europe. But what if I use software in an electronic board, and introduce that hardware? Can that be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31949" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13342" RevisionGUID="dc2e3f2d-feb6-46ea-b4d7-41015c87bbc3" CreationDate="2015-08-04T18:40:22.730" UserId="14729" Text="Can embedded software be patented in the EU?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31950" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13342" RevisionGUID="dc2e3f2d-feb6-46ea-b4d7-41015c87bbc3" CreationDate="2015-08-04T18:40:22.730" UserId="14729" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31964" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13342" RevisionGUID="d90a335a-5f5f-45e6-880a-7575fa37383c" CreationDate="2015-08-05T15:37:15.317" UserId="253" Comment="retag (since the retag privilege is gone I have to go through suggested edits)" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;european&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31965" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13342" RevisionGUID="d90a335a-5f5f-45e6-880a-7575fa37383c" CreationDate="2015-08-05T15:37:15.317" Comment="Proposed by 253 approved by 14417, 1 edit id of 1862" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13346" RevisionGUID="93234cf2-36e2-4fb7-8367-10fa6f36bf19" CreationDate="2015-08-06T01:00:25.513" UserId="13928" Text="Under the EPC, computer programs are excluded from patentability (Art. 52(2)), but only *as such* (Art. 52(3)). Consequently, workarounds for claim wording have been developed (see this [EPO powerpoint presentation](http://uvigo.es/opencms/export/sites/uvigo/sites/default/uvigo/DOCUMENTOS/investigacion/Redaccixn_reinvindicaciones_Txcnica2_Frederik.pdf)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;computer program product&quot;,&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;storage medium comprising instructions...&quot;,&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;data processing apparatus comprising means for carrying out steps...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last construct seems the closest to your idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that these wordings avoid an straight exclusion from patentability, but to be &quot;patented&quot;, the subject-matter of a claim still has to be novel and inventive (Art. 52(1)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further justification regarding the wording &quot;computer program product&quot;, see the landmark [decision of the Board of Appeal](http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t971173ex1.html).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13348" RevisionGUID="25b17d1b-021a-4b7f-afd7-254a98264091" CreationDate="2015-08-06T17:27:02.400" UserId="11394" Text="Yes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A dependent claim contains all the limitations of the claims from which it depends, whether directly or indirectly. Thus, claim 2 includes all the limitations of claim 1, and claim 3 includes all the limitations of claims 1 and 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your claim 3 has antecedent basis for referring to elements W, Y, and Z without having to reintroduce them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13349" RevisionGUID="751eed23-b45f-43b2-ac6d-c41545bca581" CreationDate="2015-08-06T17:50:41.893" UserId="11394" Text="They can both co-exist and be reviewed at the same time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The continuation-in-part application contains new matter which was not supported in the parent application. Thus, you should be claiming different things in the two applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the claims are not different enough (between the two applications), you may get non-statutory double patenting rejections." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13351" RevisionGUID="229939f2-1f39-44f8-97af-0e08168b6512" CreationDate="2015-08-07T04:27:50.320" UserId="8302" Text="There used to be a website, lavarand.com that would generate random numbers via a camera aimed at a lava lamp. This idea was patented with [US5732138][1], but [the website][2] has since been shut down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is interesting and would like to put up a site with a web stream of the lava lamp with a 'generate' button, just for fun and with no intent to profit from it whatsoever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could I be sued because of the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also curious on whether or not I can just &quot;not do&quot; one of the claim steps to be sure to not violate the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What is claimed is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. A method for ensuring the security of a system from unauthorized access, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  digitizing a state of a chaotic system to form a set of binary bits;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  applying a hash function to the set of binary bits;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  obtaining a seed number from the hash function performed on the binary bits;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  inputting the seed number into a random number generator;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  using an output from the random number generator to form a password or cryptographic key, wherein the password or cryptographic key is used appropriately by the security system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, for example, let's say I simply don't apply a hash function to the set of binary bits (perhaps I encrypt it), but then follow the rest. Would that render patent infringement claims inactionable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5732138&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lavarand.sgi.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31981" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13351" RevisionGUID="229939f2-1f39-44f8-97af-0e08168b6512" CreationDate="2015-08-07T04:27:50.320" UserId="8302" Text="Could I be sued by this side project because of Patent US5732138?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31982" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13351" RevisionGUID="229939f2-1f39-44f8-97af-0e08168b6512" CreationDate="2015-08-07T04:27:50.320" UserId="8302" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13352" RevisionGUID="8f3d1793-0f63-4905-b926-aa0acf17a5bd" CreationDate="2015-08-07T09:19:50.860" UserId="14744" Text="Patent gives territorial rights. So if inventor wants a patent protection&#xD;&#xA;in more than one country than he has to file patent application in&#xD;&#xA;different countries separately for the same invention. So the country in&#xD;&#xA;which applicant has filled first application is called First Filled Country.&#xD;&#xA;so give the first filled country of this patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31984" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13352" RevisionGUID="8f3d1793-0f63-4905-b926-aa0acf17a5bd" CreationDate="2015-08-07T09:19:50.860" UserId="14744" Text="which is the first filled country of this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31985" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13352" RevisionGUID="8f3d1793-0f63-4905-b926-aa0acf17a5bd" CreationDate="2015-08-07T09:19:50.860" UserId="14744" Text="&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31986" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10538" RevisionGUID="28655481-7027-45cf-a099-1e62a6c12fbf" CreationDate="2015-08-07T11:58:27.293" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected tagging." Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;wo2014149626a1&gt;&lt;us20140265690&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10545" RevisionGUID="8aab4e4b-60e8-485e-805a-e88a690b5f20" CreationDate="2015-08-07T12:04:44.190" UserId="14417" Comment="The question was asked in a comment. Merged that into the question and improved tagging, spelling and formatting." Text="*Curcumin nano crystallization preparation and preparation method thereof*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[CN 101361713 B][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is the first filing country with state?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/CN101361713B" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31988" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10545" RevisionGUID="8aab4e4b-60e8-485e-805a-e88a690b5f20" CreationDate="2015-08-07T12:04:44.190" UserId="14417" Comment="The question was asked in a comment. Merged that into the question and improved tagging, spelling and formatting." Text="&lt;espacenet&gt;&lt;cn101361713b&gt;&lt;cn101361713a&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13353" RevisionGUID="e7d5da10-ed43-4923-baf5-fcb07791779b" CreationDate="2015-08-07T12:05:40.333" UserId="14417" Text="There are only two documents in this patent family, the application and grant in China. No other applications were filed in other countries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13354" RevisionGUID="abd7b8e6-bdf6-4ad7-90e2-451ccf2bc94c" CreationDate="2015-08-07T14:01:27.423" UserId="14746" Text="In reference to the patent: [US2981578][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US2981578&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dear Mr(s)  &#xD;&#xA;I would like to know if the copy rights of this item are still in their period of validity.  &#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31991" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13354" RevisionGUID="abd7b8e6-bdf6-4ad7-90e2-451ccf2bc94c" CreationDate="2015-08-07T14:01:27.423" UserId="14746" Text="Copyright expiration" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31992" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13354" RevisionGUID="abd7b8e6-bdf6-4ad7-90e2-451ccf2bc94c" CreationDate="2015-08-07T14:01:27.423" UserId="14746" Text="&lt;validity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13355" RevisionGUID="0989bdfb-1812-418c-b52c-23690439a356" CreationDate="2015-08-07T14:10:48.823" UserId="14417" Text="Copyright is not applicable, so I am assuming you mean &quot;enforceable&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent in question has a Filing Date of May 20, 1959, a grant date of April 25, 1961, and is a continuation from an application with a Priority Date of May 2, 1957.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent, and its claims and subject matter have been in the Public Domain since April 25, 1978." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13354" RevisionGUID="aed69df4-96df-4c99-8787-b3d09772f2d9" CreationDate="2015-08-07T14:11:45.363" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 2,981,578][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US2981578&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know if the copy rights of this item are still in their period of validity.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31995" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13354" RevisionGUID="aed69df4-96df-4c99-8787-b3d09772f2d9" CreationDate="2015-08-07T14:11:45.363" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;expired-patent&gt;&lt;us2981578&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12441" RevisionGUID="de7e8e34-0bd1-4b2e-b88c-3706891a7a9f" CreationDate="2015-08-07T20:07:52.070" UserId="13522" Comment="correct a couple of typos." Text="**Novelty** is the key, as the Ford Motor company engaged J. Lyons and Co. in 1956 to provide time on one of their remotely hosted [Lyons Electronic Office I][1] computers, to run it's payroll. So there's a fair bit of SaaS/IaaS prior art out there, that can used to invalidate many a supposedly new Business method application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly talkers / chat rooms, Usenet, BBS, MUD's..... and numerous other Social Network pre-runners have been out there for 40+ years, and pre-date the patentability of both Software and Business methods in the US. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If software patents had been around in the 1970's it's highly unlikely there would be an: Apple, Microsoft, CISCO, VMware... as the underlying principles and UI of their offerings have for decades directly lifted ideas and code from the then unpatentable work of AT&amp;T, Xerox PARC, amongst others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally Apple claimed some 30+ year old [prior art][2] when challenged over the design of their iPod, even a device superficially similar to the iPad was around in 1996 ([NewsPad][3]), initiated in 1994.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if an idea is novel (a lazy examiners definition may be: not covered by a granted patent ;-) ), even if obvious, you may at one time have received a US patent. Adding to @GeorgeWhite granted patents, Amazon obtained a US patent on [1-CLick][4] purchases, and BT obtained a US patent on the [Hyperlink][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LEO_(computer)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4667088&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chrisacorns.computinghistory.org.uk/AcornPics/newspad.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Telecommunications_Plc._v._Prodigy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31997" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13161" RevisionGUID="03be64ea-532b-45c1-b283-900df71dc431" CreationDate="2015-08-07T20:15:45.677" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20110320926&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13163" RevisionGUID="7025dcf5-8356-4fd5-99c6-58e962c7368e" CreationDate="2015-08-07T20:45:28.617" UserId="14417" Comment="Major revision based on information from the image file wrapper." Text="Note that this is only a *patent application*, not a *patent grant*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking into the Image File Wrapper (USPTO Public Pair database), you will find that this application was Abandoned on March 19, 2013 and is now in the Public Domain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After several Office Actions, the claims were rejected by the examiner based on an earlier patent application ([US 2006/0206518 A1][1]: *Method and system for extracting structural information from a data file*) and patent grant ([US 8,086,953 B1][2]: *Identifying transient portions of web pages*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; over Bhatia (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No: US 2006/0206518A1) in view of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gabber (U.S. Pat. No: US 8,086,953 B1 filed Dec. 19, 2008).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bhatia teaches [a] method (Abstract) and machine-readable medium&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Claims 21-23) [for] generating an XML schema...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, one of the big players (in this case, Oracle) may file a patent application and then abandon it for the sole purpose of serving as prior art, which gives them (and everyone else) freedom to operate by preventing additional patent applications in that space. This in fact benefits the open source community, as well as smaller commercial players, by clearing a space that is free of intellectual property.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oracle did make one attempt to revise the claim language, but after a second office action, the application was abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although open source software can be used as Prior Art, a more compelling rejection is often possible through existing patent literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20060206518&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8086953" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13356" RevisionGUID="41f90c74-75d9-4ea3-9cd8-2e9855fc2c45" CreationDate="2015-08-07T20:47:02.460" UserId="13522" Text="Assuming, post [Alice][1], a few Software and / or Business Process patents are enforceable:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) The exemptions only cover research / pure educational purposes. So demonstrating a method  is permitted, but you cannot use a copy of another's invention for it's intended purpose. You definitely can't use a copy of the invention to offer a service to a third party.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Yes, source code is no more an invention than the patent application documentation, which is in the Public domain, so in itself it is not protected / can't infringe a **patent**. It's only use of the software, in context, that would infringe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Not if you are in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) No, see 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) Probably, or even in a country where software / business Processes are patentable, but the particular invention / inventive step hasn't been protected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Int%27l" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13357" RevisionGUID="1f3d3f7e-396c-40ee-9f25-eb2a75311ef0" CreationDate="2015-08-08T01:07:36.617" UserId="14747" Text="In reference to the patent: [US4210672][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4210672&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;l-thermophilus is NOT bacillus coagulans! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32008" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13357" RevisionGUID="1f3d3f7e-396c-40ee-9f25-eb2a75311ef0" CreationDate="2015-08-08T01:07:36.617" UserId="14747" Text="Major error in patent application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32009" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13357" RevisionGUID="1f3d3f7e-396c-40ee-9f25-eb2a75311ef0" CreationDate="2015-08-08T01:07:36.617" UserId="14747" Text="&lt;new&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32011" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13357" RevisionGUID="96fbcc56-15e3-428c-94e5-e888e5a1f22e" CreationDate="2015-08-08T04:14:05.603" UserId="10011" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13359" RevisionGUID="85fb2f19-e163-4b51-8173-5fe6778d6572" CreationDate="2015-08-08T11:48:28.693" UserId="14750" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2012007964A2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2012007964A2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32016" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13359" RevisionGUID="85fb2f19-e163-4b51-8173-5fe6778d6572" CreationDate="2015-08-08T11:48:28.693" UserId="14750" Text="Can we get pictures of this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32017" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13359" RevisionGUID="85fb2f19-e163-4b51-8173-5fe6778d6572" CreationDate="2015-08-08T11:48:28.693" UserId="14750" Text="&lt;wo2012007964a2&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13361" RevisionGUID="23329523-dd86-466c-a166-9373531ccad7" CreationDate="2015-08-09T17:14:37.870" UserId="13884" Text="Can a patent have more than one multiple preferred embodiments?&#xD;&#xA;Where is this discussed in MPEP?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32025" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13361" RevisionGUID="23329523-dd86-466c-a166-9373531ccad7" CreationDate="2015-08-09T17:14:37.870" UserId="13884" Text="Can a patent have more than one, multiple preferred embodiments?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32026" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13361" RevisionGUID="23329523-dd86-466c-a166-9373531ccad7" CreationDate="2015-08-09T17:14:37.870" UserId="13884" Text="&lt;multiple&gt;&lt;embodiments&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13364" RevisionGUID="a73bd5b9-30a7-4093-9a98-4670493c3995" CreationDate="2015-08-10T13:05:11.747" UserId="14417" Text="From the link you provided to the Google Patents page, click on the &quot;Espacenet&quot; link, then click on the &quot;EP Register&quot; link, and select &quot;All Documents&quot;. The document you are looking for (the international application that contains the Figures) is the following one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`19.01.2012 	International publication of the A2 Pamphlet 	Search / examination 	31 pages`&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13365" RevisionGUID="2f289b7e-28c0-4b94-8c50-0dbf090a2acd" CreationDate="2015-08-10T13:13:31.833" UserId="14417" Text="Yes, multiple preferred embodiments are allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 608.01(a)   Arrangement of Application [R-11.2013]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ¶ 6.02    Content of Specification&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A&#xD;&#xA;&gt; description of **the preferred embodiment(s)** of the invention as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; subject matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13366" RevisionGUID="94a01819-c509-4d1d-84bf-c665d21d13d2" CreationDate="2015-08-10T17:08:37.017" UserId="14760" Text="please tell me, I have developed a new device used in automobiles and applied for patent as personal not from a company. after producing commercially and release in the market what should I do if some one else copy my design and make little bit changes produce the same thing and sell in the market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;please advice me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;venkat&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32042" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13366" RevisionGUID="94a01819-c509-4d1d-84bf-c665d21d13d2" CreationDate="2015-08-10T17:08:37.017" UserId="14760" Text="how do i prortect my invention after applying for patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32043" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13366" RevisionGUID="94a01819-c509-4d1d-84bf-c665d21d13d2" CreationDate="2015-08-10T17:08:37.017" UserId="14760" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;security&gt;&lt;protection&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13368" RevisionGUID="f6a66b52-3a05-470f-ae1c-3b4281bdce5e" CreationDate="2015-08-10T18:40:12.300" UserId="14763" Text="I have an idea that seems to fit well with the claims made in the patent US20020032659. I need to know how to use this patent. I have not been able to connect with anyone who knows about this patent and yet the claims made and description of the patent describe a very useful invention to simplify the process of developing new products. Can you give any kind of instructions on how to proceed and connect with the owner of this patent? thank you, jim" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32048" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13368" RevisionGUID="f6a66b52-3a05-470f-ae1c-3b4281bdce5e" CreationDate="2015-08-10T18:40:12.300" UserId="14763" Text="Using patent #US2002002659" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32049" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13368" RevisionGUID="f6a66b52-3a05-470f-ae1c-3b4281bdce5e" CreationDate="2015-08-10T18:40:12.300" UserId="14763" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13371" RevisionGUID="0c5ff5da-51de-4792-ad87-abc4d1168176" CreationDate="2015-08-11T08:14:24.027" UserId="14016" Text="I would strongly recommend against describing &quot;multiple **preferred** embodiments&quot; in a patent specification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By having a single preferred embodiment, you can easily fight some instances of unfavorable claim constructions using the case law principle that &quot;a claim construction excluding the preferred embodiment is rarely, if ever, correct&quot; (for a more thorough explanation, see http://www.finnegan.com/files/upload/Newsletters/Full_Disclosure/2013/March/FullDisclosure_Mar13_1.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have multiple preferred embodiments, you would naturally have a harder time swaying claim construction using this principle, though it might not be impossible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it hard to imagine a situation in which having **multiple preferred embodiments** is better than both the more conventional options of (A) picking one as preferred and describing the rest in the alternative or (B) filing separate applications for each embodiment. Choosing between (A) and (B) is admittedly not easy, and would depend a lot on facts we haven't been given.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13372" RevisionGUID="f9e5be42-7987-4318-b45a-bee484e8e087" CreationDate="2015-08-11T08:28:02.967" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; Could I be sued because of the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. In the U.S., you can always be sued for anything regardless of the facts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, for example, let's say I simply don't apply a hash function to the set of binary bits (perhaps I encrypt it)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sounds like that would likely be considered a hash function. You've probably rediscovered https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function#Hash_functions_based_on_block_ciphers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm also curious on whether or not I can just &quot;not do&quot; one of the claim steps to be sure to not violate the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sounds like you can easily avoid doing the last part ... &quot;using an output from the random number generator to form a password or cryptographic key, wherein the password or cryptographic key is used appropriately by the security system.&quot; So as long as you wouldn't use the resulting random numbers to key a cryptographic system but just display them instead you wouldn't directly infringe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13373" RevisionGUID="9b36f73a-27c8-4096-ab5c-fd562fc7c174" CreationDate="2015-08-11T14:05:26.037" UserId="13884" Text="Can one in an patent application mention a couple of embodiments and say you don't know what the preferred embodiment is?&#xD;&#xA;Or should you just mention the one that you have implemented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32059" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13373" RevisionGUID="9b36f73a-27c8-4096-ab5c-fd562fc7c174" CreationDate="2015-08-11T14:05:26.037" UserId="13884" Text="Not know what the preferred embodiment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32060" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13373" RevisionGUID="9b36f73a-27c8-4096-ab5c-fd562fc7c174" CreationDate="2015-08-11T14:05:26.037" UserId="13884" Text="&lt;embodiments&gt;&lt;more&gt;&lt;know&gt;&lt;preferred&gt;&lt;advantages&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32063" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13368" RevisionGUID="47c7e4d5-1f2a-42b5-a5f5-76d66d4fc15e" CreationDate="2015-08-11T21:47:10.057" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5059],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13373" RevisionGUID="97f1f106-fd99-4386-9299-41bb6d1c1ece" CreationDate="2015-08-11T22:01:01.603" UserId="10011" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="In a patent application, is it acceptable to mention several potential embodiments, and say you don't know which one is preferred? Or should you just mention the one that you have implemented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32066" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13373" RevisionGUID="97f1f106-fd99-4386-9299-41bb6d1c1ece" CreationDate="2015-08-11T22:01:01.603" UserId="10011" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Is there a requirement to explicitly call out a preferred embodiment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32067" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13373" RevisionGUID="97f1f106-fd99-4386-9299-41bb6d1c1ece" CreationDate="2015-08-11T22:01:01.603" UserId="10011" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;drafting&gt;&lt;embodiments&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13374" RevisionGUID="038e371e-41b8-4cc0-b362-acef212fd726" CreationDate="2015-08-11T22:16:38.770" UserId="1241" Text="Have you looked at the owner of the patent?  This patent is owned by RPX.  The assignment is [here][1].  RPX is a &quot;good&quot; patent aggregator.  Check out the [wikipedia page][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think you have anything to worry about.  Also, the patent expires in 6 months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://assignment.uspto.gov/#/assignment?id=29564-799&amp;q=5732138&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPX_Corporation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="91604494-fe7a-483b-81f0-6c50248cd341" CreationDate="2015-08-11T23:07:37.853" UserId="1241" Text="This question might be too detailed for this site, but I will give it a shot...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question relates to divided infringement and when a method claim will have multiple actors.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method comprising: a customer sending an unpainted item to a painter, the painter painting the item, and the painter sending the painted item to the customer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A method comprising: a customer sending an unpainted item to a painter, wherein the painter paints the item and sends it to the customer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A method comprising: a customer sending an unpainted item to a painter, and the customer receiving the item from the painter, wherein the received item was painted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. A method comprising: a customer sending an unpainted item to a painter, and the customer receiving a painted item from the painter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 is clearly divided infringement because there are two different actors performing explicit steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 2 is pretty much the same thing, but the actions of the painter have been put into a &quot;wherein&quot; clause.  It seems that this should also be divided infringement but I haven't found a case addressing this.  Is there any law addressing this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 3 is trickier.  Now the wherein clause describes the item but that description requires that someone performed an action on the item.  If the painter painted the item, is this divided infringement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 4 seems to have virtually identical meaning to claim 3, but I would say that claim 4 is not divided infringement even if the painter had painted the item. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does one draw the line for divided infringement for the above claims?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32070" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="91604494-fe7a-483b-81f0-6c50248cd341" CreationDate="2015-08-11T23:07:37.853" UserId="1241" Text="Understanding divided infringement in method claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32071" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="91604494-fe7a-483b-81f0-6c50248cd341" CreationDate="2015-08-11T23:07:37.853" UserId="1241" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;method&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13376" RevisionGUID="eab6910f-2bfa-498b-973a-e1a37d2a6802" CreationDate="2015-08-12T09:35:33.030" UserId="13884" Text="Say for instance you have filed a provisional specification covering a first embodiment 1. You then start preparing for the subsequent non-provisional utility patent specification. During the drafting of the non-provisional specification you think of two further embodiments (embodiment 2 and embodiment 3)that are related to the invention. You are not sure whether they are new inventions or just further embodiments. You decide to include the 2 new embodiments 2 and 3 in the non-provisional specification and you draft claims the cover the embodiment 1 and the new embodiments 2 and 3.Your thinking is if the examiner decides they are new inventions you limit the claims in the non-provisional application to embodiment 1 and file two new separate non-provisional applications for embodiments 2 and 3 and then claim priority from the original non-provisional application now covering only embodiment 1 for embodiments 2 and 3.&#xD;&#xA;If the examiner decide they are only 2 embodiments then that may be the end of it. However you are not sure the examiner is correct. Examiners decisions are frequently overturned by the courts. Should you then not to be safe in any way limit the original specification to embodiment 1  and subsequent file two separate independent patent applications for embodiments 2 and 3?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32074" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13376" RevisionGUID="eab6910f-2bfa-498b-973a-e1a37d2a6802" CreationDate="2015-08-12T09:35:33.030" UserId="13884" Text="When are &quot;new embodiments&quot; new embodiments and when are new inventions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32075" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13376" RevisionGUID="eab6910f-2bfa-498b-973a-e1a37d2a6802" CreationDate="2015-08-12T09:35:33.030" UserId="13884" Text="&lt;examiner&gt;&lt;new&gt;&lt;embodiments&gt;&lt;decision&gt;&lt;accept&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13377" RevisionGUID="9e806ba0-c937-4768-8100-226d981f3416" CreationDate="2015-08-12T09:52:20.660" UserId="14016" Text="*Divided infringement*? I'm having a hard time seeing how these claims even fit into a statutory class. A method (or process) must comprise **steps** or **acts** to be carried out. &quot;a customer sending an unpainted item to a painter&quot; is just a set of circumstances rather than a **step** or **act** to be carried out. To write it as a step, simply write &quot;sending an unpainted item to a painter&quot; (a step that can be carried out by the customer). If you rewrite all the claims this way, you'll see that the issues are dramatically simplified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of &quot;a customer sending an unpainted item to a painter, wherein the painter paints the item and sends it to the customer&quot;, say &quot;(a) receiving an unpainted item from a customer (b) painting said item and (c) sending said item to said customer&quot; -- this way the painter infringes. However, I'd avoid &quot;receiving&quot; snail mail as an act if possible (because, typically, the recipient doesn't &quot;do&quot; anything to receive snail mail)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13377" RevisionGUID="71f64115-b711-41ff-bd3d-d831f0bc85bb" CreationDate="2015-08-12T10:00:43.073" UserId="14016" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="*Divided infringement*? I'm having a hard time seeing how these claims even fit into a statutory class. A method (or process) must comprise **steps** or **acts** to be carried out. &quot;a customer sending an unpainted item to a painter&quot; is just a set of circumstances rather than a **step** or **act** to be carried out. To write it as a step, simply write &quot;sending an unpainted item to a painter&quot; (a step that can be carried out by the customer). If you rewrite all the claims this way, you'll see that the issues are dramatically simplified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of &quot;a customer sending an unpainted item to a painter, wherein the painter paints the item and sends it to the customer&quot;, say &quot;(a) receiving an unpainted item from a customer, (b) painting said item, and (c) sending said item to said customer&quot; -- this way the painter infringes. However, I'd avoid &quot;receiving&quot; snail mail as an act if possible (because, typically, the recipient doesn't &quot;do&quot; anything to receive snail mail). Perhaps I'd phrase it as &quot;(a) painting an item received from a customer, and (b) sending said item to said customer&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13378" RevisionGUID="1cb18c14-06c3-46ef-87fd-a0e6c2314b6b" CreationDate="2015-08-12T10:13:11.550" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; However you are not sure the examiner is correct. Examiners decisions are frequently overturned by the courts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, Examiners can be wrong, but failure of an Examiner to issue a restriction requirement where one was appropriate doesn't sound like something that can be used to invalidate an issued patent (I haven't researched this in depth but I would be very surprised if that were the case).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the flip side, if you're on the receiving end of an undeserved restriction requirement, you're probably not going to be able to do anything other than simply bucking up and filing additional applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Should you then [in order to] be safe [...] limit the original specification to embodiment 1 and subsequent file two separate independent patent applications for embodiments 2 and 3?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, there is no good reason for doing so. In fact, doing things this way can reduce your claim scope if you have a generic invention that covers all of the embodiments -- it's better to include multiple embodiments in one application if you have a generic invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13379" RevisionGUID="449a7ff6-1d36-40a4-a771-af41220d3c35" CreationDate="2015-08-12T17:10:11.830" UserId="14774" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20130062225][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130062225&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see 19 cited patents, will this get approved?  I see many wrist and forearm tools which are magnetic, just by simply stating you can mix makeup on a flat surface deserves a patent?  Will this get approved or is it obvious?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32080" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13379" RevisionGUID="449a7ff6-1d36-40a4-a771-af41220d3c35" CreationDate="2015-08-12T17:10:11.830" UserId="14774" Text="There are several wrist tools, magnetic wrist tools, how will this get approved?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32081" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13379" RevisionGUID="449a7ff6-1d36-40a4-a771-af41220d3c35" CreationDate="2015-08-12T17:10:11.830" UserId="14774" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;magnet&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13380" RevisionGUID="373952f9-2fcf-4f00-8afe-35b0e573938a" CreationDate="2015-08-12T19:37:09.283" UserId="14775" Text="I was wondering if the John W. Cuthbert Patent from August 14th, 1934 with the Air Compressor Units written on the patent is sellable. The numbers of this United States patent is (1969999)! It happens to be in my possession and I don't know what to really do with it. I would like to sell it but I don't know if it's worth anything, and is it legal to sell. So anyone with information on it, I would appreciate this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32083" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13380" RevisionGUID="373952f9-2fcf-4f00-8afe-35b0e573938a" CreationDate="2015-08-12T19:37:09.283" UserId="14775" Text="John W. Cuthbert Patent United States" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32084" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13380" RevisionGUID="373952f9-2fcf-4f00-8afe-35b0e573938a" CreationDate="2015-08-12T19:37:09.283" UserId="14775" Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13380" RevisionGUID="ce388217-d8ac-46f9-9dbd-6c9308a36e2b" CreationDate="2015-08-12T19:45:04.893" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 44 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I was wondering if the John W. Cuthbert Patent from August 14th, 1934 with the Air Compressor Units written on the patent is sellable. The numbers of this United States patent is (1969999)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It happens to be in my possession and I don't know what to really do with it. I would like to sell it but I was wondering:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Might it be worth anything?&#xD;&#xA;* Is it legal to sell?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32086" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13380" RevisionGUID="ce388217-d8ac-46f9-9dbd-6c9308a36e2b" CreationDate="2015-08-12T19:45:04.893" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 44 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Can I sell the original paperwork for a historically significant US patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32087" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13380" RevisionGUID="ce388217-d8ac-46f9-9dbd-6c9308a36e2b" CreationDate="2015-08-12T19:45:04.893" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 44 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;documents&gt;&lt;us1969999&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32088" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13379" RevisionGUID="94dd066f-9ed7-4d2b-aadb-8c577c95ab4c" CreationDate="2015-08-12T19:46:45.137" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20130062225&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13381" RevisionGUID="4eb78357-4021-449c-bf99-4a3737dd6b27" CreationDate="2015-08-12T23:11:38.673" UserId="14777" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7244424][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7244424" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32090" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13381" RevisionGUID="4eb78357-4021-449c-bf99-4a3737dd6b27" CreationDate="2015-08-12T23:11:38.673" UserId="14777" Text="Can you patent an existing bacteria without any modifications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32091" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13381" RevisionGUID="4eb78357-4021-449c-bf99-4a3737dd6b27" CreationDate="2015-08-12T23:11:38.673" UserId="14777" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3860" RevisionGUID="ecad5ae7-c1a9-43e5-8c0a-b7c201d02e98" CreationDate="2015-08-13T01:20:50.410" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="Avocado tree called Lamb/Hass plant patent [US PP9,753 P][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a 20 or 25 year protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/USPP9753P" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32093" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3860" RevisionGUID="ecad5ae7-c1a9-43e5-8c0a-b7c201d02e98" CreationDate="2015-08-13T01:20:50.410" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;plant-patent&gt;&lt;uspp9753&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13383" RevisionGUID="21fccbb5-dec4-4793-bc57-7345d120ad0b" CreationDate="2015-08-13T08:42:08.473" UserId="14780" Text="Is it possible for me to manufacture &amp; sell items which have US Patents but no EU Patents ? I realise I cannot trade to the USA &amp; only intend to see within the UK. My main question relates to the fact that the US Company has now a base in the UK &amp; trading from it however their patents are only US." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32100" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13383" RevisionGUID="21fccbb5-dec4-4793-bc57-7345d120ad0b" CreationDate="2015-08-13T08:42:08.473" UserId="14780" Text="selling in uk despite a us patent but no eu patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32101" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13383" RevisionGUID="21fccbb5-dec4-4793-bc57-7345d120ad0b" CreationDate="2015-08-13T08:42:08.473" UserId="14780" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13383" RevisionGUID="444ea71e-10e9-4c0f-9ffb-ad8018a62b4f" CreationDate="2015-08-13T11:08:20.130" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected grammar, fixed spelling and improved tagging." Text="Is it possible for me to manufacture and sell items which have US Patents but no EU Patents? I realize I cannot trade to the USA and only intend to sell within the UK. My main question relates to the fact that the US Company now has a base in the UK and is trading from it, however their patents are only US." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32103" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13383" RevisionGUID="444ea71e-10e9-4c0f-9ffb-ad8018a62b4f" CreationDate="2015-08-13T11:08:20.130" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected grammar, fixed spelling and improved tagging." Text="Selling products in the United Kingdom despite a US Patent but no EU Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32104" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13383" RevisionGUID="444ea71e-10e9-4c0f-9ffb-ad8018a62b4f" CreationDate="2015-08-13T11:08:20.130" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected grammar, fixed spelling and improved tagging." Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;freedom-to-operate&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32110" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12154" RevisionGUID="36f76291-643a-488b-909d-0143f7ab1ca5" CreationDate="2015-08-14T00:57:20.337" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting." Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;freedom-to-operate&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13385" RevisionGUID="0647f9d9-e830-4d48-87c5-68d9195ca04a" CreationDate="2015-08-14T05:30:37.643" UserId="14509" Text="You can not patent something that is naturally created. You could patent processes or equipment that is used to raise such. It can not be obvious or described in prior art. You need to demonstrate innovation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13386" RevisionGUID="7f8b5bb6-f921-4a41-807e-ddac10d4e6a0" CreationDate="2015-08-14T06:39:40.997" UserId="14791" Text="As a pro se inventor, my examiner seems to be taking advantage of my supposed ignorance. He understands neither my invention, his own references, or the law. To my first amendment, he flagged up every single change as new material, even where I'd just added reference numerals to existing parts of figures. Where I added a user to a diagram of a web browsing system, he called that new material, even though I'd used the word &quot;user&quot; 109 times in the spec. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His 103s are banal beyond belief. He equates my elements with completely different things in his two references which happen to have the same name, e.g. &quot;queue&quot; or &quot;category&quot;. His &quot;it would have been obvious...&quot; is the same in almost every objection, and in all cases he systematic ignores the actual novelty of the claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. in claim 1, I react to one button by doing four different things at the same time, so he says two of them are prior, ignores the other two and doesn't mention the important bit, which is the fact that they are combined into one button. So it's obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I already argued all of this in reply to OA 1, but he doesn't seem to have read any of what I said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just sent my the reply to OA 2, which didn't go quite as far as to ask &quot;if this invention is obvious, how come you still don't understand it?&quot; but insinuates as much, and I'd like to appeal against the inevitable brainless rot I'll get in return.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What worries me is that he might find some new fantasy objection and use it as an excuse not to enter my second amendment for appeal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do I do in that scenario?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32115" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13386" RevisionGUID="7f8b5bb6-f921-4a41-807e-ddac10d4e6a0" CreationDate="2015-08-14T06:39:40.997" UserId="14791" Text="How to handle idiot examiner" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32116" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13386" RevisionGUID="7f8b5bb6-f921-4a41-807e-ddac10d4e6a0" CreationDate="2015-08-14T06:39:40.997" UserId="14791" Text="&lt;examiner&gt;&lt;illegal&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13387" RevisionGUID="9847f69b-8a27-4bf2-b314-7c8bf3424e7f" CreationDate="2015-08-14T07:05:23.027" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; As a pro se inventor, my examiner seems to be taking advantage of my supposed ignorance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;False. You are most likely **not** being singled out because you are a *pro se* applicant. Examiners are after &quot;counts&quot; (work credit), and the easiest way for Examiners to earn counts is to reject. They also earn counts when they allow, but if they allow bad applications, they lose serious points in quality control. They are never penalized for rejecting applications that should have been allowed, so rejecting is their go-to strategy. The only time an Examiner loses this game is if you win an appeal (moreover, you have to win on *each and every* issue being appealed for it count as a reversal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Read a few file wrappers of applications represented by registered practitioners that were reversed and you will see that Examiners try to take advantage of everyone, not just *pro se* applicants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To my first amendment, he flagged up every single change as new material, even where I'd just added reference numerals to existing parts of figures. Where I added a user to a diagram of a web browsing system, he called that new material, even though I'd used the word &quot;user&quot; 109 times in the spec. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would never amend a specification except to fix objections raised by the Examiner. Rather than changing the specification, I'd argue why the as-filed specification supports the claims. If I can't do that, I'd change the claims so that they are actually supported by the as-filed disclosure. If it turns out the as-filed disclosure was completely inadequate, I'd abandon and re-file a proper application pronto. If I didn't have an NPR in and passed the 1-year prior disclosure, well, I'd have officially learned my lesson in that regard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; His 103s are banal beyond belief. He equates my elements with completely different things in his two references which happen to have the same name, e.g. &quot;queue&quot; or &quot;category&quot;. His &quot;it would have been obvious...&quot; is the same in almost every objection, and in all cases he systematic ignores the actual novelty of the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Request an interview with the Examiner and calmly explain how you are unable to follow his obviousness argument. Get into specifics, try to explain how your queue used in your claim isn't the same thing as the prior art queue used in the prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If rational communications break down (most likely outcome for interviews with Examiners), you have two options. The first option is to make a small, nearly insignificant change to a claim and file an RCE. This is what the Examiner is after because it earns him/her more of those &quot;counts&quot; I mentioned earlier while doing virtually no additional work. The other option is to appeal. Sometimes the Examiner will cave when you have a good appeal brief in. Other times they won't, but you can always renege on an appeal by filing an RCE at any time before the appeal is decided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What worries me is that he might find some new fantasy objection and use it as an excuse not to enter my second amendment for appeal. What do I do in that scenario?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RCE or appeal without your additional amendments. It's perfectly fair for the PTO to eventually require an RCE if you keep amending, since amendments take time to consider (at least in theory). You can only amend once for your initial filing fee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I appeal whenever I'm right. Others might take a softer approach and RCE more often to get on the Examiner's good side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13387" RevisionGUID="2e68faa8-53bb-436e-8804-d997f2fdffb7" CreationDate="2015-08-14T07:12:54.580" UserId="14016" Comment="added 180 characters in body" Text="&gt; As a pro se inventor, my examiner seems to be taking advantage of my supposed ignorance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;False. You are most likely **not** being singled out because you are a *pro se* applicant. Examiners are after &quot;counts&quot; (work credit), and the easiest way for Examiners to earn counts is to reject. They also earn counts when they allow, but if they allow bad applications, they lose serious points in quality control. They are never penalized for rejecting applications that should have been allowed, so rejecting is their go-to strategy. The only time an Examiner loses this game is if you win an appeal (moreover, you have to win on *each and every* issue for it count as a reversal -- otherwise, it counts as an &quot;affirmation in part&quot; even if many rejections were not sustained).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Read a few file wrappers of applications represented by registered practitioners that were reversed and you will see that Examiners try to take advantage of everyone, not just *pro se* applicants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To my first amendment, he flagged up every single change as new material, even where I'd just added reference numerals to existing parts of figures. Where I added a user to a diagram of a web browsing system, he called that new material, even though I'd used the word &quot;user&quot; 109 times in the spec. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would never amend a specification except to fix objections raised by the Examiner. Rather than changing the specification, I'd argue why the as-filed specification supports the claims. If I can't do that, I'd change the claims so that they are actually supported by the as-filed disclosure. If it turns out the as-filed disclosure was completely inadequate, I'd abandon and re-file a proper application pronto. If I didn't have an NPR in and passed the 1-year prior disclosure, well, I'd have officially learned my lesson in that regard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; His 103s are banal beyond belief. He equates my elements with completely different things in his two references which happen to have the same name, e.g. &quot;queue&quot; or &quot;category&quot;. His &quot;it would have been obvious...&quot; is the same in almost every objection, and in all cases he systematic ignores the actual novelty of the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Request an interview with the Examiner and calmly explain how you are unable to follow his obviousness argument. Get into specifics, try to explain how your queue as used in your claim isn't the same thing as the prior art queue used in the prior art (if that's your strongest argument). Otherwise, if the Examiner has glossed over claim elements, point those out and get the Examiner to explain how the prior art suggests them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If rational communications break down (most likely outcome for interviews with Examiners), you have two options. The first option is to make a small, nearly insignificant change to a claim and file an RCE. This is what the Examiner is after because it earns him/her more of those &quot;counts&quot; I mentioned earlier while doing virtually no additional work. The other option is to appeal. Sometimes the Examiner will cave when you have a good appeal brief in. Other times they won't, but you can always renege on an appeal by filing an RCE at any time before the appeal is decided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What worries me is that he might find some new fantasy objection and use it as an excuse not to enter my second amendment for appeal. What do I do in that scenario?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RCE or appeal without your additional amendments. It's perfectly fair for the PTO to eventually require an RCE if you keep amending, since amendments take time to consider (at least in theory). You can only amend once for your initial filing fee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I appeal whenever I'm right. Others might take a softer approach and RCE more often to get on the Examiner's good side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13387" RevisionGUID="64112a70-73e0-4a7b-b5f0-dc0bc349da70" CreationDate="2015-08-14T07:20:58.307" UserId="14016" Comment="added 180 characters in body" Text="&gt; As a pro se inventor, my examiner seems to be taking advantage of my supposed ignorance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;False. You are most likely **not** being singled out because you are a *pro se* applicant. Examiners are after &quot;counts&quot; (work credit), and the easiest way for Examiners to earn counts is to reject. They also earn counts when they allow, but if they allow bad applications, they lose serious points in quality control. They are never penalized for rejecting applications that should have been allowed, so rejecting is their go-to strategy. The only time an Examiner loses this game is if you win an appeal (moreover, you have to win on *each and every* issue for it count as a reversal -- otherwise, it counts as an &quot;affirmation in part&quot; even if many rejections were not sustained).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Read a few file wrappers of applications represented by registered practitioners that were reversed and you will see that Examiners try to take advantage of everyone, not just *pro se* applicants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To my first amendment, he flagged up every single change as new material, even where I'd just added reference numerals to existing parts of figures. Where I added a user to a diagram of a web browsing system, he called that new material, even though I'd used the word &quot;user&quot; 109 times in the spec. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would never amend a specification except to fix objections raised by the Examiner. Rather than changing the specification, I'd argue why the as-filed specification supports the claims. If I can't do that, I'd change the claims so that they are actually supported by the as-filed disclosure. If it turns out the as-filed disclosure was completely inadequate, I'd abandon and re-file a proper application pronto. If I didn't have an NPR in and passed the 1-year prior disclosure, well, I'd have officially learned my lesson in that regard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; His 103s are banal beyond belief. He equates my elements with completely different things in his two references which happen to have the same name, e.g. &quot;queue&quot; or &quot;category&quot;. His &quot;it would have been obvious...&quot; is the same in almost every objection, and in all cases he systematic ignores the actual novelty of the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Request an interview with the Examiner and calmly explain how you are unable to follow his obviousness argument. Get into specifics, try to explain how your queue as used in your claim isn't the same thing as the prior art queue used in the prior art (if that's your strongest argument). Otherwise, if the Examiner has glossed over claim elements, point those out and get the Examiner to explain how the prior art suggests them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If rational communications break down (most likely outcome for interviews with Examiners), you have two options. The first option is to make a small, nearly insignificant change to a claim and file an RCE. This is what the Examiner is after because it earns him/her more of those &quot;counts&quot; I mentioned earlier while doing virtually no additional work. The other option is to appeal. Sometimes the Examiner will cave when you have a good appeal brief in. Other times they won't, but you can always renege on an appeal by filing an RCE at any time before the appeal is decided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What worries me is that he might find some new fantasy objection and use it as an excuse not to enter my second amendment for appeal. What do I do in that scenario?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RCE or appeal without your additional amendments. It's perfectly fair for the PTO to eventually require an RCE if you keep amending, since amendments take time to consider (at least in theory). You can only amend once for your initial filing fee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I appeal whenever I feel that I am 100% in the right. If there is a slight weakness in my position that can be fixed with a claim amendment (and without giving up claim scope, of course), I will RCE. Others might take a softer approach and RCE more often (i.e., even when they have a strong position) just to get on the Examiner's good side and have a chance to get the application allowed faster (but at the cost of giving up patent term).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13387" RevisionGUID="a863cde8-b604-423d-8e69-bb3c6951dada" CreationDate="2015-08-14T07:27:54.417" UserId="14016" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="&gt; As a pro se inventor, my examiner seems to be taking advantage of my supposed ignorance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;False. You are most likely **not** being singled out because you are a *pro se* applicant. Examiners are after &quot;counts&quot; (work credit), and the easiest way for Examiners to earn counts is to reject. They also earn counts when they allow, but if they allow bad applications, they lose serious points in quality control. They are never penalized for rejecting applications that should have been allowed, so rejecting is their go-to strategy. The only time an Examiner loses this game is if you win an appeal (moreover, you have to win on *each and every* issue for it count as a reversal -- otherwise, it counts as an &quot;affirmation in part&quot; even if many rejections were not sustained).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Read a few file wrappers of applications represented by registered practitioners that were reversed and you will see that Examiners try to take advantage of everyone, not just *pro se* applicants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To my first amendment, he flagged up every single change as new material, even where I'd just added reference numerals to existing parts of figures. Where I added a user to a diagram of a web browsing system, he called that new material, even though I'd used the word &quot;user&quot; 109 times in the spec. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would never amend a specification except to fix objections raised by the Examiner. Rather than changing the specification, I'd argue why the as-filed specification supports the claims. If I can't do that, I'd change the claims so that they are actually supported by the as-filed disclosure. If it turns out the as-filed disclosure was completely inadequate, I'd abandon and re-file a proper application pronto. If I didn't have an NPR in and passed the 1-year prior disclosure limit, well, then I'd have officially learned my lesson in that regard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; His 103s are banal beyond belief. He equates my elements with completely different things in his two references which happen to have the same name, e.g. &quot;queue&quot; or &quot;category&quot;. His &quot;it would have been obvious...&quot; is the same in almost every objection, and in all cases he systematic ignores the actual novelty of the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Request an interview with the Examiner and calmly explain how you are unable to follow his obviousness argument. Get into specifics, try to explain how your queue as used in your claim isn't the same thing as the prior art queue used in the prior art (if that's your strongest argument). Otherwise, if the Examiner has glossed over claim elements, point those out and get the Examiner to explain how the prior art suggests them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If rational communications break down (most likely outcome for interviews with Examiners), you have two options. The first option is to make a small, nearly insignificant change to a claim and file an RCE. This is what the Examiner is after because it earns him/her more of those &quot;counts&quot; I mentioned earlier while doing virtually no additional work. The other option is to appeal. Sometimes the Examiner will cave when you have a good appeal brief in. Other times they won't, but you can always renege on an appeal by filing an RCE at any time before the appeal is decided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What worries me is that he might find some new fantasy objection and use it as an excuse not to enter my second amendment for appeal. What do I do in that scenario?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RCE or appeal without your additional amendments. It's perfectly fair for the PTO to eventually require an RCE if you keep amending, since amendments take time to consider (at least in theory). You can only amend once for your initial filing fee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I appeal whenever I feel that I am 100% in the right. If there is a slight weakness in my position that can be fixed with a claim amendment (and without giving up claim scope, of course), I will RCE. Others might take a softer approach and RCE more often (i.e., even when they have a strong position) just to get on the Examiner's good side and have a chance to get the application allowed faster (but at the cost of giving up patent term).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13388" RevisionGUID="e8c8c7fb-a974-4e6a-8dc5-63ace9106526" CreationDate="2015-08-14T07:31:45.603" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; If the goal of a patent is to merely document the existence of some novelty without trying to claim the world while you are at it, can an examiner's claim speed the process along?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the patent application has published, then the goal has already been achieved. Next time, save thousands of dollars by using a defensive publication service rather than filing a patent application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13389" RevisionGUID="8c1ff867-63c0-4f36-a71b-f9a83f829a79" CreationDate="2015-08-14T07:58:40.403" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; Might it be worth anything?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's probably not worth a whole lot. According to my searches, John W. Cuthbert is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about him, nor are his contributions to air compressors widely enough recognized for his name to be associated with &quot;air compressor history&quot; in Google searches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nearest comparable I can find on eBay is selling for $50 (an 1885 patent related to vehicle springs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is it legal to sell?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming it's not stolen goods, yes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13390" RevisionGUID="1c5cd53e-7b53-41c7-84ff-f6f237c77ed3" CreationDate="2015-08-14T09:43:40.487" UserId="14016" Text="&gt; I see 19 cited patents, will this get approved?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully the main independent claim will not make it through unamended (see my analysis below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Does] simply stating you can mix makeup on a flat surface deserve[] a patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably not, because it's hard to imagine that no wrist-mounted flat surfaces capable of &quot;receiv[ing] a product&quot; were described before Sep, 2011. But someone has to do the work of actually finding prior art. Otherwise, inventors would be *arbitrarily* deprived of patent rights, which is IMHO a greater evil. Note that prior art need only show a flat surface that is actually capable of receiving a product, and need not describe that use in particular to anticipate the main independent claim. That's because the main independent claim is to an article and not to a method or process, therefore statements of intended use or function cannot be used to distinguish over the prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Will this get approved or is it obvious?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing is obvious in a vacuum. So the question is, is it obvious in view of the cited prior art? The prior art does show wrist mounting. The application contains the applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Artists have used palettes to arrange and mix paints for hundreds of years. More recently, makeup artists have begun using palettes for applying cosmetics. A palette for applying cosmetics can be a surface on which cosmetics are arranged and mixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So just attaching one of these AAPA &quot;palettes&quot;, which are also admittedly &quot;surfaces on which cosmetics are arranged and mixed&quot;, to a prior art wrist mount yields Claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given, as you say, &quot;many wrist and forearm tools&quot; in the prior art and cited in the application, a strong obviousness argument pieces together whereby the motivation of having hands free identified in the patent application is shown to have been identified in the prior art and solved in the same way by the prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully, Claim 1 will not issue unamended." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13391" RevisionGUID="af0bcb37-508f-42ac-bee8-6030f09f94c8" CreationDate="2015-08-15T00:13:07.480" UserId="13928" Text="Page 83 of the referenced documentation is helpful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The `us-field-of-classification-search` element will always be present.&#xD;&#xA;If the examiner did do a classification search, the element will contain one or more `classification-national` records and/or one `us-classifications-ipcr` record. &#xD;&#xA;If the examiner did not do a classification search, the element will contain a single `classification-national` record in which the content of the `main-classification` will be &quot;None.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A classification search will provide national and international classes to retrieve prior art, these classes being stored as `us-classifications-ipcr` and `classification-national`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the classification of an application [is checked at allowance][1], at least a class found during that search will be used to classify the granted application, thus at least one *value* of the element `us-field-of-classification-search` is repeated as official classe of the grant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s903.html#d0e114328" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13392" RevisionGUID="c8d4c9bb-9d6d-4648-a362-98f569e9a617" CreationDate="2015-08-15T05:54:57.113" UserId="14793" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2008097922A3][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2008097922A3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can a patent office/examiner accept such pseudo-scientific litterature ?&#xD;&#xA;No rationale basis here, thus no &quot;intelectual&quot; property. It looks like a joke. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Attributing intellectual property to non-scientific description is in contradiction with the mission of patent offices. &#xD;&#xA;This strongly contributes to biased IP, pollution of innovation ideas by hoaxes, and ultimately to undue market advantages based on misleading claims.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32128" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13392" RevisionGUID="c8d4c9bb-9d6d-4648-a362-98f569e9a617" CreationDate="2015-08-15T05:54:57.113" UserId="14793" Text="How can pseudo-science be patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32129" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13392" RevisionGUID="c8d4c9bb-9d6d-4648-a362-98f569e9a617" CreationDate="2015-08-15T05:54:57.113" UserId="14793" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13392" RevisionGUID="09a249d6-26c5-41b8-9e1b-deea7c9636ff" CreationDate="2015-08-15T12:14:37.397" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="In reference to the patent: [WO 2008/097922 A3][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2008097922A3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can a patent office/examiner accept such pseudo-scientific literature?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no rationale basis here, thus no “intellectual” property. It looks like a joke.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Attributing intellectual property to non-scientific description is in contradiction with the mission of patent offices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This strongly contributes to biased IP, pollution of innovation ideas by hoaxes, and ultimately to undue market advantages based on misleading claims.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10066" RevisionGUID="46a6261e-6af6-49d6-8f52-ad015ee69a05" CreationDate="2015-08-15T12:17:36.177" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="&gt; The patent for a time machine has been filed with the United States&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patent and Trademark Office by one Dr. Marvin B. Pohlman of Tulsa,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Oklahoma.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; By creating an artificial wormhole time travel is possible.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At first glance, such a thing might be too fantastic a notion to believe, yet&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pohlman does hold a Bachelor of Science in Engineering Physics, an MBA&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from Lexington Business School, and a PhD in computer science from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Trinity University. He's also a member of Portland Mensa, and is a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Licensed Professional Engineer, Certified Information Systems Auditor,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Certified Information Security Manager and Certified Information&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Systems security professional. Perhaps he invented the time machine&#xD;&#xA;&gt; because he discovered he hasn't enough time to squeeze in everything&#xD;&#xA;&gt; he wants to accomplish?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anybody know if [US 2006/0073976 A1][1] describes how to build a time machine? And how it is possible that this patent was filed without any issues?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US20060073976][2] at Google Patents&#xD;&#xA; - [Patent US20060073976 - Method of gravity distortion and time displacement][3] at Reddit&#xD;&#xA; - [U.S. Scientist Patents Time Machine][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20060073976&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20060073976&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/28vr5t/patent_us20060073976_method_of_gravity_distortion/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2011/10/u-s-scientist-patents-time-machine-1216437.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32132" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10066" RevisionGUID="46a6261e-6af6-49d6-8f52-ad015ee69a05" CreationDate="2015-08-15T12:17:36.177" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="Does US 2006/0073976 A1 really describe how to build a time machine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32133" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10066" RevisionGUID="46a6261e-6af6-49d6-8f52-ad015ee69a05" CreationDate="2015-08-15T12:17:36.177" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;us20060073976&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32134" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13392" RevisionGUID="09a249d6-26c5-41b8-9e1b-deea7c9636ff" CreationDate="2015-08-15T12:14:37.397" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;wo2008097922a3&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32135" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13392" RevisionGUID="db98f58d-8014-4731-b245-fb40e0cb0344" CreationDate="2015-08-15T12:22:03.187" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag." Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;wo2008097922a3&gt;&lt;us8058483&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13393" RevisionGUID="db2ef181-9cf8-46ed-91b5-d3def588f8b6" CreationDate="2015-08-15T12:57:36.080" UserId="14417" Text="This is a question that has been raised about the patent system many times. Attempts to patent inventions based on pseudo-science are as old as the patent system itself. Just have a look through the [USPTO Perpetual Motion Machine Collection][1], and you will see that the USPTO is familiar with these attempts and has an institutional memory on how to address them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO has to walk a fine line, and they are able to do that based on a set of examination rules that have been refined over the years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just imagine if the USPTO had adopted an extremely conservative view of what constitutes real science, resulting in the rejection of *all* aircraft, spacecraft and nuclear fission patents in the early 1900's because they were considered to be in the realm of pseudo-science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, the examiners actually do a pretty reasonable job at rejecting claims based on pseudo-science, as demonstrated in an [examiner's response][2] to a patent on a time machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case that you mention, there was actually a grant issued ([US 8,058,483][3]). Now compare the claims in that grant to those in the application(s). You will find that in order to obtain a grant from this application, the examiner required the inventor to limit his claims to something physical that can be reproduced, and the resulting claims are very narrowly defined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO is mandated to provide all filings to the public through their [Public Pair][4] database. If you look at the Image File Wrapper for that patent, you will likely find some interesting back-and-forth discussions between the examiner and the inventor. I'd like to highlight this as a counter-point to your statement about the pollution of innovation by hoaxes. Hoaxes are going to happen no matter what, and at least in the case of patents there is public discourse available as part of the permanent record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc074/sched074.htm#C074SDIG009&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/13313/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8058483&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13392" RevisionGUID="9440291d-9e84-49fc-8809-e1217fe1a069" CreationDate="2015-08-15T12:59:25.560" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected spelling." Text="In reference to the patent: [WO 2008/097922 A3][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2008097922A3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can a patent office/examiner accept such pseudo-scientific literature?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no rational basis here, thus no “intellectual” property. It looks like a joke.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Attributing intellectual property to non-scientific description is in contradiction with the mission of patent offices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This strongly contributes to biased IP, pollution of innovation ideas by hoaxes, and ultimately to undue market advantages based on misleading claims.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13393" RevisionGUID="82733b00-5e88-4351-9e33-e7e921aa5fde" CreationDate="2015-08-15T14:53:10.720" UserId="14417" Comment="Added a cross-reference." Text="This is a question that has been raised about the patent system many times. Attempts to patent inventions based on pseudo-science are as old as the patent system itself. Just have a look through the [USPTO Perpetual Motion Machine Collection][1], and you will see that the USPTO is familiar with these attempts and has an institutional memory on how to address them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO has to walk a fine line, and they are able to do that based on a set of examination rules that have been refined over the years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just imagine if the USPTO had adopted an extremely conservative view of what constitutes real science, resulting in the rejection of *all* aircraft, spacecraft and nuclear fission patents in the early 1900's because they were considered to be in the realm of pseudo-science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, the examiners actually do a pretty reasonable job at rejecting claims based on pseudo-science, as demonstrated in an [examiner’s response][2] to a patent on a time machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case that you mention, there was actually a grant issued ([US 8,058,483][3]). Now compare the claims in that grant to those in the application(s). You will find that in order to obtain a grant from this application, the examiner required the inventor to limit his claims to something physical that can be reproduced, and the resulting claims are very narrowly defined. To paraphrase an [applicable answer][4] to a different question, “industrial applicability is not a requirement under U.S. patent law”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO is mandated to provide all filings to the public through their [Public Pair][5] database. If you look at the Image File Wrapper for that patent, you will likely find some interesting back-and-forth discussions between the examiner and the inventor. I'd like to highlight this as a counter-point to your statement about the pollution of innovation by hoaxes. Hoaxes are going to happen no matter what, and at least in the case of patents there is public discourse available as part of the permanent record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc074/sched074.htm#C074SDIG009&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/13313/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8058483&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/10619/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32139" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13392" RevisionGUID="62b884a1-4576-44b2-9ec8-f3162673e38e" CreationDate="2015-08-15T14:59:39.233" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;wo2008097922a3&gt;&lt;cn101808670b&gt;&lt;us20120080305&gt;&lt;ca2677260a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32140" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13392" RevisionGUID="458a26d0-03d9-4b22-82fc-30aba0e28ca4" CreationDate="2015-08-15T16:28:59.890" UserId="14417" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;us20120080305&gt;&lt;wo2008097922a3&gt;&lt;ca2677260a1&gt;&lt;cn101808670b&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13366" RevisionGUID="f1c1f008-6b61-4227-a13d-502e46aad5f6" CreationDate="2015-08-15T19:05:15.593" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="I have developed a new device used in automobiles and applied for a patent (as personal, not from a company). After producing commercially and releasing into the market, what may I do if someone copies my design with some small changes, and produces and sells the device in the market?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32142" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13366" RevisionGUID="f1c1f008-6b61-4227-a13d-502e46aad5f6" CreationDate="2015-08-15T19:05:15.593" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="How can I protect my invention after applying for a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32143" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13366" RevisionGUID="f1c1f008-6b61-4227-a13d-502e46aad5f6" CreationDate="2015-08-15T19:05:15.593" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10596" RevisionGUID="269a95ca-2408-4d1e-8928-a2c0341b3f94" CreationDate="2015-08-16T00:22:58.033" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting." Text="Is [US 5,356,330][1] a real patent? The more I research patents, the more I am astounded. I am starting to believe that none of these patents are real. Perhaps this is an elaborate art project created by Google. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us5356330" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32145" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10596" RevisionGUID="269a95ca-2408-4d1e-8928-a2c0341b3f94" CreationDate="2015-08-16T00:22:58.033" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting." Text="Is patent US 5,356,330 a real patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13357" RevisionGUID="ca7b2c1c-dea6-4599-8c5e-e3e522372f6c" CreationDate="2015-08-16T12:22:21.673" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling, improved grammar and formatting." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 4,210,672][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The abstract contains the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Yogurt is prepared with a mixture of milk powder and novel *Lactobacillus thermophilus* (also known as *Bacillus coagulans*) spores that have specific characteristics ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*L. thermophilus* **is not** *Bacillus coagulans*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In several other places in the specification, the two names are conflated. The claims mention only *Bacillus coagulans*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does this error affect the validity of the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4210672&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32150" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13357" RevisionGUID="ca7b2c1c-dea6-4599-8c5e-e3e522372f6c" CreationDate="2015-08-16T12:22:21.673" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling, improved grammar and formatting." Text="Error in patent, involving confusion of bacterial names" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32151" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13357" RevisionGUID="ca7b2c1c-dea6-4599-8c5e-e3e522372f6c" CreationDate="2015-08-16T12:22:21.673" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling, improved grammar and formatting." Text="&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;expired-patent&gt;&lt;us4210672&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13357" RevisionGUID="0b2dd55e-b18c-4095-b985-1f1a37e4700d" CreationDate="2015-08-16T12:31:21.930" UserId="14417" Comment="Clarified question." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 4,210,672][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The abstract contains the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Yogurt is prepared with a mixture of milk powder and novel *Lactobacillus thermophilus* (also known as *Bacillus coagulans*) spores that have specific characteristics ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*L. thermophilus* **is not** *Bacillus coagulans*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In several other places in the specification, the two names are conflated. The claims mention only *Bacillus coagulans*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does this error affect the validity of the patent claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4210672&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13393" RevisionGUID="bd957f0b-685f-4da4-9671-8ed2b0a57a36" CreationDate="2015-08-16T13:58:15.863" UserId="14417" Comment="Added references." Text="This is a question that has been raised about the patent system many times. Attempts to patent inventions based on pseudo-science are as old as the patent system itself. Just have a look through the [USPTO Perpetual Motion Machine Collection][1], and you will see that the USPTO is familiar with these attempts and has an institutional memory on how to address them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO has to walk a fine line, and they are able to do that based on a set of examination rules that have been refined over the years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just imagine if the USPTO had adopted an extremely conservative view of what constitutes real science, resulting in the rejection of *all* aircraft, spacecraft and nuclear fission patents in the early 1900's because they were considered to be in the realm of pseudo-science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, the examiners actually do a pretty reasonable job at rejecting claims based on pseudo-science, as demonstrated in this [examiner’s response][2] to a patent on a time machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case that you mention, there was actually a grant issued ([US 8,058,483][3]). Now compare the claims in that grant to those in the application(s). You will find that in order to obtain a grant from this application, the examiner required the inventor to limit his claims to something physical that can be reproduced, and the resulting claims are very narrowly defined. To paraphrase an [answer][4] to a different question, “industrial applicability is not a requirement under U.S. patent law”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO is mandated to provide all filings to the public, which they provide through their [Public Pair][5] database ([MPEP 103][6], *Right of Public To Inspect Patent Files and Some Application Files*). If you look at the Image File Wrapper for that patent, you will likely find some interesting back-and-forth discussions between the examiner and the inventor that illustrate how the examination rules are applied in these cases. I'd like to highlight this as a counter-point to your statement about the pollution of innovation by hoaxes. Hoaxes are going to happen no matter what, and at least in the case of patents there is public discourse available as part of the permanent record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as an application or issued grant lending credibility to shady businesses, that may be true to some extent, but policing business practices is well beyond the scope of the USPTO, which receives its mandate from Congress ([United States Code, Title 35][7]) as authorized by [Article I, Section 8][8] of the [U.S. Constitution][9].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc074/sched074.htm#C074SDIG009&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/13313/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8058483&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/10619/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s103.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title35/pdf/USCODE-2011-title35.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://copyright.gov/title17/92preface.html&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-110hdoc50/pdf/CDOC-110hdoc50.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13393" RevisionGUID="3197c0c8-36b2-40da-bd76-dfecb4b753e5" CreationDate="2015-08-16T14:25:32.963" UserId="14417" Comment="Added references and expanded answer." Text="This is a question that has been raised about the patent system many times. Attempts to patent inventions based on pseudo-science are as old as the patent system itself. Just have a look through the [USPTO Perpetual Motion Machine Collection][1], and you will see that the USPTO is familiar with these attempts and has an institutional memory on how to address them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO has to walk a fine line, and they are able to do that based on a set of examination rules that have been refined over the years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just imagine if the USPTO had adopted an extremely conservative view of what constitutes real science, resulting in the rejection of *all* aircraft, spacecraft and nuclear fission patents in the early 1900’s because they were considered to be in the realm of pseudo-science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, the examiners actually do a pretty reasonable job at rejecting claims based on pseudo-science, as demonstrated in this [examiner’s response][2] to a patent on a time machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case that you mention, there was actually a grant issued ([US 8,058,483][3]). Now compare the claims in that grant to those in the application(s). You will find that in order to obtain a grant from this application, the examiner required the inventor to limit his claims to something physical that can be reproduced, and the resulting claims are very narrowly defined. To paraphrase an [answer][4] to a different question, “industrial applicability is not a requirement under U.S. patent law”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO is mandated to provide all filings to the public, which they provide through their [Public Pair][5] database ([MPEP 103][6], *Right of Public To Inspect Patent Files and Some Application Files*). If you look at the Image File Wrapper for that patent, you will likely find some interesting back-and-forth discussions between the examiner and the inventor that illustrate how the examination rules are applied in these cases. I’d like to highlight this as a counter-point to your statement about the pollution of innovation by hoaxes. Hoaxes are going to happen no matter what, and at least in the case of patents there is public discourse available as part of the permanent record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as an application or issued grant lending credibility to shady businesses, that may be true to some extent, but policing business practices is well beyond the scope of the USPTO, which receives its mandate from Congress ([United States Code, Title 35][7]) as authorized by [Article I, Section 8][8] of the [U.S. Constitution][9]. As a corollary, consider the inability of the U.S. Postal Service to regulate junk mail, a shady business practice that is outside of their mandate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc074/sched074.htm#C074SDIG009&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/13313/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8058483&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/10619/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s103.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title35/pdf/USCODE-2011-title35.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://copyright.gov/title17/92preface.html&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-110hdoc50/pdf/CDOC-110hdoc50.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10800" RevisionGUID="983bc007-c510-4041-a4e2-7aa4dfbf6729" CreationDate="2015-08-16T14:33:27.740" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="How can various American scientists be named as the inventors on this patent application ([US 2012/0251502 A1][1]) if the United States government is adamant they never created the virus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the virus is naturally occurring, what gives them the right to patent it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20120251502" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32156" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10800" RevisionGUID="983bc007-c510-4041-a4e2-7aa4dfbf6729" CreationDate="2015-08-16T14:33:27.740" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="If a virus was not created by the U.S. government, what right do they have to a patent on it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32157" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10800" RevisionGUID="983bc007-c510-4041-a4e2-7aa4dfbf6729" CreationDate="2015-08-16T14:33:27.740" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;chemistry-microbiology&gt;&lt;us20120251502&gt;&lt;government-rights&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10805" RevisionGUID="a6e7aab9-ad98-49c3-8319-4362b7742138" CreationDate="2015-08-16T14:41:55.767" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and corrected links." Text="An [earlier answer][1] by user @Soren:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Having skimmed though the patent, it looks like it is a patent for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; weakened version of the virus, that is taking the existing virus and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; making it non-threatening -- it is certainly not a patent which is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; supposedly creating the virus.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Weakened version of a virus and disease agents in general are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; desirable for research purposes, so that they can be studied in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; laboratories without any unnecessary risk to staff or for using it in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a vaccination effort.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The process of weakening the virus is known as 'inactivation' and you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can read more about it on Wikipedia [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Your yearly flu short contains flu virus which has been 'inactivated'&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and you can read more about it [here][3].&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exact purpose for the patent is very likely basic research which is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; why it is being done by the government rather than by some private&#xD;&#xA;&gt; institution. As the motivation, it is very likely to gain sufficient&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information of the virus to defend against it should it ever come to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the US as an outbreak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/9988/11895&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_processing&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_vaccine#Manufacturing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13395" RevisionGUID="fec8237c-b6a1-48d5-ad4f-14681209cec7" CreationDate="2015-08-16T15:45:25.747" UserId="14417" Text="Almost any material is eligible for submitting an application. In fact, government-sponsored commercial research (through the federal SBIR programs) carries a mandate as part of the terms of funding that novel inventions created under the research be patented. As part of this mandate, the government retains certain rights to the invention (this prevents a commercial researcher from re-licensing back to the government something that the government had already paid to produce). That is where many of those clauses come from. This patent, however, has the U.S. government as the sole assignee, which is an indication that the work was likely performed entirely by federal employees at a federal laboratory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examiners at the USPTO decide what is allowable in the claims of a grant, according to the [MPEP][1]. After a lengthy period of prosecution (nearly four years), the examiner issued a Final Rejection of all claims in this application on February 12, 2015. There were several reasons for the rejection, but the reason pertinent to your question is described by the examiner as follows (emphasis is mine):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claims 1, 3, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because *the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter*. Based upon an analysis with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1, 3, and 20 do not recite something significantly different than a judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is explained below: The hEbola virus of claim 1 is *a natural product, and is judicially excepted from patent eligible subject matter*, regardless of its isolation by applicants. *Since killed viruses exist in nature, claim 3 also involves ineligible subject matter.* The composition of claim 20, containing the virus or a protein extract therefrom in combination with a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, does not markedly change the structure of the naturally occurring products, and therefore is also ineligible. This is a new grounds of rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9987" RevisionGUID="1b2d946d-ecaf-4c3c-adf5-3b6128a378a0" CreationDate="2015-08-16T15:58:27.807" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging, added link and corrected spelling." Text="One of my conspiracy theory-loving friends posted about this patent application ([US 2012/0251502 A1][1]), thinking the government created Ebola for the purposes of population control. This is obviously hogwash, but I don’t quite get the dense language - what is the point of this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20120251502" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32161" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9987" RevisionGUID="1b2d946d-ecaf-4c3c-adf5-3b6128a378a0" CreationDate="2015-08-16T15:58:27.807" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging, added link and corrected spelling." Text="What is the purpose of this Ebola-related patent of the US government?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32162" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9987" RevisionGUID="1b2d946d-ecaf-4c3c-adf5-3b6128a378a0" CreationDate="2015-08-16T15:58:27.807" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging, added link and corrected spelling." Text="&lt;chemistry-microbiology&gt;&lt;us20120251502&gt;&lt;government-rights&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13386" RevisionGUID="38f69cbd-013b-4a21-adf5-44a4362bc521" CreationDate="2015-08-16T17:25:39.093" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling, improved grammar and formatting and toned down unconstructive language." Text="As a *pro se* inventor, my examiner seems to be taking advantage of my supposed ignorance. He understands neither my invention, his own references, nor the law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my first amendment, he flagged up every single change as new material, even where I’d just added reference numerals to existing parts of figures. Where I added a user to a diagram of a web browsing system, he called that new material, even though I’d used the word “user” 109 times in the spec. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His 103s are banal beyond belief. He equates my elements with completely different things in his two references which happen to have the same name, e.g. “queue” or “category”. His “it would have been obvious...” is the same in almost every objection, and in all cases he systematically ignores the actual novelty of the claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in claim 1, I react to one button by doing four different things at the same time, so he says two of them are prior, ignores the other two and doesn’t mention the important bit, which is the fact that they are combined into one button. So it’s obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I already argued all of this in reply to OA 1, but he doesn’t seem to have read any of what I said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just sent my the reply to OA 2, which didn’t go quite as far as to ask “if this invention is obvious, how come you still don’t understand it?” but insinuates as much, and I’d like to appeal against the inevitable response from the examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What worries me is that he might find some new fantasy objection and use it as an excuse not to enter my second amendment for appeal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do I do in that scenario?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32164" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13386" RevisionGUID="38f69cbd-013b-4a21-adf5-44a4362bc521" CreationDate="2015-08-16T17:25:39.093" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling, improved grammar and formatting and toned down unconstructive language." Text="How to handle uncooperative examiner" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32165" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13386" RevisionGUID="38f69cbd-013b-4a21-adf5-44a4362bc521" CreationDate="2015-08-16T17:25:39.093" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling, improved grammar and formatting and toned down unconstructive language." Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;examiner&gt;&lt;office-action&gt;&lt;pro-se&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13387" RevisionGUID="1feca863-f7c0-41bb-93ad-a712aecdcf43" CreationDate="2015-08-16T17:40:35.413" UserId="14417" Comment="Fixed grammar and improved formatting." Text="&gt; As a *pro se* inventor, my examiner seems to be taking advantage of my supposed ignorance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;False. You are most likely **not** being singled out because you are a *pro se* applicant. Examiners are after “counts” (work credit), and the easiest way for Examiners to earn counts is to reject. They also earn counts when they allow, but if they allow bad applications, they lose serious points in quality control. They are never penalized for rejecting applications that should have been allowed, so rejecting is their go-to strategy. The only time an Examiner loses this game is if you win an appeal (moreover, you have to win on *each and every* issue for it to count as a reversal -- otherwise, it counts as an “affirmation in part” even if many rejections were not sustained).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Read a few Image File Wrappers of applications represented by registered practitioners that were reversed and you will see that Examiners try to take advantage of everyone, not just *pro se* applicants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To my first amendment, he flagged up every single change as new material, even where I’d just added reference numerals to existing parts of figures. Where I added a user to a diagram of a web browsing system, he called that new material, even though I’d used the word “user” 109 times in the spec. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would never amend a specification except to fix objections raised by the Examiner. Rather than changing the specification, I’d argue why the as-filed specification supports the claims. If I can’t do that, I’d change the claims so that they are actually supported by the as-filed disclosure. If it turns out the as-filed disclosure was completely inadequate, I’d abandon and re-file a proper application pronto. If I didn’t have an NPR in and passed the 1-year prior disclosure limit, well, then I’d have officially learned my lesson in that regard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; His 103s are banal beyond belief. He equates my elements with completely different things in his two references which happen to have the same name, e.g. “queue” or “category”. His “it would have been obvious...” is the same in almost every objection, and in all cases he systematically ignores the actual novelty of the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Request an interview with the Examiner and calmly explain how you are unable to follow his obviousness argument. Get into specifics, try to explain how your queue as used in your claim isn’t the same thing as the prior art queue used in the prior art (if that’s your strongest argument). Otherwise, if the Examiner has glossed over claim elements, point those out and get the Examiner to explain how the prior art suggests them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If rational communications break down (most likely outcome for interviews with Examiners), you have two options. The first option is to make a small, nearly insignificant change to a claim and file an RCE. This is what the Examiner is after because it earns him/her more of those “counts” I mentioned earlier while doing virtually no additional work. The other option is to appeal. Sometimes the Examiner will cave when you have a good appeal brief in. Other times they won’t, but you can always renege on an appeal by filing an RCE at any time before the appeal is decided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What worries me is that he might find some new fantasy objection and use it as an excuse not to enter my second amendment for appeal. What do I do in that scenario?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RCE or appeal without your additional amendments. It’s perfectly fair for the PTO to eventually require an RCE if you keep amending, since amendments take time to consider (at least in theory). You can only amend once for your initial filing fee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I appeal whenever I feel that I am 100% in the right. If there is a slight weakness in my position that can be fixed with a claim amendment (and without giving up claim scope, of course), I will RCE. Others might take a softer approach and RCE more often (i.e., even when they have a strong position) just to get on the Examiner’s good side and have a chance to get the application allowed faster (but at the cost of giving up patent term)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3408" RevisionGUID="52350814-b766-42a6-8ff9-85cf95d0cba0" CreationDate="2015-08-16T17:52:16.630" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag and improved grammar." Text="This question is a continuation on the results of http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3351/detailed-description-of-a-system-to-suit-system-and-method-claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice too I'm the guy of http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3225/patent-without-an-attorney-what-are-the-risks and I'm trying to write myself the description of my invention, then before 12 months after filing get a patent lawyer to review my claims or write different ones. So my description writing is a bit speculative to what final claims will be used. I have written some claims myself but I expect them to be rewritten within a year. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I finished writing a description of a computer implemented system.  As I described it I've been talking about  “embodiments of the system” all the time. Now I wanted to add some language to the description to be able to support method claims. I'm a bit confused to what “language” may be required. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have some thoughts about how to introduce this method language in the description. It would be great if someone could comment on them, or point out the right way of introducing this language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) Describe as a method all what I have already described as a system and that involves steps of some sort. I have many flowcharts in the description, maybe I can re-describe them as a method. If I do that, shall I do it interlaced with the system description or shall I start a new section and describe all again as a method.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) Describe as a method only the human performed steps of the described system. Meaning the actions that a user would perform to use the system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c) Forget about the method claims and use only system claims, or use system claims and claims starting with “ A computer-implemented process for...”  In this case my current description language could already support both system claims and computer-implemented process claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;d) Just add the word “method” to the title, so that reads something like “system and method for...”. Then in the description add the word “method” to some of the places where I had system, so that now they are “system and method”. It sounds a bit weird though to refer to “embodiments of a system and method”. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related with my thought d) I've seen some patents that have the word “method” in the title and then have method claims, but they don't really use the word method in the description, they actually describe flowcharts but talk about a system. I made a search in the USPTO database http://patft1.uspto.gov and search for patents that have the word “method” in the title, but do not have the word “method” in the description. ie. ttl/method andnot spec/method&#xD;&#xA;This search results in 39713 hits!!! I checked a few of them and effectively they had “method” in the title and method claims but no references to methods in the description. &#xD;&#xA;Were all these people lazy? Or is it understood that if you describe something that can be interpreted as a method then I can claim it as a method regardless of specific language with the “method” word in the description?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32168" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3408" RevisionGUID="52350814-b766-42a6-8ff9-85cf95d0cba0" CreationDate="2015-08-16T17:52:16.630" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag and improved grammar." Text="&lt;method&gt;&lt;drafting&gt;&lt;description&gt;&lt;system&gt;&lt;pro-se&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3359" RevisionGUID="b56638ca-5856-4560-9613-2d16141a2c67" CreationDate="2015-08-16T17:54:16.667" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags and improved grammar." Text="I am filing a *pro se* patent application and am wondering whether it is a good idea to assign it to an LLC that I own or to just keep it under my name. I'm assuming here for this question that it will get approved. The main con with the LLC is that if it goes under, I'm afraid I will lose ownership of the patent. On the other hand, I'm not sure if having a patent under my name exposes me to some liability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, can an individual get sued for owning a patent on something and then somehow be forced to pay fines? Both in the case where he has licensed the patent and in the case where the patent is just sitting there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32170" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3359" RevisionGUID="b56638ca-5856-4560-9613-2d16141a2c67" CreationDate="2015-08-16T17:54:16.667" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags and improved grammar." Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;pro-se&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="90" RevisionGUID="a5409eb0-5598-436e-8c50-6547ee428b8f" CreationDate="2015-08-16T17:56:34.503" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="I am an undergraduate student in the US, and have come up with a (hopefully) patentable idea independently of my studies. The upside of that is the university cannot claim any rights to my invention; the downside is that I cannot take advantage of the university's legal help for navigating the patent process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no prior experience with filing patent applications, and only know what I've found through websites and talking briefly with an academic adviser. From what I have learned so far, anybody *can* file a patent by themselves, but it is likely that either a) it will be rejected, or b) the patent will be granted, but might be worded such that workarounds could easily (and technically legally) be executed based on the *idea* of the patent with a different implementation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some quick research into law firms and individual lawyers specializing in patent law in my region shows that it could easily cost me up to $10,000 just to get an application filed, and that's without any guarantee of it actually being accepted. As a college student, I can't really afford that cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any practical and affordable options for individuals who have little to no patent experience and coincidentally have little to no capital? Are there reputable sources of advice/guidance that are cheaper than a full-fledged law firm that can still guide the writing process? Alternatively, is it possible to write a patent application oneself without legal assistance?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32172" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="90" RevisionGUID="a5409eb0-5598-436e-8c50-6547ee428b8f" CreationDate="2015-08-16T17:56:34.503" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;process&gt;&lt;patent-agent&gt;&lt;pro-se&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32173" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7841" RevisionGUID="4f166da7-bdd1-451e-aeb1-c04d1be6c541" CreationDate="2015-08-16T17:58:57.167" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag." Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;&lt;examiner&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32174" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5756" RevisionGUID="ca24b51e-de93-4c76-bf00-79b7f3537693" CreationDate="2015-08-16T17:59:35.220" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag." Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;specification&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;claim-amendment&gt;&lt;pro-se&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32175" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10642" RevisionGUID="e298b8fa-9914-496b-a97b-e7a3a588a0fc" CreationDate="2015-08-16T18:01:22.780" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag." Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;pro-se&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3225" RevisionGUID="17bb3107-1002-4d4e-b33f-1daf7604b74c" CreationDate="2015-08-16T18:03:59.267" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags and improved grammar." Text="I'm working on a prototype for my invention. My situation is that I can't afford a patent attorney at the moment. So my plan is to file a specification for the invention myself, no claims yet. Then advance my prototype a bit more and find investors. Once I have money for the project, and no later than 12 months after my initial filing, I can get a patent attorney to write a full patent. Then my assumption is that as long as my first specification includes enough support for my invention writing a full patent for it should be possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any comments about this plan? Is that fine? Risks?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32177" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3225" RevisionGUID="17bb3107-1002-4d4e-b33f-1daf7604b74c" CreationDate="2015-08-16T18:03:59.267" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags and improved grammar." Text="What are the risks of writing a patent specification without an attorney?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32178" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3225" RevisionGUID="17bb3107-1002-4d4e-b33f-1daf7604b74c" CreationDate="2015-08-16T18:03:59.267" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags and improved grammar." Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;specification&gt;&lt;pro-se&gt;&lt;lawyers&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32179" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3351" RevisionGUID="2143f1b4-290f-4dbc-a99b-cf341ff0d9f4" CreationDate="2015-08-16T18:04:27.147" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag." Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;pro-se&gt;&lt;description&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4502" RevisionGUID="d54e28e0-d483-4e32-ab81-b02076205758" CreationDate="2015-08-16T18:10:23.393" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags and improved grammar." Text="I have a great idea that I would like to protect, but I don't have the budget for a patent attorney at the moment. I was thinking to do it by my own. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to know if I try my best to define the invention to it's tiniest details, and make anyone who's trained in that field (computer applications) - capable of creating the invention, then I might have some basis for the non-provisional patent within this year.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent attorneys charge for a provisional patent filing as much as they do for a non-provisional patent where I live (non-US), so the costs are quite high.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How bad can this be if I go through an already filed patent and making matches to my own invention? Is this that stupid an idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32181" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4502" RevisionGUID="d54e28e0-d483-4e32-ab81-b02076205758" CreationDate="2015-08-16T18:10:23.393" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags and improved grammar." Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;pro-se&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32182" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="616" RevisionGUID="2ee42015-6e43-465c-84a0-57df4702d159" CreationDate="2015-08-16T18:12:04.000" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags." Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;process&gt;&lt;pro-se&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12629" RevisionGUID="f3a6bc1c-5397-4607-97f4-7d8d7d754ffb" CreationDate="2015-08-16T18:13:41.460" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="I emailed my sketch to a prototype company after signing an agreement. Is that agreement binding, and can I mail a picture of my sketch to myself and keep it sealed in case someone wants to patent and copy my idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32185" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12629" RevisionGUID="f3a6bc1c-5397-4607-97f4-7d8d7d754ffb" CreationDate="2015-08-16T18:13:41.460" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;pro-se&gt;&lt;protection&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32186" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12051" RevisionGUID="7069b2bb-5c0a-412e-8b55-bda6b067cdff" CreationDate="2015-08-16T18:14:51.683" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag." Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;pro-se&gt;&lt;patent-agent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32187" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6544" RevisionGUID="a7bbba80-3edb-468b-be22-10a818eb1aec" CreationDate="2015-08-16T18:15:52.710" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag." Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;pro-se&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10043" RevisionGUID="1b440e24-1aca-4de4-a47f-23203ea4a1b3" CreationDate="2015-08-16T18:16:41.420" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag." Text="I have what I think is a novel idea for a mobile app, and I would like to develop it but having a day job this could take a year or two or three. Instead of starting developing now I am considering filing a patent, my thinking being that once patent is filed I could develop the app at my leisure. I would file the patent myself and it didn't work out I would not be heartbroken. Does this make any kind of sense?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32189" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10043" RevisionGUID="1b440e24-1aca-4de4-a47f-23203ea4a1b3" CreationDate="2015-08-16T18:16:41.420" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag." Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;pro-se&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32190" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13166" RevisionGUID="02344654-31f8-4463-89c8-021106980f6a" CreationDate="2015-08-16T18:20:40.930" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag." Text="&lt;pro-se&gt;&lt;attorney&gt;&lt;fees&gt;&lt;micro-entity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32191" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3952" RevisionGUID="2e5725d0-fbe8-40ab-813c-dd3082d6c374" CreationDate="2015-08-16T18:21:40.217" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags." Text="&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;pro-se&gt;&lt;specification&gt;&lt;text-analysis&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13396" RevisionGUID="551fbe83-a54f-4515-9704-e59077470794" CreationDate="2015-08-16T18:24:21.127" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13397" RevisionGUID="97a08d78-1826-4777-a652-a1f091a0b226" CreationDate="2015-08-16T18:24:21.127" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12960" RevisionGUID="57bdcfae-41bc-46fc-b9f0-b993b4cc5605" CreationDate="2015-08-16T18:53:24.143" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="There is a saying that it is always better to consult and work with an attorney to draft patents. It is said that when you self-draft a patent you would draft inferior patents, miss out on things where you could have defended the patent better later, or fail to secure a broader patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any of these things or more can happen. A novice inventor who drafts his patent cannot know the nuances of drafting a patent and hence can make some very simple mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in case someone was to draft it by himself what are the 5-10 things the inventor should keep in mind while drafting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32195" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12960" RevisionGUID="57bdcfae-41bc-46fc-b9f0-b993b4cc5605" CreationDate="2015-08-16T18:53:24.143" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="&lt;pro-se&gt;&lt;attorney&gt;&lt;drafting&gt;&lt;independent-inventor&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32196" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="13357" RevisionGUID="2284dc0b-6e0e-4adc-91d5-aeec927471a9" CreationDate="2015-08-16T20:48:08.950" UserId="10011" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:14417,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;vallismortis&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32197" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13357" RevisionGUID="28152aa1-b56b-426b-b716-c5c0de3e0732" CreationDate="2015-08-16T20:49:13.073" UserId="10011" Comment="edited title" Text="How can technical errors affect patent validity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13398" RevisionGUID="3f24ff8e-ff48-4154-9e56-423a5e409009" CreationDate="2015-08-17T01:53:27.890" UserId="14417" Text="There are several important considerations regarding the validity of this patent. First, the patent is already expired (it was granted from July 1, 1980 to July 1, 1997). However, I think this is an interesting case for several other reasons, so let’s ignore the expiration date for the remainder of this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bacterial names cited in this patent **must** be considered in the context of the state of bacterial nomenclature *on* the priority date of the patent. Bacterial (now Prokaryotic, to include the *Archaea*) nomenclature is governed by an international organization, the *International Committee on Systematic Bacteriology* (now the [*International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes*][1]). The application was filed on December 30, 1977, which was after the publication of the [*First Draft* Approved Lists of Bacterial Names][2] *Int J Syst Bacteriol* October 1976, **26**(4):563–599, the list that effectively reset the nomenclature of the *Bacteria* (and ultimately the *Archaea* as well). The names on the Approved Lists were (at the time of publication of the lists) considered to have been validly published at the time of publication of the list. When the final Approved List was published, it retroactively made the of names on the previous lists valid on January 1, 1980 (note that this occurred after the filing date of the application, but prior to the patent grant date; since we are dealing with the priority date, we consider the valid publication of these names to be the date of publication of the list which they appeared on, i.e., October 1976).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the interpretation of the state of these names is not quite that simple, as this patent also claims the benefit of an earlier application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 672,959, Apr. 2, 1976, abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This complicates things for this discussion, because a continuation-in-part affects the priority date of the patent based on the content of the application of which it first appeared. The material added to the newer application may be interpreted to have the latter priority date (December 30, 1977) instead of the former priority date (April 2, 1976). In order to determine what priority date applies to the bacterial names cited in the patent grant, we need to compare the original patent application documents (Appl. No. 866,396 *and* Appl. No. 672,959). Unfortunately, although [patent grant full text][3] is available from the USPTO from 1976–present, the [application full text][4] is only available from the USPTO from 2001–present. It should be possible to obtain copies on request to the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In lieu of having the original applications available, we can attempt to determine whether the interpretation of the names prior to the publication of the Approved List would differ from the the interpretation of the names after publication of the Approved List.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The good news is that the applicable Code of Nomenclature is unambiguous in this case. Both names fall under the jurisdiction of the *International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (1975 Revision)*, applicable from January 1, 1976 until January 1, 1992 (publication of the *1990 Revision*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rule 24a of the *1975 Revision* establishes the appropriate context for interpreting the published names (see p24–25):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Rule 24a**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Valid publication of names (or epithets) which are in accordance with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Rules of this Code dates from the date of publication of the Code.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; After 1 January 1980, priority of publication shall date from 1&#xD;&#xA;&gt; January 1980. On that date all names published prior to 1 January 1980&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and included in the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names of the ICSB&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shall be treated for all nomenclatural purposes as though they had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; been validly published for the first time on that date, the existing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; types being retained (but see Rule 24b).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Note 1.* Names of bacteria in the various taxonomic categories validly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; published up to 31 December 1977 will be assessed by the Judicial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Commission with the assistance of taxonomic experts. Lists of names&#xD;&#xA;&gt; will be prepared together with the names of the authors who originally&#xD;&#xA;&gt; proposed the names. When approved by the ICSB these Approved Lists of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bacterial Names will be published in the IJSB before 1 January 1980.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Names validly published under this Code between 1 January 1978 and 1&#xD;&#xA;&gt; January 1980 will be added to the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; After 1 January 1980, no further names will be added to the lists.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Those names validly published prior to 1 January 1980 but not included&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the approved lists will have no further standing in nomenclature.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They will not be added to the lists of *nomina rejicienda* and will&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thus be available for reuse for the naming of new taxa.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Approved Lists of Bacterial Names will contain for each name a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reference to an effectively published description and the type&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whenever possible. In the case of species or subspecies, if a type&#xD;&#xA;&gt; strain is available, it will be listed by its designation, and the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; culture collection(s) from which it may be obtained will be indicated.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If such a strain is not available, a reference strain or reference&#xD;&#xA;&gt; material will be listed if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Note 2.* These approved lists may contain more than one name attached to the same type (**objective synonyms**) since the names on the lists&#xD;&#xA;&gt; will represent those names which are considered reasonable in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; present state of bacteriological nomenclature and taxonomy and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; represent the views of many bacteriologists who may hold different&#xD;&#xA;&gt; taxonomic opinions.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Note 3.* Synonyms may be **objective synonyms**, i.e., more than one name has been associated with the same type, or **subjective synonyms**, i.e.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different names have been associated with different types that in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; opinion of the bacteriologist concerned belong to the same taxon. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; synonym first published is known as the **senior synonym**, and later&#xD;&#xA;&gt; synonyms are known as **junior synonyms**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Publication of **objective synonyms** in the lists does not affect&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bacterial nomenclature any more than does the valid publication of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; objective synonyms in different works in the bacteriological&#xD;&#xA;&gt; literature at present.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Examples: **Objective synonyms**–*Nocardia rhodochrous* and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Mycobacterium rhodochrous*. **Subjective synonyms**–Luedemann (IJSB [1971] 21:240–247) regards *Micromonospora fusca* Jensen 1932 as a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; subjective synonym of *Micromonospora purpureochromogenes* (Waksman&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and Curtis 1916) Luedemann 1971. These two species have different&#xD;&#xA;&gt; types.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Rule 24b**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If two names compete for priority and if both names date from 1&#xD;&#xA;&gt; January 1980 on an approved list, the priority shall be determined by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the data of the original publication of the name before 1 January&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1980.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see from Rule 24a and its examples, the Bacteriological Code in effect at the time of the priority date of the patent was able to accommodate multiple taxonomic opinions, even in cases where the type [strains] of the species were not identical (different organisms) via **subjective synonyms**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we examine the Approved Lists (1976, 1978, 1979, 1980, and the 1989 Amended List), we find that *Bacillus coagulans* Hammer 1915 was included on the Approved Lists, and the type strain (ATCC® 7050™) was isolated and originally described in 1915:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hammer B. W. Bacteriological studies on the coagulation of evaporated milk. *Iowa Agr Exp Sta Res Bull* 1915; **19**:119–131.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We now have a type strain and a published description of *Bacillus coagulans* that is consistent in the context of both December 30, 1977 and April 2, 1976.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we will find that “Lactobacillus thermophilus” is absent from the Approved Lists. This means that the authors of the Approved Lists were unable to establish a type strain and authoritative description of the species.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, we could scour the historical literature to establish a definition (description) of “Lactobacillus thermophilus” as it would have been interpreted on December 30, 1977 and/or April 2, 1976. Or, we could make the assumption that since the authors of the Approved Lists (ones skilled in the art) were not able to find an appropriate assertion of authority for the name, that one did not exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, we can also come to the conclusion that in 1976 or 1977, interpreting the names cited in the patent in light of Rule 24a of the *Bacteriological Code (1975 Revision)* would lead one skilled in the art [of microbiology] to come to the conclusion that the inventors of the patent are establishing (or referring to an earlier) either an **objective synonym** or a **subjective synonym** between “Lactobacillus thermophilus” and *Bacillus coagulans*. Indeed, we see in the patent a non-patent reference to *Fundamentals of Microbiology, 8th Ed.*, 1968 (pp. 394–396). Note the typos in the author and publisher names (“Frebisher” vs. Frobisher, “Sanders” vs. Saunders).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above reference may establish a synonym between these two species. That is one text that I do not have on hand at the moment, but I will attempt to verify it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In line with our (assumed) contemporary definition of “Lactobacillis thermophilus” the specification of the patent states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Among the lactic bacilli, i.e. the lactic acid-producing bacilli contemplated in the present invention, there exists so many strains which generate spores in the natural world that they hitherto have been known as *Lactobacillis thermophilus*. However, as pointed out above, microorganisms which generate spores should either be classified as *Bacillus* or *Clostridium* and the name of *Lactobacillus* is technically improper. Indeed, recent studies have led the scientific world to abandon the term *Lactobacillus thermophilus* and to more properly name it *Bacillus coagulans*. Accordingly, while the term *Lactobacillus thermophilus* and *Bacillus coagulans* may in some cases be used interchangably [sic] throughout the instant specification, it should be understood that the latter is the more technically correct nomenclature in connection with the understanding of such microorganisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This gives us a fairly unambiguous definition of “Lactobacillis thermophilus”, and although we still do not have an authoritative reference for a circumscription of the specific set of strains, we can use the qualifier “microorganisms which generate spores”. This definition, however, may be interpreted as overly broad by one skilled in the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, assuming that we have suitable definitions for these species in their contemporary context, we can begin to interpret the claims of the patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is claimed is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A product of a dry material consisting essentially of a major amount of milk powder and a minor amount of the spores of a *Bacillus coagulans* having highly thermobiotic characteristics, the bacillus having characteristics such that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (a) the spores are able to exist in boiling water at 100° C. for more than two minutes;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (b) the spores have the capacity to generate germ cells in a period no longer than five hours;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (c) the germ cells have the capacity such that lactic acid fermentation occurs rapidly within four hours at about 50° C.;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (d) the germ cells have characteristics such that the coagulation of milk occurs in a period no longer than five hours after the germ cells are formed;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (e) the germ cells have the capacity to produce lactic acid in the final medium in a concentration more than 0.8%, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (f) the germ cells have the capacity to produce a final pH in the culture medium of a fermentation process of below 4.0.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A product of a dry material according to claim 1, wherein the spores of the *Bacillus coagulans* are the spores of *Bacillus* EC-1, Species No. 2,930.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A product of a dry material according to claim 1, wherein the germ cells of the *Bacillus coagulans* have the capacity to effect lactic acid fermentation within about three hours.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. A method of producing yogurt comprising adding boiling water to the material of claim 1 and permitting the resulting composition to ferment.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. A method according to claim 4, wherein after the addition of the boiling water, the resulting composition is permitted to ferment at a temperature of 40°–55° C. for about seven hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is independent claim (Claim 1), which establishes the identity of organisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 2 refers to a specific isolated strain of *Bacillus*, which would be unambiguous if it were possible to determine where that strain was preserved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the specification:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An example of such bacteria used in the present invention is EC-1 bacterium, (Species No. 2,930), which species has been deposited at the Fermentation Institute of Japan, which is a public depository located at No. 8-1, Inage Higashi 5-chome, Chiba City, Chiba Prefecture, Japan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Great, so now we know where the EC-1 strain is held. Unfortunately, the deposit was made at the *Fermentation Institute of Japan* prior to the [*Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure*][5] (April 28, 1977), which went into effect May 1, 1981.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it turns out, there doesn’t seem to be a “Fermentation Institute of Japan”. This is likely a translation artifact of Institute for Fermentation [IFO] (Osaka, Japan), which will lead to another dead-end since that collection was [terminated years ago][6] and merged with the [National Institute of Technology and Evaluation Biological Resource Center][7] (NBRC). Although this collection allows search via IFO accession, a search on 2930 (IFO 2930) turns up no results. The accession is therefore a dead end, and the EC-1 strain may be considered to be unavailable. The loss of this strain likely occurred during the transition from IFO to NBRC under the Budapest Treaty (which would apply to 16 of the 17 years of the patent grant), but this would be difficult to verify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, I believe you are correct in your assertion that the two names cannot be conflated, but there are some deeper issues with this particular patent that cover multiple legal and scientific codes. Unfortunately, my investigation into these problems has run in to multiple dead-ends at the availability of documentation at the USPTO and the culture collections. This patent is a great example of a patent system and scientific field in a state of transition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope that I have addressed your question. If not, please let me know and I will be happy to expand on this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other References Cited**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lapage S. P., Sneath P. H. A., Lessel E. F., Skerman V. B. D., Seeliger H. P. R. and Clark W. A. (editors) (1975). *International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria.* Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Fundamentals of Microbiology, 8th Ed.* Frobisher M., Hinsdill R., Crabtree K. T. and Goodheart C. R. (editors). W. B. Saunders, Co., London, 1968 (pp. 394–396).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://icsp.org&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-26-4-563&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/notifications/budapest/treaty_budapest_15.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://home.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/hut/abbreviation.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.nbrc.nite.go.jp/NBRC2/NBRCDispSearchServlet?lang=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32199" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="13357" RevisionGUID="3adcc0ef-c127-4821-beb1-f359672a25bc" CreationDate="2015-08-17T01:57:44.667" UserId="14417" Comment="Rollback to [0b2dd55e-b18c-4095-b985-1f1a37e4700d]" Text="Error in patent, involving confusion of bacterial names" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13398" RevisionGUID="ae4f6afc-de54-4305-ad3c-fa6552e4819b" CreationDate="2015-08-17T02:43:15.907" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, fixed spelling and corrected grammar." Text="There are several important considerations regarding the validity of this patent. First, the patent is already expired (it was granted from July 1, 1980 to July 1, 1997). However, I think this is an interesting case for several other reasons, so let’s ignore the expiration date for the remainder of this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bacterial names cited in this patent **must** be considered in the context of the state of bacterial nomenclature *on* the priority date of the patent. Bacterial (now Prokaryotic, to include the *Archaea*) nomenclature is governed by an international organization, the *International Committee on Systematic Bacteriology* (now the [*International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes*][1]). The application was filed on December 30, 1977, which was after the publication of the [*First Draft* Approved Lists of Bacterial Names][2] *Int J Syst Bacteriol* October 1976, **26**(4):563–599, the list that effectively reset the nomenclature of the *Bacteria* (and ultimately the *Archaea* as well). The names on the Approved Lists were (at the time of publication of the lists) considered to have been validly published at the time of publication of the list. When the final Approved List was published, it retroactively made the of names on the previous lists valid on January 1, 1980 (note that this occurred after the filing date of the application, but prior to the patent grant date; since we are dealing with the priority date, we consider the valid publication of these names to be the date of publication of the list which they appeared on, i.e., October 1976).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the interpretation of the state of these names is not quite that simple, as this patent also claims the benefit of an earlier application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 672,959, Apr. 2, 1976, abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This complicates things for this discussion, because a continuation-in-part affects the priority date of the patent based on the content of the application of which it first appeared. The material added to the newer application may be interpreted to have the latter priority date (December 30, 1977) instead of the former priority date (April 2, 1976). In order to determine what priority date applies to the bacterial names cited in the patent grant, we need to compare the original patent application documents (Appl. No. 866,396 *and* Appl. No. 672,959). Unfortunately, although [patent grant full text][3] is available from the USPTO from 1976–present, the [application full text][4] is only available from the USPTO from 2001–present. It should be possible to obtain copies on request to the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In lieu of having the original applications available, we can attempt to determine whether the interpretation of the names prior to the publication of the Approved List would differ from the the interpretation of the names after publication of the Approved List.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The good news is that the applicable Code of Nomenclature is unambiguous in this case. Both names fall under the jurisdiction of the *International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (1975 Revision)*, applicable from January 1, 1976 until January 1, 1992 (publication of the *1990 Revision*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rule 24a of the *1975 Revision* establishes the appropriate context for interpreting the published names (see p24–25):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Rule 24a**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Valid publication of names (or epithets) which are in accordance with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Rules of this Code dates from the date of publication of the Code.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; After 1 January 1980, priority of publication shall date from 1&#xD;&#xA;&gt; January 1980. On that date all names published prior to 1 January 1980&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and included in the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names of the ICSB&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shall be treated for all nomenclatural purposes as though they had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; been validly published for the first time on that date, the existing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; types being retained (but see Rule 24b).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Note 1.* Names of bacteria in the various taxonomic categories validly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; published up to 31 December 1977 will be assessed by the Judicial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Commission with the assistance of taxonomic experts. Lists of names&#xD;&#xA;&gt; will be prepared together with the names of the authors who originally&#xD;&#xA;&gt; proposed the names. When approved by the ICSB these Approved Lists of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bacterial Names will be published in the IJSB before 1 January 1980.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Names validly published under this Code between 1 January 1978 and 1&#xD;&#xA;&gt; January 1980 will be added to the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; After 1 January 1980, no further names will be added to the lists.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Those names validly published prior to 1 January 1980 but not included&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the approved lists will have no further standing in nomenclature.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They will not be added to the lists of *nomina rejicienda* and will&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thus be available for reuse for the naming of new taxa.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Approved Lists of Bacterial Names will contain for each name a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reference to an effectively published description and the type&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whenever possible. In the case of species or subspecies, if a type&#xD;&#xA;&gt; strain is available, it will be listed by its designation, and the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; culture collection(s) from which it may be obtained will be indicated.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If such a strain is not available, a reference strain or reference&#xD;&#xA;&gt; material will be listed if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Note 2.* These approved lists may contain more than one name attached to the same type (**objective synonyms**) since the names on the lists&#xD;&#xA;&gt; will represent those names which are considered reasonable in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; present state of bacteriological nomenclature and taxonomy and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; represent the views of many bacteriologists who may hold different&#xD;&#xA;&gt; taxonomic opinions.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Note 3.* Synonyms may be **objective synonyms**, i.e., more than one name has been associated with the same type, or **subjective synonyms**, i.e.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different names have been associated with different types that in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; opinion of the bacteriologist concerned belong to the same taxon. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; synonym first published is known as the **senior synonym**, and later&#xD;&#xA;&gt; synonyms are known as **junior synonyms**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Publication of **objective synonyms** in the lists does not affect&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bacterial nomenclature any more than does the valid publication of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; objective synonyms in different works in the bacteriological&#xD;&#xA;&gt; literature at present.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Examples: **Objective synonyms**–*Nocardia rhodochrous* and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Mycobacterium rhodochrous*. **Subjective synonyms**–Luedemann (IJSB [1971] **21**:240–247) regards *Micromonospora fusca* Jensen 1932 as a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; subjective synonym of *Micromonospora purpureochromogenes* (Waksman&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and Curtis 1916) Luedemann 1971. These two species have different&#xD;&#xA;&gt; types.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Rule 24b**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If two names compete for priority and if both names date from 1&#xD;&#xA;&gt; January 1980 on an approved list, the priority shall be determined by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the date of the original publication of the name before 1 January&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1980.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see from Rule 24a and its examples, the Bacteriological Code in effect at the time of the priority date of the patent was able to accommodate multiple taxonomic opinions, even in cases where the type [strains] of the species were not identical (different organisms) via **subjective synonyms**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we examine the Approved Lists (1976, 1978, 1979, 1980, and the 1989 Amended List), we find that *Bacillus coagulans* Hammer 1915 was included on the Approved Lists, and the type strain (ATCC® 7050™) was isolated and originally described in 1915:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hammer B. W. Bacteriological studies on the coagulation of evaporated milk. *Iowa Agr Exp Sta Res Bull* 1915; **19**:119–131.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We now have a type strain and a published description of *Bacillus coagulans* that is consistent in the context of both December 30, 1977 and April 2, 1976.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we will find that “Lactobacillus thermophilus” is absent from the Approved Lists. This means that the authors of the Approved Lists were unable to establish a type strain and authoritative description of the species.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, we could scour the historical literature to establish a definition (description) of “Lactobacillus thermophilus” as it would have been interpreted on December 30, 1977 and/or April 2, 1976. Or, we could make the assumption that since the authors of the Approved Lists (ones skilled in the art) were not able to find an appropriate assertion of authority for the name, that one did not exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, we can also come to the conclusion that in 1976 or 1977, interpreting the names cited in the patent in light of Rule 24a of the *Bacteriological Code (1975 Revision)* would lead one skilled in the art [of microbiology] to come to the conclusion that the inventors of the patent are establishing an (or referring to an earlier) **objective synonym** or **subjective synonym** between “Lactobacillus thermophilus” and *Bacillus coagulans*. Indeed, we see in the patent a non-patent reference to *Fundamentals of Microbiology, 8th Ed.*, 1968 (pp. 394–396). Note the typos in the author and publisher names (“Frebisher” vs. Frobisher, “Sanders” vs. Saunders).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above reference may establish a synonym between these two species. That is one text that I do not have on hand at the moment, but I will attempt to verify it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In line with our (assumed) contemporary definition of “Lactobacillis thermophilus” the specification of the patent states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Among the lactic bacilli, i.e. the lactic acid-producing bacilli contemplated in the present invention, there exists so many strains which generate spores in the natural world that they hitherto have been known as *Lactobacillis thermophilus*. However, as pointed out above, microorganisms which generate spores should either be classified as *Bacillus* or *Clostridium* and the name of *Lactobacillus* is technically improper. Indeed, recent studies have led the scientific world to abandon the term *Lactobacillus thermophilus* and to more properly name it *Bacillus coagulans*. Accordingly, while the term *Lactobacillus thermophilus* and *Bacillus coagulans* may in some cases be used interchangably [*sic*] throughout the instant specification, it should be understood that the latter is the more technically correct nomenclature in connection with the understanding of such microorganisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This gives us a fairly unambiguous definition of “Lactobacillis thermophilus”, and although we still do not have an authoritative reference for a circumscription of the specific set of strains, we can use the qualifier “microorganisms which generate spores”. This definition, however, may be interpreted as overly broad by one skilled in the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, assuming that we have suitable definitions for these species in their contemporary context, we can begin to interpret the claims of the patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is claimed is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A product of a dry material consisting essentially of a major amount of milk powder and a minor amount of the spores of a *Bacillus coagulans* having highly thermobiotic characteristics, the bacillus having characteristics such that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (a) the spores are able to exist in boiling water at 100° C. for more than two minutes;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (b) the spores have the capacity to generate germ cells in a period no longer than five hours;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (c) the germ cells have the capacity such that lactic acid fermentation occurs rapidly within four hours at about 50° C.;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (d) the germ cells have characteristics such that the coagulation of milk occurs in a period no longer than five hours after the germ cells are formed;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (e) the germ cells have the capacity to produce lactic acid in the final medium in a concentration more than 0.8%, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (f) the germ cells have the capacity to produce a final pH in the culture medium of a fermentation process of below 4.0.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A product of a dry material according to claim 1, wherein the spores of the *Bacillus coagulans* are the spores of *Bacillus* EC-1, Species No. 2,930.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A product of a dry material according to claim 1, wherein the germ cells of the *Bacillus coagulans* have the capacity to effect lactic acid fermentation within about three hours.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. A method of producing yogurt comprising adding boiling water to the material of claim 1 and permitting the resulting composition to ferment.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. A method according to claim 4, wherein after the addition of the boiling water, the resulting composition is permitted to ferment at a temperature of 40°–55° C. for about seven hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one independent claim (Claim 1), which establishes the identity of organisms based on their characteristics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 2 refers to a specific isolated strain of *Bacillus*, which would be unambiguous if it were possible to determine where that strain was preserved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the specification:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An example of such bacteria used in the present invention is EC-1 bacterium, (Species No. 2,930), which species has been deposited at the Fermentation Institute of Japan, which is a public depository located at No. 8-1, Inage Higashi 5-chome, Chiba City, Chiba Prefecture, Japan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Great, so now we know where the EC-1 strain is held. Unfortunately, the deposit was made at the *Fermentation Institute of Japan* prior to the [*Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure*][5] (April 28, 1977), which went into effect May 1, 1981.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it turns out, there doesn’t seem to be a “Fermentation Institute of Japan”. This is likely a translation artifact of Institute for Fermentation [IFO] (Osaka, Japan), which will lead to another dead-end since that collection was [terminated years ago][6] and merged with the [National Institute of Technology and Evaluation Biological Resource Center][7] (NBRC). Although this collection allows search via IFO accession, a search on 2930 (IFO 2930) turns up no results. The accession is therefore a dead end, and the EC-1 strain may be considered to be unavailable. The loss of this strain likely occurred during the transition from IFO to NBRC under the Budapest Treaty (which would apply to 16 of the 17 years of the patent grant), but this would be difficult to verify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, I believe you are correct in your assertion that the two names should not be conflated, but there are some deeper issues with this particular patent that cover multiple legal and scientific codes. Unfortunately, my investigation into these problems has run in to multiple dead-ends regarding the availability of documentation at the USPTO and the culture collections. This patent is a great example (the best I have seen yet) of a patent system, scientific field and political sphere in a state of transition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope that I have addressed your question. If not, please let me know and I will be happy to expand on this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other References Cited**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lapage S. P., Sneath P. H. A., Lessel E. F., Skerman V. B. D., Seeliger H. P. R. and Clark W. A. (editors) (1975). *International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria.* Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Fundamentals of Microbiology, 8th Ed.* Frobisher M., Hinsdill R., Crabtree K. T. and Goodheart C. R. (editors). W. B. Saunders, Co., London, 1968 (pp. 394–396).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://icsp.org&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-26-4-563&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/notifications/budapest/treaty_budapest_15.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://home.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/hut/abbreviation.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.nbrc.nite.go.jp/NBRC2/NBRCDispSearchServlet?lang=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12659" RevisionGUID="afea88ba-4dfc-4537-a3d6-61642469b0cb" CreationDate="2015-08-17T12:06:41.227" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="How does first to file affect multiple inventors? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It used to be that if an author/inventor was not listed on the patent the author could lose the patent rights due to the multiple inventor rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [Advanced Magnetic Closures, Inc. v. Rome Fasteners Corp., 607 F.3d 817 (Fed. Cir. 2010)][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://casetext.com/case/advanced-magnetic-closures-v-rome-fastener" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32202" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12659" RevisionGUID="afea88ba-4dfc-4537-a3d6-61642469b0cb" CreationDate="2015-08-17T12:06:41.227" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;america-invents-act&gt;&lt;first-to-file&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32203" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12659" RevisionGUID="afea88ba-4dfc-4537-a3d6-61642469b0cb" CreationDate="2015-08-17T12:06:41.227" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="How does First to File affect multiple inventors?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13398" RevisionGUID="2189b4ac-cbf3-4261-9e1a-1fcf2ab6ef86" CreationDate="2015-08-17T13:35:56.840" UserId="14417" Comment="Added a reliable reference." Text="There are several important considerations regarding the validity of this patent. First, the patent is already expired (it was granted from July 1, 1980 to July 1, 1997). However, I think this is an interesting case for several other reasons, so let’s ignore the expiration date for the remainder of this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bacterial names cited in this patent **must** be considered in the context of the state of bacterial nomenclature *on* the priority date of the patent. Bacterial (now Prokaryotic, to include the *Archaea*) nomenclature is governed by an international organization, the *International Committee on Systematic Bacteriology* (now the [*International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes*][1]). The application was filed on December 30, 1977, which was after the publication of the [*First Draft* Approved Lists of Bacterial Names][2] *Int J Syst Bacteriol* October 1976, **26**(4):563–599, the list that effectively reset the nomenclature of the *Bacteria* (and ultimately the *Archaea* as well). The names on the Approved Lists were (at the time of publication of the lists) considered to have been validly published at the time of publication of the list. When the final Approved List was published, it retroactively made the of names on the previous lists valid on January 1, 1980 (note that this occurred after the filing date of the application, but prior to the patent grant date; since we are dealing with the priority date, we consider the valid publication of these names to be the date of publication of the list which they appeared on, i.e., October 1976).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the interpretation of the state of these names is not quite that simple, as this patent also claims the benefit of an earlier application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 672,959, Apr. 2, 1976, abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This complicates things for this discussion, because a continuation-in-part affects the priority date of the patent based on the content of the application of which it first appeared. The material added to the newer application may be interpreted to have the latter priority date (December 30, 1977) instead of the former priority date (April 2, 1976). In order to determine what priority date applies to the bacterial names cited in the patent grant, we need to compare the original patent application documents (Appl. No. 866,396 *and* Appl. No. 672,959). Unfortunately, although [patent grant full text][3] is available from the USPTO from 1976–present, the [application full text][4] is only available from the USPTO from 2001–present. It should be possible to obtain copies on request to the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In lieu of having the original applications available, we can attempt to determine whether the interpretation of the names prior to the publication of the Approved List would differ from the the interpretation of the names after publication of the Approved List.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The good news is that the applicable Code of Nomenclature is unambiguous in this case. Both names fall under the jurisdiction of the *International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (1975 Revision)*, applicable from January 1, 1976 until January 1, 1992 (publication of the *1990 Revision*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rule 24a of the *1975 Revision* establishes the appropriate context for interpreting the published names (see p24–25):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Rule 24a**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Valid publication of names (or epithets) which are in accordance with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Rules of this Code dates from the date of publication of the Code.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; After 1 January 1980, priority of publication shall date from 1&#xD;&#xA;&gt; January 1980. On that date all names published prior to 1 January 1980&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and included in the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names of the ICSB&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shall be treated for all nomenclatural purposes as though they had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; been validly published for the first time on that date, the existing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; types being retained (but see Rule 24b).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Note 1.* Names of bacteria in the various taxonomic categories validly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; published up to 31 December 1977 will be assessed by the Judicial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Commission with the assistance of taxonomic experts. Lists of names&#xD;&#xA;&gt; will be prepared together with the names of the authors who originally&#xD;&#xA;&gt; proposed the names. When approved by the ICSB these Approved Lists of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bacterial Names will be published in the IJSB before 1 January 1980.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Names validly published under this Code between 1 January 1978 and 1&#xD;&#xA;&gt; January 1980 will be added to the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; After 1 January 1980, no further names will be added to the lists.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Those names validly published prior to 1 January 1980 but not included&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the approved lists will have no further standing in nomenclature.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They will not be added to the lists of *nomina rejicienda* and will&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thus be available for reuse for the naming of new taxa.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Approved Lists of Bacterial Names will contain for each name a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reference to an effectively published description and the type&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whenever possible. In the case of species or subspecies, if a type&#xD;&#xA;&gt; strain is available, it will be listed by its designation, and the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; culture collection(s) from which it may be obtained will be indicated.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If such a strain is not available, a reference strain or reference&#xD;&#xA;&gt; material will be listed if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Note 2.* These approved lists may contain more than one name attached to the same type (**objective synonyms**) since the names on the lists&#xD;&#xA;&gt; will represent those names which are considered reasonable in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; present state of bacteriological nomenclature and taxonomy and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; represent the views of many bacteriologists who may hold different&#xD;&#xA;&gt; taxonomic opinions.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Note 3.* Synonyms may be **objective synonyms**, i.e., more than one name has been associated with the same type, or **subjective synonyms**, i.e.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different names have been associated with different types that in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; opinion of the bacteriologist concerned belong to the same taxon. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; synonym first published is known as the **senior synonym**, and later&#xD;&#xA;&gt; synonyms are known as **junior synonyms**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Publication of **objective synonyms** in the lists does not affect&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bacterial nomenclature any more than does the valid publication of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; objective synonyms in different works in the bacteriological&#xD;&#xA;&gt; literature at present.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Examples: **Objective synonyms**–*Nocardia rhodochrous* and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Mycobacterium rhodochrous*. **Subjective synonyms**–Luedemann (IJSB [1971] **21**:240–247) regards *Micromonospora fusca* Jensen 1932 as a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; subjective synonym of *Micromonospora purpureochromogenes* (Waksman&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and Curtis 1916) Luedemann 1971. These two species have different&#xD;&#xA;&gt; types.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Rule 24b**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If two names compete for priority and if both names date from 1&#xD;&#xA;&gt; January 1980 on an approved list, the priority shall be determined by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the date of the original publication of the name before 1 January&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1980.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see from Rule 24a and its examples, the Bacteriological Code in effect at the time of the priority date of the patent was able to accommodate multiple taxonomic opinions, even in cases where the type [strains] of the species were not identical (different organisms) via **subjective synonyms**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we examine the Approved Lists (1976, 1978, 1979, 1980, and the 1989 Amended List), we find that *Bacillus coagulans* Hammer 1915 was included on the Approved Lists, and the type strain (ATCC® 7050™) was isolated and originally described in 1915:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hammer B. W. Bacteriological studies on the coagulation of evaporated milk. *Iowa Agr Exp Sta Res Bull* 1915; **19**:119–131.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We now have a type strain and a published description of *Bacillus coagulans* that is consistent in the context of both December 30, 1977 and April 2, 1976.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we will find that “Lactobacillus thermophilus” is absent from the Approved Lists. This means that the authors of the Approved Lists were unable to establish a type strain and authoritative description of the species.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, we could scour the historical literature to establish a definition (description) of “Lactobacillus thermophilus” as it would have been interpreted on December 30, 1977 and/or April 2, 1976. Or, we could make the assumption that since the authors of the Approved Lists (ones skilled in the art) were not able to find an appropriate assertion of authority for the name, that one did not exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, we can also come to the conclusion that in 1976 or 1977, interpreting the names cited in the patent in light of Rule 24a of the *Bacteriological Code (1975 Revision)* would lead one skilled in the art [of microbiology] to come to the conclusion that the inventors of the patent are establishing an (or referring to an earlier) **objective synonym** or **subjective synonym** between “Lactobacillus thermophilus” and *Bacillus coagulans*. Indeed, we see in the patent a non-patent reference to *Fundamentals of Microbiology, 8th Ed.*, 1968 (pp. 394–396). Note the typos in the author and publisher names (“Frebisher” vs. Frobisher, “Sanders” vs. Saunders).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above reference may establish a synonym between these two species. That is one text that I do not have on hand at the moment, but I will attempt to verify it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In line with our (assumed) contemporary definition of “Lactobacillis thermophilus” the specification of the patent states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Among the lactic bacilli, i.e. the lactic acid-producing bacilli contemplated in the present invention, there exists so many strains which generate spores in the natural world that they hitherto have been known as *Lactobacillis thermophilus*. However, as pointed out above, microorganisms which generate spores should either be classified as *Bacillus* or *Clostridium* and the name of *Lactobacillus* is technically improper. Indeed, recent studies have led the scientific world to abandon the term *Lactobacillus thermophilus* and to more properly name it *Bacillus coagulans*. Accordingly, while the term *Lactobacillus thermophilus* and *Bacillus coagulans* may in some cases be used interchangably [*sic*] throughout the instant specification, it should be understood that the latter is the more technically correct nomenclature in connection with the understanding of such microorganisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This gives us a fairly unambiguous definition of “Lactobacillis thermophilus”, and although we still do not have an authoritative reference for a circumscription of the specific set of strains, we can use the qualifier “microorganisms which generate spores”. This definition, however, may be interpreted as overly broad by one skilled in the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, assuming that we have suitable definitions for these species in their contemporary context, we can begin to interpret the claims of the patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is claimed is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A product of a dry material consisting essentially of a major amount of milk powder and a minor amount of the spores of a *Bacillus coagulans* having highly thermobiotic characteristics, the bacillus having characteristics such that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (a) the spores are able to exist in boiling water at 100° C. for more than two minutes;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (b) the spores have the capacity to generate germ cells in a period no longer than five hours;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (c) the germ cells have the capacity such that lactic acid fermentation occurs rapidly within four hours at about 50° C.;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (d) the germ cells have characteristics such that the coagulation of milk occurs in a period no longer than five hours after the germ cells are formed;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (e) the germ cells have the capacity to produce lactic acid in the final medium in a concentration more than 0.8%, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (f) the germ cells have the capacity to produce a final pH in the culture medium of a fermentation process of below 4.0.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A product of a dry material according to claim 1, wherein the spores of the *Bacillus coagulans* are the spores of *Bacillus* EC-1, Species No. 2,930.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A product of a dry material according to claim 1, wherein the germ cells of the *Bacillus coagulans* have the capacity to effect lactic acid fermentation within about three hours.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. A method of producing yogurt comprising adding boiling water to the material of claim 1 and permitting the resulting composition to ferment.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. A method according to claim 4, wherein after the addition of the boiling water, the resulting composition is permitted to ferment at a temperature of 40°–55° C. for about seven hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one independent claim (Claim 1), which establishes the identity of organisms based on their characteristics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 2 refers to a specific isolated strain of *Bacillus*, which would be unambiguous if it were possible to determine where that strain was preserved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the specification:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An example of such bacteria used in the present invention is EC-1 bacterium, (Species No. 2,930), which species has been deposited at the Fermentation Institute of Japan, which is a public depository located at No. 8-1, Inage Higashi 5-chome, Chiba City, Chiba Prefecture, Japan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Great, so now we know where the EC-1 strain is held. Unfortunately, the deposit was made at the *Fermentation Institute of Japan* prior to the [*Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure*][5] (April 28, 1977), which went into effect May 1, 1981.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it turns out, there doesn’t seem to be a “Fermentation Institute of Japan”. This is likely a translation artifact of Institute for Fermentation [IFO] (Osaka, Japan), which will lead to another dead-end since that collection was [terminated years ago][6] and merged with the [National Institute of Technology and Evaluation Biological Resource Center][7] (NBRC). Although this collection allows search via IFO accession, a search on 2930 (IFO 2930) turns up no results. The accession is therefore a dead end, and the EC-1 strain may be considered to be unavailable. The loss of this strain likely occurred during the transition from IFO to NBRC under the Budapest Treaty (which would apply to 16 of the 17 years of the patent grant), but this would be difficult to verify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An article from 2005 offers some additional perspective on [*The preparation of the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names*][8]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I was responsible for suggesting the basic document to work from, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compiling names from this. This was the 8th edition of *Bergey’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Manual of Determinative Bacteriology* (Buchanan &amp; Gibbons, 1974),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; because it covered all bacteria, contained good descriptions and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; usually listed type strains. It was felt that this volume contained&#xD;&#xA;&gt; most of the secure information on names of bacteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, in *Bergey’s Manual of Determiniative Bacteriology, 8th ed.* we find the following statement (p 577):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The following, included in *The Manual*, 7th ed., are here excluded&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from *Lactobacillus*:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2. ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  3. **Strains whose descriptions are consistent with the original description of *L. thermophilus* Ayers and Johnson 1924, 291 produce&#xD;&#xA;&gt; endospores, catalase and cytochromes that are probably very similar,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if not identical, to *Bacillus coagulans* (Sharpe, 1962; Kitahara and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suzuki, 1963).**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  4. ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, I believe that your assertion that the two names should not be conflated is incorrect, but there are some deeper issues with this particular patent that cover multiple legal and scientific codes. Unfortunately, my investigation into these problems has run in to multiple dead-ends regarding the availability of documentation at the USPTO and the culture collections. This patent is a great example (the best I have seen yet) of a patent system, scientific field and political sphere in a state of transition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope that I have addressed your question. If not, please let me know and I will be happy to expand on this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other References Cited**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lapage S. P., Sneath P. H. A., Lessel E. F., Skerman V. B. D., Seeliger H. P. R. and Clark W. A. (editors) (1975). *International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria.* Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Fundamentals of Microbiology, 8th Ed.* Frobisher M., Hinsdill R., Crabtree K. T. and Goodheart C. R. (editors). W. B. Saunders, Co., London, 1968 (pp. 394–396).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sneath P. H. A. (2005). [The preparation of the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names][8]. *Int J Syst Evol Microbiol* **55**(6):2247–2249.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Buchanan, R. E.&amp; Gibbons, N. R. (editors) (1974). *Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Bacteriology, 8th edn.* Baltimore: Williams &amp; Wilkins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://icsp.org&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-26-4-563&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/notifications/budapest/treaty_budapest_15.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://home.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/hut/abbreviation.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.nbrc.nite.go.jp/NBRC2/NBRCDispSearchServlet?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.64137-0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13399" RevisionGUID="79043b14-cce9-4ec0-abc5-a82d72f92419" CreationDate="2015-08-17T13:48:32.647" UserId="14598" Text="A web app infringes a patent which is granted in some countries. Users from these countries should not use the app, however the rest of the world has no limitation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When users are registered in the website, they are asked about their country of residence. Is restricting access based on this information, that can be false,  enough to avoid infringing the patent, or should IP blocking be used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32206" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13399" RevisionGUID="79043b14-cce9-4ec0-abc5-a82d72f92419" CreationDate="2015-08-17T13:48:32.647" UserId="14598" Text="IP blocking or user info blocking" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32207" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13399" RevisionGUID="79043b14-cce9-4ec0-abc5-a82d72f92419" CreationDate="2015-08-17T13:48:32.647" UserId="14598" Text="&lt;websites&gt;&lt;geographical&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13398" RevisionGUID="8d4023e1-9021-4fad-9ace-5cbb2e77f63a" CreationDate="2015-08-17T13:51:59.620" UserId="14417" Comment="Added a reliable reference." Text="There are several important considerations regarding the validity of this patent. First, the patent is already expired (it was granted from July 1, 1980 to July 1, 1997). However, I think this is an interesting case for several other reasons, so let’s ignore the expiration date for the remainder of this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bacterial names cited in this patent **must** be considered in the context of the state of bacterial nomenclature *on* the priority date of the patent. Bacterial (now Prokaryotic, to include the *Archaea*) nomenclature is governed by an international organization, the *International Committee on Systematic Bacteriology* (now the [*International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes*][1]). The application was filed on December 30, 1977, which was after the publication of the [*First Draft* Approved Lists of Bacterial Names][2] *Int J Syst Bacteriol* October 1976, **26**(4):563–599, the list that effectively reset the nomenclature of the *Bacteria* (and ultimately the *Archaea* as well). The names on the Approved Lists were (at the time of publication of the lists) considered to have been validly published at the time of publication of the list. When the final Approved List was published, it retroactively made the of names on the previous lists valid on January 1, 1980 (note that this occurred after the filing date of the application, but prior to the patent grant date; since we are dealing with the priority date, we consider the valid publication of these names to be the date of publication of the list which they appeared on, i.e., October 1976).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the interpretation of the state of these names is not quite that simple, as this patent also claims the benefit of an earlier application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 672,959, Apr. 2, 1976, abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This complicates things for this discussion, because a continuation-in-part affects the priority date of the patent based on the content of the application of which it first appeared. The material added to the newer application may be interpreted to have the latter priority date (December 30, 1977) instead of the former priority date (April 2, 1976). In order to determine what priority date applies to the bacterial names cited in the patent grant, we need to compare the original patent application documents (Appl. No. 866,396 *and* Appl. No. 672,959). Unfortunately, although [patent grant full text][3] is available from the USPTO from 1976–present, the [application full text][4] is only available from the USPTO from 2001–present. It should be possible to obtain copies on request to the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In lieu of having the original applications available, we can attempt to determine whether the interpretation of the names prior to the publication of the Approved List would differ from the the interpretation of the names after publication of the Approved List.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The good news is that the applicable Code of Nomenclature is unambiguous in this case. Both names fall under the jurisdiction of the *International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (1975 Revision)*, applicable from January 1, 1976 until January 1, 1992 (publication of the *1990 Revision*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rule 24a of the *1975 Revision* establishes the appropriate context for interpreting the published names (see p24–25):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Rule 24a**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Valid publication of names (or epithets) which are in accordance with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Rules of this Code dates from the date of publication of the Code.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; After 1 January 1980, priority of publication shall date from 1&#xD;&#xA;&gt; January 1980. On that date all names published prior to 1 January 1980&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and included in the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names of the ICSB&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shall be treated for all nomenclatural purposes as though they had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; been validly published for the first time on that date, the existing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; types being retained (but see Rule 24b).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Note 1.* Names of bacteria in the various taxonomic categories validly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; published up to 31 December 1977 will be assessed by the Judicial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Commission with the assistance of taxonomic experts. Lists of names&#xD;&#xA;&gt; will be prepared together with the names of the authors who originally&#xD;&#xA;&gt; proposed the names. When approved by the ICSB these Approved Lists of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bacterial Names will be published in the IJSB before 1 January 1980.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Names validly published under this Code between 1 January 1978 and 1&#xD;&#xA;&gt; January 1980 will be added to the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; After 1 January 1980, no further names will be added to the lists.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Those names validly published prior to 1 January 1980 but not included&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the approved lists will have no further standing in nomenclature.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They will not be added to the lists of *nomina rejicienda* and will&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thus be available for reuse for the naming of new taxa.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Approved Lists of Bacterial Names will contain for each name a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reference to an effectively published description and the type&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whenever possible. In the case of species or subspecies, if a type&#xD;&#xA;&gt; strain is available, it will be listed by its designation, and the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; culture collection(s) from which it may be obtained will be indicated.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If such a strain is not available, a reference strain or reference&#xD;&#xA;&gt; material will be listed if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Note 2.* These approved lists may contain more than one name attached to the same type (**objective synonyms**) since the names on the lists&#xD;&#xA;&gt; will represent those names which are considered reasonable in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; present state of bacteriological nomenclature and taxonomy and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; represent the views of many bacteriologists who may hold different&#xD;&#xA;&gt; taxonomic opinions.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Note 3.* Synonyms may be **objective synonyms**, i.e., more than one name has been associated with the same type, or **subjective synonyms**, i.e.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different names have been associated with different types that in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; opinion of the bacteriologist concerned belong to the same taxon. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; synonym first published is known as the **senior synonym**, and later&#xD;&#xA;&gt; synonyms are known as **junior synonyms**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Publication of **objective synonyms** in the lists does not affect&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bacterial nomenclature any more than does the valid publication of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; objective synonyms in different works in the bacteriological&#xD;&#xA;&gt; literature at present.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Examples: **Objective synonyms**–*Nocardia rhodochrous* and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Mycobacterium rhodochrous*. **Subjective synonyms**–Luedemann (IJSB [1971] **21**:240–247) regards *Micromonospora fusca* Jensen 1932 as a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; subjective synonym of *Micromonospora purpureochromogenes* (Waksman&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and Curtis 1916) Luedemann 1971. These two species have different&#xD;&#xA;&gt; types.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Rule 24b**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If two names compete for priority and if both names date from 1&#xD;&#xA;&gt; January 1980 on an approved list, the priority shall be determined by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the date of the original publication of the name before 1 January&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1980.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see from Rule 24a and its examples, the Bacteriological Code in effect at the time of the priority date of the patent was able to accommodate multiple taxonomic opinions, even in cases where the type [strains] of the species were not identical (different organisms) via **subjective synonyms**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we examine the Approved Lists (1976, 1978, 1979, 1980, and the 1989 Amended List), we find that *Bacillus coagulans* Hammer 1915 was included on the Approved Lists, and the type strain ATCC® 7050™ (=NRS 609 =NCIB 9365 =NCTC 10334) was isolated and originally described in 1915:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hammer B. W. Bacteriological studies on the coagulation of evaporated milk. *Iowa Agr Exp Sta Res Bull* 1915; **19**:119–131.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We now have a type strain and a published description of *Bacillus coagulans* that is consistent in the context of both December 30, 1977 and April 2, 1976.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we will find that “Lactobacillus thermophilus” is absent from the Approved Lists. This means that the authors of the Approved Lists were unable to establish a type strain and authoritative description of the species.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, we could scour the historical literature to establish a definition (description) of “Lactobacillus thermophilus” as it would have been interpreted on December 30, 1977 and/or April 2, 1976. Or, we could make the assumption that since the authors of the Approved Lists (ones skilled in the art) were not able to find an appropriate assertion of authority for the name, that one did not exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, we can also come to the conclusion that in 1976 or 1977, interpreting the names cited in the patent in light of Rule 24a of the *Bacteriological Code (1975 Revision)* would lead one skilled in the art [of microbiology] to come to the conclusion that the inventors of the patent are establishing an (or referring to an earlier) **objective synonym** or **subjective synonym** between “Lactobacillus thermophilus” and *Bacillus coagulans*. Indeed, we see in the patent a non-patent reference to *Fundamentals of Microbiology, 8th Ed.*, 1968 (pp. 394–396). Note the typos in the author and publisher names (“Frebisher” vs. Frobisher, “Sanders” vs. Saunders).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above reference may establish a synonym between these two species. That is one text that I do not have on hand at the moment, but I will attempt to verify it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In line with our (assumed) contemporary definition of “Lactobacillis thermophilus” the specification of the patent states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Among the lactic bacilli, i.e. the lactic acid-producing bacilli contemplated in the present invention, there exists so many strains which generate spores in the natural world that they hitherto have been known as *Lactobacillis thermophilus*. However, as pointed out above, microorganisms which generate spores should either be classified as *Bacillus* or *Clostridium* and the name of *Lactobacillus* is technically improper. Indeed, recent studies have led the scientific world to abandon the term *Lactobacillus thermophilus* and to more properly name it *Bacillus coagulans*. Accordingly, while the term *Lactobacillus thermophilus* and *Bacillus coagulans* may in some cases be used interchangably [*sic*] throughout the instant specification, it should be understood that the latter is the more technically correct nomenclature in connection with the understanding of such microorganisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This gives us a fairly unambiguous definition of “Lactobacillis thermophilus”, and although we still do not have an authoritative reference for a circumscription of the specific set of strains, we can use the qualifier “microorganisms which generate spores”. This definition, however, may be interpreted as overly broad by one skilled in the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, assuming that we have suitable definitions for these species in their contemporary context, we can begin to interpret the claims of the patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is claimed is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A product of a dry material consisting essentially of a major amount of milk powder and a minor amount of the spores of a *Bacillus coagulans* having highly thermobiotic characteristics, the bacillus having characteristics such that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (a) the spores are able to exist in boiling water at 100° C. for more than two minutes;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (b) the spores have the capacity to generate germ cells in a period no longer than five hours;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (c) the germ cells have the capacity such that lactic acid fermentation occurs rapidly within four hours at about 50° C.;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (d) the germ cells have characteristics such that the coagulation of milk occurs in a period no longer than five hours after the germ cells are formed;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (e) the germ cells have the capacity to produce lactic acid in the final medium in a concentration more than 0.8%, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (f) the germ cells have the capacity to produce a final pH in the culture medium of a fermentation process of below 4.0.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A product of a dry material according to claim 1, wherein the spores of the *Bacillus coagulans* are the spores of *Bacillus* EC-1, Species No. 2,930.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A product of a dry material according to claim 1, wherein the germ cells of the *Bacillus coagulans* have the capacity to effect lactic acid fermentation within about three hours.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. A method of producing yogurt comprising adding boiling water to the material of claim 1 and permitting the resulting composition to ferment.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. A method according to claim 4, wherein after the addition of the boiling water, the resulting composition is permitted to ferment at a temperature of 40°–55° C. for about seven hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one independent claim (Claim 1), which establishes the identity of organisms based on their characteristics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 2 refers to a specific isolated strain of *Bacillus*, which would be unambiguous if it were possible to determine where that strain was preserved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the specification:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An example of such bacteria used in the present invention is EC-1 bacterium, (Species No. 2,930), which species has been deposited at the Fermentation Institute of Japan, which is a public depository located at No. 8-1, Inage Higashi 5-chome, Chiba City, Chiba Prefecture, Japan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Great, so now we know where the EC-1 strain is held. Unfortunately, the deposit was made at the *Fermentation Institute of Japan* prior to the [*Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure*][5] (April 28, 1977), which went into effect May 1, 1981.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it turns out, there doesn’t seem to be a “Fermentation Institute of Japan”. This is likely a translation artifact of Institute for Fermentation [IFO] (Osaka, Japan), which will lead to another dead-end since that collection was [terminated years ago][6] and merged with the [National Institute of Technology and Evaluation Biological Resource Center][7] (NBRC). Although this collection allows search via IFO accession, a search on 2930 (IFO 2930) turns up no results. The accession is therefore a dead end, and the EC-1 strain may be considered to be unavailable. The loss of this strain likely occurred during the transition from IFO to NBRC under the Budapest Treaty (which would apply to 16 of the 17 years of the patent grant), but this would be difficult to verify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An article from 2005 offers some additional perspective on [*The preparation of the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names*][8]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I was responsible for suggesting the basic document to work from, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compiling names from this. This was the 8th edition of *Bergey’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Manual of Determinative Bacteriology* (Buchanan &amp; Gibbons, 1974),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; because it covered all bacteria, contained good descriptions and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; usually listed type strains. It was felt that this volume contained&#xD;&#xA;&gt; most of the secure information on names of bacteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, in *Bergey’s Manual of Determiniative Bacteriology, 8th ed.* we find the following statement (p 577):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The following, included in *The Manual*, 7th ed., are here excluded&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from *Lactobacillus*:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2. ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  3. **Strains whose descriptions are consistent with the original description of *L. thermophilus* Ayers and Johnson 1924, 291 produce&#xD;&#xA;&gt; endospores, catalase and cytochromes that are probably very similar,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if not identical, to *Bacillus coagulans* (Sharpe, 1962; Kitahara and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suzuki, 1963).**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  4. ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now we have an appropriate link to the historical literature. From *Bergey’s Manual of Determiniative Bacteriology, 7th ed.*, p 547:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Lactobacillus thermophilus* Ayers and Johnson, 1924. (*Jour. Bact.*, 9, 1924, 291.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ther.mo'phi.lus. Gr. noun *therme* heat; Gr. adj. *philus* loving; M.L. adj. *thermophilus* heat-loving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Description of Ayers and Johnson supplemented from Charlton (*Jour. Dairy Sci.*, *15*, 1932, 393).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rods 0.5 by 3.0 microns. Non-motile (Charlton). Stain irregularly. Gran-positive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gelatin stab: No liquefaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Agar plate: Small colonies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Agar slant: Slight, translucent growth (Charlkton).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Broth: Turbid (Charlton).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Litmus milk: Acid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Acid from glucose, lactose, sucrose, starch and trace from glycerol; no acid from salicin, mannitol, raffinose or inulin (Ayers and Johnson). Acid from fructose, galactose, mannose, maltose, raffinose and dextrin; no acid from arabinose, xylose, glycerol, rhamnose, salicin, inulin or mannitol. Dextro rotatory lactic acid formed (Charlton).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nitrites not produced from nitrates (Charlton).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Facultatively anaerobic. Grows best aerobically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Temperature relations: Optimum, between 50° and 62.8° C. Minimum, 30° C. Maximum, 65° C. Thermal death point, 71° C. for 30 minutes or 82° C. for 2½ minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the thermophilic lactobacillus obtained from pasteurized milk which causes pin-point colonies on agar plates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: Isolated from pasteurized milk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Habitat: Known only from pasteurized milk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, I believe that your assertion that the two names should not be conflated is incorrect, but there are some deeper issues with this particular patent that cover multiple legal and scientific codes. Unfortunately, my investigation into these problems has run in to multiple dead-ends regarding the availability of documentation at the USPTO and the culture collections. This patent is a great example (the best I have seen yet) of a patent system, scientific field and political sphere in a state of transition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope that I have addressed your question. If not, please let me know and I will be happy to expand on this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other References Cited**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lapage S. P., Sneath P. H. A., Lessel E. F., Skerman V. B. D., Seeliger H. P. R. and Clark W. A. (editors) (1975). *International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria.* Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Fundamentals of Microbiology, 8th Ed.* Frobisher M., Hinsdill R., Crabtree K. T. and Goodheart C. R. (editors). W. B. Saunders, Co., London, 1968 (pp. 394–396).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sneath P. H. A. (2005). [The preparation of the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names][8]. *Int J Syst Evol Microbiol* **55**(6):2247–2249.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Buchanan, R. E.&amp; Gibbons, N. R. (editors) (1974). *Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Bacteriology, 8th edn.* Baltimore: Williams &amp; Wilkins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://icsp.org&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-26-4-563&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/notifications/budapest/treaty_budapest_15.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://home.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/hut/abbreviation.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.nbrc.nite.go.jp/NBRC2/NBRCDispSearchServlet?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.64137-0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13400" RevisionGUID="9c770bfe-f9a6-495b-9aeb-8d15805951c2" CreationDate="2015-08-17T18:36:08.463" UserId="14801" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20150033147][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20150033147&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see in other blog that Facebook and twitter inquired about this patent, how can we find out that how big company search for which / type of patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32210" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13400" RevisionGUID="9c770bfe-f9a6-495b-9aeb-8d15805951c2" CreationDate="2015-08-17T18:36:08.463" UserId="14801" Text="Facebook was discussing about this patent in other blog, how can we find out what they are looking for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32211" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13400" RevisionGUID="9c770bfe-f9a6-495b-9aeb-8d15805951c2" CreationDate="2015-08-17T18:36:08.463" UserId="14801" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13401" RevisionGUID="916cd02a-7c1e-4a27-9c8f-fae8e7f9e94c" CreationDate="2015-08-17T20:53:41.897" UserId="14803" Text="In reference to the patent: [US6608366][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6608366&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hi,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is US6608366 B1 patent in public domain? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bests,&#xD;&#xA;Andy " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32214" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13401" RevisionGUID="916cd02a-7c1e-4a27-9c8f-fae8e7f9e94c" CreationDate="2015-08-17T20:53:41.897" UserId="14803" Text="Is US6608366 B1 patent in public domain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32215" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13401" RevisionGUID="916cd02a-7c1e-4a27-9c8f-fae8e7f9e94c" CreationDate="2015-08-17T20:53:41.897" UserId="14803" Text="&lt;us6608366&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13402" RevisionGUID="e0546491-8d8a-4226-b25d-78f855be2427" CreationDate="2015-08-17T21:23:51.660" UserId="14417" Text="No, [US 6,608,366 B1][1] and the continuation patent [US 7,183,630 B1][2] (from the same application) are not in the public domain. I double-checked the [Public Pair][3] records to verify. Both of these patents are enforceable until April 15, 2022.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please also refer to a related question describing [how to calculate patent expiration dates][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6608366&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7183630&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3803/14417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13401" RevisionGUID="a15de6bc-5f07-4746-9a22-5e641d24befb" CreationDate="2015-08-17T21:25:27.717" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="In reference to the patent: [US6608366][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6608366&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is US 6,608,366 B1 in the public domain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32218" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13401" RevisionGUID="a15de6bc-5f07-4746-9a22-5e641d24befb" CreationDate="2015-08-17T21:25:27.717" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="Is US 6,608,366 B1 in the public domain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32219" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13401" RevisionGUID="a15de6bc-5f07-4746-9a22-5e641d24befb" CreationDate="2015-08-17T21:25:27.717" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;us6608366&gt;&lt;us7183630&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13403" RevisionGUID="7e4ccbb1-5c83-4875-9cf7-21b4410b8cab" CreationDate="2015-08-17T22:55:29.203" UserId="14804" Text="What is the current status of the patent application number US13/346,940?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32221" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13403" RevisionGUID="7e4ccbb1-5c83-4875-9cf7-21b4410b8cab" CreationDate="2015-08-17T22:55:29.203" UserId="14804" Text="Has application US/13346,940 been granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32222" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13403" RevisionGUID="7e4ccbb1-5c83-4875-9cf7-21b4410b8cab" CreationDate="2015-08-17T22:55:29.203" UserId="14804" Text="&lt;pre-grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13398" RevisionGUID="9f485062-faa5-40a7-ba95-458c9b69b929" CreationDate="2015-08-17T23:34:03.127" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting." Text="There are several important considerations regarding the validity of this patent. First, the patent is already expired (it was granted from July 1, 1980 to July 1, 1997). However, I think this is an interesting case for several other reasons, so let’s ignore the expiration date for the remainder of this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bacterial names cited in this patent **must** be considered in the context of the state of bacterial nomenclature *on* the priority date of the patent. Bacterial (now Prokaryotic, to include the *Archaea*) nomenclature is governed by an international organization, the *International Committee on Systematic Bacteriology* (now the [*International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes*][1]). The application was filed on December 30, 1977, which was after the publication of the [*First Draft* Approved Lists of Bacterial Names][2] *Int J Syst Bacteriol* October 1976, **26**(4):563–599, the list that effectively reset the nomenclature of the *Bacteria* (and ultimately the *Archaea* as well). The names on the Approved Lists were (at the time of publication of the lists) considered to have been validly published at the time of publication of the list. When the final Approved List was published, it retroactively made the of names on the previous lists valid on January 1, 1980 (note that this occurred after the filing date of the application, but prior to the patent grant date; since we are dealing with the priority date, we consider the valid publication of these names to be the date of publication of the list which they appeared on, i.e., October 1976).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the interpretation of the state of these names is not quite that simple, as this patent also claims the benefit of an earlier application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 672,959, Apr. 2, 1976, abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This complicates things for this discussion, because a continuation-in-part affects the priority date of the patent based on the content of the application of which it first appeared. The material added to the newer application may be interpreted to have the latter priority date (December 30, 1977) instead of the former priority date (April 2, 1976). In order to determine what priority date applies to the bacterial names cited in the patent grant, we need to compare the original patent application documents (Appl. No. 866,396 *and* Appl. No. 672,959). Unfortunately, although [patent grant full text][3] is available from the USPTO from 1976–present, the [application full text][4] is only available from the USPTO from 2001–present. It should be possible to obtain copies on request to the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In lieu of having the original applications available, we can attempt to determine whether the interpretation of the names prior to the publication of the Approved List would differ from the the interpretation of the names after publication of the Approved List.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The good news is that the applicable Code of Nomenclature is unambiguous in this case. Both names fall under the jurisdiction of the *International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (1975 Revision)*, applicable from January 1, 1976 until January 1, 1992 (publication of the *1990 Revision*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rule 24a of the *1975 Revision* establishes the appropriate context for interpreting the published names (see p24–25):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Rule 24a**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Valid publication of names (or epithets) which are in accordance with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Rules of this Code dates from the date of publication of the Code.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; After 1 January 1980, priority of publication shall date from 1&#xD;&#xA;&gt; January 1980. On that date all names published prior to 1 January 1980&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and included in the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names of the ICSB&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shall be treated for all nomenclatural purposes as though they had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; been validly published for the first time on that date, the existing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; types being retained (but see Rule 24b).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Note 1.* Names of bacteria in the various taxonomic categories validly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; published up to 31 December 1977 will be assessed by the Judicial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Commission with the assistance of taxonomic experts. Lists of names&#xD;&#xA;&gt; will be prepared together with the names of the authors who originally&#xD;&#xA;&gt; proposed the names. When approved by the ICSB these Approved Lists of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bacterial Names will be published in the IJSB before 1 January 1980.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Names validly published under this Code between 1 January 1978 and 1&#xD;&#xA;&gt; January 1980 will be added to the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; After 1 January 1980, no further names will be added to the lists.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Those names validly published prior to 1 January 1980 but not included&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the approved lists will have no further standing in nomenclature.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They will not be added to the lists of *nomina rejicienda* and will&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thus be available for reuse for the naming of new taxa.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Approved Lists of Bacterial Names will contain for each name a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reference to an effectively published description and the type&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whenever possible. In the case of species or subspecies, if a type&#xD;&#xA;&gt; strain is available, it will be listed by its designation, and the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; culture collection(s) from which it may be obtained will be indicated.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If such a strain is not available, a reference strain or reference&#xD;&#xA;&gt; material will be listed if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Note 2.* These approved lists may contain more than one name attached to the same type (**objective synonyms**) since the names on the lists&#xD;&#xA;&gt; will represent those names which are considered reasonable in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; present state of bacteriological nomenclature and taxonomy and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; represent the views of many bacteriologists who may hold different&#xD;&#xA;&gt; taxonomic opinions.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Note 3.* Synonyms may be **objective synonyms**, i.e., more than one name has been associated with the same type, or **subjective synonyms**, i.e.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different names have been associated with different types that in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; opinion of the bacteriologist concerned belong to the same taxon. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; synonym first published is known as the **senior synonym**, and later&#xD;&#xA;&gt; synonyms are known as **junior synonyms**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Publication of **objective synonyms** in the lists does not affect&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bacterial nomenclature any more than does the valid publication of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; objective synonyms in different works in the bacteriological&#xD;&#xA;&gt; literature at present.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Examples: **Objective synonyms**–*Nocardia rhodochrous* and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Mycobacterium rhodochrous*. **Subjective synonyms**–Luedemann (IJSB [1971] **21**:240–247) regards *Micromonospora fusca* Jensen 1932 as a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; subjective synonym of *Micromonospora purpureochromogenes* (Waksman&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and Curtis 1916) Luedemann 1971. These two species have different&#xD;&#xA;&gt; types.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Rule 24b**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If two names compete for priority and if both names date from 1&#xD;&#xA;&gt; January 1980 on an approved list, the priority shall be determined by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the date of the original publication of the name before 1 January&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1980.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see from Rule 24a and its examples, the Bacteriological Code in effect at the time of the priority date of the patent was able to accommodate multiple taxonomic opinions, even in cases where the type [strains] of the species were not identical (different organisms) via **subjective synonyms**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we examine the Approved Lists (1976, 1978, 1979, 1980, and the 1989 Amended List), we find that *Bacillus coagulans* Hammer 1915 was included on the Approved Lists, and the type strain ATCC® 7050™ (=NRS 609 =NCIB 9365 =NCTC 10334) was isolated and originally described in 1915:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hammer B. W. Bacteriological studies on the coagulation of evaporated milk. *Iowa Agr Exp Sta Res Bull* 1915; **19**:119–131.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We now have a type strain and a published description of *Bacillus coagulans* that is consistent in the context of both December 30, 1977 and April 2, 1976.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we will find that “Lactobacillus thermophilus” is absent from the Approved Lists. This means that the authors of the Approved Lists were unable to establish a type strain and authoritative description of the species.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, we could scour the historical literature to establish a definition (description) of “Lactobacillus thermophilus” as it would have been interpreted on December 30, 1977 and/or April 2, 1976. Or, we could make the assumption that since the authors of the Approved Lists (ones skilled in the art) were not able to find an appropriate assertion of authority for the name, that one did not exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, we can also come to the conclusion that in 1976 or 1977, interpreting the names cited in the patent in light of Rule 24a of the *Bacteriological Code (1975 Revision)* would lead one skilled in the art [of microbiology] to come to the conclusion that the inventors of the patent are establishing an (or referring to an earlier) **objective synonym** or **subjective synonym** between “Lactobacillus thermophilus” and *Bacillus coagulans*. Indeed, we see in the patent a non-patent reference to *Fundamentals of Microbiology, 8th Ed.*, 1968 (pp. 394–396). Note the typos in the author and publisher names (“Frebisher” vs. Frobisher, “Sanders” vs. Saunders).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above reference may establish a synonym between these two species. That is one text that I do not have on hand at the moment, but I will attempt to verify it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In line with our (assumed) contemporary definition of “Lactobacillis thermophilus” the specification of the patent states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Among the lactic bacilli, i.e. the lactic acid-producing bacilli contemplated in the present invention, there exists so many strains which generate spores in the natural world that they hitherto have been known as *Lactobacillis thermophilus*. However, as pointed out above, microorganisms which generate spores should either be classified as *Bacillus* or *Clostridium* and the name of *Lactobacillus* is technically improper. Indeed, recent studies have led the scientific world to abandon the term *Lactobacillus thermophilus* and to more properly name it *Bacillus coagulans*. Accordingly, while the term *Lactobacillus thermophilus* and *Bacillus coagulans* may in some cases be used interchangably [*sic*] throughout the instant specification, it should be understood that the latter is the more technically correct nomenclature in connection with the understanding of such microorganisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This gives us a fairly unambiguous definition of “Lactobacillis thermophilus”, and although we still do not have an authoritative reference for a circumscription of the specific set of strains, we can use the qualifier “microorganisms which generate spores”. This definition, however, may be interpreted as overly broad by one skilled in the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, assuming that we have suitable definitions for these species in their contemporary context, we can begin to interpret the claims of the patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is claimed is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A product of a dry material consisting essentially of a major amount of milk powder and a minor amount of the spores of a *Bacillus coagulans* having highly thermobiotic characteristics, the bacillus having characteristics such that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (a) the spores are able to exist in boiling water at 100° C. for more than two minutes;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (b) the spores have the capacity to generate germ cells in a period no longer than five hours;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (c) the germ cells have the capacity such that lactic acid fermentation occurs rapidly within four hours at about 50° C.;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (d) the germ cells have characteristics such that the coagulation of milk occurs in a period no longer than five hours after the germ cells are formed;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (e) the germ cells have the capacity to produce lactic acid in the final medium in a concentration more than 0.8%, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (f) the germ cells have the capacity to produce a final pH in the culture medium of a fermentation process of below 4.0.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A product of a dry material according to claim 1, wherein the spores of the *Bacillus coagulans* are the spores of *Bacillus* EC-1, Species No. 2,930.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A product of a dry material according to claim 1, wherein the germ cells of the *Bacillus coagulans* have the capacity to effect lactic acid fermentation within about three hours.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. A method of producing yogurt comprising adding boiling water to the material of claim 1 and permitting the resulting composition to ferment.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. A method according to claim 4, wherein after the addition of the boiling water, the resulting composition is permitted to ferment at a temperature of 40°–55° C. for about seven hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one independent claim (Claim 1), which establishes the identity of organisms based on their characteristics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 2 refers to a specific isolated strain of *Bacillus*, which would be unambiguous if it were possible to determine where that strain was preserved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the specification:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An example of such bacteria used in the present invention is EC-1 bacterium, (Species No. 2,930), which species has been deposited at the Fermentation Institute of Japan, which is a public depository located at No. 8-1, Inage Higashi 5-chome, Chiba City, Chiba Prefecture, Japan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Great, so now we know where the EC-1 strain is held. Unfortunately, the deposit was made at the *Fermentation Institute of Japan* prior to the [*Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure*][5] (April 28, 1977), which went into effect May 1, 1981.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it turns out, there doesn’t seem to be a “Fermentation Institute of Japan”. This is likely a translation artifact of Institute for Fermentation [IFO] (Osaka, Japan), which will lead to another dead-end since that collection was [terminated years ago][6] and merged with the [National Institute of Technology and Evaluation Biological Resource Center][7] (NBRC). Although this collection allows search via IFO accession, a search on 2930 (IFO 2930) turns up no results. The accession is therefore a dead end, and the EC-1 strain may be considered to be unavailable. The loss of this strain likely occurred during the transition from IFO to NBRC under the Budapest Treaty (which would apply to 16 of the 17 years of the patent grant), but this would be difficult to verify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An article from 2005 offers some additional perspective on [*The preparation of the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names*][8]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I was responsible for suggesting the basic document to work from, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compiling names from this. This was the 8th edition of *Bergey’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Manual of Determinative Bacteriology* (Buchanan &amp; Gibbons, 1974),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; because it covered all bacteria, contained good descriptions and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; usually listed type strains. It was felt that this volume contained&#xD;&#xA;&gt; most of the secure information on names of bacteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, in *Bergey’s Manual of Determiniative Bacteriology, 8th ed.* we find the following statement (p 577):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The following, included in *The Manual*, 7th ed., are here excluded&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from *Lactobacillus*:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2. ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  3. **Strains whose descriptions are consistent with the original description of *L. thermophilus* Ayers and Johnson 1924, 291 produce&#xD;&#xA;&gt; endospores, catalase and cytochromes that are probably very similar,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if not identical, to *Bacillus coagulans* (Sharpe, 1962; Kitahara and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suzuki, 1963).**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  4. ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now we have an appropriate link to the historical literature. From *Bergey’s Manual of Determiniative Bacteriology, 7th ed.*, p 547:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Lactobacillus thermophilus* Ayers and Johnson, 1924. (*Jour. Bact.*, 9, 1924, 291.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ther.mo'phi.lus. Gr. noun *therme* heat; Gr. adj. *philus* loving;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M.L. adj. *thermophilus* heat-loving.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Description of Ayers and Johnson supplemented from Charlton (*Jour.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dairy Sci.*, *15*, 1932, 393).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rods 0.5 by 3.0 microns. Non-motile (Charlton). Stain irregularly.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gran-positive.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gelatin stab: No liquefaction.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Agar plate: Small colonies.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Agar slant: Slight, translucent growth (Charlkton).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Broth: Turbid (Charlton).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Litmus milk: Acid.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Acid from glucose, lactose, sucrose, starch and trace from glycerol;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; no acid from salicin, mannitol, raffinose or inulin (Ayers and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Johnson). Acid from fructose, galactose, mannose, maltose, raffinose&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and dextrin; no acid from arabinose, xylose, glycerol, rhamnose,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; salicin, inulin or mannitol. Dextro rotatory lactic acid formed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Charlton).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nitrites not produced from nitrates (Charlton).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Facultatively anaerobic. Grows best aerobically.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Temperature relations: Optimum, between 50° and 62.8° C. Minimum, 30°&#xD;&#xA;&gt; C. Maximum, 65° C. Thermal death point, 71° C. for 30 minutes or 82°&#xD;&#xA;&gt; C. for 2½ minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is the thermophilic lactobacillus obtained from pasteurized milk&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which causes pin-point colonies on agar plates.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Source: Isolated from pasteurized milk.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Habitat: Known only from pasteurized milk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, I believe that your assertion that the two names should not be conflated is incorrect, but there are some deeper issues with this particular patent that cover multiple legal and scientific codes. Unfortunately, my investigation into these problems has run in to multiple dead-ends regarding the availability of documentation at the USPTO and the culture collections. This patent is a great example (the best I have seen yet) of a patent system, scientific field and political sphere in a state of transition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope that I have addressed your question. If not, please let me know and I will be happy to expand on this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other References Cited**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lapage S. P., Sneath P. H. A., Lessel E. F., Skerman V. B. D., Seeliger H. P. R. and Clark W. A. (editors) (1975). *International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria.* Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Fundamentals of Microbiology, 8th Ed.* Frobisher M., Hinsdill R., Crabtree K. T. and Goodheart C. R. (editors). W. B. Saunders, Co., London, 1968 (pp. 394–396).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sneath P. H. A. (2005). [The preparation of the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names][8]. *Int J Syst Evol Microbiol* **55**(6):2247–2249.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Buchanan, R. E.&amp; Gibbons, N. R. (editors) (1974). *Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Bacteriology, 8th edn.* Baltimore: Williams &amp; Wilkins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://icsp.org&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-26-4-563&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/notifications/budapest/treaty_budapest_15.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://home.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/hut/abbreviation.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.nbrc.nite.go.jp/NBRC2/NBRCDispSearchServlet?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.64137-0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13396" RevisionGUID="9bf6083b-e2c4-49c2-83de-52df430af461" CreationDate="2015-08-17T23:36:00.190" UserId="14417" Comment="Added wiki content (source: wikipedia)." Text="*Pro se* legal representation comes from Latin, literally meaning “on behalf of themselves”, which basically means advocating on one’s own behalf in a legal proceeding, rather than being represented by a lawyer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32229" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13396" RevisionGUID="9bf6083b-e2c4-49c2-83de-52df430af461" CreationDate="2015-08-17T23:36:00.190" Comment="Proposed by 14417 approved by 1 edit id of 1864" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13397" RevisionGUID="24d2cde2-c993-411a-918b-3936219bfeab" CreationDate="2015-08-17T23:36:05.823" UserId="14417" Comment="Added wiki content (source: wikipedia)." Text="For questions involving an individual filing on their own behalf." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32231" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13397" RevisionGUID="24d2cde2-c993-411a-918b-3936219bfeab" CreationDate="2015-08-17T23:36:05.823" Comment="Proposed by 14417 approved by 1 edit id of 1863" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32233" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="13217" RevisionGUID="8b0cba82-ae9f-4eb0-974a-88fed7539bab" CreationDate="2015-08-18T04:05:51.757" UserId="14417" Comment="31" />
  <row Id="32246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13408" RevisionGUID="b51297ff-ebd6-46ee-b101-44b1a922e98b" CreationDate="2015-08-18T21:43:31.250" UserId="14812" Text="www.google.com/.../US27687...&#xD;&#xA;Grant - ‎Filed Feb 27, 1953 - ‎Issued Oct 30, 1956 - ‎Vern L Boven - ‎Gibson Homans Company&#xD;&#xA;Oct. 30, 1956 N. M. CORNELL ET A l, L 2,768,768. CALKING GUN Filed Feb. 27, 1953 a sheets-sheet 1 2 &quot;n u 7N C\l (2 LL Q O o Ll- N so N o N L In N gl, N w.&#xD;&#xA;‎&#xD;&#xA;My late father, Vern L Boven, is shown on this patent for the caulking gun. Does this mean that he was the inventor? If so, did he receive any compensation (or is anything possibly due to his family) for his invention?  Is there a way for me to research this? Thank you. Bette Boven Ebel&#xD;&#xA;bette.ebel@gmail.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32247" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13408" RevisionGUID="b51297ff-ebd6-46ee-b101-44b1a922e98b" CreationDate="2015-08-18T21:43:31.250" UserId="14812" Text="My father's invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32248" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13408" RevisionGUID="b51297ff-ebd6-46ee-b101-44b1a922e98b" CreationDate="2015-08-18T21:43:31.250" UserId="14812" Text="&lt;inventor&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13408" RevisionGUID="a2038626-2140-4478-8c20-7b9eb9ba9eb5" CreationDate="2015-08-18T22:18:20.140" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected OCR errors, improved tagging and formatting." Text="In reference to patent: [US 2,768,768 A][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My late father, Vern L. Boven, is shown on this patent for the caulking gun from 1953. Does this mean that he was the inventor? If so, did he receive any compensation (or is anything possibly due to his family) for his invention? Is there any way for me to research this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US2768768" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32250" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13408" RevisionGUID="a2038626-2140-4478-8c20-7b9eb9ba9eb5" CreationDate="2015-08-18T22:18:20.140" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected OCR errors, improved tagging and formatting." Text="Information regarding my father’s invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32251" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13408" RevisionGUID="a2038626-2140-4478-8c20-7b9eb9ba9eb5" CreationDate="2015-08-18T22:18:20.140" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected OCR errors, improved tagging and formatting." Text="&lt;expired-patent&gt;&lt;inventor&gt;&lt;us2768768&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13409" RevisionGUID="0feb0a6f-1947-4b82-8080-ce60229a7dd4" CreationDate="2015-08-18T22:53:07.263" UserId="14417" Text="Yes, your father is one of the inventors, if he is the same Vern L. Boven of Miami, Florida:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Norman M. Cornell, Shaker Heights; Ohio, and Harold M. Gulick and Vern L. Boven, Miami, Fla., assignors to the Gibson Homan’s Company, Cleveland, Ohio, a corporation of Ohio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent would have expired on October 30, 1973, so it is now in the public domain and available for anyone to manufacture and sell without licensing the invention. I am really reaching for a suitable answer because patent law and practices have changed dramatically in the past 62 years. Someone else might be able to add more detail to this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Corporate policy varies somewhat, but in general when an employee of a company invents something patentable, the company provides some amount of compensation (e.g., in the form of a bonus) if the grant issues. Sometimes, a company will enter into an agreement with the employee for a percentage of royalties on sales and licensing of the patent. However, this is not always a large amount (for instance, many companies will pay the sum of [One Dollar for the assignment of a patent][1]; I have accepted this once before as well, it makes it a valid legal transaction with an auditable paper trail).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since your father and the other co-inventors assigned the patent to the Gibson Hohman’s Company, there would have been some financial arrangement between them. However, this information is not subject to public disclosure. You may be able to contact the company and see if they would be willing to work with you on providing some information, but I would not expect much, especially since their financial obligations regarding the patent were to your father (not the family) and have been over for nearly 42 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=adee4289-3253-4ef1-b53d-c3dd31e3fd4b" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32253" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13399" RevisionGUID="ac4195d6-34e1-4b29-88fb-6f6b81e26687" CreationDate="2015-08-19T02:18:43.677" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;websites&gt;&lt;freedom-to-operate&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13411" RevisionGUID="7e5afe79-6b38-4b21-b395-68f1d8c236bf" CreationDate="2015-08-19T14:12:54.950" UserId="14817" Text="As of lately, I've noticed quite an increase in software algorithm patents, that is: patents that explain certain datastructures and/or software algorithms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem I personally have with patents is that a lof of those patents reflect (in my personal opinion) pretty trivial solutions to common problems (in that certain area of expertise). Now, regardless of my personal feelings, I'm not looking for a lawsuit of any sorts, so I prefer avoiding patent claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make this statement a bit more concrete: say you're building a small database system for some reason. Because CPU's are better at processing vectors than individual rows of data, you decide to store data in columns - after all, it's the trivial solution for my problem. Well, guess what, that is apparently patented in US20080059492 .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is the patent for calculating an absolute value without branching. After a bit of fiddling in Excel with bits you find the formula `const int mask = v &gt;&gt; sizeof(int) * 8 - 1; r = (v ^ mask) - mask;`. As it turns out, this is apparently patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that these are just some random examples; I've read dozens of patents that I think are pretty obvious solutions to common problems (given that you are an expert in the field). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This made me worry. Each time I implement an algorithm that trivially sounds feels like it solves the problem at hand, you might inadversively create a patent claim. I'm not worried about the patents I know about or that I can reasonably search -- I'm mostly worried about the patents that *I don't know about*. I really feel like I could be making 'logical' decisions like this a thousand times a day - but in truth, I have absolutely no idea what possible patent infringements are buried in these hundred thousands lines of code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I've been questioning myself if this is the right place for this question -- and read [on-topic][1]. If however, I've got it wrong, please explain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: **How can I implement software, knowing that I'm walking in a huge minefield of trivial patents, but unsure where these mines are buried?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I'm not asking about specific patents, I'm mostly looking for a practical way-of-work regarding patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32258" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13411" RevisionGUID="7e5afe79-6b38-4b21-b395-68f1d8c236bf" CreationDate="2015-08-19T14:12:54.950" UserId="14817" Text="How to build software if you're unaware of which parts can contain potential patent infringements" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32259" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13411" RevisionGUID="7e5afe79-6b38-4b21-b395-68f1d8c236bf" CreationDate="2015-08-19T14:12:54.950" UserId="14817" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13412" RevisionGUID="b72ed167-1a59-4629-ae3e-7b9fab5087c4" CreationDate="2015-08-19T16:12:15.037" UserId="11394" Text="1) I think that the company may be looking out for their own interests. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I say this because you led their list of reasons to proceed with (1) the invention is only made in the UK, and (2) it's not already patented - those are not valid reasons to proceed. The last reason, they can improve the invention (i.e., design around the prior art), is the only valid reason to proceed and seems almost like an afterthought. 35 U.S.C. 102(a) gives conditions for patentability with respect to novelty and the prior art, and you are not entitled to a patent if the claimed invention is described in a printed publication, in public use, on sale, or otherwise already available to the public. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) If you're unsure whether the UK product is the same as yours, the invention development company should be able to tell you what they think you could claim as your invention, and what the difference is between your claimed invention and the UK product. New inventors frequently do not realize how subtle a difference can be and still distinguish over the prior art. You would have to decide whether this difference is worth pursuing in a patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I doubt the invention development company will do this for free. I wouldn't - it's more work than most people realize. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) For the invention development company to really tell you whether you should proceed, you should get a prior art search done. The company has no way of knowing whether your idea is patentable without searching the prior art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without the prior art search, you're really just hoping that no one else has had your idea already. A full patent application costs much more than the basic prior art search; you have to decide whether do an art search. Since a simple Google search turned up a similar product, I would be reluctant to proceed without any prior art search, but that's your call. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A full patentability analysis is expensive; I doubt you are willing to pay the company to do such a thing. So, what you usually get (for a &quot;knock-out&quot; prior art search costing $500 to $1000) is a survey of the state of the art to give you an idea of what's out there - this will not be a guarantee that your invention doesn't exist already. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you can do a prior art search yourself. First, I would read a book like &quot;Patent It Yourself&quot; by David Pressman, and then do some digging to see what you can find out there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any way you do the search, the invention development company will not study the prior art and advise you for free. Even if they contract out the art search (which almost all firms do), reviewing the results is time consuming. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) Be wary if your invention development company only prepares provisional applications. A provisional patent application is *not* a patent application and will never become a patent - it automatically dies after a year and it confers no patent rights per se. You will have to file a non-provisional patent application claiming priority to the provisional patent application to actually try to get a patent. I don't trust provisional-patent-only firms - I think many are shady and trying to take advantage of the little guys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I advise all independent inventors to read books like &quot;Patent It Yourself&quot; by David Pressman in order to orient yourself to the patent process. You can probably get understandable patent books from your local library. It is quite easy to pay a lot of money for a worthless patent; a knowledgeable inventor will get much more value for his or her money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aldo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12486" RevisionGUID="05995d99-738f-455f-a44c-34c79ece27e6" CreationDate="2015-08-20T02:20:29.803" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and title." Text="In reference to the patent: [WO 2013/153173 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013153173A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where can I find illustrations for this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32272" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12486" RevisionGUID="05995d99-738f-455f-a44c-34c79ece27e6" CreationDate="2015-08-20T02:20:29.803" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and title." Text="Missing illustrations in WIPO patent application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32273" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12486" RevisionGUID="05995d99-738f-455f-a44c-34c79ece27e6" CreationDate="2015-08-20T02:20:29.803" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and title." Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;google-patents&gt;&lt;wipo&gt;&lt;patent-figures&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13415" RevisionGUID="81fa09a9-3430-4dfe-8253-efd651504801" CreationDate="2015-08-20T02:25:09.093" UserId="14417" Text="You can follow the link from Google to [Espacenet][1], then click on [EP Register][2], click on [All Documents][3] and select (and click &quot;Download Documents&quot;) the &quot;International publication of the A1 Pamphlet&quot; to get the full WIPO patent application with figures (or select the &quot;Priority document (electronically transmitted)&quot; to get the original German application).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/url?id=b4vYCAABERAJ&amp;q=http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio%3FCC%3DWO%26NR%3D2013153173A1%26KC%3DA1%26FT%3DD&amp;usg=AFQjCNEnxuwS_prHOHztulTi6jR4X9XZOw&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://register.epo.org/espacenet/regviewer?CY=EP&amp;DB=REG&amp;LG=en&amp;PN=WO2013153173&amp;locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP13719760&amp;lng=en&amp;tab=doclist" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13416" RevisionGUID="8f9d4a1c-0623-410d-8ec2-7fe222ef9b18" CreationDate="2015-08-20T06:25:40.767" UserId="11717" Text="More explicitly you can sell in UK provided you manufacture the product in any country (including UK) where there is no patent protection.&#xD;&#xA;You cannot make in US for sale to UK!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13418" RevisionGUID="9c3d149d-ed65-4027-a9ce-abc36031a438" CreationDate="2015-08-20T13:43:28.553" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="I developed some Python and Java clients that perform the following tasks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - querying the EPO OPS service with a list of several queries in order to get the broadest results set for a given subject matter (it gets an average of 2000 / 4000 results for main subjects like 3d printing, etc);&#xD;&#xA; - collecting, for each of the previous results, bibliographic data, abstract, claims and description (if available) from the EPO OPS and saving them to local file system (XML files);&#xD;&#xA; - for USPTO documents in the results set locating the right zipped file from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Bulk Data Downloads, unzipping it and splitting the huge XML file to get the required document and save it to local file system (XML file);&#xD;&#xA; - extracting text from the previous saved xml files;&#xD;&#xA; - searching through all the saved documents with Apache Lucene with queries of any complexity (all the queries that can be made with Lucene operators);&#xD;&#xA; - displaying the results in html files that can be opened with a browser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm considering the idea of releasing the above described pieces of software under an open source license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would somebody being interested in downloading and using it? If not, why? Please, any critic/suggestion is welcomed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32283" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13418" RevisionGUID="9c3d149d-ed65-4027-a9ce-abc36031a438" CreationDate="2015-08-20T13:43:28.553" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="Would be an open source EPO OPS client interesting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32284" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13418" RevisionGUID="9c3d149d-ed65-4027-a9ce-abc36031a438" CreationDate="2015-08-20T13:43:28.553" UserDisplayName="user8305" Text="&lt;patent-search&gt;&lt;opensource&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32285" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13418" RevisionGUID="bd89f534-9cfe-46d7-b0df-e73857712311" CreationDate="2015-08-20T18:52:26.710" UserDisplayName="user8305" Comment="edited title" Text="Anybody interested in an open source EPO OPS client for patent search?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13421" RevisionGUID="8bb95e2a-0c11-4390-b3d7-a434b7cb27b1" CreationDate="2015-08-21T09:53:31.950" UserId="14817" Text="There are a lot of misconceptions about search, so let me explain it a bit. As a practitioner in the field since 1999, having a master degree in this specific area and actually building commercial search engines for a living, I think I know what I'm talking about. I'll tell a bit about search and a bit on patent search in particular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main reason I write this down because I think this can help people to better understand how search engines do their job and what (and what not) to expect from them, thereby making your work wrt. patents easier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First off, search is about humans finding information in text. Note that there are two 'unstructured' pieces of information in there: text and humans (or more precise: user intentions). Search is not something to take lightly; most universities that have Computer Science also have an 'Information retrieval' specialization, which is basically what &quot;search&quot; is. Moreover, there's a ton of research going on in the field of search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bit of history**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Search originated from databases. Databases make simple 'if it matches it's a result, if it doesn't match it's not a result' decisions. However, text databases grew to be much larger than structured databases, so this quickly became a problem. To narrow down this problem, the first search engines were boolean search engines, which basically means that you can create expressions that narrow down the number of results considerably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Around 1965 a lot of things were going on with computers. Millions of dollars were invested to make computers understand text, which led to f.ex. the Brown Corpus and most fundamental things we know about language (like Zipf curves) nowadays. Around this time, it was Karen Sparck Jones that first realized how 'term frequency' and the 'inverse document frequency' (the number of documents that contain a word) relate to how 'important' a word is given a certain a document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This realization gave rise to a new type of search engines, called ranking search engines. Basically ranking search engines mimick the way a human deems a 'document' relevant given a 'search query'. Instead of narrowing down search results, the engine attempts to score the most relevant documents on top. Also, we nowadays work with much more sophisticated language models than the tf.idf model from Karen Sparck Jones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, at this point you also have to realize that this doesn't even have to mean that a word is in the document for the document to be relevant. In fact, it's quite the opposite; for example: academic studies have shown that OR queries perform better than AND queries, especially for tasks like *patent search*. And if we're really academically, we can even state that *all* documents are in some way relevant for *any given search query* (most just have a very low score). Techniques like 'query expansion' literally add more information to your search query based on the internal language models.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Unstructured humans**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far I've just discussed ways how document matches can be improved by using statistics. However, I started with the notion that humans are also 'unstructured' (- or perhaps a better word would be: 'inprecise'). One thing that's particularly difficult is that humans express only a tiny bit of information of what they really mean in their search query. The rest of the information is part of the context or hidden, and therefore (both implicitly or explicitly) left unspecified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To solve this, tools like Collaborative filtering and the Page Rank model from Larry Page uses a sort-of democratic election model for search. The idea is that if more people find something relevant, that's more likely what you're looking for. Practically all web search engines, things like Amazon recommendations, etc are based on this idea (NOTE: I'm not talking about Google Patent Search!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as you might also realize at this point, there's a huge gap here between *patent search* and *'normal' search*: in patent search there's no 'democracy' involved, you just want to do 'known item retrieval' or finding 'relevant patents', regardless of how many times it's linked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Relevance formalized**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of research is done on building proper relevance models. Because of all the uncertainties that are part of the core problem of search that I've just explained, evaluation of systems is also something that has been (and still is) thorougly researched.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not going into the details here (it would simply take way too much time); if you're interested search for 'IR evaluation' or if you're specifically interested in patent search evaluation, there's the 'TREC-CHEM' task aimed at patent search in chemistry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just a (very) brief explanation of the relevant info; I'm just skipping over the evaluation metrices like BPREF and MAP here... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically tasks are set up like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Given a large collection of documents;&#xD;&#xA;- And given a few retrieval tasks;&#xD;&#xA;- Let a room of experts decide which documents are relevant and which ones are not&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is a lot (and a lot and a lot...) of work. The fact that there is a TREC on patent search also means that there's a LOT of both academic and commercial research going on on this subject. SIGIR is the place to look for academic research; as for commercial applications, I'm sure there are companies out there with some very smart guys that do this all day long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that we have this 'ground truth', we can evaluate search engines by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Giving them the same task;&#xD;&#xA;- Figuring out how the search results score w.r.t. the human evaluations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically a search engine works better if it produces _early_ results that match relevant documents. We call this 'precision at N' where N is f.ex. 5, 10 or 100. We also check the percentage of relevant content that we find, which is what we call 'recall'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, for _all search engines_, precision is relevant. We always check things like precision at 5,10,100, etc (p@5, p@10, ... in papers), but specifically in the case of *patent search* we also care a lot about *recall*. After all, missing a relevant patent might result in a claim, which makes it more important than in other areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A trade off for performance**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Search engines in closed (corporate) environments continuously struggle in a trade-off between performance of the system and relevance of the search results. Most search engines use a pretty basic statistical model for relevance, simply because they don't have the processing power to do do thorough in-depth analysis of the data. Using big volumes of data helps, because that evens out the noise you get from just having only a few documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, companies like Google and Microsoft have a enormous amount of processing power and data at their disposal, and they use these to do both in-depth analysis and create better models. The trade-off probably also exists there, but at a totally different scale. I have yet to see the first open source search engine that does similar things (personally I think it's simply not going to happen, but who knows). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Feedback on our approach**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First off: If it works for you, it's probably going to work for someone else. Don't let me hold you back on open sourcing it; if people pick it up, that's always nice, and since search is all about &quot;creating something that works&quot; -- who knows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then more to the subject. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I strongly believe that search is one subject that is best left to the 'real' experts. Search engines are among the most difficult pieces of technology out there, because they are designed to predict human evaluation. Slapping Lucene (or Elastic search) onto a problem will only get you so far. There's a reason universities provide a multi-year study on this very subject and I personally believe that just covers the basics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using search to get patent results, and then feeding that to your search engine, means you're going to ruin your language model. Lack of a proper language model means that your relevance scoring has no 'real' meaning anymore that can be reflected to human behavior. Recall how and why search engines calculate scores; what you're basically doing is throwing relevance away. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, the end result you describe is similar to a 'boolean search engine' that does an 'and' query between a topic (e.g. '3d printing') and combines that with the user query. A better approach would be to index everything, then do this query explicitly -- but really, the only way to know for sure how good it works, is to evaluate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this gave you some more insights into the world of search." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32297" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="13411" RevisionGUID="5c5e8a01-808a-498e-8a4f-9691ac6dc295" CreationDate="2015-08-21T21:58:37.200" UserId="14817" Comment="32" />
  <row Id="32298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13422" RevisionGUID="8fb8465b-8935-47c4-9595-fb0d7aacef9c" CreationDate="2015-08-21T23:59:56.250" UserId="14828" Text="What I'm trying to do is to use a technology or &quot;invention&quot; for my own invention. In other words I want to use that technology for my own purpose and invention to get completely different results. Additional information- the technology/invention was tried to be patented but was never granted. That was since a few years. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTION- Can I replicate the invention/technology if the patent was never granted and is still as &quot;application&quot;? I want to replicate it because the invention/technology does 2 things, and the invention was patented for one use, but it has many other implications, but in order to use those other implications I need the invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32299" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13422" RevisionGUID="8fb8465b-8935-47c4-9595-fb0d7aacef9c" CreationDate="2015-08-21T23:59:56.250" UserId="14828" Text="Can I use and invention that has not been granted a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32300" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13422" RevisionGUID="8fb8465b-8935-47c4-9595-fb0d7aacef9c" CreationDate="2015-08-21T23:59:56.250" UserId="14828" Text="&lt;invention&gt;&lt;tecnology&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13423" RevisionGUID="a3524c29-86e9-433b-bcf2-a7e68ec22e79" CreationDate="2015-08-22T00:05:45.370" UserId="14509" Text="The only thing that is important if you can claim your invention. It must have some novelty that was never mentioned before in any type of public way, and the specification you provide will allow someone to make it work according to your claim.&#xD;&#xA;The best way is to consult someone that knows how patents work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13424" RevisionGUID="dee212a3-0a8d-4ef4-bf71-be348d2432f6" CreationDate="2015-08-22T00:24:01.210" UserId="14509" Text="As starter, you can not avoid the risk of infringing a patent without checking any &quot;innovation&quot; potential. You might go over some &quot;old&quot; patents to find what is available. You might also look at some prior art. You may also try to patent your idea by creating an independent claim that uses part of potential infringement. &#xD;&#xA;To be safe you might need to confine yourself to known algorithms, &quot;nature driven&quot; ideas.&#xD;&#xA;Business is risky, so this is part of the risk." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13427" RevisionGUID="5d8440ee-24bd-4c69-8931-71a928e99882" CreationDate="2015-08-22T11:03:38.737" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13428" RevisionGUID="8e833349-bdfc-45d4-8e36-ab4844e1bd4b" CreationDate="2015-08-22T11:03:38.737" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13429" RevisionGUID="ea730dc3-6610-42f1-a0fb-d94e33378e10" CreationDate="2015-08-23T04:04:11.420" UserId="14836" Text="Is there any patent or copyright that would prevent someone from replicating the Tandy TRS-80 model 100 notebook computer for instance putting a raspberry pi inside of it and then selling it. It has been a very long time since this product was on the market...&#xD;&#xA;Example http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/08/surfing-the-internet-from-my-trs-80-model-100/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32320" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13429" RevisionGUID="ea730dc3-6610-42f1-a0fb-d94e33378e10" CreationDate="2015-08-23T04:04:11.420" UserId="14836" Text="Replicating Tandy TRS-80 model 100 notebook computer for-profit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32321" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13429" RevisionGUID="ea730dc3-6610-42f1-a0fb-d94e33378e10" CreationDate="2015-08-23T04:04:11.420" UserId="14836" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13411" RevisionGUID="f842a28c-8cba-4b25-a808-8c0e3db428d1" CreationDate="2015-08-23T11:52:19.400" UserId="14417" Comment="Fixed spelling and improved tagging." Text="As of lately, I've noticed quite an increase in software algorithm patents, that is: patents that explain certain data structures and/or software algorithms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem I personally have with patents is that a lot of those patents reflect (in my personal opinion) pretty trivial solutions to common problems (in that certain area of expertise). Now, regardless of my personal feelings, I'm not looking for a lawsuit of any sorts, so I prefer avoiding patent claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make this statement a bit more concrete: say you're building a small database system for some reason. Because CPU's are better at processing vectors than individual rows of data, you decide to store data in columns - after all, it's the trivial solution for my problem. Well, guess what, that is apparently patented in US20080059492 .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is the patent for calculating an absolute value without branching. After a bit of fiddling in Excel with bits you find the formula `const int mask = v &gt;&gt; sizeof(int) * 8 - 1; r = (v ^ mask) - mask;`. As it turns out, this is apparently patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that these are just some random examples; I've read dozens of patents that I think are pretty obvious solutions to common problems (given that you are an expert in the field). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This made me worry. Each time I implement an algorithm that trivially sounds feels like it solves the problem at hand, you might inadvertently create a patent claim. I'm not worried about the patents I know about or that I can reasonably search -- I'm mostly worried about the patents that *I don't know about*. I really feel like I could be making 'logical' decisions like this a thousand times a day - but in truth, I have absolutely no idea what possible patent infringements are buried in these hundred thousands lines of code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I've been questioning myself if this is the right place for this question -- and read [on-topic][1]. If however, I've got it wrong, please explain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: **How can I implement software, knowing that I'm walking in a huge minefield of trivial patents, but unsure where these mines are buried?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I'm not asking about specific patents, I'm mostly looking for a practical way-of-work regarding patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32323" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13411" RevisionGUID="f842a28c-8cba-4b25-a808-8c0e3db428d1" CreationDate="2015-08-23T11:52:19.400" UserId="14417" Comment="Fixed spelling and improved tagging." Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;freedom-to-operate&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13430" RevisionGUID="d233430b-cc8a-47fa-b111-2ad113dad781" CreationDate="2015-08-23T12:36:06.623" UserId="14417" Text="What you are looking for is Freedom-to-Operate. There are quite a few articles written on this subject, and most of them deal with the inherent difficulty you describe. I've stitched together some excerpts from those articles, hopefully into a coherent meta-article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crouch, D. [Facilitating Freedom-to-Operate Searches][1]. *Patently-O.* September 17, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A good freedom-to-operate (FTO) search will include a search of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pending patent applications with an eye toward potential future&#xD;&#xA;&gt; threats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quinn, G. [Difference Between Patent Searches &amp; Infringement Clearance.][2] *IP Watchdog.* January 21, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...it is impossible to determine whether [a] device would infringe&#xD;&#xA;&gt; without obtaining the complete file history of each patent that is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; close. You simply cannot tell from reading a patent whether a device&#xD;&#xA;&gt; will infringe. This is because everything in the file history, all the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; arguments made to the examiner and papers filed work to either narrow&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or expand the definition and meaning of terms in the patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sutton, P. [Patent-FTO caveats][3]. *World Intellectual Property Review.* January 2, 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is no substitute for retaining highly skilled and experienced&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent counsel to advise on the avoidance and mitigation of such&#xD;&#xA;&gt; risks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quinn, G. [Freedom to Operate: Knowing if you will likely infringe a patent.][4] *IP Watchdog.* June 27, 2015.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...the search for a freedom to operate opinion would alone cost at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least $3,000, and that would return dozens of references that a patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; attorney must wade through in painstaking detail. Typically a freedom&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to operate opinion will cost at least $10,000, and sometimes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; substantially more. It is not at all uncommon for a freedom to operate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; opinion to cost $20,000 or $30,000, or more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thayer, L. J. [When Is a &quot;Freedom to Operate&quot; Opinion Cost-Effective?][5] *Today’s General Counsel.* February/March 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As a first step, a company should consider the product or service&#xD;&#xA;&gt; being launched or acquired in terms of its value to the company.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Products with high margin or high volume are most likely to lead to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; high damage awards if a patent-infringement case goes to trial.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Therefore it will often be worth it to take the extra step and clear&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the product before proceeding. ... If a company has limited dollars&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to spend for clearance, products can at least be initially ranked in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terms of value.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... For products requiring less investment, FTO analysis may be deferred until nearer to the end of the project, but it should still be performed before release.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The danger of waiting until the product is fully developed lies in a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; simple fact: By then the business units will be champing at the bit to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; release the product, and an early release may result in litigation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that was avoidable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, what this boils down to is a risk assessment. If you are founding a startup, you might build this into the commercialization plan as a potential risk, and identify any parts of the code base that may need to be analyzed for freedom-to-operate. If/when the company is acquired or funded by VC, a proper freedom-to-operate search can be done at that time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a developer, you should be aware of a few basic guidelines: if you are using algorithms and methods that have been around for 17 to 20 years, then all patent claims should have expired by now. If you are using libraries or frameworks from Open Source or licensed commercial software, then those pieces should also be in the clear. What is left over is material that could be at risk for freedom-to-operate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patentlyo.com/patent/2010/09/in-the-past-three-months-us-patent-applicants-abandoned-36862-utility-patent-applications-during-that-same-periodthe-uspt.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/01/21/difference-between-patent-searches-infringement-clearance/id=8521/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.worldipreview.com/article/patent-fto-caveats&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/06/27/freedom-to-operate-knowing-if-you-will-likely-infringe-a-patent/id=59081/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=14c90ae5-514d-4473-9b8a-ce88ef9ae85a" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13430" RevisionGUID="31f67f72-2e29-4888-8bfd-5c5d4dacadf8" CreationDate="2015-08-23T12:43:18.490" UserId="14417" Comment="Added several paragraphs to more directly answer the question." Text="What you are looking for is Freedom-to-Operate. There are quite a few articles written on this subject, and most of them deal with the inherent difficulty you describe. I've stitched together some excerpts from those articles, hopefully into a coherent meta-article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crouch, D. [Facilitating Freedom-to-Operate Searches][1]. *Patently-O.* September 17, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A good freedom-to-operate (FTO) search will include a search of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pending patent applications with an eye toward potential future&#xD;&#xA;&gt; threats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quinn, G. [Difference Between Patent Searches &amp; Infringement Clearance.][2] *IP Watchdog.* January 21, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...it is impossible to determine whether [a] device would infringe&#xD;&#xA;&gt; without obtaining the complete file history of each patent that is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; close. You simply cannot tell from reading a patent whether a device&#xD;&#xA;&gt; will infringe. This is because everything in the file history, all the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; arguments made to the examiner and papers filed work to either narrow&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or expand the definition and meaning of terms in the patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sutton, P. [Patent-FTO caveats][3]. *World Intellectual Property Review.* January 2, 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is no substitute for retaining highly skilled and experienced&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent counsel to advise on the avoidance and mitigation of such&#xD;&#xA;&gt; risks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quinn, G. [Freedom to Operate: Knowing if you will likely infringe a patent.][4] *IP Watchdog.* June 27, 2015.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...the search for a freedom to operate opinion would alone cost at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least $3,000, and that would return dozens of references that a patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; attorney must wade through in painstaking detail. Typically a freedom&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to operate opinion will cost at least $10,000, and sometimes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; substantially more. It is not at all uncommon for a freedom to operate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; opinion to cost $20,000 or $30,000, or more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thayer, L. J. [When Is a &quot;Freedom to Operate&quot; Opinion Cost-Effective?][5] *Today’s General Counsel.* February/March 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As a first step, a company should consider the product or service&#xD;&#xA;&gt; being launched or acquired in terms of its value to the company.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Products with high margin or high volume are most likely to lead to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; high damage awards if a patent-infringement case goes to trial.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Therefore it will often be worth it to take the extra step and clear&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the product before proceeding. ... If a company has limited dollars&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to spend for clearance, products can at least be initially ranked in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terms of value.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... For products requiring less investment, FTO analysis may be deferred until nearer to the end of the project, but it should still be performed before release.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The danger of waiting until the product is fully developed lies in a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; simple fact: By then the business units will be champing at the bit to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; release the product, and an early release may result in litigation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that was avoidable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lundberg, S. [Are Software Patent FTO’s Really that Hard to Do?: Are Software Patents Impossible to Index, or is No One Trying?][6] *Patents4Software.* March 10, 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If software patents were a minefield for developers, the mines would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generally be at least 5 miles apart, making accidentally stepping on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one a very low probability occurrence.  If it is a patent on “internal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; functionality” that would not normally be discernible by observing the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; software operate or using it, the odds of the patent owner finding out&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you stepped on their mine are smaller yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, what this boils down to is a risk assessment. If you are founding a startup, you might build this into the commercialization plan as a potential risk, and identify any parts of the code base that may need to be analyzed for freedom-to-operate. If/when the company is acquired or funded by VC, a proper freedom-to-operate search can be done at that time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a developer, you should be aware of a few basic guidelines: if you are using algorithms and methods that have been around for 17 to 20 years, then all patent claims should have expired by now. If you are using libraries or frameworks from Open Source or licensed commercial software, then those pieces should also be in the clear. What is left over is material that could be at risk for freedom-to-operate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to adjust your software development approach to accommodate potential future-discovered freedom-to-operate issues, then make it as easy as possible to accommodate multiple methods of solving a problem wherever you find at-risk code. There is almost always more than one way to accomplish a task in software, and it is usually pretty easy to side-step patent claims by adjusting your approach, if it is ever required in the future. Accommodating multiple approaches is made far easier by adopting good software development practices, namely keep your code base clean, well-documented and modular (encapsulate code to make it easy to analyze in small pieces).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patentlyo.com/patent/2010/09/in-the-past-three-months-us-patent-applicants-abandoned-36862-utility-patent-applications-during-that-same-periodthe-uspt.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/01/21/difference-between-patent-searches-infringement-clearance/id=8521/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.worldipreview.com/article/patent-fto-caveats&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/06/27/freedom-to-operate-knowing-if-you-will-likely-infringe-a-patent/id=59081/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=14c90ae5-514d-4473-9b8a-ce88ef9ae85a&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.patents4software.com/2012/03/are-software-patents-really-impossible-to-index-or-is-no-one-trying/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13432" RevisionGUID="ce7718a9-32b5-4c92-9d20-8f06913a2a40" CreationDate="2015-08-23T13:35:25.803" UserId="14522" Text="PRIOR ART REQUEST:  Have you seen anything (published before  Sep 2, 1980) as described in this US Patent Application &quot;Optical position location apparatus &quot;&#xD;&#xA;US 4420261 A, that utilizes or describes either a optical scanner/stationary detector in conjunction with a scanner/stationary optical light?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32331" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13432" RevisionGUID="ce7718a9-32b5-4c92-9d20-8f06913a2a40" CreationDate="2015-08-23T13:35:25.803" UserId="14522" Text="First description or patent that: locate position by utilizings either a optical scanner/stationary detector with a scanner/stationary optical light?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32332" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13432" RevisionGUID="ce7718a9-32b5-4c92-9d20-8f06913a2a40" CreationDate="2015-08-23T13:35:25.803" UserId="14522" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13429" RevisionGUID="b9104219-e0a5-40f2-9aad-9d653ee8bda1" CreationDate="2015-08-23T16:10:59.267" UserId="14836" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="Is there any patent or copyright that would prevent someone from replicating the Tandy TRS-80 model 100 notebook computer for instance putting a raspberry pi inside of it and then selling it. It has been a very long time since this product was on the market... Over 20 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/08/surfing-the-internet-from-my-trs-80-model-100/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13429" RevisionGUID="5d9bb1b6-eb53-4911-b6d8-5ac91cdd98dd" CreationDate="2015-08-23T18:47:58.903" UserId="10011" Comment="Copyrights are not within our scope, sorry: http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic" Text="Are there any patents that would prevent someone from replicating the Tandy TRS-80 model 100 notebook computer, for instance putting a raspberry pi inside of it and then selling it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has been over 20 years since this product was on the market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example of someone doing something similar: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/08/surfing-the-internet-from-my-trs-80-model-100/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32341" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13429" RevisionGUID="5d9bb1b6-eb53-4911-b6d8-5ac91cdd98dd" CreationDate="2015-08-23T18:47:58.903" UserId="10011" Comment="Copyrights are not within our scope, sorry: http://patents.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;expiration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32342" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13432" RevisionGUID="fd2961b8-ae93-4b76-b872-ef6750aefa44" CreationDate="2015-08-23T18:53:27.887" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us4420261a&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13432" RevisionGUID="fd2961b8-ae93-4b76-b872-ef6750aefa44" CreationDate="2015-08-23T18:53:27.887" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="Have you seen anything (published before Sep 2, 1980) as described in this US Patent Application &quot;Optical position location apparatus&quot;&#xD;&#xA;US 4420261 A, that utilizes or describes either a optical scanner/stationary detector in conjunction with a scanner/stationary optical light?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32344" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13432" RevisionGUID="fd2961b8-ae93-4b76-b872-ef6750aefa44" CreationDate="2015-08-23T18:53:27.887" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="Prior art request for US4420261A" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13437" RevisionGUID="11e2f973-68bd-4f55-9a46-7a0f88ca8abf" CreationDate="2015-08-24T13:08:09.403" UserId="1" Text="There is no ***patent*** protecting putting hardware in another company's case and selling it, but you will almost certainly be violating someone's trademark. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trade dress is a legal term for the visual appearance of a product or packaging that conveys the source of the product itself. You are putting (for example) Raspberry Pi hardware inside the case of a Tandy model TRS-80 with a Radio Shack label. Somebody's going to have something to say about that business practice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13430" RevisionGUID="58842fac-b9d4-48cb-ae92-f26c9e2103c6" CreationDate="2015-08-24T14:45:04.710" UserId="14417" Comment="Added a reference to patent reform legislation." Text="What you are looking for is Freedom-to-Operate. There are quite a few articles written on this subject, and most of them deal with the inherent difficulty you describe. I've stitched together some excerpts from those articles, hopefully into a coherent meta-article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crouch, D. [Facilitating Freedom-to-Operate Searches][1]. *Patently-O.* September 17, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A good freedom-to-operate (FTO) search will include a search of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pending patent applications with an eye toward potential future&#xD;&#xA;&gt; threats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quinn, G. [Difference Between Patent Searches &amp; Infringement Clearance.][2] *IP Watchdog.* January 21, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...it is impossible to determine whether [a] device would infringe&#xD;&#xA;&gt; without obtaining the complete file history of each patent that is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; close. You simply cannot tell from reading a patent whether a device&#xD;&#xA;&gt; will infringe. This is because everything in the file history, all the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; arguments made to the examiner and papers filed work to either narrow&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or expand the definition and meaning of terms in the patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sutton, P. [Patent-FTO caveats][3]. *World Intellectual Property Review.* January 2, 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is no substitute for retaining highly skilled and experienced&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent counsel to advise on the avoidance and mitigation of such&#xD;&#xA;&gt; risks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quinn, G. [Freedom to Operate: Knowing if you will likely infringe a patent.][4] *IP Watchdog.* June 27, 2015.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...the search for a freedom to operate opinion would alone cost at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least $3,000, and that would return dozens of references that a patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; attorney must wade through in painstaking detail. Typically a freedom&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to operate opinion will cost at least $10,000, and sometimes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; substantially more. It is not at all uncommon for a freedom to operate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; opinion to cost $20,000 or $30,000, or more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thayer, L. J. [When Is a &quot;Freedom to Operate&quot; Opinion Cost-Effective?][5] *Today’s General Counsel.* February/March 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As a first step, a company should consider the product or service&#xD;&#xA;&gt; being launched or acquired in terms of its value to the company.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Products with high margin or high volume are most likely to lead to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; high damage awards if a patent-infringement case goes to trial.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Therefore it will often be worth it to take the extra step and clear&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the product before proceeding. ... If a company has limited dollars&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to spend for clearance, products can at least be initially ranked in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terms of value.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... For products requiring less investment, FTO analysis may be deferred until nearer to the end of the project, but it should still be performed before release.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The danger of waiting until the product is fully developed lies in a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; simple fact: By then the business units will be champing at the bit to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; release the product, and an early release may result in litigation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that was avoidable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lundberg, S. [Are Software Patent FTO’s Really that Hard to Do?: Are Software Patents Impossible to Index, or is No One Trying?][6] *Patents4Software.* March 10, 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If software patents were a minefield for developers, the mines would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generally be at least 5 miles apart, making accidentally stepping on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one a very low probability occurrence.  If it is a patent on “internal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; functionality” that would not normally be discernible by observing the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; software operate or using it, the odds of the patent owner finding out&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you stepped on their mine are smaller yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, what this boils down to is a risk assessment. If you are founding a startup, you might build this into the commercialization plan as a potential risk, and identify any parts of the code base that may need to be analyzed for freedom-to-operate. If/when the company is acquired or funded by VC, a proper freedom-to-operate search can be done at that time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a developer, you should be aware of a few basic guidelines: if you are using algorithms and methods that have been around for 17 to 20 years, then all patent claims should have expired by now. If you are using libraries or frameworks from Open Source or licensed commercial software, then those pieces should also be in the clear. What is left over is material that could be at risk for freedom-to-operate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to adjust your software development approach to accommodate potential future-discovered freedom-to-operate issues, then make it as easy as possible to accommodate multiple methods of solving a problem wherever you find at-risk code. There is almost always more than one way to accomplish a task in software, and it is usually pretty easy to side-step patent claims by adjusting your approach, if it is ever required in the future. Accommodating multiple approaches is made far easier by adopting good software development practices, namely keep your code base clean, well-documented and modular (encapsulate code to make it easy to analyze in small pieces).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is currently draft legislation on patent reform to address some of these issues. The Electronic Frontier Foundation keeps an [updated list of the proposed reforms][7], and many of them contain language to specifically protect startup companies against patent trolls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SHIELD Act (HR 6245)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Jason Chaffetz (D-UT)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The SHIELD Act, or the Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Legal Disputes Act ([H.R. 845][8]), is designed to help the innocent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; victims of patent trolls by creating a &quot;fee shifting&quot; system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patentlyo.com/patent/2010/09/in-the-past-three-months-us-patent-applicants-abandoned-36862-utility-patent-applications-during-that-same-periodthe-uspt.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/01/21/difference-between-patent-searches-infringement-clearance/id=8521/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.worldipreview.com/article/patent-fto-caveats&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/06/27/freedom-to-operate-knowing-if-you-will-likely-infringe-a-patent/id=59081/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=14c90ae5-514d-4473-9b8a-ce88ef9ae85a&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.patents4software.com/2012/03/are-software-patents-really-impossible-to-index-or-is-no-one-trying/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/issues/current-legislative-proposals-patent-reform&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.eff.org/document/shield-act" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13437" RevisionGUID="3ee38d61-125d-4a3a-bda1-9c6d7d1d2f37" CreationDate="2015-08-24T15:16:58.323" UserId="1" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="There is no ***patent*** protecting the process of putting hardware in another company's case and selling it, but you will almost certainly be violating someone's trademark. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trade dress is a legal term for the visual appearance of a product or packaging that conveys the source of the product itself. You are putting (for example) Raspberry Pi hardware inside the case of a Tandy model TRS-80 with a Radio Shack label; somebody's going to have something to say about it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13438" RevisionGUID="2aecad13-08de-4195-b965-971d598970b0" CreationDate="2015-08-25T01:15:55.920" UserId="14622" Text="Everything you are looking for is in Section 2701. Any prior application the grant is based on, whether it was a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part is taken into account for the priority date. No term adjustments or extensions are allowed on grants from applications filed prior to June 8, 1995. The only other bit of information you should look for is a reference to any terminal disclaimers, which can get more complex, since the date printed on the patent might not be correct. Fortunately, most of these patents are now expired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [2701 Patent Term \[R-11.2013\]][1] &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I. CONTINUING APPLICATIONS&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A patent granted on a continuation, divisional, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; continuation-in-part application that was filed on or after June 8,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1995, will have a term which ends twenty years from the filing date of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; earliest application for which a benefit is claimed under [35 U.S.C.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 120][2], [121][3], or [365(c)][4], regardless of whether the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application for which a benefit is claimed under [35 U.S.C. 120][2],&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [121][3], or [365(c)][4] was filed prior to June 8, 1995.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; VI.   PATENT TERM EXTENSIONS OR ADJUSTMENTS&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; See [MPEP § 2710][5] *et seq.* for patent term extensions or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adjustments for delays within the USPTO under [35 U.S.C. 154][6] for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; utility and plant patents issuing on applications filed on or after&#xD;&#xA;&gt; June 8, 1995. Patents that issue from applications filed before June&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8, 1995, are not eligible for patent term extension or patent term&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adjustment under [35 U.S.C. 154][6].&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; V. EXPIRATION DATE OF PATENTS WITH TERMINAL DISCLAIMERS &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Before June 8, 1995, the terminal disclaimer date was printed on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; face of the patent; the date was determined from the expected&#xD;&#xA;&gt; expiration date of the earlier issued patent based on a seventeen year&#xD;&#xA;&gt; term measured from grant. When [35 U.S.C. 154][6] was amended such that all&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patents (other than design patents) that were in force on June 8,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1995, or that issued on an application that was filed before June 8,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1995, have a term that is the greater of the “twenty year term” or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; seventeen years from the patent grant, the terminal disclaimer date as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; printed on many patents became incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2701.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-0010-title-page.html#d0e303023&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303040&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307034&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2710.html#d0e272205&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303482" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32353" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="13217" RevisionGUID="7a8a1654-a35c-43a2-bff4-babebfdeb53d" CreationDate="2015-08-25T01:18:13.137" UserId="14417" Comment="31" />
  <row Id="32359" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13428" RevisionGUID="d0630ea6-0f41-462a-ba44-65694d78ec24" CreationDate="2015-08-25T13:23:27.257" UserId="14417" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="This tag should be applied to questions involving divisional patent applications or patents granted from divisional applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32360" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13428" RevisionGUID="d0630ea6-0f41-462a-ba44-65694d78ec24" CreationDate="2015-08-25T13:23:27.257" Comment="Proposed by 14417 approved by 1 edit id of 1866" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13427" RevisionGUID="54baaadb-376d-4f8c-a2ea-fcbf25d49877" CreationDate="2015-08-25T13:23:40.163" UserId="14417" Comment="added 789 characters in body" Text="[MPEP 201.06 - Divisional Application][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A later application for a distinct or independent invention, carved out of a pending application and disclosing and claiming only subject matter disclosed in the earlier or parent application, is known as a divisional application or “division”. The divisional application should set forth the portion of the earlier disclosure that is germane to the invention as claimed in the divisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An application filed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) will have its term calculated from the date on which the earliest application was filed, provided a specific reference is made to the earlier filed application(s), 35 U.S.C. 154(a)(2) and (a)(3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s201.html#ch200_d1ff70_1e3be_230" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32362" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13427" RevisionGUID="54baaadb-376d-4f8c-a2ea-fcbf25d49877" CreationDate="2015-08-25T13:23:40.163" Comment="Proposed by 14417 approved by 1 edit id of 1865" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13430" RevisionGUID="e5e8601a-b43e-4207-8ec9-c6e013201f55" CreationDate="2015-08-25T16:15:17.507" UserId="14417" Comment="Added another reference." Text="What you are looking for is Freedom-to-Operate. There are quite a few articles written on this subject, and most of them deal with the inherent difficulty you describe. I've stitched together some excerpts from those articles, hopefully into a coherent meta-article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crouch, D. [Facilitating Freedom-to-Operate Searches][1]. *Patently-O.* September 17, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A good freedom-to-operate (FTO) search will include a search of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pending patent applications with an eye toward potential future&#xD;&#xA;&gt; threats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quinn, G. [Difference Between Patent Searches &amp; Infringement Clearance.][2] *IP Watchdog.* January 21, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...it is impossible to determine whether [a] device would infringe&#xD;&#xA;&gt; without obtaining the complete file history of each patent that is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; close. You simply cannot tell from reading a patent whether a device&#xD;&#xA;&gt; will infringe. This is because everything in the file history, all the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; arguments made to the examiner and papers filed work to either narrow&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or expand the definition and meaning of terms in the patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sutton, P. [Patent-FTO caveats][3]. *World Intellectual Property Review.* January 2, 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is no substitute for retaining highly skilled and experienced&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent counsel to advise on the avoidance and mitigation of such&#xD;&#xA;&gt; risks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quinn, G. [Freedom to Operate: Knowing if you will likely infringe a patent.][4] *IP Watchdog.* June 27, 2015.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...the search for a freedom to operate opinion would alone cost at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least $3,000, and that would return dozens of references that a patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; attorney must wade through in painstaking detail. Typically a freedom&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to operate opinion will cost at least $10,000, and sometimes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; substantially more. It is not at all uncommon for a freedom to operate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; opinion to cost $20,000 or $30,000, or more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thayer, L. J. [When Is a &quot;Freedom to Operate&quot; Opinion Cost-Effective?][5] *Today’s General Counsel.* February/March 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As a first step, a company should consider the product or service&#xD;&#xA;&gt; being launched or acquired in terms of its value to the company.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Products with high margin or high volume are most likely to lead to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; high damage awards if a patent-infringement case goes to trial.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Therefore it will often be worth it to take the extra step and clear&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the product before proceeding. ... If a company has limited dollars&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to spend for clearance, products can at least be initially ranked in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terms of value.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... For products requiring less investment, FTO analysis may be deferred until nearer to the end of the project, but it should still be performed before release.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The danger of waiting until the product is fully developed lies in a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; simple fact: By then the business units will be champing at the bit to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; release the product, and an early release may result in litigation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that was avoidable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lundberg, S. [Are Software Patent FTO’s Really that Hard to Do?: Are Software Patents Impossible to Index, or is No One Trying?][6] *Patents4Software.* March 10, 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If software patents were a minefield for developers, the mines would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generally be at least 5 miles apart, making accidentally stepping on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one a very low probability occurrence.  If it is a patent on “internal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; functionality” that would not normally be discernible by observing the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; software operate or using it, the odds of the patent owner finding out&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you stepped on their mine are smaller yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, what this boils down to is a risk assessment. If you are founding a startup, you might build this into the commercialization plan as a potential risk, and identify any parts of the code base that may need to be analyzed for freedom-to-operate. If/when the company is acquired or funded by VC, a proper freedom-to-operate search can be done at that time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a developer, you should be aware of a few basic guidelines: if you are using algorithms and methods that have been around for 17 to 20 years, then all patent claims should have expired by now. If you are using libraries or frameworks from Open Source or licensed commercial software, then those pieces should also be in the clear. What is left over is material that could be at risk for freedom-to-operate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to adjust your software development approach to accommodate potential future-discovered freedom-to-operate issues, then make it as easy as possible to accommodate multiple methods of solving a problem wherever you find at-risk code. There is almost always more than one way to accomplish a task in software, and it is usually pretty easy to side-step patent claims by adjusting your approach, if it is ever required in the future. Accommodating multiple approaches is made far easier by adopting good software development practices, namely keep your code base clean, well-documented and modular (encapsulate code to make it easy to analyze in small pieces).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is currently draft legislation on patent reform to address some of these issues. The Electronic Frontier Foundation keeps an [updated list of the proposed reforms][7], and many of them contain language to specifically protect startup companies against patent trolls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SHIELD Act (HR 6245)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Jason Chaffetz (D-UT)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The SHIELD Act, or the Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Legal Disputes Act ([H.R. 845][8]), is designed to help the innocent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; victims of patent trolls by creating a &quot;fee shifting&quot; system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put the current state of software patents in perspective, the following book (relevant pages available online) describe the historical decisions on software patents, including relatively recent changes from AIA:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Changing Face of US Patent Law and Its Impact on Business Strategy][9]. Cahoy, D.R. and Oswald, L.J., eds. *Edward Eglar*, United Kingdom, 2013; pp44-49.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patentlyo.com/patent/2010/09/in-the-past-three-months-us-patent-applicants-abandoned-36862-utility-patent-applications-during-that-same-periodthe-uspt.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/01/21/difference-between-patent-searches-infringement-clearance/id=8521/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.worldipreview.com/article/patent-fto-caveats&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/06/27/freedom-to-operate-knowing-if-you-will-likely-infringe-a-patent/id=59081/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=14c90ae5-514d-4473-9b8a-ce88ef9ae85a&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.patents4software.com/2012/03/are-software-patents-really-impossible-to-index-or-is-no-one-trying/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/issues/current-legislative-proposals-patent-reform&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.eff.org/document/shield-act&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://books.google.com/books?id=t3vG8-rBqPMC&amp;pg=PA44&amp;lpg=PA44&amp;dq=software%20patents%20Freedom-to-Operate&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=jFrpkRXW_v&amp;sig=8oxvGjae60TjYTqWq-wNzSt-i7M&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0CEYQ6AEwBzgKahUKEwil9vb1ysTHAhXHGpIKHQ6gD8I#v=onepage&amp;q=software%20patents%20Freedom-to-Operate&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13441" RevisionGUID="6bff2297-09af-4f44-bcd3-fbbd62999748" CreationDate="2015-08-25T16:33:53.120" UserId="14847" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20130233002][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130233002&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone explain to me exactly what part of this is patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32369" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13441" RevisionGUID="6bff2297-09af-4f44-bcd3-fbbd62999748" CreationDate="2015-08-25T16:33:53.120" UserId="14847" Text="Can someone explain to me exactly what part of this is patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32370" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13441" RevisionGUID="6bff2297-09af-4f44-bcd3-fbbd62999748" CreationDate="2015-08-25T16:33:53.120" UserId="14847" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13442" RevisionGUID="dc23207f-6c9d-4b41-ae38-2afbfdd9033a" CreationDate="2015-08-25T21:00:19.233" UserId="14848" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5858064][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5858064&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this patent has expired based on the priority date of August 22, 1995. Is that correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32372" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13442" RevisionGUID="dc23207f-6c9d-4b41-ae38-2afbfdd9033a" CreationDate="2015-08-25T21:00:19.233" UserId="14848" Text="Patent Expiration" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32373" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13442" RevisionGUID="dc23207f-6c9d-4b41-ae38-2afbfdd9033a" CreationDate="2015-08-25T21:00:19.233" UserId="14848" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13443" RevisionGUID="af652f28-1eb7-4d0d-a7a0-875cff5d5fa1" CreationDate="2015-08-25T21:17:08.630" UserId="11947" Text="I would assume that applications like you mentioned would be rejected by USPTO or, if patent granted, challenged in court. In particular US 20080059492 A1 you mentioned is an application, not a grant. I believe it won't be granted because according to USPTO it describes &quot;abstract idea&quot;, see http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/abstract_idea_examples.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32380" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3283" RevisionGUID="cdb41543-be36-4650-81b8-3f6f4a97f0dc" CreationDate="2015-08-26T11:43:22.003" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag." Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;us5720421&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32381" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5766" RevisionGUID="bb5f776c-f14b-47fa-a9ca-364cdaf592ce" CreationDate="2015-08-26T11:44:09.007" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag." Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;expired-patent&gt;&lt;maintenance&gt;&lt;public-domain&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13446" RevisionGUID="7d3ff195-db5d-4138-bb90-6214b325cf9d" CreationDate="2015-08-26T12:01:52.153" UserId="14417" Text="If you look in the Image File Wrapper `Notice of Allowance and Fees Due (PTOL-85)` on the [Public Pair][1] system, you'll find that the original claims were rejected (obvious, not novel and anticipated by prior art). During an April 20, 2015 telephone interview with the examiner, the following single claim (Claim 19, emended) was allowed. The patent issued on July 8, 2015 with this single claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    A device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;      a chest for containing a quantity of liquid;&#xD;&#xA;      a lid for the chest defining an airway and having a radiator in the airway for chilling air and a fan that moves the air through the airway and out of the lid; and&#xD;&#xA;      a pump in the insulated chest that moves liquid from the chest, through the radiator, and back to the chest. the chest having upper shell and lower shell;&#xD;&#xA;      a power supply operatively coupled to the fan and the pump;&#xD;&#xA;      a flexible portion of airway that is manipulable by a user to change a location where chilled air exits the lid;&#xD;&#xA;      wherein the upper shell and lower shell define two air shafts with [[a]]the user manipulable flexible vent tube therebetween.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13441" RevisionGUID="0ad070e1-436b-4b3c-8837-cc4feaeccaaf" CreationDate="2015-08-26T12:03:09.080" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 2013/0233002 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130233002&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone explain to me exactly what part of this is patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32384" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13441" RevisionGUID="0ad070e1-436b-4b3c-8837-cc4feaeccaaf" CreationDate="2015-08-26T12:03:09.080" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag." Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;us20130233002&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13447" RevisionGUID="ee82f551-8519-4ece-8be6-067d078209ec" CreationDate="2015-08-26T12:19:03.460" UserId="14417" Text="Yes, that is correct. This patent expired on August 22, 2015. The earliest document in the claims of domestic benefit is Serial Number 518,020, with a filing date of August 22, 1995:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Continuation of Ser. No. 822,141, Mar. 17, 1997, Pat. No. 5,766,308, which is a continuation of Ser. No. 518,020, Aug. 22, 1995, Pat. No. 5,611,845.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13442" RevisionGUID="c61d040d-ca6f-42e3-9971-913353ac030d" CreationDate="2015-08-26T12:19:41.137" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 5,858,064][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5858064&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this patent has expired based on the priority date of August 22, 1995. Is that correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32387" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13442" RevisionGUID="c61d040d-ca6f-42e3-9971-913353ac030d" CreationDate="2015-08-26T12:19:41.137" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags." Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;us5858064&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13448" RevisionGUID="9fe9eb00-7fec-4bbf-8993-115e757f145e" CreationDate="2015-08-26T20:39:58.260" UserId="14858" Text="In reference to the patent: [USD705533][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD705533 Is this patent valid Worldwide? I´ve been selling a similar product (different in design, materials and size) for years without knowing about this, Im in México, I dont pretend to export or claim rights over the product I make, just selling it for college funding purposes. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32390" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13448" RevisionGUID="9fe9eb00-7fec-4bbf-8993-115e757f145e" CreationDate="2015-08-26T20:39:58.260" UserId="14858" Text="Is this patent valid in Mexico?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32391" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13448" RevisionGUID="9fe9eb00-7fec-4bbf-8993-115e757f145e" CreationDate="2015-08-26T20:39:58.260" UserId="14858" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;intellectual-property&gt;&lt;usd705533&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13448" RevisionGUID="95b4dbb0-531a-40af-9abd-a9f36617d8a8" CreationDate="2015-08-27T00:40:19.667" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and corrected grammar." Text="In reference to the patent: [USD 705,533 S][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this design patent valid worldwide? I've been selling a similar product (different in design, materials and size) for years without knowing about this, I'm in México, I don't pretend to export or claim rights over the product I make, just selling it for college funding purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD705533" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32393" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13448" RevisionGUID="95b4dbb0-531a-40af-9abd-a9f36617d8a8" CreationDate="2015-08-27T00:40:19.667" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and corrected grammar." Text="Is this patent valid in México?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13286" RevisionGUID="b7222570-3d7d-4da5-9ba5-72ff2d775ea2" CreationDate="2015-08-27T00:47:08.420" UserId="14417" Comment="Added reference." Text="The laws may vary from country to country, but under the United States Code, co-inventors are each considered to have 100% ownership of the invention unless otherwise specified in an agreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, before you start the application process, you should have an agreement in writing that clearly states the terms of co-ownership for each inventor of the patent (percentage royalties, duration, etc.), and have this signed by each inventor. Many organizations (e.g., universities and large corporations) have some established procedure for this. If you are a small business, the first thing you should do is to hire a patent attorney to make certain nothing goes wrong with this part of the process. If a mistake is made here, it can become costly if not impossible to correct later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each co-inventor will still need to sign a declaration or oath. The USPTO provides these forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Malek, M. [Uncooperative Inventors][1], July, 15 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[MPEP Section 602][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.legalteamusa.net/tacticalip/2013/07/15/uncooperative-inventors/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s602.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13248" RevisionGUID="f0ac1530-3fbc-4393-a70c-c9a492b96842" CreationDate="2015-08-27T00:48:13.960" UserId="14417" Comment="Added reference." Text="First off, don't disclose any more details about your ideas on the Internet. Also, don't disclose the idea to others without a [Non-Disclosure Agreement][1] (NDA) in place first. Almost any public disclosure can be used as Prior Art, which is one way to invalidate patents. You need to keep this information confidential until you have a judicial disclosure (patent, trademark or copyright filing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, document your ideas in as much detail as possible. Collect anything you have written down, sketched on paper or napkins, whatever you have. If the documents have dates on them, even better. Write up any additional details and bring the whole bundle to a Notary to get them notarized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the legal work begins. You had marked your question only with the copyright tag, but I'm going to take it a step further so you know what your other options are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A copyright is good, especially if you have manuals, instructional videos or books. If you additionally have a name and logo, you will want to also seek a Trademark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you also have equipment and a method of using the equipment, you may want to additionally seek a combination of Design Patents and/or Utility Patents. There were some questions recently about the games &quot;[4 Square in the Air][2]&quot; and &quot;[9 Square in the Air][3]&quot;, which covered variations of an outdoor game with two extremely simple Design Patents for the equipment and one Utility Patent for the game(s) itself. I honestly don't know how well those would hold up to infringement, but they were all granted and should be instructive examples for you. Of course, read these from the perspective of what can go wrong if claims are written too narrowly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a Utility Patent (this might cover something like equipment and a method of using the equipment) you can use your collected and notarized documents to file a Provisional Patent Application, which doesn't cost much (compared to a full application), doesn't publicly disclose the information, gets you a Priority Date (important!) and gives you one year from filing to complete your Patent Application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, and this may the most important advice, hire a *reputable* patent attorney or patent law firm to prepare, file and offer legal advice. This is not something you should do on your own. Yes, it costs money to hire an expert, but they will prevent you making mistakes (and there are so many mistakes that can be made).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that since the [Bilski Decision][4] in 2010 you may not be able to get &quot;abstract methods of playing&quot; claims patented unless they are tied directly to hardware/equipment, as described in this [other answer][5]. This likely also ties to exercise, which means your equipment would need to be specified in a non-abstract manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this has been helpful. Feel free to ask additional questions on the process, but do not disclose additional details about your ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreement&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/1994/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/1995/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3180/14417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13229" RevisionGUID="341daa58-0488-4142-88da-0131d4290de2" CreationDate="2015-08-27T00:51:03.440" UserId="14417" Comment="Added reference." Text="There are 3 independent claims in that patent, so you need to examine each of those claims on a clause-by-clause basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 is the &quot;Method&quot; claim embodying  the process that can be implemented in software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 8 is the &quot;System&quot; claim that implements the method on physical hardware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 15 uses the clause &quot;[non-transitory][1]&quot;, which is becoming common-place to make it clear that the data is actually stored somewhere in a physical medium and not simply being transmitted over the wire. This clause could in fact be used to argue that since the Active Object and Object Relation patterns are applicable to transitory data as well as *non-transitory* data, that Claim 15 would be obvious over Claim 8 to one skilled in the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The remainder of the clauses for Claims 8 and 15 are identical to those of Claim 1 except for a few inconsequential grammar variations. Therefore, due to the similarity between all of these independent claims, you only need to invalidate Claim 1 in order to invalidate the entire application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 1.** A method for creating data objects, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - performing a first query of a database to locate a first table associated with a first data type to be created;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - loading a plurality of rows from only the first table during the query associated with the first table;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - creating a first set of data objects associated with the first data type, wherein each data object of the first set is created from only data stored in each of the rows loaded from the first table;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - performing a second query of the database to locate a second table associated with a second data type to be created, wherein the second data type depends from the first data type;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - loading a plurality of rows from only the second table during the query associated with the second table;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - creating a second set of data objects associated with the second data type, wherein each data object of the second set is created from only data stored in each of the rows loaded from the second table, wherein the data objects of the second set depend from the data objects of the first set;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and associating each data object of the second set to an associated parent object of the first set, wherein the database is queried only once for the first table and the database is queried only once for the second table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is your checklist for Prior Art on Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    method for creating data objects: yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    perform a first query of database: yes&#xD;&#xA;        locate first table associated with first data type: ???&#xD;&#xA;        load rows from only first table: ???&#xD;&#xA;        create first set of data objects of first data type: ???&#xD;&#xA;            each data object is created only from those rows retrieved: ???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    perform second query of database: ???&#xD;&#xA;        locate second table associated with second data type: ???&#xD;&#xA;            second data type depends on first data type: ???&#xD;&#xA;        load rows from only second table: ???&#xD;&#xA;        create second set of data objects of second data type: ???&#xD;&#xA;            each data object is created only from those rows retrieved: ???&#xD;&#xA;            data objects from second set depend on data objects from first set: ???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    associate each data object from second set with a parent data object from the first set: &#xD;&#xA;    database is queried only once for first table: ???&#xD;&#xA;    database is queried only once for second table: ???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not deeply familiar with the Ruby implementation, so I'll leave it to others to fill in the blanks in the above list. For instance, are there two different data types, or only a single composite data type in the Ruby ActiveRecord inheritance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 8.** A system for creating data objects, the system comprising: a machine comprising a processor, wherein the machine is operable to:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - ...repeated&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 15.** Logic for creating data objects, the logic being embodied in a non-transitory computer-readable medium and when executed operable to:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - ...repeated&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, some things to note. The claims in this application are limited only to retrieval and nothing is claimed for INSERT or UPDATE. The retrieval itself is limited to Single-Table Inheritance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [Stack Overflow answer][2] proves that Ruby ActiveRecord implemented Single-Table Inheritance by 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.foundpersuasive.com/101_nontransitory.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackoverflow.com/a/1598982/2074605" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13193" RevisionGUID="71878bf8-748c-4e7c-a2f9-a3329bcdbdd2" CreationDate="2015-08-27T00:59:10.950" UserId="14417" Comment="Fixed a broken link." Text="If your software facilitates the infringement of a patent, then you may be found to be inducing indirect infringement, which could result in damages to both the third party and yourself. However, a proper examination of potential infringement of the claims can only be done from the perspective of prior case law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The law is not yet completely clear on this, and a series of recent rulings have produced mixed results, some that reduce third party liability and others that increase the potential to award damages for third party infringement from *all involved parties*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you add a warning for a third party patent that may be potentially infringed, then you are providing evidence that you were aware of that patent prior to developing your software. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Damages for Indirect Patent Infringement][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But the court also ruled that a party that induces the performance of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; all of the steps by a combination of entities can be liable for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; indirect infringement under these circumstances. This was a surprising result because it allowed for secondary liability when no party could be held liable as a primary infringer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Supreme Court decision clarifies ‘third-party’ infringement of intellectual property rights][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Other courts have been receptive to Akamai's basic argument, says&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bartholomew, using old criminal law decisions to justify imposing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; liability against third-party actors.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “But the Supreme Court was having none of it,” he says. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Acknowledging that it had relied on criminal law analogies to decide&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different intellectual property issues in the past, the Court said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that criminal law had nothing in it to help it resolve this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6081&amp;context=law_lawreview&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2014/06/004.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, you *may* be able to work around the issue by providing an alternative method that is provably different from the patented method, while actively discouraging use of the patented method. However, the law could settle on either side of this issue. If this is commercial software and important to your company, then you should seek expert legal advice from a patent attorney." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13449" RevisionGUID="cc0ae984-aaf4-4b79-b051-86cc4d94f64f" CreationDate="2015-08-27T04:43:48.257" UserId="14860" Text="Patents are only valid in the country they are issued.  There is no such thing as a worldwide patent.  This particular patent is a US Design patent.  As such, this patent cannot be enforced in Mexico (or anywhere outside of the US).  The only concern would be whether there is a counterpart patent issued in Mexico." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13443" RevisionGUID="675aa682-7f9c-4055-8454-4e3c1e58b34d" CreationDate="2015-08-27T12:51:18.060" UserId="14417" Comment="Added link and improved formatting." Text="I would assume that applications like you mentioned would be rejected by USPTO or, if a patent granted, challenged in court. In particular [US 2008/0059492 A1][1] you mentioned is an application, not a grant. I believe it won't be granted because according to USPTO it describes an &quot;abstract idea&quot; (see http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/abstract_idea_examples.pdf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20080059492" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="bc7bc5bb-e63e-4c04-9574-3e27f6852027" CreationDate="2015-08-27T14:24:22.853" UserId="14864" Text="My question is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If patent for a design is made  for a media device, will it also covers other devices which are not &quot;media devices&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, here is a patent for an iPod. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.ru/patents/USD497618&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone will make a toy or case, or even just a statuette looks like iPod which is not an media device, will it be a break of law?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32406" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="bc7bc5bb-e63e-4c04-9574-3e27f6852027" CreationDate="2015-08-27T14:24:22.853" UserId="14864" Text="Electronic device Design patent and other types of products" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32407" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="bc7bc5bb-e63e-4c04-9574-3e27f6852027" CreationDate="2015-08-27T14:24:22.853" UserId="14864" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;apple&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13452" RevisionGUID="cb8cebc3-0657-480c-8102-96c58f31024c" CreationDate="2015-08-27T16:37:58.937" UserId="14865" Text="In reference to the patent: [US948162][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/&#xD;&#xA;Hello, just wondering if this patent has expired, and the process to claim it? This is my great grandfathers invention. Thank you, Sandra Crossan" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32409" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13452" RevisionGUID="cb8cebc3-0657-480c-8102-96c58f31024c" CreationDate="2015-08-27T16:37:58.937" UserId="14865" Text="My grandfathers Patent, Expired?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32410" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13452" RevisionGUID="cb8cebc3-0657-480c-8102-96c58f31024c" CreationDate="2015-08-27T16:37:58.937" UserId="14865" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;expiration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="25e25111-a637-44e0-a89b-aa11cdc4b1fa" CreationDate="2015-08-27T16:43:23.940" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="If design patent is granted for a media device, will it also cover other devices which are not “media devices”?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, [US D497,618 S1][1] is a design patent for an iPod.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone makes a toy, case, or even just a statuette that looks like the above design but is not a media device, will it infringe?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD497618" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32412" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="25e25111-a637-44e0-a89b-aa11cdc4b1fa" CreationDate="2015-08-27T16:43:23.940" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="Media device design patent and other types of products" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32413" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="25e25111-a637-44e0-a89b-aa11cdc4b1fa" CreationDate="2015-08-27T16:43:23.940" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;freedom-to-operate&gt;&lt;usd497618&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13452" RevisionGUID="a7978b24-a367-47b4-b06d-aa09590464d5" CreationDate="2015-08-27T16:45:40.037" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags and improved grammar." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 948,162 A][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if this patent has expired, and the process to claim it? This is my great-grandfathers invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US948162" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32415" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13452" RevisionGUID="a7978b24-a367-47b4-b06d-aa09590464d5" CreationDate="2015-08-27T16:45:40.037" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags and improved grammar." Text="My grandfathers patent, expired?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32416" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13452" RevisionGUID="a7978b24-a367-47b4-b06d-aa09590464d5" CreationDate="2015-08-27T16:45:40.037" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags and improved grammar." Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;expired-patent&gt;&lt;us948162&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13453" RevisionGUID="515d80e1-d6a4-4fd1-ae79-87596e1a8814" CreationDate="2015-08-27T16:56:14.257" UserId="14417" Text="This patent has been expired since 1927, and since then it has been freely available for anyone to manufacture and sell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If by &quot;claim&quot;, you mean a [patent model][1] (miniature model of the invention), those were only required until 1880, so there is no actual physical device stored anywhere, just the paperwork (if the originals still exist). The [scanned PDF][2] on Google Patents is the closest you'll get to the original documentation, unless your grandfather retained a copy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_model&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US948162.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13455" RevisionGUID="85dc11f8-a83a-47ca-925c-9de0be23e9e8" CreationDate="2015-08-28T06:38:05.093" UserId="14870" Text="Would I be able to purchase another company's product that I would then cut up and use as material for another product I am making without infringing or being in violation of anything?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32424" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13455" RevisionGUID="85dc11f8-a83a-47ca-925c-9de0be23e9e8" CreationDate="2015-08-28T06:38:05.093" UserId="14870" Text="Cutting up a product to use as part of another product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32425" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13455" RevisionGUID="85dc11f8-a83a-47ca-925c-9de0be23e9e8" CreationDate="2015-08-28T06:38:05.093" UserId="14870" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13456" RevisionGUID="e5047aa5-a581-48bb-b77e-4dbbad29529b" CreationDate="2015-08-28T11:23:49.710" UserId="14871" Text="I added a file which was found to contain some PDF errors (missing font) and the EFS web site is asking me to remove the file and reattach a correct version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alas, I can't find any &quot;remove&quot; button or link anywhere, even when going back to the &quot;attach documents&quot; stage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I remove the file without restarting a new application from scratch?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/KHHBH.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/JtXTx.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32427" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13456" RevisionGUID="e5047aa5-a581-48bb-b77e-4dbbad29529b" CreationDate="2015-08-28T11:23:49.710" UserId="14871" Text="How to remove a file attached in a USPTO EFS WEB application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32428" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13456" RevisionGUID="e5047aa5-a581-48bb-b77e-4dbbad29529b" CreationDate="2015-08-28T11:23:49.710" UserId="14871" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13457" RevisionGUID="90d64b40-db9b-4069-b16f-08693c63f850" CreationDate="2015-08-28T15:15:08.453" UserId="14873" Text="In reference to the patent: [US4023765][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4023765&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am the youngest daughter of James R. Kinnamon, the original owner of this patent. My father passed away in 1998. He gave me the legal documentation of the patent before he passed away. I would like to know if it is still active and what I need to do to have ownership transferred to myself. You can reach me at my email: graftedbranch@charter.net or 205-821-5187.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rita A. Kinnamon-Jackson" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32430" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13457" RevisionGUID="90d64b40-db9b-4069-b16f-08693c63f850" CreationDate="2015-08-28T15:15:08.453" UserId="14873" Text="James R. Kinnamon Patent US4023765" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32431" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13457" RevisionGUID="90d64b40-db9b-4069-b16f-08693c63f850" CreationDate="2015-08-28T15:15:08.453" UserId="14873" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13458" RevisionGUID="6a0aa860-8908-4800-8e07-0674f8c3c944" CreationDate="2015-08-28T15:37:54.423" UserId="14874" Text="In a patent application, I ran into a statement that a drawing is &quot;a partially schematic and partially diagrammatic view&quot;. I had though that schematic views and diagrammatic views are the same thing: simplified sketchy drawing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I searched for these terms in other patents and found that there views could be &quot;schematic diagrammatic&quot;, &quot;schematic rather than diagrammatic&quot;, etc. though I can't see any difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do these words have any special distinct meanings in patentese?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32433" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13458" RevisionGUID="6a0aa860-8908-4800-8e07-0674f8c3c944" CreationDate="2015-08-28T15:37:54.423" UserId="14874" Text="Patent terminology: schematic vs diagrammatic views" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32434" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13458" RevisionGUID="6a0aa860-8908-4800-8e07-0674f8c3c944" CreationDate="2015-08-28T15:37:54.423" UserId="14874" Text="&lt;drawing&gt;&lt;patentese&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13457" RevisionGUID="33e11655-c430-4170-8af0-8bbf13b6b205" CreationDate="2015-08-28T16:40:51.800" UserId="1" Comment="personal solicitation removed." Text="In reference to the patent: [US4023765][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4023765&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am the youngest daughter of James R. Kinnamon, the original owner of this patent. My father passed away in 1998. He gave me the legal documentation of the patent before he passed away. I would like to know if it is still active and what I need to do to have ownership transferred to myself. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13462" RevisionGUID="42552e3f-a652-46e6-8922-226d68ffeb4d" CreationDate="2015-08-29T03:25:34.613" UserId="14522" Text="In reference to the patent US4420261A: US4851616 patent by HW Buck Crowley is prior art. US4851616 - Priority date Jan 3, 1966 This is the first and earliest reference to the use of a scanning beam and synchronous detection using a passive reflector as a position/location detector.&#xD;&#xA;NOTE: This NOT time-of-flight or Amplitude detection. This is instead taking into account that this scanning beam method knows it's XYZ position and when the target reflector is lit up, the position is known. &#xD;&#xA;For CRT's, the beam brightness was extremely bright because the entire tube face was lit by just one scanning beam as example 1/1000 beam the size of the screen size. (If 1000x1000 points = 1 lux overall brightness, means an ordinary CRT beam was one million lux) (NTSC = 525 horizontal lines, each scanned in 62.5 microseconds) So the &quot;target-reflector&quot; could be a dirty finger tip.&#xD;&#xA;This reflected bright beam allowed the position of the object to be picked up by looking for a pulsed signal to be returned to a single photocell. The reflection of the light is detected and latches the XYZ position of the beam current position. This made the entire hardware cost to be less than $1.&#xD;&#xA;BACKGROUND: This invention came out of the consideration for automatically-guided-vehicular (AGV) loading of rolls of paper into printing presses (AGV). At this time (1966), the only significant consideration for AGV was to printing presses using 15 miles of paper every hour per roll and typically 12, 1 ton rolls per newspaper press every hour. This is the background of the inventor WALES. CROWLEY worked for ADAGE (the first Computer-Added-Design CAD solution) and was responsible for user interface such as light pens, EEG/EKG electrodes, optic nerve vision tracker and such, his first touch screen used PPG resist coated glass from a frost free cold drink retail case. The two inventors ended up working at Butler Automatic, who became the leader in automatic press splicing. Crowley and Wales design many industry first in the 80's. After Wales passed in 1991 ... Crowley continued and to this day, introducing many firsts in the industry as breakthrough products.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13457" RevisionGUID="f76389d1-bcf4-48af-904f-c9d7a7f16e65" CreationDate="2015-08-29T12:08:54.740" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 4,023,765 A][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am the youngest daughter of James R. Kinnamon, the original owner of this patent. My father passed away in 1998. He gave me the legal documentation of the patent before he passed away. I would like to know if it is still active and what I need to do to have ownership transferred to myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4023765&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32457" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13457" RevisionGUID="f76389d1-bcf4-48af-904f-c9d7a7f16e65" CreationDate="2015-08-29T12:08:54.740" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="James R. Kinnamon Patent US 4,023,765 A" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32458" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13457" RevisionGUID="f76389d1-bcf4-48af-904f-c9d7a7f16e65" CreationDate="2015-08-29T12:08:54.740" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;expired-patent&gt;&lt;us4023765&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13463" RevisionGUID="04f5456f-cff2-439b-b993-48c398d68ac7" CreationDate="2015-08-29T12:25:02.153" UserId="14417" Text="Interestingly, the cover sheet for this patent is missing, which contains most of the pertinent information for calculating the expiration date of a patent. However, from checking the information available on Google Patents against the content of the grant, we can calculate the expiration date using the following information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Publication date: May 17, 1977 (this is the Grant Date)&#xD;&#xA;    Filing date: Mar 18, 1976 (this is the filing date of the application)&#xD;&#xA;    Priority date: Oct 31, 1974 (this is the filing date of the earliest related application)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is a continuation of application Ser. No. 519,561, filed Oct. 31, 1974, now abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above statement indicates that this grant is claiming a &quot;domestic benefit&quot; of an earlier application, which sets the priority date to October 31, 1974.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO provides an [Excel spreadsheet][1] that can be used to calculate patent expiration dates, as long as the dates occur after the 1930's. Using the above dates, we fine that if the three maintenance fees were paid (May 17, 1981; May 17, 1985; May 17 1989), the patent would have expired on October 31, 1994. If any of those maintenance fees were not paid, then the patent would have expired on one of those earlier dates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, the patent expired before 1998. The invention that was claimed is now in the Public Domain and may be manufactured and sold by anyone without restrictions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/patent_term_calculator.jsp#heading-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13463" RevisionGUID="daa4b91d-0cb4-4216-88a0-ee09b4cbcf3e" CreationDate="2015-08-29T12:31:21.803" UserId="14417" Comment="Removed incorrect information about maintenance fees." Text="Interestingly, the cover sheet for this patent is missing, which contains most of the pertinent information for calculating the expiration date of a patent. However, from checking the information available on Google Patents against the content of the grant, we can calculate the expiration date using the following information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Publication date: May 17, 1977 (this is the Grant Date)&#xD;&#xA;    Filing date: Mar 18, 1976 (this is the filing date of the application)&#xD;&#xA;    Priority date: Oct 31, 1974 (this is the filing date of the earliest related application)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is a continuation of application Ser. No. 519,561, filed Oct. 31, 1974, now abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above statement indicates that this grant is claiming a &quot;domestic benefit&quot; of an earlier application, which sets the priority date to October 31, 1974.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO provides an [Excel spreadsheet][1] that can be used to calculate patent expiration dates, as long as the dates occur after the 1930's. Using the above dates, we find that the patent expired on October 31, 1994. Since then, the invention that was claimed is now in the Public Domain and may be manufactured and sold by anyone without licensing it from the inventor. The patent can no longer be reassigned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/patent_term_calculator.jsp#heading-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13443" RevisionGUID="1baec40d-3d5d-41b2-a04f-29ec892135f7" CreationDate="2015-08-29T13:48:54.430" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting." Text="I would assume that applications like you mentioned would be rejected by USPTO or, if a patent granted, challenged in court. In particular [US 2008/0059492 A1][1] you mentioned is an application, not a grant. I believe it won’t be granted because according to USPTO it describes an “[abstract idea](http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/abstract_idea_examples.pdf)”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20080059492" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32462" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13457" RevisionGUID="9cc5bfea-66b5-442e-86d1-74e240a2c2c4" CreationDate="2015-08-29T13:53:32.813" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag and improved title." Text="Is it possible to re-assign Patent US 4,023,765 A?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32463" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13457" RevisionGUID="9cc5bfea-66b5-442e-86d1-74e240a2c2c4" CreationDate="2015-08-29T13:53:32.813" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag and improved title." Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;expired-patent&gt;&lt;assignment&gt;&lt;us4023765&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12573" RevisionGUID="bc6839d2-d5f0-43ff-aab4-91e16f8b422a" CreationDate="2015-08-29T17:10:04.063" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting." Text="I can't say whether or not the invention is novel or non-obvious, but from [Public Pair][1] it seems the point of differentiation over the prior art the Examiner found was in the actuator and in particular how the actuator was attached to the respective connector. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13462" RevisionGUID="0701d5c0-92bc-4c92-b2ba-c680269edd16" CreationDate="2015-08-29T18:08:39.977" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 73 characters in body" Text="# US4851616 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Priority date: Jan 3, 1966&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the first and earliest reference to the use of a scanning beam and synchronous detection using a passive reflector as a position/location detector.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NOTE: This NOT time-of-flight or Amplitude detection. This is instead taking into account that this scanning beam method knows it's XYZ position and when the target reflector is lit up, the position is known. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For CRT's, the beam brightness was extremely bright because the entire tube face was lit by just one scanning beam as example 1/1000 beam the size of the screen size. (If 1000x1000 points = 1 lux overall brightness, means an ordinary CRT beam was one million lux) (NTSC = 525 horizontal lines, each scanned in 62.5 microseconds) So the &quot;target-reflector&quot; could be a dirty finger tip.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reflected bright beam allowed the position of the object to be picked up by looking for a pulsed signal to be returned to a single photocell. The reflection of the light is detected and latches the XYZ position of the beam current position. This made the entire hardware cost to be less than $1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BACKGROUND: This invention came out of the consideration for automatically-guided-vehicular (AGV) loading of rolls of paper into printing presses (AGV). At this time (1966), the only significant consideration for AGV was to printing presses using 15 miles of paper every hour per roll and typically 12, 1 ton rolls per newspaper press every hour. This is the background of the inventor WALES. CROWLEY worked for ADAGE (the first Computer-Added-Design CAD solution) and was responsible for user interface such as light pens, EEG/EKG electrodes, optic nerve vision tracker and such, his first touch screen used PPG resist coated glass from a frost free cold drink retail case. The two inventors ended up working at Butler Automatic, who became the leader in automatic press splicing. Crowley and Wales design many industry first in the 80's. After Wales passed in 1991 ... Crowley continued and to this day, introducing many firsts in the industry as breakthrough products.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32470" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="13411" RevisionGUID="4c8d28f9-b590-4830-bcb1-068999bfd768" CreationDate="2015-08-29T23:03:31.240" UserId="-1" Comment="32" />
  <row Id="32471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13465" RevisionGUID="d9431817-6472-4c3c-987b-e7fbbc3c3872" CreationDate="2015-08-30T01:09:51.480" UserId="14881" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20120319859][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120319859&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would you please tell me why the difference in time between assignment and actual date...is it abandoned?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32472" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13465" RevisionGUID="d9431817-6472-4c3c-987b-e7fbbc3c3872" CreationDate="2015-08-30T01:09:51.480" UserId="14881" Text="What is the legal status of this patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32473" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13465" RevisionGUID="d9431817-6472-4c3c-987b-e7fbbc3c3872" CreationDate="2015-08-30T01:09:51.480" UserId="14881" Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;patent-search&gt;&lt;research&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13466" RevisionGUID="2a168df5-ed58-4c3e-9e92-95c2ea4e9703" CreationDate="2015-08-30T02:34:18.580" UserId="14882" Text=" Do they vest once the design patent is granted or do they go back to some period earlier(retroactive)? Im asking specifically about design patents. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32475" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13466" RevisionGUID="2a168df5-ed58-4c3e-9e92-95c2ea4e9703" CreationDate="2015-08-30T02:34:18.580" UserId="14882" Text="When do the rights granted by a design patent vest in the USA?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32476" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13466" RevisionGUID="2a168df5-ed58-4c3e-9e92-95c2ea4e9703" CreationDate="2015-08-30T02:34:18.580" UserId="14882" Text="&lt;granted&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13466" RevisionGUID="7e94f7e6-6e26-4054-be85-aa3cb806ab3c" CreationDate="2015-08-30T12:41:09.367" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected grammar." Text="Do they vest once the design patent is granted or do they go back to some period earlier (retroactive)? I’m asking specifically about design patents. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32480" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13466" RevisionGUID="7e94f7e6-6e26-4054-be85-aa3cb806ab3c" CreationDate="2015-08-30T12:41:09.367" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected grammar." Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13465" RevisionGUID="db330321-2156-408d-be11-df132a399506" CreationDate="2015-08-30T12:46:20.680" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and adjusted wording of question." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 2012/0319859 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would you please tell me why there is a difference in time between the assignment date and publication date? Is it abandoned?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120319859&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32482" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13465" RevisionGUID="db330321-2156-408d-be11-df132a399506" CreationDate="2015-08-30T12:46:20.680" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and adjusted wording of question." Text="What is the legal status of this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32483" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13465" RevisionGUID="db330321-2156-408d-be11-df132a399506" CreationDate="2015-08-30T12:46:20.680" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and adjusted wording of question." Text="&lt;legal-status&gt;&lt;us20120319859&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13467" RevisionGUID="d6bcb07e-06b8-4d20-91bc-98272068ff3d" CreationDate="2015-08-30T13:24:48.333" UserId="14417" Text="I don't want to conflate the legal status of the application(s) with the time gap between publication and assignment. An assignment can happen during examination of the application or after the patent is granted, so there is not necessarily a link between the assignment of this application and the date of publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As is the case for many patents, it is difficult to completely answer the question about the US application without digging in to the related international applications. This US application is based on a PCT application from Israel (PCT/IL2011/000071), which you can find by clicking on the WIPO application number ([WO 2011/089606 A1][1]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Office                  Entry Date  National Number  National Status&#xD;&#xA;    European Patent Office  17.07.2012  2011706029       Published: 28.11.2012&#xD;&#xA;                                                         Withdrawn: 20.02.2013&#xD;&#xA;    Israel                  18.07.2012  221000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the USPTO Public Pair system, the status of the US application is listed as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Status: 	Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    10-21-2014  Mail Abandonment for Failure to Respond to Office Action&#xD;&#xA;    10-16-2014  Aband. for Failure to Respond to O. A.&#xD;&#xA;    03-24-2014  CTNF  Non-Final Rejection&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to answer part of your question, yes, the European patent (EP) has been withdrawn, and the US application is currently listed as abandoned (although it could potentially be revived).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, looking at the [PCT application in PatentScope][2], we can find the information that answers the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Applicants: CREATIVE TEAM INSTRUMENTS LTD. [IL/IL] (For All Designated States Except US).&#xD;&#xA;    TAUB, Ilan [IL/IL]; (IL) (For US Only)&#xD;&#xA;    REIFMAN, Mark [IL/IL]; (IL) (For US Only)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Priority Data: 	&#xD;&#xA;    61/296,643	 	20.01.2010	 	US&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The PCT application is actually based on a US Provisional Application filed January 20, 2010 by the inventors. The PCT application named the company in Israel as the applicant in all states except the US, so ultimately an assignment would have been necessary for the US application. Indeed, an [assignment][3] occurred on December 20, 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2011089606A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2011089606&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://assignment.uspto.gov/#/search?q=20120319859" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32485" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13465" RevisionGUID="90914a19-c3c7-464f-96ef-b8bbd0d265bd" CreationDate="2015-08-30T13:25:16.250" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag." Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;legal-status&gt;&lt;us20120319859&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13468" RevisionGUID="cbbd6ad8-cb29-4a93-8667-932863c77621" CreationDate="2015-08-30T17:37:31.637" UserId="14885" Text="This item sold by Isis Cosmeceuticals contains MSM and Arbutine eye drops meant for modifying the pigment in the iris. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://isis-cosmeceuticals.com/collections/iris-lighteners/products/iris-lightener-kit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doesnt it infringe on this patent 20120207809, Method and system for effecting changes in pigmented tissue,?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32487" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13468" RevisionGUID="cbbd6ad8-cb29-4a93-8667-932863c77621" CreationDate="2015-08-30T17:37:31.637" UserId="14885" Text="Does this commercial product infringe on Patent Application no. 20120207809" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32488" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13468" RevisionGUID="cbbd6ad8-cb29-4a93-8667-932863c77621" CreationDate="2015-08-30T17:37:31.637" UserId="14885" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13422" RevisionGUID="cce72e10-745a-449b-ad8a-46d20eac9713" CreationDate="2015-08-30T17:45:29.770" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="What I'm trying to do is to use a technology or &quot;invention&quot; for my own invention. In other words I want to use that technology for my own purpose and invention to get completely different results. There was an attempt to patent the technology/invention a few years ago but it was never granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I replicate the invention/technology if the patent was never granted and is still as &quot;application&quot;? I want to replicate it because the invention/technology does 2 things, and the invention was patented for one use, but it has many other applications, but in order to use those other applications I need the invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32490" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13422" RevisionGUID="cce72e10-745a-449b-ad8a-46d20eac9713" CreationDate="2015-08-30T17:45:29.770" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="Can I use an invention that has not been granted a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32491" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13422" RevisionGUID="cce72e10-745a-449b-ad8a-46d20eac9713" CreationDate="2015-08-30T17:45:29.770" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;invention&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13468" RevisionGUID="2c8884c0-043f-4284-be1d-0656bcff5305" CreationDate="2015-08-30T17:54:32.423" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="The [Iris Lightener Kit][1] sold by Isis Cosmeceuticals contains MSM and Arbutine eye drops meant for modifying the pigment in the iris. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doesn’t it infringe on patent [US 2012/0207809 A1][2], “Method and system for effecting changes in pigmented tissue”?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://isis-cosmeceuticals.com/collections/iris-lighteners/products/iris-lightener-kit&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120207809" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32493" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13468" RevisionGUID="2c8884c0-043f-4284-be1d-0656bcff5305" CreationDate="2015-08-30T17:54:32.423" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="Does this commercial product infringe on Patent Application US 2012/0207809 A1?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32494" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13468" RevisionGUID="2c8884c0-043f-4284-be1d-0656bcff5305" CreationDate="2015-08-30T17:54:32.423" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;us20120207809&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13470" RevisionGUID="399ffb62-0bbc-46e3-8fb1-badc24fac456" CreationDate="2015-08-30T19:11:15.230" UserId="14888" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2003105945A2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2003105945A2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This study was reported twelve years ago !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three patients appear to have been helped by microcurrent therapy !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where can I find follow up data and newer studies concerning the efficacy of this therapy ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;George Barbarow Winter Haven FL 33881&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32499" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13470" RevisionGUID="399ffb62-0bbc-46e3-8fb1-badc24fac456" CreationDate="2015-08-30T19:11:15.230" UserId="14888" Text="2015 macular Microcurrent Therapy Update" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32500" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13470" RevisionGUID="399ffb62-0bbc-46e3-8fb1-badc24fac456" CreationDate="2015-08-30T19:11:15.230" UserId="14888" Text="&lt;wo2003105945a2&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13471" RevisionGUID="c1a43cc0-af64-473a-a269-8f3651eb8bac" CreationDate="2015-08-30T19:17:47.503" UserId="14417" Text="Before I dig into the patent application, I'll just note that the active ingredient in the product you mention (arbutin) is indeed a glycoside hydroquinone, which is directly claimed in dependent claim 2 of the application (which must be read in the context of independent claim 1):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of lightening the color of the iris of a human subject, the method comprising administering to the iris of the human subject an amount of a composition comprising a tyrosinase inhibitor effective to lighten the color of the iris of the human subject.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the tyrosinase inhibitor is hydroquinone,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, now we need to dig deeper, which is a problem because this patent has a lengthy prosecution history, and an office action is currently pending on a non-final rejection. This means that the patent claims and the final outcome of the application are still undetermined, and your question is not answerable with 100% certainty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the claims as they are listed in Google Patents and the published application no longer reflect the currently pending claims, which can be found in the Image File Wrapper in the USPTO [Public Pair][3] database. Nor can we rely on the claims currently found in the Image File Wrapper, since after the next office action they will be modified again (I'm anticipating that this will occur based on a fairly recent Request for Continued Examination).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we can make a few educated guesses based on the examiner's notes on the non-final rejection. First, let's look at the most recent version of claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of lightening the color of the iris of a human subject, the method comprising administering to the iris of the human subject an amount of a composition comprising a melanogenesis inhibitor effective to lighten the color of the iris of the human subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now we need to determine whether arbutin is considered to be a melanogenesis inhibitor. Indeed, we can quickly find [some references][1] which classify arbutin as a melanogenesis inhibitor:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sugimoto, K. (2003). α-Arbutin: a new skin-lightening agent for cosmetics (in Japanese). *J. Appl. Glycosci.* **50**:109-110.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sugimoto, K. *et al.* (2003). Syntheses of Arbutin-α-glycosides and a Comparison of Their Inhibitory Effects with Those of α-Arbutin and Arbutin on Human Tyrosinase. *Chem. Pharm. Bull.* **51**:798-801.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sugimoto, K. *et al.* (2005). Inhibitory Effects of Several Types of Hydroquinone Glycosides on Human Tyrosinase and Melanogenesis Inhibition of Alpha-Arbutin&quot; Fragrance Journal **33**(5) 60-66.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not that the dates of the above publications are well before the priority date of the application (January 29, 2009), which makes these prior art to any claims on the use of arbutin as melanogenisis inhibitors. Now, if you read further into the office action response, the inventors are defending against the rejection by stating:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This rejection is not supported by these citations and should be withdrawn because disclosures relating to tissues and cells other than iris, such as skin, etc., are not applicable to the iris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner sidesteps the above argument by rejecting on the grounds of prior art from an earlier patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claims 1, 19 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Drago *et al* ([USPN 6,359,001][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Drago *et al* ([USPN 6,359,001][2]) teach methods of lightening the color of the iris in a human comprising administering a melanogenesis inhibitor, which human is healthy of afflicted with glaucoma (see entire document, esp. the abstract, col. 1, 2, claims 1-10).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, Drago *et al.* ([US 6,359,001 B1][2]) is a granted patent covering &quot;Use of α-methyl-p-tyrosine to inhibit melanin production in iris melanocytes&quot;. The abstract is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The use of agents for blocking the synthesis of tyrosinase to prevent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; permanent pigmentation of the iris caused by melanin deposit induced&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by pharmacological treatments or by metabolic imbalance is described.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims of this earlier patent will effectively serve as prior art to prevent new patents in this space, so now the question becomes whether the product you mentioned infringes on the '001 patent. The claims in the '001 patent are far more complex, but fortunately we don't need to read them because the patent has lapsed (March 19, 2010) and is not currently enforceable. However, there are several caveats to that statement. First, although unlikely, the patent could once again become enforceable (through April 22, 2017) if the patent is revived and the fees are paid. I don't think this will occur because the assignee has now missed both the second (2010) and third (2014) fee payment dates. This means that the enforceable period of the grant in the United States was (I think) April 21, 1998 through March 19, 2010. Secondly, if that product were sold between the enforceable dates, the assignee (Pharmacia Ab) could potentially sue for damages retroactively. However, if the product were on the market prior to the priority date of the patent or after the enforceable date of the grant, then it should be in the clear. Of course, for all we know, the company that produces the product may be a subsidiary of the assignee, or may have already taken a license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, the application you mentioned might set a record for the number of domestic benefit claims, which complicates the comprehension of this patent by making the ten non-provisional documents below required reading material if you are interested in further study of this application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This application claims the benefit of the priority of&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    a. International Patent Application No. PCT/US10/00257, filed Jan. 29, 2010, and&#xD;&#xA;    b. International Patent Application No. PCT/US10/002051, filed Jul. 21, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Further, this application claims the benefit of the priority of&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    c. U.S. NonProvisional patent application Ser. No. 13/138,260, filed Jul. 25, 2011 and&#xD;&#xA;    d. U.S. NonProvisional patent application Ser. No. ______ filed Nov. 29, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Further, this application claims the benefit of the priority of&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    e. U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/206,391, filed Jan. 29, 2009;&#xD;&#xA;    f. U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/212,722, filed Apr. 15, 2009;&#xD;&#xA;    g. U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/271,498, filed Jul. 22, 2009;&#xD;&#xA;    h. U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/271,961, filed Jul. 29, 2009;&#xD;&#xA;    i. U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/343,558, filed Apr. 30, 2010; and&#xD;&#xA;    j. U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/418,570, filed Dec. 1, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    This application is a continuation in part of&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    a. International patent application No. PCT/US10/00257, filed Jan. 29, 2010;&#xD;&#xA;    b. International patent application No. PCT/US10/002051, filed Jul. 21, 2010;&#xD;&#xA;    c. U.S. NonProvisional patent application Ser. No. 13/138,260, filed Jul. 25, 2011;&#xD;&#xA;    d. U.S. NonProvisional patent application Ser. No. ______, filed Nov. 29, 2011;&#xD;&#xA;    e. U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/206,391, filed Jan. 29, 2009;&#xD;&#xA;    f. U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/212,722, filed Apr. 15, 2009;&#xD;&#xA;    g. U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/271,498, filed Jul. 22, 2009;&#xD;&#xA;    h. U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/271, 961, filed Jul. 29, 2009;&#xD;&#xA;    i. U.S. Provisional Patent application Ser. No. 61/343,558, filed Apr. 30, 2010; and&#xD;&#xA;    j. U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/418,570, filed Dec. 1, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Throughout this application various publications, published patent applications, &#xD;&#xA;    and patents are referenced. The disclosures of these documents in their entireties &#xD;&#xA;    are hereby incorporated by reference into this application in order to more fully &#xD;&#xA;    describe the state of the art to which this invention pertains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.glico.co.jp/en/material/alpha-arbutin/alpha-arbutin8.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6359001&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13468" RevisionGUID="44cf7e08-ed58-4fdc-809e-99f1775ad002" CreationDate="2015-08-30T19:18:14.140" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected spelling." Text="The [Iris Lightener Kit][1] sold by Isis Cosmeceuticals contains MSM and Arbutin eye drops meant for modifying the pigment in the iris. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doesn’t it infringe on patent [US 2012/0207809 A1][2], “Method and system for effecting changes in pigmented tissue”?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://isis-cosmeceuticals.com/collections/iris-lighteners/products/iris-lightener-kit&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120207809" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13470" RevisionGUID="bb7416e5-e2e1-4b1c-83b2-f17a0085acb2" CreationDate="2015-08-30T19:23:01.300" UserId="1" Comment="added [prior-art-reqeust] tag. Removed solicitation for further product/technology information." Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2003105945A2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2003105945A2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This study was reported twelve years ago !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three patients appear to have been helped by microcurrent therapy !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32504" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13470" RevisionGUID="bb7416e5-e2e1-4b1c-83b2-f17a0085acb2" CreationDate="2015-08-30T19:23:01.300" UserId="1" Comment="added [prior-art-reqeust] tag. Removed solicitation for further product/technology information." Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;wo2003105945a2&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13470" RevisionGUID="42cf1569-8994-4702-88be-97e38ffd3ef2" CreationDate="2015-08-30T19:23:25.677" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="In reference to the patent: [WO 2003/105945 A2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This study was reported twelve years ago and appears to have helped three patients by microcurrent therapy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where can I find follow up data and newer studies concerning the efficacy of this therapy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2003105945A2&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32507" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13470" RevisionGUID="42cf1569-8994-4702-88be-97e38ffd3ef2" CreationDate="2015-08-30T19:23:25.677" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;wo2003105945a2&gt;&lt;us7187977&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32509" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13470" RevisionGUID="5d96fadd-b366-4eea-ab68-8c656293ae37" CreationDate="2015-08-30T19:34:14.177" UserId="14417" Comment="Re-tagged in attempt to get the patent sidebar to show properly." Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;us7187977&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13470" RevisionGUID="5d96fadd-b366-4eea-ab68-8c656293ae37" CreationDate="2015-08-30T19:34:14.177" UserId="14417" Comment="Re-tagged in attempt to get the patent sidebar to show properly." Text="In reference to the patent: [WO 2003/105945 A2][1] ([US 7,187,977 B1][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This study was reported twelve years ago and appears to have helped three patients by microcurrent therapy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where can I find follow up data and newer studies concerning the efficacy of this therapy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2003105945A2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7187977" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13473" RevisionGUID="2a2c4b06-ea08-45ef-90eb-366108fa37ef" CreationDate="2015-08-30T20:04:06.597" UserId="14417" Text="The term of a design patent is 14 years measured from the date of grant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [1502.01   Distinction Between Design and Utility Patents \[R-11.2013\]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The term of a utility patent on an application filed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on or after June 8, 1995 is 20 years measured from the U.S. filing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; date; or if the application contains a specific reference to an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; earlier application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c), 20 years from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the earliest effective U.S. filing date, while *the term of a design&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent is 14 years measured from the date of grant* (see 35 U.S.C. 173).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [1505 Allowance and Term of Design Patent \[R-08.2012\]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [35 U.S. Code § 173][3] - Term of design patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patents for designs shall be granted for the term of fourteen years from the date of grant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [35 U.S. Code § 289][4] - Additional remedy for infringement of design&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whomever **during the term of a patent for a design**, without license of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the owner, (1) applies the patented design, or any colorable imitation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thereof, to any article of manufacture for the purpose of sale, or (2)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sells or exposes for sale any article of manufacture to which such&#xD;&#xA;&gt; design or colorable imitation has been applied shall be liable to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; owner to the extent of his total profit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1502.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1505.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title35/html/USCODE-2011-title35-partII-chap16-sec173.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title35/html/USCODE-2011-title35-partIII-chap29-sec289.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13403" RevisionGUID="fdbe6780-ef23-447f-8673-1399c8494566" CreationDate="2015-08-30T21:01:45.310" UserId="14417" Comment="Added link and tags." Text="What is the current status of the patent application number [US 13/346,940][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130174818" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32513" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13403" RevisionGUID="fdbe6780-ef23-447f-8673-1399c8494566" CreationDate="2015-08-30T21:01:45.310" UserId="14417" Comment="Added link and tags." Text="Has application US 13/346,940 been granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32514" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13403" RevisionGUID="fdbe6780-ef23-447f-8673-1399c8494566" CreationDate="2015-08-30T21:01:45.310" UserId="14417" Comment="Added link and tags." Text="&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;legal-status&gt;&lt;us20130174818&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13474" RevisionGUID="33f013c7-1b36-46fc-b7c0-55edaa56892e" CreationDate="2015-08-30T21:09:30.153" UserId="14417" Text="This patent received a final rejection on January 24, 2014 and was listed as abandoned on August 6, 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner cited:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marley [US Pat. No. 2,586,547][1] in view of Cosmopulos [US Pat. No. 4,157,828][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description&#xD;&#xA;&gt; requirement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a good example of what can happen when a patent application is filed *pro se* without a proper understanding of the patent code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US2586547&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4157828" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32516" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13403" RevisionGUID="913ef596-3677-4a9d-acb1-a5c383f800ce" CreationDate="2015-08-30T21:09:49.833" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag." Text="&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;pro-se&gt;&lt;legal-status&gt;&lt;us20130174818&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13475" RevisionGUID="75199c10-2846-4319-9ed7-9e739e2b25da" CreationDate="2015-08-31T02:46:18.923" UserId="14892" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7174856][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7174856&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will this patent become invalidated or need revision based on the SNAP laws in effect mid-2o16?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32518" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13475" RevisionGUID="75199c10-2846-4319-9ed7-9e739e2b25da" CreationDate="2015-08-31T02:46:18.923" UserId="14892" Text="Use of HFC-134a as a propellant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32519" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13475" RevisionGUID="75199c10-2846-4319-9ed7-9e739e2b25da" CreationDate="2015-08-31T02:46:18.923" UserId="14892" Text="&lt;google-patents&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13476" RevisionGUID="56312496-8f8b-44f2-94bf-22560767e038" CreationDate="2015-08-31T03:52:55.077" UserId="14893" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2008144013A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2008144013A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32523" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13476" RevisionGUID="56312496-8f8b-44f2-94bf-22560767e038" CreationDate="2015-08-31T03:52:55.077" UserId="14893" Text="can i get a copy for your patent ? what is the application of it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32524" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13476" RevisionGUID="56312496-8f8b-44f2-94bf-22560767e038" CreationDate="2015-08-31T03:52:55.077" UserId="14893" Text="&lt;wo2006112733a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13475" RevisionGUID="dce2696c-0769-44a1-bb2d-1849a5f5577b" CreationDate="2015-08-31T11:40:46.143" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags and link." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 7,174,856 B2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will this patent become invalidated or need revision based on the [SNAP law][2] in effect mid-2016?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7174856&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/regulations.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32529" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13475" RevisionGUID="dce2696c-0769-44a1-bb2d-1849a5f5577b" CreationDate="2015-08-31T11:40:46.143" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags and link." Text="&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;us7174856&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32532" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13476" RevisionGUID="e9731838-084f-47ab-b768-693c6ae4354d" CreationDate="2015-08-31T11:46:10.090" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="In reference to the patent: [WO 2008/144013 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Patents does not provide a link to download the PDF. Where can I obtain a copy of it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2008144013A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32533" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13476" RevisionGUID="e9731838-084f-47ab-b768-693c6ae4354d" CreationDate="2015-08-31T11:46:10.090" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="Where can I get a copy of this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32534" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13476" RevisionGUID="e9731838-084f-47ab-b768-693c6ae4354d" CreationDate="2015-08-31T11:46:10.090" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="&lt;google-patents&gt;&lt;wo2006112733a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13478" RevisionGUID="836087b9-8314-4fc8-ba8d-0a4c09d7f57e" CreationDate="2015-08-31T11:52:51.943" UserId="14417" Text="Follow the link on Google Patents to [PatentScope][1], and download the [Initial Publication with ISR (A1 48/2008)][2]. Alternatively, you can download the document on [Espacenet][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent you link to is a WIPO patent, and it has 33 related applications (see &quot;also published as&quot;), so there may be other variations of the same application, and multiple patent grants may have been issued from that application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2008144013&amp;recNum=1&amp;tab=PCTDocuments&amp;maxRec=&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=&amp;queryString=&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservicepdf_pct/id00000007431267/PAMPH/WO2008144013.pdf?download&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=WO&amp;NR=2008144013A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=20081127&amp;DB=&amp;&amp;locale=en_EP" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13480" RevisionGUID="f85a6eb4-2e91-4799-a76f-c942635834d4" CreationDate="2015-08-31T12:10:12.323" UserId="14417" Text="This change in EPA rules covers production and use of *products* containing HFC-134a, but it does not affect the validity of the patent (a patent is not a product).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, the independent claim in the patent grant covers any inert gas in a class of compounds:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for modifying animal behavior when animal performs an undesirable behavior, comprising discharging an inert gas stream at an animal body from an inert gas spray canister wherein the gas is inert gas of Tumorigen compound class.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where the compound class is defined in the specification as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Other condensed inert gas cleaning spray can contain different&#xD;&#xA;&gt; high-pressure inert gases such as Chlorodifluoromethane (also known as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Algeon, Freon etc. ) as well as other gases of the Tumorigen compound&#xD;&#xA;&gt; class. Some of the Tumorigen compound class gases containing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fluorocarbon are now outlawed in some western countries due to their&#xD;&#xA;&gt; harmful effect on the ozone layer. One other inert gas compound which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is environmentally friendly, used in computer and other hardware&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cleaning spray containers such as from DuPont is the Ethane,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1,1,1,2-tetrafloro also known as Arcton 134a and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the EPA rule change only affects production of a product containing HFC-134a (Arcton 134a), but the scope of the patent leaves other compounds that may be used as alternatives." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13470" RevisionGUID="82a30c3c-5f8c-4b98-b6f3-633efe22e25e" CreationDate="2015-08-31T12:11:17.487" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected link and improved title." Text="In reference to the patent: [WO 2003/105945 A2][1] ([US 7,187,977 B2][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This study was reported twelve years ago and appears to have helped three patients by microcurrent therapy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where can I find follow up data and newer studies concerning the efficacy of this therapy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2003105945A2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7187977" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32539" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13470" RevisionGUID="82a30c3c-5f8c-4b98-b6f3-633efe22e25e" CreationDate="2015-08-31T12:11:17.487" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected link and improved title." Text="Macular Microcurrent Therapy update (literature search)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13482" RevisionGUID="66288a04-65b4-47f6-aa50-44286449d796" CreationDate="2015-08-31T23:21:42.323" UserId="14903" Text="There is a patent pending aplication for a Bee Hive:&#xD;&#xA;https://docs.google.com/viewer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US20140370781.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is a previous very similar patent application in 1939:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US2223561.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know anything about patents. Can anyone help me?&#xD;&#xA;Is the first patent patentable??&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Than you a lot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32554" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13482" RevisionGUID="66288a04-65b4-47f6-aa50-44286449d796" CreationDate="2015-08-31T23:21:42.323" UserId="14903" Text="Patent conflict" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32555" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13482" RevisionGUID="66288a04-65b4-47f6-aa50-44286449d796" CreationDate="2015-08-31T23:21:42.323" UserId="14903" Text="&lt;bee&gt;&lt;beehive&gt;&lt;honey&gt;&lt;flow&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13482" RevisionGUID="2cc7ee95-0fc0-418c-aa98-4b2f15fc8255" CreationDate="2015-09-01T01:31:41.210" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="There is a patent pending application for an artificial beehive ([US 2014/0370781 A1][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is a very similar patent from 1939 ([US 2,223,561 A][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the newer application patentable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140370781&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US2223561" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32557" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13482" RevisionGUID="2cc7ee95-0fc0-418c-aa98-4b2f15fc8255" CreationDate="2015-09-01T01:31:41.210" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="Patent conflict for artificial beehive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32558" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13482" RevisionGUID="2cc7ee95-0fc0-418c-aa98-4b2f15fc8255" CreationDate="2015-09-01T01:31:41.210" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20140370781&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13485" RevisionGUID="86bfe2e2-e43b-476a-9897-f61778be4264" CreationDate="2015-09-01T11:43:25.943" UserId="14908" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20130208181][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130208181&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent valid in Australia?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32569" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13485" RevisionGUID="86bfe2e2-e43b-476a-9897-f61778be4264" CreationDate="2015-09-01T11:43:25.943" UserId="14908" Text="Is patent US20130208181 valid in Australia?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32570" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13485" RevisionGUID="86bfe2e2-e43b-476a-9897-f61778be4264" CreationDate="2015-09-01T11:43:25.943" UserId="14908" Text="&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="a238ed7c-22af-4a19-bfde-709eab08d77c" CreationDate="2015-09-01T13:57:08.480" UserId="14903" Text="Im sorry but i've been searching and i can't figure out if this patent is granted or not. Please help&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=US128465182&amp;redirectedID=true&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a Prior art case with US2223561 patented in 1939 , but I don't know how to track that case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for the help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32573" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="a238ed7c-22af-4a19-bfde-709eab08d77c" CreationDate="2015-09-01T13:57:08.480" UserId="14903" Text="What is the status of this patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32574" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="a238ed7c-22af-4a19-bfde-709eab08d77c" CreationDate="2015-09-01T13:57:08.480" UserId="14903" Text="&lt;us2223561&gt;&lt;beehive&gt;&lt;flow&gt;&lt;honeyontap&gt;&lt;honey&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13487" RevisionGUID="3fda7c80-0e1a-4f8a-90f4-04f4ff723c5b" CreationDate="2015-09-01T15:38:50.090" UserId="14910" Text="This patent is limited to in-memory databases. That can be argued to be relatively new, however moving an existing idea into using newer technology (like in-memory databases) lacks novelty (ie, inventive step) required for issuing a patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13488" RevisionGUID="2ec54b74-4a65-4536-bd15-e16a19ca47e2" CreationDate="2015-09-01T17:23:44.193" UserId="7833" Text="It is not a patent - it is an Application that was filed with US PTO and has now been abandoned. Being abandoned means the invention, if any, disclosed in the application is essentially in public domain and becomes prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Status:	Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Go to USTPO Public PAIR at http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and use the number you provided as the publication Number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if it had been a patent - it is not enforceable in Australia, since it would have been granted in US. Whereas given that it is a not a patent - the disclosure in this Application can be treated as prior art for Aptent Application filed in Australia. I hope that answers your question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13489" RevisionGUID="fe9c4a87-a7cb-4a75-8eb2-8a933026cc6d" CreationDate="2015-09-01T17:53:13.390" UserId="7833" Text="This is basically an Australian App - 	&#xD;&#xA;PCT Reference: Application Number:PCT/AU2012/001589&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The equivalent US App is US 2014-0370781 A1&#xD;&#xA;The Public PAIR for the US App has the status as &quot;Docketed New Case - Ready for Examination&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To track the application go to http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair and type in the &quot;Publication Number&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13490" RevisionGUID="3b9838ba-5059-4463-a0e5-5d3aaeefbd62" CreationDate="2015-09-01T18:44:12.797" UserId="7833" Text="I am a software / firmware developer too - what I have learnt over the years is not to go out looking for in your words &quot;possible patent infringements&quot; that &quot;are buried in these hundred thousands lines of code.&quot;  (search for &quot;willful infringement&quot; to understand my practice).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are three reasons I don't worry much about those &quot;possible  patent infringement&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(i) recent Legal rulings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- With the Alice ruling - the holding is &quot;Merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform an abstract idea into  patent-eligible invention ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- With the Bilski ruling - the holding is &quot;machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for determining the patent eligibility of a process, but rather a useful tool ..&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(ii) Holistic approach required&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- To avoid patent infringement, it cannot be done by one developer/consultant in a team - it has to be done at an organizational level. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Organization counsel must drive the effort to put a policy/process in place to avoid   / reduce chances of patent infringement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(iii) Any search if any must be done by an external entity under &quot;Attorney- Client Privilege&quot;. And this must be managed by the Organization's counsel. Also  I (the developer) am not being paid to search for patent (which may not exist) that I think I might need to worry about. This search for &quot;possible patent infringements&quot; should not be part of my best practices ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13490" RevisionGUID="7a4e7c83-df91-4690-95f4-d2e66e3e7b91" CreationDate="2015-09-01T18:52:40.993" UserId="7833" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="I concur with vallismortis's answer, but here are my views since I am a software / firmware developer too. What I have learnt over the years is not to go out looking for in your words &quot;possible patent infringements&quot; that &quot;are buried in these hundred thousands lines of code.&quot;  (search for &quot;willful infringement&quot; to understand my practice).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are three reasons I don't worry much about those &quot;possible  patent infringement&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(i) recent Legal rulings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- With the Alice ruling - the holding is &quot;Merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform an abstract idea into  patent-eligible invention ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- With the Bilski ruling - the holding is &quot;machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for determining the patent eligibility of a process, but rather a useful tool ..&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(ii) Holistic approach required&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- To avoid patent infringement, it cannot be done by one developer/consultant in a team - it has to be done at an organizational level. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Organization counsel must drive the effort to put a policy/process in place to avoid   / reduce chances of patent infringement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(iii) Any search if any must be done by an external entity under &quot;Attorney- Client Privilege&quot;. And this must be managed by the Organization's counsel. Also  I (the developer) am not being paid to search for patent (which may not exist) that I think I might need to worry about. This search for &quot;possible patent infringements&quot; should not be part of my best practices ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13491" RevisionGUID="62860e3e-f5dd-4192-8348-30a3503230d3" CreationDate="2015-09-01T19:21:04.747" UserId="7833" Text="&quot;Alternate MAC/PHY&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.macworld.com/article/1140234/bluetooth.html &quot;How Bluetooth got as fast as Wi-Fi&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.gizmag.com/bluetooth-3-sig/11515/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13492" RevisionGUID="607fb969-0044-4f2a-a096-d1e431fbb07d" CreationDate="2015-09-02T02:45:56.737" UserId="7833" Text="http://www.mcobject.com/November10/2008 &quot;In-Memory Database Scales Massively For Social Networking Web Site&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://users.dcc.uchile.cl/~cgutierr/ftp/sunbelt.pdf  &quot;A Database Perspective of Social Network Analysis Data Processing&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.itworld.com/article/2759107/enterprise-software/how-social-networking-works.html&#xD;&#xA;&quot;How Social Networking Works&quot; refers to Memcached users - Twitter, Facebook" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13493" RevisionGUID="d0944caf-2f20-4d87-a85d-c661e47f347c" CreationDate="2015-09-02T06:17:28.203" UserId="7833" Text="Copyright Act of 1976 prevents the unauthorized copying of a work of authorship. However, only the copying of the work is prohibited--anyone may copy the ideas contained within a work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent is a limited duration property right relating to an invention, granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in exchange for public disclosure of the invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A copyright protects works of authorship, such as writings, music, and works of art that have been tangibly expressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may interest you to know that a piece of code that has been written can be copyrighted but not the algorithm and other implementation details; whereas to protect the algorithm and other implementation detail you file for patent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13494" RevisionGUID="5d9e1d38-18c5-4dcd-b588-8d110562e02b" CreationDate="2015-09-02T09:48:10.037" UserId="14139" Text="Say I am an inventor and want to maximize the protection of my invention, so I want to patent the same thing (invention) in as many countries as possible (or at least in the biggest markets like US, EU, Japan etc.). From what I have read this depends on whether a country &quot;acknowledges&quot; other country's patents (like in EU) - say I want to divide the world into such groups and consider applying one patent for such group (is that specific for EU only?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I need to make sure that no prior art is &quot;created&quot; before applying for all the patents (considering the application filling dates)? I am not sure whether patent applications themselves are public and create prior art themselves but if so then I would effectively either need to use provisional applications to keep the subject secret or submit final patent applications at the same time to get the same filling date (because of prior art creation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I understand the situation correctly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32584" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13494" RevisionGUID="5d9e1d38-18c5-4dcd-b588-8d110562e02b" CreationDate="2015-09-02T09:48:10.037" UserId="14139" Text="Get the same patent in multiple countries" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32585" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13494" RevisionGUID="5d9e1d38-18c5-4dcd-b588-8d110562e02b" CreationDate="2015-09-02T09:48:10.037" UserId="14139" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;foreign&gt;&lt;date&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32586" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13494" RevisionGUID="81260360-3e07-49fb-b5cc-231c93a77716" CreationDate="2015-09-02T09:56:21.173" UserId="14139" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;date&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32587" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11949" RevisionGUID="6aea3882-8e03-44d9-8be8-ef06e0adb103" CreationDate="2015-09-02T11:37:19.333" UserId="14139" Comment="+ foreign tag" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;foreign&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32588" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11949" RevisionGUID="6aea3882-8e03-44d9-8be8-ef06e0adb103" CreationDate="2015-09-02T11:37:19.333" Comment="Proposed by 14139 approved by -1 edit id of 1871" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11949" RevisionGUID="205d51dd-6261-4673-9785-c0fdf3daa75e" CreationDate="2015-09-02T11:37:19.333" UserId="14417" Comment="Changed foreign to international. Improved grammar." Text="One patent I have as inventor my institution issued first in Europe, and later in the United States; can I then say that I have two patents or just one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32590" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11949" RevisionGUID="205d51dd-6261-4673-9785-c0fdf3daa75e" CreationDate="2015-09-02T11:37:19.333" UserId="14417" Comment="Changed foreign to international. Improved grammar." Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13485" RevisionGUID="8991a3b4-7c53-4f91-b4a7-902101f0c1f7" CreationDate="2015-09-02T11:40:21.523" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 2013/0208181 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130208181&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent valid in Australia?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32592" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13485" RevisionGUID="8991a3b4-7c53-4f91-b4a7-902101f0c1f7" CreationDate="2015-09-02T11:40:21.523" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag." Text="Is US 2013/0208181 A1 valid in Australia?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32593" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13485" RevisionGUID="8991a3b4-7c53-4f91-b4a7-902101f0c1f7" CreationDate="2015-09-02T11:40:21.523" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag." Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;us20130208181&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="a62c0b9c-4f2d-41aa-b53a-b718b9d896fd" CreationDate="2015-09-02T11:47:51.687" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, added references, improved tagging and corrected spelling and grammar." Text="How can I figure out if [PCT/AU2012/001589][1] is granted or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a prior art case with [US 2,223,561 A][2] patented in 1939, but I don't know how to track that case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=US128465182&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US2223561" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32595" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="a62c0b9c-4f2d-41aa-b53a-b718b9d896fd" CreationDate="2015-09-02T11:47:51.687" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, added references, improved tagging and corrected spelling and grammar." Text="What is the status of this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32596" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="a62c0b9c-4f2d-41aa-b53a-b718b9d896fd" CreationDate="2015-09-02T11:47:51.687" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, added references, improved tagging and corrected spelling and grammar." Text="&lt;legal-status&gt;&lt;us2223561&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13495" RevisionGUID="f1e49a08-a75c-4bc1-a2ef-c0e1cf863978" CreationDate="2015-09-02T11:58:24.063" UserId="14417" Text="This PCT patent is currently in the National Phase, which means there are publications in multiple countries, each with its own status. You can find these on the &quot;National Status&quot; tab of the page you linked to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Office                   Entry Date  National Number  National Status&#xD;&#xA;    Australia                03.07.2014  2012357650       Published: 24.07.2014&#xD;&#xA;    Canada                   02.06.2014  2857701          &#xD;&#xA;    European Patent Office   18.06.2014  2012859200       &#xD;&#xA;    United States of America 03.06.2014  14362446         Published: 18.12.2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each country has its own system for managing the publications. The USPTO provides US legal status via [Public Pair][1]. The [Canadian][2] and [Australian][3] patent systems have the status built into the web pages linked to from PatentScope and are easier to find. The [EPO system][4] is a little more complex, but the information is available on the Legal Status and Event History pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/2857701/summary.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/applicationDetails.do?applicationNo=2012357650&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP12859200" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="55b6f51d-4f72-48b3-aa38-352fed1b1066" CreationDate="2015-09-02T14:17:11.643" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags." Text="How can I figure out if [PCT/AU2012/001589][1] is granted or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a prior art case with [US 2,223,561 A][2] patented in 1939, but I don't know how to track that case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=US128465182&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US2223561" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32599" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="55b6f51d-4f72-48b3-aa38-352fed1b1066" CreationDate="2015-09-02T14:17:11.643" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags." Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;legal-status&gt;&lt;wo2013091018a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13496" RevisionGUID="d8f47ea8-2fbb-42a3-877b-7397a424a5a8" CreationDate="2015-09-02T15:25:52.753" UserId="14139" Text="I found a strange patent - it is a [US 9014966 patent][1] called &quot;Driver assist system for vehicle&quot; by Magna Electronics (the biggest car part supplier in the world). The patent was applied for in 2000 and was granted in 2014, 14 years later. It has about 40 pages, very few illustrations and in my opinion &quot;over-specifies&quot; (lists lots of claims without proving they actually are needed for the &quot;function&quot;). Is this a troll patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US9014966" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32601" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13496" RevisionGUID="d8f47ea8-2fbb-42a3-877b-7397a424a5a8" CreationDate="2015-09-02T15:25:52.753" UserId="14139" Text="40 page troll patent by Magna Electronics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32602" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13496" RevisionGUID="d8f47ea8-2fbb-42a3-877b-7397a424a5a8" CreationDate="2015-09-02T15:25:52.753" UserId="14139" Text="&lt;troll&gt;&lt;us9014966&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32603" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13496" RevisionGUID="85d66353-eede-4bc6-a3e5-270497eeea00" CreationDate="2015-09-02T15:38:38.337" UserId="14139" Comment="edited title" Text="40 page troll patent by Magna Electronics citing 1795 sources" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13497" RevisionGUID="1eda12c4-e432-4da6-b8be-bed8446e830c" CreationDate="2015-09-02T16:30:09.507" UserId="7833" Text="The priority date is in 2000 - it was filed in 2014. It is likely to expire in 2020. IMO it does not appear to be a &quot;troll patent&quot;. Also the Non-patent citations are only 29. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13498" RevisionGUID="5e031316-2195-454f-9d0e-f678875c9582" CreationDate="2015-09-02T22:03:55.213" UserId="14916" Text="I would like to acquire a patent for a software algorithm, but I don't want to provide too much detail, for fear that anyone could look it up, and copy the steps that I've outlined." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32606" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13498" RevisionGUID="5e031316-2195-454f-9d0e-f678875c9582" CreationDate="2015-09-02T22:03:55.213" UserId="14916" Text="Write a patent without giving too much away" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32607" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13498" RevisionGUID="5e031316-2195-454f-9d0e-f678875c9582" CreationDate="2015-09-02T22:03:55.213" UserId="14916" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;writing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13499" RevisionGUID="7b15ddec-8e14-4ca0-920f-128169b37d80" CreationDate="2015-09-02T22:44:46.387" UserId="7833" Text="If you are afraid &quot;anyone ..copy the steps&quot; - IMO you are better off treating it as a trade secret - please check this link for details http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/ip_business/trade_secrets/patent_trade.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also one other thing about &quot;acquire patent for a software algorithm&quot; - in view of the recent [Alice ruling][1] , I would encourage you to consult a Patent Attorney to understand the efficacy of protecting your software algorithm with a Patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Int%27l" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32609" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13498" RevisionGUID="8a4c2e12-9bbb-4ed8-961d-346978b11304" CreationDate="2015-09-03T00:13:46.650" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;writing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13500" RevisionGUID="77408442-3646-45b4-94f2-50711308b7e5" CreationDate="2015-09-03T00:22:34.560" UserId="14417" Text="This is why the [Patent Cooperation Treaty][1] (PCT) exists. A patent application filed as PCT may be filed in other member states.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a good overview of PCT filing [here][2], and more authoritative information can be found at [WIPO][3], especially in this [overview figure][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I strongly recommend finding a patent agent who can step you through this process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Cooperation_Treaty&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/11/03/pct-basics-understanding-the-international-filing-process/id=19960/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/faqs/faqs.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/pct/images/overview.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13499" RevisionGUID="96996eef-4b6d-4a30-8566-f78751747a1e" CreationDate="2015-09-03T02:18:44.760" UserId="7833" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="If you are afraid &quot;anyone could look it up&quot; - IMO you are better off treating it as a trade secret - please check this link for details http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/ip_business/trade_secrets/patent_trade.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also one other thing about &quot;acquire a patent for a software algorithm&quot; - in view of the recent [Alice ruling][1] , I would encourage you to consult a Patent Attorney to understand the efficacy of protecting your software algorithm with a Patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Int%27l" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="ca62139a-0151-4ada-9cef-c47349e8dd67" CreationDate="2015-09-03T08:34:20.537" UserId="11751" Text="I'm sopecifically interested in US6873940 patent (goog: http://goo.gl/gRIsRZ, uspto: http://goo.gl/S728zA). The company that currently owns the patent is a patent troll company called General Patents. I want to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like http://www.keylemon.com or http://www.betafaceapi.com or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker or facial detection in images, audio or video files.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. 702/189; 709/217. I've found out that class 709 scope has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent application process after non-final rejection argued that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&quot; That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect the type of data then the prior art is not applicable consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are send by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no data type detection is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires data type detection and notifying client of ability to process the data then the patent shouldn't apply for such cloud services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to put it shortly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) is class scope in U.S. patent class 709 regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes 702/189; 709/217 work? Both must apply or only first or second?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) during US6873940 patent application inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; having in mind that for processing images requests are directed to url for processing images and for processing voice requests are directed to url for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing just faces. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32613" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="ca62139a-0151-4ada-9cef-c47349e8dd67" CreationDate="2015-09-03T08:34:20.537" UserId="11751" Text="Understanding US 6873940 patent class combination and patent applicability to cloud services" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32614" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="ca62139a-0151-4ada-9cef-c47349e8dd67" CreationDate="2015-09-03T08:34:20.537" UserId="11751" Text="&lt;us-class&gt;&lt;software-as-a-service&gt;&lt;troll&gt;&lt;classification&gt;&lt;server&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="ca56fc24-8c9c-4e74-b0c0-6d66d3d74677" CreationDate="2015-09-03T08:41:55.307" UserId="11751" Comment="Style" Text="I'm sopecifically interested in US6873940 patent (goog: http://goo.gl/gRIsRZ, uspto: http://goo.gl/S728zA). The company that currently owns the patent is a patent troll company called General Patents. I want to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like http://www.keylemon.com or http://www.betafaceapi.com or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker or facial detection in images, audio or video files.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. 702/189; 709/217. I've found out that class 709 scope has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent application process after non-final rejection argued that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect the type of data then the prior art is not applicable consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are send by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no data type detection is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires data type detection and notifying client of ability to process the data then the patent shouldn't apply for such cloud services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So to put it shortly:#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class 709 regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes 702/189; 709/217 work? Both must apply or only first or second?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** during US6873940 patent application inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; having in mind that for processing images requests are directed to url for processing images and for processing voice requests are directed to url for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing just faces. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="feadd832-e4cc-471a-8cbb-8cb3ef2f31b7" CreationDate="2015-09-03T08:46:05.940" UserId="8074" Comment="Text grammar." Text="I'm sopecifically interested in US6873940 patent (goog: http://goo.gl/gRIsRZ, uspto: http://goo.gl/S728zA). The company that currently owns the patent is a patent troll company called General Patents. I want to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like http://www.keylemon.com or http://www.betafaceapi.com or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker or facial detection in images, audio or video files.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. 702/189; 709/217. I've found out that class 709 scope has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent application process after non-final rejection argued that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect the type of data then the prior art is not applicable consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are send by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no data type detection is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires data type detection and notifying client of ability to process the data then the patent shouldn't apply for such cloud services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So to put it briefly:#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class 709 regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes 702/189; 709/217 work? Both must apply or only first or second?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** during US6873940 patent application inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; having in mind that for processing images requests are directed to url for processing images and for processing voice requests are directed to url for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing just faces. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32617" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="feadd832-e4cc-471a-8cbb-8cb3ef2f31b7" CreationDate="2015-09-03T08:46:05.940" Comment="Proposed by 8074 approved by 11751 edit id of 1872" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="7b9ad98a-85f9-4472-9e1e-ea96f32677de" CreationDate="2015-09-03T08:48:56.693" UserId="8074" Comment="Softer on calling someone a patent troll." Text="I'm sopecifically interested in US6873940 patent (goog: http://goo.gl/gRIsRZ, uspto: http://goo.gl/S728zA). The company that currently owns the patent is a company called General Patents which some argue is a patent troll company. I want to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like http://www.keylemon.com or http://www.betafaceapi.com or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker or facial detection in images, audio or video files.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. 702/189; 709/217. I've found out that class 709 scope has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent application process after non-final rejection argued that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect the type of data then the prior art is not applicable consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are send by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no data type detection is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires data type detection and notifying client of ability to process the data then the patent shouldn't apply for such cloud services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So to put it briefly:#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class 709 regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes 702/189; 709/217 work? Both must apply or only first or second?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** during US6873940 patent application inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; having in mind that for processing images requests are directed to url for processing images and for processing voice requests are directed to url for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing just faces. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32619" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="7b9ad98a-85f9-4472-9e1e-ea96f32677de" CreationDate="2015-09-03T08:48:56.693" Comment="Proposed by 8074 approved by 11751 edit id of 1873" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="718fe834-9fed-4541-bfc0-7fd2df24a581" CreationDate="2015-09-03T08:55:49.903" UserId="11751" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="I'm sopecifically interested in US6873940 patent (goog: http://goo.gl/gRIsRZ, uspto: http://goo.gl/S728zA). The company that currently owns the patent is a company called Kamatani Cloud which is subsidiary of General Patents which some argue is a patent troll company. I want to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like http://www.keylemon.com or http://www.betafaceapi.com or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker or facial detection in images, audio or video files.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. 702/189; 709/217. I've found out that class 709 scope has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent application process after non-final rejection argued that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect the type of data then the prior art is not applicable consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are send by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no data type detection is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires data type detection and notifying client of ability to process the data then the patent shouldn't apply for such cloud services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So to put it briefly:#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class 709 regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes 702/189; 709/217 work? Both must apply or only first or second?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** during US6873940 patent application inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; having in mind that for processing images requests are directed to url for processing images and for processing voice requests are directed to url for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing just faces. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="da50364b-9dc3-49a7-8289-553893d7b00f" CreationDate="2015-09-03T09:00:16.000" UserId="8074" Comment="Text grammar." Text="I'm specifically interested in US6873940 patent (goog: http://goo.gl/gRIsRZ, uspto: http://goo.gl/S728zA). The company that currently owns the patent is a company called Kamatani Cloud which is subsidiary of General Patents which some argue is a patent troll company. I want to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like http://www.keylemon.com or http://www.betafaceapi.com or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker or facial detection in images, audio or video files.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. 702/189; 709/217. I've found out that class 709 scope has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent application process after non-final rejection argued that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect the type of data then the prior art is not applicable consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are send by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no data type detection is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires data type detection and notifying client of ability to process the data then the patent shouldn't apply for such cloud services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So to put it briefly:#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class 709 regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes 702/189; 709/217 work? Both must apply or only first or second?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** during US6873940 patent application inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; having in mind that for processing images requests are directed to URL for processing images and for processing voice requests are directed to URL for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing just faces. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32622" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="da50364b-9dc3-49a7-8289-553893d7b00f" CreationDate="2015-09-03T09:00:16.000" Comment="Proposed by 8074 approved by 11751 edit id of 1874" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="a29af64f-9d54-4b06-a2cd-3d89055a3377" CreationDate="2015-09-03T10:53:21.120" UserId="11751" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="I'm specifically interested in US6873940 patent (goog: http://goo.gl/gRIsRZ, uspto: http://goo.gl/S728zA). The company that currently owns the patent is a company called Kamatani Cloud which is subsidiary of General Patents which some argue is a patent troll company. I want to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like http://www.keylemon.com or http://www.betafaceapi.com or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker identification, face detection or content classification in images, audio or video files etc.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. 702/189; 709/217. I've found out that class 709 scope has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent application process after non-final rejection argued that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect the type of data then the prior art is not applicable consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are send by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no data type detection is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires data type detection and notifying client of ability to process the data then the patent shouldn't apply for such cloud services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So to put it briefly:#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class 709 regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes 702/189; 709/217 work? Both must apply or only first or second?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** during US6873940 patent application inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; having in mind that for processing images requests are directed to URL for processing images and for processing voice requests are directed to URL for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing just faces. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="98a79d37-27f1-4335-87cc-f843bcb58e8c" CreationDate="2015-09-03T11:57:59.787" UserId="11751" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="I'm specifically interested in US6873940 patent (goog: http://goo.gl/gRIsRZ, uspto: http://goo.gl/S728zA). The company that currently owns the patent is a company called Kamatani Cloud which is subsidiary of General Patents which some argue is a patent troll company. I want to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like http://www.keylemon.com or http://www.betafaceapi.com or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker identification, face detection or content classification in images, audio or video files etc.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. 702/189; 709/217. I've found out that class 709 scope has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent application process after non-final rejection argued that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect the type of data then the prior art is not applicable consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are send by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no data type detection is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires data type detection and notifying client of ability to process the data then the patent shouldn't apply for such cloud services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So to put it briefly:#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class 709 regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes 702/189; 709/217 work? Both must apply or only first or second?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** during US6873940 patent application inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; having in mind that for processing images requests are directed to URL for processing images and for processing voice requests are directed to URL for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing only faces or only classifying image contents... " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13506" RevisionGUID="cc08f98b-e49d-4b6c-aa40-d8a2f56c8b0d" CreationDate="2015-09-03T12:39:55.433" UserId="14417" Text="What is the correct priority date of [US 4,851,616 A][1], and what are the legal ramifications if an inventor deliberately misrepresents the priority date based on an error in the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please provide your reasoning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hint: There are at least 12 useful pieces of information in the cover sheet (and even more in the specification), and the answer *is not* January 3, 1966.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![cover sheet with incorrect priority date][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: This is a lapsed patent, and the reason I am asking about this is provided in this [meta post][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4851616&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/kXETf.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/q/283/14417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32637" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13506" RevisionGUID="cc08f98b-e49d-4b6c-aa40-d8a2f56c8b0d" CreationDate="2015-09-03T12:39:55.433" UserId="14417" Text="What is the priority date of US 4,851,616 A?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32638" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13506" RevisionGUID="cc08f98b-e49d-4b6c-aa40-d8a2f56c8b0d" CreationDate="2015-09-03T12:39:55.433" UserId="14417" Text="&lt;expired-patent&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;lapsed-patent&gt;&lt;frand&gt;&lt;us4851616&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="46e52245-158b-4aca-9f4b-69312476010a" CreationDate="2015-09-03T12:55:44.337" UserId="11751" Comment="Links" Text="I'm specifically interested in [US 6873940][1] patent. The company that currently owns the patent is a company called Kamatani Cloud which is subsidiary of General Patents which some argue is a patent troll company. I want to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like [keylemon][2], [betafaceapi][3], [rekognition][4] or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker identification, face detection or content classification in images, audio or video files etc.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. 702/189; 709/217. I've found out that class 709 scope has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent application process after non-final rejection argued that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect the type of data then the prior art is not applicable consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are send by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no data type detection is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires data type detection and notifying client of ability to process the data then the patent shouldn't apply for such cloud services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So to put it briefly:#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class 709 regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes 702/189; 709/217 work? Both must apply or only first or second?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** during US6873940 patent application inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; having in mind that for processing images requests are directed to URL for processing images and for processing voice requests are directed to URL for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing only faces or only classifying image contents... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6873940&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.keylemon.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.betafaceapi.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://rekognition.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="86a620cd-30c7-4828-8754-f992e09dc258" CreationDate="2015-09-03T13:07:48.453" UserId="11751" Comment="Clarification" Text="I'm specifically interested in [US 6873940][1] patent. The company that currently owns the patent is a company called Kamatani Cloud which is subsidiary of General Patents which some argue is a patent troll company. I want to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like [keylemon][2], [betafaceapi][3], [rekognition][4] or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker identification, face detection or content classification in images, audio or video files etc.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. 702/189; 709/217. I've found out that class 709 scope has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent application process after non-final rejection argued that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect if server is capable of &quot;*measuring*&quot;/processing the data then the prior art is not applicable, consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are sent by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no &quot;*detecting whether the measurement data are capable of being measured*&quot; is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires server capability of detecting if data can be &quot;*measured*&quot; and notifying client if such capability exists then the patent shouldn't apply for cloud services as mentioned previously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So to put it briefly:#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class 709 regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes 702/189; 709/217 work? Both must apply or only first or second?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** during US6873940 patent application inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; having in mind that for processing images requests are directed to URL for processing images and for processing voice requests are directed to URL for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing only faces or only classifying image contents... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6873940&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.keylemon.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.betafaceapi.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://rekognition.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="9ee56667-dc7f-43c5-8152-d26d4401f4e8" CreationDate="2015-09-03T13:17:12.483" UserId="11751" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="I'm specifically interested in [US 6873940][1] patent. The company that currently owns the patent is a company called Kamatani Cloud which is subsidiary of General Patents which some argue is a patent troll company. I want to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like [keylemon][2], [betafaceapi][3], [rekognition][4] or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker identification, face detection or content classification in images, audio or video files etc.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. 702/189; 709/217. I've found out that class 709 scope has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent [application][5] process after non-final rejection argued that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect if server is capable of &quot;*measuring*&quot;/processing the data then the prior art is not applicable, consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are sent by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no &quot;*detecting whether the measurement data are capable of being measured*&quot; is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires server capability of detecting if data can be &quot;*measured*&quot; and notifying client if such capability exists then the patent shouldn't apply for cloud services as mentioned previously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So to put it briefly:#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class 709 regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes 702/189; 709/217 work? Both must apply or only first or second?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** during US6873940 patent application inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; having in mind that for processing images requests are directed to URL for processing images and for processing voice requests are directed to URL for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing only faces or only classifying image contents... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6873940&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.keylemon.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.betafaceapi.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://rekognition.com&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32642" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13506" RevisionGUID="44513049-a271-4cf6-9493-4ebd551ecbd4" CreationDate="2015-09-03T13:30:51.303" UserId="14417" Comment="Fixed incorrect tag." Text="&lt;expired-patent&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;lapsed-patent&gt;&lt;us4851616&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13490" RevisionGUID="d58f05a2-f925-4b72-a5b1-ae940e1fb17c" CreationDate="2015-09-03T14:21:03.117" UserId="7833" Comment="improved formatting" Text="I concur with vallismortis's answer, but here are my views since I am a software / firmware developer too. What I have learnt over the years is not to go out looking for in your words &quot;possible patent infringements&quot; that &quot;are buried in these hundred thousands lines of code.&quot;  (search for &quot;willful infringement&quot; to understand my practice).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are three reasons I don't worry much about those &quot;possible  patent infringement&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(i) recent Legal rulings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- With the Alice ruling - the holding is &quot;Merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform an abstract idea into  patent-eligible invention ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- With the Bilski ruling - the holding is &quot;machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for determining the patent eligibility of a process, but rather a useful tool ..&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(ii) Holistic approach required&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- To avoid patent infringement, it cannot be done by one developer/consultant in a team - it has to be done at an organizational level. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Organization counsel must drive the effort to put a policy/process in place to avoid   / reduce chances of patent infringement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(iii) Any search if any must be done by an external entity under &quot;Attorney- Client Privilege&quot;. And this must be managed by the Organization's counsel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also  I (the developer) am not being paid to search for patent (which may not exist) that I think I might need to worry about. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The search for &quot;possible patent infringements&quot; should not be part of my best practices ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13512" RevisionGUID="50263f57-c22e-4ccd-a0a3-d9d6b8c81439" CreationDate="2015-09-03T16:27:10.400" UserId="14922" Text="Can a US company which does not hold a registered patent for a product or method sell a US patented product or use a US patented method overseas without a licensing agreement? Is a US patent enforceable against a registered US company or subsidiary regardless of where the US company trades?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32660" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13512" RevisionGUID="50263f57-c22e-4ccd-a0a3-d9d6b8c81439" CreationDate="2015-09-03T16:27:10.400" UserId="14922" Text="Patent enforcement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32661" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13512" RevisionGUID="50263f57-c22e-4ccd-a0a3-d9d6b8c81439" CreationDate="2015-09-03T16:27:10.400" UserId="14922" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13514" RevisionGUID="9ef2bdd4-00f4-4761-b931-51609f429804" CreationDate="2015-09-03T20:17:11.890" UserId="14924" Text="In reference to the patent: [US9057097][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9057097&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much of this technique was described previously in Piepenburg et al (PLoS ONE, 2006). Can academic labs explore this approach using the method described there without worrying about patent infringement? I work in an ecology lab and would like to try to apply RPA to some of our common applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32666" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13514" RevisionGUID="9ef2bdd4-00f4-4761-b931-51609f429804" CreationDate="2015-09-03T20:17:11.890" UserId="14924" Text="How can an academic lab explore RPA?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32667" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13514" RevisionGUID="9ef2bdd4-00f4-4761-b931-51609f429804" CreationDate="2015-09-03T20:17:11.890" UserId="14924" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13514" RevisionGUID="be7dc661-d980-408b-8540-864b44768ef1" CreationDate="2015-09-04T01:49:03.883" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and formatting." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 9,057,097 B2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9057097&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much of this technique was described previously in Piepenburg *et al.* (PLoS ONE, 2006). Can academic labs explore this approach using the method described there without worrying about patent infringement? I work in an ecology lab and would like to try to apply RPA to some of our common applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32670" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13514" RevisionGUID="be7dc661-d980-408b-8540-864b44768ef1" CreationDate="2015-09-04T01:49:03.883" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and formatting." Text="&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;freedom-to-operate&gt;&lt;research&gt;&lt;us9057097&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13512" RevisionGUID="1521d7bf-7d5b-46ad-899e-d4c0d4926a8a" CreationDate="2015-09-04T01:50:24.533" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="Can a US company which does not hold a registered patent for a product or method sell a US patented product or use a US patented method overseas without a licensing agreement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is a US patent enforceable against a registered US company or subsidiary regardless of where the US company trades?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32672" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13512" RevisionGUID="1521d7bf-7d5b-46ad-899e-d4c0d4926a8a" CreationDate="2015-09-04T01:50:24.533" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;freedom-to-operate&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13471" RevisionGUID="07774626-0053-43d2-899f-ca226fc4786d" CreationDate="2015-09-04T11:48:51.623" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected spelling." Text="Before I dig into the patent application, I'll just note that the active ingredient in the product you mention (arbutin) is indeed a glycoside hydroquinone, which is directly claimed in dependent claim 2 of the application (which must be read in the context of independent claim 1):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of lightening the color of the iris of a human subject, the method comprising administering to the iris of the human subject an amount of a composition comprising a tyrosinase inhibitor effective to lighten the color of the iris of the human subject.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the tyrosinase inhibitor is hydroquinone,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, now we need to dig deeper, which is a problem because this patent has a lengthy prosecution history, and an office action is currently pending on a non-final rejection. This means that the patent claims and the final outcome of the application are still undetermined, and your question is not answerable with 100% certainty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the claims as they are listed in Google Patents and the published application no longer reflect the currently pending claims, which can be found in the Image File Wrapper in the USPTO [Public Pair][3] database. Nor can we rely on the claims currently found in the Image File Wrapper, since after the next office action they will be modified again (I'm anticipating that this will occur based on a fairly recent Request for Continued Examination).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we can make a few educated guesses based on the examiner's notes on the non-final rejection. First, let's look at the most recent version of claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of lightening the color of the iris of a human subject, the method comprising administering to the iris of the human subject an amount of a composition comprising a melanogenesis inhibitor effective to lighten the color of the iris of the human subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now we need to determine whether arbutin is considered to be a melanogenesis inhibitor. Indeed, we can quickly find [some references][1] which classify arbutin as a melanogenesis inhibitor:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sugimoto, K. (2003). α-Arbutin: a new skin-lightening agent for cosmetics (in Japanese). *J. Appl. Glycosci.* **50**:109-110.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sugimoto, K. *et al.* (2003). Syntheses of Arbutin-α-glycosides and a Comparison of Their Inhibitory Effects with Those of α-Arbutin and Arbutin on Human Tyrosinase. *Chem. Pharm. Bull.* **51**:798-801.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sugimoto, K. *et al.* (2005). Inhibitory Effects of Several Types of Hydroquinone Glycosides on Human Tyrosinase and Melanogenesis Inhibition of Alpha-Arbutin&quot; Fragrance Journal **33**(5) 60-66.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the dates of the above publications are well before the priority date of the application (January 29, 2009), which makes these prior art to any claims on the use of arbutin as melanogenisis inhibitors. Now, if you read further into the office action response, the inventors are defending against the rejection by stating:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This rejection is not supported by these citations and should be withdrawn because disclosures relating to tissues and cells other than iris, such as skin, etc., are not applicable to the iris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner sidesteps the above argument by rejecting on the grounds of prior art from an earlier patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claims 1, 19 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Drago *et al* ([USPN 6,359,001][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Drago *et al* ([USPN 6,359,001][2]) teach methods of lightening the color of the iris in a human comprising administering a melanogenesis inhibitor, which human is healthy of afflicted with glaucoma (see entire document, esp. the abstract, col. 1, 2, claims 1-10).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, Drago *et al.* ([US 6,359,001 B1][2]) is a granted patent covering &quot;Use of α-methyl-p-tyrosine to inhibit melanin production in iris melanocytes&quot;. The abstract is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The use of agents for blocking the synthesis of tyrosinase to prevent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; permanent pigmentation of the iris caused by melanin deposit induced&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by pharmacological treatments or by metabolic imbalance is described.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims of this earlier patent will effectively serve as prior art to prevent new patents in this space, so now the question becomes whether the product you mentioned infringes on the '001 patent. The claims in the '001 patent are far more complex, but fortunately we don't need to read them because the patent has lapsed (March 19, 2010) and is not currently enforceable. However, there are several caveats to that statement. First, although unlikely, the patent could once again become enforceable (through April 22, 2017) if the patent is revived and the fees are paid. I don't think this will occur because the assignee has now missed both the second (2010) and third (2014) fee payment dates. This means that the enforceable period of the grant in the United States was (I think) April 21, 1998 through March 19, 2010. Secondly, if that product were sold between the enforceable dates, the assignee (Pharmacia Ab) could potentially sue for damages retroactively. However, if the product were on the market prior to the priority date of the patent or after the enforceable date of the grant, then it should be in the clear. Of course, for all we know, the company that produces the product may be a subsidiary of the assignee, or may have already taken a license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, the application you mentioned might set a record for the number of domestic benefit claims, which complicates the comprehension of this patent by making the ten non-provisional documents below required reading material if you are interested in further study of this application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This application claims the benefit of the priority of&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    a. International Patent Application No. PCT/US10/00257, filed Jan. 29, 2010, and&#xD;&#xA;    b. International Patent Application No. PCT/US10/002051, filed Jul. 21, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Further, this application claims the benefit of the priority of&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    c. U.S. NonProvisional patent application Ser. No. 13/138,260, filed Jul. 25, 2011 and&#xD;&#xA;    d. U.S. NonProvisional patent application Ser. No. ______ filed Nov. 29, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Further, this application claims the benefit of the priority of&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    e. U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/206,391, filed Jan. 29, 2009;&#xD;&#xA;    f. U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/212,722, filed Apr. 15, 2009;&#xD;&#xA;    g. U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/271,498, filed Jul. 22, 2009;&#xD;&#xA;    h. U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/271,961, filed Jul. 29, 2009;&#xD;&#xA;    i. U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/343,558, filed Apr. 30, 2010; and&#xD;&#xA;    j. U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/418,570, filed Dec. 1, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    This application is a continuation in part of&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    a. International patent application No. PCT/US10/00257, filed Jan. 29, 2010;&#xD;&#xA;    b. International patent application No. PCT/US10/002051, filed Jul. 21, 2010;&#xD;&#xA;    c. U.S. NonProvisional patent application Ser. No. 13/138,260, filed Jul. 25, 2011;&#xD;&#xA;    d. U.S. NonProvisional patent application Ser. No. ______, filed Nov. 29, 2011;&#xD;&#xA;    e. U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/206,391, filed Jan. 29, 2009;&#xD;&#xA;    f. U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/212,722, filed Apr. 15, 2009;&#xD;&#xA;    g. U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/271,498, filed Jul. 22, 2009;&#xD;&#xA;    h. U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/271, 961, filed Jul. 29, 2009;&#xD;&#xA;    i. U.S. Provisional Patent application Ser. No. 61/343,558, filed Apr. 30, 2010; and&#xD;&#xA;    j. U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/418,570, filed Dec. 1, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Throughout this application various publications, published patent applications, &#xD;&#xA;    and patents are referenced. The disclosures of these documents in their entireties &#xD;&#xA;    are hereby incorporated by reference into this application in order to more fully &#xD;&#xA;    describe the state of the art to which this invention pertains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.glico.co.jp/en/material/alpha-arbutin/alpha-arbutin8.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6359001&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="dc007e23-b67e-4680-ae5b-f7dfaa6c1777" CreationDate="2015-09-04T18:43:20.190" UserId="8074" Comment="links updated" Text="I'm specifically interested in [US 6873940][1] patent. The company that currently owns the patent is a company called [Kamatani Cloud][2] which is subsidiary of [General Patent][3] which some argue is a patent troll company. I want to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like [keylemon][4], [betafaceapi][5], [rekognition][6] or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker identification, face detection or content classification in images, audio or video files etc.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. 702/189; 709/217. I've found out that class 709 scope has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent [application][7] process after non-final rejection argued that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect if server is capable of &quot;*measuring*&quot;/processing the data then the prior art is not applicable, consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are sent by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no &quot;*detecting whether the measurement data are capable of being measured*&quot; is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires server capability of detecting if data can be &quot;*measured*&quot; and notifying client if such capability exists then the patent shouldn't apply for cloud services as mentioned previously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So to put it briefly:#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class 709 regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes 702/189; 709/217 work? Both must apply or only first or second?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** during US6873940 patent application inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; having in mind that for processing images requests are directed to URL for processing images and for processing voice requests are directed to URL for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing only faces or only classifying image contents... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6873940&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kamatanicloud.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.generalpatent.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.keylemon.com&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.betafaceapi.com&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://rekognition.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32682" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="dc007e23-b67e-4680-ae5b-f7dfaa6c1777" CreationDate="2015-09-04T18:43:20.190" Comment="Proposed by 8074 approved by 11751 edit id of 1875" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="1e9d732c-ee05-4dc8-bdaf-3adc74e7962c" CreationDate="2015-09-04T19:05:42.067" UserId="11751" Comment="added 289 characters in body" Text="I'm specifically interested in [US 6873940][1] patent. The company that currently owns the patent is a company called [Kamatani Cloud][2] which is subsidiary of [General Patent][3] which some argue is a patent troll company. I want to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like [keylemon][4], [betafaceapi][5], [rekognition][6] or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker identification, face detection or content classification in images, audio or video files etc.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. [702/189][7]; [709][8]/[217][9]. I've found out that class 709 scope has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent [application][10] process after non-final rejection argued that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect if server is capable of &quot;*measuring*&quot;/processing the data then the prior art is not applicable, consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are sent by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no &quot;*detecting whether the measurement data are capable of being measured*&quot; is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires server capability of detecting if data can be &quot;*measured*&quot; and notifying client if such capability exists then the patent shouldn't apply for cloud services as mentioned previously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So to put it briefly:#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class [709][8] regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes [702/189][7]; [709][8]/[217][9] work? Both must apply or only first or second?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** during US6873940 patent application inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; having in mind that for processing images requests are directed to URL for processing images and for processing voice requests are directed to URL for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing only faces or only classifying image contents... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6873940&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kamatanicloud.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.generalpatent.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.keylemon.com&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.betafaceapi.com&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://rekognition.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc702/defs702.htm#C702S189000&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm#C709S217000&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13514" RevisionGUID="87d62d63-15f4-4e4e-9079-f0988f564bca" CreationDate="2015-09-04T21:05:10.467" UserId="11751" Comment="Link added." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 9,057,097 B2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much of this technique was described previously in [Piepenburg *et al.* (PLoS ONE, 2006)][2]. Can academic labs explore this approach using the method described there without worrying about patent infringement? I work in an ecology lab and would like to try to apply RPA to some of our common applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9057097&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040204" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32686" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13514" RevisionGUID="87d62d63-15f4-4e4e-9079-f0988f564bca" CreationDate="2015-09-04T21:05:10.467" Comment="Proposed by 11751 approved by 14417, 1 edit id of 1876" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13518" RevisionGUID="bd9dfab6-ce06-44f9-ab0d-ec56b73d6bd4" CreationDate="2015-09-05T12:14:17.613" UserId="14139" Text="Say I may have a &quot;computer-implemented invention&quot; which is very easy on the hardware side but very complicated on the software side. I may be thinking about getting a patent for it. What would be my reasons for revealing my complicated (read &quot;sophisticated&quot;) methods the software is based on to the world? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean such a patent may bring more problems to me then advantages since it reveals all internals to the public and it may be very difficult (and costly!) for me to actually find and fight down patent infringements (see [this post][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simply if I don't patent a thing there is a danger that someone will come up with the same thing and try to patent it - is such case, how strong would be my position if I was selling a &quot;closed source&quot; product but could prove (with internal documents and human witnesses) that I have been selling the same thing already for some time and thus it can not be patented anymore? Will in such case the subject of the possible patent go public then? If so, that may be a disadvantage for me then (since I will be public and I wont be able to patent it anymore - this means competition would start).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The final thought is I may be able to earn more money using the invention without a patent since my methods are &quot;hidden&quot; to my competition but if I get a patent there may be a lot of competition using it without me being able to prevent them from doing so or event being able to track them down at all...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3707/general-knowledge-on-how-software-patent-infringement-lawsuits-are-evaluated" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32693" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13518" RevisionGUID="bd9dfab6-ce06-44f9-ab0d-ec56b73d6bd4" CreationDate="2015-09-05T12:14:17.613" UserId="14139" Text="Why to reveal (software) methods through a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32694" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13518" RevisionGUID="bd9dfab6-ce06-44f9-ab0d-ec56b73d6bd4" CreationDate="2015-09-05T12:14:17.613" UserId="14139" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13518" RevisionGUID="bc5413bd-ffd2-4fde-84a5-03075ab371ae" CreationDate="2015-09-05T12:29:09.030" UserId="14139" Comment="deleted 170 characters in body" Text="Say I may have a &quot;computer-implemented invention&quot; which is very easy on the hardware side but very complicated on the software side. I may be thinking about getting a patent for it. What would be my reasons for revealing my complicated (read &quot;sophisticated&quot;) methods that the software is based on to the world? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean such a patent may bring me more problems then advantages since it reveals all internals to the public and it may be very difficult (and costly!) for me to actually find and fight down patent infringements (see [this post][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I don't patent a thing there is a danger that someone else will try to patent it. In such case, can I hijack such patent application if I prove (with internal documents and human witnesses) that I have been selling same product for some time already? I guess that application would go public then which would be a disadvantage for me then since I wouldn't be able to patent it myself anymore - most likely competition would start...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The final thought is I may be able to earn more money using the invention without a patent keeping my methods in secret but if I get a patent there may be a lot of competition using it without me really being able to prevent them from doing so or event being able to track them down at all...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3707/general-knowledge-on-how-software-patent-infringement-lawsuits-are-evaluated" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13519" RevisionGUID="507e26c8-53a2-4b49-a5f7-b8b0889a4eff" CreationDate="2015-09-05T13:29:08.410" UserId="14417" Text="If you look in the non-patent citations, you will find that the Piepenburg *et al.* 2006 paper is cited as prior art against this patent (of which Piepenburg is one of the inventors). Looking in [Public Pair][1], you can also see a long history of patents in this space going back to 2002 (at least 6 grants which will likely be enforceable until February 22, 2022).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might find some freedom to operate within non-patent literature cited in those earlier patents (and in the non-final rejections in the Image File Wrapper - see Public Pair), but the intention of the company was obviously to lock this entire space up. The non-final rejections for this patent in particular is interesting because the examiner is rejecting some claims based on double-patenting. Due to this, you might find some Terminal Disclaimers that could expire some of these patent prior to their normal expiration date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7702" RevisionGUID="c6f7c19c-f348-494a-a668-a310d38dc903" CreationDate="2015-09-05T14:42:31.097" UserId="14417" Comment="Added missing information and updated to current status." Text="This application is claiming everything that is involved in Bitcoin mining or any other cryptocurrency mining using Asic chips where the block chain is segmented and hashed by multiple parallel hash units and then recombined.  I would like to make sure open source cryptocurrency is not patented.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there should be something out there that teaches how to speed up mining with the use of GPU or Asic chips that is before July 11th, 2012.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Publication number:** [US 2014/0019693 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee:** Intel&#xD;&#xA; - **Prior Art Date:** July 11, 2012 (but see caveats below)&#xD;&#xA; - **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The three independent claims (1, 7, and 19) (as of June 27, 2015) are all essentially variations of claim 1, (substitute &quot;computing device&quot;, &quot;method&quot;, &quot;machine-readable storage media&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A [&quot;computing device&quot;, &quot;method&quot;, &quot;machine-readable storage media&quot;] for processing a data buffer, the [&quot;computing device&quot;, &quot;method&quot;, &quot;machine-readable storage media&quot;] comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a data buffer processing module to: access an arbitrary-length data buffer having a buffer length and a plurality of data segments, each data segment having a segment length greater than zero and less than the buffer length;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  directly read the data segments into a single data register, the single data register having a plurality of data paths, each data segment being read directly into a different data path of the single data register;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  perform a serial data processing algorithm on each of the data paths of the single data register substantially in parallel to produce a result for each data path;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and combine the results produced for each of the data paths of the single register to form the output of the serial data processing algorithm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The priority date for this application is July 11, 2012, and the assignee is **Intel**. However, there are six inventors listed, so any prior art from these individuals or Intel in general would avoid any issues regarding burden-of-proof for inventorship if they were earlier than July 11, 2011:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sean M. Gulley&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Wajdi K. Feghali&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Vinodh Gopal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - James D. Guilford &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Gilbert M. Wolrich&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Kirk S. Yap&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update (September 5, 2015): This patent has now undergone several office actions, and there has been no amendment to the claims. The inventors are repeating arguments with the examiner during each office action:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claims 1-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unpatentable over Sprengers [GPU-based Password Cracking on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Security of Password Hashing Schemes regarding Advances in Graphics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Processing Units] in view of Zalewski et al. [Case Study on FPGA&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perfomrance of Parallel Hash Functions]. Sprengers teaches the use of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; GPU programmable ALUs for parallel processing of hashes. Zalewski&#xD;&#xA;&gt; teaches a proposed parallelizable hash function on an FPGA.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The examiner has determined the applicant's invention to be directed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; towards the parallel performance of cryptographic hashing schemes. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; examiner knows that such improvements have been in use in the fields&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of password cracking and cryptographic currency mining such as Bitcoin&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mining. Therefore the examiner has determined the overall board aspect&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the applicant's claims to be obvious given the teachings of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; programmable ALU's taught in GPU, FPGA, and ASICs. The examiner&#xD;&#xA;&gt; suggests the applicant further narrow what it is the applicant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; considers the novel aspect of the present application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, the examiner is not budging on his position, but some additional (more specific) prior art would be extremely helpful in getting this patent rejected. Intel has shown no signs of abandoning this attempt to patent something that arose from the open source community. In the year since this question was posted, there has been no attempt to provide prior art. Where are the open source contributors?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20140019693" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32698" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7702" RevisionGUID="c6f7c19c-f348-494a-a668-a310d38dc903" CreationDate="2015-09-05T14:42:31.097" UserId="14417" Comment="Added missing information and updated to current status." Text="Help Open Source - BitCoin and CryptoCurrency Mining - prior art requested for US 2014/0019693 A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32699" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7702" RevisionGUID="c6f7c19c-f348-494a-a668-a310d38dc903" CreationDate="2015-09-05T14:42:31.097" UserId="14417" Comment="Added missing information and updated to current status." Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;bitcoin&gt;&lt;us20140019693&gt;&lt;intel&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7734" RevisionGUID="891effeb-ca84-4d9c-b130-6160f9021df4" CreationDate="2015-09-05T15:04:47.360" UserId="14417" Comment="Added references based on the suggested search results." Text="I just restricted Google search results for [GPU bitcoin mining from 1/1/2009 to 7/10/2012][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quite a few references are made, including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[BitCoin History][2]: July 18, 2010 - [ArtForz][3] generated his first block after establishing his personal OpenCL GPU hash farm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And even here on StackExchange (May 5, 2012):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[When was the first GPU miner made available publicly?][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a post dated December 19, 2010 on the [OpenCL GPU miner][5], which was first available [October 1, 2010][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [CUDA miner][6] was released September 18, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea was [first suggested][7] on December 12, 2009 in an online forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is [source code][9] available for a [GPU miner][8] dated December 24, 2010 (Updated February 27, 2011). Would someone be willing to have a look at this code and compare it to the claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=gpu%20bitcoin%20mining&amp;safe=active&amp;es_sm=93&amp;biw=1920&amp;bih=971&amp;source=lnt&amp;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2009%2Ccd_max%3A7%2F10%2F2012&amp;tbm=&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Category:History&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ofnumbers.com/2014/04/20/how-artforz-changed-the-history-of-bitcoin-mining/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/3572&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=OpenCL_miner&amp;oldid=461&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/3573&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=12.msg52#msg52&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2444.0&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.mediafire.com/file/ve608cl5mk1ka3l/bitcoin-remote-rpc-20110227-src.zip" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5656" RevisionGUID="967411c3-3029-4d6e-b056-7014368773a3" CreationDate="2015-09-05T15:25:06.387" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected spelling." Text="Not published means not available for the public to see at all. The AIA 3rd party submission process window opens at publication and closes six months later or at first action on the merits. For an application with a non-publication request that window would seem to never open." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4708" RevisionGUID="46d0ae2b-e63d-4755-8375-df70cdffad5a" CreationDate="2015-09-05T15:29:21.863" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and added reference." Text="In the US, the AIA amended the rules to allow third parties to submit prior art during prosecution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[MPEP 1134.01 Third Party Submissions Under 37 CFR 1.290][1] [R-11.2013]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third parties can submit prior art by the later of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) within 6 months of publication of the application; or &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) before the first Office Action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If for some reason there is a Notice of Allowance earlier than the above, the submission must be made before then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Submission of prior art may be anonymous but there is a filing fee for each 10 references ($180). The fee is waived if there are three or fewer references submitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1134.html#d0e121728" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13520" RevisionGUID="f477ca50-52e1-4789-b7b9-ba2a816e3749" CreationDate="2015-09-05T15:31:57.383" UserId="14935" Text="I am looking to launch a product which has already existed in Australia but failed to make any money at the time.  The product was created around 3 years ago but the company seems to have ceased trading now.  There is no patent or patent-pending on the product.&#xA;&#xA;Can I still apply for a patent on the idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32704" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13520" RevisionGUID="f477ca50-52e1-4789-b7b9-ba2a816e3749" CreationDate="2015-09-05T15:31:57.383" UserId="14935" Text="Can I patent a product that has already failed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32705" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13520" RevisionGUID="f477ca50-52e1-4789-b7b9-ba2a816e3749" CreationDate="2015-09-05T15:31:57.383" UserId="14935" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;patent-pending&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13519" RevisionGUID="8ee15c13-7300-4367-8b5f-d7f3f037a495" CreationDate="2015-09-05T16:04:19.020" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected spelling." Text="If you look in the non-patent citations, you will find that the Piepenburg *et al.* 2006 paper is cited as prior art against this patent (of which Piepenburg is one of the inventors). Looking in [Public Pair][1], you can also see a long history of patents in this space going back to 2002 (at least 6 grants which will likely be enforceable until February 22, 2022).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might find some freedom to operate within non-patent literature cited in those earlier patents (and in the non-final rejections in the Image File Wrapper - see Public Pair), but the intention of the company was obviously to lock this entire space up. The non-final rejections for this patent in particular is interesting because the examiner is rejecting some claims based on double-patenting. Due to this, you might find some Terminal Disclaimers that could expire some of these patents prior to their normal expiration date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32710" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="20928fdd-dfb2-42f8-9f23-bfedb7f879e7" CreationDate="2015-09-05T16:20:48.067" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag." Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;pro-se&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32711" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12137" RevisionGUID="b1e9299f-43f2-4516-97b5-cbb2ef71c36e" CreationDate="2015-09-05T16:21:31.607" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag." Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;pro-se&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="583" RevisionGUID="5b97e7cc-da3b-4f33-81cc-4189590b6a9f" CreationDate="2015-09-05T16:22:40.837" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag and improved formatting." Text="To begin with I read: [Is it practical for a novice to successfully file a patent without hiring a patent lawyer?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a large community of hobbyist and DIYselfers who are constantly working on new stuff. Assuming that one of them comes up with something new what are the avenues that he/she can profitably explore. What I did understand from the link that I referenced, is that it is impractical to fight out your Patent Wars all alone. Are there communities, which for a certain percentage in the returns, help a small-time individual in filing for a patent of his/her idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first two communities that come to mind are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Universities (for those who have that option)&#xD;&#xA; - Sites like InventHelp ([link][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other groups out there who will do a similar/better job?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/90/is-it-practical-for-a-novice-to-successfully-file-a-patent-without-hiring-a-pate&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.similarsitesearch.com/alternatives-to/inventhelp.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32713" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="583" RevisionGUID="5b97e7cc-da3b-4f33-81cc-4189590b6a9f" CreationDate="2015-09-05T16:22:40.837" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag and improved formatting." Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;pro-se&gt;&lt;business-methods&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12391" RevisionGUID="7edb8dc7-602f-4bbb-aa8f-63a3b719e6a9" CreationDate="2015-09-05T16:25:26.043" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved grammar and added tag." Text="I am employee of a company and all my work, even it is outside of work, is owned by company. I signed this common agreement while joining. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I have an idea that I want to patent on my own. Since I cannot file in my name (company can claim it is theirs), I want to file with my relative's name. Does this have any complications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32715" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12391" RevisionGUID="7edb8dc7-602f-4bbb-aa8f-63a3b719e6a9" CreationDate="2015-09-05T16:25:26.043" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved grammar and added tag." Text="Can I file a patent on my mother's name since I work for a company?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32716" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12391" RevisionGUID="7edb8dc7-602f-4bbb-aa8f-63a3b719e6a9" CreationDate="2015-09-05T16:25:26.043" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved grammar and added tag." Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6287" RevisionGUID="428f7d0d-957f-4df7-968a-9944c786f1a4" CreationDate="2015-09-05T16:40:24.743" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected spelling, improved grammar and added tag." Text="This is the first time I'm thinking about filing a patent, and I don't know where to start. First of all I'm not from the USA but I want to file a patent with the USPTO without a patent attorney as I can't afford one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can be a patent filed online? Where can I get detailed information about the procedures and fees? And most important, if there is a similar patent, can I be sued from the owner?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32718" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6287" RevisionGUID="428f7d0d-957f-4df7-968a-9944c786f1a4" CreationDate="2015-09-05T16:40:24.743" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected spelling, improved grammar and added tag." Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;pro-se&gt;&lt;mpep&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13522" RevisionGUID="d2b6b8ea-2805-4f69-85aa-8eb0cac32fa4" CreationDate="2015-09-05T16:46:08.177" UserId="7833" Text="&gt;&gt; Does this have any complications?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;yes it does have complications&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO - you have three options,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Instead of doing something surreptitious - check with your company if&#xD;&#xA;   your idea interests them. Once they confirm that they are not&#xD;&#xA;   interested in it - you can file while staying employed.  &#xD;&#xA; - If they like your invention IMO - hand it over to them.  &#xD;&#xA; - Quit the company to work&#xD;&#xA;   on your idea - while working on your idea - take up a part time job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3739" RevisionGUID="6157d50f-c42e-4c09-8358-69901644f365" CreationDate="2015-09-05T16:46:21.227" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting." Text="I found patent [EP 2155766 A1][1] while looking at Ru mediators. I also found [this paper][2], published April 2008, 3 months before the filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this invalidate the patent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/EP2155766A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lbms03.cityu.edu.hk/theses/abt/mphil-bch-b22687452a.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32721" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3739" RevisionGUID="6157d50f-c42e-4c09-8358-69901644f365" CreationDate="2015-09-05T16:46:21.227" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting." Text="How does this paper published in 3 months before the filing date affect the claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4241" RevisionGUID="15f1a87b-dbc1-4346-becb-f3fba279592a" CreationDate="2015-09-05T16:49:21.177" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and added tag." Text="I am a student and I don't have enough money (not even nearly enough) to file a patent. I strongly believe in my idea and therefore I would give and do anything in my power to secure this patent. I have a couple of questions though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I am from the EU, can I file a worldwide patent in my country? &#xD;&#xA;- What are the benefits of hiring a patent attorney? I have huge trust issues and I would rather do this on my own. &#xD;&#xA;- What are the chances of my patent being rejected? I know this it is hard to assess the probability on a specific basis, but what are general rejection percentages? &#xD;&#xA;- Would a bank (EU) give me a credit in order to file this particular patent? &#xD;&#xA;- Is it correct that it would cost me 15-25k USD to file this patent in its entirety? &#xD;&#xA;- How long does it take for the patent to take effect (in general) from the initial filing to successfully being granted?  &#xD;&#xA;- Let's say I would not patent my idea and roll it out myself. What is the likeliness of big players crushing me like the cockroach I am? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There already are very similar (software-)'products' on the market. Is it likely that they are going to accept it if my idea is different in its nuances but these define and make the software unique?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32723" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4241" RevisionGUID="15f1a87b-dbc1-4346-becb-f3fba279592a" CreationDate="2015-09-05T16:49:21.177" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and added tag." Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;pro-se&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12289" RevisionGUID="a8051b72-a5df-4695-89c0-6ffaaf279dae" CreationDate="2015-09-05T16:50:03.983" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags and improved grammar." Text="Can a non-US citizen file a provisional patent in US? Does he need to hire an attorney or can he do it himself?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does he need to do to convert the provisional patent into a final patent? (meaning: will he need an attorney?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32725" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12289" RevisionGUID="a8051b72-a5df-4695-89c0-6ffaaf279dae" CreationDate="2015-09-05T16:50:03.983" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags and improved grammar." Text="Provisional patent in US for non-US citizen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32726" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12289" RevisionGUID="a8051b72-a5df-4695-89c0-6ffaaf279dae" CreationDate="2015-09-05T16:50:03.983" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags and improved grammar." Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;pro-se&gt;&lt;attorney&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32727" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5911" RevisionGUID="896bfed8-c2f4-4b4b-823a-a7e06386c090" CreationDate="2015-09-05T16:50:27.323" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags." Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;pro-se&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6135" RevisionGUID="d2a6ffa2-2cb0-416e-a082-3445de8d3e8c" CreationDate="2015-09-06T11:33:19.777" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting." Text="You might want to consider pursuing a reissue application (see [MPEP Chapter 1400][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-1400.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10538" RevisionGUID="a915175a-c304-418f-9893-023e411ace80" CreationDate="2015-09-06T14:44:33.277" UserId="14417" Comment="Added required information to question and added more recent patent application." Text="The patent on the hover board is far too broad and should not be approved. Found two videos on YouTube demonstrating how a super magnet will bounce off of a conductive surface:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Magnet Brakes Fall on Copper][1] (May 26, 2010)&#xD;&#xA; - [Magnet Brakes its own fall][2] (September 4, 2007)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one was done over 7 years ago and 1.4 million people have viewed it (as of November 13, 2014). A lot of other projects have been underway for many years to do similar things for various purposes.  Granting his patent for a hover board skateboard should be a single patent and not extended to all other uses and purposes as it has tried to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Publication Numbers:** PCT/US2014/019956, [WO 2014/149626 A1][3], [US 2014/0265690 A1][4], and [US 2015/0175031 A1][5]&#xD;&#xA; - **Title:** Magnetic levitation of a stationary or moving object.&#xD;&#xA; - **Priority Date:** March 15, 2013&#xD;&#xA; - **Inventor:** [D. Gregory Henderson][6]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee:** [Arx Pax, LLC][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the actual hover board patent application (based on the above applications):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Publication Numbers:** [US 2015/0175031 A1][5]&#xD;&#xA; - **Title:** Hoverboard.&#xD;&#xA; - **Priority Date:** March 15, 2013&#xD;&#xA; - **Inventor:** [D. Gregory Henderson][6], Shauna Moran, Mitchell Dougherty, Victor Espinoza, Robert William Melvin, James Janicki, David P. Olynick&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee:** [Arx Pax, LLC][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Independent claims (Claims 1 and 18 of 30 claims):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A hoverboard comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - two or more hover engines, each hover engine having, an electric motor including a winding, a first set of permanent magnets and a first structure which holds the first permanent magnets wherein an electric current is applied to the winding to cause one of the winding or the first set of permanent magnets to rotate;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an electronic speed controller which controls a rotation rate of the electric motor;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a starm, configured to receive a rotational torque from the electric motor which rotates the starm, including a second set of permanent magnets and a second structure which holds the second set of permanent magnets wherein the second set of permanent magnets are rotated to induce eddy currents in a substrate such that the induced eddy currents and the second set of permanent magnets interact to generate forces which cause the hoverboard and a person riding on the hoverboard to hover and translate from location to location along the substrate;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and a shroud enclosing the electric motor and at least a top portion of the starm;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a rider platform on which the person rides including a front end and a back end wherein a first hover engine is mounted beneath the rider platform proximate to the front end and a second hover engine is mounted beneath the rider platform proximate to the back end of the rider platform;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and an electric power source that outputs the electric current to the two or more hover engines is mounted beneath the rider platform between the first hover engine and the second hover engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second independent claim is similar to the first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 18. A hoverboard comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - two or more hover engines, each hover engine having,&#xD;&#xA;an electric motor including a winding, a first set of permanent magnets and a first structure which holds the first permanent wherein an electric current is applied to the winding to cause one of the winding or the first set of permanent magnets to rotate;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an electronic speed controller which controls a rotation rate of the electric motor;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a starm, configured to receive a rotational torque from the electric motor which rotates the STARM, including a second set of permanent magnets and a second structure which holds the second set of permanent magnets wherein the second set of permanent magnets are rotated to induce eddy currents in a substrate such that the induced eddy currents and the second set of permanent magnets interact to generate forces which cause the hoverboard and a person standing on the hoverboard to hover and translate from location to location along the substrate; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a shroud enclosing the electric motor and at least a top portion of the starm;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an electric power source that outputs the electric current to the two or more hover engines;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a rider platform on which the person stands, the two or more hover engines structurally linked to the rider platform;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a mechanical hinge coupled to a first hover engine which allows the starm, the electric motor and the shroud of the first hover engine to tilt relative to the rider platform wherein a magnitude of a translational force, output from the first hover engine, changes in response to tilting the starm, the electric motor and the shroud and wherein the translation force is used to control an orientation of the hoverboard relative to the substrate;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and a tilt mechanism coupled to the first hover engine configured to receive an external force and/or generate an internal force which tilts the first hover engine in response to an input force generated by the person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I read through the earlier patent application he is trying to preclude many products already developed. Several years ago I saw other YouTube videos of an almost exact idea in South Korea. While his specific hover board product is unique in design, I think it would be dangerous for him to get a patent that covers every conceivable variation of use for the concept when so many prior works already preexist his idea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://youtu.be/xTWYAFJuq7M&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://youtu.be/iABmUEH5s0k&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2014149626A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20140265690&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20150175031&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&amp;tbm=pts&amp;hl=en&amp;q=ininventor:%22D.%20Gregory%20Henderson%22&amp;gws_rd=ssl&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&amp;tbm=pts&amp;hl=en&amp;q=inassignee:%22Arx%20Pax,%20LLC%22&amp;gws_rd=ssl" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32741" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10538" RevisionGUID="a915175a-c304-418f-9893-023e411ace80" CreationDate="2015-09-06T14:44:33.277" UserId="14417" Comment="Added required information to question and added more recent patent application." Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20140265690&gt;&lt;us20150175031&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13525" RevisionGUID="f188f3bb-c008-40a0-a923-6ad611bd66db" CreationDate="2015-09-06T15:07:26.137" UserId="14417" Text="It is too late now to submit prior art for this application. The grant has issued. At least nobody can complain about it, the request was made for prior art last year but nobody responded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 1-4, 6-17 have been cancelled, claims 18, 22, 29 and 31 have been amended as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 18. (Currently Amended) A hoverboard comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - two or more hover engines, each hover engine having,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an electric motor including a winding, a first set of permanent magnets and a first structure which holds the first set of permanent magnets wherein an electric current is applied to the winding to cause one of the winding or the first set of permanent magnets to rotate;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an electronic speed controller which controls a rotation rate of the electric motor;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a rotatable component, configured to receive a rotational torque from the electric motor which rotates the rotatable component including a second set of permanent magnets and a second structure which holds the second set of permanent magnets wherein the second set of permanent magnets are rotated to induce eddy currents in a substrate such that the induced eddy currents and the second set of permanent magnets interact to generate forces which cause the hoverboard and a person standing on the hoverboard to hover and translate from location to location along the substrate;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and a shroud enclosing the electric motor and at least a top portion of the rotatable component;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an electric power source that outputs the electric current to the two or more hover engines;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a rider platform on which the person stands, the two or more hover engines structurally linked to the rider platform;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a mechanical hinge coupled to a first hover engine of the two or more hover engines which allows the rotatable component, the electric motor and the shroud of the first hover engine to tilt relative to the rider platform wherein a magnitude of a translational force, output from the first hover engine, changes in response to tilting the rotatable component, the electric motor and the shroud and wherein the translation force is used to control an orientation of the hoverboard relative to the substrate;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an actuator, including an actuator controller, which outputs a force that changes a tilt position of the first hover engine from a first tilt position to a second tilt position in response to an input force generated by the person;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - one or more sensors configured to measure a direction and/or a magnitude of the input force generated by the person; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a logic device configured to receive sensor data from the one or more sensors, communicate with the actuator controller and based upon the sensor data, command the actuator controller to output the force to tilt the first hover engine.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 22. (Currently Amended) The hoverboard of claim 18, wherein the one or more&#xD;&#xA;sensors are integrated into the rider platform and wherein the person generates the input force via a movement of their body.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 29. (Currently Amended) The hoverboard of claim 31, wherein the first portion is formed from a flexible material which bends in response to the input force from the foot of the person.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 31. (New) A hoverboard comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - two or more hover engines, each hover engine having, an electric motor including a winding, a first set of permanent magnets and a first&#xD;&#xA;structure which holds the first set of permanent magnets wherein an electric current is applied to the winding to cause one of the winding or the first set of permanent magnets to rotate;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an electronic speed controller which controls a rotation rate of the electric motor; a rotatable component, configured to receive a rotational torque from the electric motor which rotates the rotatable component including a second set of permanent magnets and a second structure which holds the second set of permanent magnets wherein the second set of permanent magnets are rotated to induce eddy currents in a substrate such that the induced eddy currents and the second set of permanent magnets interact to generate forces which cause the hoverboard and a person standing on the hoverboard to hover and translate from location to location along the substrate; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a shroud enclosing the electric motor and at least a top portion of the rotatable component;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an electric power source that outputs the electric current to the two or more hover engines;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a rider platform on which the person stands, the two or more hover engines structurally linked to the rider platform;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a mechanical hinge coupled to a first hover engine of the two or more hover engines which allows the rotatable component, the electric motor and the shroud of the first hover engine to tilt relative to the rider platform wherein a magnitude of a translational force, output from the first hover engine, changes in response to tilting the rotatable component, the electric motor and the shroud and wherein the translation force is used to control an orientation of the hoverboard relative to the substrate;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a first portion of the rider platform that is moveable relative to a remaining portion of the rider platform; and a mechanical linkage coupled on a first end to the shroud of the first hover engine and coupled on a second end to the first portion wherein the first portion moves in response to receiving tRe an input force from a foot of the person which causes the&#xD;&#xA;first hover engine to tilt.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13525" RevisionGUID="a77df438-0277-444f-aefe-8d1deccdebbf" CreationDate="2015-09-06T15:17:05.463" UserId="14417" Comment="Added grant information." Text="It is too late now to submit prior art for this application. The grant issued as [US 9,126,487 B2][1] on September 8, 2015.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least nobody can complain about it, the request was made for prior art last year but nobody responded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 1-4, 6-17 have been cancelled, claims 18, 22, 29 and 31 have been amended as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 18. (Currently Amended) A hoverboard comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - two or more hover engines, each hover engine having,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an electric motor including a winding, a first set of permanent magnets and a first structure which holds the first set of permanent magnets wherein an electric current is applied to the winding to cause one of the winding or the first set of permanent magnets to rotate;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an electronic speed controller which controls a rotation rate of the electric motor;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a rotatable component, configured to receive a rotational torque from the electric motor which rotates the rotatable component including a second set of permanent magnets and a second structure which holds the second set of permanent magnets wherein the second set of permanent magnets are rotated to induce eddy currents in a substrate such that the induced eddy currents and the second set of permanent magnets interact to generate forces which cause the hoverboard and a person standing on the hoverboard to hover and translate from location to location along the substrate;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and a shroud enclosing the electric motor and at least a top portion of the rotatable component;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an electric power source that outputs the electric current to the two or more hover engines;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a rider platform on which the person stands, the two or more hover engines structurally linked to the rider platform;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a mechanical hinge coupled to a first hover engine of the two or more hover engines which allows the rotatable component, the electric motor and the shroud of the first hover engine to tilt relative to the rider platform wherein a magnitude of a translational force, output from the first hover engine, changes in response to tilting the rotatable component, the electric motor and the shroud and wherein the translation force is used to control an orientation of the hoverboard relative to the substrate;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an actuator, including an actuator controller, which outputs a force that changes a tilt position of the first hover engine from a first tilt position to a second tilt position in response to an input force generated by the person;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - one or more sensors configured to measure a direction and/or a magnitude of the input force generated by the person; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a logic device configured to receive sensor data from the one or more sensors, communicate with the actuator controller and based upon the sensor data, command the actuator controller to output the force to tilt the first hover engine.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 22. (Currently Amended) The hoverboard of claim 18, wherein the one or more&#xD;&#xA;sensors are integrated into the rider platform and wherein the person generates the input force via a movement of their body.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 29. (Currently Amended) The hoverboard of claim 31, wherein the first portion is formed from a flexible material which bends in response to the input force from the foot of the person.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 31. (New) A hoverboard comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - two or more hover engines, each hover engine having, an electric motor including a winding, a first set of permanent magnets and a first&#xD;&#xA;structure which holds the first set of permanent magnets wherein an electric current is applied to the winding to cause one of the winding or the first set of permanent magnets to rotate;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an electronic speed controller which controls a rotation rate of the electric motor; a rotatable component, configured to receive a rotational torque from the electric motor which rotates the rotatable component including a second set of permanent magnets and a second structure which holds the second set of permanent magnets wherein the second set of permanent magnets are rotated to induce eddy currents in a substrate such that the induced eddy currents and the second set of permanent magnets interact to generate forces which cause the hoverboard and a person standing on the hoverboard to hover and translate from location to location along the substrate; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a shroud enclosing the electric motor and at least a top portion of the rotatable component;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an electric power source that outputs the electric current to the two or more hover engines;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a rider platform on which the person stands, the two or more hover engines structurally linked to the rider platform;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a mechanical hinge coupled to a first hover engine of the two or more hover engines which allows the rotatable component, the electric motor and the shroud of the first hover engine to tilt relative to the rider platform wherein a magnitude of a translational force, output from the first hover engine, changes in response to tilting the rotatable component, the electric motor and the shroud and wherein the translation force is used to control an orientation of the hoverboard relative to the substrate;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a first portion of the rider platform that is moveable relative to a remaining portion of the rider platform; and a mechanical linkage coupled on a first end to the shroud of the first hover engine and coupled on a second end to the first portion wherein the first portion moves in response to receiving tRe an input force from a foot of the person which causes the&#xD;&#xA;first hover engine to tilt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US9126487" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32745" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10538" RevisionGUID="4857b95f-836e-44d3-883c-c718dbfdbbf0" CreationDate="2015-09-06T15:17:33.090" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag for issued grant." Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20140265690&gt;&lt;us20150175031&gt;&lt;us9126487&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13526" RevisionGUID="05cc4b14-423f-48b1-beea-d8ab0d74dc46" CreationDate="2015-09-06T19:54:31.277" UserId="14939" Text="I was suggested to come here to ask this question- didn't even know this board existed. Hopefully I can get some info here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Onto the Q:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm about to launch a startup that specializes in advertising. The central core of the startup is that it allows everyday people to advertise for cheap. Nothing has been trademarked or patented. I plan to trademark the domain and establish an LLC if it takes off. Those two things are easy. What I'm concerned about is the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the business is basically an online service, I'm not sure if I can patent anything. Here's a hypothetical example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traditionally, if you wanted to advertise in a magazine, you'd pay a hefty fee to the publisher. Let's say through my service, you pay a monthly fee through my site and get your ads published for a steep discount. Let's assume that there are other companies out there that have done something similar, but just assume they have a very different process of doing it. My process works by doing it as cheaply as possible using a cost-effective approach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to patent this approach, but I'm not sure if it's eligible. I'm pretty sure that although there's companies accomplishing the same goal (getting your ads in the paper), they don't have the same process of doing it. I don't think there's any company out there that practices my approach. It involves simple things like contacting publishers and setting up flat rates instead of negotiating every ad, bulk orders, or monthly flat payment for service, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's basically a mix of small steps to make one giant process that saves people money. The steps individually aren't really new, but when put together it's non-obvious and new. Can I patent this process? If someone copies the process but makes slight change in one step, would that be infringement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no income from this startup and can't afford a patent. I plan to file a provisional patent with LegalZoom. I'm guessing I just write down the entire process and try to file it as a business method and send it off as a single provisional patent. Hopefully they have some kind of accuracy check to make sure I'm doing it right. Would you advise this?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32747" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13526" RevisionGUID="05cc4b14-423f-48b1-beea-d8ab0d74dc46" CreationDate="2015-09-06T19:54:31.277" UserId="14939" Text="Can I patent a process of doing something?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32748" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13526" RevisionGUID="05cc4b14-423f-48b1-beea-d8ab0d74dc46" CreationDate="2015-09-06T19:54:31.277" UserId="14939" Text="&lt;process&gt;&lt;workflow&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13525" RevisionGUID="286ff18e-cf60-496d-99ae-ef1d3ed4904e" CreationDate="2015-09-07T00:19:16.640" UserId="14417" Comment="Added a final thought." Text="It is too late now to submit prior art for this application. The grant issued as [US 9,126,487 B2][1] on September 8, 2015.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 1-4, 6-17 have been cancelled, claims 18, 22, 29 and 31 have been amended as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 18. (Currently Amended) A hoverboard comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - two or more hover engines, each hover engine having,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an electric motor including a winding, a first set of permanent magnets and a first structure which holds the first set of permanent magnets wherein an electric current is applied to the winding to cause one of the winding or the first set of permanent magnets to rotate;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an electronic speed controller which controls a rotation rate of the electric motor;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a rotatable component, configured to receive a rotational torque from the electric motor which rotates the rotatable component including a second set of permanent magnets and a second structure which holds the second set of permanent magnets wherein the second set of permanent magnets are rotated to induce eddy currents in a substrate such that the induced eddy currents and the second set of permanent magnets interact to generate forces which cause the hoverboard and a person standing on the hoverboard to hover and translate from location to location along the substrate;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and a shroud enclosing the electric motor and at least a top portion of the rotatable component;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an electric power source that outputs the electric current to the two or more hover engines;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a rider platform on which the person stands, the two or more hover engines structurally linked to the rider platform;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a mechanical hinge coupled to a first hover engine of the two or more hover engines which allows the rotatable component, the electric motor and the shroud of the first hover engine to tilt relative to the rider platform wherein a magnitude of a translational force, output from the first hover engine, changes in response to tilting the rotatable component, the electric motor and the shroud and wherein the translation force is used to control an orientation of the hoverboard relative to the substrate;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an actuator, including an actuator controller, which outputs a force that changes a tilt position of the first hover engine from a first tilt position to a second tilt position in response to an input force generated by the person;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - one or more sensors configured to measure a direction and/or a magnitude of the input force generated by the person; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a logic device configured to receive sensor data from the one or more sensors, communicate with the actuator controller and based upon the sensor data, command the actuator controller to output the force to tilt the first hover engine.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 22. (Currently Amended) The hoverboard of claim 18, wherein the one or more&#xD;&#xA;sensors are integrated into the rider platform and wherein the person generates the input force via a movement of their body.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 29. (Currently Amended) The hoverboard of claim 31, wherein the first portion is formed from a flexible material which bends in response to the input force from the foot of the person.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 31. (New) A hoverboard comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - two or more hover engines, each hover engine having, an electric motor including a winding, a first set of permanent magnets and a first&#xD;&#xA;structure which holds the first set of permanent magnets wherein an electric current is applied to the winding to cause one of the winding or the first set of permanent magnets to rotate;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an electronic speed controller which controls a rotation rate of the electric motor; a rotatable component, configured to receive a rotational torque from the electric motor which rotates the rotatable component including a second set of permanent magnets and a second structure which holds the second set of permanent magnets wherein the second set of permanent magnets are rotated to induce eddy currents in a substrate such that the induced eddy currents and the second set of permanent magnets interact to generate forces which cause the hoverboard and a person standing on the hoverboard to hover and translate from location to location along the substrate; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a shroud enclosing the electric motor and at least a top portion of the rotatable component;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an electric power source that outputs the electric current to the two or more hover engines;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a rider platform on which the person stands, the two or more hover engines structurally linked to the rider platform;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a mechanical hinge coupled to a first hover engine of the two or more hover engines which allows the rotatable component, the electric motor and the shroud of the first hover engine to tilt relative to the rider platform wherein a magnitude of a translational force, output from the first hover engine, changes in response to tilting the rotatable component, the electric motor and the shroud and wherein the translation force is used to control an orientation of the hoverboard relative to the substrate;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a first portion of the rider platform that is moveable relative to a remaining portion of the rider platform; and a mechanical linkage coupled on a first end to the shroud of the first hover engine and coupled on a second end to the first portion wherein the first portion moves in response to receiving an input force from a foot of the person which causes the&#xD;&#xA;first hover engine to tilt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least nobody can complain about it, the request was made for prior art last year but nobody responded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, before anyone gets bent out of shape about this patent, have a read through the claim language. Although these claims throw around the words &quot;hoverboard&quot; and &quot;hover engine&quot;, it is clear on reading this that there is no claim about actually making anything hover. This looks like a junk patent to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US9126487" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13528" RevisionGUID="b2803761-451a-48f3-bec9-4c354e3f6b94" CreationDate="2015-09-07T07:24:54.727" UserId="14944" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20130132813][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132813" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32753" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13528" RevisionGUID="b2803761-451a-48f3-bec9-4c354e3f6b94" CreationDate="2015-09-07T07:24:54.727" UserId="14944" Text="I am researching on this field and need to know what is the current status of this patent? Can someone let me know the state?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32754" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13528" RevisionGUID="b2803761-451a-48f3-bec9-4c354e3f6b94" CreationDate="2015-09-07T07:24:54.727" UserId="14944" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32755" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="fdf3d569-1667-45f4-99a8-a0ce9fcb2388" CreationDate="2015-09-07T07:54:14.760" UserId="11751" Comment="added 256 characters in body" Text="I'm specifically interested in [US 6873940][1] patent. The company that currently owns the patent is a company called [Kamatani Cloud][2] which is subsidiary of [General Patent][3] which some argue ([1][4], [2][5], [3][6], [4][7]) is a patent troll company. I'd like to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like [keylemon][8], [betafaceapi][9], [rekognition][10] or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker identification, face detection or content classification in images, audio or video files etc.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13]. In fact the class 709 scope has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent [application][14] process after non-final rejection argued that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect if server is capable of &quot;*measuring*&quot;/processing the data then the prior art is not applicable, consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are sent by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no &quot;*detecting whether the measurement data are capable of being measured*&quot; is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires server capability of detecting if data can be &quot;*measured*&quot; and notifying client if such capability exists then the patent shouldn't apply for cloud services as mentioned previously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So to put it briefly:#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class [709][12] regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13] work? Both must apply or only first or second?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** during US6873940 patent application inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; having in mind that for processing images requests are directed to URL for processing images and for processing voice requests are directed to URL for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing only faces or only classifying image contents... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6873940&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kamatanicloud.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.generalpatent.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://scienceprogress.org/2009/01/patent-trolls-erode-patent-system/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-biggest-patent-trolls&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ipdigit.eu/2011/10/what-to-think-of-patent-trolls-the-return/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/27/law-would-force-patent-trolls-to-pay-for-failed-lawsuits-against-innovators/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.keylemon.com&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.betafaceapi.com&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://rekognition.com&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc702/defs702.htm#C702S189000&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm#C709S217000&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="d0f5a5e0-da38-40a1-8953-1eae0b92467d" CreationDate="2015-09-07T08:04:17.280" UserId="11751" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I'm specifically interested in [US 6873940][1] patent. The company that currently owns the patent is a company called [Kamatani Cloud][2] which is subsidiary of [General Patent][3] which some argue ([1][4], [2][5], [3][6], [4][7]) is a patent troll company. I'd like to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like [keylemon][8], [betafaceapi][9], [rekognition][10] or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker identification, face detection or content classification in images, audio or video files etc.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13]. In fact the [class 709 scope][12] has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent [application][14] process after non-final rejection argued that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect if server is capable of &quot;*measuring*&quot;/processing the data then the prior art is not applicable, consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are sent by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no &quot;*detecting whether the measurement data are capable of being measured*&quot; is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires server capability of detecting if data can be &quot;*measured*&quot; and notifying client if such capability exists then the patent shouldn't apply for cloud services as mentioned previously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So to put it briefly:#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class [709][12] regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13] work? Both must apply or only first or second when interpreting claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** during US6873940 patent application inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; having in mind that for processing images requests are directed to URL for processing images and for processing voice requests are directed to URL for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing only faces or only classifying image contents... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6873940&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kamatanicloud.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.generalpatent.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://scienceprogress.org/2009/01/patent-trolls-erode-patent-system/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-biggest-patent-trolls&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ipdigit.eu/2011/10/what-to-think-of-patent-trolls-the-return/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/27/law-would-force-patent-trolls-to-pay-for-failed-lawsuits-against-innovators/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.keylemon.com&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.betafaceapi.com&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://rekognition.com&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc702/defs702.htm#C702S189000&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm#C709S217000&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13529" RevisionGUID="37352f09-678a-462a-9a70-ee2ba5c279f7" CreationDate="2015-09-07T09:06:55.130" UserId="14946" Text="I'm a scientist at Twist. I can't be bothered getting an account and having to remember another password, so this is a reply to the response to my previous email.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The easiest way to access RPA is to buy a kit - it's quite involved to make the reactions from scratch so it's not trivial to DIY. There are lots of proteins, not all of which are commercially available individually (and certainly not economically).&#xD;&#xA;The terms of supply are available by following this link (http://www.twistdx.co.uk/terms_of_supply/), but I have pasted them below so you don't have to bother clicking. Section 6.4 is the relevant one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Terms of supply&#xD;&#xA;Terms and conditions of supply&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The buyer's attention is in particular drawn to the provisions of conditions 6.4, 9.2, 10.2 and 10.4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.    Interpretation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.1    The definitions and rules of interpretation in this condition apply in these conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Buyer” means the person, firm or company who purchases the Goods from the Company;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Company” means TwistDx Limited;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Contract” means any contract between the Company and the Buyer for the sale and purchase of the Goods, incorporating these terms and conditions;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Delivery Point” means the place where delivery of the Goods is to take place under condition 4;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Goods” means any goods (including, for the avoidance of doubt, any Kit or Manual) agreed in the Contract to be supplied to the Buyer by the Company (including any part or parts of them);&#xD;&#xA;“Information” means all written information supplied as part of a Kit, information relating to the Kit made available through TwistDx’s website, and any verbal or written information concerning the Kit or its use provided by any employee or agent of TwistDx;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Kit” means the items described in a Manual;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Manual” means the manual supplied by TwistDx to a Buyer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Materials” means all biological and chemical materials supplied as part of the Kit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.2    A reference to a particular law is a reference to it as it is in force for the time being taking account of any amendment, extension, application or re-enactment and includes any subordinate legislation for the time being in force made under it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.3    Words in the singular include the plural and in the plural include the singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.4    A reference to one gender includes a reference to the other gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.5    Condition headings do not affect the interpretation of these conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.    Application of Terms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.1    The Company submits all quotations and accepts all orders from the Buyer subject to these terms and conditions of sale and supply and, subject to any variation under condition 2.3, these terms and conditions shall govern and form part of every Contract to the exclusion of all other terms and conditions (including any terms or conditions which the Buyer purports to apply under any purchase order, confirmation of order, specification or other document), whether express or implied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.2    No terms or conditions endorsed on, delivered with or contained in the Buyer's purchase order, confirmation of order, specification or other document shall form part of the Contract simply as a result of such document being referred to in the Contract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.3    These terms and conditions apply to all the Company's sales and any variation to these conditions and any representations about the Goods shall have no effect unless expressly agreed in writing and signed by Niall Armes of the Company.  For the avoidance of doubt, the Company’s sales representatives and staff are not authorised to agree or make any variation to these terms and conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.4    The Buyer acknowledges that it has not relied on any statement, promise or representation made or given by or on behalf of the Company which is not set out in the Contract.  Nothing in this condition shall exclude or limit the Company's liability for fraudulent misrepresentation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.5    Each order or acceptance of a quotation for Goods by the Buyer from the Company shall be deemed to be an offer by the Buyer to buy Goods subject to these terms and conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.6    No order placed by the Buyer shall be deemed to be accepted by the Company until a written acceptance of order notice, which may include email or facsimile, is issued by the Company or (if earlier) the Company delivers the Goods to the Buyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.7    The Buyer shall ensure that the terms of its order and any applicable specification are complete and accurate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.8    Any quotation is given on the basis that no Contract shall come into existence until the Company despatches an acceptance of order notice to the Buyer.  Any quotation is valid for a period of 30 days only from its date, provided that the Company has not previously withdrawn it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.    Description&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.1    The quantity and description of the Goods shall be as set out in the Company's quotation or acceptance of order notice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.2    All samples, drawings, descriptive matter, specifications and advertising issued by the Company and any descriptions or illustrations contained in the Company's catalogues or brochures are issued or published for the sole purpose of giving an approximate idea of the Goods described in them.  They shall not form part of the Contract and this is not a sale by sample.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.    Delivery&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.1    Delivery of the Goods shall take place at either of: (i) the Company's place of business; or (ii) the Buyer’s nominated premises.  If delivery of the Goods is to take place at the Company’s place of business, the Buyer shall take delivery of the Goods within 7 days of the Company giving it notice that the Goods are ready for delivery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.2    Any dates specified by the Company for delivery of the Goods are intended to be an estimate and time for delivery shall not be made of the essence by notice.  If no dates are so specified, delivery shall be within a reasonable time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.3    Provided that title in the Goods has not passed to the Buyer, the Company reserves the right to refuse to deliver any order if the Buyer does or threatens to: have a bankruptcy order made against him or make an arrangement or composition with his creditors, or otherwise take the benefit of any statutory provision for the time being in force for the relief of insolvent debtors, or (being a body corporate) convene a meeting of creditors (whether formal or informal), or enter into liquidation (whether voluntary or compulsory) except a solvent voluntary liquidation for the purpose only of reconstruction or amalgamation, or have a receiver and/or manager, administrator or administrative receiver appointed in respect of its undertaking or any part thereof, or file documents with the court for the appointment of an administrator of the Buyer or give notice of intention to appoint an administrator by the Buyer or its directors or by a qualifying floating charge holder (as defined in paragraph 14 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986), or pass a resolution a petition to be presented to any court for the winding-up of the Buyer or for the granting of an administration order in respect of the Buyer, or suffer the commencement of any proceedings relating to the insolvency or possible insolvency of the Buyer or if anything substantially similar to the foregoing occurs under the insolvency laws of any foreign jurisdiction to which the Buyer is subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.4    Subject to the other provisions of these terms and conditions, the Company shall not be liable for any direct, indirect or consequential loss (all three of which terms include, without limitation, pure economic loss, loss of profits, loss of business, depletion of goodwill and similar loss), costs, damages, charges or expenses caused directly or indirectly by any delay in the delivery of the Goods (even if caused by the Company's negligence), nor shall any delay entitle the Buyer to terminate or rescind the Contract unless such delay exceeds 180 days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.5    If for any reason the Buyer fails to accept delivery of any of the Goods when they are ready for delivery, or the Company is unable to deliver the Goods on time because the Buyer has not provided appropriate instructions, documents, licences or authorisations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a)    risk in the Goods shall pass to the Buyer (including for loss or damage caused by the Company's negligence);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b)    the Goods shall be deemed to have been delivered; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c)    the Company may store the Goods until delivery, whereupon the Buyer shall be liable for all related costs and expenses (including, without limitation, storage and insurance).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.6    If the Company delivers to the Buyer a quantity of Goods of up to [10]% more or less than the quantity accepted by the Company, the Buyer shall not be entitled to object to or reject the Goods or any of them by reason of the surplus or shortfall and shall pay for such goods at the pro rata Contract rate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.7    The Company may deliver the Goods by separate instalments.  Each separate instalment shall be invoiced and paid for in accordance with the provisions of the Contract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.8    Each instalment shall be a separate Contract and no cancellation or termination of any one Contract relating to an instalment shall entitle the Buyer to repudiate or cancel any other Contract or instalment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.9    The Company will not accept the return of unwanted Goods correctly delivered in satisfaction of an order.  The Buyer agrees and acknowledges that the supply of Goods will start as soon as the Company has despatched an acceptance of order notice to the Buyer and that the Buyer cannot have recourse to the Consumer Protection (Contracts Concluded by Means of Distance Communications) Regulations 2000 to cancel any Contract once Goods have been delivered in either whole or partial fulfilment of the relevant Contract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.    Non-Delivery&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.1    The quantity of any consignment of Goods as recorded by the Company on despatch from the Company's place of business shall be conclusive evidence of the quantity received by the Buyer on delivery unless the Buyer can provide conclusive evidence proving the contrary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.2    The Company shall not be liable for any non-delivery of Goods (even if caused by the Company's negligence) unless the Buyer gives written notice to the Company of the non-delivery within 14 days of the date when the Goods would in the ordinary course of events have been received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.3    Any liability of the Company for non-delivery of the Goods shall be limited to replacing the Goods within a reasonable time or issuing a credit note at the pro rata Contract rate against any invoice raised for such Goods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.    Risk / Title; Limitations on Use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.1    The Goods are at the risk of the Buyer from the time of dispatch to the Buyer’s nominated premises or from the time of collection by the Buyer from the Company’s premises, whichever is the earlier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.2    Ownership of the Goods shall not pass to the Buyer until the Company has received in full (in cash or cleared funds) all sums due to it in respect of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a)    the Goods; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b)    all other sums which are or which become due to the Company from the Buyer on any account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.3    Until ownership of the Goods has passed to the Buyer, the Buyer shall:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a)    hold the Goods on a fiduciary basis as the Company's bailee;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b)    store the Goods (at no cost to the Company) separately from all other goods of the Buyer or any third party in such a way that they remain readily identifiable as the Company's property;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c)    not destroy, deface or obscure any identifying mark or packaging on or relating to the Goods; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(d)    maintain the Goods in satisfactory condition and keep them insured on the Company's behalf for their full price against all risks to the reasonable satisfaction of the Company.  On request the Buyer shall produce the policy of insurance to the Company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.4    The Buyer acknowledges and agrees that the Materials and Information are proprietary to the Company and may be covered by claims of patents or patent applications of the Company.  The Goods are sold subject to the following restrictions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a)    the Materials and Information are non-exclusively licensed to the Buyer solely for non-commercial internal research purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b)    the Materials and Information must not be used for any commercial purposes or to provide services to any third party;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c)    the Buyer must not re-package or re-sell the Materials or Information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(d)    the Buyer acknowledges that the Materials are experimental in nature and may have properties that are not fully understood.  Accordingly, the Buyer agrees not to use the Materials or derivatives thereof for any in vivo testing or for any clinical diagnostic purposes whatsoever for animals or humans;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(e)    the Buyer shall use the Materials and Information strictly in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations and guidelines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Company reserves all intellectual property rights in and to the Material and Information, subject only to the license set forth above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.5    The Buyer's right to possession of the Goods shall terminate immediately if:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a)    the Buyer has a bankruptcy order made against him or makes an arrangement or composition with his creditors, or otherwise takes the benefit of any statutory provision for the time being in force for the relief of insolvent debtors, or (being a body corporate) convenes a meeting of creditors (whether formal or informal), or enters into liquidation (whether voluntary or compulsory) except a solvent voluntary liquidation for the purpose only of reconstruction or amalgamation, or has a receiver and/or manager, administrator or administrative receiver appointed in respect of its undertaking or any part thereof, or documents are filed with the court for the appointment of an administrator of the Buyer or notice of intention to appoint an administrator is given by the Buyer or its directors or by a qualifying floating charge holder (as defined in paragraph 14 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986), or a resolution is passed or a petition presented to any court for the winding-up of the Buyer or for the granting of an administration order in respect of the Buyer, or any proceedings are commenced relating to the insolvency or possible insolvency of the Buyer; or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b)    the Buyer suffers or allows any execution, whether legal or equitable, to be levied on his/its property or obtained against him/it, or fails to observe or perform any of his/its obligations under the Contract or any other contract between the Company and the Buyer, or is unable to pay its debts within the meaning of section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 or the Buyer ceases to trade; or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c)    the Buyer encumbers or in any way charges any of the Goods; or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(d)    the foregoing occurs under the laws of any foreign jurisdiction to which the Buyer is subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.6    The Company shall be entitled to recover payment for the Goods notwithstanding that ownership of any of the Goods has not passed from the Company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.7    The Buyer grants the Company, its agents and employees an irrevocable licence at any time to enter any premises where the Goods are or may be stored in order to inspect them, or, where the Buyer's right to possession has terminated, to recover them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.8    Where the Company is unable to determine whether any Goods are the goods in respect of which the Buyer's right to possession has terminated, the Buyer shall be deemed to have sold all goods of the kind sold by the Company to the Buyer in the order in which they were invoiced to the Buyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.9    On termination of the Contract, howsoever caused, the Company's (but not the Buyer's) rights contained in this condition 6 shall remain in effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.    Price&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.1    Unless otherwise agreed by the Company in writing, the price for the Goods shall be the price set out in the Company's price list published on the date of delivery or deemed delivery.  The Company’s prices are subject to alteration without notice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.2    The price for the Goods shall be exclusive of any value added tax or other taxes applicable and shall also be exclusive of all costs or charges in relation to packaging, loading, unloading, carriage and insurance, all of which amounts the Buyer shall pay in addition when it is due to pay for the Goods.  The Company reserves the right to make additional charges for all special and urgent deliveries and all deliveries outside of the European Union and the United States of America.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8.    Payment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8.1    Subject to condition 8.4, payment of the price for the Goods is due in pounds sterling, U.S. dollars or Euros as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a)    in advance of delivery, if orders are accepted on a pre-payment basis; or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b)    within 30 days of the date of invoice.  The Company reserves the right to withdraw these credit terms at any time without notice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8.2    Time for payment shall be of the essence.  The Buyer shall notify the Company of any invoice discrepancy within 14 days of receipt of an invoice after which time the invoice shall be deemed accepted by the Buyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8.3    No payment shall be deemed to have been received until the Company has received cleared funds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8.4    All payments payable to the Company under the Contract shall become due immediately on its termination despite any other provision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8.5    The Buyer shall make all payments due under the Contract in full without any deduction whether by way of set-off, counterclaim, discount, abatement or otherwise unless the Buyer has a valid court order requiring an amount equal to such deduction to be paid by the Company to the Buyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8.6    If the Buyer fails to pay the Company any sum due pursuant to the Contract, the Buyer shall be liable to pay interest to the Company on such sum from the due date for payment at the annual rate of 3% above the base lending rate from time to time of Barclays Bank plc, accruing on a daily basis until payment is made, whether before or after any judgment.  The Company reserves the right to claim interest under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8.7    The Company reserves the right to withhold delivery of subsequent orders where the Buyer’s account is overdue or the Company has doubts (it its sole discretion) about the creditworthiness of the Buyer.  In such cases, the Company shall have the right to release any Goods ordered or reserved by the Buyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8.8    The Company reserves the right at any time at its discretion to demand security for payment before continuing with or delivering any order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9.    No Warranty; Product Recall&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9.1    Where the Company is not the manufacturer of the Goods, the Company shall endeavour to transfer to the Buyer the benefit of any warranty or guarantee given to the Company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9.2    The Company makes no warranty with respect to the Goods expect as may be set forth in writing in a document accompanying the Goods (if any), of which such document an advance copy shall be available for review upon request. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;THE BUYER UNDERSTANDS AND AGREES THAT THE MATERIALS ARE EXPERIMENTAL IN NATURE AND THAT GOODS  ARE PROVIDED WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY AS TO RESULTS, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR NON-INFRINGEMENT OF ANY PATENT OR OTHER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHT, AND WITHOUT ANY OTHER REPRESENTATION, WARRANTY OR CONDITION, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, EXCEPT AS STATED IN THE PRECEDING SENTENCE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9.3    Furthermore, the Company shall not be liable for a breach of any warranty (if any) unless:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a)    the Buyer gives written notice of a defect to the Company, and, if the defect is as a result of damage in transit to the carrier, within 14 days of the time when the Buyer discovers or ought to have discovered the defect; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b)    the Company is given a reasonable opportunity after receiving the notice of examining such Goods and the Buyer (if asked to do so by the Company) returns such Goods to the Company's place of business at the Company’s cost for the examination to take place there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9.4    In addition, the Company shall not be liable for a breach of any warranty if:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a)    the Buyer makes any further use of such Goods after giving such notice; or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b)    the defect arises because the Buyer failed to follow the Company's oral or written instructions as to the storage, installation, commissioning, use or maintenance of the Goods or (if there are none) good trade practice; or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c)    the Buyer alters or repairs such Goods without the written consent of the Company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9.5    Subject to condition 9.3 and condition 9.4, if any of the Goods do not conform with any warranty as may be provided for, the Company shall at its option repair or replace such Goods (or the defective part) or refund the price of such Goods at the pro rata Contract rate provided that, if the Company so requests, the Buyer shall, at the Company’s expense, return the Goods or the part of such Goods which is defective to the Company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9.6    If the Company complies with condition 9.5 it shall have no further liability for a breach of any warranty in respect of such Goods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9.7    In the event of a product recall, the Buyer agrees to cooperate with the Company in taking all necessary steps to remove the relevant Goods from the market place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10.    Limitation of Liability&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10.1    Subject to condition 4, condition 5 and condition 9, the following provisions set out the entire financial liability of the Company (including any liability for the acts or omissions of its employees, agents and sub-contractors) to the Buyer in respect of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a)    any breach of these conditions;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b)    any use made or resale by the Buyer of any of the Goods, or of any product incorporating any of the Goods; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c)    any representation, statement or tortious act or omission including negligence arising under or in connection with the Contract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10.2    All warranties, conditions and other terms implied by statute or common law (save for the conditions implied by section 12 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979) are, to the fullest extent permitted by law, excluded from the Contract.  THE BUYER AGREES AND UNDERSTANDS THAT ITS USE OF THE GOODS IN CONNECTION WITH ITS ACTIVITIES IS ENTIRELY AT ITS RISK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10.3    Nothing in these conditions excludes or limits the liability of the Company: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a)    for death or personal injury caused by the Company's negligence; or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b)    for any matter which it would be illegal for the Company to exclude or attempt to exclude its liability; or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c)    for fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10.4    Subject to condition 10.2 and condition 10.3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a)    the Company's total liability in contract, tort (including negligence or breach of statutory duty), misrepresentation, restitution or otherwise, arising in connection with the performance or contemplated performance of the Contract shall be limited to the Contract price or to one hundred dollars (US$100), whichever sum is the lower, even if such losses result from the Company’s deliberate personal repudiatory breach of this agreement; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b)    the Company shall not be liable to the Buyer in relation to the Contract or any breach thereof under any contract, negligence, strict liability or other theory for loss of revenues, loss of profit, loss or interruption of business, loss or inaccuracy of data (including test results) or depletion of goodwill, regardless of how such damages are characterised and in each case whether special, direct, indirect or consequential, or any claims for consequential compensation whatsoever (howsoever caused), including the cost (including procurement costs) of substitute goods, services or technology, which arise out of or in connection with the Contract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;11.    Assignment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;11.1    The Company may assign the Contract or any part of it to any person, firm or company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;11.2    The Buyer shall not be entitled to assign the Contract or any part of it without the prior written consent of the Company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12.    Indemnity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Buyer agrees to indemnify and hold the Company harmless from and against any claims, costs, expenses or damages arising out of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a)    the improper use, misuse or neglect of the Goods or any breach of these terms and conditions or the Contract or default on the part of the Buyer; or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b)    any use, production or sale of goods manufactured by the Buyer which incorporate any Goods supplied to the Buyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;13.    Force Majeure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Company reserves the right to defer the date of delivery or to cancel the Contract or reduce the volume of the Goods ordered by the Buyer (without liability to the Buyer) if it is prevented from or delayed in the carrying on of its business due to circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the Company including, without limitation, acts of God, governmental actions, war (whether declared or undeclared) or national emergency, acts of terrorism, protests, riot, civil commotion, fire, explosion, flood, epidemic, lock-outs, strikes or other labour disputes (whether or not relating to either party's workforce), or restraints or delays affecting carriers or inability or delay in obtaining supplies of adequate or suitable materials, provided that, if the event in question continues for a continuous period in excess of 180 days, the Buyer shall be entitled to give notice in writing to the Company to terminate the Contract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;14.    General&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;14.1    Each right or remedy of the Company under the Contract is without prejudice to any other right or remedy of the Company whether under the Contract or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;14.2    If any provision of the Contract is found by any court, tribunal or administrative body of competent jurisdiction to be wholly or partly illegal, invalid, void, voidable, unenforceable or unreasonable it shall, to the extent of such illegality, invalidity, voidness, voidability, unenforceability or unreasonableness, be deemed severable and the remaining provisions of the Contract and the remainder of such provision shall continue in full force and effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;14.3    Failure or delay by the Company in enforcing or partially enforcing any provision of the Contract shall not be construed as a waiver of any of its rights under the Contract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;14.4    Any waiver by the Company of any breach of, or any default under, any provision of the Contract by the Buyer shall not be deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach or default and shall in no way affect the other terms of the Contract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;14.5    The parties to the Contract do not intend that any term of the Contract shall be enforceable by virtue of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 by any person that is not a party to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;14.6    The Contract and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with it or its subject matter or formation (including non-contractual disputes or claims) shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English law, and the parties submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;15.    Communications&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;15.1    All communications between the parties about the Contract shall be in writing and delivered by hand or sent by pre-paid first class post or sent by fax:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a)    (in case of communications to the Company) to its registered office or such changed address as shall be notified to the Buyer by the Company; or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b)    (in the case of the communications to the Buyer) to the registered office of the addressee (if it is a company) or (in any other case) to any address of the Buyer set out in any document which forms part of the Contract or such other address as shall be notified to the Company by the Buyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Communications shall be deemed to have been received:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c)    if sent by pre-paid first class post, two days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and bank and public holidays) after posting (exclusive of the day of posting); or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(d)    if delivered by hand, on the day of delivery; or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(e)    if sent by fax on a working day prior to 4.00 pm, at the time of transmission and otherwise on the next working day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;15.2    Communications addressed to the Company shall be marked for the attention of Helen Kent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13531" RevisionGUID="b99aef8b-e9df-4302-90dc-2f76cc5ee4b2" CreationDate="2015-09-07T11:10:00.197" UserId="11751" Text="You could do a google search which would look like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [g02c 5/14 site:www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and there is a USPTO page similar to one linked in previous answer: [http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/][2] but it doesn't have a search system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.lt/search?q=g02c%205%2F14%20site%3Awww.uspto.gov%2Fweb%2Fpatents%2Fclassification&amp;oq=g02c%205%2F14%20site%3Awww.uspto.gov%2Fweb%2Fpatents%2Fclassification&amp;aqs=chrome..69i57.685j0j4&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;es_sm=93&amp;ie=UTF-8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13533" RevisionGUID="ee723cf8-485f-4841-8193-e0fe3082fa0a" CreationDate="2015-09-07T11:55:17.083" UserId="11751" Text="Claim chart is the way to go, but keep in mind that sometimes it's hard to find a citation in prior art that would closely match the claim feature. Indicating which images and passages correspond to said feature might be more convenient especially having in mind that you do not want a narrow explanation provided by citations but rather indicate specific and abstract knowledge that reader may get from the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at the final/non-final rejections that patent examiners provide while analyzing patent's novelty. Check for instance US 6873940 using [PAIR][1]: open an 'Image File Wrapper' and take a look at &quot;10-20-2003 Non-Final Rejection&quot;. You'll see that examiner is taking claim features and indicating the places in prior art where to look for corresponding details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is to provide both the claim chart and more abstract indications (that might be scattered through multiple passages/images) of corresponding features. But claim chart is a standard way for claim invalidation. At least having both will help the process of gathering arguments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13533" RevisionGUID="471b1b18-b923-44a5-b446-595ab956dc0a" CreationDate="2015-09-07T12:19:35.687" UserId="8074" Comment="Explaining differences" Text="Claim chart is the way to go, but keep in mind that sometimes it's hard to find a citation/citations in prior art that would closely match the claim feature (which in my view is a proper way to prepare the chart). Indicating which images and passages correspond to said feature might be more convenient especially having in mind that you do not want a narrow explanation provided by citations but rather indicate specific and abstract knowledge that reader may get from the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at the final/non-final rejections that patent examiners provide while analyzing patent's novelty. Check for instance US 6873940 using [PAIR][1]: open an 'Image File Wrapper' and take a look at &quot;10-20-2003 Non-Final Rejection&quot;. You'll see that examiner is taking claim features and indicating the places in prior art where to look for corresponding details and sometimes with explanation of correspondence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is to provide both the claim chart and more abstract indications (that might be scattered through multiple passages/images) of corresponding features. But claim chart is a standard way for claim invalidation. At least having both will help the process of gathering arguments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32765" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13533" RevisionGUID="471b1b18-b923-44a5-b446-595ab956dc0a" CreationDate="2015-09-07T12:19:35.687" Comment="Proposed by 8074 approved by -1 edit id of 1878" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13533" RevisionGUID="382ada8c-7042-46c0-9ae3-b238136f5efc" CreationDate="2015-09-07T12:19:35.687" UserId="14417" Comment="Explaining differences, cleaned up grammar." Text="Claim chart is the way to go, but keep in mind that sometimes it's hard to find citations in prior art that would closely match the claim feature (which is an appropriate way to prepare the chart). Indicating which images and passages correspond to said feature might be more convenient especially having in mind that you do not want a narrow explanation provided by citations but rather indicate specific and abstract knowledge that reader may get from the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at the final/non-final rejections that patent examiners provide while analyzing patent's novelty. Check for instance US 6873940 using [PAIR][1]: open an 'Image File Wrapper' and take a look at &quot;10-20-2003 Non-Final Rejection&quot;. You'll see that examiner is taking claim features and indicating the places in prior art where to look for corresponding details and sometimes with explanation of correspondence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is to provide both the claim chart and more abstract indications (that might be scattered through multiple passages/images) of corresponding features. But claim chart is a standard way for claim invalidation. At least having both will help the process of gathering arguments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13528" RevisionGUID="7d1e9f6e-5602-420e-b404-4f658b44c5e7" CreationDate="2015-09-07T12:26:04.917" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and adjusted wording of question." Text="I am researching on this field and need to know the current status of this patent? Can someone let me know the state?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US 2013/0132813 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132813" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32768" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13528" RevisionGUID="7d1e9f6e-5602-420e-b404-4f658b44c5e7" CreationDate="2015-09-07T12:26:04.917" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and adjusted wording of question." Text="What is the legal status of US 2013/0132813 A1?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32769" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13528" RevisionGUID="7d1e9f6e-5602-420e-b404-4f658b44c5e7" CreationDate="2015-09-07T12:26:04.917" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and adjusted wording of question." Text="&lt;legal-status&gt;&lt;us20130132813&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13525" RevisionGUID="f5a02596-763b-439d-93bb-0cd6cda71294" CreationDate="2015-09-07T12:28:13.283" UserId="14417" Comment="Removed unnecessary opinion." Text="It is too late now to submit prior art for this application. The grant issued as [US 9,126,487 B2][1] on September 8, 2015.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 1-4, 6-17 have been cancelled, claims 18, 22, 29 and 31 have been amended as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 18. (Currently Amended) A hoverboard comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - two or more hover engines, each hover engine having,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an electric motor including a winding, a first set of permanent magnets and a first structure which holds the first set of permanent magnets wherein an electric current is applied to the winding to cause one of the winding or the first set of permanent magnets to rotate;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an electronic speed controller which controls a rotation rate of the electric motor;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a rotatable component, configured to receive a rotational torque from the electric motor which rotates the rotatable component including a second set of permanent magnets and a second structure which holds the second set of permanent magnets wherein the second set of permanent magnets are rotated to induce eddy currents in a substrate such that the induced eddy currents and the second set of permanent magnets interact to generate forces which cause the hoverboard and a person standing on the hoverboard to hover and translate from location to location along the substrate;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and a shroud enclosing the electric motor and at least a top portion of the rotatable component;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an electric power source that outputs the electric current to the two or more hover engines;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a rider platform on which the person stands, the two or more hover engines structurally linked to the rider platform;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a mechanical hinge coupled to a first hover engine of the two or more hover engines which allows the rotatable component, the electric motor and the shroud of the first hover engine to tilt relative to the rider platform wherein a magnitude of a translational force, output from the first hover engine, changes in response to tilting the rotatable component, the electric motor and the shroud and wherein the translation force is used to control an orientation of the hoverboard relative to the substrate;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an actuator, including an actuator controller, which outputs a force that changes a tilt position of the first hover engine from a first tilt position to a second tilt position in response to an input force generated by the person;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - one or more sensors configured to measure a direction and/or a magnitude of the input force generated by the person; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a logic device configured to receive sensor data from the one or more sensors, communicate with the actuator controller and based upon the sensor data, command the actuator controller to output the force to tilt the first hover engine.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 22. (Currently Amended) The hoverboard of claim 18, wherein the one or more&#xD;&#xA;sensors are integrated into the rider platform and wherein the person generates the input force via a movement of their body.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 29. (Currently Amended) The hoverboard of claim 31, wherein the first portion is formed from a flexible material which bends in response to the input force from the foot of the person.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 31. (New) A hoverboard comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - two or more hover engines, each hover engine having, an electric motor including a winding, a first set of permanent magnets and a first&#xD;&#xA;structure which holds the first set of permanent magnets wherein an electric current is applied to the winding to cause one of the winding or the first set of permanent magnets to rotate;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an electronic speed controller which controls a rotation rate of the electric motor; a rotatable component, configured to receive a rotational torque from the electric motor which rotates the rotatable component including a second set of permanent magnets and a second structure which holds the second set of permanent magnets wherein the second set of permanent magnets are rotated to induce eddy currents in a substrate such that the induced eddy currents and the second set of permanent magnets interact to generate forces which cause the hoverboard and a person standing on the hoverboard to hover and translate from location to location along the substrate; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a shroud enclosing the electric motor and at least a top portion of the rotatable component;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an electric power source that outputs the electric current to the two or more hover engines;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a rider platform on which the person stands, the two or more hover engines structurally linked to the rider platform;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a mechanical hinge coupled to a first hover engine of the two or more hover engines which allows the rotatable component, the electric motor and the shroud of the first hover engine to tilt relative to the rider platform wherein a magnitude of a translational force, output from the first hover engine, changes in response to tilting the rotatable component, the electric motor and the shroud and wherein the translation force is used to control an orientation of the hoverboard relative to the substrate;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a first portion of the rider platform that is moveable relative to a remaining portion of the rider platform; and a mechanical linkage coupled on a first end to the shroud of the first hover engine and coupled on a second end to the first portion wherein the first portion moves in response to receiving an input force from a foot of the person which causes the&#xD;&#xA;first hover engine to tilt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone who is interested in the scope of this patent should have a read through the claim language. Although these claims throw around the words &quot;hoverboard&quot; and &quot;hover engine&quot;, it is clear on reading this that there is no claim about actually making anything hover.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US9126487" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13529" RevisionGUID="afb3274d-77b9-469c-8aa7-5f858dff9289" CreationDate="2015-09-07T12:40:46.197" UserId="14417" Comment="Merged answers and edited out most of the license (extremely long) to just the section pointed out by the poster. If more of the license is needed, it is available in the edit history." Text="I'm a scientist at Twist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The easiest way to access RPA is to buy a kit. It's quite involved to make the reactions from scratch so it's not trivial to DIY. There are lots of proteins, not all of which are commercially available individually (and certainly not economically).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The terms of supply are available [online][1], but Section 6.4 is the relevant one, which is provided below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6.4 The Buyer acknowledges and agrees that the Materials and Information are proprietary to the Company and may be covered by claims of patents or patent applications of the Company. The Goods are sold subject to the following restrictions:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) **the Materials and Information are non-exclusively licensed to the Buyer solely for non-commercial internal research purposes**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) **the Materials and Information must not be used for any commercial  purposes or to provide services to any third party**;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) **the Buyer must not re-package or re-sell the Materials or Information;**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (d) the Buyer acknowledges that the Materials are experimental in nature and may have properties that are not fully understood. Accordingly, **the Buyer agrees not to use the Materials or derivatives thereof for any in vivo testing or for any clinical diagnostic purposes whatsoever for animals or humans**;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (e) the Buyer shall use the Materials and Information strictly in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compliance with all applicable laws, regulations and guidelines.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Company reserves all intellectual property rights in and to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Material and Information, subject only to the license set forth above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For terms and conditions see the [License Card][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a list of some [academic publications][3] by groups already using RPA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.twistdx.co.uk/terms_of_supply/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.twistdx.co.uk/images/uploads/docs/TA01Lic_Twist_License_Card.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.twistdx.co.uk/publications/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10745" RevisionGUID="3fcc574c-5f52-4c34-9857-add638b910a7" CreationDate="2015-09-07T13:00:52.190" UserId="14417" Comment="Clarified question and improved tagging." Text="Do I have to reference a patent application in my patent if the patent has already been granted? Do I have to reference both the application number and the patent number?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: A patent application (Kind Code A1) is published in 2010 and a patent grant (Kind Code B2) issued in 2011." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32773" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10745" RevisionGUID="3fcc574c-5f52-4c34-9857-add638b910a7" CreationDate="2015-09-07T13:00:52.190" UserId="14417" Comment="Clarified question and improved tagging." Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;citation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13534" RevisionGUID="e5d8e289-5716-475b-bda6-d6cf97adfc2a" CreationDate="2015-09-07T13:19:08.560" UserId="14417" Text="This application is still undergoing prosecution. A Final Rejection was issued by the USPTO on April 2, 2015 based on non-statutory subject matter and a lack of definitions in the specification. However, a Notice of Appeal was filed on July 21, 2015.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Updated information, including all correspondence between the examiner and inventor is freely available in the USPTO [Public Pair][1] database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32776" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="337" RevisionGUID="fe628ef3-1c99-413e-b2e3-b54114781a6e" CreationDate="2015-09-07T13:32:35.613" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved grammar." Text="As far as I'm aware, a *block of code* or a *piece of software* can't be patented, period. That's strictly copyright territory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be patented is the *process* that the code implements. And to that end, a program licensed under the GPL may implement a process covered by a patent. GPLv3, however, mandates that you grant all downstream users a license on the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for GPLv2 and earlier there is no such requirement. That's one of the huge differences between v2 and v3; before that, people just assumed that &quot;free software&quot; *meant* &quot;free software&quot;, and patents were threatening to ruin that. Hence the change." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32777" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="89" RevisionGUID="4f7c9645-8ae3-4b05-afb7-e83f116a1a6d" CreationDate="2015-09-07T13:33:22.730" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;opensource&gt;&lt;license&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="844" RevisionGUID="015cda0d-5958-4970-8460-bdcb4ad92709" CreationDate="2015-09-07T13:34:35.400" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and tagging." Text="I just read that under BSD, Apache, and MIT Licenses, one can use, modify and redistribute source code in a product as long as credit for the open source portion is given back to the the author. That seems clear (and significantly different from GPL).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, is it legally acceptable to try and patent a piece of software if that software uses a BSD Licensed open source file as library (or support) code? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Edit:* Not asking if one can patent the open source (BSD Licensed portion) rather the unique software that was written on top of the open source. Can that be patented? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32779" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="844" RevisionGUID="015cda0d-5958-4970-8460-bdcb4ad92709" CreationDate="2015-09-07T13:34:35.400" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and tagging." Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;opensource&gt;&lt;license&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13535" RevisionGUID="cff465f9-3cbe-41c9-947e-8261712baffd" CreationDate="2015-09-07T14:09:57.853" UserId="14417" Text="Claims are interpreted in their broadest possible sense in light of the specification. The patent classes are there to aid search and retrieval, and to document the Field of Search. See [MPEP Section 2111][1] for a description of how claims are interpreted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) determines the scope of claims&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction “in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ordinary skill in the art.” In re *Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.*, 367&#xD;&#xA;&gt; F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rules of the PTO require that application claims must “conform to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description.”&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [37 CFR 1.75(d)(1)][2].&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [2173.05(p)][3] Claim Directed to Product-By-Process or Product and Process&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are many situations where claims are permissively&#xD;&#xA;&gt; drafted to include a reference to more than one statutory class of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a thought experiment, consider that (1) existing classes are always based on earlier inventions, and (2) new inventions must be novel. Therefore, no single patent class can ever be 100% reliable as a means of interpreting novel claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many classification schemes, and the US classification is just one of many National Classifications. There are also international classification schemes: IPC, ECLA, and now CPC. The US classification system is being discontinued, and there is not necessarily a one-to-one match between any of these schemes. The classifications are also updated periodically. It is a bit of a mess, but at least it is a controlled mess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd also like to highlight some counterpoints to your interpretation of General Patent as a patent troll based on the articles you provided as references:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...the principal exception—General Patent Corporation, which has&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a long history of supplying enforcement services to small- and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; medium-sized inventors, with a substantial portion of the royalties&#xD;&#xA;&gt; provided to the inventor...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...General Patent Corporation, a company that provides IP enforcement&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and licensing services with the aim “to help inventors, scientists and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authors realize the fruits of their creative genius”...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above activities do not fall within the currently accepted definition of a [Patent Troll][4], specifically the following qualities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- patent holding company (PHC)&#xD;&#xA;- patent assertion entity (PAE)&#xD;&#xA;- non-practicing entity (NPE)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2111.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e320269&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2173.html#d0e218855&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32781" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13526" RevisionGUID="b81c4b3f-bfef-4473-b55b-76c703517079" CreationDate="2015-09-07T14:11:24.800" UserId="14940" Comment="changed title" Text="Can I patent this process or workflow?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32782" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13526" RevisionGUID="b81c4b3f-bfef-4473-b55b-76c703517079" CreationDate="2015-09-07T14:11:24.800" Comment="Proposed by 14940 approved by 14417, 1 edit id of 1877" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13536" RevisionGUID="9ec9a9ce-4a91-410c-8022-a8d27e610629" CreationDate="2015-09-07T14:32:51.590" UserId="14417" Text="This is a challenging question due to some recent court cases, in particular the Alice decision ([Supreme Court decision][1]) ([Wikipedia Article][2]). Both of these are highly recommended reading prior to writing a new application in this space, because the Alice decision created a new legal test for patentability for business methods, based on a test of abstraction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Although the Alice opinion did not mention software as such, the case&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was widely considered as a decision on software patents or patents on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; software for business methods. It and the 2010 Supreme Court&#xD;&#xA;&gt; decision in [Bilski v. Kappos][3], another case involving software for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; business method (which also did not opine on software as such),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; were the first Supreme Court cases on the patent eligibility of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; software–related inventions since the Diamond v. Diehr in 1981.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is currently really tricky to write a specification and claims that will fly in this space. If you decide to do this on your own, try to find some post-Alice applications in your space (filed after June 19, 2014) and read through the non-final and final rejections of those applications in the [USPTO Public Pair][4] database. If you can find a recent patent in the space that actually issued as a grant, then you should use it as a model for how to construct your claims and write your specification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The provisional application will never be publicly available, but you need to make certain that you stake out the entire territory of what you might potentially claim. Provide relevant citations and definitions, and don't skimp on the content. This will give you a full year to complete and file your application, and during that time you should be sure to stay up to date on new developments on business method patents. If, by a few months before the application is due to be filed, you can afford to hire a patent firm to review and file your application, please do. It won't hurt to shop around for such a firm in the meantime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If any issues arise during the process, please search this site and ask more questions if needed - the more specific the better. Keep in mind that the legal process has been changing over the last few years, and some older answers may no longer be 100% applicable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Int'l&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13537" RevisionGUID="1ca0d087-fc3f-4d5a-b4f6-20f0294685bf" CreationDate="2015-09-07T15:09:10.217" UserId="14949" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8596897][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8596897&#xD;&#xA;Hi there,&#xD;&#xA;I am enquiring to the eligibility of this patent in the UK, and if there is a current distributer or manufaturer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also checking if this patent was passed and taken into effect.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks a lot for your help,&#xD;&#xA;Sam - sam.kahn61@gmail.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32787" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13537" RevisionGUID="1ca0d087-fc3f-4d5a-b4f6-20f0294685bf" CreationDate="2015-09-07T15:09:10.217" UserId="14949" Text="Lip balm pen, enquiring about its international eligibility" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32788" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13537" RevisionGUID="1ca0d087-fc3f-4d5a-b4f6-20f0294685bf" CreationDate="2015-09-07T15:09:10.217" UserId="14949" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32789" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13537" RevisionGUID="8f301365-8caa-43d0-a115-72cfbd6f5524" CreationDate="2015-09-07T15:14:25.973" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 8,596,897 B2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am inquiring to the eligibility of this patent in the UK, and if there is a current distributor or manufacturer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also checking if this patent was passed and taken into effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8596897" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32790" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13537" RevisionGUID="8f301365-8caa-43d0-a115-72cfbd6f5524" CreationDate="2015-09-07T15:14:25.973" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="Lip balm pen, inquiring about its international eligibility" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32791" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13537" RevisionGUID="8f301365-8caa-43d0-a115-72cfbd6f5524" CreationDate="2015-09-07T15:14:25.973" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;legal-status&gt;&lt;us8596897&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13538" RevisionGUID="1b1feb1f-2a11-4229-97bc-5228b32c9ca0" CreationDate="2015-09-07T15:20:44.753" UserId="14417" Text="This patent issued on November 13, 2013 and is enforceable in the United States. There was no international application filed, so manufacture and sales outside of the US do not infringe. However, any sales within the US (including unintentional 3rd party sales) could lead to infringement or contributory infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this site is not a direct connection to the patent holder or inventor, you will need to do your own research to find out about manufacturers and distributors. A good place to start is usually the [USPTO Assignee database][1]; however, there have been no assignments yet and the patent is currently assigned to the inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://assignment.uspto.gov/#/search?q=8596897" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32793" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13526" RevisionGUID="f2db4563-ed18-4f1b-9c3d-0d42a6c281c7" CreationDate="2015-09-07T15:21:57.800" UserId="14417" Comment="Added pro-se tag." Text="&lt;process&gt;&lt;pro-se&gt;&lt;workflow&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32794" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="13506" RevisionGUID="a12d5896-e2bb-427b-a444-07a36be43b07" CreationDate="2015-09-07T17:46:12.147" UserId="14417" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:14417,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;vallismortis&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13536" RevisionGUID="3a554002-3a80-44ad-9364-594d98d1997c" CreationDate="2015-09-07T18:24:30.773" UserId="14417" Comment="Terminology correction." Text="This is a challenging question due to some recent court cases, in particular the Alice decision ([Supreme Court decision][1]) ([Wikipedia Article][2]). Both of these are highly recommended reading prior to writing a new application in this space, because the Alice decision created a new legal test for patentability for business methods, based on a test of abstraction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Although the Alice opinion did not mention software as such, the case&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was widely considered as a decision on software patents or patents on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; software for business methods. It and the 2010 Supreme Court&#xD;&#xA;&gt; decision in [Bilski v. Kappos][3], another case involving software for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; business method (which also did not opine on software as such),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; were the first Supreme Court cases on the patent eligibility of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; software–related inventions since the Diamond v. Diehr in 1981.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is currently really tricky to write a specification and claims that will fly in this space. If you decide to do this on your own, try to find some post-Alice applications in your space (filed after June 19, 2014) and read through the non-final and final rejections of those applications in the [USPTO Public Pair][4] database. If you can find a recent patent in the space that actually issued as a grant, then you should use it as a model for how to construct your claims and write your specification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The provisional application will never be publicly available, but you need to make certain that you stake out the entire territory of what you might potentially claim. Provide relevant citations and definitions, and don't skimp on the content. This will give you a full year to complete and file your application, and during that time you should be sure to stay up to date on new developments on business method patents. If, by a few months before the application is due to be filed, you can afford to hire a patent agent to review and file your application, please do. It won't hurt to shop around for such an agent in the meantime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Int'l&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13520" RevisionGUID="581ee4f2-03cf-4222-a983-525de37fe40c" CreationDate="2015-09-07T19:08:40.197" UserId="14417" Comment="Copied comment into question and improved tagging." Text="I am looking to launch a product which has already existed in Australia but failed to make any money at the time. The product was created around 3 years ago but the company seems to have ceased trading now. There is no patent or patent-pending on the product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a utility patent. What would be classed as published material. They have a Facebook page with the product, but no updates on the page since 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I still apply for a patent on the idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32797" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13520" RevisionGUID="581ee4f2-03cf-4222-a983-525de37fe40c" CreationDate="2015-09-07T19:08:40.197" UserId="14417" Comment="Copied comment into question and improved tagging." Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;utility&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32798" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="13506" RevisionGUID="2c7abe85-b1f7-4702-8a08-65c0fa61652f" CreationDate="2015-09-07T19:10:50.307" UserId="14417" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:14417,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;vallismortis&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32799" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="13539" RevisionGUID="540521ee-4c92-4339-94ec-27d4284876df" CreationDate="2015-09-07T19:24:30.273" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/3861/how-to-apply-for-a-patent-certificate" />
  <row Id="32800" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="13540" RevisionGUID="2fffbe0a-9816-46b6-b643-8d1629a501cc" CreationDate="2015-09-07T19:24:30.273" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/3861/how-to-apply-for-a-patent-certificate/3862#3862" />
  <row Id="32801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13540" RevisionGUID="f6628f28-0b7c-4d9c-adc6-800e37571f45" CreationDate="2015-08-09T23:11:23.823" UserId="14708" Text="**Assumption:** A technology based patent application will be submitted to United States Patent and Trademark office (USPTO).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need first investigate prior art. Essentially you have to validate if your invention is truly an invention. There few ways you can achieve this task.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Literature search - start with simple google search&#xD;&#xA; - Make sure you have clearly document your invention and another engineer has verified your work. Signature and dates are very important.&#xD;&#xA; - Do a local and international patent search? You can start with google patent. Do a patent search using United States Patent and Trademark office (USPTO) search tool. (Warning: This is a very painful process)&#xD;&#xA; - Develop an invention disclosure &#xD;&#xA; - Take all your finding and retain a **good** patent lawyer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent Lawyers will further investigate your invention. If they determine that your invention is valid then they will file a patent application. At this point USPTO will communicate with your lawyer to further validate your patent. If USPTO is satisfied your invention then they will granted the patent. You can now really celebrate :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Important infomation:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A good patent lawyer in US chargers anywhere from US\$  500-US\$ 800 / hr&#xD;&#xA; - A good patent application could cost any where around $20,000 or more (Cost is subjective will vary). &#xD;&#xA; - Be prepared to review other competing patents. I find this a very tedious and boring process.&#xD;&#xA; - Make sure you have resources to review patents from other countries/languages&#xD;&#xA; - Time from patent application accepted to grant could take more than 1+ years&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: This is everything that know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**References:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Google Patent Search][1]&#xD;&#xA; - [United States Patent and Trademark Office][2]&#xD;&#xA; - [Free Patent Online - IP Research and communities][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13539" RevisionGUID="bc92667a-5381-450a-8ce9-f43cc2d1b665" CreationDate="2015-08-09T22:05:09.843" UserDisplayName="iNdra" Text="How to apply for a utility patent for an invention in US? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the procedure of this process? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are any other important details? Can a US base technology patent be extend to EU?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Reference:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [The Three Types of Patents][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.beemlaw.com/video-gallery/the-three-types-of-patents#.Ve2xShG6fIU" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32803" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13539" RevisionGUID="bc92667a-5381-450a-8ce9-f43cc2d1b665" CreationDate="2015-08-09T22:05:09.843" UserDisplayName="iNdra" Text="How to apply for a patent certificate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32804" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13539" RevisionGUID="bc92667a-5381-450a-8ce9-f43cc2d1b665" CreationDate="2015-08-09T22:05:09.843" UserDisplayName="iNdra" Text="&lt;untagged&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13541" RevisionGUID="2615147b-67c6-4463-9cb4-045333609634" CreationDate="2015-09-07T19:35:18.347" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13542" RevisionGUID="b2880e0e-8922-4581-9ac7-f54a0fd0818e" CreationDate="2015-09-07T19:35:18.347" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13543" RevisionGUID="df53444c-5775-4b4b-9d46-16fd13c09903" CreationDate="2015-09-07T19:39:59.813" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13544" RevisionGUID="d2cfef8c-6bd9-4898-9ce6-df9c1f023890" CreationDate="2015-09-07T19:39:59.813" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13545" RevisionGUID="9aeff6ca-5d7a-45e4-962a-c218c443e9d7" CreationDate="2015-09-07T21:58:57.917" UserId="14417" Text="The &quot;Filed&quot; field in the grant publication says &quot;Jan. 3, 1966&quot;. However, other information from the cover sheet conflicts with this date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. No domestic benefits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Reading through the patent, it does not claim any domestic benefit, so it was not a continuation, continuation-in-part or divisional of any other application. This grant was based on a single patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The Issue Date&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  The issue date of the patent is July 25, 1989. If the &quot;Filed&quot; date were correct, then this patent would have taken 33 years, 6 months and 22 days to examine. An examiner at the USPTO could have been handed this application on his first day at the job in 1966, spent his entire career 30-year examining it, and then handed it his next of kin in 1986 to complete the job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The References Cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  All cited references in this document are after 1966 but before January 3, 1986:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [3,394,366][1]  7/1968 Dye&#xD;&#xA;  - [3,443,075][2]  5/1969 Gloess&#xD;&#xA;  - [3,613,066][3] 10/1971 Cooreman&#xD;&#xA;  - [4,277,783][4]  7/1981 Samoieri et al.&#xD;&#xA;  - [4,305,071][5] 12/1981 Bell et al.&#xD;&#xA;  - [4,346,376][6] 11/1984 Mallow&#xD;&#xA;  - [4,517,559][7]  5/1985 Deitch et al.&#xD;&#xA;  - [4,542,375][8]  9/1985 Alles et al.&#xD;&#xA;  - [4,613,987][9]  9/1986 Keverian (Priority date: Feb 15, 1985)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The Serial Number&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Table of Filing Years and Patent Application Serial Numbers][10]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - 1960    4    000,001&#xD;&#xA;  - ...&#xD;&#xA;  - 1965    4    423,000&#xD;&#xA;  - 1966    4    518,000&#xD;&#xA;  - 1967    4    606,000&#xD;&#xA;  - 1968    4    695,000&#xD;&#xA;  - 1969    4    788,000&#xD;&#xA;  - ...&#xD;&#xA;  - 1979    6    000,001&#xD;&#xA;  - 1980    6    108,971&#xD;&#xA;  - 1981    6    221,957&#xD;&#xA;  - 1982    6    336,510&#xD;&#xA;  - 1983    6    454,954&#xD;&#xA;  - 1984    6    567,457&#xD;&#xA;  - 1985    6    688,174&#xD;&#xA;  - **1986    6    815,454**&#xD;&#xA;  - 1987    7    000,001&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; As you can see above, a patent application filed in 1966 would have had a serial number between 04/518,000 and 04/606,000. The patent application referred to here has serial number 06/816,065, which means there is no question that the filing date was in 1986.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. [Public Pair][11] Transaction History&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Looking in the Transaction History, we see that the case was first docketed to the examiner on May 3, 1986, which is consistent with the other observations above, which point to 1986.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 05-30-1986  Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU&#xD;&#xA; - 10-10-1986  Non-Final Rejection&#xD;&#xA; - 10-20-1986  Mail Non-Final Rejection&#xD;&#xA; - 04-23-1987  Request for Extension of Time - Granted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Maintenance Fees - Bibliographic Data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The bibliographic data from the Maintenance Fees screen shows the correct Filing Date, January 3, 1986 (also note the serial number is an 06/ series):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![Maintenance Fees - Bibliographic Data][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Public Pair - Bibliographic Data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The bibliographic data from the Public Pair screen also shows the correct Filing Date, January 3, 1986:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![Public Pair - Bibliographic Data][13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on all of this evidence, which is publicly available in the USPTO databases, it is clear that the correct priority date of the patent is January 3, 1986. The 1966 date is an obvious typo in the cover sheet, which is known to happen from time to time. If someone is interested in correcting it, they can submit a correction according to [Section 323.01(a)   Typographical Errors in Cover Sheet][14], and the USPTO will make the necessary correction to the cover sheet in the historical database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that the correct priority date is established, what are the legal ramifications of deliberately misrepresenting information about a patent? Well, in a normal online forum, probably nothing. However, this forum has the blessing of the USPTO to identify and submit third party observations for prior art. Misrepresentation of information here would potentially fall within the scope of deceptive intent leading to Inequitable Conduct as described in this article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Woods, AG. 2014. [Withholding Information Contradicting A Legal Argument Or Misrepresenting Information Supporting That Argument May Rise To Inequitable Conduct][15]. *Mondaq Business Briefing*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US3394366&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US3443075&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US3613066&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4277783&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4305071&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4346376&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4517559&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4542375&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4613987&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/filingyr.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/0qqV1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Grw3Z.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s323.html#d0e19676&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/284096/Patent/Withholding+Information+Contradicting+a+Legal+Argument+or+Misrepresenting+Information+Supporting+That+Argument+May+Rise+to+Inequitable+Conduct" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13546" RevisionGUID="7992147a-8701-40f1-99c0-0f559f2481af" CreationDate="2015-09-08T00:16:24.590" UserId="14953" Text="If the application for US7156537 was rejected on two occasions during examination and two claims were canceled from the patent...why then is the figure associated with the canceled claims  still in the published patent and are they considered prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32811" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13546" RevisionGUID="7992147a-8701-40f1-99c0-0f559f2481af" CreationDate="2015-09-08T00:16:24.590" UserId="14953" Text="Canceled Claims considered prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32812" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13546" RevisionGUID="7992147a-8701-40f1-99c0-0f559f2481af" CreationDate="2015-09-08T00:16:24.590" UserId="14953" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;prior&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32813" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7705" RevisionGUID="3bccd543-1abf-4964-a5ca-988dec9c9914" CreationDate="2015-09-08T01:12:21.957" UserId="10011" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13547" RevisionGUID="4d30bd8b-50a7-40f7-b7ca-eeaa05ee448b" CreationDate="2015-09-08T01:23:39.080" UserId="11025" Text="No, or, more to the point, you would not successfully get a patent. When filing an application, you must complete a declaration, which states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;. . . I believe that I am the original inventor or an original joint inventor of a claimed invention in the application. I hereby acknowledge that any willful false statement made in this declaration is punishable under 18 U.S.C. 1001 by fine or imprisonment of not more than five (5) years, or both. . .&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You also have a duty to disclose of any prior art you know of. Failure to disclose may also invalidate any patent you did receive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13547" RevisionGUID="c9ff9829-3a68-45c9-8995-802258ce1349" CreationDate="2015-09-08T01:32:02.207" UserId="11025" Comment="added 278 characters in body" Text="When filing an application, you must complete a [declaration](http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/forms/aia0001.pdf), which states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;. . . I believe that I am the original inventor or an original joint inventor of a claimed invention in the application. I hereby acknowledge that any willful false statement made in this declaration is punishable under 18 U.S.C. 1001 by fine or imprisonment of not more than five (5) years, or both. . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, from [37 C.F.R. 1.56(a)](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2001.html): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability as defined in this section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So no, you cannot apply for a patent for something invented by someone else or publicly available more than a year prior to your application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13546" RevisionGUID="3bee4be2-5865-4ced-8baa-e2d3dab92be0" CreationDate="2015-09-08T01:38:37.823" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, added references, improved tagging and corrected spelling and grammar." Text="If the application for [US 7,156,537 B2][1] was rejected on two occasions during examination and two claims were canceled from the patent, then why is the figure associated with the canceled claims still in the published patent and are they considered prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7156537" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32820" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13546" RevisionGUID="3bee4be2-5865-4ced-8baa-e2d3dab92be0" CreationDate="2015-09-08T01:38:37.823" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, added references, improved tagging and corrected spelling and grammar." Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;examination&gt;&lt;us7156537&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32821" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13546" RevisionGUID="3bee4be2-5865-4ced-8baa-e2d3dab92be0" CreationDate="2015-09-08T01:38:37.823" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, added references, improved tagging and corrected spelling and grammar." Text="Canceled claims considered prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13540" RevisionGUID="daa38f00-35a9-4cf7-97ce-0c7a3f72e109" CreationDate="2015-09-08T02:05:40.883" UserId="14708" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="**Assumption:** A technology based patent application will be submitted to United States Patent and Trademark office (USPTO).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need first investigate prior art. Essentially you have to validate if your invention is truly an invention. There few ways you can achieve this task.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Literature search - start with simple google search&#xD;&#xA; - Make sure you have clearly document your invention and another engineer has verified your work. Signature and dates are very important.&#xD;&#xA; - Do a local and international patent search? You can start with google patent. Do a patent search using United States Patent and Trademark office (USPTO) search tool. (Warning: This is a very painful process)&#xD;&#xA; - Develop an invention disclosure &#xD;&#xA; - Take all your finding and retain a **good** patent lawyer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent Lawyers will further investigate your invention. If they determine that your invention is valid then they will file a patent application. At this point USPTO will communicate with your lawyer to further validate your patent. If USPTO is satisfied your invention then they will granted the patent. You can now really celebrate :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Important infomation:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A good patent lawyer in US chargers anywhere from US\$  500-US\$ 800 / hr&#xD;&#xA; - A good patent application could cost any where around $20,000 or more (Cost is subjective will vary). &#xD;&#xA; - Be prepared to review other competing patents. I find this a very tedious and boring process.&#xD;&#xA; - Make sure you have resources to review patents from other countries/languages&#xD;&#xA; - Time from patent application accepted to grant could take more than 1+ years&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: This is everything that I know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**References:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Google Patent Search][1]&#xD;&#xA; - [United States Patent and Trademark Office][2]&#xD;&#xA; - [Free Patent Online - IP Research and communities][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13536" RevisionGUID="3cbfd3ef-51f7-479d-90fc-39ed7895dd25" CreationDate="2015-09-08T02:37:55.320" UserId="11025" Comment="Minor correction: when non-provisional claims prioity, provisional may be made public." Text="This is a challenging question due to some recent court cases, in particular the Alice decision ([Supreme Court decision][1]) ([Wikipedia Article][2]). Both of these are highly recommended reading prior to writing a new application in this space, because the Alice decision created a new legal test for patentability for business methods, based on a test of abstraction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Although the Alice opinion did not mention software as such, the case&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was widely considered as a decision on software patents or patents on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; software for business methods. It and the 2010 Supreme Court&#xD;&#xA;&gt; decision in [Bilski v. Kappos][3], another case involving software for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; business method (which also did not opine on software as such),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; were the first Supreme Court cases on the patent eligibility of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; software–related inventions since the Diamond v. Diehr in 1981.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is currently really tricky to write a specification and claims that will fly in this space. If you decide to do this on your own, try to find some post-Alice applications in your space (filed after June 19, 2014) and read through the non-final and final rejections of those applications in the [USPTO Public Pair][4] database. If you can find a recent patent in the space that actually issued as a grant, then you should use it as a model for how to construct your claims and write your specification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The provisional application will not be publicly available unless and until a non-provisional claiming priority to it is published, but you need to make certain that you stake out the entire territory of what you might potentially claim. Provide relevant citations and definitions, and don't skimp on the content. This will give you a full year to complete and file your application, and during that time you should be sure to stay up to date on new developments on business method patents. If, by a few months before the application is due to be filed, you can afford to hire a patent agent to review and file your application, please do. It won't hurt to shop around for such an agent in the meantime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Int'l&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32824" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13536" RevisionGUID="3cbfd3ef-51f7-479d-90fc-39ed7895dd25" CreationDate="2015-09-08T02:37:55.320" Comment="Proposed by 11025 approved by 14417 edit id of 1883" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="5c9f8bdb-7cdf-4bb5-8427-5834d1f27090" CreationDate="2015-09-08T08:15:56.893" UserId="11751" Comment="added 389 characters in body" Text="I'm specifically interested in [US 6873940][1] patent. The company that currently owns the patent is a company called [Kamatani Cloud][2] which is subsidiary of [General Patent][3] which some argue ([1][4], [2][5], [3][6], [4][7]) is a patent troll company. I'd like to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like [keylemon][8], [betafaceapi][9], [rekognition][10] or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker identification, face detection or content classification in images, audio or video files etc.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13]. In fact the [class 709 scope][12] has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent prosecution process after non-final rejection [argued][14] (2004-09-20 Applicant Arguments Remarks Made in an Amendment) that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect if server is capable of &quot;*measuring*&quot;/processing the data then the prior art is not applicable, consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are sent by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no &quot;*detecting whether the measurement data are capable of being measured*&quot; is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires server capability of detecting if data can be &quot;*measured*&quot; and notifying client if such capability exists then the patent shouldn't apply for cloud services as mentioned previously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding using the arguments provided by applicant during patent prosecution for claim interpretation please see [C. Claim Interpretation.][15] and [Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-376, p. 47][16]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So to put it briefly:#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class [709][12] regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13] work? Both must apply or only first or second when interpreting claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** during US6873940 patent application inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; having in mind that for processing images requests are directed to URL for processing images and for processing voice requests are directed to URL for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing only faces or only classifying image contents... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6873940&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kamatanicloud.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.generalpatent.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://scienceprogress.org/2009/01/patent-trolls-erode-patent-system/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-biggest-patent-trolls&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ipdigit.eu/2011/10/what-to-think-of-patent-trolls-the-return/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/27/law-would-force-patent-trolls-to-pay-for-failed-lawsuits-against-innovators/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.keylemon.com&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.betafaceapi.com&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://rekognition.com&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc702/defs702.htm#C702S189000&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm#C709S217000&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.intellectual.com/infringement.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://bit.ly/1PYCjjA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13548" RevisionGUID="7b049725-211e-4e92-89cd-4b0f1ee7818b" CreationDate="2015-09-08T08:46:00.710" UserId="14955" Text="I have two questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Is it allowed to write &quot; 30 wt% a polyamine&quot; instead of &quot;30 wt% of a ployamine&quot; in patent context and grammatically?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I know &quot;a plurality of As&quot; means &quot;a number of As.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; Can you say &quot; a A plurality &quot; to mean &quot;a plurality of As&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please give me answers in consideration of patent context. &#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32828" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13548" RevisionGUID="7b049725-211e-4e92-89cd-4b0f1ee7818b" CreationDate="2015-09-08T08:46:00.710" UserId="14955" Text="50 wt% of something // ~~ plurality" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32829" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13548" RevisionGUID="7b049725-211e-4e92-89cd-4b0f1ee7818b" CreationDate="2015-09-08T08:46:00.710" UserId="14955" Text="&lt;grammar&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="bce82569-3307-4a3c-826b-71956b107129" CreationDate="2015-09-08T09:54:07.127" UserId="11751" Comment="added 1482 characters in body" Text="I'm specifically interested in [US 6873940][1] patent. The company that currently owns the patent is a company called [Kamatani Cloud][2] which is subsidiary of [General Patent][3] which some argue ([1][4], [2][5], [3][6], [4][7]) is a patent troll company. I'd like to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like [keylemon][8], [betafaceapi][9], [rekognition][10] or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker identification, face detection or content classification in images, audio or video files etc.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13]. In fact the [class 709 scope][12] has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent prosecution process after non-final rejection [argued][14] (2004-09-20 Applicant Arguments Remarks Made in an Amendment) that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect if server is capable of &quot;*measuring*&quot;/processing the data then the prior art is not applicable, consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are sent by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no &quot;*detecting whether the measurement data are capable of being measured*&quot; is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires server capability of detecting if data can be &quot;*measured*&quot; and notifying client if such capability exists then the patent shouldn't apply for cloud services as mentioned previously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding using the arguments provided by applicant during patent prosecution for claim interpretation please see [C. Claim Interpretation.][15] and following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Markman, the Federal Circuit held that a court should consider a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent’s prosecution history if it is in evidence, and explained that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the prosecution history “is of primary significance in understanding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the claims.” 52 F.3d at 980, aff’d, 64 U.S.L.W. 4263. In Standard Oil&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985), the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Federal Circuit stated that:  [T]he prosecution history (sometimes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; called “file wrapper and contents’’) of the patent consists of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; entire record of proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office. This&#xD;&#xA;&gt; includes all express representations made by or on behalf of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applicant to the examiner to induce a patent grant, or, as here, to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reissue a patent. Such representations include amendments to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims and arguments made to convince the examiner that the claimed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention meets the statutory requirements of novelty, utility, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonobviousness. Thus, the prosecution history (or file wrapper) limits&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain claim allowance. 774 F.2d at 452 (emphasis added). In order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain allowance of the claims of the ‘712 patent, arguments were made&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on behalf of the applicant to the Examiner during prosecution that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served both to explain the claims in a clear manner and to disavow any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source -  [Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-376, p. 47][16] or from [here][17]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So to put it briefly:#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class [709][12] regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13] work? Both must apply or only first or second when interpreting claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** during US6873940 patent application inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; having in mind that for processing images requests are directed to URL for processing images and for processing voice requests are directed to URL for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing only faces or only classifying image contents... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6873940&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kamatanicloud.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.generalpatent.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://scienceprogress.org/2009/01/patent-trolls-erode-patent-system/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-biggest-patent-trolls&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ipdigit.eu/2011/10/what-to-think-of-patent-trolls-the-return/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/27/law-would-force-patent-trolls-to-pay-for-failed-lawsuits-against-innovators/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.keylemon.com&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.betafaceapi.com&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://rekognition.com&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc702/defs702.htm#C702S189000&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm#C709S217000&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.intellectual.com/infringement.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://bit.ly/1PYCjjA&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.usitc.gov/publications/337/pub3003.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="fcb30b85-722c-45d9-9276-4027ffb33809" CreationDate="2015-09-08T11:06:52.640" UserId="11751" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="I'm specifically interested in [US 6873940][1] patent. The company that currently owns the patent is a company called [Kamatani Cloud][2] which is subsidiary of [General Patent][3] which some argue ([1][4], [2][5], [3][6], [4][7]) is a patent troll company. I'd like to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like [keylemon][8], [betafaceapi][9], [rekognition][10] or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker identification, face detection or content classification in images, audio or video files etc.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13]. In fact the [class 709 scope][12] has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent prosecution process after non-final rejection [argued][14] (2004-09-20 Applicant Arguments Remarks Made in an Amendment) that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect if server is capable of &quot;*measuring*&quot;/processing the data then the prior art is not applicable, consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are sent by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no &quot;*detecting whether the measurement data are capable of being measured*&quot; is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires server capability of detecting if data can be &quot;*measured*&quot; and notifying client if such capability exists then the patent shouldn't apply for cloud services as mentioned previously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding using the arguments provided by applicant during patent prosecution for claim interpretation please see  [wiki][18], [C. Claim Interpretation.][15] and following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Markman, the Federal Circuit held that a court should consider a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent’s prosecution history if it is in evidence, and explained that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the prosecution history “is of primary significance in understanding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the claims.” 52 F.3d at 980, aff’d, 64 U.S.L.W. 4263. In Standard Oil&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985), the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Federal Circuit stated that:  [T]he prosecution history (sometimes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; called “file wrapper and contents’’) of the patent consists of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; entire record of proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office. This&#xD;&#xA;&gt; includes all express representations made by or on behalf of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applicant to the examiner to induce a patent grant, or, as here, to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reissue a patent. Such representations include amendments to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims and arguments made to convince the examiner that the claimed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention meets the statutory requirements of novelty, utility, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonobviousness. Thus, the prosecution history (or file wrapper) limits&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain claim allowance. 774 F.2d at 452 (emphasis added). In order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain allowance of the claims of the ‘712 patent, arguments were made&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on behalf of the applicant to the Examiner during prosecution that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served both to explain the claims in a clear manner and to disavow any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source -  [Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-376, p. 47][16] or from [here][17].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So to put it briefly:#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class [709][12] regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13] work? Both must apply or only first or second when interpreting claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** during US6873940 patent application inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; having in mind that for processing images requests are directed to URL for processing images and for processing voice requests are directed to URL for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing only faces or only classifying image contents... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6873940&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kamatanicloud.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.generalpatent.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://scienceprogress.org/2009/01/patent-trolls-erode-patent-system/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-biggest-patent-trolls&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ipdigit.eu/2011/10/what-to-think-of-patent-trolls-the-return/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/27/law-would-force-patent-trolls-to-pay-for-failed-lawsuits-against-innovators/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.keylemon.com&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.betafaceapi.com&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://rekognition.com&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc702/defs702.htm#C702S189000&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm#C709S217000&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.intellectual.com/infringement.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://bit.ly/1PYCjjA&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.usitc.gov/publications/337/pub3003.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markman_v._Westview_Instruments,_Inc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="0059b5c8-caaf-4948-95fe-ce9f1058e6f3" CreationDate="2015-09-08T11:24:05.047" UserId="11751" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="I'm specifically interested in [US 6873940][1] patent. The company that currently owns the patent is a company called [Kamatani Cloud][2] which is subsidiary of [General Patent][3] which some argue ([1][4], [2][5], [3][6], [4][7]) is a patent troll company. I'd like to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like [keylemon][8], [betafaceapi][9], [rekognition][10] or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker identification, face detection or content classification in images, audio or video files etc.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13]. In fact the [class 709 scope][12] has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent prosecution process after non-final rejection [argued][14] (2004-09-20 Applicant Arguments Remarks Made in an Amendment) that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect if server is capable of &quot;*measuring*&quot;/processing the data then the prior art is not applicable, consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are sent by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no &quot;*detecting whether the measurement data are capable of being measured*&quot; is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires server capability of detecting if data can be &quot;*measured*&quot; and notifying client if such capability exists then the patent shouldn't apply for cloud services as mentioned previously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding using the arguments provided by applicant during patent prosecution for claim interpretation please see [C. Claim Interpretation.][15], [wiki][18] and following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Markman, the Federal Circuit held that a court should consider a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent’s prosecution history if it is in evidence, and explained that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the prosecution history “is of primary significance in understanding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the claims.” 52 F.3d at 980, aff’d, 64 U.S.L.W. 4263. In Standard Oil&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985), the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Federal Circuit stated that:  [T]he prosecution history (sometimes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; called “file wrapper and contents’’) of the patent consists of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; entire record of proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office. This&#xD;&#xA;&gt; includes all express representations made by or on behalf of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applicant to the examiner to induce a patent grant, or, as here, to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reissue a patent. Such representations include amendments to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims and arguments made to convince the examiner that the claimed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention meets the statutory requirements of novelty, utility, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonobviousness. Thus, the prosecution history (or file wrapper) limits&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain claim allowance. 774 F.2d at 452 (emphasis added). In order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain allowance of the claims of the ‘712 patent, arguments were made&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on behalf of the applicant to the Examiner during prosecution that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served both to explain the claims in a clear manner and to disavow any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source -  [Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-376, p. 47][16] or from [here][17].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So to put it briefly:#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class [709][12] regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13] work? Both must apply or only first or second when interpreting claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** during US6873940 patent application inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; having in mind that for processing images requests are directed to URL for processing images and for processing voice requests are directed to URL for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing only faces or only classifying image contents... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6873940&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kamatanicloud.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.generalpatent.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://scienceprogress.org/2009/01/patent-trolls-erode-patent-system/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-biggest-patent-trolls&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ipdigit.eu/2011/10/what-to-think-of-patent-trolls-the-return/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/27/law-would-force-patent-trolls-to-pay-for-failed-lawsuits-against-innovators/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.keylemon.com&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.betafaceapi.com&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://rekognition.com&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc702/defs702.htm#C702S189000&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm#C709S217000&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.intellectual.com/infringement.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://bit.ly/1PYCjjA&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.usitc.gov/publications/337/pub3003.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markman_v._Westview_Instruments,_Inc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13550" RevisionGUID="a646500e-fe55-4336-8a7f-14be478eb5ac" CreationDate="2015-09-08T17:53:48.780" UserId="14959" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5623660][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5623660&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears as though it has expired, according to this site: http://www.expiredip.com/Newsletters/Newsletter-05-02-2014.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that accurate? Is this patent troll finally unable to keep trolling?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32839" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13550" RevisionGUID="a646500e-fe55-4336-8a7f-14be478eb5ac" CreationDate="2015-09-08T17:53:48.780" UserId="14959" Text="Has patent 5,623,660 expired?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32840" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13550" RevisionGUID="a646500e-fe55-4336-8a7f-14be478eb5ac" CreationDate="2015-09-08T17:53:48.780" UserId="14959" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13550" RevisionGUID="15812099-f601-42c2-bcaf-15c6cef40801" CreationDate="2015-09-08T20:15:24.307" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and formatting." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 5,623,660 A][1], titled *System for regulating access to data base for purposes of data base management*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears as though it has expired, according to this [article][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that accurate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent troll finally unable to keep trolling?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5623660&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.expiredip.com/Newsletters/Newsletter-05-02-2014.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32846" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13550" RevisionGUID="15812099-f601-42c2-bcaf-15c6cef40801" CreationDate="2015-09-08T20:15:24.307" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and formatting." Text="&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;us5623660&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32847" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13550" RevisionGUID="15812099-f601-42c2-bcaf-15c6cef40801" CreationDate="2015-09-08T20:15:24.307" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and formatting." Text="Has US 5,623,660 A expired?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13552" RevisionGUID="304232de-a5d3-4886-9f44-bcf87412e92e" CreationDate="2015-09-08T20:31:44.373" UserId="7833" Text="To understand the File History of a patent or an application -  (filed/granted in US) - follow the steps shown here (as of September 2015)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 - Search for USPTO Public Pair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 - Go to the page shown below&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Enter the captcha and press `Continue`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 - Now enter the publication number-select that radio button and press `Search`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4 - Now select the `tab` that you want to read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/5HTvd.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/aalme.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/DVwWF.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13553" RevisionGUID="3b8f98fe-91d4-4c64-b18f-0e17be75f80e" CreationDate="2015-09-08T21:06:05.820" UserId="14417" Text="Great question, this one looks really interesting from an expiration perspective. I haven't read the article yet - I'm doing my own analysis on this first, then we'll see how closely we agree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually, calculating an expiration date for a patent is straightforward. You can use the [Patent Term Calculator Excel sheet][1] from the USPTO, as described [here][2]. This spreadsheet works in this case, but there are some interesting things about this one that are worth noting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue date of this patent was April 22, 1997. From the specification:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This application is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 08/231,035 filed Apr. 22, 1994, now abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above indicates a claim of domestic benefit (in this case, a continuation-in-part) from an earlier application, which sets the priority date of this patent to April 22, 1994. This, in itself, isn't unusual, and it effectively limits the term of the patent by establishing an earlier priority date while potentially limiting the earliest date the claims are enforceable (unknown without opening the provisional).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The filing date of the application (Appl. No. 08/537,541) for the patent grant (October 2, 1995) is also important, because it was shortly *after* June 7, 1995, when a revised set of rules went into effect, potentially providing a second type of Patent Term Extension (PTE) under 154 (*in addition to* PTE 156), while the provisional was filed *prior* to that date. I'm going to have to look in to this part a little more in order to provide a correct interpretation of the actual effect of this on the patent term. *I believe this patent did not have a PTE, but I haven't verified that yet.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This document is actually an Ex-Parte Re-Examination Certificate (US 5,623,660 C1), issued October 4, 2011 based on Re-Examination Request No. 90/010,636, filed December 16, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; AS A RESULT OF REEXAMINATION, IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claims 1, 2, 8, 18, 22-27 and 42 are cancelled.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; New claims 49-94 are added and determined to be patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claims 3-7, 9-17, 19-21, 28-41 and 43-48 were not reexamined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above re-examination effectively altered the enforceability of the original claims, but added 45 new claims (I assume that these are based on the 11 cancelled claims in the original grant, but narrowed based on the re-examination). I'm tempted to work through these, but it probably won't add anything to the conversation; however, (pure speculation) this re-examination and the subsequent claims allowed *may have occurred based on information added during the continuation-in-part vs. what was available in the original provisional application*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If my understanding of the priority rules for continuation-in-part are correct, then at the date of the issue of the C1 document, the revised claims are in effect and enforceable *from that date* until the end of the original patent term, which would be April 22, 2014. *However, the original claims are in effect from (depending on the content of the provisional specification vs. the continuation-in-part specification) either April 22, 1994 or October 2, 1995 until October 5, 2011.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is the best I can do from my recollection of the rules, and I'm not that confident of that last paragraph. If nobody else provides a more complete answer in a day or two, I will look into it a bit more. The parts I need to research are in italics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm certain there is a wealth of interesting reading material in the [Public Pair][3] Image File Wrapper for this patent. I'll revise this answer when I have more time to read through it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/patent_term_calculator.jsp#heading-1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3803/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13554" RevisionGUID="5acaeb4d-b601-4d7f-be8d-46394bf655f8" CreationDate="2015-09-08T21:43:18.883" UserId="14961" Text="Wanted to check if this machine still operational and the patent still in effect ?&#xD;&#xA;I tried some google search but couldn't find much details about it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks !! &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32851" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13554" RevisionGUID="5acaeb4d-b601-4d7f-be8d-46394bf655f8" CreationDate="2015-09-08T21:43:18.883" UserId="14961" Text="Is this machine still operational?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32852" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13554" RevisionGUID="5acaeb4d-b601-4d7f-be8d-46394bf655f8" CreationDate="2015-09-08T21:43:18.883" UserId="14961" Text="&lt;wo2010140158a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13553" RevisionGUID="9a15c1f5-353c-431b-aeac-b22bc86946ae" CreationDate="2015-09-08T21:46:26.650" UserId="14417" Comment="Added a note." Text="Great question, this one looks really interesting from an expiration and enforcement perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually, calculating an expiration date for a patent is straightforward. You can use the [Patent Term Calculator Excel sheet][1] from the USPTO, as described [here][2]. This spreadsheet works in this case, but there are some interesting things about this one that are worth noting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue date of this patent was April 22, 1997. From the specification:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This application is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 08/231,035 filed Apr. 22, 1994, now abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above indicates a claim of domestic benefit (in this case, a continuation-in-part) from an earlier application, which sets the priority date of this patent to April 22, 1994. This, in itself, isn't unusual, and it effectively limits the term of the patent by establishing an earlier priority date while potentially limiting the earliest date the claims are enforceable (unknown without opening the provisional).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The filing date of the application (Appl. No. 08/537,541) for the patent grant (October 2, 1995) is also important, because it was shortly *after* June 7, 1995, when a revised set of rules went into effect, potentially providing a second type of Patent Term Extension (PTE) under 154 (*in addition to* PTE 156), while the provisional was filed *prior* to that date. I'm going to have to look in to this part a little more in order to provide a correct interpretation of the actual effect of this on the patent term. *I believe this patent did not have a PTE, but I haven't verified that yet.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This document is actually an Ex-Parte Re-Examination Certificate (US 5,623,660 C1), issued October 4, 2011 based on Re-Examination Request No. 90/010,636, filed December 16, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; AS A RESULT OF REEXAMINATION, IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claims 1, 2, 8, 18, 22-27 and 42 are cancelled.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; New claims 49-94 are added and determined to be patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claims 3-7, 9-17, 19-21, 28-41 and 43-48 were not reexamined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above re-examination effectively altered the enforceability of the original claims, but added 45 new claims (I assume that these are based on the 11 cancelled claims in the original grant, but narrowed based on the re-examination). I'm tempted to work through these, but it probably won't add anything to the conversation; however, (pure speculation) this re-examination and the subsequent claims allowed *may have occurred based on information added during the continuation-in-part vs. what was available in the original provisional application*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If my understanding of the priority rules for continuation-in-part are correct, then at the date of the issue of the C1 document, the revised claims are in effect and enforceable *from that date* until the end of the original patent term, which would be April 22, 2014. *However, the original claims are in effect from (depending on the content of the provisional specification vs. the continuation-in-part specification) either April 22, 1994 or October 2, 1995 until October 5, 2011.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is the best I can do from my recollection of the rules, and I'm not that confident of that last paragraph. If nobody else provides a more complete answer in a day or two, I will look into it a bit more. The parts I need to research are in italics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm certain there is a wealth of interesting reading material in the [Public Pair][3] Image File Wrapper for this patent. I'll revise this answer when I have more time to read through it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** The reason I'm so interested in when the specific claims were enforceable is that if a past infringement were identified within the term of the claims, it could still result in damages being awarded. More specifically, the amended claims awarded from the re-examination resulted in an amendment of at least one independent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/patent_term_calculator.jsp#heading-1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3803/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32854" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13554" RevisionGUID="d80fc38d-7cf5-41e0-b498-c1ec5ffed1ff" CreationDate="2015-09-09T00:11:19.767" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="I wanted to check if this machine still operational and if the patent is still in effect?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried a Google search but couldn't find many details about it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32855" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13554" RevisionGUID="d80fc38d-7cf5-41e0-b498-c1ec5ffed1ff" CreationDate="2015-09-09T00:11:19.767" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="&lt;legal-status&gt;&lt;wo2010140158a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13555" RevisionGUID="4269b4f6-246d-4f62-9f77-02fadbcc8559" CreationDate="2015-09-09T00:19:54.647" UserId="14417" Text="Google only provides a limited amount of information about the patent status. This is a PCT (International) application, so you need to check multiple sources (WIPO/Patentscope, Espacenet and USPTO) in order to find the status of the application in all relevant countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance the USPTO [Public Pair][1] database has the US application ([US 2012/0065024 A1][2]) legal status as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    01-12-2015 	Mail Abandonment for Failure to Respond to Office Action&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this could change in the next 6 months if the inventor decides to revive the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To find the status of other international applications, check the [National Phase][3] tab in Patentscope:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Office                    Entry Date  National Number  National Status&#xD;&#xA;    India                     08.11.2011  8649/DELNP/2011 &#xD;&#xA;    United States of America  17.11.2011  13320971         Published: 15.03.2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only other international application is India patent application 8649/DELNP/2011. I am not familiar with the Indian patent system, and there is no status listed. Someone else on this site might be more familiar with that patent office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120065024&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2010140158&amp;recNum=1&amp;tab=NationalPhase&amp;maxRec=&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=&amp;queryString=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12152" RevisionGUID="007799bc-faec-4898-a58a-a4249c4ad5ba" CreationDate="2015-09-09T00:43:09.737" UserId="13449" Comment="added to the answer the comments below" Text="Any idea can be patented provided that it is novel and non-obvious. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have gone through the details and yes your method would be patentable in US and EU (also keeping in mind the following:).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Europe: if the invention disclose some schemes, rules and methods for doing business (as specified in Article 52 (2) (c)) and  does not solve any technical problem which might have potentially required an inventive step to overcome the same then it would become very difficult to get a patent. &#xD;&#xA;If financial structure comprises of calculations or equations which are human driven then it would be very difficult to get a patent for the same. In this case, the person should proceed for filing a copyright, etc.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32858" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12152" RevisionGUID="007799bc-faec-4898-a58a-a4249c4ad5ba" CreationDate="2015-09-09T00:43:09.737" Comment="Proposed by 13449 approved by -1 edit id of 1867" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12152" RevisionGUID="04ea12a1-78de-4dc4-ac01-816e0a854f1c" CreationDate="2015-09-09T00:43:09.737" UserId="10011" Comment="added to the answer the comments below" Text="Any invention can be patented provided that it is novel and non-obvious. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have gone through the details and yes your method would be patentable in US and EU (also keeping in mind the following).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Europe, if the invention disclose some schemes, rules and methods for doing business (as specified in Article 52 (2) (c)) and  does not solve any technical problem which might have potentially required an inventive step to overcome the same then it would become very difficult to get a patent. &#xD;&#xA;If financial structure comprises of calculations or equations which are human driven then it would be very difficult to get a patent for the same. In this case, the person should proceed for filing a copyright, etc.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32860" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10542" RevisionGUID="0b10eae2-38d3-488b-bd82-059c7ac0a3d8" CreationDate="2015-09-09T00:43:47.337" UserId="7833" Comment="fixed grammar and typos" Text="If someone stole your idea and filed it, your rejected application, assuming it was published, would be an easy to find prior art that the bad guys would not be able to get around. If they made a patentable change to your invention and were only claiming that new part, they would be legit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32861" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10542" RevisionGUID="0b10eae2-38d3-488b-bd82-059c7ac0a3d8" CreationDate="2015-09-09T00:43:47.337" Comment="Proposed by 7833 approved by 14417, -1 edit id of 1869" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10542" RevisionGUID="98d38d2c-5489-4bf3-9993-1605eaa68461" CreationDate="2015-09-09T00:43:47.337" UserId="10011" Comment="fixed grammar and typos" Text="If someone stole your idea and filed it, your rejected application, assuming it was published, would be easy to find prior art that the bad guys would not be able to get around. If they made a patentable change to your invention and were only claiming that new part, they would be legit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13543" RevisionGUID="469c1d49-dd21-4d4b-b9cb-849711695cc8" CreationDate="2015-09-09T00:43:55.603" UserId="14417" Comment="added 131 characters in body" Text="An expired patent is an issued grant that is no longer enforceable based on the priority date, issue date and terminal disclaimers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32864" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13543" RevisionGUID="469c1d49-dd21-4d4b-b9cb-849711695cc8" CreationDate="2015-09-09T00:43:55.603" Comment="Proposed by 14417 approved by 10011 edit id of 1881" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13542" RevisionGUID="17ac469c-c5f4-4528-928a-333c09c5fd07" CreationDate="2015-09-09T00:44:00.153" UserId="14417" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="For questions regarding the expiration date of an issued patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32866" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13542" RevisionGUID="17ac469c-c5f4-4528-928a-333c09c5fd07" CreationDate="2015-09-09T00:44:00.153" Comment="Proposed by 14417 approved by 10011 edit id of 1880" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13541" RevisionGUID="e33175c2-7f6f-4c90-937e-8317d2e24fd0" CreationDate="2015-09-09T00:47:19.520" UserId="14417" Comment="added 422 characters in body" Text="Calculation of patent expiration dates has changed several times. Before asking a question regarding patent expiration dates, first consult [this post][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent expiration date (for patents issued after 1929) can be calculated using an [Excel spreadsheet][2] provided by the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3803/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/patent_term_calculator.jsp#heading-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32868" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13541" RevisionGUID="e33175c2-7f6f-4c90-937e-8317d2e24fd0" CreationDate="2015-09-09T00:47:19.520" Comment="Proposed by 14417 approved by 10011 edit id of 1879" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32869" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="21b8ea46-e798-41fb-8acf-ae50c170e14c" CreationDate="2015-09-09T00:47:28.287" UserId="14139" Comment="+ infringement tag" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;usa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32870" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="21b8ea46-e798-41fb-8acf-ae50c170e14c" CreationDate="2015-09-09T00:47:28.287" Comment="Proposed by 14139 approved by 14417, 10011 edit id of 1870" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12405" RevisionGUID="e2d23ff6-2fac-4765-b431-cfb048e2e888" CreationDate="2015-09-09T00:47:56.060" UserId="8074" Comment="More details provided." Text="As of Feb. 23, 2005 patent application US20030154017 is abandoned. Please find **Image File Wrapper** using [Public Pair][1] and take a look at last document - **notice of abandonment**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.s. In [PAIR][1] enter 20030154017 as publication number to get access to the patent prosecution documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32872" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12405" RevisionGUID="e2d23ff6-2fac-4765-b431-cfb048e2e888" CreationDate="2015-09-09T00:47:56.060" Comment="Proposed by 8074 approved by 14417, 10011 edit id of 1884" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32873" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13458" RevisionGUID="5dc469c1-aa90-44ec-bb86-8980ad0be32d" CreationDate="2015-09-09T00:48:06.443" UserId="14890" Comment="added cat." Text="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;drawing&gt;&lt;patentese&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32874" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13458" RevisionGUID="5dc469c1-aa90-44ec-bb86-8980ad0be32d" CreationDate="2015-09-09T00:48:06.443" Comment="Proposed by 14890 approved by 14417, 10011 edit id of 1868" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13544" RevisionGUID="4bd86fdf-b64c-4ca1-8a27-86571644efda" CreationDate="2015-09-09T00:48:12.487" UserId="14417" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="For questions involving expired patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32876" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13544" RevisionGUID="4bd86fdf-b64c-4ca1-8a27-86571644efda" CreationDate="2015-09-09T00:48:12.487" Comment="Proposed by 14417 approved by 10011 edit id of 1882" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13556" RevisionGUID="9526cd90-dae6-477b-8bb6-3cb246786bc6" CreationDate="2015-09-09T01:05:34.763" UserId="14963" Text="I innovated and filed for a utility patent on an invention that had been patented. Now the owner of the original patent has filed for a reissue of his patent. The new claims are broader and basically make my design around obsolete. I have already filed for a new utility patent for my design around. What options do I have? I know about equitable rights and intervening rights do I have anything else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32878" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13556" RevisionGUID="9526cd90-dae6-477b-8bb6-3cb246786bc6" CreationDate="2015-09-09T01:05:34.763" UserId="14963" Text="My design around of a patent is being made obsolete by a reissue, what are my options?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32879" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13556" RevisionGUID="9526cd90-dae6-477b-8bb6-3cb246786bc6" CreationDate="2015-09-09T01:05:34.763" UserId="14963" Text="&lt;utility&gt;&lt;design&gt;&lt;reissue&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13558" RevisionGUID="a45946ee-9de8-4c39-9402-afa3775400f8" CreationDate="2015-09-09T09:12:43.207" UserId="14967" Text="If you want to apply for a patent on your own, **just forget**, don't even waste your time. If you have an affiliation, say, a university then they would take care of bureaucratic questions and fees. Usually, a university has an office that deals with patent applications and has its own application forms (which are no match to the actual patent application when it comes to writing effort!). You need to convince them first that your invention is worth a patent application. For that, you need to do an extensive literature (especially patent) review and clearly identify which of your ideas are actually novel. Then you can apply to your patent office." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13540" RevisionGUID="ba0ea215-9855-4d00-a856-e93f694554e3" CreationDate="2015-09-09T11:14:31.587" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting." Text="**Assumption:** A technology based patent application will be submitted to United States Patent and Trademark office (USPTO).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need first investigate prior art. Essentially you have to validate if your invention is truly an invention. There few ways you can achieve this task.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Literature search - start with simple google search&#xD;&#xA; - Make sure you have clearly document your invention and another engineer has verified your work. Signature and dates are very important.&#xD;&#xA; - Do a local and international patent search? You can start with google patent. Do a patent search using United States Patent and Trademark office (USPTO) search tool. (Warning: This is a very painful process)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Develop an invention disclosure &#xD;&#xA; - Take all your finding and retain a **good** patent lawyer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent Lawyers will further investigate your invention. If they determine that your invention is valid then they will file a patent application. At this point USPTO will communicate with your lawyer to further validate your patent. If USPTO is satisfied your invention then they will granted the patent. You can now really celebrate :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Important infomation:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A good patent lawyer in US chargers anywhere from US $500-$800 per hour&#xD;&#xA; - A good patent application could cost any where around $20,000 or more (cost is subjective will vary). &#xD;&#xA; - Be prepared to review other competing patents. I find this a very tedious and boring process.&#xD;&#xA; - Make sure you have resources to review patents from other countries/languages&#xD;&#xA; - Time from patent application accepted to grant could take more than 1+ years&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: This is everything that I know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**References:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Google Patent Search][1]&#xD;&#xA; - [United States Patent and Trademark Office][2]&#xD;&#xA; - [Free Patent Online - IP Research and communities][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13539" RevisionGUID="972d3a85-c0d2-4475-a913-11945baed972" CreationDate="2015-09-09T11:17:27.817" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and formatting." Text="How to apply for a utility patent for an invention in US? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the procedure of this process? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are any other important details?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can a US base technology patent be extend to EU?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Reference:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [The Three Types of Patents][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.beemlaw.com/video-gallery/the-three-types-of-patents#.Ve2xShG6fIU" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32887" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13539" RevisionGUID="972d3a85-c0d2-4475-a913-11945baed972" CreationDate="2015-09-09T11:17:27.817" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and formatting." Text="How to apply for a patent in the US/EU?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32888" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13539" RevisionGUID="972d3a85-c0d2-4475-a913-11945baed972" CreationDate="2015-09-09T11:17:27.817" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and formatting." Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;process&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;utility&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32889" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4502" RevisionGUID="1d2abd2f-2108-48e3-907e-0b7caf8727fe" CreationDate="2015-09-09T11:27:46.147" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved title." Text="How would I file a Provisional Patent by myself?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4558" RevisionGUID="ce7807f9-a317-426e-85e2-82fe7cd22fbf" CreationDate="2015-09-09T11:36:03.517" UserId="14417" Comment="Added references and links to books." Text="If you don't have a viable alternative and you are wiling put in the work, why not. I would recommend the well known book: Patent it yourself, by David Pressman and the less well known book by Ronald Slusky: Invention Analysis and Claiming. Although provisional applications do not need claims, seeing the thinking behind claims should help you with understanding the heart of what patents are about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at a couple of issued patents in your field so you don't model it to closely on an outlier. Good luck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pressman, D. 2014. [Patent It Yourself: Your Step-by-Step Guide to Filing at the U.S. Patent Office 17th Edition][1]. *NOLO*, 656pp. ISBN: 9781413320442.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Slusky, R.D. 2012. [Invention Analysis and Claiming: A Patent Lawyer's Guide][2], Second Edition. *American Bar Association*, 374pp. ISBN-10: 1614385610.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nolo.com/products/patent-it-yourself-pat.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books/about/Invention_Analysis_and_Claiming.html?id=vIBBMAEACAAJ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="648" RevisionGUID="bb88ae6e-1148-4d92-b426-7c034c9afac0" CreationDate="2015-09-09T11:40:15.920" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="1. Is it always better to file a patent in United States first before extending it to other countries? What if we do the reverse: file patent in a small country then only extend it to the United States. What are the advantages?&#xD;&#xA;2. How would I file a US patent if I'm not a US citizen and instead a foreigner?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32892" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="648" RevisionGUID="bb88ae6e-1148-4d92-b426-7c034c9afac0" CreationDate="2015-09-09T11:40:15.920" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12083" RevisionGUID="fedfe0a8-c4a0-4a0f-a6fd-fc6af1efd16c" CreationDate="2015-09-09T11:45:44.987" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="After filing US application how much time applicant should wait to file PCT application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the benefits of filing early or late?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32894" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12083" RevisionGUID="fedfe0a8-c4a0-4a0f-a6fd-fc6af1efd16c" CreationDate="2015-09-09T11:45:44.987" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13560" RevisionGUID="9bf52657-7c0a-4fe5-9f14-f73de898619f" CreationDate="2015-09-09T18:39:31.940" UserId="14889" Text="My impression of the PPA is that you can try to commercialize what's in it without inhibiting your chances of filing for a non-provisional one before your 12 months are up. I am not entirely sure, but what I know is form the USPTO website as quoted below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/provisional-application-patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The provisional application must name all of the inventor(s). In view of the one-year grace period provided by 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) in conjunction with 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), a provisional application can be filed up to 12 months following an inventor's public disclosure of the invention. (Such a pre-filing disclosure, although protected in the United States, may preclude patenting in foreign countries.) **A public disclosure (e.g., publication, public use, offer for sale) more than one year before the provisional application filing date would preclude patenting in the United States.** Keep in mind that a publication, use, sale, or other activity only has to be made available to the public to qualify as a public disclosure.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13562" RevisionGUID="26b9ceea-f9d8-47e0-b84e-38dccffc3d60" CreationDate="2015-09-09T19:23:37.060" UserId="11394" Text="No, those terms really do not have special distinct meanings in patent law (cf. comprising or consisting of). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally however, the term &quot;diagrammatic drawing&quot; might be used for a simplified drawing which somewhat resembles the object, whereas the term &quot;schematic drawing&quot; might indicate something more abstract, having simply boxes or abstract symbols for the elements with lines joining them to indicate relationships between them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, language like &quot;schematic rather than diagrammatic&quot; is a defensive measure the drafter uses against a potential infringer trying to argue that the scope of the patent claims should be limited to some particular arrangement in the drawings. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13563" RevisionGUID="e87ba9ad-6c31-4970-b630-863e353c23cd" CreationDate="2015-09-09T19:40:41.037" UserId="11394" Text="The figure associated with the canceled claims is in the published patent because the patent was never amended to remove it. There is no requirement to remove material not claimed from a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, everything disclosed in the published patent is available as prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13564" RevisionGUID="666be64a-58bc-4025-a758-c5ad191a975e" CreationDate="2015-09-09T20:05:31.480" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13565" RevisionGUID="57fb380e-a6d6-4f4e-a618-fd44cfda4f31" CreationDate="2015-09-09T20:05:31.480" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13566" RevisionGUID="e36e6807-ab42-4532-aa0f-aea430631a07" CreationDate="2015-09-09T20:07:29.067" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13567" RevisionGUID="1c00c67c-1d93-445a-a1b0-cf0db0ed1576" CreationDate="2015-09-09T20:07:29.067" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13560" RevisionGUID="23892b16-9957-4e67-a7d4-f73da4326d6d" CreationDate="2015-09-09T20:09:07.680" UserId="14417" Comment="Merged multiple answers from the same user." Text="My impression of the PPA is that you can try to commercialize what's in it without inhibiting your chances of filing for a non-provisional one before your 12 months are up. I am not entirely sure, but what I know is form the USPTO website as quoted below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/provisional-application-patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The provisional application must name all of the inventor(s). In view of the one-year grace period provided by 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) in conjunction with 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), a provisional application can be filed up to 12 months following an inventor's public disclosure of the invention. (Such a pre-filing disclosure, although protected in the United States, may preclude patenting in foreign countries.) **A public disclosure (e.g., publication, public use, offer for sale) more than one year before the provisional application filing date would preclude patenting in the United States.** Keep in mind that a publication, use, sale, or other activity only has to be made available to the public to qualify as a public disclosure.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since PPAs are not examined by the USPTO, I think you're safe in being able to file for a non-provisional patent a year later that would use the information in the PPA. In fact, the non-provisional one would have to build on the prior one; that's part of the premise for why provisional patents were established. (Refer to above USPTO link for further details.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13571" RevisionGUID="6d3e9d7b-9e72-4b58-acdb-2ead1185e13a" CreationDate="2015-09-10T03:23:47.180" UserId="11717" Text="&gt; Part A Yes, so long as the patent is not registered in the third country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part B No the patent gives protection only in the specific country where it is registered as per the local laws." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13574" RevisionGUID="7ac616d1-c2d7-4707-9368-7d7dde48dd0b" CreationDate="2015-09-10T12:20:08.123" UserId="8074" Text="Is there a damages threshold below which a US judge would not accept a patent litigation case? If so is it the same for all states? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32927" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13574" RevisionGUID="7ac616d1-c2d7-4707-9368-7d7dde48dd0b" CreationDate="2015-09-10T12:20:08.123" UserId="8074" Text="Is there a patent litigation damages threshold for a legal case to be accepted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32928" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13574" RevisionGUID="7ac616d1-c2d7-4707-9368-7d7dde48dd0b" CreationDate="2015-09-10T12:20:08.123" UserId="8074" Text="&lt;litigation&gt;&lt;us&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32936" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10598" RevisionGUID="153601c5-e24a-4307-99c9-3f64d7358505" CreationDate="2015-09-10T15:33:13.850" UserId="1" Comment="edited title" Text="Where can I view the figures from a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13458" RevisionGUID="124a2c4e-eeb1-45fa-a268-6afdb0fe2657" CreationDate="2015-09-10T19:54:40.013" UserId="14874" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="In a patent application, I ran into a statement that a drawing is &quot;a partially schematic and partially diagrammatic view&quot;. I had though that schematic views and diagrammatic views are the same thing: simplified sketchy drawing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I searched for these terms in other patents and found that views could be &quot;schematic diagrammatic&quot;, &quot;schematic rather than diagrammatic&quot;, etc. though I can't see any difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do these words have any special distinct meanings in patentese?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32941" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="10633" RevisionGUID="69036ff4-443f-454d-8f26-f0af82422ecf" CreationDate="2015-09-10T20:08:35.187" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13578" RevisionGUID="eeac500a-6467-4844-b948-edb3ece1752f" CreationDate="2015-09-11T03:06:52.127" UserId="14982" Text="I am ready to buy this patent, and am wondering how and who to contact about it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32956" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13578" RevisionGUID="eeac500a-6467-4844-b948-edb3ece1752f" CreationDate="2015-09-11T03:06:52.127" UserId="14982" Text="I would like to buy the knock on wood keychain patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32957" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13578" RevisionGUID="eeac500a-6467-4844-b948-edb3ece1752f" CreationDate="2015-09-11T03:06:52.127" UserId="14982" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13578" RevisionGUID="77b2b201-c88d-4b0a-b1d2-a56255b2ed37" CreationDate="2015-09-11T10:49:40.390" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and adjusted wording of question." Text="I am ready to buy this patent ([CA 2,505,802 A1][1]), and am wondering how and who to contact about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/CA2505802A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32959" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13578" RevisionGUID="77b2b201-c88d-4b0a-b1d2-a56255b2ed37" CreationDate="2015-09-11T10:49:40.390" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and adjusted wording of question." Text="I would like to buy the Knock on Wood keychain patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32960" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13578" RevisionGUID="77b2b201-c88d-4b0a-b1d2-a56255b2ed37" CreationDate="2015-09-11T10:49:40.390" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and adjusted wording of question." Text="&lt;assignment&gt;&lt;ca2505802a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13579" RevisionGUID="872afa0b-9353-43af-bfab-b868d1e38839" CreationDate="2015-09-11T11:03:35.707" UserId="14417" Text="This application was filed only in Canada and never granted. It has been considered to be a dead application since April 29, 2009, due to CIPO being unable to deliver the Maintenance Fee Reminder (returned to sender, moved/address unknown). You can find all of this information in [CIPO][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/2505802/summary.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13581" RevisionGUID="aaaa7443-fecd-4db4-8365-f66e4a943be0" CreationDate="2015-09-11T21:14:00.580" UserId="14985" Text="Say there is a patent out there for something, say a form and I improve on the design in some fundamental way even though the core of the object is still fork like, do I still have to get permission/pay royalties? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32968" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13581" RevisionGUID="aaaa7443-fecd-4db4-8365-f66e4a943be0" CreationDate="2015-09-11T21:14:00.580" UserId="14985" Text="If you improve on a design do you still need to ask permission/pay royalties?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32969" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13581" RevisionGUID="aaaa7443-fecd-4db4-8365-f66e4a943be0" CreationDate="2015-09-11T21:14:00.580" UserId="14985" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13582" RevisionGUID="71f2d043-c65a-45bd-819c-08711dc8d320" CreationDate="2015-09-11T23:08:34.027" UserId="10011" Text="A patent grants you a negative right. That is, it gives you the ability to *stop* other people from doing something, not to do it yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few times when that's relevant, like if you invent a new way of unlocking car doors, you aren't then allowed to steal cars, or as in your case, if you invent something that improves on something else, you aren't allowed to produce that invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The classic example here is a chair. Say I file a patent for,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A wooden structure with four legs and a seat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You look at that awesome invention, and you say you can improve on it, so you file a patent for,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A wooden structure with four legs and a seat, and a cushion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to practice your invention, you need to get permission from me. In fact, unless you modified your invention to use only three legs, you could *never*, within the life of my patent, produce that invention without my permission.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But all would not be lost for you, as I'd never be allowed to put cushions on any of my chairs without your permission.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A somewhat common practice in cases like this is referred to as cross-licensing, wherein we agree that you can make chairs if I can put cushions on mine. We're basically trading rights on each other's patents. Of course, if I decided that cushions aren't important and rockers are really where it's at, you'd be somewhat out of luck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly there are an infinite number of combinations here for how such an agreement could go, and this is just an example. I could add a clause to say you're only allowed to produce chairs with cushions, or that you have to pay me $5 for every one you produce in addition to giving me permission to use your patent, or you may license the patent to me in a profit-sharing deal and I might not give you the ability to produce the chair at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But yes, royalties do have to be agreed, and a patent is a patent, no matter what it's a prerequisite to. But those royalties aren't always paid in the form of cash." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13581" RevisionGUID="d091da00-94cc-4b75-93ba-28e60c8c4af5" CreationDate="2015-09-11T23:08:44.577" UserId="10011" Comment="edited body" Text="Say there is a patent out there for something, say a fork and I improve on the design in some fundamental way even though the core of the object is still fork like, do I still have to get permission/pay royalties? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13583" RevisionGUID="61b957a6-0ef4-4679-9749-18e1ff1301d2" CreationDate="2015-09-11T23:42:02.643" UserId="8767" Text="Damages are capped at $100,000 for &quot;small cases&quot; by federal patent law. Therefore it applies to all 50 states. A judge can chose weither to accept a case or not" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13556" RevisionGUID="7d3c3df3-5277-4e12-afd3-875f4c35e702" CreationDate="2015-09-12T10:56:42.880" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag, improved formatting." Text="I innovated and filed for a utility patent on an invention that had been patented. Now the owner of the original patent has filed for a reissue of his patent. The new claims are broader and basically make my design around obsolete. I have already filed for a new utility patent for my design around. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What options do I have? I know about equitable rights and intervening rights do I have anything else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32979" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13556" RevisionGUID="7d3c3df3-5277-4e12-afd3-875f4c35e702" CreationDate="2015-09-12T10:56:42.880" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tag, improved formatting." Text="&lt;utility&gt;&lt;design&gt;&lt;freedom-to-operate&gt;&lt;reissue&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32980" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13010" RevisionGUID="b132ff77-9916-4350-89cd-6f17e1c5c77e" CreationDate="2015-09-12T11:11:41.127" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;freedom-to-operate&gt;&lt;us&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32981" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13581" RevisionGUID="b9f413f1-bf62-4a4c-be41-6e12a28947c3" CreationDate="2015-09-12T11:14:47.253" UserId="14417" Comment="Added licensing tag." Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;freedom-to-operate&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13152" RevisionGUID="46c05b29-179d-4477-8849-fa2f2f82cc58" CreationDate="2015-09-12T11:15:45.483" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="I wrote some DSP stack and would like to share it. I am thinking of licensing the stack under GPLv3 because I like the license (except the patents clause). I do not own any patents yet. However, since this license forces the developer to give away his/her patents related to the stack will the license actually prevent me from applying for and getting a possible patent for an implementation of my stack?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32983" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13152" RevisionGUID="46c05b29-179d-4477-8849-fa2f2f82cc58" CreationDate="2015-09-12T11:15:45.483" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;license&gt;&lt;gpl&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13039" RevisionGUID="c6fd6ac8-5a3f-4c5a-adb0-63c399dc9e6f" CreationDate="2015-09-12T11:18:45.017" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="You obtain a patent which is a new use for an existing patented invention.&#xD;&#xA;The patent of the existing patent is still in force and valid. &#xD;&#xA;If you want to use your patent, do you have to get a license from the owner of the of the existing patented invention? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32985" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13039" RevisionGUID="c6fd6ac8-5a3f-4c5a-adb0-63c399dc9e6f" CreationDate="2015-09-12T11:18:45.017" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;freedom-to-operate&gt;&lt;invention&gt;&lt;license&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32986" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13583" RevisionGUID="81d55ef5-9457-498b-b4a1-6579967ca363" CreationDate="2015-09-12T14:18:04.913" UserId="8767" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="Damages are capped at $100,000 for &quot;small cases&quot; by federal patent law. Therefore it applies to all 50 states. A judge can chose weither to accept a case or not&#xD;&#xA;(Ref: http://www.invention-protection.com/ip/publications/docs/Damage_Relief_for_Patent_Infringement.html)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13585" RevisionGUID="e5169d6b-594d-4014-824f-68ffac45336f" CreationDate="2015-09-13T17:26:31.177" UserId="14991" Text="**Background:**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Let's look at a simplified example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent Claim #1:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;A system for 'some function X' comprising:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a sending device...&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a receiving device...*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;If a new product provides the function of the sending device but not the receiving device (or vice versa), does the new product infringe on the patented product? Moreover, if the new product only works with the patented receiving device being built and sold by the patent holder, does the new product infringe on the patented product? Lastly, if the new product which can provide the function of the sending device, does so as a free *value-added feature* and is not the main function of the new product, does the new product infringe on the patented product? Or does that even matter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this new product be covered under the &quot;exhaustion doctrine&quot; or &quot;first-sale doctrine&quot; since it requires the purchase of the patented product to complete the &quot;sending &amp; receiving system&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the new product only contributes the functionality of one element of the claim and the patented product the other element of the claim, does the claim still &quot;read on&quot; the new product? Or does the &quot;doctrine of equivalents&quot; apply here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Related Questions:**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5422/when-does-a-patent-prohibit-the-use-of-a-patented-product-in-another-product&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/4655/claim-with-three-elements-are-products-infringing-if-they-contain-any-of-the-e" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32994" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13585" RevisionGUID="e5169d6b-594d-4014-824f-68ffac45336f" CreationDate="2015-09-13T17:26:31.177" UserId="14991" Text="Does a product infringe on a patent if it requires the use of the patented product to function?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32995" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13585" RevisionGUID="e5169d6b-594d-4014-824f-68ffac45336f" CreationDate="2015-09-13T17:26:31.177" UserId="14991" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;doctrine-of-equivalents&gt;&lt;first-sale-doctrine&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13589" RevisionGUID="27163ffb-1309-4b1f-854a-017734ed7998" CreationDate="2015-09-14T08:03:50.583" UserId="14997" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20080083719][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20080083719&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Dear!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Please tell me how can i get inventor contact for this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Best regards,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Jurica Panic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33005" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13589" RevisionGUID="27163ffb-1309-4b1f-854a-017734ed7998" CreationDate="2015-09-14T08:03:50.583" UserId="14997" Text="Inventor contact" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33006" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13589" RevisionGUID="27163ffb-1309-4b1f-854a-017734ed7998" CreationDate="2015-09-14T08:03:50.583" UserId="14997" Text="&lt;us20080083719&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="37ecbe7d-292e-422e-80c0-ca24b78c425c" CreationDate="2015-09-14T08:48:20.470" UserId="11751" Comment="poke" Text="I'm specifically interested in [US 6873940][1] patent. The company that currently owns the patent is a company called [Kamatani Cloud][2] which is subsidiary of [General Patent][3] which some argue ([1][4], [2][5], [3][6], [4][7]) is a patent troll company. I'd like to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like [keylemon][8], [betafaceapi][9], [rekognition][10] or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker identification, face detection or content classification in images, audio or video files etc.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13]. In fact the [class 709 scope][12] has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent prosecution process after non-final rejection [argued][14] (2004-09-20 Applicant Arguments Remarks Made in an Amendment) that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect if server is capable of &quot;*measuring*&quot;/processing the data then the prior art is not applicable, consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are sent by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no &quot;*detecting whether the measurement data are capable of being measured*&quot; is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires server capability of detecting if data can be &quot;*measured*&quot; and notifying client if such capability exists then the patent shouldn't apply for cloud services as mentioned previously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding using the arguments provided by applicant during patent prosecution for claim interpretation please see [C. Claim Interpretation.][15], [wiki][18] and following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Markman, the Federal Circuit held that a court should consider a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent’s prosecution history if it is in evidence, and explained that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the prosecution history “is of primary significance in understanding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the claims.” 52 F.3d at 980, aff’d, 64 U.S.L.W. 4263. In Standard Oil&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985), the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Federal Circuit stated that:  [T]he prosecution history (sometimes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; called “file wrapper and contents’’) of the patent consists of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; entire record of proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office. This&#xD;&#xA;&gt; includes all express representations made by or on behalf of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applicant to the examiner to induce a patent grant, or, as here, to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reissue a patent. Such representations include amendments to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims and arguments made to convince the examiner that the claimed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention meets the statutory requirements of novelty, utility, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonobviousness. Thus, the prosecution history (or file wrapper) limits&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain claim allowance. 774 F.2d at 452 (emphasis added). In order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain allowance of the claims of the ‘712 patent, arguments were made&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on behalf of the applicant to the Examiner during prosecution that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served both to explain the claims in a clear manner and to disavow any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source -  [Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-376, p. 47][16] or from [here][17].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So to put it briefly:#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class [709][12] regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13] work? Both must apply or only first or second when interpreting claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** during US6873940 patent application inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; having in mind that for processing images requests are directed to URL for processing images and for processing voice requests are directed to URL for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing only faces or only classifying image contents... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6873940&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kamatanicloud.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.generalpatent.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://scienceprogress.org/2009/01/patent-trolls-erode-patent-system/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-biggest-patent-trolls&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ipdigit.eu/2011/10/what-to-think-of-patent-trolls-the-return/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/27/law-would-force-patent-trolls-to-pay-for-failed-lawsuits-against-innovators/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.keylemon.com&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.betafaceapi.com&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://rekognition.com&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc702/defs702.htm#C702S189000&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm#C709S217000&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.intellectual.com/infringement.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://bit.ly/1PYCjjA&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.usitc.gov/publications/337/pub3003.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markman_v._Westview_Instruments,_Inc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13574" RevisionGUID="5dbd9eb1-173a-4118-8dca-0cedb9aa65e9" CreationDate="2015-09-14T08:51:55.980" UserId="8074" Comment="Clarification." Text="Is there a damages threshold below which a US judge would not accept a patent litigation case? Let's say defendant demonstrates that plaintiff would at most get 10k $ in damages in questionable patent confrontation. Would judge accet such case? Knowng in advance that this would result in overlitigated case. If so is it the same for all states? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13589" RevisionGUID="3dd6867c-9d53-4012-9310-7e402148ccec" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:01:00.963" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20080083719][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20080083719&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Dear!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Please tell me how can i get inventor contact for this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13591" RevisionGUID="acfa2b80-955c-42d2-8452-0e5f0cd407a5" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:36:39.323" UserId="14998" Text="I want to patent something in the US that is available in Asia. Is it possible?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33012" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13591" RevisionGUID="acfa2b80-955c-42d2-8452-0e5f0cd407a5" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:36:39.323" UserId="14998" Text="Can I patent something in the US that is available in another country?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33013" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13591" RevisionGUID="acfa2b80-955c-42d2-8452-0e5f0cd407a5" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:36:39.323" UserId="14998" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33014" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="f9bd9a5c-43f9-4043-933c-23f7dedc6217" CreationDate="2015-09-14T11:54:02.517" UserId="11751" Comment=" Patent tag added." Text="&lt;us-class&gt;&lt;software-as-a-service&gt;&lt;troll&gt;&lt;clasification&gt;&lt;us6873940&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13592" RevisionGUID="26476105-c790-4377-9ad8-dcac2fe63331" CreationDate="2015-09-14T12:02:53.940" UserId="11751" Text="From [Public Pair][1] you can find that the inventor is identified as &quot;John J. Bartucco , Meeker, CO (US)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a corresponding [whitepages search result][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.whitepages.com/name/John-J-Bartucco/Meeker-CO" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13592" RevisionGUID="871451bb-4676-4ec9-a9d3-598c9b54058f" CreationDate="2015-09-14T12:08:27.327" UserId="11751" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="From [Public Pair][1] you can find that the inventor is identified as &quot;John J. Bartucco , Meeker, CO (US)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a corresponding [whitepages search result][2] and [google results][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.whitepages.com/name/John-J-Bartucco/Meeker-CO&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://bit.ly/1UQKUqe" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13592" RevisionGUID="d93370db-4a3c-495f-9662-7c021423b24e" CreationDate="2015-09-14T12:14:03.333" UserId="11751" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="From [Public Pair][1] you can find that the inventor is identified as &quot;John J. Bartucco , Meeker, CO (US)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a corresponding [whitepages search result][2] and [google results][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please also see earlier [question][4] indicated by [Pushpack][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.whitepages.com/name/John-J-Bartucco/Meeker-CO&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://bit.ly/1UQKUqe&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5059/how-can-i-contact-the-owner-of-a-patent&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/users/11895/pushpak" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13591" RevisionGUID="0dc847c7-0be0-45f4-b9d1-921a448a48aa" CreationDate="2015-09-14T12:44:33.247" UserId="14999" Comment="adding more" Text="Can I get a US patent on something that is already created in Asia? It does not exist here but hobbyists sometimes do it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33019" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13591" RevisionGUID="0dc847c7-0be0-45f4-b9d1-921a448a48aa" CreationDate="2015-09-14T12:44:33.247" UserId="14999" Comment="adding more" Text="Can I patent something that is already sold in another country?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33020" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13591" RevisionGUID="0dc847c7-0be0-45f4-b9d1-921a448a48aa" CreationDate="2015-09-14T12:44:33.247" Comment="Proposed by 14999 approved by -1 edit id of 1888" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33021" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13591" RevisionGUID="ab045105-46cd-4794-b44e-e646c71c544b" CreationDate="2015-09-14T12:44:33.247" UserId="14417" Comment="Removed new sentence from other user's edit. Not sure why that was added." Text="Can I get a US patent on something that is already created in Asia?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33022" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13591" RevisionGUID="ab045105-46cd-4794-b44e-e646c71c544b" CreationDate="2015-09-14T12:44:33.247" UserId="14417" Comment="Removed new sentence from other user's edit. Not sure why that was added." Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33023" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13589" RevisionGUID="4aa4e031-1511-4674-93aa-80c8de23d444" CreationDate="2015-09-14T14:06:49.523" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5059],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:11895,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Pushpak&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13593" RevisionGUID="2ed93476-4080-410d-bcd3-48953f9293c8" CreationDate="2015-09-14T15:36:43.677" UserId="1085" Text="Absolutely not, unless you are the one who invented it in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there are various time periods which may limit the patentability if you are the original inventor and offered something which uses that invention in that other country." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13594" RevisionGUID="5d898a71-ce70-4397-91db-4392d8b3a4f4" CreationDate="2015-09-14T18:04:46.513" UserId="15000" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20150105592][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20150105592" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33028" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13594" RevisionGUID="5d898a71-ce70-4397-91db-4392d8b3a4f4" CreationDate="2015-09-14T18:04:46.513" UserId="15000" Text="Why do none of the links to images or PDF files work? They show the broken link icon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33029" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13594" RevisionGUID="5d898a71-ce70-4397-91db-4392d8b3a4f4" CreationDate="2015-09-14T18:04:46.513" UserId="15000" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13595" RevisionGUID="e27abfdc-6f7d-42c2-ad1b-9b3770a89fd6" CreationDate="2015-09-14T19:14:53.960" UserId="8767" Text="I think that is a server error on Google's end. However, you can go here:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20150105592.pdf&#xD;&#xA;and that site will show the original filling application with photos and descriptions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13596" RevisionGUID="f9145d12-9485-4954-86c8-45a6cb3656d7" CreationDate="2015-09-14T22:30:03.440" UserId="15001" Text="I want to patent a simple metal plate that would redirect the air from an exhaust port of an air dryer.  It would deflect the air from the ground to the sides.  It has already been invented.  But mine would be much much simpler.  I would not be able to patent this invention right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33032" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13596" RevisionGUID="f9145d12-9485-4954-86c8-45a6cb3656d7" CreationDate="2015-09-14T22:30:03.440" UserId="15001" Text="Air dryer deflector plate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33033" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13596" RevisionGUID="f9145d12-9485-4954-86c8-45a6cb3656d7" CreationDate="2015-09-14T22:30:03.440" UserId="15001" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13597" RevisionGUID="152406fb-9fe2-4a82-9406-98045f8d0643" CreationDate="2015-09-14T22:44:05.197" UserId="13706" Text="Most importantly, DO NOT file a patent application with LegalZoom, especially when it comes to this type of technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with these LegalZoom patent services is that they lure inventors into believing that they can get solid patent protection for cheap. In fact, the sad reality is that patent applications drafted this way offer effectively no patent protection and have little chance of withstanding the examination process. Plus, the nature of the patent system makes it such that inventors won’t know this until it’s too late and their patent rights are irrevocably lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following blog post discusses the perils of LegalZoom in great detail:&#xD;&#xA;[http://www.patentsdemystified.com/is-it-safe-to-use-legalzoom-to-file-a-patent-application/][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be best to talk with a patent attorney about this before doing anything. Typically, you can find one who will give you a free consultation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentsdemystified.com/is-it-safe-to-use-legalzoom-to-file-a-patent-application/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13598" RevisionGUID="6b2602fa-a4da-49ec-a5be-9e5132b32757" CreationDate="2015-09-14T23:45:35.013" UserId="13706" Text="No. There is no threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, a patent case can even be accepted if requested damages are $0, but the plaintiff simply requests that the alleged infringer stops making, using, sell, offering to sell, OR importing into the United States.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jurisdiction is likely Federal which is applied the same in all states.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Talk with a patent litigation attorney about this before doing anything." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13599" RevisionGUID="a4a137e6-076c-42fb-8bbc-18da1984d046" CreationDate="2015-09-15T00:43:07.923" UserId="14927" Text="There are two patents owned by Hydro Flask regarding a wide mouth lid. The first is what I consider somewhat unique, but the second I feel has been reduced and is too broad that remaining elements were already in use prior. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is your opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should someone desire to enter the same field of selling bottles, would it recommended to push forward in using the same lid, but changing the rubber grip piece? To reduce risk of infringement, would it make sense to ask the USPSTO to reexamine the design patent considering the prior art? Does prior art have to be a patented product?&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/TauFP.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33037" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13599" RevisionGUID="a4a137e6-076c-42fb-8bbc-18da1984d046" CreationDate="2015-09-15T00:43:07.923" UserId="14927" Text="Can this patent be invalidated?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33038" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13599" RevisionGUID="a4a137e6-076c-42fb-8bbc-18da1984d046" CreationDate="2015-09-15T00:43:07.923" UserId="14927" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;design&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13600" RevisionGUID="8dc82b36-e073-423e-a5f2-8d94080edb7b" CreationDate="2015-09-15T01:38:32.337" UserId="1085" Text="There are a number of issues here.  The first is what a &quot;patent&quot; actually is.  The second relates to what &quot;having&quot; a patent means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've personally submitted something on the order of 80 US patent applications through various employers, with 40+ having been issued, and exactly 0 of them owned by me.  What do I say?  What do the people in my situation usually say?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;patent&quot; doesn't exist, as a patent, until the patent is actually issued.  I've seen a number of people who list application or internal docket numbers on their resume and claim that they are &quot;patents&quot;.  When I've interviewed those people, or reviewed their resumes, I make sure they understand the difference between a granted patent, a patent application, and an employer's internal patent docket number.  Most people seem to understand what that actually means and why they are important distinctions.  Some don't.  Such is life.  Submitting invention disclosures is a Good Thing for ones career, so be sure to toot your own horn, just make sure you do so accurately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have yet to have anyone challenge me, or anyone else I know, who is listed on a granted patent, as &quot;having&quot; a patent.  The term I use on my resume is &quot;issued&quot;, as in &quot;I've been issued more than 40 US patents&quot;, in part so it is clear that the patents have actually issued, because of people who list application and internal docket numbers on resumes.  So, I see nothing wrong with saying &quot;I have X issued patents and Y patents pending&quot; where &quot;X&quot; is the number of granted patents and &quot;Y&quot; is the number of applications which have yet to be abandoned.  If you have patents pending it is helpful to back that claim up with an application number which can be located on the US PTO website.  When I write a resume I pick 4-6 patents and/or applications to list on my resume to show my innovation in some particular area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What to do in your particular case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1). Do not claim to have a patent if it has not yet been issued.  Do claim to have a &quot;patent pending&quot; if the application has been published, but not yet abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2). Do list actual numbers -- granted patents and published applications -- on your resume, if you make statements about granted and pending patents.  DO NOT describe un-published details as you may be violating a non-disclosure agreement with your employer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3). After you have more than 4 or 5 patents and published applications, feel free to mention a number (&quot;over 10 / 20 / 30 ...&quot;) and present a sampling of granted patents and published applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best of luck in your future job search.  Sorry to hear your current employer isn't more appreciative of your contributions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13601" RevisionGUID="973e7022-27c6-4d94-b7e9-411c66b2ea08" CreationDate="2015-09-15T04:15:41.490" UserId="15003" Text="How many patents have terminal disclaimers (i.e., truncation in their time to expiry)? I am looking for a percentage of the total population of patents granted. A rough estimate + source is good enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an easy way to tell if a specific patent have been terminally disclaimed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33041" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13601" RevisionGUID="973e7022-27c6-4d94-b7e9-411c66b2ea08" CreationDate="2015-09-15T04:15:41.490" UserId="15003" Text="How often are patents terminally disclaimed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33042" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13601" RevisionGUID="973e7022-27c6-4d94-b7e9-411c66b2ea08" CreationDate="2015-09-15T04:15:41.490" UserId="15003" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13603" RevisionGUID="33448efc-adc1-482e-95f6-eefab885b3b6" CreationDate="2015-09-15T13:28:41.620" UserId="8767" Text="As very good source is the patent office's site itself. http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/patents/law/How_to_Locate_Patent_Term_Information.docx&#xD;&#xA;That tells you (in plain English with pictures) how to step-by-step to figure out if it is TD and why. As for an estimate, I can't figure that out. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13599" RevisionGUID="3e7fd270-2c8c-4139-a4fe-f71ed80235f8" CreationDate="2015-09-15T13:41:50.043" UserId="14417" Comment="Added patent numbers." Text="There are two design patents ([US D680,805 S1][1] and [US D688,912 S1][2]) owned by Hydro Flask regarding a wide mouth lid. The first is what I consider somewhat unique, but the second I feel has been reduced and is too broad that remaining elements were already in use prior. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is your opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should someone desire to enter the same field of selling bottles, would it recommended to push forward in using the same lid, but changing the rubber grip piece? To reduce risk of infringement, would it make sense to ask the USPSTO to reexamine the design patent considering the prior art? Does prior art have to be a patented product?&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD680805&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD688912&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/TauFP.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33049" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13599" RevisionGUID="3e7fd270-2c8c-4139-a4fe-f71ed80235f8" CreationDate="2015-09-15T13:41:50.043" UserId="14417" Comment="Added patent numbers." Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;design&gt;&lt;usd680805&gt;&lt;usd688912&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13545" RevisionGUID="d3f69e3c-97d8-4ad4-b0b1-04e6977f87e3" CreationDate="2015-09-15T16:56:39.293" UserId="14417" Comment="Added screenshot from Espacenet." Text="The &quot;Filed&quot; field in the grant publication says &quot;Jan. 3, 1966&quot;. However, other information from the cover sheet conflicts with this date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. No domestic benefits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Reading through the patent, it does not claim any domestic benefit, so it was not a continuation, continuation-in-part or divisional of any other application. This grant was based on a single patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The Issue Date&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  The issue date of the patent is July 25, 1989. If the &quot;Filed&quot; date were correct, then this patent would have taken 33 years, 6 months and 22 days to examine. An examiner at the USPTO could have been handed this application on his first day at the job in 1966, spent his entire career 30-year examining it, and then handed it his next of kin in 1986 to complete the job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The References Cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  All cited references in this document are after 1966 but before January 3, 1986:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [3,394,366][1]  7/1968 Dye&#xD;&#xA;  - [3,443,075][2]  5/1969 Gloess&#xD;&#xA;  - [3,613,066][3] 10/1971 Cooreman&#xD;&#xA;  - [4,277,783][4]  7/1981 Samoieri et al.&#xD;&#xA;  - [4,305,071][5] 12/1981 Bell et al.&#xD;&#xA;  - [4,346,376][6] 11/1984 Mallow&#xD;&#xA;  - [4,517,559][7]  5/1985 Deitch et al.&#xD;&#xA;  - [4,542,375][8]  9/1985 Alles et al.&#xD;&#xA;  - [4,613,987][9]  9/1986 Keverian (Priority date: Feb 15, 1985)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The Serial Number&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Table of Filing Years and Patent Application Serial Numbers][10]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - 1960    4    000,001&#xD;&#xA;  - ...&#xD;&#xA;  - 1965    4    423,000&#xD;&#xA;  - 1966    4    518,000&#xD;&#xA;  - 1967    4    606,000&#xD;&#xA;  - 1968    4    695,000&#xD;&#xA;  - 1969    4    788,000&#xD;&#xA;  - ...&#xD;&#xA;  - 1979    6    000,001&#xD;&#xA;  - 1980    6    108,971&#xD;&#xA;  - 1981    6    221,957&#xD;&#xA;  - 1982    6    336,510&#xD;&#xA;  - 1983    6    454,954&#xD;&#xA;  - 1984    6    567,457&#xD;&#xA;  - 1985    6    688,174&#xD;&#xA;  - **1986    6    815,454**&#xD;&#xA;  - 1987    7    000,001&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; As you can see above, a patent application filed in 1966 would have had a serial number between 04/518,000 and 04/606,000. The patent application referred to here has serial number 06/816,065, which means there is no question that the filing date was in 1986.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. [Public Pair][11] Transaction History&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Looking in the Transaction History, we see that the case was first docketed to the examiner on May 3, 1986, which is consistent with the other observations above, which point to 1986.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 05-30-1986  Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU&#xD;&#xA; - 10-10-1986  Non-Final Rejection&#xD;&#xA; - 10-20-1986  Mail Non-Final Rejection&#xD;&#xA; - 04-23-1987  Request for Extension of Time - Granted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Maintenance Fees - Bibliographic Data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The bibliographic data from the Maintenance Fees screen shows the correct Filing Date, January 3, 1986 (also note the serial number is an 06/ series):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![Maintenance Fees - Bibliographic Data][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Public Pair - Bibliographic Data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The bibliographic data from the Public Pair screen also shows the correct Filing Date, January 3, 1986:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![Public Pair - Bibliographic Data][13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on all of this evidence, which is publicly available in the USPTO databases, it is clear that the correct priority date of the patent is January 3, 1986. The 1966 date is an obvious typo in the cover sheet, which is known to happen from time to time. If someone is interested in correcting it, they can submit a correction according to [Section 323.01(a)   Typographical Errors in Cover Sheet][14], and the USPTO will make the necessary correction to the cover sheet in the historical database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that the correct priority date is established, what are the legal ramifications of deliberately misrepresenting information about a patent? Well, in a normal online forum, probably nothing. However, this forum has the blessing of the USPTO to identify and submit third party observations for prior art. Misrepresentation of information here would potentially fall within the scope of deceptive intent leading to Inequitable Conduct as described in this article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Woods, AG. 2014. [Withholding Information Contradicting A Legal Argument Or Misrepresenting Information Supporting That Argument May Rise To Inequitable Conduct][15]. *Mondaq Business Briefing*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** The [Espacenet][16] database had also propagated the incorrect priority date to their records. It was easy to report and correct, and their system now lists the correct priority date:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Corrected Priority Date][17]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US3394366&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US3443075&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US3613066&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4277783&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4305071&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4346376&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4517559&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4542375&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4613987&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/filingyr.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/0qqV1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Grw3Z.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s323.html#d0e19676&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/284096/Patent/Withholding+Information+Contradicting+a+Legal+Argument+or+Misrepresenting+Information+Supporting+That+Argument+May+Rise+to+Inequitable+Conduct&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&amp;NR=4851616A&amp;KC=A&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=19890725&amp;DB=&amp;locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/4GRUc.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13605" RevisionGUID="92388a6b-e18f-46e7-ba1a-9a66e1faef50" CreationDate="2015-09-15T19:16:48.333" UserId="14984" Text="So long as your new iteration does not infringe upon an old patent, or at the very least improves upon an already existing patent with sources cited. I feel that you should be able to patent your project without too much hassle aside from the wait and the initial investment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13606" RevisionGUID="ec31edae-35c8-43a6-bbb1-796939718ef1" CreationDate="2015-09-16T05:17:00.950" UserId="15010" Text="Where can I find HP's Ink manufacture process patent. Or any other ink manufacturing patent that is compatible with HP. I'm planning to startup small scale ink manufacturing business. Help me guys. And why isn't there any kind of processes available on the internet? Is it that hard to make cheap inks (don't need to perform as the original) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33059" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13606" RevisionGUID="ec31edae-35c8-43a6-bbb1-796939718ef1" CreationDate="2015-09-16T05:17:00.950" UserId="15010" Text="HP Ink manufacture process patent or any other ink manufacturing process" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33060" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13606" RevisionGUID="ec31edae-35c8-43a6-bbb1-796939718ef1" CreationDate="2015-09-16T05:17:00.950" UserId="15010" Text="&lt;manufacturing&gt;&lt;printers&gt;&lt;ink&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13607" RevisionGUID="ec357673-6b7c-45a5-9732-a51c5ad0a091" CreationDate="2015-09-16T08:58:59.490" UserId="14999" Text="If you are invalidating a patent is their a fee? How long does it take?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33062" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13607" RevisionGUID="ec357673-6b7c-45a5-9732-a51c5ad0a091" CreationDate="2015-09-16T08:58:59.490" UserId="14999" Text="To invalidate a patent do you have to pay a $6,000 fee?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33063" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13607" RevisionGUID="ec357673-6b7c-45a5-9732-a51c5ad0a091" CreationDate="2015-09-16T08:58:59.490" UserId="14999" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13608" RevisionGUID="55667396-f311-445f-ab6b-d8ef4b53e09d" CreationDate="2015-09-16T09:04:34.230" UserId="14999" Text="Can you patent something that does not have a patent but is in use in non obvious way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33065" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13608" RevisionGUID="55667396-f311-445f-ab6b-d8ef4b53e09d" CreationDate="2015-09-16T09:04:34.230" UserId="14999" Text="Can you patent something that does not have a patent but is in use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33066" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13608" RevisionGUID="55667396-f311-445f-ab6b-d8ef4b53e09d" CreationDate="2015-09-16T09:04:34.230" UserId="14999" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13609" RevisionGUID="47514488-c9ae-4016-8451-379e6dadd91a" CreationDate="2015-09-16T10:32:21.870" UserId="15013" Text="No, you cannot since inventions must be novel, unique beyond what is presently known. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13610" RevisionGUID="120a685f-2e70-466a-8d66-0df5ba9a1427" CreationDate="2015-09-16T15:29:01.290" UserId="1085" Text="I'm going to look at this from a completely different perspective, which is why did this product fail, and what have you modified (&quot;invented&quot; ...) which ensures it won't be a failure the second time around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First things first - if you have no expectation that you'll significantly improve the product, you have no realistic reason to believe it will be a success this time around.  Which pretty much means you need to figure out how to make it work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The good news is that a novel and non-obvious improvement to a patentable &quot;thing&quot; is itself patentable.  Assuming you are the inventor of this improvement, you can file for a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will need to disclose the original &quot;thing&quot; and your independent claim(s) will need to disclose your improvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, if you've not improved, in a novel and non-obvious fashion, the original &quot;thing&quot; you have no invention and nothing to patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13611" RevisionGUID="62c39467-9778-4dcd-b564-ab6da5bc6964" CreationDate="2015-09-16T21:41:55.850" UserId="8767" Text="To invalidate a patent, that often requires a lawsuit and all of the addional fees included (E. The USPTO has many helpful links, and you can easily find them with a simple google search." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13612" RevisionGUID="950fd646-2228-4eff-b8db-a5f89a8efc0f" CreationDate="2015-09-17T01:55:26.297" UserId="15016" Text="I'm interested in designing clothes with an ostomy pouch in them.   But I need to know if the pouch is a patent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33071" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13612" RevisionGUID="950fd646-2228-4eff-b8db-a5f89a8efc0f" CreationDate="2015-09-17T01:55:26.297" UserId="15016" Text="Is there a patent for an ostomy pouch" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33072" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13612" RevisionGUID="950fd646-2228-4eff-b8db-a5f89a8efc0f" CreationDate="2015-09-17T01:55:26.297" UserId="15016" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33075" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="13613" RevisionGUID="27f94e87-23a0-417e-a7af-386ae52d8059" CreationDate="2015-09-18T01:06:37.877" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/292/system-and-method-for-reclining-a-vehicle-seat-patent-application-prior-art" />
  <row Id="33076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13613" RevisionGUID="1c4752d2-b2c1-4e67-be62-b0a0b386e8e6" CreationDate="2015-09-17T21:49:01.747" UserId="15017" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]Help save Jeep and other vehicle owners from being able to modify their seats with simple washers or blocks to make them more comfortable.  **Small businesses and vehicle owners threatened by overly broad application in question** - This application from Innovative JK Products, LLC seeks to patent the ability to place common metal washers between your seat and the floor board to adjust the height or angle of your vehicle seat! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent application before it becomes a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below seems like a lot of reading.  But it can be summarized as a system/method patent for using blocks of .5&quot;-1&quot; thick metal/plastic/composite material between a vehicle seat bracket and the floorboard to make it tilt and does not affect the seat belts or stop the seat from folding forward.  This literally can be a stack of washers affixed together and placed on the bolts between the seat bracket and floor.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION -** Have you seen anything that was published before February 19th 2015  that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of washers, spacers, blocks, plates of metal, plastic or other materials between a seat and the floorboard of a vehicle to adjust the height/angle of that seat.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question -- one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual.  I believe there are many prior art pieces from forums, Jeep clubs, product manufacturers and enthusiast websites that list these very things or how to do so for the common person as well as multiple products being available.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR RECLINING A VEHICLE SEAT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summary: A system for reclining a vehicle seat is provided. The system comprises a plurality of seat bracket spacers adapted to be secured between a seat mounting bracket and a vehicle floor. A plurality of leg spacers is adapted to be secured between a seat leg and the vehicle floor. The seat bracket spacers create a fixed seat recline while the leg spacers accommodate a gap between respective seat legs and the vehicle floor caused by the fixed seat recline. Each of the seat bracket spacers has a thickness which allows for the maximum amount of seat recline without any modification to factory brackets, legs, or mounting bolts. Additionally, the fixed seat recline does not impact operation of factory safety restraining devices; nor does it impact the ability of the vehicle seat to fold forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication Number: 20150231995(https://patents.google.com/patent/US20150231995A1/en)&#xD;&#xA;Assignee: Innovative JK Products, LLC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior Art Date: Seeking prior Art predating 2015-02-19&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been unable to determine when and for how long this application is &quot;Open for Challenge at USPTO:&quot;.  If anyone can provide any insight to this date, it would be much appreciated.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims below 1 with 2-8 for the system and 9-15 for the method which are essentially the same:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A system for reclining a vehicle seat, the system comprising: a) a plurality of seat bracket spacers adapted to be secured between a seat mounting bracket and a vehicle floor; and b) a plurality of leg spacers adapted to be secured between a seat leg and the vehicle floor; wherein the seat bracket spacers create a fixed seat recline and wherein the leg spacers accommodate a gap between respective seat legs and the vehicle floor caused by the fixed seat recline. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A combination of multiple blocks, spacers, washers that placed between the bottom of the seat and the vehicle floorboard to raise/lower parts of the seat to make it tilt.   Much like placeing a washer on a bolt to seperate it from something.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The system for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of seat bracket spacers has a different thickness than each of the plurality of leg spacers. &#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each of the washers/spacers is a different thickness.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The system for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of seat bracket spacers has a thickness which allows the maximum amount of seat recline without any modification to factory brackets, legs, or mounting bolts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That the spacers will be at a prime height/thickness to recline without modifing the brackets, legs or bolts that attach to the floor.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The system for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 3, wherein said thickness is from about 0.5 inches to about 1.0 inches. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blocks, washers, spacers are 1/2&quot; to 1&quot;.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. The system for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 1, wherein the fixed seat recline does not impact operation of factory safety restraining devices. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the blocks/washers/spacers will not affect the seatbelts, childseat restraints, etc..  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. The system for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 1, wherein the fixed seat recline does not impact an ability of the vehicle seat to fold forward. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use of the blocks/washers/spacers won't stop the seat from folding forward to lay flat.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. The system for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of seat bracket spacers and each of the plurality leg spacers is constructed of a material selected from: aluminum, an aluminum alloy, steel, a steel alloy, a polymer or a composite. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blocks/washers/spacers must be made of metal, plastic or some composite material.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. The system for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of seat bracket spacers and each of the plurality leg spacers includes a hole through which a factory bolt may be threaded when each spacer is fixedly secured between its respective bracket or leg and the vehicle floor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The blocks/washers/spacers have a hole in them that the factory bolts go through to attach the seat to the floor board.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9. A method for reclining a vehicle seat having a seat platform and seat back, the method comprising the steps of: a) providing a vehicle seat reclining system, the vehicle seat reclining system comprising: i) a plurality of seat bracket spacers adapted to be secured between a seat mounting bracket and a vehicle floor; and ii) a plurality of leg spacers adapted to be secured between a seat leg and the vehicle floor; wherein each of the plurality of seat bracket spacers and each of the plurality leg spacers includes a hole; b) removing seat leg bolts which secure the seat legs of the vehicle seat to vehicle floor; c) pivoting seat platform to lie against the seat back; d) removing bracket mounting bolts which secure the seat mounting bracket to the vehicle floor; e) lifting the vehicle seat so as to provide sufficient clearance to allow said plurality of seat bracket spacers and said plurality of leg spacers to be positioned beneath their respective seat mounting bracket or respective seat leg; f) positioning a respective seat bracket spacer and a respective leg spacer beneath their respective seat mounting bracket or respective seat leg such that the hole within the respective spacer overlaps a hole within the bracket or seat leg and the vehicle floor; g) positioning each of the seat leg bolts and bracket mounting bolts within a respective overlapped hole such that a spacer is positioned between its respective bracket or leg and the vehicle floor; and h) rethreading each of the seat leg bolts and bracket mounting bolts to fixedly secured the vehicle seat to the vehicle floor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The method of using the above claims together to tilt the seat back.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10. The method for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 9, wherein each of the plurality of seat bracket spacers has a different thickness than each of the plurality of leg spacers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each of the washers/spacers is a different thickness.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;11. The method for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 9, wherein each of the plurality of seat bracket spacers has a thickness which allows the maximum amount of seat recline without any modification to factory brackets, legs, or mounting bolts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That the spacers will be at a prime height/thickness to recline without modifing the brackets, lets or bolts that attach to the floor.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12. The method for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 9, wherein said thickness is from about 0.5 inches to about 1.0 inches. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blocks, washers, spacers are 1/2&quot; to 1&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;13. The method for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 9, wherein the fixed seat recline does not impact operation of factory safety restraining devices. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the blocks/washers/spacers will not affect the seatbelts, childseat restraints, etc..  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;14. The method for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 9, wherein the fixed seat recline does not impact an ability of the vehicle seat to fold forward. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use of the blocks/washers/spacers won't stop the seat from folding forward to lay flat.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;15. The method for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 9, wherein each of the plurality of seat bracket spacers and each of the plurality leg spacers is constructed of a material selected from: aluminum, an aluminum alloy, steel, a steel alloy, a polymer or a composite.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blocks/washers/spacers must be made of metal, plastic or some composite material.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfect prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2015-02-19.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of multiple pieces of art that meet this criteria already...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is good prior art? They can be images, discussions on forums, web pages, product pages that exist.  Please see the faqs available on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uL5Yb.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33077" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13613" RevisionGUID="1c4752d2-b2c1-4e67-be62-b0a0b386e8e6" CreationDate="2015-09-17T21:49:01.747" UserId="15017" Text="SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR RECLINING A VEHICLE SEAT - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33078" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13613" RevisionGUID="1c4752d2-b2c1-4e67-be62-b0a0b386e8e6" CreationDate="2015-09-17T21:49:01.747" UserId="15017" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13614" RevisionGUID="d9581a83-b341-415b-a0fb-10d63f9d4f79" CreationDate="2015-09-18T04:54:05.677" UserId="15022" Text="This is a kitchen sink strainer system.  How do I find out the manufacturer or supplier of this patent or find out if the product is still manufactured?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33081" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13614" RevisionGUID="d9581a83-b341-415b-a0fb-10d63f9d4f79" CreationDate="2015-09-18T04:54:05.677" UserId="15022" Text="Pat. 2,038,852 April 1936" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33082" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13614" RevisionGUID="d9581a83-b341-415b-a0fb-10d63f9d4f79" CreationDate="2015-09-18T04:54:05.677" UserId="15022" Text="&lt;findmanufacturer&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13615" RevisionGUID="0fcf86ba-bde3-4b34-b3e7-6efd049b044a" CreationDate="2015-09-18T06:47:30.827" UserId="15023" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20060271405][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20060271405" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33084" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13615" RevisionGUID="0fcf86ba-bde3-4b34-b3e7-6efd049b044a" CreationDate="2015-09-18T06:47:30.827" UserId="15023" Text="Doesn't the publication of the Pharmaceutical Care Practices in 1998 and 2004 constitute public disclosure?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33085" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13615" RevisionGUID="0fcf86ba-bde3-4b34-b3e7-6efd049b044a" CreationDate="2015-09-18T06:47:30.827" UserId="15023" Text="&lt;existing&gt;&lt;broad&gt;&lt;public-disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33086" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13615" RevisionGUID="4fdba40e-afd9-4e6e-b89d-db370d3615d8" CreationDate="2015-09-18T06:57:58.553" UserId="15023" Comment="Added key word" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior&gt;&lt;existing&gt;&lt;broad&gt;&lt;public-disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13616" RevisionGUID="11b55fbd-7d16-4e92-9be4-6d220576febb" CreationDate="2015-09-18T08:01:09.937" UserId="15024" Text="I think you can. Because no one has patented it before and there is no patent-pending on the product. So I believe the answer is yes. I recommend you get some advice from the patent institution. By the way, it's days after you first made this question, have you made the decision?&#xD;&#xA;--Caroline&#xD;&#xA;[Creative BioMart][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.creativebiomart.net/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33088" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13606" RevisionGUID="6c75633a-f80e-4702-a50d-9583a6565a01" CreationDate="2015-09-18T08:13:32.770" UserId="15010" Comment="edited title" Text="HP Ink manufacture process patent or any other ink manufacturing patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13606" RevisionGUID="6c75633a-f80e-4702-a50d-9583a6565a01" CreationDate="2015-09-18T08:13:32.770" UserId="15010" Comment="edited title" Text="Where can I find ink manufacturing process patent compatible with HP. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13614" RevisionGUID="427f33fa-565e-47d8-b5a7-8c024c94fe75" CreationDate="2015-09-18T14:13:10.453" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, added references, improved tagging." Text="[US 2,038,852 A][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a kitchen sink strainer system. How do I find out the manufacturer or supplier of this patent or find out if the product is still manufactured?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US2038852" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33094" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13614" RevisionGUID="427f33fa-565e-47d8-b5a7-8c024c94fe75" CreationDate="2015-09-18T14:13:10.453" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, added references, improved tagging." Text="US 2,038,852 A (April 1936) - Who was the manufacturer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33095" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13614" RevisionGUID="427f33fa-565e-47d8-b5a7-8c024c94fe75" CreationDate="2015-09-18T14:13:10.453" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, added references, improved tagging." Text="&lt;expired-patent&gt;&lt;assignment-history&gt;&lt;us2038852&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13618" RevisionGUID="e27d5495-6b17-489b-b7d0-c0231135604f" CreationDate="2015-09-18T14:19:55.550" UserId="14417" Text="For a patent that old, you will probably be able to find the information in the [*Official Gazette of the United States Patent Office*][1]. Look for &quot;Abram N Pasman, assignor to&quot; in association with the patent number and title, &quot;2,038,852 Sink strainer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no guarantee that the invention was ever manufactured and sold, but the assignor is the place to start.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a patent has expired (I think 1948 in this case), the product should no longer be manufactured with the patent mark, and anyone may then produce the invention without licensing it from the inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22United%20States.%20Patent%20Office%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13619" RevisionGUID="0f7d65e9-a010-4679-854a-853d79b7df69" CreationDate="2015-09-18T15:51:09.863" UserId="15017" Text="Here is a video showing the same system/method in November 25th, 2014.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du8EaytQMew" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13620" RevisionGUID="ffd12dde-230a-4a7c-8e8e-7039dbdef6d3" CreationDate="2015-09-18T15:58:57.843" UserId="15017" Text="Here is prior art in August 2014 showing spacers for the common person to make and install.  http://www.wranglerforum.com/f274/jku-rear-seat-recline-mod-ebay-kit-871209.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13621" RevisionGUID="8c60b8ba-0fb1-4061-9cae-ea857bb8585d" CreationDate="2015-09-18T16:02:20.340" UserId="15017" Text="Here is prior art from 11-13-2010 user J_Westy shows how a common person cut the material, drilled the holes to utilize the same method and system for tilting their seat back.  http://www.wranglerforum.com/f274/2011-detonator-yellow-unlimited-66227-2.html#post874071&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Image of blocks made from aluminum.][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/lkp49.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13621" RevisionGUID="66ba7fa2-c9a7-481d-b56c-a171c71efcdf" CreationDate="2015-09-18T16:07:54.580" UserId="15017" Comment="added 202 characters in body" Text="Here is prior art from 11-13-2010 user J_Westy shows how a common person cut the material, drilled the holes to utilize the same method and system for tilting their seat back.  http://www.wranglerforum.com/f274/2011-detonator-yellow-unlimited-66227-2.html#post874071&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Image of blocks made from aluminum.][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![Blocks placed between bracket and floor][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Blocks placed between bracket and sloping floor][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/lkp49.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/eI3nx.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/buHsQ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13622" RevisionGUID="5042be05-9374-408c-9b96-87feae4e4502" CreationDate="2015-09-18T16:18:22.090" UserId="15017" Text="Not necessarily prior art, but an example of how this common design was being sold in August of 2013.   http://www.ebay.com/itm/Jeep-JK-Unlimited-JKU-4-Door-Rear-Seat-Recline-Spacers-/251294621881?rmvSB=true&amp;nma=true&amp;si=0ChF4YnT%252FxOwN1AmzBcN5wXiMZc%253D&amp;orig_cvip=true&amp;rt=nc&amp;_trksid=p2047675.l2557&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13613" RevisionGUID="33131f33-4a8f-498f-bb8b-8c11d2c000e4" CreationDate="2015-09-18T20:24:34.353" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, improved tagging and corrected spelling and grammar." Text="Help save Jeep and other vehicle owners from being able to modify their seats with simple washers or blocks to make them more comfortable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Small businesses and vehicle owners are being threatened by the overly broad application in question**. This application from Innovative JK Products, LLC seeks to patent the ability to place common metal washers between your seat and the floor board to adjust the height or angle of your vehicle seat!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ten minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent application before it becomes a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Photograph of the method][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below seems like a lot of reading. But it can be summarized as a system/method patent for using blocks of .5&quot;-1&quot; thick metal/plastic/composite material between a vehicle seat bracket and the floorboard to make it tilt and does not affect the seat belts or stop the seat from folding forward. This literally can be a stack of washers affixed together and placed on the bolts between the seat bracket and floor.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was published before February 19, 2015 that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The use of washers, spacers, blocks, plates of metal, plastic or other materials between a seat and the floorboard of a vehicle to adjust the height/angle of that seat.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question - one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual. I believe there are many prior art pieces from forums, Jeep clubs, product manufacturers and enthusiast websites that list these very things or how to do so for the common person as well as multiple products being available.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title:** System and Method for reclining a vehicle seat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** A system for reclining a vehicle seat is provided. The system comprises a plurality of seat bracket spacers adapted to be secured between a seat mounting bracket and a vehicle floor. A plurality of leg spacers is adapted to be secured between a seat leg and the vehicle floor. The seat bracket spacers create a fixed seat recline while the leg spacers accommodate a gap between respective seat legs and the vehicle floor caused by the fixed seat recline. Each of the seat bracket spacers has a thickness which allows for the maximum amount of seat recline without any modification to factory brackets, legs, or mounting bolts. Additionally, the fixed seat recline does not impact operation of factory safety restraining devices; nor does it impact the ability of the vehicle seat to fold forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Publication Number:** [US 2015/0231995 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Assignee:** Innovative JK Products, LLC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prior Art Date:** Seeking prior Art predating February 19, 2015&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I have been unable to determine when and for how long this application is &quot;Open for Challenge at USPTO&quot;. If anyone can provide any insight to this date, it would be much appreciated.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims below 1 with 2-8 for the system and 9-15 for the method which are essentially the same:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A system for reclining a vehicle seat, the system comprising: a) a plurality of seat bracket spacers adapted to be secured between a seat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mounting bracket and a vehicle floor; and b) a plurality of leg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spacers adapted to be secured between a seat leg and the vehicle&#xD;&#xA;&gt; floor; wherein the seat bracket spacers create a fixed seat recline&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and wherein the leg spacers accommodate a gap between respective seat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; legs and the vehicle floor caused by the fixed seat recline. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A combination of multiple blocks, spacers, washers that placed between the bottom of the seat and the vehicle floorboard to raise/lower parts of the seat to make it tilt. Much like placing a washer on a bolt to separate it from something.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The system for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of seat bracket spacers has a different thickness than&#xD;&#xA;&gt; each of the plurality of leg spacers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each of the washers/spacers is a different thickness.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The system for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of seat bracket spacers has a thickness which allows the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maximum amount of seat recline without any modification to factory&#xD;&#xA;&gt; brackets, legs, or mounting bolts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That the spacers will be at a prime height/thickness to recline without modifying the brackets, legs or bolts that attach to the floor.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The system for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 3, wherein said thickness is from about 0.5 inches to about 1.0 inches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blocks, washers, spacers are 1/2&quot; to 1&quot;.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. The system for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 1, wherein the fixed seat recline does not impact operation of factory safety&#xD;&#xA;&gt; restraining devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the blocks/washers/spacers will not affect the seatbelts, childseat restraints, etc..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. The system for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 1, wherein the fixed seat recline does not impact an ability of the vehicle seat to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fold forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use of the blocks/washers/spacers won't stop the seat from folding forward to lay flat.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. The system for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of seat bracket spacers and each of the plurality leg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spacers is constructed of a material selected from: aluminum, an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aluminum alloy, steel, a steel alloy, a polymer or a composite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blocks/washers/spacers must be made of metal, plastic or some composite material.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. The system for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of seat bracket spacers and each of the plurality leg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spacers includes a hole through which a factory bolt may be threaded&#xD;&#xA;&gt; when each spacer is fixedly secured between its respective bracket or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; leg and the vehicle floor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The blocks/washers/spacers have a hole in them that the factory bolts go through to attach the seat to the floor board.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9. A method for reclining a vehicle seat having a seat platform and seat back, the method comprising the steps of: a) providing a vehicle&#xD;&#xA;&gt; seat reclining system, the vehicle seat reclining system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; i) a plurality of seat bracket spacers adapted to be secured between a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; seat mounting bracket and a vehicle floor; and ii) a plurality of leg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spacers adapted to be secured between a seat leg and the vehicle&#xD;&#xA;&gt; floor; wherein each of the plurality of seat bracket spacers and each&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the plurality leg spacers includes a hole; b) removing seat leg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bolts which secure the seat legs of the vehicle seat to vehicle floor;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; c) pivoting seat platform to lie against the seat back; d) removing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bracket mounting bolts which secure the seat mounting bracket to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vehicle floor; e) lifting the vehicle seat so as to provide sufficient&#xD;&#xA;&gt; clearance to allow said plurality of seat bracket spacers and said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plurality of leg spacers to be positioned beneath their respective&#xD;&#xA;&gt; seat mounting bracket or respective seat leg; f) positioning a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; respective seat bracket spacer and a respective leg spacer beneath&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their respective seat mounting bracket or respective seat leg such&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that the hole within the respective spacer overlaps a hole within the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bracket or seat leg and the vehicle floor; g) positioning each of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; seat leg bolts and bracket mounting bolts within a respective&#xD;&#xA;&gt; overlapped hole such that a spacer is positioned between its&#xD;&#xA;&gt; respective bracket or leg and the vehicle floor; and h) rethreading&#xD;&#xA;&gt; each of the seat leg bolts and bracket mounting bolts to fixedly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; secured the vehicle seat to the vehicle floor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The method of using the above claims together to tilt the seat back.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10. The method for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 9, wherein each of the plurality of seat bracket spacers has a different thickness&#xD;&#xA;&gt; than each of the plurality of leg spacers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each of the washers/spacers is a different thickness.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 11. The method for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 9, wherein each of the plurality of seat bracket spacers has a thickness which allows&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the maximum amount of seat recline without any modification to factory&#xD;&#xA;&gt; brackets, legs, or mounting bolts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That the spacers will be at a prime height/thickness to recline without modifying the brackets, lets or bolts that attach to the floor.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12. The method for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 9, wherein said thickness is from about 0.5 inches to about 1.0 inches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blocks, washers, spacers are 1/2&quot; to 1&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 13. The method for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 9, wherein the fixed seat recline does not impact operation of factory safety&#xD;&#xA;&gt; restraining devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the blocks/washers/spacers will not affect the seatbelts, childseat restraints, etc..  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 14. The method for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 9, wherein the fixed seat recline does not impact an ability of the vehicle seat to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fold forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use of the blocks/washers/spacers won't stop the seat from folding forward to lay flat.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15. The method for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 9, wherein each of the plurality of seat bracket spacers and each of the plurality leg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spacers is constructed of a material selected from: aluminum, an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aluminum alloy, steel, a steel alloy, a polymer or a composite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blocks/washers/spacers must be made of metal, plastic or some composite material.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfect prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to February 19, 2015.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of multiple pieces of art that meet this criteria already...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is good prior art? They can be images, discussions on forums, web pages, product pages that exist. Please see the FAQs available on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uL5Yb.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20150231995" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33104" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13613" RevisionGUID="33131f33-4a8f-498f-bb8b-8c11d2c000e4" CreationDate="2015-09-18T20:24:34.353" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, improved tagging and corrected spelling and grammar." Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20150231995&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13623" RevisionGUID="f176dea1-ee92-4df5-8db3-b4131ca8b7f1" CreationDate="2015-09-18T20:54:04.987" UserId="4329" Text="The answer depends strongly on the claim construction for your design.  If your claim construction, directly or indirectly, recites or executes all the steps in the existing patented product, then your design is probably unpatentable.  A lawyer is almost certainly in order here, as you would have to write your new patent carefully to design around the existing patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13624" RevisionGUID="fb4cd4e6-7aa9-416d-b792-4ff979be0d07" CreationDate="2015-09-18T20:57:38.117" UserId="4329" Text="Since theirs is a design patent, not a utility patent, I'd focus on making a distinctive visual appearance for my bottle design, and then do another design patent on that.  Don't confuse design and utility patents.  http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/patdesc.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13625" RevisionGUID="03d6a346-3ed3-4ded-b3eb-73960bcc4aea" CreationDate="2015-09-18T21:05:27.313" UserId="4329" Text="Up until two years ago, the answer was &quot;absolutely not.&quot;  Now the answer is &quot;almost certainly not.&quot;  The United States has fallen in line with European countries and the PTO now uses on a first-to-file system.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent .  If you're the first person to bring a utility patent design in the United States, AND the product in question has not been described publicly elsewhere, AND you were partially or wholly responsible for inventing the product, AND the product was never filed for patent in the US, you MAY be able to file a patent.  I wouldn't enter these waters without a really good patent attorney, and I would expect to be disappointed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13626" RevisionGUID="19e2b649-32a2-440f-b1c0-27ddcdcf301c" CreationDate="2015-09-19T06:10:58.080" UserId="15031" Text="Do publication of patent means 'Patent claims' are verified by  US Government?&#xD;&#xA;If a company is sending me the published patent of the technology, can I trust the genuinity of the technology?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33116" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13626" RevisionGUID="19e2b649-32a2-440f-b1c0-27ddcdcf301c" CreationDate="2015-09-19T06:10:58.080" UserId="15031" Text="Patent Verification" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33117" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13626" RevisionGUID="19e2b649-32a2-440f-b1c0-27ddcdcf301c" CreationDate="2015-09-19T06:10:58.080" UserId="15031" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13613" RevisionGUID="a71449b2-5466-43b6-aa13-79a3c0cba7db" CreationDate="2015-09-19T13:05:47.373" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected priority date." Text="Help save Jeep and other vehicle owners from being able to modify their seats with simple washers or blocks to make them more comfortable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Small businesses and vehicle owners are being threatened by the overly broad application in question**. This application from Innovative JK Products, LLC seeks to patent the ability to place common metal washers between your seat and the floor board to adjust the height or angle of your vehicle seat!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ten minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent application before it becomes a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Photograph of the method][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below seems like a lot of reading. But it can be summarized as a system/method patent for using blocks of .5&quot;-1&quot; thick metal/plastic/composite material between a vehicle seat bracket and the floorboard to make it tilt and does not affect the seat belts or stop the seat from folding forward. This literally can be a stack of washers affixed together and placed on the bolts between the seat bracket and floor.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was published before February 19, 2014 that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The use of washers, spacers, blocks, plates of metal, plastic or other materials between a seat and the floorboard of a vehicle to adjust the height/angle of that seat.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question - one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual. I believe there are many prior art pieces from forums, Jeep clubs, product manufacturers and enthusiast websites that list these very things or how to do so for the common person as well as multiple products being available.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title:** System and Method for reclining a vehicle seat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** A system for reclining a vehicle seat is provided. The system comprises a plurality of seat bracket spacers adapted to be secured between a seat mounting bracket and a vehicle floor. A plurality of leg spacers is adapted to be secured between a seat leg and the vehicle floor. The seat bracket spacers create a fixed seat recline while the leg spacers accommodate a gap between respective seat legs and the vehicle floor caused by the fixed seat recline. Each of the seat bracket spacers has a thickness which allows for the maximum amount of seat recline without any modification to factory brackets, legs, or mounting bolts. Additionally, the fixed seat recline does not impact operation of factory safety restraining devices; nor does it impact the ability of the vehicle seat to fold forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Publication Number:** [US 2015/0231995 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Assignee:** Innovative JK Products, LLC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prior Art Date:** Seeking prior Art predating February 19, 2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I have been unable to determine when and for how long this application is &quot;Open for Challenge at USPTO&quot;. If anyone can provide any insight to this date, it would be much appreciated.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims below 1 with 2-8 for the system and 9-15 for the method which are essentially the same:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A system for reclining a vehicle seat, the system comprising: a) a plurality of seat bracket spacers adapted to be secured between a seat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mounting bracket and a vehicle floor; and b) a plurality of leg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spacers adapted to be secured between a seat leg and the vehicle&#xD;&#xA;&gt; floor; wherein the seat bracket spacers create a fixed seat recline&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and wherein the leg spacers accommodate a gap between respective seat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; legs and the vehicle floor caused by the fixed seat recline. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A combination of multiple blocks, spacers, washers that placed between the bottom of the seat and the vehicle floorboard to raise/lower parts of the seat to make it tilt. Much like placing a washer on a bolt to separate it from something.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The system for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of seat bracket spacers has a different thickness than&#xD;&#xA;&gt; each of the plurality of leg spacers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each of the washers/spacers is a different thickness.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The system for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of seat bracket spacers has a thickness which allows the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maximum amount of seat recline without any modification to factory&#xD;&#xA;&gt; brackets, legs, or mounting bolts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That the spacers will be at a prime height/thickness to recline without modifying the brackets, legs or bolts that attach to the floor.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The system for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 3, wherein said thickness is from about 0.5 inches to about 1.0 inches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blocks, washers, spacers are 1/2&quot; to 1&quot;.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. The system for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 1, wherein the fixed seat recline does not impact operation of factory safety&#xD;&#xA;&gt; restraining devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the blocks/washers/spacers will not affect the seatbelts, childseat restraints, etc..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. The system for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 1, wherein the fixed seat recline does not impact an ability of the vehicle seat to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fold forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use of the blocks/washers/spacers won't stop the seat from folding forward to lay flat.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. The system for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of seat bracket spacers and each of the plurality leg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spacers is constructed of a material selected from: aluminum, an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aluminum alloy, steel, a steel alloy, a polymer or a composite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blocks/washers/spacers must be made of metal, plastic or some composite material.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. The system for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of seat bracket spacers and each of the plurality leg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spacers includes a hole through which a factory bolt may be threaded&#xD;&#xA;&gt; when each spacer is fixedly secured between its respective bracket or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; leg and the vehicle floor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The blocks/washers/spacers have a hole in them that the factory bolts go through to attach the seat to the floor board.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9. A method for reclining a vehicle seat having a seat platform and seat back, the method comprising the steps of: a) providing a vehicle&#xD;&#xA;&gt; seat reclining system, the vehicle seat reclining system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; i) a plurality of seat bracket spacers adapted to be secured between a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; seat mounting bracket and a vehicle floor; and ii) a plurality of leg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spacers adapted to be secured between a seat leg and the vehicle&#xD;&#xA;&gt; floor; wherein each of the plurality of seat bracket spacers and each&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the plurality leg spacers includes a hole; b) removing seat leg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bolts which secure the seat legs of the vehicle seat to vehicle floor;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; c) pivoting seat platform to lie against the seat back; d) removing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bracket mounting bolts which secure the seat mounting bracket to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vehicle floor; e) lifting the vehicle seat so as to provide sufficient&#xD;&#xA;&gt; clearance to allow said plurality of seat bracket spacers and said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plurality of leg spacers to be positioned beneath their respective&#xD;&#xA;&gt; seat mounting bracket or respective seat leg; f) positioning a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; respective seat bracket spacer and a respective leg spacer beneath&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their respective seat mounting bracket or respective seat leg such&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that the hole within the respective spacer overlaps a hole within the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bracket or seat leg and the vehicle floor; g) positioning each of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; seat leg bolts and bracket mounting bolts within a respective&#xD;&#xA;&gt; overlapped hole such that a spacer is positioned between its&#xD;&#xA;&gt; respective bracket or leg and the vehicle floor; and h) rethreading&#xD;&#xA;&gt; each of the seat leg bolts and bracket mounting bolts to fixedly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; secured the vehicle seat to the vehicle floor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The method of using the above claims together to tilt the seat back.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10. The method for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 9, wherein each of the plurality of seat bracket spacers has a different thickness&#xD;&#xA;&gt; than each of the plurality of leg spacers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each of the washers/spacers is a different thickness.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 11. The method for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 9, wherein each of the plurality of seat bracket spacers has a thickness which allows&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the maximum amount of seat recline without any modification to factory&#xD;&#xA;&gt; brackets, legs, or mounting bolts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That the spacers will be at a prime height/thickness to recline without modifying the brackets, lets or bolts that attach to the floor.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12. The method for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 9, wherein said thickness is from about 0.5 inches to about 1.0 inches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blocks, washers, spacers are 1/2&quot; to 1&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 13. The method for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 9, wherein the fixed seat recline does not impact operation of factory safety&#xD;&#xA;&gt; restraining devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the blocks/washers/spacers will not affect the seatbelts, childseat restraints, etc..  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 14. The method for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 9, wherein the fixed seat recline does not impact an ability of the vehicle seat to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fold forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use of the blocks/washers/spacers won't stop the seat from folding forward to lay flat.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15. The method for reclining a vehicle seat of claim 9, wherein each of the plurality of seat bracket spacers and each of the plurality leg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spacers is constructed of a material selected from: aluminum, an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aluminum alloy, steel, a steel alloy, a polymer or a composite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blocks/washers/spacers must be made of metal, plastic or some composite material.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfect prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to February 19, 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of multiple pieces of art that meet this criteria already...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is good prior art? They can be images, discussions on forums, web pages, product pages that exist. Please see the FAQs available on this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uL5Yb.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20150231995" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13628" RevisionGUID="d4f08843-bd31-46c4-b85a-57eebe842c68" CreationDate="2015-09-19T18:46:21.587" UserId="14417" Text="Looking at the [Public Pair][1] Image File Wrapper [US 2005/0035248 A1][2], *Bolt-on adjustable seat mounting bracket kit*, you'll find some interesting reading, including some Prior Art cited by the examiner (refer to the 18 page *Non-Final Rejection*). I'm going to cite the full argument here, as most of it should be applicable to this application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; U.S. Patent 3, 128,979 to Damelo. Damelo discloses a mounting bracket&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Fig. 7) comprising: a bracket (31) capable of bolting onto seat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mounts (at 33 generally) and having optional rearward mounting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; positions (34) and height seat mounting positions (due to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thickness of the bracket itself), thus allowing a seat to be mounted&#xD;&#xA;&gt; further back as well as increasing height such that legroom may be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; increased and viewing over a dashboard, side window, etc. may be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; improved.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; U.S. Patent 4,550,451 to Hubbard. Hubbard discloses a mounting bracket&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Fig. 5) comprising: a bracket (36a) capable of bolting onto seat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mounts (at 54 generally) and having optional rearward mounting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; positions (48) and height seat mounting positions (due to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thickness of the bracket itself), thus allowing a seat to be mounted&#xD;&#xA;&gt; further back as well as increasing height such that legroom may be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; increased and viewing over a dashboard, side window, etc. may be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; improved.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; U.S. Patent 0375,832 to Miller. Miller discloses a mounting bracket&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Fig. 1) comprising: a bracket having a series of six horizontally&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aligned holes, the bracket being capable of bolting onto seat mounts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (via the first and fourth holes) and having optional rearward mounting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; positions (second, third, fifth, and sixth holes) and height seat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mounting positions (due to the thickness of the bracket itself), thus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; allowing a seat to be mounted further back as well as increasing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; height such that legroom may be increased and viewing over a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dashboard, side window, etc. may be improved.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Conclusion**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pertinent to applicant's disclosure: [1928814][3] to Flintermann; [2274235][4] to Gandillon; [3021103][5] to Beyerle; [3198466][6] to Gardner et al; [3652050][7] to Marrujo et al; [4307865][8] to MacCready; [4638546][9] to Benshoof; [4850769][10] to Matthews; [0338057][11] to Robbins; [5244178][12] to Stewart; [0361503][13] to Hubbard; [Re. 35785][14] to Stewart; [6012685][15] to Saraceno, Jr.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe there might be some useful Prior Art within the patent system in some of the older patents mentioned in the above examination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20050035248&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US1928814&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/patents/US2274235&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3021103&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3198466&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3652050&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4307865&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4638546&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4850769&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD338057&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5244178&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD361503&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://www.google.com/patents/USRE35485&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6012685" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13628" RevisionGUID="a6abc649-4573-4b6c-8d33-89d675c65207" CreationDate="2015-09-19T18:55:50.727" UserId="14417" Comment="Added links." Text="Looking at the [Public Pair][1] Image File Wrapper [US 2005/0035248 A1][2], *Bolt-on adjustable seat mounting bracket kit*, you'll find some interesting reading, including some Prior Art cited by the examiner (refer to the 18 page *Non-Final Rejection*). I'm going to cite the full argument here, as most of it should be applicable to this application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [U.S. Patent 3,128,979][3] to Damelo. **Damelo discloses a mounting bracket (Fig. 7) comprising: a bracket (31) capable of bolting onto seat mounts (at 33 generally) and having optional rearward mounting positions (34) and height seat mounting positions (due to the thickness of the bracket itself), thus allowing a seat to be mounted further back as well as increasing height** such that legroom may be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; increased and viewing over a dashboard, side window, etc. may be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; improved.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [U.S. Patent 4,550,451][4] to Hubbard. Hubbard discloses a mounting bracket&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Fig. 5) comprising: a bracket (36a) capable of bolting onto seat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mounts (at 54 generally) and having optional rearward mounting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; positions (48) and height seat mounting positions (due to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thickness of the bracket itself), thus allowing a seat to be mounted&#xD;&#xA;&gt; further back as well as increasing height such that legroom may be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; increased and viewing over a dashboard, side window, etc. may be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; improved.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [U.S. Patent 0375,832][5] to Miller. Miller discloses a mounting bracket&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Fig. 1) comprising: a bracket having a series of six horizontally&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aligned holes, the bracket being capable of bolting onto seat mounts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (via the first and fourth holes) and having optional rearward mounting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; positions (second, third, fifth, and sixth holes) and height seat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mounting positions (due to the thickness of the bracket itself), thus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; allowing a seat to be mounted further back as well as increasing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; height such that legroom may be increased and viewing over a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dashboard, side window, etc. may be improved.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Conclusion**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pertinent to applicant's disclosure: [1928814][6] to Flintermann; [2274235][7] to Gandillon; [3021103][8] to Beyerle; [3198466][9] to Gardner et al; [3652050][10] to Marrujo et al; [4307865][11] to MacCready; [4638546][12] to Benshoof; [4850769][13] to Matthews; [0338057][14] to Robbins; [5244178][15] to Stewart; [0361503][16] to Hubbard; [Re. 35785][17] to Stewart; [6012685][18] to Saraceno, Jr.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe there might be some useful Prior Art within the patent system in some of the older patents mentioned in the above examination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20050035248&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3128979&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4550451&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD375832&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.google.com/patents/US1928814&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/US2274235&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3021103&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3198466&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3652050&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4307865&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4638546&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4850769&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD338057&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5244178&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD361503&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://www.google.com/patents/USRE35485&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6012685" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13628" RevisionGUID="82b1d3e7-654b-4368-aa6c-cb1b058fc5aa" CreationDate="2015-09-19T19:05:27.460" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting." Text="Looking at the [Public Pair][1] Image File Wrapper [US 2005/0035248 A1][2], *Bolt-on adjustable seat mounting bracket kit*, you'll find some interesting reading, including some Prior Art cited by the examiner (refer to the 18 page *Non-Final Rejection*). I'm going to cite the full argument here, as most of it should be applicable to this application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by [U.S. Patent 3,128,979][3] to Damelo. Damelo discloses a mounting bracket (Fig. 7) comprising: a bracket (31) capable of bolting onto seat mounts (at 33 generally) and having optional rearward mounting positions (34) and height seat mounting positions (due to the thickness of the bracket itself), thus allowing a seat to be mounted further back as well as increasing height such that legroom may be increased and viewing over a dashboard, side window, etc. may be improved.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by [U.S. Patent 4,550,451][4] to Hubbard. Hubbard discloses a mounting bracket (Fig. 5) comprising: a bracket (36a) capable of bolting onto seat mounts (at 54 generally) and having optional rearward mounting positions (48) and height seat mounting positions (due to the thickness of the bracket itself), thus allowing a seat to be mounted further back as well as increasing height such that legroom may be increased and viewing over a dashboard, side window, etc. may be improved.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by [U.S. Patent 0375,832][5] to Miller. Miller discloses a mounting bracket (Fig. 1) comprising: a bracket having a series of six horizontally aligned holes, the bracket being capable of bolting onto seat mounts (via the first and fourth holes) and having optional rearward mounting positions (second, third, fifth, and sixth holes) and height seat mounting positions (due to the thickness of the bracket itself), thus allowing a seat to be mounted further back as well as increasing height such that legroom may be increased and viewing over a dashboard, side window, etc. may be improved.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Conclusion**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pertinent to applicant's disclosure: [1928814][6] to Flintermann; [2274235][7] to Gandillon; [3021103][8] to Beyerle; [3198466][9] to Gardner *et al*; [3652050][10] to Marrujo *et al*; [4307865][11] to MacCready; [4638546][12] to Benshoof; [4850769][13] to Matthews; [0338057][14] to Robbins; [5244178][15] to Stewart; [0361503][16] to Hubbard; [Re. 35785][17] to Stewart; [6012685][18] to Saraceno, Jr.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe there might be some useful Prior Art within the patent system in some of the older patents mentioned in the above examination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20050035248&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3128979&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4550451&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD375832&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.google.com/patents/US1928814&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/US2274235&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3021103&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3198466&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3652050&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4307865&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4638546&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4850769&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD338057&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5244178&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD361503&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://www.google.com/patents/USRE35485&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6012685" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13303" RevisionGUID="3119930a-2398-4e6a-891c-edb6c10e2e3f" CreationDate="2015-09-19T19:52:12.917" UserId="14417" Comment="Adjusted working to be more precise." Text="When filing a patent, the goal of the Independent Claim(s) is to define the invention as broadly as possible. Your goal is to obtain Freedom to Operate, with enough &quot;white space&quot; around your Preferred Embodiment that competitors cannot change minor details to avoid licensing your patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dependent claims provide paths to multiple embodiments of your invention, and also provide a means to establish Prior Art for others in the field seeking similar patents. For instance, you can anticipate some refinements or other uses that solve a related problem that a competitor might implement to work around your independent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims in a patent application are a starting point for negotiation with the patent office on novelty and non-obviousness. Through a series of Office Actions, the Inventor (you) and the Patent Office (e.g., USPTO) negotiate to (optimally) the broadest possible coverage on the independent claims. Often, when an independent claim is too broad, clauses from dependent claims are moved into the independent claim to narrow its scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, you *can* have a patent with a single independent claim and no other claims. I know I've encountered one that granted, but it would be difficult to find it at the moment. A patent defined in this way might be so narrowly defined that another inventor might easily make several modifications and thus obtain Freedom to Operate in your space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are patents granted out there with over 400 claims. I'm uncertain what the maximum is, but if you exceed 10 or so on a PCT application, you will end up paying extra, and that cost adds up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have multiple independent claims (as is common with software patents, which have similar independent claims that cover the method, the system and the hardware implementation), this may multiply the number of dependent claims as well. If your independent claims are too dissimilar to each other, or a single dependent claim adds too much novelty (e.g., a combination of 3 or more non-obvious clauses), and you are filing for an international patent, you may be required by the Examiner to file multiple applications, which will double your cost and add to the difficulty of prosecuting the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your application, you should write as many claims as you think you need to get the amount of &quot;white space&quot; you need to protect your invention from competition. You will probably lose a few through Office Actions. For instance, you might file 40 claims but only 10 are granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, your claims can be rejected if they match the claims in a patent or application that has an earlier Priority Date. As a matter of fact, any material at all in any publicly accessible documents that describe the invention you are claiming can be used to reject your claims. This is why your independent claims are the most important to get right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This brings up another important point. If your patent is ever challenged, a case might be made that additional Prior Art exists for one or more of your claims, or that some of your claims are considered &quot;obvious&quot;. This may result in one or more of your dependent claims becoming invalid and unenforceable. Therefore, claiming multiple embodiments is a way to defend against challenges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically, whole claims are used to prosecute infringement (e.g., any independent claim or a dependent claim plus all of its dependencies). However, there are a few cases out there where parts of claims were used to judge infringement. It can get complicated, which is why you should seek broad coverage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To address your first example of the independent claim with the dependent claim, you need to answer the following questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is the independent claim novel? &quot;Awesome equipment&quot; may even already exist, but you may claim a novel use of it to solve a different problem (if there is no Prior Art).&#xD;&#xA; - Is the independent claim non-obvious (to someone &quot;skilled in the art&quot;)?&#xD;&#xA; - Is the independent claim too abstract?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of other possible reasons for rejection, but those are the main ones. Typically, a test for novelty is something with no Prior Art, or a combination of three or more known things arranged in a new, non-obvious way to solve a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your second question, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the dependent claim(s):&#xD;&#xA; - Does the dependent claim achieve any technical effect? (e.g., does using a fork actually add functionality?) If not, your dependent claim may be rejected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, for the second example, where the two claims are merged:&#xD;&#xA;If someone else were to claim &quot;an awesome equipment to detect X using spoon?&quot;, the same test for novelty applies. If you or someone else covered such a case anywhere in the patent application, then Prior Art exists. Is it obvious to modify your equipment using a spoon?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, don't confuse patenting with Freedom to Operate. If your claims are not broad enough to cover the &quot;using spoon&quot; clause, then someone else may not be able to patent it, but they may still have Freedom to Operate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's about the best I can do with such an abstract hypothetical set of claims, but I hope its instructive. This is really the reason that patent lawyers exist, to assist with claim construction and help you to get the coverage you need without too many expensive Office Actions. The tests for novelty and non-obviousness are changing year-to-year (and new tests such as abstractness are added), and the patent attorneys are the ones you can rely to stay up to date on those rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I think a great way to learn more is to read through the claims of existing patents in your space (grants, not applications) and compare them to the claim language of their applications to see what the Examiner allowed and did not allow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Journal of Intellectual Property Law &amp; Practice* (2013) **8**(8):578-580. doi:[10.1093/jiplp/jpt088][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a ruling over a European patent in which broad claims were deemed enforceable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Genentech Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 93,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Court of Appeal (England and Wales), 21 February 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This ruling confirms that a broad claim in a patent encompassing a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; large number of unexemplified embodiments can be valid and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; enforceable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is generally much easier to overturn a broad claim than a narrow claim. The larger the space an independent claim covers, the more susceptible it will be to challenges on Prior Art and non-enablement (not enough information in the specification to support the claim). If you are certain that there is enough white space (lack of Prior Art) around your independent claim, and that everything you are claiming is supported by your specification, then are probably safe to make the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the Examiner is ultimately the one that you need to convince.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpt088" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13629" RevisionGUID="68ede84d-4161-4107-9576-5bc44cba24bb" CreationDate="2015-09-20T11:27:47.053" UserId="3127" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2014170646A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the video I had published on YouTube on 10th of April 2013 (an year before this patent application) http://youtu.be/LfGeIWCeeKU  that showed 5 words for Mt. Everest's location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another record is: [http://web.archive.org/web/*/wcodes.org][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014170646A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://web.archive.org/web/*/wcodes.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33131" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13629" RevisionGUID="68ede84d-4161-4107-9576-5bc44cba24bb" CreationDate="2015-09-20T11:27:47.053" UserId="3127" Text="I had invented this an year before this patent application - What do I do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33132" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13629" RevisionGUID="68ede84d-4161-4107-9576-5bc44cba24bb" CreationDate="2015-09-20T11:27:47.053" UserId="3127" Text="&lt;wo2014170646a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13630" RevisionGUID="859f8739-0d7b-4814-93ec-62d155e52c5c" CreationDate="2015-09-20T17:49:05.610" UserId="15039" Text="In reference to the patent: [US6981040][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6981040&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;seems to follow &#xD;&#xA;Gio Wiederhold: &quot;Customer Models for Effective Presentation of Information&quot;; Position Paper, Flanagan, Huang, Jones, Kerf (eds): Human-Centered Systems: Information, Interactivity, and Intelligence, National Science Foundation, 15 July 1997, pp.218-221. &#xD;&#xA;which was as\lso presented at Stanford University open seminars and accessible to SRI, where the owners of the patent were working at the time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33134" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13630" RevisionGUID="859f8739-0d7b-4814-93ec-62d155e52c5c" CreationDate="2015-09-20T17:49:05.610" UserId="15039" Text="Prior publication ignored" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33135" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13630" RevisionGUID="859f8739-0d7b-4814-93ec-62d155e52c5c" CreationDate="2015-09-20T17:49:05.610" UserId="15039" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13629" RevisionGUID="410ed255-ac96-4e96-844e-c91bc0800c4a" CreationDate="2015-09-20T18:26:14.390" UserId="3127" Comment="added 80 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2014170646A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the video I had published on YouTube on 10th of April 2013 (an year before this patent application) http://youtu.be/LfGeIWCeeKU?t=321 that showed 5 words for Mt. Everest's location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another record is: [http://web.archive.org/web/*/wcodes.org][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also has these pending patents: GB1307148.5, GB1500104.3 and GB1500105.0&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014170646A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://web.archive.org/web/*/wcodes.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33137" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13629" RevisionGUID="410ed255-ac96-4e96-844e-c91bc0800c4a" CreationDate="2015-09-20T18:26:14.390" UserId="3127" Comment="added 80 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;wo2014170646a1&gt;&lt;gb1307148.5&gt;&lt;gb1500104.3&gt;&lt;gb1500105.0&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13629" RevisionGUID="feb41a35-eeb4-43bf-a067-af1c2e787a60" CreationDate="2015-09-20T18:32:07.690" UserId="3127" Comment="added 80 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2014170646A1][1] granted to What3Words Limited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the video I had published on YouTube on 10th of April 2013 (an year before this patent application) http://youtu.be/LfGeIWCeeKU?t=321 that showed 5 words for Mt. Everest's location&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;Another record is: [http://web.archive.org/web/*/wcodes.org][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also has these pending patents: GB1307148.5, GB1500104.3 and GB1500105.0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014170646A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/HtFGX.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://web.archive.org/web/*/wcodes.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13629" RevisionGUID="1c00452e-f0a9-490a-8a1d-06562128e530" CreationDate="2015-09-20T19:30:32.293" UserId="3127" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2014170646A1][1] granted and patents: pending patents: GB1307148.5, GB1500104.3 and GB1500105.0 to What3Words Limited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the video I had published on YouTube on 10th of April 2013 (just 9 days before this patent application) http://youtu.be/LfGeIWCeeKU?t=321 that showed 5 words for Mt. Everest's location&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;Another record is: [http://web.archive.org/web/*/wcodes.org][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I get these patents invalidated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014170646A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/HtFGX.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://web.archive.org/web/*/wcodes.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33140" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13629" RevisionGUID="1c00452e-f0a9-490a-8a1d-06562128e530" CreationDate="2015-09-20T19:30:32.293" UserId="3127" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="I had invented and published before this patent application - How do I get it invalidated?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13629" RevisionGUID="ca9fa80c-4998-4f2e-ae6b-bd9c24fd8147" CreationDate="2015-09-20T19:57:07.693" UserId="3127" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2014170646A1][1] granted and pending patents: GB1307148.5, GB1500104.3 and GB1500105.0 to What3Words Limited:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the video I had published on YouTube on 10th of April 2013 (just 9 days before this patent application) http://youtu.be/LfGeIWCeeKU?t=321 that showed 5 words for Mt. Everest's location&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;Another record is: [http://web.archive.org/web/*/wcodes.org][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I get these patents invalidated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014170646A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/HtFGX.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://web.archive.org/web/*/wcodes.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13630" RevisionGUID="242a7e83-22e2-4d47-801b-9ff93e14ee3a" CreationDate="2015-09-21T00:46:21.990" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, improved tagging and corrected spelling and grammar." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 6,981,040 B1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6981040&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specification of this patent seems to follow:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gio Wiederhold, &quot;Customer Models for Effective Presentation of Information&quot;; Position Paper, Flanagan, Huang, Jones, Kerf (*eds*): *Human-Centered Systems: Information, Interactivity, and Intelligence*, National Science Foundation, 15 July 1997, pp.218-221. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was also presented at Stanford University open seminars and accessible to SRI, where the owners of the patent were working at the time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33143" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13630" RevisionGUID="242a7e83-22e2-4d47-801b-9ff93e14ee3a" CreationDate="2015-09-21T00:46:21.990" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, improved tagging and corrected spelling and grammar." Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;us6981040&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13629" RevisionGUID="6355066a-2280-43d3-ac33-2eb2996b41d3" CreationDate="2015-09-21T00:53:08.567" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling, improved grammar and formatting." Text="In reference to the patent: [WO 2014/170646 A1][1] granted and pending patents: GB1307148.5, GB1500104.3 and GB1500105.0 to What3Words Limited:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the video I had published on [YouTube on 10th of April 2013][2] (just 9 days before this patent application) that showed 5 words for Mt. Everest's location:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![wcodes example][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another record is available from [archive.org][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I get these patents invalidated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014170646A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://youtu.be/LfGeIWCeeKU?t=321&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/HtFGX.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://web.archive.org/web/*/wcodes.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33145" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13629" RevisionGUID="6355066a-2280-43d3-ac33-2eb2996b41d3" CreationDate="2015-09-21T00:53:08.567" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling, improved grammar and formatting." Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;wo2014170646a1&gt;&lt;gb1307148.5&gt;&lt;gb1500104.3&gt;&lt;gb1500105.0&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13631" RevisionGUID="e73ef22e-6e19-4c80-b0a0-bc9698e464b4" CreationDate="2015-09-21T15:43:27.400" UserId="15041" Text="In reference to the patent: [US9098730][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9098730&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent is essentially for an external hard drive with FTK Imager on it. How can a patent be made for that? There is nothing on this drive that was used or created by UHY, Eric Shirk or anyone else. It is simply running a command line version of a patented tool already. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, this tool has nothing to do with persistent memory that it keeps alluding to in the thesis, it captures only active partitions on a powered on hard drive. This process is not accepted as a &quot;forensic image&quot; any way and could be challenged in court. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33149" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13631" RevisionGUID="e73ef22e-6e19-4c80-b0a0-bc9698e464b4" CreationDate="2015-09-21T15:43:27.400" UserId="15041" Text="What is unique about this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33150" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13631" RevisionGUID="e73ef22e-6e19-4c80-b0a0-bc9698e464b4" CreationDate="2015-09-21T15:43:27.400" UserId="15041" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12761" RevisionGUID="3ac0918c-872d-4185-9669-cbfd29e07bf6" CreationDate="2015-09-21T15:48:19.687" UserId="14052" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Is it possible to change the listed order of inventors **after** a utility patent application is granted by USPTO? And if so, how could I go about doing that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13564" RevisionGUID="80f5dee0-b020-4a39-9e43-23940c8b1b5e" CreationDate="2015-09-21T19:41:13.777" UserId="14417" Comment="added 232 characters in body" Text="“Freedom to Operate” (FTO) is the process of determining whether a particular action (i.e., researching, developing, manufacturing, testing or selling a product) can be done without infringing intellectual property rights of others." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33156" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13564" RevisionGUID="80f5dee0-b020-4a39-9e43-23940c8b1b5e" CreationDate="2015-09-21T19:41:13.777" Comment="Proposed by 14417 approved by 1 edit id of 1885" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13565" RevisionGUID="3fba5346-1bdb-4f48-8f65-604ba6ecdf34" CreationDate="2015-09-21T19:41:18.670" UserId="14417" Comment="added 202 characters in body" Text="Use this tag for questions asking if performing a certain action (i.e., researching, developing, manufacturing, testing or selling a product) can be done without infringing intellectual property rights." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33158" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13565" RevisionGUID="3fba5346-1bdb-4f48-8f65-604ba6ecdf34" CreationDate="2015-09-21T19:41:18.670" Comment="Proposed by 14417 approved by 1 edit id of 1886" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13567" RevisionGUID="09b28c66-1640-4783-9418-e52f32a346f1" CreationDate="2015-09-21T19:41:23.450" UserId="14417" Comment="added 130 characters in body" Text="Use this tag for questions asking about the meaning of a patent-related term, or for the difference among several different terms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33160" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13567" RevisionGUID="09b28c66-1640-4783-9418-e52f32a346f1" CreationDate="2015-09-21T19:41:23.450" Comment="Proposed by 14417 approved by 1 edit id of 1887" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13633" RevisionGUID="dbd0744c-fa70-4761-b60d-7e12251f92a6" CreationDate="2015-09-21T20:38:40.007" UserId="15044" Text="I am curious about this product and wondering if this patent is still valid even though it is over a hundred years old. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US621888][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US621888" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33162" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13633" RevisionGUID="dbd0744c-fa70-4761-b60d-7e12251f92a6" CreationDate="2015-09-21T20:38:40.007" UserId="15044" Text="Table shelf patent US5653413" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33163" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13633" RevisionGUID="dbd0744c-fa70-4761-b60d-7e12251f92a6" CreationDate="2015-09-21T20:38:40.007" UserId="15044" Text="&lt;us621888&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33167" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13631" RevisionGUID="601216d0-16ff-419e-a014-0df0e7e492b3" CreationDate="2015-09-22T01:21:09.233" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us9098730&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13635" RevisionGUID="37359250-74dc-48fd-a3a3-ec25e183fdaa" CreationDate="2015-09-22T03:00:28.387" UserId="15047" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2008150815A2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2008150815A2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33170" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13635" RevisionGUID="37359250-74dc-48fd-a3a3-ec25e183fdaa" CreationDate="2015-09-22T03:00:28.387" UserId="15047" Text="Is this an approved patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33171" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13635" RevisionGUID="37359250-74dc-48fd-a3a3-ec25e183fdaa" CreationDate="2015-09-22T03:00:28.387" UserId="15047" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="3189010e-c9ae-4996-8d8c-81bfdb45aaee" CreationDate="2015-09-22T08:30:45.350" UserId="15049" Text="I would like to know if the Co-occurrence Histograms of Oriented Gradients (CoHOG) algorithm is patented. A paper on it was published in 2009:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-92957-4_4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there seems to be a related patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US20120057787&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but was published later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33173" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="3189010e-c9ae-4996-8d8c-81bfdb45aaee" CreationDate="2015-09-22T08:30:45.350" UserId="15049" Text="Is the CoHOG algorithm patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33174" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="3189010e-c9ae-4996-8d8c-81bfdb45aaee" CreationDate="2015-09-22T08:30:45.350" UserId="15049" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;cohog&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="440af253-50ba-459e-9d5c-1f1a6a74e6a7" CreationDate="2015-09-22T08:33:34.653" UserId="11751" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I'm specifically interested in [US 6873940][1] patent. The company that currently owns the patent is a company called [Kamatani Cloud][2] which is subsidiary of [General Patent][3] which some argue ([1][4], [2][5], [3][6], [4][7]) is a patent troll company. I'd like to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like [keylemon][8], [betafaceapi][9], [rekognition][10] or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker identification, face detection or content classification in images, audio or video files etc.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13]. In fact the [class 709 scope][12] has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent prosecution process after non-final rejection [argued][14] (2004-09-20 Applicant Arguments Remarks Made in an Amendment) that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect if server is capable of &quot;*measuring*&quot;/processing the data then the prior art is not applicable, consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are sent by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no &quot;*detecting whether the measurement data are capable of being measured*&quot; is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires server capability of detecting if data can be &quot;*measured*&quot; and notifying client if such capability exists then the patent shouldn't apply for cloud services as mentioned previously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding using the arguments provided by applicant during patent prosecution for claim interpretation please see [C. Claim Interpretation.][15], [wiki][18] and following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Markman, the Federal Circuit held that a court should consider a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent’s prosecution history if it is in evidence, and explained that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the prosecution history “is of primary significance in understanding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the claims.” 52 F.3d at 980, aff’d, 64 U.S.L.W. 4263. In Standard Oil&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985), the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Federal Circuit stated that:  [T]he prosecution history (sometimes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; called “file wrapper and contents’’) of the patent consists of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; entire record of proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office. This&#xD;&#xA;&gt; includes all express representations made by or on behalf of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applicant to the examiner to induce a patent grant, or, as here, to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reissue a patent. Such representations include amendments to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims and arguments made to convince the examiner that the claimed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention meets the statutory requirements of novelty, utility, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonobviousness. Thus, the prosecution history (or file wrapper) limits&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain claim allowance. 774 F.2d at 452 (emphasis added). In order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain allowance of the claims of the ‘712 patent, arguments were made&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on behalf of the applicant to the Examiner during prosecution that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served both to explain the claims in a clear manner and to disavow any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source -  [Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-376, p. 47][16] or from [here][17].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So to put it briefly:#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class [709][12] regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13] work? Both must apply or only first or second when interpreting claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** during US6873940 patent application inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; having in mind that for processing images requests are directed to URL for processing images and for processing voice requests are directed to URL for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing only faces or only classifying image contents... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6873940&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kamatanicloud.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.generalpatent.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://scienceprogress.org/2009/01/patent-trolls-erode-patent-system/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-biggest-patent-trolls&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ipdigit.eu/2011/10/what-to-think-of-patent-trolls-the-return/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/27/law-would-force-patent-trolls-to-pay-for-failed-lawsuits-against-innovators/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.keylemon.com&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.betafaceapi.com&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://rekognition.com&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc702/defs702.htm#C702S189000&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm#C709S217000&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.intellectual.com/infringement.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://bit.ly/1PYCjjA&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.usitc.gov/publications/337/pub3003.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markman_v._Westview_Instruments,_Inc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13638" RevisionGUID="17ae8996-31c8-45b9-9580-48c946e300d3" CreationDate="2015-09-22T14:19:51.173" UserId="8767" Text="Try the Public Pair search from the patent office.&#xD;&#xA;Search with this number: PCT/US08/65008&#xD;&#xA;I assume that the data below is what you are looking for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 06-06-2008	Notification of Intntl. Appl. Number and Intntl. Filing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Date 06-06-2008	Notification Concerning Payment of Fees   &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - 06-06-2008	Record Copy Mailed &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - 05-30-2008	Cleared by OIPE CSR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 05-28-2008	Receipt Date&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 05-28-2008	IFW Scan &amp; PACR Auto Security&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Review 05-28-2008	Initial Exam Team nn&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Data from Public Pair Search)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13639" RevisionGUID="64260f00-0624-4afb-95ab-02dca5f7c66c" CreationDate="2015-09-22T18:41:02.790" UserId="15017" Text="Here's another prior art piece referencing off the shelf spacers being used - https://web.archive.org/web/20120823091347/http://www.savagesun4x4.com/enter/fabwerks_-_projects/general-jeep-4x4-projects/jeep_seatriser_install.html from August 23rd 2012.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13640" RevisionGUID="1793d6f4-6e82-4572-a3e9-67d3e12c1a3d" CreationDate="2015-09-22T18:48:10.640" UserId="15017" Text="Here is prior art from 2006 - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is from someone that implemented the spacers and referenced the manufacturer.&#xD;&#xA;https://web.archive.org/web/20060317205722/http://www.stu-offroad.com/body/riser/seatriser-1.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the manufacturer that describes the design from a page in 2004.  https://web.archive.org/web/20041208160708/http://www.buchananworks.com/html/jeep_parts.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13641" RevisionGUID="9c001272-291d-4070-afcb-07764aa30064" CreationDate="2015-09-22T19:00:05.227" UserId="15017" Text="Common person discussion 8 years ago on how to do this yourself.  https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080227061412AAhTBPU" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13642" RevisionGUID="caf4e3e3-e82a-4864-a33b-def78abd06cc" CreationDate="2015-09-22T21:25:42.640" UserId="15017" Text="Here is a discussion from 12-22-2009 explaining exactly how to make these spacers with multiple responses from others amending the design with additional ideas.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.jkowners.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20378" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13641" RevisionGUID="dcecffd9-41c2-47e6-a39f-727f989addec" CreationDate="2015-09-22T21:26:06.997" UserId="15017" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="&quot;Common&quot; person discussion 8 years ago on how to do this yourself.  https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080227061412AAhTBPU" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13643" RevisionGUID="5b829606-9b6f-43e5-8d73-8d67f068fdfc" CreationDate="2015-09-22T21:48:43.490" UserId="15017" Text="Here is a thread from JK-Forum started June 18th, 2008 with over 130 messages prior to the priority date discussing how to make these and install.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.jk-forum.com/forums/jk-write-ups-39/rear-seat-angle-adjustment-write-up-44784/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some of the images as a highlight to this thread, all in 2008/2009. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Picture of washers in place for this use.][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![Picture of spacer in use.][2]][2] &#xD;&#xA;[![Picture of parts the person purchased][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;[![Picture of a spacer made for this purpose][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;[![Before spacer picture][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;[![After spacer picture][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/WPWot.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/GIkQf.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/RrlnE.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/JXXdW.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/oqvNC.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Wt848.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13644" RevisionGUID="9b95280a-79e6-4e59-8908-7aa6e1e302a3" CreationDate="2015-09-22T23:46:07.113" UserId="15054" Text="I just learned that my idea for a Tear-apart stress relief doll already exists and is patented &#xD;&#xA;My version has 1 significant difference, can I legally produce  and sell mine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33186" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13644" RevisionGUID="9b95280a-79e6-4e59-8908-7aa6e1e302a3" CreationDate="2015-09-22T23:46:07.113" UserId="15054" Text="Can I make my version of a patented product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33187" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13644" RevisionGUID="9b95280a-79e6-4e59-8908-7aa6e1e302a3" CreationDate="2015-09-22T23:46:07.113" UserId="15054" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13646" RevisionGUID="714eb81d-306c-498d-bdac-af148486e626" CreationDate="2015-09-23T10:02:53.723" UserId="4959" Text="I would like some help finding prior art for [US20150262138][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent is about a Bitcoin &quot;tip button&quot; and the abstract describes it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;A system and method for transaction bitcoin is described. Bitcoin can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be sent to an email address. No miner's fee is paid by a host computer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; system. Hot wallet functionality is provided that transfers values of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; some Bitcoin addresses to a vault for purposes of security. A private&#xD;&#xA;&gt; key of a Bitcoin address of the vault is split and distributed to keep&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the vault secure. Instant exchange allows for merchants and customers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to lock in a local currency price. A vault has multiple email&#xD;&#xA;&gt; addresses to authorize a transfer of bitcoin out of the vault. User&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can opt to have private keys stored in locations that are under their&#xD;&#xA;&gt; control. A tip button rewards content creators for their efforts. A&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bitcoin exchange allows for users to set prices that they are willing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to sell or buy bitcoin and execute such trades.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know ChangeTip launched Tip.Me around [November 4, 2014][2] while CoinBase launched their tip button at around [November 18, 2014][3]. Are there any earlier prior-art aside from ChangeTip?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=8&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=OR&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=Coinbase.AS.&amp;s2=%22Cite%20Brian%20Cohen%20or%20CoinTelegraph%20(Esquivalience)%22.DRTX,DETD.&amp;OS=AN/Coinbase%20OR%20/%22Cite%20Brian%20Cohen%20or%20CoinTelegraph%20(Esquivalience)%20%22&amp;RS=AN/Coinbase%20OR%20/%22Cite%20Brian%20Cohen%20or%20CoinTelegraph%20(Esquivalience)%22&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/17998/changetip-introduces-tip-me-the-easiest-way-to-tip-ever/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.coindesk.com/coinbase-launches-one-click-bitcoin-tipping-tool/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33195" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13646" RevisionGUID="714eb81d-306c-498d-bdac-af148486e626" CreationDate="2015-09-23T10:02:53.723" UserId="4959" Text="PRIOR ART REQUEST: US20150262138 “Tip Button” (for Bitcoin)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33196" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13646" RevisionGUID="714eb81d-306c-498d-bdac-af148486e626" CreationDate="2015-09-23T10:02:53.723" UserId="4959" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="b8fa0461-d26c-41f1-864f-07a0de227103" CreationDate="2015-09-23T14:06:38.573" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and formatting." Text="I would like to know if the *Co-occurrence Histograms of Oriented Gradients* (CoHOG) algorithm is patented. A [paper][1] on it was published in 2009, and there seems to be a related patent application ([US 2012/0057787 A1][2]) with a later publication date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-92957-4_4&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120057787" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33203" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="b8fa0461-d26c-41f1-864f-07a0de227103" CreationDate="2015-09-23T14:06:38.573" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and formatting." Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;data-processing-software&gt;&lt;us20120057787&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13649" RevisionGUID="db38b6b0-59ee-47c0-8c8c-cf004dd7576d" CreationDate="2015-09-23T14:37:54.900" UserId="11394" Text="Robert is correct - you have not provided enough information for your questions to be answered, but it is unlikely that you could provide enough information here for the question to be answered definitively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An outline of the answer follows. Let's say the old (prior art reference) patented stress-relief doll has parts A, B, and C. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your stress relief doll has parts A, B, and D, where your 1 significant difference is changing an element in the claim, i.e., C -&gt; D, then you *might* be able to get a patent and make your stress-relief doll. Even if your invention is patentable over this reference, there may be more prior art which you haven't found yet - the USPTO examiners are highly-trained searchers, and may find things you didn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your stress relief doll has parts A, B, C, and D, where your 1 significant difference is an improvement on the prior art patent, then even if your invention is patentable over the reference you *cannot* make, use, or sell your invention without taking a license from the patent owner of the prior art doll while the prior art patent is still in effect, even if you hold a patent for your own invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because a patent is not a right to make, use, or sell your invention, but rather a right to block others from making, using, or selling your invention. Similarly, if the other patent holder thought your patent was a great idea, they would not be able to copy your invention (legally) without taking a license from you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aldo&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13649" RevisionGUID="adf7cbd2-3a13-42b4-99d6-0f930716f56f" CreationDate="2015-09-23T16:35:25.667" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 20 characters in body" Text="You have not provided enough information for your questions to be answered, but it is unlikely that you could provide enough information here for the question to be answered definitively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An outline of the answer follows. Let's say the old (prior art reference) patented stress-relief doll has parts A, B, and C. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your stress relief doll has parts A, B, and D, where your 1 significant difference is changing an element in the claim, i.e., C -&gt; D, then you *might* be able to get a patent and make your stress-relief doll. Even if your invention is patentable over this reference, there may be more prior art which you haven't found yet - the USPTO examiners are highly-trained searchers, and may find things you didn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your stress relief doll has parts A, B, C, and D, where your 1 significant difference is an improvement on the prior art patent, then even if your invention is patentable over the reference you *cannot* make, use, or sell your invention without taking a license from the patent owner of the prior art doll while the prior art patent is still in effect, even if you hold a patent for your own invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because a patent is not a right to make, use, or sell your invention, but rather a right to block others from making, using, or selling your invention. Similarly, if the other patent holder thought your patent was a great idea, they would not be able to copy your invention (legally) without taking a license from you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aldo&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13651" RevisionGUID="4205529b-3d5b-41b6-b448-32c82fd06dbd" CreationDate="2015-09-23T19:01:37.130" UserId="13706" Text="Most importantly, DO NOT file a patent application with LegalZoom or any other cut-rate self-directed services, especially when it comes to this type of technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with these LegalZoom patent services, and the like is, that they lure inventors into believing that they can get solid patent protection for cheap. In fact, the sad reality is that patent applications drafted this way offer effectively no patent protection and have little chance of withstanding the examination process. Plus, the nature of the patent system makes it such that inventors won’t know this until it’s too late and their patent rights are irrevocably lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following blog post discusses the perils of LegalZoom in great detail:&#xD;&#xA;[http://www.patentsdemystified.com/is-it-safe-to-use-legalzoom-to-file-a-patent-application/][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be best to talk with a patent attorney about this before doing anything. Typically, you can find one who will give you a free consultation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentsdemystified.com/is-it-safe-to-use-legalzoom-to-file-a-patent-application/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13652" RevisionGUID="99129901-9628-41e8-964f-ba6bda6ba276" CreationDate="2015-09-23T19:33:50.477" UserId="15062" Text="the reference to the &quot;Patent&quot; that you cited isn't actually a granted patent, it's only an application that has been published by the USPTO. &#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in submitting what you have done so that the patent examiners are aware of it, you can do it by following these directions: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/third-party-preissuance-submissions " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13653" RevisionGUID="a142fd85-05d6-443b-81ec-a9006a343325" CreationDate="2015-09-23T19:39:33.657" UserId="15062" Text="Nope. &#xD;&#xA;The underlying law for patentability (35 USC 102) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—&#xD;&#xA;(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or **in public use**, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if you are trying to patent something thats already known and used, you're out of luck. If you want to patent the practice of using something known for a new (and unknown) purpose, you can patent the method of using a previously known thing for that new purpose." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13654" RevisionGUID="041b0e79-e5dc-4c4e-ba5b-be895f170587" CreationDate="2015-09-23T19:45:24.137" UserId="13843" Text="I understand that if I send letters to companies asking if they want to license my patent, I risk a company seeking a summary judgment against me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of licensing my patent, if I want to sell the patent outright, do I still risk a summary judgment action, and if so, is there some verbiage I can use to avoid this risk? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to sell the patent outright, I do not want to sue anyone.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33215" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13654" RevisionGUID="041b0e79-e5dc-4c4e-ba5b-be895f170587" CreationDate="2015-09-23T19:45:24.137" UserId="13843" Text="Avoiding Summary Judgement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33216" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13654" RevisionGUID="041b0e79-e5dc-4c4e-ba5b-be895f170587" CreationDate="2015-09-23T19:45:24.137" UserId="13843" Text="&lt;sell&gt;&lt;summary&gt;&lt;judgment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13655" RevisionGUID="9685bc9d-968a-4864-83e3-9216cc94f954" CreationDate="2015-09-23T19:53:56.497" UserId="15062" Text="Generally, a product needs to do perform and every step or element recited in the claim to be infringing. In the cases you mentioned (doing either the job of the sending or receiving device, but not the other), you would not be considered to be infringing because you are not performing each and every step included within the claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the exhaustion doctrine, you would have to have an attorney look at the specifics of the product to be sure. Because you are (in that case) performing each and every step as recited in the claim, you _could_ be considered to be infringing, but exhaustion could be a viable argument depending on the specifics of the product. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13629" RevisionGUID="582fbd20-84b0-4580-ad86-ab6a5b0fc5e6" CreationDate="2015-09-23T19:59:34.340" UserId="3127" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO 2014/170646 A1][1] granted and pending patents: GB1307148.5, GB1500104.3 and GB1500105.0 to What3Words Limited:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the video I had published on [YouTube on 10th of April 2013][2] (just 9 days before this patent application) that showed 5 words for Mt. Everest's location:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;![wcodes example][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another record is available from [archive.org][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I get these patents invalidated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014170646A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://youtu.be/LfGeIWCeeKU?t=321&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Ny9Fv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/HtFGX.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://web.archive.org/web/*/wcodes.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13656" RevisionGUID="f8fff732-e80a-449c-addf-5e73bbfd08dc" CreationDate="2015-09-23T20:00:12.160" UserId="13706" Text="Assuming you have access to the file on PAIR, any updates should essentially be in real time.  In other words, once an office action response (or other document) is filed in a publicly available case, that filling immediately becomes public." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13629" RevisionGUID="dc85af98-b6d6-4743-8290-4fb709ceed5e" CreationDate="2015-09-23T20:08:32.250" UserId="3127" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO 2014/170646 A1][1] granted and pending patents: GB1307148.5, GB1500104.3 and GB1500105.0 to What3Words Limited:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the screenshot from the video I had published on [YouTube on 10th of April 2013][2] that showed 5 words for Mt. Everest's location:&#xD;&#xA;[![Video screenshot showing 5 words for a geo co-ordinate][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also here is the UK-IPO patent application record's screenshot **filed just 9 days after my video**:&#xD;&#xA;[![UK IPO patent filing screenshot with application date][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another record is available from [archive.org][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I get these patents invalidated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014170646A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://youtu.be/LfGeIWCeeKU?t=321&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Ny9Fv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/RJmMx.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://web.archive.org/web/*/wcodes.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33221" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13654" RevisionGUID="68dba82c-7032-47f3-a1a6-73b3b22df573" CreationDate="2015-09-23T20:27:30.453" UserId="13843" Comment="spelling fix" Text="Avoiding Summary Judgment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13629" RevisionGUID="e4e1f4f2-f99a-485c-8c48-285e38542043" CreationDate="2015-09-23T22:13:41.743" UserId="3127" Comment="added 216 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In reference to the patent: [PCT/GB2014/051152][6] [WO 2014/170646 A1][1] granted and pending patents: GB1307148.5, GB1500104.3 and GB1500105.0 to What3Words Limited:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the screenshot from the video I had published on [YouTube on 10th of April 2013][2] that showed 5 words for Mt. Everest's location:&#xD;&#xA;[![Video screenshot showing 5 words for a geo co-ordinate][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also here is the UK-IPO patent application record's screenshot **filed just 9 days after my video**:&#xD;&#xA;[![UK IPO patent filing screenshot with application date][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another record is available from [archive.org][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I get these patents invalidated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried submitting a `third party observation` but was unable to since the `priority date` is past 28 months limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014170646A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://youtu.be/LfGeIWCeeKU?t=321&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Ny9Fv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/RJmMx.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://web.archive.org/web/*/wcodes.org&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO14/170646" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33223" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13629" RevisionGUID="e4e1f4f2-f99a-485c-8c48-285e38542043" CreationDate="2015-09-23T22:13:41.743" UserId="3127" Comment="added 216 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;third-party-submission&gt;&lt;wo2014170646a1&gt;&lt;gb1307148.5&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13657" RevisionGUID="54da1464-adf9-4de1-8be8-3f56d0f1c87b" CreationDate="2015-09-23T22:19:06.193" UserId="13706" Text="You are thinking of them filing a &quot;Declaratory Judgement Action&quot; (DJ Action) against you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bar for opening yourself up to a DJ Action is really low, so sending letters out without at least some advice from an attorney is not a good idea. An attorney will be able to help craft the right &quot;verbiage&quot; that will minimize risk of being sued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, consider working with a patent broker to help sell your patent. They often have direct connections with companies looking to buy IP." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13658" RevisionGUID="9bfca344-8b65-4768-8abd-82688fc96232" CreationDate="2015-09-23T22:37:22.943" UserId="13706" Text="It's possible, but depends on the specifics of the method. Talk with a patent attorney to find out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13659" RevisionGUID="48f1c1fd-99cf-4284-9806-0c9d3e29f9ca" CreationDate="2015-09-24T06:41:44.457" UserId="15064" Text="I found a few insurance companies which seem to offer some cover for claims of patent infringement. Here is how they are briefly advertised:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Patent infringement liability insurance is professional liability insurance for manufacturers, users and sellers who are accused of infringing a patent holder’s rights.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read somewhere else that annual premiums for this kind of insurance are in the 1000$-25000$ range.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has any of you ever bought an insurance of such kind? what is your experience?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33232" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13659" RevisionGUID="48f1c1fd-99cf-4284-9806-0c9d3e29f9ca" CreationDate="2015-09-24T06:41:44.457" UserId="15064" Text="Insurance covering claims of patent infringement: has anyone here direct experience?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33233" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13659" RevisionGUID="48f1c1fd-99cf-4284-9806-0c9d3e29f9ca" CreationDate="2015-09-24T06:41:44.457" UserId="15064" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13654" RevisionGUID="645f7847-1035-438f-a88e-4d0282a18958" CreationDate="2015-09-24T13:04:02.457" UserId="13843" Comment="change summary to declaratory" Text="I understand that if I send letters to companies asking if they want to license my patent, I risk a company seeking a declaratory judgment against me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of licensing my patent, if I want to sell the patent outright, do I still risk a declaratory judgment action, and if so, is there some verbiage I can use to avoid this risk? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to sell the patent outright, I do not want to sue anyone.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33241" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13654" RevisionGUID="645f7847-1035-438f-a88e-4d0282a18958" CreationDate="2015-09-24T13:04:02.457" UserId="13843" Comment="change summary to declaratory" Text="Avoiding Declaratory Judgment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33242" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13654" RevisionGUID="645f7847-1035-438f-a88e-4d0282a18958" CreationDate="2015-09-24T13:04:02.457" UserId="13843" Comment="change summary to declaratory" Text="&lt;judgment&gt;&lt;sell&gt;&lt;declaratory&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13663" RevisionGUID="9732be68-c031-42bf-b1aa-b6e51cf9a7d1" CreationDate="2015-09-24T14:29:53.420" UserId="11394" Text="If you have the money to enforce it, a patent allows you to block other people from making, using, or selling your invention without getting a license from you. Revealing your invention is a requirement to get the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you copyright your code, this is almost worthless as another programmer could pretty simply program around your copyright. You would not be able to stop them in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you just keep your code a secret, anyone else can make the same invention, or reverse engineer your invention. You would not be able stop them in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, a patent is the only way to really actively protect your invention in the event that others also discover it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to weigh the relative merits for yourself - do you have the resources and ability to determine whether people would be infringing your invention (you are correct that it is difficult and costly to find and stop infringers)? How hard would it be to reverse engineer or discover your invention if you kept it secret? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you keep your invention secret and someone else does patent it, they may be able to successfully prosecute you for infringing their patent, despite the fact that you invented it first. The US now follows a first-to-file model." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13664" RevisionGUID="2bbc5d44-dbb9-42bd-b904-c4b33cd010a5" CreationDate="2015-09-24T15:34:53.530" UserId="15071" Text="In reference to the patent: [USD675875][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD675875&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What exactly is the patent on this product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33248" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13664" RevisionGUID="2bbc5d44-dbb9-42bd-b904-c4b33cd010a5" CreationDate="2015-09-24T15:34:53.530" UserId="15071" Text="What is the patent specifically protecting on this product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33249" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13664" RevisionGUID="2bbc5d44-dbb9-42bd-b904-c4b33cd010a5" CreationDate="2015-09-24T15:34:53.530" UserId="15071" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13657" RevisionGUID="a0b9928f-ce7b-4762-b4a0-6fad1cdffde9" CreationDate="2015-09-24T16:22:26.697" UserId="13706" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="Yes, it's possible that you can be sued via a &quot;Declaratory Judgement Action&quot; (DJ Action) if you contact companies in the wrong way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bar for opening yourself up to a DJ Action is really low, so sending letters out without at least some advice from an attorney is not a good idea. An attorney will be able to help craft the right &quot;verbiage&quot; that will minimize risk of being sued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, consider working with a patent broker to help sell your patent. They often have direct connections with companies looking to buy IP." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13665" RevisionGUID="a8b2cf04-6a18-442c-94e6-99ae369a4a83" CreationDate="2015-09-24T18:57:54.270" UserId="7833" Text="It is a design patent! A &quot;design patent&quot; protects the way an article looks, whereas it is the &quot;utility patent&quot; that protects the way an article is used and works. So this patent is `protecting` the way the shot container looks (with the condiment compartment...)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13666" RevisionGUID="3daef958-9dd4-40ae-9a57-697bbf85ea58" CreationDate="2015-09-24T19:47:41.873" UserId="15077" Text="Principal engineer at ChangeTip here (https://www.linkedin.com/in/jimlyndon). I actually built the first ever bitcoin tip button for content creators. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tip payment page (Tip.me) was actually launched on July 29th, 2014. The tip.me (bitcoin tip) button was launched on August 28th, 2014. I've attached what they looked like at that time and you can do an image search or other internet archive research to see that they were indeed active then. (we also have our code repository to back us up on that):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![button1][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![button2][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![button3][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was a small update (counter for number of tippers) and marketing push that happened in November, as you remember.  We released our current version 2 in Jan 2015 (which I also built) that included a new look and feel and better integration with our Wordpress plugin: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![tipbuttontoday][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since CoinBase, at least in your abstract above, doesn't actually mention &quot;bitcoin&quot; in their tip button description, you could also look at Flattr's tip buttons, gittip, and I'm sure you could find others.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cheers!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ueQC9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/keFh1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/dH1Os.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/U82B8.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13667" RevisionGUID="9286eb9b-6d79-4cff-ba5f-b276d549d9f1" CreationDate="2015-09-24T21:00:51.093" UserId="15078" Text="The inventor was my Grandfather. I recently discovered this patent online- so I am curious." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33258" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13667" RevisionGUID="9286eb9b-6d79-4cff-ba5f-b276d549d9f1" CreationDate="2015-09-24T21:00:51.093" UserId="15078" Text="Is there any value to this patent? US1808692 A" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33259" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13667" RevisionGUID="9286eb9b-6d79-4cff-ba5f-b276d549d9f1" CreationDate="2015-09-24T21:00:51.093" UserId="15078" Text="&lt;cards-pictures-signs&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13668" RevisionGUID="b4bd3fca-374c-43b3-9901-72e74da4379b" CreationDate="2015-09-24T21:18:37.250" UserId="13706" Text="Assuming this is the patent you are talking about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US1808692A/en to Earl W. Sudduth &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent is long expired and is now public domain, so it does not have any enforceable rights, unfortunately. (Also, there is no way to revive or extend the term of this patent)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13667" RevisionGUID="6b3669d6-5ece-4a94-b688-6defc25fdb6c" CreationDate="2015-09-25T02:11:40.097" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and tagging." Text="The inventor of [US 1,808,692 A][1] was my Grandfather. I recently discovered this patent online, so I am curious about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US1808692" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33262" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13667" RevisionGUID="6b3669d6-5ece-4a94-b688-6defc25fdb6c" CreationDate="2015-09-25T02:11:40.097" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and tagging." Text="Is there any value to this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33263" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13667" RevisionGUID="6b3669d6-5ece-4a94-b688-6defc25fdb6c" CreationDate="2015-09-25T02:11:40.097" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and tagging." Text="&lt;expired-patent&gt;&lt;us1808692&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13669" RevisionGUID="7c9c49e6-86d0-4084-bdf9-85958c80aaa6" CreationDate="2015-09-25T02:29:03.170" UserId="14417" Text="Although this patent was expired by 1950 and is entirely in the public domain, it still affects the modern patent landscape by serving as prior art for new applications, as these citations from recent patents suggest (see the &quot;[Referenced By][1]&quot; section in Google Patents):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Citing Patent     Filing date     Publication date    Applicant                   Title&#xD;&#xA;    US 5,474,016 A    May 31, 1994    Dec 12, 1995        William J. Haney            Overhead barrier warning system for trucks or buses&#xD;&#xA;    US 6,892,502 B1   Mar 27, 2003    May 17, 2005        David A. Hubbell	          Space frame support structure employing weld-free, single-cast structural connectors for highway signs&#xD;&#xA;    US 7,314,020 B1   Dec  9, 2003    Jan  1, 2008        Bill Corker                 Over-height vehicle barriers&#xD;&#xA;    EP 1502999 A1     Jul  6, 2004    Feb  2, 2005        Siemens Aktiengesellschaft  Support for devices and signs for spanning roads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US1808692#forward-citations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33265" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13664" RevisionGUID="8c642fba-92ce-4a76-adec-6638fb626268" CreationDate="2015-09-25T02:31:13.710" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and tagging." Text="In reference to the patent: [US D675,875 S1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD675875&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What exactly is the patent on this product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33266" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13664" RevisionGUID="8c642fba-92ce-4a76-adec-6638fb626268" CreationDate="2015-09-25T02:31:13.710" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and tagging." Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;scope&gt;&lt;usd675875&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13670" RevisionGUID="ad60d25c-eb31-440e-9b61-9569a1c60889" CreationDate="2015-09-25T08:52:29.813" UserId="15080" Text="I'm a non-american individual who wants to apply for patent in USA. My patent is related to energy generation. How much will it cost?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why do patent attorneys' cost very high? Will applying the patent myself reduce the cost? What would be the cost?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33269" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13670" RevisionGUID="ad60d25c-eb31-440e-9b61-9569a1c60889" CreationDate="2015-09-25T08:52:29.813" UserId="15080" Text="US Patent Cost Individual?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33270" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13670" RevisionGUID="ad60d25c-eb31-440e-9b61-9569a1c60889" CreationDate="2015-09-25T08:52:29.813" UserId="15080" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13671" RevisionGUID="d812e2b3-3fa8-47ca-a72a-caf782931c3b" CreationDate="2015-09-25T16:50:20.533" UserId="13706" Text="It’s impossible to give an adequate quote and set of options without detail about how the technology works and a better sense of your business plan moving forward. The variety of options is extremely large. The cost could be from $500 - $30,000 depending on a variety of factors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should talk with a patent attorney about your options and the cots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you might find the following resources helpful when comparing patent attorneys and quotes for patent applications:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.patentsdemystified.com/is-it-safe-to-use-legalzoom-to-file-a-patent-application/ (Starts with a discussion of why legal LegalZoom is a bad idea for patents, but also helps you understand how not to over and under-pay for a patent application).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.patentsdemystified.com/chapter-8-picking-a-patent-attorney/ (Resources for comparing and screening patent attorneys).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13672" RevisionGUID="ff3dde73-6021-4bf7-bf79-3cdc018782f2" CreationDate="2015-09-25T17:23:31.073" UserId="15083" Text="The company I am currently working on is patenting a software feature that I have used in my private project. My private project is very old and has been using this technique/feature for a long time. The company in question came across this recently and decided to patent it.&#xD;&#xA;What are my options to avoid having to rewrite the whole feature in a new way (i.e. invent a new idea to keep my software working)?&#xD;&#xA;If there are no options, is making the software public going to work?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33273" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13672" RevisionGUID="ff3dde73-6021-4bf7-bf79-3cdc018782f2" CreationDate="2015-09-25T17:23:31.073" UserId="15083" Text="How to prevent patent on a software feature which you have in your private project?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33274" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13672" RevisionGUID="ff3dde73-6021-4bf7-bf79-3cdc018782f2" CreationDate="2015-09-25T17:23:31.073" UserId="15083" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13671" RevisionGUID="2888b27e-e2a5-483a-9781-cf9b54af330f" CreationDate="2015-09-25T18:15:35.883" UserId="13706" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="It’s impossible to give an adequate quote and set of options without detail about how the technology works and a better sense of your business plan moving forward. The variety of options is extremely large. The cost could be from $500 - $30,000 depending on a variety of factors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should talk with a patent attorney about your options and the costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you might find the following resources helpful when comparing patent attorneys and quotes for patent applications:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.patentsdemystified.com/is-it-safe-to-use-legalzoom-to-file-a-patent-application/ (Starts with a discussion of why legal LegalZoom is a bad idea for patents, but also helps you understand how not to over and under-pay for a patent application).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.patentsdemystified.com/chapter-8-picking-a-patent-attorney/ (Resources for comparing and screening patent attorneys).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13671" RevisionGUID="aa6b1725-c7e6-4ebc-9b2e-16b3e938155c" CreationDate="2015-09-25T18:22:35.813" UserId="13706" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="It’s impossible to give an adequate quote and set of options without detail about how the technology works and a better sense of your business plan moving forward. The variety of options is extremely large. The cost to draft and file a patent application could be from $500 - $30,000 (US) depending on a variety of factors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should talk with a patent attorney about your options and the costs. Drafting and/or filing the application yourself would reduce costs, but is not advisable if you want viable protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you might find the following resources helpful when comparing patent attorneys and quotes for patent applications:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.patentsdemystified.com/is-it-safe-to-use-legalzoom-to-file-a-patent-application/ (Starts with a discussion of why legal LegalZoom and other cut-rate or do-it-yourself services are a bad idea for patents, but also helps you understand how not to over and under-pay for a patent application).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.patentsdemystified.com/chapter-8-picking-a-patent-attorney/ (Resources for comparing and screening patent attorneys).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13629" RevisionGUID="bc28ebe6-61c2-4215-bcbd-c4a40c9e0034" CreationDate="2015-09-25T20:02:31.100" UserId="3127" Comment="added 370 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [PCT/GB2014/051152][6] [WO 2014/170646 A1][1] granted and pending patents: GB1307148.5, GB1500104.3 and GB1500105.0 to What3Words Limited:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the screenshot from the video I had published on [YouTube on 10th of April 2013][2] that showed 5 words for Mt. Everest's location:&#xD;&#xA;[![Video screenshot showing 5 words for a geo co-ordinate][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also here is the UK-IPO patent application record's screenshot **filed just 9 days after my video**:&#xD;&#xA;[![UK IPO patent filing screenshot with application date][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another record is available from [archive.org][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I get these patents invalidated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried submitting a `third party observation` but was unable to since the `priority date` is past 28 months limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: I submitted my documents under the `third party observation` to the UK IPO office via email as per [Submitting observations concerning the patentability of an invention][7]. I then received an auto generated email acknowledging the receipt.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014170646A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://youtu.be/LfGeIWCeeKU?t=321&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Ny9Fv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/RJmMx.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://web.archive.org/web/*/wcodes.org&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO14/170646&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/submitting-observations-concerning-the-patentability-of-an-invention" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13629" RevisionGUID="b5c901ce-fc6d-4d06-af77-2558ee581d0b" CreationDate="2015-09-25T20:24:38.617" UserId="3127" Comment="added 202 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [PCT/GB2014/051152][6] [WO 2014/170646 A1][1] granted and pending patents: GB1307148.5, GB1500104.3 and GB1500105.0 to What3Words Limited:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the screenshot from the video I had published on [YouTube on 10th of April 2013][2] that showed 5 words for Mt. Everest's location:&#xD;&#xA;[![Video screenshot showing 5 words for a geo co-ordinate][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally here is crowd funding campaign page on [IndieGogo started on 11th of April 2013][8] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also here is the UK-IPO patent application record's screenshot **filed by What3Word just 9 days after my video**:&#xD;&#xA;[![UK IPO patent filing screenshot with application date][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another record is available from [archive.org][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only effective difference is that What3Words uses three words while my system would take up around 5 words - but mine would be more simpler and thus more effective as it would use words from a much smaller set of only 1024 very common and unambiguous words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I get these patents invalidated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried submitting a `third party observation` but was unable to since the `priority date` is past 28 months limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**: I submitted my documents under the `third party observation` to the UK IPO office via email as per [Submitting observations concerning the patentability of an invention][7]. I then received an auto generated email acknowledging the receipt.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014170646A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://youtu.be/LfGeIWCeeKU?t=321&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Ny9Fv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/RJmMx.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://web.archive.org/web/*/wcodes.org&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO14/170646&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/submitting-observations-concerning-the-patentability-of-an-invention&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/wcode-encode-with-words/x/2245741#/story" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13670" RevisionGUID="102d1d62-a189-4160-81ad-783d6fe3de07" CreationDate="2015-09-26T00:21:07.683" UserId="13706" Comment="More precise title and grammar improvement." Text="I'm a non-american individual who wants to apply for patent in USA. My invention is related to energy generation. How much will it cost?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is working with a patent attorney so expensive? Will applying for the patent myself reduce the cost? What would be the cost?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33281" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13670" RevisionGUID="102d1d62-a189-4160-81ad-783d6fe3de07" CreationDate="2015-09-26T00:21:07.683" UserId="13706" Comment="More precise title and grammar improvement." Text="Cost to draft and file patent application in the U.S.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33282" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13670" RevisionGUID="102d1d62-a189-4160-81ad-783d6fe3de07" CreationDate="2015-09-26T00:21:07.683" Comment="Proposed by 13706 approved by 9802, 14417 edit id of 1890" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13673" RevisionGUID="bfbbda2d-2ee3-45ff-aec1-498b3c4ffa38" CreationDate="2015-09-26T04:46:20.623" UserId="3500" Text="How did the company &quot;come across&quot; the feature?  Was it by reviewing your &quot;private project?&quot;  If so, then maybe your project wasn't really that private and itself constitutes prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, yes, making the software public (and preserving any documentation you have that demonstrates the age of your solution) should go a long way towards ultimately preventing someone else from patenting it.  You may want to notify both the company and the patent office of this, once you publish it and document the fact that you did it a while ago.  Then you have the option of starting what's called an &quot;interference,&quot; which could result in you getting any patent, or in preventing the company from getting the patent.  If you're happy preventing any patent from issuing, then maybe you can do some internet research on your own and take a stab at it.  You'd probably still benefit from the assistance of an attorney.  If you'd like to go the interference route, then you should certainly consider an attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm worried about the fact that you work &quot;on&quot; this company.  You may want to make sure that this scenario isn't affected by your relationship with the company." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13674" RevisionGUID="46868a29-1724-4229-bbc1-fe0e1702c186" CreationDate="2015-09-26T10:30:14.087" UserId="15088" Text="Before ChangeTip, there was @PikaPay, also a bitcoin tip solution.  Was a user since Oct '13.  This clearly predates." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13629" RevisionGUID="2d663677-e407-4ea3-85b4-b299d986b5f9" CreationDate="2015-09-26T12:08:46.193" UserId="3127" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [PCT/GB2014/051152][6] [WO 2014/170646 A1][1] granted and pending patents: GB1307148.5, GB1500104.3 and GB1500105.0 to What3Words Limited:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the screenshot from the video I had published on [YouTube on 10th of April 2013][2] that showed 5 words for Mt. Everest's location:&#xD;&#xA;[![Video screenshot showing 5 words for a geo co-ordinate][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally here is crowd funding campaign page on [IndieGogo started on 11th of April 2013][8] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also here is the UK-IPO patent application record's screenshot **filed by What3Word just 9 days after my video**:&#xD;&#xA;[![UK IPO patent filing screenshot with application date][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another record is available from [archive.org][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only effective difference is that What3Words uses three words while my system would take up around 5 words - but mine is more simpler and thus more effective as it uses words from a much smaller set of only 1024 very common and unambiguous words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I get these patents invalidated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried submitting a `third party observation` but was unable to since the `priority date` is past 28 months limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**: I submitted my documents under the `third party observation` to the UK IPO office via email as per [Submitting observations concerning the patentability of an invention][7]. I then received an auto generated email acknowledging the receipt.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014170646A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://youtu.be/LfGeIWCeeKU?t=321&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Ny9Fv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/RJmMx.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://web.archive.org/web/*/wcodes.org&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO14/170646&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/submitting-observations-concerning-the-patentability-of-an-invention&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/wcode-encode-with-words/x/2245741#/story" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13629" RevisionGUID="ce9efbb9-f94e-45f8-9ebd-9e331499bc9b" CreationDate="2015-09-26T12:14:23.677" UserId="3127" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [PCT/GB2014/051152][6] [WO 2014/170646 A1][1] granted and pending patents: GB1307148.5, GB1500104.3 and GB1500105.0 to What3Words Limited:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the screenshot from the video I had published on [YouTube on 10th of April 2013][2] that showed 5 words for Mt. Everest's location:&#xD;&#xA;[![Video screenshot showing 5 words for a geo co-ordinate][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally here is crowd funding campaign page on [IndieGogo started on 11th of April 2013][8] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also here is the UK-IPO patent application record's screenshot **filed by What3Words just 9 days after my video**:&#xD;&#xA;[![UK IPO patent filing screenshot with application date][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another record is available from [archive.org][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only effective difference is that What3Words uses three words while my system would take up around 5 words - but mine is more simpler and thus more effective as it uses words from a much smaller set of only 1024 very common and unambiguous words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I get these patents invalidated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried submitting a `third party observation` but was unable to since the `priority date` is past 28 months limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**: I submitted my documents under the `third party observation` to the UK IPO office via email as per [Submitting observations concerning the patentability of an invention][7]. I then received an auto generated email acknowledging the receipt.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014170646A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://youtu.be/LfGeIWCeeKU?t=321&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Ny9Fv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/RJmMx.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://web.archive.org/web/*/wcodes.org&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO14/170646&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/submitting-observations-concerning-the-patentability-of-an-invention&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/wcode-encode-with-words/x/2245741#/story" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13675" RevisionGUID="22556c61-e9aa-4d4a-8648-ffe9f044a05c" CreationDate="2015-09-26T16:26:23.027" UserId="15054" Text="Can anyone tell me if this patent has expired or how I can find out if it has? us5195917 tear apart stress relief doll.&#xD;&#xA;How long is a patent good for, is it the same for every patented item/product? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33288" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13675" RevisionGUID="22556c61-e9aa-4d4a-8648-ffe9f044a05c" CreationDate="2015-09-26T16:26:23.027" UserId="15054" Text="Had this patent expired...us5195917" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33289" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13675" RevisionGUID="22556c61-e9aa-4d4a-8648-ffe9f044a05c" CreationDate="2015-09-26T16:26:23.027" UserId="15054" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13675" RevisionGUID="641fd73c-86bb-415d-929d-501bacf42708" CreationDate="2015-09-27T01:07:35.807" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, added references, improved tagging." Text="Can anyone tell me if this patent has expired or how I can find out if it has? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US 5,195,917 A][1] tear apart stress relief doll.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How long is a patent good for, is it the same for every patented item/product?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5195917" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33294" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13675" RevisionGUID="641fd73c-86bb-415d-929d-501bacf42708" CreationDate="2015-09-27T01:07:35.807" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, added references, improved tagging." Text="Has patent US 5,195,917 A expired?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33295" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13675" RevisionGUID="641fd73c-86bb-415d-929d-501bacf42708" CreationDate="2015-09-27T01:07:35.807" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, added references, improved tagging." Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;us5195917&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13677" RevisionGUID="5a3cf25e-a204-4b7e-9f13-2d404e1906a5" CreationDate="2015-09-27T01:59:10.993" UserId="15003" Text="Since the patent was filed prior to June 8, 1995, it should receive the maximum of either 20 years from the filing date May 20, 1992 or 17 years from grant date Mar 23, 1993. Based on this, it should have expired on May 20, 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, for all patents filed after June 7, 1995, it is 20 years from the filing date. However, there may be term extensions available if the underlying invention requires approval from a government agency (e.g., FDA)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13678" RevisionGUID="e7d5a61b-e9ef-4f0f-be81-4917c9cc476a" CreationDate="2015-09-27T02:40:46.400" UserId="15092" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7083653][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7083653&#xD;&#xA;  Does this mean that Charles Jennings is the only one able to make an artificial kidney? If one is to use a personal design is that legal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33298" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13678" RevisionGUID="e7d5a61b-e9ef-4f0f-be81-4917c9cc476a" CreationDate="2015-09-27T02:40:46.400" UserId="15092" Text="Is it Legal to make an artificial kidney despite the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33299" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13678" RevisionGUID="e7d5a61b-e9ef-4f0f-be81-4917c9cc476a" CreationDate="2015-09-27T02:40:46.400" UserId="15092" Text="&lt;inventor&gt;&lt;invention&gt;&lt;medicine&gt;&lt;health&gt;&lt;healthcare&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13679" RevisionGUID="c83276fc-3d60-483d-b2ce-19ffbf10a681" CreationDate="2015-09-27T03:34:53.367" UserId="15087" Text="I am about to apply for a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The invention is an advertising sign.  It consists of four components that when assembled, create a frame, in which an advertising media/medium is inserted into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The joints at which the four components are assembled is unique to my invention although the parts that make up each of the four components are not my invention and are freely available to everyone (they are nothing new, unique or current patents).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way these components are joined/connected/assembled is my idea, and as far as I know has not been patented.  Each component has a groove that facilitates the holding/placing of advertising media/medium, and together with the other four components makes up the system, which is unique.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I want to commercially exploit my invention is the complete system.  I have no intention of commercially exploiting the joint/connection/assembly of the two/four frame components.  Obviously I would love to hold the patent for this particular connection in all applications, in all industries, worldwide, however it is not my primary concern or business to exploit owning the patent for this joint/connection/assembly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is...&#xD;&#xA;Should I patent the joint/connection/assembly of these two/four components,&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;Should I patent the system of the joint/connection/assembly of these four components with the inserted support for media component,&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;Should I patent the system of the joint/connection/assembly of these four components with the inserted media/medium for the application of advertising signage only?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if I was to successfully be granted the patent for this joint/connection/assembly or successfully get the patent for the system as a whole, is another person then able to simply alter the dimensions of the product, such as make the groove thinner and insert a thinner advertising board, and therefore not infringe on my specific patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33301" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13679" RevisionGUID="c83276fc-3d60-483d-b2ce-19ffbf10a681" CreationDate="2015-09-27T03:34:53.367" UserId="15087" Text="Should i patent my invention as a system OR patent the components of this system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33302" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13679" RevisionGUID="c83276fc-3d60-483d-b2ce-19ffbf10a681" CreationDate="2015-09-27T03:34:53.367" UserId="15087" Text="&lt;system&gt;&lt;components&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13545" RevisionGUID="83f70742-a927-406f-8ebe-a4d97b3c30ff" CreationDate="2015-09-27T12:09:15.873" UserId="14417" Comment="Added USPTO information." Text="The &quot;Filed&quot; field in the grant publication says &quot;Jan. 3, 1966&quot;. However, other information from the cover sheet conflicts with this date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. No domestic benefits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Reading through the patent, it does not claim any domestic benefit, so it was not a continuation, continuation-in-part or divisional of any other application. This grant was based on a single patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The Issue Date&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  The issue date of the patent is July 25, 1989. If the &quot;Filed&quot; date were correct, then this patent would have taken 33 years, 6 months and 22 days to examine. An examiner at the USPTO could have been handed this application on his first day at the job in 1966, spent his entire career 30-year examining it, and then handed it his next of kin in 1986 to complete the job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The References Cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  All cited references in this document are after 1966 but before January 3, 1986:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [3,394,366][1]  7/1968 Dye&#xD;&#xA;  - [3,443,075][2]  5/1969 Gloess&#xD;&#xA;  - [3,613,066][3] 10/1971 Cooreman&#xD;&#xA;  - [4,277,783][4]  7/1981 Samoieri et al.&#xD;&#xA;  - [4,305,071][5] 12/1981 Bell et al.&#xD;&#xA;  - [4,346,376][6] 11/1984 Mallow&#xD;&#xA;  - [4,517,559][7]  5/1985 Deitch et al.&#xD;&#xA;  - [4,542,375][8]  9/1985 Alles et al.&#xD;&#xA;  - [4,613,987][9]  9/1986 Keverian (Priority date: Feb 15, 1985)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The Serial Number&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Table of Filing Years and Patent Application Serial Numbers][10]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - 1960    4    000,001&#xD;&#xA;  - ...&#xD;&#xA;  - 1965    4    423,000&#xD;&#xA;  - 1966    4    518,000&#xD;&#xA;  - 1967    4    606,000&#xD;&#xA;  - 1968    4    695,000&#xD;&#xA;  - 1969    4    788,000&#xD;&#xA;  - ...&#xD;&#xA;  - 1979    6    000,001&#xD;&#xA;  - 1980    6    108,971&#xD;&#xA;  - 1981    6    221,957&#xD;&#xA;  - 1982    6    336,510&#xD;&#xA;  - 1983    6    454,954&#xD;&#xA;  - 1984    6    567,457&#xD;&#xA;  - 1985    6    688,174&#xD;&#xA;  - **1986    6    815,454**&#xD;&#xA;  - 1987    7    000,001&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; As you can see above, a patent application filed in 1966 would have had a serial number between 04/518,000 and 04/606,000. The patent application referred to here has serial number 06/816,065, which means there is no question that the filing date was in 1986.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. [Public Pair][11] Transaction History&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Looking in the Transaction History, we see that the case was first docketed to the examiner on May 3, 1986, which is consistent with the other observations above, which point to 1986.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 05-30-1986  Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU&#xD;&#xA; - 10-10-1986  Non-Final Rejection&#xD;&#xA; - 10-20-1986  Mail Non-Final Rejection&#xD;&#xA; - 04-23-1987  Request for Extension of Time - Granted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Maintenance Fees - Bibliographic Data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The bibliographic data from the Maintenance Fees screen shows the correct Filing Date, January 3, 1986 (also note the serial number is an 06/ series):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![Maintenance Fees - Bibliographic Data][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Public Pair - Bibliographic Data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The bibliographic data from the Public Pair screen also shows the correct Filing Date, January 3, 1986:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![Public Pair - Bibliographic Data][13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on all of this evidence, which is publicly available in the USPTO databases, it is clear that the correct priority date of the patent is January 3, 1986. The 1966 date is an obvious typo in the cover sheet, which is known to happen from time to time. If someone is interested in correcting it, they can submit a correction according to [Section 323.01(a)   Typographical Errors in Cover Sheet][14], and the USPTO will make the necessary correction to the cover sheet in the historical database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that the correct priority date is established, what are the legal ramifications of deliberately misrepresenting information about a patent? Well, in a normal online forum, probably nothing. However, this forum has the blessing of the USPTO to identify and submit third party observations for prior art. Misrepresentation of information here would potentially fall within the scope of deceptive intent leading to Inequitable Conduct as described in this article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Woods, AG. 2014. [Withholding Information Contradicting A Legal Argument Or Misrepresenting Information Supporting That Argument May Rise To Inequitable Conduct][15]. *Mondaq Business Briefing*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** The [Espacenet][16] database had also propagated the incorrect priority date to their records. It was easy to report and correct, and their system now lists the correct priority date:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Corrected Priority Date][17]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** Correcting the USPTO database is also possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [323.01(a)][18]   Typographical Errors in Cover Sheet&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A party who wishes to correct a typographical error on a recorded&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cover sheet must submit the following to the Assignment Services&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Division:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     (A) a copy of the originally recorded assignment document (or other document affecting title);&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     (B) a corrected cover sheet; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     (C) the required fee for each application or patent to be corrected ([37 CFR 3.41][19]).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; See [37 CFR 3.34][19]. The party requesting correction should also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; submit a copy of the original cover sheet, to facilitate comparison of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the corrected cover sheet with the originally recorded document.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The party filing the corrected cover sheet should check the box titled&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Other&quot; in the area of the sheet requesting &quot;Nature of Conveyance,&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and indicate that the submission is to correct an error in a cover&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sheet previously recorded. The party should also identify the reel and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; frame numbers (if known), and the nature of the correction (e.g.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;correction to the spelling of assignor’s name&quot; or &quot;correction of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application number or patent number&quot; ). The Office will then compare&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the corrected cover sheet with the original cover sheet and the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; originally recorded assignment document (or other document affecting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; title) to determine whether the correction is typographical in nature.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the error is typographical in nature, the Assignment Services&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Division will record the corrected cover sheet and correct the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Assignment Historical Database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, there would be a $100 fee to file a request for correction, but in this case the error was made by the USPTO, and they will waive the fee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US3394366&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US3443075&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US3613066&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4277783&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4305071&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4346376&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4517559&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4542375&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4613987&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/filingyr.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/0qqV1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Grw3Z.png&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s323.html#d0e19676&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/284096/Patent/Withholding+Information+Contradicting+a+Legal+Argument+or+Misrepresenting+Information+Supporting+That+Argument+May+Rise+to+Inequitable+Conduct&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&amp;NR=4851616A&amp;KC=A&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=19890725&amp;DB=&amp;locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/4GRUc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s323.html&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e336508" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13681" RevisionGUID="2a857593-2fb1-4c18-add8-0bfba10dba64" CreationDate="2015-09-27T18:15:50.710" UserId="15094" Text="In reference to the patent: [US4734658][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4734658&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;hi,&#xD;&#xA;we are from india, we wish to use this Patent in one of our product.&#xD;&#xA;can we use this patent free of charge or we have to pay some amount ?&#xD;&#xA;Br,&#xD;&#xA;KP&#xD;&#xA;karunesh.ind@gmail.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33306" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13681" RevisionGUID="2a857593-2fb1-4c18-add8-0bfba10dba64" CreationDate="2015-09-27T18:15:50.710" UserId="15094" Text="patent: [US4734658] Is it avalible free of change in Commercial products" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33307" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13681" RevisionGUID="2a857593-2fb1-4c18-add8-0bfba10dba64" CreationDate="2015-09-27T18:15:50.710" UserId="15094" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13681" RevisionGUID="49a67727-6cfe-4e4b-90ab-6d57fcc8d611" CreationDate="2015-09-28T00:30:37.287" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 4,734,658 A][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4734658&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are from India, we wish to use this patent in one of our products. Can we use this patent free of charge or we have to pay some amount?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33309" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13681" RevisionGUID="49a67727-6cfe-4e4b-90ab-6d57fcc8d611" CreationDate="2015-09-28T00:30:37.287" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="Is patent US 4,734,658 A avalible free of change in commercial products?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33310" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13681" RevisionGUID="49a67727-6cfe-4e4b-90ab-6d57fcc8d611" CreationDate="2015-09-28T00:30:37.287" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, corrected spelling and improved grammar." Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;expired-patent&gt;&lt;us4734658&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33314" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13681" RevisionGUID="df141515-713b-4610-8a1a-6dd77c4a703b" CreationDate="2015-09-28T02:19:55.777" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13683" RevisionGUID="75d86a38-8615-47ae-b4a8-bc373c057267" CreationDate="2015-09-28T03:09:20.227" UserId="15097" Text="I have an Idea of a game on my mind but have no idea how to design it.&#xD;&#xA;Here I want to know how to patent my gaming idea in india and protect it.&#xD;&#xA;Regard's&#xD;&#xA;Pritam.S.Sharma" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33319" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13683" RevisionGUID="75d86a38-8615-47ae-b4a8-bc373c057267" CreationDate="2015-09-28T03:09:20.227" UserId="15097" Text="How to Patent gaming idea in india" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33320" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13683" RevisionGUID="75d86a38-8615-47ae-b4a8-bc373c057267" CreationDate="2015-09-28T03:09:20.227" UserId="15097" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13684" RevisionGUID="c84895cd-1ab2-45a2-a854-6e3da13cd73d" CreationDate="2015-09-28T05:46:19.340" UserId="15098" Text="In reference to the patent: [EP2152282A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP2152282A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33322" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13684" RevisionGUID="c84895cd-1ab2-45a2-a854-6e3da13cd73d" CreationDate="2015-09-28T05:46:19.340" UserId="15098" Text="I would like to know if patent EP2152282A1 is still a valid patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33323" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13684" RevisionGUID="c84895cd-1ab2-45a2-a854-6e3da13cd73d" CreationDate="2015-09-28T05:46:19.340" UserId="15098" Text="&lt;validity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33327" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13654" RevisionGUID="fc2a6b61-cbca-4b05-9ea0-8791cab8665e" CreationDate="2015-09-28T06:37:26.777" UserId="13706" Comment="Added more to title " Text="Avoiding Declaratory Judgment When Sending Licensing/Cease&amp;Desist Letters" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33328" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13654" RevisionGUID="fc2a6b61-cbca-4b05-9ea0-8791cab8665e" CreationDate="2015-09-28T06:37:26.777" Comment="Proposed by 13706 approved by 14417, 11895 edit id of 1889" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13683" RevisionGUID="e791be25-1a0b-4579-bd38-7814f0bdb78d" CreationDate="2015-09-28T06:38:54.940" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body" Text="I have an Idea of a game on my mind but have no idea how to design it.&#xD;&#xA;Here I want to know how to patent my gaming idea in india and protect it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13686" RevisionGUID="f955d4ba-c0a1-4c23-b29e-9b452f2cb1ec" CreationDate="2015-09-28T11:16:37.463" UserId="11895" Text="According to European Patent Register Said Patent application is deemed to be withdrawn in 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/MNUhP.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13687" RevisionGUID="c6f1033d-0c51-4533-82ee-3facb8979692" CreationDate="2015-09-28T11:31:57.820" UserId="11895" Text="Patent protection is defined by claims, if your device is having all components of patented one then you will be infringing it. Now if patent is active in US then you cannot do said claimed activity in US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i doubt that personal use comes under bolar provisions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you use personal design and not the drawing provided in patent and claims cover your personal design you will be infringing said patent claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13689" RevisionGUID="4d353280-2d0f-448a-a8b1-c9fb1dd82583" CreationDate="2015-09-28T15:42:56.910" UserId="11751" Text="Both patents have expired. The US5653413 &quot;Patent Expired Due to NonPayment of Maintenance Fees Under 37 CFR &quot; as is indicated in public PAIR. The US621888 has expired a long time ago." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33341" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="c460fca0-7bf7-4479-a45f-1f5fbe584413" CreationDate="2015-09-28T15:43:57.640" UserId="11751" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I'm specifically interested in [US 6873940][1] patent. The company that currently owns the patent is a company called [Kamatani Cloud][2] which is subsidiary of [General Patent][3] which some argue ([1][4], [2][5], [3][6], [4][7]) is a patent troll company. I'd like to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like [keylemon][8], [betafaceapi][9], [rekognition][10] or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker identification, face detection or content classification in images, audio or video files etc.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13]. In fact the [class 709 scope][12] has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent prosecution process after non-final rejection [argued][14] (2004-09-20 Applicant Arguments Remarks Made in an Amendment) that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect if server is capable of &quot;*measuring*&quot;/processing the data then the prior art is not applicable, consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are sent by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no &quot;*detecting whether the measurement data are capable of being measured*&quot; is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires server capability of detecting if data can be &quot;*measured*&quot; and notifying client if such capability exists then the patent shouldn't apply for cloud services as mentioned previously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding using the arguments provided by applicant during patent prosecution for claim interpretation please see [C. Claim Interpretation.][15], [wiki][18] and following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Markman, the Federal Circuit held that a court should consider a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent’s prosecution history if it is in evidence, and explained that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the prosecution history “is of primary significance in understanding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the claims.” 52 F.3d at 980, aff’d, 64 U.S.L.W. 4263. In Standard Oil&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985), the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Federal Circuit stated that:  [T]he prosecution history (sometimes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; called “file wrapper and contents’’) of the patent consists of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; entire record of proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office. This&#xD;&#xA;&gt; includes all express representations made by or on behalf of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applicant to the examiner to induce a patent grant, or, as here, to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reissue a patent. Such representations include amendments to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims and arguments made to convince the examiner that the claimed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention meets the statutory requirements of novelty, utility, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonobviousness. Thus, the prosecution history (or file wrapper) limits&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain claim allowance. 774 F.2d at 452 (emphasis added). In order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain allowance of the claims of the ‘712 patent, arguments were made&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on behalf of the applicant to the Examiner during prosecution that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served both to explain the claims in a clear manner and to disavow any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source -  [Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-376, p. 47][16] or from [here][17].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So to put it briefly:#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class [709][12] regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13] work? Both must apply or only first or second when interpreting claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** during US6873940 patent application inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; having in mind that for processing images requests are directed to URL for processing images and for processing voice requests are directed to URL for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing only faces or only classifying image contents... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6873940&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kamatanicloud.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.generalpatent.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://scienceprogress.org/2009/01/patent-trolls-erode-patent-system/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-biggest-patent-trolls&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ipdigit.eu/2011/10/what-to-think-of-patent-trolls-the-return/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/27/law-would-force-patent-trolls-to-pay-for-failed-lawsuits-against-innovators/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.keylemon.com&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.betafaceapi.com&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://rekognition.com&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc702/defs702.htm#C702S189000&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm#C709S217000&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.intellectual.com/infringement.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://bit.ly/1PYCjjA&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.usitc.gov/publications/337/pub3003.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markman_v._Westview_Instruments,_Inc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13689" RevisionGUID="69a34b7d-974e-43c4-a517-2c72e36642e0" CreationDate="2015-09-28T16:04:54.930" UserId="11751" Comment="Added some links and explanation." Text="Both patents have expired. The [US5653413][1] &quot;Patent Expired Due to NonPayment of Maintenance Fees Under 37 CFR &quot; as is indicated in [public PAIR][2]. The [US621888][3] has expired a long time ago. Haven't found any specific indication of that but according to [wiki][4] the longest period for patent validity was 21 years and it's way beyond that now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5653413&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US621888&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13690" RevisionGUID="3f1d5b7d-0fcf-49e6-a5da-c7d8850ef615" CreationDate="2015-09-28T19:29:49.743" UserId="13706" Text="The short answer is that you should do BOTH.  Talk with your patent attorney about how to do this - it's relatively simple. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13691" RevisionGUID="cd312677-ae9e-420f-be16-12878c1af773" CreationDate="2015-09-29T00:29:48.333" UserId="7833" Text="&gt; as far as I know has not been patented&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the reason be that it could be considered `obvious`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have no intention of commercially exploiting the joint/connection/assembly of the two/four frame components. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not? (sorry for the rhetorical question). I think you should, because you wrote the joints are unique. The more of your invention is captured as a novelty the better your patents are likely to be granted. If you do not own the patent on the novel way to the `joints` - it might make it harder to push/prosecute  the patent app.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is known as the `components` just become part of your claim- your patent attorney/ agent you will draft the claims accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Should I patent the joint/connection/assembly of these two/four components, or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Should I patent the system of the joint/connection/assembly of these four components with the inserted support for media component, or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Should I patent the system of the joint/connection/assembly of these four components with the inserted media/medium for the application of advertising signage only?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, it should be broader than that - the attorney/agent will guide on framing the relevant language to keep it reasonably broad. For example it can be used to convey information too - such as maybe an exhibit in a museum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  is another person then able to simply alter the dimensions of the product, such as make the groove thinner and insert a thinner advertising board, and therefore not infringe on my specific patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under typical circumstances that cannot be done because it is a utility patent that you will be granted. utility patent protects the way article of manufacture based on your invention / novelty functions. care must be taken to grant the best / appropriate claim - I would recommend you take your invention to a registered patent attorney or patent agent and work with him/her. It is possible the attorney/agent might recommend that even a design patent to be filed. A design patent will protect the way the article of manufacture looks (whereas the utility patent protects the way it functions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13692" RevisionGUID="c7bbcfc3-7efe-4d7b-a3ff-9de02c307abf" CreationDate="2015-09-29T01:30:14.767" UserId="15104" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2010056908A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2010056908A1&#xD;&#xA;Have the researchers and applicants at Rutgers considered the problems raised in the following document? This is not a discovery, but an appropriation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.cbd.int/abs/side-events/icnp2/twn-icnp2-no4-Lucuma-Peru.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33350" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13692" RevisionGUID="c7bbcfc3-7efe-4d7b-a3ff-9de02c307abf" CreationDate="2015-09-29T01:30:14.767" UserId="15104" Text="Ethical problems with application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33351" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13692" RevisionGUID="c7bbcfc3-7efe-4d7b-a3ff-9de02c307abf" CreationDate="2015-09-29T01:30:14.767" UserId="15104" Text="&lt;wo2010056908a1&gt;&lt;appropriation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13693" RevisionGUID="59dd7e46-6f11-43a7-a739-af1f5db8461c" CreationDate="2015-09-29T05:24:11.240" UserId="13706" Text="It is extremely unlikely that such a company would try to &quot;steal&quot; your application or the underlying IP. However, DO NOT file a patent application with Nolo or any other cut-rate self-directed services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with these Nolo, LegalZoom or other cheap patent services, and the like is, that they lure inventors into believing that they can get solid patent protection for cheap. In fact, the sad reality is that patent applications drafted this way offer effectively no patent protection and have little chance of withstanding the examination process. Plus, the nature of the patent system makes it such that inventors won’t know this until it’s too late and their patent rights are irrevocably lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following blog post discusses the perils of LegalZoom in great detail: http://www.patentsdemystified.com/is-it-safe-to-use-legalzoom-to-file-a-patent-application/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be best to talk with a patent attorney about this before doing anything. Typically, you can find one who will give you a free consultation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13695" RevisionGUID="4e29907a-5e58-4d51-9f42-385e49fac1ea" CreationDate="2015-09-29T10:12:29.567" UserId="13884" Text="If one wants to use free software like Machinekit covered by GPLv3 in the further development of a device covered by the patent, does the use of the software have any effect on the validity of the patent?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33358" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13695" RevisionGUID="4e29907a-5e58-4d51-9f42-385e49fac1ea" CreationDate="2015-09-29T10:12:29.567" UserId="13884" Text="Does the use of software covered by GPLv3 and used in a patent for a device have any effect on the validity of the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33359" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13695" RevisionGUID="4e29907a-5e58-4d51-9f42-385e49fac1ea" CreationDate="2015-09-29T10:12:29.567" UserId="13884" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;free&gt;&lt;gplv3&gt;&lt;device&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="e1dd1482-17e4-4e9c-9983-e6b0d3c8dad3" CreationDate="2015-09-29T11:04:58.833" UserId="11751" Comment="Grammar" Text="I'm specifically interested in [US 6873940][1] patent. The company that currently owns the patent is a company called [Kamatani Cloud][2] which is subsidiary of [General Patent][3] which some argue ([1][4], [2][5], [3][6], [4][7]) is a patent troll company. I'd like to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like [keylemon][8], [betafaceapi][9], [rekognition][10] or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker identification, face detection or content classification in images, audio or video files etc.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13]. In fact the [class 709 scope][12] has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent prosecution process after non-final rejection [argued][14] (2004-09-20 Applicant Arguments Remarks Made in an Amendment) that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect if server is capable of &quot;*measuring*&quot;/processing the data then the prior art is not applicable, consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are sent by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no &quot;*detecting whether the measurement data are capable of being measured*&quot; is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires server capability of detecting if data can be &quot;*measured*&quot; and notifying client if such capability exists then the patent shouldn't apply for cloud services as mentioned previously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding using the arguments provided by applicant during patent prosecution for claim interpretation please see [C. Claim Interpretation.][15], [wiki][18] and following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Markman, the Federal Circuit held that a court should consider a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent’s prosecution history if it is in evidence, and explained that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the prosecution history “is of primary significance in understanding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the claims.” 52 F.3d at 980, aff’d, 64 U.S.L.W. 4263. In Standard Oil&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985), the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Federal Circuit stated that:  [T]he prosecution history (sometimes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; called “file wrapper and contents’’) of the patent consists of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; entire record of proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office. This&#xD;&#xA;&gt; includes all express representations made by or on behalf of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applicant to the examiner to induce a patent grant, or, as here, to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reissue a patent. Such representations include amendments to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims and arguments made to convince the examiner that the claimed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention meets the statutory requirements of novelty, utility, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonobviousness. Thus, the prosecution history (or file wrapper) limits&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain claim allowance. 774 F.2d at 452 (emphasis added). In order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain allowance of the claims of the ‘712 patent, arguments were made&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on behalf of the applicant to the Examiner during prosecution that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served both to explain the claims in a clear manner and to disavow any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source -  [Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-376, p. 47][16] or from [here][17].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So to put it briefly:#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class [709][12] regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13] work? Both must apply or only first or second when interpreting claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** during US6873940 patent application inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; in case of image processing requests are directed to URL for processing images and in case of voice processing requests are directed to URL for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing only faces or only classifying image contents... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6873940&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kamatanicloud.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.generalpatent.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://scienceprogress.org/2009/01/patent-trolls-erode-patent-system/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-biggest-patent-trolls&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ipdigit.eu/2011/10/what-to-think-of-patent-trolls-the-return/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/27/law-would-force-patent-trolls-to-pay-for-failed-lawsuits-against-innovators/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.keylemon.com&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.betafaceapi.com&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://rekognition.com&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc702/defs702.htm#C702S189000&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm#C709S217000&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.intellectual.com/infringement.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://bit.ly/1PYCjjA&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.usitc.gov/publications/337/pub3003.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markman_v._Westview_Instruments,_Inc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13692" RevisionGUID="c3bb0d03-c191-470b-92df-236db8dd6513" CreationDate="2015-09-29T11:09:37.310" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, improved tagging." Text="In reference to the patent: [WO 2010/056908 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have the researchers and applicants at Rutgers considered the problems raised in this [article][2]? This is not a discovery, but an appropriation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2010056908A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.cbd.int/abs/side-events/icnp2/twn-icnp2-no4-Lucuma-Peru.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33362" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13692" RevisionGUID="c3bb0d03-c191-470b-92df-236db8dd6513" CreationDate="2015-09-29T11:09:37.310" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, improved tagging." Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;wo2010056908a1&gt;&lt;cbd&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13696" RevisionGUID="501079f2-8b85-422b-820b-3613463d088f" CreationDate="2015-09-29T11:29:25.237" UserId="14417" Text="The article you cited was from the [Convention on Biological Diversity][1] (CBD). That article was well-researched and would have been the one I used in answering your question had you not already supplied it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a few notes. The [Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefits Sharing][2] that resulted from the CBD went into effect in 2010, after the priority date of this application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One hundred and ninety-five states and the European Union are parties&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the convention. All UN member states—with the exception of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; United States—have ratified the treaty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rutgers being a US university, it has no requirement to adhere to the Nagoya Protocol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless, the examiner issued a non-final rejection for this application, which is available from [USPTO Public Pair][3] under Publication Number `US 20110318403 A1`. There was an earlier non-final rejection that was retracted after a subsequent interview between the inventors and examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner did not (could not) cite the Nagoya Protocol in his rejection due to the points raised earlier, but instead found prior art in earlier patent applications, namely: [WO 2006/009417 A1][4], [WO 2006/009418 A1][5], [US 2009/0197839 A1][6], [US 2008/0261291 A1][7] (all De La Llata Romero) and [US 2006/0018867 A1][8] (Kawasaki).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application was subsequently listed as abandoned on July 11, 2014 due a failure to respond to an office action. It is possible, but unlikely, that it would be revived. As such, it will serve as further prior art for anyone attempting to patent applications of that extract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Biological_Diversity&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.cbd.int/abs/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2006009417A1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2006009418A1&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20090197839&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20090197839&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20060018867" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13698" RevisionGUID="75fa82da-8413-4524-9546-270420b9643f" CreationDate="2015-09-29T13:18:28.180" UserId="15109" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8205376][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8205376&#xD;&#xA;Was this product patented and produced? I'd like to purchase it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33370" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13698" RevisionGUID="75fa82da-8413-4524-9546-270420b9643f" CreationDate="2015-09-29T13:18:28.180" UserId="15109" Text="Patent pending/product on shelves?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33371" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13698" RevisionGUID="75fa82da-8413-4524-9546-270420b9643f" CreationDate="2015-09-29T13:18:28.180" UserId="15109" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33372" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13698" RevisionGUID="662e1a33-c61f-4e35-951d-96d845c5f146" CreationDate="2015-09-29T13:56:12.527" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13699" RevisionGUID="3a15c4fb-2cfa-4fbe-98c1-659310dc8e14" CreationDate="2015-09-29T15:24:07.947" UserId="15110" Text="I have written a computer program which combines two patented ideas, but provides a new and much needed function, and service for that matter.  Hence the big money corps stand to make from the use of my program/idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner said the idea is an abstract idea, and the program is merely instructions to implement it.  He then states that &quot;it would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art to modify the inventions of the two inventions, I unknowingly combined, to create my invention.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fact is, not that it means that much, I have letters from 2011 asking fellow assoc. to help me write this program.  With all avenues exhausted, I learned how to write the program myself and submit it to the patent office. I see the problem presented time and time again from all kinds of sources, so if it's so obvious, why hasn't anyone done it?   We're talking billions of dollars in revenue here, so I know I am the only one who's come up with this invention/idea.  Or plain and simple they would be providing the service to customers and collecting the cash. ;D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I guess I have 2 questions for you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. How do I convince the examiner that the functionality of the program, which provides an improvement to the existing patents, should be given a patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If not, how can I present my idea to companies and get a fair percentage of the money?  And they will be making money indefinitely from the service my program will enable them to provide!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My thoughts are to hire a patent attorney, while it's still patent pending, and go directly into the potential corporations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any advice would be Greatly Appreciated as the patent is in the examiners hands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sincerely,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dave&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33375" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13699" RevisionGUID="3a15c4fb-2cfa-4fbe-98c1-659310dc8e14" CreationDate="2015-09-29T15:24:07.947" UserId="15110" Text="Urgent - My Patent Application received a Non-Final Rejection, Advice?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33376" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13699" RevisionGUID="3a15c4fb-2cfa-4fbe-98c1-659310dc8e14" CreationDate="2015-09-29T15:24:07.947" UserId="15110" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;algorithms&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13701" RevisionGUID="f2a22b69-effa-413d-a341-5517ca218208" CreationDate="2015-09-29T17:19:19.723" UserId="7833" Text="here are three things you need to consider&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. It does not matter as long as your invention / the novelty is not&#xD;&#xA;    due to or dependent on MachineKit. &#xD;&#xA; 2. Another aspect you need to be aware of is GPLv3 itself - GPLv3&#xD;&#xA;    explicitly states something to the effect that anyone who licenses a&#xD;&#xA;    program under the GPLv3 `licenses both copyrights as well as patents` to the extent that this is necessary to use the code licensed by them.        &#xD;&#xA; 3. The GPL also says that modified versions, if released, must be&#xD;&#xA;    “licensed … to all third parties.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So few questions to ask yourself what part of the novelty is in the software... Are you going to modify or make additions to MachineKit? - maybe add new HAL components?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is a very simplistic answer, please consult an attorney for a more through  answer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13701" RevisionGUID="a8dfd6cb-571d-402c-a1bd-2ae08ae1ae19" CreationDate="2015-09-29T17:34:22.163" UserId="7833" Comment="added 165 characters in body" Text="here are three things you need to consider&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. It does not matter as long as your invention / the novelty is not&#xD;&#xA;    due to or 'tied into' MachineKit. (think of it like this - there are claims that have claim element which may or maynot be patented elsewhere; what really matters is `your novelty` where does it lie?)&#xD;&#xA; 2. Another aspect you need to be aware of is GPLv3 itself - GPLv3&#xD;&#xA;    explicitly states something to the effect that anyone who licenses a&#xD;&#xA;    program under the GPLv3 `licenses both copyrights as well as patents` to the extent that this is necessary to use the code licensed by them.        &#xD;&#xA; 3. The GPL also says that modified versions, if released, must be&#xD;&#xA;    “licensed … to all third parties.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So few questions to ask yourself what part of the novelty is in the software... Are you going to modify or make additions to MachineKit? - maybe add new HAL components?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is a very simplistic answer, please consult an attorney for a more through  answer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13702" RevisionGUID="0df1c929-2025-4825-ab75-f34670263219" CreationDate="2015-09-29T18:59:03.487" UserId="11394" Text="Hire a professional. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Neither question you ask can be answered with the information you gave, and even if you posted your application I doubt anyone would be willing to wade through it to give you an opinion for free. You have no idea how much effort what you are asking for requires, or what level of detail in the information you supply is required to answer these questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) You have no idea whether your invention qualifies for a patent, and you also do not understand the law or legal concepts involved. I am not generalizing; I can tell by your post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Even if your idea is patentable, if it is an improvement on a patent still in force, you may not be able to use or sell your invention without first obtaining a license from the owner of the patent which you improved on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) It appears that you have no knowledge of intellectual property or licensing, but you mention the &quot;big money corps stand to make from the use of my program/idea&quot; and &quot;we're talking billions of dollars in revenue here.&quot; I am pretty sure that you have no idea how to value your IP, if you have any IP to value. You need professional assistance with this - everybody does, it's hard. I doubt anyone would value an application which may not even issue as a patent, for a computer program which you are not currently using in industry, in the billions of dollars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) Last, it is premature to talk about getting an attorney and going straight to the corporations. First, get a professional's opinion on whether you can get a patent for your invention at all. If you wrote the application yourself, it may be that no useful protection can be obtained for your invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because a patent application is a very technical legal document. If you try to get a company to buy your idea or to take a license, they will want to see the application or patent (that is what they would be paying for). If the application is weak, they will probably know immediately and be free to take your idea without paying you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13703" RevisionGUID="dddd9a74-d91c-4838-8746-350046788023" CreationDate="2015-09-29T21:16:35.030" UserId="5317" Text="I suspect the IP in the patented device is not susceptible to dilution from any later developments or improvements.  It is possible for some later development to &quot;improve&quot; around the patented IP, but the pre-existing IP is still in force for as long as the patent is valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The GPL tries to make folks who create and license under the GPL promise to not encumber later developers with patent licensing if they do get a patent on the method or process the GPL code implements.  The GPL has no teeth whatsoever on other IP even if GPL copyrighted code later mingles with the IP... IMO." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13704" RevisionGUID="4c46f1e7-50ae-423d-93c3-3d5c3ff3065f" CreationDate="2015-09-29T21:57:05.917" UserId="15113" Text="I am wondering the patent below is still active?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	US7669818 B2&#xD;&#xA;&amp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US 20070187560 A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33384" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13704" RevisionGUID="4c46f1e7-50ae-423d-93c3-3d5c3ff3065f" CreationDate="2015-09-29T21:57:05.917" UserId="15113" Text="Is this patent still valid" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33385" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13704" RevisionGUID="4c46f1e7-50ae-423d-93c3-3d5c3ff3065f" CreationDate="2015-09-29T21:57:05.917" UserId="15113" Text="&lt;expired-patent&gt;&lt;patent-search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13704" RevisionGUID="ad331fc1-c726-486a-ae50-5cc7193d3ab0" CreationDate="2015-09-30T01:32:56.860" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, improved grammar and formatting." Text="Is the following patent is still enforceable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The publication numbers are [US 7,669,818 B2][1] and [US 2007/0187560 A1][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7669818&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20070187560" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33387" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13704" RevisionGUID="ad331fc1-c726-486a-ae50-5cc7193d3ab0" CreationDate="2015-09-30T01:32:56.860" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, improved grammar and formatting." Text="&lt;legal-status&gt;&lt;us20070187560a1&gt;&lt;us7669818&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33388" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13704" RevisionGUID="ad331fc1-c726-486a-ae50-5cc7193d3ab0" CreationDate="2015-09-30T01:32:56.860" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags, improved grammar and formatting." Text="Is this patent still valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13699" RevisionGUID="78898b87-8703-4a08-aa2b-aadec7840f70" CreationDate="2015-09-30T01:36:28.760" UserId="14417" Comment="Minor changes, added tag." Text="I have written a computer program which combines two patented ideas, but provides a new and much needed function, and service for that matter. Hence the big money corps stand to make from the use of my program/idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner said the idea is an abstract idea, and the program is merely instructions to implement it.  He then states that &quot;it would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art to modify the inventions of the two inventions, I unknowingly combined, to create my invention.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fact is, not that it means that much, I have letters from 2011 asking a fellow associate to help me write this program. With all avenues exhausted, I learned how to write the program myself and submit it to the patent office. I see the problem presented time and time again from all kinds of sources, so if it's so obvious, why hasn't anyone done it? We're talking billions of dollars in revenue here, so I know I am the only one who's come up with this invention/idea. Or plain and simple they would be providing the service to customers and collecting the cash. ;D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I guess I have 2 questions for you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. How do I convince the examiner that the functionality of the program, which provides an improvement to the existing patents, should be given a patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If not, how can I present my idea to companies and get a fair percentage of the money? And they will be making money indefinitely from the service my program will enable them to provide!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My thoughts are to hire a patent attorney, while it's still patent pending, and go directly into the potential corporations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any advice would be Greatly Appreciated as the patent is in the examiners hands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sincerely,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dave&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33390" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13699" RevisionGUID="78898b87-8703-4a08-aa2b-aadec7840f70" CreationDate="2015-09-30T01:36:28.760" UserId="14417" Comment="Minor changes, added tag." Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;&lt;algorithms&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="b52582e2-7efd-462e-b7e9-e2e3ef46754c" CreationDate="2015-09-30T13:11:47.453" UserId="11751" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I'm specifically interested in [US 6873940][1] patent. The company that currently owns the patent is a company called [Kamatani Cloud][2] which is subsidiary of [General Patent][3] which some argue ([1][4], [2][5], [3][6], [4][7]) is a patent troll company. I'd like to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like [keylemon][8], [betafaceapi][9], [rekognition][10] or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker identification, face detection or content classification in images, audio or video files etc.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13]. In fact the [class 709 scope][12] has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent prosecution process after non-final rejection [argued][14] (2004-09-20 Applicant Arguments Remarks Made in an Amendment) that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect if server is capable of &quot;*measuring*&quot;/processing the data then the prior art is not applicable, consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are sent by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no &quot;*detecting whether the measurement data are capable of being measured*&quot; is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires server capability of detecting if data can be &quot;*measured*&quot; and notifying client if such capability exists then the patent shouldn't apply for cloud services as mentioned previously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding using the arguments provided by applicant during patent prosecution for claim interpretation please see [C. Claim Interpretation.][15], [wiki][18] and following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Markman, the Federal Circuit held that a court should consider a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent’s prosecution history if it is in evidence, and explained that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the prosecution history “is of primary significance in understanding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the claims.” 52 F.3d at 980, aff’d, 64 U.S.L.W. 4263. In Standard Oil&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985), the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Federal Circuit stated that:  [T]he prosecution history (sometimes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; called “file wrapper and contents’’) of the patent consists of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; entire record of proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office. This&#xD;&#xA;&gt; includes all express representations made by or on behalf of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applicant to the examiner to induce a patent grant, or, as here, to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reissue a patent. Such representations include amendments to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims and arguments made to convince the examiner that the claimed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention meets the statutory requirements of novelty, utility, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonobviousness. Thus, the prosecution history (or file wrapper) limits&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain claim allowance. 774 F.2d at 452 (emphasis added). In order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain allowance of the claims of the ‘712 patent, arguments were made&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on behalf of the applicant to the Examiner during prosecution that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served both to explain the claims in a clear manner and to disavow any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source -  [Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-376, p. 47][16] or from [here][17].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So to put it briefly:#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class [709][12] regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13] work? Both must apply or only first or second when interpreting claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** during US6873940 patent application inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; in case of image processing requests are directed to URL for processing images and in case of voice processing requests are directed to URL for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing only faces or only classifying image contents...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6873940&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kamatanicloud.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.generalpatent.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://scienceprogress.org/2009/01/patent-trolls-erode-patent-system/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-biggest-patent-trolls&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ipdigit.eu/2011/10/what-to-think-of-patent-trolls-the-return/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/27/law-would-force-patent-trolls-to-pay-for-failed-lawsuits-against-innovators/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.keylemon.com&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.betafaceapi.com&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://rekognition.com&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc702/defs702.htm#C702S189000&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm#C709S217000&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.intellectual.com/infringement.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://bit.ly/1PYCjjA&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.usitc.gov/publications/337/pub3003.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markman_v._Westview_Instruments,_Inc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13710" RevisionGUID="a2d53f44-997f-4ffe-a55a-46fdedec5434" CreationDate="2015-10-01T00:52:37.430" UserId="11947" Text="My software patent application was rejected as &quot;abstract idea&quot;. Main method claim and all its dependent claims could be rephrased a generic business method without use of a computer, but it wouldn't be a practical implementation. If I claim just a business method would it improve my chances? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33415" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13710" RevisionGUID="a2d53f44-997f-4ffe-a55a-46fdedec5434" CreationDate="2015-10-01T00:52:37.430" UserId="11947" Text="software method claim could be rephrased a generic business method" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33416" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13710" RevisionGUID="a2d53f44-997f-4ffe-a55a-46fdedec5434" CreationDate="2015-10-01T00:52:37.430" UserId="11947" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;business-methods&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33417" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13710" RevisionGUID="3915aa52-153d-4765-8dc7-276df5553109" CreationDate="2015-10-01T01:45:48.740" UserId="1" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;business-methods&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13711" RevisionGUID="2fad1543-d935-4443-abb0-84389ce32b81" CreationDate="2015-10-01T03:49:35.287" UserId="15120" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20150047576][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20150047576&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This &quot;inventor&quot;  filed an a patent application after being notified of an near exact product already on market and in many publications. We have used a product called SleekEZ that states &quot;patent pending&quot;, and we told the owner of Equigroomer about this BEFORE she filed as an &quot;inventor&quot;. Her product does not look any different and says to do exactly the same thing. Is that legal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33419" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13711" RevisionGUID="2fad1543-d935-4443-abb0-84389ce32b81" CreationDate="2015-10-01T03:49:35.287" UserId="15120" Text="This inventor was aware of prior art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33420" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13711" RevisionGUID="2fad1543-d935-4443-abb0-84389ce32b81" CreationDate="2015-10-01T03:49:35.287" UserId="15120" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13712" RevisionGUID="f8a37b9a-85ad-4eb8-b643-03a557f6dfe9" CreationDate="2015-10-01T06:58:00.517" UserId="15057" Text="I am not sure about the fees, but it's a mind-bending process and can take several days if companies didn't find a good lead. I was stumbling upon some case studies of invalidation searches and found an article of a company. The article shows how they cracked an invalidation case and generated a good lead. That might help you understand how the whole process can vary in time. &#xD;&#xA;Here you go - [INVALIDATION SEARCH – HOW WE CRACKED THE TOUGHEST CASE WE CAME ACROSS][1] &#xD;&#xA;Based on resources and search criteria fees may vary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.greyb.com/invalidation-search-how-we-cracked-the-toughest-case-we-came-across/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13713" RevisionGUID="ffa18cf0-f4e2-4f6e-b40b-b8a1ce2ac8cc" CreationDate="2015-10-01T09:17:32.317" UserId="15057" Text="Seems like your patent is rejected based on Alice decision. You can still overcome the rejection and get your patent filed. I recently read a case scenario where an inventor's patent was rejected by saying- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the claims are drawn to an abstract idea&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Applicant made an attempt to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the claims by arguing that the claims are not drawn to an abstract idea. This was done by pointing out all the other features in the claims that the examiner did not address and include in the rejection summary.&#xD;&#xA;And so on going ahead you have to argue a little and hopefully you will succeed. &#xD;&#xA;Here's the link of article on full case - [HOW TO OVERCOME REJECTIONS BASED ON THE ALICE DECISION][1]&#xD;&#xA;Hope it helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.greyb.com/rejections-based-on-the-alice-decision/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13714" RevisionGUID="a7da7c8a-b519-4adf-97bc-e3f1bca3d13d" CreationDate="2015-10-01T14:32:11.683" UserId="15126" Text="Thanks Aldo for your reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wish i could hire a professional, but I am at one of the points in life where so many other things have taken the funds I would need to do so.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everyone has &quot;A million dollar idea,&quot; so I answer your statement that I may have no idea how to value my IP, if you have any IP to value.  You are right only that it may not be my IP to value.  Fact is, I have had a million product ideas, can't help myself, but this one is easy to value.  &#xD;&#xA;Here's why I know we are talking Billions, and I would just like a small percentage of that huge pie for coming up with this service.  Say 5 cents on the dollar?&#xD;&#xA;Sure I could make an App, which is what this idea started out as.  But then it hit me that I could write the program so it could be added to ANY Operating System, and managed by service providers who will charge a monthly fee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though I've heard a cry for my service from so many users and for so many different types of devices running operating systems, we will narrow this estimate to cell phones for now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the math: &#xD;&#xA;According to http://www.statista.com/statistics/278204/china-mobile-users-by-month/  In China alone, about 1.29 billion mobile users had been registered In February 2015.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume the provider charges a modest $1.00 per month for my service.&#xD;&#xA;Let's just say only 1% of users subscribe, and pay for it.&#xD;&#xA;That's $12,900,000 a month to a provider for doing nothing really, the program does the work.  That's $154 Million a year in china alone, imagine the world.  Not to mention any device with an OS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Getting a license from the original patent owners is good advice.  I was surprised to find that the co. that owned it, was my main target in the first place.  Their patented invention doesn't have anything to do with their business, only that the people they hired came up with the idea so they patterned it.  I was just adding a feature to my program, and it turns out they own the patent.  The feature does not affect the function or results of my service however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are an inventor reading this, I highly recommend taking the time to get a patent attorney.  So lucky are the corps. that the average genius doesn't have the money to implement their ideas.  I share your pain and frustration.  I could not afford an attorney, nor could I meet with any because I live on an island with not one patent lawyer.  During my interview with the examiner, he said that he was surprised at how well my application was put together.  He also thought that I was a patent lawyer at first. lol&#xD;&#xA;I owe it all to the U.S.P.T.O. and their incredible staff.  They are there to help you, and act like it!  They made it easy for me because I followed their instructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I only made one mistake in my application, and it was an important one.&#xD;&#xA;In my claims, I used a feature that I was unaware had a patent.  A patent attorney would have probably caught that, and not included it as a main Claim.  So, I will most likely have to go through this whole process again.&#xD;&#xA;In my mind it was only a feature and I was focused on Searching for any similar programs that may have a patent.  I did not find any programs like mine, so I felt confident enough to file.  In addition, I advise you to act on your idea TODAY, as the prior art that is probably going to prevent me from getting it this time around, did not have a patent when I came up with this idea years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can only imagine how much money could have been made if my service would have been provided when I first thought of it.&#xD;&#xA;It makes me sad that a person can come up with an idea that would make so much money for others, and not even get paid a tiny little percentage.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;This is really eating me because It is my 2nd Billion dollar idea, and I just don't see how I can make money from it other than an app.  &#xD;&#xA;It deserves more than an app because that's a quickie and I figured out the way to make it a monthly service, which equals big money for everyone...indefinitely!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, Aldo if you made it this far, I know you are a skeptic when it comes to Big Money Claims.  And you are probably asking what was this other billion dollar idea that I missed out on?  Well, I launched Youtube one year before &quot;Youtube&quot; existed.  I didn't know what I had at the time, and didn't think broad enough either.  I still own the site today but haven't done anything with it.  When I checked https://archive.org/web/ I had launched the site 15 months before them.  I didn't see the profit potential and let that one slip through my hands.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't want it to happen again!&#xD;&#xA;Thanks all for listening and I wish you all the best of luck,&#xD;&#xA;Don't Give Up!!! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.  Sorry, I know this site is for asking questions.  Moderators please leave this comment up so that other inventors can maybe benefit from my advice and see that we all go through the agony trying to cut even the smallest sliver of the huge pie we bake.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13715" RevisionGUID="43a9d66e-58c2-4dac-a9f8-c60b42d5bded" CreationDate="2015-10-01T15:29:36.497" UserId="8074" Text="The applicant filed an Oath or Declaration on October 31, 2014 (see [Public Pair][1]) which states: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The above-identified application was made or authorized to be made by me. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I believe that I am the original inventor or an original joint inventor of a claimed invention in the application.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I hereby acknowledge that any willful false statement made in this declaration is punishable under [18 U.S.C. 1001][2] by fine or imprisonment of not more than five (5) years, or both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first glance it does look too similar. Whether it is legal or not you should inform SleekEZ of this issue and suggest them at least to submit prior art documents via [Third-Party Preissuance Submissions][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/third-party-preissuance-submissions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13717" RevisionGUID="100a8503-44bf-467e-b5b4-5a6d72c86145" CreationDate="2015-10-01T22:39:37.360" UserId="15129" Text="If I patented something, lets say an electronic device, could this device be produced in another country freely?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33432" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13717" RevisionGUID="100a8503-44bf-467e-b5b4-5a6d72c86145" CreationDate="2015-10-01T22:39:37.360" UserId="15129" Text="Validity of a patent in another country" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33433" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13717" RevisionGUID="100a8503-44bf-467e-b5b4-5a6d72c86145" CreationDate="2015-10-01T22:39:37.360" UserId="15129" Text="&lt;foreign&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13718" RevisionGUID="6badbdf2-7ec7-4995-be6e-731acd1757d2" CreationDate="2015-10-01T22:42:28.910" UserId="15130" Text="This reminds me of setting up an Apple TV's WiFi settings by placing an iPhone on it which communicates via blue tooth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earliest mention I'm finding off-hand is September 2013, but surely there is an earlier mention somewhere? Granted it isn't for connecting the two devices together but rather to setup the Apple TV's own independent connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.cnet.com/news/set-up-your-apple-tv-just-by-touching-it-with-your-ios-7-device/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13702" RevisionGUID="64fc6168-bd14-4a4c-bcbb-1b695de08f98" CreationDate="2015-10-01T23:52:01.317" UserId="11394" Comment="Addressed comments by OP." Text="Hire a professional. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Neither question you ask can be answered with the information you gave, and even if you posted your application I doubt anyone would be willing to wade through it to give you an opinion for free. You have no idea how much effort what you are asking for requires, or what level of detail in the information you supply is required to answer these questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) You have no idea whether your invention qualifies for a patent, and you also do not understand the law or legal concepts involved. I am not generalizing; I can tell by your post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Even if your idea is patentable, if it is an improvement on a patent still in force, you may not be able to use or sell your invention without first obtaining a license from the owner of the patent which you improved on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) It appears that you have no knowledge of intellectual property or licensing, but you mention the &quot;big money corps stand to make from the use of my program/idea&quot; and &quot;we're talking billions of dollars in revenue here.&quot; I am pretty sure that you have no idea how to value your IP, if you have any IP to value. You need professional assistance with this - everybody does, it's hard. I doubt anyone would value an application which may not even issue as a patent, for a computer program which you are not currently using in industry, in the billions of dollars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) Last, it is premature to talk about getting an attorney and going straight to the corporations. First, get a professional's opinion on whether you can get a patent for your invention at all. If you wrote the application yourself, it may be that no useful protection can be obtained for your invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because a patent application is a very technical legal document. If you try to get a company to buy your idea or to take a license, they will want to see the application or patent (that is what they would be paying for). If the application is weak, they will probably know immediately and be free to take your idea without paying you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: You stated below that &quot;I only made one mistake in my application, and it was an important one. In my claims, I used a feature that I was unaware had a patent. A patent attorney would have probably caught that, and not included it as a main Claim. So, I will most likely have to go through this whole process again.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_This is probably not true!_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Get _Patent It Yourself_ by David Pressman and study it. (You can buy a copy, or maybe get it from your  library.) This is a great introduction to the patent system - you will learn a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Call the Examiner and ask for suggestions, or conduct an interview if you're close to the USPTO. Explain that you're a little guy, and ask for their help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Software patent applications are tricky - again, good luck." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13719" RevisionGUID="68286432-4374-4f3b-9129-c230ef8ff349" CreationDate="2015-10-02T04:23:50.293" UserId="15131" Text="I'm a Ph.D. student, and recently in my research I came up with an algorithm that would save the use of multiple transmitters to one transmitter. My co-supervisor believes it's a patent and he wants to file for one. Unfortunately, he was trying to get my work to himself till I made it clear that I will not share my my work and simulations. After that he told me he wants to file for a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My main supervisor doesn't want to file for one &quot;he is not interested&quot;. I'm sponsoring myself &quot;I'm paying all the fees of my studies&quot;, so in that case can I file for a patent for myself?.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33438" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13719" RevisionGUID="68286432-4374-4f3b-9129-c230ef8ff349" CreationDate="2015-10-02T04:23:50.293" UserId="15131" Text="Ph.D student to file a patent without any contribution of the uni" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33439" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13719" RevisionGUID="68286432-4374-4f3b-9129-c230ef8ff349" CreationDate="2015-10-02T04:23:50.293" UserId="15131" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13720" RevisionGUID="eb5426f1-e9f5-47ab-adf5-56474cc29fbc" CreationDate="2015-10-02T15:32:29.667" UserId="11394" Text="Talk to your supervisor, co-supervisor, and your university's intellectual property office. Everyone should be on the same page. Some things to consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) _All_ inventors must be listed on the patent application. Even if an inventor doesn't want to apply for a patent, if you pursue a patent for the invention their name still has to be on it. If you leave out a co-inventor and it is later discovered, your patent may be invalid. If you're working with your co-supervisor, he is probably a co-inventor. It would be very unusual in a research group to not have your supervisor listed on the patent as a co-inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) You may not have rights to your patent. Even if you get a patent, you may be under an obligation to assign the rights to your university.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Trying to get a patent, while cutting your supervisor and co-supervisor out of it, is probably going to create bad blood in your research group and hurt your progress toward a PhD. Your relationship already sounds bad - perhaps you need to be in a different group." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13721" RevisionGUID="aee8c859-05d7-4072-a376-fdd416e075b0" CreationDate="2015-10-02T15:36:19.460" UserId="11394" Text="Yes. A US patent is only valid in places where US law is applicable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could freely make a device in another country where there was no patent on the device (assuming there is no other legal barrier), but would not be able to sell it in, or import it to, the US." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13723" RevisionGUID="1e118134-2234-40f5-b8b9-cc15b14963cd" CreationDate="2015-10-02T20:24:03.450" UserId="15134" Text="I have an Indian (utility) patent pending (filed in November 2014) for a process related to improved aircraft engine type/class. I am thinking of filing a PCT International application for the same (in the remaining 1 month). I have found out recently that the 'general' method/idea (not the specifics) are published in a paragraph in one thesis. My Indian pending patent involves the specific details, like the component which will be used, of going about making the process useful/successful and it gives the best method of implementing it (which is published no where for the specific engine class that I have done). My method of doing a process includes the published 'general' method/idea (as mentioned above) with additions of subsystems. It is to be noted that the principle/process used is a science which is a patent in 2000's. The same patented process when implemented in automobiles, power-plants and specific airplane engines, got patented recently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know whether to go ahead with filing an international patent. I know that the published thesis includes a general way of doing the process (i.e. the whats/objectives), my pending patent talks about HOWS/ways of doing it with specifics for a specific class of aircraft engines (which has never been patented for this class of engines but have got patented in other class of aircraft engines, automobiles, power-plants, naval application etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a PhD student in Aerospace engineering, cannot afford a Patent Attorney as of now, but know the techno-legal parameters of filing a patent application. Please help, I urgently need an advice. I do not want to waste the money by filing international patent application, if potentially it can be rejected." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33447" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13723" RevisionGUID="1e118134-2234-40f5-b8b9-cc15b14963cd" CreationDate="2015-10-02T20:24:03.450" UserId="15134" Text="Can it be a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33448" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13723" RevisionGUID="1e118134-2234-40f5-b8b9-cc15b14963cd" CreationDate="2015-10-02T20:24:03.450" UserId="15134" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13726" RevisionGUID="ff6edc22-e360-4fa8-9d10-07c730710209" CreationDate="2015-10-03T13:18:31.503" UserId="15139" Text="[US20140180989 A1](https://www.google.com/patents/US20140180989?hl=ja) has been applied by Google. It seems that the patent is about covolutional neural network with parallel architecture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As my personal project, I'm considering making a program of a neural network utilizing nVIDIA's Cuda technology, which takes advantage of GPU as a massively parallel processor. The network will not be convolutional but will have structure of the conventional multi-layer perceptron.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the Google's appication is granted, does my program infringe the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33460" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13726" RevisionGUID="ff6edc22-e360-4fa8-9d10-07c730710209" CreationDate="2015-10-03T13:18:31.503" UserId="15139" Text="Parallel neural networks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33461" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13726" RevisionGUID="ff6edc22-e360-4fa8-9d10-07c730710209" CreationDate="2015-10-03T13:18:31.503" UserId="15139" Text="&lt;google&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13726" RevisionGUID="22cf0b81-c930-48a6-ae0c-dc72354dda91" CreationDate="2015-10-03T18:51:27.793" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected grammar, fixed spelling and improved tagging." Text="[US 2014/0180989 A1](https://www.google.com/patents/US20140180989) has been applied by Google. It seems that the patent is about [convolutional neural network][1] with parallel architecture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As my personal project, I'm considering making a program of a neural network utilizing nVIDIA's Cuda technology, which takes advantage of GPU as a massively parallel processor. The network will not be convolutional but will have structure of the conventional [multi-layer perceptron][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the Google's application is granted, does my program infringe the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convolutional_neural_network&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilayer_perceptron" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33463" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13726" RevisionGUID="22cf0b81-c930-48a6-ae0c-dc72354dda91" CreationDate="2015-10-03T18:51:27.793" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected grammar, fixed spelling and improved tagging." Text="&lt;freedom-to-operate&gt;&lt;google&gt;&lt;us20140180989&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13727" RevisionGUID="151d93f9-251d-4331-b229-50e18ad60024" CreationDate="2015-10-03T19:12:02.253" UserId="5599" Text="This patent essentially describes an internet store front built with Apache cocoon. http://cocoon.apache.org/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know the first release date, the first mailing list entries I can find are from around 1999. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13728" RevisionGUID="e497ac25-3b27-4054-bdc3-4c7c99766b8c" CreationDate="2015-10-03T19:27:27.643" UserId="14417" Text="If the application is granted, then it may be enforced against any software developed since the priority date (December 24, 2012). If the methods you are implementing were publicly disclosed by anyone not listed as an inventor on the application before that priority date, then you have freedom to operate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the method you are implementing is more recent than that, then you will need to do a claim analysis against the patent. Note that if the patent is granted, the claim language may differ from that in the application. The independent claims are the most important, so here is the language that you would need to work around (as it currently stands):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **2.** A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a plurality of parallel neural networks, wherein the plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parallel neural network each receive a same input and collectively&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generate a predicted output based on the input, wherein each of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; neural networks comprises a respective plurality of layers, wherein&#xD;&#xA;&gt; each plurality of layers comprises an interconnected layer and a non&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interconnected layer, and wherein processing data through the layers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of each of the plurality of parallel neural networks comprises:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; providing output from the interconnected layer to at least one layer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of at least one different parallel neural network of the plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parallel neural networks; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; providing output from the non-interconnected layer only to a layer of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the same parallel neural network.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **12.** A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; processing data using each of a plurality of parallel neural networks,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein the plurality of parallel neural network each receive a same&#xD;&#xA;&gt; input and collectively generate a predicted output based on the input,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein each of the neural networks comprises a respective plurality&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of layers, wherein each plurality of layers comprises an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interconnected layer and a non-interconnected layer, wherein&#xD;&#xA;&gt; processing data using each of the plurality of parallel neural&#xD;&#xA;&gt; networks comprises processing the data through the layers of each of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the plurality of parallel neural networks comprises, and wherein&#xD;&#xA;&gt; processing the data through the layers of each of the plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parallel neural networks comprises:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; providing output from the interconnected layer to at least one layer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of at least one different parallel neural network of the plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parallel neural networks; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; providing output from the non-interconnected layer only to a layer of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the same parallel neural network.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **22.** A computer storage medium encoded with instructions that, when executed by one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; perform operations comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; processing data using each of a plurality of parallel neural networks,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein the plurality of parallel neural network each receive a same&#xD;&#xA;&gt; input and collectively generate a predicted output based on the input,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein each of the neural networks comprises a respective plurality&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of layers, wherein each plurality of layers comprises an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interconnected layer and a non-interconnected layer, wherein&#xD;&#xA;&gt; processing data using each of the plurality of parallel neural&#xD;&#xA;&gt; networks comprises processing the data through the layers of each of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the plurality of parallel neural networks comprises, and wherein&#xD;&#xA;&gt; processing the data through the layers of each of the plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parallel neural networks comprises:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; providing output from the interconnected layer to at least one layer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of at least one different parallel neural network of the plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parallel neural networks; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; providing output from the non-interconnected layer only to a layer of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the same parallel neural network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above language &quot;a plurality of&quot; does mean that 2 or more parallel neural networks must be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key phrase I noticed in each of the three independent claims is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the plurality of parallel neural network each receive a same input&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a convolutional neural network, the inputs are only partially overlapping. Also examine the following language:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; each plurality of layers comprises an interconnected layer and a non-interconnected layer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the above phrase is the &quot;inventive step&quot; in this application, and (correct me if I'm wrong) a conventional multilayer perceptron only comprises interconnected layers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are concerned about the scope of this application and how it might affect your research, I highly recommend notifying your research institution to see if they can provide some legal support.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/2046/14417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13729" RevisionGUID="8a4950c5-8c75-456e-99dd-81533076965d" CreationDate="2015-10-03T22:01:54.347" UserId="15134" Text="I have an Indian (utility) patent pending (filed in November 2014) for a process related to improved aircraft engine type/class. I am thinking of filing a PCT International application for the same (in the remaining 1 month). I have found out recently that the 'general' method/idea (not the specifics) are published in a paragraph in one thesis. My Indian pending patent involves the specific details, like the component which will be used, of going about making the process useful/successful and it gives the best method of implementing it (which is published no where for the specific engine class that I have done). My method of doing a process includes the published 'general' method/idea (as mentioned above) with additions of subsystems. It is to be noted that the principle/process used is a science which is a patent in 2000's. The same patented process when implemented in automobiles, power-plants and specific airplane engines, got patented recently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know whether to go ahead with filing an international patent. I know that the published thesis includes a general way of doing the process (i.e. the whats/objectives), my pending patent talks about HOWS/ways of doing it with specifics for a specific class of aircraft engines (which has never been patented for this class of engines but have got patented in other class of aircraft engines, automobiles, power-plants, naval application etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a PhD student in Aerospace engineering, cannot afford a Patent Attorney as of now, but know the techno-legal parameters of filing a patent application. Please help, I urgently need an advice. I do not want to waste the money by filing international patent application, if potentially it can be rejected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, let me know the right tags to use" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33467" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13729" RevisionGUID="8a4950c5-8c75-456e-99dd-81533076965d" CreationDate="2015-10-03T22:01:54.347" UserId="15134" Text="Can this patent be rejected?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33468" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13729" RevisionGUID="8a4950c5-8c75-456e-99dd-81533076965d" CreationDate="2015-10-03T22:01:54.347" UserId="15134" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13731" RevisionGUID="4cded406-9e4b-4c9b-87cb-82d593a1c5ff" CreationDate="2015-10-04T02:24:27.757" UserId="15144" Text="What is the process i can take to either patent or copyright an idea for a smartphone app? How can I present my idea to a company like google or apple?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33473" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13731" RevisionGUID="4cded406-9e4b-4c9b-87cb-82d593a1c5ff" CreationDate="2015-10-04T02:24:27.757" UserId="15144" Text="App idea i need to copyright or patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33474" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13731" RevisionGUID="4cded406-9e4b-4c9b-87cb-82d593a1c5ff" CreationDate="2015-10-04T02:24:27.757" UserId="15144" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13732" RevisionGUID="ae6dfebe-de15-4cff-ae0c-13327e392cf8" CreationDate="2015-10-04T10:48:11.357" UserId="5599" Text="This appear to be an obvious, the what's around feature present in many GPS enabled devices does almost the same thing. Its an obvious refinement to display offers in this case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example would be clicking what food outlet is nearby and providing coupons to the device for nearby restaurants." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13733" RevisionGUID="4ba50ce2-f932-4bbc-aeb3-42de388a6a8a" CreationDate="2015-10-04T10:55:40.907" UserId="5599" Text="Can somebody explain thar because the Barcode was delivered over the Web, it somehow makes it unique? &#xD;&#xA;This is really not a new idea, conference badges delivered by post containing a barcode, are essentially the same as what's being described." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13736" RevisionGUID="3fa85b9b-3f2d-486e-a9ba-ea0dccf184d9" CreationDate="2015-10-05T01:05:03.570" UserId="15152" Text="In reference to the patent: [US2821692][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a letter in my grandfathers paperwork and after doing a bit of research I found this website.  This was my grandfather's patent and I was wondering if there is way to find any more information on this patent...was it ever used etc.  I don't even know if patent is obsolete.  It almost looks like the power cord surge protectors we use today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US2821692" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33486" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13736" RevisionGUID="3fa85b9b-3f2d-486e-a9ba-ea0dccf184d9" CreationDate="2015-10-05T01:05:03.570" UserId="15152" Text="Was Patent ever used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33487" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13736" RevisionGUID="3fa85b9b-3f2d-486e-a9ba-ea0dccf184d9" CreationDate="2015-10-05T01:05:03.570" UserId="15152" Text="&lt;us2821692&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13737" RevisionGUID="d0941732-3721-4df2-9f80-97d3e9d7e133" CreationDate="2015-10-05T09:11:24.033" UserId="15154" Text="In the description of patent is not quantified the power required for hair cutting. The discussion about the required wavelengths is meaningless without the power indication. What was the power of a working prototype (if any)?&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US20140276685][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140276685" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33489" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13737" RevisionGUID="d0941732-3721-4df2-9f80-97d3e9d7e133" CreationDate="2015-10-05T09:11:24.033" UserId="15154" Text="what is the power of a working prototype?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33490" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13737" RevisionGUID="d0941732-3721-4df2-9f80-97d3e9d7e133" CreationDate="2015-10-05T09:11:24.033" UserId="15154" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13737" RevisionGUID="e9f2e89a-07e9-43fe-adf8-55edbf26ce14" CreationDate="2015-10-05T11:42:49.363" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 2014/0276685 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the description of patent is not quantified the power required for hair cutting. The discussion about the required wavelengths is meaningless without the power indication. What was the power of a working prototype (if any)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140276685" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33492" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13737" RevisionGUID="e9f2e89a-07e9-43fe-adf8-55edbf26ce14" CreationDate="2015-10-05T11:42:49.363" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="What is the power of a working prototype?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33493" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13737" RevisionGUID="e9f2e89a-07e9-43fe-adf8-55edbf26ce14" CreationDate="2015-10-05T11:42:49.363" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;us20140276685&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13738" RevisionGUID="c0e25563-b4f2-4593-a13c-815e2aa26147" CreationDate="2015-10-05T11:56:26.113" UserId="14417" Text="A working prototype would be considered &quot;reduction to practice&quot;, which is less important under the [AIA][1] First to File rules. This particular application has a priority date of March 15, 2013, which is one day before those new rules went into affect (this is probably not a coincidence). Therefore, the application would be subject to reduction to practice implications under the pre-AIA rules (Section 2138). That section is lengthy, but the most relevant parts are copied below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [MPEP Chapter 2100, Section 2138: Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g)][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *[Editor Note: This MPEP section **has limited applicability** to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (FITF) provisions of the AIA as set forth in [35 U.S.C. 100 (note)][3]. See&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [MPEP § 2159][4] et seq. to determine whether an application is subject to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; examination under the FITF provisions, [MPEP § 2159.03][5] for the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conditions under which this section applies to an AIA application, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [MPEP § 2150][6] et seq. for examination of applications subject to those&#xD;&#xA;&gt; provisions.]*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *****&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under [section 135][7] or [section 291][8], another inventor involved therein&#xD;&#xA;&gt; establishes, to the extent permitted in [section 104][9], that before such&#xD;&#xA;&gt; person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before&#xD;&#xA;&gt; such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g)][10] issues such as conception, reduction to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; practice and diligence, while more commonly applied to interference&#xD;&#xA;&gt; matters, also arise in other contexts.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g)][10] may form the basis for an *ex parte*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rejection if: (1) the subject matter at issue has been actually&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reduced to practice by another before the applicant’s invention; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) there has been no abandonment, suppression or concealment.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; To qualify as prior art under [pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g)][10], however,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there must be evidence that the subject matter was actually reduced to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; practice, in that conception alone is not sufficient. While the filing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of an application for patent is a constructive reduction to practice,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the filing of an application does not in itself provide the evidence&#xD;&#xA;&gt; necessary to show an actual reduction to practice of any of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; subject matter disclosed in the application as is necessary to provide&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the basis for an ex parte rejection under [pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 102(g)][10]. Thus, absent evidence showing an actual reduction to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; practice (which is generally not available during *ex parte*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; examination), the disclosure of a United States patent application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; publication or patent falls under [pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)][10] and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not under [pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g)][10]. The disclosure in a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reference United States patent does not fall under [pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 102(g)][10] but under [pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)][10].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leahy-Smith_America_Invents_Act&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2138.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d917_1bef1_2b&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2159.html#ch2100_d20034_1dc34_1dd&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2159.html#ch2100_d222e3_13adb_2f9&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2150.html#ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303239&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e306203&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302559&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33495" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13737" RevisionGUID="d2535536-6ba6-4470-96a2-d88bb9699464" CreationDate="2015-10-05T16:16:22.723" UserId="1" Comment="redirect the question to keep it in scope of questions about patents (as it was answered)." Text="Why wouldn't they include the power of a working prototype?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33499" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13729" RevisionGUID="1d33f894-f559-4f68-94c7-75d7a32bf7f3" CreationDate="2015-10-05T16:24:54.667" UserId="1" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13739" RevisionGUID="4485e698-0b43-43a2-8214-d8b0693f059f" CreationDate="2015-10-05T18:32:26.280" UserId="11947" Text="I am wondering how picking a big firm vs. small law office could affect the outcome. On one hand a big firm has more resources but I guess they are more interested in corporate clients with deep pocket, while the small office could give more attention to an individual inventor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33503" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13739" RevisionGUID="4485e698-0b43-43a2-8214-d8b0693f059f" CreationDate="2015-10-05T18:32:26.280" UserId="11947" Text="Choosing a patent lawyer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33504" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13739" RevisionGUID="4485e698-0b43-43a2-8214-d8b0693f059f" CreationDate="2015-10-05T18:32:26.280" UserId="11947" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;lawyers&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13740" RevisionGUID="769960d0-b82d-4c3e-ae01-b4672b53ebd7" CreationDate="2015-10-06T15:25:29.067" UserId="15160" Text="I FILED A PROVISIONAL APPLICATION IN 1994 . THEN I SENT A FULL DESCRIPTION OF MY INVENTION TO AN EMMINENT PROFESSOR IN THE FIELD OF THAT INVENTION  IN USA, SOON AFTER FILING THE PROVISIONAL APPLICATION , DESCRIBING IT IN FULL DETAILS , MENTIONING THE DATE AND NUMBER OF MY PROVISILNAL APPLICATION IN THE PATENT OFFICE OF MY COUNTRY;BUT SHE DIDNT'T LIKE THE IDEA , SEEMINGLY , AND SHE SENT LATER AL LETTER HOPING ME GOOD LUCK AND THAT SHE HAS NO EXPERTISE IN THAT BRANCH OF THE INNOVATION.  IN 2015 , ACCIDENTLY I READ THAT A TEAM OF SCIENTISTS IN USA HAS DISCOVERED A NEW WAY FOR TREATMENT OF CERTAIN SERIOUS CASES AND SURPRISNGLY,  THAT DICOVERY WAS MY INVENTION TYPICALLY , ALTHOUGH  THEY USED IT  FOR DIFFERENT MICROBES ; IT WAS THE SAME DEVICE THAT I INVENTED IN 1994 . IS THERE ANY WAY TO PROOVE THAT I AM THE FIRST INVENTOR ? THANK YOU." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33507" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13740" RevisionGUID="769960d0-b82d-4c3e-ae01-b4672b53ebd7" CreationDate="2015-10-06T15:25:29.067" UserId="15160" Text="prior art proof" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33508" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13740" RevisionGUID="769960d0-b82d-4c3e-ae01-b4672b53ebd7" CreationDate="2015-10-06T15:25:29.067" UserId="15160" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;priority&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13741" RevisionGUID="d9a7159a-9a74-4b94-b52d-8847dfd10762" CreationDate="2015-10-06T20:22:05.640" UserId="14940" Text="I have an idea for a business model that's never really been done before. There exists current businesses that accomplish the same goal, but not in the way I envision it. For example, think about Uber and taxi services. They both accomplish the same goal (deliver the passenger), but accomplish it in different models.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, Uber would be a good example of the type of patents I need. I did some research on them and they've patented a whole bunch of ideas, such as &quot;PROVIDING ON-DEMAND SERVICES THROUGH USE OF PORTABLE COMPUTING DEVICES&quot; and &quot;PROVIDING USER FEEDBACK FOR TRANSPORT SERVICES THROUGH USE OF MOBILE DEVICES&quot; and &quot;PROVIDING ON-DEMAND SERVICES THROUGH USE OF PORTABLE COMPUTING DEVICES&quot; This is exactly the type of patent I'm looking for. They're not really a patent for an invention, but more like for a concept. I thought these abstract ideas couldn't be patented?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second question is when to file? I plan to build the platform then launch it, and then patent it when it becomes successful, but I'm afraid when it's gaining traction someone will copy the idea. I don't have the funds to patent it right now before launch, so I'm not sure what to do. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, Uber has filed dozens of patents for different features and ideas. Is it possible to file all things in a single patent to cut back on costs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What type of patents does Uber use?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is there any way to protect my idea during the initial launch without spending a lot, and then patenting it when it becomes successful?&#xD;&#xA; 3. Can I file multiple ideas and concepts into a single patent, or do I need separate patents for each entity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any and all help is greatly appreciated. Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33510" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13741" RevisionGUID="d9a7159a-9a74-4b94-b52d-8847dfd10762" CreationDate="2015-10-06T20:22:05.640" UserId="14940" Text="When and how to patent a business model?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33511" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13741" RevisionGUID="d9a7159a-9a74-4b94-b52d-8847dfd10762" CreationDate="2015-10-06T20:22:05.640" UserId="14940" Text="&lt;concepts&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13742" RevisionGUID="566069d1-4f63-48f9-b0a7-739c8bfdc33e" CreationDate="2015-10-07T04:38:45.130" UserId="14510" Text="In a sense, the question ties into what a provisional patent ***application*** is. There is NO SUCH THING as a provisional *patent.*&#xD;&#xA;When you file a provisional patent application, you are simply depositing your specification (and you SHOULD be depositing at least SOME claims) with the patent office that HOPEFULLY thoroughly discloses your invention (and possible variations of it - even if they aren't as good, in your opinion - and variations of it applied to other fields, and ...). This only sets a filing date that establishes that you were in possession of WHAT WAS DISCLOSED as of the day you filed the *application.* ... and the filing date is only good if you file a 'real' (non-provisional) application WITHIN ONE YEAR. If you file it later than that, your own provisional application can bar you from a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are only supposed to submit one invention per application. Trying to bundle them together is asking for problems (for a discussion of a few of the problems, see http://www.intelproplaw.com/ip_forum/index.php?topic=20908.0), unless they are actually two aspects of a single invention. You seem to indicate they are not. However, it depends on what your INVENTION is, not your product (I might invent a new laptop screen, but my product might be the whole laptop, for example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the very least, if you bundle too much together, when you file the real/non-provisional application, you will have to split it out into multiple applications that all claim priority to the one provisional. This can happen in an honest situation. Trying to keep it as separate as possible, though, is usually best. Unless you're rich or a prolific inventor, the filing fee for a provisional application is about $65 - so it's typically better safe than sorry." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13740" RevisionGUID="0cc05817-5434-4644-af98-5ca5d11034c5" CreationDate="2015-10-07T07:01:17.613" UserId="11895" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="I filed a provisional application in 1994 . Then i sent a full description of my invention to an eminent professor in the field of that invention in USA, soon after filing the provisional application , describing it in full details , mentioning the date and number of my provisional application in the patent office of my country; but she didn’t like the idea , seemingly , and she sent later al letter hoping me good luck and that she has no expertise in that branch of the innovation. In 2015 , accidently i read that a team of scientists in USA has discovered a new way for treatment of certain serious cases and surprisingly, that discovery was my invention typically , although they used it for different microbes ; it was the same device that i invented in 1994 . Is there any way to prove that i am the first inventor ? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13743" RevisionGUID="ef1fc3ef-597f-4171-a118-388238da299a" CreationDate="2015-10-07T18:01:08.717" UserId="15163" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2014007762A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014007762A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hi,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I came across an idea which is similar to this patent and during my search found it's already been patented. I do have a few questions (namely the inventor) and hope I can get some answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. This invention/idea, has it already been implemented or is it in the process of doing so?&#xD;&#xA;2. If not yet what are the hurdles faced?&#xD;&#xA;3. I firmly believe it is a very good idea and if the inventor is interested he can contact me so we can share ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks,&#xD;&#xA;Don." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33516" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13743" RevisionGUID="ef1fc3ef-597f-4171-a118-388238da299a" CreationDate="2015-10-07T18:01:08.717" UserId="15163" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2014007762A1]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33517" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13743" RevisionGUID="ef1fc3ef-597f-4171-a118-388238da299a" CreationDate="2015-10-07T18:01:08.717" UserId="15163" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33518" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13743" RevisionGUID="09ff6866-22e3-4713-bbfb-b833507045a3" CreationDate="2015-10-07T18:14:07.957" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13744" RevisionGUID="8de91cb4-c5aa-4d0e-ac74-f5e0b07b233c" CreationDate="2015-10-07T18:55:30.363" UserId="11394" Text="1. Yes. I might just write 30 wt% polyamine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. No, that construction is not used with &quot;plurality.&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13741" RevisionGUID="bea20aa8-b232-4e76-894d-14b7b6a857da" CreationDate="2015-10-08T01:55:08.283" UserId="14940" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="I have an idea for a business model that's never really been done before. There exists current businesses that accomplish the same goal, but not in the way I envision it. For example, think about Uber and taxi services. They both accomplish the same goal (deliver the passenger), but accomplish it in different models.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, Uber would be a good example of the type of patents I need. I did some research on them and they've patented a whole bunch of ideas, such as &quot;PROVIDING ON-DEMAND SERVICES THROUGH USE OF PORTABLE COMPUTING DEVICES&quot; and &quot;PROVIDING USER FEEDBACK FOR TRANSPORT SERVICES THROUGH USE OF MOBILE DEVICES&quot; and &quot;PROVIDING ON-DEMAND SERVICES THROUGH USE OF PORTABLE COMPUTING DEVICES&quot; This is exactly the type of patent I'm looking for. They're not really a patent for an invention, but more like for a concept. I thought these abstract ideas couldn't be patented?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second question is when to file? I plan to build the platform then launch it, and then patent it when it becomes successful, but I'm afraid when it's gaining traction someone will copy the idea. I don't have the funds to patent it right now before launch, so I'm not sure what to do. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, Uber has filed dozens of patents for different features and ideas. Is it possible to file all things in a single patent to cut back on costs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What type of patents does Uber use?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is there any way to protect my idea during the initial launch without spending a lot, and then patenting it when it becomes successful?&#xD;&#xA; 3. Can I file multiple ideas and concepts into a single patent, or do I need separate patents for each entity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any and all help is greatly appreciated. Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13748" RevisionGUID="b4d771a5-bdfa-490b-bf1e-6a0d9818586f" CreationDate="2015-10-08T13:05:23.067" UserId="15170" Text="IANAL etc., and I haven't read through the patent that you refer to, But I have read the abstract and found this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Upon detection of an intent to leave the webpage, an advertisement&#xD;&#xA;&gt; may be displayed to a user. The advertisement may be targeted to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user and/or based on the content the user was viewing on the webpage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I think may be significant here is that the patent is talking about displaying advertising when the users' exit intent is detected.  You're not displaying advertising, so no infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Skim reading through more of the linked patent it seems that displaying advertising is the main concern of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13748" RevisionGUID="cd52a016-a2bb-4f6a-a046-d749e605eeee" CreationDate="2015-10-08T13:12:15.933" UserId="15170" Comment="Added a bit more info" Text="IANAPL etc., and I haven't read through the patent that you refer to, But I have read the abstract and found this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Upon detection of an intent to leave the webpage, an advertisement&#xD;&#xA;&gt; may be displayed to a user. The advertisement may be targeted to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user and/or based on the content the user was viewing on the webpage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I think may be significant here is that the patent is talking about displaying advertising when the users' exit intent is detected. Skim reading through more of the linked patent it seems that displaying advertising is the main concern of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at drawing 6 of the patent &quot;display advertisement&quot; seems to me to be the object of the exercise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you are not displaying advertising when you detect an exit intent, you are not infringing, in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13752" RevisionGUID="82a02808-94b9-465e-aa60-55d80da358be" CreationDate="2015-10-09T12:40:12.220" UserId="15140" Text="[US20140180989 A1][1] has been applied by Google. It seems that the patent is about [convolutional neural network][2] with parallel architecture. I have searched further and found that several companies including Microsoft have applied for a [similar patents][3]. Neurala already has a [patent][4], which seems to cover a broad range of computer programs utilizing GPU.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, NVIDIA, a major GPU maker, provides [CUDA][5] technology as a tool for developing GPU-based programs and seems to be encouraging the development. They also provide a large [list of such applications][6]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that use of GPU as a parallel platform is expanding but nobody is worried about patent infringement.&#xD;&#xA;I don’t understand what’s going on. Do we really have to worry about anything about patent at all when we develop a parallel program for GPU with CUDA, which is readily provided for this purpose?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com.ar/patents/US20140180989?dq=US20140180989%20A1&amp;hl=ja&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0CBsQ6AEwAGoVChMI6Z29krC1yAIVxN-mCh0pYgkf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convolutional_neural_network&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com.ar/patents/US7747070?dq=US7747070%20B2&amp;hl=ja&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0CBsQ6AEwAGoVChMI28zQsbK1yAIVheamCh2j1gVz&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com.ar/patents/US8648867&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-zone&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.nvidia.co.jp/content/gpu-applications/PDF/GPU-apps-catalog-mar2015.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33546" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13752" RevisionGUID="82a02808-94b9-465e-aa60-55d80da358be" CreationDate="2015-10-09T12:40:12.220" UserId="15140" Text="Parallel Programs for GPU" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33547" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13752" RevisionGUID="82a02808-94b9-465e-aa60-55d80da358be" CreationDate="2015-10-09T12:40:12.220" UserId="15140" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13752" RevisionGUID="3f21ff46-f60f-4d15-afcb-b237cba0a163" CreationDate="2015-10-10T03:17:23.830" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, improved tagging and corrected spelling." Text="[US 2014/0180989 A1][1] has been applied by Google. It seems that the patent is about [convolutional neural network][2] with parallel architecture. I have searched further and found that several companies including Microsoft have applied for a [similar patents][3]. Neurala, LLC already has a [patent][4], which seems to cover a broad range of computer programs utilizing GPU.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, nVidia, a major GPU maker, provides [CUDA][5] technology as a tool for developing GPU-based programs and seems to be encouraging the development. They also provide a large [list of such applications][6]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that use of GPU as a parallel platform is expanding but nobody is worried about patent infringement.&#xD;&#xA;I don’t understand what’s going on. Do we really have to worry about anything about patent at all when we develop a parallel program for GPU with CUDA, which is readily provided for this purpose?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140180989&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convolutional_neural_network&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7747070&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8648867&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-zone&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.nvidia.com/content/gpu-applications/PDF/GPU-apps-catalog-mar2015.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33562" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13752" RevisionGUID="3f21ff46-f60f-4d15-afcb-b237cba0a163" CreationDate="2015-10-10T03:17:23.830" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, improved tagging and corrected spelling." Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;google&gt;&lt;us20140180989&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3535" RevisionGUID="99a19037-22c6-4ada-b7fb-1ccb7c5ca179" CreationDate="2015-10-10T07:59:25.887" UserId="10011" Comment="added 435 characters in body" Text="This was being done, in Java, across networked machines - Solr 3.5 (which existed prior to their claims) configured to use MMapFSDirectory and shards...those two features are specifically there to increase performance on very large indexes. And what is Solr really but a general purpose data store/base? What are Terracotta products in general? Their claim would not meet novelty or non-obviousness tests for those awake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I came across this question whilst doing research on open source BigData/BigMemory efforts.  My statements are made from personal experience as a former legal researcher and having many a conversation with a USPTO lawyer and drinking buddy (we'll just call him Joe).  Not to get too political, but collectively we need to realize that the current patent system is seriously flawed.  We, the creative, are asking lawyers to examine, understand, and rule on the novelty, eligibility, non-obviousness, and usefulness of an idea or collection of ideas.  Tell me, how do we know he/she has the strength of abstract thought to deal with the abstract principles in disciplines which are foreign to those who aren't deliberately SMEs?  How many lines of code has that examiner written?  How many hours has he/she spent crawling through the compiler/JVM/API source code or a thermodynamic equation to **intimately** understand how it all works?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience, patents on chemical processes, rubber baby bottle nipple design, etc. are wrought with enough problems, because just as Joe would tell you, they simply don't have enough lawyers who are also SMEs.  If you need a refresher on what they **do** focus on as a matter of procedure, see http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html&#xD;&#xA;See if you can find what's missing from the procedure.  If you say that there is no guaranteed subject matter oversight by experts on the government's part, you would be right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But software presents it's own problems, for one, *very little is actually **new** in software* - there simply are lots of minor variations on a few themes.  We rely on a non-technical person to intercede so that a whole segment of an industry isn't stifled from some unscrupulous applicant getting a patent on the obvious variants of Knuth's sort algorithms or a slickly re-worded spin on a rediscovered century-old recipe for anhydrous ammonia.  I maintain that the danger of software patents is that the better financed organizations will effect a &quot;Cloward-Piven&quot; strategy to overwhelm the system.  Through this shotgun approach, poorly adjudicated claims receive patents and provide fertile legal ground for frivolous law suits - look at Apple vs. Samsung.  We all know what a UI is, but it seems the patent is now received on the UX (seriously, this is like patenting what font you use in a document - meaning things are viewed stylistically rather than as a matter of process).  Maybe the inventor of the first digital tuner for radios should sue the first person who created the carousel UI component on infringement grounds?  Can you see how insidious and ridiculous this gets?&#xD;&#xA;The patent/copyright protections were not envisioned for minutia, rather, they were designed to protect big and/or progressive ideas for a fixed length of time.  **Most importantly**, they were designed to promote competition in intellectual problem solving pursuits.  And just like individual liberties, once good mechanisms will be corrupted, subjugated, and stolen if not jealously guarded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Terracotta's claims in this particular matter is just another shameful business practice akin to domain name parking - they've done nothing novel or &quot;non-obvious&quot;, we all know this.  They, like scores of others, are betting on getting away with it through the naivety of an overburdened &quot;system&quot;.  This won't change until there is some real awakening and fierce activism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;btw - not slamming Terracotta's products - I applaud them for taking the **Lego(tm)** set of Java components and providing useful tools to solve people's business problems..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13755" RevisionGUID="ad6c098d-43cb-4fcb-9953-e258ac345f47" CreationDate="2015-10-10T15:54:16.217" UserId="15183" Text="Chain lubricating apparatus and method &#xD;&#xA;US 8567565 B2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This appears to be the same idea repackaged by different individuals for over 100 years.  Is this a common practice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also can BKC renew the patent without a significant design change?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33572" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13755" RevisionGUID="ad6c098d-43cb-4fcb-9953-e258ac345f47" CreationDate="2015-10-10T15:54:16.217" UserId="15183" Text="Assigning Patents To Different People For Same Device For Over 100 Years, US 8567565 B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33573" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13755" RevisionGUID="ad6c098d-43cb-4fcb-9953-e258ac345f47" CreationDate="2015-10-10T15:54:16.217" UserId="15183" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13756" RevisionGUID="3e33e8eb-8a50-4fc1-917d-cbb6dd4db4b4" CreationDate="2015-10-10T20:28:05.130" UserId="15185" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5803169][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5803169" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33576" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13756" RevisionGUID="3e33e8eb-8a50-4fc1-917d-cbb6dd4db4b4" CreationDate="2015-10-10T20:28:05.130" UserId="15185" Text="what is your publication number?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33577" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13756" RevisionGUID="3e33e8eb-8a50-4fc1-917d-cbb6dd4db4b4" CreationDate="2015-10-10T20:28:05.130" UserId="15185" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13758" RevisionGUID="343c7fa3-2de6-419f-aa70-49c53b34490f" CreationDate="2015-10-11T01:21:33.903" UserId="15188" Text="In reference to the patent: [US9091867][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9091867&#xD;&#xA;Is this method available to automatically get the pupil distances using an app on a mobile device?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33584" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13758" RevisionGUID="343c7fa3-2de6-419f-aa70-49c53b34490f" CreationDate="2015-10-11T01:21:33.903" UserId="15188" Text="Automatic pupil distances using a mobile app" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33585" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13758" RevisionGUID="343c7fa3-2de6-419f-aa70-49c53b34490f" CreationDate="2015-10-11T01:21:33.903" UserId="15188" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;app&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33593" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13758" RevisionGUID="b18d0058-9993-4fe6-af9c-35ce9391968d" CreationDate="2015-10-11T08:37:12.813" UserId="10011" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13760" RevisionGUID="f6e429f2-294e-408a-aba9-102948186b73" CreationDate="2015-10-11T09:59:20.667" UserId="15190" Text="In reference to the patent: [US4756116][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4756116&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How was this patent issued? It is certainly not original, and appears to be little-more than a trivial re-hash of Dr Horner's &quot;Galvanic Protector&quot; published in &quot;The Magazine of Domestic Economy&quot;, Volume 6 1841 and &quot;Gardeners Chronicle&quot;, February 20, 1841.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I quote:&#xD;&#xA;Gardener's Chronicle, February 20, 1841&#xD;&#xA;&quot;If a snail or slug be placed on a plate of zinc, to which a narrow plate or strip of copper is fixed, it creeps unmolested on its surface; but as soon as it touches the copper, it receives a galvanic shock (its moist soft body acting as the moistened cloth above mentioned, and thus forming the galvanic circle complete), and immediately recoils, twisting itself back, and rarely venturing a second time to touch the copper, to receive another shock. This (to us) amusing experiment, I have tried again and again, and of course always with the same results. To protect a seedling crop, then, in a border, or in frames, &amp; etc., I have zinc plates of one, two, or three feet in length, and four or five inches in breadth; with a strip of copper plate, one inch broad, placed on the upper part, and secured close with two or three rivets of zinc, as in the figure. These plates are fixed in the ground to the depth of a couple of inches, around the plants to be protected. As just explained, the snail creeps up the zinc, but receives a galvanic shock as soon as its horns or head touch the copper, causing it to recoil and turn back; an insurmountable fence can thus, in a moment, be formed around whatever we wish to save from these marauders; and if made in a circular form, or in short lengths, the plates may be contrived to meet every possible exigency. I have myself used this protector in all cases with complete success, and a scientific gentleman of this place, to whom I acknowledge myself indebted for the suggestion of the principle, last year saved his dahlias (which on other occasions had always been nearly all devoured by snails as soon as planted out), by cylindrical hoops of the zinc and copper plate placed around each plant. If the lip of the tongue be placed midway on the zinc and copper at the same time, an unpleasant metallic or saltish taste is perceived: this is the sensation which proves so unpalatable and detrimental to the slug, and in which the protective power consists.&quot; Hull. F. R. Horner, M.D. &#xD;&#xA;P.S. The cost of the plates complete is about sixpence per foot: they will of course last for an indefinite period." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33595" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13760" RevisionGUID="f6e429f2-294e-408a-aba9-102948186b73" CreationDate="2015-10-11T09:59:20.667" UserId="15190" Text="The principle behind the Patent is not original it was Public domain" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33596" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13760" RevisionGUID="f6e429f2-294e-408a-aba9-102948186b73" CreationDate="2015-10-11T09:59:20.667" UserId="15190" Text="&lt;us4756116&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13761" RevisionGUID="bf6fb3bb-9b66-4950-8e8f-73bb9754f06a" CreationDate="2015-10-11T12:08:07.333" UserId="15192" Text="Suppose company A invented X, but kept it a trade secret. If then company B reinvents X, either using reverse engineering, or completely independently, can company B patent it, and if so, can company B enforce that patent against company A?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33598" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13761" RevisionGUID="bf6fb3bb-9b66-4950-8e8f-73bb9754f06a" CreationDate="2015-10-11T12:08:07.333" UserId="15192" Text="Are reinventions patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33599" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13761" RevisionGUID="bf6fb3bb-9b66-4950-8e8f-73bb9754f06a" CreationDate="2015-10-11T12:08:07.333" UserId="15192" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;secret&gt;&lt;trade-secret&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13762" RevisionGUID="b3bb9857-c714-4981-9159-b843e0d67f73" CreationDate="2015-10-11T22:12:52.780" UserId="15198" Text="I have made a sauce using my own chillies and spices sugar etc but there is 3 types of sauce by different companies in the recipe of the sauce. Can I patent my sauce or am I not allowed to use someone else's sauce as part of the make up of my own?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33602" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13762" RevisionGUID="b3bb9857-c714-4981-9159-b843e0d67f73" CreationDate="2015-10-11T22:12:52.780" UserId="15198" Text="Home Made Sauce comprising of other sauces" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33603" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13762" RevisionGUID="b3bb9857-c714-4981-9159-b843e0d67f73" CreationDate="2015-10-11T22:12:52.780" UserId="15198" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13763" RevisionGUID="cd507082-29e3-4d3f-a792-a48c6309164d" CreationDate="2015-10-12T05:35:18.677" UserId="11895" Text="If content is novel which is evident from your extensive search then you should file a PCT application with china or other india as searching authority (less fee option), based on PCT search report you can make more informed decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;since said thesis was published after you filing it should be not concern, but you are advised to  search non-patent lit. (e.g. journals etc) with said author or at-least his entire work group department (guide, professor etc.) which might give more insights. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13764" RevisionGUID="f35dd1b3-aad8-4d00-83f6-931d4e4649c9" CreationDate="2015-10-12T06:04:36.790" UserId="11895" Text="More relevant question is how to know patent attorney is efficient?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will provide some points which might give you insights on things that matter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all I would emphasize it does not matter Big or Small firm!! what really matters is whether my case is deeply understood by attorney. for example my invention is some sort of mechanical and thermodynamics base equipment and firm is specialized in biological invention (attorney if of Bioscience) which means that though they have extensive knowledge of IP rules laws, Inventor has to sit and make them aware about each aspect of invention. Even after that just a pop-up question by examiner may raise doubt in attorney mind. Just imagine that in a war soldier has a doubt on what to do? To my opinion what really matters is attorney is well versed with technology class you want to get IP. just search the patents they have represented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not seen a single instance which says attorney has given less amount of time based on money or bill factor. Yes they might feel lagging in terms of technology knowledge but they try really harder to make inventor win.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13765" RevisionGUID="6148faa4-770a-4c44-b31e-6ec9514687db" CreationDate="2015-10-12T06:22:14.083" UserId="11895" Text="Said Patent application publication number was not issued by USPTO, seems it was published directly as Patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;source:- file history at public PAIR." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13512" RevisionGUID="2f73efdf-f277-4d85-8a26-9d13c8aa0658" CreationDate="2015-10-12T10:44:37.657" UserId="7833" Comment="improved the language" Text="Can a US company which does not hold a patent for a product or method sell a US patented product or use a US patented method overseas without a licensing agreement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is a US patent enforceable against a registered US company or subsidiary regardless of where the US company trades?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33609" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13512" RevisionGUID="2f73efdf-f277-4d85-8a26-9d13c8aa0658" CreationDate="2015-10-12T10:44:37.657" Comment="Proposed by 7833 approved by 14417, 11895 edit id of 1892" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13766" RevisionGUID="1b95258d-5a26-4b98-820f-9663d8dd2d99" CreationDate="2015-10-12T11:22:57.703" UserId="15204" Text="Why is there no such machine to buy on the market?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US6630806][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6630806" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33611" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13766" RevisionGUID="1b95258d-5a26-4b98-820f-9663d8dd2d99" CreationDate="2015-10-12T11:22:57.703" UserId="15204" Text="What happend to this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33612" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13766" RevisionGUID="1b95258d-5a26-4b98-820f-9663d8dd2d99" CreationDate="2015-10-12T11:22:57.703" UserId="15204" Text="&lt;invention&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13767" RevisionGUID="ec1d6da6-2fd4-4e9f-b6b7-f5852f5254f1" CreationDate="2015-10-12T16:54:25.417" UserId="15205" Text="A university's technology commercialization office filed a patent in 2007 and it's status today is &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could this same University file this patent again?  From what I hear, the University representative was fired so this slipped through the cracks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33614" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13767" RevisionGUID="ec1d6da6-2fd4-4e9f-b6b7-f5852f5254f1" CreationDate="2015-10-12T16:54:25.417" UserId="15205" Text="Can the same entity refile an abandoned patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33615" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13767" RevisionGUID="ec1d6da6-2fd4-4e9f-b6b7-f5852f5254f1" CreationDate="2015-10-12T16:54:25.417" UserId="15205" Text="&lt;abadoned&gt;&lt;refile&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13768" RevisionGUID="30633ff9-e2f9-488e-b12e-6cacfbabe4d6" CreationDate="2015-10-12T21:14:35.940" UserId="4545" Text="The two scenarios -- reverse engineering X or independently inventing X -- are significantly different. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming that X was not publicly available, B could very well independently invent X and be granted a patent on it (i.e., &quot;first to file&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the of X being made publicly available (as a product sold by A), X itself could not be patented by B. However, if the method of making X was novel and non-obvious in view of what was publicly disclosed, B might be able to obtain a patent on the method of making X. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, B could enforce a granted patent against company A in either case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that in several court cases, trade secrets that could even theoretically be reverse engineered would deemed to not be protected (as trade secrets) for that very reason. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13769" RevisionGUID="1ea6145c-ba3d-437f-bdcf-c3da267ed3cd" CreationDate="2015-10-12T21:19:18.960" UserId="4545" Text="The original pre-grant publication of the patent application from 2007 would be used to reject any new filing for the same subject matter. This could only be avoided if the applicant was allowed to revive the abandoned patent application (extremely unlikely as the applicant would be required to demonstrate that correcting the failure to respond was unavoidable or unintentional for the entire period). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13770" RevisionGUID="f462fa72-e2cb-4d5c-ba2d-02c15bc0406c" CreationDate="2015-10-12T21:20:44.530" UserId="4545" Text="Recipes (for sauces, etc.) cannot be patented under US law. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13771" RevisionGUID="5e9de49d-b45f-42cc-85a3-d2d14eafd128" CreationDate="2015-10-13T02:10:01.613" UserId="15207" Text="In reference to the patent: [EP2812386A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP2812386A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33620" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13771" RevisionGUID="5e9de49d-b45f-42cc-85a3-d2d14eafd128" CreationDate="2015-10-13T02:10:01.613" UserId="15207" Text="Is this patent granted in US or Europe or it is still in the approval process?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33621" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13771" RevisionGUID="5e9de49d-b45f-42cc-85a3-d2d14eafd128" CreationDate="2015-10-13T02:10:01.613" UserId="15207" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13772" RevisionGUID="1be87e70-1944-46dd-8554-eb6a2c639899" CreationDate="2015-10-13T08:32:31.163" UserId="15210" Text="In reference to the patent: [US4590975][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4590975&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i want to know that how this cup automaticaly capping and discharge? please sir i request u to give some knowledge about this concept.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33623" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13772" RevisionGUID="1be87e70-1944-46dd-8554-eb6a2c639899" CreationDate="2015-10-13T08:32:31.163" UserId="15210" Text="which components used in cup discharge and how that process worked?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33624" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13772" RevisionGUID="1be87e70-1944-46dd-8554-eb6a2c639899" CreationDate="2015-10-13T08:32:31.163" UserId="15210" Text="&lt;process&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33625" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13756" RevisionGUID="0a0267b9-e7d7-4346-927f-20e3e845cc05" CreationDate="2015-10-13T08:50:21.200" UserId="11895" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5803169][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether this patent was published as application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5803169" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33626" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13756" RevisionGUID="0a0267b9-e7d7-4346-927f-20e3e845cc05" CreationDate="2015-10-13T08:50:21.200" UserId="11895" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="what is publication number for US5803169?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13773" RevisionGUID="9bec214c-746b-4711-854c-6754a682a6c2" CreationDate="2015-10-13T14:07:39.937" UserId="4545" Text="No. Ownership is largely independent of inventorship, as patents can be sold, traded, and gifted just like any other form of property. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13774" RevisionGUID="1a5d937e-fb65-460d-a81e-e414b42d049c" CreationDate="2015-10-13T14:24:30.023" UserId="15213" Text="In reference to the patent: [US6932368][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6932368" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33629" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13774" RevisionGUID="1a5d937e-fb65-460d-a81e-e414b42d049c" CreationDate="2015-10-13T14:24:30.023" UserId="15213" Text="Please describe why It has been given patent, there are so many prior arts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33630" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13774" RevisionGUID="1a5d937e-fb65-460d-a81e-e414b42d049c" CreationDate="2015-10-13T14:24:30.023" UserId="15213" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13776" RevisionGUID="49693c52-40d6-4947-be22-302f51639b4f" CreationDate="2015-10-13T15:20:30.147" UserId="4545" Text="http://www.yankodesign.com/2010/07/20/power-line-up/ seems pretty similar.&#xD;&#xA;Comments in http://gizmodo.com/5592067/absolutely-genius-slide-your-plugs-into-slots-instead-of-individual-holes state that this kind of product was in use a few decades ago. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Google search for &quot;slot type power outlet&quot; brought up the above links. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13777" RevisionGUID="75671f6c-48c4-48c2-9b27-aa8d2152715d" CreationDate="2015-10-13T19:32:27.607" UserId="15215" Text="Is there a way to find someone that makes an item with a certain patent number?&#xD;&#xA;Specifically patent number 4,455,711" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33634" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13777" RevisionGUID="75671f6c-48c4-48c2-9b27-aa8d2152715d" CreationDate="2015-10-13T19:32:27.607" UserId="15215" Text="trying to find a discontued hinge with patent number 4,455,711" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33635" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13777" RevisionGUID="75671f6c-48c4-48c2-9b27-aa8d2152715d" CreationDate="2015-10-13T19:32:27.607" UserId="15215" Text="&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13780" RevisionGUID="7d06b2b4-faff-47e8-95de-5d7fef214572" CreationDate="2015-10-14T05:32:35.977" UserId="15219" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20040130227][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20040130227&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the model working model or for demonstration model only?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33643" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13780" RevisionGUID="7d06b2b4-faff-47e8-95de-5d7fef214572" CreationDate="2015-10-14T05:32:35.977" UserId="15219" Text="is model is working or demonstrative only?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33644" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13780" RevisionGUID="7d06b2b4-faff-47e8-95de-5d7fef214572" CreationDate="2015-10-14T05:32:35.977" UserId="15219" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13782" RevisionGUID="28991196-4f57-480f-979c-547307b82c4c" CreationDate="2015-10-14T07:43:43.527" UserId="15221" Text="I've found a product that was implemented poorly and have redesigned it. Completely. It appears the same, as in it looks almost identical from a distance, but it isn't. It's a glove.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After reviewing intensively the existing patent and reworking everything from material to sewing pattern I'm being accused of violating someones patent and because it looks the same, people are buying into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**False** online claims and emails to my clients of the last 9 yrs, have persisted for a couple of years now, yet not once has there been any *follow up* action taken on anyone actively selling our product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One client, contacted 2 yrs ago, stopped selling this product after she contacted him. (He's been our client 9yrs and still sells our other products.) He bought hers and within a month was back to selling our product and hasn't heard from her since. He sells hundreds. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing has been proven in a court of law yet this person is causing havoc. How can I stop this without filing my own patent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a 9 min full patent overview video and a 3 min &quot;cut to the chase&quot; patent explain-er video.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for taking the time...It is much appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;Tom" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33647" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13782" RevisionGUID="28991196-4f57-480f-979c-547307b82c4c" CreationDate="2015-10-14T07:43:43.527" UserId="15221" Text="How to stop false patent infringement claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33648" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13782" RevisionGUID="28991196-4f57-480f-979c-547307b82c4c" CreationDate="2015-10-14T07:43:43.527" UserId="15221" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13782" RevisionGUID="16857bd8-033b-429e-af6f-5b840dc34f94" CreationDate="2015-10-14T08:00:02.383" UserId="15221" Comment="added 296 characters in body" Text="I've found a product that was implemented poorly and have redesigned it. Completely. It appears the same, as in it looks almost identical from a distance, but it isn't. It's a glove.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After reviewing intensively the existing patent and reworking everything from material to sewing pattern I'm being accused of violating someones patent and because it looks the same, people are buying into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**False** online claims and emails to my clients of the last 9 yrs, have persisted for a couple of years now, yet not once has there been any *follow up* action taken on anyone actively selling our product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One client, contacted 2 yrs ago, stopped selling this product after she contacted him. (He's been our client 9yrs and still sells our other products.) He bought hers and within a month was back to selling our product and hasn't heard from her since. He sells hundreds. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing has been proven in a court of law yet this person is causing havoc. How can I stop this without filing my own patent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a 9 min full patent overview video and a 3 min &quot;cut to the chase&quot; patent explain-er video.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for taking the time...It is much appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;Tom&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: What if I wanted an attorney to give his opinion on whether or not our product infringed on this one patent. Would this be feasible? Is it something that is practiced? I don't need a full patent search, I just need some confirmation, short of a court decision, that backs up our claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="fa36950e-1dfc-42ce-9cb7-f2ed7890a6b7" CreationDate="2015-10-14T13:57:05.260" UserId="11751" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I'm specifically interested in [US 6873940][1] patent. The company that currently owns the patent is a company called [Kamatani Cloud][2] which is subsidiary of [General Patent][3] which some argue ([1][4], [2][5], [3][6], [4][7]) is a patent troll company. I'd like to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like [keylemon][8], [betafaceapi][9], [rekognition][10] or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker identification, face detection or content classification in images, audio or video files etc.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13]. In fact the [class 709 scope][12] has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent prosecution process after non-final rejection [argued][14] (2004-09-20 Applicant Arguments Remarks Made in an Amendment) that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect if server is capable of &quot;*measuring*&quot;/processing the data then the prior art is not applicable, consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are sent by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no &quot;*detecting whether the measurement data are capable of being measured*&quot; is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires server capability of detecting if data can be &quot;*measured*&quot; and notifying client if such capability exists then the patent shouldn't apply for cloud services as mentioned previously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding using the arguments provided by applicant during patent prosecution for claim interpretation please see [C. Claim Interpretation.][15], [wiki][18] and following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Markman, the Federal Circuit held that a court should consider a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent’s prosecution history if it is in evidence, and explained that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the prosecution history “is of primary significance in understanding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the claims.” 52 F.3d at 980, aff’d, 64 U.S.L.W. 4263. In Standard Oil&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985), the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Federal Circuit stated that:  [T]he prosecution history (sometimes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; called “file wrapper and contents’’) of the patent consists of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; entire record of proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office. This&#xD;&#xA;&gt; includes all express representations made by or on behalf of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applicant to the examiner to induce a patent grant, or, as here, to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reissue a patent. Such representations include amendments to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims and arguments made to convince the examiner that the claimed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention meets the statutory requirements of novelty, utility, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonobviousness. Thus, the prosecution history (or file wrapper) limits&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain claim allowance. 774 F.2d at 452 (emphasis added). In order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain allowance of the claims of the ‘712 patent, arguments were made&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on behalf of the applicant to the Examiner during prosecution that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served both to explain the claims in a clear manner and to disavow any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source - [Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-376, p. 47][16] or from [here][17].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So to put it briefly:#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class [709][12] regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13] work? Both must apply or only first or second when interpreting claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** during US6873940 patent application inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; in case of image processing requests are directed to URL for processing images and in case of voice processing requests are directed to URL for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing only faces or only classifying image contents...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6873940&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kamatanicloud.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.generalpatent.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://scienceprogress.org/2009/01/patent-trolls-erode-patent-system/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-biggest-patent-trolls&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ipdigit.eu/2011/10/what-to-think-of-patent-trolls-the-return/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/27/law-would-force-patent-trolls-to-pay-for-failed-lawsuits-against-innovators/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.keylemon.com&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.betafaceapi.com&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://rekognition.com&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc702/defs702.htm#C702S189000&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm#C709S217000&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.intellectual.com/infringement.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://bit.ly/1PYCjjA&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.usitc.gov/publications/337/pub3003.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markman_v._Westview_Instruments,_Inc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="11c02c77-d298-4ecd-8883-26c6a669d95d" CreationDate="2015-10-14T14:01:19.870" UserId="8074" Comment="Links added" Text="I'm specifically interested in [US 6873940][1] patent. The company that currently owns the patent is a company called [Kamatani Cloud][2] which is subsidiary of [General Patent][3] which some argue ([1][4], [2][5], [3][6], [4][7]) is a patent troll company. I'd like to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like [keylemon][8], [betafaceapi][9], [rekognition][10] or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker identification, face detection or content classification in images, audio or video files etc.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13]. In fact the [class 709 scope][12] has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent prosecution process after non-final rejection [argued][14] (2004-09-20 Applicant Arguments Remarks Made in an Amendment) that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect if server is capable of &quot;*measuring*&quot;/processing the data then the prior art is not applicable, consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are sent by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no &quot;*detecting whether the measurement data are capable of being measured*&quot; is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires server capability of detecting if data can be &quot;*measured*&quot; and notifying client if such capability exists then the patent shouldn't apply for cloud services as mentioned previously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding using the arguments provided by applicant during patent prosecution for claim interpretation please see [C. Claim Interpretation.][15], [wiki][16] and following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Markman, the Federal Circuit held that a court should consider a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent’s prosecution history if it is in evidence, and explained that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the prosecution history “is of primary significance in understanding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the claims.” 52 F.3d at 980, aff’d, 64 U.S.L.W. 4263. In Standard Oil&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985), the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Federal Circuit stated that:  [T]he prosecution history (sometimes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; called “file wrapper and contents’’) of the patent consists of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; entire record of proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office. This&#xD;&#xA;&gt; includes all express representations made by or on behalf of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applicant to the examiner to induce a patent grant, or, as here, to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reissue a patent. Such representations include amendments to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims and arguments made to convince the examiner that the claimed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention meets the statutory requirements of novelty, utility, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonobviousness. Thus, the prosecution history (or file wrapper) limits&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain claim allowance. 774 F.2d at 452 (emphasis added). In order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain allowance of the claims of the ‘712 patent, arguments were made&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on behalf of the applicant to the Examiner during prosecution that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served both to explain the claims in a clear manner and to disavow any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source - [Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-376, p. 47][17] or from [here][18].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So to put it briefly:#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class [709][12] regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13] work? Both must apply or only first or second when interpreting claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** during [US6873940][1] [patent application][14] inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; in case of image processing requests are directed to URL for processing images and in case of voice processing requests are directed to URL for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing only faces or only classifying image contents...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6873940&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kamatanicloud.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.generalpatent.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://scienceprogress.org/2009/01/patent-trolls-erode-patent-system/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-biggest-patent-trolls&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ipdigit.eu/2011/10/what-to-think-of-patent-trolls-the-return/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/27/law-would-force-patent-trolls-to-pay-for-failed-lawsuits-against-innovators/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.keylemon.com&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.betafaceapi.com&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://rekognition.com&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc702/defs702.htm#C702S189000&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm#C709S217000&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.intellectual.com/infringement.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markman_v._Westview_Instruments,_Inc.&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://bit.ly/1PYCjjA&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://www.usitc.gov/publications/337/pub3003.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33655" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="11c02c77-d298-4ecd-8883-26c6a669d95d" CreationDate="2015-10-14T14:01:19.870" Comment="Proposed by 8074 approved by 11751 edit id of 1894" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="e4548403-7448-4933-977a-d0314c530ddb" CreationDate="2015-10-14T14:02:08.210" UserId="11751" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I'm specifically interested in [US 6873940][1] patent. The company that currently owns the patent is a company called [Kamatani Cloud][2] which is subsidiary of [General Patent][3] which some argue ([1][4], [2][5], [3][6], [4][7]) is a patent troll company. I'd like to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like [keylemon][8], [betafaceapi][9], [rekognition][10] or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker identification, face detection or content classification in images, audio or video files etc.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13]. In fact the [class 709 scope][12] has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent prosecution process after non-final rejection [argued][14] (2004-09-20 Applicant Arguments Remarks Made in an Amendment) that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect if server is capable of &quot;*measuring*&quot;/processing the data then the prior art is not applicable, consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are sent by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no &quot;*detecting whether the measurement data are capable of being measured*&quot; is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires server capability of detecting if data can be &quot;*measured*&quot; and notifying client if such capability exists then the patent shouldn't apply for cloud services as mentioned previously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding using the arguments provided by applicant during patent prosecution for claim interpretation please see [C. Claim Interpretation.][15], [wiki][16] and following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Markman, the Federal Circuit held that a court should consider a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent’s prosecution history if it is in evidence, and explained that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the prosecution history “is of primary significance in understanding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the claims.” 52 F.3d at 980, aff’d, 64 U.S.L.W. 4263. In Standard Oil&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985), the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Federal Circuit stated that:  [T]he prosecution history (sometimes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; called “file wrapper and contents’’) of the patent consists of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; entire record of proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office. This&#xD;&#xA;&gt; includes all express representations made by or on behalf of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applicant to the examiner to induce a patent grant, or, as here, to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reissue a patent. Such representations include amendments to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims and arguments made to convince the examiner that the claimed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention meets the statutory requirements of novelty, utility, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonobviousness. Thus, the prosecution history (or file wrapper) limits&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain claim allowance. 774 F.2d at 452 (emphasis added). In order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain allowance of the claims of the ‘712 patent, arguments were made&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on behalf of the applicant to the Examiner during prosecution that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served both to explain the claims in a clear manner and to disavow any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source - [Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-376, p. 47][17] or from [here][18].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So to put it briefly:#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class [709][12] regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13] work? Both must apply or only first or second when interpreting claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** during [US6873940][1] [patent application][14] inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; in case of image processing requests are directed to URL for processing images and in case of voice processing requests are directed to URL for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing only faces or only classifying image contents...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6873940&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kamatanicloud.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.generalpatent.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://scienceprogress.org/2009/01/patent-trolls-erode-patent-system/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-biggest-patent-trolls&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ipdigit.eu/2011/10/what-to-think-of-patent-trolls-the-return/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/27/law-would-force-patent-trolls-to-pay-for-failed-lawsuits-against-innovators/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.keylemon.com&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.betafaceapi.com&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://rekognition.com&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc702/defs702.htm#C702S189000&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm#C709S217000&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.intellectual.com/infringement.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markman_v._Westview_Instruments,_Inc.&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://bit.ly/1PYCjjA&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://www.usitc.gov/publications/337/pub3003.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13768" RevisionGUID="1c8bb589-0b92-4560-bb08-8af571f522bd" CreationDate="2015-10-14T15:39:12.597" UserId="15192" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="The two scenarios -- reverse engineering X or independently inventing X -- are significantly different. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming that X was not publicly available, B could very well independently invent X and be granted a patent on it (i.e., &quot;first to file&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the of X being made publicly available (as a product sold by A), X itself could not be patented by B. However, if the method of making X was novel and non-obvious in view of what was publicly disclosed, B might be able to obtain a patent on the method of making X. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, B could enforce a granted patent against company A in either case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that in several court cases, trade secrets that could even theoretically be reverse engineered were deemed to not be protected (as trade secrets) for that very reason. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33658" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13768" RevisionGUID="1c8bb589-0b92-4560-bb08-8af571f522bd" CreationDate="2015-10-14T15:39:12.597" Comment="Proposed by 15192 approved by 14417, 4545 edit id of 1893" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13784" RevisionGUID="e2570aab-3c8f-4c4d-87e1-95617f4c7a3c" CreationDate="2015-10-14T23:17:30.490" UserId="8108" Text="Someone is working for a company where the &quot;standard&quot; policy, where all inventions made (during the time period, using what equipment, etc.) can be claimed by the company, applies...&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;When that employee creates new inventions for the company that are patent-able, can the employee apply for the patent under his name? How is this done and how does the company's rights come into play?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am asking this because I know of a few instances where an employee has patents on his designs/inventions that were made for the company they work for and was wondering how it all works when all inventions are supposed to belong to the company." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33660" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13784" RevisionGUID="e2570aab-3c8f-4c4d-87e1-95617f4c7a3c" CreationDate="2015-10-14T23:17:30.490" UserId="8108" Text="How do patents on product inventions/designs work if inventions are signed off to the company you work for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33661" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13784" RevisionGUID="e2570aab-3c8f-4c4d-87e1-95617f4c7a3c" CreationDate="2015-10-14T23:17:30.490" UserId="8108" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13785" RevisionGUID="aa7d1140-06fa-4b6f-bc7c-7c56e4f982a6" CreationDate="2015-10-15T04:00:03.550" UserId="15148" Text="There is a distinction between being the inventor, and being the assignee (aka owner) of the patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US, anyone who made a material contribution to at least one claim, must be recognized as an inventor. If no assignee is specified, the inventor is the presumed applicant/assignee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, employment agreements will contain a clause that the employee agrees to assign his/her inventions to the company (i.e is obligated to assign). In most cases, a separate assignment agreement is then later recorded with reference to the patent application or patent. In the US, if the employment agreement contains the phrase &quot;and hereby assigns&quot; (with the appropriate context), the employment agreement itself can serve as a valid and enforceable assignment agreement.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13790" RevisionGUID="516b64be-d5ae-4b12-a655-f1abdac9af2d" CreationDate="2015-10-15T22:33:23.887" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13791" RevisionGUID="b56c987a-59bc-429d-ac0a-11a632853f43" CreationDate="2015-10-15T22:33:23.887" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13793" RevisionGUID="f5472c03-aff0-4537-a409-c311164572cb" CreationDate="2015-10-16T05:44:24.273" UserId="15235" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20150047576][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20150047576" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33687" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13793" RevisionGUID="f5472c03-aff0-4537-a409-c311164572cb" CreationDate="2015-10-16T05:44:24.273" UserId="15235" Text="This is the same thing as SleekEZ that is already on the market or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33688" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13793" RevisionGUID="f5472c03-aff0-4537-a409-c311164572cb" CreationDate="2015-10-16T05:44:24.273" UserId="15235" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33692" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13793" RevisionGUID="34c9873b-1398-475a-bd10-56b37ad85edd" CreationDate="2015-10-16T07:53:14.160" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13793" RevisionGUID="34c9873b-1398-475a-bd10-56b37ad85edd" CreationDate="2015-10-16T07:53:14.160" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20150047576][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this application's claims,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is claimed is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A grooming tool comprising: a blade; a solid wooden handle; wherein said blade is contained within a wooden handle.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2. The grooming tool of claim 1 further comprising: bi-metal blade, wherein said blade is pressure fitted into a slot in the wooden handle.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  3. The invention of claim 2 wherein a rubber blade is permanently attached to said wooden handle by insertion of epoxy into said slot in said wooden handle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20150047576" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33699" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13766" RevisionGUID="39285cf8-e50f-4efb-9dc2-d5778081ca60" CreationDate="2015-10-16T08:08:07.810" UserId="10011" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:11895,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Pushpak&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4545,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;user4545&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:14417,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;vallismortis&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33700" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13772" RevisionGUID="a23790fc-3cd4-466a-ba18-d0d84de49c24" CreationDate="2015-10-16T08:13:28.360" UserId="10011" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:11895,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Pushpak&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:14417,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;vallismortis&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33701" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13774" RevisionGUID="988230cb-5f85-4820-95c0-cb234c767c85" CreationDate="2015-10-16T08:15:04.233" UserId="10011" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:14417,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;vallismortis&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13777" RevisionGUID="0c5f48dd-5be3-4af1-b9b0-4a0fa37f8290" CreationDate="2015-10-16T08:16:16.443" UserId="10011" Comment="added 45 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is there a way to find someone that makes an item with a certain patent number?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, I'm looking for the product described in patent number 4,455,711." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33703" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13777" RevisionGUID="0c5f48dd-5be3-4af1-b9b0-4a0fa37f8290" CreationDate="2015-10-16T08:16:16.443" UserId="10011" Comment="added 45 characters in body; edited title" Text="How can I find this product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33704" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13780" RevisionGUID="682a033c-593e-4f4e-be9b-e4d582e63f14" CreationDate="2015-10-16T08:16:48.997" UserId="10011" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:14417,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;vallismortis&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33706" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13782" RevisionGUID="bbd9e9bb-8b78-472f-88ad-e2b9cb56cb69" CreationDate="2015-10-16T08:22:42.183" UserId="10011" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:14417,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;vallismortis&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33707" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13756" RevisionGUID="b388ba17-3f9e-41c6-9a77-e6f59f7e219e" CreationDate="2015-10-16T08:23:16.877" UserId="10011" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:14417,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;vallismortis&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="323" RevisionGUID="b5ee5021-e507-4b5d-84ab-1e90989f3805" CreationDate="2015-10-16T08:31:16.413" UserId="14510" Comment="Edited to actually answer question. (Answer intended to recommend patent before post, but 'summary answer' was &quot;No.&quot;)" Text="&gt; Should I patent my idea before posting it on public internet forums?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, because if you don't, it then becomes prior art itself.  You wouldn't be able to patent it, because it was already publicly known - even though it was you who published it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can file a provisional patent application which will give you year's grace. They cost $125. Then you can post it online - but now the clocks starts ticking, and if you don't file the full application within that year, you won't be able to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: The USA used to give this year's grace automatically (&quot;first-to-invent&quot;), but is [changing to first-to-file](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent#The_USA.27s_change_to_first-to-file) next year (16 March 2013)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33714" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="323" RevisionGUID="b5ee5021-e507-4b5d-84ab-1e90989f3805" CreationDate="2015-10-16T08:31:16.413" Comment="Proposed by 14510 approved by 10011 edit id of 1895" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13794" RevisionGUID="519c32c0-289b-46a9-8956-cb1ee3665696" CreationDate="2015-10-16T08:49:14.663" UserId="15235" Text="Is it improper to notify party manufacturing a knock-off of product with PATENT PENDING of POSSIBLE or POTENTIAL patent infringement while a patent is pending? What if application has been requested non-published?  Product clearly states PATENT PENDING and there is an active application filed but not published. Is it required that the application is published to put copycat on notice? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33716" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13794" RevisionGUID="519c32c0-289b-46a9-8956-cb1ee3665696" CreationDate="2015-10-16T08:49:14.663" UserId="15235" Text="put on notice of possible infringement for pending application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33717" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13794" RevisionGUID="519c32c0-289b-46a9-8956-cb1ee3665696" CreationDate="2015-10-16T08:49:14.663" UserId="15235" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-pending&gt;&lt;non-publication&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13795" RevisionGUID="5c822690-284e-4821-84c8-8ccd6b0f7537" CreationDate="2015-10-16T09:13:54.863" UserId="15235" Text="If a US company has patent on a product in the US, but not a foreign patent, can another US company manufacture a same product in the US but legally export it and sell in foreign country?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33719" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13795" RevisionGUID="5c822690-284e-4821-84c8-8ccd6b0f7537" CreationDate="2015-10-16T09:13:54.863" UserId="15235" Text="Exporting to foreign country and patent infringement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33720" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13795" RevisionGUID="5c822690-284e-4821-84c8-8ccd6b0f7537" CreationDate="2015-10-16T09:13:54.863" UserId="15235" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;foreign&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13796" RevisionGUID="44f1c8e9-b192-4547-978e-de08287023c0" CreationDate="2015-10-16T13:22:43.827" UserId="4545" Text="No, that's infringement. See 35 USC 271: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority **makes**, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c) Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="60194f80-eca5-44ae-a7f2-594d4041beaa" CreationDate="2015-10-17T18:41:35.033" UserId="15244" Text="In reference to the patent: [US3263485][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3263485&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;what is the Application number and number of claims on patent US3263485 A?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33729" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="60194f80-eca5-44ae-a7f2-594d4041beaa" CreationDate="2015-10-17T18:41:35.033" UserId="15244" Text="Application number and number of claims on patent US3263485 A" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33730" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="60194f80-eca5-44ae-a7f2-594d4041beaa" CreationDate="2015-10-17T18:41:35.033" UserId="15244" Text="&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="b9569a21-ed93-4041-9537-a2211a626e8f" CreationDate="2015-10-18T12:07:21.280" UserId="15248" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20080255822][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20080255822&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this patent mean that no-one can do another architecture coverage driven test generator for ARM cores?.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this patent is quite generic and i think that covers all possible test generators based on architecture features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;my question is:&#xD;&#xA;if i want to make a automatic architecture Coverage driven random test generator for ARM architecture do i have conflict with that patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33735" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="b9569a21-ed93-4041-9537-a2211a626e8f" CreationDate="2015-10-18T12:07:21.280" UserId="15248" Text="architecture coverage driven test generation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33736" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="b9569a21-ed93-4041-9537-a2211a626e8f" CreationDate="2015-10-18T12:07:21.280" UserId="15248" Text="&lt;us20080255822&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="b2823b0c-6b22-41c5-b9cf-ce0ec7df1bf2" CreationDate="2015-10-18T20:27:20.837" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, improved tagging and corrected spelling." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 2008/0255822 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20080255822&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this patent mean that no-one can do another architecture coverage driven test generator for ARM cores?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent is quite generic and I believe that it covers all possible test generators based on architecture features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I want to make a automatic architecture Coverage driven random test generator for ARM architecture do I have conflict with that patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33738" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="b2823b0c-6b22-41c5-b9cf-ce0ec7df1bf2" CreationDate="2015-10-18T20:27:20.837" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, improved tagging and corrected spelling." Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;us20080255822&gt;&lt;us8280713&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13801" RevisionGUID="8a12a037-9f62-41d2-9d8b-cd0a3e64eab1" CreationDate="2015-10-19T00:15:11.530" UserId="13706" Text="It's a complicated answer, but what's important to understand is that software-related invention ARE indeed patentable. The &quot;how&quot; of patenting software-related inventions has changed substantially in recent years and is still evolving, so it's critical to work with a patent attorney, especially for technology in this field. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post discusses the patentability of software and software related inventions in more detail:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.patentsdemystified.com/is-software-patentable/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="511d1ba0-6915-48ca-a674-fee2c9528d25" CreationDate="2015-10-19T01:42:26.453" UserId="10011" Comment="added 1299 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In reference to the patent: [US 2008/0255822 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20080255822&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this patent mean that no-one can do another architecture coverage driven test generator for ARM cores?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent is quite generic and I believe that it covers all possible test generators based on architecture features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I want to make a automatic architecture Coverage driven random test generator for ARM architecture do I have conflict with that patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Patents lists the first claim as,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for automatically creating compliance test suites for a processor, comprising the steps of: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; constructing a generic model set for a plurality of implementations of a processor architecture, said generic model set comprising one or more parametric models being adapted to a model-based test generator, wherein said processor architecture permits selection among multiple options for said implementations, and said implementations each exhibit a respective alternative behavior corresponding to selected ones of said options;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; based on said generic model set, establishing specific model sets to correspond to said respective alternative behavior of said implementations by setting respective values of parameters for said parametric models;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; producing test specifications using said parametric models and said values;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; submitting said test specifications to said test generator; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generating respective architectural compliance test suites for said implementations with said test generator using said test specifications, wherein said test generator is cooperative with said parametric models using said values to predict expected outcomes in an execution of said respective architectural compliance test suites by said implementations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33741" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="511d1ba0-6915-48ca-a674-fee2c9528d25" CreationDate="2015-10-19T01:42:26.453" UserId="10011" Comment="added 1299 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;us20080255822&gt;&lt;us8280713&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13802" RevisionGUID="53efbc77-4cde-41a3-9ed2-f0e73f66a1e0" CreationDate="2015-10-19T02:11:06.873" UserId="15252" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7312598][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7312598&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As title, only see the description about phase margin &gt; 60 degree, but cannot see the cut-off frequency in Fig 3 &amp; 4. May I ask where the location of 0dB gain is? Tks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33743" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13802" RevisionGUID="53efbc77-4cde-41a3-9ed2-f0e73f66a1e0" CreationDate="2015-10-19T02:11:06.873" UserId="15252" Text="Cannot see the information about cut-off frequency?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33744" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13802" RevisionGUID="53efbc77-4cde-41a3-9ed2-f0e73f66a1e0" CreationDate="2015-10-19T02:11:06.873" UserId="15252" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13803" RevisionGUID="2421ce70-dc6f-4302-ae32-979fdcc73ad9" CreationDate="2015-10-19T02:28:35.837" UserId="15134" Text="I filed the National phase application on 29th Oct 2014 and PCT application on 14th Oct 2015.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I lost a flash drive which contained the soft-copy of patent specification (everything related to the filing), couple of days before/after (I am not sure) filing a PCT application, but the PCT application has a priority claim which dates to 29th Oct 2014. Will there be a problem ? Should I lodge a police complaint just to be on a safer side ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was planning to publish couple of journal papers related to the patent filed. Will there be a problem in future if someone tries to publish it ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33746" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13803" RevisionGUID="2421ce70-dc6f-4302-ae32-979fdcc73ad9" CreationDate="2015-10-19T02:28:35.837" UserId="15134" Text="Lost a digital copy of patent specification" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33747" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13803" RevisionGUID="2421ce70-dc6f-4302-ae32-979fdcc73ad9" CreationDate="2015-10-19T02:28:35.837" UserId="15134" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;lawyers&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33749" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13761" RevisionGUID="274b93d7-f2ee-42a9-9c8a-380d5f2e196d" CreationDate="2015-10-19T09:36:43.617" UserId="15192" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;secret&gt;&lt;trade-secret&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13804" RevisionGUID="7b0b2761-74e1-4689-a8b1-83056ccaac18" CreationDate="2015-10-19T11:44:59.373" UserId="15255" Text="It is said that mathematical algorithms aren't patentable.  Sometimes it is not too clear what exactly constitutes a mathematical algorithm.  If I have a powerful and unique technique/ process/ methodology (algorithm?) &quot;invented&quot; to perform a certain important calculation (on a hardware because of its intensive nature) that will be subsequently used to perform something valuable based on its output values, can that technique/ process/ methodology (algorithm?) and its usage be patented (or is it not patent eligible).  It is a unique and powerful technique. If not patent eligible, society may not reap the benefits of my invention as I may not attempt patenting it, and hold back on it.  And, that defeats the whole patent purpose.  I am not sure if I should proceed to patent -- time, energy, and costs are high.  I am a private individual and my methodology etc. is based on my personal research work at home, developing and testing the technique.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33751" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13804" RevisionGUID="7b0b2761-74e1-4689-a8b1-83056ccaac18" CreationDate="2015-10-19T11:44:59.373" UserId="15255" Text="a question on patent eligibility of a methodology of computation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33752" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13804" RevisionGUID="7b0b2761-74e1-4689-a8b1-83056ccaac18" CreationDate="2015-10-19T11:44:59.373" UserId="15255" Text="&lt;mathematical-algorithm&gt;&lt;mathematical-computations&gt;&lt;computational-process&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13806" RevisionGUID="d53f3a05-2dcf-4c17-8629-b443704168c3" CreationDate="2015-10-19T17:18:31.420" UserId="11947" Text="I wrote and submitted my software patent application by myself and got Alice rejection (not completely unexpected). I contacted a patent lawyer to write claim amendments and he sent me contract and power of attorney forms to sign. I am comfortable with going with him but if we get final action rejection I want to switch back and continue persecution on my own. I just think it wouldn't worth all lawyer's fees. My concern: how difficult it would be to  get my case back from the law firm and have POA reversed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33760" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13806" RevisionGUID="d53f3a05-2dcf-4c17-8629-b443704168c3" CreationDate="2015-10-19T17:18:31.420" UserId="11947" Text="Power of attorney" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33761" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13806" RevisionGUID="d53f3a05-2dcf-4c17-8629-b443704168c3" CreationDate="2015-10-19T17:18:31.420" UserId="11947" Text="&lt;lawyers&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13801" RevisionGUID="2bfe7d88-3bf5-4fd1-b2e0-52ed7f0fa37c" CreationDate="2015-10-19T17:19:40.727" UserId="13706" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="It's a complicated answer, but what's important to understand is that software-related inventions ARE indeed patentable. The &quot;how&quot; of patenting software-related inventions has changed substantially in recent years and is still evolving, so it's critical to work with a patent attorney, especially for technology in this field. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post discusses the patentability of software and software related inventions in more detail:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.patentsdemystified.com/is-software-patentable/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13801" RevisionGUID="24eeadfd-5307-425e-bf37-ae57308c7529" CreationDate="2015-10-19T17:26:42.053" UserId="13706" Comment="added content" Text="It's a complicated answer, but what's important to understand is that software-related inventions ARE indeed patentable in the U.S. The &quot;how&quot; of patenting software-related inventions has changed substantially in recent years and is still evolving, so it's critical to work with a patent attorney, especially for technology in this field. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post discusses the patentability of software and software related inventions in more detail:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.patentsdemystified.com/is-software-patentable/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Copyright does protect software, but only the exact code or something very similar and based on the original code. As you can imagine, copyright is therefore relatively weak protection for software-related inventions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, patents protect the functionality of software-related inventions, which gives broad protection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6436" RevisionGUID="69293932-d519-44fb-8816-a64fa67c4359" CreationDate="2015-10-19T17:27:53.420" UserId="13706" Comment="Minor grammar fixes in title and body" Text="I know there are a lot debate about it. Even in USA, a country very well know to be patent friend, have not sure if software is patentable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how is the interpretation to allow software patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am &quot;assuming&quot; here that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Software is a computer program.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Computer program is a coded (set of) algorithm which a &quot;computer&quot; can execute to perform a specified task.&#xD;&#xA; 3. An algorithm is a computational process which can be defined by a Turing machine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, we can &quot;consider&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. A computer is a restricted type of machine, a &quot;discrete deterministic device&quot; that can blindly follow some instructions.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Any computer program can be embedded directly in computer hardware. Also, a computer program can be coded in any general purpose language such as general purpose hardware description language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33765" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6436" RevisionGUID="69293932-d519-44fb-8816-a64fa67c4359" CreationDate="2015-10-19T17:27:53.420" UserId="13706" Comment="Minor grammar fixes in title and body" Text="Is Software Patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33766" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6436" RevisionGUID="69293932-d519-44fb-8816-a64fa67c4359" CreationDate="2015-10-19T17:27:53.420" Comment="Proposed by 13706 approved by 8375 edit id of 1898" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13807" RevisionGUID="544a3691-2747-4183-9b9f-103aa22bd740" CreationDate="2015-10-19T17:53:52.630" UserId="13706" Text="It's a complicated answer, but what's important to understand is that software-related inventions and inventions based on an algorithm CAN indeed be patentable in the U.S. The &quot;how&quot; of patenting such inventions has changed substantially in recent years and is still evolving, so it's critical to work with a patent attorney, especially for technology in this field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post discusses the patentability of software and software related inventions in more detail and also applies to algorithm-based inventions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.patentsdemystified.com/is-software-patentable/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13808" RevisionGUID="9de1fcab-39ea-4406-abfc-ba1235551a24" CreationDate="2015-10-19T18:16:05.287" UserId="11268" Text="I realize this is getting a bit old, but ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3106.txt -- (C) 2001 -- defines the Electronic Commerce Modeling Language (ECML) which references an XML version in section 2.3; practitioners of the field would know they could encode XML into HTML/HTTP, so claim 1 may be invalid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616 -- 1999 - not exactly what you'd want, but the definition of HTTP 1.1 shows a &quot;query&quot; field to a URI/URL, which is where you'd encode variables (claim 2); the syntax for a query is not defined there (i.e. the ampersand delimiter that is used today isn't specified) -- if you were a practitioner of the field, you'd already know how to do claim 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - claim 3 (ignoring extra information) ... this is really the default in programming: unless you actively use some data, it would be ignored; not sure how to fight such a nebulous claim&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/ -- 1999 -- defines HTML 4.01 and sect. 17/Forms includes &quot;hidden&quot; fields; could invalidate claim 4 since this would be obvious to any practitioner (i.e. you'd have to know this spec to be a practitioner so you have to know how to do claim 4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13809" RevisionGUID="b7e9f877-9a19-4fb2-87b1-56f080d1170e" CreationDate="2015-10-19T19:29:05.327" UserId="15134" Text="In my National and PCT International, patent specification I have included an apparatus called Annular finned-tube heat exchanger, which is new in design. This heat exchanger is ring/annular like in shape. There is an existing research on Annular-finned tube heat exchanger, but it defines the shape of the tube as annular (indicated by the - in Annular-finned, whereas in my case its Annular finned-tube). These are 2 different products which are/look completely different. I have elaborated the construction and manufacturing of my apparatus. In my patent specification, the Annular finned-tube heat exchanger is one of the sub-component of the apparatus described. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no trademark or patent on Annular-finned tube heat exchanger. Even if we assume that there is one trademark in process which is unpublished, can there be a violation problem in future considering everything of the above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I still have 9 days to amend the application, if required.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33770" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13809" RevisionGUID="b7e9f877-9a19-4fb2-87b1-56f080d1170e" CreationDate="2015-10-19T19:29:05.327" UserId="15134" Text="Violation of trademark/Patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33771" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13809" RevisionGUID="b7e9f877-9a19-4fb2-87b1-56f080d1170e" CreationDate="2015-10-19T19:29:05.327" UserId="15134" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;trademark&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13810" RevisionGUID="d3bd553c-52d1-4b14-a8a4-520364202de7" CreationDate="2015-10-20T03:44:48.923" UserId="13706" Text="Only consider doing it yourself if you don't have any intention of licensing or enforcing a patent that might come from the application. Self-drafted applications typically end up providing illusory protection and result in the eventual loss of patent rights. Plus, it makes your company/idea extremely unattractive to potential investors and business partners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Provisional applications should ideally be as detailed as a non-provisional application, which is why the price for a provisional is typically as much for a non-provisional. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if your budget is extremely tight, there are ways to work with an attorney, avoid the pitfalls of a self-drafted application, and still get an application that provides decent protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents Demystified is a book that does a good job of explaining how to do this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Patents Demystified: An Insider's Guide to Protecting Ideas and Inventions][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you absolutely need to do it yourself, Patent It Yourself is a great guide:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Patent It Yourself: Your Step-by-Step Guide to Filing at the U.S. Patent Office][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://amzn.to/1NRNgGS&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://amzn.to/1NRLLby" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13811" RevisionGUID="e3313976-f5c6-45c1-9940-86263770b866" CreationDate="2015-10-20T05:44:12.957" UserId="17239" Text="To create permalink for application in word doccument automatically you can use following VBA for fullimages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Sub AddPATFUShlink()&#xD;&#xA;    Dim oRng As Range&#xD;&#xA;    Dim strLink As String&#xD;&#xA;        Set oRng = ActiveDocument.Range&#xD;&#xA;        With oRng.Find&#xD;&#xA;            Do While .Execute(FindText:=&quot;([0-9]{11})&quot;, MatchWildcards:=True)&#xD;&#xA;                strLink = oRng.Text&#xD;&#xA;                strLink = Replace(strLink, Chr(32), &quot;&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;                strLink = &quot;http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?PageNum=0&amp;docid=&quot; &amp; strLink &amp; &quot;&amp;homeurl=http\\appft.uspto.gov&quot;&#xD;&#xA;                ActiveDocument.Hyperlinks.Add Anchor:=oRng, _&#xD;&#xA;                                              Address:=strLink, _&#xD;&#xA;                                              TextToDisplay:=oRng.Text&#xD;&#xA;                oRng.End = oRng.Fields(1).Result.End&#xD;&#xA;                oRng.Collapse 0&#xD;&#xA;            Loop&#xD;&#xA;        End With&#xD;&#xA;    lbl_Exit:&#xD;&#xA;        Set oRng = Nothing&#xD;&#xA;        Exit Sub&#xD;&#xA;    End Sub" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13813" RevisionGUID="b88b4fe2-6803-4a2d-934f-25de9a1e8c7d" CreationDate="2015-10-20T09:48:48.273" UserId="15265" Text="If I patented some invention, then who will use it? how they are going to know about this invention. Do the users of this invention will pay?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33778" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13813" RevisionGUID="b88b4fe2-6803-4a2d-934f-25de9a1e8c7d" CreationDate="2015-10-20T09:48:48.273" UserId="15265" Text="Whats use of patenting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33779" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13813" RevisionGUID="b88b4fe2-6803-4a2d-934f-25de9a1e8c7d" CreationDate="2015-10-20T09:48:48.273" UserId="15265" Text="&lt;user-interface&gt;&lt;payment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33780" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13813" RevisionGUID="fa83ea86-e20f-4039-85ac-d3732b13a962" CreationDate="2015-10-20T11:56:06.933" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, improved tagging and corrected spelling." Text="If I patented some invention, then who will use it? How are they going to know about this invention. Will the users of this invention pay?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33781" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13813" RevisionGUID="fa83ea86-e20f-4039-85ac-d3732b13a962" CreationDate="2015-10-20T11:56:06.933" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, improved tagging and corrected spelling." Text="What is the use of patenting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33782" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13813" RevisionGUID="fa83ea86-e20f-4039-85ac-d3732b13a962" CreationDate="2015-10-20T11:56:06.933" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, improved tagging and corrected spelling." Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13814" RevisionGUID="86b37bbe-779a-4880-8fef-24882b250d4e" CreationDate="2015-10-20T16:52:40.850" UserId="15268" Text="In the US, if I paid someone to help simulate my new product design using some computer software (but the idea is completely mine), does he have any right in the design / patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have already signed an NDA for me, if that matters." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33785" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13814" RevisionGUID="86b37bbe-779a-4880-8fef-24882b250d4e" CreationDate="2015-10-20T16:52:40.850" UserId="15268" Text="If I paid someone to help simulate my design, does he have a right in the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33786" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13814" RevisionGUID="86b37bbe-779a-4880-8fef-24882b250d4e" CreationDate="2015-10-20T16:52:40.850" UserId="15268" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33787" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13804" RevisionGUID="48226990-4c77-4b76-824b-2c4432f8e128" CreationDate="2015-10-20T19:07:47.597" UserId="13706" Comment="Made title more clear" Text="Are algorithm-based inventions patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33788" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13804" RevisionGUID="48226990-4c77-4b76-824b-2c4432f8e128" CreationDate="2015-10-20T19:07:47.597" Comment="Proposed by 13706 approved by 14417, 10011 edit id of 1899" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13815" RevisionGUID="1fa8188e-09df-480a-9784-b8a373759eb4" CreationDate="2015-10-20T21:33:56.177" UserId="11947" Text="If an employee developed the invention on employer's time and/or using his resources she must assign the invention to her employer. If she did it on her own time that's different. Yes, some employments agreement requires employees claim employers' ownership of all IP developed by employee during her employment, but they may not be enforceable in some states, which have different laws on the book. Look up your state law statutes regarding IP rights. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13807" RevisionGUID="2fe21980-d03d-4d0a-a9aa-183001b662f1" CreationDate="2015-10-20T21:52:15.353" UserId="13706" Comment="added 250 characters in body" Text="It's a complicated answer, but what's important to understand is that software-related inventions and inventions based on an algorithm CAN indeed be patentable in the U.S. The &quot;how&quot; of patenting such inventions has changed substantially in recent years and is still evolving, so it's critical to work with a patent attorney, especially for technology in this field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post discusses the patentability of software and software related inventions in more detail and also applies to algorithm-based inventions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.patentsdemystified.com/is-software-patentable/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for whether you should proceed with a patent, talk with a patent attorney first before making a decision. Just because software related inventions and inventions based on an algorithm can be patented, does not mean that yours necessarily is.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13816" RevisionGUID="591bcd04-1d37-477a-9455-21d5bef581b0" CreationDate="2015-10-20T22:03:20.157" UserId="1698" Text="Algorithm-based inventions *may* be patentable, but algorithms are **not** patentable in the US, because an algorithm is an abstract idea that can be performed in your head. (This is an old discussion that I'm not interested in having again.) One can obtain a patent on technology that uses an algorithm, if the &quot;invention&quot; is a technological solution that is not an abstract idea. The US has moved towards the problem-solution ideal of the EPO, but the US is not quite there yet. Problem-solution can help frame an invention for the USPTO (and can help limit prior art in some obviousness rejections). If you want to test if you can likely patent your &quot;invention&quot; using a method claim, start by writing down your &quot;invention&quot; as a series of steps. Don't conceptualize any of the steps, write them out completely. What I mean by that is this: Don't write the idea or purpose of any step, write the actual action to be taken to obtain the purpose of that step. If there is something tangible in one of your steps, something that can be touched, AND that step involves more than prior art elements, then you may be able to patent your &quot;invention.&quot; You may be better off keeping your algorithm as a trade secret. It's hard to say without knowing more about your &quot;invention,&quot; something you should not be putting on sites like this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13817" RevisionGUID="6fd88ee7-fa65-4b03-86a4-f62329af0a99" CreationDate="2015-10-20T23:51:47.480" UserId="15271" Text="No, even if he hadn't signed an NDA.  No one is entitled to be on a patent unless they have contributed materially to the basic claims and novelty of the invention.  If they end up adding something useful to the invention, then you should add them.  If you don't, they could make a legal argument in the future that they should have been, especially if money is involved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13818" RevisionGUID="473a929e-2b99-449b-8b03-c5454a0961f8" CreationDate="2015-10-20T23:56:34.703" UserId="15271" Text="I don't have a complete answer to your question but until a patent has been granted, it is in legal limbo because you don't know which, if any, claims will be accepted in the end.  Once granted though, if the company is still manufacturing it, you certainly have a case.  I don't know if you could sue retroactively due to product manufactured during the pending phase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13811" RevisionGUID="e680b048-0e64-42b9-86bd-40b4c495f512" CreationDate="2015-10-21T05:23:09.357" UserId="17239" Comment="added 249 characters in body" Text="To create permalink for application in word doccument automatically you can use following VBA for fullimages&#xD;&#xA;press alt+F11 from Microsoft office window in which you would like to create pemalink which will open a visual basic for application window, go to insert from menubar and select module&#xD;&#xA;Paste ths code in the module and save it. press F5 to run it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Sub AddPATFUShlink()&#xD;&#xA;    Dim oRng As Range&#xD;&#xA;    Dim strLink As String&#xD;&#xA;        Set oRng = ActiveDocument.Range&#xD;&#xA;        With oRng.Find&#xD;&#xA;            Do While .Execute(FindText:=&quot;([0-9]{11})&quot;, MatchWildcards:=True)&#xD;&#xA;                strLink = oRng.Text&#xD;&#xA;                strLink = Replace(strLink, Chr(32), &quot;&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;                strLink = &quot;http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?PageNum=0&amp;docid=&quot; &amp; strLink &amp; &quot;&amp;homeurl=http\\appft.uspto.gov&quot;&#xD;&#xA;                ActiveDocument.Hyperlinks.Add Anchor:=oRng, _&#xD;&#xA;                                              Address:=strLink, _&#xD;&#xA;                                              TextToDisplay:=oRng.Text&#xD;&#xA;                oRng.End = oRng.Fields(1).Result.End&#xD;&#xA;                oRng.Collapse 0&#xD;&#xA;            Loop&#xD;&#xA;        End With&#xD;&#xA;    lbl_Exit:&#xD;&#xA;        Set oRng = Nothing&#xD;&#xA;        Exit Sub&#xD;&#xA;    End Sub" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13820" RevisionGUID="09e65778-7e0c-4c8b-93a4-cb048a4bcef3" CreationDate="2015-10-21T11:56:47.340" UserId="15255" Text="This is further to my questions on the patentability of complex mathematical algorithms used thereafter in a simple manner to effect something useful. Sorry for its length.  My previous question was (please  refer), &quot;a question on patent eligibility of a methodology of computation&quot;.  I was given the impressions (in the answer) that they are in essence out rightly not patentable unless there is a physically tangible step coming in between.  If not, it is an abstract idea and such cannot be patented.  However, I see that ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.lawtechjournal.com/notes/2003/10_030727_fagerland.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Common Misconceptions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't patent an 'algorithm'&quot;:  &#xD;&#xA;Not true. An algorithm, even a mathematical algorithm, is patentable unless (1) it is not sufficiently disclosed to overcome the &quot;abstract idea&quot; exception, or (2) it is executed with no useful application in mind.26 This description of just what an &quot;algorithm&quot; is may be helpful: &quot;Although one may devise a computer algorithm for the Pythagorean theorem, it is the step-by-step process which instructs the computer to solve the theorem which is the algorithm, rather than the theorem itself.&quot;27 Under Alappat, the algorithm might be patentable. The theorem itself, being an abstract idea, certainly would not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;You can't patent a process unless it involves a 'physical' element.'&quot;:  &#xD;&#xA;False. The Diehr court lists &quot;transforming or reducing an article to a different state or thing&quot;31 as &quot;an example, not an exclusive requirement&quot; of patentability.32 The Court of Custom and Patent Appeals (CCPA)'s Freeman-Walter-Abele test, which required a mathematical algorithm to be &quot;applied to or limited by physical elements,&quot; has been seriously called into question by Alappat, State St., and AT&amp;T. &quot;Whatever may be left of the earlier test, if anything, this type of physical limitations analysis seems of little value.&quot;33 As discussed above, patents are being issued and upheld on inventions that amount to no more than calculating a number, as long as that number is useful information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, here is an issued patent which seems a mathematical algorithm/methodology at heart, &quot;Computational method and apparatus for finite field multiplication&quot; &#xD;&#xA;US 4745568 A.  The computational method too is patented in this.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would appreciate help and clarification, as I am a little confused in this area.  Thank you.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33800" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13820" RevisionGUID="09e65778-7e0c-4c8b-93a4-cb048a4bcef3" CreationDate="2015-10-21T11:56:47.340" UserId="15255" Text="patentability of mathematical algorithms (especially those with a complex invented methodology)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33801" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13820" RevisionGUID="09e65778-7e0c-4c8b-93a4-cb048a4bcef3" CreationDate="2015-10-21T11:56:47.340" UserId="15255" Text="&lt;patenting-an-algorithm&gt;&lt;mathematical-methodology&gt;&lt;mathematical-process&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13822" RevisionGUID="1e4cf324-fb2a-400f-a93e-a85549db08b4" CreationDate="2015-10-21T19:44:57.073" UserId="15140" Text=" In a software patent, typically three kinds of claims expressing almost the same idea are listed, namely system claim, method claim, and media claim.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In my interpretation, the system claim and method claim have different effect in terms of type of infringement, as described below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list below indic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.System claim  &#xD;&#xA; (1) Using the same program -&gt; direct infringement (using the system)  &#xD;&#xA; (2) Installing the same program  -&gt; direct infringement (making the system)  &#xD;&#xA; (3) Selling the same program  -&gt;  indirect infringement (inducing installing)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Method claim  &#xD;&#xA; (1) Using the same program -&gt; direct infringement (using the method)  &#xD;&#xA; (2) Installing the same program  -&gt; indirect infringement (inducing using it)  &#xD;&#xA; (3) Selling the same program  -&gt;  indirect infringement  (inducing installing)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to make sure especially that the method claim is effective  to selling progrrams via downloading through internet.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are those relations listed above correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33807" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13822" RevisionGUID="1e4cf324-fb2a-400f-a93e-a85549db08b4" CreationDate="2015-10-21T19:44:57.073" UserId="15140" Text="Software claims and infringement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33808" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13822" RevisionGUID="1e4cf324-fb2a-400f-a93e-a85549db08b4" CreationDate="2015-10-21T19:44:57.073" UserId="15140" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33809" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13822" RevisionGUID="bc9b466a-7b46-40a7-9e17-62ff5a1969f2" CreationDate="2015-10-21T19:52:55.743" UserId="15140" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text=" In a software patent, typically three kinds of claims expressing almost the same idea are listed, namely system claim, method claim, and media claim.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In my interpretation, the system claim and method claim have different effect in terms of type of infringement, as described below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list below shows relations as:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Cause -&gt; Type of infringement.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.System claim  &#xD;&#xA; (1) Using the program -&gt; direct infringement (using the system)  &#xD;&#xA; (2) Installing the program  -&gt; direct infringement (making the system)  &#xD;&#xA; (3) Selling the program  -&gt;  indirect infringement (inducing installing)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Method claim  &#xD;&#xA; (1) Using the program -&gt; direct infringement (using the method)  &#xD;&#xA; (2) Installing the program  -&gt; indirect infringement (inducing using it)  &#xD;&#xA; (3) Selling the program  -&gt;  indirect infringement  (inducing installing)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to make sure especially that the method claim is effective  to selling progrrams via downloading through internet.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are those relations listed above correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13825" RevisionGUID="ff689103-d9c0-40c6-9292-cfcd7caa565d" CreationDate="2015-10-21T23:42:19.597" UserId="8108" Text="If inventions or ideas were created while employed at a company that uses the &quot;standard&quot; policy of having all inventions created by an employee assigned to the company, and the company has not patented the inventions or ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are my options on patenting the inventions or ideas?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a minimum time required before the invention or idea is &quot;free&quot; from being patented by the company? When could I rightfully file for a patent (if I can file at all)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33817" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13825" RevisionGUID="ff689103-d9c0-40c6-9292-cfcd7caa565d" CreationDate="2015-10-21T23:42:19.597" UserId="8108" Text="Employee inventions not yet patented by legal assignee; possible to patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33818" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13825" RevisionGUID="ff689103-d9c0-40c6-9292-cfcd7caa565d" CreationDate="2015-10-21T23:42:19.597" UserId="8108" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13829" RevisionGUID="3c6f1940-cd09-46d0-a3c6-6f19f9b575a8" CreationDate="2015-10-22T21:27:14.437" UserId="13706" Text="It's a complicated answer, but what's important to understand is that algorithms-related inventions, software-related inventions, and the like **CAN indeed be patentable** in the U.S. There are certainly many misconceptions and much mis-information on this because while the software itself or the mathmatical formula itself may not be patentable, an invention that implements them may be patentable, which makes algorithms or software *effectively* patentable.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This post discusses the patentability of software and software related inventions in more detail, which is applicable to algorithms, and the like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.patentsdemystified.com/is-software-patentable/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specific &quot;how&quot; of patenting such inventions has changed substantially in recent years and is still evolving, so it's critical to work with a patent attorney, especially for technology in these fields. Don't get bogged down in the technical specifics of how such inventions are protected and just leave that to your patent attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also keep in mind that such inventions must still be new and non-obvious over the prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13833" RevisionGUID="9393a079-a657-49f7-898e-ea2097ab00a3" CreationDate="2015-10-23T18:28:02.283" UserId="4545" Text="If you apply for a patent on an invention, the documentation for that invention will normally be made publicly available as a US PreGrant Publication. If the invention meets the statutory requirements to be patented (and the appropriate forms are completed and fees are paid), a patent will be granted (and published as a granted US Patent). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the patent has been granted on your invention, you will have a limited monopoly on the manufacture, sale, and use of your invention. You can enforce your patent rights (via the civil court system) on infringers and demand compensation and/or cessation of infringing activity. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13834" RevisionGUID="221f919a-b509-45f4-907c-22ed79fd3095" CreationDate="2015-10-23T19:11:56.463" UserId="15288" Text="While waiting on for actual patent title.&#xD;&#xA;We have gone further and have full working App. Bug free and API friendly cross platform. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here what I find challanig!'&#xD;&#xA;You have the utility pattent. but no product out as far as I have searched..&#xD;&#xA;NOW California lottery just realeesd the 2.0 update. The bar code scan for submitting 2nd chance. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Works beautifully. It Scans less then a scan. I just submitted over 100 tix in less then 10 minutes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now who has the legal right for this product or the procedure&#xD;&#xA;In US PATENT law ??!!!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33846" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13834" RevisionGUID="221f919a-b509-45f4-907c-22ed79fd3095" CreationDate="2015-10-23T19:11:56.463" UserId="15288" Text="I have filed for the same exact patten" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33847" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13834" RevisionGUID="221f919a-b509-45f4-907c-22ed79fd3095" CreationDate="2015-10-23T19:11:56.463" UserId="15288" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13835" RevisionGUID="281cbca4-957b-4d32-af96-4adcade5598e" CreationDate="2015-10-23T19:19:59.050" UserId="15290" Text="For a design patent (medical clothing item) is it better to file provisional patent first? then regular one? Also can we use other items out there to  construct our product (as in pieces of it used differently and not in the same type application?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33849" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13835" RevisionGUID="281cbca4-957b-4d32-af96-4adcade5598e" CreationDate="2015-10-23T19:19:59.050" UserId="15290" Text="about filing and making of prototype" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33850" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13835" RevisionGUID="281cbca4-957b-4d32-af96-4adcade5598e" CreationDate="2015-10-23T19:19:59.050" UserId="15290" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13836" RevisionGUID="34057698-61e5-410c-9cac-3ae034a9e6d9" CreationDate="2015-10-24T21:21:52.527" UserId="15297" Text="WHAT IS THE CURRENT LEGAL STATUE OF THIS PATENT? US20110223816&#xD;&#xA;Application number	US 13/600,467&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33854" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13836" RevisionGUID="34057698-61e5-410c-9cac-3ae034a9e6d9" CreationDate="2015-10-24T21:21:52.527" UserId="15297" Text="WHAT IS THE LEGAL STATUS OF THIS PATENT" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33855" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13836" RevisionGUID="34057698-61e5-410c-9cac-3ae034a9e6d9" CreationDate="2015-10-24T21:21:52.527" UserId="15297" Text="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;status&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13837" RevisionGUID="fc05c9a2-1c6f-463f-bfc8-968d9e6bdec4" CreationDate="2015-10-24T23:31:40.477" UserId="14509" Text="I would say to both yes. Filing a provisional has the advantage that you have time to craft the claims while getting the priority day. Since the change of the law of priority day recognition the provisional filing is almost a must, even if you have outlined claims.&#xD;&#xA;Using off the shelf components for demonstration does not violate other patents. The violation starts when you sell and use as a commercial mean." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13836" RevisionGUID="4272d40a-a870-4fec-9d3a-61803ab6e11a" CreationDate="2015-10-24T23:40:28.060" UserId="7659" Comment="uncapitialized title and improved wording a bit" Text="I would like to know the legal status of this patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; US20110223816  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Application number	US 13/600,467&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where can I find the status or does anybody know its status by chance?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33858" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13836" RevisionGUID="4272d40a-a870-4fec-9d3a-61803ab6e11a" CreationDate="2015-10-24T23:40:28.060" UserId="7659" Comment="uncapitialized title and improved wording a bit" Text="What is the legal status of patent US20110223816 US 13/600,467" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33859" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13836" RevisionGUID="4272d40a-a870-4fec-9d3a-61803ab6e11a" CreationDate="2015-10-24T23:40:28.060" Comment="Proposed by 7659 approved by 1 edit id of 1900" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13838" RevisionGUID="eb3b97a1-9d3f-44df-915e-223d4df16309" CreationDate="2015-10-25T21:39:24.100" UserId="15299" Text="Are there attorneys who charge no fees if patent is not granted? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33861" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13838" RevisionGUID="eb3b97a1-9d3f-44df-915e-223d4df16309" CreationDate="2015-10-25T21:39:24.100" UserId="15299" Text="Guarenteed patenting service, free for failed cases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33862" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13838" RevisionGUID="eb3b97a1-9d3f-44df-915e-223d4df16309" CreationDate="2015-10-25T21:39:24.100" UserId="15299" Text="&lt;attorney&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33874" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13802" RevisionGUID="fdb2ddd2-2e47-4fee-8920-f762807118e7" CreationDate="2015-10-26T14:47:15.317" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:14417,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;vallismortis&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13840" RevisionGUID="bacd82d2-a705-41d6-91aa-ad39c9d15940" CreationDate="2015-10-26T22:37:11.507" UserId="15304" Text="In reference to the patent: [US6546397][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6546397&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent appears overly broad. Basically, it is saying anyone who creates a website that utilizes a database and a backend interface is infringing. I can think of many open source tools that fall in this category - wordpress for one. Any organization that has a website that utilizes a database and a backend editor, including companies like Facebook, Amazon, Apple, EBay, etc would all be infringing if this were an enforceable patent. This makes no sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33876" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13840" RevisionGUID="bacd82d2-a705-41d6-91aa-ad39c9d15940" CreationDate="2015-10-26T22:37:11.507" UserId="15304" Text="Can this be an actual patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33877" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13840" RevisionGUID="bacd82d2-a705-41d6-91aa-ad39c9d15940" CreationDate="2015-10-26T22:37:11.507" UserId="15304" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13841" RevisionGUID="f18441f1-2439-46a6-9859-a1756290f85c" CreationDate="2015-10-27T03:56:40.450" UserId="15307" Text="In reference to the patent: [US4589438][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4589438" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33879" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13841" RevisionGUID="f18441f1-2439-46a6-9859-a1756290f85c" CreationDate="2015-10-27T03:56:40.450" UserId="15307" Text="need to know more about this type of diverter, need to know why its leaking," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33880" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13841" RevisionGUID="f18441f1-2439-46a6-9859-a1756290f85c" CreationDate="2015-10-27T03:56:40.450" UserId="15307" Text="&lt;3d-printing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13842" RevisionGUID="5cc516b6-7df3-4f7f-bd92-fe782ebd8f1e" CreationDate="2015-10-27T11:45:04.660" UserId="11895" Text="Its a situation dependent solution, single one time inventor or educational institute may get *pro bono* services from various attorney firms (screen their respective websites). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to search is tricky as these kind of services are not reported in any patent database, but any search engine boolean search may lead you to some hits [Example][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If its a commercial applicant then this may further require:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - under contract of revenue share on IP licensing.&#xD;&#xA; - selling of IP right to firm.&#xD;&#xA; - First upfront payment fee for accepting a case or evaluation of case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?as_q=patent%20filing&amp;as_epq=pro%20bono&amp;as_oq=&amp;as_eq=&amp;as_nlo=&amp;as_nhi=&amp;lr=&amp;cr=&amp;as_qdr=all&amp;as_sitesearch=&amp;as_occt=any&amp;safe=images&amp;as_filetype=&amp;as_rights=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13843" RevisionGUID="e164540b-e1dd-407e-9944-3f38e8a2fa2e" CreationDate="2015-10-27T11:56:24.253" UserId="11895" Text="Short answer:- Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to find:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Go to http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;2. enter the publication number:- 20110223816&#xD;&#xA;3. check status of child applications which will have status for 13/600,467 you can also go for hyperlink at said number which will lead you to patent application landing page with status.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;follow the following steps&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/fw3sN.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13844" RevisionGUID="1abe3852-7599-4d03-ad26-40fdb4dcb9a2" CreationDate="2015-10-27T13:04:38.393" UserId="15311" Text="The leitner system has been invented in 1970&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leitner_system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but Adaptively-spaced repetition which is the base of Leitner system has been registered in google patents in 2012 here http://www.google.com/patents/US20120322043&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the first question is &quot;everything in google patents page is really patented ?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;and the second question is &quot;I've developed an application which works based on Leitner systems ,now I'm wondering if I'm breaking the law or not?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33884" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13844" RevisionGUID="1abe3852-7599-4d03-ad26-40fdb4dcb9a2" CreationDate="2015-10-27T13:04:38.393" UserId="15311" Text="Leitner system Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33885" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13844" RevisionGUID="1abe3852-7599-4d03-ad26-40fdb4dcb9a2" CreationDate="2015-10-27T13:04:38.393" UserId="15311" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33886" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13841" RevisionGUID="6fcab74f-ee30-413a-a0e7-2b70772aab0e" CreationDate="2015-10-27T13:47:25.743" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:14417,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;vallismortis&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:11895,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Pushpak&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13845" RevisionGUID="effcafbf-5566-43d2-a515-59fc40e11766" CreationDate="2015-10-27T14:09:36.250" UserId="15313" Text="I have an invention that I'd like to pursue but there's a patent application for the exact same thing already in existence. However, it's been undergoing pre-exam processing since 2008. Is there any kind of expiration period in a situation like this? How long would a pre-exam processing period typically be? Would it be worth submitting my own application given the time elapsed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33888" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13845" RevisionGUID="effcafbf-5566-43d2-a515-59fc40e11766" CreationDate="2015-10-27T14:09:36.250" UserId="15313" Text="question about time periods for pre-exam processing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33889" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13845" RevisionGUID="effcafbf-5566-43d2-a515-59fc40e11766" CreationDate="2015-10-27T14:09:36.250" UserId="15313" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13846" RevisionGUID="015aa8bf-8a96-448e-9974-dfa6ecd21b99" CreationDate="2015-10-27T15:18:18.400" UserId="4545" Text="That's not what it says. The broadest claimed subject matter is that of claim 1: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A method to allow users to produce Internet websites on and for computers having a browser and a virtual machine capable of generating displays, said method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;(a) presenting a viewable menu having a user selectable panel of settings describing elements on a website, said panel of settings being presented through a browser on a computer adapted to accept one or more of said selectable settings in said panel as inputs therefrom, and where at least one of said user selectable settings in said panel corresponds to commands to said virtual machine;&#xD;&#xA;(b) generating a display in accordance with one or more user selected settings substantially contemporaneously with the selection thereof;&#xD;&#xA;(c) storing information representative of said one or more user selected settings in a database;&#xD;&#xA;(d) generating a website at least in part by retrieving said information representative of said one or more user selected settings stored in said database; and&#xD;&#xA;(e) building one or more web pages to generate said website from at least a portion of said database and at least one run time file, where said at least one run time file utilizes information stored in said database to generate virtual machine commands for the display of at least a portion of said one or more web pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the example organizations perform each of these steps in substantially the same detailed ways, there is no infringement. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33891" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13844" RevisionGUID="463abcc0-9512-4bd4-9c2a-21c75e2e0bc4" CreationDate="2015-10-27T16:50:50.840" UserId="15312" Comment="added new tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;development&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33892" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13844" RevisionGUID="463abcc0-9512-4bd4-9c2a-21c75e2e0bc4" CreationDate="2015-10-27T16:50:50.840" Comment="Proposed by 15312 approved by 4545, 1 edit id of 1901" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13847" RevisionGUID="b3f8bf7e-bb20-4db5-8a58-5aca14da209a" CreationDate="2015-10-27T19:47:28.083" UserId="15316" Text="In reference to the patent: [CA2311951C][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/CA2311951C&#xD;&#xA;I cannot see an image and cannot follow the claims without an image.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33894" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13847" RevisionGUID="b3f8bf7e-bb20-4db5-8a58-5aca14da209a" CreationDate="2015-10-27T19:47:28.083" UserId="15316" Text="I don't see any graphics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33895" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13847" RevisionGUID="b3f8bf7e-bb20-4db5-8a58-5aca14da209a" CreationDate="2015-10-27T19:47:28.083" UserId="15316" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13848" RevisionGUID="999ec600-4951-484f-b3f0-6a5e4e86075c" CreationDate="2015-10-28T01:22:19.000" UserId="14417" Text="The specification, images and correspondence for this Canadian patent is available from [CIPO][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Figure 1][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Figures 2A and 2B][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/2311951/summary.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/zuAql.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/U5QfC.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13849" RevisionGUID="4b60144a-1a6c-413a-a86e-c54d857a67f8" CreationDate="2015-10-28T03:36:26.783" UserId="15317" Text="To date, has this patent been licensed to any company or individual?  Are there closely related patents to this one?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clifford Thornton" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33898" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13849" RevisionGUID="4b60144a-1a6c-413a-a86e-c54d857a67f8" CreationDate="2015-10-28T03:36:26.783" UserId="15317" Text="Licensing of Patent US20060063964" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33899" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13849" RevisionGUID="4b60144a-1a6c-413a-a86e-c54d857a67f8" CreationDate="2015-10-28T03:36:26.783" UserId="15317" Text="&lt;us20060063964&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13850" RevisionGUID="0ac8b4cf-6ce9-4545-b1ca-0a295c0e14cf" CreationDate="2015-10-28T21:05:26.497" UserId="4545" Text="Documents of the type USYYYY1234567 (where YYYY is a year and 1234567 is a sequence of numbers) are not patents, but rather pre-grant publications of patent **applications**. The application in question (serial number 13/163297) has been abandoned and was not granted as a patent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33901" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13849" RevisionGUID="287cbda7-f702-49ca-94bc-ba5b369691a2" CreationDate="2015-10-28T21:45:22.033" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13848" RevisionGUID="c721f8c8-d95e-422c-8c0d-7fa1c378decd" CreationDate="2015-10-29T06:11:13.373" UserId="11895" Comment="added 182 characters in body" Text="In almost all cases 'External Links' at bottom of 'Bibliographic box' of 'Google Patent' Directs to individual patent wherein one can get complete document with images.  For example the specification, images and correspondence for this Canadian patent is available from [CIPO][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Figure 1][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Figures 2A and 2B][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/2311951/summary.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/zuAql.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/U5QfC.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13851" RevisionGUID="3e3fab8d-c070-4947-ad12-a6962ba203b1" CreationDate="2015-10-29T10:01:37.980" UserId="15324" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2014121298A2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014121298A2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a treatment method in humane medicine and thus it a patent could not be granted - at least here in Sweden. Correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 2nd&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The effects in bacterial populations are described in several publications before. There exist many publications about the idea &quot;feces transplantation&quot; This is observation and description of nature and no invention. Correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33907" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13851" RevisionGUID="3e3fab8d-c070-4947-ad12-a6962ba203b1" CreationDate="2015-10-29T10:01:37.980" UserId="15324" Text="Can this be granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33908" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13851" RevisionGUID="3e3fab8d-c070-4947-ad12-a6962ba203b1" CreationDate="2015-10-29T10:01:37.980" UserId="15324" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13851" RevisionGUID="2e6bfd62-9fc5-46e9-8548-93b0a26987db" CreationDate="2015-10-29T12:07:01.067" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected spelling and grammar." Text="In reference to the patent: [WO 2014/121298 A2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a treatment method in human medicine and thus a patent could not be granted - at least here in Sweden. Correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The effects of bacterial populations are described in several earlier publications. There exist many publications about the idea of &quot;feces transplantation&quot;. This is an observation/description of nature and not an invention. Correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014121298A2&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33913" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13851" RevisionGUID="2e6bfd62-9fc5-46e9-8548-93b0a26987db" CreationDate="2015-10-29T12:07:01.067" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected spelling and grammar." Text="Can this patent on fecal transplant be granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33914" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13851" RevisionGUID="2e6bfd62-9fc5-46e9-8548-93b0a26987db" CreationDate="2015-10-29T12:07:01.067" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected spelling and grammar." Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13848" RevisionGUID="34fc6598-ee10-4ba8-b29d-5658128e7a80" CreationDate="2015-10-29T12:19:28.867" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected spelling and grammar." Text="In almost all cases, the 'External Links' at the bottom of the 'Bibliographic box' of Google Patents directs to individual patent authorities that provide the complete document with images.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the specification, images and correspondence for this Canadian patent are available from [CIPO][1] (the Canadian patent authority).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Figure 1][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Figures 2A and 2B][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/2311951/summary.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/zuAql.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/U5QfC.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13853" RevisionGUID="ca340686-ef4d-494c-81b2-f616b59fc9d0" CreationDate="2015-10-29T17:18:18.273" UserId="15328" Text="In reference to the patent: [CA2861405A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/CA2861405A1&#xD;&#xA;Is this a granted patent?&#xD;&#xA;Has Econovate ltd. any granted patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33919" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13853" RevisionGUID="ca340686-ef4d-494c-81b2-f616b59fc9d0" CreationDate="2015-10-29T17:18:18.273" UserId="15328" Text="Is it a granted patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33920" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13853" RevisionGUID="ca340686-ef4d-494c-81b2-f616b59fc9d0" CreationDate="2015-10-29T17:18:18.273" UserId="15328" Text="&lt;granted&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13854" RevisionGUID="b7272993-75b2-470d-a99a-0eb44a7c78ff" CreationDate="2015-10-30T06:46:42.100" UserId="15331" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140300846][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140300846" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33923" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13854" RevisionGUID="b7272993-75b2-470d-a99a-0eb44a7c78ff" CreationDate="2015-10-30T06:46:42.100" UserId="15331" Text="Has the display already been built?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33924" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13854" RevisionGUID="b7272993-75b2-470d-a99a-0eb44a7c78ff" CreationDate="2015-10-30T06:46:42.100" UserId="15331" Text="&lt;us20140300846&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13855" RevisionGUID="1b3f5d60-bd71-4003-ad6c-f9c1f6348ddb" CreationDate="2015-10-30T12:31:49.870" UserId="14417" Text="If you look at the Google Patents page for that patent, you will see a &quot;PCT number&quot; (Patent Cooperation Treaty). That means it was filed as an international patent (the original document is the one with a publication number like 'WOxxxxxxxxxA1', in this case [WO 2013/117929 A1][1], and the information on national status will be on the WIPO site ([Patentscope][2]). Click on the 'National phase' tab to find the status of the patent in all countries:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Office                  Entry Date  National Number  National Status&#xD;&#xA;    Canada                  15.07.2014  2861405	 &#xD;&#xA;    European Patent Office  11.07.2014  2013705238       Published: 17.12.2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also view the status of the Canadian publication on the &quot;Admin status&quot; page at [CIPO][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013117929A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2013117929&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/2861405/summary.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33926" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13854" RevisionGUID="fc852dea-4af3-4fb1-86c2-597c6e4d5f96" CreationDate="2015-10-30T12:36:44.233" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:14417,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;vallismortis&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13856" RevisionGUID="5db29448-6d20-4664-86a1-cd6390d7a278" CreationDate="2015-10-30T20:03:27.860" UserId="15335" Text="Cheers mate, I think you would be interested in looking into patent# US 6443164, specifically claims 10 and 11.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the fundamental basis for this Norvell patent is the peristaltic pump. However that should be considered prior art as it was already patented for use in a sunless booth a decade prior to this patent (the Sunless Express by ETS, Inc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems like this particular patent is worthless and unprosecutable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13857" RevisionGUID="ed32ca65-bfcb-4373-8eef-aeeb3884f813" CreationDate="2015-10-30T20:21:56.087" UserId="15336" Text="I think that's what making a website using any sort of content management system is. Something like Wordpress (completely free and open source and available for commercial use) provides users with a viewable menu with a selectable panel of settings. A user would select and it would send a command, like create a new page. Then you type in your text and add your images. Wordpress (and all systems like it) contain a database where this information is stored. The front-end or what people see, is based on what is stored in that database. This site on stack exchange uses the same principle. So does Amazon, EBay, Google, etc. They all would function this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe I'm missing something but this appears to claim that unless you just build a website in pure html with no content management system, you are infringing. And 99% of all websites now are built with a content management system of some sort that all function within this framework." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33930" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13840" RevisionGUID="13480c45-b590-40a3-a2a0-1aa5c21e36db" CreationDate="2015-10-30T23:55:47.370" UserId="15304" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13858" RevisionGUID="4b70d687-589e-4119-8b66-80bdc6512321" CreationDate="2015-10-31T13:08:42.647" UserId="15340" Text="Patent #3820175 hinged toliet seat.  We have been using about 30 years.  Where can we buy another one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33936" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13858" RevisionGUID="4b70d687-589e-4119-8b66-80bdc6512321" CreationDate="2015-10-31T13:08:42.647" UserId="15340" Text="Where can I buy this toliet seat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33937" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13858" RevisionGUID="4b70d687-589e-4119-8b66-80bdc6512321" CreationDate="2015-10-31T13:08:42.647" UserId="15340" Text="&lt;us5878444&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13859" RevisionGUID="8667b0da-d2fe-4c27-9543-a8922a2ed439" CreationDate="2015-10-31T14:51:27.597" UserId="15341" Text="Good day,&#xD;&#xA;Please how do I get a patent for a design Idea that I have so that Someone doesnt not go behind to create the same device and I loose in all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33939" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13859" RevisionGUID="8667b0da-d2fe-4c27-9543-a8922a2ed439" CreationDate="2015-10-31T14:51:27.597" UserId="15341" Text="How to patents a design Idea for a device" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33940" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13859" RevisionGUID="8667b0da-d2fe-4c27-9543-a8922a2ed439" CreationDate="2015-10-31T14:51:27.597" UserId="15341" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;design&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33941" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13859" RevisionGUID="373b84a9-1d99-4dc5-93a8-66406bf3b460" CreationDate="2015-10-31T14:58:32.400" UserId="1" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33942" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13858" RevisionGUID="21da9aa4-ee7d-479c-9f0f-6e6c8ab3b8a4" CreationDate="2015-10-31T14:58:46.113" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13860" RevisionGUID="6593af26-3164-4e99-a9e0-918d71c2eeba" CreationDate="2015-10-31T17:00:12.990" UserDisplayName="user15342" Text="I'm releasing some source code as open source which includes a new, highly effective and efficient method of automatically classifying graphical data (image, video frames etc) as either pornography or not pornography. I do not want a patent, I want it to be free for everyone to know and study.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm concerned only about someone coming along and trying to claim the invention and patent it while it's still relatively unknown, as I lack both the saddle bags of cash and will to fight someone to prove it's mine. Does some mechanism exists where I can file information about this with the patent office, but only to inform them of this &quot;prior art&quot; for consideration when processing new patent applications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33944" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13860" RevisionGUID="6593af26-3164-4e99-a9e0-918d71c2eeba" CreationDate="2015-10-31T17:00:12.990" UserDisplayName="user15342" Text="Register prior art, but not wanting a patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33945" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13860" RevisionGUID="6593af26-3164-4e99-a9e0-918d71c2eeba" CreationDate="2015-10-31T17:00:12.990" UserDisplayName="user15342" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13861" RevisionGUID="df804065-b254-419b-84f1-cb3a75eaf882" CreationDate="2015-10-31T17:15:34.557" UserId="15344" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20130321393][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130321393&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note Prior Art - http://www.google.com/patents/US8705110" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33947" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13861" RevisionGUID="df804065-b254-419b-84f1-cb3a75eaf882" CreationDate="2015-10-31T17:15:34.557" UserId="15344" Text="Prior art for the same exists" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33948" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13861" RevisionGUID="df804065-b254-419b-84f1-cb3a75eaf882" CreationDate="2015-10-31T17:15:34.557" UserId="15344" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13862" RevisionGUID="203b414f-7c20-4bc1-8e66-25a0fd48c0ac" CreationDate="2015-10-31T22:07:50.957" UserId="15345" Text="click the Revalidate button to get a screen which includes Delete buttons." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13863" RevisionGUID="353eafdc-e823-4db0-be4f-4c03b589b132" CreationDate="2015-11-01T09:45:28.647" UserId="15347" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2013166295A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013166295A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a physician and also a patient with advanced Parkinson disease (PD), I recognized the originality and merit of Dr. Charbel Moussa's proposal to treat PD with nilotinib, or a similar tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), by employing low-level cellular autophagy to clear out the accumulated toxic alpha-synuclein (ASN) protein which is the pathological cause of death in affected neurons.  Dr. Moussa published a paper in 2013 which related his theories regarding the therapeutic potential of TKI's in PD and similar neurodegenerative diseases, and which documented dramatic reversal of PD in mice he treated with nilotinib. This paper was not his first on this topic, but it was the first time I was aware of his work and it convinced me that, if he could repeat those results in humans, he would be the first scientist to reverse the underlying course of PD in humans. This development, when fully proven in humans, will be one of the most significant advances in medical history and will certainly be awarded the Nobel prize in medicine. I would probably be taking nilotinib now, off label and self-prescribed based on Dr. Moussa's work, were it not for a rare but often fatal side-effect of nilotinib known as torsade de pointes (or just torsade), a cardiac arrhythmia that can strike suddenly and with little symptomatic warning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Torsade, though, is predictably associated with a finding on the patient's electrocardiogram (ECG) called QT interval prolongation.  Drugs that increase the risk of torsade do so by prolonging the QT interval, in a dose-dependent manner.  Dr. Moussa addressed this concern by stating in his paper that the dose of nilotinib required to stimulate therapeutic autophagy in the brain of a PD patient would be substantially lower than the dose used to treat cancer patients, and that even at the full anti-cancer dose, torsade was a rare event.  However, PD is known to cause the loss of autonomic sympathetic innervation to the heart, which contributes to the dangerous drops in blood pressure in advanced PD.  Loss of sympathetic innervation might, in turn, result in the increased production of catecholamine receptors in denervated cardiac myocytes, thus potentially increasing their susceptibility to torsade, triggered by circulating catecholamines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my specific question regarding patent WO2013166295A1 is this: what is the effect of nilotinib treatment on the QT interval (and thus, the likelihood of torsade) in PD patients treated with the reduced dose? The answer can be found by calculating the change in the QT interval in advanced PD patients treated with nilotinib.  This calculation consists simply of  subtracting the measured QT interval before administration of nilotinib from the measured QT interval during steady-state therapeutic dosing for each patient treated for advanced PD.  The larger this increase in the QT interval, the greater the increased risk of torsade.  Ideally, there would be no increase in the QT interval, but if so, the patient can be monitored more carefully and treated with medications to reduce the risk of torsade, such supplemental magnesium, potassium and beta-blockers if indicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for the opportunity to post this question, and I wish much continued success to Dr. Moussa and his research group at Georgetown University.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33952" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13863" RevisionGUID="353eafdc-e823-4db0-be4f-4c03b589b132" CreationDate="2015-11-01T09:45:28.647" UserId="15347" Text="What is the effect of nilotinib on electrocardiogram QT interval in advanced Parkinson disease?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33953" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13863" RevisionGUID="353eafdc-e823-4db0-be4f-4c03b589b132" CreationDate="2015-11-01T09:45:28.647" UserId="15347" Text="&lt;wo2013166295a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13864" RevisionGUID="b47a5061-6fc6-4a05-92a6-4b95346a480c" CreationDate="2015-11-01T12:48:35.787" UserId="15348" Text="Sir,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   I want to weld 0.2mm Nickel to 1 mm of Al by overlapping welding by resistance spot welding of Precision micro welding machine for Li ion battery application. so, pl suggest me some welding parameters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;our machine has maximum Current of 0-99 Amperes ; time- 1 to 3 Cycels ; force - 0.5 kg to 3.5 Kg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so, pl suggest me some welding parameters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the machine we are using sir.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uj7FP.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33955" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13864" RevisionGUID="b47a5061-6fc6-4a05-92a6-4b95346a480c" CreationDate="2015-11-01T12:48:35.787" UserId="15348" Text="Regarding Resistance SPOT WELDING OF Nickel 0.2mm to Al of 1mm by precision spot welding machine" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33956" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13864" RevisionGUID="b47a5061-6fc6-4a05-92a6-4b95346a480c" CreationDate="2015-11-01T12:48:35.787" UserId="15348" Text="&lt;research&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33957" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13864" RevisionGUID="f72b411f-afe2-48fd-8eeb-31c5ee8407aa" CreationDate="2015-11-01T14:48:49.643" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33958" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13863" RevisionGUID="1faaee3b-2fd3-4fed-9ca3-f492abd79458" CreationDate="2015-11-01T14:49:20.397" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13865" RevisionGUID="fef5ecdd-e3ce-4ca8-b193-3d6ea9e6c290" CreationDate="2015-11-02T03:59:13.927" UserId="15148" Text="This would be very easy. The simplest would be to simply ask your patent attorney to withdraw his power of attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also just file form AIA/81. Sign the form without appointing anyone to prosecute the application. This will have the effect of withdrawing the existing PoA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13866" RevisionGUID="d958cfa5-ed36-4a26-8520-f91c2c8bfae6" CreationDate="2015-11-02T11:48:24.403" UserId="15352" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20120138076][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120138076&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hi,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has this patent been granted? Please can I have as much information on this paten as possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kind regards,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jake" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33962" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13866" RevisionGUID="d958cfa5-ed36-4a26-8520-f91c2c8bfae6" CreationDate="2015-11-02T11:48:24.403" UserId="15352" Text="If the patent is granted, will be granted and if not why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33963" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13866" RevisionGUID="d958cfa5-ed36-4a26-8520-f91c2c8bfae6" CreationDate="2015-11-02T11:48:24.403" UserId="15352" Text="&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13866" RevisionGUID="a2793e84-5dc2-4c82-a03a-17c596f07d6e" CreationDate="2015-11-02T12:11:14.917" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, improved tagging and corrected spelling." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 2012/0138076 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120138076&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has this patent been granted? Please can I have as much information on this patent as possible?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33966" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13866" RevisionGUID="a2793e84-5dc2-4c82-a03a-17c596f07d6e" CreationDate="2015-11-02T12:11:14.917" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, improved tagging and corrected spelling." Text="&lt;legal-status&gt;&lt;abandoned-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13868" RevisionGUID="18c088b6-eb1a-452a-a848-a8d47b02d641" CreationDate="2015-11-02T12:12:10.600" UserId="14417" Text="The primary source of information is the [USPTO Public Pair][1] database which has a CAPTCHA and does not allow direct links to individual patents. On that site, Search for Application by Publication Number &quot;US 20120138076 A1&quot;. The Image File Wrapper contains a large number of documents, but of particular note is an Abandonment on October 22, 2014. The reasons for abandonment will be in that publication, which is freely available. Also available is all of the correspondence between the examiner and the inventor. Only under very rare circumstances may an abandoned patent be revived.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also the [USPTO Assignment Database][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://assignment.uspto.gov/#/search?q=20120138076" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13869" RevisionGUID="c235f128-c97c-4000-86db-77a2b599bb5b" CreationDate="2015-11-03T04:14:53.117" UserId="14510" Text="1. Making a work publicly available before someone else files a patent application on it automatically makes it 'prior art' for them - even if they don't see it, and even if the patent issues (so long as it is actually prior art, and you could demonstrate it was public). &#xD;&#xA;2. After it is 'publicly available' for 12 months, nobody can patent&#xD;&#xA;    it.&#xD;&#xA;3. For a little more detail about prior art read patent/IP attorney Gene Quinn's articles [pre-AIA][1] and [post-AIA][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way you could easily publish it is by releasing the source code to the public on a public portal such as GitHub, SourceForge, etc. This should serve to make it 'publicly available' and prevent anyone from 'stealing' the IP from you. Note that if you ever want to patent it, assuming it's patentable - you have only have 12 months to file an application. Further, any 'offer to sale' is arguable a 'statutory bar' that immediately bars the invention offered for sale (which can be construed rather broadly) from being patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NOTE: I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/10/02/what-is-prior-art/id=12677/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/10/03/the-impact-of-the-america-invents-act-on-the-definition-of-prior-art/id=28453/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13870" RevisionGUID="9f861745-217f-46a4-9d32-e44a0f89c4f5" CreationDate="2015-11-03T08:46:56.190" UserId="15360" Text="I was wondering if the Tree Lounge Advantage patents are available to be purchased? I know the company has since closed. Have they expired or are they still valid? Any help would be great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33970" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13870" RevisionGUID="9f861745-217f-46a4-9d32-e44a0f89c4f5" CreationDate="2015-11-03T08:46:56.190" UserId="15360" Text="Has this patent expired? us5954158" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33971" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13870" RevisionGUID="9f861745-217f-46a4-9d32-e44a0f89c4f5" CreationDate="2015-11-03T08:46:56.190" UserId="15360" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33972" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13870" RevisionGUID="e36caaab-2a6e-46e4-9cdc-b3cb8e463ef0" CreationDate="2015-11-03T12:48:36.160" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, improved tagging and corrected spelling." Text="I was wondering if the Tree Lounge Advantage patents (e.g., [US 5,954,158][1]) are available to be purchased? I know the company has since closed. Have they expired or are they still valid? Any help would be great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5954158" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33973" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13870" RevisionGUID="e36caaab-2a6e-46e4-9cdc-b3cb8e463ef0" CreationDate="2015-11-03T12:48:36.160" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, improved tagging and corrected spelling." Text="Have the Tree Lounge Advantage patents expired?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33974" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13870" RevisionGUID="e36caaab-2a6e-46e4-9cdc-b3cb8e463ef0" CreationDate="2015-11-03T12:48:36.160" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, improved tagging and corrected spelling." Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;legal-status&gt;&lt;assignment&gt;&lt;us5954158&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13871" RevisionGUID="d840bbd5-3fd0-4be3-8592-ce7860311134" CreationDate="2015-11-03T12:51:28.503" UserId="14417" Text="On the Google Patents page for this patent, look under Legal Events and you will see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Nov 13, 2007	FP	Expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee&#xD;&#xA;    Effective date: 20070921&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent is expired since September 9, 2007.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in the detailed history of the patent, refer to the [USPTO Public Pair][1] database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13872" RevisionGUID="6783fa59-d587-4328-a1b7-1fd6658f1134" CreationDate="2015-11-03T17:26:39.127" UserId="15364" Text="I had another patent attorney view my issued patent and said my patent was invalid. I first filed my non provisional 2008 then my attorney filed a continuation in part because he did not add a very important claim, which he knew about beforehand, in 2009, he then abandoned the claim and re-filed in 2012. I finally got my patent two years after that. I had been selling my product since 2009 and my patent attorneys knew that. Now, that I have a license deal, I had another patent attorney view the contract where he said my patent is worthless and it is fraud. Without going to court, how can I get my patent attorney who filed the claims to correct this issue?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33978" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13872" RevisionGUID="6783fa59-d587-4328-a1b7-1fd6658f1134" CreationDate="2015-11-03T17:26:39.127" UserId="15364" Text="What are the penalties patent attorneys can be held accountable for false claims in a patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33979" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13872" RevisionGUID="6783fa59-d587-4328-a1b7-1fd6658f1134" CreationDate="2015-11-03T17:26:39.127" UserId="15364" Text="&lt;invalid&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13873" RevisionGUID="c7ee3fc8-eebe-4b16-8146-3d3a0d14c263" CreationDate="2015-11-03T19:14:57.343" UserId="15365" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2003001383A3][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2003001383A3&#xD;&#xA; Is this basically a video recorder?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33981" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13873" RevisionGUID="c7ee3fc8-eebe-4b16-8146-3d3a0d14c263" CreationDate="2015-11-03T19:14:57.343" UserId="15365" Text="What does this do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33982" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13873" RevisionGUID="c7ee3fc8-eebe-4b16-8146-3d3a0d14c263" CreationDate="2015-11-03T19:14:57.343" UserId="15365" Text="&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13874" RevisionGUID="38230871-5a6d-46f7-90f7-5b82fd3460ed" CreationDate="2015-11-03T19:55:44.757" UserId="5317" Text="I'm with the many others who suggest to place your sourcecode on a public open-source management system of some kind.  This will date the files appropriately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, look at any software patent, the very thing you are trying to prevent, and you will see flow charts of the process or method the patent protects.  Source code doesn't really figure into much of anything except to implement the process or method.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, there is one more thing you should consider publishing... the method or process you are implementing in your software.  Somewhere you probably have a flow chart of the steps your software takes to classify the graphical data.  Maybe its on paper... maybe it's in your head.  Wherever it is, you should get it into a flow chart or something similar that describes the method/process so you can publish it along with your code.  A good home for this method/process documentation is in the /doc directory next to your source code directory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest to document the process at several levels.  The first should be a very very high level and very broad description of the basic steps you use to classify the graphical data.  The next should provide more detail on the intermediate steps involved.  Keep adding more flow charts with more detail until you are satisfied you have covered your process or method.  By doing the above you have, sort of, defined broad claims on your process/method along with more detailed claims.  Of course you aren't going to claim them on your own patent application, but you have effectively made your idea prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not an attorney am I... just my two cents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33984" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13873" RevisionGUID="a585c536-4bc6-474a-b485-601ea39365e5" CreationDate="2015-11-03T20:48:05.263" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13875" RevisionGUID="9acd25f2-f188-46f7-bf00-4fd66b788196" CreationDate="2015-11-03T23:26:57.277" UserId="15366" Text="If a dependent claim only limits the independent claim, then is it still infringement when a product only differs from that dependent claim?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;~~~&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(Independent claim:)&#xD;&#xA;1. A device for keeping thumbs warm comprising a fabric ring that encircles the thumb.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(Dependent claim:)&#xD;&#xA;2. A device as claimed in claim 1 wherein the fabric is wool.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;~~~&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my understanding, in an example like this, I'm assuming that this wording of the dependent claim only limits the independent claim (as opposed to offering a possible incarnation of it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that's true, then could one produce a device exactly as described in the independent claim, but then just change the fabric to something other than &quot;wool&quot;, and thereby not be infringing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks,&#xD;&#xA;M&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33986" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13875" RevisionGUID="9acd25f2-f188-46f7-bf00-4fd66b788196" CreationDate="2015-11-03T23:26:57.277" UserId="15366" Text="If a dependent claim only limits the independent claim, then is it still infringement when a product only differs from that dependent claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33987" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13875" RevisionGUID="9acd25f2-f188-46f7-bf00-4fd66b788196" CreationDate="2015-11-03T23:26:57.277" UserId="15366" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;dependent&gt;&lt;independent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13876" RevisionGUID="8824cd60-849d-4580-b5ce-a091af072471" CreationDate="2015-11-04T00:21:19.413" UserId="13775" Text="You can't infringe a dependent claim without also infringing the independent claim (at least I haven't seen any case where it happened, since dependent claims are subsets of the independent claim).  You can infringe an independent claim without infringing a dependant claim.  So using your example (and changing &quot;a device as claimed in claim 1&quot; to &quot;the device of claim 1&quot;), if there is a fabric thumb ring made of cotton, claim 1 is infringed, claim 2 is not.  If the ring is made of wool, both claims 1 and 2 are infringed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's use a simpler example.&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1:  A method comprising step A.&#xD;&#xA;Claim 2: The method of claim 1, where step B follows step A.&#xD;&#xA;Claim 3: The method of claim 2, where step C follows step B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I perform a method that consists of step A followed by step D, only claim 1 is infringed.  If I perform a method that consists of step A followed by step B, claims 2 and 3 are infringed.  If I perform a method that consists of step A followed by step C (but no step B), claim 3 is *not* infringed, claim 2 is not infringed, but claim 1 is infringed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given all this, one might ask why dependent claims exist at all.  After all, if you can't infringe the dependent claim without also infringing the independent claim, where is the benefit of a dependent claim?  One answer is that the limitations in the dependent claim may allow that claim to survive if for some reason the independent claim is invalidated.  So returning to the example, imagine that somebody else published a description of the method of step A prior to the priority date of the patent.  However, imagine that it was novel and not obvious to follow step A with step B.  In that case, the dependent claim should be valid over the prior art even though the independent claim should be invalidated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably too much of an answer for the question that was asked, so let's boil it down:  Yes, it is infringement (of the independent claim) when a product matches the independent claim but differs from the dependent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13877" RevisionGUID="c9ffac71-5340-4a42-bb95-197787e04571" CreationDate="2015-11-04T05:18:58.287" UserId="15148" Text="The answer to your question depends strongly on the exact wording of your employment agreement, and therefore cannot be answered without access to this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in most cases, assuming a &quot;standard&quot; agreement, if your invention is covered by the terms of your employment agreement, your company would retain a right to decide what actions to take, as an assignee in perpetuity of all rights to the invention. This could include filing a patent application, maintaining the invention as trade secret, &quot;shelving&quot;, or altogether abandoning the invention; and in all cases you would have given up any right to pursue the invention. In summary, it is more likely than not that you do not have any right to file a patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind, though, that this is generic information. You should consult with an attorney to review your specific situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13878" RevisionGUID="ad340a2c-a1b2-428c-b8bf-16dd36fe962f" CreationDate="2015-11-04T06:45:26.893" UserId="1186" Text="I received the NoA last month. On one hand it says that the Patent is allowed, and on the the other hand I read this line:   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **THIS NOTICE OF ALLOWABILITY IS NOT A GRANT OF PATENT RIGHTS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once I get a patent granted, do I not have the rights on this ? &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33991" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13878" RevisionGUID="ad340a2c-a1b2-428c-b8bf-16dd36fe962f" CreationDate="2015-11-04T06:45:26.893" UserId="1186" Text="A question on NoA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33992" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13878" RevisionGUID="ad340a2c-a1b2-428c-b8bf-16dd36fe962f" CreationDate="2015-11-04T06:45:26.893" UserId="1186" Text="&lt;examination&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33993" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5242" RevisionGUID="11f3b5b9-2471-4778-9f37-d46188cc77de" CreationDate="2015-11-04T13:11:12.727" UserId="6011" Comment="deleted 52 characters in body" Text="The below links to prior art PDFs circa 2004-2005 should help.  Each of these is a printed publication and 102(b) prior art to the application.  See the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [2004 Hawaii Ad-Me][1]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - [2005 location-aware GPS][2]  See Fig. 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Ad-Me #2][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Ad-Me #3][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A method for providing one or more search results comprising:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**receiving a query;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some of the key functional requirements of the system are: to provide&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a backdrop of tourist information; present local map image and depict&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the user position upon it; find objects of interest to the user and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; show their location on the map as well as their names within a list. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Additionally the user may acquire information about an object, make a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reservation, or get directions to the object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2004 Ad-me at 4, col. 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Preceptors acquire environmental stimulus such as user input and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; GPS coordinates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2004 Ad-me at 4, col. 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Active Personalization:  User interactions are accrued and are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; automatically exploited in order to dynamically refine the preexisting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user profiles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2004 Ad-me at 7, col. 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**determining a location of a user performing the query; and**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Preceptors acquire environmental stimulus such as user input and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; GPS coordinates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2004 Ad-me at 4, col. 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The GPS Preceptor acquires the GPS coordinates and then the GPS&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Actuator passes them to the GUI as well as to the server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2004 Ad-me at 5, col. 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**providing one or more search results for presentation based upon the query, the search results indicative of one or more providers within at least one of a temporal and a geographic proximity of the location, and the search results provided as a function of whether the one or more providers are available.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The high relevant value is assured because of several factors.  First&#xD;&#xA;&gt; advertisements are prioritized amongst other things on the proximity&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the supplier to the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2004 Ad-me at 9, col. 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A parallel set of profiles exists for each advertisers.  These&#xD;&#xA;&gt; profiles contain such data as outlet location, special promotional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; offers, opening times and parking or delivery facilities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2004 Ad-me at 7, col. 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MIA also constitutes a multi-agent based location-aware information&#xD;&#xA;&gt; system for mobile users.  MIA's emphasis is one of retrieving content&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from the web and delivering this to the user.  The retrieved&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information is relevant to the city where the user is currently&#xD;&#xA;&gt; located.  It merely uses user location as the key.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2004 Ad-me at 8, col. 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The service is augmented with a range of pull technology functions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; including a find nearest function which will find a desired object&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (e.g. restaurant, museum), that is closest to the users [sic] current&#xD;&#xA;&gt; position.  Objects are selected from a list of standard objects&#xD;&#xA;&gt; including inter alia cash machine, taxi rank, pharmacy, train station,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and police station.  The system addresses interoperability and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; delivers its service in a manner sensitive to the users [sic]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technological context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2004 Ad-me at 4, col. 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ad-me utilizes user profiles in order to present to the user context&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sensitive advertisements which in particular takes cognizance of: ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Those items of high interest to the user; ... Products and Services&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that are within the immediate user locality; Products and Services&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that are available at a given instance (opening times, in stock).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2004 Ad-me at 7, col. 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also 2004 Ad-me at 3, col. 1 (computing context, user context, physical context and time context)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patdek.com/s/2004-Ad-me-Hawaii.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.patdek.com/s/2005-Location-aware-GPS.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.patdek.com/s/Ad-me-2.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.patdek.com/s/Ad-me-3.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13879" RevisionGUID="6d7f5e2a-8181-4e99-ad38-3f26683fc9bb" CreationDate="2015-11-04T16:37:23.000" UserId="15369" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20090120829][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20090120829&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to start producing bags similar to the above patented item but with a velcro closing flap at the top to protect the products inside. What other alterations might I have to make to avoid violating the above patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you,&#xD;&#xA;Chris Lazenby.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33995" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13879" RevisionGUID="6d7f5e2a-8181-4e99-ad38-3f26683fc9bb" CreationDate="2015-11-04T16:37:23.000" UserId="15369" Text="I would like to know if I could create a product similar to the Stiffy Bag but with a velcro closing flap at the top to secure products" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33996" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13879" RevisionGUID="6d7f5e2a-8181-4e99-ad38-3f26683fc9bb" CreationDate="2015-11-04T16:37:23.000" UserId="15369" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13880" RevisionGUID="ef1824fa-bd0b-4f62-99f8-d2a8fcbc9e61" CreationDate="2015-11-04T18:30:09.727" UserId="4545" Text="You still have to pay the issue fee. After that, the USPTO will grant your patent and publish it formally, at which point you'll have your full patent rights. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13881" RevisionGUID="8f48a0a2-b52a-4e2d-94b5-d5998e66b936" CreationDate="2015-11-04T18:37:05.427" UserId="4545" Text="I'm not sure how the claims of either application/patent are covered by the disclosure of the other, but please note that the application corresponding to US 2013/0321393 A1 actually has an earlier priority date than any document corresponding to US 8705110 B2. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13882" RevisionGUID="10009007-b322-44ba-aaad-17d9ec67a40a" CreationDate="2015-11-04T18:37:32.627" UserId="15148" Text="This means that before the patent has actually issued it is not a patent. The USPTO preserves a right to withdraw it from issue up until it has actually issued (this can for example happen if there is a change of patent laws that causes a need for reexamination), and also the pending application may become abandoned if you fail to timely submit payment of issue fee, or otherwise fail to be responsive (for example to a notice to correct the application)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13883" RevisionGUID="3d7e9b27-72fd-493a-b3ad-886aa0a7607d" CreationDate="2015-11-04T19:48:30.253" UserId="15371" Text="Look at the claims.  If you are doing anything that the claims cover then it doesn't matter what else you are doing differently ... it is an infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good patent will issue claims that are both general enough that it covers all possible new and novel iterations of the patented idea, and not be so general that the claim is rendered useless ... it must be truly new and novel and specific enough to point out what makes it new and novel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You know, you can also always contact the patent owner and work out a licensing deal.  3-6% of profits isn't bad, if you have to spend 3-6% to work around it or if the workaround is inferior.  Plus if they get a licensing deal and have some weight they can make a great partner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OTOH, I find that often the innovation involved in working around a claim can result in something truly better and new and novel, and if it doesn't (or the workaround seems it might still infringe) I'll abandon it.  There are a billion fresh ideas just waiting to be seized, don't waste your time on cheating on a used one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13884" RevisionGUID="d4e19892-31cc-4af9-b7c8-5ff6636609fc" CreationDate="2015-11-04T21:33:58.680" UserId="15371" Text="As you know PPA's are not examined, so of course, neither are they ever rejected if they are filed in the wrong classification (say it should have gone in &quot;Lasers&quot;, and somehow &quot;households&quot; was used).  For this reason that error may never be caught until the non-provisional is drafted ... or maybe even later when the non-provisional is challenged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since that is the case, then considering a non-provisional patent (it having the correct classification) issuing from the PPA ... can it still claim the date of the PPA even though the PPA was filed in the wrong classification?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, if there are other non-critical discrepancies unrelated to the actual invention or claims (for example, an inventor residence missing or wrong), does that affect the strength of the PPA if that information is correct in the non-provisional?  How about if an inventor is added or changes between the PPA vs the non-provisional?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Any answer (including wild guesses) will be most appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34002" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13884" RevisionGUID="d4e19892-31cc-4af9-b7c8-5ff6636609fc" CreationDate="2015-11-04T21:33:58.680" UserId="15371" Text="What if the PPA was filed with the wrong classification? Still valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34003" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13884" RevisionGUID="d4e19892-31cc-4af9-b7c8-5ff6636609fc" CreationDate="2015-11-04T21:33:58.680" UserId="15371" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;classification&gt;&lt;ppa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13884" RevisionGUID="445e6c6c-04b8-4a25-adb3-5049d2aebcf1" CreationDate="2015-11-04T21:42:23.523" UserId="15371" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="As you know PPA's are not examined, so of course, neither are they ever rejected if they are filed in the wrong classification (say it should have gone in &quot;Lasers&quot;, and somehow &quot;households&quot; was used).  In fact it is never even published.  For this reason that error may never be caught until the non-provisional is drafted ... or maybe not even until much later when the non-provisional is challenged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since that is the case, then considering a non-provisional patent (it having the correct classification) issuing from the PPA ... can it still claim the date of the PPA even though the PPA was filed in the wrong classification?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, if there are other non-critical discrepancies unrelated to the actual invention or claims (for example, an inventor residence missing or wrong), does that affect the strength of the PPA if that information is correct in the non-provisional?  How about if an inventor is added or changes between the PPA vs the non-provisional?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Any answer (including wild guesses) will be most appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13885" RevisionGUID="e3168de1-a8ff-4daf-a172-fd675fa5ae39" CreationDate="2015-11-04T23:28:02.520" UserId="8108" Text="If inventions or ideas were created while employed at a company that uses the &quot;standard&quot; policy of having all inventions created by an employee assigned to the company, the company has not patented the inventions or ideas, and now the company no longer exists...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are my options on patenting the inventions or ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34006" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13885" RevisionGUID="e3168de1-a8ff-4daf-a172-fd675fa5ae39" CreationDate="2015-11-04T23:28:02.520" UserId="8108" Text="Invention's legal assignee no longer exists; can I patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34007" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13885" RevisionGUID="e3168de1-a8ff-4daf-a172-fd675fa5ae39" CreationDate="2015-11-04T23:28:02.520" UserId="8108" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13886" RevisionGUID="5daf4679-5ed9-4764-8a87-4ec59f6b4645" CreationDate="2015-11-05T05:17:25.070" UserId="14510" Text="**DISCLAIMER: This is not legal advice, and is not to be relied upon for legal decisions. I am not attorney. Read the relevent laws yourself and consult with an attorney.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Classification&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;The classification noted on a patent application is only a suggestion to the USPTO made in good faith (i.e. you could get in trouble for intentionally trying to mislead/etc) - it is not necessarily the final classification: see the [ADS Instructions Document][1] (ADS form is [the same for PPA and non-provisional][2]):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Enter a suggested classification for the application. Optional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The requirements for claiming benefit of the filing date of a PPA are described in the MPEP [here][3] and the requirements for a provisional application are [here][4] - classification isn't mentioned. That doesn't mean it couldn't be buried somewhere else. However, knowing that the purpose of the PPA is to fully disclose the invention that will be filed for non-provisionally, it seems like the classification of the PPA is less important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, sometimes multiple patent applications can claim benefit to the same PPA (or previous non-provisional application). I know of no requirement that they be the same classification, which would seem strange as it is easily conceivable that the same disclosure could give rise to applications in different classifications. Indeed, most patents are cross-classified in multiple classes and subclasses. I am sure that if one cared to look, they could find examples of applications that claimed benefit to applications in a different classification. Furthermore, the many 'interestingly classified' issued patents and [applications][5] are somewhat of a laughing stock in the patent community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, if you could amend the ADS to update the suggested classification (don't remember rules for that off-hand), one would think it would probably be better and *may* help avoid accusations of inequitable conduct during later infringement lititgation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inventorship&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;See [MPEP 602][6] (37 CFR 1.41(c)):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Once a cover sheet as prescribed by § 1.51(c)(1) is filed in a provisional application, any correction of inventorship must be pursuant to § 1.48.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An application must include, or be amended to include, the name of the inventor for any invention claimed in the application (the inventorship).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, sometimes you can have the situation where a provisional application has one set of inventors, and a non-provisional application is only partially reliant on the provisional - and so may have a different set of inventors. If this is not the case, though, the provisional application's inventors may need to be corrected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Residence&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;MPEP 602 again:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Each inventor’s residence must be included on the cover sheet for a provisional application unless it is included in an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If only a mailing address where the inventor customarily receives mail is provided, the Office will presume that the inventor’s residence is the city and either state or foreign country of the mailing address. If the inventor lives at a location which different from the inventor’s mailing address, the inventor’s residence (city and either state or foreign country) must be included in the inventor’s oath or declaration or an application data sheet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, you may need to update the ADS...So...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Updating the ADS:&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;[MPEP 601][7] (37 CFR 1.76(c)):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Information in a previously submitted application data sheet, inventor's oath or declaration under § 1.63, § 1.64 or § 1.67, or otherwise of record, may be corrected or updated until payment of the issue fee by a new application data sheet providing corrected or updated information, except that inventorship changes must comply with the requirements of § 1.48, foreign priority and domestic benefit information changes must comply with §§ 1.55 and 1.78, and correspondence address changes are governed by § 1.33(a). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;ved=0CB4QFjAAahUKEwjRl9XzvvjIAhVP62MKHbXSBUc&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uspto.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Febc%2Fportal%2Fefs%2Fads_form_inst.doc&amp;usg=AFQjCNGfblNlzDnKuog-lcDT_sDCdBcvgQ&amp;sig2=HCUY8Ewp652F2nwP07UN3Q&amp;cad=rja&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s601.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s211.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s201.html#ch200_d1ff6d_23490_24a&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/03/11/when-uspto-classifies-an-application-incorrectly/id=48457/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s602.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s601.html#ch600_d1ff5e_1ae97_96" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13887" RevisionGUID="52d4820b-ea15-413b-b701-4d155a41acec" CreationDate="2015-11-05T05:33:28.200" UserId="15148" Text="Proper classification is the responsibility of the USPTO, and not the applicant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Non-provisional applications are relatively often misclassified, and this is not something that can cause any challenge to the validity of a filing date or the enabling nature of the disclosure. It may cause less than adequate proficiency in examination, but that is another matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Provisional applications are not classified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other situations you mention will rarely jeopardize the enabling status of a provisional application, if caused by unintentional error. However, if there has been an incorrect declaration of inventorship with malicious intent, this could cause a complete loss of the filing status. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13888" RevisionGUID="c4257319-5002-4a8f-9269-b6b21725e9b1" CreationDate="2015-11-05T18:36:30.357" UserId="1193" Text="If the idea is not public knowledge you should be able to file a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ownership could still be claimed by your former employer, but they would have to prove that the idea was conceived and developed on their time, and not as an independent work.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And event then, inventions are rarely created in isolation and most new ideas are variations or improvement on old ideas, so even if your old employer had an idea they never patented your evolved idea, which you would patent, could be sufficiently different to qualify as a unique and new invention separate from the idea that was never patented in your old company." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13891" RevisionGUID="360e93c9-f3f8-4056-8896-10f66544924c" CreationDate="2015-11-05T20:39:23.173" UserId="15377" Text="In reference to the patent: [CA2815417A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/CA2815417A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This method was already described in a public forum on: &#xD;&#xA;    06 February 2012 - 05:30 PM&#xD;&#xA;prior to the priority date of this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See post #10 on this page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://web.archive.org/web/20120702053335/http://forums.microcash.org/index.php/topic/538-rfc-solidcoin-204-and-txfees-help-finding-a-solution/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two patents that are effected by this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34018" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13891" RevisionGUID="360e93c9-f3f8-4056-8896-10f66544924c" CreationDate="2015-11-05T20:39:23.173" UserId="15377" Text="This patent should not be granted; already published" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34019" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13891" RevisionGUID="360e93c9-f3f8-4056-8896-10f66544924c" CreationDate="2015-11-05T20:39:23.173" UserId="15377" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;ca2815417a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13893" RevisionGUID="e459a813-c11a-4a4e-af52-d4f86d80d4ce" CreationDate="2015-11-05T23:30:19.893" UserId="15379" Text=" - Does the patent become abandoned?&#xD;&#xA; - If yes, can I revive it? Under what conditions?   &#xD;&#xA; - Is it any different if I didn't pay the maintenance fee?&#xD;&#xA; - Do I get any protection from such a patent?    &#xD;&#xA; - Is the patent published?    &#xD;&#xA; - Does the patent block other people from patenting the same idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm interested in both US and EU patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34026" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13893" RevisionGUID="e459a813-c11a-4a4e-af52-d4f86d80d4ce" CreationDate="2015-11-05T23:30:19.893" UserId="15379" Text="What happens if I don't pay the issue fee?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34027" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13893" RevisionGUID="e459a813-c11a-4a4e-af52-d4f86d80d4ce" CreationDate="2015-11-05T23:30:19.893" UserId="15379" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13894" RevisionGUID="da675a4e-4f41-4da9-b2bf-4ba586899adb" CreationDate="2015-11-06T02:21:21.507" UserId="15371" Text="If I wanted to file an NPA which included content from 2 different PPA's filed on different days ... then will the entire patent only be able to claim the priority of the most recent PPA? Or will claims in the NDA have different priority dates, each dating to the PPA wherein they originated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I ask is that I understood that refiling a PPA resets the priority for the ultimate NPA to the refiling date (not the original PPA date), and I didn't know whether the 2nd PPA used in the same NPA would be considered a refiling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the answer is &quot;if the PPA content is different then it is not a refiling, but instead the content of the 1st PPA retains it's own priority date&quot; then I ask: Why in the world would anyone refile a PPA?  Wouldn't it make more sense to do multiple PPA's in piecemeal fashion so as to claim the earliest date possible for each feature as it is fleshed out?  Refiling the whole thing just seems stupid, doesn't it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34029" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13894" RevisionGUID="da675a4e-4f41-4da9-b2bf-4ba586899adb" CreationDate="2015-11-06T02:21:21.507" UserId="15371" Text="Can an NPA of claims 1 and 2 of an NPA retain their independent PPA filing priority dates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34030" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13894" RevisionGUID="da675a4e-4f41-4da9-b2bf-4ba586899adb" CreationDate="2015-11-06T02:21:21.507" UserId="15371" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;ppa&gt;&lt;refiling&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13895" RevisionGUID="a992e0c0-9ca5-423e-a276-92da689731fb" CreationDate="2015-11-06T02:33:10.970" UserId="14510" Text="George White makes excellent points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to add that in between the gold standard (and almost necessary to filing a good provisional application) of consulting a professional, and the sub-standard of doing it completely by yourself with no understanding of the intricacies of patent practice is the option of a 'pseudo-guided provisional' such as IP Watchdog's invent+patent system (there are other ones, and I have no relation or association to any of them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, it is *NOT* the same as having a patent practitioner draft it (yes, I am one). Yes, it is *far* better than trying to do it yourself, as it is designed (a good one at least) by someone who understands the intricacies of patent practice to draw out as much information as possible and get it into the provisional application to later support a strong non-provisional application (drafted by a skilled practitioner). Without having actually used the Invent+Patent system, but having reviewed as much as possible about it, it seems like an excellent compromise for an absolutely cash-strapped inventor. Furthermore, the cost should not be an issue if you have enough cash to file the provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another tip: When drafting an application, include LOTS of examples (even sub-standard ones, but especially all conceivable variations of 'good' ones). Include LOTS of tables with different ranges of various parameters - possible ranges, ideal ranges, preferred ranges. Examples of environments, scenarios, configurations. Everything you can think of. It will help a strong application to be drafted later that can point back to details in your provisional to avoid your filing date being rejected because of new matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13896" RevisionGUID="35e1e8ca-61df-45e9-8f1f-681847c03895" CreationDate="2015-11-06T02:40:24.553" UserId="14510" Text="Aldo makes good points ... HOWEVER ... I would be very careful condemning the Invention Development Company out of hand. It is true that many are unethical. It is equally true that they *may* be giving you sound advice, and it is difficult to understand what they are saying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example you could still have an invention, it just would not be the ENTIRETY of what you regard as your 'invention'. Think about smartphones - much innovation is still occurring in that space. Say Apple has a new invention with a new type of gesture-recognition and receives a patent and incorporates it into the iPhone 7. The invention is patentable. The invention is _**in**_ the iPhone 7. The invention is _**NOT**_ the iPhone 7. Therefore, it is **POSSIBLE** that you may have a patentable invention embedded in your proposed product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, being able to successfully make and sell a product is not corollary with patentability. A myriad of individuals and companies make good livings making and selling furniture without ever looking at a patent in their life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, do be careful, as even if not unethical, the invention development company is making their money off of you developing an invention, not abandoning it! I would especially be cautious of large up-front fees coupled with over-optimistic predictions. The more they share with you the potential pitfalls without you having to drag it out of them, the more trustworthy they would seem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34033" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13894" RevisionGUID="36b9fb97-c025-4a61-bc42-2b0e6d2f32cc" CreationDate="2015-11-06T03:02:57.647" UserId="15371" Comment="edited title" Text="Can the claims of an NPA from multiple PPAs retain the priority of their respective PPA filing dates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13897" RevisionGUID="69447987-1c18-4f6e-b939-df7caa21a47a" CreationDate="2015-11-06T06:08:39.877" UserId="15370" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I can only speak regarding the US patent system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the patent become abandoned?&#xD;&#xA;    Yes, see the rules on [Notice of Allowance][1]. The issue fee is due within three months of receiving the notice of allowance. If the issue fee is not paid, you simply abandon the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If yes, can I revive it? Under what conditions?&#xD;&#xA;    No, see the [MPEP Sec. 711][2]. There may be some exceptions for &quot;expressly&quot; abandoned applications, but not paying a fee is the quickest way to lose your application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it any different if I didn't pay the maintenance fee?&#xD;&#xA;    Missed maintenance fee payments lead to to the patent &quot;expiring&quot; rather than an abandonment--same result (no protection) but &quot;expired&quot; implies it was valid for awhile, whereas an abandoned application was never a valid patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I get any protection from such a patent?&#xD;&#xA;    No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the patent published?&#xD;&#xA;    I'm not sure what you are asking because the patent application should typically already be published before your notice of allowance. Unless you tell the patent office not to publish your application, it will publish 18 months after you file (or after your priority date, whichever is earlier) [MPEP Sec. 1120][3]. With the typical patent application process taking much longer than 2 years, it should be published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the patent block other people from patenting the same idea?&#xD;&#xA;    Yes and no. To back up the discussion a little, patentability is not dependent on whether someone already owns a patent. So you can block someone from patenting your idea without filing a patent. The easiest way might be to publish your idea and then wait a year, after which your published method, device, etc. would become &quot;prior art&quot; and would prevent someone from patenting that thing. Of course you are taking a risk that someone might see your published idea within that first year and run to the patent office. Limiting our discussion to post America Invents Act (&quot;AIA&quot;, passed in 2012), where we are now in a &quot;first to file&quot; jurisdiction, someone could probably do just that and &quot;steal&quot; your idea quite legally. &#xD;&#xA;    But perhaps you are trying to file a patent (be the &quot;first to file&quot;) and then intentionally abandon your application so as to save yourself a little money (by not pursuing the application all the way) whilst blocking others from patenting the idea. I don't know why you would do that because it is an awfully lot of money and trouble just to file a patent (see the [USPTO fee schedule][4], not to mention attorney's fees), but I suppose you could and perhaps you might even succeed. Yet I doubt anyone really &quot;games&quot; the patent system in such a manner and gets away with it. There are loopholes within loopholes within the MPEP, and the USPTO has a lot of discretion in examining an application, so you might find yourself spending several years and thousands of dollars only to find someone with a VERY similar invention who successfully obtains a patent despite your best efforts. The advice, in short, is that if your invention is good enough then find a lawyer and actually obtain a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1303.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s711.html#sect711&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1120.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13898" RevisionGUID="082553ce-cc5c-4f9e-b368-c7fb1806fce1" CreationDate="2015-11-06T18:19:27.750" UserId="15370" Text="That is between you and the patent attorney of course, but you might want to consider the quality of work done by an attorney prividing a money back guarantee. Even if he or she gets your invention patented (thereby earning their fee under the proposed arrangement) it may very well be drafted poorly such that your patent offers narrow protection and a smart inventor or company can easily work around your patent. Many perfectly valid patents fall under this category and are not worth as much as a broader, well crafted patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you should also take into consideration the USPTO fees, all of which are nonrefundable. See fees here: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13899" RevisionGUID="d6892163-8b92-4316-9c4b-e8608b8957d0" CreationDate="2015-11-06T18:38:29.850" UserId="15370" Text="A provisional patent application is always a great idea because it sets your priority date at that earlier time, as a non provisional application (NPA) often takes longer to draft. It is meant as a placeholder only though while you draft the &quot;real&quot; application (your NPA). So while your NPA can benefit from the priority date of the provisional application, the provisional by itself does not offer any protection, I.e. in the case you fail to file an NPA within a year of your provisional, the provisional is abandoned. So be sure to follow within a year! In fact some inventors might prefer to work in secret rather than starting that one-year clock after the provisional is filed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while filing a provisional is a great idea, it is not required. It is neither necessary nor sufficient for full-on patent protection, which is the right to exclude. And of course it is an added expense, so shoe-string budgeted inventors sometimes forego filing a provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding prototyping material, you can use different material than that described in the application. No problem. What will be protected is the invention as laid out by the claims. Nothing has to exist yet in the real physical world." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13901" RevisionGUID="73dcb98a-b323-4b7e-aa0c-75e927c364f8" CreationDate="2015-11-06T19:52:46.603" UserId="15384" Text="I would like to get some clarification regarding how method claim works. I’m developing a diagnostic system in the line of invention described in http://www.google.com/patents/WO2014201088A1?cl=en .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, I am creating a detection system that would require me to follow four steps in the method described in claim 1. However the diagnostic method described in claim 4 that follows claim 1 is different in my case (i.e. a different physics to detect same particles). &#xD;&#xA;My question is will I be infringing claim 1 of the patent if I use the same steps but on step four use different tool? Does claim 1 cover all possible type of diagnostic method including these four steps?&#xD;&#xA;Also, what if I add a step in between step 3 and 4 in claim 1 ? Will that be considered as a new method? Or what if I use only 3 of the 4 steps?&#xD;&#xA;I’ll appreciate any response/advice on this matter.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34041" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13901" RevisionGUID="73dcb98a-b323-4b7e-aa0c-75e927c364f8" CreationDate="2015-11-06T19:52:46.603" UserId="15384" Text="Advice and Clarification on Method claim" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34042" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13901" RevisionGUID="73dcb98a-b323-4b7e-aa0c-75e927c364f8" CreationDate="2015-11-06T19:52:46.603" UserId="15384" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;method&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13904" RevisionGUID="cd7d059f-4d4d-4e6b-a297-6827bcbf56bf" CreationDate="2015-11-06T23:35:22.210" UserId="11025" Text="I remember hearing of a case where the Court found that original claims could be considered part of the specification. Is this true, and, if so, what case is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could be used to overcome a §112 rejection, for example, if a claim was for a chair with four legs, and the specification was silent on the chair having legs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34053" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13904" RevisionGUID="cd7d059f-4d4d-4e6b-a297-6827bcbf56bf" CreationDate="2015-11-06T23:35:22.210" UserId="11025" Text="Are claims part of a specification?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34054" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13904" RevisionGUID="cd7d059f-4d4d-4e6b-a297-6827bcbf56bf" CreationDate="2015-11-06T23:35:22.210" UserId="11025" Text="&lt;specification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13905" RevisionGUID="4325993e-5f4d-45f0-bfc4-d781c77451e2" CreationDate="2015-11-07T04:56:55.170" UserId="14510" Text="Yes, they are, and are used like you have mentioned. The most direct answer to your question is in the MPEP ([here][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The claims as filed in the original specification are part of the disclosure and, therefore, if an application as originally filed contains a claim disclosing material not found in the remainder of the specification, the applicant may amend the specification to include the claimed subject matter. In re Benno, 768 F.2d 1340, 226 USPQ 683 (Fed. Cir. 1985).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2163.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13906" RevisionGUID="b6e137c6-71ba-4484-a659-8587a44f10b6" CreationDate="2015-11-07T05:00:58.850" UserId="14510" Text="George White has the key - because it all relates to 'a person skilled (or of ordinary skill) in the art' - the famed and elusive &quot;POSITA.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, a person of ordinary skill in the field of the patent should be able to practice it without inventive steps. A new transmission design should be able to be *designed* without undue experimentation by an automative engineer - that doesn't mean it can be practiced by a machinist (unless they know/learn mechanical engineering).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, an improved toothbrush (is probably not patentable) should probably not require an advanced degree to practice. It all boils down to what level of experience/knowledge/training/education is normally possessed by someone working in the field of the invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13912" RevisionGUID="f8d5e89c-d689-4246-a1b9-e53a8f1148fb" CreationDate="2015-11-08T05:11:15.770" UserId="14510" Text="The short answer is: that is a patent *application*, not an actual patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The long answer is, that is a PCT (international) patent application, that must then be translated to one or more national patent offices (e.g. US, UK, etc) to actually mature into a patent. What you would need to do is check the relevant patent offices (based on your location / your market location) and see if the application was carried forward into any office and, if so, whether it actually matured into a patent, was abandoned/rejected, or is still in progress." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13913" RevisionGUID="1595f0b5-50a5-4d8e-ab20-43cb00706b7c" CreationDate="2015-11-08T05:13:59.833" UserId="14510" Text="1. &quot;Getting a copyright&quot; won't stop you from being sued for infringement.&#xD;&#xA;2. A copyright in many countries (like the US) is automatic - you don't have to do anything for it to be in force. You may, however, have to 'register' it with an agency (like the Library of Congress) to be able to prosecute infringers, but that doesn't seem to apply to your situation.&#xD;&#xA;3. In many situations, it seems like copyright infringement also involves knowledge of the infringed work - it may be worth looking into that, as that would limit your liability if true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NOTE: I don't know the law in your country, so the above tips are based on what I've read about US law. However, I also have read that US law is largely in line with European law, etc on the general principles." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13914" RevisionGUID="a6a55028-33ce-45cc-8d55-68759a58a8dc" CreationDate="2015-11-08T05:27:55.787" UserId="14510" Text="That is a patent **application**, not a granted patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO provides a method for 3rd parties to [submit prior art before a patent is issued][1]. It appears that [Canada does as well][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Section 34.1 of the Patent Act permits third parties to file any prior art with the Commissioner which the third party believes to bear on the patentability of a pending claim, similar to subsection 122(e) of Title 35 as amended by the America Invents Act. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/third-party-preissuance-submissions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.patexia.com/feed/canadian-court-provides-new-relevance-for-third-party-submissions-during-patent-prosecution-114" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13919" RevisionGUID="fbdca132-c54f-420d-906c-700ba64319e6" CreationDate="2015-11-08T21:01:57.740" UserId="15394" Text="This question is primarily directed at the required art of a computerized method patent. Say I am not a code writing software engineer but come up with a method or system of operation on computerized devices. I would be contracting a software engineer to develop the actual code that facilitates the methods and its operations. Is a written diagram of how the method operates that shows the actual concept and how it is deployed on computerized devices and how it differs from current operational methods an acceptable submission, or, is it required to submit the actual code the requirement as the art in the application submission? So in brief, in a computer method patent, is the description of the method or the actual code for the method the art that shows the intellectual concept of the method if the actual inventor of the method does not write actual computer code?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34100" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13919" RevisionGUID="fbdca132-c54f-420d-906c-700ba64319e6" CreationDate="2015-11-08T21:01:57.740" UserId="15394" Text="Requirements of Submitting Art In Computer Method Patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34101" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13919" RevisionGUID="fbdca132-c54f-420d-906c-700ba64319e6" CreationDate="2015-11-08T21:01:57.740" UserId="15394" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13920" RevisionGUID="592d99fa-7bc3-4a58-a1bd-c32127b3699d" CreationDate="2015-11-08T22:26:38.507" UserId="15376" Text="How can I find out when or why a patent by my Father was withdrawn?  I believe that he wrote a patent back in the 1960's that was withdrawn and resubmitted later by his employer.  He left the company to take a better offer at another aerospace corporation.  They were mad, and took his name off of the patent.  Then I believe that they resubmitted it later.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34103" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13920" RevisionGUID="592d99fa-7bc3-4a58-a1bd-c32127b3699d" CreationDate="2015-11-08T22:26:38.507" UserId="15376" Text="Withdrawn patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34104" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13920" RevisionGUID="592d99fa-7bc3-4a58-a1bd-c32127b3699d" CreationDate="2015-11-08T22:26:38.507" UserId="15376" Text="&lt;withdrawn&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13921" RevisionGUID="53b1d2ad-adde-45e1-b428-037e37c7c0b0" CreationDate="2015-11-08T23:23:45.377" UserId="15395" Text="I was just issued a design patent 10/27/15 (application filed 2/13).  The problem is that in the last 2.5 years since I applied for it, many small vendors have taken my design and are selling it online.  Even after I posted Patent Pending and contacted a few of them personally.  Is there any weight to sending an email myself along with a copy of my patent to these vendors asking them to stop selling my design?  Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34106" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13921" RevisionGUID="53b1d2ad-adde-45e1-b428-037e37c7c0b0" CreationDate="2015-11-08T23:23:45.377" UserId="15395" Text="Is It Possible to Notify Small Infringers With An Informal Letter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34107" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13921" RevisionGUID="53b1d2ad-adde-45e1-b428-037e37c7c0b0" CreationDate="2015-11-08T23:23:45.377" UserId="15395" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13921" RevisionGUID="b2a1c958-0c20-45b4-86e1-3eaca5ea1272" CreationDate="2015-11-08T23:34:03.633" UserId="15395" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="I was just issued a design patent 10/27/15 (application filed 2/13).  The problem is that in the last 2.5 years since I applied for it, many small vendors have taken my design and are selling it online.  Even after I posted Patent Pending and contacted a few of them personally.  Is there any weight to sending an email myself along with a copy of my patent to these vendors asking them to stop selling my design?  I would like to try this approach before giving my lawyer money to send formal letters.  Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13926" RevisionGUID="56f60814-f710-4546-b917-326df31ff58d" CreationDate="2015-11-09T16:19:03.913" UserId="15397" Text="From reading the claims in [this patent][1] it seems like [Allot][2] implemented a TDF (Traffic Detection Function) according to the the 3GPP/ETSI specifications. Following specifications, describing the [Sd reference point][3] and the [overall architecture][4] are covering the content of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, the different claims on: traffic and application detection, online and offline charging rules, DPI (deep packet inspection) and more are all standard functions described in the standard specification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.ca/patents/US9065936&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.allot.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/129200_129299/129212/12.10.00_60/ts_129212v121000p.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/123200_123299/123203/12.10.00_60/ts_123203v121000p.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34125" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13926" RevisionGUID="56f60814-f710-4546-b917-326df31ff58d" CreationDate="2015-11-09T16:19:03.913" UserId="15397" Text="Prior Art Request: Patent is based on 3GPP/ETSI standard" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34126" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13926" RevisionGUID="56f60814-f710-4546-b917-326df31ff58d" CreationDate="2015-11-09T16:19:03.913" UserId="15397" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;standards&gt;&lt;wireless&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13929" RevisionGUID="d6d90fb4-98bc-4ad3-ae2d-7eb4e651346d" CreationDate="2015-11-10T11:15:04.437" UserId="15404" Text="Can somebody explain the existence of concept of Terminal Disclaimers in US patent system.&#xD;&#xA;When one patent already exists and the new patent is so similar to the existing one (Concept of double patenting) that a terminal disclaimer has to be filed by inventor. Then why to grant the second patent anyhow? &#xD;&#xA;This seems to violate the concept of single patent for single invention (35 USC 101).&#xD;&#xA;This gives the inventor to ask for additional royalties (due to infringement of two patents) in case of infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks &#xD;&#xA;Sameer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34132" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13929" RevisionGUID="d6d90fb4-98bc-4ad3-ae2d-7eb4e651346d" CreationDate="2015-11-10T11:15:04.437" UserId="15404" Text="Purpose of Terminal Disclaimers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34133" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13929" RevisionGUID="d6d90fb4-98bc-4ad3-ae2d-7eb4e651346d" CreationDate="2015-11-10T11:15:04.437" UserId="15404" Text="&lt;terminaldisclaimer&gt;&lt;doublepatenting&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13929" RevisionGUID="2ef19594-96b6-41d5-8f52-6c332316c034" CreationDate="2015-11-10T11:20:01.387" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 49 characters in body; edited tags" Text="What are Terminal Disclaimers in US patent system, and how are they used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When one patent already exists and a second patent is so similar to it that a terminal disclaimer has to be filed by the inventor, why bother granting the second patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to violate the concept of a single patent for a single invention (35 USC 101).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also gives the inventor the ability to ask for additional royalties in case of infringement, because there are multiple patents in play." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34135" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13929" RevisionGUID="2ef19594-96b6-41d5-8f52-6c332316c034" CreationDate="2015-11-10T11:20:01.387" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 49 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;terminal-disclaimer&gt;&lt;double-patenting&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13352" RevisionGUID="c8795f4a-3899-445a-acb2-15b2d17dbc4e" CreationDate="2015-11-10T11:54:32.110" UserId="-1" Comment=". First Filled Country CN203733449U" Text="***strong text***Patent gives territorial rights. So if inventor wants a patent protection&#xD;&#xA;in more than one country than he has to file patent application in&#xD;&#xA;different countries separately for the same invention. So the country in&#xD;&#xA;which applicant has filled first application is called First Filled Country.&#xD;&#xA;so give the first filled country of this patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34137" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13352" RevisionGUID="c8795f4a-3899-445a-acb2-15b2d17dbc4e" CreationDate="2015-11-10T11:54:32.110" UserId="-1" Comment=". First Filled Country CN203733449U" Text="which is the first filled country of this patent CN203733449U" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34138" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13352" RevisionGUID="c8795f4a-3899-445a-acb2-15b2d17dbc4e" CreationDate="2015-11-10T11:54:32.110" Comment="Proposed by 103.254.175.246|ec1e1bad-808f-4276-a319-5d98dd3b437e approved by -1 edit id of 1902" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13352" RevisionGUID="b48bd05f-b507-42b6-b195-dcbe49c29d58" CreationDate="2015-11-10T11:54:32.110" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, added references, improved tagging and corrected spelling and grammar." Text="If an inventor wants patent protection in more than one country than he has to file a patent application in different countries separately for the same invention. So the country in which the applicant has filed the first application is called First Filed Country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the first filed country of [CN 203733449 U][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/CN203733449U" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34140" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13352" RevisionGUID="b48bd05f-b507-42b6-b195-dcbe49c29d58" CreationDate="2015-11-10T11:54:32.110" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, added references, improved tagging and corrected spelling and grammar." Text="Which is the first filed country of patent CN 203733449 U?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34141" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13352" RevisionGUID="b48bd05f-b507-42b6-b195-dcbe49c29d58" CreationDate="2015-11-10T11:54:32.110" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, added references, improved tagging and corrected spelling and grammar." Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;cn203733449u&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4910" RevisionGUID="cd47394b-434b-4f5b-ac74-3e5aae2bb209" CreationDate="2015-11-10T14:20:37.813" UserId="786" Comment="Added relevant conditions to the art" Text="It's only stupid if you plan to build a proper business plan around this idea and commercialize it.  In that case, your provisional patent may not 'have teeth', and you wasted time and money.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Software patents are exceptionally tricky.  You claims could hold no real weight, if challenged.... which is the only time that really matters.  Remember that a patent is less of a description of how things work, and more *a rendition of what you have the right to exclude others from practicing.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, if you read enough patents in your target area, you *can* learn enough of &quot;the language of the art&quot; to write a decent provisional application.  For sure, do not file a full patent in **software** without an attorney.  You chance of fail is nearly guaranteed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your business plan will give you the timeline to file.  If you haven't written a business plan then you're putting cart before horse.  But, on the off-chance that you're like me, and invented the magnetic power plug for laptops before Apple did, I'm writing to help you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13931" RevisionGUID="a0a291bc-f506-4688-aee1-c3bb2dbb0e42" CreationDate="2015-11-10T14:41:12.057" UserId="11394" Text="A Terminal Disclaimer is a written statement by a patent owner stating that the owner has disclaimed, or renounced legal claim to, a period of a later-issued patent that would extend beyond the expiration of an earlier-issued patent. The terminal disclaimer avoids one type of double patenting rejection as long as both the patents are commonly owned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two types of double patenting rejections. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, there is statutory double patenting (covered under 35 USC 101), which is trying to get a patent for an identical invention to that claimed in another patent. It is not allowed under 35 USC 101.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, there is non-statutory (or obviousness type) double patenting, which is trying to get a patent that, while not identical, would be obvious in view of another patent. This type of double patenting is judicially created, and can be overcome by filing a terminal disclaimer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea behind the terminal disclaimer is to prevent a patent owner from effectively extending the life of a patent by filing multiple applications with claims only differing a little from the first one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13932" RevisionGUID="fc8dd83e-2c0d-4fdc-8a24-e9c8cbb75206" CreationDate="2015-11-10T14:56:00.450" UserId="11394" Text="Do not try the informal approach; go to an attorney for advice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I am not an attorney. However, if you send a letter asserting patent rights (which is basically threatening to sue them if they don't take a license or cease and desist infringing your patent) you may risk triggering a lawsuit for a declaratory judgment to resolve any outstanding allegations, which will likely be on their home turf - not yours - and you will have to fight it out with them in a far-away court or give up your claim of infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, unless you have experience with patents and infringement, just because something is &quot;obviously&quot; infringing to you doesn't necessarily mean that the courts will see it that way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need legal counsel. Good luck.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13934" RevisionGUID="ad76dc10-0318-49d8-9039-524a04ed4507" CreationDate="2015-11-10T23:27:55.383" UserId="15408" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8292744][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8292744&#xD;&#xA;It looks like lego so i need to know if they own it or not" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34159" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13934" RevisionGUID="ad76dc10-0318-49d8-9039-524a04ed4507" CreationDate="2015-11-10T23:27:55.383" UserId="15408" Text="Does LEGO own patent number US8292744" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34160" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13934" RevisionGUID="ad76dc10-0318-49d8-9039-524a04ed4507" CreationDate="2015-11-10T23:27:55.383" UserId="15408" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13935" RevisionGUID="3bd20c88-28f5-4fb7-96ee-5cc7ca3a3a57" CreationDate="2015-11-11T01:23:56.850" UserId="15409" Text="Has this patent expired or is it  active?  Can you provide, original patent paper work? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34162" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13935" RevisionGUID="3bd20c88-28f5-4fb7-96ee-5cc7ca3a3a57" CreationDate="2015-11-11T01:23:56.850" UserId="15409" Text="Toilet Paper US 6709762 B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34163" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13935" RevisionGUID="3bd20c88-28f5-4fb7-96ee-5cc7ca3a3a57" CreationDate="2015-11-11T01:23:56.850" UserId="15409" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13937" RevisionGUID="521cdcb9-e930-4cd6-b8d6-39f7cad73df4" CreationDate="2015-11-11T19:06:59.687" UserId="15413" Text="I have an idea which is very close to an existing patent [CN 103839021 A][1]. However, its application and working is completely different than what is mentioned in that patent. I came across the section in the description where it states :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;It should be understood that the present invention is not limited to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the specific embodiments, the scope of the invention being indicated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by the appended claims.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this mean that the inventor has restricted the idea's application and usage claims all to himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/CN103839021A?cl=en&amp;dq=rfid%20wifi%20article%20tracking&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMI3Pvc0YGJyQIVQVqICh3WQgtY" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34169" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13937" RevisionGUID="521cdcb9-e930-4cd6-b8d6-39f7cad73df4" CreationDate="2015-11-11T19:06:59.687" UserId="15413" Text="Existing Patent's Application Usages" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34170" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13937" RevisionGUID="521cdcb9-e930-4cd6-b8d6-39f7cad73df4" CreationDate="2015-11-11T19:06:59.687" UserId="15413" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;existing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13939" RevisionGUID="5db3e949-5c5a-4b6b-9fc0-a76b27ea0c9d" CreationDate="2015-11-11T21:30:44.503" UserId="15415" Text="For example, if I take an existing pet training device and make modifications that allow it to be used in a new way (but also for pet training), can I patent the entire device, or just my modifications? My modifications can be removed (except for the attachments) to allow the device to be used as it was originally intended, then easily re-attached for the new use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34175" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13939" RevisionGUID="5db3e949-5c5a-4b6b-9fc0-a76b27ea0c9d" CreationDate="2015-11-11T21:30:44.503" UserId="15415" Text="If I modify an existing product in a way that broadens its use, can I patent the whole thing or just my modification?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34176" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13939" RevisionGUID="5db3e949-5c5a-4b6b-9fc0-a76b27ea0c9d" CreationDate="2015-11-11T21:30:44.503" UserId="15415" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13941" RevisionGUID="db0a46c1-7deb-479a-8f5e-73ab618714e2" CreationDate="2015-11-12T02:12:02.910" UserId="15417" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140276500][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140276500" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34181" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13941" RevisionGUID="db0a46c1-7deb-479a-8f5e-73ab618714e2" CreationDate="2015-11-12T02:12:02.910" UserId="15417" Text="What is the full title of this patent application US20140276500? Is it still pending review?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34182" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13941" RevisionGUID="db0a46c1-7deb-479a-8f5e-73ab618714e2" CreationDate="2015-11-12T02:12:02.910" UserId="15417" Text="&lt;medical&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13942" RevisionGUID="cb9209f9-e98a-49a3-bfde-7db12f4c1545" CreationDate="2015-11-12T08:01:14.067" UserId="15057" Text="In the case of attachment, you can only patent your modifications along with its other uses. Not the entire product (i.e. pet training gadget). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have much background in patents but, for what I know, you can patent the modification you made under your name. It can be listed in original product's patent as a cited patent (if it was a critical modification which the original product owner would like to add). &#xD;&#xA;You can even license the original product and create a new along with your modification. You can earn a good profit without harming any law. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13945" RevisionGUID="a121e16b-d0fb-47a6-8f7f-753cea74725b" CreationDate="2015-11-12T23:08:41.763" UserId="15425" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20130163185][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130163185&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the status on the above referenced patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34195" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13945" RevisionGUID="a121e16b-d0fb-47a6-8f7f-753cea74725b" CreationDate="2015-11-12T23:08:41.763" UserId="15425" Text="Status Query on US20130163185" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34196" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13945" RevisionGUID="a121e16b-d0fb-47a6-8f7f-753cea74725b" CreationDate="2015-11-12T23:08:41.763" UserId="15425" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;status&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13947" RevisionGUID="ec8c12d0-73b8-45fb-aa67-50df4e0b18fa" CreationDate="2015-11-13T13:49:40.713" UserId="15429" Text="In reference to the patent: [US4915276][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4915276&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent still owned by Ermin Devito or somebody else? If it is, How can it be re-claimed by him or his family" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34199" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13947" RevisionGUID="ec8c12d0-73b8-45fb-aa67-50df4e0b18fa" CreationDate="2015-11-13T13:49:40.713" UserId="15429" Text="Is this patent still owned by Ermin Devito" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34200" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13947" RevisionGUID="ec8c12d0-73b8-45fb-aa67-50df4e0b18fa" CreationDate="2015-11-13T13:49:40.713" UserId="15429" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13945" RevisionGUID="748e76c1-f594-4b6b-8d3a-fb1e835eb4fb" CreationDate="2015-11-14T13:07:47.683" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, improved tagging." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 2013/0163185 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130163185&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the status on the above referenced patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34211" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13945" RevisionGUID="748e76c1-f594-4b6b-8d3a-fb1e835eb4fb" CreationDate="2015-11-14T13:07:47.683" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, improved tagging." Text="&lt;legal-status&gt;&lt;us20130163185&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13950" RevisionGUID="be7de411-16b1-4be7-9b3e-51202cbb1cbb" CreationDate="2015-11-14T13:25:45.323" UserId="14417" Text="There are several applications in this patent family. Some of the national phase status for the PCT application ([WO 2013/096139 A1][1]) can be found via PatentScope:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`European Patent Office	21.07.2014	2012860602`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The European application status can be found at [EP Register][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Status: Request for examination was made&#xD;&#xA;    Database last updated on 13.11.2015&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the US application status can be found in the Image File Wrapper at [USPTO Public Pair][3] (direct links are not possible, so search by *Publication Number* for **US 20130163185 A1** and open the Image File Wrapper tab:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    07-16-2015 	CTFR 	Final Rejection&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last paragraphs of the final rejection document:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A shortened statutory&#xD;&#xA;&gt; period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory&#xD;&#xA;&gt; period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mailing date of this final action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three months would set the expiration of the statutory period for the action at October 16, 2015. Since the date has passed and no response to the action was filed, this application is considered rejected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in the reasons for the rejection, refer to the 15 page Final Rejection document in the Image File Wrapper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013096139A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP12860602&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13935" RevisionGUID="466a1201-533d-4d13-ae75-11983ee031e8" CreationDate="2015-11-14T13:28:38.577" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, added references, improved tagging." Text="Has [US 6,709,762 B1][1] expired or is it still active?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you provide the original paperwork for this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6709762" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34214" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13935" RevisionGUID="466a1201-533d-4d13-ae75-11983ee031e8" CreationDate="2015-11-14T13:28:38.577" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, added references, improved tagging." Text="Toilet Paper US 6,709,762 B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34215" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13935" RevisionGUID="466a1201-533d-4d13-ae75-11983ee031e8" CreationDate="2015-11-14T13:28:38.577" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, added references, improved tagging." Text="&lt;legal-status&gt;&lt;us6709762b1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13951" RevisionGUID="24301baf-f7f6-4cdf-8497-dc935125c381" CreationDate="2015-11-14T13:46:11.683" UserId="14417" Text="If you look at this application on Google Patents, you'll see that it has a PCT Number `PCT/JP2000/000585`, indicating that the original application was filed in Japan, and that this is a PCT application (worldwide).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A PCT application has a search phase and a national phase, and the information regarding the application status in individual countries may be found in [PatentScope][1] (via [WO 2000/045689 A1][2], the WIPO application).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll find the following National Phase information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Australia                 07.08.2001  23251/00    Granted:   29.04.2004&#xD;&#xA;    China                     03.02.2000  00803377.3   &#xD;&#xA;    European Patent Office    29.08.2001  2000902068  Published: 28.11.2001&#xD;&#xA;                                                      Withdrawn: 27.01.2005&#xD;&#xA;    United States of America  02.08.2001  09890247    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the European application was withdrawn, so you need only need to determine the status of the US, Australian and Chinese applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On Google Patents, under Legal Events:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Date           Code   Event	Description&#xD;&#xA;    Aug 29, 2007   FPAY   Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;                          Year of fee payment: 4&#xD;&#xA;    Nov 7, 2011    REMI   Maintenance fee reminder mailed	&#xD;&#xA;    Mar 23, 2012   LAPS   Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees	&#xD;&#xA;    May 15, 2012   FP     Expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee	&#xD;&#xA;                          Effective date: 20120323&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the US application has lapsed (effective March 23, 2012) due to a failure to pay the maintenance fee. I should note that the source of this information is [USPTO Public Pair][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The information for the Australian patent grant is available via [AusPat][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Vol/Iss  Publication date  Publication action                       Reason&#xD;&#xA;    20/36    2006-09-21        Patent Ceased                            Application Ceased 	&#xD;&#xA;    18/18    2004-05-13        Letters Patent Sealed - Standard Patents 		&#xD;&#xA;    18/1     2004-01-08        Applications Accepted 		&#xD;&#xA;    14/38    2000-10-26        Applications OPI&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the Australian patent grant ceased on September 21, 2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For completeness, I would provide the status of the [Chinese patent][5], but SIPO is currently inaccessible for some reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2000045689&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2000045689A1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/applicationDetails.do?applicationNo=2000023251&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://search.sipo.gov.cn/sipo/zljs/hyjs-yx-new.jsp?leixin=fmzl&amp;recid=00803377.3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13951" RevisionGUID="56e9db0e-91f1-4cca-a393-9da9fad0e310" CreationDate="2015-11-14T13:53:43.460" UserId="14417" Comment="Added some additional information." Text="If you look at this application on Google Patents, you'll see that it has a PCT Number `PCT/JP2000/000585`, indicating that the original application was filed in Japan, and that this is a PCT application (worldwide).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A PCT application has a search phase and a national phase, and the information regarding the application status in individual countries may be found in [PatentScope][1] (via [WO 2000/045689 A1][2], the WIPO application).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll find the following National Phase information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Australia                 07.08.2001  23251/00    Granted:   29.04.2004&#xD;&#xA;    China                     03.02.2000  00803377.3   &#xD;&#xA;    European Patent Office    29.08.2001  2000902068  Published: 28.11.2001&#xD;&#xA;                                                      Withdrawn: 27.01.2005&#xD;&#xA;    United States of America  02.08.2001  09890247    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the European application was withdrawn, so you need only need to determine the status of the US, Australian and Chinese applications. Although the patent was filed from a Japanese application (JP 11/27294), it appears that coverage was not sought in Japan during the national phase. I'm not familiar with Japan's patent system, so someone may need to correct me there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On Google Patents, under Legal Events:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Date           Code   Event	Description&#xD;&#xA;    Aug 29, 2007   FPAY   Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;                          Year of fee payment: 4&#xD;&#xA;    Nov 7, 2011    REMI   Maintenance fee reminder mailed	&#xD;&#xA;    Mar 23, 2012   LAPS   Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees	&#xD;&#xA;    May 15, 2012   FP     Expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee	&#xD;&#xA;                          Effective date: 20120323&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the US application has lapsed (effective March 23, 2012) due to a failure to pay the maintenance fee. I should note that the source of this information is [USPTO Public Pair][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The information for the Australian patent grant is available via [AusPat][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Vol/Iss  Publication date  Publication action                       Reason&#xD;&#xA;    20/36    2006-09-21        Patent Ceased                            Application Ceased 	&#xD;&#xA;    18/18    2004-05-13        Letters Patent Sealed - Standard Patents 		&#xD;&#xA;    18/1     2004-01-08        Applications Accepted 		&#xD;&#xA;    14/38    2000-10-26        Applications OPI&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the Australian patent grant ceased on September 21, 2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For completeness, I would provide the status of the [Chinese patent][5], but the [SIPO][6] application search is currently inaccessible for some reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2000045689&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2000045689A1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/applicationDetails.do?applicationNo=2000023251&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://search.sipo.gov.cn/sipo/zljs/hyjs-yx-new.jsp?leixin=fmzl&amp;recid=00803377.3&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://english.sipo.gov.cn/application/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13934" RevisionGUID="834003c5-c065-4f7c-95c5-7bb8fd299a7d" CreationDate="2015-11-14T13:56:27.967" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved grammar and tagging." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 8,292,744 B2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like LEGO so I need to know if they own it or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8292744" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34219" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13934" RevisionGUID="834003c5-c065-4f7c-95c5-7bb8fd299a7d" CreationDate="2015-11-14T13:56:27.967" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved grammar and tagging." Text="Does LEGO own patent US 8,292,744 B2?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34220" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13934" RevisionGUID="834003c5-c065-4f7c-95c5-7bb8fd299a7d" CreationDate="2015-11-14T13:56:27.967" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved grammar and tagging." Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;assignee&gt;&lt;assignment-history&gt;&lt;us8292744&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13952" RevisionGUID="09565a91-b342-4db9-8633-1308eaf0445f" CreationDate="2015-11-14T14:02:44.153" UserId="14417" Text="On Google Patents, note that the Original Assignee is &quot;Roblox Corporation&quot;. From an [WSJ blog][1] in 2013:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Roblox raised about $7.2 million from investors including Altos&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ventures and First Round Capital&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, no, there does not appear to be any association with LEGO. This is a US company based in San Mateo, California.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For completeness, if you check the [Assignment history][2] for the patent, you will see that it has not been reassigned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/08/20/roblox-sees-strong-future-for-world-building-games/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://assignment.uspto.gov/#/search?q=8292744" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13947" RevisionGUID="0128fb89-dbfd-46b0-b186-930b61082963" CreationDate="2015-11-14T14:05:44.903" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, improved tagging and corrected spelling." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 4,915,276 B1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent still owned by Ermin Devito or somebody else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is, how can it be re-claimed by him or his family?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4915276" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34223" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13947" RevisionGUID="0128fb89-dbfd-46b0-b186-930b61082963" CreationDate="2015-11-14T14:05:44.903" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, improved tagging and corrected spelling." Text="Is US 4,915,276 B1 still owned by Ermin Devito?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34224" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13947" RevisionGUID="0128fb89-dbfd-46b0-b186-930b61082963" CreationDate="2015-11-14T14:05:44.903" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, improved tagging and corrected spelling." Text="&lt;assignment-history&gt;&lt;lapsed-patent&gt;&lt;us4915276&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13953" RevisionGUID="8ce48e97-e8ba-4d3f-af61-3de595829344" CreationDate="2015-11-14T14:29:52.667" UserId="14417" Text="This patent was originally assigned to Ermin Devito of Green Brook, New Jersey, and was never reassigned (see [USPTO Assignment database][1]). However, a note from the USPTO database:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Disclaimer: Assignment information on the assignment database reflects&#xD;&#xA;&gt; assignment documents that have been actually recorded. If the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; assignment for a patent was not recorded, the name of the assignee on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the patent application publication or patent may be different. If you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have any comments or questions concerning the data displayed, contact&#xD;&#xA;&gt; OPR / Assignments at 571-272-3350&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you check the Legal Status (via Google Patents or [USPTO Public Pair][2]), you will find:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Date           Code  Event Description&#xD;&#xA;    Apr 27, 1993   FPAY  Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;                         Year of fee payment: 4&#xD;&#xA;    Feb 13, 1998   REMI  Maintenance fee reminder mailed	&#xD;&#xA;    Apr 12, 1998   LAPS  Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees	&#xD;&#xA;    Jun 23, 1998   FP    Expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee	&#xD;&#xA;                         Effective date: 19980415&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent expire on April 15, 1998 because the second maintenance fee was not paid. Occasionally, (in very limited circumstances) it is possible to revive a patent by paying the back maintenance fees, but it has been far too long, and the patent would have expired on April 10, 2004 anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose that, if infringement were found during the enforceable period of the patent (September 22, 1988 to April 15, 1998), then some action could have been taken. However, it has been almost 20 years since then, and the assignee would have had (maybe) up to a few years after expiration to enforce it. This is getting into the realm of wild speculation though, because the invention is now considered to be Public Domain due to the sheer amount of time that has passed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in the history of this patent, you can find additional information in the USPTO Public Pair database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://assignment.uspto.gov/#/search?q=4915276&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13947" RevisionGUID="bf9f32fd-3838-45c2-92c2-0d9196b0f6c9" CreationDate="2015-11-14T14:30:15.537" UserId="14417" Comment="Fixed patent kind code." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 4,915,276 A][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent still owned by Ermin Devito or somebody else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is, how can it be re-claimed by him or his family?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4915276" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34227" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13947" RevisionGUID="bf9f32fd-3838-45c2-92c2-0d9196b0f6c9" CreationDate="2015-11-14T14:30:15.537" UserId="14417" Comment="Fixed patent kind code." Text="Is US 4,915,276 A still owned by Ermin Devito?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13953" RevisionGUID="da6624b9-d068-439b-a334-6790461dd9f8" CreationDate="2015-11-14T15:10:22.623" UserId="14417" Comment="Adjusted phrasing." Text="This patent was originally assigned to Ermin Devito of Green Brook, New Jersey, and was never reassigned (see [USPTO Assignment database][1]). However, a note from the USPTO database:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Disclaimer: Assignment information on the assignment database reflects&#xD;&#xA;&gt; assignment documents that have been actually recorded. If the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; assignment for a patent was not recorded, the name of the assignee on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the patent application publication or patent may be different. If you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have any comments or questions concerning the data displayed, contact&#xD;&#xA;&gt; OPR / Assignments at 571-272-3350&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you check the Legal Status (via Google Patents or [USPTO Public Pair][2]), you will find:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Date           Code  Event Description&#xD;&#xA;    Apr 27, 1993   FPAY  Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;                         Year of fee payment: 4&#xD;&#xA;    Feb 13, 1998   REMI  Maintenance fee reminder mailed	&#xD;&#xA;    Apr 12, 1998   LAPS  Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees	&#xD;&#xA;    Jun 23, 1998   FP    Expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee	&#xD;&#xA;                         Effective date: 19980415&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent expire on April 15, 1998 because the second maintenance fee was not paid. Occasionally, (in very limited circumstances) it is possible to revive a patent by paying the back maintenance fees, but it has been far too long, and the patent would have expired on April 10, 2004 anyway. Any attempt to revive it would need to be done as a petition directly to the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose that, if infringement were found during the enforceable period of the patent (September 22, 1988 to April 15, 1998), then some action could have been taken. However, it has been almost 20 years since then, and the assignee would have had (maybe) up to a few years after expiration to enforce it. This is just speculation though, because the invention is now considered to be Public Domain due to the amount of time that has passed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in the history of this patent, you can find additional information in the USPTO Public Pair database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://assignment.uspto.gov/#/search?q=4915276&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13954" RevisionGUID="beba8063-03e0-4586-af1c-01a6af493bd1" CreationDate="2015-11-14T15:24:58.813" UserId="14417" Text="There have been several recent questions in the form of “My [family member] was granted patent [x]. How can I claim it?”. So far, these patents have all been long since expired or assigned to companies, not individuals, and so the possibility of getting them revived or reassigned was not even an option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll provide a few of those questions here for reference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/13947/is-us-4-915-276-a-still-owned-by-ermin-devito&#xD;&#xA; - http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/13452/my-grandfathers-patent-expired/13453#13453&#xD;&#xA; - http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/13408/information-regarding-my-father-s-invention/13409#13409&#xD;&#xA; - http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5249/my-grandfathers-patent-d94036&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now, this has me wondering about the case where a patent is currently enforceable. I feel that my own answers to the above questions are not fully satisfactory for those asking the question. I hope that asking the following questions directly will provide the missing piece:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is inheritance of a patent (assigned to an individual) possible?&#xD;&#xA; - What part of the U.S. legal Code covers the inheritance of a patent?&#xD;&#xA; - Would patent inheritance need to be recorded as a re-assignment by the USPTO?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A satisfactory answer to this question would include references to the legal code, and any publicly available resources that could serve as starting points for someone who finds themselves in the above situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34230" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13954" RevisionGUID="beba8063-03e0-4586-af1c-01a6af493bd1" CreationDate="2015-11-14T15:24:58.813" UserId="14417" Text="Inheritance of enforceable patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34231" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13954" RevisionGUID="beba8063-03e0-4586-af1c-01a6af493bd1" CreationDate="2015-11-14T15:24:58.813" UserId="14417" Text="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;assignment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13941" RevisionGUID="25b04f8c-35f8-4f24-9e1e-4ba64daf5a49" CreationDate="2015-11-14T15:29:17.173" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and copied questions from title." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 2014/0276500 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the full title of this patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it still pending review?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140276500" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34233" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13941" RevisionGUID="25b04f8c-35f8-4f24-9e1e-4ba64daf5a49" CreationDate="2015-11-14T15:29:17.173" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and copied questions from title." Text="What is the full title of this patent application US 2014/0276500 A1? Is it still pending review?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34234" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13941" RevisionGUID="25b04f8c-35f8-4f24-9e1e-4ba64daf5a49" CreationDate="2015-11-14T15:29:17.173" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging and copied questions from title." Text="&lt;legal-status&gt;&lt;medical&gt;&lt;us20140276500&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13955" RevisionGUID="693d7dde-9379-4412-abb7-365a8d516405" CreationDate="2015-11-14T15:46:32.500" UserId="14417" Text="I think Google Patents has the application title correct: `Medical device, method of making and using the same`. However, that does sound more like the title of a patent class, not a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was the title from the original specification document (March 12, 2014):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Original Specification Title][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a revised specification (April 4, 2014) provided a new title: &quot;Ostomy Protection Device&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Revised Specification Title][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, when the application published on September 18, 2014, the original title was used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Notice of Publication][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No further events have transpired on this patent, so it is still pending (see USPTO Public Pair, search by *Publication Number* **US 20140276500 A1**) and look at the Image File Wrapper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/bYtoF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/nH7yE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/fx0Hy.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13956" RevisionGUID="8c907203-4195-43a7-b74b-c97337177d32" CreationDate="2015-11-14T18:08:08.483" UserId="15433" Text="In reference to the patent: [US226542][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US226542" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34237" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13956" RevisionGUID="8c907203-4195-43a7-b74b-c97337177d32" CreationDate="2015-11-14T18:08:08.483" UserId="15433" Text="What is &quot;TEEBITOEY&quot; and how does it relate to this patent? 62 US patents found refer to this term yet no dictionary defines it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34238" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13956" RevisionGUID="8c907203-4195-43a7-b74b-c97337177d32" CreationDate="2015-11-14T18:08:08.483" UserId="15433" Text="&lt;terminology&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13956" RevisionGUID="600f8440-abd7-49b6-ac84-a2a47125779a" CreationDate="2015-11-16T08:51:25.510" UserId="10011" Comment="added 160 characters in body; edited title" Text="In reference to the patent: [US226542][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The title of this patent is &quot;TEEBITOEY&quot; and I've found 62 other US patents that refer to this term, but I can't find a definition for it. What does this mean?&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US226542" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34244" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13956" RevisionGUID="600f8440-abd7-49b6-ac84-a2a47125779a" CreationDate="2015-11-16T08:51:25.510" UserId="10011" Comment="added 160 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is &quot;TEEBITOEY&quot; and how does it relate to this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13960" RevisionGUID="6d0186bd-34e8-4177-9465-841894249ce4" CreationDate="2015-11-18T00:23:15.040" UserId="11947" Text="I was in the same situation and started with a book. It is available online http://www.abluestar.com/files/uploads/2012/aug/Patent.pdf but I am not sure if online version as completed as a printed copy. Then I read many patents in the field to get better understanding." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13961" RevisionGUID="77e49ef0-dfb7-4591-a9de-978fe9d6d0b0" CreationDate="2015-11-18T09:33:29.297" UserId="15453" Text="In reference to the patent: [US3915038][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3915038&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent belonged to my grandfather, who suffered from mental illness and tragically took his own life in 1973.  I have heard numerous stories from my relatives about what happened with this patent, but unfortunately they did not have the resources available to them to track the actual chain of events that they believe lead to the sale of this item, as well as others that my grandpa may have patented.  Do you know where I might be able to locate any information relating to this sale?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks,&#xD;&#xA;Anthony J. Malin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34265" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13961" RevisionGUID="77e49ef0-dfb7-4591-a9de-978fe9d6d0b0" CreationDate="2015-11-18T09:33:29.297" UserId="15453" Text="Patent Status and Sale history" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34266" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13961" RevisionGUID="77e49ef0-dfb7-4591-a9de-978fe9d6d0b0" CreationDate="2015-11-18T09:33:29.297" UserId="15453" Text="&lt;us3915038&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13638" RevisionGUID="b99bc52a-884d-488f-8bf0-c69f51b03194" CreationDate="2015-11-18T12:15:08.893" UserId="8767" Comment="Still editing. Will finish by end of day. -tz122" Text="Try the Public Pair search from the patent office.&#xD;&#xA;Search with this number: PCT/US08/65008&#xD;&#xA;I assume that the data below is what you are looking for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 06-06-2008	Notification of Intntl. Appl. Number and Intntl. Filing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Date 06-06-2008	Notification Concerning Payment of Fees   &#xD;&#xA; This means: filler was asked to pay fees associated with filling the patent. &#xD;&#xA; - 06-06-2008	Record Copy Mailed &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - 05-30-2008	Cleared by OIPE CSR&#xD;&#xA;That means: &#xD;&#xA;Approved by Office of Initial Patent Examination Customer Service Representative &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 05-28-2008	Receipt Date&#xD;&#xA;According to the patent office that means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) Date of receipt and Priority Mail Express® date of deposit. Correspondence received in the Patent and Trademark Office is stamped with the date. &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 05-28-2008	IFW Scan &amp; PACR Auto Security&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Image File Wrapper -- an electronic version of a patent application. &#xD;&#xA;Patent advisory committee representative automatically checked for security problems. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Review 05-28-2008	Initial Exam Team nn &#xD;&#xA;This means: patent application revived. &#xD;&#xA;(Data from Public Pair Search)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13638" RevisionGUID="4f0f17a1-01ad-4506-95fc-9a314486d2ac" CreationDate="2015-11-18T12:32:55.230" UserId="8767" Comment="Did some formatting. Still not complete" Text="Try the Public Pair search from the patent office.&#xD;&#xA;Search with this number: PCT/US08/65008&#xD;&#xA;I assume that the data below is what you are looking for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 06-06-2008	Notification of Intntl. Appl. Number and Intntl. Filing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Date 06-06-2008	Notification Concerning Payment of Fees   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This means: filler was asked to pay fees associated with filling the patent. &#xD;&#xA; - 06-06-2008	Record Copy Mailed &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - 05-30-2008	Cleared by OIPE CSR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means: &#xD;&#xA;Approved by Office of Initial Patent Examination Customer Service Representative &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 05-28-2008	Receipt Date&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the patent office that means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) Date of receipt and Priority Mail Express® date of deposit. Correspondence received in the Patent and Trademark Office is stamped with the date. &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 05-28-2008	IFW Scan &amp; PACR Auto Security&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Image File Wrapper -- an electronic version of a patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent advisory committee representative automatically checked for problems. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Review 05-28-2008	Initial Exam Team nn &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means: patent application revived. &#xD;&#xA;(Data from Public Pair Search)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13638" RevisionGUID="b97f6161-a03c-4953-a9c3-81d6fade393c" CreationDate="2015-11-18T20:36:25.147" UserId="8767" Comment="Edited to moderator's specs" Text="Try the Public Pair search from the patent office.&#xD;&#xA;Search with this number: PCT/US08/65008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That number is the application number, and not the reference number (as you have given us in your question above).&#xD;&#xA;Data is listed from most recent to earilest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 06-06-2008	Notification of Intntl. Appl. Number and Intntl. Filing&#xD;&#xA;This lets the applicant know that it has been assgined an _Application_ number.&#xD;&#xA;  However, since the information trail stops here, so it looks like the patent in question is still regarded as a application and not a &quot;patent&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Date 06-06-2008	Notification Concerning Payment of Fees   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This means: filer was asked to pay fees associated with filing the patent. &#xD;&#xA; - 06-06-2008	Record Copy Mailed &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   A copy of the patent application was mailed to the applicant.&#xD;&#xA; - 05-30-2008	Cleared by OIPE CSR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means: &#xD;&#xA;Approved by Office of Initial Patent Examination Customer Service Representative &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 05-28-2008	Receipt Date&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the patent office that means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) Date of receipt and Priority Mail Express® date of deposit. Correspondence received in the Patent and Trademark Office is stamped with the date. &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 05-28-2008	IFW Scan &amp; PACR Auto Security&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Image File Wrapper -- an electronic version of a patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent advisory committee representative automatically checked for problems. There were none and the process continued. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Review 05-28-2008	Initial Exam Team nn &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means: patent application revived. &#xD;&#xA;(Data from Public Pair Search)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13638" RevisionGUID="a566bdea-7679-4724-ad12-217eb466ed0e" CreationDate="2015-11-18T23:30:10.670" UserId="10011" Comment="Formatting" Text="Try the Public Pair search from the patent office.&#xD;&#xA;Search with this number: PCT/US08/65008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That number is the application number, and not the reference number (as you have given us in your question above).&#xD;&#xA;Data is listed from most recent to earilest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 06-06-2008 **Notification of Intntl. Appl. Number and Intntl. Filing**&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;   This lets the applicant know that it has been assgined an _Application_ number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     However, since the information trail stops here, so it looks like the patent in question is still regarded as a application and not a &quot;patent&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 06-06-2008 **Notification Concerning Payment of Fees**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This means: filer was asked to pay fees associated with filing the patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 06-06-2008 **Record Copy Mailed**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   A copy of the patent application was mailed to the applicant.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;* 05-30-2008 **Cleared by OIPE CSR**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; That means: Approved by Office of Initial Patent Examination Customer Service Representative &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;* 05-28-2008 **Receipt Date**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; According to the patent office that means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; (a) Date of receipt and Priority Mail Express® date of deposit. Correspondence received in the Patent and Trademark Office is stamped with the date. &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;* 05-28-2008 **IFW Scan &amp; PACR Auto Security**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Image File Wrapper -- an electronic version of a patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Patent advisory committee representative automatically checked for problems. There were none and the process continued. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 05-28-2008 **Initial Exam Team nn**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This means: patent application revived. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13966" RevisionGUID="69138fb1-885b-4fb2-9534-b8bb595024fd" CreationDate="2015-11-19T12:28:19.530" UserId="15460" Text="What date does Espacenet hold patent data from? Is it still 1890?&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34286" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13966" RevisionGUID="69138fb1-885b-4fb2-9534-b8bb595024fd" CreationDate="2015-11-19T12:28:19.530" UserId="15460" Text="Espacenet - date when online records begin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34287" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13966" RevisionGUID="69138fb1-885b-4fb2-9534-b8bb595024fd" CreationDate="2015-11-19T12:28:19.530" UserId="15460" Text="&lt;espacenet&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13961" RevisionGUID="19f2dfa7-f73e-4fe4-b8f4-16415911a2fe" CreationDate="2015-11-19T19:40:25.227" UserId="10011" Comment="rm thanks" Text="In reference to the patent: [US3915038][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3915038&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent belonged to my grandfather, who suffered from mental illness and tragically took his own life in 1973.  I have heard numerous stories from my relatives about what happened with this patent, but unfortunately they did not have the resources available to them to track the actual chain of events that they believe lead to the sale of this item, as well as others that my grandpa may have patented.  Do you know where I might be able to locate any information relating to this sale?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34294" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4702" RevisionGUID="63e35409-b3d6-47da-9091-b39b59e5a4d2" CreationDate="2015-11-19T19:48:42.653" UserId="15383" Comment="updating the list of tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;bitcoin&gt;&lt;blockchain&gt;&lt;cryptography&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34295" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4702" RevisionGUID="63e35409-b3d6-47da-9091-b39b59e5a4d2" CreationDate="2015-11-19T19:48:42.653" Comment="Proposed by 15383 approved by 4545, -1 edit id of 1904" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34296" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4702" RevisionGUID="d1a7eb3e-b714-49cb-8c0d-c2784f82d163" CreationDate="2015-11-19T19:48:42.653" UserId="10011" Comment="updating the list of tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;bitcoin&gt;&lt;cryptography&gt;&lt;us20130166455&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34297" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13891" RevisionGUID="fa51cf68-035f-46fc-a6c3-b162d8ad557a" CreationDate="2015-11-19T19:49:59.053" UserId="10011" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[13890],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9802,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;JDMc&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="34298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13967" RevisionGUID="9ec36462-029f-4e75-ab5b-717393ccb8f1" CreationDate="2015-11-19T21:53:43.657" UserId="15461" Text="Espacenet websites have an advanced search feature there you can search by year I did a random search from 1850/01/01 it returned 13 results &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://ep.espacenet.com/help?locale=en_EP&amp;method=handleHelpTopic&amp;topic=dateformats&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13967" RevisionGUID="58fbd596-58b7-4331-abde-4689e164fd2c" CreationDate="2015-11-20T11:43:38.830" UserId="11895" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Espacenet contains many patents listings, you can get patents starting from 1790s more comprehensive coverage list can be seen in following resource provided by EPO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.epo.org/searching/data/data/patent-additions.html&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13968" RevisionGUID="23a96ccf-7da0-4d00-831b-442b11dc61e9" CreationDate="2015-11-20T11:51:24.980" UserId="81" Text="In reviewing 18 of those, I don't think Teebitoey is a word, indeed I think it is a slight mistake that Google's OCR has made. [This excerpt][1] has the word TERRITORY at the top of the page, but Google has recognised it as TEEBITOEY.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XsVYM5VY5acC&amp;pg=PA259&amp;lpg=PA259&amp;dq=TEEBITOEY&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=eyVSIGYD_1&amp;sig=lK-EFuOhNc0mz57NeLqs5itJnfI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiUs9jN9p7JAhVMNxQKHaXnDl0Q6AEIRjAI#v=onepage&amp;q=TEEBITOEY&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/go1WG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="684e05ae-a6ca-4534-97b3-2b28670bd7e5" CreationDate="2015-11-20T11:56:25.570" UserId="15466" Text="I'm working on my own product which will be an web application (what it is or do doesn't matter for this question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I watch a lot of Shark Tank (and kind a like) and always hear lines like &quot;Do you got a patent?&quot;, &quot;My patent is in progress&quot; or &quot;Because you don't have a patent, I'm out.&quot;. Also I read a lot on the Internet of patent wars between tech companies and that there are even troll patent companies that create new bs patents every day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes me a little uneasy because I don't know that much about patents and can't really find out on the Internet how to check if an idea/part is patent or what to look out for as a start-up creating software regarding patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my questions are;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How serious are patents in web applications?&#xD;&#xA;- Is a application in whole patented or smaller pieces of it (I.E. the buy - process).&#xD;&#xA;- How can I know that I'm in enemy teritory?&#xD;&#xA;- Any tips are welcome!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34305" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="684e05ae-a6ca-4534-97b3-2b28670bd7e5" CreationDate="2015-11-20T11:56:25.570" UserId="15466" Text="Patents regarding to web applications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34306" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="684e05ae-a6ca-4534-97b3-2b28670bd7e5" CreationDate="2015-11-20T11:56:25.570" UserId="15466" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;websites&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13970" RevisionGUID="f06e2904-6552-4853-b026-2da378e96dc6" CreationDate="2015-11-21T16:23:06.243" UserId="11394" Text="WO2014201088A1 is not a patent. It is a published international application, which can never issue as a patent. It has entered the national stage in the US as Application No. PCT/US2014/41863, and is currently pending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think your situation is this. Claim 1 of the prior art reference gives a method of 4 steps. You perform all 4 steps in your method. Claim 4 of the prior art specifies how the fourth step is done; you do it differently in your method. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming your judgment that your steps are identical is correct,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Generally yes, you will be infringing claim 1 of the prior art. If their patented method comprises 4 steps, then any other method comprising those 4 steps as recited would infringe claim 1. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Yes, every method which includes the 4 steps recited would infringe claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) If you add a step between 3 and 4, but still perform steps 1, 2, 3, and 4, then you will be infringing claim 1. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, you may be eligible for a patent if your new step makes a novel, non-obvious method; however, if you do get a patent, the prior art (assuming the application issues as a patent) would block you from using your method without a license. (If the prior art inventors wanted to practice your method, they would also have to obtain a license from you in this case.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) Yes, if your method adds a fifth step to claim 1 which is not disclosed in any prior art reference, then your method would be considered new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) If you use only 3 of the 4 steps recited in claim 1, then your method would *not* infringe the prior art reference. In this case, a patent issuing from the prior art reference would not block your patent or require you to take a license, since your invention is outside the scope of their broadest claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't not infringe a patent by taking the invention and adding something else to it. If you improve it, you may be eligible for a patent yourself and will be able to block others from using your improvement, but you're still practicing the original invention - just in an improved form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of patent rights like property rights, where you have a right to keep others from trespassing, but not necessarily a right to walk on your property. If you own a piece of land (a patent for your new and non-obvious invention), someone else who owned a ring of land surrounding yours could block you from access to your land - it's yours, but all paths to it lead through private property. You cannot access your property without their permission (getting a license) to pass through their property. Similarly, if they decide they want to cut across your land (use your improvement to their invention), you can block them or force them to take a license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Aldo&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13972" RevisionGUID="36c216f3-6fa1-4851-a1af-e31d3683cede" CreationDate="2015-11-22T08:04:29.317" UserId="15472" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2003023674A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2003023674A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hello, I am a university student that is building a start-up company in Waterloo, ON. The mobile application that I am working on uses QR codes to store personal credit card information. Does this patent make me unable to continue my work on my start-up business without being sued? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kind Regards" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34320" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13972" RevisionGUID="36c216f3-6fa1-4851-a1af-e31d3683cede" CreationDate="2015-11-22T08:04:29.317" UserId="15472" Text="Starting a company using this patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34321" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13972" RevisionGUID="36c216f3-6fa1-4851-a1af-e31d3683cede" CreationDate="2015-11-22T08:04:29.317" UserId="15472" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13888" RevisionGUID="1197001d-e649-4e35-8cdb-4e70cd9ffdd2" CreationDate="2015-11-22T15:56:34.553" UserId="1193" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="If the idea is not public knowledge you should be able to file a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ownership could still be claimed by your former employer, but they would have to prove that the idea was conceived and developed on their time, and not as an independent work.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And even then, inventions are rarely created in isolation and most new ideas are variations or improvement on old ideas, so even if your old employer had an idea they could never patented your evolved idea, which you would patent, and be sufficiently different to qualify as a unique and new invention separate from the idea that was never patented in your old company." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13973" RevisionGUID="2b0b2cf6-b9b4-4504-b649-d958acf79b41" CreationDate="2015-11-22T21:06:36.727" UserId="4584" Text="This is a post-grant prior art request for [US7263687](https://www.google.com/patents/US7263687), which has a filing date of Sep. 9, 2002.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent is a generalization of what most developers know as an `enum` in the Java programming language. In particular, this patent focuses on the aspects of `enum` in Java which distinguish it from enumerated types in languages like C and C++. In C and C++, the members of an enumerated type are, to varying degrees, simply a named alias for a particular integer value. In Java, each member of an `enum` class is actually an instance of the class.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Claims overview&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 1-10 (method) focus on the ability to represent these enumerated types in source code and compile them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 11-20 (method) are a duplication of claims 1-10, but in the context of storing the compiled version of the enumerated types in a &quot;computer-readable storage medium&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 21-30 (apparatus) essentially define the characteristics of the system capable of performing the method in claims 1-10.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 31 is a &quot;means&quot; claim, which is generally beyond my understanding of patent law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Additional claims information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following is my interpretation of claims 1-10 in the context of Java. Claim 1 stands by itself. Each of claims 2-10 combine with claim 1, but are otherwise unrelated to each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. This is the basic definition of an **enumerated type** within the context of this patent.&#xD;&#xA;2. This is a generalization of the **&quot;SwitchMap&quot;** feature in the `javac` compiler [[1]](http://www.javaspecialists.eu/archive/Issue161.html) [[2]](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1834632/java-enum-and-additional-class-files).&#xD;&#xA;3. This is the ability to **add methods** to the enumerated type.&#xD;&#xA;4. This is the ability of the enumerated type to **implement interfaces**.&#xD;&#xA;5. This is the ability to **add fields** to the enumerated type.&#xD;&#xA;6. This is the ability to **add virtual/abstract methods** to the enumerated type, and implement or override them for each instance of the enumerated type [[1]](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7413872/can-an-enum-have-abstract-methods).&#xD;&#xA;7. This applies if handling for enumerated types is performed as a **pre-compilation step**.&#xD;&#xA;8. This applies if handling for enumerated types is performed as a **compilation step**.&#xD;&#xA;9. This applies if the compiler treats each member of the enumerated type as a **&quot;public static final self-typed field&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;10. This applies if the enumerated type **does not have any public constructors**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Potential prior art&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Claims 1, 11, 21, 31&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe [ECMA-334, 1st Edition](http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST-WITHDRAWN/ECMA-334,%201st%20edition,%20December%202001.pdf) (December 2001) demonstrates prior art for Claims 1, 11, 21, and possibly 31 in §21 (Enums). The following is a breakdown of each part of Claim 1 with respect to this section of ECMA-334.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving source code for the computer program, wherein the source code contains a declaration for an enumerated type;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ECMA-334 §21.1 defines &quot;enum declarations&quot; for &quot;enum types&quot; within the C# programming language (source code).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein the declaration specifies a fixed number of enumeration constants that comprise the enumerated type, wherein the computer automatically generates the enumerated type comprising a class defined within an object oriented programming language, wherein the class includes a self-typed constant for each enumeration constant specified in the declaration and includes methods for operating on those constants;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ECMA-334 §21.3 starts with this line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; The body of an enum type declaration defines zero or more enum members, which are the named constants of the enum type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ECMA-334 §21.4 starts with this line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Each enum type defines a distinct type; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ECMA-334 §21.3 includes this statement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Each enum member has an associated constant value. The type of this value is the underlying type for the containing enum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ECMA-334 §21.4 includes this statement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Every enum type automatically derives from the class `System.Enum`. Thus, inherited methods and properties of this class can be used on values of an enum type&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; defining the enumerated type using a class defined within an object-oriented programming language, wherein the class includes a self-typed constant for each enumeration constant specified in the declaration; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Seems to be met by the items listed for the previous clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if the source code specifies a multi-way branch statement associated with the enumerated type, implementing the multi-way branch statement as a switch statement so that different enumeration constants are associated with different cases of the switch statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ECMA-334 §15.7.2 includes this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; The ***governing type*** of a `switch` statement is established by the switch expression. If the type of the switch expression is ... an *enum-type*,&#xD;&#xA;then that is the governing type of the `switch` statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; A compile-time error occurs if two or more `case` labels in the same `switch` statement specify the same constant value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; If one of the constants specified in a `case` label in the same `switch` statement is equal to the value of the switch expression, control is transferred to the statement list following the matched `case` label.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  A possible challenge to this is the wording of &quot;different enumeration constants are associated with different cases&quot;. However, by default C# assigns unique values to the constants defined in an enum type, and it is this functionality which I believe forms the prior art. *Beyond* this support and as a distinct feature unrelated to the prior art, C# allows users to explicitly assign multiple names for values in the enumeration. In this separate case it is not possible to create distinct switch statements for two named constants which have the same underlying value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Claims 8, 18, 28&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The C# compiler handles enum types as a step of the compilation process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Claims 9, 19, 29&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe [ECMA-335, 1st Edition](http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST-WITHDRAWN/ECMA-335,%201st%20edition,%20December%202001.pdf) (December 2001) demonstrates prior art for Claims 9, 19, and 29. The following is a breakdown of Claim 9 with respect to this section of ECMA-335.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The method of claim 1, wherein the class includes a public static final self-typed field for each enumeration constant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ECMA-335 Partition II §13.3 includes this statement which covers the &quot;static final self-typed field&quot; portion of this claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; The static literal fields of an enum declare the mapping of the symbols of the enum to the underlying values. All of these fields shall have the type of the enum and shall have field init metadata that assigns them a value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ECMA-334 §10.5.1 provides an additional clause which ensures that the fields are &quot;public&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Enumeration members implicitly have public declared accessibility.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34324" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13973" RevisionGUID="2b0b2cf6-b9b4-4504-b649-d958acf79b41" CreationDate="2015-11-22T21:06:36.727" UserId="4584" Text="Prior art request: US7263687 (Object-oriented enumerated type facility)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34325" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13973" RevisionGUID="2b0b2cf6-b9b4-4504-b649-d958acf79b41" CreationDate="2015-11-22T21:06:36.727" UserId="4584" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13974" RevisionGUID="d564e231-37a4-4239-ac80-5b6aad40db38" CreationDate="2015-11-23T00:56:26.530" UserId="8767" Text="This would best be discussed by a patent attorney to keep you from being sued. However, you would need to find a difference between Quick Response and Barcodes.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13972" RevisionGUID="e5d1046a-2e0c-45cf-876b-b8e3c6532836" CreationDate="2015-11-23T05:34:44.123" UserId="10011" Comment="added 724 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2003023674A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2003023674A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mobile application that I am working on uses QR codes to store personal credit card information, and I'd like to know whether this would make me unable to continue my work on my start-up business without being sued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is claimed is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A system for credit card payment using barcode and mobile phone device comprising: a mobile phone device storing a barcode data required for a credit card payment (in it), and including a display part for display of said barcode data thereon; a barcode reader device reading the barcode displayed on the display part of said mobile phone device; and a credit card validation device, being connected to said barcode reader device, fetching the credit card payment information data from the barcode which is read by said barcode reader device, transmits said information to a credit card VAN server, and then, receives a credit card payment authentication signal from said credit card VAN server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this mean in laymen's terms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34329" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13972" RevisionGUID="e5d1046a-2e0c-45cf-876b-b8e3c6532836" CreationDate="2015-11-23T05:34:44.123" UserId="10011" Comment="added 724 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;wo2003023674a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13976" RevisionGUID="a7740b2a-440c-4d9c-a610-1dd961b0945c" CreationDate="2015-11-23T15:48:59.813" UserId="15478" Text="Patents exist a capitalist systems [1].  Do other economic systems have patents and, if so, what is their purpose in those systems?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34337" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13976" RevisionGUID="a7740b2a-440c-4d9c-a610-1dd961b0945c" CreationDate="2015-11-23T15:48:59.813" UserId="15478" Text="In what economic systems, other than capitalism, do patents exist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34338" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13976" RevisionGUID="a7740b2a-440c-4d9c-a610-1dd961b0945c" CreationDate="2015-11-23T15:48:59.813" UserId="15478" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;finance&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13976" RevisionGUID="f6751c24-fdb6-452e-b439-9be261b46362" CreationDate="2015-11-23T20:17:02.013" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 52 characters in body" Text="Patents exist in capitalist systems. Do other economic systems have patents and, if so, what is their purpose in those systems?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13979" RevisionGUID="fd4a70dd-a2de-43db-a555-f3394544ceaa" CreationDate="2015-11-23T23:24:57.003" UserId="15482" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8775248][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8775248&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the bottom of this patent there are two Legal Events. What doe this mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34346" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13979" RevisionGUID="fd4a70dd-a2de-43db-a555-f3394544ceaa" CreationDate="2015-11-23T23:24:57.003" UserId="15482" Text="LEGAL EVENT - what does this mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34347" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13979" RevisionGUID="fd4a70dd-a2de-43db-a555-f3394544ceaa" CreationDate="2015-11-23T23:24:57.003" UserId="15482" Text="&lt;us8775248&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13980" RevisionGUID="ce22cce1-88f7-4217-a83e-5bfe550fd28e" CreationDate="2015-11-24T00:14:49.410" UserId="11537" Text="The legal events are assignments that transfer of ownership of the patent.  In this case the inventors assigned their ownership to Exponential Interactive and later Exponential Interactive assigned its ownership to Abakus.  The current owner is Abakus." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13981" RevisionGUID="37ba85f2-5549-4e4b-85fa-2c3ab1a613e9" CreationDate="2015-11-24T02:07:45.620" UserId="15483" Text="Check out the wikipedia site about the Patent Cooperation Treaty. It includes search authorities from countries including China and Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Cooperation_Treaty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you go on https://patents.google.com/ you can search patents from around the world which are often countries with different economic systems (China and Russia as major examples).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, CPC is a classification system that has been agreed upon by both Europe and China to improve access to Chinese patent documentation.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.epo.org/news-issues/press/releases/archive/2013/20130604.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there are initiatives using machine translation to improve cooperation with Russian and Eurasian regions.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.epo.org/news-issues/news/2013/20130926.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13983" RevisionGUID="aec30103-e15e-4db3-acb9-7d2e45ad429b" CreationDate="2015-11-24T06:35:27.010" UserId="15486" Text="I have an idea that includes a 'click' spring retractable system (In reference to 'click' pen invention) that was published in 1974. The mechanism would be vastly similar, so that being said; How intricate do I have to describe my invention, in accordance to the referenced patent? Am I infringing on any copyrights if I use similar wording or diagrams to the referenced patent? The patent I want to submit is Provisional by the way. I appreciate the response! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S&#xD;&#xA;This is my first attempted patent submission" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34354" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13983" RevisionGUID="aec30103-e15e-4db3-acb9-7d2e45ad429b" CreationDate="2015-11-24T06:35:27.010" UserId="15486" Text="Can I reference an existing patent that was made in 1974? If so, how in depth?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34355" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13983" RevisionGUID="aec30103-e15e-4db3-acb9-7d2e45ad429b" CreationDate="2015-11-24T06:35:27.010" UserId="15486" Text="&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;infringing&gt;&lt;reference&gt;&lt;infringe&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13984" RevisionGUID="54cc22d8-b317-4b42-a3ee-575264347e29" CreationDate="2015-11-24T07:56:27.033" UserId="15488" Text="someone has an expired patent on a mixture that makes an oil painting medium. I will not use real names, but here are the ingredients of it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Painting oil 1 +&#xD;&#xA;Stone dust 1 (gives medium a certain quality to it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to make that patented medium thicker, by adding one ingredient, a third mineral dust.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would like to get patented this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Painting oil 1 +&#xD;&#xA;Stone dust 1 , all from above&#xD;&#xA;+ my mineral dust thickener &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if my medium behaves a little thicker than the patent holder's medium&#xD;&#xA;is the difference enough to enable me to patent my mixture and then sell it as a product in the market? or license the patent to producers? Please any help greatly appreciated. thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34357" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13984" RevisionGUID="54cc22d8-b317-4b42-a3ee-575264347e29" CreationDate="2015-11-24T07:56:27.033" UserId="15488" Text="i want to make an &quot;improvement&quot; on a recipe type of patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34358" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13984" RevisionGUID="54cc22d8-b317-4b42-a3ee-575264347e29" CreationDate="2015-11-24T07:56:27.033" UserId="15488" Text="&lt;paint&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13986" RevisionGUID="b29edbdd-f008-49b6-ba30-f80ce4fec81c" CreationDate="2015-11-24T21:03:02.617" UserId="15491" Text="Is this patent US5504055, application Nr. 08/213,263 expired?&#xD;&#xA;It was filed on 15 mar 1994 and issued on 2 April 1996.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PALL&amp;RefSrch=yes&amp;Query=PN/5504055&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34364" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13986" RevisionGUID="b29edbdd-f008-49b6-ba30-f80ce4fec81c" CreationDate="2015-11-24T21:03:02.617" UserId="15491" Text="Is this patent US5504055 expired?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34365" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13986" RevisionGUID="b29edbdd-f008-49b6-ba30-f80ce4fec81c" CreationDate="2015-11-24T21:03:02.617" UserId="15491" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;expired-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13988" RevisionGUID="befb3cf1-22b3-4156-8758-dd9a9fe040c2" CreationDate="2015-11-25T01:22:59.930" UserId="11947" Text="Patent system existed in Soviet Union but IP was owned by the state." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13989" RevisionGUID="2438caa9-5352-4e58-86df-8353be94783c" CreationDate="2015-11-25T01:28:41.483" UserId="11947" Text="Since 2014 Supreme Court decision it became very difficult to patent a web application. But that doesn't prevent anybody from applying for patent. Because patent prosecution could take years the applicant can claim &quot;patent pending&quot; status and harass anybody who is using the idea as there is no way to know for sure if the patent will be grunted.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13990" RevisionGUID="0bf9ad8b-afbb-4e52-9ff7-399f97d464c9" CreationDate="2015-11-25T05:16:43.500" UserId="15494" Text="I found a product I would like to sell and improve upon later. Their website says its patent pending but they have had it for several years. How do I find if they did apply for a patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34372" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13990" RevisionGUID="0bf9ad8b-afbb-4e52-9ff7-399f97d464c9" CreationDate="2015-11-25T05:16:43.500" UserId="15494" Text="How to find if patent pending is true" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34373" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13990" RevisionGUID="0bf9ad8b-afbb-4e52-9ff7-399f97d464c9" CreationDate="2015-11-25T05:16:43.500" UserId="15494" Text="&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13991" RevisionGUID="f2f1f699-cbe0-421b-9b79-20fbf0887bcd" CreationDate="2015-11-25T20:39:34.880" UserId="15497" Text="I work for a man who has invented an &quot;improvement&quot; to a skateboard.  He put a video on YouTube a little over a year ago, but in the video all he does is ride the skateboard as part of an &quot;art film&quot; involving wind-surfing.  There is no &quot;discussion&quot;, no &quot;teaching&quot;, nothing definitive about the design of the board.  Can that be considered Prior Art?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34376" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13991" RevisionGUID="f2f1f699-cbe0-421b-9b79-20fbf0887bcd" CreationDate="2015-11-25T20:39:34.880" UserId="15497" Text="Prior Art on YouTube" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34377" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13991" RevisionGUID="f2f1f699-cbe0-421b-9b79-20fbf0887bcd" CreationDate="2015-11-25T20:39:34.880" UserId="15497" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34378" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13991" RevisionGUID="427b93b5-7b98-42bc-9c8d-30b80283d0ad" CreationDate="2015-11-25T22:01:11.917" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13989" RevisionGUID="2c712a0b-d407-4efd-91bb-d936b3cb5d73" CreationDate="2015-11-25T22:02:09.773" UserId="8767" Comment="Spelling corrections" Text="Since 2014 Supreme Court decision it became very difficult to patent a web application. But that doesn't prevent anybody from applying for patent. Because patent prosecution could take years. During that time, the applicant can claim &quot;patent pending&quot; status and harass anybody who is using the idea as there is no way to know for sure if the patent will be granted.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34380" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13989" RevisionGUID="2c712a0b-d407-4efd-91bb-d936b3cb5d73" CreationDate="2015-11-25T22:02:09.773" Comment="Proposed by 8767 approved by 10011 edit id of 1905" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13984" RevisionGUID="47c3bae7-09aa-4cdb-bfae-605937b0ce1c" CreationDate="2015-11-25T22:05:29.883" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 45 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Someone has an expired patent on a mixture that makes an oil painting medium. I will not use real names, but here are the ingredients of it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Painting oil  &#xD;&#xA;    + Stone dust (gives medium a certain quality to it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to make that patented medium thicker, by adding one ingredient, a third mineral dust.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would like to get patented this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Painting oil  &#xD;&#xA;    + Stone dust  &#xD;&#xA;    + my mineral dust thickener &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If my medium behaves a little thicker than the previous patent's medium,&#xD;&#xA;is the difference enough to enable me to patent my mixture and then sell it as a product in the market or license the patent to producers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34382" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13984" RevisionGUID="47c3bae7-09aa-4cdb-bfae-605937b0ce1c" CreationDate="2015-11-25T22:05:29.883" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 45 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;improvement&gt;&lt;paint&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34383" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13984" RevisionGUID="47c3bae7-09aa-4cdb-bfae-605937b0ce1c" CreationDate="2015-11-25T22:05:29.883" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 45 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Patenting an added ingredient as an improvement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13983" RevisionGUID="bc831e09-cb28-4c5b-937c-023bbef6ce64" CreationDate="2015-11-25T22:07:34.567" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 101 characters in body" Text="I have an idea that includes a 'click' spring retractable system (In reference to 'click' pen invention) that was published in 1974. The mechanism would be vastly similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How intricately do I have to describe my invention, in accordance to the referenced patent? Am I infringing on any copyrights if I use similar wording or diagrams to the referenced patent? I am looking to submit a provisional application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13979" RevisionGUID="928649c7-6fb2-4bc3-989b-17dcd0957ef2" CreationDate="2015-11-25T22:11:56.723" UserId="10011" Comment="added 577 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8775248][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8775248&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the bottom of this page there are two Legal Events. What do they mean in this context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the time of writing, the legal events are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### Mar 27, 2013 -- Assignment &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Owner name: EXPONENTIAL INTERACTIVE, INC., CALIFORNIA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:SALDANHA, ALEXANDER;BERMAN, RON;VUMMARAO, KESHORE;SIGNING DATES FROM 20130312 TO 20130313;REEL/FRAME:030099/0179 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### Mar 12, 2014 -- Assignment&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Owner name: ABAKUS, INC., CALIFORNIA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:EXPONENTIAL INTERACTIVE INC.;REEL/FRAME:032420/0386&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Effective date: 20131213 &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34386" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13979" RevisionGUID="928649c7-6fb2-4bc3-989b-17dcd0957ef2" CreationDate="2015-11-25T22:11:56.723" UserId="10011" Comment="added 577 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What are &quot;legal events&quot; as listed on Google Patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34387" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13979" RevisionGUID="928649c7-6fb2-4bc3-989b-17dcd0957ef2" CreationDate="2015-11-25T22:11:56.723" UserId="10011" Comment="added 577 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;google-patents&gt;&lt;us8775248&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13990" RevisionGUID="749e48a7-ec80-48a3-bde8-dd6ab39e60cb" CreationDate="2015-11-25T22:12:50.107" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I found a product I would like to sell and improve upon later. Their website says it's patent pending, but they have had it for several years. How do I find if they did apply for a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34389" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13990" RevisionGUID="749e48a7-ec80-48a3-bde8-dd6ab39e60cb" CreationDate="2015-11-25T22:12:50.107" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-pending&gt;&lt;marketing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34390" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13990" RevisionGUID="749e48a7-ec80-48a3-bde8-dd6ab39e60cb" CreationDate="2015-11-25T22:12:50.107" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="How to find if a product is really &quot;patent pending&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34391" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13992" RevisionGUID="2cd85dfa-ca3d-4248-bd25-70abd0b835ef" CreationDate="2015-11-26T00:27:47.157" UserId="15498" Text="Is it legal in the US to distribute source code that when run, would be in violation of a software patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not unprecedented, for example the [LAME MP3 Encoder](http://lame.sourceforge.net) distributes source code for a patented compression algorithm.  Their argument basically goes that the source code is educational material describing in detail how the algorithm works, and the fact that it would be illegal to run it does not prevent them from distributing it.  Has this ever been challenged?  Does this argument hold water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34392" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13992" RevisionGUID="2cd85dfa-ca3d-4248-bd25-70abd0b835ef" CreationDate="2015-11-26T00:27:47.157" UserId="15498" Text="In the USA, is it legal to distribute source code that, when run, would violate a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34393" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13992" RevisionGUID="2cd85dfa-ca3d-4248-bd25-70abd0b835ef" CreationDate="2015-11-26T00:27:47.157" UserId="15498" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;algorithms&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13994" RevisionGUID="0d9a2f32-c6d6-48ad-9299-3a6094e864ba" CreationDate="2015-11-26T12:59:45.497" UserId="15501" Text="I can't find a patent number either through searches for the inventor or the device with the Publication Number. I can only find references to the Publication Number. Is this the same as the Patent Number?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible that it was never granted a patent?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34397" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13994" RevisionGUID="0d9a2f32-c6d6-48ad-9299-3a6094e864ba" CreationDate="2015-11-26T12:59:45.497" UserId="15501" Text="If an application has a Patent Number dated 2000, is it certain that it was granted a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34398" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13994" RevisionGUID="0d9a2f32-c6d6-48ad-9299-3a6094e864ba" CreationDate="2015-11-26T12:59:45.497" UserId="15501" Text="&lt;uspublication&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13995" RevisionGUID="f1c00b1a-8e98-41c9-a910-81b255d4322d" CreationDate="2015-11-26T13:23:33.587" UserId="15195" Text="If so,Does the proto type have be of the same material as finished product? Or can highly detailed cadd drawings do the job?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34400" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13995" RevisionGUID="f1c00b1a-8e98-41c9-a910-81b255d4322d" CreationDate="2015-11-26T13:23:33.587" UserId="15195" Text="Is a Proto type mandatory for applying a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34401" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13995" RevisionGUID="f1c00b1a-8e98-41c9-a910-81b255d4322d" CreationDate="2015-11-26T13:23:33.587" UserId="15195" Text="&lt;prototype&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13996" RevisionGUID="05fa98f5-d279-43af-a586-750d986c6a9d" CreationDate="2015-11-26T13:25:03.723" UserId="15498" Text="In general, based on my non-lawyer reading of patents, most software patents cover doing the described algorithm on a computer.  Are there any legal issues at all in doing an algorithm by hand, on pencil and paper? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if, instead of pencil and paper, you used a general purpose computer mathematical environment (e.g. Wolfram Alpha) to interactively perform each step?  This doesn't seem very different in character to me than performing the algorithm manually.  Is there any precedent for this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there are all sorts of other gray areas - for example,  what if you designed a custom interactive program that used ideas from the patented algorithm to &quot;give hints&quot; to the user as to what to do next, without actually performing those steps?  Have any of these boundaries of what it means to &quot;perform&quot; algorithms come up in real cases?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34403" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13996" RevisionGUID="05fa98f5-d279-43af-a586-750d986c6a9d" CreationDate="2015-11-26T13:25:03.723" UserId="15498" Text="In the USA, is it legal to perform an algorithm described in a software patent on pencil and paper?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34404" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13996" RevisionGUID="05fa98f5-d279-43af-a586-750d986c6a9d" CreationDate="2015-11-26T13:25:03.723" UserId="15498" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;algorithms&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13997" RevisionGUID="4940113d-2f60-43b7-9c28-5f7d512ce510" CreationDate="2015-11-26T13:46:28.107" UserId="15503" Text="Yes, you could apply for a patent for the new combination. However, it might be refused as being obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The expired patent (P1) which discloses the combination of painting oil and stone dust is prior art. This is true whether P1 is expired or not. Because of this, your invention would need to be non-obvious over P1. Since the only difference is the addition of mineral dust thickener, the key question would be: is it obvious to add the mineral dust thickener to the product of P1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is another document (P2) which suggests that the mineral dust thickener is useful for thickening paints, it would probably be obvious to combine P1 with P2 to arrive at your invention. In other words, your combination would be obvious, and therefore not patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if the mineral dust thickener has never been known to thicken oil-based products (or something like that), the argument could be made that adding it to the combination of P1 is a non-obvious thing to do. Because of this, your product would not be obvious, and so would be patentable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13996" RevisionGUID="ce5f2255-149d-40b0-a5ce-ab9926333cb9" CreationDate="2015-11-26T14:05:07.993" UserId="15498" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="In general, based on my non-lawyer reading of patents, most software patents cover doing the described algorithm on a computer.  Are there any legal issues at all in doing an algorithm by hand, on pencil and paper? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if, instead of pencil and paper, you used a general purpose computer mathematical environment (e.g. Wolfram Alpha) to interactively perform each step?  This doesn't seem very different in character to me than performing the algorithm manually.  Is there any precedent for this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there are all sorts of other gray areas - for example,  what if you designed a custom interactive program that used ideas from the patented algorithm to &quot;give hints&quot; to the user as to what to do next, without actually performing those steps?  Have any of these boundaries of what it means to &quot;perform&quot; algorithms come up in real cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is asked purely in the spirit of intellectual curiosity - I am not asking for legal advice on a particular situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13992" RevisionGUID="9167ddda-9235-4954-80b0-e4001e85a9b7" CreationDate="2015-11-26T14:07:12.367" UserId="15498" Comment="added 169 characters in body" Text="Is it legal in the US to distribute source code that when run, would be in violation of a software patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not unprecedented, for example the [LAME MP3 Encoder](http://lame.sourceforge.net) distributes source code for a patented compression algorithm.  Their argument basically goes that the source code is educational material describing in detail how the algorithm works, and the fact that it would be illegal to run it does not prevent them from distributing it.  Has this ever been challenged?  Does this argument hold water?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm asking this question due to curiosity about projects that distributed source code for patented algorithms.  I'm not looking for legal advice on a real situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13998" RevisionGUID="14f6c0f5-cb67-415c-b648-5509f1f5d4e3" CreationDate="2015-11-26T14:42:45.887" UserId="15503" Text="**Is inheritance of a patent (assigned to an individual) possible?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent is personal property, per 35 USC § 261:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Subject to the provisions of this title, patents shall have the attributes of personal property.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the owner of a piece of personal property dies, the property passes like any other property. If the deceased person has a will, the ownership of the patent will generally pass according to the directions in the will. If the person dies intestate (without a will) or the person's will does not direct how the ownership of the patent should pass, the applicable state's or country's intestacy laws will apply to decide who the ownership of the patent passes to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is also confirmed by 35 USC § 154:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Every patent shall contain … a grant to the patentee, *his heirs* or assigns&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What part of the U.S. legal Code covers the inheritance of a patent?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;35 USC § 261 (as above) provides that patents are personal property. Inheritance of personal property is a state matter, so the USC does not govern the specific rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Would patent inheritance need to be recorded as a re-assignment by the USPTO?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does not *need* to be, but there may be ramifications for failing to do so. Per 35 USC § 261:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An assignment, grant or conveyance shall be void as against any subsequent purchaser or mortgagee for a valuable consideration, without notice, unless it is recorded in the Patent and Trademark Office within three months from its date or prior to the date of such subsequent purchase or mortgage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, this provides that if (1) A sells a patent to B, (2) B fails to register the assignment in time, and (3) A later re-sells the same patent to C who does not know anything about the previous sale, then C owns the patent in the clear, and B has lost out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since a change of owner by operation of probate law could arguably be a conveyance, it ought to be registered. Though, it is difficult to see how the deceased party could ever assign the patent to a third party, so it's probably an intellectual matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13999" RevisionGUID="028002c5-4506-45c0-9fc3-36de3035f651" CreationDate="2015-11-26T16:18:25.757" UserId="15505" Text="I filed a utility provisional patent application less than 1 year ago. If within 1 year of the utility prov appl filing date I also file design patent application(s) for the same idea, will the utility provisional application's filing date also be considered for &quot;first to file&quot; for the design application for the same idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I have already presented my utility provisional application to some manufacturers.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34411" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13999" RevisionGUID="028002c5-4506-45c0-9fc3-36de3035f651" CreationDate="2015-11-26T16:18:25.757" UserId="15505" Text="Filing dates utility provisional application versus follow up design patent application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34412" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13999" RevisionGUID="028002c5-4506-45c0-9fc3-36de3035f651" CreationDate="2015-11-26T16:18:25.757" UserId="15505" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;utility&gt;&lt;first-to-file&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14000" RevisionGUID="14e89ef1-c076-42db-8113-1fc1db29fa75" CreationDate="2015-11-26T17:34:31.180" UserId="12029" Text="They are not the same. The publication number is just the number given to the published patent aplication whereas the patent number is the number given to the application after it has been granted a patent.It is therefore possible that the application is still pending decision or, in case it has already been processed at the Patent Office, but was rejected. This would explain the non existence of a patent number." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13995" RevisionGUID="3e887882-3209-4cc6-ad22-190fc9fa4a18" CreationDate="2015-11-26T20:24:54.967" UserId="10011" Comment="added 46 characters in body; edited title" Text="Do I need a prototype to apply for a patent? And if so, does the prototype have be of the same material as finished product? Or can highly detailed cad drawings do the job?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34415" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13995" RevisionGUID="3e887882-3209-4cc6-ad22-190fc9fa4a18" CreationDate="2015-11-26T20:24:54.967" UserId="10011" Comment="added 46 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is a prototype mandatory for applying a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14003" RevisionGUID="6f6b0e33-9329-40ca-9978-2888a47e93f3" CreationDate="2015-11-27T12:34:57.230" UserId="15508" Text="I'm working on an invention, and currently stuck on a problem, I know the solution to, but don't know how to build it, and I'm asking a professor at my university for help. If he helped me, does he have any legal right towards my patent when I file it? Assuming he did not contribute any conceptual ideas. Just a technical build to my solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm an undergrad in the same institution he works in, does the university have any relation(legally) to my invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34424" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14003" RevisionGUID="6f6b0e33-9329-40ca-9978-2888a47e93f3" CreationDate="2015-11-27T12:34:57.230" UserId="15508" Text="Can I share my patent with my professor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34425" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14003" RevisionGUID="6f6b0e33-9329-40ca-9978-2888a47e93f3" CreationDate="2015-11-27T12:34:57.230" UserId="15508" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14005" RevisionGUID="db894044-e63e-4dd6-948c-b1c352cc4a53" CreationDate="2015-11-27T13:09:11.990" UserId="15510" Text="So, one can patent snake-oil treatments now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Neurocutaneous syndrome&quot; as Amin uses the term is not recognized as a real condition by any medical or scientific authority. He is the only person on earth who believes the symptoms of Delusional Infestations [well recognized as a symptom of various organic conditions as well as of certain drug abuses] are caused by dental compounds, a hypothesis refuted by all dental, toxicological, dermatological, psychiatric, and other authorities. He continues to promote this non-existent condition in non-peer-reviewed journals that publish anything for a price, and does his clients a huge disservice by treating their real and curable conditions with his mangosteen-based placebos. It is a shame he is allowed to profit from the misery of his patients in this way, and that the US patent office can be complicit in his crimes by giving him a patent for a fake treatment for a fake disease.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US20130202570][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130202570" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34430" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14005" RevisionGUID="db894044-e63e-4dd6-948c-b1c352cc4a53" CreationDate="2015-11-27T13:09:11.990" UserId="15510" Text="Pseudoscience and bad medicine" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34431" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14005" RevisionGUID="db894044-e63e-4dd6-948c-b1c352cc4a53" CreationDate="2015-11-27T13:09:11.990" UserId="15510" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;medicine&gt;&lt;false-marketing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13986" RevisionGUID="a3ffb6d5-f2bd-490a-96b8-37f4bbac4449" CreationDate="2015-11-27T13:10:08.750" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and tagging." Text="Is patent [US 5,504,055 A][1], application Nr. 08/213,263 expired?&#xD;&#xA;It was filed on 15 Mar 1994 and issued on 2 April 1996.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5504055" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34433" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13986" RevisionGUID="a3ffb6d5-f2bd-490a-96b8-37f4bbac4449" CreationDate="2015-11-27T13:10:08.750" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and tagging." Text="Is patent US 5,504,055 expired?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34434" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13986" RevisionGUID="a3ffb6d5-f2bd-490a-96b8-37f4bbac4449" CreationDate="2015-11-27T13:10:08.750" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and tagging." Text="&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;legal-status&gt;&lt;us5504055&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13981" RevisionGUID="d74955c4-4763-4874-80f6-7231401609fb" CreationDate="2015-11-27T13:14:59.633" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and grammar." Text="Check out the Wikipedia article on the [Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)][1]. It includes search authorities from countries including China and Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you can search [Google Patents][2] for patents from around the world which are often countries with different economic systems (China and Russia as major examples).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, [Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC)][3] is a classification system that has been [agreed upon by both Europe and China][4] to improve access to Chinese patent documentation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there are initiatives using machine translation to improve cooperation with [Russian and Eurasian][5] regions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Cooperation_Treaty&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_Patent_Classification&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.epo.org/news-issues/press/releases/archive/2013/20130604.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.epo.org/news-issues/news/2013/20130926.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14005" RevisionGUID="e5405dd9-a092-4156-8a51-351f3e59bae0" CreationDate="2015-11-27T13:18:01.010" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and tagging." Text="So, one can patent snake-oil treatments now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Neurocutaneous syndrome&quot; as Amin uses the term is not recognized as a real condition by any medical or scientific authority. He is the only person on earth who believes the symptoms of Delusional Infestations [well recognized as a symptom of various organic conditions as well as of certain drug abuses] are caused by dental compounds, a hypothesis refuted by all dental, toxicological, dermatological, psychiatric, and other authorities. He continues to promote this non-existent condition in non-peer-reviewed journals that publish anything for a price, and does his clients a huge disservice by treating their real and curable conditions with his mangosteen-based placebos. It is a shame he is allowed to profit from the misery of his patients in this way, and that the US patent office can be complicit in his crimes by giving him a patent for a fake treatment for a fake disease.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US 2013/0202570 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130202570" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34437" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14005" RevisionGUID="e5405dd9-a092-4156-8a51-351f3e59bae0" CreationDate="2015-11-27T13:18:01.010" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting and tagging." Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;medicine&gt;&lt;false-marketing&gt;&lt;us20130202570&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14006" RevisionGUID="7ee1863f-570e-4bae-bfd1-2fea7ea2fb98" CreationDate="2015-11-27T13:31:32.127" UserId="14417" Text="Don't worry, the USPTO Examiner's weren't born yesterday. You'll find these types of patent applications in the historical patent literature as well, and the modern examination rules account for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent application received a Final Rejection on March 27, 2015 and was listed as Abandoned on October 10, 2015 (refer to [USPTO Public Pair][1], search on Publication No. &quot;US 20130202570 A1&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    10-20-2015  ABN   Abandonment&#xD;&#xA;    03-27-2015  CTFR  Final Rejection&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will likely find some interesting reading material in the 315 pages of back-and-forth communication between the inventor and examiner. This is available in the Public Pair Image File Wrapper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiners must review each patent according to the MPEP rules, and as such their arguments must take a particular form. In this case, the examiner settled on an argument of Indefinite Subject Matter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; All of the claims rejected under this statute either expressly recite&#xD;&#xA;&gt; indefinite matter or are dependent upon a claim which recites&#xD;&#xA;&gt; indefinite matter. If a claim depends upon a claim which recites&#xD;&#xA;&gt; indefinite matter and if the claim does not rectify the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; indefiniteness, the claim is also rejected for being indefinite&#xD;&#xA;&gt; because the dependent claim necessarily possesses all of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; limitations of the claim from which it depends, including the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; indefinite limitations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34439" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14005" RevisionGUID="4dd9943e-69f4-4283-87cb-760a931595c8" CreationDate="2015-11-27T13:33:08.693" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved tagging." Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;medicine&gt;&lt;us20130202570&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14007" RevisionGUID="9a0f7a28-5354-4d10-8a4f-a1a02024702c" CreationDate="2015-11-27T14:25:16.310" UserId="15503" Text="You do not need to provide code, but you must still describe the invention in enough detail that a person could implement it. The USPTO's guidelines (MPEP) provide, at § 2161.01:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Computer-implemented inventions are often disclosed and claimed in terms of their functionality. This is because writing computer programming code for software to perform specific functions is normally within the skill of the art once those functions have been adequately disclosed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually, the requirement for sufficient description is met by providing a flow chart showing the necessary steps. This is usually complemented by some written description saying that the method of the flow chart can be implemented using instructions executable on a processor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14008" RevisionGUID="b1832832-f9c4-45ac-a563-af29a199b48b" CreationDate="2015-11-27T14:42:31.403" UserId="15503" Text="The intention behind the passage you quoted is that the applicant wants to cover the overall concept of their invention, not just the specific uses of it that they provided in the description. However, the sentence likely has very little real, legal effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because a patent's scope is always set out by the claims. There are some cases in some countries when the claims are interpreted in light of the description, and may therefore be limited by the specific embodiments described. However, that will occur regardless of whether the description includes a sentence like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically what I'm saying is: you should focus on considering what the scope of the claims is, and effectively ignore that sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, CN 103839021 A is actually a patent **application**, not a granted patent. I can tell this because the kind code is &quot;A&quot;. A granted Chinese patent has the kind code &quot;C&quot;. In fact, it looks like it has not even been examined yet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14009" RevisionGUID="ccdb08e3-c5cf-4345-826e-a7859662f348" CreationDate="2015-11-27T15:18:59.477" UserId="15503" Text="A non-provisional application can claim priority to multiple provisional (or indeed nonprovisional) applications. Per 37 CFR 1.78(a):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An applicant in a nonprovisional application … may claim the benefit of **one or more** prior-filed provisional applications&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the nonprovisional application (and any Conventional applications filed in other countries) must be filed within 12 months of the earliest provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each claim has its own priority date. This is the filing date of the earliest provisional application which disclosed the contents of the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What does refiling mean?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Refiling typically involves two steps: actively abandoning the original application and then filing a new application with the *same content*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus you are correct, when you say &quot;if the [second provisional application]'s content is different [from the first provisional application's content] then it is not a refiling, but instead the content of the [first provisional application] retains its own priority date&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to note that you cannot just refile without (or before) actively abandoning the earlier one. This is because otherwise the deadline for Convention applications will stay at 12 months from the first provisional, which means the refiling is almost certainly pointless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wouldn't it make more sense to do multiple provisional applications in piecemeal fashion so as to claim the earliest date possible for each feature as it is fleshed out?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The catch is that the deadline for filing a nonprovisional or Convention application is set at 12 months from the earliest provisional. If the multiple provisional applications stretch out over more than a year, you're going to have trouble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main reason to refile a provisional application is because you want to delay when you file the nonprovisional and Conventional applications. This will typically come down to money (because filing is expensive) and term (because the 20 year term of the patent begins when the nonprovisional is filed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, let's say you filed a provisional application on 1 January 2015. This means the deadline for filing a nonprovisional or a foreign filing is 1 January 2016. However, on 31 September 2015, you realise that you're not going to have enough money to pay for the nonprovisional or the foreign filing. So you abandon the original nonprovisional, and refile it with the same content as on 1 October 2015. This moves the deadline for filing a nonprovisional and Convention to 1 October 2016. Of course, there is the risk that there has been a disclosure in the meantime, so should not be done without due consideration." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14010" RevisionGUID="47000371-6208-4b81-88f8-b478cf11d421" CreationDate="2015-11-27T16:48:36.203" UserId="15503" Text="No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A design patent application cannot claim priority to a provisional patent application, per 35 USC § 172:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The right of priority provided for by subsections (a) through (d) of section 119 of this title and the time specified in section 102(d) shall be six months in the case of designs. The right of priority provided for by section 119(e) of this title [which covers provisional applications] shall not apply to designs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is stated more clearly at MPEP § 1504.10.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Design applications may not make a claim for priority of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13951" RevisionGUID="583eb73b-5a8f-47ec-8d14-9334a140b82a" CreationDate="2015-11-27T19:33:16.107" UserId="14417" Comment="Clarified a sentence." Text="If you look at this application on Google Patents, you'll see that it has a PCT Number `PCT/JP2000/000585`, indicating that the original application was filed in Japan, and that this is a PCT application (worldwide).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A PCT application has a search phase and a national phase, and the information regarding the application status in individual countries may be found in [PatentScope][1] (via [WO 2000/045689 A1][2], the WIPO application).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll find the following National Phase information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Australia                 07.08.2001  23251/00    Granted:   29.04.2004&#xD;&#xA;    China                     03.02.2000  00803377.3   &#xD;&#xA;    European Patent Office    29.08.2001  2000902068  Published: 28.11.2001&#xD;&#xA;                                                      Withdrawn: 27.01.2005&#xD;&#xA;    United States of America  02.08.2001  09890247    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the European application was withdrawn, so you need only need to determine the status of the US, Australian and Chinese applications. Although the patent was filed from a Japanese application (JP 11/27294), it appears that coverage was not sought in Japan during the national phase. I'm not familiar with Japan's patent system, so someone may need to correct me there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On Google Patents, under Legal Events:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Date           Code   Event	Description&#xD;&#xA;    Aug 29, 2007   FPAY   Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;                          Year of fee payment: 4&#xD;&#xA;    Nov 7, 2011    REMI   Maintenance fee reminder mailed	&#xD;&#xA;    Mar 23, 2012   LAPS   Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees	&#xD;&#xA;    May 15, 2012   FP     Expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee	&#xD;&#xA;                          Effective date: 20120323&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the US application has lapsed (effective March 23, 2012) due to a failure to pay the maintenance fee. I should note that the source of this information is originally [USPTO Public Pair][3], then via IFI/Fairview Research, to Google Patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The information for the Australian patent grant is available via [AusPat][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Vol/Iss  Publication date  Publication action                       Reason&#xD;&#xA;    20/36    2006-09-21        Patent Ceased                            Application Ceased 	&#xD;&#xA;    18/18    2004-05-13        Letters Patent Sealed - Standard Patents 		&#xD;&#xA;    18/1     2004-01-08        Applications Accepted 		&#xD;&#xA;    14/38    2000-10-26        Applications OPI&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the Australian patent grant ceased on September 21, 2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For completeness, I would provide the status of the [Chinese patent][5], but the [SIPO][6] application search is currently inaccessible for some reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2000045689&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2000045689A1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/applicationDetails.do?applicationNo=2000023251&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://search.sipo.gov.cn/sipo/zljs/hyjs-yx-new.jsp?leixin=fmzl&amp;recid=00803377.3&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://english.sipo.gov.cn/application/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14011" RevisionGUID="c0e1f42d-6e73-44c1-af80-c92007691183" CreationDate="2015-11-28T01:57:27.993" UserId="14510" Text="No, making a prototype (*actual* reduction to practice), as filing a properly prepared patent application is considered &quot;*constructive* reduction to practice.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; United States patent laws do not require you to have a prototype in order to apply for a patent, all that is required is that you be able to describe the invention so that others could both make and use it. So while you do need to have some kind of identifiable embodiment you can start by proving your concept on paper. [(IP Watchdog)][1]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;And from the USPTO:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Reduction to practice may be an actual reduction or a constructive reduction to practice which occurs when a patent application on the claimed invention is filed. The filing of a patent application serves as conception and constructive reduction to practice of the subject matter described in the application. Thus the inventor need not provide evidence of either conception or actual reduction to practice when relying on the content of the patent application. [(MPEP 2138.05)][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;NOTE: This is not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/02/15/protecting-ideas-can-ideas-be-protected-or-patented/id=48009/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2138.html#d0e207753" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34450" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13995" RevisionGUID="d6758897-c09b-449f-ae0f-b9c83685c730" CreationDate="2015-11-28T22:27:59.770" UserId="10011" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5378],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="34451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5378" RevisionGUID="83c5a3ae-ee84-4e41-a473-cd4034551e68" CreationDate="2015-11-28T22:28:21.710" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 64 characters in body; edited title" Text="When we come up with an idea (and let's assume that this idea can be implemented), can I just go ahead and file for a patent (in which I fully describe in much detail its nature and content), or do I have to operationalize and come up with a preliminary prototype (either to demonstrate my seriousness or its viability) first?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for asking this is simple, operationalization invariably involves other people, while ideally it is best to have obtained a patent before involving other people, not that I don't trust people but it is better for focusing on the work if everybody involved knows patent issues are out of the question.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34452" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5378" RevisionGUID="83c5a3ae-ee84-4e41-a473-cd4034551e68" CreationDate="2015-11-28T22:28:21.710" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 64 characters in body; edited title" Text="Do I have to come with an actual prototype before filing a patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14012" RevisionGUID="40f33d9b-6bdf-45d8-8b58-bd1417c6ce42" CreationDate="2015-11-29T21:14:03.220" UserId="11855" Text="It is not affordable that even micro entities like students or employees pay PCT application fee which is too high. Application fee for nonprovisional utility US patent is reasonable. Following US patent application will I still have right to apply for PCT even after a product produced and sold in a WIPO member Non-US country? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34454" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14012" RevisionGUID="40f33d9b-6bdf-45d8-8b58-bd1417c6ce42" CreationDate="2015-11-29T21:14:03.220" UserId="11855" Text="Deciding to apply for PCT or USPTO" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34455" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14012" RevisionGUID="40f33d9b-6bdf-45d8-8b58-bd1417c6ce42" CreationDate="2015-11-29T21:14:03.220" UserId="11855" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14013" RevisionGUID="d6290b1c-a1c3-429a-8812-01fbac9c4d2a" CreationDate="2015-11-30T10:10:40.270" UserId="15503" Text="Once you apply for your first US patent application (whether provisional or nonprovisional), you have 12 months to file a PCT application  claiming priority to the original US filing. This means your PCT is evaluated as if it was filed when your US application was. If you wait longer than 12 months from your first US patent application, then your PCT application will be evaluated at the date you file the PCT application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So this is the ideal approach:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 January 2014: You file a US provisional (or nonprovisional, it doesn't matter) application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 October 2014: You produce and sell some of your products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 January 2015: You apply for a PCT application claiming priority to your US application. Your PCT application is evaluated as at 1 January 2014, which is before you produced and sold your product. So you are fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**You want to avoid this:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 January 2014: You file a US provisional (or nonprovisional, it doesn't matter) application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 October 2014: You produce and sell some of your products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 March 2015: You apply for a PCT application. You are too late to claim priority to your US application. Your PCT application is evaluated as at 1 March 2015, which is after you produced and sold your product. So the claims of your PCT application will likely lack novelty (and therefore be unallowable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't matter whether the production and sale is in a WIPO member country or not. The outcome is the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Alternative approach**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the cost of the PCT application is an issue (and, to be fair, they are very expensive for what you get), you may want to consider filing in other countries directly at the 12 month date. This can be significantly more cost effective, as some countries have rather low official fees (though of course the local patent attorney will still make up most of the cost of filing and prosecution).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notably, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand are all reasonably cheap and no translation would be needed. Germany, China and South Korea are all reasonably moderate too, though translations are needed (which can significantly increase the cost). Your local friendly patent attorney would probably be able to give you exact costs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14014" RevisionGUID="0859843d-fa8c-4c97-be4e-4b6b0c2ea85a" CreationDate="2015-11-30T11:51:43.643" UserId="15503" Text="If you are looking for a *design* patent, you should not file a provisional application. A provisional application **cannot** be used for priority for a design patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, MPEP § 1504.10 provides:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Design applications may not make a claim for priority of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the Convention period for a design patent is 6 months, not 12 months. You could in principle file a nonprovisional utility patent application, then 6 months later file a design patent claiming priority to the nonprovisional utility patent. But that would likely be an expensive six month extension of term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you could file a nonprovisional utility patent application, then subsequently file a design patent application as a divisional before the utility patent application grants. This would likely be even more expensive, since you'd likely need to draft a full utility patent application and prosecute it. But it would extend the term by a few years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14017" RevisionGUID="dfa3f7e8-b1d1-4e99-9047-26719d15a919" CreationDate="2015-12-01T06:02:06.370" UserId="14510" Text="Good explanations on points 1 &amp; 2 from Jay Smith-Hill, but I'd like to expand on point 3:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How do we know that a particular product can not be sold due to patent registration? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sum of his answer is correct to a point ... you cannot know without a shadow of a doubt. You can, however, take reasonable care by performing (or, preferably, having a professional perform) a patent search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do it yourself&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;This should always be first - and start by reading [Patent It Yourself][1] for a good understanding of patents - what they are, how they work, and how the process of applying for one works. Then, read *and follow* [Patent Searching Made Easy][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doing it yourself should really be a first pass to help you understand what else is out there - preferably while you are still designing your invention and before you approach a patent practitioner (attorney or agent). As a general rule, the more you know already, and can give to the practitioner, the better able they are to help you, the better results you get, and the less you spend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pay for a patent search&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;A patent search professional - some people prefer doing it through a patent attorney or agent (agent is more common, as they are lower-priced per hour than attorneys), some people prefer using a 3rd party search professional (not a patent practitioner, but often hired by them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starting with a *thorough description of your invention and as many variations and features of it as you can think of*, they will (should) systematically search the patent literature - US and worldwide, as applicable - for the closest prior art reasonably able to be found. They will do this through text searches, advanced (boolean) text searches, classification searches (searching in specific classes of patent literature), and through 'cited literature' (finding a reasonably similar patent application to your invention and looking at the literature cited by the USPTO examiner and/or the inventor as being potential prior art).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the end, you will *not* have found every possible piece of prior art, but you will (should) have a reasonably accurate picture of the prior art surrounding your inventive space, and a better idea for how to move forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;NOTE: This is NOT legal advice. Consult an attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.amazon.com/Patent-It-Yourself-Step-Step/dp/1413317197&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.amazon.com/Patent-Searching-Made-Easy-Searches/dp/141331872X/ref=pd_sim_14_5?ie=UTF8&amp;dpID=51gh%2B0W1PnL&amp;dpSrc=sims&amp;preST=_AC_UL160_SR124%2C160_&amp;refRID=0H9K14CXCGBNTKG7R53S" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14018" RevisionGUID="cc4bbc3c-1d37-4327-ab3f-08afe680dbce" CreationDate="2015-12-01T14:40:16.180" UserId="15503" Text="As a preface to my answer, I have to stress that this is not really a settled area of law, and so it's impossible to give a confident answer. I can at best give my theory. A reader would need to consult with a good lawyer before going down this route.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three types of infringement that are at issue here: direct infringement (35 USC § 271(a)), induced infringement (35 USC § 271(b)), and contributory infringement (35 USC § 271(c)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the sake of argument, let's say there is a valid, granted patent with a claim &quot;a method comprising performing algorithm X&quot;. Distributor D distributes the source code for algorithm X. Performing algorithm X infringes the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Does D directly infringe?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. A method claim requires that the method be performed for the claim to be infringed (per *Limelight Networks, Inc., v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., et al*, 134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014)). Source code itself does not perform the method, it simply contains instructions for doing so. Therefore D does not directly infringe the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Does D actively induce infringement?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;35 USC § 271(b) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inducement infringement can only exist if there is direct infringement (per *Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.*, 365 U. S 336, 341 (1961)). Thus it must be shown that somebody executed the source code to infringe the method itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It must also be shown that D had &quot;specific intent to encourage another's infringement and not merely … knowledge of the acts alleged to constitute inducement&quot; (*Manville Sales Corporation v. Paramount Systems, Inc.*, 917 F.2d 544 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Simply distributing source code is therefore probably not enough. Therefore D does not actively induce infringement in the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Does D perform contributory infringement?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;35 USC § 271(c) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The source code is an apparatus for use in practising the algorithm. It is material (since it contains all the instructions needed), it's especially made (since it only performs the one method), and is not a staple (since it has no other use). If the &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, contributory infringement requires knowledge of the patent (*Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch &amp; Lomb, Inc.*, 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the answer would seem to be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;D infringes by distributing the source code if they know about the patent, and they sell the source code, and the source code is used by someone to infringe the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Would a Beauregard claim change the position?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Beauregard claim is of the form &quot;a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform algorithm X&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If D stored the source code (instructions) on the hard drive of your computer (a non-transitory computer-readable medium), it would seem that they would infringe the patent without anything more (though defences may apply). Distributing would be a further direct infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such is the strength of Beauregard claims that they are generally included in most modern software and business method patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So how does LAME get around this?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US, they are basically relying on experimental use defence to infringement. Although their application of it has not been tested, the exception is very limited. Per *Madey v. Duke University*, 307 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2002):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In short, regardless of whether a particular institution or entity is engaged in an endeavor for commercial gain, so long as the act is in furtherance of the alleged infringer's legitimate business and is not solely for amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry, the act does not qualify for the very narrow and strictly limited experimental use defense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe D could rely on this. But I would expect that distributing (as opposed to solo tinkering) is probably beyond amusement, idle curiousity and philosophical inquiry, and would probably not be able to use the defence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14020" RevisionGUID="7a0133b4-c7a4-4051-9d2b-de5a1b624083" CreationDate="2015-12-01T15:17:20.903" UserId="15503" Text="This is currently an unsettled point, so it is impossible to give a good answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Intuitively, it seems that the second video you mention should be prior art, since it's a clear record of the invention. It would be arbitrary for a disclosure by video to make the disclosure exempt from being cited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in *Diomed, Inc. v. Angiodynamics*, 450 F.Supp.2d 130 (D. Mass. 2006), a video was held not to be a printed publication, since there was no paper component to the video. This suggests that a video alone may not be enough, even if it shows all the necessary details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14022" RevisionGUID="f1d69f95-8438-4253-8502-c755578c9064" CreationDate="2015-12-01T21:23:07.337" UserId="11855" Text="I want to apply for USPTO nonprovisional utility patent as a Turkish. How can I learn if US has any agreement between Turkish Patent Office (Turkey) in order to prevent international applications before national applications? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34479" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14022" RevisionGUID="f1d69f95-8438-4253-8502-c755578c9064" CreationDate="2015-12-01T21:23:07.337" UserId="11855" Text="USPTO nonprovisional application before national application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34480" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14022" RevisionGUID="f1d69f95-8438-4253-8502-c755578c9064" CreationDate="2015-12-01T21:23:07.337" UserId="11855" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12255" RevisionGUID="b2307e05-724a-450d-adc7-68d75575b955" CreationDate="2015-12-01T21:36:42.313" UserId="13257" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Short answer is no. Long answer is possible based on novelty and inventive step. It sounds like you need to spend $500-$3k and ask a patent agent or attorney to review your technology and your prior art search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want to shell out the cash, here's what you can do yourself for free:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Information gathering phase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Read the specification carefully. List out each embodiment with all elements, and all combinations. &#xD;&#xA;- Go on USPTO PAIR and review the prosecution history (click on Image File Wrapper). You need to read the rejections and understand why the technology was rejected. &#xD;&#xA;- Do another prior art search. It sounds highly unlikely that 20 years have gone by and there is no literature whatsoever on your topic. News articles, academic journals, books, etc...something exists. &#xD;&#xA;- list out the elements of your invention in its preferred embodiment. What are the key features to make your invention enabling? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Analysis phase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take each of your key features/elements and try to map a product, product feature, patent element, or prosecution history argument to your elements. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pivot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you found that in the analysis phase, every feature of your preferred embodiment was &quot;anticipated&quot;, aka someone else thought of it, then you can't patent it. If you found out through the file history review + prior art search that perhaps elements A+B+C were unpatentable because they were too broad, and that your idea includes element D, then you can patent it as A+B+C+D. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's really not short answer to this question. Your question is too broad to answer in detail, so you'll have to do the legwork yourself and come to a reasonable conclusion if its worth your time to even pursue such a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14023" RevisionGUID="56af07da-03c4-415b-8bb2-2d770e785e26" CreationDate="2015-12-02T09:27:24.643" UserId="15503" Text="[WIPO](http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/nat_sec.html) has quite a good list of foreign filing requirements for each country. I've never known it to be wrong (though there's always a first time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to WIPO, if a Turkish resident has an invention concerning a &quot;subject of significance for national security&quot;, they must first apply with the Turkish Patent Institute. This suggests that for any other invention, you would be fine to file directly with the USPTO (or any other office). Best to check with a Turkish patent attorney though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14025" RevisionGUID="e171c845-6335-4ae5-ae0d-ce1ae6224c08" CreationDate="2015-12-03T04:43:41.500" UserId="15530" Text="The answer to your question is no (for permission) and no (for paying royalties), explained as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You do not need permission since there is no law that prevents the practice of the patent. A patent is a right granted by the government to a person or legal entity such as a corporation. The patent provides the patent owner the ‘right to exclude’ others from making, using or selling the invention claimed in the patent. As the sole source of the patented invention, owners are granted a time limited right to exclude competitors from the marketplace. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent ‘claims’ define what the patents cover and what will require royalties (in order to ‘make, use or sell’). *The claims are the most important part of a patent.* A common misunderstanding is that the claims describe the invention, they do not. Rather they define the literal boundary of the patent owner's right to exclude. Each and every limitation or claim element must be identified - a doctrine known as the all-elements rule. In other words your improvement would add new claim elements to the ‘core of the object’ or known state of the art. Hence you would not be infringing nor required to pay royalties. In patent law “the name of the game is the claim”. Additional information and a useful tool for extracting claim elements can be found at [Pelent.com][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://pelent.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14026" RevisionGUID="e90ff661-ac2d-4a50-9726-0885c5354b50" CreationDate="2015-12-03T07:20:37.740" UserId="15533" Text="We filed a patent. It was approved but then the office action was double patenting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To respond to this office action do I need to sign power of attorney?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was filed by lawyer and now same lawyer sent power of attorney form to sign giving authority to some other lawyer which I never met #26344.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there data base for for patent lawyer customer numbers ?&#xD;&#xA;What rights does power of attorney give ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34494" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14026" RevisionGUID="e90ff661-ac2d-4a50-9726-0885c5354b50" CreationDate="2015-12-03T07:20:37.740" UserId="15533" Text="Do I need to sign power of attorney to respond to office action?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34495" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14026" RevisionGUID="e90ff661-ac2d-4a50-9726-0885c5354b50" CreationDate="2015-12-03T07:20:37.740" UserId="15533" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;office-action&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14026" RevisionGUID="0d539d6c-b27e-4a43-b967-1cd1b20ac4e1" CreationDate="2015-12-03T07:25:43.750" UserId="15533" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="We filed a patent. It was approved but then the office action was double patenting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To respond to this office action do I need to sign power of attorney?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was filed by lawyer and now same lawyer sent power of attorney form to sign giving authority to some other lawyer which I never met #26344.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there data base for for patent lawyer customer numbers in US?&#xD;&#xA;What rights does power of attorney give ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot; I hereby appoint the Patent Practitioner(s) associated with the following Customer Number as my/our attorney(s) or agent(s), and to transact all business in the United States Patent and Trademark Office connected therewith for the application referenced in the attached transmittal letter (form PTO/AIA/82A) or identified above. #26344&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34497" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14026" RevisionGUID="79190c52-dbc3-447e-8847-65d1b1ef832b" CreationDate="2015-12-03T07:34:32.690" UserId="15533" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;attorney&gt;&lt;office-action&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14026" RevisionGUID="17addeb9-7b4f-48f6-94f4-51f41e37e9af" CreationDate="2015-12-03T07:47:44.610" UserId="15533" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="We filed a patent. It was approved but then the office action was double patenting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To respond to this office action do I need to sign power of attorney?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was filed by lawyer and now same lawyer sent power of attorney form to sign giving authority to some other lawyer which I never met #26344, claiming its her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there data base for for patent lawyer customer numbers in US?&#xD;&#xA;What rights does power of attorney give ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot; I hereby appoint the Patent Practitioner(s) associated with the following Customer Number as my/our attorney(s) or agent(s), and to transact all business in the United States Patent and Trademark Office connected therewith for the application referenced in the attached transmittal letter (form PTO/AIA/82A) or identified above. #26344&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14026" RevisionGUID="24ac1bb4-6437-466c-8fa7-c3d0e2e9838c" CreationDate="2015-12-03T14:33:44.293" UserId="15533" Comment="deleted 54 characters in body" Text="We filed a patent. It was approved but then the office action was double patenting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To respond to this office action do I need to sign power of attorney?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there data base for for patent lawyer customer numbers in US?&#xD;&#xA;What rights does power of attorney give ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot; I hereby appoint the Patent Practitioner(s) associated with the following Customer Number as my/our attorney(s) or agent(s), and to transact all business in the United States Patent and Trademark Office connected therewith for the application referenced in the attached transmittal letter (form PTO/AIA/82A) or identified above. #26344&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I find who is behind this customer number. Different name appears for U.S. Patent Office Registration ID with this number." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14029" RevisionGUID="b950b9ac-bcde-458b-85d8-6310d2dcefa8" CreationDate="2015-12-03T17:50:53.407" UserId="15503" Text="**Is there database for for patent lawyer customer numbers in US?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't believe so. Patent practitioners have a registration number which is publicly searchable at the USPTO (as you have found). However, I do not believe there is any way to search by customer number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An an aside, the customer number is used to appoint a firm of attorneys to act for you, rather than a single named attorney ([MPEP § 403](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s403.html)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What rights does a power of attorney give?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[37 CFR 1.32(a)(2)](http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.32) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Power of attorney means a written document by which a principal authorizes one or more patent practitioners or joint inventors to act on the principal's behalf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the power of attorney gives your attorney the right to act on behalf of the applicant. Most notably, this means that they can respond to the office action, and it's treated for legal reasons as if it comes from the applicant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To respond to this office action do I need to sign power of attorney?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes—if you want your attorney to respond to the office action, you (as the applicant or a representative of the applicant) will need to sign the power of attorney. If you do not, the attorney will not be able to validly file a response." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14029" RevisionGUID="cd1b95a1-9753-4a24-83e5-33997396e656" CreationDate="2015-12-04T09:36:19.710" UserId="15503" Comment="Answered a further question from the comments" Text="**Is there database for for patent lawyer customer numbers in US?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't believe so. Patent practitioners have a registration number which is publicly searchable at the USPTO (as you have found). However, I do not believe there is any way to search by customer number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An an aside, the customer number is used to appoint a firm of attorneys to act for you, rather than a single named attorney ([MPEP § 403](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s403.html)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What rights does a power of attorney give?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[37 CFR 1.32(a)(2)](http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.32) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Power of attorney means a written document by which a principal authorizes one or more patent practitioners or joint inventors to act on the principal's behalf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the power of attorney gives your attorney the right to act on behalf of the applicant. Most notably, this means that they can respond to the office action, and it's treated for legal reasons as if it comes from the applicant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can the attorney make decisions without consulting me?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not really. The power of attorney allows the attorney to act on your behalf, so in theory they could act without consulting you. However, in practice this should not happen. Ethically, an attorney can only act on your instructions. They cannot make decisions on your behalf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To respond to this office action do I need to sign power of attorney?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes—if you want your attorney to respond to the office action, you (as the applicant or a representative of the applicant) will need to sign the power of attorney. If you do not, the attorney will not be able to validly file a response." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14030" RevisionGUID="384cd03e-5e76-4826-a5fc-f35a758ce6a4" CreationDate="2015-12-04T16:11:55.320" UserId="15503" Text="It's risky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot be sued for patent infringement unless a patent has been granted (that is, it is no longer just an application). So if the patent is never granted, you will be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if the patent does grant one day, you may be liable to pay a &quot;reasonable royalty&quot; for the time that you infringed the claims of the patent application between when the patent application was published and the patent is granted (which is the period you are currently in).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this reasonable royalty to apply, you must have actual notice of the published patent application ([35 USC § 135(d)(1)(B)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154)) (such as a letter bringing the application to your attention) and the claims in the granted patent must be &quot;substantially identical&quot; to the claims in the published patent application ([35 USC § 135(d)(2)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could be a good idea to check the claims of the application in the file wrapper at the USPTO, since they may have been amended since the application was originally published. In this case, a patent would be very unlikely to grant with &quot;substantially identical&quot; claims, so there would be no reasonable royalty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14031" RevisionGUID="7ef52034-d4ac-4a8c-876b-40e78504364a" CreationDate="2015-12-04T16:50:46.263" UserId="15503" Text="No. If a patent claim was so broad that manually performing the claimed algorithm by hand would infringe it, the patent claim would be invalid (and so could not be enforced).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is reasonably clear (in my view) from the line of US Supreme Court decisions beginning with *Gottschalk* v. *Benson*, 409 US 63 (1972), which provided:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It is conceded that one may not patent an idea. But in practical effect that would be the result if the formula for converting BCD numerals to pure binary numerals were patented in this case. The mathematical formula involved here has no substantial practical application except in connection with a digital computer, which means that [if the patent were allowed], the patent would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, it is not possible to patent the algorithm itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Benson* is still good law, and was applied by Supreme Court in most reason case on this point, *Alice Corp* v. *CLS Bank International*, 573 US ___ (2014).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Benson* also stands for the principle that simply applying an algorithm with a general purpose computing environment (like Wolfram Alpha) is not enough to lead to a patentable claim. This is tidily restated in *Alice*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We hold that the claims at issue are drawn to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and that merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would the interactive program you mention be enough? My feeling is no (since the novelty is still just the algorithm), but this is only a feeling: I don't believe this has been properly tested yet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14032" RevisionGUID="737222df-2957-4aad-ab9c-cdca1bcf858f" CreationDate="2015-12-04T16:55:03.673" UserId="15541" Text="In reference to the patent: [CA2366687C][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/CA2366687C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34516" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14032" RevisionGUID="737222df-2957-4aad-ab9c-cdca1bcf858f" CreationDate="2015-12-04T16:55:03.673" UserId="15541" Text="Can this device be made by anyone now?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34517" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14032" RevisionGUID="737222df-2957-4aad-ab9c-cdca1bcf858f" CreationDate="2015-12-04T16:55:03.673" UserId="15541" Text="&lt;manufacturing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14033" RevisionGUID="cae27f76-5ed8-4a46-8112-38b26504a915" CreationDate="2015-12-04T17:05:44.890" UserId="15503" Text="No. Or at least, not without risking getting sued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent appears to be granted and currently in force in Canada (according to [CIPO](http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/2366687/summary.html#tabs1_5), with all renewal fees up to date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14034" RevisionGUID="a00daf2e-0ef7-4f74-a907-a7b194262c29" CreationDate="2015-12-04T18:21:53.917" UserId="15542" Text="How could one revive a product with a patent that has not been created in over 40 years? The company that has the patent does not and has not made the product in over 40 years, and I would like to begin making the product again. Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34520" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14034" RevisionGUID="a00daf2e-0ef7-4f74-a907-a7b194262c29" CreationDate="2015-12-04T18:21:53.917" UserId="15542" Text="Reviving a product, with a patent, that has not be produced in over 40 years?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34521" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14034" RevisionGUID="a00daf2e-0ef7-4f74-a907-a7b194262c29" CreationDate="2015-12-04T18:21:53.917" UserId="15542" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14037" RevisionGUID="2828b2d1-d7c7-436e-979e-a5b1884ed78f" CreationDate="2015-12-04T22:37:30.227" UserId="15546" Text="I was not named on this patent though I was the member of the team who developed this mechanism in its entirety based on the general usage scenario, up to and including building (and presenting) a functioning prototype. Shortly after completing the prototypes but before patents were filed, I was transferred to an overseas office though still employed with the same company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US7984734][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7984734&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34530" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14037" RevisionGUID="2828b2d1-d7c7-436e-979e-a5b1884ed78f" CreationDate="2015-12-04T22:37:30.227" UserId="15546" Text="I was not named on this patent and I was the primary inventor, can I be added?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34531" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14037" RevisionGUID="2828b2d1-d7c7-436e-979e-a5b1884ed78f" CreationDate="2015-12-04T22:37:30.227" UserId="15546" Text="&lt;us7984734&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14039" RevisionGUID="8a226211-0790-4ea4-8339-4568bec656b8" CreationDate="2015-12-06T06:22:56.180" UserId="15551" Text="You can do it yourself, I believe.  Send it certified or have some form of proof.  I have phone calls and emails.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14040" RevisionGUID="059fd36d-0e84-4e7b-863e-0ba6e81d738f" CreationDate="2015-12-06T14:58:32.380" UserId="13884" Text="What does &quot;WO&quot; in front of patent WO 05/006842 mean?&#xD;&#xA;Where can I find this patent?&#xD;&#xA;In what database do I search for it?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34539" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14040" RevisionGUID="059fd36d-0e84-4e7b-863e-0ba6e81d738f" CreationDate="2015-12-06T14:58:32.380" UserId="13884" Text="What does &quot;WO&quot; in front of patent WO 05/006842 mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34540" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14040" RevisionGUID="059fd36d-0e84-4e7b-863e-0ba6e81d738f" CreationDate="2015-12-06T14:58:32.380" UserId="13884" Text="&lt;databases&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14041" RevisionGUID="112472cf-ea42-42a1-b404-be4624c15a3b" CreationDate="2015-12-06T18:03:19.587" UserId="15148" Text="The WO indicates it is an international patent application, also called a PCT application, filed with the world intellectual property organization under the patent cooperation treaty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see the patent application here:&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2005006842A3/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See more details, from the official WIPO records, here:&#xD;&#xA;https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2005006842&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7833" RevisionGUID="0299d574-a42d-46c8-92b5-0436f27a38fa" CreationDate="2015-12-06T18:37:27.140" UserId="13996" Comment="The publication is granted" Text="What exactly is protected under this patent [US 20130001878A1][1]. I have built a similar product but it's fill mechanism is automatic in nature. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130001878&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This publication also published as US8770586" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34543" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7833" RevisionGUID="0299d574-a42d-46c8-92b5-0436f27a38fa" CreationDate="2015-12-06T18:37:27.140" Comment="Proposed by 13996 approved by -1 edit id of 1908" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7833" RevisionGUID="a3ee1d7c-511e-4f2f-a10c-f7670c6434d1" CreationDate="2015-12-06T18:37:27.140" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags and improved formatting." Text="What exactly is protected under patent application [US 2013/0001878 A1][1] ([US 8,770,586 B2][2]). I have built a similar product but it's fill mechanism is automatic in nature. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130001878&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8770586" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34545" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7833" RevisionGUID="a3ee1d7c-511e-4f2f-a10c-f7670c6434d1" CreationDate="2015-12-06T18:37:27.140" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags and improved formatting." Text="What is protected under this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34546" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7833" RevisionGUID="a3ee1d7c-511e-4f2f-a10c-f7670c6434d1" CreationDate="2015-12-06T18:37:27.140" UserId="14417" Comment="Added tags and improved formatting." Text="&lt;scope&gt;&lt;us8770586&gt;&lt;us20130001878&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14043" RevisionGUID="d01f3025-ee85-4d42-8a42-85f636aa6e61" CreationDate="2015-12-07T09:38:50.003" UserId="15503" Text="Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The legal basis for this is [37 CFR 1.324](http://www.bitlaw.com/source/37cfr/1_324.html), which provides for the addition of an inventor who was omitted in error. It requires an agreement from the inventor to be added and an agreement from the assignee. This will result in a certificate of correction being issued, causing the inventor to be added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An an aside, the patent cannot be invalidated due to the incorrect inventorship if the omission occurred due to an error. Per 35 USC 256(b):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The error of omitting inventors or naming persons who are not inventors shall not invalidate the patent in which such error occurred if it can be corrected as provided in this section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, &quot;this section&quot; effectively means 37 CFR 1.324." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14044" RevisionGUID="d66b58aa-188c-4d58-adf5-3c7a80f561ac" CreationDate="2015-12-07T22:24:17.263" UserId="15562" Text="On patent US 4986791 A it appears the same person patented  a mechanism in 1990 then naming the mechanism something different in 2005 patentUS 7517271 B1 . So does the first patent end in 2010 or does the new one bind it untl 2025 ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34556" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14044" RevisionGUID="d66b58aa-188c-4d58-adf5-3c7a80f561ac" CreationDate="2015-12-07T22:24:17.263" UserId="15562" Text="Can someone resubmit a patent in 2005 on the same mechanism patent in 1990 or does it run out in 2010?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34557" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14044" RevisionGUID="d66b58aa-188c-4d58-adf5-3c7a80f561ac" CreationDate="2015-12-07T22:24:17.263" UserId="15562" Text="&lt;us4986791&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14045" RevisionGUID="adb16607-e6c1-44c0-97e3-d97e44e30f6e" CreationDate="2015-12-07T23:51:17.367" UserId="15563" Text="The textbook Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing, published in 1999, written by Christopher Manning and Hinrich Shutze might contain prior art for co-occurence. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="4b291c73-ca44-4301-816d-fe325e9c57a0" CreationDate="2015-12-08T12:16:02.863" UserId="11751" Comment="added 1852 characters in body" Text="I'm specifically interested in [US 6873940][1] patent. The company that currently owns the patent is a company called [Kamatani Cloud][2] which is subsidiary of [General Patent][3] which some argue ([1][4], [2][5], [3][6], [4][7]) is a patent troll company. I'd like to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like [keylemon][8], [betafaceapi][9], [rekognition][10] or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker identification, face detection or content classification in images, audio or video files etc.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13]. In fact the [class 709 scope][12] has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent prosecution process after non-final rejection [argued][14] (2004-09-20 Applicant Arguments Remarks Made in an Amendment) that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect if server is capable of &quot;*measuring*&quot;/processing the data then the prior art is not applicable, consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are sent by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no &quot;*detecting whether the measurement data are capable of being measured*&quot; is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires server capability of detecting if data can be &quot;*measured*&quot; and notifying client if such capability exists then the patent shouldn't apply for cloud services as mentioned previously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding using the arguments provided by applicant during patent prosecution for claim interpretation please see [C. Claim Interpretation.][15], [wiki][16] and following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Markman, the Federal Circuit held that a court should consider a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent’s prosecution history if it is in evidence, and explained that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the prosecution history “is of primary significance in understanding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the claims.” 52 F.3d at 980, aff’d, 64 U.S.L.W. 4263. In Standard Oil&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985), the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Federal Circuit stated that:  [T]he prosecution history (sometimes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; called “file wrapper and contents’’) of the patent consists of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; entire record of proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office. This&#xD;&#xA;&gt; includes all express representations made by or on behalf of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applicant to the examiner to induce a patent grant, or, as here, to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reissue a patent. Such representations include amendments to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims and arguments made to convince the examiner that the claimed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention meets the statutory requirements of novelty, utility, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonobviousness. Thus, the prosecution history (or file wrapper) limits&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain claim allowance. 774 F.2d at 452 (emphasis added). In order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain allowance of the claims of the ‘712 patent, arguments were made&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on behalf of the applicant to the Examiner during prosecution that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served both to explain the claims in a clear manner and to disavow any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source - [Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-376, p. 47][17] or from [here][18].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover all independent patent claims except claim 32 clearly indicate that system performs modulation/demodulation, which is &quot;[the process of varying one or more properties of a periodic waveform, called the carrier signal][19]&quot; on a basic level. That is claims that use modulation/demodulation terminology automatically limit the possible claim interpretation to that where system in question performs electric or other signal modulation/demodulation in a manner consistent with the claims and [term definition][19].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claim 32 regardless of not being limited by modulation/demodulation terms has a clear indication of measuring instrument being a physical device: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 32: &lt;...&gt; one of measurement instruments connected to the server computer &lt;...&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern systems purpose built physical devices for processing data that are connected to the computer are rarely used if at all. It is an outdated system scheme. All processing nowadays is performed using software which is run by computer (NOT connected to it). One can analyze the patent and see that all explanations and examples use the physical device as a **measuring instrument** (see Fig. 3, Description) thus narrowing ability to apply this patent to cloud services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So to put it briefly:#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class [709][12] regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13] work? Both must apply or only first or second when interpreting claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** during [US6873940][1] [patent application][14] inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; in case of image processing requests are directed to URL for processing images and in case of voice processing requests are directed to URL for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing only faces or only classifying image contents...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**c)** All independent patent claims except for Claim 32 clearly indicate that system performs [modulation][19]/[demodulation][20]. Here modulation is &quot;[the process of varying one or more properties of a periodic waveform, called the carrier signal][19]&quot; thus limiting signal processing interpretation in claims by definition of said terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**d)** Wording in claims and explanation in patent description limit possible interpretations of a &quot;measurement instrument&quot; to be a physical device, especially in [Claim 32][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6873940&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kamatanicloud.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.generalpatent.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://scienceprogress.org/2009/01/patent-trolls-erode-patent-system/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-biggest-patent-trolls&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ipdigit.eu/2011/10/what-to-think-of-patent-trolls-the-return/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/27/law-would-force-patent-trolls-to-pay-for-failed-lawsuits-against-innovators/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.keylemon.com&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.betafaceapi.com&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://rekognition.com&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc702/defs702.htm#C702S189000&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm#C709S217000&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.intellectual.com/infringement.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markman_v._Westview_Instruments,_Inc.&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://bit.ly/1PYCjjA&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://www.usitc.gov/publications/337/pub3003.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulation&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demodulation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="bea74fd1-dd68-4c3e-bbc0-32f98062a1aa" CreationDate="2015-12-08T12:22:22.590" UserId="11751" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I'm specifically interested in [US 6873940][1] patent. The company that currently owns the patent is a company called [Kamatani Cloud][2] which is subsidiary of [General Patent][3] which some argue ([1][4], [2][5], [3][6], [4][7]) is a patent troll company. I'd like to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like [keylemon][8], [betafaceapi][9], [rekognition][10] or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker identification, face detection or content classification in images, audio or video files etc.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13]. In fact the [class 709 scope][12] has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent prosecution process after non-final rejection [argued][14] (2004-09-20 Applicant Arguments Remarks Made in an Amendment) that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect if server is capable of &quot;*measuring*&quot;/processing the data then the prior art is not applicable, consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are sent by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no &quot;*detecting whether the measurement data are capable of being measured*&quot; is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires server capability of detecting if data can be &quot;*measured*&quot; and notifying client if such capability exists then the patent shouldn't apply for cloud services as mentioned previously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding using the arguments provided by applicant during patent prosecution for claim interpretation please see [C. Claim Interpretation.][15], [wiki][16] and following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Markman, the Federal Circuit held that a court should consider a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent’s prosecution history if it is in evidence, and explained that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the prosecution history “is of primary significance in understanding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the claims.” 52 F.3d at 980, aff’d, 64 U.S.L.W. 4263. In Standard Oil&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985), the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Federal Circuit stated that:  [T]he prosecution history (sometimes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; called “file wrapper and contents’’) of the patent consists of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; entire record of proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office. This&#xD;&#xA;&gt; includes all express representations made by or on behalf of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applicant to the examiner to induce a patent grant, or, as here, to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reissue a patent. Such representations include amendments to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims and arguments made to convince the examiner that the claimed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention meets the statutory requirements of novelty, utility, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonobviousness. Thus, the prosecution history (or file wrapper) limits&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain claim allowance. 774 F.2d at 452 (emphasis added). In order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain allowance of the claims of the ‘712 patent, arguments were made&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on behalf of the applicant to the Examiner during prosecution that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served both to explain the claims in a clear manner and to disavow any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source - [Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-376, p. 47][17] or from [here][18].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover all independent patent claims except claim 32 clearly indicate that system performs modulation/demodulation, which is &quot;[the process of varying one or more properties of a periodic waveform, called the carrier signal][19]&quot; on a basic level. That is claims that use modulation/demodulation terminology automatically limit the possible claim interpretation to that where system in question performs electric or other signal modulation/demodulation in a manner consistent with the claims and [term definition][19].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claim 32 regardless of not being limited by modulation/demodulation terms has a clear indication of measuring instrument being a physical device: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 32: &lt;...&gt; one of measurement instruments **connected to the server computer** &lt;...&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern systems purpose built physical devices for processing data that are connected to the computer are rarely used if at all. It is an outdated system scheme. All processing nowadays is performed using software which is run by computer (NOT connected to it). One can analyze the patent and see that all explanations and examples use the physical device as a **measuring instrument** (see Fig. 3, Description) thus narrowing ability to apply this patent to cloud services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So to put it briefly:#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class [709][12] regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13] work? Both must apply or only first or second when interpreting claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** during [US6873940][1] [patent application][14] inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; in case of image processing requests are directed to URL for processing images and in case of voice processing requests are directed to URL for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing only faces or only classifying image contents...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**c)** All independent patent claims except for Claim 32 clearly indicate that system performs [modulation][19]/[demodulation][20]. Here modulation is &quot;[the process of varying one or more properties of a periodic waveform, called the carrier signal][19]&quot; thus limiting signal processing interpretation in claims by definition of said terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**d)** Wording in claims and explanation in patent description limit possible interpretations of a &quot;measurement instrument&quot; to be a physical device, especially in [Claim 32][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6873940&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kamatanicloud.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.generalpatent.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://scienceprogress.org/2009/01/patent-trolls-erode-patent-system/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-biggest-patent-trolls&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ipdigit.eu/2011/10/what-to-think-of-patent-trolls-the-return/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/27/law-would-force-patent-trolls-to-pay-for-failed-lawsuits-against-innovators/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.keylemon.com&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.betafaceapi.com&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://rekognition.com&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc702/defs702.htm#C702S189000&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm#C709S217000&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.intellectual.com/infringement.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markman_v._Westview_Instruments,_Inc.&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://bit.ly/1PYCjjA&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://www.usitc.gov/publications/337/pub3003.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulation&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demodulation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14047" RevisionGUID="e18182ec-8d45-48a3-a3e5-dd62959e026f" CreationDate="2015-12-08T18:56:02.493" UserId="15570" Text="George White is right. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specification is for explanation &amp; claim is for defining the scope of your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whoever will be reading your claims must get the message what you are protecting and not that how it works or what are its details. Do that job in the specification. Let me know specifically for any thing further." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14048" RevisionGUID="20ea48fe-6566-4fa8-9ee7-a864c6dbdc7e" CreationDate="2015-12-08T19:46:27.447" UserId="15570" Text="It depends on your substantial contribution to the claims in the patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking the language of law: mere assistance or providing support does not entitles you for the patent. Two questions you should ask is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(i) whether you contributed in conceiving the idea on which this patent is based ; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(ii) whether you contributed in realising this idea as an invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your answer is yes, then you are entitled to be called as an inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More learned people can give you more accurate answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14049" RevisionGUID="24c96687-e83e-4892-a3c3-2fbeba9c40b3" CreationDate="2015-12-09T04:27:14.547" UserId="15574" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7174229][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7174229&#xD;&#xA;does this pantent cover mics that can record 3d audio, if i were to want to release a product that records 3d audio with 2 mics would i get sued" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34568" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14049" RevisionGUID="24c96687-e83e-4892-a3c3-2fbeba9c40b3" CreationDate="2015-12-09T04:27:14.547" UserId="15574" Text="IF i wanted to create a product and sell" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34569" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14049" RevisionGUID="24c96687-e83e-4892-a3c3-2fbeba9c40b3" CreationDate="2015-12-09T04:27:14.547" UserId="15574" Text="&lt;us7174229&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14050" RevisionGUID="93a4c8e9-ba37-4039-9dc9-33acfa65feb1" CreationDate="2015-12-09T09:39:58.910" UserId="13884" Text="What is the difference between;&#xD;&#xA;Espacenet,&#xD;&#xA;European patent register and&#xD;&#xA;Patent scope?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34571" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14050" RevisionGUID="93a4c8e9-ba37-4039-9dc9-33acfa65feb1" CreationDate="2015-12-09T09:39:58.910" UserId="13884" Text="Difference Espacenet, European patent register and Patent scope" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34572" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14050" RevisionGUID="93a4c8e9-ba37-4039-9dc9-33acfa65feb1" CreationDate="2015-12-09T09:39:58.910" UserId="13884" Text="&lt;espacenet&gt;&lt;european&gt;&lt;patentscope&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14051" RevisionGUID="021214f2-63a2-4fb0-a215-fe82de339a9b" CreationDate="2015-12-09T09:46:41.433" UserId="15503" Text="Espacenet (run by the European Patent Office) and Patentscope (run by WIPO) are both databases through which you can search for patents and patent applications. I believe Patentscope has somewhat greater coverage. In this sense, they are both quite similar to Google Patents.&#xA;&#xA;The European register is the legal register of all European patents and patent applications. It is primarily used for confirming the status of a European patent or application, and looking at the correspondence that occurred during prosecution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14057" RevisionGUID="0cf77e8a-67c9-4552-8ec2-50a038b2eef9" CreationDate="2015-12-09T23:15:15.237" UserId="11537" Text="It depends on what is claimed. If the professor conceived of at least part of a claimed invention, then he is an inventor. If he is an inventor, then the university may have rights depending on what is in his employment agreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name of the game is the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally a claim is not written in a way that restricts it to an embodiment. (Loose translation into your words: Generally a 'solution' is not restricted to any particular 'build'.) If you are filing a provisional application without claims, then you are entering a legal twilight zone where the answer is not clear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14058" RevisionGUID="90b2dd8d-568c-4d03-b09a-ee3e2ece3aa1" CreationDate="2015-12-09T23:21:17.720" UserId="11537" Text="A patent can, and should, describe several embodiments.  The preferred embodiment must be described, but it is not necessary, or even desirable, to state *which* embodiment is preferred.  You must not try to hide a preferred embodiment by obscuring it with excessive numbers of other embodiments.  Multiple embodiments are helpful for supporting broad claims to whatever elements are common to all the embodiments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14059" RevisionGUID="341a710b-d9ae-468a-99cd-7283dbf379ab" CreationDate="2015-12-09T23:24:08.773" UserId="11537" Text="You must describe the preferred embodiment, but you do not need to state which of several embodiments is the preferred one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14060" RevisionGUID="bf2faa4b-6583-4b3d-b32a-24ec5adb9e1a" CreationDate="2015-12-10T00:42:58.187" UserId="15584" Text="All the other stuff out there, which has been Officially introduced to the public in The U.S. Patent Office, &quot;the plurality&quot;. In terms of patents &quot;the plurality&quot; meeting the standards by The U.S. Patent Office. However, in this event, &quot;each of&quot; qualified use of &quot;the plurality&quot;. Therefore, all the stuff with more than one camera out there formally introduced to the public in this arena. Use of &quot;the plurality&quot;, I take, here as meaning all previously known things practicing the art. Hence, meaning more than one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14061" RevisionGUID="67738360-154c-4d1b-b3b5-8cf2cf19b873" CreationDate="2015-12-10T04:00:33.797" UserId="15585" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2015002588A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015002588A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Create Probiotic- Are other manufacturers allowed to create an Oxylobactor Formigenes containing supplement?&#xD;&#xA;I heard in Asia there is a supplement containing this strain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34603" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14061" RevisionGUID="67738360-154c-4d1b-b3b5-8cf2cf19b873" CreationDate="2015-12-10T04:00:33.797" UserId="15585" Text="Are other manufacturers allowed to produce an oxylobactor formigenes probiotic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34604" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14061" RevisionGUID="67738360-154c-4d1b-b3b5-8cf2cf19b873" CreationDate="2015-12-10T04:00:33.797" UserId="15585" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14063" RevisionGUID="51c0c723-e191-4269-bd9e-f00d68c12e9f" CreationDate="2015-12-10T12:47:09.647" UserId="15589" Text="In the area of chip design tools almost every &quot;methodology&quot; is patented, which is basically, a computer implementation of diverse textbook algorithms so vaguely phrased that if you ever try to replicate anything nearly similar, you will 100% violate someone's patent (like this one, for instance http://www.google.de/patents/US8621403)  &#xD;&#xA;Obviously, if I make a **tool** to perform such analysis (as described in the patent above) and **sell** this tool, this is an infringement.  &#xD;&#xA;But my question is: can I make my own tool for my &quot;personal&quot; use and use it to create my final product (a chip), which is not realted to the methodology itself. Is this a patent infringement in this case too?    &#xD;&#xA;P.S. couldn't find any related question on this topic, sorry if it's a duplicate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34609" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14063" RevisionGUID="51c0c723-e191-4269-bd9e-f00d68c12e9f" CreationDate="2015-12-10T12:47:09.647" UserId="15589" Text="Using patented methodology as a tool to create products" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34610" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14063" RevisionGUID="51c0c723-e191-4269-bd9e-f00d68c12e9f" CreationDate="2015-12-10T12:47:09.647" UserId="15589" Text="&lt;methodology&gt;&lt;tools&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14066" RevisionGUID="16fa0773-3824-4eeb-830d-d7b20953fc1c" CreationDate="2015-12-10T23:33:13.540" UserId="15555" Text="If a process is patented, the patent is infringed by activities including carrying out the method, selling a product made directly by the process, making an offer to sell such a product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personal research or studies generally is a valid defence, that is, activities within the scope of the claims that would normally infringe are excused if the activities are for these purposes.  But  commercial activity would remove this defence. So as soon as you offer for sale a chip designed with a patented method there may potentially be an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible exception I can think of, is if you have bought a specific tool from a vendor and the end user licence agreement specifically gives you the permission to sell what is made from using the tool.  In that case, the patent is designed to stop you using a rival tool with the patented method.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, with a patent like this that only covers a method, it is hard if not impossible to tell from a chip alone whether the method was used.  So the patent holder may find it hard to prove infringement.  Again the patent is likely on a practical level to be more useful against other parties selling rival tools. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14067" RevisionGUID="b5352af6-c5fc-4711-97e1-4025b07c8a78" CreationDate="2015-12-11T15:10:37.473" UserId="15594" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5771607][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5771607&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hello,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would want to know the legal status of this patent? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34624" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14067" RevisionGUID="b5352af6-c5fc-4711-97e1-4025b07c8a78" CreationDate="2015-12-11T15:10:37.473" UserId="15594" Text="Is it available?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34625" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14067" RevisionGUID="b5352af6-c5fc-4711-97e1-4025b07c8a78" CreationDate="2015-12-11T15:10:37.473" UserId="15594" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14068" RevisionGUID="ce0a0213-d558-4549-bea7-04280bcb2bba" CreationDate="2015-12-11T16:35:15.243" UserId="15596" Text="Just reaching out for any great examples for &quot;brief descriptions&quot; on software patency  AKA whats patentable and whats not - i know this is extremely subjective!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I get asked a lot about software patency and always struggle to describe it in basic terms to groups -  (think new entrepreneurs exploring new business ideas)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I work with a lot of European based entrepreneurs and start-ups&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance&#xD;&#xA;LT" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34627" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14068" RevisionGUID="ce0a0213-d558-4549-bea7-04280bcb2bba" CreationDate="2015-12-11T16:35:15.243" UserId="15596" Text="Can anyone provide a non technical description for software patency?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34628" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14068" RevisionGUID="ce0a0213-d558-4549-bea7-04280bcb2bba" CreationDate="2015-12-11T16:35:15.243" UserId="15596" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;european&gt;&lt;start-ups&gt;&lt;smes&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14069" RevisionGUID="f730472b-c6aa-4f60-86c5-06ca87a8db06" CreationDate="2015-12-11T16:37:49.337" UserId="11537" Text="Using [https://ramps.uspto.gov/eram/][1] one can find out that US 5771607 expired on 06/30/2002 for failure to pay maintenance fees.  The patent is no longer in force.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ramps.uspto.gov/eram/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14068" RevisionGUID="2eb12a1d-6a56-4db3-9d2c-6d6d65e0a0af" CreationDate="2015-12-11T18:38:04.247" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is a good example of a brief description on software patency?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, I'd like a way to communicate what may be patentable and what may not be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I get asked a lot about software patency and always struggle to describe it in basic terms to groups, like new entrepreneurs exploring new business ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I work with a lot of European based entrepreneurs and start-ups." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34631" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14068" RevisionGUID="2eb12a1d-6a56-4db3-9d2c-6d6d65e0a0af" CreationDate="2015-12-11T18:38:04.247" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body; edited title" Text="Non-technical description for software patency?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14063" RevisionGUID="2fde37b1-033e-4597-805c-889f0f33dc2a" CreationDate="2015-12-11T18:39:58.020" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 110 characters in body" Text="In the area of chip design tools almost every &quot;methodology&quot; is patented, which is basically, a computer implementation of diverse textbook algorithms so vaguely phrased that if you ever try to replicate anything nearly similar, you will 100% violate someone's patent (like this one, for instance http://www.google.de/patents/US8621403)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, if I make a tool to perform such analysis (as described in the patent above) and sell this tool, this is an infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But can I make my own tool for my *personal* use, and use it to create my final product (a chip), which is not realted to the methodology itself? Is this a patent infringement in this case too?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14047" RevisionGUID="2f579757-4acd-4a59-9d2a-b53d29671290" CreationDate="2015-12-11T18:42:52.940" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 70 characters in body" Text="Specification is for explanation, and claims are for defining the scope of your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whoever will be reading your claims must get the message what you are protecting and not that how it works or what are its details. Do that job in the specification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14049" RevisionGUID="6a63e772-aa74-46f6-83af-7b1a88667087" CreationDate="2015-12-11T18:46:47.870" UserId="10011" Comment="added 1084 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7174229][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7174229&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a simple-terms explanation of the claims from this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim (from Google Patents) is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Apparatus for generating a delayed output digital audio signal from an input digital audio signal, the apparatus comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a first delay module adapted to apply a first amount of delay to the input digital audio signal to generate a partially delayed digital audio signal, wherein the first delay module is adapted to select the first amount of delay from a plurality of available first delay values separated from one another by increments at a first resolution level; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a second delay module adapted to apply a second amount of delay to the partially delayed digital audio signal to generate the delayed output digital audio signal, wherein the second delay module is adapted to select the second amount of delay from a plurality of available second delay values separated from one another by increments at a second resolution level different from the first resolution level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, I'd like to know whether this patent covers mics that can record 3D audio. I would like to release a product that records 3D audio with 2 mics, but I'm not sure if that would be covered by this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34635" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14049" RevisionGUID="6a63e772-aa74-46f6-83af-7b1a88667087" CreationDate="2015-12-11T18:46:47.870" UserId="10011" Comment="added 1084 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;us7174229&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34636" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14049" RevisionGUID="6a63e772-aa74-46f6-83af-7b1a88667087" CreationDate="2015-12-11T18:46:47.870" UserId="10011" Comment="added 1084 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Claims interpretation for US7174229" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14061" RevisionGUID="bf32e753-577b-453f-a43a-68f23da4b5c1" CreationDate="2015-12-11T18:51:23.663" UserId="10011" Comment="added 76 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2015002588A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015002588A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the scope of this application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can it stop other manufacturers from creating anything containing the supplement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I heard in Asia there is a supplement containing this strain, and I'm not sure whether they could be infringing on this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34638" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14061" RevisionGUID="bf32e753-577b-453f-a43a-68f23da4b5c1" CreationDate="2015-12-11T18:51:23.663" UserId="10011" Comment="added 76 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14070" RevisionGUID="94a97861-cbe9-4b2f-a33f-5cf197fcede4" CreationDate="2015-12-11T22:28:18.103" UserId="11537" Text="&quot;I would like to release a product ..., but I'm not sure if [it] would be covered by this [patent].&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, would the product infringe the claims of the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simplified answer: A claim is a list of elements.  If *every* element of the claim appears in the product, then the product infringes the claim.  When that happens we say the claim &quot;reads on&quot; the product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does your product have a &quot;first delay module&quot; and a &quot;second delay module&quot;?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, does your first delay module &quot;apply a first amount of delay to the input digital audio signal&quot;?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can keep going like that to see if every single thing mentioned in the claim appears in your product.  If it is not clear what a claim term means, look in the written description to find out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is difficult to answer the question any more precisely than that without carefully reading the patent and understanding what is in the product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the reverse question (Does every feature of my product appear in the patent?) is *not relevant* to whether or not your product might infringe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14071" RevisionGUID="8de3f189-8b0e-48df-8fe6-e15cd1facfcc" CreationDate="2015-12-11T22:44:35.070" UserId="11537" Text="An application is not a patent.  An application cannot stop anyone from doing anything.  Furthermore, the claims of an application may change during prosecution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if the application *does* become a patent with the claims as currently written?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, is &quot;an oxylobactor formigenes probiotic&quot; a &quot;secretagogue derived from oxalate degrading bacteria&quot; as recited in Claim 1?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Focus on the claims.  Is every item in a particular claim found in a potentially infringing product?  I don't know this technical field, so I can't comment further." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14072" RevisionGUID="649df793-84ba-40ea-b5ef-88aabd2e965c" CreationDate="2015-12-11T22:49:36.270" UserId="11537" Text="Two considerations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) Is the software/invention/idea patent eligible subject matter?  Abstract ideas, for example, cannot be patented.  However, this is often a matter of proper claiming, and you should consult a patent practitioner for help with that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Has the software/invention/idea been published by someone else?  Or if not, is it obvious given a combination of publications?  The answer depends on the specific facts of a given case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14073" RevisionGUID="06c99157-6a1e-49f9-8b3d-27f8907384fc" CreationDate="2015-12-12T09:08:05.670" UserId="15555" Text="I regularly discuss this issue with people, including comparing European and US approaches (I'm a European Patent Attorney).  I find it's helpful to think about the underlying problem that is being solved, and the way it is being solved.  If this involves some kind of technical advance then the invention may be patent eligible.  In Europe there is a greater focus on something being &quot;technical&quot;.  The US has historically been more open but is moving towards a more &quot;technical&quot; assessment after a recent legal decision (called &quot;Alice&quot; after Alice Corporation vs CLS Bank).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This comes up most often when you have an innovation that is effectively at its core a new business innovation rather than a new technical innovation. So, a company collects some data and provides a cloud-based dashboard for easy analysis of the data.  Let's say this is unique and innovative, because other systems in that field don't provide such an overview.  This is clearly innovative and commercially important.  But if the technologies used are straightforward and do not involve solving some technical problems, then the idea of collecting and presenting the data centrally would not in itself be patent eligible.  In Europe this may be seen as a &quot;method of doing business&quot; rather than making a technical contribution to the state of knowledge, while in the US it may be seen as an &quot;abstract idea&quot; because of its use of standard computer technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you had some innovation such as novel machine learning algorithms that provide new capabilities to spot patterns, or some solution to latency or synchronization problems in a cloud computing context, then the story may be different." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14074" RevisionGUID="f7e1b391-8d04-4749-a856-dc6d7a8cceae" CreationDate="2015-12-12T09:12:35.670" UserId="15555" Text="It's not quite correct to say that &quot;no software can be patented in Europe&quot;.  If an invention solves a technical problem then it may be patent eligible regardless of whether it is implemented in software or hardware.  So in an embedded context you are actually quite likely to be solving technical problems.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14077" RevisionGUID="48d0c29a-0083-4c96-a62d-e2e904575253" CreationDate="2015-12-13T16:13:58.563" UserId="13884" Text="WO and PCT patents do they have different jurisdictions ?&#xD;&#xA;If the WO patent has expired, can the PCT patent still be valid?&#xD;&#xA;If the PTC patent has expired, can the WO patent still be valid?&#xD;&#xA;WO 2005006842 A3 and PCT/CA2004/001083 are patents for the same invention,if the one is still valid and the other one has expired can there still be a valid patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34656" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14077" RevisionGUID="48d0c29a-0083-4c96-a62d-e2e904575253" CreationDate="2015-12-13T16:13:58.563" UserId="13884" Text="WO and PCT patents do they have different jurisdictions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34657" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14077" RevisionGUID="48d0c29a-0083-4c96-a62d-e2e904575253" CreationDate="2015-12-13T16:13:58.563" UserId="13884" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;expired&gt;&lt;valid&gt;&lt;wo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14079" RevisionGUID="1cd52673-5b47-4f43-82a8-dc185f57473e" CreationDate="2015-12-13T22:58:56.247" UserId="15555" Text="&quot;WO&quot; is the two letter country code for PCT applications. As for patents in other territories, an application is first given an application number and then a separate publication number.  In fact, these two numbers you mention relate to the same application (application number PCT/CA2004/001083 was published as WO 2005/006842).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An International Patent Application (PCT) itself &quot;expires&quot; 30 months from the earliest priority date (23 July 2003 in this case) when the International Phase ends.  After that, the application proceeds in each individual country/territory in National Phases as selected by the applicant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The public database espacenet shows national application numbers in Europe, US, Australia, Japan, Canada and China (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?CC=EP&amp;NR=1646275A2&amp;KC=A2&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=4&amp;date=20060419&amp;DB=EPODOC&amp;locale=en_EP).  The current status will depend on what happened in each individual territory." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14081" RevisionGUID="dbfd080a-5da5-4ecd-ac90-d1266e4657a9" CreationDate="2015-12-14T15:48:00.463" UserId="15609" Text="I have a very nice app Idea, which based on my research it is new, and I am quite sure it would be very much valuable.&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately my education is not at all in the computer filed and I have no idea how to make an app.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I am looking for a trustworthy website or person (I don't know) which can help me on making this app.&#xD;&#xA;I could also take part in the financial part.&#xD;&#xA;And my other question is at which stage I have to patent it? do I have to patent the idea already, or wait until the app is made.&#xD;&#xA;Best,&#xD;&#xA;Houra" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34671" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14081" RevisionGUID="dbfd080a-5da5-4ecd-ac90-d1266e4657a9" CreationDate="2015-12-14T15:48:00.463" UserId="15609" Text="Where to submit a patent idea, or who to ask help for developing it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34672" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14081" RevisionGUID="dbfd080a-5da5-4ecd-ac90-d1266e4657a9" CreationDate="2015-12-14T15:48:00.463" UserId="15609" Text="&lt;websites&gt;&lt;idea&gt;&lt;app&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14081" RevisionGUID="675a4936-bccd-4872-b075-571e9acac002" CreationDate="2015-12-14T16:50:08.093" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 300 characters in body" Text="I have a very nice app Idea, which based on my research it is new, and I am quite sure it would be very much valuable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At which stage I have to patent it? do I have to patent the idea already, or wait until the app is made?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34674" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14081" RevisionGUID="b16ac07b-4e32-476f-bc44-8b7908725285" CreationDate="2015-12-14T18:12:59.170" UserId="1" Comment="edited title" Text="When to submit a patent idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14082" RevisionGUID="50bb9719-d6f9-4bda-9b18-47a7cd29eb8a" CreationDate="2015-12-14T21:15:18.167" UserId="1085" Text="It's important to remember that a *patent* is the how-to part -- &quot;the present invention teaches ...&quot; -- not the what-we're-doing part, which could be &quot;investigating how such-and-such might be done&quot; which might even include &quot;so far we've tried 27 things and failed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What a disclosure cannot include, and not run afoul of the various grace periods, is a descripton what worked and how you actually did the what-worked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at a collection of disclosures I did for a while they related to simulating rotating masses using software to make the electric grid more stable with non-rotating sources of generation as well as loads which did not demonstrate some form of angular momentum.  If I opined (&quot;wrote a paper about&quot;) &quot;the problem with modern generating sources is that many of them lack angular momentum&quot; that's just words and the problem to be solved -- the &quot;the present invention teaches ... how to implement angular momentum in a non-rotating generator&quot; part -- isn't disclosed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, consult competent legal advice.  As inventors we're too predisposed to think in our own favor for you to answer this question for yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, when working on something which may be patentable it really is best to not say anything.  It doesn't feel as good as talking about your work, but unless you're very good about not disclosing anything that may hurt you in the future, it feels a lot better in the long run." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14041" RevisionGUID="2b2bc7b1-4999-480b-8494-15567291e2a9" CreationDate="2015-12-15T03:12:31.007" UserId="15148" Comment="Added reference to denotation of WO prefix." Text="The &quot;WO&quot; prefix indicates it is an international patent application, also called a PCT application, filed with the world intellectual property organization under the patent cooperation treaty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;WO is in fact the code for WIPO (i.e. it doesn't just mean &quot;World&quot;), which you can see here:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.wipo.int/pct/guide/en/gdvol1/annexes/annexk/ax_k.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see the patent application here:&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2005006842A3/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See more details, from the official WIPO records, here:&#xD;&#xA;https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2005006842&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14084" RevisionGUID="4cd7cc77-6831-4390-a086-5fb021054b79" CreationDate="2015-12-15T13:36:45.363" UserId="15614" Text="Basically, I had an idea for a product that I was not intending on patenting, but merely to sell on a small scale and see how it did. However, after a bit of research I found that someone had already applied for a patent for the idea in 2010. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this patent application is still in A1 stage (I'm not entirely sure what this means) and has not been granted for nearly 6 years, so I was wondering what that implies about the status of the patent, and more importantly whether I can still go ahead and continue with my plan as there isn't a 'granted' patent for it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apologies, I'm very new to patent law. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34682" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14084" RevisionGUID="4cd7cc77-6831-4390-a086-5fb021054b79" CreationDate="2015-12-15T13:36:45.363" UserId="15614" Text="Patent Application already exists for my, but not granted for six years" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34683" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14084" RevisionGUID="4cd7cc77-6831-4390-a086-5fb021054b79" CreationDate="2015-12-15T13:36:45.363" UserId="15614" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34684" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14084" RevisionGUID="bb74d495-c855-46af-b10d-8dde24bc9a1f" CreationDate="2015-12-15T13:49:42.453" UserId="15614" Comment="edited title" Text="Patent Application already exists for my idea, but not granted for six years" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14084" RevisionGUID="b1200e84-aad0-47bc-acda-5e1237f3f400" CreationDate="2015-12-15T13:55:08.823" UserId="15614" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="Basically, I had an idea for a product that I was not intending on patenting, but merely to sell on a small scale and see how it did. However, after a bit of research I found that someone had already applied for a patent for the idea in 2010. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this patent application is still in A1 stage (I'm not entirely sure what this means) and has not been granted for nearly 6 years, so I was wondering what that implies about the status of the patent, and more importantly whether I can still go ahead and continue with my plan as there isn't a 'granted' patent for it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apologies, I'm very new to patent law. The patent I'm talking about is this one: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2010002751A3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14085" RevisionGUID="29382ff7-a886-4056-a884-60fbd4bb5e91" CreationDate="2015-12-15T15:32:03.130" UserId="7197" Text="**No.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent may not be obtained for an invention if it is not new or contains only obvious differences from prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So - based on the situation you describe - if you file a patent application claiming subject matter that covers your invention, it will be rejected as not new based on the pending application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14089" RevisionGUID="0788b72f-e34e-4746-a1dc-487859268ab0" CreationDate="2015-12-15T18:28:03.617" UserId="15620" Text="2111.04   “ADAPTED TO,” “ADAPTED FOR,” “WHEREIN,” AND “WHEREBY” CLAUSES [R-08.2012]&#xD;&#xA;Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are:&#xD;&#xA;(A) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses;&#xD;&#xA;(B) “wherein” clauses; and&#xD;&#xA;(C) “whereby” clauses.&#xD;&#xA;The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 283 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a “wherein” clause limited a process claim where the clause gave “meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps”). In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.” Id. However, the court noted (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)) that a “‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’” Id." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14091" RevisionGUID="edb9b95e-f59e-4ee3-b470-74c8c0bf00cd" CreationDate="2015-12-15T19:28:15.543" UserId="5317" Text="I have finished a design patent for an antenna.  This effort was based on the existence of many design patents for antennas in the USPTO...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/?tbm=pts#q=antenna&amp;tbm=pts&amp;tbs=ptst:d&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of these patented antennas have clear ornamental features (for the housing, etc.) unrelated to actual function of the antenna.  Some, however, have ornamental features that represent 100% of the functionality of the antenna such as this one...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/USD573589&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My antenna's ornamental shape is derived solely from the functional characteristics... as is any antenna's shape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I read in &quot;Understanding Functionality in Design Patent Law&quot; on this web site...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;[. . .] a design is not patentable&#xD;&#xA;unless it is ornamental, and&#xD;&#xA;a design is not ornamental if it is&#xD;&#xA;'functional.'&quot; - http://www.designpatentschool.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...that makes the case ornamental features that are purely functional may not necessarily be used to combat infringement if a particular ornamental feature exists only for functionality rather than artistic expression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the shape of an item in a design patent is derived solely from functional characteristics, an antenna being a perfect example, is this shape not protected by the design patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are all the 100% functionally derived antennas with design patents pointless?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34704" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14091" RevisionGUID="edb9b95e-f59e-4ee3-b470-74c8c0bf00cd" CreationDate="2015-12-15T19:28:15.543" UserId="5317" Text="Does functionality block ornamental protection in design patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34705" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14091" RevisionGUID="edb9b95e-f59e-4ee3-b470-74c8c0bf00cd" CreationDate="2015-12-15T19:28:15.543" UserId="5317" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;ornamental&gt;&lt;functionality&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14092" RevisionGUID="0043cd68-367e-4fe0-a642-6dcbb4ddc7ae" CreationDate="2015-12-16T00:25:03.333" UserId="15622" Text="In reference to the patent: [USD666896][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD666896&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can a similar product be made without violating this patent? What exactly is patented? the loops? the look? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34707" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14092" RevisionGUID="0043cd68-367e-4fe0-a642-6dcbb4ddc7ae" CreationDate="2015-12-16T00:25:03.333" UserId="15622" Text="Can a similar product be made?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34708" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14092" RevisionGUID="0043cd68-367e-4fe0-a642-6dcbb4ddc7ae" CreationDate="2015-12-16T00:25:03.333" UserId="15622" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34710" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14092" RevisionGUID="32e7ae5c-b96c-487c-9511-dad9be8436e6" CreationDate="2015-12-16T05:25:33.970" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;usd666896&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14085" RevisionGUID="620571b4-6a96-4d71-91c1-f1e4cda5ac6f" CreationDate="2015-12-16T08:28:43.280" UserId="7197" Comment="Revised to better answer question" Text="Based on the situation you describe - if you produce and sell your product, you run the risk that the pending application will result in an issued patent. If the patent claims cover your product, your product infringes the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a patent may not be obtained for an invention if it is not new or contains only obvious differences from prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did you publish your idea? If you can prove that the claimed invention was publicly known before the filing date of the pending patent application, the application will be rejected as not new." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14085" RevisionGUID="40d287e0-c6a1-4cdb-ba55-1d1465a80c53" CreationDate="2015-12-16T10:14:12.013" UserId="7197" Comment="More details" Text="Based on the situation you describe - if you produce and sell your product, you run the risk that the pending application will result in an issued patent. If this patent's claims cover your product, your product infringes the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This being said, a patent may not be obtained for an invention if it is not new or contains only obvious differences from prior art. Due to the given dates, I assume that patent law is applicable that was in effect before the provisions of the America Invents Act got enacted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did you publish your idea? If you can prove that the claimed invention was publicly known before the date of invention, the application will be rejected as not new (Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did you use or sell your product? A patent will not be granted, if you publicly used or sold your invention more than one year before the patent application was filed for the same invention (Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the Pre-AIA patent law does not provide a &quot;prior user rights&quot; defense (except for business methods).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14093" RevisionGUID="99335014-2810-4eea-9d89-8bc66bd6e4e4" CreationDate="2015-12-16T11:02:22.257" UserId="15555" Text="First questions are ***could*** you patent the idea and then ***should*** you (for example, keeping the key parts secret might be an option if the idea is not made public when you sell the app or offer the relevant service).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming the answer to both questions is yes, then the key timing consideration is to make sure that you are careful about what disclosures you make outside of confidentiality agreements.  Generally a patent application should be filed before any public disclosure (of any type) is made.  This applies as an absolute rule in Europe, but in the US there is a &quot;grace period&quot; meaning you can disclose something and then file your own US patent up to 12 months later, and the disclosure will not destroy novelty of that US patent.  Nevertheless, it may still be safer to file before any disclosure is made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tactically, an earlier filing date helps guard against other parties who may by coincidence be developing similar solutions, but a later filing date might be advantageous for delaying cash outlays and allowing for complete development of the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14094" RevisionGUID="c664e3fb-2087-4d52-b7ea-f8a548f9cbe4" CreationDate="2015-12-16T13:46:08.980" UserId="15628" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20060078855][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20060078855&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Art is free, now what is this? Btw, they are patenting the teaching procedure. Soo lame, I have been doing this doodling/so-called-zentangles much before they made an application to register for it. I have made plenty of them, there was no one teaching me what to do or how to do it. I just know it. Nobody can teach a person to do zentangles, a person can do it himself if he can hold a pen and repeat lines and circles. But for me, this kind of art is not of this world, it is more at par with spirit-writing (the applicants will be like 'Oh, whats that? I need a patent for that too?'). I have been doodling for ages just to know what the spirits want to tell me. So, now what the spirits must be sued coz they don't have the CZT from a patent-pending RIcky maria. I learnt this art whn I was 14, and I was initiated into it by my higher spirit, it is a spiritual transcendence for me. But, all this will be rubbished by the applicants of this ludicrous patent applicant. Nobody taught me how to do it, its just that I know to do it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I apologize for being rash. Kindly don't hold me liable for the statements made here. It was made in good faith." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34715" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14094" RevisionGUID="c664e3fb-2087-4d52-b7ea-f8a548f9cbe4" CreationDate="2015-12-16T13:46:08.980" UserId="15628" Text="How can this be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34716" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14094" RevisionGUID="c664e3fb-2087-4d52-b7ea-f8a548f9cbe4" CreationDate="2015-12-16T13:46:08.980" UserId="15628" Text="&lt;us20060078855&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14095" RevisionGUID="98637e33-099f-4e7c-b741-1ac3561a999d" CreationDate="2015-12-16T17:50:06.827" UserId="11537" Text="US 2006/0078855 is not a patent.  It is a published application.  A cursory search did not turn up any patents corresponding to that application.  To view the file history use USPTO Public PAIR and search on application number 11/229928." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14095" RevisionGUID="b0de88ca-ff65-4986-aabf-2883616b4303" CreationDate="2015-12-16T17:59:19.073" UserId="11537" Comment="added 188 characters in body" Text="US 2006/0078855 is not a patent.  It is only a published application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can view application file history with USPTO Public PAIR by searching on application number 11/229928.  In this case there has been a lengthy battle between the applicant and the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not the applicant will be ever be successful in obtaining a patent and what the *claims* in any such patent might be are open questions at this point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14094" RevisionGUID="c6cb95af-e23f-47aa-8acd-3c7831e67faf" CreationDate="2015-12-16T20:19:28.100" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 691 characters in body; edited title" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20060078855][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20060078855&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears this is attempting to patent the teaching procedure, however I have been doing this doodling these since well-before seeing the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a case like this, the invention doesn't require someone to teach a person to do perform it, as it's straight-forward enough that anyone can figure it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does the United States patent system respond to those circumstances? Furthermore, could I now be sued for infringing based off my own doodles?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34720" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14094" RevisionGUID="c6cb95af-e23f-47aa-8acd-3c7831e67faf" CreationDate="2015-12-16T20:19:28.100" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 691 characters in body; edited title" Text="Patenting a doodling technique" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14096" RevisionGUID="fdf6e58f-fc09-4587-a9fa-f41c3ec1e04f" CreationDate="2015-12-16T22:32:58.353" UserId="11537" Text="A design patent such as this one protects an ornamental design; or, roughly speaking, what something looks like.  It is the entire design, not just one part of it, that matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A product that looks like what is shown in the design patent's drawings might infringe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is hard to answer any more precisely than that without knowing what the &quot;similar product&quot; looks like." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14089" RevisionGUID="bdb2a523-e3a2-4470-b01e-b08ea361782e" CreationDate="2015-12-16T23:07:54.400" UserId="10011" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="Quoted directly from [MPEP 2111.04 &quot;ADAPTED TO,&quot; &quot;ADAPTED FOR,&quot; &quot;WHEREIN,&quot; AND &quot;WHEREBY&quot; CLAUSES [R-08.2012]](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2111.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (A) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (B) “wherein” clauses; and  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (C) “whereby” clauses.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., *Griffin v. Bertina*, 283 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a “wherein” clause limited a process claim where the clause gave “meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps”). In *Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp.*, 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.” Id. However, the court noted (quoting *Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc.*, 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)) that a “‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’” *Id.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14098" RevisionGUID="d1220212-bf8d-4fd1-bcdf-013b3076fe53" CreationDate="2015-12-17T06:01:03.283" UserId="15633" Text="I'm working on a rewrite of a patented web application. When the application was patented couple of years ago, the original developer made some rather aged user interface choices (such as the style of navigation hails back from the early 2000's). The patent outlines the process flow of the application (includes flow charts, etc.), and then it has a crude wireframe-style (i.e. patent application style) representation of some of the application screens. These screens include the legacy navigation. The product owner is concerned that should the navigation be modernized, the patent would potentially be invalidated because the app screen would no longer be *exactly* like it appears on the patent printout. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the updated new menu I'm proposing has the same menu choices; their location just changes some. This is even more of an issue on the mobile side as the legacy style menu won't properly fit there, and it would also violate the typical user experience expectations in the mobile environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is, can these cosmetic user interface changes be made while keeping the patent intact? The proposed changes won't in any way affect the operation or the process flow described in the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for any advice and/or insights on this issue!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34729" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14098" RevisionGUID="d1220212-bf8d-4fd1-bcdf-013b3076fe53" CreationDate="2015-12-17T06:01:03.283" UserId="15633" Text="Altering a patented web application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34730" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14098" RevisionGUID="d1220212-bf8d-4fd1-bcdf-013b3076fe53" CreationDate="2015-12-17T06:01:03.283" UserId="15633" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;change&gt;&lt;web&gt;&lt;alteration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14099" RevisionGUID="edf7c294-460e-43e6-94b0-40779a253a01" CreationDate="2015-12-17T13:18:36.370" UserId="15503" Text="In short: you'll be fine to redesign.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a brief overview, a patent exists to prevent other people from using an invention. That invention is defined solely by the claims of the patent. Although the patent must include a description and drawings, they do not define the scope of the patent: only the claims do. So it doesn't really matter what the drawings show.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no information about what the claims of the patent are. However, you mentioned that the patent includes flow charts defining a process. The claims will very likely include some of the steps shown in the flow charts, and will very likely not mention anything about how the interface looks. In fact it may not mention a UI at all. Thus any web application which performs those steps will fall into the scope of the patent, regardless of what the web application looks like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, even if I was wrong, and changing the look of your client's product made a material difference to whether the product falls under the patent, it doesn't matter. Your client does not need to use their own patented invention. The patent exists to prevent other people from using it, not to force the patent holder to use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the patent will be equally valid whether or not the patent owner's own product matches the drawings. Patent validity (that is, whether it can be used to prevent someone else using the claimed invention) is based on what was available before the invention was made. It is basically irrelevant what happens afterwards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14100" RevisionGUID="817adab2-9c6b-4062-a112-0daf448edc9f" CreationDate="2015-12-17T16:44:09.277" UserId="15503" Text="**Are all the 100% functionally derived antennas with design patents pointless?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes—at least for enforcement. A design patent granted for something that is entirely dictated by function would be invalid, and could not properly be enforced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is based on [35 USC § 171](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/171), which provides:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whoever invents any new, original and **ornamental** design for an article of manufacture may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you noted, something which is dictated by function is inherently not ornamental. Per [MPEP § 1504.01(c)](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1504.html#d0e152678):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An ornamental feature or design has been defined as one which was “created for the purpose of ornamenting” and cannot be the result or “merely a by-product” of functional or mechanical considerations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there may still be a point, depending on how you wish to run your IP portfolio. A design patent may be worthwhile simply to dissuade competitors. You would never be able to enforce it, and a competitor may suspect it is invalid. However, given the cost of having a patent revoked, and the cost of defending (even successfully) an infringement suit, the competitor may simply steer clear altogether. Sometimes even having invalid IP is enough to win the war." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14092" RevisionGUID="3ecde149-e541-4450-bea6-d17309a523a6" CreationDate="2015-12-19T01:15:40.650" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, improved tagging and corrected spelling." Text="In reference to the design patent: [USD 666,896 S1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD666896&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can a similar product be made without violating this patent? What exactly is patented? The loops? The look? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34742" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14092" RevisionGUID="3ecde149-e541-4450-bea6-d17309a523a6" CreationDate="2015-12-19T01:15:40.650" UserId="14417" Comment="Improved formatting, improved tagging and corrected spelling." Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;freedom-to-operate&gt;&lt;scope&gt;&lt;usd666896&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14103" RevisionGUID="c3920e4b-58b1-4150-97aa-55057955d340" CreationDate="2015-12-19T05:07:34.077" UserId="15641" Text="I have an idea for an app that would be used for the government and when I say it can be used for the government I mean that I can't just make it and people can use it. The app would have to be government protected and stuff. Is there a website or something that I can go on to patent this app idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34746" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14103" RevisionGUID="c3920e4b-58b1-4150-97aa-55057955d340" CreationDate="2015-12-19T05:07:34.077" UserId="15641" Text="Government app idea" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34747" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14103" RevisionGUID="c3920e4b-58b1-4150-97aa-55057955d340" CreationDate="2015-12-19T05:07:34.077" UserId="15641" Text="&lt;app&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14104" RevisionGUID="be2caf20-634c-4965-8f25-32e29691cbc1" CreationDate="2015-12-19T05:18:51.080" UserId="10011" Text="Your best bet for a situation like this is to speak with a patent professional in your area. Patents aren't something to be taken lightly--they're typically an expensive and time-consuming venture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your instinct to avoid disclosure is reasonable, just to protect patentability. It'd be best to speak with a professional to whom you can disclose your invention and discuss what aspects of your app might be protectable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent applications that the USPTO feels may pose a threat to national security are reviewed on a per-case basis, and if appropriate, they'll keep it secret. There's a review process that I can go find details on if you'd like, but the first step either way would be to speak with a patent attorney or agent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you find a website for this, it's very likely a scam (and they're definitely out there). So do be careful if you find one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14107" RevisionGUID="a0437359-8bcc-4607-b29c-522aa83cce8f" CreationDate="2015-12-21T07:40:07.597" UserId="15651" Text="In reference to the patent: [US3281863][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3281863" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34763" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14107" RevisionGUID="a0437359-8bcc-4607-b29c-522aa83cce8f" CreationDate="2015-12-21T07:40:07.597" UserId="15651" Text="I would like to know if this patent is a design patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34764" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14107" RevisionGUID="a0437359-8bcc-4607-b29c-522aa83cce8f" CreationDate="2015-12-21T07:40:07.597" UserId="15651" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14109" RevisionGUID="2abfbdcd-e52b-4446-8750-dad16cb8ea21" CreationDate="2015-12-21T11:18:38.913" UserId="15503" Text="No—it is a utility patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notably, design patents have a number beginning with &quot;D&quot; or &quot;Des.&quot; (whereas this patent doesn't).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, design patents only have a single claim referring to the drawings. However, this patent has a series of claims describing the patented construction, which would not be allowed in a design patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13968" RevisionGUID="5ee61dc2-333d-4b88-87d1-8aecbb6592b3" CreationDate="2015-12-21T14:02:30.907" UserId="81" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="In reviewing 18 of those that I could find on the Internet, I don't think Teebitoey is a word, indeed I think it is a slight mistake that Google's OCR has made. [This excerpt][1] has the word TERRITORY at the top of the page, but Google has recognised it as TEEBITOEY.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XsVYM5VY5acC&amp;pg=PA259&amp;lpg=PA259&amp;dq=TEEBITOEY&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=eyVSIGYD_1&amp;sig=lK-EFuOhNc0mz57NeLqs5itJnfI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiUs9jN9p7JAhVMNxQKHaXnDl0Q6AEIRjAI#v=onepage&amp;q=TEEBITOEY&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/go1WG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12767" RevisionGUID="f929f4dc-3d90-4892-9b63-8717e73468dd" CreationDate="2015-12-21T18:25:28.287" UserId="128" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt; That leads me to a question whether a fictious technology mentioned in a science fiction work, when described in sufficient technical detail, can ever be submitted as a valid prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. If **described in sufficient technical detail** means real-world technical detail (rather than fantasy-world technical detail), then it has the possibility of being prior art that a person of ordinary skill in the art could be influenced by to create a claimed invention before its critical date, thus invalidating the patent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Multi-touch computer pads were used throughout the television show Star Trek: The Next Generation, which ran from 1987 to 1994.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. And I'm not aware of anyone having an issued patent claim that just reads &quot;multi-touch computer pad&quot;. The question is, did Star Trek show things that patents actually claim? For example, the &quot;rubber-band&quot; software effect claimed by Apple? Or even capacitive sensor arrays, the basic &quot;technology&quot; behind multi-touch? If not, such claims aren't directly invalidated by it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The general problem with using science fiction as prior art is that the science fiction works usually do *not* describe the technology at all, let alone in detail. They might describe its *use* and *functionality* in great detail. But patent claims rarely recite just the functionality, they usually recite at least a modicum of technical details that produce the functionality. And these are actually quite unlikely to be described in science fiction works." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14111" RevisionGUID="e55e48f0-1c52-4c3b-b761-e6a59f5384cd" CreationDate="2015-12-21T23:36:35.307" UserId="15656" Text="It seems like Google patents has lost all of the page formatting in the last few days.  I disabled all extensions that may impact this and tried a couple different browsers.  The formatting of a specific patent page seems to be totally lost.  Is anyone else seeing this?&#xD;&#xA; [![screenshot of unformatted google patents][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/pGQKw.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34778" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14111" RevisionGUID="e55e48f0-1c52-4c3b-b761-e6a59f5384cd" CreationDate="2015-12-21T23:36:35.307" UserId="15656" Text="Is Google Patents broken for others?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34779" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14111" RevisionGUID="e55e48f0-1c52-4c3b-b761-e6a59f5384cd" CreationDate="2015-12-21T23:36:35.307" UserId="15656" Text="&lt;google-patents&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34788" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14111" RevisionGUID="7b5d4525-cc36-45c7-a9ee-50867bc7b518" CreationDate="2015-12-22T13:56:59.597" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="34792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14115" RevisionGUID="6b7b169b-b0b8-4a1b-8d2a-add366bba1af" CreationDate="2015-12-23T02:50:54.220" UserId="15657" Text="To your last question: you are not guaranteed a payment from user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that enforcing a patent right in the court of law take a lot of time and money, something individual inventors usually don't have. Manufacturers know about this, and some may just take advantage of using your patent without paying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to monetize on your invention, you may want to first make a prototype, then approach a perspective manufacturer and discuss SELLING your invention without disclosing details of your invention. If someone is willing to buy your invention, you are relieved of subsequent legal burden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But before that, you may want to consider the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Can the manufacturer easily reverse-engineer your invention through mere look and general discussion?&#xD;&#xA;* Can the manufacturer easily achieve the same result using alternate methods (how crowded is the field, and can you get a very broad patent claim granted that encompasses all alternatives that you can imagine?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14116" RevisionGUID="21887b0a-c669-42da-8b2d-5d2c1e98309e" CreationDate="2015-12-23T03:49:59.430" UserId="15657" Text="I think the difference between the claim and prior arts are the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I) an on-chip event detector which is configured to detect an asynchronous on-chip event specified in the target program during execution of the target program; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II) trampoline code which is configured to invoke, in response to the event detected by the on-chip event detector, an application-level interrupt handler which handles an interrupt specified for the event by executing a specific portion of the target program;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;F) ... at least one pin variable... bound to one of the I/O pins... wherein ...  manipulation of each pin variable... configured as an output pin ... will cause a state of the output pin to change correspondingly, and examination of each pin variable ... configured as an input ... will cause a state of the input pin to be detected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So... the user application can specify some interrupt handler, and an on-chip event detector can detect pin change and automatically execute the interrupt handler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(II) trampoline code is well known. (F) pin interrupt service is well known. I don't know what event detector is or if it's well known.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A problem I see is that the claim describes a &quot;concept&quot; of a event detector having the ability to execute a particular statement in a user application, but doesn't really teach how it can be implemented." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14117" RevisionGUID="97cdfdce-2945-4a04-a592-7007ef2e584c" CreationDate="2015-12-23T07:33:59.090" UserId="15664" Text="This is a multiple part question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Besides patenting what steps should one take to protect an idea? Besides pictures, and documents with dates.&#xD;&#xA;2. If the idea of a product is what makes it new, does one need to necciserily submit designs?&#xD;&#xA;3. Is it really worth getting a professional to file a patent? (provisional)&#xD;&#xA;4. how does one weigh the risk of someonelse also stumbling across the same idea while also waiting to patent? In other words is it one of those things you should just do ASAP?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any feedback would be appreciated. &#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;B3ND3R" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34797" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14117" RevisionGUID="97cdfdce-2945-4a04-a592-7007ef2e584c" CreationDate="2015-12-23T07:33:59.090" UserId="15664" Text="Per-patent isuues" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34798" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14117" RevisionGUID="97cdfdce-2945-4a04-a592-7007ef2e584c" CreationDate="2015-12-23T07:33:59.090" UserId="15664" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;intellectual-property&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14119" RevisionGUID="5f58eac7-4fa4-49cc-8c9b-fe1552de7937" CreationDate="2015-12-23T09:57:27.987" UserId="10011" Text="&gt; 1. Besides patenting what steps should one take to protect an idea? Besides pictures, and documents with dates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are all sorts of protections out there, so it mostly depends on the type of invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like you already have the gist of what a patent is, but do keep in mind, you can't patent an *idea*, just an invention. That's a somewhat colloquial phrase in the patent world, and the words are similar in day-to-day English, but it's an important distinction to remember. Your idea has to have an actual implementation that enables others skilled in the art to perform it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there's not a lot you can do to really protect your invention that a patent won't do better. There's a classic myth of mailing yourself a description of the invention and leaving it sealed, but that doesn't hold up. At the end of the day, the United States works off a &quot;first to file&quot; system, so pretty much, the first to send in the application gets the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best way to protect your patentability is to file a non-provisional application (or a provisional if you either can't afford a non-provisional but will be able to soon, or if you aren't sure of what to claim yet).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And while the application is being drafted, avoid any public disclosures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. If the idea of a product is what makes it new, does one need to necciserily submit designs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nope, designs aren't required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*However,* I don't think I've ever seen a good application that didn't include them. Again, the point of a patent application is to enable others to perform your invention, and drawings are generally a really good way to assist with that. In many cases, an examiner will ask for drawings if you omit them, at which point you have to include them. But no, they aren't a legal requirement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Is it really worth getting a professional to file a patent? (provisional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First off, a provisional application is just that: an *application*. It never turns into a patent. If you want a patent, you have to file a non-provisional application. You can think of a provisional application as a way to announce to the USPTO that you intend to file a non-provisional. In exchange, they give you a year's time to figure out what exactly you want your patent to claim, and the ability to backdate that patent to the date you filed the provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, yes. The specification from your provisional will last through your non-provisional. While the specification isn't what will eventually protect your invention (the claims), it does have a significant impact on what you're allowed to include in your claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd definitely suggest using a professional's help for the non-provisional if you can only afford one of the two, but I have seen cases where inventors wrote their own provisionals, and ended up throwing them out, and losing the dates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. How does one weigh the risk of someonelse also stumbling across the same idea while also waiting to patent? In other words is it one of those things you should just do ASAP?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two reasons to wait to patent something:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You can't afford it&#xD;&#xA;* You are extremely unsure on what specifically you'll be patenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that you're asking these specific questions suggests to me that you're not stuck on either of those, so yes, I would suggest going for it ASAP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's always risk that someone else will file for the invention before you, but there's often no way to tell, as applications are, by default, held secret for eighteen months from the filing. So there's also a chance that you'll beat someone else to it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14117" RevisionGUID="cffce0b3-a8c0-4ce7-acee-f98642835990" CreationDate="2015-12-23T09:57:57.237" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 55 characters in body" Text="This is a multiple part question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Besides patenting what steps should one take to protect an idea? Besides pictures, and documents with dates.&#xD;&#xA;2. If the idea of a product is what makes it new, does one need to necciserily submit designs?&#xD;&#xA;3. Is it really worth getting a professional to file a patent? (provisional)&#xD;&#xA;4. How does one weigh the risk of someone else also stumbling across the same idea while also waiting to patent? In other words is it one of those things you should just do ASAP?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34803" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14117" RevisionGUID="cffce0b3-a8c0-4ce7-acee-f98642835990" CreationDate="2015-12-23T09:57:57.237" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 55 characters in body" Text="Preparing to file a patent application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34804" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14117" RevisionGUID="cffce0b3-a8c0-4ce7-acee-f98642835990" CreationDate="2015-12-23T09:57:57.237" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 55 characters in body" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14120" RevisionGUID="9987f5f7-6126-4ef4-8eb8-c95b07e8ba4d" CreationDate="2015-12-23T15:33:50.703" UserId="15503" Text="I believe the 2005 patent is quite different in scope from the 1990 patent. This is evident in the claims of the 2005 patent, which includes &quot;means for supporting a wing flexibly affixed to said body portion&quot;. In contrast, the 1990 patent makes no reference to wings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, the 1990 patent protected the claimed invention until it expired (around 2003 it seems). Once it expired, the invention of the 1990 patent became &quot;off patent&quot;, and was therefore free for anyone to use. Moreover, once off patent, could never be protected again. The 2005 patent appears to still be in force, but relates to a different invention from the 1990 one, so could not extend the protection initially given to the 1990 patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34806" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14107" RevisionGUID="c7b1ed62-88e7-44cc-a8e4-2f031558c5b6" CreationDate="2015-12-23T15:35:09.583" UserId="15503" Comment="Add patent number tag" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;us3281863&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34807" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14044" RevisionGUID="fcd2310b-c013-43c7-864c-786037a82155" CreationDate="2015-12-23T15:36:01.113" UserId="15503" Comment="Add patent number tag" Text="&lt;us4986791&gt;&lt;us7517271&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14121" RevisionGUID="bfa7de4b-2ba3-4634-8fc6-81d49cc9b6ee" CreationDate="2015-12-23T16:37:21.010" UserId="3739" Text="I wouldn't bother too much about this patent application. A quick look in Espacenet showed that it was not filed in any major country in the world (maybe only in South-Korea). Further, this is only a WO publication, which means that this application itself is not a granted patent.&#xD;&#xA;I should encourage you to look at the search report that was issued in this application. May be this search report cites some older patents (reasons of which the current applicants did not pursue their efforts). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14124" RevisionGUID="b828b4ee-2170-40a4-a055-3e41b2b43c0c" CreationDate="2015-12-24T20:42:47.383" UserId="15675" Text="Ex-Examiner is correct - it's a utility patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two main types of patents are design patents and utility patents. Design patents start with a 'D' in the number protect the ornamental design of an article of manufacture. They have a single claim that references the drawings (*e.g.,* The ornamental design of an XYZ as shown and described.&quot; The drawings typically show the same article from multiple perspectives and the specification is extremely short (often one page).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, utility patents typically have multiple claims, a long specification, and drawings that describe an invention in multiple ways. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The scope of protection of a design patent is defined by the drawings of the patent, whereas the scope of protection for a utility patent is defined by the wording of the claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14125" RevisionGUID="dd6a2cd9-5710-4660-a6d3-d2763a47c5a6" CreationDate="2015-12-24T20:53:22.520" UserId="15675" Text="It depends on the claims of the patent compared to what you are doing. If what you are doing reads on the claims, the the new product version would be covered. It's impossible to say for sure without seeing the claims and comparing them to the new version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mention that &quot;*The proposed changes won't in any way affect the operation or the process flow described in the patent.*&quot; However, keep in mind that it's the claims that define what's patented, not the drawings or descriptions. Those provide a guide to the claims, but are not ultimately controlling. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, it's possible that you have a process that matches some parts of the drawings and specification, but is not covered by the claims. Consider talking with your patent attorney about this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14126" RevisionGUID="28ba2e09-3e02-4049-96da-6e7738769c14" CreationDate="2015-12-25T21:59:45.347" UserId="13606" Text="Here in the UK, such a patent wouldn't be valid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  At IPO we do our best to ensure that the patents we grant are of the highest quality. It is possible that after grant some proof may be found that shows your invention was already known (called prior art). If this happens your patent will be invalid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Intellectual property – guidance, &#xD;&#xA;Before you apply for a patent](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/before-you-apply-for-a-patent), IPO, 5 Feb 2015" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14127" RevisionGUID="85e31d51-d5c0-44ce-90fd-08529e53bebc" CreationDate="2015-12-26T17:21:31.510" UserId="15681" Text="I'm making a research about some Patents, but i need them in German language!&#xD;&#xA;How i can get the translation of the Patents?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34826" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14127" RevisionGUID="85e31d51-d5c0-44ce-90fd-08529e53bebc" CreationDate="2015-12-26T17:21:31.510" UserId="15681" Text="How can I get a translation of patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34827" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14127" RevisionGUID="85e31d51-d5c0-44ce-90fd-08529e53bebc" CreationDate="2015-12-26T17:21:31.510" UserId="15681" Text="&lt;research&gt;&lt;translation&gt;&lt;language&gt;&lt;german&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14129" RevisionGUID="b2acdeb5-2c18-42fb-86e6-8285353c4af5" CreationDate="2015-12-29T08:32:20.397" UserId="15695" Text="Here is a way to identify patent attorneys active in specific technological areas and geographical regions: http://www.patent-pilot.com/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14131" RevisionGUID="516038db-1364-4fc6-865e-856850aa19b5" CreationDate="2015-12-29T14:50:15.613" UserId="105" Text="Patent applications are pending and not the same as issued patents. Applications can be rejected and are still considered pending until various deadlines for response to rejections have passed at which point an application becomes abandoned. However, an application that is abandoned may still be revived in some circumstances." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14132" RevisionGUID="1672d75d-f214-47c7-a80d-1dbdf727295a" CreationDate="2015-12-30T05:02:11.180" UserId="15675" Text="You can get a machine translation of the Abstract on Espacenet:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&amp;NR=6309010B1&amp;KC=B1&amp;FT=D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate would be my next suggestion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14133" RevisionGUID="1e73378c-44b3-44a7-9109-9091da13d698" CreationDate="2015-12-30T05:17:04.060" UserId="15675" Text="The document that you are referencing is just the patent application publication from the pending application. This application issued as US Pat. [US8280713B2][1] The claims from the issued patent are the ones that are enforceable and are much more narrow than the claims in the publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To determine whether possible infringement is present. See if your proposed product has all elements of the claims. For example, claim 1 is below. Claims 10 and 17 are the other independent claims, but also consider the dependent claims. Talk with an attorney to get a proper analysis if necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*1. A method for automatically creating compliance test suites for a processor, comprising the steps of:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*constructing a generic model set for a plurality of implementations of a processor architecture, said generic model set comprising one or more parametric models and being adapted to a model-based test generator, wherein said processor architecture specifies selectable options which, when selected, produce respective alternative behaviors of said implementations;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*establishing a deviation model that indicates a selection of at least one of the options, wherein said deviation model comprises a set of deviation parameters that are reflective of said one option, and wherein said parametric models are responsive to said deviation parameters of said deviation model so as to enable respective alternative behaviors of the implementations that embody the one option;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*based on said generic model set, establishing specific coverage model sets to correspond to said respective alternative behaviors of said implementations;&#xD;&#xA;responsively to said deviation model, modifying said generic model set and said coverage model sets by setting respective values of parameters for said parametric models and said coverage model sets;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*producing test specifications using said parametric models and said coverage model sets;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*submitting said test specifications to said test generator; and&#xD;&#xA;generating respective architectural compliance test suites for said implementations with said test generator using said test specifications, wherein said test generator is cooperative with said parametric models using said values to predict expected outcomes in an execution of said respective architectural compliance test suites by a simulator of said implementations.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8280713B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14134" RevisionGUID="cea85768-449e-4eb8-b50c-948ce95a0127" CreationDate="2015-12-30T05:28:17.553" UserId="15675" Text="First, make sure you are absolutely sure that infringement is present. The patent(s) must be issued and still enforceable and the product must include all elements of at least one of the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, consider where all the claimed (patented) steps are taking place. For example, if the server is in a jurisdiction without patent protection, then use of the app in a jurisdiction where patents are present might not actually be infringement if the key steps occur on the server side. In such cases, there might be still be contributory infringement though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Definitely talk with a patent attorney to determine whether infringement is indeed present and if so, whether there are ways to design around. Not an easy question to answer in a forum like this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14135" RevisionGUID="98a182c0-4638-4433-889b-548b8d0737cb" CreationDate="2015-12-30T05:35:05.097" UserId="15675" Text="Talk with a patent attorney before you even consider insurance like this. More likely than not, it's completely unnecessary and a waste of important capital that could be used in better places. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If infringement is a legitimate and real concern there are likely better (and cheaper) ways to handle it than getting insurance. For example, work with a patent attorney on a design-around or get a non-infringement opinion or invalidity opinion for the specific patent(s) in question. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14136" RevisionGUID="b3cd13a0-fc5c-4e8a-8c0f-9f90f5687a01" CreationDate="2015-12-30T05:44:13.967" UserId="15675" Text="Doubtful. Based on the claims (which are what determines the metes and bounds of patent protection and are what would be scrutinized under an Alice analysis), it seems like substantially more than just an a abstract idea or simple implementation on a general computing device, which were address in Alice.  For example, check out the independent claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Claim 1. A stimulation system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a display device;&#xD;&#xA;a user interface connected to said display device, said user interface causing an image to be displayed on said display device and outputting a control signal; and,&#xD;&#xA;a stimulation device receiving the control signal from the user interface, said stimulation device imparting stimulation to the user in response to the control signal.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Claim 8. A stimulation system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a hand-operable input device for generating a command signal in response to an input received from a first user;&#xD;&#xA;a first user interface connected to said input device, said first user interface generating a control signal based upon the command signal;&#xD;&#xA;a second user interface remotely located from said first user interface, said second user interface receiving the control signal; and,&#xD;&#xA;a stimulation device receiving the control signal from said second user interface, said stimulation device imparting stimulation to a second user in response to the control signal.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*17. A stimulation system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a first hand-operable input device for generating a first command signal in response to an input received from a first user;&#xD;&#xA;a first user interface connected to said first input device, said first user interface generating a first control signal based upon the first command signal and receiving a second control signal;&#xD;&#xA;a first stimulation device receiving the second control signal from said first user interface, said first stimulation device imparting stimulation to the first user in response to receiving the second control signal;&#xD;&#xA;a second input device for generating a second command signal in response to an input received from a second user;&#xD;&#xA;a second user interface remotely located from said first user interface, said second user interface receiving the first control signal and generating the second control signal based upon the second command signal; and,&#xD;&#xA;a second stimulation device receiving the first control signal from said second user interface, said second stimulation device imparting stimulation to the second user in response to the first control signal.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14137" RevisionGUID="f9e5b8d4-9351-4055-b09b-9d4795d24d4f" CreationDate="2015-12-30T05:49:03.267" UserId="15675" Text="File it with the initial filing. The fields for application number and anything else you don't have yet are optional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, if that makes you uncomfortable, file the application and then use the info from the electronic filing receipt (assuming you use EFS to file) to file the petition to make special the same day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14138" RevisionGUID="dedcfedf-e4c3-40d1-b029-f06c5f89c739" CreationDate="2015-12-30T05:56:50.537" UserId="15675" Text="The document you are referencing is a publication of a pending patent application. However, this application recently issued as US Pat. 9208462 B2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US9208462B2/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims define what is &quot;patented&quot; so you should look at them to determine what is &quot;different.&quot; (Claim 1 is reproduced below but also check out the other independent claims - 12 and 19)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to know what specific elements the Examiner found to be patentable (i.e. different), check out the application file history on the USPTO PAIR system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;receiving, by a processor, a plurality of marketing-mix variables through a display, each of the plurality of marketing-mix variables being associated with marketing strategies for one or more products,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;pre-modeling, by a processor, marketing data based on the received plurality of marketing-mix variables, the pre-modeling including,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;analyzing, by a processor, the plurality of marketing mix variables by performing exploratory data analysis (EDA), the EDA being based on univariate analysis in which conditional histograms are generated using Sturges formula to determine bin sizes for a range of the marketing data,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;generating, by a processor, at least one of a sales based response model and revenue based response model to identify contributory marketing-mix variables from among the plurality of marketing-mix variables that affect at least one of sales and revenue of the one or more products, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;analyzing, by a processor, the at least one of the sales based response model and the revenue based response model to determine individual contribution of each of the contributory marketing-mix variables towards at least one of the sales and the revenue of the one or more products;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;receiving, by a processor, through the display one or more parameters to be optimized along with optimization constraints;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;generating, by a processor, a new marketing-mix solution through multi-layered optimization using the determined individual contributions, the one or more parameters, and the optimization constraints, the multi-layered optimization being based on one or more algorithms selected from among at least one of genetic algorithms, simulated annealing, particle swarm optimization, and ant colony optimization; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;providing, by a processor, the new marketing-mix solution and a real-time tracking of the generation of the new marketing-mix solution, on the display." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14139" RevisionGUID="ffc8fa02-100f-4e28-8431-fc4124dc992c" CreationDate="2015-12-30T06:06:54.117" UserId="15675" Text="US20140206488 is a publication of a pending patent application that has not issued yet. It may issue as a patent. It may not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible that a patent Examiner might find the claims lack novelty and/or are obvious in light of this prior art or other prior art. However, look to the claim of the patent application to determine what the applications are actually trying to patent. The patent claims define the metes and bounds of what is protected - not the specification or drawings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, these claims are not issued, but at least give you a sense of what the applicants are going after. Claim 1 is reproduced below. (Keep in mind that these claims may change during examination and may be ultimately rejected by the Examiner.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A harmonic drive, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a housing;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a first gear, fixed to the housing, the first gear having a first number of internal teeth;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a second gear, engaged with the first gear, the second gear having a second number of external teeth, wherein the second number is different from the first number;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;an eccentric shaft, coupled to the second gear for driving the second gear to eccentrically rotate relative to the first gear; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a power outputting unit, coupled to the second gear for converting eccentric rotation of the second gear to rotary power." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14129" RevisionGUID="eef128aa-bb1a-4f6a-9070-a2e0e7356328" CreationDate="2015-12-30T09:18:16.313" UserId="10011" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="I work for a company that might be able to help. Here is a way to identify patent attorneys active in specific technological areas and geographical regions: http://www.patent-pilot.com/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14133" RevisionGUID="cf6fff5e-af98-4bc3-abac-8b5aff4326e4" CreationDate="2015-12-31T10:54:36.343" UserId="10011" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="The document that you are referencing is just the patent application publication from the pending application. This application issued as US Pat. [US8280713B2][1] The claims from the issued patent are the ones that are enforceable and are much more narrow than the claims in the publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To determine whether possible infringement is present. See if your proposed product has all elements of the claims. For example, claim 1 is below. Claims 10 and 17 are the other independent claims, but also consider the dependent claims. Talk with an attorney to get a proper analysis if necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for automatically creating compliance test suites for a processor, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  constructing a generic model set for a plurality of implementations of a processor architecture, said generic model set comprising one or more parametric models and being adapted to a model-based test generator, wherein said processor architecture specifies selectable options which, when selected, produce respective alternative behaviors of said implementations;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  establishing a deviation model that indicates a selection of at least one of the options, wherein said deviation model comprises a set of deviation parameters that are reflective of said one option, and wherein said parametric models are responsive to said deviation parameters of said deviation model so as to enable respective alternative behaviors of the implementations that embody the one option;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  based on said generic model set, establishing specific coverage model sets to correspond to said respective alternative behaviors of said implementations;&#xD;&#xA;responsively to said deviation model, modifying said generic model set and said coverage model sets by setting respective values of parameters for said parametric models and said coverage model sets;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  producing test specifications using said parametric models and said coverage model sets;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  submitting said test specifications to said test generator; and&#xD;&#xA;generating respective architectural compliance test suites for said implementations with said test generator using said test specifications, wherein said test generator is cooperative with said parametric models using said values to predict expected outcomes in an execution of said respective architectural compliance test suites by a simulator of said implementations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8280713B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14140" RevisionGUID="fd4d3deb-5daa-43cb-a3ba-cac7132f740d" CreationDate="2015-12-31T10:54:56.340" UserId="13884" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Happy hunting. Find filler text below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Title: Foam insulation/shading system for transparent structures. &#xD;&#xA;Assignee name:	Sunarc Of Canada Inc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HELP SAVE INDUSTRY THREATENED BY OVERLY BROAD US 7818924 B2 patent.&#xD;&#xA;Sunrac of Canada patent is:&#xD;&#xA;A periodically shieldable solar structure (10) comprises a cavity formed between a pair of light transmitting members (12). A foam insulation/shading system (14) is provided for periodically filling the cavity with degradable foam. The foam insulation/shading system (14) comprises a series of foam generators (28) mounted within the cavity and distributed to provide multiple foam generating points. The foam generators (28) are operatively coupled to a source of pressurized air and a source of foaming solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10 minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent or have it be declared invalid.&#xD;&#xA;FIG. 1 is a schematic perspective vieW of a loW pressure&#xD;&#xA;foam generation system used in the insulation and/ or shading&#xD;&#xA;of a greenhouse in accordance With one embodiment of the&#xD;&#xA;present invention; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you seen anything that was published before: Mar. 9, 2004. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This invention relates to a structure (typically a green house) that has as walls and roof an outside membrane and an inside membrane. The membranes are transparent and allows light to pass through. The outside and inside membranes form cavities or compartments into which foam is deposited to block the sunlight. After a while the foam turns into water and is replaced by new foam. This way the light that penetrates the structure can be controlled. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question -- one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: FOAM INSULATION/SHADING SYSTEM FOR TRANSPARENT STRUCTURES&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summary:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Foam insulation/Shading System is provided for the cavity With degradable foam. The foam insulation/shading system (14) comprises a series of foam generators (28) mounted Within the cavity and distributed there along to provide multiple foam generating points The foam generators (28) are operatively coupled to a source of pressurized air and a source of foaming solution. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication Number:Oct. 26, 2010 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;A periodically shieldable solar structure comprising at least one cavity formed between a pair of light transmitting members, &#xD;&#xA;and a foam insulation/shading system for periodically filling said at least one cavity with degradable foam, &#xD;&#xA;said foam insulation/shading system comprising an air supply pipe connected to a source of low-pressure air and extending along said at least one cavity, &#xD;&#xA;a foaming solution supply pipe connected to a source of foaming solution and extending along said at least one cavity, &#xD;&#xA;and a series of axially spaced-apart foam generators mounted within said at least one cavity and distributed therealong to provide multiple discrete points of mixture for the air and foaming solution as well as multiple foam outlet points within each single one of said at least one cavity, the foam generators being located in an upper end portion of the at least one cavity, &#xD;&#xA;the low pressure air and the foaming solution being separately supplied to said foam generators via said air supply pipe and said foaming solution supply pipe to locally produce the foam at each of said axially spaced-apart foam generators, each of the foam generators having a body defining a chamber, &#xD;&#xA;the chamber having an outlet provided with a screen, each foam generator further having an air inlet configured to provide for a flow of low-pressure air from the air supply pipe to the chamber and at least one nozzle connected to the foaming solution pipe for directly spraying the foaming solution onto an inner face of the screen such that foam is generated by the low-pressure air released through the screen, the axis of the at least one nozzle intersecting the screen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ](http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google patent link: http://www.google.com/patents/US7818924&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;USPTO link: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=7818924.PN.&amp;OS=PN/7818924&amp;RS=PN/7818924&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34855" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14140" RevisionGUID="fd4d3deb-5daa-43cb-a3ba-cac7132f740d" CreationDate="2015-12-31T10:54:56.340" UserId="13884" Text="Prior art request for issued patent U.S.7818924 B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34856" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14140" RevisionGUID="fd4d3deb-5daa-43cb-a3ba-cac7132f740d" CreationDate="2015-12-31T10:54:56.340" UserId="13884" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;us7818924&gt;&lt;b2&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14140" RevisionGUID="d1581461-9fd4-4c2a-a460-54c7277365ce" CreationDate="2015-12-31T12:13:29.630" UserId="1" Comment="Removed unnecessary opening" Text="Title: Foam insulation/shading system for transparent structures. &#xD;&#xA;Assignee name:	Sunarc Of Canada Inc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HELP SAVE INDUSTRY THREATENED BY OVERLY BROAD US 7818924 B2 patent.&#xD;&#xA;Sunrac of Canada patent is:&#xD;&#xA;A periodically shieldable solar structure (10) comprises a cavity formed between a pair of light transmitting members (12). A foam insulation/shading system (14) is provided for periodically filling the cavity with degradable foam. The foam insulation/shading system (14) comprises a series of foam generators (28) mounted within the cavity and distributed to provide multiple foam generating points. The foam generators (28) are operatively coupled to a source of pressurized air and a source of foaming solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10 minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent or have it be declared invalid.&#xD;&#xA;FIG. 1 is a schematic perspective vieW of a loW pressure&#xD;&#xA;foam generation system used in the insulation and/ or shading&#xD;&#xA;of a greenhouse in accordance With one embodiment of the&#xD;&#xA;present invention; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you seen anything that was published before: Mar. 9, 2004. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This invention relates to a structure (typically a green house) that has as walls and roof an outside membrane and an inside membrane. The membranes are transparent and allows light to pass through. The outside and inside membranes form cavities or compartments into which foam is deposited to block the sunlight. After a while the foam turns into water and is replaced by new foam. This way the light that penetrates the structure can be controlled. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question -- one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: FOAM INSULATION/SHADING SYSTEM FOR TRANSPARENT STRUCTURES&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summary:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Foam insulation/Shading System is provided for the cavity With degradable foam. The foam insulation/shading system (14) comprises a series of foam generators (28) mounted Within the cavity and distributed there along to provide multiple foam generating points The foam generators (28) are operatively coupled to a source of pressurized air and a source of foaming solution. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication Number:Oct. 26, 2010 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;A periodically shieldable solar structure comprising at least one cavity formed between a pair of light transmitting members, &#xD;&#xA;and a foam insulation/shading system for periodically filling said at least one cavity with degradable foam, &#xD;&#xA;said foam insulation/shading system comprising an air supply pipe connected to a source of low-pressure air and extending along said at least one cavity, &#xD;&#xA;a foaming solution supply pipe connected to a source of foaming solution and extending along said at least one cavity, &#xD;&#xA;and a series of axially spaced-apart foam generators mounted within said at least one cavity and distributed therealong to provide multiple discrete points of mixture for the air and foaming solution as well as multiple foam outlet points within each single one of said at least one cavity, the foam generators being located in an upper end portion of the at least one cavity, &#xD;&#xA;the low pressure air and the foaming solution being separately supplied to said foam generators via said air supply pipe and said foaming solution supply pipe to locally produce the foam at each of said axially spaced-apart foam generators, each of the foam generators having a body defining a chamber, &#xD;&#xA;the chamber having an outlet provided with a screen, each foam generator further having an air inlet configured to provide for a flow of low-pressure air from the air supply pipe to the chamber and at least one nozzle connected to the foaming solution pipe for directly spraying the foaming solution onto an inner face of the screen such that foam is generated by the low-pressure air released through the screen, the axis of the at least one nozzle intersecting the screen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ](http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google patent link: http://www.google.com/patents/US7818924&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;USPTO link: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=7818924.PN.&amp;OS=PN/7818924&amp;RS=PN/7818924&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14141" RevisionGUID="b9a56959-8cad-4379-b18e-19058fb1eceb" CreationDate="2015-12-31T12:15:27.277" UserId="15707" Text="How can the XML (or its ZIP file) for a USPTO number be downloaded? Can this be done programmatically (API) and/or manually?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The weekly releases (ca 6000 entries) contain the type of information I want but not for a specific number.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34859" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14141" RevisionGUID="b9a56959-8cad-4379-b18e-19058fb1eceb" CreationDate="2015-12-31T12:15:27.277" UserId="15707" Text="downloading XML for USPTO patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34860" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14141" RevisionGUID="b9a56959-8cad-4379-b18e-19058fb1eceb" CreationDate="2015-12-31T12:15:27.277" UserId="15707" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;xml&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14141" RevisionGUID="6f453d58-f3f8-41b5-ba58-0b369e2dec99" CreationDate="2015-12-31T12:20:47.470" UserId="15707" Comment="added 142 characters in body" Text="How can the XML (or its ZIP file) for a USPTO number (e.g. `8978162` be downloaded? Can this be done programmatically (API) and/or manually?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The weekly releases (ca 6000 entries) contain the type of information I want but not for a specific number.) Thus the entry for `8978162` is vound in the weekly release as `I20150317/UTIL08978/US08978162-20150317/US08978162-20150317.XML`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14142" RevisionGUID="fe2389fa-c9bd-4980-9481-44f1ae179a96" CreationDate="2015-12-31T13:39:49.863" UserId="14417" Text="Google is the clearing house for USPTO XML, via their [Bulk Downloads][2] site. The [Grant Full Text][3] is probably what you're looking for. The only company (that I am aware of) that offers full text XML on a per-patent basis via an API is Fairview Research (paid service with non-distribution of XML source), and they are also the source of the [Public Pair][4] (legal events/status) data for Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IBM, DEC, MicroPatents and now Google have all had (at some point) free USPTO patent text available, but not in a way as to have a useful free API available. They have all eventually sought to monetize the services, and it is no secret that Google has its own motives for the USPTO partnership ([1][5], [2][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before the Google-USPTO arrangement, the XML could be purchased and downloaded from the USPTO, but it was cost-prohibitive (about $12,000/year IIRC), so I used to resort to screen-scraping their broken HTML and normalizing to XML (non-trivial). With the bulk downloads freely available, the situation is much better (as least there is a free path to the XML), however you will still need to download the huge ZIP files, extract/parse, etc. It is possible to write a wrapper around the site to perform this; of course with the corresponding penalties of bandwidth and drive space it does not lend itself to an interactive experience for an end-user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe you already have the optimal (free) solution worked out, and this is the approach I have taken with my non-funded patent search projects. However, on my funded project I went with a paid developer API so I would have the current legal events and perform one-off retrievals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/10/16/obama-nominates-former-google-exec-to-lead-u-s-patent-office/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto-patents-grants-text.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/05/03/google-collects-patents-while-lobbying-against-them/id=57302/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14142" RevisionGUID="49da7b35-bb62-4741-abcc-a53ab95f0d6c" CreationDate="2015-12-31T13:46:20.300" UserId="14417" Comment="Added some additional information." Text="Google is the clearing house for USPTO XML, via their [Bulk Downloads][1] site. The [Grant Full Text][2] is probably what you're looking for. The only company (that I am aware of) that offers full text XML on a per-patent basis via an API is Fairview Research (paid service with non-distribution of XML source), and they are also the source of the [Public Pair][3] (legal events/status) data for Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IBM, DEC, MicroPatents and now Google have all had (at some point) free USPTO patent text available, but not in a way as to have a useful free API available. They have all eventually sought to monetize the services, and it is no secret that Google has its own motives for the USPTO partnership ([1][4], [2][5]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before the Google-USPTO arrangement, the XML could be purchased and downloaded (again, in bulk form) from the USPTO, but it was cost-prohibitive (about $12,000/year IIRC), so I used to resort to screen-scraping their broken HTML and normalizing to XML (non-trivial). With the bulk downloads freely available, the situation is much better (as least there is a free path to the XML), however you will still need to download the huge ZIP files, extract/parse, etc. It is possible to write a wrapper around the site to perform this; of course with the corresponding penalties of bandwidth and drive space it does not lend itself to an interactive experience for an end-user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe you already have the optimal *free* solution worked out, and this is the approach I have taken with my non-funded patent search projects. However, on my funded project I went with a paid developer API so I would have the current legal events and perform one-off retrievals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also note the following resources, which provide the schemas and descriptions of the XML available from the USPTO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [XML Resources][6]&#xD;&#xA; - [Issued Patents (Patent Grants) Data Products][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to 1976, only the patent metadata is available in a structured form. Everything before that relies on uncorrected OCR scans, and coverage is very spotty. It is a dark area for patent text. Also, the XML for applications is only available from 2001 forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto-patents-grants-text.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/05/03/google-collects-patents-while-lobbying-against-them/id=57302/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/10/16/obama-nominates-former-google-exec-to-lead-u-s-patent-office/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/xml-resources&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/electronic-data-products/issued-patents-patent-grants-data-products" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14142" RevisionGUID="c2b6881e-a601-4240-8c07-9a36437d3845" CreationDate="2015-12-31T13:59:08.997" UserId="14417" Comment="Added some additional information." Text="Google is the clearing house for USPTO XML, via their [Bulk Downloads][1] site. The [Grant Full Text][2] is probably what you're looking for. The only company (that I am aware of) that offers full text XML on a per-patent basis via an API is Fairview Research (paid service with non-distribution of XML source), and they are also the source of the [Public Pair][3] (legal events/status) data for Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IBM, DEC, MicroPatents and now Google have all had (at some point) free USPTO patent text available, but not in a way as to have a useful free API available. They have all eventually sought to monetize the services, and it is no secret that Google has its own motives for the USPTO partnership ([1][4], [2][5]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before the Google-USPTO arrangement, the XML could be purchased and downloaded (again, in bulk form) from the USPTO, but it was cost-prohibitive (about $12,000/year IIRC), so I used to resort to screen-scraping their broken HTML and normalizing to XML (non-trivial). With the bulk downloads freely available, the situation is much better (as least there is a free path to the XML), however you will still need to download the huge ZIP files, extract/parse, etc. It is possible to write a wrapper around the site to perform this; of course with the corresponding penalties of bandwidth and drive space it does not lend itself to an interactive experience for an end-user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to 1976, only the patent metadata is available in a structured form. Everything before that relies on uncorrected OCR scans, and coverage is very spotty. It is a dark area for patent text. Also, the XML for applications is only available from 2001 forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe you already have the optimal *free* solution worked out, and this is the approach I have taken with my non-funded patent search projects. However, on my funded project I went with a paid developer API so I would have the current legal events and perform one-off retrievals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also note the following resources, which provide the schemas and descriptions of the XML available from the USPTO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [XML Resources][6]&#xD;&#xA; - [Issued Patents (Patent Grants) Data Products][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might have some luck with the [European Patent Office][8] [Open Patent Services][9], which does provide download access (maximum volume of 2.5 GB per week free-of-charge). However, I've found their APIs to be somewhat unreliable and slow, and they discontinued several of the services I was using in 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto-patents-grants-text.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/05/03/google-collects-patents-while-lobbying-against-them/id=57302/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/10/16/obama-nominates-former-google-exec-to-lead-u-s-patent-office/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/xml-resources&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/electronic-data-products/issued-patents-patent-grants-data-products&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.epo.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.epo.org/searching/free/ops.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14141" RevisionGUID="bf9b7d2f-615e-451b-b37a-df6ff8a9cf26" CreationDate="2015-12-31T14:44:20.483" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected spelling and grammar." Text="How can the XML (or its ZIP file) for a USPTO number (e.g. `8978162`) be downloaded? Can this be done programmatically (API) and/or manually?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The weekly releases (ca 6,000 entries) contain the type of information I want but not for a specific number. Thus the entry for `8978162` is found in the weekly release as `I20150317/UTIL08978/US08978162-20150317/US08978162-20150317.XML`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34866" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14141" RevisionGUID="bf9b7d2f-615e-451b-b37a-df6ff8a9cf26" CreationDate="2015-12-31T14:44:20.483" UserId="14417" Comment="Corrected spelling and grammar." Text="Downloading XML for USPTO patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14142" RevisionGUID="21cd152e-2b85-419b-8769-038b6ea817f2" CreationDate="2015-12-31T14:52:36.400" UserId="14417" Comment="Added a note on identifiers." Text="Google is the clearing house for USPTO XML, via their [Bulk Downloads][1] site. The [Grant Full Text][2] is probably what you're looking for. The only company (that I am aware of) that offers full text XML on a per-patent basis via an API is Fairview Research (paid service with non-distribution of XML source), and they are also the source of the [Public Pair][3] (legal events/status) data for Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IBM, DEC, MicroPatents and now Google have all had (at some point) free USPTO patent text available, but not in a way as to have a useful free API available. They have all eventually sought to monetize the services, and it is no secret that Google has its own motives for the USPTO partnership ([1][4], [2][5]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before the Google-USPTO arrangement, the XML could be purchased and downloaded (again, in bulk form) from the USPTO, but it was cost-prohibitive (about $12,000/year IIRC), so I used to resort to screen-scraping their broken HTML and normalizing to XML (non-trivial). With the bulk downloads freely available, the situation is much better (as least there is a free path to the XML), however you will still need to download the huge ZIP files, extract/parse, etc. It is possible to write a wrapper around the site to perform this; of course with the corresponding penalties of bandwidth and drive space it does not lend itself to an interactive experience for an end-user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to 1976, only the patent metadata is available in a structured form. Everything before that relies on uncorrected OCR scans, and coverage is very spotty. It is a dark area for patent text. Also, the XML for applications is only available from 2001 forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe you already have the optimal *free* solution worked out, and this is the approach I have taken with my non-funded patent search projects. However, on my funded project I went with a paid developer API so I would have the current legal events and perform one-off retrievals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also note the following resources, which provide the schemas and descriptions of the XML available from the USPTO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [XML Resources][6]&#xD;&#xA; - [Issued Patents (Patent Grants) Data Products][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might have some luck with the [European Patent Office][8] [Open Patent Services][9], which does provide download access (maximum volume of 2.5 GB per week free-of-charge). However, I've found their APIs to be somewhat unreliable and slow, and they discontinued several of the services I was using in 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I want to note a common misconception in patent identifiers as they relate to individual documents. The number you mention ('8978162') is indeed the patent number, but a full unique identifier for the document also comprises the patent authority ('US' in this case) and the *kind code* (the document type), ('B2' in this case, which indicates a Patent Grant). The codes have changed several times in the past (older grants have a kind code of 'A' and new applications have a kind code of 'A1'). Therefore, to uniquely identify a document, the full identifier for the document should take a form like 'US-8978162-B2'. This will save you from refactoring/reindexing headaches the first time you need to work with a different type of publication (e.g., application, re-issue, correction, design, plant) or patent authority (e.g., EP, CA, AU).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto-patents-grants-text.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/05/03/google-collects-patents-while-lobbying-against-them/id=57302/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/10/16/obama-nominates-former-google-exec-to-lead-u-s-patent-office/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/xml-resources&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/electronic-data-products/issued-patents-patent-grants-data-products&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.epo.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.epo.org/searching/free/ops.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14142" RevisionGUID="b2ae204e-0ad1-4d92-8aa8-59faabb6f9b3" CreationDate="2015-12-31T15:46:02.010" UserId="14417" Comment="Added references." Text="Google is the clearing house for USPTO XML, via their [Bulk Downloads][1] site. The [Grant Full Text][2] is probably what you're looking for. The only company (that I am aware of) that offers full text XML on a per-patent basis via an API is Fairview Research (paid service with non-distribution of XML source), and they are also the source of the [Public Pair][3] (legal events/status) data for Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IBM, DEC, MicroPatents and now Google have all had (at some point) free USPTO patent text available, but not in a way as to have a useful free API available. They have all eventually sought to monetize the services, and it is no secret that Google has its own motives for the USPTO partnership ([1][4], [2][5]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before the Google-USPTO arrangement, the XML could be purchased and downloaded (again, in bulk form) from the USPTO, but it was cost-prohibitive (about $12,000/year IIRC), so I used to resort to screen-scraping their broken HTML and normalizing to XML (non-trivial). With the bulk downloads freely available, the situation is much better (as least there is a free path to the XML), however you will still need to download the huge ZIP files, extract/parse, etc. It is possible to write a wrapper around the site to perform this; of course with the corresponding penalties of bandwidth and drive space it does not lend itself to an interactive experience for an end-user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to 1976, only the patent metadata is available in a structured form. Everything before that relies on uncorrected OCR scans, and coverage is very spotty. It is a dark area for patent text. Also, the XML for applications is only available from 2001 forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe you already have the optimal *free* solution worked out, and this is the approach I have taken with my non-funded patent search projects. However, on my funded project I went with a paid developer API so I would have the current legal events and perform one-off retrievals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also note the following resources, which provide the schemas and descriptions of the XML available from the USPTO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [XML Resources][6]&#xD;&#xA; - [Issued Patents (Patent Grants) Data Products][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might have some luck with the [European Patent Office][8] [Open Patent Services][9], which does provide download access (maximum volume of 2.5 GB per week free-of-charge). However, I've found their APIs to be somewhat unreliable and slow, and they discontinued several of the services I was using in 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I want to note a common misconception in patent identifiers as they relate to individual documents. The number you mention ('8978162') is indeed the patent number, but a full unique identifier for the document also comprises the patent authority ('US' in this case) and the *kind code* (the document type), ('B2' in this case, which indicates a Patent Grant). The codes have changed several times in the past (older grants have a kind code of 'A' and new applications have a kind code of 'A1'). Therefore, to uniquely identify a document, the full identifier for the document should take a form like 'US-8978162-B2'. This will save you from refactoring/reindexing headaches the first time you need to work with a different type of publication (e.g., application, re-issue, correction, design, plant) or patent authority (e.g., EP, CA, AU). Also refer to this [write-up on patent families][10] and an example of how the [Kind Code][11] is used to differentiate related documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto-patents-grants-text.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/05/03/google-collects-patents-while-lobbying-against-them/id=57302/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/10/16/obama-nominates-former-google-exec-to-lead-u-s-patent-office/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/xml-resources&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/electronic-data-products/issued-patents-patent-grants-data-products&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.epo.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.epo.org/searching/free/ops.html&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/10617/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/13267/14417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14142" RevisionGUID="48b0da61-d731-48a2-94c0-c4823475a82b" CreationDate="2015-12-31T16:08:36.037" UserId="14417" Comment="Added references." Text="Google is the clearing house for USPTO XML, via their [Bulk Downloads][1] site. The [Grant Full Text][2] is probably what you're looking for. The only company (that I am aware of) that offers full text XML on a per-patent basis via an API is Fairview Research (paid service with non-distribution of XML source), and they are also the source of the [Public Pair][3] (legal events/status) data for Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IBM, DEC, MicroPatents and now Google have all had (at some point) free USPTO patent text available, but not in a way as to have a useful free API available. They have all eventually sought to monetize the services, and it is no secret that Google has its own motives for the USPTO partnership ([Jun 2010][4], [May 2011][5], [Oct 2014][6], [Feb 2015][7], [May 2015][8], [Jun 2015][9]). Do not hold your breath if you are waiting for an API. There used to be a &quot;[Developer API][10]&quot; but it was limited to integration of Google Patent content into a web site and was deprecated in 2011 (exactly 12 months after they obtained the USPTO hosting deal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before the Google-USPTO arrangement, the XML could be purchased and downloaded (again, in bulk form) from the USPTO, but it was cost-prohibitive (about $12,000/year IIRC), so I used to resort to screen-scraping their broken HTML and normalizing to XML (non-trivial). With the bulk downloads freely available, the situation is much better (as least there is a free path to the XML), however you will still need to download the huge ZIP files, extract/parse, etc. It is possible to write a wrapper around the site to perform this; of course with the corresponding penalties of bandwidth and drive space it does not lend itself to an interactive experience for an end-user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to 1976, only the patent metadata is available in a structured form. Everything before that relies on uncorrected OCR scans, and coverage is very spotty. It is a dark area for patent text. Also, the XML for applications is only available from 2001 forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe you already have the optimal *free* solution worked out, and this is the approach I have taken with my non-funded patent search projects. However, on my funded project I went with a paid developer API so I would have the current legal events and perform one-off retrievals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also note the following resources, which provide the schemas and descriptions of the XML available from the USPTO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [XML Resources][11]&#xD;&#xA; - [Issued Patents (Patent Grants) Data Products][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might have some luck with the [European Patent Office][13] [Open Patent Services][14], which does provide download access (maximum volume of 2.5 GB per week free-of-charge). However, I've found their APIs to be somewhat unreliable and slow, and they discontinued several of the services I was using in 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I want to note a common misconception in patent identifiers as they relate to individual documents. The number you mention ('8978162') is indeed the patent number, but a full unique identifier for the document also comprises the patent authority ('US' in this case) and the *kind code* (the document type), ('B2' in this case, which indicates a Patent Grant). The codes have changed several times in the past (older grants have a kind code of 'A' and new applications have a kind code of 'A1'). Therefore, to uniquely identify a document, the full identifier for the document should take a form like 'US-8978162-B2'. This will save you from refactoring/reindexing headaches the first time you need to work with a different type of publication (e.g., application, re-issue, correction, design, plant) or patent authority (e.g., EP, CA, AU). Also refer to this [write-up on patent families][15] and an example of how the [Kind Code][16] is used to differentiate related documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related resources (I will add to this as I find them):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Python module for searching patent databases, ie USPTO or EPO][17]&#xD;&#xA; - [Obtaining Patent Data: Patent Databases][18]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto-patents-grants-text.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-teams-google-provide-bulk-patent-and-trademark-data-public&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.infoq.com/news/2011/05/deprecated-google-apis&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/10/16/obama-nominates-former-google-exec-to-lead-u-s-patent-office/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/5/patent-law-reform-bill-to-stop-trolls-could-stifle/?page=all&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/05/03/google-collects-patents-while-lobbying-against-them/id=57302/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/243943-patent-legislation-will-destroy-inventive-small-businesses&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://developers.google.com/patent-search/?hl=en&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/xml-resources&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/electronic-data-products/issued-patents-patent-grants-data-products&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.epo.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://www.epo.org/searching/free/ops.html&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/10617/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/13267/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://stackoverflow.com/a/20133916/2074605&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://poldham.github.io/Patent-Databases/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14142" RevisionGUID="eae7c993-2352-4793-ba5c-c8e8e7fcf798" CreationDate="2015-12-31T16:49:27.717" UserId="14417" Comment="Revised references." Text="Google is the clearing house for USPTO XML, via their [Bulk Downloads][1] site. The [Grant Full Text][2] is probably what you're looking for. The only company (that I am aware of) that currently offers full text XML on a per-patent basis via an API is Fairview Research (paid service with non-distribution of XML source), and they are also the source of the [Public Pair][3] (legal events/status) data for Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IBM, DEC, MicroPatents and now Google have all had (at some point) free USPTO patent text available, but not in a way as to have a useful free API available. They have all eventually sought to monetize the services (usually selling them off to another company as a hot potato), and it is no secret that Google has non-altruistic motives for the USPTO partnership ([Jun 2010][4], [May 2011][5], [Aug 2012][6], [Sep 2012][7], [Nov 2013][8], [Oct 2014][9], [Feb 2015][10], [May 2015][11], [Jun 2015][12]). There used to be a &quot;[Developer API][13]&quot; but it was limited to integration of Google Patent content into a web site and was deprecated in 2011 (exactly 12 months after they obtained the USPTO hosting deal). This paragraph may seem overly cynical, but this is the story I have seen unfold over the past 5 years, and this is why I am not holding my breath for a developer-friendly API. My interpretation of the above trend is that they have no interest in making it easy for third-party developers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, before the Google-USPTO arrangement, the XML had to be purchased and downloaded (again, in bulk form) from the USPTO, but it was cost-prohibitive (about $12,000/year IIRC), so I (and many others, [including Google][14]) used to resort to screen-scraping their broken HTML and normalizing to XML (non-trivial). With the bulk downloads freely available, the situation is much better (as least there is a free path to the XML), however you will still need to download the huge ZIP files, extract/parse, etc. It is possible to write a wrapper around the site to perform this; of course with the corresponding penalties of bandwidth and drive space it does not lend itself to an interactive experience for an end-user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to 1976, only the patent metadata is available in a structured form. Everything before that relies on uncorrected OCR scans, and coverage is very spotty. It is a dark area for patent text. Also, the XML for applications is only available from 2001 forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe you already have the optimal *free* solution worked out, and this is the approach I have taken with my non-funded patent search projects. However, on my funded project I went with a paid developer API so I would have the current legal events and perform one-off retrievals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also note the following resources, which provide the schemas and descriptions of the XML available from the USPTO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [XML Resources][15]&#xD;&#xA; - [Issued Patents (Patent Grants) Data Products][16]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might have some luck with the [European Patent Office][17] [Open Patent Services][18], which does provide download access (maximum volume of 2.5 GB per week free-of-charge). However, I've found their APIs to be somewhat unreliable and slow, and they discontinued several of the services I was using in 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I want to note a common misconception in patent identifiers as they relate to individual documents. The number you mention ('8978162') is indeed the patent number, but a full unique identifier for the document also comprises the patent authority ('US' in this case) and the *kind code* (the document type), ('B2' in this case, which indicates a Patent Grant). The codes have changed several times in the past (older grants have a kind code of 'A' and new applications have a kind code of 'A1'). Therefore, to uniquely identify a document, the full identifier for the document should take a form like 'US-8978162-B2'. This will save you from refactoring/reindexing headaches the first time you need to work with a different type of publication (e.g., application, re-issue, correction, design, plant) or patent authority (e.g., EP, CA, AU). Also refer to this [write-up on patent families][19] and an example of how the [Kind Code][20] is used to differentiate related documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related resources (I will add to this as I find them):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Python module for searching patent databases, ie USPTO or EPO][21]&#xD;&#xA; - [Obtaining Patent Data: Patent Databases][22]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto-patents-grants-text.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-teams-google-provide-bulk-patent-and-trademark-data-public&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.infoq.com/news/2011/05/deprecated-google-apis&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.cnet.com/news/google-time-to-ditch-our-current-software-patent-system/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.droid-life.com/2012/09/12/google-vp-we-werent-investing-in-the-patent-ecosystem-like-we-should-have-been/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/12/11/michelle-lee-named-uspto-deputy-director-will-serve-as-acting-director/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/10/16/obama-nominates-former-google-exec-to-lead-u-s-patent-office/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/5/patent-law-reform-bill-to-stop-trolls-could-stifle/?page=all&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/05/03/google-collects-patents-while-lobbying-against-them/id=57302/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/243943-patent-legislation-will-destroy-inventive-small-businesses&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://developers.google.com/patent-search/?hl=en&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/12/28/uspto-catastrophic-failure-electronic-patent-and-trademark-systems/id=64200/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/xml-resources&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/electronic-data-products/issued-patents-patent-grants-data-products&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.epo.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://www.epo.org/searching/free/ops.html&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/10617/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/13267/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://stackoverflow.com/a/20133916/2074605&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://poldham.github.io/Patent-Databases/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14142" RevisionGUID="eda878ac-4b00-4d27-9ad8-2db39e5591f5" CreationDate="2015-12-31T16:56:47.633" UserId="14417" Comment="Revised references." Text="Google is the clearing house for USPTO XML, via their [Bulk Downloads][1] site. The [Grant Full Text][2] is probably what you're looking for. The only company (that I am aware of) that currently offers full text XML on a per-patent basis via an API is Fairview Research (paid service with non-distribution of XML source), and they are also the source of the [Public Pair][3] (legal events/status) data for Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IBM, DEC, MicroPatents and now Google have all had (at some point) free USPTO patent text available, but not in a way as to have a useful free API available. They have all eventually sought to monetize the services (usually selling them off to another company as a hot potato), and it is no secret that Google has non-altruistic motives for the USPTO partnership ([Jun 2010][4], [May 2011][5], [Aug 2012][6], [Sep 2012][7], [Nov 2013][8], [Oct 2014][9], [Feb 2015][10], [May 2015][11], [Jun 2015][12]). There used to be a &quot;[Developer API][13]&quot; but it was limited to integration of Google Patent content into a web site and was deprecated in 2011 (exactly 12 months after they obtained the USPTO hosting deal). This paragraph may seem overly cynical, but this is the story I have seen unfold over the past 5 years, and this is why I am not holding my breath for a developer-friendly API from Google. My interpretation of the above trend is that they have no interest in making it easy for third-party developers, but you're welcome to draw your own conclusions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, before the Google-USPTO arrangement, the XML had to be purchased and downloaded (again, in bulk form) from the USPTO, but it was cost-prohibitive (about $12,000/year IIRC), so I (and many others, [including Google][14]) used to resort to screen-scraping their broken HTML and normalizing to XML (non-trivial). With the bulk downloads freely available, the situation is much better (as least there is a free path to the XML), however you will still need to download the huge ZIP files, extract/parse, etc. It is possible to write a wrapper around the site to perform this; of course with the corresponding penalties of bandwidth and drive space it does not lend itself to an interactive experience for an end-user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to 1976, only the patent metadata is available in a structured form. Everything before that relies on uncorrected OCR scans, and coverage is very spotty. It is a dark area for patent text. Also, the XML for applications is only available from 2001 forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe you already have the optimal *free* solution worked out, and this is the approach I have taken with my non-funded patent search projects. However, under the right circumstances you might also consider the API from Fairview if you need current legal events and one-off XML retrievals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also note the following resources, which provide the schemas and descriptions of the XML available from the USPTO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [XML Resources][15]&#xD;&#xA; - [Issued Patents (Patent Grants) Data Products][16]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might have some luck with the [European Patent Office][17] [Open Patent Services][18], which does provide download access (maximum volume of 2.5 GB per week free-of-charge). However, I've found their APIs to be somewhat unreliable and slow, and they discontinued several of the services I was using in 2014. I ditched OPS out of frustration, but maybe its time to reconsider it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I want to note a common misconception in patent identifiers as they relate to individual documents. The number you mention ('8978162') is indeed the patent number, but a full unique identifier for the document also comprises the patent authority ('US' in this case) and the *kind code* (the document type), ('B2' in this case, which indicates a Patent Grant). The codes have changed several times in the past (older grants have a kind code of 'A' and new applications have a kind code of 'A1'). Therefore, to uniquely identify a document, the full identifier for the document should take a form like 'US-8978162-B2'. This will save you from refactoring/reindexing headaches the first time you need to work with a different type of publication (e.g., application, re-issue, correction, design, plant) or patent authority (e.g., EP, CA, AU). Also refer to this [write-up on patent families][19] and an example of how the [Kind Code][20] is used to differentiate related documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related resources (I will add to this as I find them):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Python module for searching patent databases, ie USPTO or EPO][21]&#xD;&#xA; - [Obtaining Patent Data: Patent Databases][22]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto-patents-grants-text.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-teams-google-provide-bulk-patent-and-trademark-data-public&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.infoq.com/news/2011/05/deprecated-google-apis&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.cnet.com/news/google-time-to-ditch-our-current-software-patent-system/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.droid-life.com/2012/09/12/google-vp-we-werent-investing-in-the-patent-ecosystem-like-we-should-have-been/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/12/11/michelle-lee-named-uspto-deputy-director-will-serve-as-acting-director/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/10/16/obama-nominates-former-google-exec-to-lead-u-s-patent-office/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/5/patent-law-reform-bill-to-stop-trolls-could-stifle/?page=all&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/05/03/google-collects-patents-while-lobbying-against-them/id=57302/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/243943-patent-legislation-will-destroy-inventive-small-businesses&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://developers.google.com/patent-search/?hl=en&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/12/28/uspto-catastrophic-failure-electronic-patent-and-trademark-systems/id=64200/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/xml-resources&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/electronic-data-products/issued-patents-patent-grants-data-products&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.epo.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://www.epo.org/searching/free/ops.html&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/10617/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/13267/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://stackoverflow.com/a/20133916/2074605&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://poldham.github.io/Patent-Databases/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14142" RevisionGUID="c33f8423-fc13-4d19-8d81-6049cfd9f93e" CreationDate="2015-12-31T17:08:01.003" UserId="14417" Comment="Minor edits." Text="Google is the clearing house for USPTO XML, via their [Bulk Downloads][1] site. The [Grant Full Text][2] is probably what you're looking for. The only company (that I am aware of) that currently offers full text XML on a per-patent basis via an API is Fairview Research (paid service with non-redistribution of XML source), and they are also the source of the [Public Pair][3] (legal events/status) data for Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IBM, DEC, MicroPatents and now Google have all had (at some point) free USPTO patent text available, but not in a way as to have a useful free API available. They have all eventually sought to monetize the services (usually selling them off to another company as a hot potato), and it is no secret that Google has non-altruistic motives for the USPTO partnership ([Jun 2010][4], [May 2011][5], [Aug 2012][6], [Sep 2012][7], [Nov 2013][8], [Oct 2014][9], [Feb 2015][10], [May 2015][11], [Jun 2015][12]). There used to be a &quot;[Developer API][13]&quot; but it was limited to integration of Google Patent content into a web site and was deprecated in 2011 (exactly 12 months after they obtained the USPTO hosting deal). This paragraph may seem overly cynical, but this is the story I have seen unfold over the past 5 years, and this is why I am not holding my breath for a developer-friendly API from Google. My interpretation of the above trend is that they have no interest in making it easy for third-party developers, but you're welcome to draw your own conclusions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, before the Google-USPTO arrangement, the XML had to be purchased and downloaded (again, in bulk form) from the USPTO, but it was cost-prohibitive (about $12,000/year IIRC), so I (and many others, [including Google][14]) used to resort to screen-scraping their broken HTML and normalizing to XML or other structured formats (non-trivial). With the bulk downloads freely available, the situation is much better than it was a few years ago (as least there is a free &quot;nearly Open&quot; path to the XML), however you will still need to download the huge ZIP files, extract/parse, etc. It is possible to write a wrapper around the site to perform this; of course with the corresponding penalties of bandwidth and drive space it does not lend itself to an interactive experience for an end-user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to 1976, only the patent metadata is available in a structured form. Everything before that relies on uncorrected OCR scans, and coverage is very spotty. It is a dark area for patent text. Also, the XML for applications is only available from 2001 forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe you already have the optimal *free* solution worked out, and this is the approach I have taken with several of my own projects. However, under the right circumstances you might also consider the API from Fairview if you need current legal events and one-off XML retrievals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also note the following resources, which provide the schemas and descriptions of the XML available from the USPTO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [XML Resources][15]&#xD;&#xA; - [Issued Patents (Patent Grants) Data Products][16]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might have some luck with the [European Patent Office][17] [Open Patent Services][18], which does provide download access (maximum volume of 2.5 GB per week free-of-charge). However, I've found their APIs to be somewhat unreliable and slow, and they discontinued several of the services I was using in 2014. I ditched OPS out of frustration (would have required a complete re-write of my code), but maybe its time to reconsider it. YMMV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I want to note a common misconception in patent identifiers as they relate to individual documents. The number you mention ('8978162') is indeed the patent number, but a full unique identifier for the document also comprises the patent authority ('US' in this case) and the *kind code* (the document type), ('B2' in this case, which indicates a Patent Grant). The codes have changed several times in the past (older grants have a kind code of 'A' and new applications have a kind code of 'A1'). Therefore, to uniquely identify a document, the full identifier for the document should take a form like 'US-8978162-B2'. This will save you from refactoring/reindexing headaches the first time you need to work with a different type of publication (e.g., application, re-issue, correction, design, plant) or patent authority (e.g., EP, CA, AU). Also refer to this [write-up on patent families][19] and an example of how the [Kind Code][20] is used to differentiate related documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related resources (I will add to this as I find them):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Python module for searching patent databases, ie USPTO or EPO][21]&#xD;&#xA; - [Obtaining Patent Data: Patent Databases][22]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto-patents-grants-text.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-teams-google-provide-bulk-patent-and-trademark-data-public&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.infoq.com/news/2011/05/deprecated-google-apis&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.cnet.com/news/google-time-to-ditch-our-current-software-patent-system/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.droid-life.com/2012/09/12/google-vp-we-werent-investing-in-the-patent-ecosystem-like-we-should-have-been/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/12/11/michelle-lee-named-uspto-deputy-director-will-serve-as-acting-director/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/10/16/obama-nominates-former-google-exec-to-lead-u-s-patent-office/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/5/patent-law-reform-bill-to-stop-trolls-could-stifle/?page=all&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/05/03/google-collects-patents-while-lobbying-against-them/id=57302/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/243943-patent-legislation-will-destroy-inventive-small-businesses&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://developers.google.com/patent-search/?hl=en&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/12/28/uspto-catastrophic-failure-electronic-patent-and-trademark-systems/id=64200/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/xml-resources&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/electronic-data-products/issued-patents-patent-grants-data-products&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.epo.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://www.epo.org/searching/free/ops.html&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/10617/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/13267/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://stackoverflow.com/a/20133916/2074605&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://poldham.github.io/Patent-Databases/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14142" RevisionGUID="21c2f494-caab-452f-8004-94b2f7122dd0" CreationDate="2015-12-31T18:44:40.173" UserId="14417" Comment="Added more historical references." Text="Google is the clearing house for USPTO XML, via their [Bulk Downloads][1] site. The [Grant Full Text][2] is probably what you're looking for. The only company (that I am aware of) that currently offers full text XML on a per-patent basis via an API is Fairview Research (paid service with non-redistribution of XML source), and they are also the source of the [Public Pair][3] (legal events/status) data for Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDS, IBM, MicroPatent and now Google have all had (at some point) free USPTO patent text available, but not in a way as to have a useful free API available. Historically, the trend is to eventually monetize, spin off, or retire the services:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [EDS Shadow Patent Office][9] -&gt; HP -&gt; decommissioned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [IBM Patent Server][4] -&gt; [Delphion][5] -&gt; [Thomson Reuters (Delphion)][6] -&gt; decommissioned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [MicroPatent][7] -&gt; [Thomson Reuters (Aureka)][6] -&gt; [Thomson Innovation][8] -&gt; recent sale?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Google Patents][10] -&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is no secret that Google has non-altruistic motives for the USPTO partnership ([Jun 2010][11], [May 2011][12], [Aug 2012][13], [Sep 2012][14], [Nov 2013][15], [Oct 2014][16], [Feb 2015][17], [May 2015][18], [Jun 2015][19]). There used to be a &quot;[Developer API][20]&quot; but it was limited to integration of Google Patent content into a web site and was deprecated in 2011 (exactly 12 months after they obtained the USPTO hosting deal). This paragraph may seem overly cynical, but this is the story I have seen unfold over the past 5 years, and this is why I am not holding my breath for a developer-friendly API from Google. My interpretation of the above trend is that they have no interest in making it easy for third-party developers, but you're welcome to draw your own conclusions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, before the Google-USPTO arrangement, the XML had to be purchased and downloaded (again, in bulk form) from the USPTO, but it was cost-prohibitive (about $12,000/year IIRC), so I (and many others, [including Google][21]) used to resort to screen-scraping their broken HTML and normalizing to XML or other structured formats (non-trivial). With the bulk downloads freely available, the situation is much better than it was a few years ago (as least there is a free &quot;nearly Open&quot; path to the XML), however you will still need to download the huge ZIP files, extract/parse, etc. It is possible to write a wrapper around the site to perform this; of course with the corresponding penalties of bandwidth and drive space it does not lend itself to an interactive experience for an end-user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to 1976, only the patent metadata is available in a structured form. Everything before that relies on uncorrected OCR scans, and coverage is very spotty. It is a dark area for patent text. Also, the XML for applications is only available from 2001 forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe you already have the optimal *free* solution worked out, and this is the approach I have taken with several of my own projects. However, under the right circumstances you might also consider the API from Fairview if you need current legal events and one-off XML retrievals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also note the following resources, which provide the schemas and descriptions of the XML available from the USPTO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [XML Resources][22]&#xD;&#xA; - [Issued Patents (Patent Grants) Data Products][23]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might have some luck with the [European Patent Office][24] [Open Patent Services][25], which does provide download access (maximum volume of 2.5 GB per week free-of-charge). However, I've found their APIs to be somewhat unreliable and slow, and they discontinued several of the services I was using in 2014. I ditched OPS out of frustration (would have required a complete re-write of my code), but maybe its time to reconsider it. YMMV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I want to note a common misconception in patent identifiers as they relate to individual documents. The number you mention ('8978162') is indeed the patent number, but a full unique identifier for the document also comprises the patent authority ('US' in this case) and the *kind code* (the document type), ('B2' in this case, which indicates a Patent Grant). The codes have changed several times in the past (older grants have a kind code of 'A' and new applications have a kind code of 'A1'). Therefore, to uniquely identify a document, the full identifier for the document should take a form like 'US-8978162-B2'. This will save you from refactoring/reindexing headaches the first time you need to work with a different type of publication (e.g., application, re-issue, correction, design, plant) or patent authority (e.g., EP, CA, AU). Also refer to this [write-up on patent families][26] and an example of how the [Kind Code][27] is used to differentiate related documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related resources (I will add to this as I find them):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Python module for searching patent databases, ie USPTO or EPO][28]&#xD;&#xA; - [Obtaining Patent Data: Patent Databases][29]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto-patents-grants-text.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.patents.ibm.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.delphion.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://ip.thomsonreuters.com/maketheswitch&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.micropat.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://info.thomsoninnovation.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.spo.eds.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://patents.google.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-teams-google-provide-bulk-patent-and-trademark-data-public&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.infoq.com/news/2011/05/deprecated-google-apis&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.cnet.com/news/google-time-to-ditch-our-current-software-patent-system/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://www.droid-life.com/2012/09/12/google-vp-we-werent-investing-in-the-patent-ecosystem-like-we-should-have-been/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/12/11/michelle-lee-named-uspto-deputy-director-will-serve-as-acting-director/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/10/16/obama-nominates-former-google-exec-to-lead-u-s-patent-office/&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/5/patent-law-reform-bill-to-stop-trolls-could-stifle/?page=all&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/05/03/google-collects-patents-while-lobbying-against-them/id=57302/&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/243943-patent-legislation-will-destroy-inventive-small-businesses&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://developers.google.com/patent-search/?hl=en&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/12/28/uspto-catastrophic-failure-electronic-patent-and-trademark-systems/id=64200/&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/xml-resources&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/electronic-data-products/issued-patents-patent-grants-data-products&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://www.epo.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://www.epo.org/searching/free/ops.html&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/10617/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/13267/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://stackoverflow.com/a/20133916/2074605&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://poldham.github.io/Patent-Databases/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14142" RevisionGUID="3adb4a26-47b4-4959-894d-56de7209dbbf" CreationDate="2015-12-31T18:53:33.130" UserId="14417" Comment="Minor revision." Text="Google is the clearing house for USPTO XML, via their [Bulk Downloads][1] site. The [Grant Full Text][2] is probably what you're looking for. The only company (that I am aware of) that currently offers full text XML on a per-patent basis via an API is Fairview Research (paid service with non-redistribution of XML source), and they are also the source of the [Public Pair][3] (legal events/status) data for Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDS, IBM, MicroPatent and now Google have all had (at some point) free USPTO patent text available, but not in a way as to have a useful free API available. Historically, the trend is to eventually monetize, spin off, or retire the services:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [EDS Shadow Patent Office][9] -&gt; HP -&gt; decommissioned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [IBM Patent Server][4] -&gt; [Delphion][5] -&gt; [Thomson Reuters (Delphion)][6] -&gt; decommissioned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [MicroPatent][7] -&gt; [Thomson Reuters (Aureka)][6] -&gt; [Thomson Innovation][8] -&gt; recent sale?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Google Patents][10] -&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is no secret that Google has non-altruistic motives for the USPTO partnership ([Jun 2010][11], [May 2011][12], [Aug 2012][13], [Sep 2012][14], [Nov 2013][15], [Oct 2014][16], [Feb 2015][17], [May 2015][18], [Jun 2015][19]). There used to be a &quot;[Developer API][20]&quot; but it was limited to integration of Google Patent content into a web site and was deprecated in 2011 (exactly 12 months after they obtained the USPTO hosting deal). This paragraph may seem overly cynical, but this is the story I have seen unfold over the past 5 years, and this is why I am not holding my breath for a developer-friendly API from Google. My interpretation of the above trend is that they have no interest in making it easy for third-party developers, but you're welcome to draw your own conclusions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, before the Google-USPTO arrangement, the XML had to be purchased and downloaded (again, in bulk form) from the USPTO, but it was cost-prohibitive (about $12,000/year IIRC), so I (and many others, [including Google][21]) used to resort to screen-scraping their broken HTML and normalizing to XML or other structured formats (non-trivial). With the bulk downloads freely available, the situation is much better than it was a few years ago (as least there is a free &quot;nearly Open&quot; path to the XML), however you will still need to download the huge ZIP files, extract/parse, etc. It is possible to write a wrapper around the site to perform this; of course with the corresponding penalties of bandwidth and drive space it does not lend itself to an interactive experience for an end-user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe you already have the optimal *free* solution worked out, and this is the approach I have taken with several of my own projects. However, under the right circumstances you might also consider the API from Fairview if you need current legal events and one-off XML retrievals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also note the following resources, which provide the schemas and descriptions of the XML available from the USPTO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [XML Resources][22]&#xD;&#xA; - [Issued Patents (Patent Grants) Data Products][23]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to 1976, only the patent metadata is available in a structured form. Everything before that relies on uncorrected OCR scans, and coverage is very spotty. It is a dark area for patent text. Also, the XML for applications is only available from 2001 forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might have some luck with the [European Patent Office][24] [Open Patent Services][25], which does provide download access (maximum volume of 2.5 GB per week free-of-charge). However, I've found their APIs to be somewhat unreliable and slow, and they discontinued several of the services I was using in 2014. I ditched OPS out of frustration (would have required a complete re-write of my code), but maybe its time to reconsider it. YMMV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I want to note a common misconception in patent identifiers as they relate to individual documents. The number you mention ('8978162') is indeed the patent number, but a full unique identifier for the document also comprises the patent authority ('US' in this case) and the *kind code* (the document type), ('B2' in this case, which indicates a Patent Grant). The codes have changed several times in the past (older grants have a kind code of 'A' and new applications have a kind code of 'A1'). Therefore, to uniquely identify a document, the full identifier for the document should take a form like 'US-8978162-B2'. This will save you from refactoring, re-indexing and link construction headaches the first time you need to work with a different type of publication (e.g., application, re-issue, correction, design, plant) or patent authority (e.g., EP, CA, AU). Also refer to this [write-up on patent families][26] and an example of how the [Kind Code][27] is used to differentiate related documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related resources (I will add to this as I find them):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Python module for searching patent databases, ie USPTO or EPO][28]&#xD;&#xA; - [Obtaining Patent Data: Patent Databases][29]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto-patents-grants-text.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.patents.ibm.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.delphion.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://ip.thomsonreuters.com/maketheswitch&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.micropat.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://info.thomsoninnovation.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.spo.eds.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://patents.google.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-teams-google-provide-bulk-patent-and-trademark-data-public&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.infoq.com/news/2011/05/deprecated-google-apis&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.cnet.com/news/google-time-to-ditch-our-current-software-patent-system/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://www.droid-life.com/2012/09/12/google-vp-we-werent-investing-in-the-patent-ecosystem-like-we-should-have-been/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/12/11/michelle-lee-named-uspto-deputy-director-will-serve-as-acting-director/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/10/16/obama-nominates-former-google-exec-to-lead-u-s-patent-office/&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/5/patent-law-reform-bill-to-stop-trolls-could-stifle/?page=all&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/05/03/google-collects-patents-while-lobbying-against-them/id=57302/&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/243943-patent-legislation-will-destroy-inventive-small-businesses&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://developers.google.com/patent-search/?hl=en&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/12/28/uspto-catastrophic-failure-electronic-patent-and-trademark-systems/id=64200/&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/xml-resources&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/electronic-data-products/issued-patents-patent-grants-data-products&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://www.epo.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://www.epo.org/searching/free/ops.html&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/10617/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/13267/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://stackoverflow.com/a/20133916/2074605&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://poldham.github.io/Patent-Databases/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14142" RevisionGUID="580dfe3a-33ed-4e03-8af2-38f1d9563831" CreationDate="2015-12-31T19:22:03.303" UserId="14417" Comment="Added reference." Text="Google is the clearing house for USPTO XML, via their [Bulk Downloads][1] site. The [Grant Full Text][2] is probably what you're looking for. The only company (that I am aware of) that currently offers full text XML on a per-patent basis via an API is Fairview Research (paid service with non-redistribution of XML source), and they are also the source of the [Public Pair][3] (legal events/status) data for Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDS, IBM, MicroPatent and now Google have all had (at some point) free USPTO patent text available, but not in a way as to have a useful free API available. Historically, the trend is to eventually monetize, spin off, or retire the services:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [EDS Shadow Patent Office][4] -&gt; HP -&gt; decommissioned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [IBM Patent Server][5] -&gt; [Delphion][6] -&gt; [Thomson Reuters (Delphion)][7] -&gt; decommissioned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [MicroPatent][8] -&gt; [Thomson Reuters (Aureka)][7] -&gt; [Thomson Innovation][9] -&gt; recent sale?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Google Patents][10] -&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is no secret that Google has non-altruistic motives for the USPTO partnership ([Jun 2010][11], [May 2011][12], [Aug 2012][13], [Sep 2012][14], [Nov 2013][15], [Oct 2014][16], [Feb 2015][17], [May 2015][18], [Jun 2015][19]). There used to be a &quot;[Developer API][20]&quot; but it was limited to integration of Google Patent content into a web site and was deprecated in 2011 (exactly 12 months after they obtained the USPTO hosting deal). This paragraph may seem overly cynical, but this is the story I have seen unfold over the past 5 years, and this is why I am not holding my breath for a developer-friendly API from Google. My interpretation of the above trend is that they have no interest in making it easy for third-party developers, but you're welcome to draw your own conclusions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, before the Google-USPTO arrangement, the XML had to be purchased and downloaded (again, in bulk form) from the USPTO, but it was cost-prohibitive (about $12,000/year IIRC), so I (and many others, [including Google][21]) used to resort to screen-scraping their broken HTML and normalizing to XML or other structured formats (non-trivial). With the bulk downloads freely available, the situation is much better than it was a few years ago (as least there is a free &quot;nearly Open&quot; path to the XML), however you will still need to download the huge ZIP files, extract/parse, etc. It is possible to write a wrapper around the site to perform this; of course with the corresponding penalties of bandwidth and drive space it does not lend itself to an interactive experience for an end-user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe you already have the optimal *free* solution worked out, and this is the approach I have taken with several of my own projects. However, under the right circumstances you might also consider the API from Fairview if you need current legal events and one-off XML retrievals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also note the following resources, which provide the schemas and descriptions of the XML available from the USPTO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [XML Resources][22]&#xD;&#xA; - [Issued Patents (Patent Grants) Data Products][23]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to 1976, only the patent metadata is available in a structured form. Everything before that relies on uncorrected OCR scans, and coverage is very spotty. It is a dark area for patent text. Also, the XML for applications is only available from 2001 forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might have some luck with the [European Patent Office][24] [Open Patent Services][25], which does provide download access (maximum volume of 2.5 GB per week free-of-charge). However, I've found their APIs to be somewhat unreliable and slow, and they discontinued several of the services I was using in 2014. I ditched OPS out of frustration (would have required a complete re-write of my code), but maybe its time to reconsider it. YMMV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I want to note a common misconception in patent identifiers as they relate to individual documents. The number you mention ('8978162') is indeed the patent number, but a full unique identifier for the document also comprises the patent authority ('US' in this case) and the *kind code* (the document type), ('B2' in this case, which indicates a Patent Grant). The codes have changed several times in the past (older grants have a kind code of 'A' and new applications have a kind code of 'A1'). Therefore, to uniquely identify a document, the full identifier for the document should take a form like 'US-8978162-B2'. This will save you from refactoring, re-indexing and link construction headaches the first time you need to work with a different type of publication (e.g., application, re-issue, correction, design, plant) or patent authority (e.g., EP, CA, AU). Also refer to this [write-up on patent families][26] and an example of how the [Kind Code][27] is used to differentiate related documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related resources (I will add to this as I find them):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Python module for searching patent databases, ie USPTO or EPO][28]&#xD;&#xA; - [Obtaining Patent Data: Patent Databases][29]&#xD;&#xA; - [Alternatives of Thomson Innovation Patent Database][30]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto-patents-grants-text.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.spo.eds.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.patents.ibm.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.delphion.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://ip.thomsonreuters.com/maketheswitch&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.micropat.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://info.thomsoninnovation.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://patents.google.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-teams-google-provide-bulk-patent-and-trademark-data-public&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.infoq.com/news/2011/05/deprecated-google-apis&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.cnet.com/news/google-time-to-ditch-our-current-software-patent-system/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://www.droid-life.com/2012/09/12/google-vp-we-werent-investing-in-the-patent-ecosystem-like-we-should-have-been/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/12/11/michelle-lee-named-uspto-deputy-director-will-serve-as-acting-director/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/10/16/obama-nominates-former-google-exec-to-lead-u-s-patent-office/&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/5/patent-law-reform-bill-to-stop-trolls-could-stifle/?page=all&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/05/03/google-collects-patents-while-lobbying-against-them/id=57302/&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/243943-patent-legislation-will-destroy-inventive-small-businesses&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://developers.google.com/patent-search/?hl=en&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/12/28/uspto-catastrophic-failure-electronic-patent-and-trademark-systems/id=64200/&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/xml-resources&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/electronic-data-products/issued-patents-patent-grants-data-products&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://www.epo.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://www.epo.org/searching/free/ops.html&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/10617/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/13267/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://stackoverflow.com/a/20133916/2074605&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://poldham.github.io/Patent-Databases/&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: http://wiki.piug.org/display/PIUG/Alternatives+of+Thomson+Innovation+Patent+Database" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14142" RevisionGUID="68140707-5b42-4d84-b75e-780c5efb6bff" CreationDate="2015-12-31T19:33:31.670" UserId="14417" Comment="Added reference." Text="Google is the clearing house for USPTO XML, via their [Bulk Downloads][1] site. The [Grant Full Text][2] is probably what you're looking for. The only company (that I am aware of) that currently offers full text XML on a per-patent basis via an API is Fairview Research (paid service with non-redistribution of XML source), and they are also the source of the [Public Pair][3] (legal events/status) data for Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as the reasons why there is no public API available, it is easier to paint a picture based on the historical patent services. EDS, IBM, MicroPatent and now Google have all had (at some point) free USPTO patent text available, but not in a way as to have a useful free API available. Historically, the trend is to eventually monetize, spin off, or retire the services:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [IBM Patent Server][5] -&gt; [Delphion][6] -&gt; [Thomson Reuters (Delphion)][7] -&gt; decommissioned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [MicroPatent][8] -&gt; [Thomson Reuters (Aureka)][7] -&gt; [Thomson Innovation][9] -&gt; recent sale?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Derwent World Patents (commercial) -&gt; [Thomson Reuters (Derwent)][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [EDS Shadow Patent Office][4] -&gt; HP -&gt; decommissioned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Google Patents][11] -&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is no secret that Google has non-altruistic motives for the USPTO partnership ([Jun 2010][12], [May 2011][13], [Aug 2012][14], [Sep 2012][15], [Nov 2013][16], [Oct 2014][17], [Feb 2015][18], [May 2015][19], [Jun 2015][20]). There used to be a &quot;[Developer API][21]&quot; but it was limited to integration of Google Patent content into a web site and was deprecated in 2011 (exactly 12 months after they obtained the USPTO hosting deal). This paragraph may seem overly cynical, but this is the story I have seen unfold over the past 5 years, and this is why I am not holding my breath for a developer-friendly API from Google. My interpretation of the above trend is that they have no interest in making it easy for third-party developers, but you're welcome to draw your own conclusions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, before the Google-USPTO arrangement, the XML had to be purchased and downloaded (again, in bulk form) from the USPTO, but it was cost-prohibitive (about $12,000/year IIRC), so I (and many others, [including Google][22]) used to resort to screen-scraping their broken HTML and normalizing to XML or other structured formats (non-trivial). With the bulk downloads freely available, the situation is much better than it was a few years ago (as least there is a free &quot;nearly Open&quot; path to the XML), however you will still need to download the huge ZIP files, extract/parse, etc. It is possible to write a wrapper around the site to perform this; of course with the corresponding penalties of bandwidth and drive space it does not lend itself to an interactive experience for an end-user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe you already have the optimal *free* solution worked out, and this is the approach I have taken with several of my own projects. However, under the right circumstances you might also consider the API from Fairview if you need current legal events and one-off XML retrievals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also note the following resources, which provide the schemas and descriptions of the XML available from the USPTO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [XML Resources][23]&#xD;&#xA; - [Issued Patents (Patent Grants) Data Products][24]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to 1976, only the patent metadata is available in a structured form. Everything before that relies on uncorrected OCR scans, and coverage is very spotty. It is a dark area for patent text. Also, the XML for applications is only available from 2001 forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might have some luck with the [European Patent Office][25] [Open Patent Services][26], which does provide download access (maximum volume of 2.5 GB per week free-of-charge). However, I've found their APIs to be somewhat unreliable and slow, and they discontinued several of the services I was using in 2014. I ditched OPS out of frustration (would have required a complete re-write of my code), but maybe its time to reconsider it. YMMV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I want to note a common misconception in patent identifiers as they relate to individual documents. The number you mention ('8978162') is indeed the patent number, but a full unique identifier for the document also comprises the patent authority ('US' in this case) and the *kind code* (the document type), ('B2' in this case, which indicates a Patent Grant). The codes have changed several times in the past (older grants have a kind code of 'A' and new applications have a kind code of 'A1'). Therefore, to uniquely identify a document, the full identifier for the document should take a form like 'US-8978162-B2'. This will save you from refactoring, re-indexing and link construction headaches the first time you need to work with a different type of publication (e.g., application, re-issue, correction, design, plant) or patent authority (e.g., EP, CA, AU). Also refer to this [write-up on patent families][27] and an example of how the [Kind Code][28] is used to differentiate related documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related resources (I will add to this as I find them):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Python module for searching patent databases, ie USPTO or EPO][29]&#xD;&#xA; - [Obtaining Patent Data: Patent Databases][30]&#xD;&#xA; - [Alternatives of Thomson Innovation Patent Database][31]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto-patents-grants-text.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.spo.eds.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.patents.ibm.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.delphion.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://ip.thomsonreuters.com/maketheswitch&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.micropat.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://info.thomsoninnovation.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://thomsonreuters.com/en/products-services/intellectual-property/patent-research-and-analysis/derwent-world-patents-index.html&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://patents.google.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-teams-google-provide-bulk-patent-and-trademark-data-public&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.infoq.com/news/2011/05/deprecated-google-apis&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://www.cnet.com/news/google-time-to-ditch-our-current-software-patent-system/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.droid-life.com/2012/09/12/google-vp-we-werent-investing-in-the-patent-ecosystem-like-we-should-have-been/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/12/11/michelle-lee-named-uspto-deputy-director-will-serve-as-acting-director/&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/10/16/obama-nominates-former-google-exec-to-lead-u-s-patent-office/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/5/patent-law-reform-bill-to-stop-trolls-could-stifle/?page=all&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/05/03/google-collects-patents-while-lobbying-against-them/id=57302/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/243943-patent-legislation-will-destroy-inventive-small-businesses&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: https://developers.google.com/patent-search/?hl=en&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/12/28/uspto-catastrophic-failure-electronic-patent-and-trademark-systems/id=64200/&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/xml-resources&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/electronic-data-products/issued-patents-patent-grants-data-products&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://www.epo.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://www.epo.org/searching/free/ops.html&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/10617/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/13267/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://stackoverflow.com/a/20133916/2074605&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: http://poldham.github.io/Patent-Databases/&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: http://wiki.piug.org/display/PIUG/Alternatives+of+Thomson+Innovation+Patent+Database" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14142" RevisionGUID="9a0ab94d-25e2-454c-a06d-cfba542167cc" CreationDate="2015-12-31T20:20:11.297" UserId="14417" Comment="Added reference." Text="Google is the clearing house for USPTO XML, via their [Bulk Downloads][1] site. The [Grant Full Text][2] is probably what you're looking for. The only company (that I am aware of) that currently offers full text XML on a per-patent basis via an API is Fairview Research (paid service with non-redistribution of XML source), and they are also the source of the [Public Pair][3] (legal events/status) data for Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as the reasons why there is no public API available, it is easier to paint a picture based on the historical patent services. EDS, IBM, MicroPatent and now Google have all had (at some point) free USPTO patent text available, but not in a way as to have a useful free API available. Historically, the trend is to eventually monetize, spin off, or retire the services:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [IBM Patent Server][4] -&gt; [Delphion][5] -&gt; [Thomson Reuters (Delphion)][6] -&gt; decommissioned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [MicroPatent][7] -&gt; [Thomson Reuters (Aureka)][6] -&gt; [Thomson Innovation][8] -&gt; recent sale?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Derwent World Patents (commercial) -&gt; [Thomson Reuters (Derwent)][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [EDS Shadow Patent Office][10] -&gt; HP -&gt; decommissioned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Google Patents][11] -&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact is, it costs a lot of money to maintain these services ([even the USPTO has budget-related maintenance issues][12]), and it is no secret that Google has non-altruistic motives for the USPTO partnership ([Jun 2010][13], [May 2011][14], [Aug 2012][15], [Sep 2012][16], [Nov 2013][17], [Oct 2014][18], [Feb 2015][19], [May 2015][20], [Jun 2015][21]). There used to be a Google Patents &quot;[Developer API][22]&quot; but it was limited to integration of Google Patent content into a web site and was deprecated in 2011 (exactly 12 months after they obtained the USPTO hosting deal) - I'm not sure, but that may be what the Ask Patents sidebar is based on; you may be able to extract some amount of metadata from that service. This paragraph may seem overly cynical, but this is the story I have seen unfold over the last few years, and this is why I am not holding my breath for a developer-friendly API from Google. My interpretation of the above trend is that they have no interest in making it easy for third-party developers, but you're welcome to draw your own conclusions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, before the Google-USPTO arrangement, the XML had to be purchased and downloaded (again, in bulk form) from the USPTO, but it was cost-prohibitive (about $12,000/year IIRC), so I (and many others, [including Google][12]) used to resort to screen-scraping their broken HTML and normalizing to XML or other structured formats (non-trivial). With the bulk downloads freely available, the situation is much better than it was a few years ago (as least there is a free &quot;nearly Open&quot; path to the XML), however you will still need to download the huge ZIP files, extract/parse, etc. It is possible to write a wrapper around the site to perform this; of course with the corresponding penalties of bandwidth and drive space it does not lend itself to an interactive experience for an end-user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe you already have the optimal *free* solution worked out, and this is the approach I have taken with several of my own projects. However, under the right circumstances you might also consider the API from Fairview if you need current legal events and one-off XML retrievals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also note the following resources, which provide the schemas and descriptions of the XML available from the USPTO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [XML Resources][23]&#xD;&#xA; - [Issued Patents (Patent Grants) Data Products][24]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to 1976, only the patent metadata is available in a structured form. Everything before that relies on uncorrected OCR scans, and coverage is very spotty. It is a dark area for patent text. Also, the XML for applications is only available from 2001 forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might have some luck with the [European Patent Office][25] [Open Patent Services][26], which does provide download access (maximum volume of 2.5 GB per week free-of-charge). However, I've found their APIs to be somewhat unreliable and slow, and they discontinued several of the services I was using in 2014. I ditched OPS out of frustration (would have required a complete re-write of my code), but maybe its time to reconsider it. YMMV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I want to note a common misconception in patent identifiers as they relate to individual documents. The number you mention ('8978162') is indeed the patent number, but a full unique identifier for the document also comprises the patent authority ('US' in this case) and the *kind code* (the document type), ('B2' in this case, which indicates a Patent Grant). The codes have changed several times in the past (older grants have a kind code of 'A' and new applications have a kind code of 'A1'). Therefore, to uniquely identify a document, the full identifier for the document should take a form like 'US-8978162-B2'. This will save you from refactoring, re-indexing and link construction headaches the first time you need to work with a different type of publication (e.g., application, re-issue, correction, design, plant) or patent authority (e.g., EP, CA, AU). Also refer to this [write-up on patent families][27] and an example of how the [Kind Code][28] is used to differentiate related documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related resources (I will add to this as I find them):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Python module for searching patent databases, ie USPTO or EPO][29]&#xD;&#xA; - [Obtaining Patent Data: Patent Databases][30]&#xD;&#xA; - [Alternatives of Thomson Innovation Patent Database][31]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto-patents-grants-text.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.patents.ibm.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.delphion.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://ip.thomsonreuters.com/maketheswitch&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.micropat.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://info.thomsoninnovation.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://thomsonreuters.com/en/products-services/intellectual-property/patent-research-and-analysis/derwent-world-patents-index.html&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.spo.eds.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://patents.google.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/12/28/uspto-catastrophic-failure-electronic-patent-and-trademark-systems/id=64200/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-teams-google-provide-bulk-patent-and-trademark-data-public&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://www.infoq.com/news/2011/05/deprecated-google-apis&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.cnet.com/news/google-time-to-ditch-our-current-software-patent-system/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://www.droid-life.com/2012/09/12/google-vp-we-werent-investing-in-the-patent-ecosystem-like-we-should-have-been/&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/12/11/michelle-lee-named-uspto-deputy-director-will-serve-as-acting-director/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/10/16/obama-nominates-former-google-exec-to-lead-u-s-patent-office/&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/5/patent-law-reform-bill-to-stop-trolls-could-stifle/?page=all&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/05/03/google-collects-patents-while-lobbying-against-them/id=57302/&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/243943-patent-legislation-will-destroy-inventive-small-businesses&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://developers.google.com/patent-search/?hl=en&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/xml-resources&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/electronic-data-products/issued-patents-patent-grants-data-products&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://www.epo.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://www.epo.org/searching/free/ops.html&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/10617/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/13267/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://stackoverflow.com/a/20133916/2074605&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: http://poldham.github.io/Patent-Databases/&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: http://wiki.piug.org/display/PIUG/Alternatives+of+Thomson+Innovation+Patent+Database" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14142" RevisionGUID="d3e3dd77-1773-4acb-a3a2-14d648b4a057" CreationDate="2016-01-02T13:37:01.363" UserId="14417" Comment="Added reference." Text="Google is the clearing house for USPTO XML, via their [Bulk Downloads][1] site. The [Grant Full Text][2] is probably what you're looking for. The only company (that I am aware of) that currently offers full text XML on a per-patent basis via an API is Fairview Research (paid service with non-redistribution of XML source), and they are also the source of the [Public Pair][3] (legal events/status) data for Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as the reasons why there is no public API available, it is easier to paint a picture based on the historical patent services. EDS, IBM, MicroPatent and now Google have all had (at some point) free USPTO patent text available, but not in a way as to have a useful free API available. Historically, the trend is to eventually monetize, spin off, or retire the services:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [IBM Patent Server][4] -&gt; [Delphion][5] -&gt; [Thomson Reuters (Delphion)][6] -&gt; decommissioned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [MicroPatent][7] -&gt; [Thomson Reuters (Aureka)][6] -&gt; [Thomson Innovation][8] -&gt; recent sale?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Derwent World Patents (commercial) -&gt; [Thomson Reuters (Derwent)][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [EDS Shadow Patent Office][10] -&gt; HP -&gt; decommissioned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Google Patents][11] -&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact is, it costs a lot of money to maintain these services ([even the USPTO has budget-related maintenance issues][12]), and it is no secret that Google has non-altruistic motives for the USPTO partnership ([Jun 2010][13], [May 2011][14], [Aug 2012][15], [Sep 2012][16], [Nov 2013][17], [Oct 2014][18], [Feb 2015][19], [May 2015][20], [Jun 2015][21]). There used to be a Google Patents &quot;[Developer API][22]&quot; but it was limited to integration of Google Patent content into a web site and was deprecated in 2011 (exactly 12 months after they obtained the USPTO hosting deal) - I'm not sure, but that may be what the Ask Patents sidebar is based on; you may be able to extract some amount of metadata from that service. This paragraph may seem overly cynical, but this is the story I have seen unfold over the last few years, and this is why I am not holding my breath for a developer-friendly API from Google. My interpretation of the above trend is that they have no interest in making it easy for third-party developers, but you're welcome to draw your own conclusions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, before the Google-USPTO arrangement, the XML had to be [purchased][23] and distributed via tape/CD/ftp (again, in bulk form) from the USPTO, but it was cost-prohibitive (about $12,000/year IIRC), so it was fairly common practice for developers ([including those at Google][12]) to resort to screen-scraping their broken HTML and normalizing to XML or other structured formats (non-trivial) - this often crippled the USPTO servers. With the bulk downloads freely available, the situation is much better than it was a few years ago (as least there is a free &quot;nearly Open&quot; path to the XML), however you will still need to download the huge ZIP files, extract/parse, etc. It is possible to write a wrapper around the site to perform this; of course with the corresponding penalties of bandwidth and drive space it does not lend itself to an interactive experience for an end-user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe you already have the optimal *free* solution worked out, and this is the approach I have taken with several of my own projects. However, under the right circumstances you might also consider the API from Fairview if you need current legal events and one-off XML retrievals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also note the following resources, which provide the schemas and descriptions of the XML available from the USPTO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [XML Resources][24]&#xD;&#xA; - [Issued Patents (Patent Grants) Data Products][25]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to 1976, only the patent metadata is available in a structured form. Everything before that relies on uncorrected OCR scans, and coverage is very spotty. It is a dark area for patent text. Also, the XML for applications is only available from 2001 forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might have some luck with the [European Patent Office][26] [Open Patent Services][27], which does provide download access (maximum volume of 2.5 GB per week free-of-charge). However, I've found their APIs to be somewhat unreliable and slow, and they discontinued several of the services I was using in 2014. I ditched OPS out of frustration (would have required a complete re-write of my code), but maybe its time to reconsider it. YMMV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I want to note a common misconception in patent identifiers as they relate to individual documents. The number you mention ('8978162') is indeed the patent number, but a full unique identifier for the document also comprises the patent authority ('US' in this case) and the *kind code* (the document type), ('B2' in this case, which indicates a Patent Grant). The codes have changed several times in the past (older grants have a kind code of 'A' and new applications have a kind code of 'A1'). Therefore, to uniquely identify a document, the full identifier for the document should take a form like 'US-8978162-B2'. This will save you from refactoring, re-indexing and link construction headaches the first time you need to work with a different type of publication (e.g., application, re-issue, correction, design, plant) or patent authority (e.g., EP, CA, AU). Also refer to this [write-up on patent families][28] and an example of how the [Kind Code][29] is used to differentiate related documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related resources (I will add to this as I find them):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Python module for searching patent databases, ie USPTO or EPO][30]&#xD;&#xA; - [Obtaining Patent Data: Patent Databases][31]&#xD;&#xA; - [Alternatives of Thomson Innovation Patent Database][32]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto-patents-grants-text.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.patents.ibm.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.delphion.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://ip.thomsonreuters.com/maketheswitch&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.micropat.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://info.thomsoninnovation.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://thomsonreuters.com/en/products-services/intellectual-property/patent-research-and-analysis/derwent-world-patents-index.html&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.spo.eds.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://patents.google.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/12/28/uspto-catastrophic-failure-electronic-patent-and-trademark-systems/id=64200/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-teams-google-provide-bulk-patent-and-trademark-data-public&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://www.infoq.com/news/2011/05/deprecated-google-apis&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.cnet.com/news/google-time-to-ditch-our-current-software-patent-system/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://www.droid-life.com/2012/09/12/google-vp-we-werent-investing-in-the-patent-ecosystem-like-we-should-have-been/&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/12/11/michelle-lee-named-uspto-deputy-director-will-serve-as-acting-director/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/10/16/obama-nominates-former-google-exec-to-lead-u-s-patent-office/&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/5/patent-law-reform-bill-to-stop-trolls-could-stifle/?page=all&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/05/03/google-collects-patents-while-lobbying-against-them/id=57302/&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/243943-patent-legislation-will-destroy-inventive-small-businesses&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://developers.google.com/patent-search/?hl=en&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/ab39.html&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/xml-resources&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/electronic-data-products/issued-patents-patent-grants-data-products&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://www.epo.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://www.epo.org/searching/free/ops.html&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/10617/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/13267/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: http://stackoverflow.com/a/20133916/2074605&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: http://poldham.github.io/Patent-Databases/&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: http://wiki.piug.org/display/PIUG/Alternatives+of+Thomson+Innovation+Patent+Database" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10055" RevisionGUID="a4fa5e08-e74c-4692-931d-9cd2e0734c5f" CreationDate="2016-01-02T16:35:17.500" UserId="14417" Comment="Fixed typo and added acronym definition." Text="I am considering filing a Provisional Patent Application (PPA) on my own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If PPAs are never examined, is it correct to assume that I get a &quot;patent pending&quot; on whatever (since it is not published at the time of filing) immediately after I submit the pdf files and pay the fee?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Suppose that I file at T=0, I disclose at T=+3 days, and I file for a non-provisional at T=+10 months, and somehow the PTO decides that the original PPA isn't valid enough to serve as a prior date, can I simply file another PPA or a new non-provisional immediately, given that I am still within one year of the disclosure, and that others haven't filed a similar application from T+3 days to t+10 months,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am asking this after reading the following two paragraphs, from USPTO and Wikipdia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Beware that an applicant who publicly discloses his or her invention (e.g., publishes, uses, sells, or otherwise makes available to the public) during the 12 month provisional application pendency period may lose more than the benefit of the provisional application filing date if the 12 month provisional application pendency period expires before a corresponding nonprovisional application is filed. **Such an applicant may also lose the right to ever patent the invention. See 35 U.S.C. §§102(a)(1) and (b)(1)**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a non-provisional application is not expected to be filed within one year, and the patent is not otherwise barred by law, another provisional application may also be filed at any time and start another one-year period (but this does not work in all cases).[10] However, the original priority date of any expired provisional applications will be forfeited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rationale behind this question is somewhat a fail safe measure. That is, in the scenario that a PPA is invalidated, can I simply, within a few days, file a new application, thereby continuing to protect the invention even the initial PPA is wasted?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34886" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10055" RevisionGUID="a4fa5e08-e74c-4692-931d-9cd2e0734c5f" CreationDate="2016-01-02T16:35:17.500" UserId="14417" Comment="Fixed typo and added acronym definition." Text="Provisional Patent Application validity questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14146" RevisionGUID="c3cceabd-cc38-4555-9a74-57157a6679e6" CreationDate="2016-01-03T16:14:28.883" UserId="5988" Text="I would suggest that any good book on Model Theory, such as those by Kreisel, Krivine, and W. Hodges, from the 1970s through 1990s, would show that the size of the proof space is in general inversely related to the size of the model space. This does not directly address neural nets. However the positing of alternatives and then pruning them is an old and public academic model theoretic technique. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14149" RevisionGUID="7f38b141-c508-4183-808e-7b49ff5a09ee" CreationDate="2016-01-04T11:25:54.680" UserId="14139" Text="What happens if an open source software is released globally and it violates a patent? I found an [interesting answer][2] on MetaFilter and would like to know if it is considered to be correct by local community. The answer says in short that theoretically a patent infringement exists but in reality the open source project won't be sued for various reasons at least as long as no commercial entity uses the software to make profit from it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can a distribution and usage model be found that &quot;works around&quot; current patent legislature for example by making the developers anonymous or by using largely anonymous distribution channel (for example P2P sharing - like bittorrent). I know nothing can really be 100% anonymous and for example the music industry is able to take legal action against torrent trackers (have them shut down), but it probably goes back to how strong is the patent holder and if there is an asset to be gained from a possible judgment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example case for such patent violation may be writing software that works as a [driver assist][1] the same way as is already patented. By a work around I mean a form of distribution what the end user would play a large role since the end user crowd is probably the hardest to sue by the patent holder. The end user would download the software to the car by him/herself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_driver_assistance_systems&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ask.metafilter.com/216885/What-happens-if-an-opensource-app-intentionally-violates-a-software-patent#3129948" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34911" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14149" RevisionGUID="7f38b141-c508-4183-808e-7b49ff5a09ee" CreationDate="2016-01-04T11:25:54.680" UserId="14139" Text="What happens if an open source software infringes existing patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34912" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14149" RevisionGUID="7f38b141-c508-4183-808e-7b49ff5a09ee" CreationDate="2016-01-04T11:25:54.680" UserId="14139" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14150" RevisionGUID="46e207e2-15ed-43c9-835c-bde3272cc8d1" CreationDate="2016-01-04T19:56:28.777" UserId="15026" Text="As I understand it, publication of a book outlining the details of what is claimed in the patent more than a year prior to the patent being applied for constitutes public disclosure of the information and therefore the information is no longer patentable. As far as I am aware, all of the patent claims have been disclosed already in their prior book publications in 1998 and 2004." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34919" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14149" RevisionGUID="1214940f-252e-4027-8931-4ff878c5a1f3" CreationDate="2016-01-05T09:16:40.347" UserId="14139" Comment="edited title" Text="What happens if open source software infringes existing patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14155" RevisionGUID="bf37cef4-59a5-4ad1-b3ab-19385691170d" CreationDate="2016-01-05T14:16:21.950" UserId="15739" Text="If someone were to have a patent for...let's say for argument sake..dog food, and has a myriad of patents that include all types of dogs, but you realize that the product is just as good for giraffes, and that there is a huge, untapped giraffe food market, can one obtain a patent for use in the giraffe food market, even though you are using the same, patented product because the dog food company never listed giraffes in their patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34927" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14155" RevisionGUID="bf37cef4-59a5-4ad1-b3ab-19385691170d" CreationDate="2016-01-05T14:16:21.950" UserId="15739" Text="Patent on a patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34928" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14155" RevisionGUID="bf37cef4-59a5-4ad1-b3ab-19385691170d" CreationDate="2016-01-05T14:16:21.950" UserId="15739" Text="&lt;market&gt;&lt;untapped&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14156" RevisionGUID="560f3ffd-d2cd-49d7-a9ad-8bdf5f31240c" CreationDate="2016-01-05T15:27:47.303" UserId="15740" Text="It is basically a scam.  Lot of bait and switch tactics.  The amount paid is rarely the amount listed for each study.  There's no transparency.  The rubric is not used consistently and is very subjective.  Updates to studies will contradict previous &quot;leads&quot;.  Website is difficult to navigate and the content within the same webpage will contradict itself.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically they're crowd sourcing the work that their clients pay them to do.  Definitely not worth the time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14157" RevisionGUID="7d7cc2da-5756-4689-b18f-235048eabf44" CreationDate="2016-01-05T22:29:39.753" UserId="9874" Text="&quot;[T]he specific embodiment is easier to defend and has far higher chances of being approved.&quot;  These are the main reasons why registered patent attorneys and agents include in just about every patent application a number of narrower (dependent) claims, which incorporate by reference and layer additional elements or further limitations onto the broadest (independent) claims.  In the US Patent Office, the basic utility patent filling fee entitles you to file up to three independent claims and up to twenty claims total.  An increasing additional fee applies to independent claims in excess of three or total claims in excess of twenty.  In addition, as noted in a previous answer, you will have the opportunity to modify the claims during the examination (also called &quot;prosecution&quot;) of your application, by amending, canceling, and/or adding new claims to the listing.  To provide support for such amendments, it is also important to submit a detailed and thorough description of a wide range of embodiments of the invention at the outset, as you will not be allowed to claim embodiments that you did not adequately describe in the original application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer is not intended to be legal advice in your particular case or to form an attorney-client relationship, and I highly recommend that you consult a patent attorney or agent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14159" RevisionGUID="d8f23f6f-0ade-4be4-8388-4b050a35fc92" CreationDate="2016-01-06T05:52:53.773" UserId="15746" Text="As seen in a patent application, can someone please explain to a layperson what this term means?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;All claims of the present invention application are **commonly owned**.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am having a heck of a time finding anything on this using Google.  &#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34938" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14159" RevisionGUID="d8f23f6f-0ade-4be4-8388-4b050a35fc92" CreationDate="2016-01-06T05:52:53.773" UserId="15746" Text="Can someone explain the term &quot;commonly owned&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34939" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14159" RevisionGUID="d8f23f6f-0ade-4be4-8388-4b050a35fc92" CreationDate="2016-01-06T05:52:53.773" UserId="15746" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14161" RevisionGUID="3649992b-2093-4aae-a971-77cfd4572a43" CreationDate="2016-01-06T11:58:32.053" UserId="15503" Text="This question is basically: can a new use for a known substance be patented?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer depends on whether the claim to the new use is novel and non-obvious (as with all patent claims). In the example case, I can see three types of claims which might be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A giraffe food product comprising the known dog food.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not novel, since the known dog food would inherently be the claimed giraffe food product. The substance itself is therefore known. It could therefore not be patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A giraffe food product comprising the known dog food in a leaf shape.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the substance is provided in a way that is uniquely suited to giraffes (since giraffes only eat leaf-shaped food). This is novel, because the previous dog food was just an unshapely mass. It is non-obvious, since dogs would refuse to eat leaf-shaped food, so it is not an obvious modification to make. So such a claim would probably be patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A method of providing food to a giraffe comprising administering the known dog food to the giraffe.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, you are claiming something which has not been done before: nobody has fed the dog food to a giraffe. It is therefore novel. Moreover, it is non-obvious, because nobody would expect a giraffe to eat dog food. So arguably this claim would be patentable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14163" RevisionGUID="19d6d21d-453a-4d6c-b524-08ea236ce6a1" CreationDate="2016-01-06T20:34:43.843" UserId="15751" Text="I am starting up a furniture company.  I was working at another furniture company, but they are going out of business.  None of their models had patents on them.  The newest model has been being sold for 6 years.  If I start making these chairs, under a different model name and company name, is it possible for the bankrupt owners to get a design patent and file infringement claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34948" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14163" RevisionGUID="19d6d21d-453a-4d6c-b524-08ea236ce6a1" CreationDate="2016-01-06T20:34:43.843" UserId="15751" Text="Can a product that is 6 years old be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34949" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14163" RevisionGUID="19d6d21d-453a-4d6c-b524-08ea236ce6a1" CreationDate="2016-01-06T20:34:43.843" UserId="15751" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14164" RevisionGUID="8b30956b-575c-4c0e-8e2a-cc4d8fd81439" CreationDate="2016-01-06T22:16:35.763" UserId="15752" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140272639][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140272639&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fwd: RE: patent application for process already in the public domain since 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dear Patent Examiner, with respect to: US patent application &#xD;&#xA;2014/0272639 A1 &#xD;&#xA;(http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220140272639%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20140272639&amp;RS=DN/20140272639). &#xD;&#xA;I Have in the past (2010) filed and had this patent approved: PCT &#xD;&#xA;application CA2009/001540 which is a device which makes carbon from &#xD;&#xA;carbon dioxide for the purpose of recycling it as carbon and carbon &#xD;&#xA;dioxide. This recycling technology has been promoted publicly since &#xD;&#xA;before 2010 and is an obvious development of the invention. We are &#xD;&#xA;pursuing this technology commercially presently and this USPTO &#xD;&#xA;application covers what we have already accomplished. Regards, Viva &#xD;&#xA;Cundliffe 778-809-1702 GC Green Carbon Inc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34951" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14164" RevisionGUID="8b30956b-575c-4c0e-8e2a-cc4d8fd81439" CreationDate="2016-01-06T22:16:35.763" UserId="15752" Text="We have prior art to this overly broad and obvious patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34952" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14164" RevisionGUID="8b30956b-575c-4c0e-8e2a-cc4d8fd81439" CreationDate="2016-01-06T22:16:35.763" UserId="15752" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14164" RevisionGUID="36d54ffd-3022-4519-91a6-3233c07d93c0" CreationDate="2016-01-06T22:44:40.107" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 415 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140272639][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140272639&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I have in the past (2010) filed and had this patent approved: PCT application CA2009/001540 which is a device which makes carbon from carbon dioxide for the purpose of recycling it as carbon and carbon dioxide. This recycling technology has been promoted publicly since before 2010 and is an obvious development of the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are pursuing this technology commercially presently and this USPTO &#xD;&#xA;application covers what we have already accomplished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to contact the examiner of this application to ensure they are aware of my own prior art. How can I do that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34954" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14164" RevisionGUID="36d54ffd-3022-4519-91a6-3233c07d93c0" CreationDate="2016-01-06T22:44:40.107" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 415 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How can I contact the examiner of an application about potential prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34955" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14164" RevisionGUID="36d54ffd-3022-4519-91a6-3233c07d93c0" CreationDate="2016-01-06T22:44:40.107" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 415 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14166" RevisionGUID="95a86a4a-d908-4150-be95-b27775a3bbef" CreationDate="2016-01-07T04:47:25.177" UserId="15755" Text="Not if they were to file a patent application now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When patents are examined, the patent Examiner determines whether the claimed invention is new and non-obvious in view of &quot;prior art.&quot; In this case, the article itself would be considered prior art assuming it was on sale, publicly displayed and publicly used before any patent application was filed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, 35 USC 102 of the patent code recites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a)Novelty; Prior Art.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—&#xD;&#xA;(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some exceptions to certain activities that occur within one year of the patent application being filed, but this would not apply since you indicated that the product has been on sale, in public use and on public display for at least 6 years. Unless a patent application was filed a long time ago (within a year on any public disclosure, public use or offer for sale) then it would not be possible to patent this design now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14168" RevisionGUID="b6dfcb28-845c-4c70-9881-f66535441118" CreationDate="2016-01-07T05:30:27.243" UserId="15756" Text="Suppose i have invented something useful. before applying for a patent is there any way which will help me in identifying whether the invention is already patented or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34965" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14168" RevisionGUID="b6dfcb28-845c-4c70-9881-f66535441118" CreationDate="2016-01-07T05:30:27.243" UserId="15756" Text="How to check whether the invention is already patented" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34966" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14168" RevisionGUID="b6dfcb28-845c-4c70-9881-f66535441118" CreationDate="2016-01-07T05:30:27.243" UserId="15756" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14169" RevisionGUID="4fc9abde-0a08-4111-8052-19029fcdde8e" CreationDate="2016-01-07T07:40:05.220" UserId="15657" Text="I agree with the_critic's comment. If you just stay under the radar, you'd probably be safe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you don't live in the U.S., life is actually simpler. The worst someone can do is probably taking your app off from App Store in the U.S. It would just be too much trouble for a U.S. company get jurisdiction on you personally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14170" RevisionGUID="16a0468a-b962-4cde-83eb-af9b92d4291f" CreationDate="2016-01-07T07:57:26.887" UserId="15657" Text="You need to first find a patent agent to do prior art search and determine if your invention is patent-able. The patent law regarding software patent is an intensely debated issue and therefore a moving target.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your design is not 100% functional and can be considered ornamental, you may want to get a Design patent first. The protection is weaker but the cost is substantially lower than that of a Utility patent. After your first filing of a design patent, you have about a year to decide on if you want to get a utility patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14166" RevisionGUID="1f360c01-82ac-4e5b-a942-4d310f9ada2c" CreationDate="2016-01-07T10:50:53.860" UserId="10011" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Not if they were to file a patent application now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When patents are examined, the patent Examiner determines whether the claimed invention is new and non-obvious in view of &quot;prior art.&quot; In this case, the article itself would be considered prior art assuming it was on sale, publicly displayed and publicly used before any patent application was filed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, 35 USC 102 of the patent code recites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a)Novelty; Prior Art.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—&#xD;&#xA;(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some exceptions to certain activities that occur within one year of the patent application being filed, but this would not apply since you indicated that the product has been on sale, in public use and on public display for at least 6 years. Unless a patent application was filed a long time ago (within a year on any public disclosure, public use or offer for sale) then it would not be possible to patent this design now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14172" RevisionGUID="0349b506-aef3-4939-a1b2-31557415aee3" CreationDate="2016-01-07T12:48:00.143" UserId="14417" Text="Since the AIA went into effect, you may submit prior art online at the USPTO via a [3rd party submission][1] (refer to [this answer][2]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [MPEP 1134][3] Third Party Inquiries and Correspondence in a Published Application&#xD;&#xA; - [MPEP 2205][4] Content of Prior Art or Section 301 Written Statements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [another related question][5]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The AIA 3rd party submission process window opens at publication and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; closes six months later or at first action on the merits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/third-party-preissuance-submissions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/6409/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1134.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2205.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/5656/14417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14164" RevisionGUID="92d028f1-d447-443c-b659-d57de0792baa" CreationDate="2016-01-07T12:53:25.897" UserId="14417" Comment="Added references and improved tagging." Text="In reference to the patent: [US 2014/0272639 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have in the past (2010) filed and had patent application [PCT/CA2009/001540][2] approved, which is a device which makes carbon from carbon dioxide for the purpose of recycling it as carbon and carbon dioxide. This recycling technology has been promoted publicly since before 2010 and is an obvious development of the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are pursuing this technology commercially presently and this USPTO &#xD;&#xA;application covers what we have already accomplished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to contact the examiner of this application to ensure they are aware of my own prior art. How can I do that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140272639&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2011050437A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34977" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14164" RevisionGUID="92d028f1-d447-443c-b659-d57de0792baa" CreationDate="2016-01-07T12:53:25.897" UserId="14417" Comment="Added references and improved tagging." Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20140272639&gt;&lt;wo2011050437a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14174" RevisionGUID="65689a81-f24e-43df-8e36-3274aae83e82" CreationDate="2016-01-08T06:26:41.967" UserId="15755" Text="Everything in the published patent along with everything in the publicly available file history associated with the application is considered prior art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Documents are eligible for use as prior art as of the date they are publicly available. In this case, all versions of the application, even canceled claims (and even if some parts of the specification and/or drawings were canceled) could still be prior art because they remain part of the public record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the claims and related description, everything in the claims must be within the scope of the application specification and/or drawings. However, everything in the specification and/or drawings does not need to be within the scope of the claims. In other words, there can be (and typically there is) lots of subject matter described in the specification and/or drawings that is not covered by the claims. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14175" RevisionGUID="8d86bd03-feb6-4055-8df5-b59d326f1f26" CreationDate="2016-01-08T06:46:05.753" UserId="13706" Text="Patentability is determined based on whether your idea is new and non-obvious over prior art. Prior art does includes patents and published patent applications, but can also include non-patent literature such as webpages, journal articles, physical products, catalogs, photographs, and the like. Accordingly, determining patentability involves a search of all prior art, not a determination of whether the invention is already patented. Stated another way, an invention that is not be patented, or was never patented, might still not be patentable because it is not new and non-obvious in light of available prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, something is &quot;patented&quot; when there is a valid and enforceable issued patent that covers the given invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To do a prior art search, a good place to start is Google Patents. Also consider doing a general internet search." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14177" RevisionGUID="a3b2e64c-e093-47a7-bdf8-449cd8975684" CreationDate="2016-01-08T08:30:43.437" UserId="15003" Text="I need an in-house lawyer's perspective on why some patents are sometimes re-assigned to subsidiaries, but still technically owned by the parent company. For example, Company A may re-assign ownership of a particular patent 3,333,333 to Company A subsidiary 1. I've seen some patent assignment documents in which firms do this. Is there an economic or legal reason/incentive for doing this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34988" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14177" RevisionGUID="a3b2e64c-e093-47a7-bdf8-449cd8975684" CreationDate="2016-01-08T08:30:43.437" UserId="15003" Text="What is the point of within firm (inter-firm/subsidiary) patent transfers/re-assignments?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34989" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14177" RevisionGUID="a3b2e64c-e093-47a7-bdf8-449cd8975684" CreationDate="2016-01-08T08:30:43.437" UserId="15003" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;assignment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14179" RevisionGUID="55bd82a5-9d58-4701-b4c2-67449db983d9" CreationDate="2016-01-08T09:47:43.240" UserId="15503" Text="Yes, there are economic reasons for this. I can give a few, but it really is impossible to answer completely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tax**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ultimate aim can be unrelated to the IP at all, but simply for tax avoidance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Broadly, companies are taxed on their profits. Expenses reduce profits, and therefore reduce the tax due. But if the expense comes from within the corporate group, the corporate group is not worse off as a whole: it is just shuffling money around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, say a group has two companies, Company A (in a high tax jurisdiction) and Company B (in a low tax jurisdiction). All the IP is transferred to Company B. Company A pays a licence fee to company B for use of the IP. This reduces the taxable profits for company A, so company A pays less tax to the high tax jurisidiction. The licence fee is income for Company B, so it may be taxed in company B's jurisdiction, but at a much lower rate. But the group as a whole is still better off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the basic concept, but in reality it will be much more complex.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Hiding assets**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Competitors may want to know your IP portfolio, to work out what your future plans are. This is because patent applications are published at 18 months from filing, whereas the official announcement may still be years down the line. So by transferring the IP to one or more subsidiaries which are not obviously linked to the parent company, it can make the job much more difficult for competitors than a simple name search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Encapsulation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each subsidiary may be generally standalone. So it makes sense for the IP to be held by that subsidiary, rather than the parent company. This is so that if the subsidiary is ever spun out or sold off, the IP goes with it. This is quite a simple reason, and is generally for ease of administration than anything else." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14181" RevisionGUID="d21ec5c3-016a-4f2b-82e9-0192cd932217" CreationDate="2016-01-09T01:45:37.913" UserId="15770" Text="I have invented a medicine for a very popular skin disease. After some googling I learned that there is not a known cure.&#xA;This medicine is made from extraction of a chemical change of a certain plants.&#xA;Can this medicine be patented? If yes, is it wiser to patent it or make a contract with a pharmaceutical company?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35002" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14181" RevisionGUID="d21ec5c3-016a-4f2b-82e9-0192cd932217" CreationDate="2016-01-09T01:45:37.913" UserId="15770" Text="A cure for a disease. What next?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35003" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14181" RevisionGUID="d21ec5c3-016a-4f2b-82e9-0192cd932217" CreationDate="2016-01-09T01:45:37.913" UserId="15770" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;medicine&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14183" RevisionGUID="5e9da1b0-bc77-488b-9f9a-637db80260e8" CreationDate="2016-01-09T12:50:42.180" UserId="15503" Text="**Can this medicine be patented?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. You have said your medicine is new. Given there is no current cure, the medicine is likely non-obvious too. Because of this, your medicine itself could likely be patented. In addition, if the method for producing it is also new and non-obvious (which is likely true for the same reasons), the method could also be patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is it wiser to patent it or make a contract with a pharmaceutical company?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is impossible to answer, as it depends on what your commercial situation is. Both options are valid and reasonable. You should almost certainly discuss this with a patent attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One valid option is to apply for a patent yourself. The downside of this approach is that this would cost quite a bit of money, since patent attorneys are pricey. Although in principle you could do this without engaging a patent attorney, this would most likely result in a patent application that will never be granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another valid option is to contact a pharmaceutical company before applying for a patent. However, if you disclosed it to the company out of confidence, this disclosure would likely prevent you getting a patent in the future. So you would likely need to have them sign a non-disclosure agreement before explaining your invention. This would likely need to be prepared by a lawyer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14184" RevisionGUID="68be04af-8ec2-479c-98ff-247f1640b035" CreationDate="2016-01-09T18:02:26.207" UserId="15675" Text="Aldo is correct. Don't send such letters without the assistance of an attorney. It's easy to get sucked into a declaratory judgment (DJ) lawsuit, which is extremely expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the legal threshold that allows a letter recipient to file a DJ action is relatively low. For example, even if you don't specifically threaten a lawsuit or assert infringement, you can still be slapped with a DJ action. Even seemingly &quot;friendly&quot; letters can be grounds for a lawsuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Talk with a patent litigation attorney to plan an enforcement strategy.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14185" RevisionGUID="1bd059e2-2ed9-4eb6-a591-fbc31293cf9c" CreationDate="2016-01-09T18:09:23.323" UserId="15675" Text="US20150107498 is a publication of a pending patent application and not an issued patent. Accordingly, nothing in this application is &quot;patented&quot; yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, keep in mind that the claims of an issued patent define what is &quot;patented&quot; and not the specification and drawings. For example, the specification and drawings can (and typically do) discuss things that are well known in the art. On the other hand, the requirement for patent claims to be allowed by the patent examiner is that the claims define an invention that is new and non-obvious in view of the prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14186" RevisionGUID="da92931a-d2b8-4d3b-932f-c05ebe13aac0" CreationDate="2016-01-10T02:45:09.643" UserId="15775" Text="In reference to the patent: [CA2907779A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/CA2907779A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know for a fact that prototypes of the subject of this patent application were marketed to crop growers in California &amp; Texas (as finished product), as well as displayed at relevant industry shows (eg: robotics shows, mining shows, agriculture shows, etc...) well before this patent was applied for - so wouldn't that constitute prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, what would be the best way to advise the USPTO of this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35012" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14186" RevisionGUID="da92931a-d2b8-4d3b-932f-c05ebe13aac0" CreationDate="2016-01-10T02:45:09.643" UserId="15775" Text="What constitutes prior art in relation to this application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35013" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14186" RevisionGUID="da92931a-d2b8-4d3b-932f-c05ebe13aac0" CreationDate="2016-01-10T02:45:09.643" UserId="15775" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14190" RevisionGUID="9a547af7-14f4-442a-b8a9-c12cc7ad9172" CreationDate="2016-01-11T06:32:17.233" UserId="15787" Text="I am completely confused by the definition of these subgroups of IPC classes. Could anyone please explain me these in layman's term? Like which kind of patents are defined in these groups (User interface, home utilities, automobiles, etc.) or just a simple definition so that I can differentiate the patents according to their use.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **G06F0003** - *Input arrangements for transferring data to be processed into a form capable of being handled by the computer; Output arrangements for transferring data from processing unit to output unit, e.g. interface arrangements.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. **H04L0029** - *Arrangements, apparatus, circuits or systems, not covered by a single one of groups H04L 1/00-H04L 27/00*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. **G06F0017** - *Digital computing or data processing equipment or methods, specially adapted for specific.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. **G06Q0010** - ? &#xD;&#xA; 5. **H04M0001** - ?&#xD;&#xA; 6. **H04N0021** - ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry, if it's too dumb to ask. Any help will be heartily appreciated. &#xD;&#xA;Thanking you. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35028" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14190" RevisionGUID="9a547af7-14f4-442a-b8a9-c12cc7ad9172" CreationDate="2016-01-11T06:32:17.233" UserId="15787" Text="Could you please explain me these sub group classes? Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35029" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14190" RevisionGUID="9a547af7-14f4-442a-b8a9-c12cc7ad9172" CreationDate="2016-01-11T06:32:17.233" UserId="15787" Text="&lt;classification&gt;&lt;ipc&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14191" RevisionGUID="8256955e-f73f-40ff-8a0b-27e374b31ffe" CreationDate="2016-01-11T15:39:37.223" UserId="15790" Text="This is obvious to anyone who has ever waited for a package to be delivered to their house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US6975998][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6975998" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35031" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14191" RevisionGUID="8256955e-f73f-40ff-8a0b-27e374b31ffe" CreationDate="2016-01-11T15:39:37.223" UserId="15790" Text="&quot;Package delivery notification system and method&quot; - is this really enforceable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35032" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14191" RevisionGUID="8256955e-f73f-40ff-8a0b-27e374b31ffe" CreationDate="2016-01-11T15:39:37.223" UserId="15790" Text="&lt;us6975998&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35033" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13736" RevisionGUID="4ac47319-b8af-4d1e-a136-b1ec37e470b7" CreationDate="2016-01-11T20:10:21.473" UserId="10011" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35034" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14191" RevisionGUID="9a81cfa9-7cdb-4779-9066-f57f2646b4fb" CreationDate="2016-01-11T20:10:44.213" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;us6975998&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14191" RevisionGUID="9a81cfa9-7cdb-4779-9066-f57f2646b4fb" CreationDate="2016-01-11T20:10:44.213" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="This is obvious to anyone who has ever waited for a package to be delivered to their house. What does this patent actually claim, and what makes it novel from the systems we all use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US6975998][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A system for reporting impending vehicle deliveries, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;memory storing a vehicle schedule, said vehicle schedule identifying packages that are to be respectively delivered to a plurality of recipients by a vehicle during a first time period and indicating an order that said vehicle is expected to deliver said packages;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a first communications device configured to establish communication with remote communications devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a system manager configured to analyze said vehicle schedule and to determine, based on said order, a second time period that said vehicle is expected to deliver one of said packages, said system manager further configured to transmit a notification message for a respective one of said recipients of said one of said packages via said first communications device, said notification message identifying said second time period,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  wherein said second time period is within said first time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6975998" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35036" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14191" RevisionGUID="9a81cfa9-7cdb-4779-9066-f57f2646b4fb" CreationDate="2016-01-11T20:10:44.213" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&quot;Package delivery notification system and method&quot; claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14192" RevisionGUID="8d795292-621c-4d9b-a8f4-217469e924fe" CreationDate="2016-01-11T22:07:56.340" UserId="15555" Text="*Alice* is having a big impact on US practice; there is an increased focus on a requirement for technical innovation for subject matter to be patent eligible, as compared with practice over the past decade or so which has been quite liberal with e-commerce and other business innovations.  There must be &quot;something more&quot; than an abstract idea to be considered eligible subject matter.  Wherever you have some specific technical innovation you have a potential patentable concept - which will of course be examined in the normal way (must be novel and non-obvious)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14190" RevisionGUID="5a533b9f-5e71-49e9-bb2f-eb5373d67921" CreationDate="2016-01-11T22:56:17.727" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 93 characters in body; edited title" Text="I am completely confused by the definition of these subgroups of IPC classes. Could anyone please explain me these in layman's term? Like which kind of patents are defined in these groups (User interface, home utilities, automobiles, etc.) or just a simple definition so that I can differentiate the patents according to their use.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **G06F0003** - *Input arrangements for transferring data to be processed into a form capable of being handled by the computer; Output arrangements for transferring data from processing unit to output unit, e.g. interface arrangements.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. **H04L0029** - *Arrangements, apparatus, circuits or systems, not covered by a single one of groups H04L 1/00-H04L 27/00*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. **G06F0017** - *Digital computing or data processing equipment or methods, specially adapted for specific.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. **G06Q0010** - ? &#xD;&#xA; 5. **H04M0001** - ?&#xD;&#xA; 6. **H04N0021** - ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35039" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14190" RevisionGUID="5a533b9f-5e71-49e9-bb2f-eb5373d67921" CreationDate="2016-01-11T22:56:17.727" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 93 characters in body; edited title" Text="What do these sub group classes mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14190" RevisionGUID="0cfe396c-9906-42a0-9e81-0fab81dff01f" CreationDate="2016-01-12T09:03:51.120" UserId="15503" Comment="Correct the format of the IPC classes" Text="I am completely confused by the definition of these subgroups of IPC classes. Could anyone please explain me these in layman's term? Like which kind of patents are defined in these groups (User interface, home utilities, automobiles, etc.) or just a simple definition so that I can differentiate the patents according to their use.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **G06F 3/00** - *Input arrangements for transferring data to be processed into a form capable of being handled by the computer; Output arrangements for transferring data from processing unit to output unit, e.g. interface arrangements.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. **H04L 29/00** - *Arrangements, apparatus, circuits or systems, not covered by a single one of groups H04L 1/00-H04L 27/00*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. **G06F 17/00** - *Digital computing or data processing equipment or methods, specially adapted for specific.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. **G06Q 10/00** - ? &#xD;&#xA; 5. **H04M 1/00** - ?&#xD;&#xA; 6. **H04N 21/00** - ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14196" RevisionGUID="9733e20c-fdd1-4cdd-9e89-cfc1788f2e77" CreationDate="2016-01-12T10:11:14.720" UserId="15503" Text="The IPC works hierarchically, so that any class (such as G06F 3/00) includes the characteristics of the classes above it (such as G, G06 and G06F). Looking at a particular classification alone can therefore be a bit confusing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the quotes below are taken from the [IPC ](http://www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/en/). The IPC is written in a way to make it technically clear but entirely unreadable to the casual observer. So apologies, because this answer is about to get dull.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;G06F 3/00&#xD;&#xA;=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**G06** covers computing and calculating generally. This includes, among other things, operations on numerical values and on data expressed in numerical form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**G06F** covers electric digital data processing in general, but which does not use a specific computational model (like biological, knowledge-based or fuzzy logic), since that would be in G06N.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**G06F 3/00** covers:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Input arrangements for transferring data to be processed into a form capable of being handled by the computer; Output arrangements for transferring data from processing unit to output unit, e.g. interface arrangements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Thus an invention in G06F 3/00 relates to:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - computing and calculating; (G06)&#xD;&#xA; - doing so using digital data; (G06F)&#xD;&#xA; - either: (1) taking non-digital data and making it digital; or (2) interfaces for outputting processed data. (G06F 3/00)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;H04L 29/00&#xD;&#xA;=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**H04** covers the electrical communication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**H04L** covers the electrical transmission of digital information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**H04L 29/00** covers:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arrangements, apparatus, circuits or systems, not covered by a single one of groups H04L 1/00-H04L 27/00.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because this classification references a number of other classes, we have no option but to go trawling through the rest of H04L.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;H04L 1/00-H04L 27/00 cover:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Arrangements for detecting or preventing errors in the information received (H04L 1/00)&#xD;&#xA; - Arrangements affording multiple use of the transmission path (H04L 5/00)&#xD;&#xA; - Arrangements for synchronising receiver with transmitter (H04L 7/00)&#xD;&#xA; - Arrangements for secret or secure communication (H04L 9/00)&#xD;&#xA; - Data switching networks (H04L 12/00)&#xD;&#xA; - Details of the apparatus or circuits covered by groups H04L 15/00 or H04L 17/00 (H04L 13/00)&#xD;&#xA; - Apparatus or local circuits for transmitting or receiving dot-and-dash codes, e.g. Morse code (H04L 15/00)&#xD;&#xA; - Apparatus or local circuits for transmitting or receiving codes wherein each character is represented by the same number of equal-length code elements, e.g. Baudot code (H04L 17/00)&#xD;&#xA; - Apparatus or local circuits for step-by-step systems (H04L 19/00)&#xD;&#xA; - Apparatus or local circuits for mosaic printer telegraph systems (H04L 21/00)&#xD;&#xA; - Apparatus or local circuits for telegraphic systems other than those covered by groups H04L 15/00-H04L 21/00 (H04L 23/00)&#xD;&#xA; - Baseband systems (H04L 25/00)&#xD;&#xA; - Modulated-carrier systems (H04L 27/00)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Thus an invention in H04L 29/00 relates to:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - electrical communication; (H04)&#xD;&#xA; - of digital information; (H04L)&#xD;&#xA; - which does not fall into any of the other categories noted above. (H04L 29/00)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;G06F 17/00&#xD;&#xA;=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**G06** and **G06F** are above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**G06F 17/00** covers:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Digital computing or data processing equipment or methods, specially adapted for specific functions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On its own, this doesn't tell you much. However, some of the subclasses are helpful. G06F 17/16 is for &quot;matrix or vector computation&quot; and G06F 17/20 is for &quot;handling natural language data&quot;. These two examples are reasonably unrelated, so G06F 17/00 must therefore be a very broad class. I would expect that a more specific classification (such as G06F 17/16) would be more appropriate than the /00 classification in basically all cases, given this breadth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, **an invention in G06F 17/00 relates to**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - computing and calculating; (G06)&#xD;&#xA; - doing so using digital data; (G06F)&#xD;&#xA; - doing so for a specific purpose, not just in general. (G06F 17/00)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;G06Q 10/00&#xD;&#xA;=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**G06** is above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**G06Q** covers systems and methods for &quot;administrative, commercial, financial, managerial, supervisory or forecasting&quot;. This is what we would typically regard as business methods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**G06Q 10/00** covers the administration or management options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Thus an invention in G06Q 10/00 relates to:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - computing and calculating; (G06)&#xD;&#xA; - for administration or management of something. (G06Q 10/00)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;H04M 1/00&#xD;&#xA;=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**H04** is above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**H04M** covers &quot;telephonic communication&quot;. Essentially anything to do with telephones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**H04M 1/00** covers:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Substation equipment, e.g. for use by subscribers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subscribers are defined as &quot;a general term for terminal equipment, e.g. telephones for public use;&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Thus an invention in H04M 1/00 relates to**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - electrical communication; (H04)&#xD;&#xA; - for telephones; (H04M)&#xD;&#xA; - which relates to substation equipment, such as a telephone for a user. (H04M 1/00)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;H04N 21/00&#xD;&#xA;=&#xD;&#xA;**H04** is above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**H04N** covers &quot;pictorial communication, e.g. television&quot;. Essentially anything to do with video.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**H04N 21/00** covers:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selective content distribution, e.g. interactive television or video on demand [VOD]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;H04N 21/00 therefore covers any form of television where the user has some control over what they see (and systems and methods related to this).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Thus an invention in H04N 21/00 relates to:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - electrical communication; (H04)&#xD;&#xA; - for video; (H04N)&#xD;&#xA; - which allows a user to have some input in what they see. (H04N 21/00)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14197" RevisionGUID="d0734ad4-f128-4e15-bdcc-d23c0e457ac8" CreationDate="2016-01-12T14:16:47.823" UserId="15795" Text="I have a logic block that has 3 logic circuits: a first logic circuit, a second logic circuit and a third logic circuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When all three circuit claims are chained, I have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	(..), as in claim 1, wherein the logic block comprises a first logic circuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	(..), as in claim 3, wherein the logic block further comprises a second logic circuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	(..), as in claim 4, wherein the logic block further comprises a third logic circuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When all three circuit claims are not chained, is the following correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.	(..), as in claim 1, wherein the logic block comprises a first logic circuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.	(..), as in claim 1, wherein the logic block comprises a second logic circuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8.	(..), as in claim 1, wherein the logic block comprises a third logic circuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weng&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35058" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14197" RevisionGUID="d0734ad4-f128-4e15-bdcc-d23c0e457ac8" CreationDate="2016-01-12T14:16:47.823" UserId="15795" Text="“Further” usage in chained claims and in non-chained claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35059" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14197" RevisionGUID="d0734ad4-f128-4e15-bdcc-d23c0e457ac8" CreationDate="2016-01-12T14:16:47.823" UserId="15795" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14199" RevisionGUID="ef008124-60b5-4fef-b9be-be943f94224a" CreationDate="2016-01-12T18:31:54.610" UserId="15795" Text="It is assumed that a device comprises 4 logic circuits with following relationships using arrows representing input and output signals.&#xD;&#xA;A first logic circuit --&gt; a second logic circuit --&gt; a third logic circuit --&gt; a fourth logic circuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second logic circuit is the most important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I claim in the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	(..), as in claim 1, wherein the device comprises a second logic circuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	(..), as in claim 3, wherein the device further comprises a first logic circuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	(..), as in claim 3, wherein the device further comprises a third logic circuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.	(..), as in claim 5, wherein the device further comprises a fourth logic circuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.	(..), as in claim 3, wherein the second logic circuit is a state machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8.	(..), as in claim 5, wherein the third logic circuit is a shifter register.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have three questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a.	Is it necessary to arrange all first 4 claims in a chained form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b.	Is it necessary to enumerate logic circuits in their appearance order in claims starting from first?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c.	Are above claims 7 and 8 permitted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weng&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35065" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14199" RevisionGUID="ef008124-60b5-4fef-b9be-be943f94224a" CreationDate="2016-01-12T18:31:54.610" UserId="15795" Text="Dependent claim arrangement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35066" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14199" RevisionGUID="ef008124-60b5-4fef-b9be-be943f94224a" CreationDate="2016-01-12T18:31:54.610" UserId="15795" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14200" RevisionGUID="a75e6667-f3cb-4a2c-8221-22e83684423b" CreationDate="2016-01-12T20:42:38.253" UserId="15799" Text="Suppose we have some equipment made by a manufacturer that digitally records and measures some data and communicates it with a PC. They haven't provided any documentation on the protocols it uses for communicating this data with the PC nor does it seem that they intend to ever. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, we have been able to figure out the sequence of bytes through reverse engineering and have been considering producing some equipment that augments the data by performing calculations and sending control sequences back to the initial equipment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The protocols are proprietary with regards to them being developed by company X for the purpose of operating company X's machinery via PCs running proprietary software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can our idea be brought to market as add-ons to company X's equipment without infringing on anybody's patents or intellectual rights?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35068" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14200" RevisionGUID="a75e6667-f3cb-4a2c-8221-22e83684423b" CreationDate="2016-01-12T20:42:38.253" UserId="15799" Text="Reverse Engineering a communications protocol. Is it legal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35069" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14200" RevisionGUID="a75e6667-f3cb-4a2c-8221-22e83684423b" CreationDate="2016-01-12T20:42:38.253" UserId="15799" Text="&lt;legal&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14202" RevisionGUID="3afbba48-62df-405a-a36a-fe38cad94bef" CreationDate="2016-01-13T01:38:42.913" UserId="15800" Text="Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I would like to depict an elevator system in a video game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This elevator system is deliberately similar to a real elevator system. That real elevator system has a software control system which makes it behave the way it does. This system would infringe patents if implemented in a real elevator system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I were to include an implementation of the control system for this depiction of an elevator system, would that infringe a patent on the control system?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Example of a patent relevant to this scenario](https://patents.google.com/patent/US7849974B2/)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35074" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14202" RevisionGUID="3afbba48-62df-405a-a36a-fe38cad94bef" CreationDate="2016-01-13T01:38:42.913" UserId="15800" Text="Depiction of an object which depends on patented control software" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35075" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14202" RevisionGUID="3afbba48-62df-405a-a36a-fe38cad94bef" CreationDate="2016-01-13T01:38:42.913" UserId="15800" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14203" RevisionGUID="e486a3f0-2b73-418f-bcfc-942f6a1b8e72" CreationDate="2016-01-13T09:00:14.347" UserId="14052" Text="Following are the recent transaction descriptions of a patent application with US PTO with filing date  Dec-27-2013 retrieved using PAIR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    01-02-2016 	Document Verification&#xD;&#xA;    12-22-2015 	**Reasons for Allowance**&#xD;&#xA;    12-20-2015 	Date Forwarded to Examiner&#xD;&#xA;    12-11-2015 	Response after Non-Final Action&#xD;&#xA;    09-19-2015 	Mail Post Card&#xD;&#xA;    09-11-2015 	Email Notification&#xD;&#xA;    09-11-2015 	Mail Non-Final Rejection&#xD;&#xA;    09-08-2015 	Non-Final Rejection&#xD;&#xA;    08-31-2015 	Application ready for PDX access by participating foreign offices&#xD;&#xA;    07-03-2015 	Email Notification&#xD;&#xA;    07-02-2015 	PG-Pub Issue Notification&#xD;&#xA;    05-20-2015 	Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    02-20-2015 	Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU&#xD;&#xA;    10-02-2014 	Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU&#xD;&#xA;    08-05-2014 	Application Dispatched from OIPE&#xD;&#xA;    08-05-2014 	FITF set to YES - revise initial setting&#xD;&#xA;    12-27-2013 	Patent Term Adjustment - Ready for Examination&#xD;&#xA;    01-10-2014 	Email Notification&#xD;&#xA;    01-10-2014 	Email Notification&#xD;&#xA;    01-10-2014 	Change in Power of Attorney (May Include Associate POA)&#xD;&#xA;    01-09-2014 	Sent to Classification Contractor&#xD;&#xA;    01-10-2014 	Application Is Now Complete&#xD;&#xA;    01-10-2014 	Filing Receipt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does &quot;Reasons for Allowance&quot; imply that there is a high probability of this application to be granted in the near future. If yes, what is the time line that we are looking at ?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35079" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14203" RevisionGUID="e486a3f0-2b73-418f-bcfc-942f6a1b8e72" CreationDate="2016-01-13T09:00:14.347" UserId="14052" Text="Does Reasons for Allowance in transaction history description of PAIR point to a probable patent grant in the near future?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35080" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14203" RevisionGUID="e486a3f0-2b73-418f-bcfc-942f6a1b8e72" CreationDate="2016-01-13T09:00:14.347" UserId="14052" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;pair&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35082" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14203" RevisionGUID="d011c485-e515-4033-8ee1-02b144ab2dc0" CreationDate="2016-01-13T13:06:54.713" UserId="14052" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;utility&gt;&lt;pair&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35095" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14203" RevisionGUID="be4b3e5a-8fb9-47ae-ad33-d89a3e7cc707" CreationDate="2016-01-14T04:20:15.340" UserId="14052" Comment="edited title" Text="Does &quot;Reasons for Allowance&quot; in transaction history description of PAIR point to a probable patent grant in the near future?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14209" RevisionGUID="3882e74e-e6a7-42f8-b7a1-27dda8fcba3d" CreationDate="2016-01-14T15:43:58.450" UserId="7997" Text="I am assuming there is research and a conclusion on this, instead of just a discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prioritized Examination allows patents to get examined in a year for a fee. I know of patent attorneys that pass this fee to their clients without any explanation, and simply tell them that it will take a year to get approved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the possible proliferation of priority examinations create a larger backlog of non prioritized patents? Perhaps the GAO has released a report about the USPTO on this very practice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any insight appreciated" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35106" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14209" RevisionGUID="3882e74e-e6a7-42f8-b7a1-27dda8fcba3d" CreationDate="2016-01-14T15:43:58.450" UserId="7997" Text="Does Priority Examination delay other patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35107" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14209" RevisionGUID="3882e74e-e6a7-42f8-b7a1-27dda8fcba3d" CreationDate="2016-01-14T15:43:58.450" UserId="7997" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;approving&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14211" RevisionGUID="fdf60f12-ce0c-4858-9873-653247be8b13" CreationDate="2016-01-15T00:16:40.383" UserId="15816" Text="I am looking for a patent lawyer who understands certain subject matter.  in reviewing existing patents i can see the subject mater that is related.  How can i find out who the lawyer was? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35113" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14211" RevisionGUID="fdf60f12-ce0c-4858-9873-653247be8b13" CreationDate="2016-01-15T00:16:40.383" UserId="15816" Text="How do you you find a patent lawyer by looking at patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35114" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14211" RevisionGUID="fdf60f12-ce0c-4858-9873-653247be8b13" CreationDate="2016-01-15T00:16:40.383" UserId="15816" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;lawyers&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35134" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="14203" RevisionGUID="6ec275a0-0a89-43bc-9d52-8b0edd711985" CreationDate="2016-01-16T07:48:03.350" UserId="14052" Comment="33" />
  <row Id="35135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14216" RevisionGUID="7c165aa3-281b-42ea-a8ee-cd22f597b16f" CreationDate="2016-01-16T20:50:44.667" UserId="15832" Text="Does anyone have a suggestion for good books or other resources on patents for startups and inventors? It seems like most things are “do it yourself” guides or texts for attorneys that don’t have the right focus. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are in the process of developing a set of wearable devices and want to know how to properly protect ourselves before we file a patent application and how to structure a patents to make our company more attractive to investors. We get it that working with an attorney is important, but want to get as much background info as possible without being “on the clock” and ideally some tips on how to make patenting more cost effective in early stages given that our budget is limited at this point. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35136" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14216" RevisionGUID="7c165aa3-281b-42ea-a8ee-cd22f597b16f" CreationDate="2016-01-16T20:50:44.667" UserId="15832" Text="Good patent books for startups and inventors?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35137" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14216" RevisionGUID="7c165aa3-281b-42ea-a8ee-cd22f597b16f" CreationDate="2016-01-16T20:50:44.667" UserId="15832" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;independent-inventor&gt;&lt;book&gt;&lt;start-ups&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14218" RevisionGUID="f701ad37-bf9b-4c5b-9a61-3da63dc64167" CreationDate="2016-01-17T06:45:04.050" UserId="15838" Text="I have a product that is licensed and hold a 14 yr design patent and I just saw a small business selling this product. What should I do? What type of notice should o give them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35141" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14218" RevisionGUID="f701ad37-bf9b-4c5b-9a61-3da63dc64167" CreationDate="2016-01-17T06:45:04.050" UserId="15838" Text="someone is selling my patented product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35142" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14218" RevisionGUID="f701ad37-bf9b-4c5b-9a61-3da63dc64167" CreationDate="2016-01-17T06:45:04.050" UserId="15838" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2003" RevisionGUID="d74dc65c-4889-475b-b3e1-23c6e382818d" CreationDate="2016-01-17T18:37:35.107" UserId="1" Comment="added 46 characters in body; deleted 1 character in body" Text="**PLEASE NOTE** that questions about Copyright are off topic for this site. Use this tag for questions predominantly about patents that cross over into Copyright issues. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14224" RevisionGUID="68b07d46-35a4-4ec3-8105-b80e97be2e9c" CreationDate="2016-01-18T06:50:42.637" UserId="15675" Text="The standard patent book for startups and entrepreneurs is [Patents Demystified][1].  I used this book while getting my own patents and it’s become required reading for any start-ups that I coach or invest in. It’s one of the few patent guides I know of that has detailed insight on how legitimate startups patent their product(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike most patent guides, it’s actually written by a practicing patent attorney that has experience with startups, which makes a huge difference. It has great insider tips on how to make patenting cost-effective for early stage companies without compromising on protection or turning off investors, which is why I like my companies to use it. Plus, the content on properly using patents in PR and marketing is extremely helpful in making a new company stand out from the crowd. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://amzn.to/1SnXsEf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14225" RevisionGUID="6c860c0c-dff1-4e42-99a4-ffc00f278407" CreationDate="2016-01-18T09:42:33.080" UserId="15503" Text="**Does &quot;Reasons for Allowance&quot; imply that there is a high probability of this application to be granted in the near future.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[37 CFR § 1.104(e)](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e322124) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the examiner believes that the record of the prosecution as a whole does not make clear his or her reasons for allowing a claim or claims, the examiner may set forth such reasoning. The reasons shall be incorporated into an Office action rejecting other claims of the application or patent under reexamination or be the subject of a separate communication to the applicant or patent owner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus having a standalone reasons document strongly implies that no further office action will be issued, otherwise the reasons would be incorporated into that. This means that the application is generally in order for allowance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A further gloss is provided by [MPEP § 1302.14](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1302.html#d0e132661):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One of the primary purposes of 37 CFR 1.104(e) is to improve the quality and reliability of issued patents by providing a complete file history which should clearly reflect, as much as is reasonably possible, **the reasons why the application was allowed**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the reasons for allowance are generally provided when the application (and not just certain claims) is allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If yes, what is the time line that we are looking at?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find a precise timeframe, so the best I could suggest is &quot;soon&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[MPEP § 1302.03](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1302.html#d0e131684) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In all instances, both before and after final rejection, in which an application is placed in condition for allowance, applicant should be notified promptly of allowability of the claims by a Notice of Allowability PTOL-37. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are no formal matters outstanding, you would receive a [notice of allowance](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1303.html) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you receive the notice of allowance, there are some formalities that occur before the application is issued (granted). Notably, you must pay the issue fee within 3 months of the notice of allowance. The application will then issue around 2 months from paying that fee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Per [MPEP § 1309](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1309.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When the issue fee is paid and all other requirements have been met (e.g., drawings) for issuance as a patent, the application is then electronically exported to the Final Data Capture (FDC) stage. The FDC makes any updates necessary to the electronic file and places the allowed patent application in an issue. The average time that an allowed application is in the FDC process is 5 weeks (2 weeks of processing time for assignment of issue date). The &quot;Issue Notification&quot; is mailed approximately 3 weeks prior to the issue date of the patent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14226" RevisionGUID="f8f6ba07-b745-4ac8-9542-b8a13c7334f9" CreationDate="2016-01-18T13:40:02.387" UserId="15503" Text="**Which countries would pose an issue for a PCT filling if my PPA doesn't have a claim?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None (in principle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Priority is governed by the Paris Convention (1883).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Article 4(1) of this provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Any person who has duly filed an application for a patent … shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing in the other countries, a right of priority during the periods hereinafter fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This period is 1 year for patents (Article 4(C)(1)). So the question is: is filing a provisional patent application &quot;duly filing an application for a patent&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is clarified by Article 4(2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Any filing that is equivalent to a regular national filing under the domestic legislation of any country of the Union … shall be recognized as giving rise to the right of priority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus the question is clarifed: is a provisional patent application equivalent to a &quot;regular national filing&quot; under US law?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;regular national filing&quot; is defined in Article 4(3):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;By a regular national filing is meant any filing that is adequate to establish the date on which the application was filed in the country concerned, whatever may be the subsequent fate of the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US, a provisional patent application is adequate to establish the date on which the application was filed in the US. Indeed, that is entirely the purpose of the provisional. This is the case whether the provisional was filed with claims or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, since a provisional patent application is a regular national filing, it gives rise to a right of priority under the Paris Convention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So any country which (properly) implements the Paris Convention (which is basically every country in the world) would recognise a US provisional patent application as being suitable as a priority document, regardless of whether the provisional has claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Caveat**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, just because a provisional **can** support priority does not mean that it **does** support priority. The provisional still needs to be properly drafted, and should probably be, in substance, the same as a non-provisional. Otherwise, the applicant runs the risk of having an insufficient disclosure to properly support the claims of a later filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the key reason for including claims in a provisional. If you have a claim in the provisional, then you certainly can support the earlier priority to the same claim in a later filing. If you do not have claims in the provisional, you better be careful that your description is good enough to add them later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13592" RevisionGUID="d7a6f24a-5dce-4094-8845-5068e31e9b48" CreationDate="2016-01-18T14:35:31.050" UserId="11751" Comment="added 426 characters in body" Text="From [Public Pair][1] you can find that the inventor is identified as &quot;John J. Bartucco , Meeker, CO (US)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a corresponding [whitepages search result][2] and [google results][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please also see earlier [question][4] indicated by [Pushpack][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over, not sure it is worth trying to buy it... [USPTO][6] [Public PAIR][1] indicates that its status is &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot;. In Final Rejection examiner indicates that the content of the patent application is unpatentable over [CA2164917][7] in view of [US4456947][8] - there is not enough novelty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.whitepages.com/name/John-J-Bartucco/Meeker-CO&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://bit.ly/1UQKUqe&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5059/how-can-i-contact-the-owner-of-a-patent&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/users/11895/pushpak&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.uspto.gov/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.google.com/patents/CA2164917A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4456947" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14228" RevisionGUID="adf08da5-7cd5-450c-a7a0-6949f080100a" CreationDate="2016-01-18T16:16:35.507" UserId="15848" Text="I have found a door handle that must be at least 100 years old. It is made of cast iron. There are no marks on it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would assume this item is no longer patented, but if it were, how would I be able to verify it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to patent or copyright it and manufacture it for sale myself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35178" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14228" RevisionGUID="adf08da5-7cd5-450c-a7a0-6949f080100a" CreationDate="2016-01-18T16:16:35.507" UserId="15848" Text="Can I patent an old piece of hardware?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35179" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14228" RevisionGUID="adf08da5-7cd5-450c-a7a0-6949f080100a" CreationDate="2016-01-18T16:16:35.507" UserId="15848" Text="&lt;old&gt;&lt;door&gt;&lt;handle&gt;&lt;cast&gt;&lt;iron&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14230" RevisionGUID="204938f0-d96f-40eb-9308-6e04d093872b" CreationDate="2016-01-18T23:35:39.400" UserId="15852" Text="I have an idea of a genetically modified animal whose artificial features will solve certain practical problem. The combination of features is far from trivial. Can I patent (in UK, EU, US and the rest of the world) such an animal before investing into practical research and getting a required DNA changes? If so, can you point me to similar patents?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35186" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14230" RevisionGUID="204938f0-d96f-40eb-9308-6e04d093872b" CreationDate="2016-01-18T23:35:39.400" UserId="15852" Text="Can I patent a genetically modified animal before creating the one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35187" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14230" RevisionGUID="204938f0-d96f-40eb-9308-6e04d093872b" CreationDate="2016-01-18T23:35:39.400" UserId="15852" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;european&gt;&lt;medicine&gt;&lt;uk&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14232" RevisionGUID="4cd84387-0dec-48e6-b81b-235bccdb3b57" CreationDate="2016-01-19T03:09:33.240" UserId="15840" Text="I have almost completed all parts of patent  application. Now I am starting claim section. As English is not my first language and I am self-filing.  I am little what to include and exclude in claim&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Should I copy and pasted the method,which I describe in patent application, in claim section  or rephrase it. &#xD;&#xA;2. Should  I mention all methods in claim section" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35191" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14232" RevisionGUID="4cd84387-0dec-48e6-b81b-235bccdb3b57" CreationDate="2016-01-19T03:09:33.240" UserId="15840" Text="How to write claim" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35192" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14232" RevisionGUID="4cd84387-0dec-48e6-b81b-235bccdb3b57" CreationDate="2016-01-19T03:09:33.240" UserId="15840" Text="&lt;claimhelp&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14234" RevisionGUID="d773a0c4-b4ce-4a01-8ecb-5b1644877bfb" CreationDate="2016-01-19T10:41:08.057" UserId="15503" Text="So your question actually raises two issues, which I will cover separately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can I patent a genetically modified animal?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US, it has long been practice to allow claims to non-human animals. A clear statement of this is at [MPEP § 2105](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2105.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[From 1987,] the Patent and Trademark Office would now consider nonnaturally occurring, nonhuman multicellular living organisms, including animals, to be patentable subject matter within the scope of 35 U.S.C. 101. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There has been some recent development in genes. Naturally occurring genes are not patentable (per the 2013 US Supreme Court decision *Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics*). However, artifically created ones still presumably are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example of such a patented invention is [US 8071839](https://www.google.co.uk/patents/US8071839).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Europe, animals are in principle patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EPC art 53 provides: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; European patents shall not be granted in respect of: … (b) plant or animal varieties or essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, EPC r 27 provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Biotechnological inventions shall also be patentable if they concern: … (b) plants or animals if the technical feasibility of the invention is not confined to a particular plant or animal variety …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So an animal (or plant) which has some invention associated with it, but is not confined to a specific variety, is patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example of this is claim 12 of [EP0264166](https://www.google.com/patents/EP0264166B1?cl=en), which claims &quot;a mammal&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can I patent an idea before working out how to obtain it?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The description has to contain enough detail such that a person who reads it could put the claimed invention into practice (in the US, [35 USC § 112](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824912); in Europe, [EPC art 83](https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/ar83.html)). It is generally not enough to simply describe a solution without specifying how someone could get there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, the detail seems to be the precise genetic changes. Without this information, it is very likely that anything you claim would be insufficient, so any patent application would not be granted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14235" RevisionGUID="feee7545-3a90-4fcd-ad53-00efb74b2763" CreationDate="2016-01-19T13:55:01.397" UserId="13552" Text="I got a notification from uspto that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Patent Term Adjustment is 58 days&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know what is PTA and how is it calculated ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please explain me in simple english. &#xD;&#xA;thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35199" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14235" RevisionGUID="feee7545-3a90-4fcd-ad53-00efb74b2763" CreationDate="2016-01-19T13:55:01.397" UserId="13552" Text="Patent Term Adjustment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35200" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14235" RevisionGUID="feee7545-3a90-4fcd-ad53-00efb74b2763" CreationDate="2016-01-19T13:55:01.397" UserId="13552" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;term&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14238" RevisionGUID="b458b69b-b0f9-47a7-a0f7-1b8af7cf7f89" CreationDate="2016-01-19T16:59:56.447" UserId="15503" Text="A granted US patent usually lasts 20 years from the application date (assuming all the renewal fees are paid). So, if you applied for the patent on 1 July 2001, and it was granted, it would last until 1 July 2021.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the USPTO takes too long to review the application, you will be granted an extension of this 20 year period (see [MPEP § 2730](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2730.html) for details). This extension is called the &quot;patent term extension&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, in the above example, if the patent term extension is 18 days, the actual expiry date would be 19 July 2021." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14235" RevisionGUID="cbceed66-9c88-42b9-9b82-fd06cdd9c5f6" CreationDate="2016-01-21T08:59:49.583" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 49 characters in body" Text="I got a notification from uspto that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Patent Term Adjustment is 58 days&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know what is PTA and how is it calculated ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14245" RevisionGUID="d0bcefe5-998f-41e1-9275-61774e6f6c85" CreationDate="2016-01-21T13:58:48.537" UserId="15869" Text="I have a plan to start a web site that contains a tutorial about programing and algorithms related to a technology. I want to do it just for fun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I’m worried about what happens if the technology has been patented. Is teaching about a patented technology considered infringing or inducing infringement on the patent? How about showing a sample code for the patented technology?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe I should put my question in order.  &#xD;&#xA;What in the list below is considered infringing or inducing infringement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding a patented technology;  &#xD;&#xA;1. Telling about it briefly on the web.  &#xD;&#xA;2. Teaching about it to the detail with some drawings on the web.  &#xD;&#xA;3. Showing a sample code that works if programed, on the web.  &#xD;&#xA;4. Providing a downloadable program that works, for free on the web.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35231" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14245" RevisionGUID="d0bcefe5-998f-41e1-9275-61774e6f6c85" CreationDate="2016-01-21T13:58:48.537" UserId="15869" Text="Telling about someone's patent on the web" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35232" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14245" RevisionGUID="d0bcefe5-998f-41e1-9275-61774e6f6c85" CreationDate="2016-01-21T13:58:48.537" UserId="15869" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14248" RevisionGUID="14679026-c3c4-4efd-bb35-24e49f09f90f" CreationDate="2016-01-22T07:33:03.473" UserId="15877" Text="Is it necessary to patent an idea or innovation before a beta version is released in India? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35245" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14248" RevisionGUID="14679026-c3c4-4efd-bb35-24e49f09f90f" CreationDate="2016-01-22T07:33:03.473" UserId="15877" Text="Patent before beta release in India" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35246" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14248" RevisionGUID="14679026-c3c4-4efd-bb35-24e49f09f90f" CreationDate="2016-01-22T07:33:03.473" UserId="15877" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;india&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14249" RevisionGUID="90adfa05-1012-4021-9639-978f07e56dc6" CreationDate="2016-01-22T09:58:07.553" UserId="15878" Text="In a current project (which might see commercial use in the futere) I need to track people and objects in camera images. A little bit of research brought up the &quot;Discriminative Scale Space Tracker&quot; (DSST), which is detailed in the paper: [*Accurate Scale Estimation for Robust Visual Tracking*](http://liu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:785778/FULLTEXT01.pdf). This algorithm is based on the MOSSE Tracker ([*Visual Object Tracking using Adaptive Correlation Filters*](http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~vision/publications/bolme_cvpr10.pdf))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before implementing everything myself, I looked around and found an [open source implementation](https://github.com/klahaag/cf_tracking). This page told me: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The code using linear correlation filters may be affected by a US patent. If you want to use this code commercially in the US please refer to http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~vision/ocof_toolset_2012/index.php for possible patent claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to read the patent documents: http://www.google.com/patents/US20100322534?hl=en and http://www.google.com/patents/US8520956?hl=en.&#xD;&#xA;However, now I am really confused and don't really know what I am allowed to do. The authors of the github page also seemed unsure if the code is affected by the patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the patent concern the overall idea of using correlation based filtering? Some of the claims seem very basic to me, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dividing each video frame into a plurality of detection regions and applying the final filter to each region.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is essentially what every object detector does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The final question would be: Am I allowed to use DSST in the project either in the already open source implementation or in a new implementation solely based on the DSST-Paper? Or is the method too closely related to the patented methods?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35248" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14249" RevisionGUID="90adfa05-1012-4021-9639-978f07e56dc6" CreationDate="2016-01-22T09:58:07.553" UserId="15878" Text="Am I allowed to use a published algorithm which is an improvement to a patented algorithm?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35249" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14249" RevisionGUID="90adfa05-1012-4021-9639-978f07e56dc6" CreationDate="2016-01-22T09:58:07.553" UserId="15878" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;algorithms&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14251" RevisionGUID="a4c0ec06-40b0-4d32-a255-3c2deb218d91" CreationDate="2016-01-22T18:23:27.557" UserId="15882" Text="If I have suddenly realized that my issued patent infringed an earlier issued patent, and I have been notified by the original inventor of this infringement, even though my patent was granted, what can I do to cancel it/withdraw it to avoid litigation. It is a pretty clear infringement, and I do not believe my chances would be good in litigation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Advice?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35258" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14251" RevisionGUID="a4c0ec06-40b0-4d32-a255-3c2deb218d91" CreationDate="2016-01-22T18:23:27.557" UserId="15882" Text="Withdraw an Issued Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35259" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14251" RevisionGUID="a4c0ec06-40b0-4d32-a255-3c2deb218d91" CreationDate="2016-01-22T18:23:27.557" UserId="15882" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14252" RevisionGUID="77d3c7e0-16f0-4e35-bbae-788288f66b2a" CreationDate="2016-01-22T23:21:28.887" UserId="15885" Text="Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102   Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent.&#xD;&#xA;I think you can use this....if not simply declaring it your own personal trade secret (since you didn't invent it while working for the company). I'd just object to their attempt to patent it and point out that you did use it in your own work, in years prior. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent rules read. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***** &#xD;&#xA;(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2133.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14254" RevisionGUID="6c8d4c1d-1663-4d67-9274-625dc7bc4cad" CreationDate="2016-01-23T00:02:59.097" UserId="11537" Text="One patent cannot infringe another patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose a patent claims a widget comprising X, Y and Z.  In that case making, using or selling such a *widget* (comprising X, Y and Z) might infringe the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you making, using or selling what the other guy claimed in his patent?  That may be a tricky question to answer because it requires an analysis of his *claims*.  There is no need to assume that the answer is &quot;yes&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the information given in the question, there is nothing you need to do to your patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14255" RevisionGUID="b9a7e829-c91f-42ef-abe8-6479ed4bc4a0" CreationDate="2016-01-23T00:11:43.917" UserId="11537" Text="You don't have anything to worry about from a patent perspective.  People write about inventions all the time.  You might get in trouble if you reveal confidential information, but that is not a patent problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14256" RevisionGUID="a1f8b5a6-0a21-4f5e-8a89-2a73ec39b6d4" CreationDate="2016-01-23T00:17:53.490" UserId="11537" Text="I would not recommend anyone write claims without help from a patent agent or patent attorney.  It is a tricky and subtle game that takes time to master.  If your invention is valuable, it will be well worth your money to get professional help.  English not being your first language makes it even harder." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14257" RevisionGUID="61cef9eb-6358-4f9b-93ec-f8b50df42b62" CreationDate="2016-01-23T00:21:10.757" UserId="11537" Text="Q. Can I patent an old piece of hardware?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. No.  The public (via the government) grants patents in return for a description of how to do something new, not something that has been known for 100 years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14258" RevisionGUID="4ba7db37-f5c4-4278-a87f-3b4328e43309" CreationDate="2016-01-23T00:22:50.037" UserId="11537" Text="Matthew Haugen is right.  You need to contact an attorney in this case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14259" RevisionGUID="b4593623-e1e3-434d-9cc7-de05c7f8a87e" CreationDate="2016-01-23T00:30:48.127" UserId="11537" Text="It is impossible to give a complete answer without carefully considering what the patent claims are and what your new code or product does.  Since people here don't know about your project, they can't conduct the necessary analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dividing each video frame into a plurality of detection regions and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applying the final filter to each region.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is only part of a claim.  It is not a claim by itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each claim, even if it's hard to read, will be essentially a list of elements or features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does *every single thing* (every feature or limitation) in a claim appear in your code or product?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If &quot;yes&quot;, then you may have a problem.  This analysis should be repeated with each claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is something in a claim that you're not doing, then you're OK." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14260" RevisionGUID="ba1bb389-1ecc-42e5-b95f-822929022296" CreationDate="2016-01-23T00:36:29.440" UserId="11537" Text="Look on the first page of the patent for &quot;Attorney, Agent or Firm&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14261" RevisionGUID="b2638dfb-d394-4fef-b31a-174228e9f32e" CreationDate="2016-01-23T00:46:07.930" UserId="11537" Text="Your video game will not infringe because the claims mention:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dispatching the elevator car&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're not doing that.  You're just drawing pictures on a screen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14262" RevisionGUID="6ca4f84c-5e22-48f7-aec0-32d18267bb12" CreationDate="2016-01-23T00:56:21.390" UserId="11537" Text="You need to switch the order of claims 7 and 8.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q. Is it necessary to arrange all first 4 claims in a chained form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. Necessary?  No.  Might there be a reason to do it?  Sure, but there is not enough information here to recommend for or against it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q. Is it necessary to enumerate logic circuits in their appearance order in claims starting from first?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. The way you have it might generate an objection, but should not be the basis for a rejection.  Why not just relabel them first, second, third instead of second, first, third?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q. Are above claims 7 and 8 permitted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. They are in the wrong order, so you have to change that.  Permitted?  You can write whatever you want in a claim.  There is nothing stopping you from filing them.  Will a particular claim be allowed?  That depends on everything in the claim including its base claim (not shown above) and any intervening claims, and on whatever is in the prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35275" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="14203" RevisionGUID="893f29c5-95c3-40ee-a21d-ac61621b1e29" CreationDate="2016-01-23T05:16:36.060" UserId="14052" Comment="33" />
  <row Id="35276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14263" RevisionGUID="e984fc52-dbec-48b9-9b1f-ef17f3730bc9" CreationDate="2016-01-23T08:48:41.410" UserId="11895" Text="You don't need to withdraw or abandon issued patent. Original patent assignee of prior patent might send you notice since he believes that you might be using said patent and making benefits. Since his patent covers the broader claims he can ask for royalties.  &#xA;If you are not selling our using said claimed product just notify in reply to such notice.  In any case withdrawal or removing your granted patent doesn't help. &#xA;I will also recommend that you contact any attorney for reply. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14264" RevisionGUID="c6eb028f-183f-4f3f-96c4-3f89f7e6e578" CreationDate="2016-01-23T08:55:07.247" UserId="11895" Text="Yes.  If you feel that it need a protection of IP then first you should file a patent application in India as well as  wipo this will ensure priority and if it satisfy all patent criteria you won't face any problem. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14266" RevisionGUID="a74fc568-f544-4034-b60d-e177313a59da" CreationDate="2016-01-24T03:45:37.410" UserId="15892" Text="Can you submit a claim for prior art after a patent is issued or can prior art be used to protect a business against patent infringement ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35284" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14266" RevisionGUID="a74fc568-f544-4034-b60d-e177313a59da" CreationDate="2016-01-24T03:45:37.410" UserId="15892" Text="Prior art after patent granted" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35285" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14266" RevisionGUID="a74fc568-f544-4034-b60d-e177313a59da" CreationDate="2016-01-24T03:45:37.410" UserId="15892" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14273" RevisionGUID="052627bf-d6f6-4a23-8a8c-97a9435e4839" CreationDate="2016-01-26T10:31:25.307" UserId="15503" Text="All of your claims seem correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is a more concise way to include all the claims (for jurisdictions which do not have additional fees for multiple claim dependencies).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is based on the idea that &quot;further&quot; is unnecessary in your claims 3 to 5. I could not find any Court decision which has considered this point. However, as a point of construction, it seems that including &quot;further&quot; either has no meaning, or is an additional limitation. That is, omitting &quot;further&quot; should lead to a claim which is no narrower than your current one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, you could quite validly have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. (..), as in claim 1, wherein the logic block comprises a first logic circuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. (..), as in claim 3, wherein the logic block comprises a second logic circuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. (..), as in claim 4, wherein the logic block comprises a third logic circuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this, you could combine claims 3–5 with claims 6–8. This would arrive at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. (..), as in claim 1, wherein the logic block comprises a first logic circuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. (..), as in claim 1 **or 3**, wherein the logic block comprises a second logic circuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. (..), as in claim 1, **3 or 4**, wherein the logic block comprises a third logic circuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reduces the number of claims (if that is beneficial) and provides a basis for the combination of features (where needed, such as in Europe)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14277" RevisionGUID="d2c29a10-2ee1-4ae3-872d-7918cbd0c1b6" CreationDate="2016-01-26T21:03:51.397" UserId="15914" Text="Assuming you have your patent issued AND you make and/use the patented product AND that product infringes another patent, the following is my suggestion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose your patent claims product comprising A, B and C.  And another's patent (&quot;superior patent&quot; hereinafter) claims only A and B. &#xD;&#xA;Then, if you produce or sell product having A, B and C, you are infringing superior patent, because your product have A and B. It does not matter your product also has C. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If such being the case, the patent holder of superior patent CANNOT produce or sell product having A, B and C. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, safest way to avoid infringement suit from superior patent holder is to stop producing and selling product having A and B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next option is to propose the holder of superior patent for cross-licensing each other's patent, which avails you to use the superior patent and avails title holder of superior patent to use YOUR patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You must not withdraw your patent. By doing so, you will lose the second option." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14278" RevisionGUID="dcfcbe60-a8b7-4f1e-aec0-1621ddb12f88" CreationDate="2016-01-26T21:58:02.587" UserId="15915" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2013050792A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013050792A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35324" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14278" RevisionGUID="dcfcbe60-a8b7-4f1e-aec0-1621ddb12f88" CreationDate="2016-01-26T21:58:02.587" UserId="15915" Text="How can a bacteria be patented? It is not an &quot;invention&quot; whatsoever" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35325" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14278" RevisionGUID="dcfcbe60-a8b7-4f1e-aec0-1621ddb12f88" CreationDate="2016-01-26T21:58:02.587" UserId="15915" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14278" RevisionGUID="fb51a834-e70f-420f-b1eb-0a288293f711" CreationDate="2016-01-26T23:42:10.550" UserId="1" Comment="added 72 characters in body; edited title" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2013050792A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can bacteria be patented? It is not an &quot;invention&quot; whatsoever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013050792A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35327" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14278" RevisionGUID="fb51a834-e70f-420f-b1eb-0a288293f711" CreationDate="2016-01-26T23:42:10.550" UserId="1" Comment="added 72 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can bacteria be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14279" RevisionGUID="290b4969-a193-4565-924c-2a7c401b09b9" CreationDate="2016-01-27T00:32:29.013" UserId="11947" Text="In the past I filed for patent on behalf of my employer. It was rejected because of prior art which I wasn't aware of. Still the lawyers did their magic and eventually the patent was granted. If your patent is important for your business I suggest consulting patent lawyers. You may file continuation-in-part application and change you claims to work around the prior art. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14280" RevisionGUID="82e54fa9-0d05-417b-85ba-6173e0085ac8" CreationDate="2016-01-27T00:47:26.200" UserId="11947" Text="I assume that keeping patent under inventor's name with intent to sell/license it and in meantime not collecting any revenues related to the invention won't result in any liabilities. Of course putting the patent to work changes everything but it still make sense to keep it under your name as a leverage against partners and investors. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14281" RevisionGUID="710098d2-b9fd-49cf-a09c-53cde63b35e4" CreationDate="2016-01-27T05:08:48.213" UserId="15917" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5809590][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5809590&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears as though this patent is expired and I wish to re-patent a similar product. how do I go about doing this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35333" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14281" RevisionGUID="710098d2-b9fd-49cf-a09c-53cde63b35e4" CreationDate="2016-01-27T05:08:48.213" UserId="15917" Text="expired patent/ how do I re-patent similar product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35334" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14281" RevisionGUID="710098d2-b9fd-49cf-a09c-53cde63b35e4" CreationDate="2016-01-27T05:08:48.213" UserId="15917" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14282" RevisionGUID="62e09b7f-f391-4d84-a486-b751140d4d11" CreationDate="2016-01-27T06:18:02.393" UserId="10011" Text="That's, unfortunately, [illegal.](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s804.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From that link,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The public should . . . be able to act on the assumption that upon the expiration of the patent it will be free to use not only the invention claimed in the patent but also modifications or variants which would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, taking into account the skill in the art and prior art other than the invention claimed in the issued patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't try to extend the term of a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What it comes down to, then, is &quot;similar.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How similar are we talking? You're certainly permitted to patent improvements on existing products, as long as you don't try to claim something that's already been around for a while, or that would be &quot;obvious to one skilled in the art.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's probably best to speak with a patent professional (attorney or agent) to review your specific invention in comparison to what is claimed by the expired patent. You might be able to protect the difference of the two, which would give you control over others attempting to use your innovations, but it wouldn't give you control over anyone trying to use the invention as stated in the original, now-expired, document." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14281" RevisionGUID="dc4f3ad4-e932-4745-9c3a-d016f637d6db" CreationDate="2016-01-27T06:18:49.383" UserId="10011" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5809590][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5809590&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears as though this patent is expired, and I wish to re-patent a similar product. How do I go about doing this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35337" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14281" RevisionGUID="dc4f3ad4-e932-4745-9c3a-d016f637d6db" CreationDate="2016-01-27T06:18:49.383" UserId="10011" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="How do I re-patent a product similar to one that's had its patent expire?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14283" RevisionGUID="67c66886-a8bf-47cb-bdd9-de005bdfbc15" CreationDate="2016-01-27T07:25:59.550" UserId="13884" Text="You need not withdraw your patent. A patent is a &quot;negative&quot; right. It does not entitle you to do something it prevents someone else to do anything that falls within the scope of your claims. As long as you do not do anything that falls within the scope of the &quot;original inventor's&quot; patent you have nothing to worry about. A patent cannot infringe another patent. If you are certain that the &quot;original patent&quot; is prior art as far as your patent is concerned and renders your patent invalid, I would suggest that you let your patent lapse by not paying the renewal fees.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14284" RevisionGUID="6b6778ef-3f8d-4e93-ac53-1482685b7543" CreationDate="2016-01-27T09:10:24.867" UserId="15920" Text="In reference to the patent: [US1816592][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know if this patent is active and if I can possibly re patent it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35340" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14284" RevisionGUID="6b6778ef-3f8d-4e93-ac53-1482685b7543" CreationDate="2016-01-27T09:10:24.867" UserId="15920" Text="i need help for us patent 1816592" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35341" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14284" RevisionGUID="6b6778ef-3f8d-4e93-ac53-1482685b7543" CreationDate="2016-01-27T09:10:24.867" UserId="15920" Text="&lt;us1816592&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14285" RevisionGUID="ca69bcef-7965-4af8-afb9-2aaad79b64b2" CreationDate="2016-01-27T10:44:02.450" UserId="15921" Text="In a search for a specific tool, I found a patent describing exactly what I need. However, I couldn't find any tool on the market using the technology it describes. What can I do? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is there a way to contact the patent holder and ask him if he used it for commercial purposes, and if so, where/how?&#xD;&#xA;2. I though if the product doesn't exist on the market, I could produce it on my own, giving royalites to the beneficial owner. But does a patent holder have the right to not use it at all and forbid anyone else to do so?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35343" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14285" RevisionGUID="ca69bcef-7965-4af8-afb9-2aaad79b64b2" CreationDate="2016-01-27T10:44:02.450" UserId="15921" Text="Find a product using a given patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35344" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14285" RevisionGUID="ca69bcef-7965-4af8-afb9-2aaad79b64b2" CreationDate="2016-01-27T10:44:02.450" UserId="15921" Text="&lt;product&gt;&lt;patent-use&gt;&lt;commercial-use&gt;&lt;unused-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35345" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14284" RevisionGUID="7a062a69-dae3-42cb-a25f-3394caf0516c" CreationDate="2016-01-27T12:02:26.933" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[14281],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14290" RevisionGUID="c6e42570-c518-4ef1-ae00-e2aa1b28dea9" CreationDate="2016-01-28T04:21:16.723" UserId="17239" Text="I am trying to get list of granted patents searched by class at http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am trying the following string.&#xD;&#xA;Anybody have any Idea how to do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    icl/C07 AND icl/A61&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;It is showing 0 reslts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35364" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14290" RevisionGUID="c6e42570-c518-4ef1-ae00-e2aa1b28dea9" CreationDate="2016-01-28T04:21:16.723" UserId="17239" Text="How to search by international classification at USPTO" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35365" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14290" RevisionGUID="c6e42570-c518-4ef1-ae00-e2aa1b28dea9" CreationDate="2016-01-28T04:21:16.723" UserId="17239" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;patent-search&gt;&lt;classification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14285" RevisionGUID="d559fbbf-98db-4c27-b14a-02da70311664" CreationDate="2016-01-28T13:00:23.217" UserId="15921" Comment=" title changed to explain the question better" Text="In a search for a specific tool, I found a patent describing exactly what I need. However, I couldn't find any tool on the market using the technology it describes. What can I do? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is there a way to contact the patent holder and ask him if he used it for commercial purposes, and if so, where/how?&#xD;&#xA;2. I though if the product doesn't exist on the market, I could produce it on my own, giving royalites to the beneficial owner. But does a patent holder have the right to not use it at all and forbid anyone else to do so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35369" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14285" RevisionGUID="d559fbbf-98db-4c27-b14a-02da70311664" CreationDate="2016-01-28T13:00:23.217" UserId="15921" Comment=" title changed to explain the question better" Text="Find a product using a given patent / Contact a patent owner" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14292" RevisionGUID="633d639c-24f4-4f0f-ad24-14706a982b98" CreationDate="2016-01-28T16:19:35.437" UserId="11895" Text="Please use Truncation for classification as you are not using complete classification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; e.g. icl/c07$   AND icl/a61$" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14293" RevisionGUID="ce035aca-666b-463b-8b83-ed458fbceb14" CreationDate="2016-01-28T17:20:17.390" UserId="11537" Text="&gt; Is there a way to contact the patent holder and ask him if he used it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for commercial purposes, and if so, where/how?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Search through the file history using USPTO PAIR to find out inventor information.  Search patent assignments using USPTO assignment search to find out owner information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But does a patent holder have the right to not use it at all and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forbid anyone else to do so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, of course.  Many patents describe technology that is never used.  A patent owner does not &quot;forbid&quot; others from using patented technology.  The patent owner may sue others for alleged infringement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14297" RevisionGUID="bc63c00b-c10c-4084-9ddb-26bd1762038e" CreationDate="2016-01-29T13:15:11.893" UserId="15939" Text="If the company has been selling a product for some time, and it was not patented. But then the original inventor decided to patent the product. You still have it in stock. How long have you got to sell this product without a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35391" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14297" RevisionGUID="bc63c00b-c10c-4084-9ddb-26bd1762038e" CreationDate="2016-01-29T13:15:11.893" UserId="15939" Text="How long can you still sell a product that was recently granted ornamental design patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35392" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14297" RevisionGUID="bc63c00b-c10c-4084-9ddb-26bd1762038e" CreationDate="2016-01-29T13:15:11.893" UserId="15939" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14298" RevisionGUID="b72660a9-58d7-490f-a943-4be3074ebecd" CreationDate="2016-01-29T15:26:54.423" UserId="15873" Text="Is it a valid suggestion to simply say to consult a lawyer and see if it's really invalid, then once you've verified that, simply ignore the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If their patent is a troll or not valid, your only fear is the litigation, which your lawyer has already informed you they can win." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14300" RevisionGUID="09d027b3-b0b9-4adc-b109-dc7a13d6198a" CreationDate="2016-01-30T00:19:18.710" UserId="15942" Text="Lets say, for example, my patent requires computing all elementary cycles in a graph. It happens to be known that all such cycles can be computed from a cycle basis.  Keep in mind I am not trying to patent the algorithm for computing the cycle basis nor the algorithms that compute all cycles from the cycle basis. Rather let's say my patent involves representing a concrete application as a graph and that the method of the patent utilizes the known theorems about computing cycles.  In this illustration, the theorem: &quot;All graphs have a cycle basis and all elementary cycles are a linear combination of cycles&quot; is known and proven. But what if I need to make use of some other theorem that is not proven.  Must I prove it in the patent?  And what if my proof has an error?  Should I even discuss the correctness of the method by referring to a math theoretic result?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35401" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14300" RevisionGUID="09d027b3-b0b9-4adc-b109-dc7a13d6198a" CreationDate="2016-01-30T00:19:18.710" UserId="15942" Text="Do I need to prove a theorem used in my patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35402" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14300" RevisionGUID="09d027b3-b0b9-4adc-b109-dc7a13d6198a" CreationDate="2016-01-30T00:19:18.710" UserId="15942" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;utility&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14301" RevisionGUID="f880cb18-9d05-43a0-9305-44bb7a60a697" CreationDate="2016-01-30T16:06:59.863" UserId="15947" Text="In reference to the patent: [US3110626][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3110626" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35410" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14301" RevisionGUID="f880cb18-9d05-43a0-9305-44bb7a60a697" CreationDate="2016-01-30T16:06:59.863" UserId="15947" Text="How was the figure 9 of US3110626 alone be used as prior art (see T204/83) against EP0030192?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35411" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14301" RevisionGUID="f880cb18-9d05-43a0-9305-44bb7a60a697" CreationDate="2016-01-30T16:06:59.863" UserId="15947" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;drawing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35412" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14301" RevisionGUID="e567660a-32d5-4dc7-9446-a35cb0dd5bad" CreationDate="2016-01-30T16:25:41.703" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35413" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14301" RevisionGUID="dc2f3efe-bfde-43c9-bb30-85b034aef3e3" CreationDate="2016-01-30T18:22:20.040" UserId="15947" Comment="Made the question more broad and looks to seek as how a drawing alone could be used as prior art for an invention?" Text="Can drawing alone suffice to act as prior-art for a new invention filed? (E.g. fig.9 of US3110626 was used against EP0030192 T204/83)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35414" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14301" RevisionGUID="dc2f3efe-bfde-43c9-bb30-85b034aef3e3" CreationDate="2016-01-30T18:22:20.040" UserId="15947" Comment="Made the question more broad and looks to seek as how a drawing alone could be used as prior art for an invention?" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;drawing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14302" RevisionGUID="20c12322-adf9-41b4-9fd2-b8c1c7923758" CreationDate="2016-01-30T18:58:01.713" UserId="15949" Text="I am not so aware of how US patent office would entertain the you-tube video, but my understanding of European Patent Law system, there is a provision that allow prior disclosure by any means to be used as prior art. For instance in the case T952/92, it clearly states  &quot;novelty of a claimed invention is destroyed by the prior disclosure (by any means) of an embodiment which falls within the claim. The possibility of a complete analysis of a prior sold product is not necessary.&quot;  So whether a person skilled in art has done  detailed analysis of a public disclosure is irrelevant as long as skilled person in that field could analyse the disclosure and develop the same improvement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14305" RevisionGUID="00d4dd44-7e56-4d73-8650-959d18b1e553" CreationDate="2016-01-31T01:57:12.843" UserId="15954" Text="You do not need to prove that your method works. If you claim a method that doesn't work, it just means that your patent will protect something that's probably not worth very much (since it doesn't work).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your specification should include a description of the steps that you might use (both aspects that you have invented and aspects that are already known), but it doesn't need to justify why you're using those steps or prove that they will work correctly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="be7742dd-803e-4fb3-a937-bfac83fff6ef" CreationDate="2016-01-31T02:19:46.393" UserId="15955" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20050280786][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if this was a &quot;Portable Virtual Computer&quot;, but still had a projector and computer (and battery) inside in one unit. Would this be legal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Like This][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![And this][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20050280786&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/KtXxv.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/TwBWV.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35425" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="be7742dd-803e-4fb3-a937-bfac83fff6ef" CreationDate="2016-01-31T02:19:46.393" UserId="15955" Text="What if this was a &quot;Portable Virtual Computer&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35426" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="be7742dd-803e-4fb3-a937-bfac83fff6ef" CreationDate="2016-01-31T02:19:46.393" UserId="15955" Text="&lt;us20050280786&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14307" RevisionGUID="c6ab0c03-8e0f-444d-a7d6-64e28447fd7b" CreationDate="2016-01-31T02:39:56.563" UserId="15954" Text="Claim 1 of the '786 patent you've cited reads:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;An image display device, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a desktop computer system; and&#xD;&#xA;a display projector connected to the desktop computer system, wherein the desktop computer system and display projector form a single integrated device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the only independent claim of the patent, so the question of whether the &quot;portable virtual computer&quot; you've shown infringes the patent comes down to whether it includes all the elements of that claim. It is a computer system and display projector integrated into a single device, so this is a question of whether or not the computer system is a desktop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent essentially classifies any &quot;stand-alone computer system&quot; as being either a laptop or desktop. It goes on to define a laptop as&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a portable computer system having a flat screen and being lightweight, e.g., less than approximately ten pounds. In contrast with desktop computer systems, laptop computer systems have reduced processor capabilities, reduced memory and storage capabilities, reduced audio interface card capabilities, and reduced video interface card capabilities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based both on that definition and on the common meaning of the word &quot;laptop&quot;, I would say that the device you've shown is not a laptop. There might be an argument that it is not a &quot;stand-alone computer system&quot; at all, but my guess is that it would qualify as a desktop for the purposes of this patent, and therefore, it would infringe Claim 1." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14305" RevisionGUID="259df76b-cc04-4d3a-aaf5-128b6a9b8a41" CreationDate="2016-01-31T05:52:42.617" UserId="15954" Comment="added summary statement" Text="You do not need to prove that your method works. If you claim a method that doesn't work, it just means that your patent will protect something that's probably not worth very much (since it doesn't work).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your specification should include a description of the steps that you might use (both aspects that you have invented and aspects that are already known), but it doesn't need to justify why you're using those steps or prove that they will work correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, no, you should not discuss the correctness of the method." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14309" RevisionGUID="25e59757-5058-4d5c-b8be-6c67290501d1" CreationDate="2016-01-31T06:05:37.933" UserId="15954" Text="The mere fact that nVidia provides CUDA for developing GPU-based programs does not absolve others (like yourself) of any potential patent infringement. If you make, sell, use, import, etc., something that includes all the elements of one of the claims of an issued patent, you are infringing that patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many tech companies do build large patent portfolios to be used defensively--that is, they do not plan to sue others for patent infringement, but if they are sued, they have plenty of ammunition for a countersuit. But you cannot count on a patent holder to ignore your infringement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14307" RevisionGUID="d9a9f6aa-8e2b-4122-b606-520ee5c28ca9" CreationDate="2016-01-31T16:36:03.527" UserId="15954" Comment="Realized that the linked document was an application, not a granted patent. Suggested a corresponding question edit as well." Text="The document you've linked to is a patent application, not a granted patent. You can see this in the box in the upper right of the Google patents page, where it says &quot;Publication type: Application&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're interested in seeing the current state of the application, go to the USPTO's [Public PAIR][1] site and search for application number 10/872,492. In this case, it says &quot;Status: Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot;, meaning that this application has been abandoned and so it will never become a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing can infringe the application you've referred to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14301" RevisionGUID="23a1aae6-c1e4-4af8-9dd9-729c54e4d7a8" CreationDate="2016-01-31T16:52:26.570" UserId="15954" Comment="Improved formatting. This is not a specific prior art request—rather, it is a question about what can qualify as prior art in general." Text="Can a drawing by itself count as prior art, or is a text description of the drawing needed as well?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, fig.9 of [US3110626][1] was used against EP0030192 T204/83. Was this finding appropriate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3110626" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35436" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14301" RevisionGUID="23a1aae6-c1e4-4af8-9dd9-729c54e4d7a8" CreationDate="2016-01-31T16:52:26.570" UserId="15954" Comment="Improved formatting. This is not a specific prior art request—rather, it is a question about what can qualify as prior art in general." Text="Can drawings alone act as prior-art for a new invention filed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35437" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14301" RevisionGUID="23a1aae6-c1e4-4af8-9dd9-729c54e4d7a8" CreationDate="2016-01-31T16:52:26.570" Comment="Proposed by 15954 approved by 1 edit id of 1909" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35438" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="14301" RevisionGUID="eb22490a-25b4-44bd-9f33-942a05599efc" CreationDate="2016-01-31T16:53:06.140" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14310" RevisionGUID="85542cc8-112f-4464-ba48-0615f921cf57" CreationDate="2016-01-31T17:07:43.640" UserId="15961" Text="There is a very similar German patent which has been filed on 2 May 1991 and granted on 29 April 1993: DE 41 14 268 C2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another German patent was filed on 6 July 1994 and granted on 1 September 1995: DE4423822 C1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was also a presentation at a conference:&#xD;&#xA;W.K. Schomburg, M. Vitt, W. Bacher, M.W. Börner, W. Menz&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Measurements of  Physical Parameters with Ultrasound and Microdiaphragms&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Oral presentation and Proceedings of Micro Electro Mechanical Systems '95, 29 Jan. -2 Feb. 1995 in Amsterdam (1995) 139 - 144.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even earlier there was a presentation at another conference and published in a journal:&#xD;&#xA;M.W. Börner, S. zur Horst-Meyer, M.C. Murphy, H.-J. Münch, W.K. Schomburg, M. Vitt, &quot;Ultrasonic Measurements With Micromembranes&quot;, EUROSENSORS VIII in Toulouse (1994) and Sensors and Actuators A 46 - 47 (1995) 62 - 65.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="8866b3eb-9469-4720-9ccb-d3eacbd1a2dc" CreationDate="2016-01-31T17:11:27.010" UserId="15954" Comment="corrected question to reflect that the linked document is an application, not a granted patent" Text="In reference to the patent application: [US20050280786][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if this was a &quot;Portable Virtual Computer&quot;, but still had a projector and computer (and battery) inside in one unit. Would this be legal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Like This][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![And this][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20050280786&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/KtXxv.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/TwBWV.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35442" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="8866b3eb-9469-4720-9ccb-d3eacbd1a2dc" CreationDate="2016-01-31T17:11:27.010" Comment="Proposed by 15954 approved by 1 edit id of 1910" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14311" RevisionGUID="8fd9d41b-395e-43fd-ac81-3f59acb1912e" CreationDate="2016-01-31T17:25:11.537" UserId="15954" Text="A drawing can certainly act a prior art on its own. The MPEP section on [Drawings as Prior Art][1] states (citations omitted):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. The origin of the drawing is immaterial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You've asked about a European application, but I've answered regarding the process for a U.S. application since that's the scope of this site (and where I'm most knowledgeable). The answer is likely the same for Europe, but I'm not certain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2128.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14307" RevisionGUID="fc30922e-613e-45ce-87fa-9fd5c9ad0e0f" CreationDate="2016-01-31T17:43:55.900" UserId="15954" Comment="edit in response to edited question" Text="The document you've linked to is a patent application, not a granted patent (now reflected in the edited question). You can see this in the box in the upper right of the Google patents page, where it says &quot;Publication type: Application&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're interested in seeing the current state of the application, go to the USPTO's [Public PAIR][1] site and search for application number 10/872,492. In this case, it says &quot;Status: Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot;, meaning that this application has been abandoned and so it will never become a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing can infringe the application you've referred to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14305" RevisionGUID="0bac430c-e37b-49cd-91f0-323038b7d8da" CreationDate="2016-01-31T18:31:27.303" UserId="15954" Comment="edited summary to be less absolute" Text="You do not need to prove that your method works. If you claim a method that doesn't work, it just means that your patent will protect something that's probably not worth very much (since it doesn't work).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your specification should include a description of the steps that you might use (both aspects that you have invented and aspects that are already known), but it doesn't need to justify why you're using those steps or prove that they will work correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, no, you do not need to discuss the correctness of the method." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14312" RevisionGUID="f77ec6ec-723f-4bf2-9469-5d9e3812cf7b" CreationDate="2016-02-01T09:43:12.350" UserId="15503" Text="For a European application, the answer is also yes, but only if the drawing (alone) contains enough detail to provide some technical teaching to the skilled person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The decision you identified, [T204/83](https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t830204ep1.html), was one of the earliest EPO Board of Appeal decisions on this point, and effectively established the rules about drawings as prior art. The important principle of this case was stated at para 4 of the reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When a feature is shown solely in a drawing without any other clarifying description a careful check should be made to establish whether the mere diagrammatic representation enables a person skilled in the art to derive a practical technical teaching therefrom. It would be impossible to lay down general rules as to how this should be done because the reply in each case will depend on the knowledge of the person skilled in the art and of the way in which the feature is shown in the drawing. Thus if a drawing is specifically devoted to disclosing a certain feature or if that feature is systematically included in a number of drawings a person skilled in the art will see it as an important item of technical information even if the illustration is unaccompanied by a verbal description or numerical information. If on the other hand, the feature is shown in the drawing merely as an ancillary element of a complicated device a person skilled in the art will sometimes be unable to elicit useful technical information from the drawing, at least without the information supplied in the newly filed patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As shown in the official case law compendium (at [I-C 3.6](http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2013/e/clr_i_c_3_6.htm)), this approach is still regarded as good law by the EPO. Because of this, it would be hard to argue that the decision was inappropriate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14313" RevisionGUID="0acc6984-f889-4d24-99b9-69384aa2806c" CreationDate="2016-02-01T15:15:22.870" UserId="9874" Text="Registered patent attorneys and agents include in just about every patent application a number of narrower (dependent) claims, which incorporate by reference and layer additional elements or further limitations onto the broadest (independent) claims. In the US Patent Office, the basic utility patent filling fee entitles you to file up to three independent claims and up to twenty claims total. An increasing additional fee applies to independent claims in excess of three or total claims in excess of twenty. In addition, you will have the opportunity to modify the claims during the examination (also called &quot;prosecution&quot;) of your application, by amending, canceling, and/or adding new claims to the listing. To provide support for such amendments, it is also important to submit a detailed and thorough description of a wide range of embodiments of the invention at the outset, as you will not be allowed to claim embodiments that you did not adequately describe in the original application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer is not intended to be legal advice in your particular case or to form an attorney-client relationship, and I highly recommend that you consult a patent attorney or agent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14315" RevisionGUID="4442b164-4491-4793-b8eb-346f98d192db" CreationDate="2016-02-01T19:48:42.403" UserId="15954" Text="To figure out whether your proposed product would infringe anyone's patents, you would have to review all the relevant patents. A good starting place would be looking at the granted patents assigned to company X, but it's possible that there are relevant patents held by others as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other intellectual property rights are outside the scope of this site, but you might be able to get information about those from [Law.SE](http://law.stackexchange.com/). There may be some copyright attached to the control sequences, but that's far from my area of expertise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14316" RevisionGUID="cb5346bd-c5be-4bd7-b87a-2ffc4dca8970" CreationDate="2016-02-01T20:01:27.673" UserId="15954" Text="The patent application you've linked to cannot claim the information disclosed in the paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It claims priority from a Japanese application that was filed on September 2, 2010. Japanese patent law allows only a 6 month grace period for filing after public disclosure of an invention. Because the paper you've linked to was published in 2009, based on a conference that was held on Jan 13–16, 2009, outside the grace period allowed for the Japenese application (and in fact, also outside the more liberal 1 year grace period allowed by the U.S.), that application (and the related US application) cannot claim the material that is disclosed in the paper. The paper counts as prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14317" RevisionGUID="d0d61a69-5eb0-48ec-8f3a-82e571f48509" CreationDate="2016-02-01T20:05:57.127" UserId="15954" Text="In order to be allowed, the broader claims must be supported by the disclosure of the original application, and be are novel and non-obvious in light of art prior to the original application's priority date. If that is not the case, and the inventor is relying on a new specification to support the new claims, it is possible that those new claims read on the material in your patent application (and therefore would not be allowed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without specific details, that's as much of an answer as anyone can offer you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14318" RevisionGUID="ec8f4b9a-304f-4f23-bf41-3947be2429a3" CreationDate="2016-02-01T20:30:18.070" UserId="15967" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8276282][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8276282" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35457" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14318" RevisionGUID="ec8f4b9a-304f-4f23-bf41-3947be2429a3" CreationDate="2016-02-01T20:30:18.070" UserId="15967" Text="Is this patent still valid/enforceable? If the owner of a patent has failed to pay their maintenance dues, will the filed patent reflect that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35458" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14318" RevisionGUID="ec8f4b9a-304f-4f23-bf41-3947be2429a3" CreationDate="2016-02-01T20:30:18.070" UserId="15967" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14319" RevisionGUID="a5a2f87a-a2d5-464c-8e24-f52f8a19ffa6" CreationDate="2016-02-02T04:28:01.263" UserId="15954" Text="Yes, it appears that this patent is still enforceable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you check the USPTO's [Public PAIR][1] for this patent, you can see that its current status is &quot;Patented Case&quot;, meaning that it is still valid and has not lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees. If you're interested in seeing more information about future maintenance fees due for this patent, you can use [this USPTO tool][2] to look it up (you'll need both the patent number, 8276282, and the application number (without the usual punctuation), 13114175).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://ramps.uspto.gov/eram/getMaintFeesInfo.do" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14322" RevisionGUID="a9c9b961-1c52-4d3d-bf1a-c45d4027438c" CreationDate="2016-02-02T21:52:08.363" UserId="15978" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5769598][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5769598&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What exactly is protected with this patent number?  Is it the exact design of the current &quot;Don't stack&quot; corrugated piece?  Can the design be altered and not interfere with the Patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks,&#xD;&#xA;John &#xD;&#xA;jfoley@nelsoncontainer.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35471" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14322" RevisionGUID="a9c9b961-1c52-4d3d-bf1a-c45d4027438c" CreationDate="2016-02-02T21:52:08.363" UserId="15978" Text="Regarding S. Patent #5769598" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35472" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14322" RevisionGUID="a9c9b961-1c52-4d3d-bf1a-c45d4027438c" CreationDate="2016-02-02T21:52:08.363" UserId="15978" Text="&lt;design&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14323" RevisionGUID="0dbfe76a-d546-487b-964b-e494608bb6a9" CreationDate="2016-02-03T10:38:37.713" UserId="17239" Text="It is already there: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/?locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;No need to have such thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14322" RevisionGUID="4dc4e7c3-a905-4c6f-a409-c93d75ace924" CreationDate="2016-02-03T12:10:24.590" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 44 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5769598][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5769598&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What exactly is protected with this patent number?  Is it the exact design of the current &quot;Don't stack&quot; corrugated piece?  Can the design be altered and not interfere with the Patent?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14324" RevisionGUID="c670dd73-b81f-49d7-9af8-16fa7de47a3f" CreationDate="2016-02-03T18:20:00.647" UserId="15980" Text="The Claims describe exactly what a patent covers.  In most cases, the first claim is the most general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, the first claim says &quot;A combination stacking damage detector and antistacking warning device, comprising:&quot; and then lists four items.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a new design did not satisfy all four of these items, then it would not be infringing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14327" RevisionGUID="15756993-5e4a-47ce-917f-3e81fc24e4af" CreationDate="2016-02-04T03:39:54.423" UserId="15063" Text="Quick way to tell: any US patent application ends with &quot;A&quot;.  So, in this case, US 20020043764 A1 means still in application stage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Refer to http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/support-centers/electronic-business-center/kind-codes-included-uspto-patent, for more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also, as the other answer points out, check the status of a US patent at the Public PAIR system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14328" RevisionGUID="592af6bd-4686-474c-8ceb-98cce6977e7c" CreationDate="2016-02-04T03:43:04.587" UserId="15063" Text="Alternately, and more simply, from the &quot;A1&quot; at the end you know it remains an application and has not been granted.  &quot;A&quot; is called the &quot;kind code&quot; and tells you the status of the underlying patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See here, for a short page about WIPO kind codes:&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/help?locale=en_EP&amp;method=handleHelpTopic&amp;topic=kindcodes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I actually think the USPTO has a better page (again referring to their use of WIPO kind codes) here:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/support-centers/electronic-business-center/kind-codes-included-uspto-patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14331" RevisionGUID="c9acb1b1-55c5-4e17-8c2e-701ad8aba8d9" CreationDate="2016-02-04T14:28:44.910" UserId="15986" Text="Device which I bought is design to work in 100 mm pipe. I modified this device to be able to work in 300 mm pipe. I have made meager modifications to it. I added wheels base to increase it size and for easier travel in the pipe, I have installed more powerful motors to suit work in bigger diameter. So now my device perform as it's bigger and more expensive model. I have personally design all of the modifications and I'am not intend to sell it or manufactured. Is only for use in my company. On my website I have published pictures of the modified device which do not contain any trademarks of the manufacturer. The appearance of my device is visibly different then original one. Should I be worried or I didn't broke any law modifying it? I would appreciate any help in this matter as this project consume a lot of my work and money. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35498" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14331" RevisionGUID="c9acb1b1-55c5-4e17-8c2e-701ad8aba8d9" CreationDate="2016-02-04T14:28:44.910" UserId="15986" Text="If I modify device witch I bought for use in my company will that be infringement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35499" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14331" RevisionGUID="c9acb1b1-55c5-4e17-8c2e-701ad8aba8d9" CreationDate="2016-02-04T14:28:44.910" UserId="15986" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14332" RevisionGUID="88d4c818-2853-4e1e-abdd-64d261234819" CreationDate="2016-02-04T15:50:16.473" UserDisplayName="user15987" Text="Slightly different situation than original question in this chain, but if you are facing abandonment of an application due to failure to respond to an office action, and your client still cannot decide how to respond, or want's to file a CIP but needs more time, then I think re-filing the application as a duplicate continuation would be a possible, if expensive, way to buy some more time.  Even if you received a duplicate office action on the new continuation in 1-2 months, you would still have up to six months from then to file a response, or to file a CIP (or an appeal)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="1276cccc-6c58-47a1-8dc0-2ed399342410" CreationDate="2016-02-04T17:40:07.243" UserId="15988" Text="If I am a UK-based software vendor or 'software as a service' company, what are the legal implications of including academic research algorithms in products sold to European and international clients? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular I am focussed on Machine Learning algorithms. I notice that there has been a lot of discussion about Google attempting to patent some of their algorithms e.g. [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/3cbui2/why_googles_new_patent_applications_are_alarming/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these algorithms are really just a composition of previous ideas and not utterly original. Even so, the patent process at the moment enables large conglomerates to monopolise the ownership of algorithms. You only have to do a Google patent search for 'neural networks' or 'gradient descent' to see how many patents are held by IBM, Microsoft and Google et al.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But many companies, including large numbers of tech start-ups, already run software behind the scenes that undoubtedly use such algorithms; have you heard of any cases where those companies have been sued? There also seems to be a lot of ambiguous advice concerning the commercial use of such algorithms. Can anyone give me advice on what sources would help me explore all legal issues associated with such commercial activities? What are the risks for going ahead and using algorithms that may in the future be patented? Should these legal issues be viewed on a case-by-case basis, or are there rules of thumb that can be followed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35502" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="1276cccc-6c58-47a1-8dc0-2ed399342410" CreationDate="2016-02-04T17:40:07.243" UserId="15988" Text="Legal ramifications of including research algorithms in software products sold to clients" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35503" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="1276cccc-6c58-47a1-8dc0-2ed399342410" CreationDate="2016-02-04T17:40:07.243" UserId="15988" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;algorithms&gt;&lt;software-as-a-service&gt;&lt;machine-learning&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14335" RevisionGUID="7350b397-7215-4dde-b8c9-e258c0c3f06a" CreationDate="2016-02-04T17:51:59.543" UserId="15990" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2011002413A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2011002413A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you advise if this umbrella can be imported from China to the USA?   Are there any USA patents on this design of umbrella?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35508" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14335" RevisionGUID="7350b397-7215-4dde-b8c9-e258c0c3f06a" CreationDate="2016-02-04T17:51:59.543" UserId="15990" Text="Inverted Umbrella" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35509" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14335" RevisionGUID="7350b397-7215-4dde-b8c9-e258c0c3f06a" CreationDate="2016-02-04T17:51:59.543" UserId="15990" Text="&lt;usa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14336" RevisionGUID="08d20232-87bc-4d3f-9b8e-7f359ed6d211" CreationDate="2016-02-04T18:13:52.910" UserId="15991" Text="3 years ago I invented an idea about creating special mobile application. However, I could not patent it due to high cost of. I participated in diffirent conferences and competitions with my idea to obtain funding for the last 2 years. However, several weeks  ago, one huge US company got patent on exactly this idea. I am from Uzbekistan, though I have an evidence about my idea and participation in different programs with it, the application is only on idea stage. Can I claim on any IP issues? and what alse can be done?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35511" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14336" RevisionGUID="08d20232-87bc-4d3f-9b8e-7f359ed6d211" CreationDate="2016-02-04T18:13:52.910" UserId="15991" Text="Mobile application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35512" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14336" RevisionGUID="08d20232-87bc-4d3f-9b8e-7f359ed6d211" CreationDate="2016-02-04T18:13:52.910" UserId="15991" Text="&lt;app&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14335" RevisionGUID="150945b4-f7e0-47cb-8de0-db6fe6a59540" CreationDate="2016-02-04T19:06:22.297" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2011002413A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2011002413A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found this European patent for an &quot;Improved Umbrella Design.&quot; How can I find out if there is a USA patent on this design?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14339" RevisionGUID="05d61802-902a-40f6-a314-3fc9985cedf4" CreationDate="2016-02-05T04:05:13.250" UserId="15995" Text="If you can document that you presented the patented claims in public prior to the filing by the patent holder, your presentations can be used as prior art to invalidate their patent. This will likely require litigation. One of their competitors may offer compensation for your efforts.  &#xA;&#xA;If you have presented the material in any public forum you can no longer rightfully  obtain an EU patent. If you presented over a year ago, you cannot rightfully obtain a US patent. But, by invalidating theirs, you will be free to market your own product without infringing on their rights. &#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14347" RevisionGUID="cfc36db4-a194-422e-b9a6-6680ed74187a" CreationDate="2016-02-06T19:11:20.050" UserId="16008" Text="Company A has a type of dispenser I want to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Company B makes a product that is not dispensed via Company A's dispenser. I would like it to be. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there ANY way for me combine these and make any money or patent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both Company A and B have patents on their products.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had originally developeD a dispenser similar to company A's product until I found theirs in the patent database.  Am currently mortified. What to do with my idea??? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35559" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14347" RevisionGUID="cfc36db4-a194-422e-b9a6-6680ed74187a" CreationDate="2016-02-06T19:11:20.050" UserId="16008" Text="combine 2 patents and package as my own?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35560" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14347" RevisionGUID="cfc36db4-a194-422e-b9a6-6680ed74187a" CreationDate="2016-02-06T19:11:20.050" UserId="16008" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14347" RevisionGUID="57742548-9dc0-4808-b7bc-827d744158bd" CreationDate="2016-02-06T22:16:20.477" UserId="10011" Comment="added 50 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Company A has a type of dispenser I want to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Company B makes a product that is not dispensed via Company A's dispenser. I would like it to be. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there *any* way for me combine these and make any money or patent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both Company A and B have patents on their products.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had originally developed a dispenser similar to company A's product, until I found theirs in the patent database. I'd like to move forward with my invention, but I don't know whether I have any legal grounds to do so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35562" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14347" RevisionGUID="57742548-9dc0-4808-b7bc-827d744158bd" CreationDate="2016-02-06T22:16:20.477" UserId="10011" Comment="added 50 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;improvement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14348" RevisionGUID="72bb5ab3-00a4-4409-a7e3-373de3396b65" CreationDate="2016-02-06T23:16:00.747" UserId="16011" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20060016456][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20060016456&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am listing this invention as Prior Art, but I can not find the sketches for this invention. How can I obtain them, please?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35568" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14348" RevisionGUID="72bb5ab3-00a4-4409-a7e3-373de3396b65" CreationDate="2016-02-06T23:16:00.747" UserId="16011" Text="Prior Art Sketches" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35569" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14348" RevisionGUID="72bb5ab3-00a4-4409-a7e3-373de3396b65" CreationDate="2016-02-06T23:16:00.747" UserId="16011" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14349" RevisionGUID="fe38cc6a-66b4-473c-b356-e8663bad75d0" CreationDate="2016-02-07T00:48:50.600" UserId="15995" Text="This depends substantially on many details. You would, at a minimum, need to show an &quot;inventive step&quot;, which would be something both novel and non-obvious. If A dispenses soap and B is a soap, you're probably out of luck. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14350" RevisionGUID="82ecb7dd-d4a8-41e8-b455-69d6391a5e3c" CreationDate="2016-02-07T01:16:28.317" UserId="16012" Text="I have and invented design improvement on a product that  already has a patent on the product. Can I  obtain  my own patent for the  new design  on that product? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35572" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14350" RevisionGUID="82ecb7dd-d4a8-41e8-b455-69d6391a5e3c" CreationDate="2016-02-07T01:16:28.317" UserId="16012" Text="How to get a patent on a design that already has a patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35573" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14350" RevisionGUID="82ecb7dd-d4a8-41e8-b455-69d6391a5e3c" CreationDate="2016-02-07T01:16:28.317" UserId="16012" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;design&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14351" RevisionGUID="a734df5f-9ba5-4358-86ea-516858e18b8c" CreationDate="2016-02-07T04:02:17.083" UserId="16007" Text="Are there any crucial differences between the patent regime in US vs India? We may be filing for one in India &amp; of course, the attorneys will be doing the heavy lifting; but I just was curious about any major differences. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. About allowable claims, form, term etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case it matters, this is a biotech patent about a transgenic organism." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35576" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14351" RevisionGUID="a734df5f-9ba5-4358-86ea-516858e18b8c" CreationDate="2016-02-07T04:02:17.083" UserId="16007" Text="US vs Indian Patent System differences" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35577" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14351" RevisionGUID="a734df5f-9ba5-4358-86ea-516858e18b8c" CreationDate="2016-02-07T04:02:17.083" UserId="16007" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;foreign&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35578" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14351" RevisionGUID="e1c23b87-c723-44c9-9565-1cb25d6b6153" CreationDate="2016-02-07T16:30:55.453" UserId="1" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14351" RevisionGUID="735c74f4-954f-42fa-9b56-6605367ef020" CreationDate="2016-02-08T04:03:44.967" UserId="16007" Comment="added 330 characters in body" Text="Are there any crucial differences between the patent regime in US vs India? We may be filing for one in India &amp; of course, the attorneys will be doing the heavy lifting; but I just was curious about any major differences. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. About allowable claims, form, term etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some specific questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is the patent term 20 years in India too?&#xD;&#xA; - Any differences in claims language or the breadth of claims allowed?&#xD;&#xA; - Are prophetic experiments allowed in place of actual experiments?&#xD;&#xA; - Are biotech patents allowed to patent the gene itself or merely a method that uses / synthesizes the gene?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case it matters, this is a biotech patent about a transgenic organism." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35592" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13418" RevisionGUID="16f1f56f-ceec-44f3-8964-5bd1bf075234" CreationDate="2016-02-08T08:16:52.040" UserId="10011" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14318" RevisionGUID="14d51f96-3441-4585-8f44-4d50bd958823" CreationDate="2016-02-08T08:19:07.497" UserId="10011" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8276282][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent still valid/enforceable? If the owner of a patent has failed to pay their maintenance dues, will the filed patent reflect that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8276282" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35594" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14348" RevisionGUID="bb65a229-a43b-4e6c-87fc-a0dcb8c3e29c" CreationDate="2016-02-08T08:20:34.010" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;us20060016456&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35595" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14350" RevisionGUID="1fcf47d1-e471-456e-bf77-2acfac8afc36" CreationDate="2016-02-08T08:20:59.720" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;design&gt;&lt;improvement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14351" RevisionGUID="93e1f206-3d10-4dbe-9409-ca9086902d1c" CreationDate="2016-02-08T08:23:14.057" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 27 characters in body; edited tags" Text="We may be filing for a patent in India, and while our attorneys will be doing the heavy lifting, I was just curious about what major differences there are in the patent system between there and the United States.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm curious about general differences, but specifically,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is the patent term 20 years in India too?&#xD;&#xA; - Any differences in claims language or the breadth of claims allowed?&#xD;&#xA; - Are prophetic experiments allowed in place of actual experiments?&#xD;&#xA; - Are biotech patents allowed to patent the gene itself or merely a method that uses / synthesizes the gene?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case it matters, this is a biotech patent about a transgenic organism." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35597" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14351" RevisionGUID="93e1f206-3d10-4dbe-9409-ca9086902d1c" CreationDate="2016-02-08T08:23:14.057" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 27 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;foreign&gt;&lt;india&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35598" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="14351" RevisionGUID="7464273f-c24a-481e-b51d-644d6079a19e" CreationDate="2016-02-08T08:23:14.253" UserId="10011" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7705" RevisionGUID="6cbe9cb3-69a3-4e97-90ba-79b428bf107a" CreationDate="2016-02-08T08:32:36.263" UserId="-1" Comment="Changed the question for a better understandment and calrity for specific answer. " Text="Is there any on-going research on this potentially useful invention? Why has it not been developed to practical use or for experimentation, for further development? patent: us5676977" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35601" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7705" RevisionGUID="6cbe9cb3-69a3-4e97-90ba-79b428bf107a" CreationDate="2016-02-08T08:32:36.263" Comment="Proposed by 23.25.48.185|e376d0fc-db81-46ab-8086-b2214d7f94b3 approved by 10011 edit id of 1911" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14354" RevisionGUID="6f738fbb-fb78-41c9-a382-a0f25b8dc672" CreationDate="2016-02-08T11:16:50.463" UserId="15995" Text="You must introduce some novel aspect to that product' design. You would file for a patent on that novel aspect. If the novel aspect has not been discussed before you have a chance of receiving a patent protecting only that novelty. You would be able to control how that novel aspect is used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether you can market your product at all depends on the other patent holder. You would likely need to license that original patent. However, you should scrutinize the claims. The claims are protected, not the product. Your product may not infringe at all, depending on their claims and your design. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14355" RevisionGUID="4b2af894-ed83-4740-a427-337b04039dac" CreationDate="2016-02-08T13:48:09.570" UserId="16019" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8055673][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8055673&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this patent also cover the following :&#xD;&#xA;a. Capturing additional key words based on the user's social connections data &#xD;&#xA;b. Giving an option to the user to give a list of friends/select his friends on the social network who he thinks might know the right answer or can support the search " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35604" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14355" RevisionGUID="4b2af894-ed83-4740-a427-337b04039dac" CreationDate="2016-02-08T13:48:09.570" UserId="16019" Text="Does this patent cover using social connections data to better the search results" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35605" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14355" RevisionGUID="4b2af894-ed83-4740-a427-337b04039dac" CreationDate="2016-02-08T13:48:09.570" UserId="16019" Text="&lt;us8055673&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14357" RevisionGUID="0891b584-7c74-45d5-82b0-c1f4a9eb445e" CreationDate="2016-02-08T15:16:26.673" UserId="16007" Text="On some patent numbers I see an &quot;A1&quot; / &quot;A2&quot; / &quot;B2&quot; etc. suffix after the actual patent number &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. &quot;USxxxxxxxxx B2&quot; or &quot;WOxxxxxxxx A1&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do these suffixes mean? Is there a key somewhere that lists what they mean? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35610" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14357" RevisionGUID="0891b584-7c74-45d5-82b0-c1f4a9eb445e" CreationDate="2016-02-08T15:16:26.673" UserId="16007" Text="Patent Number suffix A1 / B2 etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35611" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14357" RevisionGUID="0891b584-7c74-45d5-82b0-c1f4a9eb445e" CreationDate="2016-02-08T15:16:26.673" UserId="16007" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;number&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14358" RevisionGUID="3ea2500e-272a-43c3-8150-31834f0db718" CreationDate="2016-02-08T23:56:15.447" UserId="16021" Text="I used this design in a commerically produced speaker back in the mid 1990's. I didn't think it was original enough to be bothered patenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not that it matters now as the patent has expired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Geoffrey Owen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14360" RevisionGUID="5616920e-2c24-4522-b1a0-30c1d5a15caf" CreationDate="2016-02-09T09:36:09.397" UserId="15503" Text="These are kind codes. They are effectively version numbers for published versions of the patent application. Every country has their own set of kind codes, but typically an A code (such as A1) represents a patent application, and a B code (such as B2) represents a granted patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The background behind this system is provided in WIPO's standard [ST.16](http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/standards/en/pdf/03-16-01.pdf). WIPO also maintains a [list](http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/standards/en/pdf/07-03-02.pdf) of the actual codes used by each country." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14363" RevisionGUID="6490a5ca-8c63-45ac-add4-989d4b920ecc" CreationDate="2016-02-10T19:19:57.390" UserId="16033" Text="http://web.archive.org/web/19970401002943/http://www.algonet.se/~jason/[enter link description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A interactive map is a image. So technically this webpage of mine from 1996 is prior art for any image on internet and computer device that is interactive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not then it is possible to patent any image that is interactive and is not already published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word should be, Interactive Images?.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/19970401002943/http://www.algonet.se/~jason/#Itsme/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://web.archive.org/web/19970401002943/http://www.algonet.se/~jason/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14365" RevisionGUID="e1b06582-a832-42b2-aed1-b00053875ad5" CreationDate="2016-02-10T21:30:31.920" UserId="16035" Text="I invented and published it back in 2002. There's plenty of proof. I'm wondering 1. if it's a good idea just to keep someone else from patenting my invention, 2. if it's even worth trying (what would I stand to gain) and 3. how expensive it would be." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35629" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14365" RevisionGUID="e1b06582-a832-42b2-aed1-b00053875ad5" CreationDate="2016-02-10T21:30:31.920" UserId="16035" Text="I invented the one-man a capella multitrack video format that is very popular now - can I patent it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35630" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14365" RevisionGUID="e1b06582-a832-42b2-aed1-b00053875ad5" CreationDate="2016-02-10T21:30:31.920" UserId="16035" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14366" RevisionGUID="c54ca3a2-2175-4331-b9db-599541a3d4b8" CreationDate="2016-02-11T00:17:15.830" UserId="16036" Text="Does this patent apply to the USA &quot;CN203725858 U&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;International Classification	B23C3/34, B23Q5/34&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm starting a preliminary patent search, how can I tell if patents apply to the USA.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35632" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14366" RevisionGUID="c54ca3a2-2175-4331-b9db-599541a3d4b8" CreationDate="2016-02-11T00:17:15.830" UserId="16036" Text="Does this patent apply to the USA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35633" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14366" RevisionGUID="c54ca3a2-2175-4331-b9db-599541a3d4b8" CreationDate="2016-02-11T00:17:15.830" UserId="16036" Text="&lt;applicable&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14367" RevisionGUID="a54b38f9-c234-4dca-a09a-a44d51249c7e" CreationDate="2016-02-11T01:18:46.217" UserId="758" Text="At least under US law, no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;35 USC 102:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Exceptions.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Disclosures made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.—A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[section numbers and such removed -- see 35 USC §102 if in doubt about precise contents/wording]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to make a long story short, under the right conditions, you have up to one year after publishing and/or selling the invention to apply for the patent, but after that one year grace period, you're pretty much out of luck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although laws obviously vary by country, I'd be a little bit surprised to see anybody accept a patent application on something you published in ~14 years ago." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35641" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14365" RevisionGUID="faa731d3-75c1-4ced-a827-a4db2b763112" CreationDate="2016-02-11T12:05:15.967" UserId="1" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14369" RevisionGUID="d9472d16-15c5-4d87-82d8-f776d2f7a926" CreationDate="2016-02-11T14:00:21.137" UserId="758" Text="That seems to be a Chinese patent, which can't apply in the US. US patents apply in the US. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The related question, then, is whether there's a US patent that corresponds to the one you're citing. A quick search doesn't turn up any, at least that's currently granted (nor a published application)--but given the time it frequently takes for a US patent to issue, it could have been applied for, and not issued yet (in fact, if they applied for a US patent 1 year after the Chinese patent issued (a common practice) it would be quite unexpected for the US patent to have issued already. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the general question of how to tell if a patent applies in the US, that's fairly simple: if it's a US patent, it applies in the US. Otherwise, it doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a [world patent office](http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/), but it doesn't actually grant patents that apply worldwide, or anything like that. Rather, it provides a way to (somewhat) more easily apply for a patent in each of the countries that participates in the patent cooperation treaty (currently 148 countries).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should probably add that there is also a [European Patent Office](https://www.epo.org/index.html), which issues patents that apply to the entirety of the European Union (currently 40 countries). Unlike the world patent office, the EPO can (and does) directly issue a single patent that applies equally throughout all of Europe (but most European countries still have their own patent offices as well)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14371" RevisionGUID="52a7015a-20c7-4edd-b9e8-09a77825e246" CreationDate="2016-02-12T05:41:36.890" UserId="758" Text="As you've stated things above, I'd say &quot;no&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To point to only the first difference that seems obvious to me, all the independent claims specify &quot;receiving [...] a timeline from the user&quot;. So, at the very least, the user would also have to provide a timeline as part of receiving the subject of the query.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The independent claims to talk about that timeline actually being *used* in the process of carrying out the query, but it still needs to be received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also requires:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; meta-learning logic executed by the processor for learning meta-data based on the search recommendation response from the search friend, the meta-learning logic using the meta-data to improve future search**es** performed by a meta-search algorithm;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[emphasis added]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means the results from the friend can't just be used to generate results in one search--since it specifies &quot;future searches&quot;, it clearly has to be used to produce results in at least two searches." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14372" RevisionGUID="4942dd85-64ec-4d9d-abd8-4c08fe67b105" CreationDate="2016-02-12T06:06:34.880" UserId="758" Text="If your plan is to use company A's dispenser as-is, then you clearly can't get any apparatus claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You *might* be able to write a patent with only method claims, on the order of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of dispensing [product B], consisting of the following steps:&#xD;&#xA;[ Steps to use dispenser A].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you can show substantial differences between product B, and whatever is normally dispensed from product A, chances are that this isn't going to get very far though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if product A is normally used to dispense liquids within some fairly specific viscosity range, and product B isn't a liquid at all, but the specific combination of A and B works well because of some way they interact that wouldn't have been obvious or predictable, then you might stand a chance of getting a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, however, product B has a different purpose, but from a viewpoint of dispensing is substantially similar to whatever product A normally dispenses, then you probably don't have any basis for a patent (e.g., noticing that gravy and shampoo are both thick liquids, so the same type of dispenser works for either one probably won't qualify as a basis for a patent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you can get a patent, it would only cover actual use of dispenser A to dispense product B. If somebody else tries to go into the market selling dispenser A pre-filled with product B, you might stand a good chance of enforcing the patent against them. If the two simply continue to be sold separately, essentially your only route to accuse either of infringement would be proving that the company was aware of your patent covering the combination, and specifically encouraged customers to use the combination anyway (i.e., nearly impossible to prove unless you can find some letter/memo/email directly admitting guilt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summary (to quote the magic 8-ball): &quot;Outlook not so good&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14375" RevisionGUID="46e64a94-3a2f-4933-8aa3-7fc564f3b9f9" CreationDate="2016-02-12T19:35:31.523" UserId="758" Text="The MPEP (§708.02(a)) requirements are at least intended to assure that prioritized examination should have minimal impact on other examinations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, prioritized examination moves a great deal of the burden from the examiner to the petitioner. To give some specifics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The application must be filed electronically.&#xD;&#xA;2. The application is restricted to no more than 3 independent claims and 20 claims total.&#xD;&#xA;3. There can't be any multiple-dependent claims.&#xD;&#xA;4. The applicant can't argue patentability of dependent claims separately during any appeals.&#xD;&#xA;5. The petitioner has to agree to prior-art interview at the convenience of the examiner.&#xD;&#xA;6. The petitioner (rather than the examiner) has to conduct a full prior art search including US and foreign patents, applications, non-patent documents, has to specify the field of the search, etc. In other words, the petitioner has to satisfy the examiner that they did at least as good of a prior art search as the examiner would normally have done in a normal application.&#xD;&#xA;7. The petitioner has to summarize that prior art search in an Information Disclosure Statement that directs the examiner to what they believe are the best references for each claimed feature, how the current invention is distinguished from each reference, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, while I haven't found any solid references about the *outcome*, the rules are clearly *intended* to prevent priority applications from delaying other applications, primarily by shifting the majority of responsibility for examination to the petitioner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14377" RevisionGUID="6f28a96d-fb51-4b9d-9576-11f613441f8f" CreationDate="2016-02-12T22:02:13.117" UserId="16053" Text="[US Patent 4,428,057 from 1984, &quot;Electronic Chart System&quot;][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;An electronic chart system in which charts of the earth are stored in digital representation and communicated to the operator by a visual display. Through the use of a Loran-C receiver or the like, the system additionally plots the carrier's position on the visual representation of the chart.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=19&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PTXT&amp;s1=%22Hoffman,%20Richard%22.INNM.&amp;s2=%28%22TX%22.INST.%29&amp;OS=IN/%22Hoffman,%20Richard%22%20AND%20IS/TX&amp;RS=IN/%22Hoffman,%20Richard%22%20AND%20IS/TX" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14381" RevisionGUID="e6e6bba2-8a35-4eb1-a52c-348f0b42cd11" CreationDate="2016-02-14T20:10:39.567" UserId="16061" Text="Typically, one would file a Provisional patent before pursuing a Non-Provisional patent. The requirements for the successful submission of a Provisional Patent are listed on the USPTO.gov website under the Provisional Patent section. These include Technical Specs, Technical Drawings, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14382" RevisionGUID="18d236ff-6a44-4248-9ae9-673ac4c81872" CreationDate="2016-02-15T08:36:28.153" UserId="16064" Text="I left the company one year ago. However, while working there I developed an Idea which seems patentable. I did not submitted that while working in that company.&#xD;&#xA;Now I have moved to other company and want to patent my idea. Whom should I approach for the patent - old employer or current employer? Please note - the people in my previous company know that I developed that idea while working with them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35693" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14382" RevisionGUID="18d236ff-6a44-4248-9ae9-673ac4c81872" CreationDate="2016-02-15T08:36:28.153" UserId="16064" Text="Filing new patent after leaving the company" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35694" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14382" RevisionGUID="18d236ff-6a44-4248-9ae9-673ac4c81872" CreationDate="2016-02-15T08:36:28.153" UserId="16064" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14384" RevisionGUID="024ba224-28f7-4656-bbbd-fe9460d03dd5" CreationDate="2016-02-16T08:28:03.847" UserId="7888" Text="Microsoft has submitted an application for a patent to the blatantly obvious idea of designing a computer that consists of independently upgradeable modules - an idea as old as the IBM PC itself only this time the modules are wrapped in a sleek, appealing metallic cover and interlocked using magnets rather than sockets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application can be found [here][1] and as I understand it the filing date for the application is January 5th 2015.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hereby request the assistance of the community in debunking the 20 claims covered in this patent and would suggest as a point of reference the [Industry Standard Architecture][2] or alternatively the [Lenovo Thinkpad Stack][3], which was revealed to the world on January 4th 2015.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=20160041582.PGNR.&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry_Standard_Architecture&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.cnet.com/products/lenovo-thinkpad-stack/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35703" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14384" RevisionGUID="024ba224-28f7-4656-bbbd-fe9460d03dd5" CreationDate="2016-02-16T08:28:03.847" UserId="7888" Text="Microsoft Modular Computing Device - Prior Art Request" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35704" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14384" RevisionGUID="024ba224-28f7-4656-bbbd-fe9460d03dd5" CreationDate="2016-02-16T08:28:03.847" UserId="7888" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;modular&gt;&lt;lenovo&gt;&lt;isa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14384" RevisionGUID="ba44083a-a86b-40dc-a6e7-d5728f3c5a31" CreationDate="2016-02-16T08:35:46.830" UserId="7888" Comment="added 161 characters in body" Text="Microsoft has submitted an application for a patent to the blatantly obvious idea of designing a computer that consists of independently upgradeable modules - an idea as old as the IBM PC itself only this time the modules are wrapped in a sleek, appealing metallic cover and interlocked using magnets rather than sockets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application can be found [here][1] and as I understand it the filing date for the application is January 5th 2015.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hereby request the assistance of the community in debunking the 20 claims covered in this patent and would suggest as a point of reference the [Industry Standard Architecture][2] or alternatively the [Lenovo Thinkpad Stack][3], which was revealed to the world on January 4th 2015 or possibly [this failed IndieGoGo concept called the ICE xPC][4], which failed to receive funding on February 7th 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=20160041582.PGNR.&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry_Standard_Architecture&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.cnet.com/products/lenovo-thinkpad-stack/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/ice-xpc-a-modular-computer-as-small-as-your-phone#/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35706" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14384" RevisionGUID="ccb37c5c-502f-4fc7-94d1-1b026504c3d8" CreationDate="2016-02-16T08:48:37.710" UserId="7888" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;modular&gt;&lt;lenovo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14384" RevisionGUID="ccb37c5c-502f-4fc7-94d1-1b026504c3d8" CreationDate="2016-02-16T08:48:37.710" UserId="7888" Comment="edited tags" Text="Microsoft has submitted an application for a patent to the blatantly obvious idea of designing a computer that consists of independently upgradeable modules - an idea as old as the IBM PC itself only this time the modules are wrapped in a sleek, drool-proof housing and interlocked using magnets rather than sockets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application can be found [here][1] and as I understand it the filing date for the application is January 5th 2015.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hereby request the assistance of the community in debunking the 20 claims covered in this patent and would suggest as a point of reference the [Industry Standard Architecture][2] or alternatively the [Lenovo Thinkpad Stack][3], which was revealed to the world on January 4th 2015 or possibly [this failed IndieGoGo concept called the ICE xPC][4], which failed to receive funding on February 7th 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the first of the twenty(!) claims in the patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computing device comprising: a display modular component including a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; housing, a display device physically and communicatively coupled to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the housing via a hinge, and one or more display hardware elements&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disposed within the housing and configured to output a display for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; display the display device; and a computing modular component&#xD;&#xA;&gt; including a housing that is physically and communicatively coupled to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the display modular component, a processing system disposed within the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; housing, and memory disposed within the housing, the processing system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; configured to execute instructions stored by the processing system to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generate a user interface for display by the display device of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; display modular component, the processing system and the memory being&#xD;&#xA;&gt; swappable within the housing of the computing modular component.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=20160041582.PGNR.&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry_Standard_Architecture&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.cnet.com/products/lenovo-thinkpad-stack/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/ice-xpc-a-modular-computer-as-small-as-your-phone#/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35708" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14384" RevisionGUID="ee7fb11b-8391-4792-b7b5-2c72b32f54fc" CreationDate="2016-02-16T08:55:03.987" UserId="7888" Comment="added 182 characters in body" Text="Microsoft has submitted an application for a patent to the blatantly obvious idea of designing a computer that consists of independently upgradeable modules - an idea as old as the IBM PC itself only this time the modules are wrapped in a sleek, drool-proof housing and interlocked using magnets rather than sockets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application can be found [here][1] and as I understand it the filing date for the application is January 5th 2015.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hereby request the assistance of the community in debunking the 20 claims covered in this patent and would suggest as a point of reference the [Industry Standard Architecture][2] or alternatively the [Lenovo Thinkpad Stack][3], which was revealed to the world on January 4th 2015 or possibly [this IndieGoGo concept called the ICE xPC][4], which failed to receive funding on February 7th 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the first of the twenty(!) claims in the patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computing device comprising: a display modular component including a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; housing, a display device physically and communicatively coupled to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the housing via a hinge, and one or more display hardware elements&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disposed within the housing and configured to output a display for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; display the display device; and a computing modular component&#xD;&#xA;&gt; including a housing that is physically and communicatively coupled to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the display modular component, a processing system disposed within the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; housing, and memory disposed within the housing, the processing system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; configured to execute instructions stored by the processing system to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generate a user interface for display by the display device of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; display modular component, the processing system and the memory being&#xD;&#xA;&gt; swappable within the housing of the computing modular component.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a picture from the application to help people grasp the concept:&#xD;&#xA;[![Illustration from Microsoft's Patent Application][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=20160041582.PGNR.&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry_Standard_Architecture&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.cnet.com/products/lenovo-thinkpad-stack/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/ice-xpc-a-modular-computer-as-small-as-your-phone#/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/k60fv.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14385" RevisionGUID="95cc8170-663a-438b-aeb0-1e7ceb234e7e" CreationDate="2016-02-17T04:47:20.560" UserId="15657" Text="Patent filing requires that you disclose names of everyone involved in the invention. If the novel and patent-able portion is not your sole invention, then you need to approach the co-inventors and get their signature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You also need to check your employment agreement to see if your former employer has the rights to your invention. If yes, then when you file your application, you need to assign it to your former employer. If there is no written agreement, the law gets [complicated][1], and you should check with an attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the idea was developed prior to your new employment, your current employer can't claim any right to your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.freibrun.com/articles/articl11.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14386" RevisionGUID="6881602e-1304-4f57-9c78-4613c7eb8f22" CreationDate="2016-02-17T19:43:51.327" UserId="16078" Text="I know next to nothing about the patent system in the US, so forgive me if this is a ridiculous question. What would stop one from starting their own private patent office. The USPTO solely examines and then documents patents to save for a later date if someone infringes on your intellectual property, right? So if a private company could do the same thing and be accepted by a court as being official, is there any law restricting this? And would a procedure like this hold up in court?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35711" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14386" RevisionGUID="6881602e-1304-4f57-9c78-4613c7eb8f22" CreationDate="2016-02-17T19:43:51.327" UserId="16078" Text="Private Patent Office" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35712" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14386" RevisionGUID="6881602e-1304-4f57-9c78-4613c7eb8f22" CreationDate="2016-02-17T19:43:51.327" UserId="16078" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14387" RevisionGUID="dc078140-dc03-47d5-a150-e37b2ed38539" CreationDate="2016-02-17T21:33:51.517" UserId="16081" Text="You can record the document listing the patents as property bought by the new company... (redact anything like a price that you wouldn't want shown)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14388" RevisionGUID="4fd7d5a2-371d-4ac1-b3ea-af4c9a6ce91c" CreationDate="2016-02-17T21:41:51.070" UserId="16081" Text="The USPTO publishes applications and granted patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A private company publishing such information wouldn't be providing any protection for themselves but would merely be publishing prior art against other companies (who search for such material and make sure they work around such available material - otherwise the Examiner from the USPTO would not give them a patent.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14389" RevisionGUID="2b3e2a54-7ca3-4ddd-bbd6-58ff1696afdf" CreationDate="2016-02-17T21:49:00.617" UserId="16081" Text="Don't just check your employer agreement - if the language wasn't there it may be in the NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) which either accompanied your Employer Agreement or maybe your first visit when you interviewed there.  If you don't have copies of these - the HR should be able to give them to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be quite surprising if the language was not there.  It might look something like this: &quot;any work performed or intellectual property conceived of while at Company A belongs solely to Company A&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14390" RevisionGUID="2fdfd0a2-8a62-4197-b88b-07c26e944ddd" CreationDate="2016-02-18T04:31:45.307" UserId="16082" Text="I completed documentation work for a new app. Can I protect my idea or concept of app before I can actually go for designing the app. Can I get patent or copyright on my documentation before building the real app?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35720" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14390" RevisionGUID="2fdfd0a2-8a62-4197-b88b-07c26e944ddd" CreationDate="2016-02-18T04:31:45.307" UserId="16082" Text="Can i patent or copyright my app idea before actually building the same.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35721" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14390" RevisionGUID="2fdfd0a2-8a62-4197-b88b-07c26e944ddd" CreationDate="2016-02-18T04:31:45.307" UserId="16082" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14391" RevisionGUID="5d702bcd-aee8-4d80-b58a-221671c944e7" CreationDate="2016-02-18T05:56:52.767" UserId="758" Text="To be meaningful, such an office would have to be established by congress. As it stands now, congress has established the existing Patent and Trademark Office as a part of the US Department of Commerce. If they chose to, I suppose they could delegate that responsibility by specifying processes that had to be followed, and then (for example) licensing private agencies to carry out those processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That would still be in accordance with the constitution, which simply gives congress the right:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Realistically, I can't quite imagine that happening. Unlike most parts of the government, the PTO is actually profitable. For example, its current projection is to receive about $3,343 million in fees this year, and spend about $3,246 million, for a profit close to $100 million. Granted, as government budgets go that's not a whole lot of money, but it's still positive cash flow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14392" RevisionGUID="35df16e8-e936-4a79-b1f0-89802f4e9d90" CreationDate="2016-02-18T06:20:00.480" UserId="758" Text="You have a copyright on your documentation as soon as you write it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least in most normal cases, you don't need to build something before you apply for a patent on them. The only exception (of which I'm aware) is if you want to apply for a patent on a perpetual motion machine, in which case you need to give the patent office a working model of your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, however, a patent application just requires you to describe your invention in sufficient detail for a &quot;person of ordinary skill in the art&quot; to implement your invention. You also have to describe how it's useful, and (the part that's usually the most difficult) show how your invention is new and novel--what distinguishes it from existing ways of doing things." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14394" RevisionGUID="b14fd2f4-7756-40e3-a6ca-ffcf57fb123e" CreationDate="2016-02-18T17:33:59.870" UserId="15657" Text="In an original draft of a patent application we have, the background contained a reference to a prior art by its patent number and a description of the prior art, and the first drawing is a drawing of the prior art. When the application was submitted, the patent number and the drawing were removed, but a description of the prior art remained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I asked the patent agent, she said that the patent examiner would customarily do OA on the prior art, and the omission was done to avoid that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, that sounded ridiculous. The omission makes the background section fairly hard to understand. If the application is ambiguous or hard to comprehend, wouldn't that invite more OAs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My opinion is that the background section should be short, easy to understand, very clear on the difference between the invention and prior art, and clearly call out the importance (benefits) of that difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is there any benefit to completely omitting drawing and patent number of prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35729" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14394" RevisionGUID="b14fd2f4-7756-40e3-a6ca-ffcf57fb123e" CreationDate="2016-02-18T17:33:59.870" UserId="15657" Text="Benefit of omitting drawing and patent number of prior art in background?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35730" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14394" RevisionGUID="b14fd2f4-7756-40e3-a6ca-ffcf57fb123e" CreationDate="2016-02-18T17:33:59.870" UserId="15657" Text="&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14395" RevisionGUID="30a3a696-9553-428f-a7e8-6d2fe7fe8e47" CreationDate="2016-02-18T17:54:28.340" UserId="15657" Text="You can use [PublicPair][1] to retrieve the history of the patent. Do you have the patent number?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35732" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10679" RevisionGUID="e3753b15-d5cb-4a0a-9460-9552f96e580a" CreationDate="2016-02-18T21:11:58.487" UserId="1" Comment="edited title" Text="Value of an Original Vintage Patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14390" RevisionGUID="06ac7b2c-d4aa-45ad-a4ae-47a48db61167" CreationDate="2016-02-18T22:56:45.173" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I completed specification work for a new app.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I protect my idea or concept of the app before I actually go build the app? Can I get patent on my specification or theory before building the real app?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35734" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14390" RevisionGUID="06ac7b2c-d4aa-45ad-a4ae-47a48db61167" CreationDate="2016-02-18T22:56:45.173" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Can I patent my app idea before actually building it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35735" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14390" RevisionGUID="06ac7b2c-d4aa-45ad-a4ae-47a48db61167" CreationDate="2016-02-18T22:56:45.173" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14398" RevisionGUID="176305c2-67fa-456a-a33f-2316f010c789" CreationDate="2016-02-19T20:21:28.547" UserId="16093" Text="Suppose I come up with a product with some characteristics that are unique enough that it could be patented. However, I don't have enough money to file for a patent at the launch date. Can a competitor file for a patent describing basically my product before I have the chance to? And could it be granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35748" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14398" RevisionGUID="176305c2-67fa-456a-a33f-2316f010c789" CreationDate="2016-02-19T20:21:28.547" UserId="16093" Text="Can a competitor see my unpatented product in the market and patent it before I do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35749" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14398" RevisionGUID="176305c2-67fa-456a-a33f-2316f010c789" CreationDate="2016-02-19T20:21:28.547" UserId="16093" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14399" RevisionGUID="5c8e7e74-541f-4d46-994b-fda3d58b638b" CreationDate="2016-02-20T02:31:20.863" UserId="16094" Text="filed a provisional on an idea made of aluminum, weeks later realized i could make this in several different ways if made of plastic as well. Do i file another provisional with all the variation, including the aluminum version and abandon the first provisional..?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35752" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14399" RevisionGUID="5c8e7e74-541f-4d46-994b-fda3d58b638b" CreationDate="2016-02-20T02:31:20.863" UserId="16094" Text="two provisional application on same invention two different dates" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35753" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14399" RevisionGUID="5c8e7e74-541f-4d46-994b-fda3d58b638b" CreationDate="2016-02-20T02:31:20.863" UserId="16094" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14400" RevisionGUID="2ea0b6cd-888c-492a-8f97-98682b09831f" CreationDate="2016-02-20T02:58:21.300" UserId="15657" Text="A provisional application helps establish a priority date so that someone else cannot file a patent on the same invention. If the variations are substantially similar and can be covered by one single patent application, then there should be no need to file two provisional applications.&#xA;&#xA;It's not a good idea to restrict your claim to a specific material. In the Detailed Description part of your actual patent application, you can discuss various embodiment using different materials. However, in the Claims, you should just omit any reference to material, or simply refer to it as Rigid Material. And any material-specific variations should be referred to in more abstract terms, for example in your independent claim use the term fastening means while in you dependent claims specify welding in case of aluminum and clip-and-lock in case of injection molded plastic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14401" RevisionGUID="9878ca90-0891-47b4-a018-31921282b715" CreationDate="2016-02-20T03:22:14.633" UserId="15657" Text="The US law has changed from first-to-invent to first-to-file, so it's best to file a patent as soon as possible.&#xA;&#xA;You can first file a provisional patent application, which won't become a granted patent but will establish a priority date so that your competitor cannot patent your idea later. However later on you will need to file a non-provisional patent application, at which point you hopefully monetize your invention enough to afford a real patent attorney.&#xA;&#xA;If you are certain you can't afford the cost of getting a real patent but want to be on the defensive so that your competitor won't patent your invention and then sue you, you can publish a public technical disclosure anywhere to establish a disclosure date. After that point no one can claim your invention, including yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14403" RevisionGUID="d1b69890-9787-4da5-9cc8-f2e51961c594" CreationDate="2016-02-20T16:26:31.997" UserId="16094" Text=" I filed a simple provisional application on an idea, weeks later i realized that i can do better with this invention, added new material, new attachment, new catch, and added an other uses for the invention. do you file another provisional on a new invention or do you file an improvement provisional with reference to serial number to your already filed application? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35761" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14403" RevisionGUID="d1b69890-9787-4da5-9cc8-f2e51961c594" CreationDate="2016-02-20T16:26:31.997" UserId="16094" Text="Improvement or new invention" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35762" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14403" RevisionGUID="d1b69890-9787-4da5-9cc8-f2e51961c594" CreationDate="2016-02-20T16:26:31.997" UserId="16094" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;improvement&gt;&lt;new&gt;&lt;pr&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14403" RevisionGUID="a4cab40f-91b0-4d34-9bc2-6aa8bdd16253" CreationDate="2016-02-20T17:08:04.237" UserId="16094" Comment="not a new catch but added a catch for clarity  " Text=" I filed a simple provisional application on an idea, weeks later i realized that i can do better with this invention, added new material, new attachment, added a catch, and added an other uses for the invention. do you file another provisional on a new invention or do you file an improvement provisional with reference to serial number to your already filed application? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14404" RevisionGUID="0c99199a-61ae-4006-825d-0f2c29dc2e18" CreationDate="2016-02-20T21:01:16.117" UserId="16105" Text="My kid (14 years old) is pretty innovative and has a great idea that he wants to write a patent for -- himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know enough about patents to know that he probably can't do a good enough job himself to file a patent that can offer much protection, however, I want him to do it just for the learning experience of it. It doesn't cost much to file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question though is: is there a lower age limit for filing? Can someone under the age of majority file a patent? (Jurisdiction is the USA.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35765" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14404" RevisionGUID="0c99199a-61ae-4006-825d-0f2c29dc2e18" CreationDate="2016-02-20T21:01:16.117" UserId="16105" Text="How old must you be to file a patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35766" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14404" RevisionGUID="0c99199a-61ae-4006-825d-0f2c29dc2e18" CreationDate="2016-02-20T21:01:16.117" UserId="16105" Text="&lt;legal&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14406" RevisionGUID="0c06112c-09a5-43e4-a24f-cd0d1433f8e4" CreationDate="2016-02-21T01:41:05.583" UserId="16108" Text="I may file a patent in the future that relates to a user interface on smartphones. In the meant time, I am building the algorithm stored in a GitHub repository. My question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Can I use this GitHub page history to prove I am the original inventor? I.e. if someone else tries to file a patent before me but is shown to have invented it at a later date than when I started, will the GitHub page be enough to grant the patent to me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I have trouble understanding the grace period. If I publish an art and have not filed for a patent within the year, does that mean anyone else can file the patent, even though the art verifies that I am the original inventor?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. What constitutes an art being &quot;published&quot;? If I create a private GitHub page, and one year later change it to public, is the date of publication the date I created the GitHub page, or the date that I set it to public?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35771" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14406" RevisionGUID="0c06112c-09a5-43e4-a24f-cd0d1433f8e4" CreationDate="2016-02-21T01:41:05.583" UserId="16108" Text="Can GitHub code be considered prior art? What if its in a private repository?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35772" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14406" RevisionGUID="0c06112c-09a5-43e4-a24f-cd0d1433f8e4" CreationDate="2016-02-21T01:41:05.583" UserId="16108" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14407" RevisionGUID="d8320610-bfc8-43dc-901c-dbad5a78228b" CreationDate="2016-02-21T07:15:58.497" UserId="16108" Text="I did a little digging and found this post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/13860/register-prior-art-but-not-wanting-a-patent/13869#13869&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case it might help anyone else, I'll answer my own questions for archival reasons. If I got anything wrong, any help correcting would be much appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Yes, GitHub can be used as a published prior art.&#xD;&#xA;2. If I wrote the code on GitHub, and I was the first that invented it, no one else but me can file the patent. However, I only have 1 year from the publish date to file that patent. After that year passes, no one can file the patent (I assume its under public domain?)&#xD;&#xA;3. From the URL I linked, it seems like the GitHub page must be publicly available for it to be considered a published prior art. I'm not sure on the specifics if the repository was initially private, then set to public, then set to private again some time later, then public again. I assume the publish date of the prior art is on the first time it was set to public (so the 1 year grace period would start ticking on that time)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14409" RevisionGUID="c773515f-0901-47b4-9a29-8e2427870b31" CreationDate="2016-02-21T16:46:51.657" UserId="16110" Text="US 8449413 B1 This paten was in a book with a copy date of 1990, describing freely to any one on how to make them, then this was filed in 2011....here is a link to the book http://www.larping.net/Nero/Nero3ed.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35781" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14409" RevisionGUID="c773515f-0901-47b4-9a29-8e2427870b31" CreationDate="2016-02-21T16:46:51.657" UserId="16110" Text="can you patten some thing that was published 20 years earlyer: US 8449413 B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35782" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14409" RevisionGUID="c773515f-0901-47b4-9a29-8e2427870b31" CreationDate="2016-02-21T16:46:51.657" UserId="16110" Text="&lt;us&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14409" RevisionGUID="3f10b633-7bd6-4416-9867-10c6eb070812" CreationDate="2016-02-22T01:39:08.763" UserId="10011" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="US 8449413 B1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent was in a book with a copy date of 1990, describing freely to any one on how to make them, then this was filed in 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a link to the book: http://www.larping.net/Nero/Nero3ed.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35784" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14409" RevisionGUID="3f10b633-7bd6-4416-9867-10c6eb070812" CreationDate="2016-02-22T01:39:08.763" UserId="10011" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Can you patent something that was published 20 years earlier: US 8449413 B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35785" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14409" RevisionGUID="3f10b633-7bd6-4416-9867-10c6eb070812" CreationDate="2016-02-22T01:39:08.763" UserId="10011" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;us8449413b1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14410" RevisionGUID="da690901-0215-4886-bc8f-e487f9fd0749" CreationDate="2016-02-22T02:33:24.073" UserId="15657" Text="You should first purchase one infringing item, review the claims of your patent, and review if the product indeed infringe on your patent. It's important because you may find the claims in the actual granted patent were too narrow, or the competitor had circumvented your patent claims. You should also at least get the attorney/agent that drafted your patent application to give you an opinion on the strength of your infringement claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should also discuss the matter with a litigation attorney. It's not advised to send a notice letter yourself, because if it's not drafted correctly, the other party can sue you first and put you in an unfavorable position." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14411" RevisionGUID="ad5b8103-0ceb-4f85-93ce-3cc7d2c2d69b" CreationDate="2016-02-22T02:39:25.727" UserId="15657" Text="The essence of the patent law is to promote technological development by encouraging inventors to disclose their invention (rather than keep as trade secret) in return for exclusivity for their invention for a certain time. The law requires that patents &quot;teach&quot; the public about the invention and disclose sufficient details of the preferred embodiment so that others can replicate (but not sell) the technology. Therefore, it is permitted to write about patented technologies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14413" RevisionGUID="c61f7632-237d-481a-9efc-92da7e16048e" CreationDate="2016-02-22T03:56:09.910" UserId="16114" Text="Going way back in time, there's also things like &#xD;&#xA;http://www.storiesofapple.net/the-jonathan-computer.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14414" RevisionGUID="694e2c58-4eb8-4207-8344-541b8444f022" CreationDate="2016-02-22T05:42:00.347" UserId="11370" Text="Different forms of intellectual property have different legal protections. In very simplified language, they break down like so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Copyright][1]: automatic upon creation, no registration required to be able to claim infringement&#xD;&#xA;* [Trademark][2]: arises out of regular usage, but a registered trademark affords additional rights&#xD;&#xA;* [Patent][3]: only enforceable after being granted by a recognized body (a patent office)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words the very definition of a patent requires it be issued by the USPTO (or an equivalent legally recognized body in another jurisdiction). While no one would stop you from operating a private &quot;patent office&quot;, a court of law would not consider the &quot;patents&quot; issued by that office in infringement proceedings, rendering such a &quot;patent&quot; useless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The USPTO solely examines and then documents patents to save for a later date if someone infringes on your intellectual property, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, the USPTO does more than simply examine and document. They have the authority to grant or reject patent applications, and therefore decide what patents are issued. It isn't enough to simply apply for a patent; you must also be *granted* the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it doesn't make sense for a private entity to grant patents, it does make sense for inventions to be registered elsewhere than the USPTO. There are a number of services ([including this site][4]) which maintain data about inventions, patents, applications, and prior art in order to ensure the USPTO does not grant patents erroneously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Obtaining_and_enforcing_copyright&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Fundamental_concepts&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_application&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14415" RevisionGUID="460e2470-2846-4fb6-95c2-ae6b41d72d74" CreationDate="2016-02-22T07:00:28.400" UserId="15657" Text="That is not possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, you cannot patent an idea. A transport means that goes up and down (an elevator) is just a concept and cannot be patented. You can only patent implementation of the idea. In the case of an elevator, the claims are certain to specify certain physical elements required to implement the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, for a patent to be valid, it must be &quot;useful&quot;. A visual control system is only useful if the visualization is a representation of a physical system actually working.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even in the case someone files a patent with claims so broad that it encompasses both physical and virtual elevators, and in the extremely unlikely case that the patent get granted, it would be easy the challenge the validity of the patent and have the court limit the claims to something more meaningful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only time you will get into trouble is that the patent is itself a software patent, for example, a patent specifically on elevator simulation. A good test for that is ask yourself this question: &quot;do you think that your visual control system is patent-able?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14416" RevisionGUID="bd93f4d8-8762-499c-b7fb-af050446b153" CreationDate="2016-02-22T07:27:01.140" UserId="15657" Text="It's not recommended to write your first patent, especially if you have no prior training. The patent law requires that the claims be written in certain format. Simple terms such as &quot;comprising&quot; vs &quot;including&quot;, and &quot;a&quot; vs &quot;the&quot; have very different meanings. Without proper training, you could end up with claims that means something different from what you envisioned. Also, if the examiner doesn't like how you draft your application, s/he can ask you to amend the writing. Here again, format of amendment must conform to certain rules. Each amendment also requires a fee, and the cost would accumulate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent attorney/agent can draft a patent application that conform to the required format. Also, since the attorney/agent is not the inventor, s/he can provide an independent insight to your patent, not be blinded by presumption, and prepare claims that can realistically stand against invalidity challenges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, don't totally rely on patent attorney/agent. An incompetent one will draft claims so limited that is basically a detailed description of your product. The patent will get granted because it's so limiting, and the attorney will get paid, but you'll get no protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your job therefore is not to write a patent, but to have a good understanding on what's really novel about your invention and make sure the person drafting your patent understands that. Your other job is to make sure your patent cannot easily be circumvented. Your attorney is not the inventor, and s/he has no business coming up with many different embodiment of the novelty. You are the inventor, and it's your job to think alternative embodiment to help support the broadest claims possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14417" RevisionGUID="dc715d06-8842-46f1-929a-45bf14f9b4bf" CreationDate="2016-02-22T09:18:09.587" UserId="8074" Text="During the [Third-Party Preissuance Submission][1] under [37 CFR 1.290][2] one can submit prior art documents together with **Concise Description of Relevance** explaining relevance of said document. To what level can arguments be revealed in description to not violate [restrictions][3] (see below)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The concise description must not include arguments against&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patentability or set forth conclusions regarding whether one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims are patentable, and must not include proposed rejections of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims or arguments relating to an Office action or an applicant’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reply in the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words would it be ok to submit a list of corresponding concepts in both patent application and a prior art document in a way that clearly demonstrates the scope of the claims covered by the prior art? Or even to submit *Concise Description of Relevance* as a separate document containing detailed analysis of the concepts used in patent application and in prior art together with explanation of why omitted elements are obvious to one skilled in art? Wouldn't it be treated as **arguments against patentability** which are not allowed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://efs.uspto.gov/efile/portal/efs-unregistered&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/filing-online/tps-info-tps-header-2&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/filing-online/tps-info-concise-desc-2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35795" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14417" RevisionGUID="dc715d06-8842-46f1-929a-45bf14f9b4bf" CreationDate="2016-02-22T09:18:09.587" UserId="8074" Text="Filling &quot;Concise Description of Relevance&quot; in USPTO prior art filing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35796" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14417" RevisionGUID="dc715d06-8842-46f1-929a-45bf14f9b4bf" CreationDate="2016-02-22T09:18:09.587" UserId="8074" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;third-party-submission&gt;&lt;procedures&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14417" RevisionGUID="93cb8ddc-6a1c-4211-abf2-226a158e2fee" CreationDate="2016-02-22T10:02:59.313" UserId="8074" Comment="Added related question." Text="During the [Third-Party Preissuance Submission][1] under [37 CFR 1.290][2] one can submit prior art documents together with **Concise Description of Relevance** explaining relevance of said document. To what level can arguments be revealed in description to not violate [restrictions][3] (see below)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The concise description must not include arguments against&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patentability or set forth conclusions regarding whether one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims are patentable, and must not include proposed rejections of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims or arguments relating to an Office action or an applicant’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reply in the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words would it be ok to submit a list of corresponding concepts in both patent application and a prior art document in a way that clearly demonstrates the scope of the claims covered by the prior art? Or even to submit *Concise Description of Relevance* as a separate document containing detailed analysis of the concepts used in patent application and in prior art together with explanation of why omitted elements are obvious to one skilled in art? Wouldn't it be treated as **arguments against patentability** which are not allowed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [How can an individual participate in the examination process for US&#xD;&#xA;   Patent Applications?][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://efs.uspto.gov/efile/portal/efs-unregistered&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/filing-online/tps-info-tps-header-2&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/filing-online/tps-info-concise-desc-2&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/4190/how-can-an-individual-participate-in-the-examination-process-for-us-patent-appli/4192#4192" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14417" RevisionGUID="749e5ab6-392e-4e29-9bcb-320370449877" CreationDate="2016-02-22T10:09:49.790" UserId="8074" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="During the [Third-Party Preissuance Submission][1] under [37 CFR 1.290][2] one can submit prior art documents together with **Concise Description of Relevance** explaining relevance of said document. To what level can arguments be revealed in description to not violate [restrictions][3] (see below)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The concise description must not include arguments against&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patentability or set forth conclusions regarding whether one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims are patentable, and must not include proposed rejections of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims or arguments relating to an Office action or an applicant’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reply in the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words would it be ok to submit a list of corresponding concepts in both patent application and a prior art document in a way that clearly demonstrates the scope of the claims covered by the prior art? Or even to submit *Concise Description of Relevance* as a separate document containing detailed analysis of the concepts used in patent application and in prior art together with explanation of why omitted elements are obvious to one skilled in art? Wouldn't it be treated as **arguments against patentability** which are not allowed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *[How can an individual participate in the examination process for US&#xD;&#xA;   Patent Applications?][4]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://efs.uspto.gov/efile/portal/efs-unregistered&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/filing-online/tps-info-tps-header-2&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/filing-online/tps-info-concise-desc-2&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/4190/how-can-an-individual-participate-in-the-examination-process-for-us-patent-appli/4192#4192" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35799" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14417" RevisionGUID="25178c24-440e-4f19-8f3f-02bcde36ad28" CreationDate="2016-02-22T12:17:08.207" UserId="8074" Comment="Slight title reformulation" Text="Arguments allowed in &quot;Concise Description of Relevance&quot; in USPTO prior art filing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14417" RevisionGUID="25178c24-440e-4f19-8f3f-02bcde36ad28" CreationDate="2016-02-22T12:17:08.207" UserId="8074" Comment="Slight title reformulation" Text="During the [Third-Party Preissuance Submission][1] under [37 CFR 1.290][2] one can submit prior art documents together with **Concise Description of Relevance** explaining relevance of said document. To what level can arguments be revealed in description to not violate [restrictions][3] (see below)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The concise description must not include arguments against&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patentability or set forth conclusions regarding whether one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims are patentable, and must not include proposed rejections of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims or arguments relating to an Office action or an applicant’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reply in the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words would it be ok to submit a list of corresponding concepts in both patent application and a prior art document in a way that clearly demonstrates the scope of the claims covered by the prior art? Or even to submit *Concise Description of Relevance* as a separate document containing detailed analysis of the concepts used in patent application and in prior art together with explanation of why omitted elements are obvious to one skilled in art? Wouldn't it be treated as **arguments against patentability** which is not allowed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *[How can an individual participate in the examination process for US&#xD;&#xA;   Patent Applications?][4]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://efs.uspto.gov/efile/portal/efs-unregistered&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/filing-online/tps-info-tps-header-2&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/filing-online/tps-info-concise-desc-2&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/4190/how-can-an-individual-participate-in-the-examination-process-for-us-patent-appli/4192#4192" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14420" RevisionGUID="f9750de8-167d-4cf8-bbba-46010f81c63b" CreationDate="2016-02-22T22:55:26.337" UserDisplayName="user16092" Text="There are no age requirements for patents, because technically only the TRUE INVENTOR can apply for a patent.  If you filed for a patent under your name and later it was discovered your son was the inventor, there would be legal consequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your son can very likely write a pretty good application with a little help. You need this book: [Patent It Yourself][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.amazon.com/Patent-It-Yourself-Step-Step/dp/1413317197&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is absolutely fantastic!  Good luck to you son!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14421" RevisionGUID="6cba8fc9-7634-48ca-8936-7cbcc509cfbd" CreationDate="2016-02-22T23:33:49.337" UserId="16118" Text="18 months after application an application is published by the EPO according to Article 93(1)(a) EPC:&#xA;&quot;The European Patent Office shall publish the European patent application as soon as possible &#xA;(a) after the expiry of a period of eighteen months from the date of filing or, if priority has been claimed, from the date of priority&quot;, if not requested earlier.&#xA;&#xA;A1 is such a publication of the application with search report (SR).&#xA;A2 is the publication without SR.&#xA;There will be always only one or the other. &#xA;An A3 is published later in case of an A2 as soon as the search has been carried out. See here for more details on the so called kind codes:&#xA;https://register.epo.org/helphttps://register.epo.org/help?lng=en&amp;topic=kindcodes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14422" RevisionGUID="d5ade62f-2e5d-4283-bc1a-38879dcb5ea8" CreationDate="2016-02-22T23:58:30.680" UserId="16118" Text="The EP is still in the examination procedure:&#xA;https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP13716382&amp;lng=en&amp;tab=legal&#xA;The applicant filed amendments on 30.3.2015. There was no reply to this vy the EPO yet.&#xA;I can't see a US application in the family:&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?CC=WO&amp;NR=2013118057A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=4&amp;date=20130815&amp;DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&amp;locale=en_EP" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14423" RevisionGUID="c9706e47-5909-4609-b707-822da3171901" CreationDate="2016-02-23T00:07:55.020" UserId="16118" Text="There seems to be no drawings present:&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&amp;NR=2006016456A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=3&amp;date=20060126&amp;DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&amp;locale=en_EP&#xA;Also in the Espacenet database I see none. Since the description does not refer to drawings I assume it was never intended to file any. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14424" RevisionGUID="545eb8e8-6052-44f3-9fe5-c609e08f3fa1" CreationDate="2016-02-23T01:47:02.600" UserId="16119" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20130223070][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130223070" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35811" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14424" RevisionGUID="545eb8e8-6052-44f3-9fe5-c609e08f3fa1" CreationDate="2016-02-23T01:47:02.600" UserId="16119" Text="Which all country does this patent cover? can i design around it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35812" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14424" RevisionGUID="545eb8e8-6052-44f3-9fe5-c609e08f3fa1" CreationDate="2016-02-23T01:47:02.600" UserId="16119" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14425" RevisionGUID="860a5a97-b9d6-403d-93a2-81b3823e1ffd" CreationDate="2016-02-23T02:04:50.880" UserId="15657" Text="The application was filed in the European, U.S.A., and Canadian patent offices. The U.S. application has been granted and issued as [US 8529082 B][1] and [US 9103539 B2][2]. The [EU application][3] and the [CA application][4] are still under examination. Therefore, currently the invention is protected in U.S.A only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To design around it, you need to refer to the claims in the issued patents, not the patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8529082&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9103539&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP13710198&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/2901771/summary.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14427" RevisionGUID="7f14ae47-20f4-44ef-862f-faaeedeadc9c" CreationDate="2016-02-23T11:09:34.407" UserId="8074" Text="The [USPTO FAQ explains in detail][1] (with examples) what can be included in concise description of relevance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The concise description of relevance must not propose rejections of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the claims. Instead, the concise description should only set forth&#xD;&#xA;&gt; facts, explaining how an item listed is of potential relevance to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; examination of the application in which the third-party submission has&#xD;&#xA;&gt; been filed. This is done, most effectively, by pointing out relevant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pages or lines of the respective document and providing a focused&#xD;&#xA;&gt; description to draw the examiner's attention to the relevant issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unlike the concise explanation for a protest under [§1.291][2], which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; allows for arguments against patentability, the concise description of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; relevance required by [35 U.S.C. 122(e)][3] is limited to a factual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; description of a document's relevance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A concise description of relevance is not required to be presented in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a particular format. As one option, it may be presented as a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; narrative.  Alternatively as a second option, a concise description of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; relevance may be presented as a claim chart mapping various portions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of a submitted printed publication to different claim elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/america-invents-act-aia/america-invents-act-aia-frequently-asked#type-preissuance-submissions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1901.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_2af2d_3d1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35824" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12539" RevisionGUID="265e0cf1-8bd9-4fe0-9908-3a2bf67f0e91" CreationDate="2016-02-23T15:37:34.337" UserId="8074" Comment="Question clarified" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7755660][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7755660&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How long did it take overall to get issued?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35825" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12539" RevisionGUID="265e0cf1-8bd9-4fe0-9908-3a2bf67f0e91" CreationDate="2016-02-23T15:37:34.337" UserId="8074" Comment="Question clarified" Text="How long did it take for US 7755660 patent to get issued?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35826" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12539" RevisionGUID="265e0cf1-8bd9-4fe0-9908-3a2bf67f0e91" CreationDate="2016-02-23T15:37:34.337" Comment="Proposed by 8074 approved by 1 edit id of 1914" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14431" RevisionGUID="339962e9-7790-4d26-a257-f3836605ae83" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:34:12.630" UserId="16127" Text="for example, i have developed a process based on literature and all thoeritical factors, can this work be patented or is it necessary to provide along with experimental data as well. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35836" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14431" RevisionGUID="339962e9-7790-4d26-a257-f3836605ae83" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:34:12.630" UserId="16127" Text="Can a process which is completely based on thoery, without any experimental data, can it be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35837" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14431" RevisionGUID="339962e9-7790-4d26-a257-f3836605ae83" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:34:12.630" UserId="16127" Text="&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14432" RevisionGUID="fa136330-9177-4186-be0e-bdd1daa84711" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:59:58.203" UserId="16128" Text="Can a new provisinal utility patent app. be made from a similar 70 year old Utility Patent?&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35840" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14432" RevisionGUID="fa136330-9177-4186-be0e-bdd1daa84711" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:59:58.203" UserId="16128" Text="filing a new provisional patent from a similar 70 year old provisional patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35841" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14432" RevisionGUID="fa136330-9177-4186-be0e-bdd1daa84711" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:59:58.203" UserId="16128" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14433" RevisionGUID="2972efb4-c680-4b18-8523-00a9429e69b3" CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:23:23.243" UserId="16027" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8280641][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8280641&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The http://www.fractogene.com page alludes to the U.S.C. 2163.07(b) Incorporation by Reference. What is the significance of this reference to patent law?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35843" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14433" RevisionGUID="2972efb4-c680-4b18-8523-00a9429e69b3" CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:23:23.243" UserId="16027" Text="What is the significance of this reference to patent law?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35844" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14433" RevisionGUID="2972efb4-c680-4b18-8523-00a9429e69b3" CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:23:23.243" UserId="16027" Text="&lt;us8280641&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14432" RevisionGUID="d1c5c28a-7afa-4517-bea4-257fc4a804c5" CreationDate="2016-02-24T10:56:49.693" UserId="16128" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="Can a new provisinal utility patent app. be made from a similar 75 year old Utility Patent. US 2,246,699 When the old patent claims one element and I would claim 2 elements?&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14434" RevisionGUID="fe9db411-e9bb-4451-a31f-4502c85fee14" CreationDate="2016-02-24T11:22:50.047" UserId="15787" Text="Searching prior art is something like finding a needle in a haystack. It depends on the keywords you're focusing and how well are you in searching (experience actually).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What are the best way to search closest prior art&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The methods also depend on whether you are performing a novelty search for an invention or doing a prior art search for invalidation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't hard if you have done any prior art search before. Traditionally prior art searches start from keyword creation. You can go a little broader with the subject of your patent and keywords based on that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for example, If your invention is related to Li-Fi; you can use similar to following keywords - &quot;VLC&quot;, &quot;Visible Light Communication&quot;, &quot;optical communication&quot; and the like. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then comes the searching, as of my knowledge basic searches starts from patent databases like Thompson or Orbit. You pull out a massive set of patents based on your keywords and then refine narrow down data after examining classes and deeper keywords. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After going through patent databases, you can search in NPL(non-patent literature) using your keyword set. Go through search engines, blogs, and even research papers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just a wireframe of the process, it's a little more complex. Hence,  consider this answer as a walkthrough.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar process goes on when you perform an invalidity search. This time, you have a patent to start from. Very first step is going through citations and references and listing down the classes. Then creating keywords based on the same. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's another aspect which is usually missed by many experts, and that is prior art searching in non-textual data. i.e. Images and Videos. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I have a great example of the same - Apple's rubber banding effect patent was invalidated in Germany due to existing prior art. The prior art was found in Steve Jobs's keynote video on iPhone launch, where he publically revealed the feature. This is why you should also focus on non-textual data while searching for prior art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Few cases where prior art was found in non-textual data - [4 CASES WHERE EXAMINER FOUND RIDICULOUSLY AWESOME PRIOR ART][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if you want to learn more about prior art search here are few articles I recommend. I found them extremely helpful for me - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [A PRIOR ART SEARCH IS MORE THAN JUST PROVIDING REFERENCES!][2]&#xD;&#xA; - [WHY YOU NEED A STRONG PRIOR ART SEARCH?][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.greyb.com/4-cases-examiner-found-ridiculously-awesome-prior-art/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.greyb.com/patent-prior-art-searches/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.greyb.com/why-you-need-a-strong-prior-art-search/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14435" RevisionGUID="c3030bd1-1b79-419a-b835-f58030c47db5" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:34:29.727" UserId="16094" Text="From another source of information i found the answer to my question and i will share it for others. if your invention is substantially different in the improvements then your first original filing, and you want the benefit of the first filing date you should mention it in your second provisional application, but if you don't need the benefit of the earlier filing date don't mention it.when filing your NON-provisional application you can incorporate the two provisional's into the NON-provisional. they are not two separate entity, one would infringe on the other.                      " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14438" RevisionGUID="fc96bcdc-0e18-415c-ad4c-ceccb75e7fae" CreationDate="2016-02-25T07:36:39.457" UserId="15657" Text="If you go to the page on Google Patents, click the &quot;Espacenet&quot; link, then click on the &quot;Global Dossier&quot; link in Espacenet, you would see a history of the application, including original application and amendments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14440" RevisionGUID="5fb3684a-1f52-4b9d-80a6-5bebcd4fe24d" CreationDate="2016-02-25T09:22:15.940" UserId="15657" Text="In the Detailed Description section, when describing a specific embodiment, my patent agent would sometimes describe the alternatives. For example, in the middle of a paragraph, she would write something like &quot;A may be disposed on B or C&quot; and then goes on to say &quot;In this case, A is on B&quot; (this is just an example, the actual language is much more formal)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find this verbose and would ask her to describe alternative embodiment in separate paragraphs. For example, in describing a specific embodiment, we may say &quot;A is on B&quot;, then in a separate paragraph, we would say &quot;in an alternative embodiment, A is on C&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have also learned to prepare drawings of various embodiment which clearly show the variation of elements that will be included in the independent claims. For example, one embodiment might have &quot;one A disposed on B&quot;, and another might have &quot;two As disposed on C&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the best way to describe alternatives and broaden the claim language? If we only show the preferred embodiment but claims something broader, would the examiner ask us to limit the claims to something already described? If we show just a few alternatives, would a court then limit the claims to what's described, even if we think other alternatives are obvious in hindsight? Is there any need to say something &quot;these are some alternative embodiment but not an exhaustive list&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35860" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14440" RevisionGUID="5fb3684a-1f52-4b9d-80a6-5bebcd4fe24d" CreationDate="2016-02-25T09:22:15.940" UserId="15657" Text="Describing alternative embodiments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35861" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14440" RevisionGUID="5fb3684a-1f52-4b9d-80a6-5bebcd4fe24d" CreationDate="2016-02-25T09:22:15.940" UserId="15657" Text="&lt;drafting&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14432" RevisionGUID="9eadd6d5-cb09-4f67-b8f3-afd61b2e5670" CreationDate="2016-02-25T09:50:16.000" UserId="16128" Comment="deleted 95 characters in body" Text="Can a new provisinal utility patent app. be made from a similar 75 year old Utility Patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14441" RevisionGUID="8f43b3b1-eb4e-4d07-ba5e-259231768ce8" CreationDate="2016-02-25T13:59:18.107" UserId="15503" Text="There is no &quot;U.S.C. 2163.07(b)&quot;. The website's author is mistaken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, it appears he is intends to refer to [MPEP § 2163.07(b)](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2163.html#d0e215198). MPEP (the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure) is not law in any real sense. Instead, it is just the guidelines that are provided to examiners to allow them to have a reasonably consistent approach when examining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MPEP § 2163.07(b) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Instead of repeating some information contained in another document, an application may attempt to incorporate the content of another document or part thereof by reference to the document in the text of the specification. The information incorporated is as much a part of the application as filed as if the text was repeated in the application, and should be treated as part of the text of the application as filed. Replacing the identified material incorporated by reference with the actual text is not new matter. See 37 CFR 1.57 and MPEP § 608.01(p) for Office policy regarding incorporation by reference. See MPEP § 2181 for the impact of incorporation by reference on the determination of whether applicant has complied with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is invoked. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a curious thing to refer to. However, looking at the file wrapper of the case, it appears the USPTO examiner objected that the description was insufficient, as it tried to incorporate essential material by reference, rather than describing the material directly. The applicant argued that this approach was allowable, and referred to that passage of the MPEP. It appears the examiner eventually gave in, after being sent copies of all the documents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14443" RevisionGUID="a3633df3-bf34-4955-8921-afa936be6831" CreationDate="2016-02-25T15:11:16.780" UserId="15503" Text="In the US, the key question would be whether the general concept (or &quot;genus&quot;) is sufficiently described by the examples (or &quot;species&quot;). [MPEP § 2163](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2163.html) is comprehensive, and summarises the current law on this point well. The key passage is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice (see i)(A), above), reduction to drawings (see i)(B), above), or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see i)(C), above).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The issue is whether a person skilled in the art would understand the applicant to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you claim the broader concept (the genus), you should be fine providing you could successfully argue that the inventors invented the general concept to begin with, despite the description only including examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Europe, this consideration would be basically the same (at least for sufficiency/support). However, there is a further European-specific consideration. If your specification as filed only contains a series of examples (without mentioning a generalised concept to link them), then you would never be able to cast a claim that covered the general concept. This would be an intermediate generalisation, which is impermissible. This only arises when amending the claims however, since the claims as originally filed are inherently based on the application as originally filed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So what is the patent drafter to do?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are required by US law to show that the inventors were in possession of the general concept. This could quite convincingly be done by explicitly describing the general concept, then providing some examples. For example, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A may be on any flat surface (such as A or B). In this case, A is on B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A may be on any flat surface. In one embodiment, A is on B. In another embodiment, A is on C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the difference between these is negligible, and purely a matter of style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either approach clearly provides a written description of the general concept, and therefore shows that the inventors were in possession of the general concept. In addition, it provides a basis for broadening amendments in Europe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A blanket statement, such as &quot;these are some alternative embodiments but not an exhaustive list&quot; may help. However, it is relatively weak, and I would suggest that you should never plan to rely on general statements like this if you can be more specific." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14444" RevisionGUID="1d00e083-6b23-44da-8816-e8e1f734e1a6" CreationDate="2016-02-25T19:37:20.143" UserId="15491" Text="In the licensee agreement (exclusive license) there is a clause that licensee shall cover all fees and related patenting costs.&#xD;&#xA;Can the indication of a licensee agreement be entered in the USPTO patent register? Will in that case the USPTO invite the licensee to pay the fees or how this could be manged?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this issue resolved in procedures before China's IPO and European patent Office?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35874" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14444" RevisionGUID="1d00e083-6b23-44da-8816-e8e1f734e1a6" CreationDate="2016-02-25T19:37:20.143" UserId="15491" Text="Who is obliged / authorised to pay maintenance fee?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35875" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14444" RevisionGUID="1d00e083-6b23-44da-8816-e8e1f734e1a6" CreationDate="2016-02-25T19:37:20.143" UserId="15491" Text="&lt;fees&gt;&lt;license&gt;&lt;payment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14445" RevisionGUID="88598cdf-0624-41ef-ab0b-5efc72d30673" CreationDate="2016-02-25T19:52:05.710" UserId="15491" Text="Is there any reliable free tool or software for managing the IP/patent portfolio - mainly for handling the timelimits, costs and for general overview of patent porfolio (curently about 100 patents)? Currently I use excell sheet, but it is not very user friendly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35877" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14445" RevisionGUID="88598cdf-0624-41ef-ab0b-5efc72d30673" CreationDate="2016-02-25T19:52:05.710" UserId="15491" Text="Free tool for IP management" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35878" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14445" RevisionGUID="88598cdf-0624-41ef-ab0b-5efc72d30673" CreationDate="2016-02-25T19:52:05.710" UserId="15491" Text="&lt;tools&gt;&lt;ip-management&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14447" RevisionGUID="2f79c752-d559-412c-a842-b831d939c397" CreationDate="2016-02-25T22:14:07.330" UserId="16118" Text="A similar product does not sound as if it was the same subject-matter.&#xA;You are in a comfortable situation, because you seem to have the closest prior art at hand (important for your application) and you may produce it since the patent has expired. &#xA;You simply need one or several improvements that you can show your produnct has over this prior art. These improvements however need to be non-obvious considering other prior art. &#xA;In principle it is always best to check this with a patent attorney knowing the patent law and procedures for the country or countries where you would like to protect your invention. &#xA;Good luck! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14448" RevisionGUID="da95aa29-935f-4c84-bc67-5152d98f496a" CreationDate="2016-02-25T22:26:23.233" UserId="16118" Text="I am not sure I got the question right.&#xA;In particular: &quot;in use in non obvious way&quot;.&#xA;If you mean that a method or device is used maybe even publicly, but the product or device can not be understood or rebuilt by reverse engineering or at least the central part of the invention is **not publicly available or accessible ** (e. g. some machine where you can not see from outside how it works and it stays only in your / companys hands), then you can apply for a patent. &#xA;But possible opponents and good patent examiners will for sure challenge this. So you may want to be sure already from the start what was availeble to the public and if the rest is obvious or not and therefore inventive.&#xA;If I got it wrong and you clarify your question I could maybe give a better answer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14449" RevisionGUID="38beafb5-18ab-4325-bd90-ac4fe8751cc5" CreationDate="2016-02-25T22:49:34.057" UserId="16140" Text="I've looked at : http://www.patentsview.org/download/ and the &quot;claim&quot; download is 10GB in size. Is there a smaller download size location can download patents over past approx 30 years in xml/csv format ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35885" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14449" RevisionGUID="38beafb5-18ab-4325-bd90-ac4fe8751cc5" CreationDate="2016-02-25T22:49:34.057" UserId="16140" Text="Where to do download patents data?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35886" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14449" RevisionGUID="38beafb5-18ab-4325-bd90-ac4fe8751cc5" CreationDate="2016-02-25T22:49:34.057" UserId="16140" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;documents&gt;&lt;bulk-download&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35893" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14433" RevisionGUID="f6a56f32-dd72-415c-8cf0-e1f9561ffd56" CreationDate="2016-02-26T04:52:04.007" UserId="16027" Comment="Correctly filing relevant tags" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;us8280641&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14422" RevisionGUID="428c779b-8484-4472-8af1-5df472d944da" CreationDate="2016-02-26T21:44:44.607" UserId="16118" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="The EP is still in the examination procedure:&#xD;&#xA;https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP13716382&amp;lng=en&amp;tab=legal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicant filed amendments on 30.3.2015. There was no reply to this vy the EPO yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't see a US application in the family:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?CC=WO&amp;NR=2013118057A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=4&amp;date=20130815&amp;DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&amp;locale=en_EP" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14452" RevisionGUID="b652a741-959c-46f6-bcec-bd22f8f16438" CreationDate="2016-02-26T23:07:03.307" UserId="16118" Text="There are many approaches.&#xD;&#xA;If you are not so familiar with patent search the easiest way I find is to look on google for a similar patent, e. g. for a virtual reality device:&#xD;&#xA;US20020128541A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then you put this publication no. or the application no. in the Espacenet advanced search:&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/advancedSearch?locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or use the link directly form googel patent search:&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US20020128541A1/en?q=virtural&amp;q=reality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the example you get this result:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&amp;NR=2002128541A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally you will find CPC classes given for that document:&#xD;&#xA; 	&#xD;&#xA;G02B27/017; A61B5/048; A61B5/11; A61B5/486 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check those for relevance, e. g. you want to find prior art about &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;G02B27/017 [Head mounted] systems with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A61B5/11 [Measuring movement of the entire body or parts thereof, e.g. head or hand tremor, mobility of a limb (for measuring pulse A61B5/02 ;A61B5/1038 takes precedence; motion detection to correct for motion artifacts in physiological signals A61B5/721)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can enter those CPC classes in the espacenet search:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/advancedSearch?locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![CPC in Espacenet][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results are only 10: for that search:&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;DB=EPODOC&amp;ST=advanced&amp;TI=&amp;AB=&amp;PN=&amp;AP=&amp;PR=&amp;PD=&amp;PA=&amp;IN=&amp;CPC=A61B5%2F11+AND++G02B27%2F017&amp;IC=&amp;Submit=Search&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also search e. g. via key word &quot;virtual reality&quot; directly a matching CPC class, see here:&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/classification?locale=en_EP#!/CPC=G06F3/00&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a reliable full prior-art search you will have to find a professional representative that can help you with this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Happy searching!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/vCOun.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14422" RevisionGUID="a647d0af-b817-4145-929f-c1a2d895b078" CreationDate="2016-02-27T09:19:23.420" UserId="16118" Comment="edited body" Text="The EP is still in the examination procedure:&#xD;&#xA;https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP13716382&amp;lng=en&amp;tab=legal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicant filed amendments on 30.3.2015. There was no reply to this at the EPO yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't see a US application in the family:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?CC=WO&amp;NR=2013118057A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=4&amp;date=20130815&amp;DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&amp;locale=en_EP" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14453" RevisionGUID="9a444336-7b40-430b-b367-78671c6bcc5c" CreationDate="2016-02-27T10:01:21.123" UserId="16118" Text="The first question to ask is:&#xA;&#xA;Does a patent exist for this device?&#xA;&#xA;You need the patent specification to see, if your improved device falls within the scope (that means can be read into) one or more of the claims of that patent. You might need professional help to assess this. &#xA;The publication on your website is not very wise if there is a patent in your country present for said device. I don't know which country we are speaking about. &#xA;&#xA;That leads to the second question:&#xA;&#xA;What does the legislation in your country say about infringement for use?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;In most countries a **commercial use** or one having a commercial purpose constitutes a patent infringement.&#xA;For the US e. g. I found this citation on Wikipedia (for &quot;patent infringement&quot;):&#xA;&#xA;&quot;[F]or a court to find infringement, the plaintiff must show the presence of every element or its substantial equivalent in the accused device.&quot; Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Nike, Inc., 38 F.3d 1192, 1199 (Fed. Cir. 1994).&#xA;&#xA;That leads us to the third question:&#xA;&#xA;Do you use it commercially? Not selling it is one thing, but patent protection also protects the commercial use of devices, methods etc.&#xA;&#xA;You mention your company so I assume the answer to that question is yes.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;If you tell us which country we are talking about my answer can be made more specific for that country." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14454" RevisionGUID="18ce66e1-b398-4a42-9824-d31fdf7933d1" CreationDate="2016-02-27T10:15:58.987" UserId="16118" Text="The application is deemed withdrawn, see here:&#xA;https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP09846920&amp;tab=main&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Since there is no family member mentioned for the US (only TW) it is almost sure that there is no protection for this in the US.&#xA;&#xA;Good luck." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14456" RevisionGUID="fa4418ed-5d1a-4bf9-b555-b935c608ebd2" CreationDate="2016-02-27T12:22:58.557" UserId="16148" Text="There is a very old game from Westwood Studios currently owned by Electronic Arts I'd like to remake, but I don't know if I can turn it into a business due to the related copyrights and possible patents on the game (I'm not even sure if you can patent a computer game or its internal mechanics).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The game was originally released in 1999, and I've heard that software patents have a lifetime of up to 20 years. Does that mean after that time I can make similar game characters/soldiers, or even make similar soundtracks to the original game content? Is it possible that the copyright on the soundtracks or the possible patents on the game can be extended further into the future even if 20 years have passed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35912" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14456" RevisionGUID="fa4418ed-5d1a-4bf9-b555-b935c608ebd2" CreationDate="2016-02-27T12:22:58.557" UserId="16148" Text="What copyright or patent infringements could I step into by remaking an old game?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35913" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14456" RevisionGUID="fa4418ed-5d1a-4bf9-b555-b935c608ebd2" CreationDate="2016-02-27T12:22:58.557" UserId="16148" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14457" RevisionGUID="9846bb57-0a90-4cd1-a1ca-3024f38bce6b" CreationDate="2016-02-27T12:25:34.150" UserId="16118" Text="No, bacteria as such can't be patented.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Pure discoveries are not seen as inventions and are therefore not patentable subject-matter, bacteria will be seen as a discovery. &#xA;E. g. in Europe regulated by Article 52 (2)(a):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; &quot;(2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; (a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods&quot;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/ar52.html&#xA;&#xA;For more details for other countries or regions and their patent law see here:&#xA;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentable_subject_matter&#xA;&#xA;Another related question can be found here:&#xA;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/13381/can-you-patent-an-existing-bacteria-without-any-modifications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14457" RevisionGUID="d6df3ff5-f7b0-4ac5-8199-f80cc43f052e" CreationDate="2016-02-27T12:48:41.330" UserId="16118" Comment="added 878 characters in body; added 14 characters in body" Text="No, bacteria as such can't be patented.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;It is true that this application (you mention the appl. no.) is now patented e. g. in Europe and the patent specification will be published there under the publication no.: EP2763685 B1&#xA;&#xA;The last action was:20.01.2016 ANNOUNCEMENT OF INTENTION TO GRANT&#xA;&#xA;You find the text proposed for grant here:&#xA;https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP12775538&amp;lng=en&amp;tab=doclist&#xA;&#xA;The patent will however cover only products with the bacteria and methods using it or for producing the products. **The bacteria as such** are not claimed. &#xA;&#xA;Pure discoveries are not seen as inventions and are therefore not patentable subject-matter, bacteria will be seen as a discovery. E. g. in Europe regulated by Article 52 (2)(a):&#xA;&gt; &quot;(2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; (a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods&quot;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/ar52.html&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;However this is valid only for the mentioned things, like discoveries, **as such**. See therefore Article 52 (3):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; &quot;(3) **Paragraph 2 shall exclude the patentability** of the subject-matter or activities referred to therein **only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such**&quot;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;For more details for other countries or regions and their patent law see here:&#xA;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentable_subject_matter&#xA;&#xA;Another related question can be found here:&#xA;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/13381/can-you-patent-an-existing-bacteria-without-any-modifications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14458" RevisionGUID="15823f24-a276-4453-9b5f-37bb3368a33b" CreationDate="2016-02-27T16:51:02.113" UserId="16118" Text="I am not sure what your process looks like. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;**Possibility 1 - A theory / presentation of information:**&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;There needs to be some technical part for an invention to be patented. &#xA;See for example Article 52 EPC for Europe:&#xA;&gt; (1) European patents shall be granted for any inventions, in all fields of **technology**, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are susceptible of industrial application. &#xA;&#xA;&gt;(2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;(a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;&#xA;&#xA;&gt;(b) aesthetic creations;  null&#xA;&#xA;&gt;(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers; &#xA;&#xA;&gt;(d) presentations of information&#xA;&#xA;It could be something including parts of (a) and (d).&#xA;&#xA;Furthermore you can patent something in that direction, but you need at least some technical part. See Article 52 (3):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; (3) Paragraph 2 shall exclude the patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to therein **only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such.**&#xA;&#xA;And that is where you may be right (although I don't know if I understood the experimental data right), if you add something,  e. g. a device using that theory etc. it could be fine. &#xA;&#xA;That leads us to &#xA;&#xA;**Possibility 2 - A technical process that you did not test yet:**&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;The granting of patents does not involve a check if the invention works. For some fields like biotech you may have to provide even material, but unless it's really obvious (like the Perpetuum Mobile) examiners and patent offices will not object if there is no test data provided. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;The invention however needs to be possible to be carried out by what is provided / disclosed in the description of the application:&#xA;&#xA;The best way to practice the invention in the patent application e. g. needs to be provided according to the US patent law (35 US Code section 112). This is requested so an inventor cannot keep some essential or advantageous aspect a secret and still get a patent.&#xA;&#xA;In Europe the EPC asks for at least one way of practicing the invention as defined in Article 83 EPC:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Article 83 Disclosure of the invention&#xA;&#xA;&gt;The European patent application shall disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14459" RevisionGUID="617d3e27-e612-48a0-b5f8-7e90185ed7e3" CreationDate="2016-02-27T17:19:27.487" UserId="15657" Text="The act that the manufacturer offered something to sell would imply that you are free to use it. It would be strange for a manufacturer to sue you for using the product, wouldn't it? So you are safe.&#xA;&#xA;Let's suppose that you developed and &quot;manufactured&quot; the item yourself, the patent owner would have no claim against you. The purpose of patent law to to encourage inventors to teach the public about their invention instead of keeping them as trade secret. In fact, a patent could be invalidated if it's found the inventor withheld critical information required to duplicate the invention. Since the purpose of the law is to encourage more innovation, the law should not prohibit you from using others invention in your development effort.&#xA;&#xA;The manufacturer likely has no claim against your posting a photo on the Web. The only possible way they can raise an objection is if the photo implied that you manufactured the product and therefore violated their trademark. But you probably don't need to worry about it. At least in the U.S. law, if the manufacturer threatened to sue you without offering remedy, for example, a chance for you to put up a trademark notice, you would then have ground to sue them first and put them in unfavorable position.&#xA;&#xA;The manufacturer likely won't sue you even if they suspect you want to commercialize the product. First, it would be extremely hard for them to prove that any damage has occurred, and litigation is way too expensive to be justifiable.&#xA;&#xA;The only time you should worry is if the manufacturer has grudge against you and want to raise frivolous lawsuits at any cost." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14460" RevisionGUID="b16469ad-0267-4320-a81e-022a131f157f" CreationDate="2016-02-27T17:27:02.680" UserId="16149" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2015017898A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015017898A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Invalid patent. I built these back in 1996 and have papers to prove it. It's public domain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35920" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14460" RevisionGUID="b16469ad-0267-4320-a81e-022a131f157f" CreationDate="2016-02-27T17:27:02.680" UserId="16149" Text="How do we invalidate this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35921" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14460" RevisionGUID="b16469ad-0267-4320-a81e-022a131f157f" CreationDate="2016-02-27T17:27:02.680" UserId="16149" Text="&lt;invalid&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14461" RevisionGUID="7e287192-326c-4168-b330-ac2bd613cb7c" CreationDate="2016-02-27T21:02:22.707" UserId="16150" Text="Are patents based on previous patent allowed ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com.au/patents/US5895642" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35923" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14461" RevisionGUID="7e287192-326c-4168-b330-ac2bd613cb7c" CreationDate="2016-02-27T21:02:22.707" UserId="16150" Text="Re patent on previous work" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35924" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14461" RevisionGUID="7e287192-326c-4168-b330-ac2bd613cb7c" CreationDate="2016-02-27T21:02:22.707" UserId="16150" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14453" RevisionGUID="f28ac673-1edd-4d6b-9e7d-9e16c4c9c9b5" CreationDate="2016-02-28T11:02:21.627" UserId="16118" Comment="deleted 1020 characters in body" Text="Udated answer: I missed the part about that you bought it.&#xA;That is like a contract that you may use the device in whichever way you like. &#xA;Our could be more an issue with copyright, but I doubt this. (Meaning: are you allowed to change the appearance of the device?)&#xA;For the test see the answer of daniel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14421" RevisionGUID="7375cf6f-654e-458b-8b6d-bef2fb2548ee" CreationDate="2016-02-28T11:14:49.237" UserId="16118" Comment="Example put first" Text="A1 is a publication of the application with search report (SR).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A2 is the publication without SR.&#xD;&#xA;There will be always only one or the other. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An A3 is published later in case of an A2 as soon as the search has been carried out. See here for more details on the so called kind codes:&#xD;&#xA;https://register.epo.org/helphttps://register.epo.org/help?lng=en&amp;topic=kindcodes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;18 months after application an application is published by the EPO according to Article 93(1)(a) EPC:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The European Patent Office shall publish the European patent application as soon as possible  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a) after the expiry of a period of eighteen months from the date of filing or, if priority has been claimed, from the date of priority&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, if not requested earlier.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35927" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14431" RevisionGUID="4ba951bc-9769-4e6b-87b8-2d168e205913" CreationDate="2016-02-28T13:42:10.663" UserId="10011" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5378],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:15503,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Maca&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14452" RevisionGUID="0f13e94d-2865-408b-b36a-c9529ea4a5de" CreationDate="2016-02-28T14:22:40.350" UserId="16118" Comment="update to elaborate on influential documents found via citing documents. " Text="There are many approaches.&#xD;&#xA;If you are not so familiar with patent search the easiest way I find is to look on google for a similar patent, e. g. for a virtual reality device:&#xD;&#xA;US20020128541A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then you put this publication no. or the application no. in the Espacenet advanced search:&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/advancedSearch?locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or use the link directly form googel patent search:&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US20020128541A1/en?q=virtural&amp;q=reality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the example you get this result:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&amp;NR=2002128541A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally you will find CPC classes given for that document:&#xD;&#xA; 	&#xD;&#xA;G02B27/017; A61B5/048; A61B5/11; A61B5/486 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check those for relevance, e. g. you want to find prior art about &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;G02B27/017 [Head mounted] systems with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A61B5/11 [Measuring movement of the entire body or parts thereof, e.g. head or hand tremor, mobility of a limb (for measuring pulse A61B5/02 ;A61B5/1038 takes precedence; motion detection to correct for motion artifacts in physiological signals A61B5/721)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can enter those CPC classes in the espacenet search:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/advancedSearch?locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![CPC in Espacenet][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results are only 10: for that search:&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;DB=EPODOC&amp;ST=advanced&amp;TI=&amp;AB=&amp;PN=&amp;AP=&amp;PR=&amp;PD=&amp;PA=&amp;IN=&amp;CPC=A61B5%2F11+AND++G02B27%2F017&amp;IC=&amp;Submit=Search&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also search e. g. via key word &quot;virtual reality&quot; directly a matching CPC class, see here:&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/classification?locale=en_EP#!/CPC=G06F3/00&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a reliable full prior-art search you will have to find a professional representative that can help you with this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Happy searching!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;**Update:**&#xA;&#xA;Thanks, Matthew. A good point here. &#xA;&#xA;One way to get an idea of the importance of a specific patent publication/application found is to check the number of citing documents. That is which other patents or applications cite the currently viewed one.&#xA;&#xA;You can do that in espacenet as well.&#xA;From the example above one good result seems to be US2010016730, see here:&#xA;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/citingDocuments?CC=US&amp;NR=2010016730A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=3&amp;date=20100121&amp;DB=EPODOC&amp;locale=en_EP&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;I don't know if the documents can be sorted by number of citing documents. I'll see what I can find. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/vCOun.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14452" RevisionGUID="3c937c87-d1bc-4e1a-82bb-493a4a643b49" CreationDate="2016-02-28T14:30:52.267" UserId="16118" Comment="added 199 characters in body; added 2 characters in body; added 2 characters in body; added 2 characters in body; edited body" Text="There are many approaches.&#xD;&#xA;If you are not so familiar with patent search the easiest way I find is to take one of the found documents on google, e. g. for a virtual reality device:&#xD;&#xA;US20020128541A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then you put this publication no. or the application no. in the Espacenet advanced search:&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/advancedSearch?locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or use the link directly form google patent search:&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US20020128541A1/en?q=virtural&amp;q=reality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the example you get this result:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&amp;NR=2002128541A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally you will find CPC classes given for that document:&#xA; 	&#xD;&#xA;G02B27/017; A61B5/048; A61B5/11; A61B5/486 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check those for relevance, e. g. you want to find prior art about.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;**This is where I think you can do a big step to narrow down results for a specific problem or function of what you are interested in.**&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;G02B27/017 [Head mounted] systems with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A61B5/11 [Measuring movement of the entire body or parts thereof, e.g. head or hand tremor, mobility of a limb (for measuring pulse A61B5/02 ;A61B5/1038 takes precedence; motion detection to correct for motion artifacts in physiological signals A61B5/721)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can enter those CPC classes in the espacenet search:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/advancedSearch?locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![CPC in Espacenet][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results are only 10: for that search:&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;DB=EPODOC&amp;ST=advanced&amp;TI=&amp;AB=&amp;PN=&amp;AP=&amp;PR=&amp;PD=&amp;PA=&amp;IN=&amp;CPC=A61B5%2F11+AND++G02B27%2F017&amp;IC=&amp;Submit=Search&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also search e. g. via key word &quot;virtual reality&quot; directly a matching CPC class, see here:&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/classification?locale=en_EP#!/CPC=G06F3/00&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a reliable full prior-art search you will have to find a professional representative that can help you with this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Happy searching!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;..&#xA;&#xA;**Update:**&#xA;&#xA;Thanks, Matthew. A good point here. &#xA;&#xA;One way to get an idea of the importance of a specific patent publication/application found in the way mentioned above is to check the number of citing documents. That is which other patents or applications cite the currently viewed one.&#xA;&#xA;You can do that in espacenet as well.&#xA;From the example above one good result seems to be US2010016730, because it was cited 5 times,  see here:&#xA;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/citingDocuments?CC=US&amp;NR=2010016730A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=3&amp;date=20100121&amp;DB=EPODOC&amp;locale=en_EP&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;I don't know if the documents can be sorted by number of citing documents. I'll see what I can find. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/vCOun.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14462" RevisionGUID="b64f8f13-12de-4e53-9b95-0ee123ece00d" CreationDate="2016-02-28T15:34:15.613" UserId="16118" Text="Software as such is not patentable. &#xA;See for a related question that has been answered here:&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/6160/16118&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;It is as you say there will be issues with copyright and this expires generally 70 years after the death of the author. &#xA;For the game you will even have multiple authors,  since you said there is music etc..&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;I hope you get more details in Law Stackexchange. Good luck. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35931" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="14449" RevisionGUID="b8af8a24-bb62-4085-bd31-08f752f723d2" CreationDate="2016-02-28T16:01:30.953" UserId="16140" Comment="34" />
  <row Id="35932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14463" RevisionGUID="ccaeef8d-0d96-4114-84d8-cecfa362a02e" CreationDate="2016-02-28T21:39:15.490" UserId="16118" Text="My answer to the question is No.&#xA;&#xA;In my opinion, if there is a clear difference and contribution over the prior art that makes you invention new and inventive your patent is much better and clearer if the relevant prior art is present. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;If your attorney wants to avoid the discussion of said prior art to get a broader scope in the granted patent this could lead to issues later if the validity of your patent is challenged.&#xA;&#xA;Indeed the cited prior art will make the v search of the patent examiner better, because he has a good starting point. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Good luck with your application! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14464" RevisionGUID="6c91b9cd-b9a7-4e7f-8e1d-48c87f51cbba" CreationDate="2016-02-28T21:53:57.610" UserId="1777" Text="Well, it seems the Australian Patent Office as ISA recognized novelty and inventive step for all claims in the PCT phase. I find this pretty laughable seeing that claim 1 clearly defines a result to be achieved.&#xD;&#xA;It seems they have requested entry into European phase before the EPO. You can submit your own observations here:&#xD;&#xA;http://tpo.epo.org/tpo/app/form/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35934" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14331" RevisionGUID="4dbc3eb6-bf84-471c-a94e-f6279cb47c94" CreationDate="2016-02-29T09:42:06.367" UserId="16118" Comment="&quot;which&quot; not &quot;witch&quot; in title" Text="If I modify device which I bought for use in my company will that be infringement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35935" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14331" RevisionGUID="4dbc3eb6-bf84-471c-a94e-f6279cb47c94" CreationDate="2016-02-29T09:42:06.367" Comment="Proposed by 16118 approved by 1777, 15503 edit id of 1916" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14421" RevisionGUID="b5f0ea8a-fca6-4e22-81e2-40c03085aae1" CreationDate="2016-02-29T10:45:04.337" UserId="16118" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="You should use the date of the A1 or A2 publication for the earliest publication date of the subject-matter (of the application).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you want to know about the granted patent please clearify.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A1 is a publication of the application with search report (SR).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A2 is the publication without SR.&#xD;&#xA;There will be always only one or the other. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An A3 is published later in case of an A2 as soon as the search has been carried out. See here for more details on the so called kind codes:&#xD;&#xA;https://register.epo.org/helphttps://register.epo.org/help?lng=en&amp;topic=kindcodes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;18 months after application an application is published by the EPO according to Article 93(1)(a) EPC:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The European Patent Office shall publish the European patent application as soon as possible  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a) after the expiry of a period of eighteen months from the date of filing or, if priority has been claimed, from the date of priority&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, if not requested earlier.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14466" RevisionGUID="f1028b50-1eed-40f0-a480-79b1741502b6" CreationDate="2016-02-29T13:34:39.953" UserId="15503" Text="I agree with [zip's answer](http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/14463/15503) on the whole, and I would probably take the approach they recommend. However, it occurred to me that you asked if there was **any** benefit to omitting the patent number. Which I think the answer is yes, for two reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Speed and cost of prosecution**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your patent agent is probably right, in that mentioning a specific document in your application will cause the examiner to consider it. Even if the examiner doesn't cite it directly, the document may lead the examiner towards a tranche of related documents (by the same authors, for example) which might have otherwise remained unfound. Some of these might then be cited against your invention, and may prevent you getting a granted patent, or at least delay prosecution (and increase costs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory, you would want a patent to be actually novel and non-obvious over any given prior art. However, in practice, sometimes you just want a granted patent as cheaply as possible. Because even an invalid granted patent has value (in that it can deter competitors). So avoiding the reference to a patent can speed up prosecution and reduce prosecution cost, at the risk of having less knowledge about the patent's validity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Notice**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some territories (such as the US), damages for patent infringement are linked to whether the infringer knows about the patent. It can therefore be beneficial to disclaim any knowledge of a patent if there is any potential infringement. If you have a patent application which expressly refers to that patent, it would be quite difficult to argue that you didn't know about that patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14467" RevisionGUID="60fe8d4e-16e0-4e84-a2c3-13c1412ed787" CreationDate="2016-02-29T16:40:24.627" UserId="8074" Text="You can download bulk patent data from [USPTO: Bulk Data Storage System][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://data.uspto.gov/uspto.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35943" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14467" RevisionGUID="4540f3ed-fd10-4093-9856-780781237663" CreationDate="2016-02-29T16:45:56.610" UserId="8074" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="You can download bulk patent data from [USPTO: Bulk Data Storage System][1]. Look for **Patent Grant Full Text Data**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://data.uspto.gov/uspto.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14462" RevisionGUID="5a10edc2-b6f3-427a-8c96-60a810480a51" CreationDate="2016-02-29T19:19:21.950" UserId="16118" Comment="comment on softwarepatents clarified. Link to Alice added. ; added 6 characters in body; added 29 characters in body; added 59 characters in body" Text="Software as such are potentially patentable. However there is quite some limitations to this, even in the US.&#xA;See for a related question that has been answered here:http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/6160/16118&#xA;&#xA;It is as you say there will be issues with copyright and this expires generally 70 years after the death of the author. For the game you will even have multiple authors,  since you said there is music etc..&#xA;&#xA;Patent protection runs out after 20 years.&#xA;&#xA;Related note:&#xA;For softwarepatents in the US the hurdle to pass could be summarised in inverting one of the last sentences of Justia Opinion Summary on the Alice case:&#xA;&#xA;A patent on software needs to  &#xA;&#xA;&gt; &quot;purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself or improve any other technology or technical field.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;Otherwise it will be just seen as an &quot;abstract idea&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;The Justia Opinion Summary you find here:&#xA;https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/13-298/&#xA;&#xA;Therefore it is even quite unlikely that a valid softwarepatent even existed in this case.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;I hope you get more details in Law Stackexchange. Good luck. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14470" RevisionGUID="8c8728d0-2777-45c1-aee8-061c195989ae" CreationDate="2016-03-01T06:36:29.070" UserId="16000" Text="Does this patent stop anyone modifying board games?." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35953" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14470" RevisionGUID="8c8728d0-2777-45c1-aee8-061c195989ae" CreationDate="2016-03-01T06:36:29.070" UserId="16000" Text="What is the purpose of this patent WO 2015160373 A1 (GAME MODIFICATION)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35954" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14470" RevisionGUID="8c8728d0-2777-45c1-aee8-061c195989ae" CreationDate="2016-03-01T06:36:29.070" UserId="16000" Text="&lt;bg&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14471" RevisionGUID="ee2986fa-ffa4-48a3-b36f-3fb86a46213b" CreationDate="2016-03-01T06:55:48.007" UserId="15657" Text="First, this is a patent application, not a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The objective of the patent is described in the Background section, specifically, paragraph 5 and 6:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [0005] Sometimes a game becomes less interesting and less enjoyable to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a player as it becomes more familiar to that player…&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [0006] However, game modification apparatus and processes disclosed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; herein can help make familiar games more interesting, …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The scope of the application is specified in the claims. Again, this is a patent application, so the claims may change during the examination process, but generally the claims cannot be expanded beyond what's originally written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application has three independent claims. Each claims began with the preamble&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Game modification equipment for modifying how a variety of preexisting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; games are played by modifying aspects of play which are shared by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; various games,…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should reasonably assume that means the board *by design* allows you to play more than one game with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each independent claim also includes reference to a &quot;modification instruction&quot;. So it is quite apparent that the claims are intended to cover boards *as manufactured*, not any personal modification by individual persons." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14472" RevisionGUID="4f0391ad-c977-43ef-a627-8cc526a60e77" CreationDate="2016-03-01T07:08:54.747" UserId="15787" Text="The bulk patent data sets are available at USPTO to download for free. You can follow this link - [USPTO: Bulk Data Storage System][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that at [Patentsview.org][2], they offer patent gazettes which contain extra information about every patent filed in a respective period of time like, drawings and claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At [USPTO: Bulk Data Storage System][1] they have the gazettes as well as full patents data sets in various formats. You can search for &quot;**Grant Full Text Data**&quot; to download them in a smaller version.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;XML downloads don't have images, hence are much smaller in size and easy to download. You can even download the Bibliographic Data to reduce the download size to minimum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://data.uspto.gov/uspto.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://Patentsview.org/download" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14467" RevisionGUID="29b8cb8f-f78e-42dd-9e51-4628c2ef3f72" CreationDate="2016-03-01T08:55:08.340" UserId="8074" Comment="added 216 characters in body" Text="You can download bulk patent data from [USPTO: Bulk Data Storage System][1]. Look for **Patent Grant Full Text Data**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google used to collect patent data and [provide bulk download][2], but they discontinued the bulk download project because USPTO provides the bulk data now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://data.uspto.gov/uspto.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14467" RevisionGUID="c2734d0d-74e8-45f5-ac58-1f7ae192dcb9" CreationDate="2016-03-01T09:08:17.293" UserId="8074" Comment="added 182 characters in body" Text="You can download bulk patent data from [USPTO: Bulk Data Storage System][1]. Look for **Patent Grant Full Text Data**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google used to collect patent data and [provide bulk download][2], but they discontinued the bulk download project because USPTO provides the bulk data now directly. But you can still [download bulk packages][3] of what Google has collected prior to discontinuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://data.uspto.gov/uspto.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto-patents-grants-text.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14473" RevisionGUID="0457b930-34c3-4993-a6cf-84b39f9eeb60" CreationDate="2016-03-01T09:29:09.013" UserId="16159" Text="Can I patent a Architectural Design , I have a Design that is very Unique .&#xD;&#xA;But I am not sure if I can Patent it , Can it be Done , And how should I get it Patented and From where . I live in INDIA. Can I Patent it in 2 or more countries" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35960" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14473" RevisionGUID="0457b930-34c3-4993-a6cf-84b39f9eeb60" CreationDate="2016-03-01T09:29:09.013" UserId="16159" Text="Can it be PATENTED?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35961" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14473" RevisionGUID="0457b930-34c3-4993-a6cf-84b39f9eeb60" CreationDate="2016-03-01T09:29:09.013" UserId="16159" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14473" RevisionGUID="7efc1b3b-0648-4091-b071-d0e4caab944e" CreationDate="2016-03-01T09:42:19.457" UserId="15503" Comment="Made title more relevant" Text="Can I patent an architectural design? I have a design that is very unique,&#xD;&#xA;but I am not sure if I can patent it. And how should I get it patented and from where?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in India. Can I patent it in 2 or more countries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35963" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14473" RevisionGUID="7efc1b3b-0648-4091-b071-d0e4caab944e" CreationDate="2016-03-01T09:42:19.457" UserId="15503" Comment="Made title more relevant" Text="Can I patent an architectural design?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14474" RevisionGUID="d833c181-88a2-4759-a32d-e3feb7c7160c" CreationDate="2016-03-01T09:54:18.753" UserId="15503" Text="**Can I patent an architectural design?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes—using a design patent (which are called registered designs outside the US).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Design patents cover the aesthetic non-functional design of an object. In this case, the object may be a building. As long as your design is novel and non-obvious, your design may be (design) patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [US D648864 S1](https://patents.google.com/patent/USD648864S1/en) covers the [Apple Store](http://www.apple.com/retail/upperwestside/) in the Upper West Side of New York.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can I patent it in 2 or more countries?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes—using the Paris Convention. If you file a registered design application in India, then you have six months to file another registered design application in any other country who is a member of the Paris Convention (which is basically every country). These later filed applications will take priority from your earlier Indian application, which means they will be treated as if they were filed then." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14470" RevisionGUID="d550ef73-222e-440c-b176-b2fd4e633554" CreationDate="2016-03-01T14:32:13.623" UserId="15657" Comment="tag &amp; add link" Text="Does [this patent][1] stop anyone modifying board games?.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2015160373A1?cl=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35967" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14470" RevisionGUID="d550ef73-222e-440c-b176-b2fd4e633554" CreationDate="2016-03-01T14:32:13.623" UserId="15657" Comment="tag &amp; add link" Text="&lt;wo2015160373a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35968" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14470" RevisionGUID="d550ef73-222e-440c-b176-b2fd4e633554" CreationDate="2016-03-01T14:32:13.623" Comment="Proposed by 15657 approved by 15503, 1 edit id of 1917" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14476" RevisionGUID="3d5da83a-2aa7-4644-8448-3061204b5768" CreationDate="2016-03-02T00:17:36.207" UserId="16118" Text="The application no. is:&#xA;US19640341349 19640130&#xA;There are 6 claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14478" RevisionGUID="a3089a62-0508-41ce-949c-88ec71abebb2" CreationDate="2016-03-02T06:04:39.673" UserId="15657" Text="You might want to refer to the prosecution history of the patent application. Click on the &quot;Espacenet&quot; link, then &quot;Global Dossier&quot;, you would see a history of the [patent examination][1]. The application has been abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you click on &quot;Final Rejection&quot; dated 26.01.2006, you would see that the claims were rejected because they were anticipated by [US20020030790][2], which at the time also was a application. The application was later granted as [US6626543][3] &quot;Electronic image projection device.&quot; Notably the claims in the granted patent contain limitation that weren't in the original draft, such as that the projector can be &quot;docked&quot; or that a keyboard is included. The patent has lapse due to non-payment of maintenance fee. However, I doubt the patent, if still active, would have much value in today's market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's unlikely someone can patent the idea of a portable computing device with integrated projector because it would have been obvious to even a non-technical person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what a portable virtual computer (PVC) is. If PVC is a novel idea and not obvious to a person skilled in the art, then a PVC can be patented. If PVC by itself is unpatentable, then PVC+projector is probably unpatentable because it's still a &quot;computer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=US.87249204.A&amp;lng=en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com.tw/patents/US20020030790&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com.tw/patents/US6626543" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14479" RevisionGUID="e91dac52-e292-46ec-b83b-c88a59bc9422" CreationDate="2016-03-02T11:43:54.263" UserId="16165" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5007257][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5007257&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When did or when does this patent expires? Since it was filed on 9. Okt. 1990 I think it expired 20 Years later on 9. Okt. 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what confuses me is that there where legal events (assignments) after the assumed date of expiration (Why to make assignments if the patent is already expired?!). See here  http://www.google.com/patents/US5007257#legal-events&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not experienced with patents and hope somebody can help me with the question if this patent is still in force or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very much,&#xD;&#xA;Simon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35977" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14479" RevisionGUID="e91dac52-e292-46ec-b83b-c88a59bc9422" CreationDate="2016-03-02T11:43:54.263" UserId="16165" Text="Patent US5007257 still in force (confused because of assignments after expiration)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35978" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14479" RevisionGUID="e91dac52-e292-46ec-b83b-c88a59bc9422" CreationDate="2016-03-02T11:43:54.263" UserId="16165" Text="&lt;us5007257&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14480" RevisionGUID="20dee87e-9659-406c-93ed-cf9f8159ffbf" CreationDate="2016-03-02T12:44:47.423" UserId="16118" Text="The lifetime of a patent is 20 years.&#xA;This patent has already expired. &#xA;I found that the proprietor has changed,  maybe due to a change of name. &#xA;I can imagine that this is done out of economical reasons to link the former patent with the firm. So of you are interested in the matter you will contact the right firm. Just a guess though. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14482" RevisionGUID="9b7f464b-9e5f-40dd-b77f-31bbe21546e4" CreationDate="2016-03-02T18:44:43.977" UserId="16167" Text="The symbols patented in this patent are actually religious symbols. They are not 'just' wellness symbols, but should be seen as symbols that open the door to divine healing energies, divine protection etc. Divine healing energies are always 'free' though, just like the air we breath (or even more so)! I see that the patent holder was not brazen enough to also include the crucifix symbol, as I doubt the patent would have gone through then?  Well, Reiki symbols are just as 'holy' to me (and I presume most Reiki practitioners and receivers) , as the crucifix is to a Christian - so I should be free to respectfully use such symbols (knit them on a scarf, or such for protection), as I please, and not fear legal prosecution for patent violation?&#xD;&#xA;Regards,&#xD;&#xA;Alexander Koop" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35987" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14482" RevisionGUID="9b7f464b-9e5f-40dd-b77f-31bbe21546e4" CreationDate="2016-03-02T18:44:43.977" UserId="16167" Text="can religious symbols be patented" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35988" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14482" RevisionGUID="9b7f464b-9e5f-40dd-b77f-31bbe21546e4" CreationDate="2016-03-02T18:44:43.977" UserId="16167" Text="&lt;ca2558142a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14483" RevisionGUID="c4c989b9-6335-4f0d-97d7-bd19bf030443" CreationDate="2016-03-02T21:36:31.613" UserId="10011" Text="This application was definitely too broad when it was filed, and it was abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it had gone through, I would have recommended you post a [prior-art-request](http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/questions/47/how-do-i-write-a-prior-art-request-for-a-u-s-patent-application/146#146) to our site. But you don't have to think about this now. It's like the application never happened, basically." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14478" RevisionGUID="103764e6-293b-4612-bb5b-d3d7db8833c9" CreationDate="2016-03-03T02:53:15.990" UserId="15657" Comment="clarification" Text="You might want to refer to the prosecution history of the patent application. Click on the &quot;Espacenet&quot; link, then &quot;Global Dossier&quot;, you would see a history of the [patent examination][1]. The application has been abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you click on &quot;Final Rejection&quot; dated 26.01.2006, you would see that the claims were rejected because they were anticipated by [US20020030790][2], which at the time also was a application. The application was later granted as [US6626543][3] &quot;Electronic image projection device.&quot; Notably the claims in the granted patent contain limitation not present in the original draft, such as that the projector can be &quot;docked&quot; or that a keyboard is included. The patent has lapse due to non-payment of maintenance fee. However, I doubt the patent, if still active, would value much in a market dominated by tablets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;mere&quot; combination of a new type of computer (e.g. a tablet or a portable virtual computer) would be deemed as obvious and would not be issued a utility patent (design patent, however, is another story). For such combination to be patentable, the invention must include additional inventive steps not disclosed by prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=US.87249204.A&amp;lng=en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com.tw/patents/US20020030790&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com.tw/patents/US6626543" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14486" RevisionGUID="2de73ac9-f504-4f88-9b9d-9565e94ffaa6" CreationDate="2016-03-03T04:46:14.357" UserId="14510" Text="There is no grace period. As soon as you receive notice of the patent (or, in some cases, the published application) - or should have received notice (i.e. once the patent is published, you are typically assumed to have received constructive notice).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a good discussion of 'actual notice', 'constructive notice', and the issues around potential liability for infringement that occurs ***before*** a patent actually issues, you may be interested in [this article by IRMI][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/liability-for-infringing-acts-before-a-patent-is-granted" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14487" RevisionGUID="83e8b0d6-fb8d-4ec6-b1cb-191d0fc0032e" CreationDate="2016-03-03T11:15:13.280" UserId="11542" Text="An applicant has been asked to submit a substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125. The amendments are made to brief description of drawings, detailed description and drawings. No new subject matter has been added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to understand as to what the response sheet should contain in filing a response to notice to file corrected application papers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The usual format one would follow is:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dear Commissioner:&#xD;&#xA;This paper responds to the notice dated January XX, 20XX which is attached below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In response to the notice I have carried out the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	Amendments to the Specification begin on page 2 of this paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	Amendments to the Drawings begin on page 9 of this paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	Remarks/Arguments begin on page 11 of this paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Under the heading &quot;Amendments to the Specification begin on page 2 of this paper&quot;, should the applicant just mention the amended paragraph numbers or show the complete amended paragraphs? I'm asking this because the applicant will anyway be  submitting the substitute specification which includes marked version and clean version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Should the response document include the marked version, clean version of the specification and replacement sheets of drawings? or should the response document,the marked version, clean version of the specification and replacement sheets of drawings be made as separate documents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone can provide me a sample response document or link to some website covering the above mentioned issues, it would be helpful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35999" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14487" RevisionGUID="83e8b0d6-fb8d-4ec6-b1cb-191d0fc0032e" CreationDate="2016-03-03T11:15:13.280" UserId="11542" Text="Response to Notice to file corrected application papers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36000" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14487" RevisionGUID="83e8b0d6-fb8d-4ec6-b1cb-191d0fc0032e" CreationDate="2016-03-03T11:15:13.280" UserId="11542" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;response&gt;&lt;corrected&gt;&lt;papers&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14490" RevisionGUID="80102503-dcc5-463b-849e-981bdf984d83" CreationDate="2016-03-04T02:08:08.990" UserId="15657" Text="[MPEP 714][1] &quot;Amendments, Applicant’s Action&quot; has some guideline to the amendment. The guideline reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Where paragraph numbering has been included in an application as provided in 37 CFR 1.52(b)(6), applicants can easily refer to a specific paragraph by number when presenting an amendment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but it doesn't state that paragraph number *should* be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding question #1, a simple answer would be, &quot;when in doubt, just copy&quot;. You can search [USPTO PAIR][2] to see how other people submit amendment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I checked a few and replicated some examples below:&#xD;&#xA;(Note: Stack Exchange does allow underline, so all underlined text are converted to italic)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Amendement to the Specification&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please replace the section heading titled &quot;CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION&quot; and the paragraph on page 1, line 10-13 of the specification as filed with the following heading and paragraph:&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;-- &lt;em&gt;CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED &lt;strike&gt;APPLICATION&lt;/strike&gt; APPLICATIONS&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The present application is a &lt;em&gt;continuation application of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 12/xxx,xxx titled &quot;FOO BAR&quot; filed by Kenobi Obi Wan on December 1, 200x, which is a&lt;/em&gt; continuation application of … the entire content of &lt;em&gt;each of&lt;/em&gt; which are hereby incorporated by reference herein.--&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;AMENDMENTS TO SPECIFICATION:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On page 2, line 2-6, please amend the application as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and internally, we have an amendment sheet that looks like this:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;SPECIFICATION AMENDMENTS&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Kindly amend the original filed specification as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(a) Please replace the paragraph/section beginning at page 3, line 6, with the following rewritten paragraph:&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;In order to achieve the above object, a device includes a &lt;em&gt;housing&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strike&gt;husing&lt;/strike&gt; and some electronics. The housing is made of metal.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;(b) Please add the paragraph/section beginning at page 5, line 8, with the following paragraph:&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Fig. 6 is a perspective view of another embodiment according to the present invention.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all examples I've seen, paragraph numbers are used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't answer your question (b)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s714.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14491" RevisionGUID="97fe11de-4101-488b-b707-44bf4a2d57da" CreationDate="2016-03-04T02:46:23.643" UserId="13412" Text="I am filing a patent for a software and I am using a patent service. They have given me 1 drawing for my process and I am concerned this may not be enough. It does describe my process but does 1 drawing mean that my patent may not be strongly defendable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36012" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14491" RevisionGUID="97fe11de-4101-488b-b707-44bf4a2d57da" CreationDate="2016-03-04T02:46:23.643" UserId="13412" Text="Is one drawing enough for a business process patent for software algorithm?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36013" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14491" RevisionGUID="97fe11de-4101-488b-b707-44bf4a2d57da" CreationDate="2016-03-04T02:46:23.643" UserId="13412" Text="&lt;business-methods&gt;&lt;drawing&gt;&lt;patenting-an-algorithm&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14492" RevisionGUID="1d6a92a3-45c4-4daa-bf44-3285c522f667" CreationDate="2016-03-04T03:37:15.627" UserId="15657" Text="Disclaimer: the following is just personal opinion. Always talk to your attorney for professional legal advices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should read through all the claims and check if the specification &amp; diagram substantiate the claims. If the specification and the claims only describe the preferred implementation but does not describe alternative approaches that are within the scope of your invention but are not obvious, then there is a risk a court may limit your claims to what are described (see [O'Reilly v. Morse][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Details of various implementation need not be illustrated. If details or alternative approaches can be explained easily with just text, then you don't need diagrams. If you can't describe implementation using just text without confusing yourself, then it may be better to prepare more diagrams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to be careful about what you describe or don't describe. If the draft doesn't substantiate the claims, then you try to add more explanatory text/diagrams after examination has commenced, you could be at risk of being considered &quot;adding new matter&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, describing too much is also not good. If later on you want to file a different patent, but your previous patent already disclosed key components, then your new patent application could be at risk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does your attorney say about this matter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Reilly_v._Morse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14493" RevisionGUID="090d9da0-35e0-485d-93cd-4a2ad62e8705" CreationDate="2016-03-04T03:54:04.063" UserId="16174" Text="I understand France is an absolute novelty country that would prohibit a patent being issued if it were disclosed publicly prior to the filing date in France. Filing a Provisional Patent Application in the US is not in itself a public disclosure, but if you did actually disclose publicly after the filing of the PPA and prior to filing a regular application (that would claim the priority of the PPA) would you have an issue of being granted protection in France?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36017" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14493" RevisionGUID="090d9da0-35e0-485d-93cd-4a2ad62e8705" CreationDate="2016-03-04T03:54:04.063" UserId="16174" Text="Can I file in france if I file a Provisional in the US and then publicly disclose prior to filing in France?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36018" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14493" RevisionGUID="090d9da0-35e0-485d-93cd-4a2ad62e8705" CreationDate="2016-03-04T03:54:04.063" UserId="16174" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;public&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14495" RevisionGUID="0097317b-28a5-41c4-a06d-6156f3bc2a1e" CreationDate="2016-03-04T07:38:55.493" UserId="16175" Text="Yes its expired on May 15, 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this will help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14492" RevisionGUID="de88b787-1894-4a83-b43a-52bdde8dc8f3" CreationDate="2016-03-04T16:45:21.880" UserId="15657" Comment="fix hyperlink" Text="Disclaimer: the following is just personal opinion. Always talk to your attorney for professional legal advices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should read through all the claims and check if the specification &amp; diagram substantiate the claims. If the specification and the claims only describe the preferred implementation but does not describe alternative approaches that are within the scope of your invention but are not obvious, then there is a risk a court may limit your claims to what are described (see [O'Reilly v. Morse][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Details of various implementation need not be illustrated. If details or alternative approaches can be explained easily with just text, then you don't need diagrams. If you can't describe implementation using just text without confusing yourself, then it may be better to prepare more diagrams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to be careful about what you describe or don't describe. If the draft doesn't substantiate the claims, then you try to add more explanatory text/diagrams after examination has commenced, you could be at risk of being considered &quot;adding new matter&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, describing too much is also not good. If later on you want to file a different patent, but your previous patent already disclosed key components, then your new patent application could be at risk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does your attorney say about this matter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Reilly_v._Morse" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14495" RevisionGUID="39529be3-a4c5-4ba5-aecf-ae9f1d93dc17" CreationDate="2016-03-04T18:36:48.537" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 24 characters in body" Text="Yes its expired on May 15, 2014." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14497" RevisionGUID="664bbcb6-bd25-4197-a9cb-bb49cab7c722" CreationDate="2016-03-05T06:51:18.847" UserId="16181" Text="Where are the figures referred to in the patent? (wo2014078355a1) I can't find them on the patent page." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36031" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14497" RevisionGUID="664bbcb6-bd25-4197-a9cb-bb49cab7c722" CreationDate="2016-03-05T06:51:18.847" UserId="16181" Text="inquiry into the patent (wo2014078355a1) regarding the figures for I can't find them on the patent page" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36032" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14497" RevisionGUID="664bbcb6-bd25-4197-a9cb-bb49cab7c722" CreationDate="2016-03-05T06:51:18.847" UserId="16181" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36034" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14331" RevisionGUID="f0adc93d-49ff-4e86-8282-ac6f15cd9745" CreationDate="2016-03-05T09:32:31.253" UserId="15657" Comment="add a new tag" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;freedom-to-operate&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36035" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14331" RevisionGUID="f0adc93d-49ff-4e86-8282-ac6f15cd9745" CreationDate="2016-03-05T09:32:31.253" Comment="Proposed by 15657 approved by 15503, 81 edit id of 1918" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14500" RevisionGUID="c8bcedf4-b311-47e4-930e-9672c034de2e" CreationDate="2016-03-05T12:11:12.843" UserId="17239" Text="Let me starts with an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US 7598276 B2 was filed on Nov 7, 2006 having 1 day of PTA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US 8557852 B2 was filed on Aug 28, 2009 which is division of '276 with 546 days of PTA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no terminal disclaimer filed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;what should be the expiry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nov 7, 2026 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nov 7, 2026 + 546 days of PTA?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36040" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14500" RevisionGUID="c8bcedf4-b311-47e4-930e-9672c034de2e" CreationDate="2016-03-05T12:11:12.843" UserId="17239" Text="What will be the expiry of Continuation patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36041" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14500" RevisionGUID="c8bcedf4-b311-47e4-930e-9672c034de2e" CreationDate="2016-03-05T12:11:12.843" UserId="17239" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;expiry&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14502" RevisionGUID="ad6590e4-5cdd-400f-923c-5be4bd460319" CreationDate="2016-03-06T01:20:52.263" UserId="15657" Text="I believe the advisor from the investor circle confuses copyright with trademark.&#xA;&#xA;If your invention contains ornamental elements that were inherent to your invention, then it's possible to file for design patents. An example would be a toothbrush having a specific arrangement of bristles for satisfying a new function. Another example would be an ergonomic handle. Note that a design patent only covers ornamental elements, so if it's possible to achieve the same result with a substantially different aesthetics, than you should consider filing an utility patent instead.&#xA;&#xA;A design patent has some advantages over an utility patent: lower filing fee, no maintenance fee, and faster grant. So design patent filing can be an economic approach for startups. Note a design patent has shorter term and more limited protection. An utility patent can be filed alongside a design patent if you want faster (design) and broader (utility) protection.&#xA;&#xA;A design patent can lead to trademark protection. If your design contain certain ornamental features protected by design patent(s), and you can consistently apply these features to your entire product line, then after a few years you can claim that such features are associated with your brand and  cannot be copied.&#xA;&#xA;Trademark and copyright is not covered here and further discussion should be taken to Law Stack Exchange." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14504" RevisionGUID="a1f3c52c-6408-4480-9075-589c57adc59c" CreationDate="2016-03-06T15:53:12.667" UserId="16193" Text="According to [Time magazine][1] and [Gizmodo][2], 49% share in the patent [US2292387 A][3] has been acquired by Wi-Lan in 1998. The patent publication date is 11 Aug 1942, which means it should have expired on 11 Aug 1962. How is such an extension possible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://techland.time.com/2011/12/05/the-hollywood-starlet-who-made-wi-fi-and-bluetooth-possible/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gizmodo.com/how-a-1940s-hollywood-star-helped-make-wireless-techno-1340221554/1340668276&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=02292387&amp;homeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect2%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526d%3DPALL%2526S1%3D2292387.PN.%2526OS%3DPN%2F2292387%2526RS%3DPN%2F2292387&amp;PageNum=&amp;Rtype=&amp;SectionNum=&amp;idkey=NONE&amp;Input=View%20first%20page" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36054" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14504" RevisionGUID="a1f3c52c-6408-4480-9075-589c57adc59c" CreationDate="2016-03-06T15:53:12.667" UserId="16193" Text="How could patents last longer than the term prescribed by law?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36055" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14504" RevisionGUID="a1f3c52c-6408-4480-9075-589c57adc59c" CreationDate="2016-03-06T15:53:12.667" UserId="16193" Text="&lt;term&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14508" RevisionGUID="1994da08-a4f6-488d-92ef-d23467bc6df1" CreationDate="2016-03-06T20:38:53.403" UserDisplayName="user16198" Text="I have found that the two patents placed on the RC6 algorithm are U.S. Patent 5,724,428 and U.S. Patent 5,835,600, but I'm having trouble determining the earliest date at which they will have both expired. Could anyone shed some light on this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36067" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14508" RevisionGUID="1994da08-a4f6-488d-92ef-d23467bc6df1" CreationDate="2016-03-06T20:38:53.403" UserDisplayName="user16198" Text="When do the patents on RC6 expire?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36068" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14508" RevisionGUID="1994da08-a4f6-488d-92ef-d23467bc6df1" CreationDate="2016-03-06T20:38:53.403" UserDisplayName="user16198" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36069" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14508" RevisionGUID="ad67ba9e-21e4-422a-bec7-cee6f2c4b821" CreationDate="2016-03-06T20:54:49.177" UserDisplayName="user16198" Comment="Added more details to title." Text="When do the patents on RC6 (U.S. Patent 5,724,428 and U.S. Patent 5,835,600) expire?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14509" RevisionGUID="16e9fccc-d05f-4ec0-8c31-aaeb11cc1c88" CreationDate="2016-03-06T21:01:10.803" UserId="16190" Text="The http://www.fractogene.com page has been updated to reflect 35 U.S.C. 112 with MPEP 2181. All documents &quot;incorporated by reference&quot; were made available to USPTO and the patent was issued. The file wrapper indicates the very significant size of documents, but USPTO practices did not make the files themselves downloadable. The materials &quot;incorporated by reference&quot;, since all are public, can be absolutely obtained independently with an appropriate effort. Should anyone call for assistance, the inventor is available for curious parties to obtain materials and/or advises how the occasionally very heavily mathematical materials can be used with their least effort for particular purposes of users.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14511" RevisionGUID="5db0641e-a27b-4637-b870-06bbdf4338cf" CreationDate="2016-03-07T02:39:44.077" UserId="15657" Text="You can refer to USPTO's [patent term calculator][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to visit [USPTO PAIR][2] to see history of both patents. Some relevant data:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application for Pat. 5724428 is 08/548,318, filed on 11-01-1995.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application for Pat. 5835600 is 08/845,210, filed on 04-21-1997, and is a continuation of the application above. It should be noted that on 06-11-1998, a &quot;Request for Extension of Time&quot; for this application was granted. Unfortunately, the data is not available electronically, so you need to purchase certified file wrapper from USPTO to properly determine the patent term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/patent-term-calculator#heading-1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14508" RevisionGUID="cfdfc784-38e4-439c-9391-f2e8fb2569da" CreationDate="2016-03-07T05:48:30.370" UserId="15657" Comment="add patent link" Text="I have found that the two patents placed on the RC6 algorithm are [U.S. Patent 5,724,428][1] and U.S. Patent [5,835,600][2], but I'm having trouble determining the earliest date at which they will have both expired. Could anyone shed some light on this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5724428&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5835600" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36078" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14508" RevisionGUID="cfdfc784-38e4-439c-9391-f2e8fb2569da" CreationDate="2016-03-07T05:48:30.370" Comment="Proposed by 15657 approved by 10011 edit id of 1919" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14511" RevisionGUID="8eb23121-7163-4d57-8325-eff8f6722cc5" CreationDate="2016-03-07T06:30:33.313" UserId="15657" Comment="Edit. I confused &quot;extension of time&quot; with &quot;patent term extension&quot;" Text="You can refer to USPTO's [patent term calculator][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to visit [USPTO PAIR][2] to see history of both patents. Some relevant data:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application for Pat. 5724428 is 08/548,318, filed on 11-01-1995.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application for Pat. 5835600 is 08/845,210, filed on 04-21-1997, and is a continuation of the application above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/patent-term-calculator#heading-1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14515" RevisionGUID="87bc436f-ff2c-409d-b955-7c7af77d6634" CreationDate="2016-03-07T09:55:38.940" UserId="15503" Text="Such an extension is not possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Time article makes this slightly clearer: (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;…in 1998, Wi-LAN bought 49% of Lamarr’s claim to the **lapsed patent**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent can be assigned after expiry. Such an assignment really only assigns the right to sue other parties for infringement that occurred before the patent lapsed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, I can't really see the value in Wi-LAN's acquisition. Perhaps just marketing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14516" RevisionGUID="f3055186-5ba9-48ab-bc61-86c273747408" CreationDate="2016-03-07T10:22:50.643" UserId="15503" Text="There should be no problem. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's set out a timeline:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**1 Sep 2014**: US provisional (&quot;US1&quot;) is filed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**15 Oct 2014**: Public disclosure of material in the US provisional filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**31 Aug 2015**: French Convention application (&quot;FR1&quot;) claiming priority to US1 is filed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US1 is filed before the disclosure. The disclosure is therefore not relevant for the novelty of US1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FR1 is filed after the disclosure. Without any priority claims, FR1 would not be novel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, FR1 validly claims priority to US1. This means that the novelty of FR1 is assessed at the date of filing of US1. This is before the disclosure, so the disclosure does not deprive FR1 of novelty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer would be the same for any two countries which are members of the Paris Convention (which is basically every country). There is nothing unique to the US and France here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14517" RevisionGUID="ab346474-86b2-4865-b945-b7bbf23659f9" CreationDate="2016-03-07T11:57:49.803" UserId="16205" Text="In reference to the patent: [CA2383173C][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/CA2383173C&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any restriction in using this patent in Singapore or New Zeland? Thank you in advance for any reply. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36102" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14517" RevisionGUID="ab346474-86b2-4865-b945-b7bbf23659f9" CreationDate="2016-03-07T11:57:49.803" UserId="16205" Text="Restriction Dynamic Currency Discount (DCC) Singapore and New Zeland" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36103" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14517" RevisionGUID="ab346474-86b2-4865-b945-b7bbf23659f9" CreationDate="2016-03-07T11:57:49.803" UserId="16205" Text="&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14518" RevisionGUID="63ff844c-8d97-4f07-a855-78e46405b738" CreationDate="2016-03-07T14:13:00.640" UserId="15503" Text="Probably not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a Canadian patent, which does not apply outside of Canada. However, according to [WIPO](https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf;jsessionid=178F80380B6CC09472DED3A4F9AF10A6.wapp2nA?docId=WO2001004846&amp;recNum=1&amp;tab=NationalPhase&amp;maxRec=&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=&amp;queryString=), there appear to be equivalent patents in New Zealand (NZ 517105) and Singapore (SG 2002000131).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[IPONZ](http://www.iponz.govt.nz/app/Extra/IP/Mutual/Browse.aspx?sid=635930033358881771) appears to show that NZ 517105 is still in force. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[IPOS](https://www.ip2.sg/RPS/WP/CM/IPDetailsPTP.aspx?AppNbr=vW8gDYPhgCRtRm7HF37Qjl0xIvXnre57w1gnS%2bJ%2b%2f7k%3d) appears to show that SG 2002000131 is still in force.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accordingly, it seems that you are not free to use the claimed subject matter of these patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14518" RevisionGUID="932a465c-8739-437f-943a-8d4e622144a8" CreationDate="2016-03-07T14:27:08.450" UserId="15503" Comment="Deleted my first incorrect sentence." Text="This is a Canadian patent, which does not apply outside of Canada. However, according to [WIPO](https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf;jsessionid=178F80380B6CC09472DED3A4F9AF10A6.wapp2nA?docId=WO2001004846&amp;recNum=1&amp;tab=NationalPhase&amp;maxRec=&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=&amp;queryString=), there appear to be equivalent patents in New Zealand (NZ 517105) and Singapore (SG 2002000131).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[IPONZ](http://www.iponz.govt.nz/app/Extra/IP/Mutual/Browse.aspx?sid=635930033358881771) appears to show that NZ 517105 is still in force. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[IPOS](https://www.ip2.sg/RPS/WP/CM/IPDetailsPTP.aspx?AppNbr=vW8gDYPhgCRtRm7HF37Qjl0xIvXnre57w1gnS%2bJ%2b%2f7k%3d) appears to show that SG 2002000131 is still in force.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accordingly, it seems that you are not free to use the claimed subject matter of these patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14519" RevisionGUID="dc91a728-6873-4aee-ad3c-7df0916c58d1" CreationDate="2016-03-07T16:16:30.033" UserId="16207" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20130039942][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130039942&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicants claimed to use LMP1 and LMP1 fusion proteins (LMP1-CD40 and others) as adjuvants in vaccination therapies against microbes and tumors, in the referred patent application. By adjuvant, they refer to an immunostimulant that triggers activation of antigen-presenting cells (APC), such as dendritic cells (DC), macrophages and B cells. Though the adjuvant effect of LMP1 fusion proteins can be claimed as their invention, LMP1 native protein had already been demonstrated to have adjuvant function by others, much earlier than their application filing date (Rowe, Eur J Immunol 1995; Smith, Blood 2009). Throughout the patent application, there is no evidence (data) that the applicants identified any novel function of LMP1 beyond what had been known in the prior literature." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36107" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14519" RevisionGUID="dc91a728-6873-4aee-ad3c-7df0916c58d1" CreationDate="2016-03-07T16:16:30.033" UserId="16207" Text="Prior Art on the adjuvant function of LMP1, related to the patent application US20130039942" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36108" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14519" RevisionGUID="dc91a728-6873-4aee-ad3c-7df0916c58d1" CreationDate="2016-03-07T16:16:30.033" UserId="16207" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14519" RevisionGUID="4fd8205f-2260-493d-a86e-5ffe482f3232" CreationDate="2016-03-07T16:38:39.420" UserId="16207" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20130039942][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130039942&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicants claimed to use LMP1 and LMP1 fusion proteins (LMP1-CD40 and others) as adjuvants in vaccination therapies against microbes and tumors, in the referred patent application. By adjuvant, they refer to an immunostimulant that triggers activation of antigen-presenting cells (APC), such as dendritic cells (DC), macrophages and B cells. Though the adjuvant effect of LMP1 fusion proteins can be claimed as their invention, LMP1 native protein had already been demonstrated to have adjuvant function by others, much earlier than their application filing date (Rowe, Eur J Immunol 1995; Smith, Blood 2009). Throughout this patent application (and their claims), there is no evidence (data) that the applicants identified any novel function of LMP1 beyond what had been known in the prior literature." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36110" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="14449" RevisionGUID="51deb26c-83de-4f8a-abfd-a304737779cd" CreationDate="2016-03-07T17:18:04.800" UserId="-1" Comment="34" />
  <row Id="36111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14519" RevisionGUID="7a0f46f0-f7b2-46c4-91bf-4c5c77b82ea7" CreationDate="2016-03-07T18:33:02.450" UserId="16207" Comment="added 253 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20130039942][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130039942&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicants claimed to use LMP1 and LMP1 fusion proteins (LMP1-CD40 and others) as adjuvants in vaccination therapies against microbes and tumors, in the referred patent application. By adjuvant, they refer to an immunostimulant that triggers activation of antigen-presenting cells (APC), such as dendritic cells (DC), macrophages and B cells. Though the adjuvant effect of LMP1 fusion proteins can be claimed as their invention, LMP1 native protein had already been demonstrated to have adjuvant function by others, much earlier than their application filing date (Rowe, Eur J Immunol 1995; Smith, Blood 2009). Specifically, these prior studies showed that LMP1 expression in B cells and epithelial cancer cells makes them present experimentally transduced antigens and be killed by T cells. Throughout this patent application (and their claims), there is no evidence (data) that the applicants identified any novel function of LMP1 beyond what had been known in the prior literature. Is such an &quot;obvious&quot; function patentable as claimed in the application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36118" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14519" RevisionGUID="20b11b6e-748f-4d03-823e-3bf7db82191c" CreationDate="2016-03-07T19:19:07.683" UserId="16207" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20130039942&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14519" RevisionGUID="20b11b6e-748f-4d03-823e-3bf7db82191c" CreationDate="2016-03-07T19:19:07.683" UserId="16207" Comment="edited tags" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20130039942][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130039942&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicants claimed to use LMP1 and LMP1 fusion proteins (LMP1-CD40 and others) as adjuvants in vaccination therapies against microbes and tumors, in the referred patent application. By adjuvant, they refer to an immunostimulant that triggers activation of antigen-presenting cells (APC), such as dendritic cells (DC), macrophages and B cells. Though the adjuvant effect of LMP1 fusion proteins can be claimed as their invention, LMP1 native protein had already been demonstrated to have adjuvant function by others, much earlier than their application filing date (Rowe, Eur J Immunol 1995; Smith, Blood 2009). Specifically, these prior studies showed that LMP1 expression in B cells and epithelial cancer cells makes them present experimentally transduced antigens and be killed by T cells. Throughout this patent application (and their claims), there is no evidence (data) that the applicants identified any novel function of LMP1 beyond what had been known in the prior literature. Is such an &quot;obvious&quot; function (of LMP1) patentable as claimed in the application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14519" RevisionGUID="3ef1c20c-c8ea-44fb-a402-a78f7994045a" CreationDate="2016-03-07T19:24:24.167" UserId="16207" Comment="edited tags" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20130039942][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130039942&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicants claimed to use LMP1 and LMP1 fusion proteins (LMP1-CD40 and others) as adjuvants in vaccination therapies against microbes and tumors, in the referred patent application. By adjuvant, they refer to an immunostimulant that triggers activation of antigen-presenting cells (APC), such as dendritic cells (DC), macrophages and B cells. Though the adjuvant effect of LMP1 fusion proteins can be claimed as their invention, LMP1 native protein had already been demonstrated to have adjuvant function by others, much earlier than their application filing date (Rowe, Eur J Immunol 1995; Smith, Blood 2009). Specifically, these prior studies showed that LMP1 expression in B cells and epithelial cancer cells makes them present experimentally transduced antigens and be killed by T cells. Throughout this patent application (and their claims), there is no evidence (data) that the applicants identified any novel function of LMP1 beyond what had been known in the prior literature. Is such an &quot;obvious&quot; function of LMP1 patentable as claimed in the application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14521" RevisionGUID="fb1317e1-4bc9-4a4d-9f06-85fc89eabcc9" CreationDate="2016-03-08T02:52:43.513" UserId="16210" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20100122390][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20100122390" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36123" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14521" RevisionGUID="fb1317e1-4bc9-4a4d-9f06-85fc89eabcc9" CreationDate="2016-03-08T02:52:43.513" UserId="16210" Text="is this patent US20100122390 still in effect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36124" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14521" RevisionGUID="fb1317e1-4bc9-4a4d-9f06-85fc89eabcc9" CreationDate="2016-03-08T02:52:43.513" UserId="16210" Text="&lt;us20100122390&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14522" RevisionGUID="57cf6310-6b48-4bbb-8599-e3599171af3c" CreationDate="2016-03-08T03:18:36.947" UserId="15657" Text="First, note the **publication type** is *application*, not *patent*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To see the status of the application, you can go to [USPTO PAIR][1], put in the application number &quot;20100122390&quot;, select the &quot;Publication Number&quot; radio button, and select &quot;Search&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application went through several rejections and amendment. On 2010-10-12, a final rejection was issued. On 2011-09-05, the application was deemed **abandoned** due to failure to respond to the last rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you select the Image File Wrapper tab, you can retrieve text of the last rejection, The examiner cited patent application [2006/0090249][2] by Rodriguez and application [2007/0250978][3] by Peterson as prior art, and concluded the amended claims were unpatentable under [U.S.C. 103(a)][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to know if your creation infringes on any patent, you should check the patent application cited by the examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com.tw/patents/US20060090249&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com.tw/patents/US20070250978&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2141.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14523" RevisionGUID="c12b8d91-3347-4474-aa2e-da03befd5ea9" CreationDate="2016-03-08T04:11:16.880" UserId="14403" Text="just wish to add a bit to Jerry's. The first type is Utility patents. Utility Patents can be for method and/or device. If one is satisfied that one's idea meets the basic requirement of (i) Novelty (ii) Inventive step and(iii) Industrial Applicability one can proceed to put up an application for method even if the actual device is not developed. In fact, time should not be wasted because in the environment of &quot;first to apply&quot; practice for granting patent, every second counts. And of course there is another kind. Design patents. The name is self explanatory   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14519" RevisionGUID="1c04bc8d-b7f5-4688-b574-820a91688b32" CreationDate="2016-03-08T06:48:59.517" UserId="10011" Comment="added 73 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In reference to the patents: [US20130039942][1] and [EP2550298B1][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130039942&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP2550298B1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicants claimed to use LMP1 and LMP1 fusion proteins (LMP1-CD40 and others) as adjuvants in vaccination therapies against microbes and tumors, in the referred patent application. By adjuvant, they refer to an immunostimulant that triggers activation of antigen-presenting cells (APC), such as dendritic cells (DC), macrophages and B cells. Though the adjuvant effect of LMP1 fusion proteins can be claimed as their invention, LMP1 native protein had already been demonstrated to have adjuvant function by others, much earlier than their application filing date (Rowe, Eur J Immunol 1995; Smith, Blood 2009). Specifically, these prior studies showed that LMP1 expression in B cells and epithelial cancer cells makes them present experimentally transduced antigens and be killed by T cells. Throughout this patent application (and their claims), there is no evidence (data) that the applicants identified any novel function of LMP1 beyond what had been known in the prior literature. Is such an &quot;obvious&quot; function of LMP1 patentable as claimed in the application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36136" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14519" RevisionGUID="1c04bc8d-b7f5-4688-b574-820a91688b32" CreationDate="2016-03-08T06:48:59.517" UserId="10011" Comment="added 73 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20130039942&gt;&lt;ep2550298b1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14525" RevisionGUID="af60e778-0bcf-48d1-ae1e-6a06449ac879" CreationDate="2016-03-08T08:26:06.203" UserId="15657" Text="The patent application in question has been abandoned on 2013-09-24 (before this question was posted). To see the status and examination progress of a patent application, visit [USPTO PAIR][1] and search for the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OP is correct that the wording is ambiguous. On 2013-01-14, the examiner issued a 23-page non-final rejection. Some objections were as followed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The drawings did not comply with [37 CFR 1.83(a)][2] by showing &quot;every feature of the invention specified in the claims&quot; (e.g. &quot;water-jet pump&quot; in claim 1 and &quot;flotation elements&quot; in claim 3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. The specification did not &quot;provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter&quot;. The examiner cited the following paragraph from [MPEP 608.01(o)][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disclosure as to its import; and in mechanical cases, it should be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which the term applies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;The claim(s) contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The claims were &quot;**indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly clam the subject matter**&quot; ([35 U.S.C. 112][3]). The examiner objected to terms such as &quot;small&quot;, &quot;conventional unpowered… watercraft&quot;, and &quot;similar to&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Disclosure by prior art (e.g. US6311631, US20030167991, and US7134925).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc/112.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14526" RevisionGUID="08fe7216-3667-47ef-88be-f1ffc00282d8" CreationDate="2016-03-08T10:58:51.480" UserId="16216" Text="In reference to the patent: [US6901178][1], Fast Tunable Optical Filter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6901178&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am interested in whether the combination of a spectrometer and a tunable notch filter based on U.S Patent 6901178 with notch frequencies at any of  the visible which have nanosecond response times could be used to reduce the intensity of coherent laser beams aimed at airplane windows by 20 db while preserving the incoherent light background. The purpose of the spectrometer is to detect the wavelength(lambda) of the incoming laser beam and then tune the optical notch filter to any notch wavelength in the visible light region.&#xD;&#xA; Narrow bandwidth laser line filters exist, but they are neither switchable nor tunable.  And their performance will depend critically on the angle of incidence, and you have no control over this in the wild.&#xD;&#xA;   Has anyone thought of a way  to implement fast tunable optical filters with 1 to 2 nm bandwidth FWHM that are insensitive to angle of incidence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36140" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14526" RevisionGUID="08fe7216-3667-47ef-88be-f1ffc00282d8" CreationDate="2016-03-08T10:58:51.480" UserId="16216" Text="Has anyone thought of a way to implement fast tunable optical filters with 1 to 2 nm bandwidth FWHM that are insensitive to angle of incidence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36141" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14526" RevisionGUID="08fe7216-3667-47ef-88be-f1ffc00282d8" CreationDate="2016-03-08T10:58:51.480" UserId="16216" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;optical-systems&gt;&lt;us6901178&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36142" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14526" RevisionGUID="3ad0fafa-1a87-4003-a839-4cc811f0ddfc" CreationDate="2016-03-08T11:21:44.640" UserId="16216" Comment="refined question" Text="Has anyone patented a way to implement fast tunable optical filters with 1 to 2 nm bandwidth FWHM that are insensitive to angle of incidence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14527" RevisionGUID="ef6da1fa-a9b4-42f6-8aea-7e40c51e345e" CreationDate="2016-03-08T14:26:24.583" UserId="8074" Text="A lot of work goes into constructing claim charts, interpreting patents, but this is done all over again in each patent litigation case. It would be great to share patent analysis data to bring down litigation costs and to fight back patent trolls easier. Prior art claim chart comparing against patents would be a great help if that would be accessible to masses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a place to find and share such documents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36144" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14527" RevisionGUID="ef6da1fa-a9b4-42f6-8aea-7e40c51e345e" CreationDate="2016-03-08T14:26:24.583" UserId="8074" Text="Is there a website for sharing patent analysis together with prior art claim charts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36145" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14527" RevisionGUID="ef6da1fa-a9b4-42f6-8aea-7e40c51e345e" CreationDate="2016-03-08T14:26:24.583" UserId="8074" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="6677202f-e586-4d58-92b2-306c44ec13e4" CreationDate="2016-03-09T03:06:34.100" UserId="16219" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2015172178A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015172178A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to introduce one article published in 2007 with the same claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surfboard Instrumentation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/view/557/496&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Márcio Borgonovo dos Santos&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36152" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="6677202f-e586-4d58-92b2-306c44ec13e4" CreationDate="2016-03-09T03:06:34.100" UserId="16219" Text="Previous work in 2007" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36153" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="6677202f-e586-4d58-92b2-306c44ec13e4" CreationDate="2016-03-09T03:06:34.100" UserId="16219" Text="&lt;wo2015172178a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14530" RevisionGUID="481f9e07-37c4-4ad5-9716-a0532188cbbb" CreationDate="2016-03-09T03:53:49.010" UserId="15657" Text="It's not necessary. It's a PCT filing, and the inventor has never filed any actual patent application in any country, except for provisional application in Australia. The inventor filed 4 provisional application in Australia in 2004, and all four of them are LAPSED." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14531" RevisionGUID="95f182bb-d262-451e-99ef-e443dfec4e02" CreationDate="2016-03-09T06:45:46.293" UserId="15657" Text="There are many reasons why people shouldn't share such information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Company A won't be interested in what company B has to say unless they operate in the same industry, i.e. they are competitors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The cost of each patent analysis is high, so companies will likely do analysis **only if needed**, which would include defenses against infringement claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Anything you say can, and will be, used against you**. This is why in patent application you should avoid discussing other patents because such discussion could be taken as admission.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't want your competitor to anticipate what you might say in your effort to invalidate their patent or defend yourself against infringement claim. Participation in public disclosure would be a messy and costly business because then you need to get attorneys involved in determining the risk of your disclosure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another problem is that patent law is a moving target. Every now and then the courts would have opinions that have far reaching impact on how patents are filed and interpreted. In other words, analysis done right now probably becomes out-of-date in a few years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still another problem is that you don't know which patents are important. Many questions posted here are related to patent applications that are abandoned. Analysis could become a waste of time when the patent/patent application in question get abandoned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36156" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14527" RevisionGUID="ba893e3c-c22d-484a-ab86-b0376c1fb27f" CreationDate="2016-03-09T09:36:47.713" UserId="8074" Comment="edited title" Text="Is there a website for sharing patent analysis together with prior art claim charts for fending off trolls?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14527" RevisionGUID="6d1dca01-0b25-4b75-9ac2-9321d0a42933" CreationDate="2016-03-09T09:50:15.997" UserId="8074" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="A lot of work goes into constructing claim charts, analyzing patents, but this is done all over again in each patent litigation case. It would be great to share patent analysis data to bring down litigation costs to fight back patent trolls easier. That would help industry a lot. Usually even competing companies unite in fighting patent trolls. Prior art claim chart comparing against troll patents would be a great help if that would be accessible to masses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a place to find and share such documents? Is there a way to do it here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14532" RevisionGUID="d5c5b3a4-cd5c-4d60-9db5-28867d3a01ea" CreationDate="2016-03-09T10:05:19.110" UserId="15503" Text="I believe only this site covers this, through the [tag:prior-art-request] mechanism. This would be the case even if it is answered by the question asker. Although prior art requests were intended for use for pre-grant applications, the same analysis applies whether pre-grant or post-grant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A validity analysis can be displayed using an answer (though not in a table, since Stack Exchange doesn't support them). For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An apparatus, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shown in '789 at para 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a first widget; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shown in '789 at para 6.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a second widget.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shown in '789 at Fig 1.	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore claim 1 is not novel over '789.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, a claim chart is a small part of an approach for analysing the validity of a claim, and really only works when considering novelty. It never really stands alone, since it requires a lot of further textual discussion to provide a full validity analysis. A claim chart alone would likely not assist someone who is being sued by a patent holder." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14534" RevisionGUID="6c51aa57-015b-408a-874d-ef601de0443f" CreationDate="2016-03-09T15:41:11.050" UserId="15657" Text="First, the &quot;claim&quot; only describes a series of events, not any specific method. Let's say the claim is more specific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of painting outsource comprising means of packaging an electronic template and a reference photo in a container, means of depositing and withholding a payment, means of dispatching the container to a service provider, means of verification of the service executed by the service provider, and means of dispatching the payment to the service provider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There could actually be 3 players: the provider of the method, the customer, and the painter. Both the customer and the painter are &quot;users&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, any or [all three][1] of the actors could be sued for infringement. On USPTO's [About Patent Infringement?][2] page, there is a section on &quot;*The basis of the demand letter appears to be my use of another’s product. How can that be, and what should I do?*&quot; There also appears to be an increasing trend of [user being sued][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossclaim&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/patent-litigation/about-patent-infringement&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/06/24/the-rise-of-the-end-user-in-patent-litigation-and-attorney-fee-shifting/id=50166/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14535" RevisionGUID="25794882-b3ed-4850-bd96-6f8ac0d67b79" CreationDate="2016-03-10T00:35:03.360" UserId="16223" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140101112][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140101112&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent application is for a process and software systems that were built by my company years before the Applicant was ever in business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I protest this patent or protect myself from being sued by the applicant for infringement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please see www.firebrandtech.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36165" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14535" RevisionGUID="25794882-b3ed-4850-bd96-6f8ac0d67b79" CreationDate="2016-03-10T00:35:03.360" UserId="16223" Text="This Patent is for a process that that was invented by someone else" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36166" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14535" RevisionGUID="25794882-b3ed-4850-bd96-6f8ac0d67b79" CreationDate="2016-03-10T00:35:03.360" UserId="16223" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;data-processing-software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14536" RevisionGUID="820c36f6-c6a7-463c-b203-4b5b7eded483" CreationDate="2016-03-10T01:12:42.477" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14537" RevisionGUID="3f664bd8-965e-437c-8b82-53fdcd3eaabd" CreationDate="2016-03-10T01:12:42.477" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36170" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10497" RevisionGUID="f37d33b5-784c-42a9-8317-01762717e76d" CreationDate="2016-03-10T05:39:22.457" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;divisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="308" RevisionGUID="b5954ce3-fdd6-4ad1-8ab4-fef19c291dd8" CreationDate="2016-03-10T07:47:59.343" UserId="15657" Comment="Clarify D'305, which isn't just about &quot;black background&quot;" Text="[Here](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500273-37/apple-v-samsung-the-infringing-device-scorecard/) are the Apple patents either claimed or proved to be infringed by Samsung.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a list of them with brief description:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;['381 patent](http://www.google.com/patents/US7469381?dq=apple+7469381&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=_UFdUNG4LY_rrQea1ICgDQ&amp;ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA)&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Besides the &quot;rubber band&quot; effect where a page &quot;bounces&quot; when a user scrolls to the bottom, '381 also includes touch-screen actions like dragging documents and multi-touch capabilities like pinch to zoom and twist to rotate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;['915 patent](http://www.google.com/patents/US7844915?printsec=abstract&amp;dq=apple+7844915&amp;ei=ekJdUJaqB43wrQeG9IDwDg#v=onepage&amp;q=apple%207844915&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Also a touch-screen patent, '915 relates to a device capable of distinguishing between a single-touch scroll operation and a multi-touch pinch-to-zoom operation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;['163 patent](http://www.google.com/patents/US7864163?printsec=abstract&amp;dq=apple+7864163&amp;ei=1kJdUMPlAY7yrQeV1YGwCw#v=onepage&amp;q=apple%207864163&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You know how you can double-tap a touch screen to enlarge and center portions of Web page, photo, or document? That's what this patent covers. The jury found that the Intercept did not violate patents '915 or '163.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[D '677 patent](http://www.google.com/patents/USD618677?printsec=abstract&amp;dq=apple+D677&amp;ei=E0NdULzyKs_nrAf8tIHICw#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Switching to hardware, D '677 relates to the front face of an electronic device, as embodied by the iPhone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[D '087 patent](http://www.google.com/patents/USD593087?printsec=abstract&amp;dq=apple+D+%27087&amp;ei=PENdUOeRDojirAf8woCQCQ#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Similar to D '677, the D '087 patent concerns the general outline or &quot;ornamental&quot; design of a phone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[D '305 patent](http://www.google.com/patents/USD604305?printsec=abstract&amp;dq=apple+D+%27305&amp;ei=bENdUKP7JMXIrQfQ94DgBA#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The D '305 patent centers on a grid layout having rounded square icons and a color scheme. (Note: [the actual filing is in color][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[D '889 patent](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=D504,889.PN.&amp;OS=PN/D504,889&amp;RS=PN/D504,889)&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For the final patent, which relates to the industrial design of a tablet computer, the jury found that neither Wi-Fi nor the 4G LTE versions of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 infringed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/08/06/strong-design-patents-the-power-of-color/id=44342/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36176" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="308" RevisionGUID="b5954ce3-fdd6-4ad1-8ab4-fef19c291dd8" CreationDate="2016-03-10T07:47:59.343" Comment="Proposed by 15657 approved by 857 edit id of 1927" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14540" RevisionGUID="c4ba5f41-12c3-4aa5-9d89-14210a0cc9b1" CreationDate="2016-03-10T09:40:58.143" UserId="15503" Text="This involves two separate questions. Of course, the short answer is to discuss this with a patent attorney. But in any case…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How can I protest this patent?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is still a patent application. It is not yet a patent which can be enforced, and may never become one. Only time will tell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have published the details of your system before the priority date of this application (which is 8 October 2012), this may be prior art which could prevent this application being granted. This can be provided to the examiner as third party observations. The examiner will then consider using your publication in the examination procedure. There are some intricacies in this, which are detailed in [MPEP § 1134](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1134.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How can I protect myself from being sued by the applicant for infringement?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the application is granted (and therefore could be enforced), you may be able to rely on the prior user defence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[35 USC § 273](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/273) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A person shall be entitled to a defense under section 282(b) with respect to subject matter consisting of a process, or consisting of a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter used in a manufacturing or other commercial process, that would otherwise infringe a claimed invention being asserted against the person if—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) such person, acting in good faith, commercially used the subject matter in the United States, either in connection with an internal commercial use or an actual arm’s length sale or other arm’s length commercial transfer of a useful end result of such commercial use; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) such commercial use occurred at least 1 year before the earlier of either—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;(A) the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;(B) the date on which the claimed invention was disclosed to the public in a manner that qualified for the exception from prior art under section 102(b).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, if you used the invention in the US commercially, and that use happened 1 year before the effective filing date of the patent application (which is 8 October 2012), you have a defence to infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To prepare for this, you should get together proof that you used the system several years ago.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14540" RevisionGUID="a3ee1523-4c39-40cb-855f-e8df131051b1" CreationDate="2016-03-10T10:03:51.423" UserId="15503" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="This involves two separate questions. Of course, the short answer to both is to discuss this with a patent attorney. But in any case…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How can I protest this patent?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is still a patent application. It is not yet a patent which can be enforced, and may never become one. Only time will tell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have published the details of your system before the priority date of this application (which is 8 October 2012), this may be prior art which could prevent this application being granted. This can be provided to the examiner as third party observations. The examiner will then consider using your publication in the examination procedure. There are some intricacies in this, which are detailed in [MPEP § 1134](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1134.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How can I protect myself from being sued by the applicant for infringement?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the application is granted (and therefore could be enforced), you may be able to rely on the prior user defence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[35 USC § 273](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/273) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A person shall be entitled to a defense under section 282(b) with respect to subject matter consisting of a process, or consisting of a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter used in a manufacturing or other commercial process, that would otherwise infringe a claimed invention being asserted against the person if—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) such person, acting in good faith, commercially used the subject matter in the United States, either in connection with an internal commercial use or an actual arm’s length sale or other arm’s length commercial transfer of a useful end result of such commercial use; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) such commercial use occurred at least 1 year before the earlier of either—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;(A) the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;(B) the date on which the claimed invention was disclosed to the public in a manner that qualified for the exception from prior art under section 102(b).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, if you used the invention in the US commercially, and that use happened 1 year before the effective filing date of the patent application (which is 8 October 2012), you have a defence to infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To prepare for this, you should get together proof that you used the system several years ago.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14541" RevisionGUID="5129b70e-7d02-406f-a57e-68f400b4ba5d" CreationDate="2016-03-10T12:40:42.290" UserId="15503" Text="I will speak to Europe, as I believe the answer is entirely clear there. The US is arguably slightly more murky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm afraid I have to disagree with the conclusions of the accepted answer, which, in my opinion, is entirely wrong and risks misleading further readers. Unfortunately my answer is probably too late to be useful for the OP, but hopefully it will be useful for posterity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nothing** you mentioned in your question would be patentable in Europe. It is not even in a grey area. Your financial structure would either be excluded subject matter (if claimed as a method in general) or lack an inventive step (if claimed as a method performed on a computer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Excluded subject matter**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EPC art 52 provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1) European patents shall be granted for any inventions, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are susceptible of industrial application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your ETF structure is **solely** a method for doing business, and therefore is excluded subject matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Inventive step**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EPC art 52 is applied narrowly. If there is any non-excluded feature in a claim (such as the method being performed on a computer), then the claim as a whole is not excluded subject matter. So if your claims were a computer arranged to administer your ETF, then you would pass the low hurdle of EPC art 52.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, your invention would then lack an inventive step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EPC art 56 provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An invention shall be considered as involving an inventive step if, having regard to the state of the art, it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your ETF scheme may be non-obvious, and therefore may at first glance appear to meet this requirement. However, under European practice, non-technical features are ignored for assessing inventive step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of your ETF structure is non-technical, as it does not solve a **technical** problem. Instead, it solves a business problem (how to make more money, I guess), which lies solely in the realm of business. Because of this, it does not matter how non-obvious the ETF structure is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only technical feature that would be relevant to inventive step would be a general purpose computer. This is notoriously obvious. The claim would therefore lack an inventive step." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36189" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="306" RevisionGUID="39cf2e02-f2ae-491d-8746-32395f30ef54" CreationDate="2016-03-10T23:12:28.360" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14544" RevisionGUID="cc6ebd6f-4547-4a5f-8576-3613693979fc" CreationDate="2016-03-11T11:49:18.547" UserId="15503" Text="Yes, you could, in principle, patent your sauce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A food product (such as a sauce) can be patented. In this case, food is not really any different from any other product. The food product simply needs to meet the requirements of novelty and non-obviousness. It is irrelevant whether the ingredients in the sauce are themselves patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Novelty is pretty easy to show for a food product—there just has to be a difference from what's been done before. However, non-obviousness is tough: how do you show that your new sauce is not an obvious combination of existing sauces? It is rare that there is a surprising and unintuitive effect from a combination of ingredients that would support an argument of non-obviousness. For example, combining hot sauce and mayonnaise obviously leads to delicious spicy mayonnaise, but not to anything patentable. This is why patents for food products which are just combinations of known ingredients are relatively rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is still quite possible to patent a food product, as long as it is something more than an obvious combination of ingredients.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, it is now well known that adding a lot of sugar to a product tends to inhibit bacterial growth. However, assuming this was not well known, and that you had just discovered this (and thus had just invented jam), this would be novel and non-obvious, and therefore patentable. This goes much further than a simple recipe where you are just combining sugar (for sweetness) and fruit (for fruit flavour), which results in an obvious combination (sweetened fruit-flavoured product). There is instead a surprising result in the end (sweetened fruit-flavoured product **which doesn't grow mould**)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14545" RevisionGUID="0169a41e-c82d-42c0-b144-72e5238b63ec" CreationDate="2016-03-11T16:50:20.713" UserId="15657" Text="For an infringement claim to hold, it must pass the all-element rule. For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * Claim #1 contains element A, B, and C&#xD;&#xA;  * Claim #2 contains element D&#xD;&#xA;  * Claim #2 is dependent on #1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Infringement on claim #2 is not possible unless the alleged infringing device contains A, B, C, and D.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if the dependent claims aren't particularly novel, and then they are probably susceptible to invalidation as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14546" RevisionGUID="6d52de51-2b5b-454f-8345-a1a4cfb0dc07" CreationDate="2016-03-11T17:11:53.480" UserId="15657" Text="Let's say I made an improvement on a device. After prior-art search the patent attorney advised that there is risk that a patent application would get rejected. However, my ego got best of me and I filed a patent application anyway. Then some time later I got a new idea, and the new improvement is patent-able. However, with some hindsight, it could be argued that the prior improvement anticipated the new one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, can my prior application come back to haunt me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am primary interested in how the European patent law might apply here. As I understand it, US law provides continuation-in-part, which allows for new matter, so there's a fall-back option. With European patent law, a divisional application won't be possible, so I have to file a new application. Now, could my prior application (and my ego) be used against me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36195" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14546" RevisionGUID="6d52de51-2b5b-454f-8345-a1a4cfb0dc07" CreationDate="2016-03-11T17:11:53.480" UserId="15657" Text="Can a weak patent application come back to haunt you?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36196" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14546" RevisionGUID="6d52de51-2b5b-454f-8345-a1a4cfb0dc07" CreationDate="2016-03-11T17:11:53.480" UserId="15657" Text="&lt;european&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14547" RevisionGUID="d74ab41e-a4de-4022-9070-dca567c86ef3" CreationDate="2016-03-11T17:43:16.830" UserId="15503" Text="There are three scenarios. These differ based on the time difference between the first patent application (EP1) being filed and the second patent application (EP2) being filed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EP2 is filed 18 months (or more) after EP1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, EP1 will be published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no difference between your own publication and one by another party. If, in view of P1, the invention of P2 lacks novelty or an inventive step over P1, then P2 is not patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EP2 is filed 12–18 months after EP1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EP1 has not published yet, so is not prior art (in the classical sense).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, EPC art 54(3) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Additionally, the content of European patent applications as filed, the dates of filing of which are prior to the date referred to in paragraph 2 and which were published on or after that date, shall be considered as comprised in the state of the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, the content of an earlier-filed but later-published application is prior art. This prior art is deemed to be published at its filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this kind of prior art is only relevant for novelty. This is made explicit by EPC art 56, which provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;…If the state of the art also includes documents within the meaning of Article 54, paragraph 3, these documents shall not be considered in deciding whether there has been an inventive step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, if the invention of P2 is novel over the contents of P1 (even if it lacks an inventive step), you will have no problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EP2 is filed less than 12 months after EP1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The situation is basically the same as in the 12–18 month scenario. However, if EP2 lacks novelty over EP1, this can be simply overcome by claiming priority to EP1." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10791" RevisionGUID="2040352b-e094-4f4e-82d5-57e01a1c4b77" CreationDate="2016-03-12T03:50:01.200" UserId="15657" Comment="Make text easier to follow. Convert &quot;CIP&quot; to small-caps to avoid breaking the flow." Text="There are three forms of continuing applications- Divisional, Continuation and Continuation-In-Part (ᴄɪᴘ). It is important for a patentee to understand the difference between the three.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [**divisional application**][1] is often filed as a result of a restriction requirement made by the examiner. The divisional application must claim the benefit of the prior nonprovisional application.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;A **[continuation application][2]** involves filing a patent application before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on his or her earlier nonprovisional application, based on an earlier filed patent application wherein there is no new disclosure, but which may contain new or additional set of claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;**[continuation-in-part][3]**&quot; application (&quot;ᴄɪᴘ&quot; or &quot;ᴄɪᴘ application&quot;) is one in which the applicant adds subject matter not disclosed in the parent, but repeats substantial portion of the parent's specification. A ᴄɪᴘ is also filed  before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on his or her earlier nonprovisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all the three forms of continuing applications as understood from their brief descriptions, the claims or at least some of the claims may remain same as that of the parent (prior non provisional) application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A divisional can be filed after a rejection requirement is issued by an Examiner. A continuation and a ᴄɪᴘ however should be filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on his or her earlier nonprovisional application. Hence a continuation and a ᴄɪᴘ cannot be filed after termination of proceedings (allowance of claims) or issue of patent for the parent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details on CIP applications you may visit the link, http://www.invntree.com/blogs/patent-protection-for-improvements-made-over-your-previously-filed-patent-application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s201.html#ch200_d1ff70_1e3be_230&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s201.html#ch200_d1ff70_2cc79_146&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s201.html#ch200_d1ff71_198a2_222" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36209" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10791" RevisionGUID="2040352b-e094-4f4e-82d5-57e01a1c4b77" CreationDate="2016-03-12T03:50:01.200" Comment="Proposed by 15657 approved by 15503, 1 edit id of 1923" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14537" RevisionGUID="ac19fb0f-123d-48c0-bf32-1227d1a63dfc" CreationDate="2016-03-12T03:50:10.417" UserId="15657" Comment="added 133 characters in body" Text="This tag should be applied to questions involving continuation patent applications or patents granted from continuation applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36211" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14537" RevisionGUID="ac19fb0f-123d-48c0-bf32-1227d1a63dfc" CreationDate="2016-03-12T03:50:10.417" Comment="Proposed by 15657 approved by 1 edit id of 1925" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36212" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13601" RevisionGUID="c6e0aff9-16ee-42e8-9922-f5f0a413e0dc" CreationDate="2016-03-12T03:50:16.980" UserId="15657" Comment="add new tags" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;statistics&gt;&lt;terminal-disclaimer&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36213" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13601" RevisionGUID="c6e0aff9-16ee-42e8-9922-f5f0a413e0dc" CreationDate="2016-03-12T03:50:16.980" Comment="Proposed by 15657 approved by 15503, 1 edit id of 1921" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36214" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="306" RevisionGUID="c8208a9d-327d-4d88-817c-8432ee739b24" CreationDate="2016-03-12T03:50:19.963" UserId="15657" Comment="Add tag for USD604305 (grid of rounded square icons)" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;samsung&gt;&lt;usd604305&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36215" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="306" RevisionGUID="c8208a9d-327d-4d88-817c-8432ee739b24" CreationDate="2016-03-12T03:50:19.963" Comment="Proposed by 15657 approved by 15503, 1 edit id of 1926" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36216" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12032" RevisionGUID="d4317f29-efa4-496d-abfd-1b31f69122c7" CreationDate="2016-03-12T03:50:28.107" UserId="15657" Comment="change divisional-application tag (1 item) to divisional tag (2 items)" Text="&lt;divisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36217" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12032" RevisionGUID="d4317f29-efa4-496d-abfd-1b31f69122c7" CreationDate="2016-03-12T03:50:28.107" Comment="Proposed by 15657 approved by 15503, 1 edit id of 1924" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36218" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1926" RevisionGUID="e49443c3-9d87-493f-8c51-8a1f85a57d8c" CreationDate="2016-03-12T03:50:31.683" UserId="15657" Comment="add new tag" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;terminal-disclaimer&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36219" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1926" RevisionGUID="e49443c3-9d87-493f-8c51-8a1f85a57d8c" CreationDate="2016-03-12T03:50:31.683" Comment="Proposed by 15657 approved by 15503, 1 edit id of 1922" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14547" RevisionGUID="7b3fe08a-6155-446d-b5b2-a5cb70748f1e" CreationDate="2016-03-12T11:45:05.027" UserId="15503" Comment="Include how to avoid art 54(3) prior art" Text="There are three scenarios. These differ based on the time difference between the first patent application (EP1) being filed and the second patent application (EP2) being filed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EP2 is filed 18 months (or more) after EP1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, EP1 will be published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no difference between your own publication and one by another party. If, in view of EP1, the invention of EP2 lacks novelty or an inventive step over EP1, then EP2 is not patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EP2 is filed 12–18 months after EP1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EP1 has not published yet, so is not prior art (in the classical sense).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, EPC art 54(3) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Additionally, the content of European patent applications as filed, the dates of filing of which are prior to the date referred to in paragraph 2 and which were published on or after that date, shall be considered as comprised in the state of the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, the content of an earlier-filed but later-published application is prior art. It only becomes prior art once it is published (as in the normal way), but this prior art is deemed to be published at its filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this kind of prior art is only relevant for novelty. This is made explicit by EPC art 56, which provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;…If the state of the art also includes documents within the meaning of Article 54, paragraph 3, these documents shall not be considered in deciding whether there has been an inventive step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, if the invention of EP2 is novel over the contents of EP1 (even if it lacks an inventive step), you will have no problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if EP1 does deprive EP2 of novelty, there is still a way to keep EP2. This requires abandoning EP1 before it is published. In this case, EP1 will never become art 54(3) prior art (since it must be published to be art 54(3) prior art), and therefore allows EP2 to proceed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EP2 is filed less than 12 months after EP1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The situation is basically the same as in the 12–18 month scenario. However, if EP2 lacks novelty over EP1, this can be simply overcome by claiming priority to EP1." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14549" RevisionGUID="c52d0a08-43e6-4ca3-b94e-3d60651a42d3" CreationDate="2016-03-13T05:57:11.277" UserId="14308" Text="I was wondering why lawsuits are not raising the subject matter eligibility under Section 101?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For e.g. at the recent news:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.law360.com/articles/643635/abbott-wins-another-round-in-20-year-protein-patent-fight&#xD;&#xA;why can't the losing party raise the issue of patent eligibility?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36222" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14549" RevisionGUID="c52d0a08-43e6-4ca3-b94e-3d60651a42d3" CreationDate="2016-03-13T05:57:11.277" UserId="14308" Text="Why not raise eligibility under 101 after Myriad on granted patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36223" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14549" RevisionGUID="c52d0a08-43e6-4ca3-b94e-3d60651a42d3" CreationDate="2016-03-13T05:57:11.277" UserId="14308" Text="&lt;101&gt;&lt;eligibility&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36231" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14546" RevisionGUID="6bab09ae-386f-4ef1-9e8e-52dee1b98774" CreationDate="2016-03-13T20:48:00.507" UserId="15657" Comment="add new tag" Text="&lt;improvement&gt;&lt;european&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14552" RevisionGUID="97aadc2b-a8ab-465b-a701-3b68cdd10fff" CreationDate="2016-03-13T21:16:33.287" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="I have spent the last 2 months working on an idea for a patent . &#xD;&#xA;I made designs and descriptions and I put it in an inventors notebook and had my 2 friends sign the book . I planned to submit the provisional this week. But as luck would have it I had to travel down to see my mom and the last minute I decided to upload many key photos of the parent with many descriptions in a &quot;free&quot; scanning app called doc scanner so that in case I wanted to fax or email them to a lawyer, I could do so. After thinking about what I did overnight, I discovered on the internet that this program is not safe and that is shares and sells personal information worldwide. What type of information, I am not sure. I am hoping that I did not expose the core content of my patent to others but I'm not sure who really sees it if anyone and the company makes itself difficult to contact.  So these are my main questions: &#xD;&#xA;1. Should I submit a barebones patent pending with my own non- professional descriptions and drawings right away (like in one day) &#xD;&#xA;And then later submit an amended version to secure my rights or should I wait a week or so for a more professional Patent Pending?&#xD;&#xA;2. Does my signed dated inventors book hold any sway in a court of law over someone who &#xD;&#xA;Stole my ideas over the Internet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. What would be the most rapid but also practical/ sane way to secure my rights in the US and internationally? Do foreign countries adhere to the 1 year provisional patent rules? Which ones do? Which ones don't? &#xD;&#xA;Have I given up&#xD;&#xA;Any rights by possibly putting the information in on such a risky app?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you !&#xD;&#xA;Kevin W." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36233" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14552" RevisionGUID="97aadc2b-a8ab-465b-a701-3b68cdd10fff" CreationDate="2016-03-13T21:16:33.287" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="Mitigating possible patent exposure" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36234" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14552" RevisionGUID="97aadc2b-a8ab-465b-a701-3b68cdd10fff" CreationDate="2016-03-13T21:16:33.287" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14552" RevisionGUID="b59266b7-9d69-4467-b24b-97c506a84473" CreationDate="2016-03-13T21:52:26.623" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I have spent the last 2 months working on an idea for a patent . &#xD;&#xA;I made designs and descriptions and I put it in an inventors notebook and had my 2 friends sign the book . I planned to submit the provisional this week. But as luck would have it I had to travel down to see my mom and the last minute I decided to upload many key photos of the parent with many descriptions in a &quot;free&quot; scanning app called doc scanner so that in case I wanted to fax or email them to a lawyer, I could do so. After thinking about what I did overnight, I discovered on the internet that this program is not safe and that is shares and sells personal information worldwide. What type of information, I am not sure. I am hoping that I did not expose the core content of my patent to others but I'm not sure who really sees it if anyone and the company makes itself difficult to contact.  So these are my main questions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Should I submit a barebones patent pending with my own non- professional descriptions and drawings right away (like in one day) &#xD;&#xA;And then later submit an amended version to secure my rights or should I wait a week or so for a more professional Patent Pending?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Does my signed dated inventors book hold any sway in a court of law over someone who &#xD;&#xA;Stole my ideas over the Internet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. What would be the most rapid but also practical/ sane way to secure my rights in the US and internationally? Do foreign countries adhere to the 1 year provisional patent rules? Which ones do? Which ones don't?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have I given up any rights by possibly putting the information in on such a risky app?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36236" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14552" RevisionGUID="b59266b7-9d69-4467-b24b-97c506a84473" CreationDate="2016-03-13T21:52:26.623" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;public-disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14553" RevisionGUID="dab371b4-4637-41d5-9f24-9a0ca1e2a924" CreationDate="2016-03-14T01:26:36.040" UserId="15657" Text="If you believe you've inadvertently released patent-able invention and are worried that someone could file a patent for it, you should immediately get a patent attorney and file a [non-provisional patent application][1] for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A non-provisional patent application is a document that establish a priority date at the patent office. It is not a formal document, and all you have to do is disclosing your invention in sufficient details. After a non-provisional patent application is filed, you have twelve (12) months to file a formal application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a one-year [grace period][2] from the date of first publication. Note the rule primarily applies to publication made by **you** or someone who got the information from you. If your invention is stolen and published by someone you don't know, you might be in trouble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your inventor book is like &quot;poor man's mail&quot;. It won't help you. U.S. is now first-to-file country, just like everywhere else. If you fail to file the application before someone else does, you loose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/nonprovisional-utility-patent&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2153.html#ch2100_d20033_24caf_cd" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14554" RevisionGUID="65dbb11c-d871-42ce-92f2-69b6f0bf0910" CreationDate="2016-03-14T05:03:24.913" UserId="16249" Text="I take patented inverted umbrella as a example. &#xD;&#xA;Replica product cost usd 4&#xD;&#xA;If I resell this in my country, is it legal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second question, is it legal to sell it in a country which is Not patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36240" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14554" RevisionGUID="65dbb11c-d871-42ce-92f2-69b6f0bf0910" CreationDate="2016-03-14T05:03:24.913" UserId="16249" Text="Is it legal to sell patented product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36241" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14554" RevisionGUID="65dbb11c-d871-42ce-92f2-69b6f0bf0910" CreationDate="2016-03-14T05:03:24.913" UserId="16249" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14554" RevisionGUID="22d4f4d5-5781-45ee-9c91-99b3461002cd" CreationDate="2016-03-14T05:16:41.593" UserId="10011" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I'd like to begin reselling a patented product, in a country other than the one it's patented in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could I get in trouble for selling it? Does the answer change if we talk about a replica of the product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36243" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14554" RevisionGUID="22d4f4d5-5781-45ee-9c91-99b3461002cd" CreationDate="2016-03-14T05:16:41.593" UserId="10011" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Is it legal to sell patented product in another country?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36244" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14554" RevisionGUID="22d4f4d5-5781-45ee-9c91-99b3461002cd" CreationDate="2016-03-14T05:16:41.593" UserId="10011" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;resale&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36245" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14554" RevisionGUID="41f93968-cde6-4195-b9d2-16b1acce7673" CreationDate="2016-03-14T06:03:01.450" UserId="15657" Comment="add freedom-to-operate tag" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;freedom-to-operate&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14558" RevisionGUID="6dfcd00a-ea36-445c-bb1c-0385c290c796" CreationDate="2016-03-14T22:55:19.407" UserId="16118" Text="The answer is:&#xA;Continuing applications die 20 years after their parents application date:&#xA;So it is 7th November 2026.&#xA;&#xA;See here for more details:&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/10754/16118" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14559" RevisionGUID="de31df35-43c5-401d-92a0-ea40ce327951" CreationDate="2016-03-15T01:08:32.513" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14560" RevisionGUID="8712f8a8-4758-4831-badb-96e3bf8f1ab4" CreationDate="2016-03-15T01:08:32.513" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14560" RevisionGUID="2ce75a66-7b2b-41d4-b561-801c09a95b55" CreationDate="2016-03-15T01:50:24.983" UserId="15657" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="Questions specifically relating to the EPO rules, patent practices in Europe, and patents filed in Europe" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36262" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14560" RevisionGUID="2ce75a66-7b2b-41d4-b561-801c09a95b55" CreationDate="2016-03-15T01:50:24.983" Comment="Proposed by 15657 approved by 10011 edit id of 1928" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14561" RevisionGUID="0d5a76ed-c733-4460-8aa8-cda37d1157b2" CreationDate="2016-03-15T03:14:48.783" UserId="16256" Text="I worked as a consultant a Chinese company and we had a confidentiality agreement and written agreement (hand note signed) about ownership and patents applications and royalty payment. After I disclosed multiple designs, each time response was that my design is no good. A year and half later I found out that they had applied for US and Chinese Patents without my name as inventor and got issued, even though I immediately informed the company to correct the error. At first they said they will pay me $5000 as I am considered a good friend. They told me they manufactured and sold in small quantity to some one they don't tell me and that the design was no use to them. I said then assign to me and also make correction to error. Now they started saying I have nothing to do with the design and the patent. To protect my priority date and first to invent I did file provisional application each time I sent the design. I asked them if should go ahead with patenting.  But I did not file for non-provisional. What are my Option?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36264" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14561" RevisionGUID="0d5a76ed-c733-4460-8aa8-cda37d1157b2" CreationDate="2016-03-15T03:14:48.783" UserId="16256" Text="Stolen inventorship and compensation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36265" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14561" RevisionGUID="0d5a76ed-c733-4460-8aa8-cda37d1157b2" CreationDate="2016-03-15T03:14:48.783" UserId="16256" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;stolen&gt;&lt;missing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14562" RevisionGUID="e8aa26b7-1a39-410d-9640-9436f02a7698" CreationDate="2016-03-15T06:52:21.707" UserId="16257" Text="Yes, you can sell patented inventions in other countries. You just can't manufacture, import, distribute, or sell patented products in countries where the invention is patented. If the patent owner catches you doing any of those 4 deeds, the patent owner can get an injunction to stop you and sue you for lost profits. In some countries, the owner can sue you for triple your profits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if somebody patents a new type of solar panel in Canada, and extends that patent into Europe and the U.S., but not any other country, the inventor can't do a thing to you if you sell a similar solar panel in China, Australia, India, Japan, or elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put it simply, US patent laws don't extend outside US borders. Same with Canadian patent laws; they don't apply outside Canada. And so forth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I suggest you exercise caution if you plan to sell a patented product even in other countries**. Or even sell a knock off product made in other countries. Why? The inventor will have several years after applying for the patent to extend their patent rights into other countries. You don't if the inventor has applied to extend the patent rights elsewhere, and the application is still pending." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14563" RevisionGUID="06762e88-624d-415e-a8c9-5faf21cafd4f" CreationDate="2016-03-15T09:24:21.893" UserId="15503" Text="I can see a few issues which I will briefly discuss, though this is more of a long comment rather than an answer. This is very much a case where a patent attorney or lawyer should get involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Who owns the invention?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have an explicit agreement about ownership with the company, which should make this clear. Without seeing the agreement, I can only speculate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that's what I'll do. I would expect that you have already agreed that the company owns the rights to the inventions. In that case, it is really up to them whether and how they wish to patent it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can you be added as an inventor?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. You cannot assign away your right to be named as an inventor. However, just being named as the inventor doesn't really give you any rights, it just lets you see your name on the document. See [this question](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/14037/i-was-not-named-on-this-patent-and-i-was-the-primary-inventor-can-i-be-added/) and the answers for details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is to become of your patent applications?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you have agreed that the company owns the invention, you probably did not have the right to file your own patent applications for it. In any case, if you failed to file a non-provisional after a year, you have probably lost your rights anyway, so it's a moot point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14500" RevisionGUID="030acf9d-d4a3-4104-b188-2fb899095aa3" CreationDate="2016-03-15T11:32:12.127" UserId="17239" Comment="added 161 characters in body" Text="Let me starts with an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US 7598276 B2 was filed on Nov 7, 2006 having 1 day of PTA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US 8557852 B2 was filed on Aug 28, 2009 which is division of '276 with 546 days of PTA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no terminal disclaimer filed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;what should be the expiry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nov 7, 2026 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nov 7, 2026 + 546 days of PTA?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is certainly different from : http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/10754/parent-patent-expired-due-to-non-payment-are-issued-continuations-still-valid" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14565" RevisionGUID="b0be49b8-7d49-489a-8c76-56a8261c119b" CreationDate="2016-03-16T20:40:40.737" UserId="16267" Text="In general, a person can patent a wide variety of inventions as described in [35 U.S.C. § 101][1]. But one exception to this rule is that a person cannot obtain a patent to a &quot;product of nature.&quot; But the scope of a &quot;product of nature&quot; is limited; even [a human made microorganism is patentable][2]. The [Myriad][3] decision you refer to in your question relates to this narrow &quot;product of nature&quot; exception to patentability, and holds that: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The simple answer to your question about pharmaceutical patent litigation is that most pharma cases deal with human-made small molecules or biologics. They are not naturally occurring. The are not isolated DNA. So the Myriad case simply does not apply.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/101&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_v._Chakrabarty&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_for_Molecular_Pathology_v._Myriad_Genetics,_Inc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14566" RevisionGUID="51db549e-54bd-49da-920f-ac1f8f942e48" CreationDate="2016-03-16T20:57:22.773" UserId="16267" Text="If you believe you have publicly disclosed your invention or that it may become publicly disclosed, you should probably file a provisional patent application. Note this is different than what the other current answer says. A provisional application is not a full application, but will secure your rights for one year while you continue to develop and improve your application. You must file a non-provisional application within one year of filing a provisional application or the provisional application will lapse. The non-provisional application is the &quot;full&quot; application that can mature into a U.S. patent. A provisional would be better in the short term because a provisional can be relatively informal, and will never publish unless a subsequent non-provisional is filed and publishes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This provisional will probably protect you internationally assuming that your documents have not yet been publicly disclosed. Most countries will recognize the priority you establish with a provisional application. But if your invention is already in the public domain, filing a provisional now might not help - you might not be able to obtain a patent in some jurisdictions as a result, including Europe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your concern about derivation, no other person in the U.S. can take your invention and file it without having actually invented it. The U.S. is a first-inventor-to-file system, meaning you have to be an actual inventor to file an application. For example, if you shared your invention with me, I could not go down to the USPTO and file a patent application, at least in theory. In practice, you would have to prove derivation -- but that is an entirely different topic. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14497" RevisionGUID="f4c1b06c-94ab-4bb9-b5da-af7bec05bff7" CreationDate="2016-03-16T21:28:26.400" UserId="10011" Comment="added 78 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Regarding the patent: [WO2014078355a1](https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2014078355A1/en)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where are the figures referred to in the patent? I can't find them on the patent page." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36283" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14497" RevisionGUID="f4c1b06c-94ab-4bb9-b5da-af7bec05bff7" CreationDate="2016-03-16T21:28:26.400" UserId="10011" Comment="added 78 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Where are the figures for this WIPO application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36284" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14497" RevisionGUID="f4c1b06c-94ab-4bb9-b5da-af7bec05bff7" CreationDate="2016-03-16T21:28:26.400" UserId="10011" Comment="added 78 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;google-patents&gt;&lt;wo2014078355a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14553" RevisionGUID="f3834b5d-7886-4429-a10e-e85c1f1c42a6" CreationDate="2016-03-17T00:13:13.517" UserId="15657" Comment="correct answer" Text="If you believe you've inadvertently released patent-able invention and are worried that someone could file a patent for it, you should immediately get a patent attorney and file a &lt;del&gt;non-provisional patent application&lt;/del&gt;&lt;ins&gt;[provisional application][1]&lt;/ins&gt; for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &lt;del&gt;non-&lt;/del&gt;provisional patent application is a document that establish a priority date at the patent office. It is not a formal document, and all you have to do is disclosing your invention in sufficient details. After a non-provisional patent application is filed, you have twelve (12) months to file a formal application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a one-year [grace period][2] from the date of first publication. Note the rule primarily applies to publication made by **you** or someone who got the information from you. If your invention is stolen and published by someone you don't know, you might be in trouble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your inventor book is like &quot;poor man's mail&quot;. It won't help you. U.S. is now first-to-file country, just like everywhere else. If you fail to file the application before someone else does, you loose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/provisional-application-patent&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2153.html#ch2100_d20033_24caf_cd" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14568" RevisionGUID="c6c105cf-2bc0-436a-963f-76d0020a880d" CreationDate="2016-03-17T01:56:06.767" UserId="16267" Text="The document WO1997013970A1 is not a patent. It is a publication of an international patent application. There is no corresponding U.S. Patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More details on this international application are available on the [WIPO Website][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO1997013970&amp;redirectedID=true" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14569" RevisionGUID="a0c0fa0d-f1f1-4e15-a299-743ef5012414" CreationDate="2016-03-17T06:49:26.570" UserId="16270" Text="Obtaining a patent is a first step to compete with commercial competitors. According to the The Patent Act, 1970. The following are not inventions according to section 3(k) of Indian Patent Act, 1970&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;a mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not all the inventions are fall under this category hence some of the software inventions are patentable in India. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;[Manual of patent office practice and procedure][1]&quot; it is mention that which type of softwares are eligible for patent and which type of softwares are eligible for copyright.&#xD;&#xA;Just check it in detail:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://ipindia.nic.in/IPActs_Rules/updated_Version/sections/ps3.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ipindia.gov.in/ipr/patent/manual/HTML%20AND%20PDF/Manual%20of%20Patent%20Office%20Practice%20and%20Procedure%20-%20pdf/Manual%20of%20Patent%20Office%20Practice%20and%20Procedure.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14571" RevisionGUID="50e4074f-6865-444f-9407-36687666140d" CreationDate="2016-03-17T11:14:10.473" UserId="16267" Text="Regarding your questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*1. Under the heading &quot;Amendments to the Specification begin on page 2 of this paper&quot;, should the applicant just mention the amended paragraph numbers or show the complete amended paragraphs? I'm asking this because the applicant will anyway be submitting the substitute specification which includes marked version and clean version.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is okay to be brief. The below excerpt is fine as long as both the marked up and clean versions are submitted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; AMENDMENTS TO THE SPECIFICATION&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please amend the specification as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A substitute specification is submitted herein for consideration by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Office. The substitute specification includes no new matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The remarks section can then comment on the specific changes made to the specification and the drawings and why the pending objections should be withdrawn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*2. Should the response document include the marked version, clean    version of the specification and replacement sheets of drawings? or    should the response document,the marked version, clean version of the    specification and replacement sheets of drawings be made as separate    documents?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The response as a whole should include all of these, but they can be separate documents within the entire response. Only the &quot;transmittal&quot; letter needs to have the application caption. The specification copies should include just the specification itself along with a header/footer showing page numbers, application number, and docket number (if you have one). If you are uploading via EFS web, it is okay to upload several different PDF documents. If you are filing a paper response, simply include all of the documents together as one packet or bundle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14572" RevisionGUID="18bf28b4-c219-4aa1-85b7-7455bf98358d" CreationDate="2016-03-17T13:05:42.767" UserId="15660" Text="I'm an engineer and I work for an IT company that wants to patent an invention of mine, an electronic device with a certain communication protocol. We consulted a patent lawyer who said that the thing invented by me was kind of similar (and the similarity was determined by the lawyer, who is not an expert in the field of the invention) to something described in another patent and thus already invented, yet as things weren't exactly the same we could patent my invention for the merit of pointing its scientific value but could never claim the exploitation rights.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read that &quot;a patent does not grant the patent owner any right to make their own invention. Rather, the patent gives the patent owner the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, or importing the invention. The patent holder's right to make their own invention is dependent upon the rights of others and whatever general laws might be applicable. Another party may own a patent that will prevent the patentee from utilizing her/his own invention.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And my questions are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. How is it possible if there's already another patent with a &quot;similar&quot; invention, that the lawyer says I can still patent my invention for the sake of science but never sell exploitation rights? Wasn't him supposed to say that I cannot patent my invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. How is the similarity degree measured by a lawyer who is not an expert in the area of the invention, such that my invention qualifies for scientific but not for exploitation-right kind of patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36299" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14572" RevisionGUID="18bf28b4-c219-4aa1-85b7-7455bf98358d" CreationDate="2016-03-17T13:05:42.767" UserId="15660" Text="Exploitation rights vs scientific value" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36300" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14572" RevisionGUID="18bf28b4-c219-4aa1-85b7-7455bf98358d" CreationDate="2016-03-17T13:05:42.767" UserId="15660" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14573" RevisionGUID="0fcfbef2-110c-40c4-a8a2-9c97be3e8385" CreationDate="2016-03-17T16:57:58.643" UserId="3500" Text="Congratulations on moving technology forward!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re your first question -- the lawyer may be saying that she or he thinks you've invented an improvement or variation of something that someone else patented.  Imagine a world where someone had a patent on pens, but the patent never contemplated the idea that you could have a pen with the ability to change colors.  If you received a patent on a multi-color pen, then you might be able to prevent others, even the first patentee, from making such pens (the right to exclude) but you might not be able to make such pens yourself (maybe this is the right to exploit you mention) because the first patent gives the first patentee the right to exclude others from doing that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does that help?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14574" RevisionGUID="05a809c5-c7ad-48d3-8f5a-7bb772850f6e" CreationDate="2016-03-17T21:31:44.407" UserId="16273" Text="Good question! I speculate that the answer includes that there was not a lot at stake economically and the patent was granted at at time (1987/88) when it was it was much more costly (in terms of time and money) to participate in the patent process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, the reason I am here is I was doing some research on zinc and recently read about Ask Patents on the &quot;Joel on Software&quot; blog here: http://joelonsoftware.com/items/2013/07/22.html It's a great read!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13760" RevisionGUID="a380c771-f9b4-447f-9ac1-88e8ad158233" CreationDate="2016-03-17T23:31:54.333" UserId="10011" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [US4756116][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4756116&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How was this patent issued?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is certainly not original, and appears to be little-more than a trivial re-hash of Dr Horner's &quot;Galvanic Protector&quot; published in &quot;The Magazine of Domestic Economy&quot;, Volume 6 1841 and &quot;Gardeners Chronicle&quot;, February 20, 1841.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I quote Gardener's Chronicle, February 20, 1841:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a snail or slug be placed on a plate of zinc, to which a narrow plate or strip of copper is fixed, it creeps unmolested on its surface; but as soon as it touches the copper, it receives a galvanic shock (its moist soft body acting as the moistened cloth above mentioned, and thus forming the galvanic circle complete), and immediately recoils, twisting itself back, and rarely venturing a second time to touch the copper, to receive another shock. This (to us) amusing experiment, I have tried again and again, and of course always with the same results. To protect a seedling crop, then, in a border, or in frames, &amp; etc., I have zinc plates of one, two, or three feet in length, and four or five inches in breadth; with a strip of copper plate, one inch broad, placed on the upper part, and secured close with two or three rivets of zinc, as in the figure. These plates are fixed in the ground to the depth of a couple of inches, around the plants to be protected. As just explained, the snail creeps up the zinc, but receives a galvanic shock as soon as its horns or head touch the copper, causing it to recoil and turn back; an insurmountable fence can thus, in a moment, be formed around whatever we wish to save from these marauders; and if made in a circular form, or in short lengths, the plates may be contrived to meet every possible exigency. I have myself used this protector in all cases with complete success, and a scientific gentleman of this place, to whom I acknowledge myself indebted for the suggestion of the principle, last year saved his dahlias (which on other occasions had always been nearly all devoured by snails as soon as planted out), by cylindrical hoops of the zinc and copper plate placed around each plant. If the lip of the tongue be placed midway on the zinc and copper at the same time, an unpleasant metallic or saltish taste is perceived: this is the sensation which proves so unpalatable and detrimental to the slug, and in which the protective power consists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hull. F. R. Horner, M.D.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. The cost of the plates complete is about sixpence per foot: they will of course last for an indefinite period." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14574" RevisionGUID="4cbbea9d-a792-49da-b70f-c99e22829f6e" CreationDate="2016-03-17T23:32:30.570" UserId="10011" Comment="remove extra information--definitely a good read, but we like to keep answers brief :)" Text="I speculate that the answer includes that there was not a lot at stake economically and the patent was granted at at time (1987/88) when it was it was much more costly (in terms of time and money) to participate in the patent process." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14575" RevisionGUID="d3eaed0a-d875-446d-b6e2-80d201f843cf" CreationDate="2016-03-18T00:41:06.373" UserId="3500" Text="Try:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://patents.google.com/patent/US20140136171A1/en for the corresponding US application, and&#xD;&#xA; - http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=WO&amp;NR=2014078355A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=20140522&amp;DB=&amp;&amp;locale=en_EP, from which you can download all 55 pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36307" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10598" RevisionGUID="ce2d7fe8-8589-4856-bd44-6be247fb7809" CreationDate="2016-03-18T01:15:50.887" UserId="15657" Comment="add new tag" Text="&lt;google-patents&gt;&lt;patent-figures&gt;&lt;help&gt;&lt;wo2004085005&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14578" RevisionGUID="9b891da9-15f8-4731-acaf-7832e62b3cd9" CreationDate="2016-03-18T18:50:18.740" UserId="3418" Text="In order to be patented, an invention need to be useful. Can aesthetic features be considered useful (helps selling the product)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, you have a door with a whole new mechanism that when you close it, there is no visible separation between wall and door, it looks good, but no other use. Can that new door be patented? It is new, non obvious, it is very useful in the sense that it helps selling the door.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But on the other hand, if aesthetic features can be patented then I can see artistic patents on shape, color...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is more about engineered works to achieve aesthetic features." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36315" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14578" RevisionGUID="9b891da9-15f8-4731-acaf-7832e62b3cd9" CreationDate="2016-03-18T18:50:18.740" UserId="3418" Text="Can aesthetic features be patented as utility invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36316" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14578" RevisionGUID="9b891da9-15f8-4731-acaf-7832e62b3cd9" CreationDate="2016-03-18T18:50:18.740" UserId="3418" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;utility&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14579" RevisionGUID="841c0ba4-288c-4165-92b0-c66707002718" CreationDate="2016-03-18T19:36:33.100" UserId="15657" Text="You can't patent an idea, but you can patent implementation of an idea. &quot;Aesthetics&quot; is as much as an idea as a &quot;[smart phone][1]&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;If your implementation contains an element that is novel and not obvious to a person skilled in the art, then it can be patented. For example, in the case of a door knob, if your design reduces the number of component so to make it more compact, then it's patentable. Note that here the purpose is to make the knob more compact, not pretty. However, if the construction is same as a typical knob, with the only difference being the shape, then the examiner might reject such novelty as strictly ornamental.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-11-25/apple-wins-patent-trial-brought-by-purported-smartphone-inventor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14582" RevisionGUID="49a14bc8-5885-4233-bba2-24c02ad6587c" CreationDate="2016-03-19T05:35:55.003" UserId="16282" Text="I have  friend that I will ask for his mathematical analysis of my work, it's somewhat complete but needs further analysis using mathematics, if my friend does that, would he/she be considered a co-inventor? Even though they contributed nothing to the idea? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36335" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14582" RevisionGUID="49a14bc8-5885-4233-bba2-24c02ad6587c" CreationDate="2016-03-19T05:35:55.003" UserId="16282" Text="Providing mathematical proof for a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36336" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14582" RevisionGUID="49a14bc8-5885-4233-bba2-24c02ad6587c" CreationDate="2016-03-19T05:35:55.003" UserId="16282" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14583" RevisionGUID="2b665693-0041-43a2-844d-0a6e15088f73" CreationDate="2016-03-19T06:17:02.310" UserId="15657" Text="To be valid, a patent application must be &quot;enabling&quot;. If your friend's work is critical to the implementation of the invention, then s/he should be named a co-inventor. If his work is for optimizing the solution, and such optimization is not part of the claim, then you could possibly leave him/her out. You should consult your patent attorney if you have doubt." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36343" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14497" RevisionGUID="733fc463-843d-4a49-be01-c4bd37348486" CreationDate="2016-03-19T20:32:23.380" UserId="10011" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[10598],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:15657,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;daniel&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14584" RevisionGUID="975ef073-9ec2-4891-856b-56c7b37cd0d7" CreationDate="2016-03-20T14:09:03.157" UserId="16286" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2014145999A2][1]&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [WO2014145999A3][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014145999A2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014145999A3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inventions in this patent are entirely described by the Diploma Thesis of Kai Niklas submitted on 11th June 2010&#xD;&#xA;http://www.l3s.de/~tahmasebi/Diplomarbeit_Niklas.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The priority date on this patent is Mar 15, 2013, years after the publication of Kai Niklas' thesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This thesis described in detail the OCR Key algorithm as described in this patent, including the same steps of the claim executed in the same order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thesis even described the algorithm using the same name, the &quot;OCR Key&quot; algorithm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no reference the the thesis of Kai Niklas in this patent application, whereas it clearly should have been cited as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no novel content in this patent and the application should be rejected." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36347" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14584" RevisionGUID="975ef073-9ec2-4891-856b-56c7b37cd0d7" CreationDate="2016-03-20T14:09:03.157" UserId="16286" Text="There is very clear prior art for patent applications WO2014145999A3 and WO2014145999A2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36348" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14584" RevisionGUID="975ef073-9ec2-4891-856b-56c7b37cd0d7" CreationDate="2016-03-20T14:09:03.157" UserId="16286" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14585" RevisionGUID="506a823b-3505-45b7-a5ea-f7ec488273b8" CreationDate="2016-03-21T04:32:48.097" UserId="16257" Text="No, the idea is not patentable anymore. Once any person anywhere publishes knowledge on how to create the invention (whether publishes it in a patent, online, in a novel, etc...), the idea can no longer be patented. Clerks at patent offices have to review many sources (generally patent offices in other countries, existing patent applications, engineering journals, etc...) before they say there is no prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the inventor (or applicant in case the applicant is not the same as the inventor) fails to pay a maintenance fee, the U.S. Patent Office will allow the person several months before the patent application (or granted patent) is declared abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of time after failure to pay and the declaration of abandonment varies from country to country. It can be as little as a few months or as long as two years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14586" RevisionGUID="c8dc3684-0e0d-46ac-a9f4-bbe7c0af5b33" CreationDate="2016-03-21T04:34:56.287" UserId="16257" Text="You can look up all the documents for the patent and patent application (including drawings) by going to the US PTO website and looking for the Public PAIR webpage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then enter the patent application number or patent number." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14585" RevisionGUID="207c4f35-2a28-4596-8476-7064b54555fe" CreationDate="2016-03-21T04:49:24.800" UserId="16257" Comment="added 152 characters in body" Text="No, the idea is not patentable anymore. Once any person anywhere publishes knowledge on how to create the invention (whether publishes it in a patent, online, in a novel, etc...), the idea can no longer be patented. Clerks at patent offices have to review many sources (generally patent offices in other countries, existing patent applications, engineering journals, etc...) before they say there is no prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the inventor (or applicant in case the applicant is not the same as the inventor) fails to pay a maintenance fee, the U.S. Patent Office will allow the person six months before the patent application (or granted patent) is declared abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of time after failure to pay and the declaration of abandonment varies from country to country. It can be as little as a few months or as long as two years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to MPEP, the US allows 6 months grace period after the deadline for a maintenance fee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2501.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14587" RevisionGUID="bd016f6f-e80a-40d4-84d8-1dfdd26728f6" CreationDate="2016-03-21T05:06:30.533" UserId="16257" Text="I switched patent attorneys when my first attorney failed to pay a maintenance fee even though I paid him the money for the fee. (Not only that, but sent in the wrong forms, and paid the amounts for different fees.) I used the US Patent Office's Public PAIR website to discover his errors. He did not even tell me about his errors!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I looked up other patent applications made by this attorney, I discovered he had a habit of making mistakes and then charging his clients for the cost of fixing his own mistakes. That's not only unprofessional, but is considered unethical in many countries and US states. (Why should I pay to fix somebody else's mistake? And when an attorney charges his clients to fix his own mistakes, he has a conflict of interest.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some things you should consider when you switch attorneys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Will your old attorney charge you to send copies of your paperwork&#xD;&#xA;    to your new attorney? (Some do and some don't.)&#xD;&#xA; 2. Do you have any fees you must pay or documents you must send to the patent office while your patent application is transferred from one attorney to another?&#xD;&#xA; 3. Do you need to file an ethics complaint with the US PTO or your&#xD;&#xA;    State Bar against your old attorney? (Filing an ethics complaint may make your old attorney far less cooperative in transferring your case to another attorney.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14588" RevisionGUID="7991ffb6-0b19-4a99-9af7-b0969f6a1625" CreationDate="2016-03-21T09:00:18.397" UserId="16288" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7370285][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7370285&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please refer this article &#xD;&#xA;http://www.law360.com/articles/683721?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=articles_search &#xD;&#xA;which states that above patent is declared invalid for being obvious by Patent Appealate Board. Can this information be not incorporated while displaying information about Patent ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36355" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14588" RevisionGUID="7991ffb6-0b19-4a99-9af7-b0969f6a1625" CreationDate="2016-03-21T09:00:18.397" UserId="16288" Text="Information about appeals againt the patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36356" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14588" RevisionGUID="7991ffb6-0b19-4a99-9af7-b0969f6a1625" CreationDate="2016-03-21T09:00:18.397" UserId="16288" Text="&lt;us7370285&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14589" RevisionGUID="9aa3b4b5-d118-43c3-80ae-dab48fd138ae" CreationDate="2016-03-21T11:21:54.143" UserId="16290" Text="I have contacted a manufacturer in China who produced this item.&#xA;&#xA;I have searched on **Google patents** and there aren't any patent on it. On Amazon nobody is selling this item.&#xA;&#xA;Can I patent this item so that I will be the only one who can sell this on Amazon? &#xA;I want to protect me from others who will find this product and they will start selling on Amazon too. &#xA;If I patent this item I could send a &quot;Cease and Desist&quot; letter to new potential sellers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36358" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14589" RevisionGUID="9aa3b4b5-d118-43c3-80ae-dab48fd138ae" CreationDate="2016-03-21T11:21:54.143" UserId="16290" Text="Patenting an existing product in China" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36359" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14589" RevisionGUID="9aa3b4b5-d118-43c3-80ae-dab48fd138ae" CreationDate="2016-03-21T11:21:54.143" UserId="16290" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;google-patents&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14590" RevisionGUID="9a39745f-7df3-4b6c-9380-5d8de75781e2" CreationDate="2016-03-21T13:04:11.320" UserId="15657" Text="Since the product is probably being offered for sale to the public, you probably can't patent it.&#xA;&#xA;You can patent the product if&#xA;&#xA;### 1. you are the inventor ###&#xA;&#xA;According to [35 U.S. Code § 101][1] 's preamble:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,&#xA;&gt; manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful&#xA;&gt; improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the&#xA;&gt; conditions and requirements of this title.&#xA;&#xA;### 2. It hasn't been disclosed before  ###&#xA;&#xA;[35 U.S. Code § 101][2]&#xA;&#xA;&gt; (a) A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; (1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed&#xA;&gt; publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the&#xA;&gt; public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; (2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under&#xA;&gt; section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed&#xA;&gt; published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as&#xA;&gt; the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed&#xA;&gt; before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.&#xA;&#xA;### 3. it is not obvious ###&#xA;&#xA;[35 U.S. Code § 103][3]&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding&#xA;&gt; that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth&#xA;&gt; in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and&#xA;&gt; the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would&#xA;&gt; have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed&#xA;&gt; invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the&#xA;&gt; claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the&#xA;&gt; manner in which the invention was made.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/101&#xA;  [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102&#xA;  [3]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/103" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14591" RevisionGUID="b882902f-096c-4574-90c9-c37ff39b844d" CreationDate="2016-03-22T01:20:59.090" UserId="16295" Text="I have been looking for open source javascript spreadsheet software that implements Excel functionality closely (down to spreadsheet functions, keyboard shortcuts) but what I find is that every other spreadsheet software has its own 'quirks' of doing the things Excel does ( different shortcut keys, different functions etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a reason why nobody tries to replicate the Excel functionality exactly (i.e. is Excel patented?), and would it be legal for me to just fork a spreadsheet software and implement Excel's features like for like?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36362" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14591" RevisionGUID="b882902f-096c-4574-90c9-c37ff39b844d" CreationDate="2016-03-22T01:20:59.090" UserId="16295" Text="Is Microsoft Excel functionality patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36363" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14591" RevisionGUID="b882902f-096c-4574-90c9-c37ff39b844d" CreationDate="2016-03-22T01:20:59.090" UserId="16295" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;excel&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14593" RevisionGUID="167aefee-bad7-4c2f-ad89-5c148d2c08f9" CreationDate="2016-03-22T02:38:42.617" UserId="15657" Text="**Does Microsoft have any patent related to spreadsheet?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes ([Google Patent search](https://www.google.com/search?q=spreadsheet%20inassignee:microsoft&amp;hl=en&amp;bih=841&amp;tbs=ptso:us,sbd:1,ptss:g&amp;tbm=pts&amp;source=lnt&amp;sa=X &quot;'spreadsheet inassignee:microsoft'&quot;))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But so do [Google][1], [Apple][2], Borland, SAP, IBM, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why don't others follow Microsoft's Excel?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is off-topic because 1) it's not related to patent, and 2) the answers would probably be all opinion-based. Some off-topic answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Excel is not open-source and it's difficult to reverse-engineer how Excel functionality works.&#xD;&#xA;* Patent and **copyright** issues&#xD;&#xA;* Software developer need to ensure consistency across **their** own programs&#xD;&#xA;* It makes no sense to play catch-up. Better focus on what Excel doesn't do and create a better program, like Google Spreadsheet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is it legal for you to copy Microsoft's Excel?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't violate others' trademark, patents, and copyrights, why not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=intitle:spreadsheet%20inassignee:google&amp;hl=en&amp;biw=1920&amp;bih=979&amp;tbs=ptss:g,ptso:us&amp;tbm=pts&amp;source=lnt&amp;sa=X&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=intitle:spreadsheet%20inassignee:apple&amp;hl=en&amp;biw=1920&amp;bih=979&amp;tbs=ptss:g,ptso:us&amp;tbm=pts&amp;source=lnt&amp;sa=X" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14594" RevisionGUID="723d1ec1-6850-4e9b-9ddc-fa633b488b68" CreationDate="2016-03-22T05:24:20.020" UserId="16298" Text="Please see the patent filed on the URL: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2015/0310570.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims of the patent are:&#xD;&#xA;1. A system comprising: a processing device; a memory operatively coupled to the processing device, the memory to store a pricing rules engine, executable by the processing device from the memory, the pricing rules engine to: determine an offer price for a booking at a travel property, wherein the offer price is based on a capacity of the travel property and a forecasted demand for bookings at the travel property; compare the offer price to a rule threshold; and when the offer price exceeds the rule threshold, adjust a sub-rate price discount for a sub-rate at the travel property according to a representative rate charged by competitor travel properties in an identified competitor set, the sub-rate price discount comprising a difference between a sub-rate price and the offer price, wherein to adjust the sub-rate price discount for the travel property, the pricing rules engine is configured to reduce the sub-rate price discount in order to make the sub-rate price equal to the representative price, and maintain an availability of rooms at the travel property for the sub-rate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. A method comprising: determining an offer price for a booking at a travel property, wherein the offer price is based on a capacity of the travel property and a forecasted demand for bookings at the travel property; comparing, by a processing device, the offer price to a rule threshold; and when the offer price exceeds the rule threshold, adjusting a sub-rate price discount for a sub-rate at the travel property according to a representative rate charged by competitor travel properties in an identified competitor set, the sub-rate price discount comprising a difference between a sub-rate price and the offer price, wherein adjusting the sub-rate price discount for the travel property comprises reducing the sub-rate price discount in order to make the sub-rate price equal to the representative price, and maintaining an availability of rooms at the travel property for the sub-rate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed, cause a processing device to perform operations comprising: determining an offer price for a booking at a travel property, wherein the offer price is based on a capacity of the travel property and a forecasted demand for bookings at the travel property; comparing, by the processing device, the offer price to a rule threshold; and when the offer price exceeds the rule threshold, adjusting a sub-rate price discount for a sub-rate at the travel property according to a representative rate charged by competitor travel properties in an identified competitor set, the sub-rate price discount comprising a difference between a sub-rate price and the offer price, wherein adjusting the sub-rate price discount for the travel property comprises reducing the sub-rate price discount in order to make the sub-rate price equal to the representative price, and maintaining an availability of rooms at the travel property for the sub-rate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims seem to suggest the inventor is looking to patent a rule engine which basically offers discounts on offered price and computer system which stores said rules engine. This actually seems straightforward, its a bit hard to accept/believe that someone hasn't done a patent on pricing rules engine 10-20 years ago. Am I missing something here?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36369" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14594" RevisionGUID="723d1ec1-6850-4e9b-9ddc-fa633b488b68" CreationDate="2016-03-22T05:24:20.020" UserId="16298" Text="US20150310570 seems like a superfluous invention, can someone see prior Art and if suitable innovation exists" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36370" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14594" RevisionGUID="723d1ec1-6850-4e9b-9ddc-fa633b488b68" CreationDate="2016-03-22T05:24:20.020" UserId="16298" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;engineering&gt;&lt;rules&gt;&lt;pricing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14594" RevisionGUID="8373bf15-8c39-450d-9f12-ae3b4f7ce4af" CreationDate="2016-03-22T05:34:15.567" UserId="16298" Comment="added 131 characters in body" Text="Please see the patent filed on the URL: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2015/0310570.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims of the patent are:&#xD;&#xA;1. A system comprising: a processing device; a memory operatively coupled to the processing device, the memory to store a pricing rules engine, executable by the processing device from the memory, the pricing rules engine to: determine an offer price for a booking at a travel property, wherein the offer price is based on a capacity of the travel property and a forecasted demand for bookings at the travel property; compare the offer price to a rule threshold; and when the offer price exceeds the rule threshold, adjust a sub-rate price discount for a sub-rate at the travel property according to a representative rate charged by competitor travel properties in an identified competitor set, the sub-rate price discount comprising a difference between a sub-rate price and the offer price, wherein to adjust the sub-rate price discount for the travel property, the pricing rules engine is configured to reduce the sub-rate price discount in order to make the sub-rate price equal to the representative price, and maintain an availability of rooms at the travel property for the sub-rate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. A method comprising: determining an offer price for a booking at a travel property, wherein the offer price is based on a capacity of the travel property and a forecasted demand for bookings at the travel property; comparing, by a processing device, the offer price to a rule threshold; and when the offer price exceeds the rule threshold, adjusting a sub-rate price discount for a sub-rate at the travel property according to a representative rate charged by competitor travel properties in an identified competitor set, the sub-rate price discount comprising a difference between a sub-rate price and the offer price, wherein adjusting the sub-rate price discount for the travel property comprises reducing the sub-rate price discount in order to make the sub-rate price equal to the representative price, and maintaining an availability of rooms at the travel property for the sub-rate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed, cause a processing device to perform operations comprising: determining an offer price for a booking at a travel property, wherein the offer price is based on a capacity of the travel property and a forecasted demand for bookings at the travel property; comparing, by the processing device, the offer price to a rule threshold; and when the offer price exceeds the rule threshold, adjusting a sub-rate price discount for a sub-rate at the travel property according to a representative rate charged by competitor travel properties in an identified competitor set, the sub-rate price discount comprising a difference between a sub-rate price and the offer price, wherein adjusting the sub-rate price discount for the travel property comprises reducing the sub-rate price discount in order to make the sub-rate price equal to the representative price, and maintaining an availability of rooms at the travel property for the sub-rate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims seem to suggest the inventor is looking to patent a rule engine which basically offers discounts on competitor price and computer system which stores said rules engine. But travel properties already keep their own rates off from competitors rates by various degrees as per their comfort level. It also a common practice within Hotel Management industry to charge higher rates for higher demand and vice versa for lower demand, as in other industries. Existing property management systems already have rules devised in them having claim 3 being practised for last 20 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This actually seems straightforward, mm I missing something here?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14594" RevisionGUID="94ed99aa-4b03-42b5-85ff-98917c38c122" CreationDate="2016-03-22T05:40:25.503" UserId="16298" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="Please see the patent filed on the URL: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2015/0310570.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims of the patent are:&#xD;&#xA;1. A system comprising: a processing device; a memory operatively coupled to the processing device, the memory to store a pricing rules engine, executable by the processing device from the memory, the pricing rules engine to: determine an offer price for a booking at a travel property, wherein the offer price is based on a capacity of the travel property and a forecasted demand for bookings at the travel property; compare the offer price to a rule threshold; and when the offer price exceeds the rule threshold, adjust a sub-rate price discount for a sub-rate at the travel property according to a representative rate charged by competitor travel properties in an identified competitor set, the sub-rate price discount comprising a difference between a sub-rate price and the offer price, wherein to adjust the sub-rate price discount for the travel property, the pricing rules engine is configured to reduce the sub-rate price discount in order to make the sub-rate price equal to the representative price, and maintain an availability of rooms at the travel property for the sub-rate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. A method comprising: determining an offer price for a booking at a travel property, wherein the offer price is based on a capacity of the travel property and a forecasted demand for bookings at the travel property; comparing, by a processing device, the offer price to a rule threshold; and when the offer price exceeds the rule threshold, adjusting a sub-rate price discount for a sub-rate at the travel property according to a representative rate charged by competitor travel properties in an identified competitor set, the sub-rate price discount comprising a difference between a sub-rate price and the offer price, wherein adjusting the sub-rate price discount for the travel property comprises reducing the sub-rate price discount in order to make the sub-rate price equal to the representative price, and maintaining an availability of rooms at the travel property for the sub-rate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed, cause a processing device to perform operations comprising: determining an offer price for a booking at a travel property, wherein the offer price is based on a capacity of the travel property and a forecasted demand for bookings at the travel property; comparing, by the processing device, the offer price to a rule threshold; and when the offer price exceeds the rule threshold, adjusting a sub-rate price discount for a sub-rate at the travel property according to a representative rate charged by competitor travel properties in an identified competitor set, the sub-rate price discount comprising a difference between a sub-rate price and the offer price, wherein adjusting the sub-rate price discount for the travel property comprises reducing the sub-rate price discount in order to make the sub-rate price equal to the representative price, and maintaining an availability of rooms at the travel property for the sub-rate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims seem to suggest the inventor is looking to patent a rule engine which basically offers discounts on competitor price and computer system which stores said rules engine. But travel properties already keep their own rates off from competitors rates by various degrees as per their comfort level. It also a common practice within Hotel Management industry to charge higher rates for higher demand and vice versa for lower demand, as in other industries such as Airlines, Car Rentals. Existing property management systems already have rules devised in them having claim 3 being practised for last 20 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This actually seems straightforward, am I missing something here?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14595" RevisionGUID="a0052711-211d-4eea-8314-d72131452410" CreationDate="2016-03-22T06:01:48.823" UserId="16299" Text="I am searching for a database detailing post grant legat events such as licensing of rights or transfer of ownership.&#xD;&#xA;I am willing to subscribe to a payment-based dtatbase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks,&#xD;&#xA;M" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36374" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14595" RevisionGUID="a0052711-211d-4eea-8314-d72131452410" CreationDate="2016-03-22T06:01:48.823" UserId="16299" Text="Where can I find information on change in ownership of patent or licensing deals" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36375" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14595" RevisionGUID="a0052711-211d-4eea-8314-d72131452410" CreationDate="2016-03-22T06:01:48.823" UserId="16299" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14599" RevisionGUID="b43cb055-bb60-4cb4-8355-17663876c3e0" CreationDate="2016-03-22T12:27:27.640" UserId="1431" Text="There is no central database that lists licensing rights. Since those are private contracts between parties, there is no obligation to make the knowledge public, and many times it is deliberately confidential. You can search SEC (or foreign equivalent) filings, Press Releases, and markings on a product in a catalog, but it will only be made public if there's a reason to do it. &#xD;&#xA;Ownership has a little more clarity because the parties usually, but  not always file new assignments. You can find those under &quot;Legal Events&quot; at Espacenet, or at the very end of a Google Patents page. There are more obscure ways at the USPTO to find the assignment reel, but I forget exactly where to go for that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &#xD;&#xA;LEGAL EVENTS&#xD;&#xA;Date	Code	Event	Description&#xD;&#xA;Aug 16, 2012	AS	Assignment	&#xD;&#xA;Effective date: 20120813&#xD;&#xA;Owner name: HON HAI PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD., TAIWAN&#xD;&#xA;Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:WU, JERRY;REEL/FRAME:028794/0551&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36386" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14591" RevisionGUID="2b21867c-1586-4d9a-b248-3cc4be87c511" CreationDate="2016-03-22T13:42:33.230" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[2047],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:15657,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;daniel&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="36387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14600" RevisionGUID="d239c99a-fb9f-4aad-8909-c9df1dcb6623" CreationDate="2016-03-22T14:04:52.380" UserId="16305" Text="I don't have time for a detailed response but ... you can read the details of what is going on with this application at http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair. The application has received a non-final rejection, a final rejection, an RCE, a non-final rejection, and a final rejection on 3/16/2016. 3/16/2016 is an 18 page response from the examiner once again stating that this is an abstract concept and can't be patented. (duh!) Expect one more RCE, followed by appeals.Appeal process will take a year or more. If the patent ever gets allowed, expect more legal action if owner ever attempts to enforce it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;summary: you can TRY to patent anything. doesn't mean you will end up with a valid patent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14601" RevisionGUID="e04d582c-c174-4fa5-959f-1c10a60e839c" CreationDate="2016-03-22T20:13:39.063" UserId="13884" Text="What is the status of United States Patent, patent number 5,730,925 with date of patent Mar. 24, 1998? It has US005730925A written under the bar code.The title is *&quot;Method and Apparatus For Producing a Three-Dimensional Object&quot;* It was filed on Apr. 18, 1996 and has Appl. No. 634,171. According to Espacenet on 2009/09/14 there was a fee payment for the payment year 12.&#xD;&#xA;Further related to it is EPO738584. The designated countries seem to be DE (Germany), FR (France), GB (Great Britain) and IT (Italy). The last fee payment had effective date 29.05.2015 was postgrant annual fees paid to national office GB. The year of fee payment was 20&#xD;&#xA;Is the patent only valid in the designated countries mentioned?&#xD;&#xA;As far as the United States is concerned is it just a publication of a patent application? Does it have any legal effect in the United States?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36395" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14601" RevisionGUID="e04d582c-c174-4fa5-959f-1c10a60e839c" CreationDate="2016-03-22T20:13:39.063" UserId="13884" Text="Status of US patent Patent number 5,730,925 date Mar. 24, 1998" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36396" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14601" RevisionGUID="e04d582c-c174-4fa5-959f-1c10a60e839c" CreationDate="2016-03-22T20:13:39.063" UserId="13884" Text="&lt;status&gt;&lt;us5730925&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14603" RevisionGUID="cc499d97-6808-419a-92a6-b5f1606335c7" CreationDate="2016-03-22T21:17:39.547" UserId="14985" Text="Say I saw the present state of a technology not change much in 20 years as a result of a patent. That is, the patent holders failed to innovate. Is there a way for me to start the innovation process? What sort of agreement would I need with the patent holder? And could I get a new patent if my invention was based on but much better than the patented version? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36401" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14603" RevisionGUID="cc499d97-6808-419a-92a6-b5f1606335c7" CreationDate="2016-03-22T21:17:39.547" UserId="14985" Text="What are my options for innovating if a technology is already patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36402" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14603" RevisionGUID="cc499d97-6808-419a-92a6-b5f1606335c7" CreationDate="2016-03-22T21:17:39.547" UserId="14985" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14604" RevisionGUID="5e0ac41a-4462-4c68-88fd-6479829d4891" CreationDate="2016-03-23T02:05:30.707" UserId="15657" Text="Patents do not stagnate innovation. Innovation rarely (if ever) happens in a vacuum and usually (always?) builds on what's known before. If you can improve on what's is known and the improvement is **novel** and **not obvious**, then you can get a patent. In fact, most granted patents are improvement of prior patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually, innovation starts with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Building (improving) on patents that you own or already expired, and&#xD;&#xA;2. Work around existing patents from competitors&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The later is an important skill because companies want to avoid paying licensing fee. Even if you cannot work around an existing patent, there may be incentive to improve on it. For example, if multiple vendors are licensees of the same patent, the vendors will try to make patentable improvement so to differentiate with others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The definition of &quot;**non-obviousness**&quot; varies from one field to another. In a crowded field, getting a granted patent becomes difficult, and the patent is usually more limited. Whereas in a field that is relatively new or neglected, getting a patent with broad claims may be possible. It may be worthwhile to read some patents in your field to get general understanding of the state of the art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14605" RevisionGUID="686b9054-688d-466b-9fcc-61e88c6ace33" CreationDate="2016-03-23T03:04:09.537" UserId="14985" Text="Also, can a patent holder decide to not let someone use their patented technology altogether? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36406" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14605" RevisionGUID="686b9054-688d-466b-9fcc-61e88c6ace33" CreationDate="2016-03-23T03:04:09.537" UserId="14985" Text="Is there a maximum that someone could charge for licencing a patented technology?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36407" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14605" RevisionGUID="686b9054-688d-466b-9fcc-61e88c6ace33" CreationDate="2016-03-23T03:04:09.537" UserId="14985" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14607" RevisionGUID="e2ebab44-1314-4d88-8eee-628f5cd45bce" CreationDate="2016-03-23T07:52:10.353" UserId="10011" Text="Once you own a patent, you own the right to stop whomever you'd like from practicing what it describes. It's yours as much as your car or computer is, for its term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, no, there's no real maximum that someone could charge. Of course, as is the case with capitalism, there may be limits on what people will *pay*, but that's the biggest consideration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for stopping others altogether, that's many patent holders' goals, and it's definitely allowed as well. Of course, you can only stop others from practicing what you claim in the patent, and only once it's actually granted (as compared to being in the application phase), and depending on how broad your patent is, it may be feasible for others to get around what you claim. But barring all that, you do have the right to stop others from practicing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You haven't explicitly asked this, but I think it's a reasonable extension: a lot of people who are new to patents get a little confused about what right it exactly gives you. It's very important to remember that a patent does not necessarily grant you the right to perform your invention, but rather, it grants you the right to stop others from doing it. This is relevant in a few situations, but primarily when performing your invention may violate laws, or more subtly, when someone else holds a patent on a necessary step to performing your invention. In those cases, cross-licensing deals can be useful in lieu of (or in addition to) money." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14608" RevisionGUID="afbb84e8-d952-4c49-a3aa-ee16f1a884c1" CreationDate="2016-03-23T14:55:54.880" UserId="1431" Text="The prior answer is accurate - if maintenance fees weren't paid before the final deadline, it is expired. The subject matter is now in the public domain. In some cases the owner can revive the rights by petitioning that they &quot;unintentionally&quot; or &quot;unavoidably&quot; didn't pay, but that's unusual. Also, there's not really a way for you to &quot;take over&quot; the rights. Now it's public domain. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14609" RevisionGUID="a500103f-67ab-4ac6-8e52-06f398481b2a" CreationDate="2016-03-23T15:32:40.420" UserId="16305" Text="Just FYI, the patent owner has up to 2 years to petition the USPTO to revive the lapsed patent. However, the longer the time elapsed, the less likely this is to be successful. If you are going to spend (for example) a million bucks to enter this market, you need to keep this possibility in mind. Good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14610" RevisionGUID="32dc1dfc-c5f8-4389-b821-a428e47f70d3" CreationDate="2016-03-23T17:04:09.930" UserId="15822" Text="I am developing a 3D modeling application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I know what is considered as part of the [sketchup patent][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The extrude tool is obviously common to all 3D modeling softwares, that makes me think that what is patent is the ability to draw arbitrary 2D shapes on a 3D face, with automatic intersections computation and automatic triangulation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However 3Ds max also has the &quot;Cut tool&quot; or the &quot;Paint Connect tool&quot; to draw lines and compute intersections on any face.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only difference I see is that Sketchup 3Ds max does not support holes on a face, and it does not provide any tool to draw directly a rectangle or circle on a face.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I make a rectangle tool (a rectangle is just a set of 4 lines)? Can I handle holes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I create a new modeling tool, how can I know it remains out of the Sketchup patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6628279?hl=fr" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36417" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14610" RevisionGUID="32dc1dfc-c5f8-4389-b821-a428e47f70d3" CreationDate="2016-03-23T17:04:09.930" UserId="15822" Text="How do I know if I infringe a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36418" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14610" RevisionGUID="32dc1dfc-c5f8-4389-b821-a428e47f70d3" CreationDate="2016-03-23T17:04:09.930" UserId="15822" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;drawing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14610" RevisionGUID="5c69ae27-ccd5-4eb4-8aa7-fb2875e09d1a" CreationDate="2016-03-24T09:22:50.327" UserId="15822" Comment="added 200 characters in body" Text="I am developing a 3D modeling application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I know what is considered as part of the [sketchup patent][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The extrude tool is obviously common to all 3D modeling softwares, that makes me think that what is patent is the ability to draw arbitrary 2D shapes on a 3D face, with automatic intersections computation and automatic triangulation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However 3Ds max also has the &quot;Cut tool&quot; or the &quot;Paint Connect tool&quot; to draw lines and compute intersections on any face.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only difference I see is that Sketchup 3Ds max does not support holes ([polygon holes](http://i.stack.imgur.com/N78vq.png)) on a face, and it does not provide any tool to draw directly a rectangle or circle on a face.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I make a rectangle tool (a rectangle is just a set of 4 lines)? Can I handle holes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I create a new modeling tool, how can I know it remains out of the Sketchup patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do I risk by implementing those features? A fine? Obligation to remove my product from the US market? Obligation to remove some features?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6628279?hl=fr" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14613" RevisionGUID="fe7c32e0-50f2-4bbf-b6b9-ded2a0e5ecfc" CreationDate="2016-03-24T09:42:02.790" UserId="16317" Text="Our patent (US9286268) was issued on March 15, 2016. Can I put a PDF copy of the patent to my server/homepage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36431" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14613" RevisionGUID="fe7c32e0-50f2-4bbf-b6b9-ded2a0e5ecfc" CreationDate="2016-03-24T09:42:02.790" UserId="16317" Text="Publish a PDF copy of the patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36432" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14613" RevisionGUID="fe7c32e0-50f2-4bbf-b6b9-ded2a0e5ecfc" CreationDate="2016-03-24T09:42:02.790" UserId="16317" Text="&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;websites&gt;&lt;pdf&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14614" RevisionGUID="1b99da13-4708-45db-9076-0b2325273e39" CreationDate="2016-03-24T15:49:48.227" UserId="16319" Text="In reference to the patent: [US3228773][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3228773&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a common practice and if it is patented, it means no one else can use this process?  That's absurd." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36436" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14614" RevisionGUID="1b99da13-4708-45db-9076-0b2325273e39" CreationDate="2016-03-24T15:49:48.227" UserId="16319" Text="Are Patents Given to Comon Practices?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36437" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14614" RevisionGUID="1b99da13-4708-45db-9076-0b2325273e39" CreationDate="2016-03-24T15:49:48.227" UserId="16319" Text="&lt;method&gt;&lt;consumer-food&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36438" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="fc1dbff1-9456-4432-a95f-b3f82a9df8f4" CreationDate="2016-03-24T15:58:13.530" UserId="11751" Comment="Title updated." Text="Understanding Kamatani Cloud US 6873940 patent class combination and patent applicability to cloud services" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14615" RevisionGUID="9c6517bd-c227-44fa-b96e-93de24609dfd" CreationDate="2016-03-24T18:52:10.563" UserId="16320" Text="Where can I get patent family information? I know there are several paid/subscription tools which can retrieve the information. However, is there a way to get the information using common/free database?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36440" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14615" RevisionGUID="9c6517bd-c227-44fa-b96e-93de24609dfd" CreationDate="2016-03-24T18:52:10.563" UserId="16320" Text="How to get patent family information?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36441" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14615" RevisionGUID="9c6517bd-c227-44fa-b96e-93de24609dfd" CreationDate="2016-03-24T18:52:10.563" UserId="16320" Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14616" RevisionGUID="cd19bfd3-e655-4f54-862f-49c15bb20b02" CreationDate="2016-03-24T21:10:23.193" UserId="11394" Text="Yes. The patent is a public document which anyone can download for free from the USPTO. You are free to post a copy to your homepage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36450" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14615" RevisionGUID="29882a5b-8554-4761-9bd5-62a4f71608fc" CreationDate="2016-03-25T14:23:50.833" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36451" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="14615" RevisionGUID="13578ee6-07e4-4200-9f91-cbda6d3cff22" CreationDate="2016-03-25T14:24:16.257" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14619" RevisionGUID="b10a7199-c27f-48b4-8ac5-833bd79079f6" CreationDate="2016-03-25T15:41:58.740" UserId="3500" Text="This is the type of question that's probably best answered in consultation with a lawyer. It's hard for me to give you a helpful response that isn't specific legal advice.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14620" RevisionGUID="0204d7ff-55ab-4692-afa4-f86868f64b66" CreationDate="2016-03-25T15:42:47.210" UserId="16321" Text="My question is CA2277698A1 a patent or only a application for a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36454" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14620" RevisionGUID="0204d7ff-55ab-4692-afa4-f86868f64b66" CreationDate="2016-03-25T15:42:47.210" UserId="16321" Text="Is this a current patent: CA2277698A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36455" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14620" RevisionGUID="0204d7ff-55ab-4692-afa4-f86868f64b66" CreationDate="2016-03-25T15:42:47.210" UserId="16321" Text="&lt;expired-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14619" RevisionGUID="af3821bf-d4f3-4976-b1cb-55e16f8c0f18" CreationDate="2016-03-25T15:49:12.080" UserId="3500" Comment="added 781 characters in body" Text="This is the type of question that's probably best answered in consultation with a lawyer. It's hard for me to give you a helpful response that isn't specific legal advice.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The risks of infringing (or even possibly infringing) a patent include a lawsuit in which you have to defend yourself against the accusations.  If you're challenged with a lawsuit (i.e., approached to negotiate) then you might have to pay a license or royalty of some sort -- you can reach nearly any mutually satisfactory agreement. You may even convince them that you don't infringe! If you lose a lawsuit, then you can be ordered not to infringe (the Court orders an &quot;injunction&quot; which &quot;enjoins&quot; you from engaging in a particular behavior) and/or ordered to pay damages.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There would be no &quot;fine&quot; paid to the US government, but there could be &quot;damages&quot; paid to the owner of the patent and a Court order removing your product from the market or ordering you to change it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14621" RevisionGUID="756222c5-2863-4ae4-9279-bcba36ba6642" CreationDate="2016-03-26T10:08:16.650" UserId="16328" Text="I also seen (C) in some id , what do they denote? Is there a table or chart on it..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36460" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14621" RevisionGUID="756222c5-2863-4ae4-9279-bcba36ba6642" CreationDate="2016-03-26T10:08:16.650" UserId="16328" Text="What does (A) in patent id US744484(A) denote?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36461" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14621" RevisionGUID="756222c5-2863-4ae4-9279-bcba36ba6642" CreationDate="2016-03-26T10:08:16.650" UserId="16328" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14622" RevisionGUID="2afa6bbc-ff46-4dc8-884d-8104b5a744f9" CreationDate="2016-03-26T16:56:39.550" UserId="16329" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20150309854][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20150309854&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to know why do not see the images?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36463" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14622" RevisionGUID="2afa6bbc-ff46-4dc8-884d-8104b5a744f9" CreationDate="2016-03-26T16:56:39.550" UserId="16329" Text="Do not see Images" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36464" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14622" RevisionGUID="2afa6bbc-ff46-4dc8-884d-8104b5a744f9" CreationDate="2016-03-26T16:56:39.550" UserId="16329" Text="&lt;us20150309854&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14623" RevisionGUID="44faa820-3b00-4ec5-9d14-a9cc837e0116" CreationDate="2016-03-26T17:58:29.870" UserId="16330" Text="I wondered which countries this patent covers other than the US?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brett&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/us20040035049" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36466" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14623" RevisionGUID="44faa820-3b00-4ec5-9d14-a9cc837e0116" CreationDate="2016-03-26T17:58:29.870" UserId="16330" Text="Which countries does this patent protect US20040035049" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36467" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14623" RevisionGUID="44faa820-3b00-4ec5-9d14-a9cc837e0116" CreationDate="2016-03-26T17:58:29.870" UserId="16330" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14627" RevisionGUID="8d20c1bc-dd1c-4cf9-ab0a-dc1792e5031b" CreationDate="2016-03-28T04:19:20.193" UserId="16336" Text="In reference to the patent: [US6506148][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6506148&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who has rights to this patent? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36482" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14627" RevisionGUID="8d20c1bc-dd1c-4cf9-ab0a-dc1792e5031b" CreationDate="2016-03-28T04:19:20.193" UserId="16336" Text="Who can use this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36483" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14627" RevisionGUID="8d20c1bc-dd1c-4cf9-ab0a-dc1792e5031b" CreationDate="2016-03-28T04:19:20.193" UserId="16336" Text="&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14628" RevisionGUID="0435ba74-4fae-442b-a0c4-8e52676d9b9d" CreationDate="2016-03-28T07:45:44.937" UserId="16330" Text="Example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The wheel was granted a patent and has an abundance of uses in many different processes. What is covered in the wheels patent depends on what is disclosed within the patent and its claims. If a process using the wheels invention is not disclosed within the patent or its claims and an application for this process can be proven to be unique, useful and different to what has ever been publicly known before then a patent is likely to be granted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14631" RevisionGUID="b0f9accd-e20a-4d03-9eaf-e54a249f5a25" CreationDate="2016-03-28T17:52:05.240" UserId="16339" Text="Is it possible to patent across geographical locations, even if I am not physically in all the locations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36499" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14631" RevisionGUID="b0f9accd-e20a-4d03-9eaf-e54a249f5a25" CreationDate="2016-03-28T17:52:05.240" UserId="16339" Text="What is the cost of patenting from country x to other countries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36500" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14631" RevisionGUID="b0f9accd-e20a-4d03-9eaf-e54a249f5a25" CreationDate="2016-03-28T17:52:05.240" UserId="16339" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14632" RevisionGUID="e090bf8b-317c-4d00-8329-72d8761ab0de" CreationDate="2016-03-28T18:02:59.290" UserId="16340" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2010122232A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2010122232A1&#xD;&#xA;has this been issued or was just an application filed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36503" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14632" RevisionGUID="e090bf8b-317c-4d00-8329-72d8761ab0de" CreationDate="2016-03-28T18:02:59.290" UserId="16340" Text="Has the patent been issued" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36504" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14632" RevisionGUID="e090bf8b-317c-4d00-8329-72d8761ab0de" CreationDate="2016-03-28T18:02:59.290" UserId="16340" Text="&lt;wo2010122232a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14633" RevisionGUID="69437278-7785-46d2-9c1e-5989fc33176b" CreationDate="2016-03-29T02:05:01.900" UserId="15873" Text="You're not crazy (In case that's what you were thinking).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The images don't show on that patent link for me either, neither does the PDF.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I view it from this URL, I am able to see the full patent with images (via the PDF link on this site):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2015/0309854.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14634" RevisionGUID="b0cbe896-d0e0-4dab-a7b3-9b26066c0ace" CreationDate="2016-03-29T03:00:36.457" UserId="16343" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8689717][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8689717" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36507" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14634" RevisionGUID="b0cbe896-d0e0-4dab-a7b3-9b26066c0ace" CreationDate="2016-03-29T03:00:36.457" UserId="16343" Text="What if two persons on the Patent had nothing to do with the development or invention of the patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36508" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14634" RevisionGUID="b0cbe896-d0e0-4dab-a7b3-9b26066c0ace" CreationDate="2016-03-29T03:00:36.457" UserId="16343" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14635" RevisionGUID="b903d5ef-0bbe-4362-b721-8b427f7ed967" CreationDate="2016-03-29T06:16:51.333" UserId="16344" Text="I believe there are some academics who are lying about their conflicts of interest that they were required to disclose, and that they may have applied for patents that did not even make it to the stage of being published as a &quot;Patent Application.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the USPTO keep copies of correspondence, and is it obtainable through a Freedom of Information Act request? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36510" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14635" RevisionGUID="b903d5ef-0bbe-4362-b721-8b427f7ed967" CreationDate="2016-03-29T06:16:51.333" UserId="16344" Text="Is it possible to file a Freedom of Information Act requests for correspondence filed for a patent never published?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36511" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14635" RevisionGUID="b903d5ef-0bbe-4362-b721-8b427f7ed967" CreationDate="2016-03-29T06:16:51.333" UserId="16344" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14639" RevisionGUID="5bc1ac41-81af-4969-9374-458d692585c9" CreationDate="2016-03-29T23:56:04.197" UserId="16350" Text="[The Lens][1], started as Patent Lens 15 years ago, is open, free, no advertising (secure) and a public service.  It searches in over 90+ jurisdictions and hosts 100M patent records.  It is not just federated search, but comprehensive links, analysis, embedding and sharing of records, collections and annotations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is run by a global social enterprise, [Cambia][2] and a publicly funded University, [Queensland University of Technology (QUT)][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also has uniquely over 15M non-patent literature citations linked to canonical sources, to seek and explore prior and enabling art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://lens.org&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://cambia.org&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://qut.edu.au" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14640" RevisionGUID="d4f4a1c0-0acf-411f-91aa-2e6a7de6c746" CreationDate="2016-03-30T00:31:23.783" UserId="16350" Text="Correct inventorship is critical to the validity of a patent.  Fenwick &amp; West have a nice explanation of this:  [Correct Inventorship][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a body of case law about law suits to include legitimate inventors who were not listed as such, in which the new inventor acquires independent right to license the patent.   Similarly there is case law about inappropriate and incorrect listing of inventors who can be shown not to have contributed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.fenwick.com/FenwickDocuments/Correct_Inventorship.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14641" RevisionGUID="030e501c-943b-43a0-a7df-753ca90b6959" CreationDate="2016-03-30T00:36:09.993" UserId="16350" Text="You can use the [Lens.org patent family feature][1] to explore the status of this application in diverse jurisdictions:  It shows that it is still at application status in the US and in WO (which does not grant patents of course).  However there is a Finnish document whose status is unclear to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lens.org patent family facility is open, free and secure, and allows this type of question to be posed by anyone for any patent document.  Follow up with particular statutory holdings (eg. Finnish or US Patent Offices) should be considered once you have the information in hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/WO_2010_122232_A1/family" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14642" RevisionGUID="5b13fd54-5778-40a6-a32c-b7f16ebfd142" CreationDate="2016-03-30T00:51:48.327" UserId="16350" Text="Yes.  A patent application that is lodged under the World Intellectual Property Organization's PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty), can be lodged in any WIPO approved receiving office (including US, Australia, Europe etc) and can be designated to convert later into national patents at your cost and burden, while retaining the priority data and disclosure of the original filing.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for instance a single [filing of a PCT Application][1] (this one is from a Monsanto invention), gave rise to both granted patents later (after payment of fees, sometimes including translations, and examination and allowance) and to further applications in national offices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The non-profit [Cambia][2] &amp; [The Lens][3] offer [tutorials and help pages][4] that you may find useful.  The World Intellectual Property Organization, a UN Organization that administers the [PCT][5] also has many useful resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/WO_2007_137075_A2/family&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://cambia.org&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://lens.org&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.lens.org/support/help-resources/around-the-world/patent-laws-around-the-world/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/treaty/about.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14643" RevisionGUID="2db1c1a3-395d-442f-8ab8-04d7697ae8a4" CreationDate="2016-03-30T01:01:56.380" UserId="16350" Text="Unfortunately, in the USA, neither disclosure of assignment of ownership nor licensing of rights - exclusive or otherwise - are mandatory.  Thus we are largely unable to answer your question definitively, as [the inventor][1] is still - according to the USPTO - the owner of record.  The FAQ about how to find out what *is* known and how to proceed is [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this patent and others by Loos [have been the subject of extensive speculation][3], including the expected conspiracy theories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/search?inventor=LOOS%20HENDRICUS%20G&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/transferring-ownership-assignments-faqs&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2015/11/the-mysterious-hendricus-loos-and-his-nervous-system-manipulation-devices/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14644" RevisionGUID="6db3c420-1d53-4ebd-a433-f94b57cc7df6" CreationDate="2016-03-30T01:10:17.810" UserId="16350" Text="This is only a patent application, and confers no rights in the US or elsewhere. &#xD;&#xA;Using The Lens, we find that is has not converted into [any granted patent rights][1] anywhere, nor has it other family members pending.  The inventor, [Sallie McLarty][2] has one other invention disclosure in our database, which also has not become a granted patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you were to look at the citations of this application by others, you'd see there are at [least 10 patent documents][3] (including some grants) that have noted this application.  Worth reading to see if they cover similar inventions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_2004_0035049_A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/search?inventor=MCLARTY%20SALLIE&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_2004_0035049_A1/citations#c/in" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14645" RevisionGUID="ede702af-2be7-4d22-a195-03c125a2ca66" CreationDate="2016-03-30T01:13:08.640" UserId="16350" Text="The images are available in [PDF form here on The Lens][1].  An open, persistent and public resource with no click-tracking, advertising or other privacy invasion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/images/patent/US/20150309854/A1/US_2015_0309854_A1.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14646" RevisionGUID="8a2643aa-43f0-4495-a3f6-eeb10b6bc981" CreationDate="2016-03-30T01:17:50.183" UserId="16350" Text="How curious that you're interested in a [corset, patented in 1903][1]!  The 'A' is called a 'Kind Code' and is different for different jurisdictions, and also differs over time in some jurisdictions (e.g. before 2001, an 'A' kind code in the USA meant a granted patent; after that time it meant a Patent Application). Here's a [useful table of USPTO Kind Codes][2].  FYI, it is a real headache for integrated patent system analysis and requires lots of 'binning' to get equivalent types of documents/rights to be displayed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_744484_A&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/patent-search/authority-files/uspto-kind-codes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14647" RevisionGUID="d5e0b500-be69-435d-a67b-0272b9834cf9" CreationDate="2016-03-30T01:21:42.767" UserId="16350" Text="Jeff, it i[s a patent application][1], not a granted patent.  The persistent identifier is:   lens.org/134-360-901-561-277.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Checking in its legal status, [it is dead][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/CA_2277698_A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/CA_2277698_A1/regulatory" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14648" RevisionGUID="57cc9df4-ea30-415b-8c03-78d1d304c662" CreationDate="2016-03-30T01:26:28.667" UserId="16350" Text="Yes.  [The Lens][1] is a public good, non-profit and global facility that provides comprehensive family information, including analytics at no cost, and with no advertising, and no compromising of the security and privacy of any user. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has done so - as Patent Lens - for over 15 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is [an example from one of my patents][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This type of query is available for all ~95M patent documents in the Lens, and results can be collected, annotated, shared and embedded.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope you like it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://lens.org&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/EP_1012294_B1/family" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14649" RevisionGUID="71c3b219-0b06-4248-92cb-850b44f053e1" CreationDate="2016-03-30T01:35:14.103" UserId="16350" Text="The [patent you refer to][1] expired back in 1983 or so.  Any time after that, the teachings are considered public domain.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recall that many patents - especially in the titles, abstract and descriptions - sound insanely obvious and trivial. And indeed some are!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is the 'Claims' that determine the scope of what is legally excludable, and these are often highly specific.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance in this Tempeh patent, it is for a particular growth medium (which may have been newly discovered in 1963 - I don't know), for a particular time, in a particular kind of vessel at a particular temperature.  In principle, someone doing some but not all of these things at once, would be free - even back then - from infringement.   Usually all the elements of a claim have to be considered, not just some.  And the title and abstract really mean nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_3228773_A" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14650" RevisionGUID="c48b0607-4999-4900-bada-40789a40001f" CreationDate="2016-03-30T01:46:53.660" UserId="16350" Text="You may find it helpful in such analysis, to have a persistent identifier for documents and collections that allows full reuse and no privacy compromises. [The Len][1]s has been working at this for many years as an open, digital public good, and has developed an open public, persistent LensID for patent documents, including applications.  These can be annotated, shared (or not) as any user wishes, with no one - including Google or Google Analytics - knowing or sharing who users are or what they're doing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FYI for prior art considerations and to help in claims analysis (especially novelty and non-obviousness/inventive step), Lens has extracted almost 30M non-patent citations and matched them to DOIs and PMIDs (persistent identifiers) and allows exploration of this art.  [Here's an example][2] from one of my old (lapsed) patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://lens.org&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_5599670_A/citations#c/publications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14640" RevisionGUID="739d7457-36b7-4eb9-b6cc-ca783fd7ce41" CreationDate="2016-03-30T04:30:40.530" UserId="16350" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Correct inventorship is critical to the validity of a patent.  Fenwick &amp; West have a nice explanation of this:  [Correct Inventorship][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a body of case law about actions to include legitimate inventors who were not listed as such, in which the new inventor acquires independent right to license the patent.   Similarly there is case law about inappropriate and incorrect listing of inventors who can be shown not to have contributed, which in some cases can lead to invalidation of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.fenwick.com/FenwickDocuments/Correct_Inventorship.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14651" RevisionGUID="4d7fb031-68a7-4077-af97-5d553a3787df" CreationDate="2016-03-30T14:00:41.550" UserId="16357" Text="if I file for a patent and then publish details of the patent in a scientific journal, before the patent is officially published, does that invalidate the patent - basically because I've put details in the public domain? Is this relevant for the US patent system or any other country patent system?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36537" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14651" RevisionGUID="4d7fb031-68a7-4077-af97-5d553a3787df" CreationDate="2016-03-30T14:00:41.550" UserId="16357" Text="What jeopardizes a pending patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36538" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14651" RevisionGUID="4d7fb031-68a7-4077-af97-5d553a3787df" CreationDate="2016-03-30T14:00:41.550" UserId="16357" Text="&lt;invalidate&gt;&lt;pending&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14653" RevisionGUID="283d288c-5876-4b34-8f17-7a756a86fc9e" CreationDate="2016-03-31T01:30:27.070" UserId="16362" Text="Cooling pouch &#xD;&#xA;US 6067803 A&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent is still valid?&#xD;&#xA;The official website of Frio says it has patented technology but in patent it has given that claims are cancelled" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36544" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14653" RevisionGUID="283d288c-5876-4b34-8f17-7a756a86fc9e" CreationDate="2016-03-31T01:30:27.070" UserId="16362" Text="is this patent is still valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36545" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14653" RevisionGUID="283d288c-5876-4b34-8f17-7a756a86fc9e" CreationDate="2016-03-31T01:30:27.070" UserId="16362" Text="&lt;us6067803&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14654" RevisionGUID="20579a56-2391-4b50-9984-bc6b08b55eb3" CreationDate="2016-03-31T05:04:06.990" UserId="16155" Text="First of all, thanks for your time! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bluetooth technology basically uses a short radio to wireless connect two devices. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering if it is possible to patent the use of Bluetooth technology for a specific device, since it could in a way be considered an abstract idea..?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks again!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36548" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14654" RevisionGUID="20579a56-2391-4b50-9984-bc6b08b55eb3" CreationDate="2016-03-31T05:04:06.990" UserId="16155" Text="How does patenting regarding Bluetooth technology work?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36549" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14654" RevisionGUID="20579a56-2391-4b50-9984-bc6b08b55eb3" CreationDate="2016-03-31T05:04:06.990" UserId="16155" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14655" RevisionGUID="d3c8c63f-e9fb-4539-923d-ea52a7e15837" CreationDate="2016-03-31T15:44:22.690" UserId="3247" Text="Patent validity is determined on a claim by claim basis. One patent can have some claims that are valid, and some that are not. The last page of the patent notes that the USPTO has re-examined the patent. Basically, someone asked them to look at it again (and paid them to do it). In that reexamination, the USPTO cancelled claims 1-32. Those claims are no longer valid. Claims 33-57 were not examined. They remain valid. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14656" RevisionGUID="36c8678a-5986-4133-8e88-b484b2894a69" CreationDate="2016-03-31T19:24:17.323" UserId="16366" Text="Speaking of the U.S. patent. The patent was issued, and had its 12th year fees paid in 2009. Using the patent term calculator from the USPTO's site, and ignoring any potential patent term extensions (PTEs), the expiration date is 4/18/2016. This merely means that the patent won't expire prior to that date, but might well expire at a later date due patent term extensions, terminal disclaimers if any, etc. You'd need to consult an attorney to get a date that you could make business decisions on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14657" RevisionGUID="d67dbcd5-d6a6-40a2-bc2d-c8774301f0b9" CreationDate="2016-04-01T00:13:53.867" UserId="16369" Text="A few years ago a friend abandoned a few patent applications after they lost funding.  Three of those patents have now been referenced and cited over 350 times by the likes of Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, Ebay, and many more.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are now interesting in raising more capital and reviving the patents and company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here it is stated that due to recent rule changes at the USPTO, patents may now be revived even after a two year period: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5766/is-an-expired-patent-in-the-public-domain#comment5451_5768&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; George - just for edification, they recently changed the rule to get&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rid of the two-year limit. See Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-211, 126 Stat. 1527; see also 35 U.S.C. §&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 41(c)(1). 35 U.S.C. § 27; and 37 C.F.R. 1.137. There's a good summary&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of this at clm.com/publication.cfm?ID=489. – HTH Aug 12 '14 at 17:22&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They link to this summary:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.clm.com/publication.cfm?ID=489&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Recent changes to Title 35 of the U.S. Code effected by the Patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-211, 126&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Stat. 1527, eliminate the unavoidable standard and remove the 24-month&#xD;&#xA;&gt; time limit to reinstate an unintentionally abandoned patent. Now, any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent which has expired for failure to pay a maintenance fee can be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; revived, at any time, upon a statement that the delay in paying the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maintenance fee was unintentional. 35 U.S.C. § 41(c)(1). Similarly,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; any patent application that has gone abandoned for an unintentional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; failure to file a timely response can be revived at any time. 35&#xD;&#xA;&gt; U.S.C. § 27; 37 C.F.R. 1.137.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?  Ideas?  Is there any case law regarding this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36556" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14657" RevisionGUID="d67dbcd5-d6a6-40a2-bc2d-c8774301f0b9" CreationDate="2016-04-01T00:13:53.867" UserId="16369" Text="What is the new time limit for reviving an abandoned patent application? Any case law?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36557" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14657" RevisionGUID="d67dbcd5-d6a6-40a2-bc2d-c8774301f0b9" CreationDate="2016-04-01T00:13:53.867" UserId="16369" Text="&lt;revival&gt;&lt;patent-revival&gt;&lt;timely-response&gt;&lt;revive&gt;&lt;revive-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14657" RevisionGUID="3fe3b41f-4995-451a-bde7-5814ea1fe672" CreationDate="2016-04-01T03:31:46.417" UserId="16369" Comment="more concise" Text="Here it is stated that due to recent rule changes at the USPTO, patents may now be revived even after a two year period: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5766/is-an-expired-patent-in-the-public-domain#comment5451_5768&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; George - just for edification, they recently changed the rule to get&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rid of the two-year limit. See Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-211, 126 Stat. 1527; see also 35 U.S.C. §&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 41(c)(1). 35 U.S.C. § 27; and 37 C.F.R. 1.137. There's a good summary&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of this at clm.com/publication.cfm?ID=489. – HTH Aug 12 '14 at 17:22&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They link to this summary:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.clm.com/publication.cfm?ID=489&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Recent changes to Title 35 of the U.S. Code effected by the Patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-211, 126&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Stat. 1527, eliminate the unavoidable standard and remove the 24-month&#xD;&#xA;&gt; time limit to reinstate an unintentionally abandoned patent. Now, any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent which has expired for failure to pay a maintenance fee can be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; revived, at any time, upon a statement that the delay in paying the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maintenance fee was unintentional. 35 U.S.C. § 41(c)(1). Similarly,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; any patent application that has gone abandoned for an unintentional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; failure to file a timely response can be revived at any time. 35&#xD;&#xA;&gt; U.S.C. § 27; 37 C.F.R. 1.137.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?  Ideas?  Is there any case law regarding this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14659" RevisionGUID="68e4ab6f-4f8d-4bc3-a39b-9a757d45504b" CreationDate="2016-04-01T17:51:07.407" UserId="16377" Text="I am building software for my startup that uses some components of the free part of opencv. I think the startup is based on a unique idea, so I would like to protect the process of realizing this idea with a US provisional patent.  What are the risks(if any) involved?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36567" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14659" RevisionGUID="68e4ab6f-4f8d-4bc3-a39b-9a757d45504b" CreationDate="2016-04-01T17:51:07.407" UserId="16377" Text="Can you patent software that uses opencv (the free part)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36568" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14659" RevisionGUID="68e4ab6f-4f8d-4bc3-a39b-9a757d45504b" CreationDate="2016-04-01T17:51:07.407" UserId="16377" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;opensource&gt;&lt;opencv&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14660" RevisionGUID="06928cf6-10c4-4855-8053-81cb9492d356" CreationDate="2016-04-01T18:11:14.283" UserId="15407" Text="You are eligible to get a patent if the new combination (blue-tooth enabled device) is useful (has a useful purpose, and is not a trivial entertainment, perpetual motion machine, article of nature or abstract idea), novel (doesn't already exist) and is not obvious when considering the present state of art. Since the device presently exists, and your post postulates the existence of Bluetooth applicability to the device, obviousness may be the tough hurdle. On the other hand, if there is a particularly difficult problem to overcome in applying Bluetooth control to the device, or if a Bluetooth enabled device yields the device that's able to perform new or improved or enhanced functions in a way that ordinary remote control would not, I would say you might have a shot. There are other indications of non-obviousness that may apply in your case, so if you are serious, consult a lawyer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14661" RevisionGUID="b2725485-7c87-4bf0-98d2-6fc725feb7d9" CreationDate="2016-04-01T18:21:52.760" UserId="15407" Text="In addition, under recent case law (Alice and its predecessor cases going back to State Street Bank) teach that you will need to define your &quot;invention&quot; -- i.e., write claims -- that demonstrate a particularly useful (transformative?) result.  Just &quot;computer-enabling&quot; a known process is likely to not meet that standard (since, after all, the result is the same as not computerizing the process, even if the computer is faster and more efficient).  The &quot;computerization&quot; itself must lead to a useful, new and non-obvious benefit.  A skilled patent attorney with many years successfully drafting software patents will not try to formulate broad abstract claims that don't meet these tests, but will rather focus on the computerized steps in the process where computerization provides a benefit not otherwise (easily) obtainable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14662" RevisionGUID="985863db-03b9-4cff-af85-e706e79e9d67" CreationDate="2016-04-01T18:47:34.767" UserId="15407" Text="In addition to what *@dennis-crouch* said (and I read his blog -- its excellent), recent case law (***Alice*** and its predecessor cases going back to ***State Street Bank***) teach that you will need to define your &quot;invention&quot; -- i.e., write claims -- that demonstrate a particularly useful (transformative?) result. Just &quot;computer-enabling&quot; a known process is likely to not meet that standard (since, after all, the result is the same as not computerizing the process, even if the computer is faster and more efficient). The &quot;computerization&quot; itself must lead to a useful, new and non-obvious benefit. A skilled patent attorney with many years successfully drafting software patents will not try to formulate broad abstract claims that don't meet these tests, but will rather focus on the computerized steps in the process where computerization provides a benefit not otherwise (easily) obtainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in the example, I don't see anything in the claim itself that meets this test -- what benefit is obtained by having the server change the channel on the remote device?  But, importantly, there may be aspects of the disclosure that say what the benefit is -- and I didn't read the disclosure.  Maybe the remote device is one of many devices that just passively receive the content or changed channel content and allow multiple displays of the same content.  Maybe the direct connection between the channel selector and a server device includes a time synchronization that improves the battery life of the channel selector.  There could be other benefits to computerizing this client-server method.  We'll see as the application goes through prosecution, etc. (has a patent issued from it yet?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14663" RevisionGUID="4e453745-07a1-4886-a507-82a2489e8823" CreationDate="2016-04-02T08:40:32.350" UserId="16379" Text="I have tried searching this answer till i am blue in the face, but it is difficult for me to interpret other examples to my situation. I'll keep it short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For the sake of discretion, I will use an example. The items described, are not what i am assembling...just an example.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If you assemble a bread-toaster mechanism, inside of a 5 gallon bucket with controls mounted on bucket... What sort of patent would that be, and would it: protect me from anyone else from being able to mfg/marketing a &quot;toaster in a 5 gallon bucket&quot; in combination?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.) If I wanted to mount a standard bench grinder inside a 5 gallon bucket with just the wheel poking thru the lid, would that stop others from being able to manufacture/market a &quot;grinder in a bucket&quot; combo? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, I am not the inventor of either item (toaster or bucket), they are readily available on the market for anyone. But my question pertains to the combination of 2 items together,&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;(specifically, doing something with a bucket that has never been done, and the fact that it is encased in a bucket, is important. No other vessel that can hold the weight that a bucket can, is available anywhere near as cheap as a bucket, thus: If I can protect the act of putting it into a bucket form, nobody can produce it for anywhere near my price.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;And what sort of patent would this be? A utility patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for any help you can give,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Budley" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36578" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14663" RevisionGUID="4e453745-07a1-4886-a507-82a2489e8823" CreationDate="2016-04-02T08:40:32.350" UserId="16379" Text="Combining 2 items to make a single" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36579" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14663" RevisionGUID="4e453745-07a1-4886-a507-82a2489e8823" CreationDate="2016-04-02T08:40:32.350" UserId="16379" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patetability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14666" RevisionGUID="c4075a8d-3802-4b0f-a3c9-e6eafd51c5bf" CreationDate="2016-04-02T18:27:05.440" UserId="3500" Text="The answer, as you may have guessed, is maybe.&#xD;&#xA;Combining two known things in a new, useful, and non-obvious way is the essence of almost any invention. For example, a lightbulb is just a combination of previously known elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are at least two things to be concerned about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) has anyone done this before.  &#xD;&#xA;If so, your invention may be anticipated and thus not patentable.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) would it be obvious to do this.  &#xD;&#xA;The law on this is more complicated than you might expect, but I'll use your example.  If a lot of people in the bucket business have been writing articles about how useful it would be to have a toaster in their buckets, and if all you did was make a bucket out of a material that wouldn't melt (but people knew you could make buckets out of that material), then your invention might be obvious.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's neither anticipated nor obvious, and if it meets the other basic requirements for a patent, ultimately you might get a utility patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the scope of protection the patent would give you, it depends on the claims that ultimately issue.  You may be able to get a very broad patent on a toaster in a bucket (but I doubt it -- simply putting a toaster in a bucket must certainly have been done before by someone moving house or shopping).  You're more likely to get a patent that's specific to how the toaster and bucket are combined.  Going back to the lightbulb example, the patents don't cover simply mixing all the elements together.  They cover specific combinations or types of combinations such that the combination &quot;works&quot; for some purpose.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, this is a very non-specific answer, meant to give you some ideas, not to address your particular situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14595" RevisionGUID="027f0685-0575-42a5-a3f3-2280371518ad" CreationDate="2016-04-02T18:27:16.003" UserId="16366" Comment="spelling, thanks no thansk" Text="I am searching for a database detailing post-grant legal events such as licensing of rights or transfer of ownership.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am willing to subscribe to a payment-based database." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36593" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14595" RevisionGUID="027f0685-0575-42a5-a3f3-2280371518ad" CreationDate="2016-04-02T18:27:16.003" Comment="Proposed by 16366 approved by 1 edit id of 1930" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14590" RevisionGUID="d082b53d-b29d-46a9-ab5a-90522e24fc8f" CreationDate="2016-04-02T18:27:26.313" UserId="16366" Comment="make it obvious that all conditions must hold" Text="Since the product is probably being offered for sale to the public, you probably can't patent it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can patent the product if **all** of the following conditions hold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### 1. you are the inventor ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [35 U.S. Code § 101][1] 's preamble:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful&#xD;&#xA;&gt; improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conditions and requirements of this title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### 2. It hasn't been disclosed before  ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[35 U.S. Code § 101][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under&#xD;&#xA;&gt; section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### 3. it is not obvious ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[35 U.S. Code § 103][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; manner in which the invention was made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/101&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/103" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36595" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14590" RevisionGUID="d082b53d-b29d-46a9-ab5a-90522e24fc8f" CreationDate="2016-04-02T18:27:26.313" Comment="Proposed by 16366 approved by 1 edit id of 1931" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14666" RevisionGUID="c8906f30-c0cd-4eac-a871-ac188d7c8536" CreationDate="2016-04-02T18:32:21.707" UserId="3500" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="The answer, as you may have guessed, is maybe.&#xD;&#xA;Combining two known things in a new, useful, and non-obvious way is the essence of almost any invention. For example, a lightbulb is just a combination of previously known elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are at least two things to be concerned about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) has anyone done this before.  &#xD;&#xA;If so, your invention may be anticipated and thus not patentable.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) would it be obvious to do this.  &#xD;&#xA;The law on this is more complicated than you might expect, but I'll use your example.  If a lot of people in the bucket business have been writing articles about how useful it would be to have a toaster in their buckets, and if all you did was make a bucket out of a material that wouldn't melt (but people knew you could make buckets out of that material), then your invention might be obvious.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's neither anticipated nor obvious, and if it meets the other basic requirements for a patent, ultimately you might get a utility patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the scope of protection the patent would give you, it depends on the claims that ultimately issue.  You may be able to get a very broad patent on a toaster in a bucket (but I doubt it -- simply putting a toaster in a bucket must certainly have been done before by someone moving house or shopping).  You're more likely to get a patent that's specific to how the toaster and bucket are combined.  Going back to the lightbulb example, the patents don't cover simply mixing all the elements together.  They cover specific combinations or types of combinations such that the combination &quot;works&quot; for some purpose.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, this is a very non-specific answer, meant to give you some ideas.  It's not legal advice and may not apply to your particular situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14621" RevisionGUID="e3eb5050-c876-4f61-9eec-7547a552b1fd" CreationDate="2016-04-02T20:28:29.670" UserId="10011" Comment="added 35 characters in body; edited title" Text="I also seen (C) in some, what do they denote? What can I learn about a patent or application based on its alpha-suffix?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36598" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14621" RevisionGUID="e3eb5050-c876-4f61-9eec-7547a552b1fd" CreationDate="2016-04-02T20:28:29.670" UserId="10011" Comment="added 35 characters in body; edited title" Text="What does (A) in patent number US744484(A) denote?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36599" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14634" RevisionGUID="aa15c7f5-287b-42aa-9596-eebe1cbf04cc" CreationDate="2016-04-02T20:29:11.907" UserId="10011" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14667" RevisionGUID="59612f32-1747-4c0c-9d31-d12c81dca8b1" CreationDate="2016-04-02T21:54:49.190" UserId="16385" Text="When three inventors file a provisional patent application, should we file under our individual names sharing the patent or under our company name?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36601" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14667" RevisionGUID="59612f32-1747-4c0c-9d31-d12c81dca8b1" CreationDate="2016-04-02T21:54:49.190" UserId="16385" Text="Patent protection: Through Inventor or Company name" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36602" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14667" RevisionGUID="59612f32-1747-4c0c-9d31-d12c81dca8b1" CreationDate="2016-04-02T21:54:49.190" UserId="16385" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;legal&gt;&lt;protection&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14668" RevisionGUID="475caf45-3c08-4f46-a2f2-686796c8ac96" CreationDate="2016-04-02T22:42:49.463" UserId="16387" Text="In reference to the patent: [USD738618][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD738618&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this patent cover the UK?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36604" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14668" RevisionGUID="475caf45-3c08-4f46-a2f2-686796c8ac96" CreationDate="2016-04-02T22:42:49.463" UserId="16387" Text="UK patent coverage" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36605" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14668" RevisionGUID="475caf45-3c08-4f46-a2f2-686796c8ac96" CreationDate="2016-04-02T22:42:49.463" UserId="16387" Text="&lt;uk&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14669" RevisionGUID="4a75cde8-d721-4885-bb81-9c8245c8e902" CreationDate="2016-04-03T01:23:54.557" UserId="16257" Text="You don't necessarily invalidate your own patent that way, but you do put yourself at risk for others claiming rights that you could have gotten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While your patent application is pending, other people don't know what is in your patent claims. They don't even know your patent application exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you publish knowledge on how to make your invention, somebody could create a different embodiment that is not covered by your claims. They could then apply for a different patent based on their work. That puts you at risk for not being able to amend your application later to cover whatever they claimed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other people can see your invention in the scientific journal and apply for patents in other countries. Let's consider what happens if your application is delayed and they get their patents published first. You lose the ability to stake claims to your rights in those countries. Also, when patent office clerks learn of pending patents elsewhere, or see published patents elsewhere, they may deny your application by saying there is prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best not to put yourself at risk." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14673" RevisionGUID="153a79bf-cfb7-46cd-bb06-0e981a7afa9c" CreationDate="2016-04-04T15:53:38.383" UserId="15503" Text="Either option is ok, from a legal point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, joint ownership can be quite difficult in practice. Generally any changes (such as assignments or licensing) require the assent of all the joint owners. If there is any kind of disagreement or falling out between the co-owners, the patent can become quite hard to administer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By having the patent held by a company, this is somewhat simpler — the company would administer the patent in the same way that the company makes any other decisions. Of course, it would be a good idea to determine who makes the decisions for the company in advance, otherwise you may well end up in the same position as if it were joint owners." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14679" RevisionGUID="890fa818-f396-4519-8a47-839ae19edb84" CreationDate="2016-04-07T15:46:17.583" UserId="3418" Text="I have a single provisional patent application (PPA) in USPTO for some inventions. Now I want to pursue only one of them, because that invention was revealed to public. And I will claim priority from that PPA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will that reveal the whole PPA to public? If yes, I must patent all inventions in that PPA at once, which is more costly. If no, I can keep them for later appropriate time and only pursue the revealed one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My PPA contains many inventions but each of them is written in a separated pdf file, and was filed online. In case it will be revealed, can I claim the priority from a single pdf file and keep other files hidden from public?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36642" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14679" RevisionGUID="890fa818-f396-4519-8a47-839ae19edb84" CreationDate="2016-04-07T15:46:17.583" UserId="3418" Text="Will claiming priority from provisional patent reveal it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36643" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14679" RevisionGUID="890fa818-f396-4519-8a47-839ae19edb84" CreationDate="2016-04-07T15:46:17.583" UserId="3418" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;priority&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14680" RevisionGUID="ce2c5afb-2e9e-4f2f-a235-3081aed781c0" CreationDate="2016-04-07T16:17:40.063" UserId="3418" Text="I know that some countries have security concern, and patent must be filed at domestic office to check for security before filing at foreign office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is, what if I filed at foreign office (e.g. USPTO) from a country with that security requirement? Will the USPTO reject my application if my own country request it, e.g. based on some international treaties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there isn't any treaty for that kind of action, and all the punishment is purely based on my own country, then I can ignore that procedure and accept the penalty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36645" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14680" RevisionGUID="ce2c5afb-2e9e-4f2f-a235-3081aed781c0" CreationDate="2016-04-07T16:17:40.063" UserId="3418" Text="Filing in foreign office before domestic one, will the patent be rejected?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36646" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14680" RevisionGUID="ce2c5afb-2e9e-4f2f-a235-3081aed781c0" CreationDate="2016-04-07T16:17:40.063" UserId="3418" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14684" RevisionGUID="ef41d751-b628-401b-9393-6c617fac5d08" CreationDate="2016-04-08T10:44:16.770" UserId="15503" Text="**Will claiming priority from a provisional reveal it to public?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. A provisional application is never itself published (37 CFR 1.211(b)). However, a provisional application becomes part of the file wrapper of any later-filed application which relies on it. When the later-filed application is published, the contents of the provisional application becomes published with it. Therefore, if you rely on a provisional for priority, the provisional will essentially be published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the main reason that each application should generally only contain a single invention. Although it seems attractive to save the filing costs at first, you are then committed to having every invention stand or fall together. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can I claim the priority from a single file in the provisional and keep other files hidden from public?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. You must claim priority to a whole provisional patent application. This is because priority comes from the application (which is a single indivisible unit), not from one file within the application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14685" RevisionGUID="2117bca9-05fc-46f1-92d4-f836ee0befb7" CreationDate="2016-04-08T13:09:25.173" UserId="15787" Text="I am searching for few patent cases where a patent troll lost the case. My list includes cases which ended in one of the following ways - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Defendant wasn't infringing the patent(s)**&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Patent of patent troll got invalidated**&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Patent troll dropped the case due to whatever reason.**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Here's an example case -** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A troll, WiLAN, filed a patent case against Apple in 2011. Apple won the case by successfully proving that Apple's product do not infringe the said patent.*&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;I will be really grateful if you can help me find these type of cases. My purpose is to find few key points about how a company won against a patent troll.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please don't bother too much, you can just tell me the involved party names or even just a link to the article published about the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks, " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36660" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14685" RevisionGUID="2117bca9-05fc-46f1-92d4-f836ee0befb7" CreationDate="2016-04-08T13:09:25.173" UserId="15787" Text="Some patent cases where a troll lost the appeal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36661" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14685" RevisionGUID="2117bca9-05fc-46f1-92d4-f836ee0befb7" CreationDate="2016-04-08T13:09:25.173" UserId="15787" Text="&lt;troll&gt;&lt;lawsuit&gt;&lt;case&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14689" RevisionGUID="a3ec2878-b29e-44b6-93ee-35a5396d9641" CreationDate="2016-04-09T20:03:27.540" UserId="16118" Text="The application died in the examination procedures:&#xA;https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP10766706&amp;lng=en&amp;tab=main&#xA;It was deemed withdrawn in European procedure, I think it never really entered the regional phase there. &#xA;In US it was abandoned. You need to go to &quot;patent family&quot; on the left and then check the US application.&#xA;Register Plus quite often gives a complete overview of the developement of WO (PCT) fillings. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14697" RevisionGUID="18df0257-2ce1-499c-886f-f2010a75de4f" CreationDate="2016-04-11T03:08:09.703" UserId="16436" Text="In reference to the patent: [US6499671][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6499671w&#xD;&#xA;What action is required to reinstate this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36708" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14697" RevisionGUID="18df0257-2ce1-499c-886f-f2010a75de4f" CreationDate="2016-04-11T03:08:09.703" UserId="16436" Text="What action is required to reinstate this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36709" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14697" RevisionGUID="18df0257-2ce1-499c-886f-f2010a75de4f" CreationDate="2016-04-11T03:08:09.703" UserId="16436" Text="&lt;us6499671&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14699" RevisionGUID="bdeae869-15d0-4d8c-96b4-8dbeeda7e2fa" CreationDate="2016-04-11T11:21:37.783" UserId="16440" Text="would you be so kind to inform me of my status and my rights due to the fact that I share the right for the patent with the man that I never heard of.&#xD;&#xA;Best regards,&#xD;&#xA;Zvonimir Bello" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36714" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14699" RevisionGUID="bdeae869-15d0-4d8c-96b4-8dbeeda7e2fa" CreationDate="2016-04-11T11:21:37.783" UserId="16440" Text="My status with patent No. US5803294" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36715" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14699" RevisionGUID="bdeae869-15d0-4d8c-96b4-8dbeeda7e2fa" CreationDate="2016-04-11T11:21:37.783" UserId="16440" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14700" RevisionGUID="72725170-e3ab-48e8-b84e-69ed4350be13" CreationDate="2016-04-11T11:24:53.947" UserId="16441" Text="According to google's patent lookup, the payment status is lapsed.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US5803294&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other man listed is Sinisia Klein, meaning that both you and him have rights to the invention and can both give permission to use it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14701" RevisionGUID="1a0c9d85-d5be-48f8-842e-cdeb0aa05af8" CreationDate="2016-04-11T16:54:51.837" UserId="15873" Text="This link describes **[How to Reinstate a Patent][1]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing it's more than 24 months lapsed, so see the second paragraph below.  My other guess is that you're trying to figure out how much you'd owe.  I didn't see how to determine that (aside from the fee schedule displayed, but then you need to know what is already paid).  Near the end of the page they list a phone number (also shown below).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**From the linked page:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a maintenance fee has not been paid in a timely manner and the owner of the patent wants to get the patent rights reinstated, a petition and proper fees are required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the date of expiration is more than 24 months, file a petition by submitting the completed form SB/66 and paying the proper fees; there are significant processing delays and the filing does not guarantee a granted petition. Contact the Office of Petitions at 571-272-3282 for assistance on filing a petition to accept unintentionally delayed payment of the maintenance fee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you need additional assistance, please contact the Maintenance Fee Branch by telephone at 571-272-6500&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/maintain-your-patent#Reinstate%20an%20Expired%20Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14697" RevisionGUID="0e044bbb-e1f7-434b-b483-8b796232433f" CreationDate="2016-04-11T20:51:52.727" UserId="15873" Comment="Web link was broken" Text="In reference to the patent: [US 6499671 B1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What action is required to reinstate this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6499671&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36722" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14697" RevisionGUID="0e044bbb-e1f7-434b-b483-8b796232433f" CreationDate="2016-04-11T20:51:52.727" Comment="Proposed by 15873 approved by 1 edit id of 1935" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14703" RevisionGUID="02a5d149-d45c-4f79-936b-22db703e8578" CreationDate="2016-04-12T01:11:35.657" UserId="16446" Text="I am currently working on a patent to be used by a text editor, ide, etc and I am trying to get it done so that I can submit it. I have 30 drawings depicting how it would be used and I have claims, but I'm not exactly sure how to structure them so that way they would be compliant with the rules of the uspto while still capturing the their intended meaning. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36726" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14703" RevisionGUID="02a5d149-d45c-4f79-936b-22db703e8578" CreationDate="2016-04-12T01:11:35.657" UserId="16446" Text="How should I structure my claims and embodiments in regards to a patent for an invention to be implemented by a text editor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36727" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14703" RevisionGUID="02a5d149-d45c-4f79-936b-22db703e8578" CreationDate="2016-04-12T01:11:35.657" UserId="16446" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;utility&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14705" RevisionGUID="b680c486-57d0-4f7d-9918-5b4db37d0d56" CreationDate="2016-04-12T06:49:36.420" UserId="16450" Text="What is the difference among the application number, publication number, and patent number? I just know that application number is a 8-digit number, and the publication number is 11-digit while the patent number is 7-digit. However, it confused me when we will get a application number? a publication number? a patent number? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36733" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14705" RevisionGUID="b680c486-57d0-4f7d-9918-5b4db37d0d56" CreationDate="2016-04-12T06:49:36.420" UserId="16450" Text="what is the difference among Application number, Publication number and Patent number?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36734" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14705" RevisionGUID="b680c486-57d0-4f7d-9918-5b4db37d0d56" CreationDate="2016-04-12T06:49:36.420" UserId="16450" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14706" RevisionGUID="268ea625-8c84-42d7-940b-be41729d7851" CreationDate="2016-04-12T08:15:57.767" UserId="15503" Text="I assume you are talking about the US for the formats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application number is assigned when the application is filed at the USPTO. It is of the format &quot;16/123456&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The publication number is assigned when the application is published (usually 18 months after it was filed). It is of the format &quot;2016/0123456&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent number is assigned if the application is granted. It is of the format &quot;9123456&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14685" RevisionGUID="abcaf5e3-574a-4aa4-ad3d-27b3e6ee80e7" CreationDate="2016-04-12T10:35:28.590" UserId="15787" Comment="To make myself clearer, I have added another patent case. " Text="I am searching for few patent cases where a patent troll lost the case. My list includes cases which ended in one of the following ways - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Defendant wasn't infringing the patent(s)**&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Patent of patent troll got invalidated**&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Patent troll dropped the case due to whatever reason.**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Here's an example case -** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A troll, WiLAN, filed a patent case against Apple in 2011. Apple won the case by successfully proving that Apple's product do not infringe the said patent.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Another patent holding company, Bascom Research LLC, sued Facebook and LinkedIn over an obvious concept of &quot;Documenting objects&quot;. Facebook &amp; LinkedIn successfully argued about the validity of Bascom's patents. The case ended in favour of these tech giants and Broadcom's patents were invalidated.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will be really grateful if you can help me find these type of cases. My purpose is to find few key points about how a company won against a patent troll.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please don't bother too much, you can just tell me the involved party names or even just a link to the article published about the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks, &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14709" RevisionGUID="69f3f2e5-8389-45fc-b6a6-fc1fdbb9f5d7" CreationDate="2016-04-12T13:33:47.867" UserId="15503" Text="**Is the meaning of a first claim modified by having a second claim dependent on it?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. Or at least, it can do, in some circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US, the doctrine of claim differentiation provides basically that a dependent claim must be interpreted to be different in scope from an independent claim. More formally, &quot;the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim&quot; (*Phillips v. AWH Corp.*, 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doctrine is also present in European and UK patent law, though it is commonly called the &quot;repercussive effect&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To help explain, let's look at two claim sets for a knife.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Example 1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume you have a single independent claim, with no dependent claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A knife comprising a blade and a handle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this (and the description, drawings, file wrapper and the like), you might interpret &quot;blade&quot; to implicitly have a cutting edge. Perhaps because otherwise the knife wouldn't really work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Example 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, consider if there was a dependent claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A knife comprising a blade and a handle.&#xD;&#xA;2. The knife of claim 1, wherein the blade comprises a cutting edge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The doctrine of claim differentiation provides that claim 2 must be different in scope from claim 1. However, if &quot;blade&quot; in claim 1 already had a cutting edge, then claim 2 would not be adding anything. So, by the doctrine, &quot;blade&quot; in claim 1 must be broader than that, and therefore need not necessarily have a cutting edge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both examples, the meaning of &quot;blade&quot; claim 1 comes out differently, based solely on the presence or absence of a dependent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In practice**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim interpretation is a very tricky area. Until a patent goes through the courts, it is impossible to say with certainty how it will be interpreted. Moreover, although the doctrine of claim differentiation provides a good presumption, it can be rebutted in a given case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What can you do?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot reliably know how a given term will be interpreted by the courts. So the best you can do is to be mindful of whether a given dependent claim is actually limiting the scope of the independent claim. If it is not, it would probably be better not to include it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14709" RevisionGUID="c408fe92-ca42-49ba-917a-1eb4cf1f7f1d" CreationDate="2016-04-12T13:52:28.173" UserId="15503" Comment="added 1225 characters in body" Text="Is the meaning of a first claim modified by having a second claim dependent on it?&#xD;&#xA;==&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. Or at least, it can do, in some circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US, the doctrine of claim differentiation provides basically that a dependent claim must be interpreted to be different in scope from an independent claim. More formally, &quot;the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim&quot; (*Phillips v. AWH Corp.*, 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doctrine is also present in European and UK patent law, though it is commonly called the &quot;repercussive effect&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To help explain, let's look at two claim sets for a knife.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Example 1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume you have a single independent claim, with no dependent claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A knife comprising a blade and a handle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this (and the description, drawings, file wrapper and the like), you might interpret &quot;blade&quot; to implicitly have a cutting edge. Perhaps because otherwise the knife wouldn't really work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Example 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, consider if there was a dependent claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A knife comprising a blade and a handle.&#xD;&#xA;2. The knife of claim 1, wherein the blade comprises a cutting edge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The doctrine of claim differentiation provides that claim 2 must be different in scope from claim 1. However, if &quot;blade&quot; in claim 1 already had a cutting edge, then claim 2 would not be adding anything. So, by the doctrine, &quot;blade&quot; in claim 1 must be broader than that, and therefore need not necessarily have a cutting edge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both examples, the meaning of &quot;blade&quot; claim 1 comes out differently, based solely on the presence or absence of a dependent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In practice**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim interpretation is a very tricky area. Until a patent goes through the courts, it is impossible to say with certainty how it will be interpreted. Moreover, although the doctrine of claim differentiation provides a good presumption, it can be rebutted in a given case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What can you do?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot reliably know how a given term will be interpreted by the courts. So the best you can do is to be mindful of whether a given dependent claim is actually limiting the scope of the independent claim. If it is not, it would probably be better not to include it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you use it as its original meaning in a later context, such that any modifications made to claim 1 can be ignored for the sake of another claim making a reference to it such that you can modify the meaning of claim 1 in a different way, and as a result have a set of varying definitions for claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A single claim can only have one interpretation. By the doctrine of claim differentiation, claim 1 will be interpreted in view of all its dependent claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the doctrine is not that strong. All that is required is for the independent claim to be a little bit broader, in some way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So given a set of claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A knife comprising a blade and a handle.&#xD;&#xA;2. The knife of claim 1, wherein the blade comprises a cutting edge.&#xD;&#xA;3. The knife of claim 2, wherein the blade comprises two cutting edges on opposite sides of the blade.&#xD;&#xA;4. The knife of claim 1, wherein the blade is formed of metal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The knife of claim 1 need not have a cutting edge (since it must be broader than claim 2) and need not be metal (since it must be broader than claim 4). All this means is that the cutting edge and being metal are not essential features. Assuming this is true, this is not a bad position to be in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14703" RevisionGUID="cb68e098-3621-45c4-8179-9a86d01cccd7" CreationDate="2016-04-12T15:13:06.033" UserId="16446" Comment="added 381 characters in body" Text="How do the rules of the USPTO govern the use of claims that reference, or make more precise, the the context of a prior claim.  Is the prior claims context changed with each occurrence of a claim refining its scope, or is the scope only changed in relation with the claim that changed it?  Explained: I have a first claim that makes a point, and a second claim: the method of claim one [and some content refining the meaning of Claim 1]. If I wanted to use a third claim which uses the method of claim one, would the method of claim one, in the context of the third claim, be limited by the second claim, and in the event that it is how should I go about using the original context of claim 1, and avoid making excessive independent claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14709" RevisionGUID="2072d3f6-f8bc-4f5e-b056-9d2fb136d353" CreationDate="2016-04-12T15:15:32.260" UserId="15503" Comment="Reduced long heading" Text="Is the meaning of a first claim modified by having a second claim dependent on it?&#xD;&#xA;==&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. Or at least, it can do, in some circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US, the doctrine of claim differentiation provides basically that a dependent claim must be interpreted to be different in scope from an independent claim. More formally, &quot;the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim&quot; (*Phillips v. AWH Corp.*, 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doctrine is also present in European and UK patent law, though it is commonly called the &quot;repercussive effect&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To help explain, let's look at two claim sets for a knife.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Example 1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume you have a single independent claim, with no dependent claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A knife comprising a blade and a handle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this (and the description, drawings, file wrapper and the like), you might interpret &quot;blade&quot; to implicitly have a cutting edge. Perhaps because otherwise the knife wouldn't really work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Example 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, consider if there was a dependent claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A knife comprising a blade and a handle.&#xD;&#xA;2. The knife of claim 1, wherein the blade comprises a cutting edge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The doctrine of claim differentiation provides that claim 2 must be different in scope from claim 1. However, if &quot;blade&quot; in claim 1 already had a cutting edge, then claim 2 would not be adding anything. So, by the doctrine, &quot;blade&quot; in claim 1 must be broader than that, and therefore need not necessarily have a cutting edge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both examples, the meaning of &quot;blade&quot; claim 1 comes out differently, based solely on the presence or absence of a dependent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In practice**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim interpretation is a very tricky area. Until a patent goes through the courts, it is impossible to say with certainty how it will be interpreted. Moreover, although the doctrine of claim differentiation provides a good presumption, it can be rebutted in a given case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What can you do?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot reliably know how a given term will be interpreted by the courts. So the best you can do is to be mindful of whether a given dependent claim is actually limiting the scope of the independent claim. If it is not, it would probably be better not to include it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you allow a claim to have different definitions based on each of its dependent claims?&#xD;&#xA;=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A single claim can only have one interpretation. By the doctrine of claim differentiation, claim 1 will be interpreted in view of all its dependent claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the doctrine is not that strong. All that is required is for the independent claim to be a little bit broader, in some way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So given a set of claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A knife comprising a blade and a handle.&#xD;&#xA;2. The knife of claim 1, wherein the blade comprises a cutting edge.&#xD;&#xA;3. The knife of claim 2, wherein the blade comprises two cutting edges on opposite sides of the blade.&#xD;&#xA;4. The knife of claim 1, wherein the blade is formed of metal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The knife of claim 1 need not have a cutting edge (since it must be broader than claim 2) and need not be metal (since it must be broader than claim 4). All this means is that the cutting edge and being metal are not essential features. Assuming this is true, this is not a bad position to be in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14703" RevisionGUID="6f411907-4c37-4a06-9b34-f9a340de3e33" CreationDate="2016-04-12T15:20:54.513" UserId="15503" Comment="Adjusted the question to reflect commonly used terminology" Text="In US patent law, how are claims that are dependent on an earlier claim affec the interpretation of the earlier claim. Is the prior claim's interpretation based on each dependent claim, or is the scope only interpreted in relation to the dependent claim itself?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Explained: I have claim 1 that makes a point, and claim 2 which is dependent on claim 1 along with some content refining the meaning of claim 1. If I wanted to use claim 3 which is dependent on claim 1, would the method of claim 1, in view of claim 3, be limited by claim 2? If so, how should I avoid this in claim 1, and avoid making excessive independent claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36767" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="63d8b49e-78ef-427f-8270-39c49a4bfdc7" CreationDate="2016-04-13T14:32:09.367" UserId="7197" Comment="added tag relating to publ. no." Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20150066784&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36768" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="63d8b49e-78ef-427f-8270-39c49a4bfdc7" CreationDate="2016-04-13T14:32:09.367" Comment="Proposed by 7197 approved by 15503, 1 edit id of 1933" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="586e1441-d9f9-4d05-9106-a568055c3c89" CreationDate="2016-04-13T14:34:41.223" UserId="7197" Comment="Finished the story about the prosecution history of the application." Text="&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;In 2013, this Patent Application has received a **final rejection** by the US Patent Office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community below! The main reference cited by the Patent Examiner in the rejection was found by Ask Patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An applicant has several ways to keep an application in this state alive. They include a request for continuing examination (RCE), which involves paying more fees and responding to the rejection. Appealing the rejection is another avenue. If nothing is done it will go abandoned six months from the final rejection. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this application, applicant requested RCE and proposed amendments to the claims. The application received another non-final rejection to which applicant responded with another amendment narrowing the claims further. According to the examiner this placed the application in condition for allowance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accordingly, the office issued a notice of allowance and **on 01/13/2015 the application was granted US Patent No. 8,933,971.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to the **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **TITLE: Scale factors for visual presentations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130063492 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/230445][3]  &#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application generates and display graphical elements based on *pixel density.* The invention selects a *scale factor* from a *scale factor set* that is within the *range* of the pixel density.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of generating, using a device having a processor, a presentation comprising elements to be displayed on a display component, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - executing on the processor instructions configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - identify a ***pixel density*** of the display component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - for respective elements of the presentation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - from a ***scale factor set***, select a ***scale factor*** having a ***pixel density range*** including the pixel density of the display component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - request the element to generate a scaled representation using the scale factor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - generate the presentation comprising the scaled representations of the elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample figure** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/WgDnr.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application is similar to other resolution-independent scaling applications, patents, and implementations carried out in the industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 09/12/2011** that discusses (1) scale factor; (2) scale factor set; and (3) pixel density range in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][5] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][6] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36770" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="586e1441-d9f9-4d05-9106-a568055c3c89" CreationDate="2016-04-13T14:34:41.223" Comment="Proposed by 7197 approved by 11394, 1 edit id of 1934" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14715" RevisionGUID="c341b586-7325-4aaa-b399-ae6276c45b2b" CreationDate="2016-04-13T16:29:32.883" UserId="8170" Text="If a description of an invention is published in an encrypted form, can it still count as prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If the encryption key is later released)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36775" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14715" RevisionGUID="c341b586-7325-4aaa-b399-ae6276c45b2b" CreationDate="2016-04-13T16:29:32.883" UserId="8170" Text="Can an encrypted publication be prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36776" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14715" RevisionGUID="c341b586-7325-4aaa-b399-ae6276c45b2b" CreationDate="2016-04-13T16:29:32.883" UserId="8170" Text="&lt;defensive-publications&gt;&lt;invention&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14716" RevisionGUID="99cfe80f-e2f2-4c00-8806-bd5f67eb178b" CreationDate="2016-04-13T19:02:16.827" UserId="4329" Text="The FLAC audio format, specified publicly between 2001 and 2003, explicitly supports URL linking of picture data within the stream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://xiph.org/flac/format.html#metadata_block_vorbis_comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, the Ogg Vorbis format, which dates to 1993, explicitly supports specifying hyperlinks into its comment fields, i.e. its License and Contact fields.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.xiph.org/vorbis/doc/v-comment.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14716" RevisionGUID="d25ada4a-5ec6-4f15-896d-075a9db96800" CreationDate="2016-04-13T19:12:00.563" UserId="4329" Comment="added 162 characters in body" Text="The FLAC audio format, specified publicly between 2001 and 2003, explicitly supports URL linking of picture data within the stream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://xiph.org/flac/format.html#metadata_block_vorbis_comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, the Ogg Vorbis format, which dates to 1993, explicitly supports specifying hyperlinks into its comment fields, i.e. its License and Contact fields.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.xiph.org/vorbis/doc/v-comment.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally additionally, Vorbis explicitly supports loading picture data via arbitrary URL within a Vorbis compatible player:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://wiki.xiph.org/VorbisComment&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14717" RevisionGUID="432d0ea4-b457-48cc-9447-a4029d75d05d" CreationDate="2016-04-13T19:29:50.717" UserId="16257" Text="The inventor could file [a continuation-in-part application][1] on the new invention. A continuation-in-part is a type of continuation application, but one where the new invention is not disclosed in the parent application and not claimed in the parent. (A simple continuation must be both disclosed in the parent and claimed in the parent.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14718" RevisionGUID="ddbb8bce-2e02-43e6-bf32-0e0f49fa2cf3" CreationDate="2016-04-14T01:41:09.653" UserId="11717" Text="Having only a very broad independent claim runs the risk of the patent not being granted.&#xD;&#xA;In the above instance if the sole claim was &quot;1.A knife comprising a blade and a handle.&quot; , it would in all probabilities be never granted as being indefinite.&#xD;&#xA;One way of looking at dependent claims is that, instead of being limitations, they actually broaden the independent claim and ensure that the limitations of the dependent claim are read into the independent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance dependent claim 4 above expands the definition of a blade to include blades made of metal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there was a dependent claim No 5 which said &quot;5. A knife of claim 1 whose blade is made of amber.&quot; then the blade in claim 1 could be either of metal or of amber and its meaning is broadened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW having more than one independent clause causes the cost of issuing the patent to go up substantially.&#xD;&#xA;Ashok" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14721" RevisionGUID="ca4fa5eb-e0cd-407f-b0a2-e8beb9fdb22f" CreationDate="2016-04-14T22:02:30.483" UserId="16476" Text="My understanding of the system under US patent law is that after 20 years, the patented process or device can be freely produced and sold by anyone. Is this always true? Is it legally safe to, say, research 20-year-old patents and to produce and market products directly based on them without significant changes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36793" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14721" RevisionGUID="ca4fa5eb-e0cd-407f-b0a2-e8beb9fdb22f" CreationDate="2016-04-14T22:02:30.483" UserId="16476" Text="Is it always okay to market a product that was patented 20+ years ago?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36794" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14721" RevisionGUID="ca4fa5eb-e0cd-407f-b0a2-e8beb9fdb22f" CreationDate="2016-04-14T22:02:30.483" UserId="16476" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;business-methods&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14723" RevisionGUID="1775d584-486c-468e-9f9d-78eac7fb28e5" CreationDate="2016-04-15T08:37:32.363" UserId="15503" Text="**Is this always true?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the basic rule is that a US patent has a term of 20 years from its filing date (assuming all the renewal fees were paid), there are (at least) two ways in which the term of a US patent could be longer than this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is by patent term adjustment under 35 USC § 154(b) due to delays by the USPTO. The calculation of this is complex. However, in general, if prosecution takes longer than the period specified in the statute, the term of the patent is extended based on the number of days beyond the specified period. This can add up to several years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second is by patent term extension under 35 USC § 156 due to regulatory delays. If approval of a patented drug or medical device takes so long that the applicant would have only a short period to exploit their patented invention, the term of the patent may be extended by up to 5 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a further category, though it is mostly of historical relevance. Before 1995 a US patent had a term of 17 years from issuance (not from filing). If issuance was delayed substantially, then the patent could in principle have a term of much longer than 20 years from filing. It is possible that there are still patent applications which were filed before 1995 that are still pending. Once these are granted, the term will be calculated according to the old rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In view of these, a more comprehensive statement of the law would be that you cannot be sued for patent infringement by copying a product exactly as it is described in an expired patent. That is much less pithy, of course." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14724" RevisionGUID="992c07d2-6c44-4302-911c-4fbd0cecb497" CreationDate="2016-04-15T11:13:17.567" UserId="16362" Text="I would like to know untill when is this patent is valid?&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent applicable to India?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36802" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14724" RevisionGUID="992c07d2-6c44-4302-911c-4fbd0cecb497" CreationDate="2016-04-15T11:13:17.567" UserId="16362" Text="US 6067803 A is this patent valid in India?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36803" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14724" RevisionGUID="992c07d2-6c44-4302-911c-4fbd0cecb497" CreationDate="2016-04-15T11:13:17.567" UserId="16362" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;valid&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14725" RevisionGUID="35b63e72-8360-4a49-8e05-24b3a738fa44" CreationDate="2016-04-15T13:50:46.483" UserId="16454" Text="No because patents are, with one exception, national titles, so a US patent never can be valid in India, but...one inventor has one year of priority to apply for the same invention in different countries of the world claiming the first filing date called priority date. According to this; this guy has got for his invention a lot of patent documents published around the world: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?CC=US&amp;NR=6067803A&amp;KC=A&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=3&amp;date=20000530&amp;DB=EPODOC&amp;locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;..but none in India because India wasn't a designated state in his PCT application WO98/17226 at the EPO (European Patent Office). Regarding the &quot;value&quot; of the patent it is not much according to Mr or Mrs Godot, that qualified that application in his or her Search Report with two Y's combining two documents: US 4908248A and US 4619678A meaning that the &quot;invention&quot; could be considered as the combination of two other prior art inventions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14726" RevisionGUID="bb9739a7-a49a-4d1c-bcb4-5a12776f9db3" CreationDate="2016-04-15T17:20:32.353" UserId="16484" Text="I have been slowly developing a product for the last couple of years but my major hold up has been the legal side of things since I do not have the start-up funds.  I decided to write the provisional patent myself and was having a lawyer friend look over it for me because I was ready to submit when he told me that a very similar product had just filed a provisional patent not even a month ago. Is there anything that I can do to still try to launch my product and secure a patent for it in the future? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that there is the possibility of changing certain elements on it but is there a way to actually know what elements I can change in order to make it different from theirs when they have not put an actual patent on any particular element yet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you so much in advance for the help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36806" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14726" RevisionGUID="bb9739a7-a49a-4d1c-bcb4-5a12776f9db3" CreationDate="2016-04-15T17:20:32.353" UserId="16484" Text="Provisional Patent Filed Right Before Mine" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36807" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14726" RevisionGUID="bb9739a7-a49a-4d1c-bcb4-5a12776f9db3" CreationDate="2016-04-15T17:20:32.353" UserId="16484" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;elements&gt;&lt;work-around&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14729" RevisionGUID="643dd0b2-efab-4931-b309-2cc22b831146" CreationDate="2016-04-16T19:43:56.210" UserId="16489" Text="If you have an idea for a smartphone app, how does a patent protect you from others writing the same or similar smartphone app?  And when does a patent fall short of protecting your idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36818" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14729" RevisionGUID="643dd0b2-efab-4931-b309-2cc22b831146" CreationDate="2016-04-16T19:43:56.210" UserId="16489" Text="Does patenting a smartphone app protect you?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36819" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14729" RevisionGUID="643dd0b2-efab-4931-b309-2cc22b831146" CreationDate="2016-04-16T19:43:56.210" UserId="16489" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;smartphone-app&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14730" RevisionGUID="fd5cf4d6-9656-43fa-a750-40a351cda12f" CreationDate="2016-04-16T21:29:07.870" UserId="16490" Text="Suppose the Claim 1 of a patent is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An assembly comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a **threaded nut** positioned at least partially within the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; housing such that the nut is fixed against rotation with respect to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the housing, wherein the threaded nut is adapted to **engage the leaf**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; when the leaf is received in the cavity;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If an assembly does incorporates an &quot;unthreaded nut&quot; rather than a &quot;threaded nut&quot;, would that avoid infringing Claim 1 completely irrespective of the rest of the conjunctive clauses in the claim? That is, could a specific minor change avoid infringing a claim?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, could a &quot;threaded nut&quot; be used but doesn't &quot;engage the leaf&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thought appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36821" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14730" RevisionGUID="fd5cf4d6-9656-43fa-a750-40a351cda12f" CreationDate="2016-04-16T21:29:07.870" UserId="16490" Text="Avoid infringing Claim 1 by changing a specific component" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36822" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14730" RevisionGUID="fd5cf4d6-9656-43fa-a750-40a351cda12f" CreationDate="2016-04-16T21:29:07.870" UserId="16490" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14731" RevisionGUID="45f27620-b751-4e35-a317-e9e413899e63" CreationDate="2016-04-17T00:53:38.227" UserId="16492" Text="My name is Steven and i'm based in UK. I wanted to ask if my work on Chrome extension is infringing/violating this patent:[US20130132904][1] by any chance? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132904&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/buttonless/mbpgpedohbkagifgfilmicgklianboei?hl=en-GB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was a solution i came up around July 2014 and early this year finally with help of developers i was able to put together an extension. Ofcourse Mr Joseph Primiani and Mr Matthew Michelsen are no doubt ahead of me in coming up with the identical solution but my idea/reason behind holding down the click is something i consider to be different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never heard of him previously or used his extension before so i had no idea this existed already until today by accidentally looking a bit more deeper on the chrome sharing extension list. Please help me out as i've already spent over half of a year on this project. It is really heart breaking to know that something i deeply believed in has already existed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steven" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36824" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14731" RevisionGUID="45f27620-b751-4e35-a317-e9e413899e63" CreationDate="2016-04-17T00:53:38.227" UserId="16492" Text="Is my work infringing/violating this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36825" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14731" RevisionGUID="45f27620-b751-4e35-a317-e9e413899e63" CreationDate="2016-04-17T00:53:38.227" UserId="16492" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14732" RevisionGUID="5454daa2-d113-4f03-905a-fac27afdc015" CreationDate="2016-04-17T01:38:19.623" UserId="16494" Text="I am having an idea related with a game. What my doubt is about the Patenting stuff. I am a resident from India. I would like to know, if I patent this gaming idea in my country, would it be valid in an international level, so that only me or the third party I assign can organise this event or should I apply for another patent, that is valid at an International Level?&#xD;&#xA;I would also like to know, if it is possible in the opposite way. Like, if I get a patent at an International level, would I need to take another patent for the same in my country.&#xD;&#xA;Expert advices are welcome. &#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36827" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14732" RevisionGUID="5454daa2-d113-4f03-905a-fac27afdc015" CreationDate="2016-04-17T01:38:19.623" UserId="16494" Text="About Patenting an Idea" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36828" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14732" RevisionGUID="5454daa2-d113-4f03-905a-fac27afdc015" CreationDate="2016-04-17T01:38:19.623" UserId="16494" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;sports&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14732" RevisionGUID="2073775f-da2d-42f3-a6d5-435f91f59386" CreationDate="2016-04-17T01:59:07.070" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 67 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I am having an idea related with a game, and I'd like to get it patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a resident from India. If I patent this gaming idea in my country, would it be valid in an international level, so that only me or the third party I assign can organise this event or should I apply for another patent, that is valid at an International Level?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also like to know, if it is possible in the opposite way. Like, if I get a patent at an International level, would I need to take another patent for the same in my country." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36830" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14732" RevisionGUID="2073775f-da2d-42f3-a6d5-435f91f59386" CreationDate="2016-04-17T01:59:07.070" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 67 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Patenting a game idea in India" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36831" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14732" RevisionGUID="2073775f-da2d-42f3-a6d5-435f91f59386" CreationDate="2016-04-17T01:59:07.070" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 67 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;india&gt;&lt;sports&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14730" RevisionGUID="82d882e3-000f-4ccb-8ac1-81cc870e494b" CreationDate="2016-04-17T05:45:18.167" UserId="16490" Comment="deleted 73 characters in body; edited title" Text="Suppose the Claim 1 of a patent is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An assembly comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a **threaded nut** positioned at least partially within the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; housing such that the nut is fixed against rotation with respect to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the housing, wherein the threaded nut is ...;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If an assembly incorporates an &quot;unthreaded nut&quot; rather than a &quot;threaded nut&quot;, would that avoid infringing the patent completely irrespective of the rest of the conjunctive clauses/claims? That is, could a specific minor change avoid infringing a claim?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, could a &quot;threaded nut&quot; be used as long as it isn't fixed against rotation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thought appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36834" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14730" RevisionGUID="82d882e3-000f-4ccb-8ac1-81cc870e494b" CreationDate="2016-04-17T05:45:18.167" UserId="16490" Comment="deleted 73 characters in body; edited title" Text="Avoid infringement by replacing a specific component" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36835" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14730" RevisionGUID="82d882e3-000f-4ccb-8ac1-81cc870e494b" CreationDate="2016-04-17T05:45:18.167" UserId="16490" Comment="deleted 73 characters in body; edited title" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;scope&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14734" RevisionGUID="c0a7bb42-aac7-44e4-b7db-69bac6ad23c6" CreationDate="2016-04-17T20:57:05.470" UserId="3500" Text="I can give you a general answer, but not specific legal advice.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As ever, the answer includes &quot;maybe&quot; and &quot;it depends.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the United States, the law about patenting features of computer programs is going through some changes.  Generally speaking, if your invention meets the other criteria for patentability (e.g., it is a new, non-obvious invention with some useful purpose), AND if it relates to some technological improvement or invention, you might be able to get patent protection.  For example, if you &quot;invented&quot; a new way of tracking golf scores by having the smartphone's camera film you as you go about the golf course, you MIGHT be able to patent that.  On the other hand, if you &quot;invented&quot; an app that allows you to enter your golf scores, that's not likely to be seen as an invention, because it's just doing something we've always done and moving it to a computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, the protection you get depends on the claims of any patent that issues.  For whatever functionality or system is claimed, the patent will give you the exclusive right to that functionality or system.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you get very &quot;broad&quot; claims (e.g., &quot;keeping score using a camera&quot;) then you might have protection against anything that does that, no matter how they do it.  If you get &quot;narrower&quot; claims (e.g., &quot;finding an arm in an image, measuring the rate at which it changes position, determining if the next swing takes place using a putter or a driver, etc...&quot;) then you are likely only going to have protection against someone doing the same or nearly the same thing, but not much protection against someone else using a completely different way of keeping score using a camera (e.g., by tracking how many times the ball moves).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have particular concerns, I'd recommend calling an attorney for a quick consult.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14735" RevisionGUID="b864ddb5-26d7-4c72-9644-25ede79bf33a" CreationDate="2016-04-17T21:05:54.703" UserId="3500" Text="Simply put, a specific minor change MAY avoid infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's something in the United States called the doctrine of equivalents that gives patentees protection that is broader than the literal language of their claims.  So a patentee may argue that what you think is a minor change is actually &quot;equivalent&quot; in the eyes of patent law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll let you google the doctrine of equivalents, but based on your example, I'd rather argue that an unthreaded nut does NOT infringe than argue that it does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patentee may also argue that your nut is, in fact, threaded or that what you think is not fixed against rotation is, in fact, fixed against rotation.  In other words, even though you think you're not infringing, and even if your attorney agrees you're not infringing, a determined/aggressive patentee could still allege that you are.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that allegation is egregiously ridiculous, then the courts might eventually compensate you for the trouble, but that's a very different topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14736" RevisionGUID="6f02e0a1-ff06-449f-a81b-f255d0c0b163" CreationDate="2016-04-17T21:09:11.767" UserId="3500" Text="I hate to do this, but your question is so specific that I'm not comfortable answering because you're not a client.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, however, that what you've linked to is a patent APPLICATION.  It has not yet issued as a patent.  It might never do so.  You can use something called &quot;[public pair][1]&quot; from the United States Patent Office to check the progress of this application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14737" RevisionGUID="24b75bcc-d0a6-4a82-aa2e-8c23e90c269a" CreationDate="2016-04-17T22:16:05.040" UserId="15657" Text="It depends on what you meant by unthreaded nut. If your nut has two notches that engage with a threaded element, then the patentee might argue that it is a partial thread. If your nut is, say, a snap-on nut, then you should be off the hook." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14738" RevisionGUID="7d0b864b-a479-4ce8-b722-1053d4b35f8b" CreationDate="2016-04-17T22:29:40.347" UserId="15657" Text="You might want to refer to Fig 4 and the claims in the granted patent. The[ granted patent][1] has the limitation&#xA;&#xA;&gt; c. a software module for displaying a radially-distributed menu of&#xA;&gt; individuals associated with one or more displayed destinations in&#xA;&gt; response to a second user interaction, the menu of individuals&#xA;&gt; allowing the user to select any of: one individual, a plurality of&#xA;&gt; individuals, and all individuals;&#xA;&#xA;Your implementation doesn't have a radial menu with a list of people to share the content with, so there should be no infringement.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8869068" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14739" RevisionGUID="8b60403a-4c3f-42dd-8a9c-c4c6a95fa84b" CreationDate="2016-04-18T01:55:24.800" UserId="16496" Text="Suppose a claim in a patent reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of custom quotation for manufacture of a part, the method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; using a processing device automatically generating a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quotation for part  manufacture based in part upon the cost-affecting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parameters determined,  the *quotation proposing* the two or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; alternative methods of machining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does &quot;propose&quot; here take the standard definition, i.e. to offer or suggest for consideration? If so, does that mean a quotation even mentioning/indicating an alternative method of machining would infringe that claim?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The figure in the patent shows alternatives with respective prices specified on the quotation form. However, isn't &quot;quotation&quot; supposed to be the price rather than the form? In that case, a price can't propose/offer/suggest for consideration alternative methods - only the form could - right? By that reasoning, all quotation forms offering alternatives wouldn't infringe that claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36847" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14739" RevisionGUID="8b60403a-4c3f-42dd-8a9c-c4c6a95fa84b" CreationDate="2016-04-18T01:55:24.800" UserId="16496" Text="What does &quot;quotation proposing&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36848" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14739" RevisionGUID="8b60403a-4c3f-42dd-8a9c-c4c6a95fa84b" CreationDate="2016-04-18T01:55:24.800" UserId="16496" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14739" RevisionGUID="4d6d9f19-95a8-4e14-b696-00c5748f1e70" CreationDate="2016-04-18T02:27:11.140" UserId="16496" Comment="deleted 252 characters in body" Text="Suppose a claim in a patent reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of custom quotation for manufacture of a part, the method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; using a processing device automatically generating a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quotation for part  manufacture based in part upon the cost-affecting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parameters determined,  the *quotation proposing* the two or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; alternative methods of machining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does &quot;propose&quot; here take the standard definition, i.e. to offer or suggest for consideration? If so, does that mean a quotation even mentioning/indicating an alternative method of machining would infringe that claim? That is, does it mean that for a method to not infringe the patent it mustn't mention any alternative method? That seems rather broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14739" RevisionGUID="7c0f61b6-c19c-4294-b45c-ee4f21665880" CreationDate="2016-04-18T04:34:37.870" UserId="16496" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="Suppose a claim in a patent reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of custom quotation for manufacture of a part, the method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; using a processing device automatically generating a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quotation for part  manufacture based in part upon the cost-affecting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parameters determined,  the *quotation proposing* the two or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; alternative methods of machining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does &quot;propose&quot; here take the standard definition, i.e. to offer or suggest for consideration? If so, does that mean a quotation even mentioning/indicating an alternative method of machining would infringe that claim? That is, does it mean that for a method to not infringe the patent it mustn't mention any alternative method? That seems rather broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could a utility patent prohibit against the content displayed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36852" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14739" RevisionGUID="7c0f61b6-c19c-4294-b45c-ee4f21665880" CreationDate="2016-04-18T04:34:37.870" UserId="16496" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="Utility patent prohibiting against displayed content" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14739" RevisionGUID="398b2009-b694-43f6-8694-9564ad8d8923" CreationDate="2016-04-18T04:47:41.153" UserId="16496" Comment="added 7 characters in body; edited title" Text="Suppose a claim in a patent reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of custom quotation for manufacture of a part, the method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; using a processing device automatically generating a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quotation for part  manufacture based in part upon the cost-affecting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parameters determined,  the *quotation proposing* the two or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; alternative methods of machining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does &quot;propose&quot; here take the standard definition, i.e. to offer or suggest for consideration? If so, does that mean a quotation even mentioning/indicating an alternative method of machining would infringe that claim? That is, does it mean that for a method to not infringe the patent it mustn't mention any alternative method? That seems rather broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could a utility patent prohibit certain content from being presented?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36854" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14739" RevisionGUID="398b2009-b694-43f6-8694-9564ad8d8923" CreationDate="2016-04-18T04:47:41.153" UserId="16496" Comment="added 7 characters in body; edited title" Text="Utility patent prohibiting against certain content" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14685" RevisionGUID="830c4e42-a216-497f-bdf3-d6fa0c534991" CreationDate="2016-04-18T05:57:33.953" UserId="15787" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I am searching for few patent cases where a patent troll lost the case. My list includes cases which ended in one of the following ways - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Defendant wasn't infringing the patent(s)**&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Patent of patent troll got invalidated**&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Patent troll dropped the case due to whatever reason.**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Here's an example case -** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A troll, WiLAN, filed a patent case against Apple in 2011. Apple won the case by successfully proving that Apple's product do not infringe the said patent.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Another patent holding company, Bascom Research LLC, sued Facebook and LinkedIn over an obvious concept of &quot;Documenting objects&quot;. Facebook &amp; LinkedIn successfully argued about the validity of Bascom's patents. The case ended in favour of these tech giants and Broadcom's patents were invalidated.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will be really grateful if you can help me find these type of cases. My purpose is to find few key points about how a company won against a patent troll.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please don't bother too much, you can just tell me the involved party names or even just a link to the article published about the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks,  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14741" RevisionGUID="f7665fcd-0c04-4316-9699-6c2b48c26886" CreationDate="2016-04-18T14:19:55.947" UserId="16503" Text="In reference to the patent: [US2708656][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US2708656" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36859" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14741" RevisionGUID="f7665fcd-0c04-4316-9699-6c2b48c26886" CreationDate="2016-04-18T14:19:55.947" UserId="16503" Text="how many times this patent has been cited until now?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36860" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14741" RevisionGUID="f7665fcd-0c04-4316-9699-6c2b48c26886" CreationDate="2016-04-18T14:19:55.947" UserId="16503" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14742" RevisionGUID="e5ecf86a-579f-4054-8e01-cd148991c1f1" CreationDate="2016-04-18T16:34:20.443" UserId="16505" Text="Using mats made of  &quot;*khus*&quot;/ Vetiver grass is used extensively in India during the summer months. These mats of the roots of the &quot;Khus&quot; plant are bound in wooden box frames with a fan inside which blows cool air after the mats are made wet with water dripping from the top. &#xD;&#xA;The plant is also used for making a cooling drink sold commonly across India&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an abstract from a write up on the railways system in British India, circa 1911. &quot; ...   The first and second classes are invariably supplied with bathrooms, so that the traveller can enjoy the luxury of the tub. The water which is carried on the roof is replenished frequently at the larger stations. In summer the windows are fitted with rotating fans, that force moist, cooled air through dripping khus khus (a species of tall grass) mats. These luxuries are a necessity in the burning sun of the Indian plains. &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entire link is [http://www.irfca.org/docs/history/railway-gazette-railways-india-1911.html][1]&#xD;&#xA;Another refernce is from the Gazette&#xD;&#xA;This patent is specious and illegal. Khus roots for cooling have  been used for more than a century in India and Pakistan. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://books.google.co.in/books?id=RDo9AQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA228&amp;lpg=RA1-PA228&amp;dq=british+india++cooling+with+khus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=3xLpSXatpB&amp;sig=FurDEpT_mEKKUFV936OJPs8zZvU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiW7LmOzZjMAhXHVZQKHWfYCugQ6AEIUDAI#v=onepage&amp;q=british%20india%20%20cooling%20with%20khus&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14746" RevisionGUID="8d037b95-a646-4bc0-8348-564b57e5ebad" CreationDate="2016-04-20T00:31:11.453" UserId="15657" Text="The claim language is ambiguous, and the patent examiner might object and ask the patent applicant to reword the claim language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a realistic case, the claim would involve multiple steps. Let's say it has step A-H, and step G involves multiple proposals. Most of the steps would be generic and non-inventive, while only one or a few steps would be inventive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose that, at the time of filing, the inclusion of multiple proposals is novel and non-obvious to a person skilled in the art, then it would be possible for the applicant to get a broad claim on **any** inclusion of multiple proposals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose that, at the time of filing, the inclusion of multiple proposal is already known, but the applicant made an improvement that is novel and non-obvious to a person skilled in the art (for example, an efficient way of presenting the proposals), then the claim will be limited to requiring the improvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose that, at the time of filing, the inclusion of multiple proposal is very well known, and the applicant made no improvement to that, the applicant *still* can get a patent as long as s/he made improvement somewhere else, for example, a method of creating and processing a quotation with multiple variance in pricing and specification. In that case, the applicant may be able to claim the improvement + *any* inclusion of multiple proposals. In other words, if your implementation includes the improvement (i.e. the novel method) + more than one proposal, then you would be found infringing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14747" RevisionGUID="6dbd931d-d9d0-442a-83cc-31a3aefca867" CreationDate="2016-04-20T01:25:32.970" UserId="15914" Text="I am a Japanese patent attorney, but your question can be generalized as Q1 &quot;Can one exclude others from making, using and so forth in other country as well if you get patent in one country?&quot; and  Q2 &quot;Can one exclude others from making, using and so forth in one country if you get 'international patent'?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer to Q1 -- No. You need to patent your invention in country(ies) independently and separately where you want to exclude others who reside and do business therein.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer to Q2 -- I cannot answer, because there is no &quot;international patent.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;We only have independent patent in each country.  There is PCT concept and Paris Convention, but they do not allow us to take one &quot;international patent.&quot; They only make your life easier in the process of acquiring &quot;bundle&quot; of independent individual patents in some of the countries.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14750" RevisionGUID="8f2ab6c8-8bde-4417-929e-b9836fed48a4" CreationDate="2016-04-20T08:07:09.167" UserId="16306" Text="This question is similar to [this one][1], but not speaking of an offense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What will happen if one marks his product that it is patented, having no patents at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. one is having written a patent ptotection for a thing that cannot be patented - with intention this to be his scarecrow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/12841/what-happens-if-a-company-publicises-they-have-patents-when-they-have-not/12844" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36891" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14750" RevisionGUID="8f2ab6c8-8bde-4417-929e-b9836fed48a4" CreationDate="2016-04-20T08:07:09.167" UserId="16306" Text="Mark as patented what is unpatentable" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36892" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14750" RevisionGUID="8f2ab6c8-8bde-4417-929e-b9836fed48a4" CreationDate="2016-04-20T08:07:09.167" UserId="16306" Text="&lt;unpatented&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14750" RevisionGUID="832c29c7-d9fe-4c7a-bab6-462377d80509" CreationDate="2016-04-20T11:22:24.600" UserId="16306" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="This question is similar to [this one][1], but not speaking of an offense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What will happen if one marks his product that it is patented, having no patents at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. one is having written a patent ptotection for a thing that cannot be patented - with intention this to be his scarecrow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is it in the US and other countries?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/12841/what-happens-if-a-company-publicises-they-have-patents-when-they-have-not/12844" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14754" RevisionGUID="17e25cb7-75eb-4dec-89f1-cf387a7eea3a" CreationDate="2016-04-20T19:34:08.157" UserId="15873" Text="You can't claim &quot;Patent Pending&quot; unless you really have applied for a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Once your application has been submitted to the USPTO, you can stamp all your products and marketing material as &quot;Patent Pending.&quot; While this designation itself has no legal effect, it does put others on notice that your product is under review at the USPTO and, once approved, no one else will have a right to the invention. The patent pending designation serves as a warning that others' use of your invention may have serious consequences once the patent is approved. Note, however, that fraudulent use of the patent pending designation can be fined $500 for each use of the deceptive mark. - See more at: http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/intellectual-property/patent-enforcement-faq.html#sthash.D15hf81X.dpuf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14731" RevisionGUID="2116fd31-1890-4e1a-becc-247cc9fc28a3" CreationDate="2016-04-20T21:26:02.293" UserId="16492" Comment="added 744 characters in body" Text="My name is Steven and i'm based in UK. I wanted to ask if my work on Chrome extension is infringing/violating this patent:[US20130132904][1] by any chance? [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132904&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/buttonless/mbpgpedohbkagifgfilmicgklianboei?hl=en-GB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My idea involves around holding down a click and release above on prompted menues. In the patent, it has the same interaction, although it specifically mentioned a radially-distributed menus. What I'm hoping to find out is **does this mean that anything which related to sharing/in browser/ that involves a radially-distributed menus are prohibited or count as infringing this patent?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although mine does not look like a pie but it has the same layout displayed in Fig.1 C. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also as patent have mentioned these &quot;As used herein, “radially-distributed” refers to a menu having menu items arranged in a pattern that radiates from a point.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;As used herein, “pie menu” means a substantially circular menu made by arrangement of menu items, or “pie slices,” around a central point where selection of a menu item depends on direction rather than distance. In some cases, “pie menu” is used interchangeably with “radial menu.”&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Accordingly, a radially-distributed menu has many suitable shapes and sizes. Suitable shapes include, by way of non-limiting examples, substantially circular, semi-circular, partially circular, substantially elliptical, semi-elliptical, substantially ovoid, semi-ovoid, substantially square, substantially diamond, substantially rectangular, substantially triangular, substantially pentagonal, substantially hexagonal, substantially octagonal, and the like. Suitable sizes are generally regulated by available display space and by the number of menu items.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Daniel pointed out that this patent doesn't not count that he is the inventor of a radial menu but I do want to know what does it mean when it mentioned a radial menu? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14731" RevisionGUID="2993bf6f-8860-4e3e-955e-c2d9fd3347bd" CreationDate="2016-04-20T21:35:46.653" UserId="16492" Comment="added 246 characters in body" Text="My name is Steven and i'm based in UK. I wanted to ask if my work on Chrome extension is infringing/violating this patent:[US20130132904][1] by any chance? [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132904&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/buttonless/mbpgpedohbkagifgfilmicgklianboei?hl=en-GB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My idea involves around holding down a click and release above on prompted menues. In the patent, it has the same interaction, although it specifically mentioned a radially-distributed menus. What I'm hoping to find out is **does this mean that anything which related to sharing/in browser/ that involves a radially-distributed menus are prohibited or count as infringing this patent?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although mine does not look like a pie but it has the same layout displayed in Fig.1 C. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As patent have mentioned these &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As used herein, “radially-distributed” refers to a menu having menu&#xD;&#xA;&gt; items arranged in a pattern that radiates from a point.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; As used herein, “pie menu” means a substantially circular menu made by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; arrangement of menu items, or “pie slices,” around a central point&#xD;&#xA;&gt; where selection of a menu item depends on direction rather than&#xD;&#xA;&gt; distance. In some cases, “pie menu” is used interchangeably with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “radial menu.”&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Accordingly, a radially-distributed menu has many suitable shapes and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sizes. Suitable shapes include, by way of non-limiting examples,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; substantially circular, semi-circular, partially circular,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; substantially elliptical, semi-elliptical, substantially ovoid,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; semi-ovoid, substantially square, substantially diamond, substantially&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rectangular, substantially triangular, substantially pentagonal,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; substantially hexagonal, substantially octagonal, and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suitable sizes are generally regulated by available display space and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by the number of menu items.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **b. a software module for displaying a radially-distributed menu of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; destinations for identified content in response to the first user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interaction, the menu of destinations allowing the user to select any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of: one destination, a plurality of destinations, and all&#xD;&#xA;&gt; destinations, wherein each destination is a distinct network, forum,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; service, or application;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14755" RevisionGUID="b26c4714-9954-4dcd-bf80-8b5874caab43" CreationDate="2016-04-20T22:12:13.077" UserId="16524" Text="I found my Great Grandfather, Morgan Doniphan Bollinger's patents from the early 1900s:   #1,151,561 and #1,355,638.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any way to get good copies of them? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first of them is still in use, the Adjustable Side Hill Tractor (today used for off-road driving,) can I make any legal claim to this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanking you in advance,&#xD;&#xA;Melanie Wood " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36910" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14755" RevisionGUID="b26c4714-9954-4dcd-bf80-8b5874caab43" CreationDate="2016-04-20T22:12:13.077" UserId="16524" Text="I found Great Grandfather's patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36911" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14755" RevisionGUID="b26c4714-9954-4dcd-bf80-8b5874caab43" CreationDate="2016-04-20T22:12:13.077" UserId="16524" Text="&lt;us1151561&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14755" RevisionGUID="f49f2070-a6a5-4635-8f85-8b072488d170" CreationDate="2016-04-20T22:44:54.203" UserId="10011" Comment="Edit to reflect comment" Text="I found my Great Grandfather, Morgan Doniphan Bollinger's patents from the early 1900s: #1,151,561 and #1,355,638.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any way to get good copies of them? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first of them is still in use, the Adjustable Side Hill Wagon (today used for off-road driving,) can I make any legal claim to this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36913" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14755" RevisionGUID="f49f2070-a6a5-4635-8f85-8b072488d170" CreationDate="2016-04-20T22:44:54.203" UserId="10011" Comment="Edit to reflect comment" Text="&lt;us1151561&gt;&lt;us1355638&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14731" RevisionGUID="fbf2345c-9b1b-4611-9290-9b05050c3e2c" CreationDate="2016-04-21T06:24:43.277" UserId="16492" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="My name is Steven and i'm based in UK. I wanted to ask if my work on Chrome extension is infringing/violating this patent:[US20130132904][1]or [US8869068][2] by any chance? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132904&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8869068&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/buttonless/mbpgpedohbkagifgfilmicgklianboei?hl=en-GB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My idea involves around holding down a click and release above on prompted menues. In the patent, it has the same interaction, although it specifically mentioned a radially-distributed menus. What I'm hoping to find out is **does this mean that anything which related to sharing/in browser/ that involves a radially-distributed menus are prohibited or count as infringing this patent?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although mine does not look like a pie but it has the same layout displayed in Fig.1 C. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As patent have mentioned these &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As used herein, “radially-distributed” refers to a menu having menu&#xD;&#xA;&gt; items arranged in a pattern that radiates from a point.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; As used herein, “pie menu” means a substantially circular menu made by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; arrangement of menu items, or “pie slices,” around a central point&#xD;&#xA;&gt; where selection of a menu item depends on direction rather than&#xD;&#xA;&gt; distance. In some cases, “pie menu” is used interchangeably with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “radial menu.”&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Accordingly, a radially-distributed menu has many suitable shapes and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sizes. Suitable shapes include, by way of non-limiting examples,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; substantially circular, semi-circular, partially circular,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; substantially elliptical, semi-elliptical, substantially ovoid,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; semi-ovoid, substantially square, substantially diamond, substantially&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rectangular, substantially triangular, substantially pentagonal,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; substantially hexagonal, substantially octagonal, and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suitable sizes are generally regulated by available display space and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by the number of menu items.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **b. a software module for displaying a radially-distributed menu of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; destinations for identified content in response to the first user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interaction, the menu of destinations allowing the user to select any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of: one destination, a plurality of destinations, and all&#xD;&#xA;&gt; destinations, wherein each destination is a distinct network, forum,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; service, or application;**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14757" RevisionGUID="8bb49e5e-3e55-4a69-98aa-f3d5beadb911" CreationDate="2016-04-21T07:27:02.417" UserId="16527" Text="Yes it is possible to patent a method described in your book. But the method has to fulfill that criteria of non-obviousness, novelty and industrial application. Further, there are prior art searches done to establish the above three criteria. on then will your patent be granted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14758" RevisionGUID="2a097422-c86c-49ed-a91f-6e6c51491398" CreationDate="2016-04-21T07:44:16.433" UserId="16528" Text="The method of artificial pollination of Adenium has been popular in Taiwan for a long time, are similar artificial pollination method, we are opposed to this patent application, thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;沙漠玫瑰的人工授粉的方法已經流行在台灣很長一段時間，類似人工授粉的方法，我們反對這個專利申請，謝謝。" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36918" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14758" RevisionGUID="2a097422-c86c-49ed-a91f-6e6c51491398" CreationDate="2016-04-21T07:44:16.433" UserId="16528" Text="CN104585015（A） - 沙漠玫瑰obesum授粉鉤針和人工雜交方法沙漠玫瑰obesum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36919" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14758" RevisionGUID="2a097422-c86c-49ed-a91f-6e6c51491398" CreationDate="2016-04-21T07:44:16.433" UserId="16528" Text="&lt;cn104585015&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14759" RevisionGUID="502a954c-9bfa-4dac-b335-8d227357b88b" CreationDate="2016-04-21T07:54:32.373" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14760" RevisionGUID="6c036be4-43c1-40cb-820a-1b3261fe9760" CreationDate="2016-04-21T07:54:32.373" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14758" RevisionGUID="ffd8fa79-d635-452d-9604-5d6faa03568f" CreationDate="2016-04-21T07:54:54.410" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="The method of artificial pollination of Adenium has been popular in Taiwan for a long time, and there are other similar artificial pollination methods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I bring my concerns to the attention of a Chinese patent examiner?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36923" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14758" RevisionGUID="ffd8fa79-d635-452d-9604-5d6faa03568f" CreationDate="2016-04-21T07:54:54.410" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Artificial Pollination of Adenium" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36924" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14758" RevisionGUID="ffd8fa79-d635-452d-9604-5d6faa03568f" CreationDate="2016-04-21T07:54:54.410" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;china&gt;&lt;cn104585015&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14762" RevisionGUID="32a28262-ae21-4d0a-be4a-a7f93a72b6fa" CreationDate="2016-04-21T09:43:40.897" UserId="16530" Text="In reference to the patent: [USD559850][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an article on bloomberg titled [&quot;Got a Hot Seller on Amazon? Prepare for E-Tailer to Make One Too&quot;][2] Harvey Tai, general manager of Rain Design Inc, a company who sells a [laptop stand][3] on Amazon, says: “But there’s nothing we can do because they didn’t violate the patent.” in regards to Amazon making a [laptop stand][4] identical to theirs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can Amazon make a laptop stand identical to one that is protected by a patent, and not violate said patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD559850&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-20/got-a-hot-seller-on-amazon-prepare-for-e-tailer-to-make-one-too&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://www.amazon.com/Rain-Design-10032-mStand-Laptop/dp/B000OOYECC/&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-DSN-01750-SL-Laptopst%C3%A4nder-silberfarben/dp/B00WRDS0AU" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36929" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14762" RevisionGUID="32a28262-ae21-4d0a-be4a-a7f93a72b6fa" CreationDate="2016-04-21T09:43:40.897" UserId="16530" Text="Why is the patent of Rain Design's mStand laptop stand not violated by a similiar product by AmazonBasics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36930" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14762" RevisionGUID="32a28262-ae21-4d0a-be4a-a7f93a72b6fa" CreationDate="2016-04-21T09:43:40.897" UserId="16530" Text="&lt;usd559850&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14764" RevisionGUID="e6f36eea-bf14-45f0-b89d-c767a9eb5025" CreationDate="2016-04-21T18:02:40.650" UserId="15407" Text="Short answer is that the knock-off is not identical to either the commercial embodiment or the design patent (or at least, the manufacturer and seller don't think a court/jury would find differently).  Note, a design patent only protects the design of an object (namely, the way it looks -- whether surface ornamentation or its exact configuration), and not any useful feature, per se.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1502.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this example, there are many design choices shown in the patent and sold item that the knock-off doesn't appropriate (or again, at least the manufacturer/seller hopes not).  The test is essentially whether an ordinary observer would find the two designs &quot;substantially the same&quot; where the claimed design and the accused design are to be considered as a whole, not compared element by element, and the determination is done &quot;in light of the prior art.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14766" RevisionGUID="b3ae087f-b10f-42bc-9968-21c7c907f022" CreationDate="2016-04-22T07:10:04.823" UserId="16542" Text="to your comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Yes. That is what continuation-in-part applications (&quot;CIPs&quot;) seek to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accomplish. However, once a patent expires, the subject matter of its&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims becomes public domain, so only the new aspects introduced in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the CIPs still unexpired would thereafter be possible to cover or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; protect through CIPs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the priority document expires, also the new matter of the CIPs expires. The new matter of CIPs gets a new filling date when filed, but expires at the same time as the priority document. The new matter does not last longer. The term of the new matter is t" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14767" RevisionGUID="424a6c08-6949-4bf6-afd0-4e99c81ee5c9" CreationDate="2016-04-22T07:51:09.603" UserId="16543" Text="My company's former contractor stole confidental information from me and filed a patent for it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had filed a patent for the same invention but few months before him. USPTO issued final rejection for the contractors patent application due to the invention being already known to USPTO by me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What procedure do I need to file in order to get rights to Contractors patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36945" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14767" RevisionGUID="424a6c08-6949-4bf6-afd0-4e99c81ee5c9" CreationDate="2016-04-22T07:51:09.603" UserId="16543" Text="Name of the Procedure to transfer 3rd party patent rights to myself" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36946" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14767" RevisionGUID="424a6c08-6949-4bf6-afd0-4e99c81ee5c9" CreationDate="2016-04-22T07:51:09.603" UserId="16543" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14772" RevisionGUID="672d9e0e-cea6-420b-8452-6945ecc36a74" CreationDate="2016-04-22T16:00:00.770" UserId="15503" Text="**If a description of an invention is published in an encrypted form, can it still count as prior art?**&#xA;&#xA;No.&#xA;&#xA;Well, probably. I couldn't find any case law on this point exactly (which, perhaps, is not so surprising). However, I feel reasonably confident that the answer is no. However, the answer below includes a lot of “I think”s, and therefore should be taken more as a weakly-supported thesis than a statement of fact.&#xA;&#xA; &#xA;&#xA;There is a long chain of cases which consider how prior art should be interpreted, particularly in view of the enablement requirement. In a more recent one, *Impax Laboratories Inc v Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc*, 545 F.3d 1312, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008)), the Court held:&#xA;&#xA; &#xA;&#xA;&gt;In order to anticipate a claimed invention, a prior art reference must enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make the invention without undue experimentation. … The &quot;undue experimentation&quot; component of that equation examines (1) the quantity of experimentation; (2) the amount of direction or guidance present; (3) the presence or absence of working examples; (4) the nature of the invention; (5) the state of the prior art; (6) the relative skill of those in the art; (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art; and (8) the breadth of the claims.&#xA;&#xA; &#xA;&#xA;Undue experimentation conventionally refers to how much the skilled person needs to do to make the disclosure enabling through further research. But it would likely apply by analogy to the steps needed to take to make the disclosure enabling through making the disclosure accessible.&#xA;&#xA; &#xA;&#xA;Thus, the question becomes: does the encrypted prior art enable the skilled person to make the invention without undue experimentation?&#xA;&#xA; &#xA;&#xA;I think the answer to that is quite clearly no. If the skilled person is not aware of the encryption key, there is no practical way of decrypting the encrypted information. Any kind of brute forcing the key would surely be analogous to having to having to randomly perform experiments and make modifications hoping to find the claimed invention. Such a step is certainly undue experimentation.&#xA;&#xA; &#xA;&#xA;Because of this, the encrypted prior art cannot be held to anticipate a claimed invention.&#xA;&#xA; &#xA;&#xA;**What about if the key is released?**&#xA;&#xA; &#xA;&#xA;In that case, I think the answer may be yes, though it would likely depend on how the key is released.&#xA;&#xA; &#xA;&#xA;If it was clearly tied to the encrypted file, along with details of the algorithm used for encryption, there would be a good argument (I think) that the skilled person could straightforwardly decrypt it without undue experimentation (or indeed, without any experimentation really, given there are clear instructions). The date of the prior art would be the release of the key in that case, as that would be the date that the prior art became enabling.&#xA;&#xA; &#xA;&#xA;In contrast, if the key was simply put on a website, but not linked to the encrypted file specifically, it seems likely that this would not really cure the inaccessibility of the encrypted prior art. It would still require undue experimentation to find the key and work out how to use it to decrypt." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14775" RevisionGUID="912afc9a-c847-4612-a248-d1d3101c01c2" CreationDate="2016-04-23T20:23:41.057" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14776" RevisionGUID="77b340bc-0c17-48e9-9170-435db30dea40" CreationDate="2016-04-23T20:23:41.057" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14777" RevisionGUID="d90ee5c5-1dde-415d-bd5f-71e509b8a701" CreationDate="2016-04-23T20:46:29.580" UserId="16555" Text="I was reviewing an expired U.S. patent for a clever industrial process that is sufficiently dangerous that it should not be attempted by people not skilled in the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Throughout the patent, including in the descriptions of preferred embodiments and *even in the claims*, one of the essential ratios to the process given is almost 50% too low for it to work.  I noticed this when I was preparing to test it.  Thinking, &quot;Well, it is patented, maybe there's something they know that I don't,&quot; I actually tried it as described in the patent.  As expected, it failed harmlessly.  Using the correct ratio the process succeeded beautifully.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this apparent error was repeated in multiple places, I tried unsuccessfully to locate one of the authors to ask if they had intentionally submitted an application with a value that would stymie someone not skilled in the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: Is this a known practice?  Is it common?  Are there policies about doing this?  Is it done by the request of the USPTO, or is it up to inventors to obfuscate dangerous inventions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And what about the patent protection?  In this case, the claims include an essential ratio that *will not work*.  So if the patent were in force and I used the ratio that *does* work technically I wouldn't be infringing.  Is this something that would be overlooked in litigation?  E.g., would a court accept an inventor's argument that, &quot;We all know the listed ratio is wrong, and I submitted it that way so anybody who should not be using this invention wouldn't end up injured or killed.  But this defendant is clearly infringing my invention.&quot;  Has such a claim ever been made and sustained?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36978" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14777" RevisionGUID="d90ee5c5-1dde-415d-bd5f-71e509b8a701" CreationDate="2016-04-23T20:46:29.580" UserId="16555" Text="Is there a custom or policy of obfuscating dangerous details in patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36979" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14777" RevisionGUID="d90ee5c5-1dde-415d-bd5f-71e509b8a701" CreationDate="2016-04-23T20:46:29.580" UserId="16555" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;litigation&gt;&lt;dangerous&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14776" RevisionGUID="2163a333-78f8-44b1-ba84-9351301bd2ce" CreationDate="2016-04-24T14:24:14.913" UserId="16555" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="Questions regarding patenting things that are, or could be, dangerous." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36985" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14776" RevisionGUID="2163a333-78f8-44b1-ba84-9351301bd2ce" CreationDate="2016-04-24T14:24:14.913" Comment="Proposed by 16555 approved by 1 edit id of 1938" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14779" RevisionGUID="f05baed2-0c16-48ba-9be6-6d9fdab27f3f" CreationDate="2016-04-24T17:24:36.573" UserId="16558" Text="I have designed and manufactured a sport goggle similar, but not identical to expired  (or non-renewed) patent 4176410. My goggles have a different style, configuration (pointed edges vs squared), dual interchangeable fog resistant lens vs single lens, reversible adjustable straps with adjustable buckle vs one sided strap with velcro closure, and a variety of colored frames, straps and lens. A patent search was done by Legal Zoom, which didn't even address the above mentioned patent which i found on my own to be simiilar.  How can I proceed to patent my design without risking an enfringement?&#xD;&#xA;I consulted a patent attorney who said there is no risk due to the differences and another who said there is no risk due to the expiration of this patent and another who says I am still at risk???  Advice please...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sunny" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36989" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14779" RevisionGUID="f05baed2-0c16-48ba-9be6-6d9fdab27f3f" CreationDate="2016-04-24T17:24:36.573" UserId="16558" Text="Obtaining Design Patent on expired similar design patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36990" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14779" RevisionGUID="f05baed2-0c16-48ba-9be6-6d9fdab27f3f" CreationDate="2016-04-24T17:24:36.573" UserId="16558" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;design&gt;&lt;expired&gt;&lt;class&gt;&lt;similar&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14781" RevisionGUID="3eb73f03-5d93-46be-b526-1b95fc829039" CreationDate="2016-04-25T02:41:19.383" UserId="16560" Text="You don't say what sort of a game it is -- software based or non-software based, which is a consideration.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for either option, the European and Chinese patent offices will only allow patents that have a &quot;technical aspect to them&quot; -- that is solve a technical problem.  The US patent rules are presently up in the air, but seem to also be going in this direction as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you are software based, and have to do something tricky with the machine or user interface to make the game work well, there may be a chance that you can get patents.  Otherwise getting patents in many countries may be difficult. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other options, however.  Consider design patents if your game has interesting artistic pieces or user interfaces.  Trademarks and copyrights may also be useful.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14782" RevisionGUID="d8822e1d-bbaf-4fb3-b0ba-39afb0b32b76" CreationDate="2016-04-25T02:50:22.853" UserId="16560" Text="Originally, there was a requirement that the inventor teach the best mode at least somewhere in the specification.  In recent years, that requirement has been relaxed somewhat however.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I don't like obfuscation. If the patent obfuscates too much, it can potentially be rejected or invalidated as not being enabling under 35 USC 112. So this is one of the dangers of obfuscation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if the patent is teaching away from the ratio or approach that does work, you actually may be able to file (and get) your own patent claiming the correct approach.  You can actually cite the patent with the wrong ratio as prior art, and explain that the prior art is teaching away from the correct result.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14783" RevisionGUID="e2efd547-2af5-49b6-b99c-6a3035867f51" CreationDate="2016-04-25T02:54:21.297" UserId="16560" Text="Patent 4,176,410 at least is long dead (i.e. very expired). Of course, there could be other patents out there to worry about, but 4,176,410 is not a problem for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see when this patent expired using the USPTO [Patent term calculator][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do decide to file your own patent, however, be sure to cite 4,176,410 so that the examiner can look at it and review it properly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/patent-term-calculator" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14782" RevisionGUID="8f5eaf6c-4724-4293-a751-03337ecadef4" CreationDate="2016-04-25T03:02:01.710" UserId="16560" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="Originally, there was a requirement that the inventor teach the best mode (that the inventor knows about) in the specification.  In recent years, that requirement has been a bit relaxed, but it still is in effect.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I don't like obfuscation. If the patent obfuscates too much, it can potentially be rejected or invalidated as not being enabling under [35 USC 112][1]. So this is one of the dangers of obfuscation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if the patent is teaching away from the ratio or approach that does work, you actually may be able to file (and get) your own patent claiming the correct approach.  You can actually cite the patent with the wrong ratio as prior art, and explain that the prior art is teaching away from the correct result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I am not aware of any rules about discussing dangerous topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc/112.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14785" RevisionGUID="ad4b73bd-4139-420c-97f0-7f9ae1e9757b" CreationDate="2016-04-25T11:46:23.133" UserId="16562" Text="In reference to the patent: [US4985302][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4985302" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37003" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14785" RevisionGUID="ad4b73bd-4139-420c-97f0-7f9ae1e9757b" CreationDate="2016-04-25T11:46:23.133" UserId="16562" Text="What was the duration of the exclusive right granted to rizla+ over this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37004" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14785" RevisionGUID="ad4b73bd-4139-420c-97f0-7f9ae1e9757b" CreationDate="2016-04-25T11:46:23.133" UserId="16562" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;legal-status&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14787" RevisionGUID="4e349b2f-2cd2-4b23-8a21-c7b1ac6fa417" CreationDate="2016-04-25T18:33:37.163" UserId="16567" Text="&#xD;&#xA;1&#xD;&#xA;down vote&#xD;&#xA;favorite&#xD;&#xA;1&#xD;&#xA;I am developing a 3D modeling application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I know what is considered as part of the sketchup patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The extrude tool is obviously common to all 3D modeling softwares, that makes me think that what is patent is the ability to draw arbitrary 2D shapes on a 3D face, with automatic intersections computation and automatic triangulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However 3Ds max also has the &quot;Cut tool&quot; or the &quot;Paint Connect tool&quot; to draw lines and compute intersections on any face.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only difference I see is that Sketchup 3Ds max does not support holes (polygon holes) on a face, and it does not provide any tool to draw directly a rectangle or circle on a face.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I make a rectangle tool (a rectangle is just a set of 4 lines)? Can I handle holes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I create a new modeling tool, how can I know it remains out of the Sketchup patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do I risk by implementing those features? A fine? Obligation to remove my product from the US market? Obligation to remove some features?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37011" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14787" RevisionGUID="4e349b2f-2cd2-4b23-8a21-c7b1ac6fa417" CreationDate="2016-04-25T18:33:37.163" UserId="16567" Text="How do I know if I am infringing a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37012" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14787" RevisionGUID="4e349b2f-2cd2-4b23-8a21-c7b1ac6fa417" CreationDate="2016-04-25T18:33:37.163" UserId="16567" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14788" RevisionGUID="5a48a094-04a8-4adf-afab-30a9cafe901d" CreationDate="2016-04-25T18:43:30.063" UserId="16568" Text="I am trying to patent something. Should I write a provsional patent first or write a patent first?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37014" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14788" RevisionGUID="5a48a094-04a8-4adf-afab-30a9cafe901d" CreationDate="2016-04-25T18:43:30.063" UserId="16568" Text="Is it better to make a provisional patent or a regular patent first" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37015" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14788" RevisionGUID="5a48a094-04a8-4adf-afab-30a9cafe901d" CreationDate="2016-04-25T18:43:30.063" UserId="16568" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14790" RevisionGUID="b86b0796-5089-4548-b69b-371b058e9b47" CreationDate="2016-04-25T19:20:57.940" UserId="16568" Text="What is the paris convention and What are the principal features of the paris convention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37020" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14790" RevisionGUID="b86b0796-5089-4548-b69b-371b058e9b47" CreationDate="2016-04-25T19:20:57.940" UserId="16568" Text="Patent. What is the paris convention What are the principal features of the paris convention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37021" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14790" RevisionGUID="b86b0796-5089-4548-b69b-371b058e9b47" CreationDate="2016-04-25T19:20:57.940" UserId="16568" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14792" RevisionGUID="a4c33415-01b0-4948-ba94-5cec7da06400" CreationDate="2016-04-26T05:13:26.220" UserId="16560" Text="A brief answer is that the Paris Convention was an international agreement (dating back to the late 1800's) wherein participating countries respect the priority date of patents (and some other forms of IP as well) first filed in other participating countries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So an inventor filing a patent in America, for example, would have up to 12 months to file the same patent in Germany, and the German patent office would grant this patent the same filing date as the original US application.  This is important in order to establish who invented first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Paris Convention is still in effect, but there is a later treaty, called the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), to consider as well. Under the PCT if you file a PCT application within 12 months of your first filing, the PCT will extend this mutual respect of priority dates to up to 30 months from the initial filing date.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14796" RevisionGUID="8fa0c8b3-6392-42f1-bb51-e327604c0b1c" CreationDate="2016-04-26T14:23:19.613" UserId="16578" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140120196][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140120196&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Isn't is called prior art when a design presented under Creative Commons - Attribution - Non-Commercial license is patented?&#xD;&#xA;Even the youtube video of inventor satoer predates this patent with more then a year&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsNm0UfQsyQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37039" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14796" RevisionGUID="8fa0c8b3-6392-42f1-bb51-e327604c0b1c" CreationDate="2016-04-26T14:23:19.613" UserId="16578" Text="Is this prior art or not? When a CCA-NC license precedes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37040" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14796" RevisionGUID="8fa0c8b3-6392-42f1-bb51-e327604c0b1c" CreationDate="2016-04-26T14:23:19.613" UserId="16578" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;prior&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14797" RevisionGUID="f63f0680-9729-46b4-a0c3-4fc5cd6fa1b3" CreationDate="2016-04-26T15:38:09.650" UserId="16580" Text="Really seems equivalent to this patent dated 2010 :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Synchronized broadcast of streams&#xD;&#xA;(WO 2010079460 A1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With different playback devices, and synchronization with speed adjustment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14800" RevisionGUID="f8ad28f1-ccc4-4c64-b0b3-22c3c90a579a" CreationDate="2016-04-26T17:35:52.177" UserId="16568" Text="How much does it cost to file and obtain a patent? Who pays the patent costs?&#xD;&#xA;What is the price range for a professionally written patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37050" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14800" RevisionGUID="f8ad28f1-ccc4-4c64-b0b3-22c3c90a579a" CreationDate="2016-04-26T17:35:52.177" UserId="16568" Text="How much does it cost to file and obtain a patent? Who pays the patent costs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37051" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14800" RevisionGUID="f8ad28f1-ccc4-4c64-b0b3-22c3c90a579a" CreationDate="2016-04-26T17:35:52.177" UserId="16568" Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14801" RevisionGUID="064e252e-b1f6-470f-baf4-c13e32b98cee" CreationDate="2016-04-27T09:42:17.930" UserId="15503" Text="This is a pretty broad question, so I fear my answer is going to be reasonably broad and vague in response.&#xA;&#xA;**How much does it cost to file and obtain a patent?**&#xA;&#xA;At the USPTO, the basic filing fee is USD 280, with discounts for small and micro entities. This doesn't include attorney costs for filling and drafting, or for the costs that arise from prosecution.&#xA;&#xA;The cost to obtain a patent is impossible to give. It could be a few thousand or it could be ten times that. It all depends what happens during prosecution.&#xA;&#xA;**Who pays the patent costs?**&#xA;&#xA;Whoever wants the patent, ultimately.&#xA;&#xA;**What is the price range for a professionally written patent?**&#xA;&#xA;This is impossible to answer with any accuracy. It depends on the attorney and the nature of the invention. It could be USD 1000 for something very simple. It could be USD 30,000 for something extremely complex. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14802" RevisionGUID="1af175d9-cdaf-4aa0-81df-2c170bae3874" CreationDate="2016-04-27T15:20:31.457" UserId="15503" Text="Without going into all the intricacies, prior art is anything that is made available to the public before the priority date. It doesn't really matter what licence it is under when it is released.&#xA;&#xA;The patent you mention has a priority date of 29 October 2012. Assuming there were no changes between the priority filing and the actual filing, anything published before 29 October 2012 would be prior art.&#xA;&#xA;The YouTube video you linked to appears to have been published on 1 October 2013, and so could likely not be prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14804" RevisionGUID="f60166df-c4ec-47aa-9fc4-90d3fa9f5ea8" CreationDate="2016-04-27T19:54:05.667" UserId="15503" Text="You have specifically asked about *writing* an application, in the sense of drafting. In this case, I would suggest there should be no difference between the two. While provisional applications have somewhat lower formality requirements, you would generally be best placed to draft it as if it was a non-provisional. This is because if you file a rough sketch on a napkin as your provisional, your redrafted non-provisional that you file 1 year later will likely differ so much that the provisional will not give you any real priority claim. It would be as if you never filed the provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you meant to ask about *filing*, then there is little downside to filing a provisional patent application first. This is the cheapest option to ensure you get a full 21 year term (the 20 years of a patent plus the 1 year of priority). You could achieve this with a non-provisional patent application, but the filing fees are slightly more expensive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14805" RevisionGUID="f1120136-46e4-4107-bd17-aa35b5903b01" CreationDate="2016-04-27T20:24:25.347" UserId="15503" Text="**How can I know what is considered as part of the Sketchup patent?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You obtain a copy of the granted patent and look at the claims. The claims define what is protected by the patent. What is disclosed in the description is largely irrelevant (except, potentially, for interpretation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the tool that you produce implements all the features of one of the claims, then you infringe that claim of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you consider the scope of the claims, you can look at whether you believe the claims are valid. If you can form a good argument that the claims are invalid based on solid prior art, you might decide that you can ignore the patent. However, you can never be sure until the patent is actually revoked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What do I risk by implementing those features?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you infringe the patent (by making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing into the US the patented product (35 USC § 271), and you cannot invalidate the patent, you would be liable for &quot;damages adequate to compensate for the infringement&quot; (35 USC § 284). In effect, this is the lost revenue by the patent holder due to your action. This may be tripled where it can be shown that you willfully infringed, by knowing about the patent. You can also be injuncted from further infringement (35 USC § 283)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14806" RevisionGUID="ab980bf3-2dd0-4264-8a2e-b8473ad72907" CreationDate="2016-04-27T21:01:37.597" UserId="16588" Text="I have an idea for an message encryption method that is almost identical to another patent. However, that patent states that it uses only characters to encrypt the text while mine uses a hexadecimal conversion to produce a different end result.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would my idea be patentable because it uses a different number system to encrypt the messages and returns a completely different string of characters at the end?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37064" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14806" RevisionGUID="ab980bf3-2dd0-4264-8a2e-b8473ad72907" CreationDate="2016-04-27T21:01:37.597" UserId="16588" Text="Almost same method but different end result" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37065" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14806" RevisionGUID="ab980bf3-2dd0-4264-8a2e-b8473ad72907" CreationDate="2016-04-27T21:01:37.597" UserId="16588" Text="&lt;encryption&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14807" RevisionGUID="04016c21-030a-4d38-aaba-bd3fd489bbdd" CreationDate="2016-04-28T00:35:54.823" UserId="16589" Text="&quot;Upon allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which are written in deoendent form or otherwise require all the liminations of an allowed generic claim.&quot;           This is a sentence from an Office Action we received from the USPTO. You might think that I'm just straigt stupid, but I'm Japanese and cannot understand the meaning of this sentence... Please help!!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37067" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14807" RevisionGUID="04016c21-030a-4d38-aaba-bd3fd489bbdd" CreationDate="2016-04-28T00:35:54.823" UserId="16589" Text="Please tell me the meaning of this sentense!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37068" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14807" RevisionGUID="04016c21-030a-4d38-aaba-bd3fd489bbdd" CreationDate="2016-04-28T00:35:54.823" UserId="16589" Text="&lt;office-action&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14807" RevisionGUID="86725198-46e5-44dc-bfb1-800c69922c9c" CreationDate="2016-04-28T03:54:31.300" UserId="10011" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="I recently received an Office Action from the USPTO containing the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Upon allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which are written independent form or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowed generic claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this sentence mean in this context? How should I respond?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not been able to find any reliable sources on the internet to help me interpret it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37077" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14807" RevisionGUID="86725198-46e5-44dc-bfb1-800c69922c9c" CreationDate="2016-04-28T03:54:31.300" UserId="10011" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="What does this sentence mean in an Office Action?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14802" RevisionGUID="a8930fbc-1437-4146-9432-9beeb2f73346" CreationDate="2016-04-28T11:08:42.793" UserId="15503" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="Without going into all the intricacies, prior art is anything that is made available to the public before the priority date. It doesn't really matter what licence it is under when it is released.&#xA;&#xA;The patent you mention has a priority date of 29 October 2012. Assuming there were no changes between the priority filing and the actual filing, anything published before 29 October 2012 would be prior art.&#xA;&#xA;The YouTube video you linked to appears to have been published on 1 October 2013, and so would likely not be prior art (putting aside whether videos could be prior art at all)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14806" RevisionGUID="99498ac1-df3a-4f79-a47a-005ac53a0543" CreationDate="2016-04-29T00:04:36.933" UserId="16588" Comment="Added link to patent" Text="I have an idea for an message encryption method that is almost identical to another patent. However, that patent states that it uses only characters to encrypt the text while mine uses a hexadecimal conversion to produce a different end result.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would my idea be patentable because it uses a different number system to encrypt the messages and returns a completely different string of characters at the end?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link to the Patent is [here](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&amp;r=9&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PTXT&amp;p=1&amp;S1=%28enigma+AND+encryption%29&amp;OS=enigma+AND+encryption&amp;RS=%28enigma+AND+encryption%29 &quot;United States Patent: 9071408&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14816" RevisionGUID="b721d6fe-8040-4b74-9a4a-130045de498d" CreationDate="2016-04-30T20:21:22.433" UserId="16611" Text="The short answer is no. You cannot patent an idea, only an implementation. These generally fall into one of the categories of a process, a machine, a manufacture (combination of materials to make something new), or a new composition of matter (chemicals or drugs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More info:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/can-you-patent-an-idea&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14820" RevisionGUID="3f4e87f7-ab9f-470d-ae3e-46c6514067e7" CreationDate="2016-05-01T20:40:14.340" UserId="16618" Text="In reference to the patent: [US925691][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US925691&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dear Sirs,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gentleman referenced as the inventor, and holder of this patent, is my Great Grandfather - Glyndon Abraham Freer.  I have a copy of the original patent provided to him by the U.S. Patent office.  Does this document have any worth?  Since it's something connected to my heritage, it's priceless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thank you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;H. Robert Freer&#xD;&#xA;Milwaukee, WI&#xD;&#xA;414-426-2652" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37125" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14820" RevisionGUID="3f4e87f7-ab9f-470d-ae3e-46c6514067e7" CreationDate="2016-05-01T20:40:14.340" UserId="16618" Text="Original Patent document" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37126" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14820" RevisionGUID="3f4e87f7-ab9f-470d-ae3e-46c6514067e7" CreationDate="2016-05-01T20:40:14.340" UserId="16618" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14822" RevisionGUID="0c1ffed2-22a4-457c-891d-4c2b12097866" CreationDate="2016-05-02T01:34:14.630" UserId="16620" Text="I have an invention let's say  a tea pot. I saw a patent with sweeping claims about tea pots. This specific patent is a tea pot that needs a lid to boil and I came up with a tea pot that doesn't need a lid to boil water. &#xD;&#xA;However that patent sweeps so many claims including not having the lid. But the drawings and design show the lid. &#xD;&#xA;Secondly I notice from this design, it is almost impossible to manufacture this tea pot. But my tea pot can be manufactured easily and doesn't need a lid to boil.&#xD;&#xA;Also in the claims this patent doesn't refer to the lid as a function to broaden the claims. But I know it is designed just for that purpose even it doesn't mention. Almost making my design very obvious. Just take the lid off. &#xD;&#xA;Under these conditions is my invention patentable?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37131" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14822" RevisionGUID="0c1ffed2-22a4-457c-891d-4c2b12097866" CreationDate="2016-05-02T01:34:14.630" UserId="16620" Text="Sweeping claims, patentability" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37132" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14822" RevisionGUID="0c1ffed2-22a4-457c-891d-4c2b12097866" CreationDate="2016-05-02T01:34:14.630" UserId="16620" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14823" RevisionGUID="ba56fc5f-5166-42ab-a531-1b038c237ba0" CreationDate="2016-05-02T02:44:51.903" UserId="15407" Text="It does have to be novel and not obvious over the prior art, but if your invention (the parts that distinguish your teapot) provides advantages like an easy method of manufacturing and a capability for allowing boiling without the lid, then you need to draft claims that focus on the elements and construction not shown in the prior art giving rise to those advantages.  If the prior art does not teach teapots having these advantages, you should have some scope open.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, the prior art may teach lidless boiling, but you have to focus on the elements and construction showing a significant improvement in that result.  In this case, your disclosure should also show evidence of the improved boiling capability, and any other indications of non-obviousness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if the prior art is &quot;a teapot comprising a chamber for holding water and a heat imparting surface in contact with a heat source for heating the water in the chamber to boiling;&quot; you might get claims for &quot;said teapot including a heat conducting projection in contact with said heat imparting surface and extending into said chamber for increasing said heating of said water and reducing the time to boiling.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14824" RevisionGUID="270e0fc7-3287-404e-a3f9-6e1629665cc0" CreationDate="2016-05-02T03:39:36.193" UserId="16529" Text="It might have some value to any of the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - a farmer's association, especially if they are potato growers&#xD;&#xA; - if it was ever manufactured, the company that manufactured it (they may show it off in their archives or head office)&#xD;&#xA; - any museum of history, especially if they have a farming/agriculture section&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, you say it is priceless, presumably you are referring to it being priceless to yourself, so you may not want to sell it, but you can &quot;loan&quot; it to one of the above entities for a period of time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14825" RevisionGUID="9fac4d0e-e1e5-4ac4-9237-e5984ad86975" CreationDate="2016-05-02T05:21:14.857" UserId="16529" Text="Please read http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s809.html (scroll down to the section titled &quot;Present&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also look at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e324081 (go to Section 1.141    Different inventions in one national application)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I won't go into what is already on those pages, but essentially, the USPTO is saying that if you are patenting multiple species in a single application, you need to have one generic claim that applies to all of those species, and if that generic claim is granted, you can make additional claims.  However, those additional claims must carry all the limitations of the generic claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14826" RevisionGUID="bbc2d91d-6e70-4c6d-b213-1eb6d7c73478" CreationDate="2016-05-02T19:14:02.317" UserId="15407" Text="&gt; Does this document have any worth?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent itself has expired and cannot be enforced against anyone who might otherwise be an infringer.  If there have been an unbroken string of &quot;follow-on&quot; applications (&quot;Continuations&quot; and &quot;Continuation-in-Part&quot;) there is a very slight chance that some patent rights may yet exist (although if I think about it, probably not since the changeover to &quot;twenty-year term from filing the application&quot; happened more than 20 years ago – although your grandfather's patent line might be &quot;grandfathered&quot; in  :-) ).  Essentially, the invention has entered the public domain and is free for anyone to use.  That was the bargain your grandfather struck with the government – in order to obtain a limited term commercial monopoly from the government, he agreed to disclose the invention to the public so that anyone may make and use the invention (only subject to his patent rights while his patent term existed, and thereafter for free forever).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may also be some value as prior-art -- namely to help invalidate someone else's patent if they are asserting that they have existing patent rights covering the same invention (or an obvious modification).  But again, as a public domain document, easily obtainable by a search engine, the document itself may not have any intrinsic monetary value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, I am happy for your family's pride." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14828" RevisionGUID="54fb784f-29e1-4470-8a95-77c88b77f297" CreationDate="2016-05-03T07:34:01.247" UserId="16450" Text="When drafting an application, what if a single figure is too large to be put in one sheet? Can I just divide the single figure into two or more sheets? and how?&#xD;&#xA;I have searched this question in MPEP, and it states that &quot;[w]here figures on two or more sheets form in effect a single complete figure, the figures on the several sheets shall be so arranged that the complete figure can be assembled without concealing any part of any of the figures appearing on the various sheets.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;I just confused about how to do it? Can anybody give me some reference/patent about such situation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37147" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14828" RevisionGUID="54fb784f-29e1-4470-8a95-77c88b77f297" CreationDate="2016-05-03T07:34:01.247" UserId="16450" Text="what if a single figure is too large to be put in one sheet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37148" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14828" RevisionGUID="54fb784f-29e1-4470-8a95-77c88b77f297" CreationDate="2016-05-03T07:34:01.247" UserId="16450" Text="&lt;patent-drawings&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14830" RevisionGUID="e861df36-0dcd-4fc3-b61d-68e13058d86a" CreationDate="2016-05-03T20:01:47.550" UserId="16631" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20120049410][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120049410" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37154" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14830" RevisionGUID="e861df36-0dcd-4fc3-b61d-68e13058d86a" CreationDate="2016-05-03T20:01:47.550" UserId="16631" Text="Has the patent been issued? Has been approved for manufacturing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37155" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14830" RevisionGUID="e861df36-0dcd-4fc3-b61d-68e13058d86a" CreationDate="2016-05-03T20:01:47.550" UserId="16631" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;manufacturing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14831" RevisionGUID="c183098b-0254-4bb6-9451-83ab1801953e" CreationDate="2016-05-04T07:03:36.007" UserId="15787" Text="Let's suppose, An organization sued another company, say ABC, with their patent X and won with handful amount in damages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if in the future its patent (X) gets invalidated by someone else? Will the company (ABC) have the right to claim something?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37157" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14831" RevisionGUID="c183098b-0254-4bb6-9451-83ab1801953e" CreationDate="2016-05-04T07:03:36.007" UserId="15787" Text="What if a patent that was used to sue a company got invalidated later?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37158" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14831" RevisionGUID="c183098b-0254-4bb6-9451-83ab1801953e" CreationDate="2016-05-04T07:03:36.007" UserId="15787" Text="&lt;lawsuit&gt;&lt;patent-invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37159" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12107" RevisionGUID="c4082dfc-0eb8-4c48-aa13-a94b4ecc828a" CreationDate="2016-05-04T11:04:40.097" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37163" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13528" RevisionGUID="1e7bb386-ad2a-4698-ad7e-ce5de192159b" CreationDate="2016-05-04T16:04:42.797" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14833" RevisionGUID="da0796c3-e07c-4512-97d6-cda9d36be203" CreationDate="2016-05-04T17:04:45.553" UserId="16635" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5933819][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5933819&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US5933819][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5933819&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is not patentable, but does need protection. Without knowing the details, applying a neural network algorithm to a problem is not even an idea, it is common course of the art. IF, authors made some modification to the NNA, it _may_ deserve patenting, but no if any researcher in the same area will find the same modification because it is obviously needed to adapt the algorithm to the problem. I think this case should be treated like a Trade Secret if applied commercially, otherwise should be considered general research and public. I found the patent by simply searching for peptide NN. Does this mean I should not even TRY to apply the algorithm to the problem but instead should start paying rights to these authors if I use it commercially? Cases like this one deserve a PRIZE in lieu of rights, but not a restrictive patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37166" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14833" RevisionGUID="da0796c3-e07c-4512-97d6-cda9d36be203" CreationDate="2016-05-04T17:04:45.553" UserId="16635" Text="Is it really possible to patent neural networks?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37167" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14833" RevisionGUID="da0796c3-e07c-4512-97d6-cda9d36be203" CreationDate="2016-05-04T17:04:45.553" UserId="16635" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37168" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13537" RevisionGUID="309d476e-9c7d-4be9-81f7-acaa10421d18" CreationDate="2016-05-04T18:04:42.783" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14834" RevisionGUID="7c7d01e5-9c5d-43c3-90de-44398c1b120d" CreationDate="2016-05-04T18:31:16.610" UserId="15123" Text="That's a patent application, not a grant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually a granted patent is identifiable on Google patents site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the document's `Publication type` in the blue cartouche shows `Grant` as opposed to `Application`&#xD;&#xA;- the cartouche shows the corresponding `Application Number` on the following line&#xD;&#xA;- the `Discuss this Application` blue button reads `Discuss this Patent` instead&#xD;&#xA;- there are 2 buttons beside the top left red &quot;Patents&quot; link - `Application` and `Grant`, which you can use to navigate between the 2 corresponding docs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see these details here: [US8967989][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I got to this patent by following the [`Inventors`][2] link from the cartouche to see other patent-related work from the same author. In the doc list obtained one can quickly check the word preceeding the filing date to distinguish between grants (`Grant`) and applications (`App.`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the 2nd question: approval for manufacturing doesn't really have anything to do with IP protection (which is what the patent application/grant process is about).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8967989&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&amp;tbm=pts&amp;hl=en&amp;q=ininventor:%22Carlos%20Salazar%20Altamar%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37170" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7833" RevisionGUID="699a193a-6680-4e1b-ba72-7ca1df2783e5" CreationDate="2016-05-04T20:04:42.933" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37175" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13171" RevisionGUID="b48f3748-fc3d-417b-9599-92a1a140a725" CreationDate="2016-05-05T05:10:22.207" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37176" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10041" RevisionGUID="25bccce5-98ce-4b31-8910-5afeee129831" CreationDate="2016-05-05T06:10:22.197" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37177" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10559" RevisionGUID="60628ec0-a27f-4e4d-b124-08c16e4b9044" CreationDate="2016-05-05T10:14:37.253" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14836" RevisionGUID="76c1af73-3efc-4b46-b48d-8fa993443970" CreationDate="2016-05-05T10:52:13.857" UserId="16641" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7475110][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7475110&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this apply to SMS in an Mobile Inbox too ? &#xD;&#xA;I mean if i want to club 2 messages from 2 different users into 1, then would this patent hold good or should there be a new patent for it ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37179" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14836" RevisionGUID="76c1af73-3efc-4b46-b48d-8fa993443970" CreationDate="2016-05-05T10:52:13.857" UserId="16641" Text="Would this pateent apply to SMS in an Mobile Inbox too?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37180" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14836" RevisionGUID="76c1af73-3efc-4b46-b48d-8fa993443970" CreationDate="2016-05-05T10:52:13.857" UserId="16641" Text="&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;sms&gt;&lt;us7475110&gt;&lt;inbox&gt;&lt;merge&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="b49ce477-7bd8-4cf0-a123-a8df9dfc4fa4" CreationDate="2016-05-05T19:14:24.287" UserId="16643" Text="I went to the recommended gov site to do a search but could not find the patent.  It is listed on google search.  How do I find the owners contact info?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37183" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="b49ce477-7bd8-4cf0-a123-a8df9dfc4fa4" CreationDate="2016-05-05T19:14:24.287" UserId="16643" Text="Ownership contact info" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37184" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="b49ce477-7bd8-4cf0-a123-a8df9dfc4fa4" CreationDate="2016-05-05T19:14:24.287" UserId="16643" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14839" RevisionGUID="f25fd666-1202-4752-a1e3-eaff9405ef9b" CreationDate="2016-05-05T19:34:05.510" UserId="16644" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20130199155][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130199155&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is this prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13055.msg378028#msg378028&#xD;&#xA;toby" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37186" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14839" RevisionGUID="f25fd666-1202-4752-a1e3-eaff9405ef9b" CreationDate="2016-05-05T19:34:05.510" UserId="16644" Text="Is this posting on lower temperature nuclear thermal disassociation of n2o4 and nh3 prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37187" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14839" RevisionGUID="f25fd666-1202-4752-a1e3-eaff9405ef9b" CreationDate="2016-05-05T19:34:05.510" UserId="16644" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37190" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12403" RevisionGUID="8e993af1-ff95-4ba5-839e-e413e0482f95" CreationDate="2016-05-06T03:40:40.253" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37191" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14508" RevisionGUID="fe4cc199-b3c6-4e2d-9339-8711b126d290" CreationDate="2016-05-06T06:49:35.620" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37192" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13283" RevisionGUID="c37d7540-5547-4162-83fc-428dbd2ec441" CreationDate="2016-05-06T07:49:35.663" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37193" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12972" RevisionGUID="da3c0556-a4ac-4f0a-abfa-57f966d55bb6" CreationDate="2016-05-06T08:49:35.667" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14840" RevisionGUID="307bb525-f0a6-4db7-9671-1af64845406f" CreationDate="2016-05-06T09:49:09.407" UserId="16647" Text="I have invented a device which uses earth's magnetic field to generate a good and usable amount of electricity more efficient than solar cells.Is this device patent-able or this has been already patented? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37195" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14840" RevisionGUID="307bb525-f0a6-4db7-9671-1af64845406f" CreationDate="2016-05-06T09:49:09.407" UserId="16647" Text="has Geomagnetism being used for generation of electricity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37196" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14840" RevisionGUID="307bb525-f0a6-4db7-9671-1af64845406f" CreationDate="2016-05-06T09:49:09.407" UserId="16647" Text="&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37197" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10050" RevisionGUID="996a03eb-def7-4f7b-b26f-6f157aedf42e" CreationDate="2016-05-06T09:50:16.183" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14841" RevisionGUID="3a7c38ed-7e5a-4805-9193-44b3a8bd80ca" CreationDate="2016-05-06T14:24:05.530" UserId="15503" Text="I know nothing about the prior art in this field. That is something which really can only be assessed by a patent search. Nevertheless, I would be reasonably confident in assuming that there is no enabling prior art in this.&#xA;&#xA;Assuming my assumption is correct, in principle, your invention would in principle be patentable. However, it would not have an easy ride.&#xA;&#xA;A patent will only be granted in the US if an invention is useful (35 USC § 101). This is usually a low bar. However, it is particularly salient when it comes to machines which produce &quot;free power&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;There is a long discussion about the requirement for usefulness at [MPEP § 2107](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2107.html). However, one passage which succinctly summarises the position would be:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a lack of credible utility have been sustained by federal courts when, for example, the applicant failed to disclose any utility for the invention or asserted a utility that could only be true if it violated a scientific principle, such as the second law of thermodynamics, or a law of nature, or was wholly inconsistent with contemporary knowledge in the art.&#xA;&#xA;I suspect that your invention would be regarded as wholly inconsistent with contemporary knowledge in the art. Therefore, if you applied for a US patent, I would expect you would receive an objection that your invention is not useful. You would then be required to provide sufficient evidence to prove that your invention works in the manner you suggest it does. This may involve testing by an independent agency.&#xA;&#xA;If you can show that your invention works to achieve a useful result, I can't see any reason why you couldn't get a patent for it. But if you can generate a substantial amount of free power from the Earth's magnetic field, I suspect getting a patent would be the least of your achievements." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14842" RevisionGUID="df4d49fb-c3cf-418d-9161-1f91ea4d4b2c" CreationDate="2016-05-06T14:47:30.800" UserId="16648" Text="One useful tool is USPTO Public PAIR found at &#xD;&#xA;http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair.  Enter the publication number or application number to see the status.  For a published US application, the entire process is available for viewing or downloading including the rejections offered by the USTPO and any amendments to the claims or arguments by the applicant. In this case, the application has been rejected five times with the most recent rejection in April of 2016.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using PAIR is the only way to know for sure that an application has been rejected and the applicant has given up the fight. You need to check the continuity tab to ensure that the applicant has not moved the fight to a new application number with the same disclosure.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Touching base with a patent attorney can let you understand the unusual events such as a patent application getting revived for unintentional abandonment or restarting from a parallel PCT application but PAIR is a great tool for those looking to do some research on their own. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37200" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14517" RevisionGUID="11ec8e8a-56c8-42cd-85cf-7dad4fb699c8" CreationDate="2016-05-06T14:54:02.143" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14843" RevisionGUID="406a2259-19e6-42fe-a02d-4c8471281454" CreationDate="2016-05-06T15:02:02.347" UserId="16649" Text="In reference to the patent: [USD708869][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD708869&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has this patent been approved? Why or why not? When? Is the patent owner still alive? Is the patent for sale? Are there other similar patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37202" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14843" RevisionGUID="406a2259-19e6-42fe-a02d-4c8471281454" CreationDate="2016-05-06T15:02:02.347" UserId="16649" Text="What is the status?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37203" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14843" RevisionGUID="406a2259-19e6-42fe-a02d-4c8471281454" CreationDate="2016-05-06T15:02:02.347" UserId="16649" Text="&lt;status&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14844" RevisionGUID="98ed3f6a-be05-4d53-948a-f018b2d6714b" CreationDate="2016-05-06T15:40:13.660" UserId="16650" Text="This particular patent has been applied long ago. How can I find out if the patent has ever been granted or is still pending. If the patent has been granted, I want to know the date of it's issue. [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/F11FZ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37205" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14844" RevisionGUID="98ed3f6a-be05-4d53-948a-f018b2d6714b" CreationDate="2016-05-06T15:40:13.660" UserId="16650" Text="How to find whether patent is pending or granted and its issue date, if granted" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37206" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14844" RevisionGUID="98ed3f6a-be05-4d53-948a-f018b2d6714b" CreationDate="2016-05-06T15:40:13.660" UserId="16650" Text="&lt;legal-status&gt;&lt;validity&gt;&lt;date&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14845" RevisionGUID="c39c6069-774b-4048-a79d-4efe4d7c794a" CreationDate="2016-05-06T15:45:56.803" UserId="10011" Text="The link in your question *is* the granted patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see on the box at the right of the Google Patents page that its Publication Type is &quot;Grant,&quot; meaning it's a patent and no longer an application, and that its Publication date was July 15, 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Status box from Google Patents][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I can't speak to the licensing that its assignee has in place, if any, and I don't know whether they're still alive (although having filed this in 2014, it wouldn't surprise me).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest checking out http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/5059/10011 for information about finding the owner. Contacting them would be your best bet to work out a licensing arrangement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/KzqPW.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37208" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5868" RevisionGUID="286094d1-bd48-45fe-8c59-c6f053c13435" CreationDate="2016-05-06T15:54:06.543" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14846" RevisionGUID="d67b31b2-e499-4237-9585-2dd53aca9e6a" CreationDate="2016-05-06T16:44:12.540" UserId="16648" Text="You can use one of several search tools.  One that I like is Espacenet run by the European Patent Office.  I provided the application number (not the publication number) and this is the URL to get to the results. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?ST=singleline&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;submitted=true&amp;DB=&amp;query=DE19883828825&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Selecting INPADOC Legal Status from the list on the left gives a bare bones answer that on June 17, 1992 this application was withdrawn.   You can probably get more information on a German patent office site or you can contact someone that works with German patents to give you more information.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Espacenet has a disclaimer that they try to have accurate information but notes that mistakes can happen.  If this is critical to you, you should have your patent attorney dig a little deeper, most have relationships with European patent attorneys that are familiar with these systems.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37210" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13359" RevisionGUID="e405f5de-2af3-4989-9686-b68f2a64d603" CreationDate="2016-05-06T16:56:19.737" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37215" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14168" RevisionGUID="aea5f260-a56c-4b3d-aa60-72ebb220830e" CreationDate="2016-05-07T08:06:09.813" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37216" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10378" RevisionGUID="6f8e6b4d-f7bd-4329-bef8-d23470a6897b" CreationDate="2016-05-07T09:06:27.820" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37217" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="dab8b951-b9a2-4a6a-9102-93219443538a" CreationDate="2016-05-07T13:09:53.120" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37218" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="737c2e7f-2a38-4169-80ee-864b3f7393f0" CreationDate="2016-05-07T14:09:53.133" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14848" RevisionGUID="847bb768-1637-4219-8bb2-4332f7bc3606" CreationDate="2016-05-07T15:27:04.263" UserId="16648" Text="For United States Patent applications or patents and some PCT applications filed in the US, you can look at the USPTO system called assignments on the web.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/power-attorney-and-assignment/assignments-web-aotw&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, you are only going to get a full set of information for US applications that have been published or have matured into an issued patent.  Unpublished applications, including those with non-publication requests won't share all the details unless and until the application is subsequently published, the patent issues, or an application is used as a priority document for a later application that is published or issued. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also go in through Public PAIR at USPTO for the relevant application or patent and hit the assignments tab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some applications are owned by the original inventors and no assignment is filed.  Some have been assigned but the owners have not gone through the prudent step of recording the assignment. It is also possible that there have been subsequent assignments after an initial assignment that have not yet been recorded.  There can be a time lag between an attempt by an owner to record an assignment and the assignment showing up in the records, but generally the lag is only a week or so.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So checking the public records is a good step but not all assignments are properly recorded. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kevin &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14849" RevisionGUID="5b58c7a3-3bc8-4210-9633-890210ee1024" CreationDate="2016-05-07T15:45:57.807" UserId="16648" Text="Having a figure that is too large for one sheet (especially with the minimum font sizes and required margins) is fairly common for electronic circuits, sample computer code to implement a function, or detailed flow charts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There used to be hard copies of drawing guidelines with samples that folks used as a reference for questions like this.  That material still exists if you look hard enough on the USPTO site.  But to make this quick, here is a link to one of my patents.  Figure 7 is a circuit too large for one sheet.  So you have a first image that shows how the subsequent pieces fit together.  Then you show the pieces. Note the dashed lines that indicate seams between sheets.   http://www.google.com/patents/US8829412&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps. &#xD;&#xA;Kevin " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37224" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12143" RevisionGUID="0c0921a7-759d-46d0-9ac4-83cc0536206a" CreationDate="2016-05-07T17:12:19.297" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14850" RevisionGUID="af409ca5-5b28-4eaa-a755-ea91e64af307" CreationDate="2016-05-07T18:03:30.917" UserId="16655" Text="Using Vetiver /khus roots for cooling screens and cooling blinds/thick curtain is very very old tradition in India.One can find households using it still.In Madhya Pradesh and UttarPradesh  in India so many manufacturers still make this curtains for domestic use as well as export. In fact the people applied for patent must be of Indian origin. Because for such knowledge we have local phrase in Hindi&quot; yeh to bacha bacha janta hai &quot; Means &quot;each and every child knows it.&quot;Ha Ha Patent.    AS for its references,one can find it in any Sanskrit writings including centuries old Ayurved,Charaksahinta and other  literature. It has been in extensive use by East India company before independence of India 1947,tribal people hand made cooling curtains and cooling pads were used for several years in Desert coolers ,as it is locally called, from wild indigenous Vetiver root .After colonial raj,independent India had this cooling curtains in all the  government offices located in in Nagpur and Chandrapur in Maharashtra State. In fact 2 months of extreme summer i.e April and may every year Cetral Governmentof India had special budgetary provision in these district offices, for watering personnel's special allowances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37227" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13373" RevisionGUID="62516601-62ad-41f1-ac45-754894649b4d" CreationDate="2016-05-08T02:20:49.463" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37232" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="19399f3e-7474-4d8e-b402-3977e33e0402" CreationDate="2016-05-08T04:21:00.120" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37236" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12640" RevisionGUID="da6e6f75-9305-4bf7-9d22-825121609d08" CreationDate="2016-05-08T12:31:33.627" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14853" RevisionGUID="db8753ac-f03c-4830-8a59-71cad5ade072" CreationDate="2016-05-08T14:31:13.937" UserId="16659" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2015107233A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015107233A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have published the first experiences with oxalic acid in cardboard strips made by Mr. Ricardo Prieto in August 2014. Mr. Prieto asked me how to disolve oxalic acid without water in 2013. I recomended him to use an alcohol because of its polarity and water affinity. We use ethyl alcohol and/or propylene glycol frequently to disolve propolis. Being glycerol cheaper than propylene glycol and with more hydroxyl groups and it is not volatile at normal pressure and temperature conditions we suggested to Mr. Prieto to use glycerol to disolve oxalic acid. He soaked cardboard strips into a solution of oxalic acid and glycerol. He made different essays hanging different sizes of strips into the brood chamber of the bee hives to test the mitecide effect of these strips. All of this was published in Espacio Apícola magazine #109 May-July 2014 ISSN 1850-0757 and the following editions.&#xD;&#xA;On May 6th 2015 Mr. Ricardo organized a meeting in his farm with about 100 colleagues to share his experiences that we published in Espacio Apícola #112 ISSN 1850-0757..&#xD;&#xA;Currently many beekeepers around the world are using this formula to prepare their own strips like a State of Art in Beekeeping Practice. There are not invention here. Oxalic acid is wellknown and for a long time recognized as an active substance against varroa mite and glycerol is a vehicle and the cardboard strip is a support.&#xD;&#xA;We have published many articles about the use of oxalic acid in differents treatments against varroa. This cardboard strips is one of them.&#xD;&#xA;Fernando Esteban, Espacio Apícola editor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37238" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14853" RevisionGUID="db8753ac-f03c-4830-8a59-71cad5ade072" CreationDate="2016-05-08T14:31:13.937" UserId="16659" Text="THE USE OF CARDBOARD STRIPS WITH OXALIC ACID AGAINST VARROA IS A STATE OF ART" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37239" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14853" RevisionGUID="db8753ac-f03c-4830-8a59-71cad5ade072" CreationDate="2016-05-08T14:31:13.937" UserId="16659" Text="&lt;wo2015107233a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37240" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14181" RevisionGUID="2c82210e-63bc-4f87-8021-10c406df4fd1" CreationDate="2016-05-08T15:34:35.327" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37241" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11943" RevisionGUID="95078edd-4c8e-4aaf-b80d-4343de82cafe" CreationDate="2016-05-08T16:34:37.017" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14854" RevisionGUID="5f57c300-e81b-4a9e-8cea-70a258b6ea24" CreationDate="2016-05-08T17:05:44.370" UserId="16660" Text="I am designing a &quot;bunk-bed&quot; and would like to use a palette rack as steal frame. Specifically - Husky Palette Rack. This product has a &quot;Beams feature the patented Bowlock® safety clip. Bowlock® cannot be sprung or removed without first removing the beam and requires no special tools.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;Later I plan to patent the design or my product itself, will I run into a problem if I am to incorporate the palette rack into my product (I plan to purchase the palette racks as a raw material for my &quot;bunk-bed). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q: Can I use Husky Palette Rack as a part of my product or do I need to contact the company for permission or should I use entirely different company ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37243" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14854" RevisionGUID="5f57c300-e81b-4a9e-8cea-70a258b6ea24" CreationDate="2016-05-08T17:05:44.370" UserId="16660" Text="Using patented product as a part of my product." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37244" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14854" RevisionGUID="5f57c300-e81b-4a9e-8cea-70a258b6ea24" CreationDate="2016-05-08T17:05:44.370" UserId="16660" Text="&lt;paletterack&gt;&lt;deign&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37245" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="97c017a2-3790-408a-8df8-c5c6924ee5b7" CreationDate="2016-05-08T17:36:08.927" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14853" RevisionGUID="d09a7388-994a-45c7-9977-e1829881dda9" CreationDate="2016-05-08T18:33:19.227" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body; edited title" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2015107233A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015107233A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have published the first experiences with oxalic acid in cardboard strips made by Mr. Ricardo Prieto in August 2014. Mr. Prieto asked me how to disolve oxalic acid without water in 2013. I recomended him to use an alcohol because of its polarity and water affinity. We use ethyl alcohol and/or propylene glycol frequently to disolve propolis. Being glycerol cheaper than propylene glycol and with more hydroxyl groups and it is not volatile at normal pressure and temperature conditions we suggested to Mr. Prieto to use glycerol to disolve oxalic acid. He soaked cardboard strips into a solution of oxalic acid and glycerol. He made different essays hanging different sizes of strips into the brood chamber of the bee hives to test the mitecide effect of these strips. All of this was published in Espacio Apícola magazine #109 May-July 2014 ISSN 1850-0757 and the following editions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On May 6th 2015 Mr. Ricardo organized a meeting in his farm with about 100 colleagues to share his experiences that we published in Espacio Apícola #112 ISSN 1850-0757..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently many beekeepers around the world are using this formula to prepare their own strips like a State of Art in Beekeeping Practice. There are not invention here. Oxalic acid is wellknown and for a long time recognized as an active substance against varroa mite and glycerol is a vehicle and the cardboard strip is a support.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have published many articles about the use of oxalic acid in differents treatments against varroa. This cardboard strips is one of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37247" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14853" RevisionGUID="d09a7388-994a-45c7-9977-e1829881dda9" CreationDate="2016-05-08T18:33:19.227" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body; edited title" Text="Using oxalic acid on cardboard strips against varroa" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37248" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14853" RevisionGUID="d09a7388-994a-45c7-9977-e1829881dda9" CreationDate="2016-05-08T18:33:19.227" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;wo2015107233a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37249" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11951" RevisionGUID="2b98de51-e6d5-4bef-97b7-f5876eab900f" CreationDate="2016-05-08T18:35:54.537" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14841" RevisionGUID="f6d664e5-daba-4600-9951-207e533d0803" CreationDate="2016-05-08T18:49:03.980" UserId="15503" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="I know nothing about the prior art in this field. That is something which really can only be assessed by a patent search. Nevertheless, I would be reasonably confident in assuming that there is no enabling prior art in this.&#xA;&#xA;Assuming my assumption is correct, your invention would in principle be patentable. However, it would not have an easy ride.&#xA;&#xA;A patent will only be granted in the US if an invention is useful (35 USC § 101). This is usually a low bar. However, it is particularly salient when it comes to machines which produce &quot;free power&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;There is a long discussion about the requirement for usefulness at [MPEP § 2107](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2107.html). However, one passage which succinctly summarises the position would be:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a lack of credible utility have been sustained by federal courts when, for example, the applicant failed to disclose any utility for the invention or asserted a utility that could only be true if it violated a scientific principle, such as the second law of thermodynamics, or a law of nature, or was wholly inconsistent with contemporary knowledge in the art.&#xA;&#xA;I suspect that your invention would be regarded as wholly inconsistent with contemporary knowledge in the art. Therefore, if you applied for a US patent, I would expect you would receive an objection that your invention is not useful. You would then be required to provide sufficient evidence to prove that your invention works in the manner you suggest it does. This may involve testing by an independent agency.&#xA;&#xA;If you can show that your invention works to achieve a useful result, I can't see any reason why you couldn't get a patent for it. But if you can generate a substantial amount of free power from the Earth's magnetic field, I suspect getting a patent would be the least of your achievements." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37251" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12990" RevisionGUID="661c3e4e-cfe9-44cd-a463-2b9c3b4e8e08" CreationDate="2016-05-08T21:37:15.360" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37253" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9885" RevisionGUID="b58a112f-8882-4b80-a93d-b255db00997c" CreationDate="2016-05-09T08:53:23.353" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14855" RevisionGUID="9bb006ca-c49b-44d2-a96f-54dca273d6d9" CreationDate="2016-05-09T09:19:12.403" UserId="16663" Text="If I make an electric circuit for a specific purpose would it be patentable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The circuit is not complicated, it is simple for a very simple task.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37255" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14855" RevisionGUID="9bb006ca-c49b-44d2-a96f-54dca273d6d9" CreationDate="2016-05-09T09:19:12.403" UserId="16663" Text="Is an electric circuit patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37256" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14855" RevisionGUID="9bb006ca-c49b-44d2-a96f-54dca273d6d9" CreationDate="2016-05-09T09:19:12.403" UserId="16663" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;engineering&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37257" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13723" RevisionGUID="82e22245-47e9-487b-9ff8-5c944fa1ee3b" CreationDate="2016-05-09T09:53:23.977" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37258" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13023" RevisionGUID="5cb589a8-a5e7-4d03-b9e6-199d88a44706" CreationDate="2016-05-09T12:54:52.493" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14857" RevisionGUID="c2b75ff3-4b20-4efb-a784-d13eaaa6ad6c" CreationDate="2016-05-09T18:04:47.733" UserId="16668" Text="Indeed the use of oxalic acid for the control of varroa have a long history. We have tried most of the different application methods considering them either dangerous for the beekeeper or too time consuming for a comertial setting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, when we knew - vía Espacio Apicola - of a new method, this time making strips soaked in glycerin+oxalic, we started right away the experimentation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the proposal of Prieto+Esteban worked great we started to promote via Apiaraucania their use within the chilean beekeepers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now the post http://apiaraucania.blogspot.cl/2016/01/monoxalato-como-control-de-varroa.html have more than 4000 visits and many beekeepers around the world are using this oxalic in glycerin for controling varroa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore in my opinion neither the use of oxalic acid nor the use of strips with it are a nobel proposal deserving a patent. This should be part of general knowledge and for free use of any beekeeper around the world to combat varroa parasite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37264" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="8d0e5211-5a80-4429-8846-67d3749b38e8" CreationDate="2016-05-09T21:02:58.413" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37268" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14632" RevisionGUID="03f1bf31-5a42-49a9-9e1a-4deba9d880e5" CreationDate="2016-05-09T22:02:59.573" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37272" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14061" RevisionGUID="710108f7-429f-4b4e-b776-4c66fe16a0bc" CreationDate="2016-05-10T00:03:08.870" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37275" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14049" RevisionGUID="96ac3887-9393-4da2-b20a-f1bdc76451d8" CreationDate="2016-05-10T02:04:27.390" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14861" RevisionGUID="d09dc897-0f95-47c1-aed1-84c11a406696" CreationDate="2016-05-10T04:25:08.097" UserId="16674" Text="&#xA;Can i deal with any company with my patent application no. without waiting 3-4 years&#xA;&amp; in how much time i got my application no. After filling my form?&#xA;I m from Jaipur Rajasthan where i can fill it. (Delhi/Jaipur/online/offline).&#xA;Thanks in advance...!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37280" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14861" RevisionGUID="d09dc897-0f95-47c1-aed1-84c11a406696" CreationDate="2016-05-10T04:25:08.097" UserId="16674" Text="Wants to know about how can i fill my patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37281" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14861" RevisionGUID="d09dc897-0f95-47c1-aed1-84c11a406696" CreationDate="2016-05-10T04:25:08.097" UserId="16674" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37282" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13939" RevisionGUID="f246bdbc-dc03-4f28-b71b-1102864c17c0" CreationDate="2016-05-10T09:10:13.843" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14862" RevisionGUID="15191ffb-31ed-4c62-8d56-c2f4381343e3" CreationDate="2016-05-10T10:36:00.200" UserId="16677" Text="Generally an applicant starts marketing his product immediately after the patent application is filed. An application number is given at the time of filing itself on the same day. As per jurisdiction, you are supposed to file the patent application in Delhi patent office. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14863" RevisionGUID="f0429a5a-6e46-419f-bb69-15e209c0d61f" CreationDate="2016-05-10T11:38:01.497" UserId="15787" Text="Yes, you can submit Videos (Whether from Youtube or other platforms), voice, and even images as prior art for an invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As [@patentico][1] mentioned that providing the hard copy of a video is a bad idea as you may face difficulties in providing publication date of that video. You may need to collect evidence of original publication date of the same. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, a video will be considered prior art even if the source of that video and patent are same (if the time frame between the publication date of video and filing date of the patent is more than a considerable time provided by local IP laws). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As your request, I have found one infamous patent case of Apple where their patent was invalidated by using a video as Prior art. The interesting fact about that case is, the video considered as prior art was Apple's own keynote video on iPhone release presented by Steve Jobs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Iphone's [Rubber-banding effect patent][2] was invalidated in Germany after Google submitted Steve Jobs' presented keynote video as prior art. The court even rejected various amended claims by Apple. Only 3 out of 20 claims were granted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While searching for cases, I found an article with 4 such patent disputes where visual content was considered as prior art (including the above case I mentioned). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not just a Youtube video but, a comic, picture, even Movie can be used a prior art as long as you're able to provide strong relation and publication date of the same. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the other 3 patent cases including one where a movie from 1968 was considered as prior art for Apple's iPad's design. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[4 cases where examiner found ridiculously awesome prior art.][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/212/15787&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&amp;date=20100929&amp;DB=EPODOC&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;CC=EP&amp;NR=2059868B1&amp;KC=B1&amp;ND=4&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.greyb.com/4-cases-examiner-found-ridiculously-awesome-prior-art/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14863" RevisionGUID="56756ed4-b917-4def-81e3-6298c812111c" CreationDate="2016-05-10T12:30:14.823" UserId="15787" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Yes, you can submit Videos (Whether from Youtube or other platforms), voice, and even images as prior art for an invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As [@patentico][1] mentioned that providing the hard copy of a video is a bad idea as you may face difficulties in providing publication date of that video. You may need to collect evidence of original publication date of the same. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, a video will be considered prior art even if the source of that video and patent are same (if the time frame between the publication date of video and filing date of the patent is more than a considerable time provided by local IP laws). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As your request, I have found one infamous patent case of Apple where their patent was invalidated by using a video as Prior art. The interesting fact about that case is, the video considered as prior art was Apple's own keynote video on iPhone release presented by Steve Jobs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Iphone's [Rubber-banding effect patent][2] was invalidated in Germany after Google submitted Steve Jobs' presented keynote video as prior art. The court even rejected various amended claims by Apple. Only 3 out of 20 claims were granted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While searching for cases, I found an article with 4 such patent disputes where visual content was considered as prior art (including the above case I mentioned). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not just a YouTube video but, a comic, picture, or even Movie can be used a prior art as long as you're able to provide strong relation with the invention and publication date of the same. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the other 3 patent cases including one where a movie from 1968 was considered as prior art for Apple's iPad design. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[4 cases where examiner found ridiculously awesome prior art.][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/212/15787&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&amp;date=20100929&amp;DB=EPODOC&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;CC=EP&amp;NR=2059868B1&amp;KC=B1&amp;ND=4&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.greyb.com/4-cases-examiner-found-ridiculously-awesome-prior-art/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37286" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13762" RevisionGUID="1521c260-5432-4c02-9ffc-e0da0a585e68" CreationDate="2016-05-10T13:16:13.003" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37287" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14830" RevisionGUID="d8e968b6-ae0c-401c-8464-26254c8adb36" CreationDate="2016-05-10T13:20:23.433" UserId="16648" Comment="One answer to the question leads to a suggestion on the value of Public PAIR." Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;pair&gt;&lt;manufacturing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37288" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14830" RevisionGUID="d8e968b6-ae0c-401c-8464-26254c8adb36" CreationDate="2016-05-10T13:20:23.433" Comment="Proposed by 16648 approved by -1 edit id of 1939" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14830" RevisionGUID="12d927fa-132b-4c26-a8ff-c5b613a90292" CreationDate="2016-05-10T13:20:23.433" UserId="8074" Comment="One answer to the question leads to a suggestion on the value of Public PAIR." Text="Has the patent been issued? Has been approved for manufacturing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US20120049410][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120049410" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37290" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14830" RevisionGUID="12d927fa-132b-4c26-a8ff-c5b613a90292" CreationDate="2016-05-10T13:20:23.433" UserId="8074" Comment="One answer to the question leads to a suggestion on the value of Public PAIR." Text="What is the status of US20120049410?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37291" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14830" RevisionGUID="12d927fa-132b-4c26-a8ff-c5b613a90292" CreationDate="2016-05-10T13:20:23.433" UserId="8074" Comment="One answer to the question leads to a suggestion on the value of Public PAIR." Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;pair&gt;&lt;manufacturing&gt;&lt;us20120049410&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37300" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="c7ed3643-73a6-4461-b522-4c6762bddbe6" CreationDate="2016-05-11T00:47:23.877" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37304" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13601" RevisionGUID="477cbd06-49f9-4506-8fe7-0c40c6933431" CreationDate="2016-05-11T04:47:24.173" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37305" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13276" RevisionGUID="feb8dc7c-d9d9-42cb-bf76-3eff8afff308" CreationDate="2016-05-11T05:47:24.183" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14867" RevisionGUID="c5089db9-3bba-4dd5-a7f0-dda26042ef57" CreationDate="2016-05-11T06:43:21.237" UserId="16683" Text="One of my opponent, a dual national (i.e. PK/CA) has filed a PCT application recently, designating multiple countries to run a national phase.&#xD;&#xA;My question is this, that my opponent filed a Pakistani application on 04-11-2013, then filed an ordinary application in the US (claiming priority of Pk application) on 16-10-2014 (within the allowed time) which was granted soon, however it is note worthy that he filed the PCT application on 13-10-2015 claiming priority of US patent application rather than claiming priority of earliest application i.e. Pakistani application. This is alarming as my opponent has not even mentioned about his PK application in the PCT application. Now my question is that what can be done to challenge this PCT application and how can we challenge the application simultaneously in all designated countries, keeping in mind that the application is still pending. Further, it shall be noted that Pak is not signatory to PCT and as pakistani applicant is not eligible to file a PCT application so the opponent has shown his canadian residential address in the PCT application whereas in the US application his Pakistani residential address was mentioned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37310" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14867" RevisionGUID="c5089db9-3bba-4dd5-a7f0-dda26042ef57" CreationDate="2016-05-11T06:43:21.237" UserId="16683" Text="PCT patent application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37311" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14867" RevisionGUID="c5089db9-3bba-4dd5-a7f0-dda26042ef57" CreationDate="2016-05-11T06:43:21.237" UserId="16683" Text="&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14868" RevisionGUID="6757c12a-e7af-4741-8611-d63c008c30e4" CreationDate="2016-05-11T07:07:07.580" UserId="16686" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20120305616][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120305616 This patent application publication was filed May 2011 and I can't find any more details on this publication. How do I find out the status of this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37313" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14868" RevisionGUID="6757c12a-e7af-4741-8611-d63c008c30e4" CreationDate="2016-05-11T07:07:07.580" UserId="16686" Text="What is the status of US20120305616A1?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37314" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14868" RevisionGUID="6757c12a-e7af-4741-8611-d63c008c30e4" CreationDate="2016-05-11T07:07:07.580" UserId="16686" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14867" RevisionGUID="57d3ec4f-ff3d-4b45-994b-43975e8158c0" CreationDate="2016-05-11T09:40:21.010" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 94 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="A competitor of mine has filed a PCT application recently. They operate in Pakistan and Canada.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to challenge this PCT application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The timeline is my concern here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **2013-11-04**: They filed a Pakistani application.&#xD;&#xA;* **2014-10-16**: They filed a United States application, claiming priority to the Pakistani one. It was granted quickly.&#xD;&#xA;* **2015-10-13**: They filed a PCT application claiming priority to the United States application, rather than the earliest one (Pakistani).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is alarming as my opponent has not even mentioned his Pakistani application in the PCT application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be done to challenge this PCT application? How can we challenge the application simultaneously in all designated countries, keeping in mind that the application is still pending?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It shall be noted that Pakistan is not signatory to PCT. Because Pakistani applicants are not eligible to file PCT applications, this competitor has shown his canadian residential address in the PCT application. The United States application has his Pakistani residential address." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37316" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14867" RevisionGUID="57d3ec4f-ff3d-4b45-994b-43975e8158c0" CreationDate="2016-05-11T09:40:21.010" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 94 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Filing of a PCT without disclosing all previous applications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37317" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14867" RevisionGUID="57d3ec4f-ff3d-4b45-994b-43975e8158c0" CreationDate="2016-05-11T09:40:21.010" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 94 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;canada&gt;&lt;pakistan&gt;&lt;united-states&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37318" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14699" RevisionGUID="4060b181-1118-4f71-a957-55d70f343727" CreationDate="2016-05-11T11:54:17.117" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37319" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10602" RevisionGUID="d811bbac-2873-41f3-a846-c1d46100251e" CreationDate="2016-05-11T12:54:21.003" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37323" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5897" RevisionGUID="d2e1f437-129b-40ad-b9ff-ca44c4ca0a36" CreationDate="2016-05-11T14:54:20.420" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37324" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14366" RevisionGUID="eb312b0b-b4b9-4e69-ac4e-628bb7c6eb5d" CreationDate="2016-05-11T15:54:20.780" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37331" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14697" RevisionGUID="ec126d37-bf59-49e8-91e5-7993a10ce5df" CreationDate="2016-05-11T20:54:27.650" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14872" RevisionGUID="7c580bd3-8306-419e-85df-ae6eec14cd60" CreationDate="2016-05-12T05:09:36.797" UserId="16692" Text="As one of the inventors, I thank the questioner for taking notice of our patent application and thereby implicitly recognizing the importance of the invention. As was known, infection with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) can result in acute infectious mononucleosis (“AIM” or “Mono”). In this condition, the body mounts the strongest CD8+ T cell response ever described for humans. By tetramer analysis, up to 44% of the CD8+ T cells in the blood recognize a single peptide epitope (RAKFKQL) from an EBV lytic phase protein (BZLF1) (Callan, M.F., et al., J Exp Med, 1998). Thereafter, EBV infection enters a chronic phase in healthy individuals in whom up to 5.5% of CD8+ T cells in the blood recognize this single peptide epitope for life (Tan, L.C., et al., J Immunol, 1999). Given the importance of CD8+ T cells for cancer immunotherapy and the defense against viruses (e.g., influenza, ebola, etc.) and microbes (e.g., malaria), we tried to learn from EBV in order to make much needed vaccines and therapies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to the invention, we had published many papers on the role of CD40 as an activator of immune cells (dendritic cells (DCs), macrophages, and B cells) and had designed novel (now patented) forms of soluble CD40 ligand (CD40L) that can be used as vaccine adjuvants and cancer immunotherapy agents. In parallel, other scientists reported that stimulation of the CD40 receptor on DCs is essential for CD8+ T cell responses. Consequently, we were intrigued by reports that the latent membrane protein-1 (LMP1) of EBV functioned like a constitutively active form of the CD40 receptor. As described in our patent application and our post-filing publications, the LMP1 nucleic acid sequence can be extracted from EBV and used in a variety of vaccine formats as a “portable genetic adjuvant.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the specification, we highlighted novel aspects of the invention:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“[0115] However, prior to the present invention, it was not recognized that LMP1 or LMP1-CD40 could be used as adjuvants and there was no suggestion as to how this might be accomplished. One of the central, non-obvious, and inventive aspects of the present invention is that it envisions LMP1 or LMP1-CD40 as portable adjuvant compositions that can be introduced into microbes, most preferably viruses, or tumor cells. These microbes or tumor cells carry their own antigens with them. By placing LMP1 or LMP1-CD40 directly into them, the antigen and adjuvant become co-extensive in space and time, which is an important feature of the present invention.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the questioner points to two publications that are alleged to make our invention obvious and unpatentable:&#xD;&#xA;	(1) Rowe, Eur J Immunol 1995. This group used a CD8+ T cell clone from an EBV seropositive donor (NB36) to recognize target cells expressing a peptide epitope from the EBNA3A protein (YPLHEQHGM) in the context of HLA-B35. To study CD8+ T cell recognition of latently infected Burkitt lymphoma (BL) cell lines and other B cell lines, they transduced these cells with a vaccinia virus expressing EBNA3. The results were striking. The BL cell lines were essentially invisible to the immune system because they had a low level of peptide transporter-associated proteins (Tap-1 and Tap-2) and a low level of HLA Class I synthesis. Thus, they did not express peptide/MHC-I on their surface. However, if LMP1 was introduced into these cells, now the BL cells did express peptide/MHC-I on their surface and could be recognized and killed by the NB36 CD8+ T cells. Hence the title of their paper, “Restoration of endogenous antigen processing in Burkitt's lymphoma cells by Epstein-Barr virus latent membrane protein-1: coordinate up-regulation of peptide transporters and HLA-class I antigen expression.”&#xD;&#xA;	(2) Smith, Blood 2009. This group reported similar findings to Rowe et al. using different EBV-specific CD8+ T cell lines isolated from EBV seropositive subjects. They used a cervical carcinoma epithelial cell line (C33A) to show that transfection with a plasmid for LMP1 upregulated the expression of cell surface MHC-I. Even so, the LMP1-transfected C33A cells were poorly recognized by CD8+ T cells specific for a peptide epitope from LMP1 (YLQQNWWTL) that had been generated from an EBV-infected donor (i.e., poor antigen presentation in “cis”). A different result was obtained when the C33A cells were transfected with two plasmids: one for LMP1 as before and the other expressing LMP2 (a different EBV protein). In this case, LMP2-specific CD8+ T cells recognizing a peptide epitope from LMP2 (CLGGLLTMV) showed much better recognition of C33A cells transfected with LMP2 when LMP1 was also present (i.e., LMP1 augments antigen presentation in “trans”). In this case, self-aggregation by the N-terminus of LMP1 was required. Hence the title of their paper, “Discerning regulation of cis- and trans-presentation of CD8+ T-cell epitopes by EBV-encoded oncogene LMP-1 through self-aggregation.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We disagree that our invention is obvious. Obviousness is determined in relationship to the invention as claimed and as understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). With this in mind, consider the two independent claims in US20130039942 A1 being examined at USPTO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“8. (Currently Amended) An isolated virus, microbe, or host cell, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;(i) a first expression cassette for expressing a protein, comprising a multimerizing domain operatively joined to a cytoplasmic signaling domain of a receptor such that the protein assembles into a complex of three or more protein moieties, and, wherein when the protein is LMP1, then the nucleic acid encoding LMP1 does not contain introns; and&#xD;&#xA;(ii) a second expression cassette for expressing an antigen, with the proviso that the protein is not an Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) protein.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For claim 8, neither Rowe nor Good describe an antigen that does not come from EBV. These references do not anticipate the claim limitation to non-EBV antigens. As explained in MPEP 2131, “To anticipate a claim, the disclosure must teach every element of the claim.” Thus, claim 8 remains standing as novel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“16. (Currently Amended) An immunogenic composition, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a delivery system comprising a microorganism other than Epstein Barr virus (EBV);&#xD;&#xA;an antigen comprising a tumor antigen, viral antigen, or microbial antigen, wherein the antigen is endogenous to the microorganism used to deliver the immunogenic composition or not normally expressed by the microorganism used to deliver the immunogenic composition, and wherein the antigen is not an EBV protein; and an adjuvant comprising the protein of claim 8 (i).”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of note, claim 16 is directed toward an “immunogenic composition,” a term that is defined in the specification as: “[0091] The term &quot;immunogenic composition&quot; or &quot;immunogen&quot; refers to a substance that is capable of provoking an immune response.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For claim 16 drawn to an immunogenic composition, neither Rowe nor Good used a system that “provoked” an immune response. Instead, they used CD8+ T cell lines generated from subjects who had already been infected with EBV. These CD8+ T cell lines were simply used as indicator cells to determine if peptide/MHC-I complexes were present on the surface of a cell in vitro. In contrast, our patent application showed how LMP1 was able to activate primary human DCs such that they induced CD8+ T cell responses against HIV-1 Gag antigen, a non-EBV antigen. This reduction-to-practice is shown in Fig. 15 which depicts the experimental protocol and shows the data from these in vitro immunization experiments. Of note, the immune cells (PBMCs) were taken from HIV seronegative subjects so that the anti-HIV CD8+ T cell responses were truly de novo and not merely a “re-stimulation” of existing antigen-specific CD8+ T cells as performed by Rowe and by Good. As an in vivo example, Fig. 18 showed that DNA vaccination with a plasmid for LMP1 plus a plasmid for the gp100 tumor antigen was able to protect mice from lung metastases by B16F10 melanoma, a highly aggressive and difficult to treat tumor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since Rowe and Good simply used CD8+ T cells as indicator cells, they did not show that LMP1 enhanced immunogenicity, which is a much more meaningful property than “antigen processing” (used in the title of Rowe) or “antigen presentation” (used in the title of Good). In particular, antigen presentation does not always generate immunity but can also generate tolerance, as shown by Bonifaz, L. et al. (Ralph Steinman, senior author), “Efficient targeting of protein antigen to the dendritic cell receptor DEC-205 in the steady state leads to antigen presentation on major histocompatibility complex class I products and peripheral CD8+ T cell tolerance,” J Exp Med 196:1627-1638, 2002). Thus, according to Ralph Steinman (Nobel Prize 2011), the presence of antigen processing or antigen presentation alone is not reason enough to say that an immunogenic composition has been achieved. By our definition of “immunogenic composition” at [0091], an LMP1-containing immunogenic composition must “provoke” an immune response and neither Rowe nor Smith showed this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We remain confident about the validity of our patent application. We are excited about using LMP1 and its derivatives for cancer immunotherapy and as vaccine adjuvants. In so doing, we will be applying one of the strongest immune stimulants ever described and one that is already present in the 90% of us who are both healthy and EBV seropositive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14850" RevisionGUID="7c5c0394-f01b-408a-8d4b-194d9b9b650b" CreationDate="2016-05-12T05:25:35.573" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="Using Vetiver /khus roots for cooling screens and cooling blinds/thick curtain is very very old tradition in India. One can find households using it still. In Madhya Pradesh and UttarPradesh  in India so many manufacturers still make this curtains for domestic use as well as export. In fact the people applied for patent must be of Indian origin. Because for such knowledge we have local phrase in Hindi &quot;yeh to bacha bacha janta hai&quot; Means &quot;each and every child knows it.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for its references, one can find it in any Sanskrit writings including centuries old Ayurved, Charaksahinta and other  literature. It has been in extensive use by East India company before independence of India 1947,tribal people hand made cooling curtains and cooling pads were used for several years in Desert coolers, as it is locally called, from wild indigenous Vetiver root. After colonial raj,independent India had this cooling curtains in all the  government offices located in in Nagpur and Chandrapur in Maharashtra State. In fact 2 months of extreme summer i.e April and may every year Cetral Government of India had special budgetary provision in these district offices, for watering personnel's special allowances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14861" RevisionGUID="b4d52669-f7c9-4e16-9a46-60e55244d379" CreationDate="2016-05-12T05:28:43.590" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Can I deal with any company with my patent application number without waiting 3-4 years?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much time does it take to get an application number after I file for a patent? I'm specifically curious about this timing for the Indian patent office." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37344" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14861" RevisionGUID="b4d52669-f7c9-4e16-9a46-60e55244d379" CreationDate="2016-05-12T05:28:43.590" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Can I benefit from a patent application when approaching potential clients?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37345" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14861" RevisionGUID="b4d52669-f7c9-4e16-9a46-60e55244d379" CreationDate="2016-05-12T05:28:43.590" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;india&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14872" RevisionGUID="3fb94b74-fb2b-42f4-8c7e-e22296756626" CreationDate="2016-05-12T05:32:18.543" UserId="10011" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="As one of the inventors, I thank the questioner for taking notice of our patent application and thereby implicitly recognizing the importance of the invention. As was known, infection with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) can result in acute infectious mononucleosis (“AIM” or “Mono”). In this condition, the body mounts the strongest CD8+ T cell response ever described for humans. By tetramer analysis, up to 44% of the CD8+ T cells in the blood recognize a single peptide epitope (RAKFKQL) from an EBV lytic phase protein (BZLF1) (Callan, M.F., et al., J Exp Med, 1998). Thereafter, EBV infection enters a chronic phase in healthy individuals in whom up to 5.5% of CD8+ T cells in the blood recognize this single peptide epitope for life (Tan, L.C., et al., J Immunol, 1999). Given the importance of CD8+ T cells for cancer immunotherapy and the defense against viruses (e.g., influenza, ebola, etc.) and microbes (e.g., malaria), we tried to learn from EBV in order to make much needed vaccines and therapies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to the invention, we had published many papers on the role of CD40 as an activator of immune cells (dendritic cells (DCs), macrophages, and B cells) and had designed novel (now patented) forms of soluble CD40 ligand (CD40L) that can be used as vaccine adjuvants and cancer immunotherapy agents. In parallel, other scientists reported that stimulation of the CD40 receptor on DCs is essential for CD8+ T cell responses. Consequently, we were intrigued by reports that the latent membrane protein-1 (LMP1) of EBV functioned like a constitutively active form of the CD40 receptor. As described in our patent application and our post-filing publications, the LMP1 nucleic acid sequence can be extracted from EBV and used in a variety of vaccine formats as a “portable genetic adjuvant.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the specification, we highlighted novel aspects of the invention:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [0115] However, prior to the present invention, it was not recognized that LMP1 or LMP1-CD40 could be used as adjuvants and there was no suggestion as to how this might be accomplished. One of the central, non-obvious, and inventive aspects of the present invention is that it envisions LMP1 or LMP1-CD40 as portable adjuvant compositions that can be introduced into microbes, most preferably viruses, or tumor cells. These microbes or tumor cells carry their own antigens with them. By placing LMP1 or LMP1-CD40 directly into them, the antigen and adjuvant become co-extensive in space and time, which is an important feature of the present invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the questioner points to two publications that are alleged to make our invention obvious and unpatentable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Rowe, Eur J Immunol 1995. This group used a CD8+ T cell clone from an EBV seropositive donor (NB36) to recognize target cells expressing a peptide epitope from the EBNA3A protein (YPLHEQHGM) in the context of HLA-B35. To study CD8+ T cell recognition of latently infected Burkitt lymphoma (BL) cell lines and other B cell lines, they transduced these cells with a vaccinia virus expressing EBNA3. The results were striking. The BL cell lines were essentially invisible to the immune system because they had a low level of peptide transporter-associated proteins (Tap-1 and Tap-2) and a low level of HLA Class I synthesis. Thus, they did not express peptide/MHC-I on their surface. However, if LMP1 was introduced into these cells, now the BL cells did express peptide/MHC-I on their surface and could be recognized and killed by the NB36 CD8+ T cells. Hence the title of their paper, “Restoration of endogenous antigen processing in Burkitt's lymphoma cells by Epstein-Barr virus latent membrane protein-1: coordinate up-regulation of peptide transporters and HLA-class I antigen expression.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!----&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) Smith, Blood 2009. This group reported similar findings to Rowe et al. using different EBV-specific CD8+ T cell lines isolated from EBV seropositive subjects. They used a cervical carcinoma epithelial cell line (C33A) to show that transfection with a plasmid for LMP1 upregulated the expression of cell surface MHC-I. Even so, the LMP1-transfected C33A cells were poorly recognized by CD8+ T cells specific for a peptide epitope from LMP1 (YLQQNWWTL) that had been generated from an EBV-infected donor (i.e., poor antigen presentation in “cis”). A different result was obtained when the C33A cells were transfected with two plasmids: one for LMP1 as before and the other expressing LMP2 (a different EBV protein). In this case, LMP2-specific CD8+ T cells recognizing a peptide epitope from LMP2 (CLGGLLTMV) showed much better recognition of C33A cells transfected with LMP2 when LMP1 was also present (i.e., LMP1 augments antigen presentation in “trans”). In this case, self-aggregation by the N-terminus of LMP1 was required. Hence the title of their paper, “Discerning regulation of cis- and trans-presentation of CD8+ T-cell epitopes by EBV-encoded oncogene LMP-1 through self-aggregation.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We disagree that our invention is obvious. Obviousness is determined in relationship to the invention as claimed and as understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). With this in mind, consider the two independent claims in US20130039942 A1 being examined at USPTO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “8. (Currently Amended) An isolated virus, microbe, or host cell, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (i) a first expression cassette for expressing a protein, comprising a multimerizing domain operatively joined to a cytoplasmic signaling domain of a receptor such that the protein assembles into a complex of three or more protein moieties, and, wherein when the protein is LMP1, then the nucleic acid encoding LMP1 does not contain introns; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (ii) a second expression cassette for expressing an antigen, with the proviso that the protein is not an Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) protein.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For claim 8, neither Rowe nor Good describe an antigen that does not come from EBV. These references do not anticipate the claim limitation to non-EBV antigens. As explained in MPEP 2131, “To anticipate a claim, the disclosure must teach every element of the claim.” Thus, claim 8 remains standing as novel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 16. (Currently Amended) An immunogenic composition, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a delivery system comprising a microorganism other than Epstein Barr virus (EBV);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an antigen comprising a tumor antigen, viral antigen, or microbial antigen, wherein the antigen is endogenous to the microorganism used to deliver the immunogenic composition or not normally expressed by the microorganism used to deliver the immunogenic composition, and wherein the antigen is not an EBV protein; and an adjuvant comprising the protein of claim 8 (i).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of note, claim 16 is directed toward an “immunogenic composition,” a term that is defined in the specification as: “[0091] The term &quot;immunogenic composition&quot; or &quot;immunogen&quot; refers to a substance that is capable of provoking an immune response.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For claim 16 drawn to an immunogenic composition, neither Rowe nor Good used a system that “provoked” an immune response. Instead, they used CD8+ T cell lines generated from subjects who had already been infected with EBV. These CD8+ T cell lines were simply used as indicator cells to determine if peptide/MHC-I complexes were present on the surface of a cell in vitro. In contrast, our patent application showed how LMP1 was able to activate primary human DCs such that they induced CD8+ T cell responses against HIV-1 Gag antigen, a non-EBV antigen. This reduction-to-practice is shown in Fig. 15 which depicts the experimental protocol and shows the data from these in vitro immunization experiments. Of note, the immune cells (PBMCs) were taken from HIV seronegative subjects so that the anti-HIV CD8+ T cell responses were truly de novo and not merely a “re-stimulation” of existing antigen-specific CD8+ T cells as performed by Rowe and by Good. As an in vivo example, Fig. 18 showed that DNA vaccination with a plasmid for LMP1 plus a plasmid for the gp100 tumor antigen was able to protect mice from lung metastases by B16F10 melanoma, a highly aggressive and difficult to treat tumor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since Rowe and Good simply used CD8+ T cells as indicator cells, they did not show that LMP1 enhanced immunogenicity, which is a much more meaningful property than “antigen processing” (used in the title of Rowe) or “antigen presentation” (used in the title of Good). In particular, antigen presentation does not always generate immunity but can also generate tolerance, as shown by Bonifaz, L. et al. (Ralph Steinman, senior author), “Efficient targeting of protein antigen to the dendritic cell receptor DEC-205 in the steady state leads to antigen presentation on major histocompatibility complex class I products and peripheral CD8+ T cell tolerance,” J Exp Med 196:1627-1638, 2002). Thus, according to Ralph Steinman (Nobel Prize 2011), the presence of antigen processing or antigen presentation alone is not reason enough to say that an immunogenic composition has been achieved. By our definition of “immunogenic composition” at [0091], an LMP1-containing immunogenic composition must “provoke” an immune response and neither Rowe nor Smith showed this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We remain confident about the validity of our patent application. We are excited about using LMP1 and its derivatives for cancer immunotherapy and as vaccine adjuvants. In so doing, we will be applying one of the strongest immune stimulants ever described and one that is already present in the 90% of us who are both healthy and EBV seropositive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37347" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14355" RevisionGUID="e9724817-be81-4918-a72f-2e9c3beff8ae" CreationDate="2016-05-12T07:04:18.507" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14873" RevisionGUID="57401d99-4598-4693-8bf0-f04772956114" CreationDate="2016-05-12T09:20:11.223" UserId="16677" Text="application no-13/149,420 in the name of Charles Scott Smith is Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action on 09-13-2014. kindly check the link below. http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37353" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13934" RevisionGUID="ce8227ad-3280-4c8f-974c-d04a8c7a31c7" CreationDate="2016-05-12T17:12:47.930" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37354" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13941" RevisionGUID="7903fa21-f9ff-46d4-a13d-4b881a50318d" CreationDate="2016-05-12T18:12:48.290" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14875" RevisionGUID="ca43b89a-7035-4ea9-bf22-9a6c3ef89aaa" CreationDate="2016-05-12T20:02:27.670" UserId="16696" Text="This article is worth looking at: http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/navigating-the-needle-s-eye-patenting-38523/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The PTAB found that (i) the claimed method is directed to a set of rules for conducting a wagering game, which is a patent-ineligible abstract idea, and (ii) the manipulations of the deck of cards (e.g., shuffling, dealing) are conventional steps in playing a wagering game that do not add enough to the claims to transform the recited methods into patent-eligible subject matter.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, they were trying to patent a new method betting on Blackjack, which was deemed a &quot;business method&quot; and purely abstract. (i.e. It's simply a set of mental steps for managing risk.)  They were also trying to patent procedures which included shuffling cards, which is not novel, but a standard procedure in card games. Their patent didn't have any novel rules that comprised a new game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ostensibly, truly novel game methods should still be patentable, regardless of whether they involve computers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37366" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="205c3b9f-9896-44cd-83d2-823624fd80a9" CreationDate="2016-05-13T14:32:52.417" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14879" RevisionGUID="2c307197-7184-4f51-9a89-51b2a66ab02f" CreationDate="2016-05-13T16:30:33.280" UserId="16648" Text="It is beyond the scope of this site to discuss whether the makers of the pallet rack may have contractual limitations on use so that they do not get sued when a product fails and drops a child on the ground. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With respect to using a patented part in a bigger system.  Happens all the time.  For example, you may use a battery or power supply that has patents as part of a device.  Microprocessors have lots of patents and are used in other devices. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To seek a utility patent you would need a non-obvious element in your patent application.  It is rare that making a new but not surprising use of an existing component is sufficient for patenting.  In your case it sounds like the principal difference is that you are holding bedding/people rather than pallets.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to seek a design patent on the ornamental appearance of your bed, you may want your patent attorney to &quot;ghost&quot; the lines for the pallet (make the lines using dashed lines) so that is not part of your design but that is a question you will need to discuss. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is likely to be a moneymaker for you, you should consult a professional as there are many nuances that are best addressed in a consultation rather than in web posts. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37372" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10796" RevisionGUID="24b9b397-ac9f-457b-882f-af7605576b51" CreationDate="2016-05-13T19:34:56.977" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37373" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12753" RevisionGUID="62e4d05d-8f97-49f3-83c7-dff6594f038f" CreationDate="2016-05-13T21:34:57.963" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14881" RevisionGUID="11435f3c-c7ba-430c-9d30-31f92fa5e622" CreationDate="2016-05-13T22:50:31.180" UserId="16703" Text="Father has a patent and he is now under court appointed from state. What happens to his patent? I have the prototype in my possession. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37375" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14881" RevisionGUID="11435f3c-c7ba-430c-9d30-31f92fa5e622" CreationDate="2016-05-13T22:50:31.180" UserId="16703" Text="Legality of patent from father but never manufactured" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37376" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14881" RevisionGUID="11435f3c-c7ba-430c-9d30-31f92fa5e622" CreationDate="2016-05-13T22:50:31.180" UserId="16703" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37383" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="5a278a3a-5b13-49a2-8fe5-d0c09752c8cf" CreationDate="2016-05-14T07:37:05.897" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37384" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10813" RevisionGUID="9ba75a0e-809c-4f07-81df-07055716e00b" CreationDate="2016-05-14T14:52:40.043" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37388" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13220" RevisionGUID="68cb0c85-d3a7-4f7f-a5ab-623a71618afc" CreationDate="2016-05-15T05:08:15.053" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14883" RevisionGUID="024532d6-a86d-4735-b478-4adc3bd33a92" CreationDate="2016-05-15T12:58:18.310" UserId="16711" Text="Are there any fooball board games that are patented?  And, what parts or mechanics are patent-able?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37390" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14883" RevisionGUID="024532d6-a86d-4735-b478-4adc3bd33a92" CreationDate="2016-05-15T12:58:18.310" UserId="16711" Text="Board game simulating American Football" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37391" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14883" RevisionGUID="024532d6-a86d-4735-b478-4adc3bd33a92" CreationDate="2016-05-15T12:58:18.310" UserId="16711" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;title&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37392" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="9f325d56-37b7-42dc-9026-badf3bf2b829" CreationDate="2016-05-15T13:11:47.370" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37393" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14724" RevisionGUID="8286fd46-4b66-4168-a5a6-9fef4c2c30e2" CreationDate="2016-05-15T14:11:47.377" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37394" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13614" RevisionGUID="57d54ccc-1bd0-483f-a51a-7b2bcd503c5f" CreationDate="2016-05-15T19:18:20.003" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14883" RevisionGUID="80924400-c15e-4b99-9e9e-6c0abc6bed8d" CreationDate="2016-05-15T19:40:50.607" UserId="10011" Comment="added 208 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I have invented a board game, and I'm investigating the route of patenting some parts of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any board games that are already patented? What parts or mechanics might be patentable? For example, could gameplay be patented? Anything about the design of the board, or how players interact with it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37396" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14883" RevisionGUID="80924400-c15e-4b99-9e9e-6c0abc6bed8d" CreationDate="2016-05-15T19:40:50.607" UserId="10011" Comment="added 208 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What aspects of a board game might be patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37397" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14883" RevisionGUID="80924400-c15e-4b99-9e9e-6c0abc6bed8d" CreationDate="2016-05-15T19:40:50.607" UserId="10011" Comment="added 208 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37402" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13599" RevisionGUID="2e87b19f-fe1d-4be0-b923-1d193dcc19b5" CreationDate="2016-05-16T02:22:07.330" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="8cd4904b-fa05-4d4f-86c7-a88e31eca2e7" CreationDate="2016-05-16T06:18:39.940" UserId="16715" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2005071644A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2005071644A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this paten issued ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37406" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="8cd4904b-fa05-4d4f-86c7-a88e31eca2e7" CreationDate="2016-05-16T06:18:39.940" UserId="16715" Text="Is this patent issued ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37407" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="8cd4904b-fa05-4d4f-86c7-a88e31eca2e7" CreationDate="2016-05-16T06:18:39.940" UserId="16715" Text="&lt;reissue&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37408" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12909" RevisionGUID="f4c0a180-cb76-4a9a-9a89-83752d5f9e24" CreationDate="2016-05-16T08:26:42.850" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37417" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14092" RevisionGUID="7bb1f8c2-81f2-4e97-882e-ff527d8862eb" CreationDate="2016-05-17T04:39:06.023" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14890" RevisionGUID="99080bc6-8bac-496d-a8bb-ac4e35aabd8f" CreationDate="2016-05-17T10:22:03.227" UserId="16725" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7611025][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7611025&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent [US7611025] applicable in India? Would appreciate if anyone could guide me on how to confirm the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37420" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14890" RevisionGUID="99080bc6-8bac-496d-a8bb-ac4e35aabd8f" CreationDate="2016-05-17T10:22:03.227" UserId="16725" Text="Is this patent [US7611025] applicable in India?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37421" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14890" RevisionGUID="99080bc6-8bac-496d-a8bb-ac4e35aabd8f" CreationDate="2016-05-17T10:22:03.227" UserId="16725" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14892" RevisionGUID="d4d48550-ee17-492b-a30f-ce38db3ac702" CreationDate="2016-05-17T12:08:19.690" UserId="16727" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20150118365][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20150118365" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37426" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14892" RevisionGUID="d4d48550-ee17-492b-a30f-ce38db3ac702" CreationDate="2016-05-17T12:08:19.690" UserId="16727" Text="I have a similar product manufactured in Europe since 2009. How do I oppose the granting of this patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37427" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14892" RevisionGUID="d4d48550-ee17-492b-a30f-ce38db3ac702" CreationDate="2016-05-17T12:08:19.690" UserId="16727" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37429" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12495" RevisionGUID="d667ad3c-40c1-4ae2-aa49-fd890ec585b8" CreationDate="2016-05-17T14:48:02.013" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37430" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11980" RevisionGUID="5a0e2357-b5fe-498a-a7b2-4a1aeb09de83" CreationDate="2016-05-17T17:52:53.357" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14893" RevisionGUID="aa0a0e50-da64-4b6d-958b-3512b01364dd" CreationDate="2016-05-17T20:38:06.050" UserId="11947" Text="Can I assign a patent to third party after application was filed but before the patent was awarded?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37432" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14893" RevisionGUID="aa0a0e50-da64-4b6d-958b-3512b01364dd" CreationDate="2016-05-17T20:38:06.050" UserId="11947" Text="Can I assign a patent to third party?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37433" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14893" RevisionGUID="aa0a0e50-da64-4b6d-958b-3512b01364dd" CreationDate="2016-05-17T20:38:06.050" UserId="11947" Text="&lt;assignment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37434" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13198" RevisionGUID="9967a518-838e-4dbf-b21f-6a0c4862d322" CreationDate="2016-05-17T22:05:38.203" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37435" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11968" RevisionGUID="8d4cbc18-7538-467b-aad6-67335729589e" CreationDate="2016-05-18T00:05:37.970" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14894" RevisionGUID="91449a6a-ff0d-4e7e-a18e-a6eef55c4bf8" CreationDate="2016-05-18T03:12:24.640" UserId="16734" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5807360][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5807360" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37438" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14894" RevisionGUID="91449a6a-ff0d-4e7e-a18e-a6eef55c4bf8" CreationDate="2016-05-18T03:12:24.640" UserId="16734" Text="When does patent US5807360 expire?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37439" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14894" RevisionGUID="91449a6a-ff0d-4e7e-a18e-a6eef55c4bf8" CreationDate="2016-05-18T03:12:24.640" UserId="16734" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14895" RevisionGUID="4422390e-02b2-4c9f-bda4-8e70343eeb33" CreationDate="2016-05-18T03:25:36.090" UserId="16450" Text="This is a utility patent and has 20-year patent term. Counted from its filing date is September 27,1996, so this patent would be expired on September 27, 2016." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37441" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12505" RevisionGUID="10bda81c-e957-479a-b8e1-1bd98e55c4ce" CreationDate="2016-05-18T07:14:01.020" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14896" RevisionGUID="66a99b13-ed8f-4a09-a4ab-857fa8ecfd80" CreationDate="2016-05-18T07:29:30.350" UserId="15914" Text="You can send information about &quot;2013-11-04: They filed a Pakistani application&quot; to PCT International Bureau via https://pct.wipo.int/LoginForms/epct.jsp&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PCT international bureau may consider the reference and may issue negative evaluation in international search report, but it is not binding to countries specified at PCT application.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to &quot;reject&quot; or &quot;invalidate&quot; your competitor's patent applications, you must send the information to patent offices of &quot;all the countries&quot; in which you want to make the patent invalid.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37443" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10532" RevisionGUID="12f0d7aa-9c8e-43f6-8544-82c77f6111d2" CreationDate="2016-05-18T08:13:54.430" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37447" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14230" RevisionGUID="5c763e2e-a998-492e-a0b4-7c2c892f94c4" CreationDate="2016-05-18T12:17:19.507" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14898" RevisionGUID="16156a43-441e-4b8b-8400-b9a9861202ac" CreationDate="2016-05-18T14:28:39.967" UserId="16377" Text="I filed a United States provisional patent for my invention 6 days back. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today I discovered that a algorithm I use in the invention has its name trademarked and I have in error mentioned that name in the application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since a provisional patent cannot be amended, should I correct this and refile it losing 6-7 days of priority when I file the non-provisional? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37449" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14898" RevisionGUID="16156a43-441e-4b8b-8400-b9a9861202ac" CreationDate="2016-05-18T14:28:39.967" UserId="16377" Text="US Provisional Patent error" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37450" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14898" RevisionGUID="16156a43-441e-4b8b-8400-b9a9861202ac" CreationDate="2016-05-18T14:28:39.967" UserId="16377" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37451" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13966" RevisionGUID="696b69bf-73a1-4244-b6cc-3f4742fefac1" CreationDate="2016-05-18T15:17:19.607" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37460" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13920" RevisionGUID="8a381953-a4fe-4283-b7db-e78269f7e298" CreationDate="2016-05-18T19:24:51.593" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14903" RevisionGUID="2d55447c-0e71-4458-b6fa-f7c54e8a9af2" CreationDate="2016-05-19T01:03:41.260" UserId="11717" Text="Unlike most answers above which focus on a product patent,there is another type of patent that is called a process patent i.e. you are claiming a set of process steps that meet the requirements for grant of a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the individual steps can be known steps, like the Open source code that you refer to to. Yet if the whole is structured in an non-obvious inventive way, the process patent can be claimed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So check if you are working toward a process patent or a product patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ashok" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37476" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12423" RevisionGUID="c8704dad-5e3b-4b1f-a202-f397ea443a00" CreationDate="2016-05-19T07:27:35.220" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14905" RevisionGUID="8f57ed27-15f3-46e6-99e1-b914c4a2a964" CreationDate="2016-05-19T08:16:13.920" UserId="16257" Text="You can assign it to anybody for any reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14907" RevisionGUID="d96fd20f-ef3e-4276-b8ba-a9e8d426b2b5" CreationDate="2016-05-19T11:04:10.993" UserId="16747" Text="First check patent is granted or not by US patent office. You need to file post grant opposition for above patent if it gets grant in future. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37488" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13956" RevisionGUID="d6a0d61a-418f-4fe2-ac9b-8a74595b7dec" CreationDate="2016-05-19T16:29:07.597" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37489" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13901" RevisionGUID="d31be652-f821-4ee7-afee-1e670e91d1ea" CreationDate="2016-05-19T19:29:08.920" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37490" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13820" RevisionGUID="fd55e25b-8220-4d8d-b788-c7f12280c129" CreationDate="2016-05-20T00:35:04.003" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37498" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14235" RevisionGUID="4f7a04b3-c9ae-4a3a-9c2b-ea9975117692" CreationDate="2016-05-20T10:35:34.853" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37499" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12929" RevisionGUID="333ba5ef-9ca1-4238-8f66-cf54eb471f1b" CreationDate="2016-05-20T13:39:49.313" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37503" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13644" RevisionGUID="9debe6ae-8527-4481-8196-644163b61733" CreationDate="2016-05-20T20:42:22.687" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14913" RevisionGUID="aa25e361-2a59-4127-b157-61c84c7a2901" CreationDate="2016-05-20T22:29:10.270" UserId="11537" Text="There is not enough information here to inform a proper answer, but I won't let that stop me.  My sense is that there is no problem unless you plan to use the trademarked name in a claim in a subsequent regular application.  Don't use trademarks in claims.  Provisional applications are so cheap to file that it couldn't hurt to send in another one if you're concerned about it.  Also remember that a regular application, filed within one year of the first provisional filing date, could claim priority to both provisional applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14914" RevisionGUID="7ab1dc77-1c52-48be-989f-ff40ef8422c8" CreationDate="2016-05-20T23:09:51.037" UserId="16757" Text="What are the advantages and liabilities, if any, of drafting patent claims for an invention first, and then converting the claims into a provisional patent specification with the same wording and structure as that used for writing claims? [omitting, of course, the use of the word 'claim' or 'claimed'].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;1. A desk means for use on a desk top wherein:&#xD;&#xA;   (a); (b); and (c)&#xD;&#xA;   the improvement wherein: (d); (e); and (f);&#xD;&#xA;   whereby: (i) and (ii).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The desk means as described in description 1 wherein;&#xD;&#xA;   (a) X (12) comprises Y (14) and Z (16);&#xD;&#xA;   (b) said Y is capable of supporting M (18), comprising H (18a) and I (18b), &#xD;&#xA;       in an inclined position facing frontward; and &#xD;&#xA;   (c) said Z is capable of supporting N (20), comprising J (20a) and K (20b), &#xD;&#xA;       in an inclined position facing frontward. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The desk means as described in description 2 further including ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37509" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14914" RevisionGUID="7ab1dc77-1c52-48be-989f-ff40ef8422c8" CreationDate="2016-05-20T23:09:51.037" UserId="16757" Text="Patent Drafting Method: Pros &amp; cons of drafting claims and converting claims to descriptions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37510" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14914" RevisionGUID="7ab1dc77-1c52-48be-989f-ff40ef8422c8" CreationDate="2016-05-20T23:09:51.037" UserId="16757" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;specification&gt;&lt;drafting&gt;&lt;format&gt;&lt;wording&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37511" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13585" RevisionGUID="747c9414-1fff-47ff-beb8-59dd8b425534" CreationDate="2016-05-20T23:42:54.583" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37517" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12868" RevisionGUID="a40ade4b-97a7-43b6-a08b-25691b0edb0e" CreationDate="2016-05-21T00:52:57.030" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37525" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13813" RevisionGUID="54637fe2-cd20-440f-993b-86e1c68cf511" CreationDate="2016-05-21T04:53:37.603" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37526" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13006" RevisionGUID="8b7867b8-5ac8-4ae3-94f2-14ee5c8e9313" CreationDate="2016-05-21T07:53:40.233" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37527" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14044" RevisionGUID="4a99bf58-449b-41b2-b961-926ce00bd646" CreationDate="2016-05-21T18:00:44.687" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37528" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13972" RevisionGUID="226dae83-400c-4f4f-a45e-1a3b93542f5c" CreationDate="2016-05-21T19:00:44.977" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37529" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="e14546ac-8526-47d7-bd64-2af77e86ecd5" CreationDate="2016-05-21T22:00:52.957" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37532" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14603" RevisionGUID="705f74e5-f844-4a0c-83ea-dd28445fc411" CreationDate="2016-05-22T04:05:37.570" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37533" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14245" RevisionGUID="412eb1b8-56e5-4c6d-8bca-9945fc7ea728" CreationDate="2016-05-22T06:05:40.280" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37534" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14228" RevisionGUID="e74226de-3100-4b54-b419-1367d5710928" CreationDate="2016-05-22T07:05:41.727" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37535" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14199" RevisionGUID="2b593871-92ed-4a5a-aac2-775d63c06601" CreationDate="2016-05-22T09:06:59.577" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37536" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14232" RevisionGUID="23e41612-6308-41bf-92f4-88ed16069a4e" CreationDate="2016-05-22T10:13:40.260" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37537" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14248" RevisionGUID="a37066ff-64b1-400d-bea9-21d17d845201" CreationDate="2016-05-22T11:20:18.147" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37538" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14202" RevisionGUID="a9a8a721-6f0a-4f72-834c-ab58471c3b8d" CreationDate="2016-05-22T12:20:17.700" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37539" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14715" RevisionGUID="1174b302-6357-47ba-882b-642f0b33f1e9" CreationDate="2016-05-22T16:28:13.940" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37544" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6642" RevisionGUID="7b8e4b91-6018-4ec3-8de8-b9585eab7e9e" CreationDate="2016-05-23T00:54:37.260" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[10679],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="37546" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14348" RevisionGUID="e8984d2c-366d-4358-8ba5-a55ef5e048c9" CreationDate="2016-05-23T01:38:53.503" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37547" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12543" RevisionGUID="e993b6d8-b86b-4126-84c9-0d5ff70b0670" CreationDate="2016-05-23T02:38:53.567" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37552" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14424" RevisionGUID="5334e3ce-6f29-404a-87a8-cd2fa803b047" CreationDate="2016-05-23T03:38:53.787" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="88b5bdb9-15b9-41dc-a718-0b9251f513ab" CreationDate="2016-05-23T10:00:57.277" UserId="8074" Comment="Paragraphs updated, links added." Text="I'm specifically interested in [US 6873940][1] patent. The company that currently owns the patent is a company called [Kamatani Cloud][2] which is subsidiary of [General Patent][3] which some argue ([1][4], [2][5], [3][6], [4][7]) is a patent troll company. I'd like to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like [keylemon][8], [betafaceapi][9], [rekognition][10] or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker identification, face detection or content classification in images, audio or video files etc.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13]. In fact the [class 709 scope][12] has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent prosecution process after non-final rejection [argued][14] (2004-09-20 Applicant Arguments Remarks Made in an Amendment) that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect if server is capable of &quot;*measuring*&quot;/processing the data then the prior art is not applicable, consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are sent by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no &quot;*detecting whether the measurement data are capable of being measured*&quot; is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires server capability of detecting if data can be &quot;*measured*&quot; and notifying client if such capability exists then the patent shouldn't apply for cloud services as mentioned previously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding using the arguments provided by applicant during patent prosecution for claim interpretation please see [C. Claim Interpretation.][15], [wiki][16] and following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Markman, the Federal Circuit held that a court should consider a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent’s prosecution history if it is in evidence, and explained that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the prosecution history “is of primary significance in understanding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the claims.” 52 F.3d at 980, aff’d, 64 U.S.L.W. 4263.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Standard Oil&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., [774 F.2d 448][17] (Fed. Cir. 1985), the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Federal Circuit stated that:  [T]he prosecution history (sometimes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; called “file wrapper and contents’’) of the patent consists of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; entire record of proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office. This&#xD;&#xA;&gt; includes all express representations made by or on behalf of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applicant to the examiner to induce a patent grant, or, as here, to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reissue a patent. Such representations include amendments to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims and arguments made to convince the examiner that the claimed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention meets the statutory requirements of novelty, utility, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonobviousness. Thus, the prosecution history (or file wrapper) limits&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain claim allowance. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 774 F.2d at 452 (emphasis added).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain allowance of the claims of the ‘712 patent, arguments were made&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on behalf of the applicant to the Examiner during prosecution that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served both to explain the claims in a clear manner and to disavow any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source - [Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-376, p. 47][18], [here][19] or [here][17].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover all independent patent claims except claim 32 clearly indicate that system performs modulation/demodulation, which is &quot;[the process of varying one or more properties of a periodic waveform, called the carrier signal][20]&quot; on a basic level. That is claims that use modulation/demodulation terminology automatically limit the possible claim interpretation to that where system in question performs electric or other signal modulation/demodulation in a manner consistent with the claims and [term definition][20].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claim 32 regardless of not being limited by modulation/demodulation terms has a clear indication of measuring instrument being a physical device: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 32: &lt;...&gt; one of measurement instruments **connected to the server computer** &lt;...&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern systems purpose built physical devices for processing data that are connected to the computer are rarely used if at all. It is an outdated system scheme. All processing nowadays is performed using software which is run by computer (NOT connected to it). One can analyze the patent and see that all explanations and examples use the physical device as a **measuring instrument** (see Fig. 3, Description) thus narrowing ability to apply this patent to cloud services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So to put it briefly:#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class [709][12] regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13] work? Both must apply or only first or second when interpreting claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** during [US6873940][1] [patent application][14] inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; in case of image processing requests are directed to URL for processing images and in case of voice processing requests are directed to URL for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing only faces or only classifying image contents...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**c)** All independent patent claims except for Claim 32 clearly indicate that system performs [modulation][20]/[demodulation][21]. Here modulation is &quot;[the process of varying one or more properties of a periodic waveform, called the carrier signal][20]&quot; thus limiting signal processing interpretation in claims by definition of said terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**d)** Wording in claims and explanation in patent description limit possible interpretations of a &quot;measurement instrument&quot; to be a physical device, especially in [Claim 32][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6873940&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kamatanicloud.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.generalpatent.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://scienceprogress.org/2009/01/patent-trolls-erode-patent-system/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-biggest-patent-trolls&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ipdigit.eu/2011/10/what-to-think-of-patent-trolls-the-return/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/27/law-would-force-patent-trolls-to-pay-for-failed-lawsuits-against-innovators/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.keylemon.com&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.betafaceapi.com&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://rekognition.com&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc702/defs702.htm#C702S189000&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm#C709S217000&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.intellectual.com/infringement.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markman_v._Westview_Instruments,_Inc.&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/774/774.F2d.448.84-1552.84-1519.html#p25&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://bit.ly/1PYCjjA&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://www.usitc.gov/publications/337/pub3003.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulation&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demodulation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37557" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12942" RevisionGUID="5f795635-5f52-4cde-a709-f078f3fa04e7" CreationDate="2016-05-23T15:40:00.233" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37558" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12539" RevisionGUID="acdf9a82-241e-439a-b523-14c752a8e69a" CreationDate="2016-05-23T16:41:49.817" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37565" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="bc59b2ed-33cf-444f-9f5c-8ef987792403" CreationDate="2016-05-24T00:48:26.543" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37567" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12561" RevisionGUID="e70dd78a-af24-4bbd-a885-2a526ca75645" CreationDate="2016-05-24T03:49:26.117" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37569" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12549" RevisionGUID="be5f4c68-34b2-4d5f-993e-81e0d2dd127c" CreationDate="2016-05-24T12:50:38.630" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37570" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14403" RevisionGUID="856f5375-7afe-486a-a82b-241886c9c7dc" CreationDate="2016-05-24T14:50:51.707" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14833" RevisionGUID="6c8268a0-cf5d-4b78-83b5-19a7e69d3438" CreationDate="2016-05-24T21:21:08.397" UserId="16512" Comment="Remove duplicated content; add paragraphs to make more readable; minor spelling correction" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5933819][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5933819&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is not patentable, but does need protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without knowing the details, applying a neural network algorithm to a problem is not even an idea, it is common course of the art. IF, authors made some modification to the NNA, it _may_ deserve patenting, but not if any researcher in the same area will find the same modification - because it is obviously needed to adapt the algorithm to the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this case should be treated like a Trade Secret if applied commercially, otherwise should be considered general research and made public.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found the patent by simply searching for peptide NN. Does this mean I should not even TRY to apply the algorithm to the problem but instead should start paying rights to these authors if I use it commercially?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cases like this one deserve a PRIZE in lieu of rights, but not a restrictive patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37572" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14833" RevisionGUID="6c8268a0-cf5d-4b78-83b5-19a7e69d3438" CreationDate="2016-05-24T21:21:08.397" Comment="Proposed by 16512 approved by 8074, 11394 edit id of 1942" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14787" RevisionGUID="20476580-ad9e-4770-abbf-aabcd07242c5" CreationDate="2016-05-24T21:21:37.057" UserId="16512" Comment="Remove text unrelated to question, which seems it was accidentally copied in" Text="I am developing a 3D modeling application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I know what is considered as part of the sketchup patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The extrude tool is obviously common to all 3D modeling softwares, that makes me think that what is patent is the ability to draw arbitrary 2D shapes on a 3D face, with automatic intersections computation and automatic triangulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However 3Ds max also has the &quot;Cut tool&quot; or the &quot;Paint Connect tool&quot; to draw lines and compute intersections on any face.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only difference I see is that Sketchup 3Ds max does not support holes (polygon holes) on a face, and it does not provide any tool to draw directly a rectangle or circle on a face.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I make a rectangle tool (a rectangle is just a set of 4 lines)? Can I handle holes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I create a new modeling tool, how can I know it remains out of the Sketchup patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do I risk by implementing those features? A fine? Obligation to remove my product from the US market? Obligation to remove some features?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37574" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14787" RevisionGUID="20476580-ad9e-4770-abbf-aabcd07242c5" CreationDate="2016-05-24T21:21:37.057" Comment="Proposed by 16512 approved by 8074, 11394 edit id of 1941" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37575" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13383" RevisionGUID="c34bf02c-2612-4d80-9403-aec15d34b0c4" CreationDate="2016-05-24T22:55:14.650" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37576" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12742" RevisionGUID="2e8be376-f4e0-422d-9532-bccfdf2ba4a6" CreationDate="2016-05-25T01:56:02.363" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37579" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14779" RevisionGUID="97d8ead0-5059-4656-975a-caeef31bfdb4" CreationDate="2016-05-25T02:56:11.280" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37581" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14894" RevisionGUID="a5237267-57c8-4c33-b62f-355193346be2" CreationDate="2016-05-25T04:58:28.613" UserId="10011" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[3801],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="37582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="3ef3b0c6-f905-4a5e-bfd6-cc77eadb59df" CreationDate="2016-05-25T04:59:23.130" UserId="10011" Comment="added 72 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2005071644A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2005071644A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I find out whether any patents have been granted resultant from this WIPO application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37583" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="3ef3b0c6-f905-4a5e-bfd6-cc77eadb59df" CreationDate="2016-05-25T04:59:23.130" UserId="10011" Comment="added 72 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Is this patent issued?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37584" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="3ef3b0c6-f905-4a5e-bfd6-cc77eadb59df" CreationDate="2016-05-25T04:59:23.130" UserId="10011" Comment="added 72 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;wipo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37585" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10324" RevisionGUID="0976fc62-565b-4078-aecd-d4e20c7f44ec" CreationDate="2016-05-25T05:56:31.673" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37586" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6687" RevisionGUID="71af3499-a4a6-4bcc-a65d-51f271c838ed" CreationDate="2016-05-25T07:56:33.723" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37587" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12771" RevisionGUID="9cf70bde-c3eb-4ee7-842c-6e040e149c45" CreationDate="2016-05-25T08:56:33.590" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37588" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="428c6404-4b63-4067-b7d2-c80c6b4e9fc3" CreationDate="2016-05-25T11:01:28.393" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37589" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12574" RevisionGUID="149ecc5d-8bce-4874-a342-458675da6a88" CreationDate="2016-05-25T13:01:58.480" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37601" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13937" RevisionGUID="38a67094-93aa-44a9-9402-6530fa0d9d96" CreationDate="2016-05-25T17:05:07.187" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14923" RevisionGUID="a77c8cb5-d5d1-423d-ac43-20ca5b90b88e" CreationDate="2016-05-25T19:54:04.467" UserId="16791" Text="As a postdoctoral researcher, I came up with a novel idea for the treatment of a disease. I dedicated many years to this project and proved my hypothesis correct. I presented my findings at large international meetings and then had them published in a peer-reviewed journal, with many news outlets publicizing the story and findings in early 2014. Recently I found that someone else had patented this treatment for this disease after my presentations and publications. After seeing my results, this person just replicated the exact studies I did in mice to show the same effect in rats and has not even published their findings in a peer reviewed journal. My question is: do I have grounds to claim my findings as prior art and block or invalidate their patent?  For frame of reference, I first presented the results publicly in fall of 2011 (during a poster session in which this other person took copious notes of my experiments and results), more supporting data in fall of 2012, submitted the results for peer review in the summer of 2013 and they were published in a peer reviewed journal February 2014. This other group filed their patent (apparently based on my work) February 2013 and it was issued November 2014. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37603" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14923" RevisionGUID="a77c8cb5-d5d1-423d-ac43-20ca5b90b88e" CreationDate="2016-05-25T19:54:04.467" UserId="16791" Text="I published biomedical data and afterward, someone else patented the findings" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37604" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14923" RevisionGUID="a77c8cb5-d5d1-423d-ac43-20ca5b90b88e" CreationDate="2016-05-25T19:54:04.467" UserId="16791" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37605" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13999" RevisionGUID="82a65a33-3f91-4caa-8ccb-d1a20822508b" CreationDate="2016-05-25T20:15:54.283" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37606" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13633" RevisionGUID="74aaa8bc-925b-4d39-814a-cfefe3690e95" CreationDate="2016-05-25T21:15:58.017" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14924" RevisionGUID="fe9294fb-2457-4277-9854-0eb7cea22c9c" CreationDate="2016-05-25T21:39:12.703" UserId="16793" Text="Firstly, you should be accurate with the terminology with respect to the dates.&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, which country was the patent filed in?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were they also looking for protection in any other countries?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is their earliest priority date?&#xD;&#xA;You say that they filed in Feb' 13 and the patent was granted in Nov' 14. This is impossible by the standards of any developed country (US, Aus, Europe, NZ, Canada, Japan, etc.). Patent prosecution takes years (min 2-4). WHat you are referring to here may be the date it was published in the respective Countries patent database. (Each country has their own database, and after certain period with in the prosecution, the application is published (not granted). Typically, this takes 18 months from the date of filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would help in your case is:&#xD;&#xA;1) find out the application number,  &#xD;&#xA;2) go to the patent database of the Country the application was filed in,&#xD;&#xA;3) search for the patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will be able to see the historical records of that application, i.e, what is happening with that application if it is still under prosecution. What were the objections raised by the examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, as you say if your research was published in a peer-reviewed journal, it would be considered as prior art and would definitely appear in their search reports and any decent patent office would raise objections with novelty of the application (not to mention the application should be non-obvious to a normal person skilled in the art).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If by chance, lets say their patent application is granted. What are you trying to accomplish here? Because, you wouldn't be able to basically apply for a patent, or somehow transfer that patent on your name. Your only option would be to oppose/ revoke a grant of a patent for them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Henry Jones, PhD, Patent Agent in NZ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14925" RevisionGUID="495978d9-89a0-461e-abb9-e3f567e2ec2a" CreationDate="2016-05-25T22:30:19.553" UserId="16793" Text="Status:	The application is deemed to be withdrawn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Search in this database.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37613" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13608" RevisionGUID="ed775d8a-8286-4d56-ab7d-1d09359c0f10" CreationDate="2016-05-25T23:16:18.963" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37614" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13935" RevisionGUID="80516d96-12f7-4ffc-beda-26657db8e74a" CreationDate="2016-05-26T00:16:21.457" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37617" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13432" RevisionGUID="9ac11e23-0b24-43ec-934a-ab4c8c302aac" CreationDate="2016-05-26T01:16:29.737" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37631" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13847" RevisionGUID="b4f3dccf-93f9-4e33-ba2f-2fe355367914" CreationDate="2016-05-26T15:35:29.970" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37632" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13465" RevisionGUID="7db9512d-f82a-4264-8c01-2a73cbfb6b70" CreationDate="2016-05-26T17:35:29.570" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37633" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="c7bf640e-fed3-49c5-b563-221cb83fbda9" CreationDate="2016-05-26T19:38:35.780" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37634" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="d4cd41ed-7e4c-4d04-a006-4873e367fac6" CreationDate="2016-05-26T20:38:34.633" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14931" RevisionGUID="0c2d580f-c8c0-4d0f-aca1-83abf3f91835" CreationDate="2016-05-27T01:38:20.120" UserId="16800" Text="What are the requirements for patenting a series of chess moves that carry checkmate by white pieces?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37636" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14931" RevisionGUID="0c2d580f-c8c0-4d0f-aca1-83abf3f91835" CreationDate="2016-05-27T01:38:20.120" UserId="16800" Text="I can patent a checkmate chess in about 15 to 20 movements" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37637" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14931" RevisionGUID="0c2d580f-c8c0-4d0f-aca1-83abf3f91835" CreationDate="2016-05-27T01:38:20.120" UserId="16800" Text="&lt;jaque&gt;&lt;mate&gt;&lt;g&gt;&lt;column&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14931" RevisionGUID="69e6d0f3-7ded-479f-b826-2bd2c2cb6bb3" CreationDate="2016-05-27T07:18:21.433" UserId="10011" Comment="added 102 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I've invented a new play in chess that allows me to place my opponent in checkmate after 15 moves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would I be able to get a patent on this? What are the requirements for patenting something like this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37640" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14931" RevisionGUID="69e6d0f3-7ded-479f-b826-2bd2c2cb6bb3" CreationDate="2016-05-27T07:18:21.433" UserId="10011" Comment="added 102 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Can chess moves be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37641" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14931" RevisionGUID="69e6d0f3-7ded-479f-b826-2bd2c2cb6bb3" CreationDate="2016-05-27T07:18:21.433" UserId="10011" Comment="added 102 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37642" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13422" RevisionGUID="c06d07cb-9b75-48e9-a5b5-e01fc57b75ea" CreationDate="2016-05-27T08:55:46.823" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37643" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13771" RevisionGUID="80b4d26d-8a22-480a-b714-24446787b3c8" CreationDate="2016-05-27T10:56:07.897" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37644" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14335" RevisionGUID="97ef03bc-7b5d-4308-be2f-bfcb7c4f30a1" CreationDate="2016-05-27T11:56:08.770" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37645" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14278" RevisionGUID="ed13f9d1-bbde-462c-ba23-628aa22e5f68" CreationDate="2016-05-27T13:56:29.243" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37646" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12963" RevisionGUID="b9aa21f5-2e82-4256-9519-7fe747f5c5e2" CreationDate="2016-05-27T16:59:52.763" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14932" RevisionGUID="bc5b2dbf-fa29-4acd-91b0-9edd321eb954" CreationDate="2016-05-27T18:43:56.527" UserId="1" Text="Perhaps someone can cite the actual test-for-patentability this fails, but methods can only be patented as long they produces some concrete, useful, and tangible result. Winning a chess game would not seem to qualify. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond that, chess moves used in tournaments fill huge databases for study. It does not seem likely your combination of moves (or some significant part) has not produced *prior art* in its 1500 year history, or at least the last 200-some-odd years of modern, competitive play. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14933" RevisionGUID="af067a38-d197-41cc-9fa3-c7ffb9c8d607" CreationDate="2016-05-27T19:08:40.333" UserId="16648" Text="In general-- if there is a patent that was issued in the United States that you believe should have named you as an inventor or co-inventor, there is a path to remedy this situation via 35 USC 135 which replaced the old 35 USC 135 for interferences.  The new 35 USC 135 is the new derivation proceedings which is a narrow exception to the new first to file rules.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may have problems under the new rules as you had to act within a year of the application's publication or issuance.  See 35 USC 135(2) http://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc/135.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another tool is to correct inventorship through 35 USC 256.  There is an easy way through the USPTO but that requires the other inventor/assignee to agree.  That may not happen here.  You also have an option to file for correction of inventorship in Federal District Court.  Becoming an inventor means that you (or an entity to whom you are obligated to assign) becomes the owner or co-owner of the patent. The burden of proof is high. See http://openjurist.org/333/f3d/1330/board-of-education-mds-v-american-bioscience-inc &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;See also http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=12c99bf6-30bc-4d6b-8956-e07b2fec420c for a longer discussion of this topic.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37649" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14788" RevisionGUID="500d3999-4722-474b-bd47-48def6f1ec1e" CreationDate="2016-05-27T20:03:28.083" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14934" RevisionGUID="06040566-6e20-4328-8b17-dfa920d3af68" CreationDate="2016-05-27T20:34:26.377" UserId="16804" Text="My partner filed for a provisional patent and I'm trying to find out what the status is on it as I cannot get a straight answer from him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have looked up the application number on PAIR the following is the transaction history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the last entry says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10-21-2015	Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the parent status says expired and has a 371c filing date of 6/21/2013&#xD;&#xA;But on the bibliographic data says a 371c date of 5/5/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just wondering what we have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37651" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14934" RevisionGUID="06040566-6e20-4328-8b17-dfa920d3af68" CreationDate="2016-05-27T20:34:26.377" UserId="16804" Text="Partner filed an application for a patent trying to track it down" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37652" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14934" RevisionGUID="06040566-6e20-4328-8b17-dfa920d3af68" CreationDate="2016-05-27T20:34:26.377" UserId="16804" Text="&lt;status&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37657" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14127" RevisionGUID="4da83a39-9af8-4209-adcd-505db6badd3a" CreationDate="2016-05-28T07:08:55.367" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37660" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13242" RevisionGUID="42503529-5332-4f83-ae8e-68a01fe8706b" CreationDate="2016-05-28T09:08:59.757" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37661" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13123" RevisionGUID="d5204544-8f24-4942-bf3d-d376f2159461" CreationDate="2016-05-28T10:09:01.360" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37662" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14796" RevisionGUID="8094351f-fc19-464b-a90a-951fdedfcbba" CreationDate="2016-05-28T11:09:00.853" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37663" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13315" RevisionGUID="7e5a53f7-f89f-4e7c-a378-cd5fddfda723" CreationDate="2016-05-28T12:09:07.037" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37664" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13659" RevisionGUID="306fcd70-2805-43c4-94fb-d9d2523995fe" CreationDate="2016-05-28T13:11:19.983" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37665" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13607" RevisionGUID="9da52cbe-75ba-4fd1-b98a-792d0259b32c" CreationDate="2016-05-28T17:11:52.107" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37666" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6624" RevisionGUID="16288fd2-e963-4d59-8cbc-6ce4b8f86597" CreationDate="2016-05-28T18:11:52.120" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37667" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12954" RevisionGUID="b751ab78-b9c7-4d83-ba25-333bd54366c6" CreationDate="2016-05-28T19:11:58.950" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37668" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14631" RevisionGUID="c508416b-6349-4f46-8b63-9efc8d258a2b" CreationDate="2016-05-29T01:14:11.043" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37669" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14620" RevisionGUID="dbf2ae34-1196-4a77-bbc4-c2477a951b21" CreationDate="2016-05-29T02:14:11.433" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37672" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12339" RevisionGUID="cd9edfef-23a3-4e28-be3e-1981bcc6e19b" CreationDate="2016-05-29T03:20:42.250" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37673" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14622" RevisionGUID="d675b09d-e8f5-4847-a5a5-3dad9b4d4831" CreationDate="2016-05-29T04:25:52.507" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37674" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="3ae485fc-e5a5-44d2-8711-518d9314a027" CreationDate="2016-05-29T13:37:46.897" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37681" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="40c21ad8-21d2-4b8d-b7d8-c3ca8ba50702" CreationDate="2016-05-29T19:39:24.577" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14937" RevisionGUID="e66a5f70-b166-4628-b310-5ca909231a5f" CreationDate="2016-05-29T20:26:44.190" UserId="16808" Text="I have found 4 patented products combined together created a cream that has amazing results on burns and non-specific skin conditions.  Am I able to patent my product? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37683" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14937" RevisionGUID="e66a5f70-b166-4628-b310-5ca909231a5f" CreationDate="2016-05-29T20:26:44.190" UserId="16808" Text="Combining patented products" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37684" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14937" RevisionGUID="e66a5f70-b166-4628-b310-5ca909231a5f" CreationDate="2016-05-29T20:26:44.190" UserId="16808" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;creams&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37688" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="52c87929-5d67-4102-8876-53b25f7f844f" CreationDate="2016-05-29T21:39:40.730" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37703" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7693" RevisionGUID="4f26c220-e649-4517-b290-8bc024671e7f" CreationDate="2016-05-30T07:39:49.537" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37706" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4993" RevisionGUID="2575883d-15ff-4e8e-9423-c95b4c884176" CreationDate="2016-05-30T09:40:00.390" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37709" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14022" RevisionGUID="05c1377c-efe8-40de-a25b-193b95c035ab" CreationDate="2016-05-30T11:41:07.423" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37710" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12072" RevisionGUID="b06cb8cc-403e-4b25-b0f5-abcef7509ca5" CreationDate="2016-05-30T12:41:08.420" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37711" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10744" RevisionGUID="19a5f0d5-5cb6-4bd7-87db-837398d42200" CreationDate="2016-05-30T15:41:38.580" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37712" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12070" RevisionGUID="decd38f7-2cc4-4ec7-97e9-4a52bee1597d" CreationDate="2016-05-30T16:41:39.360" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37713" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14601" RevisionGUID="3803be47-9ccb-45e4-a836-ca563ad86583" CreationDate="2016-05-30T19:41:49.427" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14943" RevisionGUID="a698f5eb-3e6e-4115-a04e-a6bc7842c3df" CreationDate="2016-05-30T19:47:52.807" UserId="16818" Text="In the book &quot;Invention Analysis and Claiming, a patent lawyer's guide&quot; (second edition) by Ronald Slusky he makes the point that &quot;A claim reading on prior art is unpatentable whether or not the prior art solves the problem or recognizes its existence.&quot; (Chapter &amp;, page 89).  Is this a true statement indeed?&#xD;&#xA;He references:&#xD;&#xA;In re Dillon, 892 F.2d 1554, 13 USPQ2s 1337 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (en banc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked up the reference in Westlaw and came across the following related reference:&#xD;&#xA;In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir 1990) &#xD;&#xA;whereby the conclusion was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Following the weight of precedent, I would hold that a prima facie case of obviousness of a new chemical compound or composition requires consideration of not only the chemical structure but also the newly discovered properties, in light of the teachings and suggestions of the prior art. I would expressly reject the Commissioner's position that determination of the prima facie case is made regardless of the properties disclosed in the inventor's application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there is no suggestion in the prior art references, alone or in combination, of the particulate-reducing property and use discovered by Dillon for her new compositions, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been made. Thus it is not necessary to patentability that Dillon establish *720 that the prior art compositions do not possess the same soot-reduction property and use. I would reverse the board's rejection of claims 2–14, 16–22, and 24–37, all of the claims before us on appeal.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference between these two references? Does the 1990 reference affect the above point made by Slusky? Doesn't the 'reverse doctrine of equivalence' makes his point not true?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37715" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14943" RevisionGUID="a698f5eb-3e6e-4115-a04e-a6bc7842c3df" CreationDate="2016-05-30T19:47:52.807" UserId="16818" Text="What is the difference between 'Dillon 892 F.2d 1554, (Fed. Cir. 1989)' &amp; 'Dillon, 919 F.2d 688 (Fed. Cir 1990)'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37716" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14943" RevisionGUID="a698f5eb-3e6e-4115-a04e-a6bc7842c3df" CreationDate="2016-05-30T19:47:52.807" UserId="16818" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;doctrine-of-equivalents&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37720" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7765" RevisionGUID="88ab53a0-b0ec-425e-b550-5dcc8997ffea" CreationDate="2016-05-30T20:41:52.407" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37724" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="8cc2614b-e046-493a-bb54-54728aa9487e" CreationDate="2016-05-31T01:42:13.983" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37725" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12832" RevisionGUID="55d0c419-6e7e-4bc5-9c0a-c53b9f68653d" CreationDate="2016-05-31T12:45:58.720" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37726" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14479" RevisionGUID="4df0625f-86bb-456a-aab7-155ad46108f5" CreationDate="2016-05-31T13:46:01.143" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37727" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13870" RevisionGUID="8c700147-ea7a-4e83-99c7-b63c674d4d29" CreationDate="2016-05-31T16:46:39.243" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37728" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="1b074e7e-fee0-4a5c-805e-d0d7a7a430c7" CreationDate="2016-05-31T18:57:10.960" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14946" RevisionGUID="4159a579-a7db-4f60-9064-3894b663484d" CreationDate="2016-05-31T19:31:04.103" UserId="3500" Text="The excerpt you quote is from a dissent in the 1990 case, not the majority opinion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14947" RevisionGUID="5ed37209-c4aa-43a6-ab4e-0cc93ca4ec50" CreationDate="2016-05-31T20:36:37.403" UserId="1698" Text="Your question refers to 371 dates. These are from a US national stage application, filed under 35 USC 371, of an international PCT patent application. Do the PAIR data entries include a reference to a provisional application under priority?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like the application has been given to an examiner and placed on his docket list. Go to the first action prediction tab, and see when to expect the first office action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there was originally a PCT application, were any other national stage applications filed in any other patent offices? Try searching at https://worldwide.espacenet.com/?locale=en_EP using the PCT application number.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37731" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10643" RevisionGUID="93bb5e6b-e2a2-4a21-86c8-5065dd23d839" CreationDate="2016-05-31T21:02:26.477" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37732" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14200" RevisionGUID="f6d01476-7265-4135-bd9e-1bafdd464956" CreationDate="2016-05-31T22:02:27.300" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37733" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13556" RevisionGUID="4688572e-a380-4be8-8d5a-3436cc064e69" CreationDate="2016-05-31T23:02:27.337" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37734" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="5a87590c-5d46-42b7-a1d7-2cffe20e2142" CreationDate="2016-06-01T00:02:27.723" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37735" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="c3678ea6-b913-463d-9c05-e11b7e03197a" CreationDate="2016-06-01T01:03:01.453" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14948" RevisionGUID="63b39570-0d76-499b-ab76-9a819b3ff3d0" CreationDate="2016-06-01T01:45:24.733" UserId="16826" Text="My family member was recently granted a patent for a unique candy recipe that he developed. He still owns the patent, but is allowing me to commercialize his product for him. If i begin commercializing/marketing/branding his product with my own name for the product, will his patent still prevent others from stealing the recipe and producing themselves? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose i'm trying to understand if there's some loophole in patent law, which negates his patent protection once someone like myself is allowed to re-name it. Does the name of his recipe even matter for maintaining patent protection? I'm guessing that it's the recipe that's protected, and not the name that's used to describe the recipe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37737" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14948" RevisionGUID="63b39570-0d76-499b-ab76-9a819b3ff3d0" CreationDate="2016-06-01T01:45:24.733" UserId="16826" Text="Does changing name of invention prevent patent protection?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37738" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14948" RevisionGUID="63b39570-0d76-499b-ab76-9a819b3ff3d0" CreationDate="2016-06-01T01:45:24.733" UserId="16826" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;trademark&gt;&lt;infringe&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37740" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="25ad03df-488c-40ea-8b16-e1d6c1b0262e" CreationDate="2016-06-01T04:11:36.333" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37741" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14807" RevisionGUID="d5916799-0645-4e7b-93ea-f7ac2b169018" CreationDate="2016-06-01T06:12:01.447" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37742" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14820" RevisionGUID="5d0292ec-38d4-4dca-8e7f-636763315f67" CreationDate="2016-06-01T19:15:20.680" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37743" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14032" RevisionGUID="6551a73a-4bed-48a7-be91-20489119dd5b" CreationDate="2016-06-01T20:15:21.377" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37744" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14621" RevisionGUID="9de22f8f-cc58-4d8a-b70a-fc89e5007493" CreationDate="2016-06-01T22:15:24.357" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37745" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13861" RevisionGUID="1245bda8-38d1-4438-9a37-c6b94e439dda" CreationDate="2016-06-01T23:15:23.120" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37746" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14651" RevisionGUID="3b956303-07d6-4198-a330-0884131b8add" CreationDate="2016-06-02T02:17:03.390" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37748" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5844" RevisionGUID="5708fa15-9cb6-43ce-a26a-0e2e4e4a33a0" CreationDate="2016-06-02T03:17:08.977" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37749" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="9733f0aa-47bb-418e-8e3c-d8e9456ed7d9" CreationDate="2016-06-02T11:30:18.183" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14949" RevisionGUID="49e3e810-acb6-4da1-a046-a93e042f75d2" CreationDate="2016-06-02T15:49:42.350" UserId="16837" Text="I'm a student who I developing hardware/software for a product design that is going to be patented (applied). Am I being used? Or should I only do the work to develop the prototype if I get credit on the patent? I'm just not sure what the standard is for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37751" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14949" RevisionGUID="49e3e810-acb6-4da1-a046-a93e042f75d2" CreationDate="2016-06-02T15:49:42.350" UserId="16837" Text="Who gets credit on a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37752" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14949" RevisionGUID="49e3e810-acb6-4da1-a046-a93e042f75d2" CreationDate="2016-06-02T15:49:42.350" UserId="16837" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37753" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13986" RevisionGUID="9d4520fc-332a-4d41-8d93-499757e14959" CreationDate="2016-06-02T19:30:30.827" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37754" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14322" RevisionGUID="9ab189f6-95e8-4dda-abd9-3cb22494007a" CreationDate="2016-06-02T20:30:31.000" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37755" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10545" RevisionGUID="e827b7b1-9964-4846-a78b-c66ec67d8063" CreationDate="2016-06-02T21:30:30.827" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37756" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13260" RevisionGUID="2696cc6f-b9d1-4fc2-8b6e-59abbff631b8" CreationDate="2016-06-03T05:36:05.990" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37757" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12621" RevisionGUID="9f0a3f1c-0544-4f40-bbf3-c10d3d14be18" CreationDate="2016-06-03T06:36:05.667" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37761" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13794" RevisionGUID="d448da86-90f3-4f0a-b0d5-fde27f45b979" CreationDate="2016-06-03T07:36:09.377" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14951" RevisionGUID="75198129-6721-4928-9871-d74217dab720" CreationDate="2016-06-03T08:28:50.523" UserId="16842" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8739921][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8739921&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is this patent only protected in the US?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37763" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14951" RevisionGUID="75198129-6721-4928-9871-d74217dab720" CreationDate="2016-06-03T08:28:50.523" UserId="16842" Text="is this patent protected outside of the US?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37764" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14951" RevisionGUID="75198129-6721-4928-9871-d74217dab720" CreationDate="2016-06-03T08:28:50.523" UserId="16842" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37765" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12610" RevisionGUID="dfe2e3e4-de58-4503-ae99-c515c851c00d" CreationDate="2016-06-03T08:36:09.783" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37766" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="44d64795-2235-45a5-bf72-db4e6e71d260" CreationDate="2016-06-03T09:36:10.423" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37767" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12107" RevisionGUID="50ebd99e-9f74-4dee-83e5-d30f3a8d35c4" CreationDate="2016-06-03T11:36:39.547" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14952" RevisionGUID="7c38356a-d33b-4071-a471-a7cff3eed635" CreationDate="2016-06-03T15:09:28.243" UserId="16648" Text="Here is a generic process for checking.  Note that there is some residual risk that data has not been entered correctly or that they filed a parallel application on the same date rather than a related application.  Before taking big risks you should have a patent attorney augment your initial search. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Step 1 -- go to patents.google.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Step 2 -- enter the patent number of interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Step 3 -- hit the Espacenet link in upper left corner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Step 4 -- on the Espacenet page for this patent, hit the INPADOC patent family link in the left column. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at the results.  The patent family will include related US applications, PCT applications, and foreign patents or and publications of foreign applications.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that for a PCT application that has not expired, the patent owner has an option to start seeking patents in 148 patent systems.  While most systems place a deadline for entry at 30 or 31 months after the priority date, one can enter some systems later.  The PCT deadline for entry into Canada is 42 months after the priority date for the first application in the chain. &#xD;&#xA;Another complication is that just because a patent application was published and shows up in ESPACENET does not mean that it went all the way to becoming a patent. &#xD;&#xA;Yet another complication is that the actual patent claims awarded may differ from country to country.  Some types of claims are not allowable in some countries (methods of doing surgery for example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the particular case of US8739921 I do not see any connected cases showing up in ESPACENET, including a PCT case.  Parallel filing US and non-US can be done but is unusual as you need a foreign filing license. Thus, the fact that there does not seem to be a related case to your patent of interest makes it unlikely that this inventor has rights in other countries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may find that others have obtained similar rights in other countries.  So you should have a patent attorney in your market of interest verify that you have freedom to operate as planned without bumping into someone else's patent or to double-check that a data entry problem did not cause a failure in the patent family listing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please excuse the long answer but I hope that these posts can be useful to other users of the site.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37770" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13528" RevisionGUID="fec5f8fd-0fcc-4334-bdec-c66e414dc9c9" CreationDate="2016-06-03T16:37:25.587" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37771" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13537" RevisionGUID="14a88c2d-fb75-48b5-9fc4-f5f388349caa" CreationDate="2016-06-03T18:37:26.067" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37772" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7833" RevisionGUID="c391d2c5-ddaa-400d-93bd-e17dea049429" CreationDate="2016-06-03T20:37:26.017" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37777" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13171" RevisionGUID="682c570a-8fdf-4037-9162-10d603086150" CreationDate="2016-06-04T05:39:48.620" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37778" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10041" RevisionGUID="12e0cadf-889d-4eb9-b94b-b4fec169015f" CreationDate="2016-06-04T06:42:07.777" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37782" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10559" RevisionGUID="194937ce-1017-4dae-9469-b0891bb94560" CreationDate="2016-06-04T10:46:46.097" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37783" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="d54a6807-4dec-4802-b7e4-fcdf90a94120" CreationDate="2016-06-04T18:48:01.627" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14954" RevisionGUID="4593eba5-04d4-4e4b-8edc-353bf760d7b5" CreationDate="2016-06-04T19:59:36.940" UserId="16848" Text="To rephrase your question a bit patent lingo: &quot;Am I an inventor who should be listed on the patent that will be filed on the product I am working on?&quot; (where credit == inventor)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technical Answer: Maybe.  You must contribute novel aspects to the patent-able idea and those contributions must appear in one or more claims.  If someone gives you the idea to build and you build it, without going beyond the original idea, or going beyond in ways that don't show up in the claims of the final patent, you are not an inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Practical Answer: You can't tell inventorship until you see the final claims.  If you are under an obligation to assign your patent rights to the entity who will hold the patent in the end and your contribution is potentially patentable and you can clearly articulate what that contribution is, then there is a good chance they will add you as an inventor if you ask.  A patent with incorrect inventorship is unenforceable until inventorship is corrected, so getting inventorship right is important for the value of the patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14955" RevisionGUID="4b8dbd1d-5419-410a-88c9-a1f0231f047c" CreationDate="2016-06-04T20:04:49.133" UserId="16848" Text="Most likely, unless someone else has already disclosed this combination or the combination is an obvious one.  But be warned, you must be able to acquire those four patented products to make your product, and your patent doesn't excuse you from needing to acquire a license in some manner for those four components, either by buying the supplies from a licensed dealer or directly licensing the patents from the patent holders." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38788" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12403" RevisionGUID="0a157357-d048-4342-9c9b-1f3175baa5da" CreationDate="2016-06-05T03:48:23.357" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15957" RevisionGUID="27a4478e-66e9-44f8-a7be-589339e505d0" CreationDate="2016-06-05T04:53:22.733" UserId="16851" Text="http://www.google.com/patents/US7400295&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a granted patent for &quot;identification of objects&quot;. The authors seem to think that it protects their online and mobile plant classification tool:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://kukkakasvit.luontoportti.fi/index.phtml?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the invention here really? The application is super simple. The user selects plant characteristics, and the application filters plant species from the database. This is basically a database query with multiple filters. There must be thousands of prior arts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38790" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15957" RevisionGUID="27a4478e-66e9-44f8-a7be-589339e505d0" CreationDate="2016-06-05T04:53:22.733" UserId="16851" Text="What is the invention in this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38791" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15957" RevisionGUID="27a4478e-66e9-44f8-a7be-589339e505d0" CreationDate="2016-06-05T04:53:22.733" UserId="16851" Text="&lt;invention&gt;&lt;object-identification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38792" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14508" RevisionGUID="68387c57-7578-473a-956d-c1680ef57ec8" CreationDate="2016-06-05T07:48:26.187" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38793" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13283" RevisionGUID="6ec4b20b-7e28-4b0f-bf60-e2dc881a16ef" CreationDate="2016-06-05T08:48:26.363" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38794" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12972" RevisionGUID="4a653841-51b1-4e5d-b775-8130d396f7ef" CreationDate="2016-06-05T09:49:57.000" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38798" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14517" RevisionGUID="891dfde7-c01c-400f-ba8f-8ab696be7191" CreationDate="2016-06-05T14:56:34.420" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38801" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14843" RevisionGUID="d4e85cdb-d58d-42c8-8029-8798db52cb44" CreationDate="2016-06-05T15:56:40.083" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38802" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13359" RevisionGUID="c72fcc6c-d7c0-4c2b-b121-d1bc9e310c3b" CreationDate="2016-06-05T16:56:54.283" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38803" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14844" RevisionGUID="334bf5f6-06f6-4736-b551-72116a335553" CreationDate="2016-06-05T17:57:00.917" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15959" RevisionGUID="9b12b2c4-5161-465e-b688-736b202e9062" CreationDate="2016-06-05T18:14:12.050" UserId="16853" Text="In reference to the patent: [US1434590][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US1434590&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just a quick question pls, can i re-invent this somehow ? i thought it was an old antique metal ring back in the 1800's idk. What is the deal with this patent pls ? :)  thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pls try keep replies simple as i'm a web builder not an inventor sorry, idk much about the different patents until i do some research, it just so happens this is part of my research :)  thank you. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38805" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15959" RevisionGUID="9b12b2c4-5161-465e-b688-736b202e9062" CreationDate="2016-06-05T18:14:12.050" UserId="16853" Text="Help understanding this pls" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38806" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15959" RevisionGUID="9b12b2c4-5161-465e-b688-736b202e9062" CreationDate="2016-06-05T18:14:12.050" UserId="16853" Text="&lt;us1434590&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15959" RevisionGUID="b2480121-0c47-4b48-a342-4cada65c70c2" CreationDate="2016-06-05T18:20:35.743" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 253 characters in body; edited title" Text="In reference to the patent: [US1434590][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US1434590&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I re-invent this somehow? I thought it was an old antique metal ring back in the 1800's. What is the deal with this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38808" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15959" RevisionGUID="b2480121-0c47-4b48-a342-4cada65c70c2" CreationDate="2016-06-05T18:20:35.743" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 253 characters in body; edited title" Text="Help Understanding US1434590" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38809" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15959" RevisionGUID="dff5b22b-fd66-4f0c-82f9-10eadf196f36" CreationDate="2016-06-05T18:20:39.353" UserId="10011" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="38810" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5868" RevisionGUID="82949214-8a36-4023-b667-a0b86781628c" CreationDate="2016-06-05T18:57:18.490" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38811" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="15959" RevisionGUID="e47effe7-e87e-48d2-9632-ec24a96231a5" CreationDate="2016-06-05T21:18:29.533" UserId="10011" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="38812" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15959" RevisionGUID="a5680ede-737e-43a8-9d2e-990f1196cb9c" CreationDate="2016-06-05T21:18:34.253" UserId="10011" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[3801],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="38813" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15959" RevisionGUID="68cc4d6e-01be-4112-ae69-b8b025e4a2af" CreationDate="2016-06-05T21:19:12.973" UserId="10011" Comment="edited title" Text="Can I manufacture US1434590?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38814" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10378" RevisionGUID="216f5a3d-ba4e-4155-9a42-e93d4effb1f5" CreationDate="2016-06-06T09:58:50.030" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38818" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="1cfe2ef6-fe02-454c-910f-8cc2691404ba" CreationDate="2016-06-06T13:58:53.127" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38825" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="1f12f66b-0018-4f40-8e63-c386b8ad0713" CreationDate="2016-06-06T14:58:53.487" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38826" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="32c1c204-62ba-40ca-8d35-e270af77ca12" CreationDate="2016-06-06T15:58:53.293" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38830" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12143" RevisionGUID="ce585bdc-40b3-487d-9544-4a94111b941c" CreationDate="2016-06-06T17:58:57.953" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38839" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13373" RevisionGUID="2bf0b341-4673-4bfa-991b-15bf52fa1352" CreationDate="2016-06-07T02:59:16.637" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38840" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="7d038843-ef45-46e9-bc65-598480d43325" CreationDate="2016-06-07T04:59:17.127" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38847" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12640" RevisionGUID="5f49f38e-7704-4dcb-be39-4612dec35a56" CreationDate="2016-06-07T12:59:22.610" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38852" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14181" RevisionGUID="66daf35b-3ff2-4538-be08-bce172a47c86" CreationDate="2016-06-07T15:59:39.430" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38853" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11943" RevisionGUID="36220bf8-e91e-40e4-9336-aa23334c58b5" CreationDate="2016-06-07T16:59:43.353" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38854" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="9dbc5de6-cdb2-400d-8fd3-eb938656ef37" CreationDate="2016-06-07T17:59:45.153" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38855" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11951" RevisionGUID="66db56ee-6044-4965-9c00-ef7e3054e601" CreationDate="2016-06-07T19:00:29.913" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38861" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12990" RevisionGUID="42250ebb-c099-4a46-82a2-0d2b436d1a4e" CreationDate="2016-06-08T03:10:51.813" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38865" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9885" RevisionGUID="73e3ce8b-5ad2-4b53-a415-ad7db933ec97" CreationDate="2016-06-08T09:16:57.993" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38866" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13723" RevisionGUID="43b3eeda-6549-459f-9c5f-aead5de611cd" CreationDate="2016-06-08T10:17:12.547" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38867" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13023" RevisionGUID="d6bb6e02-b834-4b4a-9784-83ec9b9a1108" CreationDate="2016-06-08T13:17:33.223" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38872" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="883d3b52-acd0-40fa-a3fc-eb196c9bc945" CreationDate="2016-06-08T21:20:36.537" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38873" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14632" RevisionGUID="03e96921-3b21-4364-b66d-b0fb531de1f5" CreationDate="2016-06-08T22:21:14.360" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15972" RevisionGUID="deeba15a-4b83-4451-be0b-662dacaf8c55" CreationDate="2016-06-08T23:38:06.683" UserId="16875" Text="Yes, it can.  I did a quick search and found over 100 patents with a youtube.com prior art citation.  The earliest citations I found are in US 7783710, US 7844507, and US 7934725." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38875" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14061" RevisionGUID="95f73b9f-85f8-4ed1-ac84-c1a072aab8ee" CreationDate="2016-06-09T00:21:24.727" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15973" RevisionGUID="e0de053c-ea8c-40d9-a8b4-b12dd5639a35" CreationDate="2016-06-09T01:59:48.633" UserId="16876" Text="I'm trying to get a company to licence my idea, however, they claim that they already have a similar idea but that they could potentially find improvements/best practises to their idea from understanding mine and see if they could licence it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since provisionals are not publicly searchable and I can't view their provisional to understand exactly what they have patented or not, what is the best way for each other to disclose information?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If their provisional patent is super broad and they filed it earlier then mine, can they steal my specific methods if I show them and claim that its something they have already patented?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any way without having to show them your provisional directly (and hence remove your 'trade secret advantage' of not showing them your provisional) ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38877" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15973" RevisionGUID="e0de053c-ea8c-40d9-a8b4-b12dd5639a35" CreationDate="2016-06-09T01:59:48.633" UserId="16876" Text="How do I deal with a company who claims they already have a provisional on my idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38878" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15973" RevisionGUID="e0de053c-ea8c-40d9-a8b4-b12dd5639a35" CreationDate="2016-06-09T01:59:48.633" UserId="16876" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38879" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14049" RevisionGUID="0cf81824-94b7-4eff-a8df-3f1fde4036d6" CreationDate="2016-06-09T02:21:42.867" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15974" RevisionGUID="fe0d97f7-8549-4d3d-af89-9ea19a184d52" CreationDate="2016-06-09T05:05:46.850" UserId="16877" Text="Read the conclusion. Also pretty sure this counts as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oct 2000 - The Transfer of Nicotine from Nicotine Salts to&#xD;&#xA;Mainstream Smoke : http://www.degruyter.com/dg/viewarticle.fullcontentlink:pdfeventlink/$002fj$002fcttr.2000.19.issue-3$002fcttr-2013-0702$002fcttr-2013-0702.pdf/cttr-2013-0702.pdf?t:ac=j$002fcttr.2000.19.issue-3$002fcttr-2013-0702$002fcttr-2013-0702.xml&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently study was started in the 70s : http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/files.php?pid=223992&amp;aid=16157" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15975" RevisionGUID="a6239e5a-55d3-4dec-ade7-6e90618b6a96" CreationDate="2016-06-09T08:17:31.923" UserId="16878" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7455257][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7455257&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent claiming that no scuba diving reel on the market can have a level winding mechanism without infringing the claims of this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38887" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15975" RevisionGUID="a6239e5a-55d3-4dec-ade7-6e90618b6a96" CreationDate="2016-06-09T08:17:31.923" UserId="16878" Text="Patent Infringement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38888" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15975" RevisionGUID="a6239e5a-55d3-4dec-ade7-6e90618b6a96" CreationDate="2016-06-09T08:17:31.923" UserId="16878" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38892" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13939" RevisionGUID="d545e02b-8f6a-4106-89d4-37e0efd8ebe0" CreationDate="2016-06-09T09:30:07.007" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15977" RevisionGUID="d4f8481a-39b6-4ebf-8578-2b789d043d5f" CreationDate="2016-06-09T09:45:43.823" UserId="16880" Text="I'm from India, And have some uniq prototype work that I want to patent. Does any one have idea about filing an patent in India!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38894" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15977" RevisionGUID="d4f8481a-39b6-4ebf-8578-2b789d043d5f" CreationDate="2016-06-09T09:45:43.823" UserId="16880" Text="How to file patent in India" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38895" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15977" RevisionGUID="d4f8481a-39b6-4ebf-8578-2b789d043d5f" CreationDate="2016-06-09T09:45:43.823" UserId="16880" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38899" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13762" RevisionGUID="7d90ad8b-b961-4a22-a3d4-ac26140c8b76" CreationDate="2016-06-09T13:30:43.323" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15980" RevisionGUID="8534140d-0d3c-4759-882f-c91362e72c86" CreationDate="2016-06-09T15:50:47.630" UserId="81" Text="The Indian Patent Office should be your first port of call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check out their [basic manual chapter 3, sections 1 to 6][1], and follow the instructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipindia.nic.in/ipr/patent/manual/HTML%20AND%20PDF/Manual%20of%20Patent%20Office%20Practice%20and%20Procedure%20-%20html/Chapter%203.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15981" RevisionGUID="987fa30b-b1ab-49dd-880c-48bd74d2cabe" CreationDate="2016-06-09T18:40:48.980" UserId="3500" Text="In a word: no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just picking out words from claim 1, the device must have &quot;a water-tight housing&quot; that is &quot;attachable,&quot; &quot;a take-up reel rotatably attached to the housing,&quot; &quot;an interior termination attached to&quot; the reel, &quot;a battery-operated motor disposed within said housing and coupled to said take-up reel through a gearing arrangement.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might be other statements in the patent or the prosecution history (the communication between the applicant and the patent office) that also limit (narrow) the scope of the claims.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming that the claim is valid, it appears that, for example, a purely mechanical (i.e., no battery) device would likely not infringe.  Nor would one that did not have a water-tight housing but was designed to operate despite exposure to water." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15982" RevisionGUID="1d1731e0-9037-48a8-b081-0afdaf16a68d" CreationDate="2016-06-09T18:50:01.673" UserId="3500" Text="Without addressing your primary question, be aware that &quot;injunctive relief&quot; is also possible.  Even if the infringer is judgement proof (e.g., has no assets), a court could still order that the infringer stop the infringing activity.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15983" RevisionGUID="7e5cc7e3-00ce-42b9-8a8f-b60c26ee5e35" CreationDate="2016-06-09T18:51:38.680" UserId="16883" Text="Imagine the following scenario:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;there is an technology which I didn't invent. But I have an (in my eyes 'great') idea, how to use this technology, in a special way to improve or extend a different product which is also already existing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I really didn't invent any new technology. I just have an idea how to use it, how nobody used it until now and I think it could be revolutionary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to get a patent for an idea like this in germany?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38911" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15983" RevisionGUID="7e5cc7e3-00ce-42b9-8a8f-b60c26ee5e35" CreationDate="2016-06-09T18:51:38.680" UserId="16883" Text="Can an idea of using something be patented in germany?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38912" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15983" RevisionGUID="7e5cc7e3-00ce-42b9-8a8f-b60c26ee5e35" CreationDate="2016-06-09T18:51:38.680" UserId="16883" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;germany&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38914" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="770f60b7-b91a-46c6-a8ba-5ea3f47fbeac" CreationDate="2016-06-10T01:37:27.773" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38918" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15983" RevisionGUID="944ff731-1b98-4773-a9ee-c60d2739deb3" CreationDate="2016-06-10T02:07:05.767" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 93 characters in body; edited title" Text="Imagine the following scenario:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an technology which I didn't invent. But I have an idea of how to use this technology, in a special way to improve or extend a different product, which also already exists. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really didn't invent any new technology, but I have a new idea of how it could be used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to get a patent for an idea like this in Germany?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38919" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15983" RevisionGUID="944ff731-1b98-4773-a9ee-c60d2739deb3" CreationDate="2016-06-10T02:07:05.767" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 93 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can a new use for an existing invention be patented in Germany?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38920" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13601" RevisionGUID="6c3cc45b-0bfd-41be-862b-1dc6f7d0d332" CreationDate="2016-06-10T04:48:50.043" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38921" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13276" RevisionGUID="8d3b7dff-1f8e-46a3-81b4-4b60be930ae8" CreationDate="2016-06-10T05:55:21.130" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38925" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14699" RevisionGUID="3fbf267a-0027-4b00-bb83-7171e768b666" CreationDate="2016-06-10T11:58:59.177" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38926" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10602" RevisionGUID="50e4e93e-b56b-4b36-9ab8-34531f29878c" CreationDate="2016-06-10T12:59:12.107" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38928" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5897" RevisionGUID="984b22b3-a998-487d-af44-7c06ddc3f951" CreationDate="2016-06-10T15:00:10.800" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38929" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14366" RevisionGUID="a0b808df-9b2e-4ecd-a1cd-9fa7ca78fb5b" CreationDate="2016-06-10T16:00:14.737" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38934" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14697" RevisionGUID="36128ae7-e426-497d-bb45-aff474dc7332" CreationDate="2016-06-10T21:04:24.970" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38936" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14355" RevisionGUID="93c29167-3360-4f96-86a2-78b023b64025" CreationDate="2016-06-11T07:08:29.113" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38937" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14868" RevisionGUID="5c60343d-05d2-4dda-8178-70c1c45de37a" CreationDate="2016-06-11T10:08:38.947" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38938" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13934" RevisionGUID="c070de37-ec5a-4454-8777-9c0e24e85264" CreationDate="2016-06-11T17:14:02.747" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38944" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="4656c0fc-a172-444d-aea9-bab6b84ef805" CreationDate="2016-06-12T14:32:56.103" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38948" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10796" RevisionGUID="65b708a9-fe19-482f-a5b5-421ede7826bd" CreationDate="2016-06-12T20:34:35.320" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38950" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12753" RevisionGUID="408fc118-be0e-4b84-b17b-44ae3de961e3" CreationDate="2016-06-12T22:34:38.047" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38955" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="b16a85c1-1dae-4b3a-8f87-17ee88aae5b8" CreationDate="2016-06-13T07:50:03.010" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38957" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10813" RevisionGUID="c976a586-ef0d-47c8-b1cd-702970041148" CreationDate="2016-06-13T15:02:47.903" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15990" RevisionGUID="c8674d83-b2a9-48d0-b613-ffab638689a6" CreationDate="2016-06-13T15:20:46.830" UserId="8534" Text="I've down-voted vallismortis's answer because it falsely states that the claims of an earlier patent application are related to it's acting as prior art to a later patent application.  When it comes to prior art, what matters is what a publications teaches as a whole.  If the publication is a patent publication, that includes its full descriptions, claims, abstract, figures, title, etc.  So if a prior patent publication as a whole teaches or suggests what is claimed in a later filed patent application, then it can be cited as prior art against the later application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also disagree with vallismortis's advice to &quot;not be overly concerned about any of these applications...&quot;.  Never underestimate the ability of a determined applicant to get a patent to issue on an important invention.  They can change or modify the claims as many times as they want until they find something the examiner can agree on.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to track what happens to this patent application, you can follow it at http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair  Type in the publication number and you can see if the claims have been rejected, what the prior art cited was and how the applicant has responded." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15991" RevisionGUID="cdb36155-587c-4740-8142-7f69ac512320" CreationDate="2016-06-14T00:14:55.720" UserId="16906" Text="I know that for a US patent I have to go on public pair to check the exchange between the patent examiner and patent attorney or inventor. But I'm looking for the same data for a german patent. I think it should be on espacenet, but I'm not able to figure it out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38961" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15991" RevisionGUID="cdb36155-587c-4740-8142-7f69ac512320" CreationDate="2016-06-14T00:14:55.720" UserId="16906" Text="Where can I find german patent examination?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38962" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15991" RevisionGUID="cdb36155-587c-4740-8142-7f69ac512320" CreationDate="2016-06-14T00:14:55.720" UserId="16906" Text="&lt;examination&gt;&lt;german&gt;&lt;exchange&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15992" RevisionGUID="23e8b254-c408-4e62-86ed-ba139c9eaaea" CreationDate="2016-06-14T00:22:46.890" UserId="16906" Text="I think that the best procedure would be the following one :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Fill a provisory patent with your idea and much as detail as possible&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Offer the company to set a bilateral NDA between you and them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Compare the provisory patent. If you bring new material, then you'll have something to negotiate. You should not forget that claims could be modified at any time util the end of the provisory period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if a patent is broad and that you have a specific idea that requires a claim in the broader patent, you won't have the freedom to operate. If you patent your specific idea and that it’s not evident from their patent, they won't have the freedom to operate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15994" RevisionGUID="c7a00b60-a00d-4abb-9bf6-241e0e2f1051" CreationDate="2016-06-14T01:49:15.900" UserId="16906" Text="First, if the technology is patented only in Germany and you want to make an improved product that embedded the technology and to sell it in Germany, you won't have the freedom to operate. If you want to sell it outside Germany, and that the product is build outside Germany, you will have the freedom to operate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your idea is an improvement of the technology, you can patent it if its non-obvious, novel, and that you have patentable matter. If you obtain the patent in Germany, again, you won't have the freedom to operate since you require a technology that would be already patented to operate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15995" RevisionGUID="075331f0-b753-4e90-a9ad-fb514bf50c39" CreationDate="2016-06-14T01:53:05.167" UserId="16906" Text="I got the answer, it seems to be not public." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38972" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="bc2c50a1-88fb-4337-8210-7f06137f625d" CreationDate="2016-06-14T13:37:24.080" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15997" RevisionGUID="28fa5893-90af-4a9a-8bd5-3fa042c5556a" CreationDate="2016-06-14T14:26:52.003" UserId="5988" Text="It appears that ESRI, the maker of ARCGIS software, has been in business since 1969:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.esri.com/about-esri#who-we-are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not able to recommend this software, but it does use layers and allows suppression. As such it appears to constitute prior art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6436" RevisionGUID="45b22bd0-13ce-4c04-9721-efa4254415fd" CreationDate="2016-06-14T14:32:10.210" UserId="16911" Comment="minor grammar fixes" Text="I know there are many debates about it. Even in USA, a country very well known to be patent friendly, I'm still not sure if software is patentable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how is the interpretation to allow software patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am &quot;assuming&quot; here that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Software is a computer program.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Computer program is a coded (set of) algorithm which a &quot;computer&quot; can execute to perform a specified task.&#xD;&#xA; 3. An algorithm is a computational process which can be defined by a Turing machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, we can &quot;consider&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. A computer is a restricted type of machine, a &quot;discrete deterministic device&quot; that can blindly follow some instructions.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Any computer program can be embedded directly in computer hardware. Also, a computer program can be coded in any general purpose language such as general purpose hardware description language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38978" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6436" RevisionGUID="45b22bd0-13ce-4c04-9721-efa4254415fd" CreationDate="2016-06-14T14:32:10.210" Comment="Proposed by 16911 approved by 8375 edit id of 1944" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38979" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14724" RevisionGUID="d12e780d-c027-4bde-b32c-0955a91eb5b2" CreationDate="2016-06-14T14:37:23.783" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15998" RevisionGUID="bf973201-977a-4901-85d0-071a0c505697" CreationDate="2016-06-14T15:46:01.477" UserId="16911" Text="My startup mentor suggested that it's important to protect my SaaS startup from bigger fish, in particular, to look at the product and consider what might be patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a process or perhaps some _pointed_ questions to ask myself about the software to identify patent candidates? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38981" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15998" RevisionGUID="bf973201-977a-4901-85d0-071a0c505697" CreationDate="2016-06-14T15:46:01.477" UserId="16911" Text="How can I protect my SaaS startup with patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38982" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15998" RevisionGUID="bf973201-977a-4901-85d0-071a0c505697" CreationDate="2016-06-14T15:46:01.477" UserId="16911" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38986" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13614" RevisionGUID="3d2f693f-14c7-4a2c-8f26-ff7c3b88603b" CreationDate="2016-06-14T19:47:06.370" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38988" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12909" RevisionGUID="8d86cafa-f53c-4a83-acc1-66d88bcd3714" CreationDate="2016-06-15T09:04:15.680" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16000" RevisionGUID="b26a647f-afe6-4df6-9189-5ed6592a0184" CreationDate="2016-06-15T22:17:59.483" UserId="16922" Text="Software &quot;per se&quot; is not patentable. That is, a claim to an algorithm for execution, alone, will never fly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A machine, or a method to enable a machine (by a processor executing instructions), *may* be patentable. There are a lot of new issues regarding software since the &quot;Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank&quot; decision regarding patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Go to:http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials and look at the 101 materials there, if you really want to know the current state. It's a moving target. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to really get an answer, hire an attorney and have all options identified.  It really is the only way to know for sure. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38991" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14092" RevisionGUID="1cf88417-38b2-4171-b5ed-c5ec14e09137" CreationDate="2016-06-16T05:14:10.043" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16001" RevisionGUID="113243d0-8af9-4f53-ba32-8c3d452da65b" CreationDate="2016-06-16T13:01:43.853" UserId="16925" Text="Software *Per Sere* can not be patentable. However, a software along with a hardware to provide technical solutions can be considered as patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as you could show your software as a product and provided with machine or hardware or embedded then it can be considered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may have to conduct the patent search before proceeding to file, whether your software is eligible for patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may be interested to read [Why to conduct patent search][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.intepat.com/blog/patent/why-to-conduct-patent-search/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38994" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12495" RevisionGUID="95f2ad5b-b8b1-41df-a937-c611fb95ab64" CreationDate="2016-06-16T15:18:26.967" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38995" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11980" RevisionGUID="d91255d6-85b9-4e34-a4b2-2f043dbfb876" CreationDate="2016-06-16T18:24:28.503" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="38999" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13198" RevisionGUID="29fdbdad-8708-4abf-819a-b7e0c53bdc6e" CreationDate="2016-06-16T22:26:27.613" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39000" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11968" RevisionGUID="8d36e111-ac3c-47b2-b6b9-8bfa3462ea45" CreationDate="2016-06-17T00:26:37.393" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39003" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12505" RevisionGUID="779e998f-1f71-4412-bacb-5f60b2ba6712" CreationDate="2016-06-17T07:33:57.420" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39004" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10532" RevisionGUID="92f5d552-4ffd-4b2a-90be-85116db31986" CreationDate="2016-06-17T08:33:57.277" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39005" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14230" RevisionGUID="712ed6be-5001-4e1e-9a07-1e3041138a62" CreationDate="2016-06-17T12:39:45.370" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39006" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13966" RevisionGUID="63ab1c36-9c26-4b63-9806-2ec38d3b49a3" CreationDate="2016-06-17T15:39:45.480" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39007" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13920" RevisionGUID="999f94d9-34f3-43a4-b0d8-4d806e1c25fa" CreationDate="2016-06-17T19:40:43.373" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39011" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12423" RevisionGUID="ebec1702-0ef9-4544-b1be-851e820a4455" CreationDate="2016-06-18T07:49:22.303" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39012" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14893" RevisionGUID="a014f40e-abe0-433f-af25-992abbb9f84d" CreationDate="2016-06-18T11:49:35.870" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39013" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14892" RevisionGUID="e5dc24f4-2b51-4952-98c1-0f4de68c23f7" CreationDate="2016-06-18T12:49:36.233" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39014" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13956" RevisionGUID="ab277938-1a38-4801-8509-9d81909a3dfb" CreationDate="2016-06-18T16:51:45.230" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16003" RevisionGUID="3b0d9f75-96fc-4840-8d18-b56e90080e8a" CreationDate="2016-06-18T19:30:23.067" UserId="16938" Text="William A. Clark had patents 20,192 (May 11, 1858), 21,597 (Sept, 28, 1858). He ran his factory from then to the civil war (1861 to 1865). After the war he restarted the factory and his bits are marked &quot;PAT'D MAY 11, 1858 - Pat EXT'D&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Did he get a congressional extension and if so, when did the patent finally expire?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for any help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39016" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16003" RevisionGUID="3b0d9f75-96fc-4840-8d18-b56e90080e8a" CreationDate="2016-06-18T19:30:23.067" UserId="16938" Text="William A Clark extended expansive bit patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39017" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16003" RevisionGUID="3b0d9f75-96fc-4840-8d18-b56e90080e8a" CreationDate="2016-06-18T19:30:23.067" UserId="16938" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39018" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13901" RevisionGUID="fb9052a5-20e7-4b78-9c8e-c540fa33e75a" CreationDate="2016-06-18T19:51:47.000" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39019" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13820" RevisionGUID="cb1b49d9-d12d-480d-a80e-41c591501cde" CreationDate="2016-06-19T00:57:43.133" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39023" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14235" RevisionGUID="d8a15d9c-fc04-43b0-b6ca-5d57e2b1e546" CreationDate="2016-06-19T11:00:44.470" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39024" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12929" RevisionGUID="066d096c-cccf-42c4-aa86-6b315265af5b" CreationDate="2016-06-19T14:02:52.177" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39036" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13585" RevisionGUID="1198a986-4a04-45a9-bbb4-65e5880098b5" CreationDate="2016-06-20T00:05:38.253" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39037" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12868" RevisionGUID="5c84f8cc-6ccf-46ea-891f-c2e5fc48d833" CreationDate="2016-06-20T01:05:37.597" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16008" RevisionGUID="b74dd831-183e-4745-aa22-8fb6a171898c" CreationDate="2016-06-20T05:15:16.403" UserId="16948" Text="I have a claim similar to:&#xD;&#xA;the display of claim 1 wherin&#xD;&#xA;the image displayed is modified by at least one of:&#xD;&#xA;  1) the image is brightened by increasing the voltage,&#xD;&#xA;  2) the image is brightened by switching to the second polarization,&#xD;&#xA;  3) the image is darkened by reducing the voltage or &#xD;&#xA;  4) the image is darkened by switching to the first polarization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I understand correctly, this &quot;at least one of a,b or c&quot; structure means it could be a,b,c,ab,ac,bc or abc (i.e. any combination of a, b and c).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The process should be able to do any combination of 1 and 2 or any combination of 3 and 4 (choosing to do 1 or 2 ways to brighten an image  at the same time or 1 or 2 ways to darken it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact is, at different times you would want to do different things (e.g., in bright daylight you are more likely to want to brighten  and at night you might be more likely to darken).  So the clause was intended to list the ways we brighten or darken without muddying legal waters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**THE QUESTION:** Could an examiner or potential infringer claim that since one of the combinations couldn't work AT THE SAME TIME (in this &quot;any combination of&quot; structure), like 1 and 3, that the claim was invalid because one of the combinations wouldn't work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IF the answer is &quot;yes&quot;, what's a better approach without paying for a plethora of dependent claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;THANKS!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39041" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16008" RevisionGUID="b74dd831-183e-4745-aa22-8fb6a171898c" CreationDate="2016-06-20T05:15:16.403" UserId="16948" Text="at least one of a,b or c. What if one combination (e.g. bc) won't work?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39042" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16008" RevisionGUID="b74dd831-183e-4745-aa22-8fb6a171898c" CreationDate="2016-06-20T05:15:16.403" UserId="16948" Text="&lt;inventor&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39043" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13006" RevisionGUID="f4469874-f80a-4c8f-ab67-b660f3f343e2" CreationDate="2016-06-20T08:15:44.990" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16009" RevisionGUID="fb79e828-e3ec-4678-9d28-83389a385cbb" CreationDate="2016-06-20T08:29:29.037" UserId="16950" Text="a few days ago, my fellow researchers and me fell into a sort of limbo. We were and still are very sad to discover that a company filed a patent in August 2015 that has been published in March 2016. The company claims that it innovated a method that we, among others, conducted research on for a longer time. Unfortunately, the company is known as a patent troll. To be honest, the three ladies in our team currently go through a very hard time as we invested a lot of our freetime into this project that another company now claims authorship for. As a remark, we never earned a single dollar with our software tool and idea. Instead, we contributed to open education initiatives in schools around the world. Also, we never made any consulting gigs. That being said, an automotive manufacturer offered us to potentially talk about a commercial use case of the tool in the near future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is following: The company files its patent in 2015. But since 2009, we and others have research abstracts, research papers, magazines, videos of talks and a downloadable tool online. The patent application claims novelty on 95% of aspects that have been published about 4-5 years before in the aforementioned formats. These publications are all accessible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Honestly, we don't have a thousand dollars or even more to activate a patent lawyer. In fact, two are pregnant and one recently got a baby. Also, our team (we are no company) is based in Italy, Spain, Denmark and the US. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would you recommend us to do? How much can we make use of &quot;Written Statement&quot; on prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39045" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16009" RevisionGUID="fb79e828-e3ec-4678-9d28-83389a385cbb" CreationDate="2016-06-20T08:29:29.037" UserId="16950" Text="Patent Application found - Prior work" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39046" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16009" RevisionGUID="fb79e828-e3ec-4678-9d28-83389a385cbb" CreationDate="2016-06-20T08:29:29.037" UserId="16950" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16009" RevisionGUID="53eb0c7c-3cee-41c2-9286-058f5b770070" CreationDate="2016-06-20T08:39:24.683" UserId="16950" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="a few days ago, my fellow researchers and me fell into a sort of limbo. We were and still are very sad to discover that a company filed a patent in August 2015 that has been published in March 2016. The company claims that it innovated a method that we, among others, conducted research on for a longer time. Unfortunately, the company is known as a patent troll. To be honest, the three ladies in our team currently go through a very hard time as we invested a lot of our freetime into this project that another company now claims authorship for. As a remark, we never earned a single dollar with our software tool and idea. Instead, we contributed to open education initiatives in kindergardens. Also, we never made any consulting gigs. That being said, an automotive manufacturer offered us to potentially talk about a commercial use case of the tool in the near future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is following: The company files its patent in 2015. But since 2009, we and others have research abstracts, research papers, magazines, videos of talks and a downloadable tool online. The patent application claims novelty on 95% of aspects that have been published about 4-5 years before in the aforementioned formats. These publications are all accessible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Honestly, we don't have a thousand dollars or even more to activate a patent lawyer. In fact, two are pregnant and one recently got a baby. Also, our team (we are no company) is based in Italy, Spain, Denmark and the US. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would you recommend us to do? How much can we make use of &quot;Written Statement&quot; on prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39055" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14044" RevisionGUID="eeb8169e-dc7b-4580-abf0-8c644871a791" CreationDate="2016-06-20T18:18:34.510" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16012" RevisionGUID="a68b8d14-60d1-43ce-bbd3-243f9e180774" CreationDate="2016-06-20T20:36:37.747" UserId="1114" Text="[USRE38782](http://www.google.com/patents/USRE38782)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent covers a blanket with fabric loops sewn on the edges, as shown in the following image:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Image of patented blanket][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The commercial product is called &quot;[Taggies](https://www.amazon.com/Taggies-Little-Blanket-Blue-Vehicles/dp/B00C2SEFEK/ref=sr_1_2_a_it?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1466454898&amp;sr=8-2&amp;keywords=taggies+blanket)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Priority date is late 1999. Seems like there's likely some good prior-art, given the simple design and the late priority date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/NRjKY.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39057" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16012" RevisionGUID="a68b8d14-60d1-43ce-bbd3-243f9e180774" CreationDate="2016-06-20T20:36:37.747" UserId="1114" Text="Prior art request: RE38782" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39058" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16012" RevisionGUID="a68b8d14-60d1-43ce-bbd3-243f9e180774" CreationDate="2016-06-20T20:36:37.747" UserId="1114" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39059" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="42c04c44-5278-4523-8458-485b6fcb2e86" CreationDate="2016-06-20T22:20:42.400" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39060" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14603" RevisionGUID="97b87e9e-07d6-4d2c-9c89-047050da5c3f" CreationDate="2016-06-21T04:33:22.953" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39064" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14245" RevisionGUID="40e0b901-5ad4-428f-a795-54a7d4ee22ea" CreationDate="2016-06-21T06:45:26.010" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10536" RevisionGUID="0133fadf-eaf3-4a12-8049-4a437492e59d" CreationDate="2016-06-21T07:43:48.030" UserId="8074" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="There is [PACER][1], but it's not free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there is [search.rpxcorp.com][2] (used to be free) - patent litigation search. You 'll just need to register an account for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.pacer.gov/findcase.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://search.rpxcorp.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39066" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14228" RevisionGUID="11b9eb01-b4c4-4594-82aa-cecbaae655ae" CreationDate="2016-06-21T07:47:20.713" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39067" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14199" RevisionGUID="6d01cbb5-5713-4c96-9712-28912ba527f2" CreationDate="2016-06-21T09:47:20.513" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39071" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14232" RevisionGUID="f172adc8-5134-453a-bd79-c931e479394a" CreationDate="2016-06-21T10:47:20.677" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39075" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14248" RevisionGUID="346acd03-0b7c-4533-8b04-876cde84c430" CreationDate="2016-06-21T11:47:20.823" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39076" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14202" RevisionGUID="ea2981b1-273d-4fc4-b206-c89ffeabbadb" CreationDate="2016-06-21T12:47:20.830" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="1eda13b8-41ec-4db4-93df-e6f6229d4f7e" CreationDate="2016-06-21T14:00:07.297" UserId="8074" Comment="added 122 characters in body" Text="I'm specifically interested in [US 6873940][1] patent. The company that currently owns the patent is a company called [Kamatani Cloud][2] which is subsidiary of [General Patent][3] which some argue ([1][4], [2][5], [3][6], [4][7]) is a patent troll company. I'd like to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like [keylemon][8], [betafaceapi][9], [rekognition][10] or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker identification, face detection or content classification in images, audio or video files etc.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13]. In fact the [class 709 scope][12] has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent prosecution process after non-final rejection [argued][14] (2004-09-20 Applicant Arguments Remarks Made in an Amendment) that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect if server is capable of &quot;*measuring*&quot;/processing the data then the prior art is not applicable, consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are sent by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no &quot;*detecting whether the measurement data are capable of being measured*&quot; is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires server capability of detecting if data can be &quot;*measured*&quot; and notifying client if such capability exists then the patent shouldn't apply for cloud services as mentioned previously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding using the arguments provided by applicant during patent prosecution for claim interpretation please see [C. Claim Interpretation.][15], [wiki][16] and following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Markman, the Federal Circuit held that a court should consider a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent’s prosecution history if it is in evidence, and explained that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the prosecution history “is of primary significance in understanding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the claims.” [52 F.3d at 980][17], aff’d, 64 U.S.L.W. 4263.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Standard Oil&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., [774 F.2d 448][18] (Fed. Cir. 1985), the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Federal Circuit stated that:  [T]he prosecution history (sometimes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; called “file wrapper and contents’’) of the patent consists of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; entire record of proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office. This&#xD;&#xA;&gt; includes all express representations made by or on behalf of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applicant to the examiner to induce a patent grant, or, as here, to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reissue a patent. Such representations include amendments to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims and arguments made to convince the examiner that the claimed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention meets the statutory requirements of novelty, utility, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonobviousness. Thus, the prosecution history (or file wrapper) limits&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain claim allowance. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [774 F.2d at 452][19] (emphasis added).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain allowance of the claims of the ‘712 patent, arguments were made&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on behalf of the applicant to the Examiner during prosecution that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served both to explain the claims in a clear manner and to disavow any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source - [Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-376, p. 47][20], [here][21] or [here][18].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover all independent patent claims except claim 32 clearly indicate that system performs modulation/demodulation, which is &quot;[the process of varying one or more properties of a periodic waveform, called the carrier signal][22]&quot; on a basic level. That is claims that use modulation/demodulation terminology automatically limit the possible claim interpretation to that where system in question performs electric or other signal modulation/demodulation in a manner consistent with the claims and [term definition][22].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claim 32 regardless of not being limited by modulation/demodulation terms has a clear indication of measuring instrument being a physical device: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 32: &lt;...&gt; one of measurement instruments **connected to the server computer** &lt;...&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern systems purpose built physical devices for processing data that are connected to the computer are rarely used if at all. It is an outdated system scheme. All processing nowadays is performed using software which is run by computer (NOT connected to it). One can analyze the patent and see that all explanations and examples use the physical device as a **measuring instrument** (see Fig. 3, Description) thus narrowing ability to apply this patent to cloud services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So to put it briefly:#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class [709][12] regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13] work? Both must apply or only first or second when interpreting claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** during [US6873940][1] [patent application][14] inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; in case of image processing requests are directed to URL for processing images and in case of voice processing requests are directed to URL for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing only faces or only classifying image contents...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**c)** All independent patent claims except for Claim 32 clearly indicate that system performs [modulation][22]/[demodulation][23]. Here modulation is &quot;[the process of varying one or more properties of a periodic waveform, called the carrier signal][22]&quot; thus limiting signal processing interpretation in claims by definition of said terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**d)** Wording in claims and explanation in patent description limit possible interpretations of a &quot;measurement instrument&quot; to be a physical device, especially in [Claim 32][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6873940&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kamatanicloud.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.generalpatent.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://scienceprogress.org/2009/01/patent-trolls-erode-patent-system/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-biggest-patent-trolls&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ipdigit.eu/2011/10/what-to-think-of-patent-trolls-the-return/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/27/law-would-force-patent-trolls-to-pay-for-failed-lawsuits-against-innovators/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.keylemon.com&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.betafaceapi.com&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://rekognition.com&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc702/defs702.htm#C702S189000&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm#C709S217000&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.intellectual.com/infringement.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markman_v._Westview_Instruments,_Inc.&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10285146068541901213&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr#p980&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/774/774.F2d.448.84-1552.84-1519.html#p25&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16011019387871241659&amp;q=774%20F.2d%20448&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2006#p452&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://bit.ly/1PYCjjA&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://www.usitc.gov/publications/337/pub3003.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulation&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demodulation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39085" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14715" RevisionGUID="ecf21dc6-c198-4e16-aeff-829248aa6d47" CreationDate="2016-06-21T16:47:24.933" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39086" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14348" RevisionGUID="741c2389-117f-4780-9ff9-82839eef70f0" CreationDate="2016-06-22T01:47:34.067" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39087" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12543" RevisionGUID="6722ca2a-ff92-469f-9871-6a7c86ad3b68" CreationDate="2016-06-22T02:47:34.047" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39092" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14424" RevisionGUID="536bc0f6-02a8-4fa8-bd9d-0c66b837145a" CreationDate="2016-06-22T03:47:34.567" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16019" RevisionGUID="74bd3f78-d63f-49c3-b935-8dcd4c6fdb91" CreationDate="2016-06-22T13:18:09.527" UserId="16971" Text="You don't need a lawyer for this. You need a 3rd party pre-issuance submission. It is a very simple process, and (given the facts you state) it should be straightforward to kill or substantially limit the claims of the application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the USPTO, save to .PDF any of the following:&#xD;&#xA;a) publications with a date prior to the priority date of the application. &#xD;&#xA;b) conference presentations (including a cover page listing citation details especially date)&#xD;&#xA;c) press released or news coverage&#xD;&#xA;d) event posters, i.e. &quot;meeting to discuss xyz software&quot;&#xD;&#xA;e) dated posts to the internet discussing technology. (dated prior to filing date of the patent)&#xD;&#xA;f) open-source software uploaded to the internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Save the .pdf files as ISO 19005-1 compliant (PDF/A).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a blog post relating to the process: https://bricwallblog.com/tag/pre-issuance-submissions/&#xD;&#xA;Make sure you cover 1-6. Note that this is FREE for 3 items per person, so the prior art submission can be shared between friends, family members, colleagues, etc. Have a troll party?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;item 3: &quot;The submitted newspaper articles describe XYZ technology which may be relevant as prior art to patent application 15/xxx,xxx.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;item 5: &quot;The submitting party has no employment relationship with Acme Mega Patent Troll and is not an individual having a duty to disclose information to the USPTO and that the submission complies with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §122(e) and 37 C.F.R. §1.290.&quot; [122(e) and 1.290 refer to the DUTY of disclosure of known prior art by inventors, patent agents or attorneys, and employees of the company. Clearly you are not any of the above.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After you are done with the USA filing, go for a PCT filing of the same documents. The great thing is, a filing in one country of relevant prior art is *required* to be shared by the application owners with other patent organizations worldwide. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can file a dozen or more pieces of prior art, you can rest happily knowing that it will cost the patent troll large amounts of money to read through the documents and decide if they still want to attempt to get the patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can log into USPTO &quot;Public Pair&quot; to check out the progress (hopefully lack thereof) of the patent application. I would expect the process to take 1-5 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16020" RevisionGUID="60a92181-5d07-4575-8de0-632263b0c899" CreationDate="2016-06-22T13:32:00.907" UserId="16971" Text="For a prior art search, you could check out &quot;baby blank&quot; utility or design with a priority date before Dec 2, 1999. Look for ones that are lapsed or have priority date &gt; 20 years old. Interestingly, the TAGGIES utility patent lapsed for non-payment in 2014. https://www.google.com/patents/US6427265&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One problem is, once you find prior art, the cost to invalidate the design patent will be **enormous**. &#xD;&#xA;It will be more cost effective to design around the patent. The design patent specifically refers to colorful LOOPS. If you make a colorful non-loop on a blanket, you should be fine. The &quot;non-loop&quot; could be a knot, a fringe, a tag, lace, braid etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39100" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12539" RevisionGUID="d24273ad-ed24-4c29-944e-cbae51cd92ff" CreationDate="2016-06-22T16:59:06.883" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16008" RevisionGUID="33ecf86b-aee9-459a-bb62-cb66108e7a77" CreationDate="2016-06-22T17:24:23.447" UserId="10011" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I have a claim similar to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the display of claim 1 wherein the image displayed is modified by at least one of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   1. the image is brightened by increasing the voltage,&#xD;&#xA;  2. the image is brightened by switching to the second polarization,&#xD;&#xA;  3. the image is darkened by reducing the voltage or &#xD;&#xA;  4. the image is darkened by switching to the first polarization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I understand correctly, this &quot;at least one of a, b, or c&quot; structure means it could be a, b, c, ab, ac, bc, or abc (i.e. any combination of a, b and c).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The process should be able to do any combination of 1 and 2 or any combination of 3 and 4 (choosing to do 1 or 2 ways to brighten an image  at the same time or 1 or 2 ways to darken it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact is, at different times you would want to do different things (e.g., in bright daylight you are more likely to want to brighten  and at night you might be more likely to darken).  So the clause was intended to list the ways we brighten or darken without muddying legal waters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**THE QUESTION:** Could an examiner or potential infringer claim that since one of the combinations couldn't work AT THE SAME TIME (in this &quot;any combination of&quot; structure), like 1 and 3, that the claim was invalid because one of the combinations wouldn't work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the answer is &quot;yes&quot;, what's a better approach without paying for a plethora of dependent claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39103" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16008" RevisionGUID="33ecf86b-aee9-459a-bb62-cb66108e7a77" CreationDate="2016-06-22T17:24:23.447" UserId="10011" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;inventor&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39104" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16008" RevisionGUID="33ecf86b-aee9-459a-bb62-cb66108e7a77" CreationDate="2016-06-22T17:24:23.447" UserId="10011" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Mutually Exclusive Dependent Claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16003" RevisionGUID="3a894a46-ba72-4ea3-a524-5dc171d986a4" CreationDate="2016-06-22T17:31:48.453" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body" Text="William A. Clark had patents 20,192 (May 11, 1858), 21,597 (Sept, 28, 1858). He ran his factory from then to the civil war (1861 to 1865). After the war he restarted the factory and his bits are marked &quot;PAT'D MAY 11, 1858 - Pat EXT'D&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did he get a congressional extension and if so, when did the patent finally expire?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39106" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="53d1b35f-3e6b-461b-bd48-0a6b4fef888c" CreationDate="2016-06-23T01:08:49.820" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39108" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12561" RevisionGUID="394d71c1-8538-4328-bd5b-f1d86c674b00" CreationDate="2016-06-23T04:09:07.080" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39115" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12942" RevisionGUID="404356a9-0343-4648-8ecf-5982b71a8436" CreationDate="2016-06-23T11:11:15.080" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39116" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12549" RevisionGUID="7447e665-666a-406e-b5cc-7bfbc92b99ef" CreationDate="2016-06-23T13:11:15.043" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39117" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14403" RevisionGUID="41f912fd-8b91-4e48-9a71-81f756bba2d1" CreationDate="2016-06-23T15:11:15.020" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16008" RevisionGUID="db9d5440-bd08-45d2-ae36-a2bea4c8d783" CreationDate="2016-06-23T19:11:03.553" UserId="16948" Comment="The suggested change of title was good but it seemed to imply mutual exclusivity between claims (but this is all in one claim) and it didn't identify the question as being related to a popular topic (implications of the form &quot;at least one of a,b or d&quot;)" Text="I have a claim similar to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the display of claim 1 wherein the image displayed is modified by at least one of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   1. the image is brightened by increasing the voltage,&#xD;&#xA;  2. the image is brightened by switching to the second polarization,&#xD;&#xA;  3. the image is darkened by reducing the voltage or &#xD;&#xA;  4. the image is darkened by switching to the first polarization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I understand correctly, this &quot;at least one of a, b, or c&quot; structure means it could be a, b, c, ab, ac, bc, or abc (i.e. any combination of a, b and c).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The process should be able to do any combination of 1 and 2 or any combination of 3 and 4 (choosing to do 1 or 2 ways to brighten an image  at the same time or 1 or 2 ways to darken it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact is, at different times you would want to do different things (e.g., in bright daylight you are more likely to want to brighten  and at night you might be more likely to darken).  So the clause was intended to list the ways we brighten or darken without muddying legal waters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**THE QUESTION:** Could an examiner or potential infringer claim that since one of the combinations couldn't work AT THE SAME TIME (in this &quot;any combination of&quot; structure), like 1 and 3, that the claim was invalid because one of the combinations wouldn't work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the answer is &quot;yes&quot;, what's a better approach without paying for a plethora of dependent claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39119" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16008" RevisionGUID="db9d5440-bd08-45d2-ae36-a2bea4c8d783" CreationDate="2016-06-23T19:11:03.553" UserId="16948" Comment="The suggested change of title was good but it seemed to imply mutual exclusivity between claims (but this is all in one claim) and it didn't identify the question as being related to a popular topic (implications of the form &quot;at least one of a,b or d&quot;)" Text="Potential mutual exclusivity in a list like “at least one of a, b, c or d”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39120" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16008" RevisionGUID="db9d5440-bd08-45d2-ae36-a2bea4c8d783" CreationDate="2016-06-23T19:11:03.553" UserId="16948" Comment="The suggested change of title was good but it seemed to imply mutual exclusivity between claims (but this is all in one claim) and it didn't identify the question as being related to a popular topic (implications of the form &quot;at least one of a,b or d&quot;)" Text="&lt;inventor&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39121" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13383" RevisionGUID="4c4f56b6-2afc-43c4-a3e4-56cb113af788" CreationDate="2016-06-23T23:24:21.950" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39122" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12742" RevisionGUID="afac1654-3d68-4a50-bcb0-eaa19993ffda" CreationDate="2016-06-24T02:33:53.390" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39123" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14779" RevisionGUID="52e0eeac-349a-42ed-b59a-7cfa86cfa12a" CreationDate="2016-06-24T03:33:58.023" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16022" RevisionGUID="2681875e-4922-4aea-8289-399333040de6" CreationDate="2016-06-24T03:55:50.103" UserId="16977" Text="I am currently a Master's student in Engineering. Recently I have begun working on a project that (I believe) to have tremendous value and applicability to industry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being that I am a master's student, I am looking for feedback and possible collaboration on my project. For this reason, I have the idea of posting software on a site (github) that will make the source-code available, with instructions on assembling the necessary hardware, running the program, and interpreting the results. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question boils down to: Is it advisable to post source-code online for a project which may lead to patents? What are some of the considerations when deciding to take this course of action (posting source-code online) ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39125" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16022" RevisionGUID="2681875e-4922-4aea-8289-399333040de6" CreationDate="2016-06-24T03:55:50.103" UserId="16977" Text="Possible patent considerations when posting Source-Code online?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39126" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16022" RevisionGUID="2681875e-4922-4aea-8289-399333040de6" CreationDate="2016-06-24T03:55:50.103" UserId="16977" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16023" RevisionGUID="d6f780d4-89bd-4bc6-81e7-43ebdbb9a3da" CreationDate="2016-06-24T04:23:53.483" UserId="13706" Text="*Patents Demystified* is indeed a great book for startups, entrepreneurs and inventors and was written specifically for this audience. In addition to teaching the secrets of how successful businesses get patents, it also helps save companies money where possible and points out where spending money is necessary. In fact, I require all my clients to have a copy of *Patents Demystified* when I am working with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to being used as a guide to the patent process that patent attorneys give to their clients, *Patents Demystified* is also used in top universities including Harvard and Stanford. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39128" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10324" RevisionGUID="2acc0712-7531-4d27-80d2-3bdf68507209" CreationDate="2016-06-24T06:34:46.240" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39129" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6687" RevisionGUID="68488cbe-1537-41a2-8724-2f003bd6bb4b" CreationDate="2016-06-24T08:34:46.617" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39130" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12771" RevisionGUID="8d0ecce7-61f4-4ac7-a569-3517f2bfa9e8" CreationDate="2016-06-24T09:39:05.013" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39131" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="6e054d96-4b43-4cbc-aa50-fec9baa36032" CreationDate="2016-06-24T11:43:37.687" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16024" RevisionGUID="9ba2b967-791e-4f54-ace0-9e2002e8838c" CreationDate="2016-06-24T13:37:37.793" UserId="16982" Text="My competitor and I both have Patents on a specific designed product. My Patent goes as far as to &quot;reference cite&quot; their Patent right on the cover of my Patent.. How can they sue me if the Government specifically looked  at their patent and and decided my invention was not the same and issued us a patent? This just just boggles my mind!!!!! I paid all this money in design, research, patent attorney fees, tooling, manufacturing etc and now I face a major lawsuit. And potentially being shut down. I have people that work for me. My company is at stake here!&#xD;&#xA;In good faith before I ever got started I had a patent search done by an indipendant source. Then I confirmed with my Patent Attorney that I was &quot;NOT INFRINGING&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help! There must be something I can do about this!!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39133" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16024" RevisionGUID="9ba2b967-791e-4f54-ace0-9e2002e8838c" CreationDate="2016-06-24T13:37:37.793" UserId="16982" Text="My competitor and I both have patents. And now they are sueing me!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39134" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16024" RevisionGUID="9ba2b967-791e-4f54-ace0-9e2002e8838c" CreationDate="2016-06-24T13:37:37.793" UserId="16982" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39135" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12574" RevisionGUID="26f2ea0e-3cee-4140-8992-064dbb2829de" CreationDate="2016-06-24T13:43:48.490" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39136" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13937" RevisionGUID="0c26a058-01a4-4275-9317-4a6f45781001" CreationDate="2016-06-24T17:46:57.777" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16025" RevisionGUID="26b0b824-92ec-4a69-a489-441373a1a37a" CreationDate="2016-06-24T19:25:54.320" UserId="3500" Text="It depends on what your goals are. Generally one should file patent applications before publishing the invention. But what is your goal in seeking patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16026" RevisionGUID="72f87a56-afac-45fb-8843-762f587cf3ac" CreationDate="2016-06-24T19:51:10.937" UserId="3500" Text="There are a number of ways this can happen.  Just because a second patent is allowed over a first patent doesn't mean the second patent can be practiced without infringing the first patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Put another way, a patent does not give you the right to practice an invention, it (possibly) gives you the right to keep others from practicing your invention.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate: Amir has a patent on a new type of mechanical pencil that has a replaceable graphite cartridge .  Shakira then gets a patent on a new type of colored pencil that uses a similar cartridge but tailored for holding colored graphite.  It's possible for Shakira's colored pencil to infringe Amir's patent, even though Amir doesn't have a patent on colored pencils.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39139" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13999" RevisionGUID="360ba84a-958c-4e3d-a185-4d67510d16a2" CreationDate="2016-06-24T20:48:38.143" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39140" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13633" RevisionGUID="c7f470db-b611-47c7-8dea-9211e573cd18" CreationDate="2016-06-24T21:48:40.557" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39141" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="2b943bf1-49d4-4ade-928f-10654eb4465f" CreationDate="2016-06-24T22:48:41.813" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39142" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13608" RevisionGUID="5ba850c5-502f-42f6-b97f-432387b8c34b" CreationDate="2016-06-24T23:50:44.050" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39151" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13935" RevisionGUID="5d81c4fc-f0d5-4b4d-a86c-d15c589cc86d" CreationDate="2016-06-25T00:50:28.290" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39152" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13432" RevisionGUID="9a79c1bb-567f-4ed8-a6b3-c5de8cc8002a" CreationDate="2016-06-25T01:50:34.800" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16008" RevisionGUID="1ba06ab2-6ccb-4b81-b024-1ccad9b8c47b" CreationDate="2016-06-25T02:20:45.440" UserId="16979" Comment="see what is the chanes" Text="&gt; Blockquote&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;## ***Heading*** ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a claim similar to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the display of claim 1 wherein the image displayed is modified by at least one of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   1. the image is brightened by increasing the voltage,&#xD;&#xA;  2. the image is brightened by switching to the second polarization,&#xD;&#xA;  3. the image is darkened by reducing the voltage or &#xD;&#xA;  4. the image is darkened by switching to the first polarization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I understand correctly, this &quot;at least one of a, b, or c&quot; structure means it could be a, b, c, ab, ac, bc, or abc (i.e. any combination of a, b and c).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The process should be able to do any combination of 1 and 2 or any combination of 3 and 4 (choosing to do 1 or 2 ways to brighten an image  at the same time or 1 or 2 ways to darken it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact is, at different times you would want to do different things (e.g., in bright daylight you are more likely to want to brighten  and at night you might be more likely to darken).  So the clause was intended to list the ways we brighten or darken without muddying legal## &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA;&lt;http://foo.com&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[foo](http://foo.com)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://foo.com&quot;&gt;foo&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ## waters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**THE QUESTION:** Could an examiner or potential infringer claim that since one of the combinations couldn't work AT THE SAME TIME (in this &quot;any combination of&quot; structure), like 1 and 3, that the claim was invalid because one of the combinations wouldn't work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the answer is &quot;yes&quot;, what's a better approach without paying for a plethora of dependent claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39154" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16008" RevisionGUID="1ba06ab2-6ccb-4b81-b024-1ccad9b8c47b" CreationDate="2016-06-25T02:20:45.440" UserId="16979" Comment="see what is the chanes" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39155" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16008" RevisionGUID="1ba06ab2-6ccb-4b81-b024-1ccad9b8c47b" CreationDate="2016-06-25T02:20:45.440" Comment="Proposed by 16979 approved by -1 edit id of 1945" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16008" RevisionGUID="ddc8a890-6be8-4f0e-89ef-e85cdf8fc41d" CreationDate="2016-06-25T02:20:45.440" UserId="16948" Comment="Looks ok now" Text="&gt; Blockquote&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;## ***Heading*** ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a claim similar to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the display of claim 1 wherein the image displayed is modified by at least one of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   1. the image is brightened by increasing the voltage,&#xD;&#xA;  2. the image is brightened by switching to the second polarization,&#xD;&#xA;  3. the image is darkened by reducing the voltage or &#xD;&#xA;  4. the image is darkened by switching to the first polarization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I understand correctly, this &quot;at least one of a, b, or c&quot; structure means it could be a, b, c, ab, ac, bc, or abc (i.e. any combination of a, b and c).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The process should be able to do any combination of 1 and 2 or any combination of 3 and 4 (choosing to do 1 or 2 ways to brighten an image  at the same time or 1 or 2 ways to darken it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact is, at different times you would want to do different things (e.g., in bright daylight you are more likely to want to brighten  and at night you might be more likely to darken).  So the clause was intended to list all the ways we brighten or darken the display image.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**THE QUESTION:** Could an examiner or potential infringer claim that since one of the combinations couldn't work AT THE SAME TIME (in this &quot;any combination of&quot; structure), like 1 and 3, that the claim was invalid because one of the combinations wouldn't work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the answer is &quot;yes&quot;, what's a better approach without paying for a plethora of dependent claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39157" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16008" RevisionGUID="ddc8a890-6be8-4f0e-89ef-e85cdf8fc41d" CreationDate="2016-06-25T02:20:45.440" UserId="16948" Comment="Looks ok now" Text="In a claim: Potential mutual exclusivity in a list like “at least one of a, b, c or d”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39159" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="16008" RevisionGUID="b43e1000-bf30-4bbe-8e13-568c92636514" CreationDate="2016-06-25T05:05:28.503" UserId="10011" Comment="Rollback to [db9d5440-bd08-45d2-ae36-a2bea4c8d783]" Text="I have a claim similar to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the display of claim 1 wherein the image displayed is modified by at least one of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   1. the image is brightened by increasing the voltage,&#xD;&#xA;  2. the image is brightened by switching to the second polarization,&#xD;&#xA;  3. the image is darkened by reducing the voltage or &#xD;&#xA;  4. the image is darkened by switching to the first polarization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I understand correctly, this &quot;at least one of a, b, or c&quot; structure means it could be a, b, c, ab, ac, bc, or abc (i.e. any combination of a, b and c).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The process should be able to do any combination of 1 and 2 or any combination of 3 and 4 (choosing to do 1 or 2 ways to brighten an image  at the same time or 1 or 2 ways to darken it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact is, at different times you would want to do different things (e.g., in bright daylight you are more likely to want to brighten  and at night you might be more likely to darken).  So the clause was intended to list the ways we brighten or darken without muddying legal waters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**THE QUESTION:** Could an examiner or potential infringer claim that since one of the combinations couldn't work AT THE SAME TIME (in this &quot;any combination of&quot; structure), like 1 and 3, that the claim was invalid because one of the combinations wouldn't work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the answer is &quot;yes&quot;, what's a better approach without paying for a plethora of dependent claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39160" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="16008" RevisionGUID="b43e1000-bf30-4bbe-8e13-568c92636514" CreationDate="2016-06-25T05:05:28.503" UserId="10011" Comment="Rollback to [db9d5440-bd08-45d2-ae36-a2bea4c8d783]" Text="Potential mutual exclusivity in a list like “at least one of a, b, c or d”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39161" PostHistoryTypeId="9" PostId="16008" RevisionGUID="b43e1000-bf30-4bbe-8e13-568c92636514" CreationDate="2016-06-25T05:05:28.503" UserId="10011" Comment="Rollback to [db9d5440-bd08-45d2-ae36-a2bea4c8d783]" Text="&lt;inventor&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39167" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13847" RevisionGUID="3bb19e34-7b71-42b2-a21a-482ca62e488e" CreationDate="2016-06-25T15:58:21.313" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39168" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13465" RevisionGUID="d8373178-6232-49ee-939d-f468a84a787f" CreationDate="2016-06-25T17:58:21.493" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39172" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="1905b1ae-8bff-49be-9099-4ccf75289f90" CreationDate="2016-06-25T20:00:08.690" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39173" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="45865099-b701-4c9b-9867-1398ca8d05eb" CreationDate="2016-06-25T21:00:09.980" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16029" RevisionGUID="29c4c87c-42db-4f0a-b943-311f43cc3b6f" CreationDate="2016-06-25T23:01:11.673" UserId="16986" Text="Let's say my patent uses the properties of a material that's not yet developed or that has being developed but it is still being tested. How is it patentable ? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39175" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16029" RevisionGUID="29c4c87c-42db-4f0a-b943-311f43cc3b6f" CreationDate="2016-06-25T23:01:11.673" UserId="16986" Text="How to patent a machine or anything that uses a promising material being tested and developed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39176" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16029" RevisionGUID="29c4c87c-42db-4f0a-b943-311f43cc3b6f" CreationDate="2016-06-25T23:01:11.673" UserId="16986" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;freedom-to-operate&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39181" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13422" RevisionGUID="0a372745-0c44-42e8-a7a0-a22accfc534c" CreationDate="2016-06-26T09:15:30.973" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39182" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13771" RevisionGUID="a5b63231-ad83-4c26-9498-ffddee8d4bb9" CreationDate="2016-06-26T11:15:31.930" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39183" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14335" RevisionGUID="41755919-1d38-41de-a143-66a87b861d54" CreationDate="2016-06-26T12:15:38.423" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39184" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14278" RevisionGUID="e70ce0fb-4316-42be-b511-840efe59e228" CreationDate="2016-06-26T14:22:40.633" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39185" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12963" RevisionGUID="91bcb0cd-db5e-497d-8030-395aee292def" CreationDate="2016-06-26T17:22:50.023" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39187" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16029" RevisionGUID="b7001ea6-0553-488f-8a1e-584edff0e979" CreationDate="2016-06-26T17:59:17.403" UserId="1" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39188" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14923" RevisionGUID="1c8bd779-6730-4a22-9beb-c05476c74c1d" CreationDate="2016-06-26T19:24:59.123" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39189" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14788" RevisionGUID="82f63c7f-c6f7-4608-a444-17d8857d8172" CreationDate="2016-06-26T20:28:12.637" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16031" RevisionGUID="9617447f-e7c7-40fe-b741-6463fae5d9b9" CreationDate="2016-06-27T07:01:33.253" UserId="16848" Text="There is nothing particular about electrical circuits that make them unpatentable.  Your circuit, if useful, novel, and non-obvious, is likely patentable.  If it is a simple thing for a simple task, then it may have already been disclosed by another in which case it would not be novel and therefor not patentable.  If the circuit is an obvious variation of something that has been done before, then it may also be rejected." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39191" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14127" RevisionGUID="3595d97b-ecab-4a5e-ab3b-e2b45d2ebb42" CreationDate="2016-06-27T07:28:28.133" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39192" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13242" RevisionGUID="5dcf1030-8e1d-4165-9fc6-cdd93515fe41" CreationDate="2016-06-27T09:28:28.117" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39193" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13123" RevisionGUID="155d08ae-e785-4ce9-aad6-fec61ee27448" CreationDate="2016-06-27T10:30:15.900" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39194" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14796" RevisionGUID="91b99d5d-1e53-4c88-a13f-11b598f10f40" CreationDate="2016-06-27T11:30:15.113" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39195" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13315" RevisionGUID="6c8a7aa8-d92f-4bc6-bcf7-72ff392c0968" CreationDate="2016-06-27T12:30:15.783" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39196" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13659" RevisionGUID="96b12383-3de4-4aae-a313-334122aac835" CreationDate="2016-06-27T13:30:15.797" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39197" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13607" RevisionGUID="f1d0c82a-6f3a-4d26-a077-50630e4a924b" CreationDate="2016-06-27T17:32:50.453" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39198" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6624" RevisionGUID="3da540da-8ac9-443e-b69e-0c4dbc23021d" CreationDate="2016-06-27T18:32:51.370" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39199" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12954" RevisionGUID="930428d4-0700-43c3-a338-9919bbbfe557" CreationDate="2016-06-27T19:32:52.133" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16032" RevisionGUID="65de665f-cda7-4295-a055-abd55bde0b8a" CreationDate="2016-06-27T20:38:55.423" UserId="16995" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20150058051][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20150058051&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Knowing companies like Uber, AirBnb, RelayRides are share economy companies, what makes this company any different?  If this man get a patent, does that mean he owes the parking space for the entire USA.  How about companies like JustPark, ParkingPanda, do they infringe on this enterprise.  Granting a patent on this would lbe like saying that this man owes all of the public and private property listed within United States, and all have to pay to him for his &quot;original&quot; idaa." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39201" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16032" RevisionGUID="65de665f-cda7-4295-a055-abd55bde0b8a" CreationDate="2016-06-27T20:38:55.423" UserId="16995" Text="Should a ridesharing platform be allowed a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39202" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16032" RevisionGUID="65de665f-cda7-4295-a055-abd55bde0b8a" CreationDate="2016-06-27T20:38:55.423" UserId="16995" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39203" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14631" RevisionGUID="1d426873-9b33-4b00-9085-c510f8f60048" CreationDate="2016-06-28T01:38:06.800" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39207" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14620" RevisionGUID="23ceed6c-607d-4d57-b23d-6b8c27256b3f" CreationDate="2016-06-28T02:38:07.627" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39208" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12339" RevisionGUID="c0909ff4-206b-42e9-8013-1c8c4630f74a" CreationDate="2016-06-28T03:38:08.347" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39209" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14622" RevisionGUID="5bd4bdde-7635-4557-8bec-11ab03456005" CreationDate="2016-06-28T04:38:10.087" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39215" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="d35c76d4-85cf-4d3b-ba07-8145ae74d40b" CreationDate="2016-06-28T13:55:34.500" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16035" RevisionGUID="82fe43d8-90ab-4d70-8a0e-3a483333dad5" CreationDate="2016-06-28T17:23:00.983" UserId="17003" Text="First of all, the cited document is an application not a patent. Claims in applications are often far broader than the resulting patents. Anyone operating a related business prior to the application date would constitute prior art. It doesn't mean an overly broad patent might not be eventually issued, but it is unlikely to impact those existing businesses. It would be useful for those existing businesses to monitor the application and challenge any resulting patent if they feel it is invalid. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39217" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="1774072a-1d74-413e-8026-3e60f2b695cd" CreationDate="2016-06-28T19:56:27.133" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16036" RevisionGUID="d902cf66-d7c2-440c-9c48-a1909c36f251" CreationDate="2016-06-28T20:02:14.643" UserId="17004" Text="When a patent expires due to non-payment what happens to pending child continuation applications and an appeal of a child continuation application?  I assume the expire patent is not valid at least while expired so there would be nothing for the applications to tie to.  Will the PTO still consider the application from a couple of years ago and an appeal of an application from several years ago?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39219" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16036" RevisionGUID="d902cf66-d7c2-440c-9c48-a1909c36f251" CreationDate="2016-06-28T20:02:14.643" UserId="17004" Text="Expired patent with pending appeals and applications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39220" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16036" RevisionGUID="d902cf66-d7c2-440c-9c48-a1909c36f251" CreationDate="2016-06-28T20:02:14.643" UserId="17004" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;continuation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16037" RevisionGUID="3df2abd2-db06-4225-9e44-89b2ba699f25" CreationDate="2016-06-28T21:00:25.500" UserId="17005" Text="I have an extremely simple question that the patent office has been unable to answer; the fee department tells me to ask inventor's assistance, and inventor's assistance tells me to ask the fee department... frustrating.  Anyway, here is my question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have many different inventions to patent - not just multiple independent claims, but several completely different and entirely unrelated inventions (for example, one is an automotive technology and another is a medical device; completely unrelated).  Will I save on fees by patenting them at the same time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39222" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16037" RevisionGUID="3df2abd2-db06-4225-9e44-89b2ba699f25" CreationDate="2016-06-28T21:00:25.500" UserId="17005" Text="Multiple-patent fee question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39223" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16037" RevisionGUID="3df2abd2-db06-4225-9e44-89b2ba699f25" CreationDate="2016-06-28T21:00:25.500" UserId="17005" Text="&lt;fees&gt;&lt;payment&gt;&lt;fee&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39224" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="55b958bd-2427-4308-aec9-162be1f1f03d" CreationDate="2016-06-28T21:59:19.473" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16037" RevisionGUID="50ae6882-e92a-4499-a93e-3432500bde18" CreationDate="2016-06-29T06:21:49.700" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 266 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I have many different inventions to patent - not just multiple independent claims, but several completely different and entirely unrelated inventions (for example, one is an automotive technology and another is a medical device; completely unrelated).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will I save on fees by patenting them at the same time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39228" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16037" RevisionGUID="50ae6882-e92a-4499-a93e-3432500bde18" CreationDate="2016-06-29T06:21:49.700" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 266 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;fees&gt;&lt;payment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39229" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16037" RevisionGUID="50ae6882-e92a-4499-a93e-3432500bde18" CreationDate="2016-06-29T06:21:49.700" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 266 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Bulk patenting discounts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16032" RevisionGUID="c4d7125c-3ca8-4d68-ac8c-d36912b09aef" CreationDate="2016-06-29T06:25:25.327" UserId="10011" Comment="added 1487 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20150058051][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20150058051&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Knowing companies like Uber, AirBnb, RelayRides are share economy companies, what makes this company any different?  If this man get a patent, does that mean he owes the parking space for the entire USA.  How about companies like JustPark, ParkingPanda, do they infringe on this enterprise.  Granting a patent on this would be like saying that this man owes all of the public and private property listed within United States, and all have to pay to him for his &quot;original&quot; idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  receiving a first set of inputs from a first user, the first set of inputs comprising information associated with at least one the following: a location of a property, a time the property is available, and a cost for occupying the property within the available time;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; creating, based on the first set of inputs, a listing for the property;&#xD;&#xA;publishing the listing in a first user interface, the first user interface comprising a plurality of listings;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving a second set of inputs from a second user, the second set of inputs comprising at least one of the following: an approximate location and a period of time;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; filtering the plurality of listings based on the second set of inputs;&#xD;&#xA;displaying, in the first user interface, the filtered plurality of listings to the second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving, from the second user, a selection of one the plurality of listings;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; providing a second user interface to the second user, the second user interface being operative to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; display property data associated with the selected one of the plurality of listing, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; enable the second user to request use of the property;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving a request to use the property from the second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conveying the request to use the property to the first user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving an acceptance of the request from the first user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; facilitating a financial transaction between the first user and the second user." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39231" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16032" RevisionGUID="c4d7125c-3ca8-4d68-ac8c-d36912b09aef" CreationDate="2016-06-29T06:25:25.327" UserId="10011" Comment="added 1487 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;us20150058051&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39232" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7693" RevisionGUID="9b0e2700-8bdf-4f8b-b8e0-64d51f6d30ba" CreationDate="2016-06-29T08:02:58.407" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39233" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4993" RevisionGUID="aab7f750-93f3-4530-822b-6581dd544333" CreationDate="2016-06-29T10:02:59.157" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39241" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14022" RevisionGUID="fa9df2f8-be9f-43d5-981f-eb5e64062034" CreationDate="2016-06-29T12:03:58.057" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39243" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12072" RevisionGUID="b85935db-f733-4c1b-9b04-ab51fa306711" CreationDate="2016-06-29T13:08:37.877" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39244" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10744" RevisionGUID="fa5640fa-3067-41e8-8702-ef0f199f94da" CreationDate="2016-06-29T16:09:00.717" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39245" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12070" RevisionGUID="50985df1-6ee0-44cc-b66e-39ae50759e10" CreationDate="2016-06-29T17:09:04.283" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16041" RevisionGUID="0e725c94-9d1d-45c3-adeb-1f3901efdd57" CreationDate="2016-06-29T18:22:50.930" UserId="14038" Text="There are no bulk filing fees at the U.S. Patent Office.  http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are discounts such as the micro entity and small entity fee schedules if you qualify.   However, the micro-entity works against bulk filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are planning on using a patent attorney or patent agent to prepare and file your patent applications, you may certainly be able to negotiate a bulk discount on the fees for their services.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39248" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14601" RevisionGUID="190a3dc3-0a33-4ae6-bced-633d04a1941d" CreationDate="2016-06-29T20:10:20.887" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39249" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7765" RevisionGUID="1f627eb4-3410-431f-bc7f-1e24013ad90a" CreationDate="2016-06-29T21:16:22.743" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39259" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="e563d104-243e-497e-8007-ca45aa8c376d" CreationDate="2016-06-30T02:21:47.243" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16045" RevisionGUID="dcd7a031-f33e-4d8c-8759-447de44ef184" CreationDate="2016-06-30T07:27:44.790" UserId="17014" Text="Some people confuse in between patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Although there may be some similarities among these kinds of intellectual property protection, but are different and serve different purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Copyright is a form of protection provided to the authors of original works of authorship including literary, dramatic etc and certain other intellectual works both published and unpublished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A trademark is a word, name, symbol or device which is used in trade with goods to indicate major supplies [straight from the source][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas a patent is a government authority or licence conferring a right or title for a set period, especially the sole right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipkcenter.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39266" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12832" RevisionGUID="b0e0cc2b-88ba-4d22-9b1f-8ad8dd663cb3" CreationDate="2016-06-30T13:31:33.577" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39267" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14479" RevisionGUID="2f0df9cc-bcc9-40cc-94be-2008db702a97" CreationDate="2016-06-30T14:31:34.607" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39271" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13870" RevisionGUID="6b950bdf-988b-47c0-9af1-30e4626a157e" CreationDate="2016-06-30T17:38:07.037" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39273" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="79536448-56bb-40ea-aa06-d364c89f3eae" CreationDate="2016-06-30T19:38:06.960" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39274" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14943" RevisionGUID="9c24eabe-963d-493b-9522-b4fa72502d45" CreationDate="2016-06-30T20:38:19.740" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39275" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10643" RevisionGUID="e29fba11-791c-4e4c-ab13-1291cc262b60" CreationDate="2016-06-30T21:38:21.607" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39276" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14200" RevisionGUID="d2d5b561-e4c2-4673-a59d-c6604ca8c0a4" CreationDate="2016-06-30T22:38:20.600" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39277" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13556" RevisionGUID="d5d6f5bd-23c5-442d-9eda-f26f503f109d" CreationDate="2016-06-30T23:40:07.067" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39278" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="0d52660c-6be5-4a6e-8353-afffaacd9a80" CreationDate="2016-07-01T00:39:43.900" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16048" RevisionGUID="bc7a2f68-2322-401b-8332-ebd3ea7ab2e7" CreationDate="2016-07-01T01:09:19.400" UserId="15129" Text="If a pharmaceutical is patented in the US could it be produced and sold freely in another country?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39280" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16048" RevisionGUID="bc7a2f68-2322-401b-8332-ebd3ea7ab2e7" CreationDate="2016-07-01T01:09:19.400" UserId="15129" Text="validity of pharmaceutical patent in another country" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39281" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16048" RevisionGUID="bc7a2f68-2322-401b-8332-ebd3ea7ab2e7" CreationDate="2016-07-01T01:09:19.400" UserId="15129" Text="&lt;foreign&gt;&lt;pharmaceutical&gt;&lt;internatrional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39282" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="1eb98b7a-1bf6-4bf7-8f34-46e2f4fe32c5" CreationDate="2016-07-01T01:39:45.943" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39283" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14934" RevisionGUID="de32137b-b662-4536-b30c-1c3956b0246f" CreationDate="2016-07-01T02:39:49.720" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39287" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="ea08be3b-c277-428e-b042-bbab2c30311b" CreationDate="2016-07-01T04:45:21.993" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39288" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14807" RevisionGUID="413a6a33-9097-412d-affe-6a1a894169f7" CreationDate="2016-07-01T06:45:28.007" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16049" RevisionGUID="2a75bf96-c1b8-4ae8-8ee4-41d514b3bacd" CreationDate="2016-07-01T13:48:21.607" UserId="8800" Text="How big a priority is it for me to apply for patent of my software algorithm?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It’s used in a prototype for an actual product (A), and a proof-of-concept for product (B).  (B) has a very interested enormous Taiwan OEM, who may be able to sell millions of units and offered to pay license fee per unit or purchase my product by unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Product prototype (A) is a working app for iPhone or iPad, on Apple’s iTunes App store.  (Works great but needs user interface polish and formal testing.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Product proof-of-concept (B) I have demonstrated a couple of times for said prospective customer in the Silicon Valley, where I live.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both (A) and (B) use my software algorithm invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent claims would also include systems that use my algorithm, as well as algorithm itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been awarded USTPO patents recently, for other software work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A friend and founder of a terrific startup, market cap &gt; US$200M, told me over lunch that his opinion is that patents are hardly worth it because defending them is expensive and too time consuming;  best to innovate as fast as possible, generate revenue, sell the company, and celebrate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, now I'm wondering if I should spend all that time applying for patent.&#xD;&#xA;How big a priority is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note:  I invented and wrote up the applications for at least 60 of patent applications for said friend's company, which are finally getting approved by USTPO.  So I'm not afraid of the work to apply for patent.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39290" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16049" RevisionGUID="2a75bf96-c1b8-4ae8-8ee4-41d514b3bacd" CreationDate="2016-07-01T13:48:21.607" UserId="8800" Text="How big a priority is it for me to apply for patent of my software algorithm?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39291" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16049" RevisionGUID="2a75bf96-c1b8-4ae8-8ee4-41d514b3bacd" CreationDate="2016-07-01T13:48:21.607" UserId="8800" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16050" RevisionGUID="01179afd-254b-4d81-8023-0b137c51c2a9" CreationDate="2016-07-01T13:55:46.417" UserId="17023" Text="The short answer is Yes. Patents are national rights. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no patent in the other country, there is no restriction on the product there.  However, you could not import the product to a country (such as USA in this case)where there is a patent in force." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16051" RevisionGUID="27c97d67-fb23-4e57-b75c-fc8ec7961a27" CreationDate="2016-07-01T19:47:17.803" UserId="3500" Text="Your friend has a very defensible position.  But.  Your particular invention and your particular patents may be much stronger, in today's world, than most &quot;software patents.&quot;  Of course, they may not.  I'm in no position to even attempt to predict.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, even if patents are difficult to directly enforce in an adversarial context today, they can still be useful in less concrete but still significant ways.  For example, they give an interested third party something tangible to license or buy from you, they can be attractive or frightening (as appropriate) to a particular audience that may be of interest to you, and they can be thought of as an option that might appreciate in value if the legal climate changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of which is, as usual, my way of saying it depends. What do you want to do with the patents and how valuable is the 10-30K and the time cycles it might cost to even try to get them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39294" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14820" RevisionGUID="24136c75-411a-4254-aa08-78a0dc0e2101" CreationDate="2016-07-01T19:57:36.630" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39295" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14032" RevisionGUID="7ed0ceb5-081f-4eb4-af74-48b2e03dc03b" CreationDate="2016-07-01T20:57:40.617" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16052" RevisionGUID="28a6a478-7781-42f1-93e6-10f731d785ac" CreationDate="2016-07-01T20:58:55.043" UserId="17024" Text="I have a lapsed patent which I am attempting to get reinstated via petition (SB-66: unintentional delay in payment of maintenance fees). Once I am reinstated, I will have been lapsed (unprotected) for a &quot;gap&quot; of what I expect will be about four months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's say someone designs or publishes an idea or builds something similar/identical to mine, and I discover this after I'm reinstated. I want to sue for infringement. Does the potential infringer have to prove they come up with their own idea/copied mine when it was in the public domain, and not before or after? Or do I have to prove their idea/published work/built item was come up with outside of the gap? Or, do I in fact have a grace period, such that if I pay my fees and reinstate before the grace period ends, my rights are restored retroactively to cover the gap? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39297" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16052" RevisionGUID="28a6a478-7781-42f1-93e6-10f731d785ac" CreationDate="2016-07-01T20:58:55.043" UserId="17024" Text="Timing on lapsed patent--protected?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39298" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16052" RevisionGUID="28a6a478-7781-42f1-93e6-10f731d785ac" CreationDate="2016-07-01T20:58:55.043" UserId="17024" Text="&lt;reinstatement&gt;&lt;public&gt;&lt;lapsed&gt;&lt;gap&gt;&lt;domain&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39299" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14621" RevisionGUID="efcfe743-4cde-4544-87fb-fddd7aac04bc" CreationDate="2016-07-01T22:59:21.447" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39300" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13861" RevisionGUID="86238751-9d20-40d8-895b-6c5d57f6fef4" CreationDate="2016-07-01T23:59:23.447" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39301" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16048" RevisionGUID="49d560cf-e09c-4513-93ce-7dc75d3f8ed5" CreationDate="2016-07-02T00:32:07.827" UserId="10011" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;foreign&gt;&lt;pharmaceutical&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39307" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14651" RevisionGUID="a20d1746-5dc4-49a4-a2d2-2c7a0e904664" CreationDate="2016-07-02T02:59:48.597" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39309" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5844" RevisionGUID="639354f1-9290-4a2a-91a6-e7959e28606f" CreationDate="2016-07-02T04:06:05.967" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39310" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="0d25e292-b554-4aac-bb23-66c29db4f149" CreationDate="2016-07-02T12:07:23.747" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16053" RevisionGUID="d24509ef-3f47-479e-82ab-42966222dbef" CreationDate="2016-07-02T13:00:37.843" UserId="17027" Text="I've noticed that patent applications go through pains to describe widely understood concepts such as what is a computer or a mobile device. For instance this patent by Apple [US 20150042819 A1][1] devotes 8 paragraphs to just explain what a smartphone is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My patent also requires a mobile device for an embodiment, so can I just lift the description out of another patent maybe with small changes do adjust for the required hardware capability or do I have to write my own risking that I'm missing some finer points of how this should be done?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, I'm aware of [this][2] question, but I'm not exactly meaning boilerplate text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PTXT&amp;s1=9,380,225&amp;OS=9,380,225&amp;RS=9,380,225&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3952/can-i-copy-texts-from-other-applications-into-my-application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39312" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16053" RevisionGUID="d24509ef-3f47-479e-82ab-42966222dbef" CreationDate="2016-07-02T13:00:37.843" UserId="17027" Text="Can I copy parts of applications that are not specific to the invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39313" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16053" RevisionGUID="d24509ef-3f47-479e-82ab-42966222dbef" CreationDate="2016-07-02T13:00:37.843" UserId="17027" Text="&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;specification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39314" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13986" RevisionGUID="2f22b44f-4421-4fa7-800e-fdfa31ae1976" CreationDate="2016-07-02T20:19:22.203" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39315" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14322" RevisionGUID="20324880-3d23-4b8a-9b6f-e8fcb6936d19" CreationDate="2016-07-02T21:19:22.427" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39316" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10545" RevisionGUID="f19c8754-9a95-4885-8931-2528bc02a999" CreationDate="2016-07-02T22:19:26.820" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39317" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13260" RevisionGUID="c82f43ee-e613-4bc7-9476-00803d2906bb" CreationDate="2016-07-03T06:20:59.913" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39318" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12621" RevisionGUID="8c19d55c-26fb-4c1f-a764-bdce5652fde0" CreationDate="2016-07-03T07:21:02.753" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39319" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13794" RevisionGUID="32609b28-46d7-4f4b-8b0f-f4e98a4e305e" CreationDate="2016-07-03T08:21:02.043" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39320" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12610" RevisionGUID="a6d0ec86-a45d-475c-89dc-7adda3a3fe1d" CreationDate="2016-07-03T09:22:50.280" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39321" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="64e6a36d-c1d4-4b23-ab88-1c0d858ca790" CreationDate="2016-07-03T10:22:51.867" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39322" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12107" RevisionGUID="6b419186-9e46-4c48-b6d7-68d8e015cb64" CreationDate="2016-07-03T12:22:56.667" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39323" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14951" RevisionGUID="d0b8949e-cbd5-47a0-92a8-3e5fc5bd9a32" CreationDate="2016-07-03T15:23:01.550" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39324" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13528" RevisionGUID="c5379359-bfda-43f2-b587-6566b160f0f6" CreationDate="2016-07-03T17:23:27.137" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39325" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13537" RevisionGUID="78f28d5e-7c16-4d41-9bc8-ff5d299ee8b6" CreationDate="2016-07-03T19:31:49.633" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39326" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7833" RevisionGUID="abd16b64-cbf3-4ce7-b463-dc33fe340c62" CreationDate="2016-07-03T21:31:50.247" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39331" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13171" RevisionGUID="01957184-d305-4488-b943-54e36ab9d165" CreationDate="2016-07-04T06:38:48.440" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39332" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10041" RevisionGUID="075c965d-447d-4956-8514-dcd74666e42c" CreationDate="2016-07-04T07:38:48.863" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39333" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10559" RevisionGUID="6616f93e-5ee0-4f85-9e07-6fed2b1c4321" CreationDate="2016-07-04T11:41:24.357" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39339" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="3ff3e79b-dea1-456d-bbd4-ca4541ffaa40" CreationDate="2016-07-04T19:53:29.547" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39340" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14937" RevisionGUID="981b4eaa-2a58-4afe-9779-7c7ecce85f8d" CreationDate="2016-07-04T20:53:30.683" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16056" RevisionGUID="01322624-cd98-4d6d-bace-8e8947f45b70" CreationDate="2016-07-05T00:30:40.900" UserId="17005" Text="I meet the criteria to be classed as a micro entity.  However, there is one restriction that catches my attention:  A micro entity may not have his/her name listed on more than four previous patent applications.  My question:  Does this preclude me from filing more than five applications (all at micro entity pricing) at the same time?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39342" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16056" RevisionGUID="01322624-cd98-4d6d-bace-8e8947f45b70" CreationDate="2016-07-05T00:30:40.900" UserId="17005" Text="Micro Entity and Multiple Applications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39343" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16056" RevisionGUID="01322624-cd98-4d6d-bace-8e8947f45b70" CreationDate="2016-07-05T00:30:40.900" UserId="17005" Text="&lt;fees&gt;&lt;payment&gt;&lt;fee&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39344" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14948" RevisionGUID="3b2fdf23-c535-47c7-aae3-b81e87151094" CreationDate="2016-07-05T02:53:45.957" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16057" RevisionGUID="47ecc573-7079-4c05-b557-8b0627036ff7" CreationDate="2016-07-05T03:16:11.547" UserId="17037" Text="I have an idea for an invention that uses another company's invention. I called the owner and revealed the idea without disclosing how the invention would work. This technology is relatively new and I know how to use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The owner suggested making a patent and putting me as an inventor. **How can I ensure I receive royalties without a lawyer?** I want to prevent being sussed and discarded once I reveal how the invention works. I don't have the $ to file the patent myself and it uses their original invention anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39346" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16057" RevisionGUID="47ecc573-7079-4c05-b557-8b0627036ff7" CreationDate="2016-07-05T03:16:11.547" UserId="17037" Text="How do I protect my rights to royalties with a patent I go 50-50 on" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39347" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16057" RevisionGUID="47ecc573-7079-4c05-b557-8b0627036ff7" CreationDate="2016-07-05T03:16:11.547" UserId="17037" Text="&lt;royalty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39348" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12403" RevisionGUID="19d0b721-2c1a-4be3-9d4f-344353a9de36" CreationDate="2016-07-05T03:53:45.653" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16058" RevisionGUID="20fe6422-13cd-4435-815c-ac3c909fed78" CreationDate="2016-07-05T06:52:58.087" UserId="15657" Text="To prevent yourself from being sued, you need to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. find out what patents cover the invention&#xD;&#xA;2. check if those patents are still valid&#xD;&#xA;3. read the patent claims to determine if your application includes &quot;all&quot; elements written in the claims.&#xD;&#xA;4. try to work around the patents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You shouldn't discuss your invention without at least filing a [provisional patent application][1]. You can file a provisional patent application yourself. After the filing, you have 12 month to discuss with potential client and decide if it's worthwhile to file a formal, non-provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, nobody can guarantee you any loyalty. Even if yo get a laywer, s/he won't make such guarantee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/provisional-application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39350" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14508" RevisionGUID="72b13918-a55c-49ab-b997-f6e00b393ae0" CreationDate="2016-07-05T08:00:20.440" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39351" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13283" RevisionGUID="6e68b479-67ed-4f02-9c53-f2954f3107a2" CreationDate="2016-07-05T09:00:32.943" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39352" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12972" RevisionGUID="8110b391-7bc5-4e3e-8ca6-dec7500ec4b0" CreationDate="2016-07-05T10:00:33.330" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16056" RevisionGUID="9f3893a8-f4b4-4ebd-b6b4-d0686d301505" CreationDate="2016-07-05T15:01:10.663" UserId="10011" Comment="rm thanks" Text="I meet the criteria to be classed as a micro entity.  However, there is one restriction that catches my attention:  A micro entity may not have his/her name listed on more than four previous patent applications.  My question:  Does this preclude me from filing more than five applications (all at micro entity pricing) at the same time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39358" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16056" RevisionGUID="9f3893a8-f4b4-4ebd-b6b4-d0686d301505" CreationDate="2016-07-05T15:01:10.663" UserId="10011" Comment="rm thanks" Text="&lt;fees&gt;&lt;payment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39359" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14517" RevisionGUID="ba2fa88c-f67f-4145-8312-16476c495c89" CreationDate="2016-07-05T15:08:36.107" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16060" RevisionGUID="dec8a08c-c332-4172-ba25-fe6e70014736" CreationDate="2016-07-05T15:51:42.307" UserId="17045" Text="If someone (person D) taught said (person S) a recipe to make something and they have since used the recipe and came out with a product. Does the person D who taught them the recipe have any rights, royalties ? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39361" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16060" RevisionGUID="dec8a08c-c332-4172-ba25-fe6e70014736" CreationDate="2016-07-05T15:51:42.307" UserId="17045" Text="Patent and legal rights on a recipe" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39362" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16060" RevisionGUID="dec8a08c-c332-4172-ba25-fe6e70014736" CreationDate="2016-07-05T15:51:42.307" UserId="17045" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;royalty&gt;&lt;recipe&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39363" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14843" RevisionGUID="2542a569-8af4-4a41-94f8-74c7f830f348" CreationDate="2016-07-05T16:08:36.343" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39364" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13359" RevisionGUID="ce847abe-4035-48c3-b5f9-edbb92701ade" CreationDate="2016-07-05T17:08:40.413" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39365" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14844" RevisionGUID="5f06af4e-6689-4f5b-882a-5c72b8b8806f" CreationDate="2016-07-05T18:08:40.390" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39366" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5868" RevisionGUID="df96186c-ae97-4bad-a0ca-8680991519f1" CreationDate="2016-07-05T19:08:51.203" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16061" RevisionGUID="8b156ce6-e305-49e4-81ec-df84d6b3f3fa" CreationDate="2016-07-05T21:22:28.000" UserId="16977" Text="The best way to search if your idea has been patented is through the [Google Patents application which can accept multiple names of ideas, synonyms and dates][1]. For the link I provided, simply replace the words with descriptive words for your invention, for example, a [Google Patent Search for &quot;Shovel&quot; and &quot;Hammer&quot; and &quot;Garden&quot; will yield accurate results][2], including [this patent, which covers many 'types' of possible gardening tools][3]: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An elongated shaft to receive a working head of a garden implement. The elongated shaft comprises a terminal portion sized to receive the working head of the garden implement, and measuring indicia applied to the elongated shaft over at least a portion of the length of the elongated shaft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a link for a [Google Patent Prior Art search for the previous keywords filed under &quot;A01B1/02 Spades &amp; Shovels&quot; category.][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/?q=mine%20ventilation&amp;q=overcast&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/?q=Shovel&amp;q=Hammer&amp;q=Gardening&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20150319908A1/en?q=Shovel&amp;q=Hammer&amp;q=Gardening&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.google.com/?q=Shovel&amp;q=Hammer&amp;q=Gardening&amp;q=A01B1%2F02" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16062" RevisionGUID="476a53f8-94fe-4f37-b14c-94c443bd352e" CreationDate="2016-07-05T21:50:05.720" UserId="16977" Text="From your question, it is clear you have a misunderstanding between patent and copyright. A copyright is a form of intellectual property (IP) that is affixed the moment a 'creative act' (writing a story, painting a picture, writing code) is created for the first time. When you created your app, you gained the copyright of your work, even without registering it with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. [Here is a source to read more about copyrights from the USPTO.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Patent is granted for the exclusive use of a new invention. There is currently a debate whether or not software is patent-able. [Read more about patents at the USPTO website.][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can not be sued for 'copyright' infringement on an app unless you used someone's copyrighted material without their consent, including sounds, images, videos, and code. If your app is your own creation, even if it accomplishes something similar to a current video game, there is no copyright infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/copyright/copyright-basics&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/inventors-entrepreneurs-resources" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16062" RevisionGUID="7ba04fc0-791e-4d5a-8fca-9a0e5574aad0" CreationDate="2016-07-05T22:00:36.820" UserId="16977" Comment="Added Link to USPTO General Intro to Patents" Text="From your question, it is clear you have a misunderstanding between patent and copyright. I suggest you begin by [reading this introduction from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)][1]. A copyright is a form of intellectual property (IP) that is affixed the moment a 'creative act' (writing a story, painting a picture, writing code) is created for the first time. When you created your app, you gained the copyright of your work, even without registering it with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. [Here is a source to read more about copyrights from the USPTO.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Patent is granted for the exclusive use of a new invention. There is currently a debate whether or not software is patent-able. [Read more about patents at the USPTO website.][3] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can not be sued for 'copyright' infringement on an app unless you used someone's copyrighted material without their consent, including sounds, images, videos, and code. If your app is your own creation, even if it accomplishes something similar to a current video game, there is no copyright infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/general-information-concerning-patents&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/copyright/copyright-basics&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/inventors-entrepreneurs-resources" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16063" RevisionGUID="562fed67-e533-4fcc-ae85-62db51ef03cf" CreationDate="2016-07-05T22:04:40.683" UserId="16977" Text="Recipes can not be patented, and the form of Intellectual Property protection covered by this area is 'trade secrets'. [Read about Trade Secrets through the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) website][1]. Many foods are protected by Trade Secrets, for example, Coca-Cola. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a trade secret holder fails to maintain secrecy or if the information is independently discovered, becomes released or otherwise becomes generally known, protection as a trade secret is lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, Person D has no claim to rights or royalties in this particular situation where they told their friend Person S the recipe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/international-protection/trade-secret-policy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16062" RevisionGUID="6afe3e03-3c8a-43d4-80f9-d3385774c3d1" CreationDate="2016-07-05T22:38:00.027" UserId="16977" Comment="Added 'non-infringement' search by patent attorney paragraph" Text="From your question, it is clear you have a misunderstanding between patent and copyright. I suggest you begin by [reading this introduction from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)][1]. A copyright is a form of intellectual property (IP) that is affixed the moment a 'creative act' (writing a story, painting a picture, writing code) is created for the first time. When you created your app, you gained the copyright of your work, even without registering it with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. [Here is a source to read more about copyrights from the USPTO.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Patent is granted for the exclusive use of a new invention. There is currently a debate whether or not software is patent-able. [Read more about patents at the USPTO website.][3] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can not be sued for 'copyright' infringement on an app unless you used someone's copyrighted material without their consent, including sounds, images, videos, and code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To fully understand if you are infringing on a patent, you will need a patent attorney to perform a 'non-infringement' search, and provide his/her legal opinion. This can be time consuming for them and costly for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/general-information-concerning-patents&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/copyright/copyright-basics&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/inventors-entrepreneurs-resources" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16064" RevisionGUID="f1b14799-a226-4f0d-b297-bb89282f3032" CreationDate="2016-07-06T00:23:31.913" UserId="17049" Text="Pat. 5,724,428 expired on Nov. 1, 2015.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pat. 5,835,600 is a DIVISION of this patent (not a continuation of it, as another responder indicated) and will expire on April 21, 2017." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39373" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16057" RevisionGUID="549f7438-40e4-4d30-bde5-28f80622a521" CreationDate="2016-07-06T01:00:33.180" UserId="16977" Comment="Added Tag, clarified Title" Text="How do I protect my rights to royalties as inventor when collaborating on a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39374" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16057" RevisionGUID="549f7438-40e4-4d30-bde5-28f80622a521" CreationDate="2016-07-06T01:00:33.180" UserId="16977" Comment="Added Tag, clarified Title" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;royalty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39375" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16057" RevisionGUID="549f7438-40e4-4d30-bde5-28f80622a521" CreationDate="2016-07-06T01:00:33.180" Comment="Proposed by 16977 approved by 17037 edit id of 1951" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16065" RevisionGUID="e3751949-2be8-404f-b39f-39a5491368da" CreationDate="2016-07-06T02:51:36.047" UserId="16977" Text="In order to protect your startup with patents, and prevent your startup from infringing on another inventor's patent, you must [perform a patent search with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)][1]. Google has created a portal 'Google Patents' which provides valuable information, collects citations and can be done very easily. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To Perform a [Patent Search with Google][2], enter 2 or 3 general terms [related to your invention: an example using the search terms &quot;Software&quot; and &quot;Data Analysis&quot;.][3] Google will display the best results which can then be sorted by publishing date or relevance. Generally the first patent suggested by google will be close to what you are looking for, For Example, the first result from the previous example is a patent titled '[Data Import System For Data Analysis System][4]'. From there you can view new patents which cited this patent to see what has been patented before and areas where your startup can gain IP protection. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/main/profiles/acadres.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/?q=software&amp;q=data%20analysis&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6718336B1/en?q=software&amp;q=data%20analysis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14843" RevisionGUID="18e8c148-bac5-49ad-8967-7f48c22398b0" CreationDate="2016-07-06T05:11:06.930" UserId="16977" Comment="Added additional tags, clarified title" Text="In reference to the patent: [USD708869][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD708869&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How Do I check if this patent been approved? Why or why not? When? Is the patent owner still alive? Is the patent for sale? Are there other similar patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39379" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14843" RevisionGUID="18e8c148-bac5-49ad-8967-7f48c22398b0" CreationDate="2016-07-06T05:11:06.930" UserId="16977" Comment="Added additional tags, clarified title" Text="How to determine the status of a patent application on Google Patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39380" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14843" RevisionGUID="18e8c148-bac5-49ad-8967-7f48c22398b0" CreationDate="2016-07-06T05:11:06.930" UserId="16977" Comment="Added additional tags, clarified title" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;patent-search&gt;&lt;status&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39381" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14843" RevisionGUID="18e8c148-bac5-49ad-8967-7f48c22398b0" CreationDate="2016-07-06T05:11:06.930" Comment="Proposed by 16977 approved by 10011 edit id of 1950" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16067" RevisionGUID="71fe4c07-2ffe-4560-ba65-56e5e316f757" CreationDate="2016-07-06T10:16:39.363" UserId="17052" Text="As a technical advisor to a patent law firm, I have seen that there can be a huge difference in the value of a patent, depending on the professionalism of the patent attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you believe you have a million dollar idea, it is well worth the expense of getting a high quality patent. Of course, the problem is that you may not know if the idea is worth anything at this stage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, you may later regret the few thousand dollars you save by using a less expensive patenting process. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will add that a really good patent attorney does not only write a patent. S/he will look at the core idea, discuss with you your business plan, considers additional ways you may not have considered that the idea could earn money, and devises a patent strategy that will protect your interests. This process is more expensive than just banging out a patent (which may not end up protecting what you intended).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best of luck in your venture." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39386" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10378" RevisionGUID="82cc336d-869b-4eab-83be-cd9961714be1" CreationDate="2016-07-06T10:26:24.437" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39387" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="2d0502d3-e35a-4790-80ed-0c7c14d29a77" CreationDate="2016-07-06T14:30:31.353" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39392" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16060" RevisionGUID="efc820bd-3ad8-45c2-8897-b524a49e0bb9" CreationDate="2016-07-06T15:06:46.330" UserId="16977" Comment="Clarified Title" Text="What are the legal rights and royalties based on a recipe?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39393" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16060" RevisionGUID="efc820bd-3ad8-45c2-8897-b524a49e0bb9" CreationDate="2016-07-06T15:06:46.330" UserId="16977" Comment="Clarified Title" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;royalty&gt;&lt;trade-secret&gt;&lt;recipe&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39394" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16060" RevisionGUID="efc820bd-3ad8-45c2-8897-b524a49e0bb9" CreationDate="2016-07-06T15:06:46.330" Comment="Proposed by 16977 approved by 1 edit id of 1949" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12972" RevisionGUID="f8cda385-5ba1-4494-b95e-1477d10c363d" CreationDate="2016-07-06T15:07:02.440" UserId="16977" Comment="Clarified Title, Question, Added Tags" Text="I have created an app for use in mobile phones and I intend to make the app available for sale. From my research, there is no other app that looks like mine that I've heard of, there is an old nintendo 64 minigame that is a LITTLE similar tough. I heard most top apps aren't copyrighted and haven't had any legal trouble. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not interested in stopping people from copying my app idea, everyone can copy me, I really don't care about that, but I am really scared that someone sues me for &quot;copying&quot; his/her idea because she/he has a similar idea copyrighted, or that someone patents/copyrights my app as his/hers and claims ownership of it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it necessary to patent a video-game app before sending it to the app store and/or play store? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39396" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12972" RevisionGUID="f8cda385-5ba1-4494-b95e-1477d10c363d" CreationDate="2016-07-06T15:07:02.440" UserId="16977" Comment="Clarified Title, Question, Added Tags" Text="How Do I avoid being sued for patent infringement when publishing my mobile app?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39397" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12972" RevisionGUID="f8cda385-5ba1-4494-b95e-1477d10c363d" CreationDate="2016-07-06T15:07:02.440" UserId="16977" Comment="Clarified Title, Question, Added Tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39398" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12972" RevisionGUID="f8cda385-5ba1-4494-b95e-1477d10c363d" CreationDate="2016-07-06T15:07:02.440" Comment="Proposed by 16977 approved by 1 edit id of 1948" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13359" RevisionGUID="75b9703a-7d9e-4312-aadc-f94675b781b4" CreationDate="2016-07-06T15:07:13.880" UserId="16977" Comment="Made Title more General, Added 'bit' of body text" Text="I am interested in acquiring the accompanying pictures in reference to the patent: [WO2012007964A2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2012007964A2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39400" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13359" RevisionGUID="75b9703a-7d9e-4312-aadc-f94675b781b4" CreationDate="2016-07-06T15:07:13.880" UserId="16977" Comment="Made Title more General, Added 'bit' of body text" Text="How to acquire pictures of a particular patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39401" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13359" RevisionGUID="75b9703a-7d9e-4312-aadc-f94675b781b4" CreationDate="2016-07-06T15:07:13.880" UserId="16977" Comment="Made Title more General, Added 'bit' of body text" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;wo2012007964a2&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39402" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13359" RevisionGUID="75b9703a-7d9e-4312-aadc-f94675b781b4" CreationDate="2016-07-06T15:07:13.880" Comment="Proposed by 16977 approved by 1 edit id of 1947" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5868" RevisionGUID="55b19e8a-2874-411a-8fa7-8ce8fdc3c08f" CreationDate="2016-07-06T15:07:17.630" UserId="16977" Comment="Clarified Title, Question, Added Tags" Text="A previous application for an European Patent Grant was &quot;closed&quot; by the European Patent Office. What is the time limit the same application can be filed with US Patent Office?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39404" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5868" RevisionGUID="55b19e8a-2874-411a-8fa7-8ce8fdc3c08f" CreationDate="2016-07-06T15:07:17.630" UserId="16977" Comment="Clarified Title, Question, Added Tags" Text="Time Limits on Filing Closed EPO application in United States?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39405" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5868" RevisionGUID="55b19e8a-2874-411a-8fa7-8ce8fdc3c08f" CreationDate="2016-07-06T15:07:17.630" UserId="16977" Comment="Clarified Title, Question, Added Tags" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;epo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39406" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5868" RevisionGUID="55b19e8a-2874-411a-8fa7-8ce8fdc3c08f" CreationDate="2016-07-06T15:07:17.630" Comment="Proposed by 16977 approved by 1 edit id of 1946" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39407" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15973" RevisionGUID="a885da23-66ad-471a-a0c2-b07340269349" CreationDate="2016-07-06T15:07:22.020" UserId="16977" Comment="Clarified Title" Text="How do I collaborate with a company who may have a provisional on my idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39408" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15973" RevisionGUID="a885da23-66ad-471a-a0c2-b07340269349" CreationDate="2016-07-06T15:07:22.020" Comment="Proposed by 16977 approved by 1 edit id of 1952" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39409" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="e8b31bb6-6e33-4213-b1f3-1eb52f4e736e" CreationDate="2016-07-06T15:30:31.923" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39410" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="ee66799f-83e2-4924-a250-fcaef920698a" CreationDate="2016-07-06T16:30:34.403" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39411" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12143" RevisionGUID="859d459d-fd42-4daf-a80d-2805f1c13a34" CreationDate="2016-07-06T18:32:39.610" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39412" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13373" RevisionGUID="9f78867e-5dbe-42df-8432-5a595f53a29b" CreationDate="2016-07-07T03:36:25.930" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39413" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="d8d96381-f2f9-4d0f-8a5c-d2df17e1dcf8" CreationDate="2016-07-07T05:36:26.523" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39415" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12640" RevisionGUID="2c92af0e-5d54-4886-a2cb-875e075acb5d" CreationDate="2016-07-07T13:36:34.420" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16069" RevisionGUID="a328449b-6b81-4ace-a8db-56fa6f95b976" CreationDate="2016-07-07T14:48:15.097" UserId="17052" Text="I am describing a modification of an existing optimizing algorithm as part of a method claim, and wish to avoid describing the details of the existing algorithm. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the correct format for citing the technical publication where the existing algorithm is described?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the format &quot;Title of Article&quot;, Author A and Author B, as published in Proceedings of This and That, May 2109?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39417" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16069" RevisionGUID="a328449b-6b81-4ace-a8db-56fa6f95b976" CreationDate="2016-07-07T14:48:15.097" UserId="17052" Text="How is a magazine article cited in a detailed description?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39418" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16069" RevisionGUID="a328449b-6b81-4ace-a8db-56fa6f95b976" CreationDate="2016-07-07T14:48:15.097" UserId="17052" Text="&lt;description&gt;&lt;citation&gt;&lt;detailed&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39419" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14181" RevisionGUID="d0d595f0-699d-4777-b0af-1a54631de5f6" CreationDate="2016-07-07T16:40:43.053" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39420" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11943" RevisionGUID="39d177e7-ff7e-437b-a4c6-cb302c0c0fa3" CreationDate="2016-07-07T17:40:57.967" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39422" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="3275a761-1dd3-418b-80ed-696090d81eda" CreationDate="2016-07-07T18:40:57.640" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39423" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11951" RevisionGUID="3879eeeb-2e69-4674-bca0-82d39ccc6ab4" CreationDate="2016-07-07T19:49:07.493" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16071" RevisionGUID="b1540044-f8a2-4383-b4ea-40401eae7ddf" CreationDate="2016-07-07T21:47:17.670" UserId="17037" Text="Legal-speak is convoluted with words that have no conventional meaning and long-winded detail. I am unsure how much my provisional patent will cost me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Click here][1] and ead the table at the bottom of the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Filing (provisional) as a small entity: 130.00 &#xD;&#xA; - More than 3 claims in&#xD;&#xA;   my provisional patent: 210.00&#xD;&#xA; - Having a multiple dependent claim: 390.00 (each?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm already looking at a total of 730.00 USD&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct? (I hope not!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39425" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16071" RevisionGUID="b1540044-f8a2-4383-b4ea-40401eae7ddf" CreationDate="2016-07-07T21:47:17.670" UserId="17037" Text="Am I reading this right? -- the cost for a provisional patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39426" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16071" RevisionGUID="b1540044-f8a2-4383-b4ea-40401eae7ddf" CreationDate="2016-07-07T21:47:17.670" UserId="17037" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;fees&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16072" RevisionGUID="14058a02-fa0a-43bb-8ab4-dc358aa7dc8c" CreationDate="2016-07-08T01:45:11.777" UserId="16977" Text="I am able to find 6 patents with &quot;Jesse L Culpepper&quot; as the claimed inventor: https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Jesse+L.+Culpepper " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16075" RevisionGUID="d632d82c-c0cf-4328-844b-cb35b4633e3d" CreationDate="2016-07-08T03:20:33.153" UserId="17037" Text=" - I qualify as a micro entity filing as an individual with smaller means of income&#xD;&#xA; - You are allowed up to 20 claims&#xD;&#xA; - The total would be $65 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39440" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12990" RevisionGUID="45da43b3-9353-4c96-8107-e0f5cbfafc92" CreationDate="2016-07-08T03:54:25.547" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16076" RevisionGUID="7597b127-71fa-401f-8669-2d74159126cf" CreationDate="2016-07-08T04:03:21.540" UserId="16977" Text="The cost required to file a provisional patent is dependent on many factors. If you qualify for micro-entity status, the fee is $65. There is no search fee because you are filing a provisional patent. Provisional patents allow up to 20 claims without additional fee. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16077" RevisionGUID="3b12c16c-1574-49d7-bc60-0468e26d4223" CreationDate="2016-07-08T04:06:37.853" UserId="16977" Text="Do you have a published article (journal, online) which discusses this method in depth? Patents can be re-examined if prior art was not included in the original patent examination." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16078" RevisionGUID="ec9a522a-9f61-45fe-94ea-16510c0052e9" CreationDate="2016-07-08T05:14:12.910" UserId="17059" Text="I invented a, lets just call it a simple circuit board, 10 years ago.  I sold about 2000 of these so they are in the public.  The way I understand it is if you didn't patent it within the first year you are out of luck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I change it a little bit, ie put on an LED light (thus improving it), and then applying for a patent? Lets just assume nobody else had patent it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39444" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16078" RevisionGUID="ec9a522a-9f61-45fe-94ea-16510c0052e9" CreationDate="2016-07-08T05:14:12.910" UserId="17059" Text="Invented something 10 years ago, if I change it a little can I patent it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39445" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16078" RevisionGUID="ec9a522a-9f61-45fe-94ea-16510c0052e9" CreationDate="2016-07-08T05:14:12.910" UserId="17059" Text="&lt;public&gt;&lt;change&gt;&lt;new&gt;&lt;already&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16079" RevisionGUID="3a8ec656-9b33-4ced-9fb4-10b16a0a2007" CreationDate="2016-07-08T05:19:54.820" UserId="16977" Text="You are correct, after disclosure of an invention the inventor has 1 year before patent rights expire. Since you were selling this invention, and the 1 year time period has lapsed, this invention can not be patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, a non-obvious and useful improvement to existing prior art can be patented. Undoubtedly, there have been numerous improvements (and patents) in this area since the time you originally invented the original project. Your next step is to search 'prior art' to see what has been invented since your previous invention was on the market." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16080" RevisionGUID="99837015-285b-43a8-8611-5f47720a801a" CreationDate="2016-07-08T05:33:26.583" UserId="17005" Text="Question answered elsewhere.  Yes, unfortunately one cannot file more than five patents at micro-entity status." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16081" RevisionGUID="709b0681-ca28-4a6c-8095-522a0d742199" CreationDate="2016-07-08T05:45:15.347" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16082" RevisionGUID="0e6ab0b3-3817-4f97-b9b2-aeaf6a9a96a9" CreationDate="2016-07-08T05:45:15.347" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16083" RevisionGUID="81743b54-0591-48af-a9c8-fe4ccfb08b38" CreationDate="2016-07-08T05:48:31.693" UserId="17060" Text="In reference to the patent: [US4984987][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4984987&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When does this patent expire does this device https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/CE-Approved-CPR-and-AED-Training_698123048.html infringe on this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39451" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16083" RevisionGUID="81743b54-0591-48af-a9c8-fe4ccfb08b38" CreationDate="2016-07-08T05:48:31.693" UserId="17060" Text="When does this patent expire?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39452" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16083" RevisionGUID="81743b54-0591-48af-a9c8-fe4ccfb08b38" CreationDate="2016-07-08T05:48:31.693" UserId="17060" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16084" RevisionGUID="459ee4c3-5afa-4f78-9afc-26ef4badf53d" CreationDate="2016-07-08T05:52:48.310" UserId="16977" Text="The original filing date is November 9, 1989. A Utility patent is valid for a term of 20 years, which means this patent expired on November 9, 2009 and is no longer valid. The link you posted to does not infringe on this particular patent, but it might be infringing on other patents. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39454" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9885" RevisionGUID="9d500371-b45a-41ec-be7d-db49039fc263" CreationDate="2016-07-08T09:54:36.410" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39455" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13723" RevisionGUID="83db835b-c887-49e5-a042-2a9dd583f5b2" CreationDate="2016-07-08T10:54:39.823" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39456" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13023" RevisionGUID="2e7e94f7-49e1-49e7-88fd-314a362917b1" CreationDate="2016-07-08T13:54:41.657" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39457" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16078" RevisionGUID="0bfdbe51-c834-428f-ace8-39a5a2fd8395" CreationDate="2016-07-08T14:26:28.083" UserId="16977" Comment="removed tags, added tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39458" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16078" RevisionGUID="0bfdbe51-c834-428f-ace8-39a5a2fd8395" CreationDate="2016-07-08T14:26:28.083" Comment="Proposed by 16977 approved by 1 edit id of 1954" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="9281d924-9bed-433f-b812-12a47c9fc296" CreationDate="2016-07-08T14:55:45.563" UserId="17044" Text="I am trying to sign the PDF form aia0014.pdf. It states that signing is enabled but placing saved content is not. I have downloaded both Adobe Reader 11 and Adobe Reader DC, but the sign tools are disabled. The aia0001 form worked fine. How can I sign this form without printing out, signing, and scanning, which I suspect is not acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Screenshot of the form in Adobe Reader DC][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/5jU1k.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39460" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="9281d924-9bed-433f-b812-12a47c9fc296" CreationDate="2016-07-08T14:55:45.563" UserId="17044" Text="The Application Data Sheet 37 CFR 1.76 form (aia0014.pdf) does not allow me to sign" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39461" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="9281d924-9bed-433f-b812-12a47c9fc296" CreationDate="2016-07-08T14:55:45.563" UserId="17044" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;forms&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39462" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="faddbf43-4665-40f7-b55b-9aa3451b30ad" CreationDate="2016-07-08T22:02:29.747" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39463" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14632" RevisionGUID="5facdf36-ccb9-408c-b3a9-ec1714cf0158" CreationDate="2016-07-08T23:04:17.147" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39464" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="ede7b518-cb0e-4ff2-9605-6793d9528149" CreationDate="2016-07-08T23:30:07.137" UserId="16977" Comment="added tags, clarified title" Text="Is there a way to determine the if hackathon ideas are ultimately patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39465" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="ede7b518-cb0e-4ff2-9605-6793d9528149" CreationDate="2016-07-08T23:30:07.137" UserId="16977" Comment="added tags, clarified title" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;idea&gt;&lt;generation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39466" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="ede7b518-cb0e-4ff2-9605-6793d9528149" CreationDate="2016-07-08T23:30:07.137" Comment="Proposed by 16977 approved by 13706, 1 edit id of 1953" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39471" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14061" RevisionGUID="16f006d5-0fba-4fb7-a34f-b11bd3117b80" CreationDate="2016-07-09T01:09:20.510" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39473" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14049" RevisionGUID="f556fd45-daaf-483b-8fb5-6b0e78f1f66c" CreationDate="2016-07-09T03:09:20.583" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39480" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13939" RevisionGUID="92631053-aacf-4f90-80b8-b463168ea09a" CreationDate="2016-07-09T10:15:34.853" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39481" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13762" RevisionGUID="abd2d5f6-7da7-4249-89c5-40c71758e11c" CreationDate="2016-07-09T14:17:07.370" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39485" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15975" RevisionGUID="1c8f93e6-2d43-4c42-ac91-41efd39c3a8d" CreationDate="2016-07-09T19:19:29.567" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16088" RevisionGUID="7bd14074-98e4-4153-ad07-ff82394d6f8e" CreationDate="2016-07-09T21:20:20.497" UserId="16977" Text="You may be interested in learning more about [trade secrets from the USPTO website][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/international-protection/trade-secret-policy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16089" RevisionGUID="64fd4129-2a5b-46dc-9560-bb92dcee0da2" CreationDate="2016-07-10T01:35:33.310" UserId="17069" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7798499][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Jurni ultimate sit on carry on suitcase][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7798499&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/jurni-the-ultimate-sit-on-carry-on-suitcase#/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39488" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16089" RevisionGUID="64fd4129-2a5b-46dc-9560-bb92dcee0da2" CreationDate="2016-07-10T01:35:33.310" UserId="17069" Text="To inventor-- What about this Indegogo project?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39489" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16089" RevisionGUID="64fd4129-2a5b-46dc-9560-bb92dcee0da2" CreationDate="2016-07-10T01:35:33.310" UserId="17069" Text="&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39490" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="16089" RevisionGUID="70e56556-d314-43d8-9559-359dc14d5fe8" CreationDate="2016-07-10T01:38:53.560" UserId="1" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="39491" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="7287c768-8fbc-495e-a1ce-1dc7a3859995" CreationDate="2016-07-10T02:32:04.617" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39494" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13601" RevisionGUID="06dcb208-aba4-44f1-b9cd-be331aae6696" CreationDate="2016-07-10T05:32:08.413" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39495" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13276" RevisionGUID="55648f51-d998-4c03-8a92-d853ece6c3ce" CreationDate="2016-07-10T06:32:07.957" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39496" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14699" RevisionGUID="3b56145d-bee4-405b-a752-e6b758520e52" CreationDate="2016-07-10T12:32:17.160" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39497" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10602" RevisionGUID="0570a0c8-4a9f-4698-aee6-6da68b1dbd4b" CreationDate="2016-07-10T13:32:38.360" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39498" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5897" RevisionGUID="042e7854-bbfb-401f-b8e7-168bd502de81" CreationDate="2016-07-10T15:32:28.010" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39499" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14366" RevisionGUID="5dbd43e2-dc28-48dd-ac6d-72628f818646" CreationDate="2016-07-10T16:38:46.320" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39500" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14697" RevisionGUID="ca482b46-2da7-4ddf-8436-7898aba2388a" CreationDate="2016-07-10T21:41:19.250" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16090" RevisionGUID="7703427c-14d7-47ff-83eb-6dfbe4b18670" CreationDate="2016-07-11T01:47:19.823" UserId="17074" Text="if I can make and sell this patent? Is expired ban since it's in a patented more than 50 years? Please s response to me? Thank you Pat 2892491" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39502" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16090" RevisionGUID="7703427c-14d7-47ff-83eb-6dfbe4b18670" CreationDate="2016-07-11T01:47:19.823" UserId="17074" Text="if I can make and sell this patent? Is expired ban since it's in a patented more than 50 years? Please s response to me? Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39503" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16090" RevisionGUID="7703427c-14d7-47ff-83eb-6dfbe4b18670" CreationDate="2016-07-11T01:47:19.823" UserId="17074" Text="&lt;us2982491&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16092" RevisionGUID="957a3037-a167-4462-996e-5d5da725bf30" CreationDate="2016-07-11T06:35:23.700" UserId="17076" Text="Depends on what country you are in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In many countries, the 1 year does not apply. Any public disclosure or sale means you have no patent rights at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16093" RevisionGUID="b61b844b-22e0-4973-bc5b-1cbc70770f28" CreationDate="2016-07-11T06:38:29.297" UserId="17076" Text="Discuss this with your patent attorney. Different patent offices are likely to have different forms of preferred citation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16094" RevisionGUID="29617305-4b18-4d5e-ba6e-a875024a7130" CreationDate="2016-07-11T06:40:52.937" UserId="17076" Text="Regarding the previous answer: It may TECHNICALLY be possible to obtain such a patent, because patent offices can't check everything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that it has been found in a book means (by definition) that there is published prior art, so the patent is worthless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If its not too late this information may be enough for an examiner to kill it. Otherwise it would end up being challenged... maybe... in court some day with the book cited as the prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39510" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14355" RevisionGUID="b196d310-a033-4467-9c4a-aa41e36c4baa" CreationDate="2016-07-11T07:45:00.650" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39511" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14868" RevisionGUID="81ff19d0-0401-4a4d-9f0c-7833ecb0588b" CreationDate="2016-07-11T10:46:06.497" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16095" RevisionGUID="2092d81d-7bb7-43ed-9eec-a01be1a9865f" CreationDate="2016-07-11T17:11:29.100" UserId="17012" Text="It's an extremely easy process. Regarding US patents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. You can use any patent search engine such as https://patents.google.com to search the patent. I think you mentioned that you already found the patent there.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Then, the current owner (*Current Assignee*) should be listed on the right side. You can perform a web search on that name (usually a company) and reach them out.&#xD;&#xA; 3. And if you want to reach out the inventor, just perform the same process with them!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39513" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13934" RevisionGUID="0a605e47-a0be-4551-a147-2aecd985ccd7" CreationDate="2016-07-11T17:47:48.310" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16096" RevisionGUID="3af18bc7-adc2-41ab-adde-7a84cddc80f7" CreationDate="2016-07-11T19:39:09.647" UserId="17081" Text="I am the inventor of patent 4131769. When I lost my home in 1990,my patent ceetificate was left behind. I didn't know my patent number until 2007, when I found my patent the internet. I've been trying to find out what happened to my patent of a phone lock. After describing my phone lock to a few people, I was told that their parent had a lock on their phone like the lock I described to them. I'm still trying to find out whatever happened with my patent. Can you help me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39515" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16096" RevisionGUID="3af18bc7-adc2-41ab-adde-7a84cddc80f7" CreationDate="2016-07-11T19:39:09.647" UserId="17081" Text="Who sold and who purchased patent #4131769" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39516" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16096" RevisionGUID="3af18bc7-adc2-41ab-adde-7a84cddc80f7" CreationDate="2016-07-11T19:39:09.647" UserId="17081" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16097" RevisionGUID="1442fa82-4212-465d-95fe-9dd090a9c8bb" CreationDate="2016-07-12T06:34:22.830" UserId="11475" Text="You could only patent the changes as an improvement to the existing thing. And said changes would have to meet all the requirements for patentability in and of themselves. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16096" RevisionGUID="9ed1bcb5-f2c4-4f73-88e0-64930202168a" CreationDate="2016-07-12T14:04:40.313" UserId="11101" Comment="spelling, capitalization, and edited final line to make it conform as a SE question" Text="I am the inventor of patent 4131769. When I lost my home in 1990,my patent certificate was left behind. I didn't know my patent number until 2007, when I found my patent the Internet. I've been trying to find out what happened to my patent of a phone lock. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After describing my phone lock to a few people, I was told that their parent had a lock on their phone like the lock I described to them, thus I'd like to know who sold and who purchased patent #4131769." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39519" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16096" RevisionGUID="9ed1bcb5-f2c4-4f73-88e0-64930202168a" CreationDate="2016-07-12T14:04:40.313" Comment="Proposed by 11101 approved by 13706, 1 edit id of 1960" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39520" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="5151810d-bafa-495e-bb40-4e6ac119472f" CreationDate="2016-07-12T14:51:57.113" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16098" RevisionGUID="f22529c8-c380-4f5f-a09c-90fc3ea2a3f5" CreationDate="2016-07-12T17:41:28.777" UserId="17077" Text="It shows as original assignee Sylvia Davis on the patent site and no other assignees:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://assignment.uspto.gov/#/search?q=4131769&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's long expired as you know.  Hope this helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16099" RevisionGUID="c507bcd8-ae8c-4dd3-9c90-7313ddc3cf19" CreationDate="2016-07-12T17:44:56.120" UserId="17077" Text="You can't sell the patent but you could make and sell the product it describes.  This is the technology broadcast function of the US Patent and Trademark Office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16100" RevisionGUID="02c85948-d584-458a-a0db-5a1b0cb65d3e" CreationDate="2016-07-12T17:52:24.997" UserId="17077" Text="You may have to have Adobe Acrobat Pro to sign it.  Adobe Reader 11 and Adobe Reader DC will not allow edits.  The original form may have a mistake in it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16101" RevisionGUID="f2d9205a-dd25-4e4b-a4d3-6e91ec27a216" CreationDate="2016-07-12T18:16:14.277" UserId="17077" Text="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/scan-to-e-mail-patent-troll-loses-appeal-cant-avoid-state-court-case/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How about this one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16102" RevisionGUID="73999218-6a5f-482e-b310-f107fb59d9db" CreationDate="2016-07-12T18:20:57.283" UserId="17077" Text="FOIA requests can be made for anything but they may not grant your request if the application was never published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Try searching for the academics names if you know them in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/checking-application-status/check-filing-status-your-patent-application&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16103" RevisionGUID="0d86975e-46df-427a-b3c0-9fa0eb068ac9" CreationDate="2016-07-12T18:32:48.380" UserId="17087" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20150058243][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20150058243&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application is overly broad and would presume to cover long standing job search and matching capabilities used by large providers such as Monster.com; hired.com; indeed.com; and hotjobs.com.  The application should be denied because it would conflict with prior art technologies that were developed over 20 years ago and still in use by the general public and private industry.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application should be limited to only a proprietary search algorithm, such as military occupation translation or a specific search optimization algorithm.  Still, these algorithms should be narrowly defined, unique, and proprietary because similar algorithms have been in use for decades and commonly used by the general public." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39527" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16103" RevisionGUID="0d86975e-46df-427a-b3c0-9fa0eb068ac9" CreationDate="2016-07-12T18:32:48.380" UserId="17087" Text="Broad application applies to longstanding software capability" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39528" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16103" RevisionGUID="0d86975e-46df-427a-b3c0-9fa0eb068ac9" CreationDate="2016-07-12T18:32:48.380" UserId="17087" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16104" RevisionGUID="a4bb5909-d45e-4290-aaee-4a2084d3048b" CreationDate="2016-07-12T19:16:13.320" UserId="17077" Text="If you have specific prior art that you have researched I do believe you may contact the patent examiner. BTW this Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU 1-22-2016.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quote:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;This means the application has been reviewed by the legal instruments examiner and all the papers have been entered into the Image File Wrapper for the examination by an examiner in the General Art Unit . The next thing that happens is the examination by the examiner who will issue an Office Action to either issue or deny or return the patent application for further information.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others may be able to provide assistance on contacting the examiner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16105" RevisionGUID="3dc0bc16-87cb-4638-b693-9dc06e9ae326" CreationDate="2016-07-12T19:23:57.643" UserId="17077" Text="It is my understanding that once the patent is issued prior art can only be used in a court of law to invalidate an existing patent through due process of law." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16106" RevisionGUID="20098017-7664-4166-9ad9-84200cf75a6c" CreationDate="2016-07-12T19:54:55.033" UserId="17077" Text="Anybody can sue anybody for any reason but it doesn't mean they will win or it's not frivolous.  They can sue for the damages they previously had to pay for infringing an invalid patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16107" RevisionGUID="2235f24a-989c-4f88-8cbb-16401f3e6dd9" CreationDate="2016-07-12T19:59:43.863" UserId="17077" Text="Pay it no mind since this patent is lapsed.  You have freedom to practice any of its claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16108" RevisionGUID="51cdaa3d-b24b-4de4-bee2-5c9f57889a2d" CreationDate="2016-07-12T20:15:36.393" UserId="17077" Text="'software as a service' may not be patent-able but rather copyright protected. You have stumbled upon a gray area of the law when it comes to algorithms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately the many of the patented algorithms are old and therefore expired.  Any new patents referencing this prior art may be weak and not defensible although these big players do have deep pockets for litigation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You risk being sued if you use any of them commercially.  Academically you have the right to use them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c3027940-950f-49fd-a49e-8672fea1b667&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/07/22/a-strategy-for-protecting-software-claims-from-invalidation-under-the-algorithm-requirement/id=59586/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;hope this helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16109" RevisionGUID="3829c878-f813-44e1-bcae-79bd5de73327" CreationDate="2016-07-12T20:34:35.193" UserId="17077" Text="Recipes can be sold or licensed to others but you are correct if the recipe is no longer a trade secret they lose those benefits. Coke is an excellent example ... licensed all over the world. I once knew a kid whose dad was an exec. for Pepsi.  This kid broke into his dads safe and stole the recipe for Pepsi and ran away with a friend of mine.  If they had taken that recipe and posted it in the classified adds (no internet back then) before they were caught then Pepsi would have lost all its licensing royalties." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39535" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10796" RevisionGUID="92e43ae1-b269-4abc-a77a-8b7a8cdbb199" CreationDate="2016-07-12T20:52:05.740" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16110" RevisionGUID="4f268408-27d8-4da0-ac92-89485e61a83f" CreationDate="2016-07-12T21:05:44.997" UserId="17089" Text="I am aware of the presence of fabricated data in a patent application. Whom should I report? What are the consequences to the reporter and the applicant? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39537" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16110" RevisionGUID="4f268408-27d8-4da0-ac92-89485e61a83f" CreationDate="2016-07-12T21:05:44.997" UserId="17089" Text="fabricated data in the patent application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39538" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16110" RevisionGUID="4f268408-27d8-4da0-ac92-89485e61a83f" CreationDate="2016-07-12T21:05:44.997" UserId="17089" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="430efb85-4204-4e06-a0fc-8671e4acdf31" CreationDate="2016-07-13T02:01:26.000" UserId="17074" Text="I meant to produce a tool in China and that the product is for sale in a European Union. I learned that this tool patented and now I have a problem to realize my idea. A company that can make that tool has ISO9001 permission but I'm afraid to sell a tool that is patented in the United States because it is a patented product. The Chinese company would have produced a tool and if I drew attention to a patent but I am afraid that no problems occur if the product I sell. Pat is 75 years old and now the new owner of the patent and I'm not sure whether the term of the patent expired in view of that is that old. The new owner of the patent (which is little changed and the same number of the patent) is of entirely application 15 years ago. I'm a little confused when I saw that even in this patent, there are more companies with their logo? What does that mean, the same patent but different companies have logo. Please, if you take the time and write to me if you have something to do in these situations. Thank you in advance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39544" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="430efb85-4204-4e06-a0fc-8671e4acdf31" CreationDate="2016-07-13T02:01:26.000" UserId="17074" Text="making and selling protected patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39545" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="430efb85-4204-4e06-a0fc-8671e4acdf31" CreationDate="2016-07-13T02:01:26.000" UserId="17074" Text="&lt;tools&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16113" RevisionGUID="b52f4b99-c144-464c-87e6-3084c1fde965" CreationDate="2016-07-13T02:07:10.377" UserId="17093" Text="There's no such thing as a provisional PATENT, only a provisional patent application. It is never examined so the search/etc. fees aren't calculated and I don't think you even need to have claims, much less any restrictions on quantity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It works basically like a bookmark, indicating that you were in possession of whatever is described, as of the date filed. Typically, if you wish to actually secure a patent, you would file a utility application claiming priority to the provisional, during the 12-months before the provisional expires. If you don't the provisional application expires after 12 months, never having been published or examined (so basically still secret if you haven't otherwise disclosed it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(JUST MY THOUGHTS, NOT LEGAL ADVICE)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16114" RevisionGUID="0f498279-3bbb-47ee-b511-9f12a4293b1d" CreationDate="2016-07-13T04:40:05.423" UserId="17095" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8463238][1]&#xD;&#xA;I need some explanation with this patent&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8463238&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39549" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16114" RevisionGUID="0f498279-3bbb-47ee-b511-9f12a4293b1d" CreationDate="2016-07-13T04:40:05.423" UserId="17095" Text="Request for explanation in easy words" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39550" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16114" RevisionGUID="0f498279-3bbb-47ee-b511-9f12a4293b1d" CreationDate="2016-07-13T04:40:05.423" UserId="17095" Text="&lt;us8463238&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39551" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="0f20c966-c117-43a4-a399-e3b9a6c49836" CreationDate="2016-07-13T08:05:03.977" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16109" RevisionGUID="b2252b80-859f-4e06-a704-dd3f053bf69b" CreationDate="2016-07-13T13:09:33.273" UserId="17077" Comment="More complete answer." Text="Recipes can be sold or licensed to others but you are correct if the recipe is no longer a trade secret they lose those benefits. Coke is an excellent example ... licensed all over the world. I once knew a kid whose dad was an exec. for Pepsi.  This kid broke into his dads safe and stole the recipe for Pepsi and ran away with a friend of mine.  If they had taken that recipe and posted it in the classified adds (no internet back then) before they were caught then Pepsi would have lost all its licensing royalties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Does the person D who taught them the recipe have any rights, royalties ?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Direct answer would be not unless they had a licensing agreement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16115" RevisionGUID="6dd714a8-1cd6-4d51-9ac6-8ecaad6a3bac" CreationDate="2016-07-13T13:16:42.000" UserId="17077" Text="They claim that they can make a cellphone into an internet service provider of sorts for a number of chosen users.  In other words, several other users can get the internet through one mobile device without using their own plans.  I believe Apple has it now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16116" RevisionGUID="04a898ec-2ba1-476b-80fd-a8d7477f0848" CreationDate="2016-07-13T13:27:50.810" UserId="17077" Text="Technology can be licenced from expired patents but it is rare.  Usually in the form of trade secrets that have been held back from the patented material, eg: Source code of a patented algorithm.  It also simply may mean the these other brands have used the technology of an expired patent which is totally legal and even encouraged by the technology broadcast function of the world patent system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be careful that there is not new patents issued that would prevent your freedom to operate or practice the invention commercially.  Check the other brands to see if they have patents or pending patents.  They would surely place that info in there marketing material since patents are largely a marketing tool warning others &quot;beware I have a patent&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16117" RevisionGUID="7bd2891c-4c97-418b-892a-9b82df88072f" CreationDate="2016-07-13T13:46:56.250" UserId="17077" Text="In principle that is a form of fraud.  Not sure what country you are referring too but different jurisdictions have different procedures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what the US says:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2016.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16089" RevisionGUID="a1c0929e-2f91-4d8a-9e8c-a80241df988e" CreationDate="2016-07-13T14:30:58.920" UserId="17077" Comment="Clarified Question" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7798499][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Jurni ultimate sit on carry on suitcase][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7798499&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/jurni-the-ultimate-sit-on-carry-on-suitcase#/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears to be an infringement on this patent.  What will you do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39557" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16089" RevisionGUID="a1c0929e-2f91-4d8a-9e8c-a80241df988e" CreationDate="2016-07-13T14:30:58.920" Comment="Proposed by 17077 approved by 13706, 1 edit id of 1959" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39558" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10813" RevisionGUID="ca3099f6-a10c-4d1a-83a8-80319295fd97" CreationDate="2016-07-13T15:05:13.637" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16118" RevisionGUID="ebf0eafc-7c54-4b90-a169-ceb3f0d2fd47" CreationDate="2016-07-13T15:48:30.037" UserId="17077" Text="http://www.google.com/patents/US7840300&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I call this a &quot;Full Spectrum Lapidary 3D Image Scanner and Method&quot;, or a &quot;3D Solid Scanner&quot; for short. It uses polishing techniques vs. mechanical machining using cutting tools as other prior art cited.  The Crump group in particular has marketed a machine tool that creates solid 3D models using milling machines and layer imaging cameras.  Software is used to reassemble the photographed layers into 3D SOLID models.  I have cited prior art that precedes the Crump inventions as well.  How do I determine freedom to operate issues in regard to these facts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39560" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16118" RevisionGUID="ebf0eafc-7c54-4b90-a169-ceb3f0d2fd47" CreationDate="2016-07-13T15:48:30.037" UserId="17077" Text="Will I have freedom to operate considering prior art cited by examiner" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39561" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16118" RevisionGUID="ebf0eafc-7c54-4b90-a169-ceb3f0d2fd47" CreationDate="2016-07-13T15:48:30.037" UserId="17077" Text="&lt;freedom-to-operate&gt;&lt;3d&gt;&lt;scanning&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39562" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12753" RevisionGUID="32e3decc-75a0-432d-8f4c-12be9c1495a4" CreationDate="2016-07-13T16:05:13.647" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16119" RevisionGUID="95d30417-5c33-4833-b5de-1b27854d4817" CreationDate="2016-07-13T17:13:20.247" UserId="17098" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20130000482][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130000482&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I contact the patent holder, Joseph C. Kopchick?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chris&#xD;&#xA;bud.weiserstein@yahoo.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39564" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16119" RevisionGUID="95d30417-5c33-4833-b5de-1b27854d4817" CreationDate="2016-07-13T17:13:20.247" UserId="17098" Text="Contact info for patent holder" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39565" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16119" RevisionGUID="95d30417-5c33-4833-b5de-1b27854d4817" CreationDate="2016-07-13T17:13:20.247" UserId="17098" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16118" RevisionGUID="b6277f7a-4758-41fc-b725-fe5b03b9da07" CreationDate="2016-07-13T17:20:15.897" UserId="17077" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="http://www.google.com/patents/US7840300&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.behance.net/gallery/4027391/UF-Engineer-Develops-Full-Color-3D-Scanning-Microscope&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I call this a &quot;Full Spectrum Lapidary 3D Image Scanner and Method&quot;, or a &quot;3D Solid Scanner&quot; for short. It uses polishing techniques vs. mechanical machining using cutting tools as other prior art cited.  The Crump group in particular has marketed a machine tool that creates solid 3D models using milling machines and layer imaging cameras.  Software is used to reassemble the photographed layers into 3D SOLID models.  I have cited prior art that precedes the Crump inventions as well.  How do I determine freedom to operate issues in regard to these facts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16120" RevisionGUID="06cd6c66-67f7-4748-94a9-decd3ddb9f11" CreationDate="2016-07-13T18:22:50.557" UserId="13706" Text="Start by trying to get a referral to a patent attorney from someone you know such as someone who is an inventor, entrepreneur or startup. Alternatively, ask an attorney you know for a referral. Getting a personal reference helps get the attention of the patent attorney you are contacting and makes it more likely they will do a good job because of accountability to the person who referred them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, try a website such as AVVO.com or the attorney/agent search at the USPTO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, depending on where you live, consider working with a patent attorney that is not local. Since patents are federal law, patent attorneys can work with clients in any state (or event worldwide). For example, you might find a more qualified patent attorney candidate in a larger metropolitan market, or you might find more affordable options away from a larger metropolitan market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check out the following for links to the websites above and a helpful patent attorney screening form to help sort candidates. [http://www.patentsdemystified.com/chapter-8-picking-a-patent-attorney/][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, Chapter 8 of [Patents Demystified][2] discusses the process of finding and choosing the right patent attorney if you want more detail. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentsdemystified.com/chapter-8-picking-a-patent-attorney/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://amzn.to/1SnXsEf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16121" RevisionGUID="010b53be-887c-413b-89b5-d37f99bc7612" CreationDate="2016-07-13T18:32:51.893" UserId="17077" Text="He may be an employee of the assignee:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;GM Global Technology Operations LLC&#xD;&#xA;300 Renaissance Ctr.,&#xD;&#xA;Detroit, MI 48243,&#xD;&#xA;United States&#xD;&#xA;Phone: 1-313-665-3988&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16117" RevisionGUID="c71e66c8-fbc9-4ab2-88ea-da7e4dd5fa23" CreationDate="2016-07-13T18:43:02.977" UserId="17077" Comment="Added recomendation" Text="In principle that is a form of fraud.  Not sure what country you are referring to but different jurisdictions have different procedures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what the US says:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2016.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contacting the attorneys of record with PROOF of the fraud obligates them to submit these data to their respective patent offices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the USA you may find the attorneys of record at the PAIR public site using the application number or a variety of other document numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/checking-application-status/check-filing-status-your-patent-application&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16121" RevisionGUID="387cb91c-f6d7-4c35-b715-097a65ad5c31" CreationDate="2016-07-13T18:57:10.420" UserId="17077" Comment="Added PAIR reference" Text="He may be an employee of the assignee:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;GM Global Technology Operations LLC&#xD;&#xA;300 Renaissance Ctr.,&#xD;&#xA;Detroit, MI 48243,&#xD;&#xA;United States&#xD;&#xA;Phone: 1-313-665-3988&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use the public PAIR at the USPTO to contact the attorney/agent of record to see if they can contact the inventor for you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/checking-application-status/check-filing-status-your-patent-application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;VIVACQUA LAW, PLLC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3101 East Eisenhower Parkway&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suite 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ANN ARBOR MI 48108&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are at least a dozen attorneys listed on the application with phone numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16121" RevisionGUID="98c0694a-f994-41d7-bc67-45548a726afd" CreationDate="2016-07-13T19:07:43.973" UserId="17077" Comment="added shorter link to PAIR" Text="He may be an employee of the assignee:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;GM Global Technology Operations LLC&#xD;&#xA;300 Renaissance Ctr.,&#xD;&#xA;Detroit, MI 48243,&#xD;&#xA;United States&#xD;&#xA;Phone: 1-313-665-3988&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use the public PAIR at the USPTO to contact the attorney/agent of record to see if they can contact the inventor for you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;VIVACQUA LAW, PLLC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3101 East Eisenhower Parkway&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suite 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ANN ARBOR MI 48108&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are at least a dozen attorneys listed on the application with phone numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16123" RevisionGUID="72ad4ab6-ceb1-4750-8a1d-a2729c51acf8" CreationDate="2016-07-13T19:45:17.390" UserId="17077" Text="Most large research universities have offices of technology and licensing and and intellectual rights policies.  You likely are on the hook if in any way it was developed in their labs or used their resources to produce your invention.  Then you are likely required by these policies to disclose your invention to the university and they have a duty to either waive their interest, exert their interest or classify the invention as premature. You really need to consult with your universities patent office for the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many universities have very liberal policies with a lot of benefits from royalties to spin-off company formation for the inventors. On the plus side they take on the risks and costs of prosecuting a defensible patent.  You then may be entitled to royalties from licensing deals that they enter into on behalf of you, your professor and the university for your invention.  Other universities are more strict holding back all proceeds giving you only your name on the patent and holding back all royalties and equity in spun-off entities.    The % royalties available are entirely up to the institution but if you developed the invention in their labs they have certain definite rights to the invention unless you entered into previous agreement where they waived interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are a graduate student you likely signed and agreed to the IP policy ... so look it up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16123" RevisionGUID="42e502cb-ae35-4ba8-83de-ba82cd73b7a5" CreationDate="2016-07-13T20:05:18.950" UserId="17077" Comment="fixed grammar error" Text="Most large research universities have offices of technology and licensing and and intellectual rights policies.  You likely are on the hook if in any way it was developed in their labs or used their resources to produce your invention.  Then you are likely required by these policies to disclose your invention to the university and they have a duty to either waive their interest, exert their interest or classify the invention as premature. You really need to consult with your universities patent office for the policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many universities have very liberal policies with a lot of benefits from royalties to spin-off company formation for the inventors. On the plus side they take on the risks and costs of prosecuting a defensible patent.  You then may be entitled to royalties from licensing deals that they enter into on behalf of you, your professor and the university for your invention.  Other universities are more strict holding back all proceeds giving you only your name on the patent and holding back all royalties and equity in spun-off entities.    The % royalties available are entirely up to the institution but if you developed the invention in their labs they have certain definite rights to the invention unless you entered into a previous agreement where they waived interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are a graduate student you likely signed and agreed to the IP policy ... so look it up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16124" RevisionGUID="8ed8fe6e-4df5-4885-9696-d4208688c5d7" CreationDate="2016-07-13T20:32:15.747" UserId="17100" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5829213][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5829213&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How long is this patent in the U.S. and how do you know if it is still valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39578" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16124" RevisionGUID="8ed8fe6e-4df5-4885-9696-d4208688c5d7" CreationDate="2016-07-13T20:32:15.747" UserId="17100" Text="question about patent expiration" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39579" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16124" RevisionGUID="8ed8fe6e-4df5-4885-9696-d4208688c5d7" CreationDate="2016-07-13T20:32:15.747" UserId="17100" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16075" RevisionGUID="5e56c7c4-e5bf-40ff-9d40-7b6d47b717ae" CreationDate="2016-07-13T20:41:15.600" UserId="13706" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text=" - I qualify as a micro entity filing as an individual with smaller means of income&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The total would be $65 (assuming micro entity)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16125" RevisionGUID="d9faf427-2773-4c08-8c3f-2dc025ee6344" CreationDate="2016-07-13T20:46:02.403" UserId="13706" Text="The fees you are quoting in the question are for a NON-PROVISIONAL patent application. As people discussed, the micro entity fees for a provisional would be $65.00.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, provisional patent applications are *not* required to have claims, nor is there any cost for including claims in a provisional application. You could have none, 20 or 100 claims in a provisional and it would be the same cost. (However, NON-PROVISIONAL patent applications can have up to 20 total claims and 3 independent claims without paying extra fees)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16126" RevisionGUID="40c188ac-93bd-49b0-8f13-8ef736ece5a6" CreationDate="2016-07-13T22:02:10.437" UserId="17077" Text="This patent has a 20 year lifetime from the date it was filed 5-22-1995 it was granted 11-3-1998 so it is enforceable till 5-22-2015.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;look it up here by patent number:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and learn about how long patents last here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/07/26/how-long-does-a-patent-last/id=50534/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the above reference:    &quot;All utility and plant patents that were in force on June 8, 1995, or that issued on an application that was filed before June 8, 1995, have a term that is the greater of the “twenty-year term” or seventeen years from the patent grant.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this was helpful please select it as an answer and or up-vote the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Always seek a professional opinion on these matters." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16126" RevisionGUID="199acf06-d948-4f6d-9435-63df0d9d42e8" CreationDate="2016-07-13T22:08:37.640" UserId="17077" Comment="grammar and math" Text="This patent has a 20 year lifetime from the date it was patented 11-3-1998 so it is enforceable till 11-3-2018.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;look it up here by patent number:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and learn about how long patents last here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/07/26/how-long-does-a-patent-last/id=50534/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the above reference:    &quot;All utility and plant patents that were in force on June 8, 1995, or that issued on an application that was filed before June 8, 1995, have a term that is the greater of the “twenty-year term” or seventeen years from the patent grant.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this was helpful please select it as an answer and or up-vote the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Always seek a professional opinion on these matters." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16126" RevisionGUID="5e26336f-d330-43ee-a815-86fb0daf2da4" CreationDate="2016-07-13T22:17:15.047" UserId="17077" Comment="grammar and math tricky." Text="This is a tricky question since the patent laws changed that year&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;look it up here by patent number:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and learn about how long patents last here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/07/26/how-long-does-a-patent-last/id=50534/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the above reference:    &quot;All utility and plant patents that were in force on June 8, 1995, or that issued on an application that was filed before June 8, 1995, have a term that is the greater of the “twenty-year term” or seventeen years from the patent grant.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe both numbers expire the patent.  5-1-2015 or 11-3-2015&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this was helpful please select it as an answer and or up-vote the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Always seek a professional opinion on these matters." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16127" RevisionGUID="816d1822-e836-46d5-855b-3860a3f00bca" CreationDate="2016-07-13T23:09:30.533" UserId="17077" Text="It sounds to me to be an obvious difference between your invention and the prior art and I am of ordinary skill in the arts of programming and encryption:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the examiners guidelines in regard to obviousness:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2141.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quote from this reference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent would not be issued and even if it was not considered obvious by an examiner you would have freedom to operate problems from the previous cited patent.  You would likely have to license the previous patent to practice your hypothetical patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16127" RevisionGUID="a348d51b-4f58-4372-a524-2eb99637a494" CreationDate="2016-07-13T23:20:40.397" UserId="17077" Comment="moot question after reading the patent." Text="It sounds to me to be an obvious difference between your invention and the prior art. I am of ordinary skill in the arts of programming and encryption and ASCII vs. Hexadecimal is an obvious difference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the examiners guidelines in regard to obviousness:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2141.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quote from this reference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent would not be issued and even if it was not considered obvious by an examiner you would have freedom to operate problems from the previous cited patent.  You would likely have to license the previous patent to practice your hypothetical patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However your listed patent only mentions encryption as one of the dozens of non-patent references.  So it seems to be a moot question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16128" RevisionGUID="37f6c67d-1e29-4573-a19b-b3aa14160897" CreationDate="2016-07-14T01:22:40.430" UserId="14403" Text="@Rosa; (i) let me remind you of the great saying: &quot;Nothing personal, it's business&quot; - in this respect I suggest take a proper license or assignment from the patent owner. &#xD;&#xA;(ii) More important it is the responsibility of the patent owner to catch the thieves and place them before the authorities - if you have no legal standing vis-a-vis the said patent you can not approach the authorities by yourself. Remember your money and business will be at stake. What I mean to say is 'his' patent will be protected but your business may not be." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39588" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15983" RevisionGUID="c1255fba-d3a4-4e6c-aab1-c57ba2dbde1b" CreationDate="2016-07-14T02:09:15.040" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39589" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15991" RevisionGUID="3a4422bc-38bf-4447-8b0a-58601200500c" CreationDate="2016-07-14T03:10:08.307" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16104" RevisionGUID="8b23f4bf-9214-48a1-80b5-33bc2ecd4065" CreationDate="2016-07-14T11:48:41.610" UserId="17077" Comment="Added PAIR reference and attorney/agent of record" Text="If you have specific prior art that you have researched I do believe you may contact the attorney/agent of record. BTW this Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU 1-22-2016.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quote:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;This means the application has been reviewed by the legal instruments examiner and all the papers have been entered into the Image File Wrapper for the examination by an examiner in the General Art Unit . The next thing that happens is the examination by the examiner who will issue an Office Action to either issue or deny or return the patent application for further information.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contact the attorney/agent of record which are listed on the Public PAIR site with phone numbers.  They have the duty to inform the patent office of new art that comes to light:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;JAMES C. WRAY,&#xD;&#xA;1497 CHAIN BRIDGE ROAD,&#xD;&#xA;SUITE 204,&#xD;&#xA;MCLEAN VA 22101&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;703-442-4800&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39596" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="16119" RevisionGUID="f73914aa-37f3-4bb4-ba11-358e3ebe4cf2" CreationDate="2016-07-14T13:24:16.363" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5059],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="39598" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="1e96c695-00c3-41fa-8464-66647e8a460d" CreationDate="2016-07-14T14:16:17.457" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16131" RevisionGUID="bf2db68c-e06c-4982-91e0-79e25f22ba77" CreationDate="2016-07-14T14:18:22.537" UserId="17106" Text="Any information, prior to 2011, which may invalidate this design patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;D 641 464; Title: Air Freshener Dispenser Lid &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to Air Freshener lids, possibly jar lids, wheel stencils, shower heads, or anything having the pattern of holes of this design patent may help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Potentially copyrighted designs, prior to 2011, may also help invalidate.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39600" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16131" RevisionGUID="bf2db68c-e06c-4982-91e0-79e25f22ba77" CreationDate="2016-07-14T14:18:22.537" UserId="17106" Text="Air Freshener Dispenser Lid; D 641, 464" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39601" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16131" RevisionGUID="bf2db68c-e06c-4982-91e0-79e25f22ba77" CreationDate="2016-07-14T14:18:22.537" UserId="17106" Text="&lt;invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39606" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13614" RevisionGUID="f75ceef1-69e7-45de-be18-258061e68a65" CreationDate="2016-07-14T20:18:51.410" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="060999e5-205e-4d59-abd2-49b1e2b358e6" CreationDate="2016-07-14T20:57:57.207" UserId="17108" Text="There's a patent that's been granted and now owned by LinkedIn, that appears to cover any and all permutations of a computer automatically validating something. Patents US20130158984A1, US20130151240A1, US20130198196A1, granted to Lucas Meyer, covers the computer process of: Monitoring information &gt; Processing information &gt; Fact Checking the Information &gt; Indicating the Status of Information. They go on for 50 some pages each, essentially laying claim to any and all permutations of a computer automatically validating information. Is this allowed? I'm a small time coder/inventor/politics junkie that wants to make a very targeted fact checking app for political races. I thought patents were supposed to have specificity. From what I can tell, this patent prevents me, or anyone except LinkedIn, from using computers to check information automatically. Which seems crazy. Can you help me understand if I'm missing something here? Or if there's something that renders this patent challengeable. This isn't my strongest area of competency. I defer to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39608" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="060999e5-205e-4d59-abd2-49b1e2b358e6" CreationDate="2016-07-14T20:57:57.207" UserId="17108" Text="Are these patents unreasonably broad? US20130158984A1, US20130151240A1, US20130198196A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39609" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="060999e5-205e-4d59-abd2-49b1e2b358e6" CreationDate="2016-07-14T20:57:57.207" UserId="17108" Text="&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;validity&gt;&lt;broad&gt;&lt;broad-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16134" RevisionGUID="e94932e3-421c-4f7b-bb5d-b0e459eb465f" CreationDate="2016-07-15T01:00:31.417" UserId="17109" Text="An associate of mine and I jointly filed a patent, through my current employer. I was required to sign an assignment agreement when I started as a condition of employment.  My friend worked for the same employer at the time of the filing but has since left the company. My associate never signed an assignment agreement as a condition of employment.  My company recently sent my associate a document that, if signed, assigned patent ownership to my company, with no offer for compensation. My associate contends that the company never made an assignment agreement a requirement for his employment and therefore he is a co-owner of the IP in question. When my associate refused to assign ownership, my company submitted a document to the patent office that falsely claimed that my associate was not reachable. The patent attorney used by my company, our HR department and I have routinely exchanged correspondence with my associate. I believe that my company may have committed perjury in an attempt to effectively steal valuable IP that may be jointly owned by both my company and my associate. Am I correct and if I am, what advice do you have for my associate?     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39612" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16134" RevisionGUID="e94932e3-421c-4f7b-bb5d-b0e459eb465f" CreationDate="2016-07-15T01:00:31.417" UserId="17109" Text="Is submitting a document falsely claiming that an inventor is not reachable illegal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39613" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16134" RevisionGUID="e94932e3-421c-4f7b-bb5d-b0e459eb465f" CreationDate="2016-07-15T01:00:31.417" UserId="17109" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;employee&gt;&lt;perjury&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16135" RevisionGUID="a7c250bf-60a3-4f14-8ae4-d8f5d727880c" CreationDate="2016-07-15T02:00:18.577" UserId="17110" Text="Can anyone please advise if there are any limitations/process for using a patent in Canada that are registered ONLY in the US? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any liability issues?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you kindly, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jim&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39615" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16135" RevisionGUID="a7c250bf-60a3-4f14-8ae4-d8f5d727880c" CreationDate="2016-07-15T02:00:18.577" UserId="17110" Text="Patent Question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39616" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16135" RevisionGUID="a7c250bf-60a3-4f14-8ae4-d8f5d727880c" CreationDate="2016-07-15T02:00:18.577" UserId="17110" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;us&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39617" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16135" RevisionGUID="3efa7b52-c73b-4b8f-85a4-eac997bf978a" CreationDate="2016-07-15T05:30:48.727" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 32 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Are there any limitations or processes for using a patent in Canada that is registered *only* in the US? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any liability issues? Would I be infringing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39618" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16135" RevisionGUID="3efa7b52-c73b-4b8f-85a4-eac997bf978a" CreationDate="2016-07-15T05:30:48.727" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 32 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Using a US-patented invention in Canada" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39619" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16135" RevisionGUID="3efa7b52-c73b-4b8f-85a4-eac997bf978a" CreationDate="2016-07-15T05:30:48.727" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 32 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;canada&gt;&lt;united-states&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="1331f053-30c5-4df7-8621-d72bb0d25503" CreationDate="2016-07-15T09:20:24.403" UserId="17112" Text="Application US20140276230&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Poroelastic dynamic mechanical analyzer for determining mechanical properties of biological materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word　of this patent is grabled and the PDF cannot be download from Google Patent.&#xD;&#xA;Hope for a solution.&#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39621" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="1331f053-30c5-4df7-8621-d72bb0d25503" CreationDate="2016-07-15T09:20:24.403" UserId="17112" Text="Application US20140276230: The word in google patent is grabled and PDF cannot be download" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39622" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="1331f053-30c5-4df7-8621-d72bb0d25503" CreationDate="2016-07-15T09:20:24.403" UserId="17112" Text="&lt;us20140276230&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39626" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12909" RevisionGUID="c67fed7e-5d48-4eed-b222-34f052b5cc76" CreationDate="2016-07-15T09:20:53.467" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16140" RevisionGUID="d36b6339-c7d2-4ade-a661-e8c850378e81" CreationDate="2016-07-15T18:17:14.573" UserId="17077" Text="A certified letter to both the company and their patent attorney/agents explaining these circumstances should put them on notice that your colleague is indeed reachable and intends to exert his interest in the particular invention. Lawyers have a duty to report matters of fact to the USPTO that affect the case and if they have filed that he is unreachable and know otherwise ... that is misconduct. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16141" RevisionGUID="4193d96f-6f3a-470a-9f77-22d94e0054a7" CreationDate="2016-07-15T18:30:25.993" UserId="17077" Text="Use the public PAIR at USPTO:   http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prove you are human with the CAPCHA and enter 20140276230 in the publication number slot ... look at the published documents ... it's all there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16118" RevisionGUID="191e58ac-6a7f-4d55-b2e6-f0a6e7705b59" CreationDate="2016-07-15T21:22:34.503" UserId="17077" Comment="formatting, grammar, prior art request" Text="http://www.google.com/patents/US7840300&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.behance.net/gallery/4027391/UF-Engineer-Develops-Full-Color-3D-Scanning-Microscope&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I call this a &quot;Full Spectrum Lapidary 3D Image Scanner and Method&quot;, or a &quot;3D Solid Scanner&quot; for short. It uses polishing techniques vs. mechanical machining using cutting tools as other prior art cited.  The Crump group in particular has marketed a machine tool that creates solid 3D models using milling machines and layer imaging cameras.  Software is used to reassemble the photographed layers into 3D SOLID models.  I have cited prior art that precedes the Crump inventions as well.  How do I determine freedom to operate issues in regard to these facts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know of any other prior art such as the Visible Human Projects?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/visible/visible_human.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39637" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16118" RevisionGUID="191e58ac-6a7f-4d55-b2e6-f0a6e7705b59" CreationDate="2016-07-15T21:22:34.503" UserId="17077" Comment="formatting, grammar, prior art request" Text="Will I have freedom to operate considering prior art cited by examiner?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39638" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16118" RevisionGUID="191e58ac-6a7f-4d55-b2e6-f0a6e7705b59" CreationDate="2016-07-15T21:22:34.503" UserId="17077" Comment="formatting, grammar, prior art request" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;freedom-to-operate&gt;&lt;3d&gt;&lt;scanning&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16071" RevisionGUID="add3757f-909a-47e3-8e53-c25574c86a62" CreationDate="2016-07-16T01:33:52.500" UserId="13706" Comment="added 12 characters in body; edited title" Text="Legal-speak is convoluted with words that have no conventional meaning and long-winded detail. I am unsure how much my provisional patent application will cost me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Click here][1] and ead the table at the bottom of the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Filing (provisional) as a small entity: 130.00 &#xD;&#xA; - More than 3 claims in&#xD;&#xA;   my provisional patent: 210.00&#xD;&#xA; - Having a multiple dependent claim: 390.00 (each?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm already looking at a total of 730.00 USD&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct? (I hope not!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39648" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16071" RevisionGUID="add3757f-909a-47e3-8e53-c25574c86a62" CreationDate="2016-07-16T01:33:52.500" UserId="13706" Comment="added 12 characters in body; edited title" Text="Am I reading this right? -- the cost for a provisional patent application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39651" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14092" RevisionGUID="e0cde4db-b8ae-4b94-9112-35929b698672" CreationDate="2016-07-16T05:25:05.820" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39656" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12495" RevisionGUID="a26480e7-79fc-4145-b600-409aad0180ac" CreationDate="2016-07-16T15:30:50.870" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16140" RevisionGUID="02a5378c-dafa-49db-92e0-44f44ca227da" CreationDate="2016-07-16T16:27:00.450" UserId="17077" Comment="Added PAIR reference" Text="A certified letter to both the company and their patent attorney/agents explaining these circumstances should put them on notice that your colleague is indeed reachable and intends to exert his interest in the particular invention. Lawyers have a duty to report matters of fact to the USPTO that affect the case and if they have filed that he is unreachable and know otherwise ... that is misconduct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Find the attorney/agent of record using Public PAIR:&#xD;&#xA;http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;prove you are human using CAPTCHA to login then find the case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the application number, control number, patent number, PTC number, publication number or international design registration number.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16145" RevisionGUID="d2333e8a-9448-42e1-ab7f-0b1ed61a7992" CreationDate="2016-07-16T16:38:25.670" UserId="17077" Text="Design patents are more powerful than they used to be in light of recent rulings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/03/01/design-patent-infringement-how-to-decide-if-you-should-sue/id=48304/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do some more research and you will see also.  It used to be said that a 10% difference is enough to get around a design patent ... I don't think so anymore." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16141" RevisionGUID="43caeed0-19b2-4188-b523-edc458f5bbb4" CreationDate="2016-07-16T16:40:56.247" UserId="17077" Comment="spelling" Text="Use the public PAIR at USPTO:   http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prove you are human with the CAPTCHA and enter 20140276230 in the publication number slot ... look at the published documents ... it's all there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16146" RevisionGUID="358c637e-bd45-402b-8945-9f7087e5eeed" CreationDate="2016-07-16T17:37:51.980" UserId="17077" Text="It is quite a comprehensive patent that if practiced surely depends on teachings of prior art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US9087048?dq=9,087,048&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiz6I2GwvjNAhUJ5WMKHQd2B2UQ6AEIHDAA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest you reword your question and add the tag &quot;prior art request&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16146" RevisionGUID="a921a1f2-e42d-4a23-9889-7ff8d6e1e33a" CreationDate="2016-07-16T17:50:02.790" UserId="17077" Comment="added prior art." Text="It is quite a comprehensive patent that if practiced surely depends on teachings of prior art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US9087048?dq=9,087,048&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiz6I2GwvjNAhUJ5WMKHQd2B2UQ6AEIHDAA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest you reword your question and add the tag &quot;prior art request&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;such as this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gary_Marchionini/publication/228057967_Information_Seeking_in_Electronic_Environments/links/55e4317508ae6abe6e8e9763.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39662" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11980" RevisionGUID="3812babd-a0f0-4b60-9822-2765289562f2" CreationDate="2016-07-16T18:32:52.190" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16116" RevisionGUID="dda340cd-0826-432d-ab45-6f3759939836" CreationDate="2016-07-16T18:38:48.050" UserId="17077" Comment="added wipo article link." Text="Technology can be licenced from expired patents but it is rare.  Usually in the form of trade secrets that have been held back from the patented material, eg: Source code of a patented algorithm.  It also simply may mean the these other brands have used the technology of an expired patent which is totally legal and even encouraged by the technology broadcast function of the world patent system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/dgo/speeches/dg_who_wipo_wto_med_11.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be careful that there is not new patents issued that would prevent your freedom to operate or practice the invention commercially.  Check the other brands to see if they have patents or pending patents.  They would surely place that info in there marketing material since patents are largely a marketing tool warning others &quot;beware I have a patent&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39664" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13198" RevisionGUID="de079c87-a9d1-4e69-95cd-cb7988f47e7c" CreationDate="2016-07-16T22:33:22.420" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39665" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11968" RevisionGUID="653be73d-bdf0-4375-9090-98a2f30dd10f" CreationDate="2016-07-17T00:33:22.453" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39666" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12505" RevisionGUID="b18e216b-8679-48ba-9b54-ca976b464cf7" CreationDate="2016-07-17T07:35:44.467" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39667" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10532" RevisionGUID="66f7c47a-cd73-499a-a245-0b85242813cc" CreationDate="2016-07-17T08:42:35.853" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39668" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13966" RevisionGUID="7492987f-4186-4937-86a7-cb1769731760" CreationDate="2016-07-17T15:51:47.077" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39669" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13920" RevisionGUID="1f40dcc2-04c7-4290-87e7-41314717bbf1" CreationDate="2016-07-17T19:52:54.067" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16147" RevisionGUID="350d4133-4129-4254-ae42-15249b52fc7c" CreationDate="2016-07-17T20:41:29.007" UserId="13706" Text="You can use Public Pair to review the *available* file history of any published application or issued, but because this was in the 1960 only basic information will be available. However, for a small fee, the USPTO can send you a copy of the full file history, which will likely have the information you are looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have an application number (format NN/NNN,NNN) publication number (format YEAR/NNNNNNN) or issued patent number (format N,NNN,NNN) then you can look it up by searching by inventor name, assignee/owner name among other fields. The USPTO and Google Patents have good searches for this. [Links available here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentsdemystified.com/patent-guide-resources/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39671" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="9950fc10-64fa-4076-a935-3e1bd1957678" CreationDate="2016-07-17T20:45:28.337" UserId="13706" Comment="edited title" Text="Application US20140276230: The word in google patent is garbled and PDF cannot be download" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16148" RevisionGUID="998655d2-a3f5-41b2-85b2-288afa34e0a8" CreationDate="2016-07-17T21:07:03.500" UserId="17125" Text="Very strange but I have researched this all over the web and so far have found no answer to this question. I even asked the law firm that is writing my patent application and they have hedged on the answer for weeks now! I know the answer is out there somewhere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39673" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16148" RevisionGUID="998655d2-a3f5-41b2-85b2-288afa34e0a8" CreationDate="2016-07-17T21:07:03.500" UserId="17125" Text="What is a method, what is a system, and what are the differences?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39674" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16148" RevisionGUID="998655d2-a3f5-41b2-85b2-288afa34e0a8" CreationDate="2016-07-17T21:07:03.500" UserId="17125" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;method&gt;&lt;system&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16149" RevisionGUID="8dc3a2c9-c88c-47a3-87b9-f4eeaeda4d88" CreationDate="2016-07-18T03:40:17.220" UserId="17126" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO1998038266A1][1], is this process patented in all the countries, around the world? Or just in China and USA? I'm planning of using this in India. Do I have right to use this? Will my usage be legal? Please respond. I'm in a dilemma, whether to use this or not. &#xD;&#xA;Thankyou. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO1998038266A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39678" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16149" RevisionGUID="8dc3a2c9-c88c-47a3-87b9-f4eeaeda4d88" CreationDate="2016-07-18T03:40:17.220" UserId="17126" Text="Regarding the usage of this process in my industry" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39679" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16149" RevisionGUID="8dc3a2c9-c88c-47a3-87b9-f4eeaeda4d88" CreationDate="2016-07-18T03:40:17.220" UserId="17126" Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16081" RevisionGUID="227e45bc-a42c-4932-a81f-638b09695a09" CreationDate="2016-07-18T06:39:32.063" UserId="16977" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="After a patent expires due to lifetime limit or lack of payment of maintenance fees, the patent then enters the public-domain and becomes prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39681" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16081" RevisionGUID="227e45bc-a42c-4932-a81f-638b09695a09" CreationDate="2016-07-18T06:39:32.063" Comment="Proposed by 16977 approved by -1 edit id of 1955" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16081" RevisionGUID="50223adf-a88a-428b-94ed-c546a4512609" CreationDate="2016-07-18T06:39:32.063" UserId="10011" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="For questions about the public domain, as it relates to patents. After a patent expires due to lifetime limit or lack of payment of maintenance fees, it enters the public domain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16089" RevisionGUID="390665f4-856d-4bdd-8d35-450f7c9d61f8" CreationDate="2016-07-18T06:40:52.067" UserId="17077" Comment="Trying to format my question correctly." Text="In reference to the patent: [US7798499][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Jurni ultimate sit on carry on suitcase][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7798499&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/jurni-the-ultimate-sit-on-carry-on-suitcase#/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which invention infringes the other?  In other words is the Jurni developed in CA 2000 unreferenced prior art to US7798499 or the other way around?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39684" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16089" RevisionGUID="390665f4-856d-4bdd-8d35-450f7c9d61f8" CreationDate="2016-07-18T06:40:52.067" UserId="17077" Comment="Trying to format my question correctly." Text="This patent seems to be prior art to a patent listed in this Indegogo project?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39685" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16089" RevisionGUID="390665f4-856d-4bdd-8d35-450f7c9d61f8" CreationDate="2016-07-18T06:40:52.067" Comment="Proposed by 17077 approved by 13706, 10011 edit id of 1961" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39686" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="16089" RevisionGUID="7067be4e-ceba-454b-8759-d0a1e539127b" CreationDate="2016-07-18T06:43:06.937" UserId="10011" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="39687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16128" RevisionGUID="cd11fb25-aae7-4d19-9a2e-d80b50cffb03" CreationDate="2016-07-18T06:48:57.920" UserId="10011" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="First, let me remind you of the great saying: &quot;Nothing personal, it's business&quot; - in this respect I suggest take a proper license or assignment from the patent owner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, and more importantly, it is the responsibility of the patent owner to catch the thieves and place them before the authorities - if you have no legal standing vis-a-vis the said patent you can not approach the authorities by yourself. Remember your money and business will be at stake. What I mean to say is 'his' patent will be protected but your business may not be." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16127" RevisionGUID="e184c1b6-9bcb-4c20-a9e1-433d942ce063" CreationDate="2016-07-18T06:52:42.593" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="It sounds to me to be an obvious difference between your invention and the prior art. I am of ordinary skill in the arts of programming and encryption and ASCII vs. Hexadecimal is an obvious difference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the examiners guidelines in regard to obviousness:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2141.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quote from this reference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent would not be issued and even if it was not considered obvious by an examiner you would have freedom to operate problems from the previous cited patent.  You would likely have to license the previous patent to practice your hypothetical patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However your listed patent only mentions encryption as one of the dozens of non-patent references.  So it seems to be a moot question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16114" RevisionGUID="8aa9cd6e-20bc-4704-ba92-ab6f29bb5052" CreationDate="2016-07-18T06:55:53.547" UserId="10011" Comment="added 64 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8463238][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this patent claim? Could someone please explain the scope of this patent in plain English?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8463238&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39690" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16114" RevisionGUID="8aa9cd6e-20bc-4704-ba92-ab6f29bb5052" CreationDate="2016-07-18T06:55:53.547" UserId="10011" Comment="added 64 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;us8463238&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39694" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12423" RevisionGUID="cf6fbdcd-69a1-4622-959c-52a8fe49fbda" CreationDate="2016-07-18T07:57:02.813" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39695" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14893" RevisionGUID="b543327c-2a23-44c3-aef8-7dae38044678" CreationDate="2016-07-18T12:00:34.633" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39696" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14892" RevisionGUID="7a177766-91d9-473e-b7ba-82bc6e01cd87" CreationDate="2016-07-18T13:00:41.483" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39704" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13956" RevisionGUID="936ad4a0-c8fd-480a-bf8f-5b34be59f75a" CreationDate="2016-07-18T17:03:30.340" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39705" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13901" RevisionGUID="8a6cada6-6c82-49cb-8d1c-34e8a1dac5ee" CreationDate="2016-07-18T20:07:38.720" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39706" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13820" RevisionGUID="32af6a17-bc77-40c7-a58b-504eee5e6610" CreationDate="2016-07-19T01:07:55.223" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16152" RevisionGUID="a24936b1-ff03-42f3-b0e5-e261a9c913d6" CreationDate="2016-07-19T04:27:28.653" UserId="13706" Text="Yes, you can assign a patent application to a third party at any time (i.e., before filing, after filing or after it issues as a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, keep in mind that the true inventors must still be named at these will not change based on the assignee. The assignee can also be named as &quot;applicant&quot; of for a pending application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16153" RevisionGUID="e844f428-e753-441f-aef5-7dcc998f82db" CreationDate="2016-07-19T07:48:41.513" UserId="15760" Text="The KEYWORD is &quot;HotSpot&quot; regardless of is you use Bluetooth or any other way to connect the wireless hotspot being offered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20040212105815/http://sunnygrenada.com/index.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not filed as patent but prior art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Samsung is a patent troll playing dumb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16154" RevisionGUID="0de211d0-7651-467a-b795-bc6a9965491c" CreationDate="2016-07-19T07:55:43.030" UserId="15760" Text="Here is your prior art. The locations of HotSpots (Clickable hypermedia link) on your Picture HotSpot is the individual images of the collarge" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39711" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14235" RevisionGUID="103dc098-3d1d-47d3-ad9f-2fa7037df484" CreationDate="2016-07-19T11:24:25.010" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39712" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12929" RevisionGUID="438bbe42-e7d8-4c9b-be0a-011dce9fea3a" CreationDate="2016-07-19T14:24:24.643" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16155" RevisionGUID="8e0c4dd7-9997-4532-beaa-dcf0c205b5e8" CreationDate="2016-07-19T17:53:21.870" UserId="17133" Text="A method is a &quot;process,&quot; and a system may be either a &quot;manufacture&quot; or a &quot;machine&quot; under 35 USC 101.  The cases addressing the differences and the legal effect of these differences can be found dating back to the 1800's.  There are some significant differences in how claims to methods and so-called &quot;systems&quot; can be enforced and what types of activities they can be used to preclude. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39718" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13585" RevisionGUID="a07e72d1-f0a2-4283-9b66-94954a10d269" CreationDate="2016-07-20T00:26:12.897" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39722" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12868" RevisionGUID="6de13144-ac96-4f74-9aa2-6d8cf1318cf7" CreationDate="2016-07-20T01:26:12.740" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16158" RevisionGUID="3e743d2c-259e-4348-8ed0-5f1af4a8609c" CreationDate="2016-07-20T01:26:22.077" UserId="17136" Text="You can see the complete patent case file from the U.S. Patent Office at the National Archives at Kansas City.  These files normally contain the applicant's oath, original specifications, and communication between the patentee or patentee's attorney and the patent office. The link should take you to the National Archives online catalog page for Patent Case Files with a link part way down the page to email to contact an archivist about these files. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://catalog.archives.gov/id/302050" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16160" RevisionGUID="0ee46db0-74bb-48d7-b178-b39f4142a74f" CreationDate="2016-07-20T03:11:54.520" UserId="17083" Text="I am new to the patenting world, and I am a little confused about how to go about applying for a provisional patent. How in depth do I need to be about my idea? Do I need supplemental drawings, and if so, how detailed, and how many? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, I just need an idea of how to start. What are some things to get me on the right path?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39728" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16160" RevisionGUID="0ee46db0-74bb-48d7-b178-b39f4142a74f" CreationDate="2016-07-20T03:11:54.520" UserId="17083" Text="What are all the things you need for a provisional patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39729" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16160" RevisionGUID="0ee46db0-74bb-48d7-b178-b39f4142a74f" CreationDate="2016-07-20T03:11:54.520" UserId="17083" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;new&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16161" RevisionGUID="ba80d774-25ec-459c-89c2-2ee576641f4f" CreationDate="2016-07-20T03:48:25.140" UserId="16843" Text="Is it strictly necessary to arrange figures in a sensible order? Or can I simply append drawings to the end as I think of them?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39731" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16161" RevisionGUID="ba80d774-25ec-459c-89c2-2ee576641f4f" CreationDate="2016-07-20T03:48:25.140" UserId="16843" Text="Do figures need to be in a sensible order?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39732" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16161" RevisionGUID="ba80d774-25ec-459c-89c2-2ee576641f4f" CreationDate="2016-07-20T03:48:25.140" UserId="16843" Text="&lt;drafting&gt;&lt;patent-figures&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39733" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13006" RevisionGUID="fa69e560-e60b-401a-94fa-4b407bfdf2d3" CreationDate="2016-07-20T08:41:44.177" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16163" RevisionGUID="a89e1e33-58d7-4533-85df-b8274d00f306" CreationDate="2016-07-20T14:42:03.290" UserId="17141" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5488743][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5488743&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good morning,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope all is well. I was looking through this patent and I see that the maintenance fees have lapsed. Does this mean the patent is not in effect  and in forced? Also, if my design differs from this design, what legal actions should I take so we do not interfer with this patent? Thank you for your help and I look forward to hearing from you soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sincerely,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Joseph Lavinder&#xD;&#xA;Lunos Inc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39740" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16163" RevisionGUID="a89e1e33-58d7-4533-85df-b8274d00f306" CreationDate="2016-07-20T14:42:03.290" UserId="17141" Text="Is this patent still in effect and inforced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39741" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16163" RevisionGUID="a89e1e33-58d7-4533-85df-b8274d00f306" CreationDate="2016-07-20T14:42:03.290" UserId="17141" Text="&lt;us5488743&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16164" RevisionGUID="bb2ce9da-92d1-49b3-9ce8-942a8d673651" CreationDate="2016-07-20T14:48:16.973" UserId="17077" Text="Designated countries for this patent: AL AM AT AU AZ BA BB BG BR BY CA CH CN CU CZ DE DK EE ES FI GB GE GH GM GW HU ID IL IS JP KE KG KP KR KZ LC LK LR LS LT LU LV MD MG MK MN MW MX NO NZ PL PT RO RU SD SE SG SI SK SL TJ TM TR TT UA UG US UZ VN YU ZW &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Designated country codes ... India is IN&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/m/pdfs/dwpicovkinds/wipo_codes.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it appears that the patent can not be enforced in India.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this answer helps please mark it as answered." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16165" RevisionGUID="4a23de57-34db-40b0-8f7f-f8e9709e96de" CreationDate="2016-07-20T15:10:24.493" UserId="17077" Text="Lapsed patents are no longer enforceable.  You would need to take no legal actions unless you have invented an improvement on the lapsed patent that you wish to prosecute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not intended as legal advise please seek your own counsel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you like my answer please mark it as answered." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16166" RevisionGUID="ef9cd17c-616f-43f3-9f65-4fd7bc111b18" CreationDate="2016-07-20T15:14:37.920" UserId="17077" Text="I do not believe that they need to be in sensible order but I suggest that you do present the claims in sensible order to help the examiner to better understand your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not intended as legal advice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please mark this answered if you are satisfied." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16166" RevisionGUID="ed440366-303e-4558-b3ca-a71bf7af826a" CreationDate="2016-07-20T15:39:04.330" UserId="17077" Comment="added link" Text="I do not believe that they need to be in sensible order but I suggest that you do present the claims in sensible order to help the examiner to better understand your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the manual of patent examination procedures:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not intended as legal advice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please mark this answered if you are satisfied." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16167" RevisionGUID="1e0da60f-6041-4307-a34a-0bf4ad06e5fb" CreationDate="2016-07-20T15:59:05.567" UserId="17077" Text="From what I have read below a provisional patent should have a complete description of the invention.  If it does not then it can be used against you to show that you did not have an invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/10/19/good-bad-ugly-truth-about-provisional-patent-applications-2/id=45766/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/provisional-application-patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s601.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not intended as legal advice.  Please upvote or check as answered if this satisfies you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16168" RevisionGUID="f2904f27-3eb5-4d53-a29e-9a6024c08c18" CreationDate="2016-07-20T16:28:57.213" UserId="17077" Text="I was thinking crochet forms may be similar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.pinterest.com/explore/crochet-round/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also Lissajous figures may provide hits:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/search?q=lissajous+figures&amp;rlz=1C1FERN_enUS632US632&amp;espv=2&amp;biw=1366&amp;bih=643&amp;tbm=isch&amp;imgil=oy43Kl-RmFBSxM%253A%253BApFC-_bFOteNeM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.scielo.br%25252Fscielo.php%25253Fscript%2525253Dsci_arttext%25252526pid%2525253DS1806-11172013000300031&amp;source=iu&amp;pf=m&amp;fir=oy43Kl-RmFBSxM%253A%252CApFC-_bFOteNeM%252C_&amp;usg=__vimyGhEAzHfZt3nKZuA5x5sqW_E%3D&amp;ved=0ahUKEwju3r6-uoLOAhVL1mMKHSf5AowQyjcIPA&amp;ei=EqaPV-6NHsusjwOn8ovgCA#imgrc=oy43Kl-RmFBSxM%3A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this answer is helpful either upvote it or select it as an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16168" RevisionGUID="71ccf4e0-4728-4f98-bebf-250e90ef4596" CreationDate="2016-07-20T16:40:57.997" UserId="17077" Comment="added tineye search tool" Text="I was thinking crochet forms may be similar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.pinterest.com/explore/crochet-round/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also Lissajous figures may provide hits:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/search?q=lissajous+figures&amp;rlz=1C1FERN_enUS632US632&amp;espv=2&amp;biw=1366&amp;bih=643&amp;tbm=isch&amp;imgil=oy43Kl-RmFBSxM%253A%253BApFC-_bFOteNeM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.scielo.br%25252Fscielo.php%25253Fscript%2525253Dsci_arttext%25252526pid%2525253DS1806-11172013000300031&amp;source=iu&amp;pf=m&amp;fir=oy43Kl-RmFBSxM%253A%252CApFC-_bFOteNeM%252C_&amp;usg=__vimyGhEAzHfZt3nKZuA5x5sqW_E%3D&amp;ved=0ahUKEwju3r6-uoLOAhVL1mMKHSf5AowQyjcIPA&amp;ei=EqaPV-6NHsusjwOn8ovgCA#imgrc=oy43Kl-RmFBSxM%3A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you can search for similar images either on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.tineye.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;google images.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this answer is helpful either upvote it or select it as an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16168" RevisionGUID="0b3ecb6b-c33b-4caa-aaa5-dbb20b1bb0f0" CreationDate="2016-07-20T18:07:58.280" UserId="17077" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="I was thinking crochet forms may be similar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Similar forms][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.pinterest.com/explore/crochet-round/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also Lissajous figures may provide hits:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/search?q=lissajous+figures&amp;rlz=1C1FERN_enUS632US632&amp;espv=2&amp;biw=1366&amp;bih=643&amp;tbm=isch&amp;imgil=oy43Kl-RmFBSxM%253A%253BApFC-_bFOteNeM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.scielo.br%25252Fscielo.php%25253Fscript%2525253Dsci_arttext%25252526pid%2525253DS1806-11172013000300031&amp;source=iu&amp;pf=m&amp;fir=oy43Kl-RmFBSxM%253A%252CApFC-_bFOteNeM%252C_&amp;usg=__vimyGhEAzHfZt3nKZuA5x5sqW_E%3D&amp;ved=0ahUKEwju3r6-uoLOAhVL1mMKHSf5AowQyjcIPA&amp;ei=EqaPV-6NHsusjwOn8ovgCA#imgrc=oy43Kl-RmFBSxM%3A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you can search for similar images either on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.tineye.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;google images.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this answer is helpful either upvote it or select it as an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/upraE.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16165" RevisionGUID="1e2dbf50-27ee-4d7e-ac6e-fa57f54626ed" CreationDate="2016-07-20T18:10:21.260" UserId="17077" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="Lapsed patents are no longer enforceable.  You would need to take no legal actions unless you have invented an improvement on the lapsed patent that you wish to prosecute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would need to do your  own research and patent searches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not intended as legal advise please seek your own counsel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you like my answer please mark it as answered." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39752" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14044" RevisionGUID="72846102-5e48-4995-970c-d3de2faa814c" CreationDate="2016-07-20T18:48:45.737" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39753" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="fed67f4c-c66e-44b6-b528-6d956d270cd8" CreationDate="2016-07-20T22:48:53.297" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16169" RevisionGUID="4b5b9c92-e801-45e8-bcb3-befe07b01e16" CreationDate="2016-07-21T02:39:42.163" UserId="17136" Text="The original patents were 14 year patents and would have expired in 1872.  They had hearing with the patent commissioner for extensions in 1872 which would have extended the patent for an additional 7 years to 1879.  It looks like most of these extension were granted by the patent office and not congress at this time.  Both of these patents were also re-issued in 1869 but that would not have changed the expiration date of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39755" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14603" RevisionGUID="3a141e6f-e15b-4e13-a295-9cb3d6135e82" CreationDate="2016-07-21T04:52:41.283" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39756" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14245" RevisionGUID="8ecbb71a-6d11-4b60-878f-b13efc737943" CreationDate="2016-07-21T06:59:39.757" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39757" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14228" RevisionGUID="f7979b60-ea7c-4ce0-87c6-5bd8b8bb5fd6" CreationDate="2016-07-21T07:59:49.817" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39758" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14199" RevisionGUID="a826a6ff-ec7c-46a7-a364-cc844b700112" CreationDate="2016-07-21T10:05:36.147" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39759" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14232" RevisionGUID="cacacca7-cb11-4cd0-87d0-4f613b760b5f" CreationDate="2016-07-21T11:05:40.243" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39760" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14248" RevisionGUID="5cbdb1a9-9f24-4305-ab9d-fda26a9ab856" CreationDate="2016-07-21T12:05:39.783" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39761" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14202" RevisionGUID="3798c03e-a8ff-46de-8e2d-90231b35df23" CreationDate="2016-07-21T13:05:49.773" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39762" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="47b01b51-fd75-4ec9-9d72-d5fe421f0a72" CreationDate="2016-07-21T14:05:49.810" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16172" RevisionGUID="ffd55c37-e9b9-41d5-a3b8-8741c91c8398" CreationDate="2016-07-21T22:01:48.933" UserId="17152" Text="In reference to the patent: [CA2905903A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/CA2905903A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this patent mean any and all supplements with any combination of the listed ingredients sold with the intention of improving cognition must be given permission to be used/marketed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like absolute blanket coverage of any ingredient or combination supplement that has been shown to, or even rumoured to, improve cognition in any way. How was this allowed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39772" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16172" RevisionGUID="ffd55c37-e9b9-41d5-a3b8-8741c91c8398" CreationDate="2016-07-21T22:01:48.933" UserId="17152" Text="Does this patent not encompass the sale and use of the vast majority of cognition supplements on the market?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39773" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16172" RevisionGUID="ffd55c37-e9b9-41d5-a3b8-8741c91c8398" CreationDate="2016-07-21T22:01:48.933" UserId="17152" Text="&lt;ca2905903a1&gt;&lt;nootropics&gt;&lt;cognition&gt;&lt;supplements&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16173" RevisionGUID="6ac18046-a0b0-44fe-8882-bd070729f6f4" CreationDate="2016-07-21T23:40:59.107" UserId="17136" Text="The U.S. Patent Office's copy of these patents should be in the National Archives holdings.  A typical patent file can contain the original specification that were submitted at the time of application, along with the patentee's oath and correspondence between the patent office and the patentee or his attorney along with an original copy of the patent as issued.  I've included a link to the National Archives online catalog listing for this series which includes a link to request copies of the files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the patents would have expired more than 75 years ago there isn't any finical gain to be had from the patent at this time.  But that doesn't diminish the genealogical value to yourself and your family.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39775" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14348" RevisionGUID="22afa01b-f3e0-4de1-9714-ce48d46b6ed6" CreationDate="2016-07-22T02:14:31.610" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39777" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12543" RevisionGUID="56084671-af22-4b8f-b390-4d1b9c9e6c49" CreationDate="2016-07-22T03:14:31.263" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39778" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14424" RevisionGUID="056e2705-9152-497f-9fe6-9e355598b6bf" CreationDate="2016-07-22T04:14:35.230" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16174" RevisionGUID="adcd4595-d74e-4ccc-9504-32b6e0941963" CreationDate="2016-07-22T10:24:45.590" UserId="17154" Text="this patent is only an idea with generic references, there is no application or product behind it. how can you patent an idea of using math on a computer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US9317627][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9317627" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39780" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16174" RevisionGUID="adcd4595-d74e-4ccc-9504-32b6e0941963" CreationDate="2016-07-22T10:24:45.590" UserId="17154" Text="ideas shouldnt be patentable, should they?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39781" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16174" RevisionGUID="adcd4595-d74e-4ccc-9504-32b6e0941963" CreationDate="2016-07-22T10:24:45.590" UserId="17154" Text="&lt;us9317627&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16174" RevisionGUID="f859c259-7d38-409e-a99a-f6216105c18f" CreationDate="2016-07-22T10:52:45.537" UserId="17154" Comment="added 126 characters in body" Text="this patent is only an idea and only describes generic references. there is nothing specific, application or product behind it. the whole patent boils down to an idea of using math to do something on a computer that the the math inherently does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;how can this qualify for patent protection when by law ideas and math is not patentable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US9317627][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9317627" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39783" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16174" RevisionGUID="a6f72e05-b119-4d7e-9870-e0c29415d551" CreationDate="2016-07-22T11:04:23.547" UserId="17154" Comment="edited title" Text="this patent is only an idea, how can this qualify for patent protection?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16174" RevisionGUID="a6f72e05-b119-4d7e-9870-e0c29415d551" CreationDate="2016-07-22T11:04:23.547" UserId="17154" Comment="edited title" Text="there is nothing specific, application or product behind it and only describes generic use of a formula. the whole patent boils down to an idea of using math to do something on a computer that the math inherently does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;how can this qualify for patent protection when by law ideas and math is not patentable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US9317627][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9317627" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16175" RevisionGUID="3e728aa6-9d0d-40c4-ac6c-c0b39eab361c" CreationDate="2016-07-22T12:55:16.923" UserId="17155" Text="You can also try [USPTO Bulk Data][1]. Enter your patent number in corresponding refine field. [After filtering patents][2] press Request download (XML).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://pairbulkdata.uspto.gov/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://pairbulkdata.uspto.gov/#/search?adv=patentNumber%3A8978162&amp;q=*%3A*&amp;sort=applId%20asc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39786" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16009" RevisionGUID="8f34e087-20bd-4164-9244-f044c33af8a1" CreationDate="2016-07-22T14:17:19.720" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16176" RevisionGUID="ed51047b-fd9e-4815-8275-4b3699af2a64" CreationDate="2016-07-22T16:06:17.863" UserId="17003" Text="First of all, this is an application. Claims in applications are often wildly broader than the resultant patent. Looking at the first claim, only supplements with a combination of ingredients from a), b), and c) simultaneously would potentially be covered. For example, a supplement with an item from a) and c) but not b) is free and clear. For the record, I am not a lawyer but I do have many patents. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16177" RevisionGUID="d3590b07-7501-4e1d-b05a-794b3791da34" CreationDate="2016-07-22T16:14:22.667" UserId="17003" Text="I won't comment on the validity of the patent in question,  but my reading of the first claim suggests it isn't patenting an equation by itself, but the application of the equation to generation computer rendered scenery and video. You can get patents on the specific application of algorithms. I am not a lawyer, merely an inventor with such patents. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39789" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12539" RevisionGUID="f14aa58d-66b5-4fae-abc0-7deabb30c49e" CreationDate="2016-07-22T17:22:36.590" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16178" RevisionGUID="c4b5cb28-a7c0-460c-85cd-030a38f27019" CreationDate="2016-07-22T22:44:53.540" UserId="17158" Text="i have been thinking of creating a side bet for a popular casino game, i understand it is a very hard market to break through&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i have met with around 3/4 IP advisors and IP Attorneys and they have all told me that we can not patent a side bet idea, so what do we need it to become so we can protect it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39791" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16178" RevisionGUID="c4b5cb28-a7c0-460c-85cd-030a38f27019" CreationDate="2016-07-22T22:44:53.540" UserId="17158" Text="I have an idea of a casino side bet, but i am being told i can not patent it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39792" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16178" RevisionGUID="c4b5cb28-a7c0-460c-85cd-030a38f27019" CreationDate="2016-07-22T22:44:53.540" UserId="17158" Text="&lt;intellectual-property&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39793" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="3e433674-b14c-4e01-a33e-7ade40343e2d" CreationDate="2016-07-23T01:25:07.570" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39794" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12561" RevisionGUID="e2c6c157-a8cc-4c5d-a4f2-e6c3b5ad167d" CreationDate="2016-07-23T04:33:47.870" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16179" RevisionGUID="7e1759de-50e4-4119-82d2-8fc1172f05e7" CreationDate="2016-07-23T07:29:40.550" UserId="17159" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140207263][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ran across this patent application in a google search and can't help but be dismayed that someone is actually trying to patent this. Is this a patent troll?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea of coming up with a score for physical fitness has been around for years/decades. Nothing new or novel here. Several organizations utilize an overal physical fitness scoring system that combines performance levels from multiple disciplines in order to arrive at a single number or level. Reference the FBI physical fitness test [2], or similar tests from air force, army, marines, California department of education fitnessgram [3], Presidential physical fitness test [4], Track and Field Combined-event scoring systems [5], and numerous others. How could this patent application be considered new or novel? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140207263&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.fbijobs.gov/special-agents/physical-requirements/physical-fitness-test-protocol&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/pf/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.presidentschallenge.org/challenge/physical/benchmarks.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.usatf.org/statistics/calculators/combinedEventsScoring/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39796" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16179" RevisionGUID="7e1759de-50e4-4119-82d2-8fc1172f05e7" CreationDate="2016-07-23T07:29:40.550" UserId="17159" Text="Seems like overwhelming prior art and lack of novelty, could this actually get patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39797" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16179" RevisionGUID="7e1759de-50e4-4119-82d2-8fc1172f05e7" CreationDate="2016-07-23T07:29:40.550" UserId="17159" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;us20140207263&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16180" RevisionGUID="8cb8ce65-615f-4983-bc3b-858fa2569662" CreationDate="2016-07-23T10:40:39.390" UserId="17155" Text="Please take a look into [US7263687][1] patent prosecution. Patent examiner already addressed this patent not being novel over &quot;Effective Java Programming&quot; by Joshua Block, June 16 2000, chapter 5 (Document: Non-Final Rejection	03/28/2006, locate dossier by entering appropriate patent number in [USPTO Global Dossier][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see [communication][3] ([all application documents][4]) the arguments of novelty in corresponding [EU patent application][5]. May be that arguments for novelty specify the narrow source of novelty.&#xD;&#xA;Both US and EU patent offices granted the patent, I'd suggest you investigate the specifics of the patent granting circumstances - novelty grounds. That may prove helpful fending off patent enforcers or invalidating patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7263687&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://globaldossier.uspto.gov/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=EMZWUWUA1705FI4&amp;number=EP03255511&amp;lng=en&amp;npl=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP03255511&amp;lng=en&amp;tab=doclist&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP03255511&amp;tab=main" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16181" RevisionGUID="ebf18095-e5fd-4972-88a4-349970e0bc7b" CreationDate="2016-07-23T11:01:06.913" UserId="17155" Text="Try also [USPTO Electronic Bulk Data Products][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/electronic-bulk-data-products" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16180" RevisionGUID="ab1bfd9a-167e-4e9c-95bb-4bb1a5f05bf8" CreationDate="2016-07-23T11:11:04.587" UserId="17155" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="Please take a look into [US7263687][1] patent prosecution. Patent examiner already addressed this patent not being novel over &quot;Effective Java Programming&quot; which was mentioned in patent description (Document: Non-Final Rejection	03/28/2006, locate dossier by entering appropriate patent number in [USPTO Global Dossier][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see [communication][3] ([all application documents][4]) the arguments of novelty in corresponding [EU patent application][5]. May be that arguments for novelty specify the narrow source of novelty.&#xD;&#xA;Both US and EU patent offices granted the patent, I'd suggest you investigate the specifics of the patent granting circumstances - novelty grounds. That may prove helpful fending off patent enforcers or invalidating patent and addressing specifics of novelty with the Prior Art you located.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7263687&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://globaldossier.uspto.gov/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=EMZWUWUA1705FI4&amp;number=EP03255511&amp;lng=en&amp;npl=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP03255511&amp;lng=en&amp;tab=doclist&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP03255511&amp;tab=main" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39801" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12942" RevisionGUID="5831aa75-c8fb-4da2-bab9-3f718ad68ca8" CreationDate="2016-07-23T11:49:14.370" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39802" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12549" RevisionGUID="e63c21bf-086f-451c-ac4d-d26d3e0a9362" CreationDate="2016-07-23T13:50:44.213" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16182" RevisionGUID="0b453079-19d8-4b0e-9eb6-a3035b995910" CreationDate="2016-07-23T15:31:34.217" UserId="17161" Text="Lets assume that someones owns a national patent.&#xD;&#xA;Then he registers a european patent with the priority of his national patent.&#xD;&#xA;Later in a different state of the european union the patent gets contested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this mean, that the protection by the patent in all other states of the european union is also worthless? Or is it necessary to sue in all countries of the european union independently?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for any help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39804" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16182" RevisionGUID="0b453079-19d8-4b0e-9eb6-a3035b995910" CreationDate="2016-07-23T15:31:34.217" UserId="17161" Text="What does it mean when a national patent out of a european patent gets contested" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39805" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16182" RevisionGUID="0b453079-19d8-4b0e-9eb6-a3035b995910" CreationDate="2016-07-23T15:31:34.217" UserId="17161" Text="&lt;european&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39806" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14403" RevisionGUID="a8e318bd-c5e9-441e-acca-4614f921563d" CreationDate="2016-07-23T15:50:49.160" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39810" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13383" RevisionGUID="781f31da-98d2-4f00-98d6-e8cd179d0515" CreationDate="2016-07-23T23:52:02.000" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16184" RevisionGUID="372ac682-32ce-4150-9968-40c42cb6ca36" CreationDate="2016-07-24T01:39:04.970" UserId="17164" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20160108345][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20160108345" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39812" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16184" RevisionGUID="372ac682-32ce-4150-9968-40c42cb6ca36" CreationDate="2016-07-24T01:39:04.970" UserId="17164" Text="Is this patent still up to date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39813" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16184" RevisionGUID="372ac682-32ce-4150-9968-40c42cb6ca36" CreationDate="2016-07-24T01:39:04.970" UserId="17164" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39814" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12742" RevisionGUID="bafc9d12-5bf0-4ade-94f4-47c0212aba1e" CreationDate="2016-07-24T02:54:30.407" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39818" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10324" RevisionGUID="3fc724ea-3277-4a1b-a6e2-7b473e37de1d" CreationDate="2016-07-24T06:56:08.573" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39819" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6687" RevisionGUID="2d94b8b3-2329-4f4b-bddf-bb956d089b42" CreationDate="2016-07-24T08:56:23.943" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16180" RevisionGUID="f5d3e3ef-4198-4496-9308-cc26862c857e" CreationDate="2016-07-24T09:46:24.750" UserId="17155" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="Please take a look into [US7263687][1] patent prosecution. Patent examiner already addressed this patent not being novel over &quot;Effective Java Programming&quot; which was mentioned in patent description (Document: [Non-Final Rejection	03/28/2006][2], locate dossier by entering appropriate patent number in [USPTO Global Dossier][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see [communication][4] ([all application documents][5]) the arguments of novelty in corresponding [EU patent application][6]. May be that arguments for novelty specify the narrow source of novelty.&#xD;&#xA;Both US and EU patent offices granted the patent, I'd suggest you investigate the specifics of the patent granting circumstances - novelty grounds. That may prove helpful fending off patent enforcers or invalidating patent and addressing specifics of novelty with the Prior Art you located.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7263687&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://globaldossier.uspto.gov/svc/doccontent/US/23794102.A/1-12-US%20%20102379410JP1%20/12/PDF&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://globaldossier.uspto.gov/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=EMZWUWUA1705FI4&amp;number=EP03255511&amp;lng=en&amp;npl=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP03255511&amp;lng=en&amp;tab=doclist&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP03255511&amp;tab=main" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39821" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12771" RevisionGUID="ef0cca51-d96a-452f-a659-ea7ca6caa917" CreationDate="2016-07-24T09:56:26.503" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39822" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="c00f8c45-b41d-450b-8c5f-8aa2d6d9352a" CreationDate="2016-07-24T12:01:51.500" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39823" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12574" RevisionGUID="dc9403b1-2848-41d5-9e8a-ce9404b9c6cf" CreationDate="2016-07-24T14:01:56.163" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14051" RevisionGUID="42ec7edf-cf0d-4ff3-a566-53fa9bfcac37" CreationDate="2016-07-24T15:48:43.540" UserId="17155" Comment="Links updated." Text="[Espacenet][1] (run by the [European Patent Office][2]) and [Patentscope][3] (run by [WIPO][4]) are both databases through which you can search for patents and patent applications. I believe [Patentscope][3] has somewhat greater coverage. In this sense, they are both quite similar to Google Patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [European register][2] is the legal register of all European patents and patent applications. It is primarily used for confirming the status of a European patent or application, and looking at the correspondence that occurred during prosecution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.epo.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.wipo.int/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39830" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14051" RevisionGUID="42ec7edf-cf0d-4ff3-a566-53fa9bfcac37" CreationDate="2016-07-24T15:48:43.540" Comment="Proposed by 17155 approved by 1 edit id of 1965" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="336c8ea6-daeb-4098-a60d-e25820a277c0" CreationDate="2016-07-24T15:48:56.557" UserId="17155" Comment="Typo fix and link updated." Text="Application [US20140276230][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Poroelastic dynamic mechanical analyzer for determining mechanical properties of biological materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word　of this patent is garbled and the PDF cannot be download from Google Patent.&#xD;&#xA;Hope for a solution.&#xD;&#xA;Thank you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/us20140276230" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39832" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="336c8ea6-daeb-4098-a60d-e25820a277c0" CreationDate="2016-07-24T15:48:56.557" Comment="Proposed by 17155 approved by 1 edit id of 1964" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14050" RevisionGUID="6481a36e-6326-4ebd-84e8-be2285264bf4" CreationDate="2016-07-24T15:49:01.760" UserId="17155" Comment="Links updated." Text="What is the difference between;&#xD;&#xA;[Espacenet][1],&#xD;&#xA;[European patent register][2] and&#xD;&#xA;[Patent scope][3]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.epo.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39834" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14050" RevisionGUID="6481a36e-6326-4ebd-84e8-be2285264bf4" CreationDate="2016-07-24T15:49:01.760" Comment="Proposed by 17155 approved by 1 edit id of 1966" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10617" RevisionGUID="ff183619-ee33-4661-b310-6debaf5c8740" CreationDate="2016-07-24T15:49:08.120" UserId="17155" Comment="Links updated." Text="In [ESPACENET search results][1], under the section [Bibliographic data][2], with &quot;also published as&quot; an &quot;ESPACENET family&quot; is retrieved and all the documents having (exactly) the same priority numbers are listed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, according to the fact that three several application have been submitted claiming the (exactly) same set of priority numbers, then the following US pubblications are grouped in the same [ESPACENET family][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6334845 (B1)][4]&#xD;&#xA; - [US2001037052 (A1)][5] + [US6413211 (B2)][6]&#xD;&#xA; - [US2001041826 (A1)][7] + [US6422996 (B2)][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;each line listing different phases of a different application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?ST=singleline&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;submitted=true&amp;DB=&amp;query=US6334845&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?II=0&amp;ND=3&amp;adjacent=true&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;FT=D&amp;date=20020101&amp;CC=US&amp;NR=6334845B1&amp;KC=B1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?CC=US&amp;NR=6334845B1&amp;KC=B1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=3&amp;date=20020101&amp;DB=&amp;locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6334845&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20010037052&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6413211&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20010041826&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6422996" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39836" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10617" RevisionGUID="ff183619-ee33-4661-b310-6debaf5c8740" CreationDate="2016-07-24T15:49:08.120" Comment="Proposed by 17155 approved by 1 edit id of 1963" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10601" RevisionGUID="202e8b9d-fb61-47b3-b2f5-36b94b4a1074" CreationDate="2016-07-24T15:49:11.090" UserId="17155" Comment="Links updated." Text="How come sometimes a [USPTO][1] application/grant has many numbers form the same patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US6334845 (B1)][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; is &quot;also published as&quot; [US6422996(B2)][3] and as [US6413211(B2)][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that the same patent has different numbers for different country offices. But how is it that the same patent can have different numbers in the [USPTO][1] for different phases (B1 and B2) or even for the same phase (2 names for B2)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com.ar/patents/US6334845&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6422996&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6413211" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39838" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10601" RevisionGUID="202e8b9d-fb61-47b3-b2f5-36b94b4a1074" CreationDate="2016-07-24T15:49:11.090" UserId="17155" Comment="Links updated." Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;number&gt;&lt;us6334845&gt;&lt;us6413211&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39839" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10601" RevisionGUID="202e8b9d-fb61-47b3-b2f5-36b94b4a1074" CreationDate="2016-07-24T15:49:11.090" Comment="Proposed by 17155 approved by 1 edit id of 1962" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16118" RevisionGUID="66bbac11-af07-4bef-aacb-625609eb1520" CreationDate="2016-07-24T17:16:52.143" UserId="17077" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="http://www.google.com/patents/US7840300&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.behance.net/gallery/4027391/UF-Engineer-Develops-Full-Color-3D-Scanning-Microscope&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I call this a &quot;Full Spectrum Lapidary 3D Image Scanner and Method&quot;, or a &quot;3D Solid Scanner&quot; for short. It uses polishing techniques vs. mechanical machining using cutting tools as other prior art cited.  The Crump group in particular has marketed a machine tool that creates solid 3D models using milling machines and layer imaging cameras.  Software is used to reassemble the photographed layers into 3D SOLID models.  I have cited prior art that precedes the Crump inventions as well.  How do I determine freedom to operate issues in regard to these facts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know of any other prior art such as the Visible Human Projects that was not referenced by the Crump patents or my patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/visible/visible_human.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39841" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13937" RevisionGUID="b2c7cd18-0fe9-44b7-b64c-7cde63cecc16" CreationDate="2016-07-24T18:01:56.557" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16141" RevisionGUID="76034088-ea41-4586-a161-926b52d46267" CreationDate="2016-07-24T19:27:46.283" UserId="17077" Comment="added direct link to ungarbled document." Text="Use the public PAIR at USPTO:   http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prove you are human with the CAPTCHA and enter 20140276230 in the publication number slot ... look at the published documents ... it's all there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will need a TIFF veiwer to look at this document from the USPTO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?PageNum=0&amp;docid=20140276230&amp;IDKey=CACD84DC14F2&amp;HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fappft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DPG01%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526s1%3D20140276230.PGNR.%2526OS%3DDN%2F20140276230%2526RS%3DDN%2F20140276230&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39843" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16022" RevisionGUID="e0cd9428-4867-4131-a3ab-d9a7307894fe" CreationDate="2016-07-24T20:08:23.363" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16141" RevisionGUID="c1abf59d-2df1-4c70-a5e8-b938640705c3" CreationDate="2016-07-24T21:07:03.093" UserId="17077" Comment="Added tiff viewer link" Text="Use the public PAIR at USPTO:   http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prove you are human with the CAPTCHA and enter 20140276230 in the publication number slot ... look at the published documents ... it's all there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will need a TIFF veiwer to look at this document from the USPTO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?PageNum=0&amp;docid=20140276230&amp;IDKey=CACD84DC14F2&amp;HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fappft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DPG01%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526s1%3D20140276230.PGNR.%2526OS%3DDN%2F20140276230%2526RS%3DDN%2F20140276230&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Free TIFF Viewer: http://www.alternatiff.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39845" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16024" RevisionGUID="3a33a7e9-4b45-4676-8fb2-13259f4dcaec" CreationDate="2016-07-24T21:08:26.473" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39848" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13633" RevisionGUID="4c257ff0-dd33-4b2f-804c-ac1b06c3ddbd" CreationDate="2016-07-24T22:08:28.487" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39849" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="294f4d2e-1a1f-422e-8d43-3a54d7dbf6c9" CreationDate="2016-07-24T23:08:28.593" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39850" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13999" RevisionGUID="21ca5e00-f1ed-4b00-bd19-886a59eca6e7" CreationDate="2016-07-25T00:12:55.893" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39851" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13608" RevisionGUID="e0abacfb-5651-4177-8cc7-397ef1f7a662" CreationDate="2016-07-25T01:19:42.813" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39852" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13935" RevisionGUID="0da784fc-21f0-4c7b-b4e4-342e27f89ff6" CreationDate="2016-07-25T02:19:50.137" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16186" RevisionGUID="b1508e35-ec23-4f2d-89fe-8479eafdaaab" CreationDate="2016-07-25T02:32:52.383" UserId="17171" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5795630][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5795630&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should this patent have prior art associated with it? I do not know if the patent exists, but the toy in the following link is the same shape/design as the internal illusion component: http://www.hippie-sticks.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does a patent exist to reference as prior similar art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39854" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16186" RevisionGUID="b1508e35-ec23-4f2d-89fe-8479eafdaaab" CreationDate="2016-07-25T02:32:52.383" UserId="17171" Text="Should this patent list prior art associated with it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39855" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16186" RevisionGUID="b1508e35-ec23-4f2d-89fe-8479eafdaaab" CreationDate="2016-07-25T02:32:52.383" UserId="17171" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39858" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13432" RevisionGUID="0dac55bb-76cc-4a06-8ffe-f494bf119f72" CreationDate="2016-07-25T03:20:00.917" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16187" RevisionGUID="f30cfc20-8805-472b-b0e1-5b0ffc302c30" CreationDate="2016-07-25T08:46:03.117" UserId="17005" Text="Budgetary concerns require me to file my patent applications under micro entity status.  I meet all requirements.  However, one cannot submit more than five (maximum four previous) applications at the micro entity filing rate.  I have more than five separate inventions, which makes this a problem.  The obvious thing to do is to file them under a different name, but there is a technicality which states that one cannot file patents in another person's name with any agreement of payment between the parties.  However, I wonder what exactly constitutes payment.  What if, for example, I file some patents in my wife's name (or my mother's name, or my sister's, etc.), and any income generated by the patents is directed into an account of which we are joint owners?  Is this legal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39860" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16187" RevisionGUID="f30cfc20-8805-472b-b0e1-5b0ffc302c30" CreationDate="2016-07-25T08:46:03.117" UserId="17005" Text="Micro Entity Technicality" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39861" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16187" RevisionGUID="f30cfc20-8805-472b-b0e1-5b0ffc302c30" CreationDate="2016-07-25T08:46:03.117" UserId="17005" Text="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;micro&gt;&lt;entity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16188" RevisionGUID="8a731492-6358-4143-b3b8-aaa3bb96b29f" CreationDate="2016-07-25T09:40:17.570" UserId="17173" Text="I'm planning to create a biometric time attendance software but stumbled upon [ImageWare Systems Inc.][1] patents. Namely [7298873][2]. I did some research and found couple reports on company: [pumpstopper][3] and [Nasdaq][4] (original : [seekingalpha][5]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if it is risky to start developing anything that is related to [biometrics][6] especially after checking [ImageWare][1] last [corporate call][7], where a call participant evaluates patent portfolio as worth more than the company itself. According to these reports company is a money hole and in view of the reports I'm concerned if company is keen on selling their patent portfolio to patent trolls or start trolling themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short my question is how to tell if [ImageWare][1] patents are of substantial risk?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://iwsinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7298873&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://web.archive.org/web/20150723030813/http://pumpstopper.com/?p=257&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/imageware-new-broken-promises-and-no-revenue-ramp-in-sight-cm521486&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://seekingalpha.com/article/3520476-imageware-new-broken-promises-revenue-ramp-sight&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometrics&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://iwsinc.com/may-10-conference-call-scheduled/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39863" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16188" RevisionGUID="8a731492-6358-4143-b3b8-aaa3bb96b29f" CreationDate="2016-07-25T09:40:17.570" UserId="17173" Text="Coverage and risk of ImageWare patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39864" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16188" RevisionGUID="8a731492-6358-4143-b3b8-aaa3bb96b29f" CreationDate="2016-07-25T09:40:17.570" UserId="17173" Text="&lt;us7298873&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16188" RevisionGUID="f45309eb-2e94-44eb-8b85-38774c50088f" CreationDate="2016-07-25T13:25:35.700" UserId="17173" Comment="Fixed link." Text="I'm planning to create a biometric time attendance software but stumbled upon [ImageWare Systems Inc.][1] patents. Namely [7298873][2]. I did some research and found couple reports on company: [pumpstopper][3] and [Nasdaq][4] (original : [seekingalpha][5]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if it is risky to start developing anything that is related to [biometrics][6] especially after checking [ImageWare][1] last [corporate call][7], where a call participant evaluates patent portfolio as worth more than the company itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to these reports company is a money hole and in view of the reports I'm concerned if company is keen on selling their patent portfolio to patent trolls or start trolling themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short my question is how to tell if [ImageWare][1] patents are of substantial risk?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://iwsinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7298873&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://web.archive.org/web/20150723030813/http://pumpstopper.com/?p=257&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/imageware-new-broken-promises-and-no-revenue-ramp-in-sight-cm521486&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://seekingalpha.com/article/3520476-imageware-new-broken-promises-revenue-ramp-sight&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometrics&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://iwsinc.com/imageware-releases-q4-2015-earnings-statement/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16188" RevisionGUID="5f3332d7-9f7b-4fb4-9d5b-5e95f0b66e05" CreationDate="2016-07-25T13:30:52.060" UserId="17173" Comment="Minor changes." Text="I'm planning to create a biometric time attendance software but stumbled upon [ImageWare Systems Inc.][1] patents. Namely [7298873][2]. I did some research and found couple reports on company: [pumpstopper][3] and [Nasdaq][4] (original : [seekingalpha][5]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if it is risky to start developing anything that is related to [biometrics][6] especially after checking [ImageWare][1] one of latest [corporate calls][7] ([mp3][8]), where a call participant estimates patent portfolio as worth more than the company market cap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the [pumpstopper][3] and [Nasdaq][4] reports company is a money hole and in view of the reports I'm concerned if company is keen on selling their patent portfolio to patent trolls or start trolling themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short my question is how to tell if [ImageWare][1] patents are of substantial risk?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://iwsinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7298873&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://web.archive.org/web/20150723030813/http://pumpstopper.com/?p=257&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/imageware-new-broken-promises-and-no-revenue-ramp-in-sight-cm521486&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://seekingalpha.com/article/3520476-imageware-new-broken-promises-revenue-ramp-sight&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometrics&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://iwsinc.com/imageware-releases-q4-2015-earnings-statement/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://audio.viavid.com/20160316-118636-imagewares.mp3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16160" RevisionGUID="43e254a2-650a-44e9-802f-d1f12c649a4e" CreationDate="2016-07-25T15:04:23.490" UserId="17083" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="I am new to the patenting world, and I am a little confused about how to go about applying for a provisional patent. How in depth do I need to be about my idea? Do I need supplemental drawings, and if so, how detailed, and how many? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, I just need an idea of how to start. What are some things to get me on the right path?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was mention of a possible duplicate on this question, but the other question had to do with web or app development. Mine is purely mechanical. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39868" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13847" RevisionGUID="4e37a8e1-fe37-45fd-9e81-ef5d4bf3594c" CreationDate="2016-07-25T16:31:16.343" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39875" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13465" RevisionGUID="71b27e34-dfb5-48b5-9a54-757076860ede" CreationDate="2016-07-25T18:36:29.827" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16160" RevisionGUID="778429a1-c915-4250-8cf9-aaa032ec6091" CreationDate="2016-07-25T19:33:06.493" UserId="13706" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited title" Text="I am new to the patenting world, and I am a little confused about how to go about drafting a provisional patent application. How in depth do I need to be about my idea? Do I need supplemental drawings, and if so, how detailed, and how many? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, I just need an idea of how to start. What are some things to get me on the right path?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was mention of a possible duplicate on this question, but the other question had to do with web or app development. Mine is purely mechanical. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39877" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16160" RevisionGUID="778429a1-c915-4250-8cf9-aaa032ec6091" CreationDate="2016-07-25T19:33:06.493" UserId="13706" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited title" Text="What are all the things you need for a provisional patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39878" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="e7ef2e27-64fc-4be4-a52f-46ccabda2185" CreationDate="2016-07-25T20:36:34.293" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39879" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="11e4d0eb-705a-4a07-b51c-619d4fc021c1" CreationDate="2016-07-25T21:36:34.250" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16192" RevisionGUID="c5a15dcf-4303-4169-9980-611a977d0719" CreationDate="2016-07-25T23:43:45.880" UserId="15503" Text="**Can I copy parts of applications that are not specific to the invention?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably, but maybe not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key issue comes down to whether your copying would infringe the original author's copyright. Whether the portion you copy relates to the technical implementation or relates more to the scope of the patent (what you call &quot;lawyerspeak&quot;) is largely irrelevant to this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there copyright in the text of a patent?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most likely. Assuming the text is original, there is no reason it should not get copyright protection just like any other literary work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Would your copying infringe the copyright?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably not, though there is no clear law on this. One theory is that any copyright on the content of patents is so limited in view of the purpose of patents that any enforcement would be practically impossible. However, it seems no one has really tested this in the courts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are the alternatives?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you would be infringing by copying, the practical risk seems vanishingly small in my opinion. Who would bother suing over copied patent text? But nevertheless you may still want to avoid such a risk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US, you can simply incorporate the content of a previous patent by reference. This has the effect of formally including all the matter disclosed there into your application without having to expressly set out the wording. Since you're not copying the wording, there is seemingly no risk of infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, it is well established that there is no copyright in the ideas that are expressed. If you copied the ideas, but used your own original words, there would be no issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the analysis was taken from an [Alderucci paper](http://home.uchicago.edu/~alderucci/Copyright%20in%20patents.pdf). [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_on_the_content_of_patents_and_in_the_context_of_patent_prosecution) has a pretty decent discussion too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16193" RevisionGUID="ccea3a62-7350-41eb-a2f5-9b9d81e5aa3d" CreationDate="2016-07-25T23:54:22.883" UserId="17178" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20160095523][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20160095523" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39887" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16193" RevisionGUID="ccea3a62-7350-41eb-a2f5-9b9d81e5aa3d" CreationDate="2016-07-25T23:54:22.883" UserId="17178" Text="I am the original inventor and where do I stand on the length of patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39888" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16193" RevisionGUID="ccea3a62-7350-41eb-a2f5-9b9d81e5aa3d" CreationDate="2016-07-25T23:54:22.883" UserId="17178" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16195" RevisionGUID="02d73cf4-a5e9-48b0-8e39-304adb229977" CreationDate="2016-07-26T09:02:06.547" UserId="17155" Text="There is no definitive answer to your question. The simple suggestion is that you might want to consider consulting with your attorney. But, unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that even attorney will have a proper yes or no answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a website though that might help you decide whether the software you are going to create infringes [ImageWare][1] patent: [website where they try to use patent prosecution against the patent][2], at least it should help you to understand what the patent is patenting. Keep in mind that there are probably much more patents related to biometrics not only [ImageWare][1] patents. Anyway the more information you collect on patents related to your product the better understanding of patent situation you acquire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind the patent you’ve mentioned is a US patent, apparently [ImageWare][1] has applied for a same patent in many countries: [WIPO][3]. In the end it is up to you to assess the risk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://iwsinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.hoxty.com/ImageWare/7298873/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2006055575&amp;recNum=1&amp;tab=NationalPhase&amp;maxRec=&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=&amp;queryString=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39894" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13422" RevisionGUID="1811d305-5fde-487b-8bf5-57c4b63670c7" CreationDate="2016-07-26T09:47:54.353" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16195" RevisionGUID="b00dcd98-1c09-4cd0-b759-fdaac105a292" CreationDate="2016-07-26T10:00:34.697" UserId="17155" Comment="Updated." Text="There is no definitive answer to your question. The simple suggestion is that you might want to consider consulting with your attorney. But, unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that even attorney will have a proper yes or no answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a website though that might help you decide whether the software you are going to create infringes [ImageWare][1] patent: [website where they try to use patent prosecution against the patent][2], at least it should help you to understand what the patent is patenting. Keep in mind that there are probably much more patents related to biometrics not only [ImageWare][1] patents. Anyway the more information you collect on patents related to your product the better understanding of patent situation you acquire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind the patent you’ve mentioned is a US patent, apparently [ImageWare][1] has applied for a same patent in many countries: [WIPO][3]. In the end it is up to you to assess the risk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After going through the reports you provided it really looks that the company is very bad at what they are doing which is a cause to worry having in mind that they put so much effort into patents as you've said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at ImageWare's patent families:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7298873, US7362884, US7606396, US7596246][4]&#xD;&#xA; - [US9286528][5]&#xD;&#xA; - [20140313007][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://iwsinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.hoxty.com/ImageWare/7298873/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2006055575&amp;recNum=1&amp;tab=NationalPhase&amp;maxRec=&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=&amp;queryString=&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://globaldossier.uspto.gov/#/result/patent/US/7362884/126592&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://globaldossier.uspto.gov/#/result/patent/US/9286528/114162&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://globaldossier.uspto.gov/#/result/publication/US/20140313007/113669" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39896" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13771" RevisionGUID="15a1bcc0-1520-4174-81d5-4a79465c071d" CreationDate="2016-07-26T11:47:59.410" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16196" RevisionGUID="e48158fd-b2d1-4450-93bc-4e6229b4aa0d" CreationDate="2016-07-26T11:59:36.590" UserId="17077" Text="You also must consider the DOZENS of subsequent patents that reference this patent as prior art.  The are very large players Honeywell, NEC, Sony, Samsung &amp; Raytheon among others too that have filed similar patents.  They are who I would be worried about as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with the above answer that this would be difficult for even an expert, but from this layman's point of view this work has a minefield of interlocking patents and applications to overcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39898" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16188" RevisionGUID="7198fb67-dc55-4143-96f0-b06f9be0d463" CreationDate="2016-07-26T12:12:46.177" UserId="17173" Comment="Tags updated." Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;troll&gt;&lt;us7298873&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39899" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14335" RevisionGUID="a4e8865e-9852-4d45-ad27-c34418c05829" CreationDate="2016-07-26T12:47:59.403" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16197" RevisionGUID="936b5670-f5bc-449b-aa57-e958163eaa81" CreationDate="2016-07-26T14:35:49.940" UserId="17077" Text="I am a layman but it sounds like you are trying to skirt the law and it doesn't sound legal.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest when you are ready to file the others do so as a small entity where fees are reduced by half ... hopefully by the time you are ready you would have earned some income from the previous patents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/aia_implementation/AC54_Small_Entity_Compliance_Guide_Final.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16198" RevisionGUID="cb2cab52-2fd0-4212-812c-57414a013ecd" CreationDate="2016-07-26T14:44:11.520" UserId="17077" Text="The fee status is lapsed on that patent but here is some prior art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/related/US5795630#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=08%2F19%2F1996&amp;t=1illusion.1transparent%20case.1motorized%20spinning.0mylar.0entertainment%20purposes.0amusement.0motivation.0periodic%20circuit.0free%20space.0observer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also this references the above patent as prior art:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US20050126374&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US6570078&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39902" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14278" RevisionGUID="984eca3b-8024-43b2-bbef-96231e409452" CreationDate="2016-07-26T14:48:01.403" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16199" RevisionGUID="1a6d137c-c42b-4a3a-9275-21c46c7f74ad" CreationDate="2016-07-26T15:09:29.663" UserId="17077" Text="This application is for an **automated** method of fitness scoring which is an entirely different matter. I am not an examiner but it depends a lot on the prior art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Prior Art US20140207263 ][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20140207263#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=01%2F23%2F2013&amp;t=1fitness%20level.1evaluating%20a%20fitness.1athletic%20events.0electronic%20interface.0fitness%20categories.0electronic%20communication%20network.0maximum%20measurement.0maximum%20number.0event%20performance.0jump.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have listed a few examples.  It does appear that there may be some novelty to this invention but it may be obvious as it seems it is to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16200" RevisionGUID="1fa81cd4-2b92-442d-9878-3330ee47f185" CreationDate="2016-07-26T15:15:31.507" UserId="17077" Text="It has only 4 claims.  If your **version** does not depend upon these claims then you could begin the patent process if it is novel and not an obvious improvement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16198" RevisionGUID="a90fff8b-d9e0-4149-ae49-c2a0f720ee75" CreationDate="2016-07-26T15:27:38.547" UserId="17077" Comment="a little housekeeping" Text="The fee status is lapsed on that patent but here is some prior art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US5795630 Prior Art][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also these references the above patent as prior art:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US20050126374&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US6570078&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US5795630#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=08%2F19%2F1996&amp;t=1illusion.1transparent%20case.1motorized%20spinning.0mylar.0entertainment%20purposes.0amusement.0motivation.0periodic%20circuit.0free%20space.0observer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16147" RevisionGUID="f52537f0-24d2-4e8b-96e5-6d1b7ab1e7d7" CreationDate="2016-07-26T15:37:55.603" UserId="13706" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="You can use Public Pair to review the *available* file history of any published application or issued, but because this was in the 1960 only basic information will be available. However, for a small fee, the USPTO can send you a copy of the full file history, which will likely have the information you are looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have an application number (format NN/NNN,NNN) publication number (format YEAR/NNNNNNN) or issued patent number (format N,NNN,NNN) then you can look it up by searching by inventor name, assignee/owner name among other fields. The USPTO and Google Patents have good searches for this. [Links available here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentsdemystified.com/patent-guide-resources/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/XTCUU.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16198" RevisionGUID="3b221bd7-b80f-4e2b-9bfe-1dc100523e7a" CreationDate="2016-07-26T17:44:12.023" UserId="17077" Comment="spelling" Text="The fee status is lapsed on that patent but here is some prior art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US5795630 Prior Art][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also these reference the above patent as prior art:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US20050126374&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US6570078&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US5795630#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=08%2F19%2F1996&amp;t=1illusion.1transparent%20case.1motorized%20spinning.0mylar.0entertainment%20purposes.0amusement.0motivation.0periodic%20circuit.0free%20space.0observer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39908" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12963" RevisionGUID="fe5f52d2-4b63-48c7-b569-940bd96f5b1a" CreationDate="2016-07-26T17:48:18.497" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16201" RevisionGUID="51bef40f-7476-49b7-8541-c2d752961022" CreationDate="2016-07-26T19:25:13.047" UserId="17183" Text="Here is my question/scenario:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I want to file a patent in my home country (Canada) in this instance and file it before anyone else, do this prevent anyone else from filing a patent for an identical device in another country like the U.S. or elsewhere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For my device in question, I cannot find anything in prior art anywhere and believe that my invention is truly unique, so if I file in Canada, would that not serve to block everywhere else because U.S. or other examiners would see my Canadian patent in their prior art search and not grant the patent to someone trying to file in their respective jurisdictions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen/read about situations where a U.S. firm wanted to patent a device in the U.S. but saw that their work would violate a foreign patent and did not continue even though the foreign patent was only filed in its local jurisdiction and not in the U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please let me know your thoughts.  Thank you all in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39910" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16201" RevisionGUID="51bef40f-7476-49b7-8541-c2d752961022" CreationDate="2016-07-26T19:25:13.047" UserId="17183" Text="Where to file first? At home or International?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39911" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16201" RevisionGUID="51bef40f-7476-49b7-8541-c2d752961022" CreationDate="2016-07-26T19:25:13.047" UserId="17183" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39912" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14923" RevisionGUID="d2a26d85-cdbe-4560-a289-5a48b92d70d2" CreationDate="2016-07-26T19:48:19.220" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39913" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14788" RevisionGUID="b036152f-4d43-42cd-9564-e497f9a55bb9" CreationDate="2016-07-26T20:48:19.207" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16201" RevisionGUID="f070729f-f30c-4524-97c9-2c02ec4de94b" CreationDate="2016-07-26T21:40:58.960" UserId="13706" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="Here is my question/scenario:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I want to file a patent application in my home country (Canada) in this instance and file it before anyone else, does this prevent anyone else from filing a patent application for an identical device in another country like the U.S. or elsewhere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For my device in question, I cannot find anything in prior art anywhere and believe that my invention is truly unique, so if I file in Canada, would that not serve to block everywhere else because U.S. or other examiners would see my Canadian patent application in their prior art search and not grant a patent to someone trying to file in their respective jurisdictions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen/read about situations where a U.S. firm wanted to patent a device in the U.S. but saw that their work would violate a foreign patent and did not continue even though the foreign patent was only filed in its local jurisdiction and not in the U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please let me know your thoughts.  Thank you all in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16202" RevisionGUID="b12c4e4c-dc90-422a-aeeb-8aac939f2f84" CreationDate="2016-07-26T22:54:54.900" UserId="15503" Text="There a few issues tied up in this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Does filing a Canadian application prevent people in other countries from filing?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents are territorial. A Canadian patent will only ever apply to Canada.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Canada (and basically every country) has ratified the Paris Convention. This means that if you file a patent application in one Convention country (for example, Canada), you have one year to file another patent application in any other Convention country (for example, the US and Japan) for the same invention. Those later-filed patent applications (in the US and Japan) would be effectively treated as if they were filed at the same time as the first-filed patent application (the Canadian one).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the PCT procedure, which gives you a bit longer than 12 months to decide on other countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of this, it is uncommon to file your initial patent application outside of your home country. There may be cost or business reasons for doing so, but that's more Advanced Patenting Practice rather than anything essential.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Would foreign examiners see your Canadian application as prior art?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No (or at least, not for a while). Patent applications are typically published after 18 months of filing. Until they are published, they are generally not treated as full prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some countries, there is a concept of intermediate prior art, where unpublished patent applications are treated as prior art for some purposes. This is very much country-specific, and so goes quite far beyond the scope of your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, after that 18 months passes and your application is published, it would typically be prior art for any application anywhere in the world that comes after. In that case, a US examiner could cite it against a later-filed patent application (though whether they actually would is a different issue)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16202" RevisionGUID="066397fa-4273-43a6-a549-31954889efea" CreationDate="2016-07-27T02:52:17.810" UserId="15503" Comment="Typo" Text="There are a few issues tied up in this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Does filing a Canadian application prevent people in other countries from filing?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents are territorial. A Canadian patent will only ever apply to Canada.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Canada (and basically every country) has ratified the Paris Convention. This means that if you file a patent application in one Convention country (for example, Canada), you have one year to file another patent application in any other Convention country (for example, the US and Japan) for the same invention. Those later-filed patent applications (in the US and Japan) would be effectively treated as if they were filed at the same time as the first-filed patent application (the Canadian one).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the PCT procedure, which gives you a bit longer than 12 months to decide on other countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of this, it is common to file your initial patent application in your home country, even if your key market is elsewhere. There may be cost or business reasons for doing something different, but that's more Advanced Patenting Practice rather than anything essential.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Would foreign examiners see your Canadian application as prior art?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No (or at least, not for a while). Patent applications are typically published after 18 months of filing. Until they are published, they are generally not treated as full prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some countries, there is a concept of intermediate prior art, where unpublished patent applications are treated as prior art for some purposes. This is very much country-specific, and so goes quite far beyond the scope of your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, after that 18 months passes and your application is published, it would typically be prior art for any application anywhere in the world that comes after. In that case, a US examiner could cite it against a later-filed patent application (though whether they actually would is a different issue)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16203" RevisionGUID="789adb39-5f01-44f7-9e42-7e1e67703a3c" CreationDate="2016-07-27T03:18:06.797" UserId="15657" Text="You can go to [USPTO PAIR][1] to check the status of this application. The examiner issued non-final rejection twice (2016-2-22 and 2015-7-31).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because something was invented doesn't mean someone can't improve it and get a patent on the improvement. Method/system relating to fitness scoring can be patented (e.g. [US8027822][2]). However, I do think US20140207263 lacks novelty when compared to pat. '822. I am not a software patent expert, but I seriously doubt the application, as it is written, would get granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no foul trying to get an overtly broad claim granted. In fact, it's a good defensive tactic against patent trolling. The worst you can get is a rejection on a vague idea, which isn't so bad considering a patent troll wont' be able to patent it. In that regards, most large software companies (e.g. MSFT and GOOG) are patent trolls, except that they usually have no interest in enforcing bad patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check the [US6605038][3] &quot;System for monitoring health, wellness and fitness&quot; patent family to get a feel of what's patentable and what's not. Currently there have been 32 applications in this family, most are abandoned, some are pending, and 5 are patented. The granted patents are 6605038, 7689437, 8398546, 8961413, and 9033875. Some rejected/abandoned applications are [US20140257540][4], [US20140221785][5], [US20080183051][6], and [US20140257055][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8027822&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6605038&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140257540&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140221785&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20080183051&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140257055" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16204" RevisionGUID="cd6cdb19-2d39-429a-9016-a997d4cc5da6" CreationDate="2016-07-27T05:29:08.907" UserId="15503" Text="A European patent effectively breaks up into a bundle of separate rights in each country in which it is validated in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A European patent can be opposed centrally within 9 months of its grant ([EPC art 99](https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/ar99.html). If the opposition is successful, the European patent (and the downstream national rights which flow from the European patent) is revoked ([EPC art 101](https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/ar101.html)). Thus if a European patent is successfully challenged through the opposition procedure, there is nothing left to enforce afterwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, after this 9 month period, the right in any country stands alone. So even if the UK validation of a European patent has been revoked by a UK court, it may still be in force (and ostensibly could be enforced) in Germany and France.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, the argument would be that if a UK court found the claims to be invalid, the French and German courts probably would as well. But until you test it, you never know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The bright future**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In principle, the unitary patent covering all the EU should be available at some point soonish (though exactly when is rather unclear, in view of the Brexit vote). A unitary patent would be revocable in a single procedure at any point during its duration." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39919" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14127" RevisionGUID="63dc0b7e-42a6-4557-9047-c63a7037a84e" CreationDate="2016-07-27T07:58:41.913" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16188" RevisionGUID="7d620ef6-9624-434e-a354-6803a7974eb4" CreationDate="2016-07-27T08:18:24.517" UserId="17173" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I'm planning to create a biometric time attendance software but stumbled upon [ImageWare Systems Inc.][1] patents. Namely [US7298873][2]. I did some research and found couple reports on company: [pumpstopper][3] and [Nasdaq][4] (original : [seekingalpha][5]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if it is risky to start developing anything that is related to [biometrics][6] especially after checking [ImageWare][1] one of latest [corporate calls][7] ([mp3][8]), where a call participant estimates patent portfolio as worth more than the company market cap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the [pumpstopper][3] and [Nasdaq][4] reports company is a money hole and in view of the reports I'm concerned if company is keen on selling their patent portfolio to patent trolls or start trolling themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short my question is how to tell if [ImageWare][1] patents are of substantial risk?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://iwsinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7298873&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://web.archive.org/web/20150723030813/http://pumpstopper.com/?p=257&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/imageware-new-broken-promises-and-no-revenue-ramp-in-sight-cm521486&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://seekingalpha.com/article/3520476-imageware-new-broken-promises-revenue-ramp-sight&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometrics&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://iwsinc.com/imageware-releases-q4-2015-earnings-statement/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://audio.viavid.com/20160316-118636-imagewares.mp3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39921" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14855" RevisionGUID="0cf40654-745b-4382-a606-cdcef35d4188" CreationDate="2016-07-27T08:58:41.890" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39922" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13242" RevisionGUID="e082515f-1f23-4684-b583-b8f479aa19fa" CreationDate="2016-07-27T09:58:43.967" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39923" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13123" RevisionGUID="71633480-fe0d-42ba-a728-3b380c128f87" CreationDate="2016-07-27T10:58:48.963" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39924" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14796" RevisionGUID="174ee71c-d0f3-4dc4-8491-d8d0fdf543cc" CreationDate="2016-07-27T12:04:40.723" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16196" RevisionGUID="e5e87b8c-10ef-4252-bf4e-89f0c7b1c05b" CreationDate="2016-07-27T12:23:45.390" UserId="17077" Comment="Questioner asked for clarification" Text="You also must consider the DOZENS of subsequent patents that reference this patent as prior art.  The are very large players Honeywell, NEC, Sony, Samsung &amp; Raytheon among others too that have filed similar patents.  They are who I would be worried about as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with the above answer that this would be difficult for even an expert, but from this layman's point of view this work has a minefield of interlocking patents and applications to overcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US8063889 Honeywell][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US8050463 Honeywell][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US8085993 Honeywell][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These few seem particularly daunting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the referenced by section for dozens of others ... iris scanning, image acquisition, biometrics:&#xD;&#xA;[US7298873][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8063889&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8050463&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8085993&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7298873" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39926" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13315" RevisionGUID="ca2e69f2-770d-4feb-82d7-9151be509cfd" CreationDate="2016-07-27T13:05:17.493" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16205" RevisionGUID="4647c399-6c24-4853-ba80-208001803ef8" CreationDate="2016-07-27T13:51:51.040" UserId="17077" Text="Has anyone who is familiar with any modernization efforts of the US patent system heard proposals to accept 3D Digital models in addition or in lieu of patent drawings? If so do you have any literature links?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 3D repositories of 3D models such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3D Model Repository][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sketchfab.com/&#xD;&#xA;That the USPTO can emulate to have private submissions of working digital prototypes that can give examiners so much more information than a 2D set of drawings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39928" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16205" RevisionGUID="4647c399-6c24-4853-ba80-208001803ef8" CreationDate="2016-07-27T13:51:51.040" UserId="17077" Text="Any Chance the USPTO will accept 3D Models as Digital Prototypes in the future?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39929" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16205" RevisionGUID="4647c399-6c24-4853-ba80-208001803ef8" CreationDate="2016-07-27T13:51:51.040" UserId="17077" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;new&gt;&lt;prototype&gt;&lt;3d&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39930" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13659" RevisionGUID="554609b7-d87d-4ab2-a29e-b817f2474269" CreationDate="2016-07-27T14:06:41.040" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39931" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16205" RevisionGUID="01f69586-bb7d-4349-bce8-3ac657ac65ed" CreationDate="2016-07-27T14:37:04.703" UserId="17077" Comment="added 174 characters in body" Text="Has anyone who is familiar with any modernization efforts of the US patent system heard proposals to accept 3D Digital models in addition or in lieu of patent drawings? If so do you have any literature links?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 3D repositories of 3D models such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3D Model Repository][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That the USPTO can emulate to have private submissions of working digital prototypes that can give examiners so much more information than a 2D set of drawings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bringing Inventions to Life: The Magic of 3D Modeling][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sketchfab.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/06/25/bringing-inventions-to-life-the-magic-of-3d-modeling/id=11366/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16205" RevisionGUID="14c1603a-41a3-4207-be0f-f06072c8d77e" CreationDate="2016-07-27T16:56:18.923" UserId="17077" Comment="added a research link/formatting" Text="Has anyone who is familiar with any modernization efforts of the US patent system heard proposals to accept 3D Digital models in addition or in lieu of patent drawings? If so do you have any literature links?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 3D repositories of 3D models such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3D Model Repository][1] that the USPTO can emulate to have private submissions of working digital prototypes that can give examiners so much more information than a 2D set of drawings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bringing Inventions to Life: The Magic of 3D Modeling][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My searches revealed an interest by the USPTO in 3D Printing only:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[USPTO IP Policy &amp; 3D Printing][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sketchfab.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/06/25/bringing-inventions-to-life-the-magic-of-3d-modeling/id=11366/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/uspto-ip-and-3d-printing-conference" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16118" RevisionGUID="d0bab952-1b8f-4a90-9d80-80c87693df58" CreationDate="2016-07-27T17:11:25.970" UserId="17077" Comment="child patent?" Text="http://www.google.com/patents/US7840300&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.behance.net/gallery/4027391/UF-Engineer-Develops-Full-Color-3D-Scanning-Microscope&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I call this a &quot;Full Spectrum Lapidary 3D Image Scanner and Method&quot;, or a &quot;3D Solid Scanner&quot; for short. It uses polishing techniques vs. mechanical machining using cutting tools as other prior art cited.  The Crump group in particular has marketed a machine tool that creates solid 3D models using milling machines and layer imaging cameras.  Software is used to reassemble the photographed layers into 3D SOLID models.  I have cited prior art that precedes the Crump inventions as well.  How do I determine freedom to operate issues in regard to these facts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read the term &quot;child patent&quot; in other threads ... is that what I have?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know of any other prior art such as the Visible Human Projects that was not referenced by the Crump patents or my patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/visible/visible_human.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16100" RevisionGUID="f2b6c3db-01fe-4217-bb36-33d1a7f8ce81" CreationDate="2016-07-27T18:10:07.813" UserId="17077" Comment="better answer" Text="Please see the following instructions ... you may scan, sign, send&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Signature Requirements][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=597defeb321fc5df8be78cf4e053a3f1&amp;node=se37.1.1_14&amp;rgn=div8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39937" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13607" RevisionGUID="6ec5ac10-86be-4fe0-bae7-4b6ca07ebee9" CreationDate="2016-07-27T18:10:33.707" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16206" RevisionGUID="3da2a59a-b7f1-434b-9bde-63583bf822fc" CreationDate="2016-07-27T18:28:52.483" UserId="17077" Text="You may be referring to &quot;Request for Ex Parte Reexamination&quot; which has a small entity fee of $6000 for &lt;40 pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[USPTO Curennt &amp; Proposed Fee Schedule][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Table_of_Patent_Fees-Current_Proposed_and_Unit_Cost.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does not guarantee invalidation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16206" RevisionGUID="b65689b0-0570-429d-90ac-36de956c8c5d" CreationDate="2016-07-27T18:54:53.927" UserId="17077" Comment="added link - spelling" Text="You may be referring to &quot;[Request for Ex Parte Reexamination][1]&quot; which has a small entity fee of $6000 for &lt;40 pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[USPTO Current &amp; Proposed Fee Schedule][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does not guarantee invalidation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2210.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Table_of_Patent_Fees-Current_Proposed_and_Unit_Cost.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39940" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6624" RevisionGUID="83218544-c4f7-40d2-8e5c-872ed7df5dc6" CreationDate="2016-07-27T19:10:33.677" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16207" RevisionGUID="489bad01-5f01-4a73-978e-a112ec2670d3" CreationDate="2016-07-27T19:52:05.047" UserId="17077" Text="My searches produced:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carl West - 905 Reynolds Dr, Sheridan, AR 72150 USA (870) 673-8125&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39944" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12954" RevisionGUID="c3b6a01d-fea9-46ac-904b-eb3607763024" CreationDate="2016-07-27T20:10:35.280" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16209" RevisionGUID="1828f4ae-a8d2-4d66-87d9-76a08ebdceba" CreationDate="2016-07-27T20:22:57.817" UserId="17077" Text="Phil;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US20160095523 has a listed status: Response to Non-Final Office Action Entered and Forwarded to Examiner as of 04-27-2016.  So it's not quite yet a patent. Your examiner is KAREN E TOTH. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 2 granted patents associated with this application are : [US8613706][1] and [US9332914][2]&#xD;&#xA; have been assigned to : VASCULAR SOLUTIONS, INC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8613706&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9332914&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16209" RevisionGUID="373c7dbe-f492-4c69-965b-999a406865e0" CreationDate="2016-07-27T20:30:06.160" UserId="17077" Comment="Added PAIR reference" Text="Phil;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US20160095523 has a listed status: Response to Non-Final Office Action Entered and Forwarded to Examiner as of 04-27-2016.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's not quite yet a patent and may not become one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your examiner is KAREN E TOTH. 07-22-2016 Information Disclosure Statement considered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 2 granted patents associated with this application are : [US8613706][1] and [US9332914][2]&#xD;&#xA; have been assigned to : VASCULAR SOLUTIONS, INC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this answers your question please mark it as answered and or upvote the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may find these details yourself on the [Public Pair][3] site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8613706&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9332914&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16210" RevisionGUID="7fe7bc1a-bac5-4462-8fb7-fcfe87b61b0c" CreationDate="2016-07-27T22:23:21.147" UserId="17188" Text="If there is a patent on a certain product...and 3 yrs later a similar protuct is pattented..is there a way to see how many of the first patented product sold in the previous years..prior to the new patent? Or it was even in the market?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39949" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16210" RevisionGUID="7fe7bc1a-bac5-4462-8fb7-fcfe87b61b0c" CreationDate="2016-07-27T22:23:21.147" UserId="17188" Text="Is there popularity (sales not income) track on a patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39950" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16210" RevisionGUID="7fe7bc1a-bac5-4462-8fb7-fcfe87b61b0c" CreationDate="2016-07-27T22:23:21.147" UserId="17188" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16211" RevisionGUID="9eae82d5-8a3a-4c72-a53b-730ed5f121e4" CreationDate="2016-07-27T22:48:06.723" UserId="15760" Text="[Prior ART created in 1996][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://web.archive.org/web/19970401002943im_/http://www.algonet.se/~jason/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hypermedia image with click able hotspots located in the areas that defines the SYMANTEC based categories as quoted below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. generating, using a processor, time-based event boundaries detected in a plurality of images;&#xD;&#xA;2.computing inter-event durations;&#xD;&#xA;3.grouping events into clusters based on the inter-event durations; and&#xD;&#xA;4.validating, using a rule-based system, that each event belongs to an associated cluster based on event level content based features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By Jason Evan Baldwin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may use this link and image providing you mention the creator.&#xD;&#xA;Me. jbsweden@hotmail.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16212" RevisionGUID="7083a209-4644-4e15-b5bd-e18cc0302b64" CreationDate="2016-07-27T23:36:58.243" UserId="15503" Text="No, this information is collected by the USPTO or most other patent offices.&#xA;&#xA;The only exception I can think of is India, which requires annual statements of working to be submitted, and these may be published. [S S Rana &amp; Co](http://www.ssrana.in/Intellectual%20Property/Patents/Patents-Working-of-Patented-in-India.aspx) sets out some further details. However, given the relative lack of use of the Indian patent system in most fields, I'm not sure this would be a very useful solution overall.&#xA;&#xA;Of course, presumably, the businesses themselves would collect these statistics for their own internal use. I can't imagine they would be willing to share this information at all, but it's not impossible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16213" RevisionGUID="15d5e8cd-dc01-488a-a223-59398cb5ed33" CreationDate="2016-07-28T01:49:41.107" UserId="15657" Text="Not an answer. Just comment too long to fit the comment section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Such feature won't be seen as essential or even necessary. When studying patents, I sometimes feel that &quot;Geeze, I need a 3D model to understand this&quot;. However, with some efforts, I can understand most mechanical patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It could easily become a trap for new or sloppy inventors. In preparing patent application, it's important not to disclose more than necessary. Sometimes you need to remove unnecessary features (e.g. core-out section, ribs, screws, etc.) to make the drawing cleaner and easier to understand, or remove ornamental features (on which you might want to get a design patent later), or features that you might later be able to get a patent on. Often such clean-up is more easily done on 2D than on 3D drawings. For new or sloppy inventors, the more easy things become, the more easy they f**k themselves up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. 3D model makes it easier for your competitors to reverse engineer your design. For example, an ornamental feature or a curved fluid conduct surface may take tedious work to create. Even if that's what you want to get a patent on, you want to describe it, not to make your competitor's life easy. Also, for a variety of reasons, sometimes you don't want others to make compatible parts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. 3D model is not really accessible. Even with common file format such as STEP and IGS, you still get compatibility issue. In a 3D model, you can't mark parts with numbers, draw arrows, or draw symbols.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. With USPTO, everything eventually become public. You'd probably need another major patent law reform to make it possible to keep certain information private.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. USPTO probably don't have the will or budget to become a file repository service. It would be more beneficial if USPTO commit more resource into making its XML-formatted patent data more accessible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible to provide digital references such as video, 3D model, colored drawings, or electronic simulation via public Web link in non-patent citation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39954" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14631" RevisionGUID="deb3273b-abe3-4cde-8208-240495105c9c" CreationDate="2016-07-28T02:18:02.683" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39955" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14620" RevisionGUID="b61b9f10-0246-48d0-91f3-89dd3f34eb18" CreationDate="2016-07-28T03:18:03.660" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39956" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12339" RevisionGUID="6d68f024-5dd0-4f67-abc1-e047f662a7ea" CreationDate="2016-07-28T04:20:47.387" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39957" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14622" RevisionGUID="f348012c-a374-47c9-8df6-f8ea47b11af3" CreationDate="2016-07-28T05:20:51.327" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16214" RevisionGUID="ea3f2eeb-573d-4795-a58f-e7886487839f" CreationDate="2016-07-28T05:34:35.283" UserId="15503" Text="You probably shouldn't do this. Even if you filed it in another person's name, you would still be the inventor (who must also satisfy the application filing limit).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;37 CFR 1.29(a) requires (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a) To establish micro entity status under this paragraph, the applicant must certify that: ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2) Neither the applicant nor **the inventor** nor a joint inventor has been named as the inventor or a joint inventor on more than four previously filed patent applications, other than applications filed in another country, provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(b), or international applications for which the basic national fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a) was not paid; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[MPEP § 509.04(a)](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s509.html) provides a bit of extra discussion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;All such applications naming the inventor or a joint inventor are counted toward the application filing limit, whether the applications were filed before, on, or after March 19, 2013. Further, it does not matter whether the previously filed applications are pending, patented, or abandoned; they are still included when counting to determine whether the application filing limit has been reached. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It therefore seems quite clear that you would not satisfy the requirements for claiming micro entity status.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The consequences of claiming the wrong entity status can be dire. There are a number of examples in the past relating to wrongly claimed small entity status, where the patents were consequently enforceable. I would assume the outcome would be no different for wrongly claiming micro entity status." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16212" RevisionGUID="2acfb5e0-32a9-4ad0-98c5-ffc15274aaa7" CreationDate="2016-07-28T05:48:37.033" UserId="15503" Comment="added 156 characters in body" Text="No, this information is collected by the USPTO or most other patent offices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only exception I can think of is India, which requires annual statements of working to be submitted, which include details about how many of the products have been manufacturer or imported into India, and these reports may be published. [S S Rana &amp; Co](http://www.ssrana.in/Intellectual%20Property/Patents/Patents-Working-of-Patented-in-India.aspx) sets out some further details. However, given the relative lack of use of the Indian patent system in most fields, and given this only applies to one country, I'm not sure this would be a very useful solution overall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, presumably, the businesses themselves would collect these statistics for their own internal use. I can't imagine they would be willing to share this information at all, but it's not impossible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16212" RevisionGUID="70a5bead-8f86-42e8-a9e7-50ffb9a4aa6a" CreationDate="2016-07-28T06:48:07.553" UserId="15503" Comment="Missed out a &quot;not&quot; (which quite dramatically changes the conclusion&quot;; deleted 1 character in body" Text="No, this information is not collected by the USPTO or most other patent offices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only exception I can think of is India, which requires annual statements of working to be submitted. These reports include details about how many of the products have been manufacturer or imported into India, and they may be published. [S S Rana &amp; Co](http://www.ssrana.in/Intellectual%20Property/Patents/Patents-Working-of-Patented-in-India.aspx) sets out some further details. However, given the relative lack of use of the Indian patent system in most fields, and given this only applies to one country, I'm not sure this would be a very useful solution overall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, presumably, the businesses themselves would collect these statistics for their own internal use. I can't imagine they would be willing to share this information at all, but it's not impossible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16209" RevisionGUID="9d266803-227b-4bc0-81c2-d7e2b9df81fb" CreationDate="2016-07-28T11:42:51.890" UserId="17077" Comment="Made the answer more direct and cogent although not exactly the number he is looking for." Text="Phil;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US20160095523 has a listed status: Response to Non-Final Office Action Entered and Forwarded to Examiner as of 04-27-2016. So it's not quite yet a patent and may not become one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your examiner is KAREN E TOTH. 07-22-2016 Information Disclosure Statement considered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you may know yourself from the [Public Pair][3] site there is a wealth of information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this helps answer your question please mark it as answered and or upvote the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39962" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="7b89ef04-a4c1-46d1-844b-35d5da528aa8" CreationDate="2016-07-28T14:28:37.010" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16215" RevisionGUID="5c3d35e0-32d0-4bb6-826a-0f78595dbb17" CreationDate="2016-07-28T17:41:23.533" UserId="17191" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8325025][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8325025" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39964" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16215" RevisionGUID="5c3d35e0-32d0-4bb6-826a-0f78595dbb17" CreationDate="2016-07-28T17:41:23.533" UserId="17191" Text="What happens when you make a spelling error on one of your supporting claims. Such as claim 19 &quot;qeo-fence&quot; supposed to be geo-fence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39965" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16215" RevisionGUID="5c3d35e0-32d0-4bb6-826a-0f78595dbb17" CreationDate="2016-07-28T17:41:23.533" UserId="17191" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;missing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39967" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="f48d95e3-6618-4894-bbc8-d60cb33787cf" CreationDate="2016-07-28T20:28:51.927" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16217" RevisionGUID="b4e0b7fb-5bcd-414f-95f6-775973d759b3" CreationDate="2016-07-28T22:17:59.440" UserId="17192" Text="Or just in general, what's the status of it? If I'm reading it correctly, it first filed for it in August 2014, and was granted it last week. Could be entirely wrong, though, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks guys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=15&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PTXT&amp;s1=amazon.AANM.&amp;OS=AANM/amazon&amp;RS=AANM/amazon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39972" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16217" RevisionGUID="b4e0b7fb-5bcd-414f-95f6-775973d759b3" CreationDate="2016-07-28T22:17:59.440" UserId="17192" Text="Has Amazon been awarded this patent? (9,398,367)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39973" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16217" RevisionGUID="b4e0b7fb-5bcd-414f-95f6-775973d759b3" CreationDate="2016-07-28T22:17:59.440" UserId="17192" Text="&lt;amazon&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39974" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="696601a7-dfa1-434a-9b37-a80055bf39af" CreationDate="2016-07-28T22:34:14.303" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16215" RevisionGUID="e8e4d20e-40e3-4dd2-aece-856cb7e1ba17" CreationDate="2016-07-29T01:44:05.240" UserId="13706" Comment="added 51 characters in body; edited title" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8325025][1].  Claim 19: &quot;qeo-fence&quot; supposed to be &quot;geo-fence.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8325025" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39979" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16215" RevisionGUID="e8e4d20e-40e3-4dd2-aece-856cb7e1ba17" CreationDate="2016-07-29T01:44:05.240" UserId="13706" Comment="added 51 characters in body; edited title" Text="What happens when you make a spelling error in a dependent claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16219" RevisionGUID="3c02a738-c6c7-4807-bdb7-d96167e4f6a3" CreationDate="2016-07-29T01:48:40.997" UserId="13706" Text="Typographical errors in issued patents can be fixed by filing a certificate of correction with the USPTO. It's not possible to correct it by making amendments like before or during examination because this patent is already issued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such an obvious typographical error would likely have little effect on validity, and at the very worst, would only create an issue for this dependent claim alone (although this is unlikely). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39984" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="13712" RevisionGUID="8fdfe2fd-39fd-407d-a57d-d79936ced8ed" CreationDate="2016-07-29T04:43:08.000" UserId="10011" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="39985" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="13712" RevisionGUID="5b9424b7-4fa8-4111-abd0-1cdb0e46f020" CreationDate="2016-07-29T04:54:07.877" UserId="10011" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="39986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16220" RevisionGUID="7dabe14a-7584-4a63-82a0-a2bd93802e99" CreationDate="2016-07-29T04:54:35.727" UserId="17196" Text="I've come across this patent for Mobile Media Servers, and to me it seems incredibly broad and obvious, even back in 2009. For my own benefit and for others, I'm trying to find prior art that gives strong reason to believe this patent is invalid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question -- one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: **MOBILE MEDIA SERVER**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: Mobile media server hosts and clients utilized for ubiquitous sharing of media content. A mobile phone can act as a host and stream content to clients over IP sourced from a wide variety of locations, from the host camera to network locations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20110138018 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: QUALCOMM Incorporated&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 4th Dec 2009&#xD;&#xA;- No longer open for challenge at USPTO (from what I can see)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of serving media from a media server, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. establishing a logical link with a client utilizing an Internet Protocol interface;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. initiating, over the logical link, a streaming session with the client;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. retrieving media content from a media source; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. serving the media content to the client over the logical link.: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What blows my mind is that as broad as the title &quot;Mobile Media Server&quot; sounds, the claims are even broader as they don't mention mobile - it's simply claiming about media servers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. the server connects to clients via an Internet Protocol&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the server streams data to the client&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. the server can retrieve that media from somewhere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. the data that the server streams is media&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 4th Dec 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Patent Diagram][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110138018&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/2VQuO.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39987" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16220" RevisionGUID="7dabe14a-7584-4a63-82a0-a2bd93802e99" CreationDate="2016-07-29T04:54:35.727" UserId="17196" Text="Mobile Media Server - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39988" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16220" RevisionGUID="7dabe14a-7584-4a63-82a0-a2bd93802e99" CreationDate="2016-07-29T04:54:35.727" UserId="17196" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;qualcomm&gt;&lt;us20110138018&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16221" RevisionGUID="f7d51d68-a540-4f37-9120-31a4dc868f4f" CreationDate="2016-07-29T05:02:20.600" UserId="17196" Text="Knocking Live was an app [reviewed on 2nd Dec 2009][1] that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; uses server side technology to stream and broadcast video feeds from your iPhone 3GS camera to its servers and across to the receiving iPhone into the Knocking app. Now you can send and receive live video on your iPhone from your friends anytime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't exactly the same, in that the stream from the recording iPhone is sent to Knocking App's servers, and then those servers broadcast the stream to the receiving phone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.appsafari.com/video/10318/knocking-live-video/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16221" RevisionGUID="c739301a-f50d-4e8d-8445-6dac31f42d59" CreationDate="2016-07-29T05:12:01.960" UserId="17196" Comment="Adding link to YouTube video demo" Text="Knocking Live was an app [reviewed on 2nd Dec 2009][1] that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; uses server side technology to stream and broadcast video feeds from your iPhone 3GS camera to its servers and across to the receiving iPhone into the Knocking app. Now you can send and receive live video on your iPhone from your friends anytime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't exactly the same, in that the stream from the recording iPhone is sent to Knocking App's servers, and then those servers broadcast the stream to the receiving phone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[See here][2] for a YouTube video portraying it. As it runs over 3G, it's certainly not a direct connection from host to client.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.appsafari.com/video/10318/knocking-live-video/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IExkTo8sBc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16221" RevisionGUID="dab76525-f6e6-47ef-b75f-8bc4ed316699" CreationDate="2016-07-29T05:42:34.573" UserId="17196" Comment="Concluding that the prior art is sufficient to invalidate it" Text="Knocking Live was an app [reviewed on 2nd Dec 2009][1] that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; uses server side technology to stream and broadcast video feeds from your iPhone 3GS camera to its servers and across to the receiving iPhone into the Knocking app. Now you can send and receive live video on your iPhone from your friends anytime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[See here][2] for a YouTube video portraying it. As it runs over 3G, it's certainly not a direct connection from host to client.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This covers all four points of the first claim. The difference though is that the logical link travels through an additional server, which is arguably the chief broadcaster. Nonetheless, it covers the points, leading me to suspect it's sufficient prior art to invalidate the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.appsafari.com/video/10318/knocking-live-video/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IExkTo8sBc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16221" RevisionGUID="b2f5877a-2824-47a2-b83b-d83774ecc0e0" CreationDate="2016-07-29T05:58:49.560" UserId="17196" Comment="Fleshed out conclusion and extended coverage" Text="Knocking Live was an app [reviewed on 2nd Dec 2009][1] that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; uses server side technology to stream and broadcast video feeds from your iPhone 3GS camera to its servers and across to the receiving iPhone into the Knocking app. Now you can send and receive live video on your iPhone from your friends anytime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[See here][2] for a YouTube video portraying it. As it runs over 3G, it's certainly not a direct connection from host to client.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This covers all four points of the first claim. It also covers the reversal of the common paradigm (having the server initiate the stream instead of the client) described in [0009] of the summary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference though is that the client of which the server has a logical link to acts as an additional server, broadcasting to recipient phones. Nonetheless, it covers the basic claim, leading me to suspect it's sufficient prior art to invalidate the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.appsafari.com/video/10318/knocking-live-video/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IExkTo8sBc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39993" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7693" RevisionGUID="77c0a5d6-b8b9-4373-ba8e-914d90b53f11" CreationDate="2016-07-29T08:38:14.213" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39994" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14724" RevisionGUID="c8bb41f6-2b56-44c3-897b-3ccac3d931be" CreationDate="2016-07-29T10:38:14.133" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39995" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4993" RevisionGUID="9601ef9f-71bb-4e55-aef0-8fcf3ee1501e" CreationDate="2016-07-29T11:39:53.630" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39996" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12072" RevisionGUID="e61fdf94-6a25-42de-ba7e-7feb906953ca" CreationDate="2016-07-29T13:40:12.893" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="39997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16222" RevisionGUID="87aae5aa-1ad1-47d7-9a59-80fd48613804" CreationDate="2016-07-29T14:11:59.483" UserId="17077" Text="Consider the wealth of knowledge we could give the future through 3D world leadership.  We have begun the discussion here.  Technology transfer and the broadcast function of the USPTO as well a clear path to human ascendancy would be bound in the files produced ... accessible for millennia.  [JFK][1] said &quot;we do these things ... not because they are easy but because they are hard&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ascendant 3D technologies are accessible NOW to any and all especially the USPTO with an enhanced budget. [Autodesk][2] gives their software for free for educators and students.  They would LOVE to enable the USPTO with their technology.  Embodied energy memory = true wealth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ateh7hnEnik&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.autodesk.com/education/free-software/all" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16223" RevisionGUID="051e1120-092e-4201-8a47-a424d5342ce4" CreationDate="2016-07-29T14:41:21.193" UserId="17198" Text="**When searching information regarding a specific patent**, I am often interested in information on its status, e.g. has it entered national phase in some countries, was it granted or rejected, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I usually search for this information using *patentscope.wipo.int* and its &quot;National phase&quot; tab which links to regional or national agencies. On these websites it is usually easy to find the current status of the patent (entered, granted, dead, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, when the patent is **rejected**, I can never find m**ore information about this rejection** (e.g. the claims are already covered by another patent, or is is deemed non-receivable) which is often what interests me most. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where and how can I find this kind of information?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39999" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16223" RevisionGUID="051e1120-092e-4201-8a47-a424d5342ce4" CreationDate="2016-07-29T14:41:21.193" UserId="17198" Text="Where/how can I find the reason for a rejected patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40000" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16223" RevisionGUID="051e1120-092e-4201-8a47-a424d5342ce4" CreationDate="2016-07-29T14:41:21.193" UserId="17198" Text="&lt;research&gt;&lt;methodology&gt;&lt;rejection&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40001" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10744" RevisionGUID="e98fe372-aecc-444a-9f64-9b91b66b06ff" CreationDate="2016-07-29T16:40:17.757" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40002" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16223" RevisionGUID="50a159df-0e40-4db1-881d-81bf85482579" CreationDate="2016-07-29T17:27:04.820" UserId="10011" Comment="edited body" Text="**When searching information regarding a specific patent**, I am often interested in information on its status, e.g. has it entered national phase in some countries, was it granted or rejected, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I usually search for this information using *patentscope.wipo.int* and its &quot;National phase&quot; tab which links to regional or national agencies. On these websites it is usually easy to find the current status of the patent (entered, granted, dead, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, when the patent is **rejected**, I can never find **more information about this rejection** (e.g. the claims are already covered by another patent, or is is deemed non-receivable) which is often what interests me most. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where and how can I find this kind of information?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40003" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12070" RevisionGUID="6b8e82d2-d6c2-49c5-a011-206cb7a60d56" CreationDate="2016-07-29T17:40:22.613" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40004" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16037" RevisionGUID="04dc695c-3ce4-4130-8c65-3e8756f8955b" CreationDate="2016-07-29T18:40:23.073" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40005" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14601" RevisionGUID="92538154-1e53-4910-bb8c-365cf1fe9e87" CreationDate="2016-07-29T20:40:44.263" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40006" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7765" RevisionGUID="db860397-17a2-410c-a5ca-67bc3975df37" CreationDate="2016-07-29T21:40:45.447" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40007" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="20679823-8d35-4e76-812f-a9e3a5dd3014" CreationDate="2016-07-30T02:42:08.887" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40010" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12832" RevisionGUID="d26ff940-cda6-4ae0-862f-e4ea0b5b2e51" CreationDate="2016-07-30T13:48:18.067" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40011" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14479" RevisionGUID="14c32d4e-5dab-4ab9-99d4-c2aaf21f5b6c" CreationDate="2016-07-30T14:48:18.047" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40012" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13870" RevisionGUID="d89f9d8d-7e17-4f3c-97dd-a50fb5dac48c" CreationDate="2016-07-30T17:50:43.017" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40013" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="1915cb28-3c4b-48a6-a678-847a9b05ceb7" CreationDate="2016-07-30T19:50:52.400" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40017" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14943" RevisionGUID="4aa66b88-da0b-4624-8d27-489a8bc31fce" CreationDate="2016-07-30T20:57:15.040" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16225" RevisionGUID="f1ae4933-2880-41fb-866b-a8e48f4b9d05" CreationDate="2016-07-30T21:43:11.890" UserId="17204" Text="I filed a US patent application in February and requested early publication. The patent application was just published, and the drawing on the cover page is not the one I suggested. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, the drawing selected for the cover page is just a page full of text that shows the interface for one small part of my claimed invention. That drawing is just for enablement purposes and provides no information about the invention to people looking at the cover page. Selecting that drawing seems to be a clear mistake. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm not sure the patent office will see it that way. MPEP 1130 says that the patent office will republish a patent application if it made a material mistake in the publication. Otherwise I need to pay $300 if I want the application republished, and I guess they could include the same drawing again. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to have a better drawing on the cover page. Anyone have any experience with this? Any advice on how to make my case with the patent office in a request for republication? I don't want to accuse them of making a stupid mistake, of course, but I think they did. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40019" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16225" RevisionGUID="f1ae4933-2880-41fb-866b-a8e48f4b9d05" CreationDate="2016-07-30T21:43:11.890" UserId="17204" Text="When will the patent office change for free the drawing published on an application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40020" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16225" RevisionGUID="f1ae4933-2880-41fb-866b-a8e48f4b9d05" CreationDate="2016-07-30T21:43:11.890" UserId="17204" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;drawing&gt;&lt;republication&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40021" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10643" RevisionGUID="da9dcb5b-12fa-475e-afd8-7fedb51fa210" CreationDate="2016-07-30T21:57:15.193" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16225" RevisionGUID="c61ae3bd-7a15-47ac-b5da-4cbb12d43457" CreationDate="2016-07-30T21:59:14.047" UserId="17204" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="I filed a US patent application in February and requested early publication. The patent application was just published, and the drawing on the cover page is not the one I suggested. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, the drawing selected by the patent office for the cover page is just a page full of text that shows the interface for one small part of my claimed invention. That drawing is just for enablement purposes and provides no information about the invention to people looking at the cover page. Selecting that drawing seems to be a clear mistake. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm not sure the patent office will see it that way. MPEP 1130 says that the patent office will republish a patent application if it made a material mistake in the publication. Otherwise I need to pay $300 if I want the application republished, and I guess they could include the same drawing again. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to have a better drawing on the cover page. Anyone have any experience with this? Any advice on how to make my case with the patent office in a request for republication? I don't want to accuse them of making a stupid mistake, of course, but I think they did. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16227" RevisionGUID="6b035fa3-d0cb-4f75-b1b6-8b4931597fcc" CreationDate="2016-07-30T22:49:01.403" UserId="17003" Text="Looks like a granted patent to me. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40027" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14200" RevisionGUID="539c5368-4bf6-4d70-85fa-0b1133e51420" CreationDate="2016-07-30T22:57:14.950" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16229" RevisionGUID="0a32a50d-c2c5-432d-b6cc-01cf7b3aa751" CreationDate="2016-07-30T23:07:35.913" UserId="17204" Text="Yes, it's a granted patent. The patent has after its number the code &quot;B1&quot;, which means that it is a granted patent that was never published as an application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's a little unusual, as most granted patent publications these days are code &quot;B2&quot;. But the applicant requested that the patent application not be published after 18 months, so there was no publication as a patent application and thus this is B1 instead of B2. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want detailed information about this patent, sign into Public PAIR on the USPTO website and you can find all the documents and other information that the PTO has. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16229" RevisionGUID="ffa35830-0f40-456a-83c2-e4ca58f60d5a" CreationDate="2016-07-30T23:18:47.383" UserId="17204" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="Yes, it's a granted patent. The patent has after its number the code &quot;B1&quot;, which means that it is a granted patent that was never published as an application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's a little unusual, as most granted patent publications these days are code &quot;B2&quot;. But the applicant requested that the patent application not be published after 18 months, so there was no publication as a patent application and thus this is B1 instead of B2. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want detailed information about this patent, sign into [Public Pair][1] on the USPTO website, search for the patent number, and you can find all the documents and other information that the PTO has. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair &quot;Public PAIR&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16231" RevisionGUID="0dbece4b-b3a7-4f45-8b69-d5b5765e5027" CreationDate="2016-07-30T23:27:28.963" UserId="17204" Text="I don't know about other countries, but in the United States if a patent application has been published and then is rejected, you can find all the documents filed in that case by looking on [Public PAIR][1] by patent application number. You can see, among other things, the reasons for the rejection that were given by the patent examiner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, if a patent application that was never published is rejected, the documents remain private and the public cannot access them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40037" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13556" RevisionGUID="cb8c471c-8476-4793-b407-3f32dbec2be1" CreationDate="2016-07-30T23:57:15.090" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16231" RevisionGUID="b9c1b681-0fc9-4851-9cee-bc4d6a9d63cb" CreationDate="2016-07-31T00:02:15.607" UserId="17204" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="I don't know about other countries, but in the United States if a patent application has been published, you can find all the documents filed in that case by looking on [Public PAIR][1] by patent application number. That is true even if a patent is never granted. You can see, among other things, the reasons for the rejection that were given by the patent examiner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, if a patent application that was never published is rejected, the documents remain private and the public cannot access them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40043" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="923193bf-e25d-4f56-95d6-37886ff8e1db" CreationDate="2016-07-31T00:57:16.033" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40044" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="b9664f91-d805-4ddb-9073-cc32a4535ac8" CreationDate="2016-07-31T01:57:31.453" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40045" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14934" RevisionGUID="452a3dbf-aaf6-44d9-adeb-9cfe70c77d9f" CreationDate="2016-07-31T02:57:31.430" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16232" RevisionGUID="5a565aec-66ec-4ee4-9359-8c469da0b26e" CreationDate="2016-07-31T03:36:10.120" UserId="15503" Text="&quot;[Changes to Implement Eighteen-Month Publication of Patent Applications](http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/web/offices/dcom/olia/aipa/pgpfr.pdf)&quot; (which introduced the current publication regime) gives some explanation of the meaning of &quot;material mistake&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The phrase &quot;material mistake&quot; means a mistake that affects the public's ability to appreciate the technical disclosure of the patent application publication or determine the scope of the provisional rights that an applicant may seek to enforce upon issuance of a patent (e.g., error in the claims, serious error in a portion of the written description or drawings that is necessary to support the claims).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to present your argument using the material mistake provisions, you might then be well-placed to argue that the selected figure affects the public's ability to appreciate the technical disclosure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be difficult to successfully argue this point though, since the selection of a representative drawing for the cover has no bearing on the level of technical disclosure or the scope of the claims. At best, it would affect the public's ability to quickly understand the invention from a brief scan of the cover, which appears to be somewhat lower than the level required. I have also found at least one case (US 11/677983) where the USPTO ruled exactly this, in response to a request for a corrected publication. Of course, that is only one example from some time ago, but it may at least provide evidence of the approach that the USPTO takes on this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40052" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="31b98077-7130-4ff9-b746-d2ae4dba264c" CreationDate="2016-07-31T04:57:35.877" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40053" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14807" RevisionGUID="fe477fe1-4ec3-4c4b-9cd0-61d4261f5676" CreationDate="2016-07-31T06:57:38.243" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16237" RevisionGUID="9daf7dfe-958c-4d2d-a229-381216b95d79" CreationDate="2016-07-31T11:37:23.217" UserId="16568" Text="When should  a person file a PCT? How can I find out which countries a PCT covers?&#xD;&#xA;How much does it cost?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40064" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16237" RevisionGUID="9daf7dfe-958c-4d2d-a229-381216b95d79" CreationDate="2016-07-31T11:37:23.217" UserId="16568" Text="When should a person file a PCT? How can I find out which countries a PCT covers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40065" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16237" RevisionGUID="9daf7dfe-958c-4d2d-a229-381216b95d79" CreationDate="2016-07-31T11:37:23.217" UserId="16568" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40075" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14820" RevisionGUID="62d3e064-4c5b-4be5-846c-d50de2cba25c" CreationDate="2016-07-31T20:18:00.040" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40076" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14032" RevisionGUID="4e61150a-f134-4663-8da0-5051418c9f17" CreationDate="2016-07-31T21:17:59.473" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40077" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16049" RevisionGUID="6295d177-7cdb-4cbe-b208-a5a06862ca2f" CreationDate="2016-07-31T22:20:59.790" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40078" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14621" RevisionGUID="b784848b-7c39-4935-a1d8-4c7d2ecd11c5" CreationDate="2016-07-31T23:20:57.173" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40079" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13861" RevisionGUID="b0bee02f-0a43-415b-b774-b3898974ebd0" CreationDate="2016-08-01T00:20:57.687" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16239" RevisionGUID="d1a6015c-c1a7-4746-894a-499cfd1a3822" CreationDate="2016-08-01T01:05:25.303" UserId="15503" Text="A new way of gambling is not really patentable subject matter, as it is almost certainly an abstract idea. Abstract ideas are excluded from patentability in the US. Although there is no single definition of abstract idea, the [2014 Interim Guidance on Subject Matter Eligibility](https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-16/pdf/2014-29414.pdf) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Abstract ideas have been identified by the courts by way of example, including fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing human activities, an idea 'of itself, and mathematical relationships/formulas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What can you do?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would need to further develop your gambling method to be more than abstract. It is hard to be precise in this. However, a new, unique device that enables the betting method might be patentable (even if the method itself is not)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40082" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16048" RevisionGUID="e31eeb1f-b01d-4c7c-8364-d93c1bdbf268" CreationDate="2016-08-01T01:20:58.570" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40083" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14651" RevisionGUID="bb5810d4-e7f6-45bd-a4b8-9d00fbbeed6d" CreationDate="2016-08-01T03:20:58.893" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40087" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5844" RevisionGUID="6c05df12-ec09-4473-9fe8-aa3664204df4" CreationDate="2016-08-01T04:20:59.760" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16242" RevisionGUID="ad031e8a-a872-47d4-a247-7958a66422fc" CreationDate="2016-08-01T04:28:37.170" UserId="15503" Text="**Does that invalidate the patent?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. Because the filing date of your patent application (and the priority date of any Convention applications in other countries) is earlier than the date you published your paper, there is no issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only downside to doing this is that the public finds out about your invention earlier than they otherwise would. This may or may not be an issue for you, depending on what you want to happen with your invention (though presumably, since you want to publish your findings in a journal, you want the world to know what you've found). In any case, after 18 months your application would be published anyway, so it's not a massive difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, there is quite a significant upside to publishing details of your invention early. As soon as your paper is published, it becomes part of the prior art. Nobody else will be able to patent anything that's disclosed in your paper. In contrast, in the 18 months before your patent application is published, there is a risk that another party will independently try to patent similar subject matter. What happens in that case is much more murky and difficult, and differs by country." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40114" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="42aeafb6-d408-4479-92fb-e25d81c8aab8" CreationDate="2016-08-01T12:24:35.093" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40122" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13986" RevisionGUID="0984a44c-e76b-4061-a700-3f381e37622b" CreationDate="2016-08-01T20:26:33.747" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16193" RevisionGUID="267efd07-51e2-417a-aed9-a72461f94bf0" CreationDate="2016-08-01T20:39:14.723" UserId="17077" Comment="made the question more cogent as suggested." Text="In reference to the patent: [US20160095523][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 2 granted patents associated with this application are : [US8613706][1] and [US9332914][2] have been assigned to : VASCULAR SOLUTIONS, INC by me. Phil Langston.  This latest work is a child patent application.  I am just not sure what the expiration date of the new patent if granted will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you help me know from the [Public Pair Information][3]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank You&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8613706&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9332914&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40124" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16193" RevisionGUID="267efd07-51e2-417a-aed9-a72461f94bf0" CreationDate="2016-08-01T20:39:14.723" UserId="17077" Comment="made the question more cogent as suggested." Text="I am the original inventor. Is it possible to find from USPTO PAIR the expiration of this pending patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40125" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16193" RevisionGUID="267efd07-51e2-417a-aed9-a72461f94bf0" CreationDate="2016-08-01T20:39:14.723" UserId="17077" Comment="made the question more cogent as suggested." Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;assignment&gt;&lt;child-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40126" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16193" RevisionGUID="267efd07-51e2-417a-aed9-a72461f94bf0" CreationDate="2016-08-01T20:39:14.723" Comment="Proposed by 17077 approved by 8074, 13706 edit id of 1967" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40127" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14322" RevisionGUID="e3b4d05a-9610-4ab5-a56f-96736cd11e04" CreationDate="2016-08-01T21:26:37.333" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40128" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10545" RevisionGUID="6cc8ab1a-8b91-4130-a41c-b2af183eeb4c" CreationDate="2016-08-01T22:26:36.990" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40135" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13260" RevisionGUID="93a1aa62-53a4-4bbd-8fe5-27050d0debef" CreationDate="2016-08-02T06:34:38.883" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40136" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12621" RevisionGUID="90a35cba-c168-48ae-b063-5897d3fd8b0c" CreationDate="2016-08-02T07:34:44.633" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40137" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13794" RevisionGUID="717b367e-8d06-4759-a447-e537843e1c37" CreationDate="2016-08-02T08:34:44.687" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40138" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12610" RevisionGUID="231645da-0b71-42a3-ba79-55a764a085ca" CreationDate="2016-08-02T09:37:54.460" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40139" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="9abb5a2a-4374-4fb4-b0ea-7b07f95fd370" CreationDate="2016-08-02T10:46:40.070" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40142" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12107" RevisionGUID="25eb42cb-5b58-46fb-b0f4-bdfafd9eed28" CreationDate="2016-08-02T12:59:06.190" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40143" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14951" RevisionGUID="f262e981-6815-4339-9d06-300803d5b79a" CreationDate="2016-08-02T15:59:08.413" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40144" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="16118" RevisionGUID="2d55b80f-4884-4100-9b30-41b945e4b211" CreationDate="2016-08-02T16:28:08.713" UserId="17077" Comment="35" />
  <row Id="40145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16223" RevisionGUID="12867c5b-f8bd-4d06-a1e8-a9e456012142" CreationDate="2016-08-02T17:44:22.133" UserId="10011" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="**When searching information regarding a specific patent**, I am often interested in information on its status, e.g. has it entered national phase in some countries, was it granted or rejected, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I usually search for this information using *patentscope.wipo.int* and its &quot;National phase&quot; tab which links to regional or national agencies. On these websites it is usually easy to find the current status of the patent (entered, granted, dead, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, when the patent is **rejected**, I can never find **more information about this rejection** (e.g. the claims are already covered by another patent, or is is deemed non-receivable) which is often what interests me most. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where and how can I find this kind of information for at least United States or European patent applications, if not those from other patent offices as well?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40147" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13528" RevisionGUID="4cabd538-161d-462d-b348-5c59385b65ec" CreationDate="2016-08-02T17:59:28.480" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40148" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13537" RevisionGUID="0f929d4b-a8c4-47ec-891b-7f60a99fd4d2" CreationDate="2016-08-02T19:59:29.217" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16251" RevisionGUID="b6dcc4b9-7262-4ae5-bf70-93553f0e6e0c" CreationDate="2016-08-02T21:25:27.567" UserId="17237" Text="In reference to the patent: [US6754472][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the claim of sending electrical signals from the transmitter also enocmpass electromagnetic signals?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6754472" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40151" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16251" RevisionGUID="b6dcc4b9-7262-4ae5-bf70-93553f0e6e0c" CreationDate="2016-08-02T21:25:27.567" UserId="17237" Text="Electrical Signals vs Electromagnetic Signals" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40152" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16251" RevisionGUID="b6dcc4b9-7262-4ae5-bf70-93553f0e6e0c" CreationDate="2016-08-02T21:25:27.567" UserId="17237" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40153" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7833" RevisionGUID="283e4fea-4f90-4ee6-87b4-b5c64903d770" CreationDate="2016-08-02T22:04:28.330" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40158" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13171" RevisionGUID="370e40ac-b46c-485b-bb51-4489bb0ed0c1" CreationDate="2016-08-03T07:14:29.300" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40159" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10041" RevisionGUID="1cf6d5a0-5229-4148-ae29-b4a38d41d863" CreationDate="2016-08-03T08:16:14.220" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16253" RevisionGUID="f48c0907-364b-4d34-8c42-bbc582c09ad3" CreationDate="2016-08-03T11:57:54.920" UserId="17240" Text="US patent number 6840836B1 appears to have lapsed. How do I acquire this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40161" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16253" RevisionGUID="f48c0907-364b-4d34-8c42-bbc582c09ad3" CreationDate="2016-08-03T11:57:54.920" UserId="17240" Text="Acquisition of US patent number 6840836B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40162" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16253" RevisionGUID="f48c0907-364b-4d34-8c42-bbc582c09ad3" CreationDate="2016-08-03T11:57:54.920" UserId="17240" Text="&lt;acquisition&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40163" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10559" RevisionGUID="cecbc46f-1c34-4f84-934d-11e41d222eb5" CreationDate="2016-08-03T12:18:04.163" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16255" RevisionGUID="ac40260d-4bfd-47e5-b71c-afa7e0cf192a" CreationDate="2016-08-03T15:29:45.827" UserId="17241" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2016085610A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2016085610A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The emaminers opinion, ignoring the technical filing error introduced by the occurrence of two mutual exclusive independent claims for which only one examination claim fee was paid, indicated that the group unifying special technical features: “a VTOL aircraft having a first and second wings, and first through fourth variable speed rotors capable of causing the aircraft to take off vertically, transition to a horizontal attitude, and engage in sustained horizontal flight”, as quoted “do not represent a contribution to prior art, because they are anticipated by US20050178879 A1 to Mao (hereinafter 'Mao')”, appears to indicate that it is the opinion of the patent examiners that, anticipating remedy to the existence of dual mutually exclusive independent claims, the application would not even then so represent an improvement upon prior art and therefore there exist no grounds for the granting of a patent in the eventuality. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40169" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16255" RevisionGUID="ac40260d-4bfd-47e5-b71c-afa7e0cf192a" CreationDate="2016-08-03T15:29:45.827" UserId="17241" Text="Reason for continuation when examiner opines no improvement on prior art exist" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40170" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16255" RevisionGUID="ac40260d-4bfd-47e5-b71c-afa7e0cf192a" CreationDate="2016-08-03T15:29:45.827" UserId="17241" Text="&lt;wo2016085610a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16118" RevisionGUID="6b1f44f9-9caf-40ef-86c1-1578b2ccecf8" CreationDate="2016-08-03T16:22:19.803" UserId="17077" Comment="added link to Mr. Crump's patents." Text="http://www.google.com/patents/US7840300&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.behance.net/gallery/4027391/UF-Engineer-Develops-Full-Color-3D-Scanning-Microscope&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I call this a &quot;Full Spectrum Lapidary 3D Image Scanner and Method&quot;, or a &quot;3D Solid Scanner&quot; for short. It uses polishing techniques vs. mechanical machining using cutting tools as other prior art cited.  [The Crump group][1] in particular has marketed a machine tool that creates solid 3D models using milling machines and layer imaging cameras.  Software is used to reassemble the photographed layers into 3D SOLID models.  I have cited prior art that precedes the Crump inventions as well.  How do I determine freedom to operate issues in regard to these facts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;child patent&quot; is a patent that derives some of it's novelty from previous work on a particular invention ... is my understanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know of any other prior art such as the Visible Human Projects that was not referenced by the Crump patents or my patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/visible/visible_human.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9324129" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40176" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="d0261807-7515-4dc9-8e8f-1da1ab4ecbf2" CreationDate="2016-08-03T20:19:35.070" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40178" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14937" RevisionGUID="3a64f2bf-475c-45c7-b55c-a74086824d13" CreationDate="2016-08-03T21:24:11.927" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16257" RevisionGUID="91bbc9b1-c579-41ff-ad70-718253cb60ac" CreationDate="2016-08-04T01:16:01.110" UserId="14641" Text="You could submit your idea as free content by going to https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16118" RevisionGUID="243fe6bc-61a8-4b89-b9bf-e90fd2b54b0d" CreationDate="2016-08-04T12:20:00.597" UserId="17077" Comment="Split out Crump Group Prior art patents in html." Text="http://www.google.com/patents/US7840300&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.behance.net/gallery/4027391/UF-Engineer-Develops-Full-Color-3D-Scanning-Microscope&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I call this a &quot;Full Spectrum Lapidary 3D Image Scanner and Method&quot;, or a &quot;3D Solid Scanner&quot; for short. It uses polishing techniques vs. mechanical machining using cutting tools as other prior art cited:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [The Crump group][1] ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... in particular has marketed a machine tool that creates solid 3D models using milling machines and layer imaging cameras.  Software is used to reassemble the photographed layers into 3D SOLID models.  I have cited prior art that precedes the Crump inventions as well.  How do I determine freedom to operate issues in regard to these facts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;child patent&quot; is a patent that derives some of it's novelty from previous work on a particular invention ... is my understanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know of any other prior art such as the Visible Human Projects that was not referenced by the Crump patents or my patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/visible/visible_human.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9324129" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16118" RevisionGUID="536a6e7a-8a57-4b98-bf19-257198c61f42" CreationDate="2016-08-04T12:39:53.567" UserId="17077" Comment="updated Crump Group detail now CIMQUEST Inc." Text="http://www.google.com/patents/US7840300&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.behance.net/gallery/4027391/UF-Engineer-Develops-Full-Color-3D-Scanning-Microscope&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I call this a &quot;Full Spectrum Lapidary 3D Image Scanner and Method&quot;, or a &quot;3D Solid Scanner&quot; for short. It uses polishing techniques vs. mechanical machining using cutting tools as other prior art cited:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [The Crump Group (now Cimquest Inc.)][1]...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US9324129][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[WO2009143005A1][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... in particular has marketed a machine tool that creates solid 3D models using milling machines and layer imaging cameras.  Software is used to reassemble the photographed layers into 3D SOLID models.  I have cited prior art that precedes the Crump inventions as well.  How do I determine freedom to operate issues in regard to these facts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;child patent&quot; is a patent that derives some of it's novelty from previous work on a particular invention ... is my understanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know of any other prior art such as the Visible Human Projects that was not referenced by the Crump patents or my patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/visible/visible_human.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cimquest-inc.com/services/iris-scanning-services/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9324129&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2009143005A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40194" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14517" RevisionGUID="10d02437-3c2b-4446-bf4d-3f02fa657595" CreationDate="2016-08-04T15:32:35.333" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16261" RevisionGUID="23543621-399e-4f7a-9ee5-8e80491143fd" CreationDate="2016-08-04T18:47:43.883" UserId="17248" Text="Let's say Company A's patent application is rejected due to prior art from Company B. Would Company B's very similar patent application, filed just after Company A, be rejected due to Company A's rejected patent application being considered prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question pertains to a potentially very valuable patent application, that has been deemed patentable except for a public disclosure (prior art) from Company B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, Company A filed 3/15/12, the last day of &quot;first to invent&quot; system, Company B filed 2 months later under &quot;first inventor to file.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40197" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16261" RevisionGUID="23543621-399e-4f7a-9ee5-8e80491143fd" CreationDate="2016-08-04T18:47:43.883" UserId="17248" Text="Is a rejected patent application considered prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40198" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16261" RevisionGUID="23543621-399e-4f7a-9ee5-8e80491143fd" CreationDate="2016-08-04T18:47:43.883" UserId="17248" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;public-disclosure&gt;&lt;first-to-file&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40199" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14508" RevisionGUID="61ae368d-3b10-45b7-9072-43418c9697b6" CreationDate="2016-08-05T00:45:46.813" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40200" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16261" RevisionGUID="124026fb-7b41-4d4a-bea2-ae19a80af0a2" CreationDate="2016-08-05T01:21:02.530" UserId="17248" Comment="edited title" Text="Is a rejected patent application considered prior art under &quot;first to file&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16262" RevisionGUID="5c2ac603-9e53-4608-bc84-a966995dd8b3" CreationDate="2016-08-05T01:26:57.597" UserId="17248" Text="Update: I now know a rejected or abandoned, but published patent application is considered prior art under the previous &quot;first to invent&quot; system ([see 901.02][1]), but can't find anything to confirm that for &quot;first to file,&quot; post-AIA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In sticking with the spirit of the law for &quot;first to invent&quot; that would seem to make sense, because the first to invent would still get the patent. But would not award the first to invent and publicly disclose under the first to file system in the scenario described above. Which given the 1 year grace period and spirit of the law, seems wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s901.html#d0e110072" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16261" RevisionGUID="b72d012d-4efd-482e-8480-e5d9c7f9fff7" CreationDate="2016-08-05T01:37:49.437" UserId="17248" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="Let's say Company A's patent application is rejected due to prior art, a public disclosure from Company B (made within Company B's 1 year grace period). Would Company B's very similar patent application, filed just after Company A, be rejected due to Company A's rejected, published patent application being considered prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question pertains to a potentially very valuable patent application, that has been deemed patentable except for a public disclosure (prior art) from Company B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, Company A filed 3/15/12, the last day of &quot;first to invent&quot; system, Company B filed 2 months later under &quot;first inventor to file.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16262" RevisionGUID="31e67be5-f35d-4908-8844-f0cd4c8a80b6" CreationDate="2016-08-05T02:48:09.893" UserId="17248" Comment="added 760 characters in body" Text="Update #2: Under the scenario described above, when Company B filed post-AIA, &quot;first inventor to file&quot; a prior, published patent application from Company A is not prior art under [102(B)(2)(b)][1] from what I gather:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;(2) DISCLOSURES APPEARING IN APPLICATIONS AND PATENTS.—A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Update #1: I now know a rejected or abandoned, but published patent application is considered prior art under the previous &quot;first to invent&quot; system ([see 901.02][2]), but can't find anything to confirm that for &quot;first to file,&quot; post-AIA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In sticking with the spirit of the law for &quot;first to invent&quot; that would seem to make sense, because the first to invent would still get the patent. But would not award the first to invent and publicly disclose under the first to file system in the scenario described above. Which given the 1 year grace period and spirit of the law, seems wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_11e72_2ee&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s901.html#d0e110072" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40204" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10378" RevisionGUID="b93cbb52-a53b-4d40-82e5-8832155d5b6a" CreationDate="2016-08-05T11:01:31.310" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40205" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15998" RevisionGUID="be13119e-d6c2-4b67-9ba2-c0c583d16ee2" CreationDate="2016-08-05T12:06:51.533" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40207" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="307613cb-4160-4e32-aa0c-4dfec2c497d6" CreationDate="2016-08-05T15:08:07.620" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40208" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13359" RevisionGUID="cc900ecd-6e1c-4b40-bab1-468238dfed48" CreationDate="2016-08-05T16:10:05.377" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40209" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12972" RevisionGUID="a89a7d00-c6f5-47cd-82a0-bcbf3682da37" CreationDate="2016-08-05T17:09:49.297" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16264" RevisionGUID="37a58947-f2b3-4ad3-bf4f-8bb29339572c" CreationDate="2016-08-05T18:31:45.657" UserId="5317" Text="IANAL: In my opinion as an electrical engineer I'd say no.  Electromagnetic implies the transmission of energy through a non-conductive or low-conductive medium over some distance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a also the case where energy can be induced from a power source to a power receiver through inductance and/or capacitance over a close distance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I read &quot;electrical&quot; in the patent claims and the drawings is energy that is &quot;conducted&quot; to the load via electrical wiring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the patent focuses on attached wiring so to me that implies only conductive passing of &quot;electrical&quot; energy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16265" RevisionGUID="7a05404a-f5c3-4bee-b834-e7a2b9da025d" CreationDate="2016-08-05T19:31:37.203" UserId="17254" Text="I work in the military in Ireland and have an idea for an invention based on my military experience and knowledge. I am wondering if the military hierarchy have the legal right to claim ownership of my invention as I'm still employed by them.&#xD;&#xA;Regards,&#xD;&#xA;GH" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40212" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16265" RevisionGUID="7a05404a-f5c3-4bee-b834-e7a2b9da025d" CreationDate="2016-08-05T19:31:37.203" UserId="17254" Text="Military based patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40213" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16265" RevisionGUID="7a05404a-f5c3-4bee-b834-e7a2b9da025d" CreationDate="2016-08-05T19:31:37.203" UserId="17254" Text="&lt;military&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40220" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="8ce4e6b6-01c3-4adc-9f49-e665d9770ee2" CreationDate="2016-08-06T06:25:09.930" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40225" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14181" RevisionGUID="867c3817-528d-4e35-9ac7-54cf47597b7c" CreationDate="2016-08-06T17:28:22.167" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40226" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12640" RevisionGUID="fcf00b3f-5147-4335-a517-459e3262f8b6" CreationDate="2016-08-06T18:28:22.103" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40228" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11943" RevisionGUID="1287040b-7fa4-45ee-94de-981b2069bd17" CreationDate="2016-08-06T19:28:23.053" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40229" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="abbb258c-b9b9-43be-9726-1fa860780218" CreationDate="2016-08-06T20:28:23.683" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16267" RevisionGUID="1f9a1836-e954-4458-adc8-145b6cea7b0e" CreationDate="2016-08-07T01:07:06.157" UserId="17259" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20080178629][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20080178629&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most recent legal event listed on this patent is &quot;dead&quot;, what does that mean? Was it abandoned or does it mean that the application was denied for some reason?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40231" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16267" RevisionGUID="1f9a1836-e954-4458-adc8-145b6cea7b0e" CreationDate="2016-08-07T01:07:06.157" UserId="17259" Text="What does it mean that this patent is dead?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40232" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16267" RevisionGUID="1f9a1836-e954-4458-adc8-145b6cea7b0e" CreationDate="2016-08-07T01:07:06.157" UserId="17259" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;abandoned-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40233" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11951" RevisionGUID="faa39e1d-aa5c-41ba-a69e-04840efb1b19" CreationDate="2016-08-07T02:42:36.333" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40234" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12990" RevisionGUID="782660ca-9be3-43e2-9fcf-ffa2cece52d4" CreationDate="2016-08-07T04:43:00.613" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40235" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16056" RevisionGUID="33aaf2b4-3077-4165-b2c7-5bbded9a398b" CreationDate="2016-08-07T05:43:08.010" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40236" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16083" RevisionGUID="18d0631b-b20d-48b8-afb3-6c17df4e6e56" CreationDate="2016-08-07T06:45:04.903" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40237" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9885" RevisionGUID="368bc5d4-6747-4867-b791-f0f69f6489a4" CreationDate="2016-08-07T10:45:34.250" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16268" RevisionGUID="01e99798-8ca6-47f1-bf59-de739702bdd0" CreationDate="2016-08-07T10:56:02.097" UserId="16992" Text="In the case of improvement ideas of a technology such as computer mouse, can or would an organization make the claim that the inventor could not have perfected or conceived the idea if they did not work for the organization? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say in performance of my job, I would have to site content online relevant to how computer mouse operates. Would an organization make a claim and how effective would such an argument be? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are some of considerations the inventor would have to make during the pre-employment process re: the type of content in their contract and during the employment process if they want to protect their right to the invention?  I read some content online that employment contracts were negotiable, but a recent experience was very different despite some of the ridiculous content of the contract one being that they would pay minimum wage if employee departs without a two week notice and the employer can not collect from the client. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40239" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16268" RevisionGUID="01e99798-8ca6-47f1-bf59-de739702bdd0" CreationDate="2016-08-07T10:56:02.097" UserId="16992" Text="Technology Patents personal work vs. organizations one works for" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40240" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16268" RevisionGUID="01e99798-8ca6-47f1-bf59-de739702bdd0" CreationDate="2016-08-07T10:56:02.097" UserId="16992" Text="&lt;tech&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40241" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16268" RevisionGUID="86be643e-7ae4-4514-a461-9e56710254c2" CreationDate="2016-08-07T11:12:31.773" UserId="16992" Comment="added 322 characters in body" Text="In the case of improvement ideas of a technology such as computer mouse, can or would an organization make the claim that the inventor could not have perfected or conceived the idea if they did not work for the organization? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say in performance of my job, I would have to site content online relevant to how computer mouse operates. Would an organization make a claim and how effective would such an argument be? What is the impact of content you review online while at work within the context of patent litigation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are some of considerations the inventor would have to make during the pre-employment process re: the type of content in their contract and during the employment process if they want to protect their right to the invention?  I read some content online that employment contracts were negotiable, but a recent experience was very different despite some of the ridiculous content of the contract one being that they would pay minimum wage if employee departs without a two week notice and the employer can not collect from the client. How are confidentiality clauses related to patents and inventions? Can an organization successfully argue and sue an inventor for sharing the details of an invention that &quot;belonged&quot; to the organization? What is considered infringement within the context of technology patents? I am throwing in everything I have heard of. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16268" RevisionGUID="0b7f295a-fc96-41ff-acbd-d833ebfc0fe9" CreationDate="2016-08-07T11:17:40.097" UserId="16992" Comment="added 322 characters in body" Text="In the case of improvement ideas of a technology such as computer mouse, can or would an organization make the claim that the inventor could not have perfected or conceived the idea if they did not work for the organization? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say in performance of my job, I would have to site content online relevant to how computer mouse operates. Would an organization make a claim and how effective would such an argument be? What is the impact of content you review online while at work within the context of patent litigation? I feel employees are paid to perform a job while at work. I also feel organizations should not exploit individuals and prevent innovation by taking away the financial incentive of a novel idea. How can an inventor provide excellent service and not give up his/her dream of creating a better way, innovate? What about organizations which provide literature / books ? Can they later claim *effectively* that employer used that content to develop the solution? Even if the content was reviewed at home during time which was not at employer's paid time? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are some of considerations the inventor would have to make during the pre-employment process re: the type of content in their contract and during the employment process if they want to protect their right to the invention?  I read some content online that employment contracts were negotiable, but a recent experience was very different despite some of the ridiculous content of the contract one being that they would pay minimum wage if employee departs without a two week notice and the employer can not collect from the client. How are confidentiality clauses related to patents and inventions? Can an organization successfully argue and sue an inventor for sharing the details of an invention that &quot;belonged&quot; to the organization? What is considered infringement within the context of technology patents? I am throwing in everything I have heard of. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16268" RevisionGUID="e46c9760-4336-4144-a453-6cb30c84814c" CreationDate="2016-08-07T11:29:59.313" UserId="16992" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="In the case of improvement ideas of a technology such as computer mouse, can or would an organization make the claim that the inventor could not have perfected or conceived the idea if they did not work for the organization? If at all possible, I would like to know the relevant citations and if the responder is an attorney please.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say in performance of my job, I would have to site content online relevant to how computer mouse operates. Would an organization make a claim and how effective would such an argument be? What is the impact of content you review online while at work within the context of patent litigation? I feel employees are paid to perform a job while at work. I also feel organizations should not exploit individuals and prevent innovation by taking away the financial incentive of a novel idea. How can an inventor provide excellent service and not give up his/her dream of creating a better way, innovate? What about organizations which provide literature / books ? Can they later claim *effectively* that employer used that content to develop the solution? Even if the content was reviewed at home during time which was not at employer's paid time? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are some of considerations the inventor would have to make during the pre-employment process re: the type of content in their contract and during the employment process if they want to protect their right to the invention?  I read some content online that employment contracts were negotiable, but a recent experience was very different despite some of the ridiculous content of the contract one being that they would pay minimum wage if employee departs without a two week notice and the employer can not collect from the client. How are confidentiality clauses related to patents and inventions? Can an organization successfully argue and sue an inventor for sharing the details of an invention that &quot;belonged&quot; to the organization? What is considered infringement within the context of technology patents? I am throwing in everything I have heard of. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40244" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13723" RevisionGUID="d504de05-11f8-4832-942a-6a49266d11cb" CreationDate="2016-08-07T11:45:37.283" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16269" RevisionGUID="c758d455-a632-4210-b35a-809eba7aac83" CreationDate="2016-08-07T20:38:09.013" UserId="16848" Text="Absent an employment agreement, generally employee inventions remain the property of the employee.  Employment agreements often automatically assign any inventions to the employer, even if you work at a gas station much less at a high tech company.  Almost all employment agreements these days have some section that deals with automatic assignment.  Many of these employment agreements may attempt to reach beyond what a court is willing to enforce, so careful review with your attorney of any employment agreement is necessary to determine the likely scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you are not forced to assign a patent application to your employer, it doesn't mean all is free-and-clear.  For instance, if you conceive of an invention that uses confidential information of your employer, it may be very difficult to later assert that patent against that employer or its customers.  The closer the patent application is to your normal duties at your job and the more it is related to confidential information, the more difficult it will be to retain that patent and enforce against your employer.  A court may also find an implied license if you are in a position to steer your employer to using your patented technology and then later sue. (See Shop Rights, here: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/who-owns-patent-rights-employer-inventor.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using employer provided equipment to create your invention will also make it harder to retain your ownership and most employment agreements specifically call out use of employer equipment including networks (don't use the free wifi at work to do your research).  Courts are very likely to uphold an automatic assignment where an employee used employer equipment.  Your question asked about books and I am not aware of any case on-point about employer-provided knowledge where the knowledge is not confidential, however I would suspect that courts would not be willing to force assignment of a patent solely because the inventor used non-confidential knowledge gained from the employer to create the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are truly working independently from any of your employer's confidential information without any use of employer resources, it will likely be difficult for an employer to force an assignment.  The one additional factor is how much your invention will compete with your employer.  There may be a non-compete clause that can change how much scope you have to monetize your patent and holding a patent that is adverse to your employer and/or employer's customers may create a right to fire you and possibly make monetary claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of overlapping considerations, so it is difficult to answer in the abstract.  I strongly advise that you contact an attorney to discuss this matter if you feel there is a significant amount of money at stake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One other word of caution: do not ask your employer's IP attorneys for their opinion.  As attorney's for your employer, they have an ethical obligation to look out for their client's best interest and to not share any confidential information.  If you ask them to opine on whether your idea would be swept up in a employment agreement assignment clause, you are no longer acting on behalf of the company and instead are acting on behalf of yourself.  They cannot answer you other than to say that the IP belongs to the company, and they will probably not share their thoughts or legal reasoning with you because it is their client's confidential information.  This can get sticky when there is a long-running attorney-client relationship between the individuals that doesn't exist once the question is about the employee's personal rights instead of the company.  You are much better off with your own attorney reviewing your employment agreement and applicable law." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16270" RevisionGUID="72cff811-5b6e-4f93-8cb8-cfb2b212b4ec" CreationDate="2016-08-07T20:44:59.077" UserId="16848" Text="You can contact the rights-holder by looking through the USPTO assignment database to see who is the last recorded owner.  You can contact the last rights holder and see if they are indeed the current owner (there is no obligation to record assignments, although it is good practice).  http://assignment.uspto.gov/ Once you have contacted the rights-holder, you can negotiate a deal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to assign expired patents, however your rights are severely limited so make sure you know why you are buying a lapsed patent.  You are unlikely to be able to revive the patent yourself, and you need to do serious diligence if you ask the rights-holder to revive to make sure the patent isn't invalid after the revival.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40247" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="d4aa532e-baf2-45ed-82f4-2947eede9f60" CreationDate="2016-08-07T22:48:08.880" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40248" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14632" RevisionGUID="67cfa986-dc7f-49f3-b5db-a616f761e077" CreationDate="2016-08-07T23:48:28.097" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40249" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="a90dfdac-ed3d-4279-abdf-794defa454ec" CreationDate="2016-08-08T00:48:43.463" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40250" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14061" RevisionGUID="de2752f3-07d0-47db-b978-5dd982ba7373" CreationDate="2016-08-08T01:48:43.277" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40252" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14049" RevisionGUID="380afe2e-a63a-479b-b715-30da4971144a" CreationDate="2016-08-08T03:52:26.367" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40256" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13939" RevisionGUID="13517ebb-720e-4ab6-bc1d-97fc04d84de6" CreationDate="2016-08-08T11:01:12.253" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16272" RevisionGUID="6be919f4-1b33-450d-964a-addf5e17a9c5" CreationDate="2016-08-08T20:05:48.277" UserId="17248" Text="There's a patent application close to issuance for an invention we have lots of significant pieces of prior art for, but the time allowed for 3rd party submissions under 122(e) has passed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[MPEP 2202 and 2204][1] seem to say anyone can submit prior art at anytime, but is this only for already issued patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option seems to be sending the prior art to those filing the patent, as they are under a duty to disclose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any other alternatives/options? Thanks so much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2204.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40259" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16272" RevisionGUID="6be919f4-1b33-450d-964a-addf5e17a9c5" CreationDate="2016-08-08T20:05:48.277" UserId="17248" Text="Options for submitting prior art for a patent application after the 6 month window allowed in 35 U.S.C. 122(e)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40260" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16272" RevisionGUID="6be919f4-1b33-450d-964a-addf5e17a9c5" CreationDate="2016-08-08T20:05:48.277" UserId="17248" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;third-party-submission&gt;&lt;public-disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40261" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13762" RevisionGUID="1424d9f4-9b61-4bce-88eb-b943c8d09989" CreationDate="2016-08-08T22:05:32.417" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16272" RevisionGUID="277a313c-582f-4fe5-8be5-cada7be1bcad" CreationDate="2016-08-08T22:39:18.947" UserId="17248" Comment="added 12 characters in body; edited title" Text="There's a patent application close to issuance for an invention we have lots of significant pieces of prior art for, but the time allowed for third party submissions under 35 U.S.C. 122(e) has passed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[MPEP 2202 and 2204][1] seem to say anyone can submit prior art at anytime, but is this only for already issued patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option seems to be sending the prior art to those filing the patent, as they are under a duty to disclose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any other alternatives/options? Thanks so much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2204.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40263" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16272" RevisionGUID="277a313c-582f-4fe5-8be5-cada7be1bcad" CreationDate="2016-08-08T22:39:18.947" UserId="17248" Comment="added 12 characters in body; edited title" Text="Submitting prior art for a patent application after the 6 month window has passed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16273" RevisionGUID="bbbcc4e2-8284-4656-85b8-d4e12e335b0c" CreationDate="2016-08-09T00:57:40.910" UserId="17269" Text="An alternative not yet mentioned is to consult with your university's tech transfer office.  You should do so under confidentiality agreement or otherwise ensure that they will keep any disclosure confidential so it does not count as prior art against you.  Many professors are in the same situation as you-they have a potentially patentable invention but no means or desire to pursue it personally.  Many universities have set up an office to deal with this.  Typically, the professor has signed an agreement to assign all rights in inventions to the university.  In return, the university retains patent counsel and pays the cost of prosecution.  The agreement has some provision relating to royalties from any licensing of the patent to a company or other marketer.  The university or their counsel typically will interview you to get all details of the invention so that they can prepare a proper application that, if it issues, provides protected subject matter.  The agreement between prof and university also typically provides that the college can pass on any &quot;invention&quot; in which case the professor can pursue it personally.  For your first &quot;invention&quot;, this might be a route for you-it is already well-trodden so the people involved know the ropes, and little cost to you but with potential return.  Anyway tech transfer might also have some useful advice for you.&#xD;&#xA;You can also search USPTO's database of patents and published applications (both count as prior art) either at USPTO or other online sites like freepatentsonline.com.  Just because you have not seen something on the market does not mean it has not been patented or published." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16274" RevisionGUID="7692ec7d-9051-46d6-90d2-973f111a492f" CreationDate="2016-08-09T02:44:56.210" UserId="17272" Text="In the music industry there is plenty of guitar effects pedals, most of them are clones of clones and all of them are available on the market. nobody enforces any patent and everybody live happy together. i guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;im wondering at what level a circuit composed by transistor and capacitor is patentable and if there in ny other level of protection the manufacturers can use to protect themselves form clones, in case they want to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;looking up on google patent search i found very few or zero patents related to effects pedal, especially all the names of boutique pedals are absent in the patent db. how come?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40266" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16274" RevisionGUID="7692ec7d-9051-46d6-90d2-973f111a492f" CreationDate="2016-08-09T02:44:56.210" UserId="17272" Text="Is a music electronic circuit patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40267" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16274" RevisionGUID="7692ec7d-9051-46d6-90d2-973f111a492f" CreationDate="2016-08-09T02:44:56.210" UserId="17272" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40270" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="28cf0719-d111-4fd4-94a8-ecf30c532d3f" CreationDate="2016-08-09T03:09:19.507" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16275" RevisionGUID="597b57de-8d77-4df0-946d-12b723ac265c" CreationDate="2016-08-09T05:39:14.967" UserId="17273" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2008050157A3][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2008050157A3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I wanted to make ozonated oils that were a combination of essential oils and vegetable oils, and then that combination was ozonated, would it be considered conflict of interest with this patent? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40272" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16275" RevisionGUID="597b57de-8d77-4df0-946d-12b723ac265c" CreationDate="2016-08-09T05:39:14.967" UserId="17273" Text="patent infringement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40273" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16275" RevisionGUID="597b57de-8d77-4df0-946d-12b723ac265c" CreationDate="2016-08-09T05:39:14.967" UserId="17273" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40274" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13601" RevisionGUID="d2f2f607-ea93-441e-9c04-81f74f08dcf0" CreationDate="2016-08-09T06:09:48.980" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40278" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13276" RevisionGUID="f8236465-18c4-4369-b51f-3bbc66504d9e" CreationDate="2016-08-09T07:10:07.093" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16274" RevisionGUID="c562e9b0-f5b5-4b4c-a81e-48122b98b6a6" CreationDate="2016-08-09T07:56:30.710" UserId="15503" Comment="Minor spelling and grammar corrections" Text="In the music industry, there are plenty of guitar effects pedals. Most of them are clones of clones and all of them are available on the market. Nobody enforces any patents and everybody lives happy together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering at what level a circuit composed of transistors and capacitors is patentable and if there in any other level of protection the manufacturers can use to protect themselves from clones, in case they want to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking on Google patent search, I found very few or zero patents related to effects pedal. In particular, all the names of boutique pedals are absent in the patent database. How come?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16277" RevisionGUID="53c46186-8c50-4326-b20b-b02a8d750e4d" CreationDate="2016-08-09T08:09:13.303" UserId="15503" Text="**Are circuits composed of transistors and capacitors patentable?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In principle yes. However, the claimed circuit (like any invention) must fulfil the patentability requirements (primarily novelty and non-obviousness).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the claim was directed to &quot;a circuit comprising a transistor and a capacitor&quot;, it seems very likely that would not be novel.  However, if the claim was directed to a particular arrangement of components which, in that particular arrangement produce quite a unique effect, then it may well be novel and non-obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there any other protection for manufacturers to protect themselves from clones?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trade secrets might be relevant: if the function of the device is not really derivable from the final product (for whatever reason), then it might make sense to just keep the construction a secret.  In addition, registered designs (which protect appearance) and trade marks (which protect commercial marking) both immediately come to mind as being relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why are there few patents related to effect pedals?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is impossible to say conclusively. It may be that there has been very little real innovation in the area, such that there is nothing to patent. Alternatively, there may be characteristics in the industry which make patents less useful: high industrial barriers to entry or high customer loyalty to brands, for example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40290" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14699" RevisionGUID="92299e04-1296-4a00-935c-af35b7dc6cf5" CreationDate="2016-08-09T13:16:44.273" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40291" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16272" RevisionGUID="c69cee02-1453-4641-9f28-366956d9e295" CreationDate="2016-08-09T13:48:00.260" UserId="17248" Comment="edited title" Text="Options for submitting prior art on a patent application after the 6 month window passed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16280" RevisionGUID="f9ac3bc4-3f9a-4210-bf52-06a6eca79030" CreationDate="2016-08-09T13:50:41.103" UserId="17248" Text="Only preissuance submittance of prior art I've heard outside of the 6-month third party prior art window, is an attorney for a third party just calling up the examiner:&#xD;&#xA;http://patentlyo.com/patent/2011/04/third-party-attempts-to-protest-or-otherwise-oppose-the-grant-of-a-published-application.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40293" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10602" RevisionGUID="cd73485c-4106-4323-b3b2-816f80271838" CreationDate="2016-08-09T14:19:57.107" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40294" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5897" RevisionGUID="217f3c83-3170-46ec-a488-187e1334be6e" CreationDate="2016-08-09T16:24:16.183" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40296" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14366" RevisionGUID="d72a729d-4140-4695-aa88-c8a06c3a6dc0" CreationDate="2016-08-09T17:24:19.203" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16272" RevisionGUID="3c9dd702-1100-4846-9a56-3c86445b664c" CreationDate="2016-08-09T17:26:33.503" UserId="17248" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="There's a patent application close to issuance for an &quot;invention&quot; we have significant pieces of prior art for, but the time allowed for third party submissions under 35 U.S.C. 122(e) has passed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[MPEP 2202 and 2204][1] seem to say anyone can submit prior art at anytime, but I guess this only for already issued patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option seems to be sending the prior art to the applicant, as they are under a duty to disclose 37 CFR 1.56.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any other alternatives/options? Thanks so much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2204.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40298" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14697" RevisionGUID="d27a4047-3e7a-4ac7-953b-fae3a0816286" CreationDate="2016-08-09T22:26:02.273" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16282" RevisionGUID="fc8c1838-a94c-4891-97c5-d30c7cd94d7b" CreationDate="2016-08-10T01:13:37.960" UserId="17281" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20110114526][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110114526&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compartmentalized food and beverage cooler device &#xD;&#xA;US 20040262319 A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Isnt this pretty much the same thing, just different dimensions and design?...no invention here..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40300" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16282" RevisionGUID="fc8c1838-a94c-4891-97c5-d30c7cd94d7b" CreationDate="2016-08-10T01:13:37.960" UserId="17281" Text="Isn't this pretty much the same thing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40301" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16282" RevisionGUID="fc8c1838-a94c-4891-97c5-d30c7cd94d7b" CreationDate="2016-08-10T01:13:37.960" UserId="17281" Text="&lt;pre-aia&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40302" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16282" RevisionGUID="cb63942a-0ca6-4315-88e2-3564c16b8e59" CreationDate="2016-08-10T01:49:54.357" UserId="17281" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;us20110114526&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40307" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14409" RevisionGUID="aec9e09f-e0b1-4f2c-a38f-c846906d62c4" CreationDate="2016-08-10T07:31:24.723" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40308" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14355" RevisionGUID="f8ed585c-addd-4a84-9082-184f234714fd" CreationDate="2016-08-10T08:31:57.970" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40309" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16069" RevisionGUID="991c5b36-e05e-4579-ae80-c1a13a39dd1f" CreationDate="2016-08-10T09:32:13.937" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40310" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14868" RevisionGUID="d26ad697-4cde-4a79-974a-3b8f0e65ba4d" CreationDate="2016-08-10T11:36:07.327" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16284" RevisionGUID="dcd2411f-f8b3-4e17-b4d8-4c86bb331f32" CreationDate="2016-08-10T14:06:23.237" UserId="17248" Text="I have several pieces of prior art that were published on a website. The site is public but not in the Internet Archive or anything like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have content upload dates in the database that could be provided and verified by a third party.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what is typically needed to establish the publication date of a website's content as prior art? Affidavits, declarations? Timestamped emails with the URL and it's content being sent and described?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40312" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16284" RevisionGUID="dcd2411f-f8b3-4e17-b4d8-4c86bb331f32" CreationDate="2016-08-10T14:06:23.237" UserId="17248" Text="Proving the date of a website being used as prior art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40313" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16284" RevisionGUID="dcd2411f-f8b3-4e17-b4d8-4c86bb331f32" CreationDate="2016-08-10T14:06:23.237" UserId="17248" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;third-party-submission&gt;&lt;public-disclosure&gt;&lt;authentication&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40316" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="16118" RevisionGUID="c5af602b-0d17-404d-8848-6ea2265701dd" CreationDate="2016-08-10T17:38:51.783" UserId="-1" Comment="35" />
  <row Id="40317" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="87b0b809-0cc2-420f-a29c-55d66b99335d" CreationDate="2016-08-10T17:38:51.783" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40318" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13934" RevisionGUID="10ffe42c-757e-477e-9270-93e13108d1a8" CreationDate="2016-08-10T18:38:51.300" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40326" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16078" RevisionGUID="b4f1246c-528d-42f5-92ef-aab14517733c" CreationDate="2016-08-11T06:45:35.220" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40332" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="6bdb5b89-e796-49f2-859c-a174e1eb3aba" CreationDate="2016-08-11T14:55:19.993" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16288" RevisionGUID="bc431c6f-cb19-4c4f-abb9-2fdd163615be" CreationDate="2016-08-11T15:28:55.283" UserId="17294" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Oracle holds a Patent US20130103391 &quot;Natural language processing for software commands&quot;. I didn't exactly understand what they actually claim. Anyway, If I publish an ERP program that has a search box where user can enter some question regarding the analysis of the data like - 'what will be the sale next day?', and if the applications responds by giving a set of results regarding the question, will it be considerer as an infringement of the above patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, If yes, then why Apple's Siri is not a copyright infringement even it has the same functionality?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40334" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16288" RevisionGUID="bc431c6f-cb19-4c4f-abb9-2fdd163615be" CreationDate="2016-08-11T15:28:55.283" UserId="17294" Text="Natual Language processing patent by Oracle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40335" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16288" RevisionGUID="bc431c6f-cb19-4c4f-abb9-2fdd163615be" CreationDate="2016-08-11T15:28:55.283" UserId="17294" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;oracle&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40342" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16090" RevisionGUID="8532dfb0-d23f-49f4-8f12-c2bdd272e80c" CreationDate="2016-08-11T17:56:25.840" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40343" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14635" RevisionGUID="cd309abc-f0fe-46dd-ab70-33a7862142c2" CreationDate="2016-08-11T18:56:26.017" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40344" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14266" RevisionGUID="2f984bd2-cbc2-4206-b19c-364ed616ed13" CreationDate="2016-08-11T19:57:03.463" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40345" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14833" RevisionGUID="24401c3c-102f-4053-9b54-cde497fde296" CreationDate="2016-08-11T20:56:31.567" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40346" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16096" RevisionGUID="5960fec2-5434-4fa5-ae9c-89240769b463" CreationDate="2016-08-11T21:56:36.213" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16291" RevisionGUID="ee2ebd52-7a61-4ac9-94d6-7b472c26b9d6" CreationDate="2016-08-11T22:48:21.940" UserId="17299" Text="If you did not actually publish this information and , as you say, the app that you downloaded uses a military grade encryption system , than it would seem that your information was no more compromised than any information that is in any computer on the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;Since the likelihood that the info was compromised is so low it would seem that your rights over the information is in tact." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40348" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14831" RevisionGUID="3e63cac8-dae2-4dea-bdda-ac7717831c10" CreationDate="2016-08-11T22:56:36.250" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16292" RevisionGUID="8262bf65-a747-4caf-9473-8ba2679585d2" CreationDate="2016-08-11T23:10:31.043" UserId="3500" Text="First, that application has not yet issued as a patent.  You can look at http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair to find the status of most applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, you're conflating copyright and patent infringement.  This is a patent question, and I don't see an implication of copyright law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the essence of your question is a good one.  The claims that issue, if the application does issue as a patent, may be different from those in the original application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40350" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="fc130444-9c06-4ce8-924f-741fbefd9019" CreationDate="2016-08-11T23:56:36.293" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40351" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10796" RevisionGUID="dfe699d3-1675-4e58-b5ba-8f3af4e4ab01" CreationDate="2016-08-12T00:59:50.997" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40352" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="a05bfb4e-9154-4fb1-9291-fb1b7c3af235" CreationDate="2016-08-12T08:06:31.830" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40359" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10813" RevisionGUID="b8c17572-142d-40b6-a8df-8acf3b3a2557" CreationDate="2016-08-12T15:28:40.897" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40360" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12753" RevisionGUID="2b7dab17-e06c-4d17-bf08-4034e12c872b" CreationDate="2016-08-12T16:28:40.780" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40365" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16110" RevisionGUID="660aa5bc-25fc-49e0-8e9f-05ecd40d00d2" CreationDate="2016-08-12T19:28:52.467" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40370" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16124" RevisionGUID="d61f4fa6-e3c7-4345-8b07-255f06ec6aba" CreationDate="2016-08-12T22:31:37.650" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40373" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15983" RevisionGUID="0c3f01b7-d873-4b3a-94c0-895532b5a7e1" CreationDate="2016-08-13T02:32:37.463" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40375" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15991" RevisionGUID="571dda5d-a935-4bf2-9635-22fba46d5129" CreationDate="2016-08-13T03:32:37.410" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16288" RevisionGUID="9c19b424-92e6-48ed-8d62-a418121c82bc" CreationDate="2016-08-13T04:45:50.017" UserId="17294" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="Oracle holds a Patent US20130103391 &quot;Natural language processing for software commands&quot;. I didn't exactly understand what they actually claim. Anyway, If I publish an ERP program that has a search box where user can enter some question regarding the analysis of the data like - 'what will be the sale next day?', and if the applications responds by giving a set of results regarding the question, will it be considerer as an infringement of the above patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, If yes, then why Apple's Siri is not a patent infringement even it has the same functionality?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40377" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16103" RevisionGUID="013b0205-2b70-49a0-9f2e-2f7be55b8c57" CreationDate="2016-08-13T12:35:51.083" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40378" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="ea3802bb-17aa-49d4-abf6-b3f8698c25d3" CreationDate="2016-08-13T14:35:58.203" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40385" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13614" RevisionGUID="cd30865b-b937-439e-877b-a336dbcabae5" CreationDate="2016-08-13T20:51:44.213" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16299" RevisionGUID="270d63ac-22d6-44bd-8258-938b0300591e" CreationDate="2016-08-14T00:51:27.220" UserId="17310" Text="It sounds like Microsoft's NetShow meets all these requirements. Here is a link to a [press release](https://news.microsoft.com/1997/08/05/microsoft-announces-acquisition-of-vxtreme-rolls-out-streaming-multimedia-strategy-with-release-of-netshow-2-0/#sm.0001i0ux3011bveului8njsotuxb2) from 1997 that may describe all the elements." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16300" RevisionGUID="1e835855-7904-4347-81ad-40c8cec5544f" CreationDate="2016-08-14T01:29:29.093" UserId="16848" Text="A patent is a piece of property like other pieces of property in many respects.  It isn't clear from the question what sort of situation your father is in, but in two general cases the outcome is quite different.  If your father has a court appointed guardian because he is not able to make decisions for himself, then barring something specifically controlling this situation in the court order or other document, that person has control over the patent much like the person would over a car or house.  If your father is under a bankruptcy proceeding, then it is largely the same, however patents are often sold off to satisfy creditors or the patent may be transferred to a creditor to satisfy outstanding debts.  All of these questions are likely determined under state law or federal bankruptcy law and you probably need an attorney in your jurisdiction to help you understand your rights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In either case, it is unlikely that you have any special rights unless they are granted to you by some document in the proceeding.  Ownership or control of the prototype won't have any impact on who owns the patent.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This all assumes the patent is an issued patent.  If it is still an application, or if there are child applications still pending, there are a number of special rules that may come into play in order to ensure the continued prosecution of the patent, however if you have no ownership rights, then you are unlikely to be a entitled to anything under any of these rules." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16301" RevisionGUID="9463be30-926d-47dd-9f93-86554a781b1d" CreationDate="2016-08-14T01:38:19.187" UserId="16848" Text="This patent likely expired on June 3, 2008, according to the USPTO patent term calculator.  You can calculate patent term using the USPTO's patent term calculator available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/patent-term-calculator#heading-1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are foreign counterparts that may still be in force as I didn't look at them, damages for past infringement may be available for up to six years after the expiration of the patent depending on many details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40395" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12909" RevisionGUID="9fe53f24-dced-4364-acbf-4e660d9c47e2" CreationDate="2016-08-14T09:58:44.907" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16304" RevisionGUID="2b560d3b-078a-4132-9304-317064158a53" CreationDate="2016-08-15T14:00:57.603" UserId="17316" Text="I would like to understand the expiration date from patent EP 1228987 and for the DE 60206307&#xD;&#xA;Thank you,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Joaquim" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40402" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16304" RevisionGUID="2b560d3b-078a-4132-9304-317064158a53" CreationDate="2016-08-15T14:00:57.603" UserId="17316" Text="Expiration date from patent EP1228987 &amp; DE60206307" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40403" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16304" RevisionGUID="2b560d3b-078a-4132-9304-317064158a53" CreationDate="2016-08-15T14:00:57.603" UserId="17316" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;fees&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40404" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16134" RevisionGUID="7dc39be4-ed9f-44a8-89ec-ba81d67985a5" CreationDate="2016-08-15T17:22:54.793" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40408" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="ea33c551-7532-4634-bf4f-e8a061a736db" CreationDate="2016-08-15T18:22:58.623" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40410" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11980" RevisionGUID="958ca2a7-178e-426b-8430-c54ab5ecb1f7" CreationDate="2016-08-15T19:22:58.657" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16307" RevisionGUID="76ed6db1-acf4-4fc8-af87-15912f0b8e7d" CreationDate="2016-08-15T20:13:59.847" UserId="17319" Text="In reference to the patent application: [US20150095841][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20150095841&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What references to prior art are necessary and sufficient to counter this patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent application Claims include (summarised):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a composable analytics environment, a method for a user to create an application for data analysis, the method/system/ ‘a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by a processing device comprising’:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+  providing a graphical module repository [stored on a database] consisting of a plurality of graphical modules, wherein each graphical module of the plurality of graphical modules is configured to perform a data processing function;&#xD;&#xA;+  receiving input from a user, via a user interface, indicating selection of at least one graphical module from the graphical module repository to be part of an application;&#xD;&#xA;+  receiving a data set to be analyzed by the application; and&#xD;&#xA;+  executing the application designed by the user;&#xD;&#xA;+  publishing a result of the application and the application in the composable analytics environment, the published result and application accessible by other users having access to the composable analytics environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: one of the inventors refers explicitly in Sept-2014 to their use of Flow Based Programming (a subset of Data Flow Programming) here: &lt;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oaelUXh7sE&gt;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of established products that use graphical programming user interfaces to data flow based programming:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+	[LabVIEW][2]  &#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LabVIEW &#xD;&#xA;+	[KNIME][3]  &#xD;&#xA;[3]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KNIME &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of references to surveys of prior art (these downloads are generally openly accessible):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	[Data Flow Programming][4] &#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dataflow_programming &#xD;&#xA;2.	[Flow Based Programming][5] &#xD;&#xA;[5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow-based_programming &#xD;&#xA;3.	[Visual Programming language][6] &#xD;&#xA;[6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_programming_language &#xD;&#xA;4.	[1982, Davis and Keller,  Data Flow Program Graphs][7] &#xD;&#xA;[7]:&lt;http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.476.5981&gt;&#xD;&#xA;5.	[1992, Hils, Data Flow Visual Programming Languages][8] &#xD;&#xA;[8]:&lt;http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.476.5981&gt;&#xD;&#xA;6.	[2004, Johnston Hanna Millar, Advances in Dataflow programming languages][9] &#xD;&#xA;[9]:&lt;http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.99.7265&gt;&#xD;&#xA;7.	[2012, Sousa, Dataflow Programming Concepts Languages and Applications][10]  &#xD;&#xA;[10]:&lt;https://paginas.fe.up.pt/~prodei/dsie12/papers/paper_17.pdf&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40413" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16307" RevisionGUID="76ed6db1-acf4-4fc8-af87-15912f0b8e7d" CreationDate="2016-08-15T20:13:59.847" UserId="17319" Text="Prior Art for US20150095841 A1 ‘Composable Analytics’ and Data Flow Based programming?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40414" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16307" RevisionGUID="76ed6db1-acf4-4fc8-af87-15912f0b8e7d" CreationDate="2016-08-15T20:13:59.847" UserId="17319" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;us20150095841&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40415" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="33f3c977-db51-415b-9c54-f4cceef81269" CreationDate="2016-08-15T20:29:06.777" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40416" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11968" RevisionGUID="fd142607-3310-4afb-abca-1b26b68124d8" CreationDate="2016-08-16T01:29:34.047" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16308" RevisionGUID="e79bc369-eed2-42b2-bce4-6974eaa54473" CreationDate="2016-08-16T01:42:37.883" UserId="15657" Text="It's a PCT application that never entered national phase and is therefore expired." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16309" RevisionGUID="811a956f-a206-473f-b4b8-49d7263ab4e8" CreationDate="2016-08-16T01:57:33.270" UserId="15657" Text="You can check [USPTO PAIR][1] to see a history of the patent prosecution. I glanced at the document. The examiner objected the application because its claims encompass dissimilar species and requested that the applicant elect the restriction. The applicant never responded and the application was deemed abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16310" RevisionGUID="5f8dc90f-f162-4fb7-a062-6f0be06107c0" CreationDate="2016-08-16T02:06:49.713" UserId="17321" Text="Portion of Wikipedia article on Flow-Based Programming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow-based_programming#History ) : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flow-Based Programming (FBP) [referred to in the above-mentioned Sept. 2014 YouTube video] was invented by J. Paul Morrison in the early 1970s, and initially implemented in software for a Canadian bank.(http://www.fastcompany.com/3016289/how-an-arcane-coding-method-from-1970s-banking-software-could-save-the-sanity-of-web-develop ) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FBP at its inception was strongly influenced by some IBM simulation languages of the period [mid to late '60s], in particular GPSS, but its roots go all the way back to Conway's seminal paper on what he called coroutines.(M.E. Conway, &quot;Design of a separable transition-diagram compiler&quot;, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 6, No. 7, July 1963)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FBP has undergone a number of name changes over the years: the original implementation was called AMPS (Advanced Modular Processing System). One large application in Canada went live in 1975... Because IBM considered the ideas behind FBP &quot;too much like a law of nature&quot; to be patentable they instead put the basic concepts of FBP into the public domain, by means of a Technical Disclosure Bulletin, &quot;Data Responsive Modular, Interleaved Task Programming System&quot;, (IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, Vol. 13, No. 8, 2425-2426, January 1971). An article describing its concepts and experience using it was published in 1978 in the ... IBM Systems Journal under the name DSLM.(J. Paul Morrison, &quot;Data Stream Linkage Mechanism&quot;, IBM Systems Journal Vol. 17, No. 4, 1978).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally the concepts were referred to within IBM as &quot;Data Flow&quot;, but this term was felt to be too general, and eventually the name Flow-Based Programming was adopted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Parenthetical note: in the claim, the term &quot;graphical module&quot; is used.  FBP has always been visual and graphical, but in the early days, we did not have graphical software powerful enough to enable diagrams to be drawn on computers, so we used (very) large sheets of paper, and managed the diagrams using pencil and eraser!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact the term &quot;graphical module&quot; is misleading: an FBP network is a network of asynchronous processes, which can be represented graphically to improve comprehension and maintainability.  There is nothing inherently graphical about the modules (code executed by individual processes).  This is true of all systems derived from FBP or similar to it.  The network can perfectly well be coded by hand, as it is basically just a list of connections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The term &quot;graphical module repository&quot; is more defensible if the term &quot;graphical&quot; is taken as describing the repository rather than the modules..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40424" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12505" RevisionGUID="495b0f70-54b7-47c2-a287-70d0cb3f9f0c" CreationDate="2016-08-16T08:34:22.917" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40425" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10532" RevisionGUID="cb963870-fe1a-434b-a060-cc85a87b10f3" CreationDate="2016-08-16T09:34:22.790" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16312" RevisionGUID="5cde92c9-7fd7-4290-9446-642785bcf91c" CreationDate="2016-08-16T12:11:31.033" UserId="17325" Text="**When to file**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many possible answers here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If what you are seeking to patent is already made public (in a brochure, a scientific paper, a presentation) then it is probably too late. A skilled attorney may get you out of this, depending on the situation, but there will be no guarantee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have already filed a national patent application (e.g. in Denmark or the US) then you have strictly 12 months to file a PCT application and *claim priority*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have done nothing of the above, you can file a PCT application as soon as you wish. That of course means you have some work to support your patent. Better have a professional to write down the patent, as it is not as easy as it might look.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PCT coverage**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current list of countries and regions under the PCT can be found here&#xD;&#xA;http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/pct_contracting_states.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cost**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the cost, this is really hard to answer. First of all there is the cost for filling a PCT and paying for the search report and relevant formalities, a little over 3000 euros. A quick view can be found here https://www.epo.org/applying/forms-fees/international-fees/important-fees.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After filling the PCT, you will have to decide which countries you want to have your patent granted. For each country (or region, like the EPO) there is the cost for the patent prosecution (patent attorney cost and patent office actions) and then there is the cost for maintaining a granted patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously there is no straightforward answer here, but for major markets expect 4-digit numbers for the first examination steps (and see again wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#Economics the paragraph for *costs*)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40431" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13966" RevisionGUID="aa5e1bfa-fe85-4f57-89f8-c927825ce1c1" CreationDate="2016-08-16T16:40:40.920" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16307" RevisionGUID="286c1ec8-7f28-44d8-b3a3-a6d13fc7d7a6" CreationDate="2016-08-16T18:07:30.053" UserId="17319" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent application: [US20150095841][1] and its images which are all viewable [here][11].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20150095841&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://images1.freshpatents.com/imageviewer/20150095841-p20150095841&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What references to prior art are necessary and sufficient to counter this patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent application Claims include (summarised):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a composable analytics environment, a method for a user to create an application for data analysis, the method/system/ ‘a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by a processing device’ comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+  providing a graphical module repository [stored on a database] consisting of a plurality of graphical modules, wherein each graphical module of the plurality of graphical modules is configured to perform a data processing function;&#xD;&#xA;+  receiving input from a user, via a user interface, indicating selection of at least one graphical module from the graphical module repository to be part of an application;&#xD;&#xA;+  receiving a data set to be analyzed by the application; and&#xD;&#xA;+  executing the application designed by the user;&#xD;&#xA;+  publishing a result of the application and the application in the composable analytics environment, the published result and application accessible by other users having access to the composable analytics environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: one of the inventors refers explicitly in Sept-2014 to their use of Flow Based Programming (a subset of Data Flow Programming) here: &lt;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oaelUXh7sE&gt;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of established products (well before the priority date) that use graphical programming user interfaces to data flow based programming:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+	[LabVIEW][2]  &#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LabVIEW &#xD;&#xA;+	[KNIME][3]  &#xD;&#xA;[3]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KNIME &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of references to surveys of prior art (these downloads are generally openly accessible):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	[Data Flow Programming][4] &#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dataflow_programming &#xD;&#xA;2.	[Flow Based Programming][5] &#xD;&#xA;[5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow-based_programming &#xD;&#xA;3.	[Visual Programming language][6] &#xD;&#xA;[6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_programming_language &#xD;&#xA;4.	[1982, Davis and Keller,  Data Flow Program Graphs][7] &#xD;&#xA;[7]:&lt;http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.476.5981&gt;&#xD;&#xA;5.	[1992, Hils, Data Flow Visual Programming Languages][8] &#xD;&#xA;[8]:&lt;http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.476.5981&gt;&#xD;&#xA;6.	[2004, Johnston Hanna Millar, Advances in Dataflow programming languages][9] &#xD;&#xA;[9]:&lt;http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.99.7265&gt;&#xD;&#xA;7.	[2012, Sousa, Dataflow Programming Concepts Languages and Applications][10]  &#xD;&#xA;[10]:&lt;https://paginas.fe.up.pt/~prodei/dsie12/papers/paper_17.pdf&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40441" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14806" RevisionGUID="c3a65581-2ad6-4bfa-80d8-51062818a8f5" CreationDate="2016-08-17T06:56:32.767" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40442" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14948" RevisionGUID="5f5a65bb-7d6c-4d3f-a5fa-9d2a612dc730" CreationDate="2016-08-17T07:56:33.563" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16314" RevisionGUID="0b7cf79d-1587-4cf1-a384-14eb1f763319" CreationDate="2016-08-17T08:30:45.943" UserId="17333" Text="USPTO published a document related to America Invent Act (AIA) implementation where it categorized a YouTube video to “qualify as a Printed Publication under AIA and pre-AIA laws.” (Page 15 of ‘[First Inventor to File (FITF) Comprehensive Training: Prior Art Under the AIA][1]‘)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AIA adds a new provision to 35 USC 102(a)(1) in the form of “Otherwise available to the public” which had no counterpart in pre-AIA law. USPTO explains further that “an oral presentation at a scientific meeting, a demonstration at a trade show, a lecture or speech, a statement made on a radio talk show and a YouTube video, Web site, or other on-line material (this type of disclosure may also qualify as a printed publication under AIA and pre-AIA law)”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Citius Minds][2] has collated an article which explains in what form should a YouTube video be submitted to be considered by the examiner or jury, provide necessary evidence and make the most sense. - [http://www.citiusminds.com/blog/can-youtube-videos-be-used-as-prior-arts/][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/aia_implementation/fitf_comprehensive_training_prior_art_under_aia.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.citiusminds.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.citiusminds.com/blog/can-youtube-videos-be-used-as-prior-arts/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40444" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16114" RevisionGUID="3e16a1c0-c14f-4db0-b11d-8a134fb98967" CreationDate="2016-08-17T08:56:39.353" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40448" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12423" RevisionGUID="403cd044-aea7-4c73-b24c-4a05b244eaa4" CreationDate="2016-08-17T09:56:39.077" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40450" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14892" RevisionGUID="0b9df10f-a67b-4269-ab7d-13d5fdd43856" CreationDate="2016-08-17T13:56:41.863" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40457" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13901" RevisionGUID="d097d361-2420-421a-b506-83105631c9a6" CreationDate="2016-08-17T20:58:16.933" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40464" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13820" RevisionGUID="409929b1-4bbf-44af-8696-537d47d00d53" CreationDate="2016-08-18T01:58:47.223" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40469" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14893" RevisionGUID="4c57f78b-0ca7-437c-af1d-a749538c200a" CreationDate="2016-08-18T04:58:57.267" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16322" RevisionGUID="805ed055-d3a6-4fa1-a637-2b3ed372af7a" CreationDate="2016-08-18T10:05:19.713" UserId="17325" Text="European patents expire **20 years from their filling date**. In your case filling date is 30.01.2002. Interestingly, there is a small discrepancy across the contracting states of the European Patent Office. Some consider the date of filling as being included in the 20-year time span (FR, UK) and some don't (DE) (&quot;What is the term of a European patent?&quot; by M. Snodin, CIPA Journal, July 2016, volume 45(7), p.17). This results in one day difference between the national expiries, I don't think it is important in the majority of cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for DE60206307, the kind code is T2, which means it refers to the *translation of the EP patent* and there is no separate national filling in Germany. The fees of the EP patent have not been payed since 2006, though (https://register.dpma.de/DPMAregister/pat/register?lang=en&amp;AKZ=E020019063) and so the patent has lapsed in Germany." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16195" RevisionGUID="ccb62e6e-4fc9-423a-8859-16db161e87df" CreationDate="2016-08-18T10:56:27.690" UserId="17155" Comment="added 315 characters in body" Text="There is no definitive answer to your question. The simple suggestion is that you might want to consider consulting with your attorney. But, unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that even attorney will have a proper yes or no answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a website though that might help you decide whether the software you are going to create infringes [ImageWare][1] patent: [website where they try to use patent prosecution against the patent][2], at least it should help you to understand what the patent is patenting. Keep in mind that there are probably much more patents related to biometrics not only [ImageWare][1] patents. Anyway the more information you collect on patents related to your product the better understanding of patent situation you acquire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind the patent you’ve mentioned is a US patent, apparently [ImageWare][1] has applied for a same patent in many countries: [WIPO][3]. In the end it is up to you to assess the risk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After going through the reports you provided it really looks that the company is very bad at what they are doing which is a cause to worry having in mind that they put so much effort into patents as you've said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at ImageWare's patent families:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7298873, US7362884, US7606396, US7596246][4]&#xD;&#xA; - [US9286528][5]&#xD;&#xA; - [20140313007][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is to analyze those patents and if they can still be objected to add corresponding questions here marked as a prior art request. Also if you see that patent is claiming way less than it might seem from abstract or description (take a look at the website I've mentioned earlier: [link][7], [backup link][8]), it would be great to share the reasoning here in stackexchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://iwsinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.hoxty.com/ImageWare/7298873/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2006055575&amp;recNum=1&amp;tab=NationalPhase&amp;maxRec=&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=&amp;queryString=&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://globaldossier.uspto.gov/#/result/patent/US/7362884/126592&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://globaldossier.uspto.gov/#/result/patent/US/9286528/114162&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://globaldossier.uspto.gov/#/result/publication/US/20140313007/113669&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://patents.hoxty.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://web.archive.org/web/20160725123956/http://patents.hoxty.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16181" RevisionGUID="d9c58e3c-4f57-48cd-9603-509d65d08a65" CreationDate="2016-08-18T11:14:59.267" UserId="17155" Comment="added 184 characters in body" Text="Try also [USPTO Electronic Bulk Data Products][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might also try to use [Googles's tesseract ocr][2] project to perform OCR on PDFs to extract searchable text, for that you would need very good IT specialists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/electronic-bulk-data-products&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://github.com/tesseract-ocr/tesseract" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16307" RevisionGUID="e0bf9048-1430-405b-92a9-e387ccaedd90" CreationDate="2016-08-18T14:14:28.430" UserId="17319" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent application: [US20150095841][1] and its images which are all viewable [here][11].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20150095841&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://images1.freshpatents.com/imageviewer/20150095841-p20150095841&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What references to prior art are necessary and sufficient to counter this patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent application Claims include (summarised):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a composable analytics environment, a method for a user to create an application for data analysis, the method/system/ ‘a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by a processing device’ comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+  providing a graphical module repository [stored on a database] consisting of a plurality of graphical modules, wherein each graphical module of the plurality of graphical modules is configured to perform a data processing function;&#xD;&#xA;+  receiving input from a user, via a user interface, indicating selection of at least one graphical module from the graphical module repository to be part of an application;&#xD;&#xA;+  receiving a data set to be analyzed by the application; and&#xD;&#xA;+  executing the application designed by the user;&#xD;&#xA;+  publishing a result of the application and the application in the composable analytics environment, the published result and application accessible by other users having access to the composable analytics environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: one of the inventors refers explicitly in Sept-2014 to their use of Flow Based Programming (a subset of Data Flow Programming) here: &lt;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oaelUXh7sE&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of established products (well before the priority date) that use graphical programming user interfaces to data flow based programming:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+	[LabVIEW][2]  &#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LabVIEW &#xD;&#xA;+	[KNIME][3]   ([and an example screenshot][12])&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KNIME&#xD;&#xA;[12]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KNIME#/media/File:Knime.jpg &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of references to surveys of prior art (these downloads are generally openly accessible):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	[Data Flow Programming][4] &#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dataflow_programming &#xD;&#xA;2.	[Flow Based Programming][5] &#xD;&#xA;[5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow-based_programming &#xD;&#xA;3.	[Visual Programming language][6] &#xD;&#xA;[6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_programming_language &#xD;&#xA;4.	[1982, Davis and Keller,  Data Flow Program Graphs][7] &#xD;&#xA;[7]:&lt;http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.476.5981&gt;&#xD;&#xA;5.	[1992, Hils, Data Flow Visual Programming Languages][8] &#xD;&#xA;[8]:&lt;http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.476.5981&gt;&#xD;&#xA;6.	[2004, Johnston Hanna Millar, Advances in Dataflow programming languages][9] &#xD;&#xA;[9]:&lt;http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.99.7265&gt;&#xD;&#xA;7.	[2012, Sousa, Dataflow Programming Concepts Languages and Applications][10]  &#xD;&#xA;[10]:&lt;https://paginas.fe.up.pt/~prodei/dsie12/papers/paper_17.pdf&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16307" RevisionGUID="c6213cd4-aacc-4440-9146-99554f2c5612" CreationDate="2016-08-18T14:20:23.087" UserId="17319" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent application: [US20150095841][1] and its images which are all viewable [here][11].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20150095841&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://images1.freshpatents.com/imageviewer/20150095841-p20150095841&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What references to prior art are necessary and sufficient to counter this patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent application Claims include (summarised):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a composable analytics environment, a method for a user to create an application for data analysis, the method/system/ ‘a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by a processing device’ comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+  providing a graphical module repository [stored on a database] consisting of a plurality of graphical modules, wherein each graphical module of the plurality of graphical modules is configured to perform a data processing function;&#xD;&#xA;+  receiving input from a user, via a user interface, indicating selection of at least one graphical module from the graphical module repository to be part of an application;&#xD;&#xA;+  receiving a data set to be analyzed by the application; and&#xD;&#xA;+  executing the application designed by the user;&#xD;&#xA;+  publishing a result of the application and the application in the composable analytics environment, the published result and application accessible by other users having access to the composable analytics environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: one of the inventors refers explicitly in Sept-2014 to their use of Flow Based Programming (a subset of Data Flow Programming) here: &lt;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oaelUXh7sE&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of established products (well before the priority date) that use graphical programming user interfaces to data flow based programming:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+	[LabVIEW][2]  &#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LabVIEW &#xD;&#xA;+	[KNIME](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KNIME)    ([and an example screenshot dated 16 November 2009](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KNIME#/media/File:Knime.jpg ))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of references to surveys of prior art (these downloads are generally openly accessible):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	[Data Flow Programming][4] &#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dataflow_programming &#xD;&#xA;2.	[Flow Based Programming][5] &#xD;&#xA;[5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow-based_programming &#xD;&#xA;3.	[Visual Programming language][6] &#xD;&#xA;[6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_programming_language &#xD;&#xA;4.	[1982, Davis and Keller,  Data Flow Program Graphs][7] &#xD;&#xA;[7]:&lt;http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.476.5981&gt;&#xD;&#xA;5.	[1992, Hils, Data Flow Visual Programming Languages][8] &#xD;&#xA;[8]:&lt;http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.476.5981&gt;&#xD;&#xA;6.	[2004, Johnston Hanna Millar, Advances in Dataflow programming languages][9] &#xD;&#xA;[9]:&lt;http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.99.7265&gt;&#xD;&#xA;7.	[2012, Sousa, Dataflow Programming Concepts Languages and Applications][10]  &#xD;&#xA;[10]:&lt;https://paginas.fe.up.pt/~prodei/dsie12/papers/paper_17.pdf&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40489" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12929" RevisionGUID="1d169589-f3cc-414c-a7c0-418d23a5c843" CreationDate="2016-08-18T15:01:20.223" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40498" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13585" RevisionGUID="9a20f20c-40bf-4400-8eb3-768f75a0c6b5" CreationDate="2016-08-19T01:02:58.730" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40499" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12868" RevisionGUID="37da5e8f-e8f1-44b3-8ed3-d26a99bd668a" CreationDate="2016-08-19T02:05:23.987" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14875" RevisionGUID="5559b96c-f062-47c7-a49c-5b3b9fdfe5f4" CreationDate="2016-08-19T02:28:52.573" UserId="16696" Comment="Additional info regarding claims and international patents." Text="This article is worth looking at: http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/navigating-the-needle-s-eye-patenting-38523/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The PTAB found that (i) the claimed method is directed to a set of rules for conducting a wagering game, which is a patent-ineligible abstract idea, and (ii) the manipulations of the deck of cards (e.g., shuffling, dealing) are conventional steps in playing a wagering game that do not add enough to the claims to transform the recited methods into patent-eligible subject matter.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, they were trying to patent a new method betting on Blackjack, which was deemed a &quot;business method&quot; and purely abstract. (i.e. It's simply a set of mental steps for managing risk.)  They were also trying to patent procedures which included shuffling cards, which is not novel, but a standard procedure in card games. Their patent didn't have any novel rules that comprised a new game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ostensibly, truly novel game methods should still be patentable, regardless of whether they involve computers, although patent attorneys recommend using one of the claims to tie the game to computer systems for software-based implementations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another element to bear in mind is that patents are not a monolith.  Typically you will have a few independent claims and a bunch of dependent claims (which are extensions of the independent claims.) Each claim is treated separately, so having any particular claim denied does not necessarily invalidate the entire patent.  The review process generally takes a few years and involves some back-and-forth with the patent office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rules vary internationally. US patents can usually be defended in patent treaty regions, although if a game catches on, foreign filing may be worthwhile. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40502" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13198" RevisionGUID="eec3cdc2-5c58-472b-81ce-b434cb0b0b7d" CreationDate="2016-08-19T03:05:18.370" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16326" RevisionGUID="40b123c5-96c5-4d22-94e3-debc27650d0f" CreationDate="2016-08-19T06:22:32.337" UserId="17325" Text="The amended claims were filed in April 2016. Currently, the pace of work in the EPO results in examiners replying in about 6 months, so check again the EP Registry (all documents tab) for the examiners reply around October. You can also create a personal account (Register Alert) and add this application to your monitoring list. The EPO then sents notification emails about changes of the application status (sometimes with a few days delay, but it is a useful tool)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40507" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13006" RevisionGUID="bf01f962-fc71-4a2e-aae6-1bdeb83cfb2b" CreationDate="2016-08-19T09:08:11.683" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40508" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16149" RevisionGUID="1af4c382-b6ed-46e2-a689-7391a78e1f37" CreationDate="2016-08-19T15:10:41.747" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40509" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16131" RevisionGUID="78bc1fdd-ecf9-4ed7-84a5-009680238e4c" CreationDate="2016-08-19T18:14:47.210" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40510" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14044" RevisionGUID="ac97a049-47e8-417a-8006-c1ca8e77813b" CreationDate="2016-08-19T19:14:47.370" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16328" RevisionGUID="2f6b62ce-b1e6-4358-acc4-059b69bf33bf" CreationDate="2016-08-19T20:54:48.560" UserId="16696" Text="You should take a look at [&quot;Alice&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International) and [&quot;Bilski&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International) and [&quot;Mayo&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayo_Collaborative_Services_v._Prometheus_Laboratories,_Inc.), the three recent cases that address this area.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, as I understand it, a purely abstract idea such as a &quot;set of mental steps&quot;, is not likely patent eligible at this time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, patent law is always in a state of chaos, so you should consult with a patent attorney or two before making any public disclosure, just in case there is a way to render the material eligible. (In March of 2013, US Patent law switched from [&quot;first to invent&quot; to &quot;first to file&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent), thus any public disclosure prior to filing either a provisional or nonprovisional patent will lose your right to pursue a patent for any disclosed material.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16328" RevisionGUID="0b0bd820-fe30-44a7-acf2-c4ec47ffa8c6" CreationDate="2016-08-19T21:00:07.557" UserId="16696" Comment="wanted to clean up my punctuation as the asker is an admited pedagogue ;)" Text="You should take a look at [&quot;Alice&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International) and [&quot;Bilski&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International) and [&quot;Mayo&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayo_Collaborative_Services_v._Prometheus_Laboratories,_Inc.), the three recent cases that address this area.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, as I understand it, a purely abstract idea such as a &quot;set of mental steps&quot; is not likely patent eligible at this time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, patent law is always in a state of chaos, so you should consult with a patent attorney or two before making any public disclosure, just in case there is a way to render the material eligible. (In March of 2013, US Patent law switched from [&quot;first to invent&quot; to &quot;first to file&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent), thus any public disclosure prior to filing either a provisional or nonprovisional patent will lose you the right to pursue a patent for any disclosed material.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40513" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="f59aca2a-249d-474e-9507-070efecd541a" CreationDate="2016-08-19T23:15:31.677" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40515" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16003" RevisionGUID="1ce3af60-246a-46b2-85c4-a7a604b48abe" CreationDate="2016-08-20T03:26:19.787" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40516" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14245" RevisionGUID="9cfa17f7-e1e4-44f0-9a35-42d5e9b538fe" CreationDate="2016-08-20T07:26:21.420" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40520" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14228" RevisionGUID="842d30df-427d-4ec7-b37d-450188034de7" CreationDate="2016-08-20T08:27:17.027" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40521" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14199" RevisionGUID="790ea368-f55b-457c-9385-cfccf2ac947d" CreationDate="2016-08-20T10:30:28.327" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16330" RevisionGUID="36670bd2-20b6-41b6-b831-1fc1f0427c68" CreationDate="2016-08-20T11:13:46.120" UserId="17355" Text="I go to the store and I see many knock offs of name brand items that look and taste just like the original. Sometimes even the box look a like. This also goes for toys, phones, cars etc. Whats the point of having a patent if someone can change a small ( really small ) feature and say its new? I'm suppose to spend thousands of dollars and can still get people bring my idea to market!&#xA;&#xA;I kind of feel that here in the u.s the monopoly laws kinds of go against the patent theory. If I make a brand new product and get a patent so no one can steal it then I'm in a sense a monopoly. But if people can still take my idea then patents are useless.. I'm sure there's a reason but what is it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40523" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16330" RevisionGUID="36670bd2-20b6-41b6-b831-1fc1f0427c68" CreationDate="2016-08-20T11:13:46.120" UserId="17355" Text="What's the point of a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40524" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16330" RevisionGUID="36670bd2-20b6-41b6-b831-1fc1f0427c68" CreationDate="2016-08-20T11:13:46.120" UserId="17355" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16307" RevisionGUID="7cbbbfba-f240-4117-ac9b-082e6503e1af" CreationDate="2016-08-20T11:55:50.540" UserId="17319" Comment="added 202 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent application: [US20150095841][1] and its images which are all viewable [here][11].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20150095841&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://images1.freshpatents.com/imageviewer/20150095841-p20150095841&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What references to prior art are necessary and sufficient to counter this patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent application Claims include (summarised):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a composable analytics environment, a method for a user to create an application for data analysis, the method/system/ ‘a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by a processing device’ comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+  providing a graphical module repository [stored on a database] consisting of a plurality of graphical modules, wherein each graphical module of the plurality of graphical modules is configured to perform a data processing function;&#xD;&#xA;+  receiving input from a user, via a user interface, indicating selection of at least one graphical module from the graphical module repository to be part of an application;&#xD;&#xA;+  receiving a data set to be analyzed by the application; and&#xD;&#xA;+  executing the application designed by the user;&#xD;&#xA;+  publishing a result of the application and the application in the composable analytics environment, the published result and application accessible by other users having access to the composable analytics environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: one of the inventors refers explicitly in Sept-2014 to their use of Flow Based Programming (a subset of Data Flow Programming) here: &lt;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oaelUXh7sE&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of established products (well before the priority date) that use graphical programming user interfaces to data flow based programming:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+	[LabVIEW][2]  &#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LabVIEW &#xD;&#xA;+	[KNIME](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KNIME)    ([and an example screenshot dated 16 November 2009](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KNIME#/media/File:Knime.jpg ))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of references to surveys of prior art (these downloads are generally openly accessible):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	[Data Flow Programming][4] &#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dataflow_programming &#xD;&#xA;2.	[Flow Based Programming][5] &#xD;&#xA;[5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow-based_programming &#xD;&#xA;3.	[Visual Programming language][6] &#xD;&#xA;[6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_programming_language &#xD;&#xA;4.	[1982, Davis and Keller,  Data Flow Program Graphs][7] &#xD;&#xA;[7]:&lt;http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.476.5981&gt;&#xD;&#xA;5.	[1992, Hils, Data Flow Visual Programming Languages][8] &#xD;&#xA;[8]:&lt;http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.476.5981&gt;&#xD;&#xA;6.	[2004, Johnston Hanna Millar, Advances in Dataflow programming languages][9] &#xD;&#xA;[9]:&lt;http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.99.7265&gt;&#xD;&#xA;7.	[2011, Marttila-Kontio, Visual Data Flow Programming Languages: challenges and opportunities][10]  &#xD;&#xA;[10]:&lt;http://epublications.uef.fi/pub/urn_isbn_978-952-61-0418-8/urn_isbn_978-952-61-0418-8.pdf&gt;&#xD;&#xA;8. [2012, Sousa, Dataflow Programming Concepts Languages and Applications][11]  &#xD;&#xA;[11]:&lt;https://paginas.fe.up.pt/~prodei/dsie12/papers/paper_17.pdf&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40526" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14248" RevisionGUID="d7c47c18-57cc-4302-8bcb-d9e16b0052bf" CreationDate="2016-08-20T12:30:30.570" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40527" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14202" RevisionGUID="71a0b038-fed7-48c1-b7a9-b72fa6d29827" CreationDate="2016-08-20T13:30:38.787" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40528" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="45e4d5d9-98b7-46a4-88e7-1bf9d6fd4996" CreationDate="2016-08-20T14:31:09.950" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40532" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14755" RevisionGUID="afb05e22-5791-4fa3-9658-32fafc486e8b" CreationDate="2016-08-21T00:31:35.277" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40533" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14348" RevisionGUID="8055e689-ed0a-4862-b73a-ee664f15df20" CreationDate="2016-08-21T02:31:35.823" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40536" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12543" RevisionGUID="3346293d-e847-4ed4-8e20-779ff4099482" CreationDate="2016-08-21T03:31:36.377" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40537" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14424" RevisionGUID="466b7425-7176-4f28-83e0-d6fdcb8044bf" CreationDate="2016-08-21T04:31:46.257" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40538" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16009" RevisionGUID="a8bc82b6-487f-46ad-8a35-b8efdff89f49" CreationDate="2016-08-21T14:43:42.140" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40542" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16174" RevisionGUID="60cd5e16-4b7c-4306-b365-a6ad1ebb910f" CreationDate="2016-08-21T16:43:47.133" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40543" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12539" RevisionGUID="6c218f8f-493e-48d7-b1e7-8fc8a953842f" CreationDate="2016-08-21T17:43:52.623" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40544" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16172" RevisionGUID="9e62df0e-cb79-4847-aede-a7304a156a93" CreationDate="2016-08-21T18:46:21.467" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16173" RevisionGUID="b69c530f-f359-4e37-8f34-82ac21c82ec6" CreationDate="2016-08-21T20:49:33.913" UserId="133" Comment="fixed a typo; improved grammar" Text="The U.S. Patent Office's copy of these patents should be in the National Archives holdings. A typical patent file can contain the original specification that was submitted at the time of the application, along with the patentee's oath and correspondence between the patent office and the patentee or his attorney along with an original copy of the patent as issued. I've included a link to the National Archives online catalog listing for this series which includes a link to request copies of the files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the patents would have expired more than 75 years ago, there isn't any financial gain from the patents at this time, but that doesn't diminish the genealogical value to yourself and your family.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40546" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16173" RevisionGUID="b69c530f-f359-4e37-8f34-82ac21c82ec6" CreationDate="2016-08-21T20:49:33.913" Comment="Proposed by 133 approved by 17136 edit id of 1969" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40547" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="6e73a1c6-2ad0-4a9f-acc0-e576587db558" CreationDate="2016-08-22T01:52:19.370" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16333" RevisionGUID="60776ec6-b561-49b0-a065-207c5caea675" CreationDate="2016-08-22T03:27:49.380" UserId="15192" Text="A lot of the discussions of patents are about ridiculous ones that even a layman could understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm wondering: how are truly high-tech cases decided in court? Either side, if we are talking about big companies, can hire experts who will testify to whatever is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The judges can't be expected to understand the intricacies of semiconductor manufacturing, or whatever else is involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how can such cases be decided, even in theory?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40552" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16333" RevisionGUID="60776ec6-b561-49b0-a065-207c5caea675" CreationDate="2016-08-22T03:27:49.380" UserId="15192" Text="How is the truth established in court for cases involving truly high-tech patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40553" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16333" RevisionGUID="60776ec6-b561-49b0-a065-207c5caea675" CreationDate="2016-08-22T03:27:49.380" UserId="15192" Text="&lt;validity&gt;&lt;litigation&gt;&lt;court&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40554" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12561" RevisionGUID="364cfea0-1ab5-46cf-9678-7731dac47528" CreationDate="2016-08-22T04:52:49.607" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16334" RevisionGUID="a54b6cba-9137-475e-9ea2-cb0f74a71ada" CreationDate="2016-08-22T07:24:19.860" UserId="15657" Text="Your question is too broad to be answered sufficiently. Please break down the question to specific issues that can be answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence of your question needs to be approached carefully. Most inventions (and hence most patents) are improvement upon others. So it's possible for anyone or any media to question the merit of any patent by its &quot;degree of innovation&quot;, which is a rather subjective question. Also, every innovation is obvious in hindsight. An often used analogy is a safety pin, which is simple and obvious to anyone who has seen one, but most people won't have the wit to invent one without prior knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One objective of expert opinion, therefore, is to establish if all the elements/improvements of a patent are known and obvious to a person with ordinary skills in the art AT THE TIME of the invention. Thus, an expert must look for publicly accessible information that predates the patent application, and determine if the invention was anticipated by these information. A thorough knowledge of the history and technical details of the manufacturing process is generally not needed to understand an expert opinion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40556" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12942" RevisionGUID="3398c2b8-4c55-4fb1-afef-6b4856857f33" CreationDate="2016-08-22T11:59:41.807" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40557" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12549" RevisionGUID="fed06f53-27a7-4dff-9d57-901058642cc6" CreationDate="2016-08-22T14:00:53.833" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40558" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14403" RevisionGUID="f5e5ce17-58d5-4871-9948-cbeb6abf3552" CreationDate="2016-08-22T16:01:14.040" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16333" RevisionGUID="4cb5056b-c0c1-4f17-818c-f0cea38905c9" CreationDate="2016-08-22T20:25:43.817" UserId="15192" Comment="deleted 90 characters in body" Text="How are truly high-tech cases **requiring specialized knowledge** decided in court? Either side, if we are talking about big companies, can hire experts who will testify to whatever is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The judges can't be expected to understand the intricacies of semiconductor manufacturing, or whatever else is involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how can such cases be decided, even in theory?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40560" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13383" RevisionGUID="a63e998b-3eda-4c91-a021-6809420a2e25" CreationDate="2016-08-23T00:03:24.913" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40563" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12742" RevisionGUID="ead3d91b-e260-46db-aab3-e4aceba9533a" CreationDate="2016-08-23T03:03:29.330" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16336" RevisionGUID="01c49f07-4b99-40f2-8aa7-001b11b09efc" CreationDate="2016-08-23T05:11:15.807" UserId="16796" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20160021679][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20160021679&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;down vote&#xD;&#xA;favorite&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: WO2016010682A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just came across this patent which claims 1. A method of wireless communications, comprising: transmitting a clear-to-send (CTS) signal from a mobile device over a channel in an unlicensed radio frequency spectrum band, the transmitting of the CTS signal being based at least in part on resource schedule information; and receiving data over the channel during a period of time set by the CTS signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This idea has already been discussed and experimented by researchers in Hou, James, et al. &quot;Minimizing 802.11 interference on ZigBee medical sensors.&quot; Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Body Area Networks. ICST (Institute for Computer Sciences, Social-Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering), 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this paper on page 7 they discuss their experiment as &quot; The next experiment sought to show that it might be possible for a CTS inducing device to temporarily lock out 802.11 devices and allow ZigBee devices to transmit. What happened was that in the presence of heavy 802.11 traffic, the CTS interferer was able to temporaril y lock out 802.11 transmissions for a short period of time. In doing so, by chance , some of the ZigBee transmissions were able to arrive at their destinations as intended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This paper was published in 2009. It is completely bogus to file patent on others ideas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also this work was extended by &#xD;&#xA;S. Ishida, S. Tagashira and A. Fukuda, &quot;AP-assisted CTS-blocking for WiFi-ZigBee Coexistence,&quot; 2015 Third International Symposium on Computing and Networking (CANDAR), Sapporo, 2015, pp. 110-114.&#xD;&#xA;doi: 10.1109/CANDAR.2015.16&#xD;&#xA;in which he covers many claims made by this patent. This is prior art for sure. No patent should be granted. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40568" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16336" RevisionGUID="01c49f07-4b99-40f2-8aa7-001b11b09efc" CreationDate="2016-08-23T05:11:15.807" UserId="16796" Text="This is direct copy of a previous work published in ICST conference 2009" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40569" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16336" RevisionGUID="01c49f07-4b99-40f2-8aa7-001b11b09efc" CreationDate="2016-08-23T05:11:15.807" UserId="16796" Text="&lt;us20160021679&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40570" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10324" RevisionGUID="5276369e-8f9a-4486-8084-5fc26714333a" CreationDate="2016-08-23T07:05:05.490" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40571" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6687" RevisionGUID="c6cfc0be-9c86-460a-837e-6e1e2b0f73b2" CreationDate="2016-08-23T09:16:22.897" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40572" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12771" RevisionGUID="d49587ef-40d8-4c28-88be-49ee9c7b4a48" CreationDate="2016-08-23T10:16:55.027" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40574" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="472bf343-e6a5-4263-95e1-0ec4d5659952" CreationDate="2016-08-23T12:17:10.527" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40576" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12574" RevisionGUID="ecba3807-08cd-41a0-90de-806a4a4526bc" CreationDate="2016-08-23T14:17:12.920" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16338" RevisionGUID="b68c930a-c243-4b6b-a5a1-d6c48b71d474" CreationDate="2016-08-23T16:42:18.707" UserId="17372" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20100313926][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20100313926&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm an electrical engineering major that just graduated with my masters degree. I was looking at zeolite applications and I stumbled onto this patent. After reading through it, I'm having a hard time believing that it is legit. After much word-smithing, there is nothing actually &quot;accomplished&quot; or &quot;claimed&quot; aside from.... well everything honestly. The wording of the application shows the person claiming it might not understand Peltier/Seebeck modules clearly. Also, under the claims it grabs at almost any possible combination of heat absorbing material or heat releasing material. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In y'alls opinion, does this seem like a patent troll to you? It just doesn't sit right with me. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40578" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16338" RevisionGUID="b68c930a-c243-4b6b-a5a1-d6c48b71d474" CreationDate="2016-08-23T16:42:18.707" UserId="17372" Text="This patent looks to be a spam/troll attempt" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40579" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16338" RevisionGUID="b68c930a-c243-4b6b-a5a1-d6c48b71d474" CreationDate="2016-08-23T16:42:18.707" UserId="17372" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40580" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13937" RevisionGUID="6dea784e-41b4-4b63-8478-bfe27ee1e673" CreationDate="2016-08-23T18:22:37.673" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16339" RevisionGUID="78cd4268-e978-49a4-94bc-5a78eef24051" CreationDate="2016-08-23T18:37:57.850" UserId="17374" Text="How does a company become competition for a company who has an existing patent on the product that we wish to sell? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are creating a foam roller company where our initial patent search did not reveal an existing patent which &quot;may&quot; cover our idea. How do we move forward without infringing on a filed patent and become a competitor?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We filed a provisional patent 8 months ago because the nothing came up on our patent search with our attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for your help!!!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40582" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16339" RevisionGUID="78cd4268-e978-49a4-94bc-5a78eef24051" CreationDate="2016-08-23T18:37:57.850" UserId="17374" Text="Infringement Issues" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40583" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16339" RevisionGUID="78cd4268-e978-49a4-94bc-5a78eef24051" CreationDate="2016-08-23T18:37:57.850" UserId="17374" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16340" RevisionGUID="13552bd4-ce52-459b-aa36-c1183bb7d9b8" CreationDate="2016-08-23T20:01:39.780" UserId="15192" Text="Can provisional applications be sold/assigned?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't just mean *in theory*, but is buying provisional applications something that companies do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a concrete example, if you learn that a big software company is applying for a patent for something, while you have a provisional application for essentially the same thing with an earlier date, can you realistically hope to sell it to the big software company or its competitors?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40585" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16340" RevisionGUID="13552bd4-ce52-459b-aa36-c1183bb7d9b8" CreationDate="2016-08-23T20:01:39.780" UserId="15192" Text="Can provisional applications be sold/assigned?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40586" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16340" RevisionGUID="13552bd4-ce52-459b-aa36-c1183bb7d9b8" CreationDate="2016-08-23T20:01:39.780" UserId="15192" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;assignment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16341" RevisionGUID="30e23d7f-722b-4eb4-b61e-189c4b3547ed" CreationDate="2016-08-23T20:46:58.913" UserId="16696" Text="My understanding is that provisional applications can indeed be assigned, but that the costs of handling and recording the assignments cause in some inventors to hold off until the filing of the formal application. &#xD;&#xA;_______________________&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your example, this is a very complex question involving a lot of variables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your provisional is in fact the same thing, you may have some leverage, but litigation is enormously expensive. Companies will usually settle, but that would be contingent on your ability to pursue litigation in the first place. (Many lawyers will work on contingency basis, but there has to be enough money involved to make it worth their while.) If you're a David going up against a Goliath with deep pockets, this could be difficult.  If they were unwilling to deal based on the provisional, you'd have to file a nonprovisional and secure a grant.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16340" RevisionGUID="26ddd6c3-7742-4bdc-be57-8b999c4cdf36" CreationDate="2016-08-23T20:54:33.317" UserId="15192" Comment="added 126 characters in body" Text="Can provisional applications be sold/assigned?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't just mean *in theory*, but is buying provisional applications something that companies do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a concrete example, if you learn that a big software company is applying for a patent for something, while you have a provisional application for essentially the same thing with an earlier date, can you realistically hope to sell it to the big software company or its competitors?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify, I'm not asking about &quot;suing the Goliath&quot;, but rather assigning the application to their competitor as a BATNA." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16342" RevisionGUID="8d712c17-75de-4d85-9c1f-29168a2d5e85" CreationDate="2016-08-23T20:54:52.587" UserId="16696" Text="My understanding is that you'd have to approach them for licensing.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40590" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="aa74dbb5-de00-4326-af6c-300e3e10218b" CreationDate="2016-08-23T21:22:51.563" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16342" RevisionGUID="d8a9fca1-981b-40c6-b063-7e9efeef7a16" CreationDate="2016-08-23T21:24:16.867" UserId="16696" Comment="Added detail upon reflection." Text="My understanding is that you'd have to approach them for licensing if it is the same idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's arguable that it is not the same idea, you could forge ahead with both your formal filing and product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you don't get your grant, or if they idea is close enough to allow them to sue, you could be opening yourself up for damages.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is your lawyer advising?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40592" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13633" RevisionGUID="ca2631b4-afba-422f-afb2-944eabee2036" CreationDate="2016-08-23T22:22:54.427" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40593" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="72a7ce01-228e-4b68-94a7-4908555aba3e" CreationDate="2016-08-23T23:23:32.160" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40594" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13999" RevisionGUID="14149dee-daf2-4c5d-bde4-07335f38621b" CreationDate="2016-08-24T00:23:47.307" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40595" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16338" RevisionGUID="89f04112-a7f5-403d-90f6-1a32970aaf02" CreationDate="2016-08-24T01:03:18.863" UserId="15657" Comment="add tag" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;us20100313926&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40596" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16024" RevisionGUID="328c37f2-1155-4e38-898a-4117dc3e7d48" CreationDate="2016-08-24T01:23:52.960" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40597" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13935" RevisionGUID="dae9a45a-873b-45c6-9e9e-cf7c591eacf3" CreationDate="2016-08-24T02:23:53.203" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40599" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13432" RevisionGUID="b4e5e468-041b-4350-b4c2-764afb39197c" CreationDate="2016-08-24T03:24:08.323" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16343" RevisionGUID="ac9fa91b-d8ee-4dc5-8b65-6555946e7289" CreationDate="2016-08-24T06:09:51.547" UserId="13683" Text="Is there a method to locating a patent lawyer in the United States that specializes in engineering and mechanical design, and can create engineering patent drawings from a paper sketch?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can do a search and find local patent lawyers, but they seem to be generalists that claim they can do anything, and I don't know how reliable or trustworthy these statements are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like the first person I contact is going to try to tell me they can do it all, even if they can't, and I am possibly going to get stuck with someone who doesn't know what they're doing, but I won't know this since I am obviously inexperienced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Worse yet is that I live in a rural area in northwest Wisconsin, away from any large cities with engineering colleges, so it's unlikely I will find anyone with these skills I am seeking near me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Due to the power of the Internet it doesn't seem all that important to look for services from a local lawyer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40601" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16343" RevisionGUID="ac9fa91b-d8ee-4dc5-8b65-6555946e7289" CreationDate="2016-08-24T06:09:51.547" UserId="13683" Text="How to find a engineering patent lawyer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40602" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16343" RevisionGUID="ac9fa91b-d8ee-4dc5-8b65-6555946e7289" CreationDate="2016-08-24T06:09:51.547" UserId="13683" Text="&lt;engineering&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16344" RevisionGUID="3e1dcddb-3dec-47bc-9c57-8d01570483a7" CreationDate="2016-08-24T12:33:52.350" UserId="17379" Text="Can you patent your video game mechanics? Like if Flappy Bird mechanics had been patented by the guys who made the helecopter game (original flappy bird), could the creator of Flappy Bird be sued for it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40604" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16344" RevisionGUID="3e1dcddb-3dec-47bc-9c57-8d01570483a7" CreationDate="2016-08-24T12:33:52.350" UserId="17379" Text="Video game mechanics patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40605" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16344" RevisionGUID="3e1dcddb-3dec-47bc-9c57-8d01570483a7" CreationDate="2016-08-24T12:33:52.350" UserId="17379" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;video-games&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40606" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13847" RevisionGUID="82b86c08-5901-43ba-ab13-b3dd8a54ddf5" CreationDate="2016-08-24T16:35:58.400" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16345" RevisionGUID="f39b1acd-dedc-4f36-a742-f3dd12aa407f" CreationDate="2016-08-24T18:08:14.400" UserId="16696" Text="This is a complex question because of changes in patent law relating to three significant cases, namely [Bilski](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos), [Alice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International), and [Mayo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International).  The ultra-short summary is that these cases pertain to the question as to whether a purely abstract idea, such as a set of mental steps, is patent eligible. (This is subject may referred to as &quot;post-Alice&quot;, because that was the big one relating to this specific issue.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, can you patent the idea of a virtual object moving up and down in the context of a video game, such as in the classic arcade game [Joust](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joust_(video_game))?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent law has traditionally protected game mechanics, with classic examples including both the [Landlord's Game](https://www.google.com/patents/US748626) which was the predecessor of Monopoly, and more recently, [Magic: The Gathering](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=5,662,332.PN.&amp;OS=PN/5,662,332&amp;RS=PN/5,662,332). However, these patents were granted before Alice.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was surely not the intent of the patent review board to remove this traditional method of protecting game mechanics, rather the new uncertainty can be viewed as fallout from Alice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on which patent attorney you speak to, you will get answers ranging from &quot;no&quot; to &quot;yes&quot; to &quot;maybe&quot;.  It seems as though patent attorneys who consider such patents to still be viable find value in tying the mechanic into a device, such as a computer system.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16345" RevisionGUID="f47cfdd6-f216-498a-af95-6ac0840a8306" CreationDate="2016-08-24T18:22:10.120" UserId="16696" Comment="Added some contextual detail" Text="This is a complex question because of changes in patent law relating to three significant cases, namely [Bilski](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos), [Alice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International), and [Mayo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International).  The ultra-short summary is that these cases pertain to the question as to whether a purely abstract idea, such as a set of mental steps, is patent eligible. (This is subject may referred to as &quot;post-Alice&quot;, because that was the big one relating to this specific issue.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, can you patent the idea of a virtual object moving up and down in the context of a video game, such as in the classic arcade game [Joust](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joust_(video_game))?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent law has traditionally protected game mechanics, with classic examples including both the [Landlord's Game](https://www.google.com/patents/US748626), which was the predecessor of Monopoly, and more recently, [Magic: The Gathering](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=5,662,332.PN.&amp;OS=PN/5,662,332&amp;RS=PN/5,662,332). However, these patents were granted before Alice.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was surely not the intent of the patent review board to remove this traditional method of protecting game mechanics. Rather the new uncertainty can be viewed as fallout from Alice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on which patent attorney you speak to, you will get answers ranging from &quot;no&quot; to &quot;yes&quot; to &quot;maybe&quot;.  It seems as though patent attorneys who consider such patents to still be viable find value in tying the mechanic into a device, such as a computer system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also important to note that a patent is not a monolith, being comprised in most cases, of a series of claims.  Each claim is reviewed individually, and the rejection of one claim does not necessarily mean that all claims will be rejected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A recent game that may be helpful to consider is [Threes!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threes), aka 2048. Would it have been possible to patent that game mechanic? Quite possibly. The more relevant question may be would it have been worthwhile to pursue a patent, which can be a fairly expensive process. *(Based on the number of times the clones have been downloaded, I'd lean towards yes, but in this context, it is really an assessment of risk vs. reward.)* " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40609" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="731569d2-986b-4857-b481-84b713037d5c" CreationDate="2016-08-24T20:41:40.347" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40610" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="8220683b-f977-42b2-b874-768286eac893" CreationDate="2016-08-24T21:44:25.937" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16346" RevisionGUID="e6579bef-decd-4746-985c-2c2d1c65a0ce" CreationDate="2016-08-25T02:15:03.733" UserId="17374" Text="Is the patent attorney liable when you ask for a patent search and they fail to recognize a patent which is similar to your proposed product in their patent search?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ex. I have an idea for an umbrella. I hire a patent attorney to create a patent search. Their findings reveal nothing among the 20-30 comparable umbrella products giving to me as an inventor. Everything checks out to be ok and a provisional patent is filed. Yet, after moving forward with our umbrella prototypes and production the we find a comparable patent which was not revealed in our patent search. Who is liable for the costs which the company invested? the company which took the attorneys advice or the the attorney who provided inaccurate information in the patent search? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for the help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40612" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16346" RevisionGUID="e6579bef-decd-4746-985c-2c2d1c65a0ce" CreationDate="2016-08-25T02:15:03.733" UserId="17374" Text="Patent Search Failure" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40613" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16346" RevisionGUID="e6579bef-decd-4746-985c-2c2d1c65a0ce" CreationDate="2016-08-25T02:15:03.733" UserId="17374" Text="&lt;patent-search&gt;&lt;liability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16347" RevisionGUID="0c555292-eb60-4656-b6c2-a1a654cd3221" CreationDate="2016-08-25T03:40:09.710" UserId="15657" Text="It would depend on the agreement you signed with the attorney (and drafted by the attorney, of course!). Personally, I don't think the attorney should be liable if it's found your company hasn't invented anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A perfect patent search is impossible. There're over 9 million granted U.S. patents, so you need to narrow your search scope, typically by 1) patent classification, 2) keywords, and/or 3) inventor/assignee. Depending on your resource, you could either review thousands of patents or narrow the search down to a few hundreds. Then, from the search result, you determine which patents are relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even with large resource, you could still miss a relevant patent because it's not classified as you would expect it to be (e.g. a submarine patent), or it describes the invention in a atypical manner. Different people describe the same thing differently. Sometimes, a patent applicant could deliberately invent new terms to prevent the examiner find the relevant prior arts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on your resource, you'd also need to search patents in other countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, a US patent application is protected for a year before published. This means by the time your search report is done, it's already outdated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also importantly, competence does not occur overnight. You are the manufacturer and undoubtedly have studied many existing umbrellas in detail, and you have a better understanding of the manufacturing process &amp; market needs than your attorney. Thus, you and your attorney may have a very different view on what's relevant and what's not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It takes time for your attorney to learn your industry and gradually refine patent search strategies based on past mistakes. Thus, you need to carefully consider if you want to continue working with your attorney or if you want to have a new start with another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now, your first priority should be asking 1) does your product infringe on the patent you just found? and 2) do you need to change your patent claims to get them granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16348" RevisionGUID="d09af141-5f7b-40cb-9588-155185f87f32" CreationDate="2016-08-25T03:58:28.220" UserId="17381" Text="If a PCT patent was filed in lets say &quot;Ukraine&quot; in 2004, but the owner let it &quot;expire&quot; and never actually got it published as a patent in a national phase(in any country)legally may I file a similar patent in the USA?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40617" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16348" RevisionGUID="d09af141-5f7b-40cb-9588-155185f87f32" CreationDate="2016-08-25T03:58:28.220" UserId="17381" Text="PCT patents that Expire, is it Public Domain or up for grabs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40618" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16348" RevisionGUID="d09af141-5f7b-40cb-9588-155185f87f32" CreationDate="2016-08-25T03:58:28.220" UserId="17381" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;expired-patent&gt;&lt;public-domain&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40623" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13422" RevisionGUID="0c406fcc-2e5b-460f-99c1-438bf777f978" CreationDate="2016-08-25T09:51:53.423" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40624" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13771" RevisionGUID="0ecafcef-5504-4f01-96b9-d46e08443e9f" CreationDate="2016-08-25T11:55:13.050" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40625" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14335" RevisionGUID="11bf9038-6ace-4b12-8db9-3610cac9e52d" CreationDate="2016-08-25T13:01:18.503" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16348" RevisionGUID="3be74e7e-11e1-4b71-a08f-a298b0085511" CreationDate="2016-08-25T14:32:49.803" UserId="17381" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body; edited tags" Text="If a PCT patent was filed in lets say &quot;Ukraine&quot; in 2004, but the owner let it never actually got it published as a patent in a national phase(in any country)legally may I file a similar patent in the USA?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40627" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16348" RevisionGUID="3be74e7e-11e1-4b71-a08f-a298b0085511" CreationDate="2016-08-25T14:32:49.803" UserId="17381" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;public-domain&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40628" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16348" RevisionGUID="3be74e7e-11e1-4b71-a08f-a298b0085511" CreationDate="2016-08-25T14:32:49.803" UserId="17381" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body; edited tags" Text="PCT patents , is it Public Domain or up for grabs in my country?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16353" RevisionGUID="0aea9388-35f7-4ccc-ac87-f154f3b8df0b" CreationDate="2016-08-25T15:59:31.370" UserId="17390" Text="In reference to the patent: [US356315][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wondering if patent has expired and the process to claim it.  This was great great grandfathers invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40637" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16353" RevisionGUID="0aea9388-35f7-4ccc-ac87-f154f3b8df0b" CreationDate="2016-08-25T15:59:31.370" UserId="17390" Text="Manning F Hunt great, great grandfathers patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40638" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16353" RevisionGUID="0aea9388-35f7-4ccc-ac87-f154f3b8df0b" CreationDate="2016-08-25T15:59:31.370" UserId="17390" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40639" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16184" RevisionGUID="59622185-2afe-4537-9f6b-9dc119e5b422" CreationDate="2016-08-25T16:01:23.987" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40640" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16186" RevisionGUID="64b80385-4f7f-4790-9da0-ef7e2b925d48" CreationDate="2016-08-25T18:01:36.637" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16354" RevisionGUID="032af330-b87b-492d-bad1-2f9ccb74428a" CreationDate="2016-08-25T20:05:53.433" UserId="17392" Text="In order to be found to be infringing, your allegedly infringing product must contain ALL ELEMENTS of at least one of the claims of the plaintiff's patent. Google on &quot;all elements rule&quot; for further information. Here is an interesting article on the topic: [http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/16/cafc-rules-patentees-expert-failed-to-sufficiently-identify-elements-of-claimed-data-transmitting-means/id=7792/][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/16/cafc-rules-patentees-expert-failed-to-sufficiently-identify-elements-of-claimed-data-transmitting-means/id=7792/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40642" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14788" RevisionGUID="996ec85c-7a1e-46ef-bb0e-eef71b301f8b" CreationDate="2016-08-25T21:04:25.623" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16355" RevisionGUID="6da6daa0-7ac4-436d-9ee1-b44d386d19f2" CreationDate="2016-08-25T21:06:52.913" UserId="17136" Text="This patent has been expired for over 100 years.  It was a 14 year patent with the possibility of a 7 year extension.  There is nothing to claim except your family link to the patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16345" RevisionGUID="cd978691-b60e-4648-a4e0-521eccde951b" CreationDate="2016-08-26T01:31:18.917" UserId="16696" Comment="I relinked to Monopoly instead of the Landlord's Game because it is considered one of the important game patents" Text="This is a complex question because of changes in patent law relating to three significant cases, namely [Bilski](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos), [Alice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International), and [Mayo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International).  The ultra-short summary is that these cases pertain to the question as to whether a purely abstract idea, such as a set of mental steps, is patent eligible. (This is subject may referred to as &quot;post-Alice&quot;, because that was the big one relating to this specific issue.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, can you patent the idea of a virtual object moving up and down in the context of a video game, such as in the classic arcade game [Joust](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joust_(video_game))?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent law has traditionally protected game mechanics, with classic examples including both [Monopoly](https://www.google.com/patents/US2026082), and more recently, [Magic: The Gathering](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=5,662,332.PN.&amp;OS=PN/5,662,332&amp;RS=PN/5,662,332). However, these patents were granted before Alice.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was surely not the intent of the patent review board to remove this traditional method of protecting game mechanics. Rather the new uncertainty can be viewed as fallout from Alice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on which patent attorney you speak to, you will get answers ranging from &quot;no&quot; to &quot;yes&quot; to &quot;maybe&quot;.  It seems as though patent attorneys who consider such patents to still be viable find value in tying the mechanic into a device, such as a computer system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also important to note that a patent is not a monolith, being comprised in most cases, of a series of claims.  Each claim is reviewed individually, and the rejection of one claim does not necessarily mean that all claims will be rejected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A recent game that may be helpful to consider is [Threes!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threes), aka 2048. Would it have been possible to patent that game mechanic? Quite possibly. The more relevant question may be would it have been worthwhile to pursue a patent, which can be a fairly expensive process. *(Based on the number of times the clones have been downloaded, I'd lean towards yes, but in this context, it is really an assessment of risk vs. reward.)* " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16345" RevisionGUID="e72aea66-d603-4344-83b1-9e312a42cd1c" CreationDate="2016-08-26T01:51:01.200" UserId="16696" Comment="Added the IP watchdog article and two relevant Copyright cases" Text="This is a complex question because of changes in patent law relating to three significant cases, namely [Bilski](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos), [Alice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International), and [Mayo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International).  The ultra-short summary is that these cases pertain to the question as to whether a purely abstract idea, such as a set of mental steps, is patent eligible. (This is subject may referred to as &quot;post-Alice&quot;, because that was the big one relating to this specific issue.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, can you patent the idea of a virtual object moving up and down in the context of a video game, such as in the classic arcade game [Joust](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joust_(video_game))?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent law has traditionally protected game mechanics, with classic examples including both [Monopoly](https://www.google.com/patents/US2026082), and more recently, [Magic: The Gathering](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=5,662,332.PN.&amp;OS=PN/5,662,332&amp;RS=PN/5,662,332). However, these patents were granted before Alice.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was surely not the intent of the patent review board to remove this traditional method of protecting game mechanics. Rather the new uncertainty can be viewed as fallout from Alice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on which patent attorney you speak to, you will get answers ranging from &quot;no&quot; to &quot;yes&quot; to &quot;maybe&quot;.  It seems as though patent attorneys who consider such patents to still be viable find value in tying the mechanic into a device, such as a computer system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I would urge you to read [this very recent article from IP Watchdog](http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/08/15/monopoly-patent-ineligible-alice/id=71926/)**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The one comment I will make is that my personal feeling (not as a patent attorney but as a game designer) is that the Smith's patent, which is causing such a stir, had no merit and deserved to be knocked down. *(They tried to claim shuffling cards, fer crying out loud. There is a valid case that a mere system of wagering is a business method, i.e. a method of managing risk, and thus patent ineligible. In other words, games are something you bet on. Betting, in and of itself, is not a game.)   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also important to note that a patent is not a monolith, being comprised in most cases, of a series of claims.  Each claim is reviewed individually, and the rejection of one claim does not necessarily mean that all claims will be rejected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A recent game that may be helpful to consider is [Threes!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threes), aka 2048. Would it have been possible to patent that game mechanic? Quite possibly. The more relevant question may be would it have been worthwhile to pursue a patent, which can be a fairly expensive process. *(Based on the number of times the clones have been downloaded, I'd lean towards yes, but in this context, it is really an assessment of risk vs. reward.)* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing to be aware of is this recent case, [Spry Fox vs. Lolapps](http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&amp;context=historical), which seems to extend protection of game mechanics into Copyright law. It could be overturned at any time by a higher court, but word on the street is it is a kind of &quot;third rail&quot; and no one wants to go near it.  Further, there is some precedent for this extension of Copyright law in [Tetris vs. Xio](http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/02/12/tetris-gets-permanent-injunction-against-xio/id=34996/), which is bordering on Design Patent territory." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14875" RevisionGUID="e5bb6293-b14b-429d-9f84-cc8f5f857264" CreationDate="2016-08-26T02:01:56.970" UserId="16696" Comment="Had to add the recent article from IP Watchdog, and decided the Copyright info is relevant." Text="[This article is worth looking at](http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/navigating-the-needle-s-eye-patenting-38523/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The PTAB found that (i) the claimed method is directed to a set of rules for conducting a wagering game, which is a patent-ineligible abstract idea, and (ii) the manipulations of the deck of cards (e.g., shuffling, dealing) are conventional steps in playing a wagering game that do not add enough to the claims to transform the recited methods into patent-eligible subject matter.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, they were trying to patent a new method betting on Blackjack, which was deemed a &quot;business method&quot; and purely abstract. (i.e. It's simply a set of mental steps for managing risk.)  They were also trying to patent procedures which included shuffling cards, which is not novel, but a standard procedure in card games. Their patent didn't have any novel rules that comprised a new game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ostensibly, truly novel game methods should still be patentable, regardless of whether they involve computers, although patent attorneys recommend using one of the claims to tie the game to computer systems for software-based implementations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another element to bear in mind is that patents are not a monolith.  Typically you will have a few independent claims and a bunch of dependent claims (which are extensions of the independent claims.) Each claim is treated separately, so having any particular claim denied does not necessarily invalidate the entire patent.  The review process generally takes a few years and involves some back-and-forth with the patent office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rules vary internationally. US patents can usually be defended in patent treaty regions, although if a game catches on, foreign filing may be worthwhile. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------&#xD;&#xA;This answer is updated based on a this **[recent article from IP Watchdog](http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/08/15/monopoly-patent-ineligible-alice/id=71926/)**. I still stand by my feeling on Smith, but I'd be remiss if I didn't post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deciding to pursue a patent can be risk.  There is no guarantee of securing a grant and it can be expensive.  A recent game that may be helpful to consider is [Threes!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threes), aka 2048. Would it have been possible to patent that game mechanic? Maybe. The more relevant question might be would it have been worthwhile to pursue a patent? *(Based on the number of times the clones have been downloaded, I'd lean towards yes, but in this context, it is really an assessment of risk vs. reward.)* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a more positive note, this recent case, [Spry Fox vs. Lolapps](http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&amp;context=historical) seems to extend protection of game mechanics into Copyright law. It could be overturned at any time by a higher court, but word on the street is it is a kind of &quot;third rail&quot; and no one wants to go near it.  Further, there is some precedent for this extension of Copyright law in [Tetris vs. Xio](http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/02/12/tetris-gets-permanent-injunction-against-xio/id=34996/), which is bordering on Design Patent territory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Copyright is a great, no-cost way to pursue protection of your game.  Copyright, after all, was designed to protect creative works, so in the spirit of the law, it *should* cover game mechanics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40655" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16179" RevisionGUID="ead0b6ea-6804-4574-b18d-0cf641a329f6" CreationDate="2016-08-26T04:08:32.197" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40659" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14127" RevisionGUID="9392d7b2-c3ee-4240-af43-eed62b41ae84" CreationDate="2016-08-26T08:13:02.080" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14875" RevisionGUID="f901ed78-04c6-430d-867f-f6d630d31c6e" CreationDate="2016-08-26T08:36:40.093" UserId="16696" Comment="Wanted to remove a few questionable lines" Text="[This article is worth looking at](http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/navigating-the-needle-s-eye-patenting-38523/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The PTAB found that (i) the claimed method is directed to a set of rules for conducting a wagering game, which is a patent-ineligible abstract idea, and (ii) the manipulations of the deck of cards (e.g., shuffling, dealing) are conventional steps in playing a wagering game that do not add enough to the claims to transform the recited methods into patent-eligible subject matter.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, they were trying to patent a new method betting on Blackjack, which was deemed a &quot;business method&quot; and purely abstract. (i.e. It's simply a set of mental steps for managing risk.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ostensibly, truly novel game methods should still be patentable, regardless of whether they involve computers, although patent attorneys recommend using one of the claims to tie the game to computer systems for software-based implementations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another element to bear in mind is that patents are not a monolith.  Typically you will have a few independent claims and a bunch of dependent claims (which are extensions of the independent claims.) Each claim is treated separately, so having any particular claim denied does not necessarily invalidate the entire patent.  The review process generally takes a few years and involves some back-and-forth with the patent office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rules vary internationally. US patents can usually be defended in patent treaty regions, although if a game catches on, foreign filing may be worthwhile. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------&#xD;&#xA;This answer is updated based on a this **[recent article from IP Watchdog](http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/08/15/monopoly-patent-ineligible-alice/id=71926/)**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deciding to pursue a patent can be risk.  There is no guarantee of securing a grant and it can be expensive.  A recent game that may be helpful to consider is [Threes!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threes), aka 2048. Would it have been possible to patent that game mechanic? Maybe. The more relevant question might be would it have been worthwhile to pursue a patent? *(Based on the number of times the clones have been downloaded, I'd lean towards yes, but in this context, it is really an assessment of risk vs. reward.)* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a more positive note, this recent case, [Spry Fox vs. Lolapps](http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&amp;context=historical) seems to extend protection of game mechanics into Copyright law. It could be overturned at any time by a higher court, but word on the street is it is a kind of &quot;third rail&quot; and no one wants to go near it.  Further, there is some precedent for this extension of Copyright law in [Tetris vs. Xio](http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/02/12/tetris-gets-permanent-injunction-against-xio/id=34996/), which is bordering on Design Patent territory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Copyright is a great, no-cost way to pursue protection of your game.  Copyright, after all, was designed to protect creative works, so in the spirit of the law, it *should* cover game mechanics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16345" RevisionGUID="23bd10f9-c7cc-4530-a43b-9928f3bad61d" CreationDate="2016-08-26T08:43:30.590" UserId="16696" Comment="Clarified a few points based on recent legal analysis" Text="This is a complex question because of changes in patent law relating to three significant cases, namely [Bilski](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos), [Alice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International), and [Mayo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International).  The ultra-short summary is that these cases pertain to the question as to whether a purely abstract idea, such as a set of mental steps, is patent eligible. (This is subject may referred to as &quot;post-Alice&quot;, because that was the big one relating to this specific issue.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, can you patent the idea of a virtual object moving up and down in the context of a video game, such as in the classic arcade game [Joust](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joust_(video_game))?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent law has traditionally protected game mechanics, with classic examples including both [Monopoly](https://www.google.com/patents/US2026082), and more recently, [Magic: The Gathering](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=5,662,332.PN.&amp;OS=PN/5,662,332&amp;RS=PN/5,662,332). However, these patents were granted before Alice.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was surely not the intent of the patent review board to remove this traditional method of protecting game mechanics. Rather, the new uncertainty can be viewed as fallout from Alice. But it is not clear that pure mechanics that form novel games are no longer patent eligible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on which patent attorney you speak to, you will get answers ranging from &quot;no&quot; to &quot;yes&quot; to &quot;maybe&quot;.  It seems as though patent attorneys who consider such patents to still be viable find value in tying the mechanic into a device, such as a computer system, though that, on it's own, is not enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I would urge you to read [this very recent article from IP Watchdog](http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/08/15/monopoly-patent-ineligible-alice/id=71926/)**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The one comment I will make on the article is that my personal feeling (not as a patent attorney but as a game designer) is that the Smith's patent, which is causing such a stir, may not have had a great deal of merit. I suppose, in the loosest definition, their method of wagering could be a &quot;game&quot;, but it required a pre-existing game to function. It might be analogous to trying to patent a method of betting on Chess, which, before Alice, may have been possible.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also important to note that a patent is not a monolith, being comprised in most cases, of a series of claims.  Each claim is reviewed individually, and the rejection of one claim does not necessarily mean that all claims will be rejected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A recent game that may be helpful to consider is [Threes!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threes), aka 2048. Would it have been possible to patent that game mechanic? Quite possibly. The more relevant question may be would it have been worthwhile to pursue a patent, which can be a fairly expensive process. *(Based on the number of times the clones have been downloaded, I'd lean towards yes, but in this context, it is really an assessment of risk vs. reward.)* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing to be aware of is this recent case, [Spry Fox vs. Lolapps](http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&amp;context=historical), which seems to extend protection of game mechanics into Copyright law. It could be overturned at any time by a higher court, but word on the street is it is a kind of &quot;third rail&quot; and no one wants to go near it.  Further, there is some precedent for this extension of Copyright law in [Tetris vs. Xio](http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/02/12/tetris-gets-permanent-injunction-against-xio/id=34996/), which is bordering on Design Patent territory." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40662" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14855" RevisionGUID="78bfbd9b-c216-4250-870b-0060c16a24cb" CreationDate="2016-08-26T09:13:01.967" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40663" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13242" RevisionGUID="0ee716fe-d0e2-452c-8a9a-a1a10907235b" CreationDate="2016-08-26T10:13:05.330" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40664" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13123" RevisionGUID="5c4a5518-d9ce-4ebd-a674-34376ca75ba9" CreationDate="2016-08-26T11:13:02.737" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40665" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14796" RevisionGUID="f0e91d7a-6d43-404d-ab3b-110db1a72434" CreationDate="2016-08-26T12:13:06.363" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40668" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="633ab798-13f7-4bb8-904a-70ac796b55ca" CreationDate="2016-08-26T18:13:11.897" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40669" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6624" RevisionGUID="da2e6c83-cc96-4ac4-beec-b2a8636be09a" CreationDate="2016-08-26T19:13:12.127" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40670" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12954" RevisionGUID="aec8fa2d-3ad2-4bfc-8f11-c9b60c46f3ec" CreationDate="2016-08-26T20:13:26.570" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40674" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14631" RevisionGUID="5c261efe-177d-46dc-90fa-a21450f69ea7" CreationDate="2016-08-27T02:23:22.810" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40677" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14620" RevisionGUID="826bb41a-dabc-4597-814f-eb7cc2c02a5b" CreationDate="2016-08-27T03:23:28.563" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40678" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12339" RevisionGUID="3230dc1d-6df5-4473-a681-a72754191c61" CreationDate="2016-08-27T04:23:29.513" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40679" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14622" RevisionGUID="5f39f080-dfdf-4c8a-bfba-5ffd7000dde9" CreationDate="2016-08-27T05:23:31.983" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40680" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16187" RevisionGUID="11cd5c07-11f0-4c60-8bf3-5f89e0ed2d96" CreationDate="2016-08-27T06:23:36.323" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40684" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="2594203c-9a5c-4f2b-81c4-74dc70f9a0f9" CreationDate="2016-08-27T14:30:05.087" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40685" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="81137089-5481-48ad-86a9-a8e402529fea" CreationDate="2016-08-27T20:37:58.463" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40687" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="814f2f57-fadb-4700-8e53-fc4b8ce8a688" CreationDate="2016-08-27T22:38:00.410" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16361" RevisionGUID="6d727f15-9a00-41c8-968d-519b8565be99" CreationDate="2016-08-28T05:57:36.843" UserId="17408" Text="can I patent a machine that includes a motion sensor that has already patented. their are many types of motion sensors so can I use only &quot;motion sensor&quot; specific word in patent application or whether I need to specify a specific one.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40695" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16361" RevisionGUID="6d727f15-9a00-41c8-968d-519b8565be99" CreationDate="2016-08-28T05:57:36.843" UserId="17408" Text="combination patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40696" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16361" RevisionGUID="6d727f15-9a00-41c8-968d-519b8565be99" CreationDate="2016-08-28T05:57:36.843" UserId="17408" Text="&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40697" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7693" RevisionGUID="1f053a4c-c76d-43c0-a0d8-67730f84e6ee" CreationDate="2016-08-28T08:55:42.160" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40698" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14724" RevisionGUID="67f373f3-70ef-4758-ac1e-afefc843a47b" CreationDate="2016-08-28T11:02:30.217" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40699" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4993" RevisionGUID="14e185cf-89fe-4837-9a0a-fbbba0ef0c6d" CreationDate="2016-08-28T12:02:30.690" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40700" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12072" RevisionGUID="b9e952cb-c64c-4709-afe3-eab35a322aa9" CreationDate="2016-08-28T14:02:31.693" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40701" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10744" RevisionGUID="e17533df-be36-49cf-b5fc-2235a530915a" CreationDate="2016-08-28T17:03:12.107" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40702" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12070" RevisionGUID="e357838c-3b20-4db6-912a-f55f39aecbbd" CreationDate="2016-08-28T18:03:12.550" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40703" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16037" RevisionGUID="f6f2afc8-ce2c-4de1-96e5-496f268069e0" CreationDate="2016-08-28T19:03:11.670" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40707" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14601" RevisionGUID="5709f83e-18ff-427f-9403-5a86525f5539" CreationDate="2016-08-28T21:09:07.987" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40708" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7765" RevisionGUID="adfbe7fe-8a9f-45b2-8409-3a154a5da25b" CreationDate="2016-08-28T22:09:09.203" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40709" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="6594c1f6-3084-424b-80b9-2afd0f3ebfc3" CreationDate="2016-08-29T03:11:10.920" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16363" RevisionGUID="5c278bd8-0072-451c-a6de-217efa6c3608" CreationDate="2016-08-29T04:09:16.243" UserId="17408" Text="if in my patent application machine includes a signal transfer through data cable can someone other can patent same machine that transfer signal through wifi or Bluetooth. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40711" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16363" RevisionGUID="5c278bd8-0072-451c-a6de-217efa6c3608" CreationDate="2016-08-29T04:09:16.243" UserId="17408" Text="can someone patent a machine which uses signal transfer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40712" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16363" RevisionGUID="5c278bd8-0072-451c-a6de-217efa6c3608" CreationDate="2016-08-29T04:09:16.243" UserId="17408" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40718" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12832" RevisionGUID="edc13ce8-67d8-4d9f-a991-7d6942eae64d" CreationDate="2016-08-29T14:22:10.430" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40720" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14479" RevisionGUID="b1c4e4ed-dbb2-4c30-aaaf-b1eef7e1e5aa" CreationDate="2016-08-29T15:22:10.613" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40721" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13870" RevisionGUID="ce5b7fd0-edfd-4bad-a462-415034021c01" CreationDate="2016-08-29T18:24:40.607" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40722" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="144948d0-4af8-4a50-b364-a5b593ee1cf1" CreationDate="2016-08-29T20:24:41.240" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40723" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14943" RevisionGUID="75c6965a-2681-4055-9380-86ba0a73123e" CreationDate="2016-08-29T21:27:33.267" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40724" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10643" RevisionGUID="1d7bab23-6541-4bf8-aadf-571a21d758d8" CreationDate="2016-08-29T22:36:15.090" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40725" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14200" RevisionGUID="8490c9d3-b370-4d77-b96f-c449b2b75f8e" CreationDate="2016-08-29T23:36:15.657" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40726" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16217" RevisionGUID="e5dffe89-b7b6-43d2-b7e0-0dcefc981d0c" CreationDate="2016-08-30T00:36:16.383" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40727" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="6a836df0-07a6-4540-86f4-3e72067118ad" CreationDate="2016-08-30T01:36:16.817" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16365" RevisionGUID="04ce1cf5-6103-4ed9-801c-95e2c5d7c6d4" CreationDate="2016-08-30T02:17:35.970" UserId="17420" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20110256246][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110256246&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a traditional recognised and acknowledged healing plant of the Australian Aboriginals in Tasmania and other parts of Australia, it can NOT therefore be patented in part or full as it is in common use Now and has been in continual use for a minimum of a thousand of year. IT is also registered by the The pure essential oil has been registered with the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) as providing temporary relief of the pain of arthritis.[14]&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40729" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16365" RevisionGUID="04ce1cf5-6103-4ed9-801c-95e2c5d7c6d4" CreationDate="2016-08-30T02:17:35.970" UserId="17420" Text="this plant and its constituents can not be patented" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40730" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16365" RevisionGUID="04ce1cf5-6103-4ed9-801c-95e2c5d7c6d4" CreationDate="2016-08-30T02:17:35.970" UserId="17420" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40731" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13556" RevisionGUID="4ab51ee0-e3c0-43e9-9e83-cf0a2abb9715" CreationDate="2016-08-30T02:36:17.030" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40732" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="53eafe04-0767-40b0-b850-e0bb1101c261" CreationDate="2016-08-30T03:36:17.273" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40733" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16361" RevisionGUID="2003d74d-14e5-452f-9763-23b15ad514d1" CreationDate="2016-08-30T03:46:03.853" UserId="15657" Comment="edited title" Text="combination patent - do I need to specify type of a component (sensor)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16366" RevisionGUID="bfb1ac70-9ac1-41ac-80a1-1b6bae20f4bb" CreationDate="2016-08-30T04:21:38.787" UserId="15657" Text="**Can I patent a machine incorporating a means of signal transfer?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to be eligible for a patent grant, an invention must meet the requirement of 1) novelty, 2) non-obviousness, and 3) utility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A machine having a sensor, a means of signal transfer, an actuation arm, a motor, and a motor control is not patent-able because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. such combination is well-known&#xD;&#xA;2. such combination doesn't yield any new or surprising result&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if the machine incorporate a new type of signal transfer means, such use would likely be deemed &quot;obvious-to-try&quot; and therefore not a patent-able improvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order for the machine to be patent-able, it must have an innovative improvement, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. a special user interface that reduces risk of human error&#xD;&#xA;2. means of continual operation when the communication with a central control unit is dropped&#xD;&#xA;3. means of suspending all wireless communication from other devices in the event of emergency using a line communication&#xD;&#xA;4. injury prevention (e.g. slow down operation) incorporating a &quot;soft&quot; alarm (e.g. motion sensor) and a &quot;hard&quot; alarm (e.g. laser screen)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If I claim a line signal transfer means, can someone else use WiFi?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. But...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A competent lawyer would normally not specify the type of signal transfer unless&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. the client insists&#xD;&#xA;2. elements specified in other parts of the claim preclude the use of certain signal transfer means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So your question shouldn't exist in the first place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40735" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14934" RevisionGUID="00c8f9ef-6abb-4f43-9d43-01532361df4a" CreationDate="2016-08-30T04:36:17.457" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40736" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16225" RevisionGUID="3a286761-948e-4d3d-8734-1210cd8b22e2" CreationDate="2016-08-30T05:36:17.800" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16368" RevisionGUID="62081f54-3340-4933-92b5-ed2ef05d7e95" CreationDate="2016-08-30T05:55:57.663" UserId="15657" Text="The patent family contains 3 US applications, two of which were abandoned, and one was granted. The granted patent is [US9,408,883][1]. For a prosecution history of the patent family, see http://globaldossier.uspto.gov/#/result/application/US/13090640/120486&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The granted patent recites (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The prior art known to the inventor includes the Kunzea ambigua&#xD;&#xA;&gt; websites (...) (Apr. 5, 2007), which explains&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that Kunzea ambigua has been found effective against several bacteria,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; including Staphylococcus aureas, E. coli and Candida albicans...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Australia Patent No. 721,156 B2, entitled “Essential Oil and Methods&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of Use,” describes the use of the essential oils from Kunzea ambigua&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for **external** applications for the treatment of medical conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The totality of the prior art **neither teaches nor suggests the use of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Kunzea ambigua... for the treatment of digestive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ailments and inflammatory conditions**, among other beneficial uses, as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; taught herein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To invalidate the patent, we need public disclosure prior to Apr 23, 2007 which show that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. it was known to use Kunzea ambigua in internally administered application, and/or&#xD;&#xA;2. it was known that Kunzea ambigua was effective in treating digestive ailments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9408883?dq=13/969623" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40741" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="0bcd4a0a-c821-49d3-8f1f-f32c43e0f703" CreationDate="2016-08-30T06:37:15.663" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40742" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14807" RevisionGUID="40de532a-3d73-4d23-bbfa-40bfea0f1232" CreationDate="2016-08-30T07:37:11.937" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16369" RevisionGUID="57e41667-37d1-48f1-bfbf-354016e474e8" CreationDate="2016-08-30T08:45:45.800" UserId="17422" Text="Here is the fix:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BACKGROUND:&#xD;&#xA;Google fairly recently rolled its patent search into the general search. It seems that since then the images and download PDF have been unreliable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FIX:&#xD;&#xA;Go to the OLD google patent URL (https://patents.google.com/) type in the patent number there, you will find that the images and download PDF features still work on the old google patents URL. This will give you a proper PDF with actual text (not just images), searchable, and all the other PDF features like highlighting and commenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(at least, as at August 30th 2016)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16372" RevisionGUID="5701bbcd-cb74-4811-8522-2aa0c1b7c857" CreationDate="2016-08-30T11:41:29.167" UserId="17325" Text="The previous answer is only partially correct. India indeed became part of the PCT in December 1998, but before that date you could simply follow the national route. So if you search the Indian Patent Office you will find the respective member of this family, patent **IN194756**, currently **in force** (valid). The next (and last) renewal fees are due this coming October. The patent, if properly renewed, will expire 23.10.2017." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16373" RevisionGUID="694b98a4-5cdf-41d4-b008-883d986f8712" CreationDate="2016-08-30T14:47:27.157" UserId="17427" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20030042366][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20030042366&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was this patent granted??" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40755" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16373" RevisionGUID="694b98a4-5cdf-41d4-b008-883d986f8712" CreationDate="2016-08-30T14:47:27.157" UserId="17427" Text="Was this patent granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40756" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16373" RevisionGUID="694b98a4-5cdf-41d4-b008-883d986f8712" CreationDate="2016-08-30T14:47:27.157" UserId="17427" Text="&lt;granted&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16375" RevisionGUID="9063457e-0b4f-49cd-9854-f3f806a4bf14" CreationDate="2016-08-30T16:16:15.317" UserId="17429" Text="I am not a US citizen and I'm not fit into all these bureaucracy and complex names. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;How can I know if this patent was granted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Publication number	US9117231 B2&#xD;&#xA;    Publication type	Grant&#xD;&#xA;    Application number	US 13/615,512&#xD;&#xA;    Publication date	Aug 25, 2015&#xD;&#xA;    Filing date	Sep 13, 2012&#xD;&#xA;    Priority date	Jan 25, 2012&#xD;&#xA;    Also published as	US20130191229, WO2013110942A1&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;I can read `Grant`, but from [here][1] I read that B2 are `Reexamination Certificate Second Reexamination` (there is also a third step). &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, was it definitely approved? Or it is still in someway pending? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thomsonfilehistories.com/docs/RESOURCES_Kind%20Codes%20by%20Country.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40761" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16375" RevisionGUID="9063457e-0b4f-49cd-9854-f3f806a4bf14" CreationDate="2016-08-30T16:16:15.317" UserId="17429" Text="Explanation if patent is granted or pending" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40762" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16375" RevisionGUID="9063457e-0b4f-49cd-9854-f3f806a4bf14" CreationDate="2016-08-30T16:16:15.317" UserId="17429" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;us&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40769" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14820" RevisionGUID="d4aaa199-ecb7-4b6b-b77f-648813618b85" CreationDate="2016-08-30T20:44:50.913" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40773" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16049" RevisionGUID="865bab5e-6580-4539-a4af-1be785ccb9fa" CreationDate="2016-08-30T22:44:50.747" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40774" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14621" RevisionGUID="bd445d78-52e3-4e84-80b3-776d5434b8b8" CreationDate="2016-08-30T23:44:50.607" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40775" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13861" RevisionGUID="ec0ead1a-cddc-455f-8661-276777c2495e" CreationDate="2016-08-31T00:47:30.853" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40777" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16048" RevisionGUID="1637492d-464b-4223-b6cb-bf7794bcf345" CreationDate="2016-08-31T01:47:19.460" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40778" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16178" RevisionGUID="93dde25b-44e2-435a-9377-2eff77d10ff3" CreationDate="2016-08-31T02:47:20.293" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40779" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14032" RevisionGUID="61f6df1a-013d-4793-89f2-731113196855" CreationDate="2016-08-31T03:47:20.173" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16379" RevisionGUID="f68dabe3-27d3-45a6-b80b-52550934ee4a" CreationDate="2016-08-31T04:07:00.940" UserId="17433" Text="I have invented US Patent 07909076 . I have a an infringer on claim 1. Not only has the infringer been making and selling the system/product, but he has been advertising &quot;Patent applied&quot; and recently &quot;Patented&quot;. The infringer has also applied for a patent which was rejected on all 7 claims for reading on mine. I have informally asked if he would like to use my patent as protection for what he's building and selling in order to limit how much to spend on the lawyers.He  has stated that he is uninterested and believes he is doing something different. &#xD;&#xA;My question is ; If I draft the demand letter meticulously stating how he is infringing on my claim and what I want him to do and when, and send to his attorneys , will that legally satisfy my obligation to put him on notice ?I mentioned I had spoke with the infringer about how he's infringing. Does this constitute as will full infringement if I have records of the discussions? Does Filing an application that is rejected because it  reads on my claims and cites my patent in his constitute &quot;will full Infringement&quot; in my case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40781" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16379" RevisionGUID="f68dabe3-27d3-45a6-b80b-52550934ee4a" CreationDate="2016-08-31T04:07:00.940" UserId="17433" Text="Can I write the Demand letter or C&amp;D myself?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40782" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16379" RevisionGUID="f68dabe3-27d3-45a6-b80b-52550934ee4a" CreationDate="2016-08-31T04:07:00.940" UserId="17433" Text="&lt;infringment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40783" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14651" RevisionGUID="0cea0829-90df-41db-97e2-334378352ab4" CreationDate="2016-08-31T04:47:21.417" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40784" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5844" RevisionGUID="09160c4a-80a1-4e4b-a599-dd3c83c9c4f2" CreationDate="2016-08-31T05:48:48.350" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16380" RevisionGUID="3b151350-82ec-4a76-a35a-e31ed9c9464c" CreationDate="2016-08-31T06:55:29.847" UserId="15657" Text="You should talk to an attorney. See [Is It Possible to Notify Small Infringers With An Informal Letter][1] and [Avoiding Declaratory Judgment When Sending Licensing/Cease&amp;Desist Letters][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should discuss with your attorney if competitor's prior knowledge of your patent would lead to a willful infringement claim (see [this article][3] on a recent Supreme Court decision).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Definitely don't explain your claim and reason why you your competitor infringes on your claim. Everything you said can and will be used against you. Let your attorney do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/13921/is-it-possible-to-notify-small-infringers-with-an-informal-letter/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/13654/avoiding-declaratory-judgment-when-sending-licensing-ceasedesist-letters&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.weil.com/articles/so-long-seagate-a-new-test-for-willful-patent-infringement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16381" RevisionGUID="750b5c6e-adb0-48fb-be70-00e89f62dcce" CreationDate="2016-08-31T11:37:06.803" UserId="17325" Text="The patent is granted and currently valid in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see &quot;B2&quot; (for US patents) that means the patent has been granted on the relevant date but you have to check what is the status of it *today*. The reason is that granted patents often are subject of invalidation or similar proceedings or the proprietor may have stop paying for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also keep in mind that the kind code is different between countries or regions. In Europe granted patents are B1 and B2 stands usually for patents which were amended under opposition proceedings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general consult an attorney if the answer is important to you to make decisions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16382" RevisionGUID="8c5c7343-f8bc-4a29-b73c-e1b73b67458b" CreationDate="2016-08-31T11:45:01.613" UserId="17325" Text="Argentina is not part of the PCT and needs filling via national route. Does anyone know what are the basic steps and cost for filling there with a priority document written in English?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine that a translation and a local attorney are necessary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40790" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16382" RevisionGUID="8c5c7343-f8bc-4a29-b73c-e1b73b67458b" CreationDate="2016-08-31T11:45:01.613" UserId="17325" Text="Patent filling in Argentina" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40791" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16382" RevisionGUID="8c5c7343-f8bc-4a29-b73c-e1b73b67458b" CreationDate="2016-08-31T11:45:01.613" UserId="17325" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;filling&gt;&lt;argentina&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40792" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="650011cd-321f-45d7-a9ab-8af70b457da4" CreationDate="2016-08-31T12:59:55.237" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16384" RevisionGUID="0173afe6-db1f-4eb5-8649-c3efe5f34866" CreationDate="2016-08-31T20:14:51.383" UserId="17437" Text="I would like to sell my own toilet paper rolls, but having done some google searches, there seems to be a lot of patents on it, many of which are held by Kimberly Klark. Is it possibly for me to buy wholesale toilet paper from over seas and sell in at home legally?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40798" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16384" RevisionGUID="0173afe6-db1f-4eb5-8649-c3efe5f34866" CreationDate="2016-08-31T20:14:51.383" UserId="17437" Text="Can I sell my own brand of toilet paper without being sued for infringement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40799" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16384" RevisionGUID="0173afe6-db1f-4eb5-8649-c3efe5f34866" CreationDate="2016-08-31T20:14:51.383" UserId="17437" Text="&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;patent-search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40800" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16193" RevisionGUID="493868ca-c0b1-444e-ad20-c70ae6602e6b" CreationDate="2016-08-31T21:05:14.243" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40801" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13986" RevisionGUID="7c767839-471c-4929-97ca-500ad6935a65" CreationDate="2016-08-31T22:05:15.277" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40802" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10545" RevisionGUID="a08aea3b-8d7c-472b-9310-e61885249a02" CreationDate="2016-08-31T23:05:15.923" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40807" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14322" RevisionGUID="b4b25976-121d-4c37-beb2-f103b17ad2f4" CreationDate="2016-09-01T00:05:19.347" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16386" RevisionGUID="f6fec33e-fdb1-4c2f-9c38-527f6681bb8a" CreationDate="2016-09-01T00:45:19.960" UserId="17402" Text="That depends on a lot,and this isn't enough information to figure that out. Infringement covers anyone who sells, attempts to sell, imports or attempts to import any infringing products, but there's more to it than this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which patents specifically do you think you'd infringe? Most of the basic elements of toilet paper patents expired long ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you import the paper and then use it for an infringing purpose, then yes, of course, you can get sued for infringement. Where you source the paper doesn't matter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the paper itself is infringing, then again, yes, you are infringing. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40812" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13260" RevisionGUID="9d566cb7-dc50-4496-9269-1d1d964534d9" CreationDate="2016-09-01T07:07:29.583" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16388" RevisionGUID="87a45426-c552-451a-8525-54dddbb77b94" CreationDate="2016-09-01T07:25:30.957" UserId="17325" Text="This patent application was abandoned. Additionally, there are no other patent applications stemming from this one in the US patent office. So, no patent was granted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16389" RevisionGUID="1c830a9b-2d03-4ca6-8549-400db9065e92" CreationDate="2016-09-01T07:34:29.897" UserId="17325" Text="The information you are giving us is a little confusing. A PCT patent application may be filed through almost every member-state (like Ukraine), but it will still be a PCT application and published with the prefix &quot;WO&quot;. Is that what you meant?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a PCT publication, in this respect? If so, regardless if it entered a national phase or not, it still is a **published** application and constitutes prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, noone stops you from filling a similar patent application in the US. Whether or not you will be able to overcome objections related to this prior art is a more complex matter. You will find it in your way, in any case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40815" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12621" RevisionGUID="e6a5d5e4-cd1b-44ce-8249-bf93b38ff081" CreationDate="2016-09-01T08:07:30.180" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40816" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13794" RevisionGUID="ac855dfb-0e7a-4b0b-b882-3af2dd145564" CreationDate="2016-09-01T09:07:30.410" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40817" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12610" RevisionGUID="70da70bb-9618-4f92-a6ed-b7cd55121dbb" CreationDate="2016-09-01T10:07:31.067" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40818" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="19142f54-5808-4d44-a5a4-b4184b6b509a" CreationDate="2016-09-01T11:07:31.267" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40819" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12107" RevisionGUID="0596c39a-1e0e-4a7b-9e1b-cbe020eb684f" CreationDate="2016-09-01T13:08:52.253" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40821" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14951" RevisionGUID="a0b4d8b5-57ca-4790-8bb9-1eb79adebf99" CreationDate="2016-09-01T16:08:50.450" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40822" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13528" RevisionGUID="46144bb9-cea7-4091-b5bc-a4331b189838" CreationDate="2016-09-01T18:08:56.457" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40823" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13537" RevisionGUID="c6d3dccf-ab64-4145-8cdc-6257d2cbdfaa" CreationDate="2016-09-01T20:08:52.393" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40824" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7833" RevisionGUID="7abda9d0-b576-4c57-a9c9-6ccf4e3b4139" CreationDate="2016-09-01T22:08:52.747" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40828" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13171" RevisionGUID="23bff1d1-eced-4be8-9f20-f94219914e80" CreationDate="2016-09-02T07:19:00.800" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40829" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10041" RevisionGUID="9a8c90f5-1e16-47ea-a34f-9c2e451dbf7c" CreationDate="2016-09-02T08:19:00.860" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40830" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10559" RevisionGUID="c62ba461-a018-42e8-a218-3a6aa2e76ab5" CreationDate="2016-09-02T12:19:02.190" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40835" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="7c79153d-ad29-42dc-b77c-d8e2db76e73b" CreationDate="2016-09-02T20:27:16.860" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40836" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14937" RevisionGUID="52fc71c5-42fa-46f8-9b15-91853fac5c9e" CreationDate="2016-09-02T21:27:17.120" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16392" RevisionGUID="c4162583-0bcb-4b06-ba1f-8cd38d87b26d" CreationDate="2016-09-03T12:35:44.770" UserId="17454" Text="In reference to the patent: [US6622464][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6622464&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The applicants have discovered that the placement of the prior art pivot axis 192 and the geometry of bedbar 186 relative to reel 22 causes the front edge of bedknife 24 to also move rearwardly relative to reel 22 as it moves upwardly... As this happens, the Applicants further discovered that the cutting reel would become more aggressive in its cutting action...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hats off the Applicants. I am curious what prior art, specifically what make and model is sited here. Also, how is the BCD measured?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks,&#xD;&#xA;Roland McPhearson" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40840" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16392" RevisionGUID="c4162583-0bcb-4b06-ba1f-8cd38d87b26d" CreationDate="2016-09-03T12:35:44.770" UserId="17454" Text="BCD consistency" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40841" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16392" RevisionGUID="c4162583-0bcb-4b06-ba1f-8cd38d87b26d" CreationDate="2016-09-03T12:35:44.770" UserId="17454" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40842" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14517" RevisionGUID="f7769cbd-6fad-4b7c-adee-c2a56144f2b7" CreationDate="2016-09-03T15:44:38.900" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40846" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14508" RevisionGUID="477aba65-8b60-4f23-8110-d4455ca3fe69" CreationDate="2016-09-04T00:47:45.510" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16392" RevisionGUID="9d5b48d5-568f-43da-99d5-6d670fa83aff" CreationDate="2016-09-04T06:06:24.063" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 35 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In reference to the patent: [US6622464][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6622464&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The description from this patent reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The applicants have discovered that the placement of the prior art pivot axis 192 and the geometry of bedbar 186 relative to reel 22 causes the front edge of bedknife 24 to also move rearwardly relative to reel 22 as it moves upwardly... As this happens, the Applicants further discovered that the cutting reel would become more aggressive in its cutting action...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way for me to find what prior art was being referenced in this paragraph?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40853" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16392" RevisionGUID="9d5b48d5-568f-43da-99d5-6d670fa83aff" CreationDate="2016-09-04T06:06:24.063" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 35 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40854" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16392" RevisionGUID="9d5b48d5-568f-43da-99d5-6d670fa83aff" CreationDate="2016-09-04T06:06:24.063" UserId="10011" Comment="deleted 35 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Finding prior art referenced in the description of an existing patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40855" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="16373" RevisionGUID="6e49ab9d-cdad-4b52-aaa0-175101daf429" CreationDate="2016-09-04T06:08:08.203" UserId="10011" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5595],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:15657,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;daniel&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="40860" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10378" RevisionGUID="ca3bb47f-d78c-4cf4-bfb2-35e9f6985d67" CreationDate="2016-09-04T11:54:01.433" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40863" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15998" RevisionGUID="b5654074-7692-4b9f-8848-1e99c79b3999" CreationDate="2016-09-04T12:54:18.937" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40865" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="ca59f6cb-b6d0-4fa7-99fe-703903b1043d" CreationDate="2016-09-04T15:54:17.707" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16396" RevisionGUID="54cc12a4-1dc7-40a5-927f-e763bcf7313a" CreationDate="2016-09-04T15:58:17.000" UserId="16992" Text="I am doing some online search on inventions and patents. Step 1 seems to be keeping accurate records. They also say to have a couple of individuals sign and date the entries. I am assuming these are people you trust. Would your family count? What are some best practices in recording notes about your invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40867" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16396" RevisionGUID="54cc12a4-1dc7-40a5-927f-e763bcf7313a" CreationDate="2016-09-04T15:58:17.000" UserId="16992" Text="How to properly record invention activites" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40868" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16396" RevisionGUID="54cc12a4-1dc7-40a5-927f-e763bcf7313a" CreationDate="2016-09-04T15:58:17.000" UserId="16992" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40869" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13359" RevisionGUID="83ad8804-daf3-4bae-9ff1-4c9af190283e" CreationDate="2016-09-04T17:01:19.867" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="65716bdc-bbb0-4054-8334-b7a1c097b751" CreationDate="2016-09-04T17:36:50.530" UserId="17463" Text="We have filed a US patent application for use of our tech in/on/attached to a laptop. However, we now want to adapt this filing to claim the use of this technology built-into a laptop. A subtle change, but not something we have claimed in our original filing and we believe will become important in the future. Our attorney has advised us that: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;before filing internationally, we can adjust the specification and claims to account for this possibility. That would be the last chance to make that change, and would not change the USA case now pending, but could be recaptured from the PCT application in the USA should that be important.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What exactly is meant by 'recapturing from the PCT application in the USA?' - How long is this process? and does it leave us exposed in the US to others implementing our technology 'within' a laptop (rather than something which effectively plugs into one)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40871" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="65716bdc-bbb0-4054-8334-b7a1c097b751" CreationDate="2016-09-04T17:36:50.530" UserId="17463" Text="What does it mean to 'recapture' information from a PCT application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40872" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="65716bdc-bbb0-4054-8334-b7a1c097b751" CreationDate="2016-09-04T17:36:50.530" UserId="17463" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;specification&gt;&lt;us&gt;&lt;recapture&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40873" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12972" RevisionGUID="191585ce-bba8-4439-b410-4bc0fdba1c3c" CreationDate="2016-09-04T18:01:21.203" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40874" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16251" RevisionGUID="7ecc9c2a-1d3d-46d7-a0a0-a0f8db12b6da" CreationDate="2016-09-04T19:01:21.187" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16399" RevisionGUID="3f4a4bf1-e063-404d-9877-254b26bb117c" CreationDate="2016-09-04T21:09:43.810" UserId="15403" Text="This used to be a lot more important than it is now.  In the past, the United States determined patent priority based on a **first-to-invent** system.  That is, if you and another inventor both had patent applications pending for roughly the same invention, the one who could prove they invented it first would win.  Those &quot;[interference][1]&quot; proceedings are why inventors needed to keep such carefully documented records of when they invented things and took various steps in reducing it to practice.  If there was documented evidence that credible, neutral people saw you inventing something and continuously taking diligent steps to reduce an idea to practice, while your competitor just had his own word and maybe the word of some family members whose incentives are strongly aligned to helping him/her win, your evidence would probably carry greater weight when a finder of fact balanced the evidence.  There aren't hard-and-fast rules, just predictions about future credibility and weight of evidence in the event of a later dispute regarding the invention process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of March 2013, the US joined the rest of the world with a **first-to-file** system, meaning that if two inventors have patent applications pending for roughly the same invention, whichever application effectively reached the USPTO first wins - and this is considerably easier to resolve.  The guides you're reading may have been written (or their authors educated) before this new system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are still lots of good reasons for documenting your invention process.  There are still good reasons for trying to privately explain your work and progress to trusted others, because trying to explain the idea can clarify it and (especially in conversation) lead to new improvements and good ideas.  Documenting others' observations of your progress can still be helpful in case there's any dispute about your invention process at a later date.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also consider recording your invention notes in a cloud storage format (e.g. Google Drive, GitHub private repositories) which has a large, well-known party recording dates of changes, likely to be viewed more credibly than a paper notebook.  If you're keeping designs on GitHub (etc.) you also gain access to the supported features like easy branching (to try out some new improvement) and quick reversion if some attempted change didn't produce the improvements you thought it might, helping your invention process.  The cloud storage option also gives you benefits of backup and makes it less likely your records will get destroyed by some accident (or attack), while slightly increasing your risk of having information stolen if someone hacks in to your account (use 2FA and see [Information Security.SE][2] for more tips on preventing that).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Especially with the first-to-file system now in place, if trying to find the right people to observe and sign your notebook on a regular basis is causing you issues and slowing you down, you might be better off just forgetting about it and focusing your time &amp; energies on understanding problems, inventing solutions, and finding ways to make those solutions broadly useful.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may get other better answers from others, but I'm hoping this is at least a good first answer on the question to help get you started.  Good luck!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_proceeding&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://security.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16399" RevisionGUID="7d8f226a-fa35-4764-8601-be31ce301c9b" CreationDate="2016-09-04T21:16:44.250" UserId="15403" Comment="deleted 144 characters in body" Text="This used to be a lot more important than it is now.  In the past, the United States determined patent priority based on a **first-to-invent** system.  That is, if you and another inventor both had patent applications pending for roughly the same invention, the one who could prove they invented it first would win.  Those &quot;[interference][1]&quot; proceedings are why inventors needed to keep such carefully documented records of when they invented things and took various steps in reducing it to practice.  If there was documented evidence that credible, neutral people saw you inventing something and continuously taking diligent steps to reduce an idea to practice, while your competitor just had his own word and maybe the word of some family members whose incentives are strongly aligned to helping him/her win, your evidence would probably carry greater weight when a finder of fact balanced the evidence.  There aren't hard-and-fast rules, just predictions about future credibility and weight of evidence in the event of a later dispute regarding the invention process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of March 2013, the US joined the rest of the world with a **first-to-file** system, meaning that if two inventors have patent applications pending for roughly the same invention, whichever application effectively reached the USPTO first wins - and this is considerably easier to resolve.  The guides you're reading may have been written (or their authors educated) before this new system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are still lots of good reasons for documenting your invention process.  There are still good reasons for trying to privately explain your work and progress to trusted others, because trying to explain the idea can clarify it and (especially in conversation) lead to new improvements and good ideas.  Documenting others' observations of your progress can still be helpful in case there's any dispute about your invention process at a later date.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also consider recording your invention notes in a cloud storage format (e.g. Google Drive, GitHub private repositories) which has a large, well-known party recording dates of changes, likely to be viewed more credibly than a paper notebook.  If you're keeping designs on GitHub (etc.) you also gain access to the supported features like easy branching (to try out some new improvement) and quick reversion if some attempted change didn't produce the improvements you thought it might, helping your invention process.  The cloud storage option also gives you benefits of backup and makes it less likely your records will get destroyed by some accident (or attack), while slightly increasing your risk of having information stolen if someone hacks in to your account (use 2FA and see [Information Security.SE][2] for more tips on preventing that).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Especially with the first-to-file system now in place, if trying to find the right people to observe and sign your notebook on a regular basis is causing you issues and slowing you down, you might be better off just forgetting about it and focusing your time &amp; energies on understanding problems, inventing solutions, and finding ways to make those solutions broadly useful.  Good luck!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_proceeding&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://security.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40880" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16399" RevisionGUID="5b4929ea-b2a1-4dd5-bdaf-14bdea17793f" CreationDate="2016-09-04T21:25:59.897" UserId="15403" Comment="deleted 144 characters in body" Text="This used to be a lot more important than it is now.  In the past, the United States determined patent priority based on a **first-to-invent** system.  That is, if you and another inventor both had patent applications pending for roughly the same invention, the one who could prove they invented it first would win.  Those &quot;[interference][1]&quot; proceedings are why inventors needed to keep such carefully documented records of when they invented things and took various steps in reducing it to practice.  If there was documented evidence that credible, neutral people saw you inventing something and continuously taking diligent steps to reduce an idea to practice, while your competitor just had his own word and maybe the word of some family members whose incentives are strongly aligned to helping him/her win, your evidence would probably carry greater weight when a finder of fact balanced the evidence.  There aren't hard-and-fast rules, just predictions about future credibility and weight of evidence in the event of a later dispute regarding the invention process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of March 2013, the US joined the rest of the world with a **first-to-file** system, meaning that if two inventors have patent applications pending for roughly the same invention, whichever application effectively reached the USPTO first wins - and this is considerably easier to resolve.  The guides you're reading may have been written (or their authors educated) before this new system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are still lots of good reasons for documenting your invention process.  There are still good reasons for trying to privately explain your work and progress to trusted others, because trying to explain the idea can clarify it and (especially in conversation) lead to new improvements and good ideas.  Documenting others' observations of your progress can still be helpful in case there's any dispute about your invention process at a later date.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also consider recording your invention notes in a cloud storage format (e.g. Google Drive, GitHub private repositories) which has a large, well-known party recording dates of changes, likely to be viewed more credibly than a paper notebook.  If you're keeping designs on GitHub (etc.) you also gain access to the supported features like easy branching (to try out some new improvement) and quick reversion if some attempted change didn't produce the improvements you thought it might, helping your invention process.  The cloud storage option also gives you benefits of backup and makes it less likely your records will get destroyed by some accident (or natural disaster, attack, etc.), while slightly increasing your risk of having information stolen if someone hacks in to your account (use 2FA and see [Information Security.SE][2] for more tips on preventing that).  This strategy also makes it easier to add geographically distant collaborators if you find people you want to partner with, and makes it easier for them to access the history in case questions come up while you're unreachable (on vacation, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Especially with the first-to-file system now in place, if trying to find the right people to observe and sign your notebook on a regular basis is causing you issues and slowing you down, you might be better off just forgetting about it and focusing your time &amp; energies on understanding problems, inventing solutions, and finding ways to make those solutions broadly useful.  Good luck!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_proceeding&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://security.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40883" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="a11c4ee3-737d-42a6-8997-c8bbd7e57647" CreationDate="2016-09-05T07:08:01.840" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16402" RevisionGUID="7b7c1f98-0dd8-49cf-9564-24e0afc94d83" CreationDate="2016-09-05T11:00:14.777" UserId="17325" Text="The patent specification mentions a few US patents in the introduction (Background of Invention). Have you checked those already?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16403" RevisionGUID="759502b7-cac3-4ae4-a660-4225f5aa207d" CreationDate="2016-09-05T11:11:20.903" UserId="17325" Text="I am not a US expert so I hope someone else will pop-in as well to add more info.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in a nutshell, there is a linkage between the date you disclose something and the disclosure itself and it is called &quot;priority date&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that your attorney wants to ensure you get the maximum opportunities as possible and include this added feature to the PCT filling. I cannot be 100% positive from the info you are sharing, but I assume he will use the priority date of the US application for the original invention, but for the new changes your priority date will be the one of the actual PCT filling only. This is quite common practice, actually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By recapturing, again I assume, he means that you will have the option of re-filling a US application, stemming this time from the PCT filling and not the original US one. You can thus ensure that you will be able to claim the changes as well (but for this US filling, you will have a different priority date).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sure a US-based user will be able to add more info. Why don't you add &quot;priority date&quot; to the labels?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40893" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14181" RevisionGUID="4434cd50-8c06-4dcf-820f-ff45d631ebc9" CreationDate="2016-09-05T18:21:01.280" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40897" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12640" RevisionGUID="8cac0f74-43f1-496f-a600-a95dd0bba37a" CreationDate="2016-09-05T19:27:35.820" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40898" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11943" RevisionGUID="f690192c-434e-4acf-91c8-d9705122ed8f" CreationDate="2016-09-05T20:27:36.623" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40900" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="e7dcb980-b265-4265-9930-7d5d460bbd96" CreationDate="2016-09-05T21:27:37.033" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40906" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11951" RevisionGUID="75e5c736-c2e4-467f-af3e-c300724392d0" CreationDate="2016-09-06T03:29:02.353" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40907" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12990" RevisionGUID="4c3bde4d-1852-4406-ac18-4e8a25de8a3a" CreationDate="2016-09-06T05:34:35.013" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40908" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16056" RevisionGUID="22ef7051-25af-4d01-8d4e-8a797b53c932" CreationDate="2016-09-06T06:36:46.960" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40909" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16083" RevisionGUID="6b37b51e-4b64-4bb9-81db-c2a9c271e03c" CreationDate="2016-09-06T07:44:40.337" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40913" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9885" RevisionGUID="9a0e14f7-865d-47ca-a15e-68833c391f4b" CreationDate="2016-09-06T10:47:39.330" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40916" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13723" RevisionGUID="006e38a2-bcef-4fba-ac9e-e26763c2df69" CreationDate="2016-09-06T11:47:40.583" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16411" RevisionGUID="269e474f-01da-4482-897d-9989d78b8693" CreationDate="2016-09-06T20:16:10.780" UserId="17005" Text="This may be a dumb question, but I cannot find the answer anywhere, so here it goes:  Can I file multiple different and unrelated inventions as independent claims in one application?  For example, let's say that one invention is an automotive braking technology, and another is a healthcare device.  Could I list them as independent claims in the same application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40928" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16411" RevisionGUID="269e474f-01da-4482-897d-9989d78b8693" CreationDate="2016-09-06T20:16:10.780" UserId="17005" Text="Multiple Inventions as Independent Claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40929" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16411" RevisionGUID="269e474f-01da-4482-897d-9989d78b8693" CreationDate="2016-09-06T20:16:10.780" UserId="17005" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;multiple&gt;&lt;independent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40930" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16253" RevisionGUID="830ca248-1781-4f3b-a31a-065799f86ee4" CreationDate="2016-09-06T20:53:11.153" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16412" RevisionGUID="74587d99-2279-46a6-bb57-2e5188a75e69" CreationDate="2016-09-06T21:47:26.883" UserId="16992" Text="If I want to work for an organization, and agree to something along the lines of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    10. Inventions. Except as otherwise provided in any prior written agreement(s) between the&#xD;&#xA;    Employee and ACME, Employee hereby acknowledges and agrees that all designs, improvements,&#xD;&#xA;    inventions, and discoveries (collectively “Inventions”) relating to the type of tasks Employee performed&#xD;&#xA;    while employed with ACME that have originated or will originate in connection with Employee’s work&#xD;&#xA;    for ACME, meaning those Inventions that are created during Employee’s working hours for ACME,&#xD;&#xA;    or that are developed using ACME’s facilities, materials, or other resources, that refer to, are suggested&#xD;&#xA;    by, or are the result of any work Employee may do during Employee’s employment with ACME, that&#xD;&#xA;    arise from any information obtained from ACME or any affiliate of ACME, and/or that are directly&#xD;&#xA;    related to Employee’s work for ACME, shall be the exclusive property of ACME and that all such&#xD;&#xA;    Inventions shall be considered “works made for hire” belonging to ACME.&#xD;&#xA;    To the extent that any such Inventions, under applicable law, may not be considered a work for hire by&#xD;&#xA;    Employee for ACME, Employee hereby agrees to assign and, upon its creation, automatically and&#xD;&#xA;    irrevocably assign to ACME, without any further consideration, all rights, title and interest in and to&#xD;&#xA;    such Inventions. ACME shall have the exclusive right to use the Inventions, whether original or&#xD;&#xA;    derivative, for all purposes without additional compensation to Employee. Per written agreement by and&#xD;&#xA;    between ACME and Employee, ACME, at its option, may elect to share royalties accruing to&#xD;&#xA;    ACME resulting from Employee’s efforts as described herein.&#xD;&#xA;    As to all Inventions, Employee will assist ACME in every proper way (but at ACME’s expense) to&#xD;&#xA;    obtain and from time to time enforce patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and other proprietary&#xD;&#xA;    rights and protections related to said Inventions in all countries, and to that end will execute all documents&#xD;&#xA;    for use in applying for and obtaining such patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets and other&#xD;&#xA;    proprietary rights and protections on and enforcing such Inventions, as ACME may desire, together&#xD;&#xA;    with any assignments thereof to ACME or persons designated by it. Employee hereby agrees not to&#xD;&#xA;    challenge or seek to register, directly or indirectly the ownership rights of ACME or its designee(s) in&#xD;&#xA;    the Inventions.&#xD;&#xA;    Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list and summary of all patents, copyrights or other registrations issued&#xD;&#xA;    on inventions made by Employee before entering ACME’s employ, all pending applications filed on&#xD;&#xA;    such inventions, and all such inventions for which no patents have been obtained or applications filed.&#xD;&#xA;    Employee warrants that Exhibit A is a complete list of such patents, copyrights, other registrations, and&#xD;&#xA;    inventions. All such patents, copyrights, other registrations, and inventions so listed on Exhibit A are&#xD;&#xA;    excluded from the operation of this Agreement, and if no such list is attached, Employee warrants that no&#xD;&#xA;    such patents, copyrights, other registrations or inventions exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1- Would I be able to successfully defend independent inventions in the future? By that I mean inventions which are product of my own time and effort?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2- How would I handle this situation? That is, I come up with an idea, and spend my own time in reducing it to practice, and document the process and steps. Definitely talk to a patent attorney as soon as I come up with it, right? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3- Why is this organization asking for current ideas? Can I ask them to sign an NDA before I share my ideas with them? Who is to say they won't apply for a patent for the same thing given that U.S. law is based on first-to-file?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4- I am not sure if you are familiar with this technology; it is the most prevalent one I can come up with. Can an attorney challenge a potential invention based on use of a common publicly available technology such as Internet Protocol? Can they argue that Mr. X could not have learned as much about IP if it was not for their work at Company Y?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5- Can they make the same argument for experience, insight, or even awareness of the problem to which an inventor provided a solution to?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6- What are the best practices, procedures, and items a potential inventor should observe in order to safely register an invention to their name? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7- Is there any reason for IT professionals who work on jobs dealing with Commercial Off-the-shelf software and hardware to be mandated to sign an invention content like the one above? I mean, are organization being plain greedy or is there a reason for this? If I am not going to be paid for an R&amp;D effort, why should I agree to such a content? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8- I hope this post is not considered too many questions. This is such an interesting and complex legal issue, and over the last few years has become so much more competitive. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40932" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16412" RevisionGUID="74587d99-2279-46a6-bb57-2e5188a75e69" CreationDate="2016-09-06T21:47:26.883" UserId="16992" Text="How to evaluate IT contract for patent and invention content" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40933" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16412" RevisionGUID="74587d99-2279-46a6-bb57-2e5188a75e69" CreationDate="2016-09-06T21:47:26.883" UserId="16992" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16412" RevisionGUID="4a7d1486-38a9-4995-9e91-e3d91b73101e" CreationDate="2016-09-06T21:56:00.897" UserId="16992" Comment="added 262 characters in body" Text="If I want to work for an organization, and agree to something along the lines of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    10. Inventions. Except as otherwise provided in any prior written agreement(s) between the&#xD;&#xA;    Employee and ACME, Employee hereby acknowledges and agrees that all designs, improvements,&#xD;&#xA;    inventions, and discoveries (collectively “Inventions”) relating to the type of tasks Employee performed&#xD;&#xA;    while employed with ACME that have originated or will originate in connection with Employee’s work&#xD;&#xA;    for ACME, meaning those Inventions that are created during Employee’s working hours for ACME,&#xD;&#xA;    or that are developed using ACME’s facilities, materials, or other resources, that refer to, are suggested&#xD;&#xA;    by, or are the result of any work Employee may do during Employee’s employment with ACME, that&#xD;&#xA;    arise from any information obtained from ACME or any affiliate of ACME, and/or that are directly&#xD;&#xA;    related to Employee’s work for ACME, shall be the exclusive property of ACME and that all such&#xD;&#xA;    Inventions shall be considered “works made for hire” belonging to ACME.&#xD;&#xA;    To the extent that any such Inventions, under applicable law, may not be considered a work for hire by&#xD;&#xA;    Employee for ACME, Employee hereby agrees to assign and, upon its creation, automatically and&#xD;&#xA;    irrevocably assign to ACME, without any further consideration, all rights, title and interest in and to&#xD;&#xA;    such Inventions. ACME shall have the exclusive right to use the Inventions, whether original or&#xD;&#xA;    derivative, for all purposes without additional compensation to Employee. Per written agreement by and&#xD;&#xA;    between ACME and Employee, ACME, at its option, may elect to share royalties accruing to&#xD;&#xA;    ACME resulting from Employee’s efforts as described herein.&#xD;&#xA;    As to all Inventions, Employee will assist ACME in every proper way (but at ACME’s expense) to&#xD;&#xA;    obtain and from time to time enforce patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and other proprietary&#xD;&#xA;    rights and protections related to said Inventions in all countries, and to that end will execute all documents&#xD;&#xA;    for use in applying for and obtaining such patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets and other&#xD;&#xA;    proprietary rights and protections on and enforcing such Inventions, as ACME may desire, together&#xD;&#xA;    with any assignments thereof to ACME or persons designated by it. Employee hereby agrees not to&#xD;&#xA;    challenge or seek to register, directly or indirectly the ownership rights of ACME or its designee(s) in&#xD;&#xA;    the Inventions.&#xD;&#xA;    Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list and summary of all patents, copyrights or other registrations issued&#xD;&#xA;    on inventions made by Employee before entering ACME’s employ, all pending applications filed on&#xD;&#xA;    such inventions, and all such inventions for which no patents have been obtained or applications filed.&#xD;&#xA;    Employee warrants that Exhibit A is a complete list of such patents, copyrights, other registrations, and&#xD;&#xA;    inventions. All such patents, copyrights, other registrations, and inventions so listed on Exhibit A are&#xD;&#xA;    excluded from the operation of this Agreement, and if no such list is attached, Employee warrants that no&#xD;&#xA;    such patents, copyrights, other registrations or inventions exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1- Would I be able to successfully defend independent inventions in the future? By that I mean inventions which are product of my own time and effort? Do you think with due diligence I can successfully keep company work separate from my own inventions? I am not out to short change anyone, and want to make sure no one will try to do that to me; that is all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2- How would I handle this situation? That is, I come up with an idea, and spend my own time in reducing it to practice, and document the process and steps. Definitely talk to a patent attorney as soon as I come up with it, right? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3- Why is this organization asking for current ideas? Can I ask them to sign an NDA before I share my ideas with them? Who is to say they won't apply for a patent for the same thing given that U.S. law is based on first-to-file?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4- I am not sure if you are familiar with this technology; it is the most prevalent one I can come up with. Can an attorney challenge a potential invention based on use of a common publicly available technology such as Internet Protocol? Can they argue that Mr. X could not have learned as much about IP if it was not for their work at Company Y?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5- Can they make the same argument for experience, insight, or even awareness of the problem to which an inventor provided a solution to?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6- What are the best practices, procedures, and items a potential inventor should observe in order to safely register an invention to their name? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7- Is there any reason for IT professionals who work on jobs dealing with Commercial Off-the-shelf software and hardware to be mandated to sign an invention content like the one above? I mean, are organization being plain greedy or is there a reason for this? If I am not going to be paid for an R&amp;D effort, why should I agree to such a content? Is there a justified reason for this type of content? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8- I hope this post is not considered too many questions. This is such an interesting and complex legal issue, and over the last few years has become so much more competitive. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40935" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="72c953cc-0b66-4d2a-a941-216dbe4786f9" CreationDate="2016-09-06T22:53:17.563" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16412" RevisionGUID="f15215df-c77b-4f11-b08f-ac045980ae3c" CreationDate="2016-09-06T23:37:09.890" UserId="16992" Comment="added 346 characters in body" Text="If I want to work for an organization, and agree to something along the lines of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    10. Inventions. Except as otherwise provided in any prior written agreement(s) between the&#xD;&#xA;    Employee and ACME, Employee hereby acknowledges and agrees that all designs, improvements,&#xD;&#xA;    inventions, and discoveries (collectively “Inventions”) relating to the type of tasks Employee performed&#xD;&#xA;    while employed with ACME that have originated or will originate in connection with Employee’s work&#xD;&#xA;    for ACME, meaning those Inventions that are created during Employee’s working hours for ACME,&#xD;&#xA;    or that are developed using ACME’s facilities, materials, or other resources, that refer to, are suggested&#xD;&#xA;    by, or are the result of any work Employee may do during Employee’s employment with ACME, that&#xD;&#xA;    arise from any information obtained from ACME or any affiliate of ACME, and/or that are directly&#xD;&#xA;    related to Employee’s work for ACME, shall be the exclusive property of ACME and that all such&#xD;&#xA;    Inventions shall be considered “works made for hire” belonging to ACME.&#xD;&#xA;    To the extent that any such Inventions, under applicable law, may not be considered a work for hire by&#xD;&#xA;    Employee for ACME, Employee hereby agrees to assign and, upon its creation, automatically and&#xD;&#xA;    irrevocably assign to ACME, without any further consideration, all rights, title and interest in and to&#xD;&#xA;    such Inventions. ACME shall have the exclusive right to use the Inventions, whether original or&#xD;&#xA;    derivative, for all purposes without additional compensation to Employee. Per written agreement by and&#xD;&#xA;    between ACME and Employee, ACME, at its option, may elect to share royalties accruing to&#xD;&#xA;    ACME resulting from Employee’s efforts as described herein.&#xD;&#xA;    As to all Inventions, Employee will assist ACME in every proper way (but at ACME’s expense) to&#xD;&#xA;    obtain and from time to time enforce patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and other proprietary&#xD;&#xA;    rights and protections related to said Inventions in all countries, and to that end will execute all documents&#xD;&#xA;    for use in applying for and obtaining such patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets and other&#xD;&#xA;    proprietary rights and protections on and enforcing such Inventions, as ACME may desire, together&#xD;&#xA;    with any assignments thereof to ACME or persons designated by it. Employee hereby agrees not to&#xD;&#xA;    challenge or seek to register, directly or indirectly the ownership rights of ACME or its designee(s) in&#xD;&#xA;    the Inventions.&#xD;&#xA;    Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list and summary of all patents, copyrights or other registrations issued&#xD;&#xA;    on inventions made by Employee before entering ACME’s employ, all pending applications filed on&#xD;&#xA;    such inventions, and all such inventions for which no patents have been obtained or applications filed.&#xD;&#xA;    Employee warrants that Exhibit A is a complete list of such patents, copyrights, other registrations, and&#xD;&#xA;    inventions. All such patents, copyrights, other registrations, and inventions so listed on Exhibit A are&#xD;&#xA;    excluded from the operation of this Agreement, and if no such list is attached, Employee warrants that no&#xD;&#xA;    such patents, copyrights, other registrations or inventions exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1- Would I be able to successfully defend independent inventions in the future? By that I mean inventions which are product of my own time and effort? Do you think with due diligence I can successfully keep company work separate from my own inventions? I am not out to short change anyone, and want to make sure no one will try to do that to me; that is all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2- How would I handle this situation? That is, I come up with an idea, and spend my own time in reducing it to practice, and document the process and steps. Definitely talk to a patent attorney as soon as I come up with it, right? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3- Why is this organization asking for current ideas? Can I ask them to sign an NDA before I share my ideas with them? Who is to say they won't apply for a patent for the same thing given that U.S. law is based on first-to-file?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4- I am not sure if you are familiar with this technology; it is the most prevalent one I can come up with. Can an attorney challenge a potential invention based on use of a common publicly available technology such as Internet Protocol? Can they argue that Mr. X could not have learned as much about IP if it was not for their work at Company Y?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5- Can they make the same argument for experience, insight, or even awareness of the problem to which an inventor provided a solution to?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6- What are the best practices, procedures, and items a potential inventor should observe in order to safely register an invention to their name? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7- Is there any reason for IT professionals who work on jobs dealing with Commercial Off-the-shelf software and hardware to be mandated to sign an invention content like the one above? I mean, are organization being plain greedy or is there a reason for this? If I am not going to be paid for an R&amp;D effort, why should I agree to such a content? Is there a justified reason for this type of content? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8- I hope this post is not considered too many questions. This is such an interesting and complex legal issue, and over the last few years has become so much more competitive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9- How can I fairly and accurately describe the work products I provide to my employer in the form of designs, strategies, solution, and even software at the level of scripts, and open source code implementations towards completing a service. But leave my hands open to use any publicly documented protocols and specifications in the future? Law is so complex. I saw a video on patent law, and in it, the person stated patent is granted to any product which has *all* the attributes one describes on their application. This leads me to believe that I safely use protocols such as IP for other products. Is this correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40938" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14632" RevisionGUID="6bdd0a63-cd59-429d-91b9-a68fc20dee3c" CreationDate="2016-09-06T23:53:19.183" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40939" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="4af7c446-d6f4-4e0d-b943-167dab0ad61b" CreationDate="2016-09-07T00:53:19.737" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40940" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14061" RevisionGUID="91316f80-25ac-4ef2-bb1b-7ab9280a95ae" CreationDate="2016-09-07T01:53:21.980" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40941" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14049" RevisionGUID="505c1cee-a7d7-4267-bd12-21acc98ff53d" CreationDate="2016-09-07T03:54:13.397" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16413" RevisionGUID="4e2ed77e-a1c9-45da-9332-09c18f544708" CreationDate="2016-09-07T05:53:30.137" UserId="17325" Text="What you are talking about is called &quot;unity&quot;. In most patent offices (in all of them I would guess) a set of claims must relate to a single general concept. If not, the applicant is required to keep only part of it. The reason behind this is that for different inventions different searches are required (and they are not willing to do it when you pay for only one). Under the PCT procedure you can pay additional fees and have the other inventions searched as well. The same goes for the EPO procedure. I assume similar rules have been set for other offices too.&#xD;&#xA;So if you want to stitch together a number of different independent claims, you can do it. But the claims will have no unity (see Rule 13 PCT) and you will have either to pay for each different invention, or have just one of them searched. The fate of the non-searched claims may vary from country to country but normally you would be able to split the claims to more patent applications (and pay for them of course)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40946" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13939" RevisionGUID="21ce67b0-3fe8-4242-9309-86e73e074c69" CreationDate="2016-09-07T11:55:03.197" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40948" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13762" RevisionGUID="7ee9cd04-1956-4987-a198-f3e5559b2f95" CreationDate="2016-09-07T22:55:37.210" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40950" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="962588ec-07ac-4f1b-854c-26439b7a8eeb" CreationDate="2016-09-08T04:08:39.790" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40951" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13601" RevisionGUID="4970dcc9-6fbc-44f6-9299-e097c29044c2" CreationDate="2016-09-08T07:08:59.193" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40952" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13276" RevisionGUID="cdc9ef0f-b91d-4b60-8a6e-3c0d844e1693" CreationDate="2016-09-08T08:09:07.823" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16415" RevisionGUID="91d7b44e-a982-4720-b007-41a123aa2eda" CreationDate="2016-09-08T08:44:03.670" UserId="17325" Text="You can also go to http://patft.uspto.gov/ and insert patent number in the full-page image. You retrive the patent specification as published and if there is a terminal disclaimer you will find it printed clearly on the first page, left column.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No source for statistics but I am guessing the more patents there are in the same family, the more likely it will be that they will be terminally disclaimed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40954" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16274" RevisionGUID="9983f0cb-43f4-431f-b2b0-b20590872011" CreationDate="2016-09-08T09:09:22.493" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40955" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14699" RevisionGUID="bd01d7e2-2bd2-47f4-9404-40233ee857c8" CreationDate="2016-09-08T14:10:25.673" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40956" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10602" RevisionGUID="278d787c-4d26-4e50-8c45-942d6049c43f" CreationDate="2016-09-08T15:10:25.993" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40957" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16022" RevisionGUID="4551f48c-19de-4a43-adae-417be89a0d44" CreationDate="2016-09-08T17:15:37.993" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40958" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5897" RevisionGUID="e7d657cd-2803-4b0d-b6a1-6119ce6ee791" CreationDate="2016-09-08T18:15:55.317" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40959" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14366" RevisionGUID="cfceb552-0edf-4aa9-b918-13f476fa0e3e" CreationDate="2016-09-08T19:16:01.950" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40967" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14697" RevisionGUID="eecd0f7c-3d04-49a1-a19f-d54205df47df" CreationDate="2016-09-08T23:19:54.150" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40970" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14409" RevisionGUID="58d5a764-e360-48c6-b7e0-d4bbc135f5ff" CreationDate="2016-09-09T08:26:31.857" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40971" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14355" RevisionGUID="f68d300a-183d-461b-9768-dfde115bc166" CreationDate="2016-09-09T09:26:31.283" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40975" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16069" RevisionGUID="54c138ec-1e59-4a64-aebe-213ff52fc5d2" CreationDate="2016-09-09T10:26:53.897" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40981" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14868" RevisionGUID="7ce438e3-de30-471f-96e7-d06c22ac5250" CreationDate="2016-09-09T12:26:53.720" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40983" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="41ea679b-d1a1-4687-b9d0-af86487ba563" CreationDate="2016-09-09T18:30:26.167" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40984" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13934" RevisionGUID="b9ea2d54-16dd-458d-8e5e-bb8498dd0403" CreationDate="2016-09-09T19:30:57.290" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16421" RevisionGUID="7ec17e22-7c83-4841-9f5e-4cc4a5a66795" CreationDate="2016-09-10T03:19:07.270" UserId="9847" Text="I am preparing a provisional application for a project I have been working on.  In the link below, from IP Australia, they say that the problem and solution should be described as part of the Summary, but I have seen example provisional applications (admittedly for other jurisdictions) where the problems are pointed out during the discussion of prior art.  This works a lot better for me.  Can I do it that way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the link:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/patents/applying-patent/application-type/what-include/best-practice-guide-presenting-specification" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40993" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16421" RevisionGUID="7ec17e22-7c83-4841-9f5e-4cc4a5a66795" CreationDate="2016-09-10T03:19:07.270" UserId="9847" Text="Where to desribe the problem in my application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40994" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16421" RevisionGUID="7ec17e22-7c83-4841-9f5e-4cc4a5a66795" CreationDate="2016-09-10T03:19:07.270" UserId="9847" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40995" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16078" RevisionGUID="4acbee6b-63cf-4702-a06c-1063521c1bb4" CreationDate="2016-09-10T07:31:26.753" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40996" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="566e3769-143f-4d48-a12f-d79958ce1110" CreationDate="2016-09-10T15:37:05.767" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14868" RevisionGUID="4b744b7a-0a15-45c4-a666-42c45e5dc70e" CreationDate="2016-09-10T16:00:47.957" UserId="17328" Comment="fixed link formatting." Text="In reference to the patent: [US20120305616](https://www.google.com/patents/US20120305616)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent application publication was filed May 2011 and I can't find any more details on this publication. How do I find out the status of this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40999" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14868" RevisionGUID="4b744b7a-0a15-45c4-a666-42c45e5dc70e" CreationDate="2016-09-10T16:00:47.957" Comment="Proposed by 17328 approved by 1 edit id of 1970" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41000" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16090" RevisionGUID="921b065e-2fac-4c20-9a42-343e84c7f11c" CreationDate="2016-09-10T18:37:52.793" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41001" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14635" RevisionGUID="92ef61e7-56fe-42c5-9d87-0369b859a9c5" CreationDate="2016-09-10T19:38:10.370" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41003" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14266" RevisionGUID="7aa4ef9e-f50e-4073-8a04-598e1505d92d" CreationDate="2016-09-10T20:38:13.230" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41004" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14833" RevisionGUID="3f532f8d-a27a-49e2-8b38-927abf88a35d" CreationDate="2016-09-10T21:38:15.330" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41005" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16096" RevisionGUID="813fc7a3-f9b7-4c2f-b645-ca889c6988f2" CreationDate="2016-09-10T22:38:32.923" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41006" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14831" RevisionGUID="430b2327-5198-4d1b-acc2-60051fac703d" CreationDate="2016-09-10T23:38:31.643" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41007" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="9912d0ef-edd2-4b97-9b52-542b3d9daac3" CreationDate="2016-09-11T00:38:54.077" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41008" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10796" RevisionGUID="76234628-9607-4818-bcbb-9e1d4315d76f" CreationDate="2016-09-11T01:41:06.600" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41013" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="d04794df-b5c2-47de-acbe-da4924368b84" CreationDate="2016-09-11T08:48:49.043" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41015" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12753" RevisionGUID="1c4e9986-bdd6-44cd-9eba-99db4ac8c427" CreationDate="2016-09-11T16:51:41.397" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41016" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16110" RevisionGUID="490e7f76-625b-4c62-85c8-968bc8f06eec" CreationDate="2016-09-11T19:52:21.540" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41017" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16124" RevisionGUID="090e2bb1-0f81-4c2e-b389-328d9c34f964" CreationDate="2016-09-11T22:55:02.873" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41022" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15983" RevisionGUID="958e3136-7ed0-4845-bfdb-adf7a112e649" CreationDate="2016-09-12T02:58:24.720" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41024" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15991" RevisionGUID="8577d311-4e6b-4cc8-9695-577ac2b85cd1" CreationDate="2016-09-12T03:58:24.683" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41025" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16288" RevisionGUID="2d68a7f6-0862-47ab-9db0-621393dcd094" CreationDate="2016-09-12T04:58:26.267" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41026" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16103" RevisionGUID="6538af76-601a-4640-bffc-70f03b2ded60" CreationDate="2016-09-12T13:19:33.420" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41027" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13614" RevisionGUID="9df645af-b623-46a5-927c-6a778e2ac081" CreationDate="2016-09-12T21:22:50.997" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41031" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16220" RevisionGUID="53005bca-67bb-43eb-bd54-696948d1704b" CreationDate="2016-09-13T01:22:57.607" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41032" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14785" RevisionGUID="bea4b150-dba0-4f30-be00-93a5ab504224" CreationDate="2016-09-13T02:22:57.470" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41033" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14881" RevisionGUID="7e0ce8e1-150a-4d5c-8a18-e59ba1db5347" CreationDate="2016-09-13T03:23:04.960" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16425" RevisionGUID="8aa62828-d5b3-4558-a883-77ba1c065eca" CreationDate="2016-09-13T07:25:15.033" UserId="17076" Text="I'd suggest you look at the Barix streaming products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These have been around for years and do what's described by Claim 1." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41035" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12909" RevisionGUID="dd005aa0-85fe-4e91-a416-7e2dfff17acf" CreationDate="2016-09-13T10:29:57.810" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16429" RevisionGUID="a9ec388f-81ac-4bb8-8648-bc26076029fa" CreationDate="2016-09-14T17:03:50.303" UserId="11394" Text="I assume that you are filing an Australian provisional application, since that is the website you're referencing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I do not know Australian patent law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in US practice I would put this discussion in the Summary - not in the Background. Australian patents require an &quot;inventive step,&quot; which is like non-obviousness in US practice. If you characterize the problem too well in the discussion of the prior art, an examiner may find that, from the point where you left off in the discussion of prior art, the solution would be obvious and thus lacks an inventive step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would just cut-and-paste the text of your discussion from the Background into the Summary.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41051" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16134" RevisionGUID="2eb0db0e-38a0-4a7e-a849-269609391d21" CreationDate="2016-09-14T17:46:42.997" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41052" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="ae70ccc6-5752-42a2-9783-6c36bfdee147" CreationDate="2016-09-14T18:48:32.093" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41056" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11980" RevisionGUID="907f67f1-f1e0-4d3c-a929-a2b4fd0c3289" CreationDate="2016-09-14T19:48:35.150" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41057" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="f46be7d8-e334-4cbb-8dba-580e4dfcdce0" CreationDate="2016-09-14T20:48:37.363" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41060" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11968" RevisionGUID="6e31e5f0-f86b-4b99-9aea-f2bbcba21fc9" CreationDate="2016-09-15T01:56:03.330" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41061" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16275" RevisionGUID="14796707-3bb0-441f-ae49-307d15f00c25" CreationDate="2016-09-15T02:58:12.807" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41064" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16267" RevisionGUID="a96321e8-e322-436b-9fca-633a2347e422" CreationDate="2016-09-15T03:58:12.753" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41071" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12505" RevisionGUID="194adde8-a81a-49ea-806e-36fc7452d820" CreationDate="2016-09-15T09:00:44.770" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41072" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10532" RevisionGUID="e64b06d6-996d-40ed-8e58-b349ad2fda31" CreationDate="2016-09-15T10:00:44.617" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="2226e39d-0226-4998-8140-56d1c56116a6" CreationDate="2016-09-15T15:47:56.497" UserId="8074" Comment="added 2959 characters in body" Text="I'm specifically interested in [US 6873940][1] patent. The company that currently owns the patent is a company called [Kamatani Cloud][2] which is subsidiary of [General Patent][3] which some argue ([1][4], [2][5], [3][6], [4][7]) is a patent troll company. I'd like to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like [keylemon][8], [betafaceapi][9], [rekognition][10] or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker identification, face detection or content classification in images, audio or video files etc.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13]. In fact the [class 709 scope][12] has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent prosecution process after non-final rejection [argued][14] (2004-09-20 Applicant Arguments Remarks Made in an Amendment) that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect if server is capable of &quot;*measuring*&quot;/processing the data then the prior art is not applicable, consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are sent by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no &quot;*detecting whether the measurement data are capable of being measured*&quot; is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires server capability of detecting if data can be &quot;*measured*&quot; and notifying client if such capability exists then the patent shouldn't apply for cloud services as mentioned previously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding using the arguments provided by applicant during patent prosecution for claim interpretation please see [C. Claim Interpretation.][15], [wiki][16] and following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Markman, the Federal Circuit held that a court should consider a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent’s prosecution history if it is in evidence, and explained that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the prosecution history “is of primary significance in understanding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the claims.” [52 F.3d at 980][17], aff’d, 64 U.S.L.W. 4263.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Standard Oil&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., [774 F.2d 448][18] (Fed. Cir. 1985), the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Federal Circuit stated that:  [T]he prosecution history (sometimes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; called “file wrapper and contents’’) of the patent consists of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; entire record of proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office. This&#xD;&#xA;&gt; includes all express representations made by or on behalf of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applicant to the examiner to induce a patent grant, or, as here, to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reissue a patent. Such representations include amendments to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims and arguments made to convince the examiner that the claimed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention meets the statutory requirements of novelty, utility, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonobviousness. Thus, the prosecution history (or file wrapper) limits&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain claim allowance. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [774 F.2d at 452][19] (emphasis added).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain allowance of the claims of the ‘712 patent, arguments were made&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on behalf of the applicant to the Examiner during prosecution that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served both to explain the claims in a clear manner and to disavow any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source - [Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-376, p. 47][20], [here][21] or [here][18].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover all independent patent claims except claim 32 clearly indicate that system performs modulation/demodulation, which is &quot;[the process of varying one or more properties of a periodic waveform, called the carrier signal][22]&quot; on a basic level. That is claims that use modulation/demodulation terminology automatically limit the possible claim interpretation to that where system in question performs electric or other signal modulation/demodulation in a manner consistent with the claims and [term definition][22].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claim 32 regardless of not being limited by modulation/demodulation terms has a clear indication of measuring instrument being a physical device: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 32: &lt;...&gt; one of measurement instruments **connected to the server computer** &lt;...&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern systems purpose built physical devices for processing data that are connected to the computer are rarely used if at all. It is an outdated system scheme. All processing nowadays is performed using software which is run by computer (NOT connected to it). One can analyze the patent and see that all explanations and examples use the physical device as a **measuring instrument** (see Fig. 3, Description) thus narrowing ability to apply this patent to cloud services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet another aspect ow why cloud computing is not related to this patent is the use of &quot;Web site&quot; in patent claim 32&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A measurement service method for connecting a server computer and a client computer through a **Web site** on the Internet (...) wherein applications for measurement services are accepted on the **Web site** (...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From patent prosecution document [Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment (09/20/2004)][23] p.13 new paragraph&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nor is there any disclosure in the Rogers Patent of providing such an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **intermediate Web site** for accepting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applications for measurement services. Applicant respectfully submits&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that the Rogers passages (col. 9, lines 10-65) referenced by the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Examiner at page 3 of the Office Action do not teach or disclose an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **intermediate Web site**. In particular, these passages refer to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; operation of the system shown in Figure 4 of the Rogers Patent, which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; depicts a data input controller 200 “which is similar to a Web&#xD;&#xA;&gt; browser” (col. 9, lines 15-17) and a networked controller 220 “which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is similar to a Web server” (col. 9, lines 17-18), but these passages&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nowhere describe, suggest or even hint of inserting an intermediate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Web site between the data input controller 200 and the networked&#xD;&#xA;&gt; controller 220 to service applications for measurement Services&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;can be seen that applicant defends novelty of the combination of original claims 36 and 39 (final claim 32, see [final claim index][24]) by underlining the difference between applicants claimed invention and and prior art patent ([Rogers][25]) being direct communication between client and server in Rogers and via **Web site** as in claimed invention. Contrary to using &quot;intermediate Web site&quot; cloud services using combination of [REST/RESTful][26] (HTTP) and for instance [JSON][27] as data format (which is currently a norm in tech world) are communicating directly to the server. One could also look at definitions of the following words: [web site][28], [web page][29], [hypertext][30] to understand the term **Web site** and it's difference in view of the patent from modern cloud services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#So to put it briefly:#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class [709][12] regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13] work? Both must apply or only first or second when interpreting claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** during [US6873940][1] [patent application][14] inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; in case of image processing requests are directed to URL for processing images and in case of voice processing requests are directed to URL for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing only faces or only classifying image contents...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**c)** All independent patent claims except for Claim 32 clearly indicate that system performs [modulation][22]/[demodulation][31]. Here modulation is &quot;[the process of varying one or more properties of a periodic waveform, called the carrier signal][22]&quot; thus limiting signal processing interpretation in claims by definition of said terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**d)** Wording in claims and explanation in patent description limit possible interpretations of a &quot;measurement instrument&quot; to be a physical device, especially in [Claim 32][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**e)** Is it even conceivable to interpret **intermediate Web site** as in [Claim 32][1] as somehow being part of [REST (HTTP) + JSON][32] cloud service?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6873940&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kamatanicloud.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.generalpatent.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://scienceprogress.org/2009/01/patent-trolls-erode-patent-system/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-biggest-patent-trolls&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ipdigit.eu/2011/10/what-to-think-of-patent-trolls-the-return/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/27/law-would-force-patent-trolls-to-pay-for-failed-lawsuits-against-innovators/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.keylemon.com&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.betafaceapi.com&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://rekognition.com&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc702/defs702.htm#C702S189000&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm#C709S217000&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.intellectual.com/infringement.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markman_v._Westview_Instruments,_Inc.&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10285146068541901213&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr#p980&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/774/774.F2d.448.84-1552.84-1519.html#p25&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16011019387871241659&amp;q=774%20F.2d%20448&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2006#p452&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://bit.ly/1PYCjjA&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://www.usitc.gov/publications/337/pub3003.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulation&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://globaldossier.uspto.gov/svc/doccontent/US/97962302.A/9-6-US%20%20099796230GP1%20/6/PDF&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://globaldossier.uspto.gov/svc/doccontent/US/97962302.A/8-1-US%20%20099796230IP1%20/1/PDF&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6560516&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representational_state_transfer&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/website&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/web_page&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hypertext&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demodulation&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representational_state_transfer#Uniform_interface" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41078" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13966" RevisionGUID="ef18165a-720d-4d61-b8ab-af3c898eb5fe" CreationDate="2016-09-15T17:03:39.137" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16437" RevisionGUID="bd80701d-e813-4374-95c3-f0f2399a5611" CreationDate="2016-09-16T01:08:14.080" UserId="16537" Text="Lets say John files a provisional patent at January 2016 with claim A. Some company B decides to file a non provisional patent with the exact same claim A at March 2016, because John's provisional is not searchable by neither the patent lawyer nor the patent examiner, so company B's non provisional patent application got granted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lets say at September 2016 John want's to turn his provisional patent into non provisional patent since the one year window is expiring and he finally finds enough money, but then he realized what company B has done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Could John still file a non provisional patent with claim A and still get it granted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If the answer is yes, does that render company B's non provisional patent useless? If yes, does that means company B just wasted a ton of money for nothing?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41084" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16437" RevisionGUID="bd80701d-e813-4374-95c3-f0f2399a5611" CreationDate="2016-09-16T01:08:14.080" UserId="16537" Text="What happens when a non-provisional patent infringes a provisional patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41085" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16437" RevisionGUID="bd80701d-e813-4374-95c3-f0f2399a5611" CreationDate="2016-09-16T01:08:14.080" UserId="16537" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;non-provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16437" RevisionGUID="d9a3416e-c509-478f-b02d-cdc6c574d1b4" CreationDate="2016-09-16T01:25:09.310" UserId="16537" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="Lets say John files a provisional patent at January 2016 with claim A. Some company B decides to file a non provisional patent with the exact same claim A at March 2016, because John's provisional is not searchable by neither the patent lawyer nor the patent examiner, so company B's non provisional patent application got granted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lets say at September 2016 John want's to turn his provisional patent into non provisional patent since the one year window is expiring and he finally finds enough money, but then he realized what company B has done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Could John still file a non provisional patent with claim A and still get it granted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If the answer is yes, does that render company B's non provisional patent useless? If yes, does that means company B just wasted a ton of money for nothing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: Assuming John is in the US." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16438" RevisionGUID="b8fe1140-0dd9-4053-9e92-d874e14538a0" CreationDate="2016-09-16T01:52:25.903" UserId="16537" Text="Lets say John has an invention and he wants to file patent for it. He wants to write everything in a single patent with the obvious motivation of saving money. However, he could potentially break his inventions into multiple sub-components and file multiple shorter patents, but he is unsure whether there is any advantage of doing this. What are the pros and cons for both options?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming John is in the US." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41088" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16438" RevisionGUID="b8fe1140-0dd9-4053-9e92-d874e14538a0" CreationDate="2016-09-16T01:52:25.903" UserId="16537" Text="Is there any disadvantage to file a single large long patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41089" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16438" RevisionGUID="b8fe1140-0dd9-4053-9e92-d874e14538a0" CreationDate="2016-09-16T01:52:25.903" UserId="16537" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16440" RevisionGUID="962ab8db-41cf-48f1-ad1e-7c1e140736ec" CreationDate="2016-09-16T02:27:52.473" UserId="17537" Text="I just designed some logos for my own company. I'm wondering if I can apply a patent for those logos, and put copyrights on them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Appreciate it!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41094" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16440" RevisionGUID="962ab8db-41cf-48f1-ad1e-7c1e140736ec" CreationDate="2016-09-16T02:27:52.473" UserId="17537" Text="Can I apply a patent for logos?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41095" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16440" RevisionGUID="962ab8db-41cf-48f1-ad1e-7c1e140736ec" CreationDate="2016-09-16T02:27:52.473" UserId="17537" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;logos&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41096" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14806" RevisionGUID="84d12910-46ed-4af0-8452-688342180d19" CreationDate="2016-09-16T07:18:03.940" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41097" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14948" RevisionGUID="81939ff4-7d2c-451f-9bbc-a6abae016300" CreationDate="2016-09-16T08:18:07.953" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41098" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16114" RevisionGUID="6182e25f-7a78-4a7a-8fda-5e21ea80a3de" CreationDate="2016-09-16T09:18:11.563" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16441" RevisionGUID="2a5f030a-1e7c-4168-a85f-4cb2209155ae" CreationDate="2016-09-16T09:39:01.977" UserId="17540" Text="Because there are no claims in provisional patent applications, the scenario described could not occur. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the non-provisional application filed by the company in March would not have been made public by September of the same year. John couldn't have known what the company was up to in the timeline given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're asking which applicant has priority if a case of competing claims were to arise (which couldn't happen as described): John was first to file and establishes priority with his provisional app." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41101" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12423" RevisionGUID="9d2d9205-8da8-4a03-b1fc-ef271dc350a3" CreationDate="2016-09-16T10:18:16.613" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41103" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14892" RevisionGUID="ed69b625-f8f4-461e-9583-b2f51542c6b7" CreationDate="2016-09-16T14:23:02.987" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16443" RevisionGUID="c30cfbd3-64cd-468f-b105-6f0b5626110d" CreationDate="2016-09-16T16:39:04.023" UserId="16537" Text="Suppose there is a patent with claim A that is filed five years ago. It might not be perceived as &quot;obvious&quot; five years ago but it is very common nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose John wants to file his idea that is built on top of claim A. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Would his patent even get granted?&#xD;&#xA;2. Even if it gets granted, if he got sued by the author who wrote claim A, would he lose?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming this is in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give an example, lets say back in the days when there is only black and white TV, John invented a color TV and it was so innovative at that time the claim &quot;show color on TV&quot; John wrote got granted, but then a few years later showing color on TV becomes so obvious that it becomes textbook material and Bill comes in with an invention that &quot;shows color on digital TV&quot;, Sam comes in with an invention that &quot;shows higher resolution color on TV&quot;. Would Bill's and Sam's patent ever got granted? If yes, can John sue Bill and Sam while still have a case to win?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41108" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16443" RevisionGUID="c30cfbd3-64cd-468f-b105-6f0b5626110d" CreationDate="2016-09-16T16:39:04.023" UserId="16537" Text="How to deal with prior art with absurdly broad claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41109" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16443" RevisionGUID="c30cfbd3-64cd-468f-b105-6f0b5626110d" CreationDate="2016-09-16T16:39:04.023" UserId="16537" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;litigation&gt;&lt;broad-patent&gt;&lt;obvious&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41111" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16118" RevisionGUID="1e6610f5-4aea-4235-8ad8-bc0b872ff8cb" CreationDate="2016-09-16T17:33:00.667" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41122" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13901" RevisionGUID="37fe80ba-556f-4a4a-97d3-76a9f2c69850" CreationDate="2016-09-16T21:33:59.550" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41131" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14893" RevisionGUID="57eb627e-befa-47e7-b547-a4437e1ae767" CreationDate="2016-09-17T05:37:35.353" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16448" RevisionGUID="b04acc8d-9b21-4573-b872-5be046da7fc7" CreationDate="2016-09-17T14:20:04.837" UserId="17549" Text="The link to PDFs of patents for patents issued around August 2015 and later remains broken. Try using ImmediateIP.com which has links to PDFs at the US Patent and Trademark Office." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16450" RevisionGUID="a7ad0392-e685-4c5e-acfb-673c0e069bd1" CreationDate="2016-09-17T16:01:01.363" UserId="17550" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20160034139][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20160034139&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patents link has no diagrams and hence it is very difficult to understand what this patent is all about. Can someone please explain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41135" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16450" RevisionGUID="a7ad0392-e685-4c5e-acfb-673c0e069bd1" CreationDate="2016-09-17T16:01:01.363" UserId="17550" Text="A brief description about what patent(US20160034139) is all about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41136" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16450" RevisionGUID="a7ad0392-e685-4c5e-acfb-673c0e069bd1" CreationDate="2016-09-17T16:01:01.363" UserId="17550" Text="&lt;us20160034139&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41137" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13594" RevisionGUID="d0f11b41-1d15-49b4-875b-c924b4908ad7" CreationDate="2016-09-17T21:00:11.097" UserId="10011" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[13208],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="41139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16450" RevisionGUID="70021d0d-62ba-4ec8-93e4-ce094e010838" CreationDate="2016-09-17T21:05:04.090" UserId="10011" Comment="added 493 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20160034139][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20160034139&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patents link has no diagrams and hence it is very difficult to understand what this patent is all about. Can someone please explain?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for organizing options in an interface, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving data representing a type of domain object;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; predicting, using a processor, one or more generic predicted events based at least in part on the type of domain object, wherein the one or more generic predicted events are predicted using a generic predictor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving data representing an actual next event; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; updating the generic predictor based on the actual next event." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41140" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16450" RevisionGUID="70021d0d-62ba-4ec8-93e4-ce094e010838" CreationDate="2016-09-17T21:05:04.090" UserId="10011" Comment="added 493 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;us20160034139&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41141" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16450" RevisionGUID="70021d0d-62ba-4ec8-93e4-ce094e010838" CreationDate="2016-09-17T21:05:04.090" UserId="10011" Comment="added 493 characters in body; edited tags" Text="What does US20160034139 cover?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41142" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13585" RevisionGUID="5607be8d-7f14-498c-97af-1ae56371780c" CreationDate="2016-09-18T01:57:21.157" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41143" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12868" RevisionGUID="d5af1941-efaf-4a29-9c3a-b7153813dd01" CreationDate="2016-09-18T02:58:02.183" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41144" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13198" RevisionGUID="b75ed778-1d36-413b-8559-8405f0ba6ca2" CreationDate="2016-09-18T03:58:02.750" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41145" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="c8854438-8a26-479d-a1d7-878991419868" CreationDate="2016-09-18T07:01:14.630" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16451" RevisionGUID="10ac6d0e-d577-4f84-91ef-72688826cb10" CreationDate="2016-09-18T11:23:25.937" UserId="17555" Text="I am going to apply for a new Motor patent. I will only use electrical circuit schemes and drawings to explain it. Does microsoft paint suit for drawings? I know I have to use vectoral drawings but I really don't know what it actually means. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If paint is ok, It would be very easy for me. Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41147" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16451" RevisionGUID="10ac6d0e-d577-4f84-91ef-72688826cb10" CreationDate="2016-09-18T11:23:25.937" UserId="17555" Text="Can I use microsoft Paint for drawings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41148" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16451" RevisionGUID="10ac6d0e-d577-4f84-91ef-72688826cb10" CreationDate="2016-09-18T11:23:25.937" UserId="17555" Text="&lt;drawing&gt;&lt;paint&gt;&lt;patent-drawings&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16452" RevisionGUID="126cde6f-e433-4e16-b44b-e3d61bf2f90f" CreationDate="2016-09-18T11:28:28.670" UserId="17556" Text="as I'm working on my PPA until Wednesday (deadline, accountability partner ;) &#xD;&#xA;Have the question, whether to file both the PPA and a design patent to have the DP as a backup if the reviewer would abandon the PPA so have at least the design patent which would safe the look of my invention since there are a bunch of similar patents around which are not exactly my design, which is better in functionality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a wise strategy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for your help!&#xD;&#xA;Hannes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41150" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16452" RevisionGUID="126cde6f-e433-4e16-b44b-e3d61bf2f90f" CreationDate="2016-09-18T11:28:28.670" UserId="17556" Text="Additional Design Patent as backup for a Provisional Patent (strategy)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41151" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16452" RevisionGUID="126cde6f-e433-4e16-b44b-e3d61bf2f90f" CreationDate="2016-09-18T11:28:28.670" UserId="17556" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41152" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16149" RevisionGUID="164c23d1-2daa-4f3c-8588-0228bcc38aac" CreationDate="2016-09-18T16:11:54.040" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16453" RevisionGUID="879a610c-d570-4b99-aca6-503111bf28c7" CreationDate="2016-09-18T17:19:13.463" UserId="17003" Text="Design patents and copyrights are two different methods of protecting intellectual property. My guess is that for company logos copyright is more appropriate. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41154" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16131" RevisionGUID="a4db88f0-5a3d-4fd1-a2da-3cf0379923d8" CreationDate="2016-09-18T19:11:54.800" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41158" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13006" RevisionGUID="8b1fe9b2-3042-4b9d-b646-5fe635c97841" CreationDate="2016-09-18T21:13:40.220" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41159" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="40839043-2c41-497c-a595-b23011c5a34e" CreationDate="2016-09-18T23:19:41.837" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16455" RevisionGUID="ce978b80-24ea-4e48-a2e8-d470b5199f41" CreationDate="2016-09-19T03:15:53.437" UserId="15657" Text="Standard answer: Ask your attorney!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My personal view: a design patent is valuable because (1) it is cheaper and requires no maintenance fee, (2) it is issued quicker than an utility patent, (3) any patent is better than none, and (4) you get to use &quot;patented&quot; text on your product. A design patent is also valuable because, surprisingly, many Ch***** copycats still don't have the wit to even change the appearance to get away from design patent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, ask your attorney. We can't tell you if your design is patent-able or of any significant value." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16456" RevisionGUID="e0611d42-a98a-4536-a8e7-efd540fd5e65" CreationDate="2016-09-19T07:15:36.500" UserId="17565" Text="My Title says most of my Patent issue.  I had a great invention that would allow the serving of beverages, mixed drinks, etc at places that did, or would not, allow GLASS containers, like concerts, football, sporting events, a &quot;Utility Patent&quot;.  Unique, it also replaced an old way of doing something with taking several steps out of that, it improved the sanitary aspect, and more important - it will save water when water becomes scarce (just like it is doing in Lake Mead)and what is ironic - my invention/Patent would be used all over this Country and then could be used everywhere in the world.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Improves Safety (no glass), this saves time in making a beverage(s) that are very popular, by being a pre-made container allowed as plastic at a venue that restricts glass and cannot sell these unless my item was used.  Not only would it be used, but it would provide a way to sell certain beverages at big venues that previously could not sell these drinks, since the containers are provided with a special 'touch', and it would save from having to wash the container-glasses-cups because they are 'disposable'!!  Which requires more to order, but the main thing is these work great.  I received all prior art, having to prove against two others who claimed a similar invention - but was NOT the same thing - so, after spending 5 x what I was intending, I stopped at the Appeals process.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is, if I am the only one who could have THIS patent on THIS invention, should I give it another shot with a different Atty. and hopefully a different Examiner?  This time, the claims would be few (since I have prior art on all the others), so is it wiser to continue where I left off, or go ahead and start fresh and use a different Atty?  I am aware of the fact - now - that there are trolls waiting to take you to court once you get your Patent, but this Patent's ability and usefulness was lost on a young, foreign Examiner who I don't think understood just how useful this would be in American entertainment (from home to stadiums), how sanitary over the old method, and the fact it could be used in venues, selling hundereds of thousands daily of beverages in places where glass could not be sold, so this opens up a money-making market, and another big part, is it saves water (vs. washing it's disposable) and that will become a important soon!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Atty, IMHO, knew the Examiner and knew it would be tough, but I proved I invented it, and the Examiner DID validate me as prior art on all.  I would have taken it to Appeals, but I had overspent by five times and had to stop for a while.  However, I DO have the prior art and if anyone could get the Patent, it would be me.  So, my question is - should I re-attempt where I lef off, or should I start fresh with just a few claims, since everything else is my priors??  Thanks so much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steve Crabtree&#xD;&#xA;(I can provide more detailed info if needed)  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41163" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16456" RevisionGUID="e0611d42-a98a-4536-a8e7-efd540fd5e65" CreationDate="2016-09-19T07:15:36.500" UserId="17565" Text="I battled with USPTO Examiner for 7 years (Utility Patent) do I start fresh?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41164" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16456" RevisionGUID="e0611d42-a98a-4536-a8e7-efd540fd5e65" CreationDate="2016-09-19T07:15:36.500" UserId="17565" Text="&lt;utility&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41165" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14245" RevisionGUID="e863f4ac-c03d-44b1-8469-30feedd08d5a" CreationDate="2016-09-19T08:22:49.247" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41166" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14228" RevisionGUID="daae0f50-f33f-4ffb-9ce7-c8512f258b92" CreationDate="2016-09-19T09:23:04.203" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41167" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14199" RevisionGUID="0b0cf46a-5e92-4529-b624-2a0515cf7347" CreationDate="2016-09-19T10:31:25.067" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41168" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14248" RevisionGUID="0b097520-d3d4-49ad-a658-a43aa6812760" CreationDate="2016-09-19T12:31:27.003" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41169" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14202" RevisionGUID="035b4510-4914-45f8-a229-a1e1b0f1e3a9" CreationDate="2016-09-19T13:31:29.573" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41170" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16307" RevisionGUID="261bb9ce-9659-4041-b813-fd3fd7df92e5" CreationDate="2016-09-19T14:31:31.737" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41174" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14348" RevisionGUID="f467fe7d-4bde-4727-a945-74b649914156" CreationDate="2016-09-20T02:39:50.883" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41180" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12543" RevisionGUID="af7c6eec-33b0-42cd-a72d-0970e74430ea" CreationDate="2016-09-20T03:40:02.317" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41181" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14424" RevisionGUID="c10cf43d-f213-4ea3-a44f-9d94ccbea9d4" CreationDate="2016-09-20T04:40:01.987" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41191" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16009" RevisionGUID="0dc30eca-758c-4c03-9269-17038912bfa2" CreationDate="2016-09-20T14:51:25.587" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16462" RevisionGUID="c3a0311e-d40a-4012-af64-d8a09b5a0618" CreationDate="2016-09-20T16:38:09.000" UserId="17578" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20020040938][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20020040938&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hello, I do not know how to deal when I found that this patent is using my original idea and my Computations without I being a co-author of the patent. I found the patent very late and then I contact one of the Authors with whom I collaborated on the indenture by mail i did not hear from him although on other occasions I do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please advice what else I can do so that my name is added as a co-author of this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very much in advance,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sincerely,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Boyko Tchavdarov, Ph.D.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41196" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16462" RevisionGUID="c3a0311e-d40a-4012-af64-d8a09b5a0618" CreationDate="2016-09-20T16:38:09.000" UserId="17578" Text="Patent Authorship" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41197" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16462" RevisionGUID="c3a0311e-d40a-4012-af64-d8a09b5a0618" CreationDate="2016-09-20T16:38:09.000" UserId="17578" Text="&lt;us20020040938&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41198" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16174" RevisionGUID="71996930-f5b9-4fb8-9d3f-0419370212ba" CreationDate="2016-09-20T16:58:45.480" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41199" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12539" RevisionGUID="f54464be-197c-4c80-8811-181890e42cc2" CreationDate="2016-09-20T18:06:02.320" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41203" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16172" RevisionGUID="7b390c21-c01f-40e9-88d1-69a26e81386d" CreationDate="2016-09-20T19:06:00.460" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41205" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14755" RevisionGUID="eb034d33-5821-4cae-a85e-82b7783f67d9" CreationDate="2016-09-20T21:06:00.040" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16456" RevisionGUID="aa56c499-9784-441b-bfa1-31d958d9577d" CreationDate="2016-09-20T21:07:57.687" UserId="15503" Comment="Tried to focus the text on the salient issues" Text="I had a great invention that would allow the serving of beverages, mixed drinks, etc at places that do not allow GLASS containers, like concerts, football, sporting events.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It had several benefits: it was more sanitary, involves lower water usage,  improved safety, and reduced beverage preparation time when compared with previous methods. This was achieved by being a pre-made plastic container which is not prohibited as being glass. Not only would it be used, but it would provide a way to sell certain beverages at big venues that previously could not sell these drinks, since the containers are provided with a special 'touch', and it would save from having to wash the containers because they are 'disposable'!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I applied for a utility patent. I received prior art, and had to argue against two others who claimed a similar invention - but was NOT the same thing. But, after spending 5 x what I was intending, I stopped at the Appeals process.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is, if I am the only one who could have THIS patent on THIS invention, should I give it another shot with a different attorney, and hopefully a different Examiner?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This time, the claims would be fewer (since I have prior art on all the others), so is it wiser to continue where I left off, or go ahead and start fresh and use a different attorney?  I am aware of the fact that there are trolls waiting to take you to court once you get your patent, but this patent's ability and usefulness was lost on a young Examiner who I don't think understood just how useful this would be in American entertainment (from home to stadiums), how sanitary it is over the old method, and the fact it could be used in venues, selling hundreds of thousands daily of beverages in places where glass could not be sold, so this opens up a money-making market, and another big part, is it saves water (vs. washing it's disposable) and that will become a important soon!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attorney, IMHO, knew the Examiner and knew it would be tough. But I proved I invented it, and the Examiner DID validate me as prior art on all.  I would have taken it to Appeals, but I had overspent by five times and had to stop for a while.  However, I DO have the prior art and if anyone could get the patent, it would be me.  So, my question is - should I re-attempt where I left off, or should I start fresh with just a few claims, since everything else is my prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16465" RevisionGUID="f9a763ad-64e8-4e9f-a32d-301f30c8db5a" CreationDate="2016-09-20T22:36:38.073" UserId="17582" Text="Adrian Bowyer also blogged the technique here: http://blog.reprap.org/2009/07/build-quality.html " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16466" RevisionGUID="c7bac941-f33b-44a2-88ad-b85f6095522f" CreationDate="2016-09-20T23:06:31.477" UserId="15503" Text="**Can I use Microsoft Paint for drawings?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no legal restriction on what software you use to produce the drawings initially. As long as the final product complies with the requirements of [37 CFR 1.84](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e320999) (which basically requires clear line drawings), you should be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, there is no requirement for vector drawings. While these are moderately common in practice (since there are a lot of technical benefits in preparing drawings in this manner), any line drawing would be fine: even scanned copies of hand-drawn images are ok.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, while there is no restriction on using Microsoft Paint, there are plenty of free (and paid) software options which you can use that will make your job a lot easier. I use Inkscape personally, but as daniel noted, [Software Recommendations](http://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com) has a bunch of questions on this point for whatever your preferred OS is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16467" RevisionGUID="46a01e6f-20c9-480c-a285-cf50fcbcd093" CreationDate="2016-09-20T23:53:53.707" UserId="15503" Text="**Can I put the problem in the background?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. It's quite common for the problem to come out naturally in the discussion of the prior art. This reflects the conventional British (and thus Australian) drafting style. In my view, if you ignored IP Australia's suggestion in this case, you would be simply following the path tread by many attorneys who also do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be honest though, I can't see it makes any difference where you have the heading &quot;summary&quot;. The text probably wouldn't change in either case. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;BACKGROUND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Existing motor vehicles provide a seat on which passengers can sit during operation of the device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here, we have given a brief discussion of the prior art (as you see it). Anything you place here is effectively admitted as being prior art, so you should be mindful not to explain too much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;SUMMARY (first possible placement)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In existing motor vehicles, during collisions, passengers would tend to be propelled from the seat through the windscreen, which many passengers find undesirable, along with leading to likely damage of the windscreen. There is therefore a need for a means which ameliorates this, or at least provides the public with a useful choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the prior art (&quot;existing motor vehicles&quot;) has a problem (passenger propulsion during collisions), which the present application looks to address. The solution is then set out, along with comments as to the benefits of the solution. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;SUMMARY (second possible placement)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In a first aspect, there is disclosed a seat comprising a belt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On collision, the belt restrains the passenger, reducing the change of propulsion of the passenger during collision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the &quot;first aspect&quot; mirrors the first independent claim, and you've explained how the subject matter of claim 1 addresses the problem you identified above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why do this at all?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By way of background, the format that IP Australia provides on this was agreed by the IP5 (that is, USPTO, EPO, SIPO, KIPO and JPO) to align the structure of patents across the offices. In principle, by following this, no office would have an objection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the USPTO being part of the IP5, this approach is kind of anathema to US-style drafting, as Aldo noted. If your only key market is the US, it might be sensible to jettison this approach. It really depends what your plans are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By following this approach, you are essentially setting out your argument for an inventive step (though without explicitly arguing why it's non-obvious). This allows you to frame arguments during prosecution better, and improves your chance of a smooth prosecution. In contrast, if you don't include this, there is a risk that the examiner will see your improvement as being an obvious design variation of existing systems with no advantageous effects, and therefore lacking an inventive step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Australia, you have a bit of freedom with subsequent arguments if this happens.  However, in stricter jurisdictions (notably the EPO), this kind of problem–solution–effect statement is extremely helpful. Without it, you're generally very limited in what you can argue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41215" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="16462" RevisionGUID="89da259c-a92d-4e35-8665-fc11bfcf9316" CreationDate="2016-09-20T23:55:33.197" UserId="10011" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[37],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:15503,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Maca&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:10011,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matthew Haugen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="41216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16468" RevisionGUID="ad1f6c29-1ec0-4f47-9728-90414ab8551d" CreationDate="2016-09-20T23:57:04.530" UserId="17583" Text="I am applying for a provisional patent application. Am I allowed to use problems from other studies in my Background/Problems section?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41217" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16468" RevisionGUID="ad1f6c29-1ec0-4f47-9728-90414ab8551d" CreationDate="2016-09-20T23:57:04.530" UserId="17583" Text="Referencing other studies in background" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41218" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16468" RevisionGUID="ad1f6c29-1ec0-4f47-9728-90414ab8551d" CreationDate="2016-09-20T23:57:04.530" UserId="17583" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;background&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16443" RevisionGUID="7d26dcbb-63f2-4b7c-bfb9-77ac8390737b" CreationDate="2016-09-21T00:01:11.083" UserId="15503" Comment="Clarify the question based on the comments" Text="Suppose there is a patent with claim A that is filed five years ago. It might not be perceived as &quot;obvious&quot; five years ago but it is very common nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose John wants to file a patent application for his idea that is built on top of claim A. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Would his patent even get granted?&#xD;&#xA;2. Even if it gets granted, if he practised his invention, would he be infringing claim A?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming this is in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give an example, lets say back in the days when there is only black and white TV, John invented a color TV and it was so innovative at that time the claim &quot;show color on TV&quot; John wrote got granted. A few years later showing color on TV becomes so obvious that it becomes textbook material. Bill comes in with an invention that &quot;shows color on digital TV&quot;, Sam comes in with an invention that &quot;shows higher resolution color on TV&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Would Bill's and Sam's patents get granted?&#xD;&#xA;2. If Bill and Sam practised their inventions, could John sue them for patent infringement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16469" RevisionGUID="3283104c-4a39-4bbf-be41-f5989395ec72" CreationDate="2016-09-21T00:08:16.597" UserId="15503" Text="Yes, but probably not copied word-for-word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Copying another person's text word-for-word could well be copyright infringement, at least in theory. It certainly wouldn't be a good look. Copyright issues are off-topic for this site however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I can't see that using the problems identified in other studies in your own words would raise any problems. Indeed, it arguably shows that you're solving a previously unsolved problem in the art, which suggests non-obviousness." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41221" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="7cfd76d0-4505-41b5-b5f0-892a27b52655" CreationDate="2016-09-21T02:05:59.567" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41224" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12561" RevisionGUID="a8c504a4-eae5-4b8c-9775-f3bea591680b" CreationDate="2016-09-21T05:12:06.353" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41228" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16468" RevisionGUID="8ecc393e-402c-4fe7-9b1e-596157679ed8" CreationDate="2016-09-21T11:11:19.273" UserId="1" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;background&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41229" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12942" RevisionGUID="fd5e661b-ac33-42f5-b23e-507e8dff3017" CreationDate="2016-09-21T12:16:00.817" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41230" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12549" RevisionGUID="cfc81d72-e063-4527-af09-674055aa878f" CreationDate="2016-09-21T14:17:08.727" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41231" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14403" RevisionGUID="2c1980b3-ec9a-414f-9b50-4a73b8ec2ded" CreationDate="2016-09-21T16:17:07.870" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16475" RevisionGUID="6ed52316-3c18-4645-bf98-46df0ad48595" CreationDate="2016-09-22T00:08:29.070" UserId="17596" Text="I spent four years developing a patent-able idea, but there already is a U.S. patent that claims to produce exactly the same result but has a critical flaw that renders it inoperable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any person skilled in the art following the the outlined claims and interpreting the terms in said claims with an authoritative english dictionary, or even constructing it according to the specification, will quickly realise that the entire construction can amount to nothing but a very complex paperweight because something that is mentioned explicitly makes it non-working.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously either the inventor meant something and had the right idea, but the patent clerk wrote something else down, or the inventor didn't fully understand what they were talking about but patented a gut feeling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I mean to say with this is, if I were to produce and sell a working product that fulfils 99% of the claims, and were to be sued, I am certain I would win.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, my question is, how likely can I patent my version of the widget? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;99% of the claims would be verbatim, except for one *word*, which is similar, but critically different. The specification and drawings however would differ substantially.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would they call it an obvious correction and not really a novelty? can a patent that cannot work be considered prior art? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;will I get a patent or will the whole thing become effective public domain?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41246" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16475" RevisionGUID="6ed52316-3c18-4645-bf98-46df0ad48595" CreationDate="2016-09-22T00:08:29.070" UserId="17596" Text="Can a patent that cannot work be considered prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41247" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16475" RevisionGUID="6ed52316-3c18-4645-bf98-46df0ad48595" CreationDate="2016-09-22T00:08:29.070" UserId="17596" Text="&lt;invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41248" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16475" RevisionGUID="75892982-54b9-44e4-aba9-9670aa7c1516" CreationDate="2016-09-22T00:14:06.657" UserId="17596" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41249" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13383" RevisionGUID="57352172-5a66-4179-96c6-a84aa383e4f0" CreationDate="2016-09-22T00:24:15.013" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41257" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12742" RevisionGUID="67868601-45ab-46ac-ba47-a56a3d75a8bb" CreationDate="2016-09-22T03:26:13.510" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16477" RevisionGUID="85b7c01b-a15f-43a9-b4a8-f17267921634" CreationDate="2016-09-22T04:03:44.213" UserId="17599" Text="If someone invented something today, such as an anti-cancer drug, could they share it with society freely without worrying that someone could steal and patent it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or would it be safer for the inventor to patent it himself and give the information away freely to all drug companies?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could Benjamin Franklin invent something in 2016 and freely share it with society without fear that it would be patented and the rights of the invention claimed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41259" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16477" RevisionGUID="85b7c01b-a15f-43a9-b4a8-f17267921634" CreationDate="2016-09-22T04:03:44.213" UserId="17599" Text="Benjamin Franklin never filed a patent for his inventions, as he wanted to share them with society. Could his example be followed in today's society?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41260" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16477" RevisionGUID="85b7c01b-a15f-43a9-b4a8-f17267921634" CreationDate="2016-09-22T04:03:44.213" UserId="17599" Text="&lt;ben&gt;&lt;franklin&gt;&lt;freely&gt;&lt;share&gt;&lt;society&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16478" RevisionGUID="d40a5eac-90bf-4053-811d-2a6e6dd35db1" CreationDate="2016-09-22T05:02:27.323" UserId="15503" Text="**If someone invented something today, such as an anti-cancer drug, could they share it with society freely without worrying that someone could steal and patent it?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. In fact, once something is shared publicly, it can't ever be patented by anyone (with some limited exceptions for the inventor themselves in a few countries for a short period after disclosure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Would it be safer for the inventor to patent it himself and give the information away freely to all drug companies?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not in any real sense. In fact, that would basically be a waste of money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an argument that the inventor could use the patent to countersue anyone who alleges the inventor of patent infringement.  However, such an approach would run entirely contrary to the idea that the inventor wants to propagate their invention widely and freely anyway.  You can't really have it both ways, in my opinion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41263" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10324" RevisionGUID="2e6b4685-2bb2-43ae-b387-4c9975bde6dd" CreationDate="2016-09-22T07:27:50.887" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41265" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6687" RevisionGUID="263c1b2c-a8d6-4142-9fa2-556086b1ca84" CreationDate="2016-09-22T09:27:51.020" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16479" RevisionGUID="526dec09-5f16-4067-97e8-ffd0ed5671ea" CreationDate="2016-09-22T10:19:41.843" UserId="17601" Text="for an exhibition in Luxembourg, I am searching for an original document about the patent US532942 (Charles Bivort et Jean Nadler). How and where can I find this document?&#xD;&#xA;kind regards,&#xD;&#xA;Jacques Steffen &#xD;&#xA;collaborateur scientifique &#xD;&#xA;Centre national de littérature &#xD;&#xA;2, rue Emmanuel Servais &#xD;&#xA;L-7565 Mersch &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adresse postale: &#xD;&#xA;B.p. 44 &#xD;&#xA;L-7501 Mersch &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tel: (352) 32 69 55-347&#xD;&#xA;Fax: (352) 32 70 90 &#xD;&#xA;Url: http://www.literaturarchiv.lu&#xD;&#xA;www.cnl.public.lu&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41267" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16479" RevisionGUID="526dec09-5f16-4067-97e8-ffd0ed5671ea" CreationDate="2016-09-22T10:19:41.843" UserId="17601" Text="original document about the patent US532942 (Charles Bivort et Jean Nadler)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41268" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16479" RevisionGUID="526dec09-5f16-4067-97e8-ffd0ed5671ea" CreationDate="2016-09-22T10:19:41.843" UserId="17601" Text="&lt;research&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41269" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12771" RevisionGUID="2ac15957-7420-42a4-acad-08c47eea344d" CreationDate="2016-09-22T10:27:52.417" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16480" RevisionGUID="8b79899b-5717-481b-a335-4284ab28e611" CreationDate="2016-09-22T11:29:43.577" UserId="17325" Text="You can go to https://worldwide.espacenet.com/?locale=en_EP and enter the patent number in the Smart Search tab.It will retrive you the result (there is no title dispayed, probably because this is an old patent). Click on the result and then you can retrieve the pdf as the &quot;original document&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Espacenet has a large collections of patent documents, from europe (EP and national pantens), USA, Korea, Japan, China, Australia, Canada and many more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41274" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="9c947aa3-547d-452e-a21e-fede59b865fa" CreationDate="2016-09-22T12:27:53.453" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41277" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12574" RevisionGUID="0d9abed8-8034-4e42-aae5-89f0e7d74f32" CreationDate="2016-09-22T14:29:18.793" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41282" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13937" RevisionGUID="e115f4b0-60e1-4f2e-8296-fff3af7bb76b" CreationDate="2016-09-22T18:29:27.343" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41283" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16340" RevisionGUID="476ae3e3-7bbf-41d8-8965-71fb60c059c2" CreationDate="2016-09-22T21:29:29.053" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41284" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="692ed285-50a1-4eaf-872f-b1c37479b440" CreationDate="2016-09-22T22:29:29.363" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41288" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13633" RevisionGUID="dc7685ad-6159-47b5-af09-72cd92f10b17" CreationDate="2016-09-22T23:29:29.563" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41289" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="70b297c1-e4fb-4514-885f-7d5192736371" CreationDate="2016-09-23T00:29:30.050" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41290" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13935" RevisionGUID="c73d05a8-2b16-4cb3-8b04-5b0989f56eb3" CreationDate="2016-09-23T02:29:46.047" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41292" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13432" RevisionGUID="313bc7a1-f61a-433a-af5e-ee2065fda724" CreationDate="2016-09-23T03:29:45.640" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16485" RevisionGUID="00aed343-59bf-44a5-bcdc-0d5f7805b647" CreationDate="2016-09-23T10:17:52.457" UserId="17607" Text="I'm currently not entirely sure if I can get a patent on my &quot;idea&quot; at all, yet I think I might, but if so I wouldn't know at the moment in what kind of group my patent would be considered in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm having this kind of idea that works on a larger scale and has a higher chance of failure if kept on a smaller scale because .. if the idea is good a big business with a lot of resources will eat me faster than I would feel comfortable with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if an &quot;online-service&quot; falls into another group than just plain software applications - imho it should but I really have no idea about patents to be honest. At least not yet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how can I find the information about the costs for a patent? How much do I have to pay if it gets rejected and how much if it gets accepted? Or do I just pay for the actual work and therefore always the same amount no matter what?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41295" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16485" RevisionGUID="00aed343-59bf-44a5-bcdc-0d5f7805b647" CreationDate="2016-09-23T10:17:52.457" UserId="17607" Text="Costs for patents in Europe for software or online-service" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41296" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16485" RevisionGUID="00aed343-59bf-44a5-bcdc-0d5f7805b647" CreationDate="2016-09-23T10:17:52.457" UserId="17607" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;european&gt;&lt;cost&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16487" RevisionGUID="32c37193-7a0f-469e-9eb9-3df483462cfa" CreationDate="2016-09-23T11:55:06.320" UserId="15503" Text="There are two parts to the costs: official fees and attorney fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Official fees**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current EPO fees can be found [here](https://my2.epoline.org/portal/classic/epoline.Scheduleoffees).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The important fees for you are the filing fee, search fee, designation fee, and examination fee (€4215 at present, though these change annually I think). These are due relatively early on in the process. There are also ongoing annual renewal fees from the third year onwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Attorney fees**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only way to get an idea of attorney costs is to ask an attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you can expect there will be a cost for the initial drafting, then fees for every event during the life of the application. There is a massive variation here depending on the type of invention and the attorney you use, so I can't really give you any accurate amounts. However, as a broad guide, anywhere from €1,000–15,000 for the drafting could be possible. Ongoing prosecution might be anywhere from €500–4000 for each response. 2–3 responses before a decision would be usual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How much do I have to pay if it gets rejected and how much if it gets accepted?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you guessed, you pay for the actual work, so it's basically the same. While I guess it's possible an attorney might consider some kind of contingency fee, I've never heard of this actually happening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only difference is that if your application is granted, you will need to pay for the grant procedure, along with renewal fees for each of the countries you wish your European patent to be effective in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41303" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13847" RevisionGUID="3a37da83-dfb1-4669-b139-85e8cf848cf6" CreationDate="2016-09-23T16:37:07.960" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41305" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="9e09c847-89b7-4612-94bb-d8141122973c" CreationDate="2016-09-23T21:37:23.923" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41306" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="485869e8-d6f1-43f7-9d0a-6e5651f85484" CreationDate="2016-09-23T22:37:32.707" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41309" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13422" RevisionGUID="455461d4-9b96-403b-92f2-1ae887a94505" CreationDate="2016-09-24T10:46:18.953" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41310" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13771" RevisionGUID="e74890ab-989a-4521-b918-d13480bed9ec" CreationDate="2016-09-24T12:48:50.647" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41311" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14335" RevisionGUID="d5919d3a-f0be-4297-8864-064d4211332f" CreationDate="2016-09-24T13:48:53.710" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41312" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16184" RevisionGUID="21497283-a665-482f-846a-dd1214c31dd5" CreationDate="2016-09-24T16:49:00.467" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41313" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16186" RevisionGUID="d5df24a2-7eb0-454c-8f3d-a62556d9d60f" CreationDate="2016-09-24T18:49:02.350" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41314" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16353" RevisionGUID="838140d0-a0ac-47cb-b2dd-363ac4261675" CreationDate="2016-09-24T21:59:30.260" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41319" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16179" RevisionGUID="5d3f2970-4c88-4652-8b66-e612caf392d2" CreationDate="2016-09-25T05:05:45.107" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41320" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10813" RevisionGUID="001ea1a3-3a42-45cd-9e5a-3cb954ffcf80" CreationDate="2016-09-25T08:05:45.023" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41321" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14127" RevisionGUID="5d4b082a-a894-45ac-b6dd-d4daa6c6d9fc" CreationDate="2016-09-25T09:10:02.000" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41322" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13242" RevisionGUID="beaf1db8-939e-4fc4-b455-29369c6b3841" CreationDate="2016-09-25T10:17:11.600" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41323" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13123" RevisionGUID="84ac930c-1fac-4a59-8354-8bc9e5d07db3" CreationDate="2016-09-25T11:17:11.163" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41324" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="7ee7766d-c0ae-4518-b7d1-e0a5d6728bc3" CreationDate="2016-09-25T18:17:48.707" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41328" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6624" RevisionGUID="af7089e4-cc49-4247-b463-e39268fffb4b" CreationDate="2016-09-25T19:17:56.480" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41329" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12954" RevisionGUID="06a34350-fcae-4e35-b7f5-08ba296c291a" CreationDate="2016-09-25T20:25:16.097" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41330" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14631" RevisionGUID="8d7e9fb9-6e99-42bb-9818-29c2f4c815f1" CreationDate="2016-09-26T02:25:33.617" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41335" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14620" RevisionGUID="be3eb3d4-5cd3-48ed-a087-a98dbbdfe04b" CreationDate="2016-09-26T03:25:33.880" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16491" RevisionGUID="1efb39e9-19dc-4d47-bfc0-f187d91503ce" CreationDate="2016-09-26T04:03:55.740" UserId="17623" Text="I'm looking at manufacturing a product that has a patent # clearly printed on the product.  But after a little digging on google patents, it clearly says &quot;Legal status Expired - Lifetime&quot; with a &quot;Grant date 1995-03-21&quot;.  Am I in the clear to manufacture this product?  What things should I consider before I produce thousands of units?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scott" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41337" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16491" RevisionGUID="1efb39e9-19dc-4d47-bfc0-f187d91503ce" CreationDate="2016-09-26T04:03:55.740" UserId="17623" Text="Expired Patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41338" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16491" RevisionGUID="1efb39e9-19dc-4d47-bfc0-f187d91503ce" CreationDate="2016-09-26T04:03:55.740" UserId="17623" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;legal-status&gt;&lt;manufacturing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41339" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12339" RevisionGUID="f17a29f2-ae80-46de-a495-82fa055452d2" CreationDate="2016-09-26T04:27:03.083" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41343" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14622" RevisionGUID="396b7d60-5e9d-49e3-887f-e58fde45623b" CreationDate="2016-09-26T05:27:25.220" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41350" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="328f71b4-dcec-4a02-97d9-3b06c748bf47" CreationDate="2016-09-26T14:35:44.100" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16496" RevisionGUID="6a518b3e-967c-4839-a886-5204103c1f6f" CreationDate="2016-09-26T19:43:59.823" UserId="17325" Text="I suppose you intentionally did not mention the patent number, so you should expect only vague answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most parts of the world, patents last 20 years from their filling date. This is the case, for example, for a European Patent (EP) or a Canadian Patent (CA).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other countries, like Brazil, have a provision that says 20 years from filling date OR at least 10 years from grant date&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US, before 1995 something similar was in force: &quot;either 17 years from the issue date or 20 years from the filing date, whichever is longer&quot; (Wikipedia, Term of patent in the United States). However, the filling date is not always so simple to establish. Was any priority claimed? Any provisionals filed? Is it a national entry of a PCT application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are some general remarks about patent terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond that, are you planning to manufacture within the territory that the patent is valid or outside of it? If it's a US patent and you manufacture in Germany, you are clear (provided that there is no similar patent is Germany either). Likewise you are free to sell in countries where no relevant patent exists." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41361" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="96ce268a-9223-4826-b092-dd2621d131e3" CreationDate="2016-09-26T20:43:25.983" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41362" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="14434217-5eaa-4a7e-952a-494e7a7e8b26" CreationDate="2016-09-26T22:48:29.407" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41376" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7693" RevisionGUID="a76e4ac0-8059-45a5-917e-796dac107dca" CreationDate="2016-09-27T09:04:22.343" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41380" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4993" RevisionGUID="743f2728-54c6-4a65-a8dc-535b46693b41" CreationDate="2016-09-27T12:07:41.477" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41388" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12072" RevisionGUID="94eaa188-94cf-4842-8c2b-a9621b7700c5" CreationDate="2016-09-27T14:17:28.200" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41392" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10744" RevisionGUID="b1194922-e972-40b7-a54e-4fba87e56d28" CreationDate="2016-09-27T17:20:49.810" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41397" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12070" RevisionGUID="c2dd7252-6dce-4707-8f07-2b0648b25938" CreationDate="2016-09-27T18:21:42.347" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16504" RevisionGUID="b1c53504-5ad5-4f52-9254-ee04504c113f" CreationDate="2016-09-27T21:19:35.193" UserId="15503" Text="**Am I in the clear to manufacture this product?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not necessarily. Even if the marked patent is expired, there may be other patents (or designs) that are pending and in force, which would cover the product. The key way to assess this is to perform a freedom-to-operate search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you are intending to produce something which is identical to a product that has been available for more than 20 years, this risk is somewhat lower." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41399" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14601" RevisionGUID="28cb1467-b3df-45f3-80f6-21443d91ca9d" CreationDate="2016-09-27T21:41:10.670" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41400" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7765" RevisionGUID="31cffd7b-866e-4671-b643-040eba8ff60f" CreationDate="2016-09-27T22:44:54.530" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41401" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="dbe284c8-8350-47e6-a44f-488f1c54891b" CreationDate="2016-09-28T03:58:28.660" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16505" RevisionGUID="91cbd6b7-b0c4-47c6-b33b-ea1e5485c04d" CreationDate="2016-09-28T10:12:23.510" UserId="17648" Text="If an inventor originated with all the ideas, and another individual who is a-part of the development had the role of only analyzing and criticizing the idea(for it's failures &amp; successes) without contributing any intellectual development, only stating the obvious. Aside from the inventor,does that person have any legal or financial right to the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41403" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16505" RevisionGUID="91cbd6b7-b0c4-47c6-b33b-ea1e5485c04d" CreationDate="2016-09-28T10:12:23.510" UserId="17648" Text="What is their legal title?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41404" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16505" RevisionGUID="91cbd6b7-b0c4-47c6-b33b-ea1e5485c04d" CreationDate="2016-09-28T10:12:23.510" UserId="17648" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41405" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13870" RevisionGUID="45fd4b39-eba6-4069-b726-051eec8ccc09" CreationDate="2016-09-28T18:35:51.963" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16340" RevisionGUID="86809196-770b-4aad-a49a-c0539e4778ef" CreationDate="2016-09-28T19:47:07.307" UserId="15192" Comment="deleted 299 characters in body" Text="Can provisional applications be sold/assigned?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't just mean *in theory*, but is buying provisional applications something that companies do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not asking about &quot;suing the Goliath&quot;, but rather assigning the application to their competitor as a BATNA." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16506" RevisionGUID="1e23cca8-b4db-4b38-bd2b-e14fa8cd189f" CreationDate="2016-09-28T20:20:00.920" UserId="17652" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8386259][1] I would ask what is invention, as described patent is nothing more than already know Two Factor Authentication method (2FA).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we take a look at definition of 2FA from CNET [2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Two-factor authentication adds a second level of authentication to an account log-in. When you have to enter only your username and one password, that's considered a single-factor authentication. 2FA requires the user to have two out of three types of credentials before being able to access an account. The three types are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something you know, such as a personal identification number (PIN), password or a pattern&#xD;&#xA;Something you have, such as an ATM card, phone, or fob&#xD;&#xA;Something you are, such as a biometric like a fingerprint or voice print&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any 2 combination of given 3 types can be considered as valid 2FA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, patent [US8386259][1] is already known to general public and can't be considered as a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8386259&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.cnet.com/news/two-factor-authentication-what-you-need-to-know-faq/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41408" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16506" RevisionGUID="1e23cca8-b4db-4b38-bd2b-e14fa8cd189f" CreationDate="2016-09-28T20:20:00.920" UserId="17652" Text="What is the invention of this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41409" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16506" RevisionGUID="1e23cca8-b4db-4b38-bd2b-e14fa8cd189f" CreationDate="2016-09-28T20:20:00.920" UserId="17652" Text="&lt;us8386259&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41410" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10643" RevisionGUID="e2b1dd1c-d0f6-446f-8284-5c1b7bc420f9" CreationDate="2016-09-29T00:48:54.950" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16507" RevisionGUID="6dedde36-6d2d-464d-889a-bcaf37bd5aaa" CreationDate="2016-09-29T01:32:36.827" UserId="11717" Text="In a patent specification, you are free to define a word so that it means just what you define it to be. You could also give examples to say that the word does not mean certain other things.&#xD;&#xA;This definition would then govern the interpretation of your patent and not the general meaning of the word.&#xD;&#xA;For example in ordinary English there can not be a diagonal to a closed curve as the curve has no vertex.&#xD;&#xA;But in your patent you could define a diagonal as a line that cuts the curve into two or more parts.&#xD;&#xA;This way you could be sure that your claims are read properly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41412" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="1e8dcc59-abab-433f-9e44-b1bd85cda106" CreationDate="2016-09-29T03:03:23.973" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41413" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="d413da33-65b4-4a05-8184-db773587b940" CreationDate="2016-09-29T04:04:23.137" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41417" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14943" RevisionGUID="fe76767b-ca0c-4bbe-85f8-e27d43d65909" CreationDate="2016-09-29T05:06:22.987" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41418" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14200" RevisionGUID="c1039415-9d9a-43c8-885a-6934832d81a5" CreationDate="2016-09-29T07:14:43.443" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41419" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="1cae6191-ee4a-4ba5-8823-35244134a015" CreationDate="2016-09-29T08:19:12.290" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41420" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16363" RevisionGUID="3867fbaf-9768-451f-adc3-cfcf3c597686" CreationDate="2016-09-29T09:24:10.310" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41421" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16225" RevisionGUID="7261e26f-c190-422c-a02f-b6ca36c944da" CreationDate="2016-09-29T10:24:46.390" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41422" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16217" RevisionGUID="2b8e0fea-1c09-4075-bafb-e53f2262c80b" CreationDate="2016-09-29T12:26:25.827" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41423" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12832" RevisionGUID="4c85960f-e6f4-4b1f-a15a-6044eff34167" CreationDate="2016-09-29T13:28:42.343" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16509" RevisionGUID="171d0674-c3c4-49d9-99b6-7bcf9c2f9565" CreationDate="2016-09-29T13:40:02.647" UserId="17660" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5991151][1] is this patent still valid and upheld or has it lapsed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5991151" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41425" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16509" RevisionGUID="171d0674-c3c4-49d9-99b6-7bcf9c2f9565" CreationDate="2016-09-29T13:40:02.647" UserId="17660" Text="is this patent still enforceable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41426" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16509" RevisionGUID="171d0674-c3c4-49d9-99b6-7bcf9c2f9565" CreationDate="2016-09-29T13:40:02.647" UserId="17660" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;valid&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41429" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14807" RevisionGUID="6547c09a-f227-4f1a-88fc-900fa6340e3d" CreationDate="2016-09-29T14:30:08.653" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16510" RevisionGUID="dede1333-56e4-4d4a-9bb8-797a50013e58" CreationDate="2016-09-29T14:44:37.600" UserId="17662" Text="He professed it wasn't worth anything and that it would be too costly to bring to market (this was maybe 7yrs ago).  It is now showing a patent pending and is being marketed through several sources.  The price I suggested and the name of the idea is the same as I discussed with the attorney.  How can I research this further?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41431" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16510" RevisionGUID="dede1333-56e4-4d4a-9bb8-797a50013e58" CreationDate="2016-09-29T14:44:37.600" UserId="17662" Text="I spoke to a patent attorney about an idea with a drawing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41432" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16510" RevisionGUID="dede1333-56e4-4d4a-9bb8-797a50013e58" CreationDate="2016-09-29T14:44:37.600" UserId="17662" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41433" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14934" RevisionGUID="eed7e07e-632b-45d3-9ebf-2a6174f76b3f" CreationDate="2016-09-29T15:30:30.990" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16513" RevisionGUID="f577866b-8261-4d3c-b361-905e8f68500a" CreationDate="2016-09-29T17:56:39.357" UserId="7571" Text="I like Gary's answer, but have this concern: the problem may be less your disclosure/sale to your friend(s) than any disclosure(s) made by the friend(s) to others.  The fact these disclosures happened potentially weakens any patent you may be granted, and may lessen any royalties or damages you may be able to claim.  If your friend showed the product you sold him *anywhere* you're probably out of luck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you apply for a patent you'll have to sign an oath, and any inconsistencies there can carry jail time, loss of patent, and enormous monetary damages.  Be careful :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41443" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16365" RevisionGUID="773d0c54-3c05-4a0f-ac31-2dc881ec0258" CreationDate="2016-09-29T19:42:54.247" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41449" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13556" RevisionGUID="3d701400-a2fb-4401-8191-160e938d5c01" CreationDate="2016-09-29T20:43:39.793" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41450" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="5193afb8-2d23-4b91-8c5f-0bf04d9339aa" CreationDate="2016-09-29T21:45:02.460" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41451" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14724" RevisionGUID="fc827b0c-3202-4d62-9bcc-b571811b1008" CreationDate="2016-09-29T22:46:10.083" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41452" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14820" RevisionGUID="01bb0d2a-ee44-43b9-8e1d-388b5b608737" CreationDate="2016-09-29T23:48:08.503" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41453" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13861" RevisionGUID="c00474ce-8d59-4516-afb1-02ea8314af33" CreationDate="2016-09-30T00:49:25.320" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41454" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14621" RevisionGUID="4c1532ac-ca10-420f-bd21-738e26e4e41a" CreationDate="2016-09-30T01:51:04.753" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41455" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16178" RevisionGUID="2725aed8-4ace-42b8-988c-28ef8da7ec48" CreationDate="2016-09-30T02:55:18.307" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41459" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16048" RevisionGUID="f942cb9f-13e8-4928-842f-07f22a042a02" CreationDate="2016-09-30T03:56:48.247" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41460" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14032" RevisionGUID="9286c75a-f6f1-44a4-b3b4-de9489c1685f" CreationDate="2016-09-30T04:58:24.640" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41461" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5844" RevisionGUID="9052d497-f036-40a3-86d4-7b0a3d83d9d6" CreationDate="2016-09-30T05:59:00.897" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41462" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16049" RevisionGUID="42e72435-397d-4b19-a26c-6efe6be92f2e" CreationDate="2016-09-30T07:05:20.933" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41464" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="9fa6b61c-d0df-49cd-9ccb-0ebca42beb31" CreationDate="2016-09-30T13:17:01.937" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16515" RevisionGUID="9d08edff-0f04-4360-b4d4-447ad690f96d" CreationDate="2016-09-30T18:47:53.480" UserId="16648" Text="There are two separate concepts, inventorship and ownership.  An inventor is someone that contributes something material that shows up in at least one claim of the patent application.  I tell clients that if they cannot put a finger on something inventive that shows up as text in at least one claim and link this to a team member, then that team member is not an inventor.  This may change over time as claims are added and dropped (particularly when there is a restriction requirement). Sometimes it is difficult to sort out what ideas came from whom when there was a lot of brainstorming sessions and not much documentation so folks err on including an active team member or supervisor as a co-inventor as the patent process is more forgiving of erring on the side of being expansive than erring on the side of leaving off a true inventor.  This decision gets complicated where there are financial consequences within a company or university from adding a peripheral person to be an inventor as there may be splits in royalties et cetera.  It is a recurring problem in universities that have a totally different regime for deciding who gets named as a co-author to a paper than the proper process to sort out who is an inventor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ownership starts with the co-inventors but most inventors do their work while under contract to an employer or a client and the ownership rights pass to the entity that paid for the work. Ownership rights can move around later as patent rights can be sold (assigned).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is a dispute on who is a true inventor, the patent attorney handling this needs to sort through the process.  But do not be surprised if the attorney errs on being over-inclusive to avoid leaving out a peripheral player that can at least make a credible argument for being included as a co-inventor.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41466" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16193" RevisionGUID="fb65645e-cade-4e87-b2a9-34f188acc797" CreationDate="2016-09-30T21:46:59.067" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16516" RevisionGUID="0c5655e3-9678-4ed6-b100-4b8e65fcc7d4" CreationDate="2016-09-30T22:10:02.010" UserId="17670" Text="Patents are not that expensive and they are a form of property. However, defending patents is very expensive. But you don't have to defend what isn't important. Moreover, you can define what is important later but you cannot patent later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41468" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13986" RevisionGUID="f658876a-482a-495e-9c51-3919a0de069d" CreationDate="2016-09-30T22:48:44.707" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41469" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10545" RevisionGUID="d305a70b-44c6-4494-a7e8-0a29432485cd" CreationDate="2016-09-30T23:50:14.813" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41470" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14322" RevisionGUID="9a653061-4b47-4ddf-ae27-0f484e1549ff" CreationDate="2016-10-01T00:51:48.410" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41477" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16348" RevisionGUID="0e45aae6-f5f9-4f69-964f-277cef37c271" CreationDate="2016-10-01T08:00:03.540" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41478" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12621" RevisionGUID="bec04386-bfd2-4c9b-b812-6bb820062ca8" CreationDate="2016-10-01T09:00:58.250" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41479" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13260" RevisionGUID="80317e3d-3558-41f7-aa9f-29b13ee46779" CreationDate="2016-10-01T10:01:59.600" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41480" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13794" RevisionGUID="3b9feebf-722c-4a67-b10c-1247aa47a44e" CreationDate="2016-10-01T11:03:20.497" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41481" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16505" RevisionGUID="709e6b2b-1df1-43ee-960c-de0bd543b080" CreationDate="2016-10-01T11:14:24.377" UserId="16648" Comment="The tags were not appropriate.  The question was on inventorship. " Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41482" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16505" RevisionGUID="709e6b2b-1df1-43ee-960c-de0bd543b080" CreationDate="2016-10-01T11:14:24.377" Comment="Proposed by 16648 approved by 11394, 14417 edit id of 1973" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41483" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="29917a59-68aa-4788-8a14-bd90d5eddf81" CreationDate="2016-10-01T12:06:11.080" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41484" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12610" RevisionGUID="51549209-9017-47b4-9c07-9acdab13dde7" CreationDate="2016-10-01T13:07:03.047" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41485" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12107" RevisionGUID="20be2cc8-23b7-4e74-81af-0a899b828988" CreationDate="2016-10-01T14:12:08.763" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41486" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13528" RevisionGUID="daebcbea-6ad4-4176-9688-62eda872e49c" CreationDate="2016-10-01T18:15:44.037" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16518" RevisionGUID="9ad93021-ca94-4238-9aeb-9c1dc17fb877" CreationDate="2016-10-01T19:13:08.997" UserId="17675" Text="A few decades ago I had a great idea, a really novel, lucrative idea about a device, which I can bet is in your home right now.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the time I shared my invention with my then boyfriend who asked if it was &quot;alright with me if he looked into getting a patent&quot; for it.  I said I was okay with his help with taking my ideas forward, because I trusted that if things ever were really lucrative from this joint venture that he would share this with me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This product ended up earning a Truly Significant Pile of Money. And, as you can probably guess, I never was compensated a penny. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later he did mention in a few personal letters that it was my invention which resulted in very good profit from the patent and how grateful he was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- Now, I have debts, kids in college and, well, I imagine you might guess how I feel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any kind of legal merit (Intellectual property laws?) available to me now to pursue fair compensation for his patent made on my device which was, 100%, entirely my invention? Even though the patent was created a few decades ago?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for your help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41488" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16518" RevisionGUID="9ad93021-ca94-4238-9aeb-9c1dc17fb877" CreationDate="2016-10-01T19:13:08.997" UserId="17675" Text="Question re: compensation for a successful patent based on my invention" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41489" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16518" RevisionGUID="9ad93021-ca94-4238-9aeb-9c1dc17fb877" CreationDate="2016-10-01T19:13:08.997" UserId="17675" Text="&lt;intellectual-property&gt;&lt;intellectualproperty-laws&gt;&lt;misappropriation&gt;&lt;patent-laws&gt;&lt;invention-theft&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41490" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13537" RevisionGUID="a642fc30-2934-4eac-b4de-c29c4e5626d6" CreationDate="2016-10-01T20:19:25.743" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41491" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7833" RevisionGUID="d07f6426-2fda-4c18-b3bf-3793ea88dfd9" CreationDate="2016-10-01T22:27:58.017" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16519" RevisionGUID="8659cb21-3418-44d9-a78d-1774ba293dfe" CreationDate="2016-10-02T03:15:35.483" UserId="17676" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20150308983][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20150308983&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is questionable whether is patent may be patent-able.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from the Cointrust app that does an acoustic test for the authenticity of coins, precious metal dealers have known for centuries that you can differentiate between authentic and fake coins by their &quot;ring&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would advance that the proposed invention fails the obviousness test." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41493" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16519" RevisionGUID="8659cb21-3418-44d9-a78d-1774ba293dfe" CreationDate="2016-10-02T03:15:35.483" UserId="17676" Text="This patent appears to fail the &quot;obviousness&quot; test" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41494" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16519" RevisionGUID="8659cb21-3418-44d9-a78d-1774ba293dfe" CreationDate="2016-10-02T03:15:35.483" UserId="17676" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41495" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13171" RevisionGUID="68697e71-fc4d-43de-b547-f945249045d1" CreationDate="2016-10-02T07:59:21.210" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41496" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10041" RevisionGUID="d5f93b66-3fda-4664-94fa-4662e017706f" CreationDate="2016-10-02T09:00:34.883" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41497" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10559" RevisionGUID="c14bc571-6e0a-4b3a-bc94-e711571402e2" CreationDate="2016-10-02T13:09:01.673" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41506" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="b61a90ba-19ee-46fd-940e-86ceb7358e22" CreationDate="2016-10-02T21:20:35.417" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41508" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14937" RevisionGUID="8ef26e43-a99a-4cea-b42e-9a8630a70b31" CreationDate="2016-10-02T22:22:04.383" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41511" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14517" RevisionGUID="325fa973-c025-49f5-b40f-2ef9b19ea9ce" CreationDate="2016-10-03T15:52:27.930" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41515" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14508" RevisionGUID="c5e29ff8-3f52-45f2-81bc-f168f5ebbdf9" CreationDate="2016-10-04T01:07:25.767" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16525" RevisionGUID="d9b97369-62cc-4f0b-9a4c-14623f7c09b2" CreationDate="2016-10-04T06:37:53.233" UserId="17664" Text="[Apple's new &quot;iBag&quot;](http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?docid=20160264304&amp;SectionNum=1&amp;IDKey=EE3349D0F5C8&amp;HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fappft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DPG01%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsrchnum.html%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526s1%3D%25252220160264304%252522.PGNR.%2526OS%3DDN%2F20160264304%2526RS%3DDN%2F20160264304)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I picked this up reading some blog.  Why... is this even allowed?  It's a paper bag with a handle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41520" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16525" RevisionGUID="d9b97369-62cc-4f0b-9a4c-14623f7c09b2" CreationDate="2016-10-04T06:37:53.233" UserId="17664" Text="How does Apple file a patent for a paper shopping bag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41521" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16525" RevisionGUID="d9b97369-62cc-4f0b-9a4c-14623f7c09b2" CreationDate="2016-10-04T06:37:53.233" UserId="17664" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16526" RevisionGUID="f4698478-8ca7-43e7-a366-3ee4b60872c5" CreationDate="2016-10-04T10:43:39.100" UserId="17012" Text="CALL FOR PRIOR ART. Can you find prior art for this patent that claims novelty based on customizing online content using a user's preferences?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method and apparatus for presenting personalized content relating to offered products and services&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;APPLICATION OVERVIEW:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US Patent 8,738,435 claims the idea of sending a personalized marketing message using a computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 of the patent is representative (the claims are supposed to describe the boundaries of the invention). It claims a “method of generating a set of personalized communications … with a computer system.” The steps are described at an extremely high level of abstraction, including things such as “accessing a computer-accessible storage medium” using “identifying content to distinguish each person from other persons.” The patent plainly proposes using ordinary computers to achieve this task. In fact, the “preferred embodiment of the apparatus” is illustrated in Figure 1 and includes fascinating, non-obvious details like a “display,” a “keyboard,” and a “mouse or pointing device.&quot; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/8t0rX.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41524" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16526" RevisionGUID="f4698478-8ca7-43e7-a366-3ee4b60872c5" CreationDate="2016-10-04T10:43:39.100" UserId="17012" Text="Call for Prior Art US Patent 8,738,435 (Phoenix Licensing)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41525" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16526" RevisionGUID="f4698478-8ca7-43e7-a366-3ee4b60872c5" CreationDate="2016-10-04T10:43:39.100" UserId="17012" Text="&lt;online-advertising&gt;&lt;internet&gt;&lt;customization&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16526" RevisionGUID="95e161ba-1c22-461b-b040-9756d741a18e" CreationDate="2016-10-04T10:49:58.940" UserId="17012" Comment="Styling" Text="CALL FOR PRIOR ART. Can you find prior art for this patent that claims novelty based on customizing online content using a user's preferences?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check out [Google Patents][1] for full details about this particular application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method and apparatus for presenting personalized content relating to offered products and services&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BASIC PATENT DATA:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: US8738435 B2&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: LPL Licensing, LLC (Phoenix Licensing)&#xD;&#xA;- **Priority Date**: Jun 10, 1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PATENT OVERVIEW:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US Patent 8,738,435 claims the idea of sending a personalized marketing message using a computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 of the patent is representative (the claims are supposed to describe the boundaries of the invention). It claims a “method of generating a set of personalized communications … with a computer system.” The steps are described at an extremely high level of abstraction, including things such as “accessing a computer-accessible storage medium” using “identifying content to distinguish each person from other persons.” The patent plainly proposes using ordinary computers to achieve this task. In fact, the “preferred embodiment of the apparatus” is illustrated in Figure 1 and includes fascinating, non-obvious details like a “display,” a “keyboard,” and a “mouse or pointing device.&quot; [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8738435&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/8t0rX.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41527" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10378" RevisionGUID="46f61915-9f41-4963-9a60-8b002722c9e2" CreationDate="2016-10-04T12:31:17.663" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41529" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15998" RevisionGUID="91c8594a-0783-4c42-9e61-6ebf623ff23a" CreationDate="2016-10-04T13:32:24.207" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16528" RevisionGUID="7c1d77df-f976-4eb0-a108-244f7e0bf311" CreationDate="2016-10-04T14:32:58.460" UserId="17003" Text="Reading only the first page of a patent are often not very helpful to understanding what the patent or patent application is covering. In this case, the patent application isn't trying to claim all paper bags, but constructing a paper bag with 60% or greater post consumer content paper. The second thing to remember here is this is only a patent application, not an issued patent. It is common for patent applications to have extremely broad claim language. Should the application ever be granted, it is likely the claims will be narrowed considerably. As for this specific application, it doesn't seem all that novel to me, but I have no specific knowledge in the fabrication of paper bags and how difficult it is to make a paper bag out of paper with 60% post consumer content." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41536" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="be1a0ac6-c0c2-428b-b407-eaaae6d05d68" CreationDate="2016-10-04T16:36:22.857" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41537" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13359" RevisionGUID="3baabaf6-3154-47e2-8252-038b321d79c9" CreationDate="2016-10-04T17:37:24.880" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16531" RevisionGUID="a7d18da8-db22-4a77-abf1-d39fd9bbcfc7" CreationDate="2016-10-04T19:25:17.877" UserId="17687" Text="most patents that I have seen tend to be for a 20-year period. however, I am unaware of the law behind how that works exactly. that being said i assume unless renewed (if that can be done) otherwise. this patent is only 18-19 years of age and is still valid" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41542" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16251" RevisionGUID="ab8c9d08-8d1b-48da-8166-3493f05e8e56" CreationDate="2016-10-04T19:40:03.457" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16528" RevisionGUID="5f26de72-e31b-4e1a-b6e2-26561554e5b9" CreationDate="2016-10-04T23:20:19.337" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Reading only the first page of a patent is often not very helpful to understanding what the patent or patent application is covering. In this case, the patent application isn't trying to claim all paper bags, but constructing a paper bag with 60% or greater post consumer content paper. The second thing to remember here is this is only a patent application, not an issued patent. It is common for patent applications to have extremely broad claim language. Should the application ever be granted, it is likely the claims will be narrowed considerably. As for this specific application, it doesn't seem all that novel to me, but I have no specific knowledge in the fabrication of paper bags and how difficult it is to make a paper bag out of paper with 60% post consumer content." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41548" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="ec53cd29-6d4c-4d03-a52b-c33a50d08d4a" CreationDate="2016-10-05T08:06:11.500" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41549" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16392" RevisionGUID="46d912ea-aa2f-4425-99ec-4157f01fec7b" CreationDate="2016-10-05T11:18:42.033" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41550" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="6e591d2a-a947-4618-b14a-081b75a16c71" CreationDate="2016-10-05T12:19:18.520" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41551" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14855" RevisionGUID="b2119885-5db4-4ec3-a418-d3494bd0e6c9" CreationDate="2016-10-05T13:20:56.837" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41552" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12640" RevisionGUID="dabd0ce9-6b14-4acb-9195-8940caa3fb1b" CreationDate="2016-10-05T19:30:24.020" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41553" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11943" RevisionGUID="570b5cbe-9c70-46be-ab54-d1fea2561d36" CreationDate="2016-10-05T20:31:20.970" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41554" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="2fe98c71-a63d-44e4-bd8f-3dcab72c1d7a" CreationDate="2016-10-05T21:31:56.440" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16534" RevisionGUID="c8249af3-fb8d-4f9c-a6ec-63196caed9ba" CreationDate="2016-10-05T22:41:34.147" UserId="17395" Text="You can find the following patent is filed on 2007, however, till now, it has not been approved. Does it means this application will not be granted? or what does it mean? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/hQC30.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41559" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16534" RevisionGUID="c8249af3-fb8d-4f9c-a6ec-63196caed9ba" CreationDate="2016-10-05T22:41:34.147" UserId="17395" Text="What does it mean for long time waiting for a Application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41560" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16534" RevisionGUID="c8249af3-fb8d-4f9c-a6ec-63196caed9ba" CreationDate="2016-10-05T22:41:34.147" UserId="17395" Text="&lt;time-stamp&gt;&lt;waiting&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41565" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11951" RevisionGUID="f8805f5d-1ea0-4e99-9d4f-1c07db445813" CreationDate="2016-10-06T03:43:56.497" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41566" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12990" RevisionGUID="16c4e471-abd2-49fe-8f9f-9efcf007d045" CreationDate="2016-10-06T05:47:00.487" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16535" RevisionGUID="c4cec72c-1cba-442e-9f46-a264dfd2d853" CreationDate="2016-10-06T06:12:09.443" UserId="17325" Text="Applications which begin with a &quot;WO&quot; are never meant to become real patents. They will always remain applications, filed under the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). This is an easy way of filling many documents once and then choose countries and regions in which you'd like your application to become a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So after a predetermined time period, which depends on the country, you are requested to indicate at which countries you want to proceed.1-1 1/2 year after publication, this should be available either through google, or through other databases (WIPO, EPO).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the above case, the application entered national phases of EP, US and CA (EP is a regional treaty and today contains almost all European countries). You can see the relevant numbers in the &quot;also published as&quot; section of the google page. However, none of those had any lack, all of them have been abandoned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41568" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16056" RevisionGUID="4c62769a-a4ce-4cd3-8a58-1a15ed42ef13" CreationDate="2016-10-06T06:51:35.463" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41569" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16083" RevisionGUID="eaec432a-c0b7-45a5-9332-ad48c1ef3f79" CreationDate="2016-10-06T07:58:09.200" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41570" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9885" RevisionGUID="b5dc1712-f8f1-4c64-8b4c-b4eebf163a7b" CreationDate="2016-10-06T11:01:23.670" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41571" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13723" RevisionGUID="c60f31fe-691e-41ee-9dd1-45e1920cd926" CreationDate="2016-10-06T12:04:51.557" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16537" RevisionGUID="e120ed8d-218f-485d-9ab3-b020737aa9ca" CreationDate="2016-10-06T19:37:37.093" UserId="17696" Text="The 4-month limitation period was in existence in the Act prior to 2009.  The current state of the Act has the rights to the invention implicitly pass to the employer after the 4-month period regardless of whether or not the employer claims the invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41581" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16253" RevisionGUID="ade270ec-d588-4270-be9e-55fb30bf13f3" CreationDate="2016-10-06T21:37:35.650" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41582" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="d0a3ce98-7c82-42da-abb1-09665717caa0" CreationDate="2016-10-06T23:39:32.520" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16539" RevisionGUID="cc3085e9-cac7-40e8-919b-fad1b1487b26" CreationDate="2016-10-07T00:39:53.027" UserId="3500" Text="I am a lawyer, and the other poster is correct. You should find an intellectual property attorney and have a conversation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41584" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14632" RevisionGUID="ca2ab3fa-907e-4106-bebd-ccc2ed91bf6e" CreationDate="2016-10-07T00:41:12.530" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16540" RevisionGUID="3a8e29e9-d808-48a3-8b4e-ccd3ba43d258" CreationDate="2016-10-07T00:44:23.120" UserId="3500" Text="Sorry of consulting a new attorney, you could:&#xA; &#xA; - see who filled the application&#xA; &#xA; - see who is listed as an inventor&#xA; &#xA; - see if they have any affiliation with that earlier attorney" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16541" RevisionGUID="8e56b624-d4a7-4468-80f3-f99b24e15206" CreationDate="2016-10-07T01:27:43.540" UserId="11717" Text="When you talk to a lawyer, be sure to ask him to explain to you&#xD;&#xA;1. The law of limitation&#xD;&#xA;2 Equitable concept of delay and laches&#xD;&#xA;Also examine what non legal remedies you could persue.&#xD;&#xA;Regards&#xD;&#xA;Ashok" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41587" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="d74056b5-4b00-4d1e-87f4-d03ebcba3fcb" CreationDate="2016-10-07T01:43:01.803" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41588" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14061" RevisionGUID="3b673cc4-2318-4956-b80c-9bee58664539" CreationDate="2016-10-07T02:46:24.043" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41591" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14049" RevisionGUID="2140f90d-0fc5-4d83-a17b-a1941fc4ee27" CreationDate="2016-10-07T03:56:18.707" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41592" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13939" RevisionGUID="c6b3ac5f-69dd-45df-9061-b281946381ac" CreationDate="2016-10-07T12:17:57.620" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16542" RevisionGUID="ce59493c-cc93-44bc-b349-8a3d116754cd" CreationDate="2016-10-07T14:45:19.370" UserId="17699" Text="If anybody knows patent(s) that are having multiple colons in the first claim, please share. Also, please let me know how many colons we can use in the first claim.&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance.&#xD;&#xA;Best regards,&#xD;&#xA;Ram" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41594" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16542" RevisionGUID="ce59493c-cc93-44bc-b349-8a3d116754cd" CreationDate="2016-10-07T14:45:19.370" UserId="17699" Text="Patent Drafting: Using multiple colon in first claim" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41595" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16542" RevisionGUID="ce59493c-cc93-44bc-b349-8a3d116754cd" CreationDate="2016-10-07T14:45:19.370" UserId="17699" Text="&lt;drafting&gt;&lt;colon&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16544" RevisionGUID="6394dd93-96c9-4213-a8cd-6df7e70468bb" CreationDate="2016-10-07T16:28:36.267" UserId="17702" Text="I was granted a patent in 1994 and was unable to pay maintenance fees, therefor lost patent, I am looking to see if someone has gained control of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41600" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16544" RevisionGUID="6394dd93-96c9-4213-a8cd-6df7e70468bb" CreationDate="2016-10-07T16:28:36.267" UserId="17702" Text="How do i find out if a patent is active" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41601" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16544" RevisionGUID="6394dd93-96c9-4213-a8cd-6df7e70468bb" CreationDate="2016-10-07T16:28:36.267" UserId="17702" Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;m&gt;&lt;cota&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16546" RevisionGUID="a3326b5d-c894-48f6-94a3-fb6490996a5d" CreationDate="2016-10-07T21:32:59.050" UserId="16848" Text="I believe the answer to your question is no, there is no way to know if a patent application is related to a hackathon.  I have helped file patents from hackathons and there is nothing different that would be detectable in the patent itself.  In fact, many companies would be unlikely to be able to tell you if the patent was part of a hackathon or not, unless they tracked that specifically in their internal database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may be particular hackathons that would allow you to track their patents, for instance if there was an assignment clause in the participant agreement and all assignments were to a particular entity.  That said, most hackathon participants (and organizers) don't actually know who would end up owning the IP, so tracking where it ends up would be particularly hard. (See https://hbr.org/2013/06/who-owns-hackathon-inventions)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16547" RevisionGUID="a1294f1b-3bad-4d81-b3ea-f4756a5a0588" CreationDate="2016-10-07T21:44:48.403" UserId="16848" Text="As an application, it may very well be that the independent claims are not patentable as they are currently written.  That is almost always the case with patent applications as they don't get a &quot;First action allowance&quot;, meaning the patent office just said &quot;Yup, here's your patent.&quot; without any rejections.  The final state of the claims may be very different.  If you look at the dependent claims, they can give you a hint of where the applicant may look for narrowing material if the independent claims are rejected.  In this case, adding the limitation of using Finite Element Analysis as in claim 10 may be a way of overcoming a rejection.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question of the existing art of listening to a metal's ring would invalidate the claims of the referenced application, I would guess probably not.  The claims recited structures that aren't in the prior art, such as a transducer to incite the &quot;ringing&quot; rather than a whacking.  The meaning of Obvious for patentability and the plain english meaning of the word are not all that related, because there have been decades upon decades of case law describing what obvious means in the patent context that has given the word a very paricular meaning.  I most commonly explain this meaning as &quot;Obvious means described in two or more publications which provide an intrinsic motivation to combine the references into the claimed invention.&quot;  Not a fully accurate definition, but it serves the purpose of explaining obvious doesn't mean what it (obviously) means." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16548" RevisionGUID="fb0bd5d8-cfb3-4868-92f8-e519180c33ed" CreationDate="2016-10-07T21:46:50.297" UserId="16848" Text="You can use the USPTO's public PAIR database to see what has become of the patent including any assignments:  http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41611" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13762" RevisionGUID="1ce4d2c0-72b2-4bf2-8ba9-6d7b9898e85c" CreationDate="2016-10-07T23:48:24.020" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41616" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="fcfc049f-4594-4bab-bced-f2118f24265d" CreationDate="2016-10-08T05:00:59.257" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41617" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13276" RevisionGUID="bd823c0b-76e9-4f00-b0ce-64c6e4225ffa" CreationDate="2016-10-08T09:10:10.147" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41618" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16274" RevisionGUID="443b53bc-c42e-488e-9ab0-1f529c456659" CreationDate="2016-10-08T10:11:05.183" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41619" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13601" RevisionGUID="5483400e-9278-4070-9a8d-e029d597a358" CreationDate="2016-10-08T11:19:32.803" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41620" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14699" RevisionGUID="09546a51-183a-4df8-9520-98fc1273a6df" CreationDate="2016-10-08T14:23:52.073" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41622" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10602" RevisionGUID="c7133a5e-7f79-433e-a978-d8991e1e6a93" CreationDate="2016-10-08T15:24:38.343" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41626" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16022" RevisionGUID="98888e99-3daf-4ca3-b5ac-8b67350ce43e" CreationDate="2016-10-08T17:29:48.980" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41627" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5897" RevisionGUID="dad21ca0-465f-4f55-8ce1-0960aa850df9" CreationDate="2016-10-08T18:31:07.750" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41628" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14366" RevisionGUID="bc1b8c48-d1a7-4030-9331-ab58c5efc901" CreationDate="2016-10-08T19:32:19.130" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41629" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14697" RevisionGUID="b8955b17-c276-49b3-beb1-4b7427468b6f" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:39:35.177" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41632" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14409" RevisionGUID="2026cb29-ebe1-402f-b0b4-9683f8a6753a" CreationDate="2016-10-09T09:05:33.067" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41633" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14355" RevisionGUID="629d3503-890f-44b6-a03a-01fc4ebc3656" CreationDate="2016-10-09T10:06:35.493" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41634" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16069" RevisionGUID="5abdbd21-b0c5-4194-bb03-3bd5b075c088" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:08:18.667" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41638" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="e7bbc1bc-5583-41d6-ad9c-5504d54915ca" CreationDate="2016-10-09T19:25:54.873" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41639" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13934" RevisionGUID="9b3331a7-cff0-4c88-9fc0-61eda348eec5" CreationDate="2016-10-09T20:27:30.563" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16553" RevisionGUID="5be17096-3e66-43fe-904c-3f3ba6e921a0" CreationDate="2016-10-10T01:09:13.400" UserId="15503" Text="Claim 1 of [US 7346650](https://www.google.co.nz/patents/US7346650) contains two colons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using multiple colons in a claim is not especially rare. There is no formal limit to the number of colons usable in a claim, as long as their use does not affect the clarity of the claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16553" RevisionGUID="5dc5b747-e0f4-4bd9-89a2-9667df2c2c40" CreationDate="2016-10-10T03:16:41.220" UserId="15503" Comment="added 424 characters in body" Text="Claim 1 of [US 7346650](https://www.google.co.nz/patents/US7346650) contains two colons. There is nothing particularly special or notable about this patent, it's just the first one I came across.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using multiple colons in a claim is not especially rare. There is no formal limit to the number of colons usable in a claim, as long as their use does not affect the clarity of the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking internationally, I would say it's particularly common in European patents, given the requirement for two-part form. You would typically have one colon after the introductory phrase (&quot;A method comprising:&quot;), then one after the characterising wording (&quot;characterised in that the method further comprises:&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41642" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16078" RevisionGUID="5ec4b4ea-0088-4223-af59-e39867826cd0" CreationDate="2016-10-10T08:02:10.723" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41643" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14868" RevisionGUID="0ec41c9b-8bb7-4d5e-ae0a-de5eb361f776" CreationDate="2016-10-10T16:27:03.967" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16554" RevisionGUID="addd8b77-b893-4e13-950a-4b573cba6d37" CreationDate="2016-10-10T16:34:04.503" UserId="17724" Text="I have an idea for a system that integrates 2 existing technologies in a novel and non-obvious way, but do not have the expertise or capacity to actually create the technology or a prototype. Ultimately, I want to sell my invention to a company.  The companies I would like to approach will only accept patented ideas.  Due to the nature of the technology industry, I want to act quickly and lock in my idea before anyone else does.  I am considering filing for a provisional patent. Do I have to be able to manufacture/produce my invention in order to apply for a provisional patent?  If not, and my application was accepted/approved, would a patent be issued at that point or only after my non-provisional application has been approved?  If a patent does issue provisionally, can I sell my invention along with all rights before the provisional period expires?  If so, would it then become the new owner's responsibility to follow through and file the non-provisional application?  Please advise.  Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41645" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16554" RevisionGUID="addd8b77-b893-4e13-950a-4b573cba6d37" CreationDate="2016-10-10T16:34:04.503" UserId="17724" Text="Provisional Patent and Sale" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41646" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16554" RevisionGUID="addd8b77-b893-4e13-950a-4b573cba6d37" CreationDate="2016-10-10T16:34:04.503" UserId="17724" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41647" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="9a9e3352-9244-496d-8ada-5591eb3ef0d4" CreationDate="2016-10-10T17:28:14.537" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41648" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16090" RevisionGUID="f9bfbb21-60ce-4644-9942-809c86e16411" CreationDate="2016-10-10T19:30:10.330" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41649" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14635" RevisionGUID="f354046e-dc54-45da-aa9a-693b150df6e0" CreationDate="2016-10-10T20:30:56.370" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41650" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14266" RevisionGUID="8a02b3c7-89d9-40ba-83a4-b677bb6c776f" CreationDate="2016-10-10T21:33:20.403" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41651" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14833" RevisionGUID="44782a32-2b03-4309-baaa-48aa351d9cbd" CreationDate="2016-10-10T22:34:16.527" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41652" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16096" RevisionGUID="48d1c57b-85d5-453a-ad76-9aad163edac0" CreationDate="2016-10-10T23:35:34.517" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41653" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14831" RevisionGUID="f8bfaec0-eed0-497a-9320-6c9561d74ced" CreationDate="2016-10-11T00:36:09.333" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41654" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="af3bd932-c434-4bcd-b8b0-27d0932effdd" CreationDate="2016-10-11T01:37:29.567" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41655" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10796" RevisionGUID="712d40b3-65b2-458e-a3b2-76cb04a326b1" CreationDate="2016-10-11T02:39:04.227" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41656" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="28aed800-dc68-4c6e-a53a-a799b33a3af5" CreationDate="2016-10-11T08:50:59.817" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41657" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12753" RevisionGUID="b744f743-514f-40bf-9f54-27b640a54910" CreationDate="2016-10-11T17:14:26.753" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16555" RevisionGUID="d6dcee61-7f6a-43e1-a43c-083b11798958" CreationDate="2016-10-11T20:17:39.077" UserId="14038" Text="You do not have to manufacture/produce your invention in order to apply for a provisional patent.   A provisional patent application is not examined and will never issue.  A non-provisional patent application must be filed within 12 months of the filing date of the provisional patent application.    You may sell your rights to your invention, your provisional patent application and/or a non-provisional patent application at any time.   The terms and conditions of the sales agreement will govern the responsibility of the new owner in regard to following through on the filing and prosecution of the non-provisional patent application.    If you desire the new owner to file and prosecute a non-provisional patent application based on your provisional patent application, you must make that explicit in the sales agreement and assignment of patent rights." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41659" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16110" RevisionGUID="8eb36a08-f83c-4487-9825-d11004917cb1" CreationDate="2016-10-11T20:24:01.640" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41663" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16124" RevisionGUID="0b83c63d-5534-4d90-8746-d7eb191f229a" CreationDate="2016-10-11T23:27:32.567" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41675" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15983" RevisionGUID="cd5f08d8-6371-4d65-b35d-e35e54f0286e" CreationDate="2016-10-12T03:38:06.637" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41676" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15991" RevisionGUID="ae3f1f96-6f9a-4659-823a-1ac28008a8df" CreationDate="2016-10-12T04:39:19.783" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41677" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16288" RevisionGUID="794fa076-0224-4e61-99a6-754b81c8c13b" CreationDate="2016-10-12T05:40:57.443" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41684" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16103" RevisionGUID="c540f06a-6ea4-48d6-928f-d3172c604364" CreationDate="2016-10-12T13:50:59.023" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41702" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13614" RevisionGUID="924da4de-48c4-4a16-b5aa-287ee51ec753" CreationDate="2016-10-12T21:53:21.653" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16569" RevisionGUID="ba0332bc-7698-407a-843e-ab6859f0b57a" CreationDate="2016-10-13T02:48:52.387" UserId="17743" Text="How Do I Check the Status of My Application or Registration &amp; get the summary description like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vKo3B.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41713" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16569" RevisionGUID="ba0332bc-7698-407a-843e-ab6859f0b57a" CreationDate="2016-10-13T02:48:52.387" UserId="17743" Text="How Do I Check the Status of My Application or Registration?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41714" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16569" RevisionGUID="ba0332bc-7698-407a-843e-ab6859f0b57a" CreationDate="2016-10-13T02:48:52.387" UserId="17743" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41715" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14785" RevisionGUID="469e379f-b4de-4082-b796-a5e4e1e8f369" CreationDate="2016-10-13T02:57:41.383" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41716" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14881" RevisionGUID="2dad0be8-d21d-4c20-952a-c2e973535fed" CreationDate="2016-10-13T03:57:59.270" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16570" RevisionGUID="02920a77-fabb-4cc3-9a71-56b0cf6ede77" CreationDate="2016-10-13T04:46:26.247" UserId="17555" Text="Think of an electronic system. It contains many blocks. The lowest level block contains many other structures (Transistors, opamps, capacitors etc.) that one page is nearly enough for it to be fit into. Lets call it '**X**'. This **X** contains A, B and C blocks. So I labeled them as A1, B1 and C1.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;second level contains lots of other stuff and lots of X's. Here is the question. Since I drew X and labeled its substances as A1, B1 and C1, how can I show that I am using seperate X's in second level structure? I can not label every substance like A2, A3, B2, B3 bla bla... Also, this substances are doing different duties. So how can I show it in drawings?&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41718" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16570" RevisionGUID="02920a77-fabb-4cc3-9a71-56b0cf6ede77" CreationDate="2016-10-13T04:46:26.247" UserId="17555" Text="How to draw hierarchical structures?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41719" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16570" RevisionGUID="02920a77-fabb-4cc3-9a71-56b0cf6ede77" CreationDate="2016-10-13T04:46:26.247" UserId="17555" Text="&lt;drawing&gt;&lt;patent-drawings&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41720" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16220" RevisionGUID="96f3f04d-6d9d-448f-b2c1-825c43e9c75b" CreationDate="2016-10-13T07:59:43.330" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41724" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12909" RevisionGUID="bdec8950-220c-49a1-992e-9d0198182ed3" CreationDate="2016-10-13T11:00:20.950" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16575" RevisionGUID="93c96908-8515-4261-97bf-3cba17a7e131" CreationDate="2016-10-13T23:26:39.453" UserId="17750" Text="I'm assuming you're drawing it digitally and not by hand, personally if by hand I would use small down arrows to say it's a lower level X. Digitally, maybe something along the lines of X_, X-, or X~?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16577" RevisionGUID="0659bead-86f6-43eb-b103-1fb811ab5553" CreationDate="2016-10-14T10:54:55.010" UserId="17752" Text="Pending patent applications that comprise relevant prior art should be cited in a patent application or through the search process. But what about patent applications that got rejected? Should one still cite them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41753" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16577" RevisionGUID="0659bead-86f6-43eb-b103-1fb811ab5553" CreationDate="2016-10-14T10:54:55.010" UserId="17752" Text="Can rejected patent applications constitute relevant prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41754" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16577" RevisionGUID="0659bead-86f6-43eb-b103-1fb811ab5553" CreationDate="2016-10-14T10:54:55.010" UserId="17752" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41756" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16577" RevisionGUID="7bbc9005-9420-42a5-b4b0-d9dea3273cc4" CreationDate="2016-10-14T12:50:35.117" UserId="1" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41757" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16134" RevisionGUID="3ee211f3-4367-4456-bfb6-946224a165d0" CreationDate="2016-10-14T18:15:50.893" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16578" RevisionGUID="71fd2f14-2025-4247-8162-a140cd3ea246" CreationDate="2016-10-14T18:47:34.957" UserId="3418" Text="I forget to file WIPO application after 12 months from priority date of a US provisional application. While within 12 months I filed US non provisional application, is there any way to file international application later than 12 months or other way to get international protection?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is nearly 18 months now from priority date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41759" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16578" RevisionGUID="71fd2f14-2025-4247-8162-a140cd3ea246" CreationDate="2016-10-14T18:47:34.957" UserId="3418" Text="Can WIPO application filed after 12 months from priority date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41760" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16578" RevisionGUID="71fd2f14-2025-4247-8162-a140cd3ea246" CreationDate="2016-10-14T18:47:34.957" UserId="3418" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;wipo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41761" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="7a8d7de5-b93f-44eb-80b3-769037add591" CreationDate="2016-10-14T19:15:57.103" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41763" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11980" RevisionGUID="fc72f9ca-32b4-46ce-b9b3-e50682c5076a" CreationDate="2016-10-14T20:15:58.543" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41764" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="28b5a3ef-df30-41f2-81b6-df0959a5288f" CreationDate="2016-10-14T21:15:59.813" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16579" RevisionGUID="62e99080-0cf3-4d5d-8f42-74dd8d426f6b" CreationDate="2016-10-14T21:32:14.580" UserId="16757" Text="I have filed four provisional patent applications disclosing various and improving embodiments of the same invention. The second, third and fourth provisionals include new material, as well as all material of the preceding  application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I filed the four in a cumulative way so that I may have multiple priority date options to choose from according to how early the money for a non-provisional PCT application becomes available.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question:&#xD;&#xA;Do I indeed have the freedom to claim any one of four possible priority dates for my non-provisional application, as long as I file within the 12 month deadline of the chosen priority date?&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41766" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16579" RevisionGUID="62e99080-0cf3-4d5d-8f42-74dd8d426f6b" CreationDate="2016-10-14T21:32:14.580" UserId="16757" Text="Multiple priority date options" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41767" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16579" RevisionGUID="62e99080-0cf3-4d5d-8f42-74dd8d426f6b" CreationDate="2016-10-14T21:32:14.580" UserId="16757" Text="&lt;priority-date-options&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16580" RevisionGUID="f2fed910-e18f-42d0-aa36-d41f50782a42" CreationDate="2016-10-14T23:42:19.753" UserId="15503" Text="**Do I indeed have the freedom to claim any one of four possible priority dates for my non-provisional application, as long as I file within the 12 month deadline of the chosen priority date?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. Your Convention application (such as a PCT application) must claim priority to (and therefore be less than 12 months after) the earliest application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is clear from the [Paris Convention art 4(C)(2)](http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/text.jsp?file_id=288514#P83_6610), which provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;These periods [for claiming priority] shall start from the date of filing of the first application; the day of filing shall not be included in the period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only way around this is if the original filing was irrevocably withdrawn *before* any of the later ones were filed. This is provided by art 4(C)(4).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the 12 months for the additional improvements start with each new filing (since that is the first filing for those improvements)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16581" RevisionGUID="773e0a16-7c94-4c27-b81a-0cd456446472" CreationDate="2016-10-14T23:46:15.303" UserId="15503" Text="If you decide to cite other patents within your application (which may or may not be a good idea), it doesn't matter what their status is. You do not cite them because they are patents or patent applications: you are citing them because they are prior art. An abandoned or rejected published patent application is as good prior art as a published patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16582" RevisionGUID="429a9839-5d3b-4095-a712-cf5d8643b941" CreationDate="2016-10-14T23:49:25.050" UserId="15503" Text="You are too late to claim priority to your US application. This must be done within 12 months of the original filing ([Paris Convention art 4(C)(2)](http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/text.jsp?file_id=288514#P83_6610)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if none of your other applications have been published yet (as is implied by the &quot;nearly 18 months&quot; in your question), you could file a PCT application (or applications in other countries) without claiming priority at all. While this would open you to prior art that has occurred more recently, these would at least be valid applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41772" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11968" RevisionGUID="4679b37e-1423-4cb1-b086-f52447d60c8f" CreationDate="2016-10-15T02:16:30.927" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41774" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16275" RevisionGUID="deb788d9-0903-4c0c-908a-cf437fe0dd00" CreationDate="2016-10-15T03:16:31.130" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41775" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16267" RevisionGUID="7c897d41-c613-4e6e-a8b8-6ff3c8595ec9" CreationDate="2016-10-15T04:17:59.550" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41776" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12505" RevisionGUID="ff497868-ed68-47c2-ad5e-15c60e1f3160" CreationDate="2016-10-15T09:18:41.953" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16583" RevisionGUID="1db763ac-1658-40bc-ba62-061bcdcb5902" CreationDate="2016-10-15T09:57:48.933" UserId="3418" Text="For example, if I have an invention with different implements, can I spit it into multiple patents that each of them doesn't contain others information?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason may be to keep the competitor confused. For example, the competitor will think the scope of one patent is very narrow, while the other patents are kept in secret to gain advantages later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing I can think of is some rules, e.g USA says that the inventor must reveal the best approach he knows. But since different implements are similar, without the best one, this can be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think in practice it is easy to do, if the inventor can accept lying that other implements came to him at different time then that is normal, even there is a best approach. But what about the law if the inventor must be honest?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another method I can think of is splitting the invention into multiple inventions by redefine the scope of the invention so they are not a single invention but multiple inventions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any obstacle for splitting a single invention into multiple independent patents without relating to each others?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41778" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16583" RevisionGUID="1db763ac-1658-40bc-ba62-061bcdcb5902" CreationDate="2016-10-15T09:57:48.933" UserId="3418" Text="Split an invention into multiple patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41779" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16583" RevisionGUID="1db763ac-1658-40bc-ba62-061bcdcb5902" CreationDate="2016-10-15T09:57:48.933" UserId="3418" Text="&lt;invention&gt;&lt;multiple&gt;&lt;patentscope&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16584" RevisionGUID="f433158e-e98f-4071-94ef-5dd0b27f20a9" CreationDate="2016-10-15T10:09:40.120" UserId="3418" Text="I revealed the invention to the public more than 12 months, nearly 17 months. While the details of the application are not revealed, the idea and some implements are revealed to an internet forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that I must file PCT within 12 months from US provisional application but forget to do so because I have a false impression that PCT time limit is much larger. I only filed US non provisional application within 12 months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is there any way that I can get international protection for the invention if it was revealed to public 12 or 18 months earlier? For example, someone suggest I don't claim priority from US date if my application isn't published. But in cased it is published, is there any other way to get international protection?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41781" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16584" RevisionGUID="f433158e-e98f-4071-94ef-5dd0b27f20a9" CreationDate="2016-10-15T10:09:40.120" UserId="3418" Text="Can an invention get international protection after revealed to public 12 or 18 months?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41782" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16584" RevisionGUID="f433158e-e98f-4071-94ef-5dd0b27f20a9" CreationDate="2016-10-15T10:09:40.120" UserId="3418" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;public&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41783" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10532" RevisionGUID="7d60eba1-ae6e-4738-9112-23239f408efe" CreationDate="2016-10-15T10:20:53.740" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16585" RevisionGUID="ba130db3-ed8c-4c60-8d5b-ded474f4441d" CreationDate="2016-10-15T13:07:35.937" UserId="5599" Text="This Patent is so broadly worded it could could describe any HTTP server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The definition of media is so loose it could be applied to downloading a picture/sound clip onto a device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples &#xD;&#xA;DLNA guideline versions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    1.0: released June 2004; 2 volumes: Architecture &amp; Protocols, Media Formats; 2 Device Classes: DMP, DMS; About 50 media format profiles [12]&#xD;&#xA;    1.5: released March 2006; 3 volumes: Architecture &amp; Protocols, Media Formats, and Link Protection; 12 Devices Classes and 5 Device Capabilities; About 250 media format profiles [12]&#xD;&#xA;    2.0: released August 2015; Includes topics like EPG, Content Sync, RUI, WPS, Media Formats, Scheduled recording, DRM [12][13]&#xD;&#xA;    3.0: released August 2015; enhanced response time, improved power efficiency, HEVC support [14]&#xD;&#xA;    4.0: planned release 2016 [15]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41786" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13966" RevisionGUID="ddf7bdb2-a141-4c16-b1fc-c9560ec6a056" CreationDate="2016-10-15T17:22:26.397" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41788" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14806" RevisionGUID="f2ec585b-5b0c-4018-9890-5590919d7720" CreationDate="2016-10-16T07:29:42.770" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41789" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14948" RevisionGUID="0c171ad1-c602-4c32-8c1e-d2fe63aabc34" CreationDate="2016-10-16T08:29:42.647" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41790" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16114" RevisionGUID="cb1886ee-f69c-479c-86f3-aa717d997ab4" CreationDate="2016-10-16T09:29:42.733" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41791" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12423" RevisionGUID="16e37eb6-a39e-43f1-aaf0-df1990d00927" CreationDate="2016-10-16T10:29:42.840" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41795" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14892" RevisionGUID="1b35a178-f12f-44ec-9319-3876098ce58d" CreationDate="2016-10-16T14:29:45.530" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41797" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16118" RevisionGUID="5b5f14b7-5d58-425c-919a-91fd70991f97" CreationDate="2016-10-16T18:36:42.767" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41800" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13901" RevisionGUID="b15902fe-535f-412c-ba21-d392ac7797ea" CreationDate="2016-10-16T21:42:50.240" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41802" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14893" RevisionGUID="fc4ec641-d0e5-4a54-b722-f51a12a70dff" CreationDate="2016-10-17T05:51:41.707" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16587" RevisionGUID="9c0dda04-45ca-4f3d-b4da-79d360dd3a1b" CreationDate="2016-10-17T08:47:48.333" UserId="17764" Text="Conflicting applications are earlier-filed and later-published applications to a the claimed invention (later-filed).&#xD;&#xA;It could be prejudicial to the novelty but not obvious of the claimed invention in EP and CN. Here is the question, can it be considered for determining the obvious of the claimed invention（(later-filed)）?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41804" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16587" RevisionGUID="9c0dda04-45ca-4f3d-b4da-79d360dd3a1b" CreationDate="2016-10-17T08:47:48.333" UserId="17764" Text="Can conflicting applications be considered for determing the obvious of a later-filed application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41805" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16587" RevisionGUID="9c0dda04-45ca-4f3d-b4da-79d360dd3a1b" CreationDate="2016-10-17T08:47:48.333" UserId="17764" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;obvious&gt;&lt;conflicting&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16591" RevisionGUID="f31b8642-bacf-4272-9959-0b9e2652bff7" CreationDate="2016-10-17T20:40:13.173" UserId="13257" Text="I'll give you a light answer: The examiners will certainly take it into account, or in some cases, both they and you will only know after the document is published. That is why it is best file as quickly as possible to get yourself a priority date. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16592" RevisionGUID="1a4c685f-cdff-4ea5-befb-d4eb9b3dc962" CreationDate="2016-10-17T20:43:04.640" UserId="13257" Text="To answer your question directly -- no, the name of your candy product does not matter. You will still be protected by his patent. What matters is the claim. And as @Matthew Haugen pointed out, it is your job to find the copycats. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16593" RevisionGUID="975f7787-cfb7-4b01-999e-3b234aed4e62" CreationDate="2016-10-17T20:45:27.877" UserId="13257" Text="The invention, no -- improvements upon the invention, yes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In USA you get 12 months, in the rest of the world once you disclose your invention, you can't file for a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to see if someone can reduce to practice your idea(s) posted online. If not, it will only be considered prior art and it helps set precedence for the scope of what you can claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16594" RevisionGUID="1441cf72-330b-4756-b407-99a06f247a20" CreationDate="2016-10-17T20:54:55.887" UserId="17769" Text="In reference to the patent: [EP2760362A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP2760362A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hi. I note there has been over 4 years since this patent was filed (5 years since its priority date) and it is still down as an &quot;Application&quot;. Does this mean it is effectively past its deadline and can no longer be granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41824" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16594" RevisionGUID="1441cf72-330b-4756-b407-99a06f247a20" CreationDate="2016-10-17T20:54:55.887" UserId="17769" Text="Is this patent deemed abandoned?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41825" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16594" RevisionGUID="1441cf72-330b-4756-b407-99a06f247a20" CreationDate="2016-10-17T20:54:55.887" UserId="17769" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;abandoned-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16595" RevisionGUID="f7d6ae25-bff3-474d-abd1-fa03200e6d56" CreationDate="2016-10-17T21:16:45.440" UserId="15503" Text="Yes: in the US, intervening rights can be used for both novelty and non-obviousness rejections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**An example timeline**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us talk of two applications: P1 and P2, having the following dates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 Jan 2015: P1 filed at USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 Feb 2015: P2 filed at USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 Jul 2016: P1 published by USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in a European context, P1 would be novelty-only prior art for P2. But P1 is not full prior art, and therefore could not support an inventive step objection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The law for prior art**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of prior art is provided in [35 USC § 102(a)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So § 102(a)(1) corresponds to conventional prior art (that is, published before the effective filing date). P1 was published after P2 was filed, and is therefore not § 102(a)(1) prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;§ 102(a)(2) corresponds to (what the Europeans sometimes call) intervening rights (that is, filed before but published after the effective filing date). P1 was filed before P2. Once P1 publishes, and assuming P1 names a different inventor, P1 would be § 102(a)(2) prior art. As a practical matter, even before P1 publishes, the examiner may raise a provisional rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The law for non-obviousness**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The requirement for obviousness is provided by [35 USC § 103](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/103) (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, **if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art** are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus the non-obviousness requirement refers back to the prior art definition in § 102 with no further provisos. Accordingly anything which is prior art for § 102 can be used for an obviousness attack under § 103." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41827" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13585" RevisionGUID="4468c208-a1bc-4c9d-998d-0cb954f33c71" CreationDate="2016-10-18T02:56:50.810" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41829" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12868" RevisionGUID="4343cf6d-7e5d-484c-acb6-55567fa2017d" CreationDate="2016-10-18T03:56:54.490" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41830" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13198" RevisionGUID="162214d7-fa75-41fe-87fe-ec8565a85849" CreationDate="2016-10-18T04:57:00.363" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41831" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="36f5c1f5-3249-4e19-bb37-73b73f1b895a" CreationDate="2016-10-18T07:59:44.557" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41837" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16149" RevisionGUID="f9b5d6aa-bfba-4405-b2e9-ae0eff399eb5" CreationDate="2016-10-18T17:06:45.533" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41838" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16440" RevisionGUID="608ddc0e-4c36-4336-9e61-7b0954084cd8" CreationDate="2016-10-18T18:06:45.787" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41839" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16131" RevisionGUID="33b42b13-ad6d-4be0-8c4d-5e71e07ea7fc" CreationDate="2016-10-18T20:06:51.570" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16597" RevisionGUID="417bf1fc-dbac-48de-ae14-9ee07f740d0c" CreationDate="2016-10-18T20:17:54.900" UserId="3418" Text="In US system, continual application can be fired to add claims later, so the number or the claims in the US application are not that important, because it can be fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't know whether that can be done in PCT system, where you can add or fix claims or file continual application, or you must prepare all claims at once before filing PCT application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or can you file continual application in national phase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41841" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16597" RevisionGUID="417bf1fc-dbac-48de-ae14-9ee07f740d0c" CreationDate="2016-10-18T20:17:54.900" UserId="3418" Text="Number of claims in PCT application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41842" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16597" RevisionGUID="417bf1fc-dbac-48de-ae14-9ee07f740d0c" CreationDate="2016-10-18T20:17:54.900" UserId="3418" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;claim-amendment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41843" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13006" RevisionGUID="06d07f94-9d25-4035-a79b-d33b5f204b54" CreationDate="2016-10-18T22:07:34.150" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16598" RevisionGUID="8eada40e-7ad2-4b47-8801-8063b80bb0f7" CreationDate="2016-10-18T23:14:03.413" UserId="15503" Text="**Amending the claims during the PCT process**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of opportunities during the PCT process to adjust the claims, so you don't necessarily have to have your claims perfect when you file the PCT. However these processes are not quite as flexible as the process offered during US prosecution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims (but nothing else) can be amended once using article 19 amendments ([PCT art 19](http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/a19.htm)). These are due at the later of (1) 16 months from the priority date; or (2) 2 months after the ISR is sent ([PCT r 46.1](http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/rules/r46.htm)). Article 19 amendments are published when the PCT application is published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims (and the description and drawings) can also be amended using article 34 amendments, but only if the applicant files a demand for international preliminary examination ([PCT art 34](http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/a34.htm)). The demand is due at the later of (1) 3 months after the ISR is sent; or (2) 22 months from the priority date ([PCT r 54bis](http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/rules/r54bis.htm)). The amendments should generally be filed with the demand (otherwise the IPEA may not consider them), but there is no requirement for this. The IPEA should then examine the amendments in preparing the IPRP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Filing continuations and divisionals**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no PCT analogue of US continuations (or divisionals in the rest of the world). However continuations and divisionals can typically be filed off from the first application which enters the national phase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41845" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="2d9341fb-e295-489a-bd9a-d5e12ca8bca3" CreationDate="2016-10-19T00:07:35.200" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41846" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16452" RevisionGUID="ee56d169-4d76-4467-9fd1-c8364bb39790" CreationDate="2016-10-19T03:16:17.857" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41850" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14245" RevisionGUID="f4c133f6-6fc1-4d26-8bdc-be571bb7ee87" CreationDate="2016-10-19T09:20:42.010" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41851" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14228" RevisionGUID="a314d560-6973-405c-8514-3a1bd763b89c" CreationDate="2016-10-19T10:20:41.947" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41852" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14199" RevisionGUID="757cb959-c80d-4d32-a7c8-010b8a864e33" CreationDate="2016-10-19T11:20:57.750" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41853" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14248" RevisionGUID="17e4afeb-2349-4702-96cf-ee77810c4431" CreationDate="2016-10-19T13:23:44.217" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41857" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="16601" RevisionGUID="5b5a2fd1-acf9-4da6-9150-1280ff84ec1e" CreationDate="2016-10-19T14:22:52.047" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://sound.stackexchange.com/questions/40075/mp3-codec-restrictions" />
  <row Id="41858" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="16602" RevisionGUID="e9efa38c-002b-4799-b9d7-58b5e83975bc" CreationDate="2016-10-19T14:22:52.047" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://sound.stackexchange.com/questions/40075/mp3-codec-restrictions/40111#40111" />
  <row Id="41859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16602" RevisionGUID="b328e903-ce71-4798-ba85-08d76fe38789" CreationDate="2016-10-19T13:05:37.107" UserId="17783" UserDisplayName="Luuk" Text="The compression and decompression algorythms of MP3 are patented by the owner, Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, and thus are not freely available for commercial products or commercial use of the technology. personal use of the MP3-software is allowed. Open-source-encoders and decoders are being allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a patent-free alternative for MP3 is OGG Vorbis. other alternatives are free for non-commercial use, like SHN and FLAC, but in controdiction with MP3, those two don't loose quality, while MP3 does.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16601" RevisionGUID="edc5f146-6d0b-4e7e-a2c0-920ae4b102e5" CreationDate="2016-10-14T23:23:06.583" UserDisplayName="Jack Maddington" Text="I would like to invite what the patent and or licensing restrictions of the MP3 file format are, and when did these arise.&#xA;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41861" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16601" RevisionGUID="edc5f146-6d0b-4e7e-a2c0-920ae4b102e5" CreationDate="2016-10-14T23:23:06.583" UserDisplayName="Jack Maddington" Text="MP3 codec restrictions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41862" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16601" RevisionGUID="edc5f146-6d0b-4e7e-a2c0-920ae4b102e5" CreationDate="2016-10-14T23:23:06.583" UserDisplayName="Jack Maddington" Text="&lt;untagged&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41863" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16307" RevisionGUID="72573d22-e94d-455c-a549-b1296c6aad24" CreationDate="2016-10-19T15:23:57.573" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16603" RevisionGUID="9f480d13-1f59-4b93-88f7-534f33104a82" CreationDate="2016-10-19T19:41:41.313" UserId="17325" Text="This patent application is still active, although substantive examination has not started yet. In fact the renewal fees were paid in April 2016 (so it will definitely be active till April 2017). As long as it is not granted, it remains an application.&#xD;&#xA;As far as it concerns the EPO there is no time limit within which a patent must be granted. I am quite sure there is no provision in other major patent offices as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16604" RevisionGUID="2ef1f3a0-331a-4ab6-a6e0-f6d363d23b9e" CreationDate="2016-10-19T20:03:55.880" UserId="17778" Text="Looking through Google patents and on certain patents above the description is says 'ABSTRACT'. I am new to the patent world, still learning.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41866" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16604" RevisionGUID="2ef1f3a0-331a-4ab6-a6e0-f6d363d23b9e" CreationDate="2016-10-19T20:03:55.880" UserId="17778" Text="What does 'abstract' mean in a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41867" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16604" RevisionGUID="2ef1f3a0-331a-4ab6-a6e0-f6d363d23b9e" CreationDate="2016-10-19T20:03:55.880" UserId="17778" Text="&lt;abstract&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16605" RevisionGUID="e9b312f9-343c-4859-88e8-3200515717e1" CreationDate="2016-10-19T21:45:36.123" UserId="17779" Text="In reference to the patent: [US4704935][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4704935" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41869" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16605" RevisionGUID="e9b312f9-343c-4859-88e8-3200515717e1" CreationDate="2016-10-19T21:45:36.123" UserId="17779" Text="Can I refile an expired patent under my company? I did not file the original though" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41870" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16605" RevisionGUID="e9b312f9-343c-4859-88e8-3200515717e1" CreationDate="2016-10-19T21:45:36.123" UserId="17779" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16606" RevisionGUID="c6f65e8c-db65-42c5-b73c-f4df4ae9f0de" CreationDate="2016-10-19T22:16:51.047" UserId="17780" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20150250324][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20150250324&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have spent 21 years of my life promoting inclined sleeping as Inclined Bed Therapy, following a breakthrough in how gravity drives circulation. I applied for a patent for an inclined bed, through the UK Office which predates any of these claims. The patent was turned down. Despite this, this discovery was far too important to be stopped by a patent refusal, so I have continued to conduct self funded research into medical conditions, encouraging people to incline their own beds on blocks, books, bricks etc and to modify their own beds to incorporate and inclined sleeping surface. My website, http://inclinedbedtherapy.com where the author of this and two other patents has lifted my research, doctored it in the guise of supporting their claims of the origin of this work has been brought to my attention by several sources. I have written to the company for which these patent applications have been constructed, asking for an explanation for what is nothing short of an attempt to steal my many years of hard work and medical research.&#xD;&#xA;No response has been received? In 1997 I won a gold award for this box design at the London International Inventions fair, which was also reported in press. I have the supporting cuttings and the original sales brochure, which I will gladly provide to disprove the claims in these patents.&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, my research revealed the earliest inclined beds came from Egyptian tombs and there are other examples in paintings, drawings and at least one photographic example of a more recent example from Egypt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The similarities of the text relates to how cows and sheep sleep, how an inclined bed eliminates migraines and how it has helped with may other conditions that I, and many others have provided evidence for over 21 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is my intention to start producing the inclined beds as a new company, so I hope you can help to resolve these issues and rest assured that I can prove everything I have stated here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kind regards&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Andrew K Fletcher" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41872" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16606" RevisionGUID="c6f65e8c-db65-42c5-b73c-f4df4ae9f0de" CreationDate="2016-10-19T22:16:51.047" UserId="17780" Text="Clear infringement of originality and sources for inclined beds supported by prior art and website" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41873" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16606" RevisionGUID="c6f65e8c-db65-42c5-b73c-f4df4ae9f0de" CreationDate="2016-10-19T22:16:51.047" UserId="17780" Text="&lt;us20150250324&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41874" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14348" RevisionGUID="bbcfd94d-9bb5-4cc7-9879-0ea22580666e" CreationDate="2016-10-20T02:52:47.763" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41875" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12543" RevisionGUID="05295a97-f0a1-4163-ad6f-97e006fa6829" CreationDate="2016-10-20T03:52:47.383" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41879" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14424" RevisionGUID="86c8e439-a69a-4ad0-b149-491cd92b5e6f" CreationDate="2016-10-20T04:52:51.453" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16609" RevisionGUID="740ca2f0-ed4f-4031-ae23-29a16eafd5fd" CreationDate="2016-10-20T09:24:50.827" UserId="11895" Text="Yes you can file and pay fees, BUT you will not get a granted patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To Get a Patent you need to satisfy following criteria:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Novelty (i.e. New and not disclosed anywhere in the world)&#xD;&#xA;2. Inventive (i.e. having at least non obvious element with improved efficiency)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41889" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16009" RevisionGUID="2da5002d-01cf-469e-a3e7-30160c6d398e" CreationDate="2016-10-20T14:58:49.437" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41890" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16174" RevisionGUID="243c3fc7-15cb-49b5-b81e-1adc35b3da38" CreationDate="2016-10-20T16:59:15.233" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41891" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12539" RevisionGUID="e8fa73ee-a5ef-4421-b97e-368078b5b152" CreationDate="2016-10-20T18:59:20.027" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41895" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16172" RevisionGUID="69930e86-4767-4bb7-98c2-097f357f7852" CreationDate="2016-10-20T19:59:22.347" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16612" RevisionGUID="8d2811d1-1a21-483d-a19f-721a5ce8c6d6" CreationDate="2016-10-20T22:01:24.323" UserId="16696" Text="It's a short summary of the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a link with more detail from Cornell: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.72" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41897" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14755" RevisionGUID="9198583f-0005-4d49-86cd-990d10851c77" CreationDate="2016-10-20T22:19:33.073" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41901" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="7bf4fb53-8add-4f95-8ec5-2913a15866e7" CreationDate="2016-10-21T02:19:37.110" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41906" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12561" RevisionGUID="f81bb874-6090-4e49-947c-2d2b7237e6c8" CreationDate="2016-10-21T05:23:18.043" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41910" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12942" RevisionGUID="d1eb53b4-ccb4-402b-aee8-be8df2a36ecc" CreationDate="2016-10-21T12:37:45.707" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41911" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12549" RevisionGUID="86b381fe-a6ee-4b48-87c2-43d7dccf4eb8" CreationDate="2016-10-21T14:37:45.827" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41912" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14403" RevisionGUID="7631909c-676a-44f3-98ff-b386ca7b5588" CreationDate="2016-10-21T16:37:54.983" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16615" RevisionGUID="1ed09ed0-9fcd-4fb1-b753-40cf883db660" CreationDate="2016-10-21T21:11:11.893" UserId="4268" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8918339][1], it would seem to me that the Path (social network) had this same implementation years before Facebook.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its been easy to find, via search engines, a number of screenshots from 2012 and earlier that appear to pre-date the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  &quot;[With Reactions, Facebook Supercharges The Like Button With 6 Empathetic Emoji][2]&quot;. TechCrunch article notes Path image form 2012&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;[Path Tries Again With a Wider Network][3]&quot; - NYTimes, Nov 2011, with screenshot&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;[Path for Apple iOS, Android: Mobile Social Network Review][4]&quot; - Jan 2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wouldn't that be grounds enough to make this patent invalid? Does anyone have more examples?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8918339&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://techcrunch.com/2015/10/08/with-reactions-facebook-supercharges-the-like-button-with-6-empathetic-emoji/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/path-2-0-hopes-to-differ-from-other-social-networks/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://anewdomain.net/2012/01/21/path-smartphones-apple-ios-and-android-social-network-review/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41914" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16615" RevisionGUID="1ed09ed0-9fcd-4fb1-b753-40cf883db660" CreationDate="2016-10-21T21:11:11.893" UserId="4268" Text="Given prior art, is Facebook's patent on Reactions valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41915" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16615" RevisionGUID="1ed09ed0-9fcd-4fb1-b753-40cf883db660" CreationDate="2016-10-21T21:11:11.893" UserId="4268" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;facebook&gt;&lt;us8918339&gt;&lt;path&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41916" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13383" RevisionGUID="ea94c4a7-f4d6-436d-9b99-cce339343d09" CreationDate="2016-10-22T00:47:11.573" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41926" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12742" RevisionGUID="3e83bad7-50d0-4b32-833b-3adb3b4a25a0" CreationDate="2016-10-22T03:47:30.413" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41927" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10324" RevisionGUID="81dfd2b9-60b7-4883-a75f-8cfd373b91cf" CreationDate="2016-10-22T07:52:33.233" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41928" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6687" RevisionGUID="35f5b9f0-716a-4085-bc8a-9cf23bf41efb" CreationDate="2016-10-22T09:52:35.850" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41929" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12771" RevisionGUID="8e36f589-d322-4021-873b-3de415001350" CreationDate="2016-10-22T10:52:36.040" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41930" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16479" RevisionGUID="9340afc8-e3bf-48e8-8f88-fdcfbc1ca2f2" CreationDate="2016-10-22T11:52:36.770" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41937" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="028e3fa1-e35e-4f53-b16c-4a3a55318a06" CreationDate="2016-10-22T12:52:36.593" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41942" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12574" RevisionGUID="bbc8fc32-dda8-4dfc-8a1f-56e20d9f324e" CreationDate="2016-10-22T14:54:14.770" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41943" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13937" RevisionGUID="7551c0ed-377e-499c-859c-fe32ba73f5f8" CreationDate="2016-10-22T18:54:22.803" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41950" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="11800f32-0524-472b-992c-d83b2db93ed0" CreationDate="2016-10-22T22:55:26.080" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41951" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13633" RevisionGUID="6f125821-7b79-4bb2-92da-3c7788c2e2c2" CreationDate="2016-10-22T23:56:27.380" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41952" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="6384677c-d831-4284-b3e6-8c4a84e8fb3e" CreationDate="2016-10-23T00:56:29.620" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41953" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13935" RevisionGUID="1a373195-bf6f-4015-ab6c-b00693071ed0" CreationDate="2016-10-23T02:56:38.773" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41956" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13432" RevisionGUID="240d5c5d-ce21-468b-8e34-f801bdf20953" CreationDate="2016-10-23T03:56:38.873" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41968" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13847" RevisionGUID="bd6ef94f-cb36-4884-9494-839f2129292d" CreationDate="2016-10-23T17:06:49.667" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41969" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="45c58fa0-04b2-4433-998d-d037222e275f" CreationDate="2016-10-23T22:18:12.330" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41970" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="aba700cb-e351-4079-bf7e-7582f393617a" CreationDate="2016-10-23T23:18:12.610" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41977" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13422" RevisionGUID="1df4ffb5-8022-40c8-91b9-0a3ffe2afa1d" CreationDate="2016-10-24T11:33:14.097" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41984" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13771" RevisionGUID="7d106ebd-a71b-4a76-9cfb-c107663a0334" CreationDate="2016-10-24T13:33:14.620" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41985" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14335" RevisionGUID="0b22fd69-f73b-4187-9685-13a4344d87d2" CreationDate="2016-10-24T14:33:13.570" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41986" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16184" RevisionGUID="d312a74e-6d07-4da0-8735-fb88de6550f5" CreationDate="2016-10-24T17:37:45.150" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41987" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16186" RevisionGUID="603ad497-559a-433c-a401-2b57b5c4cc47" CreationDate="2016-10-24T19:41:47.143" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16627" RevisionGUID="1519cb7d-d3d9-4aef-bbff-8183b3f94015" CreationDate="2016-10-24T22:39:44.247" UserId="17812" Text="I recently had an amazing product idea, and unfortunately, I found out the product is already being patented. My question is, can I create and produce an already patented product?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, there are hundreds of different that produce umbrellas, yet that is an already patented product, so how can a new company begin manufacturing umbrellas if they are already patented?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a college student looking to patent and produce a new product, and I want to receive information and tips in a step-by-step manner on how I can move forward with this idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41989" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16627" RevisionGUID="1519cb7d-d3d9-4aef-bbff-8183b3f94015" CreationDate="2016-10-24T22:39:44.247" UserId="17812" Text="Patenting an already created product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41990" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16627" RevisionGUID="1519cb7d-d3d9-4aef-bbff-8183b3f94015" CreationDate="2016-10-24T22:39:44.247" UserId="17812" Text="&lt;product&gt;&lt;already&gt;&lt;patented&gt;&lt;college&gt;&lt;student&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41991" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16353" RevisionGUID="a41f3b61-1b71-4f68-b95e-a47bfed2e483" CreationDate="2016-10-24T22:46:09.403" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41995" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16179" RevisionGUID="fedec012-23b8-4d81-a68e-bb3f0b8d5d98" CreationDate="2016-10-25T05:48:37.323" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41999" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10813" RevisionGUID="e5d041cc-990e-47de-b4bf-5237a7e682a3" CreationDate="2016-10-25T08:49:02.743" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42000" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14127" RevisionGUID="1e32d5fc-acaa-433a-957c-1f5ffda71ceb" CreationDate="2016-10-25T09:49:06.377" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42001" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13242" RevisionGUID="ec468854-8a2f-47c5-abe0-bc1a69e49005" CreationDate="2016-10-25T10:49:08.000" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42002" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13123" RevisionGUID="4e4a482f-05fa-4b8c-8933-b9880c6bb9f2" CreationDate="2016-10-25T11:49:45.387" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42006" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="9d0b96e4-ea28-45c3-83a2-75af8128e47a" CreationDate="2016-10-25T18:52:31.390" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42007" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6624" RevisionGUID="10471d50-4839-4bf0-b15e-5475f788254e" CreationDate="2016-10-25T19:52:55.557" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42008" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12954" RevisionGUID="62c7c41f-2ddb-4d76-bad6-80752b479630" CreationDate="2016-10-25T20:53:16.827" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42014" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14631" RevisionGUID="741ff1fe-9d4c-4be3-abd2-0a087a14b355" CreationDate="2016-10-26T03:03:37.647" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42015" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14620" RevisionGUID="d101c170-abc3-4c69-a9fb-5db74985a2d0" CreationDate="2016-10-26T04:04:11.783" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42016" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12339" RevisionGUID="5b39a3c6-fff8-4d85-8a41-79d65fa08608" CreationDate="2016-10-26T05:04:15.053" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42017" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14622" RevisionGUID="94806759-1202-4b84-a5db-30a74a0d0422" CreationDate="2016-10-26T06:04:14.887" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16633" RevisionGUID="1813e8ff-f03f-45ce-8dca-1db313734972" CreationDate="2016-10-26T09:14:32.247" UserId="17819" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20130024676][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130024676&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent application (with a 2011 date) is too broad and attempts to patent the entire concept of control flow integrity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is HUGE previous work which is neither discussed or referenced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, regarding the well known jump-to-libc attacks (but also the more general return-oriented-programming attack), there is this 2006 paper:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Base Line Performance Measurements of Access Controls For Libraries and Modules.&quot; Jason W Kim and Vassilis Prevelakis, Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Workshop on Security in Systems and Networks (SSN2006) Rhode Island, Greece, April 2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this paper the code of each library resides in its own address space so direct jumps to or from the main program and libraries or across libraries are impossible (as the destination address is not mapped in the current address space). In order to jump to a library, the kernel has to be invoked and the appropriate access control policy may be applied to the call in the same way as the OpenBSD systrace system works for system calls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By segregating the address space into separate regions with access control between them, this system also dramatically reduces the number of targets for ROP attacks (since now ROP can only use the current - active - region instead of the entire code space).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42020" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16633" RevisionGUID="1813e8ff-f03f-45ce-8dca-1db313734972" CreationDate="2016-10-26T09:14:32.247" UserId="17819" Text="why is this patent not reference significant previous work?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42021" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16633" RevisionGUID="1813e8ff-f03f-45ce-8dca-1db313734972" CreationDate="2016-10-26T09:14:32.247" UserId="17819" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16634" RevisionGUID="3aca319a-19d1-41e8-9cd1-cc17a404f3ca" CreationDate="2016-10-26T10:13:05.437" UserId="17820" Text="You can try fusion 360 - good for individuals.." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16635" RevisionGUID="ea918bbf-6017-4522-bafc-032365afba43" CreationDate="2016-10-26T10:15:14.463" UserId="17820" Text="How to number the parts in the drawings? is there any tools available for the same for maintaining uniformity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42024" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16635" RevisionGUID="ea918bbf-6017-4522-bafc-032365afba43" CreationDate="2016-10-26T10:15:14.463" UserId="17820" Text="How to number the parts in the drawings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42025" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16635" RevisionGUID="ea918bbf-6017-4522-bafc-032365afba43" CreationDate="2016-10-26T10:15:14.463" UserId="17820" Text="&lt;drawing&gt;&lt;numbering&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16636" RevisionGUID="03a1ddcb-81f0-4ad6-83ee-5475c1d4f967" CreationDate="2016-10-26T14:12:02.007" UserId="17003" Text="An excellent free 3-D drawing tool is [OnShape][1]. It is free and runs within the browser so it works on any computer. Surprisingly capable. You can also generate 2D drawings. Much better than SketchUp for precision drawing. The website provides plenty of tutorials also.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.onshape.com &quot;OnShape&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16637" RevisionGUID="fd0aaa80-609d-44d6-a935-46d7e9317f9a" CreationDate="2016-10-26T14:20:55.490" UserId="17003" Text="No, you can't patent something that has already be invented by someone else. You also do not need a patent to produce a product. You only need to make sure that your product doesn't infringe on existing patents. With regards to umbrellas, many of those patents are probably expired by now and as such free to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see a patent that you think is relevant to a product you want to produce, first thing is to check to see if is issued and then carefully read it. Remember, the claims are what define what is patented. Although they cost money, patent lawyers are an important part of the process. As you are a college student, your college may provide support in this area." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42028" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="0541163b-d597-48af-97c7-840d42602888" CreationDate="2016-10-26T15:23:52.077" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42029" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="6b5126bb-0546-4486-a13e-859542aab00b" CreationDate="2016-10-26T21:28:45.693" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42030" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="2de60866-e93f-4c7b-b53b-7fd889618795" CreationDate="2016-10-26T23:33:33.713" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42032" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7693" RevisionGUID="5b1ba0c8-22da-4e18-aeee-7082beeade7a" CreationDate="2016-10-27T09:46:21.300" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42033" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4993" RevisionGUID="1a82aa5e-1e2f-4c66-bb25-ab0dcb1077cb" CreationDate="2016-10-27T12:51:21.543" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42037" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12072" RevisionGUID="3c6c2a85-a4de-469b-9340-e52d7471cb0c" CreationDate="2016-10-27T14:51:21.793" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42038" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10744" RevisionGUID="a4e69ca6-85f4-45f1-ae56-82f33bcb7d3a" CreationDate="2016-10-27T17:52:46.780" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42039" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12070" RevisionGUID="1ed2b146-58b9-4805-b471-2c400095aaa1" CreationDate="2016-10-27T18:52:46.273" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42040" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14601" RevisionGUID="dded738c-56da-4492-affa-821354b635c6" CreationDate="2016-10-27T21:54:28.500" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42041" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7765" RevisionGUID="0129e9ab-455d-4ea0-a182-38095327b745" CreationDate="2016-10-27T22:54:31.837" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42042" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16491" RevisionGUID="0ccc81c5-70b5-4267-a11b-aedc393b2c9a" CreationDate="2016-10-27T23:54:27.337" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42046" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="65f2d355-424f-4868-86d8-840ecff67efe" CreationDate="2016-10-28T04:01:54.023" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42051" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13870" RevisionGUID="adb8495a-e23b-4e1a-90e5-a376a3ecbfee" CreationDate="2016-10-28T19:15:27.453" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42052" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16340" RevisionGUID="133c3ee6-d797-4ec5-9e6a-bb09374e12b9" CreationDate="2016-10-28T20:19:47.750" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42055" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10643" RevisionGUID="1b2544dd-e3b9-44a4-9090-8a9fe30528e9" CreationDate="2016-10-29T01:26:30.323" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42056" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="5b768f08-bbdd-4f28-b7a5-77383f81df14" CreationDate="2016-10-29T03:34:22.447" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42057" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="2d3ffd4f-0891-4f99-b5ab-f3f826d88487" CreationDate="2016-10-29T04:34:22.127" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42058" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14943" RevisionGUID="b47f9425-14e0-46a1-a707-60449b6ea432" CreationDate="2016-10-29T05:34:26.407" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42059" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14200" RevisionGUID="5dd6dc9b-b98a-49fb-89fd-d79fe740070b" CreationDate="2016-10-29T07:34:26.173" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42060" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="c977700b-a502-43ff-ab07-dfc6c13ee13c" CreationDate="2016-10-29T08:34:26.393" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42061" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16363" RevisionGUID="ecc58c1a-e063-430e-b8bb-35b4bcbe735c" CreationDate="2016-10-29T09:34:26.217" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42062" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16225" RevisionGUID="3dfce3ef-af65-4604-b8b2-1ce4c5b1ed1e" CreationDate="2016-10-29T10:34:26.080" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42063" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16217" RevisionGUID="6c963954-435a-4dca-9b53-8505f61133cd" CreationDate="2016-10-29T12:34:29.873" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42064" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12832" RevisionGUID="cd4ecd8c-29ea-493c-9ac4-0caaf17c051c" CreationDate="2016-10-29T13:34:29.673" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42065" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14807" RevisionGUID="79396905-cc79-49f0-96aa-4bb3c3c17f07" CreationDate="2016-10-29T14:34:30.927" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42066" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14934" RevisionGUID="1bdd7473-ea09-4e66-b74f-451692bca107" CreationDate="2016-10-29T15:34:31.370" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42071" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16365" RevisionGUID="915e7586-309a-4ad4-882c-5e4c844d2b77" CreationDate="2016-10-29T20:39:36.520" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42072" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13556" RevisionGUID="7fd02dba-7bb2-497a-a347-3a8054ef8fcc" CreationDate="2016-10-29T21:39:36.127" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42073" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="3097aeba-4ab2-47fd-a044-b3d240f044d1" CreationDate="2016-10-29T22:39:37.173" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42074" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14724" RevisionGUID="cadbcd4b-0daf-4000-8569-ca97d0babc57" CreationDate="2016-10-29T23:39:41.800" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42075" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14820" RevisionGUID="a1893767-d36b-492e-be1b-27ef577b6281" CreationDate="2016-10-30T00:39:42.043" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42076" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13861" RevisionGUID="83ea40e5-9b06-4ecd-85d1-8c3a691c5a3b" CreationDate="2016-10-30T01:39:42.200" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42077" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14621" RevisionGUID="a48b0d05-e460-402a-a241-d4bafb0d8018" CreationDate="2016-10-30T02:40:17.103" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42078" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16178" RevisionGUID="9f0574b0-eebe-421b-8e3d-f81e5c7efe20" CreationDate="2016-10-30T03:40:39.630" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42079" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16048" RevisionGUID="73d34220-3c27-4a5e-ad80-62b64490c314" CreationDate="2016-10-30T04:40:40.233" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42080" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14032" RevisionGUID="98a47e2a-e67a-4791-bfd1-31092428f164" CreationDate="2016-10-30T05:40:45.557" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42081" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5844" RevisionGUID="0ab7f454-3ed0-46ce-b5bc-3eeea2bd40ce" CreationDate="2016-10-30T06:40:44.900" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42082" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="ee888938-9b5f-4639-b53c-21e86837eb7b" CreationDate="2016-10-30T13:45:07.760" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16642" RevisionGUID="484891ad-53aa-41ec-94a9-e32396c57061" CreationDate="2016-10-30T21:10:13.037" UserId="17325" Text="In general, the applicant chooses to present prior art which he considers closest to his work. At least in Europe, this is the trend and if the applicant fails to cite what the examiner thinks is the closest one, eventually he will have to incorporate it if he wants to see his patent getting granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of this patent application, both the US and the european examiner cited prior art which consisted only of patents/patent applications, no academic-related sources. The reference you are citing is proceedings from a conference. If those proceedings are not incorporated in any kind of database, it's unlikely that the examiner can spot it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you believe it's highly relevant and you have good reasons to stress this out, you can definitely make a third-party observation with the EPO proceedings, either anonymously or not. It's more useful when the patent is still pending (it's still an application). It's fairly easy and I can explain how to, if you want to do it. For US it's more complex, I think you have only six months from the publication of the US application to submit observations (and examiners are not so keen, as the european ones, to take a look into them) and I can see many US patents granted within the family of the application you are citing. And I am not sure if you need a US patent attorney for submitting observations with the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said I suggest you add a tab with &quot;third-party observations&quot; if you want to receive more answers.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16643" RevisionGUID="6159a76f-8509-43c2-b136-acf3197e4a36" CreationDate="2016-10-30T21:51:06.653" UserId="17843" Text="If a Patent has expired due to non-payment of fees and is almost 30 years old, can we apply for a similar patent (not a copy) as we have a similar idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42085" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16643" RevisionGUID="6159a76f-8509-43c2-b136-acf3197e4a36" CreationDate="2016-10-30T21:51:06.653" UserId="17843" Text="Expired Patent can we apply for a new patent with similar idea" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42086" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16643" RevisionGUID="6159a76f-8509-43c2-b136-acf3197e4a36" CreationDate="2016-10-30T21:51:06.653" UserId="17843" Text="&lt;expired-patent&gt;&lt;expired&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42087" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16193" RevisionGUID="ac52fa02-da1f-46ac-bfea-08f7eee132b7" CreationDate="2016-10-30T21:59:40.943" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42088" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13986" RevisionGUID="2be4967c-862f-42f3-bccf-a7e527fa6e15" CreationDate="2016-10-30T22:59:40.797" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42089" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10545" RevisionGUID="04f267b5-4aea-41bd-a65d-4f6bad32dde3" CreationDate="2016-10-30T23:59:42.017" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42090" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14322" RevisionGUID="63ab2ac5-f771-4346-b893-7f3cb1609962" CreationDate="2016-10-31T00:59:42.880" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42095" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16348" RevisionGUID="cfabbb80-acb7-4599-81ac-e99234ca0711" CreationDate="2016-10-31T08:04:50.863" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42096" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12621" RevisionGUID="f8a61961-99b0-4e55-837e-24e14acf6579" CreationDate="2016-10-31T09:04:48.590" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42097" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13260" RevisionGUID="01496ff9-efcc-4d9b-9305-c5d2fc66bcc3" CreationDate="2016-10-31T10:04:48.797" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42098" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13794" RevisionGUID="572ab27c-479e-4032-9997-3051b89966c2" CreationDate="2016-10-31T11:04:48.143" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42099" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16505" RevisionGUID="1a80a09d-98d9-419c-80b2-ac56f3b4a99e" CreationDate="2016-10-31T12:04:48.497" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16645" RevisionGUID="88a27630-ca51-47ef-b902-0314c133b540" CreationDate="2016-10-31T12:28:20.513" UserId="17846" Text="I found a website (C-DAC) in India that performs prior art searches for free. But, you have to live in India to register and request for a search. Are there any other prior art search services for free? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42101" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16645" RevisionGUID="88a27630-ca51-47ef-b902-0314c133b540" CreationDate="2016-10-31T12:28:20.513" UserId="17846" Text="Are there any free prior art search services?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42102" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16645" RevisionGUID="88a27630-ca51-47ef-b902-0314c133b540" CreationDate="2016-10-31T12:28:20.513" UserId="17846" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42103" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="f840bf01-93c0-4960-ada4-1989c1ad2a79" CreationDate="2016-10-31T13:06:53.113" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42104" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12610" RevisionGUID="1ec52a3c-d70f-4ee7-ae78-78eaf2d9b9ba" CreationDate="2016-10-31T14:06:52.693" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42105" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12107" RevisionGUID="9bcc4bfc-ec65-4257-8f3c-9a6149f92e22" CreationDate="2016-10-31T15:06:53.013" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16646" RevisionGUID="c77e8526-87c2-498b-a366-7eb8f1485d61" CreationDate="2016-10-31T17:11:10.230" UserId="17849" Text="You cannot take any action until your patent has been granted. &#xD;&#xA;By 'knock-off' do you mean the idea was stolen from you? Did they start manufacturing after your patent 'priority date'? &#xD;&#xA;If you applied for a provisional patent (and linked your patent application to provisional), did they start manufacturing after the priority date of this provisional patent? &#xD;&#xA;If yes, you can take legal action against them, once your patent is granted. &#xD;&#xA;If no, you should have listed the 'knock-off' as your prior art - and considering how similar the product is to your patent description - your patent may not be granted. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16647" RevisionGUID="b0b8300d-1db4-45d3-a7bf-477f7d509326" CreationDate="2016-10-31T17:16:57.777" UserId="17849" Text="patents.google.com has an 'find Prior art' button. Have you tried it? &#xD;&#xA;It doesn't do the best job but it provides helpful first steps. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42111" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13528" RevisionGUID="6169e440-747b-4e9c-847e-52ec7ee45e7b" CreationDate="2016-10-31T19:07:09.770" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16649" RevisionGUID="91f3903a-19e2-4bcd-ada1-24c5b09d202e" CreationDate="2016-10-31T20:58:31.980" UserId="17851" Text="Patent idea needs to be unique isn't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42116" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13537" RevisionGUID="ff8757f4-df2a-4492-8756-812533ba8a23" CreationDate="2016-10-31T21:17:46.887" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16651" RevisionGUID="c9536041-a0b6-4921-9e7c-02e5affb5953" CreationDate="2016-10-31T21:38:25.943" UserId="17003" Text="It really depends on whether your similar idea has new, non-obvious idea as part of it. If so, you might be able to get patent coverage for the new and presumably improved part. What is covered by the expired patent is available to be used by anyone without licensing and your new patent wouldn't change that. You should, however, perform a search of similar patents since someone else may have patented you &quot;similar&quot; idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42122" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7833" RevisionGUID="9fd27743-5c14-4b78-9653-57add1bcbffe" CreationDate="2016-10-31T23:17:47.700" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42131" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13171" RevisionGUID="47238cf1-d87a-49f1-8d5c-6b28b38a436f" CreationDate="2016-11-01T08:27:53.270" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42132" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10041" RevisionGUID="67d324e3-5e26-4ce7-82b5-9d9ad2665e60" CreationDate="2016-11-01T09:30:53.993" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16654" RevisionGUID="bfc7aec6-4a28-4479-b30e-cc965b404e59" CreationDate="2016-11-01T10:09:40.063" UserId="17848" Text="I am the inventor of a live patent application which has been altered by the owner of the patent against my wishes. If I withdraw my name from the patent application will this stop the patent going forward?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42134" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16654" RevisionGUID="bfc7aec6-4a28-4479-b30e-cc965b404e59" CreationDate="2016-11-01T10:09:40.063" UserId="17848" Text="Patent details changed without consent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42135" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16654" RevisionGUID="bfc7aec6-4a28-4479-b30e-cc965b404e59" CreationDate="2016-11-01T10:09:40.063" UserId="17848" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42136" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10559" RevisionGUID="8bce59d8-60cf-4c0f-8b6d-cba91f6f4eb3" CreationDate="2016-11-01T13:30:58.323" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16655" RevisionGUID="611c3d4f-f480-4555-8043-f28496700e96" CreationDate="2016-11-01T21:42:21.743" UserId="15503" Text="Unfortunately, there is likely nothing you can do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An inventor has no influence over a patent application, once they have assigned away their rights.  Moreover, there is no facility for an inventor to withdraw their name, except on the grounds that they are not actually an inventor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42138" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="1fb1517f-ff9e-45fb-987b-b51bbabab3cf" CreationDate="2016-11-01T21:52:43.647" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42139" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14937" RevisionGUID="2f5f57e0-6681-4cad-a1db-bb4dd8dfa696" CreationDate="2016-11-01T22:52:45.167" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16651" RevisionGUID="06608185-0819-478b-bae9-9df4c0e655c7" CreationDate="2016-11-01T23:02:51.400" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="It really depends on whether your similar idea has new, non-obvious idea as part of it. If so, you might be able to get patent coverage for the new and presumably improved part. What is covered by the expired patent is available to be used by anyone without licensing and your new patent wouldn't change that. You should, however, perform a search of similar patents since someone else may have patented your &quot;similar&quot; idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16657" RevisionGUID="eb51f9e0-d00d-47e3-9cc5-319414f90c99" CreationDate="2016-11-02T09:40:57.810" UserId="17325" Text="The answer you are looking for is not straightforward. Where was this patent application filed? Countries (and regional treaties, like the EPO or WIPO) have different rules for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For patents filed with the EPO, the consent of the wrongly designated person is required for corrections, except for the case where another inventor is added. The applicant must consent too, in all cases. See Guidelines for Examination, EPO, 2016, Part A, Chapter III/5.6 at&#xD;&#xA;http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/index.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not familiar with US rules. If you refer to a US patent application put a relevant tag to your question, maybe someone US-based will pick it up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42149" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14517" RevisionGUID="0189ef4b-7d39-437f-9a88-27a78b2efb61" CreationDate="2016-11-02T16:15:51.293" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16658" RevisionGUID="6e41e5f4-6775-46e5-a7e8-9ad5a7b7b7e2" CreationDate="2016-11-02T16:56:30.247" UserId="17862" Text="In reference to the patent: [EP2877714A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP2877714A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where can I find the figures the patent referes to?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42151" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16658" RevisionGUID="6e41e5f4-6775-46e5-a7e8-9ad5a7b7b7e2" CreationDate="2016-11-02T16:56:30.247" UserId="17862" Text="Figures of the patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42152" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16658" RevisionGUID="6e41e5f4-6775-46e5-a7e8-9ad5a7b7b7e2" CreationDate="2016-11-02T16:56:30.247" UserId="17862" Text="&lt;patent-figures&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16659" RevisionGUID="ca8beba2-48c3-45fc-9b13-7c24fc3256a5" CreationDate="2016-11-02T17:31:18.233" UserId="15741" Text="1. On the page you linked, at the top right, you should see a box with some meta-information about the article. It includes a section called &quot;External Links&quot; which includes a link called &quot;Espacenet&quot;.  Click that link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. On the left side of the resulting Espacenet page you should see a link called &quot;Mosaics&quot;.  Click that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. You should now be able to see the figures. Here's a direct link:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/mosaics?CC=EP&amp;NR=2877714A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=20150603&amp;DB=&amp;locale=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16660" RevisionGUID="016aed5e-0523-4490-a99a-d7e048feb776" CreationDate="2016-11-02T17:35:38.563" UserId="15741" Text="The drawings you are looking for are at the following link: &#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/mosaics?CC=DE&amp;NR=202005010768U1&amp;KC=U1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=20051006&amp;DB=&amp;locale=&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42155" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14508" RevisionGUID="fc335a19-0e42-4e80-aa93-7b01a7f89979" CreationDate="2016-11-03T01:15:54.390" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42156" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10378" RevisionGUID="73c7bc21-e221-41b4-b8a4-8bfd9c6b69d8" CreationDate="2016-11-03T13:21:06.070" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42157" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15998" RevisionGUID="f7d9f800-c93a-4b05-a772-b4f6ae0aced6" CreationDate="2016-11-03T14:24:13.787" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42158" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="6d28ecd4-3eb9-4c7f-9330-066cacba3387" CreationDate="2016-11-03T17:24:14.603" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42159" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13359" RevisionGUID="121f8a07-857a-455d-97a1-80b1c874d907" CreationDate="2016-11-03T18:26:42.837" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42160" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16509" RevisionGUID="078c1ce4-1b2a-48a0-b506-b4d9ef03090c" CreationDate="2016-11-03T19:35:20.030" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42161" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16251" RevisionGUID="ac78f9a3-8988-4967-9ae3-72b7ddded10b" CreationDate="2016-11-03T20:47:03.397" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42162" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16525" RevisionGUID="5b2f0c57-1685-40d2-b2b9-85bb3522459d" CreationDate="2016-11-03T23:47:16.937" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42164" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="6772f7ca-dc15-4d7c-b3dd-071dd29394d6" CreationDate="2016-11-04T08:47:23.197" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42165" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16392" RevisionGUID="f4d7e5bc-9d2c-478d-9219-f06bc2ad3755" CreationDate="2016-11-04T11:47:40.557" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42166" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="3f09a97a-e9bf-4c1a-838b-6cb095a7ee5f" CreationDate="2016-11-04T12:47:42.653" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42167" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14855" RevisionGUID="3c59d74a-370c-4834-835c-a120e6704f68" CreationDate="2016-11-04T13:47:42.537" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42169" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16645" RevisionGUID="ae8a388f-2d39-44f6-b94f-442e72eec342" CreationDate="2016-11-04T14:22:05.757" UserId="17847" Comment="Use a better tag for the question " Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42170" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16645" RevisionGUID="ae8a388f-2d39-44f6-b94f-442e72eec342" CreationDate="2016-11-04T14:22:05.757" Comment="Proposed by 17847 approved by 15503, 1 edit id of 1974" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42180" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12640" RevisionGUID="a21fac06-9d05-471f-bc83-695b498c8546" CreationDate="2016-11-04T19:51:08.150" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16664" RevisionGUID="f209a0fa-9165-4458-aaa1-e686b8fd5f80" CreationDate="2016-11-04T20:06:06.223" UserId="17872" Text="How difficult it is to revive or renew a patent that has been expired (due to non-payment of maintenance fees) for more than 24 months since the law changed in 2013 (it is my understanding that the unavoidable standard is no longer applicable-http://www.clm.com/publication.cfm?ID=489)? Do they actually inquire into the reason or is similar now to the unintentional delay standard where they will essentially approve it no matter what? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42182" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16664" RevisionGUID="f209a0fa-9165-4458-aaa1-e686b8fd5f80" CreationDate="2016-11-04T20:06:06.223" UserId="17872" Text="Patent Revival After 24 Months Expired (New Law)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42183" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16664" RevisionGUID="f209a0fa-9165-4458-aaa1-e686b8fd5f80" CreationDate="2016-11-04T20:06:06.223" UserId="17872" Text="&lt;maintenance&gt;&lt;revive-patent&gt;&lt;unintentional&gt;&lt;unavoidable&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42184" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11943" RevisionGUID="c0911cda-33e0-4149-bf0f-6ac3d0b2cce5" CreationDate="2016-11-04T20:51:29.370" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16665" RevisionGUID="fece05a2-a7f6-4556-9ab9-db0786d923da" CreationDate="2016-11-04T21:21:50.223" UserId="17872" Text="How are intervening rights (after the 6 mo. grace period) established if we are pursuing business activities using an expired patent (expired for nonpayment of maintenance fees) assuming the patent holder may attempt to renew or revive the patent we are using in our business? What do we have to do to get these rights? If we get these rights and the patent holder revives the patent do we have rights to use the patent for our business forever?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42186" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16665" RevisionGUID="fece05a2-a7f6-4556-9ab9-db0786d923da" CreationDate="2016-11-04T21:21:50.223" UserId="17872" Text="Intervening Rights" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42187" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16665" RevisionGUID="fece05a2-a7f6-4556-9ab9-db0786d923da" CreationDate="2016-11-04T21:21:50.223" UserId="17872" Text="&lt;revive&gt;&lt;intervening&gt;&lt;rights&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42188" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="ad31922f-7683-4587-a9ce-a04e533ffbc8" CreationDate="2016-11-04T21:51:27.673" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16666" RevisionGUID="170e96c4-5eb7-45e5-bda5-a1acb4fee642" CreationDate="2016-11-05T02:54:18.627" UserId="17873" Text="I want to know how I can find out if US6506148 is a real patent or a hoax?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is currently my first attempt to answer my question. I have not looked or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;searched anywhere else.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42193" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16666" RevisionGUID="170e96c4-5eb7-45e5-bda5-a1acb4fee642" CreationDate="2016-11-05T02:54:18.627" UserId="17873" Text="Is US6506148 a real patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42194" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16666" RevisionGUID="170e96c4-5eb7-45e5-bda5-a1acb4fee642" CreationDate="2016-11-05T02:54:18.627" UserId="17873" Text="&lt;us6506148&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42195" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11951" RevisionGUID="5ffa80f6-5c18-4cd3-929f-73b8ae682ac2" CreationDate="2016-11-05T04:21:47.603" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42196" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12990" RevisionGUID="a489401a-219a-4cee-be19-04a8fbdd7000" CreationDate="2016-11-05T06:21:47.260" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42198" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16056" RevisionGUID="504ff3e9-d67c-4087-8289-41fbe6b4ad33" CreationDate="2016-11-05T07:21:48.617" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42199" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16083" RevisionGUID="405f9e93-723f-4c94-89e4-57d64cb14b19" CreationDate="2016-11-05T08:23:23.323" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42200" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9885" RevisionGUID="c121ed2a-7b01-4c75-9b42-c8ba8761535a" CreationDate="2016-11-05T11:23:56.183" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42201" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13723" RevisionGUID="63651c8a-8f34-4547-88b9-d8321389cb1e" CreationDate="2016-11-05T12:23:56.627" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42208" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16253" RevisionGUID="a4d6751b-cd67-4483-875b-c9116ec08760" CreationDate="2016-11-05T22:27:44.320" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42209" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="a40339e5-8221-4272-a691-75199160f1e9" CreationDate="2016-11-06T00:28:05.937" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42210" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16510" RevisionGUID="82df3852-68eb-4677-939e-42659c660008" CreationDate="2016-11-06T01:28:05.100" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42214" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14632" RevisionGUID="d221683a-0deb-4602-90c2-a5d847e6a3df" CreationDate="2016-11-06T02:31:37.093" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42217" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14061" RevisionGUID="e9734a17-6961-44f6-a0fe-606620474b4f" CreationDate="2016-11-06T03:36:21.757" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42218" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13939" RevisionGUID="558ac81f-afe4-4fd7-88de-0b786691155e" CreationDate="2016-11-06T12:44:50.260" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16671" RevisionGUID="8a8d0a07-e6f1-45bd-8c00-45d8d1fdd3b3" CreationDate="2016-11-06T15:45:03.880" UserId="17883" Text="The pencil and erase combination was ruled not patentable as neither function operated differently when combined. I always thought this overlooked the convenience of the operator and that their hand did not have to leave the paper to correct a mistake. &#xD;&#xA;This had nothing to do with whether or not combining the two was obvious as I think the Supreme Court simply said there was nothing new." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42221" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16544" RevisionGUID="f77127e0-8c7f-43e9-8361-d0adf9f8c9b7" CreationDate="2016-11-06T21:57:45.773" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42222" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="ef54bd2f-0760-4539-8a0c-8678e83e2037" CreationDate="2016-11-06T23:01:43.143" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42223" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13762" RevisionGUID="6be5c635-b471-4e6e-8f2e-a8a923b75cb6" CreationDate="2016-11-07T00:07:55.360" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42224" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16519" RevisionGUID="6d816faa-3848-40c6-ad4b-cd64c37bb258" CreationDate="2016-11-07T01:07:56.107" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42226" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="ac508f93-fc8b-42ca-bcc2-e7733d18b7b8" CreationDate="2016-11-07T05:13:01.410" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16672" RevisionGUID="958f229b-35d5-4499-9d20-324dadb28387" CreationDate="2016-11-07T07:45:45.747" UserId="17886" Text="I participated in a hackathon which was held at a top tech company around five years ago. We were all students back then, and they liked our idea so much they offered us internships to finish it. We ended up working there as interns over the summer, developing our idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually, the internship has ended and the company submitted a patent on our system. We didn't get any compensation or incentives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my answer is - does it matter? will you sue a major tech company? We thought of this option, but this is a bureaucratic nightmare.&#xD;&#xA;If you have a good idea you think is worth don't present it in any hackathon. Even if you did end up patenting it yourself, the hosting company might ask for royalties." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42228" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13276" RevisionGUID="4f2f3553-2392-4bf3-be2a-2fa584dee2d1" CreationDate="2016-11-07T09:13:13.950" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42232" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16274" RevisionGUID="b832100b-9fb2-4ce3-bc32-e858eee06c14" CreationDate="2016-11-07T10:14:26.860" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42233" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13601" RevisionGUID="d6c7a392-f056-4f7c-9bff-5c26e87b71e8" CreationDate="2016-11-07T12:14:28.833" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42235" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14699" RevisionGUID="53eedbff-01c5-4ccb-ba4a-d1c70ad6926c" CreationDate="2016-11-07T15:17:03.637" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42236" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10602" RevisionGUID="b348506e-d82d-46c4-a395-c991e3cf7cae" CreationDate="2016-11-07T16:17:25.780" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42237" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16022" RevisionGUID="e82f9408-dff8-42c7-9303-61c5b5ecb2be" CreationDate="2016-11-07T18:17:44.960" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42241" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5897" RevisionGUID="833ab406-a8a6-4d4b-b8a7-6cb0a42af223" CreationDate="2016-11-07T19:25:46.590" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16675" RevisionGUID="4100028c-aa41-4b49-bf69-298d4e0776a4" CreationDate="2016-11-07T19:38:57.663" UserId="14038" Text="If you are submitting a patent application to the U.S. Patent Office, then according to the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 608(p):&#xD;&#xA;(1) Reference characters (numerals are preferred), sheet numbers, and view numbers must be plain and legible, and must not be used in association with brackets or inverted commas, or enclosed within outlines, e.g., encircled. They must be oriented in the same direction as the view so as to avoid having to rotate the sheet. Reference characters should be arranged to follow the profile of the object depicted.&#xD;&#xA;(2) The English alphabet must be used for letters, except where another alphabet is customarily used, such as the Greek alphabet to indicate angles, wavelengths, and mathematical formulas.&#xD;&#xA;(3) Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct.&#xD;&#xA;(4) The same part of an invention appearing in more than one view of the drawing must always be designated by the same reference character, and the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.&#xD;&#xA;(5) Reference characters not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings. Reference characters mentioned in the description must appear in the drawings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, while not required, it is customary to group numbers relative to the description in the disclosure so that someone reviewing the patent does not have to jump around the disclosure and the drawings to understand the subject matter being disclosed.  Personally, I use even numbers for reference purposes.  That allows me to come back later to use an odd number if I had forgotten to label a feature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent Offices in other countries may have differing requirements.  I would refer to their websites or contact them directly for more information.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42243" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14366" RevisionGUID="35b601f6-434c-40f3-9269-50663668f4dc" CreationDate="2016-11-07T20:25:45.540" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42245" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14697" RevisionGUID="d7ad4cc7-fce8-44a1-b978-03a4342322f6" CreationDate="2016-11-08T00:27:21.800" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16676" RevisionGUID="74664a21-d0bd-4172-8c0d-ccc9eab0fc30" CreationDate="2016-11-08T03:52:16.347" UserId="17893" Text="I noticed that the patent for solidifying forms with cremated ash such as in ceramics, glass, or paint, has lapsed due to non-payment. Does that mean that I can purchase the rights to the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42248" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16676" RevisionGUID="74664a21-d0bd-4172-8c0d-ccc9eab0fc30" CreationDate="2016-11-08T03:52:16.347" UserId="17893" Text="Assuming a lapsed patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42249" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16676" RevisionGUID="74664a21-d0bd-4172-8c0d-ccc9eab0fc30" CreationDate="2016-11-08T03:52:16.347" UserId="17893" Text="&lt;lapsed-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16677" RevisionGUID="5e4fd783-1b0f-498b-b358-eb6370d90631" CreationDate="2016-11-08T06:54:06.547" UserId="17325" Text="If a patent has lapsed, there are no rights available anymore. In order for the patent rights to be available, one has to pay the annual fees." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42252" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14409" RevisionGUID="85b4fefe-7ba8-4247-84fb-4ef59e2a70f3" CreationDate="2016-11-08T09:39:33.307" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42253" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14355" RevisionGUID="8c73c45c-96d6-4552-a0af-f626851a1489" CreationDate="2016-11-08T10:49:22.473" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42254" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16069" RevisionGUID="3a9fc321-a762-4879-8067-1b8b85954c04" CreationDate="2016-11-08T11:49:21.730" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16678" RevisionGUID="2bf35429-856e-4945-8110-991e9d479f29" CreationDate="2016-11-08T19:19:22.713" UserId="17895" Text="I have been given the task of checking the most recent patents of our competitors for infringement. I must say I am not a specialist in patents but I mostly enjoy the learning experience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of our competitors has changed the structure of independent claims in recent years. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the past, they used to briefly describe the device and new elements followed certain keywords, such as &quot;wherein...&quot; in English and &quot;dadurch gekennzeichnet...&quot; or &quot;wobei...&quot; in German. This made it easy for a non-specialist to understand what is claimed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the new structure the device is described in more detail in the claim, containing the description of the various combined elements and their function/characteristics/positions, while the innovation is buried somewhere in there, i.e. no keywords are used now. Example:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A device A with characteristics G to perform function K;&#xD;&#xA;a plurality of elements B with characteristics/positions H for function L;&#xD;&#xA;a plurality of elements C with characteristics/positions I for function M;&#xD;&#xA;...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am just having a bit of trouble explaining to my boss &quot;what exactly is patented&quot;. We can see what is novel but I do not know if this is what is truly claimed. If I understand correctly:&#xD;&#xA;-the claim concerns the combination of the different elements, regardless of what is new and what is old - everything must exist for a patent to be infringed&#xD;&#xA;-it is the reader's / the examiner's job to figure out where the novelty lies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you please comment on the correctness of my interpretation? Is there an advantage for this structure in comparison to the previous one? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope my question is understandable and I apologise for my oversimplified examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42256" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16678" RevisionGUID="2bf35429-856e-4945-8110-991e9d479f29" CreationDate="2016-11-08T19:19:22.713" UserId="17895" Text="Independent claim construction - &quot;Missing&quot; keywords" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42257" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16678" RevisionGUID="2bf35429-856e-4945-8110-991e9d479f29" CreationDate="2016-11-08T19:19:22.713" UserId="17895" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16679" RevisionGUID="536ae325-9d7a-4c0c-b92e-bdf3ed4a3f50" CreationDate="2016-11-08T19:54:42.890" UserId="17896" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20160304516][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20160304516&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why are figures missing and PDF unavailable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42259" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16679" RevisionGUID="536ae325-9d7a-4c0c-b92e-bdf3ed4a3f50" CreationDate="2016-11-08T19:54:42.890" UserId="17896" Text="Figures are missing from referenced patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42260" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16679" RevisionGUID="536ae325-9d7a-4c0c-b92e-bdf3ed4a3f50" CreationDate="2016-11-08T19:54:42.890" UserId="17896" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42261" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="8650248b-ea87-46d6-8e58-d9874ebaaba8" CreationDate="2016-11-08T19:56:04.490" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42262" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13934" RevisionGUID="0af4f55c-d739-4558-b4f5-d0fece20fce4" CreationDate="2016-11-08T20:57:47.887" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16680" RevisionGUID="b407116a-ab4e-48e2-ab1b-ac1f85ecde31" CreationDate="2016-11-08T21:11:03.017" UserId="15503" Text="What you are describing is essentially the difference between two philosophies of patent claiming: an Anglo-Saxon one and a Germanic one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More formally, there are two styles of claims: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. one-part form (the usual form in the US and UK-derived jurisdictions); and &#xD;&#xA; 2. two-part form (the usual form in Europe).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Two-part form**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two-part form (also called German-style claiming or a Jepson claim) is where the known portion of the claim is separated from the novel portion by a particular phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is particularly wide-spread in Europe, where it is mandatory. That is, [EPC r 43(1)](https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/r43.html) provides that claims shall contain:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a) a statement indicating the designation of the subject-matter of the invention and those technical features which are necessary for the definition of the claimed subject-matter but which, in combination, form part of the prior art; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(b) a characterising portion, beginning with the expression &quot;characterised in that&quot; or &quot;characterised by&quot; and specifying the technical features for which, in combination with the features stated under sub-paragraph (a), protection is sought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The magic words are &quot;dadurch gekennzeichnet&quot; or &quot;gekennzeichnet durch&quot; in German and &quot;caractérisé en&quot; or &quot;caractérisé par&quot; in French.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So an example two-part form claim would be:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a known first widget; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a known second widget;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;characterised in that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;the second widget is placed on the first widget in a novel way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US, [37 CFR 1.75(e)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.75) actually mandates two-part form, using the phrase &quot;wherein the improvement comprises&quot;. However, as a practical matter, everybody ignores this rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**One-part form**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any claim that is not in two-part form is in one-part form. In a one-part form claim, the novel features are intermixed with the known features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So an example one-part form claim would be:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a known first widget; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a known second widget placed on the first widget in a novel way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Advantages of two-part form**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea behind two-part form is that it allows the reader to easily determine what the applicant thinks is novel. This can lead to the examination process being more targetted on the improvement, and therefore potentially higher quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Disadvantages of two-part form (or advantages of one-part form)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some claims do not lend themselves to two-part form easily. This would be most notable in a method claim, if the novel bit is in the middle. Two-part form would lead to the method steps being presented out-of-order (or at least to some awkward circumlocution).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even where you could use two-part form: why would you want a reader to know what you think is novel? This just makes your competitor's job easier, for negligible personal benefit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This latter point is particularly striking in the US, where the preamble is treated as admitted prior art. If you get it wrong, there can be some pretty dire consequences. This is one of the key reasons why, despite the mandate in the rules, few US drafters would use a Jepson claim. In contrast, in Europe the preamble is not binding, and is just treated as a hint to the reader. If you get it wrong, the consequences are mild.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are perhaps seeing this effect in real life: while the earlier claims in two-part form are easy to understand, the later claims in one-part form require much more work, and even then are somewhat uncertain — surely exactly how you want your competitors to be." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16680" RevisionGUID="c801d919-4f3d-4500-9564-bc68dbae0aa8" CreationDate="2016-11-08T22:26:08.997" UserId="15503" Comment="added 256 characters in body" Text="What you are describing is essentially the difference between two philosophies of patent claiming: an Anglo-Saxon one and a Germanic one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More formally, there are two styles of claims: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. one-part form (the usual form in the US and UK-derived jurisdictions); and &#xD;&#xA; 2. two-part form (the usual form in Europe).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Two-part form**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two-part form (also called German-style claiming or a Jepson claim) is where the known portion of the claim is separated from the novel portion by a particular phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is particularly wide-spread in Europe, where it is mandatory. That is, [EPC r 43(1)](https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/r43.html) provides that claims shall contain:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a) a statement indicating the designation of the subject-matter of the invention and those technical features which are necessary for the definition of the claimed subject-matter but which, in combination, form part of the prior art; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(b) a characterising portion, beginning with the expression &quot;characterised in that&quot; or &quot;characterised by&quot; and specifying the technical features for which, in combination with the features stated under sub-paragraph (a), protection is sought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The magic words are &quot;dadurch gekennzeichnet&quot; or &quot;gekennzeichnet durch&quot; in German and &quot;caractérisé en&quot; or &quot;caractérisé par&quot; in French.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So an example two-part form claim would be:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a known first widget; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a known second widget;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;characterised in that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;the second widget is placed on the first widget in a novel way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US, [37 CFR 1.75(e)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.75) actually mandates two-part form, using the phrase &quot;wherein the improvement comprises&quot;. However, as a practical matter, everybody ignores this rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**One-part form**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any claim that is not in two-part form is in one-part form. In a one-part form claim, the novel features are intermixed with the known features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So an example one-part form claim would be:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a known first widget; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a known second widget placed on the first widget in a novel way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Advantages of two-part form**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea behind two-part form is that it allows the reader to easily determine what the applicant thinks is novel. This can lead to the examination process being more targetted on the improvement, and therefore potentially higher quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Disadvantages of two-part form (or advantages of one-part form)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some claims do not lend themselves to two-part form easily. This would be most notable in a method claim, if the novel bit is in the middle. Two-part form would lead to the method steps being presented out-of-order (or at least to some awkward circumlocution).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even where you could use two-part form: why would you want a reader to know what you think is novel? This just makes your competitor's job easier, for negligible personal benefit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This latter point is particularly striking in the US, where the preamble is treated as admitted prior art. If you get it wrong, there can be some pretty dire consequences. This is one of the key reasons why, despite the mandate in the rules, few US drafters would use a Jepson claim. In contrast, in Europe the preamble is not binding, and is just treated as a hint to the reader. If you get it wrong, the consequences are mild.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are perhaps seeing this effect in real life: while the earlier claims in two-part form are easy to understand, the later claims in one-part form require much more work, and even then are somewhat uncertain — surely exactly how you want your competitors to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Infringement**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The format of the claim has no bearing on whether the claim is infringed. In either case, an infringer must perform all elements of the claim for it to be infringed, even those elements which are in the preamble of a two-part claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42270" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16542" RevisionGUID="ce3425fa-e42a-494c-a84d-9b19d7e09819" CreationDate="2016-11-09T03:58:35.000" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16678" RevisionGUID="59c28a86-8018-4851-8a3f-fc1ef2dbfd0e" CreationDate="2016-11-09T07:07:17.660" UserId="17895" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="I have been given the task of checking the most recent patents of our competitors for infringement. I must say I am not a specialist in patents but I mostly enjoy the learning experience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of our competitors has changed the structure of independent claims in recent years. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the past, they used to briefly describe the device and new elements followed certain keywords, such as &quot;wherein...&quot; in English and &quot;dadurch gekennzeichnet...&quot; or &quot;wobei...&quot; in German. This made it easy for a non-specialist to understand what is claimed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the new structure the device is described in more detail in the claim, containing the description of the various combined elements and their function/characteristics/positions, while the innovation is buried somewhere in there, i.e. no keywords are used now. Example:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A device A with characteristics G to perform function K;&#xD;&#xA;a plurality of elements B with characteristics/positions H for function L;&#xD;&#xA;a plurality of elements C with characteristics/positions I for function M;&#xD;&#xA;...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am just having a bit of trouble explaining to my boss &quot;what exactly is patented&quot;. We can see what is novel but I do not know if this is what is truly claimed. If I understand correctly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the claim concerns the combination of the different elements, regardless of what is new and what is old - everything must exist for a patent to be infringed;&#xD;&#xA; - it is the reader's / the examiner's job to figure out where the novelty lies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you please comment on the correctness of my interpretation? Is there an advantage for this structure in comparison to the previous one? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope my question is understandable and I apologise for my oversimplified examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Edited for readability)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42272" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16078" RevisionGUID="3ea537c1-3114-4035-b4a3-a7a8b12dcd07" CreationDate="2016-11-09T08:06:19.000" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16682" RevisionGUID="2829305d-0159-4c88-a739-844bd3a2987d" CreationDate="2016-11-09T08:59:20.810" UserId="13884" Text="During prior art searches or freedom to operate searches one encounters patent application numbers that have a &quot;(A)&quot; after the number. If you research other publications, of the same invention, or even family trees all that one finds are application numbers that end with &quot;(A)&quot;. Yet if you do a legal status search on some of the application numbers you find that a patent has been granted. There seems to be no ordinary expected valid patent number that ends with a &quot;(B)&quot;. How is this possible?&#xD;&#xA;Regards,&#xD;&#xA;Deon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42274" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16682" RevisionGUID="2829305d-0159-4c88-a739-844bd3a2987d" CreationDate="2016-11-09T08:59:20.810" UserId="13884" Text="Only Application number yet valid is granted" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42275" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16682" RevisionGUID="2829305d-0159-4c88-a739-844bd3a2987d" CreationDate="2016-11-09T08:59:20.810" UserId="13884" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;valid&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16683" RevisionGUID="543be8b4-300a-4df1-bb5d-739fc3d61905" CreationDate="2016-11-09T10:03:30.197" UserId="17325" Text="That's not accurate. For many countries, the number of the patent is followed actually by a &quot;B&quot;. However, it's not a rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You probably come across the &quot;A&quot; publications, because (again for most countries) &quot;A&quot; is used for the patent applications of US, Europe and PCT-applications and those offices are they main tools for databases. And as applications always precedes the grant of the patent, you get &quot;A&quot; documents. I think it's only incidental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, for USA, patent applications are usually cited with their publication number and they look like that: US-yyyy-nnnnnnnnn-A(1) and for patents: US-nnnnnnn-B(2). Note that there are also application numbers, another characteristic of the file (not the document) - rarely used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Europe, Canada, Australia, you have the same (publication) number in all cases, when it's an application you have (number format)+A, for granted patent (number format)+B. For China the old numbering system provided different numbering between applications and patents, now it's like Europe and the like. Japan is also similar to US, different number for applications and patents (here the application number is a better tool).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For PCT applications you will only see &quot;A&quot; publications because a &quot;global&quot; patent system does not exist, all you can do is file the application through this central procedure (PCT) and split it later to countries and regions you are interested in. Those look like that: WO-yyyy-nnnnnn-A(1 or 2 or 3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Letters A and B are named &quot;kind codes&quot; and you can always find out what they stand for in each country by googling it. There you will also find explanations for the one-digit-number following &quot;A&quot; or &quot;B&quot; (A1, A3, B2, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest you use the espacenet platform, which is free and presents the INPADOC patent family in a very comprehensive way. I work with that 80% of my day, when doing FTO work and look across patent families.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/?locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope you find all the above useful, presonally it took me a while to get the picture." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16685" RevisionGUID="86f2aa98-3d49-49ed-bc22-f406b509b490" CreationDate="2016-11-09T17:19:39.507" UserId="17893" Text="I am interested in applying for a patent and found a similar one that has lapsed. May I apply for mine as a new one even though it is similar?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42279" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16685" RevisionGUID="86f2aa98-3d49-49ed-bc22-f406b509b490" CreationDate="2016-11-09T17:19:39.507" UserId="17893" Text="Applying for a patent after one has lapsed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42280" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16685" RevisionGUID="86f2aa98-3d49-49ed-bc22-f406b509b490" CreationDate="2016-11-09T17:19:39.507" UserId="17893" Text="&lt;lapsed-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42281" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14868" RevisionGUID="74b0a4b6-aea7-48cd-8c97-9d1795e5ef1d" CreationDate="2016-11-09T17:21:35.883" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42282" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="b7c8448e-5eee-4814-bb6c-86723b2d8562" CreationDate="2016-11-09T18:21:35.733" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42283" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16090" RevisionGUID="34922221-9d2a-4afa-8875-b715e1bb7e05" CreationDate="2016-11-09T20:21:37.730" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42284" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14635" RevisionGUID="47d50cd0-dab1-478c-8f82-0d4bf3793e03" CreationDate="2016-11-09T21:21:37.603" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42285" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14266" RevisionGUID="7d096cda-a571-4c11-a9ca-a04a6721f05f" CreationDate="2016-11-09T22:21:40.877" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42286" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14833" RevisionGUID="a4948829-6167-4e8b-8a41-8c0e9f597658" CreationDate="2016-11-09T23:21:43.670" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42287" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16096" RevisionGUID="48d6d36b-9ad2-4289-9c12-acbfb293b19e" CreationDate="2016-11-10T00:21:46.117" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42288" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14831" RevisionGUID="1b67a494-7c99-449c-a9c6-43fb403476a5" CreationDate="2016-11-10T01:21:45.953" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42289" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="9a87ab59-8d37-4074-99ec-13b1b6a2204d" CreationDate="2016-11-10T02:28:27.053" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42290" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10796" RevisionGUID="1eb27564-b950-4bc3-ba7d-c82cbbc887a2" CreationDate="2016-11-10T03:28:37.817" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16686" RevisionGUID="e2807d57-4d2f-47fd-aea5-c17da200ea5d" CreationDate="2016-11-10T06:42:11.667" UserId="17325" Text="Some Google issue maybe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Click on the Espacenet link (next to the USPTO). It will open you the Espacenet platform with the US patent application and its relevant patent family. Choose &quot;original document&quot; and then &quot;download&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Espacenet is supported by the EPO (European Patent Office). I am a great fan!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42293" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="2065cc7a-d9ef-4628-ade3-f2ba3a1094e2" CreationDate="2016-11-10T09:35:31.757" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42294" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12753" RevisionGUID="a25f1c30-e896-4989-a06e-3c867b86b34d" CreationDate="2016-11-10T17:39:54.627" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42299" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16124" RevisionGUID="ee2fc086-cfdc-40f7-b964-d1b3f19be83e" CreationDate="2016-11-10T23:42:27.237" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42315" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15983" RevisionGUID="4293c83f-fc1f-4876-9ce3-bf22456318b7" CreationDate="2016-11-11T03:42:28.620" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42318" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15991" RevisionGUID="bdb45461-d8a6-4e8c-9a40-7fa284c27526" CreationDate="2016-11-11T04:42:28.477" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42319" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16288" RevisionGUID="4e01fa83-d352-4f4e-87bc-dfa96f8d2800" CreationDate="2016-11-11T05:42:29.217" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42329" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16103" RevisionGUID="44222725-21b7-4a26-b932-864cfefdd621" CreationDate="2016-11-11T14:00:48.073" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42337" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13614" RevisionGUID="be70582b-33d5-47db-a74d-a74e6446c88a" CreationDate="2016-11-11T22:05:12.997" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42348" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14785" RevisionGUID="94c301ae-5cca-419c-9339-27d1dc88fa1c" CreationDate="2016-11-12T03:06:02.120" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42349" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14881" RevisionGUID="23c1f57a-edeb-4665-8d15-465280f353fd" CreationDate="2016-11-12T04:10:15.873" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16696" RevisionGUID="76d55bf2-2d4c-48f1-a5a0-d8e72610aaf8" CreationDate="2016-11-12T07:39:57.487" UserId="17932" Text="I do not know to much about this domain. Bud if I want to register a photography made by mine, I need a patent for it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42351" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16696" RevisionGUID="76d55bf2-2d4c-48f1-a5a0-d8e72610aaf8" CreationDate="2016-11-12T07:39:57.487" UserId="17932" Text="Does a photography need a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42352" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16696" RevisionGUID="76d55bf2-2d4c-48f1-a5a0-d8e72610aaf8" CreationDate="2016-11-12T07:39:57.487" UserId="17932" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42353" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12909" RevisionGUID="a2b206a7-f5c6-435b-bb56-67c6bd0cbe1a" CreationDate="2016-11-12T11:10:31.150" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16698" RevisionGUID="e5cb42c3-a766-486f-824b-dfc50ec8bf72" CreationDate="2016-11-12T14:13:45.287" UserId="17003" Text="Copyright is what you are looking for. Patents are for inventions. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16700" RevisionGUID="194db340-fe00-49dc-bd68-4cc40e409c18" CreationDate="2016-11-13T04:24:50.883" UserId="17939" Text="What can I do to someone who stole my idea and patented it? He stole this idea from me when I let him live with me while he was separated from his wife. Knowing that I didn't have the money to hire a patent lawyer he went behind my back and with the help of his mom's money patented my idea. He then tried to get me to sign a document stating that he alone conceived of it but I wouldn't sign it which made him very mad. I do have copies that I printed out, of a conversation on Facebook that we had where he basically admits that I conceived of this idea. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42366" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16700" RevisionGUID="194db340-fe00-49dc-bd68-4cc40e409c18" CreationDate="2016-11-13T04:24:50.883" UserId="17939" Text="What can I do to someone who stole my idea and patented it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42367" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16700" RevisionGUID="194db340-fe00-49dc-bd68-4cc40e409c18" CreationDate="2016-11-13T04:24:50.883" UserId="17939" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;legal&gt;&lt;protection&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="f92e5e23-6bdf-4d6b-8c72-649c4de98e53" CreationDate="2016-11-13T14:09:10.847" UserId="17944" Text="I am wondering what is the legal situation here, &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Thererefore, at least the following is claimed:&#xD;&#xA;*assessing weather along a route...&#xD;&#xA;*evaluating approach to drop&#xD;&#xA;*calculating amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, and other subclaims are replicating capability of a product sold in small quantities circa 2009-2013 worldwide (Norway, Poland US, France, Czech Rep. to name a few) being integrated with unamanned aerial vehicles (UAVs: EasyUAV, Pteryx UAV, and Manta UAV). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A computer performing said flight planning was FLEXIPILOT and in its flexipilot1.35-navigation-en manual that circulated on the web for years before the product was discontinued, one can achieve exactly this delivery functionality using UAV. It was designed for such missions, including Australian Outback Delivery Challenge, which was performed by similar control devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of FLEXIPILOT, weather was estimated prior to takeoff by entering variables SIM_WIN_SPEED and SIM_WIND_HEADING on its delivery console (which allowed communication via modem). For example command WPTITERALL was assessing total flight time both including or neglecting wind estimates, RETHOME logic is evaluating possible outcomes in realtime based on both its own internal estimate of wind speed and SIM_WIND_SPEED that could be transmitted and received at any moment, using those factors and published (exported to US for University) telemetry protocol FLEXIPILOT integrated with PTERYX device ws able to report in realtime flight times to takeoff, any of its emergency landign sites, projected time to impact earth at any time, and time to WPT_TARGET which was location of generalized geographic hook, relative to which any waypoint could be placed. Because relative placement of waypoints included the option of displacement and heading depending on wind direction estimate, device was effectively used for planning landing as a function of meteo conditions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because at any waypoint which could be looped one could perform any servo movement action using TRIGGER or PARA logic, this UAV control computer was capable and was tested  for delivery missions and indeed similar missions were performed as early as 2010 by several contestans of DIYDRONES T2 contest - airdrop challenge (egg delivery) using also open-source counterparts of said autopilot. IMO there is nothing innovative in this patent, not even the fact that they are delivering a container which was subject of contests 6 years ago." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42370" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="f92e5e23-6bdf-4d6b-8c72-649c4de98e53" CreationDate="2016-11-13T14:09:10.847" UserId="17944" Text="US20160239804 Modular Air Delivery based on behaviour of existing product and public UAV delivery contests" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42371" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="f92e5e23-6bdf-4d6b-8c72-649c4de98e53" CreationDate="2016-11-13T14:09:10.847" UserId="17944" Text="&lt;uav&gt;&lt;suas&gt;&lt;delivery&gt;&lt;weather&gt;&lt;meteo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="f2a6137e-96bb-4528-a763-9a37dd98701c" CreationDate="2016-11-13T14:15:09.883" UserId="17944" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="I am wondering what is the legal situation here, &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Thererefore, at least the following is claimed:&#xD;&#xA;*assessing weather along a route...&#xD;&#xA;*evaluating approach to drop&#xD;&#xA;*calculating amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, and other subclaims are replicating capability of a product sold in small quantities circa 2009-2013 worldwide (Norway, Poland US, France, Czech Rep. to name a few) being integrated with unamanned aerial vehicles (UAVs: EasyUAV, Pteryx UAV, Demon UAV, and Manta/EasyMap UAV). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A computer performing said flight planning was FLEXIPILOT and in its flexipilot1.35-navigation-en manual that circulated on the web for years before the product was discontinued, one can achieve exactly this delivery functionality using UAV. It was designed for such missions, including Australian Outback Delivery Challenge, which was performed by similar control devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of FLEXIPILOT, weather was estimated prior to takeoff by entering variables SIM_WIN_SPEED and SIM_WIND_HEADING on its delivery console (which allowed communication via modem). For example command WPTITERALL was assessing total flight time both including or neglecting wind estimates, RETHOME logic is evaluating possible outcomes in realtime based on both its own internal estimate of wind speed and SIM_WIND_SPEED that could be transmitted and received at any moment, using those factors and published (exported to US for University) telemetry protocol FLEXIPILOT integrated with PTERYX device ws able to report in realtime flight times to takeoff, any of its emergency landign sites, projected time to impact earth at any time, and time to WPT_TARGET which was location of generalized geographic hook, relative to which any waypoint could be placed. Because relative placement of waypoints included the option of displacement and heading depending on wind direction estimate, device was effectively used for planning landing as a function of meteo conditions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because at any waypoint which could be looped one could perform any servo movement action using TRIGGER or PARA logic, this UAV control computer was capable and was tested  for delivery missions and indeed similar missions were performed as early as 2010 by several contestans of DIYDRONES T2 contest - airdrop challenge (egg delivery) using also open-source counterparts of said autopilot. IMO there is nothing innovative in this patent, not even the fact that they are delivering a container which was subject of contests 6 years ago." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42374" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16134" RevisionGUID="5e159c44-adac-4c5c-8534-22517675a7f1" CreationDate="2016-11-13T18:30:39.087" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42375" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="d4cf2957-7248-417a-aa93-331c4d100cf2" CreationDate="2016-11-13T19:30:51.917" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42376" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11980" RevisionGUID="8aa1e7f5-43b2-4c24-8508-6cbb5d7674dd" CreationDate="2016-11-13T20:30:51.130" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42377" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="d358f8d3-0704-4cdd-98d1-4f3454db2dfa" CreationDate="2016-11-13T21:31:30.950" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42378" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16577" RevisionGUID="8bbad08e-fceb-4036-acd3-bb9bb2a17dde" CreationDate="2016-11-14T00:32:44.547" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42379" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16579" RevisionGUID="7c68ee5b-f915-4f9f-b8f1-3688ebffe0f7" CreationDate="2016-11-14T01:32:44.677" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42380" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11968" RevisionGUID="2f118c04-d1ef-49a0-8b2b-5c185c21dc12" CreationDate="2016-11-14T02:32:44.253" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42383" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16275" RevisionGUID="5aa65e9d-569d-4d55-8db1-c610631b5aaf" CreationDate="2016-11-14T03:32:47.560" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42384" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16267" RevisionGUID="8769fd2f-df6b-41dd-bc0b-03d6211e0d3a" CreationDate="2016-11-14T04:32:50.630" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42388" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12505" RevisionGUID="caf419fc-4cff-45e5-a21a-f614ec1c11fc" CreationDate="2016-11-14T09:33:27.987" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42389" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10532" RevisionGUID="59faa20a-8e90-4add-a5d5-118f3d76170c" CreationDate="2016-11-14T10:33:28.167" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42395" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16220" RevisionGUID="16f59fc1-ce39-4be2-afa3-f94ec0ac23a0" CreationDate="2016-11-14T13:34:27.013" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42400" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13966" RevisionGUID="de35065f-7439-473d-bc13-f3918d5e8eda" CreationDate="2016-11-14T17:36:56.303" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16706" RevisionGUID="0d3ca196-ffab-4d11-ab78-392f86f031d6" CreationDate="2016-11-15T06:57:13.517" UserId="17325" Text="Escpacenet's archives are the result of merging the EPO's database and the INPADOC database (holded by WIPO in Vienna). For more information take a look at this blog (not really active lately, but it's a good source).&#xD;&#xA;http://www.intellogist.com/wiki/INPADOC&#xD;&#xA;After 1980, the collection is quite comprehensive. Before that, judging from my searches, it is focused on US patents and european countries like Netherlands, France, Germany, UK. And some Japanese." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42402" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14806" RevisionGUID="117f859f-006d-4a05-813d-dc68f2c6c9f4" CreationDate="2016-11-15T07:51:53.283" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16708" RevisionGUID="6f57fada-07c2-4926-9eae-b25c01799bc8" CreationDate="2016-11-15T09:33:12.497" UserId="17957" Text="Computer programs are not patentable themselves. However, if the program are needed to create a new technology, they can be patented with the new technology as a whole not separately. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42407" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16114" RevisionGUID="2d30a50a-0edb-42e5-b5ff-41ba5a30ed43" CreationDate="2016-11-15T10:00:33.840" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42413" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12423" RevisionGUID="6947c125-5725-426e-9cba-d78d80fd43ef" CreationDate="2016-11-15T11:00:30.320" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42415" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14892" RevisionGUID="393021d5-3ef1-4f32-abb8-d21e267dab25" CreationDate="2016-11-15T15:06:00.253" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16710" RevisionGUID="4f42d520-471e-4249-bcbc-b00e5e84edc9" CreationDate="2016-11-15T16:21:12.283" UserId="17961" Text="USPTO requires inventors to submit their own list of prior art. Is this list made available anywhere?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42417" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16710" RevisionGUID="4f42d520-471e-4249-bcbc-b00e5e84edc9" CreationDate="2016-11-15T16:21:12.283" UserId="17961" Text="Are inventors' prior art submissions to USPTO available?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42418" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16710" RevisionGUID="4f42d520-471e-4249-bcbc-b00e5e84edc9" CreationDate="2016-11-15T16:21:12.283" UserId="17961" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16711" RevisionGUID="6944326e-5df6-400d-8490-36375777f897" CreationDate="2016-11-15T16:48:37.610" UserId="14038" Text="The list of prior art will be available to the public once the patent application is published (18 months after priority date) or when the patent application is issued.   That information is available through the PAIR system at the www.uspto.gov website." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16712" RevisionGUID="f90f5580-0ac1-41ce-8407-afe6ae87626f" CreationDate="2016-11-15T16:54:01.043" UserId="14038" Text="The requirements for patentability includes the requirement of novelty, meaning that there must not be a prior invention of similar subject matter prior to your invention. 35 USC 102.   Even if the invention disclosed in the lapsed patent is  not identical to your invention, if it is sufficiently similar that your invention would be deemed obvious to someone who is skilled in the technology, then it would not be patentable.   35 USC 103.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You certainly may apply for a patent, but it would be unlikely that a patent would issue unless you can convince the relevant patent office that your invention is novel and nonobvious in view of the lapsed patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42421" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16118" RevisionGUID="7a6d81cc-dad7-49b4-ab41-4e2e62b8ca24" CreationDate="2016-11-15T19:06:00.323" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42422" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13901" RevisionGUID="f76fd4a8-fc1c-44ad-9f66-ac97edf794ad" CreationDate="2016-11-15T22:06:21.120" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12495" RevisionGUID="6545f0b0-5217-49cc-8ba1-6346c5644368" CreationDate="2016-11-16T01:29:21.653" UserId="13706" Comment="Included reference to cited text." Text="The book [Patent It Yourself][1] states: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;I recommend that your PPA contain at least one claim (to) prevent any challenge to your PPA by foreign patent offices for failure to claim the invention as of your earliest filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which countries would pose an issue for a PCT filling if my PPA doesn't have a claim?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://amzn.to/2f2mAH8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42429" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14893" RevisionGUID="6f8e097f-75f8-4cb7-953a-b2a4712a7f80" CreationDate="2016-11-16T06:06:34.013" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16715" RevisionGUID="232a62e2-2d05-4257-bb5d-98640d774b3b" CreationDate="2016-11-16T10:57:06.277" UserId="17965" Text="I was developing my idea because I saw a need in people and could patent it and then sell it. I look at the US patents and it does not exist, but when looking for the product in other countries I realized that in china they have for sale a very similar product  ... can I develop it here in the usa and patent it to sell?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42436" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16715" RevisionGUID="232a62e2-2d05-4257-bb5d-98640d774b3b" CreationDate="2016-11-16T10:57:06.277" UserId="17965" Text="Can i patent a product in usa that was already invented in china?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42437" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16715" RevisionGUID="232a62e2-2d05-4257-bb5d-98640d774b3b" CreationDate="2016-11-16T10:57:06.277" UserId="17965" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;china&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16716" RevisionGUID="276ffc57-bef1-4cdd-bbfb-cd4ae32f7006" CreationDate="2016-11-16T15:47:25.657" UserId="17968" Text="If a patent application (PCT/WIPO) is not granted and yet the associated designs before publication were completely original/novel and never appeared in prior art (and yet functionality is linked to those very designs) - has the PCT publication  compromised my designs and effectively mean 'others' can take my design as the patent itself failed? or do patent applications automatically provide protection for the associated designs as a matter of course." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42439" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16716" RevisionGUID="276ffc57-bef1-4cdd-bbfb-cd4ae32f7006" CreationDate="2016-11-16T15:47:25.657" UserId="17968" Text="Can someone steal the designs associated with a patent application that has not been granted? Are the designs afforded protection?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42440" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16716" RevisionGUID="276ffc57-bef1-4cdd-bbfb-cd4ae32f7006" CreationDate="2016-11-16T15:47:25.657" UserId="17968" Text="&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;design&gt;&lt;patent-design&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16717" RevisionGUID="24973f2b-f07b-441b-9202-b5d2062c1fd5" CreationDate="2016-11-16T16:53:16.527" UserId="16696" Text="If the application is rejected, the claims are likely deemed not patent eligible which means others can use them, but not patent them.  *(Even if the rejection is based on some other factor, the designs are now in the public sphere, and thus no longer patent eligible.)* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the decision regarding the grant is still pending, the designs are protected in the sense that, while 3rd parties may utilize them, if you ultimately receive a grant, you can retroactively sue for damages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16718" RevisionGUID="99bcc514-c728-49f9-8386-64564450269c" CreationDate="2016-11-16T16:58:20.270" UserId="16696" Text="Most likely the answer is no.  However, if the Chinese method is merely similar but not exactly the same, there might be some leeway.  Keep in mind that seeking utility patents can be a very expensive proposition, with no guarantee of a grant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16719" RevisionGUID="37620524-f52e-406c-9945-c902bc26e351" CreationDate="2016-11-16T17:11:57.227" UserId="16696" Text="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, every country in the world uses the &quot;First to File&quot; rule. (The US was the last holdout and only switched over in 2013.)  This means it doesn't matter who had the idea or when, only who files the patent first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, there is no recourse for the situation you describe.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_____________________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In future, you may want to consider filing provisional patents before discussing ideas you believe in.  Provisional patents may be filed very inexpensively and do not require a lawyer--you just have to get the ideas down on paper and make sure it is understandable.  This then gives you a full year to decide whether to take on the expense of pursuing an non-provisional (formal) filing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16720" RevisionGUID="2ca7df93-e779-492f-b724-e0b353430e47" CreationDate="2016-11-16T19:28:49.867" UserId="15503" Text="There is no link between patenting and selling. The answers are therefore different for each head of your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can you develop and sell it in the US?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure. Patents are territorial, so a patent in one country has no effect on other countries. Thus, for US purposes, a Chinese patent is irrelevant. If there is no US patent (or application), there is no patent-relating reason stopping you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can you patent it in the US?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably not. Chinese publications are prior art for any patent application in the US (or any other country). The subject matter of your US patent would therefore have to be novel and non-obvious over the Chinese product. This would depend on what differences your product has over the very similar Chinese one. However, if the differences are neglible, your application would likely be refused as being obvious." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16719" RevisionGUID="46a3cad0-b109-4c16-aa8c-811fedcd4265" CreationDate="2016-11-16T19:50:33.043" UserId="16696" Comment="Corrected the answer based on correct feed back re: mistakes" Text="Technically, it is not legal for someone to patent your invention:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The patent application includes a declaration in which the applicant swears that everything in the application is true. So if you falsely claim that you invented something when you did not, that would amount to fraud on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office which would result in a termination of any rights you may have obtained (along with possible sanctions). Second, your theft of the idea (referred to as misappropriation) may result in a separate lawsuit against you by the real inventor. That lawsuit may be based on different claims depending on your relationship with the real inventor -- for example, whether you had a confidential relationship with the actual inventor. In general theft of ideas is a dangerous game and one that usually backfires professionally and financially.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;source: http://www.intellectualpropertylawfirms.com/legal-advice/patent-rights-and-laws-for-ideas.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that patent litigation is generally ruinously expensive *(which is why most parties settle)* so even if your idea was stolen, you still have to prove it in court. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the invention makes a great deal of money, there are attorneys who will work on a straight contingency basis for a big cut of the award or settlement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now, every country in the world uses the &quot;First to File&quot; rule. (The US was the last holdout and only switched over in 2013.)  This means that if multiple inventors have the same idea, the one who files first has the right to the patent.  Obviously, this circumstance would also seem to open the door to the type of fraud you're experiencing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_____________________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In future, you may want to consider filing provisional patents before discussing ideas you believe in.  Provisional patents may be filed very inexpensively and do not require a lawyer--you just have to get the ideas down on paper and make sure it is understandable.  This then gives you a full year to decide whether to take on the expense of pursuing an non-provisional (formal) filing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16721" RevisionGUID="e0b70aeb-cadd-4b84-b3e5-14b6493d59d2" CreationDate="2016-11-16T21:07:40.443" UserId="17971" Text="I am planning to develop my own algorithm and software solution that will use Least Significant Bit Algorithm(LSB) in Digital Watermarking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen that there are lot of articles regarding this topic as well as there are lot of patents issued on this topic and using this algorithm LSB.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, if i develop a solution, can i be infringing any of those patents? Or is LSB public algorithm and everyone can use it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42447" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16721" RevisionGUID="e0b70aeb-cadd-4b84-b3e5-14b6493d59d2" CreationDate="2016-11-16T21:07:40.443" UserId="17971" Text="Using algorithm whether it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42448" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16721" RevisionGUID="e0b70aeb-cadd-4b84-b3e5-14b6493d59d2" CreationDate="2016-11-16T21:07:40.443" UserId="17971" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42449" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14948" RevisionGUID="4bc7eba0-3b0e-4457-9759-0da919857094" CreationDate="2016-11-16T21:17:25.373" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42450" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16721" RevisionGUID="b6c4d293-c04b-4721-80ea-9744a465cf61" CreationDate="2016-11-16T21:38:08.763" UserId="17971" Comment="edited title" Text="Using algorithm whether it infringe patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42451" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16587" RevisionGUID="e1072fff-b8ca-4afb-aa8b-0a614ee4f19d" CreationDate="2016-11-16T22:17:25.010" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42453" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13585" RevisionGUID="25752428-5782-4a71-957d-8f9853683fb2" CreationDate="2016-11-17T03:19:11.480" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16722" RevisionGUID="286fb41e-bd5d-4c0d-a86d-969ed1a6f046" CreationDate="2016-11-17T03:22:07.603" UserId="17972" Text="I am Chinese and my last name is Low, first name is Xue Ling Gina. However, a patent filed by my company displayed my name as Xue Ling, Low, ie, without my given English name. Will there be any implications? Thank you for answering. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42455" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16722" RevisionGUID="286fb41e-bd5d-4c0d-a86d-969ed1a6f046" CreationDate="2016-11-17T03:22:07.603" UserId="17972" Text="Full Name on Patent Application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42456" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16722" RevisionGUID="286fb41e-bd5d-4c0d-a86d-969ed1a6f046" CreationDate="2016-11-17T03:22:07.603" UserId="17972" Text="&lt;name&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42457" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12868" RevisionGUID="8d47f924-9799-4400-bfc0-195a52d4998e" CreationDate="2016-11-17T04:19:11.520" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42458" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13198" RevisionGUID="091cbf45-306c-4a52-86c5-c3345892c098" CreationDate="2016-11-17T05:19:12.077" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16723" RevisionGUID="761c514c-d0dd-471b-8dae-df30aaa11515" CreationDate="2016-11-17T05:49:31.003" UserId="15503" Text="This will almost certainly not affect the validity of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I do not believe there are any specific provisions related to correcting the omission of part of an inventor's name, 36 USC 256 provides the rules for adding or deleting an inventor wholesale. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;36 USC 256(b) provides that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The error of omitting inventors or naming persons who are not inventors shall not invalidate the patent in which such error occurred if it can be corrected as provided in this section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a correction is relatively straightforward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since an inventor can be added or deleted entirely without jeopardising the patent, I would think (though cannot show for sure) that simply omitting part of a name shouldn't be any more dramatic. That is, it should be simply correctable if the need arises.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Anecdotes**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anecdotally, I have worked with many clients who have a lax attitude to inventors' names. Omitting middle names or using nicknames is not uncommon. As far as I know, none of them have had any negative consequences from this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16723" RevisionGUID="b5fabbc4-9688-4cc4-a4ec-8e3f369918bf" CreationDate="2016-11-17T05:54:57.547" UserId="15503" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="By way of preface, I should note that this is a bit of a low quality answer, since I couldn't find any good sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But nevertheless: this will almost certainly not affect the validity of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I do not believe there are any specific provisions related to correcting the omission of part of an inventor's name, 36 USC 256 provides the rules for adding or deleting an inventor wholesale. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;36 USC 256(b) provides that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The error of omitting inventors or naming persons who are not inventors shall not invalidate the patent in which such error occurred if it can be corrected as provided in this section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a correction is relatively straightforward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since an inventor can be added or deleted entirely without jeopardising the patent, I would think (though cannot show for sure) that simply omitting part of a name shouldn't be any more dramatic. That is, it should be simply correctable if the need arises.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Anecdotes**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anecdotally, I have worked with many clients who have a lax attitude to inventors' names. Omitting middle names or using nicknames is not uncommon. As far as I know, none of them have had any negative consequences from this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42465" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="da4b1326-1e97-4312-8514-e264190d17f4" CreationDate="2016-11-17T08:23:56.390" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42466" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16149" RevisionGUID="45f3db5f-1be3-475e-b340-280a16448eff" CreationDate="2016-11-17T17:26:54.563" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42467" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16131" RevisionGUID="676a3455-1075-4dbd-bb39-9c6b3af3032f" CreationDate="2016-11-17T20:26:59.697" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42468" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13006" RevisionGUID="d4e1af63-d4fc-4485-bf55-d3d395c281e0" CreationDate="2016-11-17T22:27:17.037" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16725" RevisionGUID="b3d0147a-df12-4df7-bc87-90d68a93dc7f" CreationDate="2016-11-17T23:58:54.153" UserId="17978" Text="In reference to the patent: [US613819][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US613819&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Various patent logs report this patent as belonging to Nicola Tesla under the heading &quot;Filings Tube&quot;, such as &quot;Wireless telegraphy; its origins, development, inventions, and apparatus&quot;. New York, D. Van Nostrand company, 1903. LCCN 03026887 written by Charles Henry Sewall.  Can anyone expand on this discrepancy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42470" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16725" RevisionGUID="b3d0147a-df12-4df7-bc87-90d68a93dc7f" CreationDate="2016-11-17T23:58:54.153" UserId="17978" Text="How much evidence exists that this patent actually belonged to the owner of record?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42471" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16725" RevisionGUID="b3d0147a-df12-4df7-bc87-90d68a93dc7f" CreationDate="2016-11-17T23:58:54.153" UserId="17978" Text="&lt;us613819&gt;&lt;tesla&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42477" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="e0073dea-56cc-4bbc-acda-fd0e0c4f06d6" CreationDate="2016-11-18T00:27:16.767" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16727" RevisionGUID="b0478c7a-239e-44c8-9189-978b47134b10" CreationDate="2016-11-18T02:22:33.063" UserId="15503" Text="I can see a few options, which I present in order of decreasing likelihood. Of course, perhaps we'll never know for sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sewall made a mistake in his book**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a bit of a search around, every reference I could find to Tesla having US 613,819 seems to stem from that 1903 Sewall book. Could this have simply been a mistake in the book?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tesla is recorded as the inventor of [US 613,809](https://www.google.com/patents/US613809) (albeit with a different title) (as noted by some chap at the [Australian Nikola Tesla Society](http://www.pupman.com/listarchives/1996/may/msg00260.html) in a message many years ago).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The chance that Tesla was granted two patents which differed by one digit, and that subsequently one was disappeared (for whatever reason) seems vanishingly small, compared to the chance that an author 113 years ago made a typo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The USPTO made a mistake in its patent numbering**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is possible: there are multiple patents numbered 1, and a few patents with fractional numbers (noted by the [USPTO](https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/web/patents/authority/patentlayoutv4.txt)). Thus mistakes (or at least unusual choices) have been made in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It therefore seems within the realm of possibility that a patent number was assigned twice, such that one of the patents with that number is now unrecorded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**There was a cover-up by the US government!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess it's not completely impossible. But I couldn't find any evidence of this (which perhaps is evidence that the cover-up was done well). But in any case, if the US government wanted to cover-up the invention, surely they would just not issue the patent in the first place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16725" RevisionGUID="6bde8129-f5b4-491f-b7d5-6deeb34eb6ed" CreationDate="2016-11-18T02:27:40.700" UserId="15503" Comment="Correcting the spelling of Tesla's name" Text="In reference to the patent: [US613819][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US613819&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Various patent logs report this patent as belonging to Nikola Tesla under the heading &quot;Filings Tube&quot;, such as &quot;Wireless telegraphy; its origins, development, inventions, and apparatus&quot;. New York, D. Van Nostrand company, 1903. LCCN 03026887 written by Charles Henry Sewall.  Can anyone expand on this discrepancy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42480" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16452" RevisionGUID="92697ddc-7078-4e05-8339-90f4ddd2ca71" CreationDate="2016-11-18T03:29:35.077" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16728" RevisionGUID="fda7e99b-efb1-46b7-bc6d-14973d539e76" CreationDate="2016-11-18T07:54:32.283" UserId="17981" Text="LSB is public algorithm and everyone can use it.&#xD;&#xA;Such algorithm has been published at almost every book. You can implement LSB yourself by referencing to published books free. Or use python lib scipy, numpy free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, if you find some  LSB optimization algorithm patent, you cannot refer to such patent. Because the patented LSB optimization algorithm is protected by patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42482" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14245" RevisionGUID="e4932e82-7031-4419-be36-e471a94ae11b" CreationDate="2016-11-18T09:47:06.450" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42483" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14199" RevisionGUID="a317a146-d1f3-4f29-9b61-791de4b2a69e" CreationDate="2016-11-18T11:47:09.240" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42487" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14248" RevisionGUID="7c2fb4d9-c2bb-4bf6-8c72-4f66c9947dbf" CreationDate="2016-11-18T13:47:07.030" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42488" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16307" RevisionGUID="54a0272a-ccc6-4b1c-9074-6b92d7c2e0aa" CreationDate="2016-11-18T15:48:25.380" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42492" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16594" RevisionGUID="b1e5525c-df89-4915-b92f-4cd8f1974c79" CreationDate="2016-11-18T19:48:53.500" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16721" RevisionGUID="c1ae966b-b291-4597-b219-913beeeb266b" CreationDate="2016-11-19T00:01:23.730" UserId="15503" Comment="Minor grammar corrections" Text="I am planning to develop my own algorithm and software solution that will use Least Significant Bit Algorithm (LSB) in digital watermarking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen that there are lot of articles regarding this topic as well as there are lot of patents issued on this topic and using this algorithm LSB.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, if I develop a solution, can I be infringing any of those patents? Or is LSB public algorithm and everyone can use it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42498" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14348" RevisionGUID="1a163c59-fb83-4551-b08c-49131ac61e40" CreationDate="2016-11-19T03:51:29.603" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42499" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12543" RevisionGUID="bec169ba-0589-4d03-8604-b2e67eedce39" CreationDate="2016-11-19T04:51:30.790" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42500" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14424" RevisionGUID="85040006-e2a4-4088-91af-55514cc7f3c8" CreationDate="2016-11-19T05:51:48.080" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42501" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16009" RevisionGUID="a97449e3-bf31-4757-a8c9-815293b6c94b" CreationDate="2016-11-19T15:01:35.750" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42502" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12539" RevisionGUID="85f7f956-433a-424c-b8fe-a39b3e7e7c1e" CreationDate="2016-11-19T19:07:59.863" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42503" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16172" RevisionGUID="ae59b656-4197-42d8-8d06-2a87d621bdea" CreationDate="2016-11-19T20:08:00.127" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42504" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16604" RevisionGUID="db90b496-7e07-4240-a090-379b386fac4d" CreationDate="2016-11-19T22:08:00.910" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42505" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14755" RevisionGUID="e139b3cb-2701-47b1-80d5-416583970c52" CreationDate="2016-11-19T23:08:00.783" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42508" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="4360ee63-7cbe-4183-9f57-6c76c965e2dc" CreationDate="2016-11-20T03:10:33.620" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42509" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12561" RevisionGUID="5bd8fdbb-514e-4836-9d6c-de9ae204cdf5" CreationDate="2016-11-20T06:12:07.383" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42510" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12942" RevisionGUID="0805b2bf-2d90-41e5-934d-17cfb959b429" CreationDate="2016-11-20T13:29:12.613" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42511" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12549" RevisionGUID="e44a57c9-80f2-423b-bd7e-c5e4f89aee0b" CreationDate="2016-11-20T15:29:14.193" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42512" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14403" RevisionGUID="45cb4726-ce61-4b03-ad88-94af642b1cd0" CreationDate="2016-11-20T17:29:15.407" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42517" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13383" RevisionGUID="1104d9f9-a037-49c4-8a4e-dd035f010e5b" CreationDate="2016-11-21T01:36:50.860" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42523" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12742" RevisionGUID="f090f39e-e005-4835-9a17-0865b85545db" CreationDate="2016-11-21T04:36:52.247" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42524" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10324" RevisionGUID="fe107ae0-a0a7-4a45-ba7d-2b30a09bc869" CreationDate="2016-11-21T08:40:10.247" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42525" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6687" RevisionGUID="ae133e90-9954-449f-b518-a6b40230e986" CreationDate="2016-11-21T10:46:02.840" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42526" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12771" RevisionGUID="1d5ad4bf-49fc-4bd6-bdb7-f3a7c1be7f27" CreationDate="2016-11-21T11:46:02.447" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42527" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16479" RevisionGUID="1ab4e392-8440-4801-8384-f9948d32cb0e" CreationDate="2016-11-21T12:46:02.767" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42528" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="e899d509-439a-4ecc-8524-cadf0e1b3eb7" CreationDate="2016-11-21T13:46:02.833" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42529" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12574" RevisionGUID="7ba3c098-1b77-4656-bbbe-0f55a9130b8e" CreationDate="2016-11-21T15:49:36.223" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42534" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13937" RevisionGUID="098a4726-c740-4101-ace5-77f6df9d8e58" CreationDate="2016-11-21T19:49:38.007" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42538" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="67e0490c-32c1-4fe4-ad97-337e5847035c" CreationDate="2016-11-21T23:51:24.367" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42540" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13633" RevisionGUID="222fc157-45e3-4141-a241-708ab4c9fd22" CreationDate="2016-11-22T00:51:25.240" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42541" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="6eb3ac5b-9aa4-4b8e-b826-461b125ba816" CreationDate="2016-11-22T01:51:25.517" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42542" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13935" RevisionGUID="677d30cb-bc21-4a29-807b-b6633ea4a30e" CreationDate="2016-11-22T03:51:30.723" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42543" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13432" RevisionGUID="5f6e1de7-ca03-49c5-96a6-502d88f04d97" CreationDate="2016-11-22T04:51:30.477" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42544" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13847" RevisionGUID="b1e1cdc9-b33c-4c8c-b5c1-b8b92b112f7c" CreationDate="2016-11-22T17:56:49.407" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16736" RevisionGUID="ce961979-4338-4112-8496-ef42fb8c6de0" CreationDate="2016-11-22T19:28:08.377" UserId="18004" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8602429][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8602429&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent Valid? There are a lot of manufactures wordwide who sells exact this product. Can someone check for me if there are any issues going on with this pattent? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42549" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16736" RevisionGUID="ce961979-4338-4112-8496-ef42fb8c6de0" CreationDate="2016-11-22T19:28:08.377" UserId="18004" Text="Is this patent valid? Or just granted and never used" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42550" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16736" RevisionGUID="ce961979-4338-4112-8496-ef42fb8c6de0" CreationDate="2016-11-22T19:28:08.377" UserId="18004" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16737" RevisionGUID="8151a95e-c59e-45be-966d-9ae27ded806b" CreationDate="2016-11-22T20:58:08.040" UserId="17077" Text="It is an issued patent. The fees are up to date.  You can check the status yourself on the public [PAIR][1] site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42553" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="047468f7-6840-46ac-a4ef-ecf4cd802056" CreationDate="2016-11-22T22:58:39.457" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42554" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="ed228e08-9488-46d7-b09b-f371f64a42cb" CreationDate="2016-11-23T00:05:40.173" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42558" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13422" RevisionGUID="027038ad-1a68-40e7-8cf7-a3a8b1e8be98" CreationDate="2016-11-23T12:16:18.290" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12930" RevisionGUID="5d628151-9a29-4079-a920-9fa824688173" CreationDate="2016-11-23T13:43:36.080" UserId="-1" Comment="lots of grammar/formatting fixes" Text="In all  offices its allowed that inventor first file all enabling disclosure (what you have) as provisional application (not WIPO) and then come up with an attorney of your choice and file all forms and claims according to ACT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have a question which is context based. There are two mindsets through which to consider this question: one says disclose what you have and project what you want, and the other says provide all components of what you have and almost all possible ways to interpret things where it can be applied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the inventor is not sure what the broadest claim they can have is, they should disclose all information without limiting their interpretation and briefly outline in separate paragraphs with non-limiting objectives with all possible ways where they can be applied. Later they can have an attorney assist in finding appropriate claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all cases, if your words indicate some limiting subject matter, you will end up with a narrow claim or PaperIP. It's best to have an IP law expert as a drafter from the start.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An earlier 'Ask Patents' user has answered a similar question [Fixing a poorly written patent application that has not been published](http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/12425/11895). Also see [Which countries require a claim for using a PPA as priority date?](http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/12495/11895). You might also find these questions interesting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Provisional application drawings vs non provisional patent drawings](http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/10546/11895)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How similar does non provisional and provisional patent have to be?](http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/5393/11895)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How detailed should a provisional patent application be? (Software)](http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/3331/11895)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Should I file multiple provisional patent applications when my invention can span different sizes?](http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/12742/11895)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42565" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12930" RevisionGUID="5d628151-9a29-4079-a920-9fa824688173" CreationDate="2016-11-23T13:43:36.080" Comment="Proposed by 146.229.112.242|390e7dab-72fe-4884-9412-152d72f57cbe approved by 15503, 1 edit id of 1977" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42566" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13771" RevisionGUID="b0fdfde5-53b1-487b-af98-ff079f971004" CreationDate="2016-11-23T14:17:47.070" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42567" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14335" RevisionGUID="7143c14c-1299-4400-8f81-146e12419831" CreationDate="2016-11-23T15:17:51.540" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42568" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16184" RevisionGUID="9522079b-6f5a-4b60-ad3b-9051312c505f" CreationDate="2016-11-23T18:20:04.790" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42569" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16186" RevisionGUID="f39cd50c-49f4-45a2-936c-c942bdd507be" CreationDate="2016-11-23T20:20:07.473" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42570" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16353" RevisionGUID="4720aaa4-7025-4df7-ac7a-62aa89dc92fd" CreationDate="2016-11-23T23:20:09.283" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16740" RevisionGUID="c49e2eaa-9076-45f0-8edc-d8fc8c81da72" CreationDate="2016-11-24T01:39:00.237" UserId="18011" Text="In reference to the patent: [US634042][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US634042" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42572" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16740" RevisionGUID="c49e2eaa-9076-45f0-8edc-d8fc8c81da72" CreationDate="2016-11-24T01:39:00.237" UserId="18011" Text="What is the difference between the filing and priority date, since it is the same date for this invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42573" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16740" RevisionGUID="c49e2eaa-9076-45f0-8edc-d8fc8c81da72" CreationDate="2016-11-24T01:39:00.237" UserId="18011" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;priority&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42575" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16179" RevisionGUID="6887d2dd-69ea-4790-8054-5d50c868ebf8" CreationDate="2016-11-24T06:28:20.050" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16741" RevisionGUID="1adbd2dc-ae9e-43ef-a93a-fd3620f57a6d" CreationDate="2016-11-24T07:40:03.220" UserId="18012" Text="Google patents fails to look up patents based on a query number&#xD;&#xA;Example 9,498,155 how do i report this and get it fixed. This error has occurred at least 15 times for patent number that i have attempted to retrieve" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42577" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16741" RevisionGUID="1adbd2dc-ae9e-43ef-a93a-fd3620f57a6d" CreationDate="2016-11-24T07:40:03.220" UserId="18012" Text="error report for incorrect patent number retrieval" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42578" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16741" RevisionGUID="1adbd2dc-ae9e-43ef-a93a-fd3620f57a6d" CreationDate="2016-11-24T07:40:03.220" UserId="18012" Text="&lt;error&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42579" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10813" RevisionGUID="2aed1788-b2ff-4c77-a1d4-5bd0cb98e9e6" CreationDate="2016-11-24T09:36:39.523" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42580" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14127" RevisionGUID="e31c0597-bcaa-43b0-b0e2-836e9efe90f0" CreationDate="2016-11-24T10:36:39.910" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42581" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13242" RevisionGUID="1878a691-e5c5-4684-b081-301d4d31d176" CreationDate="2016-11-24T11:36:43.213" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42582" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13123" RevisionGUID="5683c116-6845-4729-a0cf-f3e4d7375e35" CreationDate="2016-11-24T12:36:43.537" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16742" RevisionGUID="fe239b06-dbe0-4e96-b4a1-b0d44c9e2774" CreationDate="2016-11-24T12:56:21.090" UserId="18015" Text="In reference to the patent: [US2949381][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US2949381&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42584" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16742" RevisionGUID="fe239b06-dbe0-4e96-b4a1-b0d44c9e2774" CreationDate="2016-11-24T12:56:21.090" UserId="18015" Text="This was my father's and grandfather's patent. Can you tell me if this is expired or can it be renewed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42585" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16742" RevisionGUID="fe239b06-dbe0-4e96-b4a1-b0d44c9e2774" CreationDate="2016-11-24T12:56:21.090" UserId="18015" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16744" RevisionGUID="fb209992-52c3-47a6-94d2-4eeae58c5fc5" CreationDate="2016-11-24T14:32:20.463" UserId="17325" Text="No difference, in the sense that the priority date IS the filling date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16745" RevisionGUID="f3b0b45a-70cc-423a-b22d-d8a4ba1c0bec" CreationDate="2016-11-24T15:11:22.000" UserId="17003" Text="The patent must have expired many years ago. Patents can't be &quot;renewed&quot;. It is the basic principle with patents that in return for exclusive ownership for a fixed period of time, once expired anyone can use the technology. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42591" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="6c6d7a44-433f-4086-bf35-5456c9e2c0fb" CreationDate="2016-11-24T19:38:19.083" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16746" RevisionGUID="5f2c8954-ecf2-4bfc-a2c4-514dbe287e70" CreationDate="2016-11-24T20:30:36.797" UserId="17077" Text="Stackexchange and google patents are linked for discussions but are completely different entities.  I suggest [google patents FAQ][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then maybe [Google support][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://support.google.com/faqs/answer/6390996?hl=en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://support.google.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42593" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6624" RevisionGUID="78f249cd-4324-4e9b-9f2a-71032f2b3936" CreationDate="2016-11-24T20:38:19.220" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42594" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12954" RevisionGUID="942ca8a0-2d41-47f2-978e-d1fc4a627a76" CreationDate="2016-11-24T21:38:19.073" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42596" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="16741" RevisionGUID="d2311afc-05a5-4992-9c16-3774734f6996" CreationDate="2016-11-25T01:57:37.327" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[12392],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="42597" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14631" RevisionGUID="151312dc-d90c-4791-b20d-8f99cda571aa" CreationDate="2016-11-25T03:43:07.230" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42601" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14620" RevisionGUID="f08fe3d5-1b3f-4389-ba7e-06090f40db61" CreationDate="2016-11-25T04:43:07.430" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42602" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12339" RevisionGUID="dbaf7c15-afaf-4dcf-b2fc-43625bb4d792" CreationDate="2016-11-25T05:43:24.503" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16748" RevisionGUID="3ba09ca0-9f2c-4d9d-b279-a27de3f6f474" CreationDate="2016-11-25T06:22:26.873" UserId="18019" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8321439][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8321439&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The three primary claims in this patent all use a hash value that is calculated in a specified way, and the hash is used in the process of looking up a file. However, there is no hash table involved. All that's happening is that the hash value is being used to avoid having to compare the desired name with each name in the directory. The file can be found by comparing the names instead, with an execution cost that is really quite trivial in the scheme of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can it really be this easy to avoid this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42604" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16748" RevisionGUID="3ba09ca0-9f2c-4d9d-b279-a27de3f6f474" CreationDate="2016-11-25T06:22:26.873" UserId="18019" Text="Can this patent's claims be trivially avoided?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42605" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16748" RevisionGUID="3ba09ca0-9f2c-4d9d-b279-a27de3f6f474" CreationDate="2016-11-25T06:22:26.873" UserId="18019" Text="&lt;us8321439&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42606" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14622" RevisionGUID="4b118caf-6e65-4baf-8536-6b35526666ec" CreationDate="2016-11-25T06:43:42.537" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42607" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="37616e01-206d-45a4-8dec-f86ccc97c2d3" CreationDate="2016-11-25T15:46:32.843" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16749" RevisionGUID="a1e1945c-26d5-427d-aa4e-5131a9263621" CreationDate="2016-11-25T17:05:29.110" UserId="18021" Text="As part of my degree project ,I *designed an automated teller machine* by adding and removing some of the existing and new features of automated teller machine and the *simulated using visual studio*.Can I able to file a patent for the same? or atleast a copyright?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42609" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16749" RevisionGUID="a1e1945c-26d5-427d-aa4e-5131a9263621" CreationDate="2016-11-25T17:05:29.110" UserId="18021" Text="Can I file patent for my new Automated Teller Machine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42610" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16749" RevisionGUID="a1e1945c-26d5-427d-aa4e-5131a9263621" CreationDate="2016-11-25T17:05:29.110" UserId="18021" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42611" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="a233f461-b107-4a67-8979-dd62dfd45ca6" CreationDate="2016-11-25T21:51:42.553" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42612" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="9840ab9b-73df-4c49-8fdf-b9a1d534385d" CreationDate="2016-11-25T23:53:28.850" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42615" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7693" RevisionGUID="4e30cc9d-17cf-4a2b-b95e-3f7cd6e327c9" CreationDate="2016-11-26T09:56:30.007" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42616" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4993" RevisionGUID="9838da98-dcb2-447e-bd0d-c3226d5cb42d" CreationDate="2016-11-26T12:56:30.100" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42617" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12072" RevisionGUID="ce7da5c5-9076-44b5-883a-658660f4a272" CreationDate="2016-11-26T14:59:10.703" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16750" RevisionGUID="c5318e0a-2597-4804-a308-23a28202e39b" CreationDate="2016-11-26T17:25:53.553" UserId="17003" Text="Look at each of the patent's claims (especially the independent claims) and if you can avoid even one step in all of the claims, you should avoid infringement **of this patent**. That said, there might easily be other patents you need to consider." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16745" RevisionGUID="0968f329-f254-4633-b030-b8d2f13614b4" CreationDate="2016-11-26T17:34:00.737" UserId="17003" Comment="added 221 characters in body" Text="The patent must have expired many years ago. Patents can't be &quot;renewed&quot;. It is the basic principle with patents that in return for exclusive ownership for a fixed period of time, once expired anyone can use the technology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents filed before June 8th 1995 expire 17 years after the issue date. After that it is 20 years from the filing date. See [Wikipedia][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42620" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10744" RevisionGUID="7cac0201-d2b4-43ac-a7c1-41d9b2388d01" CreationDate="2016-11-26T18:02:03.980" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42621" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12070" RevisionGUID="8f3a08bf-486d-4c15-a9b5-069e553d87ba" CreationDate="2016-11-26T19:02:04.283" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42622" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14601" RevisionGUID="7460dadf-a730-4abc-b592-ebd796e1c4a8" CreationDate="2016-11-26T22:02:08.607" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16751" RevisionGUID="414e423c-4554-4ba8-89f8-8efb50f069a5" CreationDate="2016-11-26T22:31:21.653" UserId="18028" Text="The patent for Viagra expired but has been renewed. Other patents expire in 20 years- why did they get extension?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42624" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16751" RevisionGUID="414e423c-4554-4ba8-89f8-8efb50f069a5" CreationDate="2016-11-26T22:31:21.653" UserId="18028" Text="Why is patent for Viagra extended beyond term?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42625" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16751" RevisionGUID="414e423c-4554-4ba8-89f8-8efb50f069a5" CreationDate="2016-11-26T22:31:21.653" UserId="18028" Text="&lt;viagra&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42627" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7765" RevisionGUID="ec048130-6fc0-48ab-8f4b-11ea3ff8d2ba" CreationDate="2016-11-26T23:06:19.747" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42628" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16491" RevisionGUID="2459504d-852b-401b-85c6-99402b8d082e" CreationDate="2016-11-27T00:16:19.863" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42630" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="280a2d80-678a-419f-9149-f38969847a80" CreationDate="2016-11-27T04:17:37.453" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16752" RevisionGUID="d3beffa3-504b-4d40-b475-f5147f9338da" CreationDate="2016-11-27T09:19:10.850" UserId="17325" Text="The patents cannot be renewed beyond 20 years. But what you are referring to is a **patent term** **extension**. I am not aware of other fields, but this is very common for **pharmaceutical products**. The reason for this extension is that a drug always requires long and tedious reviews before final approval and in many cases the final &quot;ok&quot; of the authorities for entering the market is 4-5 years before the patent is set to expire.&#xD;&#xA;In US and Europe this patent term extension is linked to the time the authorities &quot;delay&quot; the approval. Other countries (Japan, Australia, S. Korea) have similar provisions in their laws too, but notably not Canada. In Europe this extension in called *Supplementary Protection Certificate*. As far as I have seen, this never exceeds 5 years, in other words the extension cannot result in an overall patent lifetime beyond 25 years. Mind that there are other provisions protecting the pharmaceutical product as well, but those are not linked to the patent of the drug, rather to the approval of the relevant authority.&#xD;&#xA;The TPP draft agreement (at least one that I partially read last year) included provisions related to this practice, among other issues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16755" RevisionGUID="22111ea8-bdd7-49e2-9a8b-53e82402b2c7" CreationDate="2016-11-27T16:12:58.383" UserId="17650" Text="We developing mobile app and we going to use device location which is generated by GPS or Mobile network in different way.Also we working on other system hardware data which is not currently using by others app like we doing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can i think about getting patent of our idea of using mobile location,camera and other hardware data in different way so other app can't copy our concept of our app." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42639" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16755" RevisionGUID="22111ea8-bdd7-49e2-9a8b-53e82402b2c7" CreationDate="2016-11-27T16:12:58.383" UserId="17650" Text="Can i patent mobile app algorithm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42640" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16755" RevisionGUID="22111ea8-bdd7-49e2-9a8b-53e82402b2c7" CreationDate="2016-11-27T16:12:58.383" UserId="17650" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;algorithms&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16755" RevisionGUID="ea0be80b-79d2-4b7a-90ef-0f4f263be424" CreationDate="2016-11-27T16:18:42.787" UserId="17650" Comment="added 340 characters in body" Text="We developing mobile app and we going to use device location which is generated by GPS or Mobile network in different way.Also we working on other system hardware data which is not currently using by others app like we doing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can i think about getting patent of our idea of using mobile location,camera and other hardware data in different way so other app can't copy our concept of our app.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is other players in market who is using mobile device locations but our way of using location is very different from any other application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For example** Facebook using device location if google comes with an idea that we can use location in unique way so can google file for patent for how they going to use device location." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42642" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13870" RevisionGUID="f0ded168-dc32-4062-9dff-6c35166fb00d" CreationDate="2016-11-27T19:28:59.290" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42643" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16340" RevisionGUID="b63b74d6-aebb-47a6-8dc5-46cd7e704267" CreationDate="2016-11-27T20:28:59.197" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42644" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10643" RevisionGUID="f37984ee-628c-4377-b839-dfdacd2837d3" CreationDate="2016-11-28T01:34:55.040" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16756" RevisionGUID="604db054-b618-4277-8073-5f87ec0dd662" CreationDate="2016-11-28T02:10:52.810" UserId="17003" Text="If your idea is novel and non obvious, you can consider filing a patent. Next step is to discuss this with a patent lawyer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42650" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="4e3174d1-2bf9-41bc-9bfd-8fd2d8e0abd6" CreationDate="2016-11-28T03:35:18.357" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42651" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="aca00f35-4091-470d-8a3e-457b5aee7712" CreationDate="2016-11-28T04:35:22.123" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42652" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14943" RevisionGUID="a7b06f65-e2d0-4446-a44f-98d034be8842" CreationDate="2016-11-28T05:39:15.273" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42653" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14200" RevisionGUID="5d9f64a3-133c-4093-8706-16ed57999bab" CreationDate="2016-11-28T07:39:32.417" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42654" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="836e8483-34e0-4ae6-88cf-f40e58aa593c" CreationDate="2016-11-28T08:39:37.007" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42655" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16363" RevisionGUID="8d0e77a7-a719-4856-bf83-ad0f358404c1" CreationDate="2016-11-28T09:39:36.520" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42656" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16225" RevisionGUID="d2fea459-edce-4665-bbde-93c039cd23e6" CreationDate="2016-11-28T10:40:18.553" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16759" RevisionGUID="2da914d8-11de-4fb5-98ba-1fe57e168745" CreationDate="2016-11-28T12:40:04.453" UserId="17807" Text="In case of an invalidated independent claim, does the dependent claim survive if the added limitation to the now dead independent claim is not inventive? If yes, does that mean that in a long chain of progressively dependent claims every single dependent claim must introduce something novel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42658" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16759" RevisionGUID="2da914d8-11de-4fb5-98ba-1fe57e168745" CreationDate="2016-11-28T12:40:04.453" UserId="17807" Text="Is novelty in every dependent claim a necessity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42659" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16759" RevisionGUID="2da914d8-11de-4fb5-98ba-1fe57e168745" CreationDate="2016-11-28T12:40:04.453" UserId="17807" Text="&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;dependent-claim&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42660" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16217" RevisionGUID="b91ec129-0056-47be-99b3-d4226a399e6b" CreationDate="2016-11-28T12:50:50.143" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42661" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12832" RevisionGUID="7aac780f-562e-481d-bdcc-9a6a90476d3f" CreationDate="2016-11-28T13:50:50.627" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42662" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14807" RevisionGUID="a69fca93-d154-46d9-8283-a0a700fcdc34" CreationDate="2016-11-28T14:50:50.827" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42665" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14934" RevisionGUID="538deb3b-8621-4bbe-891c-a28565e912a1" CreationDate="2016-11-28T15:50:57.517" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16760" RevisionGUID="80751e64-45b9-4ff9-93e3-a4d976e0c067" CreationDate="2016-11-28T17:59:43.310" UserId="8800" Text="I want to protect my invention as soon as, and as fast as possible with a provisional utility patent for the software and hardware design, and then have 12 months to complete the claims, etc. for the corresponding non-prov patent appl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a completed product:  It's a simple, Printed Circuit Assembly (PCB) with a sensor, an off the shelf processor running my proprietary software algorithm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a large prospective customer, and I'm now testing my PCB on their equipment.  All looks good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I file a provisional patent there seem to be these benefits:&#xD;&#xA;1. I nail down a date for eventual non-provisional filing.&#xD;&#xA;2. Takes much less time than non-prov filing (no claims needed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Provisional patent will have &quot;sufficiently detailed.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42667" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16760" RevisionGUID="80751e64-45b9-4ff9-93e3-a4d976e0c067" CreationDate="2016-11-28T17:59:43.310" UserId="8800" Text="is a provisional utility patent the way I need to go?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42668" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16760" RevisionGUID="80751e64-45b9-4ff9-93e3-a4d976e0c067" CreationDate="2016-11-28T17:59:43.310" UserId="8800" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;applicatino&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16761" RevisionGUID="e3352013-970d-40eb-b81c-5b0ccd2ca577" CreationDate="2016-11-28T19:15:02.963" UserId="18033" Text="No and no.&#xD;&#xA;If the independent claim ist not novel and the added limitation does not make it inventive, that claim won't survive neither.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does that mean that all dependent claims should introduce something novel? No. The combination of two known components can be inventive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Try looking at this from another angle - if you have a broad independent claim and it turns out, one aspect of this is not novel (or inventive), other aspects could still be, but because you claim all at one, you lose the whole thing. And thats what dependent claims are for, they allow you to differentiate your dependent claims, leaving aspects out by adding limitations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42670" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16365" RevisionGUID="7abb8095-b7ce-4d23-8e75-152ab17faecd" CreationDate="2016-11-28T20:51:00.187" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42671" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13556" RevisionGUID="f79b6dbc-c3d0-4276-bb34-6e95e33426df" CreationDate="2016-11-28T21:51:01.903" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42672" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="739d45f5-1cd4-4978-881b-9d5096b4210e" CreationDate="2016-11-28T22:51:01.760" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42673" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14724" RevisionGUID="572127d8-5dce-4566-97a5-eb72bd0e8cf7" CreationDate="2016-11-28T23:56:57.727" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42674" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14820" RevisionGUID="bbfc281c-1c7b-478e-bbeb-c5ceb5c2a052" CreationDate="2016-11-29T00:56:59.303" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42675" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13861" RevisionGUID="e1571ba6-b6d6-48bb-821f-58c6d7fd7dd3" CreationDate="2016-11-29T01:57:04.853" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42676" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14621" RevisionGUID="15f67d9c-8b9e-44ad-854a-9bfe0f865f5a" CreationDate="2016-11-29T02:56:59.840" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42677" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16178" RevisionGUID="24e02c31-7004-45fa-bc9d-2d8ce47c908e" CreationDate="2016-11-29T03:56:59.680" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16762" RevisionGUID="2563f996-b5d5-45cc-b67e-c5070a1d04b7" CreationDate="2016-11-29T04:02:16.993" UserId="18037" Text="just because a patent was rejected doesen't mean that it's not valid science. you can actually read the patent yourself if you can understand it. I can understand most of it, it's just the equations I have trouble with but they can be googled. I've studies this patent with colleagues, we think it can be possible if microsingularities can be maintained. It's not hard to google the equations to find out what they reference, if you have the time. You have to have at least a moderate interest in physics to understand this stuff, I being a computer programmer am not specialized but I have friends who are and we've discussed this in lay men terms. IT really is a good patent it's just missing exactly what it says it's missing and that's probably why it was rejected because microsingularities haven't been invented or even observed yet, but they are possible. But keep in mind this patent isn't patenting Kerr black holes, it's patenting a machine that uses them, even if theoretically. I think the main reason it was rejected is because he included the John Titor diagrams which are already copyrighted and trademarked by the John Titor Foundation under Larry Haber." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42679" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16048" RevisionGUID="6a54bd0b-4413-4147-88da-a681abdb7ad2" CreationDate="2016-11-29T04:57:00.900" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16763" RevisionGUID="80ccb650-968c-470e-bcc7-5d56711444d4" CreationDate="2016-11-29T05:20:39.737" UserId="15503" Text="**Is a provisional utility patent the way I need to go?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly, but not for the reasons you suggest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A *good* provisional does not take less time than a non-provisional, as the drafting process is basically the same. Even if you don't file claims in the provisional for some reason, you will still need to have had the claims drafted (to ensure that you have support).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While there are technically no formality requirements for a provisional (and so you do not **need** to file claims), you would still typically want to comply with the requirements of a non-provisional. If you file a poor quality specification as a provisional, you will likely end up having an invalid priority date, meaning the provisional (and possibly the later non-provisional, depending on any intervening disclosure) will be worthless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The benefits of a provisional**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The benefits of a provisional filing are that you extend the ultimate patent term and you defer the main costs for a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A provisional gives you an extra year of patent term. That is, you have a 20 year patent, plus the one year from filing the provisional. In this manner, a provisional is like any kind of priority claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A provisional is much cheaper to file, and involves no examination. These costs are therefore pushed back by a year." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42681" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14032" RevisionGUID="ee8ce83c-85db-4fab-bda9-50b9adee3b85" CreationDate="2016-11-29T05:57:00.753" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42682" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5844" RevisionGUID="a7a26662-e248-45ec-9e09-aa1f513c07b2" CreationDate="2016-11-29T06:57:01.210" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42686" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="085936a7-dc12-4a41-bbee-afcf3097008c" CreationDate="2016-11-29T14:02:17.967" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16766" RevisionGUID="b0096f53-4707-415f-8895-288e9c9cf785" CreationDate="2016-11-29T15:06:44.850" UserId="17077" Text="If it is an innovative new design you could file for a design patent which is much cheaper and easier to obtain.  Apple's victories for design patent infringement cases has elevated the value of design patents in case law.  Utility patents require novel claims which you may or may not have.  They are also much more expensive to do.  If it was created with university computers or software then the university may have certain rights to it and I strongly suggest you contact them and disclose the invention.  They can either exert their rights, mark as premature or give the rights back to you. Many universities have departments that create businesses or licenses based on certain inventions ...  UF's Gatorade franchise for instance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16767" RevisionGUID="582d698b-cb64-47a7-9953-cd072a64df54" CreationDate="2016-11-29T15:29:51.790" UserId="17077" Text="You may reword your question to make a [prior art request][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most all inventions that field a utility patents have prior art listed.  If the prior art is too similar to the claims those certain claims will not be allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the application does not list these prior art instances then the applicant has not completed due diligence on their invention by not doing a proper prior art search. The examiner may find the prior art as you noted on his/her own.  If the application has been docketed to an examiner now would be the time to inform.  You can use the [Public Pair][2] to check the status.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16768" RevisionGUID="8cf93a30-06a7-4d98-a83b-903b324f475f" CreationDate="2016-11-29T17:13:27.553" UserId="8800" Text="To save time, I want to do a USPTO provisional utility patent that includes hand drawn system diagram, software block diagram, and software flowchart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These will have ALL the same info. as the PowerPoint diagrams that I plan for the eventual non-prov application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Invention is a printed circuit board (PCB) with special software, the software being the 'heart' of the invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42694" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16768" RevisionGUID="8cf93a30-06a7-4d98-a83b-903b324f475f" CreationDate="2016-11-29T17:13:27.553" UserId="8800" Text="Are hand drawn diagrams sufficient for provisional utility patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42695" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16768" RevisionGUID="8cf93a30-06a7-4d98-a83b-903b324f475f" CreationDate="2016-11-29T17:13:27.553" UserId="8800" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16769" RevisionGUID="02a730a5-c91b-43cf-bd47-41d3d11650e8" CreationDate="2016-11-29T17:31:28.900" UserId="17077" Text="The requirements for drawings are spelled out clearly [here][1] from the [Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)][2] Chapter 1800.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1825.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16767" RevisionGUID="c7592c55-3a9a-4c86-8aed-93314738aad7" CreationDate="2016-11-29T17:55:16.213" UserId="17077" Comment="grammar fix" Text="You may reword your question to make a [prior art request][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most all inventions that field utility patents have prior art listed.  If the prior art is too similar to the claims those certain claims will not be allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the application does not list these prior art instances then the applicant has not completed due diligence on their invention by not doing a proper prior art search. The examiner may find the prior art as you noted on his/her own.  If the application has been docketed to an examiner now would be the time to inform.  You can use the [Public Pair][2] to check the status.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16769" RevisionGUID="de7d0639-1ffc-40fd-bf9d-996c06f7eb11" CreationDate="2016-11-29T20:55:33.113" UserId="17077" Comment="added a new section -- grammar" Text="The requirements for drawings are spelled out clearly [here][1] from the [Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)][2] Chapter 1800.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also from the [USPTO getting started guide:][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a relevant drawing citation and cautionary statement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Although the application will be accorded a filing date regardless of whether any drawings are submitted, applicants are advised to file with the application any drawings necessary for the understanding of the invention, complying with 35 U.S.C. 113. A drawing necessary to understand the invention cannot be introduced into an application after the filing date because of the prohibition against new matter. Further, 37 CFR 1.53(c) prohibits amendments from being filed in provisional applications which are not required to comply with the patent statute and all applicable regulations.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;It is recommended that the disclosure of the invention in the provisional application be as complete as possible.&quot; By your own statements your drawings are incomplete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1825.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/provisional-application-patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16769" RevisionGUID="3854c018-797e-44af-be51-80b69bec495a" CreationDate="2016-11-29T21:26:43.103" UserId="17077" Comment="added &quot;seemed&quot;" Text="The requirements for drawings are spelled out clearly [here][1] from the [Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)][2] Chapter 1800.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also from the [USPTO getting started guide:][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a relevant drawing citation and cautionary statement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Although the application will be accorded a filing date regardless of whether any drawings are submitted, applicants are advised to file with the application any drawings necessary for the understanding of the invention, complying with 35 U.S.C. 113. A drawing necessary to understand the invention cannot be introduced into an application after the filing date because of the prohibition against new matter. Further, 37 CFR 1.53(c) prohibits amendments from being filed in provisional applications which are not required to comply with the patent statute and all applicable regulations.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;It is recommended that the disclosure of the invention in the provisional application be as complete as possible.&quot; By your own statements your drawings seem incomplete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1825.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/provisional-application-patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16770" RevisionGUID="29b678e6-1647-4140-acff-f52e3d6757be" CreationDate="2016-11-29T21:27:21.233" UserId="11394" Text="Yes, hand-drawn diagrams are sufficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the drawings in the utility application are simply better (professional draftsman quality) versions of the hand-drawn ones with no additional information, then this is fine. I have filed provisional applications with hand-made drawings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your drawings (and their description) should be as complete as possible in the provisional. Anything you put in the utility (i.e., non-provisional) patent application which differs from the provisional application may not be entitled to the priority date of the provisional. If the Examiner, or an opposing party in a lawsuit, asserts that an aspect or element of your utility application is not supported by your provisional application, you will have to convince the Examiner, or jury, that although the disclosures are not identical, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time you filed the provisional application would be able to &quot;figure out&quot; the utility from the provisional. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If all the substance is there (as you indicate) in the provisional application drawings, then you can fix the drawing informalities in the utility application drawings. However, you should put *exactly* the same care and attention to detail into the provisional that you would put into a utility application. Your description in the provisional application should be clear and complete - never leave gaps or weak descriptions in the provisional application to be fixed later in the utility patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aldo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42701" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16633" RevisionGUID="2c289483-02d9-44e5-89a0-3951f7154b41" CreationDate="2016-11-29T22:07:02.623" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16771" RevisionGUID="6e3cd5cd-72dd-4cf7-a261-e3d23f4e324f" CreationDate="2016-11-29T23:00:52.280" UserId="9847" Text="I am developing a software application.  At the heart of it is a method which I think passes the tests for 'patent-ability' and I am planning to lodge a provisional application just before I launch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The challenge is though, that like many software projects, there are numerous 'add-ons' that can be built, and many of these would also pass the test for patenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to IP, my priorities are to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Protect the method at the heart of my software to prevent copy-cats, and&#xD;&#xA; 2. Protect my right to make novel additions in the future&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I have no money and am reasonably short on time I am looking for the most efficient approach to IP protection.  In an ideal world - according to my understanding - I would submit a full patent application for the initial method, and one for each novel addition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In view of my constraints I am thinking of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Submitting a provisional application for the core method, and&#xD;&#xA; - Publicly releasing information about future additions, for example in blog posts, presentations, etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I do this well, does it achieve my two IP protection priorities?  Does it prevent copy cats?  And am I free to build the add-ons that I make public early on?  Or... is there a better way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have considered detailing all the add-ons in my initial provisional application while discussing a method of performing the invention, however it would add quite an overhead to the process so my strong preference is not to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42703" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16771" RevisionGUID="6e3cd5cd-72dd-4cf7-a261-e3d23f4e324f" CreationDate="2016-11-29T23:00:52.280" UserId="9847" Text="An efficient way to protect my software" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42704" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16771" RevisionGUID="6e3cd5cd-72dd-4cf7-a261-e3d23f4e324f" CreationDate="2016-11-29T23:00:52.280" UserId="9847" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42705" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13986" RevisionGUID="42f16000-97e5-45c7-bc38-0c8a03563933" CreationDate="2016-11-29T23:07:07.397" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42706" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16193" RevisionGUID="cf1a4f63-24bb-4d03-b296-186cd2dc1b5f" CreationDate="2016-11-30T00:07:04.593" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42707" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10545" RevisionGUID="a834c6db-a780-4e71-b93c-692aea39d889" CreationDate="2016-11-30T01:07:04.550" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16772" RevisionGUID="5760d1c2-0403-461a-9937-afda38a93ee5" CreationDate="2016-11-30T01:51:46.193" UserId="18046" Text="As of this moment, I have a patent pending method for computer systems, yet securing the needed funds has been a very hard endeavor.  As such, I am considering utilizing crowd funding to hopefully raise the funds.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I am concerned that if I do utilize crowd funding, I may end up barring my own pursuit of a patent in a foreign country.  My understanding that due to the Paris Convention, that the filing date of my provisional application here in the United States also acts as a filing date for all the countries that are members of the Paris Convention.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if I understood the Convention, this means that public disclosure during a crowd funding event should **NOT** bar me from searching out a non-provisional patent in a foreign country as long as I apply for it within a 12 month period from the data of my provisional application filing here in the United States.  Am I correct in this assumption, or would crowd funding bar me from any future foreign patents? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, while I do plan on obviously disclosing enough basic information of the method during crowd funding, I do not intend to fully disclose &quot;how&quot; the method is done. This is done to help keep copy cats at bay (if only a bit), but also to avoid the definition of &quot;public disclosure&quot; as given by patent law i.e. not giving an ordinary person versed in the art the ability to rebuild it from the explanation provided. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42709" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16772" RevisionGUID="5760d1c2-0403-461a-9937-afda38a93ee5" CreationDate="2016-11-30T01:51:46.193" UserId="18046" Text="If I possess a patent-pending for a method, would I be safe to use crowd funding services?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42710" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16772" RevisionGUID="5760d1c2-0403-461a-9937-afda38a93ee5" CreationDate="2016-11-30T01:51:46.193" UserId="18046" Text="&lt;foreign&gt;&lt;pending&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42711" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14322" RevisionGUID="70fb4e2f-cc30-4a41-94a6-7f81deab0bd1" CreationDate="2016-11-30T02:07:52.693" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16773" RevisionGUID="440760d1-75b9-42a7-9d6b-15891ddbbb4b" CreationDate="2016-11-30T02:36:17.877" UserId="18047" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20100178176][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20100178176&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hello, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to find the original designers of the retractable helicopter pump and either get in contact with them or who is the current commercial builder/owner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you assist in how I can contact these gentlemen?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42713" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16773" RevisionGUID="440760d1-75b9-42a7-9d6b-15891ddbbb4b" CreationDate="2016-11-30T02:36:17.877" UserId="18047" Text="retractable helicopter pump" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42714" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16773" RevisionGUID="440760d1-75b9-42a7-9d6b-15891ddbbb4b" CreationDate="2016-11-30T02:36:17.877" UserId="18047" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16774" RevisionGUID="a54c4b51-9fb8-4158-9a6e-d74152639d7e" CreationDate="2016-11-30T04:11:30.847" UserId="18048" Text="This is going to be a weird question.  I am an academic researcher.  In my field there has been a key topic whose &quot;accepted&quot; solution has been known not to work since 1962.  Nobody had been able to work out why.  I did.  There was a subtle but fundamental math error in the original scientific work.  In fact, the accepted solution can be shown to be completely uncorrelated with the actual solution.  I replaced the solution with a mathematically valid solution and empirically tested against the entire historical data set the field has.  It works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My problem is that there are 651 software and process patents built upon the invalid methodology.  I am concerned the patents will interfere with correct scientific development in the field.  Are patent claims valid if they are built on something which is mathematically or scientifically impossible?  The math error was that it violated the rules of general summation.  The accepted process is wrong in the same sense that 2+2=77 is wrong.  These are heavily used processes.  They don't work, but nobody had been able to figure out a better solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My second question is &quot;is there an easy way to get these patents declared invalid without bearing tremendous expense?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42717" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16774" RevisionGUID="a54c4b51-9fb8-4158-9a6e-d74152639d7e" CreationDate="2016-11-30T04:11:30.847" UserId="18048" Text="Scientifically invalid patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42718" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16774" RevisionGUID="a54c4b51-9fb8-4158-9a6e-d74152639d7e" CreationDate="2016-11-30T04:11:30.847" UserId="18048" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;process&gt;&lt;invalid&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16775" RevisionGUID="1c1c4b35-b11c-4c9c-84b7-365f0c4cb865" CreationDate="2016-11-30T06:23:51.403" UserId="18033" Text="For your second question: No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to the first one, as this is harder. If the claims states something similar to *after adding two to two we get 4 but 4 is sufficiently close to 77 so whatever* or *we add 2 and 2 and procede*, then this should not in any way forbid you to use your invention. &#xD;&#xA;BUT:&#xD;&#xA;And this is actually what you asked: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Are patent claims valid if they are built on something which is mathematically or scientifically impossible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, if the patent is granted and the claim is sufficiently broad, it can be used against you. And to add another one, it might even be that you are not able to get that patent invalidated, depending very much on the exact problem and the wording of the patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can you do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can patent it yourself if you think it is worth some money. From there on, if your way is really as much better as you state, you do have a good bargaining position. Anyone who uses the process qould have to use yours afterwards (?), making your patent potentially stronger. And if it really comes down to it, you can probably invalidate a patent used against you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But helping you with the strategic part is really just guessing here, so let me know if you have any more specific questions.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16776" RevisionGUID="e445faac-b52d-4059-b83c-819e19763c3d" CreationDate="2016-11-30T06:59:16.500" UserId="18033" Text="Try the correspondence adress here:&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Link doesnt work and the uspto website has trouble finding the page for the patent, thats ... annoying. Well, click on the google link in your question and on USPTO on the right side there (next to espacenet), that worked for me. There is an adress there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And bear in mind that this patent has not been granted (and does not have to be granted)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16777" RevisionGUID="db176de0-81f0-4093-afb0-45dcc312ddcc" CreationDate="2016-11-30T07:28:09.097" UserId="15503" Text="Yes, you are correct. A provisional can be used for a priority claim in other countries within 1 year of the date of filing the provisional. Any disclosure (or seeking crowd funding) after the date of the provisional would not affect a later filed foreign application claiming priority to the provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, one key proviso is that the provisional filing must contain enough disclosure to support the claims in those foreign applications. Some jurisdictions (notably Europe) are very strict on this, and would typically need the claims (or at least near verbatim description supporting the claims) in the provisional. If this is not done, the claims of the foreign filing may not be entitled to the date of the provisional, and so may be unpatentable due to your disclosure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42722" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16348" RevisionGUID="82f61a5e-1e0f-4fa4-acf3-de457125b915" CreationDate="2016-11-30T08:15:07.317" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42723" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12621" RevisionGUID="24924a58-eb37-422a-95a7-055f71e1c18d" CreationDate="2016-11-30T09:15:08.500" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16778" RevisionGUID="bda6b627-ef1d-43f2-b7b9-976b06e3bb96" CreationDate="2016-11-30T09:27:38.627" UserId="18019" Text="To illustrate my question: Suppose there's prior art consisting of a nut and bolt, including the fact that when the nut is on the bolt, it holds together two things threaded onto the bolt, between the bolt head and the nut.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now someone comes along seeking to patent a method that consists of threading the bolt into a hole in two objects and screwing the nut onto the other end of the bolt, so as to hold the objects together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to show that the method is obvious to someone skilled in the art, but there's no actual prior art that describes the method - no one thought to mention it, perhaps because they thought it was obvious, and their patent attorney wasn't on the ball.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is obvious in a patent sense? Just how directly does the prior art have to apply to a method to invalidate claims on the method?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42725" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16778" RevisionGUID="bda6b627-ef1d-43f2-b7b9-976b06e3bb96" CreationDate="2016-11-30T09:27:38.627" UserId="18019" Text="Obviousness in methods" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42726" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16778" RevisionGUID="bda6b627-ef1d-43f2-b7b9-976b06e3bb96" CreationDate="2016-11-30T09:27:38.627" UserId="18019" Text="&lt;us5745902&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42730" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13260" RevisionGUID="223ed52a-8041-40c6-9b59-2a37175411fe" CreationDate="2016-11-30T10:15:09.953" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42733" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="16773" RevisionGUID="756fd687-0720-4a23-989e-f5564aad9bf1" CreationDate="2016-11-30T12:09:16.603" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5059],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="42734" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16505" RevisionGUID="8c27bc48-7115-40ad-ab81-7c38c63e0227" CreationDate="2016-11-30T12:17:21.533" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42738" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="07dea35e-f210-47e4-b72b-bc94d1382927" CreationDate="2016-11-30T13:17:25.167" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42739" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12610" RevisionGUID="1f64c14f-527a-4aa8-983f-3c0d6edb3d0f" CreationDate="2016-11-30T14:17:25.887" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42740" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3801" RevisionGUID="692c0d28-0cde-402c-a579-a0fe9e355fbb" CreationDate="2016-11-30T14:28:33.463" UserId="1" Comment="edited title" Text="How do you determine a patent expiration date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42741" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7816" RevisionGUID="d1db3b56-1219-4ca2-8c62-9c2da716d0b4" CreationDate="2016-11-30T14:31:32.880" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[3801],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="42744" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12107" RevisionGUID="2aa8d381-9e21-4bc1-8f7d-337e2df31130" CreationDate="2016-11-30T15:17:27.717" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16781" RevisionGUID="b93096eb-36f6-4c23-b815-322b8f528421" CreationDate="2016-11-30T15:48:47.230" UserId="17003" Text="You question is interesting and I think you understand the idea of obviousness relating to someone skilled skilled in the art. I'll defer to the patent lawyers who lurk here to weigh in on the subtleties of obviousness. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your example however, is not quite as obvious as you assume. Of course, threaded fasteners have been around hundred(s) of years, but the example you cite sort of describes the use of a jam nut. It turns out using a jam nut rather than a simple bolt/nut connection can greatly increase the resistance of a threaded fastener to loosening due to vibration. As I said this is well known in mechanical engineering, but someone must have been the first person to figure it out and I'm assuming when they did, they could have patented the idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16782" RevisionGUID="23cd55ef-25dc-48bf-b2b2-aafcd5022427" CreationDate="2016-11-30T17:08:00.210" UserId="16696" Text="I just went through a similar process on a software patent filing, where there is a core method and a myriad of extensions.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was advised by numerous attorneys to include not just the core method, but every conceivable extension, in both the provisional and the non-provisional.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The provisional gives you a sort of blanket protection, so you may as well take advantage of that.  It's the non-provisional where you will have to restrict the number of claims for a given application, and where the expert advice of an attorney is most important in terms of how you limit those claims to achieve maximum viability for the patent.      " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42747" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13794" RevisionGUID="defaf5ae-08b7-4f32-801f-d1f2f036b15b" CreationDate="2016-11-30T17:17:30.537" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42748" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13528" RevisionGUID="9df1420c-bca9-4d42-a5e2-6d3cb5977f4e" CreationDate="2016-11-30T19:17:39.753" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42749" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13537" RevisionGUID="506b6dc0-a147-43b4-adb7-0c060724335b" CreationDate="2016-11-30T21:20:57.513" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42750" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7833" RevisionGUID="37e40981-0fa5-4389-8b48-bcd16b267dae" CreationDate="2016-11-30T23:21:03.413" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16778" RevisionGUID="46b5c4a0-79c9-4f54-b887-d8367ce27b61" CreationDate="2016-12-01T00:16:13.753" UserId="18019" Comment="Gave more concrete example." Text="To illustrate my question: Suppose there's prior art consisting of a nut and bolt, including the fact that when the nut is on the bolt, it holds together two things threaded onto the bolt, between the bolt head and the nut.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now someone comes along seeking to patent a method that consists of threading the bolt into a hole in two objects and screwing the nut onto the other end of the bolt, so as to hold the objects together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to show that the method is obvious to someone skilled in the art, but there's no actual prior art that describes the method - no one thought to mention it, perhaps because they thought it was obvious, and their patent attorney wasn't on the ball.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is obvious in a patent sense? Just how directly does the prior art have to apply to a method to invalidate claims on the method?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: To put this in more concrete terms, what I have in the documentation of the prior art is a field in software that specifies how much space is allocated to a file. Presumably, when the prior-art software increased the amount of space allocated to a file, it updated the field to reflect that but I don't have the software to look at, and the documentation doesn't actually say that. A software engineer would say &quot;Well, duh, of course the field has to be updated&quot;, but a patent examiner might take a different view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The method being patented includes a claim with elements consisting of allocating more space to the file, and updating the field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to be able to argue that the prior-art documentation I have covers updating the field, on the grounds that updating the field is obvious to a person skilled in the art, even though the prior-art doesn't specify a method." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16784" RevisionGUID="5c41b6f7-bbae-4e98-ad68-5fb2d7694b37" CreationDate="2016-12-01T03:32:02.673" UserId="18057" Text="I received a final OA rejecting my application, and I will have my patent attorney do an RCE. The examiner clearly does not understand the mechanics of the concept. I have ten patents; this is nothing new. However, this examiner has no interest in further understanding. The examiner at first agreed to watch a video of the invention in operation. When my attorney was ready to present, the examiner suddenly declined. In the past, examiners were anxious to see an actual invention for clarity. Is this a new attitude in the USPTO?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42758" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16784" RevisionGUID="5c41b6f7-bbae-4e98-ad68-5fb2d7694b37" CreationDate="2016-12-01T03:32:02.673" UserId="18057" Text="Why would an examiner decline demonstration of an invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42759" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16784" RevisionGUID="5c41b6f7-bbae-4e98-ad68-5fb2d7694b37" CreationDate="2016-12-01T03:32:02.673" UserId="18057" Text="&lt;prototype&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16785" RevisionGUID="e11b9950-7e08-4546-8d45-5277b94ded86" CreationDate="2016-12-01T05:46:06.500" UserId="15503" Text="MPEP § 713.01 provides (among other things):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An interview should be had only when the nature of the case is such that the interview could serve to develop and clarify specific issues and lead to a mutual understanding between the examiner and the applicant, and thereby advance the prosecution of the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MPEP § 713.01 also provides, regarding video:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Attorneys or applicants wishing to show a video during an examiner interview must be able to demonstrate that the content of the video has a bearing on an outstanding issue in the application and its viewing will advance the prosecution of the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MPEP therefore allows an interview to be refused if it would not advance the prosecution of the application. The examiner may therefore be taking this view with regard to your video.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see the reasoning behind this. The application as filed must itself sufficiently and clearly describe the invention. Thus, if the video shows the invention in the same way as it is described, then it is unhelpful. If the video shows more than what is described, then it relates to something other than the invention, and is thus irrelevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is an alternative explanation: the examiner may simply not wish to devote the time to an interview. While the MPEP does not really allow this in principle, the reality is that some examiners wish to make life as easy as possible for themselves." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16786" RevisionGUID="830114fa-64e8-4eb3-a1f2-0215f3a7cf76" CreationDate="2016-12-01T06:05:58.693" UserId="17707" Text="I was the original inventor of patent #US5269144A, however; I was added later due to a major oversight. When I search my name for patents, this patent does not show up? My name is shown if you click on &quot;View PDF&quot;. Is it possible to remedy this in the Google Database?&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;Michael J. Holihan" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42762" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16786" RevisionGUID="830114fa-64e8-4eb3-a1f2-0215f3a7cf76" CreationDate="2016-12-01T06:05:58.693" UserId="17707" Text="Search issue on patent # US5269144A for Michael J. Holihan" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42763" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16786" RevisionGUID="830114fa-64e8-4eb3-a1f2-0215f3a7cf76" CreationDate="2016-12-01T06:05:58.693" UserId="17707" Text="&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42764" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13171" RevisionGUID="0c0166ed-af24-435a-ba72-3a88808274d6" CreationDate="2016-12-01T08:33:26.973" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42765" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10041" RevisionGUID="f872a235-eb21-4778-9b7b-08fe1d2cd8b4" CreationDate="2016-12-01T09:33:26.960" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16787" RevisionGUID="5ab03003-8c78-4df3-9652-d5bce880caaf" CreationDate="2016-12-01T11:26:06.773" UserId="18058" Text="I'm new to Patents, and wanted to know if this EU issued patent is still valid..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/EP0639338B1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP94303053&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It says it is granted years ago, and I have no idea what this means: &quot;Lapsed in a contracting state announced via postgrant inform. from nat. office to epo&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help is much appreciated!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42767" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16787" RevisionGUID="5ab03003-8c78-4df3-9652-d5bce880caaf" CreationDate="2016-12-01T11:26:06.773" UserId="18058" Text="Is this Patent Still Valid? (Hat / Cap)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42768" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16787" RevisionGUID="5ab03003-8c78-4df3-9652-d5bce880caaf" CreationDate="2016-12-01T11:26:06.773" UserId="18058" Text="&lt;ep0639338b1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16789" RevisionGUID="1198edfb-efc9-4e34-967b-58c2f7f9302a" CreationDate="2016-12-01T13:36:37.960" UserId="18056" Text="Somebody knows how is the procedure to submit a Third Party Observation at SIPO?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In its website there isn´t any information related to TPOs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Christian.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42773" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16789" RevisionGUID="1198edfb-efc9-4e34-967b-58c2f7f9302a" CreationDate="2016-12-01T13:36:37.960" UserId="18056" Text="Third Party Observations in China" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42774" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16789" RevisionGUID="1198edfb-efc9-4e34-967b-58c2f7f9302a" CreationDate="2016-12-01T13:36:37.960" UserId="18056" Text="&lt;tpo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42775" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10559" RevisionGUID="22a053f5-c77d-4e8c-80df-420e44dc445f" CreationDate="2016-12-01T13:48:59.743" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16790" RevisionGUID="e07e068b-9a03-4373-8cc5-b59f323722db" CreationDate="2016-12-01T14:29:49.373" UserId="17325" Text="The answer is no. The filling date of the patent was 27.04.1994, plus 20 years = it expired on April 2014." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16790" RevisionGUID="7cf53872-f247-4274-afa9-c6b967e12d4d" CreationDate="2016-12-01T14:36:53.637" UserId="17325" Comment="added 1116 characters in body" Text="The answer is no. The filling date of the patent was 27.04.1994, plus 20 years = it expired on April 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The status &quot;lapsed in a contracting state&quot; is something unique with the EPO system, which creates a bundle of patents for several contracting states (this is a choice made by the applicant).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes you may see a granted patent appearing to have lapsed in several contracting states, but not all. This may happen right after grant, wherein the patent proprietor deliberately does not provide translation and/or other requirements set by the national patent offices, effecting that way a &quot;withdrawal&quot; from those states (its cheaper and faster).&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, the patent proprietor decides after a few years that he does not care e.g. for Austria and he simply stops renewing the fees in this country. The EP registry usually is up to date, but don't count on that to make important decisions: after grant always check national patent offices, regarding EP patents.&#xD;&#xA;Last but not least, if the patent lapses because it completed its 20-year-term, you will still see &quot;lapsed in a contracting state&quot;, because this is the correct legal term. The EPO awards patents, but the rights acquired relate to national laws." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16791" RevisionGUID="55117541-2626-45c2-b777-e9abb222121e" CreationDate="2016-12-01T17:33:07.690" UserId="18033" Text="*Can you notify them of the possible infringement of something that may become a patent?* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, sure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Is it improper?* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe. But then, why would it be? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Is it a good idea?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably not!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider this:&#xD;&#xA;==============&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**You cannot exercise any rights against them (yet).** So what happens if you notify them? Best case - they don't care. Worst case: They tell you that they have an older patent / ip-right and sue you for infringing their rights AND second worst case: they start submitting third party observations against yur patent which leads to a delay of the granting of your patent and might make the scope of your claims more narrow. &#xD;&#xA;Then when/if your patent is granted, they will opose it (=&gt; post grant review/reexamination).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what should you do in this situation?&#xD;&#xA;===================&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One possibility is to try to get a utility model to have an enforceable right fast. The other possibility is to to push the USPTO (consider the patent prosecution highway) and try to get a patent fast. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then you can contact them. (Wait 9 months, you don't want a reexamination/post grant review)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyways, as this patent (application) seems to be of some value, I'd suggest contacting a good patent attorney, they should tell you something similar and help you with your decision." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16792" RevisionGUID="1f888763-49f1-4ce3-a4d0-8425c8c08ab3" CreationDate="2016-12-01T18:11:38.697" UserId="18033" Text="A little late, but the answer is, if your algorithm uses all the steps of any claim in the patent, then you are infringing the patent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42781" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="6d74557f-d77d-4db1-a5f4-d55531fdc926" CreationDate="2016-12-01T22:50:05.450" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42782" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16643" RevisionGUID="8690f936-cad8-4973-8e41-c7b48ac7262e" CreationDate="2016-12-01T23:52:06.123" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42783" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14937" RevisionGUID="261c9e2d-73f9-4684-8172-f9f5d632727a" CreationDate="2016-12-02T00:52:06.370" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16775" RevisionGUID="fe684fdc-dd6d-424f-b574-a66e268286de" CreationDate="2016-12-02T06:25:05.523" UserId="18033" Comment="added 235 characters in body" Text="For your second question: No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to the first one, as this is harder. If the claims state something similar to *after adding two to two we get 4 but 4 is sufficiently close to 77 so whatever* or *we add 2 and 2 and procede*, then this should not in any way forbid you to use your invention. &#xD;&#xA;BUT:&#xD;&#xA;And this is actually what you asked: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Are patent claims valid if they are built on something which is mathematically or scientifically impossible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, if the patent is granted and the claim is sufficiently broad, it can be used against you. And to add another one, it might even be that you are not able to get that patent invalidated, depending very much on the exact problem and the wording of the patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: And as a comment said, impossible patents would/should not be granted, so if there are many granted patents on this topic, either it is not totally impossible or they are directed to things only in the vecinity of your method.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can you do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can patent it yourself if you think it is worth some money. From there on, if your way is really as much better as you state, you do have a good bargaining position. Anyone who uses the process would have to use yours afterwards (?), making your patent potentially stronger. And if it really comes down to it, you can probably invalidate a patent used against you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But helping you with the strategic part is really just guessing here, so let me know if you have any more specific questions.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42786" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16654" RevisionGUID="7718d58e-72c6-47f9-b5f7-bb13dce2c6ff" CreationDate="2016-12-02T09:52:17.663" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42793" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14517" RevisionGUID="7f517eaf-71f0-4f01-8be2-0c75151842ec" CreationDate="2016-12-02T17:02:26.797" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42795" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5977" RevisionGUID="0e56dc8d-3ac6-4065-a977-5cd87ef356d5" CreationDate="2016-12-02T18:07:19.113" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42803" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14508" RevisionGUID="e5345d9d-9b6f-4c45-8667-9d11519622b7" CreationDate="2016-12-03T01:16:39.140" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16796" RevisionGUID="05f5f07f-a977-4478-8bb3-fd230ac59b91" CreationDate="2016-12-03T13:49:07.327" UserId="18068" Text="If its your own logo design, there is no doubt that you want someone else to plagiarise it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;either you go for patent or trademark, I suggest you get it done at your earliest. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42807" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10378" RevisionGUID="4a4ff0e3-09b3-4e50-8cd8-b9e64704570b" CreationDate="2016-12-03T14:19:52.667" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42808" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15998" RevisionGUID="bb8636f2-7ea7-4b88-b6da-ed3ada3cbbc0" CreationDate="2016-12-03T15:19:53.560" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42810" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="79115fe6-ef46-4465-9f80-5c4e865414ba" CreationDate="2016-12-03T18:20:10.007" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42811" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13359" RevisionGUID="84425382-92f5-48a6-af96-e83d81506396" CreationDate="2016-12-03T19:20:02.770" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42812" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16251" RevisionGUID="50ab83a2-492e-42aa-be7f-924d5e7c92f9" CreationDate="2016-12-03T21:20:04.707" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16797" RevisionGUID="fcc6fbdf-a77c-492a-9562-a8849bbda6a4" CreationDate="2016-12-03T22:06:41.770" UserId="18033" Text="This is not answereable without knowing exactly what you are thinking about, so a patent attorney might be the way to go. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there a few things to consider beforehand - software by itself is (almost) unpatentable. he refresh button as such would not get a patent. So apart from copyright, protecting it could prove impossible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's still some stuff going on concerning this topic, but the best way to get software patented is going for the physical dependencies. Means: If your button blows up the computer in a novel and inventive way, thats patentable. If it sends a signal to a website making it refresh ... well ... maybe. Probably not though as the fact that software has to have some king of omplementation doesn't suffice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if your button is just a button - sorry. If it turns on your mircrowave - go talk to somebody who has the experience with this to formulate your claims in a patentable manner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42814" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16719" RevisionGUID="c3c55b9b-ed24-456d-9d81-5f61b88982f8" CreationDate="2016-12-03T22:12:37.243" UserId="16696" Comment="Added the direct answer to the question per a constructive critique" Text="Technically, it is not legal for someone to patent your invention:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The patent application includes a declaration in which the applicant swears that everything in the application is true. So if you falsely claim that you invented something when you did not, that would amount to fraud on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office which would result in a termination of any rights you may have obtained (along with possible sanctions). Second, your theft of the idea (referred to as misappropriation) may result in a separate lawsuit against you by the real inventor. That lawsuit may be based on different claims depending on your relationship with the real inventor -- for example, whether you had a confidential relationship with the actual inventor. In general theft of ideas is a dangerous game and one that usually backfires professionally and financially.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;source: http://www.intellectualpropertylawfirms.com/legal-advice/patent-rights-and-laws-for-ideas.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The direct answer is you've have to take them to take them to court and sue them.  You'd need to prove that they did indeed steal your invention.  To that end, you should save any correspondence (email, text, etc.) you have with relevant information. **You would definitely want to consult an attorney on how specifically to proceed.** Consultations are generally free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that patent litigation is generally ruinously expensive, so most parties will choose to settle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the invention makes a great deal of money, there are attorneys who will work on a straight contingency basis for a big cut of the award or settlement.  [Note that the idea that most parties settle can work in your favor here—those &quot;ruinous costs&quot; apply equally to the alleged thief.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now, every country in the world uses the &quot;First to File&quot; rule. (The US was the last holdout and only switched over in 2013.)  This means that if multiple inventors have the same idea, the one who files first has the right to the patent.  Obviously, this circumstance would also seem to open the door to the type of fraud you're experiencing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_____________________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In future, you may want to consider filing provisional patents before discussing ideas you believe in.  Provisional patents may be filed very inexpensively and do not require a lawyer--you just have to get the ideas down on paper and make sure it is understandable.  This then gives you a full year to decide whether to take on the expense of pursuing an non-provisional (formal) filing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42815" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16525" RevisionGUID="3fb5b196-25a4-4b5c-8e57-f49323827eaa" CreationDate="2016-12-04T00:20:05.997" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16798" RevisionGUID="2e320e25-188a-4f30-a09a-93cc135f8d76" CreationDate="2016-12-04T01:47:32.650" UserId="17077" Text="[Public Pair][1] Searching by patent number 5269144 doesn't show you in there on the case data.  There was a correction in 1999 but it is not listed with any documents on PAIR.  Google uses data from the USPTO and in there you aren't listed as inventor on either the text or image data. These are the listed inventors:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;STANLEY P. MILLER	NORTHVILLE, MI (US)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CRAIG L. SAVONEN	CARLTON, MI (US)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;STEVEN M. WEISMAN	FARMINGTON HILL, MI (US)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DAVID P TASKY	AUBURN HILLS, MI (US)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;JEFFREY S. HAWKINS	BURBANK, CA (US)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RICHARD E. WINSOR	BIRMINGHAM, MI (US)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42817" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16798" RevisionGUID="d117db06-ecf9-44cf-a46a-ae3943482692" CreationDate="2016-12-04T01:52:38.613" UserId="17077" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="[Public Pair][1] Searching by patent number 5269144 doesn't show you in there on the case data.  There was a correction in 1999 but it is not listed with any documents on PAIR.  Google uses data from the USPTO and in there you aren't listed as inventor on either the text or image data. These are the listed inventors:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;STANLEY P. MILLER	NORTHVILLE, MI (US)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CRAIG L. SAVONEN	CARLTON, MI (US)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;STEVEN M. WEISMAN	FARMINGTON HILL, MI (US)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DAVID P TASKY	AUBURN HILLS, MI (US)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;JEFFREY S. HAWKINS	BURBANK, CA (US)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RICHARD E. WINSOR	BIRMINGHAM, MI (US)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is the same as the PDF mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16798" RevisionGUID="5d489bdc-8898-4ed5-84eb-8011edb421c8" CreationDate="2016-12-04T01:58:40.243" UserId="17077" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="[Public Pair][1] Searching by patent number 5269144 doesn't show you in there on the case data.  There was a correction in 1999 but it is not listed with any documents on PAIR.  Google uses data from the USPTO and in there you aren't listed as inventor on either the text or image data. These are the listed inventors:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;STANLEY P. MILLER	NORTHVILLE, MI (US)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CRAIG L. SAVONEN	CARLTON, MI (US)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;STEVEN M. WEISMAN	FARMINGTON HILL, MI (US)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DAVID P TASKY	AUBURN HILLS, MI (US)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;JEFFREY S. HAWKINS	BURBANK, CA (US)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RICHARD E. WINSOR	BIRMINGHAM, MI (US)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see the change in inventorship at the end of the PDF document.  I believe you need to have the original data changed at the USPTO in order to have Google correct it because they are only reporting what the patent office is telling them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16799" RevisionGUID="9024c865-addc-46bb-b8f0-32263019ead9" CreationDate="2016-12-04T03:11:59.867" UserId="9847" Text="If another party patents an invention which builds on my own, do they have to get a license from me before they can start manufacturing their product?  For example, if I invented the 'chair', and later someone comes up with the novel idea of a 'chair with inbuilt drink holder', can they go ahead an manufacture the 'chair with inbuilt drink holder' without permission from me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42821" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16799" RevisionGUID="9024c865-addc-46bb-b8f0-32263019ead9" CreationDate="2016-12-04T03:11:59.867" UserId="9847" Text="Are other parties free to innovate on my invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42822" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16799" RevisionGUID="9024c865-addc-46bb-b8f0-32263019ead9" CreationDate="2016-12-04T03:11:59.867" UserId="9847" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16800" RevisionGUID="62815d43-b84d-44e9-9706-002525b3aa1d" CreationDate="2016-12-04T04:01:31.787" UserId="17003" Text="If they use your patented invention, they need to obtain a license from you. If you want to use their improvement, you would need to obtain a license from them. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16801" RevisionGUID="0633246f-79c0-4988-b687-211f44cdbce6" CreationDate="2016-12-04T08:13:37.903" UserId="18033" Text="The agreement is binding (to the extent of its wording and if they signed it to). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To protect your work from beeing patented by somebody else you can either file a patent/utility model/design or publish it. As the law grants the patent to the first person to file, its basically your problem if someone else patents this first. UNLESS it was stolen from you, in that case, if you can prove that, you can take over their patent/priority. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mailing it to yourself will probably not help as they would claim that they invented it too, you need prove of giving it to them prior to their application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42825" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="4b9b3649-af13-421c-8d17-72584d971a21" CreationDate="2016-12-04T09:22:07.833" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16802" RevisionGUID="906c9e12-b296-4b9e-8046-e3266526c182" CreationDate="2016-12-04T10:38:33.870" UserId="17325" Text="You are right up until the point you mention the &quot;A&quot; suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of us, I suppose, gather information for major markets, so you can make a list where you will gather kind codes for applications and granted patents. EPO, USA, Australia, Japan use a &quot;B&quot; for granted patents. Canada uses a &quot;C&quot;. China used to have a &quot;C&quot; for granted patents, now it's a &quot;B&quot;. All of them use &quot;A&quot; for applications. When you come across an &quot;A&quot; you might want to take a look at the examination stage in a few major offices (EPO and USPTO) to take an idea of what are the odds of this maturing into a patent. If you see a &quot;B&quot; you definitely need to see if it still valid, the renewal fees may have stop being paid, so then the patent will lapse. The patent may even be under litigation, or, for an EP patent, it might be validated only in certain countries and not the one you are interested in.&#xD;&#xA;I hope I didn't make it worse here :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42827" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16392" RevisionGUID="7024a880-adac-420e-9c8c-89a743cd089e" CreationDate="2016-12-04T12:22:18.957" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42828" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="ef5b5eda-0bcf-411a-bf0f-991b55b69227" CreationDate="2016-12-04T13:22:20.823" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42829" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16645" RevisionGUID="4ecd69b3-0055-4d01-ad12-49d40af9f9d4" CreationDate="2016-12-04T14:28:38.137" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42830" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14855" RevisionGUID="81f4292b-8e7e-4512-a160-128f5f263c62" CreationDate="2016-12-04T15:28:44.910" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42831" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16509" RevisionGUID="3733b060-4548-464a-9b3d-17fc0e5b1541" CreationDate="2016-12-04T18:29:57.947" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42833" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12640" RevisionGUID="510dfed9-ac0e-4868-8325-9e1cb89ba0c5" CreationDate="2016-12-04T20:40:14.483" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42834" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11943" RevisionGUID="83d16956-7aa1-43ef-9cbf-f47f1bae4d38" CreationDate="2016-12-04T21:43:49.143" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42835" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="48a224d2-10ab-4f9a-97ac-dcaf76459cae" CreationDate="2016-12-04T22:43:48.783" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42836" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11951" RevisionGUID="7e449204-fa89-4165-be9f-146bcddceb24" CreationDate="2016-12-05T04:44:07.117" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42837" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12990" RevisionGUID="6d10579b-c603-4ccf-bbe8-000b8d1849fa" CreationDate="2016-12-05T06:44:10.300" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42838" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16056" RevisionGUID="94188770-09b7-4370-8046-f2a097a19a64" CreationDate="2016-12-05T07:44:15.477" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42839" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16083" RevisionGUID="6e51f128-04df-494b-ab77-2489cf323947" CreationDate="2016-12-05T08:44:15.980" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42840" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9885" RevisionGUID="ebd89687-fc7d-4d6e-9a3e-7467c170c63b" CreationDate="2016-12-05T11:46:43.687" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42841" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13723" RevisionGUID="60ebaf06-0fbc-482e-8bdc-aa93f0935561" CreationDate="2016-12-05T12:49:58.537" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16804" RevisionGUID="147c72c1-88b2-44e5-8936-133f668cc844" CreationDate="2016-12-05T18:06:58.267" UserId="18081" Text="I have a patent pending method dealing with data compression and encryption.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the moment, I am attempting talks with various companies in the technology sector.  But due to difficulties in even getting them to respond to simple requests to talk, I am considering the use of a *challenge*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to provide contacted companies a sample product of the method, which in this case is a data encrypted and compressed file, and then proceed to ask them to decrypt and un-compress the file. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doing this, would I interfere with my chance to get a non-provisional patent here in the US or in foreign countries?  My understanding is that I would not, due in part that I already have a patent-pending on the method, and the challenge would be extended through private communication.  I do realize that there is always the risk they may break the method and have a clear understanding of it. I am willing to take that risk.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My second question is that I am considering doing the same for a crowd funding event. In that case, the product (challenge) is then put into the public disclosure.  Would such a challenge, in such a public manner, bar my chance to get a non-provisional here in the US or in foreign countries, despite having a patent pending already in place?  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42843" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16804" RevisionGUID="147c72c1-88b2-44e5-8936-133f668cc844" CreationDate="2016-12-05T18:06:58.267" UserId="18081" Text="Would providing a sample put in jeopardy my patent pending?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42844" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16804" RevisionGUID="147c72c1-88b2-44e5-8936-133f668cc844" CreationDate="2016-12-05T18:06:58.267" UserId="18081" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;public&gt;&lt;pending&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16805" RevisionGUID="3553000b-abc8-4404-aeae-61c4bfad215b" CreationDate="2016-12-05T19:29:14.533" UserId="18033" Text="First things first, private communication is not always enough to secure the possibility of patenting something. If the other party does not know (and accept) the secrecy, that can backfire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, coming to your question: You can tell everyone you want everything that is already in your patent application as this counts as disclosed (regarding novelty) for future applications anyways (leaving divisionals and continuations out). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to continue patenting improvements you have to be careful, everything you disclose might impede future patents. If the other party agrees on secrecy, you can tell them anything (at least from a patent law view, maybe telling them everything is not always the best way to go when talking strategy ;-) )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16806" RevisionGUID="d1e03f18-0b36-4113-bcc1-919dbf83dc6c" CreationDate="2016-12-05T19:53:25.697" UserId="18033" Text="You can send third party observations to the USPTO to tell them about your evidence. But there is another issue I want to bring to your attention:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent on this matter has already been granted in Europe ( https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=EP&amp;NR=2915455B1&amp;KC=B1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=1&amp;date=20160907&amp;DB=&amp;locale=# ). The opposition time for a european patent is 9 months after the grant and its running, so if you want to do anything against the european patent before it gets even more costly (after the 9 months) you might want to hurry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42847" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16253" RevisionGUID="757c34ee-0749-45b3-a6f5-83f47c01789f" CreationDate="2016-12-05T22:50:34.087" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42848" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="b5803b83-8d93-4c16-9c04-e6e04fb170b8" CreationDate="2016-12-06T00:52:23.993" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42849" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16510" RevisionGUID="10a889e8-89b6-4d21-a52d-d385babfa77e" CreationDate="2016-12-06T01:52:32.227" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42850" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12990" RevisionGUID="a6598912-9e34-441f-af44-1fe848d24e0d" CreationDate="2016-12-06T02:27:45.500" UserId="18033" Comment="changed the tag as this does not seem to be a prior art request but rather a question relating to patentability" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42851" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12990" RevisionGUID="a6598912-9e34-441f-af44-1fe848d24e0d" CreationDate="2016-12-06T02:27:45.500" Comment="Proposed by 18033 approved by 11394, 15503 edit id of 1980" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16786" RevisionGUID="e2052288-1c96-44d4-8f1f-00fffe09d330" CreationDate="2016-12-06T02:27:57.140" UserId="17077" Comment="Added a PDF link  &amp; Google Patent link" Text="I was the original inventor of patent #[US5269144A][1], however; I was added later due to a major oversight. When I search my name for patents, this patent does not show up? My name is shown if you click on &quot;[View PDF][2]&quot;. Is it possible to remedy this in the Google Database?&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;Michael J. Holihan&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5269144&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US5269144.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42853" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16786" RevisionGUID="e2052288-1c96-44d4-8f1f-00fffe09d330" CreationDate="2016-12-06T02:27:57.140" Comment="Proposed by 17077 approved by 11394, 15503 edit id of 1979" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42854" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14632" RevisionGUID="07ef34b6-076b-4ec2-8b08-269ef09ae308" CreationDate="2016-12-06T02:52:33.280" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42855" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16786" RevisionGUID="f70a5a2c-eedf-4a41-adfc-566782d36b4a" CreationDate="2016-12-06T03:41:14.197" UserId="15503" Comment="remove signature" Text="I was the original inventor of patent #[US5269144A][1], however; I was added later due to a major oversight. When I search my name for patents, this patent does not show up? My name is shown if you click on &quot;[View PDF][2]&quot;. Is it possible to remedy this in the Google Database?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5269144&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US5269144.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42856" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14061" RevisionGUID="3ed1b8d5-5747-4418-9c21-4a2a793ec997" CreationDate="2016-12-06T03:52:38.473" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16807" RevisionGUID="b4b55fe9-7dfb-47e5-ab10-7ea94a8f36ee" CreationDate="2016-12-06T06:49:41.270" UserId="17325" Text="In principle, everything you make available to the public can potentially cause trouble. The previous answer puts it well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key question is: Is this product fully covered by your pending patent? If yes I see no reason to worry about intellectual property issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not then there are two solutions I can think of: 1) secrecy agreement as mentioned in the previous answer, 2) filing another patent application (and explore if you can combine it with the pending patent appl., if the latter is not yet published of course)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42863" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13939" RevisionGUID="3405f6d7-0ae5-4741-af08-1bd71eda979f" CreationDate="2016-12-06T12:59:21.480" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16810" RevisionGUID="45cceb2d-0520-41e1-95bd-ce7023f27f25" CreationDate="2016-12-06T17:33:25.587" UserId="8800" Text="My invention is a printed circuit board with a micro-controller, which runs my software algorithm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The algorithm is about 3500 lines of source code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just read USPTO rule that computer listing of move than 300 lines must go on CD.  But I want to apply by EFS-WEB, and get the prov appl done ASAP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I skip providing computer listing just for the provisional patent application, but then include it for the non-prov appl?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42869" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16810" RevisionGUID="45cceb2d-0520-41e1-95bd-ce7023f27f25" CreationDate="2016-12-06T17:33:25.587" UserId="8800" Text="is a computer listing necessary for a provisional utility patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42870" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16810" RevisionGUID="45cceb2d-0520-41e1-95bd-ce7023f27f25" CreationDate="2016-12-06T17:33:25.587" UserId="8800" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16797" RevisionGUID="7b89faeb-7f78-4cdf-9c4c-2da034dd43a3" CreationDate="2016-12-06T17:42:31.073" UserId="18033" Comment="Corrected the refresh button thing" Text="This is not answereable without knowing exactly what you are thinking about, so a patent attorney might be the way to go. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there a few things to consider beforehand - software by itself is (almost) unpatentable. So apart from copyright, protecting it could be hard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's still some stuff going on concerning this topic, but the best way to get software patented is going for the physical dependencies. Means: If your button blows up the computer in a novel and inventive way, thats patentable. If it sends a signal to a website making it refresh ... well ... maybe. Probably not though as the fact that software has to have some king of omplementation doesn't suffice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if your button is just a button - thats a tough nut. If it turns on your mircrowave - go talk to somebody who has the experience with this to formulate your claims in a patentable manner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16737" RevisionGUID="7c2f7c31-5bc1-4b3c-a0ce-a4158ae566b4" CreationDate="2016-12-06T17:45:29.443" UserId="17077" Comment="added text" Text="It is an issued patent. The fees are up to date.  You can check the status yourself on the public [PAIR][1] site.  If you have evidence that the invention is being practiced in the wild; the cup suspension device may have been licenced, transformed into a company that manufactures the device or simply the patent is being ignored and the owner is not pursuing legal means to protect their patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16812" RevisionGUID="a0814799-57e8-401b-800a-28009fea5f5e" CreationDate="2016-12-06T18:06:56.613" UserId="18033" Text="A patent is not a way to put some kind of copyright on your software. As far as I know, there is no reason to include that much code in &quot;any&quot; patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your question, no, you cannot add new matter to the non-provisional. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Try getting a more abstract patent. If you need 3500 lines of code todescribe what you are protecting, than taking your code and from there getting around your claims will be easier than reinventing what you wrote and getting around your claims from there. So basically, you would be hurting yourself with that application and it would have no value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh and do you really think any examiner will read and understand 3500 lines of code? Getting that patent would not involve much fun.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16813" RevisionGUID="ec010cee-68df-403f-8408-231c34e01983" CreationDate="2016-12-06T18:49:39.397" UserId="11947" Text="I was in similar situation. My software utility patent application was rejected on &quot;abstract idea&quot; basis. So with the help of my lawer I made it more specific and submitted continuation. In your case your broadest claim could be rejected but some of narrow claims could be accepted. But then you need to make sure they cover the gist of your invention. Another way keep it secret and have potential clients to sign NDA. When filing my application I have chosen not to publish it, in case if I don't get a patent I still rely on copyright protection. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16814" RevisionGUID="33003d78-43c3-4554-b24f-2ceedd1ad705" CreationDate="2016-12-06T19:04:21.110" UserId="18033" Text="&gt; Protect the method at the heart of my software to prevent copy-cats, and&#xD;&#xA;    Protect my right to make novel additions in the future&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You, and everybody else, have the right to make novel additions. Unless they are still using your patent protected invention to at least the full extend of one of your claims, there is nothing you can do against them using and/or patenting their invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Submitting a provisional application for the core method, and&#xD;&#xA;    Publicly releasing information about future additions, for example in blog posts, presentations, etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If I do this well, does it achieve my two IP protection priorities? Does it prevent copy cats? And am I free to build the add-ons that I make public early on? Or... is there a better way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will achieve two things - it will (if the patent gets granted etc.) protect your &quot;core method&quot; and it will impede everyone including you from patenting anything you publicly disclose after the diclosure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have considered detailing all the add-ons in my initial provisional application while discussing a method of performing the invention, however it would add quite an overhead to the process so my strong preference is not to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the best way. Patent protection costs money and time. Taking one of them out of the equation, will reduce the outcome.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16816" RevisionGUID="7bfc71cc-46b0-49e7-94e6-e8865863f931" CreationDate="2016-12-06T19:48:48.023" UserId="18033" Text="It the claim states media device - no. But in the case of the iPod, there are probably other rights protecting aspects of the design (trademarks, copyrights)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16817" RevisionGUID="1e0f3441-8745-4a42-ac48-59d94aee14a2" CreationDate="2016-12-06T19:53:34.667" UserId="18033" Text="Citing the candian patent office website as reached through the google patents link on &quot;dead&quot; applications:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The date that an abandoned application could normally no longer be reinstated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the owner is in a coma and can therefore reinstate the right after waking up (I don't know if this is possible in Canada), the patent is most probably &quot;dead&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16818" RevisionGUID="3b6bfb3e-8adb-4b93-b02a-96d949d2e164" CreationDate="2016-12-06T20:02:03.187" UserId="18033" Text="You can play with the wording and scope of the patents, you might even be able to hide them a little, but a good patent search will most probably reveal them to your competitor after he knows of one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you have to be careful not to reveal anything in one patent that would impede one of the other patents from beeing granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are ready to invest the money for more than one application, you should talk to a patent attorney regarding the strategy, a good one will be able to help with this in the special case and tell you what makes sense. Even getting one patent made by a good attorney might be worth more and cost the same as getting/applying for a few &quot;bad&quot; patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16819" RevisionGUID="40fb1ea0-f97a-4331-948e-7e3c1f7c7316" CreationDate="2016-12-06T20:08:42.677" UserId="18033" Text="1. They would get granted as they are innovative.&#xD;&#xA;2. If they produced their TVs they would infringe the original patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, this would probably classify as a &quot;standard essential patent&quot;, making licences by the fair reasonable and non discriminating (FRAND) criteria available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact explanation of this would go to far, google it and then try to determine if the patent is eligible for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patenting a (mayor) innovation on another patent is possible and does not infringe the original patent. If it is much better than the original (like HD for example) (if the owner of the original actually produces TVs) you might both need the other ones patent and have a good basis for licensing each others patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16820" RevisionGUID="ce138cc2-9f8c-46b2-9f32-abb8c2267016" CreationDate="2016-12-06T20:14:20.977" UserId="18033" Text="Neither the gameplay nor the game mechanics are patentable. You can protect the design, but not the game nor what you are aiming for - your idea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it basically comes down to marketing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16821" RevisionGUID="0e49695e-fd43-4f9b-b540-ec3ebe81d35e" CreationDate="2016-12-06T20:19:17.230" UserId="18033" Text="Thats a US patent. Follow the google link to espacenet and search the patent family tab for european/UK patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16822" RevisionGUID="5c809c4b-915f-4a81-8988-ba91aee3098d" CreationDate="2016-12-06T20:21:39.043" UserId="18033" Text="If your idea is novel and inventive over the prior art, patenting it is possible. The only risks are losing the money invested in the patent if it is not granted and disclosing information in the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to use the idea, check the license for the free part of opencv, are you allowed to use it commercially?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42889" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16544" RevisionGUID="fc1dc7c2-c6f6-47d7-bf56-984944168f5f" CreationDate="2016-12-06T22:03:18.500" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42890" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13762" RevisionGUID="4ef3d30a-9ba2-4780-9cb7-20d50d2302bf" CreationDate="2016-12-07T01:04:07.490" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16789" RevisionGUID="14c0d499-dbed-4a51-8967-347951e6e735" CreationDate="2016-12-07T02:01:40.857" UserId="18033" Comment="minor changes, retagged" Text="Does somebody know which is the procedure to submit a Third Party Observation at SIPO (China)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On its website there isn´t any information related to TPOs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Christian.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42892" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16789" RevisionGUID="14c0d499-dbed-4a51-8967-347951e6e735" CreationDate="2016-12-07T02:01:40.857" UserId="18033" Comment="minor changes, retagged" Text="&lt;china&gt;&lt;procedures&gt;&lt;tpo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42893" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16789" RevisionGUID="14c0d499-dbed-4a51-8967-347951e6e735" CreationDate="2016-12-07T02:01:40.857" Comment="Proposed by 18033 approved by 1698, 15503 edit id of 1981" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16789" RevisionGUID="e192ddb7-7659-4d47-9ce4-56499701ae4f" CreationDate="2016-12-07T02:02:41.947" UserId="15503" Comment="remove signature" Text="Does somebody know which is the procedure to submit a Third Party Observation at SIPO (China)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On its website there isn't any information related to TPOs.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42895" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="c4867a33-535d-4f30-857a-4806d9684131" CreationDate="2016-12-07T06:08:57.957" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16812" RevisionGUID="d3d8086a-873c-400f-a41b-f085e5f2d0a1" CreationDate="2016-12-07T06:49:43.937" UserId="18033" Comment="added 245 characters in body" Text="A patent is not a way to put some kind of copyright on your software. As far as I know, there is no reason to include that much code in &quot;any&quot; patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your question, you should not add new matter to the non-provisional if you already know that matter. If you add anything substantial, all claims relating to the new matter will have the new priority date. So if you add the main part of the description later, you could have filed later with almost the same effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Try getting a more abstract patent. If you need 3500 lines of code todescribe what you are protecting, than taking your code and from there getting around your claims will be easier than reinventing what you wrote and getting around your claims from there. So basically, you would be hurting yourself with that application and it would have no value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh and do you really think any examiner will read and understand 3500 lines of code? Getting that patent would not involve much fun.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42897" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="4253d283-bfd4-448e-bfb6-15568f9b6904" CreationDate="2016-12-07T08:08:57.533" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42898" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13276" RevisionGUID="eda27adc-b4a8-4f40-89e1-f58bdd21b01d" CreationDate="2016-12-07T10:11:06.330" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42899" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16274" RevisionGUID="37cb0497-797f-4883-93bd-53d5e56091c4" CreationDate="2016-12-07T11:11:08.573" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42900" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13601" RevisionGUID="3a455f60-0fab-45f8-99a2-5c1b17e801f7" CreationDate="2016-12-07T13:11:20.290" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42901" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14699" RevisionGUID="888f2233-bb87-42bf-93a7-82b42a2ef323" CreationDate="2016-12-07T15:20:40.060" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42902" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10602" RevisionGUID="189dd113-1ea1-4e0c-a517-24d32ce07293" CreationDate="2016-12-07T16:20:48.953" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42904" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16022" RevisionGUID="f5368dd6-2680-4b34-9da8-ea790cda4968" CreationDate="2016-12-07T18:20:59.263" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16823" RevisionGUID="856b513b-6fd8-4f52-8298-2a32b6e0a3c0" CreationDate="2016-12-07T19:16:52.517" UserId="18033" Text="Let's suppose I have an examiner that is &quot;difficult&quot; (I won't elaborate this further, but it might be easier to &quot;refile&quot; the patent than to continue with this examiner). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know just refiling the patent is not possible, but can I get a divisional or a continuation (or sth else) with minimum effort filed and will it go to a different examiner? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42906" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16823" RevisionGUID="856b513b-6fd8-4f52-8298-2a32b6e0a3c0" CreationDate="2016-12-07T19:16:52.517" UserId="18033" Text="What is the &quot;easiest&quot; way to get a new examiner?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42907" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16823" RevisionGUID="856b513b-6fd8-4f52-8298-2a32b6e0a3c0" CreationDate="2016-12-07T19:16:52.517" UserId="18033" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;examiner&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42908" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5897" RevisionGUID="030cdac6-399b-4011-bbf9-7d9db757c722" CreationDate="2016-12-07T20:21:01.277" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42909" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16635" RevisionGUID="c1781f04-4bae-484a-b680-596d9b0b7719" CreationDate="2016-12-07T21:21:01.483" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16824" RevisionGUID="91138d47-53ab-432b-92e3-fb9dbdfeca2b" CreationDate="2016-12-07T21:30:31.643" UserId="14038" Text="The normal practice at the USPTO is that all co_pending applications (continuations, divisionals, CIP) are examined by the same examiner.  The only way that I know to change examiners is if the subject matter of the claims were amended so that the application would be assigned to a different technology center.  However, that is a fairly drastic step.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42912" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14366" RevisionGUID="adb87a67-e109-481f-bfdf-72bb9eca9a00" CreationDate="2016-12-07T22:20:59.443" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="17ae5846-aaeb-4d37-90e4-75c6edd85441" CreationDate="2016-12-08T00:43:50.397" UserId="17944" Comment="added pigeon Post link and download links for FLEXIPILOT manuals" Text="I am wondering what is the legal situation here, &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Thererefore, at least the following is claimed:&#xD;&#xA;*assessing weather along a route...&#xD;&#xA;*evaluating approach to drop&#xD;&#xA;*calculating amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, and other subclaims are replicating capability of a product sold in small quantities circa 2009-2013 worldwide (Norway, Poland US, France, Czech Rep. to name a few) being integrated with unamanned aerial vehicles (UAVs: EasyUAV, Pteryx UAV, Demon UAV, and Manta/EasyMap UAV). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A computer performing said flight planning was FLEXIPILOT and in its flexipilot1.35-navigation-en manual that circulated on the web for years before the product was discontinued, one can achieve exactly this delivery functionality using UAV. It was designed for such missions, including Australian Outback Delivery Challenge, which was performed by similar control devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of FLEXIPILOT, weather was estimated prior to takeoff by entering variables SIM_WIN_SPEED and SIM_WIND_HEADING on its delivery console (which allowed communication via modem). For example command WPTITERALL was assessing total flight time both including or neglecting wind estimates, RETHOME logic is evaluating possible outcomes in realtime based on both its own internal estimate of wind speed and SIM_WIND_SPEED that could be transmitted and received at any moment, using those factors and published (exported to US for University) telemetry protocol FLEXIPILOT integrated with PTERYX device ws able to report in realtime flight times to takeoff, any of its emergency landign sites, projected time to impact earth at any time, and time to WPT_TARGET which was location of generalized geographic hook, relative to which any waypoint could be placed. Because relative placement of waypoints included the option of displacement and heading depending on wind direction estimate, device was effectively used for planning landing as a function of meteo conditions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because at any waypoint which could be looped one could perform any servo movement action using TRIGGER or PARA logic, this UAV control computer was capable and was tested  for delivery missions and indeed similar missions were performed as early as 2010 by several contestans of DIYDRONES T2 contest - airdrop challenge (egg delivery) using also open-source counterparts of said autopilot. IMO there is nothing innovative in this patent, not even the fact that they are delivering a container which was subject of contests 6 years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NOTE:&#xD;&#xA;I have also found this presentation on public diydrones forum, claiming almost identical behaviour for delivery drones:&#xD;&#xA;Pigeon Post presentation dated 2013-02-13&#xD;&#xA;www.youtube.com/watch?v=3boZtKRseSA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FLEXIPILOT navigation manual is here, all versions are from 2013:&#xD;&#xA;https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9-O1_5eWoN9Q2tNWUpvbndaV2s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FLEXIPILOT telemetry manual is here, showing sample display application for parameters&#xD;&#xA;https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9-O1_5eWoN9WGZEenVINWtxaHc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FLEXIPILOT open source telemetry code:&#xD;&#xA;https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9-O1_5eWoN9SGhib2xtMVhsNms&#xD;&#xA;which contains ID=12&#xD;&#xA;time2ground variable with impact_type=2 designating payload delivery time&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42914" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="17ae5846-aaeb-4d37-90e4-75c6edd85441" CreationDate="2016-12-08T00:43:50.397" UserId="17944" Comment="added pigeon Post link and download links for FLEXIPILOT manuals" Text="US20160239804 Modular Air Delivery based on behaviour of existing product and public UAV delivery contests - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42915" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14697" RevisionGUID="6abf8620-983e-412b-ba78-cfff98981d2a" CreationDate="2016-12-08T01:23:22.707" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16826" RevisionGUID="f3d01b1c-387b-4729-ae51-9c32b2bb5126" CreationDate="2016-12-08T03:17:52.880" UserId="16211" Text="I mean by public a person, a civilan acting on his or her private time, a user of the web. I am really not aware if I can enter the building being an homeless in San Jose, Ca, USA. I follow the Law at all time; but I am not a member of any group or any companies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42919" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16826" RevisionGUID="f3d01b1c-387b-4729-ae51-9c32b2bb5126" CreationDate="2016-12-08T03:17:52.880" UserId="16211" Text="Is the new federal Patents office in San Jose, Ca, USA open to the public?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42920" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16826" RevisionGUID="f3d01b1c-387b-4729-ae51-9c32b2bb5126" CreationDate="2016-12-08T03:17:52.880" UserId="16211" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;employer&gt;&lt;government-rights&gt;&lt;military&gt;&lt;user2174870&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42922" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16826" RevisionGUID="1ae6192f-0589-4a3d-ac62-d429dd01fc38" CreationDate="2016-12-08T03:44:41.557" UserId="-1" Comment="I am trying to be clear because I have a patent to ask for." Text="How much does it cost to buy a patent to protect your invention if you are a civilian, a public member?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42923" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16826" RevisionGUID="1ae6192f-0589-4a3d-ac62-d429dd01fc38" CreationDate="2016-12-08T03:44:41.557" Comment="Proposed by 130.65.109.102|e652ac20-3f5b-4235-affb-046d0c0046a0 approved by 16211 edit id of 1984" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42927" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16676" RevisionGUID="650b26d2-30b9-4a1f-8ce8-8eac17d836ed" CreationDate="2016-12-08T07:25:38.763" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42928" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="16789" RevisionGUID="8c029730-76a7-45eb-b25c-5e25407f545b" CreationDate="2016-12-08T07:36:38.723" UserId="18033" Comment="36" />
  <row Id="42929" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14409" RevisionGUID="21970708-57fb-4bfc-a316-a86ee693d178" CreationDate="2016-12-08T10:27:31.193" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42930" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14355" RevisionGUID="c6fc02fa-a0c6-411b-abaa-fc208b06f8a8" CreationDate="2016-12-08T11:30:40.237" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42931" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16069" RevisionGUID="9b16559a-2ffc-4ef9-9de4-a5a0084d0e7a" CreationDate="2016-12-08T12:30:39.613" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16829" RevisionGUID="87faf6c3-22f1-4333-80f8-bd85099af859" CreationDate="2016-12-08T17:43:43.793" UserId="18033" Text="It might be possible to renew the patent if the lapse was in the close past. But the only way to to purchase a patent is by talking to the owner. There is no such thing as buying patents that others surrendered from the government or something alike.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even if you do renew a patent by buying it shortly after the non payment of fees (you can look up the exact regulations for the renewment), please consider that nobody would not-pay the fees on a patent he considers valuable. Most of the times, not paying the fees is just a easier way of surrendering the patent (or application)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42934" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="67f62625-8abe-4400-a1c8-6a53f63e7268" CreationDate="2016-12-08T20:31:43.303" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42935" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13934" RevisionGUID="15253f3a-36c6-4824-8da1-1ae1d74f4e10" CreationDate="2016-12-08T21:31:50.920" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16830" RevisionGUID="2d6b083a-b35a-4830-9d94-40619f6e6722" CreationDate="2016-12-08T21:38:53.880" UserId="18098" Text="I developed a digital signature standard for 2D barcodes in 2007 for the TSA to verify the authenticity of boarding passes. IATA took this work and carried it forward as a standard across airlines." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16831" RevisionGUID="4d21449a-3e1e-4a8c-9aa5-610c6e296bc7" CreationDate="2016-12-08T21:56:20.237" UserId="18033" Text="A few hundred dollars at first, around 5-8 thousand if you want a patent attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later the maintenance fees go up, but you can always abandon the patent / application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16832" RevisionGUID="fca8fb01-e5b3-42f0-8ac6-d0d8d8765d01" CreationDate="2016-12-08T22:42:31.193" UserId="18099" Text="Is it allowable in US patents to have a claim dependent on a later claim in an amendment? For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. (previously presented) The system of claim 17 where ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;17. (currently amended) A system where ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I can't find this specifically disallowed in the MPEP. I work on software that analyzes patents and a customer is claiming our software is wrong because it flags this as an error." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42939" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16832" RevisionGUID="fca8fb01-e5b3-42f0-8ac6-d0d8d8765d01" CreationDate="2016-12-08T22:42:31.193" UserId="18099" Text="Claim dependence on later claim" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42940" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16832" RevisionGUID="fca8fb01-e5b3-42f0-8ac6-d0d8d8765d01" CreationDate="2016-12-08T22:42:31.193" UserId="18099" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;dependent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16833" RevisionGUID="53334e49-ba01-4ac5-abc0-d30f7f5ba327" CreationDate="2016-12-09T00:07:22.773" UserId="15503" Text="You have asked about patents. However, your use of status identifiers (like &quot;previously presented&quot;) implies you actually mean to ask about applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For applications, this is permitted (and in fact near unavoidable in certain cases).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[MPEP § 714](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s714.html) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The original numbering of the claims must be preserved throughout the prosecution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus if an original claim is made dependent on a later claim, it would be seemingly improper to renumber it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is actually made explicit in the case of reissues (although this is only a very niche area, and is not necessarily comparable to prosecution generally) by [MPEP § 1455](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1455.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;No renumbering of the original patent claims is permitted, even if the dependency of a dependent patent claim is changed by reissue so that it is to be dependent on a subsequent higher numbered claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, the examiner will renumber the claims themselves when the application is issued. So even if claim 1 is a dependent claim during prosecution, it will most likely be an independent claim in the issued patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42950" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14767" RevisionGUID="8d7ee767-6f88-4dbe-8bd7-a0509564cb81" CreationDate="2016-12-09T01:29:30.517" UserId="18033" Comment="changed the tag" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42951" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14767" RevisionGUID="8d7ee767-6f88-4dbe-8bd7-a0509564cb81" CreationDate="2016-12-09T01:29:30.517" Comment="Proposed by 18033 approved by 15503, 1 edit id of 1983" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42952" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16665" RevisionGUID="a9a964ef-c2a7-4e38-8582-52298541f84f" CreationDate="2016-12-09T01:29:35.483" UserId="18033" Comment="changed tags from &quot;intervening&quot; and &quot;rights&quot; to &quot;intervening rights&quot; " Text="&lt;revive&gt;&lt;intervening-rights&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42953" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16665" RevisionGUID="a9a964ef-c2a7-4e38-8582-52298541f84f" CreationDate="2016-12-09T01:29:35.483" Comment="Proposed by 18033 approved by 15503, 1 edit id of 1982" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16832" RevisionGUID="9dfb1b95-7d48-4e06-82d3-b53aaf1477a9" CreationDate="2016-12-09T02:47:15.883" UserId="18099" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Is it allowable in US patent applications to have a claim dependent on a later claim in an amendment? For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. (previously presented) The system of claim 17 where ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;17. (currently amended) A system where ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I can't find this specifically disallowed in the MPEP. I work on software that analyzes patents and a customer is claiming our software is wrong because it flags this as an error." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42957" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16542" RevisionGUID="fa2a676e-11a4-43ae-b15c-768e102b7cf3" CreationDate="2016-12-09T04:46:59.363" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42958" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16078" RevisionGUID="3d2c385f-56e9-40ba-9d5d-c2534f2521f5" CreationDate="2016-12-09T08:49:39.147" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16835" RevisionGUID="9d61374f-e4b1-4b8c-ad0e-e56f9c88017d" CreationDate="2016-12-09T09:06:16.230" UserId="18019" Text="Microsoft do seem to like double patenting, even though they have to make terminal disclaimers in respect of their applications. But I cannot see the point, unless it's just to increase the cost of ex-parte attempts to invalidate their patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They're also submitting continuing applications that do not contain additional claims for the invention in the patent being continued, but instead contain claims that duplicate, more or less, those in a different patent. They seem to be getting away with that, which I'd have thought they shouldn't be." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42960" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16835" RevisionGUID="9d61374f-e4b1-4b8c-ad0e-e56f9c88017d" CreationDate="2016-12-09T09:06:16.230" UserId="18019" Text="Double patenting and continuation patents that don't continue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42961" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16835" RevisionGUID="9d61374f-e4b1-4b8c-ad0e-e56f9c88017d" CreationDate="2016-12-09T09:06:16.230" UserId="18019" Text="&lt;us20150339333&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42970" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14868" RevisionGUID="c527d2b5-f71f-4796-a479-3ebe5187ffa9" CreationDate="2016-12-09T18:01:31.610" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16838" RevisionGUID="7c8f9fac-f397-418f-8bc6-0845438e24f3" CreationDate="2016-12-09T18:01:47.627" UserId="18105" Text="I am currently working on getting my organization known, and came up with ideas for services that no one else offers right now (please don't ask for *very* specific details, I don't really want to give them away yet). I was wondering if there was a way to patent a service (since it is a process)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The service I am focusing on is where you send in your device, we do things to it, and we send it back, but it's the things we do to it that we want to patent (and the things I'm not going to put here). Is this possible? And if so, is there anything special I must do to make it work and what would the cost estimate be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42972" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16838" RevisionGUID="7c8f9fac-f397-418f-8bc6-0845438e24f3" CreationDate="2016-12-09T18:01:47.627" UserId="18105" Text="Can I patent a service that I don't want another business to offer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42973" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16838" RevisionGUID="7c8f9fac-f397-418f-8bc6-0845438e24f3" CreationDate="2016-12-09T18:01:47.627" UserId="18105" Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42975" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16090" RevisionGUID="27438f79-fd4e-48ff-9e66-9c6e79de7302" CreationDate="2016-12-09T21:04:19.110" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42976" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14635" RevisionGUID="578dbd28-97f6-4099-90bc-4233e592544a" CreationDate="2016-12-09T22:04:20.860" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42977" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14266" RevisionGUID="2fbcdf6d-01a3-4372-9a9a-c8443a563fba" CreationDate="2016-12-09T23:07:25.650" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16839" RevisionGUID="44dfa1d5-cb84-490b-a83f-7b04fcd65d2e" CreationDate="2016-12-10T00:09:48.733" UserId="15503" Text="**Can we patent a process?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Definitely. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;35 USC 101 provides (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful **process**, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is the service you describe a patent eligible process?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not every process can be patented however. In particular, it must not be &quot;abstract&quot;. There is no hard rule for what is abstract. However, methods for financial trading (for example) are typically not allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because you can't share precisely what you're doing, it's impossible to give you a firm answer. However, since you seem to be doing something to a physical device, then your process is probably not abstract, and so would probably be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Costs**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's impossible to give you an answer here, since it depends on the nature of your invention and who your attorney is. It wouldn't be less than about USD 5000 for the patent application preparation and prosecution though, I would think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What should you do**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Go talk to a patent attorney. You will be able to disclose all the details of your invention to them, and they can give you a more accurate opinion of its patentability, along with a cost estimate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42979" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14833" RevisionGUID="39b6b005-4b20-4b6f-b450-dd8a75524ae9" CreationDate="2016-12-10T00:12:33.647" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42980" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16096" RevisionGUID="54e5e23d-fcbb-46db-a187-b490bdd8381c" CreationDate="2016-12-10T01:12:33.613" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42981" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14831" RevisionGUID="02943fd3-1160-4c2d-8481-8f3c618d4ab7" CreationDate="2016-12-10T02:12:46.010" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42982" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="999633b8-0dde-47b3-8c57-28dd3a5e9602" CreationDate="2016-12-10T03:12:46.190" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42983" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10796" RevisionGUID="d4d680a8-9f5f-4cb1-ba30-122998684a0e" CreationDate="2016-12-10T04:14:41.490" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42987" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16679" RevisionGUID="b497b833-3d94-4c9d-97f8-90bff6c14eb5" CreationDate="2016-12-10T07:18:33.263" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42988" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="427a974a-ee9a-410b-9f0e-7341b90d5b07" CreationDate="2016-12-10T10:19:09.907" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16841" RevisionGUID="0a017e31-d305-4220-a6c0-5b66401d0343" CreationDate="2016-12-10T11:38:30.190" UserId="18111" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2016054751A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2016054751A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What, in this claim is different from the following? (same applicant...extending life of the patent?)&#xD;&#xA;Integral joining&#xD;&#xA;Grant US7160405B2 Marcel Aeschlimann Woodwelding Ag&#xD;&#xA;Priority 1999-06-18 • Filing 2004-11-19 • Grant 2007-01-09 • Publication 2007-01-09&#xD;&#xA;A method for joining bodies by melting down a joining element. The joining element acts on a surface of one of the bodies and penetrates the surface as a result of a directed force. Once in a penetrated condition, a mechanical excitation … " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42990" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16841" RevisionGUID="0a017e31-d305-4220-a6c0-5b66401d0343" CreationDate="2016-12-10T11:38:30.190" UserId="18111" Text="What is different in this claim from US7160405B2 Marcel Aeschlimann?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42991" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16841" RevisionGUID="0a017e31-d305-4220-a6c0-5b66401d0343" CreationDate="2016-12-10T11:38:30.190" UserId="18111" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16842" RevisionGUID="e4a30f16-8967-4d3a-837b-b3989b390ba8" CreationDate="2016-12-10T14:16:30.940" UserId="17003" Text="While I haven't studied the cited patent, it is important to understand that the general area of a patent is often similar or the same as much prior art. If for instance someone publishes the idea of foam tipped arrows, another person could devise a novel and non obvious method of constructing foam tipped arrows and obtain a patent. That patent wouldn't keep others from making foam tipped arrows in general, but wold keep them from using the patented construction method. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42993" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12753" RevisionGUID="7c1f519e-619b-487e-a998-8f39c4fe8011" CreationDate="2016-12-10T18:24:05.173" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42994" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16124" RevisionGUID="06f39869-8902-4d1a-ab42-79872ad4d343" CreationDate="2016-12-11T00:33:24.420" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42996" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15983" RevisionGUID="db93e58a-55a3-42e0-9e93-67a1a2faba7e" CreationDate="2016-12-11T04:33:39.827" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42997" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15991" RevisionGUID="2c6eade6-ab97-40fe-b089-87365f536ca0" CreationDate="2016-12-11T05:33:39.820" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="42998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16843" RevisionGUID="d7308266-ecd0-4231-b428-fa2836c00394" CreationDate="2016-12-11T05:39:00.417" UserId="18114" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20130145240][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130145240&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I patent my own stories to be customized in ebook form? I write and ask, Are there aspects to this detailed patent that are not covered here that I can use for my ebooks?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please, lend your expertise!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42999" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16843" RevisionGUID="d7308266-ecd0-4231-b428-fa2836c00394" CreationDate="2016-12-11T05:39:00.417" UserId="18114" Text="Customizing Book Patent, very detailed. Can I file my own patent under something maybe missing from the former?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43000" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16843" RevisionGUID="d7308266-ecd0-4231-b428-fa2836c00394" CreationDate="2016-12-11T05:39:00.417" UserId="18114" Text="&lt;us20130145240&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43001" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16288" RevisionGUID="c30d0368-3907-4999-b069-8b9ecb554b12" CreationDate="2016-12-11T06:35:22.130" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43002" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="21d939fa-7d51-4ce3-9013-203747cc888f" CreationDate="2016-12-11T11:42:25.350" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43004" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16103" RevisionGUID="1ed70d69-05a1-483f-8a9e-42f3c8b1a5bc" CreationDate="2016-12-11T14:42:42.117" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16846" RevisionGUID="ccbf6005-e795-4bb5-a6e7-98a981034e26" CreationDate="2016-12-11T21:37:19.080" UserId="16942" Text="My invention is a method to make improved products. Also, it can be used to improve the previous products by adding parts to them or replacing parts from them by improved parts. But some friends warn me from writing &quot;previous products&quot; so how to write the idea?&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43010" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16846" RevisionGUID="ccbf6005-e795-4bb5-a6e7-98a981034e26" CreationDate="2016-12-11T21:37:19.080" UserId="16942" Text="How can I speak about upgrading the prior art/pre-existing/previous products?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43011" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16846" RevisionGUID="ccbf6005-e795-4bb5-a6e7-98a981034e26" CreationDate="2016-12-11T21:37:19.080" UserId="16942" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16847" RevisionGUID="0d1ee498-0b86-4fb9-8a61-61f53b338a4a" CreationDate="2016-12-11T22:33:07.677" UserId="16942" Text="1-Can I use the &quot;Background of the invention&quot; from a similar patent in my provisional application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2-Can I write this?&#xD;&#xA;In this feature of the invention, I recommend increasing the sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this feature of the invention, increasing the sound is very useful.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43013" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16847" RevisionGUID="0d1ee498-0b86-4fb9-8a61-61f53b338a4a" CreationDate="2016-12-11T22:33:07.677" UserId="16942" Text="Can I use the &quot;Background of the invention&quot; from a similar patent in my provisional application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43014" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16847" RevisionGUID="0d1ee498-0b86-4fb9-8a61-61f53b338a4a" CreationDate="2016-12-11T22:33:07.677" UserId="16942" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43015" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13614" RevisionGUID="dc633385-ed2f-4d1f-acbf-43a742d878c1" CreationDate="2016-12-11T22:49:32.310" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16848" RevisionGUID="a3c9271e-ccf5-4cdf-9e61-93737a962e6c" CreationDate="2016-12-12T01:08:16.577" UserId="18117" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140206209][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140206209&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Appears to be the same as US7458825 B2 granted to Walletex Microelectronics in 2008. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43017" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16848" RevisionGUID="a3c9271e-ccf5-4cdf-9e61-93737a962e6c" CreationDate="2016-12-12T01:08:16.577" UserId="18117" Text="Apple patent application already granted to another" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43018" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16848" RevisionGUID="a3c9271e-ccf5-4cdf-9e61-93737a962e6c" CreationDate="2016-12-12T01:08:16.577" UserId="18117" Text="&lt;apple&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16849" RevisionGUID="0283a83a-45c6-4d64-890a-daedd0ed2adc" CreationDate="2016-12-12T01:41:58.717" UserId="18118" Text="We are just about ready to file for our PPA, should our drawings contain exact measurements? &#xD;&#xA;The reason I am asking is that some told me that you should make your measurements a &quot;range&quot;, i.e. 3/16 to 5/16 inches in width, when your planned width is 1/4 inch. Whereas, you prevent someone from altering a measurement and being able to steal your patent, by a simple alteration.&#xD;&#xA;Sounds odd to me, but I wouldn't want to loose my invention over something like that issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43020" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16849" RevisionGUID="0283a83a-45c6-4d64-890a-daedd0ed2adc" CreationDate="2016-12-12T01:41:58.717" UserId="18118" Text="Should my Patent drawing contain specific exact measurement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43021" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16849" RevisionGUID="0283a83a-45c6-4d64-890a-daedd0ed2adc" CreationDate="2016-12-12T01:41:58.717" UserId="18118" Text="&lt;ppa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16850" RevisionGUID="636c3401-4529-4ffd-913f-bc5fb33ce4ab" CreationDate="2016-12-12T03:32:59.783" UserId="15503" Text="**Should the drawings contain measurements?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. Your drawings are there to show the nature of the invention, not to show exactly how it might be put into production. The particular dimensions are almost always irrelevant, and will not assist you in the drawings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only situation in which it *might* be useful to include dimensions in the drawings is where a precise size is essential (such that any deviation from the size would cause the invention not to work). However, this is so rare that I can't even think of an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should the description contain measurements?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The description can (and probably should) describe a size for any physical device. However, this should be described as a preference (such as &quot;in some embodiments, this can be about 2.5mm to about 3.5mm in length&quot;). You wouldn't generally want to limit yourself to a particular size (such as &quot;this must be 3mm long&quot;), since that may restrict the scope of your protection to that particular size. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a measurement is typically also described as a range, and using &quot;about&quot; or &quot;approximately&quot;. This further highlights that the size itself is only a guide, and is not an essential feature of your invention. It also provides more flexibility for basis for amendments in stricter jurisdictions (like Europe).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**An aside**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Measurements should be in metric (per [MPEP § 608.01(IV)](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43024" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14785" RevisionGUID="aa8aec66-6696-45f3-afbe-d7725d334bc4" CreationDate="2016-12-12T03:54:57.723" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43025" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14881" RevisionGUID="b5487de3-3abb-4ca4-8724-f7f2e22ae790" CreationDate="2016-12-12T04:56:08.497" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16851" RevisionGUID="966fefd2-8d2a-4d9a-9146-11de0178af36" CreationDate="2016-12-12T04:57:48.300" UserId="18121" Text="The question: &quot;How many newly registered patents were filed by NASA during the fiscal year 2016?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer may include any listing or database recently filed with the US Patent Office, its liaison with NASA or any NASA patent registry." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43027" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16851" RevisionGUID="966fefd2-8d2a-4d9a-9146-11de0178af36" CreationDate="2016-12-12T04:57:48.300" UserId="18121" Text="How many new patents were registered, commissioned or administered by NASA in 2016?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43028" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16851" RevisionGUID="966fefd2-8d2a-4d9a-9146-11de0178af36" CreationDate="2016-12-12T04:57:48.300" UserId="18121" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16852" RevisionGUID="7967f0b1-be03-4a43-a815-77f5d85b0e53" CreationDate="2016-12-12T07:29:28.567" UserId="18033" Text="For the first question: There is actually copyright on the text of patent applications (and the drawings), so if it is not your patent, no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the second, I'd go with the second sentence as using personal pronouns is bad style. But something like &quot;concerning this feature, an additional measure to increase user compatibility would be to turn up the volume&quot;. Your sentence hints that not increasing the volume might be bad and depending very much on the circumstances and the rest of the patent you *might* end up having to take the increasing volume into the respecting claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16853" RevisionGUID="29399adb-5c55-4ca2-9ea8-66f11e1b9d5d" CreationDate="2016-12-12T07:33:09.530" UserId="18033" Text="Well, as patent applications are published after 18 months, normally, from a patent database side, there is no way to know yet. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16854" RevisionGUID="be20f41d-8bcb-4e54-a604-0a0c92661ec3" CreationDate="2016-12-12T07:40:51.770" UserId="18033" Text="Patents can be sold, owners can change. I didn't look up if thats what happened here, but you can do that in the history of the patent (for example at espacenet)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43035" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12909" RevisionGUID="f7768ba7-3721-4dd9-8c13-cfa312e51a1f" CreationDate="2016-12-12T12:01:32.590" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16842" RevisionGUID="1970afb9-6f67-44fc-9f4e-e503559acc32" CreationDate="2016-12-12T15:49:17.927" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="While I haven't studied the cited patent, it is important to understand that the general area of a patent is often similar or the same as much prior art. If for instance someone publishes the idea of foam tipped arrows, another person could devise a novel and non obvious method of constructing foam tipped arrows and obtain a patent. That patent wouldn't keep others from making foam tipped arrows in general, but would keep them from using the patented construction method. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16852" RevisionGUID="54548cb8-9f2b-4f1d-a609-438c2eb2a924" CreationDate="2016-12-12T17:24:13.733" UserId="18033" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="For the first question: There is actually copyright on the text of patent applications (and the drawings), so if it is not your patent, no. (EDIT: see comments, this answer to the first question might be wrong)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the second, I'd go with the second sentence as using personal pronouns is bad style. But something like &quot;concerning this feature, an additional measure to increase user compatibility would be to turn up the volume&quot;. Your sentence hints that not increasing the volume might be bad and depending very much on the circumstances and the rest of the patent you *might* end up having to take the increasing volume into the respecting claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16857" RevisionGUID="b33d2626-8b08-4a0a-9404-3ba6ef52f6c5" CreationDate="2016-12-12T17:43:35.553" UserId="18033" Text="The drawings are supposed to be schematics, though they (rarely) contain exact numbers and (even more rarely) this can make sense if the exact number is essential for the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why you should always use (nested) ranges instead of simple one-number measurements:&#xD;&#xA;================&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to illustrate this with an example that is loosely based on a real case (which I may not disclose).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume a universe where pillows are always fully stuffed with feathers, to the amount that no more feathers fit in. &#xD;&#xA;From there on you invented a (novel and ivnentive) improvement: stuffing only a few % of the possible volume of feathers into the pillow, making it way more comfortable and less prone to bursting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You go out and patent this magnificient invention. Your claim is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;1. A pillow with less than 99.9999% of the maximum volume filled with feathers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your description fits this. So you have a claim that covers basically every possible variation of your invention. But ...&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It turns out, due to production errors you have been producing pillows with only 99,95% of the max. vol. filled with feathers for years. &#xD;&#xA;You now have effectively destroyed your patent claim, as 99,95% falls under the scope of the protection you are seeking, but is already known and does not even have the advantages you claimed it has in the description (not bursting, comfortable, cheap).&#xD;&#xA;This patent will then not be granted - or invalidated when somebody uses this against you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What did you do wrong?&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;It is quite reasonable to see that writing &quot;exatly 50% of the volume filled with feathers&quot; would basically be a nonsense claim, so using a range like in the example was a good idea. But you didn't used a nested range. You should have written (at least in the description):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;----------------&#xD;&#xA;A pillow stuffed with less than 99.9999% of the max volume of feathers, preferably less than 95% more preferably between 30 and 95% and especially preferred between 50 and 60%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would have happened in this case?&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could use your fallback position of less than 95% and get that patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now lets assume somebody has been using (selling) empty pillow cases without feathers as pillows and you didn't notice in your prior art search. &#xD;&#xA;That means &quot;less than 95%&quot; is gone to (0% is less than 95%, less than 95% is therefore known from the prior art). But there still is the 30% to 05% claim. Which will remain after the proceedings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Couldn't I just take &quot;less than 90%&quot; out of &quot;less than 99.9999%&quot; as 90 is less than 99.9999?&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;No. (Im honestly not 100% sure about the US, but for Europe this is a 100% no, you can't and for the US its around 95% certainty)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16858" RevisionGUID="bd3161f0-af0f-41bf-8ae6-bc12e47f158f" CreationDate="2016-12-12T18:27:04.657" UserId="18033" Text="At the depatisnet register. https://register.dpma.de/DPMAregister/Uebersicht?lang=en Search for the patent number then you can find the documents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16859" RevisionGUID="19ee6978-b28b-4342-b00d-ad07e5db1016" CreationDate="2016-12-12T20:19:45.220" UserId="18033" Text="From the viewpoint of the patent law and application process, the background is necessary to define the problem that your invention solves. &#xD;&#xA;Therefore it is necessary to include some background, though the quantity differs largely across different applications. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US patent law has some kind of obligation to disclose known prior art (I'm no expert for US patent law so I'm just mentioning that I read something and you should check for that).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from that, you might hint the examiner what prior art there is and what he could use against you. On the other hand, especially if you do the application yourself without professional help, disclosing all you know might help you get a (possibly narrower) stronger patent, as less prior art can be used against you later if most of it was already considered during the application process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, it comes down to srategy - whatever you disclose can and will be used against you but might also help you, whatever you don't disclose may be used against you anyways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize my answer might sound like an advise to disclose as much as possible - please don't understand it like that. You should differentiate from the known prior art even before the application and therefore not need the process to further narrow your claims away from prior art you already knew. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16860" RevisionGUID="48e8400e-3ddd-465c-84a5-99a10456bbe0" CreationDate="2016-12-12T21:19:54.937" UserId="18033" Text="As apparently no one has found an answer yet, I'll make one with what we have. Feel free to edit in anything you find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rule 48 from the &quot;Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China&quot; (http://english.sipo.gov.cn/laws/lawsregulations/201403/t20140331_925757.html) allows third party observations until the notification of the grant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.managingip.com/Article/3440424/How-to-make-effective-third-party-observations.html This article states that there is an electronic form, which I couldn't find, so maybe it exists only in Chinese. If one wants to add documents to the third party observations they have to made in paper form anyways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://bricwallblog.com/2015/05/11/third-party-observations-in-china-part-7-of-an-8-part-series/ But here it says that English observations may be made or rather, that a ranslation should be provided if the observations are not in English or Chinese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further information might be available by contacting the EPO China helpdesk (https://www.epo.org/searching-for-patents/helpful-resources/asian/china/faq.html). I have contacted them once on another issue and they were very helpful!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For PCT applications, as far as I know, it is enough to send the observations to the WIPO and they will send them to the relevant national authorities." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16861" RevisionGUID="f352bb5c-85b6-45ae-a598-56c829d8aec1" CreationDate="2016-12-13T00:05:15.170" UserId="17003" Text="I briefly looked at both documents and, while the are trying to accomplish the same goal, it looks like they are doing it in different ways. At least that's what I get from reading the first claims.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16862" RevisionGUID="4a8ff93f-9369-427b-a0e6-cecb78fbff2d" CreationDate="2016-12-13T00:15:56.300" UserId="17003" Text="A couple of thoughts. First, you would not patent the story itself. That would be copyrighted. This application (not yet a patent) is trying to patent a particular method of providing a customized ebook. If you can think of a way of creating an ebook platform that is different than that described in the claims, then yes you can try to patent it. There may however be other patents and prior art to consider. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16863" RevisionGUID="04e63299-223f-48ab-9d8c-09105a1b038e" CreationDate="2016-12-13T00:32:37.913" UserId="17003" Text="I've only looked briefly at the cited application and patent. In the patent it seems that a part pierces another part and then mechanical excitation is applied to melt a thermoplastic which provides the bond. In the application, it seems that the two pieces have corresponding features (like a tongue and groove). The cited patent is clearly relevant as prior art, but I can't say whether it precludes the application from becoming a patent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16865" RevisionGUID="8ae7bdfe-342f-4eba-90ff-c51826dd7317" CreationDate="2016-12-13T08:31:38.340" UserId="16942" Text="I invented a chair with a mechanism that has functions and features ( using a controller ).&#xD;&#xA;The problem is there are a lot of ways or designs to make each detail.&#xD;&#xA; I wrote the provisional patent application as &quot;a method for making&quot; without reaching to details like screws positions and controller details.&#xD;&#xA;Is it enough to be protected? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43064" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16865" RevisionGUID="8ae7bdfe-342f-4eba-90ff-c51826dd7317" CreationDate="2016-12-13T08:31:38.340" UserId="16942" Text="How can I Patent features, functions, and devices without details?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43065" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16865" RevisionGUID="8ae7bdfe-342f-4eba-90ff-c51826dd7317" CreationDate="2016-12-13T08:31:38.340" UserId="16942" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16866" RevisionGUID="4b2af218-b142-44cd-953c-762c0a4090db" CreationDate="2016-12-13T12:42:59.423" UserId="18083" Text="I have been trying to understand what is the structure of a combination claim.&#xD;&#xA;The only information I found in internet is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Combination claim. &#xD;&#xA;The preamble of this form of claim is considered to positively and clearly include all the elements or steps recited therein as a part of the claimed combination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate if  someone could provide me with information &quot;in easy to understand form&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43067" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16866" RevisionGUID="4b2af218-b142-44cd-953c-762c0a4090db" CreationDate="2016-12-13T12:42:59.423" UserId="18083" Text="What is the the structure if combination claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43068" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16866" RevisionGUID="4b2af218-b142-44cd-953c-762c0a4090db" CreationDate="2016-12-13T12:42:59.423" UserId="18083" Text="&lt;structure&gt;&lt;combination&gt;&lt;combined&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16869" RevisionGUID="9b917211-3e01-4e0a-9fb9-9ad1c3c341b7" CreationDate="2016-12-13T17:11:19.067" UserId="17895" Text="I am looking for a way to find the most cited patents in a field as a method of getting to know the basics and state of the art fast while reading the minimum amount of material (even though I suppose it is debatable whether the number of citations corresponds to the quality of the patent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I don't think it would be possible to perform this search with the free tools that I normally use (espacenet, google patents). Is this true or is there a method that I am missing? Is this possible with commercial tools?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43079" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16869" RevisionGUID="9b917211-3e01-4e0a-9fb9-9ad1c3c341b7" CreationDate="2016-12-13T17:11:19.067" UserId="17895" Text="Sort patents by citation number" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43080" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16869" RevisionGUID="9b917211-3e01-4e0a-9fb9-9ad1c3c341b7" CreationDate="2016-12-13T17:11:19.067" UserId="17895" Text="&lt;citation&gt;&lt;number&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16870" RevisionGUID="c3514651-9ca6-446d-a5db-9a976f5780b6" CreationDate="2016-12-13T18:25:24.447" UserId="18033" Text="You try to make the claims as broad as possible without covering anything from the prior art and only provide concrete examples in the description. Then you make narrower versions of the claims as dependent claims in case you missed some prior art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-&gt; You can patent anything as broad as you can describe it without including prior art in the claims and only have to provide a few examples to support the claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43082" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16134" RevisionGUID="20cc4c9f-85bf-4159-ac42-15796ba9c6c0" CreationDate="2016-12-13T19:18:20.790" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16871" RevisionGUID="7ae5a6fb-2f46-4462-99b8-c11a58724567" CreationDate="2016-12-13T19:46:08.180" UserId="18033" Text="The patent description is not what describes the protection scope of a patent. The claims are the only thing that matters (concerning the final protection).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I got the claims right, this patent application is not about ebooks but rather about accessing and reading them - ergo an app for any mobile electronic device comprising two apps where one enables access to media and the other one displays it and allows interaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But keep in mind that this patent has not been issued and the claims might change or not get granted at all. Plus, there are other patents in the patent family, so their claims could be different.&#xD;&#xA;And there are probably (definitly) other patents concerning ebooks. Evaluating all their claims and telling you what you could still patent/use freely would cost you several thousand/tens of thousands of dollars paid to a patent attorney/engineer without a promise of them finding something that helps you. It is certainly far from the possibilities of this page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the question what you could still patent -&gt; everything that hasn't been published and that is inventive. Finding out what this is ... see above ... a few thousand dollar might get you an answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43084" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="f960f361-1137-4793-b9a1-2f1258f38f96" CreationDate="2016-12-13T20:18:24.913" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43085" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11980" RevisionGUID="f918d761-f049-4606-a5c5-e2c5d633ce78" CreationDate="2016-12-13T21:18:32.900" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43086" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="aa4ae72c-89c3-4a21-a45c-3161f734586c" CreationDate="2016-12-13T22:18:32.680" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16872" RevisionGUID="b66e6063-c4a9-4160-9b78-abde24516958" CreationDate="2016-12-14T00:26:47.873" UserId="18132" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2016138171A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact same design had a patent applied for it in 2005 by Eric Vaughn, it was ultimately rejected and has since been abandoned.  It should have been accepted, and the only other patent that came close was from 1942, by Carroll G Wells, https://www.google.com/patents/US2315889 My name is Eric Vaughn, and I was not granted the patent.  Jake Sullivan was a business partner of mine, along with Don Wildman.  I contend that they should not be granted this patent since it has already been invented.  Interesting that they claim to be the &quot;inventors.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2016138171A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43088" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16872" RevisionGUID="b66e6063-c4a9-4160-9b78-abde24516958" CreationDate="2016-12-14T00:26:47.873" UserId="18132" Text="Patent already filed for this design 11 years ago" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43089" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16872" RevisionGUID="b66e6063-c4a9-4160-9b78-abde24516958" CreationDate="2016-12-14T00:26:47.873" UserId="18132" Text="&lt;wo2016138171a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43090" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16577" RevisionGUID="75f315fb-10a2-4f28-bbe7-d2a1883afa7d" CreationDate="2016-12-14T01:19:02.417" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43091" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16579" RevisionGUID="c56a6e36-88c4-472e-bec5-0acc6af99c22" CreationDate="2016-12-14T02:19:02.640" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43092" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11968" RevisionGUID="4c5c4f89-ee60-4dfc-9e5c-3fd9d3f2acf3" CreationDate="2016-12-14T03:19:02.410" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43093" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16275" RevisionGUID="46b0c056-3fde-4efa-ba4e-5767e17ba907" CreationDate="2016-12-14T04:19:04.227" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43094" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16267" RevisionGUID="448190f3-262f-499b-811c-1d6586026a9a" CreationDate="2016-12-14T05:19:04.043" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16873" RevisionGUID="63cae427-7451-4f86-b0ef-723720b6dce1" CreationDate="2016-12-14T06:52:24.650" UserId="18033" Text="Everything that has been made available to the public constitutes prior art. Some patents cite journal articles or books too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even something that has only been used and described oraly in public can constitute prior art, though citing it might be difficult and not necessary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43096" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12505" RevisionGUID="c5c10a71-6031-493d-9a71-0091ba07fa5c" CreationDate="2016-12-14T10:23:03.620" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43097" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10532" RevisionGUID="d360b532-96b2-4b2b-8521-496b7e292d93" CreationDate="2016-12-14T11:23:04.997" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16874" RevisionGUID="8b5a1e45-b589-4ba5-8f4d-521f8696542b" CreationDate="2016-12-14T19:24:01.540" UserId="17003" Text="The document linked is only an application and not yet a patent. There is also a US application associated with it. Your rejected patent application is prior art as is US235889. There are mechanisms for you to make the patent authorities aware of prior art. I am not a lawyer so perhaps one of the lawyers that reads your question can advise you. Be very careful to compare the claims of the application to the claims in your failed application as they might not be identical. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16875" RevisionGUID="584e6f78-fb6d-44d1-9779-880ae288fa8c" CreationDate="2016-12-14T19:59:37.857" UserId="18140" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5222141][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5222141" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43100" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16875" RevisionGUID="584e6f78-fb6d-44d1-9779-880ae288fa8c" CreationDate="2016-12-14T19:59:37.857" UserId="18140" Text="What is the &quot;Fee payment&quot; as described in the Legal section at the end?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43101" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16875" RevisionGUID="584e6f78-fb6d-44d1-9779-880ae288fa8c" CreationDate="2016-12-14T19:59:37.857" UserId="18140" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;legal&gt;&lt;fees&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16876" RevisionGUID="d6757782-afec-4558-9d33-5ac0ef514155" CreationDate="2016-12-14T20:05:22.627" UserId="18033" Text="Maintaining a patent costs money. Those fees have to be paid regularly or the patent &quot;dies&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16877" RevisionGUID="c87c188e-48da-46f2-a38c-bddba9ed3ea3" CreationDate="2016-12-14T21:36:19.607" UserId="18104" Text="I have filed an application for a utility patent. Can I also file for a design patent as a plan B should the application be denied? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43104" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16877" RevisionGUID="c87c188e-48da-46f2-a38c-bddba9ed3ea3" CreationDate="2016-12-14T21:36:19.607" UserId="18104" Text="Can I apply for design patent whilst I have a utility application pending?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43105" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16877" RevisionGUID="c87c188e-48da-46f2-a38c-bddba9ed3ea3" CreationDate="2016-12-14T21:36:19.607" UserId="18104" Text="&lt;design&gt;&lt;public&gt;&lt;domain&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16878" RevisionGUID="408dd2e3-1863-4b64-b1fc-9147210226b9" CreationDate="2016-12-14T21:44:36.137" UserId="18033" Text="Yes. Read for example this article for more background information: http://www.cdfslaw.com/publications/practice-tip-claiming-priority-design-utility-patent-applications/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Design and utility patents have different scopes of protection, so filing both might be a good idea even if the utility patent gets granted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16880" RevisionGUID="bae45e0d-c012-40ca-9ddc-648423ba2737" CreationDate="2016-12-14T23:11:26.067" UserId="18143" Text="In reference to the patent: [US4461078][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4461078&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to get re-instated on a patent you received that annual renewal fees were not paid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43111" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16880" RevisionGUID="bae45e0d-c012-40ca-9ddc-648423ba2737" CreationDate="2016-12-14T23:11:26.067" UserId="18143" Text="Re-Instatement of a patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43112" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16880" RevisionGUID="bae45e0d-c012-40ca-9ddc-648423ba2737" CreationDate="2016-12-14T23:11:26.067" UserId="18143" Text="&lt;us4461078&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16883" RevisionGUID="347c3502-6e3d-4862-bb3f-aacc1e0d5112" CreationDate="2016-12-15T06:59:16.877" UserId="18033" Text="Sometimes yes, in this case the priority date is 1982, the normal patent duration is 20 years, if it has a terminal disclaimer it can go up to 25. Both are over, so this patent is definitly not getting reinstated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43121" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13966" RevisionGUID="c17ef8fc-90bb-438e-858a-4755e213a828" CreationDate="2016-12-15T07:27:03.797" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43122" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14806" RevisionGUID="c7f83e3d-53ec-4baa-ba8a-9f6824832a93" CreationDate="2016-12-15T08:30:29.137" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43123" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16114" RevisionGUID="a492b504-0e2c-48d7-b910-fa84a79349a2" CreationDate="2016-12-15T10:37:19.227" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16883" RevisionGUID="a1a1e322-7576-44b8-9334-d8e9dcf2d95b" CreationDate="2016-12-15T13:11:04.773" UserId="18033" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="Sometimes yes, in this case the priority date is 1982, the normal patent duration is 20 years, if it has a patent term adjustment due to a slow application processing it can go up to 25. Both are over, so this patent is definitly not getting reinstated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43129" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14892" RevisionGUID="78757c66-625c-45f6-a934-ef69850f274c" CreationDate="2016-12-15T15:37:49.473" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43130" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16685" RevisionGUID="97bfe6f3-1f0f-4abd-a6b4-d95cd1b4573f" CreationDate="2016-12-15T17:37:50.137" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16874" RevisionGUID="6ae5c22a-1cdf-469e-9141-4da608d96655" CreationDate="2016-12-15T18:13:38.947" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to USPTO site regarding third party submissions." Text="The document linked is only an application and not yet a patent. There is also a US application associated with it. Your rejected patent application is prior art as is US235889. There are mechanisms for you to make the patent authorities aware of prior art. Check out this [site][1] for more information. Be very careful to compare the claims of the application to the claims in your failed application as they might not be identical. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/third-party-preissuance-submissions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43132" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16118" RevisionGUID="d0989781-ad0d-4e31-bc00-563b7206c7d5" CreationDate="2016-12-15T19:37:50.780" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43133" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13901" RevisionGUID="615df311-0536-4df1-91c2-7e31b9efdd87" CreationDate="2016-12-15T22:37:51.923" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16885" RevisionGUID="656a745c-2287-4cc8-a65b-09f13f9c7caa" CreationDate="2016-12-16T03:33:17.133" UserId="18151" Text="I have created new mathematical theorem but I don't know about its advantage but I am confident that it will be advantageous further so due to that reason I have two questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. is advantage is required to publish my theorem?&#xD;&#xA; 2. where to patent my theorem?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43136" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16885" RevisionGUID="656a745c-2287-4cc8-a65b-09f13f9c7caa" CreationDate="2016-12-16T03:33:17.133" UserId="18151" Text="i have new mathematical theorem so where to patent it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43137" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16885" RevisionGUID="656a745c-2287-4cc8-a65b-09f13f9c7caa" CreationDate="2016-12-16T03:33:17.133" UserId="18151" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43139" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14893" RevisionGUID="e76c204f-c187-43b0-8e90-d064f89f656f" CreationDate="2016-12-16T06:40:47.123" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16886" RevisionGUID="815ab2ca-41f8-4854-99c5-ccc999572d97" CreationDate="2016-12-16T07:06:08.843" UserId="18033" Text="Theorems are excluded from patentability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;35 U.S.C. 101   Inventions patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful **process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter**, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis added." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43141" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="16789" RevisionGUID="a1e06edf-ba7b-4406-8ea4-045070c9632a" CreationDate="2016-12-16T08:40:50.523" UserId="-1" Comment="36" />
  <row Id="43142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16887" RevisionGUID="f238e71c-b350-46ef-98a5-704eb6c11978" CreationDate="2016-12-16T13:36:56.100" UserId="18114" Text="The following patent was issued in 1919. I believe that the original patent was not renewed. I am trying to understand if the the original patent in all of its definitions was reissued to the new owners and is now locked. patents.google.com/patent/US1448893A/… The above is a water driven motor called the Pelton Wheel. Did the second pair of people reapply for the same patent? patents.google.com/patent/US4950130A/…  &#xD;&#xA;  	 	&#xD;&#xA;So, the former patent of the Pelton Wheel from 1919 cannot be touched anymore?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43143" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16887" RevisionGUID="f238e71c-b350-46ef-98a5-704eb6c11978" CreationDate="2016-12-16T13:36:56.100" UserId="18114" Text="Was this patent from 1919 reissued? It looks like nothing new was added" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43144" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16887" RevisionGUID="f238e71c-b350-46ef-98a5-704eb6c11978" CreationDate="2016-12-16T13:36:56.100" UserId="18114" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16887" RevisionGUID="234d07ea-ac9a-4692-a033-79353bda411a" CreationDate="2016-12-16T13:42:19.620" UserId="18114" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="The following patent was issued in 1919. I believe that the original patent was not renewed. I am trying to understand if the the original patent in all of its definitions was reissued to the new owners and is now locked. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;patents.google.com/patent/US1448893A/… &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above is a water driven motor called the Pelton Wheel. &#xD;&#xA;Did the second pair of people reapply for the same patent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;patents.google.com/patent/US4950130A/…  &#xD;&#xA;  	 	&#xD;&#xA;So, the former patent of the Pelton Wheel from 1919 cannot be touched anymore? Basically, not one thing new was added.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16887" RevisionGUID="862d49be-7568-48f7-94a0-8b7505ce58da" CreationDate="2016-12-16T13:47:47.667" UserId="18114" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="The following patent was issued in 1919. I believe that the original patent was not renewed. I am trying to understand if the the original patent in all of its definitions was reissued to the new owners and is now locked. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US1448893A/en?q=pelton+wheel&amp;q=F03B1%2f00&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above is a water driven motor called the Pelton Wheel. &#xD;&#xA;Did the second pair of people reapply for the same patent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;patents.google.com/patent/US4950130A/…  &#xD;&#xA;  	 	&#xD;&#xA;So, the former patent of the Pelton Wheel from 1919 cannot be touched anymore? Basically, not one thing new was added.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16887" RevisionGUID="188b8aed-b197-4e16-b875-6cd3de62f460" CreationDate="2016-12-16T13:56:46.647" UserId="18114" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="The following patent was issued in 1919. I believe that the original patent was not renewed. I am trying to understand if the the original patent in all of its definitions was reissued to the new owners and is now locked. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US1448893A/en?q=pelton+wheel&amp;q=F03B1%2f00&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above is a water driven motor called the Pelton Wheel. &#xD;&#xA;Did the second pair of people reapply for the same patent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US4950130A/en?q=pelton+wheel&amp;q=F03B1%2f00&#xD;&#xA; 	 	&#xD;&#xA;So, the former patent of the Pelton Wheel from 1919 cannot be touched anymore? Basically, not one thing new was added.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43148" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16849" RevisionGUID="fe7631c7-f463-4037-a10d-21d1b0939b44" CreationDate="2016-12-16T14:50:59.047" UserId="18033" Comment="That seems to be the actual question" Text="Should I use a range instead of a single measurement in the patent description and/or drawings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43149" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16849" RevisionGUID="fe7631c7-f463-4037-a10d-21d1b0939b44" CreationDate="2016-12-16T14:50:59.047" UserId="18033" Comment="That seems to be the actual question" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;ppa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43150" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16849" RevisionGUID="fe7631c7-f463-4037-a10d-21d1b0939b44" CreationDate="2016-12-16T14:50:59.047" Comment="Proposed by 18033 approved by 1 edit id of 1985" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43151" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16872" RevisionGUID="d36fa709-3fd2-4ebf-b230-3853f69c6651" CreationDate="2016-12-16T14:51:03.497" UserId="18033" Comment="This is not really a question but the relevant tag would be prior art request" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;wo2016138171a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43152" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16872" RevisionGUID="d36fa709-3fd2-4ebf-b230-3853f69c6651" CreationDate="2016-12-16T14:51:03.497" Comment="Proposed by 18033 approved by 1 edit id of 1988" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43153" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16774" RevisionGUID="070ee515-8c7d-42e9-a1ec-7033d1338df0" CreationDate="2016-12-16T14:51:08.307" UserId="18033" Comment="invalidity is the more used tag" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;process&gt;&lt;invalid&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43154" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16774" RevisionGUID="070ee515-8c7d-42e9-a1ec-7033d1338df0" CreationDate="2016-12-16T14:51:08.307" Comment="Proposed by 18033 approved by 15503, 1 edit id of 1987" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43155" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16877" RevisionGUID="d82ac0d9-d375-43f3-a92b-aa1d8678a2a8" CreationDate="2016-12-16T14:51:13.073" UserId="18033" Comment="retagged .." Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;utility&gt;&lt;design&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43156" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16877" RevisionGUID="d82ac0d9-d375-43f3-a92b-aa1d8678a2a8" CreationDate="2016-12-16T14:51:13.073" Comment="Proposed by 18033 approved by 15503, 1 edit id of 1991" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16712" RevisionGUID="81afd579-5189-4163-b6cc-d4cc6d04da86" CreationDate="2016-12-16T14:51:16.560" UserId="18033" Comment="Corrected incorrect formalities" Text="The requirements for patentability include the requirement of novelty, meaning that there must not be a prior invention of the same subject matter prior to your invention. 35 USC 102.   Even if the invention disclosed in the lapsed patent is  not identical to your invention, if it is sufficiently similar that your invention would be deemed obvious to someone who is skilled in the technology, then it would not be patentable. (Inventive step)   35 USC 103.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You certainly may apply for a patent, but it would be unlikely that a patent would be issued unless you can convince the relevant patent office that your invention is novel and nonobvious in view of the lapsed patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43158" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16712" RevisionGUID="81afd579-5189-4163-b6cc-d4cc6d04da86" CreationDate="2016-12-16T14:51:16.560" Comment="Proposed by 18033 approved by 1 edit id of 1992" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="148" RevisionGUID="03d3da2f-204e-4cc1-a7ad-94a6e4753fb5" CreationDate="2016-12-16T14:51:21.037" UserId="18033" Comment="added 644 characters in body" Text="The basic requirements for an invention to be patentable as an invention patent are &#xD;&#xA;- novelty&#xD;&#xA;- inventive step&#xD;&#xA;- industrial apllicability.&#xD;&#xA;Novelty means that the same invention has not been published (or presented as a patent application) anywhere before the date of the application. Inventive step is fullfilled if the invention does not follow obviously from the known prior art for a person skilled in the art (i.e. somebody usually asked to solve the respectie problem)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The formal requirements can be looked up on the webpages of the patent office for the country the patent is applied for in. In the US this would be the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43160" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="148" RevisionGUID="03d3da2f-204e-4cc1-a7ad-94a6e4753fb5" CreationDate="2016-12-16T14:51:21.037" Comment="Proposed by 18033 approved by 15503, 1 edit id of 1986" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43161" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3847" RevisionGUID="5c27d354-a6c5-422e-8db1-a53ba78e8819" CreationDate="2016-12-16T14:51:23.810" UserId="18033" Comment="updated tags" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;writing&gt;&lt;written-description&gt;&lt;programming-tools&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43162" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3847" RevisionGUID="5c27d354-a6c5-422e-8db1-a53ba78e8819" CreationDate="2016-12-16T14:51:23.810" Comment="Proposed by 18033 approved by 15503, 1 edit id of 1989" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43163" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11980" RevisionGUID="3e5709fa-7d4a-4b84-a9a8-a8de711fa54b" CreationDate="2016-12-16T14:51:26.643" UserId="18033" Comment="inventor is not a relevant tag" Text="&lt;status&gt;&lt;wo2006112733a1&gt;&lt;us20080286830&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43164" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11980" RevisionGUID="3e5709fa-7d4a-4b84-a9a8-a8de711fa54b" CreationDate="2016-12-16T14:51:26.643" Comment="Proposed by 18033 approved by 15503, 1 edit id of 1990" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43165" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16685" RevisionGUID="3ed68355-6f6e-448d-8eb5-f6fd85291267" CreationDate="2016-12-16T14:51:30.403" UserId="18033" Comment="retagged .." Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;lapsed-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43166" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16685" RevisionGUID="3ed68355-6f6e-448d-8eb5-f6fd85291267" CreationDate="2016-12-16T14:51:30.403" Comment="Proposed by 18033 approved by 1 edit id of 1993" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16888" RevisionGUID="30aa4413-7067-4a41-b47b-6e146370dd67" CreationDate="2016-12-16T17:33:01.130" UserId="17003" Text="It looks like  the '130 patent is an improvement to the '893 patent. It cites the older patent and describes improvements. Did you carefully read the specifications and claims. Just because you don't see anything obviously different in the drawing doesn't mean that &quot;not one thing new was added&quot;. Figure 3 in particular shows a different arrangement for baffles around the impeller." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16889" RevisionGUID="cc2c2e82-2495-44aa-857b-563a2f81d33a" CreationDate="2016-12-16T17:39:22.237" UserId="17003" Text="I'm not an expert in this nor a lawyer. My understanding is you can't patent an abstract mathematical algorithm in its own right. What you might be able to patent is the application of an algorithm to solving a specific problem. This is a bit of a moving target as there have been some recent legal decisions with regards to software patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regards to whether you should pursue a patent, understand that getting a patent takes time and money. If you are in academia, it might be more useful to you personally to publish your algorithm. Also if you are associated with an university, the university may be able to provide guidance with respect to patenting and licensing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43169" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16716" RevisionGUID="2849ad21-4098-4320-931a-7edb91f71560" CreationDate="2016-12-16T17:52:12.187" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16891" RevisionGUID="b3e4fb74-6231-4ca9-92d7-8beebfbf253e" CreationDate="2016-12-16T21:20:44.013" UserId="18160" Text="I have an app whose purpose isn't novel, but the way the GUI helps serve that purpose is. There are *many* apps built for this same purpose, but not a single one of them have a GUI similar to mine. I'm worried about the value of my app after publishing it because as much time that goes into creating a unique GUI it can be copied in an instant. What I'd like to know are my options for protecting my app's UI, and how effectively utilizing these options affects the date I can publish my app.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, I'd like to publish right now, but I'm postponing until I either secure my app's uniqueness legally or I discover that it is impossible to do so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43174" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16891" RevisionGUID="b3e4fb74-6231-4ca9-92d7-8beebfbf253e" CreationDate="2016-12-16T21:20:44.013" UserId="18160" Text="How to protect an app whose functionality is not novel, but the GUI is" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43175" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16891" RevisionGUID="b3e4fb74-6231-4ca9-92d7-8beebfbf253e" CreationDate="2016-12-16T21:20:44.013" UserId="18160" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;user-interface&gt;&lt;app&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16892" RevisionGUID="bb0fc01f-466f-4da4-9744-f814db6b081d" CreationDate="2016-12-16T21:39:51.877" UserId="16696" Text="The simple answer is Design Patents.  Much less expensive than utility patents, these can be used to protect design elements of your product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43177" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14948" RevisionGUID="a2f2816d-480b-4a96-83c2-5e39d5a8b150" CreationDate="2016-12-16T21:54:50.243" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43178" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16587" RevisionGUID="1f042aa6-4f45-449f-9bc0-176be4fca98c" CreationDate="2016-12-16T22:54:50.420" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43183" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13585" RevisionGUID="0acdc89c-e03d-441e-ad77-bf8b520072f3" CreationDate="2016-12-17T04:02:07.397" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43184" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13198" RevisionGUID="324b9b10-2739-43e5-a5f1-68792446ef5b" CreationDate="2016-12-17T06:01:49.367" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43185" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="038d5624-17d9-4488-bc12-a643d9dbc03d" CreationDate="2016-12-17T09:01:54.003" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43186" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16149" RevisionGUID="f3358963-f523-4f1b-ac4a-098c1364989d" CreationDate="2016-12-17T18:07:28.537" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43187" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16131" RevisionGUID="9cca2ac8-ed70-4ac8-9155-0035999204c6" CreationDate="2016-12-17T21:07:31.140" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16893" RevisionGUID="dfcefa00-b0a7-4b23-ab5b-72fa31084078" CreationDate="2016-12-17T22:23:25.523" UserId="17003" Text="Although design patents might be a good way to go, you may be able to gain some measure of protection for your gui with copyright. The pdf found [here][1] provides more information than I can provide in this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1223&amp;context=njtip" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43189" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13006" RevisionGUID="98ce9d90-544f-44ae-89c5-57aeadb30ec8" CreationDate="2016-12-17T23:07:40.117" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43190" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="fb7f2b95-c9ea-4656-ad66-33d824cc967f" CreationDate="2016-12-18T01:10:04.113" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16894" RevisionGUID="54e639f6-eaf2-41ae-ac13-5b41b8a3133f" CreationDate="2016-12-18T01:56:42.497" UserId="18164" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8413991][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8413991&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How could this patent be issued since this devise was made and marketed by many different vendors prior to the application date of April 2011.  A simple search of youtube under walking targets shows video posted of the same device and for sale 1.5 years prior.  Can anything be done or is it first to file no matter if it's been around.  I could maybe understand a design, but this is a utility.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43192" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16894" RevisionGUID="54e639f6-eaf2-41ae-ac13-5b41b8a3133f" CreationDate="2016-12-18T01:56:42.497" UserId="18164" Text="Is this patent valid even it it was sold two years prior to application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43193" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16894" RevisionGUID="54e639f6-eaf2-41ae-ac13-5b41b8a3133f" CreationDate="2016-12-18T01:56:42.497" UserId="18164" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43196" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16452" RevisionGUID="460c9619-81a1-478c-ad83-d771cf2bcf50" CreationDate="2016-12-18T04:10:02.397" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16895" RevisionGUID="48042fd8-c60f-41a1-8824-3b0732cf66a6" CreationDate="2016-12-18T09:59:56.093" UserId="18033" Text="Has a moving target with exactly -or close to- the specifications from the claims been around before? Different moving targets don't matter that much. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If yes, if you want to invest a few thousand dollar, you could try to get the patent invalidated. (So, no, after grant there is no easy way).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that the claims are very specific and therefore do cover moving targets that were novel at the time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16896" RevisionGUID="ffc36adc-a5ea-4c8c-b7cb-143dd578c891" CreationDate="2016-12-18T10:04:50.157" UserId="18033" Text="You might still be eligible for a utility patent. I'd advise a patent attorney or a design patent though, the many mistakes you could make while writing an application for a patent (design too, utility more) could make that way hard." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43199" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14245" RevisionGUID="2704cbb1-ab96-42c7-a28c-eddfffd7ed2e" CreationDate="2016-12-18T10:10:26.587" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43200" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14199" RevisionGUID="4aeabaa0-0f3e-424f-acaf-110d1465c814" CreationDate="2016-12-18T12:10:28.347" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43201" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14248" RevisionGUID="3c2b5576-eabe-4f58-82b4-b5ed86640186" CreationDate="2016-12-18T14:10:29.490" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43202" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16307" RevisionGUID="b24a88d1-d77a-493a-aa06-0afd58892f96" CreationDate="2016-12-18T16:10:47.993" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16897" RevisionGUID="311e1fc0-94cc-4f47-90a2-231dbb63d966" CreationDate="2016-12-18T16:59:49.067" UserId="17003" Text="A great number of patents come about from the application of an existing technology in new and unexpected ways. I am not a lawyer, but I'm guessing so long as the application is completely different, you are free to use the devices design. You may not be able to just buy the patented device and apply it in some other way as there might be limitations imposed by the original manufacturer. There may be good reasons for those limitations as the original manufacturer may want to reduce exposure to law suits that could arise from the new application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43204" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16594" RevisionGUID="71c86d6d-10ad-4d80-a3f7-326040017901" CreationDate="2016-12-18T20:11:29.630" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16892" RevisionGUID="a93e4f68-fd6d-464d-94ee-4a712f2f7e40" CreationDate="2016-12-18T20:47:12.510" UserId="16696" Comment="added 244 characters in body" Text="The simple answer is Design Patents.  Much less expensive than utility patents, these can be used to protect design elements of your product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_______________________________________&#xD;&#xA;It's also important to note that the novelty of purpose of the app is irrelevant—if the method to achieve the purpose is novel, then it may be patent eligible in the form of a software implementation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16896" RevisionGUID="c0118cfc-b1ab-4b23-9d42-e47ddc1bd673" CreationDate="2016-12-18T21:52:52.103" UserId="18033" Comment="added 2664 characters in body" Text="There are three types of protection you should consider in your case (four if you consider secrecy, but keeping a gui secret ... well... lets say three):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Copyright:&#xD;&#xA;============&#xD;&#xA;Since 1989 you do not have to register your copyright, you get it automatically. Registering it might help with protecting it though as it serves as proof. It's not that easy to define what falls under copyright, the most basic description would be &quot;intellectual work&quot;. The exact scope gets important when somebody copies your work, but then you should contact an attorney anyways. Plus, google will give you lots of articles explaining it very detailed and more or less understandable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You do not have to pay for your gui to be protected by copyright - to the extent copyright protection applies. Registering it probably has some minor fee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get copyright protection, publishing your GUI asap is essential as you need proof that you had it first. Consider sending yourself a dated - unopened - letter with a printed copy and as much information as possible. Keep it unopened until needed (and then open it in court or with professional help only - so make a copy for yourself, else you will forget what it says inside).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Design patent&#xD;&#xA;============&#xD;&#xA;Protects novel designs for known stuff. Wikipedia says its a protection for the &quot;ornamental design of a functional item&quot; and includes computer symbols namely. This costs some money but offers more protection than pure copyright and can be applied to the whole GUI including some basic variations. Writing the application on your own is cheaper, but the result will be cheaper, too. (Consider a patent attorney something like a programmer, would you programm you security features yourself if you had no idea how to do that?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a design patent, keep the design secret until the application was submitted to the uspto. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Utility patent&#xD;&#xA;========&#xD;&#xA;This is issued for novel and inventive &quot;inventions&quot;. Software patents are complicated. The short version is, you might be eligible to get this if your gui has some inventive (and novel) functionality or a novel and inventive combination of priorly known functionality with some new and unexpected result. (Inventive means it's not obvious for somebody skilled in the art, eg. a programmer with much experience - this is regularly fought over, so no exact definition concerning any specific case is possible).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the version that costs most money. I'd strongly advise consulting a patent attorney as utility patents, especially software patents, are difficult to write and prone to errors that you can't foresee without many years of experience. Plus, you might pay good money for a bad patent and notice only years later when you try to enforce it and it gets shred apart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Without knowing to much, but your question sounds like you are not getting this as you might be missing inventiveness.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if you want this, keep everything remotely interesting secret until the application is at the uspto.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With professional help, the application for a design or utility patent can be done in a few weeks (days even), but it can take longer too. That basically depends on your patent attorney, his schedule and might depend on your willingness to pay him to reserve you more time on his schedule." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43207" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16721" RevisionGUID="84f29bcb-7b35-4303-ad78-e54ab8a20cb6" CreationDate="2016-12-19T00:14:06.753" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43210" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14348" RevisionGUID="5a9f97a7-7e8d-4541-99ed-b3ba842d61bc" CreationDate="2016-12-19T04:14:21.400" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43211" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12543" RevisionGUID="0092d08c-ee0f-4871-b8e6-446fbded12c0" CreationDate="2016-12-19T05:14:18.517" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43212" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14424" RevisionGUID="b1b4ada2-2b49-4257-8173-1dc76517c794" CreationDate="2016-12-19T06:14:19.733" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16898" RevisionGUID="2411294b-6dd2-4903-a630-f94717d6f060" CreationDate="2016-12-19T07:06:25.047" UserId="18170" Text="If a product in patented in USA but not in India, can we manufacture the same product in India. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we can manufacture then What could be the implications? Because India and USA both comes under PATENT COOPERATION TREATY 1970.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43214" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16898" RevisionGUID="2411294b-6dd2-4903-a630-f94717d6f060" CreationDate="2016-12-19T07:06:25.047" UserId="18170" Text="Can a product patented in US be manufactured in India" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43215" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16898" RevisionGUID="2411294b-6dd2-4903-a630-f94717d6f060" CreationDate="2016-12-19T07:06:25.047" UserId="18170" Text="&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16899" RevisionGUID="a1e4b25a-9238-476e-ba8f-299b6d3abfd8" CreationDate="2016-12-19T08:06:57.597" UserId="18033" Text="IF there is no patent protection for India, you are free to produce the product in India but it may not enter a country where patent protection is active. If that does not happen, there are no legal problems." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43217" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16898" RevisionGUID="dfe05807-5fdc-4a90-ac74-07ebd639262f" CreationDate="2016-12-19T14:15:42.147" UserId="18033" Comment="retagged.  .." Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43218" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16898" RevisionGUID="dfe05807-5fdc-4a90-ac74-07ebd639262f" CreationDate="2016-12-19T14:15:42.147" Comment="Proposed by 18033 approved by 15503, 1 edit id of 1994" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43220" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16009" RevisionGUID="6c34a79b-b0b6-40ca-ad36-c2a0f48a1b39" CreationDate="2016-12-19T15:17:49.503" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43221" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12539" RevisionGUID="30a4fbce-0a6b-41b4-add3-13061ee6974c" CreationDate="2016-12-19T19:19:29.443" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43222" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16172" RevisionGUID="69fb173b-c206-4d7f-b372-08ec68083514" CreationDate="2016-12-19T20:19:30.960" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16900" RevisionGUID="d4277ca9-a268-4f3f-8585-11a6aca256c0" CreationDate="2016-12-19T21:23:05.830" UserId="18033" Text="The (/a) patent from 1919 is not valid anymore. It cannot be renewed. But it does constitute prior art for new patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starting with the theory: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everyone can apply for a patent for (almost) everything. The content is analysed only when the grant of the patent is requested. So I could totally apply for a patent for the Pelton wheel right now with exactly the claims from the 1919 patent. But I would not get a grant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second patent was granted and the patent office is not stupid, so there probably is something new to the second invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to find out what that is? A patent application normally states prior art, a problem in the prior art and an solution. You can that in the first paragraphs of a (well written) patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/b298f4abcdec036cc1b7/US4950130.pdf (The patent pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence of the description is &quot;This invention relates to a Pelton turbine.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As &#xD;&#xA;is &#xD;&#xA;known, &#xD;&#xA;Pelton &#xD;&#xA;turbines &#xD;&#xA;are &#xD;&#xA;used &#xD;&#xA;for &#xD;&#xA;driving &#xD;&#xA;electricity &#xD;&#xA;generators &#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;as &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;direct &#xD;&#xA;drive &#xD;&#xA;for &#xD;&#xA;working &#xD;&#xA;machines. &#xD;&#xA;Generally, &#xD;&#xA;such &#xD;&#xA;Pelton &#xD;&#xA;turbines &#xD;&#xA;include &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;casing &#xD;&#xA;in &#xD;&#xA;which &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;turbine &#xD;&#xA;wheel &#xD;&#xA;with &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;wheel &#xD;&#xA;disc &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;buckets &#xD;&#xA;is &#xD;&#xA;mounted &#xD;&#xA;along &#xD;&#xA;with &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;drive &#xD;&#xA;shaft &#xD;&#xA;which &#xD;&#xA;passes &#xD;&#xA;through &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;casing. &#xD;&#xA;In &#xD;&#xA;addition, &#xD;&#xA;at &#xD;&#xA;least &#xD;&#xA;one &#xD;&#xA;jet &#xD;&#xA;is &#xD;&#xA;provided &#xD;&#xA;for &#xD;&#xA;expelling &#xD;&#xA;fluid &#xD;&#xA;from &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;high &#xD;&#xA;pressure &#xD;&#xA;nozzle &#xD;&#xA;tangentially &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;wheel &#xD;&#xA;disc &#xD;&#xA;onto &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;buckets &#xD;&#xA;so &#xD;&#xA;as &#xD;&#xA;to &#xD;&#xA;cause &#xD;&#xA;rotation &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;disc &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;drive &#xD;&#xA;shaft. &#xD;&#xA;The &#xD;&#xA;casing &#xD;&#xA;has &#xD;&#xA;also &#xD;&#xA;been &#xD;&#xA;provided &#xD;&#xA;with &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;fluid &#xD;&#xA;outlet &#xD;&#xA;for &#xD;&#xA;removal &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;spent &#xD;&#xA;fluid. &#xD;&#xA;Turbines &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;this &#xD;&#xA;type &#xD;&#xA;are &#xD;&#xA;described &#xD;&#xA;in &#xD;&#xA;Ger &#xD;&#xA;man &#xD;&#xA;Pat. &#xD;&#xA;Nos. &#xD;&#xA;12,314; &#xD;&#xA;319,779 &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;615,445. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Followed by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As &#xD;&#xA;is &#xD;&#xA;known, &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;efficiency &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;Pelton &#xD;&#xA;turbine &#xD;&#xA;is &#xD;&#xA;closely &#xD;&#xA;dependent &#xD;&#xA;on &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;success &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;keeping &#xD;&#xA;vagrant &#xD;&#xA;spray &#xD;&#xA;water &#xD;&#xA;away &#xD;&#xA;from &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;turbine &#xD;&#xA;wheel &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;buckets. &#xD;&#xA;In &#xD;&#xA;some &#xD;&#xA;cases, &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;drive &#xD;&#xA;shaft &#xD;&#xA;has &#xD;&#xA;been &#xD;&#xA;disposed &#xD;&#xA;on &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;hori &#xD;&#xA;zontal &#xD;&#xA;axis &#xD;&#xA;while &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;lower &#xD;&#xA;region &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;turbine &#xD;&#xA;wheel &#xD;&#xA;is &#xD;&#xA;acted &#xD;&#xA;upon &#xD;&#xA;by &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;fluid &#xD;&#xA;jets. &#xD;&#xA;In &#xD;&#xA;these &#xD;&#xA;cases, &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;upper &#xD;&#xA;region &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;casing &#xD;&#xA;has &#xD;&#xA;been &#xD;&#xA;provided &#xD;&#xA;with &#xD;&#xA;vertical &#xD;&#xA;metal &#xD;&#xA;sheets &#xD;&#xA;parallel &#xD;&#xA;to &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;plane &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;turbine &#xD;&#xA;wheel &#xD;&#xA;while &#xD;&#xA;horizontal &#xD;&#xA;sheets &#xD;&#xA;are &#xD;&#xA;disposed &#xD;&#xA;opposite &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;high &#xD;&#xA;pressure &#xD;&#xA;nozzle &#xD;&#xA;in &#xD;&#xA;order &#xD;&#xA;to &#xD;&#xA;prevent &#xD;&#xA;spray &#xD;&#xA;water &#xD;&#xA;from &#xD;&#xA;reaching &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;upper &#xD;&#xA;region &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;casing. &#xD;&#xA;In &#xD;&#xA;Pelton &#xD;&#xA;turbines &#xD;&#xA;used &#xD;&#xA;at &#xD;&#xA;variable &#xD;&#xA;speed &#xD;&#xA;for &#xD;&#xA;driving &#xD;&#xA;working &#xD;&#xA;machines, &#xD;&#xA;these &#xD;&#xA;conventional &#xD;&#xA;baffles &#xD;&#xA;do &#xD;&#xA;not &#xD;&#xA;give &#xD;&#xA;satisfactory &#xD;&#xA;results. &#xD;&#xA;On &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;one &#xD;&#xA;hand, &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;outlet &#xD;&#xA;conditions &#xD;&#xA;from &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;buckets &#xD;&#xA;vary &#xD;&#xA;as &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;result &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;large &#xD;&#xA;but &#xD;&#xA;necessary &#xD;&#xA;fluctuations &#xD;&#xA;in &#xD;&#xA;speed &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;load. &#xD;&#xA;This, &#xD;&#xA;in &#xD;&#xA;turn, &#xD;&#xA;results &#xD;&#xA;in &#xD;&#xA;considerable &#xD;&#xA;differences &#xD;&#xA;in &#xD;&#xA;spray &#xD;&#xA;fluid &#xD;&#xA;conditions. &#xD;&#xA;On &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;other &#xD;&#xA;hand, &#xD;&#xA;there &#xD;&#xA;are &#xD;&#xA;great &#xD;&#xA;variations &#xD;&#xA;in &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;amounts &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;fluids &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;these &#xD;&#xA;have &#xD;&#xA;to &#xD;&#xA;be &#xD;&#xA;taken &#xD;&#xA;into &#xD;&#xA;account &#xD;&#xA;in &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;construction &#xD;&#xA;by &#xD;&#xA;providing &#xD;&#xA;high &#xD;&#xA;overflow &#xD;&#xA;levels &#xD;&#xA;so &#xD;&#xA;that &#xD;&#xA;large &#xD;&#xA;quantities &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;fluid &#xD;&#xA;can &#xD;&#xA;be &#xD;&#xA;discharged &#xD;&#xA;without &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;turbine &#xD;&#xA;wheel &#xD;&#xA;becoming &#xD;&#xA;immersed &#xD;&#xA;in &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;sump. &#xD;&#xA;Favorable &#xD;&#xA;conditions, &#xD;&#xA;favorable &#xD;&#xA;efficiency, &#xD;&#xA;can &#xD;&#xA;be &#xD;&#xA;obtained &#xD;&#xA;only &#xD;&#xA;within &#xD;&#xA;narrow &#xD;&#xA;limits &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;when &#xD;&#xA;condi &#xD;&#xA;tions &#xD;&#xA;are &#xD;&#xA;approximately &#xD;&#xA;constant. &#xD;&#xA;**Accordingly, &#xD;&#xA;it &#xD;&#xA;is &#xD;&#xA;an &#xD;&#xA;object &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;invention &#xD;&#xA;to &#xD;&#xA;im &#xD;&#xA;prove &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;efficiency &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;Pelton &#xD;&#xA;turbine.**&#xD;&#xA;(Emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now we know that the inventors knew about prior art and wanted to patent an improvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lets look at the claims, they define the actual scope of the protection. What is not claimed, is not protected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The independent claims (the other claims are so called dependent claims, so they have limitations regarding the independent claims - they protect **less** than the dependent claim (yes, this makes sense ;-) )) are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. &#xD;&#xA;A &#xD;&#xA;Pelton &#xD;&#xA;turbine &#xD;&#xA;comprising &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;casing &#xD;&#xA;having &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;fluid &#xD;&#xA;outlet; &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;transversely &#xD;&#xA;disposed &#xD;&#xA;partition &#xD;&#xA;in &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;casing &#xD;&#xA;separating &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;spray &#xD;&#xA;fluid &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;outlet &#xD;&#xA;region &#xD;&#xA;from &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;ventilation &#xD;&#xA;region &#xD;&#xA;therein; &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;rotatable &#xD;&#xA;drive &#xD;&#xA;shaft &#xD;&#xA;extending &#xD;&#xA;through &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;casing; &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;wheel &#xD;&#xA;disc &#xD;&#xA;mounted &#xD;&#xA;on &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;shaft &#xD;&#xA;within &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;casing &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;passing &#xD;&#xA;through &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;partition; &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;plurality &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;peripherally &#xD;&#xA;mounted &#xD;&#xA;buckets &#xD;&#xA;on &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;disc; &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;at &#xD;&#xA;least &#xD;&#xA;one &#xD;&#xA;high-pressure &#xD;&#xA;nozzle &#xD;&#xA;in &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;spray &#xD;&#xA;fluid &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;outlet &#xD;&#xA;region &#xD;&#xA;below &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;partition &#xD;&#xA;for &#xD;&#xA;expelling &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;fluid &#xD;&#xA;jet &#xD;&#xA;tangentially &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;disc &#xD;&#xA;sequentially &#xD;&#xA;onto &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;buckets &#xD;&#xA;for &#xD;&#xA;rotating &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;disc &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;shaft. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;13. &#xD;&#xA;A &#xD;&#xA;Pelton &#xD;&#xA;turbine &#xD;&#xA;comprising &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;casing &#xD;&#xA;having &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;fluid &#xD;&#xA;outlet; &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;drive &#xD;&#xA;shaft &#xD;&#xA;extending &#xD;&#xA;through &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;casing; &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;wheel &#xD;&#xA;disc &#xD;&#xA;mounted &#xD;&#xA;on &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;shaft &#xD;&#xA;within &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;casing: &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;plurality &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;buckets &#xD;&#xA;peripherally &#xD;&#xA;mounted &#xD;&#xA;on &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;wheel &#xD;&#xA;disc; &#xD;&#xA;at &#xD;&#xA;least &#xD;&#xA;one &#xD;&#xA;nozzle &#xD;&#xA;for &#xD;&#xA;expelling &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;fluid &#xD;&#xA;jet &#xD;&#xA;tangentially &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;lower &#xD;&#xA;portion &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;disc &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;onto &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;buck &#xD;&#xA;ets &#xD;&#xA;for &#xD;&#xA;rotating &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;disc &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;shaft; &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;partition &#xD;&#xA;disposed &#xD;&#xA;in &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;casing &#xD;&#xA;to &#xD;&#xA;separate &#xD;&#xA;an &#xD;&#xA;upper &#xD;&#xA;ventilation &#xD;&#xA;region &#xD;&#xA;from &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;lower &#xD;&#xA;spray &#xD;&#xA;fluid &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;outlet &#xD;&#xA;region &#xD;&#xA;thereof, &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;partition &#xD;&#xA;having &#xD;&#xA;an &#xD;&#xA;opening &#xD;&#xA;for &#xD;&#xA;passage &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;disc &#xD;&#xA;therethrough &#xD;&#xA;into &#xD;&#xA;, &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;regions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know enough about Pelton wheels to judge this, but if you read the patent they will probably explain why these claimed limitations constitute an improvement of the prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This way of looking at a patent helps with (almost) every patent and provides a good first intuition as to what to expect from the patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43227" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16604" RevisionGUID="476c948f-2316-4fcc-bea8-ee0f15a57cdc" CreationDate="2016-12-19T22:20:17.497" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16902" RevisionGUID="1e8708b3-750a-4fcd-8646-ef53c72768bb" CreationDate="2016-12-19T22:34:33.900" UserId="18174" Text="I am trying to submit my first provisional patent in the UK but I keep getting confused about what sort of information I should put in at this stage. I know I should put as much information as I can, but I'm not sure how much is enough for now. Lets say I have made an iPhone app that communicates with the fridge. Obviously there should be a hardware in the fridge that connects to the fridge and theres some software that tells the hardware how to act. For example, lets say the iPhone app is able to turn the fridge's lamp on and off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case do, I have to submit 2 provisional patents? One for the iPhone app and one for the fridge's hardware?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To what extent should I draw the hardware in the fridge? (Btw I am not making anything even close to fridges)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought that a provisional patent will allow me to disclose my idea to my potential customers and to get feedback from them. What if I receive feedback and I want to improve my hardware or software again? What happens to the provisional patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, I have an idea that seems patentable. The idea itself requires a hardware with a custom made software on it and an iPhone app. I still don't have a final design for my hardware but the hardware itself is functional and I managed to take a video of myself showing how the hardware works. My plan is to 1. patent my idea. 2. disclose my products to my potential customers, show them the video of how the device works, and improve my product if there's something missing. 3. After I receive interest from my customers, I ask them for a letter of intent so that I know what to expect for year one. 4. look for investors to raise funding in order to hire more help to complete the final stage of the product and to manufacture the hardware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen some websites that say that I should even include all my code in the provisional patent as well as all the drawings, algorithms, drawings and... What if I want to update the code after I submitted my provisional?&#xD;&#xA;I've also seen some other websites that say a provisional can be submitted in 20 min just by just explaining the idea and the general concept of it and the designs can don't have to be that serious. They even say that there is no need for a lawyer for a provisional. I really don't know which one to believe and I don't want to make a fool out of myself when a customer sees my provisional patent. Does anyone have any similar experience in the field of IoT? Am I missing something here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43230" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16902" RevisionGUID="1e8708b3-750a-4fcd-8646-ef53c72768bb" CreationDate="2016-12-19T22:34:33.900" UserId="18174" Text="Provisional patents for software" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43231" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16902" RevisionGUID="1e8708b3-750a-4fcd-8646-ef53c72768bb" CreationDate="2016-12-19T22:34:33.900" UserId="18174" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43232" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14755" RevisionGUID="a84d9dab-b347-445f-b33f-914e187b2b49" CreationDate="2016-12-19T23:20:23.733" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43233" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="977c3875-f239-4ba1-8b18-b9ca9c06eee4" CreationDate="2016-12-20T03:26:44.437" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43234" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12561" RevisionGUID="0feead0e-e2b2-447f-a747-358d6c16aeeb" CreationDate="2016-12-20T06:26:55.917" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="207" RevisionGUID="5a2d5b04-30b5-45a3-aca7-9970cbaf73d4" CreationDate="2016-12-20T06:49:33.177" UserId="13706" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="Providing prior art around the concept (as opposed to alternative implementations) would include the book [Snow Crash, published by Neil Stephenson in 1992][1] - that goes into incredible detail describing several interactions related to a Virtual Space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://amzn.to/2gWp4Eu" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16903" RevisionGUID="0fc242f4-01c4-4c78-8e47-c6a1dd6f1efa" CreationDate="2016-12-20T06:55:35.173" UserId="18178" Text="I want to download a patent granted inn Russia. But not able to download from http://www1.fips.ru/wps/portal/Registers/ website.&#xD;&#xA;Please let me know the correct format to put patent no. in the provided field." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43237" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16903" RevisionGUID="0fc242f4-01c4-4c78-8e47-c6a1dd6f1efa" CreationDate="2016-12-20T06:55:35.173" UserId="18178" Text="How to download Russian Granted patent ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43238" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16903" RevisionGUID="0fc242f4-01c4-4c78-8e47-c6a1dd6f1efa" CreationDate="2016-12-20T06:55:35.173" UserId="18178" Text="&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4754" RevisionGUID="04a25bec-1522-4f7b-b672-40386958ac8c" CreationDate="2016-12-20T06:58:41.573" UserId="13706" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="See: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Fundamentals of database systems][1] (2nd ed.)&#xD;&#xA;Authors: 	Ramez Elmasri 	Univ. of Texas, Arlington&#xD;&#xA;	Shamkant B. Navathe 	Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta&#xD;&#xA;Publication:&#xD;&#xA;· Book 	&#xD;&#xA;[Fundamentals of database systems][2] (2nd ed.)&#xD;&#xA;Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Co., Inc. Redwood City, CA, USA ©1994&#xD;&#xA;ISBN:0-8053-1748-1 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chapter 22, Page 688 shows a sample object oriented class accessing its data from a relational database. Published 1994. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://amzn.to/2i45jA4&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://amzn.to/2hCsIHR" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43243" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14424" RevisionGUID="87a8d452-427e-46b4-ac4c-b0f7a8dad20e" CreationDate="2016-12-20T10:28:12.623" UserId="18033" Comment="improved .. " Text="Which countries does this patent cover? Is it possible to design around it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43244" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14424" RevisionGUID="87a8d452-427e-46b4-ac4c-b0f7a8dad20e" CreationDate="2016-12-20T10:28:12.623" UserId="18033" Comment="improved .. " Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43245" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14424" RevisionGUID="87a8d452-427e-46b4-ac4c-b0f7a8dad20e" CreationDate="2016-12-20T10:28:12.623" Comment="Proposed by 18033 approved by 13706, 15503 edit id of 1995" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16905" RevisionGUID="88b63c94-8e08-4d7f-be6a-97deb6ccb9af" CreationDate="2016-12-20T11:11:07.347" UserId="15503" Text="**How much information should be in a provisional patent application?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your provisional application should explain the invention in sufficient detail that a skilled person, reading your application, could put it into practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A provisional patent application has no formal requirements, so strictly does not need to include claims or drawings. However, if you omit either of these, you run the risk of the provisional not fully supporting the invention. In such a case, your later non-provisional application may not be entitled to the date of filing of the provisional, and therefore may end up being unpatentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this reason, a provisional patent application should typically be the same as a non-provisional patent application. Notably, it should include a description, claims, and drawings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should a provisional patent application include source code?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I shouldn't think so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source code shows one possible implementation of the invention (that is, one particular arrangement of code in a particular language). However, you are not looking to protect one implementation: you are looking to protect the invention itself. It would therefore be quite rare for an application to include source code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is common (and maybe even essential) to include pseudo-code or a flow chart showing the high-level steps of your method. These are provided at the level that a skilled person (such as a computer programmer) could understand and implement with a reasonable amount of effort. So a step of &quot;sending a notification from a first terminal to a second terminal over a network&quot; is quite acceptable in most cases, as the skilled person would understand how to put this into practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To what extent should I describe the hardware for a software invention?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To the extent that a skilled person, reading the application, could put the invention into practice. If the hardware is commonplace, and effectively a general purpose computer, it is typically sufficient to make a note that the method can be performed by a computer having a processor which executes instructions. However, if the software invention requires specialised hardware, you would need to provide more description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Would I submit two provisionals: one for the hardware and one for the software?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not usually. If each truly stands alone as a separate invention, and are novel and non-obvious on their own merits, then two separate applications could be prudent. However, if there is some synergy, or if one part is not really novel without the other, it would be typical to have them in the same application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What if I have improvements?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you file a provisional, you have 1 year to file a non-provisional. You can include improvements in the non-provisional that you've developed over that 1 year. The improvements have a later priority date than the parts described in the provisional, but that is usually not a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Do I need an attorney for a provisional?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Definitely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are no formality requirements for a provisional application, so you *could* file a provisional with a napkin sketch and a couple of sentences. This would be a valid provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this would provide you no benefit whatsoever. A later non-provisional would not be entitled to the earlier date of the provisional, as the provisional does not describe the invention in sufficient detail. It would be as if the provisional was never filed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, a useful provisional application cannot be prepared in 20 minutes, and cannot be prepared yourself. You need a capable attorney to prepare it. It will certainly take time and money, but the alternative is going without protection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43247" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12942" RevisionGUID="0a0ed89c-e273-4865-a039-bb13001a5652" CreationDate="2016-12-20T13:45:48.547" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43249" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12549" RevisionGUID="f951cba1-d778-45bd-9a97-09a0f95de694" CreationDate="2016-12-20T15:46:00.867" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16907" RevisionGUID="6b5d2798-4f83-42e6-8bb6-c74da61f7f7a" CreationDate="2016-12-20T17:00:29.763" UserId="18183" Text="Yes it's done all the time.&#xD;&#xA;E.g., Fred W. McLafferty, and Michael A. Baldwin, Us Patent #3997298, &quot;Liquid&#xD;&#xA;chromatography-mass spectrometry system and method&quot; Assigned to (Cornell Research&#xD;&#xA;Foundation, Inc., USA). 1976&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fred W. McLafferty, Robert H. Hertel, and Robert D. Villwock, De Patent #2521344,&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Mass spectrometer system for rapid, automatic, specific identification and quantitative determination of compounds&quot; Assigned to (Universal Monitor Corp., USA). 1976" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43252" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14403" RevisionGUID="5e1db9e3-5b76-4b15-9559-c45e4ed9ea12" CreationDate="2016-12-20T17:46:04.157" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16908" RevisionGUID="9342796b-822c-4ef4-b20f-39e86a3b1b63" CreationDate="2016-12-20T18:51:25.087" UserId="18033" Text="Try https://worldwide.espacenet.com/ . The european site is very forgiving when entering patent numbers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or google patents, they have documents too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16612" RevisionGUID="76d7ec44-c35b-43b5-9aba-161f164e9473" CreationDate="2016-12-20T21:53:26.943" UserId="16696" Comment="added a little detail to make this basic but important question more useful" Text="It's a short summary of the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a link with more detail from Cornell: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.72&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Advice I was given on the Abstract by patent attorneys was to read the abstracts of patents in similar fields to get a sense of what people include and exclude.  ([Google Patents](https://patents.google.com/) is a great place to do this.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16909" RevisionGUID="ad74a570-b83a-44dc-8cca-95feab9ff0c3" CreationDate="2016-12-20T23:35:11.897" UserId="5964" Text="Abstract is the summary of our work. Usually ends with one paragraph and will be added in the starting. Below the title. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16903" RevisionGUID="182f8697-db45-483f-9c97-e7df5879483c" CreationDate="2016-12-21T00:37:23.150" UserId="18033" Comment="search tag is not for searching something (is it?)" Text="I want to download a patent granted in Russia. But I am not able to download it from http://www1.fips.ru/wps/portal/Registers/ website.&#xD;&#xA;Please let me know the correct format to put the patent no. in the provided field." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43259" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16903" RevisionGUID="182f8697-db45-483f-9c97-e7df5879483c" CreationDate="2016-12-21T00:37:23.150" UserId="18033" Comment="search tag is not for searching something (is it?)" Text="How to download a granted Russian patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43260" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16903" RevisionGUID="182f8697-db45-483f-9c97-e7df5879483c" CreationDate="2016-12-21T00:37:23.150" UserId="18033" Comment="search tag is not for searching something (is it?)" Text="&lt;documents&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43261" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16903" RevisionGUID="182f8697-db45-483f-9c97-e7df5879483c" CreationDate="2016-12-21T00:37:23.150" Comment="Proposed by 18033 approved by 13706, 15503 edit id of 1997" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43262" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14403" RevisionGUID="0ab66c35-c4ab-4c6b-822d-fc3129035667" CreationDate="2016-12-21T00:37:26.900" UserId="18033" Comment="those tags had 1 question - this one and they make no special sense" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;improvement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43263" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14403" RevisionGUID="0ab66c35-c4ab-4c6b-822d-fc3129035667" CreationDate="2016-12-21T00:37:26.900" Comment="Proposed by 18033 approved by 13706, 15503 edit id of 1996" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16910" RevisionGUID="30d9bdda-9789-400f-88c5-0f4b439cd684" CreationDate="2016-12-21T00:43:37.583" UserId="15503" Text="Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;35 USC § 261 provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... patents shall have the attributes of personal property. ... Applications for patent, patents, or any interest therein, shall be assignable in law by an instrument in writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus patents and patent applications can be owned, bought and sold essentially like any other kind of personal property. The only real catch is that ownership should be recorded at the USPTO (which isn't necessary for other kinds of personal property)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43265" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13383" RevisionGUID="52c1fd5c-3bfc-427b-9ea0-b86ae53a2b0c" CreationDate="2016-12-21T01:52:21.600" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16910" RevisionGUID="ddc18f4d-ca81-428a-b612-db79f97ed170" CreationDate="2016-12-21T07:02:28.010" UserId="15503" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;35 USC § 261 provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... patents shall have the attributes of personal property. ... Applications for patent, patents, or any interest therein, shall be assignable in law by an instrument in writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus patents and patent applications can be owned, bought and sold essentially like any other kind of personal property, and so ownership can be split any way you want. The only real catch is that ownership should be recorded at the USPTO (which isn't necessary for other kinds of personal property)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16911" RevisionGUID="552a390f-5cd3-4352-bd8d-95d012c62f9a" CreationDate="2016-12-21T07:04:52.247" UserId="18033" Text="Your products may not enter the soil of any country with patent protection for the product without a license. Please make sure there no other patents in the same patent family or similar patents. An invention normally has more than one patent protecting aspects of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, you might have to make sure that your customers don't import the product into the US. With consumers this might be impossible but rather negligible, but if you sell B2B this can become an important point. (I'm not sure about the exact laws there, but just selling in the UK and not caring about this is - afaik - not enough)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16900" RevisionGUID="7fc4b25c-c437-459b-bf10-9415b6f8f90a" CreationDate="2016-12-21T07:12:27.340" UserId="18033" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="The (/a) patent from 1919 is not valid anymore. It cannot be renewed. But it does constitute prior art for new patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starting with the theory: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everyone can apply for a patent for (almost) everything. The content is analysed only when the grant of the patent is requested. So I could totally apply for a patent for the Pelton wheel right now with exactly the claims from the 1919 patent. But I would not get a grant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second patent was granted and the patent office is not stupid, so there probably is something new to the second invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to find out what that is? A patent application normally states prior art, a problem in the prior art and an solution. You can find that in the first paragraphs of a (well written) patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/b298f4abcdec036cc1b7/US4950130.pdf (The patent pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence of the description is &quot;This invention relates to a Pelton turbine.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As &#xD;&#xA;is &#xD;&#xA;known, &#xD;&#xA;Pelton &#xD;&#xA;turbines &#xD;&#xA;are &#xD;&#xA;used &#xD;&#xA;for &#xD;&#xA;driving &#xD;&#xA;electricity &#xD;&#xA;generators &#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;as &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;direct &#xD;&#xA;drive &#xD;&#xA;for &#xD;&#xA;working &#xD;&#xA;machines. &#xD;&#xA;Generally, &#xD;&#xA;such &#xD;&#xA;Pelton &#xD;&#xA;turbines &#xD;&#xA;include &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;casing &#xD;&#xA;in &#xD;&#xA;which &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;turbine &#xD;&#xA;wheel &#xD;&#xA;with &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;wheel &#xD;&#xA;disc &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;buckets &#xD;&#xA;is &#xD;&#xA;mounted &#xD;&#xA;along &#xD;&#xA;with &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;drive &#xD;&#xA;shaft &#xD;&#xA;which &#xD;&#xA;passes &#xD;&#xA;through &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;casing. &#xD;&#xA;In &#xD;&#xA;addition, &#xD;&#xA;at &#xD;&#xA;least &#xD;&#xA;one &#xD;&#xA;jet &#xD;&#xA;is &#xD;&#xA;provided &#xD;&#xA;for &#xD;&#xA;expelling &#xD;&#xA;fluid &#xD;&#xA;from &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;high &#xD;&#xA;pressure &#xD;&#xA;nozzle &#xD;&#xA;tangentially &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;wheel &#xD;&#xA;disc &#xD;&#xA;onto &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;buckets &#xD;&#xA;so &#xD;&#xA;as &#xD;&#xA;to &#xD;&#xA;cause &#xD;&#xA;rotation &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;disc &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;drive &#xD;&#xA;shaft. &#xD;&#xA;The &#xD;&#xA;casing &#xD;&#xA;has &#xD;&#xA;also &#xD;&#xA;been &#xD;&#xA;provided &#xD;&#xA;with &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;fluid &#xD;&#xA;outlet &#xD;&#xA;for &#xD;&#xA;removal &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;spent &#xD;&#xA;fluid. &#xD;&#xA;Turbines &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;this &#xD;&#xA;type &#xD;&#xA;are &#xD;&#xA;described &#xD;&#xA;in &#xD;&#xA;Ger &#xD;&#xA;man &#xD;&#xA;Pat. &#xD;&#xA;Nos. &#xD;&#xA;12,314; &#xD;&#xA;319,779 &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;615,445. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Followed by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As &#xD;&#xA;is &#xD;&#xA;known, &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;efficiency &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;Pelton &#xD;&#xA;turbine &#xD;&#xA;is &#xD;&#xA;closely &#xD;&#xA;dependent &#xD;&#xA;on &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;success &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;keeping &#xD;&#xA;vagrant &#xD;&#xA;spray &#xD;&#xA;water &#xD;&#xA;away &#xD;&#xA;from &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;turbine &#xD;&#xA;wheel &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;buckets. &#xD;&#xA;In &#xD;&#xA;some &#xD;&#xA;cases, &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;drive &#xD;&#xA;shaft &#xD;&#xA;has &#xD;&#xA;been &#xD;&#xA;disposed &#xD;&#xA;on &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;hori &#xD;&#xA;zontal &#xD;&#xA;axis &#xD;&#xA;while &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;lower &#xD;&#xA;region &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;turbine &#xD;&#xA;wheel &#xD;&#xA;is &#xD;&#xA;acted &#xD;&#xA;upon &#xD;&#xA;by &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;fluid &#xD;&#xA;jets. &#xD;&#xA;In &#xD;&#xA;these &#xD;&#xA;cases, &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;upper &#xD;&#xA;region &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;casing &#xD;&#xA;has &#xD;&#xA;been &#xD;&#xA;provided &#xD;&#xA;with &#xD;&#xA;vertical &#xD;&#xA;metal &#xD;&#xA;sheets &#xD;&#xA;parallel &#xD;&#xA;to &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;plane &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;turbine &#xD;&#xA;wheel &#xD;&#xA;while &#xD;&#xA;horizontal &#xD;&#xA;sheets &#xD;&#xA;are &#xD;&#xA;disposed &#xD;&#xA;opposite &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;high &#xD;&#xA;pressure &#xD;&#xA;nozzle &#xD;&#xA;in &#xD;&#xA;order &#xD;&#xA;to &#xD;&#xA;prevent &#xD;&#xA;spray &#xD;&#xA;water &#xD;&#xA;from &#xD;&#xA;reaching &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;upper &#xD;&#xA;region &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;casing. &#xD;&#xA;In &#xD;&#xA;Pelton &#xD;&#xA;turbines &#xD;&#xA;used &#xD;&#xA;at &#xD;&#xA;variable &#xD;&#xA;speed &#xD;&#xA;for &#xD;&#xA;driving &#xD;&#xA;working &#xD;&#xA;machines, &#xD;&#xA;these &#xD;&#xA;conventional &#xD;&#xA;baffles &#xD;&#xA;do &#xD;&#xA;not &#xD;&#xA;give &#xD;&#xA;satisfactory &#xD;&#xA;results. &#xD;&#xA;On &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;one &#xD;&#xA;hand, &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;outlet &#xD;&#xA;conditions &#xD;&#xA;from &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;buckets &#xD;&#xA;vary &#xD;&#xA;as &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;result &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;large &#xD;&#xA;but &#xD;&#xA;necessary &#xD;&#xA;fluctuations &#xD;&#xA;in &#xD;&#xA;speed &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;load. &#xD;&#xA;This, &#xD;&#xA;in &#xD;&#xA;turn, &#xD;&#xA;results &#xD;&#xA;in &#xD;&#xA;considerable &#xD;&#xA;differences &#xD;&#xA;in &#xD;&#xA;spray &#xD;&#xA;fluid &#xD;&#xA;conditions. &#xD;&#xA;On &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;other &#xD;&#xA;hand, &#xD;&#xA;there &#xD;&#xA;are &#xD;&#xA;great &#xD;&#xA;variations &#xD;&#xA;in &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;amounts &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;fluids &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;these &#xD;&#xA;have &#xD;&#xA;to &#xD;&#xA;be &#xD;&#xA;taken &#xD;&#xA;into &#xD;&#xA;account &#xD;&#xA;in &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;construction &#xD;&#xA;by &#xD;&#xA;providing &#xD;&#xA;high &#xD;&#xA;overflow &#xD;&#xA;levels &#xD;&#xA;so &#xD;&#xA;that &#xD;&#xA;large &#xD;&#xA;quantities &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;fluid &#xD;&#xA;can &#xD;&#xA;be &#xD;&#xA;discharged &#xD;&#xA;without &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;turbine &#xD;&#xA;wheel &#xD;&#xA;becoming &#xD;&#xA;immersed &#xD;&#xA;in &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;sump. &#xD;&#xA;Favorable &#xD;&#xA;conditions, &#xD;&#xA;favorable &#xD;&#xA;efficiency, &#xD;&#xA;can &#xD;&#xA;be &#xD;&#xA;obtained &#xD;&#xA;only &#xD;&#xA;within &#xD;&#xA;narrow &#xD;&#xA;limits &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;when &#xD;&#xA;condi &#xD;&#xA;tions &#xD;&#xA;are &#xD;&#xA;approximately &#xD;&#xA;constant. &#xD;&#xA;**Accordingly, &#xD;&#xA;it &#xD;&#xA;is &#xD;&#xA;an &#xD;&#xA;object &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;invention &#xD;&#xA;to &#xD;&#xA;im &#xD;&#xA;prove &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;efficiency &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;Pelton &#xD;&#xA;turbine.**&#xD;&#xA;(Emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now we know that the inventors knew about prior art and wanted to patent an improvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lets look at the claims, they define the actual scope of the protection. What is not claimed, is not protected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The independent claims (the other claims are so called dependent claims, so they have limitations regarding the independent claims - they protect **less** than the dependent claim (yes, this makes sense ;-) )) are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. &#xD;&#xA;A &#xD;&#xA;Pelton &#xD;&#xA;turbine &#xD;&#xA;comprising &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;casing &#xD;&#xA;having &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;fluid &#xD;&#xA;outlet; &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;transversely &#xD;&#xA;disposed &#xD;&#xA;partition &#xD;&#xA;in &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;casing &#xD;&#xA;separating &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;spray &#xD;&#xA;fluid &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;outlet &#xD;&#xA;region &#xD;&#xA;from &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;ventilation &#xD;&#xA;region &#xD;&#xA;therein; &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;rotatable &#xD;&#xA;drive &#xD;&#xA;shaft &#xD;&#xA;extending &#xD;&#xA;through &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;casing; &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;wheel &#xD;&#xA;disc &#xD;&#xA;mounted &#xD;&#xA;on &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;shaft &#xD;&#xA;within &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;casing &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;passing &#xD;&#xA;through &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;partition; &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;plurality &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;peripherally &#xD;&#xA;mounted &#xD;&#xA;buckets &#xD;&#xA;on &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;disc; &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;at &#xD;&#xA;least &#xD;&#xA;one &#xD;&#xA;high-pressure &#xD;&#xA;nozzle &#xD;&#xA;in &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;spray &#xD;&#xA;fluid &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;outlet &#xD;&#xA;region &#xD;&#xA;below &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;partition &#xD;&#xA;for &#xD;&#xA;expelling &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;fluid &#xD;&#xA;jet &#xD;&#xA;tangentially &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;disc &#xD;&#xA;sequentially &#xD;&#xA;onto &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;buckets &#xD;&#xA;for &#xD;&#xA;rotating &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;disc &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;shaft. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;13. &#xD;&#xA;A &#xD;&#xA;Pelton &#xD;&#xA;turbine &#xD;&#xA;comprising &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;casing &#xD;&#xA;having &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;fluid &#xD;&#xA;outlet; &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;drive &#xD;&#xA;shaft &#xD;&#xA;extending &#xD;&#xA;through &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;casing; &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;wheel &#xD;&#xA;disc &#xD;&#xA;mounted &#xD;&#xA;on &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;shaft &#xD;&#xA;within &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;casing: &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;plurality &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;buckets &#xD;&#xA;peripherally &#xD;&#xA;mounted &#xD;&#xA;on &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;wheel &#xD;&#xA;disc; &#xD;&#xA;at &#xD;&#xA;least &#xD;&#xA;one &#xD;&#xA;nozzle &#xD;&#xA;for &#xD;&#xA;expelling &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;fluid &#xD;&#xA;jet &#xD;&#xA;tangentially &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;lower &#xD;&#xA;portion &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;disc &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;onto &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;buck &#xD;&#xA;ets &#xD;&#xA;for &#xD;&#xA;rotating &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;disc &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;shaft; &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;partition &#xD;&#xA;disposed &#xD;&#xA;in &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;casing &#xD;&#xA;to &#xD;&#xA;separate &#xD;&#xA;an &#xD;&#xA;upper &#xD;&#xA;ventilation &#xD;&#xA;region &#xD;&#xA;from &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;lower &#xD;&#xA;spray &#xD;&#xA;fluid &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;outlet &#xD;&#xA;region &#xD;&#xA;thereof, &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;partition &#xD;&#xA;having &#xD;&#xA;an &#xD;&#xA;opening &#xD;&#xA;for &#xD;&#xA;passage &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;disc &#xD;&#xA;therethrough &#xD;&#xA;into &#xD;&#xA;, &#xD;&#xA;said &#xD;&#xA;regions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know enough about Pelton wheels to judge this, but if you read the patent they will probably explain why these claimed limitations constitute an improvement of the prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This way of looking at a patent helps with (almost) every patent and provides a good first intuition as to what to expect from the patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43270" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10324" RevisionGUID="ebfd49ae-b8ef-43e1-b41a-9ef44b801f12" CreationDate="2016-12-21T09:10:29.657" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43271" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6687" RevisionGUID="4ea26b15-e97b-45b2-b419-d77449eb5667" CreationDate="2016-12-21T11:10:34.753" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43272" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12771" RevisionGUID="58e8c055-c806-4ad3-9509-9168d850c800" CreationDate="2016-12-21T12:10:35.577" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43273" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16479" RevisionGUID="f46762e9-4f3a-4ce9-8770-e96672456d6e" CreationDate="2016-12-21T13:10:33.797" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43274" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="c47010e2-e3c6-4f24-8381-d7eb0acf0825" CreationDate="2016-12-21T14:10:33.127" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43275" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12574" RevisionGUID="fd4cae04-121a-497c-971b-ff9e8d3a05c9" CreationDate="2016-12-21T16:10:33.163" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16912" RevisionGUID="925f2beb-02d7-4ca2-9ddf-a4093aad40ea" CreationDate="2016-12-21T18:27:09.423" UserId="18187" Text="The best source is directly from the USPTO from the [USPTO Bulk Data Download Site][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also an Open Source [Bulk Data Utility Tools][2] which can aid in downloading, filtering, and reading the bulk data files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://bulkdata.uspto.gov&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://github.com/USPTO/PatentPublicData" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16913" RevisionGUID="6bdea62e-b76b-404b-bd9d-2c368c0696f7" CreationDate="2016-12-21T18:45:58.373" UserId="18187" Text="The best source is directly from the USPTO from the [USPTO Bulk Data Download Site][1] under Multi-Page Portable Document Format (PDF) Images.  Note these are image PDFs, not text based PDFs. So also download the bulk data text files.  And to best utilize classification you will want to also download the Master Classification File.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://bulkdata.uspto.gov" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43280" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13937" RevisionGUID="2c6f36da-7f15-4593-bc3e-26e76c0d41c0" CreationDate="2016-12-21T20:14:33.463" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16914" RevisionGUID="f31186ee-be24-47ab-873d-b1a0688c1067" CreationDate="2016-12-21T20:22:14.950" UserId="17077" Text="Even stolen designs loose patent-ability because the designs nefariously may have entered the public domain.  The thought process is that you must have not secured the designs through trade secrecy; therefore they have become open to the public sphere and entered the public domain. BTW ... many times an examiner will reject, reject and final reject but at each stage a cogent rebuttal response to the rejected claims many times will produce a patent although likely narrower. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16915" RevisionGUID="4eaf7671-ea99-4705-a4f1-58b6fac966c1" CreationDate="2016-12-21T21:19:58.273" UserId="14038" Text="Go to the USPTO Public PAIR (patent application information retrieval) system at http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair and enter the application number or the publication number.   You will be able to download the application as originally filed, along with any amendments to the application and complete history of the prosecution of the application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16885" RevisionGUID="a6485adb-58b8-41a1-826a-a54244bee23c" CreationDate="2016-12-21T23:48:34.757" UserId="17077" Comment="Corrected grammar, expanded the question, put in tags" Text="I have created new mathematical theorem. I don't know of its advantage or application. I am confident that it will be advantageous in the future so due to that reason I have 3 questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Is a theorem patentable?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is their an advantage to publish my theorem in a scholarly journal?&#xD;&#xA; 3. What country should I patent my theorem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43284" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16885" RevisionGUID="a6485adb-58b8-41a1-826a-a54244bee23c" CreationDate="2016-12-21T23:48:34.757" UserId="17077" Comment="Corrected grammar, expanded the question, put in tags" Text="I authored a new mathematical theorem so: Is it patentable, is scholarly publication an advantage, where should I patent it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43285" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16885" RevisionGUID="a6485adb-58b8-41a1-826a-a54244bee23c" CreationDate="2016-12-21T23:48:34.757" UserId="17077" Comment="Corrected grammar, expanded the question, put in tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;algorithms&gt;&lt;theorem&gt;&lt;patentable&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43286" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16885" RevisionGUID="a6485adb-58b8-41a1-826a-a54244bee23c" CreationDate="2016-12-21T23:48:34.757" Comment="Proposed by 17077 approved by -1 edit id of 1999" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16885" RevisionGUID="2d07d043-e88b-45bf-97c5-d019936189f9" CreationDate="2016-12-21T23:48:34.757" UserId="15503" Comment="Corrected grammar, expanded the question, put in tags" Text="I have created new mathematical theorem. I don't know of its advantage or application. I am confident that it will be advantageous in the future so due to that reason I have 3 questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Is a theorem patentable?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is there an advantage to publish my theorem in a scholarly journal?&#xD;&#xA; 3. What country should I patent my theorem in?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43288" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="9a0b9bdb-c2f5-4e01-9df9-775294d5c0a3" CreationDate="2016-12-22T00:17:50.203" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16479" RevisionGUID="dd51d5d8-2db6-48f8-aeb6-98e3b80e2476" CreationDate="2016-12-22T01:17:10.437" UserId="18033" Comment="removed personal information" Text="for an exhibition in Luxembourg, I am searching for an original document about the patent US532942 (Charles Bivort et Jean Nadler). How and where can I find this document?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43290" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16479" RevisionGUID="dd51d5d8-2db6-48f8-aeb6-98e3b80e2476" CreationDate="2016-12-22T01:17:10.437" UserId="18033" Comment="removed personal information" Text="&lt;documents&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43291" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16479" RevisionGUID="dd51d5d8-2db6-48f8-aeb6-98e3b80e2476" CreationDate="2016-12-22T01:17:10.437" Comment="Proposed by 18033 approved by 15503, 758 edit id of 1998" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43292" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="dbd2685e-5606-43ab-a235-2517f9341ca9" CreationDate="2016-12-22T02:25:06.570" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43294" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13935" RevisionGUID="74ec411d-9b9a-41ee-8d0a-d10c747babe4" CreationDate="2016-12-22T04:25:06.250" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43295" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13432" RevisionGUID="9b3c4a93-ebf5-44e9-ae50-e7545cb4a3d0" CreationDate="2016-12-22T05:25:13.160" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43296" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13847" RevisionGUID="3906f574-5b02-4861-84d9-dee71ca2ffd6" CreationDate="2016-12-22T18:31:01.037" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16917" RevisionGUID="dea9a11a-f955-42a9-95a4-5ad60f60a09f" CreationDate="2016-12-22T21:58:37.320" UserId="11947" Text="I submitted software patent to USPTO. In today's climate probability of getting such patents is very low, so I decided to treat it as a trade secret for now. Do I need NDA when explaining the gist of my invention to potential investors/customers, and if so should it be written by lawyer or version downloaded from Internet will be sufficient?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43302" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16917" RevisionGUID="dea9a11a-f955-42a9-95a4-5ad60f60a09f" CreationDate="2016-12-22T21:58:37.320" UserId="11947" Text="Do I need NDA when talking about submitted patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43303" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16917" RevisionGUID="dea9a11a-f955-42a9-95a4-5ad60f60a09f" CreationDate="2016-12-22T21:58:37.320" UserId="11947" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;software-as-a-service&gt;&lt;nda&gt;&lt;investment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43304" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="e2ce1bc9-0aca-4fc0-a0b2-d14f6a659b7a" CreationDate="2016-12-22T23:35:30.870" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43305" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="4318ab39-2446-460e-889a-94497831b916" CreationDate="2016-12-23T00:35:30.433" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16918" RevisionGUID="81227431-0a31-4711-a2ab-96723c8be435" CreationDate="2016-12-23T05:52:18.907" UserId="15503" Text="A trade secret and a patent are mutually exclusive choices. An NDA would almost certainly be needed for the former (since it's secret), but not really for the latter (since it is, or will shortly be, public).  It really comes down to which route you decide to pursue. Of course, there is no real disadvantage for you to use an NDA (except to the extent it dissuades potential investors or customers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, if you decide to use an NDA (and for your purposes, there is no disadvantage to it), it really should be prepared by a lawyer. You have no idea of the quality of a version from somewhere on the Internet, or event whether it is even compatible with the laws of your jurisdiction." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43309" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13422" RevisionGUID="bd003a51-aa2e-4fe1-b35e-1890d23ef1ab" CreationDate="2016-12-23T12:42:39.767" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16919" RevisionGUID="4cf22ec0-d96d-4107-ab1e-38aa5419f026" CreationDate="2016-12-23T14:04:17.250" UserId="18195" Text="Encountered multiple times, that title of patent has &quot;...SAME&quot; in the end. Tried searching, but you know Google (and SO), it only shows Q&amp;A related to same patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I.E.&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?query=US201615204907&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1.  GRAPHENE SYNTHESIS CHAMBER AND METHOD OF SYNTHESIZING GRAPHENE BY USING THE **SAME**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does it mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43311" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16919" RevisionGUID="4cf22ec0-d96d-4107-ab1e-38aa5419f026" CreationDate="2016-12-23T14:04:17.250" UserId="18195" Text="Meaning of &quot;SAME&quot; in the title of patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43312" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16919" RevisionGUID="4cf22ec0-d96d-4107-ab1e-38aa5419f026" CreationDate="2016-12-23T14:04:17.250" UserId="18195" Text="&lt;title&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43313" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13771" RevisionGUID="458bbdc2-43f3-44a6-92b1-898717e67ae6" CreationDate="2016-12-23T14:42:54.443" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16920" RevisionGUID="184b59ae-8323-429f-9efc-2eb824dd2dd9" CreationDate="2016-12-23T14:47:16.363" UserId="17003" Text="I think in this context SAME means the graphene  synthesis chamber. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16921" RevisionGUID="22944d14-8999-48b1-b3ac-bdecc906f33f" CreationDate="2016-12-23T15:00:51.523" UserId="17003" Text="I'm not sure you've been given the right analogy yet. Let's say the patent was for a mechanism for a folding chair. If your idea is a way of using the mechanism for a folding wheelchair, you may get a patent, but would likely need a license for the original patent to market the product. If however, your idea is a way of using the mechanism for an umbrella, you would probably be able to get a patent and not have to license the original patent. That said, you need to carefully consider all the claims and other umbrella patents too. An option from a patent attorney is important. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43316" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14335" RevisionGUID="0551bd95-a831-400c-a830-47637a23304b" CreationDate="2016-12-23T15:42:54.507" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43321" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16184" RevisionGUID="2e3b909a-3887-40ea-91a1-ae841160c50d" CreationDate="2016-12-23T18:43:18.360" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43322" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="5841caef-6a69-4601-ab63-8bba7d264a94" CreationDate="2016-12-23T19:57:59.353" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us8166269&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43323" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16186" RevisionGUID="899db71a-eead-4f91-b8ee-e234846b993a" CreationDate="2016-12-23T20:43:42.847" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16921" RevisionGUID="05c0de6a-f246-48d4-b389-5f26cac911c7" CreationDate="2016-12-23T21:15:54.963" UserId="18033" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I'm not sure you've been given the right analogy yet. Let's say the patent was for a mechanism for a folding chair. If your idea is a way of using the mechanism for a folding wheelchair, you may get a patent, but would likely need a license for the original patent to market the product. If however, your idea is a way of using the mechanism for an umbrella, you would probably be able to get a patent and not have to license the original patent. That said, you need to carefully consider all the claims and other umbrella patents too. An opinion from a patent attorney is important. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16923" RevisionGUID="18619d5c-0110-4f29-9112-c0d2f9cca1e1" CreationDate="2016-12-23T21:31:49.417" UserId="18033" Text="I am looking for some intermediate level books on patents.&#xD;&#xA;I heard about a book called &quot;patent it yourself&quot;, has anyone read it and can you recommend it? What group is the book targetting and does it give some deeper insight? Is it country specific?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Other suggestions are appreciated too)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43326" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16923" RevisionGUID="18619d5c-0110-4f29-9112-c0d2f9cca1e1" CreationDate="2016-12-23T21:31:49.417" UserId="18033" Text="Books on patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43327" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16923" RevisionGUID="18619d5c-0110-4f29-9112-c0d2f9cca1e1" CreationDate="2016-12-23T21:31:49.417" UserId="18033" Text="&lt;book&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43328" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16923" RevisionGUID="e883ca7e-ad18-4d1c-a695-066f59696237" CreationDate="2016-12-23T21:43:44.463" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;book&gt;&lt;recommendation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43329" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13422" RevisionGUID="85069db4-0d0f-4832-9e47-1c3e4ec89ae0" CreationDate="2016-12-23T22:37:22.610" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;invention&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43330" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16353" RevisionGUID="c07ffee3-95e2-4dba-ba4d-ec0ce1413429" CreationDate="2016-12-23T23:46:48.587" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43333" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16179" RevisionGUID="11d88db6-1733-4230-999b-77dab3b2859e" CreationDate="2016-12-24T06:47:04.100" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16924" RevisionGUID="7da4cdf4-5305-4aa5-929a-b4a2aafe87f5" CreationDate="2016-12-24T08:14:45.083" UserId="18198" Text="In reference to the patent: [US655005][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US655005&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43335" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16924" RevisionGUID="7da4cdf4-5305-4aa5-929a-b4a2aafe87f5" CreationDate="2016-12-24T08:14:45.083" UserId="18198" Text="&quot;The title google has is &quot;Cotack Goniometer&quot;.....and it should be &quot;Contact Goniometer&quot;...how do I suggest changes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43336" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16924" RevisionGUID="7da4cdf4-5305-4aa5-929a-b4a2aafe87f5" CreationDate="2016-12-24T08:14:45.083" UserId="18198" Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16925" RevisionGUID="62462a8c-20e4-4b80-8fee-c523a9e97a73" CreationDate="2016-12-24T09:17:07.523" UserId="18033" Text="On Google at the bottom right of the page there is a button that says &quot;give feedback&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; But the error could be at the uspto, too. In that case you would gave to contact them directly. There is a Uspto link on the google page too, as this patent is pretty old the full text version is not available. I can't open the images from the smartphone, but you should check there first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43338" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14127" RevisionGUID="7fca0413-17d9-4dd9-b859-9c99a8a2e9be" CreationDate="2016-12-24T11:02:07.830" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43339" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13242" RevisionGUID="1585df2a-f1a9-4d46-8127-b41b9d71a65d" CreationDate="2016-12-24T12:02:08.060" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43340" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13123" RevisionGUID="e885b590-1220-4d3e-acce-d4acf374b688" CreationDate="2016-12-24T13:02:10.933" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16926" RevisionGUID="dc2e163f-2301-44bd-951f-ef2c0264a6dd" CreationDate="2016-12-24T14:48:29.820" UserId="18199" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2015015158A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015015158A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you get a patent for a product that sells in high volume on the market over the past 40 years?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43342" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16926" RevisionGUID="dc2e163f-2301-44bd-951f-ef2c0264a6dd" CreationDate="2016-12-24T14:48:29.820" UserId="18199" Text="Long arm quilting machines have been on the market for over 40 years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43343" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16926" RevisionGUID="dc2e163f-2301-44bd-951f-ef2c0264a6dd" CreationDate="2016-12-24T14:48:29.820" UserId="18199" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43344" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="16924" RevisionGUID="5b943fd6-d50a-4f9c-bc6b-f4438ea7f331" CreationDate="2016-12-24T14:56:01.383" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[12392],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="43345" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16926" RevisionGUID="65f04ccd-b560-442c-8b78-fc128accbcb8" CreationDate="2016-12-24T15:01:57.723" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Long arm quilting machines have been on the market for over 40 years" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43346" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16926" RevisionGUID="65f04ccd-b560-442c-8b78-fc128accbcb8" CreationDate="2016-12-24T15:01:57.723" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43347" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16740" RevisionGUID="08a021c2-c95a-404f-8aa9-f9017fc6c093" CreationDate="2016-12-24T15:03:08.177" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43348" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="20525986-3f0e-4bea-95c8-6a3dc5a15ad9" CreationDate="2016-12-24T20:05:58.423" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43349" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6624" RevisionGUID="c31c497e-6afb-4531-b2e6-05b53006683e" CreationDate="2016-12-24T21:05:58.633" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16927" RevisionGUID="d8c3ea43-580e-4315-b38d-569fb65e3558" CreationDate="2016-12-24T21:53:53.670" UserId="17003" Text="You figure out an improvement and patent that. I'm not passing any judgement of the cited application as I didn't read it and I'm not an expert in this field. Do you suppose that the first and only airplane patent went to the Wright brothers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43351" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12954" RevisionGUID="43fa5b69-1f16-497a-8768-1a342bb4dbc3" CreationDate="2016-12-24T22:08:45.787" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43353" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14631" RevisionGUID="ed1ab825-593e-4af1-8cc6-54d356aff80a" CreationDate="2016-12-25T04:16:12.397" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43354" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14620" RevisionGUID="3e6dee85-93c3-44b8-9d42-b25f5f6c0bf3" CreationDate="2016-12-25T05:16:17.817" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43355" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12339" RevisionGUID="a48489cc-4489-46e4-a231-a2a74d34d547" CreationDate="2016-12-25T06:16:28.390" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43356" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14622" RevisionGUID="5cfcabae-0f25-4a58-9247-55dbebba1821" CreationDate="2016-12-25T07:16:28.593" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16928" RevisionGUID="6f30b587-59e8-4cf6-8c9b-10204a492962" CreationDate="2016-12-25T09:38:03.147" UserId="18201" Text="I made one product.but after survey,I got that the idea which I used to make my product is already patented in other country.but that product is not provided to customer (market) by them. their production process is still in progress and it'll take mostly 2-3 months to avail that product in market. But right now I have that product. so please tell me, can I sell it in market in my country. I didn't copy their patent but the idea that we are using is unfortunately same...... &#xD;&#xA;THANK YOU." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43358" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16928" RevisionGUID="6f30b587-59e8-4cf6-8c9b-10204a492962" CreationDate="2016-12-25T09:38:03.147" UserId="18201" Text="Can I legally sell my own product in my country which is patented in another country?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43359" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16928" RevisionGUID="6f30b587-59e8-4cf6-8c9b-10204a492962" CreationDate="2016-12-25T09:38:03.147" UserId="18201" Text="&lt;idea&gt;&lt;patented&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16929" RevisionGUID="a8efd551-4d04-469d-bfa6-15a765c5a18e" CreationDate="2016-12-25T10:43:20.727" UserId="18033" Text="You have to make reasonably sure that your product is not exported into other countries that have patent protection. I'd suggest consulting a patent attorney. Also to discuss other possible strategic steps.&#xA;&#xA;Other than that, yes. But make sure there really is no patent for your country." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43361" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="9d9fd01d-9084-44e5-8982-5953b608b07d" CreationDate="2016-12-25T16:33:04.240" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43362" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="5083e45d-9a9c-48ad-9591-92e906b6d392" CreationDate="2016-12-25T22:36:26.557" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43363" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="7bb8d2d1-6149-42e1-842b-6d8de9cc6ba1" CreationDate="2016-12-26T00:47:17.023" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43370" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7693" RevisionGUID="f0a9ade0-db79-4383-8a8f-e258df82db52" CreationDate="2016-12-26T10:52:42.463" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43371" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4993" RevisionGUID="47060e35-61e0-43f3-b4d5-ebdc15f3ba70" CreationDate="2016-12-26T13:53:25.410" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16932" RevisionGUID="a75576c8-4c52-4564-9a54-66e0ef584a8c" CreationDate="2016-12-26T14:28:45.080" UserId="18206" Text="I am monkeying around with a device that its uniqueness is a combination of hardware and software, but the software is the predominant feature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 'old' device is a hardware item that connects with a PC. Special software on the PC communicates out the USB to this device which then does stuff to other devices (sorry for the vagueness). Many people make the 'old' device in many flavors - it is very mature technology. The 'old' device is nothing but a dumb box, there is no interaction with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My thing is to have a 'new' device, that incorporates the generally well known communication methods of the 'old' device, but bundled into an electronic system that also contains the software that used to be run on the PC. Thus, with an interface system (LCD screen and buttons), the user no longer needs a PC and has an all-in-one device that merges the 'old' device concept with software creating a 'new' device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is this utility worthy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43376" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16932" RevisionGUID="a75576c8-4c52-4564-9a54-66e0ef584a8c" CreationDate="2016-12-26T14:28:45.080" UserId="18206" Text="Should I Seek a Utility or Design for a Software Heavy Invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43377" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16932" RevisionGUID="a75576c8-4c52-4564-9a54-66e0ef584a8c" CreationDate="2016-12-26T14:28:45.080" UserId="18206" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43379" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12072" RevisionGUID="d30e68bf-8fbd-42a0-aca1-1b45e5ad6d6c" CreationDate="2016-12-26T16:08:00.310" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43380" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16748" RevisionGUID="099a122e-bdde-4cbb-9db2-8571771ffdf2" CreationDate="2016-12-26T18:12:04.830" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43381" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10744" RevisionGUID="a61b4e84-d845-483a-a50e-1256d299a678" CreationDate="2016-12-26T19:12:04.937" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43382" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12070" RevisionGUID="b55c5246-9d16-45a7-81a3-127253b26a67" CreationDate="2016-12-26T20:12:06.030" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43383" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14601" RevisionGUID="9b17b5fb-e875-46e8-a185-5d812b44f91a" CreationDate="2016-12-26T22:17:27.050" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43384" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7765" RevisionGUID="361d4a20-284f-4087-a037-3824416fb0b6" CreationDate="2016-12-26T23:17:28.783" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43385" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16491" RevisionGUID="e6f7d19c-3efc-4e3e-ab4a-c831e2e2e31c" CreationDate="2016-12-27T00:17:30.783" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43386" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="de083084-dc77-4bdb-a613-3ff749f5f1cc" CreationDate="2016-12-27T04:21:00.237" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43388" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13870" RevisionGUID="773363b4-9c46-4a24-b227-c6ddf06e11e1" CreationDate="2016-12-27T19:32:46.593" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43389" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16340" RevisionGUID="0f859dcc-b1fb-4bc7-ac5e-e33901721c7b" CreationDate="2016-12-27T20:34:21.480" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43392" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10643" RevisionGUID="bf4e2cd1-e254-48af-b706-8e78cd15e943" CreationDate="2016-12-28T01:47:10.150" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43393" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16755" RevisionGUID="556f6e83-9290-44d7-8432-3f078f9cc43e" CreationDate="2016-12-28T02:47:10.457" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43394" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="cb09464b-273e-40ad-806a-d35cc64a4d95" CreationDate="2016-12-28T03:47:11.437" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43395" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="56053aa9-e347-4863-b750-97e8a711c751" CreationDate="2016-12-28T04:47:11.650" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43396" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14943" RevisionGUID="8da2a356-eafb-4ad7-a63c-6df4f08dfe62" CreationDate="2016-12-28T05:47:13.193" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43400" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14200" RevisionGUID="4e6d306e-13af-4d06-825c-54e0d0ffd6e4" CreationDate="2016-12-28T07:50:56.107" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43401" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="16f75390-4031-4a60-b289-7aa4c74b1b4e" CreationDate="2016-12-28T08:50:56.317" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43405" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16363" RevisionGUID="65450acf-9430-4657-8c5e-5fdae08cdd01" CreationDate="2016-12-28T09:50:54.293" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43406" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16225" RevisionGUID="49d6a109-a11e-470e-9cd4-ce6cb0f8a5ed" CreationDate="2016-12-28T10:50:54.143" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43407" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16217" RevisionGUID="98ac09b1-97e2-4705-a1e9-202fa969c3ec" CreationDate="2016-12-28T12:50:54.220" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43408" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14807" RevisionGUID="6c087567-d320-4f56-aba7-5aab63a4a1b5" CreationDate="2016-12-28T14:55:26.897" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16195" RevisionGUID="28bc9819-5b58-4b5d-a17b-48b961387a99" CreationDate="2016-12-28T15:13:57.113" UserId="17155" Comment="edited body" Text="There is no definitive answer to your question. The simple suggestion is that you might want to consider consulting with your attorney. But, unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that even attorney will have a proper yes or no answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a website though that might help you decide whether the software you are going to create infringes [ImageWare][1] patent: [website where they try to use patent prosecution against the patent][2], at least it should help you to understand what the patent is patenting. Keep in mind that there are probably much more patents related to biometrics not only [ImageWare][1] patents. Anyway the more information you collect on patents related to your product the better understanding of patent situation you acquire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind the patent you’ve mentioned is a US patent, apparently [ImageWare][1] has applied for a same patent in many countries: [WIPO][3]. In the end it is up to you to assess the risk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After going through the reports you provided it really looks that the company is very bad at what they are doing which is a cause to worry having in mind that they put so much effort into patents as you've said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at ImageWare's patent families:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7298873, US7362884, US7606396, US7596246][4]&#xD;&#xA; - [US9286528][5]&#xD;&#xA; - [20140313007][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is to analyze those patents and if they can still be objected to add corresponding questions here marked as a prior art request. Also if you see that patent is claiming way less than it might seem from abstract or description (take a look at the website I've mentioned earlier: [link][7], [backup link][8]), it would be great to share the reasoning here in stackexchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://iwsinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.ezyro.com/ImageWare/7298873/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2006055575&amp;recNum=1&amp;tab=NationalPhase&amp;maxRec=&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=&amp;queryString=&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://globaldossier.uspto.gov/#/result/patent/US/7362884/126592&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://globaldossier.uspto.gov/#/result/patent/US/9286528/114162&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://globaldossier.uspto.gov/#/result/publication/US/20140313007/113669&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://patents.ezyro.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://web.archive.org/web/20160725123956/http://patents.hoxty.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43410" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14934" RevisionGUID="fe7222ad-82ca-48bc-ae2a-8e2d19b9916a" CreationDate="2016-12-28T15:55:26.507" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43412" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16759" RevisionGUID="11d60011-45bc-4480-9e1e-2ab016966386" CreationDate="2016-12-28T19:57:31.130" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16756" RevisionGUID="1788b5f6-2eea-44b2-8fc6-980575698600" CreationDate="2016-12-28T20:30:49.457" UserId="17003" Comment="added 301 characters in body" Text="If your idea is novel and non obvious, you can consider filing a patent. It is probably a good idea to search for patents of the other players you mention and try to find other prior art. If you still think your idea is patentable, the next step is to discuss this with a patent lawyer. Doing your own prior art search and providing a detailed written description of the idea will make working with an attorney more efficent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43414" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16365" RevisionGUID="6280f7ca-bd0a-4812-8ba3-b43463f265fd" CreationDate="2016-12-28T20:57:32.687" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43415" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13556" RevisionGUID="ea497549-d90c-4776-9632-a78c581b1705" CreationDate="2016-12-28T21:57:33.467" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43416" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="5a0e0551-933c-488e-aeb8-cc7fa3e8d98d" CreationDate="2016-12-28T22:57:35.057" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43417" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14724" RevisionGUID="bcf4a0b9-539e-4e1f-a8fc-a87bca7b3a96" CreationDate="2016-12-29T00:05:57.290" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43418" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14820" RevisionGUID="5fdcbc15-17e0-415a-9a9d-e3caf4a57b26" CreationDate="2016-12-29T01:05:57.133" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43429" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13861" RevisionGUID="e8cecf69-9a6f-47bf-bc82-3b4d20a0bdf2" CreationDate="2016-12-29T02:05:57.290" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43431" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14621" RevisionGUID="14eb43d6-5745-4a99-a7a3-5a35d5798e84" CreationDate="2016-12-29T03:07:42.820" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43432" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16178" RevisionGUID="ef58a8ae-3eb4-4493-ac83-80f3c0ffc4eb" CreationDate="2016-12-29T04:07:43.007" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43433" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16048" RevisionGUID="1ed1d112-fb4d-4903-b950-c1779d875e28" CreationDate="2016-12-29T05:07:43.197" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43434" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14032" RevisionGUID="e397a68a-3f35-4881-9e37-0b15d382fbf1" CreationDate="2016-12-29T06:07:49.473" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43435" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5844" RevisionGUID="ad693204-4da6-47c4-a1fe-1f7170190501" CreationDate="2016-12-29T07:08:26.833" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43439" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="400612a7-77cb-4f21-91dd-d3185a986c43" CreationDate="2016-12-29T14:18:39.720" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16940" RevisionGUID="6f423a52-5dcc-4f19-a2b3-b139cb78e376" CreationDate="2016-12-29T16:00:40.217" UserId="14510" Text="A) That would be a legal opinion that would be best asked - in that form - to a patent attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B) To answer the underlying question, of how do **I** find out whether a patent is expired?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There are several things to take into consideration - what patent term applies to the patent, whether there were extensions, whether the patent was allowed to lapse early (and isn't in a grace period), etc.&#xD;&#xA; - Patent Baristas has a [good article][1] helping you step through the process.&#xD;&#xA; - PatentBytes also has a good [Patent 101 article][2] introducing the steps necessary to begin determining if the patent is still in force.&#xD;&#xA; - Further, the patent also may be at some point ruled invalid - which is an even more complicated topic best researched in depth, and discussed with an experienced patent attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C) Also note the associated patents issued in the US, EU, etc. listed in the top right of the Google patent listing you linked to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2007/07/26/how-can-you-tell-if-a-patent-has-truly-expired/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patentbytes.com/patents-101-how-to-figure-out-if-a-patent-has-expired/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16941" RevisionGUID="fd0a41b3-b398-4d31-8ea9-9450e1a71e1c" CreationDate="2016-12-29T18:09:46.307" UserId="16696" Text="&gt; 35 U.S.C. 122  	Confidential status of applications; publication of patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;*****&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) PUBLICATION.—&#xD;&#xA;(1) IN GENERAL.—&#xD;&#xA;(A) Subject to paragraph (2), each application for a patent shall be published, in accordance with procedures determined by the Director, promptly after the expiration of a period of 18 months from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought under this title. At the request of the applicant, an application may be published earlier than the end of such 18-month period.&#xD;&#xA;(B) No information concerning published patent applications shall be made available to the public except as the Director determines.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Source: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1120.html&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Patent Pending&quot; serves as warning against potential, retroactive infringement but how does one validate that a patent has indeed been filed prior to publication, and the scope of the claims?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The specific problem I'm thinking about relates to a software implementation of what may be understood as a &quot;basic&quot; game patent, in the sense that it is a novel set of fundamental mechanics upon which an array of related games can be expressed.  The initial product will represent only one game mode, while scope of the patent covers modes that will not be initially developed, but for which infringement protection will still be sought, pending future development.*    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although [early publication can be applied for with the USPTO](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1129.html), it take 14 weeks and is not guaranteed..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43446" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16941" RevisionGUID="fd0a41b3-b398-4d31-8ea9-9450e1a71e1c" CreationDate="2016-12-29T18:09:46.307" UserId="16696" Text="How does one validate that a patent has been filed prior to publication by USPTO?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43447" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16941" RevisionGUID="fd0a41b3-b398-4d31-8ea9-9450e1a71e1c" CreationDate="2016-12-29T18:09:46.307" UserId="16696" Text="&lt;defensive-publications&gt;&lt;uspublication&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16941" RevisionGUID="47caebdb-5f6a-4cc0-9a91-713107cacbdf" CreationDate="2016-12-29T18:34:31.690" UserId="16696" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="&gt; 35 U.S.C. 122  	Confidential status of applications; publication of patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;*****&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) PUBLICATION.—&#xD;&#xA;(1) IN GENERAL.—&#xD;&#xA;(A) Subject to paragraph (2), each application for a patent shall be published, in accordance with procedures determined by the Director, promptly after the expiration of a period of 18 months from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought under this title. At the request of the applicant, an application may be published earlier than the end of such 18-month period.&#xD;&#xA;(B) No information concerning published patent applications shall be made available to the public except as the Director determines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sub&gt;Source: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1120.html&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Patent Pending&quot; serves as warning against potential, retroactive infringement but how does one validate that a patent has indeed been filed prior to publication, and the scope of the claims?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The specific problem I'm thinking about relates to a software implementation of what may be understood as a &quot;basic&quot; game patent, in the sense that it is a novel set of fundamental mechanics upon which an array of related games can be expressed.  The initial product will represent only one game mode, while the scope of the patent covers modes that will not be initially developed but for which infringement protection will still be sought, pending future development.*    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although [early publication can be applied for with the USPTO](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1129.html), it take 14 weeks and is not guaranteed..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43449" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16633" RevisionGUID="3e8c0b85-5f7e-4bba-a43b-0e13b3266cde" CreationDate="2016-12-29T22:20:32.910" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43450" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13986" RevisionGUID="879f7763-62cc-4d92-b399-1cd23d41a3c7" CreationDate="2016-12-29T23:20:32.630" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43451" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16193" RevisionGUID="a0da164d-e49e-4344-8db8-2b4a92b70e14" CreationDate="2016-12-30T00:20:33.097" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43452" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10545" RevisionGUID="eb25e44a-b6a7-46c0-9c15-ae3ad52885a9" CreationDate="2016-12-30T01:20:32.963" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43453" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14322" RevisionGUID="f14cbf33-fd48-420f-9d60-afac8fa5bf1f" CreationDate="2016-12-30T02:22:43.120" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43455" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16348" RevisionGUID="64a06727-1f2b-4a89-bcaa-45749006da73" CreationDate="2016-12-30T08:30:11.073" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43456" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12621" RevisionGUID="25e1695b-6c5d-4257-b465-dd97715c3e03" CreationDate="2016-12-30T09:30:11.370" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43457" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13260" RevisionGUID="f7589cbc-e6a6-4eb7-ba17-cd4ea8a09758" CreationDate="2016-12-30T10:30:12.000" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16943" RevisionGUID="ec408c19-649c-4957-b0d7-b64531dd79af" CreationDate="2016-12-30T11:09:56.280" UserId="18033" Text="You don't.&#xA;Simple as that, until the patent is granted, nobody knows what the scope will be. And as long as it hasn't been published, it is not accessible for the public.&#xA;&#xA;As I understand it you may not use &quot;patent pending&quot; if you have no patent app., but it could be the worst patent app. ever seen and still say patent pending. &#xA;&#xA;For possible infringers this is a problem. They can analyse the patent as soon as it gets published to find the biggest scope of protection and prior art limiting it, but there is always some risk. Thats why they should attack the patent or design around it.&#xA;&#xA;In the end, a patent app. CAN be stronger than a granted patent at scaring possible infringers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43462" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="cd98c645-e436-49eb-a125-9c2901df52c2" CreationDate="2016-12-30T13:32:31.710" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43463" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12610" RevisionGUID="3d4d737e-fac5-44ab-a3a1-09f1bbc75f0b" CreationDate="2016-12-30T14:32:31.557" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43468" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12107" RevisionGUID="a9f0bf72-8615-4f8a-9f8b-38651df7d4cc" CreationDate="2016-12-30T15:32:32.240" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43472" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13528" RevisionGUID="dfd02976-ffc9-470e-a846-34319c2eb683" CreationDate="2016-12-30T19:34:52.747" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43474" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13537" RevisionGUID="66c74dbb-0a10-4c68-9740-f3bc773ccc1f" CreationDate="2016-12-30T21:34:52.147" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43475" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7833" RevisionGUID="d1131547-c622-4ca4-a2ab-dd221b982e12" CreationDate="2016-12-30T23:34:51.543" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43479" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16784" RevisionGUID="d7c3a583-d77b-4746-b5d4-7176f9975e12" CreationDate="2016-12-31T06:35:04.407" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43480" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13171" RevisionGUID="5e409372-f7ba-4bad-adf8-22aaa7be733d" CreationDate="2016-12-31T08:35:06.607" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43481" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10041" RevisionGUID="53fe4658-cb83-4fd5-8b4f-2672edda0de2" CreationDate="2016-12-31T09:35:07.313" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13537" RevisionGUID="9acd4ce0-c15a-4cab-ac18-710f2221dede" CreationDate="2016-12-31T12:37:12.280" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 56 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [US 8,596,897 B2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am inquiring to the eligibility of this patent in the UK.&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also checking if this patent was passed and taken into effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8596897" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43486" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10559" RevisionGUID="b7f116a1-df53-4d38-a0aa-9612960c1c13" CreationDate="2016-12-31T14:35:17.123" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43496" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13007" RevisionGUID="97535e9b-cc0f-45e5-80be-d25d0316dcdb" CreationDate="2016-12-31T18:35:39.697" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43497" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14937" RevisionGUID="20c4d3bd-6d2c-4fc4-b3c5-3f685e49005c" CreationDate="2017-01-01T01:40:46.663" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43499" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="1f3a0754-34bd-4868-b541-b6c300afdbdc" CreationDate="2017-01-01T06:49:38.773" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43500" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16654" RevisionGUID="9b94e15d-fb37-47c3-9cf1-08eb5447b131" CreationDate="2017-01-01T10:51:59.273" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16949" RevisionGUID="c37c651a-92b0-4cbb-a24d-107b9f6e35f7" CreationDate="2017-01-01T17:11:46.877" UserId="18033" Text="No. As the **A** at the end of the patent number shows, this is a patent application, not a granted patent. If they say *patented,* they are referring to a granted patent, else it would be *patent pending*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43502" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5977" RevisionGUID="8a895e53-cf38-4f42-8c43-4abe0638fdc4" CreationDate="2017-01-01T19:04:00.157" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16950" RevisionGUID="aa865b27-5369-4fec-a021-f5dee389de02" CreationDate="2017-01-02T01:10:04.347" UserId="18234" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20050165667][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20050165667                                Is it True that US Patent No 9,530,132 was successfully issued on December 27, 2016 ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43504" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16950" RevisionGUID="aa865b27-5369-4fec-a021-f5dee389de02" CreationDate="2017-01-02T01:10:04.347" UserId="18234" Text="This Patent has been Successfully Issued by the USPTO" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43505" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16950" RevisionGUID="aa865b27-5369-4fec-a021-f5dee389de02" CreationDate="2017-01-02T01:10:04.347" UserId="18234" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;user-interface&gt;&lt;security&gt;&lt;identifying&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43506" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14508" RevisionGUID="c7389c9e-6f89-4364-a3f8-e4b9edeb7851" CreationDate="2017-01-02T02:07:58.650" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16951" RevisionGUID="d6d81d71-9f84-429e-be42-37b2ae6d8739" CreationDate="2017-01-02T02:21:21.620" UserId="15503" Text="Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As shown in the USPTO PatFT copy of [US 9539132](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=9530132.PN.&amp;OS=PN/9530132&amp;RS=PN/9530132), it was issued on 27 December 2016. This was initially published as US 2005/0165667 A1." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43509" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10378" RevisionGUID="765146b6-68d5-4734-9782-be7934ded2a3" CreationDate="2017-01-02T14:20:32.623" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43510" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="65d98c3c-e9c3-4dbe-994d-d035ce227667" CreationDate="2017-01-02T18:20:55.690" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43511" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13359" RevisionGUID="50a3d72d-f663-43b3-95f3-68a014729cd9" CreationDate="2017-01-02T19:20:56.167" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43512" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16950" RevisionGUID="c95ac792-838f-4bfe-8fe9-70b99c788e48" CreationDate="2017-01-02T19:41:24.810" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;procedures&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43513" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16251" RevisionGUID="23439a91-d1f6-428e-8e55-482617c70b25" CreationDate="2017-01-02T21:24:11.540" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43514" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16525" RevisionGUID="96255c76-b36c-44e7-b39b-2c2d7bc8ff5b" CreationDate="2017-01-03T00:28:08.120" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16952" RevisionGUID="a9a9efbf-d858-4eeb-af87-4c29528437cd" CreationDate="2017-01-03T07:55:37.160" UserId="18241" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5147183][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5147183&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many items on first claim about hydroulic pump. What are the new items on the first claim of US5147183?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43516" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16952" RevisionGUID="a9a9efbf-d858-4eeb-af87-4c29528437cd" CreationDate="2017-01-03T07:55:37.160" UserId="18241" Text="What are the new items on the first claim of US5147183?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43517" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16952" RevisionGUID="a9a9efbf-d858-4eeb-af87-4c29528437cd" CreationDate="2017-01-03T07:55:37.160" UserId="18241" Text="&lt;us5147183&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43518" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12629" RevisionGUID="62339e8d-e938-4d74-a365-b1e549bd7d45" CreationDate="2017-01-03T08:40:23.590" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16195" RevisionGUID="8b05f4d7-a35d-4c21-88dc-2b8eb7473cad" CreationDate="2017-01-03T09:00:07.800" UserId="17155" Comment="edited body" Text="There is no definitive answer to your question. The simple suggestion is that you might want to consider consulting with your attorney. But, unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that even attorney will have a proper yes or no answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a website though that might help you decide whether the software you are going to create infringes [ImageWare][1] patent: [website where they try to use patent prosecution against the patent][2], at least it should help you to understand what the patent is patenting. Keep in mind that there are probably much more patents related to biometrics not only [ImageWare][1] patents. Anyway the more information you collect on patents related to your product the better understanding of patent situation you acquire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind the patent you’ve mentioned is a US patent, apparently [ImageWare][1] has applied for a same patent in many countries: [WIPO][3]. In the end it is up to you to assess the risk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After going through the reports you provided it really looks that the company is very bad at what they are doing which is a cause to worry having in mind that they put so much effort into patents as you've said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at ImageWare's patent families:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7298873, US7362884, US7606396, US7596246][4]&#xD;&#xA; - [US9286528][5]&#xD;&#xA; - [20140313007][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is to analyze those patents and if they can still be objected to add corresponding questions here marked as a prior art request. Also if you see that patent is claiming way less than it might seem from abstract or description (take a look at the website I've mentioned earlier: [link][7], [backup link][8]), it would be great to share the reasoning here in stackexchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://iwsinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.hoxty.com/ImageWare/7298873/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2006055575&amp;recNum=1&amp;tab=NationalPhase&amp;maxRec=&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=&amp;queryString=&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://globaldossier.uspto.gov/#/result/patent/US/7362884/126592&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://globaldossier.uspto.gov/#/result/patent/US/9286528/114162&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://globaldossier.uspto.gov/#/result/publication/US/20140313007/113669&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://patents.hoxty.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://web.archive.org/web/20160725123956/http://patents.hoxty.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43520" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="ef86d278-3f98-45d6-86d4-a922d665ec36" CreationDate="2017-01-03T09:40:26.313" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43524" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="749ae885-b940-4046-af61-8a834ac191fe" CreationDate="2017-01-03T13:42:18.717" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43529" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16645" RevisionGUID="d9f11429-b0a8-42cd-b99a-847a81e70c76" CreationDate="2017-01-03T14:42:20.623" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43533" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14855" RevisionGUID="bed5e725-f038-41e4-b442-15f8b790f82c" CreationDate="2017-01-03T15:42:25.683" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16957" RevisionGUID="4f76967f-240e-436d-a978-8d1af3a0bc89" CreationDate="2017-01-03T18:18:42.807" UserId="18247" Text="The cycloidal transmission described here, http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/cycloid/ and first published on or before Mar 30, 2012, appears to cover every claim.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43535" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16509" RevisionGUID="4e9b15e9-bf1d-45ce-bc40-72a7d968556c" CreationDate="2017-01-03T18:42:51.590" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43536" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12640" RevisionGUID="91fea17f-e996-4015-a003-5fe6cb73ff20" CreationDate="2017-01-03T20:42:54.270" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16958" RevisionGUID="09156a70-a1cd-4d2b-a512-ac2d5ebfa564" CreationDate="2017-01-03T21:20:39.497" UserId="17003" Text="This was a patent application, not a patent. According to Public PAIR, it is abandoned. This means it isn't a patent and isn't going to be. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure if it has any hope of being revived.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regards to your other questions, currently this application doesn't keep you from making and selling adhesive trash bags. This doesn't mean there aren't other patents that might exist so you should do a search. With regards to you being able to patent your own type of adhesive trash bag. What matters is whether your idea is new, novel and non obvious. The application does represent prior art so you can't patent what was in it or any other patent or application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16958" RevisionGUID="9fda35dd-b5fb-469b-9ae7-f35bc1a320ac" CreationDate="2017-01-03T21:23:19.897" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="This was a patent application, not a patent. According to Public PAIR, it is abandoned. This means it isn't a patent and isn't going to be. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure if it has any hope of being revived.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regards to your other questions, currently this application doesn't keep you from making and selling adhesive trash bags. This doesn't mean there aren't other patents that might exist so you should do a search. With regards to you being able to patent your own type of adhesive trash bag. What matters is whether your idea is novel and non obvious. The application does represent prior art so you can't patent what was in it or any other patent or application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16959" RevisionGUID="f0ba9765-e209-425a-af8d-5ad079926548" CreationDate="2017-01-03T21:31:37.527" UserId="17003" Text="Since this patent was filed after 1995, it should expire 20 years from its filing date which is May 19th of 2018. However, Google lists its priority date as May 30, 1997 so it may expire then. I'm not a lawyer and expiration dates can be tricky, but it look like this patent is still in force and will expire either this May or next year in May." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16960" RevisionGUID="afe490d1-66ca-41eb-b63e-6f9d7debc3df" CreationDate="2017-01-03T21:33:58.457" UserId="18033" Text="You can answer this for yourself. I'll briefly explain how to generally attack such a problem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent description starts with a prior art description and the problem(s) to be solved:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Description of the Prior Art&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the patent describes some general prior art and 3 patents (or applications) that are related. It should describe the most important similar items that are already known.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can then compare these to the claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further information, also on the evaluation of novelty and inventiveness by the examiner you can consult public PAIR (google it). There is a prosecution history where documents sent by the applicant/attorney and the examiner are stored. This is a little more text than the first approach, but these documents normally explain exactly which elements are considered new and inventive by the examiner and which are not. Plus, somebody else did the work for you, you just have to read it ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16961" RevisionGUID="dbfd6657-b70b-4584-930f-8d07e55c1d93" CreationDate="2017-01-03T21:44:43.717" UserId="17003" Text="This is only an application and may never be granted. Claim 1 is especially unlikely given prior art. In this case, [Wikipedia][1] provides some prior art and a couple of useful links. including [Onvio][2] and [Shimpo][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycloidal_drive&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.onviollc.com/products/cycloidal-speed-reducers.asp&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://web.archive.org/web/20081219120507/http://www.ohiobelting.com/shimpo2.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43542" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11943" RevisionGUID="27d9747e-af18-4921-bfe9-32bea626c1a2" CreationDate="2017-01-03T22:42:55.327" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43543" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="bb65762e-7cab-4505-a33c-58ce85990a7b" CreationDate="2017-01-03T23:43:20.433" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16801" RevisionGUID="8c3fde69-00b2-45c5-81a0-3da5e6619d39" CreationDate="2017-01-04T03:45:30.480" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The agreement is binding (to the extent of its wording and if they signed it to). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To protect your work from being patented by somebody else you can either file a patent/utility model/design or publish it. As the law grants the patent to the first person to file, its basically your problem if someone else patents this first. UNLESS it was stolen from you, in that case, if you can prove that, you can take over their patent/priority. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mailing it to yourself will probably not help as they would claim that they invented it too, you need prove of giving it to them prior to their application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43551" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11951" RevisionGUID="a8ae0558-8d52-4c66-9e39-6e2ce5111fee" CreationDate="2017-01-04T04:44:58.560" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43552" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16056" RevisionGUID="06586bfb-3550-4d3b-84a0-ed34b4ce5197" CreationDate="2017-01-04T07:46:29.230" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43553" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16083" RevisionGUID="2f62d9f6-5340-42d1-b1d4-8aa67e89783e" CreationDate="2017-01-04T08:46:29.280" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43554" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13723" RevisionGUID="b6a57d87-e996-4181-b337-2dc7e2516619" CreationDate="2017-01-04T12:51:41.967" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16962" RevisionGUID="3fc99a70-3bcc-4b14-bc7e-66d72c3fe0bf" CreationDate="2017-01-04T18:38:24.207" UserId="18252" Text="How do I know if the below patent is granted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	Application Number:	14055444	Application Date:	16.10.2013&#xD;&#xA;	Publication Number:	20140114871	Publication Date:	24.04.2014&#xD;&#xA;	Publication Kind :	A1	&#xD;&#xA;	IPC:	&#xD;&#xA;	G06Q 10/10&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	Applicants:	Mobolt, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;	Inventors:	Jain Kshitij&#xD;&#xA;	Garrett Scott&#xD;&#xA;	Priority Data:	&#xD;&#xA;	Title:	(EN) RE-ENGINEERING USER LOGIN / REGISTRATION PROCESS FOR JOB APPLICATIONS&#xD;&#xA;	Abstract:	&#xD;&#xA;	(EN)&#xD;&#xA;	An on-line job application process that encourages participants to provide as much information as possible before drop-offs occur, by requesting access to authentication information such as social network identity, and moving an Applicant Tracking System login step to near the end. If a drop off does occur, a dummy email address can then be associated with the user to enable subsequent follow up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked at similar questions and I am asked to click on the publication number but it is not a clickable link." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43556" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16962" RevisionGUID="3fc99a70-3bcc-4b14-bc7e-66d72c3fe0bf" CreationDate="2017-01-04T18:38:24.207" UserId="18252" Text="How do I know if the patent is granted" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43557" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16962" RevisionGUID="3fc99a70-3bcc-4b14-bc7e-66d72c3fe0bf" CreationDate="2017-01-04T18:38:24.207" UserId="18252" Text="&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16963" RevisionGUID="8880288f-330f-4d8a-b2fe-5b0805bc30f4" CreationDate="2017-01-04T18:43:00.987" UserId="18033" Text="You google it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US20140114871&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There on the right you see that there is no date of grant, so this is still an application. Further information can be retrieved from the links to the USPTO or espacenet. Espacenet also has a family member search:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?CC=US&amp;NR=2014114871A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=20140424&amp;DB=&amp;locale=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where you can look up the parent patent application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43559" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16962" RevisionGUID="d9f38917-bd7c-4c8d-8a79-e341011b00fa" CreationDate="2017-01-04T18:43:39.990" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;us20140114871&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16964" RevisionGUID="fc4c9fc7-00f4-4ff9-91f3-1157883fa8cd" CreationDate="2017-01-04T18:57:55.857" UserId="17003" Text="You can use the [US Public Pair][1] site. This gives you lots of detailed information about the status of the application/patent. In this case there was a &quot;Non-Final Rejection&quot; generated on 9-15-2016. This doesn't mean the application won't become a patent as the inventor's attorney can appeal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16964" RevisionGUID="ecf60bc9-93e6-4eff-ad89-18f1cbefcc26" CreationDate="2017-01-04T19:18:03.300" UserId="17003" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="You can use the [US Public Pair][1] site. This gives you lots of detailed information about the status of the application/patent. In this case there was a &quot;Non-Final Rejection&quot; generated on 9-15-2016. This doesn't mean the application won't become a patent as the inventor's attorney will respond.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16964" RevisionGUID="86ac6c30-5ebb-4e66-b5f4-06e73abdc47b" CreationDate="2017-01-04T19:30:18.297" UserId="18033" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="You can use the [US Public Pair][1] site. This gives you lots of detailed information about the status of the application/patent. In this case there was a &quot;Non-Final Rejection&quot; generated on 9-15-2016. This doesn't mean the application won't become a patent as the inventor's attorney can respond in which case the examination will continue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43563" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16606" RevisionGUID="c6eee1c9-5392-4da1-b8c3-6809fbcae8b6" CreationDate="2017-01-04T19:54:33.900" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16965" RevisionGUID="3e3c1067-9a01-4c90-9648-aa557ca54235" CreationDate="2017-01-04T21:21:29.113" UserId="17003" Text="Claim 1 of this application specifically refers to a design where there is an inner frame that adjusts in inclination with respect to a fixed outer frame. Your website shows an arrangement where blocks are added under the headboard legs. Do you have specific prior art for the arrangement as described in he cited applications claims?  If not the this may be patentable. That said, adjustable beds where the upper portion of the mattress can be inclined (along with other sections) have been on the market for many years and may be considered prior art. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43565" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16253" RevisionGUID="d08f0c28-e530-4e17-8cf5-9f99833327b0" CreationDate="2017-01-04T22:57:38.357" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43566" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="e6cce269-b422-4482-a590-4596e48a7882" CreationDate="2017-01-05T01:02:42.263" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43567" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16510" RevisionGUID="65a050fe-ad64-4b19-8e63-e561b6095d48" CreationDate="2017-01-05T02:02:42.403" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16966" RevisionGUID="7e4d8de3-4b90-47d6-a25a-2059bf919661" CreationDate="2017-01-05T03:01:21.377" UserId="15503" Text="**Does this preclude me from filing more than five applications (all at micro entity pricing) at the same time?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost certainly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relevant rule is provide by 37 CFR 1.29(a), which requires (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a) To establish micro entity status under this paragraph, the applicant must certify that: ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2) Neither the applicant nor the inventor nor a joint inventor has been named as the inventor or a joint inventor on more than four **previously filed patent applications**, other than applications filed in another country, provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(b), or international applications for which the basic national fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a) was not paid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, the interpretation of &quot;previously filed patent applications&quot; has never been tested in a court. This is not surprising: the micro entity provisions seek to provide a low-cost filing alternative. Users of micro entity status are unlikely to want to pay for a case on the interpretation of this to go through litigation. I will therefore approach this from a practical point of view (with the proviso that I could be entirely wrong, if a case that turns on this point does go through the courts).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have mentioned filing five applications &quot;at the same time&quot;. While this might theoretically be possible, in practice the applications would always be filed sequentially. This would be indicated at least by the application number that is assigned on filing. Thus at least the sixth application would be filed with there being more than four (that is, five) previously filed patent applications. As such, the sixth application would not be entitled to the lower fees associated with micro entity status." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43570" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14061" RevisionGUID="631b2836-42a5-44b3-a574-943642d864a3" CreationDate="2017-01-05T04:02:52.783" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16967" RevisionGUID="a680f52f-53c5-4f7d-8f88-181c9d0e5e61" CreationDate="2017-01-05T09:14:44.910" UserId="17325" Text="Another &quot;quick-and-dirty&quot; way to know if a US patent is granted is by the number format. Granted patents have the following format: US-N,NNN,NNN-B1 or B2. If you see 7 digits followed by a B, it's a patent. This is the format used for the past 30 or 40 years and I think it will keep on for a while." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43572" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13939" RevisionGUID="b3bed9ed-f7a2-4e75-9014-75f6efe12257" CreationDate="2017-01-05T13:04:21.080" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16967" RevisionGUID="b8e3ec7b-524a-4e9f-b571-10117e341544" CreationDate="2017-01-05T16:46:19.317" UserId="17325" Comment="Adding more info, so the answer is not misleading" Text="Another &quot;quick-and-dirty&quot; way to know if a US patent is granted is by the number format. Granted patents have the following format: US-N,NNN,NNN-B1 or B2. If you see 7 digits followed by a B, it's a patent. If you see more digits and an &quot;A&quot; letter, this refers to the application and you should doublecheck as the fellows already explain above. This is the format used for the past 30 or 40 years, but as indicated below in the comments, it will have to be upgraded soon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43574" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16736" RevisionGUID="29ba51b7-83a7-4847-976b-0a5079b4e20c" CreationDate="2017-01-05T18:13:28.520" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43575" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16771" RevisionGUID="655ee597-000f-4170-9a41-62b3a3074239" CreationDate="2017-01-05T19:13:30.567" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16968" RevisionGUID="e018b2d4-80f6-4984-94c8-ffa1d9d8665d" CreationDate="2017-01-05T19:30:12.650" UserId="17294" Text="LET ME BE VERY SPECIFIC:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose some company - ABC is awarded with a patent, say an Operating System which can access its features through speech recognition. Suppose Another company, XYZ sells an O.S., of course without this feature because they don't want to be sued. But the same company also sells another product, a software with speech recognition that can be used to access all of OS features, but is not shipped with O.S., so customers have to buy it separately. Would that be legal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If yes, take the case of say Amazon Go. Amazon filed the following patent on such stores:&#xD;&#xA;[Patent Description][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose A company, say ABC makes a product - a shelf that detects the item taken from it, along with the person who did, using image processing. Another company XYZ makes a product that does checkout automatically from the above data. And a retailer UVW buys the two products and integrates into his shop. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which company of above (if any) would be sued? Or will the retailer get sued? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&amp;r=1&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=(Steven.IN.%20AND%20Kessel.IN.)&amp;OS=IN/Steven%20and%20IN/Kessel&amp;RS=(IN/Steven%20AND%20IN/Kessel)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43577" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16968" RevisionGUID="e018b2d4-80f6-4984-94c8-ffa1d9d8665d" CreationDate="2017-01-05T19:30:12.650" UserId="17294" Text="Getting over patents using multiple companies" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43578" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16968" RevisionGUID="e018b2d4-80f6-4984-94c8-ffa1d9d8665d" CreationDate="2017-01-05T19:30:12.650" UserId="17294" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;amazon&gt;&lt;image-processing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16968" RevisionGUID="9cae5bef-22f0-41e6-9f12-5430ce7b785b" CreationDate="2017-01-05T19:49:23.290" UserId="17294" Comment="added 152 characters in body" Text="LET ME BE VERY SPECIFIC:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose some company - ABC is awarded with a patent, say an Operating System which can access its features through speech recognition. Suppose Another company, XYZ sells an O.S., of course without this feature because they don't want to be sued. But the same company also sells another product, a software with speech recognition that can be used to access all of OS features, but is not shipped with O.S., so customers have to buy it separately. Would that be legal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If yes, take the case of say Amazon Go. Amazon filed the following patent on such stores:&#xD;&#xA;[Patent Description][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose A company, say ABC makes a product - a shelf that detects the item taken from it, along with the person who did, using image processing. Another company XYZ makes a product that does checkout automatically from the above data. And a retailer UVW buys the two products and integrates into his shop. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which company of above (if any) would be sued? Or will the retailer get sued? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Edit: I just checked status of Amazon Go Patent  :&#xD;&#xA;Appl No : 13928345 - Final Rejection Mailed&#xD;&#xA;Appl No : 14495818 - Non Final Action Mailed )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&amp;r=1&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=(Steven.IN.%20AND%20Kessel.IN.)&amp;OS=IN/Steven%20and%20IN/Kessel&amp;RS=(IN/Steven%20AND%20IN/Kessel)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16813" RevisionGUID="70c14147-81c9-4365-a79e-b2905154ace6" CreationDate="2017-01-05T20:05:55.487" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed misspelled word" Text="I was in similar situation. My software utility patent application was rejected on &quot;abstract idea&quot; basis. So with the help of my lawyer I made it more specific and submitted continuation. In your case your broadest claim could be rejected but some of narrow claims could be accepted. But then you need to make sure they cover the gist of your invention. Another way keep it secret and have potential clients to sign NDA. When filing my application I have chosen not to publish it, in case if I don't get a patent I still rely on copyright protection. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43581" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="5bc2334e-8fef-4ba0-b382-de37c5da5037" CreationDate="2017-01-05T20:13:40.967" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43582" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16583" RevisionGUID="902ae23d-d1de-4fbd-8c0a-7b2f40a779af" CreationDate="2017-01-05T21:13:43.100" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43583" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="16969" RevisionGUID="1b6b8527-cdde-4aa9-aa84-21f48961d186" CreationDate="2017-01-05T21:51:08.667" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/278007/can-i-get-patent-from-device-which-was-made-with-open-source-parts" />
  <row Id="43584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16969" RevisionGUID="25a6c352-2fdc-46c9-8800-497142e6b655" CreationDate="2017-01-02T03:34:15.150" UserDisplayName="fonjeekay" Text="Can i get patent from device which was made with open source parts? I have some concept of device but its made with arduino and other (arduino-friendly) components. Is it possible to pass all appropriate steps to get patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43585" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16969" RevisionGUID="25a6c352-2fdc-46c9-8800-497142e6b655" CreationDate="2017-01-02T03:34:15.150" UserDisplayName="fonjeekay" Text="Can i get patent from device which was made with open source parts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43586" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16969" RevisionGUID="25a6c352-2fdc-46c9-8800-497142e6b655" CreationDate="2017-01-02T03:34:15.150" UserDisplayName="fonjeekay" Text="&lt;untagged&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16970" RevisionGUID="9ebcd547-8814-420b-a457-8bde4ee9f8c6" CreationDate="2017-01-05T21:56:43.883" UserId="17005" Text="I have a unique question concerning the financial provisions and restrictions of micro-entity filing status.  I have been unable to find an answer to my question online, and would like to ask a patent attorney.  However, the free consultation services that I have found specifically offer advice regarding individual inventions or claims, which is not the subject of my inquiry.  Where can I find free online consultation with a patent attorney (preferably via email) for more general questions such as mine?  Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43588" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16970" RevisionGUID="9ebcd547-8814-420b-a457-8bde4ee9f8c6" CreationDate="2017-01-05T21:56:43.883" UserId="17005" Text="Patent Attorney Free Online Consultation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43589" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16970" RevisionGUID="9ebcd547-8814-420b-a457-8bde4ee9f8c6" CreationDate="2017-01-05T21:56:43.883" UserId="17005" Text="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;entity&gt;&lt;micro&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43590" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14668" RevisionGUID="e1bbe355-0526-400c-8cf7-af78c92229d5" CreationDate="2017-01-05T22:13:44.663" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16971" RevisionGUID="d9e6f994-f178-4729-bd92-cc9127d125b3" CreationDate="2017-01-05T22:33:48.930" UserId="17003" Text="Whether or not you use open source parts is really irrelevant. What matters is whether your invention is useful, novel and non-obvious. Useful means it has fulfills a purpose. Novel means it hasn't been thought of before. Non-obvious means someone skilled in the field wouldn't think it straightforward. This is a brief explanation, there are more rigorous legal definitions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43595" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16443" RevisionGUID="89d71b79-52e2-4975-869f-c46a6de16750" CreationDate="2017-01-05T23:15:32.020" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43596" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12994" RevisionGUID="1734c686-fc2e-4186-b4ec-9184b656c779" CreationDate="2017-01-06T00:15:38.743" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43597" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14659" RevisionGUID="d076cfcc-98c5-4aa0-bc9e-491a72602d5d" CreationDate="2017-01-06T01:15:56.763" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16973" RevisionGUID="d711a001-0be1-40c2-85c5-7e8efee61ce2" CreationDate="2017-01-06T01:47:41.013" UserId="16848" Text="You may patent anything that meets the normal requirements for patent eligibility, including (but not limited to) the invention is novel, non-obvious, useful, and invented by you.  If you add something beyond what OpenCV offers that meets that criteria, you can likely patent your innovation.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The more interesting question is whether you are obligated to license your patent under the OpenCV license, as the patent office doesn't care if you used OSS or not, except as to how such open source may be prior art to your patent.  A potential licensee, however, may be able to acquire a license to your patent by operation of the OSS license for OpenCV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a cursory search, OpenCV appears to be licensed under a 3-clause BSD license, which doesn't contain a patent grant, so you a little more in the dark about what might happen to your patent than some of the other more definite licenses, however this may be good for your patent.  There is likely an implied license grant that kicks in to cover people who use code under the BSD grant (although some would disagree), and how far that license and the accompanying exhaustion may or may not travel is a question that practitioners can't really agree on, so I won't opine here.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, OSS licenses may have different obligations about licensing patents that kick in under use, distribution, and contribution, so depending on what you do with OpenCV, you may end up with different obligations that could effect your patent.  The implications to an implied license grant under those scenarios are even more convoluted and you may even get different answers from different courts.  That said, if you aren't distributing or contributing to OpenCV, your risk of an implied license grant is much much lower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you must look at how you use, and distribute, and contribute to OpenCV **dependencies** as well as OpenCV.  You must understand how all the licenses that might come into play overlap and impact your obligations, and you may need an open source lawyer to help you out.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43601" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14883" RevisionGUID="dfae69a5-3592-4fcd-8dc8-29a203c8bddd" CreationDate="2017-01-06T02:15:56.910" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16973" RevisionGUID="413e8d89-bc15-41f7-bcae-ef88a899bb97" CreationDate="2017-01-06T02:22:25.120" UserId="16848" Comment="Added GPLv3 section as an example." Text="You may patent anything that meets the normal requirements for patent eligibility, including (but not limited to) the invention is novel, non-obvious, useful, and invented by you.  If you add something beyond what OpenCV offers that meets that criteria, you can likely patent your innovation.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The more interesting question is whether you are obligated to license your patent under the OpenCV license, as the patent office doesn't care if you used OSS or not, except as to how such open source may be prior art to your patent.  A potential licensee, however, may be able to acquire a license to your patent by operation of the OSS license for OpenCV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a cursory search, OpenCV appears to be licensed under a 3-clause BSD license, which doesn't contain a patent grant, so you a little more in the dark about what might happen to your patent than some of the other more definite licenses, however this may be good for your patent.  There is likely an implied license grant that kicks in to cover people who use code under the BSD grant (although some would disagree), and how far that license and the accompanying exhaustion may or may not travel is a question that practitioners can't really agree on, so I won't opine here.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, OSS licenses may have different obligations about licensing patents that kick in under use, distribution, and contribution, so depending on what you do with OpenCV, you may end up with different obligations that could effect your patent.  The implications to an implied license grant under those scenarios are even more convoluted and you may even get different answers from different courts.  That said, if you aren't distributing or contributing to OpenCV, your risk of an implied license grant is much much lower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, under the GPLv3, if you distribute the work and grant the recipient of the work a patent license, you must grant all who receive the work a patent license, whether they got it from you or not.  Depending on your patent claims, your contribution, and your redistribution of code that contains your contribution that embodies your patent, you may be granting a license to everyone to practice your invention (see section 11, Patents, [GPLv3][1])  It gets further complicated if you are actively redistributing the work, and someone else contributes an infringing contribution, but you continue to distribute the work.  OSS law is very complex and requires quite a bit of knowledge about how the various licenses interplay, and there are many who believe OSS licenses should be interpreted in a particular way (including the license authors) but until a court weighs in, it is a murky area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you must look at how you use, and distribute, and contribute to OpenCV **dependencies** as well as OpenCV.  You must understand how all the licenses that might come into play overlap and impact your obligations, and you may need an open source lawyer to help you out.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43606" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16544" RevisionGUID="dc6990e2-85ac-4f14-8d28-8172086f3b61" CreationDate="2017-01-06T03:19:45.560" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43607" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="be844439-2244-44fc-b85c-75d809b89e9c" CreationDate="2017-01-06T04:19:45.117" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43608" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13762" RevisionGUID="b18924a1-44ef-4671-87a2-c7f621dc8536" CreationDate="2017-01-06T05:19:45.630" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43609" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="18283cee-5ff2-4a05-aac3-4c8b6512b2bb" CreationDate="2017-01-06T06:19:53.780" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43610" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16810" RevisionGUID="e726f94c-722d-484a-821a-9de766416f7e" CreationDate="2017-01-06T07:19:57.443" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43611" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="36bb5226-3c26-457c-9c61-cd1fdfd5c24c" CreationDate="2017-01-06T08:20:09.243" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16820" RevisionGUID="f8515253-21f8-43e6-887c-58eb17bf42cb" CreationDate="2017-01-06T08:45:27.710" UserId="18033" Comment="added 211 characters in body" Text="I can't find the delete answer button. After revising, my previous answer seems to be mistaken. There is an online article at ipwatchdogs about board games and the US patens system apparently differs from the EU's on this. There games (but not the apparatus (e.g. board)) are unpatentable per epc art. 52.&#xA;&#xA;For the US please refer to the question in the comments or goigle for the article I mentioned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16968" RevisionGUID="c6caecac-c060-4b3d-a778-93308ca545ed" CreationDate="2017-01-06T10:02:36.103" UserId="17294" Comment="deleted 24 characters in body" Text="LET ME BE VERY SPECIFIC:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose some company - ABC is awarded with a patent, say an Operating System which can access its features through speech recognition. Suppose Another company, XYZ sells an O.S., of course without this feature because they don't want to be sued. But the same company also sells another product, a software with speech recognition that can be used to access all of OS features, but is not shipped with O.S., so customers have to buy it separately. Would that be legal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If yes, take the case of say Amazon Go. Amazon filed the following patent on such stores:&#xD;&#xA;[Patent Description][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose A company, say ABC makes a product - a shelf that detects the item taken from it, along with the person who did, using image processing. The same company makes a product that does checkout automatically from the above data. And a retailer UVW buys the two products and integrates into his shop. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will company ABC be sued? Or will the retailer get sued? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If yes, what if two separate companies makes the above product - ABC makes the shelf and XYZ makes the checkout system. Would that be patent infringement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Edit: I just checked status of Amazon Go Patent  :&#xD;&#xA;Appl No : 13928345 - Final Rejection Mailed&#xD;&#xA;Appl No : 14495818 - Non Final Action Mailed )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&amp;r=1&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=(Steven.IN.%20AND%20Kessel.IN.)&amp;OS=IN/Steven%20and%20IN/Kessel&amp;RS=(IN/Steven%20AND%20IN/Kessel)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43614" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13276" RevisionGUID="68e62f5e-e9dd-42f1-ae22-137c7f515d19" CreationDate="2017-01-06T10:20:02.653" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16820" RevisionGUID="5659b530-d592-4dd0-b46e-f51416fa7747" CreationDate="2017-01-06T10:37:01.983" UserId="18033" Comment="edited body; added 6 characters in body" Text="I can't find the delete answer button. After revising, my previous answer seems to be mistaken. There is an online article at ipwatchdogs about board games and the US patent system apparently differs from the EU's on this. There (eu), games (but not the apparatus (e.g. board)) are unpatentable per epc art. 52.&#xA;&#xA;For the US please refer to the question in the comments or goigle for the article I mentioned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43616" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16274" RevisionGUID="8e8df4a0-0a48-4064-8254-2adceb87a2be" CreationDate="2017-01-06T11:20:02.463" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43617" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13601" RevisionGUID="e353a4a5-c940-4210-8150-4d36ffd70d95" CreationDate="2017-01-06T13:20:12.440" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43618" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14699" RevisionGUID="79b63020-e482-462e-8956-571159dadbe9" CreationDate="2017-01-06T15:20:56.187" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43621" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10602" RevisionGUID="7b17e3bd-6e3f-4ee3-b0d0-b3c18dc54376" CreationDate="2017-01-06T16:20:56.957" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16274" RevisionGUID="3ea9d986-162a-4e6f-a744-39d2cee7501f" CreationDate="2017-01-06T17:41:34.573" UserId="17272" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="In the music industry, there are plenty of guitar effects pedals. Most of them are clones of clones and all of them are available on the market. Nobody enforces any patent and everybody lives happy together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering at what level a circuit composed of transistors and capacitors is patentable and if there in any other level of protection the manufacturers can use to protect themselves from clones, in case they want to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking on Google patent search, I found very few or zero patents related to effects pedal. In particular, all the names of boutique pedals are absent in the patent database. How come?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43623" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16022" RevisionGUID="2fa309ec-13d8-4a79-a5c9-3d2ca4582a49" CreationDate="2017-01-06T18:21:36.027" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43624" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5897" RevisionGUID="64571f44-2fb8-4cef-8fbb-549ef6d23023" CreationDate="2017-01-06T20:21:45.757" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43625" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16635" RevisionGUID="0fd48335-6072-4fe4-aaf0-6908455ad9ce" CreationDate="2017-01-06T21:21:47.200" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43626" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16804" RevisionGUID="c8fd58b0-90b8-4dbe-bced-848940709d54" CreationDate="2017-01-06T22:21:47.590" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43627" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14366" RevisionGUID="5d8adf72-ba7c-4949-9361-86e30d3cc71b" CreationDate="2017-01-06T23:21:56.897" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43629" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="94c24241-9fab-45b2-b3dc-9127fa498ed4" CreationDate="2017-01-07T01:22:12.290" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43630" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14697" RevisionGUID="e18a822d-90e2-4f8c-bce3-e6d5301820cf" CreationDate="2017-01-07T02:22:22.390" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43637" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14355" RevisionGUID="2e0566d2-6e63-4c48-b427-faef26c948f7" CreationDate="2017-01-07T12:26:19.960" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43638" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16069" RevisionGUID="4386ef64-b1d4-499b-aa47-185884f29229" CreationDate="2017-01-07T13:26:20.943" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16978" RevisionGUID="4391956b-b1f9-48a9-8610-5a62b720f451" CreationDate="2017-01-07T17:16:30.230" UserId="18268" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2016186925A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2016186925A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CLAIMS  &#xD;&#xA;We claim:&#xD;&#xA;1. A method of performing upscaling, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;parsing an input video;&#xD;&#xA;breaking the input video into individual frames;&#xD;&#xA;performing upscaling on the individual frames to produce upscaled frames; and stitching the upscaled frames together to produce an upscaled video&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this mean the entire post production industry will have to pay royalties for standard workflow used for the past 25 years? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43641" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16978" RevisionGUID="4391956b-b1f9-48a9-8610-5a62b720f451" CreationDate="2017-01-07T17:16:30.230" UserId="18268" Text="Patent Troll Alert PCT/US2016/031871" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43642" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16978" RevisionGUID="4391956b-b1f9-48a9-8610-5a62b720f451" CreationDate="2017-01-07T17:16:30.230" UserId="18268" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43643" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16676" RevisionGUID="1c76fd05-e2ba-4dee-9871-92a3450d8d83" CreationDate="2017-01-07T18:26:49.387" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16979" RevisionGUID="44bee015-4b80-42cb-951f-d336758efc2a" CreationDate="2017-01-07T19:51:58.347" UserId="17003" Text="This is not a patent. It is a patent application. It may never become a patent and even if it does, it is very likely the claims will be greatly narrowed. In any case, whatever has been done prior to the priority date of May 15, 2015 represents prior art and shouldn't be impacted. Given the broadness of the claim, it is worth keeping an eye on this application though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43646" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="cc4cbebe-ea57-43fc-a27f-1923c5205026" CreationDate="2017-01-07T21:27:45.180" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43647" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13934" RevisionGUID="c370f64b-8194-48a1-bca0-186f7581afe7" CreationDate="2017-01-07T22:27:45.013" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43648" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16826" RevisionGUID="2f0e71ff-6c81-4b90-8655-657b7964adff" CreationDate="2017-01-07T23:27:45.117" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16981" RevisionGUID="e9b79264-6d16-4445-956e-24722c1488a9" CreationDate="2017-01-08T01:41:47.883" UserId="18273" Text="As a master's student, you have some of the best access to advice to help you personally as anyone in the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should have a lot of professors with patents that would be willing to not only evaluate the value to the industry, but walk you through the process.  I would speak with them first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, note that software isn't patentable, but you don't want it to necessarily disclose a &quot;method&quot; of doing something, which is patentable. This would count as public disclosure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14327" RevisionGUID="1ee1fdaf-2ba1-4a32-ad2c-77383b0df4de" CreationDate="2017-01-08T03:14:49.943" UserId="15063" Comment="added 313 characters in body" Text="Quick way to tell: any US patent application ends with &quot;A&quot;.  So, in this case, US 20020043764 A1 means that reference is being made to an application.  Now, this might refer to an application that will never become a patent, perhaps because it was abandoned for some reason.  However, if you see a US patent number that ends in &quot;B&quot;, you know the patent actually issued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Refer to http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/support-centers/electronic-business-center/kind-codes-included-uspto-patent, for more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To actually determine current status of the patent application, you will need to refer, as the other answer points out, check the status of a US patent at the Public PAIR system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43658" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16078" RevisionGUID="269d5c52-e392-4415-9af4-a86de6afd4d8" CreationDate="2017-01-08T09:34:02.713" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16983" RevisionGUID="ee4ddef0-1cc3-45d2-bb6b-7883dc5c2234" CreationDate="2017-01-08T12:57:18.423" UserId="18274" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7543052][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7543052&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I have an idea for a networking application and I stumbled upon this patented document. I am not sure what the author is really patenting, would someone please explain it to me in the simplest terms what the author is patenting? Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43660" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16983" RevisionGUID="ee4ddef0-1cc3-45d2-bb6b-7883dc5c2234" CreationDate="2017-01-08T12:57:18.423" UserId="18274" Text="Automatic Network Discovery" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43661" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16983" RevisionGUID="ee4ddef0-1cc3-45d2-bb6b-7883dc5c2234" CreationDate="2017-01-08T12:57:18.423" UserId="18274" Text="&lt;network&gt;&lt;us7543052&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16984" RevisionGUID="5518c99b-d476-4249-af54-89161dbbf70b" CreationDate="2017-01-08T14:42:33.640" UserId="18276" Text="Some ideas are very specific and i am wondering if just the search itself for an idea (i.e. internet search engine or Google Patent Search) would potentially disclose to others the idea? Would searching the internet for &quot;x that does y&quot; would potentially be flagged or tracked by someone(?) or some entity?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example searching for &quot;ink that disappears.&quot; Could that search be picked up or trended by any software through keyword monitoring or other technology?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I may not be asking the question correctly but my concern is about disclosing an idea while attempting to research how novel it is (prior to applying for patent). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43663" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16984" RevisionGUID="5518c99b-d476-4249-af54-89161dbbf70b" CreationDate="2017-01-08T14:42:33.640" UserId="18276" Text="Is it possible that i will disclose my idea through searching existing patents or using search engines?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43664" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16984" RevisionGUID="5518c99b-d476-4249-af54-89161dbbf70b" CreationDate="2017-01-08T14:42:33.640" UserId="18276" Text="&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;research&gt;&lt;novel&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16985" RevisionGUID="90c5c35f-3420-4114-b1a2-a4dc2f134dcc" CreationDate="2017-01-08T18:12:40.400" UserId="18033" Text="Well, google for example does track your search history and at least use abstract statistics. I don't know how much detailled analysis they do (automatically), it's probably hard to find out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say it's not easy to answer your question, but I know at least one patent attorney who is convinced that what you describe can actually happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a patent law point of view this is a very difficult question, nobody may patent an idea stolen from you, but on the other hand you are kinda disclosing it on your own to the search engines etc., so worst case might be that you couldn't even sue them (= win the lawsuit). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can, however, google for anonymous browsers (Tor, etc.), search for different parts of the invention with different engines and browsers (and maybe PCs), delete cookies, etc. I'm pretty certain that should be enough to protect you from anything that gathers big data. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16986" RevisionGUID="4ea08860-d01b-45c2-abd2-b43accf09c9f" CreationDate="2017-01-08T18:29:15.417" UserId="18033" Text="The scope of the patent is defined by the claims. If you want to know what this patent protects, that is where you look.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll analyze the first caim as an example below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An apparatus facilitating the monitoring of network traffic, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;one or more network interfaces;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a memory;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a processor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;computer-executable program code stored in the memory and executable by the processor, the computer-executable program code comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a traffic classification database module comprising computer-executable instructions configured, when executed, to cause the processor to&#xD;&#xA;store at least one traffic class including a traffic class identifier and at least one attribute defining the traffic class;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;compare attributes stored in association with traffic class identifiers to attributes of a data flow to match a traffic class that corresponds to the data flow;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a traffic discovery module comprising computer-executable instructions configured, when executed, to cause the processor to&#xD;&#xA;discover new traffic classes associated with data flows for which the traffic classification database did not find a matching traffic class;&#xD;&#xA;add discovered traffic classes to the traffic classification database after a discovery threshold has been exceeded;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;dynamically adjust under one or more computer program controls the discovery threshold based on a comparison of a current rate at which the discovered traffic classes are added to the traffic classification database to a threshold rate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the the first claim protects an &quot;apparatus&quot; (thats basically the same as saying something as everything could be an apparatus) that &quot;facilitates&quot; (means the apparatus could do what follows -&gt; ergo &quot;monitor network traffic&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;comprising (means it has ALL of the following limitations)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;memory, processor, program&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where the program comprises:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a traffic classification database and a traffic discovery module.&#xD;&#xA;What they do is explained in the claim too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know this claim sounds very generic, this is of course on purpose. Everything that is not explained further in the claim protects every thinkable way of doing this. So for example &quot;at least one attribute defining the traffic class&quot; can be everything. It could be the nameof the traffic class, the kind of traffic or any quantum entanglement nobody yet knows about that describes a traffic class." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43668" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14868" RevisionGUID="a19ebeb8-5bb1-4b41-9acb-0218a1855a4c" CreationDate="2017-01-08T18:40:55.050" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16987" RevisionGUID="69417df2-8f74-4ece-8762-f13e0be67cad" CreationDate="2017-01-08T18:53:04.113" UserId="18033" Text="&gt;Suppose A company, say ABC makes a product - a shelf that detects the item taken from it, along with the person who did, using image processing. The same company makes a product that does checkout automatically from the above data. And a retailer UVW buys the two products and integrates into his shop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Will company ABC be sued? Or will the retailer get sued?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has no yes or no answer. It depends on the patents claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To stay with your example of the operating system. I'll formulate some claims like you may find them in a patent concerning this invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. An operating system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Speech recognition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Software taking input from speech and outputting access to an operatings service functions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. A system comprising and operating system, speech recognition and software configured to access features of the operating system through the recognized speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good patent attorney will try going for all of those. Number 1 is, of course, not patentable anymore. Number 2 neither. But 3 and 4 might get through. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, anyone selling software that accesses the os functions by speech could get sued from claim 3 directly and from claim 4 the moment this software gets combined with an operating system And as the software does nothing else, it would be directed at infringing a patent and the seller/produces could get sued too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, the claims might be something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. The combination of an os with integrated speech recognition and direct access to features. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No good patent attorney should make a mistake like that [citation needed].&#xD;&#xA;This claim allows you to sell software accessing the os through speech, as you are not fulfilling all limitations of the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To come back to your example, it depends on the exact wording of the claims. Keep in mind that the person formulating those is trying to cover alternatives like the one you describe, so if you look closely, you will probably find that the software does literally infringe the patent. Sometimes claims will say something like &quot;software configured to do this or that&quot; in which case you dn't even have to do it, it just has to be a pssible function of the software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If yes, what if two separate companies makes the above product - ABC makes the shelf and XYZ makes the checkout system. Would that be patent infringement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most cases, yes. Who infringes depends on the wording. If the claim is to software configured to etc then XYZ will probalby infringe the patent. If the claim covers a system with shelf and software, if XYZ sells the software only for that use, that can get them sued too, if this is not the main function, the retailer is the one that can get sued as e combines two not infringing products into one infringing product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Edit: I just checked status of Amazon Go Patent : Appl No : 13928345 - Final Rejection Mailed Appl No : 14495818 - Non Final Action Mailed )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry, this means nothing. As long as it hasn't been abandoned, they can still file an RCE (Request for continuued examination) or an appeal and go on with examination." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16988" RevisionGUID="085365f2-c1ea-4162-96f6-b8af4781c7ac" CreationDate="2017-01-08T19:02:46.217" UserId="18033" Text="Anyone can try to patent everything he wants to without that beeing fraud. After the application comes the examination where claims like these are just getting rejected. If you want to do something against the patent you can however send &quot;prior art&quot;, meaning documents proving that these steps were known before the date of the patent to the patent offices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in this case, this is just a bad application and I'd bet you anything it's not getting granted. So just relax, there are patent applications for time machines, too. Doesn't mean they get granted. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43671" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16090" RevisionGUID="d589869b-ec8a-4d66-bd7e-3c612676da6f" CreationDate="2017-01-08T21:41:17.877" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43673" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14635" RevisionGUID="1754ff99-6b9c-4bd1-9466-d9ec13d8b52d" CreationDate="2017-01-08T22:41:17.593" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16989" RevisionGUID="212369b6-2628-41cc-8485-effd212477f1" CreationDate="2017-01-08T23:06:11.697" UserId="14341" Text="SketchUp Make is the free version and works great. I filed my second provisional patent application using drawings created with SketchUp. You can download thousands of models and take parts or shapes from them, ready made.  At the time I started on my first provisional, all I had was MicroSoft Paint. SketchUp makes it tremendously simpler and easier. Change the background and parts colors to white, change the drawing style to wireframe. You can set it to show dotted lines for the hidden parts. Rotate the model for various views. This gives you a look like a drawing, which you can copy using print screen, and paste in MS Paint or another program to make your drawings. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16990" RevisionGUID="c7618b00-4029-459b-bad9-370fe9bf4a21" CreationDate="2017-01-08T23:17:44.443" UserId="14341" Text="I used MS Paint for my first provisional patent application.  One hint is to also get Paint.Net. MS Paint can add a 'fog' of pixels around parts every time you make a change or copy.  Running the drawing through Noise reduction a few times in Paint.Net will get rid of this. Paint.Net will also resize images much better.&#xD;&#xA;For my second PPA I used SketchUp, which is a 3D modelling or CAD program that you can use to make models. Changing the appearance of these models will make them look like drawings. Use PrintScreen to copy this to MS Paint for the drawings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43676" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14266" RevisionGUID="0c4cfa1e-119b-40b0-a093-661c0d8bdc6b" CreationDate="2017-01-08T23:41:17.550" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43680" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14833" RevisionGUID="e65f9f0b-fa79-4520-8230-d6b19a158170" CreationDate="2017-01-09T00:41:17.937" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43681" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16096" RevisionGUID="b86a1775-e6b5-4c54-9497-76220207790b" CreationDate="2017-01-09T01:41:17.797" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16992" RevisionGUID="507b906c-ec56-49b3-a5b5-16e7ad8e8e9b" CreationDate="2017-01-09T01:54:57.213" UserId="18279" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20150183561][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20150183561" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43683" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16992" RevisionGUID="507b906c-ec56-49b3-a5b5-16e7ad8e8e9b" CreationDate="2017-01-09T01:54:57.213" UserId="18279" Text="Why can the image not be viewed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43684" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16992" RevisionGUID="507b906c-ec56-49b3-a5b5-16e7ad8e8e9b" CreationDate="2017-01-09T01:54:57.213" UserId="18279" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16993" RevisionGUID="0e9ae980-81ac-4698-9b09-e760036a0ddb" CreationDate="2017-01-09T02:36:35.360" UserId="17003" Text="You would have to ask Google. There are other sites viewing patents. [The Lens][1] is one. Here is [US9493283B2][2] (the associated patent to the cited application) on The Lens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_9493283_B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43686" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14831" RevisionGUID="2427e068-0199-43e7-9e61-d4eecd4a222a" CreationDate="2017-01-09T02:41:17.657" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43689" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="bd80a0fe-9089-4db5-82df-21198a644a14" CreationDate="2017-01-09T03:41:39.727" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43691" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10796" RevisionGUID="9d1caeb8-37d5-4e65-a251-82278f9bec7b" CreationDate="2017-01-09T04:41:39.623" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16994" RevisionGUID="9a18dc23-f45b-44b8-8d69-c46ba25f3939" CreationDate="2017-01-09T07:45:18.170" UserId="18033" Text="I'm not 100% sure concerning the US, but in Europe the asnwer is no, sorry, you couldn't know this patent was invalid and infringed it anyways so you brought this on yourself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is actually a huge problem as infirngement suits are normally decided faster than invalidation, so you could get sued for infringement, at the same time start invalidating, lose the infringement suit, win the invalidation 2 yrs later and pay anyways." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43693" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16679" RevisionGUID="a94c757c-c058-4bb3-9fb9-356c1c0cf14f" CreationDate="2017-01-09T07:46:17.613" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16995" RevisionGUID="2b2c46ce-231e-40c0-be73-d17844b88f43" CreationDate="2017-01-09T08:17:36.457" UserId="14341" Text="I have filed a provisional patent for my holographic system. This is a field crowded with, sometimes literally, smoke and mirrors, systems that fail to work, or deliver the promised effect. This had lead to great scepticism for new approaches. To provide proof to the public that my invention can work, I'm considering allowing others to construct simple proof of concept models. One idea is to allow the one time use as a paid perk for crowd funding.  Would this use, basically an online contract, weaken my patent rights? As in I'm not really controlling the licensees, it's come one, come all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43695" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16995" RevisionGUID="2b2c46ce-231e-40c0-be73-d17844b88f43" CreationDate="2017-01-09T08:17:36.457" UserId="14341" Text="Could I allow the public to build proof of concept while protecting my patent rights?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43696" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16995" RevisionGUID="2b2c46ce-231e-40c0-be73-d17844b88f43" CreationDate="2017-01-09T08:17:36.457" UserId="14341" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;prototype&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16995" RevisionGUID="b1deddd5-0981-48ef-99f6-ab9bcadc054e" CreationDate="2017-01-09T08:23:04.683" UserId="14341" Comment="edited body" Text="I have filed a provisional patent for my holographic system. This is a field crowded with, sometimes literally, smoke and mirrors, systems that fail to work, or deliver the promised effect. This has led to great scepticism for new approaches. To provide proof to the public that my invention can work, I'm considering allowing others to construct simple proof of concept models. One idea is to allow the one time use as a paid perk for crowd funding.  Would this use, basically an online contract, weaken my patent rights? As in I'm not really controlling the licensees, it's come one, come all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16996" RevisionGUID="bae347de-a877-4096-a69d-b19addbe7a73" CreationDate="2017-01-09T10:03:54.907" UserId="18281" Text="I was always under the impression that inventions, utility models and designs can all claim priority using each other, with the exception that inventions cannot claim priority using a design application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just read in a book that U.S. design applications cannot claim priority using a Chinese invention application (can only use Chinese utility or design) and it's driving me crazy trying the find the answer. Does anyone know whether this is true, and if possible, could someone let me know where it says that in the laws and regulations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43699" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16996" RevisionGUID="bae347de-a877-4096-a69d-b19addbe7a73" CreationDate="2017-01-09T10:03:54.907" UserId="18281" Text="Can a U.S. design application claim priority of a foreign invention application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43700" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16996" RevisionGUID="bae347de-a877-4096-a69d-b19addbe7a73" CreationDate="2017-01-09T10:03:54.907" UserId="18281" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;priority&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43701" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="d1486fbd-59b0-496a-a0f1-40d762b59173" CreationDate="2017-01-09T10:46:20.050" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16997" RevisionGUID="2c8ad80d-e1ab-4a46-af08-d879b085ddd6" CreationDate="2017-01-09T13:14:58.487" UserId="18282" Text="I have not patented anything an am new to this. I have a language learning methodology by learning by an online platform. We use our own methodology developed by us and the platform was developed from the ground up by us in order to deliver the method of learning. Do I patent the code or the software itself or both. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;part 2 is, there are many different mini methodologies, i.e. one for pronunciation, one for grammar etc that make up our methodology. Do I patent them individually?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43703" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16997" RevisionGUID="2c8ad80d-e1ab-4a46-af08-d879b085ddd6" CreationDate="2017-01-09T13:14:58.487" UserId="18282" Text="Patent the Code, Software or both?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43704" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16997" RevisionGUID="2c8ad80d-e1ab-4a46-af08-d879b085ddd6" CreationDate="2017-01-09T13:14:58.487" UserId="18282" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;method&gt;&lt;methodology&gt;&lt;language&gt;&lt;codebase&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16998" RevisionGUID="c63f53e4-156a-46e5-b7be-b2033f8cfe49" CreationDate="2017-01-09T14:43:14.843" UserId="17003" Text="You don't patent the code or the software, you patent the methodology. I think what you are describing is a novel algorithm applied to solving a specific problem. You can patent those (at least you used to be able to), although its a bit complicated and recent court decisions are relevant. I'm not a lawyer so I'll allow the ones who read your question to comment more. As for the actual code or software, I expect the best way to protect those is through copywrite. However as I said I'm not a lawyer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16994" RevisionGUID="2c43b20d-49ae-42a7-9fad-2ddca72c0f94" CreationDate="2017-01-09T16:53:33.627" UserId="18033" Comment="edited body" Text="I'm not 100% sure concerning the US, but in Europe the answer is no, sorry, you couldn't know this patent was invalid and infringed it anyways so you brought this on yourself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is actually a huge problem as infirngement suits are normally decided faster than invalidation, so you could get sued for infringement, at the same time start invalidating, lose the infringement suit, win the invalidation 2 yrs later and pay anyways." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16999" RevisionGUID="7ec012de-f7d6-43c5-9706-7b47292c6e73" CreationDate="2017-01-09T16:56:29.917" UserId="18033" Text="Yes, essentially you would be giving away very narrow licenses. This would only &quot;weaken&quot; your patent inside the scope of these licenses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But another point to consider is that you will be creating prior art for further improvements which you might not be able to patent afterwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And people might copy your invention for personal use even though infringing your patent (US, in Europe personal use is allowed) and suing somebody for building a single copy without license is ... unpractical at best." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43708" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12753" RevisionGUID="7c1be64e-40b3-46ba-943c-e669151fe9c6" CreationDate="2017-01-09T18:49:42.443" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16999" RevisionGUID="107fb018-172b-47da-b70c-5af6aeeab97e" CreationDate="2017-01-09T19:20:38.283" UserId="18033" Comment="added 268 characters in body" Text="Yes, essentially you would be giving away very narrow licenses. This would only &quot;weaken&quot; your patent inside the scope of these licenses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But another point to consider is that you will be creating prior art for further improvements which you might not be able to patent afterwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And people might copy your invention for personal use even though infringing your patent (US, in Europe personal use is allowed) and suing somebody for building a single copy without license is ... unpractical at best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an issue with crowd funding though, I think stating in the campaign that the thing you are funding through the crowd will not be available for public use could be a problem. I'd suggest further research into that area, else your campaign might fail early." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17001" RevisionGUID="17b7571b-8caa-4363-aec2-243122aaec47" CreationDate="2017-01-09T21:23:42.647" UserId="18033" Text="It has been stated already that this patent has lapsed, which is correct (see for example the google page, espacenet, USPTO). So it is no part of the public domain and if there is no other protection for this (yes, this could happen, should not though), everyone may use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A computer-implemented method for identifying relative binding motifs of peptide-like molecules, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;(a) training a computer-implemented artificial neural network (ANN) with input data characterizing a set of training peptide-like molecules, each of known sequence and binding affinity;&#xD;&#xA;(b) applying to the ANN input data characterizing at least one test peptide-like molecule, each of known sequence but unknown binding affinity;&#xD;&#xA;(c) analyzing each applied test peptide-like molecule using the ANN to generate a prediction of a relative binding affinity for each test peptide-like molecule, and outputting such prediction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a really broad claim but only for peptide-like molecules, I am not sure why this would be abandoned, but maybe the market was too small. &#xD;&#xA;A claim like this would not get granted today (I'm sure), as it is obvious for everyone skilled in the art. But the patent is from 1997 (and maybe claims earlier priority, I didn't check). This was roughly 20 years ago, so maybe at that time, this was not obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17002" RevisionGUID="4ba3292f-df40-4023-80f2-df4eb8a1d674" CreationDate="2017-01-09T21:26:44.450" UserId="18033" Text="If your business has used the patented method before the priority date of the patent, you can use this to protect yourself from infringement claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that is not the case, several ways to attack a patent exist (opposition, ex-parte reexamination, inter parte reexamination, invalidity lawsuits).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please clarify your question as to what you want to know about or ask a new question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17003" RevisionGUID="e7a70855-743a-4ecc-aa8d-9ea75e339f2d" CreationDate="2017-01-09T21:41:45.673" UserId="18033" Text="You are basically asking if somebody that invested a lot in their education would be willing to explain to you in detail how to not pay them for their job. &#xD;&#xA;Do you see the problem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sites like this can help you with specific questions, but if you need a lot of information, either start learning or pay a patent attorney ;-)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14584" RevisionGUID="35a377d6-b48f-4602-959c-9a580019a4a8" CreationDate="2017-01-09T21:56:21.070" UserId="18033" Comment="same patent" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2014145999A3][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014145999A2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014145999A3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inventions in this patent are entirely described by the Diploma Thesis of Kai Niklas submitted on 11th June 2010&#xD;&#xA;http://www.l3s.de/~tahmasebi/Diplomarbeit_Niklas.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The priority date on this patent is Mar 15, 2013, years after the publication of Kai Niklas' thesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This thesis described in detail the OCR Key algorithm as described in this patent, including the same steps of the claim executed in the same order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thesis even described the algorithm using the same name, the &quot;OCR Key&quot; algorithm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no reference the the thesis of Kai Niklas in this patent application, whereas it clearly should have been cited as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no novel content in this patent and the application should be rejected." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14584" RevisionGUID="96442914-d612-415f-bbb4-57f45dac1f4c" CreationDate="2017-01-09T22:03:58.727" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 56 characters in body; edited title" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2014145999A3][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014145999A3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inventions in this patent are entirely described by the Diploma Thesis of Kai Niklas submitted on 11th June 2010&#xD;&#xA;http://www.l3s.de/~tahmasebi/Diplomarbeit_Niklas.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The priority date on this patent is Mar 15, 2013, years after the publication of Kai Niklas' thesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This thesis described in detail the OCR Key algorithm as described in this patent, including the same steps of the claim executed in the same order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thesis even described the algorithm using the same name, the &quot;OCR Key&quot; algorithm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no reference the the thesis of Kai Niklas in this patent application, whereas it clearly should have been cited as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no novel content in this patent and the application should be rejected." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43716" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14584" RevisionGUID="96442914-d612-415f-bbb4-57f45dac1f4c" CreationDate="2017-01-09T22:03:58.727" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 56 characters in body; edited title" Text="There is very clear prior art for patent application WO2014145999A" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17004" RevisionGUID="9f3dde8e-607d-4c31-b99e-a2523921c2ba" CreationDate="2017-01-09T22:11:45.947" UserId="18033" Text="The international search has found prior art for all three claims. Claim 1 and 3 were deemed not new and claim 2 obvious. https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=US.2014030867.W&amp;lng=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since then, no action has been taken by the applicant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entry into the national phase has to be done max. 30/31 months after the filing of the PCT application - this has passed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, this patent is not getting granted anywhere, it has lapsed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43722" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15983" RevisionGUID="bc0b7511-e140-4d9b-af76-ac57612f7ef2" CreationDate="2017-01-10T04:55:15.377" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17006" RevisionGUID="b9898ce6-a36c-4157-8da4-0ac68fc88af3" CreationDate="2017-01-10T06:32:07.447" UserId="18033" Text="Sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It depends very much on the new use. If you find out that ASS (the stuff in Aspirin) &lt;del&gt; helps against ingrown toenails (oh, no, wait, somebody already found that) &lt;/del&gt; cures hearing loss induced by trauma, you can patent the use of ASS against hearing loss by trauma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And to extend the previous answer, if the patent for ASS only patents the use of ASS against headaches, you will not even need their patent. If however they protected the method of producing it, you may not produce it without a license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If however you found out that you can use a LAN compression protocol for WLAN, this might be considered obvious, in this case you would not get a patent. It might even be infringing the old patent for the protocol if this patent was well written and stating the use of the protocol in any kind of data transmission for example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16999" RevisionGUID="7152fc48-50d0-45fa-b519-01c4931a24a6" CreationDate="2017-01-10T06:42:12.383" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="Essentially you would be giving away very narrow licenses. This would only &quot;weaken&quot; your patent inside the scope of these licenses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But another point to consider is that you will be creating prior art for further improvements which you might not be able to patent afterwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And people might copy your invention for personal use even though infringing your patent (US, in Europe personal use is allowed) and suing somebody for building a single copy without license is ... unpractical at best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an issue with crowd funding though, I think stating in the campaign that the thing you are funding through the crowd will not be available for public use could be a problem. I'd suggest further research into that area, else your campaign might fail early." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43725" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="fe53fa70-6798-4ad2-ae16-e499ed15de17" CreationDate="2017-01-10T12:11:49.180" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43727" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16103" RevisionGUID="67a39b28-f34d-4f20-a7ae-41d3163c3a42" CreationDate="2017-01-10T15:12:08.453" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43735" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14785" RevisionGUID="81476884-91bf-4df1-81da-17f5ea63ddf7" CreationDate="2017-01-11T04:22:05.747" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43736" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14881" RevisionGUID="f014b282-2e82-4e70-bb05-3bce9cf76ee3" CreationDate="2017-01-11T05:22:14.283" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17009" RevisionGUID="2b667e23-d29f-4aa1-91e7-ba7c8ec05997" CreationDate="2017-01-11T05:29:36.907" UserId="18281" Text="What amendments can be filed at the same time as entering U.S. national stage? I know that the claims can be amended, but is it possible to file amendments for the descriptions/drawings **at the same time as** entering U.S. national stage? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would really appreciate it if someone could point me in the direction of the relevant laws and regulations that state this specifically as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43738" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17009" RevisionGUID="2b667e23-d29f-4aa1-91e7-ba7c8ec05997" CreationDate="2017-01-11T05:29:36.907" UserId="18281" Text="Amendments that can be filed at the same time as entering U.S. national stage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43739" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17009" RevisionGUID="2b667e23-d29f-4aa1-91e7-ba7c8ec05997" CreationDate="2017-01-11T05:29:36.907" UserId="18281" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;amendment&gt;&lt;national-stage&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17010" RevisionGUID="03b9a0f2-9302-44b5-a40e-d5f468da9757" CreationDate="2017-01-11T09:13:07.047" UserId="18292" Text="Are there any patents out for baseball caps with pigtail/ponytail openings? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43742" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17010" RevisionGUID="03b9a0f2-9302-44b5-a40e-d5f468da9757" CreationDate="2017-01-11T09:13:07.047" UserId="18292" Text="any other patents involving baseball caps for pigtails?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43743" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17010" RevisionGUID="03b9a0f2-9302-44b5-a40e-d5f468da9757" CreationDate="2017-01-11T09:13:07.047" UserId="18292" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43744" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12909" RevisionGUID="fad0b979-5538-463d-a46e-c3f36add532e" CreationDate="2017-01-11T12:31:11.577" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17011" RevisionGUID="2fe1efe1-7b8f-4668-a0d6-a214499f473c" CreationDate="2017-01-11T15:50:13.847" UserId="17003" Text="Performing a thorough patent search is a significant effort. I know people who have made a career of it. I think you should try to do it yourself first and then perhaps ask for help if you get stuck. Here are some tips (although I don't consider myself a professional). First, it can be useful to do a basic Google search for such products. From this you can see which companies make competitive products. If you see something, you will want to search for that companies patents in particular. Second, use a patent specific search site. The two free ones I like are [Google Patents][1] and [The Lens][2]. I especially like The Lens. Initially just put search terms in and see what pops out. For instance using the terms &quot;baseball cap ponytail&quot; and limiting to US documents yielded 82 hits on The Lens. Be careful not to to be too specific. &quot;Cap&quot; might not find a patent which only uses the term &quot;hat&quot;. You can refine the terms, limit the search to US documents, etc.  When you find some relevant patents/applications, look at them for cited patents. This will give you some more prior art. Also, experts use the classification codes to help refine the search. When you find particularly important patents, then it is good to use the [US Public Pair][3] site for research. Here you can review the communications between the examiner and the applicants, see all the prior art the examiner used, determine the legal status of the patent, etc. With a few hours of work, you should be able to get a pretty good start on identifying relevant patents. Remember, it is the claims that define what the patent is covering. I usually look at the claims and the figures first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't eliminate the need for a professional at some point while pursuing your own patent, but doing a search for yourself will greatly speed any subsequent searches (and save you some money).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43746" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14409" RevisionGUID="42ef737c-091a-4bd3-94d6-39045a5d4d17" CreationDate="2017-01-11T16:33:03.940" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43747" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16789" RevisionGUID="168b69bf-7bfe-4f0f-ab9f-d4d75ffa0e14" CreationDate="2017-01-11T21:38:13.520" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17012" RevisionGUID="87013c6b-4faf-4788-ba41-061874da348f" CreationDate="2017-01-12T06:37:42.220" UserId="18297" Text="In a scenario, where, I have made a unique concrete result oriented software in java, using java library functions to make the software, my questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is my unique concrete result oriented java program patentable since I have used oracle's java library functions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If I just have my product patented (if 1 is yes), then will I have to pay oracle any royalty just for an issued patent even when I am making no revenue out of it? And if i do make revenue out of it, will I need to give Oracle any royalties?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cheers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43750" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17012" RevisionGUID="87013c6b-4faf-4788-ba41-061874da348f" CreationDate="2017-01-12T06:37:42.220" UserId="18297" Text="what if my software product has unique feature but uses library functions of another technology?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43751" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17012" RevisionGUID="87013c6b-4faf-4788-ba41-061874da348f" CreationDate="2017-01-12T06:37:42.220" UserId="18297" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;library&gt;&lt;royalties&gt;&lt;functions&gt;&lt;java&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17012" RevisionGUID="ed827c63-07cb-4beb-aa34-311dd1c1b5f5" CreationDate="2017-01-12T06:56:44.577" UserId="18297" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="In a scenario, where, I have made a unique concrete result oriented software in java, using java library functions to make the software, my questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is my unique concrete result oriented java program patentable since I have used oracle's java library functions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If I just have my product patented (if 1 is yes), then will I have to pay Oracle (since Oracle owes the java libraries I am using) any royalty just for an issued patent even when I am making no revenue out of it? And if i do make revenue out of it, will I need to give Oracle any royalties?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cheers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17013" RevisionGUID="75eb706a-a709-4063-a3de-85735221e6ae" CreationDate="2017-01-12T10:49:58.203" UserId="15503" Text="**Is it possible to file amendments for the descriptions/drawings at the same time as entering US national phase?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preliminary amendments can be filed when a PCT application enters the national phase in the US. This is apparent from [37 CFR 1.115](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e322734), which provides:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a) A preliminary amendment is an amendment that is received in the Office (§ 1.6 ) on or before the mail date of the first Office action under § 1.104.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(b)…(3) A preliminary amendment will not be disapproved under (b)(2) of this section if it is filed no later than: …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(iii) Three months from the date the national stage is entered as set forth in § 1.491 in an international application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The types of amendments are governed by [37 CFR 1.121](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323020).  In particular, 37 CFR 1.121(b) makes clear that the description can be amended and 37 CFR 1.121(d) makes clear that the drawings can be amended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are limits on the amendments. Notably, 37 CFR 1.121(f) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;No amendment may introduce new matter into the disclosure of an application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17014" RevisionGUID="0b73fd1a-823b-4684-b42a-0b4592a7385e" CreationDate="2017-01-12T10:56:57.613" UserId="15503" Text="Your invention is distinct from your implementation. That is, you have implemented a proof of concept in Java using its libraries. However, a patent relates to an invention, not an implementation. Thus the use of Java in your implementation would not inhibit you patenting your invention (assuming the invention meets the patentablity requirements).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, receiving a patent would never require you to pay royalties. However, practising your invention might do (whether or not you receive a patent). You would need to assess this by considering the technologies used in your product (and perhaps by performing a freedom-to-operate search)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43755" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17012" RevisionGUID="d147cb9b-57fc-48b9-aa9d-d9b63c0f959d" CreationDate="2017-01-12T10:58:33.283" UserId="15503" Comment="small corrections" Text="In a scenario, where, I have made a unique concrete result oriented software in Java, using Java library functions to make the software, my questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is my unique concrete result oriented Java program patentable since I have used Oracle's Java library functions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If I just have my product patented (if 1 is yes), then will I have to pay Oracle (since Oracle owns the Java libraries I am using) any royalty just for an issued patent even when I am making no revenue out of it? And if I do make revenue out of it, will I need to give Oracle any royalties?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17015" RevisionGUID="a5bece87-1020-48a2-ac12-08b26d764fda" CreationDate="2017-01-12T14:05:14.983" UserId="18298" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8047843][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8047843" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43757" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17015" RevisionGUID="a5bece87-1020-48a2-ac12-08b26d764fda" CreationDate="2017-01-12T14:05:14.983" UserId="18298" Text="I'm looking for a market product that uses this patent and owner of US8047843" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43758" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17015" RevisionGUID="a5bece87-1020-48a2-ac12-08b26d764fda" CreationDate="2017-01-12T14:05:14.983" UserId="18298" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17016" RevisionGUID="e7d48861-93d3-43d9-97df-c260a2552716" CreationDate="2017-01-12T14:18:18.867" UserId="18299" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20160122959][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20160122959&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the status of this ? I have a similar design and have started to make these and was looking to get patent for it... but what to make sure i'm not coping it... i have not seen this device on the market and want to start selling them . please let me know . Contact me at bbelec171@gmail.com " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43760" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17016" RevisionGUID="e7d48861-93d3-43d9-97df-c260a2552716" CreationDate="2017-01-12T14:18:18.867" UserId="18299" Text="[US20160122959][1]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43761" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17016" RevisionGUID="e7d48861-93d3-43d9-97df-c260a2552716" CreationDate="2017-01-12T14:18:18.867" UserId="18299" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17017" RevisionGUID="244abf75-f9c5-4fdf-abbd-c8e91d431d8c" CreationDate="2017-01-12T15:34:58.150" UserId="18033" Text="It is an application that may become a granted patent. It is not yet possible to tell exactly what scope the protection will have." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17016" RevisionGUID="20dd1a15-6d94-470d-98b1-f432713d4279" CreationDate="2017-01-12T17:05:37.520" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 33 characters in body; deleted 1 character in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20160122959][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20160122959&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the status of this ? I have a similar design and have started to make these and was looking to get patent for it... but what to make sure i'm not coping it... i have not seen this device on the market and want to start selling them . please let me know . " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17018" RevisionGUID="b9ba61ce-9ff2-4121-b520-ee3c152a9382" CreationDate="2017-01-12T17:14:43.887" UserId="3109" Text="I filed a patent that is now in examination stage. I can't personally afford the legal fees to amend the claims that got rejected. However, the director of a company for which I'm doing some consulting said he would pay the legal fees to amend the claims. In compensation, I initially proposed a shared ownership but that seems to be problematic. He wants the patent for the company IP portfolio, and he says that having a shared patent ownership doesn't add value to the company in the event of an exit. I've done a bit of research on alternatives to share ownership of patents, and I see in some cases a company is created that owns the patent and then the company ownership is shared. However, I think this is not going to work in this case. So I proposed another alternative: they could own the patent but I would get a “special license” that would also give me right to a small royalty percentage of any other licensing or sales as a result of the invention, also right to use the invention but not of licensing to other parties.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions are: What would happened to such a license if the company gets sold? Could such a license exist independently of who owns the patent? Would such a license reduce significantly the value of the patent? and finally, are there any other alternatives that could work this case? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43765" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17018" RevisionGUID="b9ba61ce-9ff2-4121-b520-ee3c152a9382" CreationDate="2017-01-12T17:14:43.887" UserId="3109" Text="Alternatives to share ownership of a patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43766" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17018" RevisionGUID="b9ba61ce-9ff2-4121-b520-ee3c152a9382" CreationDate="2017-01-12T17:14:43.887" UserId="3109" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;license&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17019" RevisionGUID="b588cc3c-9e02-4ab9-94b6-916b2667af21" CreationDate="2017-01-12T18:09:59.800" UserId="18033" Text="&gt; What would happened to such a license if the company gets sold? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As your contract for that license would be with the company, nothing, the contract would get sold too, you would have the same rights as before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Could such a license exist independently of who owns the patent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, that should be specified in the contract. So basically, if they want to sell the patent, the new owner has to agree to continue the contract with you, else they may not sell the patent. (That should be stated in the contract between the company and you).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Would such a license reduce significantly the value of the patent? &#xD;&#xA;No, it's actually a quite common way for inventions made by employees to give them a part of the royalties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;and finally, are there any other alternatives that could work this case? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could plainly sell the patent app. and be done with it or sell it and maintain the right to use the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning that, the question that is more difficult to solve is what you are allowed to do with the invention. From giving away licenses (which is the reason they don't want to as co-owner, co-owners may do that, so essentially you could always screw them out of making money with the patent by giving away licenses for free or less money) to only beeing allowed to use it personally, not commercially, there are quite some steps. You should probably try to get whatever you need, if you want to sell the invention too, you need a license allowing this. As you would have a free license, yes, this would reduce the patents value. How much depends on the situation and how many products of the invention you sell." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17020" RevisionGUID="4733d5b4-00c3-481e-a585-6bb50f3abdcd" CreationDate="2017-01-12T18:54:49.973" UserId="17003" Text="As DonQuiKing says, this is an application not yet a patent. The claims very likely will change. What you need to do is carefully read the claims and see if your product infringes. To infringe, you need to do every aspect of a claim. The first claim is the only independent claim so look at that first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A snow plow blade attachment and mounting for use with an existing plow blade mold board with a set of holes, comprising: a traditional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cutting blade with a hole pattern and with a bottom part; a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reinforcing plate with the hole pattern; and a rounded cutting edge&#xD;&#xA;&gt; snow plow blade attachment having an upper flat section with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pre-drilled holes that match the hole pattern to receive the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reinforcing plate on one side and the traditional cutting blade on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other side, and a lower curved section with a 180 degree radius that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; protrudes forward of the upper flat section on the one side, said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rounded cutting edge snow plow blade attachment being secured to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; existing plow blade mold board by fastening means passing through the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pre-drilled holes and the holes in the existing plow blade mold board&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and the hole pattern of the reinforcing plate such that the lower&#xD;&#xA;&gt; curved section protrudes forward of the existing plow blade mold board&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on the one side, with the lower curved section engaging the surface to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be plowed by falling below the bottom part of the traditional cutting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; blade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your product doesn't do all of that, you may be OK. Again, the claims may change and get narrower. I would suggest consulting with a patent attorney." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43769" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17016" RevisionGUID="9d6bd8bc-07d0-4df4-bd5e-8f4a1d6de317" CreationDate="2017-01-12T19:25:37.740" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="[US20160122959]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43770" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17016" RevisionGUID="9d6bd8bc-07d0-4df4-bd5e-8f4a1d6de317" CreationDate="2017-01-12T19:25:37.740" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;legal-status&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43771" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16134" RevisionGUID="f7a1d51f-762f-4da5-a993-f594a884cd14" CreationDate="2017-01-12T20:02:45.093" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17021" RevisionGUID="d85e1c43-1f44-4446-821e-bc2be6d189ad" CreationDate="2017-01-12T20:43:50.903" UserId="18033" Text="Child applications / patents are separate issues. They do not share procedures. So the answer is simply: It doesn't matter if the parent expired, lapsedor got invalidated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17022" RevisionGUID="cc250072-7660-4be9-90ba-dde32d2a7e07" CreationDate="2017-01-12T20:54:00.977" UserId="18033" Text="Normally, this is done to patent different aspects of an invention. Ideally, the claims will not overlap, but may sound very similar and basically all prevent the usage of the actual invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This increases the cost of defending against infringement suits and taking down the patents **dramatically**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other strategical reasons, for example it is possible to first get a fast grant on a narrow version of the claims to get some protection and with that in the backhand seeking wider protection through many years of correspondence with the patent office. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have actually seen the double patenting regulation be used against such claims, so I'm confident that the claims from Micrsoft don't overlap as much as you indicate in the question, but it might be hard to see the differences without thorough analysis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43774" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="688ff968-9c46-4e6d-8152-d5ac2a1f2063" CreationDate="2017-01-12T21:04:37.840" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17023" RevisionGUID="afa1ed20-6249-4632-bfca-db731a9ce4e8" CreationDate="2017-01-12T21:06:28.110" UserId="18033" Text="Yes. The links in the question lead to google patents where you can find the link to espacenet. In the legal section you see that the patent got granted and the fees were paid. It doesn't say lapsed or anything like it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could find the same information at 'Public Pair' (google it)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17024" RevisionGUID="dacadd8e-57f8-4565-a07e-6371e48962ad" CreationDate="2017-01-12T21:10:55.660" UserId="18033" Text="No. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent applications are published after while (normally 18 months). The USPTO examins the claims if the applicant wants them to, after that the patent application can become a granted patent. That means the claimed inventions are protected from getting used by others. It doesn't mean however, that the technology works (as promised). It just means the examiner thinks it could work. It is not necessary to prove this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if the examiner thinks the claims are not compatible with science he can reject them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43777" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16036" RevisionGUID="4d961af7-ca60-4954-b314-560a25656fc2" CreationDate="2017-01-12T21:26:18.393" UserId="18033" Comment="edited title" Text="Expired patent with pending continuation applications and appeals on those" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16923" RevisionGUID="882671d8-b371-421b-b13f-f1a2ad2dba1f" CreationDate="2017-01-12T21:27:20.440" UserId="18033" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I am looking for some intermediate level books on patents.&#xD;&#xA;I heard about a book called &quot;patent it yourself&quot;, has anyone read it and can you recommend it? What group is the book targeting and does it give some deeper insight? Is it country specific?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Other suggestions are appreciated too)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43779" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="16923" RevisionGUID="9eb052f8-6582-46dd-87c9-53123988cd1c" CreationDate="2017-01-12T21:27:35.220" UserId="18033" Comment="Rollback to [e883ca7e-ad18-4d1c-a695-066f59696237]" Text="I am looking for some intermediate level books on patents.&#xD;&#xA;I heard about a book called &quot;patent it yourself&quot;, has anyone read it and can you recommend it? What group is the book targetting and does it give some deeper insight? Is it country specific?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Other suggestions are appreciated too)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43780" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="16923" RevisionGUID="5c912ef0-ea15-41ab-b732-a69b4b8517b4" CreationDate="2017-01-12T21:27:51.073" UserId="18033" Comment="Rollback to [882671d8-b371-421b-b13f-f1a2ad2dba1f]" Text="I am looking for some intermediate level books on patents.&#xD;&#xA;I heard about a book called &quot;patent it yourself&quot;, has anyone read it and can you recommend it? What group is the book targeting and does it give some deeper insight? Is it country specific?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Other suggestions are appreciated too)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17025" RevisionGUID="9cd1ed81-8988-4715-9f8d-d0456e04c6e6" CreationDate="2017-01-12T21:31:58.477" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43782" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17025" RevisionGUID="9cd1ed81-8988-4715-9f8d-d0456e04c6e6" CreationDate="2017-01-12T21:31:58.477" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17026" RevisionGUID="95f8e535-ade4-4bb3-b4d0-0128550ba426" CreationDate="2017-01-12T21:31:58.477" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43784" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17026" RevisionGUID="95f8e535-ade4-4bb3-b4d0-0128550ba426" CreationDate="2017-01-12T21:31:58.477" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17027" RevisionGUID="3f1d8512-605d-4ce0-b7db-a813dbf89a80" CreationDate="2017-01-12T21:34:29.157" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43786" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17027" RevisionGUID="3f1d8512-605d-4ce0-b7db-a813dbf89a80" CreationDate="2017-01-12T21:34:29.157" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17028" RevisionGUID="6bf0669c-2dcc-4f76-859b-2fa999850a53" CreationDate="2017-01-12T21:34:29.157" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43788" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17028" RevisionGUID="6bf0669c-2dcc-4f76-859b-2fa999850a53" CreationDate="2017-01-12T21:34:29.157" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17029" RevisionGUID="5380afbe-ef93-4395-8542-84b72262216e" CreationDate="2017-01-12T21:35:06.243" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43790" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17029" RevisionGUID="5380afbe-ef93-4395-8542-84b72262216e" CreationDate="2017-01-12T21:35:06.243" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17030" RevisionGUID="6273db21-a5e6-4a96-8a00-38874e907ac3" CreationDate="2017-01-12T21:35:06.243" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43792" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17030" RevisionGUID="6273db21-a5e6-4a96-8a00-38874e907ac3" CreationDate="2017-01-12T21:35:06.243" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17031" RevisionGUID="bba997e6-11bc-4d67-9d4b-bd27e0584fdb" CreationDate="2017-01-12T21:37:17.373" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43794" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17031" RevisionGUID="bba997e6-11bc-4d67-9d4b-bd27e0584fdb" CreationDate="2017-01-12T21:37:17.373" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17032" RevisionGUID="f7d0d9be-a67c-4c0c-8874-1c9626101781" CreationDate="2017-01-12T21:37:17.373" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43796" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17032" RevisionGUID="f7d0d9be-a67c-4c0c-8874-1c9626101781" CreationDate="2017-01-12T21:37:17.373" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16084" RevisionGUID="c0906051-1a60-48d8-abf5-0cc42663b679" CreationDate="2017-01-12T22:12:57.543" UserId="16977" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="The original filing date is November 9, 1989. A Utility patent is valid for a term of 20 years, which means this patent expired on November 9, 2009 and is no longer valid. The link you posted to does not infringe on this particular patent, but it might be infringing on other patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: Eric pointed out that this patent was pre-1995 and there for only valid for a period of 17 years. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43798" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="f12cca71-52fa-4b48-928d-b478af181a9b" CreationDate="2017-01-12T23:05:05.223" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17033" RevisionGUID="dd0bae67-39c9-4cdf-b68e-df1008b73cff" CreationDate="2017-01-13T02:53:44.883" UserId="18302" Text="I found a problem in the world, right now this problem is not solved properly(already did patent search, did not found anything similar to it or any product on the market).&#xD;&#xA;I know how it can be solved with computer-implemented method. Solution is not implemented yet, it’s just a high level design and I want to protect it with Provisional Application. This solution can both be used as standalone one and be integrated in other existing systems.&#xD;&#xA;My system itself consists of several components that collect and store some data and one component that is doing fundamental decision in the system based on gathered data(parameters). &#xD;&#xA;To make this decision some algorithm should be implemented, this algorithm can be implemented in several ways and right now it’s not clear what is the final implementation and how each parameter would effect the result that system returns, because system was not tested in real life.&#xD;&#xA;The question is, would that be critical if Provisional Application would not have detailed description of this algorithm? Say I will give information about close list of parameters that it takes and result that it should return. Also I plan to describe rest of components in details and how they interact with each other, need to say that those components should also be present and are essential part of the solution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43800" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17033" RevisionGUID="dd0bae67-39c9-4cdf-b68e-df1008b73cff" CreationDate="2017-01-13T02:53:44.883" UserId="18302" Text="File Provisional Application without some implementation details" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43801" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17033" RevisionGUID="dd0bae67-39c9-4cdf-b68e-df1008b73cff" CreationDate="2017-01-13T02:53:44.883" UserId="18302" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;algorihm&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17034" RevisionGUID="aacf7d2c-b894-40b8-aced-6decf5caea1f" CreationDate="2017-01-13T02:54:57.200" UserId="17003" Text="I only quickly reviewed the patents. The applications you cited are now issued patents: [US9087048B2][1], [US9015037B2][2], [US9176957B2][3]. They seem to be specifically aimed at automatic fact checking of posted or broadcast information. I would gather to reduce the amount of fake news. Read the claims of the linked documents and if you still think they are too broad, you could ask a prior art request question. They do sound sort of broad, but I'd need to read the specification to see if they defined some of their terms more specifically. In any case, this isn't my area of expertise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9087048B2/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9015037B2/en&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9176957B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16084" RevisionGUID="2eebc714-e1f9-49ed-8fe6-ae93f6a33a96" CreationDate="2017-01-13T02:57:51.183" UserId="17003" Comment="Clarified that the term is 17 years from the issue date." Text="The original filing date is November 9, 1989. A Utility patent is valid for a term of 20 years, which means this patent expired on November 9, 2009 and is no longer valid. The link you posted to does not infringe on this particular patent, but it might be infringing on other patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: Eric pointed out that this patent was pre-1995 and there for only valid for a period of 17 years from the issue date. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17035" RevisionGUID="b2930b93-6b02-44cf-a9c6-01444bba96d5" CreationDate="2017-01-13T03:05:26.743" UserId="17003" Text="If you search for this patent number in the [US Public Pair][1] site, You can find a correspondence address which is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    QUARLES &amp; BRADY LLP&#xD;&#xA;    Attn: IP Docket &#xD;&#xA;    411 E. WISCONSIN AVENUE &#xD;&#xA;    SUITE 2350 &#xD;&#xA;    MILWAUKEE WI 53202-4426&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43805" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16579" RevisionGUID="8c36b106-d50c-43ac-93a6-5b0a96d69308" CreationDate="2017-01-13T03:07:44.670" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43809" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11968" RevisionGUID="50c426bc-76de-4a2c-9de7-f2611d77e605" CreationDate="2017-01-13T04:07:45.193" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43810" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16275" RevisionGUID="c79e646d-bfee-4f3d-a6ef-bdfa73c125ba" CreationDate="2017-01-13T05:07:46.207" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43811" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16577" RevisionGUID="5753b9ac-6aad-47a4-90c3-18fd04e93e59" CreationDate="2017-01-13T07:07:46.140" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43812" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16978" RevisionGUID="8ea4a86f-95fd-4b23-a67f-aaec420dba71" CreationDate="2017-01-13T08:05:50.143" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;broad-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43816" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12505" RevisionGUID="b9da32be-9699-4258-a5fa-0cd1240c89fe" CreationDate="2017-01-13T11:10:14.033" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43817" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10532" RevisionGUID="04a48fdb-3ed5-443e-841b-1cb510230fe4" CreationDate="2017-01-13T12:10:16.503" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17033" RevisionGUID="3ef5fca8-bef2-4837-adcb-4e980f7f4dc8" CreationDate="2017-01-13T13:20:58.947" UserId="18302" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I found a problem in the world, right now this problem is not solved properly(already did patent search, did not found anything similar to it or any product on the market).&#xD;&#xA;I know how it can be solved with computer-implemented method. Solution is not implemented yet, it’s just a high level design and I want to protect it with Provisional Application. This solution can both be used as standalone one and be integrated in other existing systems.&#xD;&#xA;My system itself consists of several components that collect and store some data and one component that is doing fundamental decision in the system based on collected data(parameters). &#xD;&#xA;To make this decision some algorithm should be implemented, this algorithm can be implemented in several ways and right now it’s not clear what is the final implementation and how each parameter would effect the result that system returns, because system was not tested in real life.&#xD;&#xA;The question is, would that be critical if Provisional Application would not have detailed description of this algorithm? Say I will give information about close list of parameters that it takes and result that it should return. Also I plan to describe rest of components in details and how they interact with each other, need to say that those components should also be present and are essential part of the solution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43823" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17018" RevisionGUID="21a36c54-282d-4525-8c3b-bb08f0f952e4" CreationDate="2017-01-13T16:49:48.530" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="43827" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17015" RevisionGUID="5344a66b-c76f-463a-8b27-1e166ef4d064" CreationDate="2017-01-13T17:13:08.877" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5059],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:18033,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DonQuiKong&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="43833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17023" RevisionGUID="142aa64e-8ec5-4f42-a0e4-9641fe891fae" CreationDate="2017-01-14T07:39:02.880" UserId="18033" Comment="added 304 characters in body" Text="Yes. The links in the question lead to google patents where you can find the link to espacenet. In the legal section you see that the patent got granted and the fees were paid. It doesn't say lapsed or anything like it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could find the same information at 'Public Pair' (google it).&#xA;&#xA;The priority date of the patent seems to be 2006, therefore the patent could be valid until 2026 (even longer if there is a patent term adjustment). It can however expire earlier if the owners don't pay the fees. It could get invalidated too. You can find out if such event ocurred at public pair, too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43836" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13966" RevisionGUID="37cef8c1-8a0e-4bb0-9ec2-8ffbe2bdb98b" CreationDate="2017-01-14T08:21:13.793" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43837" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14806" RevisionGUID="27bbd322-f31d-447a-9b5d-fc7f6ad9baff" CreationDate="2017-01-14T09:21:14.230" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17040" RevisionGUID="d83698ba-9793-4ed2-b83d-60b61760d6a1" CreationDate="2017-01-14T10:40:58.483" UserId="18033" Text="By publishing them your designs lose novelty and cannot be protected anymore, unless you can claim priority to the pct application. I am not sure if that is possible, especially after so much time, but you could ask a patent attorney or try to find out another way. Claiming priority is the relevant search term.&#xA;&#xA;For the next time, this should not happen. It is mostly not necessary to include protectable designs in the patent application as you only have to describe the invention, not the design. Then you can either keep the design secret longer or apply for protection independently. Applying for different types of protection at once is a good strategy to, but costs more money." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43839" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16114" RevisionGUID="0c7bcaac-d1b2-48de-8bbb-489a1db00dde" CreationDate="2017-01-14T11:21:15.713" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17041" RevisionGUID="305d9ded-9779-4dfa-9599-4915d2158af5" CreationDate="2017-01-14T14:44:36.170" UserId="18309" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20090199918][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20090199918&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adjustment knob 112 pulls up from a locked position to rotate for pressure adjustment and pushed down to return to locked position. This knob is used throughout the Dewalt product line including air compressors. The knob is cylindrical in design and has a slight taper towards the top making it difficult to grasp and pull out of the locked position. If I designed a replacement knob that is easy to grasp and pull for specific Dewalt products would that be a patent infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43841" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17041" RevisionGUID="305d9ded-9779-4dfa-9599-4915d2158af5" CreationDate="2017-01-14T14:44:36.170" UserId="18309" Text="Redesign of ref#112 knob" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43842" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17041" RevisionGUID="305d9ded-9779-4dfa-9599-4915d2158af5" CreationDate="2017-01-14T14:44:36.170" UserId="18309" Text="&lt;us20090199918&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17042" RevisionGUID="2aa54c50-dfd2-4522-a9e0-c11bc0122ed6" CreationDate="2017-01-14T15:14:14.073" UserId="18033" Text="This patent has not been granted, it still is an application. That means it's claims = scope of protection can still change. It also means it might never get granted.&#xA;&#xA;To check if you would infringe the patent that might get granted is therefore not possible yet.&#xA;&#xA;From your description I cannot tell if you would infringe the claims as they are. For that you would have to compare the claims to your invention. If your invention falls under the exact wording of any claim you could potentially infringe the patent IF it gets granted and the claim remains.&#xA;&#xA;As of now there are two independent claims:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;A portable manifold assembly comprising:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;a manifold structure having a longitudinal axis;&#xA;&#xA;&gt;a male quick connect coupled in fluid connection with the manifold structure, the male quick connect being adapted to couple the manifold structure to a source of compressed air;&#xA;&#xA;&gt;a plurality of female quick connects coupled in fluid connection to the manifold structure; and&#xA;&#xA;&gt;a handle rotatably mounted on the manifold structure for rotation about the longitudinal axis of the manifold structure.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;And&#xA;&#xA;&gt;A portable manifold assembly comprising:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;a first manifold portion adapted to receive a supply of compressed air at a first pressure;&#xA;&#xA;&gt;a second manifold portion;&#xA;&#xA;&gt;a handle coupled to at least one of the first and second manifold portions;&#xA;&#xA;&gt;a regulator configured to transmit compressed air from the first manifold portion to the second manifold portion at a second pressure that is less than or equal to the first pressure, the regulator including an adjustment knob for selectively adjusting a magnitude of the second pressure, the adjustment knob having a longitudinally extending adjustment knob axis;&#xA;&#xA;&gt;first and second female quick connects each having a connector body that is arranged about a longitudinally extending connector body axis, the first female quick connect being mounted on the first manifold portion and being configured to directly receive compressed air therefrom, the second female quick connect being mounted on the second manifold portion and being configured to directly receive compressed air therefrom;&#xA;&#xA;&gt;wherein the adjustment knob axis is disposed between and parallel to the longitudinally extending connector body axes of the connector bodies of the first and second female quick connects&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43844" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17041" RevisionGUID="5a300731-6b59-4cb5-b1f8-323dfaa4281a" CreationDate="2017-01-14T15:28:35.447" UserId="1" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;us20090199918&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43845" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14892" RevisionGUID="5d0eba80-f697-43a3-ba75-d7fb602094a3" CreationDate="2017-01-14T16:25:24.783" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17043" RevisionGUID="7b835267-ef9f-4c28-8060-6addeef1d761" CreationDate="2017-01-14T18:02:10.147" UserId="17003" Text="A quick search in Google shows there are several air regulators which have a knob similar to what is shown in the cited application. My guess is that DeWalt purchases the regulator from an OEM. The application's claims aren't claiming any particular feature with respect to the knob so I don't think it's all that relevant. There may however be other patents that exist for regulators that are relevant and they may not be DeWalt's. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43847" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16118" RevisionGUID="4cab7fc9-cc96-40dc-a20c-94493448c006" CreationDate="2017-01-14T20:29:10.767" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17044" RevisionGUID="be5cd7ff-3ba2-4e9d-a108-1e457b4606e5" CreationDate="2017-01-15T01:37:27.820" UserId="14038" Text="While you may lose the right for patent protection of your designs if a patent is not granted, you may still have some protection under copyright law for the appearance of the designs.  Copyright protection occurs upon the creation of an original work to the extent that the work falls within copyrightable subject matter.   Publication will not affect the copyright protection.   It may be necessary to register the copyright with the appropriate authority prior to pursuing any claim of infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may want to consider design patent applications on the designs if the original patent application is still pending." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17045" RevisionGUID="6c25923e-a2ad-439f-aefd-820e70221e36" CreationDate="2017-01-15T03:00:29.710" UserId="18310" Text="i have an idea to create a machine that use electric motor (which is an invention that is created by someone else long time ago). do i have to pay the electric motor inventor some money to be eligible to use it? if so how much percentage? and what if i have more then one other invention that is used in the machine that i created? i tried to do research on google but cant seem to find the answer please help " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43850" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17045" RevisionGUID="6c25923e-a2ad-439f-aefd-820e70221e36" CreationDate="2017-01-15T03:00:29.710" UserId="18310" Text="what if i use other people invention is part of my own invention" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43851" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17045" RevisionGUID="6c25923e-a2ad-439f-aefd-820e70221e36" CreationDate="2017-01-15T03:00:29.710" UserId="18310" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43853" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14893" RevisionGUID="9760fcea-37ff-41bf-9dab-7f000c7ca3ae" CreationDate="2017-01-15T06:59:39.110" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43854" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17040" RevisionGUID="c56e38c4-7f6c-43b9-9a2f-cafca86ccb1e" CreationDate="2017-01-15T10:22:30.770" UserId="18033" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="By publishing them your designs lose novelty and cannot be protected anymore, unless you can claim priority to the pct application. I am not sure if that is possible, especially after so much time, but you could ask a patent attorney or try to find out another way. Claiming priority is the relevant search term.&#xA;&#xA;For the next time, this should not happen. It is mostly not necessary to include protectable designs in the patent application as you only have to describe the invention, not the design. Then you can either keep the design secret longer or apply for protection independently. Applying for different types of protection at once is a good strategy too, but costs more money." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43855" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14893" RevisionGUID="836675bc-06d7-41c6-81c9-5561a133ca55" CreationDate="2017-01-15T12:07:40.523" UserId="18033" Comment="edited title" Text="Can I assign a patent application to a third party?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17046" RevisionGUID="2a273d48-752b-45ec-bcd1-4e853dcbfbb9" CreationDate="2017-01-15T12:20:26.977" UserId="18033" Text="It depends. There are many patents on electrical motors. If you infringe one of them, that could cost you money. Either in form of getting sued or by paying license fees.&#xA;However there might also be forms of electrical motors that are not protected.&#xA;&#xA;The problem is, there is not *the* patent for electrical motors, but there are many.&#xA;&#xA;Anyways, if you buy the motor instead of building it yourself, chances your supplier pays license fees for selling them are good. In that case you would probably not have to pay extra.&#xA;&#xA;The same applies for multiple components. Worst case would be having to pay for all of them, best case they are not protected or you pay already by buying them.&#xA;&#xA;You have two ways there, you start researching a lot (or let a professional do this) or you say 'I'm lucky' and hope that nobody notices or cares. That is dangerous, but tbh many people choose to do it this way as it's cheaper and normally you won't get sued directly but rather asked to pay fees first if somebody does care. This is not supposed to be any advice, just a listing of your possibilities. Advice on this can't be given without extensive information and research." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17047" RevisionGUID="3a94ab14-ae70-4dc1-b612-954e36d9409b" CreationDate="2017-01-15T12:29:03.383" UserId="18033" Text="By providing a third party observation to the USPTO. This is basically sending on prior art and reasoning to why the patent application should not be granted to the examiner. They should carefully consider this, however you will not be part of the examination process, so for example they won't ask for clarification. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17048" RevisionGUID="d7883b1a-0100-454a-9b5b-adb64cae33b4" CreationDate="2017-01-15T18:25:07.557" UserId="17003" Text="If you are asking specifically about the motor, then if you buy a motor from a reputable manufacturer the the answer is almost assuredly you won't have to pay a license fee. The motor manufacturer does that if necessary. This says nothing about whether the product the motor is a part of can be sold without establishing its freedom to operate. Depending on how you use the motor and other design aspects of the product, you might infringe on other patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16978" RevisionGUID="a4284ef6-0307-4c19-aa0c-e84ee11e5228" CreationDate="2017-01-15T20:54:19.090" UserId="18272" Comment="Improved question" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2016186925A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2016186925A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CLAIMS  &#xD;&#xA;We claim:&#xD;&#xA;1. A method of performing upscaling, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;parsing an input video;&#xD;&#xA;breaking the input video into individual frames;&#xD;&#xA;performing upscaling on the individual frames to produce upscaled frames; and stitching the upscaled frames together to produce an upscaled video&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this mean the entire post production industry will have to pay royalties for standard workflow used for the past 25 years? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The obvious workflow claimed by the so called inventors has been in use for decades. If they are successful in sliding this extremely broad patent application through the review process will they legally be in a position to sue every post production company that continues to upscale video?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43860" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16978" RevisionGUID="a4284ef6-0307-4c19-aa0c-e84ee11e5228" CreationDate="2017-01-15T20:54:19.090" Comment="Proposed by 18272 approved by 18033, 17003 edit id of 2005" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43861" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14948" RevisionGUID="13c4a683-c7e1-49ab-993e-9fff71098d93" CreationDate="2017-01-15T22:18:26.943" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43862" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16587" RevisionGUID="38b8643a-02af-4de7-bc85-e481ec4c57f8" CreationDate="2017-01-15T23:18:52.987" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17048" RevisionGUID="4e814a02-b7b2-499a-9011-5575ca341953" CreationDate="2017-01-16T02:53:13.123" UserId="17003" Comment="Clarified the answer stating you can ask the manufacturer of motors if there are licensing issues." Text="If you are asking specifically about the motor, then if you buy a motor from a reputable manufacturer the the answer is almost assuredly you won't have to pay a license fee. The motor manufacturer does that if necessary. If you are concerned, you can ask the motor manufacturer if there are any licensing issues. This says nothing about whether the product the motor is a part of can be sold without establishing its freedom to operate. Depending on how you use the motor and other design aspects of the product, you might infringe on other patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43864" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13585" RevisionGUID="3c801c42-a1b8-4971-a07d-801d14a46f13" CreationDate="2017-01-16T04:20:56.820" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17049" RevisionGUID="75d175ea-05b0-4ffb-8b77-517bbec9433f" CreationDate="2017-01-16T07:02:05.550" UserId="18033" Text="This does not have to do with the exhaustion doctrine (it allows reselling) or the equivalents doctrine (if A is equivalent to B and A is patented, basically B gets protected too).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question as I get it is, do I infringe a patent if I sell a product directed at infringing patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is, yes, if that's it's only use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See for example here: https://www.law360.com/articles/429584/divided-infringement-of-system-claims-after-centillion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Centillion Data Systems LLC v. Qwest Communications International Inc., 631 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2010))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Court also found that &quot;[s]upplying the software for the customer to use is not the same as using the system.&quot;[6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Federal Circuit also noted that the only way the service provider could have been found to have &quot;used&quot; the system claims was if it was vicariously liable for the actions of its customers. The court explained, however, because it was entirely the decision of the customer to install and operate the software, the service provider could not be found vicariously liable for its customers’ actions.[7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second part states that if you can be found vicariously liable for your customers infringements -&gt; if you sell something knowing it can only/will be used to infringe a patent, you are infringing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If however the possibility of infringement is only a side effect (for example you sell glasses, somebody uses the lenses in an infringing microscope), you are not held responsible, but your customer is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43866" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="e6bbf1a2-ef15-49b0-a921-738865d14f38" CreationDate="2017-01-16T09:29:55.243" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17051" RevisionGUID="4abdac68-9338-4fba-9441-a10c8a346576" CreationDate="2017-01-16T10:28:22.623" UserId="18253" Text="I am working on project which aims at making a device which can calculate the amount of water flowing through the pipe (to calculate water usage by a user). The device will be connected to the main pipe line which goes to users house.&#xD;&#xA;The device should also be able to detect the leakages of water (even in droplets) and even scenarios like user forgot to close the Tap after use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43869" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17051" RevisionGUID="4abdac68-9338-4fba-9441-a10c8a346576" CreationDate="2017-01-16T10:28:22.623" UserId="18253" Text="Is there a patent for water flow sensing and leak detection in Pipes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43870" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17051" RevisionGUID="4abdac68-9338-4fba-9441-a10c8a346576" CreationDate="2017-01-16T10:28:22.623" UserId="18253" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;existing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17052" RevisionGUID="7d9a4abf-779f-4a2f-87ab-8ff395bb3004" CreationDate="2017-01-16T11:53:57.673" UserId="18033" Text="A thorough patent search is something even professionals need hrs for. The problem is that there might be many patents in that general direction. To do a complete search one needs the exact specifications of the invention (don't post them, that would destroy novelty and therefore patentability).&#xA;And even professionals will never promise that they found everything.&#xA;This question provides a good starting point: http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/21/18033&#xA;Try different search terms. The claims of a patent describes its literal protection scope, the description helps with understanding them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17053" RevisionGUID="60967369-a8e4-4d23-8e5d-e0599d26b3a3" CreationDate="2017-01-16T12:02:41.513" UserId="18313" Text="In reference to the patent: [US1594978][1] I'd like to know, if the such patent is still covered by the copyright laws and, then, if its replicability is still allowed for the development of similar products (i.e. a new pen for a different market).&#xD;&#xA;In addition, I also would like to know if a pen based on this patent can be be sumbitted for an original patent grant simply citing the one mentioned. If I remember good, the validity of patents ranges from 10 to 20 years.&#xD;&#xA;Any suggestion or clue is really welcomed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US1594978" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43873" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17053" RevisionGUID="60967369-a8e4-4d23-8e5d-e0599d26b3a3" CreationDate="2017-01-16T12:02:41.513" UserId="18313" Text="Patent legal validity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43874" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17053" RevisionGUID="60967369-a8e4-4d23-8e5d-e0599d26b3a3" CreationDate="2017-01-16T12:02:41.513" UserId="18313" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17054" RevisionGUID="7fe98f47-27dc-4514-bd91-6e3da54bb5cd" CreationDate="2017-01-16T12:14:55.137" UserId="18314" Text="A continuation is a subsequent application for the same invention claimed in a prior non-provisional application and filed before the original prior application becomes abandoned or patented. The applicant in the continuation application must include at least one inventor named in the prior non-provisional application. The disclosure presented in the continuation must be the same as that of the original application. In other words, the continuation should not include anything, which would constitute new matter if inserted in the original application.&#xD;&#xA;At any time before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on his or her earlier non-provisional application, an applicant may have recourse to filing a continuation in order to introduce into the application a new set of claims and to establish a right to further examination by the examiner. In addition, a continuation or divisional application may only be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) if the prior non-provisional application is a design application.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17055" RevisionGUID="3a24ab5f-102f-4174-b8cc-97d425f98054" CreationDate="2017-01-16T14:56:41.953" UserId="17003" Text="I find your question a bit confusing. Patents and copyrights are different types of intellectual property. Asking if a patent is still covered by copyright makes no sense. The cited patent patent probably expired in 1943. You can safely make and sell the exact pencil described in it. Not only in a different market, but even the same market. What you can't do is submit a new patent based on it. Once the technology described in a patent expires, it becomes available to everyone and anyone. You can't own it. You should however make yourself aware of other relevant patents when designing your own product to make sure there aren't other patents still in effect that must be avoided." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43877" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16149" RevisionGUID="49583720-b6ff-47ac-8402-98360fa58cf0" CreationDate="2017-01-16T18:34:02.083" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43878" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16131" RevisionGUID="175fad3a-3700-4227-9a86-f7d88d05b5b0" CreationDate="2017-01-16T21:37:41.167" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43879" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13006" RevisionGUID="7e514628-a11f-4fb3-93fa-cca68ba447a7" CreationDate="2017-01-16T23:37:41.357" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43880" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17055" RevisionGUID="c87a69bb-9f9e-46ad-998d-46894736942b" CreationDate="2017-01-16T23:49:16.247" UserId="17003" Comment="Added some clarification about patents and copyrights as suggested by DonQuiKong." Text="I find your question a bit confusing. Patents and copyrights are different types of intellectual property. Asking if a patent is still covered by copyright makes no sense. Patents protect inventions. In return for ,making public how the invention works, you get a limited period of exclusive use (typically 20 years from the filing date). You need to apply for patents and they need to be approved by the government. Copyrights protect original works like books, recordings, art and films. You don't need to apply for copyrights although you can register them. I encourage you to review the articles in Wikipedia about [patents][1] and [copyrights][2] to learn more. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cited patent patent probably expired in 1943. You can safely make and sell the exact pencil described in it. Not only in a different market, but even the same market. What you can't do is submit a new patent based on it. Once the technology described in a patent expires, it becomes available to everyone and anyone. You can't own it. If you make an improvement to the device and that improvement is itself useful and novel, you may be able to patent the improvement. You should however make yourself aware of other relevant patents when designing your own product to make sure there aren't other patents still in effect that must be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17056" RevisionGUID="b200fef8-4d24-46c3-a15c-5e00bd8741b8" CreationDate="2017-01-17T00:08:45.590" UserId="17003" Text="This is a patent application and evidently not yet a patent. I searched on [Espacenet][1] and didn't see any links to approved patents. It was filed in February of 1997 which is a remarkably long time to remain an application. Perhaps the more expert patents searchers on this site can confirm the lack of an issued patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?II=0&amp;ND=3&amp;adjacent=true&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;FT=D&amp;date=19980903&amp;CC=WO&amp;NR=9838266A1&amp;KC=A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17055" RevisionGUID="8ac61369-9fc3-4c03-af7d-884792ba11ed" CreationDate="2017-01-17T01:39:15.463" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I find your question a bit confusing. Patents and copyrights are different types of intellectual property. Asking if a patent is still covered by copyright makes no sense. Patents protect inventions. In return for making public how the invention works, you get a limited period of exclusive use (typically 20 years from the filing date). You need to apply for patents and they need to be approved by the government. Copyrights protect original works like books, recordings, art and films. You don't need to apply for copyrights although you can register them. I encourage you to review the articles in Wikipedia about [patents][1] and [copyrights][2] to learn more. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cited patent patent probably expired in 1943. You can safely make and sell the exact pencil described in it. Not only in a different market, but even the same market. What you can't do is submit a new patent based on it. Once the technology described in a patent expires, it becomes available to everyone and anyone. You can't own it. If you make an improvement to the device and that improvement is itself useful and novel, you may be able to patent the improvement. You should however make yourself aware of other relevant patents when designing your own product to make sure there aren't other patents still in effect that must be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17057" RevisionGUID="1d906f63-62f9-41ab-9ed7-4677f2fd4dde" CreationDate="2017-01-17T02:50:56.100" UserId="18297" Text="I have a patent application filed for Provisional somewhere last year, say, on March 01 2016. Inventor's prior invention application had an element A which when placed on one area of element B resulted in result C. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This year, before end of 12 months, the inventor wants to file a Non-Provisional. However, this time his invention has multiple element A but placed on more than one area of element B using same mechanism but now resulting in results C,D,E.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Provisional never had a claim part but yes we were specific about one element A. Now I would like to extend it to elements A,B,C placed on multiple area of element B to result in C,D and E.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Will new elements B,C be a dependent claim based on previous provisional application?&#xD;&#xA;2. If patent granted, when will life period of invention A start and when will life of invention B,C start?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, generally, when does life of utility patent (20 years) start? Is it from 1st filing date (Provisional/PCT/equivalent foreign application in last 12 months) or 1st effective filing date(application with claims) or from the date of USPTO publishing the invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please assist me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43884" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17057" RevisionGUID="1d906f63-62f9-41ab-9ed7-4677f2fd4dde" CreationDate="2017-01-17T02:50:56.100" UserId="18297" Text="understanding timeline of new elements to be filed in NP" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43885" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17057" RevisionGUID="1d906f63-62f9-41ab-9ed7-4677f2fd4dde" CreationDate="2017-01-17T02:50:56.100" UserId="18297" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17058" RevisionGUID="269d0f02-34ac-4058-8643-6284d0f99b3b" CreationDate="2017-01-17T03:48:13.303" UserId="15503" Text="**Will new elements B, C be a dependent claim based on previous provisional application?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question appears to mix a few different concepts, all of which use the word &quot;claim&quot; but in different contexts. In particular, &quot;dependent claim&quot; (which relates to claim structure) doesn't really mix well with &quot;based on a previous provisional application&quot; (which relates to priority).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Convention application in one country claims priority to an earlier-filed application (which may be a provisional application) in a different country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A US non-provisional application claims the benefit of an earlier-filed US provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An application or patent has claims which define the scope of the protection sought. Some of these claims can be dependent claims (which means it incorporates all the features of another claim). Each claim has its own effective filing date, which is the earliest date it is fully disclosed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So splitting your question into its two parts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Will new elements B, C be a dependent claim?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is up to you, depending on what your independent claims are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Will new elements B, C have an effective filing date based on the previous provisional application?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Elements B and C were not disclosed in your provisional application. A claim that included these elements would therefore likely not be entitled to the effective filing date of the provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, these claims would have the effective filing date of your non-provisional (or Convention) application, which is when elements B and C were first described.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If a patent is granted, when will the term of invention A start and when will the term of invention B, C start?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This also mixes two different concepts: an invention does not have a patent term: a patent has a patent term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming all renewal fees are paid, a patent has a term of 20 years from when it was filed as an application. This does not change even if there is a claim to priority or the benefit of another earlier-filed application. That is, the term does not start from the filing date of the provisional or any other priority filing. Nor does it start from publication." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17057" RevisionGUID="9f98b4d6-3161-4a11-91d3-59c562c08b49" CreationDate="2017-01-17T03:49:52.173" UserId="15503" Comment="Minor grammar corrections" Text="I have a patent application filed for a provisional somewhere last year, say, on March 01 2016. This provisional application had an element A which when placed on one area of element B resulted in result C. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This year, before the end of 12 months, the inventor wants to file a non-provisional. However, this time his invention has multiple element A but placed on more than one area of element B using same mechanism but now resulting in results C, D, E.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The provisional never had a claim part but we were specific about one element A. Now I would like to extend it to elements A, B, C placed on multiple area of element B to result in C, D and E.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Will new elements B,C be a dependent claim based on previous provisional application?&#xD;&#xA;2. If patent granted, when will life period of invention A start and when will life of invention B,C start?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, generally, when does the life of a utility patent (20 years) start? Is it from the 1st filing date (Provisional/PCT/equivalent foreign application in last 12 months) or fromthe 1st effective filing date (application with claims) or from the date of USPTO publishing the invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17058" RevisionGUID="2f93c903-3c2f-4a9b-a8e3-3300f1fc64c9" CreationDate="2017-01-17T04:05:40.073" UserId="15503" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text="**Will new elements B, C be a dependent claim based on previous provisional application?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question appears to mix a few different concepts, all of which use the word &quot;claim&quot; but in different contexts. In particular, &quot;dependent claim&quot; (which relates to claim structure) doesn't really mix well with &quot;based on a previous provisional application&quot; (which relates to priority).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Convention application in one country claims priority to an earlier-filed application (which may be a provisional application) in a different country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A US non-provisional application claims the benefit of an earlier-filed US provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An application or patent has claims which define the scope of the protection sought. Some of these claims can be dependent claims (which means it incorporates all the features of another claim). Each claim has its own effective filing date, which is the earliest date it is fully disclosed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So splitting your question into its two parts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Will new elements B, C be a dependent claim?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is up to you, depending on what your independent claims are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Will new elements B, C have an effective filing date based on the previous provisional application?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Elements B and C were not disclosed in your provisional application. A claim that included these elements would therefore likely not be entitled to the effective filing date of the provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, these claims would have the effective filing date of your non-provisional (or Convention) application, which is when elements B and C were first described.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If a patent is granted, when will the term of invention A start and when will the term of invention B, C start?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This also mixes two different concepts: an invention does not have a patent term: a patent has a patent term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming all renewal fees are paid, a patent (which originates from a non-provisional or a Convention application) has a term of 20 years from when that non-provisional or Convention application was filed. This does not change even if there is a claim to priority or the benefit of another earlier-filed application. That is, the term does not start from the filing date of the provisional or any other priority filing. Nor does it start from publication." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17059" RevisionGUID="008e404e-dd32-4eeb-a46f-a1557a71aee0" CreationDate="2017-01-17T04:39:15.343" UserId="15503" Text="Let us consider a sample patent family lifecycle, beginning in 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1 Jan 2009: Provisional application PROV1 is filed.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A provisional doesn't really have a term, since it never becomes a patent. However, after 12 months it is no longer useful for claiming priority/benefit. We can therefore say it expires after 12 months (on 1 Jan 2010).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PROV1 therefore (sort of) expires on 1 Jan 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1 Jan 2010: Non-provisional application US1 is filed claim the benefit of PROV1.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A US non-provisional application has a term of 20 years ([35 USC § 154(a)(2)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154)). It is irrelevant that claims the benefit of PROV1 (35 USC § 154(a)(3)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US1 therefore expires on 1 Jan 2030 (20 years from filing of US1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1 Jan 2010: PCT application WO1 is filed claiming priority to PROV1.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A PCT application doesn't really have a term, since it never becomes a patent. However, after 31 months from its earliest priority claim (excluding that some countries allow late entry into national phase), it is no longer useful for filing applications in specific countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;WO1 therefore (sort of) expires on 1 Jul 2012 (31 months from filing of PROV1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1 Jul 2011: US national phase application WO1-US is filed from WO1.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A national phase application has a term of 20 years from the date on which the corresponding PCT application was filed ([35 USC § 154(a)(2)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154) — reference to applications under section 365(c)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;WO1-US therefore expires on 1 Jan 2030 (20 years from filing of WO1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1 Jan 2012: Continuation US1-CON is filed from US1.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A continuation (or continuation-in-part or divisional) has a term of 20 years from the date of the earliest application to which it claims benefit ([35 USC § 154(a)(2)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154) — reference to applications under section 120 and 121).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US1-CON therefore expires on 1 Jan 2030 (20 years from filing of US1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1 Jan 2013: Continuation WO1-US-CON is filed from WO1-US.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;WO1-US-CON therefore expires on 1 Jan 2030 (20 years from the effective filing date of WO1-US, which is the filing date of WO1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What about abandonment?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each application proceeds separately. That is, if you abandon one, it doesn't affect the term of the others. The only catch is that a continuation must be filed while the preceding application is pending." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43894" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16452" RevisionGUID="558b9b24-e886-4b04-80e9-4d5acb385242" CreationDate="2017-01-17T04:40:14.043" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17060" RevisionGUID="5e3e34e3-a801-40fd-a86e-15e7a8fb720d" CreationDate="2017-01-17T05:47:06.610" UserId="18297" Text="In a scenario where:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a. NP (of invention &quot;1001&quot;) is first filed in a foreign country (non-US Country, on 1 Jan 2017) and then a PCT is filed(on 31 Dec 2017), when will patent life begin for invention &quot;1001&quot; in The US?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b. If NP was filed in The USA itself (of invention &quot;1001&quot;, on 1 Jan 2017) and then the application is filed for PCT (on 31-Dec-2017), when does patent life for invention &quot;1001&quot; begin in this case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, my understanding of royalty and patent life is that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;20 years life of an invention begins from the date of it's non-provisional application, but it's royality period begins from its first filing date of PPA, equivalent foreign PPA, given that the PPA/equivalent PPA later gets granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please assist me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43896" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17060" RevisionGUID="5e3e34e3-a801-40fd-a86e-15e7a8fb720d" CreationDate="2017-01-17T05:47:06.610" UserId="18297" Text="patent life of a PCT application and royality thereof" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43897" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17060" RevisionGUID="5e3e34e3-a801-40fd-a86e-15e7a8fb720d" CreationDate="2017-01-17T05:47:06.610" UserId="18297" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;royalty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17049" RevisionGUID="112ff1ce-83ca-48b7-b83f-28e4948eaf83" CreationDate="2017-01-17T07:05:46.910" UserId="18033" Comment="added 1529 characters in body" Text="This does not have to do with the exhaustion doctrine (it allows reselling) or the equivalents doctrine (if A is equivalent to B and A is patented, basically B gets protected too).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question as I get it is, do I infringe a patent if I sell a product directed at infringing patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is, yes, if that's it's only use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See for example here: https://www.law360.com/articles/429584/divided-infringement-of-system-claims-after-centillion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Centillion Data Systems LLC v. Qwest Communications International Inc., 631 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2010))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Court also found that &quot;[s]upplying the software for the customer to use is not the same as using the system.&quot;[6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Federal Circuit also noted that the only way the service provider could have been found to have &quot;used&quot; the system claims was if it was vicariously liable for the actions of its customers. The court explained, however, because it was entirely the decision of the customer to install and operate the software, the service provider could not be found vicariously liable for its customers’ actions.[7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second part states that if you can be found vicariously liable for your customers infringements -&gt; if you sell something knowing it can only/will be used to infringe a patent, you are infringing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If however the possibility of infringement is only a side effect (for example you sell glasses, somebody uses the lenses in an infringing microscope), you are not held responsible, but your customer is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I referenced the article only to cite the part I did as the court stated there that supplying something that *can* be used to infringe a patent is no infringment. (I didn't register there and could read the article, but its not working anymore, don't know what happened there).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, qwest products were found not to be infringing because of that, but the court says (and that is concludent with what I remembered when reading your question), that IF somebody directs a prdocut *only* or *primarily* at infringing or *should know* that it *will* be used for infringement, they may be held responsible too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll have another try at exactly understanding what you are asking and elaborating further in that direction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a company A sells a product, let's say a sensor. And company B patented a system using sensors connected over special cables made out of *handwavium* and a unit registering all data. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Customer C buys the system from with some sensors and the unit from B and adds a Sensor from A. Then C can be found to infringe B's patent by using a non licensed sensor and therefore a not completly licensed system. &#xD;&#xA;In reality B might be selling the system to be used with other sensors, basically giving away a license to use their base stations in arbitrary systems, but they don't have to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A however is only liable if for examplethey sell a sensor that can be accessed only this way, accessed only, so they knew that C would have to infringe B's patent in order to use A's sensor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17061" RevisionGUID="1c1cb995-6c80-40ff-9db9-7e1a9e5fec8c" CreationDate="2017-01-17T07:07:25.783" UserId="17325" Text="a. The US filling date is the PCT filling date. You can find this stated clearly in this useful web page http://www.bpmlegal.com/howtoterm.html (1st asterisk). 20 year life time starts from the filling date, so the clock starts ticking at 31.12.2017.&#xD;&#xA;b. If you are prosecuting the 01.01.2017 US application, then the clock starts ticking at that moment. The PCT follows its own route thereafter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another scenario, you can file a US PROVISIONAL at 01.01.2017, you use this as priority claim to file PCT at 31.12.2017 and you use the PCT filling to file a normal US applicaiton, again you get the PCT filling date as US filling date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not familiar with royalties, but I am sure someone will fill the gap here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17060" RevisionGUID="b6c3ef8a-a830-483c-93d5-4e8522779766" CreationDate="2017-01-17T07:35:31.297" UserId="18297" Comment="added 681 characters in body" Text="In a scenario where:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a. NP (of invention &quot;1001&quot;) is first filed in a foreign country (non-US Country, on 1 Jan 2017) and then a PCT is filed(on 31 Dec 2017), when will patent life begin for invention &quot;1001&quot; in The US?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b. If NP was filed in The USA itself (of invention &quot;1001&quot;, on 1 Jan 2017) and then the application is filed for PCT (on 31-Dec-2017), when does patent life for invention &quot;1001&quot; begin in this case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per my understanding,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the normal flow till national phase is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Provisional/NonProv -12months-&gt;PCT-6months-&gt;WO Publication-&gt;12 months -&gt; national phase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and, normal NP flow is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NP -&gt; 18 months -&gt; Publication(open for objection)-&gt; 18 months -&gt;Patent granted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My scenario then becomes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a. If my NP was 1st filed in a foreign Country(Non-US), what would be 1st filing date considered for patent life - NP filed in foreign Country or NP filed in the US&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b. If my NP was 1st filed in US , then PCT was applied, - will it re-enter a national phase and from that moment wait for 18 months for US publication of my invention? And when will patent lifecycle begin in this case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, my understanding of royalty and patent life is that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;20 years life of an invention begins from the date of it's non-provisional application, but it's royality period begins from its first filing date of PPA, equivalent foreign PPA, given that the PPA/equivalent PPA later gets granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please assist me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17061" RevisionGUID="8bb23725-b774-47dd-9164-1dc53f7ab711" CreationDate="2017-01-17T09:09:01.600" UserId="17325" Comment="Further analyzing scenario b" Text="a. The US filing date is the PCT filing date. You can find this stated clearly in this useful web page http://www.bpmlegal.com/howtoterm.html (1st asterisk). 20 year life time starts from the filing date, so the clock starts ticking at 31.12.2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b. You have not specified if you are using the US filing as a priority or as normal US filing. You have two options: You can use the US filing of 01.01.2017 to start a normal US prosecution and at the SAME TIME use it as priority to file a PCT (at 31.12.2017). This is of course not very smart, because the US patent will expire on 01.01.2037 while the PCT-stemming national patents will have a filing date of 31.12.2017, hence they will expire 31.12.2037. Can you see the 20+1 game here? OR you can use the US filing as a priority document and file a PCT application on 31.12.2017. And then use the PCT application for US entry. Is it more clear now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The publication date is only making it more complex, leave it outside for the purpose of understanding how filing and expiration dates work. But if you want to clarify this further, I'll be happy to try and help you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not familiar with royalties, but I am sure someone will fill the gap here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17059" RevisionGUID="bcdef6fa-89fa-4b75-929a-643f52c6b41d" CreationDate="2017-01-17T09:29:30.367" UserId="15503" Comment="added 418 characters in body" Text="Let us consider a sample patent family lifecycle, beginning in 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1 Jan 2009: Provisional application PROV1 is filed.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A provisional doesn't really have a term, since it never becomes a patent. However, after 12 months it is no longer useful for claiming priority/benefit. We can therefore say it expires after 12 months (on 1 Jan 2010).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PROV1 therefore (sort of) expires on 1 Jan 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1 Jan 2010: Non-provisional application US1 is filed claiming the benefit of PROV1.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A US non-provisional application has a term of 20 years ([35 USC § 154(a)(2)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154)) from its own filing date. It is irrelevant whether it claims the benefit of PROV1 (35 USC § 154(a)(3)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US1 therefore expires on 1 Jan 2030 (20 years from filing of US1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1 Jan 2010: PCT application WO1 is filed claiming priority to PROV1.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A PCT application doesn't really have a term, since it never becomes a patent. However, after 31 months from its earliest priority claim (excluding that some countries allow late entry into national phase), it is no longer useful for filing applications in specific countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;WO1 therefore (sort of) expires on 1 Jul 2012 (31 months from filing of PROV1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1 Jul 2011: US national phase application WO1-US is filed from WO1.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A national phase application has a term of 20 years from the date on which the corresponding PCT application was filed ([35 USC § 154(a)(2)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154) — reference to applications under section 365(c)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;WO1-US therefore expires on 1 Jan 2030 (20 years from filing of WO1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This demonstrates that a US non-provisional application claiming the benefit of a provisional application has the same expiry date as a US national phase entry from a PCT application claiming priority to that provisional. In other words, whether the US non-provisional is filed 12 months after the provisional or 30 months after the provisional (via a PCT) is irrelevant for term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1 Jan 2012: Continuation US1-CON is filed from US1.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A continuation (or continuation-in-part or divisional) has a term of 20 years from the date of the earliest application to which it claims benefit ([35 USC § 154(a)(2)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154) — reference to applications under section 120 and 121).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US1-CON therefore expires on 1 Jan 2030 (20 years from filing of US1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1 Jan 2013: Continuation WO1-US-CON is filed from WO1-US.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;WO1-US-CON therefore expires on 1 Jan 2030 (20 years from the effective filing date of WO1-US, which is the filing date of WO1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What about abandonment?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each application proceeds separately. That is, if you abandon one, it doesn't affect the term of the others. The only catch is that a continuation must be filed while the preceding application is pending." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17062" RevisionGUID="4f37f73b-7bfd-4cbd-8807-11e0c42ef917" CreationDate="2017-01-17T10:00:04.797" UserId="15503" Text="I agree with chempatent1981's answer on the expiry. I shall therefore focus on the when damages might be due.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have used the term &quot;royalty period&quot;. However, as far as I know, that is not really a widely used term. Perhaps a more common description would be the period during which actionable infringement may occur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three periods in which &quot;infringing acts&quot; may occur (whether or not they are actionable), which in reverse chronological order are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. After issuance but before expiry.&#xD;&#xA;2. After filing and publication but before issuance and expiry.&#xD;&#xA;3. After filing but before publication, issuance and expiry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I shall touch on each in turn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1. Infringement after issuance**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US, the starting point is that anybody who makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells a **patented** invention infringes the patent (and thus may be liable for damages) ([35 USC § 271(a)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271)). A patented invention is an invention claimed in a patent (which is, by definition, issued).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, any acts between issuance of a patent until it expires may give rise to damages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2. After filing and publication, but before issuance**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;35 USC § 271(a) requires a **patented** invention. Before issuance, there is no patented invention. Any &quot;infringing acts&quot; are therefore not infringement, and therefore do not give rise to damages under 35 USC § 271.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, [35 USC § 154(d)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154) provides for provisional rights. To be clear, provisional rights have nothing to do with a provisional application (and in fact can only ever apply to a non-provisional application, since provisional application are not published).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Provisional rights arise from the date of publication (of either a US non-provisional application or an English version of a PCT application designating the US) until a patent is issued (35 USC § 154(d)(1)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two key prerequisites for provisional rights:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the infringer had actual notice of the publication (35 USC § 154(d)(1)(B)); and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the invention claimed in the patent is substantially identical to the patent claimed in the published patent application (35 USC § 154(d)(2)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this occurs, an infringer will be liable for &quot;a reasonable royalty&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3. After filing but before publication and issuance**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are no rights in this period. 35 USC § 271(a) does not apply because there is no patented invention. 35 USC 154(d) does not apply because there is no publication." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17059" RevisionGUID="a18e891a-dfb7-46b8-b413-85439c5c1429" CreationDate="2017-01-17T10:01:42.570" UserId="15503" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="Let us consider a sample patent family lifecycle, beginning in 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1 Jan 2009: Provisional application PROV1 is filed.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A provisional doesn't really have a term, since it never becomes a patent. However, after 12 months it is no longer useful for claiming priority/benefit. We can therefore say it expires after 12 months (on 1 Jan 2010).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PROV1 therefore (sort of) expires on 1 Jan 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1 Jan 2010: Non-provisional application US1 is filed claiming the benefit of PROV1.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A US non-provisional application has a term of 20 years ([35 USC § 154(a)(2)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154)) from its own filing date. It is irrelevant whether it claims the benefit of PROV1 (35 USC § 154(a)(3)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US1 therefore expires on 1 Jan 2030 (20 years from filing of US1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1 Jan 2010: PCT application WO1 is filed claiming priority to PROV1.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A PCT application doesn't really have a term, since it never becomes a patent. However, after 31 months from its earliest priority claim (excluding that some countries allow late entry into national phase), it is no longer useful for filing applications in specific countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;WO1 therefore (sort of) expires on 1 Jul 2012 (31 months from filing of PROV1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1 Jul 2011: US national phase application WO1-US is filed from WO1.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A national phase application has a term of 20 years from the date on which the corresponding PCT application was filed ([35 USC § 154(a)(2)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154) — reference to applications under section 365(c)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;WO1-US therefore expires on 1 Jan 2030 (20 years from filing of WO1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This demonstrates that a US non-provisional application (such as US1) claiming the benefit of a provisional application has the same expiry date as a US national phase entry (such as WO1-US) from a PCT application claiming priority to that provisional. In other words, whether the US non-provisional is filed 12 months after the provisional or 30 months after the provisional (via a PCT) is irrelevant for term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1 Jan 2012: Continuation US1-CON is filed from US1.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A continuation (or continuation-in-part or divisional) has a term of 20 years from the date of the earliest application to which it claims benefit ([35 USC § 154(a)(2)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154) — reference to applications under section 120 and 121).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US1-CON therefore expires on 1 Jan 2030 (20 years from filing of US1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1 Jan 2013: Continuation WO1-US-CON is filed from WO1-US.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;WO1-US-CON therefore expires on 1 Jan 2030 (20 years from the effective filing date of WO1-US, which is the filing date of WO1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What about abandonment?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each application proceeds separately. That is, if you abandon one, it doesn't affect the term of the others. The only catch is that a continuation must be filed while the preceding application is pending." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43905" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13006" RevisionGUID="f494a01a-e549-44c5-a5f4-47e1f7f6a90f" CreationDate="2017-01-17T10:21:32.093" UserId="15503" Comment="improved tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;business-methods&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17049" RevisionGUID="575eaced-8b64-4e13-8814-dc15281cbfb2" CreationDate="2017-01-17T10:46:16.780" UserId="18033" Comment="added 2 characters in body; deleted 7 characters in body" Text="This does not have to do with the exhaustion doctrine (it allows reselling) or the equivalents doctrine (if A is equivalent to B and A is patented, basically B gets protected too).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question as I get it is, do I infringe a patent if I sell a product directed at infringing patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is, yes, if that's it's only use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See for example here: https://www.law360.com/articles/429584/divided-infringement-of-system-claims-after-centillion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Centillion Data Systems LLC v. Qwest Communications International Inc., 631 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2010))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Court also found that &quot;[s]upplying the software for the customer to use is not the same as using the system.&quot;[6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Federal Circuit also noted that the only way the service provider could have been found to have &quot;used&quot; the system claims was if it was vicariously liable for the actions of its customers. The court explained, however, because it was entirely the decision of the customer to install and operate the software, the service provider could not be found vicariously liable for its customers’ actions.[7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second part states that if you can be found vicariously liable for your customers infringements -&gt; if you sell something knowing it can only/will be used to infringe a patent, you are infringing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If however the possibility of infringement is only a side effect (for example you sell glasses, somebody uses the lenses in an infringing microscope), you are not held responsible, but your customer is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I referenced the article only to cite the part I did as the court stated there that supplying something that *can* be used to infringe a patent is no infringment. (I didn't register there and could read the article, but its not working anymore, don't know what happened there).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, qwest products were found not to be infringing because of that, but the court says (and that is concludent with what I remembered when reading your question), that IF somebody directs a prdocut *only* or *primarily* at infringing or *should know* that it *will* be used for infringement, they may be held responsible too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll have another try at exactly understanding what you are asking and elaborating further in that direction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a company A sells a product, let's say a sensor. And company B patented a system using sensors connected over special cables made out of *handwavium* and a unit registering all data. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Customer C buys the system with some sensors and the unit from B and adds a Sensor from A. Then C can be found to infringe B's patent by using a non licensed sensor and therefore a not completly licensed system. &#xD;&#xA;In reality B might be selling the system to be used with other sensors, basically giving away a license to use their base stations in arbitrary systems, but they don't have to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A however is only liable if for examplethey sell a sensor that can be accessed only this way, accessed only, so they knew that C would have to infringe B's patent in order to use A's sensor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17059" RevisionGUID="959ceaa0-407a-406a-a2c2-a076c02378da" CreationDate="2017-01-17T10:50:14.840" UserId="15503" Comment="added 1696 characters in body" Text="Let us consider a sample patent family lifecycle, beginning in 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1 Jan 2009: Provisional application PROV1 is filed.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A provisional doesn't really have a term, since it never becomes a patent. However, after 12 months it is no longer useful for claiming priority/benefit. We can therefore say it expires after 12 months (on 1 Jan 2010).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PROV1 therefore (sort of) expires on 1 Jan 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1 Jan 2010: Non-provisional application US1 is filed claiming the benefit of PROV1.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A US non-provisional application has a term of 20 years ([35 USC § 154(a)(2)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154)) from its own filing date. It is irrelevant whether it claims the benefit of PROV1 (35 USC § 154(a)(3)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US1 therefore expires on 1 Jan 2030 (20 years from filing of US1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1 Jan 2010: PCT application WO1 is filed claiming priority to PROV1.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A PCT application doesn't really have a term, since it never becomes a patent. However, after 31 months from its earliest priority claim (excluding that some countries allow late entry into national phase), it is no longer useful for filing applications in specific countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;WO1 therefore (sort of) expires on 1 Jul 2012 (31 months from filing of PROV1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1 Jul 2011: US national phase application WO1-US is filed from WO1.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A national phase application has a term of 20 years from the date on which the corresponding PCT application was filed ([35 USC § 154(a)(2)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154) — reference to applications under section 365(c)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;WO1-US therefore expires on 1 Jan 2030 (20 years from filing of WO1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This demonstrates that a US non-provisional application (such as US1) claiming the benefit of a provisional application has the same expiry date as a US national phase entry (such as WO1-US) from a PCT application claiming priority to that provisional. In other words, whether the US non-provisional is filed 12 months after the provisional or 30 months after the provisional (via a PCT) is irrelevant for term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1 Jan 2012: Continuation US1-CON is filed from US1.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A continuation (or continuation-in-part or divisional) has a term of 20 years from the date of the earliest application to which it claims benefit ([35 USC § 154(a)(2)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154) — reference to applications under section 120 and 121).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US1-CON therefore expires on 1 Jan 2030 (20 years from filing of US1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1 Jan 2013: Continuation WO1-US-CON is filed from WO1-US.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;WO1-US-CON therefore expires on 1 Jan 2030 (20 years from the effective filing date of WO1-US, which is the filing date of WO1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What about abandonment?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each application proceeds separately. That is, if you abandon one, it doesn't affect the term of the others. The only catch is that a continuation must be filed while the preceding application is pending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Patent term adjustment**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the above scenarios have proceeded on the basis of a 20 year term. However, in some cases, the patent term may be extended beyond this 20 year term if prosecution takes inordinately long ([35 USC § 154(b)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154)), potentially up to a few years. While the calculations for patent term adjustment are beyond the scope of his question, this adjustment is, in any case, noted on the front page of the patent publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Terminal disclaimers**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conversely, the maximum patent term may be shorter than 20 years if the applicant files a terminal disclaimer ([35 USC § 253](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/253)). This is typically done to avoid (judicially-created) double patenting based on an earlier-dated patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be explained vaguely through an example. An inventor owns a patent P1 for a particular invention. They then file a patent application P2 for a similar subject matter, such that there is some overlap between P1 and P2. Since P2 is filed later, P2 would effectively extend the patent term for that invention beyond 20 years. This double patenting is not allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to avoid this, the application may file a terminal disclaimer. This gives up the additional term on P2 (such that P1 and P2 have the same term), thereby avoiding the double patenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So how do I calculate the dates?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO provides a [patent term calculator](https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/patent-term-calculator) which prompts for the necessary data and calculates the expiry date. It is accurate even for pre-1995 patents (for which the rules were somewhat different)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16452" RevisionGUID="de13a11e-52e0-4980-90e6-605cffc067d0" CreationDate="2017-01-17T12:35:47.553" UserId="15503" Comment="Remove commentary and add punctuation" Text="I am considering filing both a provisional patent application and a design patent application. The design patent application would be a backup if the reviewer would abandon the provisional, so that at least the look of my invention would be protected. This would be beneficial since there are a bunch of similar patents around which are not exactly my design, which is better in functionality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a wise strategy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17063" RevisionGUID="6b0bf024-d573-4a88-912b-a2d7a7079b14" CreationDate="2017-01-17T13:08:04.230" UserId="15503" Text="After quite some searching on this rather interesting question, frustratingly I could not find a particular reference for this in US law specifically, nor anything specifically regarding China. However, although it's not a very satisfactory, I could find some basis for this contention through the Paris Convention (which is implemented in US law).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The principle behind claiming priority is set out at article 4(A)(1), which provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Any person who has duly filed an application for a patent, or for the registration of a utility model, or of an industrial design, or of a trademark, in one of the countries of the Union, or his successor in title, shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing in the other countries, a right of priority during the periods hereinafter fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is silent as to whether priority may be claimed between the different types of IP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Article 4(E) addresses this, at least in part:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1) Where an industrial design is filed in a country by virtue of a right of priority based on the filing of a utility model, the period of priority shall be the same as that fixed for industrial designs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2) Furthermore, it is permissible to file a utility model in a country by virtue of a right of priority based on the filing of a patent application, and vice versa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, art 4(E) makes clear that [utility model]→[design], [utility model]→[patent], and [patent]→[utility model] are permissible. One could reason, therefore, that all other categories (such as [patent]→[design]) are implicitly excluded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is some logic to this. A patent application, in principle, should not really contain information about the aesthetic features of a product: a patent is concerned only with the functionality. Why then should a patent application be able to serve as priority for a design application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However that is all speculation. Hopefully someone else can provide a better answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17030" RevisionGUID="ee99ca73-7303-4684-8809-280ed3a96a2f" CreationDate="2017-01-17T13:20:13.243" UserId="18033" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="Questions relating to design-patents and their applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43912" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17030" RevisionGUID="ee99ca73-7303-4684-8809-280ed3a96a2f" CreationDate="2017-01-17T13:20:13.243" Comment="Proposed by 18033 approved by 15503, 1 edit id of 2003" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17028" RevisionGUID="20a709b1-891d-4a8d-940f-f1f954c41e55" CreationDate="2017-01-17T13:20:25.843" UserId="18033" Comment="added 207 characters in body" Text="For questions concerning the status of a patent. Please check 'Public Pair' first and ask only if you cannot find the desired information there or do not understand it. Explain in depth what your problem is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43914" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17028" RevisionGUID="20a709b1-891d-4a8d-940f-f1f954c41e55" CreationDate="2017-01-17T13:20:25.843" Comment="Proposed by 18033 approved by 15503, 1 edit id of 2002" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17032" RevisionGUID="ecbafe5d-24d1-4d2d-9c68-bcb257b998bc" CreationDate="2017-01-17T13:20:41.550" UserId="18033" Comment="added 190 characters in body" Text="For questions relating specifically to the description part of a patent. General information: the description is not what the patent protects, only the claims define the scope of protection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43916" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17032" RevisionGUID="ecbafe5d-24d1-4d2d-9c68-bcb257b998bc" CreationDate="2017-01-17T13:20:41.550" Comment="Proposed by 18033 approved by 15503, 1 edit id of 2004" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17026" RevisionGUID="01182b06-4b58-47ac-9384-e46e93853abf" CreationDate="2017-01-17T13:29:26.557" UserId="18033" Comment="added 184 characters in body" Text="Use this tag if your question has to do with books that talk about patents. Patenting books is not possible (books receive copyright though). Copyright questions however are off topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43918" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17026" RevisionGUID="01182b06-4b58-47ac-9384-e46e93853abf" CreationDate="2017-01-17T13:29:26.557" Comment="Proposed by 18033 approved by 15503, 1 edit id of 2001" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43919" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14248" RevisionGUID="0c7fb407-3a04-46aa-a125-ac758fb2f6e2" CreationDate="2017-01-17T14:40:46.057" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17048" RevisionGUID="48d705ce-229b-4f19-ad09-20b6edfd1e84" CreationDate="2017-01-17T14:59:08.367" UserId="17003" Comment="added 179 characters in body" Text="If you are asking specifically about the motor, then if you buy a motor from a reputable manufacturer the the answer is almost assuredly you won't have to pay a license fee. The motor manufacturer pays them if necessary in order to be able to sell the motor. If you are concerned, you can ask the motor vendor if there are any licensing issues. Most companies I've worked for have purchasing departments who do establish with the vendor that licensing in the markets served is acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This says nothing about whether the product the motor is a part of can be sold without establishing its freedom to operate. Depending on how you use the motor and other design aspects of the product, you might infringe on other patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17064" RevisionGUID="8b23ce4d-ba54-494e-bad1-747fa4ed1d55" CreationDate="2017-01-17T16:26:25.160" UserId="18317" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8194324][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8194324&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that the Oculus Rift uses fresnel lenses, but I want to know who specifically holds a patent for fresnel lenses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43922" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17064" RevisionGUID="8b23ce4d-ba54-494e-bad1-747fa4ed1d55" CreationDate="2017-01-17T16:26:25.160" UserId="18317" Text="Who specifically has a patent on Fresnel Lenses" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43923" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17064" RevisionGUID="8b23ce4d-ba54-494e-bad1-747fa4ed1d55" CreationDate="2017-01-17T16:26:25.160" UserId="18317" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43924" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16307" RevisionGUID="ebb8c8f6-5ac0-4438-adba-5eb6bb183af7" CreationDate="2017-01-17T16:41:12.807" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43926" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="aa9cf0ef-7e48-4dce-9e27-f346232f88dd" CreationDate="2017-01-17T17:41:13.047" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17066" RevisionGUID="12711540-6a7c-4598-8684-4855c40ddb8d" CreationDate="2017-01-17T19:31:23.233" UserId="17003" Text="Fresnel lenses date back to the 1700's. I doubt anyone &quot;owns&quot; it at this point. This is not to say that people don't have patents on novel methods of constructing fresnel lenses or the use of a fresnel lens in another device. If you are interested in those, you can perform a patent search. Here is a [link][1] to an earlier answer where I describe my process of patent searching.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17010/any-other-patents-involving-baseball-caps-for-pigtails" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17067" RevisionGUID="5b2a2539-46f5-452a-a7ce-2842a499ecc1" CreationDate="2017-01-17T19:34:37.387" UserId="17003" Text="Another excellent site for searching for patents is [The Lens][1]. I've had success obtaining patent images and downloads there when they don't show up in patents.google.com. The Lens is my preferred site for patent search at this point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16897" RevisionGUID="ed215767-474a-4380-a7d0-e5db505b7728" CreationDate="2017-01-17T19:37:49.497" UserId="17003" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="A great number of patents come about from the application of an existing technology in new and unexpected ways. I am not a lawyer, but I'm guessing so long as the application is completely different, you are free to use the devices design. For instance the inventors of the laser probably didn't envision its use in flow cytometry. You may not be able to just buy the patented device and apply it in some other way as there might be limitations imposed by the original manufacturer. There may be good reasons for those limitations as the original manufacturer may want to reduce exposure to law suits that could arise from the new application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17066" RevisionGUID="71090277-9a6f-4385-8735-1d8fe471f85a" CreationDate="2017-01-17T19:56:41.960" UserId="17003" Comment="briefly expanded on what might be patented with respect to fresnel lenses and added search results" Text="Fresnel lenses date back to the 1700's. I doubt anyone &quot;owns&quot; the basic idea at this point. This is not to say that people don't have patents on novel configurations or methods of constructing fresnel lenses or the use of a fresnel lens in another device. If you are interested in those, you can perform a patent search. Here is a [link][1] to an earlier answer where I describe my process of patent searching. A quick search on [The Lens][2] resulted in 24,157 granted patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17010/any-other-patents-involving-baseball-caps-for-pigtails&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/search?types=Granted%20Patent&amp;l=en&amp;st=true&amp;q=fresnel%20lens&amp;p=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43931" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17066" RevisionGUID="79da5902-5ef2-4ebd-bf36-81ce62aa6daa" CreationDate="2017-01-17T20:04:26.543" UserId="17003" Comment="Expanded on the search numbers." Text="Fresnel lenses date back to the 1700's. I doubt anyone &quot;owns&quot; the basic idea at this point. This is not to say that people don't have patents on novel configurations or methods of constructing fresnel lenses or the use of a fresnel lens in another device. If you are interested in those, you can perform a patent search. Here is a [link][1] to an earlier answer where I describe my process of patent searching. A quick search on [The Lens][2] resulted in 24,157 granted patents 1480 of which have been published in the last 20 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17010/any-other-patents-involving-baseball-caps-for-pigtails&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/search?types=Granted%20Patent&amp;l=en&amp;st=true&amp;q=fresnel%20lens&amp;p=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43932" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16594" RevisionGUID="3ec389ae-f284-42de-8049-705af815020d" CreationDate="2017-01-17T20:41:30.640" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17069" RevisionGUID="2074fefc-af1e-44ed-ba3e-b706f108655d" CreationDate="2017-01-17T23:09:27.007" UserId="14341" Text="Writing the applications on my own, five weeks until the one year on my US provisional runs out. Asking what must absolutely be included in the US non-provisional/regular patent and PCT applications.&#xD;&#xA;Do I need to include only the specification, which I understand to be only description and drawings, at first filings?&#xD;&#xA;Can I add the claims in amendments later, and what are the time limits on adding to first filings?&#xD;&#xA;If I sell publicly after filing only specifications, but before filing my claims amendments, will that affect what I can claim?&#xD;&#xA;Sorry if this is repetition, but I seem to be finding varying answers, I'm out of time and critically under-resourced." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43937" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17069" RevisionGUID="2074fefc-af1e-44ed-ba3e-b706f108655d" CreationDate="2017-01-17T23:09:27.007" UserId="14341" Text="What MUST be included in US non-provisional and PCT first filing, what can be added in amendments?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43938" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17069" RevisionGUID="2074fefc-af1e-44ed-ba3e-b706f108655d" CreationDate="2017-01-17T23:09:27.007" UserId="14341" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;amendment&gt;&lt;national-stage&gt;&lt;time&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17070" RevisionGUID="61c9d457-39d2-439f-b5d6-9060fbbb56fa" CreationDate="2017-01-18T01:04:52.373" UserId="15503" Text="I will just include the mandatory recommendation here to get a patent attorney. If your invention is worth protecting, it's worth protecting properly. Otherwise, you're just throwing money away at filing fees with little chance of getting something at the end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that out of the way...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US Non-Provisional&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What must a US non-provisional application include?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, you must have a description, a claim, and a drawing at minimum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More formally, the requirements of an application are provided by 35 USC 111(a)(2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(A) a specification as prescribed by section 112;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(B) a drawing as prescribed by section 113; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(C) an oath or declaration as prescribed by section 115.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specification comprises (35 USC 112(a)–(b)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can claims be added later?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[MPEP § 506(I)(C)](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s506.html) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Filing dates are accorded to nonprovisional applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) submitted without … at least one claim (for applications filed on or after December 13, 2013) …. In such cases, a notice is mailed by OPAP requiring the appropriate fees, claims (for applications filed on or after December 13, 2013) and for applications filed before September 16, 2012, the oath or declaration (which must include the names of all the inventors), accompanied by a surcharge (37 CFR 1.16(f)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will have to provide the claims shortly after though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If I sell publicly after filing only specifications, but before filing my claims amendments, will that affect what I can claim?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. If you sell the application such that the applicant is assigned to another party, then the obligation to add claims passes to whoever the new applicant is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PCT application&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What must a PCT application include?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PCT art 3(2) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;An international application shall contain, as specified in this Treaty and the Regulations, a request, a description, one or more claims, one or more drawings (where required), and an abstract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can claims be added later?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not really.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PCT art 11(1) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The receiving Office shall accord as the international filing date the date of receipt of the international application, provided that that Office has found that, at the time of receipt:&#xD;&#xA;…&#xD;&#xA;(iii)…(e)  a part which on the face of it appears to be a claim or claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The consequences are provided by PCT art 11(2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a)  If the receiving Office finds that the international application did not, at the time of receipt, fulfill the requirements listed in paragraph (1), it shall, as provided in the Regulations, invite the applicant to file the required correction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(b)  If the applicant complies with the invitation, as provided in the Regulations, the receiving Office shall accord as the international filing date **the date of receipt of the required correction**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus your PCT application will be dated as of whenever you supply claims. If this is later than 12 months from the earliest priority claim (your US provisional), you will be too late: your priority claim will be invalid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Commentary&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;Thus there is some scope for not including claims in the US non-provisional immediately. However, this is a really bad idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When drafting your application, you should almost certainly start with your claims, and craft your description around the claims. This ensures that the description provides the necessary support for your claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doing it in the other direction is risky. You would have to hope that the description contains the terminology and the features in a suitable manner that they can be used to form supported claims. While the US is somewhat forgiving on this, other jurisdictions (notably Europe) are much more restrictive. I have seen far too many applicants make this mistake, and get left with good inventions that will never get a patent due to poor drafting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43943" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17069" RevisionGUID="e6077629-713e-4f64-8ed6-bc94ff37bf65" CreationDate="2017-01-18T01:05:55.107" UserId="15503" Comment="Removed &quot;first filing&quot;" Text="Writing the applications on my own, five weeks until the one year on my US provisional runs out. Asking what must absolutely be included in the US non-provisional/regular patent and PCT applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I need to include only the specification, which I understand to be only description and drawings, when it is initially filed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I add the claims in amendments later, and what are the time limits on adding to the initial filing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I sell publicly after filing only specifications, but before filing my claims amendments, will that affect what I can claim?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry if this is repetition, but I seem to be finding varying answers, I'm out of time and critically under-resourced." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43944" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14348" RevisionGUID="d083fb46-674a-415d-aa9d-ad42b495b610" CreationDate="2017-01-18T04:42:55.860" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43948" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12543" RevisionGUID="67a95a96-a3d8-434b-b0cd-3fe369267ab5" CreationDate="2017-01-18T05:42:56.543" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17074" RevisionGUID="9536093b-c23e-473c-9c1a-022f1341edf0" CreationDate="2017-01-18T06:10:26.287" UserId="8601" Text="If your invention directly depends on a patented technology then whoever *uses* this patent will need to pay the license fees.  (A research prototype built for your own private use will most likely be exempt, but this will obviously depend on the license and in which jurisdiction you are, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there ever was a patent on &quot;the&quot; electrical motor, it will long since have expired.  If your invention depends on a particular currently patented feature of electrical motors, then you obviously need to provide enough information that somebody who tries to use your patent will be able to implement it properly, where &quot;properly&quot; includes legal and licensing obligations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an inventor and patent author, you are reasoning about possible uses for somebody else's invention, not directly using it.  If you can find a novel application for their invention and successfully file a new patent, your patent will help the original inventor as well; anybody who pays you license fees will be paying them, too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17061" RevisionGUID="46e1fec8-079b-4dc2-8fc8-4cc51457ddab" CreationDate="2017-01-18T07:15:01.903" UserId="17325" Comment="Further explanation of alternative in scenario b" Text="a. The US filing date is the PCT filing date. You can find this stated clearly in this useful web page http://www.bpmlegal.com/howtoterm.html (1st asterisk). 20 year life time starts from the filing date, so the clock starts ticking at 31.12.2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b. You have not specified if you are using the US filing as a priority or as normal US filing. You have two options: You can use the US filing of 01.01.2017 to start a normal US prosecution and at the SAME TIME use it as priority to file a PCT (at 31.12.2017). This is of course not very smart, because the US patent will expire on 01.01.2037 while the PCT-stemming national patents will have a filing date of 31.12.2017, hence they will expire 31.12.2037. Can you see the 20+1 game here? OR you can use the US filing (US provisional this time) as a priority document and file a PCT application on 31.12.2017. The provisional will be abandoned, after surving its purpose. You can use the PCT application for US entry and normal national patent. The only thing you gain this way is establishing an earlier date, even though, probably, your invention has not been fully developed. Is it more clear now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The publication date is only making it more complex, leave it outside for the purpose of understanding how filing and expiration dates work. But if you want to clarify this further, I'll be happy to try and help you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not familiar with royalties, but I am sure someone will fill the gap here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43964" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="10441" RevisionGUID="7d542691-c75c-42e7-a9c5-d642918d1b55" CreationDate="2017-01-18T14:10:31.700" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="43965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17076" RevisionGUID="45b21276-df53-4cef-80eb-ee8e01515bb0" CreationDate="2017-01-18T15:22:12.587" UserId="18318" Text="I'm not able to download patents directly from google page on the new version of google patent (I might be tired and not finding button) https://patents.google.com/patent/EP0496181A1/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while it is possible with old version : https://www.google.com/patents/EP0496181A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any possible explantion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for your help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43966" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17076" RevisionGUID="45b21276-df53-4cef-80eb-ee8e01515bb0" CreationDate="2017-01-18T15:22:12.587" UserId="18318" Text="Download pdf on new google patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43967" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17076" RevisionGUID="45b21276-df53-4cef-80eb-ee8e01515bb0" CreationDate="2017-01-18T15:22:12.587" UserId="18318" Text="&lt;google-patents&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43968" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16172" RevisionGUID="c0a243bd-c124-4972-8a6e-507168cfa6a6" CreationDate="2017-01-18T21:02:43.200" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43969" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14755" RevisionGUID="cc870781-8f97-4078-b12a-5fe94a2c734f" CreationDate="2017-01-19T00:03:22.233" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43970" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17076" RevisionGUID="60fc27a5-d06d-4ca4-8edb-2838aa91fa80" CreationDate="2017-01-19T00:17:14.047" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[12832],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:18033,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DonQuiKong&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:15503,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Maca&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="43973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17078" RevisionGUID="2589125d-862d-45f5-97f7-d980779b3228" CreationDate="2017-01-19T03:30:50.950" UserId="18297" Text="If I have claims submitted along with my PPA form, and my PPA is descriptive, will I then be eligible to receive damages in a scenario where I filed my PPA on Jan-01-2017, filed for NP on Dec-31-2017 and had my NP published on May-30-2018. Then an infringer infringes my application on April-01-2018. On Dec-31-2019 I have my patent granted. Will I then be eligible for infringement damage, after 31-Dec-2019 for the infringement made on April-01-2018&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please assist me" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43974" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17078" RevisionGUID="2589125d-862d-45f5-97f7-d980779b3228" CreationDate="2017-01-19T03:30:50.950" UserId="18297" Text="infringement damage validity for a descriptive PPA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43975" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17078" RevisionGUID="2589125d-862d-45f5-97f7-d980779b3228" CreationDate="2017-01-19T03:30:50.950" UserId="18297" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;royalty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43976" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="cb5ea098-2d82-4709-8184-6f9dcebaa051" CreationDate="2017-01-19T04:04:05.660" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17079" RevisionGUID="5ba86bc0-b4b1-47f0-8e8b-44609445eb80" CreationDate="2017-01-19T06:28:11.083" UserId="18297" Text="I know there are [similar question][1] out there. I am slightly specific about my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say, there is an overall machine &quot;TookAllTheIdeasMachine&quot; by Inventor &quot;PlayedWithWordsForHisFirstInvention&quot;, which achieves functionality A. Functionality A has many sub-functionalities, like SF1, SF2, etc. To achieve functionality SF2, the inventor owner used elements E1 and E2. To achieve functionality  SF2, he used Processes P1 and P2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scenario 1:&#xD;&#xA;I being a new inventor, created a product with the only goal to achieve functionality SF1. I used exactly elements E1 and E2 and exactly same process P1 and P2 to achieve functionality SF1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I have any grounds to get a patent for my invention? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If no, inventor &quot;PlayedWithWordsForHisFirstInvention&quot; has not come up with the small unit which only performs dedicated task &quot;SF1&quot; but my invention does. And because my invention is dedicated to functionality &quot;SF1&quot; and fairly not complex, It is cheaper. But because &quot;PlayedWithWordsForHisFirstInvention&quot; has created a heavily costlier invention, I cant bring my invention to market because I cant afford to be sued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do I do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please assist me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/10322/how-different-must-an-invention-be-to-be-patented" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43978" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17079" RevisionGUID="5ba86bc0-b4b1-47f0-8e8b-44609445eb80" CreationDate="2017-01-19T06:28:11.083" UserId="18297" Text="can this invention be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43979" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17079" RevisionGUID="5ba86bc0-b4b1-47f0-8e8b-44609445eb80" CreationDate="2017-01-19T06:28:11.083" UserId="18297" Text="&lt;royalty&gt;&lt;infrigment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43980" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12561" RevisionGUID="81683690-68d6-443b-9720-f170b4153156" CreationDate="2017-01-19T07:04:06.463" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="43981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17079" RevisionGUID="5bb57396-6edf-4a33-8c92-6fca8a12f149" CreationDate="2017-01-19T07:05:24.580" UserId="18297" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="I know there are [similar question][1] out there. I am slightly specific about my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say, there is an overall machine &quot;TookAllTheIdeasMachine&quot; by Inventor &quot;PlayedWithWordsForHisFirstInvention&quot;, which achieves functionality A. Functionality A has many sub-functionalities, like SF1, SF2, etc. To achieve functionality SF2, the inventor owner used elements E1 and E2. To achieve functionality  SF2, he used Processes P1 and P2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scenario 1:&#xD;&#xA;I being a new inventor, created a product with the only goal to achieve functionality SF1. I used exactly elements E1 and E2 and exactly same process P1 and P2 to achieve functionality SF1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I have any grounds to get a patent for my invention? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If no, inventor &quot;PlayedWithWordsForHisFirstInvention&quot; has not come up with the small unit which only performs dedicated task &quot;SF1&quot; but my invention does. And because my invention is dedicated to functionality &quot;SF1&quot; and fairly not complex, It is cheaper. But because &quot;PlayedWithWordsForHisFirstInvention&quot; has created a heavily costlier invention, I cant bring my invention to market because I cant afford to be sued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I get patent for my invention SF1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please assist me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/10322/how-different-must-an-invention-be-to-be-patented" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17078" RevisionGUID="25dcabeb-9800-4c8d-beda-158ebdac8e0a" CreationDate="2017-01-19T07:22:04.197" UserId="18297" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="If I have claims submitted along with my PPA form, and my PPA is descriptive, will I then be eligible to receive damages in a scenario where:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  I filed my PPA on Jan-01-2017, &#xD;&#xA;- filed for NP (claiming PPA's priority) on Dec-31-2017 &#xD;&#xA;- had my NP published on May-30-2018. &#xD;&#xA;- an infringer infringes my application on April-01-2018. &#xD;&#xA;- On Dec-31-2019 I have my patent granted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will I then be eligible for infringement damage, after 31-Dec-2019 for the infringement made on April-01-2018&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please assist me" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17078" RevisionGUID="52a55cd5-23ff-4746-a7a9-0a22f69b0d0d" CreationDate="2017-01-19T07:29:06.100" UserId="18297" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="If I have claims submitted along with my PPA form, and my PPA is descriptive, will I then be eligible to receive damages in a scenario where:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  I filed my PPA on Jan-01-2017, &#xD;&#xA;- filed for NP (claiming PPA's priority) on Dec-31-2017 &#xD;&#xA;- had my NP published on May-30-2018. &#xD;&#xA;- an infringer infringes my application on April-01-2018. &#xD;&#xA;- On Dec-31-2019 I have my patent granted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will I then be eligible for infringement damage, after 31-Dec-2019 for the infringement made on April-01-2018&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is my assumption correct - that effective filing date is filing date of any patent application (PCT, PPA, NP) with claims? And that after patent grant, inventor is eligible for receiving infringement royalty from the filing date of such an application (any application with claim/detailed description of invention)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please assist me" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17078" RevisionGUID="94da96e3-76ae-483d-9d12-f0a100e55d1a" CreationDate="2017-01-19T08:56:50.460" UserId="18297" Comment="added 438 characters in body" Text="If I have claims submitted along with my PPA form, and my PPA is descriptive, will I then be eligible to receive damages in a scenario where:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  I filed my PPA on Jan-01-2017, &#xD;&#xA;- filed for NP (claiming PPA's priority) on Dec-31-2017 &#xD;&#xA;- had my NP published on May-30-2018. &#xD;&#xA;- an infringer infringes my application on April-01-2018. &#xD;&#xA;- On Dec-31-2019 I have my patent granted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will I then be eligible for infringement damage, after 31-Dec-2019 for the infringement made on April-01-2018&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is my assumption correct - that effective filing date is filing date of any patent application (PCT, PPA, NP) with claims? And that after patent grant, inventor is eligible for receiving infringement royalty from the filing date of such an application (any application with claim/detailed description of invention)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from [this][1] post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot; The rights of the patent owner start from the date of publication (generally 18 months after filing the patent application) of the patent application. However, a patent owner can file a patent infringement suit only after the patent is granted. &quot; - Is this pre-AIA or AIA First to Fil e act?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please assist me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.invntree.com/blogs/infringement-between-publication-of-patent-application-and-grant-of-patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17078" RevisionGUID="2e0a1089-b6e8-4b8c-955d-a55ae5ed0d80" CreationDate="2017-01-19T09:13:40.677" UserId="18297" Comment="added 477 characters in body" Text="If I have claims submitted along with my PPA form, and my PPA is descriptive, will I then be eligible to receive damages in a scenario where:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  I filed my PPA on Jan-01-2017, &#xD;&#xA;- filed for NP (claiming PPA's priority) on Dec-31-2017 &#xD;&#xA;- had my NP published on May-30-2018. &#xD;&#xA;- an infringer infringes my application on April-01-2018. &#xD;&#xA;- On Dec-31-2019 I have my patent granted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will I then be eligible for infringement damage, after 31-Dec-2019 for the infringement made on April-01-2018&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is my assumption correct - that effective filing date is filing date of any patent application (PCT, PPA, NP) with claims? And that after patent grant, inventor is eligible for receiving infringement royalty from the filing date of such an application (any application with claim/detailed description of invention)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from [this][1] post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot; The rights of the patent owner start from the date of publication (generally 18 months after filing the patent application) of the patent application. However, a patent owner can file a patent infringement suit only after the patent is granted. &quot; - Is this pre-AIA or AIA First to File act?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, from this [link][2], PDF page : 4/14:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;However, Congress gave&#xD;&#xA;patent applicants provisional rights in their published patent applications as an incentive&#xD;&#xA;to publish, so that information about new advances could be shared with the public&#xD;&#xA;regardless of whether a patent issues from an application.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Don't they seem to contradict? Or am I just misunderstanding?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please assist me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.invntree.com/blogs/infringement-between-publication-of-patent-application-and-grant-of-patent&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1177&amp;context=njtip" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17080" RevisionGUID="31b3f103-0636-48c0-8aac-3ed6da6848e5" CreationDate="2017-01-19T09:20:59.283" UserId="15503" Text="**Will I then be eligible for infringement damage, after 31-Dec-2019 for the infringement made on April-01-2018?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Provisional rights only apply to acts that occur after publication (30 May 2018 in your example — assuming the requirements for provisional rights have been satisfied).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the act you mentioned occured on 1 Apr 2018. This is before publication (30 May 2018). As such, there is no scope for provisional rights (and thus you would be entitled to no damages for these acts).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On this, it is irrelevant whether or not you have a provisional application, when the provisional application might have been filed, and the quality or composition of that provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is my assumption correct - that effective filing date is filing date of any patent application (PCT, PPA, NP) with claims?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not quite. The term &quot;effective filing date&quot; relates to claiming priority or benefit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example, the filing date of your non-provisional application is 31 December 2017. However, the effective filing date of your non-provisional application is 1 January 2017 (roughly a year earlier), because you claimed the benefit of your provisional application which was filed then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this, it doesn't matter whether or not the provisional application has claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**And that after patent grant, inventor is eligible for receiving infringement royalty from the filing date of such an application (any application with claim/detailed description of invention)?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No: not from the filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Infringement can only occur from the date of grant. Acts that occur before grant are not infringement. This is one reason that a patent applicant may want grant to occur quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for acts that occur between publication and grant, you may have provisional rights. These are a lot more restricted, but provide you some protection before grant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, after filing but before publication, you have no rights whatsoever. Anyone could freely use your invention. This is sensible: since your application has not published, nobody else knows about it and therefore could not take any steps to avoid it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17081" RevisionGUID="02f6af51-8fb1-42bc-bb98-92903e141bc6" CreationDate="2017-01-19T09:54:25.220" UserId="18326" Text="No, your invention is not patentable because what you do is already known.  It does not matter that you repackage known functionality into a dedicated device." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17082" RevisionGUID="d16c9b60-a9ba-4381-8919-093391849bbd" CreationDate="2017-01-19T10:01:44.147" UserId="15503" Text="As a preamble, the three basic requirements for a claimed invention is that it must be novel, non-obvious and useful in order to receive a patent. These three requirements can be applied to your two scenarios to provide an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Do I have any grounds to get a patent for my invention [that has the same elements, processes and functionality]?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every feature of your invention is present in an existing product to achieve the same goal. Your invention is therefore not novel, and so is unpatentable. It is unnecessary to consider the two other conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How can I get patent for my invention SF1?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can look at the three factors for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Is it novel?* Yes. Your competitor has not come up with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Is it non-obvious?* Maybe: this depends on the circumstances. However, given it is beneficial (it is cheaper), this suggests it might be non-obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Is it useful?* Yes (because everything is useful to someone).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So depending on whether your small unit is obvious in view of what has gone before (which requires a fair bit of analysis of the details), you may be able to patent it. At this stage, a patent attorney would be the best person to talk to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17083" RevisionGUID="93c106cf-816a-4ef9-b153-f472b0cbccdf" CreationDate="2017-01-19T10:48:36.033" UserId="18328" Text="Iwould like to note in one of my documents that I imntend to file a patent for a specific item I am, sending an invoice to a customer for. I know I can't say &quot;patent pending&quot; - is there another acceptable term that would indicate it is exclusively our design?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43990" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17083" RevisionGUID="93c106cf-816a-4ef9-b153-f472b0cbccdf" CreationDate="2017-01-19T10:48:36.033" UserId="18328" Text="Pre-filing phrase to use" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43991" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17083" RevisionGUID="93c106cf-816a-4ef9-b153-f472b0cbccdf" CreationDate="2017-01-19T10:48:36.033" UserId="18328" Text="&lt;pre-fiiling&gt;&lt;terninology&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17084" RevisionGUID="13bde18f-f67f-4de2-b8e2-e2ac583133a5" CreationDate="2017-01-19T11:25:25.350" UserId="18297" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6zwkv.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hi,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a prior art invention - invention A;&#xD;&#xA;My invention - &quot;invention B&quot; has most claims common to that of Invention A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But while structuring the claim, and speaking from perspective of invention, I will have to write few claims which looks similar to claims of prior art. If I do not include those steps in my claim, my claim becomes unsequential. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among all my claim steps, how will I really mention that one or two things really novel about my invention? Or is this only possible while describing background and detail description of invention wherein I compare drawbacks of prior art and what my inventions bring with itself. The reason I am wondering this is because it isclaim which really decides on what I am claiming in my invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In figure above, shaded part only is my invention and rest all elements in claim will match claims of invention A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please assist me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43993" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17084" RevisionGUID="13bde18f-f67f-4de2-b8e2-e2ac583133a5" CreationDate="2017-01-19T11:25:25.350" UserId="18297" Text="How to write claim with only novel elements of my invention" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43994" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17084" RevisionGUID="13bde18f-f67f-4de2-b8e2-e2ac583133a5" CreationDate="2017-01-19T11:25:25.350" UserId="18297" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;specification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16602" RevisionGUID="66c15212-a3cd-47be-b7fd-d109e7c68b15" CreationDate="2017-01-19T11:53:34.810" UserId="17783" Comment="added forgotten source" Text="The compression and decompression algorythms of MP3 are patented by the owner, Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, and thus are not freely available for commercial products or commercial use of the technology. personal use of the MP3-software is allowed. Open-source-encoders and decoders are being allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a patent-free alternative for MP3 is OGG Vorbis. other alternatives are free for non-commercial use, like SHN and FLAC, but in controdiction with MP3, those two don't loose quality, while MP3 does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[EDIT]&#xD;&#xA;woops! I just realised I forgot to source this!&#xD;&#xA;source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Licensing.2C_ownership_and_legislation&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17085" RevisionGUID="992102a1-1038-4626-b30c-dad37285f407" CreationDate="2017-01-19T12:10:51.670" UserId="15503" Text="**Not every feature of your claim needs to be novel**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be a very rare invention that consists entirely of a new thing with no previously existing components. Instead, an invention typically relates to a known thing with a bunch of known features, along with something new. As such, claims to inventions will typically include a bunch of components which are well known and add nothing to the novelty of the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not mean they are optional or unimportant. Instead, these known features are provided so that the claimed invention would work, and to show how the new bit would function in context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But your claim should be novel and non-obvious**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should be able to point to something in each of your claims which is novel. It doesn't have to be much, but there should be at least some difference (which should hopefully also be non-obvious).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So where do I point to the novel bit?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is actually a controversial point, which underlies a cultural split between US-style drafting on one side and European-style drafting on the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US, it is traditional not to precisely identify what the differences are. Instead, this is couched in generalities. You might say &quot;claim 1 differs at least in feature X&quot; or that &quot;the prior art fails to precisely disclose feature X&quot;. However, you would rarely say &quot;the novelty of the invention is feature X&quot;. Moreover, these pronouncements typically occur during prosecution. You would not generally provide any indication in the claims or the description. The reader of a patent application drafted in US-style, without any knowledge of the prior art, would therefore typically not be able to work out the novel bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Europe, it is much more common to set out in the background what the prior art teaches (at least in general), and how your invention differs and improves on the prior art. This is typically done in the description itself, and may be reflected in the claims by using two-part form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One approach is not better than the other. Instead, the difference in approaches reflects a number of factors (such as prosecution estoppel in the US and the requirement for inventive step in Europe).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So what should I do?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from consulting an attorney, you should look at related patents in your preferred market: if the US is critical, focus on US-originating patents. Notice to what extent they describe the prior art, and how they set out the benefits. You should get a feel for it: it is hard to be more precise than that.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17086" RevisionGUID="4335f8b2-5d31-46fe-861a-010b6ac698c1" CreationDate="2017-01-19T12:35:32.837" UserId="15503" Text="One would hope that your contract with them makes the ownership of IP clear. But putting that aside:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Proprietary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proprietary)**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1:  one that possesses, owns, or holds exclusive right to something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2:  something that is used, produced, or marketed under exclusive legal right of the inventor or maker; specifically :  a drug (as a patent medicine ) that is protected by secrecy, patent, or copyright against free competition as to name, product, composition, or process of manufacture&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might say that your design is proprietary, or that the products you have provided to them include proprietary designs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44003" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12942" RevisionGUID="175e6864-6860-4b25-8433-a6ba67acc406" CreationDate="2017-01-19T14:13:01.677" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17088" RevisionGUID="b7c97dd9-2391-48c6-8682-a82438486984" CreationDate="2017-01-19T19:33:47.087" UserId="18330" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20160324086][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20160324086&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please advise file format for attached patent drawings as I am unable to open&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44005" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17088" RevisionGUID="b7c97dd9-2391-48c6-8682-a82438486984" CreationDate="2017-01-19T19:33:47.087" UserId="18330" Text="Drawing formatt" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44006" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17088" RevisionGUID="b7c97dd9-2391-48c6-8682-a82438486984" CreationDate="2017-01-19T19:33:47.087" UserId="18330" Text="&lt;us20160324086&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17089" RevisionGUID="14ae38db-5212-480b-941b-55ffda677736" CreationDate="2017-01-19T19:51:31.663" UserId="17003" Text="This is a problem with www.google.com/patents. Others are having it too. There are other sites for searching for patents. [The Lens][1] is a good one. [Here][2] is the cited application on The Lens. Also, if you search at [patents.google.com][3] you also can find the [application][4] with drawings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_2016_0324086_A1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160324086A1/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17090" RevisionGUID="c332f44b-bd58-4a95-b508-0986604736e3" CreationDate="2017-01-19T21:40:17.270" UserId="18033" Text="**Confidential**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because you don't only want them to know it's yours, you want them not to publish it, else it wouldn't be novel anymore and therefore not patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously, if you just write propietary or exclusive or this is our IP, that does not tell them they have to keep it secret, so they might, not in bad faith, publish it as part of a product brochure or whatever. And then your possibility for a patent is gone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17091" RevisionGUID="1ad6e5d5-db16-44de-9296-356c02b5b603" CreationDate="2017-01-19T22:01:08.007" UserId="17005" Text="I am eligible for micro-entity filing status on my patent applications.  However, it requires that one's name not be listed on more than four previous patents (I have zero currently), which limits me to five patents in total at the micro-entity fee rate.  This is a problem, as I have nine separate inventions that I would like to patent.  The regulations also stipulate that you cannot have someone else file a patent in their name with any agreement - written or otherwise - to pay you any income generated by that patent.  This prevents individuals from filing more than five patents at the micro-entity rate by having others file for them.  However, I have identified two possible ways around this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. After filing the maximum five patents at micro-entity status in my own name, I have someone else file the remaining four patents - without my name listed - and that person then sells those patents to me (for $1 each) after they are issued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Similar to the above, another person files the other four patents in their own name.  Instead of selling the patents to me, however, they market the patents themselves, and place any income created by them into an account of which we are joint owners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could either of these work?  Thank you in advance for any input." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44010" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17091" RevisionGUID="1ad6e5d5-db16-44de-9296-356c02b5b603" CreationDate="2017-01-19T22:01:08.007" UserId="17005" Text="Micro-Entity Filing Status" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44011" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17091" RevisionGUID="1ad6e5d5-db16-44de-9296-356c02b5b603" CreationDate="2017-01-19T22:01:08.007" UserId="17005" Text="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;micro-entity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44012" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16604" RevisionGUID="ea13152b-c0df-4c54-b028-7b826da7a390" CreationDate="2017-01-20T00:26:17.673" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17092" RevisionGUID="3f25182c-b355-40f3-b442-d75c6039f7c9" CreationDate="2017-01-20T01:20:40.743" UserId="15503" Text="In both cases, you are suggesting lying about the inventorship. The details of each of your schemes is largely irrelevant in this regard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, you are the inventor: there is nothing you can do subsequently that would change that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Inventorship and micro-entity statu**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;37 CFR 1.29 provides the requirements for micro entity status. In particular, 37 CFR 1.29(a)(2) requires:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Neither the applicant nor the inventor nor a joint inventor has been named as the inventor or a joint inventor on more than four previously filed patent applications, other than applications filed in another country, provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(b), or international applications for which the basic national fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a) was not paid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus (as you are aware) your later four applications would be barred due to your inventorship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But how does the USPTO know who the inventor is?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;35 USC 115(a) requires:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;An application for patent that is filed under section 111(a) or commences the national stage under section 371 shall include, or be amended to include, the name of the inventor for any invention claimed in the application. Except as otherwise provided in this section, each individual who is the inventor or a joint inventor of a claimed invention in an application for patent shall execute an oath or declaration in connection with the application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you have an obligation to name the inventors in each application you file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So we could just lie about the inventorship?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, 35 USC 115(i) makes reference to the penalty for filing a false declaration:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Any declaration or statement filed pursuant to this section shall contain an acknowledgment that any willful false statement made in such declaration or statement is punishable under section 1001 of title 18 by fine or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there is a relatively steep penalty for filing a false statement about the inventorship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While many of us from time to time might be tempted to improve our station through deception, the penalties for being caught doing so are so steep that it is rarely worthwhile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, you will therefore need to weigh up whether saving a few hundred dollars is worth the risk of imprisonment if you are found out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44014" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16903" RevisionGUID="56c63908-6c67-4480-8d04-01cd99b3753e" CreationDate="2017-01-20T01:26:17.767" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44015" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14403" RevisionGUID="101fc8ec-3863-49ee-b172-192977a5e815" CreationDate="2017-01-20T02:28:14.893" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17093" RevisionGUID="72e351b5-1228-4a87-a123-86e0605eee13" CreationDate="2017-01-20T05:43:20.167" UserId="17196" Text="I'm involved with an Australian Pty Ltd company that is the applicant for an Australian patent, and has listed the two inventors as two of the shareholders of the company. Does the Pty Ltd have co-ownership rights to the patent, or do those rights need to be granted by a license?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44018" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17093" RevisionGUID="72e351b5-1228-4a87-a123-86e0605eee13" CreationDate="2017-01-20T05:43:20.167" UserId="17196" Text="Does an applicant have ownership rights if not listed as an inventor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44019" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17093" RevisionGUID="72e351b5-1228-4a87-a123-86e0605eee13" CreationDate="2017-01-20T05:43:20.167" UserId="17196" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;inventor&gt;&lt;applicant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17094" RevisionGUID="ef1f86a8-14a4-40ce-be01-eb5735efefdf" CreationDate="2017-01-20T07:21:37.163" UserId="18033" Text="You are mixing a few things up there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inventor != applicant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inventor is the person that invented the invention, applicant is the person that applies for the patent and therefore is the owner of the patent (e.g. the employer). The compensation for the inventor has to be agreed upon between those two. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case that would (probably) mean that the company owns the patent. You should however make sure (ask) that is the case as sometimes changes in the ownership don't get mentioned to the patent office or there could be other constructs where the company is the applicant but essentially owns only a part of the patent, or any revenue generated goes to the inventors, or whatever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;License:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A license allows somebody to use - in the terms of the license - (e.g. produce and sell or produce for himself) the invention without getting sued for that, but it does not grant ownership of the patent nor does it entitle to any more right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the company does not own the patent, the inventors beeing shareholders *could* retractively protect the company from getting sued if they can prove there was an implicit license where the shareholders knew and where okay with the invention beeing produced, but thats a rather dangerous way, so an explicit license should be negotiated then." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44021" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10324" RevisionGUID="759da920-7ef7-42c5-8422-c0ea567d3ffa" CreationDate="2017-01-20T09:38:45.000" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44022" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6687" RevisionGUID="3322bace-e290-4c02-9856-1a1597617b81" CreationDate="2017-01-20T11:43:49.480" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44023" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="32ef199c-eced-4ec0-88b6-ad1052c98f9e" CreationDate="2017-01-20T14:43:59.007" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44024" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12574" RevisionGUID="13782ea0-6c09-4b46-939c-b8bf167dfec8" CreationDate="2017-01-20T16:59:18.263" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44028" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12771" RevisionGUID="f8fd9f15-f073-443f-82f3-7b0239384233" CreationDate="2017-01-20T22:11:45.477" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17097" RevisionGUID="277e6cda-2e49-44cd-85aa-e63c4b0d529d" CreationDate="2017-01-20T22:20:28.310" UserId="18033" Text="The rules for obviousness say something like 'The person skilled in the art will look in neighbouring fields or other fields if prompted to or can be a group of persons skilled in different arts'.&#xD;&#xA;(Thats no citation, but something like that).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does that mean in practice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's actually hard to say. A new use of a known thing can be patentable, but at the same time, something from a neighbouring field can be reused and be prior art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This actually leads to problems in practice. Sometimes an examiner will find something from another field that totally gets you and destroys your patent - and sometimes they won't. Sometimes you will be able to argue that wouldn't be obvious, and sometimes you won't. Sometimes things like that get a good patent revoked and sometimes a bad patent that merely copies something from another field that could arguably be obvious nevertheless comes through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But one of your questions can be answered easily - should you state that something is obvious in other fields too when writing about it? -&gt; Yes, if you want to impede others from patenting it in those fields, you should, because then the part where the person skilled in the art got prompted to look at another field or to transfer the knowledge is obviously true and therefore it becomes stronger prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last but not least, sorry, but that's actually the answer, obviousness is always a topic for arguments, and this makes the case even harder. However, if it is really really obvious, then it's prior art and can impede the granting or get a patent revoked." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44037" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="9f42c72f-e9e8-4c77-8aff-ebccfe4ddf95" CreationDate="2017-01-21T01:11:55.530" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44038" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="91646dd1-5839-465c-8e7c-6f63789c2b4f" CreationDate="2017-01-21T03:11:50.433" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44039" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13935" RevisionGUID="89899499-f873-47ae-a487-35cb1d4268eb" CreationDate="2017-01-21T05:14:49.740" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44046" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13432" RevisionGUID="2d9c393f-07a0-4f89-aeec-5045c60df51a" CreationDate="2017-01-21T06:14:58.537" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17099" RevisionGUID="43d62051-5778-430e-820d-6cbb07a286c2" CreationDate="2017-01-21T07:22:26.900" UserId="15787" Text="&gt; why are these patents accepted, since there are others very similar&#xD;&#xA;They can't be exactly similar and granted at the same time. Anybody can file a patent for anything as long as it follows the basic criterias of patentability. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Code generator&quot; is just a term which might be getting used in completely different contexts in different patents. It is quite possible that these patents may be using a similar term to define different concepts or processes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also possible that the patents you found might be continuations of each other, describing different aspects of a same process. Patents often get granted with just few claims being valid, while other gets rejected due to prior art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And if somebody files for a patent, how does one know he/she is not infringing?&#xD;&#xA;Answer of @atsby cleared this question pretty well. You are not infringing someone's patent just by filing a similar one. Your patent will get rejected as the other patent will be found by examiner. You have to make, sell, and earn profit from a patented invention in order to infringe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing, if you're concerned about how will you know that you're product is infringing a patent or not. It's done by performing a &quot;freedom to operate&quot; search. You search the market if anybody has a patent on the product you are planning to sell, if you find a patent, you approach them for a license. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17099" RevisionGUID="af2da9a5-d620-4b58-b0f2-3a1e4a5fea9f" CreationDate="2017-01-21T13:26:35.280" UserId="18033" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="&gt; why are these patents accepted, since there are others very similar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They can't be exactly similar and granted at the same time. Anybody can file a patent for anything as long as it follows the basic criterias of patentability. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Code generator&quot; is just a term which might be getting used in completely different contexts in different patents. It is quite possible that these patents may be using a similar term to define different concepts or processes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also possible that the patents you found might be continuations of each other, describing different aspects of a same process. Patents often get granted with just few claims being valid, while other gets rejected due to prior art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And if somebody files for a patent, how does one know he/she is not infringing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer of @atsby cleared this question pretty well. You are not infringing someone's patent just by filing a similar one. Your patent will get rejected as the other patent will be found by examiner. You have to make, sell, and earn profit from a patented invention in order to infringe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing, if you're concerned about how will you know that you're product is infringing a patent or not. It's done by performing a &quot;freedom to operate&quot; search. You search the market if anybody has a patent on the product you are planning to sell, if you find a patent, you approach them for a license. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13951" RevisionGUID="d7d2c1e9-5c82-4d11-b99b-d9c75bfb727d" CreationDate="2017-01-21T15:14:43.733" UserId="14417" Comment="Made corrections based on comment." Text="If you look at the application on Google Patents, you'll see that it has a PCT Number `PCT/JP2000/000585`, indicating that the original application was filed in Japan, and that this is a PCT application (worldwide).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A PCT application has a search phase and a national phase, and the information regarding the application status in individual countries may be found in [PatentScope][1] (via [WO 2000/045689 A1][2], the WIPO application).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll find the following National Phase information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Australia                 07.08.2001  23251/00    Granted:   29.04.2004&#xD;&#xA;    China                     03.02.2000  00803377.3   &#xD;&#xA;    European Patent Office    29.08.2001  2000902068  Published: 28.11.2001&#xD;&#xA;                                                      Withdrawn: 27.01.2005&#xD;&#xA;    United States of America  02.08.2001  09890247    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the European application was withdrawn, so you need only need to determine the status of the US, Australian and Chinese applications. Although the patent was filed from a Japanese application (JP 11/27294), it appears that coverage was not sought in Japan during the national phase. I'm not familiar with Japan's patent system, so someone may need to correct me there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On Google Patents, under Legal Events:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Date           Code   Event	Description&#xD;&#xA;    Aug 29, 2007   FPAY   Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;                          Year of fee payment: 4&#xD;&#xA;    Nov 7, 2011    REMI   Maintenance fee reminder mailed	&#xD;&#xA;    Mar 23, 2012   LAPS   Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees	&#xD;&#xA;    May 15, 2012   FP     Expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee	&#xD;&#xA;                          Effective date: 20120323&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the US patent has lapsed (effective March 23, 2012) due to a failure to pay the maintenance fee. I should note that the source of this information is originally [USPTO Public Pair][3], then via IFI/Fairview Research, to Google Patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The information for the Australian patent grant is available via [AusPat][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Vol/Iss  Publication date  Publication action                       Reason&#xD;&#xA;    20/36    2006-09-21        Patent Ceased                            Application Ceased 	&#xD;&#xA;    18/18    2004-05-13        Letters Patent Sealed - Standard Patents 		&#xD;&#xA;    18/1     2004-01-08        Applications Accepted 		&#xD;&#xA;    14/38    2000-10-26        Applications OPI&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the Australian patent grant ceased on September 21, 2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For completeness, I would provide the status of the [Chinese patent][5], but the [SIPO][6] application search is currently inaccessible for some reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2000045689&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2000045689A1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/applicationDetails.do?applicationNo=2000023251&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://search.sipo.gov.cn/sipo/zljs/hyjs-yx-new.jsp?leixin=fmzl&amp;recid=00803377.3&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://english.sipo.gov.cn/application/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44050" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13847" RevisionGUID="53f62a67-1631-45d7-82a0-24224c62556a" CreationDate="2017-01-21T19:18:46.470" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44051" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="570661ab-c018-4147-a3f8-c6d82e375980" CreationDate="2017-01-22T00:25:35.137" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44060" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16186" RevisionGUID="c0a4dbe1-523e-4598-853a-da2a224bad7b" CreationDate="2017-01-22T20:49:38.350" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44061" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="f22be15f-af4e-4703-b1bf-934852055f72" CreationDate="2017-01-22T21:49:43.410" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17103" RevisionGUID="b9f56273-9a91-4cc8-bb3a-7fe208629d0d" CreationDate="2017-01-23T04:01:56.933" UserId="18349" Text="Suppose a method patent that consists of: step A, step B, step C, step D&#xD;&#xA;We're disclosing how to perform each step. Step C involves performing a sub-method to perform step C. This step C can be performed in multiple ways - with methods beyond the one described in the patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the method patent that I'm patenting is for performing A,B,C &amp; D to achieve a certain result. So will it be okay to show just one way of performing step C and indicate that other better or alternate methods can also be devised to perform step C without compromising the patentability ans protection for the overall method?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44070" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17103" RevisionGUID="b9f56273-9a91-4cc8-bb3a-7fe208629d0d" CreationDate="2017-01-23T04:01:56.933" UserId="18349" Text="method patent: sub-method dependency" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44071" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17103" RevisionGUID="b9f56273-9a91-4cc8-bb3a-7fe208629d0d" CreationDate="2017-01-23T04:01:56.933" UserId="18349" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;method&gt;&lt;drafting&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44075" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13242" RevisionGUID="4dd6d7aa-5b5a-49ff-841b-2a2f01745c16" CreationDate="2017-01-23T12:08:51.893" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44076" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16740" RevisionGUID="3091e054-00f3-4158-9e8f-813dc8deeb73" CreationDate="2017-01-23T15:12:04.647" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17105" RevisionGUID="090c9f89-d16f-4772-bde3-6a4f686b59aa" CreationDate="2017-01-23T19:30:38.950" UserId="18352" Text="Is package of single unit of a known product patentable? &lt;br/&gt; assuming that this product does not exists or sold in a single unit. also this product currently sold to organizations and companies and not in the retail stores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example (and this example already exists but lets say it doesn't):&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Toothpicks are sold in pack of 100-200 units. and i want to patent a toothpick packed as a single unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44082" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17105" RevisionGUID="090c9f89-d16f-4772-bde3-6a4f686b59aa" CreationDate="2017-01-23T19:30:38.950" UserId="18352" Text="Patenting existing product in a package of single" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44083" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17105" RevisionGUID="090c9f89-d16f-4772-bde3-6a4f686b59aa" CreationDate="2017-01-23T19:30:38.950" UserId="18352" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;packaging&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44084" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17105" RevisionGUID="0b22bc98-726a-45cf-b205-a625a27b8337" CreationDate="2017-01-23T19:39:34.130" UserId="18352" Comment="edited title" Text="Patenting existing product in a package of single unit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44085" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="a6dd6e95-3e85-4be9-a7e6-12c6067e0cb4" CreationDate="2017-01-23T20:12:29.343" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44086" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6624" RevisionGUID="3165a016-86eb-43b1-9e3c-b4d095b26821" CreationDate="2017-01-23T21:12:34.927" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44087" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16926" RevisionGUID="29c640eb-a8d9-42ff-a184-621c5c50a85c" CreationDate="2017-01-23T22:12:35.350" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17106" RevisionGUID="e98c0d0c-7275-4f6f-996f-59c712fffeea" CreationDate="2017-01-23T22:14:34.313" UserId="17003" Text="To be patentable, the invention must be useful, novel and non-obvious. Unit packaging can certainly be useful. It is hard, however to see how taking a current product and just putting it in single use packaging is novel. Also, it would be hard to get past the non-obvious objection. I am not a lawyer, but my opinion is unless there is something unique about the packaging then this isn't patentable. Now if you come up with some clever way of packaging that hasn't been done before, we can reconsider." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17107" RevisionGUID="99cf446a-4c58-48c3-9a3f-8a2323c72041" CreationDate="2017-01-23T23:40:46.560" UserId="15503" Text="**Is it okay to show just one way of performing step C?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relevant law is provided by [35 USC § 112(a)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/112), which provides (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to **enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same**, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as your description contains at least one example of how the invention could be put into practice, you will be fulfilling the requirement above.  It is fine to note that alternatives may exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can I indicate that other better methods exist for step C?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relevant law is provided by a different portion of [35 USC § 112(a)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/112), which provides: (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and **shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you fail to disclose the best method that you know of, you would not be fulfilling your obligation under this section.  While &quot;best&quot; can have a lot of different meanings depending on the context, it would be imprudent to explicitly note that you are not providing the best approach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is fine to disclose just one way of performing a step, as long as that is the best way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44091" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14622" RevisionGUID="aee1136d-f21f-4505-99fb-aa0011d7bc68" CreationDate="2017-01-24T07:19:04.037" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17108" RevisionGUID="1a7aa873-5aa9-45d0-8932-c36085198344" CreationDate="2017-01-24T09:23:20.780" UserId="10003" Text="Many a times Google patents doesn't show the patent PDF. There are other websites where you can do this freely though. I have often found that http://www.pat2pdf.org is the best. Even though there are free sites like - http://www.patentretriever.com/ or http://www.freepatentpdfs.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17109" RevisionGUID="b231b79f-f739-441b-9e9b-e397aa0b6775" CreationDate="2017-01-24T09:26:52.057" UserId="10003" Text="Are you sure you didn't loose a digit in the patent number? The one you cited dates back to 1898! &#xD;&#xA;But to answer your question, there is no difference for this one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17110" RevisionGUID="bd74a444-824d-4644-a31a-a45884fde5e4" CreationDate="2017-01-24T09:36:25.017" UserId="10003" Text="I'm not sure if the question is clear. Why would you need prior art to an expired patent? The patent seems to have a priority date in the year 1993. It is really hard to find a website that existed before 1993. In fact, while the World Wide Web was invented in 1989, it wasn't until April of 1993 that the software was put in the public domain. That's why there are probably only a few sites in that era. See these URLs - &#xD;&#xA;https://home.cern/topics/birth-web&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_websites_founded_before_1995" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44096" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="9ab5f4a0-d15a-440e-bd06-9e97fb5fde3d" CreationDate="2017-01-24T17:26:00.753" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17113" RevisionGUID="4c224c29-bde8-41ff-bbf7-371e6ee6a86b" CreationDate="2017-01-24T21:24:29.383" UserId="18360" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20050258178][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20050258178&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent still paid up and vaild? in The EU?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44103" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17113" RevisionGUID="4c224c29-bde8-41ff-bbf7-371e6ee6a86b" CreationDate="2017-01-24T21:24:29.383" UserId="18360" Text="US20050258178 is this patent vaild in the EU" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44104" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17113" RevisionGUID="4c224c29-bde8-41ff-bbf7-371e6ee6a86b" CreationDate="2017-01-24T21:24:29.383" UserId="18360" Text="&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44107" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="f18de6be-75a5-4213-83f5-86b82403f6b0" CreationDate="2017-01-24T23:30:13.920" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44108" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="00c717fd-f3d5-43fb-af26-dc2bcc043c39" CreationDate="2017-01-25T01:30:14.253" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17114" RevisionGUID="841b5644-9dce-4799-ad9c-24364cc1ddbb" CreationDate="2017-01-25T07:53:15.243" UserId="18033" Text="This patent is an application and has not been granted (google patents tells you as there is no date of grant and no granted patent associated with this application number (app. numbers start with a year, granted patents have a different format, but be careful, the application (numbers) don't disappear when the patent is granted) (check espacenet, public pair, ...)). It may or may not be granted in the future. If it does get granted, the protection applies backwards to the time where it was an application as far as the claims of the granted patent could be reasonably foreseen from the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a US patent application without an international or European application associated. (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?CC=US&amp;NR=2005258178A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=20051124&amp;DB=&amp;locale=). Even if this patent gets granted, it will not cover Europe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not mean however, that there cannot be other relevant applications or granted patents (both in the US and Europe) that would impede you from using this invention. It might for example be an improvement of a normal bowl plate and therefore fall under the scope of bowl plate patents (unlikely, but it's an example). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further research is indicated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17115" RevisionGUID="cbeb662d-0685-4208-a04e-39a4e242f34c" CreationDate="2017-01-25T07:59:03.003" UserId="18033" Text="Is the patent *link to the patent* valid? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has it been granted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For which countries does the protection apply?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other patents associated wth it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I know all this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*This question is designed as a meta question to answer all those questions appearing around here asking one or more of these questions for a special patent once and for all*)  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44111" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17115" RevisionGUID="cbeb662d-0685-4208-a04e-39a4e242f34c" CreationDate="2017-01-25T07:59:03.003" UserId="18033" Text="Is this patent valid? Granted? Which countries does it cover? Are there family members?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44112" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17115" RevisionGUID="cbeb662d-0685-4208-a04e-39a4e242f34c" CreationDate="2017-01-25T07:59:03.003" UserId="18033" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;procedures&gt;&lt;grant&gt;&lt;meta-question&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17116" RevisionGUID="158b5afe-d1bc-4062-a2cf-f47c00c3264b" CreationDate="2017-01-25T11:08:13.583" UserId="18364" Text="&gt; The MPEG-LA group and Sisvel (Philips) prevent developers from adding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MP3 support to their software packages without paying royalties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Mp3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MP3 has at least three separate companies that claim to have patents,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Alcatel-Lucent, Thompson and AudioMPEG. All their claimed US MP3&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patents are listed in the automatically generated MP3 patent list. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; last of these patents expires in April of 2017. If you only look at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the MP3 patents filed before December 1992 (one year after the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; decoding spec was published), then the last decoding patent expires in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; September of 2015. AudioMPEG claims that their patents cover MPEG-1&#xD;&#xA;&gt; layers 1,2 and 3. The other companies just talk about Layer 3. So, at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the minimum, fully decoding and encoding MPEG-1 audio is patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from http://www.osnews.com/story/24954/US_Patent_Expiration_for_MP3_MPEG-2_H_264/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TL;DR: All MP3 patents could have expired in US after April 2017." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44114" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4993" RevisionGUID="02b7db44-9afd-42f2-9ef6-d91bc69f7a18" CreationDate="2017-01-25T14:44:04.460" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44115" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12072" RevisionGUID="1d3a686f-4dc5-452f-8871-17152f765277" CreationDate="2017-01-25T16:44:04.387" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17117" RevisionGUID="9d715e1b-a190-4242-b6f9-00d21383cee0" CreationDate="2017-01-25T17:00:07.173" UserId="17003" Text="This patent has expired (probably in 1997). This means you can not infringe on this patent. This doesn't mean there are not other relevant patents that may or may not be still active." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17118" RevisionGUID="511c49f4-7ea1-4c4d-9a41-0bac2c2342f4" CreationDate="2017-01-25T18:01:51.637" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44118" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17118" RevisionGUID="511c49f4-7ea1-4c4d-9a41-0bac2c2342f4" CreationDate="2017-01-25T18:01:51.637" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17119" RevisionGUID="0df88e09-ce46-4c7f-baea-9705cfe2c9f9" CreationDate="2017-01-25T18:01:51.637" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44120" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17119" RevisionGUID="0df88e09-ce46-4c7f-baea-9705cfe2c9f9" CreationDate="2017-01-25T18:01:51.637" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17120" RevisionGUID="ac365592-d0a3-4a0c-995c-dde619b62f47" CreationDate="2017-01-25T18:04:52.593" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44122" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17120" RevisionGUID="ac365592-d0a3-4a0c-995c-dde619b62f47" CreationDate="2017-01-25T18:04:52.593" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17121" RevisionGUID="9d47fdd1-50fc-4bd1-b524-40169fbeaadc" CreationDate="2017-01-25T18:04:52.593" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44124" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17121" RevisionGUID="9d47fdd1-50fc-4bd1-b524-40169fbeaadc" CreationDate="2017-01-25T18:04:52.593" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44125" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16748" RevisionGUID="a444bb8b-65d4-44e1-a04f-15ff8b281536" CreationDate="2017-01-25T18:48:32.523" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44126" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12070" RevisionGUID="385af062-24e9-48fb-b76e-0a4063d15a05" CreationDate="2017-01-25T20:48:48.127" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13951" RevisionGUID="d6d87910-fe12-4a7b-be7d-bb31bbd77523" CreationDate="2017-01-25T22:46:05.500" UserId="14417" Comment="Made corrections based on comment." Text="If you examine the metadata for this patent on Google Patents, you'll see that it has a PCT Number `PCT/JP2000/000585`, indicating that the original application was filed in Japan, and that this is a PCT application (worldwide).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A PCT application has a search phase and a national phase, and the information regarding the application status in individual countries may be found in [PatentScope][1] (via [WO 2000/045689 A1][2], the WIPO application).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll find the following National Phase information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Australia                 07.08.2001  23251/00    Granted:   29.04.2004&#xD;&#xA;    China                     03.02.2000  00803377.3   &#xD;&#xA;    European Patent Office    29.08.2001  2000902068  Published: 28.11.2001&#xD;&#xA;                                                      Withdrawn: 27.01.2005&#xD;&#xA;    United States of America  02.08.2001  09890247    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the European application was withdrawn, so you need only need to determine the status of the US, Australian and Chinese applications. Although the patent was filed from a Japanese application (JP 11/27294), it appears that coverage was not sought in Japan during the national phase. I'm not familiar with Japan's patent system, so someone may need to correct me there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On Google Patents, under Legal Events:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Date           Code   Event	Description&#xD;&#xA;    Aug 29, 2007   FPAY   Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;                          Year of fee payment: 4&#xD;&#xA;    Nov 7, 2011    REMI   Maintenance fee reminder mailed	&#xD;&#xA;    Mar 23, 2012   LAPS   Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees	&#xD;&#xA;    May 15, 2012   FP     Expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee	&#xD;&#xA;                          Effective date: 20120323&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the US patent has lapsed (effective March 23, 2012) due to a failure to pay the maintenance fee. I should note that the source of this information is originally [USPTO Public Pair][3], then via IFI/Fairview Research, to Google Patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The information for the Australian patent grant is available via [AusPat][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Vol/Iss  Publication date  Publication action                       Reason&#xD;&#xA;    20/36    2006-09-21        Patent Ceased                            Application Ceased 	&#xD;&#xA;    18/18    2004-05-13        Letters Patent Sealed - Standard Patents 		&#xD;&#xA;    18/1     2004-01-08        Applications Accepted 		&#xD;&#xA;    14/38    2000-10-26        Applications OPI&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the Australian patent grant ceased on September 21, 2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For completeness, I would provide the status of the [Chinese patent][5], but the [SIPO][6] application search is currently inaccessible for some reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2000045689&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2000045689A1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/applicationDetails.do?applicationNo=2000023251&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://search.sipo.gov.cn/sipo/zljs/hyjs-yx-new.jsp?leixin=fmzl&amp;recid=00803377.3&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://english.sipo.gov.cn/application/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44133" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14601" RevisionGUID="a55ac7da-6311-456a-ba99-170c9256ea20" CreationDate="2017-01-25T22:57:39.650" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44134" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7765" RevisionGUID="10e1da6b-b65a-4e63-8386-e396081bba21" CreationDate="2017-01-25T23:57:38.917" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44135" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16491" RevisionGUID="6a9d037b-cb17-46e0-97d3-7ec295f4b8ad" CreationDate="2017-01-26T00:57:38.680" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44136" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="4e3fb584-68cf-40a4-ad6a-f0cb93f3e3ac" CreationDate="2017-01-26T04:58:09.270" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44140" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10744" RevisionGUID="c53b86d5-f838-431d-93a4-d657f75bae77" CreationDate="2017-01-26T11:05:52.637" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17121" RevisionGUID="482510e4-73d1-4133-9ad8-836dc441f83d" CreationDate="2017-01-26T15:23:18.097" UserId="18033" Comment="added 298 characters in body" Text="This tag is for questions relating to the examination process of intellectual property right applications. For questions regarding patentability please include the patentability tag. Please also include the relevant tag for the kind of protection - invention patent, utility model or design patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44147" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17121" RevisionGUID="482510e4-73d1-4133-9ad8-836dc441f83d" CreationDate="2017-01-26T15:23:18.097" Comment="Proposed by 18033 approved by 15503, 1 edit id of 2007" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17119" RevisionGUID="1443d0ae-9368-4b29-937c-fc7f9bf12e00" CreationDate="2017-01-26T15:23:25.413" UserId="18033" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="For questions relating to utility models" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44149" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17119" RevisionGUID="1443d0ae-9368-4b29-937c-fc7f9bf12e00" CreationDate="2017-01-26T15:23:25.413" Comment="Proposed by 18033 approved by 1 edit id of 2006" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="ba99c8d2-ad8a-4114-ad96-4f702e226809" CreationDate="2017-01-26T17:47:36.357" UserId="18371" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20060085888][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20060085888&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would an automated method or system to modulate and control the temperature of the garment which is based on input from the person wearing the garment infringe this patent? Would this be a  new utility patent citing this patent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44151" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="ba99c8d2-ad8a-4114-ad96-4f702e226809" CreationDate="2017-01-26T17:47:36.357" UserId="18371" Text="Temperature control question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44152" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="ba99c8d2-ad8a-4114-ad96-4f702e226809" CreationDate="2017-01-26T17:47:36.357" UserId="18371" Text="&lt;us20060085888&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17127" RevisionGUID="ea97b65a-9f65-4d77-a504-f5ac0cdc2853" CreationDate="2017-01-26T18:26:45.117" UserId="17003" Text="This is an application and not yet a patent. The claims are likely to change between now and when a patent is approved (if at all). Indeed, searching on this application on the [US Public Pair][1] site indicates that the application has been abandoned. I'm not sure whether it can be resurrected. It is useful to review the documents found at US Public Pair as you can see what the examiner cited against the application. Understand there may be other patents and applications that are relevant other than this one you would have to consider before you can assess the patentability of a new invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17099" RevisionGUID="77593bbf-2487-4c8c-bd43-a181cd24f378" CreationDate="2017-01-26T19:43:11.120" UserId="17003" Comment="corrected spelling of you're to your." Text="&gt; why are these patents accepted, since there are others very similar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They can't be exactly similar and granted at the same time. Anybody can file a patent for anything as long as it follows the basic criterias of patentability. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Code generator&quot; is just a term which might be getting used in completely different contexts in different patents. It is quite possible that these patents may be using a similar term to define different concepts or processes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also possible that the patents you found might be continuations of each other, describing different aspects of a same process. Patents often get granted with just few claims being valid, while other gets rejected due to prior art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And if somebody files for a patent, how does one know he/she is not infringing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer of @atsby cleared this question pretty well. You are not infringing someone's patent just by filing a similar one. Your patent will get rejected as the other patent will be found by examiner. You have to make, sell, and earn profit from a patented invention in order to infringe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing, if you're concerned about how will you know that your product is infringing a patent or not. It's done by performing a &quot;freedom to operate&quot; search. You search the market if anybody has a patent on the product you are planning to sell, if you find a patent, you approach them for a license. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44155" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13870" RevisionGUID="8f6fc8b9-635c-4c9c-9188-626dae68aa80" CreationDate="2017-01-26T20:16:03.170" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17128" RevisionGUID="e0e2181f-0188-4f8b-a62e-9503474a9217" CreationDate="2017-01-26T21:11:09.550" UserId="18376" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20100118147][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20100118147&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was this patent ever granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44157" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17128" RevisionGUID="e0e2181f-0188-4f8b-a62e-9503474a9217" CreationDate="2017-01-26T21:11:09.550" UserId="18376" Text="Was this patent ever granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44158" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17128" RevisionGUID="e0e2181f-0188-4f8b-a62e-9503474a9217" CreationDate="2017-01-26T21:11:09.550" UserId="18376" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44159" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16340" RevisionGUID="fb21f5eb-3e4d-434b-a052-0bfe912c4d11" CreationDate="2017-01-26T21:16:03.283" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17129" RevisionGUID="46e906bd-1423-49c7-999f-2aa70ba5dcbf" CreationDate="2017-01-26T21:16:07.400" UserId="18033" Text="The european version (https://www.google.com/patents/EP2196967B1?hl=en) has been granted, the US version has been abandoned (https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=US.26893308.A&amp;lng=en)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44169" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10643" RevisionGUID="ff034718-5ffe-4ef1-9476-892f69704c97" CreationDate="2017-01-27T02:21:10.260" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44173" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="3bdf5a51-5b0d-4093-9dc7-0abb3fd32244" CreationDate="2017-01-27T04:21:19.993" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44174" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="80a08c56-1071-4e74-8b3f-863ac116684c" CreationDate="2017-01-27T05:21:22.117" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44175" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14943" RevisionGUID="80e0f5ca-aa3c-4be9-83f1-b7653e476965" CreationDate="2017-01-27T06:22:18.300" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44179" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14200" RevisionGUID="f1e8151f-4aaf-438f-8716-ae207771ffff" CreationDate="2017-01-27T08:22:20.583" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44180" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="afda8490-007d-4666-8366-a282e4249be3" CreationDate="2017-01-27T09:22:21.077" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17133" RevisionGUID="2b758151-bd0f-4165-baae-3f6722f21cf1" CreationDate="2017-01-27T14:42:15.543" UserId="18383" Text="In reference to the patent: [US6490534][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6490534&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would a camera-based system that took photographs of the user, but determined the user's measurements through another method( still analyzing the photos of the user) infringe on this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44182" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17133" RevisionGUID="2b758151-bd0f-4165-baae-3f6722f21cf1" CreationDate="2017-01-27T14:42:15.543" UserId="18383" Text="Does this prohibit other camera measuring systems?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44183" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17133" RevisionGUID="2b758151-bd0f-4165-baae-3f6722f21cf1" CreationDate="2017-01-27T14:42:15.543" UserId="18383" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17134" RevisionGUID="b7d47d98-e5a0-49db-935f-33e2c2b919d5" CreationDate="2017-01-27T15:47:50.970" UserId="17003" Text="If your measurement technique doesn't implement each and every step mentioned in at least one claim, then you don't infringe this patent. The independent claims of this patent are vey detailed, consisting of many steps so I think there is likely significant room to implement alternative solutions. You do have to be aware that there could be other patents that also need to be avoided. Start searching for those by looking at the cited prior art from the patent and patents that cite this one. Also, this patent is listed as lapsed, so it may not an issue in any case, but I'd rather one or the attorneys who lurk here comment on that. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44188" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14934" RevisionGUID="afd9306e-758d-49cc-b13e-4c23f6752372" CreationDate="2017-01-27T16:26:55.783" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17136" RevisionGUID="e6cb52fc-669e-4bd5-b6d9-78d94774b726" CreationDate="2017-01-27T19:55:47.220" UserId="18033" Text="Is there a way to keep an invention patent application unpublished in the US? &#xA;&#xA;If yes, for how long and can one get a search report while keeping the invention secret?&#xA;&#xA;Afaik in Europe the only way would be military secrets." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44191" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17136" RevisionGUID="e6cb52fc-669e-4bd5-b6d9-78d94774b726" CreationDate="2017-01-27T19:55:47.220" UserId="18033" Text="Keep application secret" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44192" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17136" RevisionGUID="e6cb52fc-669e-4bd5-b6d9-78d94774b726" CreationDate="2017-01-27T19:55:47.220" UserId="18033" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;secret&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44193" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16759" RevisionGUID="c0bad682-9b08-4bf6-9fe1-49c529eddbf9" CreationDate="2017-01-27T20:31:08.797" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="148" RevisionGUID="6993dc53-cc31-49db-b540-d8a4837aa3f1" CreationDate="2017-01-27T20:44:59.083" UserId="18033" Comment="added 782 characters in body" Text="The **basic requirements** for an invention to be patentable as an invention patent are &#xD;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- novelty &#xD;&#xA;- inventive step&#xD;&#xA;- industrial applicability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Novelty* means that the same invention has not been published (or presented as a patent application) anywhere before the date of the application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Inventive step* is fullfilled if the invention does not follow obviously from the known prior art for a person skilled in the art (i.e. somebody usually asked to solve the respectie problem).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lack of *industrial applicability* is used against inventions like perpetuum mobiles as they are not d'accord with known laws of physics and therefore not usable in industry (because they are impossible to build/use). It's sometimes called usability too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The formal requirements can be looked up on the webpages of the patent office for the country the patent is applied for in. In the US this would be the USPTO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Follow this link for a formal description: &#xD;&#xA;https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2104.html&#xD;&#xA;Or consult wikipedia: &#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentability&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Types of patents&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;There are different types of intelectual property rights that are sometimes called three types of patents, though formally that's not correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There invention patents, utility models (not in all countries) and design patents. Please relate to the relevant tags or google for more information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44195" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="148" RevisionGUID="6993dc53-cc31-49db-b540-d8a4837aa3f1" CreationDate="2017-01-27T20:44:59.083" Comment="Proposed by 18033 approved by 15503, 1 edit id of 2008" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12209" RevisionGUID="67857e6c-94e2-4e52-b149-47203d448175" CreationDate="2017-01-27T20:45:09.460" UserId="18033" Comment="added 226 characters in body" Text="Related to procedures between the patent holder and the patent offices, opposing a patent before grant and similar questions. (The only way to do that is a Third Party Observation (TPO), so please include that tag if your question is about opposing a patent application.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44197" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12209" RevisionGUID="67857e6c-94e2-4e52-b149-47203d448175" CreationDate="2017-01-27T20:45:09.460" Comment="Proposed by 18033 approved by 1 edit id of 2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="230" RevisionGUID="80c7851f-ffe3-4bab-be66-62a056e75049" CreationDate="2017-01-27T20:45:12.400" UserId="18033" Comment="added 307 characters in body" Text="For questions involving the creation, use, sale, import or export of patented items without permission from the patent holder or any person legally entitled to grant a license. Also for questions regarding the legal implications for the patent holder or the infringer. If you are beeing sued or put on notice for patent infringement please note that this can cost A LOT of money, you should consult a patent attorney." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44199" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="230" RevisionGUID="80c7851f-ffe3-4bab-be66-62a056e75049" CreationDate="2017-01-27T20:45:12.400" Comment="Proposed by 18033 approved by 1 edit id of 2010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="50" RevisionGUID="942494bf-3f93-489d-83a1-eda876150e89" CreationDate="2017-01-27T20:45:17.253" UserId="18033" Comment="added 207 characters in body" Text="Questions involving patent issues across multiple countries. If your question is about a specific region or country (Eu, China, ...) please include that tag. If your question is about PCT applications (sometimes called international patents), please include that tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44201" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="50" RevisionGUID="942494bf-3f93-489d-83a1-eda876150e89" CreationDate="2017-01-27T20:45:17.253" Comment="Proposed by 18033 approved by 15503, 1 edit id of 2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="149" RevisionGUID="f636c5c9-c831-4699-ba86-091cc017cfbb" CreationDate="2017-01-27T20:45:21.563" UserId="18033" Comment="added 244 characters in body" Text="For questions relating to the legal requirements necessary for applications to be granted a patent.&#xD;&#xA;Please include a tag relating to the relevant type of intellectual property protection you are asking about. There are invention patents, design patents and utility models. For an explanation of the differences, read the full tag description." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44203" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="149" RevisionGUID="f636c5c9-c831-4699-ba86-091cc017cfbb" CreationDate="2017-01-27T20:45:21.563" Comment="Proposed by 18033 approved by 15503, 1 edit id of 2009" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44204" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4993" RevisionGUID="3c20bd08-86ad-468d-a0c2-0421caf111eb" CreationDate="2017-01-27T20:46:01.770" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:18033,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DonQuiKong&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:15503,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Maca&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="44205" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16365" RevisionGUID="87ac70c9-9dbe-417a-95dc-11d82b125d35" CreationDate="2017-01-27T21:31:08.423" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17137" RevisionGUID="c24656cd-1152-4c94-babd-d1671fdb3fb6" CreationDate="2017-01-27T21:53:48.977" UserId="14038" Text="If the invention is not disclosed in another patent application in another country or patent organization (EPO) that requires publication, then a request for nonpublication can be made AT THE TIME OF FILING.   The application will then not be published until such time as it may issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;37 CFR 1.213  Nonpublication request.&#xD;&#xA;(a) If the invention disclosed in an application has not been and will not be the subject of an application filed in another country, or under a multilateral international agreement, that requires publication of applications eighteen months after filing, the application will not be published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) and § 1.211 provided:&#xD;&#xA;(1) A request (nonpublication request) is submitted with the application upon filing;&#xD;&#xA;(2) The request states in a conspicuous manner that the application is not to be published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b);&#xD;&#xA;(3) The request contains a certification that the invention disclosed in the application has not been and will not be the subject of an application filed in another country, or under a multilateral international agreement, that requires publication at eighteen months after filing; and&#xD;&#xA;(4) The request is signed in compliance with § 1.33(b)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44207" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="9ceb739b-ca3f-4fcb-af3f-48e077a17fc7" CreationDate="2017-01-27T23:31:09.687" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44208" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14724" RevisionGUID="4d9d4e46-abc3-4828-9d45-743f7429a799" CreationDate="2017-01-28T00:31:11.447" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44214" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14820" RevisionGUID="868974ee-fc1c-401c-b5c8-40fa3d4ec673" CreationDate="2017-01-28T01:31:18.190" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44215" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13861" RevisionGUID="7e8a5f2b-cf25-4886-8f32-e2aff7f0d216" CreationDate="2017-01-28T02:33:17.933" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44217" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14621" RevisionGUID="b2005144-64ff-4047-bc2e-75dfc6ae5e14" CreationDate="2017-01-28T03:33:17.963" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17138" RevisionGUID="fc6791a7-1ca3-4743-bd63-5e5292dd90ba" CreationDate="2017-01-28T08:09:17.543" UserId="18388" Text="I know that I meet the first condition where I have 0 patent filings. Also, my revenue is less than 10 thousand dollars a year. Though, I do not understand the third term. Can someone explain to me this condition named &quot;GROSS INCOME LIMIT ON PARTIES WITH AN “OWNERSHIP INTEREST.” I am planning on patenting something then started a project on kickstarter asking for 400-500 thousand dollars. If i understand this right, will that condition prevent me from starting a kickstarter campaign?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44219" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17138" RevisionGUID="fc6791a7-1ca3-4743-bd63-5e5292dd90ba" CreationDate="2017-01-28T08:09:17.543" UserId="18388" Text="A question regarding micro entity terms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44220" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17138" RevisionGUID="fc6791a7-1ca3-4743-bd63-5e5292dd90ba" CreationDate="2017-01-28T08:09:17.543" UserId="18388" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17139" RevisionGUID="9f156319-99bc-4827-b5f7-71c153882a66" CreationDate="2017-01-28T08:55:45.010" UserId="18388" Text="I have a new idea for a mobile app that I have developed and finished developing. The idea is unique and new. I know about the three conditions to patenting mobile applications and my app meets them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though, this is not what I am curious about. The most important aspect about my application that I do not want to be stolen is two methods or functions which have two algorithms. I am not sure about patenting so I must ask. Should I patent the new novice mobile app fully or should I patent the methods?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44222" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17139" RevisionGUID="9f156319-99bc-4827-b5f7-71c153882a66" CreationDate="2017-01-28T08:55:45.010" UserId="18388" Text="A specifc question regarding mobile apps patenting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44223" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17139" RevisionGUID="9f156319-99bc-4827-b5f7-71c153882a66" CreationDate="2017-01-28T08:55:45.010" UserId="18388" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17140" RevisionGUID="fecb9c78-1e1f-4a4a-ac32-ff4a71f57541" CreationDate="2017-01-28T10:39:50.593" UserId="15503" Text="The rule you are referring to is probably 37 CFR § 1.29(a)(4), which provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Neither the applicant nor the inventor nor a joint inventor has assigned, granted, or conveyed, nor is under an obligation by contract or law to assign, grant, or convey, a license or other ownership interest in the application concerned to an entity that, in the calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the applicable fee is being paid, had a gross income, as defined in section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, exceeding three times the median household income for that preceding calendar year, as most recently reported by the Bureau of the Census. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ownership interest&quot; relates to any kind of proprietary rights that another party might have over the patent application. Part ownership is the most obvious form of ownership interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus a translation of this into simple non-legal English might be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The applicant or invention has not given (or promised to give) rights to the patent application to someone else, if that person earns more than 3× median household income.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Would Kickstarter contributions count as an ownership interest?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems unlikely, but it depends precisely how your Kickstarter campaign is set up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If backers are given 1% ownership in the patent, or shares in the company which holds the patent (or something like that), then they would have an ownership interest in the patent, and would need to comply with the income requirements. It seems unlikely that a campaign would be set up like this though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if the backers are given a copy of the product (which may or may not be patented, it is irrelevant), then they will be receiving no rights over the patent application itself: they simply get a good. This is therefore not an ownership interest." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17141" RevisionGUID="e3b14bd9-76b2-49f2-88b8-ab3c137086cc" CreationDate="2017-01-28T10:55:52.990" UserId="15503" Text="**Should I patent the new novel mobile app fully or should I patent the methods?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a false dichotomy: you should patent the invention (or inventions), regardless of how it might be implemented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To determine what the invention is, you need to determine whether the different components can usefully stand alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, each algorithm might be pointless on its own, and simply involve shuffling data around. If so, these algorithms are not really inventions. In this case, the invention might therefore be a method involving the use of both algorithms together in the context of a mobile app.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, one of your algorithms might be a unique way of error checking data transmitted across a network that is faster than conventional methods. This would be useful in many situations (even though you only intend to use it in your mobile app). The invention (or one of the inventions) would therefore be this algorithm alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By focusing on what the invention is (rather than what your product is) you will be maximising the scope of any resultant patent (and thus the protection that you obtain).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But it must be patent-eligible**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US per *Alice v CLS* the subject matter of a patent claim may not be directed to an abstract idea. An algorithm may be an abstract idea. However, since *Alice*-style abstractness is quite beyond the scope of your question, I simply flag it as a potential issue (and would invite you to ask a further question, should you feel it necessary)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17140" RevisionGUID="7d4af595-c617-4a11-818a-a231652fcd96" CreationDate="2017-01-28T11:05:54.560" UserId="15503" Comment="Expand answer" Text="The rule you are referring to is probably 37 CFR § 1.29(a)(4), which provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Neither the applicant nor the inventor nor a joint inventor has assigned, granted, or conveyed, nor is under an obligation by contract or law to assign, grant, or convey, a license or other ownership interest in the application concerned to an entity that, in the calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the applicable fee is being paid, had a gross income, as defined in section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, exceeding three times the median household income for that preceding calendar year, as most recently reported by the Bureau of the Census. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ownership interest&quot; relates to any kind of proprietary rights that another party might have over the patent application. Part ownership is the most obvious form of ownership interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus a translation of this into simple non-legal English might be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The applicant or invention has not given (or promised to give) rights to the patent application to someone else, if that person earns more than 3× median household income.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Would Kickstarter contributions count as an ownership interest?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems unlikely, but it depends precisely how your Kickstarter campaign is set up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If backers are given 1% ownership in the patent, or shares in the company which holds the patent (or something like that), then they would have an ownership interest in the patent, and would need to comply with the income requirements. It seems unlikely that a campaign would be set up like this though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if the backers are given a copy of the product (which may or may not be patented, it is irrelevant), then they will be receiving no rights over the patent application itself: they simply get a good. This is therefore not an ownership interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What if my entity status changes?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is fine: you simply need to notify the USPTO before or while paying the next fee ([37 CFR § 1.29(i)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.29)). You will then be paying small or large entity fees (depending on the situation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you pay a fee at the wrong rate, this may be considered fraud (which could result in, among other things, an invalid patent) ([37 CFR § 1.29(j)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.29)). However, this may be remedied if the mistake was made in good faith ([37 CFR § 1.29(k)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.29))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44227" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="355135dd-a523-4a93-b022-89f950c16939" CreationDate="2017-01-28T14:56:29.620" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16195" RevisionGUID="38451f85-600c-4d45-91ec-d5af36a36d56" CreationDate="2017-01-28T16:53:34.030" UserId="17155" Comment="Link updated" Text="There is no definitive answer to your question. The simple suggestion is that you might want to consider consulting with your attorney. But, unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that even attorney will have a proper yes or no answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a website though that might help you decide whether the software you are going to create infringes [ImageWare][1] patent: [website where they try to use patent prosecution against the patent][2], at least it should help you to understand what the patent is patenting. Keep in mind that there are probably much more patents related to biometrics not only [ImageWare][1] patents. Anyway the more information you collect on patents related to your product the better understanding of patent situation you acquire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind the patent you’ve mentioned is a US patent, apparently [ImageWare][1] has applied for a same patent in many countries: [WIPO][3]. In the end it is up to you to assess the risk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After going through the reports you provided it really looks that the company is very bad at what they are doing which is a cause to worry having in mind that they put so much effort into patents as you've said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at ImageWare's patent families:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7298873, US7362884, US7606396, US7596246][4]&#xD;&#xA; - [US9286528][5]&#xD;&#xA; - [20140313007][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is to analyze those patents and if they can still be objected to add corresponding questions here marked as a prior art request. Also if you see that patent is claiming way less than it might seem from abstract or description (take a look at the website I've mentioned earlier: [link][7], [backup link][8]), it would be great to share the reasoning here in stackexchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://iwsinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.unaux.com/ImageWare/7298873/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2006055575&amp;recNum=1&amp;tab=NationalPhase&amp;maxRec=&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=&amp;queryString=&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://globaldossier.uspto.gov/#/result/patent/US/7362884/126592&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://globaldossier.uspto.gov/#/result/patent/US/9286528/114162&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://globaldossier.uspto.gov/#/result/publication/US/20140313007/113669&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://patents.unaux.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://web.archive.org/web/20160725123956/http://patents.hoxty.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44233" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16633" RevisionGUID="f71533de-54a2-40bc-9dcd-a5eaa92d8e75" CreationDate="2017-01-28T22:58:39.427" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44234" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13986" RevisionGUID="e24e3eb9-459f-4fef-93a7-6b9aff1ac3ae" CreationDate="2017-01-28T23:58:44.027" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17144" RevisionGUID="2a1e8f2d-78cc-4ba0-be91-cf58042ddf80" CreationDate="2017-01-29T00:46:50.583" UserId="17003" Text="For applications file prior to June 8th, 1995, the patent term is either 17 years from the issue date or 20 years from the filing date of the earliest U.S. or international (PCT) application to which priority is claimed (excluding provisional applications), the longer term applying. So this is either April 2, 2013 (17 years) or May 15, 2014 (20 years). Since May 15, 2014 is later, it is the expiration date for this patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44237" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16193" RevisionGUID="01294407-d5df-4aa6-8675-4ac262ac846c" CreationDate="2017-01-29T00:58:44.277" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44238" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10545" RevisionGUID="ab376deb-685e-41cd-a17b-a89ff9db6f40" CreationDate="2017-01-29T01:58:48.137" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44239" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13260" RevisionGUID="ccee1a61-f0d2-4197-9d51-c2b0e1bbb538" CreationDate="2017-01-29T11:05:58.140" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44240" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="12bb3e71-8725-4dfc-bb3a-e68b3ca95b07" CreationDate="2017-01-29T14:16:11.863" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44241" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13528" RevisionGUID="2f89a2ad-435d-4e82-9f4c-6696bbf1743c" CreationDate="2017-01-29T20:26:18.023" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17145" RevisionGUID="8fe591e7-07c2-4ea8-870f-136c2f93112a" CreationDate="2017-01-29T21:19:25.353" UserId="18396" Text="There is a pending patent that has a number of very abstract claims which are currently being denied for being &quot;abstract ideas&quot; (although the inventor may appeal at some point). I am currently working on a product that includes a function covered by one of the abstract claims submitted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I file a patent application claiming my very specific methodology for performing the given function (which is non-generic unlike the claim that has been refuted), or do I need to wait for the other application to be finally denied, etc..?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44243" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17145" RevisionGUID="8fe591e7-07c2-4ea8-870f-136c2f93112a" CreationDate="2017-01-29T21:19:25.353" UserId="18396" Text="Can a patent include a claim that is encompassed by an &quot;abstract&quot; claim rejected in a different pending application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44244" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17145" RevisionGUID="8fe591e7-07c2-4ea8-870f-136c2f93112a" CreationDate="2017-01-29T21:19:25.353" UserId="18396" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;alice&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17145" RevisionGUID="db2eaee9-de82-48ed-8438-4333adf928ab" CreationDate="2017-01-29T21:27:45.103" UserId="18396" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="There is a pending patent that has a number of very abstract claims which are currently being denied for being &quot;abstract ideas&quot; (although the inventor may appeal at some point). I am currently working on a product that includes a function covered by one of the abstract claims submitted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I file a patent application claiming my very specific methodology for performing the given function (which is non-generic unlike the claim that has been refuted), do I need to wait for the other application's claim to be continually amended and denied (it has been going on for 3 years) before my application is considered for approval?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17146" RevisionGUID="ec48ea99-73af-4d00-9d72-b51f33436e4d" CreationDate="2017-01-29T21:31:41.257" UserId="18033" Text="I'll start with this part as it's easiest to answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or do I need to wait for the other application to be finally denied&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-&gt; No. What you can patent has nothing to do with what others have a patent for or do not get protection for or anything concerning their *protection*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For an invention to be inventive, it has to be novel (unpublished) and inventive (not obvious for someone skilled in the art from a point of view where he knows everything that has been published). &#xD;&#xA;It is possible (and not rare) for patents to have overlapping scopes of protection. For example, if I patented the wheel made out of solid stone and you patented one out of wood afterwards, it is entirely possible that my claims emcompass every kind of wheel and yours the wheel made out of wood. Somebody who wants to sell wheels made out of wood would then have to get a license from both our patents (or would infringe them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with your invention *could* be novelty or inventive step. If the other patent encompasses your invention, it might be deemed obvious. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can only be answered by looking at the exact specifications of this case. If you want to try it yourself, start reading articles and explanations on inventive step. However, I would consult a patent attorney, they can help you with determining which part, if any, of your invention is patentable and with patenting it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44247" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17145" RevisionGUID="f207d1c9-79e7-4a44-8095-98ac2d89e290" CreationDate="2017-01-29T21:34:48.617" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17136" RevisionGUID="22aff895-ae29-4652-801f-b14d3625e4a4" CreationDate="2017-01-29T21:42:48.743" UserId="18033" Comment="found the relevant tag" Text="Is there a way to keep an invention patent application unpublished in the US? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If yes, for how long and can one get a search report while keeping the invention secret?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Afaik in Europe the only way would be military secrets." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44249" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17136" RevisionGUID="22aff895-ae29-4652-801f-b14d3625e4a4" CreationDate="2017-01-29T21:42:48.743" UserId="18033" Comment="found the relevant tag" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;secret&gt;&lt;non-publication&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44250" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7833" RevisionGUID="74feed8b-8906-4f87-b122-970036e30d5b" CreationDate="2017-01-30T00:28:01.473" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17146" RevisionGUID="614352e9-9fec-41d1-b9e7-a4be7aa89a9c" CreationDate="2017-01-30T14:27:27.293" UserId="18033" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I'll start with this part as it's easiest to answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or do I need to wait for the other application to be finally denied&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-&gt; No. What you can patent has nothing to do with what others have a patent for or do not get protection for or anything concerning their *protection*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For an invention to be patentable, it has to be novel (unpublished) and inventive (not obvious for someone skilled in the art from a point of view where he knows everything that has been published). &#xD;&#xA;It is possible (and not rare) for patents to have overlapping scopes of protection. For example, if I patented the wheel made out of solid stone and you patented one out of wood afterwards, it is entirely possible that my claims emcompass every kind of wheel and yours the wheel made out of wood. Somebody who wants to sell wheels made out of wood would then have to get a license from both our patents (or would infringe them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with your invention *could* be novelty or inventive step. If the other patent encompasses your invention, it might be deemed obvious. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can only be answered by looking at the exact specifications of this case. If you want to try it yourself, start reading articles and explanations on inventive step. However, I would consult a patent attorney, they can help you with determining which part, if any, of your invention is patentable and with patenting it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44262" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13007" RevisionGUID="cc557ae4-7376-4beb-9e47-b9314ef208fb" CreationDate="2017-01-30T18:37:52.897" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17149" RevisionGUID="4e67b7a9-5334-43be-a2c6-3c72ff3de798" CreationDate="2017-01-30T20:10:50.077" UserId="18033" Text="## Application ##&#xD;&#xA;The life cycle of a patent starts with the application. The inventor files this application with a patent office, for example the USPTO (US PaTent Office). &#xD;&#xA;This grants them the right to say &quot;patent pending&quot;, but no enforceable protection rights. Everyone can file a patent application, containing basically everything (apart from illegal things and insults maybe).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A recent patent application gets an application number that starts with a country code (US, EP, ...), followed by a year (e.g. 2007) and a number. (Note: This is true for the US and Europe and many other countries, but may not be true for all countries, keep reading).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A recent patent application is followed by the 'kind code' A or A1 or A2 or ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent kind codes and application numbers have changed in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only because a patent has an application number, this does not mean it hasn't been granted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Grant ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the application there may (or may not!) come the grant of the patent. This means that the claims in the new publication of the granted patent are enforceable rights. Infringing them can get you in legal trouble. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is indicated by a new patent number (they are awarded counting up, recent grants in the US start with a 9) and a 'B' kind code. **The application number does not disappear and can still be found! **&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How to tell what it is ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google patents shows a summary on the right of the page where you can find other numbers the patent document has been published as. If you find a granted patent number there, the patent has been granted. Click on it to find the date of grant. If there is non, you should make sure google is not mistaken. Click on the espacenet link and check for the &quot;published as&quot; links there again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And thats it. It is that simple. However ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The thing with the fees and ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not every granted patent still is enforceable. If the fees aren't paid or the patent is invalidated, the rights vanish. &#xD;&#xA;And nowadays the normal patent term is 20 yrs. (http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/17059/18033 this answer provides a way to figure out if the patent has lapsed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## In which countries and are there associated patents? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From google patents click on the espacenet link and then on family members. Those are the associated patents. They have a country code (and it says the country if you click on it). Only countries with a granted patent in it are part of the protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;European and PCT (international) patent applications have a national phase where they enter the designated countries, European patents enter when granted, PCT applications never get granted on the international level, they enter national phase as applications. So if you cannot find a national patent for the PCT application, it has no protection in that country (or you failed). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Countries for a European granted patent can be looked up on the legals tab of espacenet. This however relies on data from the national patent offices, so if in doud, search for the national counterpart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## An example ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US20100289665?hl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Number:&#xD;&#xA;US20100289665 A1 &#xD;&#xA;This is an application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google shows us:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US8531308?hl=en&#xD;&#xA;(The granted version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&amp;NR=2010289665A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Espacenet link)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Family members:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?CC=US&amp;NR=2010289665A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=20101118&amp;DB=&amp;locale=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Itself and the PCT application (WO....))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We see, at this moment, this patent is only enforceable in the US." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17150" RevisionGUID="bf9a2249-2aaa-4461-b576-e83f008dd42d" CreationDate="2017-01-30T23:19:30.757" UserId="18405" Text="If one has a patent in which a formulation procedure (delivery system) for a class of drugs, and specifically for one member of that class of drugs is described can statements made in 3-4 different places in the body of the grant provide any protection if the formulation procedure is used to prepare delivery systems for other drugs that do not form a part of the class of drugs specified in the claims.&#xD;&#xA;An example of one of the statements made in the body of the grant is the following: &quot;The principles embodied in the invention provide a generally useful drug delivery platform that can be applied to the preparation of topical formulations for a wide variety of poorly water-soluble drugs including, but not limited to, antifungals, anti-infectives, steroids, retinoids, cytostatics, antivirals, etc.&quot; There are a couple of other similar statements present in the body of the patent which basically state the same thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44265" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17150" RevisionGUID="bf9a2249-2aaa-4461-b576-e83f008dd42d" CreationDate="2017-01-30T23:19:30.757" UserId="18405" Text="Is patent protection limited to ONLY what is described in one of the claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44266" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17150" RevisionGUID="bf9a2249-2aaa-4461-b576-e83f008dd42d" CreationDate="2017-01-30T23:19:30.757" UserId="18405" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17151" RevisionGUID="7c9541a5-10f2-43e2-983c-196c9f1325cb" CreationDate="2017-01-30T23:36:22.467" UserId="17003" Text="The answer is yes, the patent's protection is limited to only what is specified by the claims. The rest of the specification can represent prior art however. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17154" RevisionGUID="e66d707c-a442-4a82-83da-3ebac5e3b6f9" CreationDate="2017-01-31T01:33:35.773" UserId="18408" Text="I am aware that A. BARTHOLDI is the original owner of the patent.  I heard a rumor that the current owner is Donald Trump.  I would like to know if this is true.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44273" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17154" RevisionGUID="e66d707c-a442-4a82-83da-3ebac5e3b6f9" CreationDate="2017-01-31T01:33:35.773" UserId="18408" Text="Who owns the current patent on the statue of liberty?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44274" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17154" RevisionGUID="e66d707c-a442-4a82-83da-3ebac5e3b6f9" CreationDate="2017-01-31T01:33:35.773" UserId="18408" Text="&lt;usd11023&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44275" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14937" RevisionGUID="9fc6e3c7-c14b-45c0-9842-ca8482a2377c" CreationDate="2017-01-31T01:42:31.023" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17155" RevisionGUID="f7d9ab72-30a0-44ac-a04f-94a36bdb6d57" CreationDate="2017-01-31T03:52:38.490" UserId="15503" Text="This design patent is from 1879 and had a 14 year term (which is apparent from its description). It therefore expired in 1893. It therefore does not really have a current owner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it is possible to assign some rights associated with a patent after its expiry, that is quite limited. I think that assigning rights more than 100 years after a patent's expiry would go far beyond any credible limit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I therefore feel reasonably confident in saying that Donald Trump does not own US D11023, nor does he hold any rights which might have once existed after its expiry." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44278" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17154" RevisionGUID="fa09c704-cc58-4ff2-8859-f0067b200c89" CreationDate="2017-01-31T03:57:57.140" UserId="15503" Comment="Remove &quot;current&quot; from the title - since D11023 is far from current." Text="Who owns the patent on the statue of liberty?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44284" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="032a0443-0b64-40c7-8a49-139e90bac138" CreationDate="2017-01-31T07:43:00.637" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17149" RevisionGUID="d1324c9e-f269-4f44-b3b6-91a947db0660" CreationDate="2017-01-31T07:49:31.320" UserId="18033" Comment="implemented Maca's comment" Text="## Application ##&#xD;&#xA;The life cycle of a patent starts with the application. The inventor files this application with a patent office, for example the USPTO (US Patent and Trademark Office). &#xD;&#xA;This grants them the right to say &quot;patent pending&quot;, but no enforceable protection rights. Everyone can file a patent application, containing basically everything (apart from obviously illegal texts submitted as patent applications, insults maybe or applications that don't meet the formal requirements as to how a patent application has to be submitted).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A recent patent application gets an publication number that starts with a country code (US, EP, ...), followed by a year (e.g. 2007) and a number. (Note: This is true for the US and Europe and many other countries, but may not be true for all countries, keep reading). This is the number you normaly find for applications when looking on the internet. If you somehow got the application number and can't find it on google, try the &quot;Public Pair&quot; (http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair) for US applications or the national patent office (or espacenet for Europe) for other applications to find the publication number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A recent patent application publication is followed by the 'kind code' A or A1 or A2 or ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent kind codes and publication numbers have changed in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only because a patent has been published as an application (not every patent is), this does not mean it hasn't been granted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Grant ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the application there may (or may not!) come the grant of the patent. This means that the claims in the new publication of the granted patent are enforceable rights. Infringing them can get you in legal trouble. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is indicated by a new patent number (they are awarded counting up, recent grants in the US start with a 9) and a 'B' kind code. **The application number does not disappear and can still be found! **&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How to tell what it is ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google patents shows a summary on the right of the page where you can find other numbers the patent document has been published as. If you find a granted patent number there, the patent has been granted. Click on it to find the date of grant. If there is non, you should make sure google is not mistaken. Click on the espacenet link and check for the &quot;published as&quot; links there again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And thats it. It is that simple. However ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The thing with the fees and ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not every granted patent still is enforceable. If the fees aren't paid or the patent is invalidated, the rights vanish. &#xD;&#xA;And nowadays the normal patent term is 20 yrs. (http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/17059/18033 this answer provides a way to figure out if the patent has lapsed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## In which countries and are there associated patents? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From google patents click on the espacenet link and then on family members. Those are the associated patents. They have a country code (and it says the country if you click on it). Only countries with a granted patent in it are part of the protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;European and PCT (international) patent applications have a national phase where they enter the designated countries, European patents enter when granted, PCT applications never get granted on the international level, they enter national phase as applications. So if you cannot find a national patent for the PCT application, it has no protection in that country (or you failed). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Countries for a European granted patent can be looked up on the legals tab of espacenet. This however relies on data from the national patent offices, so if in doud, search for the national counterpart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## An example ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US20100289665?hl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Number:&#xD;&#xA;US20100289665 A1 &#xD;&#xA;This is an application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google shows us:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US8531308?hl=en&#xD;&#xA;(The granted version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&amp;NR=2010289665A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Espacenet link)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Family members:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?CC=US&amp;NR=2010289665A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=20101118&amp;DB=&amp;locale=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Itself and the PCT application (WO....))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We see, at this moment, this patent is only enforceable in the US." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17157" RevisionGUID="559b55e7-1c8a-4dc7-ac75-c65dae9e82b2" CreationDate="2017-01-31T09:28:24.667" UserId="18388" Text="I have just finished testing my mobile application and I am ready to release it. The idea is novel and patentable. I have made sure of that. Now I have a question, I want to know the right time to patent it. Should I go ahead and apply for a provisional patent then release application on the market? Should I release the app then apply for a patent soon after? Is there a wait time between the time I need to file for a provisional patent and the release of the application. Keep in mind that I want to start the application on Kickstarter in order to receive funds to fully support the project. So, I want to know the order in which I could file for the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44287" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17157" RevisionGUID="559b55e7-1c8a-4dc7-ac75-c65dae9e82b2" CreationDate="2017-01-31T09:28:24.667" UserId="18388" Text="When is the right time to apply for my provisional patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44288" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17157" RevisionGUID="559b55e7-1c8a-4dc7-ac75-c65dae9e82b2" CreationDate="2017-01-31T09:28:24.667" UserId="18388" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17158" RevisionGUID="5e568119-e8fb-4f75-8ab9-4d0a27479691" CreationDate="2017-01-31T09:47:22.493" UserId="15503" Text="You should absolutely file a patent application before releasing your product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you release your product first, then the product becomes prior art. This will prevent you receiving a patent (but for the grace period in the US).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Grace period**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US, there is a 1 year grace period for the inventor to file a patent application after their own disclosure. However, this grace period does not apply to provisional applications. Your first filing would need to be a non-provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This grace period does not apply in most other countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How long to wait**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have validly filed your application, and you are confident that your application fully discloses all the novel aspects of your invention, you could feel free to release your product the next day." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44290" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13171" RevisionGUID="70e0c025-389b-4fbb-8505-b3cf69e49ecd" CreationDate="2017-01-31T17:59:14.290" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44292" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5977" RevisionGUID="1279a245-e963-4ecf-8821-0de4985aef6f" CreationDate="2017-01-31T19:59:27.023" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17160" RevisionGUID="825b4a1f-4f9a-43e1-bbe7-1d1e256b12ea" CreationDate="2017-01-31T23:06:18.823" UserId="18415" Text="My son wants to file a patent and he is 12 years old. It is a pretty cool idea and he already has some interest in it. However, I am concerned that he isn't old enough to legally file or sign he documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any suggestions? (Referring to US PTO, specifically.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44294" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17160" RevisionGUID="825b4a1f-4f9a-43e1-bbe7-1d1e256b12ea" CreationDate="2017-01-31T23:06:18.823" UserId="18415" Text="How old do you have to be to file a patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44295" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17160" RevisionGUID="825b4a1f-4f9a-43e1-bbe7-1d1e256b12ea" CreationDate="2017-01-31T23:06:18.823" UserId="18415" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17161" RevisionGUID="08da4f94-d36e-4255-b3bf-79faef4d528e" CreationDate="2017-02-01T00:45:33.893" UserId="15503" Text="There does not seem to be any formal age requirement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is sort of confirmed by [37 CFR § 1.63(c)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.63) (which relates to the requirement to provide an inventor's oath), which provides (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A person may not execute an oath or declaration for an application unless that person has reviewed and understands the contents of the application, including the claims, and is aware of the duty to disclose to the Office all information known to the person to be material to patentability as defined in § 1.56. **There is no minimum age for a person to be qualified to execute an oath or declaration, but the person must be competent to execute, i.e., understand, the document that the person is executing.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anectodally also, the [USPTO Kids site](https://www.uspto.gov/kids/inventors-kids.html) seems to have stories of minors applying for patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44305" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14508" RevisionGUID="3470ebb3-9ef5-4674-bfa2-5ddf96f44933" CreationDate="2017-02-01T03:05:02.120" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17163" RevisionGUID="da2fa78b-eb94-4056-8701-8523164cb7d7" CreationDate="2017-02-01T08:29:25.630" UserId="17325" Text="Has anyone done prior art search (and provided results) based only on non-paid databases (Google, Espacenet, etc)? And moreover have you &quot;rated&quot; it vs paid databases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am under the impression that careful search in non-paid databases can be sufficient (although more tedious) and I would like to know your opinion about it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44307" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17163" RevisionGUID="da2fa78b-eb94-4056-8701-8523164cb7d7" CreationDate="2017-02-01T08:29:25.630" UserId="17325" Text="Prior art search based on non-paid databases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44308" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17163" RevisionGUID="da2fa78b-eb94-4056-8701-8523164cb7d7" CreationDate="2017-02-01T08:29:25.630" UserId="17325" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;databases&gt;&lt;search-report&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16083" RevisionGUID="9227400a-959d-4727-bb4e-e2ccdee77eab" CreationDate="2017-02-01T17:23:46.300" UserId="267" Comment="Tidied grammar. Improved link text. Clarified title. Added patent number as tag." Text="When does the patent [US4984987][1] expire?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4984987&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the [CE Approved CPR and AED Training](https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/CE-Approved-CPR-and-AED-Training_698123048.html) device infringe on this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44313" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16083" RevisionGUID="9227400a-959d-4727-bb4e-e2ccdee77eab" CreationDate="2017-02-01T17:23:46.300" UserId="267" Comment="Tidied grammar. Improved link text. Clarified title. Added patent number as tag." Text="When does the patent on the CPR manikin (US4984987) expire?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44314" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16083" RevisionGUID="9227400a-959d-4727-bb4e-e2ccdee77eab" CreationDate="2017-02-01T17:23:46.300" UserId="267" Comment="Tidied grammar. Improved link text. Clarified title. Added patent number as tag." Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;us4984987&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44315" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16083" RevisionGUID="9227400a-959d-4727-bb4e-e2ccdee77eab" CreationDate="2017-02-01T17:23:46.300" Comment="Proposed by 267 approved by -1 edit id of 2013" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16083" RevisionGUID="1bfd955d-4532-49a0-a529-9bee910416a0" CreationDate="2017-02-01T17:23:46.300" UserId="18033" Comment="Tidied grammar. Improved link text. Clarified title. Added patent number as tag." Text="When does the patent [US4984987][1] expire?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4984987&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the [CE Approved CPR and AED Training](https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/CE-Approved-CPR-and-AED-Training_698123048.html) device infringe this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17149" RevisionGUID="f15f1cca-0b56-4e76-a3a2-f84aad0b67b7" CreationDate="2017-02-01T17:37:23.097" UserId="18033" Comment="added 624 characters in body" Text="## Application ##&#xD;&#xA;The life cycle of a patent starts with the application. The inventor files this application with a patent office, for example the USPTO (US Patent and Trademark Office). &#xD;&#xA;This grants them the right to say &quot;patent pending&quot;, but no enforceable protection rights. Everyone can file a patent application, containing basically everything (apart from obviously illegal texts submitted as patent applications, insults maybe or applications that don't meet the formal requirements as to how a patent application has to be submitted).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A recent patent application gets an publication number that starts with a country code (US, EP, ...), followed by a year (e.g. 2007) and a number. (Note: This is true for the US and Europe and many other countries, but may not be true for all countries, keep reading). This is the number you normaly find for applications when looking on the internet. If you somehow got the application number and can't find it on google, try the &quot;Public Pair&quot; (http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair) for US applications or the national patent office (or espacenet for Europe) for other applications to find the publication number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A recent patent application publication is followed by the 'kind code' A or A1 or A2 or ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent kind codes and publication numbers have changed in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only because a patent has been published as an application (not every patent is), this does not mean it hasn't been granted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Grant ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the application there may (or may not!) come the grant of the patent. This means that the claims in the new publication of the granted patent are enforceable rights. Infringing them can get you in legal trouble. Those claims are regularly not the same as those in the application. It is normal to include very braod claims in the application and then iteratively narrow them during the examination. For the patent (application) holder this has the advantage that third parties don't yet know what the final claims will be, so they have to fear them, if they are broad at the beginning. A thorough analysis can get you a hint at how much might be patentable, but in the end, if you infringe the claims of an application and that part stays in the granted claims, you are liable for the time were the patent was an application too.       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is indicated by a new patent number (they are awarded counting up, recent grants in the US start with a 9) and a 'B' kind code. **The application number does not disappear and can still be found! **&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How to tell what it is ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google patents shows a summary on the right of the page where you can find other numbers the patent document has been published as. If you find a granted patent number there, the patent has been granted. Click on it to find the date of grant. If there is non, you should make sure google is not mistaken. Click on the espacenet link and check for the &quot;published as&quot; links there again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And thats it. It is that simple. However ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The thing with the fees and ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not every granted patent still is enforceable. If the fees aren't paid or the patent is invalidated, the rights vanish. &#xD;&#xA;And nowadays the normal patent term is 20 yrs. (http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/17059/18033 this answer provides a way to figure out if the patent has lapsed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## In which countries and are there associated patents? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From google patents click on the espacenet link and then on family members. Those are the associated patents. They have a country code (and it says the country if you click on it). Only countries with a granted patent in it are part of the protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;European and PCT (international) patent applications have a national phase where they enter the designated countries, European patents enter when granted, PCT applications never get granted on the international level, they enter national phase as applications. So if you cannot find a national patent for the PCT application, it has no protection in that country (or you failed). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Countries for a European granted patent can be looked up on the legals tab of espacenet. This however relies on data from the national patent offices, so if in doud, search for the national counterpart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## An example ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US20100289665?hl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Number:&#xD;&#xA;US20100289665 A1 &#xD;&#xA;This is an application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google shows us:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US8531308?hl=en&#xD;&#xA;(The granted version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&amp;NR=2010289665A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Espacenet link)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Family members:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?CC=US&amp;NR=2010289665A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=20101118&amp;DB=&amp;locale=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Itself and the PCT application (WO....))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We see, at this moment, this patent is only enforceable in the US." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44320" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="91acbd53-a7e0-44bf-aa55-c266adc0579d" CreationDate="2017-02-01T18:22:35.540" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44321" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13359" RevisionGUID="d454c23c-7765-4e7c-93b4-589224a358a2" CreationDate="2017-02-01T19:29:32.887" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17163" RevisionGUID="bb0026b0-d636-48a0-8742-2bb7cc4c72b8" CreationDate="2017-02-01T21:33:36.347" UserId="15503" Comment="adjust the question to be answerable" Text="I am considering prior art searching (and provided results) based only on non-paid databases (Google, Espacenet, etc), as opposed to paid databases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would a careful search in non-paid databases be sufficient (despite being more tedious)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14284" RevisionGUID="f81b6327-a578-4b08-894b-94614f20329f" CreationDate="2017-02-01T21:37:23.060" UserId="267" Comment="I know this is a closed question, but closed dupes stay around, and should look right. Fixed broken Markdown (missing link). Reworded with correct grammar and spelling. Added tag." Text="Is the patent [US1816592][1] “Means to recuperate the atmospheric moisture” still active?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* How can I find out whether this patent is still active?&#xD;&#xA;* Is it possible to repatent this invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/us1816592" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44324" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14284" RevisionGUID="f81b6327-a578-4b08-894b-94614f20329f" CreationDate="2017-02-01T21:37:23.060" UserId="267" Comment="I know this is a closed question, but closed dupes stay around, and should look right. Fixed broken Markdown (missing link). Reworded with correct grammar and spelling. Added tag." Text="Is US patent 1816592 still active? Can I repatent it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44325" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14284" RevisionGUID="f81b6327-a578-4b08-894b-94614f20329f" CreationDate="2017-02-01T21:37:23.060" UserId="267" Comment="I know this is a closed question, but closed dupes stay around, and should look right. Fixed broken Markdown (missing link). Reworded with correct grammar and spelling. Added tag." Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;us1816592&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44326" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14284" RevisionGUID="f81b6327-a578-4b08-894b-94614f20329f" CreationDate="2017-02-01T21:37:23.060" Comment="Proposed by 267 approved by 18033, 15503 edit id of 2014" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44332" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="672c07f5-eb5d-4b20-a37e-e61d30b64215" CreationDate="2017-02-02T10:41:35.133" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44333" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="2f721922-c5d0-4728-ae12-dc3d11d7f2b3" CreationDate="2017-02-02T14:41:51.143" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44334" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14855" RevisionGUID="c5242e04-61e6-4250-afb2-9aab172176ee" CreationDate="2017-02-02T15:51:28.667" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44335" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16645" RevisionGUID="fcb7f0ad-78f1-4835-914e-e8656897b819" CreationDate="2017-02-02T16:51:31.133" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44342" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16952" RevisionGUID="864722ea-1dea-43ec-8052-b52ae78c1d72" CreationDate="2017-02-02T21:55:35.323" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44343" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16509" RevisionGUID="0b8c2afb-ac52-41a1-a1ca-3e9fe8cfe8a0" CreationDate="2017-02-02T22:55:35.183" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44344" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="fefb411c-fa44-4e1d-89bc-f98a9003c73a" CreationDate="2017-02-02T23:55:37.963" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44345" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12629" RevisionGUID="c87dd18d-73f6-47c6-af1e-a1603090b81d" CreationDate="2017-02-03T04:02:24.367" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44346" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11951" RevisionGUID="4ecf0cf1-4074-4787-80a5-5cd0cf0cc992" CreationDate="2017-02-03T05:07:56.300" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17168" RevisionGUID="084c71e2-ca6d-4e1c-86e6-3a372c6780d8" CreationDate="2017-02-03T05:23:09.607" UserId="18297" Text="1) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering this:&#xD;&#xA;English grammar – states that “[a]n article of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a preposition applying to all the members of the series &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;must either be used only before the first term or else &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;be repeated before each term.” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is &quot;one of A, B and C&quot; same as: &#xD;&#xA;one of A and one of B and one of c?&#xD;&#xA;In which case, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Valid combination: ABC, ABCD&#xD;&#xA;Invalid: AFG, CAJ, AAF&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is it any one of A, B and C,&#xD;&#xA;in which case, these are valid: AB, BC, CA, BFG&#xD;&#xA;but this is invalid: AAB, BBH&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Invalid combination in this example contains multiple occurrence of A, B and C and so ther are invalid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please assist me on point 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) one of A, B or C&#xD;&#xA;If we go by above mention English grammar, then:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;valid: ABG, CG, ABJ&#xD;&#xA;invalid: AVY, BCX&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) At least one of A, B and c&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;valid: ABCHJ, BCAKL&#xD;&#xA;invalid: ABH, BGH, CJK&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, for &quot;Atleast one of A, B or C:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;valid: ABJ, CD, CA&#xD;&#xA;invalid: ACU, NHB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am asking this because I have found few references of this is IPWatchdog but I was still not clear as patent English is quite different in my understanding and I may end up in mess If I follow English grammar but if it can have a different meaning in patent language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please assist me.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44348" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17168" RevisionGUID="084c71e2-ca6d-4e1c-86e6-3a372c6780d8" CreationDate="2017-02-03T05:23:09.607" UserId="18297" Text="patent conjunctions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44349" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17168" RevisionGUID="084c71e2-ca6d-4e1c-86e6-3a372c6780d8" CreationDate="2017-02-03T05:23:09.607" UserId="18297" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17168" RevisionGUID="d7336780-2289-45ed-8281-8a3da7d9cd0f" CreationDate="2017-02-03T06:21:01.973" UserId="18297" Comment="added 294 characters in body" Text="Considering this:&#xD;&#xA;English grammar – states that “[a]n article of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a preposition applying to all the members of the series &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;must either be used only before the first term or else &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;be repeated before each term.” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Is &quot;one of A, B and C&quot; same as: &#xD;&#xA;   “one of A and one of B and one of c” ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In which case, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Valid combinations are : ABC, ABCD&#xD;&#xA;Invalid combinations are: AFG, CAJ, AAF&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is &quot;one of A, B and C&quot; same as “any one of A, B and C”,&#xD;&#xA;in which case,&#xD;&#xA;valid combinations are: “AB, BC, CA, BFG”&#xD;&#xA;and invalid combinations are: “AAB, BBH”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Above invalid combinations contain multiple occurrence of A, B and C and so they are invalid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) One of A, B or C&#xD;&#xA;If we go by above mentioned English grammar rule, then:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Valid combination for “One of A, B or C”, are: ABG, CG, ABJ&#xD;&#xA;And invalid combinations are: AVY, BCX&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, for, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) At least one of A, B and c&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Valid combinations are: ABCHJ, BCAKL&#xD;&#xA;And invalid combinations are: ABH, BGH, CJK&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, similarly, for &quot;At least one of A, B or C:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Valid combinations are: ABJ, CD, CA&#xD;&#xA;Invalid combinations are: ACU, NHB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am asking this because I have found few [references][1] of this is  in IPWatchdog but I was still not clear as patent English is quite different in my understanding and I may end up in mess If I follow English grammar but if it can have a different meaning in patent language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please assist me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/10/17/conjunctions-andor-patent-claims/id=45733/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17169" RevisionGUID="d7fbc3ea-c488-499b-86fa-a4c1aee1a484" CreationDate="2017-02-03T08:08:18.860" UserId="18388" Text="I am in the process of writing a draft for my provisional patent. I have spent a great deal of time reading the books and watching videos on youtube plus some patenting courses. One of the tutors said that you should provide all the small details about the projects you want to patent. Though, in my case that means I will have disclose how my project works exactly. This will result in a theft of the idea and its implementation. What is the best approach to patent my app without disclosing so much information about it. Can I describe it ambiguously. Should I keep the aspect of the implementation out and stick to providing as much information about the idea itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44352" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17169" RevisionGUID="d7fbc3ea-c488-499b-86fa-a4c1aee1a484" CreationDate="2017-02-03T08:08:18.860" UserId="18388" Text="Writing a provisional patent draft for a mobile app" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44353" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17169" RevisionGUID="d7fbc3ea-c488-499b-86fa-a4c1aee1a484" CreationDate="2017-02-03T08:08:18.860" UserId="18388" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17170" RevisionGUID="a5245df1-d50a-4635-9bd5-0c6d04060ab1" CreationDate="2017-02-03T08:59:34.353" UserId="18033" Text="There is a very clear answer to that in patent law. A person skilled in the art has to be able to construct/implement the invention from the description only.&#xA;&#xA;The interpretation is not as easy:&#xA;&#xA;An example I learned from was a breaking system for cars that didn't describe how the force was physically applied to the wheels (which has obvious implementations) and was ultimately revoked (though in Germany I think).&#xA;&#xA;You don't have to include source code, but the algorithms. So yes, a good patent application makes your invention stealable. That's the idea behind patents, you share your **solution** and get protection in return, allowing technological advance. &#xA;&#xA;There is no patent for the idea or the problem, only for the solution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17171" RevisionGUID="58d6d855-696b-43ca-bee2-6ee66d6c3785" CreationDate="2017-02-03T10:46:45.440" UserId="18426" Text="In reference to the patent: [US9207318][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9207318" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44356" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17171" RevisionGUID="58d6d855-696b-43ca-bee2-6ee66d6c3785" CreationDate="2017-02-03T10:46:45.440" UserId="18426" Text="What are the restrictions on using this method?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44357" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17171" RevisionGUID="58d6d855-696b-43ca-bee2-6ee66d6c3785" CreationDate="2017-02-03T10:46:45.440" UserId="18426" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17172" RevisionGUID="6dbefcde-acba-44a7-aa1d-9f5853a31526" CreationDate="2017-02-03T12:29:53.430" UserId="17003" Text="This is an issued US patent. The claims define what is protected. You may not produce a product made or sold in the US which does what is claimed. If you do, you infringe the patent and may be sued. There is very likely equivalent patents covering other countries. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44359" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13723" RevisionGUID="8a5c9880-b557-49fd-8fc9-49d577623236" CreationDate="2017-02-03T13:10:10.657" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17174" RevisionGUID="124ff442-71de-4643-971f-449440da2f04" CreationDate="2017-02-03T20:43:20.613" UserId="18425" Text="I don't think you can simply proclaim hard-and-fast, universally applicable rules like this. A patent claim's addressee is a person having ordinary skill in the art, not a layperson or philologist, so inevitably, context will matter, just as the references you cited from IPWatchdog imply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another issue concerning *&quot;one of A, B, and C&quot;* is that the words immediately preceding it will matter, too. Just for example, consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*&quot;**consisting of** one of A, B, and C&quot;* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*&quot;**comprising** one of A, B, and C&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former would exclude more than one of A, B, and C being present, while the latter generally wouldn't. See e.g. [MPEP 2111.03](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2111.html#d0e200824)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44365" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16606" RevisionGUID="af0b902a-de98-41c6-95f4-4881fd9a4845" CreationDate="2017-02-03T22:14:41.757" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17172" RevisionGUID="fadb86c6-9fda-4ebc-8d58-d899be7d2602" CreationDate="2017-02-03T23:30:00.273" UserId="17003" Comment="added 234 characters in body" Text="This is an issued US patent. The claims define what is protected. You need to read them carefully. You may not produce a product made or sold in the US which does what is claimed. If you do, you infringe the patent and may be sued. There is very likely equivalent patents covering other countries.&#xA;&#xA;I'm sorry to not parse the claims for you, but that is a lot to ask for and as I am not a lawyer, I try not to provide actual legal opinions. People pay good money to get freedom to operate opinions. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44371" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="372ec17f-4ec7-4ac7-8aca-e041e4a4a3c9" CreationDate="2017-02-04T01:15:08.663" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17176" RevisionGUID="cce59dee-0b7f-462c-bd7a-97bf14c5d52f" CreationDate="2017-02-04T02:33:43.110" UserId="15503" Text="**English grammar**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, there is no definitive English grammar. As opposed to other languages which have regulatory bodies, English is wild and lawless. Writers of English grammar books set out what they believe a typical speaker would use, but it is fundamentally nothing more than one writer's opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The standard of interpretation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notionally, the addressee of the patent is a person having ordinary skill in the art. The meaning of a phrase is what the person having ordinary skill in the art would understanding the patentee to have meant. This may be based on plain English meaning, on the description, on the file history, and any number of other considerations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What does &quot;one of A, B and C&quot; mean?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is impossible to answer in the abstract: it depends entirely on the context. Any of the interpretations you suggested might be possible. That is, the phrase might well mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a single A, a single B, and a single C&#xD;&#xA;- only A (without B nor C) OR only B (without A or C) OR only C (without A nor B)&#xD;&#xA;- a single A, one or more Bs, and one or more Cs&#xD;&#xA;- one or more As, one or more Bs, and one or more Cs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the drafter to do?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Make it explicitly clear in your description what you mean. To achieve this, it is common to have a boilerplate paragraph in the description which sets out which interpretations you are using.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is negligent to hope that the reader will give an ambiguous phrase the meaning you want without anything further, and this is shown repeatedly when poorly drafted patents are litigated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44376" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14061" RevisionGUID="c8679eb0-f645-4339-9d98-a2d5fbc1eff1" CreationDate="2017-02-04T04:15:35.907" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17177" RevisionGUID="ab4d37bb-c6e9-42ae-8631-9017551fe1af" CreationDate="2017-02-04T12:51:20.193" UserId="18388" Text="Ok, so I have decided to write my PPA to protect my idea and I am writing all aspects about this new idea. I started using Google Patents to read some of the non-provisional patents to have some idea on how to write mine. I saw some of the software based patents and now I am confused. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a fully developed an iOS app which is an app that uses a technology that I have invented. The app itself is not unique while the technology itself is novel. Though, according to what people say, if my methods (algorithms) coupled together provide the novel technology, I should patent the application itself and not the technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I saw some of the patents from some of the large companies like Apple. Some of their technologies that they patented are actually technologies within an application that they implemented or going to implement. I do not get it. Am I missing something? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, if I go ahead and patent my mobile app with the novel technology that I invented. Will the patent protect both app and the novel technology that I have invented or just the app itself allowing anyone to steal my fully described novel technology\implementation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44378" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17177" RevisionGUID="ab4d37bb-c6e9-42ae-8631-9017551fe1af" CreationDate="2017-02-04T12:51:20.193" UserId="18388" Text="Writing my provisional patent application for my app, I have a question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44379" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17177" RevisionGUID="ab4d37bb-c6e9-42ae-8631-9017551fe1af" CreationDate="2017-02-04T12:51:20.193" UserId="18388" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17178" RevisionGUID="4b8371a2-2dcc-4513-be3b-eb3cd7b0d9b8" CreationDate="2017-02-04T13:57:27.230" UserId="18388" Text="Ok, so I was examining plenty of patents on Google Patents to determine how I am going to write mine. From reading and watching Youtube provisional patents tutorials, they all say the same thing. Add anything and everything you can think of. If you have a futuristic ideam add it into the detailed description of the invention. I have some ideas that I am going to implement in my iOS mobile app. They are easy to implement and I do not care if those specific ideas get robbed since they are not novel and any application can have those. I just do not want to add them now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I go ahead and add them in my PPA and say &quot;in the future&quot; the software will support this or should I say the app &quot;may&quot; have and then list those futuristic ideas? Keep in mind that some of my ideas can be done and others cannot be done at the moment because they require higher processing power. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how can I sort those ideas out. Should I say &quot;may&quot; for all the futuristic ideas regardless of how applicable they are? Should I say &quot;may&quot; for the ideas applicable and say in the future for non applicable ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The futuristic ideas are theoretically sound and not abstract. They are not applicable now because of hardware limitations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44383" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17178" RevisionGUID="4b8371a2-2dcc-4513-be3b-eb3cd7b0d9b8" CreationDate="2017-02-04T13:57:27.230" UserId="18388" Text="The provisional patent and future idea for my mobile app" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44384" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17178" RevisionGUID="4b8371a2-2dcc-4513-be3b-eb3cd7b0d9b8" CreationDate="2017-02-04T13:57:27.230" UserId="18388" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44385" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16962" RevisionGUID="bfd0edf2-18e6-43ed-8f76-e5774cc660a1" CreationDate="2017-02-04T17:35:23.723" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10733" RevisionGUID="8736e5fa-22df-496c-8a0a-625ada6b105b" CreationDate="2017-02-04T18:23:13.030" UserId="4039" Comment="Improved Markdown formatting; Hyperlinks added." Text="A patent search is most often the first step in achieving different objectives, some of which are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Determining the probability of having a patent granted to a proposed invention&#xD;&#xA;- Determining if you have the freedom to operate&#xD;&#xA;- Determining if a granted patent can be invalidated&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the objective, the search strategy can vary to some extent. Also, in addition to conducting a search in patent databases, a search can be conducted to identify relevant non-patent literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of free online patent databases I suggest are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Espacenet](https://worldwide.espacenet.com/): Good data coverage&#xD;&#xA;- [Freepatentsonline](http://www.freepatentsonline.com/): Good search interface. Patent data coverage is not as good as Espacenet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using any of the above mentioned search databases, you can use various search strategies to identify relevant patent publications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Top 5 patent search strategies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Key string search&#xD;&#xA;- Patent classification search&#xD;&#xA;- Citation based search&#xD;&#xA;- Assignee based search&#xD;&#xA;- Inventor based search&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may refer to the below link to understand more about the top 5 patent search strategies:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/how-conduct-patent-search" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44389" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10733" RevisionGUID="8736e5fa-22df-496c-8a0a-625ada6b105b" CreationDate="2017-02-04T18:23:13.030" Comment="Proposed by 4039 approved by 17325, 1 edit id of 2017" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4511" RevisionGUID="0e4db58f-54cb-4dd3-ad3c-2dea8fbd0633" CreationDate="2017-02-04T18:23:42.493" UserId="4039" Comment="spelling &amp; grammar" Text="Is it possible to do search class numbers based on the title, text or description related to the class. On EPO and WIPO one can search for classes based on text search. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could not find any such feature on USPTO. Number search is only available with USPTO." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44391" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4511" RevisionGUID="0e4db58f-54cb-4dd3-ad3c-2dea8fbd0633" CreationDate="2017-02-04T18:23:42.493" Comment="Proposed by 4039 approved by 17325, 1 edit id of 2015" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44392" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16771" RevisionGUID="e6f1cae3-bd7d-47c1-88eb-c2e5015432ee" CreationDate="2017-02-04T20:36:22.170" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44393" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="b63dca88-e159-4ce9-9989-34555b747671" CreationDate="2017-02-04T21:36:53.110" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44394" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14668" RevisionGUID="6a8789d0-928f-4952-8676-847161ebca29" CreationDate="2017-02-04T22:45:13.307" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17179" RevisionGUID="ef49f43b-099c-43e8-80d7-4dbb44a21b65" CreationDate="2017-02-04T23:55:38.143" UserId="14341" Text="Situation: Filed my provisional 11 months ago. Rewriting to file as regular US and PCT applications. Pro se currently, may have pro bono help in a couple of months, for filing further claims in amendments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically I've gone from trying to patent my idea, to patenting what I've actually invented.  That's a huge difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So let's say you think of my provisional as a street. We start at Point A, go to B, or C, or both, to get result D.&#xD;&#xA;A then B gets you to D.&#xD;&#xA;A then C gets you to D.&#xD;&#xA;A then B and C gets you to D, but D is much improved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So points B and C are actually cross streets with many variations. Start at point A, wander all over streets B and C, and get to D. That's what my provisional outlines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've come to realize that Point A is actually a roundabout connecting to many streets.  So there are a lot more possibilities involved. Rewriting my patent app focusing largely on Roundabout A would give me greater coverage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically my provisional covers maybe 10% of the territory that I should cover in my regular US and PCT applications. The new application would cover the old info (in the previously filed provisional), but also is wholly new approach basically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I do a rush job in the next couple weeks on my regular app, keeping my provisional as priority, and hope to amend with professional help later?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or should I just buckle down, spend a couple months writing a whole new patent app, possibly with professional help, and losing the priority date of my existing provisional?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible that I can file a copy of my existing provisional today, and use today as my priority for a regular patent application later?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44396" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17179" RevisionGUID="ef49f43b-099c-43e8-80d7-4dbb44a21b65" CreationDate="2017-02-04T23:55:38.143" UserId="14341" Text="Should I abandon my provisional and start over?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44397" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17179" RevisionGUID="ef49f43b-099c-43e8-80d7-4dbb44a21b65" CreationDate="2017-02-04T23:55:38.143" UserId="14341" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44398" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12994" RevisionGUID="bfbf40ac-c617-4a6b-a0b5-f89d896e00cc" CreationDate="2017-02-05T00:46:10.720" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17180" RevisionGUID="4589a9c5-9fd8-4ae1-8544-41886ebf1422" CreationDate="2017-02-05T03:22:45.227" UserId="15503" Text="**Should I add futuristic ideas to my provisional?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only downside to this is that they will become prior art. If you decide, in a few years time, that one of these futuristic ideas is actually quite important, you run the risk that your earlier off-hand mention may prevent you from getting (or at least limit the scope of) a later patent.  Of course, you also put others in the same position (if that's of value).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are comfortable with that risk, then go ahead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How should it be phrased?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would say something like &quot;in some embodiments, the method* may include ___&quot;. In this respect, a futuristic idea is no different from the rest of your embodiments: in both cases, you are trying to describe the different embodiments of your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mentioning &quot;in the future&quot; seems to imply that, at the time of the application, it is not possible. That is, it seems to undercut any purpose of mentioning it in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;\* I have mentioned a method, since I would be a little reluctant to talk of &quot;software&quot; in a patent application, due to the subject matter eligibility issue.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17180" RevisionGUID="b4ea2506-e4fc-4539-803e-9e53d9daa379" CreationDate="2017-02-05T03:29:08.147" UserId="15503" Comment="added 395 characters in body" Text="**Should I add futuristic ideas to my provisional?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some benefits to doing this. You may be providing yourself a basis for amendments during prosecution which save your application (though it would depend on the level of description). You are also getting an earlier date for the first mention of these, in case you decide to develop it before filing your non-provisional. It also obfuscates your description to competitors somewhat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only downside to this is that they will become prior art. If you decide, in a few years time, that one of these futuristic ideas is actually quite important, you run the risk that your earlier off-hand mention may prevent you from getting (or at least limit the scope of) a later patent.  Of course, you also put others in the same position (if that's of value).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are comfortable with that risk, then go ahead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How should it be phrased?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would say something like &quot;in some embodiments, the method* may include ___&quot;. In this respect, a futuristic idea is no different from the rest of your embodiments: in both cases, you are trying to describe the different embodiments of your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mentioning &quot;in the future&quot; seems to imply that, at the time of the application, it is not possible. That is, it seems to undercut any purpose of mentioning it in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;\* I have mentioned a method, since I would be a little reluctant to talk of &quot;software&quot; in a patent application, due to the subject matter eligibility issue.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44404" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16544" RevisionGUID="880f0890-ea2a-4b43-94ac-398411125703" CreationDate="2017-02-05T03:54:28.533" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17181" RevisionGUID="2d904372-d5e6-4ca3-83e7-c0e7fe7eb842" CreationDate="2017-02-05T03:56:44.363" UserId="15503" Text="**Do I do a rush job in the next couple weeks on my regular app, keeping my provisional as priority, and hope to amend with professional help later?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is especially common for the ideas in a provisional to be developed significantly over the year. Indeed, that is one of the purposes of having a provisional application available. So there is no problem with having the non-provisional a lot more detailed than the provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key advantage of continuing is that you would maintain your earlier priority date. While some of the expanded embodiments may not be entitled to that earlier date (depending on how far they deviate from your original description), at least the core likely would. This may save you from prior art which has arisen over the last year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, once you file a non-provisional or a PCT, you will be significantly more limited in the amendments you could make. While you can generally amend the claims, you wouldn't be able to introduce new description or drawings. So professional help could only take you so far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should I just buckle down, spend a couple months writing a whole new patent app, possibly with professional help, and losing the priority date of my existing provisional?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key advantage of this is that you won't be rushed in preparing the application. A couple of months seems inordinately long to draft an application (though I appreciate a non-provisional will have a much harder time of it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key risk is that prior art in last year will stand in the way. You may want to satisfy yourself that this is not the case, before you decide what to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is it possible that I can file a copy of my existing provisional today, and use today as my priority for a regular patent application later?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, this is not an uncommon thing to do. But you should withdraw your existing provisional before re-filing it. If you fail to do so (that is, you re-file before withdrawing), your re-filed provisional will not be able to be used as a priority document in a Convention application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there another alternative?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why limit yourself to a single application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could continue with your original provisional (with a view to protecting the overall arrangement). You could separately file a new provisional based on &quot;roundabout A&quot; which stands alone. This would seemingly give you the best of both worlds: you get your earlier priority date, and also protect your additional developments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44406" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17179" RevisionGUID="8d707f60-2fb5-4d4a-b89c-0e461cafed3a" CreationDate="2017-02-05T04:01:15.393" UserId="15503" Comment="update tags" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;priority&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44407" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17178" RevisionGUID="0d085830-90f3-4fd6-bbf7-bb349f997dfa" CreationDate="2017-02-05T04:02:00.987" UserId="15503" Comment="update tags" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;drafting&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17168" RevisionGUID="2250510f-44d8-44fe-a680-ef9ff5c80466" CreationDate="2017-02-05T04:11:36.453" UserId="15503" Comment="update tags and improve formatting" Text="English grammar states that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[a]n article of a preposition applying to all the members of the series must either be used only before the first term or else be repeated before each term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is “one of A, B and C” the same as “one of A and one of B and one of c”?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In which case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Valid combinations are: ABC, ABCD&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Invalid combinations are: AFG, CAJ, AAF&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is “one of A, B and C” the same as “any one of A, B and C”?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In which case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Valid combinations are: AB, BC, CA, BFG&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Invalid combinations are: AAB, BBH&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above invalid combinations contain multiple occurrence of A, B and C and so they are invalid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is “One of A, B or C” governed by the grammar rule above?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we go by the above-mentioned English grammar rule, then:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Valid combinations are: ABG, CG, AB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Invalid combinations are: AVY, BCX &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What does “at least one of A, B and C” mean?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Valid combinations are: ABCHJ, BCAKL&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Invalid combinations are: ABH, BGH, CJK&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What does “at least one of A, B or C” mean?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Valid combinations are: ABJ, CD, CA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Invalid combinations are: ACU, NHB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am asking this because I have found few [references][1] of this is in IPWatchdog. However I was still not clear as patent English is quite different in my understanding and I may end up in mess if I follow English grammar but if it can have a different meaning in patent language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/10/17/conjunctions-andor-patent-claims/id=45733/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44409" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17168" RevisionGUID="2250510f-44d8-44fe-a680-ef9ff5c80466" CreationDate="2017-02-05T04:11:36.453" UserId="15503" Comment="update tags and improve formatting" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;drafting&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44410" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16544" RevisionGUID="fb808b74-fca6-4cef-8bde-59009aa4bf5f" CreationDate="2017-02-05T04:12:52.770" UserId="15503" Comment="fix tags" Text="&lt;abandoned-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44411" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="4f9d53ea-92b0-43e7-b6af-7ba063706622" CreationDate="2017-02-05T05:01:08.440" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44417" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13762" RevisionGUID="5f36c6a2-db79-4d4d-9343-a84b85a71225" CreationDate="2017-02-05T06:01:08.280" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44418" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="f30a470e-9b3f-43b7-b4a1-cfa6dcbb05a8" CreationDate="2017-02-05T07:01:10.173" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44419" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16810" RevisionGUID="96d7054d-f92e-40e6-b658-8d1fad580147" CreationDate="2017-02-05T08:01:11.853" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44420" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="dfe187c4-f0dd-42b8-bd6a-7a09ec31b47a" CreationDate="2017-02-05T09:04:50.640" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4534" RevisionGUID="183e8813-48eb-4b67-bde2-c817eb18dc56" CreationDate="2017-02-05T10:37:55.430" UserId="4039" Comment="Official EPO CPC landing page" Text="Recently the US and EPO adopted a new merged classification system CPC. I would use the [EPO's CPC page][1] to keyword search for classes and then use those classes in a US search by CPC classification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.epo.org/searching-for-patents/helpful-resources/first-time-here/classification/cpc.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44422" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4534" RevisionGUID="183e8813-48eb-4b67-bde2-c817eb18dc56" CreationDate="2017-02-05T10:37:55.430" Comment="Proposed by 4039 approved by 15503, 18033 edit id of 2016" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44423" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14883" RevisionGUID="e10ad2f4-1aa4-4b7e-af86-c3e0708b3789" CreationDate="2017-02-05T11:11:19.213" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17183" RevisionGUID="2c67561e-3ae6-430b-a102-76862c56669a" CreationDate="2017-02-05T12:19:10.487" UserId="15503" Text="At first blush, [US 9083821](https://patents.google.com/patent/US9083821B2/en) that you referred to seems to be a very good example of a software patent. I will therefore discuss a little about the patent and how it relates to the invention–implementation dichotomy. I've glossed over the precise details of the invention for simplicity's sake (since it doesn't really matter for illustrative purposes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the difference between an invention and an implementation?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is in the level of generality: an invention is a general solution to a general problem, whereas an implementation is a specific solution to a specific problem*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in the case of US 9083821, the specific problem is that users with hearing impairment may not fully enjoy some music when it plays on their device. The specific solution (and how they might intend to put it into practice) is to adapt a music app to vibrate the device in response to the music. Apple could have patented this. However, by limiting themselves to their particular implementation, they would end up with a very narrow protection which would not cover (perhaps a baby monitor for people with hearing difficulty) which uses the same technology but involves a very different implementation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus the drafters would have considered what the general problem is, which is how to convey audio information to a user who cannot hear. The general solution (and the essence of their invention) is to receive an audio signal, convert part of it to haptic feedback, and present the feedback. This covers their specific implementation. But it also covers any other kind of implementation using the same invention. The result is a broad, powerful patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How is this reflected in US 9083821?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Primarily this can be seen by considering the scope of the claims. Claim 1 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1\. A method performed by one or more processes executing on an electronic device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;receiving an audio signal comprising a range of audio frequencies including high frequencies and low frequencies;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;converting a first portion of the range of audio frequencies into haptic data representable as haptic feedback comprising at least one of a vibration based on a stored vibration pattern, temperature variation, or electric stimulus to a human user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;shifting a second portion of the range of audio frequencies to a different range of audio frequencies, wherein the second portion corresponds to a range of audio frequencies that a user of the electronic device cannot hear, and the different range of audio frequencies corresponds to a range of audio frequencies that the user can hear; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;presenting the haptic data as haptic feedback so as to convey audible information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is very little in this claim related to its actual implementation. The only mention of hardware is in the preamble (&quot;an electronic device&quot;). Moreover, there is no mention that it would be included in a music listening app or that it helps hard-of-hearing people. Instead the claim purely relates to the invention, which is fundamentally just an algorithm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 15 and 29 do recite some general hardware, but still don't recite a particular implementation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What about the description**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The description is very closely tied to the claims. From reading through the description, you have no knowledge that this will be integrated into a setting for the iOS music app (I assume). While it would be permissible to include these details in the description, there is probably little advantage to doing so. If the general invention is known, the specific implementation will likely be obvious (so wouldn't be useful for amendments anyway). Alternatively, they may have just wanted to keep their competitors guessing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What should a future drafter do?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Start with your specific problem and solution, which you will likely be familiar with (and which will hopefully be novel and non-obvious). Then consider what how you could your problem and your solution without losing the novelty/non-obviousness. For example, instead of vibrating a device, you might &quot;present haptic feedback&quot;. Instead of converting high tones, you might &quot;convert a first portion of the range of audio frequencies&quot;. And so on, until you're left with a broad conception of what your invention is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;* The terms &quot;problem&quot; and &quot;solution&quot; have a particular meaning in European patent practice, which I don't intend here. I am trying to use them in a more general sense.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17180" RevisionGUID="984e11d1-0082-4b11-bc8d-efc500c118a7" CreationDate="2017-02-05T12:36:29.557" UserId="15503" Comment="Make answer more comprehensive" Text="**Should I add futuristic ideas to my provisional?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should add a futuristic idea if:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You can describe it in enough detail that a reader could put it into practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the reader could not put it into practice, the description would be non-enabling. A claim to it would therefore not be allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It could influence the overall patentability of the claimed subject matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, then there's no point disclosing it. Moreover, it obfuscates the actual invention, and may make prosecution more difficul&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. There is some synergy with your actual invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the feature is entirely unrelated to your invention, it should probably go into its own patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you satisfy these three criteria, you would ultimately be able to form a potentially patentable claim using the futuristic idea. This would provide you additional options in prosecution, and therefore is a strong benefit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What if one of the criteria isn't met?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, you would be disclosing the idea without any upside. That is, your disclosure would not give you the chance to have a claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the disclosure would still count as prior art (both against you and against others). This may be problematic if you later on decide to try to patent some further development of the futuristic idea in a separate application. Your half-hearted disclosure may be sufficient to prevent you from receiving a patent (even if it does not support a claim itself).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Am I obligated to implement all ideas in the patent?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. While in some countries there is an obligation to work the claimed invention (or else another party may obtain a compulsory licence), this only applies to what is claimed. If it's only described, there is no issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How should it be phrased?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would say something like &quot;in some embodiments, the method* may include ___&quot;. In this respect, a futuristic idea is no different from the rest of your embodiments: in both cases, you are trying to describe the different embodiments of your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mentioning &quot;in the future&quot; seems to imply that, at the time of the application, it is not possible. That is, it seems to undercut any purpose of mentioning it in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;\* I have mentioned a method, since I would be a little reluctant to talk of &quot;software&quot; in a patent application, due to the subject matter eligibility issue.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17184" RevisionGUID="71b64bc2-e008-498e-93af-5dbb8d7e9d9e" CreationDate="2017-02-05T13:24:45.963" UserId="18437" Text="If I file a patent application and it turns out some of my claims are lacking novelty, how should I amend those claims in order to comply with PCT Article 33(2)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some basis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I am trying to file a patent with about 30 claims.&#xD;&#xA;- It was found that claims 1 to 8, and 24 to 30 lack novelty **due to a prior art**.&#xD;&#xA;- It was found that claims 17 to 19, and 21 to 23 contain an inventive step.&#xD;&#xA;- All claims contain industrial applicability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that I know about the prior art which causes my claims (1 to 8 and 24 to 30) to lack novelty, how would you normally go about writing amendments to your claims? What is the process if you just found out some prior art interferes with some of your claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44427" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17184" RevisionGUID="71b64bc2-e008-498e-93af-5dbb8d7e9d9e" CreationDate="2017-02-05T13:24:45.963" UserId="18437" Text="Amending claims lacking novelty" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44428" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17184" RevisionGUID="71b64bc2-e008-498e-93af-5dbb8d7e9d9e" CreationDate="2017-02-05T13:24:45.963" UserId="18437" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;claim-amendment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17184" RevisionGUID="47c4864f-e3f1-4b57-a118-242efec9778e" CreationDate="2017-02-05T14:00:22.287" UserId="18437" Comment="added 60 characters in body; edited title" Text="If I file a patent application and it turns out some of my claims are lacking novelty, or an inventive step, do I need to amend those claims in order to comply with PCT Article 33(2) or PCT Article 33(3)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some basis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I am trying to file a patent with about 30 claims.&#xD;&#xA;- It was found that claims 1 to 8, and 24 to 30 lack novelty **due to a prior art**.&#xD;&#xA;- It was found that only claims 17 to 19, and 21 to 23 contain an inventive step. The rest do not.&#xD;&#xA;- All claims contain industrial applicability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that I know about a prior art which causes a lot of my claims to lack novelty or an inventive step, is there something I need to do in order to amend them? What is the process if you just found out some prior art interferes with some of your claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44430" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17184" RevisionGUID="47c4864f-e3f1-4b57-a118-242efec9778e" CreationDate="2017-02-05T14:00:22.287" UserId="18437" Comment="added 60 characters in body; edited title" Text="Do you have to amend claims lacking novelty or an inventive step" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44431" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13601" RevisionGUID="4d286228-4498-4d07-a9dc-9c24fdb924cc" CreationDate="2017-02-05T14:12:22.167" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17185" RevisionGUID="13316844-3072-48e0-bd81-148f181ccfe5" CreationDate="2017-02-05T15:03:59.207" UserId="18425" Text="Since you mention Articles 33(2) and (3) PCT, I assume that you requested International Preliminary Examination, and that the Examiner who drafted the International Preliminary Examination Report (IPRP) found that some of your claims are not novel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the IPRP is just that - **preliminary**. You **may** respond to the IPRP to try and overcome the objections it raises (Article 34(2)(d) PCT), but this is not compulsory. In other words, **you are not obliged to amend your application during the international (PCT) phase**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you enter the national/regional phases with your PCT application, you will have at least one opportunity to amend your application (Article 41(1) PCT) within a certain time limit (which depends on the patent office). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which brings me to my second point. Just because the IPRP says that some claims are unpatentable does not mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- that they really are (the Examiner might have misread one of the pieces of prior art, or he might have interpreted the prior art too broadly), or&#xD;&#xA;- that they are in all jurisdictions (for example, there are not-insignificant differences in practice between the USPTO and the EPO concerning obviousness or chemical inventions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there is always the chance that each of the patent offices where you entered the national/regional phase will start examination from scratch, possibly starting from different prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this context, I usually find amending the PCT application during the international phase to be of marginal interest, at best. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I usually consider making amendments only after the application it has entered the national/regional phases and the national/regional Examiner has rejected some of the claims. (Which I may address by arguing against the rejections, or by amending the claims, depending on the situation.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44433" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10602" RevisionGUID="a628625b-11b4-4944-a744-9e83707d48bf" CreationDate="2017-02-05T17:12:29.983" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44438" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="e5ebf26a-c134-4431-9bf9-1c5b9ab3a420" CreationDate="2017-02-06T02:14:35.690" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17168" RevisionGUID="ffbc9864-fba9-4030-9fbc-9b53f75660c3" CreationDate="2017-02-06T02:49:47.800" UserId="18297" Comment="made suggested edits" Text="English grammar – states that [a]n article of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a preposition applying to all the members of the series &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;must either be used only before the first term or else &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;be repeated before each term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Is one of A, B and C same as: &#xD;&#xA;   “one of A and one of B and one of c”?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In which case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Valid combinations are: ABC, ABCD&#xD;&#xA;Invalid combinations are: AFG, CAJ, AAF&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is &quot;one of A, B and C&quot; same as “any one of A, B and C”?&#xD;&#xA;If the above statement is true, then,&#xD;&#xA;valid combinations are: “AB, BC, CA, BFG”&#xD;&#xA;and invalid combinations are: “AAB, BBH”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Invalid combinations contain multiple occurrence of A, B and C and so they are invalid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) One of A, B or C&#xD;&#xA;If we go by English grammar rule, then:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Valid are: ABG, CG, ABJ&#xD;&#xA;Invalid combinations are: AVY, BCX&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) At least one of A, B and C&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Valid combinations are: ABCHJ, BCAKL&#xD;&#xA;And invalid combinations are: ABH, BGH, CJK&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4)For, &quot;At least one of A, B or C:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Valid combinations are: ABJ, CD, CA&#xD;&#xA;Invalid combinations are: ACU, NHB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am asking this because I have found few [references][1] of this is in IPWatchdog. I was still not clear as patent English is quite different in my understanding and I may end up in mess If I follow English grammar but if it can have a different meaning in patent language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/10/17/conjunctions-andor-patent-claims/id=45733/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44441" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16069" RevisionGUID="9e620ced-25f6-4c34-b835-f1b8057c16a0" CreationDate="2017-02-06T13:26:29.153" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17188" RevisionGUID="e4a186fa-1dcf-42a8-8218-19518b982d91" CreationDate="2017-02-06T16:02:28.070" UserId="17003" Text="This is opinion based and I'm an inventor, not a patent attorney. I have done my fair bit of patent searching. In my previous job I've used both Micropatent and Totalpatent both of which are paid services. In addition, I've used the [USPTO site][1], [Espacenet][2], [Google Patents][3] and [The Lens][4]. I'd say in general the free sites are just fine. The Lens is especially nice in that you can register which allows some additional features like saved searches. Prior art searching is broader than just searching for patents, so don't ignore other useful sites like [Google Scholar][5]. I'd like to add the disclaimer that whether a search for prior art is adequate goes beyond the tool being used to search. Professional patent librarians use additional techniques such as classification codes to ferret out prior art that might not use standardized keywords.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://scholar.google.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44445" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16676" RevisionGUID="ffd7383e-eeb6-41de-8539-52cdd63109e0" CreationDate="2017-02-06T19:31:30.167" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17189" RevisionGUID="9c294c09-88ce-4736-ab76-ffcc007a65aa" CreationDate="2017-02-06T20:30:51.020" UserId="14038" Text="The U.S. Patent Office offers several sources of guidance for conducting preliminary patent searches at the U.S. Patent Office databases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.uspto.gov/video/cbt/ptrcsearching/&#xD;&#xA;https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/support-centers/patent-and-trademark-resource-centers-ptrc/resources/seven&#xD;&#xA;https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/7_Step_US_Patent_Search_Strategy_Guide_2015_rev.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are quite useful and embody the techniques that professional searchers use.  They can also be applied at least in part with searches at the Espacenet database as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44447" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="80436b5d-ebf6-4959-ba35-5b65b7a42667" CreationDate="2017-02-06T21:31:30.673" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44448" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13934" RevisionGUID="5da70a4d-f57d-490d-a492-a04cada11496" CreationDate="2017-02-06T22:31:31.830" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44449" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16826" RevisionGUID="e104aaee-402b-4f3c-b357-9d827873efad" CreationDate="2017-02-06T23:31:29.980" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44450" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16022" RevisionGUID="c62541e6-78a9-4b3a-ad81-1f4d4f62f5c4" CreationDate="2017-02-07T02:36:41.707" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17191" RevisionGUID="9d4fd7c1-511e-4623-8ddb-643a48ccedaa" CreationDate="2017-02-07T08:06:47.757" UserId="2061" Text="While researching the prior art, I found a patent filed by a large corporation and at the end of the description they say something like &quot;an accelerometer or other sensor can be added&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;My idea uses an accelerometer (like the one found in almost all smartphones today). Does this affects my claim of novelty (given that whe accelerometer is just a small part of the concept)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44456" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17191" RevisionGUID="9d4fd7c1-511e-4623-8ddb-643a48ccedaa" CreationDate="2017-02-07T08:06:47.757" UserId="2061" Text="Prior art suggests possibility of using a specific sensor, can my patent still use this sensor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44457" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17191" RevisionGUID="9d4fd7c1-511e-4623-8ddb-643a48ccedaa" CreationDate="2017-02-07T08:06:47.757" UserId="2061" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;tech&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17192" RevisionGUID="90346dc0-9b6f-423f-a644-04731decd9e8" CreationDate="2017-02-07T08:43:40.513" UserId="18033" Text="Yes it does - for that small part is not novel anymore. As long as the rest of the invention is novel and inventive, you are fine though. For a claim to get granted the whole claimed invention has to be inventive, not every part of it. &#xA;&#xA;Example: you could patent a whole airplane with fins instead of wheels (if not known yet) even though an airplane is known and fins are known, but the combination as such is not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44459" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16078" RevisionGUID="85285d9b-fd65-4841-b4d4-5ece0a81f526" CreationDate="2017-02-07T09:38:18.583" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17193" RevisionGUID="bcbfd98c-624a-43f9-84f6-ea92af08cc2a" CreationDate="2017-02-07T10:38:32.060" UserId="14077" Text="First, choose a right category for the patent document to be downloaded (patent or patent application, invention or utility model, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;Second, put a registration number into the search field (number only, no RU prefix).&#xD;&#xA;Third, find and click publication link (usually in the upper left region of the screen); note that earlier publications may not be available in pdf format, so you will have to separately copy text and download images and then combine them in order to get the whole document.&#xD;&#xA;In some cases, only published claims may be found in the registry, not whole document. In such a case you'll have to contact Rospatent with a request for a patent document and pay a corresponding tariff for copying and postal services.&#xD;&#xA;You may also contact a Russian patent attorney who is able to get the document for you (not for free, of course)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17193" RevisionGUID="51481558-15c2-40b0-8016-6bc009b03875" CreationDate="2017-02-07T10:47:20.897" UserId="14077" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="First, choose a right category for the patent document to be downloaded (patent or patent application, invention or utility model, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;Second, put a registration number into the search field (number only, no RU prefix).&#xD;&#xA;Third, find and click a publication link (usually in the upper left region of the screen); note that earlier publications may not be available in pdf format, so you will have to separately copy text and download images and then combine them in order to get the whole document.&#xD;&#xA;In some cases, only published claims may be found in the registry, not whole document. In such a case you'll have to contact Rospatent with a request for a patent document and pay a corresponding tariff for copying and postal services.&#xD;&#xA;You may also contact a Russian patent attorney who is able to get the document for you (not for free, of course)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17192" RevisionGUID="b3de0133-fb53-4bfe-a9f7-b77992c5e4a4" CreationDate="2017-02-07T16:48:48.863" UserId="18033" Comment="added 1581 characters in body" Text="Yes it does - for that small part is not novel anymore. As long as the rest of the invention is novel and inventive, you are fine though. For a claim to get granted the whole claimed invention has to be inventive, not every part of it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: you could patent a whole airplane with fins instead of wheels (if not known yet) even though an airplane is known and fins are known, but the combination as such is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the comment about the accelerometer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A claim normally consists of two parts (actually, there is the so called two-part-form for this, don't worry, you only have to use it if the examiner requests it) the known (= prior art) part and the inventive part that distinguishes the invention from the prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say your invention is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A smartphone with a display and a cpu and a gpu and bluetooth comprising (this part is prior art, it's known, the following is not known in connection with the former smartphone)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- an accelerometer&#xD;&#xA;- a bluetooth connected temperature sensor&#xD;&#xA;- the combination used to algorithmically compute the temperature of the sun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you realize that actually smartphones with accelerometers are normally used to compute the temperature of the sun, combined with different other means, but the temperature sensor connected over bluetooth hasn't been described and using it is inventive as the prior art doesn't hint towards it nor it is obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your claim stays the same, but in the two part form it would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A smartphone with a display and a cpu and a gpu and bluetooth with an accelerometer used to calculate the temperature of the sun by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- algorhitmically including the sensed values from a temperature sensor connected over bluetooth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the claim to get granted, it has to be novel and inventive over the prior art. As you see, different prior art just changes the way of assessing the claim, but as long as it stays inventive, you can add as much known stuff as you want or see fit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44464" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16984" RevisionGUID="65843874-36f9-4cf2-8f77-805c0a015080" CreationDate="2017-02-07T18:42:40.200" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17194" RevisionGUID="07b5dd92-0254-4627-bdac-0b3ad53e83bd" CreationDate="2017-02-07T19:17:20.940" UserId="18447" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8205527][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8205527&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am in search of the above patented item and am curious as to how to buy it / where to buy it from seeing as how everywhere I find it listed as a product leads to a broken or expired link. For example, trying to buy it from this link leads to the situation described: http://theawesomer.com/happy-hour-watch/28379/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44466" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17194" RevisionGUID="07b5dd92-0254-4627-bdac-0b3ad53e83bd" CreationDate="2017-02-07T19:17:20.940" UserId="18447" Text="Is there a way to find out if a patented item is currently in production / being sold somewhere?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44467" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17194" RevisionGUID="07b5dd92-0254-4627-bdac-0b3ad53e83bd" CreationDate="2017-02-07T19:17:20.940" UserId="18447" Text="&lt;findmanufacturer&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17195" RevisionGUID="7ed082f1-6e9b-42f8-8738-87b3883608c6" CreationDate="2017-02-07T19:34:33.103" UserId="18033" Text="You can try to contact the owner of the patent (see http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5059/how-can-i-contact-the-owner-of-a-patent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in general, no, a patent can be traced back to the owner, but not to any product directly, so you can try to research that owner or the owners company maybe, other than that, there is no way to know from a patent view. Of course, you can try to find the invention via google. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17196" RevisionGUID="765ee855-6f9a-4455-8960-0a1b13a52e4c" CreationDate="2017-02-07T20:05:19.213" UserId="18425" Text="In general, no. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, remember that since owning a patent does not grant the right to make and sell the invention, but only to **stop others** from doing that, it may well be that an invention is patented, but that an earlier, broader patent prevents the patent owner from making and selling the invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, a few jurisdictions require patent owners to, on a regular basis, submit &quot;**statements of working**&quot;, which describe if and how the invention has been commercially exploited. (The goal of this requirement is to make it easier for local manufacturers to seek compulsory licenses - [at least on paper](http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/08/21/compulsory-licenses-and-statements-of-working-in-india-2/id=44761/).) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;India is one such jurisdiction - the statement of working is called a &quot;Form 27&quot; ([reference](http://www.epo.org/searching-for-patents/helpful-resources/asian/asia-updates/2014/20140703.html)). So, if a patent has an Indian counterpart, you can try to search the Indian Patent Office's [database](http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/workingofpatents/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Update: actually, it seems that the database only covers the years 2012 and 2013 (!)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17196" RevisionGUID="aa3cc1ce-51dc-4a43-80f5-79c07cc354ce" CreationDate="2017-02-07T20:27:00.717" UserId="18425" Comment="Edited to better emphasize &quot;statement of working&quot;" Text="In general, no. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, remember that since owning a patent does not grant the right to make and sell the invention, but only to _stop others_ from doing that, it may well be that an invention is patented, but that an earlier, broader patent prevents the patent owner from making and selling the invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, a few jurisdictions require patent owners to, on a regular basis, submit &quot;**statements of working**&quot;, which describe if and how the invention has been commercially exploited. (The goal of this requirement is to make it easier for local manufacturers to seek compulsory licenses - [at least on paper](http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/08/21/compulsory-licenses-and-statements-of-working-in-india-2/id=44761/).) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;India is one such jurisdiction - the statement of working is called a &quot;Form 27&quot; ([reference](http://www.epo.org/searching-for-patents/helpful-resources/asian/asia-updates/2014/20140703.html)). So, if a patent has an Indian counterpart, you can try to search the Indian Patent Office's [database](http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/workingofpatents/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Update: actually, it seems that the database only covers the years 2012 and 2013 (!)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44471" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16090" RevisionGUID="68d82295-a6ce-40fc-8eea-e816fea03903" CreationDate="2017-02-07T21:43:24.033" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44472" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14635" RevisionGUID="0bb8a450-0aa8-469d-bcb8-01eb6aa7c38e" CreationDate="2017-02-07T22:50:37.733" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44473" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16096" RevisionGUID="352e1d6f-3eb0-495f-b73f-8444ba97bf73" CreationDate="2017-02-08T01:50:41.520" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17194" RevisionGUID="babe53a3-278c-4ba2-adee-5c7dfb1dbb78" CreationDate="2017-02-08T02:42:21.617" UserId="1" Comment="specific product searches are off topic, but generalilzed it to see if there's a search/process related to patents." Text="In reference to the patent: [US8205527][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8205527&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I am interested in an item described in a patent, how would I figure out t how to buy it / where to buy it? Even if I find it listed as a product, it often leads to a broken or expired link. Is there a general way to find out if an patented item is in production?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44475" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="1495636a-5909-490c-b65b-584070afa704" CreationDate="2017-02-08T03:57:29.407" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17194" RevisionGUID="357e6f88-7c79-429f-99ef-a0e6f5a9b16c" CreationDate="2017-02-08T04:11:02.773" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 93 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I am interested in an item described in a patent, how would I figure out t how to buy it / where to buy it? Even if I find it listed as a product, it often leads to a broken or expired link. Is there a general way to find out if an patented item is in production?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44478" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="c583a4b7-6804-4046-a1a5-0abf5054a088" CreationDate="2017-02-08T10:59:04.023" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44479" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16997" RevisionGUID="14e742d1-3494-443a-9db6-2370e52eaa5d" CreationDate="2017-02-08T14:59:05.660" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16998" RevisionGUID="0ac9580e-4971-4db9-ac87-b573855755e4" CreationDate="2017-02-08T19:25:16.713" UserId="-1" Comment="corrected spelling" Text="You don't patent the code or the software, you patent the methodology. I think what you are describing is a novel algorithm applied to solving a specific problem. You can patent those (at least you used to be able to), although its a bit complicated and recent court decisions are relevant. I'm not a lawyer so I'll allow the ones who read your question to comment more. As for the actual code or software, I expect the best way to protect those is through a copyright. However as I said I'm not a lawyer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44482" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16998" RevisionGUID="0ac9580e-4971-4db9-ac87-b573855755e4" CreationDate="2017-02-08T19:25:16.713" Comment="Proposed by 85.195.255.242|a34fcaef-c432-4974-8f58-2f5738ad6900 approved by 18033, 17003 edit id of 2018" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44483" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13614" RevisionGUID="f0de060b-793e-4fd5-96a3-455d63c84c23" CreationDate="2017-02-08T20:00:27.307" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44484" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14266" RevisionGUID="e9bf6f07-f980-4e4b-b373-6026bbd71e45" CreationDate="2017-02-08T22:00:36.517" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44485" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14833" RevisionGUID="8f3069cf-1812-4466-823e-798bb1f33534" CreationDate="2017-02-08T23:00:39.323" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44493" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15983" RevisionGUID="2ab62354-660d-4679-bc1f-0b6364a46022" CreationDate="2017-02-09T07:11:56.870" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17006" RevisionGUID="d01fb1f0-5ea6-40a7-b160-3e26b23960f9" CreationDate="2017-02-09T07:51:44.273" UserId="18033" Comment="added 914 characters in body" Text="Sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It depends very much on the new use. If you find out that ASS (the stuff in Aspirin) &lt;del&gt; helps against ingrown toenails (oh, no, wait, somebody already found that) &lt;/del&gt; cures hearing loss induced by trauma, you can patent the use of ASS against hearing loss by trauma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And to extend the previous answer, if the patent for ASS only patents the use of ASS against headaches, you will not even need their patent. If however they protected the method of producing it, you may not produce it without a license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If however you found out that you can use a LAN compression protocol for WLAN, this might be considered obvious, in this case you would not get a patent. It might even be infringing the old patent for the protocol if this patent was well written and stating the use of the protocol in any kind of data transmission for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize I might have misunderstood the question. If it was about combining known products into a new product, the answer is yes, that's patentable. Most inventions are a combination of known known things. Think a car. Wheels were known, motors were known, etc. But the combination of them made a whole new thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is therefore possible to be inventive by combining old products. For this to be enough for a patent, the combination as such has to be novel and the prior art (the components, maybe a different combination of similar components) should not hint their use in such a way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However to produce/sell/use this new invention, you might need to license the patents for the components. For this, check if your invention is still literally doing what the patent claims (and more, but it if part of your invention infringes the patent, producing it will infringe the patent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17199" RevisionGUID="16b81ed6-7645-4dd2-837e-8e0907187324" CreationDate="2017-02-09T10:59:31.187" UserId="18460" Text="I have a US patent number. And I need to find out if this patent is valid in Germany and/or EU. Or if there is an equal patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I do this?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44496" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17199" RevisionGUID="16b81ed6-7645-4dd2-837e-8e0907187324" CreationDate="2017-02-09T10:59:31.187" UserId="18460" Text="How can I find out if a US patent is valid in Germany/EU" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44497" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17199" RevisionGUID="16b81ed6-7645-4dd2-837e-8e0907187324" CreationDate="2017-02-09T10:59:31.187" UserId="18460" Text="&lt;validity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17200" RevisionGUID="16700379-3d32-40c6-b4cf-36933a0edf6e" CreationDate="2017-02-09T12:06:41.263" UserId="18033" Text="Go to espacenet (that's the site of the European patent office). Enter the US patent number, go to the family tab, check if there is a German or European patent or patent application there. Follow all EP or DE patents and check if they are valid.&#xA;&#xA;For EP patents you can then go to the dpma or dpma register, enter the EP number and check if it is valid in Germany.&#xA;&#xA;If you edit the US number into the question I'll show you by example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44499" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="c3ec36a0-5a65-4232-8a60-c228be1d35b4" CreationDate="2017-02-09T12:17:45.963" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17199" RevisionGUID="46eeb7aa-c65a-419c-815d-95f4d42c347a" CreationDate="2017-02-09T13:22:17.907" UserId="18460" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="I have a US patent number. And I need to find out if this patent is valid in Germany and/or EU. Or if there is an equal patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The number in question is:  8 - 560 - 031&#xD;&#xA;How can I do this?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44501" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16103" RevisionGUID="070709c7-0cf1-4d4d-abec-b18ea69c8938" CreationDate="2017-02-09T15:20:58.660" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17200" RevisionGUID="c918ba19-3820-4ecf-921e-86f1c60fb074" CreationDate="2017-02-09T18:32:57.283" UserId="18033" Comment="added 1964 characters in body" Text="Go to espacenet (that's the site of the European patent office). Enter the US patent number, go to the family tab, check if there is a German or European patent or patent application there. Follow all EP or DE patents and check if they are valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For EP patents you can then go to the dpma or dpma register, enter the EP number and check if it is valid in Germany.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you edit the US number into the question I'll show you by example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example with the number from the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;espacenet search: &#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?ST=singleline&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;submitted=true&amp;DB=&amp;query=US8560031&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;family tab:&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?CC=US&amp;NR=2012329534A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=3&amp;date=20121227&amp;DB=&amp;locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We see the US patent, a canadian patent, a chinese one, an european one, a japanese one and a PCT application which are connected to this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The EP version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?II=3&amp;ND=4&amp;adjacent=true&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;FT=D&amp;date=20140122&amp;CC=EP&amp;NR=2686751A1&amp;KC=A1#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see from the A behind the patent number and from the &quot;also published as&quot; list, there is no granted european patent (yet). Else there would be a B version of this patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EP legal status:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=EP&amp;NR=2686751A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=4&amp;date=20140122&amp;DB=&amp;locale=en_EP#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can see there, that this patent application has a request for examination but has not entered national phase, there is no german version of this patent until now. It says something about a deleted request for extension, I don't know what that is but suspect it's nothing important or an artefact, so let's go back to the main page (bibliographic data) of this patent and from there to the EP register&#xD;&#xA;https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP12716127&amp;tab=main&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fees have been paid last year, so this is still an active application in Europe. There has been an examination report recently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP12716127&amp;lng=en&amp;tab=doclist&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked at it briefly, apparently claim 6 was deemed patentable, the others can be amended/changed or arguments why they are inventive can be provided. The examiner said the term &quot;socket&quot; was unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like this patent application could get granted, probably with narrower claims, in the next years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17201" RevisionGUID="5d14158e-2a90-40d2-b9bf-116d4d910e9f" CreationDate="2017-02-09T19:25:54.997" UserId="18461" Text="I have two ideas completely different and unrelated to each other, I want to put both of them inside a provisional patent application and in a alter time file two non-provisional application for them. is it possible? &#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44504" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17201" RevisionGUID="5d14158e-2a90-40d2-b9bf-116d4d910e9f" CreationDate="2017-02-09T19:25:54.997" UserId="18461" Text="Can I describe two different ideas inside a provisional patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44505" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17201" RevisionGUID="5d14158e-2a90-40d2-b9bf-116d4d910e9f" CreationDate="2017-02-09T19:25:54.997" UserId="18461" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;idea&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17202" RevisionGUID="e03c2fd5-70c9-4ab4-a6ea-265c31442cd0" CreationDate="2017-02-09T20:21:18.543" UserId="18033" Text="That sounds wrong, but I can't find anything that would disallow this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, rule 13 (PCT) and the wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_of_invention&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;United States:&#xD;&#xA;In U.S. patent law, applications that claim more than one distinct invention may be subject to restriction to a single invention, and the applicant may prosecute the remaining invention(s) by filing a divisional application(s). A &quot;restriction requirement&quot; will typically present the different inventions based on the claims within the application, and the applicant may elect which invention he would prosecute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;don't mention anything against your idea. Wikipedia even says that after a finding of lack of unity divisionals can be filed. It should be similar for provisionals / non-provisionals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is this https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s805.html for the USPTO, it says that lack of unity is not a reason to revoke a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This article http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6f660102-0df1-4422-81ec-2c34ddfb7560 says that unity of invention is only relevant in the claims and the description could describe multiple inventions. But again, unity seems to be relevant for searching and examination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is http://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc/121.html §35USC/121 which says that divisionals filed from a patent application lacking unity are entitled to the priority date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But of course normally this relates to similar inventions. I couldn't find precedence for what you are proposing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17203" RevisionGUID="92aa57c3-b6b9-4557-8066-a3178cf5de70" CreationDate="2017-02-09T22:27:56.930" UserId="18461" Text="I have read somewhere that we can have multiple ideas inside a provisional patent but I can't remember where it was! I think I read it in  &quot;Patent it yourself&quot;.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17204" RevisionGUID="42b76c3d-317b-4318-a4eb-7ded6f1c5ddc" CreationDate="2017-02-10T08:59:02.053" UserId="15503" Text="**Can I describe two different ideas inside a provisional patent application?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. Indeed, you could do this in any application, whether provisional or non-provisional: there is no restriction on what can be described.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The restriction on multiple inventions is provided by [37 CFR 1.141(a)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.141), which provides: (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Two or more independent and distinct inventions may not be **claimed** in one national application…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus there is no restriction on how many inventions can be described, just how many can be claimed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In principle, this might restrict a provisional from claiming multiple inventions. However, the consequences of claiming multiple inventions only arise during examination (per [37 CFR 1.142](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.142)), so will never apply to a provisional which is never examined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Does this affect claiming the benefit/priority?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to claiming the benefit of an earlier filing date, [35 USC 119(e)(1)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/119) provides (in a very long sentence, the bulk of which I have omitted):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;An application for patent … for an invention disclosed … in a provisional application … shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the provisional application …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus it is irrelevant what is claimed in the provisional. It only matters what invention was disclosed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claiming priority in other countries is a little trickier, since that would really require a consideration of every country's laws. However, the [Paris Convention art 4(A)(1)](http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/text.jsp?file_id=288514#P83_6610) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Any person who has duly filed an application for a patent, or for the registration of a utility model, or of an industrial design, or of a trademark, in one of the countries of the Union, or his successor in title, shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing in the other countries, a right of priority during the periods hereinafter fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that matters is that the earlier application (such as the provisional) was duly filed. Of course, this provision does not explicitly mention that the invention must be properly described. However, that is the interpretation of &quot;right of priority&quot; at the time the agreement was made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can I file two non-provisional applications from a single provisional?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. This flows from [35 USC 119(e)(1)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/119) quoted above. Each non-provisional is entitled to an earlier date based on any relevant provisional. There is no restriction on one provisional being used for multiple non-provisionals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44510" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12909" RevisionGUID="720ee77a-9aa2-4f4b-b488-271ea9755cb5" CreationDate="2017-02-10T12:41:50.950" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17207" RevisionGUID="14cb7b25-fe9d-44c2-aae1-745d0da02f9e" CreationDate="2017-02-10T16:23:39.487" UserId="18464" Text="Do you know sites or databases that allow us to view information such as reasons for filing, evidence, parties' claims, judgmentson of specific cases of IPR, PGR, ANDA litigation ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am considering invalidation trials in Japan regarding certain patent rights.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know if corresponding US patent was already fought in the United States and what kind of evidence or assertion was made in the invalidation trial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44522" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17207" RevisionGUID="14cb7b25-fe9d-44c2-aae1-745d0da02f9e" CreationDate="2017-02-10T16:23:39.487" UserId="18464" Text="information of IPR, PGR, ANDA litigation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44523" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17207" RevisionGUID="14cb7b25-fe9d-44c2-aae1-745d0da02f9e" CreationDate="2017-02-10T16:23:39.487" UserId="18464" Text="&lt;ipr&gt;&lt;pgr&gt;&lt;anda&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17208" RevisionGUID="ff883f0c-d3d1-4e41-8360-e161853294cf" CreationDate="2017-02-10T19:00:26.640" UserId="18467" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20080222899][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20080222899&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent still enforce&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44525" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17208" RevisionGUID="ff883f0c-d3d1-4e41-8360-e161853294cf" CreationDate="2017-02-10T19:00:26.640" UserId="18467" Text="picture framing backing paper edge trimmer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44526" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17208" RevisionGUID="ff883f0c-d3d1-4e41-8360-e161853294cf" CreationDate="2017-02-10T19:00:26.640" UserId="18467" Text="&lt;us20080222899&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44530" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16789" RevisionGUID="83b9847e-220e-43d6-95de-bdf1dd4543bf" CreationDate="2017-02-10T21:44:43.173" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17207" RevisionGUID="f51bb39e-3f4d-41de-800a-a6834bf0567d" CreationDate="2017-02-11T01:39:12.940" UserId="18464" Comment="deleted 170 characters in body; edited title" Text="I am considering invalidation trials in Japan regarding certain patent rights.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know if corresponding US patent was already fought in the United States and what kind of evidence or assertion was made in IPR, PGR or ANDA litigation.&#xD;&#xA;Are there any database or site which allow us to view the information of IPR, PGR or ANDA litigation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44537" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17207" RevisionGUID="f51bb39e-3f4d-41de-800a-a6834bf0567d" CreationDate="2017-02-11T01:39:12.940" UserId="18464" Comment="deleted 170 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can I get information about IPR, PGR or ANDA litigation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44539" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17208" RevisionGUID="999472f2-caeb-459c-95a0-35cd69f9141d" CreationDate="2017-02-11T10:54:40.637" UserId="15503" Comment="Make title more representative of the question" Text="Is US 2008/0222899 in force?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17210" RevisionGUID="35d07f73-1f33-451d-aa89-a5ec28ed72b7" CreationDate="2017-02-11T17:25:56.347" UserId="17003" Text="This is a patent application, not a patent. Thus it isn't yet enforceable. Even if it does become a patent, it is likely the claims would be modified. If you look this application up in the [US Public Pair][1] website, you can find out that it seems to be abandoned. Thus, it seems unlikely to become a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [question and answer][2] provides more general guidance on researching a patents status so I recommend you review it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17115/is-this-patent-valid-granted-which-countries-does-it-cover-are-there-family-m" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44546" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="83349dc0-cf72-4d3e-952a-30a6d31840c8" CreationDate="2017-02-11T23:14:51.760" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44549" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="93ccae7f-6d7e-4366-a42f-54f9f6a5bfb1" CreationDate="2017-02-12T03:16:28.370" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44550" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16579" RevisionGUID="ba0cb01e-0688-47a2-a681-24812c97e887" CreationDate="2017-02-12T04:16:28.210" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44551" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11968" RevisionGUID="396b1fce-0248-4a8d-a9d7-578662024af1" CreationDate="2017-02-12T05:16:49.097" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17212" RevisionGUID="a6d9e80a-6df3-4af4-8ea8-90779b3f07a1" CreationDate="2017-02-12T05:59:25.803" UserId="18473" Text="In reference to the patent: [US9383820][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9383820&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hello, I want to understand the scope of this patent. From what I saw they are patenting custom vibration patterns in relation to creation of alerts. Though, I do not understand if they are patenting the custom vibration patterns or the custom vibration patterns in relation to alerts. What is the scope of their invention cause I see creating custom patterns by touching the screen as obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to create a custom massager application. The application will allow the user to input a custom pattern by touching the screen with the approach mentioned in the above patent (without visuals) and after he is done the pattern will be stored and used to massage the user. Will that patent prevent me from developing my application? I do not want to get sued by a large corporation. I am planning on selling my application if that matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I started working on the app a month ago and I did not see their implementation but one cannot deviate from the tapup tapdown approach to record the pattern." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44553" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17212" RevisionGUID="a6d9e80a-6df3-4af4-8ea8-90779b3f07a1" CreationDate="2017-02-12T05:59:25.803" UserId="18473" Text="What is the the scope of this patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44554" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17212" RevisionGUID="a6d9e80a-6df3-4af4-8ea8-90779b3f07a1" CreationDate="2017-02-12T05:59:25.803" UserId="18473" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patentscope&gt;&lt;us9383820&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44555" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16577" RevisionGUID="cb4364b0-7f7b-4d9d-94a4-04741c27a45c" CreationDate="2017-02-12T07:18:16.310" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17212" RevisionGUID="c7eaf498-9673-419b-89c9-56eec730054d" CreationDate="2017-02-12T07:32:56.450" UserId="18473" Comment="deleted 166 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [US9383820][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9383820&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hello, I want to understand the scope of this patent. From what I saw they are patenting custom vibration patterns in relation to creation of alerts. Though, I do not understand if they are patenting the custom vibration patterns or the custom vibration patterns in relation to alerts. What is the scope of their invention cause I see creating custom patterns by touching the screen as obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to create a custom massager application. The application will allow the user to input a custom pattern by touching the screen with the approach mentioned in the above patent (without visuals) and after he is done the pattern will be stored and used to massage the user. Will that patent prevent me from developing my application? I do not want to get sued by a large corporation. I am planning on selling my application if that matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17214" RevisionGUID="8f84472a-e6af-48f4-a572-f1d5283d7f52" CreationDate="2017-02-12T07:50:28.963" UserId="18476" Text="I have an idea, that is of potential. However, before applying for a patent(U.S then international) it's going through a peer-review process; that is me sharing my work with a few individuals(qualified in the field) to get their analysis, and then will apply for a patent. I've documented my conversations with those individuals. Is that considered a safe move to avoid any concerns of theft, also due to the fact that they agreed not to share my work the moment the participated with my work(no signed documents though, only statements via email). Should I be concerned? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44561" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17214" RevisionGUID="8f84472a-e6af-48f4-a572-f1d5283d7f52" CreationDate="2017-02-12T07:50:28.963" UserId="18476" Text="Shared my work for analysis before applying for a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44562" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17214" RevisionGUID="8f84472a-e6af-48f4-a572-f1d5283d7f52" CreationDate="2017-02-12T07:50:28.963" UserId="18476" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;invention-theft&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44566" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12505" RevisionGUID="31e57d9d-46dc-4269-9072-6813fc35882b" CreationDate="2017-02-12T11:18:22.923" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44567" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10532" RevisionGUID="ec0c6eb0-eb6b-454c-a16e-ca3cd20d0bf7" CreationDate="2017-02-12T12:18:22.890" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17216" RevisionGUID="df41c003-c10b-448f-a273-0f9a68ecaabd" CreationDate="2017-02-12T13:15:09.520" UserId="15503" Text="There are two issues here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is your disclosure prior art?&#xD;&#xA;- Is there a reasonable risk of theft?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is your disclosure prior art?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have made your invention available to the public, your invention would no longer be novel ([35 USC 102(a)(1)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102)). This would prevent you getting a patent (except for the grace period, see below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you have sought analysis from others, presumably you have provided them enough details to fully understand your invention. This would prima facie be making your invention available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But is to the public? If you disclose your invention to a person who is free to tell others, this is sufficient. Conversely, disclosing to a person who is bound by a non-disclosure agreement is not a public disclosure. Thus this turns on whether your agreement with them by email constitutes a valid non-disclosure agreement. This would depend on your jurisdiction and the terms of the email.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Grace period?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US, you have 12 months after your own disclosure in which you can apply for a patent ([35 USC 102(b)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102)). Thus even if your disclosure to these other parties would count as prior art, as long as you file an application within 12 months of the disclosure, you wouldn't be prejudiced by it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not apply to most other countries however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there a reasonable risk of theft?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe. It depends on whether you trust the people you told.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is nothing practically stopping them from applying for a patent now. It would certainly be fraud, but the system relies on you to notice it and fix it. Thus while you may well be able to prove that you originated the idea, this is a costly and lengthy process, and one that is best avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What should you do in the future?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;File a patent application before any disclosure to untrusted recipients. Any disclosure to trusted recipients should still be done under a valid non-disclosure agreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What should you do now?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;File a patent application as soon as possible, I would think." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44569" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17214" RevisionGUID="8f23b3ab-c92e-420d-bc49-260d92d9a031" CreationDate="2017-02-12T13:20:39.720" UserId="15503" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;public-disclosure&gt;&lt;invention-theft&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17217" RevisionGUID="ee788f12-afa4-4b2f-a7ae-5e9bc6d03ba7" CreationDate="2017-02-12T15:45:05.700" UserId="17003" Text="The cited patent covers the generation and use of custom vibration patterns on Apple devices. It has been a feature on iPhones for a while. What you need to do is carefully read the claims of the patent (especially the independent claims) and see if what you intend to do with you app implements each and every step of the claim. If you do, then you infringe on the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not going to provide a legal opinion, but if you look at the independent claims of the cited patent, each one ends with associating the custom started vibration with a notification event. Since you are trying to build an app that massages the user as opposed to messages (&quot;ma&quot; vs &quot;me&quot;) you might be ok since the custom vibration pattern isn't tied to a notification event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, nothing stops you from being sued even if you really don't infringe on a patent. Lots of patent trolls do this sort of thing. The threat of a long and expensive court case being enough to obtain a settlement. Who knows if Apple sees your app as a legal threat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17217" RevisionGUID="b7526da8-b0cc-42b4-b8c8-af66a684caa3" CreationDate="2017-02-12T16:49:00.107" UserId="17003" Comment="edited body" Text="The cited patent covers the generation and use of custom vibration patterns on Apple devices. It has been a feature on iPhones for a while. What you need to do is carefully read the claims of the patent (especially the independent claims) and see if what you intend to do with you app implements each and every step of the claim. If you do, then you infringe on the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not going to provide a legal opinion, but if you look at the independent claims of the cited patent, each one ends with associating the custom vibration pattern with a notification event. Since you are trying to build an app that massages the user as opposed to messages (&quot;ma&quot; vs &quot;me&quot;) you might be ok since the custom vibration pattern isn't tied to a notification event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, nothing stops you from being sued even if you really don't infringe on a patent. Lots of patent trolls do this sort of thing. The threat of a long and expensive court case being enough to obtain a settlement. Who knows if Apple sees your app as a legal threat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17218" RevisionGUID="24847c01-fbea-4b71-bf8a-f1ca74143157" CreationDate="2017-02-12T21:52:04.287" UserId="18033" Text="You need the US patent numbers of all family members for the japanese patents you are interested in (espacenet for example should have them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can then find the data about IPRs at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board website:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://ptabdataui.uspto.gov/#/documents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there is also a ptab database for litigation, but I don't know if it's complete or just some examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are commercial sites that get you all the information about US litigation, IPRs etc. if you just enter the japanese patent number, but free sites with some information, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.patexia.com/lawsuits/AOL-Inc-v-Chan-id-74036&#xD;&#xA;https://search.rpxcorp.com/lit/dedce-59959-improved-search-v-microsoft&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Just some random lawsuit as an example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will have to pay for the documents normally (15ct. per page or sth like that up to $3 per document), but the official source where you can get the dockets (PACER) costs money too and registering is easier with these pages afaik." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17219" RevisionGUID="856359e8-e5bf-4dba-85d8-aa504e1fa1b4" CreationDate="2017-02-12T22:20:43.193" UserId="18033" Text="Let's look at the first claim of this patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. A method performed by one or more processes executing on an electronic device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;receiving tactile input from a user of the electronic device, the tactile input comprising a pattern of tap events detected on a touch-sensitive surface of the electronic device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;providing haptic and visual feedback, together at substantially the same time, to the user of the electronic device corresponding to the pattern of tap events entered during the receiving of the tactile input;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;associating a custom vibration pattern with the received tactile input;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;storing the custom vibration pattern for use by the electronic device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;signaling a notification event or alert to the user of the electronic device by actuating haptic feedback corresponding to the stored custom vibration pattern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short:&#xD;&#xA;On a device the user enters a pattern of taps, the device gives haptic and visual feedback at the same time and a custom vibration pattern is associated with the input and used to vibrate this way for a specific notification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: You want your whatsapp messages to vibrate differently if your girlfriend messages you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your case is actually interesting, as you might be infringing this claim when using your massager. The claim doesn't specify what kind of electronic device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try an analysis, but please note, this is no legal advice - especially - I might be wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A method performed by one or more processes executing on an electronic device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, a massager is an electronic device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;receiving tactile input from a user of the electronic device, the tactile input comprising a pattern of tap events detected on a touch-sensitive surface of the electronic device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use a touchscreen ..., basically all input is a pattern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;providing haptic and visual feedback, together at substantially the same time, to the user of the electronic device corresponding to the pattern of tap events entered during the receiving of the tactile input;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;THIS - probably aimed at showing the user what vibration pattern he is selecting the device provides immediat feedback, visually AND haptically.&#xD;&#xA;If your massager does not provide immediate haptic feedback, it cannot infringe this claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;associating a custom vibration pattern with the received tactile input;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;depending on the definition of vibration in the patents describtion, you might have your massager not infringe by vibrating for example harder, though thats a long shot and relying on the description to get out of infringement is always dangerous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;storing the custom vibration pattern for use by the electronic device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;signaling a notification event or alert to the user of the electronic device by actuating haptic feedback corresponding to the stored custom vibration pattern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And THIS. The saved vibration pattern is used to signal the user of the device an notification event or an alert. I don't see where a massager would do this, unless you program that the user can enter a specific end sequenze to signal that the end of the massage is coming or something like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you see, careful analysis shows, you are probably not infirnging. There might be some path for arguing that the field of the patent differentiates substantially from what you do, but honestly, I don't know if that works. Anyways, I'd say you're safe. But please remember, this is just my opinion based on a short and shallow analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17220" RevisionGUID="fe0bbd4c-0367-4353-b791-0daf6333db67" CreationDate="2017-02-12T23:46:24.027" UserId="18480" Text="The second answer to [this question][1] suggest [patents.google.com][2] as the best way to search for reexamined patents. However, if I search for the classification 'F25B' and 'reexamination', the results haven't actually been reexamined, they just have the word in the text. Is there a better way to search for reexamined patents by classification?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/4893/how-does-one-know-if-a-patent-was-reexamined/4899#4899&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.google.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44578" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17220" RevisionGUID="fe0bbd4c-0367-4353-b791-0daf6333db67" CreationDate="2017-02-12T23:46:24.027" UserId="18480" Text="Find patents with classification that have been reexamined" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44579" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17220" RevisionGUID="fe0bbd4c-0367-4353-b791-0daf6333db67" CreationDate="2017-02-12T23:46:24.027" UserId="18480" Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;reexamination&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17221" RevisionGUID="1b149b9a-5859-4df5-8e76-ae624d237df5" CreationDate="2017-02-13T04:25:22.743" UserId="15503" Text="[USPTO's PatFT](http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm) provides functionality for this. In particular, the application type (APT, where APT=2 refers to reissued patents) and current CPC classification class (CPCL) are probably be relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The query [APT/2 and CPCL/F25B](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&amp;r=0&amp;p=1&amp;f=S&amp;l=50&amp;Query=APT%2F2+and+CPCL%2FF25B&amp;d=PTXT) seems to provide what you want." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44582" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14806" RevisionGUID="c6611a32-692c-4ba0-8ddb-72496252a41d" CreationDate="2017-02-13T09:38:47.303" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16195" RevisionGUID="b9c92d89-ef7a-4dec-b30b-390306bce858" CreationDate="2017-02-13T09:48:58.113" UserId="17155" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="There is no definitive answer to your question. The simple suggestion is that you might want to consider consulting with your attorney. But, unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that even attorney will have a proper yes or no answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a website though that might help you decide whether the software you are going to create infringes [ImageWare][1] patent: [website where they try to use patent prosecution against the patent][2], at least it should help you to understand what the patent is patenting. Keep in mind that there are probably much more patents related to biometrics not only [ImageWare][1] patents. Anyway the more information you collect on patents related to your product the better understanding of patent situation you acquire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind the patent you’ve mentioned is a US patent, apparently [ImageWare][1] has applied for a same patent in many countries: [WIPO][3]. In the end it is up to you to assess the risk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After going through the reports you provided it really looks that the company is very bad at what they are doing which is a cause to worry having in mind that they put so much effort into patents as you've said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at ImageWare's patent families:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7298873, US7362884, US7606396, US7596246][4]&#xD;&#xA; - [US9286528][5]&#xD;&#xA; - [20140313007][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is to analyze those patents and if they can still be objected to add corresponding questions here marked as a prior art request. Also if you see that patent is claiming way less than it might seem from abstract or description (take a look at the website I've mentioned earlier: [link][7], [backup link][8]), it would be great to share the reasoning here in stackexchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://iwsinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20160713141849/http://patents.hoxty.com/ImageWare/7298873/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2006055575&amp;recNum=1&amp;tab=NationalPhase&amp;maxRec=&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=&amp;queryString=&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://globaldossier.uspto.gov/#/result/patent/US/7362884/126592&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://globaldossier.uspto.gov/#/result/patent/US/9286528/114162&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://globaldossier.uspto.gov/#/result/publication/US/20140313007/113669&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://web.archive.org/web/20160725123956/http://patents.hoxty.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://web.archive.org/web/20160725123956/http://patents.hoxty.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17222" RevisionGUID="cdc93f15-6484-4a05-bd79-049238011628" CreationDate="2017-02-13T09:56:21.880" UserId="1605" Text="If it is published, it is prior art (and as @DonQuiKong states, 'publishing' may be oral). If it is you own application that has not yet been publised (within deadline from filing or provisional filing) you may seek to amend the first application to keep its priority date or withdraw the first application to avoid publication and file a new (with new priority date)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44585" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16114" RevisionGUID="7b61abf7-d0bd-4997-b787-3835a70fafe4" CreationDate="2017-02-13T11:38:45.170" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44586" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17041" RevisionGUID="5f5bff10-d75c-44cb-bc5c-bfc0064e5967" CreationDate="2017-02-13T18:46:24.187" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44587" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16118" RevisionGUID="a885860b-eed7-4d09-a576-aa475d4c7335" CreationDate="2017-02-13T20:46:26.677" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17223" RevisionGUID="bf4df17a-ea92-4ed3-b954-4c16c96553bb" CreationDate="2017-02-13T21:05:20.050" UserId="18473" Text="All of the answers in here helpful yet hesitant to provide a tangible legal advice. Searching through the questions asked I have found this answer by @George White. The answer provides a detailed description on what to do with the patent claims to know exactly where you stand. Also, its an answer by a patent agent. So, I decided to quote this answer here for anyone who is having doubts just like me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If an independent method claim 1 has 6 steps, to infringe that claim one entity must perform all 6 steps. A different claim 2 depending from 1 essentially says &quot;do all those 6 steps plus these two (for example) more steps. To infringe 1 you must do the 6 steps. To infringe 2 you must do the eight steps. In both cases it is all steps of a particular claim. Anyone who infringes 2, is by definition also infringing 1. If you are doing all 8 steps you are obviously doing the 6 steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To infringe a dependent claim one must do all of the steps in all the claims in the chain of claims it depends from as well as the steps specifically written in that dependent claim's text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5435/a-patent-with-both-apparatus-i-e-system-and-method&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks @George White&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17224" RevisionGUID="3c212ce0-6c0a-4723-88a8-d1789617e399" CreationDate="2017-02-13T23:44:11.810" UserId="18488" Text="You can make direct API calls to the [PatentsView.org api endpoint][1] to filter down to only the data that you need.  The problem I see that a vast majority of the 10gb file is actually produced in the last 30 years or so. The data set might not be smaller.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, I am the Head of Product at [IP Street][2].  We provide enterprise grade patent data APIs and analytical algorithms like semantic patent search.  Sometimes it's better to have a vendor like us do the number crunching for you rather than download and manage the 10gb of data yourself.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am interested in learning more about your project.  Reach out to me if you still need help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentsview.org/api/doc.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ipstreet.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17217" RevisionGUID="02c70b4b-a4f4-48e3-9490-1d4bb2ef4a32" CreationDate="2017-02-14T02:48:41.277" UserId="17003" Comment="fixed typo." Text="The cited patent covers the generation and use of custom vibration patterns on Apple devices. It has been a feature on iPhones for a while. What you need to do is carefully read the claims of the patent (especially the independent claims) and see if what you intend to do with your app implements each and every step of the claim. If you do, then you infringe on the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not going to provide a legal opinion, but if you look at the independent claims of the cited patent, each one ends with associating the custom vibration pattern with a notification event. Since you are trying to build an app that massages the user as opposed to messages (&quot;ma&quot; vs &quot;me&quot;) you might be ok since the custom vibration pattern isn't tied to a notification event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, nothing stops you from being sued even if you really don't infringe on a patent. Lots of patent trolls do this sort of thing. The threat of a long and expensive court case being enough to obtain a settlement. Who knows if Apple sees your app as a legal threat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17225" RevisionGUID="f5939e25-6879-4fd5-88fa-4db1648c70be" CreationDate="2017-02-14T04:07:39.100" UserId="18489" Text="Does it mean that it simply must be able to be patent, and not have a similar patent already filed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44593" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17225" RevisionGUID="f5939e25-6879-4fd5-88fa-4db1648c70be" CreationDate="2017-02-14T04:07:39.100" UserId="18489" Text="What do companies mean when they say your idea have to be patent or potentially patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44594" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17225" RevisionGUID="f5939e25-6879-4fd5-88fa-4db1648c70be" CreationDate="2017-02-14T04:07:39.100" UserId="18489" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17226" RevisionGUID="742ac89e-ff9a-4814-bc34-a45043df8714" CreationDate="2017-02-14T04:45:36.907" UserId="18490" Text="My husband developed patent # us496567..He passed away. Another company is using the procedure..Who owns the rights?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44596" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17226" RevisionGUID="742ac89e-ff9a-4814-bc34-a45043df8714" CreationDate="2017-02-14T04:45:36.907" UserId="18490" Text="My husbands name is on patent.He passed away.Who is legal owner now?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44597" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17226" RevisionGUID="742ac89e-ff9a-4814-bc34-a45043df8714" CreationDate="2017-02-14T04:45:36.907" UserId="18490" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17227" RevisionGUID="34cabcef-bccc-4689-aa0b-47c56f491dae" CreationDate="2017-02-14T05:32:39.790" UserId="18473" Text="what does this sentence mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;can be implemented as a method, apparatus, and/or computer software embodied in a computer-readable medium&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have learned that method means process. Though, is this like a computer process or the word process has a different meaning. Apparatus on the hand I believe is the machine. Though, I cannot figure out what this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;computer software embodied in a computer-readable medium&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it mean that the software resides in a computer device such as PC, smart phones, tablets etc.?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44599" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17227" RevisionGUID="34cabcef-bccc-4689-aa0b-47c56f491dae" CreationDate="2017-02-14T05:32:39.790" UserId="18473" Text="What does method, apparatus, computer software embodied mean" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44600" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17227" RevisionGUID="34cabcef-bccc-4689-aa0b-47c56f491dae" CreationDate="2017-02-14T05:32:39.790" UserId="18473" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17227" RevisionGUID="def99412-77b7-46fa-8b93-c395419b167c" CreationDate="2017-02-14T05:46:58.830" UserId="18473" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="what does this sentence mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;can be implemented as a method, apparatus, and/or computer software embodied in a computer-readable medium&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have learned that method means process. Though, is this like a computer process or the word process has a different meaning. Apparatus on the hand I believe is the machine. Though, I cannot figure out what this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;computer software embodied in a computer-readable medium&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it mean that the software resides in a computer device such as PC, smart phones, tablets etc.?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, what does &quot;in one aspect&quot; and &quot;in another aspect&quot; mean under the summary of the invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17228" RevisionGUID="5101723e-3b80-4d4a-8097-ddec2972c7c7" CreationDate="2017-02-14T07:27:37.507" UserId="18033" Text="I'm sorry for your loss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent has one or several inventors and one or several owners. Those do not have to overlap. The inventors stay the same, the owners can change as a patent can be treated as normal property and therefore sold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US496567 is an old patent, it has lapsed (patents only protect an invention for a certain time, 20 years now, at that time it was less), so nobody owns it anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent is from 1893, are you sure it is the right one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17229" RevisionGUID="537aef43-e285-41c6-9902-9129b7289109" CreationDate="2017-02-14T07:30:50.427" UserId="18033" Text="It means the idea has to be new (never published) and inventive (not obvious from the state of the art). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would expand this further, but there are plenty of websites, articles, books, .. explainign this better than I could. Please look up (above mentioned) requirements for patentability. You could google them or click on the patentability tag and start there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17230" RevisionGUID="c31b3d6f-a823-431b-b616-dcf38cb21f64" CreationDate="2017-02-14T07:38:29.020" UserId="18033" Text="It means the person writing the patent does not want to limit his invention to any aspect he describes and patent as many aspects as possible and underline that the embodiments are just examples. It's part of the way of writing a patent, most attorneys use phrases like this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Computer software embodied in a computer-readable medium means exactly what it says -&gt; they want to patent the software. This is just the normnal way of saying it, because software patents are not allowed in some jurisdictions and depend on altering the physical world in others. In the end, just take it literal. Software **always** is on a computer-readable medium, everything else would make no sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparatus is the machine, method the process of using it and software the implementation. By patenting all three they can possibly catch implementations that infringe with an altered software or an altered process or something like that. Sometimes claims like this are worded &quot;a device configured to do this and that&quot; - in this case the device doesn't even have to do it, it just has to be able to do it to infringe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Things like this are the reason a patent attporney should draft a patent, experience is needed to write a good patent including this stuff and udnerstanding what it is for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44605" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14892" RevisionGUID="285b270f-49bb-4aee-9e51-36939b9c4aa6" CreationDate="2017-02-14T13:04:48.913" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17230" RevisionGUID="a278f3e2-07cc-4914-a785-67efe8268054" CreationDate="2017-02-14T15:24:26.990" UserId="17003" Comment="fixed some misspellings. " Text="It means the person writing the patent does not want to limit his invention to any aspect he describes and patent as many aspects as possible and underline that the embodiments are just examples. It's part of the way of writing a patent, most attorneys use phrases like this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Computer software embodied in a computer-readable medium means exactly what it says -&gt; they want to patent the software. This is just the normnal way of saying it, because software patents are not allowed in some jurisdictions and depend on altering the physical world in others. In the end, just take it literal. Software **always** is on a computer-readable medium, everything else would make no sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparatus is the machine, method the process of using it and software the implementation. By patenting all three they can possibly catch implementations that infringe with an altered software or an altered process or something like that. Sometimes claims like this are worded &quot;a device configured to do this and that&quot; - in this case the device doesn't even have to do it, it just has to be able to do it to infringe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Things like this are the reason a patent attorney should draft a patent, experience is needed to write a good patent including this stuff and understanding what it is for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17231" RevisionGUID="a122273b-524d-4ded-9bf2-f4b9b67b833e" CreationDate="2017-02-14T15:31:57.287" UserId="17003" Text="In addition to DonQuiKong's answer, the desire for patentability is motivated by the fact that a patent provides a period of exclusivity which may be enormously valuable. &#xA;&#xA;If someone is going to invest significant capital developing a product they want to ensure sufficiently payback. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17231" RevisionGUID="2431d882-0ba7-4d03-9fbc-ccbcdd362f6b" CreationDate="2017-02-14T15:43:16.103" UserId="17003" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="In addition to DonQuiKong's answer, the desire for patentability is motivated by the fact that a patent provides a period of exclusivity which may be enormously valuable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone is going to invest significant capital developing a product they want to ensure sufficient payback. A patent provides typically 20 years of protection from the application date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="268" RevisionGUID="6f13ca79-1b30-40b9-a8e5-94fdeb62062e" CreationDate="2017-02-14T17:15:34.847" UserId="4118" Comment="Japan Patent Office was pointing to old location, replaced by new URL" Text="Most countries provide a search engine for their patent data. Additionally there are third-party search engines for patent data. Most of these will (all the big ones do) search the text of the patents for the supplied terms. Below are some links for the most popular tools. If you are looking for US patents, I would start with Google Patents first to get a sense of what's out there. From there you can get more detailed with the USPTO's site (which has a fairly weighty searching syntax). I don't search for European assets that much, but I generally used Espacenet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Official:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [United States Patent Office][1] &#xD;&#xA; - [Espacenet (Europe)][2]&#xD;&#xA; - [Japan Patent Office][3]&#xD;&#xA; - A few others, just search for &quot;[country] patent office&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unofficial:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Google Patents][4]&#xD;&#xA; - [Google Scholar][5] (combines Google Patents with non-patent literature, e.g., prior art)&#xD;&#xA; - [Patent Lens][6]&#xD;&#xA; - [Fresh Patents][7]&#xD;&#xA; - [Freepatentsonline][8]&#xD;&#xA; - [Boliven][9] (note: Boliven is somewhat limited for free searching. The last time I used it I was capped at a small amount of searches. Their s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unofficial (paid):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Delphion][10]&#xD;&#xA; - [Lexis][11] and [Westlaw][12] (subscription based)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/?locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.j-platpat.inpit.go.jp/web/all/top/BTmTopEnglishPage&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://scholar.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.patentlens.net/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.freshpatents.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.boliven.com/alt-index&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.delphion.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://lexisnexis.com&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://westlaw.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44610" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="268" RevisionGUID="6f13ca79-1b30-40b9-a8e5-94fdeb62062e" CreationDate="2017-02-14T17:15:34.847" Comment="Proposed by 4118 approved by 17003, 17325 edit id of 2019" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44611" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14948" RevisionGUID="64306b1f-ae4b-4fba-b497-37cab6a07163" CreationDate="2017-02-14T23:17:24.703" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17232" RevisionGUID="ba500ebf-2ab7-4f65-8243-38702b41391c" CreationDate="2017-02-14T23:48:50.740" UserId="18388" Text="Is it important to mention the claims in a provisional patent and how will the claims affect the non-provisional patent if I decided to make it within a year? I have read that you cannot mention the claims in the non-prov patent if you did not write them in the provisional patent. Is that true? I want to write them but they are not easy to write and I am afraid that writing them wrong would hurt my chances on the invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44613" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17232" RevisionGUID="ba500ebf-2ab7-4f65-8243-38702b41391c" CreationDate="2017-02-14T23:48:50.740" UserId="18388" Text="How important are claims in provsional patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44614" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17232" RevisionGUID="ba500ebf-2ab7-4f65-8243-38702b41391c" CreationDate="2017-02-14T23:48:50.740" UserId="18388" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17221" RevisionGUID="8f9bb4a2-78d2-4e9b-b6e2-0826508d5aaa" CreationDate="2017-02-15T00:53:26.473" UserId="15503" Comment="Make answer relate to the question" Text="[USPTO's PatFT](http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm) provides functionality for this. In particular, the re-examination certificate (REEX, where REEX=YES refers to a certificate of re-examination being present) and current CPC classification class (CPCL) are probably be relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The query [REEX/YES and CPCL/F25B](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&amp;r=0&amp;p=1&amp;f=S&amp;l=50&amp;Query=REEX%2FYES+and+CPCL%2FF25B&amp;d=PTXT) seems to provide what you want." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17233" RevisionGUID="06659bb2-6fbc-48e4-b3dc-699ff274e7fb" CreationDate="2017-02-15T01:14:25.403" UserId="15503" Text="**There is no requirement for claims**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Provisional applications are not examined, and therefore have no formality requirements. As long as they are validly filed, it doesn't matter precisely what format they are in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But including claims in a provisional is good**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One key purpose of a provisional is to for a later non-provisional or Convention application to be entitled to an earlier date. This only occurs if the invention claimed in each claim of the non-provisional was present in the provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the claims of the non-provisional match the claims of the provisional, then this is very clear. And this is where the key benefit lies. By having claims in your provisional, you are making abundantly clear that you are entitled to an earlier date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conversely, if there are no claims (or claim-like language) in the provisional, there is an increased risk that the claims of the non-provisional will not be entitled to the earlier date. But it all comes down to risk, and if you are careful with your drafting, you can minimise this risk. But why take the risk if you can avoid it simply with claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is it true that you cannot mention the claims in the non-provisional if you did not write them in the provisional?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. While it may be good practice to match them up, there is no obligation to have claims in the provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, it is not uncommon for you to need to completely redraft the claims for the non-provisional (perhaps due to further development). This is fine. However, having some kind of claims in the provisional may still be beneficial: you're not obligated to use them in your non-provisional, but you can if they are helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claims are not easy to write**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's true: they are certainly the hardest part of any patent application. But there is a strong argument for starting with the claims before the description. The purpose of the description is to support your claims: it has no real value on its own. So by starting with the claims, you can ensure that the language in the claims is reflected in the language of the description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you start with the description (where you have much more literary freedom), you may end up with language which reads well but doesn't quite suit a good claim. It's not impossible to draft claims last, it's just more difficult." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17234" RevisionGUID="ee93ebdc-5058-47a6-94e8-99c70259a943" CreationDate="2017-02-15T01:26:50.823" UserId="15503" Text="Dealing specifically with aspects (since I have nothing to add to DonQuiKong's answer on methods etc):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An aspect of an invention is a particular way of viewing the same invention. So if the invention a transmission method, one aspect may be the sending end, and another aspect may be the receiving end. They both relate to the same invention, they're just different views of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An aspect can be contrasted with an embodiment, which is one way of implementing an invention, usually with some non-essential features. So in an embodiment of the transmission method, the sender and the receive may be in different networks. In another embodiment, they may be in the same network. Neither embodiment is essential for the invention (as it still works regardless), they just reflects different ways of putting it into use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conventionally (and particularly in the summary section) aspects map to independent claims and embodiments map to dependent claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17235" RevisionGUID="9cef8002-2b4f-43fb-88e0-6a156e1ba86f" CreationDate="2017-02-15T07:28:43.870" UserId="18033" Text="In this comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/16579/multiple-priority-date-options/16580?noredirect=1#comment12098_16580&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maca said that an unpublished provisional patent does not count as prior art regarding novelty of another patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to admit that I do not believe this. I am certain that for normal patent applications it is not that way, even while they have not been published, they count as prior art for novelty, but not for inventive step. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question therefore is, can anybody provide any part of the patent law of the US proving or disproving this statement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44620" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17235" RevisionGUID="9cef8002-2b4f-43fb-88e0-6a156e1ba86f" CreationDate="2017-02-15T07:28:43.870" UserId="18033" Text="Repatenting dropped provisionals from seomebody else" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44621" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17235" RevisionGUID="9cef8002-2b4f-43fb-88e0-6a156e1ba86f" CreationDate="2017-02-15T07:28:43.870" UserId="18033" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17235" RevisionGUID="095e25e0-4e7b-409c-8c44-b11c8c429ea6" CreationDate="2017-02-15T07:52:53.633" UserId="18033" Comment="added 218 characters in body" Text="In this comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/16579/multiple-priority-date-options/16580?noredirect=1#comment12098_16580&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maca said that an unpublished provisional patent does not count as prior art regarding novelty of another patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to admit that I do not believe this. I am certain that for normal patent applications it is not that way, even while they have not been published, they count as prior art for novelty, but not for inventive step. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question therefore is, can anybody provide any part of the patent law of the US proving or disproving this statement that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dropped and unpublished provisionals do not impede novelty of other inventions? And how about dropped but published provisionals for patents with priority date between filing and publishing of said provisional?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44623" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17235" RevisionGUID="095e25e0-4e7b-409c-8c44-b11c8c429ea6" CreationDate="2017-02-15T07:52:53.633" UserId="18033" Comment="added 218 characters in body" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;us&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44624" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17235" RevisionGUID="01ed985c-52d4-4245-8be2-dbe022a38a02" CreationDate="2017-02-15T09:08:37.070" UserId="18033" Comment="edited title" Text="Repatenting dropped provisionals from somebody else" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17236" RevisionGUID="167de2ba-cb9d-4868-885e-a6577914f715" CreationDate="2017-02-15T09:13:15.133" UserId="17325" Text="Why does it puzzle you? If it is not available to the public, it is not prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think relevant US provision is here (MPEP 901.02)&#xD;&#xA;https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s901.html#ch900_d225b5_2caa7_e7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that it only mentions **printed or published provisionals OR provisionals that are publicly available** because they ended up to normal filings, which naturally have publicly available file wrappers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is also the case for priority documents in general. You may see subject matter disclosed in a priority document and not being used in the filing of a PCT application. The priority document is available via the file wrapper on WIPO site, though, so in this case, yes, it counts as published disclosure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might be referring to the provision of the EPO, Article 54(3) EPC, which considers prior art relevant only for novelty, if the cited document is filed before a given effective (priority or filing) date, but is published only afterwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Additionally, the content of European patent applications as filed, the dates of filing of which are prior to the date referred to in paragraph 2 and which were **published** on or after that date, shall be considered as comprised in the state of the art.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; But in this case, the prior art to be considered **must have been published**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another issue which I can think of, but not relevant for novelty, is the priority claim. See below the wording of Article 4C from the Paris Convention:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A subsequent application concerning the same subject as a previous first application within the meaning of paragraph (2), above, filed in the same country of the Union shall be considered as the first application, of which the filing date shall be the starting point of the period of priority, if, at the time of filing the subsequent application, the said previous application has been withdrawn, abandoned, or refused, without having been laid open to public inspection and **without leaving any rights outstanding**, and if it has not yet served as a basis for claiming a right of priority. The previous application may not thereafter serve as a basis for claiming a right of priority.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This legal basis does not limit the requirement to publication, but to an act that ensures that **there are no rights outstanding**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do those provisions make sense to you? I think they set up a fair landscape." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17237" RevisionGUID="a342da3f-13ec-4b35-a81d-55633531f9af" CreationDate="2017-02-15T09:15:51.683" UserId="15503" Text="The answer to this turns on [35 USC § 102(a)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102), which reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Section 102(a)(1) covers the typical scenario of a publication. When a patent application (or any document at all) is published, it becomes §102(a)(1) prior art as of its publication date. This section therefore does not apply to unpublished applications (whether provisional or non-provisional).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Section 102(a)(2) relates more to double patenting. Parsing the section, the three requirements are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the claimed invention was described in an issued patent or a published application; AND&#xD;&#xA;- the patent or application names another inventor; AND&#xD;&#xA;- the patent or application was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An unpublished provisional fails at the first hurdle: it is neither an issued patent nor an published application. It therefore cannot be regarded as prior art until it is published.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17237" RevisionGUID="4d169dd0-125f-4f62-84f9-10a207f504e7" CreationDate="2017-02-15T09:23:03.997" UserId="15503" Comment="formatting" Text="The answer to this turns on [35 USC § 102(a)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102), which reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Section 102(a)(1) covers the typical scenario of a publication. When a patent application (or any document at all) is published, it becomes §102(a)(1) prior art as of its publication date. This section therefore does not apply to unpublished applications (whether provisional or non-provisional).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Section 102(a)(2) relates more to double patenting. The three requirements are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the claimed invention was described in an issued patent or an application published under §122; AND&#xD;&#xA;- the patent or application names another inventor; AND&#xD;&#xA;- the patent or application was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An unpublished provisional fails at the first hurdle: it is neither an issued patent nor an published application. It therefore cannot be regarded as prior art until it is published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How about dropped but published provisionals for patents with priority date between filing and publishing of said provisional?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A published provisional application is prior art under §102(a)(1) (like any published document), as of its date of publication. However, it is still not §102(a)(2) prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because a provisional application is never published under §122 (and therefore will never meet the first requirement above). This is clear from [§122(2)(A)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/122) which provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;An application shall not be published if that application is— ...&#xD;&#xA;(iii) a provisional application filed under section 111(b)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, interestingly a published non-provisional which claims the benefit of the provisional is §102(a)(2) prior art as of the date that the provisional was filed. This is because the effective filing date of the non-provisional is the provisional's filing date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17237" RevisionGUID="2e13a119-d991-478c-bcb4-7402ba81202f" CreationDate="2017-02-15T09:30:48.233" UserId="15503" Comment="added 286 characters in body" Text="The answer to this turns on [35 USC § 102(a)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102), which reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Section 102(a)(1) covers the typical scenario of a publication. When a patent application (or any document at all) is published, it becomes §102(a)(1) prior art as of its publication date. This section therefore does not apply to unpublished applications (whether provisional or non-provisional).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Section 102(a)(2) relates more to double patenting. The three requirements are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the claimed invention was described in an issued patent or an application published under §122; AND&#xD;&#xA;- the patent or application names another inventor; AND&#xD;&#xA;- the patent or application was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An unpublished provisional fails at the first hurdle: it is neither an issued patent nor an published application. It therefore cannot be regarded as prior art until it is published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How about dropped but published provisionals for patents with priority date between filing and publishing of said provisional?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A published provisional application is prior art under §102(a)(1) (like any published document), as of its date of publication. However, it is still not §102(a)(2) prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because a provisional application is never published under §122 (and therefore will never meet the first requirement above). This is clear from [§122(2)(A)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/122) which provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;An application shall not be published if that application is— ...&#xD;&#xA;(iii) a provisional application filed under section 111(b)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What about non-provisionals?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once they are published (and not before, per the first requirement above), non-provisionals are §102(a)(2) prior art. However, they are prior art as of the effective filing date (not the publication date).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has an interesting dynamic when paired with a provisional. A published non-provisional which claims the benefit of the provisional is §102(a)(2) prior art as of the date that the provisional was filed. This is because the effective filing date of the non-provisional is the provisional's filing date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17238" RevisionGUID="36977d4b-6417-41eb-9d7e-6c8abe360c6f" CreationDate="2017-02-15T09:48:56.427" UserId="18498" Text="In reference to the patent: [EP3118774A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP3118774A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am working in the same field, and it seems to me that this patent is similar to a technology already existing since 2001. &#xD;&#xA;developed by HP: http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/ptm/ . Later developed also by other groups, maybe notably http://vcg.isti.cnr.it/rti/acquisition.php . It has been used specifically on books (https://lichfield.as.uky.edu/st-chad-gospels/rti).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this patent means? That no one will be able to use an old technology because someone 15 years later patented it? is this possible?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44630" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17238" RevisionGUID="36977d4b-6417-41eb-9d7e-6c8abe360c6f" CreationDate="2017-02-15T09:48:56.427" UserId="18498" Text="Prior existing technologi patented" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44631" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17238" RevisionGUID="36977d4b-6417-41eb-9d7e-6c8abe360c6f" CreationDate="2017-02-15T09:48:56.427" UserId="18498" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44632" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="57a72027-7f37-4a46-9495-f3e9c7f1aa3f" CreationDate="2017-02-15T10:27:39.263" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17241" RevisionGUID="3ebbb913-a53f-448a-9099-28606e667db6" CreationDate="2017-02-15T16:13:53.613" UserId="17003" Text="The cited document is a patent application. It may or may not become a patent. Even if it does become a patent, but claims may be narrowed or changed based on prior art. It is also important to understand that there may be multiple patentable technologies that address the same field. I'm not in a position to assess the patentability of the application. You may want to review this [question][1] to better understand the patent process. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think you have relevant prior art and want to make the European patent office aware of this, this [link][2] provides guidance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your last question, to infringe a patent, you must implement every step of at least one claim. It is unlikely that someone using a technology for 15 years prior to a patent being filed will be sued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17115/is-this-patent-valid-granted-which-countries-does-it-cover-are-there-family-m&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://hroy.eu/work/oin/submit-priorart-howto/EPO/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17241" RevisionGUID="25f66504-651e-4928-8cf8-465f9e9a7cbd" CreationDate="2017-02-15T16:20:21.963" UserId="17003" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="The cited document is a patent application. It may or may not become a patent. Even if it does become a patent, but claims may be narrowed or changed based on prior art. It is also important to understand that there may be multiple patentable technologies that address the same field. I'm not in a position to assess the patentability of the application. You may want to review this [question][1] to better understand the patent process. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think you have relevant prior art and want to make the European patent office aware of this, there are two procedures, [one prior][2] to grant and one [within 9 months][3] of grant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your last question, to infringe a patent, you must implement every step of at least one claim. It is unlikely that someone using a technology for 15 years prior to a patent being filed will be sued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17115/is-this-patent-valid-granted-which-countries-does-it-cover-are-there-family-m&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar115.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/apv.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44644" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16131" RevisionGUID="2213ff76-17fc-4f32-be82-dd71fa3b6ea9" CreationDate="2017-02-15T21:46:09.157" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44645" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16149" RevisionGUID="632c5077-8cff-4ba3-8378-2b532df24f46" CreationDate="2017-02-16T00:46:27.407" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17241" RevisionGUID="59284349-bdff-410c-9eb1-ceeca178e3fc" CreationDate="2017-02-16T03:25:08.973" UserId="17003" Comment="edited body" Text="The cited document is a patent application. It may or may not become a patent. Even if it does become a patent, its claims may be narrowed or changed based on prior art. It is also important to understand that there may be multiple patentable technologies that address the same field. I'm not in a position to assess the patentability of the application. You may want to review this [question][1] to better understand the patent process. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think you have relevant prior art and want to make the European patent office aware of this, there are two procedures, [one prior][2] to grant and one [within 9 months][3] of grant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your last question, to infringe a patent, you must implement every step of at least one claim. It is unlikely that someone using a technology for 15 years prior to a patent being filed will be sued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17115/is-this-patent-valid-granted-which-countries-does-it-cover-are-there-family-m&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar115.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/apv.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44649" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13006" RevisionGUID="314e3955-871a-4da7-b336-1dae629b4435" CreationDate="2017-02-16T10:51:35.137" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17245" RevisionGUID="adc76ca8-6995-4849-b639-46e0af2a22da" CreationDate="2017-02-16T14:11:55.757" UserId="17325" Text="Take a look at this one, I think it answers some of your thoughts. It discusses the most prominent cases of national law provisions. Penalty may be the invalidation of the payment, or even jail (Table 1). Perhaps you should reconsider it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1585&amp;context=chtlj" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44654" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14248" RevisionGUID="0c510421-866a-42db-b288-3914d97fd63e" CreationDate="2017-02-16T14:55:01.803" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44658" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16307" RevisionGUID="23dcdbb0-e5d1-423f-8f80-2e6e5a77eba7" CreationDate="2017-02-16T16:58:27.607" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44659" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="0e276eca-2f84-4d1e-a851-0037b26f3a48" CreationDate="2017-02-16T19:59:07.883" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17248" RevisionGUID="03ecf70a-951c-4413-8402-37ffdcb28ac1" CreationDate="2017-02-17T05:57:55.883" UserId="18511" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5565264][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5565264&#xD;&#xA;Till which year is the patent valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44666" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17248" RevisionGUID="03ecf70a-951c-4413-8402-37ffdcb28ac1" CreationDate="2017-02-17T05:57:55.883" UserId="18511" Text="Validity of patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44667" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17248" RevisionGUID="03ecf70a-951c-4413-8402-37ffdcb28ac1" CreationDate="2017-02-17T05:57:55.883" UserId="18511" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;validity&gt;&lt;protection&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44668" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12543" RevisionGUID="67fa729e-bb10-4205-a31e-87efd886f85c" CreationDate="2017-02-17T06:02:45.867" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17249" RevisionGUID="1a5921ca-4fa0-44b0-8e03-3dfcd7677d49" CreationDate="2017-02-17T07:25:10.463" UserId="18033" Text="Read this answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/17059/18033 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to find out how long the patent is valid. If you have questions about the status of the patent, go here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/17115/18033.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those linked questions and answers provide you with a way to find out. To check if what you find our is right: it's not valid anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17250" RevisionGUID="2d07d5a3-b8b2-43b9-ae63-614226ce23f2" CreationDate="2017-02-17T15:19:08.877" UserId="17003" Text="This [Wikipedia page][1] provides a good review of patent terms in the US. Essentially the term is 20 years from the priority date for patents filed on or after June 8th, 1995 or the longer of 20 years from the priority date or 17 years from the grant date for patents filed before June 8th, 1995. Unless there were extensions filed (I couldn't find any), the patent should have expired August 29 of 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17251" RevisionGUID="35f01eb9-0e5f-4e3f-add4-0c08048a5db8" CreationDate="2017-02-17T22:22:08.363" UserId="18513" Text="we could have abandoned fossil fuel a long time ago. The US Airforce were involved and the patent was canceled due to non payment? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44672" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17251" RevisionGUID="35f01eb9-0e5f-4e3f-add4-0c08048a5db8" CreationDate="2017-02-17T22:22:08.363" UserId="18513" Text="why has this (zero-point-energy) not been made available to the public" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44673" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17251" RevisionGUID="35f01eb9-0e5f-4e3f-add4-0c08048a5db8" CreationDate="2017-02-17T22:22:08.363" UserId="18513" Text="&lt;us5590031&gt;&lt;zero-point-energy&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17252" RevisionGUID="8be8b70b-17fa-4f9d-8baa-93af26122952" CreationDate="2017-02-17T22:31:33.320" UserId="18515" Text="Carsim proposed an architecture where a system takes a natural language description, converts it into a formal description and instantiates corresponding scene elements. This was done in 2002, before Microsoft issued this patent.&#xD;&#xA;Reference: http://doc.utwente.nl/36659/1/00000051.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let alone that Stanford's Wordseye works similarly, Confucius, probably more!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US20060217979][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20060217979" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44675" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17252" RevisionGUID="8be8b70b-17fa-4f9d-8baa-93af26122952" CreationDate="2017-02-17T22:31:33.320" UserId="18515" Text="Did they check before accepting this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44676" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17252" RevisionGUID="8be8b70b-17fa-4f9d-8baa-93af26122952" CreationDate="2017-02-17T22:31:33.320" UserId="18515" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;existing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17253" RevisionGUID="0665d26f-5056-47c0-8e54-369cbdee3170" CreationDate="2017-02-18T00:35:51.113" UserId="17003" Text="Well evidently zero point energy may be something according to this Wikipedia [article][1]. Just because a patent is issued does not ensure it is practical or even that the technology works. The patent issued in 1996 so society was aware of it for more than 20 years. My guess is that people worked on this and found that it didn't work well enough to be practical. A patent may be cancelled if required payments aren't made. This often happens when someone owns a patent that isn't worth the value of the payment. When this happens, the patent becomes available to anyone in the public to use without license earlier than when it would otherwise expire. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't see where there is the possibility of conspiracy here. If you believe this is the next great thing, then go ahead and develop it. It is fully available to you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17254" RevisionGUID="ac8fe6b5-bfba-4675-b75d-effbf4683c62" CreationDate="2017-02-18T00:41:56.873" UserId="17003" Text="The cited Microsoft document is a patent application, not yet a patent. Applications are often written with broad claims that get narrowed as the patent is prosecuted. You should review this question and answer to understand better the patent process: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17115/is-this-patent-valid-granted-which-countries-does-it-cover-are-there-family-m.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are worried about this application, then you could post the question as a request for prior art and community members would help you find such." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44682" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16996" RevisionGUID="268f0046-cbb2-48cb-9a2c-aabc68f342fc" CreationDate="2017-02-18T03:17:53.503" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17255" RevisionGUID="b9c7f054-1424-4ae0-a633-f5f68cd1c81e" CreationDate="2017-02-18T03:54:00.893" UserId="18473" Text="I am reading on some patents and I want to make sure I understand them right. Let us follow my example which is a custom vibrator. I have no plans on making a patent over it, I am just using it as an example to understand the patents and how they are written to avoid infringing. The custom vibrator is an iOS app that works by taking a custom vibration pattern from the user then replays that pattern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen this sentence mentioned in several of the software patents &quot;method, apparatus, and/or computer software.&quot; Now, from what I have read this means that the author of the patent can implement the technology as software and also as apparatus having that software. Did I understand this right? Let us apply that concept to my iOS app that I am developing. Does this mean that the method is the &quot;technology&quot; to allow the user to record and play a vibration pattern to experience the vibration effect? If that is the case, then what is the difference between the method and software. Does the method represent the &quot;technology&quot; to achieve the vibrator effect and the app itself as the &quot;software&quot;? What if I decided to build a new device or apparatus that will work only as a custom vibrator using the technology described. How will that fit into &quot;method, apparatus, and/or computer software&quot; terminology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44686" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17255" RevisionGUID="b9c7f054-1424-4ae0-a633-f5f68cd1c81e" CreationDate="2017-02-18T03:54:00.893" UserId="18473" Text="To patent a technology on a smart device and a yet to be made apparatus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44687" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17255" RevisionGUID="b9c7f054-1424-4ae0-a633-f5f68cd1c81e" CreationDate="2017-02-18T03:54:00.893" UserId="18473" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44688" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="e795a081-2921-42d2-b6a3-1ff4b0bf13c1" CreationDate="2017-02-18T04:18:03.833" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17256" RevisionGUID="b358f744-ca09-4f64-9f25-fe7687172f14" CreationDate="2017-02-18T06:08:50.407" UserId="18518" Text="&#xD;&#xA;My end goal is as follows : &#xD;&#xA;Given a word and a university name, find all patents owned by the university in which the given word appears in the patent description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. word : machine learning &#xD;&#xA;university : Stanford University&#xD;&#xA;Expected result : A list of all patents (or the total number of patents) by Stanford University in which machine learning appears in the patent description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be great if you could please point me to resources that would help me achieve this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44691" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17256" RevisionGUID="b358f744-ca09-4f64-9f25-fe7687172f14" CreationDate="2017-02-18T06:08:50.407" UserId="18518" Text="How do I find patents owned by a a given university for a given topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44692" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17256" RevisionGUID="b358f744-ca09-4f64-9f25-fe7687172f14" CreationDate="2017-02-18T06:08:50.407" UserId="18518" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;api&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44693" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17255" RevisionGUID="932bfb4d-c5cd-430f-9a8f-312a8506e1e3" CreationDate="2017-02-18T06:26:58.177" UserId="18473" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44694" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12561" RevisionGUID="2a2cbe26-42b0-4583-98ae-2b3711dc5122" CreationDate="2017-02-18T07:18:44.030" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17257" RevisionGUID="d48c72cc-0e5c-4fc4-b8d0-a7fd92f39ac4" CreationDate="2017-02-18T08:08:48.490" UserId="18033" Text="I'll try a fast claim construction to show you the different ways of using these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A method comprising the following steps: &#xD;&#xA;- A user taps on a surface, &#xD;&#xA;- electromagnetic field variations make the cpu aware of the location of the tap &#xD;&#xA;- the cpu tells looks up the corresponding vibration element and adds them to the previously recorded, if any, elements&#xD;&#xA;- repeating of the previous steps at least once &#xD;&#xA;- after registering a stop tap, using the recorded pattern to activate a massage device in a certain way&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*note: this could totally be implemented by fpga or maybe even mechanically (probably not, but the claim allows it)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. A software enabled to facilitate the method from claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;note: claim 1 is broader, it doesn't need the software, (there are examples where it would be easier to actually implement the method without software), but the examiner will cite broader prior art against method claims, too. They might find a document saying touch input is known (smartphone), one saying selecting custom vibration is known (maybe the patent you cited in another question, where the vibration ahs nothing to do with massages) and one saying programming a massagetool is known and then tell you the person skilled in the art knows all three and combining them is obvious. (I've seen US examiners combine things I personally would have deemed not combinable as they had nothing to do with each other). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The software claim however, would then need prior art doing all this in software, and maybe the programming of massagetools has never been done in software, only by moving some gears, and then you could get claim 2 through.&#xD;&#xA;(note: just a silly example, I'm, oversimplifying a little, but in essence thats how it goes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Apparatus able to implement the software from claim 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Apparatus able to receive custom vibration patterns from the software from claim 2 and use them for a massage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;note: I think this is self explaining." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17258" RevisionGUID="efe82096-9efc-42ef-831c-f2c9d86e564d" CreationDate="2017-02-18T08:29:29.460" UserId="18033" Text="The patent has been issued with narrowed claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.ch/patents/US7512537?hl=de&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examination went through some steps and prior art was considered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find the docket here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=US.8688005.A&amp;lng=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The documents named (non)-final rejection and the responses contain the relevant communication with explanations to why certain claim elements were deemed inventive and others not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, Microsoft found something in there that had not been done before and got a patent for it. That's how it goes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And to answer your question - yes, they did check." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17259" RevisionGUID="bcc7482c-3492-46b4-9255-972edeb39b08" CreationDate="2017-02-18T08:58:47.837" UserId="15503" Text="Perhaps it would be clearer by going back to first principles for patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of a claim is to set out certain things that others cannot do. Once a patent is granted, nobody else can do anything that is claimed. This is true regardless of the category of the claim (whether method, apparatus or whatever else).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is therefore not correct to say that &quot;[the patentee] can implement the technology as software and also as apparatus having that software&quot;. A patent does not give any rights to do something. A patent is solely used to stop other people from &quot;doing&quot; the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What does it mean to &quot;do&quot; a claimed invention?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A method claim involves a series of steps. A method claim is &quot;done&quot; by a person performing all the steps (in principle, this is regardless of how  those steps are performed, such as using a computer, on pen-and-paper, etc). If you claim a method, you will be able to stop a person doing those steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An apparatus claim involves some physical object. An apparatus claim is &quot;done&quot; by making, using, offering to sell, or selling that physical object. If you claim an apparatus, you will be able to stop a person from making, using, offering to sell, or selling that physical object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A software claim is similar to an apparatus claim, in that it involves a physical object (in the broadest sense of physical). A software claim is therefore &quot;done&quot; by making, using, offering to sell, or selling that software. If you claim software, you will be able to stop a person from making, using, offering to sell, or selling that software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These categories are generally complementary, as they target different infringers and different infringing acts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the difference between a method and software?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is in the infringing acts, and who would be caught by the infringement. A method is infringed by the person performing the steps of the method. Software is infringed by a person making/using/offering to sell/selling that software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is some overlap here. A person using software will generally be performing the steps of an equivalent method. They would therefore be infringing both claims simultaneously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Does the method represent the &quot;technology&quot; to achieve the vibrator effect and the app itself as the &quot;software&quot;?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sort of. A method represents the steps that are performed, generally independent of how they are performed. Software (such as an app) is a specific implementation of those steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What if I decided to build a new device or apparatus that will work only as a custom vibrator using the technology described. How will that fit into &quot;method, apparatus, and/or computer software&quot; terminology.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A new apparatus would be an apparatus claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17260" RevisionGUID="74a8ada1-df3d-40e4-9f3f-20a5014d9ef2" CreationDate="2017-02-18T17:37:35.677" UserId="18519" Text="I have recently filed an Indian patent and got my application number.. Is it ok for me to publish a research on the same now, by mentioning application number in my publication?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44699" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17260" RevisionGUID="74a8ada1-df3d-40e4-9f3f-20a5014d9ef2" CreationDate="2017-02-18T17:37:35.677" UserId="18519" Text="Can i publish a paper on a concept for which I filed a patent recently and got the application number" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44700" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17260" RevisionGUID="74a8ada1-df3d-40e4-9f3f-20a5014d9ef2" CreationDate="2017-02-18T17:37:35.677" UserId="18519" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17261" RevisionGUID="446b8df8-f1f0-4655-a74b-efa2b2beb40b" CreationDate="2017-02-18T18:10:21.677" UserId="18033" Text="Anything published after the filing of an application can not be used against that application. &#xA;&#xA;I don't see a reason to include the patent number in the paper, you certainly don't have to, but if you want, you could." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44702" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17083" RevisionGUID="a9382511-7466-491f-805e-8907ed4e17e1" CreationDate="2017-02-18T22:35:20.113" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44703" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16604" RevisionGUID="1ad0f51d-a681-4a62-9e74-8cf060e626a9" CreationDate="2017-02-19T00:35:45.563" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44707" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14403" RevisionGUID="8ce40f84-e612-496c-8493-d9bca0248602" CreationDate="2017-02-19T02:35:46.977" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17263" RevisionGUID="55cb4b56-d929-454f-89b3-491e05e5f2c6" CreationDate="2017-02-19T04:13:47.507" UserId="18521" Text="The freepatentsonline.com expert search (www.freepatentsonline.com/search.html) is really robust free resource. Scroll down for the expert search.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;To do the search you've described, check the box for US Patents (and uncheck any other boxes). Then enter: AN/stanford + &quot;machine learning&quot;  The AN stands for &quot;assignee name&quot; and entering &quot;machine learning&quot; searches every part of the patent. If you want to search just the specification, you could do: &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;AN/stanford + SPEC/&quot;machine learning&quot;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Here's a URL for the Stanford search you described:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;http://www.freepatentsonline.com/result.html?p=1&amp;edit_alert=&amp;srch=xprtsrch&amp;query_txt=AN%2Fstanford+%2B+SPEC%2F%22machine+learning%22&amp;uspat=on&amp;date_range=all&amp;stemming=on&amp;sort=relevance&amp;search=Search&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I believe it's not possible to search *pending applications* for a company assignee, because law firms typically delay the assignee forms, and hence applications publish before an assignee is named in the application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17264" RevisionGUID="ba9c329c-4220-4278-a81c-ab9d06217fbc" CreationDate="2017-02-19T04:51:06.340" UserId="18521" Text="Provisional applications cannot claim priority to any earlier-filed applications of any type (provisional or non-provisional). But they are, as you mention, extremely useful in establishing an earlier priority date for a later-filed *nonprovisional* application. One strategy some low-budget clients pursue is to put everything in a single application--even if that application potentially contains two inventions. Then, you can draft claims that primarily pursue one invention but still treat the other novel aspect as an additional feature, *e.g.*, as a &quot;dependent claim.&quot; This allows the applicant to gauge the USPTO's position on both the first feature's and the second feature's patentability (novelty, etc.). If the PTO responds favorably, you can then file a second application which separately claims the second feature. This is not legal advice, and I am no expert. Before taking any action, all of this strategy and information should be discussed with a patent attorney or patent agent who is an expert in the laws and strategic approaches. For example, this sort of approach could result in the USPTO requiring you to sign a &quot;terminal disclaimer,&quot; which limits the lifetime of the second patent to the term of the first patent. As another example, if this is not done without care, there might also be a possibility that the first patent can be used as &quot;prior art&quot; against the second patent. These are just some of the reasons to acquire legal advice from a registered patent agent or patent attorney." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44710" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6687" RevisionGUID="94519033-2d2c-419c-ae2b-7ac7d6cbc076" CreationDate="2017-02-19T12:37:24.727" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44712" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="1b7d5334-f5dc-4fc2-8456-10df62d39be4" CreationDate="2017-02-19T15:38:04.517" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17250" RevisionGUID="4ba8cf91-c707-485d-acb6-af549a0d8495" CreationDate="2017-02-19T20:01:40.960" UserId="17003" Comment="Slight formatting change" Text="This [Wikipedia page][1] provides a good review of patent terms in the US. Essentially the term is 20 years from the priority date for patents filed on or after June 8th, 1995 or the longer of 20 years from the priority date or 17 years from the grant date for patents filed before June 8th, 1995. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless there were extensions filed (I couldn't find any), the patent should have expired August 29 of 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44721" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10324" RevisionGUID="37d0a3f6-456f-4449-830f-d961b943a896" CreationDate="2017-02-19T22:47:55.287" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44723" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="c71f3116-c181-45c6-8ee4-b9a9e1af7f98" CreationDate="2017-02-20T02:00:57.423" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17267" RevisionGUID="f54eedde-8f56-403b-bf84-adec79f0ab18" CreationDate="2017-02-20T02:32:13.897" UserId="18527" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20130247829][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130247829&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent same as https://pawbot.com/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;Sam" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44725" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17267" RevisionGUID="f54eedde-8f56-403b-bf84-adec79f0ab18" CreationDate="2017-02-20T02:32:13.897" UserId="18527" Text="wet cat food dispenser - Pet Feeding Robot - is this https://pawbot.com/?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44726" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17267" RevisionGUID="f54eedde-8f56-403b-bf84-adec79f0ab18" CreationDate="2017-02-20T02:32:13.897" UserId="18527" Text="&lt;us20130247829&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44728" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="529167da-b8a0-4a23-b50c-8955f14d7cc5" CreationDate="2017-02-20T04:02:37.603" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17267" RevisionGUID="e78ca296-2493-4195-b3c8-979034f7448a" CreationDate="2017-02-20T05:22:50.853" UserId="8601" Comment="Spell out patent subject; remove thanks" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20130247829][1] *Pet Feeding Robot . Automatic Pet Wet Food Dispenser Robot*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130247829&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent the same as https://pawbot.com/ &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44730" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17267" RevisionGUID="e78ca296-2493-4195-b3c8-979034f7448a" CreationDate="2017-02-20T05:22:50.853" Comment="Proposed by 8601 approved by 1 edit id of 2020" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44732" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13432" RevisionGUID="f210a70f-2e2d-477d-a7b6-408b75cf88b9" CreationDate="2017-02-20T07:02:43.853" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17256" RevisionGUID="4853c765-9769-424f-a439-61970fdddb1c" CreationDate="2017-02-20T07:43:06.003" UserId="18518" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="My end goal is as follows : &#xD;&#xA;Given a word and a university name, find all patents owned by the university in which the given word appears in the patent description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. word : machine learning &#xD;&#xA;university : Stanford University&#xD;&#xA;Expected result : A list of all patents (or the total number of patents) by Stanford University in which machine learning appears in the patent description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be great if you could please point me to resources that would help me achieve this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44734" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17256" RevisionGUID="4853c765-9769-424f-a439-61970fdddb1c" CreationDate="2017-02-20T07:43:06.003" UserId="18518" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="How do I find patents owned by a a given university for a given topic programatically?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17270" RevisionGUID="979df3d6-393a-4c7c-858d-32eeb7b0fa1c" CreationDate="2017-02-20T17:40:27.943" UserId="14341" Text="I filed my provisional on Feb 21, 2016.  I'm filing my utility non-provisional US patent, and PCT patents. My 12 months to claim priority ends today, Feb, 20th Washington's Birthday, a USPTO holiday. Can I file them tomorrow and still claim the provisional filing date?&#xD;&#xA;This is an absolutely serious question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44742" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17270" RevisionGUID="979df3d6-393a-4c7c-858d-32eeb7b0fa1c" CreationDate="2017-02-20T17:40:27.943" UserId="14341" Text="Today is USPTO holiday and my final 12 months filing day, can I file tomorrow?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44743" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17270" RevisionGUID="979df3d6-393a-4c7c-858d-32eeb7b0fa1c" CreationDate="2017-02-20T17:40:27.943" UserId="14341" Text="&lt;timeline&gt;&lt;holiday&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17271" RevisionGUID="468d3c4b-1be8-4434-8d6c-77ced4e5b36f" CreationDate="2017-02-20T17:46:20.350" UserId="18033" Text="It seems so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s211.html#ch200_d1ff71_20a5e_149&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MPEP states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;211.01(a)   Claiming the Benefit of a Provisional Application [R-07.2015]&#xD;&#xA;I.IN GENERAL&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When a later-filed application is claiming the benefit of a prior-filed provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), the nonprovisional application must be filed not later than 12 months after the date on which the provisional application was filed, unless the benefit of the provisional application has been restored. See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(1) and (b) and subsection II, below. **If the day that is 12 months after the filing date of a provisional application falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday within the District of Columbia, the nonprovisional application may be filed on the next succeeding business day. See 35 U.S.C. 21(b), 37 CFR 1.7(b), and MPEP § 201.04 and § 505.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;35 U.S.C. 21   Filing date and day for taking action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (a) The Director may by rule prescribe that any paper or fee required to be filed in the Patent and Trademark Office will be considered filed in the Office on the date on which it was deposited with the United States Postal Service or would have been deposited with the United States Postal Service but for postal service interruptions or emergencies designated by the Director.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   **(b) When the day, or the last day, for taking any action or paying any fee in the United States Patent and Trademark Office falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal holiday within the District of Columbia, the action may be taken, or fee paid, on the next succeeding secular or business day.**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17270" RevisionGUID="bf036724-12bc-4b75-944c-a93d31c43314" CreationDate="2017-02-20T17:55:09.490" UserId="14341" Comment="Edited to ask about extension." Text="I filed my provisional on Feb 21, 2016.  I'm filing my utility non-provisional US patent, and PCT patents. My 12 months to claim priority ends today, Feb, 20th Washington's Birthday, a USPTO holiday. Can I file them tomorrow and still claim the provisional filing date?&#xD;&#xA;This is an absolutely serious question.&#xD;&#xA;I'm a small entity, individual inventor, in patent office parlance, I'm 'under-resourced'.  Recently it became apparent that the patent needed to wholly rewritten, and I'm doing all the work on my own.&#xD;&#xA;Would these factors assist in my getting an extension?  Would the extension be good for both US and PCT utility patent applications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17271" RevisionGUID="257fa8b0-ab5c-4407-ad2a-0a7d4f0d0273" CreationDate="2017-02-20T18:01:53.450" UserId="18033" Comment="added 1385 characters in body" Text="It seems so for US non provisionals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s211.html#ch200_d1ff71_20a5e_149&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MPEP states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;211.01(a)   Claiming the Benefit of a Provisional Application [R-07.2015]&#xD;&#xA;I.IN GENERAL&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When a later-filed application is claiming the benefit of a prior-filed provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), the nonprovisional application must be filed not later than 12 months after the date on which the provisional application was filed, unless the benefit of the provisional application has been restored. See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(1) and (b) and subsection II, below. **If the day that is 12 months after the filing date of a provisional application falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday within the District of Columbia, the nonprovisional application may be filed on the next succeeding business day. See 35 U.S.C. 21(b), 37 CFR 1.7(b), and MPEP § 201.04 and § 505.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;35 U.S.C. 21   Filing date and day for taking action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (a) The Director may by rule prescribe that any paper or fee required to be filed in the Patent and Trademark Office will be considered filed in the Office on the date on which it was deposited with the United States Postal Service or would have been deposited with the United States Postal Service but for postal service interruptions or emergencies designated by the Director.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   **(b) When the day, or the last day, for taking any action or paying any fee in the United States Patent and Trademark Office falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal holiday within the District of Columbia, the action may be taken, or fee paid, on the next succeeding secular or business day.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For PCT: &#xD;&#xA;Rule 80 http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/rules/r80.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;80.5       Expiration on a Non-Working Day or Official Holiday&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If the expiration of any period during which any document or fee must reach a national Office or intergovernmental organization falls on a day:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(i)  on which such Office or organization is not open to the public for the purposes of the transaction of official business;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(ii)  on which ordinary mail is not delivered in the locality in which such Office or organization is situated;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(iii)  which, where such Office or organization is situated in more than one locality, is an official holiday in at least one of the localities in which such Office or organization is situated, and in circumstances where the national law applicable by that Office or organization provides, in respect of national applications, that, in such a case, such period shall expire on a subsequent day; or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(iv) which, where such Office is the government authority of a Contracting State entrusted with the granting of patents, is an official holiday in part of that Contracting State, and in circumstances where the national law applicable by that Office provides, in respect of national applications, that, in such a case, such period shall expire on a subsequent day;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;the period shall expire on the next subsequent day on which none of the said four circumstances exists." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17272" RevisionGUID="1653606c-8792-4727-97d9-27eb8c3987bc" CreationDate="2017-02-20T18:56:30.953" UserId="18534" Text="In some country you might have to wait an autorisation from the army/ministry of defence to divulgate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44748" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13847" RevisionGUID="88b9d392-0615-4169-90f2-2d11af81b793" CreationDate="2017-02-20T20:17:52.673" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44749" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="1d215f17-3cc5-4dd4-baf9-c7ad5bbbf50b" CreationDate="2017-02-21T01:18:17.067" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17273" RevisionGUID="947bfe25-d4b1-4ab4-9fc3-d6035834fbb3" CreationDate="2017-02-21T01:33:24.507" UserId="18535" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8396664][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8396664&#xD;&#xA;with the above patent in effect, does this mean that no one else in the CONUS is able to 3D map a golf course?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44751" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17273" RevisionGUID="947bfe25-d4b1-4ab4-9fc3-d6035834fbb3" CreationDate="2017-02-21T01:33:24.507" UserId="18535" Text="can i 3D map golf courses?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44752" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17273" RevisionGUID="947bfe25-d4b1-4ab4-9fc3-d6035834fbb3" CreationDate="2017-02-21T01:33:24.507" UserId="18535" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17274" RevisionGUID="76d1e710-ae88-4f75-9175-deeb7805c299" CreationDate="2017-02-21T03:36:35.717" UserId="17003" Text="The patent describes a specific method of 3D mapping a golf course. The method is described in the patent and is specifically limited by the claims. It does not necessarily eliminate all other possible technologies which might accomplish the same function. Although this is a US patent, it is possible there are international equivalents at least applied for. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17276" RevisionGUID="89fcda92-1557-4d45-b26e-a466496c307e" CreationDate="2017-02-21T15:37:16.773" UserId="18539" Text="Im doing an intership in pharmaceutical company. I have done a linux shell script which uses some open source tools to turn a copy-paste and time-consuming work into a couple of seconds automated work. &#xA;This script has been my own idea and I have done it in my personal computer out of work hours.&#xA;I have presented it to my bosses and they are really interested in implementing a linux system in the departament to use my script.&#xA;There's a chance i get employed but the decision depends on an upper boss.  &#xA;I wonder if my script is patentable or it can be protected somehow in European Comunity.&#xA;I have been working so hard to develop it and the script is really usefull for the daily work which is carried out there. I dont want the company to make use of it at 0 cost, my long intership has already been free.&#xA;&#xA;Can I protect it somehow? I fear i cant due to the use of other open source applications and linux license itself.." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44759" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17276" RevisionGUID="89fcda92-1557-4d45-b26e-a466496c307e" CreationDate="2017-02-21T15:37:16.773" UserId="18539" Text="Protecting intellectual property in EU" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44760" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17276" RevisionGUID="89fcda92-1557-4d45-b26e-a466496c307e" CreationDate="2017-02-21T15:37:16.773" UserId="18539" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;intellectual-property&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17277" RevisionGUID="d25d8f20-b406-4184-9a4e-c65f03cd126a" CreationDate="2017-02-21T15:56:08.507" UserId="18033" Text="You are asking about at least three completly different topics here, so firstly, let me split that up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I wonder if my script is patentable or it can be protected somehow in European Comunity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't want to diminish your work, but I'd say, the chances are bad. In principle, the combination of known components can be patentable, but if it is the pure implementation of a known method, - meaning just the automation of something done exactly (or almost exactly) the same way by hand - in most cases, that won't be enough. The special case could be answered only by a patent attorney. BUT:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I dont want the company to make use of it at 0 cost, my long intership has already been free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This depends on the company's regulations, on the country you are in and on your contract. You are working for the company, so what you develop on company time for the company is normally not yours or not only yours. Many companies have policies regarding inventions of employees. I don't know about yours of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What could you do?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably, there is some way to file a notice of invention in your company. Then your invention will enter the companies invention process and in the end, they will either tell you that you don't own any rights (you could double check that with an attorney), tell you they don't want to pursue this invention, then you could do that yourself (probably, again) or try to protect it and maybe pay you some royalties for using it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tbh, I'd expect a certain kind of arrogant rection from your bosses telling you that it's not that big of a deal etc. etc. At that point you could either leave it or push for filing that notice of invention. It might, however, not end with you and them beeing friends at the end. Note, this is just what I think is most likely if you push it, but you could try asking nicely to see how they react. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As they did not pay you, you might have chances of forbidding them the usage of your script, but if it's not patentable then they could just reimplement it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Can I protect it somehow? I fear i cant due to the use of other open source applications and linux license itself..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this you would have to read all those licenses. A patent however protects the method, not the implementation, so patenting something is unrelated to this part. You can patent soemthing which you may not be allowed to use later or where you might not be allowed to actually commercially use the implementation if done in a certain way or with certain software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to find out if the script is patentable, start with reading about patentability, novelty and inventive step and then do your own analysis and/or ask specific questions, I couldn't tell from this question alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you need to find out if what you invent on company time is your property or theirs. again, can't help you, you need to find out - read the regulations for your company, they should be somewhere (intranet?) or ask your boss/coworkers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind, most companies think of an internship as something they do for you, not the other way around, so they might not be amused if you want to forbid them / to pay for what you invented in the time where they paid you with learning from their greatness and teaching you, the little intern and tell you it's not worth that much anyways. (Sarcasm, sorry)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Copyright:** your script is protected by copyright, so if there is no regulation (legal or contractual) that says the company owns what you produce, you may forbid them to use the script you wrote. However, they could just have someone else write a similar script." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17277" RevisionGUID="c82324ae-ae2c-4d26-9c95-f83bc33fc7c5" CreationDate="2017-02-21T16:02:19.063" UserId="18033" Comment="added 600 characters in body" Text="You are asking about at least three completly different topics here, so firstly, let me split that up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I wonder if my script is patentable or it can be protected somehow in European Comunity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't want to diminish your work, but I'd say, the chances are bad. In principle, the combination of known components can be patentable, but if it is the pure implementation of a known method, - meaning just the automation of something done exactly (or almost exactly) the same way by hand - in most cases, that won't be enough. The special case could be answered only by a patent attorney. BUT:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I dont want the company to make use of it at 0 cost, my long intership has already been free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This depends on the company's regulations, on the country you are in and on your contract. You are working for the company, so what you develop on company time for the company is normally not yours or not only yours. Many companies have policies regarding inventions of employees. I don't know about yours of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What could you do?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably, there is some way to file a notice of invention in your company. Then your invention will enter the companies invention process and in the end, they will either tell you that you don't own any rights (you could double check that with an attorney), tell you they don't want to pursue this invention, then you could do that yourself (probably, again) or try to protect it and maybe pay you some royalties for using it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tbh, I'd expect a certain kind of arrogant rection from your bosses telling you that it's not that big of a deal etc. etc. At that point you could either leave it or push for filing that notice of invention. It might, however, not end with you and them beeing friends at the end. Note, this is just what I think is most likely if you push it, but you could try asking nicely to see how they react. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As they did not pay you, you might have chances of forbidding them the usage of your script, but if it's not patentable then they could just reimplement it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Can I protect it somehow? I fear i cant due to the use of other open source applications and linux license itself..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this you would have to read all those licenses. A patent however protects the method, not the implementation, so patenting something is unrelated to this part. You can patent soemthing which you may not be allowed to use later or where you might not be allowed to actually commercially use the implementation if done in a certain way or with certain software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to find out if the script is patentable, start with reading about patentability, novelty and inventive step and then do your own analysis and/or ask specific questions, I couldn't tell from this question alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you need to find out if what you invent on company time is your property or theirs. again, can't help you, you need to find out - read the regulations for your company, they should be somewhere (intranet?) or ask your boss/coworkers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind, most companies think of an internship as something they do for you, not the other way around, so they might not be amused if you want to forbid them / to pay for what you invented in the time where they paid you with learning from their greatness and teaching you, the little intern and tell you it's not worth that much anyways. (Sarcasm, sorry)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Copyright:** your script is protected by copyright, so if there is no regulation (legal or contractual) that says the company owns what you produce, you may forbid them to use the script you wrote. However, they could just have someone else write a similar script.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What I would try:** Get hired and see this as proof of your usefullness and forget about it, imho the bridges you might burn and the attorneys fees if they don't cooperate are way worse than what they would pay you in the best case. If you really want, ask really really nicely if they want to pay you for implementing a linux environment and the script and teaching the employees how to use it or ask how they see the question who the script belongs to and tell them that, if the script is useful for them, you would like to get paid for it, that should be something everyone can understand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17276" RevisionGUID="61cbc7dd-7b02-48cf-a233-488f5b1af4cc" CreationDate="2017-02-21T16:13:18.483" UserId="18033" Comment="changed a formulation I understood wrong so others don't" Text="Im doing an intership in pharmaceutical company. I have done a linux shell script which uses some open source tools to turn a copy-paste and time-consuming work into a couple of seconds automated work. &#xD;&#xA;This script has been my own idea and I have done it in my personal computer on my personal time.&#xD;&#xA;I have presented it to my bosses and they are really interested in implementing a linux system in the departament to use my script.&#xD;&#xA;There's a chance i get employed but the decision depends on an upper boss.  &#xD;&#xA;I wonder if my script is patentable or it can be protected somehow in European Comunity.&#xD;&#xA;I have been working so hard to develop it and the script is really usefull for the daily work which is carried out there. I dont want the company to make use of it at 0 cost, my long intership has already been free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I protect it somehow? I fear i cant due to the use of other open source applications and linux license itself.." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17277" RevisionGUID="6095b35d-fa30-4ad0-8440-bd0ed35dcbbd" CreationDate="2017-02-21T16:16:03.383" UserId="18033" Comment="added 385 characters in body" Text="Edit: I thought OP was asking about a script developed on company time. As that is not the case, some parts of the answer are referencing this wrong. Just replace those in your mind with - It's almost certain that script belongs to you and not the company, unless some regulation explicitly states that you may not work on company related topics at home, which I would not expect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are asking about at least three completly different topics here, so firstly, let me split that up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I wonder if my script is patentable or it can be protected somehow in European Comunity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't want to diminish your work, but I'd say, the chances are bad. In principle, the combination of known components can be patentable, but if it is the pure implementation of a known method, - meaning just the automation of something done exactly (or almost exactly) the same way by hand - in most cases, that won't be enough. The special case could be answered only by a patent attorney. BUT:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I dont want the company to make use of it at 0 cost, my long intership has already been free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This depends on the company's regulations, on the country you are in and on your contract. You are working for the company, so what you develop on company time for the company is normally not yours or not only yours. Many companies have policies regarding inventions of employees. I don't know about yours of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What could you do?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably, there is some way to file a notice of invention in your company. Then your invention will enter the companies invention process and in the end, they will either tell you that you don't own any rights (you could double check that with an attorney), tell you they don't want to pursue this invention, then you could do that yourself (probably, again) or try to protect it and maybe pay you some royalties for using it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tbh, I'd expect a certain kind of arrogant rection from your bosses telling you that it's not that big of a deal etc. etc. At that point you could either leave it or push for filing that notice of invention. It might, however, not end with you and them beeing friends at the end. Note, this is just what I think is most likely if you push it, but you could try asking nicely to see how they react. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As they did not pay you, you might have chances of forbidding them the usage of your script, but if it's not patentable then they could just reimplement it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Can I protect it somehow? I fear i cant due to the use of other open source applications and linux license itself..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this you would have to read all those licenses. A patent however protects the method, not the implementation, so patenting something is unrelated to this part. You can patent soemthing which you may not be allowed to use later or where you might not be allowed to actually commercially use the implementation if done in a certain way or with certain software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to find out if the script is patentable, start with reading about patentability, novelty and inventive step and then do your own analysis and/or ask specific questions, I couldn't tell from this question alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you need to find out if what you invent on company time is your property or theirs. again, can't help you, you need to find out - read the regulations for your company, they should be somewhere (intranet?) or ask your boss/coworkers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind, most companies think of an internship as something they do for you, not the other way around, so they might not be amused if you want to forbid them / to pay for what you invented in the time where they paid you with learning from their greatness and teaching you, the little intern and tell you it's not worth that much anyways. (Sarcasm, sorry)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Copyright:** your script is protected by copyright, so if there is no regulation (legal or contractual) that says the company owns what you produce, you may forbid them to use the script you wrote. However, they could just have someone else write a similar script.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What I would try:** Get hired and see this as proof of your usefullness and forget about it, imho the bridges you might burn and the attorneys fees if they don't cooperate are way worse than what they would pay you in the best case. If you really want, ask really really nicely if they want to pay you for implementing a linux environment and the script and teaching the employees how to use it or ask how they see the question who the script belongs to and tell them that, if the script is useful for them, you would like to get paid for it, that should be something everyone can understand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17278" RevisionGUID="593c1686-2344-491e-9c76-edb4d64c4440" CreationDate="2017-02-21T16:30:40.327" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44766" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17278" RevisionGUID="593c1686-2344-491e-9c76-edb4d64c4440" CreationDate="2017-02-21T16:30:40.327" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17279" RevisionGUID="6b2ed086-7da4-41e0-be32-443f2869489f" CreationDate="2017-02-21T16:30:40.327" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44768" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17279" RevisionGUID="6b2ed086-7da4-41e0-be32-443f2869489f" CreationDate="2017-02-21T16:30:40.327" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44769" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17276" RevisionGUID="0476f9d7-421d-4655-ba6f-0db2120345d2" CreationDate="2017-02-21T16:31:11.130" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;european&gt;&lt;intellectual-property&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17280" RevisionGUID="b65be7f2-3dd2-49c6-a691-81897db6f3dc" CreationDate="2017-02-21T17:40:56.310" UserId="17157" Text="I'm trying to get classification numbers for all a large number of patents through USPTO bulk download.  The bulk download files come in three different formats--appended with ipg, pg, and pftaps respectively.  I'm wondering how can I find the same patent classification number for all three formats.  I don't really care if it is a US classification number or an international classification number, but when I find one type of classification number, I can't find the same type in a different format.  The type of identifier in all three formats would be helpful as well.  Thanks.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44771" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17280" RevisionGUID="b65be7f2-3dd2-49c6-a691-81897db6f3dc" CreationDate="2017-02-21T17:40:56.310" UserId="17157" Text="USPTO classification number" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44772" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17280" RevisionGUID="b65be7f2-3dd2-49c6-a691-81897db6f3dc" CreationDate="2017-02-21T17:40:56.310" UserId="17157" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;bulk-download&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17281" RevisionGUID="99717ab5-f302-4de4-a526-fac8d5480599" CreationDate="2017-02-21T19:11:33.047" UserId="14038" Text="The US and EPO have gone to a unified patent classification system, the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC).  The USPTO recently reclassified all of the US patents to assign them a CPC classification.    You can download a master file of all US patents with CPC classification at https://bulkdata.uspto.gov/data2/patent/classification/cpc/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that is what you were requesting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44775" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="bc2cc1d9-50bd-46f8-bd5d-546b04414967" CreationDate="2017-02-21T22:42:38.057" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17259" RevisionGUID="f62f4f3d-2603-4885-9d98-cd552a4855a1" CreationDate="2017-02-22T08:51:34.240" UserId="15503" Comment="include example" Text="Perhaps it would be clearer by going back to first principles for patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of a claim is to set out certain things that others cannot do. Once a patent is granted, nobody else can do anything that is claimed. This is true regardless of the category of the claim (whether method, apparatus or whatever else).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is therefore not correct to say that &quot;[the patentee] can implement the technology as software and also as apparatus having that software&quot;. A patent does not give any rights to do something. A patent is solely used to stop other people from &quot;doing&quot; the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What does it mean to &quot;do&quot; a claimed invention?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A method claim involves a series of steps. A method claim is &quot;done&quot; by a person performing all the steps (in principle, this is regardless of how  those steps are performed, such as using a computer, on pen-and-paper, etc). If you claim a method, you will be able to stop a person doing those steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An apparatus claim involves some physical object. An apparatus claim is &quot;done&quot; by making, using, offering to sell, or selling that physical object. If you claim an apparatus, you will be able to stop a person from making, using, offering to sell, or selling that physical object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A software claim is similar to an apparatus claim, in that it involves a physical object (in the broadest sense of physical). A software claim is therefore &quot;done&quot; by making, using, offering to sell, or selling that software. If you claim software, you will be able to stop a person from making, using, offering to sell, or selling that software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These categories are generally complementary, as they target different infringers and different infringing acts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the difference between a method and software?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is in the infringing acts, and who would be caught by the infringement. A method is infringed by the person performing the steps of the method. Software is infringed by a person making/using/offering to sell/selling that software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is some overlap here. A person using software will generally be performing the steps of an equivalent method. They would therefore be infringing both claims simultaneously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Does the method represent the &quot;technology&quot; to achieve the vibrator effect and the app itself as the &quot;software&quot;?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sort of. A method represents the steps that are performed, generally independent of how they are performed. Software (such as an app) is a specific implementation of those steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What if I decided to build a new device or apparatus that will work only as a custom vibrator using the technology described. How will that fit into &quot;method, apparatus, and/or computer software&quot; terminology.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A new apparatus would be an apparatus claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Worked example**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume there is a granted patent with three claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A method comprising: sending a packet across a network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Infringed by: a person who performs the step of sending a packet across a network (regardless of how they do it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. An apparatus comprising: a network interface card configured to send a packet across a network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Infringed by: a person who makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells a network interface card&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Software comprising instructions for sending a packet across a network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Infringed by: a person who sells firmware that allows a computer to send a packet across a network&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each person's actions only infringes one of the three claims. If you omitted any one of them, you would narrow your protection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17282" RevisionGUID="19fb8c31-e903-4c1c-bde9-2cd9ba02c84d" CreationDate="2017-02-22T09:11:24.803" UserId="17325" Text="Just to add to the great answers above. The examination guidelines of the European Patent Office are clear in that claims for computer methods are only allowed when there is some sort of implementation of the method, the so-called &quot;computer-implemented methods&quot; (http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/f_iv_3_9.htm). Otherwise it falls, let's say, in a non-technical category, in the sense that's a computer program is merely an mental act. So in Europe you have to include some kind of hardware in the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not really into the US rules, but I do know that since the famous &quot;Alice case&quot;, patent attorneys and practicioners are struggling to pull together claims for computer programs inventions, because the examiners often reject them as &quot;abstract methods&quot; (they call it &quot;Alice rejection&quot;, take a look at this article for more info http://knowledge.reedtech.com/h/i/278818710-how-to-successfully-overcome-alice-rejections/261237)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17283" RevisionGUID="3e04d748-192b-4470-a744-202017afee8f" CreationDate="2017-02-22T11:11:18.570" UserId="18534" Text="I'm not sure what is your question. Notice that pawbot is a robot, not a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a quick reading it seems that pawbot reproduce all the characteristics of the object of the claim 1 of the patent but without more information there isn't much conclusion that can be drawn." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44781" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13242" RevisionGUID="605374bd-b9da-4529-9b15-d82b38182805" CreationDate="2017-02-22T12:50:52.490" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17284" RevisionGUID="410da94c-f5af-4501-9306-4367192816bd" CreationDate="2017-02-22T17:33:33.820" UserId="18546" Text="My son is a senior in college majoring in mechanical engineering. He is well versed in the CAD software. A friend and local business owner approached him and ask if he would be interested in doing some CAD drawings for a invention he is trying to patent. He offered to pay my son for his time. My question is my son entitled to royalties in the events the product becomes successful. Should he receive publishing credit? What and how do we handle it. &#xD;&#xA;As parents we are concerned that people will take advantage of our sons abilities and want to make sure he protects his work.   &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44783" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17284" RevisionGUID="410da94c-f5af-4501-9306-4367192816bd" CreationDate="2017-02-22T17:33:33.820" UserId="18546" Text="Who gets credit for providing CAD drawings for a patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44784" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17284" RevisionGUID="410da94c-f5af-4501-9306-4367192816bd" CreationDate="2017-02-22T17:33:33.820" UserId="18546" Text="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;design&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17285" RevisionGUID="11dfbc25-aec8-4f0a-998b-87032e5d2340" CreationDate="2017-02-22T17:41:58.107" UserId="18033" Text="First of all, from a patent law point of view, your son is not entitled to anything just because he provided the drawings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, drawings he does are certainly protected by Copyright, but if he gives them to the business owner for free, then they are gone. The question here is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What should your son get as a reward for creating those drawings?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is beyond the scope of this site I fear. I'd suggest you talk this through with him, your friend and the business man. They apparently understand that work should be payed. What kind and amount of pay is a question for negotiation, but patent law does not provide an answer here. And after he got paid for those drawings, that's about it. I don't see a reason he should get more than the pay though as he didn't invent the invention nor did he invest more than the time he got paid for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, your son can gift those drawings to them or sell them and the pay is whatever both parties agree upon. Legally there might be regulations for working as a student or a minimum wage or something else that applies, but patent law doesn't apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He could be credited with a copyright notice, but that would still not entitle him to any further rights from any royalties the patent generates, it would only protect the drawings from beeing copied (may vary per jurisdiction, some require a copyright notice, in some it's implicit). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17285" RevisionGUID="328c4985-eb3e-4b4b-962d-aebba956d64f" CreationDate="2017-02-22T17:49:41.193" UserId="18033" Comment="added 389 characters in body" Text="First of all, from a patent law point of view, your son is not entitled to anything just because he provided the drawings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, drawings he does are certainly protected by Copyright, but if he gives them to the business owner for free, then they are gone. The question here is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What should your son get as a reward for creating those drawings?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is beyond the scope of this site I fear. I'd suggest you talk this through with him, your friend and the business man. They apparently understand that work should be payed. What kind and amount of pay is a question for negotiation, but patent law does not provide an answer here. And after he got paid for those drawings, that's about it. I don't see a reason he should get more than the pay though as he didn't invent the invention nor did he invest more than the time he got paid for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, your son can gift those drawings to them or sell them and the pay is whatever both parties agree upon. Legally there might be regulations for working as a student or a minimum wage or something else that applies, but patent law doesn't apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He could be credited with a copyright notice, but that would still not entitle him to any further rights from any royalties the patent generates, it would only protect the drawings from beeing copied (may vary per jurisdiction, some require a copyright notice, in some it's implicit). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To adress your concern that he might get used - I don't think somebody creating drawings and getting paid for that is getting used. I'd rather interpret that as standard contractors work. If the pay sounds fair, considering there are professionals doing this kind of work too, your son earns some (extra) money and the business gets the work a little cheaper, I'd say that's a win-win." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44787" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17284" RevisionGUID="6579975e-d3d2-42af-84e5-e91bdd9bd385" CreationDate="2017-02-22T18:37:09.510" UserId="18033" Comment="removed design tag as its for design patents, not for the design of patents" Text="&lt;legal&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17276" RevisionGUID="b2f33ceb-056c-4158-af08-6eaf96e6addf" CreationDate="2017-02-22T20:55:36.613" UserId="267" Comment="Tidied grammar and spelling." Text="I’m doing an intership in pharmaceutical company. I have made a Linux shell script which uses some open source tools to turn a some time-consuming work into a couple of seconds of automated work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This script was my own idea and I made it on my personal computer in my personal time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have presented it to my bosses and they are really interested in implementing a Linux system in the department to use my script. There’s a chance I might get employed but the decision depends on an upper boss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder whether my script is patentable or if there is some other way of protecting it in the European Community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been working so hard to develop it and the script is really useful for the daily work which is carried out there. I don’t want the company to make use of it at 0 cost: my long internship has already been free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I protect it somehow? I fear I cant due to the use of other open source applications and the Linux license itself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44789" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17276" RevisionGUID="b2f33ceb-056c-4158-af08-6eaf96e6addf" CreationDate="2017-02-22T20:55:36.613" UserId="267" Comment="Tidied grammar and spelling." Text="Protecting intellectual property in the EU" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44790" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17276" RevisionGUID="b2f33ceb-056c-4158-af08-6eaf96e6addf" CreationDate="2017-02-22T20:55:36.613" Comment="Proposed by 267 approved by -1 edit id of 2025" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17276" RevisionGUID="aa38abd3-8c32-4eed-ac4c-af7ca5f2e3b2" CreationDate="2017-02-22T20:55:36.613" UserId="18033" Comment="Tidied grammar and spelling." Text="I’m doing an intership in pharmaceutical company. I have made a Linux shell script which uses some open source tools to turn a some time-consuming copy and paste work into a couple of seconds of automated work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This script was my own idea and I made it on my personal computer in my personal time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have presented it to my bosses and they are really interested in implementing a Linux system in the department to use my script. There’s a chance I might get employed but the decision depends on an upper boss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder whether my script is patentable or if there is some other way of protecting it in the European Community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been working so hard to develop it and the script is really useful for the daily work which is carried out there. I don’t want the company to make use of it at 0 cost: my long internship has already been free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I protect it somehow? I fear I cant due to the use of other open source applications and the Linux license itself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44792" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="de22d892-be8a-4200-a70b-acef1ac8eba6" CreationDate="2017-02-22T21:06:00.210" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44793" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6624" RevisionGUID="a2be6ee9-8eb7-421e-b949-ab221cf12e66" CreationDate="2017-02-22T22:06:06.347" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44795" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16926" RevisionGUID="693a7c94-124b-42b1-8e9f-7973c83d6cd0" CreationDate="2017-02-22T23:06:07.290" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17286" RevisionGUID="2e43b6a8-4c2f-4c0b-978e-24c59ecb9abb" CreationDate="2017-02-23T01:55:38.157" UserId="11717" Text="Beware that this will show only those patents that were assigned to the University at the time of issue.&#xD;&#xA;If the University as subsequently purchased more or sold certain patents, you will not be able to find from a public source.&#xD;&#xA;Ashok" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17287" RevisionGUID="6a4712ec-9a1f-46ff-80f2-f81443f7fafd" CreationDate="2017-02-23T02:03:03.603" UserId="18550" Text="In the process of altering an already patented proven chemical process. would someone be able to patent an process in which the outcome may be the same as the already patented process? and if so what would be a way out patented an process thats based from an already patented patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44798" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17287" RevisionGUID="6a4712ec-9a1f-46ff-80f2-f81443f7fafd" CreationDate="2017-02-23T02:03:03.603" UserId="18550" Text="Altered Patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44799" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17287" RevisionGUID="6a4712ec-9a1f-46ff-80f2-f81443f7fafd" CreationDate="2017-02-23T02:03:03.603" UserId="18550" Text="&lt;process&gt;&lt;altered&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17288" RevisionGUID="b9a19ea9-7b0c-4f80-94b6-69ac9d4730ee" CreationDate="2017-02-23T03:41:32.407" UserId="15503" Text="**Would someone be able to patent a process in which the outcome may be the same as an already patented process?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, as long as the new method was novel and non-obvious. In this case, your patent would be limited to the process, and not the product itself (since the product is not novel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Example**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume there is a prior art patent, with claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. Product X.&#xD;&#xA;2. A method comprising mixing substance A and substance B to obtain product X. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you discover that you can substitute some substances, and this substitution was not obvious, you could patent:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A method comprising mixing substance A, and substance C to obtain product X.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because this method is novel (since it's different from the prior art) and non-obvious (since the substitution is not obvious)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17284" RevisionGUID="47dd850d-c24b-4085-877a-1f9533adaaaf" CreationDate="2017-02-23T06:38:14.977" UserId="267" Comment="Tidied grammar." Text="My son is a senior in college majoring in mechanical engineering. He is well versed in the CAD software. A friend and local business owner approached him and asked whether he would be interested in doing some CAD drawings for a invention he is trying to patent. He offered to pay my son for his time. My question is, Is my son entitled to royalties in the event that the product becomes successful? Should he receive publishing credit? What and how do we handle it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As parents we are concerned that people will take advantage of our son’s abilities, and want to make sure that he protects his work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44802" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17284" RevisionGUID="47dd850d-c24b-4085-877a-1f9533adaaaf" CreationDate="2017-02-23T06:38:14.977" UserId="267" Comment="Tidied grammar." Text="Who gets credit for providing CAD drawings for a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44803" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17284" RevisionGUID="47dd850d-c24b-4085-877a-1f9533adaaaf" CreationDate="2017-02-23T06:38:14.977" Comment="Proposed by 267 approved by 18033, 17325 edit id of 2022" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13847" RevisionGUID="3afb34f7-04c3-46e6-bb2a-a8f80160309d" CreationDate="2017-02-23T06:38:27.090" UserId="267" Comment="Added patent tag. Tidied grammar. Added actual question." Text="In reference to the patent: [CA2311951C][1] “Ice skate blade”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot see an image and cannot follow the claims without an image. Where can I find the referenced image(s)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/CA2311951C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44805" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13847" RevisionGUID="3afb34f7-04c3-46e6-bb2a-a8f80160309d" CreationDate="2017-02-23T06:38:27.090" UserId="267" Comment="Added patent tag. Tidied grammar. Added actual question." Text="Where can I find the graphics for patent CA2311951C?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44806" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13847" RevisionGUID="3afb34f7-04c3-46e6-bb2a-a8f80160309d" CreationDate="2017-02-23T06:38:27.090" UserId="267" Comment="Added patent tag. Tidied grammar. Added actual question." Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;ca2311951c&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44807" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13847" RevisionGUID="3afb34f7-04c3-46e6-bb2a-a8f80160309d" CreationDate="2017-02-23T06:38:27.090" Comment="Proposed by 267 approved by 18033, 17325 edit id of 2023" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44811" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16740" RevisionGUID="ed2eb2a4-107d-4512-9cd4-c6584e869fff" CreationDate="2017-02-23T10:09:36.480" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44812" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14622" RevisionGUID="70a091a7-33cc-41fc-9293-a10bbc07b5ef" CreationDate="2017-02-23T11:10:02.750" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17290" RevisionGUID="db82bbc4-9c34-489e-bd93-9390271f079a" CreationDate="2017-02-23T16:51:19.163" UserId="18553" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20150291122][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20150291122&#xD;&#xA;It seems very simillar to https://www.google.ch/patents/WO2012113362A1?cl=en, what is the specific difference. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44815" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17290" RevisionGUID="db82bbc4-9c34-489e-bd93-9390271f079a" CreationDate="2017-02-23T16:51:19.163" UserId="18553" Text="difference to a simmilar pattent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44816" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17290" RevisionGUID="db82bbc4-9c34-489e-bd93-9390271f079a" CreationDate="2017-02-23T16:51:19.163" UserId="18553" Text="&lt;us20150291122&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44817" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="833bd26d-70af-4f7a-a475-901606fb6cc9" CreationDate="2017-02-23T18:23:04.960" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17292" RevisionGUID="2be4566e-6612-4dd1-82a2-b88d7ccc9bc3" CreationDate="2017-02-23T22:17:57.253" UserId="17003" Text="WO2012113362 has been granted as [EP2678191B1][1]. US20150291122 I believe is still just an application. My cursory examination indeed suggests that EP2678191B1 is significant prior art for US20150281122 as the main concept as far as I can see is very similar. EP2678191B1's claims are pretty narrow so there might even be further prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2678191B1/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17273" RevisionGUID="10934e80-643b-4da4-b375-996e4350a528" CreationDate="2017-02-23T22:18:32.620" UserId="267" Comment="Improved title." Text="In reference to the patent: [US8396664][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the above patent in effect, does this mean that no one else in the continental USA is able to 3D map a golf course?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8396664" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44823" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17273" RevisionGUID="10934e80-643b-4da4-b375-996e4350a528" CreationDate="2017-02-23T22:18:32.620" UserId="267" Comment="Improved title." Text="Does patent US8396664 mean that no one in in the continental USA can 3d map golf courses?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44824" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17273" RevisionGUID="10934e80-643b-4da4-b375-996e4350a528" CreationDate="2017-02-23T22:18:32.620" UserId="267" Comment="Improved title." Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;us8396664&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44825" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17273" RevisionGUID="10934e80-643b-4da4-b375-996e4350a528" CreationDate="2017-02-23T22:18:32.620" Comment="Proposed by 267 approved by 18033, 17003 edit id of 2024" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44826" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="c78e8ec8-0bd4-4069-a3d5-1df3e53dd71a" CreationDate="2017-02-23T23:34:09.400" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17292" RevisionGUID="1da4176f-7c12-405a-a019-745bcd42f928" CreationDate="2017-02-24T00:11:35.927" UserId="17003" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="WO2012113362 has been granted as [EP2678191B1][1]. US20150291122, I believe, is still just an application. My cursory examination indeed suggests that EP2678191B1 is significant prior art for US20150281122 as the main concept as far as I can see is very similar. EP2678191B1's claims are pretty narrow so there might even be further prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2678191B1/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44829" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="141559b7-3922-4fef-8e78-cdd31ef2225a" CreationDate="2017-02-24T01:34:24.073" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17293" RevisionGUID="9156a737-74b8-43c8-bc85-cc8291321c5a" CreationDate="2017-02-24T03:05:00.570" UserId="18556" Text="we are filling a new patent, on one concept&#xD;&#xA;but there is a provisional patent available for public&#xD;&#xA;which is not valid (may be they are not paid fee or with dawn)&#xD;&#xA;once our patent approved, still some one can come behind us based on that provisional patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44831" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17293" RevisionGUID="9156a737-74b8-43c8-bc85-cc8291321c5a" CreationDate="2017-02-24T03:05:00.570" UserId="18556" Text="whats happen to the new patent, if there is another provisional patent (with drawn or fee not paid ) available for public" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44832" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17293" RevisionGUID="9156a737-74b8-43c8-bc85-cc8291321c5a" CreationDate="2017-02-24T03:05:00.570" UserId="18556" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17294" RevisionGUID="820b98ad-bde3-4640-9569-0df58bbbc1f9" CreationDate="2017-02-24T04:17:43.727" UserId="18557" Text="I am Working in a large organization. I have filled up application to file one patent - it's very bureaucratic(read political organization). It's myself and two other co-workers who did all the work(right from inception to implementation) but we have to include three other managers in this patent application(otherwise they won't allocate funds to file the patent) as well as vent out frustration on us later. My co-workers and myself are not happy to include non contributors as it's diluting our entire invention. I know we are going to get it filed by company's resources and it's already productionallized in our company - all the royalty will go to the company only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said that - i have another idea of my own where i am not using Company's resources, time or anything that I learned while in this job. Filing fees for micro entities is $65(provisional) and at the most it will cost me something less than $1000. I have no plans to use attorneys unless they are adding some value. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you suggest, should i do that? I haven't yet signed any document with the organization about Intellectual property rights etc..via which this organization can go behind me for my own idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44834" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17294" RevisionGUID="820b98ad-bde3-4640-9569-0df58bbbc1f9" CreationDate="2017-02-24T04:17:43.727" UserId="18557" Text="Working in a large organization - have idea of my own-some questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44835" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17294" RevisionGUID="820b98ad-bde3-4640-9569-0df58bbbc1f9" CreationDate="2017-02-24T04:17:43.727" UserId="18557" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;large&gt;&lt;organization&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17272" RevisionGUID="8360b4b9-2c36-47ac-8677-4d0caae2e910" CreationDate="2017-02-24T05:21:45.450" UserId="18534" Comment="Corrected some grammar and spelling mistake... As an excuse for my poor writing skill I just want to point out that I'm not a native speaker and have dysorthography... feel free to edit further" Text="In some countries you might have to wait for an authorisation from the army/ministry of defence to divulge it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17296" RevisionGUID="b3345408-c41e-4f83-bee9-57e965e97952" CreationDate="2017-02-24T06:18:03.700" UserId="14341" Text="I use Nitro 5 PDF tool, downloaded free from Majorgeeks.com.&#xD;&#xA;It has a clickable menu that helps you select any area for text or adding images.  That's how I signed these forms for electronic filing.  My first provisional I typed in everything I could, printed the form, signed it, and scanned it for records and to make a copy for mailing.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17297" RevisionGUID="96e49588-0171-4b67-bd5c-c8adf7c4b133" CreationDate="2017-02-24T08:34:02.557" UserId="18033" Text="Normally provisionals are only published if they are used as a priority document for a non-provisional, so I think you might have missed something. If you have not, the time to claim priority on a provisional application is one year after filling, after that, it cannot be claimed anymore.&#xA;&#xA;But there is another issue here, published provisionals count as prior art, if you are that concerned about somebody else following up on this patent, have you checked that it won't stop your application by rendering it not novel or not inventive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16265" RevisionGUID="ac946306-1a1f-4964-aba8-720ef389c9ab" CreationDate="2017-02-24T10:14:17.113" UserId="267" Comment="Gave it an actual title." Text="I work in the military in Ireland and have an idea for an invention based on my military experience and knowledge. I am wondering whether the military hierarchy would have the legal right to claim ownership of my invention as I'm still employed by them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44846" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16265" RevisionGUID="ac946306-1a1f-4964-aba8-720ef389c9ab" CreationDate="2017-02-24T10:14:17.113" UserId="267" Comment="Gave it an actual title." Text="Would the Irish military have the right to claim ownership of an employee's invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44847" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16265" RevisionGUID="ac946306-1a1f-4964-aba8-720ef389c9ab" CreationDate="2017-02-24T10:14:17.113" UserId="267" Comment="Gave it an actual title." Text="&lt;military&gt;&lt;ireland&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44848" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16265" RevisionGUID="ac946306-1a1f-4964-aba8-720ef389c9ab" CreationDate="2017-02-24T10:14:17.113" Comment="Proposed by 267 approved by 18033, 17325 edit id of 2026" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17299" RevisionGUID="777a3bf1-62bb-4078-8b04-a31b441ca9c1" CreationDate="2017-02-24T13:35:29.250" UserId="15503" Text="Possibly. In the absence of an explicit agreement, it turns on whether you made the invention in the course of your duties as an employee. In this manner, Ireland appears to be in line with other Commonwealth jurisdictions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus if the invention relates to weaponry, and you were employed solely as a cleaner, this would likely be outside of your duties (so that you would retain the rights to any patent).  However, if the invention related to wireless communications, and you were employed as a signals operator, your employer may arguably be entitled to the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**References**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Mason Hayes &amp; Curran](https://www.mhc.ie/latest/blog/interns-and-your-intellectual-property-what-you-need-to-know) provide:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... any work made by an employee in the course of employment belongs to the employer, unless otherwise agreed. Therefore, the two crucial factors in an employer/employee IP dispute are (1) whether the employee is in fact an employee; and (2) whether the works were done in the course of employment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[FR Kelly](http://frkelly.com/wp-content/files_mf/1362482492252244d7a470c5179f.pdf) argue similarly&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Where an employee makes an invention in the course of his/her duties, the right to the patent usually belongs to the employer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4165" RevisionGUID="cce12b2c-27c6-4b0c-9587-b7375d07caa1" CreationDate="2017-02-24T13:51:20.747" UserId="18033" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="You can disclose your ideas, designs and product plan details in various ways to try to make them readily findable by patent examiners doing searches. One defensive publication site is IP.com. It is fee based. But the best way to have a high probability of a patent examiner finding your defensive publications when examining someone else's application is to actually file them as (full) patent applications requesting early publication. You can expressly abandon the application and never risk getting a patent yourself. Of course each of your applications will have filing fees (about $700) and early publication will cost $300 more. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do not make your disclosure &quot;findable&quot; enough a patent could be granted to someone else that shouldn't have been. It will be presumed valid and take work and money to try to neutralize it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if you have a breakthrough idea, many people will probably come with valuable improvements that are seen as non-obvious over your original concept. They will be be able to get solid  patents on those improvements and, if people prefer the improved versions, your vision of enabling a completely open marketplace will be significantly diluted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clarification (simplified and therefore not 100% precise)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone can file a patent application on anything but if they are not the actual inventor they shouldn't get a patent. And even if they did truly think of it themselves, they should not get a patent if the things they are claiming as their own are something that has been already done or written about. They also shouldn't get a patent if they are claiming things that are obvious based on what has already been done or written about. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the patent examination process is imperfect and not **everything** similar that has been done before will come to light in the USPTO searching. (That is a prime motivation for the existence of this site.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if you do not want a patent but also do not want your invention, and obvious variations of it, patented by anyone else you need to be as sure as you can that your contributions are not just &quot;out there in the public domain&quot; but written about in detail somewhere that the patent examiners will be looking. Even if your product is on the market and you have a web site that does not mean the examiner of someone else's application will stumble across it. If they don't, the other person could get a patent on exactly your thing or on a variation on your thing that is obvious in light of your work. This is all separate from the issue of the other person knowingly ripping you off or innocently indecently inventing. The patent exam action process has no real way to look into that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now someone has an issued patent and all patents are legally &quot;born valid&quot;. That means the burden of proof that their patent was incorrectly granted is on you or whoever else is in the marketplace. Even though you don't want a patent you can still get caught up in the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is all motivation for you to publish your ideas, designs and teachings in a way that a patent examiner is very, very likely to come across them in their searching. The beat way to do that is to actually file a patent application. After it is published by the USPTO it should be found by a future examiner, preventing your idea and obvious various of it from being patented by someone else. Since you do not actually want a patent you can abandon the application and it will remain in all the patent document databases as a published application but you will not have the costs of actually pursuing to the point of getting a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However that does not prevent people from getting legit patents on **non-obvious** extensions, variations, improvements of your idea. That would not stop you from making and selling your original idea but could prevent you from evolving your product (that is why it is a &quot;blocking&quot; patent) in a way that responds to customer needs but is not technically obvious from your original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make a broad region of variations obvious you will want to not just ship your product but somewhere publish a document that covers as many variations as you can think of now. Then to get a legit patent someone needs something non-obvious in light of your writings not just in light of the product itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44851" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14445" RevisionGUID="02a503c0-6088-4f36-ad83-129543900745" CreationDate="2017-02-24T14:15:05.800" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;tools&gt;&lt;ip-management&gt;&lt;patent-portfolio&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44852" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12639" RevisionGUID="16cb190f-b0bc-4f71-afe8-a83c67afdfa8" CreationDate="2017-02-24T14:18:44.423" UserId="18033" Comment="not pre-grant anymore" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17300" RevisionGUID="0d497da3-1203-44b8-85e6-2bdc7bfd6a52" CreationDate="2017-02-24T14:24:51.853" UserId="18033" Text="This application is deemed abandoned as the applicant has not responded to a communication from the patent office. (Abandonment on 1.6.2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44860" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10251" RevisionGUID="d4530da3-dfdc-439c-ab0d-d1dc620da42f" CreationDate="2017-02-24T17:02:36.760" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;us20120203457&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44862" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16748" RevisionGUID="c06aa7a8-8b7e-45b0-92d0-ac9cf69f9b90" CreationDate="2017-02-24T18:58:16.867" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44863" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12070" RevisionGUID="78526a7e-5d08-419d-9ff2-0e8afe2647ed" CreationDate="2017-02-24T20:58:17.577" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17302" RevisionGUID="919431e3-acea-4a9e-8aaf-15db90ecf3f8" CreationDate="2017-02-24T21:16:43.630" UserId="14038" Text="Whether or not you have the rights to the invention depends upon circumstances, such as whether the invention was created during your regular work hours, whether or not you used company resources on the invention, whether or not the invention relates to products and services marketed by the company or whether or not the invention was independently invented by you and not as part of or during  your employment.   The existence of a written contract outlining the ownership of any invention as part of your employment usually determines the ownership, but even the absence of such an agreement may still not exempt the invention from at least partial ownership by the company if the subject matter directly relates to the company, and/or it was developed on company time using company resources.   If it was not developed during company time or using company resources, then it is recommended to maintain written notes that show the independent development.   The only conclusive way is to get a written agreement by the company disclaiming any interest in the invention.  Second best is to consult an attorney and get an written opinion as to your ownership.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44865" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14601" RevisionGUID="f3b6f62f-9e5c-490b-a724-52a127540928" CreationDate="2017-02-24T22:59:45.967" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44866" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7765" RevisionGUID="a01ccb63-fe5d-4309-8445-315e3559872e" CreationDate="2017-02-24T23:59:51.120" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44867" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16491" RevisionGUID="ecbe3846-fd33-4c2c-90e2-fcba5d014bc8" CreationDate="2017-02-25T00:59:52.763" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44875" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="05119d81-5cf9-4750-9f4a-ee6b323db35b" CreationDate="2017-02-25T05:01:12.890" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44876" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10744" RevisionGUID="f90e291a-1be3-49cf-bc9f-61348107eca2" CreationDate="2017-02-25T11:08:54.260" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16491" RevisionGUID="1cff6851-b139-473c-99f1-135e69008e8e" CreationDate="2017-02-25T18:11:50.157" UserId="18033" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="I'm looking at manufacturing a product that has a patent # clearly printed on the product.  But after a little digging on google patents, it clearly says &quot;Legal status Expired - Lifetime&quot; with a &quot;Grant date 1995-03-21&quot;.  Am I in the clear to manufacture this product?  What things should I consider before I produce thousands of units?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The number is 5,399,155. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44879" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="865481b3-b284-4882-aa86-9cda12f1f9f3" CreationDate="2017-02-25T19:10:36.517" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44880" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13870" RevisionGUID="0f8fe2ba-409b-4c2e-ac77-92a93666f466" CreationDate="2017-02-25T21:10:36.483" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44881" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16340" RevisionGUID="7327384b-f080-4eea-b0df-cf37535d6e98" CreationDate="2017-02-25T22:10:37.383" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44883" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17128" RevisionGUID="eecac66d-ca42-4832-88fb-461d15f0b627" CreationDate="2017-02-25T23:13:55.310" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17304" RevisionGUID="f1bfe574-6dc5-4f2c-ba84-5f587aeff917" CreationDate="2017-02-26T00:29:57.953" UserId="17003" Text="People often make the mistake of searching for patents from the base www.google.com site. It works much better to search from patents.google.com. For instance here is the same [patent][1] which includes the figures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20150309854A1/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44886" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10643" RevisionGUID="868d81c3-2c5c-42f7-8046-d82ca17a8653" CreationDate="2017-02-26T03:15:17.400" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44891" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="1b24395d-0e38-4aab-aec0-984b86cf60c3" CreationDate="2017-02-26T05:18:26.027" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44892" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="2c1adce2-8ba6-4b63-aa36-6398998c7ff9" CreationDate="2017-02-26T06:18:30.530" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44893" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="d247f8d9-ccc7-48e8-a991-4124e0727e0f" CreationDate="2017-02-26T10:18:54.547" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44894" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17133" RevisionGUID="360c693f-516d-4868-8a4f-8c85a5ff6973" CreationDate="2017-02-26T16:19:15.903" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44895" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14934" RevisionGUID="463e9d91-c33d-4844-a6ec-ea89a2bbbce6" CreationDate="2017-02-26T17:19:56.917" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17307" RevisionGUID="27bee9d0-ffb9-407e-a814-85590eff3ff1" CreationDate="2017-02-26T19:11:33.150" UserId="18576" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2002019867A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2002019867A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent still valid and if so when does it expire? Does it cover U.S.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44897" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17307" RevisionGUID="27bee9d0-ffb9-407e-a814-85590eff3ff1" CreationDate="2017-02-26T19:11:33.150" UserId="18576" Text="validity of patent and regions covered" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44898" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17307" RevisionGUID="27bee9d0-ffb9-407e-a814-85590eff3ff1" CreationDate="2017-02-26T19:11:33.150" UserId="18576" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16491" RevisionGUID="cec0579a-cf31-4056-94aa-c8ea740f0cfa" CreationDate="2017-02-26T19:37:12.280" UserId="17623" Comment="deleted 27 characters in body" Text="I'm looking at manufacturing a product that has a patent # clearly printed on the product.  But after a little digging on google patents, it clearly says &quot;Legal status Expired - Lifetime&quot; with a &quot;Grant date 1995-03-21&quot;.  Am I in the clear to manufacture this product?  What things should I consider before I produce thousands of units?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44900" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16759" RevisionGUID="0947094a-433d-487a-aa81-430bd2c57de4" CreationDate="2017-02-26T21:26:24.893" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44901" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16365" RevisionGUID="0d50d18b-53fe-4b9b-bebc-0047c685625d" CreationDate="2017-02-26T22:26:24.757" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44902" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="5b833800-144b-4e17-95c1-1b0ec40fefb4" CreationDate="2017-02-27T00:26:27.270" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44903" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14724" RevisionGUID="1b5e83ed-e3f8-429f-a90f-0e43fb2601fa" CreationDate="2017-02-27T01:26:45.627" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44904" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14820" RevisionGUID="20e65380-a3dd-40b2-810e-357157fa069c" CreationDate="2017-02-27T02:27:02.770" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17308" RevisionGUID="ef5014de-7f17-4613-940a-b45207681135" CreationDate="2017-02-27T09:27:30.547" UserId="18388" Text="So, assume I have a software invention with two aspects. Let me provide an example to simplify things. Assume I invented a client and server. The client and server both communicate with one another. The client is a part of my invention. The server is also a unique part of the invention. On the other hand, the user could use his custom client to connect to the server that I have created. Though, my client would provide extra unique features than the custom client would not. How can I say that in claims. From my understanding I could do something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims:&#xD;&#xA;1. A client which does ...&#xD;&#xA;a.&#xD;&#xA;b.&#xD;&#xA;c.&#xD;&#xA;2. A server which does ...&#xD;&#xA;a.&#xD;&#xA;b.&#xD;&#xA;c.&#xD;&#xA;1 and 2 are independent claims which have dependent claims (a,b,c) on each of them. So, in that manner if someone makes my exact client (with my unique client features described in claim) he would violate claim 1 and if he makes the server would violate claim 2. If he makes both he would violate both claim 1 and 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the detailed description of the invention I would say:&#xD;&#xA;In one aspect of the invention a client does ... Also, the user could use his own custom client.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In another aspect of the invention the server does ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this the right way to do what I described. Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Keep in mind that I am talking about an abstract example above I am not discussing the patentability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44906" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17308" RevisionGUID="ef5014de-7f17-4613-940a-b45207681135" CreationDate="2017-02-27T09:27:30.547" UserId="18388" Text="How to deal with two aspects of invention in claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44907" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17308" RevisionGUID="ef5014de-7f17-4613-940a-b45207681135" CreationDate="2017-02-27T09:27:30.547" UserId="18388" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17309" RevisionGUID="2648ed66-f0ab-4390-9faf-a69534ff705a" CreationDate="2017-02-27T10:42:03.320" UserId="15503" Text="This is a good way to do it—I would be reluctant to call anything the &quot;right&quot; way though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because your independent claims contain complementary features, they would generally be seen to relate to the same invention. It is therefore unlikely you would be required to file a divisional. You may also want to consider claims of other types (notably method claims and a system claim) as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the description, you have identified a good way of describing the parts. However you may want to also describe how the parts work together (to show the synergy between them). This might be done with reference to a sequence diagram, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would question the value in mentioning that a user can use their own custom client.  To me that is simply saying that your invention is not very important.  I can't see any benefit that would give you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44910" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="f29029d4-dcfd-4007-8535-56275487de33" CreationDate="2017-02-27T15:34:33.813" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44911" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16633" RevisionGUID="9e8df086-9bf7-48c8-b4be-8b4a8e65c60e" CreationDate="2017-02-27T23:45:42.023" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44912" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13986" RevisionGUID="55cdf8ea-eae8-49df-b14d-90a2948e124a" CreationDate="2017-02-28T01:45:47.233" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44913" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16193" RevisionGUID="2098b77f-dd15-4725-8a2e-15fb59ef153b" CreationDate="2017-02-28T02:45:47.077" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44914" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10545" RevisionGUID="692ca471-b76f-4d05-b38f-75c276f88e08" CreationDate="2017-02-28T03:45:54.840" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17310" RevisionGUID="763b5a0a-2f74-4610-b5ce-e7133db39ad8" CreationDate="2017-02-28T05:11:49.067" UserId="18571" Text="Is there a national Registry of Expired Patents that one can search through for reference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44916" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17310" RevisionGUID="763b5a0a-2f74-4610-b5ce-e7133db39ad8" CreationDate="2017-02-28T05:11:49.067" UserId="18571" Text="List or Registry of Expired Patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44917" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17310" RevisionGUID="763b5a0a-2f74-4610-b5ce-e7133db39ad8" CreationDate="2017-02-28T05:11:49.067" UserId="18571" Text="&lt;prior&gt;&lt;art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17311" RevisionGUID="62c89b7b-295b-429a-9b52-24857c216049" CreationDate="2017-02-28T06:41:10.427" UserId="18581" Text="In reference to the patent: [US9237761][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9237761" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44919" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17311" RevisionGUID="62c89b7b-295b-429a-9b52-24857c216049" CreationDate="2017-02-28T06:41:10.427" UserId="18581" Text="Shouldn't this patent bear/state the name of the product or products (Prolon) it seeks to support/protect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44920" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17311" RevisionGUID="62c89b7b-295b-429a-9b52-24857c216049" CreationDate="2017-02-28T06:41:10.427" UserId="18581" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17312" RevisionGUID="e8154f29-4518-4e98-9f4a-57e6b7fe6c87" CreationDate="2017-02-28T06:51:27.907" UserId="15503" Text="No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A name of a product is a trade mark matter, as it protects reputation. In contrast, a patent protects an invention. There is no overlap between these two types of IP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, a patent does not support or protect a product. It protects an invention (which might be implemented as a product, but need not be)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17315" RevisionGUID="9301be9e-8cbd-4b71-9b2b-8eedd6f836a2" CreationDate="2017-02-28T08:25:11.973" UserId="18583" Text="The first filing country is China. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two documents refer to the 18 months Chinese publication which has the A kind code, and the grant (in China), with the B kind code." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17316" RevisionGUID="bda18f1a-478e-4309-a4b4-f3a49e2800d0" CreationDate="2017-02-28T08:35:07.713" UserId="18583" Text="A patent is a legal document which confers protection within time and space, so if it is a US patent, it is merely a legal document which confers protection only in USA. Nonetheless according to the PCT and other conventions, you may have patents on the same family, i.e., which share the same priority date, which are valid in other countries, namely India.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After checking [that specific patent in Esp@cent][1], it does not appear to be valid in India, as you can see in the family field, i.e., *also published as*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?II=0&amp;ND=3&amp;adjacent=true&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;FT=D&amp;date=20000530&amp;CC=US&amp;NR=6067803A&amp;KC=A#" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17317" RevisionGUID="5d5c01b6-b9f0-4d03-b6b2-1732f1a407f1" CreationDate="2017-02-28T11:46:59.613" UserId="18388" Text="So, assume I have an iOS application with two components. Let us call those C1 and C2. C1 takes input from the user and does some calculations then stores it for C2 to do more calculations and display the results. I discussing a hypothetical example because I cannot discuss the invention. How would both of the components fit in a patent application. Both C1 and C2 are unique and non-obvious. C1 outputs data for C2 input. So, C2 is reliant on C1. C1 and C2 will be two aspects of the invention. Though, will C1 and C2 be regarded as a single method or two methods in this invention. Also, what if I want to protect both C1 and C2. Should I write C1 in independent claim 1 and C2 in independent claim 2." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44930" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17317" RevisionGUID="5d5c01b6-b9f0-4d03-b6b2-1732f1a407f1" CreationDate="2017-02-28T11:46:59.613" UserId="18388" Text="Software invention with two components" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44931" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17317" RevisionGUID="5d5c01b6-b9f0-4d03-b6b2-1732f1a407f1" CreationDate="2017-02-28T11:46:59.613" UserId="18388" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44932" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13260" RevisionGUID="030f96f6-9b4b-4d77-a315-3bc1e3d1e5ae" CreationDate="2017-02-28T11:57:41.580" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17318" RevisionGUID="ae2b90c2-2452-4de6-b972-1aa592e04823" CreationDate="2017-02-28T12:19:50.353" UserId="18033" Text="You forgot a question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Can I protect both inventions in one patent?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer to this question will answer a big chunk fo the rest too. The concept in question is called *unity of invention*. It exists in the PCT and the US and Europe and most other countries and it more or less says *Two independent claims may only be granted in one patent if the underlying invention is the same*. Normally this leads to the problem that the underlying invention has to be claimed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case that means that C1 and C2 as a combination would be the underlying invention. So one of your independent claims should be *C1 + C2*.&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have that claim, chances are the examiner will say you are missing unity of invention and you'll have to decide to go for either C1 or C2 and file another patent application for the other one claiming priority (continuation, divisional, ...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question isn't exactly &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;will C1 and C2 be regarded as a single method or two methods in this invention&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as this can only be answered for the exact case and the correct answer will be determined (and defined) by the examiner. But if they are not, you will not get a patent containing both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Also, what if I want to protect both C1 and C2. Should I write C1 in independent claim 1 and C2 in independent claim 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As is obvious from my explanations above, both should be contained in one claim to make sure the unity of invention is accepted. But of course you want to protect C1 and C2 independently. As long as the examiner thinks it is one invention, there is no problem with claiming C1 and C2 in separate independent claims too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leads you to having at least 3 independent claims, C1 + C2, C1 and C2. Leaving out the first might result in having to file another application, leaving out the second or third will result in narrowed protection. If you claim only C1 + C2, everyone is free to implement only C1 or C2. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17319" RevisionGUID="27a5f86b-1114-4590-afd0-af0bd3c156ba" CreationDate="2017-02-28T14:22:35.657" UserId="18388" Text="Ok, so suppose I have an iOS patentable application. The app consists of two components let us name them Com1 and Com2. Com1 is simply a normal means of input that takes input from the user of the app and stores it. Com2 is a main part of invention that takes the data from Com1 and does something novel and unique with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If Com1 is non-novel while Com2 is novel. How to deal with this in terms of aspects and claims. Should I say mention them in detailed description as two different aspects. Com2 cannot function without the output data from Com1. Though, get this the user **can** use pen and paper to write the data required for Com2 skipping Com1 completely. So, in my claims if I write the steps from both Com1 and Com2 and the user would maliciously use pen and paper to non infringe my claims (for example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I protect my invention from being stolen in terms of the aspect and claims. I am thinking I should mention both Com1 and Com2 in the invention while writing only Com2 in claims **or** I could mention Com2 as independent claim and Com1+Com2 as another independent claim preventing anyone from doing Com2 claim steps or Com1+Com2 claims. Is this the write way to do it? And if that is the write way to do it, how do I mention Com1+Com2 as aspects of invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I would like to thank the friendly community for answering all my questions especially Maca and DonQuiKong. I am asking a lot of questions because I want to learn as much as I can about patents without having much money to pay for a lawyer to make them for me. I have multiple software inventions that I want to patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44935" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17319" RevisionGUID="27a5f86b-1114-4590-afd0-af0bd3c156ba" CreationDate="2017-02-28T14:22:35.657" UserId="18388" Text="Two aspects of the same invention and one aspect is not unique" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44936" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17319" RevisionGUID="27a5f86b-1114-4590-afd0-af0bd3c156ba" CreationDate="2017-02-28T14:22:35.657" UserId="18388" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44937" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="4efd373a-8d89-43a4-b044-d11fa7a638cf" CreationDate="2017-02-28T14:58:24.063" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17320" RevisionGUID="646475a2-0c8d-4694-94fb-849d18806e67" CreationDate="2017-02-28T15:13:49.437" UserId="18388" Text="In a software invention, if you describe two or more aspects of the invention. Are those aspects referred to as methods or they are defined as the method of the invention which cannot be divided. Referring to my previous client/server abstract invention. Where both the client and server are part of the invention. Can the client be described as method and the server be described as another method? Or must I describe them as a single method then say they are two components. I guess what I am asking is, are methods divided or single in an invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44939" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17320" RevisionGUID="646475a2-0c8d-4694-94fb-849d18806e67" CreationDate="2017-02-28T15:13:49.437" UserId="18388" Text="Software invention with multiple aspects and method" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44940" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17320" RevisionGUID="646475a2-0c8d-4694-94fb-849d18806e67" CreationDate="2017-02-28T15:13:49.437" UserId="18388" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17321" RevisionGUID="8db4bf34-065c-4078-aeb5-87108a1bfaa3" CreationDate="2017-02-28T19:17:22.713" UserId="17607" Text="I am trying to find out how/where I can download large amount of patent application data. I'm particularly interested in readable data e.g. XML rather than PDF files which can be processed by machines. I've seen [this question](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/14449/where-to-do-download-patents-data) but it's linking to US patent data whereas I'd be interested to get data from the European Patent Office (EPO).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since one can object a patent application if it collides with one of his or her own I hope there is an easy way to download large amounts of patents from a particular category/group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for any help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44942" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17321" RevisionGUID="8db4bf34-065c-4078-aeb5-87108a1bfaa3" CreationDate="2017-02-28T19:17:22.713" UserId="17607" Text="How/where to download large amount of patent applications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44943" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17321" RevisionGUID="8db4bf34-065c-4078-aeb5-87108a1bfaa3" CreationDate="2017-02-28T19:17:22.713" UserId="17607" Text="&lt;epo&gt;&lt;bulk-download&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17322" RevisionGUID="0fe1c049-4f02-4c89-bdf3-8e55bd301ea3" CreationDate="2017-02-28T20:44:29.200" UserId="14038" Text="The EPO offers bulk download of patents through their Open Patent Services.  It provides this information in XML format.  It does require some technical skills but not overly complex. It is free up to a point, but may place restrictions depending on the amount of data to be downloaded.&#xD;&#xA;  http://www.epo.org/searching-for-patents/technical/espacenet/ops/faq.html#faq-64&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.epo.org/searching-for-patents/technical/espacenet/ops.html#tab1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can categorize relevant documents through their CPC codes or industrial codes.   There are several sources of information on determining the appropriate CPC code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/cpc.html&#xD;&#xA;http://www.cooperativepatentclassification.org/index.html;jsessionid=1r0o2vu3ol2jo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44945" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13528" RevisionGUID="24870e2a-d72a-4c1e-9da2-17485f2ae661" CreationDate="2017-02-28T21:04:06.737" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17323" RevisionGUID="bda9d86e-612e-47f1-8027-a1504f798d72" CreationDate="2017-03-01T02:09:33.103" UserId="18591" Text="I was informed by the patent agent that I work with that I can combine two related inventions &#xD;&#xA;in one patent if they function together and use similar features.&#xD;&#xA;He said that by combining the two I could &#xD;&#xA;possibly have patent rights for the combined &#xD;&#xA;inventions and for one or the other inventions &#xD;&#xA;by itself ( but not both individual inventions.)&#xD;&#xA;Is this true?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44947" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17323" RevisionGUID="bda9d86e-612e-47f1-8027-a1504f798d72" CreationDate="2017-03-01T02:09:33.103" UserId="18591" Text="Combining two claims for two inventions in one patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44948" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17323" RevisionGUID="bda9d86e-612e-47f1-8027-a1504f798d72" CreationDate="2017-03-01T02:09:33.103" UserId="18591" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17324" RevisionGUID="ffd7089d-c194-4582-b0a2-63c7091b4f2f" CreationDate="2017-03-01T02:21:13.360" UserId="15483" Text="In my opinion you cannot really patent software since software is not a static representation of intellectual property. You could attempt to write an application claim that is software-based, but risk limiting your claim doing so. You can include limitations involving memory that embodies software instructions, since memory is something physical, but a software program is really not something tangible; it's actually dynamic and requires execution. Without revealing more about more special technical features about your software program in the claim's limitations, you might be better off considering software licensing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17325" RevisionGUID="677be45a-a134-4eed-bfc3-55cd0df16fb2" CreationDate="2017-03-01T07:42:31.620" UserId="17325" Text="More or less yes, but there are some conditions to be fulfilled and this depends mostly on the jurisdiction you are referring to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The general idea is that you are not allowed to put two inventions in one application, because this equals to paying for one and getting two. Can you imagine, if an applicant was allowed to claim e.g. a new suitcase and a new machine for automatic peeling of potatoes in one application? For this reason, there are some rules which define what is considered a different invention and what may be considered &quot;as a whole&quot;. But they are different from country to country. In Europe, unity of the invention is described here:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/f_v.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, it might be possible that the jurisdiction/patent office you are referring to has set a limit of independent claims per category (this aims, too in avoiding to pay less for more, patent offices don't like that!). So if you invented a new espresso machine which requires the use of (specific) new capsules and a special adaptation of a number of other mechanical features, all those new elements might not be possible to be claimed separately in one application (claim for the espresso machine, claim for the capsules, claim for 4-5 different mechanical parts).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This situation is explained, for EPO standards, here:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/f_iv_3_2.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the US, I am sure there are similar provisions, but I am not aware of the legal basis of them. This site explains a few key points:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.fishiplaw.com/~fishipla/chapter5a.html#deciding" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44954" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17323" RevisionGUID="f2a25645-72e3-4b32-b8f5-5ccfb244e404" CreationDate="2017-03-01T07:42:45.653" UserId="17325" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;unity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17318" RevisionGUID="4057eb46-42df-48c9-8389-a38f03b80f71" CreationDate="2017-03-01T10:11:47.487" UserId="18033" Comment="added 142 characters in body" Text="You forgot a question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Can I protect both inventions in one patent?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer to this question will answer a big chunk fo the rest too. The concept in question is called *unity of invention*. It exists in the PCT and the US and Europe and most other countries and it more or less says *Two independent claims may only be granted in one patent if the underlying invention is the same*. Normally this leads to the problem that the underlying invention has to be claimed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case that means that C1 and C2 as a combination would be the underlying invention. So one of your independent claims should be *C1 + C2*.&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have that claim, chances are the examiner will say you are missing unity of invention and you'll have to decide to go for either C1 or C2 and file another patent application for the other one claiming priority (continuation, divisional, ...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question isn't exactly &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;will C1 and C2 be regarded as a single method or two methods in this invention&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as this can only be answered for the exact case and the correct answer will be determined (and defined) by the examiner. But if they are not, you will not get a patent containing both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Also, what if I want to protect both C1 and C2. Should I write C1 in independent claim 1 and C2 in independent claim 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As is obvious from my explanations above, both should be contained in one claim to make sure the unity of invention is accepted. But of course you want to protect C1 and C2 independently. As long as the examiner thinks it is one invention, there is no problem with claiming C1 and C2 in separate independent claims too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leads you to having at least 3 independent claims, C1 + C2, C1 and C2. Leaving out the first might result in having to file another application, leaving out the second or third will result in narrowed protection. If you claim only C1 + C2, everyone is free to implement only C1 or C2. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a discussion on how many separate but *united* inventions an application can have see http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/17323/18033 ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17320" RevisionGUID="b8d85c7c-b452-4114-916c-0d449b16bb1e" CreationDate="2017-03-01T11:27:25.863" UserId="18033" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="In a software invention, if you describe two or more aspects of the invention. Are those aspects referred to as methods or they are defined as the method of the invention which cannot be divided. Referring to my [previous client/server abstract invention][1]. Where both the client and server are part of the invention. Can the client be described as method and the server be described as another method? Or must I describe them as a single method then say they are two components. I guess what I am asking is, are methods divided or single in an invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/17308/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17326" RevisionGUID="f985c951-b40f-47c5-81ea-5eb14b403a3a" CreationDate="2017-03-01T12:15:06.290" UserId="16568" Text="My patent may have several types of &#xD;&#xA;new inventions within it.&#xD;&#xA;If I get a patent on my one invention &#xD;&#xA;do I have some type of patent rights over &#xD;&#xA;those other novel features in the invention &#xD;&#xA;or do I have to claim each one individually &#xD;&#xA;for special rights ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44958" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17326" RevisionGUID="f985c951-b40f-47c5-81ea-5eb14b403a3a" CreationDate="2017-03-01T12:15:06.290" UserId="16568" Text="Claiming of all patentable material in patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44959" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17326" RevisionGUID="f985c951-b40f-47c5-81ea-5eb14b403a3a" CreationDate="2017-03-01T12:15:06.290" UserId="16568" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17327" RevisionGUID="79604fad-0c77-4956-a772-19bcbfbbd390" CreationDate="2017-03-01T12:21:43.070" UserId="18033" Text="The protection is defined by - and **only** by - the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can talk about god, the world, your neighbours dog, apple and the blue LED in your patent specification, but that will not grant you any kind of protection. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The grant of a patent is primarily decided by the novelty and inventiveness of it's claims and the wording of these (the claims that are granted) decides what is protected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nobody may use, sell, etc. anything that falls under the literal **scope of the claims** of a granted patent without a license. *Equivalents* are protected to some extent (for further information research &quot;doctrine of equivalents&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anything else that appears only in the description **does not** entitle you to **any protection**. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44961" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17326" RevisionGUID="60d1cd96-406b-40e5-ba59-e1295acb21ca" CreationDate="2017-03-01T12:22:20.097" UserId="18033" Comment="added tag" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;scope&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44962" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14790" RevisionGUID="449b25fe-8d7c-4df3-8e76-9587b6654a4c" CreationDate="2017-03-01T12:24:04.840" UserId="18033" Comment="retagged" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17328" RevisionGUID="3fd6ca1d-ec54-4a3d-acbb-809c24185e2d" CreationDate="2017-03-01T12:58:12.813" UserId="18033" Text="Application was deemed abandoned on 22.04.2016 (see e.g. https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=US.201113336779.A&amp;lng=en)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example *physical bitcoins by Cascascius* mentioned by Jonathan in an previous answer was one of the prior art objections cited by the examiner. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44964" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4702" RevisionGUID="e77693a0-c73a-436f-8785-3d1921cd6ffc" CreationDate="2017-03-01T12:59:35.307" UserId="18033" Comment="I had to remove one tag to make place for the rejected tag" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;bitcoin&gt;&lt;us20130166455&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44965" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13007" RevisionGUID="ff674087-5d30-40d3-87e2-5a7b9132dd1a" CreationDate="2017-03-01T19:13:54.620" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17235" RevisionGUID="b42742b9-6c24-4b14-8310-ca503e80ce59" CreationDate="2017-03-01T20:20:01.460" UserId="18033" Comment="grammar" Text="In this comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/16579/multiple-priority-date-options/16580?noredirect=1#comment12098_16580&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maca said that an unpublished provisional patent does not count as prior art regarding novelty of another patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to admit that I do not believe this. I am certain that for normal patent applications it is not that way, even while they have not been published, they count as prior art for novelty, but not for inventive step. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question therefore is, can anybody provide any part of the US patent law  proving or disproving the statement that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Dropped and unpublished provisionals do not impede novelty of other inventions*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And how about dropped but published provisionals for patents with priority date between filing and publishing of said provisional?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44967" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17235" RevisionGUID="b42742b9-6c24-4b14-8310-ca503e80ce59" CreationDate="2017-03-01T20:20:01.460" UserId="18033" Comment="grammar" Text="Repatenting someone else's dropped provisionals" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17329" RevisionGUID="dfb1bee2-a5b1-485e-81b9-60713a3b95e4" CreationDate="2017-03-01T22:47:48.613" UserId="18033" Text="Patent application has been abandoned on 29.09.2016 (see for example https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=US.201213368129.A&amp;lng=en).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44969" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4745" RevisionGUID="85142408-6dca-4afa-a01b-8d8e22811131" CreationDate="2017-03-01T22:48:17.547" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;audio&gt;&lt;us20130204413&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44970" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17329" RevisionGUID="27a80a01-5f34-4493-aeae-bc3572974168" CreationDate="2017-03-01T22:58:06.367" UserId="18033" Comment="added 242 characters in body" Text="Patent application has been abandoned on 29.09.2016 (see for example https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=US.201213368129.A&amp;lng=en).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior art from previous answers had been submitted as a third party observation (see link above). It does not seem like they were used in the rejcetion however. Maybe what the examiner found was enough already. Anyways, good job everyone ;-)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44971" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17319" RevisionGUID="d1dea32e-5f90-46a9-8d74-ca0b4627a245" CreationDate="2017-03-01T23:05:13.907" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44972" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="17327" RevisionGUID="24b3e303-4b58-48cc-be65-e88bb5e92bcd" CreationDate="2017-03-01T23:11:31.583" UserId="18033" />
  <row Id="44973" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17310" RevisionGUID="f9123d40-d5e4-4584-b677-f080683b65f6" CreationDate="2017-03-01T23:42:03.243" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;databases&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17330" RevisionGUID="09c3ff1e-dc1c-44bf-8e4a-f827e8e40dab" CreationDate="2017-03-02T00:41:46.673" UserId="18595" Text="The USPTO put out a working paper in June 2015 titled [&quot;The USPTO Historical Patent Data Files: Two centuries of invention&quot;][1]. In it they state &quot;Internal estimates suggest that 11.9% of patents granted in 2012 contain terminal disclaimers. This rate has increased&#xD;&#xA;from 3.4% in 1990; thus we expect this to become an increasing problem with respect to calculating the expiration date of&#xD;&#xA;patents in the future.&quot; *See* footnote 36, page 12.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USPTO_economic_WP_2015-01_v2.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16516" RevisionGUID="1f8bc7d2-41e8-412a-b156-f2e2517ab26d" CreationDate="2017-03-02T06:13:43.627" UserId="17670" Comment="Sport of Kings is a common name for patent lawsuits" Text="Patents are not that expensive and they are a form of property. However, defending patents is very expensive (Sport of Kings). But you don't have to defend what isn't important. Moreover, you can define what is important later but you cannot patent later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17331" RevisionGUID="282bdbac-3df4-45ad-8530-66ba247d93bb" CreationDate="2017-03-02T08:15:15.863" UserId="11717" Text="Also do remember that once the patent application gets published, it goes to public domain and all copyrights cease to exist.&#xD;&#xA;Ashok" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44978" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="0c2d5f9d-f3c1-4b80-a931-c4ac3699a612" CreationDate="2017-03-02T08:19:38.617" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17235" RevisionGUID="f97a3e92-4e86-400f-bb12-834ccc5d2398" CreationDate="2017-03-02T08:45:29.913" UserId="18033" Comment="added 1062 characters in body" Text="In this comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/16579/multiple-priority-date-options/16580?noredirect=1#comment12098_16580&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maca said that an unpublished provisional patent does not count as prior art regarding novelty of another patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to admit that I do not believe this. I am certain that for normal patent applications it is not that way, even while they have not been published, they count as prior art for novelty, but not for inventive step. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question therefore is, can anybody provide any part of the US patent law  proving or disproving the statement that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Dropped and unpublished provisionals do not impede novelty of other inventions*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And how about dropped but published provisionals for patents with priority date between filing and publishing of said provisional?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**:&#xD;&#xA;*Disclaimer*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Including a comment from olsonist about US patent law:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When you file your patent, you will sign the DECLARATION FOR UTILITY OR DESIGN PATENT APPLICATION. The first paragraph of this declaration says: I hereby declare that: (1) Each inventor's residence, mailing address, and citizenship are as stated below next to their name; and (2) I believe the inventor(s) named below to be the original and first inventor(s) of the subject matter which is claimed and for which a patent is sought on the invention titled. Do not lie on this form. It is a Federal offense. If someone else filed the provisional then you are not the original and first inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is only about novelty and inventive step in this case or about unpublished provisionals beeing prior art, but the above should be remembered if using the question/answers as advice, as it's a very important point. However sometimes many or changing entities might have the right to apply for a patent on a given invention, so the case discussed here does exist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17332" RevisionGUID="f56ff862-7ac7-4239-96a1-f5c9d696aff4" CreationDate="2017-03-02T08:50:33.037" UserId="15503" Text="In this case, it is largely up to you. There is no &quot;right&quot; answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything that follows is my favoured approach (which I am somewhat reluctant to post due to it being almost purely opinion). I should note that others may rightfully disagree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, it seems to me best practice to describe each method separately. That is, your description might be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Figure 1 is a sequence diagram showing a method performed between a client and a server. At event 101, …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Figure 2 shows a method performed at a client. At step 201, …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Figure 3 shows a method performed at a server. At step 301, …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For completeness, you would also tend to describe the hardware performing the methods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Figure 4 shows a system 40 comprising client 41 and server 42 … In some embodiments, system 40 may operate according to the method of Figure 1. …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Figure 5 shows a client 41 in accordance with an aspect of the invention. … In some embodiments, client 41 may perform the method of Figure 2.…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Figure 6 shows a server 42 in accordance with an aspect of the invention. … In some embodiments, server 42 may perform the method of Figure 3.…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key reasons for separating these out are clarity and basis. By making these painfully explicit, you are making the invention as clear as possible. Moreover, for jurisdictions which are touchy on basis (such as the EPO), you are providing a strong basis in the description for a claim directly solely to the method performed at the client etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17333" RevisionGUID="26b90a78-c950-494b-8808-5128d0ad4b00" CreationDate="2017-03-02T08:51:00.313" UserId="18033" Text="To add to the other answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many investors requiere a startup to have filed for a patent on the invention to protect their investment. So having a patent application can be good to scare competitors (who will likely be small and not have the money to defend against prosecution neither). It is good for marketing purposes, especially when talking to investors. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent application is normally researched by the patent office, so you get something similar to a freedom to operate search for the fees you are paying, too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And last but not least, if some competitor starts making a lot of money with your invention, you will find some investor to pay for the litigation. That makes your revenue smaller, but it does get you there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17334" RevisionGUID="e1ac11ca-96f1-408d-b667-5de17ee4425a" CreationDate="2017-03-02T09:17:21.200" UserId="15503" Text="So here we have a tidy distinction between description and claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Description**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You must provide a description sufficiently detailed that the skilled person, reading your description, would understand how to put the invention into practice. You must also disclose the best way of doing it that you know. To this end, it is irrelevant whether the different parts are novel or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, it sounds like COM1 is an important part of the overall system (even if it's not novel, and even if it could be inefficiently substituted with pen and paper). It must therefore be disclosed in your description. However, it is not an aspect of your invention itself (since you didn't invent it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Figure X shows the system 10. input device 11 passes data to processing device 12. Processor 12 may comprise COM2. COM2 is configured to …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In some embodiments, input device 11 comprises COM1. An example of COM1 is shown in Figure Y. …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claims**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your claims, you generally only include features which either (1) contribute towards novelty and non-obviousness; or (2) are essential to understand the invention in context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, it sounds like COM2 is the novel/non-obvious bit, but it's essential that something provides an input. So you might have an independent claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. A system comprising: an input device, and COM2, wherein COM2 is in communication with the input device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is an argument that COM1 is a non-obvious choice (even if, in isolation, it is known), you might also include a dependent claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. The system of claim 1, wherein the input device comprises COM1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The benefits of this are that claim 1 covers the essential elements of the invention without any unnecessary limitations (thus getting you maximum protection). Claim 2 might be useful during prosecution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would probably not have COM2 in your independent claim, as its only one embodiment (which is inessential, in the pen-and-paper case).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**An aside about aspects**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An aspect maps to an independent claim. That is, an aspect of your invention is a conception of your invention in its broadest sense. If a feature is not essential to this, it is not an aspect. It is an embodiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But don't get hung up in terminology. You could very well get away without using &quot;embodiment&quot; or &quot;aspect&quot; at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17335" RevisionGUID="56c07b2d-a93a-4409-8ad3-f55ae54e31e1" CreationDate="2017-03-02T09:30:02.590" UserId="15503" Text="If each of C1 and C2 can stand alone (even if you don't see the value in it), they should be claimed as separate independent claims. This is because each is a separate invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to consider this would be whether C1 or C2 could be replaced with something else without it destroying the overall invention. That is, could you envision an alternative to C1 which would provide the input that C2 needs? If so, C2 probably is a separate invention (and vice versa). If you include both these in the same non-provisional application, you may receive a restriction requirement (termed a lack of unity objection in every non-US jurisdiction) when you do this (as explained by DonQuiKong), but that's remediable by paying fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conversely, if each cannot stand alone, they should be claimed in combination only. This is because each of C1 and C2 alone would lack utility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**An example**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a comment, you mentioned:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;C1 is simply a new way to input data to a cell phone like watching the screen do some visuals and effects and corresponding to those. Then the result is used in C2 to actually display whats intended from the invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C1 stands alone (it is a method of input). C2 stands alone (it is a method of display, which ostensibly could receive data in any way). There might be a nice synergy by combining the two, but they aren't essential. In this case, they should be claimed as separate independent claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17336" RevisionGUID="bdbe27ec-1486-409c-8caf-baaa51bfd5c1" CreationDate="2017-03-02T09:48:38.007" UserId="15503" Text="Mostly that is true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US, if a granted patent contains two separate inventions, there is no problem ([35 USC § 121](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/121)):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The validity of a patent shall not be questioned for failure of the Director to require the application to be restricted to one invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem arises during prosecution, as the USPTO may require the claims to be restricted to one of the inventions. The other invention can then be pursued in a divisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO addresses the situation you mention at [MPEP § 806.05(d)](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s806.html#d0e104544).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Two or more claimed subcombinations, disclosed as usable together in a single combination, and which can be shown to be separately usable, are usually restrictable when the subcombinations do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, given two inventions A and B, and claims:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. Invention A.&#xD;&#xA;2. Invention B.&#xD;&#xA;3. Invention A+B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicant may be required to restrict to either claims 1 and 3, or claims 2 and 3." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17334" RevisionGUID="bdeaf6c3-4fe8-43af-9f02-da6dca24b752" CreationDate="2017-03-02T10:40:58.343" UserId="15503" Comment="correct my numbers" Text="So here we have a tidy distinction between description and claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Description**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You must provide a description sufficiently detailed that the skilled person, reading your description, would understand how to put the invention into practice. You must also disclose the best way of doing it that you know. To this end, it is irrelevant whether the different parts are novel or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, it sounds like COM1 is an important part of the overall system (even if it's not novel, and even if it could be inefficiently substituted with pen and paper). It must therefore be disclosed in your description. However, it is not an aspect of your invention itself (since you didn't invent it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Figure X shows the system 10. input device 11 passes data to processing device 12. Processor 12 may comprise COM2. COM2 is configured to …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In some embodiments, input device 11 comprises COM1. An example of COM1 is shown in Figure Y. …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claims**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your claims, you generally only include features which either (1) contribute towards novelty and non-obviousness; or (2) are essential to understand the invention in context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, it sounds like COM2 is the novel/non-obvious bit, but it's essential that something provides an input. So you might have an independent claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. A system comprising: an input device, and COM2, wherein COM2 is in communication with the input device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is an argument that COM1 is a non-obvious choice (even if, in isolation, it is known), you might also include a dependent claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. The system of claim 1, wherein the input device comprises COM1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The benefits of this are that claim 1 covers the essential elements of the invention without any unnecessary limitations (thus getting you maximum protection). Claim 2 might be useful during prosecution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would probably not have COM1 in your independent claim, as its only one embodiment (which is inessential, in the pen-and-paper case).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**An aside about aspects**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An aspect maps to an independent claim. That is, an aspect of your invention is a conception of your invention in its broadest sense. If a feature is not essential to this, it is not an aspect. It is an embodiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But don't get hung up in terminology. You could very well get away without using &quot;embodiment&quot; or &quot;aspect&quot; at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17337" RevisionGUID="7e22c0c2-b6c7-4ef2-8b4a-33868bd3c608" CreationDate="2017-03-02T10:54:50.720" UserId="18033" Text="After reading some previous questions about provisionals, especially from inventors wanting to write them themselfs and consult an attorney only for the non provisional, I was wondering, how much do you have to *screw up* your application to actually lose the priority on at least some of the claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or to be more specific, I've seen US patents claim different prioritys with continuations and continuations in part, but the patents never mention which priority they actually claim for which claim. So I figure that's for the court to decide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I say priority, what I mean is the date considered for prior art, so actually that would be the filing date?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now my understanding of provisionals is, that if you add new substantial matter for the non provisional (which seems to be no problem), the new matter gets the new filing date and the old stuff gets the old date. But where does this lead in practice? If I write a very good description of my invention, inclduing everything I can think of and the attorney then rewrites some parts to fit *patent speech*, (e.g. adding value ranges, defining some things as methods or embodiments where I left out those terms, etc.), could that lead to newer prior art beeing cited against me? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if yes, to what extend? I'd appreciate the relevant patent law citation, too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion this is a rather difficult question and I want to stress that it's always better to let an attorney do that work from the beginning on, because for example of questions like this, but we are getting many questions from inventors that cannot (yet) afford an attorney, plus I'd like to know, too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44987" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17337" RevisionGUID="7e22c0c2-b6c7-4ef2-8b4a-33868bd3c608" CreationDate="2017-03-02T10:54:50.720" UserId="18033" Text="When exactly do you lose the provisionals priority?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44988" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17337" RevisionGUID="7e22c0c2-b6c7-4ef2-8b4a-33868bd3c608" CreationDate="2017-03-02T10:54:50.720" UserId="18033" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;us&gt;&lt;filing-date&gt;&lt;priority-date&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44989" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17337" RevisionGUID="45a79f66-fd9f-427d-b411-9311fb986959" CreationDate="2017-03-02T13:33:33.023" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;us&gt;&lt;filing-date&gt;&lt;priority-date&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17338" RevisionGUID="74b08009-86be-4f22-a75a-069f17c90ff7" CreationDate="2017-03-02T15:26:21.200" UserId="18600" Text="I have been working with a patent lawyer who drafted my Idea into a patent and filed the patent. The patent went through a normal process of patenting such as search, reviewing by the examiner and finally it was granted (it is EU patent). In all stages, the patent lawyer was helping me and gave me advices to keep my claims and patents and answered the question of examiners.&#xD;&#xA; The whole process took me around 4 years and in each step I paid my lawyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One year after the time which my patent is granted, I accidentally came up with an older patent (EU and US) which is very similar to my patent idea and it actually claims the same claims as my patent. It is very strange for me why this patent has not been discovered during patent search. Since this patent is 5 years older than mine, it actually can invalidate my patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering if I can sue my patent lawyer for not doing his job well.&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate if you guys can give me some clue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cheers,&#xD;&#xA;Shane&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44991" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17338" RevisionGUID="74b08009-86be-4f22-a75a-069f17c90ff7" CreationDate="2017-03-02T15:26:21.200" UserId="18600" Text="Sue patent lawyer obvious prior art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44992" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17338" RevisionGUID="74b08009-86be-4f22-a75a-069f17c90ff7" CreationDate="2017-03-02T15:26:21.200" UserId="18600" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17339" RevisionGUID="c0b082ef-889c-4193-96d6-b500f9570ba8" CreationDate="2017-03-02T15:51:35.883" UserId="18033" Text="Short: you cannot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If** you paid your patent attorney for doing a search prior to drafting your patent (because if not then it wasn't even their job) then obviously they didn't do that to the best possible outcome. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a patent search needs time and time costs money. If you want to find *everything* then you will find no patent attorney in his right mind that would promise this to you, as it is impossible to find every relevant document. There are always some that even the most thorough search does not turn up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In every other case, the number of prior art documents found directly correlates with the money you are willing to invest. Would you have stayed with the patent attorney if they had said, hey, give me $30K I'll do 100 hrs of patent search? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heck, that would cost more than the whole patent process, then I'd rather occasionally lose a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now all of this is assuming that the document you found is actually **that** relevant. Maybe it does not teach all limitations contained in your claims? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, it happens. Be happy, it didn't turn up during the examination so you got a patent. Invalidating a patent takes longer than litigation, so if the case arises, you might even use your patent. Though that strategy should be carefully evaluated by a professional. And in the end, if the process was perfect and every prior art document was found, there would never be an invalidated patent, invalidation wouldn't even exist. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another point for you to consider, do you get sued every time somebody finds out that you could have done your job better? Do you want to? For good reasons only screwing up on purpose and sometimes through negligence is punishable. Beeing unlucky or just not beeing the best at your job is not (or not through the law)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17338" RevisionGUID="f3e49188-dc76-4061-a3c2-67f6629fcfa6" CreationDate="2017-03-02T15:52:32.203" UserId="18033" Comment="removed signature" Text="I have been working with a patent lawyer who drafted my Idea into a patent and filed the patent. The patent went through a normal process of patenting such as search, reviewing by the examiner and finally it was granted (it is EU patent). In all stages, the patent lawyer was helping me and gave me advices to keep my claims and patents and answered the question of examiners.&#xD;&#xA; The whole process took me around 4 years and in each step I paid my lawyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One year after the time which my patent is granted, I accidentally came up with an older patent (EU and US) which is very similar to my patent idea and it actually claims the same claims as my patent. It is very strange for me why this patent has not been discovered during patent search. Since this patent is 5 years older than mine, it actually can invalidate my patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering if I can sue my patent lawyer for not doing his job well.&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate if you guys can give me some clue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17293" RevisionGUID="3102cf20-49f8-4949-9f7f-7ba80bb3d6ee" CreationDate="2017-03-02T16:12:44.987" UserId="18033" Comment="added 14 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="We are filing a new patent, on one concept&#xD;&#xA;but there is a provisional patent available for public&#xD;&#xA;which is not valid (may be they have not paid the fee or it was withdrawn).&#xD;&#xA;Once our patent is approved, can someone still come behind us based on that provisional patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44996" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17293" RevisionGUID="3102cf20-49f8-4949-9f7f-7ba80bb3d6ee" CreationDate="2017-03-02T16:12:44.987" UserId="18033" Comment="added 14 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What happens to the new patent, if there is another similar provisional patent (withdrawn or fee not paid ) available for public" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44997" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17293" RevisionGUID="3102cf20-49f8-4949-9f7f-7ba80bb3d6ee" CreationDate="2017-03-02T16:12:44.987" UserId="18033" Comment="added 14 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17340" RevisionGUID="03e1c9bd-a40e-4fe6-8e9d-9dcf9b219252" CreationDate="2017-03-02T17:17:40.967" UserId="18114" Text="I have an idea for a piece of apparel both a design patent and a utility patent worn around various locations of the body. I have noticed patents filed for universal and off-earth claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wish to do the same thing with my apparel. What style of language do I use? And, must I file separately for each?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44999" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17340" RevisionGUID="03e1c9bd-a40e-4fe6-8e9d-9dcf9b219252" CreationDate="2017-03-02T17:17:40.967" UserId="18114" Text="How do I file a water-tight provisional patent for an article worn around a person?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45000" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17340" RevisionGUID="03e1c9bd-a40e-4fe6-8e9d-9dcf9b219252" CreationDate="2017-03-02T17:17:40.967" UserId="18114" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17341" RevisionGUID="5fb11a3b-90b2-40f5-9e7d-d67b73e3dc01" CreationDate="2017-03-02T17:45:29.923" UserId="18033" Text="Honestly, you want it waterprove? Contact the best patent attorney you can find and let them do it. There is no way you will not make **many** mistakes without having years of practice and learning. Just browse some questions or the internet to find out just how many mistakes can be amde in a patent that later invalidate it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45002" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17341" RevisionGUID="62bacd9a-b890-4ed2-a988-38b80691e719" CreationDate="2017-03-02T18:02:58.677" UserId="18033" Comment="added 683 characters in body" Text="Honestly, you want it waterprove? Contact the best patent attorney you can find and let them do it. There is no way you will not make **many** mistakes without having years of practice and learning. Just browse some questions or the internet to find out just how many mistakes can be amde in a patent that later invalidate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, let me add an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say I tell you, that you may sue me for some million dollars based on a document you may now design yourself, but if you step into any legal trap while designing that document, you will lose. Would you do it yourself? Or would you hire somebody who's job it is to know those traps?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because that's what you want if you water-tight. You want it to potentially win a multi-million-dollar lawsuit. And if you do it yourself, it won't. It just won't hold the moment it becomes important. If it doesn't, whatever, it might last 20 years without anyone caring. But the moment it might earn you money ... yours won't last. An attorneys might." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45003" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13171" RevisionGUID="f50e9abf-65bd-45e1-a805-b2821f54163d" CreationDate="2017-03-02T18:44:30.483" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17342" RevisionGUID="ee8b8f16-000e-4c5e-9b9f-a40cb7877eac" CreationDate="2017-03-02T20:19:10.197" UserId="18602" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7878151][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7878151&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our Pet's filed a lawsuit against Kong for this toy (patent infringement)in February 2011. Was the case ever settled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45005" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17342" RevisionGUID="ee8b8f16-000e-4c5e-9b9f-a40cb7877eac" CreationDate="2017-03-02T20:19:10.197" UserId="18602" Text="[US7878151][1] Dog Toy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45006" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17342" RevisionGUID="ee8b8f16-000e-4c5e-9b9f-a40cb7877eac" CreationDate="2017-03-02T20:19:10.197" UserId="18602" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45007" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5977" RevisionGUID="5b8499e6-efb1-43fd-aabc-ffb6c753f9f2" CreationDate="2017-03-02T20:48:45.480" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17343" RevisionGUID="5e493a03-70bf-4ac9-8532-e4afca873ed8" CreationDate="2017-03-02T20:51:21.617" UserId="18033" Text="The lawsuit is closed, see here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://search.rpxcorp.com/lit/ohndce-172530-ourpet-s-company-v-kong-company&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was a joint motion to dismiss from all parties, so apparently it was settled. The documents can be accessed through PACER (thats the US courts system to access public court documents). However, it costs 0,1 dollars per page (max. $3 per document) so I'm not going to look into them. Feel free to register for PACER if you want more information, payments below the first $15 are waived (they don't have to be paid), so you could get the documents for free that way (please confirm that first, that's the last information I had, I didn't check if it's still that way).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PACER:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.pacer.gov/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45009" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17342" RevisionGUID="e6d54b88-96f8-4d5e-b381-e87a02b0fe8d" CreationDate="2017-03-02T20:55:33.150" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="US7878151 Dog Toy - what happened to the lawsuit between Our Pet's and Kong?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45010" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17342" RevisionGUID="e6d54b88-96f8-4d5e-b381-e87a02b0fe8d" CreationDate="2017-03-02T20:55:33.150" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;lawsuit&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17344" RevisionGUID="160118b9-f2b1-4604-9979-6eee19dfa642" CreationDate="2017-03-02T22:49:21.080" UserId="18603" Text="Yes, you are correct - https://pawbot.com/ is our website and PawBot the robot utilizes the claims of this patent. Feel free to directly contact us using the contact-us form on our website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;Kevin Tye" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17345" RevisionGUID="87de072c-4f48-41f3-aca0-35919c9f73f3" CreationDate="2017-03-02T23:47:58.527" UserId="15503" Text="The rule on this is quite tidily stated at [MPEP § 211.05(I)(A)](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s211.html#ch200_d1ff71_250c8_de) (which I hope will suffice as a legal reference of some nature):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[F]or a claim in a later filed nonprovisional application to be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the provisional application, the written description and drawing(s) (if any) of the provisional application must adequately support and enable the subject matter of the claim in the later filed nonprovisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has a nice parallel with the support requirement for the non-provisional too. That is, for each claim of the non-provisional, the description of the non-provisional must adequately support and enable it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It therefore seems prudent in most cases to have the same description in the provisional and the non-provisional (unless you don't mind losing the benefit of an earlier filing date). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What about rewriting to fit patent speech?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as the claims do not rely on details which solely arose during the rewrite, it seems there should be no date issue. Or to put it another way, as long as the claims of the non-provisional are adequately supported and enabled by the description of the provisional, it doesn't really matter what changes have been made to the description of the non-provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, rewriting seems to present a Library of Alexandria problem. If the changes make no substantive difference, they are superfluous and should not be made. If the changes make a substantive difference, they will threaten the earlier filing date and should not be made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How much do you have to screw up your application to actually lose the priority on at least some of the claims?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not very much at all. It is rather easy to lose the earlier filing date if your provisional is deficient or you aren't careful with claim language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**An obiter comparison to Europe**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a British client I work with, we will first file applications in the UK without requesting search or examination. An EP (and other jurisdictions) is filed at 12 months claiming priority to the GB. The GB is then abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this manner, the GB (which is never examined and lapses after 12 months) is essentially a provisional for the EP." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17346" RevisionGUID="376e5b58-d050-4dc7-b90e-9bf2c155e6f0" CreationDate="2017-03-03T00:29:11.687" UserId="18488" Text="http://www.patentsview.org/ is probably what you are looking for.  IT has this data available as a large download or as an API service.  It's always a little bit out of data but should work for some use cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17347" RevisionGUID="6e072ae9-0722-48f1-babc-b4eaba5f2a57" CreationDate="2017-03-03T00:35:26.623" UserId="18488" Text="As others have said downloading PDF documents in a single bulk download is probably best done from the USPTO Bulk Data Products page.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wanted to download PDF files programmatically as needed rather than all at one time, my company [IP Street][1] can help you with this.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are faster and more constant than scraping Google Patents (they do things to purposely break you crawlers) and we don't rate limit you. We are way cheaper and more convenient than downloading and maintaining you own database.  The documents are already OCR'd and ready to be used as HTML.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please reach out if you think this might help your work.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipstreet.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17348" RevisionGUID="9f5063aa-7dda-4bef-8e6a-22dcddccca69" CreationDate="2017-03-03T00:46:38.110" UserId="18488" Text="Semantic search engines can be very powerful as well because the remove the search bias caused by human selection of keywords and classifications to include in the search.  Semantic search engines are agnostic to these things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can learn a bit more about how semantic patent search helps the process here: http://docs.ipstreet.com/docs/concept-search" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45016" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17342" RevisionGUID="56566735-2ad9-44bb-8402-7b77cfbcd746" CreationDate="2017-03-03T01:32:56.437" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="45017" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="17342" RevisionGUID="2566e7d2-82b4-4eb1-a2df-ded13fb01fe3" CreationDate="2017-03-03T01:33:12.183" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="45019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17341" RevisionGUID="cc5e65c4-e2ff-4d88-a5e8-c71a43d80fe4" CreationDate="2017-03-03T16:09:07.843" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed misspelling" Text="Honestly, you want it waterproof? Contact the best patent attorney you can find and let them do it. There is no way you will not make **many** mistakes without having years of practice and learning. Just browse some questions or the internet to find out just how many mistakes can be amde in a patent that later invalidate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, let me add an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say I tell you, that you may sue me for some million dollars based on a document you may now design yourself, but if you step into any legal trap while designing that document, you will lose. Would you do it yourself? Or would you hire somebody who's job it is to know those traps?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because that's what you want if you water-tight. You want it to potentially win a multi-million-dollar lawsuit. And if you do it yourself, it won't. It just won't hold the moment it becomes important. If it doesn't, whatever, it might last 20 years without anyone caring. But the moment it might earn you money ... yours won't last. An attorneys might." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17349" RevisionGUID="002f5318-5aae-4e9c-8763-6693276054df" CreationDate="2017-03-03T16:24:17.490" UserId="17003" Text="DonQuiKong's answer very good and you should heed his advice. I would say that no patent is absolutely watertight. While you really need to consult a patent attorney, there are steps you can take to make that process as efficient and cost effective as possible. First, you should, to the best of your ability, perform your own prior art search. This [answer][1] relates my general approach and this [answer][2] is also helpful. What you want to do is identify relevant prior art. They may not be the same as your invention, but are in some way similar or related. Finding relevant prior art will greatly improve the speed and accuracy of a paid search which lowers your cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing you can do is try to draft a thorough description of your invention. You can read some similar patents to get an idea of the information needed. Don't bother trying to write claims. Include where appropriate how your invention differs from the most similar prior art you found. Don't assume a patent attorney will use your text directly, but doing this ground work again improves the efficiency of working with the lawyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an inventor, doing this groundwork is important even if you have an employer paying for the legal work. The better you understand and can communicate your invention and prior art to the attorney, the stronger the resulting patent application will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17010/any-other-patents-involving-baseball-caps-for-pigtails/17011#17011&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/10431/ideas-on-how-to-do-patent-searching" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45021" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17327" RevisionGUID="788b3886-2fae-4c24-b11b-af12875073f4" CreationDate="2017-03-03T16:31:50.317" UserId="17003" Comment="Added a paragraph noting the importance for the rest of the patent specification to support claims and as prior art." Text="The protection is defined by - and **only** by - the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can talk about god, the world, your neighbours dog, apple and the blue LED in your patent specification, but that will not grant you any kind of protection. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The grant of a patent is primarily decided by the novelty and inventiveness of it's claims and the wording of these (the claims that are granted) decides what is protected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nobody may use, sell, etc. anything that falls under the literal **scope of the claims** of a granted patent without a license. *Equivalents* are protected to some extent (for further information research &quot;doctrine of equivalents&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anything else that appears only in the description **does not** entitle you to **any protection**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted that the claims need to be supported by the specification and that non-standard terms used in the claims need to be defined. Also, while what is protected is defined by the claims, any additional information disclosed in the patent becomes prior art and can be used to keep others (or even the original inventor) from obtaining further patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17341" RevisionGUID="f02f44c2-3494-4ae7-afe2-ef8e90b16ff3" CreationDate="2017-03-03T16:52:58.280" UserId="18033" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Honestly, you want it waterproof? Contact the best patent attorney you can find and let them do it. There is no way you will not make **many** mistakes without having years of practice and learning. Just browse some questions or the internet to find out just how many mistakes can be amde in a patent that later invalidate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, let me add an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say I tell you, that you may sue me for some million dollars based on a document you may now design yourself, but if you step into any legal trap while designing that document, you will lose. Would you do it yourself? Or would you hire somebody who's job it is to know those traps?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because that's what you want if you say water-tight. You want it to potentially win a multi-million-dollar lawsuit. And if you do it yourself, it won't. It just won't hold the moment it becomes important. If it doesn't, whatever, it might last 20 years without anyone caring. But the moment it might earn you money ... yours won't last. An attorneys might." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45023" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="21501af2-4942-43dc-9eef-1c9ce85f4e56" CreationDate="2017-03-03T19:08:46.193" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45024" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13359" RevisionGUID="e4888823-83a8-4644-a879-d2a391cf1005" CreationDate="2017-03-03T20:08:55.113" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17350" RevisionGUID="4a93ee95-45bc-42dc-bb0e-11526482f3e8" CreationDate="2017-03-03T23:12:18.070" UserId="18608" Text="Forgive me if this question makes no sense or seems trivial; my profession is in molecular biology, so I am here from the Biology Stack Exchange and know very little about patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering about what exactly this means: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By&#xD;&#xA;participating, each Participant forever waives any rights of copyrights, trademark rights, patent rights, privacy rights, and&#xD;&#xA;any other legal or moral rights in the entry that may preclude the Sponsor’s use of the entry, or require such Participant’s&#xD;&#xA;permission for the Sponsor to use the entry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is more, but it doesn't really apply to my question... if it would help, I can include it though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Does this mean that the sponsor owns any ideas presented in the entry? What if it is patented before the entry is submitted?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you need more information about the circumstances, I will gladly elaborate. I just didn't want to bog down the question with unnecessary information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for your patience and help. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45027" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17350" RevisionGUID="4a93ee95-45bc-42dc-bb0e-11526482f3e8" CreationDate="2017-03-03T23:12:18.070" UserId="18608" Text="Can a contract override a previous patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45028" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17350" RevisionGUID="4a93ee95-45bc-42dc-bb0e-11526482f3e8" CreationDate="2017-03-03T23:12:18.070" UserId="18608" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17349" RevisionGUID="bf3edece-d1cb-42e4-af0c-2cdfd91923c8" CreationDate="2017-03-04T00:04:57.977" UserId="17003" Comment="Minor grammatical improvement." Text="DonQuiKong's answer very good and you should heed his advice. I would say that no patent is absolutely watertight. While you really need to consult a patent attorney, there are steps you can take to make that process as efficient and cost effective as possible. First, you should, to the best of your ability, perform your own prior art search. This [answer][1] relates my general approach and this [answer][2] is also helpful. What you want to do is identify relevant prior art. They may not be the same as your invention, but are in some way similar or related. Finding relevant prior art will greatly improve the speed and accuracy of a paid search which lowers your cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing you can do is try to draft a thorough description of your invention. You can read some similar patents to get an idea of the information needed. Don't bother trying to write claims. Include, where appropriate, how your invention differs from the most similar prior art you found. Don't assume a patent attorney will use your text directly, but doing this ground work again improves the efficiency of working with the lawyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking as an inventor, doing this groundwork is important even if you have an employer paying for the legal work. The better you understand and can communicate your invention and prior art to the attorney, the stronger the resulting patent application will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17010/any-other-patents-involving-baseball-caps-for-pigtails/17011#17011&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/10431/ideas-on-how-to-do-patent-searching" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17351" RevisionGUID="ea55d114-ed62-4778-a51c-ed7de5f470b3" CreationDate="2017-03-04T01:33:13.377" UserId="15503" Text="Intuitively it seems to me that the intention is that the sponsor is allowed to use whatever your entry is, and you cannot use any IP rights you have to prevent that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Does this mean that the sponsor owns any ideas presented in the entry?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No: I don't think there's anything in the wording to support this. While they will have free use of the ideas, they don't own them in any sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What if it is patented before the entry is submitted?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is tricky. In particular, the unqualified use of &quot;waive&quot; seems a little concerning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, a patent grants the owner a right to prevent others from using the patented invention. In a naive interpretation of the provision, waiving that right would mean you cannot enforce your patent against anyone (as that right is what precludes the sponsor's use of the entry). This would seemingly deprive the patent of a good part of its value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, perhaps you are merely waiving that right merely *to the extent that the sponsor wishes to use it*. This seems the sensible interpretation based on what I assume the intention is, but it's not really made clear in the text. However, that also raises the issue of whether the limited waiver is actually a licence (and thus needs to be registered, and might be assignable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's impossible to know for sure, to be honest. If you can get some clarification from the organisers, that might be a good route.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Mandatory recommendation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is important (which in this case would mean a lot of money is at stake), get some advice from a real lawyer in your jurisdiction." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45032" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="c40c9462-5f86-434e-9a39-387a5635abd6" CreationDate="2017-03-04T11:23:53.390" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45033" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="275476e8-7244-47ff-855d-c1439aeb8090" CreationDate="2017-03-04T15:23:58.443" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45034" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14855" RevisionGUID="fd082168-70f0-4a5f-88f9-7541e3395b8a" CreationDate="2017-03-04T16:23:58.113" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45035" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16645" RevisionGUID="3a59c2d4-d28f-4efb-b939-d447fafd26a0" CreationDate="2017-03-04T17:24:00.947" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17352" RevisionGUID="823988fa-2ae5-4289-ac50-11248941ccb2" CreationDate="2017-03-04T19:38:31.857" UserId="11863" Text="**HELP SAVE Information Retrieval for future generations.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application from **FACEBOOK** seeks to patent distributed database query engine for low query latency database analyses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**10 minutes of your time can help narrow this EP patent application before it becomes a patent.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTION - Have you seen anything that was published before **07.01.2013** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the benefits of low-latency queries on a very large amount of data stored in a large scale storage cluster (e.g. a **Hadoop cluster**), which stores metadata in a system catalog (e.g. **Hive Metastore**);&#xD;&#xA; - a distributed query engine based on a serving tree computation framework including a gateway server and a plurality of work nodes. The gateway server divides a query task into partial tasks. Each worker node of the engine handles a partial task to generate an intermediate query result in memory. The intermediate query result can be an approximate intermediate result generated by scanning a portion of the related data. &#xD;&#xA; - The gateway server receives the intermediate query results and constructs a query result for the query task based on the intermediate query results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question -- one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT - Include a reference to anything that meets all the criteria to the question above AND solves the problem of high query latency for the Hive system. In particular, for interactive analyses.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent application in question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE:  SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DISTRIBUTED DATABASE QUERY ENGINES** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Application Number: [16176465.9] (https://www.google.com/patents/US20140195558)&#xD;&#xA; - Assignee: Facebook&#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art Date: Seeking prior Art predating [07.01.2013]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 12 requires each and every step below:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;receiving from a client device a database query for a database containing data stored in a distributed storage cluster that has a plurality of data nodes;&#xD;&#xA;dividing the database query into a plurality of partial queries;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sending each of the partial queries to a respective worker node of a plurality of worker nodes, wherein each worker node is a service running on a data node of the distributed storage cluster;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;retrieving a plurality of intermediate results for the partial queries from the worker nodes, wherein each intermediate result is processed by a respective worker node of the worker nodes by scanning related data stored in a data node on which the perspective worker node runs; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;generating a query result based on the plurality of intermediate results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a gateway server configured to generate a plurality of partial queries from a database query for a database containing data stored in a distributed storage cluster that has a plurality of data nodes, and to construct a query result based on a plurality of intermediate results; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a plurality of worker nodes, wherein each worker node of the plurality of worker nodes is configured to process a respective partial query of the plurality of partial queries by scanning data related to the respective partial query and stored on at least one data node of the distributed storage cluster, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and wherein each worker node of the plurality of worker nodes is further configured to generate an intermediate result of the plurality of intermediate results that is stored in a memory of that worker node.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45037" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17352" RevisionGUID="823988fa-2ae5-4289-ac50-11248941ccb2" CreationDate="2017-03-04T19:38:31.857" UserId="11863" Text="HELP SAVE Information Retrieval for future generations from a FACEBOOK Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45038" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17352" RevisionGUID="823988fa-2ae5-4289-ac50-11248941ccb2" CreationDate="2017-03-04T19:38:31.857" UserId="11863" Text="&lt;database-query&gt;&lt;latency&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45039" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17352" RevisionGUID="f17bb4ca-b6de-498d-a321-42b256010281" CreationDate="2017-03-04T19:41:13.203" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;database-query&gt;&lt;latency&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17353" RevisionGUID="8c7719c9-73aa-4a7c-8072-ec1eacae3851" CreationDate="2017-03-04T19:42:15.160" UserId="11863" Text="Here are a few key resources:&#xD;&#xA;Patexia Patent Database&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;European Patent Office (EPO):&#xD;&#xA;EPO offers information about patents in Europe, including Espacenet, a searchable database of  more than 70 million patent documents worldwide, from 1836 to today." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45044" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16952" RevisionGUID="4ab5265d-94ba-443c-bd8b-0743040e75cd" CreationDate="2017-03-04T22:24:35.917" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45045" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16509" RevisionGUID="f06c6fb5-e34c-4fc5-9122-7d5259d9fac7" CreationDate="2017-03-04T23:24:37.827" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45046" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="a7e8d742-7586-435d-84c2-0089a5d24cd3" CreationDate="2017-03-05T00:24:48.483" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17356" RevisionGUID="b61e6e21-84f6-4324-8309-b631014369ed" CreationDate="2017-03-05T00:51:06.047" UserId="14038" Text="The term of the patent for an application filed after 1995 is 20 years after the priority date, subject to terminal disclaimers and/or extensions under 37.CFR 154.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the priority date is May 30, 1997 based on an earlier filed Italian patent, there is no terminal disclaimer (from the first page of the patent, none listed), and there is no extension of time (from PAIR).  Google lists that the maintenance fees have been paid.  So the patent is in force until June 1, 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45052" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12629" RevisionGUID="7d03a4a7-75da-4519-8e12-00460d8664a3" CreationDate="2017-03-05T04:26:12.663" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45053" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11951" RevisionGUID="bd7a64aa-17c0-4d9f-87fd-66b91a225c32" CreationDate="2017-03-05T05:26:17.343" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45064" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13723" RevisionGUID="67c846f1-6cdb-453e-aaf9-3d506a11b8f0" CreationDate="2017-03-05T13:32:16.997" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45072" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16606" RevisionGUID="ccf8ca1b-ce78-428d-98cc-2320cdcc4898" CreationDate="2017-03-05T22:35:12.730" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45073" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17171" RevisionGUID="382cf034-5b14-49f9-bc8d-7501ca1dae16" CreationDate="2017-03-05T23:35:12.957" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45074" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="338bf656-7340-43e8-bdca-e4a22054b46c" CreationDate="2017-03-06T01:40:19.050" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45076" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14061" RevisionGUID="0ba9cc9a-6f8d-47d9-a729-e3c547416740" CreationDate="2017-03-06T04:46:47.487" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17360" RevisionGUID="41afa693-cc1b-40d2-b279-f7afa5f0f175" CreationDate="2017-03-06T08:22:34.947" UserId="14341" Text="I'm having a tremendous amount of difficulty getting the electronic filling system to accept my application.&#xA;I'm using Open Office and Microsoft Office Word to create documents and convert them to PDF's. Neither one is being accepted by the USPTO efile system.&#xA;Does anyone have any advice at all?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45078" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17360" RevisionGUID="41afa693-cc1b-40d2-b279-f7afa5f0f175" CreationDate="2017-03-06T08:22:34.947" UserId="14341" Text="What software can I use to e file a provisional?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45079" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17360" RevisionGUID="41afa693-cc1b-40d2-b279-f7afa5f0f175" CreationDate="2017-03-06T08:22:34.947" UserId="14341" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17362" RevisionGUID="172d78fe-e61e-49c4-92b3-e09b2b16e68f" CreationDate="2017-03-06T10:07:04.407" UserId="18545" Text="Common problems when uploading to EFS-Web include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) page size: make sure you are within the limits (8.5x11 inches or DIN A4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) fonts: all fonts used in the document must be embedded in the pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) layers: make sure you have flattened your pdf prior to upload" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17362" RevisionGUID="ef0aa267-e427-41ad-9d05-1eb5f92beb31" CreationDate="2017-03-06T10:30:28.727" UserId="18033" Comment="added link from comment" Text="Common problems when uploading to EFS-Web include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) page size: make sure you are within the limits (8.5x11 inches or DIN A4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) fonts: all fonts used in the document must be embedded in the pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) layers: make sure you have flattened your pdf prior to upload&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source and more information: &#xD;&#xA;uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ebc/portal/efs/pdf-creation.pd‌​f" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13755" RevisionGUID="bbdef49a-6c3b-44d7-a2b8-68f7d32a8a34" CreationDate="2017-03-06T15:33:58.910" UserId="18329" Comment="Removed thank you " Text="Chain lubricating apparatus and method &#xD;&#xA;US 8567565 B2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This appears to be the same idea repackaged by different individuals for over 100 years.  Is this a common practice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also can BKC renew the patent without a significant design change?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45088" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13755" RevisionGUID="bbdef49a-6c3b-44d7-a2b8-68f7d32a8a34" CreationDate="2017-03-06T15:33:58.910" Comment="Proposed by 18329 approved by 18033, 17003 edit id of 2028" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13755" RevisionGUID="e4aa3295-8be5-4463-ae68-b81fdc4597f1" CreationDate="2017-03-06T15:34:29.273" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to patent." Text="Chain lubricating apparatus and method &#xD;&#xA;[US 8567565 B2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This appears to be the same idea repackaged by different individuals for over 100 years.  Is this a common practice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also can BKC renew the patent without a significant design change?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8567565B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17364" RevisionGUID="cbcaf924-e885-4668-8cbb-d713bba397d5" CreationDate="2017-03-06T15:48:48.477" UserId="17003" Text="It is common in patents to find a new way to solve an old problem. I have no specific knowledge in chain lubrication techniques so I can't comment on whether this patent is novel. However, looking at the patent, there are ten patent citations reviewed by the examiner dating back to 1904. The examiner must have found the specific implementation as described in the claims sufficiently novel over those ten patents to allow this patent. It can be helpful to review the patent file at the [US Public Pair][1] website. Patent examiners typically review the patent literature, so if you have knowledge of prior art other than patents it may be of use in invalidating the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your second question, since 1995, the term for patents is 20 years from the filing (or priority) date. They are not renewable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45091" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16962" RevisionGUID="e7aa665d-7ebf-4fc9-82f8-95b1c4d61424" CreationDate="2017-03-06T17:54:58.167" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45092" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16771" RevisionGUID="2dac6519-4998-4f8f-a07d-46fd3ec2a809" CreationDate="2017-03-06T20:54:57.260" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17365" RevisionGUID="8e9c9a63-c994-4bc1-a7e3-f9c2cf05a107" CreationDate="2017-03-06T21:02:17.667" UserId="18627" Text="I have been served a cease and desist letter related to this patent. I have never copied or reproduced this product at all. We make all of our coins on demand and per the specifics of our customer. I use different coins and do not sell at wholesale. My small store is located in San Diego County 75 miles from this owner's storefront. I do not sell online. Can this be labeled an infringement?&#xD;&#xA;Thank you,&#xD;&#xA;Kellie Legare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [USD693727][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD693727" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45094" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17365" RevisionGUID="8e9c9a63-c994-4bc1-a7e3-f9c2cf05a107" CreationDate="2017-03-06T21:02:17.667" UserId="18627" Text="Could this be an infringement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45095" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17365" RevisionGUID="8e9c9a63-c994-4bc1-a7e3-f9c2cf05a107" CreationDate="2017-03-06T21:02:17.667" UserId="18627" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45096" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="e2f6ae4c-8fa4-4266-9995-b39027c30383" CreationDate="2017-03-06T21:57:28.767" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45097" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12994" RevisionGUID="6de56174-4772-4ec6-83d3-4b3863719255" CreationDate="2017-03-07T01:00:27.083" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45098" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16544" RevisionGUID="c0c10502-1087-45bf-9452-d6ab9297a517" CreationDate="2017-03-07T05:14:52.833" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45099" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13762" RevisionGUID="691683e2-06b1-4f6e-9d8d-19e1e2f0f828" CreationDate="2017-03-07T06:14:52.310" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45100" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="5d2a0da1-5cdb-4f12-baad-8a940c9c1ec8" CreationDate="2017-03-07T07:14:53.733" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17366" RevisionGUID="5ae1a04b-f435-4141-a9c1-dd6417c9aa81" CreationDate="2017-03-07T07:35:19.500" UserId="18629" Text="I am having an idea on my mind and my professor was happy with it and he support me. it is related to a feature on a mobile that can help human on their life.&#xD;&#xA;I need your assistance for the following points:&#xD;&#xA;1- Am outside of USA, how can I protect my idea and where I can register it so later no mobile company or other people can take it ?&#xD;&#xA;2- I am looking an technical assistance from mobile experts, where can find one? is there a trusted sites or companies that can i finds good qualified engineers to work with them on my idea?&#xD;&#xA;3- for such ideas, what is the best way to implement it:&#xD;&#xA;shall I contact mobile companies?&#xD;&#xA;shall I start do my own app?&#xD;&#xA;what U recommend?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need your advise.&#xD;&#xA;Br.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45102" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17366" RevisionGUID="5ae1a04b-f435-4141-a9c1-dd6417c9aa81" CreationDate="2017-03-07T07:35:19.500" UserId="18629" Text="Need your assistance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45103" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17366" RevisionGUID="5ae1a04b-f435-4141-a9c1-dd6417c9aa81" CreationDate="2017-03-07T07:35:19.500" UserId="18629" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17366" RevisionGUID="69783781-2635-4f6b-a9ce-31c428a7cc54" CreationDate="2017-03-07T08:08:37.257" UserId="15503" Comment="Improve grammar and formatting" Text="I have an idea on my mind related to a feature on a mobile that can help someone in their life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need your assistance for the following points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I am outside of the USA. How can I protect my idea and where can I register it so later no mobile company or other people can take it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I am looking an technical assistance from mobile experts. Where can I find one? Is there a trusted sites or companies that I can find good qualified engineers to work with on my idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. For such ideas, what is the best way to implement it? Shall I contact mobile companies? Shall I start to do my own app? What do you recommend?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17367" RevisionGUID="1ef9dedd-5b24-4e05-9f58-c3b286804bca" CreationDate="2017-03-07T08:12:27.887" UserId="15503" Text="On your first point, you would typically apply for a patent in your home country first. After 1 year, you would then apply in other countries (such as the US) via Convention applications or alternatively via a PCT application. In this manner, you can protect your invention in whatever countries you deem worthwhile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should likely discuss this with a patent attorney in your country. Alternatively, your university may have a IP commercialisation arm which could help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your second and third points are off topic for this site (since we only deal with patents). [Startups](http://startups.stackexchange.com/) might be a good place to ask though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45106" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="12c83f6d-67ad-42a4-8125-61551b025ee2" CreationDate="2017-03-07T08:14:59.893" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45107" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="c698b599-94c1-4124-a570-4f8b90046b25" CreationDate="2017-03-07T09:14:59.597" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45108" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16810" RevisionGUID="e243c72b-6a0d-4fe0-827e-f10fad1b1b3f" CreationDate="2017-03-07T10:15:00.673" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45109" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14883" RevisionGUID="19a28e0e-faad-4413-b754-9a565542545b" CreationDate="2017-03-07T11:15:01.083" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45110" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17178" RevisionGUID="f0c5a8a0-41b0-4324-aff4-7e704c7c5fd0" CreationDate="2017-03-07T13:15:04.550" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45111" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17177" RevisionGUID="1308938d-8387-46a3-a81f-7b0b1d5ce782" CreationDate="2017-03-07T14:22:08.253" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17366" RevisionGUID="82bfa6d0-6bd3-454f-a307-d138a0fdcce0" CreationDate="2017-03-07T15:10:37.463" UserId="1" Comment="removed the off-topic parts of this question" Text="I have an idea on my mind related to a feature on a mobile that can help someone in their life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am outside of the USA. How can I protect my idea and where can I register it so later no mobile company or other people can take it?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45113" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17366" RevisionGUID="82bfa6d0-6bd3-454f-a307-d138a0fdcce0" CreationDate="2017-03-07T15:10:37.463" UserId="1" Comment="removed the off-topic parts of this question" Text="How can I protect my idea outside the US?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45114" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10602" RevisionGUID="178979bb-0006-48b9-8583-226d433bf903" CreationDate="2017-03-07T17:25:14.647" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17367" RevisionGUID="01a55e17-63ce-4d14-8980-64f498223e7f" CreationDate="2017-03-07T18:16:45.087" UserId="18033" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="On your first point, you would typically apply for a patent in your home country first. Within the first year, you would then apply in other countries (such as the US) via Convention applications or alternatively via a PCT application. In this manner, you can protect your invention in whatever countries you deem worthwhile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should likely discuss this with a patent attorney in your country. Alternatively, your university may have a IP commercialisation arm which could help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your second and third points [edit: that have been edited out of the question as of topic] are off topic for this site (since we only deal with patents). [Startups](http://startups.stackexchange.com/) might be a good place to ask though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45116" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="6ade9c65-65a9-4a79-8414-a21684ae0510" CreationDate="2017-03-08T02:33:39.323" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45117" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16069" RevisionGUID="12fa2ca3-023b-4616-b5f6-2accaf24fd25" CreationDate="2017-03-08T13:48:35.477" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17368" RevisionGUID="d23d8da2-2ea3-4f27-afe9-6f8b89cc8a0d" CreationDate="2017-03-08T16:46:48.560" UserId="14038" Text="If I am understanding your question correctly, you are wanting to put a citation to a publication directly in the language of the claim.  In the US, that would likely get a rejection from the US Patent Office for failing to properly and fully describing the invention.  If that is what you are truly trying to do, I would suggest defining the algorithm in the Detailed Specification of the patent (such as &quot;the XYZ algorithm is hereby defined as the (fully describe the algorithm) as cited in the &quot;Title of Article&quot;, Author A and Author B, as published in Proceedings of This and That, May 2109&quot;.  Then simply use the name as you have defined it (&quot;said XYZ algorithm&quot;) in the claim language.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One practice point is never use the term &quot;algorithm&quot; in your patent application.  It opens up an automatic rejection for most patent examiners as most consider &quot;algorithms&quot; to be abstract ideas and as such unpatentable subject matter.  You can use &quot;method&quot; or &quot;process&quot; instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the actual format of a citation to a publication, the US Patent Office describes how to format citations to various references for Information Disclosure Statements at MPEP 707.05(e) http://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/707_05_e.html   This is indicative that it would be suitable for use in the patent application itself, although probably not required.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;&gt; (E) For periodical articles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Noyes, W. A. A Climate for Basic Chemical Research&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chemical &amp; Engineering News, Vol. 38, no. 42 (Oct. 17, 1960), pp. 91-95. TP1.I418.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17369" RevisionGUID="92e31d2a-0ffd-4470-b94d-4c9abe441d9c" CreationDate="2017-03-08T19:19:55.293" UserId="17670" Text="One thing to keep firmly in mind is that you are writing a *provisional patent application* right now. You are not writing a *patent application*, at least not yet. I point this out because you gave an Apple patent application (US20120306631A1) as an example; this is *not* a provisional. You should be looking at actual provisionals right now as models and not non provisionals (aka patent applications).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A provisional must teach the invention and support the eventual patent application. That's pretty much it and anything over and above this will only work against you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, you need to teach fully how your widget works. You do not have to research prior art. You do not need a background section. You do not have to address novelty or obviousness. You don't have to analyze or sell it. You don't have to talk about its advantages. You just have to teach how it works in plain English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, everything in your eventual patent application needs to be supported by the provisional. If you don't do that then if you end up in court and you added some bell+whistle that wasn't in the provisional then you won't get your priority data and then all hell will break loose. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A provisional is within your abilities as an engineer. You can do this and no patent-ese is required. An non provisional application with claims is probably not. Claim construction is an art. As an engineer, it's hard to even read claims let alone write them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, you need to really understand what the purpose and rules of a provisional are. I recommend the Stanford iTunes course, *Patent Law Strategy For Innovators*. Also his book, *Not So Obvious* is also good. It will drag you through everything short of an application. But in particular it will school you in what is necessary for a good provisional and also what you really really really need to leave out. Yep, you can do a lot of damage to yourself by putting unnecessary stuff into your provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/patent-law-strategy-for-innovators/id597710068&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, you can abandon provisionals and start over. It costs you your filing fee. Add some new bell+whistle, add it to the provisional and re-file. The one year clock for the words in that provisional restart. A provisional will only ever be examined if attached to a non provisional application. It won't be published otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17369" RevisionGUID="3035076d-3226-4a5d-abfc-9563f585d278" CreationDate="2017-03-08T19:25:28.103" UserId="17670" Comment="edited body" Text="One thing to keep firmly in mind is that you are writing a *provisional patent application* right now. You are not writing a *patent application*, at least not yet. I point this out because you gave an Apple patent application (US20120306631A1) as an example; this is *not* a provisional. You should be looking at actual provisionals right now as models and not non provisionals (aka patent applications).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A provisional must teach the invention and support the eventual patent application. That's pretty much it and anything over and above this will only work against you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, you need to teach fully how your widget works. You do not have to research prior art. You do not need a background section. You do not have to address novelty or obviousness. You don't have to analyze or sell it. You don't have to talk about its advantages. You just have to teach how it works in plain English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, everything in your eventual patent application needs to be supported by the provisional. If you don't do that then if you end up in court and you added some bell+whistle that wasn't in the provisional then you won't get your priority date and then all hell will break loose. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A provisional is within your abilities as an engineer. You can do this and no patent-ese is required. An non provisional application with claims is probably not. Claim construction is an art. As an engineer, it's hard to even read claims let alone write them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, you need to really understand what the purpose and rules of a provisional are. I recommend the Stanford iTunes course, *Patent Law And Strategy For Innovators*. Also his book, *Not So Obvious* is also good. It will drag you through everything short of an application. But in particular it will school you in what is necessary for a good provisional and also what you really really really need to leave out. Yep, you can do a lot of damage to yourself by putting unnecessary stuff into your provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/patent-law-strategy-for-innovators/id597710068&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, you can abandon provisionals and start over. It costs you your filing fee. Add some new bell+whistle, add it to the provisional and re-file. The one year clock for the words in that provisional restart. A provisional will only ever be examined if attached to a non provisional application. It won't be published otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17369" RevisionGUID="c99eb24a-271f-40d6-8120-670694c5036f" CreationDate="2017-03-08T19:32:31.853" UserId="17670" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="One thing to keep firmly in mind is that you are writing a *provisional patent application* right now. You are not writing a *patent application*, at least not yet. I point this out because you gave an Apple patent application (US20120306631A1) as an example; this is *not* a provisional. You should be looking at actual provisionals right now as models and not non provisionals (aka patent applications).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A provisional must teach the invention and support the eventual patent application. That's pretty much it and anything over and above this will only work against you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, you need to teach fully how your widget works. You do not have to research prior art. You do not need a background section. You do not have to address novelty or obviousness. You don't have to analyze or sell it. You don't have to talk about its advantages. You just have to teach how it works in plain English. In a word, less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, everything in your eventual patent application needs to be supported by the provisional. If you don't do that then if you end up in court and you added some bell+whistle that wasn't in the provisional then you won't get your priority date and then all hell will break loose. In a word, accurate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A provisional is within your abilities as an engineer. You can do this and no patent-ese is required. An non provisional application with claims is probably not. Claim construction is an art. As an engineer, it's hard to even read claims let alone write them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, you need to really understand what the purpose and rules of a provisional are. I recommend the Stanford iTunes course, *Patent Law And Strategy For Innovators*. His book, *Not So Obvious* is also good. It will drag you through everything short of an application. But in particular it will school you in what is necessary for a good provisional and also what you really really really need to leave out. Yep, you can do a lot of damage to yourself by putting unnecessary stuff into your provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/patent-law-strategy-for-innovators/id597710068&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, you can abandon provisionals and start over. It costs you your filing fee. Add some new bell+whistle, add it to the provisional and re-file. The one year clock for the words in that provisional restart. A provisional will only ever be examined if attached to a non provisional application. It won't be published otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17369" RevisionGUID="cb4aa680-1701-4832-84cd-6201af64ed0d" CreationDate="2017-03-08T19:37:35.550" UserId="17670" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="One thing to keep firmly in mind is that you are writing a *provisional patent application* right now. You are not writing a *patent application*, at least not yet. These are separate documents and filings with different rules and purposes. You establish a *priority date* with a good provisional. You cannot say *patent pending* with a good provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I point this out because you gave an Apple patent application (US20120306631A1) as an example; this is *not* a provisional. You should be looking at actual provisionals right now as models and not non provisionals (aka patent applications).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A provisional must teach the invention and support the eventual patent application. That's pretty much it and anything over and above this will only work against you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, you need to teach fully how your widget works. You do not have to research prior art. You do not need a background section. You do not have to address novelty or obviousness. You don't have to analyze or sell it. You don't have to talk about its advantages. You just have to teach how it works in plain English. In a word, less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, everything in your eventual patent application needs to be supported by the provisional. If you don't do that then if you end up in court and you added some bell+whistle that wasn't in the provisional then you won't get your priority date and then all hell will break loose. In a word, accurate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A provisional is within your abilities as an engineer. You can do this and no patent-ese is required. An non provisional application with claims is probably not. Claim construction is an art. As an engineer, it's hard to even read claims let alone write them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, you need to really understand what the purpose and rules of a provisional are. I recommend the Stanford iTunes course, *Patent Law And Strategy For Innovators*. His book, *Not So Obvious* is also good. It will drag you through everything short of an application. But in particular it will school you in what is necessary for a good provisional and also what you really really really need to leave out. Yep, you can do a lot of damage to yourself by putting unnecessary stuff into your provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/patent-law-strategy-for-innovators/id597710068&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, you can abandon provisionals and start over. It costs you your filing fee. Add some new bell+whistle, add it to the provisional and re-file. The one year clock for the words in that provisional restart. A provisional will only ever be examined if attached to a non provisional application. It won't be published otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17369" RevisionGUID="f2237e60-c855-4c2a-87be-f1971a48699c" CreationDate="2017-03-08T19:42:59.740" UserId="17670" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="One thing to keep firmly in mind is that you are writing a *provisional patent application* right now. You are not writing a *patent application*, at least not yet. These are separate documents and filings with different rules and purposes. You establish a *priority date* with a good provisional. You cannot say *patent pending* with a good provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I point this out because you gave an Apple patent application (US20120306631A1) as an example; this is *not* a provisional. You should be looking at actual provisionals right now as models and not non provisionals (aka patent applications).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A provisional must teach the invention and support the eventual patent application. That's pretty much it and anything over and above this will only work against you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, you need to teach fully how your widget works. You do not have to research prior art. You do not need a background section. You do not have to address novelty or obviousness. You don't have to analyze or sell it. You don't have to talk about its advantages. You just have to teach how it works in plain English. In a word, less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, everything in your eventual patent application needs to be supported by the provisional. If you don't do that then if you end up in court and you added some bell+whistle that wasn't in the provisional then you won't get your priority date and then all hell will break loose. In a word, accurate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A provisional is within your abilities as an engineer. You can do this and no patent-ese is required. An non provisional application with claims is probably not. Claim construction is an art. As an engineer, it's hard to even read claims let alone write them. If you hire Wilson Sonsini to write your patent application they will have you review your claims and you will struggle to read the claims about your own invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, you need to really understand what the purpose and rules of a provisional are. I recommend the Stanford iTunes course, *Patent Law And Strategy For Innovators*. His book, *Not So Obvious* is also good. It will drag you through everything short of an application. But in particular it will school you in what is necessary for a good provisional and also what you really really really need to leave out. Yep, you can do a lot of damage to yourself by putting unnecessary stuff into your provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/patent-law-strategy-for-innovators/id597710068&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, you can abandon provisionals and start over. It costs you your filing fee. Add some new bell+whistle, add it to the provisional and re-file. The one year clock for the words in that provisional restart. A provisional will only ever be examined if attached to a non provisional application. It won't be published otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45124" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16676" RevisionGUID="96b8e8ee-1113-400a-9762-1071b5f9d711" CreationDate="2017-03-08T19:51:21.973" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45125" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="8583d9c4-a95e-41f9-a2ad-74efb76892de" CreationDate="2017-03-08T21:51:41.377" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45126" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13934" RevisionGUID="3996577b-b44b-4cc1-9890-08b7895c9d2a" CreationDate="2017-03-08T22:51:47.510" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17370" RevisionGUID="58efa371-15c6-44e1-bf40-ecd52c6a1556" CreationDate="2017-03-08T23:04:38.033" UserId="17670" Text="First, you should realize that this is a *design* patent and not a *utility* patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did the letter describe or show any of your products? Take a good look at the design in the patent and see if it remotely looks like any medallion that you've ever manufactured. If this is not the case then save yourself some money and *ignore* the letter. People send cease+desist letters all the time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45128" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16826" RevisionGUID="e83fc489-2a16-4405-b599-4df48c2082f1" CreationDate="2017-03-08T23:51:46.883" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45132" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16022" RevisionGUID="63f48799-970c-47d5-b3b6-c46be2103ff2" CreationDate="2017-03-09T02:52:57.373" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17372" RevisionGUID="71ea4d89-6916-4cd4-9d7a-98f256f775f0" CreationDate="2017-03-09T10:25:12.590" UserId="18634" Text="Apple did not invent multithreading and this patent seems to be too general. In today's computing this is an omnipresent practice so this patent is like trying to reserve rights to use wheel exclusively and charge royalties to everyone who tries to draw circles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's been used to block WebCL, and this looks like an abuse of patent system&#xD;&#xA;https://www.khronos.org/files/ip-disclosures/webcl/Apple-WebCL-Disclosure-Jan14_clean.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US8276164][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8276164" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45134" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17372" RevisionGUID="71ea4d89-6916-4cd4-9d7a-98f256f775f0" CreationDate="2017-03-09T10:25:12.590" UserId="18634" Text="Isn't this patent too general" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45135" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17372" RevisionGUID="71ea4d89-6916-4cd4-9d7a-98f256f775f0" CreationDate="2017-03-09T10:25:12.590" UserId="18634" Text="&lt;us8276164&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17373" RevisionGUID="e86d0b76-c73f-4cd4-8cee-61f2aa56d9ac" CreationDate="2017-03-09T13:06:01.380" UserId="18635" Text="In reference to the patent: [USD618593][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD618593&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you please tell me if Jose Ramon Aranda, Martin Aranda, and Pablo Aranda are still the owners of these patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45137" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17373" RevisionGUID="e86d0b76-c73f-4cd4-8cee-61f2aa56d9ac" CreationDate="2017-03-09T13:06:01.380" UserId="18635" Text="Who is the current owner of patent US 618,593 S" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45138" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17373" RevisionGUID="e86d0b76-c73f-4cd4-8cee-61f2aa56d9ac" CreationDate="2017-03-09T13:06:01.380" UserId="18635" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45141" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16984" RevisionGUID="9a43752b-c3b0-4793-9157-82d80bad1e58" CreationDate="2017-03-09T18:44:19.383" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45142" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16090" RevisionGUID="ee8299f6-dcce-4370-9221-35473d0c3cd5" CreationDate="2017-03-09T21:46:38.960" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17374" RevisionGUID="e0224586-a771-4607-b77a-dbeb813c5e63" CreationDate="2017-03-09T22:02:18.640" UserId="16696" Text="This is an unfortunate situation, but as Maca and DonQuiKong advise, your safest route is to bite the bullet and contact a patent attorney. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The positive aspect is you are not bound by geography, and can probably find a solo practitioner who works from a home office, and thus can charge a significantly lower rate than a firm. **In my experience, there are some very nice patent attorneys, and they will consult with you at no charge.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is going to be very basic since it is a design, not a utility, patent, so it shouldn't require a lot of hours to come to grips.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you ignore it and there actually is infringement, it could be expensive.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17374" RevisionGUID="fe866629-192e-45f0-8ed8-277d51cc6bc4" CreationDate="2017-03-09T22:11:20.577" UserId="16696" Comment="added 156 characters in body" Text="It absolutely could be infringement, which is entirely based on the design and no other factor. (i.e. your location or lack of eCommerce is irrelevant.)  If a customer asks you to produce the patented design, that would be infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an unfortunate situation, but as Maca and DonQuiKong advise, your safest route is to bite the bullet and contact a patent attorney. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The positive aspect is you are not bound by geography, and can probably find a solo practitioner who works from a home office, and thus can charge a significantly lower rate than a firm. **In my experience, there are some very nice patent attorneys, and they will consult with you at no charge.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is going to be very basic since it is a design, not a utility, patent, so it shouldn't require a lot of hours to come to grips.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you ignore it and there actually is infringement, it could be expensive.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45150" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14635" RevisionGUID="16df415d-9712-459f-961e-fb1994efbe6d" CreationDate="2017-03-09T23:50:38.570" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17377" RevisionGUID="3cb686f2-6b81-4958-93f7-af54ef6c5eca" CreationDate="2017-03-10T00:45:11.163" UserId="18640" Text="In reference to the patent: [US4010057][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4010057&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am doing a research project on hydrographic printing and am looking for some information on the history. Two separate patents published on different dates by the same inventor are claiming to have invented the same technology of hydrographic printing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the other patent number is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US 4436571 A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which can be accessed here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US4436571&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just trying to figure out who did what and when.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank-you,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Iain " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45152" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17377" RevisionGUID="3cb686f2-6b81-4958-93f7-af54ef6c5eca" CreationDate="2017-03-10T00:45:11.163" UserId="18640" Text="Two patents, same technology, same inventor, different dates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45153" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17377" RevisionGUID="3cb686f2-6b81-4958-93f7-af54ef6c5eca" CreationDate="2017-03-10T00:45:11.163" UserId="18640" Text="&lt;us4010057&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45154" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16096" RevisionGUID="cc6fd158-689a-4279-a7e5-1433d6245115" CreationDate="2017-03-10T02:54:36.530" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45155" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="23df1304-d2d1-4a93-86c6-ac3ad08a4f0d" CreationDate="2017-03-10T04:54:36.537" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3533" RevisionGUID="2ae26410-f74e-43f0-8188-51a4e899ddbf" CreationDate="2017-03-10T09:42:47.177" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ with https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/" Text="&lt;em&gt;This is a recently issued patent from Twitter&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Device independent message distribution platform][5]&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Device independent message distribution platform&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This recently issued patent describes the basic mechanics and functionality of Twitter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC PATENT DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Patent Number:** [8,401,009][3]&#xD;&#xA; - **Priority Number:** US2008177589&#xD;&#xA; - **Issue Date:** March 19, 2013&#xD;&#xA; - **Priority Date:** July 22, 2008 (provisional filed July 23, 2007)&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee:** Twitter, Inc. &#xD;&#xA; - **Inventor:** Jack Dorsey, San Francisco and Christopher Isaac Stone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PATENT OVERVIEW:** This is the patent that describes the basic mechanics and functionality of Twitter, summarized roughly as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A method of communicating among users &#xD;&#xA; - One user (the &quot;first&quot; user) can &quot;follow&quot; another user (the &quot;second&quot; user).&#xD;&#xA; - The &quot;second&quot; user can post a message. The message is not posted &quot;to&quot; anyone, it is just posted.&#xD;&#xA; - All followers of the second user receive the posted message.&#xD;&#xA; - The first user can choose from a set of possible methods for receiving messages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim contains more steps such as, if the first user tells the system whom they wish to follow, the system records that fact. And when the second user posts a message, the system looks up the list of all users previously recorded as following that user so it knows who to send copies of the message to. And so on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 requires, specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for device-independent point to multipoint communication, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Receiving** from a first computing device of a first user a selection of one or more endpoints for receiving update messages;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Receiving**, from the first computing device, a request to follow a second user;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Designating**, by a computer processor, the first user as a follower of the second user in response to the request, wherein designating the first user comprises configuring an account of the first user to reference update messages broadcasted by the second user;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Receiving**, from a computing device of the second user, a broadcast request to broadcast an update message in a first format, wherein the update message lacks identification of the first user as an intended recipient, and wherein the update message includes an identification of the second user as a sender of the update message;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Identifying**, by the computer processor, a plurality of followers of the second user in response to the broadcast request, wherein the first user is among the plurality of followers;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Determining** addressing information of each of the plurality of followers, wherein the addressing information of the first user identifies the endpoints for receiving messages;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Applying**, for each of the plurality of followers, rules to the update message based on the addressing information;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Translating** the update message into an appropriate format for each of the endpoints; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Broadcasting** the update message to each of the endpoints in the appropriate format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other claims are for the computer system that does this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS:** This patent covers the basic functionality of a Twitter-like service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**.  We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one.  This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. &#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on  submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us8401009b1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US8401009B1/US08401009-20130319-D00001.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4546" RevisionGUID="d00ba5cf-bae4-4f75-b09a-6eb8d3db5a57" CreationDate="2017-03-10T09:42:47.310" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ with https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/" Text="For reference, examination severely narrowed this patent application before it was granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 as originally filed was quite broad. USPTO found quite good prior art with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [US 2006/0212844 A1](http://www.google.com/patents/US20060212844) Goldin et al. (filed 18.03.2005, actually another Microsoft patent application)&#xD;&#xA;- [The Open The Open Runtime Platform: a ﬂexible high-performance managed runtime environment](http://www.ittc.ku.edu/~kulkarni/teaching/archieve/EECS800-Spring-2008/ORP.pdf), Ciernak et al., (published 22.02.2005)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examiner's argument against claim 1 as originally filed was that Goldin teaches all of claim 1 except *requesting the at least one runtime to claim the first call stack frame*, which would be obvious based on Ciernak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applicant denied this with an argument that stack frames in Ciernak were within a **wrapper**, which is indeed one way to make each runtime able to identify their own stack frames. Eventually, Examiner suggested amendments to claim 1 by adding the limitation where each runtime has a **stack frame map** which is used to determine if they should claim the stack frame. In other words, each runtime maintain a list of all stack frame. This makes perfectly sense, is probably obvious and/or ineffective, yet it is indeed supported by the description and not found in Ciernak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we can find prior art on this very feature (and actually more of Claim 1) in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [US 7,350,194 B1](http://www.google.com/patents/US7350194) Alpern (filed 10.05.2002)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our argument is two-fold: (a) Alpern teaches that virtual machine maintains a list of routines and arguments (stack frames) and (b) the notion of *stack frame map* does refer to any additional technical feature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alpern describes a system with a centralized debugger for distributed virtual machines, where the code of one virtual machine may invoke code in another virtual machine, and thus we have a single stack. In some embodiments, each virtual machine maintains a list of routines and arguments on the stack:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*In other examples, the debug request message is a request to execute a single step, or a request to list all loaded classes, or a **request to list the routines on the stack**, or a request to list the IDs of the variable objects associated with each routine on the stack.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stack frame maps are not (technically) defined in the specification but by their usage, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*These memory addresses are recorded in a call stack frame map*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Each runtime may consult its call stack frame map*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are additionally pictured and referenced as 172, 174, 176 in figure 7 (below) and as 182, 184 and 186 in [figure 5B](https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US8291381B2/US08291381-20121016-D00006.png).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Stack frame maps as 172, 174, 176 in Figure 7](https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US8291381B2/US08291381-20121016-D00008.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applicant actually agrees that the notion of _stack frame map_ is vague and does not refer to any specific technical feature (e.g. a hash map with a O(1) amortized access time), based on the following extract of the description:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*However, it will be appreciated that those having ordinary skill in the art may devise a number of variations in runtime identification and claiming of call stack frames that utilize the techniques described herein.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5195" RevisionGUID="3603320a-6f39-48f0-a888-9a6f72216b59" CreationDate="2017-03-10T09:42:47.333" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://billmonk.files.wordpress.com/ with https://billmonk.files.wordpress.com/" Text="![Official USPTO Prior Art][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **Final Rejection** by the US Patent Office! The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** in this answer! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cover all the pieces of Claim 1, as well as some of the other claims. You might want to make sure to refer to the [amended version](https://s3.amazonaws.com/SplitwiseBlogJB/13436491.pdf), which I just linked to, and you can also find on &quot;Public Pair&quot; of the USPTO by searching this publication number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# CLAIM 1: #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bullets 1&amp;2: Establish at least a group of three users sharing a total balance in a group, with a list of transactions and payments, and have the list of transactions and total balance list be reactive to payment transactions added by group members. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk, Jan 2006: [TechCrunch](http://techcrunch.com/2006/01/20/billmonk-social-money/)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;SplitTheRent, June 2011: [New York Times](http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/a-new-tool-splittherent-com-for-roommates)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Conmigo, Sept 2011: [Lifehacker](http://lifehacker.com/5843961/conmigo-helps-you-split-your-expenses-with-your-roommates)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;PayDivvy, May 2011: [VentureBeat](http://venturebeat.com/2011/05/11/no-more-deadbeat-friends-paydivvy-launches-social-bill-service/)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and many others (SplitMyBill.ie, WeSplit.it, Wie Betaalt Wat, KittySplit, etc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Splitwise Screenshot from NYT](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/04/27/business/splittherentscreenshot/splittherentscreenshot-blog480.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bullets 4&amp;5: All of the previous software update total balances and react to payment transactions, but here are some clean examples in screenshot form:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, June 2011: [Splitwise Blog](http://blog.splitwise.com/2011/06/06/upcoming-redesign/)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Conmigo, Sept 2011: [Lifehacker](http://lifehacker.com/5843961/conmigo-helps-you-split-your-expenses-with-your-roommates)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![Conmingo](http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18ixc8llklhzajpg/original.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bullet 6: Fund transfer was done by Billmonk/Obopay and PayDivvy prior to 2012.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk, Jan 2007: [TechCrunch](http://techcrunch.com/2007/01/30/minimerger-obopay-aquires-billmonk/) describes online settlement as the point of the acquisition.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk, Jan 2007: [Billmonk Blog showing online settlement](http://billmonk.wordpress.com/2007/01/30/billmonk-is-now-an-obopay-company-settle-up-online/)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;PayDivvy, May 2011: [VentureBeat](http://venturebeat.com/2011/05/11/no-more-deadbeat-friends-paydivvy-launches-social-bill-service/) Describes bank settlement.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![Billmonk / Obopay](https://billmonk.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/obopay_settleup.png?w=450) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bullet 3: Using a range of dates was used for recurring expenses in SplitMyBill.ie, and done in a couple ways at Splitwise prior to 2012.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;SplitMyBill.ie, Apr 2009: [Wayback Machine / SplitMyBill.ie Tour](http://web.archive.org/web/20090403110658/http://www.splitmybill.ie/tour.html)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, Mar 5th 2012: [Splitwise Blog](http://blog.splitwise.com/2012/03/05/the-new-monthly-summary-and-google-charts/). Splitwise uses a date range to sort balances into monthly totals within each group.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, Dec 2011: [Forbes](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbittner/2011/12/07/do-you-vacation-like-a-capitalist-or-a-socialist/) / [Splitwise Blog](http://blog.splitwise.com/2011/12/07/announcing-the-travel-calculator/). Splitwise publishes a calculator that uses a range of dates to tell how a given expense should be divided among which members of a group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![SplitMyBill.ie](http://splitmybill.ie/images/loan.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Travel calculator link](http://www.allmyfaves.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/splitwise-split-bills-with-friends-and-roommates.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Other Claims#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the patent [as amended](https://s3.amazonaws.com/SplitwiseBlogJB/13436491.pdf)*, we should also look at Claims 2, 6, and 10. Claims 11-25 are basically variations on a theme, with the phrases &quot;computer software&quot; exchanged with &quot;method&quot; or &quot;system&quot; or the idea of &quot;additional users&quot; added to the other claims. The idea of an &quot;additional user&quot; (doing something as part of an invitation, does this mean?) being able to do things was a feature in BillMonk, SplitMyBill.ie, Splitwise, and others, and combining that with other features is probably fairly obvious to someone skilled in the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## CLAIM 2: Individual Balances&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 2 brings in the idea of &quot;individual balances&quot;, as distinct from &quot;total balances,&quot; which could mean non-total balances as shown in Figure 4. But Billmonk pioneered the idea that you could track both individual and total balances within the group and reduce it to a total balance at the users discretion.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk, Aug 2007: [Billmonk Blog](http://billmonk.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/debt-shuffling/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Individual Debts](https://billmonk.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/before1.png?w=450)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##CLAIM 6-9&lt;br&gt;Claim 1 + &quot;inquiring from the additional user whether to add the additional payment transaction to the record&quot;, &quot;responsive to a user device&quot;, and &quot;electronic system of a financial account&quot;.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This was all done by PayDivvy. In the screenshot below, you can see the connections to real bank accounts, from a user device (a laptop), with a permission based system for new bills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PayDivvy, Sept 2011: [Finovate](http://www.finovate.com/spring11vid/paydivvy.html)/[ApartmentTherapy](http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/tech-to-help-keep-the-peace-wi-156378). See the &quot;Pay or Decline&quot; options in the screenshot. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![PayDivvy](http://i-cdn.apartmenttherapy.com/uimages/unplggd/092011_roomietechpeace3.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#CLAIM 10: &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 + &quot;settlement event is at least one of the following: an end date being reached, a user of the group requested settlement, and a total balance reaching a set amount.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User requesting settlement:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Wie Betaalt Wat, Aug 2010: [FrankWatching](http://www.frankwatching.com/gespot/wiebetaaltwat-nl-verreken-je-gezamenlijke-uitgaven/) (in Dutch)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, Oct 2011: [New York Times]()/[Splitise Blog](http://splitwise.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/screen-shot-2011-10-30-at-9-39-20-pm.png?w=640&amp;h=511) (based on months)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specific time:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;PayDivvy, Sept 2011: [Finovate](http://www.finovate.com/spring11vid/paydivvy.html) (due dates for each divvy)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, Oct 2011: [Splitise Blog](http://splitwise.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/screen-shot-2011-10-30-at-9-39-20-pm.png?w=640&amp;h=511) Monthly balances with settlement alarms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Balance-based: May be the only claim in the patent that is not built in a pre-existing product, though someone may have described it in a press article or interview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Splitwise with reminders and dates](http://splitwise.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/screen-shot-2011-10-30-at-9-39-20-pm.png?w=640&amp;h=511)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# FIGURE 4&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk was the first to widely publicize the simplification of a set of &quot;X owes Y&quot; into its simplest form, but the feature is also in Splitwise, Billsup, and many other apps. Look at this image from the [Billmonk Blog](http://billmonk.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/debt-shuffling/) in August 2007 and compare it to the official Figure 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Billmonk](https://billmonk.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/debtsettlescreenshot.png?w=450)&#xD;&#xA;![Official Figure 4](http://i.stack.imgur.com/fx5dI.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uvXcn.png&#xD;&#xA;[8]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/208793068/US20130262294-A1-Form-892" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5195" RevisionGUID="8e324c7f-cf13-4544-8dc2-d55de6f0e4fe" CreationDate="2017-03-10T09:42:47.363" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://splitwise.files.wordpress.com/ with https://splitwise.files.wordpress.com/" Text="![Official USPTO Prior Art][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **Final Rejection** by the US Patent Office! The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** in this answer! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cover all the pieces of Claim 1, as well as some of the other claims. You might want to make sure to refer to the [amended version](https://s3.amazonaws.com/SplitwiseBlogJB/13436491.pdf), which I just linked to, and you can also find on &quot;Public Pair&quot; of the USPTO by searching this publication number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# CLAIM 1: #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bullets 1&amp;2: Establish at least a group of three users sharing a total balance in a group, with a list of transactions and payments, and have the list of transactions and total balance list be reactive to payment transactions added by group members. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk, Jan 2006: [TechCrunch](http://techcrunch.com/2006/01/20/billmonk-social-money/)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;SplitTheRent, June 2011: [New York Times](http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/a-new-tool-splittherent-com-for-roommates)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Conmigo, Sept 2011: [Lifehacker](http://lifehacker.com/5843961/conmigo-helps-you-split-your-expenses-with-your-roommates)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;PayDivvy, May 2011: [VentureBeat](http://venturebeat.com/2011/05/11/no-more-deadbeat-friends-paydivvy-launches-social-bill-service/)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and many others (SplitMyBill.ie, WeSplit.it, Wie Betaalt Wat, KittySplit, etc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Splitwise Screenshot from NYT](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/04/27/business/splittherentscreenshot/splittherentscreenshot-blog480.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bullets 4&amp;5: All of the previous software update total balances and react to payment transactions, but here are some clean examples in screenshot form:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, June 2011: [Splitwise Blog](http://blog.splitwise.com/2011/06/06/upcoming-redesign/)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Conmigo, Sept 2011: [Lifehacker](http://lifehacker.com/5843961/conmigo-helps-you-split-your-expenses-with-your-roommates)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![Conmingo](http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18ixc8llklhzajpg/original.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bullet 6: Fund transfer was done by Billmonk/Obopay and PayDivvy prior to 2012.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk, Jan 2007: [TechCrunch](http://techcrunch.com/2007/01/30/minimerger-obopay-aquires-billmonk/) describes online settlement as the point of the acquisition.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk, Jan 2007: [Billmonk Blog showing online settlement](http://billmonk.wordpress.com/2007/01/30/billmonk-is-now-an-obopay-company-settle-up-online/)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;PayDivvy, May 2011: [VentureBeat](http://venturebeat.com/2011/05/11/no-more-deadbeat-friends-paydivvy-launches-social-bill-service/) Describes bank settlement.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![Billmonk / Obopay](https://billmonk.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/obopay_settleup.png?w=450) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bullet 3: Using a range of dates was used for recurring expenses in SplitMyBill.ie, and done in a couple ways at Splitwise prior to 2012.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;SplitMyBill.ie, Apr 2009: [Wayback Machine / SplitMyBill.ie Tour](http://web.archive.org/web/20090403110658/http://www.splitmybill.ie/tour.html)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, Mar 5th 2012: [Splitwise Blog](http://blog.splitwise.com/2012/03/05/the-new-monthly-summary-and-google-charts/). Splitwise uses a date range to sort balances into monthly totals within each group.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, Dec 2011: [Forbes](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbittner/2011/12/07/do-you-vacation-like-a-capitalist-or-a-socialist/) / [Splitwise Blog](http://blog.splitwise.com/2011/12/07/announcing-the-travel-calculator/). Splitwise publishes a calculator that uses a range of dates to tell how a given expense should be divided among which members of a group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![SplitMyBill.ie](http://splitmybill.ie/images/loan.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Travel calculator link](http://www.allmyfaves.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/splitwise-split-bills-with-friends-and-roommates.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Other Claims#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the patent [as amended](https://s3.amazonaws.com/SplitwiseBlogJB/13436491.pdf)*, we should also look at Claims 2, 6, and 10. Claims 11-25 are basically variations on a theme, with the phrases &quot;computer software&quot; exchanged with &quot;method&quot; or &quot;system&quot; or the idea of &quot;additional users&quot; added to the other claims. The idea of an &quot;additional user&quot; (doing something as part of an invitation, does this mean?) being able to do things was a feature in BillMonk, SplitMyBill.ie, Splitwise, and others, and combining that with other features is probably fairly obvious to someone skilled in the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## CLAIM 2: Individual Balances&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 2 brings in the idea of &quot;individual balances&quot;, as distinct from &quot;total balances,&quot; which could mean non-total balances as shown in Figure 4. But Billmonk pioneered the idea that you could track both individual and total balances within the group and reduce it to a total balance at the users discretion.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk, Aug 2007: [Billmonk Blog](http://billmonk.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/debt-shuffling/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Individual Debts](https://billmonk.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/before1.png?w=450)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##CLAIM 6-9&lt;br&gt;Claim 1 + &quot;inquiring from the additional user whether to add the additional payment transaction to the record&quot;, &quot;responsive to a user device&quot;, and &quot;electronic system of a financial account&quot;.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This was all done by PayDivvy. In the screenshot below, you can see the connections to real bank accounts, from a user device (a laptop), with a permission based system for new bills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PayDivvy, Sept 2011: [Finovate](http://www.finovate.com/spring11vid/paydivvy.html)/[ApartmentTherapy](http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/tech-to-help-keep-the-peace-wi-156378). See the &quot;Pay or Decline&quot; options in the screenshot. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![PayDivvy](http://i-cdn.apartmenttherapy.com/uimages/unplggd/092011_roomietechpeace3.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#CLAIM 10: &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 + &quot;settlement event is at least one of the following: an end date being reached, a user of the group requested settlement, and a total balance reaching a set amount.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User requesting settlement:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Wie Betaalt Wat, Aug 2010: [FrankWatching](http://www.frankwatching.com/gespot/wiebetaaltwat-nl-verreken-je-gezamenlijke-uitgaven/) (in Dutch)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, Oct 2011: [New York Times]()/[Splitise Blog](https://splitwise.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/screen-shot-2011-10-30-at-9-39-20-pm.png?w=640&amp;h=511) (based on months)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specific time:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;PayDivvy, Sept 2011: [Finovate](http://www.finovate.com/spring11vid/paydivvy.html) (due dates for each divvy)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, Oct 2011: [Splitise Blog](https://splitwise.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/screen-shot-2011-10-30-at-9-39-20-pm.png?w=640&amp;h=511) Monthly balances with settlement alarms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Balance-based: May be the only claim in the patent that is not built in a pre-existing product, though someone may have described it in a press article or interview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Splitwise with reminders and dates](https://splitwise.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/screen-shot-2011-10-30-at-9-39-20-pm.png?w=640&amp;h=511)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# FIGURE 4&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk was the first to widely publicize the simplification of a set of &quot;X owes Y&quot; into its simplest form, but the feature is also in Splitwise, Billsup, and many other apps. Look at this image from the [Billmonk Blog](http://billmonk.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/debt-shuffling/) in August 2007 and compare it to the official Figure 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Billmonk](https://billmonk.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/debtsettlescreenshot.png?w=450)&#xD;&#xA;![Official Figure 4](http://i.stack.imgur.com/fx5dI.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uvXcn.png&#xD;&#xA;[8]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/208793068/US20130262294-A1-Form-892" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5195" RevisionGUID="7b48f11d-9a02-4342-b935-d11094a61a2c" CreationDate="2017-03-10T09:42:47.387" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://img.gawkerassets.com/ with https://img.gawkerassets.com/" Text="![Official USPTO Prior Art][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **Final Rejection** by the US Patent Office! The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** in this answer! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cover all the pieces of Claim 1, as well as some of the other claims. You might want to make sure to refer to the [amended version](https://s3.amazonaws.com/SplitwiseBlogJB/13436491.pdf), which I just linked to, and you can also find on &quot;Public Pair&quot; of the USPTO by searching this publication number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# CLAIM 1: #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bullets 1&amp;2: Establish at least a group of three users sharing a total balance in a group, with a list of transactions and payments, and have the list of transactions and total balance list be reactive to payment transactions added by group members. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk, Jan 2006: [TechCrunch](http://techcrunch.com/2006/01/20/billmonk-social-money/)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;SplitTheRent, June 2011: [New York Times](http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/a-new-tool-splittherent-com-for-roommates)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Conmigo, Sept 2011: [Lifehacker](http://lifehacker.com/5843961/conmigo-helps-you-split-your-expenses-with-your-roommates)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;PayDivvy, May 2011: [VentureBeat](http://venturebeat.com/2011/05/11/no-more-deadbeat-friends-paydivvy-launches-social-bill-service/)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and many others (SplitMyBill.ie, WeSplit.it, Wie Betaalt Wat, KittySplit, etc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Splitwise Screenshot from NYT](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/04/27/business/splittherentscreenshot/splittherentscreenshot-blog480.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bullets 4&amp;5: All of the previous software update total balances and react to payment transactions, but here are some clean examples in screenshot form:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, June 2011: [Splitwise Blog](http://blog.splitwise.com/2011/06/06/upcoming-redesign/)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Conmigo, Sept 2011: [Lifehacker](http://lifehacker.com/5843961/conmigo-helps-you-split-your-expenses-with-your-roommates)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![Conmingo](https://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18ixc8llklhzajpg/original.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bullet 6: Fund transfer was done by Billmonk/Obopay and PayDivvy prior to 2012.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk, Jan 2007: [TechCrunch](http://techcrunch.com/2007/01/30/minimerger-obopay-aquires-billmonk/) describes online settlement as the point of the acquisition.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk, Jan 2007: [Billmonk Blog showing online settlement](http://billmonk.wordpress.com/2007/01/30/billmonk-is-now-an-obopay-company-settle-up-online/)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;PayDivvy, May 2011: [VentureBeat](http://venturebeat.com/2011/05/11/no-more-deadbeat-friends-paydivvy-launches-social-bill-service/) Describes bank settlement.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![Billmonk / Obopay](https://billmonk.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/obopay_settleup.png?w=450) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bullet 3: Using a range of dates was used for recurring expenses in SplitMyBill.ie, and done in a couple ways at Splitwise prior to 2012.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;SplitMyBill.ie, Apr 2009: [Wayback Machine / SplitMyBill.ie Tour](http://web.archive.org/web/20090403110658/http://www.splitmybill.ie/tour.html)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, Mar 5th 2012: [Splitwise Blog](http://blog.splitwise.com/2012/03/05/the-new-monthly-summary-and-google-charts/). Splitwise uses a date range to sort balances into monthly totals within each group.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, Dec 2011: [Forbes](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbittner/2011/12/07/do-you-vacation-like-a-capitalist-or-a-socialist/) / [Splitwise Blog](http://blog.splitwise.com/2011/12/07/announcing-the-travel-calculator/). Splitwise publishes a calculator that uses a range of dates to tell how a given expense should be divided among which members of a group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![SplitMyBill.ie](http://splitmybill.ie/images/loan.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Travel calculator link](http://www.allmyfaves.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/splitwise-split-bills-with-friends-and-roommates.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Other Claims#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the patent [as amended](https://s3.amazonaws.com/SplitwiseBlogJB/13436491.pdf)*, we should also look at Claims 2, 6, and 10. Claims 11-25 are basically variations on a theme, with the phrases &quot;computer software&quot; exchanged with &quot;method&quot; or &quot;system&quot; or the idea of &quot;additional users&quot; added to the other claims. The idea of an &quot;additional user&quot; (doing something as part of an invitation, does this mean?) being able to do things was a feature in BillMonk, SplitMyBill.ie, Splitwise, and others, and combining that with other features is probably fairly obvious to someone skilled in the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## CLAIM 2: Individual Balances&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 2 brings in the idea of &quot;individual balances&quot;, as distinct from &quot;total balances,&quot; which could mean non-total balances as shown in Figure 4. But Billmonk pioneered the idea that you could track both individual and total balances within the group and reduce it to a total balance at the users discretion.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk, Aug 2007: [Billmonk Blog](http://billmonk.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/debt-shuffling/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Individual Debts](https://billmonk.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/before1.png?w=450)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##CLAIM 6-9&lt;br&gt;Claim 1 + &quot;inquiring from the additional user whether to add the additional payment transaction to the record&quot;, &quot;responsive to a user device&quot;, and &quot;electronic system of a financial account&quot;.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This was all done by PayDivvy. In the screenshot below, you can see the connections to real bank accounts, from a user device (a laptop), with a permission based system for new bills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PayDivvy, Sept 2011: [Finovate](http://www.finovate.com/spring11vid/paydivvy.html)/[ApartmentTherapy](http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/tech-to-help-keep-the-peace-wi-156378). See the &quot;Pay or Decline&quot; options in the screenshot. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![PayDivvy](http://i-cdn.apartmenttherapy.com/uimages/unplggd/092011_roomietechpeace3.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#CLAIM 10: &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 + &quot;settlement event is at least one of the following: an end date being reached, a user of the group requested settlement, and a total balance reaching a set amount.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User requesting settlement:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Wie Betaalt Wat, Aug 2010: [FrankWatching](http://www.frankwatching.com/gespot/wiebetaaltwat-nl-verreken-je-gezamenlijke-uitgaven/) (in Dutch)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, Oct 2011: [New York Times]()/[Splitise Blog](https://splitwise.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/screen-shot-2011-10-30-at-9-39-20-pm.png?w=640&amp;h=511) (based on months)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specific time:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;PayDivvy, Sept 2011: [Finovate](http://www.finovate.com/spring11vid/paydivvy.html) (due dates for each divvy)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, Oct 2011: [Splitise Blog](https://splitwise.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/screen-shot-2011-10-30-at-9-39-20-pm.png?w=640&amp;h=511) Monthly balances with settlement alarms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Balance-based: May be the only claim in the patent that is not built in a pre-existing product, though someone may have described it in a press article or interview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Splitwise with reminders and dates](https://splitwise.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/screen-shot-2011-10-30-at-9-39-20-pm.png?w=640&amp;h=511)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# FIGURE 4&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk was the first to widely publicize the simplification of a set of &quot;X owes Y&quot; into its simplest form, but the feature is also in Splitwise, Billsup, and many other apps. Look at this image from the [Billmonk Blog](http://billmonk.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/debt-shuffling/) in August 2007 and compare it to the official Figure 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Billmonk](https://billmonk.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/debtsettlescreenshot.png?w=450)&#xD;&#xA;![Official Figure 4](http://i.stack.imgur.com/fx5dI.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uvXcn.png&#xD;&#xA;[8]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/208793068/US20130262294-A1-Form-892" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5195" RevisionGUID="79127d36-46ae-4810-8858-d7b299f16908" CreationDate="2017-03-10T09:42:47.410" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://graphics8.nytimes.com/ with https://graphics8.nytimes.com/" Text="![Official USPTO Prior Art][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **Final Rejection** by the US Patent Office! The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** in this answer! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cover all the pieces of Claim 1, as well as some of the other claims. You might want to make sure to refer to the [amended version](https://s3.amazonaws.com/SplitwiseBlogJB/13436491.pdf), which I just linked to, and you can also find on &quot;Public Pair&quot; of the USPTO by searching this publication number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# CLAIM 1: #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bullets 1&amp;2: Establish at least a group of three users sharing a total balance in a group, with a list of transactions and payments, and have the list of transactions and total balance list be reactive to payment transactions added by group members. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk, Jan 2006: [TechCrunch](http://techcrunch.com/2006/01/20/billmonk-social-money/)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;SplitTheRent, June 2011: [New York Times](http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/a-new-tool-splittherent-com-for-roommates)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Conmigo, Sept 2011: [Lifehacker](http://lifehacker.com/5843961/conmigo-helps-you-split-your-expenses-with-your-roommates)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;PayDivvy, May 2011: [VentureBeat](http://venturebeat.com/2011/05/11/no-more-deadbeat-friends-paydivvy-launches-social-bill-service/)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and many others (SplitMyBill.ie, WeSplit.it, Wie Betaalt Wat, KittySplit, etc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Splitwise Screenshot from NYT](https://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/04/27/business/splittherentscreenshot/splittherentscreenshot-blog480.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bullets 4&amp;5: All of the previous software update total balances and react to payment transactions, but here are some clean examples in screenshot form:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, June 2011: [Splitwise Blog](http://blog.splitwise.com/2011/06/06/upcoming-redesign/)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Conmigo, Sept 2011: [Lifehacker](http://lifehacker.com/5843961/conmigo-helps-you-split-your-expenses-with-your-roommates)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![Conmingo](https://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18ixc8llklhzajpg/original.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bullet 6: Fund transfer was done by Billmonk/Obopay and PayDivvy prior to 2012.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk, Jan 2007: [TechCrunch](http://techcrunch.com/2007/01/30/minimerger-obopay-aquires-billmonk/) describes online settlement as the point of the acquisition.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk, Jan 2007: [Billmonk Blog showing online settlement](http://billmonk.wordpress.com/2007/01/30/billmonk-is-now-an-obopay-company-settle-up-online/)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;PayDivvy, May 2011: [VentureBeat](http://venturebeat.com/2011/05/11/no-more-deadbeat-friends-paydivvy-launches-social-bill-service/) Describes bank settlement.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![Billmonk / Obopay](https://billmonk.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/obopay_settleup.png?w=450) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bullet 3: Using a range of dates was used for recurring expenses in SplitMyBill.ie, and done in a couple ways at Splitwise prior to 2012.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;SplitMyBill.ie, Apr 2009: [Wayback Machine / SplitMyBill.ie Tour](http://web.archive.org/web/20090403110658/http://www.splitmybill.ie/tour.html)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, Mar 5th 2012: [Splitwise Blog](http://blog.splitwise.com/2012/03/05/the-new-monthly-summary-and-google-charts/). Splitwise uses a date range to sort balances into monthly totals within each group.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, Dec 2011: [Forbes](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbittner/2011/12/07/do-you-vacation-like-a-capitalist-or-a-socialist/) / [Splitwise Blog](http://blog.splitwise.com/2011/12/07/announcing-the-travel-calculator/). Splitwise publishes a calculator that uses a range of dates to tell how a given expense should be divided among which members of a group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![SplitMyBill.ie](http://splitmybill.ie/images/loan.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Travel calculator link](http://www.allmyfaves.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/splitwise-split-bills-with-friends-and-roommates.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Other Claims#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the patent [as amended](https://s3.amazonaws.com/SplitwiseBlogJB/13436491.pdf)*, we should also look at Claims 2, 6, and 10. Claims 11-25 are basically variations on a theme, with the phrases &quot;computer software&quot; exchanged with &quot;method&quot; or &quot;system&quot; or the idea of &quot;additional users&quot; added to the other claims. The idea of an &quot;additional user&quot; (doing something as part of an invitation, does this mean?) being able to do things was a feature in BillMonk, SplitMyBill.ie, Splitwise, and others, and combining that with other features is probably fairly obvious to someone skilled in the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## CLAIM 2: Individual Balances&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 2 brings in the idea of &quot;individual balances&quot;, as distinct from &quot;total balances,&quot; which could mean non-total balances as shown in Figure 4. But Billmonk pioneered the idea that you could track both individual and total balances within the group and reduce it to a total balance at the users discretion.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk, Aug 2007: [Billmonk Blog](http://billmonk.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/debt-shuffling/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Individual Debts](https://billmonk.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/before1.png?w=450)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##CLAIM 6-9&lt;br&gt;Claim 1 + &quot;inquiring from the additional user whether to add the additional payment transaction to the record&quot;, &quot;responsive to a user device&quot;, and &quot;electronic system of a financial account&quot;.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This was all done by PayDivvy. In the screenshot below, you can see the connections to real bank accounts, from a user device (a laptop), with a permission based system for new bills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PayDivvy, Sept 2011: [Finovate](http://www.finovate.com/spring11vid/paydivvy.html)/[ApartmentTherapy](http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/tech-to-help-keep-the-peace-wi-156378). See the &quot;Pay or Decline&quot; options in the screenshot. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![PayDivvy](http://i-cdn.apartmenttherapy.com/uimages/unplggd/092011_roomietechpeace3.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#CLAIM 10: &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 + &quot;settlement event is at least one of the following: an end date being reached, a user of the group requested settlement, and a total balance reaching a set amount.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User requesting settlement:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Wie Betaalt Wat, Aug 2010: [FrankWatching](http://www.frankwatching.com/gespot/wiebetaaltwat-nl-verreken-je-gezamenlijke-uitgaven/) (in Dutch)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, Oct 2011: [New York Times]()/[Splitise Blog](https://splitwise.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/screen-shot-2011-10-30-at-9-39-20-pm.png?w=640&amp;h=511) (based on months)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specific time:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;PayDivvy, Sept 2011: [Finovate](http://www.finovate.com/spring11vid/paydivvy.html) (due dates for each divvy)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, Oct 2011: [Splitise Blog](https://splitwise.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/screen-shot-2011-10-30-at-9-39-20-pm.png?w=640&amp;h=511) Monthly balances with settlement alarms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Balance-based: May be the only claim in the patent that is not built in a pre-existing product, though someone may have described it in a press article or interview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Splitwise with reminders and dates](https://splitwise.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/screen-shot-2011-10-30-at-9-39-20-pm.png?w=640&amp;h=511)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# FIGURE 4&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk was the first to widely publicize the simplification of a set of &quot;X owes Y&quot; into its simplest form, but the feature is also in Splitwise, Billsup, and many other apps. Look at this image from the [Billmonk Blog](http://billmonk.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/debt-shuffling/) in August 2007 and compare it to the official Figure 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Billmonk](https://billmonk.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/debtsettlescreenshot.png?w=450)&#xD;&#xA;![Official Figure 4](http://i.stack.imgur.com/fx5dI.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uvXcn.png&#xD;&#xA;[8]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/208793068/US20130262294-A1-Form-892" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6518" RevisionGUID="3f41ccb4-a232-4804-a697-500240ea4c22" CreationDate="2017-03-10T09:42:47.443" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ with https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/" Text="Wow.  Fascinating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Tibetan artifact certainly counts as prior art.  There are many differences, however, between the claimed design and the artifact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Tibetan artifact](http://pic28.nipic.com/20130410/9955881_224956089000_2.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;![Design patent](https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/USD663234S1/USD0663234-20120710-D00000.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tips of the leaves in the patented design, for example, are squared off whereas the tips of the leaves in the Tibetan image are pointed.  The patented design has characters cut through the leaves.  The Tibetan image has raised designs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information on how to draft a strong design patent, see http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/07/30/strong-design-patents-the-power-of-the-broken-line/id=44215/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12054" RevisionGUID="108f0be1-2240-4949-9e21-62d5df95ff78" CreationDate="2017-03-10T09:42:47.453" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://web.archive.org/ with https://web.archive.org/" Text="&quot;Allaire's HomeSite software. This was for webdesigning, was later sold asMacromedia Homesite)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;importantly, in the tabbed toolbar, see  &quot;Quick Tab&quot;,&quot;Fonts&quot;.&quot;Tables&quot; tabs. It is prior art of ribbon UI&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Allaire's HomeSite app for web designers](https://web.archive.org/web/20150201030839/http://home.ubalt.edu/abento/homesite/screen-view.gif)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also enlarge this picture![another pic](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/01/Macromedia_HomeSite.png)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13165" RevisionGUID="4b15fd86-866e-45b0-a149-d157903bb8c9" CreationDate="2017-03-10T09:42:47.467" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://worldwide.espacenet.com/ with https://worldwide.espacenet.com/" Text="I am producing a rainwater collection system and am not sure if the current system infringes on Nigel O'driscoll's [*Rainwater harvesting system* (EP 2342386 A1)][1], which is listed as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Nigel O'driscoll's *Rainwater harvesting system* invention.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A system for harvesting the rainwater collected from the roof of a building, comprising: a number of rainwater collectors connected to a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; guttering attached to the roof; a storage tank; and a feed system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; connecting the rainwater collectors to the storage tank; wherein&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the feed system comprises a common pumping system connected to the collectors;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - each rainwater collector comprises a sensor for detecting when a predetermined level of rainwater has been collected; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the feed system comprises means for operating the common pumping system so as to transfer water from the collectors to the storage tank&#xD;&#xA;&gt; only while the amount of water in each of the collectors is greater&#xD;&#xA;&gt; than or equal to the predetermined level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The draft for my patent is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![My invention drawing.][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The invention claimed is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. A rain collecting device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - a funnel formed of a polymeric material;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - a rainwater storage device;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - a pipe to channel rainwater into said rainwater storage device; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - a water level meter; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - a tap further comprising: a funnel; and a turning wheel to control supply.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2. A rain collecting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein said funnel is comprised of a tube and a collecting basin.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  3. A rain collecting device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a display system and means of collecting data.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  4. A rain collecting device as claimed in claim 4, wherein said water level meter further comprises a direct control method using a&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     wheel.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  5. A rain collecting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein said tap is arranged such that collected rain will be released when a torque&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     is applied.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  6. A method for storing rainfall measurements comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - a software system using Microsoft Word to export data; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      - a web-based system to store subsequent Microsoft Word documents.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  7. A method for storing rainfall measurements as claimed in claim 6, wherein said Microsoft Word documents use a pre-defined template.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does my patent (particularly claims 1 through 5) infringe O'driscoll's patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.co.uk/patents/EP2342386A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/espacenetImage.jpg?flavour=firstPageClipping&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;FT=D&amp;date=20081126&amp;CC=GB&amp;NR=2449534A&amp;KC=A&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/iFY0J.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45170" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="09ae4325-21f1-458e-96b4-a5964a3df067" CreationDate="2017-03-10T11:02:24.887" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17379" RevisionGUID="6e6c1581-9547-4d31-add6-5658fb628407" CreationDate="2017-03-10T14:19:40.023" UserId="17003" Text="Few things are less informative than the titles of patents. In some cases this may be intentional in order to make prior art searches more difficult. If you look at the two patents, you'll see the claims are different. Without careful reading, I'm assuming the later patent is an improvement in the same field. I've had patents split by the patent office when they thought there were two inventions present. In those cases you can have multiple patents that are identical except for the patent numbers and the claims. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17383" RevisionGUID="50434f25-f9c6-4c1a-9046-57b1570d2c50" CreationDate="2017-03-10T19:35:36.657" UserId="17003" Text="I looked on the [US Public Pair][1] website for information. There are no assignments listed so I'm guessing either the original inventors are still the owners or else you would have to ask them. The correspondence address is listed as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    DINSMORE &amp; SHOHL LLP&#xD;&#xA;    FIFTH THIRD CENTER, ONE SOUTH MAIN STREET &#xD;&#xA;    SUITE 1300 &#xD;&#xA;    DAYTON OH 45402-2023&#xD;&#xA;    Customer Number: 23368&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming that is the patent attorney's address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45181" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13614" RevisionGUID="44f0a49a-10ee-46ee-a37c-6b82af466f58" CreationDate="2017-03-10T20:16:37.410" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45186" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14266" RevisionGUID="6a879d3d-176a-4170-afab-a81a89ec8c15" CreationDate="2017-03-10T22:20:04.327" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45187" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14833" RevisionGUID="71c8c2a9-d9cf-4a3c-9066-05c8d41788a4" CreationDate="2017-03-10T23:20:11.987" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45195" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15983" RevisionGUID="96181da3-303b-4eac-9791-bc1e76f4a44b" CreationDate="2017-03-11T08:24:23.437" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45199" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="a4fa43ff-0e5e-4741-a2e8-867931463243" CreationDate="2017-03-11T12:33:45.293" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17387" RevisionGUID="97eba4e3-128c-4c2e-873b-34532cf9c54b" CreationDate="2017-03-11T15:19:48.867" UserId="17003" Text="You shouldn't base the &quot;broadness&quot; of a patent on how general the title is. What is covered by the patent is limited by what is in the claims (especially the independent claims). The longer and more detailed any individual claim is, generally the narrower the protection. In this case the first claim is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A computer implemented method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;receiving, during runtime of an application program, a capability requirement via arguments of an API (Application Programming Interface) request specified in source code of the application program for one or more processing devices to execute one or more threads of the application program, wherein the capability requirement includes one or more of: attributes associated with a dedicated texturing hardware support, a double precision floating point arithmetic capability, a dedicated local memory, a stream variable cache, a stream image cache, or synchronization primitives; and&#xD;&#xA;in response to the API request, generating one or more compute identifiers during the runtime for use by the one or more threads, at least one of the one or more compute identifiers specifying the processing devices capable of executing the threads according to the capability requirement, wherein the generating comprises matching the capability requirement with a device capability of the one or more processing devices, and determining one or more matched processing devices according to the matching.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thats a lot of text including requiring &quot;dedicated texturing hardware support, a double precision floating point arithmetic capability, a dedicated local memory, a stream variable cache, a stream image cache, or synchronization primitive&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not skilled in this field, but this doesn't necessarily seem to be a broad patent covering all implementations of multi-threading." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45206" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16103" RevisionGUID="005fe67b-3e8e-4049-b41c-048f3638ca58" CreationDate="2017-03-11T15:33:53.277" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17388" RevisionGUID="81076f4a-89de-4169-8014-b4db4c050f6d" CreationDate="2017-03-11T17:47:51.850" UserId="14038" Text="In the United States, anyone can place a written statement in the file of a patent at any time, even after the issuance of the patent, that discloses prior art that may be relevant to the enforceability of the patent.  The written statement is merely placed in the file, the patent itself will not be directly affected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 37 CFR 1.501  Citation of prior art and written statements in patent files.&#xD;&#xA;(a) Information content of submission: At any time during the period of enforceability of a patent, any person may file a written submission with the Office under this section, which is directed to the following information:&#xD;&#xA;(1) Prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which the person making the submission believes to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of the patent; or&#xD;&#xA;(2) Statements of the patent owner filed by the patent owner in a proceeding before a Federal court or the Office in which the patent owner took a position on the scope of any claim of the patent. Any statement submitted under this paragraph must be accompanied by any other documents, pleadings, or evidence from the proceeding in which the statement was filed that address the written statement, and such statement and accompanying information under this paragraph must be submitted in redacted form to exclude information subject to an applicable protective order.&#xD;&#xA;(3) Submissions under paragraph (a)(2) of this section must identify:&#xD;&#xA;(i) The forum and proceeding in which patent owner filed each statement;&#xD;&#xA;(ii) The specific papers and portions of the papers submitted that contain the statements; and&#xD;&#xA;(iii) How each statement submitted is a statement in which patent owner took a position on the scope of any claim in the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However the US Patent Office will not make any finding of validity of the patent based on the written statement unless someone files for a reexamination of the patent, which requires additional paperwork and a fee.  The written statement may be sufficient to discourage the enforcement of the patent, or provide evidence for someone else to reexamine or challenge the validity.   Maybe.  The Patent Office will consider reexamining the patent if someone files a request for reexamination and pays the appropriate fee.  If the reexamination is successful then one or more the claims of the patent may be withdrawn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 37 CFR 1.510  Request for ex parte reexamination.&#xD;&#xA;(a) Any person may, at any time during the period of enforceability of a patent, file a request for an ex parte reexamination by the Office of any claim of the patent on the basis of prior art patents or printed publications cited under § 1.501, unless prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 315(e)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 325(e)(1). The request must be accompanied by the fee for requesting reexamination set in § 1.20(c)(1).&#xD;&#xA;(b) Any request for reexamination must include the following parts:&#xD;&#xA;(1) A statement pointing out each substantial new question of patentability based on prior patents and printed publications.&#xD;&#xA;(2) An identification of every claim for which reexamination is requested, and a detailed explanation of the pertinency and manner of applying the cited prior art to every claim for which reexamination is requested. For each statement of the patent owner and accompanying information submitted pursuant to § 1.501(a)(2) which is relied upon in the detailed explanation, the request must explain how that statement is being used to determine the proper meaning of a patent claim in connection with the prior art applied to that claim and how each relevant claim is being interpreted. If appropriate, the party requesting reexamination may also point out how claims distinguish over cited prior art.&#xD;&#xA;(3) A copy of every patent or printed publication relied upon or referred to in paragraph (b)(1) and (2) of this section accompanied by an English language translation of all the necessary and pertinent parts of any non-English language patent or printed publication.&#xD;&#xA;(4) A copy of the entire patent including the front face, drawings, and specification/claims (in double column format) for which reexamination is requested, and a copy of any disclaimer, certificate of correction, or reexamination certificate issued in the patent. All copies must have each page plainly written on only one side of a sheet of paper.&#xD;&#xA;(5) A certification that a copy of the request filed by a person other than the patent owner has been served in its entirety on the patent owner at the address as provided for in § 1.33(c). The name and address of the party served must be indicated. If service was not possible, a duplicate copy must be supplied to the Office.&#xD;&#xA;(6) A certification by the third party requester that the statutory estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. 315(e)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 325(e)(1) do not prohibit the requester from filing the ex parte reexamination request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fees for filing a request for reexamination range from $3000 to over $12,000.   expensive but much less than litigation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17389" RevisionGUID="dc6dcbbb-8a7a-4f63-820d-d2709c5a6c1f" CreationDate="2017-03-11T23:08:16.430" UserId="17003" Text="Since you are the assignee, you would be the only one allowed to sell the patent. Although a patent provides you with a limited term of exclusivity, it is up to the patent owner to enforce the patent. At this point so long after the expiration of the patent, there would be no way to obtain royalties even if you could prove someone made your device during the patent's term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did a Google image search of telephone locks and didn't see anything that looks the same as what is described in the patent so it may be that your friends recollection is faulty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17390" RevisionGUID="03c63d12-8bb0-49f5-aa09-8b33ffc47042" CreationDate="2017-03-12T03:08:07.153" UserId="16876" Text="I am a Australian sole inventor who has filed a US provisional patent application with another attorney last year in June. I'm coming close to the time where my 12 month period is going to expire (Expires in June) and it is now difficult to reach him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking to eventually get a PCT application as I would like the ability to file internationally and also be able to get an additional 18 months to refine the technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I wanted more time to exploit my technology so I'm looking for ways to extend the period and minimise my outlay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have considered the following paths -  &#xD;&#xA;1. File a PCT application which should give me an additional 18 months but the cost of this is approx. $3500  &#xD;&#xA;2. File for a non-provisional and file for the [12 month 'extension'][1] by deferring payment but then eventually get a PCT. I believe the cost of this is approx $160 or so.  &#xD;&#xA;3. File for a full US non-provisional which I think its not that much for a micro-entity ($400 I believe) but I eventually need to file for a PCT anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like the option of number 2 but I don't want it impacting my ability to get a PCT in the future after the 12 month period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-implements-pilot-program-effectively-allowing-12-month-extension" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45210" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17390" RevisionGUID="03c63d12-8bb0-49f5-aa09-8b33ffc47042" CreationDate="2017-03-12T03:08:07.153" UserId="16876" Text="Cheapest way to extend the time of provisional patent application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45211" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17390" RevisionGUID="03c63d12-8bb0-49f5-aa09-8b33ffc47042" CreationDate="2017-03-12T03:08:07.153" UserId="16876" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;time&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45215" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12909" RevisionGUID="7fa69a79-4e77-49bf-9760-157ea06d96b6" CreationDate="2017-03-12T13:02:04.707" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17393" RevisionGUID="f628c2b5-7b20-40dd-a98c-22d5245c6c3d" CreationDate="2017-03-12T21:37:48.723" UserId="17670" Text="You must teach your invention in your description and in any provisional. But you are not required to analyze the prior art in a detailed background section; that is what patent examiners do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/10/23/beware-background-pitfalls-when-preparing-a-patent-application/id=19982/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's been said that background sections can only be used against you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17393" RevisionGUID="d6eb9a72-d426-440b-aef5-33d4a95cb8b7" CreationDate="2017-03-12T21:43:43.627" UserId="17670" Comment="added 291 characters in body" Text="You must *teach* your invention in your description and in any provisional. But you are not required to analyze the prior art in a detailed background section; that is what patent examiners do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/10/23/beware-background-pitfalls-when-preparing-a-patent-application/id=19982/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's been said that background sections can only be used against you. You should claim the universe in the application and then not be unhappy when your first office action says, *no, you're not getting the universe because of this this and this prior art*. That's to be expected. If you didn't get dinged in the first office action, you didn't claim enough." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45220" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16789" RevisionGUID="df4afe09-0f32-4cc0-8c92-e58f0dfd7fb3" CreationDate="2017-03-12T22:07:52.597" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17393" RevisionGUID="e1b22fe5-9da3-4f7b-a716-ad334d8b3537" CreationDate="2017-03-12T22:23:06.870" UserId="17670" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="You must sufficiently *teach* your invention in your non provisional description and also in any cited provisional. But you are not required to analyze the prior art in a detailed background section; that is what patent examiners do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/10/23/beware-background-pitfalls-when-preparing-a-patent-application/id=19982/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's been said that background sections can only be used against you. You should claim the universe in the application and then not be unhappy when your first office action says, *no, you're not getting the universe because of this this and this prior art*. That's to be expected. If you didn't get dinged in the first office action, you didn't claim enough." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17395" RevisionGUID="8d41e410-d498-4a5b-8f72-a0d617d2229f" CreationDate="2017-03-13T02:16:04.453" UserId="18653" Text="If the filing date of this patent is on Jun 14, 1994, the patent should have expired on June 14, 2014. Is this right? Also, what is the significance of knowing the assignment of this EXPIRED patent on 2016 if the patent has already expired? Please help. Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45226" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17395" RevisionGUID="8d41e410-d498-4a5b-8f72-a0d617d2229f" CreationDate="2017-03-13T02:16:04.453" UserId="18653" Text="A question regarding the patent term" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45227" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17395" RevisionGUID="8d41e410-d498-4a5b-8f72-a0d617d2229f" CreationDate="2017-03-13T02:16:04.453" UserId="18653" Text="&lt;assignment&gt;&lt;expired&gt;&lt;term&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17396" RevisionGUID="d9c4d3b2-8b22-44ac-93fe-227bb3ad7686" CreationDate="2017-03-13T02:32:53.467" UserId="17003" Text="This [Wikipedia page][1] provides a good review of patent terms. Essentially in the US, the term is 20 years from the priority date for patents filed on or after June 8th, 1995 or the longer of 20 years from the priority date or 17 years from the grant date for patents filed before June 8th, 1995. Once the patent has expired, you shouldn't need a license so the assignee is irrelevant. This doesn't mean you shouldn't make sure there aren't other relevant patents still in force. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent?wprov=sfsi1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17398" RevisionGUID="ca220f37-7315-4a44-b7c5-f89aed5207f0" CreationDate="2017-03-13T03:25:03.747" UserId="18655" Text="I have a question regarding following patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Application Number:	13/569,149&#xD;&#xA;Status:	Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Act&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this application is published and in abandoned state, so does this mean that I (not the original inventor) can produce and sell the products in the US. Thanks for your help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45233" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17398" RevisionGUID="ca220f37-7315-4a44-b7c5-f89aed5207f0" CreationDate="2017-03-13T03:25:03.747" UserId="18655" Text="Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Act" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45234" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17398" RevisionGUID="ca220f37-7315-4a44-b7c5-f89aed5207f0" CreationDate="2017-03-13T03:25:03.747" UserId="18655" Text="&lt;abandoned-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17399" RevisionGUID="5e5f2d66-da65-4883-bb41-fcd10a3625ff" CreationDate="2017-03-13T07:39:58.897" UserId="18033" Text="Yes, that's what it means - at least regarding this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick skim over the cited prior art makes me think that the application was anbandoned, because there were to many other documents that described this or a similar invention. Therefore you should carefully check those and other patents. Some of them may have claims that encompass this invention or parts of it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the application was (probably) abandoned because there were already other very similar inventions and the examiner thought this one was obvious over those others. Therefore the other inventions that were made prior to the patent application you asked about could even be claiming the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to a time limit for revival, the law provides that an application may be revived if the delay was unintentional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.bitlaw.com/source/37cfr/1_137.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Afaik someone producing the invention while the application was deemed abandoned may not be attacked with the patent even if it is revived and granted, but I'm not sure about those US technicalities. Someone else will have to fill in that knowledge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17400" RevisionGUID="6e9d8536-dbea-4f4e-be8a-8b58df7b3f4f" CreationDate="2017-03-13T16:36:55.540" UserId="14038" Text="Since this patent was filed prior to June 8th, 1995, the term of the patent was 17 years from the date of ISSUANCE, not filing date.  Thus if it went through a long examination period, which was common back then (prosecution periods of five or more years were not uncommon), the patent could still be in effect and enforceable.   Also, any continuation patent applications would still have that early filing date and the term would be 17 years from the date of ISSUANCE for continuing patent applications.  It was common strategy back then to keep continuation applications pending for years after issuance of the parent application.  This enabled clever owners to keep amending and prosecuting patent claims in pending applications to cover the attempts of competitors to design around the original patent.  This was referred to as &quot;submarine patent applications&quot;, that were not published and kept secret from the marketplace, then emerging once a competitor had designed around the original patent.   That is one of the major reasons why the patent terms were changed to be 20 years from date of FILING, not issuance and why patent applications are normally published now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17401" RevisionGUID="1b185384-c7a7-43c9-a9e0-455fd5cd75f9" CreationDate="2017-03-13T19:05:34.457" UserId="17003" Text="I'm not a lawyer, but I've worked with many while writing up my patents. If there is a particularly relevant piece of prior art it is often useful to go ahead and include a discussion of it in the specification so as to proactively teach how your invention is different and novel. Sometimes patent examiners get hung up on a particular piece of prior art and won't let go of it even if you have an excellent argument for novelty. Being proactive shows you weren't trying to slip something past them and seems to help convince examiners." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17403" RevisionGUID="86899125-350d-4056-bac8-93ef2389f46b" CreationDate="2017-03-13T22:38:31.920" UserId="13257" Text="Looks like you did a fair amount of research. Great job -- individual inventors have it tough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You get 12 months from the earliest priority date to file a PCT and claim its benefit, thus, you have to go the PCT route and can't extend it. See [here][1] for an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, let go of the provisional application. Do nothing. Exploit your tech, and reset the prior art clock. That may be the best case if your invention is truly novel, however, you run the risk of someone else filing it. It depends on your income, your belief of the value of the patent, and (most importantly) your belief in the value of your technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do note that option #2 is not an option. Read [carefully][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The pilot program does not change the requirement that an applicant must file a non-provisional application, foreign, or PCT application within 12 months of the filing date of a provisional application. If a non-provisional application,  foreign, or PCT application is filed later than 12 months from the filing date of a provisional application, it **may not be entitled to the benefit of right** of priority to the provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.smithhopen.com/PCT_filing_deadlines_and_priority_dates.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-implements-pilot-program-effectively-allowing-12-month-extension" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45250" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="a143fa12-6960-45b8-8a87-728b28da9e20" CreationDate="2017-03-13T23:51:27.733" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45252" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16950" RevisionGUID="2b52c4cf-931f-4e80-af01-6fb0c2fb200d" CreationDate="2017-03-14T02:56:57.003" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45253" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="ef0190a4-021a-4601-9e6a-976c007d72f7" CreationDate="2017-03-14T03:56:56.857" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45254" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16579" RevisionGUID="e77d408a-7dc0-4487-8722-95102f180391" CreationDate="2017-03-14T04:57:00.907" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12897" RevisionGUID="7d44955d-bf63-4c38-996a-6db41d8ccd0f" CreationDate="2017-03-14T05:54:47.577" UserId="14208" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I had a key idea to StartUp a company. But I found other company already holding a patent(found in Google patent search) on same idea but different approach to accomplish it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I patent the same idea with my own methodology? Is it illegal to use an idea which is already patented? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45256" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11968" RevisionGUID="410a2d7b-e766-4b33-aa96-1d96f8863444" CreationDate="2017-03-14T05:56:58.790" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17404" RevisionGUID="ac3dea02-3226-4773-a906-beb74fec1be4" CreationDate="2017-03-14T06:08:12.177" UserId="18663" Text="Can I re patent corrogated garden edging if it were to be used for another purpose.&#xD;&#xA;e.g. Not to be used for garden or lawn edging but for use to redirect rain or storm water from flooding area's that constantly flood where a quick and easy solution is required. this is not exactly the purpose but close and based on the same principal. Name would be different and sold as a different product, nothing to do with garden or lawn edging. if so &#xD;&#xA;what cost is involved and what would be required to secure a patent&#xD;&#xA;cheers Joe  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45258" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17404" RevisionGUID="ac3dea02-3226-4773-a906-beb74fec1be4" CreationDate="2017-03-14T06:08:12.177" UserId="18663" Text="corrogated garden edging" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45259" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17404" RevisionGUID="ac3dea02-3226-4773-a906-beb74fec1be4" CreationDate="2017-03-14T06:08:12.177" UserId="18663" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17404" RevisionGUID="b6ae3c48-446f-4cf1-bbbf-98877c2fe4d3" CreationDate="2017-03-14T10:24:13.390" UserId="15503" Comment="Improve grammar and formatting" Text="Can I re-patent corrugated garden edging if it were to be used for another purpose? For example, instead of being used for garden or lawn edging, it could be for use to redirect rain or storm water from flooding areas that constantly flood where a quick and easy solution is required. This is not exactly the purpose but close and based on the same principal. The name would be different and it would be sold as a different product with nothing to do with garden or lawn edging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, what cost is involved and what would be required to secure a patent?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45261" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17404" RevisionGUID="b6ae3c48-446f-4cf1-bbbf-98877c2fe4d3" CreationDate="2017-03-14T10:24:13.390" UserId="15503" Comment="Improve grammar and formatting" Text="Patenting a new use for a known product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17405" RevisionGUID="2a9ffba6-b5d7-400a-987c-9118ed5a47db" CreationDate="2017-03-14T10:38:22.263" UserId="15503" Text="**Can I re-patent corrugated garden edging if it were to be used for another purpose?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, in principle, with some caveats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims of this nature must satisfy the same requirements as any other claims. Notably they must be novel and non-obvious. There are two approaches you could use depending on the nature of your invention: a method of use claim, and a new product claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A method for using corrugated garden edging in flood protection may be allowable, assuming corrugated garden edging has not been used in this way before. However, you would need to satisfy an examiner that this use is not simply an obvious thing to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, if you are adapting the edging in some way to make it particularly useful for water routing, this may well result in a novel product. Again, you would need to satisfy an examiner that this new product is not an obvious modification of known products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cost is impossible to answer, since it depends on what countries you are interesting in and what attorneys you are using. You would be lucky to get less than USD 5000 (including drafting) for your first country though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to get a patent is extremely broad. However, at the risk of losing all nuance, the process is generally:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. draft an application;&#xD;&#xA;2. file an application in one or more countries; and&#xD;&#xA;3. prosecute each application until it is hopefully granted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45263" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12505" RevisionGUID="d895624a-f441-4ede-9f95-3ac163871030" CreationDate="2017-03-14T11:57:03.243" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45264" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10532" RevisionGUID="ea4446c9-3139-46d6-860e-c2e98b5b883a" CreationDate="2017-03-14T12:57:03.487" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45265" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10572" RevisionGUID="1a5938f2-7d6b-4b7e-a92d-21b2519f967d" CreationDate="2017-03-14T18:39:59.633" UserId="9802" Comment="minor grammar" Text="Or, how long after an application is published by the USPTO is it included in the Google Patent database?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, as of today, 2014-11-12, the most recent utility application was published 2014-11-06 (US20140331368).  It looks like the most recent application available on Google was published 2014-10-09 (US20140304863), which would make it at least 4 weeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Google Patents help page](http://support.google.com/faqs/answer/2539193) just says that it covers the &quot;entire collection&quot;. No clarification on the [Wikipedia article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Patents) either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12505" RevisionGUID="1c24bc39-c617-43d4-9e50-e66017b3295e" CreationDate="2017-03-14T21:43:18.080" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to the second patent for everyone's convenience" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8516220][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The broader claims of patent [US7644114][2] include the idea described int the later patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8516220&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7644114B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17406" RevisionGUID="858590ce-1d5a-45c2-bffe-d92718740891" CreationDate="2017-03-14T21:51:28.847" UserId="17003" Text="I am not an expert in this field, but if you look at the first claims you will see that the '114 patent specifies a first and second backup page with a dirty flag for each. The '220 patent specifies only one page with a bit for indicating dirty status and two extra bits. So although the application seems similar, the actual implementations seem to be different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The '220 patent has 12 prior patents and applications cited by the examiner as prior art. The '114 patent is not one of them so it is possible it was overlooked by the examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your question whether the '220 patent is merely as specialization of the '114 patent, I'm not skilled enough in the field to say. Even if it were, so long as the specialization was sufficiently novel and non-obvious, there is no reason why the patent shouldn't be granted. This doesn't mean that it can be practiced without assessing infringement on the '114 patent first (or any other relevant prior art)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45268" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17207" RevisionGUID="84519058-f1aa-4c8d-95e8-a3790f1f7672" CreationDate="2017-03-14T21:59:18.380" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45269" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17208" RevisionGUID="e15381c9-3990-4720-973e-31d4d601857c" CreationDate="2017-03-15T03:04:39.233" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17407" RevisionGUID="6d8ba75d-5a19-43d2-a731-f5ba7bbff21b" CreationDate="2017-03-15T07:06:32.447" UserId="18665" Text="In reference to the patent: [EP2457626B1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP2457626B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45271" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17407" RevisionGUID="6d8ba75d-5a19-43d2-a731-f5ba7bbff21b" CreationDate="2017-03-15T07:06:32.447" UserId="18665" Text="Is this patent applicable for gaming industry only? Can it some parts of it be used in other fields of work without infringement of rights?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45272" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17407" RevisionGUID="6d8ba75d-5a19-43d2-a731-f5ba7bbff21b" CreationDate="2017-03-15T07:06:32.447" UserId="18665" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17408" RevisionGUID="23f1bfb0-3a70-40bd-8036-0e8d48ab7ff4" CreationDate="2017-03-15T08:43:22.720" UserId="18666" Text="I was investigating the possible spike in the patent's out-degree. I observed a very strange behavior that patents citing 11 papers is much more than [expected](http://konect.uni-koblenz.de/img/degree.u.patentcite.png). I was wondering if there was some sort of limit on the citations a patent can make or some page-limit that may have given rise to this anamoly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45274" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17408" RevisionGUID="23f1bfb0-3a70-40bd-8036-0e8d48ab7ff4" CreationDate="2017-03-15T08:43:22.720" UserId="18666" Text="A bulge in patent's citations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45275" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17408" RevisionGUID="23f1bfb0-3a70-40bd-8036-0e8d48ab7ff4" CreationDate="2017-03-15T08:43:22.720" UserId="18666" Text="&lt;history&gt;&lt;citation&gt;&lt;patent-network&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45276" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16577" RevisionGUID="f2ca7a5f-f129-40f7-816e-b9bce6800d59" CreationDate="2017-03-15T10:06:53.487" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45277" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16114" RevisionGUID="473c8138-9bd8-4ba8-8a75-49077712256a" CreationDate="2017-03-15T12:06:58.603" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17409" RevisionGUID="acbd9bbf-bcc7-42ad-975a-36013514777f" CreationDate="2017-03-15T13:01:56.290" UserId="17003" Text="This a granted patent, not just an application. I see the term &quot;game&quot; or &quot;game apparatus&quot; in every independent claim so, to me, it looks like it is indeed limited to gaming only. However, you would do well to get an opinion from a patent attorney. If you want to patent its application in other contexts, it is prior art and may impact patentability. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17410" RevisionGUID="ef684926-cd10-4350-986e-9316af2216d8" CreationDate="2017-03-15T14:24:10.820" UserId="18658" Text="For an example scenario you get a rejection on your only claim, claim 1.  It is rejected under 103 and the examiner cites paragraph [0010] of reference A and the abstract of reference B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although paragraph [0010] of reference A objectively does not teach or suggest the claim feature the Examiner says it does.  In responding to the non-final you point this out and state the Examiner hasn't provided articulated reasoning, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then you get rejected again over the same references A and B, however this time the Examiner properly did his job and it turns out reference A does teach that claim feature but it was in paragraph [0204].  Can the Examiner properly make this rejection final?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was taught some years ago that they can because there is some presumption that when an Examiner cites a reference they cite it in its entirety and the burden falls on the applicant to rebut the reference in its entirety (even if the Examiner cites specific portions to reject specific claim language).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it seems to me that an Examiner that cites incorrect portions for specific claim language has failed to make a proper rejection and therefore cannot make that rejection final." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45280" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17410" RevisionGUID="ef684926-cd10-4350-986e-9316af2216d8" CreationDate="2017-03-15T14:24:10.820" UserId="18658" Text="Final rejection using same references after an unarticulated non-final" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45281" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17410" RevisionGUID="ef684926-cd10-4350-986e-9316af2216d8" CreationDate="2017-03-15T14:24:10.820" UserId="18658" Text="&lt;rejection&gt;&lt;final&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45285" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17041" RevisionGUID="5c72265c-a092-41a8-8165-4e3f0d8ffed5" CreationDate="2017-03-15T19:11:29.113" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45286" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16118" RevisionGUID="b4718f79-84f7-412e-9575-bd905b639d8e" CreationDate="2017-03-15T21:11:31.903" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17412" RevisionGUID="d1fe099b-3003-4f7a-8c4d-7d4e493b6e8f" CreationDate="2017-03-15T23:10:57.160" UserId="17003" Text="As a university student you should definitely consider working with your school's legal department. It may be in your best interest to allow the school to pursue the patent rather than doing it yourself. First, depending on the circumstances, the university may actually own the fruits of your labor. Even if this is true, my experience has been that the inventor generally gets good benefits compared to work for hire at a company. The university will have patent lawyers which can give you a patentability assessment and if patentable may pay for the patenting which can cost many thousands of dollars. Many universities also have extensive licensing departments which can help monetize a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not publish your code or any other description of your algorithms before filing the patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17413" RevisionGUID="75e2b330-f11b-4acc-aec7-bab6ac3626fa" CreationDate="2017-03-15T23:36:36.953" UserId="17003" Text="I once heard informally that [Jay Forrester][1] made a lot of money on his patent for [coincident core memory][2]. The story went that it was licensed on a per bit basis to IBM who grossly underestimated the future need for random access memory in its computers. That may not be true, but this [link][3] states that IBM paid $13 million in 1964 for Forrester's patent which works out to about $100 million in today's dollars. Invested in the SP500, I'd expect it would work out to be about $1.2 billion over the 53 years since 1964.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Wright_Forrester&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic-core_memory&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/memory-storage/8/253" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17413" RevisionGUID="fab84340-b7e4-4f8f-9c52-2707eaa01bb0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T02:14:53.563" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I once heard informally that [Jay Forrester][1] made a lot of money on his patent for [coincident core memory][2]. The story went that it was licensed on a per bit basis to IBM who grossly underestimated the future need for random access memory in its computers. That may not be true, but this [link][3] states that IBM paid $13 million in 1964 for Forrester's patent which works out to about $100 million in today's dollars. Invested in the S&amp;P500, I'd expect it would work out to be about $1.2 billion over the 53 years since 1964.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Wright_Forrester&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic-core_memory&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/memory-storage/8/253" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17415" RevisionGUID="3d9a58f4-d81f-47af-9567-90effaadd047" CreationDate="2017-03-16T03:59:42.707" UserId="15503" Text="I don't have a definitive answer to this, as I've never had occasion to argue it. I hope someone else comes along with a better answer, because it is an interesting point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The MPEP does provides some limited reasoning on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[MPEP § 706.07(a)](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s706.html#d0e69118) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Second or any subsequent actions on the merits shall be final, except where the examiner introduces a new ground of rejection that is neither necessitated by applicant’s amendment of the claims, nor based on information submitted in an information disclosure statement filed during the period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of a new ground of rejection is described at [MPEP § 1207.03(a)(II)](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1207.html#ch1200_d223b2_24c5f_263):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If the examiner’s answer cites a different portion of an applied reference which goes no farther than, and merely elaborates upon, what is taught in the previously cited portion of that reference, then the rejection does not constitute a new ground of rejection. …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The argument for the examiner would therefore seem to be that although the portions of the cited references have changed, these broadened portions merely elaborate on the previous ones, and therefore there is no new ground of rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But what if the previous rejection was not properly explained?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't seem to matter for whether a rejection is made final. [MPEP § 2141(IV)](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2141.html) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A mere statement or argument that the Office has not established a prima facie case of obviousness or that the Office’s reliance on common knowledge is unsupported by documentary evidence will not be considered substantively adequate to rebut the rejection or an effective traverse of the rejection under 37 CFR 1.111(b). Office personnel addressing this situation may repeat the rejection made in the prior Office action and make the next Office action final.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus if your argument is merely confined to the insufficiency of the reasoning in the rejection (rather than the insufficiency of the teaching  of the references), you would not be properly rebutting the rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to align well with the aim of the Office to encourage procedural efficiency. That is, if you're replying based on formal deficiencies rather than substantive matters, you're essentially delaying prosecution, and so should not be encouraged." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45293" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17226" RevisionGUID="0878fe07-326e-4132-b5f2-f3f51c3a2c6f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T08:19:31.420" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45294" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14892" RevisionGUID="8e6a222b-a1a6-405d-8d6b-8945aef9c03c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T13:22:40.167" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17047" RevisionGUID="7a998016-8f9c-4d22-99ad-97b49b3d55db" CreationDate="2017-03-16T14:39:36.550" UserId="18033" Comment="added 126 characters in body" Text="By providing a third party observation to the USPTO. This is basically sending prior art and reasoning to why the patent application should not be granted to the examiner. They should carefully consider this, however you will not be part of the examination process, so for example they won't ask for clarification. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can easily do this through the EPO website, just go to the patent application and look for the submit observation button." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17416" RevisionGUID="9a8eb9d2-317c-4f62-be83-48217ba30c3d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T14:57:32.850" UserId="17003" Text="Yes you can use MS Paint, but it isn't a good choice. Paint is a painting program which means it edits pixels. Thus its output when printed tends to look blocky and low quality. Much better is a vector drawing application. These print out at high resolution and allow scaling without degradation. If you have access to Microsoft Office, then you will find reasonably useful drawing tools embedded in those applications. I generally find it easier to access them in PowerPoint, although you can find them in Word too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Inkscape][1] is a totally free open source drawing program you can run on almost any computer. It can absolutely do the job although there is a bit of a learning curve. For people trying to draw mechanical drawings, I've been recommending [OnShape][2] which is a free web-based CAD program. Surprisingly capable and much better than SketchUp.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://inkscape.org/en/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.onshape.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3714" RevisionGUID="e23b5a9d-19b6-4c2b-9f09-bbccbac035a0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:51:06.530" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="You can read the file history of a US patent or published US Patent application on [Public Pair][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent examiner issued a notice of allowance (&quot;NOA&quot;) for this patent on 4/15/13 following an interview with the inventor(s) by telephone.  The text from the examiner's NOA is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The claimed invention is directed to providing a method for recycling cutting fluid, which can be processed with a high recycling rate of cutting fluid.  See page 2, lines 15-17, of the specification.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The claimed invention specifically provides a method for recycling cutting fluid comprises a step of &quot;separation,&quot; by preparing and oxidizing a cutting fluid of silicon including a silicon mixture and a cutting fluid at 150C to 350C in a container, to obtain a vaporized cutting fluid and a silicon slurry; and a step of &quot;recycling,&quot; by condensing the vaporized cutting fluid to obtain a recycled cutting fluid.  See page 3, lines 2-7 of the specification.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No such combination of methodprocess is disclosed or suggested in the cited references of record.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus, the subject matter of claims 1-5 is neither disclosed by the prior art nor is obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The claims are deemed allowable over the prior of record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicant disclosed as prior-art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Patents [5,693,596][4], [6,932,855][5], [5,795,400][6], [6,821,437][7] and no non-patent documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner cited as prior-art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Patents [5,795,400][6], [8,029,756][8], US patent application 2010/0061913 and no non-patent documents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not familiar with technology described in this patent.  So I can't speak to whether the invention as described is obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if the invention is in fact obvious then **this is a good example of why we need to submit prior art to the USPTO within six months after a patent application is published**.  Under the America Invents Act the patent examiner is allowed to consider any prior art we submit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[AskPatents.com][2] was designed to facilitate the submission of prior art to the patent office during the patent prosecution process.  Any interested party can post a [Request for Prior Art][3] (&quot;RFPA&quot;) on Ask Patents.  The interested party is encouraged to answer his own question with any prior art he can cite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once a patent is issued it is presumed valid and a re-examination is much more difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/a/146/1767&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5693596&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6932855&#xD;&#xA;[6]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5795400&#xD;&#xA;[7]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6821437&#xD;&#xA;[8]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8029756&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4192" RevisionGUID="f426fa7a-45aa-49d6-94dd-4231d5144812" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:51:06.530" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**To create a prior-art-request**, [any user can follow the prior art request format][4] and ask the AskPatents community for help finding prior art on a US Patent Application on [AskPatents][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Current Prior Art Requests on AskPatents**][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**How to Submit a Prior Art Request**][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As revised by the **America Invents Act** (AIA), [35 U.S.C. § 122(e)][1] expands the opportunity for third-party pre-issuance submissions in US patent cases. Anyone is permitted to submit published documents ('printed publications') that are relevant to the examination of a pending application along with a concise explanation of the importance of the documents submitted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The AIA provides the general standards for preissuance submissions of patents, published patent applications, or other printed publications in patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preissuance submissions may be filed by any member of the public, including private persons and corporate entities such as [AskPatents][3].  The only limitation is that the third party may not be the applicant or any individual who has a duty to disclose information with respect to the application under [37 C.F.R. § 1.56][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Requirements - [submissions may be done anonymously and electronically][5], but must include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A list identifying the items being submitted; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a concise description of the relevance of each item listed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a legible copy of each non-U.S. patent document listed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. an English language translation of any non-English language item listed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. a statement by the party making the submission that the submission complies with the statute and the rule; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. the required fee ($0 if fewer than three-documents submitted).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the Examiner raises a rejection in view of the submitted document, only the applicant, not the third party, can respond.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The good news is that [AskPatents][3] was created specifically to facilitate the submission of pre-issuance submissions to the USPTO.  Any interested user on AskPatents can create a [prior-art-request][3] on a US Patent Application.  Other users submit proposed prior art. After a suitable period to solicit exemplary prior art, the best prior art is vetted by volunteer lawyers and submitted to the USPTO by the AskPatents community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://usptopost-grant.com/35-usc-%C2%A7-122/&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.56&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/q/47/1767&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/independent/eye/201210/inventorseye_advice.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4770" RevisionGUID="73ee579e-0f3c-4536-a7aa-6dad22cb448a" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:51:06.530" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text=" is the Examiner aware of the prior art on diffraction range finders in the publication list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;http://www.3dewitt.com/2/patent02.html&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taken from the [Prior Art Request Template](https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/a/146/1767).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If another user (or the original poster) could complete for US20120281086 it would be very helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**HELP SAVE [INDUSTRY THREATENED BY OVERLY BROAD APPLICATION IN QUESTION]** - This application from [Assignee name] seeks to patent [quick, sensational description of invention described by application]! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent application before it becomes a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before {Priority Date}** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - [Description of stated invention, in plain English *note: include more than 1 bullet if multi-step process is essential to invention*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question -- one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Include a reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO {extra detail of stated invention that appears tangentially essential to idea}. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: **Distance measurement apparatus and distance measurement method**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [A multi-sentence description of the invention described in the patent application translated into plain old English. Feel free to borrow liberally from the application's Abstract.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US US20120281086][5]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Nov 9, 2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** through [Final Challenge Date *note: this date is typically as soon as six months after the publication date, but sometimes earlier and sometimes later. See [here][2] for more info.]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 14 requires each and every aspect of the following claim wording.**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA; (1-13 were canceled before the application was published, there are two other independent claims.)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A distance measurement apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a) an imaging device which captures an image;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b) a diffractive optical device which has a curved surface and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; diffracts a subject image; &lt;p&gt; c) an optical system which forms, on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said imaging device, the image from the subject image diffracted by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said diffractive optical device; and &lt;p&gt; d) a distance measurement&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unit configured to measure a distance to a subject using the image&#xD;&#xA;&gt; captured by said imaging device, wherein said distance measurement&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unit is configured to measure the distance to the subject based on an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interval between diffraction figures of the subject image which are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; created by said diffractive optical device, the interval being on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; image captured by said imaging device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. [First device  of claim 1 translated into plain old English]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. [Second step of claim 1 translated into plain old English]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. [Third step of claim 1 translated into plain old English]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to [Priority Date].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and including [extra detail provided in Extra Credit section].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Image *note: this is where you may choose to upload a diagram taken from the patent application. We recommend uploading an image that is eye-catching, and quickly communicates the essence of the invention described in the patent application.*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ](http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request) on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/146/edit&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120281086&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120281086&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4809" RevisionGUID="f074dbe3-e0f0-441d-810a-e642557a74eb" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:51:06.530" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON EXAMPLE SOURCE CODE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google has patented the generation of client libraries and example&#xD;&#xA;code from API descriptions. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US&#xD;&#xA;patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow&#xD;&#xA;@askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before March, 2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Automatically generating a client library for accessing a given API from a given operating&#xD;&#xA;system using a given programming language, together with sample code&#xD;&#xA;that uses the client library, and making the generated code&#xD;&#xA;available for download from the web?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.&#xD;&#xA;Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers&#xD;&#xA;from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Generate custom client library samples based on a machine readable&#xD;&#xA;API description**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: It’s common for a web application to provide a&#xD;&#xA;programming-language-agnostic HTTP API. It’s also common for web&#xD;&#xA;applications to provide example code for accessing the API from many&#xD;&#xA;different programming languages. Google wants to patent automating this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US8510762 B1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** March 2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Feb 13, 2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://google.com/patents/US8510762&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below::&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method performed by one or more processors, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a request for a client library for an API, the request&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    including an API identifier, a target programming language, and a&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    target operating system platform&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Retrieving a machine-readable description of the API based on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    identifier for the API&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Building a model of the API based on the machine-readable description&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generating an API library source code in the target programming language&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Receiving a sample template for a generic sample application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Expanding the sample template by incorporating a data structure in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    target programming language to generate one or more code samples using&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    the API library source code&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Storing in a unique Web location the generated code samples for later&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    download.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. The server requests a client library for accessing the [Foo][] API&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    using the Bar programming language&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2. The server looks up a description of the Foo API&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  3. The server parses the API description&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  4. The server generates a Bar-programming-language client library for the&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Foo API&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  5. The server looks up sample code for using the Foo API. The patent does&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    not specify if this sample code is in the Bar programming language,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    or in some other format that is then translated to the Bar programming&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    language.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  6. The server generates Bar-language sample code that uses the&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Bar-language client library. It does so by using the impossibly vague&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    procedure of “expanding the sample template by incorporating a data&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    structure in the [Bar] programming language.”&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  7. The server returns a URL of the generated client library and sample&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Foo]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foobar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of&#xD;&#xA;these steps prior to **March, 2012**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you&#xD;&#xA;to [post your own request for prior art][prior-art] on other questionable&#xD;&#xA;US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[FAQ]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;[prior-art]: https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/47/how-do-i-write-a-prior-art-request-for-a-u-s-patent-application&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5502" RevisionGUID="6471d9ba-b1a8-439a-b3f0-925ae0492ea6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:51:06.530" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm not a lawyer but I know a bit about 3D printing (this isn't legal advice :) )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's still a patent application so it's not approved yet and we don't know whether any of the claims will be accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're right that the H-bit you show in that catalogue looks a lot like it, and given it was being used on a CNC which is &quot;subtractive manufacturing&quot;, I doubt that using it in a 3D printer which is &quot;additive manufacturing&quot; can really be considered novel or unobvious but who knows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's a little surprising is that this is Stratasys which is a major player in 3D printing, who I'm sure would know about the H-configuration, yet their prior art references is a little on the short side and seems to not mention any existing such configurations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're allowed to submit 3 pieces of prior art for free against that application (here are some easy instructions: https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/105/i-want-to-make-a-difference-how-can-i-submit-prior-art-to-the-patent-office). I'd say pick the best 3 that a USPTO examiner can understand and just do it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13240" RevisionGUID="58cbfba8-8e41-487b-9516-e9c8406750ae" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:51:06.530" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The patent has already granted in Europe as [EP 2384964 B1][1]. However, there is a corresponding United States patent application, [US 2011/0272920][2], that has not yet issued, so there is still time left to challenge it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can collect Prior Art in this community if you'd like (follow the instructions from [this question][3]). These posts will be linked directly from Google Patents. If you want to submit Prior Art directly to the USPTO, please refer to [this answer][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP2384964B1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110272920&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/a/146/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/a/107/14417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13246" RevisionGUID="243add9e-2cb6-4186-994d-089e9d7ac6a0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:51:06.530" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="A Provisional Application is not considered to be publicly disclosed, as it never published. Therefore, it cannot serve as Prior Art because it is not generally accessible. The Provisional is there as proof that you have created something novel in a particular area by a particular date, the Priority Date. If it had been a full application, it could serve as Prior Art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You probably have a document somewhere that provides your Provisional Patent Number and Priority Date from 1994. That could be helpful in establishing that you were the First to Invent. In order to have been included as an inventor based on the Provisional Application, you would have needed to submit the full application within a year of your Priority Date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this application has not yet been granted. This means there is still time to collect Prior Art and challenge the patent by first collecting Prior Art as described [here][1] and then (or concurrently) submitting the Prior Art to the USPTO as described [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to contact the inventor on this application, you should be able to find the information using the instructions in [this answer][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your last question on novelty, I'm going to give you a qualified &quot;yes&quot;, if there is Prior Art for everything in the application, then it may be enough to invalidate the entire application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there several other important points to consider before you even think about contacting the inventor. First, the claims are the most important section to look at, and in particular, the independent claims. Even if the background and figures read almost identically to an existing design, it is possible to get novel claim language granted. Without seeing the Prior Art, I have no way of answering that question more completely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing to consider is that novelty is not defined as &quot;every part of a claim must be novel&quot;, but also like &quot;a novel combination of three or more existing things&quot;. You will want to have a very close look at the Independent Claims (Claim 1, Claim 10 and Claim 15) in this application. If an Independent Claim is invalidated, then all of its Dependent Claims will also be invalidated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applications are often rejected on first examination over claims that are too broad or obvious over existing Prior Art. The inventor has the ability to revise claims after a rejection through a series of Office Actions to attempt to work around the problems. This process may take years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/a/146/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/a/107/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/a/5351/14417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13506" RevisionGUID="a01bc797-aa3a-43ec-9078-2195c4089ccd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:51:06.530" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="What is the correct priority date of [US 4,851,616 A][1], and what are the legal ramifications if an inventor deliberately misrepresents the priority date based on an error in the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please provide your reasoning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hint: There are at least 12 useful pieces of information in the cover sheet (and even more in the specification), and the answer *is not* January 3, 1966.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![cover sheet with incorrect priority date][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: This is a lapsed patent, and the reason I am asking about this is provided in this [meta post][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4851616&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/kXETf.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/q/283/14417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14483" RevisionGUID="996f3fef-eaf8-4b66-9187-13fb43de0943" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:51:06.530" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="This application was definitely too broad when it was filed, and it was abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it had gone through, I would have recommended you post a [prior-art-request](https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/47/how-do-i-write-a-prior-art-request-for-a-u-s-patent-application/146#146) to our site. But you don't have to think about this now. It's like the application never happened, basically." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17416" RevisionGUID="de2e6ccf-03ac-4491-b916-92d143a56cc8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:17:48.927" UserId="17003" Comment="added 261 characters in body" Text="Yes you can use MS Paint, but it isn't a good choice. Paint is a painting program which means it edits pixels. Thus its output when printed tends to look blocky and low quality. Much better is a vector drawing application. These print out at high resolution and allow scaling without degradation. If you have access to Microsoft Office, then you will find reasonably useful drawing tools embedded in those applications. I generally find it easier to access them in PowerPoint, although you can find them in Word too. With a painting program once you draw a line, it is hard to change it. With a drawing program, you can draw a line, select the endpoint and move it. In some programs you can link an endpoint to another object which makes drawing diagrams so much easier to edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Inkscape][1] is a totally free open source drawing program you can run on almost any computer. It can absolutely do the job although there is a bit of a learning curve. For people trying to draw mechanical drawings, I've been recommending [OnShape][2] which is a free web-based CAD program. Surprisingly capable and much better than SketchUp.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://inkscape.org/en/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.onshape.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45308" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17225" RevisionGUID="69545e8e-b61f-42db-bb7e-8b60b55c9f89" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:22:40.587" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17416" RevisionGUID="0d65ee76-8100-4512-89fb-b572f1cf2cbd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T17:53:02.090" UserId="17003" Comment="Added some more clarification as to the advantages of drawing programs." Text="Yes you can use MS Paint, but it isn't a good choice. Paint is a painting program which means it edits pixels. Thus its output when printed tends to look blocky and low quality. Much better is a vector drawing application. These print out at high resolution and allow scaling without degradation. If you have access to Microsoft Office, then you will find reasonably useful drawing tools embedded in those applications. I generally find it easier to access them in PowerPoint, although you can find them in Word too. With a painting program once you draw a line, it is hard to change it. With a drawing program, you can draw a line, select the endpoint and move it. You can just as easily change its thickness or add an arrow head. In some programs you can link an endpoint of one line to another object which makes drawing diagrams so much easier to edit. If you've never used a drawing program, a few YouTube videos should get you going.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Inkscape][1] is a totally free open source drawing program you can run on almost any computer. It can absolutely do the job although there is a bit of a learning curve. [Dia][2] is a free open source program for drawing diagrams. For people trying to draw mechanical drawings, I've been recommending [OnShape][3] which is a free web-based CAD program. Surprisingly capable and much better than SketchUp.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://inkscape.org/en/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sourceforge.net/projects/dia-installer/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.onshape.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45310" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17413" RevisionGUID="17d09376-8fb6-48b3-9f28-524f80590215" CreationDate="2017-03-16T18:17:20.867" UserId="17003" Comment="Added a bit more content about Jay Forrester." Text="I once heard informally that [Jay Forrester][1] made a lot of money on his [patent][2] for [coincident core memory][3]. The story went that it was licensed on a per bit basis to IBM who grossly underestimated the future need for random access memory in its computers. That may not be true, but this [link][4] states that IBM paid $13 million in 1964 for Forrester's patent which works out to about $100 million in today's dollars. Invested in the S&amp;P500, I'd expect it would work out to be about $1.2 billion over the 53 years since 1964.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jay Forrester was a pretty amazing guy. After fundamental contributions to the development of modern computers he switched focus and founded the field of [System Dynamics][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Wright_Forrester&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/093506002c01331301b3/US2736880.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic-core_memory&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/memory-storage/8/253&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_dynamics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45311" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14948" RevisionGUID="b701e8ac-c3ea-49c7-b903-3e13e1e8106f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T23:34:34.827" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16399" RevisionGUID="412bdef0-a8e6-4476-9168-dfb6e1ba5661" CreationDate="2017-03-17T10:46:12.267" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://security.stackexchange.com/ with https://security.stackexchange.com/" Text="This used to be a lot more important than it is now.  In the past, the United States determined patent priority based on a **first-to-invent** system.  That is, if you and another inventor both had patent applications pending for roughly the same invention, the one who could prove they invented it first would win.  Those &quot;[interference][1]&quot; proceedings are why inventors needed to keep such carefully documented records of when they invented things and took various steps in reducing it to practice.  If there was documented evidence that credible, neutral people saw you inventing something and continuously taking diligent steps to reduce an idea to practice, while your competitor just had his own word and maybe the word of some family members whose incentives are strongly aligned to helping him/her win, your evidence would probably carry greater weight when a finder of fact balanced the evidence.  There aren't hard-and-fast rules, just predictions about future credibility and weight of evidence in the event of a later dispute regarding the invention process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of March 2013, the US joined the rest of the world with a **first-to-file** system, meaning that if two inventors have patent applications pending for roughly the same invention, whichever application effectively reached the USPTO first wins - and this is considerably easier to resolve.  The guides you're reading may have been written (or their authors educated) before this new system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are still lots of good reasons for documenting your invention process.  There are still good reasons for trying to privately explain your work and progress to trusted others, because trying to explain the idea can clarify it and (especially in conversation) lead to new improvements and good ideas.  Documenting others' observations of your progress can still be helpful in case there's any dispute about your invention process at a later date.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also consider recording your invention notes in a cloud storage format (e.g. Google Drive, GitHub private repositories) which has a large, well-known party recording dates of changes, likely to be viewed more credibly than a paper notebook.  If you're keeping designs on GitHub (etc.) you also gain access to the supported features like easy branching (to try out some new improvement) and quick reversion if some attempted change didn't produce the improvements you thought it might, helping your invention process.  The cloud storage option also gives you benefits of backup and makes it less likely your records will get destroyed by some accident (or natural disaster, attack, etc.), while slightly increasing your risk of having information stolen if someone hacks in to your account (use 2FA and see [Information Security.SE][2] for more tips on preventing that).  This strategy also makes it easier to add geographically distant collaborators if you find people you want to partner with, and makes it easier for them to access the history in case questions come up while you're unreachable (on vacation, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Especially with the first-to-file system now in place, if trying to find the right people to observe and sign your notebook on a regular basis is causing you issues and slowing you down, you might be better off just forgetting about it and focusing your time &amp; energies on understanding problems, inventing solutions, and finding ways to make those solutions broadly useful.  Good luck!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_proceeding&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://security.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45316" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="2025d1f1-d681-46a1-88d6-1b41b14c6418" CreationDate="2017-03-17T10:54:43.090" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17418" RevisionGUID="d3d38432-eb55-4a60-8cfa-03fcbe47d8c0" CreationDate="2017-03-17T12:52:03.793" UserId="18677" Text="Looking at patent [GB2418423A][1] it seems to be very similar to [GB2327668][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. GB2418423A claim 1 is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A dispensing device comprising a housing having an upper loading chamber, a dispensing chamber located beneath the loading chamber and a gate means movable between a first, open position and second, closed position to allow s selective communication of the loading chamber and the dispensing chamber, entry to the lower chamber being by means of door means, the device further comprising a locking means which prevents the door means from opening when the gate is in the open position and which prevents opening of the gate means when the door means is open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;whereas GB2327668 states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A dispensing device comprising a housing having an upper loading chamber, a dispensing chamber located beneath the loading chamber and moveable gate means adapted to allow selective communication of the loading chamber and dispensing chamber.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from the locking means they seem to be almost identical, so would it be possible to invalidate GB2418423A?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/GB2418423A&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/GB2327668A/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45318" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17418" RevisionGUID="d3d38432-eb55-4a60-8cfa-03fcbe47d8c0" CreationDate="2017-03-17T12:52:03.793" UserId="18677" Text="Is patent GB2418423A valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45319" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17418" RevisionGUID="d3d38432-eb55-4a60-8cfa-03fcbe47d8c0" CreationDate="2017-03-17T12:52:03.793" UserId="18677" Text="&lt;validity&gt;&lt;invalidate&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17420" RevisionGUID="abc3b509-6f04-4c9b-92a0-4ce76bf3850a" CreationDate="2017-03-17T13:25:23.533" UserId="18680" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2009048895A2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2009048895A2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is this device in production or where can I purchase an item. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thanks &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;reason I am asking is that I have a nut allergy " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45324" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17420" RevisionGUID="abc3b509-6f04-4c9b-92a0-4ce76bf3850a" CreationDate="2017-03-17T13:25:23.533" UserId="18680" Text="Where can I purchase this item" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45325" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17420" RevisionGUID="abc3b509-6f04-4c9b-92a0-4ce76bf3850a" CreationDate="2017-03-17T13:25:23.533" UserId="18680" Text="&lt;wo2009048895a2&gt;&lt;nut&gt;&lt;allergy&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17421" RevisionGUID="e0ca7cf5-0582-4232-b7f6-98a680b205b2" CreationDate="2017-03-17T13:40:39.280" UserId="8074" Text="Check the [unpatent.co][1] website. It's a platform for crowdfunding of campaigns against malicious patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://unpatent.co" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17422" RevisionGUID="41807692-2d77-43ea-888a-2d8075878d24" CreationDate="2017-03-17T13:49:21.257" UserId="17173" Text="I'm looking for a way to crowdfund obviously flawed patent invalidation? Or even maybe to submit my own findings to such organisation?.." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45328" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17422" RevisionGUID="41807692-2d77-43ea-888a-2d8075878d24" CreationDate="2017-03-17T13:49:21.257" UserId="17173" Text="Is there a way to crowdfund patent invalidation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45329" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17422" RevisionGUID="41807692-2d77-43ea-888a-2d8075878d24" CreationDate="2017-03-17T13:49:21.257" UserId="17173" Text="&lt;troll&gt;&lt;crowdfund&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17423" RevisionGUID="0c662a59-e33e-4d3f-bb15-e3697eae156f" CreationDate="2017-03-17T15:00:46.363" UserId="18033" Text="Almost identical in most cases means that one is an improvement of the other, which is patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both patent applications you have cited have later been granted (for the difference between application and grant see for example [here][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference, as you said, seems to be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;entry to the lower chamber being by means of door means, the device further comprising a locking means which prevents the door means from opening when the gate is in the open position and which prevents opening of the gate means when the door means is open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Claim 1 was granted like this).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to know if the patent can be invalidated, you either need to find this feature in the other patent you cited or in another document that can be combined (read: is from a similar technology area or would be considered by a person skilled in the art for other reasons) with the other patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd suggest first checking the prosecution history (you can find that if you follow the google patents link, then the espacenet link for example) to see if the examiner did consider the patent you cited during the examination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/17115/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17424" RevisionGUID="60e2a297-4428-4158-b20a-2270032fb152" CreationDate="2017-03-17T15:04:55.213" UserId="18033" Text="There is [this][1] link which was posted by another user as a comment and an answer to [this][2] question at the same time you asked this question, however I have no experience with this site nor do I see any campaigns yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://unpatent.co/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/4266/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17422" RevisionGUID="6e877484-b309-4048-92de-71fed46d2d30" CreationDate="2017-03-17T15:06:31.910" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I'm looking for a way to crowdfund obviously flawed patent invalidation? Or even maybe to submit my own findings to such organisation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17425" RevisionGUID="f3e50691-43e4-491e-b2bd-eba49c4047fe" CreationDate="2017-03-17T15:10:44.393" UserId="18681" Text="In reference to the patent: [US2002098][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US2002098" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45334" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17425" RevisionGUID="f3e50691-43e4-491e-b2bd-eba49c4047fe" CreationDate="2017-03-17T15:10:44.393" UserId="18681" Text="Patent Drawings missing, presents drawing of a another patent? How to get related drawing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45335" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17425" RevisionGUID="f3e50691-43e4-491e-b2bd-eba49c4047fe" CreationDate="2017-03-17T15:10:44.393" UserId="18681" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17426" RevisionGUID="a543c188-a380-489f-acf4-c69165762198" CreationDate="2017-03-17T15:21:50.940" UserId="17003" Text="This is a patent application, not yet a patent. It may never get to be a patent. Either way, the existence of a patent doesn't necessarily imply there is a marketed product. Many, if not most, patents never get realized as products. That said, there are definitely products for testing for allergens. I recommend that you do a Google search for &quot;nut allergen testing&quot; and you should find quite a few hits. For instance this one: http://foodsafety.neogen.com/en/reveal-for-multi-treenut, or this one: https://www.romerlabs.com/en/en/products/test-kits/food-allergen-test-kits/. I don't know if these are marketed to home users or not. Look for the term &quot;lateral flow strips&quot;. These are simple devices that work like home pregnancy test strips." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45345" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17420" RevisionGUID="c9405379-d080-43cf-b5b4-8111c6bb6f38" CreationDate="2017-03-17T19:24:32.220" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:18033,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DonQuiKong&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="45346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17429" RevisionGUID="ccd01caa-00e1-4865-b4ca-838cfc61ea32" CreationDate="2017-03-17T20:10:20.507" UserId="16993" Text="The response of an UK examination of my application starts with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. I am of the opinion that the invention as defined in claims 1-15 of your application relates to a method of doing business and a computer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; program *as such* and is therefore excluded from patent ability under&#xD;&#xA;&gt; section 1(2) of Patents Act 1977.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as a not-attorney, I interpret it as &quot;because it is a business method and a computer program you can not patent it.&quot; But when I look at [here][1], it makes &quot;as such&quot; saying exactly the opposit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/As_such" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45347" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17429" RevisionGUID="ccd01caa-00e1-4865-b4ca-838cfc61ea32" CreationDate="2017-03-17T20:10:20.507" UserId="16993" Text="What does &quot;as such&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45348" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17429" RevisionGUID="ccd01caa-00e1-4865-b4ca-838cfc61ea32" CreationDate="2017-03-17T20:10:20.507" UserId="16993" Text="&lt;european&gt;&lt;uk&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17430" RevisionGUID="fd3aa3b4-be16-4d90-b894-f9ad99acd0ff" CreationDate="2017-03-17T20:54:10.800" UserId="18033" Text="It means exactly what you think.&#xA;&#xA;The website is merely saying that there always is a way to make software be not software - claiming it as the physical interaction and not as software. &#xA;&#xA;Which is why saying *software as such (meaning software as software) is not patentable* can be interpreted as *software is patentable as long as it is not claimed as software but as a physical something*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45350" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16131" RevisionGUID="97de2bd8-5faf-482e-b37d-78fbbae6d9ae" CreationDate="2017-03-17T21:56:53.417" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17431" RevisionGUID="bc082258-381a-4696-a316-f75f3a7da091" CreationDate="2017-03-17T22:05:01.743" UserId="18683" Text="My son and I invented something together. We qualify as micro entity and filed the appropriate form MES.GIB. However PTO came back saying it doesn't correctly identify the application to which it relates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I filed two forms, one with my name and signature at the top and bottom, and one with his and checked the checkbox at the bottom for both. However, the top says &quot;First Named Inventor&quot;. I can put his name on both forms (since he is first) however, it isn't clear on this form where to put my name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be no guidance anywhere on how to do this. Can someone who has done it clarify for me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45352" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17431" RevisionGUID="bc082258-381a-4696-a316-f75f3a7da091" CreationDate="2017-03-17T22:05:01.743" UserId="18683" Text="Problem filing micro entity status" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45353" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17431" RevisionGUID="bc082258-381a-4696-a316-f75f3a7da091" CreationDate="2017-03-17T22:05:01.743" UserId="18683" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;micro-entity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17433" RevisionGUID="c3a5be7e-e1da-494a-b5f3-a9cb870dbd55" CreationDate="2017-03-18T01:01:04.460" UserId="15503" Text="In the UK, this wording derives the [Patents Act 1977 s 1(2)](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/37/section/1), which provides (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It is hereby declared that the following (among other things) are not inventions for the purposes of this Act, that is to say, anything which consists of -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a) a discovery, scientific theory or mathematical method;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(b) a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or any other aesthetic creation whatsoever;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(c) a scheme, rule or method for performing a mental act, playing a game or **doing business, or a program for a computer**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(d) the presentation of information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;but the foregoing provision shall prevent anything from being treated as an invention for the purposes of this Act **only to the extent that a patent or application for a patent relates to that thing as such**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this context, the &quot;as such&quot; exclusion means that there must be something more to the invention than just a business method or a computer program. This might be controlling a machine, or improving the operation of a computer, or any number of other things. But there must be something more. This is quite tidily stated by [MOPP s 1.35](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/manual-of-patent-practice-mopp/section-1-patentability):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Therefore, a computer program that provides a technical contribution will not fall under the exclusion, as it is more than a computer program as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In determining whether an invention is excluded, the UKIPO applies the *Aerotel* test:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1) Properly construe the claim;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2) identify the actual contribution;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(3) ask whether it falls solely within the excluded subject matter;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(4) check whether the actual or alleged contribution is actually technical in nature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *Aerotel* test thus focuses on whether the actual contribution is excluded, rather than the claimed subject matter as a whole. Thus merely embodying a business method in a physical device is not enough to avoid it being excluded subject matter, if the physical device is just commonplace window dressing (such as a processor and memory).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**An aside about that website**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would disagree with the editorialising of that website. Or more explicitly, [that page](http://en.swpat.org/wiki/As_such) is biased and uninformed twaddle. The words &quot;as such&quot; certainly reduce the scope of an exclusion, but do not render it meaningless. As you have noticed, the UKIPO readily object to excluded subject matter. And the EPO have no problem objecting to excluded subject matter (albeit sometimes through the mechanism of non-technical features not supporting an inventive step)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45359" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16149" RevisionGUID="adf77803-6a3a-4959-8267-a86c7986dfcc" CreationDate="2017-03-18T01:04:22.847" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17433" RevisionGUID="0e6240a2-696b-46fd-b44f-4a21107f80e1" CreationDate="2017-03-18T01:10:20.023" UserId="15503" Comment="expand" Text="In the UK, this wording derives the [Patents Act 1977 s 1(2)](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/37/section/1), which provides (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It is hereby declared that the following (among other things) are not inventions for the purposes of this Act, that is to say, anything which consists of -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a) a discovery, scientific theory or mathematical method;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(b) a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or any other aesthetic creation whatsoever;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(c) a scheme, rule or method for performing a mental act, playing a game or **doing business, or a program for a computer**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(d) the presentation of information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;but the foregoing provision shall prevent anything from being treated as an invention for the purposes of this Act **only to the extent that a patent or application for a patent relates to that thing as such**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this context, the &quot;as such&quot; exclusion means that there must be something more to the invention than just a business method or a computer program. This might be controlling a machine, or improving the operation of a computer, or any number of other things. But there must be something more. This is quite tidily stated by [MOPP s 1.35](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/manual-of-patent-practice-mopp/section-1-patentability):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Therefore, a computer program that provides a technical contribution will not fall under the exclusion, as it is more than a computer program as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In determining whether an invention is excluded, the UKIPO applies the *Aerotel* test:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1) Properly construe the claim;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2) identify the actual contribution;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(3) ask whether it falls solely within the excluded subject matter;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(4) check whether the actual or alleged contribution is actually technical in nature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *Aerotel* test thus focuses on whether the actual contribution is excluded, rather than the claimed subject matter as a whole. Thus merely embodying a business method in a physical device is not enough to avoid it being excluded subject matter, if the physical device is just commonplace window dressing (such as a processor and memory).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, that objection broadly means that the actual contribution falls solely into an excluded category with nothing further involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How to respond**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In applying the *Aerotel* test, you will notice that the actual contribution must fall solely within the excluded subject matter. You may therefore want to characterise the actual contribution differently from the examiner. Or you may want to point to a facet of it that is not excluded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**An aside about that website**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would disagree with the editorialising of that website. Or more explicitly, [that page](http://en.swpat.org/wiki/As_such) is biased and uninformed twaddle. The words &quot;as such&quot; certainly reduce the scope of an exclusion, but do not render it meaningless. As you have noticed, the UKIPO readily object to excluded subject matter. And the EPO have no problem objecting to excluded subject matter (albeit sometimes through the mechanism of non-technical features not supporting an inventive step)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45362" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17238" RevisionGUID="04ad8f3f-37bb-4b74-b3af-132d40d6c219" CreationDate="2017-03-18T04:05:08.127" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45363" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13006" RevisionGUID="b1d625cc-fe2e-49b3-8e75-fef205b45b05" CreationDate="2017-03-18T11:12:29.757" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17435" RevisionGUID="8ed0a0a4-1043-476d-968b-32ae4509151c" CreationDate="2017-03-18T13:56:59.757" UserId="17003" Text="This prior art search has been posted for a while with little response. **As I am not a patent attorney, this response is based on my best understanding and if there are inaccurate statements, I hope others will edit the answer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a design patent and not a utility patent. Design patents cover ornamental design for an object having practical utility. As such, infringement is generally easily avoided. In this case, what is claimed is a particular arrangement of holes for an air freshener lid. A competitor would merely need to change the arrangement of holes to avoid infringement. Finding a similar arrangement of holes on a different object such as a shower head, or knitting pattern wouldn't constitute prior art since those objects aren't air freshener lids so they wouldn't invalidate the design patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point is the request for examples of the same pattern of holes in objects other than an air freshener lid aren't of value as prior art so the question itself is off base. I understand that this doesn't &quot;answer&quot; the question, but I think it does educate the questioner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45369" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17238" RevisionGUID="ea45182c-86a9-42d0-a7ef-c0f22a4bdbcd" CreationDate="2017-03-18T13:58:15.697" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed misspelling" Text="Prior existing technology patented" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45370" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14680" RevisionGUID="d1fb8bd3-abaa-4959-95e7-bb013b4d91b2" CreationDate="2017-03-18T14:12:41.930" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45371" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14248" RevisionGUID="6ef51bcb-82ba-4d4d-9d85-3f1980eac480" CreationDate="2017-03-18T15:14:10.257" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45372" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16307" RevisionGUID="13a32280-a85c-420e-a85b-2171597ee820" CreationDate="2017-03-18T17:14:25.790" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17436" RevisionGUID="c5748da2-fb96-4bee-8408-62ac94b3a7f6" CreationDate="2017-03-18T18:23:44.423" UserId="998" Text="The USPTO has recently refocused efforts on helping independent inventors through the patenting process.  I would suggest that you contact the PTO's Inventor's Assistance Center (IAC). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Toll-Free: 800-786-9199 or Web: &#xD;&#xA;https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/support-centers/inventors-assistance-center-iac&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45376" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="493458bb-cd72-4390-aa94-5db2e2f4114b" CreationDate="2017-03-18T20:14:31.230" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17437" RevisionGUID="51e5de8a-469b-4640-b9bd-8600b2161335" CreationDate="2017-03-18T23:38:08.187" UserId="17003" Text="[RapidMiner][1] has a graphical programming idiom, access to databases and the ability to deploy models. According to [Wikipedia][2] it dates back to 2001. I've used it and it seem to have all of the characteristics you describe in the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://rapidminer.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RapidMiner" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45378" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12543" RevisionGUID="c6eb25bd-6b0c-4a2a-8faf-1bb1301699b3" CreationDate="2017-03-19T06:29:42.343" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17438" RevisionGUID="780becb6-ac79-4773-a25b-5d486acdc54b" CreationDate="2017-03-19T15:34:38.463" UserId="17003" Text="Your best bet is [The Lens][1]. The Lens does patent searching like Google Patents, but is much more feature packed. One of the options in Summary View is to sort by &quot;Cited&quot; which list the most cited patents in the current search in order. In addition, there are really nifty graphical analysis view which shows a lot of other interesting information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Lens is my favorite free patent searching site. If you choose to log in (you don't need to), you get other useful features such as saved search queries, search history and collections. It is a perfectly free non-commercial website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17439" RevisionGUID="a446b055-c574-4f3b-ae07-3ef60e89fcbc" CreationDate="2017-03-19T15:50:09.733" UserId="17003" Text="There is no guarantee that the device described in any particular patent has ever been manufactured and sold. However, when there is a company listed as the assignee or applicant, then the most reasonable place to start is looking at the products produced by that company. In this case, the assignee is Hartwell Corporation. Its website is http://www.hartwellcorp.com. It looks like they make products for the aircraft industry and may not produce consumer products. Their website includes contact information so that is where you should follow up next." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17438" RevisionGUID="564b6dd7-11ba-428b-ac81-afe18f445c79" CreationDate="2017-03-19T18:34:03.167" UserId="13257" Comment="Added screenshot for how to sort by cited for an example search on lens.org" Text="Your best bet is [The Lens][1]. The Lens does patent searching like Google Patents, but is much more feature packed. One of the options in Summary View is to sort by &quot;Cited&quot; which list the most cited patents in the current search in order. In addition, there are really nifty graphical analysis view which shows a lot of other interesting information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Lens is my favorite free patent searching site. If you choose to log in (you don't need to), you get other useful features such as saved search queries, search history and collections. It is a perfectly free non-commercial website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a screenshot of how to sort by cited for the search term &quot;autonomous&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CgPai.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45382" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17438" RevisionGUID="564b6dd7-11ba-428b-ac81-afe18f445c79" CreationDate="2017-03-19T18:34:03.167" Comment="Proposed by 13257 approved by 17003 edit id of 2029" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17438" RevisionGUID="5248e987-d00e-493b-8fae-8af5a3043845" CreationDate="2017-03-19T21:46:23.950" UserId="17003" Comment="edited body" Text="Your best bet is [The Lens][1]. The Lens does patent searching like Google Patents, but is much more feature packed. One of the options in Summary View is to sort by &quot;Cited&quot; which list the most cited patents in the current search in order. In addition, there is a really nifty graphical analysis view which shows lots of other interesting information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Lens is my favorite free patent searching site. If you choose to log in (you don't need to), you get other useful features such as saved search queries, search history and collections. It is a perfectly free non-commercial website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a screenshot of how to sort by cited for the search term &quot;autonomous&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CgPai.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45386" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16996" RevisionGUID="083fe647-29fb-44fd-9c5e-d5f0dfd55a31" CreationDate="2017-03-20T03:39:35.683" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45387" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="e9434175-5cbd-4cc4-a00e-5d45194a1273" CreationDate="2017-03-20T04:39:27.183" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45388" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12561" RevisionGUID="95644622-2b5d-436d-996d-e883896715a8" CreationDate="2017-03-20T07:42:54.470" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45389" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17083" RevisionGUID="28320ef0-4ed7-420b-bfd1-3ab573fc6b3e" CreationDate="2017-03-20T22:55:26.057" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45390" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16604" RevisionGUID="bb45b79a-c0be-43b4-8354-9cb8fc37b163" CreationDate="2017-03-21T01:03:33.553" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45391" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17440" RevisionGUID="fa3f4bce-2d65-45f6-a04d-a6d5bae53fcd" CreationDate="2017-03-21T01:10:49.843" UserId="18703" Text="I want to learn how to draft patents. Problem is, I don't have the money to go to college. Is there any online resource where I can learn this? I have taken many online courses over the years, including one on intellectual propertly law from UPenn. But the course did not teach how to draft patents. If there is any online course on drafting patents, please let me know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45392" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17440" RevisionGUID="fa3f4bce-2d65-45f6-a04d-a6d5bae53fcd" CreationDate="2017-03-21T01:10:49.843" UserId="18703" Text="Learning how to draft patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45393" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17440" RevisionGUID="fa3f4bce-2d65-45f6-a04d-a6d5bae53fcd" CreationDate="2017-03-21T01:10:49.843" UserId="18703" Text="&lt;drafting&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17440" RevisionGUID="be2dfb22-d35b-4467-8343-0cac981636ff" CreationDate="2017-03-21T05:43:13.113" UserId="18703" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="I want to learn how to draft patents. Problem is, I don't have the money to go to college. Is there any online resource where I can learn this? I have taken many online courses over the years, including one on intellectual propertly law from UPenn. But the course did not teach how to draft patents. If there is any online course on drafting patents, please let me know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't want to become a professional drafter. I just want to patent my own invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17442" RevisionGUID="1455da4f-6d17-40c5-92fc-9d9b21bca0f9" CreationDate="2017-03-21T06:51:50.240" UserId="17325" Text="Patents are drafted with the aim to &quot;fit&quot; the legal background of the jurisdiction they belong, for example the US or the EPO. For every paragraph that seems to be repeating the same thing, there is an attorney who usually has something specific in mind (a rule or a legal decision that creates a specific landscape). One is not really taught how to draft patents, he learns how to draft a document that has good chances of surpassing an examiner's objections and would also stand in a courtroom, meaning that the patent is actually *enforceable*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand you want to save money, but it's better to seek for an investor than try this out yourself and waste a good idea because of poor patent drafting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45404" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="59ebead5-bd4e-41c1-a2d4-40261e62c530" CreationDate="2017-03-21T16:21:49.553" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17444" RevisionGUID="d8a69df3-4209-40f0-b64a-0567b6482a66" CreationDate="2017-03-21T17:11:55.497" UserId="17003" Text="chempatents1981's answer is excellent and should be accepted. That said, I'd like to provide an alternative viewpoint. I am an inventor, not a patent lawyer. As such I don't have a specific financial interest in recommending using a patent lawyer rather than writing your own submission. Patent attorneys first need to get a degree in a technical field. All that I've worked with have followed that up with a advanced degree in science, math or engineering even before going to law school. You aren't going to match that background taking on-line courses. Drafting a patent application is only the first step in obtaining a patent. Nearly all my applications have had office actions and rejections that needed to be dealt with. This is a negotiation. An attorney understands this process and the very specific language necessary to convince an examiner of the worthiness of your patent. I can't imagine doing this on my own, and I have more than 80 patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there are steps you can do that will make working with an attorney most efficient and thus less expensive. First you can try to perform your own prior art search. This [answer][1] describes my general approach. You are bound to find some patents that are related to your invention. Those can be useful as examples of what your patent may end up like. Next, you'll need to educate the patent attorney on the field of your invention and how your invention is novel and useful. Some of those related patents can provide useful text for the background information. Trying to write all this down in an informal &quot;disclosure&quot; that looks like a patent is a useful exercise that will speed this transfer of knowledge to the attorney. Don't bother trying to write claims, that is really an attorney's task. Remember, when using lawyers, time is literally money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17010/any-other-patents-involving-baseball-caps-for-pigtails/17011#17011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45406" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17248" RevisionGUID="ba09d563-a0d9-4a1e-9219-f270e3927fa6" CreationDate="2017-03-21T20:22:37.713" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45407" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10324" RevisionGUID="a005badc-005e-4f7e-a87d-356d3af95c32" CreationDate="2017-03-21T23:30:12.950" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17445" RevisionGUID="4decb3d7-3578-468c-b8c7-f564f5bba035" CreationDate="2017-03-22T02:24:08.260" UserId="17003" Text="What is protected is defined by your patent's claims. If someone implements every step of even one of your claims, you have grounds to sue. It is up to you to defend your patent through law suits. This can be very expensive if the infringing company is large and well funded. Some law firms may represent you on a contingency basis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12207" RevisionGUID="e85db583-901b-419c-a36e-ee7b186bb20a" CreationDate="2017-03-22T02:27:47.263" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to the patent for everyone's convenience" Text="Please help find Prior Arts for [US20130128968 A1][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Publication number	US20130128968 A1&#xD;&#xA;    Publication type	Application&#xD;&#xA;    Application number	US 13/680,740&#xD;&#xA;    Publication date	May 23, 2013&#xD;&#xA;    Filing date	        Nov 19, 2012&#xD;&#xA;    Priority date	    Nov 17, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20130128968A1/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45410" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="8ed18ff8-ade4-464e-bf5d-36640787f136" CreationDate="2017-03-22T02:30:48.840" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17446" RevisionGUID="f50cd078-7fbd-467f-bcc9-667b9070c1c2" CreationDate="2017-03-22T02:37:31.353" UserId="17003" Text="It is a real patent in that it has been granted. That does not guarantee that the invention works. There is no burden to prove that a patented technology works before having a patent granted. If it doesn't work, it isn't much value as no one would want to infringe the patent anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16615" RevisionGUID="c62fde75-353a-44f7-93c5-24140aacaa5a" CreationDate="2017-03-22T02:39:15.527" UserId="17003" Comment="Modified path to patent with one that displays the figures." Text="In reference to the patent: [US8918339][1], it would seem to me that the Path (social network) had this same implementation years before Facebook.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its been easy to find, via search engines, a number of screenshots from 2012 and earlier that appear to pre-date the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  &quot;[With Reactions, Facebook Supercharges The Like Button With 6 Empathetic Emoji][2]&quot;. TechCrunch article notes Path image form 2012&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;[Path Tries Again With a Wider Network][3]&quot; - NYTimes, Nov 2011, with screenshot&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;[Path for Apple iOS, Android: Mobile Social Network Review][4]&quot; - Jan 2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wouldn't that be grounds enough to make this patent invalid? Does anyone have more examples?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8918339B2/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://techcrunch.com/2015/10/08/with-reactions-facebook-supercharges-the-like-button-with-6-empathetic-emoji/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/path-2-0-hopes-to-differ-from-other-social-networks/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://anewdomain.net/2012/01/21/path-smartphones-apple-ios-and-android-social-network-review/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17447" RevisionGUID="0783bd4b-523c-448b-81a8-d7aebccc6c13" CreationDate="2017-03-22T04:12:16.743" UserId="18709" Text="I was issued a patent on a structural building system&#xD;&#xA;using novel building blocks and building locks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a much improved novel building block and building&#xD;&#xA;locks that are completely different from the ones&#xD;&#xA;in the issued patent but still accomplish blocks that&#xD;&#xA;lock together side to side and end to end into locked structures&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issued patent is not practically applicable in the real world&#xD;&#xA;The new building system is and is the one anyone would use over the&#xD;&#xA;issued one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will it automatically be rejected if I am the same inventor and&#xD;&#xA;file the new one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45415" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17447" RevisionGUID="0783bd4b-523c-448b-81a8-d7aebccc6c13" CreationDate="2017-03-22T04:12:16.743" UserId="18709" Text="Avoidance of double patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45416" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17447" RevisionGUID="0783bd4b-523c-448b-81a8-d7aebccc6c13" CreationDate="2017-03-22T04:12:16.743" UserId="18709" Text="&lt;double-patenting&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45417" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="43cfe879-f1a6-4ff9-a0e3-3289bc55ddd5" CreationDate="2017-03-22T04:32:32.140" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45418" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13432" RevisionGUID="93e0c1fb-900e-4cb0-9e5c-b3e8365908e1" CreationDate="2017-03-22T07:43:22.503" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17448" RevisionGUID="064d19e0-c6d3-4cb1-be45-7cfb95fd2ed8" CreationDate="2017-03-22T09:12:27.840" UserId="18033" Text="Probably not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Where the claims of an application are the same as those of a first patent, they are barred under 35 U.S.C. 101 - the statutory basis for a double patenting rejection. A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process ... may obtain a patent therefor ...” (emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It basically comes down to novelty. If your second invention is novel in light of the first, you won't get a double patenting rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s804.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17445" RevisionGUID="ebaac5bc-970a-4c25-84e7-f5db563e3218" CreationDate="2017-03-22T14:05:00.170" UserId="17003" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="What is protected is defined by your patent's claims. If someone implements every step of even one of your claims, you have grounds to sue. It is up to you to defend your patent through law suits (or the threat of a suit). This can be very expensive if the infringing company is large and well funded. Some law firms may represent you on a contingency basis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17449" RevisionGUID="69e2a84f-a317-48d1-a041-c59e9d556d5d" CreationDate="2017-03-22T14:44:09.313" UserId="11895" Text="Supporting answer to part of query:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ..... If there is any online course on drafting patents, please let me know....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can enroll to WIPO drafting course which is good for learning basic drafting:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[WIPO Drafting Course][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://welc.wipo.int/acc/index.jsf?page=courseCatalog.xhtml&amp;lang=en&amp;cc=DL320E#plus_DL320E" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17450" RevisionGUID="6ac32c91-caac-4c1a-ba94-2a0425d18d1a" CreationDate="2017-03-22T14:51:04.620" UserId="11895" Text="You need to include one more form with additional inventor (i.e. You). Please refer to statement checked at the bottom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The required additional certification form(s) signed by the other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; joint inventor(s) are included with this form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PGtoO.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17452" RevisionGUID="143cc0bf-15e9-4f2d-8f10-d5d3fbaf44c9" CreationDate="2017-03-22T16:31:03.090" UserId="7997" Text="My understanding of patent term extensions that arise from delays within the Patent Office itself is that they are calculated automatically with the possibility of a filer applying for a different term calculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this an accurate assessment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45426" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17452" RevisionGUID="143cc0bf-15e9-4f2d-8f10-d5d3fbaf44c9" CreationDate="2017-03-22T16:31:03.090" UserId="7997" Text="Are patent term adjustment granted automatically?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45427" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17452" RevisionGUID="143cc0bf-15e9-4f2d-8f10-d5d3fbaf44c9" CreationDate="2017-03-22T16:31:03.090" UserId="7997" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;office-action&gt;&lt;term&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17452" RevisionGUID="e560ba38-3ff3-4378-bb57-e1ad55f16dbe" CreationDate="2017-03-22T17:19:50.893" UserId="7997" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="My understanding of patent term adjustments are validity extensions that arise from delays within the Patent Office itself is that they are calculated automatically with the possibility of a filer applying for a different term calculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this an accurate assessment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17453" RevisionGUID="8f76a650-4f0b-40df-a980-2f2f35096002" CreationDate="2017-03-22T17:31:22.590" UserId="18714" Text="I have a plan to create an app and using Facebook API's would be good as I can easily use many features from Facebook, but I have seen that one of their policies is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`We can create apps or products that offer features and services similar to your app.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would a patent on my app work with this Facebook policy, would it be better to use my own features not related to that app if the chance the app became successful? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45430" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17453" RevisionGUID="8f76a650-4f0b-40df-a980-2f2f35096002" CreationDate="2017-03-22T17:31:22.590" UserId="18714" Text="Facebook can create apps or features if you use their API to use their features" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45431" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17453" RevisionGUID="8f76a650-4f0b-40df-a980-2f2f35096002" CreationDate="2017-03-22T17:31:22.590" UserId="18714" Text="&lt;facebook&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17453" RevisionGUID="e140bfff-6599-4573-be60-d2429bf74063" CreationDate="2017-03-22T17:52:47.043" UserId="18714" Comment="added 162 characters in body" Text="I have a plan to create an app and using Facebook API's would be good as I can easily use many features from Facebook, but I have seen that one of their policies is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`We can create apps or products that offer features and services similar to your app.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would a patent on my app work with this Facebook policy, would it be better to use my own features not related to that app if the chance the app became successful? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is located at section 6, Things you should know, specifically number 9.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Facebook developer policy][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://developers.facebook.com/policy/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17454" RevisionGUID="0d3f4de8-6fb4-4b26-9a4d-8ad923b59211" CreationDate="2017-03-22T18:18:20.483" UserId="18715" Text="In reference to the patent: [USD114437][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD114437" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45434" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17454" RevisionGUID="0d3f4de8-6fb4-4b26-9a4d-8ad923b59211" CreationDate="2017-03-22T18:18:20.483" UserId="18715" Text="What is status of this patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45435" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17454" RevisionGUID="0d3f4de8-6fb4-4b26-9a4d-8ad923b59211" CreationDate="2017-03-22T18:18:20.483" UserId="18715" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17455" RevisionGUID="75abb7c2-8f5f-449e-a31a-c5df29a57989" CreationDate="2017-03-22T18:42:29.707" UserId="18033" Text="Thats more than 70 years old and has therefore expired. It does not get any protection anymore." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17456" RevisionGUID="0b76e1e2-9f0a-4370-91b8-0643e4fc7804" CreationDate="2017-03-22T19:28:13.577" UserId="17093" Text="Check out a book called &quot;Patent it Yourself&quot; - I believe it's published by Nolo press and should be available on amazon.com. It's probably one of the best layman's guides to drafting patent applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17457" RevisionGUID="af46be82-fd3b-4b90-8603-fa7b0876433a" CreationDate="2017-03-22T19:33:27.197" UserId="17093" Text="Looks like it's being offered in this catalog:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.marek.eu/data/katalogy/776-cz-produkty_b-southco-b-uzaviraci-a-spojovaci-technika_panty_volne-otocne-panty_odnimatelne-panty_vnitrni-volne-odnimatelne-panty-f6-blokovatelne.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17458" RevisionGUID="9cfffa22-25cf-434e-b683-ba32e6d6b453" CreationDate="2017-03-23T00:48:18.037" UserId="18717" Text="When is a game patent allowed?  What are the determining factors?&#xD;&#xA;For instance I have devised a simple board game. It would be best played as&#xD;&#xA;a computer game. And technically it would probably be considered a video game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to claim it all in a single patent? Could I file as a game played on a computer and later use my board game as proof it is not an abstract idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Guidance please. Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45440" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17458" RevisionGUID="9cfffa22-25cf-434e-b683-ba32e6d6b453" CreationDate="2017-03-23T00:48:18.037" UserId="18717" Text="Game Patentability" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45441" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17458" RevisionGUID="9cfffa22-25cf-434e-b683-ba32e6d6b453" CreationDate="2017-03-23T00:48:18.037" UserId="18717" Text="&lt;video-games&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45442" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="5890da2d-f562-4527-b665-42c9c2f5b0b2" CreationDate="2017-03-23T02:15:35.540" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17459" RevisionGUID="89ad526b-a15b-4951-a4be-efdebf8b4f4a" CreationDate="2017-03-23T05:53:39.953" UserId="18697" Text="I heard a EP file an application based on US provisional if the US provisional file a US application. so i will explain my doubt based on my example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A provisional patent(PP1) file on 1 jan 2016 and US application files based on PP1 on 30 Dec 2016. can EP application takes the priority from PP1 (wherein EP files on 30 Nov 2016).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: provisional application has 1 claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45445" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17459" RevisionGUID="89ad526b-a15b-4951-a4be-efdebf8b4f4a" CreationDate="2017-03-23T05:53:39.953" UserId="18697" Text="can EP application takes priority from provisional patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45446" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17459" RevisionGUID="89ad526b-a15b-4951-a4be-efdebf8b4f4a" CreationDate="2017-03-23T05:53:39.953" UserId="18697" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;european&gt;&lt;epo&gt;&lt;non-provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17460" RevisionGUID="1c514748-3133-4708-88d2-bfc202ac6d2b" CreationDate="2017-03-23T07:30:34.627" UserId="18697" Text="its already expired so its not going to protect anywhere" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17461" RevisionGUID="1a805e94-07c0-427b-a8f1-d23fe29d89ec" CreationDate="2017-03-23T07:33:13.150" UserId="18697" Text="As per 35 U.S.C. 173 Term of design patent. Patents issued from design applications filed on or after May 13, 2015 shall be granted for the term of fifteen years from the date of grant. Patents issued from design applications filed before May 13, 2015 shall be granted for the term of fourteen years from the date of grant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so its expired.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17462" RevisionGUID="63984930-318a-4e06-8de4-ad8e84d05d84" CreationDate="2017-03-23T07:41:02.460" UserId="18697" Text="I agree with DOnQuiKong. Addition to that if you want to file a patent in European it wont be possible. &#xD;&#xA;you must file a patent based on the priority of earlier patent.(patent must be emphasis added)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17462" RevisionGUID="8415b5cd-0a7f-4683-8b57-c6373cb96061" CreationDate="2017-03-23T07:43:34.533" UserId="18033" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I agree with DonQuiKong. Addition to that if you want to file a patent in European it wont be possible. &#xD;&#xA;you must file a patent based on the priority of earlier patent. (patent must be emphasis added)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17463" RevisionGUID="0f047f04-68d0-4e02-9a86-5de6e3a09416" CreationDate="2017-03-23T07:46:38.403" UserId="17325" Text="The legal basis for claiming priority in the EP is Article 87. Paragraph 1 reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Any person who has duly filed, in or for &#xD;&#xA;(a) any State party to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property or &#xD;&#xA;(b) any Member of the World Trade Organization,  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;an application for a patent, a utility model or a utility certificate, or his successor in title, shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing a European patent application in respect of the same invention, a right of priority during a period of twelve months from the date of filing of the first application.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there are the following conditions to be met:&#xD;&#xA;1) country or State that falls within the above definition (member of PC or WTO); 2) same person OR successor in title; 3) 12 month period; 4) first patent application (or utility model etc); 5) the same invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most trivial conditions are the same person OR successor in title and the first patent application aka &quot;first filing&quot;. So a US provisional IS a first filing, while an continuation-in-part is not. Also, a US normal filing, stemming from a US provisional is not a first filing and cannot be used to claim priority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example provisional PP1 (01.12.2016) can be used to claim priority whithin the 12 month window (and 30.11.2016 is there), but the US appl. filed on 30.12.2016 cannot. Mind that, the response to a deficient priority claim might not be instant, the EPO performs an initial formalities check (file No, dates, copies) and beyond that it's the examining division's responsibility to declate a priority claim invalid. So if someone has claimed an US continuation-in-part for claiming priority, he will deal with this in the substantive examination phase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17466" RevisionGUID="fe98ba1f-0382-4e6f-a533-2c5edf510433" CreationDate="2017-03-23T14:44:05.053" UserId="18726" Text="can they make you stop selling your own invention? Can they make you pay them licensing fees for something you designed way before they did?&#xD;&#xA;I designed a [unique baby outfit][1] in 2008 and started selling it at trade shows and to the public in the same year. I filed a non provisional patent in 2009 but a lawyer advised me not to pursue it as it was costly and most clothing patents were rejected. &#xD;&#xA;Wish I had gotten better advice because fast forward to 2017 and I have received a cease and desist letter from someone who invented the same design in 2011 and was granted a utility patent in 2016. They are demanding a licensing fee or for me to stop selling it. I would love to know if I have any legal recourse as I have put a lot of $ and time into developing my patterns and have been growing this line for 8 years. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.tenderwonder.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45463" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17466" RevisionGUID="fe98ba1f-0382-4e6f-a533-2c5edf510433" CreationDate="2017-03-23T14:44:05.053" UserId="18726" Text="If someone else invents and patents a design 5 years after you've been selling the same design" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45464" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17466" RevisionGUID="fe98ba1f-0382-4e6f-a533-2c5edf510433" CreationDate="2017-03-23T14:44:05.053" UserId="18726" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;inventor&gt;&lt;date-of-invention&gt;&lt;invention-theft&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17467" RevisionGUID="e0cd3951-4c47-4478-81bf-b85094b498d3" CreationDate="2017-03-23T15:17:22.620" UserId="18727" Text="There is an app/software that evaluates posture.  I would like to create a software that does the same idea (evaluates posture) except make it better based on my needs and idea of the functions/software.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be different in many ways, however the core &quot;idea&quot;, which is a posture analysis would be the same.  It would look different, function different, and have different look and feel, but in the end it is still a posture analysis/evaluation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mine would also be a web application versus the original is an app on the itunes store for phones and ipads.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will be developing all the code from scratch (not using any of their coding) and will be developing this software specifically for my needs and wants.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I am unaware if this will be an issue as the current app is &quot;patent pending&quot;.   Any insight on if I can do this, and/or the best way to do it while avoiding any legal issues would be greatly appreciated!!&#xD;&#xA;Thank you. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45466" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17467" RevisionGUID="e0cd3951-4c47-4478-81bf-b85094b498d3" CreationDate="2017-03-23T15:17:22.620" UserId="18727" Text="I want to build a software similar to one that is already built but it is patent pending what are my choices?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45467" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17467" RevisionGUID="e0cd3951-4c47-4478-81bf-b85094b498d3" CreationDate="2017-03-23T15:17:22.620" UserId="18727" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;pending&gt;&lt;prevention&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17468" RevisionGUID="4fd85809-8ba3-4479-a474-fb5f60a30a20" CreationDate="2017-03-23T15:29:32.483" UserId="18728" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7255348][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7255348&#xD;&#xA;I am also looking to patent a board game with an 8 sided board, but the game is seemingly of no similarity to mine, would the 8 sided board be an issue for me when trying to patent my game, when this one already has 8 sides." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45469" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17468" RevisionGUID="4fd85809-8ba3-4479-a474-fb5f60a30a20" CreationDate="2017-03-23T15:29:32.483" UserId="18728" Text="Im looking to patent a board game" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45470" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17468" RevisionGUID="4fd85809-8ba3-4479-a474-fb5f60a30a20" CreationDate="2017-03-23T15:29:32.483" UserId="18728" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17469" RevisionGUID="d88fcab2-da23-41ad-8fd1-4a09fcc94d89" CreationDate="2017-03-23T15:58:15.183" UserId="18729" Text="In reference to the patent: [US1899496][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US1899496&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a copy of a patent given to my great grandmother for the automatic gate &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for railways.  The patent was given on August 28, 1928.  It was awarded to her&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but my great grandfather actually invented it.  His name was John Kovacs.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent was put in her name because he spoke little English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The renderings featured in the patent filed in 1933 are the exact renderings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;of my great grandfathers.  How can a new patent be awarded in 1933 for the &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;same invention?  I believe the patent number is 1682573.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45472" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17469" RevisionGUID="d88fcab2-da23-41ad-8fd1-4a09fcc94d89" CreationDate="2017-03-23T15:58:15.183" UserId="18729" Text="Actually invented by a different person" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45473" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17469" RevisionGUID="d88fcab2-da23-41ad-8fd1-4a09fcc94d89" CreationDate="2017-03-23T15:58:15.183" UserId="18729" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17469" RevisionGUID="21b0632f-32ff-4908-855a-dc854bf3050c" CreationDate="2017-03-23T17:09:33.563" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to second patent" Text="In reference to the patent: [US1899496][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a copy of a patent given to my great grandmother for the automatic gate &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for railways.  The patent was given on August 28, 1928.  It was awarded to her&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but my great grandfather actually invented it.  His name was John Kovacs.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent was put in her name because he spoke little English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The renderings featured in the patent filed in 1933 are the exact renderings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;of my great grandfathers.  How can a new patent be awarded in 1933 for the &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;same invention?  I believe the patent number is [US1682573][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US1899496&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US1682573A/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17470" RevisionGUID="5df1762f-aba5-4839-9ac8-96792fe34ab7" CreationDate="2017-03-23T17:20:58.137" UserId="17003" Text="I think you have two questions. First is how can US1899496 exist if US1682573 preceded it and they solve the same problem. Although the figures do seem similar, the mechanisms and circuits are different in details. It is very common for there to be multiple patents related to solving the same problem. It is important to look specifically at the claims to determine the differences. In this case the claims for US1682573 relate to a mechanism to raise and lower the gates where as US1899496 relates to a circuit to control the gate opening. Thus they are different inventions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your second question regarding changing the name on the patent is one I can't answer definitively. I doubt it matters at this point since the patent has expired long ago. Listing someone as the inventor who isn't the actual inventor may be grounds for invalidating a patent so at this point I don't see the point of pursuing the matter. Perhaps one of the patent attorneys who answer questions here can cite the applicable laws more definitively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17471" RevisionGUID="36b9acd7-380c-47d1-b791-5bb1838528ab" CreationDate="2017-03-23T17:41:10.347" UserId="17003" Text="You need to search for the patent application to understand what is being patented. Applications don't publish until 18 months after filing so it may or may not yet be available. You can search at patents.google.com. One thing to remember is the claims in an Application are very often much broader than the resulting patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess (and I'm not a lawyer) is the broad idea of evaluating posture wouldn't be patentable, but a specific method or algorithm to do so may be. Thus if you have a distinctly different method or algorithm you may be OK. You can't be sure until you see the claims of the granted patent. In any case, you should probably consult with a patent attorney both with regards to freedom to operate as well as possible patentability of your own ideas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17471" RevisionGUID="f31c1d5b-9988-4cfd-aeec-cfc493625c7d" CreationDate="2017-03-23T18:51:54.653" UserId="17003" Comment="edited body" Text="You need to search for the patent application to understand what is being patented. Applications don't publish until 18 months after filing so it may or may not yet be available. You can search at patents.google.com. One thing to remember is the claims in an application are very often much broader than the resulting patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess (and I'm not a lawyer) is the broad idea of evaluating posture wouldn't be patentable, but a specific method or algorithm to do so may be. Thus if you have a distinctly different method or algorithm you may be OK. You can't be sure until you see the claims of the granted patent. In any case, you should probably consult with a patent attorney both with regards to freedom to operate as well as possible patentability of your own ideas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17470" RevisionGUID="812c4067-0b45-4de1-a9d7-5fc3acc23452" CreationDate="2017-03-23T19:59:29.763" UserId="17003" Comment="Simplified my answer to cover more specifically what was asked." Text="How can US1899496 exist if US1682573 preceded it and they solve the same problem? Although the figures do seem similar, the mechanisms and circuits are different in details. It is very common for there to be multiple patents related to solving the same problem. It is important to look specifically at the claims to determine the differences. In this case the claims for US1682573 relate to a mechanism to raise and lower the gates where as US1899496 relates to a circuit to control the gate opening. Thus they are different inventions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I'd like to point out that both of these patents expired many years ago so there is no infringement now possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17472" RevisionGUID="338ebf34-11bb-472c-ad36-be4196271306" CreationDate="2017-03-23T23:24:19.710" UserId="18732" Text="Is this an active patent that was approved.  What company currently holds the rights to this patent for topical dantrolene?  Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45480" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17472" RevisionGUID="338ebf34-11bb-472c-ad36-be4196271306" CreationDate="2017-03-23T23:24:19.710" UserId="18732" Text="Publication #: WO2014118527A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45481" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17472" RevisionGUID="338ebf34-11bb-472c-ad36-be4196271306" CreationDate="2017-03-23T23:24:19.710" UserId="18732" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45482" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="50a552b6-626e-46f9-86cf-048f7e029305" CreationDate="2017-03-23T23:38:47.163" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17469" RevisionGUID="a3e3f306-a694-470c-8447-18782b788ae1" CreationDate="2017-03-24T00:03:33.100" UserId="15503" Comment="Improve formatting" Text="In reference to the patent: [US1899496][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a copy of a patent given to my great grandmother for the automatic gate for railways.  The patent was given on August 28, 1928.  It was awarded to her but my great grandfather actually invented it.  His name was John Kovacs.  The patent was put in her name because he spoke little English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The renderings featured in the patent filed in 1933 are the exact renderings of my great grandfathers.  How can a new patent be awarded in 1933 for the same invention?  I believe the patent number is [US1682573][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US1899496&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US1682573A/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17475" RevisionGUID="ab7c628b-5ed6-4513-b34d-d7296297893b" CreationDate="2017-03-24T01:57:54.723" UserId="18735" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20160375946][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20160375946&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent has not been issued, and I have come up with a similar concept with different features. Am I able to bring my concept to market?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45491" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17475" RevisionGUID="ab7c628b-5ed6-4513-b34d-d7296297893b" CreationDate="2017-03-24T01:57:54.723" UserId="18735" Text="Creating a similar product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45492" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17475" RevisionGUID="ab7c628b-5ed6-4513-b34d-d7296297893b" CreationDate="2017-03-24T01:57:54.723" UserId="18735" Text="&lt;us20160375946&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17476" RevisionGUID="54f88e4c-e6ad-4347-9fa9-ecf258f5ea25" CreationDate="2017-03-24T01:58:34.733" UserId="15503" Text="Games are in quite a grey area.  Fundamentally a game is nothing more than a set of rules.  While the novelty and non-obviousness of such a set of rules is relatively easy to assess, the difficulty arises in whether the set of rules is an abstract method (and therefore not eligible subject matter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled, in *[In re Smith](http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1664.Opinion.3-8-2016.1.PDF)* that a new kind of card game was not patent-eligible as it was an abstract idea. They opined:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abstract ideas, including a set of rules for a game, may be patent-eligible if they contain an &quot;'inventive concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible &#xD;&#xA;application. … But appending purely conventional steps to an abstract idea does not supply a sufficiently inventive concept.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have suggested that your game could be equally played as a physical board game or as a video game. This suggests to me that there is nothing particularly interesting or novel about the hardware with which you would be implementing your game: all you really have is a new set of rules.  This would therefore seem to be an abstract idea which is patent-ineligible, regardless of how you claim it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17477" RevisionGUID="243d9034-bb0e-4ca1-89e6-d193b93416e0" CreationDate="2017-03-24T02:45:10.983" UserId="15503" Text="Yes, but with possible dire consequences later on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the moment, this is a patent application. An application gives the owner no actionable rights. That is, you can freely copy it, and cannot be successfully sued which it is only an application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, once the patent issues, the owner can have rights which retrospectively apply back to publication. That is, if you use the invention now, you may be liable for that use once the patent issues (even though it is only an application when you used it). These retrospective rights are called provisional rights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The requirements for provisional rights is provided by [35 USC 154](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154). That is, the invention must be claimed in the publication, and must be claimed in a substantially identical manner in the issued patent, and the infringer has actual notice of the publication.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17479" RevisionGUID="4241b481-fdb9-4aa7-be26-01da460c726e" CreationDate="2017-03-24T05:16:22.003" UserId="18697" Text="As per my knowledge, this isn't active patent. the legal status of this patent is 	&quot;Application deemed to be withdrawn&quot;. This patent is assigned by an individual(inventor). Further, this patent was claiming the priority from the provisional of GB. This might be due to GB provisional could not file an application. Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45497" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="17149" RevisionGUID="b12d9b0c-efdc-484e-942b-c70b37bf31bd" CreationDate="2017-03-24T07:37:02.257" UserId="18033" />
  <row Id="45498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17480" RevisionGUID="0d7ccda2-2331-4445-b999-07a920fc76a5" CreationDate="2017-03-24T07:54:54.863" UserId="18033" Text="In short: as long as they have a valid patent, they can do that. &#xA;&#xA;However, if what you say is true then you have a very good position for negotiation. &#xA;&#xA;I strongly advise you to contact a patent lawyer to assist you. If you cannot do that, answer the cease and desist letter with proof that you were selling the product before their patent. But note however that if you understood something wrong or only had a similar product or they don't believe/understand what you are telling them you lost valuable time. Normally invalidation takes more time then litigation, so time is critical here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17481" RevisionGUID="221074b3-59bc-4af1-9ac3-33e6e8683c97" CreationDate="2017-03-24T08:05:42.083" UserId="17325" Text="To add more info, in Europe (before the EPO) games are considered non-patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Article 52(2) EPC reads:&#xD;&#xA;The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:&#xD;&#xA;(a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods; &#xD;&#xA;(b) aesthetic creations; &#xD;&#xA;(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, **playing games** or doing business, and programs for computers; &#xD;&#xA;(d) presentations of information. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17482" RevisionGUID="1088e079-fc29-47b5-88d7-b5e8cf4e31f6" CreationDate="2017-03-24T11:43:41.573" UserId="18697" Text="I m confused what should be the prior art based on jurisdiction. some have grace period which makes prior for other (as in case of Apple, one of the apple design was prior art to EP. as know to the world)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so basically confuse is based on different criteria.&#xD;&#xA;a) Grace period&#xD;&#xA;b) what should be the prior art if a patent claims priority from provisional, non provisional, CIP, Divisional and PCT application.&#xD;&#xA;c) Some inventor shows their product or features in world expo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;please mentions other criteria if follows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;please help me to clear about prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45501" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17482" RevisionGUID="1088e079-fc29-47b5-88d7-b5e8cf4e31f6" CreationDate="2017-03-24T11:43:41.573" UserId="18697" Text="Different consideration for proir art based on jurisdiction(US and EP)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45502" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17482" RevisionGUID="1088e079-fc29-47b5-88d7-b5e8cf4e31f6" CreationDate="2017-03-24T11:43:41.573" UserId="18697" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;prior&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45503" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13242" RevisionGUID="94a5b862-7e10-461f-b73c-480143621b2f" CreationDate="2017-03-24T13:15:26.933" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17483" RevisionGUID="90798e6d-c8a8-4045-80aa-afb2824b240c" CreationDate="2017-03-24T13:55:01.210" UserId="18736" Text="In reference to the patent: [US3450248][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3450248&#xD;&#xA;Who or what is Roto Rico Co Inc and how can i find them. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45505" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17483" RevisionGUID="90798e6d-c8a8-4045-80aa-afb2824b240c" CreationDate="2017-03-24T13:55:01.210" UserId="18736" Text="Question about the original assignee in this patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45506" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17483" RevisionGUID="90798e6d-c8a8-4045-80aa-afb2824b240c" CreationDate="2017-03-24T13:55:01.210" UserId="18736" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;assignee&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17484" RevisionGUID="ef0d7d95-8215-4332-8f76-2b17a13ef8e8" CreationDate="2017-03-24T13:59:07.830" UserId="17003" Text="How do you find a company? You search on the internet. A Google search yielded this: https://www.ca-registry.com/C0480237-roto-rico-co-inc amongst other hits. Evidently, the company has dissolved. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17485" RevisionGUID="bc51e860-3547-41f4-a289-16333ab1d271" CreationDate="2017-03-24T14:19:36.050" UserId="18083" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to use word advantages and avoid using words invention or object in description &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hi!&#xD;&#xA;I am reading book patent it yourself 18th edition.&#xD;&#xA;Page 210 tells about advantages.&#xD;&#xA;Here is the Citation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+++++++&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;g. Advantages&#xD;&#xA;Although it is optional, you may list the advantages of&#xD;&#xA;your invention in a narrative form. If you do so, make it&#xD;&#xA;the first paragraph in your Detailed Description section.&#xD;&#xA;Include this because it helps orient your readers to your&#xD;&#xA;subject matter, and helps sell the invention to the&#xD;&#xA;examiner or a judge who may rule on your patent. The&#xD;&#xA;advantages may also help distinguish your invention&#xD;&#xA;from a “judicial exception” that is not patentable.&#xD;&#xA;For example, if your invention does any of the&#xD;&#xA;following, explain in narrative form the shortcoming&#xD;&#xA;of the prior art and the advantage of your invention:&#xD;&#xA;improves another technology or technical field;&#xD;&#xA;improves the functioning of the computer itself; or&#xD;&#xA;includes a feature or function that is more than what&#xD;&#xA;is well-&#xD;&#xA;understood, routine, and conventional in the&#xD;&#xA;field. However, it’s important not to use language&#xD;&#xA;that a court may consider limiting; don’t use the&#xD;&#xA;words “invention” or “objects,”&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;++++++++++++++++===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author says not to use words “invention” or “objects,”&#xD;&#xA;If I don’t use these words, how do I state …the object of the current invention…&#xD;&#xA;I don’t understand this approach.&#xD;&#xA;Could someone explain this to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45509" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17485" RevisionGUID="bc51e860-3547-41f4-a289-16333ab1d271" CreationDate="2017-03-24T14:19:36.050" UserId="18083" Text="How to use word advantages and avoid using words invention or object in description" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45510" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17485" RevisionGUID="bc51e860-3547-41f4-a289-16333ab1d271" CreationDate="2017-03-24T14:19:36.050" UserId="18083" Text="&lt;invention&gt;&lt;object&gt;&lt;advantages&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17486" RevisionGUID="f6d39775-ff76-44a0-b50d-49ea4b973766" CreationDate="2017-03-24T14:30:24.273" UserId="17003" Text=" While B. Johnson's answer is fine for what it is, I'd like to provide some interpretation. When novices read patents they sometimes see long and complicated claims and think &quot;Wow, this is covering everything&quot;. When experienced folk look at long and complicated claims, they think &quot;Wow, this is pretty narrow&quot;. In order to infringe on a claim, you need to implement each and every element in the claim. Looking at claim 1 of US9208462, to me it is very long and includes many steps. Thus it likely opens the door to many ways to circumvent its coverage. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17487" RevisionGUID="d5126410-82f1-4517-82b2-5d12fe76c620" CreationDate="2017-03-24T15:04:13.680" UserId="17325" Text="You can use embodiment instead of object. A common expression is also &quot;as described herein&quot; so you don't have to repeat all the time &quot;the present invention&quot;. But I don't see how you can skip the word &quot;invention&quot; 100%, neither do I understand why one should do so. Also, I don't agree that the advantages are optional, in the sense that, no one obliges you to do so, but it is really stupid not to write something about what makes your invention an invention. I wouldn't rely on that book too much." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17488" RevisionGUID="462b9c39-3c22-4db5-8e21-fd56560d6513" CreationDate="2017-03-24T16:25:04.857" UserId="11717" Text="Suppose a granted patent has four claims A,B,C and D.&#xD;&#xA;Can someone do what the patent teaches using only A,B and C only without infringing the issued patent?&#xD;&#xA;Ashok Mathur" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45516" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17488" RevisionGUID="462b9c39-3c22-4db5-8e21-fd56560d6513" CreationDate="2017-03-24T16:25:04.857" UserId="11717" Text="Patent with Multiple Claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45517" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17488" RevisionGUID="462b9c39-3c22-4db5-8e21-fd56560d6513" CreationDate="2017-03-24T16:25:04.857" UserId="11717" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;multiple&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17489" RevisionGUID="74dc776c-c9bc-4e41-b65b-7fed0cac51f8" CreationDate="2017-03-24T17:12:18.653" UserId="17003" Text="Patent claims are numbered. So if a patent has claims 1, 2, 3 and 4, you can infringe on the patent if you practice even just one of the claims. However, a claim might have multiple steps in it. So if claim 1 has step a, b, c and d, you need to practice each and every step to infringe on that claim. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17490" RevisionGUID="26e4690b-c920-46bd-a000-68af3acea1db" CreationDate="2017-03-24T17:32:17.150" UserId="18741" Text="In reference to the patent: [US3792680][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3792680&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is Francis Allen still in ownership of the patent? Or did he sell it? If so, when?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45520" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17490" RevisionGUID="26e4690b-c920-46bd-a000-68af3acea1db" CreationDate="2017-03-24T17:32:17.150" UserId="18741" Text="In reference to the patent: [US3792680][1]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45521" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17490" RevisionGUID="26e4690b-c920-46bd-a000-68af3acea1db" CreationDate="2017-03-24T17:32:17.150" UserId="18741" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="16fdbfcf-10be-40b9-bb3c-d1fc43bd03ae" CreationDate="2017-03-24T20:31:46.750" UserId="18743" Text="In reference to the patent: [USD247292][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD247292&#xD;&#xA;I would like to use the mirror with an &quot;L&quot; bracket (manufactured) installed in place of the bar end mount for off-road motorcycle use.  &quot;L&quot; bracket would be secured to handle bars using a hose clamp.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would resale of this with the modification as described cause a patent concern?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the mirrors be sold to me directly through the manufacturer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45523" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="16fdbfcf-10be-40b9-bb3c-d1fc43bd03ae" CreationDate="2017-03-24T20:31:46.750" UserId="18743" Text="I would like to use this mirror for motorcycle use with different mounting as sold" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45524" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="16fdbfcf-10be-40b9-bb3c-d1fc43bd03ae" CreationDate="2017-03-24T20:31:46.750" UserId="18743" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17492" RevisionGUID="9349d8e2-b6d1-420e-a4f8-547ce29f5a4c" CreationDate="2017-03-24T22:17:50.777" UserId="15503" Text="**The invention**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US, there is a line of reasoning where if you describe a characteristic of the invention, that characteristic becomes mandatory. For example, if I write &quot;the invention includes a widget&quot;, then whatever I claim **must** include a widget.  If it's not included explicitly, it can be imported into the claim implicitly. This is a problem, if the widget is really an optional feature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the idea that you should then just omit the term &quot;invention&quot; to avoid this issue is a knee-jerk reaction to try to cover up bad drafting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reality, it is perfectly fine to say &quot;invention&quot;, as long as you do so carefully. That is, use the word &quot;invention&quot; when you are actually describing essential characteristics of the invention, not just an embodiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Alternatives**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could say &quot;in some embodiments, the apparatus comprises a widget&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The object**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The object is slightly different. In some historical cases, a patent would be required to meet at least one of its objects. If it did not, it would lack utility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since including an object is really of no benefit to the applicant, and it could become problematic, it is relatively rare to include explicit object statements in a specification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cross-jurisdictional issues**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Europe, you are largely restrained from combining features from different embodiments. Thus the style of US drafting where every feature is its own embodiment can often lead to amendments from the description being refused as adding subject matter. Which rather limits your chances of success." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45526" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6624" RevisionGUID="04ada2b3-0890-410b-b5f3-d5862e984123" CreationDate="2017-03-24T22:19:26.557" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17493" RevisionGUID="363c32a3-8b9e-410f-8d57-eaaca9019ffe" CreationDate="2017-03-24T22:39:53.990" UserId="15503" Text="**US**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US, prior art includes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. any publication made before the deemed application date of the application; ([35 USC 102(a)(1)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102)); and&#xD;&#xA;2. any published patent application filed before the deemed application date. ([35 USC 102(a)(2)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if the disclosure was by the applicant themselves, less than 12 months before the deemed application date, it is not prior art. ([35 USC 102(2)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EPO**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the EPO, prior art includes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. any publication made before the deemed application date of the application; ([EPC art 54(2)](http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar54.html)); and&#xD;&#xA;2. any patent application filed before the deemed application date (though this is only relevant to novelty). ([EPC art 54(3)](http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar54.html))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if the disclosure was by the applicant themselves at an approved international exhibition, less than 6 months before the application date, it is not prior art. ([EPC art 55(1)(b)](http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar55.html))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PCT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a PCT application, prior art includes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. anything that was made available to the public prior to the PCT filing date. ([PCT Regulations reg 33.1(a)](http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/rules/r33.htm#_33_1))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the deemed application date in the US and EPO?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If no priority is claimed, it is the date that the application was filed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If priority is claimed, it is the date that the priority application was filed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If benefit of the date of a provisional is claimed, it is the date that the provisional was filed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the same for continuing applications, which inherit the deemed application date of its parent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17477" RevisionGUID="e1e40bb1-fa39-4bf4-9a6a-e6311349e81d" CreationDate="2017-03-24T22:46:12.273" UserId="15503" Comment="added 196 characters in body" Text="Yes, but with possible dire consequences later on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the moment, this is a patent application. An application gives the owner no actionable rights. That is, you can freely copy it, and cannot be successfully sued which it is only an application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, once the patent issues, the owner can have rights which retrospectively apply back to publication. That is, if you use the invention now, you may be liable for that use once the patent issues (even though it is only an application when you used it). These retrospective rights are called provisional rights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The requirements for provisional rights is provided by [35 USC 154](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154). That is, the invention must be claimed in the publication, and must be claimed in a substantially identical manner in the issued patent, and the infringer has actual notice of the publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus if your concept infringes the claims of that publication (that it, the &quot;different features&quot; are not quite different enough&quot;), depending on how prosecution progresses, you may well be liable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17482" RevisionGUID="2089d774-32ec-46bb-8fec-8e6e1f29e68b" CreationDate="2017-03-24T22:47:31.210" UserId="15503" Comment="Improve grammar and formatting" Text="I'm confused what should be the prior art based on jurisdiction. Some have a grace period, but which are still prior art for others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am basically confused about the following points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Grace periods&#xD;&#xA;2. What would be the prior art if a patent claims priority from provisional, non provisional, CIP, Divisional and PCT application.&#xD;&#xA;3. Some inventor shows their product or features in world expo.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45530" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16926" RevisionGUID="27691cc1-afd8-4e9b-902d-44b5ff3e8066" CreationDate="2017-03-24T23:19:26.667" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17495" RevisionGUID="c29561a2-17a3-45a8-a7d6-e40dc4dcfd6e" CreationDate="2017-03-25T00:59:09.620" UserId="18746" Text="In reference to the patent: [US9383895][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9383895&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent sounds quite similar to the following paper.&#xD;&#xA;MixFab: a mixed-reality environment for personal fabrication&#xD;&#xA;http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2557090" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45536" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17495" RevisionGUID="c29561a2-17a3-45a8-a7d6-e40dc4dcfd6e" CreationDate="2017-03-25T00:59:09.620" UserId="18746" Text="How related is this to a 2014 research paper" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45537" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17495" RevisionGUID="c29561a2-17a3-45a8-a7d6-e40dc4dcfd6e" CreationDate="2017-03-25T00:59:09.620" UserId="18746" Text="&lt;papers&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17496" RevisionGUID="091fdb09-e133-4420-b571-2055826e4950" CreationDate="2017-03-25T01:42:24.243" UserId="18747" Text="what does entity stauts undiscontinued mean? The is listed in the patent filed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45546" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17496" RevisionGUID="091fdb09-e133-4420-b571-2055826e4950" CreationDate="2017-03-25T01:42:24.243" UserId="18747" Text="Undiscontinued entity status enter in filed patent what does it mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45547" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17496" RevisionGUID="091fdb09-e133-4420-b571-2055826e4950" CreationDate="2017-03-25T01:42:24.243" UserId="18747" Text="&lt;status&gt;&lt;entity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17497" RevisionGUID="41e0ecc1-1f94-4ba4-81b1-bff184595b13" CreationDate="2017-03-25T05:48:19.233" UserId="15503" Text="I presume you mean &quot;undiscounted&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that there are no fee discounts for being a small or micro entity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45549" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13847" RevisionGUID="f9ca8d05-0439-488a-a7da-7d111caf23ee" CreationDate="2017-03-25T07:26:36.103" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45550" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16740" RevisionGUID="4d451c8c-19d1-4167-bbbb-df7bb8ac19b6" CreationDate="2017-03-25T10:35:08.780" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45551" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17482" RevisionGUID="a0bbbc99-68af-472f-9ff4-8133acc74f13" CreationDate="2017-03-25T12:40:29.010" UserId="18033" Comment="edited title" Text="Different consideration for prior art based on jurisdiction(US and EP)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17498" RevisionGUID="a4c247b4-60b1-4f79-8538-6dc1e8e8dcc3" CreationDate="2017-03-25T17:06:02.877" UserId="17003" Text="Usually the filing date and the priority date are the same. There are a few exceptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Continuation patents&#xD;&#xA; - Domestic patents based on foreign or international filings&#xD;&#xA; - Patent filings based on US provisional applications&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [website][1] provides more detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bios.net/daisy/patentlens/2343.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17495" RevisionGUID="69436024-bcbb-4874-a384-4620692ecf1b" CreationDate="2017-03-25T17:09:40.587" UserId="17003" Comment="Added better link to the patent so that the figures are accessible." Text="In reference to the patent: [US9383895B1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent sounds quite similar to the following paper.&#xD;&#xA;MixFab: a mixed-reality environment for personal fabrication&#xD;&#xA;http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2557090&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9383895B1/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17499" RevisionGUID="1fa814b8-b8a6-45eb-b518-2ff102ada1f3" CreationDate="2017-03-25T17:17:38.177" UserId="17003" Text="This is pretty hard to say how the two documents are related. The patent's filing date predates the cited paper so the paper can not be considered prior art (although it is certainly possible there is other relevant prior art). It is possible the authors of the paper are familiar with the work of the inventors and vice versa. I haven't spent any time reading the two documents so I can't say how similar the techniques described in them are. It is very common to find different research groups working on similar projects." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45555" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="eb5fa489-8ca3-408e-b050-de6396348944" CreationDate="2017-03-25T18:46:23.530" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17500" RevisionGUID="7ac8685b-9b39-4ae2-8acf-f69c807921c1" CreationDate="2017-03-25T20:25:31.503" UserId="17003" Text="I don't know of any data sources one can check for the current owner of a patent. The best bet is either a web search, or an attempt to contact the original assignee of the patent. In this case, the patent expired many years ago so the current owner would seem to be a moot point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17501" RevisionGUID="3803c033-23a2-4700-bfc3-0ca6bdddc893" CreationDate="2017-03-25T20:31:14.540" UserId="17003" Text="The cited patent is a design patent. I'd guess if you want to just mount a spherical mirror on an L bracket on a motorcycle it wouldn't infringe this patent. This is not to say there isn't some other patent you would have to deal with. If you do a Google search on &quot;small spherical mirrors&quot; or &quot;small convex mirrors&quot;, you'll find many sources. If you want to work with the manufacturer associated with the cited design patent, there is nothing stopping you from contacting them, although they may or may not agree to do business with you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17498" RevisionGUID="6d58f575-8912-46e4-bc91-800a0dc94b66" CreationDate="2017-03-25T22:15:58.233" UserId="17003" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Usually the filing date and the priority date are the same. There are a few exceptions including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Continuation patents&#xD;&#xA; - Domestic patents based on foreign or international filings&#xD;&#xA; - Patent filings based on US provisional applications&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [website][1] provides more detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bios.net/daisy/patentlens/2343.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45559" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17273" RevisionGUID="532e9f37-2fef-4806-9462-4c9a12a331a9" CreationDate="2017-03-25T22:52:44.273" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45560" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="4f558c2e-8cb2-4304-b35f-fbbb938c7584" CreationDate="2017-03-26T00:00:25.500" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45561" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17290" RevisionGUID="4f028ddf-8425-4b27-a49b-9e7ee8a4b366" CreationDate="2017-03-26T01:00:26.797" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45562" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="99a53e9d-553e-4f4a-8acc-0beb20668609" CreationDate="2017-03-26T02:00:26.163" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17502" RevisionGUID="faecd60e-2e4a-433b-b620-92623b285d8a" CreationDate="2017-03-26T07:12:20.490" UserId="18752" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20080289082][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20080289082&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there anyway I can contact the inventor and purchase this patent from them? If so how can I get in contact with him? Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45564" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17502" RevisionGUID="faecd60e-2e4a-433b-b620-92623b285d8a" CreationDate="2017-03-26T07:12:20.490" UserId="18752" Text="Purchasing the patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45565" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17502" RevisionGUID="faecd60e-2e4a-433b-b620-92623b285d8a" CreationDate="2017-03-26T07:12:20.490" UserId="18752" Text="&lt;us20080289082&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45566" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="f40b3502-0901-4448-927f-3de564075784" CreationDate="2017-03-26T07:12:28.353" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45567" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16265" RevisionGUID="aa1a0696-ae37-4ded-8ea7-2217fb4cd27c" CreationDate="2017-03-26T14:16:54.633" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17503" RevisionGUID="216bcf9b-6b85-45a8-b4b9-ee5575bb7939" CreationDate="2017-03-26T15:14:54.543" UserId="17003" Text="The cited document is an application, not yet a patent. It may never become a patent. As such it doesn't yet protect anything. Normally to inquire about purchasing a patent you would want to contact the assignee rather than the inventor. In this case, both the assignee and the inventor are the same person: Marvin Harris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best way to determine the current status of this application is the [US Public Pair][1] site. Go to that site, get past the captcha and enter 20080289082 as the publication number. You will see several tabs including &quot;Application Data&quot;, &quot;Assignments&quot; and &quot;Address and Attorney/Agent&quot;. From the Application Data tab, I find that the application status is &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot;. This suggests the application is dead and won't become a patent. It may be possible to resurrect the application, I'm not sure. There is a lot of information on the Public Pair site so you may want to review the correspondence between the patent office and the inventor to discover the reason for abandonment. It may be because of some other prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, Marvin Harris is listed as residing in Chicago, IL which, unfortunately, is a pretty common name. The &quot;Address and Attorney/Agent&quot; tab generally give an address of patent attorney which can be useful for tracking down the assignee or inventor, but the Public Pair was being balky when I was check this for you so perhaps you can try yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45569" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17502" RevisionGUID="6acff219-605f-4b6f-87db-381e3851ba35" CreationDate="2017-03-26T15:18:55.060" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5059],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="45570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17503" RevisionGUID="67154924-a275-48f6-b83b-ccdfcb77ec60" CreationDate="2017-03-26T15:24:07.660" UserId="17003" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The cited document is an application, not yet a patent. It may never become a patent. As such it doesn't yet protect anything. Normally to inquire about purchasing a patent you would want to contact the assignee rather than the inventor. In this case, both the assignee and the inventor are the same person: Marvin Harris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best way to determine the current status of this application is the [US Public Pair][1] site. Go to that site, get past the captcha and enter 20080289082 as the publication number. You will see several tabs including &quot;Application Data&quot;, &quot;Assignments&quot; and &quot;Address and Attorney/Agent&quot;. From the Application Data tab, I find that the application status is &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot;. This suggests the application is dead and won't become a patent. It may be possible to resurrect the application, I'm not sure. There is a lot of information on the Public Pair site so you may want to review the correspondence between the patent office and the inventor to discover the reason for abandonment. It may be because of some other prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, Marvin Harris which, unfortunately, is a pretty common name, is listed as residing in Chicago, IL. The &quot;Address and Attorney/Agent&quot; tab generally gives an address of patent attorney which can be useful for tracking down the assignee or inventor, but the Public Pair was being balky when I was check this for you so perhaps you can try yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17504" RevisionGUID="d082fa13-190f-40d5-abdf-53b64bfc9f90" CreationDate="2017-03-26T18:27:08.807" UserId="18527" Text="This is just my opinion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is my son entitled to royalties in the event that the product becomes successful? - Not unless there was a contract which entitled your son to this. The patent owner holds full control of the product's success or failure. That is the point of a &quot;patent&quot; - i.e. to ensure the patent holder has control.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should he receive publishing credit?  If the patent holder described in detail to your son what the invention was and your son is not a contributor of ideas then perhaps no publishing credit is deserved. Your son was paid for his time as you mentioned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45572" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16748" RevisionGUID="e9e9e07a-d587-4411-a0de-5f7099b2c75b" CreationDate="2017-03-26T19:22:30.873" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45573" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12070" RevisionGUID="84a575f4-3ce5-44fb-8329-cfc95c9f6bc7" CreationDate="2017-03-26T21:36:49.893" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45574" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14601" RevisionGUID="6bfe6316-9b29-45cf-b61c-e1f1db7eb87a" CreationDate="2017-03-26T23:36:45.170" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45575" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7765" RevisionGUID="0426bc30-7eac-4455-bf97-27a5121cc7e8" CreationDate="2017-03-27T00:38:08.347" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45579" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="a9cffb44-2ed7-4bdc-8cf2-13ef9b400b6d" CreationDate="2017-03-27T05:47:04.333" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45581" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10744" RevisionGUID="ed45a257-c538-49ae-9b12-70446460aa62" CreationDate="2017-03-27T11:50:36.030" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17506" RevisionGUID="6b582dd3-a9f7-484c-bedb-4c66870899d9" CreationDate="2017-03-27T13:13:41.720" UserId="18760" Text="My design uses an integrated plug, for example US, EU, European plugs, do i need to file multiple design patents for the different plug options?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is one plug ok to show the ornamental design for the product?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The different plugs do not go on leads, instead they are part of the product." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45583" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17506" RevisionGUID="6b582dd3-a9f7-484c-bedb-4c66870899d9" CreationDate="2017-03-27T13:13:41.720" UserId="18760" Text="Do i need to file multiple design patents if the product can use different country plugs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45584" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17506" RevisionGUID="6b582dd3-a9f7-484c-bedb-4c66870899d9" CreationDate="2017-03-27T13:13:41.720" UserId="18760" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17508" RevisionGUID="c40176bb-445b-4dbf-82d3-1ef0dfe69721" CreationDate="2017-03-27T15:08:18.340" UserId="18762" Text="I just found this patent from Sept. 4, 1917 that my Great Grandfather designed and filed for patent in 1916. How would I find out if it was bought, used, etc.? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45589" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17508" RevisionGUID="c40176bb-445b-4dbf-82d3-1ef0dfe69721" CreationDate="2017-03-27T15:08:18.340" UserId="18762" Text="1917 Patent US1239172 A" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45590" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17508" RevisionGUID="c40176bb-445b-4dbf-82d3-1ef0dfe69721" CreationDate="2017-03-27T15:08:18.340" UserId="18762" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;us1239172&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17509" RevisionGUID="d8c1b08d-28b1-494d-8232-ddad332174a2" CreationDate="2017-03-27T16:37:42.007" UserId="17003" Text="Congratulations on discovering your Great Grandfather's patent. Unfortunately I don't know of any special way of finding out if it was licensed, used etc. beyond normal web searching techniques. The patent probably expired around 1934 so there is no financial value to it at this point. By the way, it is a full fledged utility patent, not a design patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17510" RevisionGUID="05085570-b378-498e-983b-7665e947fb54" CreationDate="2017-03-27T16:42:09.947" UserId="17003" Text="I'm not an expert in this, but I believe you can used dashed or broken lines to cover elements of the design that aren't to be covered by the patent. This is a [good article][1] explaining this. Based on this, I think you would draw the plug portion of your figures in broken lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/07/30/strong-design-patents-the-power-of-the-broken-line/id=44215/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17510" RevisionGUID="003c5471-b53a-4c18-8fd3-e78654fd1c51" CreationDate="2017-03-27T16:47:18.190" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to USPTO site." Text="I'm not an expert in this, but I believe you can used dashed or broken lines to cover elements of the design that aren't to be covered by the patent. This is a [good article][1] explaining this. Based on this, I think you would draw the plug portion of your figures in broken lines. Here is the [USPTO guide][2]. There is a section there about broken lines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Broken Lines&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A broken line disclosure is understood to be for illustrative purposes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; only and forms no part of the claimed design. Structure that is not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; part of the claimed design, but is considered necessary to show the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; environment in which the design is used, may be represented in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; drawing by broken lines. This includes any portion of an article in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which the design is embodied or applied to that is not considered part&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the claimed design. When the claim is directed to just surface&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ornamentation for an article, the article in which it is embodied must&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be shown in broken lines.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In general, when broken lines are used, they should not intrude upon&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or cross the showing of the claimed design and should not be of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; heavier weight than the lines used in depicting the claimed design.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Where a broken line showing of environmental structure must&#xD;&#xA;&gt; necessarily cross or intrude upon the representation of the claimed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; design and obscures a clear understanding of the design, such an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; illustration should be included as a separate figure in addition to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the other figures which fully disclose the subject matter of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/07/30/strong-design-patents-the-power-of-the-broken-line/id=44215/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/design-patent-application-guide#broken" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17509" RevisionGUID="1967458f-7e20-4452-a6d0-dedbcbfa5e59" CreationDate="2017-03-27T17:08:07.450" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Congratulations on discovering your Great Grandfather's patent. Unfortunately I don't know of any special way of finding out if it was licensed, used, etc. beyond normal web searching techniques. The patent probably expired around 1934 so there is no financial value to it at this point. By the way, it is a full fledged utility patent, not a design patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45599" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="acb63762-f423-4dda-ba9a-a1a1a8811c17" CreationDate="2017-03-27T19:55:57.640" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45600" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13870" RevisionGUID="491015d6-4ef0-4f05-a582-dc3419c7e62f" CreationDate="2017-03-27T21:55:56.007" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17512" RevisionGUID="3f6c0243-c110-4123-8313-7301a0d7b0a0" CreationDate="2017-03-27T22:42:23.013" UserId="18501" Text="Good evening all,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you distinguish in a drawing two different &quot;features&quot; you want to separately annotate if they are one piece?  i.e.  &quot;A head portion homogeneously connected by construction to an elongated member&quot;.    How do you define where one ends and the other begins?   Do you break away each piece and explain them? (I've read that can cause one &quot;skilled in the art&quot; to not be able to reproduce your published invention invalidating the patent).   Do you use dotted lines that set a boundary for each claimed feature on the drawing and then connect that perimeter to a numbered line?   Crosshatching?  Advise welcome&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45602" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17512" RevisionGUID="3f6c0243-c110-4123-8313-7301a0d7b0a0" CreationDate="2017-03-27T22:42:23.013" UserId="18501" Text="Annotating two portions connected by construction - Brake lines? Dotted Lines?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45603" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17512" RevisionGUID="3f6c0243-c110-4123-8313-7301a0d7b0a0" CreationDate="2017-03-27T22:42:23.013" UserId="18501" Text="&lt;drawing&gt;&lt;homogeneous&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45604" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16340" RevisionGUID="cd877307-39ad-4f77-a203-11ebf330d82d" CreationDate="2017-03-27T23:00:50.937" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45605" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17128" RevisionGUID="1e155bc9-d666-4f05-a9d4-62e0410a6a06" CreationDate="2017-03-28T00:04:12.340" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45608" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10643" RevisionGUID="7afb71a4-fda6-4ee7-8177-a164820329a4" CreationDate="2017-03-28T04:10:58.507" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17513" RevisionGUID="f4f3e079-3753-4f5f-8886-fd29a2799b6e" CreationDate="2017-03-28T06:16:31.830" UserId="15503" Text="There is no one way to do this. As long as your drawings, when viewed in light of the description, are clear, there should be no problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus using a dashed line to artificially divide the piece into the two constituent portions is an entirely reasonable approach. It would also be reasonable to use an exploded view, showing the separate parts, or use cross-hatching on one part in a non-exploded view. Or all of these techniques in different drawings, coupled with clear description, to place the matter beyond doubt." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45610" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="2ea9330d-ae0f-41ef-ba2a-f4459247d505" CreationDate="2017-03-28T06:17:21.710" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17514" RevisionGUID="c15f50c9-1351-4a96-aca3-e7d5675c848c" CreationDate="2017-03-28T06:41:31.613" UserId="18766" Text="what is Joda busbar raising frame automatic screw device patent.&#xD;&#xA;The patent number is ZL 2014 2 0446264.5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45612" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17514" RevisionGUID="c15f50c9-1351-4a96-aca3-e7d5675c848c" CreationDate="2017-03-28T06:41:31.613" UserId="18766" Text="busbar raising frame automatic screw device patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45613" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17514" RevisionGUID="c15f50c9-1351-4a96-aca3-e7d5675c848c" CreationDate="2017-03-28T06:41:31.613" UserId="18766" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;business&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45614" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="1ad6a397-eb65-449e-bead-6d34a1035362" CreationDate="2017-03-28T07:24:43.120" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17515" RevisionGUID="0508ca73-2e46-41f1-a857-3fdc676a10b4" CreationDate="2017-03-28T07:46:07.580" UserId="18697" Text="A US patent change its assignment when someone sell patent to other person/assignee (Note: not including the loan ones)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, i have seen few cases where assignment took place little later than the public announcement.(such as a company sell one of its division to other company)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;when would these assignment took place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For ex: US patent 6479448 was assigned to Unilever which sold  North American laundry division to The Sun product. the assignment database shows its last transaction on 09/14/2016. Further, The sun product sell off its division to Henkel(in between sep, 2016). This transaction is not available in the assignment till now. How can we find out that when assignments changes. Is it based on time frame (USPTO update once in a 6 months) or if there is some legal status changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: not including any security and loan assignments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45616" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17515" RevisionGUID="0508ca73-2e46-41f1-a857-3fdc676a10b4" CreationDate="2017-03-28T07:46:07.580" UserId="18697" Text="How can we identify the change in Assignments. Is it based on time frame (USPTO update once in a 6 months) or if there is some legal status changes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45617" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17515" RevisionGUID="0508ca73-2e46-41f1-a857-3fdc676a10b4" CreationDate="2017-03-28T07:46:07.580" UserId="18697" Text="&lt;assignment&gt;&lt;assignee&gt;&lt;assignment-history&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45618" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="06e28dbd-40c2-4b8f-9d60-04a1fa29dfc6" CreationDate="2017-03-28T10:48:49.437" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17516" RevisionGUID="4f07e9dc-305d-43e6-97d9-126158f03393" CreationDate="2017-03-28T14:14:36.020" UserId="17003" Text="To answer your question, yes the patent application you cited has been issued as [US8428353][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8428353" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17516" RevisionGUID="7b99f0be-f0c9-4df2-8b9c-3a14a58a2480" CreationDate="2017-03-28T14:23:08.230" UserId="17003" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="To answer your question, yes the patent application you cited has been issued as [US8428353][1]. Since the cited paper is behind a paywall, it is hard to assess whether it is sufficient prior art to invalidate the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8428353" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17516" RevisionGUID="3ef8f94f-736f-4364-90be-a65c24a7d53b" CreationDate="2017-03-28T14:28:43.217" UserId="17003" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="To answer your question, yes the patent application you cited has been issued as [US8428353][1] issued in 2013. Since the cited paper is behind a paywall, it is hard to assess whether it is sufficient prior art to invalidate the patent. Looking briefly at the claims, it seems to describe an algorithm without without solving a specific problem. As such I'm wondering if it would hold up to more recent rulings on software patentability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8428353" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45622" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17133" RevisionGUID="eb020eb1-1dbf-4e0f-952d-2eda8417aca5" CreationDate="2017-03-28T16:49:26.187" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17517" RevisionGUID="4444d24d-4c46-43d5-9a1c-3b1bd61916a5" CreationDate="2017-03-28T17:32:30.303" UserId="18769" Text="I am developing a hardware product that I would like to sell.  It is fairly novel, in that there is nothing with similar capabilities on the market today.  However, I have identified at least 1-2 utility patent applications (either in US or EU patent system) that make broad claims encompassing some of my methods.  That is, these patents speak of general methods, but make no specific mention or detailed description of my method, and possibly have not considered my specific method.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These patents are still not formally approved/issued as far as I can tell.  If it matters, one is from a large multinational, and one appears to be from an individual.  I previously paid an IP attorney to discern freedom to operate.  I get the sense that he didn't spend much time performing this analysis (and to be fair his price was not high), but his sentiment was that the patents were too broad (in that even if they did get issued they might not stand up in court) but that they still covered what I was attempting to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: given that these patent applications may or may not pass, and even if they do pass may not hold up if challenged, how should I go about ensuring freedom to operate?  I am planning to go to an IP attorney for a formal search, but I'm not sure if attorneys usually give advice on the strategy of acquiring permissions from patent holders.  If I need to set some licensing/royalty agreement in case these patents are issued and held up as valid, I would prefer to do that now while I am still early in development.  I want to minimize the 'leverage' the patent holders have in terms of pricing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45624" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17517" RevisionGUID="4444d24d-4c46-43d5-9a1c-3b1bd61916a5" CreationDate="2017-03-28T17:32:30.303" UserId="18769" Text="Acquiring freedom to operate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45625" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17517" RevisionGUID="4444d24d-4c46-43d5-9a1c-3b1bd61916a5" CreationDate="2017-03-28T17:32:30.303" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;freedom-to-operate&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45626" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14934" RevisionGUID="42bfec82-aba3-430c-817d-0aa150f0533a" CreationDate="2017-03-28T17:49:27.073" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17518" RevisionGUID="b2a1e21c-5368-4b6f-b3c7-6999ff51bcad" CreationDate="2017-03-28T18:51:25.537" UserId="17003" Text="The first thing you need to do is consult with an attorney with respect to freedom to operate. Only after you fully understand where you stand with respect to the prior art can you consider potential licensing. Very often people misread claims as being broader than they really are. In general the longer and more detailed a claim is, the narrower the coverage. Patent applications especially tend to claim very broadly and the resulting patent, should it be granted, generally will have narrower claim language. In any case, you can't decide on the value of licensing without a legal opinion of your freedom to operate so start with that. If you weren't happy with the first patent attorney you went to, you may want to consider someone different. Especially one who is experience in the field." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45628" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16491" RevisionGUID="11dd3455-c4aa-40ef-98cc-4c75a8a3cf64" CreationDate="2017-03-28T19:49:53.300" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45629" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17515" RevisionGUID="5d429a39-f701-4b67-88fc-5c3e7824847c" CreationDate="2017-03-28T21:21:08.163" UserId="15503" Comment="Improve grammar" Text="A US patent is assigned when it is sold to another person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I have seen few cases where the assignment was recorded a little later than the public announcement of the transfer (such as a company selling one of its divisions to another company).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, US patent 6479448 was assigned to Unilever which sold  North American laundry division to The Sun Products Corp. The assignment database shows its last transaction on 09/14/2016. Further, The Sun Products Corp sold off its division to Henkel (in September 2016). This latter transaction has not been shown in the assignments database until recently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why does the recordal of these assignments occur some time after the assignment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45630" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17515" RevisionGUID="5d429a39-f701-4b67-88fc-5c3e7824847c" CreationDate="2017-03-28T21:21:08.163" UserId="15503" Comment="Improve grammar" Text="&lt;assignment&gt;&lt;assignment-history&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17519" RevisionGUID="62d9a453-75f5-492c-907a-730468eafcfa" CreationDate="2017-03-28T21:29:03.333" UserId="15503" Text="This is likely Chinese utility model [CN203999849](https://www.google.co.nz/patents/CN203999849U). The number you refer to is the application number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ZL (zhuānlì) refers to the granted version of an application number. So ZL 201420446264 is the granted utility model of application number 201420446264, which is utility model 203999849." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17514" RevisionGUID="b091bd40-5286-487e-9f18-711d1d214467" CreationDate="2017-03-28T21:30:09.383" UserId="15503" Comment="Make the question answerable" Text="Where can I find the patent for the Joda busbar raising frame automatic screw device? The patent number is ZL 2014 2 0446264.5." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45633" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17514" RevisionGUID="b091bd40-5286-487e-9f18-711d1d214467" CreationDate="2017-03-28T21:30:09.383" UserId="15503" Comment="Make the question answerable" Text="&lt;china&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45634" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16759" RevisionGUID="3c406b66-fb9d-4d63-8706-c36c46b36997" CreationDate="2017-03-28T21:50:54.457" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17520" RevisionGUID="8a3e8262-8aa2-44e9-8304-50cfa91047a1" CreationDate="2017-03-28T22:04:22.417" UserId="14485" Text="The answer is that public recordation of a patent assignment is not required for the assignment to be a valid transfer of ownership.  See, e.g., [this discussion in the Manual for Patent Examination Procedure][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Recordation of the assignment provides legal notice to the public of the assignment. It should be noted that recording of the assignment is merely a ministerial act; it is not an Office determination of the validity of the assignment document or the effect of the assignment document on the ownership of the patent property.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why then are assignments recorded at all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is partly that [under Section 261 of the Patent Act][2], an earlier assignment recorded within three months from its date of execution (or otherwise before any later assignment) voids any later competing assignment of the same patents to a buyer who had no actual knowledge of the earlier assignment, even when the later buyer paid a lot of money:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An interest that constitutes an assignment, grant or conveyance shall be void as against any subsequent purchaser or mortgagee for a valuable consideration, without notice, unless it is recorded in the Patent and Trademark Office within three months from its date or prior to the date of such subsequent purchase or mortgage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents in this sense are treated like real property.  The recording act for patents is an example of a &quot;race-notice with grace&quot; rule of priority, and each state has [its own slightly different rule of priority in recordation][3].  Patents, being a creation of federal law, are governed by a federal statute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other part of the answer is that some patent owners prefer to keep confidential the full extent of their patent ownership for strategic reasons.  If a transferee of the patent rights isn't worried about the prior owner fraudulently trying to sell the same patents to another buyer, then she may wait or avoid recording the assignment to conceal her ownership (and whatever strategic information that might convey) from the public.  Partly as a consequence of this, gaining freedom to operate can be quite difficult for a business seeking to clear patent rights!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s301.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/261&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recording_(real_estate)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45636" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16365" RevisionGUID="c29e9093-98e4-4077-bd76-f896634181f9" CreationDate="2017-03-28T22:51:01.430" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17001" RevisionGUID="f108b096-f55d-40c5-a74f-5c8f71efc8ee" CreationDate="2017-03-29T00:50:30.727" UserId="18033" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="It has been stated already that this patent has lapsed, which is correct (see for example the google page, espacenet, USPTO). So it is now part of the public domain and if there is no other protection for this (yes, this could happen, should not though), everyone may use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A computer-implemented method for identifying relative binding motifs of peptide-like molecules, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;(a) training a computer-implemented artificial neural network (ANN) with input data characterizing a set of training peptide-like molecules, each of known sequence and binding affinity;&#xD;&#xA;(b) applying to the ANN input data characterizing at least one test peptide-like molecule, each of known sequence but unknown binding affinity;&#xD;&#xA;(c) analyzing each applied test peptide-like molecule using the ANN to generate a prediction of a relative binding affinity for each test peptide-like molecule, and outputting such prediction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a really broad claim but only for peptide-like molecules, I am not sure why this would be abandoned, but maybe the market was too small. &#xD;&#xA;A claim like this would not get granted today (I'm sure), as it is obvious for everyone skilled in the art. But the patent is from 1997 (and maybe claims earlier priority, I didn't check). This was roughly 20 years ago, so maybe at that time, this was not obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45638" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="2507765d-51e9-417c-b2d9-2bd06662d027" CreationDate="2017-03-29T00:54:35.660" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45639" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14820" RevisionGUID="f07ef235-c39d-480f-b149-dd1c0daeadde" CreationDate="2017-03-29T02:54:33.963" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17521" RevisionGUID="beeafc50-ded5-46a5-ada3-5596ca8cf79b" CreationDate="2017-03-29T05:23:54.057" UserId="18770" Text="My father has a patent, registered about 10 years ago, but only in our home country - he has never made a PCT filing. Now, a company from another country is interested in that technology. How can we sell/license it to them? Is it impossible to get a patent in their country because the local patent is too old?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45641" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17521" RevisionGUID="beeafc50-ded5-46a5-ada3-5596ca8cf79b" CreationDate="2017-03-29T05:23:54.057" UserId="18770" Text="How can I protect a national patent abroad if I have missed the deadline for an international (PCT) application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45642" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17521" RevisionGUID="beeafc50-ded5-46a5-ada3-5596ca8cf79b" CreationDate="2017-03-29T05:23:54.057" UserId="18770" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;internatioinal&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17522" RevisionGUID="fd21033d-4a39-4cab-a1cc-2036c165211f" CreationDate="2017-03-29T06:00:31.827" UserId="15503" Text="**Is it impossible to get a patent in their country because the local patent is too old?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct: you are unfortunately out of luck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current patent is now prior art for all countries, so that a new application in another country would lack novelty. Moreover, you are well past any deadlines for claiming priority (which must be done within 12 months of the first filing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How can we sell/license it to them?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be based on the laws of your jurisdiction. Typically this just requires a contract, but may require the assignment/licence to be recorded at the patent office." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17523" RevisionGUID="8e78ad0b-389a-44d1-afbc-dcfe0c291ffb" CreationDate="2017-03-29T07:46:36.510" UserId="13884" Text="Rather stay away from using the words such as &quot;advantage(s)&quot; and phrases like &quot;the object of the invention is ...&quot;. Rather merely mention the features or aspects of the invention. If a patent applicant makes promises for an invention, and those promises are not met, the patent can be declared invalid.&#xD;&#xA;See in this regard:&#xD;&#xA;[Utility Futility? Usefulness of Inventions and ‘Fatal’ Promises Made in Patent Specifications.][1]. Also: [When there’s a “will”, there’s a promise][2]. And: ​MORE THAN A PINKY PROMISE: [RECENT DEVELOPMENTS TO THE PROMISE DOCTRINE IN PATENT LAW][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.patentology.com.au/2016/05/utility-futility-usefulness-of.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.smithsip.com/when-theres-a-will-theres-a-promise/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.blakes.com/English/Resources/Bulletins/Pages/Details.aspx?BulletinID=2222" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17485" RevisionGUID="7a43ff03-4981-42b3-8d6b-de52fcb680d4" CreationDate="2017-03-29T09:39:07.513" UserId="15503" Comment="Improve grammar and formatting" Text="I am reading *Patent It Yourself* (18th edition). In this, page 210 explains about advantages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;g. Advantages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Although it is optional, you may list the advantages of&#xD;&#xA;your invention in a narrative form. If you do so, make it&#xD;&#xA;the first paragraph in your Detailed Description section.&#xD;&#xA;Include this because it helps orient your readers to your&#xD;&#xA;subject matter, and helps sell the invention to the&#xD;&#xA;examiner or a judge who may rule on your patent. The&#xD;&#xA;advantages may also help distinguish your invention&#xD;&#xA;from a “judicial exception” that is not patentable.&#xD;&#xA;For example, if your invention does any of the&#xD;&#xA;following, explain in narrative form the shortcoming&#xD;&#xA;of the prior art and the advantage of your invention:&#xD;&#xA;improves another technology or technical field;&#xD;&#xA;improves the functioning of the computer itself; or&#xD;&#xA;includes a feature or function that is more than what&#xD;&#xA;is well-&#xD;&#xA;understood, routine, and conventional in the&#xD;&#xA;field. However, it’s important not to use language&#xD;&#xA;that a court may consider limiting; don’t use the&#xD;&#xA;words “invention” or “objects”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author says not to use words “invention” or “objects&quot;. But if I don’t use these words, how do I state the object of the current invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45647" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17485" RevisionGUID="7a43ff03-4981-42b3-8d6b-de52fcb680d4" CreationDate="2017-03-29T09:39:07.513" UserId="15503" Comment="Improve grammar and formatting" Text="How do I explain the advantages and avoid using &quot;invention&quot; or &quot;object&quot; in the description?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45648" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17485" RevisionGUID="7a43ff03-4981-42b3-8d6b-de52fcb680d4" CreationDate="2017-03-29T09:39:07.513" UserId="15503" Comment="Improve grammar and formatting" Text="&lt;drafting&gt;&lt;invention&gt;&lt;object&gt;&lt;advantages&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17524" RevisionGUID="f316627c-fdf3-4e07-a41e-8ea904552677" CreationDate="2017-03-29T09:39:30.090" UserId="18697" Text="Can foreign application claims the benefit from the US application (wherein US application is claiming priority from provisional application).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: 1) US application does not have any child and divisional&#xD;&#xA;      2) Foreign application, US application and provisional application published within the 12 months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If foreign application claims benefit from the US application, does it break some law or US provisional become prior art for foreign application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45650" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17524" RevisionGUID="f316627c-fdf3-4e07-a41e-8ea904552677" CreationDate="2017-03-29T09:39:30.090" UserId="18697" Text="Can EP or WO application claims the priority of US application ( wherein US application already claiming the priority of US provisional)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45651" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17524" RevisionGUID="f316627c-fdf3-4e07-a41e-8ea904552677" CreationDate="2017-03-29T09:39:30.090" UserId="18697" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;prior&gt;&lt;priority-date-options&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17525" RevisionGUID="46dacce1-9a35-47d8-bede-8549cc498d33" CreationDate="2017-03-29T10:28:42.207" UserId="15503" Text="Priority claims are governed by the [Paris Convention](http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/text.jsp?file_id=288514#P83_6610) art 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Arts 4(C)(1)–(2) requires that priority can be claimed for twelve months from the date of filing the first application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Art 4(C)(4) provides that a subsequent application can only be used if the first filing &quot;has been withdrawn, abandoned, or refused, without having been laid open to public inspection and without leaving any rights outstanding, and if it has not yet served as a basis for claiming a right of priority&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus given your example timeline:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1 Jan 2010: US provisional&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1 Jul 2010: US non-provisional (claiming the priority of US provisional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1 Sep 2010: WO application (claiming the priority of US non-provisional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The WO application could validly claim priority from the US provisional (up until 1 Jan 2011, 12 months from the first filing). It could also claim priority from the US non-provisional (again, up until 1 Jan 2011, 12 months from the first filing). Since the WO was filed within this period, it has a valid priority claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The curious case of WO 1999/052812**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mentioned this case in your comment. The family timeframe of this appears to be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;22 April 1997: Provisional US 60/044588 was filed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;16 April 1998: Non-provisional US 09/061823 was filed (which is seemingly identical to the provisional).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;12 April 1999: WO 1999/052812 is filed, claiming priority to US 09/061823.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This appears to be a clear case of an invalid priority claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The provisional could be used for priority only until 22 April 1998 (12 months from filing). Since the non-provisional has the same subject matter, and the provisional wasn't first abandoned, the non-provisional doesn't reset the clock. The WO filing therefore could only claim priority (to the provisional or the non-provisional) until 22 April 1998. Since it was filed in 1999, it is well beyond the priority period, and thus has an invalid priority claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't seem to have been noted by the USPTO (acting as ISA on the WO) or the EPO (in the subsequent EP regional phase). I can only speculate why, but I presume it's simply because nobody noticed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45653" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17524" RevisionGUID="a57c9765-8c58-4720-98c2-d6444d9c5d05" CreationDate="2017-03-29T10:35:20.633" UserId="1" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;priority&gt;&lt;priority-date-options&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17516" RevisionGUID="142bb42f-f874-4d08-995e-352c614df1ff" CreationDate="2017-03-29T11:43:15.397" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="To answer your question, yes the patent application you cited has been issued as [US8428353][1] issued in 2013. Since the cited paper is behind a paywall, it is hard to assess whether it is sufficient prior art to invalidate the patent. Looking briefly at the claims, it seems to describe an algorithm without solving a specific problem. As such I'm wondering if it would hold up to more recent rulings on software patentability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8428353" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17526" RevisionGUID="99ec92cf-d7b5-454e-9208-e500b5a012a1" CreationDate="2017-03-29T12:57:50.173" UserId="18772" Text="I'm currently doing some research on base-*n* binary encoding algorithms (such as base32, base58, base64, base85, base91, etc) to see if the tradeoff between complexity (base64 implementations are ubiquitous due to email and JavaScript; others not so much) and performance (bigger base = slightly more efficient) is worth the effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While base91 seems to have really good properties for my requirements, I just found [patent US20030152220A1](https://patents.google.com/patent/US20030152220A1/en), which looks like it fairly concretely captures the implementational specifics of base-*n* encoding, and base91 in particular. (Indeed, the patent actually answers some questions I had about the specifics of implementing base91!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I'm very curious. base91 isn't widely implemented, but it isn't that hard to find open-source Perl, Python, PHP, C#, C, and even assembly-language implementations out there, so people *are* using it. I'm sure it's implemented commercially too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that patents only grant someone the right to enforce their ownership of something. With this in mind, is there an easy way I can find out that using base91 *may* be a Bad Idea™?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example of the standpoint I'm coming from, the H.264 video format is patented, and while there *are* open-source H.264 codecs that permit royalty-free commercial use (eg via the LGPL), it's generally a good idea to get eg a patent pool license from MPEG-LA when actually using H.264 in a commercial setting, as the H.264 patents do not permit royalty-free commercial use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This base91 patent only covers the technical specifics and does not stipulate any royalties or other requirements, and furthermore I've never heard of any patent issues with *any* base-*n* encoding scheme. However, this patent *was* granted, to a university in China (effective Nov 2002 forward), and I'd like to stay on the safe side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I *really* don't want the answer to be &quot;don't use it&quot; :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My apologies if this question is formatted incorrectly or is inappropriate for this site. First question here! :)  &#xD;&#xA;(I also suspect I'm not using the best tags for this question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technical aside for anyone curious: [Wikipedia's entry for base64](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base64) provides a decent explanation that explains the algorithm reasonably accessibly. Essentially, many situations that require binary data to be passed through systems that cannot safely handle binary data (most notably email, for historical reasons) generally encode the data using base64." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45657" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17526" RevisionGUID="99ec92cf-d7b5-454e-9208-e500b5a012a1" CreationDate="2017-03-29T12:57:50.173" UserId="18772" Text="How can I identify the usage implications of this granted patent for the base91 encoding algorithm?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45658" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17526" RevisionGUID="99ec92cf-d7b5-454e-9208-e500b5a012a1" CreationDate="2017-03-29T12:57:50.173" UserId="18772" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;algorithms&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17527" RevisionGUID="2ed057e4-3125-46ad-8358-106ddf86ca52" CreationDate="2017-03-29T14:12:25.353" UserId="17003" Text="You cited a patent application rather than a granted patent. The granted patent corresponding to the application is [US6859151B][1]. Granted patents often have narrower claims than applications. Here is the first claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A coding transformation method, used to transform an arbitrary input bit-string data into a sequence of printable ASCII characters,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the coding transformation being implemented by the computer software,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; characterized in: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (a) storing an executable program module to be used&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to execute the coding transformation into the program storage of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computer system, and building the output character set R91_CH[91] in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the computer memory and filling in the table of the bit denoting array&#xD;&#xA;&gt; φ[13]; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (b) makes the input byte-string pointer pointing to a starting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; address of the byte-string to be coded, recording the length of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; byte-string to be coded by using a variable, make the program counting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pointer pointing to the entry address of a previously described&#xD;&#xA;&gt; executable program module in the program storage, reading the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; instruction and executing coding transformation; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (c) the coding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transformation divides the input data into blocks with the length of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 13 bits, &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (d) for the coding transformation of blocks, the variable set&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or the original image set X includes all 8192 13-bit symbols and 12&#xD;&#xA;&gt; filling-bit denoting symbols φ1, . . . , φ12, totally amounting to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8204 elements; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (e) using 91 or 92 (considering the terminating symbol&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “=”) printable ASCII characters in the output representation of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coding transformation, &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (f) for the coding transformation of blocks,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the image set Y is the sub-set of the direct product R91×R91, wherein&#xD;&#xA;&gt; R91 is the set of 91 printable characters, in particular R91 excluding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; printable ASCII characters “−” and “=”, the reversible coding mapping&#xD;&#xA;&gt; relationship is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Base91[x]=(ch1, ch2)=(R91— CH[x/91], R91— CH[x%91]) wherein xεX, ch1,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ch2εR91, symbols “/” and “%” are the operators used in the C language,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; representing integral division and modulo division (remainder)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; respectively; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (g) for the input data block less than 13-bit long,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adding n bits to the specified side to make it become a complete block&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for implementing mapping, thereafter adding a block of data φn as the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; input data block implementing mapping, its image is in the direct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; product R91×R91.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to be a pretty long and detailed claim. Generally speaking longer claims are easier to avoid than short ones. In order to infringe on this claim, you have to perform each and every step of the claim. For instance, step (c) specifies blocks of 13 bits. Using a different length block would possibly avoid infringement. There are two more independent claims that are similarly long and detailed. I'm not really knowledgable in this field so I hesitate to comment further, but carefully read the claims of the issued patent to see how restrictive this patent really is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6859151B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17528" RevisionGUID="9c9f42c9-69b5-4bb9-aa6c-4f1d0787dcd5" CreationDate="2017-03-29T15:45:34.803" UserId="18773" Text="In reference to the patent: [US3099409][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3099409&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone help me understand what the patent was for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45661" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17528" RevisionGUID="9c9f42c9-69b5-4bb9-aa6c-4f1d0787dcd5" CreationDate="2017-03-29T15:45:34.803" UserId="18773" Text="This is my deceased Grandpa's patent. What exactly would this be used for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45662" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17528" RevisionGUID="9c9f42c9-69b5-4bb9-aa6c-4f1d0787dcd5" CreationDate="2017-03-29T15:45:34.803" UserId="18773" Text="&lt;us3099409&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45664" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="51b40696-851f-4b6e-ad2a-a31cfe3e0e2b" CreationDate="2017-03-29T16:23:24.333" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17529" RevisionGUID="fe729914-cc38-4dc2-9975-ccb1240e6e50" CreationDate="2017-03-29T16:44:36.870" UserId="17003" Text="Congratulations on discovering your Grandfather's patent. This patent describes a device for winding coils used in electric motors. Many electric motors (even now) utilize cores made with ferro-magnetic material like iron or steel around which magnet wire is wound. Magnet wire is usually normal copper wire with a thin varnish insulation. Essentially you create a series of electromagnets that interact with permanent magnets or external coils to turn a shaft. Winding these coils by hand can be pretty tedious so an automated system would be pretty useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading these sorts of questions is fun for me as I wonder if some day my grandchildren (should I be so lucky) will happen upon my patents..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17530" RevisionGUID="4ff0d7a3-9ee5-4648-a58f-e456c9c9433d" CreationDate="2017-03-29T17:05:39.643" UserId="18033" Text="The filing date of a patent is the date the documents get filed at the respective patent office. So it's exactly what one would think. &#xD;&#xA;The patent term is normally 20 years from the date of filing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A source for confusion is introduced when talking about the priority date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to claim priority to an earlier application. That's what's done with provisionals, divisionals, PCT applications ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This essentially means that one files a second patent after a first patent. The first patent has a first filing date, while the second patent has a second filing date. But the second patent, if it claims priority to the first patent can get the priority date that is the filing date of the first patent. In this case, the priority date is used to asess novelty, inventive step and first-to-file-priority. Still the filing date of the second patent triggers the 20 year patent term, effectively allowing 21 years of protection. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there are divisionals and continuations. Those don't exactly claim priority of an earlier patent, they claim the earlier patents filing date, which effectively changes the patent term to less than 20 years from the date of filing the divisional/continuation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, to overcome a double patenting objection in the US, one can add a terminal disclaimer, effectively shortening the patent term without changing the filing nor priority date, but having a similar effect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17531" RevisionGUID="c8da5a25-05fd-494c-9a50-3346147e36cf" CreationDate="2017-03-29T18:34:16.183" UserId="18774" Text="I wonder if anyone can direct me to an article on which font to use for headers and text in a patent. I have searched some articles without luck. I want my provisional patent to be as formal as the other provisional patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45668" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17531" RevisionGUID="c8da5a25-05fd-494c-9a50-3346147e36cf" CreationDate="2017-03-29T18:34:16.183" UserId="18774" Text="Provisional patents formal font size and style" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45669" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17531" RevisionGUID="c8da5a25-05fd-494c-9a50-3346147e36cf" CreationDate="2017-03-29T18:34:16.183" UserId="18774" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17529" RevisionGUID="491d9e73-925f-42f6-8502-126551e1b7d3" CreationDate="2017-03-29T19:15:33.263" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Congratulations on discovering your Grandfather's patent. This patent describes a device for winding coils used in electric motors. Many electric motors (even now) utilize cores made with ferro-magnetic material like iron or steel around which magnet wire is wound. Magnet wire is usually normal copper wire with a thin varnish insulation. Essentially you create a series of electromagnets that interact with permanent magnets or external coils to turn a shaft. Winding these coils by hand can be pretty tedious so an automated system would be very useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading these sorts of questions is fun for me as I wonder if some day my grandchildren (should I be so lucky) will happen upon my patents..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17533" RevisionGUID="b0529959-f527-446a-a094-e63c872583e5" CreationDate="2017-03-29T22:17:57.307" UserId="14038" Text="The U.S. Patent Office sets out the font and line spacing for non-provisional patent applications in MPEP 608 (37 CFR 1.52) as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; (2) The specification (including the abstract and claims) for other than reissue applications and reexamination or supplemental&#xD;&#xA;&gt; examination proceedings, and any amendments for applications&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (including reissue applications) and reexamination proceedings to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; specification, except as provided for in §§ 1.821 through 1.825, must&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (i) Lines that are 1 1/2 or double spaced;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (ii) Text written in a nonscript type font (e.g., Arial, Times Roman,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or Courier, preferably a font size of 12) lettering style having&#xD;&#xA;&gt; capital letters which should be at least 0.3175 cm. (0.125 inch) high,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but may be no smaller than 0.21 cm. (0.08 inch) high (e.g., a font&#xD;&#xA;&gt; size of 6); and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (iii) Only a single column of text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html#d0e42440&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that there are no definitive standards for a provisional application as it is never examined.  However it should be legible in order for it to be checked if necessary for support for the non-provisional application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45675" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13986" RevisionGUID="4acbdfe7-4940-418a-a3ce-0d5cbc63583a" CreationDate="2017-03-30T02:28:11.117" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45676" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16193" RevisionGUID="9a3918d2-e13b-4321-9606-da514d9f3cf3" CreationDate="2017-03-30T03:33:24.747" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17534" RevisionGUID="cae8dc0a-fc5a-4ddd-a75f-57a27bff2d94" CreationDate="2017-03-30T09:21:33.803" UserId="18776" Text="So, I decided to go with the Courier New font offered by Microsoft Word in writing my provisional patent. I am assuming that is the same Courier font suggested by the UPSTO? Anyway, I have written a full page and decided to export it to PDF. I have used the Foxit PDF reader and the document looked identical to the word document. Though, when I opened it using Adobe Reader which I am told is the software used by the people at USPTO the font was really thinner. It is readable but it is half the font weight of the Microsoft Word document. Should I be concerned how the text looks like in my provisional pdf file? I picked the courier font to be easy on the eye for me and the people who will read the file. Must I switch to another font? If I go with courier new font, will that affect my application in any manner?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45678" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17534" RevisionGUID="cae8dc0a-fc5a-4ddd-a75f-57a27bff2d94" CreationDate="2017-03-30T09:21:33.803" UserId="18776" Text="Regarding selecting a font on the provisional patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45679" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17534" RevisionGUID="cae8dc0a-fc5a-4ddd-a75f-57a27bff2d94" CreationDate="2017-03-30T09:21:33.803" UserId="18776" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;provisonal&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17535" RevisionGUID="8c4882e0-f702-48f2-a488-33373f53634d" CreationDate="2017-03-30T09:45:22.273" UserId="15503" Text="It honestly doesn't matter at all. Nobody is going to look at your provisional. Or at least, not until you are trying to litigate a later non-provisional, but then the font choice is the least of your concerns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as the text in your provisional is readable (and even the irritating-to-the-eye Courier New is readable), you'll be fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17537" RevisionGUID="fd4cae1c-a409-4c1e-a298-da29b057b582" CreationDate="2017-03-30T11:04:43.293" UserId="18776" Text="1. I have noticed that the people creating the provisional patent would capitalize the title of the invention on their patent document. So, I have done that too. Should I capitalize the title in the Provisonal Patent Cover Sheet or write it normally.&#xD;&#xA;2. Should I add the drawings in the same PDF document with my patent document or should the drawings be separate from the PDF document?&#xD;&#xA;3. If it is possible to add those in one PDF document, how will they be counted? I mean on ENCLOSED APPLICATION PARTS section of the sheet, it says Drawing(s) Number of Sheets, and Specification Number of pages. Should the number of drawings be included in the number of specification pages? How do I calculate it.&#xD;&#xA;4. Is the specification the PDF patent document with the field, background, summary, description of drawings, and detailed description of the invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45684" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17537" RevisionGUID="fd4cae1c-a409-4c1e-a298-da29b057b582" CreationDate="2017-03-30T11:04:43.293" UserId="18776" Text="Provisonal Patent Cover Sheet Questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45685" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17537" RevisionGUID="fd4cae1c-a409-4c1e-a298-da29b057b582" CreationDate="2017-03-30T11:04:43.293" UserId="18776" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17538" RevisionGUID="1dea715a-b148-42a7-a5cd-ac620caec709" CreationDate="2017-03-30T11:19:19.933" UserId="15503" Text="1. Capitalisation doesn't matter, it's purely a matter of style. Choose whatever you want.&#xD;&#xA;2. Typically the same PDF document (though I may be wrong, as it's been a long time since I've done the actual filing myself).&#xD;&#xA;3. The number of drawing sheets would be the number of pages in the PDF document that contain drawings. The number of specification pages would be the number of pages in the PDF document that contain text.&#xD;&#xA;4. Yes, and the claims (if you have any)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17539" RevisionGUID="76648de2-d582-40a6-a49a-b1f5f8569d16" CreationDate="2017-03-30T11:26:49.840" UserId="18779" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20050088024][1]&#xD;&#xA;good afternoon,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a student of the master course integrated in mechanical engineering at the University of Minho and I am completing my final project, which has as its theme the development and design of a vertical and ergonomic chair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the research that I have been developing, it is necessary to place anti-sealing systems on the chair, so that the user does not slip during the change of position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent idealizes what I need for the backrest system. How can I use this kind of mechanism without copying this mechanism? What differences does it have to have in order not to infringe the patent law? As I verify other patents that are based on this patent, I would like to see how it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leonel&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20050088024" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45688" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17539" RevisionGUID="76648de2-d582-40a6-a49a-b1f5f8569d16" CreationDate="2017-03-30T11:26:49.840" UserId="18779" Text="Project weelchair vertic university" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45689" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17539" RevisionGUID="76648de2-d582-40a6-a49a-b1f5f8569d16" CreationDate="2017-03-30T11:26:49.840" UserId="18779" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17540" RevisionGUID="23844217-55a5-41d3-b833-cf90536e2e87" CreationDate="2017-03-30T11:47:58.500" UserId="15503" Text="This is actually now a granted US patent, [US 7296856](https://www.google.com/patents/US7296856). If you do implement all of the features of any of the claims in the US, you may well be infringing this patent. However, in broad strokes, if your product does not implement all of the features of any of the claims, you would not be infringing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, given you are at a Portuguese university, you may be interested to know that the European equivalent ([EP 1522298](https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP04256248)) was deemed to be withdrawn on 20 March 2007. There are therefore no rights in respect of this particular application in Europe (though there may of course be other relevant patents)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45691" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13260" RevisionGUID="435ddaa7-2956-45f5-97c2-0a5ffe50b39f" CreationDate="2017-03-30T12:05:44.720" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17541" RevisionGUID="9ae88af8-f116-4d30-81a7-6dcf82765a10" CreationDate="2017-03-30T12:34:30.560" UserId="18776" Text="1. Should I sign my name in the sheet or type it like /Firstname Lastname/&#xD;&#xA;2. Is the date field filled by me? If that is the case, should I put the date where I am when posting the pdf and everything?&#xD;&#xA;3. There are two Telephone fields on the sheet? Why is that?&#xD;&#xA;4. On the micro entity sheet, am I the person i.e. the inventor the who would fill the fields under:&#xD;&#xA;SIGNATURE by an authorized party set forth in 37 CFR 1.33(b)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, should the pages on my PDF file be numbered or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45693" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17541" RevisionGUID="9ae88af8-f116-4d30-81a7-6dcf82765a10" CreationDate="2017-03-30T12:34:30.560" UserId="18776" Text="Provisonal Patent Cover Sheet More Questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45694" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17541" RevisionGUID="9ae88af8-f116-4d30-81a7-6dcf82765a10" CreationDate="2017-03-30T12:34:30.560" UserId="18776" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17542" RevisionGUID="3ce936a1-2085-4409-a2b7-d0b0dbea7fc5" CreationDate="2017-03-30T14:34:16.757" UserId="17003" Text="You generally don't find expiration dates on patents or in the Public Pair. This is unfortunate. Unless the is an [extension][1], the patents cited will expire 20 years from their priority date. For both of these patents that should be March 10th, 2024.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-2700.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17144" RevisionGUID="a1250acc-64f3-4662-9f01-a9637d1c948f" CreationDate="2017-03-30T14:35:56.973" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to USPTO site about extensions." Text="For applications file prior to June 8th, 1995, the patent term is either 17 years from the issue date or 20 years from the filing date of the earliest U.S. or international (PCT) application to which priority is claimed (excluding provisional applications), the longer term applying. So this is either April 2, 2013 (17 years) or May 15, 2014 (20 years). Since May 15, 2014 is later, it is the expiration date for this patent unless there is an [extension][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-2700.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17516" RevisionGUID="e5c2ce81-bcd7-4985-a20b-b877c219aff5" CreationDate="2017-03-30T14:38:56.533" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="To answer your question, yes the patent application you cited has been granted as [US8428353][1] issued in 2013. Since the cited paper is behind a paywall, it is hard to assess whether it is sufficient prior art to invalidate the patent. Looking briefly at the claims, it seems to describe an algorithm without solving a specific problem. As such I'm wondering if it would hold up to more recent rulings on software patentability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8428353" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45698" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="4b632e93-c786-4401-99e4-4ecfdd0c1af6" CreationDate="2017-03-30T15:08:04.270" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17543" RevisionGUID="cce0592b-ca61-48ec-b0ac-05080d02ad5b" CreationDate="2017-03-30T18:05:54.453" UserId="18781" Text="I've searched the uspto.gov/patents website as well as google.com/patents and to no avail. I am new to this and I know it must exist. I would like to start a patent application on a similar item but would like to rule out prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45700" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17543" RevisionGUID="cce0592b-ca61-48ec-b0ac-05080d02ad5b" CreationDate="2017-03-30T18:05:54.453" UserId="18781" Text="Need help locating the patent on the hula hoop Chanel bag (circa 2013)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45701" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17543" RevisionGUID="cce0592b-ca61-48ec-b0ac-05080d02ad5b" CreationDate="2017-03-30T18:05:54.453" UserId="18781" Text="&lt;prior&gt;&lt;purse&gt;&lt;art&gt;&lt;hoop&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17544" RevisionGUID="2d3bd4b5-6b57-4fa9-8a9e-4f11a8260956" CreationDate="2017-03-30T18:30:00.037" UserId="17003" Text="Fashion, I believe, is more often protected by copyright than patents. If a patent were to exist, it would be a design patent. I went to https://patents.google.com/ and searched with [&quot;Chanel, Inc&quot; as the assignee][1]. I get about 25 hits, but only one of them is related to a handbag and that covers an [ornamental clasp][2]. Most are patents on the composition of cosmetics. My guess is there isn't a design patent, but the bag is probably covered by copyright (probably registered). I don't know anything about copyright, but there are many search hits related to [fashion copyright infringement][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/?assignee=Chanel%2C%20Inc.&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD696017S1/en?assignee=Chanel%2C%20Inc.&amp;page=1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/#q=fashion+copyright+infringement+cases&amp;*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45704" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13528" RevisionGUID="c3c67112-f723-40e2-8cda-8f106a0ae249" CreationDate="2017-03-30T21:15:02.923" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17545" RevisionGUID="1f79308a-ca56-45a3-8d68-49468fc2345e" CreationDate="2017-03-30T21:24:19.687" UserId="18783" Text="We have patent #5,853,128 which was applied for on Mar. 8, 1997 and issued on Dec. 29, 1998.  We missed paying the final maintenance fee and have not tried to get it reissued before now.  How long do we have before there is no way to get it reissued in any way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45706" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17545" RevisionGUID="1f79308a-ca56-45a3-8d68-49468fc2345e" CreationDate="2017-03-30T21:24:19.687" UserId="18783" Text="What is the time limit for reviving an expired patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45707" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17545" RevisionGUID="1f79308a-ca56-45a3-8d68-49468fc2345e" CreationDate="2017-03-30T21:24:19.687" UserId="18783" Text="&lt;expired-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45708" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17540" RevisionGUID="416b0466-5ec7-42a8-a9b6-d329c9d9e980" CreationDate="2017-03-30T22:07:00.637" UserId="15503" Comment="remove ambiguity" Text="This is actually now a granted US patent, [US 7296856](https://www.google.com/patents/US7296856). If you do implement all of the features of any one of the claims in the US, you may well be infringing this patent. However, in broad strokes, if your product does not implement all of the features of any one (or more) of the claims, you would not be infringing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, given you are at a Portuguese university, you may be interested to know that the European equivalent ([EP 1522298](https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP04256248)) was deemed to be withdrawn on 20 March 2007. There are therefore no rights in respect of this particular application in Europe (though there may of course be other relevant patents)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17547" RevisionGUID="de97d95e-c1e3-49c1-9ecf-68aa62a0b3da" CreationDate="2017-03-31T03:56:45.167" UserId="18501" Text="If an inventive step solves several problems outlined in the background, should you list each problem as an &quot;object of the invention&quot; separately and if so, do you need to address each solution separately when writing the detailed description of the drawings/embodiments? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i.e. A new type of shower head solves ease of use for a user of &quot;ordinary skill in the art&quot;, water-flow consistency, ease of installation for a user &quot;skilled in the art&quot;.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, does the use of fuzzy terms such as &quot;ease of use&quot; require further definition as to how the &quot;use is easier&quot; within the detailed description of the embodiments?   If so, should you breakdown the elements of &quot;ease of use&quot; as further objects before the description?   Finally, in the detailed description can you solve &quot;ease of use&quot; collectively in one sentence or do you need to correlate with each object of the invention separately and distinctively? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   I'm concerned that it's important to structure my objects in the same structure as the explanation of the drawings and in the same structure as my claims, yet the inventive step as part of my independant claim solves multiple objects at once so perhaps I should broaden it with dependants.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks as always&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45717" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17547" RevisionGUID="de97d95e-c1e3-49c1-9ecf-68aa62a0b3da" CreationDate="2017-03-31T03:56:45.167" UserId="18501" Text="Inventive step and how to express multiple solutions to a problem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45718" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17547" RevisionGUID="de97d95e-c1e3-49c1-9ecf-68aa62a0b3da" CreationDate="2017-03-31T03:56:45.167" UserId="18501" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;patent-drawings&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17548" RevisionGUID="12f4dc40-3c7f-4f84-8bfa-020bd317da92" CreationDate="2017-03-31T05:20:59.733" UserId="17764" Text="As I know, when an element is introduced for the first time, it is generally preceded by an indefinite article ('a' or 'an'). Although some exceptions&#xD;&#xA;exist for “means” and plural recitations. However, my question is if an element (**uncountable noun** such as 'water', 'air' or the like) is introduced for the first time, do I have to add an indefinite article preceeding it? It looks werid to have &quot;a water&quot;, &quot;an air&quot; or the like. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45720" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17548" RevisionGUID="12f4dc40-3c7f-4f84-8bfa-020bd317da92" CreationDate="2017-03-31T05:20:59.733" UserId="17764" Text="When an element (uncountable noun) is introduced for the first time, is there any introcductory article needed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45721" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17548" RevisionGUID="12f4dc40-3c7f-4f84-8bfa-020bd317da92" CreationDate="2017-03-31T05:20:59.733" UserId="17764" Text="&lt;prosecution&gt;&lt;indefiniteness&gt;&lt;antecedent&gt;&lt;basis&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17548" RevisionGUID="d78e82da-2dc6-4194-8827-ca20328803fe" CreationDate="2017-03-31T05:49:22.897" UserId="17764" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="As I know, when an element is introduced for the first time, it is generally preceded by an indefinite article ('a' or 'an'). Although some exceptions&#xD;&#xA;exist for “means” and plural recitations. However, my question is if an element (**uncountable noun** such as 'water', 'air' or the like) is introduced for the first time, do I have to add an indefinite article preceeding it? It looks werid to have &quot;a water&quot;, &quot;an air&quot; or the like. Is there any precedents or legal basis (e.g. something from MPEP or 35 U.S.C., etc.) can be used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17549" RevisionGUID="10abcefa-abb4-4bd1-9b7d-a1166e9d9771" CreationDate="2017-03-31T13:33:22.540" UserId="18697" Text="Can you follow slide No 87 &amp; 88.Link: https://www.unipi.it/ricerca/phdarchivi/edizioni/phd2012/Dispense-d/golzio/how_file.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45724" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13007" RevisionGUID="e3c71a13-8e0c-45ba-a1ff-f4c97fa80ba3" CreationDate="2017-03-31T19:43:21.097" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17550" RevisionGUID="7277c008-78d0-4f4d-869e-73b1f4c7e252" CreationDate="2017-03-31T22:16:48.233" UserId="18790" Text="Dependent claims are narrowing in that they incorporate the limitations of the independent claim.  I haven’t filed for patent protection for some time now, but the objects are for clear disclosure and not really necessary provided that the specification as a whole has adequate disclosure of the invention and to support the claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17551" RevisionGUID="0e2ac04c-a0cd-40f2-a16c-f730c2772fc1" CreationDate="2017-03-31T23:36:00.327" UserId="15503" Text="**Do I have to add an indefinite article preceeding an uncountable noun?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. This would be ungrammatical English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears you might have the wrong end of the stick by suggesting that an element introduced for the first time is generally preceded by the indefinite article.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, the problem arises in the other direction: when the first use is introduced by &quot;the&quot; or &quot;said&quot;. This gives rise to a lack of antecedent basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, [MPEP § 2173.05(e)](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2173.html) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear. … The lack of clarity could arise where a claim refers to “said lever” or “the lever,” where the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a lever and where it would be unclear as to what element the limitation was making reference. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus it would be entirely correct to refer to air or water without the indefinite article, since this does not imply that air or water has been previously discussed, and thus does not introduce a lack of antecedent basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For completeness, it would also be correct to rely on an inherent antecedent basis in some cases. The canonical example is &quot;the major diameter&quot; of a previously introduced ellipse, since all ellipses inherently have a major diameter. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17552" RevisionGUID="9c5b07bd-1441-41fb-a794-1a6756f96157" CreationDate="2017-04-01T00:08:12.737" UserId="15503" Text="So I will present one approach. But I should caution that this is not *the* approach, and others may quite reasonably differ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If an inventive step solves several problems outlined in the background, should you list each problem as an &quot;object of the invention&quot; separately and if so, do you need to address each solution separately when writing the detailed description of the drawings/embodiments?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. Indeed, there is a risk to listing any objects at all, as they are essentially a guarantee that your invention achieves the object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an consequence of this, US-style drafting has conventionally moved away from including any discussion of benefits. But, in my view that swings the needle far too far in the opposite direction: including some limited commentary about benefits is useful to support non-obviousness/inventive step. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One quite useful way to structure a discussion of the benefits can be found in traditional British-style drafting, which uses the summary section. In the summary section, there is a copy of each claim, along with some description about the benefits inherent to that claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example (and in unpolished terms):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In a first aspect, there is provided a shower head comprising features A, B, and C. Such a shower head may be easier to use, … because. Additionally or alternatively, such a shower head provides better water-flow consistency, because ….&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In some embodiments, the shower head comprises a connector D. This may allow for easier installation because ….&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then in the detailed description, you focus solely on how the device works: there is no need to repeat the benefits, since they've already been set out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But solving multiple problems raises a flag**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, if your device solves multiple problems, then it may be an indication that you actually have multiple inventions which could each be claimed separately. That is, if the ease-of-use is due to feature B, and the improved consistency is due to feature C, and both are at least arguably novel and non-obvious, then you could well have a separate independent claim directed to each of these. This would broaden your protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if the features cannot be so easily divided (since both solutions are dependent on having features B and C together), then a single independent claim may be quite reasonable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Does the use of fuzzy terms such as &quot;ease of use&quot; require further definition as to how the &quot;use is easier&quot; within the detailed description of the embodiments? If so, should you breakdown the elements of &quot;ease of use&quot; as further objects before the description?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The standard you must meet is that the person having ordinary skill in the art (or, in reality, the examiner or another disinterested reader) would understand what you mean. There is no hard rule for this, and you must essentially use your intuition. If you believe the skilled person would understand &quot;ease of use&quot; in the manner you intend without any further explanation, then there is no need to explain. However, if you believe the skilled person might find it a bit unclear on its own, then explain a little what you mean. It may be that you can break it down into separate benefits (which does not hurt to include). In general, if you're unsure, more explanation is better, since you can't add it later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45731" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="537b02da-365f-463e-a1a9-00ac010d5609" CreationDate="2017-04-01T09:04:28.743" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45732" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17320" RevisionGUID="b5296c7a-ee73-4f1b-b97d-cdf9fbc0decf" CreationDate="2017-04-01T10:04:28.947" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17553" RevisionGUID="caa1bba4-4b4e-4f16-a242-322b2c1b9b7f" CreationDate="2017-04-01T14:15:59.750" UserId="18794" Text="Interest in associated costs and what potentially pharmaceutical companies may pay for such patents? Also do patents generate money without selling them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45735" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17553" RevisionGUID="caa1bba4-4b4e-4f16-a242-322b2c1b9b7f" CreationDate="2017-04-01T14:15:59.750" UserId="18794" Text="I'm in Australia, anyone familiar with the process of patenting medicinal plants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45736" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17553" RevisionGUID="caa1bba4-4b4e-4f16-a242-322b2c1b9b7f" CreationDate="2017-04-01T14:15:59.750" UserId="18794" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17554" RevisionGUID="7dc76b85-b577-41c4-be10-02f1ee111ba0" CreationDate="2017-04-01T14:27:46.053" UserId="17003" Text="I'm not an expert in medicinal plants, so I'll address your second question about how patents generate money. First, for companies that actually make and sell things, patents are valuable in that they protect the company from competition. If you can prevent competitors, presumably you can sell more product, possibly at a higher price. Patent holders can also generate money by licensing patents. In this case, the patent holder maintains ownership but allows another company to sell product that otherwise would infringe on the patent in return for compensation. The patent owner may decide to sell the patent in return for direct or deferred compensation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A controversial use of patents to generate money is what is often referred to patent trolling. This is where the patent is used to threaten a company with an infringement suit. The cost of pursuing a law suit is high so the company may be inclined to pay a license even if the merits of the suit favor them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17555" RevisionGUID="a8714011-5f43-4118-9968-de11597dbce5" CreationDate="2017-04-01T14:45:02.763" UserId="18793" Text="I created a gadget using Arduino. I used libraries which are under GPL licence. I want to know about is, can I get a patent for my invention? Can I use this gadget for a commercial purpose? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45739" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17555" RevisionGUID="a8714011-5f43-4118-9968-de11597dbce5" CreationDate="2017-04-01T14:45:02.763" UserId="18793" Text="Patenting for Arduino based invention" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45740" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17555" RevisionGUID="a8714011-5f43-4118-9968-de11597dbce5" CreationDate="2017-04-01T14:45:02.763" UserId="18793" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;gpl&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="338795d9-8968-41e9-b593-0b144e98cbd5" CreationDate="2017-04-01T17:55:44.017" UserId="300" Comment="deleted 29 characters in body" Text="I was wondering whether there was sufficient prior art for some of the patents that Microsoft is with Android device manufacturers? Most of those seem to have been resolved under NDA, but here's some information from the [Barnes &amp; Noble case][1] and the just-completed [Motorola case in Germany][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [#US7,411,582](http://www.google.com/patents/US7411582): &quot;Soft input panel system and method&quot;, Issued Aug 12, 2008&#xD;&#xA; - [#US6,891,551](http://www.google.com/patents/US6891551): “Selection handles in editing electronic documents.” Issued May 10, 2005&#xD;&#xA; - [#US5,778,372](http://www.google.com/patents/US5778372): “Remote retrieval and display management of electronic document with incorporated images.” Issued July 7, 1998.&#xD;&#xA; - [#US6,957,233](http://www.google.com/patents/US6957233): “Method and apparatus for capturing and rendering annotations for non-modifiable electronic content.” Issued Oct. 18, 2005.&#xD;&#xA; - [#US7,411,582][4]: &quot;Soft input panel system and method.&quot; Issue date: Aug 12, 2008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.geekwire.com/2012/microsoft-barnes-noble/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/20/microsoft-wins-third-injunction-motorola-software-patent/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7411582" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45743" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13171" RevisionGUID="f01de56d-bbbc-4e6d-9cad-0ba8e6a06fd9" CreationDate="2017-04-01T19:12:32.290" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17557" RevisionGUID="3dabd288-ffb3-40fc-ad76-9dd4cbb48e83" CreationDate="2017-04-02T02:13:45.960" UserId="15503" Text="**Patenting plants in Australia**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike most countries, there is no general prohibition in Australia of patenting plants&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. Rather, all Australian standard patents (that is, ignoring innovation patents) must fulfil the usual criteria for patentability, regardless of their subject matter. Notably, the claimed invention must be novel and involve an inventive step&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have discovered a naturally-occurring medicinal plant, this is not novel per se. That is, the plant has existed well before your discovery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you may have discovered a use of the plant for the treatment of a disease, or a method of preparing the plant into a medicament, or something of that nature. As long as this part is novel and involves an inventive step, you could well receive a patent for your discovery (but still not the plant itself).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, if you have bred a plant such that it is a new variety, you may be able to receive a patent for the plant itself. Alternatively, if your variety is distinct, uniform, and stable, you would be entitled to apply for plant breeder's rights&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Costs**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like with any patent application, this differs significantly based on the nature of your invention, who your attorney is, and how prosecution goes. So it could be anything from AUD 2000–20000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What would a pharmaceutical company pay for a medicinal plant patent?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is impossible to answer in general terms. 0 would be pretty typical, I suspect. But could be millions (or billions?) for the right one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Do patents generate money without selling them?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No: a patent does not inherently produce any income. Indeed, they cost money to maintain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only ways to make money from a patent are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Exploit your monopoly by selling the patented products safe from competition.&#xD;&#xA;2. License your patent to others to exploit.&#xD;&#xA;3. Sue other parties for infringement of your patent (or agree not to sue in return for a payout).&#xD;&#xA;4. Sell the patent (or ownership in an entity that controls the patent). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;1. [*Grain Pool of Western Australia v Commonwealth* [2000] HCA 14 \[48\]](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2000/14.html).&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;2. [Patents Act 1990 s 18(1)](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/pa1990109/s18.html).&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;3. [Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994 s 43(1)](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/pbra1994222/s43.html).&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45748" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17553" RevisionGUID="2e4e7cae-163d-4be8-a178-d2483cfa896a" CreationDate="2017-04-02T02:17:57.797" UserId="15503" Comment="improve tags and title" Text="Patenting medicinal plants in Australia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45749" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17553" RevisionGUID="2e4e7cae-163d-4be8-a178-d2483cfa896a" CreationDate="2017-04-02T02:17:57.797" UserId="15503" Comment="improve tags and title" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;plant-patent&gt;&lt;australia&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17558" RevisionGUID="c3451253-5ccc-418d-b4d7-cc5a972cec92" CreationDate="2017-04-02T15:09:26.550" UserId="17003" Text="Based on what you've told us in the question, no one tell you whether your gadget is patentable. This is understandable since you can't divulge your invention publicly before you file for a patent. You really should consider two questions. Freedom to operate and patentability. Freedom to operate means that no one else's intellectual property precludes you from selling your product. You need to perform a patent search. This [answer][1] describes how I approach this challenge, but having a profession do a search can be very helpful. If you have freedom to operate, you can then market your product, but it doesn't necessarily mean you can obtain a patent. In order to get a patent, you need to show that your gadget is novel (no one has thought of it before), useful (it performs a function) and non-obvious (to someone of ordinary skill in the field).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lets consider a hypothetical situation. Lets say someone invents an entirely new type of electronic image sensor. The implementation of this sensor utilizes some open source image processing software. She has performed a through patent search and found all the relevant patents on electronic image sensors. She consults with a patent attorney who confirms that none of the claims in those patents covers the new design. I'm suggesting that the patent attorney is important because reading and interpreting claims requires skill and a knowledge of the law is useful. At this point, the attorney may provide an opinion that there is freedom to operate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent attorney also can provide an opinion of patentability. This is related to freedom to operate but not the same thing. Lets say there was one patent that did cover the new invention, but it had expired. The new image sensor would not then be considered novel, but because the patent expired the person could still sell it. Assuming there is patentability, the inventor could then file for a patent. Although there is no legal requirement that you use a lawyer to draft the patent application, my experience suggests it is important to do so. Just because you might get a patent doesn't mean it is a good one that truly protects your invention. There is a lot of legal knowledge necessary to write a strong patent and the laws can differ depending on the country you are applying to. A strong patent means it covers broadest embodiments of your invention so that it isn't easily designed around. In addition, the process of obtaining a patent generally requires some back and forth negotiation with the patent office and a patent attorney understands how to do this. This [question and answer][2] provides a good overview of the patenting process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't speak to your use of GPL software libraries. Of course you can't patent those. But neither do they preclude your from patenting your gadget. You can only patent what is novel. If this is a circuit, then the circuit may be patented even if you need code to use it. If you have some software which you believe is patentable, then you can patent that, but you wouldn't be patenting source code, you would be patenting the algorithm as applied to solving a problem. Software patents are particularly tricky so you need to consult with an attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17010/any-other-patents-involving-baseball-caps-for-pigtails/17011#17011&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17115/is-this-patent-valid-granted-which-countries-does-it-cover-are-there-family-m" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17559" RevisionGUID="1b6a3d3d-5c0b-4d77-b25f-5883d5f61b8e" CreationDate="2017-04-02T15:57:16.537" UserId="18780" Text="Each day I am getting closer to taking a prototype I have been working on to market. Before it goes public, I would file for a provisional utility patent to determine if it is even a viable product, but I have a few questions before going further with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1)&#xD;&#xA;Right now, the prototype is about to enter its beta stage and I don't expect any of the ornamental appearances to change, but their may be slight adjustments along the way. Do design patents allow for minute adjustments to the final appearance, such as rounding a corner or moving a detail half a millimeter to the left ect... If not, then would it be better to wait until the very last minute before making the product public? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2)&#xD;&#xA;If said product is successful, their will be other versions, but will require very small changes to the outward appearance, will each of these iterations require new design patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45755" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17559" RevisionGUID="1b6a3d3d-5c0b-4d77-b25f-5883d5f61b8e" CreationDate="2017-04-02T15:57:16.537" UserId="18780" Text="When to file a design patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45756" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17559" RevisionGUID="1b6a3d3d-5c0b-4d77-b25f-5883d5f61b8e" CreationDate="2017-04-02T15:57:16.537" UserId="18780" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;change&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45757" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17326" RevisionGUID="ed03d727-7b75-4cf4-9686-256164e00ebe" CreationDate="2017-04-02T16:41:16.173" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45758" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17559" RevisionGUID="0886a423-6bea-4f31-8ec4-8f24a0ce24c5" CreationDate="2017-04-02T17:10:42.667" UserId="18780" Comment="added 295 characters in body" Text="Each day I am getting closer to taking a prototype I have been working on to market. Before it goes public, I would file for a provisional utility patent to determine if it is even a viable product, but I have a few questions before going further with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1)&#xD;&#xA;Right now, the prototype is about to enter its beta stage and I don't expect any of the ornamental appearances to change, but their may be slight adjustments along the way. Do design patents allow for minute adjustments to the final appearance, such as rounding a corner or moving a detail half a millimeter to the left ect... If not, then would it be better to wait until the very last minute before making the product public? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2)&#xD;&#xA;If said product is successful, their will be other versions, but will require very small changes to the outward appearance, will each of these iterations require new design patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possible Duplicate Edit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My future changes are not something that is interchangeable on the same product as the plug is that is described in the possible duplicate question. Each iteration of my product will be for a different &quot;plug&quot; per say, but it will be a completely separate product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if you read the first sentence provided &quot;A broken line disclosure is understood to be for illustrative purposes only and forms no part of the claimed design.&quot; That does not protect the differences, it almost makes it sound arbitrary to even use dashed/broken lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I guess that main question would be, can a design patent cover a product line that are all visually similar, or does each product in the line need a design patent.**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17560" RevisionGUID="347ed144-ec40-48b5-8f71-387245c2c8dd" CreationDate="2017-04-02T18:01:02.283" UserId="18803" Text="My father was granted a GB patent on an invention in 1983. The patent ceased through non-payment of renewal fee in 1989.&#xD;&#xA;Can I claim this patent and how would I go about it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45760" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17560" RevisionGUID="347ed144-ec40-48b5-8f71-387245c2c8dd" CreationDate="2017-04-02T18:01:02.283" UserId="18803" Text="Can I claim my father's patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45761" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17560" RevisionGUID="347ed144-ec40-48b5-8f71-387245c2c8dd" CreationDate="2017-04-02T18:01:02.283" UserId="18803" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17561" RevisionGUID="183fead5-2326-4912-af59-d351fd0ea333" CreationDate="2017-04-02T19:15:54.697" UserId="18033" Text="The patent term in GB is 20 years now. There is no way this patent can be revived as even if the fees had been paid it would have lapsed years ago. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not from the UK but a quick search turns up no shorter terms in 1983. I am certain however the term wasn't longer then. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45763" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17553" RevisionGUID="1cfc8f09-462e-458a-8788-164f016ce368" CreationDate="2017-04-02T19:45:12.173" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="45765" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="73e8f4ca-805e-4678-bd71-154450c6cf6e" CreationDate="2017-04-02T19:52:34.127" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45766" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13359" RevisionGUID="f09592fb-b20d-4f55-9d86-70527722736b" CreationDate="2017-04-02T20:53:00.623" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17558" RevisionGUID="857a7a83-e895-4d85-a4dc-5e48852b5448" CreationDate="2017-04-02T22:34:42.510" UserId="17003" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Based on what you've told us in the question, no one tell you whether your gadget is patentable. This is understandable since you can't divulge your invention publicly before you file for a patent. You really should consider two questions. Freedom to operate and patentability. Freedom to operate means that no one else's intellectual property precludes you from selling your product. You need to perform a patent search. This [answer][1] describes how I approach this challenge, but having a profession do a search can be very helpful. If you have freedom to operate, you can then market your product, but it doesn't necessarily mean you can obtain a patent. In order to get a patent, you need to show that your gadget is novel (no one has thought of it before), useful (it performs a function) and non-obvious (to someone of ordinary skill in the field).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lets consider a hypothetical situation. Lets say someone invents an entirely new type of electronic image sensor. The implementation of this sensor utilizes some open source image processing software. She has performed a through patent search and found all the relevant patents on electronic image sensors. She consults with a patent attorney who confirms that none of the claims in those patents covers the new design. I'm suggesting that the patent attorney is important because reading and interpreting claims requires skill and a knowledge of the law is useful. At this point, the attorney may provide an opinion that there is freedom to operate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent attorney also can provide an opinion of patentability. This is related to freedom to operate but not the same thing. Lets say there was one patent that did cover the new invention, but it had expired. The new image sensor would not then be considered novel, but because the patent expired the person could still sell it. Assuming there is patentability, the inventor could then file for a patent. Although there is no legal requirement that you use a lawyer to draft the patent application, my experience suggests it is important to do so. Just because you might get a patent doesn't mean it is a good one that truly protects your invention. There is a lot of legal knowledge necessary to write a strong patent and the laws can differ depending on the country you are applying to. A strong patent means it covers the broadest embodiments of your invention so that it isn't easily designed around. In addition, the process of obtaining a patent generally requires some back and forth negotiation with the patent office and a patent attorney understands how to do this. This [question and answer][2] provides a good overview of the patenting process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't speak to your use of GPL software libraries. Of course you can't patent those. But neither do they preclude your from patenting your gadget. You can only patent what is novel. If this is a circuit, then the circuit may be patented even if you need code to use it. If you have some software which you believe is patentable, then you can patent that, but you wouldn't be patenting source code, you would be patenting the algorithm as applied to solving a problem. Software patents are particularly tricky so you need to consult with an attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17010/any-other-patents-involving-baseball-caps-for-pigtails/17011#17011&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17115/is-this-patent-valid-granted-which-countries-does-it-cover-are-there-family-m" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45771" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="b2f0d6b7-e56b-4b09-87c9-60ed6770065b" CreationDate="2017-04-03T12:11:51.183" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45772" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="99e83b40-10fc-4c16-be32-35f19e3d4b48" CreationDate="2017-04-03T16:11:56.963" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45773" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16645" RevisionGUID="8c1a98ee-c68e-4a25-8b77-e58c2b9bc772" CreationDate="2017-04-03T20:17:11.250" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45774" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16952" RevisionGUID="b63b9e34-e5dd-4864-8b9e-fd4e6f692dff" CreationDate="2017-04-03T23:17:36.967" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45775" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="64216426-b5e2-413c-b22d-78b68d86ccb1" CreationDate="2017-04-04T01:17:37.687" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45779" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12629" RevisionGUID="56ab38d0-5147-4696-9ddd-8b0abdcda8dd" CreationDate="2017-04-04T04:28:05.137" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17327" RevisionGUID="7acc4785-2ab0-4099-ba66-a3fe334f5647" CreationDate="2017-04-04T20:14:34.137" UserId="18595" Comment="added discussion of continuing applications" Text="The protection is defined by - and **only** by - the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can talk about god, the world, your neighbours dog, apple and the blue LED in your patent specification, but that will not grant you any kind of protection. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The grant of a patent is primarily decided by the novelty and inventiveness of it's claims and the wording of these (the claims that are granted) decides what is protected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nobody may use, sell, etc. anything that falls under the literal **scope of the claims** of a granted patent without a license. *Equivalents* are protected to some extent (for further information research &quot;doctrine of equivalents&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anything else that appears only in the description **does not** entitle you to **any protection**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do want to try to obtain protection for other material described in the application, you can pursue claims directed to that material in a continuation application or a divisional application. Any continuing application need to be filed while the parent application is still pending (i.e., before the parent goes abandoned or issues as a patent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted that the claims need to be supported by the specification and that non-standard terms used in the claims need to be defined. Also, while what is protected is defined by the claims, any additional information disclosed in the patent becomes prior art and can be used to keep others (or even the original inventor) from obtaining further patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45787" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17327" RevisionGUID="7acc4785-2ab0-4099-ba66-a3fe334f5647" CreationDate="2017-04-04T20:14:34.137" Comment="Proposed by 18595 approved by 17003, 18033 edit id of 2030" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45788" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16606" RevisionGUID="3a411336-1bd5-40f1-b5ba-5a7e51520c46" CreationDate="2017-04-04T22:49:40.467" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17564" RevisionGUID="f04ccf55-2161-4e97-8952-927858d8531c" CreationDate="2017-04-04T23:47:36.333" UserId="18121" Text="The United States has a very stringent paper chase for its Federal Register which may be maintained using computer applications. The question: Which category of patents would a new rulemaking procedural for the Federal Register be classified?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45790" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17564" RevisionGUID="f04ccf55-2161-4e97-8952-927858d8531c" CreationDate="2017-04-04T23:47:36.333" UserId="18121" Text="What category would a new rulemaking procedural patent for the Federal Register be classified?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45791" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17564" RevisionGUID="f04ccf55-2161-4e97-8952-927858d8531c" CreationDate="2017-04-04T23:47:36.333" UserId="18121" Text="&lt;government-rights&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45792" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17171" RevisionGUID="4c16ff5a-050f-4af1-8cb2-859ed4ca8902" CreationDate="2017-04-04T23:49:40.367" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45793" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="9b3f62ec-ed64-43c2-b45f-840523277870" CreationDate="2017-04-05T01:52:47.887" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17565" RevisionGUID="f5c5987f-b51e-487f-8b68-fce1d54aa279" CreationDate="2017-04-05T09:52:09.503" UserId="18814" Text="I'm about to file a USPTO provisional patent in a couple of weeks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any upper limit for the number of drawings I can have in my utility patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45795" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17565" RevisionGUID="f5c5987f-b51e-487f-8b68-fce1d54aa279" CreationDate="2017-04-05T09:52:09.503" UserId="18814" Text="How many drawings a patent can have?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45796" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17565" RevisionGUID="f5c5987f-b51e-487f-8b68-fce1d54aa279" CreationDate="2017-04-05T09:52:09.503" UserId="18814" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;patent-drawings&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17172" RevisionGUID="29e88e8f-526b-42ff-a065-8b5974160e39" CreationDate="2017-04-05T15:06:54.457" UserId="17003" Comment="Clarified my explanation as to why I can't provide an actual legal opinion." Text="This is an issued US patent. The claims define what is protected. You need to read them carefully. You may not produce a product made or sold in the US which does what is claimed. If you do, you infringe the patent and may be sued. There is very likely equivalent patents covering other countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sorry to not parse the claims for you, as this is a seriously technical patent outside my field of expertise and technological questions are off topic for this site. Also as I am not a lawyer, I try not to provide actual legal opinions.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45798" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16962" RevisionGUID="ebb8b088-7819-47fc-92ef-81acad136155" CreationDate="2017-04-05T18:28:20.413" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45799" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17565" RevisionGUID="4a336a5a-e0a3-43da-8ab2-28286a54e9a2" CreationDate="2017-04-05T19:21:21.490" UserId="18033" Comment="edited title" Text="How many drawings can a patent have?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45800" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16771" RevisionGUID="22f4b04d-bfa6-40cb-b870-45b6d6adc86c" CreationDate="2017-04-05T21:29:05.023" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45801" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="bcdf57d9-0f5b-43b6-a508-12d4e51f6cc4" CreationDate="2017-04-05T22:29:08.260" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17566" RevisionGUID="4a0adc0b-86c8-44eb-8adb-c720c246708a" CreationDate="2017-04-05T22:33:05.577" UserId="18816" Text="I'm creating a game featuring some characters from the Dragon Ball universe and was wondering if I'm able to patent (or copywrite, not sure which one would be better in this case) my game even though it uses things from their industry? Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45803" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17566" RevisionGUID="4a0adc0b-86c8-44eb-8adb-c720c246708a" CreationDate="2017-04-05T22:33:05.577" UserId="18816" Text="Can I patent my game if it uses characters and a location from another company?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45804" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17566" RevisionGUID="4a0adc0b-86c8-44eb-8adb-c720c246708a" CreationDate="2017-04-05T22:33:05.577" UserId="18816" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;help&gt;&lt;howto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45805" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12994" RevisionGUID="05bdbef1-4b67-4f31-ae03-2a272f1e00a0" CreationDate="2017-04-06T01:33:23.623" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17567" RevisionGUID="154c7c75-fcbd-4128-ad92-df6d69723497" CreationDate="2017-04-06T02:44:52.303" UserId="14038" Text="The USPTO imposes an additional fee beyond the provisional filing fee for each 50 sheets beyond 100 sheets (pages) for a provisional patent application.  That fee ranges from $100 for a micro entity, $200 for a small entity and $400 for a large entity. The limit is based on the number of total sheets(pages) in the application, including the drawings and specification.  Other than this additional fee, there is no limitation on the number of drawings.   There is a similar fee structure for when a utility application is filed based on the provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other jurisdictions may have other fee structures for the size of the application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45807" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16544" RevisionGUID="26c70ab9-e49b-492d-892a-24888d4522c4" CreationDate="2017-04-06T05:42:24.133" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17568" RevisionGUID="af409c3e-d111-48e4-a826-e102ebde4363" CreationDate="2017-04-06T05:55:43.073" UserId="11717" Text="A patent is not an ordinary property - it is a negative right that during the term of the patent, you can prevent others from practicing the invention disclosed.&#xD;&#xA;Once the term is over, the right does not exist and the 'property' vanishes.&#xD;&#xA;So after the term is over, there is no way that anybody can claim that property.&#xD;&#xA;Ashok" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45809" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13762" RevisionGUID="fa0157af-819c-4cb4-81f0-fb7f89d01006" CreationDate="2017-04-06T06:42:23.223" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45810" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="1293ff89-a337-4f59-972f-dde197b39d0a" CreationDate="2017-04-06T07:42:23.080" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45811" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="4bc84e87-8b8d-400c-88ee-0bb07c1c3e17" CreationDate="2017-04-06T08:42:23.353" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45812" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="44f418b7-5c4e-449b-a312-bfa50b962a8a" CreationDate="2017-04-06T09:54:20.213" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45813" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="1c7aab3d-ad19-45f9-9e6f-643a8de6067c" CreationDate="2017-04-06T10:55:52.140" UserId="18033" Comment="edited title" Text="Is there a way to determine if hackathon ideas are ultimately patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45814" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16810" RevisionGUID="33af38f6-839d-44ff-8b1c-ba2082f8dc18" CreationDate="2017-04-06T11:02:39.163" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45815" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14883" RevisionGUID="3e135495-c7d6-42bb-8227-d1fd144985a3" CreationDate="2017-04-06T12:02:39.020" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16797" RevisionGUID="85cef664-2e44-423b-8ca6-0e505c9a68e2" CreationDate="2017-04-06T12:34:02.387" UserId="18033" Comment="edited body" Text="This is not answereable without knowing exactly what you are thinking about, so a patent attorney might be the way to go. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there a few things to consider beforehand - software by itself is (almost) unpatentable. So apart from copyright, protecting it could be hard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's still some stuff going on concerning this topic, but the best way to get software patented is going for the physical dependencies. Means: If your button blows up the computer in a novel and inventive way, thats patentable. If it sends a signal to a website making it refresh ... well ... maybe. Probably not though as the fact that software has to have some kind of implementation doesn't suffice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if your button is just a button - thats a tough nut. If it turns on your mircrowave - go talk to somebody who has the experience with this to formulate your claims in a patentable manner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45817" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17566" RevisionGUID="170bda50-0781-43cc-a284-1fd4eb20467c" CreationDate="2017-04-06T13:28:07.737" UserId="1" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45818" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10598" RevisionGUID="5380bb8f-fb41-4a3b-bdce-5815c5f82af6" CreationDate="2017-04-06T13:29:02.570" UserId="1" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;google-patents&gt;&lt;patent-figures&gt;&lt;wo2004085005&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45819" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10153" RevisionGUID="429034d4-73fa-465f-ad10-ebc35213a4ac" CreationDate="2017-04-06T13:29:19.993" UserId="1" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="&lt;development&gt;&lt;airstatorrotor&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45821" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17178" RevisionGUID="649692fa-36f9-4245-9f7c-51eaa36d06d1" CreationDate="2017-04-06T14:04:06.763" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17569" RevisionGUID="b6e0eb3d-0b98-425b-816e-e10e45e4909a" CreationDate="2017-04-06T14:24:20.127" UserId="18822" Text="In a large American HQed company I worked, based on an engineering work my manager and I did, the company filed a US Patent Application at the USPTO on March 2013. I am the first named inventor in the application. My manager is also listed as an inventor. As per company policy, we assigned the invention to our company, who then filed the utility patent application through a law agency specializing in patent applications. I quit the company in June 2014 to pursue a PhD in a university (present status)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We learnt through the US Public Pair Portal that the application has been successful successfully crossing all hurdles, and all that is left is to issue the patent. The notice of allowance was mailed on Jan 17, 2017. It says that we have exactly 3 months to pay the issue fees or else, the application will be abandoned. The three-month deadline falls on April 16, 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contacted my manager, who is still employed in this company. He in-turn contacted the patent team, who said that they will not be proceeding any further with the applications, due to present business interests not warranting any further investment on this application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a bummer, very agonising - a slip between the cup and the lip. So near, yet so far. I would really like to see the patent getting issued and having a patent number purely for boosting my CV (I worked many weekends and holidays on my own in order to get to this invention and file this application). I have no financial interest in this application. I also do not care whether the company owns the patent when it gets assigned or not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I take this through? I am willing to pay the issue fee myself. Is this allowed? How do I do this? What's the procedure? What are my choices?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help will be much appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45823" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17569" RevisionGUID="b6e0eb3d-0b98-425b-816e-e10e45e4909a" CreationDate="2017-04-06T14:24:20.127" UserId="18822" Text="Patent application approved by USPTO - Employer not willing to pay. What to do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45824" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17569" RevisionGUID="b6e0eb3d-0b98-425b-816e-e10e45e4909a" CreationDate="2017-04-06T14:24:20.127" UserId="18822" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;fees&gt;&lt;employer&gt;&lt;payment&gt;&lt;issued&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45825" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17569" RevisionGUID="605e3656-61ad-4f58-954e-5c5e5d3b7c2d" CreationDate="2017-04-06T14:31:41.067" UserId="18822" Comment="deleted 115 characters in body" Text="In a large American HQed company I worked, based on an engineering work my manager and I did, the company filed a US Patent Application at the USPTO on March 2013. I am the first named inventor in the application. My manager is also listed as an inventor. As per company policy, we assigned the invention to our company, who then filed the utility patent application through a law agency specialising in patent applications. I quit the company in June 2014 to pursue a PhD in a university (present status).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We learnt through the US Public Pair Portal that the application has been successful in crossing all hurdles, and all that is left is to issue the patent. The notice of allowance was mailed on Jan 17, 2017. It says that we have exactly 3 months to pay the issue fees or else, the application will be abandoned. The three-month deadline falls on April 16, 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contacted my manager, who is still employed in this company. He, in turn, contacted the patent team, who said that they will not be proceeding any further with the applications, due to present business interests not warranting any further investment on this application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a bummer, very agonising - a slip between the cup and the lip. So near, yet so far. I would really like to see the patent getting issued and having a patent number purely for boosting my CV. I have no financial interest in this application. I also do not care whether the company owns the patent when it gets assigned or not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I take this through? I am willing to pay the issue fee myself. Is this allowed? How do I do this? What's the procedure? What are my choices?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help will be much appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17570" RevisionGUID="66005985-0fcf-4e03-9c28-ce87b197de8d" CreationDate="2017-04-06T16:07:49.300" UserId="18033" Text="It depends on the contract between you and your (ex-)employer and your state laws. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your employer does not want to pursue the patent application, in some jurisdictions/contracts they have to ask you if you want to pursue the application instead. In others, all you can do is ask them nicely if they transfer the patent to you or take your money to pay the fee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As time seems to be an issue while actually getting the patent for yourself is not so much, I'd suggest you check your laws for employee inventions (service inventions) and your contracts and then talk to the company. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they have to ask you before abandoning the application, you can use that as leverage, but getting the application for yourself without them agreeing is only possible through court. Which is probably costly and might happen to late to revive the application. This does not seem like a possibility here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also keep in mind that keeping a patent alive also costs fees, so instead of an abandoned application you will soon have an abandoned patent in your CV unless you are willing to pay those fees too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17571" RevisionGUID="e3422174-6c51-4ca0-8f16-fee7e084b516" CreationDate="2017-04-06T16:22:25.353" UserId="18033" Text="In principle, yes. The parts that are your work will be protected by copyright (code, designs, ...) automatically. The parts that are not yours obviously not, but the combination as such will be. (As fas as copyright applies, which is pretty far. You can look up what exactly is protected by copyright). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For patents, you have to fulfill the requierements (novelty, inventive step) where the characters will count as prior art. However, they do not impede you from getting a patent on other patentable parts of the game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Eric Shain mentioned in a comment, using someone else's intellectual property (the characters are probably protected at least by copyrights) requires a license if you want to be safe against a lawsuit. So make sure you check that you don't use something which you may not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45828" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17569" RevisionGUID="f07763d8-645e-4870-b5c1-d91aca931b5d" CreationDate="2017-04-06T17:09:12.620" UserId="1" Comment="Unburried the title lede" Text="Employer won't pay patent issue fee. What to do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45829" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17569" RevisionGUID="f07763d8-645e-4870-b5c1-d91aca931b5d" CreationDate="2017-04-06T17:09:12.620" UserId="1" Comment="Unburried the title lede" Text="&lt;fees&gt;&lt;employer&gt;&lt;payment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45833" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="e17e1a92-7cd0-4020-b7ec-9851850b485d" CreationDate="2017-04-07T03:27:36.567" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17574" RevisionGUID="07214689-fc53-406c-b536-5271b7ca734a" CreationDate="2017-04-07T06:31:03.810" UserId="15503" Text="**I am willing to pay the issue fee myself. Is this allowed?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not believe it is possible to validly pay the fee yourself (though, since I have never had the occasion to try, I could be wrong).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issuance procedure generally requires that a fee transmittal form be sent along with the fee ([MPEP § 1303](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1303.html)). This form must be signed by the applicant (or their representative). You would not be an authorised person for signing the form, and therefore could not complete issuance formalities yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are my choices?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As noted by DonQuiKong, your only option really seems to be asking your former employer to attend to issuance formalities." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17575" RevisionGUID="eaafb8fd-8a0d-42b0-af90-7ff72f07b399" CreationDate="2017-04-07T06:50:11.250" UserId="15503" Text="Patents are personal property ([Patents Act 1977](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/37) (UK) s 30(1)). On the owner's death, ownership will therefore pass according to the laws of the jurisdiction in which the owner's estate is administered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the patent is now long expired. Moreover, because any offences infringement while it was validly occured far longer than six years ago ([Limitation Act 1980](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/58) (England/Wales)), there are likely no rights remaining attached to the patent, in any case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17514" RevisionGUID="b7e14e43-5756-4520-b650-80811cfc5ca6" CreationDate="2017-04-07T07:22:37.057" UserId="18766" Comment="added 13 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Where can I find the patent for the Joda busbar raising frame automatic screw device? The patent number is ZL 2014 2 0446264.5. china patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45840" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17514" RevisionGUID="b7e14e43-5756-4520-b650-80811cfc5ca6" CreationDate="2017-04-07T07:22:37.057" UserId="18766" Comment="added 13 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="busbar raising frame automatic screw device patent 2014" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45841" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17514" RevisionGUID="b7e14e43-5756-4520-b650-80811cfc5ca6" CreationDate="2017-04-07T07:22:37.057" UserId="18766" Comment="added 13 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;china&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45848" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16676" RevisionGUID="70c750aa-4ac8-40f6-a05d-42b63fde5495" CreationDate="2017-04-07T19:54:39.497" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45850" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="e5de0888-87b0-45e7-adb5-11efb6742181" CreationDate="2017-04-07T21:57:34.837" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45851" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13934" RevisionGUID="76b96d76-8d51-4f7d-8524-e843219e30fd" CreationDate="2017-04-07T22:57:50.097" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45852" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17514" RevisionGUID="97a68dda-05ae-4997-9312-ceecbb2692e3" CreationDate="2017-04-07T23:51:26.983" UserId="15503" Comment="Make title more representative of the question" Text="Where can I find a patent with the number ZL 2014 2 0446264.5?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45853" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16826" RevisionGUID="742e0b95-264b-4d40-970b-ad8613da0c3a" CreationDate="2017-04-07T23:57:50.273" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17569" RevisionGUID="d4d8cbe2-c953-4fe9-bda3-da9c172c5a83" CreationDate="2017-04-08T10:46:36.813" UserId="18822" Comment="updated to provide final outcome to original question and posing follow-up question about pressing damages; added 43 characters in body; added 1 character in body" Text="In a large American HQed company I worked, based on an engineering work my manager and I did, the company filed a US Patent Application at the USPTO on March 2013. I am the first named inventor in the application. My manager is also listed as an inventor. As per company policy, we assigned the invention to our company, who then filed the utility patent application through a law agency specialising in patent applications. I quit the company in June 2014 to pursue a PhD in a university (present status).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We learnt through the US Public Pair Portal that the application has been successful in crossing all hurdles, and all that is left is to issue the patent. The notice of allowance was mailed on Jan 17, 2017. It says that we have exactly 3 months to pay the issue fees or else, the application will be abandoned. The three-month deadline falls on April 16, 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contacted my manager, who is still employed in this company. He, in turn, contacted the patent team, who said that they will not be proceeding any further with the applications, due to present business interests not warranting any further investment on this application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a bummer, very agonising - a slip between the cup and the lip. So near, yet so far. I would really like to see the patent getting issued and having a patent number purely for boosting my CV. I have no financial interest in this application. I also do not care whether the company owns the patent when it gets assigned or not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I take this through? I am willing to pay the issue fee myself. Is this allowed? How do I do this? What's the procedure? What are my choices?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help will be much appreciated.&#xA;&#xA;**Update: Final Outcome**&#xA;&#xA;Unfortunately, despite the best efforts, I have been informed by the authorities that they will :&#xA;&#xA;a) not be paying the issue fees&#xA;&#xA;b) not reassign it back to me&#xA;&#xA;c) not allow me to pay the issue fees myself.&#xA;&#xA;Thanks a lot for your suggestions.&#xA;&#xA;**Update 2: Finding out eligibility for damages**&#xA;&#xA;I was suggested by a member of the community here to look for potentially pressing for damages for not offering me the possibility to self-file or take the application forward personally. How can I take this forward? I have no idea on the standard legal routes in the US. I am a full-time PhD student and cannot afford to pay a lawyer. I have to file the complaint myself (online?). Will it affect my future employability with this organisation?&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17579" RevisionGUID="ab08b7e2-f573-41bd-956f-68b992865ab1" CreationDate="2017-04-08T14:02:44.080" UserId="18830" Text="I came across the patent [US9521164][1] from an [article][2] about the recent YouTube advertiser drama. I initially thought it was a bad April fools joke, but unless the author has trouble reading a calendar it seems to be legitimate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After taking a brief look at the patent in question I can't understand how it describes a new, non-obvious invention, or how it would help with anything at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main method described for finding the legitimacy of a website seems to be by comparing the &quot;line density&quot; with known illegitimate sites. The patent states it is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for determining a legitimacy of a website comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; retrieving website content from a website;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; analyzing the website content by at least determining a line density of the website, wherein the line density of the website is determined by the relationship LD=s/l, where LD is the line density, s is the size of the website and l is the number of lines of code used to present the website, and determining a website score based at least partially on the analysis;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; determining that the website is illegitimate in response to said website score exceeding a threshold;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't see how the &quot;line density&quot; (average line length in bytes) of a website would help with anything, let alone determine if a website is illegitimate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rest of their patent seems to show retrieving data from a website and storing it in a database, something that every programmer and their dog has done at some stage:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a first computer connected to the Internet,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a data storage element interfaced with said first computer such that said first computer is operable to query said data storage element and operable to store and edit data stored in said data storage element, wherein the data storage element is further operable to store previously analyzed website information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a user interface operable to allow a user to interact with and control said first computer; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I misunderstanding the patent? Is there some way in which this is original and/or would do something useful?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9521164&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://adage.com/article/digital/eric-feinberg-man-google-youtube-brand-safety-crisis/308435/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45863" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17579" RevisionGUID="ab08b7e2-f573-41bd-956f-68b992865ab1" CreationDate="2017-04-08T14:02:44.080" UserId="18830" Text="Understanding US9521164" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45864" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17579" RevisionGUID="ab08b7e2-f573-41bd-956f-68b992865ab1" CreationDate="2017-04-08T14:02:44.080" UserId="18830" Text="&lt;online-advertising&gt;&lt;websites&gt;&lt;databases&gt;&lt;us9521164&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17580" RevisionGUID="87c4956d-bcd3-44c7-9615-9544b1615bd9" CreationDate="2017-04-08T15:36:01.547" UserId="18033" Text="You're mixing concepts here. You say it's ridiculous and at the same time say it's not inventive. Professionals thinking something is ridiculous is actually a sign for inventive step, because then it's something non-standard. And for it to be patentable, it does not have to be useful (useful in the way we normally use that word, in patent speech it's used differently).&#xA;&#xA;To be patentable, something does not have to be good at performing it's designated job. If nobody had thought about using the line density to assess a website, that was patentable. Maybe checking if the website went online on 01:44pm is a novel concept to check for legitimacy, so I could have patented it. As long as it's not something that can obviously not work, that doesn't go against the usefulness criteria for patentability.&#xA;&#xA;And why not? So you don't see how that might work, then it won't disturb you if somebody patented it. And maybe it does work, then that person holds those rights because they conceived the idea. And if it didn't work, they hold a useless patent on something that was still their original idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17581" RevisionGUID="4305264c-6193-4f87-a317-d18a9b09f585" CreationDate="2017-04-08T16:26:51.293" UserId="17003" Text="There are two aspects to patentability: novelty and non-obviousness. Novelty relates to whether anyone else has applied the same solution previously. I can't answer that question in this case, but the patent examiner didn't find significant enough prior art to invalidate the claims. Second is non-obviousness. Your own reaction to this patent where you state &quot;I can't see how the &quot;line density&quot; (average line length in bytes) of a website would help with anything, let alone determine if a website is illegitimate.&quot; would lead me to believe that you, at least, wouldn't find the described technique to be obvious, but surprising. As an aside, I think your interpretation is slightly off. I don't think they are calculating the average line length, but the number of lines of code divided by a measure of website size which might not be just to total size of the code. Now, what I think DonQuiKong was getting at is that it isn't necessary that an invention be particularly good or better than prior techniques of solving a problem, it just has to be new, have utility and be non-obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your second quotation, it undermines your argument when you don't quote the entire claim. Claims have to be considered in their entirety as it might just be a single statement at the end that makes the claim novel. This is the case here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15. A computer system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a first computer connected to the Internet,&#xD;&#xA;a data storage element interfaced with said first computer such that said first computer is operable to query said data storage element and operable to store and edit data stored in said data storage element, wherein the data storage element is further operable to store previously analyzed website information;&#xD;&#xA;a user interface operable to allow a user to interact with and control said first computer; and&#xD;&#xA;a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions operable to cause said first computer to perform the steps of retrieving website content from a website, analyzing the website content and determining a website score based at least partially on the analysis, determining that the website is illegitimate in response to said website score exceeding a threshold, and storing the determination in the data storage element in response to at least one command received at said user interface, wherein determining the website score includes at least determining a similarity between the received website and the at least one known illegitimate website by comparing a line density of the received website against a line density of a list of known illegitimate website, where a line density of a website is determined by the relationship LD=s/l, where LD is the line density, s is the size of the website and l is the number of lines of code used to present the website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tend to agree that I kind of doubt the line density calculation by itself is likely to be enough to detect fraudulent websites. The first claim is more complex and cites line density as measure of similarity when comparing a website to known fraudulent websites. Similarity is used in machine learning so this term may be more complex than the common usage. I'd have to read the specification to tell how they mean it. My guess is that the inventors are using multiple measures of similarity to determine whether a site is fraudulent, and that this single technique is patentable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17581" RevisionGUID="bcf56681-033e-4aa0-803d-dac46a39a8bd" CreationDate="2017-04-08T16:35:26.317" UserId="17003" Comment="Slight improvement to summary" Text="There are two aspects to patentability: novelty and non-obviousness. Novelty relates to whether anyone else has applied the same solution previously. I can't answer that question in this case, but the patent examiner didn't find significant enough prior art to invalidate the claims. Second is non-obviousness. Your own reaction to this patent where you state &quot;I can't see how the &quot;line density&quot; (average line length in bytes) of a website would help with anything, let alone determine if a website is illegitimate.&quot; would lead me to believe that you, at least, wouldn't find the described technique to be obvious, but surprising. As an aside, I think your interpretation is slightly off. I don't think they are calculating the average line length, but the number of lines of code divided by a measure of website size which might not be just to total size of the code. Now, what I think DonQuiKong was getting at is that it isn't necessary that an invention be particularly good or better than prior techniques of solving a problem, it just has to be new, have utility and be non-obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your second quotation, it undermines your argument when you don't quote the entire claim. Claims have to be considered in their entirety as it might just be a single statement at the end that makes the claim novel. This is the case here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15. A computer system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a first computer connected to the Internet,&#xD;&#xA;a data storage element interfaced with said first computer such that said first computer is operable to query said data storage element and operable to store and edit data stored in said data storage element, wherein the data storage element is further operable to store previously analyzed website information;&#xD;&#xA;a user interface operable to allow a user to interact with and control said first computer; and&#xD;&#xA;a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions operable to cause said first computer to perform the steps of retrieving website content from a website, analyzing the website content and determining a website score based at least partially on the analysis, determining that the website is illegitimate in response to said website score exceeding a threshold, and storing the determination in the data storage element in response to at least one command received at said user interface, wherein determining the website score includes at least determining a similarity between the received website and the at least one known illegitimate website by comparing a line density of the received website against a line density of a list of known illegitimate website, where a line density of a website is determined by the relationship LD=s/l, where LD is the line density, s is the size of the website and l is the number of lines of code used to present the website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tend to agree that I kind of doubt the line density calculation by itself is likely to be enough to detect fraudulent websites. The first claim is more complex and cites line density as measure of similarity when comparing a website to known fraudulent websites. Similarity is used in machine learning so this term may be more complex than the common usage. I'd have to read the specification to tell how they mean it. If you look at the figures, you can see that the inventors are using multiple measures in their similarity analysis to determine whether a site is fraudulent. They are patenting this single technique. It is possible they also have other related patents or applications too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17579" RevisionGUID="a37c5804-1e7b-4391-a986-be4552c46bd1" CreationDate="2017-04-08T16:37:26.850" UserId="17003" Comment="Edited the link to the patent so that the figures are viewable." Text="I came across the patent [US9521164][1] from an [article][2] about the recent YouTube advertiser drama. I initially thought it was a bad April fools joke, but unless the author has trouble reading a calendar it seems to be legitimate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After taking a brief look at the patent in question I can't understand how it describes a new, non-obvious invention, or how it would help with anything at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main method described for finding the legitimacy of a website seems to be by comparing the &quot;line density&quot; with known illegitimate sites. The patent states it is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for determining a legitimacy of a website comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; retrieving website content from a website;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; analyzing the website content by at least determining a line density of the website, wherein the line density of the website is determined by the relationship LD=s/l, where LD is the line density, s is the size of the website and l is the number of lines of code used to present the website, and determining a website score based at least partially on the analysis;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; determining that the website is illegitimate in response to said website score exceeding a threshold;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't see how the &quot;line density&quot; (average line length in bytes) of a website would help with anything, let alone determine if a website is illegitimate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rest of their patent seems to show retrieving data from a website and storing it in a database, something that every programmer and their dog has done at some stage:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a first computer connected to the Internet,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a data storage element interfaced with said first computer such that said first computer is operable to query said data storage element and operable to store and edit data stored in said data storage element, wherein the data storage element is further operable to store previously analyzed website information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a user interface operable to allow a user to interact with and control said first computer; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I misunderstanding the patent? Is there some way in which this is original and/or would do something useful?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9521164B1/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://adage.com/article/digital/eric-feinberg-man-google-youtube-brand-safety-crisis/308435/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17581" RevisionGUID="6736fed9-0550-4249-b202-1b4e01366f85" CreationDate="2017-04-08T16:46:43.853" UserId="17003" Comment="Added a bit about the form of the quoted claim." Text="There are two aspects to patentability: novelty and non-obviousness. Novelty relates to whether anyone else has applied the same solution previously. I can't answer that question in this case, but the patent examiner didn't find significant enough prior art to invalidate the claims. Second is non-obviousness. Your own reaction to this patent where you state &quot;I can't see how the &quot;line density&quot; (average line length in bytes) of a website would help with anything, let alone determine if a website is illegitimate.&quot; would lead me to believe that you, at least, wouldn't find the described technique to be obvious, but surprising. Now, what I think DonQuiKong was getting at is that it isn't necessary that an invention be particularly good or better than prior techniques of solving a problem, it just has to be new, have utility and be non-obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your second quotation, it undermines your argument when you don't quote the entire claim. Claims have to be considered in their entirety as it might just be a single statement at the end that makes the claim novel. This is the case here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15. A computer system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a first computer connected to the Internet,&#xD;&#xA;a data storage element interfaced with said first computer such that said first computer is operable to query said data storage element and operable to store and edit data stored in said data storage element, wherein the data storage element is further operable to store previously analyzed website information;&#xD;&#xA;a user interface operable to allow a user to interact with and control said first computer; and&#xD;&#xA;a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions operable to cause said first computer to perform the steps of retrieving website content from a website, analyzing the website content and determining a website score based at least partially on the analysis, determining that the website is illegitimate in response to said website score exceeding a threshold, and storing the determination in the data storage element in response to at least one command received at said user interface, wherein determining the website score includes at least determining a similarity between the received website and the at least one known illegitimate website by comparing a line density of the received website against a line density of a list of known illegitimate website, where a line density of a website is determined by the relationship LD=s/l, where LD is the line density, s is the size of the website and l is the number of lines of code used to present the website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know this seems redundant, but it is very common for software patents to have claims of this form. I'm assuming it is related to court opinions and the ability to enforce the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tend to agree that I kind of doubt the line density calculation by itself is likely to be enough to detect fraudulent websites. The first claim is more complex and cites line density as measure of similarity when comparing a website to known fraudulent websites. Similarity is used in machine learning so this term may be more complex than the common usage. I'd have to read the specification to tell how they mean it. If you look at the figures, you can see that the inventors are using multiple measures in their similarity analysis to determine whether a site is fraudulent. They are patenting this single technique. It is possible they also have other related patents or applications too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17580" RevisionGUID="7487d523-58f6-4a18-8555-2922c05f9984" CreationDate="2017-04-08T17:34:55.613" UserId="18033" Comment="added 1350 characters in body" Text="You're mixing concepts here. You say it's ridiculous and at the same time say it's not inventive. Professionals thinking something is ridiculous is actually a sign for inventive step, because then it's something non-standard. And for it to be patentable, it does not have to be useful (useful in the way we normally use that word, in patent speech it's used differently).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be patentable, something does not have to be good at performing it's designated job. If nobody had thought about using the line density to assess a website, that was patentable. Maybe checking if the website went online on 01:44pm is a novel concept to check for legitimacy, so I could have patented it. As long as it's not something that can obviously not work, that doesn't go against the usefulness criteria for patentability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And why not? So you don't see how that might work, then it won't disturb you if somebody patented it. And maybe it does work, then that person holds those rights because they conceived the idea. And if it didn't work, they hold a useless patent on something that was still their original idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Utility requirement**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent has to be useful, but that doesn't mean it has to be of any use. &#xD;&#xA;Mpep provides for example&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(C) Any rejection based on lack of utility should include a detailed explanation why the claimed invention has no specific and substantial credible utility. Whenever possible, the examiner should provide documentary evidence regardless of publication date (e.g., scientific or technical journals, excerpts from treatises or books, or U.S. or foreign patents) to support the factual basis for the prima facie showing of no specific and substantial credible utility. If documentary evidence is not available, the examiner should specifically explain the scientific basis for his or her factual conclusions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2107.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, this mean, if the applicant says the invention can be used for anything, the examiner should prove that's **impossible**.&#xD;&#xA;Utility rejections are used against perpetuum mobiles, but not even against homeopathy in general (example: https://www.google.de/patents/US8163308). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as long as the provided algorithm is able to identify spammy websites, in whatever constructed situation, or it is believable that it might be possible to get anything more than pure randomness as a result, it's useful in a patent speech way of thinking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17582" RevisionGUID="02425795-2d89-4c59-b413-9a52b682dd67" CreationDate="2017-04-08T17:53:13.850" UserId="18832" Text="It's helpful to understand the standard for design patent infringement to understand what you need to do to protect your design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2008 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit unanimously ruled en banc in [Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.][1] that a design patent is infringed *if an ordinary observer would think that the accused design is substantially the same as the patented design when the two designs are compared in the context of the prior art.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether you will need multiple design patents will be dictated by how different your generic design is from the prior art. If the difference between your designs and existing designs is *just* the placement of the plug, then you would need to patent every different plug placement that you have designed. However, if the plug placement is ancillary to a generic design that is substantially different from existing art, then an ordinary observer would consider your designs to all be substantially similar, and a patent of the generic design should be enough to cover all of your plug placements, and a would be infringer would still infringe regardless of where they placed *their* plug. The same rationale applies to the rounding of corners and other slight modifications. It all depends on how specific your design patent needs to be to differentiate it over prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is always useful to get a patent attorney involved early just to avoid making missteps. Most offer [free consultations][2] that will point you in the right direction. The big benefit being that you can actually share your design with the attorney and they can give you legal guidance based on your actual case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15514217710328300214&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://alloypatentlaw.com/alloy-patent-law-ip-legal-blog/2017/3/26/online-attorney-consultation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17583" RevisionGUID="707597fa-6bba-4499-974a-c815c291b187" CreationDate="2017-04-08T18:24:17.963" UserId="18832" Text="There are two concepts that will help here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, as they say, &quot;The applicant can be their own lexicographer.&quot; This means that you can define your material however you want. You are literally able to describe a material with certain properties and give it a name in the specification and then use that name in the claims of the patent. Plain meaning will obviously have bearing on the courts' and patent office's interpretation of any term you use, but you are also able to define terms to describe your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, a major requirement of a patent is that it must be enabling. This means that a &quot;person having skill in the art&quot; could, without undue experimentation, use the patent to actually make and use the invention. If a material that does not exist is required to make the invention, then the patent would not be enabling. With that said, a patent on something that is impossible to make would not be of much value in the first place because it would also be impossible to infringe. However, if the material is still experimental but does exist, then the patent would be enabling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17584" RevisionGUID="a67d2bd0-8602-4b0f-9888-7854350b536c" CreationDate="2017-04-08T18:36:15.690" UserId="18832" Text="The patent was pre-AIA, and therefore the best-case scenario is that it expired 17 years after issue. Therefore, as of Dec. 29, 2015, the patent is irretrievably in the public domain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17582" RevisionGUID="2498212f-51dc-4ba9-890c-ac75dd5f9ae0" CreationDate="2017-04-08T18:43:39.507" UserId="18832" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="It's helpful to understand the standard for design patent infringement to understand what you need to do to protect your design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2008 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit unanimously ruled en banc in [Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.][1] that a design patent is infringed *if an ordinary observer would think that the accused design is substantially the same as the patented design when the two designs are compared in the context of the prior art.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether you will need multiple design patents will be dictated by how different your generic design is from the prior art. If the difference between your designs and existing designs is *just* the placement of the plug, then you would need to patent every different plug placement that you have designed. However, if the plug placement is ancillary to a generic design that is substantially different from existing art, then an ordinary observer would consider your designs to all be substantially similar, and a patent of the generic design should be enough to cover all of your plug placements, and a would be infringer would still infringe regardless of where they placed *their* plug. The same rationale applies to the rounding of corners and other slight modifications. It all depends on how specific your design patent needs to be to differentiate it over prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is always useful to get a patent attorney involved early just to avoid making missteps. I recently wrote on the value of [free attorney consultations][2]. One big benefit being that you can actually share your design with the attorney and they can give you legal guidance based on your actual case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15514217710328300214&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://alloypatentlaw.com/alloy-patent-law-ip-legal-blog/2017/3/26/online-attorney-consultation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17582" RevisionGUID="dc2756c1-759e-4065-bd31-c8d599be099f" CreationDate="2017-04-08T18:56:10.280" UserId="18832" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="It's helpful to understand the standard for design patent infringement to understand what you need to do to protect your design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2008 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit unanimously ruled en banc in [Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.][1] that a design patent is infringed *if an ordinary observer would think that the accused design is substantially the same as the patented design when the two designs are compared in the context of the prior art.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether you will need multiple design patents will be dictated by how different your generic design is from the prior art. If the difference between your designs and existing designs is *just* the placement of the plug, then you would need to patent every different plug placement that you have designed. However, if the plug placement is ancillary to a generic design that is substantially different from existing art, then an ordinary observer would consider your designs to all be substantially similar, and a patent of the generic design should be enough to cover all of your plug placements, and a would be infringer would still infringe regardless of where they placed *their* plug. The same rationale applies to the rounding of corners and other slight modifications. It all depends on how specific your design patent needs to be to differentiate it over prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, it is possible to claim multiple embodiments of an invention within a design patent as long as their appearance and shape are similar. See the [USPTO brochure on design patent application][2], pg. 16 for an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is always useful to get a patent attorney involved early just to avoid making missteps. I recently wrote on the value of [free attorney consultations][3]. One big benefit being that you can actually share your design with the attorney and they can give you legal guidance based on your actual case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15514217710328300214&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/iip/pdf/brochure_05.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://alloypatentlaw.com/alloy-patent-law-ip-legal-blog/2017/3/26/online-attorney-consultation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17585" RevisionGUID="d4ca8ae7-112a-4f0d-b61d-80612f500566" CreationDate="2017-04-08T19:06:10.307" UserId="18832" Text="Patent rights vest upon issuance of a patent. The contractor's patent should not have issued because he was not the inventor (note that a final rejection in-an-of itself does not mean that a patent will never issue). Therefore, the contractor never acquired any property rights, so there really are not any rights to transfer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45878" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="17586" RevisionGUID="425ce49d-9a3b-4963-9cc0-d9f9d63b36b8" CreationDate="2017-04-08T19:16:22.273" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/344/google-patents-searching-not-returning-accurate-results" />
  <row Id="45879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17586" RevisionGUID="ba72a7b6-9be8-4621-b480-ec17fed62e88" CreationDate="2017-04-08T18:34:42.977" UserId="17003" Text="I'm finding I'm only getting a subset of patents when I search on patents.google.com or www.google.com/patents. For instance searching with me as the inventor returns only [24 granted patents on google][1] when the same search on [The Lens provides the correct 86][2] hits. Google used to be correct so I'm wondering what has changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Eric%20B.%20Shain&amp;status=GRANT&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/search?inventor=SHAIN%20ERIC%20B&amp;types=Granted%20Patent&amp;l=en&amp;st=true&amp;q=inventor%3A%22Shain%20Eric%22%7E2&amp;predicate=%26%26&amp;p=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45880" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17586" RevisionGUID="ba72a7b6-9be8-4621-b480-ec17fed62e88" CreationDate="2017-04-08T18:34:42.977" UserId="17003" Text="Google Patents Searching not returning accurate results" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45881" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17586" RevisionGUID="ba72a7b6-9be8-4621-b480-ec17fed62e88" CreationDate="2017-04-08T18:34:42.977" UserId="17003" Text="&lt;untagged&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45882" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17586" RevisionGUID="e133f792-a844-4e52-a315-a034faf543f7" CreationDate="2017-04-08T19:18:11.997" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;google-patents&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17586" RevisionGUID="610b457f-5454-454d-b14d-cf8810370cc5" CreationDate="2017-04-08T20:04:33.393" UserId="17003" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="I'm finding I'm only getting a subset of patents when I search on patents.google.com or www.google.com/patents. For instance searching with me as the inventor returns only [24 granted patents on google][1] when the same search on [The Lens provides the correct 86][2] hits. Google used to be correct so I'm wondering what has changed.&#xA;&#xA;I realize this may be off topic, but a lot of people are using Google for patent searches so it could be a real problem. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Eric%20B.%20Shain&amp;status=GRANT&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/search?inventor=SHAIN%20ERIC%20B&amp;types=Granted%20Patent&amp;l=en&amp;st=true&amp;q=inventor%3A%22Shain%20Eric%22%7E2&amp;predicate=%26%26&amp;p=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17569" RevisionGUID="833cab9f-d51d-45a2-ae50-df0c11493161" CreationDate="2017-04-08T20:46:11.277" UserId="18822" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="In a large American HQed company I worked, based on an engineering work my manager and I did, the company filed a US Patent Application at the USPTO on March 2013. I am the first named inventor in the application. My manager is also listed as an inventor. As per company policy, we assigned the invention to our company, who then filed the utility patent application through a law agency specialising in patent applications. I quit the company in June 2014 to pursue a PhD in a university (present status).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We learnt through the US Public Pair Portal that the application has been successful in crossing all hurdles, and all that is left is to issue the patent. The notice of allowance was mailed on Jan 17, 2017. It says that we have exactly 3 months to pay the issue fees or else, the application will be abandoned. The three-month deadline falls on April 16, 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contacted my manager, who is still employed in this company. He, in turn, contacted the patent team, who said that they will not be proceeding any further with the applications, due to present business interests not warranting any further investment on this application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a bummer, very agonising - a slip between the cup and the lip. So near, yet so far. I would really like to see the patent getting issued and having a patent number purely for boosting my CV. I have no financial interest in this application. I also do not care whether the company owns the patent when it gets assigned or not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I take this through? I am willing to pay the issue fee myself. Is this allowed? How do I do this? What's the procedure? What are my choices?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help will be much appreciated.&#xA;&#xA;**Update: Final Outcome**&#xA;&#xA;Unfortunately, despite the best efforts, I have been informed by the authorities that they will :&#xA;&#xA;a) not be paying the issue fees&#xA;&#xA;b) not reassign it back to me&#xA;&#xA;c) not allow me to pay the issue fees myself.&#xA;&#xA;Thanks a lot for your suggestions.&#xA;&#xA;**Update 2: Finding out eligibility for damages**&#xA;&#xA;I was suggested by a member of the community here to look for potentially pressing for damages for not offering me the possibility to self-file or take the application forward personally. How can I get started with this ? I have no idea on the standard legal routes in the US. I am a full-time PhD student and cannot afford to pay a lawyer. I have to file the complaint myself (online?). Will it affect my future employability with this organisation?&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17587" RevisionGUID="08b83f80-d8f8-48cc-bb52-85dbc3b6eff7" CreationDate="2017-04-08T21:08:08.707" UserId="18822" Text="While working for a major US company headquartered in California (but registered in Delaware), I was the named first inventor of a patent application. I quit the company in 2014 to pursue a full time PhD outside the US (present status).&#xA;&#xA;Recently, I learnt that the patent application was successful and notice of allowance was mailed out by USPTO on Jan 17, 2017. There is a non-negotiable 3 month deadline to pay the issue fees of $960, i.e on or before April 16, 2017.&#xA;&#xA;Unfortunately, due to their present business strategy, my ex-employer decided not to go ahead with this application, and instead chose to abandon this.&#xA;&#xA;Despite contacting the company and offering to pay the issue fees myself, the company flatly declined this opportunity. They also refused to reassign the patent back to the inventors (me and my manager, who is currently with the company).&#xA;&#xA;Thus, my chance to take forward the application has been blocked by my employer and there is no reasonable chance of getting the patent granted for this invention. &#xA;&#xA;In the original question that I posted here, I was suggested to look whether the employer is obligated to give a reasonable chance to the inventor to take it forward in their personal capacity before abandoning. Apparently, some states have this provision.&#xA;&#xA;I am wondering if either the states of CA or DE have this provision. Which one should I consult? Where can I find an official online resource about this? I currently study full time PhD outside the US and I am not a US citizen or resident alien." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45886" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17587" RevisionGUID="08b83f80-d8f8-48cc-bb52-85dbc3b6eff7" CreationDate="2017-04-08T21:08:08.707" UserId="18822" Text="State law about employers giving inventor chance to take forward an application before abandoning" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45887" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17587" RevisionGUID="08b83f80-d8f8-48cc-bb52-85dbc3b6eff7" CreationDate="2017-04-08T21:08:08.707" UserId="18822" Text="&lt;fees&gt;&lt;employer&gt;&lt;abandoned-patent&gt;&lt;united-states&gt;&lt;employee&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17587" RevisionGUID="f622b8a1-27f9-44de-a57b-75561a3e78cf" CreationDate="2017-04-08T21:23:09.440" UserId="18033" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="While working for a major US company headquartered in California (but registered in Delaware), I was the named first inventor of a patent application. I quit the company in 2014 to pursue a full time PhD outside the US (present status).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, I learnt that the patent application was successful and notice of allowance was mailed out by USPTO on Jan 17, 2017. There is a non-negotiable 3 month deadline to pay the issue fees of $960, i.e on or before April 16, 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, due to their present business strategy, my ex-employer decided not to go ahead with this application, and instead chose to abandon this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite contacting the company and offering to pay the issue fees myself, the company flatly declined this opportunity. They also refused to reassign the patent back to the inventors (me and my manager, who is currently with the company).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, my chance to take forward the application has been blocked by my employer and there is no reasonable chance of getting the patent granted for this invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the [original question][1] that I posted here, I was suggested to look whether the employer is obligated to give a reasonable chance to the inventor to take it forward in their personal capacity before abandoning. Apparently, some states have this provision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering if either the states of CA or DE have this provision. Which one should I consult? Where can I find an official online resource about this? I currently study full time PhD outside the US and I am not a US citizen or resident alien.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/17569/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45889" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16090" RevisionGUID="f45a7543-a4a7-453f-9526-136fcfaf0132" CreationDate="2017-04-08T23:35:06.143" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45890" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14635" RevisionGUID="deb02e3c-df8b-462e-993a-16e88d2040bb" CreationDate="2017-04-09T00:38:44.457" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45891" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="dc111704-cbdd-466e-8750-c2f62739a822" CreationDate="2017-04-09T05:40:05.517" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16090" RevisionGUID="6dfc99f7-167d-4a9d-a4ec-824fb5142653" CreationDate="2017-04-09T08:23:50.557" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can I produce and sell this patents product? It expired since it's in a patent from more than 50 years ago?  Pat. US 2892491" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45897" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16090" RevisionGUID="6dfc99f7-167d-4a9d-a4ec-824fb5142653" CreationDate="2017-04-09T08:23:50.557" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can I produce and sell a product that was patented more than 50 years ago?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17590" RevisionGUID="73f2eeb5-f8bb-4576-846b-7b1ca4792a31" CreationDate="2017-04-09T10:44:39.730" UserId="18033" Text="Apparently google is grouping the patents by families and giving you the number of patent families but sorts them into classifications too, effectively giving not even the number of families. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first page provided by you gives &quot;about 27&quot; results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/?inventor=eric+shain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It lists 2 patents of classification A61B5/150061 - and I counted, included in the 27 results are only those 2 - but if you click  &quot;Search within classification A61B5/150061 (8 results)&quot; (where it already says 8 results, not 2 ...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/?q=A61B5%2f150061&amp;inventor=eric+shain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You get 3 results - not 8, not 2. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Click on the second patent &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US6071251A/en?q=A61B5%2f150061&amp;inventor=eric+shain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and you'll see that it says &quot;also published as (41)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US6071251A/en?q=A61B5%2f150061&amp;inventor=eric+shain#alsoPublishedAs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Together with the fact that there appear almost only US patents in the first 27 results (1 EP), I conclude that google has some kind of sorting by families AND classifications that screws up the number of results. This merely proves that google is not (yet?) as good as commercial/dedicated analysis tools." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45903" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="9d0490e3-6978-4728-a05f-9e4097575f80" CreationDate="2017-04-09T11:48:30.750" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45909" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13614" RevisionGUID="f9d844d5-8e4e-45bf-9ffb-230bdf60651f" CreationDate="2017-04-09T20:55:18.083" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17592" RevisionGUID="41ed073d-d449-4e00-bab0-b3f323bed762" CreationDate="2017-04-09T22:44:14.757" UserId="18839" Text="I've developed a highly profitable basketball prediction model. Thing is, I don't live in a place where gambling is legal (lame). My real question is: `how can I capitalize on the model without gambling?` I came here because I thought maybe I could patent the model and then sell the patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45911" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17592" RevisionGUID="41ed073d-d449-4e00-bab0-b3f323bed762" CreationDate="2017-04-09T22:44:14.757" UserId="18839" Text="Can I patent a sports prediction model?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45912" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17592" RevisionGUID="41ed073d-d449-4e00-bab0-b3f323bed762" CreationDate="2017-04-09T22:44:14.757" UserId="18839" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;algorithms&gt;&lt;data-processing-software&gt;&lt;machine-learning&gt;&lt;sports&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17592" RevisionGUID="d74e3b96-aed7-460c-95d4-6c7d8721dd0c" CreationDate="2017-04-09T22:49:26.067" UserId="18839" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="I've developed a highly profitable basketball prediction model. Thing is, I don't live in a place where gambling is legal (lame). My real question is: `how can I capitalize on the model without gambling?` I came here because I thought maybe I could patent the model and then sell the patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is one even able to patent a sports prediction model?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17593" RevisionGUID="59674563-e421-46c8-b9b0-fb1b14803500" CreationDate="2017-04-10T01:31:00.970" UserId="17003" Text="My guess is that yes you can patent an algorithm to predict sports outcomes. Whether you should is a different question. Eighteen months after you file an application it will publish which means everyone can see your algorithm. I'm assuming most people would use it for themselves such that it would be very difficult to prove infringe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps better is to provide a service providing picks. People pay you for the pick. You aren't gambling yourself so it could probably is legal where you live. This way you can monetize your invention without disclosing it. The technical term for this is [Trade Secret][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17594" RevisionGUID="345ff863-b7fc-44fa-8fb3-cd473f5d0cca" CreationDate="2017-04-10T01:52:14.160" UserId="18840" Text="Who holds patents for &quot;over-size&quot; golf club grips.  Showed my design to a patent attorney, could not afford a search. Later, saw my idea being sold!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45916" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17594" RevisionGUID="345ff863-b7fc-44fa-8fb3-cd473f5d0cca" CreationDate="2017-04-10T01:52:14.160" UserId="18840" Text="Who holds patents for &quot;over-size&quot; golf club grips?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45917" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17594" RevisionGUID="345ff863-b7fc-44fa-8fb3-cd473f5d0cca" CreationDate="2017-04-10T01:52:14.160" UserId="18840" Text="&lt;golf-club&gt;&lt;grips&gt;&lt;golf&gt;&lt;club&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45918" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17594" RevisionGUID="9d4454f8-d432-4e8c-8cae-2cc7ee618afe" CreationDate="2017-04-10T01:58:47.033" UserId="18840" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="Who holds patents for &quot;over-size&quot; golf club grips for putters, drivers, irons etc.,?  Showed my design to a patent attorney, could not afford a patent search. Later, I saw my idea being sold! It was totally new! Nothing like it on the market at the time!  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45919" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17594" RevisionGUID="5ffe3336-fe61-4150-b504-8cfdf02f6543" CreationDate="2017-04-10T02:34:13.270" UserId="1" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45920" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15983" RevisionGUID="eb345be6-504b-4bf9-9ba8-19e6a3324ba4" CreationDate="2017-04-10T09:01:05.320" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45924" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="0af8138c-3715-49b8-b1ff-476bed483645" CreationDate="2017-04-10T13:23:43.730" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17593" RevisionGUID="3447a4b0-feeb-443e-978a-e8670e7bc591" CreationDate="2017-04-10T14:21:55.773" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed some grammar." Text="My guess is that yes you can patent an algorithm to predict sports outcomes. Whether you should is a different question. Eighteen months after you file an application it will publish which means everyone can see your algorithm. I'm assuming most people would use it for themselves such that it would be very difficult to prove infringe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps better is to provide a service providing picks. People pay you for the pick. You aren't gambling yourself so it could likely be legal where you live. This way you can monetize your invention without disclosing it. The technical term for this is [Trade Secret][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17593" RevisionGUID="ba86c3db-94bb-4dc2-a31f-ec05665c4782" CreationDate="2017-04-10T14:23:20.983" UserId="18033" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="My guess is that yes you can patent an algorithm to predict sports outcomes. Whether you should is a different question. Eighteen months after you file an application it will publish which means everyone can see your algorithm. I'm assuming most people would use it for themselves such that it would be very difficult to prove infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps better is to provide a service providing picks. People pay you for the pick. You aren't gambling yourself so it could likely be legal where you live. This way you can monetize your invention without disclosing it. The technical term for this is [Trade Secret][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17593" RevisionGUID="73e4ad96-4f7c-4322-8716-839f6b836fcc" CreationDate="2017-04-10T14:24:05.180" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed some grammar and added content about filing patents." Text="My guess is that yes you can patent an algorithm to predict sports outcomes. Whether you should is a different question. Eighteen months after you file an application it will publish which means everyone can see your algorithm. I'm assuming most people would use it for themselves such that it would be very difficult to prove infringe. On top of this, patents cost money both to draft if you use a lawyer (and you should) and file. The process usually takes at least 3 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps better is to provide a service providing picks. People pay you for the pick. You aren't gambling yourself so it could likely be legal where you live. This way you can monetize your invention without disclosing it. The technical term for this is [Trade Secret][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17593" RevisionGUID="28a95595-bf91-44a5-8ee1-19f2d9bb6665" CreationDate="2017-04-10T14:26:43.070" UserId="18033" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="My guess is that yes you can patent an algorithm to predict sports outcomes. Whether you should is a different question. Eighteen months after you file an application it will publish which means everyone can see your algorithm. I'm assuming most people would use it for themselves such that it would be very difficult to prove infringement. On top of this, patents cost money both to draft if you use a lawyer (and you should) and file. The process usually takes at least 3 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps better is to provide a service providing picks. People pay you for the pick. You aren't gambling yourself so it could likely be legal where you live. This way you can monetize your invention without disclosing it. The technical term for this is [Trade Secret][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17593" RevisionGUID="b6e6ebe4-2451-4e39-9a1f-c60fedc017bf" CreationDate="2017-04-10T15:21:18.340" UserId="17003" Comment="Minor edit." Text="My guess is that depending on the jurisdiction, yes you can patent an algorithm to predict sports outcomes. Whether you should is a different question. Eighteen months after you file an application it will publish which means everyone can see your algorithm. I'm assuming most people would use it for themselves such that it would be very difficult to prove infringement. On top of this, patents cost money both to draft if you use a lawyer (and you should) and file. The process usually takes at least 3 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps better is to provide a service providing picks. People pay you for the pick. You aren't gambling yourself so it could likely be legal where you live. This way you can monetize your invention without disclosing it. The technical term for this is [Trade Secret][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17596" RevisionGUID="23345025-8e5c-4066-bf6f-037e16f667e5" CreationDate="2017-04-10T15:38:01.930" UserId="17003" Text="Performing a patent search is something you can do for yourself for free. This [answer describes my process][1]. Searching with the terms &quot;oversize golf grip&quot; on The Lens resulted in [428 granted US patents][2] dating back to 1977. Please understand that obtaining a patent takes time, typically three or more years. If you saw a product that looked like your idea less than three years later, it is very possible that someone else thought of it first. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The majority of patents don't make it to the market, so the fact that you hadn't seen a similar product doesn't mean there wasn't already an existing patent. If you could link us to the product in question, we may be able to find out what the relevant patents are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17010/any-other-patents-involving-baseball-caps-for-pigtails/17011#17011&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/search?q=oversize+golf+grip&amp;predicate=%26%26&amp;j=US&amp;types=Granted+Patent&amp;l=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45932" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16103" RevisionGUID="31c06ae1-f81e-41c7-8e59-7cf68d923765" CreationDate="2017-04-10T16:23:46.140" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17597" RevisionGUID="ba10cfaf-cee4-48a4-94da-7f4b75661d11" CreationDate="2017-04-10T17:01:52.677" UserId="18832" Text="Yes, there is a list. No, it is not exhaustive. In fact, the patent system is expressly designed for this purpose. We want people to know about expired patents and to use them as they see fit. The USPTO Patent Database provides patent images for all patents since 1970, and text files for all patents since 1976. Every patent issued before 4/10/2000 (as of this writing) is expired. Some patents after that date are expired, depending on whether the patent has been abandoned. There is no list of every single expired patent, but you can produce a list of the bulk of expired patents, and then search more recent ones on a case-by-case basis as necessary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45934" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14266" RevisionGUID="f37ee86d-6e2d-44fd-b652-778be7d857de" CreationDate="2017-04-10T18:26:58.523" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17598" RevisionGUID="e99636c8-d479-42c2-92af-7650ff68d960" CreationDate="2017-04-10T21:44:26.073" UserId="18804" Text="Assignments may be differently worded; but you very likely assigned full title and ownership.  If the assignee wants to waste the patent opportunity it’s their right.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some states have employment laws that are a bit more bases on equity.  This may go to your original standing to assign your ownership without limitations.  But that varies by state and is not the general rule.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45936" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16096" RevisionGUID="6d540972-bda0-4456-bf86-3676e66be833" CreationDate="2017-04-10T23:31:36.223" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17599" RevisionGUID="0c9d6ae2-0790-4ce1-a4c9-997ce54bd2ea" CreationDate="2017-04-11T02:00:05.830" UserId="18845" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5529301][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5529301" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45938" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17599" RevisionGUID="0c9d6ae2-0790-4ce1-a4c9-997ce54bd2ea" CreationDate="2017-04-11T02:00:05.830" UserId="18845" Text="Can I use the technology of this patent for a consumer product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45939" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17599" RevisionGUID="0c9d6ae2-0790-4ce1-a4c9-997ce54bd2ea" CreationDate="2017-04-11T02:00:05.830" UserId="18845" Text="&lt;usa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17601" RevisionGUID="02d9d69a-4f15-4b63-bb9f-edab30247476" CreationDate="2017-04-11T06:54:46.750" UserId="18697" Text="As per my knowledge, this isn't active patent. the legal status of this patent is &quot;Patent expired on 06/25/2004 due to non-payment of maintenance fee&quot;. You cannot even buy the patent because its expired even if you resurrect it.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45946" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17601" RevisionGUID="7ff7856e-7d73-439f-819f-888053203f78" CreationDate="2017-04-11T07:01:45.407" UserId="18697" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="As per my knowledge, this isn't active patent. the legal status of this patent is &quot;Patent expired on 06/25/2004 due to non-payment of maintenance fee&quot;. You cannot even buy the patent because its expired even if you resurrect it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use this technology but you have to further check the similar type of innovation before you use for product." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17602" RevisionGUID="357a6899-0f95-4851-bb7f-3dc2f85e3987" CreationDate="2017-04-11T08:13:54.573" UserId="18848" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20100203636][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20100203636" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45948" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17602" RevisionGUID="357a6899-0f95-4851-bb7f-3dc2f85e3987" CreationDate="2017-04-11T08:13:54.573" UserId="18848" Text="The expiration date of the patent US 20100203636" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45949" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17602" RevisionGUID="357a6899-0f95-4851-bb7f-3dc2f85e3987" CreationDate="2017-04-11T08:13:54.573" UserId="18848" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;date&gt;&lt;invalidate&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17604" RevisionGUID="ecc74d6c-cdd8-41b0-ab90-668736316920" CreationDate="2017-04-11T09:54:29.803" UserId="17764" Text="There is an application A claiming the benefit of priority of another application B which filed Feb. 1, 2017. Additionally, B claims benefit of priority of an application C which filed Jan. 1, 2017. However, A fails to directly claims the priorify of C.&#xD;&#xA;In this case, A fails to directly claims the priority of C, but A indeed indirectly claims the priority of C (as A claims priority of B and B claims priority of C). Whether the indirectly claimed priority of A is valid or not? Will C be considered as a prior art of A? Use some precedents or legal basis please. &#xD;&#xA;If so, how can I do to avoid such issues? Claim the benefit of all the related applications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45956" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17604" RevisionGUID="ecc74d6c-cdd8-41b0-ab90-668736316920" CreationDate="2017-04-11T09:54:29.803" UserId="17764" Text="is the indirectly claimed priority valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45957" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17604" RevisionGUID="ecc74d6c-cdd8-41b0-ab90-668736316920" CreationDate="2017-04-11T09:54:29.803" UserId="17764" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;priority&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17604" RevisionGUID="5c916f7d-9196-4390-91bd-d6efa702773c" CreationDate="2017-04-11T10:03:34.123" UserId="17764" Comment="added 20 characters in body; edited tags" Text="There are:&#xD;&#xA;application A filed Mar.1 2017, claims the priority of application B;&#xD;&#xA;application B filed Feb.1 2017, claims the priority of application C;&#xD;&#xA;application C, filed Jan.1 2017.&#xD;&#xA;**However, app A does not directly claim the priorify of C.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, we know that A fails to directly claims the priority of C, but it indeed indirectly claims the priority of C (as A claims priority of B and B claims priority of C). So whether the indirectly claimed priority of A is valid or not? Will C be considered as a prior art of A? Use some precedents or legal basis please. &#xD;&#xA;AND if yes, how can I do to avoid such issues? Claim the benefit of all the related applications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45959" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17604" RevisionGUID="5c916f7d-9196-4390-91bd-d6efa702773c" CreationDate="2017-04-11T10:03:34.123" UserId="17764" Comment="added 20 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;prosecution&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17605" RevisionGUID="e7d946cc-8b1e-4217-84a3-9de1fb961d15" CreationDate="2017-04-11T10:23:24.910" UserId="18697" Text="Patent is abandoned due to &quot;Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot;. It is expired during the examination process." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17604" RevisionGUID="e25f54bd-ae16-402f-886a-d30f26708051" CreationDate="2017-04-11T11:19:10.373" UserId="18033" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="There are:&#xD;&#xA;application A filed Mar.1 2017, claims the priority of application B;&#xD;&#xA;application B filed Feb.1 2017, claims the priority of application C;&#xD;&#xA;application C, filed Jan.1 2017.&#xD;&#xA;**However, app A does not directly claim the priorify of C.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, we know that A fails to directly claims the priority of C, but it indeed indirectly claims the priority of C (as A claims priority of B and B claims priority of C). So the question is whether the indirectly claimed priority of A is valid or not? Will C be considered as a prior art of A? Use some precedents or legal basis please. &#xD;&#xA;AND if yes, how can I do to avoid such issues? Claim the benefit of all the related applications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17606" RevisionGUID="b80ea269-1baf-4cc3-8fc0-7f84268e3534" CreationDate="2017-04-11T12:03:40.603" UserId="17325" Text="Legal basis for priority is article 4 of the Paris Convention. For your example, relevant are the following extracts, Article 4C:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) The periods of priority referred to above shall be twelve months for patents and utility models, and six months for industrial designs and trademarks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) These periods shall start from the date of filing of the **first application**; the day of filing shall not be included in the period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(4) A subsequent application concerning the **same subject as a previous first application** within the meaning of paragraph (2), above, filed in the same country of the Union shall be **considered as the first application**, of which the filing date shall be the starting point of the period of priority, if, at the time of filing the subsequent application, the said previous application has been withdrawn, abandoned, or refused, w**ithout having been laid open** to public inspection and **without leaving any rights outstanding**, and if it has not yet served as a basis for claiming a right of priority. The previous application may not thereafter serve as a basis for claiming a right of priority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the above one can deduce the meaning of what is and what is not considered as a first filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example, there is no legal basis for indirect claim to priority, quite the opposite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the issue of C being prior art against A, based on the dates you mention the simple answer is NO, because C will not become public until A is filed. Mind however, that in some jurisdictions, such as in the EPO, it might be considered as prior art under Article 54(3) EPC. I am not sure if I should analyze this any further, so I will stop here for now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can claim priority both from B and C, within 12 months from the earliest priority (which in your example is C). Whatever is disclosed for the first time in C will be a valid priority, but invalid when taken from B (but you don't care, because you are securing it with C). And whatever is new in B (as first filing) will be a valid priority as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The multiple priorities concept is nicely illustrated in the EPO Guidelines for examination: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/f_vi_1_5.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45963" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17605" RevisionGUID="5f8cd1c6-fd1b-4981-9d15-9b72da04acf0" CreationDate="2017-04-11T12:29:05.030" UserId="18697" Comment="added 275 characters in body" Text="Patent is abandoned due to &quot;Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot;. It is expired during the examination process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use the USPTO's public PAIR database(https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair) for legal status. If the patent is active then the patent term is 20 years from its own filing [35 U.S. Code § 154 (a)(2)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17605" RevisionGUID="16b8f428-f342-4345-a6ea-27947af8a000" CreationDate="2017-04-11T12:30:51.407" UserId="18033" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Patent application is abandoned due to &quot;Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot;. It is expired during the examination process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use the USPTO's public PAIR database(https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair) for legal status. If the patent is active then the patent term is 20 years from its own filing [35 U.S. Code § 154 (a)(2)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17604" RevisionGUID="79d415da-051a-485c-b86e-b53412afeb2d" CreationDate="2017-04-11T12:50:15.240" UserId="17764" Comment="improved formatting" Text="There are:  &#xD;&#xA;application A filed Mar.1 2017, claims the priority of application B;  &#xD;&#xA;application B filed Feb.1 2017, claims the priority of application C;  &#xD;&#xA;application C, filed Jan.1 2017.  &#xD;&#xA;**However, app A does not directly claim the priorify of C.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, we know that A fails to directly claims the priority of C, but it indeed indirectly claims the priority of C (as A claims priority of B and B claims priority of C). So the question is whether the indirectly claimed priority of A is valid or not? Will C be considered as a prior art of A? Use some precedents or legal basis please.   &#xD;&#xA;AND if yes, how can I do to avoid such issues? Claim the benefit of all the related applications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17606" RevisionGUID="68a6e79a-61f5-4d9a-8ba8-8d642d18c3b3" CreationDate="2017-04-11T13:13:44.300" UserId="17325" Comment="Improving explanation of lack of legal basis for indirect priority claim" Text="Legal basis for priority is article 4 of the Paris Convention. For your example, relevant are the following extracts, Article 4C:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) The periods of priority referred to above shall be twelve months for patents and utility models, and six months for industrial designs and trademarks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) These periods shall start from the date of filing of the **first application**; the day of filing shall not be included in the period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(4) A subsequent application concerning the **same subject as a previous first application** within the meaning of paragraph (2), above, filed in the same country of the Union shall be **considered as the first application**, of which the filing date shall be the starting point of the period of priority, if, at the time of filing the subsequent application, the said previous application has been withdrawn, abandoned, or refused, w**ithout having been laid open** to public inspection and **without leaving any rights outstanding**, and if it has not yet served as a basis for claiming a right of priority. The previous application may not thereafter serve as a basis for claiming a right of priority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the above one can deduce the meaning of what is and what is not considered as a first filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no legal basis for indirect claim to priority, quite the opposite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the issue of C being prior art against A, based on the dates you mention the simple answer is NO, because C will not become public until A is filed. Mind however, that in some jurisdictions, such as in the EPO, it might be considered as prior art under Article 54(3) EPC. I am not sure if I should analyze this any further, so I will stop here for now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can claim priority both from B and C, within 12 months from the earliest priority (which in your example is C). Whatever is disclosed for the first time in C will be a valid priority, but invalid when taken from B (but you don't care, because you are securing it with C). And whatever is new in B (as first filing) will be a valid priority as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The multiple priorities concept is nicely illustrated in the EPO Guidelines for examination: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/f_vi_1_5.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45967" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16789" RevisionGUID="9b3ac5c5-4c5b-4951-ac66-140e7f5dc877" CreationDate="2017-04-11T22:54:38.793" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16860" RevisionGUID="90666e55-6a9e-40b2-93aa-209483dace27" CreationDate="2017-04-12T01:33:48.347" UserId="17003" Comment="fixed misspelling" Text="As apparently no one has found an answer yet, I'll make one with what we have. Feel free to edit in anything you find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rule 48 from the &quot;Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China&quot; (http://english.sipo.gov.cn/laws/lawsregulations/201403/t20140331_925757.html) allows third party observations until the notification of the grant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.managingip.com/Article/3440424/How-to-make-effective-third-party-observations.html This article states that there is an electronic form, which I couldn't find, so maybe it exists only in Chinese. If one wants to add documents to the third party observations they have to made in paper form anyways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://bricwallblog.com/2015/05/11/third-party-observations-in-china-part-7-of-an-8-part-series/ But here it says that English observations may be made or rather, that a translation should be provided if the observations are not in English or Chinese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further information might be available by contacting the EPO China helpdesk (https://www.epo.org/searching-for-patents/helpful-resources/asian/china/faq.html). I have contacted them once on another issue and they were very helpful!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For PCT applications, as far as I know, it is enough to send the observations to the WIPO and they will send them to the relevant national authorities." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17607" RevisionGUID="204b1432-ab08-49a9-9556-327aafe60115" CreationDate="2017-04-12T01:37:08.270" UserId="18859" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20090293169][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20090293169&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this is provisional every become a full patent?  If so is it still active?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45970" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17607" RevisionGUID="204b1432-ab08-49a9-9556-327aafe60115" CreationDate="2017-04-12T01:37:08.270" UserId="18859" Text="Patent Still Active?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45971" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17607" RevisionGUID="204b1432-ab08-49a9-9556-327aafe60115" CreationDate="2017-04-12T01:37:08.270" UserId="18859" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17608" RevisionGUID="5f3b105b-368b-40ac-a48f-cbfd7fc7bd84" CreationDate="2017-04-12T01:48:34.053" UserId="17003" Text="This neither a provisional nor a patent. It is a patent application and its status is &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot; so it seems unlikely to ever become a full patent. You can check this for yourself by looking at the [US Public Pair][1] site and entering 20090293169 and selecting &quot;Publication Number&quot;. From that site you can see all the communications between the inventor's agent and the examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17608" RevisionGUID="37f3ebc9-89c6-49a9-97c8-fbca096555b8" CreationDate="2017-04-12T07:56:18.087" UserId="18033" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="This is neither a provisional nor a patent. It is a patent application and its status is &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot; so it seems unlikely to ever become a full patent. You can check this for yourself by looking at the [US Public Pair][1] site and entering 20090293169 and selecting &quot;Publication Number&quot;. From that site you can see all the communications between the inventor's agent and the examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17601" RevisionGUID="970dc63d-a40a-4773-ab0a-1e86007181c3" CreationDate="2017-04-12T12:07:55.270" UserId="18033" Comment="spelling, grammar and added an explanation" Text="As per my knowledge, this isn't an active patent. The legal status of this patent is &quot;Patent expired on 06/25/2004 due to non-payment of maintenance fee&quot;. You cannot even buy the patent because its expired even if you resurrect it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use this technology but you have to further check the similar type of innovation before you use it for a product, because there might be other relevant patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14445" RevisionGUID="cc7e6b93-b98b-40e7-bea2-5f68be491b7f" CreationDate="2017-04-12T14:48:58.650" UserId="18033" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Is there any reliable free tool or software for managing the IP/patent portfolio - mainly for handling the timelimits, costs and for general overview of the patent porfolio (curently about 100 patents)? Currently I use an Excel sheet, but it is not very user friendly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10078" RevisionGUID="69bd5e2c-d6ff-4b39-8898-28bce00bfc74" CreationDate="2017-04-12T14:50:26.113" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Given that a software patent can be implemented in different ways, languages and platforms then what are the license requirements of the implemented pieces of software?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible that the patent owner releases an open source implementation or this would necessary invalid the patent rights because open source licenses grant freedom of use, distribution and modification?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since Apache License allows to distribute derivative works under a proprietary license, then is it compatible with the patent rights to build an implementation of the patent software as a derivative work from a piece of software released under Apache license? What about the mandatory copyright notices?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference in this regard if instead of a derivative work as a whole an extension module is released? In this case the proprietary module wouldn't work without the Apache license parent application, but isn't it almost the same when somebody releases a proprietary application in PHP (the application wouldn't work without the under running open source PHP interpreter)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the best license to release an implementation of a software patent to not interfere with patent protection?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17612" RevisionGUID="b8fbac1a-830f-49d7-9fc5-738b35df3f3d" CreationDate="2017-04-12T16:45:10.723" UserId="3418" Text="I am foreigner of USA, and have US application in defense article. If a US company pay for that patent, does it consider importing technology?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the tech is available in the US territory through the patent system, does it need import regulation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any way I can sell or license this tech without ITAR involved?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45991" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17612" RevisionGUID="b8fbac1a-830f-49d7-9fc5-738b35df3f3d" CreationDate="2017-04-12T16:45:10.723" UserId="3418" Text="Will paying for US patent from foreigner consider importing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45992" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17612" RevisionGUID="b8fbac1a-830f-49d7-9fc5-738b35df3f3d" CreationDate="2017-04-12T16:45:10.723" UserId="3418" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;foreign&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45993" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17612" RevisionGUID="beb627a0-6df5-45ed-96c6-f9f54f9b44ce" CreationDate="2017-04-12T17:27:44.720" UserId="18033" Comment="added 48 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I am foreigner of USA, and have an US application in defense article. If a US company pay for that patent, is it considered importing technology?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the tech is available in the US territory through the patent system, do  import regulations apply?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any way I can sell or license this tech without the international traffic in arms regulation (ITAR) involved?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45994" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17612" RevisionGUID="beb627a0-6df5-45ed-96c6-f9f54f9b44ce" CreationDate="2017-04-12T17:27:44.720" UserId="18033" Comment="added 48 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Will paying for US patent from foreigner be considered importing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45995" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17612" RevisionGUID="beb627a0-6df5-45ed-96c6-f9f54f9b44ce" CreationDate="2017-04-12T17:27:44.720" UserId="18033" Comment="added 48 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;foreign&gt;&lt;itar&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45996" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17594" RevisionGUID="f765ab0c-3dfb-45ec-afd3-81fdf38ac5a2" CreationDate="2017-04-12T17:40:26.947" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45997" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16970" RevisionGUID="10e0de00-75e3-45fd-b61b-5dca4f487b1b" CreationDate="2017-04-12T17:41:37.963" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;micro-entity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45998" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16187" RevisionGUID="0593925b-18fb-4acd-bb7a-827f52754aa2" CreationDate="2017-04-12T17:42:14.383" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;micro-entity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45999" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16187" RevisionGUID="7584bd99-9617-4ef0-b129-49c33ded0417" CreationDate="2017-04-12T21:05:35.630" UserId="18033" Comment="edited title" Text="Having someone else file a patent application to retain micro entity status" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17613" RevisionGUID="d4de2b25-0ca7-4c25-a3a8-237379c0dcff" CreationDate="2017-04-12T22:37:24.240" UserId="18866" Text="I have two similar questions on how &quot;public use&quot; and &quot;on sale&quot; apply to trade secrets, and how or if trade secrets can be later converted into patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been reading the [law here](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html) and looking at [additional notes here](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2133.html#d0e203781), but I just can't make sense of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the relevant part of the law is 35  U.S.C. 102:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in **public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; public** before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure exactly how **on sale** or **public use** apply when part of a device or system is kept secret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question 1.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An electronic device is being sold for several years. This device contains a microprocessor that runs a secret algorithm (protected by encryption, DRM, etc). Can this *algorithm* be patented now? Or has the device being &quot;on sale&quot; prevented that (even though the algorithm was never revealed and was considered a trade secret).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the one hand I think the answer is no, because it has been sold for over a year. On the other hand, I feel that the answer is yes because the algorithm has been kept secret and not made public at all. How would this pan out?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question 2.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a software as a service business, and it has a trade secret algorithm that only runs on the company's secure server. Can this algorithm or service be patented even though it has been &quot;on sale&quot; for over a year?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm pretty sure the answer here is yes. My reasoning is that the &quot;algorithm&quot; or &quot;service&quot; was never itself sold. Only the output of the algorithm was sold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46001" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17613" RevisionGUID="d4de2b25-0ca7-4c25-a3a8-237379c0dcff" CreationDate="2017-04-12T22:37:24.240" UserId="18866" Text="Patenting a trade secret algorithm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46002" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17613" RevisionGUID="d4de2b25-0ca7-4c25-a3a8-237379c0dcff" CreationDate="2017-04-12T22:37:24.240" UserId="18866" Text="&lt;public-disclosure&gt;&lt;on-sale&gt;&lt;patenting-an-algorithm&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17614" RevisionGUID="cdd2ced9-7fa9-419b-b428-66d3c394662f" CreationDate="2017-04-12T23:21:32.157" UserId="18867" Text="I know it is illegal to advertise an invention as &quot;patent pending&quot; unless a patent application has been filed. I also know that provisional patent applications are never actually examined (unless you reference or convert). They are also low cost to file (currently $65 for micro-entity status).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: If a company wants to be able to put &quot;patent pending&quot; on their invention, and they file a provisional patent application, but have *absolutely no intention of ever filing a regular patent application*, is that OK? Let's assume they are making a machine and they think it is not eligible for a patent. It's not novel. They've already been selling it for decades. etc. They file a provisional application anyway and put &quot;patent pending&quot; on their machine. Is that allowed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that the relevant law is &quot;35 USC 292 - False marking.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that someone could file a provisional application that says &quot;invention description: any possible arrangement of matter&quot; and then they could put &quot;patent pending&quot; on whatever they want for a year. Is that right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46004" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17614" RevisionGUID="cdd2ced9-7fa9-419b-b428-66d3c394662f" CreationDate="2017-04-12T23:21:32.157" UserId="18867" Text="Using provisional patent application only for &quot;patent pending&quot; status" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46005" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17614" RevisionGUID="cdd2ced9-7fa9-419b-b428-66d3c394662f" CreationDate="2017-04-12T23:21:32.157" UserId="18867" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;patent-pending&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46006" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="2eca620d-a6b8-47cc-9ffa-81e74c21ab7f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T00:19:26.353" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17593" RevisionGUID="6649e842-cdc1-498b-b12e-932713325f0a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T00:40:16.423" UserId="17003" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="My guess is that depending on the jurisdiction, yes you can patent an algorithm to predict sports outcomes. Whether you should is a different question. Eighteen months after you file an application it will publish which means everyone can see your algorithm. I'm assuming most people would use it for themselves such that it would be very difficult to prove infringement. On top of this, patents cost money both to draft if you use a lawyer or agent (and you should) and file. The process usually takes at least 3 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps better is to provide a service providing picks. People pay you for the pick. You aren't gambling yourself so it could likely be legal where you live. This way you can monetize your invention without disclosing it. The technical term for this is [Trade Secret][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46008" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="8ae39b2f-1d53-487d-b693-6821e829a773" CreationDate="2017-04-13T04:31:13.973" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17615" RevisionGUID="36b976cc-4e61-480d-9b73-da38b47c8712" CreationDate="2017-04-13T04:40:00.130" UserId="18869" Text="In reference to the patent: [EP1341498A4][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP1341498A4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46010" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17615" RevisionGUID="36b976cc-4e61-480d-9b73-da38b47c8712" CreationDate="2017-04-13T04:40:00.130" UserId="18869" Text="can these patent be used in research project in master in pharmacy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46011" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17615" RevisionGUID="36b976cc-4e61-480d-9b73-da38b47c8712" CreationDate="2017-04-13T04:40:00.130" UserId="18869" Text="&lt;ep1870511a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16214" RevisionGUID="65113168-bb88-48df-b478-ea3701c0f3d7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T05:29:14.223" UserId="15503" Comment="say what I mean" Text="You probably shouldn't do this. Even if you filed it in another person's name, you would still be the inventor (who must also satisfy the application filing limit).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;37 CFR 1.29(a) requires (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a) To establish micro entity status under this paragraph, the applicant must certify that: ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2) Neither the applicant nor **the inventor** nor a joint inventor has been named as the inventor or a joint inventor on more than four previously filed patent applications, other than applications filed in another country, provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(b), or international applications for which the basic national fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a) was not paid; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[MPEP § 509.04(a)](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s509.html) provides a bit of extra discussion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;All such applications naming the inventor or a joint inventor are counted toward the application filing limit, whether the applications were filed before, on, or after March 19, 2013. Further, it does not matter whether the previously filed applications are pending, patented, or abandoned; they are still included when counting to determine whether the application filing limit has been reached. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It therefore seems quite clear that you would not satisfy the requirements for claiming micro entity status.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The consequences of claiming the wrong entity status can be dire. There are a number of examples in the past relating to wrongly claimed small entity status, where the patents were consequently unenforceable. I would assume the outcome would be no different for wrongly claiming micro entity status." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46013" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16579" RevisionGUID="746f020d-18f4-4c40-b508-7f50cc316d82" CreationDate="2017-04-13T05:31:29.193" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17617" RevisionGUID="63c964b1-260a-4637-a27d-5ecae29dccb5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T07:29:44.097" UserId="17325" Text="Patent rights do not, in principle, extend to research activities. This means that universities and other research institutes are free to use patented technology within the course of their activities, provided that they are strictly for academic pursposes and not for business activities. A good overview of this and the legislation behind it can be found in the below article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Safe harbors in Europe: an update on the research and&#xD;&#xA;Bolar exemptions to patent infringement&quot;, *Nature Biotechnology*, 2015, volume 33, p.710&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar provisions exist worldwide, having their origins in Article 30 of the TRIPS agreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be a blur borderline between the terms &quot;on the patented invention&quot; vs &quot;with the patented invention&quot;, but this depends on the details of each case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your reference, EP1341498**A4** is the *search report* of patent *application* EP1341498**A2**, which never got granted, so it doesn't matter anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17618" RevisionGUID="fa3a5224-1964-470f-8304-d837d4aca661" CreationDate="2017-04-13T07:48:44.443" UserId="17325" Text="I submitted this question at the EPO Asian Info Helpdesk and in a nutshell, if you are not familiar with the Chinese language you need a chinese attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The legal basis for TPO's in China is Rule 48 of the Implementing Regulations. You need to file them in Chinese as per Rule 3 (but not the documents you might be referring to) and apparently it is not possible online, rather you have to adress it to SIPO directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I ever come to the point of having serious reasons to file TPO's with the SIPO, I will simply gather all relevant prior art documents and sent them to SIPO, along with a google-translated short passage like &quot;please find enclosed relevant prior art in respect of XXXXX patent application&quot;. And I will see what happens!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46019" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17615" RevisionGUID="114cdeb4-b7d7-4cbc-8d26-addab63b0b8a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T07:49:09.330" UserId="18033" Comment="edited title" Text="Can the invention from this patent be used in a research project in pharmacy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17619" RevisionGUID="266a5d07-381e-4b5c-b9b6-5acd6ab6ce31" CreationDate="2017-04-13T09:32:22.697" UserId="18033" Text="&gt;Fraudulent use of a patent pending designation is prohibited by the law of many countries and inventors should be cautious when marking products or methods that may arguably not be covered by any pending patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_pending&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Some persons mark articles sold with the terms “Patent Applied For” or “Patent Pending.” These phrases have no legal effect, but only give information that an application for patent has been filed in the USPTO. The protection afforded by a patent does not start until the actual grant of the patent. False use of these phrases or their equivalent is prohibited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/general-information-concerning-patents#heading-29&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the law you already cited: 35 USC 292 - False marking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Whoever marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with any article, the words “patent applied for,” “patent pending,” or any word importing that an application for patent has been made, when no application for patent has been made, or if made, is not pending, for the purpose of deceiving the public—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now arguably it does say that the use is only prohibited when no pending application exists, **but** it also says &quot;for the purpose of deceiving the public&quot;. I don't know any case law, but I'd interpret the combination to mean that having a provisional on everything would meet the deceiving part and I don't think a judge would believe that you thought you had a patent pending on your product. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for using patent pending if the application is not novel, I don't see why that wouldn't work, after all, you do have a pending patent. If however somebody were to prove that you filed it only to deceive the public, knowing it couldn't possibly pass, my guess is, you would lose that lawsuit and/or be fined. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17620" RevisionGUID="185040be-27d9-4696-b2ea-d02b0b6035ab" CreationDate="2017-04-13T09:50:57.960" UserId="18033" Text="Pre AIA MPEP (Manual of Patent Examining Procedure) states:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2133.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Likewise, there may be a nonpublic, e.g., “secret,” sale or offer to sell an invention which nevertheless constitutes a statutory bar. Hobbs v.United States, 451 F.2d 849, 859-60, 171 USPQ 713, 720 (5th Cir. 1971).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In similar fashion, not all “public use” and “on sale” activities will necessarily occasion the identical result. Although both activities affect how an inventor may use an invention prior to the filing of a patent application, “non-commercial” pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) activity may not be viewed the same as similar “commercial” activity. See MPEP § 2133.03(a) and § 2133.03(e)(1). Likewise, “public use” activity by an applicant may not be considered in the same light as similar “public use” activity by one other than  an applicant. See MPEP § 2133.03(a) and § 2133.03(e)(7). Additionally, the concept of “experimental use” may have different significance in “commercial” and “non-commercial” environments. See MPEP § 2133.03(c) and § 2133.03(e) - § 2133.03(e)(6). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2.Even If the Invention Is Hidden, Inventor Who Puts Machine or Article Embodying the Invention in Public View Is Barred from Obtaining a Patent as the Invention Is in Public Use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When the inventor or someone connected to the inventor puts the invention on display or sells it, there is a “public use” within the meaning of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) even though by its very nature an invention is completely hidden from view as part of a larger machine or article, if the invention is otherwise used in its natural and intended way and the larger machine or article is accessible to the public. In re Blaisdell, 242 F.2d 779, 783, 113 USPQ 289, 292 (CCPA 1957); Hallv. Macneale, 107 U.S. 90, 96-97 (1882); Ex parteKuklo, 25 USPQ2d 1387, 1390 (Bd. Pat. App. &amp; Inter. 1992) (Display of equipment including the structural features of the claimed invention to visitors of laboratory is public use even though public did not see inner workings of device. The person to whom the invention is publicly disclosed need not understand the significance and technical complexities of the invention.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some more information regarding commerciality etc. of the use, but I'm leaving that out because it wasn't part of your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under AIA (MPEP again):&#xD;&#xA;https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2152.html#ch2100_d20033_1e416_252&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As discussed previously, public use under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is limited to those uses that are available to the public. The public use provision of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) thus has the same substantive scope, with respect to uses by either the inventor or a third party, as public uses under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) by unrelated third parties or others under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As also discussed previously, once an examiner becomes aware that a claimed invention has been the subject of a potentially public use, the examiner should require the applicant to provide information showing that the use did not make the claimed process accessible to the public. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's essentially the same if the invention was part of a publicly sold product like you asked. (Question1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to question 2, as long as the invention hasn't been on sale or in public use, you should be fine. Determining exactly if the use was public use could prove difficult, for example, if a user can enter a query and get the result while the algorithm only runs on the server, that might be enough for public use. If however it is only used internally, that shouldn't be public use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17620" RevisionGUID="5fee81f5-2d1f-4b17-97fb-2af80b76de28" CreationDate="2017-04-13T10:08:41.827" UserId="18033" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="Pre AIA MPEP (Manual of Patent Examining Procedure) states:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2133.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Likewise, there may be a nonpublic, e.g., “secret,” sale or offer to sell an invention which nevertheless constitutes a statutory bar. Hobbs v.United States, 451 F.2d 849, 859-60, 171 USPQ 713, 720 (5th Cir. 1971).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In similar fashion, not all “public use” and “on sale” activities will necessarily occasion the identical result. Although both activities affect how an inventor may use an invention prior to the filing of a patent application, “non-commercial” pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) activity may not be viewed the same as similar “commercial” activity. See MPEP § 2133.03(a) and § 2133.03(e)(1). Likewise, “public use” activity by an applicant may not be considered in the same light as similar “public use” activity by one other than  an applicant. See MPEP § 2133.03(a) and § 2133.03(e)(7). Additionally, the concept of “experimental use” may have different significance in “commercial” and “non-commercial” environments. See MPEP § 2133.03(c) and § 2133.03(e) - § 2133.03(e)(6). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2.Even If the Invention Is Hidden, Inventor Who Puts Machine or Article Embodying the Invention in Public View Is Barred from Obtaining a Patent as the Invention Is in Public Use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When the inventor or someone connected to the inventor puts the invention on display or sells it, **there is a “public use” within the meaning of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) even though by its very nature an invention is completely hidden from view as part of a larger machine or article, if the invention is otherwise used in its natural and intended way and the larger machine or article is accessible to the public.** In re Blaisdell, 242 F.2d 779, 783, 113 USPQ 289, 292 (CCPA 1957); Hallv. Macneale, 107 U.S. 90, 96-97 (1882); Ex parteKuklo, 25 USPQ2d 1387, 1390 (Bd. Pat. App. &amp; Inter. 1992) (Display of equipment including the structural features of the claimed invention to visitors of laboratory is public use even though public did not see inner workings of device. The person to whom the invention is publicly disclosed need not understand the significance and technical complexities of the invention.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Emphasis added.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some more information regarding commerciality etc. of the use, but I'm leaving that out because it wasn't part of your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under AIA (MPEP again):&#xD;&#xA;https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2152.html#ch2100_d20033_1e416_252&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As discussed previously, public use under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is limited to those uses that are available to the public. The public use provision of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) thus has the same substantive scope, with respect to uses by either the inventor or a third party, as public uses under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) by unrelated third parties or others under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As also discussed previously, once an examiner becomes aware that a claimed invention has been the subject of a potentially public use, the examiner should require the applicant to provide information showing that the use did not make the claimed process accessible to the public. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's essentially the same if the invention was part of a publicly sold product like you asked. (Question1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to question 2, as long as the invention hasn't been on sale or in public use, you should be fine. Determining exactly if the use was public use could prove difficult, for example, if a user can enter a query and get the result while the algorithm only runs on the server, that might be enough for public use. If however it is only used internally, that shouldn't be public use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="872" RevisionGUID="c3b3b7e0-773a-4f84-ac76-474c3045e950" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:18:56.067" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/ with https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question is about the patent [Rest detection using accelerometer][1] (application 20120259578 filing date: April 7, 2011).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per my understanding the patent talks about using the Accelerometer  acceleration values and &quot;change in angle&quot; to detect whether the device is resting or processing an active user gesture. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But these same parameters are used as inputs in many mobile games. ([example1][2]) ([example2][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, the &quot;rest state&quot; is not well defined in the published document. In literal sense rest means: &quot;Cease work or movement&quot;, but to get a reading in the accelerometer and to get a change in the angle the device needs to move.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, are not the published claims too &lt;strike&gt;generic&lt;/strike&gt; obvious to be granted a patent ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120259578?dq=13/082,294&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=nMKXUPnmJc_KrAeS0ICIBg&amp;ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/27985/how-do-i-move-a-body-using-the-hardware-accelerometer&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://mashable.com/2008/12/03/iphone-games-accelerometer/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3419" RevisionGUID="0b33f6be-e5c2-42d2-ab1c-82d63d37474c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:47:29.940" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://dsp.stackexchange.com/ with https://dsp.stackexchange.com/" Text="Another option is avoiding the patents by using an alternative algorithm. I was going to suggest SURF as an alternative, but turns out it's patented as well! (Hmmm, BRB, have to go change some of my code... ;-)) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternative that is ostensibly patent-free is BRISK, according to the last answer at this link:&#xD;&#xA;https://dsp.stackexchange.com/questions/1288/what-are-some-free-alternatives-to-sift-surf-that-can-be-used-in-commercial-app&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kinda off-topic for this forum, but another benefit of using alternative algorithms are that many of them were developed later, incorporating various advances, and hence are often better than SIFT and SURF in various ways." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7734" RevisionGUID="c1727f11-a3b3-442e-b2a7-d00b77f4ad00" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:47:38.640" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/ with https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just restricted Google search results for [GPU bitcoin mining from 1/1/2009 to 7/10/2012][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quite a few references are made, including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[BitCoin History][2]: July 18, 2010 - [ArtForz][3] generated his first block after establishing his personal OpenCL GPU hash farm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And even here on StackExchange (May 5, 2012):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[When was the first GPU miner made available publicly?][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a post dated December 19, 2010 on the [OpenCL GPU miner][5], which was first available [October 1, 2010][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [CUDA miner][6] was released September 18, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea was [first suggested][7] on December 12, 2009 in an online forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is [source code][9] available for a [GPU miner][8] dated December 24, 2010 (Updated February 27, 2011). Would someone be willing to have a look at this code and compare it to the claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=gpu%20bitcoin%20mining&amp;safe=active&amp;es_sm=93&amp;biw=1920&amp;bih=971&amp;source=lnt&amp;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2009%2Ccd_max%3A7%2F10%2F2012&amp;tbm=&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Category:History&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ofnumbers.com/2014/04/20/how-artforz-changed-the-history-of-bitcoin-mining/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/3572&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=OpenCL_miner&amp;oldid=461&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/3573&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=12.msg52#msg52&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2444.0&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.mediafire.com/file/ve608cl5mk1ka3l/bitcoin-remote-rpc-20110227-src.zip" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12066" RevisionGUID="f5a6b9ac-438d-41ac-96b0-665a933b95f1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:51:27.047" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://startups.stackexchange.com/ with https://startups.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think you're misunderstanding what a copyright *does*. No, a copyright is no substitution for a patent, in any way, shape, or form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I posted an answer a few months ago on [Startups Stack Exchange](http://startups.stackexchange.com) which roughly describes the difference between these two mechanisms of intellectual property protection, [&quot;Can you copyright a program you have made from scratch?&quot;](https://startups.stackexchange.com/a/826/59) Clearly, that question is asking about code, rather than antennas, but the same theories apply nicely here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What that disclaimer (&quot;COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE...&quot;) is referring to is the *plans*. Looking at their designs as an amateur radio operator, I'm not seeing anything that looks to meet the bar for patentability, but I'm especially not seeing any patent numbers, or even &quot;patent pending&quot; footnotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Copyrights are not on-topic for Ask Patents, so I won't say too much here (although I will urge you to check out the answer I linked to before), but essentially, the protection this website is getting is on the graphics, text, and related artwork they've used. By law, copyrights aren't on anything *useful*--they're just for artwork (text, images, songs, movies, dances, and such). If I opened my own antenna store, basically, I wouldn't be allowed to copy and paste these images to sell this kind of antenna.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What they are *not* protecting, is the antenna itself. In this hypothetical store, I *would* be allowed to sell the type of antenna, indeed with even the same measurements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's true that by publishing these plans, they are barring someone else from getting a patent on the same antenna, although in this particular case, as I said, it's unlikely that anyone would be able to get one anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking to your general questions, they really depend on how you define &quot;design.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm seeing two possible definitions, to which the answers would vary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The design of the plans.&#xD;&#xA;2. The design of the antenna, in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first case, *nope*! The copyright is still theirs, so they can stop someone else, as I've described, from using the verbatim scripts on their own website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second case, *it depends*! The quote you cited does refer to the United States grace-period of one year, which is relevant here. It is, however, true that once you publish your work publicly, you stand the risk of someone else getting some valuable market time before your patent goes through (which can take a little while). You'll be able to stop them once your patent does come through, but sometimes that's too late. Marking your invention &quot;patent pending&quot; is really the best form of protection in that early stage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So ultimately, no. A copyright is not any form of protection towards the underlying utility of a product." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12664" RevisionGUID="e21b7eae-c02a-43f3-ab21-d27ee1ac3e0b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:51:27.047" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://startups.stackexchange.com/ with https://startups.stackexchange.com/" Text="I guess it depends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll answer this on the presumption that your invention is patentable. Note that not everything is, but deciding whether your particular invention is patentable is the job of a patent professional, or at least some more research than falls under the scope of this question. I'm also leaving out anything pertaining to Alice, and patentability of software in general. That's a pretty broad topic, and you'd likely be best to speak with a patent professional about that as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another really important thing to think about is that the United States offers a one-year grace period on patenting something post-public-disclosure, but other countries don't. You say you developed this a year ago, so if it was actually 366 days ago that you launched, or if you're looking for a patent in a country other than the United States, you've already lost your rights to patent anything you announced or made publicly visible at that time. If you're constantly improving or bringing in new features, and those are what you want to patent, that's not an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First off, when talking about software, you should ensure you understand the [differences between copyrighting and patenting your application](https://startups.stackexchange.com/a/826/59). Even that sentence simplifies the matter a bit more than I'd like for it to. I won't get into copyrights, but in essence, registering a copyright (and you don't, strictly speaking, *need* to register it) will protect you from people stealing your code verbatim. Legal practice is always more complicated than legal theory, but that's the fundamental conceit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent offers you protection, and I imagine you know this, to stop others from performing your invention, as described in the patent's claims. That means you'll have control over the algorithm--or whatever it is you're looking to obtain a patent on. In a pure open-source project, that may or may not matter. Particularly if you're going for the MIT license, or something similar that offers other developers a lot of rights, having a patent will probably just cost you money and not gain you anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you mention commercializing the software. If you're doing that, it can be beneficial to own the rights to stop other people from swooping in and stealing your implementations to sell as their own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, I can't tell you whether a patent is the right way to go or not. It's a business decision. Look at what your invention is, decide whether it's patentable (probably by speaking to a professional to whom you can disclose it), look at how much you intend to make, or how much you'd lose from other people stealing your code, and decide whether the (very approximately) $20,000 a patent might cost over its lifetime would be the best way to spend that money." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17367" RevisionGUID="a981b505-5001-45a9-993c-de72f21ff831" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:51:27.047" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://startups.stackexchange.com/ with https://startups.stackexchange.com/" Text="On your first point, you would typically apply for a patent in your home country first. Within the first year, you would then apply in other countries (such as the US) via Convention applications or alternatively via a PCT application. In this manner, you can protect your invention in whatever countries you deem worthwhile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should likely discuss this with a patent attorney in your country. Alternatively, your university may have a IP commercialisation arm which could help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your second and third points [edit: that have been edited out of the question as of topic] are off topic for this site (since we only deal with patents). [Startups](https://startups.stackexchange.com/) might be a good place to ask though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="143" RevisionGUID="a458c06a-1fce-462e-98ae-75b9e3088b8a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Look at the dependent claims and consider my answer to this question: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/133/is-toyota-really-the-first-to-use-a-camera-to-support-a-self-driving-car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot do a full prior art analysis just by looking a one independent claim, especially not the first claim of a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, you have to read the entire specification of the patent to determine whether any of the terms in the claims may have uncommon meanings attached to them.  The inventor is given latitude to &quot;act as his own lexicographer&quot; and assign peculiar meanings to terms.  When such terms are used in a patent claim, it may not be apparent to the casual reader that the claim has a meaning that differs from what one would normally expect.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="144" RevisionGUID="1142a813-3643-4825-9b4c-26edb0394a06" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="A short answer to your question is that employing different statistical methods **could** be sufficient novelty - but it depends on whether such a switch in approach would be a natural move for &quot;one of ordinary skill in the art.&quot;  Is such a move somehow counter-intuitive, or even contra-indicated?  Is the result unexpected?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More significantly, though, prior art analysis does not end with the first claim of a patent.  Please see my answers at https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/133/is-toyota-really-the-first-to-use-a-camera-to-support-a-self-driving-car and https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/109/microsoft-have-submitted-a-patent-for-a-whack-to-silence-a-phone-ringer-how-sim for some explanation of additional elements of the analysis.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="145" RevisionGUID="9439d62e-5ccc-4d9b-ac96-feaacd95f88c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="You quote claim 1 of the patent, and that may be (or be close to) common practice in the art.  Each claim of a patent, however, is a separate invention. In order invalidate all of the claims of a patent, it is necessary to perform prior art analysis for each claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not every element of a claim has to be novel.  Invalidating an independent claim does not necessarily invalidate any of its dependent claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please see my answers to these question: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/133/is-toyota-really-the-first-to-use-a-camera-to-support-a-self-driving-car and https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/109/microsoft-have-submitted-a-patent-for-a-whack-to-silence-a-phone-ringer-how-sim and https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/141/can-the-non-obviousness-of-an-invention-be-challenged-if-the-difference-to-prior for more detail on why addressing a single claim element or a single independent claim is not sufficient to invalidate all of the claims of a patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="286" RevisionGUID="74f4fb91-be21-433d-bb30-f8a019777642" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="After reading an answer to [this question](https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/282/should-i-patent-my-idea-before-posting-it-on-the-internet), I realized how often I see the term used in marketing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What kind of security level does a pending patent give you? &#xD;&#xA;- Why do so many companies use them? And what level of credibility do they offer? &#xD;&#xA;- If your patent is pending, does that mean it really could just be a flim flam idea but you haven't submitted any proof for it yet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="441" RevisionGUID="2f76d9e7-4711-4313-9472-6026f1af9c83" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="In response to a question related to multi-touch user interfaces [this answer][1] states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ## Prior art as published ##&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Multi-touch computer pads were used throughout the television show Star Trek: The Next Generation, which ran from 1987 to 1994. Additionally, the technologies were described in detail in the book &quot;The Star Trek Encyclopedia&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That leads me to a question whether a fictious technology mentioned in a science fiction work, when described in sufficient technical detail, can ever be submitted as a valid prior art? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note: Personally, I don't think so, because it is the result of the authors imagination, not a result of a scientific process. However, it would be interesting to read arguments for and against from a subject matter expert.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/409/128" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="548" RevisionGUID="ee09bedb-21df-4153-976e-3d61674e4c24" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON USER INTERFACE** - This patent from [RIM][6] claims the idea of... doubletap spacebar to insert periods and capitalize! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US Patent No. 6,396,482][1] - Hand-held electronic device with a keyboard optimized for use with the thumbs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking for prior art related to **claim 16**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of inputting characters into a mobile device having a keyboard and a display, the keyboard including a plurality of character keys and a space bar, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- (A) inputting a first set of characters into the mobile device using the keyboard, wherein the first set of characters comprise a first sentence; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- (B) selecting the space bar of the keyboard twice in succession and (1) displaying a period symbol (.) after the first sentence, and (2) instructing the mobile device to capitalize the next character input using the keyboard; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- (C) inputting a second set of characters into the mobile device using the keyboard, wherein the second set of characters comprise a second sentence, and wherein the first character in the second set of characters is automatically capitalized by the mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the patent has a filing date of **Jun 25, 1999**, so any relevant art must have been published before this date. This patent has been assigned to RIM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, this claim is directed to the familiar feature on modern smartphones of double tapping the spacebar at the end of a sentence to automatically insert a period. Additionally, the next character typed will be automatically capitalized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents?id=dmYLAAAAEBAJ&amp;zoom=4&amp;pg=PA1#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.qualcomm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="566" RevisionGUID="b071309a-57fe-4266-bb8f-f8b7f88812a9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="**At a minimum, I'd think they do not have a valid claim to the auto capitalization.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't found anything on the auto-insertion of the period, but the claim for autocapitalization documented in claims 16(B)2, which is getting ready to capitalize the next string, and 16(C), which describes actually doing so, appears to have prior art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Apple Newton][1], which was launched in developed in 1987 and discontinued in 1998, included autocapitalization of sentences, as documented [here][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now,  this auto-capitalization was not triggered by a double space; it appears to have been triggered by the insertion of a period.  But it seems that one could easily conclude that once there's art for a period-triggered capitalization, adding capitalization after a double-space triggered period isn't novel - the same period is triggering it, and only the way the period was generated seems new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: And... see @NickHildebrant's answer [here](https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/4455/14) which appears to have found prior art for a program recognizing a sentence end based on a double space. I wonder if anyone's currently paying BlackBerry to license this one - might be in their interest to file a post-grant challenge...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_%28platform%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://support.apple.com/kb/TA29815?viewlocale=en_US&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/mueDB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="693" RevisionGUID="4e262fc1-e891-4790-a822-4d1d33e14214" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="To hopefully further expound on [what user96 said][1], this patent sounds a whole lot like the [Interpreter Pattern](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpreter_pattern), but in patent-speak. One or more regular expressions would certainly constitute an appropriate set of grammars for certain actions (e.g., call a phone number), and for more complex grammatical rules, you could use a tool (ANTLR, Bison, Yacc, etc) to generate some code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I note that the filing date is 1996; the Interpreter Pattern was included in the Gang of Four's Design Patterns book in 1995, and must have been in general use before that date to have been included in the book. The diagrams also seem to be of ... well, computers. The fourth diagram of Bob and Alice IM-ing each other is nifty, but it's still probably just running the input through an implementation of the Interpreter Pattern. Am I overlooking something about this patent and/or these claims that was truly novel in 1996?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/680/288" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="845" RevisionGUID="5e03c3e5-bbfb-473f-98d2-4ad5535203ae" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="First, the patent system doesn't care about software licenses. Conversely, copyright doesn't care about patent licenses (it's automatic anyway). The only place where patents and copyright might interact is in licenses, which are contracts which might grant someone additional rights that they would not have given the restrictions imposed by patent and copyright laws (such as the right to perform a patented method or to distribute a piece of software).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, you can't patent a piece of software. Generally speaking, what is patented is not a device as such, but the way the device works. For example (prior art aside), you don't patent a Ford Model T, you patent a vehicle on four wheels, or a piston engine, etc. When it comes to software, what is really patented is the algorithm. See [What constitutes an original patentable idea in software?](https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/19/what-constitutes-an-original-patentable-idea-in-software) for a more in-depth treatment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you write a program that uses a novel algorithm, you may patent the algorithm. You must file the patent before you distribute the program, under any license (in the US, you have a 1-year grace period in some circumstances). The GPLv3 is a contract where the copyright holder declares that he will not enforce any patent that the software may relate to (I'm simplifying somewhat but that's the gist of it). Other licenses, including older versions of the GNU GPL, do not preclude having patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that it is possible to unknowingly write software that violates a patent, for example if the author independently rediscovered an algorithm. Thus even the GPLv3 does not guarantee that a piece of software is unencumbered by a patent, only that it is unencumbered by patents assigned to the grantor of the license.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1961" RevisionGUID="5e2a80bb-78ce-424b-83d1-22dcc524ce71" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="We are currently trying to set up a startup that sells a software product online. The software can be downloaded worldwide and paid for via Paypal. Our company is a limited liability company based in Germany.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We recently got mail from a US attorney stating that we are infringing a patent they own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent in question covers a process commonly used in software products and depicts a simple backup scenario. (More here: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/808/prior-art-for-onsite-backup-for-internet-based-data-processing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our feeling it that it is a classical example of a patent troll and that we might want to wait at least for the SHIELD act.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interesting thing is that in Germany that kind of patent does not exist (for some very good reasons I guess).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are not dependent on the US market and could block US visitors from entering our site. But would that be enough? What is the worst thing that could happen? Any advice on how to proceed would be great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2095" RevisionGUID="d56f9458-c3fb-4cdd-9f49-23f4bfd03f62" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="The situation: After I left a particular company, they applied for a patent &#xD;&#xA;on something I had worked on, and contacted me to sign the application.  &#xD;&#xA;Although I consider myself to be the primary _and sole_ inventor, &#xD;&#xA;the patent's lists the inventors as  1) my former boss, 2) myself in that order.&#xD;&#xA;I signed, and the patent was granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the time, I was uneasy about this, but simultaneously&#xD;&#xA;did not want to make an issue with my former employer, and as well&#xD;&#xA;was perhaps a bit star-struck by the possibility of a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now however, if I were to be asked, I would say that my boss was not an inventor&#xD;&#xA;at all (let alone the primary inventor).  I believe I can argue this case;&#xD;&#xA;for the purpose of this question, please assume that I can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question: does this in any way affect the validity/enforceability of the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have searched on the web and found some related material, but nothing&#xD;&#xA;that conclusively answers the question. It appears that it may hinge&#xD;&#xA;on whether the inventors are incorrectly listed &quot;with deceptive intent&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In the present case, I would guess that my former boss and I might be &#xD;&#xA;in disagreement, but I'm not sure how this translates to deceptive intent (or not).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related #1,&#xD;&#xA;Degnan &amp; Huskey, Inventorship: What Happens When You Don't Get It Right?&#xD;&#xA;http://www.hollandhart.com/files/Publication/c61a859b-4515-4ae5-9b0d-ea5df0761f79/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/142a44bb-f91b-4bb8-bc54-4d9dbd9447b9/InventorshipWhatHappens.pdf&#xD;&#xA;This article states:&#xD;&#xA;   *&quot;A patent is invalid unless it lists the first and true inventor or inventors of the claimed invention. Accordingly, if the inventive entity listed on an issued patent is incorrect and the patent cannot be corrected due to deceptive intent, the patent is invalid and the owners cannot enforce it.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related #2&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/37/what-should-i-do-if-my-name-is-missing-from-a-patent&#xD;&#xA;says &#xD;&#xA;*&quot;The patent owner faces some very serious problems with enforcement of patent rights if any inventor is not properly identified.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;but the context for this quote is focusing on _missing_ inventors rather than &#xD;&#xA;extraneous inventors and incorrect order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related #3, A slide set entitled *&quot;Who should a patent attorney include&#xD;&#xA;in List of Inventors, And why you need to leave the boss, technician, &#xD;&#xA;and yourself off the list&quot;.*&#xD;&#xA;http://www.mgiip.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Inventorship-in-U-S-Patent-Practice1.pdf&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3346" RevisionGUID="0d161494-15da-45bb-95c9-1dd38ff6f07b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm considering making a game that uses patent illustrations (from &lt;a href=&quot;http://contextfreepatentart.tumblr.com/&quot;&gt;Context-Free Patent Art&lt;/a&gt;) as graphics. I've read the answers to &lt;a href=&quot;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/44/are-text-and-images-in-the-patent-copyrighted/78#78&quot;&gt;Are text and images in the patent copyrighted?&lt;/a&gt;, which suggests that if a graphic is not explicitly copyrighted, it can be freely reproduced. However, I have some concerns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- When looking at the original patent, is the lack of a copyright notice in the patent sufficient to make sure the images in it are not copyrighted? This would seem to violate the Berne convention.&#xD;&#xA;- The game would be accessible across the world, not just in the US. How does this complicate things? Is it possible/likely that a challenge could be brought against the game in a non-US court?&#xD;&#xA;- I assume that I have to check that the images aren't trademarked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__What I'm looking for is a test I can apply to patent images to see if they are _reasonably safe_ for me to use in a game.__ The game design doesn't rely on any specific images being available, as long as _some_ are safe to use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3465" RevisionGUID="17df8988-d5d8-4181-87d8-d88adb16c4e9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="[The SHIELD Act][1] was reintroduced into Congress recently ([this question previously addressed SHIELD][2]), and I'm wondering if every single would be &quot;licensee/defendant&quot; instead of engaging in licensing negotiations will now just bring SHIELD motions to intimidate licensors. Thoughts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr845ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr845ih.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/2099/shield-act-progress" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3591" RevisionGUID="12f171ca-7c02-4245-adcd-5054cbab1cdd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="![enter image description here][9]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An **initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to the **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Johnson &amp; Johnson logo][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application attempts to patent the method of applying **cold** analgesics, that are **cold by virtue of being stored in a cold place**, to a sore muscle. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Method and Composition for Treating Pain**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/235947][1]  &#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130072575 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Johnson &amp; Johnson, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 19, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 21, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application relates to the method of treating pain by applying any **cold** analgesic. The main independent claim, if allowed, would cover the method of treating pain in a person by applying a cooled, unspecified analgesic to the region of pain. It requires the substance to have been placed in a cold place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of treating pain by topical application of an analgesic composition to the skin of a patient comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - placing an analgesic composition in an environment with a temperature of less than 10° Centigrade,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - keeping said analgesic composition in said environment for a period of time sufficient to reduce the temperature of said composition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - removing said composition from said environment, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - applying said composition topically to the region of pain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 09/19/2011** that discusses (1) cooling an analgesic; (2) applying the cooled analgesic to region of pain; (3) cooled analgesics in gel, soft solid, liquid, cream, ointment or aerosol form (taken from claim 5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][7] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][8] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130072575&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130072575&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/XQQ1qm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3833" RevisionGUID="22c94ff6-9e5a-46eb-ac6c-44d7cc910c28" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An **initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to the **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **HELP SAVE AMERICAN INDUSTRY AND THE WORLD'S OLDEST PROFESSION** - This application seeks to patent an online escort service.  According to the [inventor][6], “I had trouble finding dates when I was at MIT primarily because of the high male to female ratio, as well as my lack of social skills...The social problems I faced...eventually led me to (invent this technology).” 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Online Dating System**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  A method and system for balancing the supply of desirable users with the demand by other users to date them in an online dating system is provided. The method includes enabling a first user to make an offer to pay or to be paid a compensation for having a date with a second user. The offer made by the first user is transmitted to the second user. The second user responds to the first user by accepting, rejecting or making a counter offer. The first user and the second user are allowed to communicate only after any one of the users accepts an offer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110731 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Seeking Arrangements, Inc.][3]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Oct 26, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for balancing supply of and demand for dating desirable users in an online dating system, the method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving from a first user an offer to pay, or to be paid, a compensation to have a date with a second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transmitting said offer to said second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving a response from said second user to either accept, or reject, said offer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. allowing the two users to communicate only after said offer is accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claims 7, 12 and 15** specify further that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Compensation** could be selected from a group consisting of money, points, gifts and credits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Users could provide **review or rating** corresponding to the other user whom they have dated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The terms or conditions of the &quot;date&quot; could be **negotiated**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specification notes that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Invention should not be limited to the types of software operating system, web-server software, database software, software development language, server or client hardware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Give me $100 and I'll date you!** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/grT6Y.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 10/26/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (1) **offers to pay**; or&#xD;&#xA; (2) **offers to be paid** for **dating desirable users** in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Help protect American Industry!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/grT6Y.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130110731&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.seekingarrangement.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N34/normandin.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4033" RevisionGUID="b1b35426-3121-4f45-9c1b-d5baf6420bb6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="  **HELP SAVE MOBILE SEARCH** - This application from Google seeks to patent a system for finding open stores which are located near a user at the time of a search! 10 minutes of your time can narrow US Patent Applications.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before October, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a **search request** from a mobile user that includes both the **current time** AND the **location** of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying businesses which are **currently open** and **located near** the user; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Returning a search result page indicating a subset of businesses as currently open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses estimated **travel time** to estimate whether the business is “close enough” to the user. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: INDICATING LOCATION STATUS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of searching for currently open businesses from a mobile device.   The user’s device sends a search query, the current time and its location.  A search is performed based on the user’s search query.  A subset of results is selected based on operating hours of the business, current time, and travel time from the device location to the business.  The search results which are returned indicate which businesses are “currently open”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110822 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** October, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below::&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a query from a user device, a current time, and a location for the user device; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying results responsive to the query, the results including one or more business results that are each associated with a business location and operating hours; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting a subset of the business results as open results based on the operating hours of the business results, the current time, and travel times from the device location to the respective business locations; AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Providing data for a search engine results page that designates the subset of business results as open results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A user’s device sends user’s search query, current time and its location&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Businesses, their associated locations and business hours are identified from the query&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  A few items from this list are selected based on whether the businesses are currently open and the user is close enough to get to them before they close&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. A subset of businesses which are open is passed along to a search engine to return results (which presumably could return a list or a map).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and including **travel time** from the user’s device to the business to determine whether user will make it to the business before it closes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Show restaurants open now”** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/xLvPq.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130110822&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4068" RevisionGUID="da28e3e8-7a30-4447-a551-1664c3a0ff17" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="  **HELP SAVE HOME AUDIO** - This application from Creative Labs seeks to patent the general idea of optimizing audio output in a multi-speaker audio systems! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Comparing performance characteristics among multiple speakers; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Designating a **master speaker** with or without manual intervention; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Including a **bi-directional transceiver** on each speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND where the **performance characteristics** of each speaker are determined by ALSO uses frequency response, maximum sound level, gain, or speaker location, OR where the master speaker contains a microphone as well as speaker&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**HINT** - Did Dynaudio Air do this? Did any PA's in livesound have automatic setup and calibration based on one of the particular speakers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: METHOD FOR OPTIMIZING REPRODUCTION OF AUDIO SIGNALS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for optimizing audio output in a multi-speaker audio system.  The multi-speaker audio system includes a number of speakers, each of which contains a **bi-directional transceiver**.  The **performance characteristics** of each speaker is measured. The characteristics are compared with one another. One speaker is designated a **master speaker**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120148075 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Creative Labs, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for optimizing reproduction of audio signals from an apparatus for audio reproduction with the apparatus for audio reproduction having a variable number of speakers, the method including:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining performance characteristics of each of the variable number of speakers;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Comparing performance characteristics of each of the variable number of speakers with each other; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Designating a master speaker from the variable number of speakers either with or without manual intervention;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Wherein each of the variable number of speakers includes a bi-directional transceiver.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. The **performance characteristics** of each speaker is measured. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The performance characteristics are compared with one another.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. One speaker is designated a **master speaker**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Each speaker in the system contains a **bi-directional transceiver**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and and where **performance characteristics** of each speaker are determined by frequency response, maximum sound level, gain, or speaker location. Extra credit would include systems that do all of the steps above and also involve a one of these methods of measuring performance characteristic of the speakers in the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A &quot;schematic diagram&quot; of each speaker from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/eoBIP.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20120148075&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4086" RevisionGUID="23733737-74e7-4752-af3c-ba168310759e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="![enter image description here][8]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application has received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.  The applicant (or his attorney) was compelled to submit the prior art below to the US Patent Office after discovering it on Ask Patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **HELP SAVE MESH NETWORKING** —This application from Cisco seeks to patent a technique for authenticating devices seeking to join a mesh network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was **published before July 6, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     A device **sending an authentication packet** to an authenticated device in the mesh network (through one or more hops); &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.     The authenticated device **encapsulating** the authentication packet in **Layer 3 packets** for transmission over an **Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel** to an authenticator device; OR&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.     The authenticated device **receiving an authentication packet** that is encapsulated in Layer 3 packets from the authenticator, **decapsulating** the authentication packet, and **transmitting** it over the mesh network to the device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT ---**&#xD;&#xA;        	A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the authentication message is sent as a **Layer 2** message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses the **IEEE 802.1X standard**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the packets are transmitted **wirelessly**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO encapsulates the packet in **Universal Datagram Protocol (UDP)** Packets OR **Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)** Packets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the authenticator device forwards a **group mesh key** to the device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: ADAPTING EXTENSIBLE AUTHENTICATION PROTOCOL FOR LAYER 3 MESH NETWORKS**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** [Translated from Legalish into English] A method and apparatus for authenticating devices in a mesh network by routing authentication packets through the mesh network, over an IP tunnel, and to an authenticator device.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;•	**Publication Number:** &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US20130014217&quot;&gt;US 20130014217 A1&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Assignee:** Cisco&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Prior Art Date:** July 6, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Open for Challenge at USPTO: open at least through &lt;i&gt;July 10, 2013&lt;/i&gt;**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     At an authenticated device in a network, receiving an authentication packet sent over the network from a device that is seeking authentication; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     Encapsulating the authentication packet for transmission in Layer 3 packets over an Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel to an authenticator device associated in the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     A mesh node that wants access to the network sends an authentication message (this message can be sent, for example, as a Layer 2 or Layer 3 message) over the network to an already authenticated mesh node; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.     The receiving mesh node encapsulates the message in Layer 3 packets and sends it to an authenticator over an Internet Protocol (IP) network connection.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 10** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     An authenticated device in a network, receiving an authentication packet that is encapsulated in Layer 3 packets from an authenticator device over an Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     Decapsulating the authentication packet from the Layer 3 packets and transmitting the authentication packet over the network to a device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     The authenticator sends an authentication message in Layer 3 packets over an IP network connection to an already authenticated mesh node; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.     The authenticated mesh node decapsulates the authentication message from the Layer 3 packets and sends the message back over the network to the node that requested access.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 13** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;An apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     A transceiver unit configured to transmit and receive signals over a network; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2.     A processor coupled to the transceiver unit, the processor configured to, for an authentication packet received from a device that is seeking authentication in the network, encapsulate the authentication packet for transmission in Layer 3 packets over an Internet protocol (IP) tunnel to an authenticator device associated in the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     A wireless device that can receive an authentication message from another device and encapsulate that message into Layer 3 packets to be sent to an authenticator over an IP network connection.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 20** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;One or more computer readable storage media encoded with software comprising computer executable instructions and when software is executed operable to:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.     For an authentication packet received from a device that is seeking authentication in a network, encapsulate the authentication packet for transmission in layer 3 packets over an Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel to an authenticator device associated in the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     Any memory device that stores software instructions for a controller to encapsulate messages in Layer 3 packets to be sent to an authenticator over an IP network connection.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Claim 24** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The computer readable storage media of claim 20, and further comprising instructions that are operable to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.     For an authentication packet encapsulated in Layer 3 packets received from the authenticator device over the IP tunnel, decapsulate the authentication packet from the Layer 3 packets and to control a transceiver unit to transmit the authentication packet to the device seeking authentication.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.     Any memory device that stores software instructions for a controller to decapsulate authentication messages from the Layer 3 packets and transmit them to the node seeking access to the network.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Separately,** the applicant is claiming a method where the authenticator transmits a **group mesh key** to the device seeking access, where the key is known only to authenticated devices, and where all packets not encrypted with the mesh key and not part of the authentication negotiation are **dropped** by nodes in the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;What is good prior art? Please see our &lt;a href=&quot;https://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post prior art you know about][3] on other questionable US patent applications.&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/851CF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/UVGON.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4192" RevisionGUID="83236bd0-f0ab-42d8-b2c0-3278208cfb2a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="**To create a prior-art-request**, [any user can follow the prior art request format][4] and ask the AskPatents community for help finding prior art on a US Patent Application on [AskPatents][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Current Prior Art Requests on AskPatents**][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**How to Submit a Prior Art Request**][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As revised by the **America Invents Act** (AIA), [35 U.S.C. § 122(e)][1] expands the opportunity for third-party pre-issuance submissions in US patent cases. Anyone is permitted to submit published documents ('printed publications') that are relevant to the examination of a pending application along with a concise explanation of the importance of the documents submitted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The AIA provides the general standards for preissuance submissions of patents, published patent applications, or other printed publications in patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preissuance submissions may be filed by any member of the public, including private persons and corporate entities such as [AskPatents][3].  The only limitation is that the third party may not be the applicant or any individual who has a duty to disclose information with respect to the application under [37 C.F.R. § 1.56][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Requirements - [submissions may be done anonymously and electronically][5], but must include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A list identifying the items being submitted; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a concise description of the relevance of each item listed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a legible copy of each non-U.S. patent document listed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. an English language translation of any non-English language item listed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. a statement by the party making the submission that the submission complies with the statute and the rule; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. the required fee ($0 if fewer than three-documents submitted).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the Examiner raises a rejection in view of the submitted document, only the applicant, not the third party, can respond.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The good news is that [AskPatents][3] was created specifically to facilitate the submission of pre-issuance submissions to the USPTO.  Any interested user on AskPatents can create a [prior-art-request][3] on a US Patent Application.  Other users submit proposed prior art. After a suitable period to solicit exemplary prior art, the best prior art is vetted by volunteer lawyers and submitted to the USPTO by the AskPatents community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://usptopost-grant.com/35-usc-%C2%A7-122/&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.56&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/q/47/1767&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/independent/eye/201210/inventorseye_advice.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4221" RevisionGUID="c8a9b479-8883-4a36-996b-d58922364d3b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON RFID Spacers** - This application seeks to patent the idea of... RFID spacers! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything else that was **published before Jan, 2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[us20110234383][1] (recently issued as [8,576,051][2], see [this answer][3])appears to be nothing more than **a patent for placing a foam spacer on the RFID tag to keep it away from the body of the runner**. These have been in use for as long as I can remember since RFID tags do not operate when directly placed in contact with an object that absorbs RF such as the human body or metal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, this blog post made within days of the application date http://rfidtiming.com/tech-talk-the-great-spacer-debate/ explains the problem and the solution that this patent filer is claiming to have invented. At the time of the blog post, the solution of using a foam spacer (explicitly noted in claim 64) was not new or novel. The post is notable in that it was explaining the problem that was known to anybody skilled in the art and the solution that was by then the accepted practice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note http://www.schreiner-group.com/3/company/press-room/schreiner-logidata/rfid-foam-label/ is a product with a press-release date of Aug-2010, a year before the application date. A simple google search for &quot;rfid tag foam spacer&quot; will return a number of products going back 5+ years before the application date. The problem was well known and the solution well implemented before 2011. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110234383&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8576051&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/5912/1767&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4222" RevisionGUID="58681d7a-a16f-4230-86e2-23025d912425" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="A few comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The question is whether the &quot;linear motion battle system&quot; you intend to build infringes any issued US Patents.  These could be owned by Namco Bandai or other companies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Because modern technology is complex, determining infringement is complex. If you are concerned that patents may have been issued on the linear motion battle system which you intend to build, you should have a prior art search done by a [patent agent (or a patent attorney)][45] before building it. The goal would be to determine whether you need to invent around any specific patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. A number of [active contributors to Ask Patents][46] are patent agents or patent attorneys who do prior art searches on a regular basis.  You should feel free to reach out any of them directly to discuss your project.  Most would give a quick initial consultation for free to discuss fees and scope of work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. That said, here is a list of recent issued patents assigned to Namco Bandai which involve linear motion.  You can use Google Patent search to read these patents. You would want to pay particular attention to the claims of the patents, not the title or the abstract, to determine what invention specifically has been claimed by Namco.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**44 Recent US Patents assigned to Namco related to Linear Motion**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US8262477B2][1]	Information storage medium, game device, and method of controlling game device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US8210941B2][2]	Medium position detection device, display device, game device and token game device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US8142277B2][3]	Program, game system, and movement control method for assisting a user to position a game object&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7922584B2][4]	Image generation method and information storage medium with program for video game in which operation of the controller beyond a predetermined angle causes a character to attack&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7918729B2][5]	Program product, image generation system, and image generation method&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7881521B2][6]	Rotational image generation method, program, and information storage medium and virtual camera&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7796132B1][7]	Image generation system and program&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7724255B2][8]	Program, information storage medium, and image generation system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7722450B2][9]	Game system, program, and information storage medium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7710419B2][10]	Program, information storage medium, and image generation system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7566273B2][11]	Game system and image generating method&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7367887B2][12]	Game apparatus, storage medium, and computer program that adjust level of game difficulty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7341188B2][13]	Position detection system, game system, and control method for position detection system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7312804B2][14]	Program product, image generation method and image generation system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7281981B2][15]	Image generation method, program, and information storage medium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7129945B2][16]	Image generation method, program and information storage medium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7116334B2][17]	Game system and image creating method&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7088366B2][18]	Image generation method, program, and information storage medium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7091972B2][19]	Image generation of shadows utilizing a modifier volume gap region&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7046242B2][20]	Game system, program and image generating method&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7042463B2][21]	Image generating system and program&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7014562B2][22]	Video game machine and after-image display method of video game machine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US7015908B2][23]	Image generation system and information storage medium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6927777B2][24]	Image generating system and program&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6891534B2][25]	Method, apparatus, storage medium, program, and program product for generating image data of virtual space&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6890261B2][26]	Game system, program and image generation method&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6850242B1][27]	Image generating system and program&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6828969B2][28]	Game system, program and image generating method&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6798402B1][29]	Received-light pattern detection apparatus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6795082B2][30]	Image generation system, program and image generation method&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6749514B1][31]	Game system and information storage medium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6663491B2][32]	Game apparatus, storage medium and computer program that adjust tempo of sound&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6642917B1][33]	Sign perception system, game system, and computer-readable recording medium having game program recorded thereon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6537153B2][34]	Game system, program and image generating method&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6448970B1][35]	Image generation apparatus for causing movement of moving body based on flow data for a fluid set on a course, and information storage medium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6388667B1][36]	Image generation device and information storage medium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6320988B1][37]	Skeleton model shape transformation method, image synthesizing apparatus, and information storage medium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6206783B1][38]	Control input device and game system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US6139473A][39]	Action input device for simulator, and simulator using the same&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US5997303A][40]	Rotary sliding device and a simulator using the same&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US5704837A][41]	Video game steering system causing translation, rotation and curvilinear motion on the object&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US5723802A][42]	Music instrument which generates a rhythm EKG&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US5707060A][43]	Medal dropping game machine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [US5598516A][44]	Image synthesizing system and video game apparatus using the same&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US8262477B2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US8210941B2&#xD;&#xA;  [3]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US8142277B2&#xD;&#xA;  [4]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7922584B2&#xD;&#xA;  [5]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7918729B2&#xD;&#xA;  [6]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7881521B2&#xD;&#xA;  [7]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7796132B1&#xD;&#xA;  [8]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7724255B2&#xD;&#xA;  [9]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7722450B2&#xD;&#xA;  [10]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7710419B2&#xD;&#xA;  [11]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7566273B2&#xD;&#xA;  [12]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7367887B2&#xD;&#xA;  [13]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7341188B2&#xD;&#xA;  [14]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7312804B2&#xD;&#xA;  [15]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7281981B2&#xD;&#xA;  [16]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7129945B2&#xD;&#xA;  [17]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7116334B2&#xD;&#xA;  [18]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7088366B2&#xD;&#xA;  [19]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7091972B2&#xD;&#xA;  [20]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7046242B2&#xD;&#xA;  [21]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7042463B2&#xD;&#xA;  [22]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7014562B2&#xD;&#xA;  [23]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US7015908B2&#xD;&#xA;  [24]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6927777B2&#xD;&#xA;  [25]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6891534B2&#xD;&#xA;  [26]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6890261B2&#xD;&#xA;  [27]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6850242B1&#xD;&#xA;  [28]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6828969B2&#xD;&#xA;  [29]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6798402B1&#xD;&#xA;  [30]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6795082B2&#xD;&#xA;  [31]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6749514B1&#xD;&#xA;  [32]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6663491B2&#xD;&#xA;  [33]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6642917B1&#xD;&#xA;  [34]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6537153B2&#xD;&#xA;  [35]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6448970B1&#xD;&#xA;  [36]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6388667B1&#xD;&#xA;  [37]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6320988B1&#xD;&#xA;  [38]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6206783B1&#xD;&#xA;  [39]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6139473A&#xD;&#xA;  [40]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US5997303A&#xD;&#xA;  [41]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US5704837A&#xD;&#xA;  [42]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US5723802A&#xD;&#xA;  [43]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US5707060A&#xD;&#xA;  [44]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US5598516A&#xD;&#xA;  [45]:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_attorney#United_States&#xD;&#xA;  [46]:  https://patents.stackexchange.com/users?tab=reputation&amp;filter=all" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46052" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4228" RevisionGUID="8c5a5dda-ec0b-4c96-a1b7-9c122be8ebdd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON E-READERS** - This application from [Qualcomm][6] seeks to patent the idea of... detecting the user’s reading speed and controlling an electronic display! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Determining a reading speed** of a user; AND &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **Automatically advancing text** on a display based on reading speed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses modification of **brightness**, **contrast**, **font size**, or **resolution** to draw the user’s attention outside the user’s current **area of interest** (basically, to move the eye toward the next chunk of text). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: ELECTRONIC READER DISPLAY CONTROL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of using **reading speed** of a user to advance text within an electronic display.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130152014 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/323,338&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Qualcomm, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying text on a mobile display device, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining a **reading pane** of a display screen operatively coupled with the **mobile display device**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Presenting **text** to a user in the reading pane;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining a **reading speed** of the user based on **user input**; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Automatically **advancing the text** within the reading pane based on the determined reading speed of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying text on a mobile device, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a **reading pane** on the screen;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Displaying text in the reading pane;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Using input from the user to determine the **reading speed** of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Advancing the text within the reading pane based on the reading speed of the user.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and using modification of **brightness**, **contrast**, **font size**, or **resolution** to draw the user’s attention outside the user’s current **area of interest** (basically, to move the eye toward the next portion of text to be read). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Automatic Scroll on Mobile Device&quot; screen shots from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/XvAkC.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130152014?dq=US20130152014A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.qualcomm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4320" RevisionGUID="9a93eab2-81bd-495c-9a60-f54a3b13827b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON CUSTOMIZING A WEBSITE** - This issued patent seeks to patent the idea of... building a user profile by watching user behavior on a website! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on Twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Patent:** [U.S. Patent No. 6,330,592](http://www.google.com/patents/US6330592)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** Have you seen anything published **before Dec. 5, 1998** that discusses: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Tracking visitor interests according to what content they access&#xD;&#xA;2. Categorizing dynamically-generated content according to categories of interests&#xD;&#xA;3. Caching dynamically-generated content and serving cached versions to subsequent users who exhibit those interests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 is representative and claims &quot;A method of customizing a web site, said method comprising&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. labeling content of the web site;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. when at least one visitor accesses the content of a web site, registering the labeled accessed content in a personalized data file;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. storing the data file for the at least one visitor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. generating at least one pre-customized display for a first visitor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. caching the at least one pre-customized displays on the server computer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. displaying the at least one pre-customized display to the first visitor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. analyzing the data file of a second visitor and associating the second visitor with the at least one pre-customized display, wherein analyzing is performed after generating; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. displaying the at least one pre-customized display to the second visitor, wherein the at least one pre-customized display is not regenerated before displaying the at least one pre-customized display to the second visitor.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**SPECIAL NOTE:** &quot;**Pre-customized display**&quot; means **pre-associated with some category or other means of tracking visitor interests**. The rest is all **fairly close to plain English**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Claim 11&#xD;&#xA;Claim 11 is probably the broadest; and so the easiest to find prior art for. It claims &quot;A computer readable memory that can direct a web site server computer to function in a specified manner, comprising&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. visitor files stored in said computer memory of said web site server computer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. pre-customized web content items stored in said computer memory of said web site server computer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. executable instructions stored in said computer memory of said web site server computer, said executable instructions including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    a. instructions to access an existing visitor file for a visitor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    b. instructions to review data in existing visitor file to determine visitor preferences; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    c. instructions, based on said visitor preferences, to provide pre-customized files to visitor.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**SPECIAL NOTE** Term that need clarification:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **visitor file**: A file on the server that tracks visitor preferences and interests.&#xD;&#xA;- **web content item**: The spec has defined this very broadly, encompassing &quot;Any item that can be accessed and viewed by a visitor, such as an entire web page, a component of a web page, an insertion into a web page or a graphic link.  Web Content Items can be defined through a markup language, including, but not limited to, HTML.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- **pre-customized**: means the same thing it did in Claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Ideally, prior art will embody each of the limitations (list items) for one of the claims above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA; [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4419" RevisionGUID="a40168dc-9068-45f0-b7bc-b1d116560262" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON COMPUTER MONITORING** - This issued patent seeks to patent the idea of... controlling a remote computer! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on Twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent seems like the natural (to me) extension of Expect to a GUI--and I'm guessing it wasn't the first time that principle was applied.  It seems like it covers any sort of remote programmatic interaction with a machine too, which sure seems broad to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Patent**: **[7,870,504][1]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title** Method for monitoring a graphical user interface on a second computer display from a first computer &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for using a first computer system to remotely monitor and interact with the operation of a second computer system through a graphical user interface of said second computer system, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a bitmap image of said second computer system graphical user interface at said first computer system;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. searching said bitmap image of said second computer system graphical user interface for a first graphical element contained within and comprising less than said bitmap image through an automated execution of said first computer system commands;&#xD;&#xA;responsive to said receiving step and results of said searching step, generating a user peripheral input device input action within said second computer system graphical user interface as interpreted by said second computer by automatically creating and passing a signal through a communications channel from said first computer system to said second computer system graphical user interface;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. monitoring said bitmap image of said second computer system graphical user interface automatically from said first computer system for an expected second graphical element contained within and comprising less than said bitmap image within a predetermined time interval; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. signaling a failure at said first computer system if said predetermined time interval elapses without detecting said expected second graphical element&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]:  http://www.google.com/patents/us7870504&#xD;&#xA; [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA; [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4554" RevisionGUID="1e8a3613-cf70-4570-9a6a-5a4db572623a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON FILTERING TWITTER FEEDS FROM BUSINESS CONTACTS** - This application from [Salesforce.com][6] seeks to patent the idea of... filtering feeds associated with individuals in a business directory matching a search query (e.g. data managers) and displaying the filtered feed on a computer! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Aug 18, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of **FILTERING BUSINESS CONTACTS**; aggregating twitter feeds from the filtered contacts; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Searching within the **FILTERED TWITTER FEED**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO enables the user to **CONTACT** members of the filtered network feed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: VIEWING A CONTACT NETWORK FEED IN A BUSINESS DIRECTORY**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalish into English] A method of filtering individuals, receiving feeds from the filtered individuals, and (optionally) contacting some of the individuals, who may or may be preexisting contacts. For example, a system outputs the twitter feeds from the data center managers that mention a competitor's specific product and (optionally) allowing you to contact some of these data center managers to say, “Hey! buy my product instead”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159434 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/558,577&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Salesforce, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Aug 18, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for viewing a contact network feed in a business directory environment, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Searching, based on a user specified search, a business directory to determine contacts;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying network feeds associated with the contacts;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Outputting the network feeds;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Filtering, based on a user specified filter, the network feeds to determine filtered network feeds; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Outputting the filtered network feeds to a display device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for filtering (e.g., twitter) feeds, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Searching a business directory to find individuals (potential contacts); and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying network feeds associated with these individuals and getting the feed data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Creating a filtered network feed based on the network feeds and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying the filtered network feed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Aug, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming enabling the user to **CONTACT** members of the filtered network feed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Viewing a network feed in a business directory environment” from Salesforce**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/99FJx.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159434?dq=US20130159434A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.salesforce.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4580" RevisionGUID="b69debb9-50e0-4e7b-922a-53bbed846f09" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" ![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application was given a &quot;**final rejection**&quot; by the US Patent Office. An applicant has several ways to keep an application in this state alive. They include a request for continuing examination. It just involves paying more fees and responding to the rejection. Appealing the rejection is another avenue. If nothing is done it will go abandoned six months from the final rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the grounds for rejection (can be seen in Public PAIR) are based on things the applicant themselves cited to the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON PREDICTING ADVERTISER KEYWORD PERFORMANCE** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...predicting keyword performance for an advertiser by how the keyword has performed for similar advertisers! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 27, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of predicting **KEYWORD PERFORMANCE** for an advertiser who has not previously bid on the keyword; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying **SIMILAR ADVERTISERS** and using that to predict the performance expected from the subject keyword;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **EUCLIDIAN DISTANCE BETWEEN ATTRIBUTES BETWEEN ADVERTISERS** to estimate similarity between advertisers; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **CATEGORY**, **QUALITY SCORE**, **PAY-PER-CLICK**, **BID**, **ADVERTISER VERTICAL**, **GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION**, **DAY-TARGETING**, **DAY-PARTING**, **KEYWORDS IN COMMON** to estimate the performance expected from the keyword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PREDICTION OF USER RESPONSE TO RECEIVED DATA**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Within an online advertising system, a method of predicting keyword performance for an advertiser who has not previously bid on a keyword by identifying a similar advertiser who has used the same keyword and using the keyword’s previous performance to provide an expected result for the current advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130166371 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/337,709&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 27, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 27, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; {A METHOD} for predicting advertiser **keyword performance indicator** values, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a keyword from a first advertiser, whereinthe first advertiser has **not previously bid on the keyword**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying at least one other **advertiser that is similar** to the first advertiser and has previously bid on the keyword; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  calculating at least one predicted **performance indicator value** for the keyword for the first advertiser based upon at least one established performance indicator value of the keyword for the at least one other advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for detecting expected keyword performance for an advertiser, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving from the advertiser a keyword which the advertiser has not previously bid on; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a 2nd advertiser similar to the advertiser; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Predicting the performance of the keyword (based on any metric) for the subject advertiser based on the performance of the keyword for the similar advertiser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 15, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a **EUCLIDIAN DISTANCE BETWEEN ATTRIBUTES BETWEEN ADVERTISERS** to estimate similarity between advertisers; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **CATEGORY**, **QUALITY SCORE**, **PAY-PER-CLICK**, **BID**, **ADVERTISER VERTICAL**, **GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION**, **DAY-TARGETING**, **DAY-PARTING**, **KEYWORDS IN COMMON** to estimate the performance expected from the keyword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Predicting advertiser keyword performance indicator values” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Ib77Z.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130166371?dq=US20130166371A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4624" RevisionGUID="70495408-e23b-471a-9aaf-1ad13548d89d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON IN-FLIGHT/IN-CAR NETWORKING** - This application from [Lear Corporation][6] seeks to patent the idea of...a gateway from the Internet to a vehicle! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 15, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - embedding an **HTTP request** in a **[CAN][7] bus-compatible message** and transmitting the CAN bus-compatible message onto a CAN bus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO is compatible with **Ethernet** or communicates with a **Server**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: INTERNET TO VEHICLE GATEWAY AND CONTROL SYSTEM**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A which translates from HTTP to the standard vehicle bus: controller area network ([CAN bus][7]) and a controller on the vehicle which responds to the HTTP request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159586 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/712,293&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Lear Corporation &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 15, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Find Prior Art on Google**:  **[Google Link][8]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A control system for a vehicle, the control system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a gateway controller configured to embed an HTTP request in a CAN bus-compatible message and transmit the CAN bus-compatible message onto a CAN bus; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a remote controller configured to receive the CAN bus-compatible message from the CAN bus, extract the HTTP request from the CAN bus-compatible message, and create an HTTP response to the HTTP request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A vehicle control system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A gateway from the Internet (HTTP) to a vehicle (CAN bus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A controller on the vehicle which receives CAN bus, extracts HTTP request and creates an HTTP response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 15, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using gateway which ALSO is compatible with **Ethernet** or communicates with a **Server**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Controllers communicate through a CAN bus in a vehicle and connected through a gateway controller with an Ethernet network” from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/mXpEO.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;300&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130159586&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.lear.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN_bus&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130159586" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="37cbe6ba-1e18-4bd7-a9d8-730adea987b8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" ![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application was given a &quot;**final rejection**&quot; by the US Patent Office. An applicant has several ways to keep an application in this state alive. They include a request for continuing examination. It just involves paying more fees and responding to the rejection. Appealing the rejection is another avenue. If nothing is done it will go abandoned six months from the final rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the grounds for rejection (can be seen in Public PAIR) are based on scientific publications by the applicants themselves.&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ANALYZING A WEBPAGE** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...extracting information blocks from a webpage based on text and visual layout! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Webpage extraction through page structure and sentences**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for extracting entities in a webpage using a **text understanding component** and a **visual layout extraction&quot; component**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110078554 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 12/569,912&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Sep 30, 2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. In a computing environment, a system comprising, at least one processor, a memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and including components comprising, a framework configured to process a webpage to understand one or more entities of the webpage, the framework including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a text understanding component and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to provide text-related data to the structure understanding component,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the structure understanding component configured to use the text-related data and visual layout features of the webpage to produce a labeled block,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the text understanding component configured to use the labeled block to understand text of the one or more entities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for processing a webpage, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A text understanding component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A visual layout (&quot;structure&quot;) understanding component; where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The text component provides data to the visual layout component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The visual layout component produces a labeled block based on the visual layout and the text; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. The text understanding component uses the labeled block to &quot;understand&quot; the text of an entity on the webpage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Sep 30, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A natural language processing framework for labeling webpages” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/V9vSS.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110078554&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4680" RevisionGUID="f70f547b-d48f-4fe2-8f17-6c8a5660159f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Wireless Audio** - This application from [Logitech][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Forwarding a media stream from a first media output device to a second media output device! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/25/2011** that discusses:																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sharing a media stream between two media devices																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO terminates the first media stream when it is transferred to a second media device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: EASY SHARING OF WIRELESS AUDIO SIGNALS**																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A user commands (with voice, button, gesture, anything) a first media output device (e.g. an iPhone) to stream to a second media output device (e.g. a TV)																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130117693 A1][2]																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/567,203																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Logitech																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/25/2011																			&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/5/2013																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method comprising:																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving, at a first media output device, streaming media from a media source device;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. receiving, at the first media output device, a command by motion or voice to share the streaming media with a second media output device; and																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. initiating, by the first media output device, sharing of the streaming media between the first media output device and the second media output device.																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Streaming media to a media output device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving a command to transfer the streaming media to a second media output device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Streaming the media from the first media output device to the second media output device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/25/2011																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO where the first media output stream is terminated when it is streaming to a second media device																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;----------																			&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;easy sharing of media from one media output device from a first user to a media output device of a second userfrom the Applicant&quot;**																			&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/SUsfP.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;----------																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;																			&#xD;&#xA;----------																			&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant																			&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130117693?dq=US20130117693A1																			&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art																			&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant																			&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.logitech.com																																				" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46060" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4707" RevisionGUID="3a0e38ec-ad6a-4e0b-b5e5-ea457a9ad3c1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON SOFTWARE BUILD SYSTEMS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SAP is trying to patent... Makefiles and other build systems that combine a platform-independent configuration file with platform-specific templates to create platform-specific build systems. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Jan, 2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Creating a platform-specific Makefile by combining a platform-independent Makefile and a platform-specific template Makefile?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Unified Software Build System**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130198717 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: SAP&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** January 2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Feb 1, 2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below::&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving the unified build system configuration file in a computer system, the unified build system configuration file comprising at least one platform-independent build system configuration&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Generating, using the computer system, at least one platform-specific build system configuration from the at least one platform-independent build system configuration&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting at least one template for the unified build system configuration file, the template selected from among templates corresponding to each of multiple platforms&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generating the one or more build system build files for at least one of the multiple platforms using the platform-specific build system configuration and the selected template; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Providing the generated one or more build system build files in response to the unified build system configuration file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is already pretty much in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://google.com/patents/US20130198717&#xD;&#xA; [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46061" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4714" RevisionGUID="228b21c4-44a6-4138-a8f9-6868722a7957" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON an advertising unit consisting of a content feed** - This application from [Outbrain][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Creating a content feed and using it as an advertising unit! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/18/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Content feeds used as an advertising unit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO classifies content so as to create an advertising unit around a specific topic (e.g. Golfing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Advertising content with a content feed on a specific topic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Creating an advertising unit consisting of a content feed from content which is frequently changing and on a specific topic (e.g. a Golfing advertising unit consisting of Golfing content)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130132191 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/676,471&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Outbrain&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/18/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving data indicating a data feed to use to create a feed-based advertisement to represent content, that is to be advertised, of a content provider;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. receiving the data feed that is associated with the content to be advertised;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. generating, by a server computer the feed-based advertisement using one or more data elements associated with an item in the data feed; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. providing the feed-based advertisement to a user device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a data feed of content from a content provider who wishes to advertise its content&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Creating a feed-based advertisement unit based on the data feed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Sending the feed-based advertisement to a user (presumably to display on his device)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/18/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming categorizing the content to create advertising feeds around specific topics (e.g golfing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;providing feed-based advertisements using a data feed.from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/q0zPQ.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132191?dq=US20130132191A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.outbrain.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4732" RevisionGUID="b5b721ca-516e-402d-ad57-e72d977e6f90" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is somewhat similar to another prior art request on Ask Patents: [URL pointing to time of video][1].  The answers there may be applicable for some of the claims here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/611/url-pointing-to-time-of-video-google-patent-application-prior-art-request" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4741" RevisionGUID="b5e642ca-f346-432e-99e9-d78a797b3a64" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT on managing online distribution based on location** - This application from [Google][6] seeks to patent the idea of...managing content distribution based on geographic limitations! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2009** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Returning a search results query that only shows content which can be distributed in a location selected by the searcher&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves publishers reviewing distribution locations of content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Publisher review of proposed geo-targeted content**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] a method by which publisher can review proposed geo-targeted content items to determine whether the content items include any offensive material, whether the content items are composed in an acceptable format, or whether the content items should be approved or disapproved for any other reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130138487 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/513,325&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for managing content distribution, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving content information regarding content items for distribution and how the content items are to be distributed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving publication information regarding locations where content items are to be distributed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Updating, by at least one processor based on the received content information and publication information, a searchable data structure that relates the content information and the publisher information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving a search query regarding content items that are related to at least one location where content is to be distributed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Retrieving, by at least one processor from the data structure, content information responsive to the search query; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Transmitting content information responsive to the search query to enable review of the content information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of managing content distribution, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving information on where and how content is to be distributed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Updating a searchable data structure that relates content to publisher information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving a search query for content items which can be distributed in a location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Retrieving information about the content which can be distributed in that location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Transmitting information about that content (presumably to a publisher) for review&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming publishers reviewing distribution locations of content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A process for managing content distribution from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zQleEpH.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;350&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130138487?dq=US20130138487A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.google.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4770" RevisionGUID="493c7d0d-cc2c-469b-b721-76fa5ce9542f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" is the Examiner aware of the prior art on diffraction range finders in the publication list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;http://www.3dewitt.com/2/patent02.html&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taken from the [Prior Art Request Template](https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/a/146/1767).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If another user (or the original poster) could complete for US20120281086 it would be very helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**HELP SAVE [INDUSTRY THREATENED BY OVERLY BROAD APPLICATION IN QUESTION]** - This application from [Assignee name] seeks to patent [quick, sensational description of invention described by application]! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent application before it becomes a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before {Priority Date}** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - [Description of stated invention, in plain English *note: include more than 1 bullet if multi-step process is essential to invention*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question -- one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Include a reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO {extra detail of stated invention that appears tangentially essential to idea}. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: **Distance measurement apparatus and distance measurement method**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [A multi-sentence description of the invention described in the patent application translated into plain old English. Feel free to borrow liberally from the application's Abstract.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US US20120281086][5]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Nov 9, 2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** through [Final Challenge Date *note: this date is typically as soon as six months after the publication date, but sometimes earlier and sometimes later. See [here][2] for more info.]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 14 requires each and every aspect of the following claim wording.**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA; (1-13 were canceled before the application was published, there are two other independent claims.)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A distance measurement apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a) an imaging device which captures an image;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b) a diffractive optical device which has a curved surface and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; diffracts a subject image; &lt;p&gt; c) an optical system which forms, on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said imaging device, the image from the subject image diffracted by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said diffractive optical device; and &lt;p&gt; d) a distance measurement&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unit configured to measure a distance to a subject using the image&#xD;&#xA;&gt; captured by said imaging device, wherein said distance measurement&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unit is configured to measure the distance to the subject based on an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interval between diffraction figures of the subject image which are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; created by said diffractive optical device, the interval being on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; image captured by said imaging device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. [First device  of claim 1 translated into plain old English]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. [Second step of claim 1 translated into plain old English]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. [Third step of claim 1 translated into plain old English]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to [Priority Date].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and including [extra detail provided in Extra Credit section].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Image *note: this is where you may choose to upload a diagram taken from the patent application. We recommend uploading an image that is eye-catching, and quickly communicates the essence of the invention described in the patent application.*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ](https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art](https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request) on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/146/edit&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120281086&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120281086&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4785" RevisionGUID="2bc37ca3-dbe6-4e8b-893f-0063cd79f48d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" ![enter image description here][8]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application has received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON a navigation device with alternative route calculation** - This application from [TomTom][6] seeks to patent the idea of...providing a navigation instruction together with alternative navigation instructions to a destination! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/13/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - providing alternate routes to a driver without the driver being required to request a calculation of an alternative route&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO displays multiple potential navigation routes simultaneously&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Navigation device with alternate route calculation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A navigation device that calculates multiple routes for a driver and displays them simultaneously (without the driver being required to request a different route)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130173159 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/822,791&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: TomTom&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/13/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/31/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A navigation device, the navigation device operable to calculate routes to one or more destinations,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.  the device further operable to provide a navigation instruction together with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. an alternative navigation instruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A navigation device which calculates routes to destination (or multiple destinations), which:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. provides navigation instructions; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. provides instructions on alternative routes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/13/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming displaying multiple routes simultaneously without the driver requesting a &quot;re-route&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Providing multiple routes to a driver&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/GeJlCmH.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130173159?dq=US20130173159A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.tomtom.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4814" RevisionGUID="b9ff9381-40a9-4ff7-b3e0-982039cb5228" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON transferring data to a server based on user travel plans** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...transferring data in cloud storage system from a data server near a user usual location to a data server near where a user plans to travel! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/2/2011** that discusses: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Moving data between servers based on user travel plans&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves accessing a user's calendar to figure out where he will travel and when&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transferring data between servers based on travel plans of a user**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for moving data between data servers bsaed on travel plans of a user (basically, if the user is traveling somewhere, moving some data from his &quot;home&quot; server to a server which is closer to the location he will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144978 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/309,640&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/3/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. locating a data server near a travel location of a user based on one or more travel plans of the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. transferring data of the user from a home data server near a home location of the user to the data server near the travel location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of data relocation in a cloud storage environment, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Locating a data server which is physically close to a location of a user based on travel plans of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Transferring data of the user from the home data server to the data server near the travel location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/2/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming accessing the user's calendar to figure out where he will travel so data can be moved there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for data relocation in cloud storage environments from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rLnVZ5M.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130144978?dq=US20130144978A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130144978" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46067" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4833" RevisionGUID="400c5408-f669-4d61-8569-eb9910800f59" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="  ![enter image description here][9]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** below!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON collaborative virtual shopping** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...individuals shopping together online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/13/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - individuals shopping together online with multiple shopping carts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves sharing information between users, such as shopping lists, price lists, or item comparisons between users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Collaborative virtual shopping**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system for shopping together online.  Users participate in a **collaborative shopping session** using multiple **virtual shopping carts** and share information with one another&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130211953 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/372,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/13/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/11/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for collaborative shopping, comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A plurality of shopping devices interconnected by a network, the shopping devices being used by shoppers in a collaborative shopping session; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A plurality of virtual shopping carts respectively associated with the shopping devices for sharing information on items of interest among the shoppers and enabling the shoppers to collaborate on the shopping&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for shopping together online, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Devices (e.g. computers or smartphones or fancy in-store shopping carts) connected together by a network, used by shoppers in a collaborative shopping session&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Virtual shopping carts associated with each device for sharing information between shoppers (e.g. price lists, shopping lists, comparisons, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/13/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming sharing information between users, such as shopping lists, price lists, or comparisons between shopping cart items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Collaborative Virtual Shopping from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/nmc2wu8.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130211953&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/202660987/US20130211953A1-Form-892&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="93" RevisionGUID="fb5200ff-de24-44cd-ba8a-aec0a719f6a8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Unlike copyright, a patent is only valid in a country where it has been filed, accepted and registered. A US patent gives you an exclusive right to use your invention (including manufacturing a product using it and selling a product manufactured using it) in the US. It doesn't constrain someone who operates entirely outside the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some groups of countries that have mutual patent recognition agreements ([ARIPO](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Regional_Intellectual_Property_Organization) and [OAPI](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_Africaine_de_la_Propri%C3%A9t%C3%A9_Intellectuelle) in Africa, [EAPO](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Patent_Organization) around Russia, [EPO](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Patent_Office) in Europe). These groups of countries have agreements where a patent application is examined by only one office, but if the patent is granted the applicant must decide in which countries in the group the patent will apply (and pay each country's fee). The US isn't a member of any such organization; there's no particular agreement on patents between the US and Canada, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to apply in more than one country (or group of countries), the patent must be examined in each country. A majority of countries (including the US) have ratified the [Patent Cooperation Treaty](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Cooperation_Treaty). The usual way to extend a patent to many countries is to file it in your home country, then file a PCT application, then have the patent examined by national offices of PCT member states. See the [PCT website](http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/) for more information. See also [this answer](https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/24/is-there-a-specified-route-to-convert-uk-patents-to-us-patents/32#32). Note that it can happen that a patent is granted in one country but rejected in another: maybe one country will find some prior art that another country won't, or maybe they'll interpret it in a different way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which countries to file your patent is depends heavily on what the logistics and market is for your product. If you only ever expect to sell your product in the US, a US patent is good enough. If you think your product can only be manufactured economically in a few countries, patent it in these countries (assuming that you trust these countries' patent enforcement). If you think your product could be manufactured and sold anywhere, it's a matter of investment: each additional country costs you money upfront but locks your competitors down more.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="8523416a-c2a1-4d59-98a7-e1825facbc55" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON sending product specials or lists of products to a user's cellphone based on user location** - This application from [Givted, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...sending product promotion to user based on location! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/30/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using user's location (and possibly user's fitness data) to send product specials to user's cell phone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO takes into account **user fitness data** or relates to **sporting goods**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: We wish all the best to the startup company Givted behind this patent, but...**should this company go bankrupt this is the sort of patent which ends up in the hands of a patent troll.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: location-based customization and product promotion**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A retail systems that sends a list of specials to a user's phone based on the location of the user or attendance of the user at an event or user's fitness data.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130173389 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/340,870&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Givted, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/31/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. retrieving user information from a device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining a location of a user based on the retrieved user information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. compiling a list of available specials based on the location of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. transmitting the list of available specials to the device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. transmitting a collection of products to the device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this is pretty self-explanatory:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. retrieving user information from a device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining a location of a user based on the retrieved user information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. compiling a list of available specials based on the location of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. transmitting the list of available specials to the device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. transmitting a collection of products to the device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming combining **user fitness data** with location to provide offers to users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Sending product promotions to user based on location from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/S8NyY4D.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130173389?dq=US20130173389A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.givted.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130173389" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46070" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4932" RevisionGUID="de044c84-4cd0-49cb-828c-b656795e59fe" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Here's just one example][1] - a question about whether some patent was invalidated during reexamination. [This answer][2] says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This can be looked up and followed in the USPTO Public PAIR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I go to http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair and &quot;search by patent number&quot; and there's lots of data on multiple tabs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where's the data on reexamination in there? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/3615/962&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3618/962" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="141" RevisionGUID="d766fb24-230b-443d-be43-67ca693aaf0a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="##TL;DR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given a patent application describing a calculation using a maximum likelihood approach, and a piece of prior art that has the same goal but uses Monte Carlo simulation, is this sufficient to challenge non-obviousness?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The documents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking at patent application 20120226640, [Behavior and information model to yield more accurate probability of successful outcome](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220120226640%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20120226640&amp;RS=DN/20120226640) (a more readable PDF version can be downloaded [from FreshPatents](http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20120906ptan20120226640.php)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is really a business method patent, so whether this would actually hold in light of Bilski etc. may be questionable, but I'm not focusing on this issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the described method very strongly reminded me of [Evidence based scheduling](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/10/26.html) (EBS). This description from 2007 by Joel Spolsky, while being &quot;just a blog post&quot;, has been [extensively circulated and studied](http://www.google.com/search?q=evidence+based+scheduling), so my impression is that it passes the test for being valid prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Summaries&#xD;&#xA;Here are my (obviously non-authorative) summaries of the patent application and of EBS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The patent application*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is about salespeople giving an estimate of how probable it is that a particular deal they're pursuing will eventually be closed (&quot;have a successful outcome&quot;, in the words of the application).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The salesperson gives their estimate (the &quot;user-reported probability&quot;), and based on this (and previous knowledge), the computer gives a better estimate that's more realistic, based on previous estimates and eventual outcomes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application calls this the &quot;user-believed probability&quot; under the assumption that the report may be skewed (consciously or sub-conciously) by the salesperson, and the computer-estimated value more closely reflects the salesperson's actual feeling of how probable a successful deal really is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Evidence based scheduling*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is about software developers giving an estimate of how long it takes to complete a certain feature. Based on this estimate and knowledge about the quality of the developer's previous estimates (compared to the corresponding eventual completion times), EBS gives a better estimate that's more realistic (in fact, it even more detailedly gives a distribution of how probabable it is that the feature will be complete by any given date).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##My obviousness argument&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main difference between the two is the statistical method that is utilized to improve the estimate. The patent application mathematically calculates its result using a maximum likelihood approach, while EBS uses a Monte Carlo simulation. Monte Carlo essentially is a method to *estimate* a maximum likelihood (it actually does more than that, but I'll leave it at this).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, here's my question: **If the difference between the two comes down to the statistical method used to obtain the result, does this pass the obviousness test?** Quoting from the [FAQ](https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art) (which in turn quotes Wikipedia),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One of the main requirements of patentability is that the invention being patented is not obvious, meaning that a “person having ordinary skill in the art” would not know how to solve the problem at which the invention is directed by using exactly the same mechanism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, a &quot;person having ordinary skill in the art&quot; would probably a statistician. And interchanging two different well-known methods for getting similar results looks like a fairly obvious thing to do for a statistician.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The claim&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm just focusing on claim 1 of the patent application. All other claims either explicitly or at least more or less implicitly depend on 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Full-bold blockquotes are from the claim; if you read only those, you have the full claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **A method comprising: receiving, by a processor, a report indicating a user-reported probability of a successful outcome;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This corresponds to a computer receiving a software developer's estimate for a given task. Note that &quot;the feature is completed by day X&quot; is a &quot;successful outcome&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **estimating, by the processor, a behavior and information model based on the report,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;behavior and information model&quot; is described in a little more detail below; the &quot;processor&quot; in EBS is obviously just the computer that does the calculations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **the behavior and information model including a behavior model component having a bias parameter and a consistency parameter,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In EBS, these parameters are actually there, but they are somewhat combined in a single parameter: the developer's velocity history vector. The [description](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/10/26.html) (in section 2) does in fact use the term &quot;consistent&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This *common estimator* has very consistent velocities, but they’re below 1.0. For example, {0.6, 0.5, 0.6, 0.6, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.6} &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(emphasis in original). Compared to the so-called *bad estimator*, where the velocities are &quot;all over the map&quot;, having the values close to each other is a sign of consistency. The bias paramter isn't explicitly called out in EBS, but it is hinted at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Most estimators get the scale wrong but the relative estimates right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;scale&quot; in this case is precisely the bias parameter; it's pretty much an average velocity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **the behavior and information model including an information model component having a first user-believed probability of a successful outcome and a second user-believed probability of a successful outcome,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is extremely broad in claim 1, which doesn't actually give any details about those values. It gets a bit more specific in subsequent claims, but for the purposes of claim 1, it's just &quot;we have these two values&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And since we established the &quot;user-believed probability&quot; to correspond to the estimated shipping date, these are in fact there in EBS. Not only two such values, but one for each round of the Monte Carlo simulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I'm going for obviousness via substituting statistical methods, it may be irrelevant that EBS has more than two, but it should be noted that the claim says &quot;having&quot;, not &quot;consisting of&quot;, so it's not even excluding the possibility of more than two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **where estimating the behavior and information model based on the report comprises employing a maximum likelihood technique that determines the bias parameter, the consistency parameter, the first user-believed probability of winning, and the second user-believed probability of winning that maximize a likelihood;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the difference: EBS uses a Monte Carlo approach in which those values are more implicitly present on the way to yielding estimated shipping dates (or rather, their probabilites), while the patent application uses a maximum likelihood to explicitly calculate those parameters in order to eventually use them for yielding a result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **and, using, by the processor, the behavior and information model to yield a model-determined probability of a successful outcome that more accurately reflects a probability of a successful outcome than the user-reported probability of a successful outcome does.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In EBS, this corresponds to the computer using the developer's velocity history to yield shipping date estimates that more accuratly reflect the probabilities than the developer's estimate does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Once again, my question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the different statistical-mathematical approach be considered an obvious step for a &quot;person having ordinary skill in the art&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4948" RevisionGUID="0d8ff8c2-ec0f-4700-b54a-12b1ea2dd8a1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON INVENTORY SYSTEMS** - This application from Wendi Wheaton seeks to patent an inventory system that manages food based on its expiry dates! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent application before it becomes a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Nov 14, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A food inventory system comprising: a microprocessor connected to a data storage device; means for entry and removal of food items or recipes; means for display; assigning a food item a weighted value correlated with the time until food spoilage for said food item; categorizing each food item entered as refrigerator, freezer, or pantry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question -- one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: **Method and Device for Expiration Date Weighted Food Inventory System and Meal Planner**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: manages data on current food supply taking into consideration its expiry dates and provides recommendations for shopping for new food and consuming existing food&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130138656][1]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Wendi Wheaton&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Nov 14, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 30, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A food inventory system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a microprocessor connected to a data storage device;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. means for entry and removal of food items or recipes;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. means for display;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. assigning a food item a weighted value correlated with the time until food spoilage for said food item;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. categorizing each food item entered as refrigerator, freezer, or pantry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; managing supply of food taking into account food expiration date&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This looks like a generic inventory system, just for food. Expiration dates are very common with chemicals, food, fuel, other supplies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to Dec 6, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ](https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art](https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request) on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130138656" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="c41ae430-f64c-42e7-a21e-cf8432451099" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application was given a &quot;**final rejection**&quot; by the US Patent Office. An applicant has several ways to keep an application in this state alive. They include a request for continuing examination. It just involves paying more fees and responding to the rejection. Appealing the rejection is another avenue. If nothing is done it will go abandoned six months from the final rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the grounds for rejection (can be seen in Public PAIR) are based on things the applicant themselves cited to the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;Check out [Google Patents][3] for full details about this particular application.&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method and System for Weight Management&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC APPLICATION DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number:** 13/466661&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** US20120225162 A1&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Scott A. Mann Enterprises Llc &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date:** June 15, 2004&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until March 6, 2013 &#xD;&#xA;- **AIA window:** CLOSED&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**APPLICATION OVERVIEW:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US Patent Application [#20120225162][3] describes a weight management method. I'm reasonably sure the claims below correlate with advice I've seen for *years* in various &quot;women's interest&quot; magazines, in a number of diet books (including Weight Watchers guides), and even the USDA nutrition guide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1.** A method for managing weight, comprising the steps of: eating at least five meals a day with each meal comprising one serving of a vegetable or a fruit, a complex carbohydrate, and a lean protein for a predetermined number of calories per meal at ranges of 25-35% protein, 50-55% carbohydrate, 15-20% fat with a predetermined range of grams of fiber, wherein said predetermined range of calories is about 300 calories or is about 450 calories; losing weight by said eating at least five meals a day; and optimizing body composition by said eating at least five meals a day, [etc.]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**.  We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one.  This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on  submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA; [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20120225162&#xD;&#xA; [6]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA; [9]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46074" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5040" RevisionGUID="e7839812-a4c0-4837-830b-561ba190db64" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON using purchase history to make product recommendations** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...Recommending products to customers based on their online purchase history and their offline purchase history! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/24/2013** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Recommending products based on combining customer online and offline purchase history&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - sending the product recommendation as a geographic map of other customers in a vicinity of the customer who have purchased a similar product&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Product recommendations based on online/offline purchasing history**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for generating a product recommendation based on combining online and in-store purchase history for customer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130204737 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/749,355&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/24/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a request for a product recommendation for a customer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Generating the product recommendation based on a **purchase history** for the customer that comprises in-store purchases from one or more brick and mortar stores and **online purchases** from one or more online stores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for generating product recommendations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Some process requests a product recommendation for a customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Generate product recommendation based on purchase history for same customer using information from both his in-store purchases and his online purchases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/24/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming sending the product recommendation as a geographic map of other customers in a vicinity of the customer who have purchased a similar product&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Combining online and offline purchase history to create product recommendation from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/01E52rr.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130204737&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant &#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130204737" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5112" RevisionGUID="6140ec98-4158-4c47-afb2-51e927e69bd5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Basic scenario:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* BigCorp applies for a patent for an overly broad software independent claim requiring the elements `a+b+c+d+e+f`&#xD;&#xA;* The patent office rejects the application, back and forth, and BigCorp adds element `g` to narrow the claim.&#xD;&#xA;* The Patent office awards a patent for claim `a+b+c+d+e+f+g`&#xD;&#xA;* The former designer of the original software leaves BigCorp to create a startup&#xD;&#xA;* The startup creates software that loosely satisfies `a+b+c+d+e+f`, but visibly NOT `g`&#xD;&#xA;* The startup gets a written opinion of non-infringement from a reputable attorney&#xD;&#xA;* The code is clean, all new, no copyright, stolen data, etc. GitHub and Gmail are squeaky clean.&#xD;&#xA;* The startup gets customers, not stealing customers from BigCorp, just succeeding in the shadow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if BigCorp decides to get ornery just to be ornery? What should the startup consider in its contingency planning? More specifically, what legal budget would be roughly &quot;enough&quot; to defend? Or is this hypothetical, just a distraction, and don't look in the rear-view mirror?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related: Ask Patents question *[General knowledge on how software patent-infringement lawsuits are evaluated][1]*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3707&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="147" RevisionGUID="c106c464-9646-4612-a433-c005e29f06d3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="I don't know the technical area, so I cannot speak to whether claim 1 identifies anything &quot;fundamentally different&quot; for pre-existing AC systems.  It is not necessary that the patent disclose a fundamental difference with prior art - the novelty may be small, even very small.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, claim 1 is not the be-all and end-all of the patent.  This application has three dependent claims, each of which is a separate invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have given other similar answers to similar questions. Taken together, they give a more complete overall answer to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/133/is-toyota-really-the-first-to-use-a-camera-to-support-a-self-driving-car&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/109/microsoft-have-submitted-a-patent-for-a-whack-to-silence-a-phone-ringer-how-sim&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/141/can-the-non-obviousness-of-an-invention-be-challenged-if-the-difference-to-prior&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/137/isnt-this-like-wear-leveling-on-non-volatile-drives." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5157" RevisionGUID="1ba43cf8-1442-4cf1-83a5-a4f5ccbec94c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Questions about the model and product are off-topic for Ask Patents.  See [faq][5] for more information about which questions are on-topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions about old patents are generally on-topic.  The entertainment value is high and the history of technology as expressed through patent documents is usually interesting to our community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original patent in question is from the United Kingdom, Publication Number GB144034A.  Published in 1920 and Invented by John Okill, a British citizen who lived in [Rock Ferry][6] near Liverpool, England..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Original UK Patent: [GB144034A][1]&#xD;&#xA;==&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Related **US Patent Family member: [US1467558][3]**&#xD;&#xA;==&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://mega.co.nz/#!w5BW0JLI!BenHJ0d3KN8BSsfdxRx93SmowfAm2yCkN14GCZDTYWc&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/cW1ZP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US1467558&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/nH2SQ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.google.com/maps?t=m&amp;q=rock+ferry+map&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=Rock+Ferry,+Merseyside,+United+Kingdom&amp;z=6&amp;vpsrc=0&amp;iwloc=A" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="238" RevisionGUID="8bc50260-9089-4b14-b005-e91a4cfe0bf2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="If there are several Claims in a patent application, can prior art for **one** of them invalidate the *entire* patent application since all the other claims are dependent claims? Or does that just mean the patent examiner won't grant Claim 1 but other claims will be granted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in trying to answer [this prior art question regarding caching of web content][1], I was unsure which claims the prior art needed to cover. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/197/prior-art-for-style-and-layout-caching-of-web-content" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="257" RevisionGUID="004f99c1-06fc-47f4-ab3f-06641032a101" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="The linking you describe in point 1 is very important.  The patent you cited claims priority to previous patents/applications.  These are all &quot;continuations&quot; which means they have the same specification and cover the same subject matter (as opposed to a &quot;continuation-in-part&quot; or &quot;divisional&quot; which may have different subject matter).  Since they have this priority chain, you would actually have to find prior art from 1995.&#xD;&#xA;This set of cases is also being discussed here: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/201/prior-art-system-and-method-for-enabling-users-to-interact-in-a-virtual-space" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="c7e43820-709c-4dd7-8696-bef76b42f1b5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON using word stems to translate unknown words** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Machine translation of unknown words by finding known word stems and adding inflections! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/31/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using word stems to guess at translations of &quot;out of vocabulary words&quot; in machine translation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - the applicant is claiming preprocessing the morphological analysis by looking for transliterations, misspellings, substituting colloquial expressions if recognized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Resolving out-of-vocabulary words with word stem analysis**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for translating &quot;out-of-vocabulary&quot; words which involves looking for word stems, translating the word stem and inflecting the word stem in the foreign language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130197896 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/362,595&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/31/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/28/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method under control of one or more processors specifically configured with executable instructions, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving, by a server, a request from a computing device to translate one or more words from a source language to a target language;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining that a phrase table excludes a particular word of the one or more words but includes a remainder of the one or more words;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining whether a morphological analysis of the particular word identifies a stem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. in response to determining that the morphological analysis of the particular word identifies the stem, translating the stem from the source language to the target language to create a translated stem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. inflecting the translated stem based on the morphological analysis of the particular word to create a translated word corresponding to the particular word;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. translating the remainder of the one or more words from the source language to the target language to create a translated remainder;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. creating a translation of the one or more words based on the translated word and the translated remainder; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. sending the translation to the computing device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of machine translation, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving request to translate one or more words to target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining that the words are &quot;out-of-vocabulary&quot; (i.e. not in the lookup table)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining that the words contain word stems&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Translating the word stems into the target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Inflecting the word stems in the target language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Translating the remaining words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Sending the translated words to a computer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/31/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming looking for transliterations, misspellings, substituting colloquial expressions if recognized&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Using word-stem analysis to translate unknown words from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Rz2r9.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130197896?dq=US20130197896A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130197896" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="292" RevisionGUID="309b7a09-3d5b-40e6-afe9-91f15b4d65e5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've been granted 3 provisional Patents and it cost me an arm and a leg - over $20,000 (this was in 1998 and 1999). Unless you have money to burn I offer my personal advice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Using snail mail I post a letter via registered post to myself with the idea and get people&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I discuss the idea with to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements. I never open the registered letter I keep them all in my safe. This way if someone beats me/you to it and you (or your attorney) are monitoring Patent applications, you have evidence to show the Patent Office it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Never put a good idea up on a forum. Thats one way RedGate use to come up with new product's.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I discuss [Provisional Patents here](https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/293/764)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My answer is you should register post a letter containing the idea to yourself, include pic's, video's, document's diagrams &amp; etc and mail them to yourself. Then get any Venture Captialist to sign a NDA, then get funding to apply for the Patent if its got backing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Questions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Is there a Registered-Post Patent legal precedent? [Wikikpedia Poor Mans Copyright](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_man's_copyright)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is no provision in US copyright law regarding any such type of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; protection. However if the letter is forensically certified as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unopened and officially dated, stamped with an authentic Registered Barcode. You can still object to the Patent being granted on the grounds that the Patent is not a new idea.  To object a competing application being granted you have to lodge a complaint within 6 months. * *May differ per country*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5182" RevisionGUID="b37c79d5-3e79-4751-836d-dfe9477d933a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" ![enter image description here][9]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **Final Rejection** by the US Patent Office!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** below!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON** tracking and managing group expenditures - This application from Google seeks to patent the idea of...dividing expenses among members of a group! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally filed by Google on March 30, 2012, made public Oct 3, 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US Patent Application 20130262294][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And covered by [GeekWire][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Prior Art Date: Seeking Prior Art predating **March 30, 2012**.&#xD;&#xA; - **Patent Publication Number**: [US 20130262294 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA; - **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/3/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for tracking payment transactions of a group of users, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. establishing, by a computer system a group including at least three users; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. maintaining, by the computer system, a transaction record for the group including a plurality of payment transactions involving the users of the group, each of the plurality of payment transactions associated with a payment amount;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. responsive to receiving information on a payment transaction involving a user of the group and associated with a payment amount, determining, by the computer system, whether the payment transaction occurred within a range of dates provided for the group;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. responsive to determining the payment transaction occurred within the range o dates, updating, by a computer system, the transaction record for the group to include the payment transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. updating, by the computer system, a total balance maintained for the transaction record based on payment amounts associated with the payment transactions included in the transaction record; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. responsive to a settlement event, settling, by the computer system, the total balance by initiating fund transfers between the users of the group for the payment transactions occurring within the date range&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English the means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for tracking payment transactions of a group of users, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Establishing a group of at least three users; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Maintaining a transaction record for the group which includes at least one payment transaction among group members and a payment amount for that transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving information about a payment transaction involving the group that occurs within a **range of dates** provided for by the group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Updating the transaction record for the group to include the payment transaction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Updating a **total balance** maintained for the transaction record; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Settling the total balance by initiating fund transfers between the users of the group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 3/30/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Fig 4. A table illustrating balances of users of a group&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/fx5dI.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130262294&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.geekwire.com/2013/joke-google-seeks-patent-splitting-restaurant-bills/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/208793068/US20130262294-A1-Form-892&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="309" RevisionGUID="31080b22-bfce-4d30-82ff-47652605ed75" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt;Should I patent my idea before posting it on public internet forums?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you post it on a public forum, then it becomes prior art for the others. So they can't patent it! You, on the other hand, have only one year to file before it becomes prior art for you as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Could someone who sees my post beat me to it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theoretically, `No`. Even if someone tries to *beat you to it*, you can always post the prior art (which you yourself posted) to nullify it [Ref:[America Invents Act of 2011](http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_patentreformact2011.html)]. There's a good probability that the patent agent reviewing an application might miss the prior art you posted and grant the patent but this reform should take care of that discrepancy for the `US`. For other countries, you'll have to do a little research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT-** It seems the US is changing to first-to-file [(active 16 March 2013)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent#The_USA.27s_change_to_first-to-file)  which means that the one year grace period is gone, so that after posting online, it immediately becomes prior art for the poster too [**unless you file a provisitional application which costs $125**][1]. So if you want to patent your idea, you just shouldn't post it before filing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/282/should-i-patent-my-idea-before-posting-it-on-the-internet?rq=1#comment-266" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="384" RevisionGUID="3b9fb08e-1d12-43ca-b7d2-b8a0566307e4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are a few organizations out there whose goal it is to prevent some of the potential abuses you mention. You could get involved with those organizations by donating time and/or money. For example, see the following links:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Electronic Frontier Foundation](https://www.eff.org/patent)  &#xD;&#xA;[Public Patent Foundation](http://www.pubpat.org/About.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other organizations use crowdsourcing to uncover prior art, including the website you're on right now (i.e., [Ask Patents](https://patents.stackexchange.com/)), as well as [Article One Partners](http://www.articleonepartners.com/).  You can donate time in the form of research and submissions to further the projects on these websites.  While the goal of these websites is not necessarily to curb patent abuses, these types of crowdsourcing websites certainly have the potential, through the collective action of numerous individuals, to have a collateral impact on reining in patent abuses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA) allows third parties to submit prior art in pending patent applications (see [35 USC 122(e)](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303054912)).  This way you can submit prior art and a concise explanation of its relevance to the patent office, thus aiding the examiner in doing his/her job.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, under the AIA a third party may also initiate Inter Partes Review or Post Grant Review proceedings (see [here](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303054912)) with respect to a patent, which proceedings allow the third party to challenge the validity of the patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5210" RevisionGUID="f3f2514c-838a-43fe-a036-791fcc7a278f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="US20070288889 is interesting because it is an **allowed** patent application which **never became an issued patent**, apparently because the applicant did not pay the issuance fee and the application was abandoned.  You can see this at the USPTO on [Public PAIR](https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/3797/1767)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first allowed claim is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method enabling a computer programmer to verbally add comments to source code comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. detecting utterances made by said programmer with a microphone;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. recording said utterances detected from said programmer with an audio recording program;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. converting said utterances recorded by said audio recording program to text;&#xD;&#xA;creating links to said audio recording;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. indicating a relevant source code position determined by cursor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. inserting said text and links to said voice recording at said relevant source code position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent was assigned to IBM, which is a sophisticated patent owner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either IBM dropped the ball on paying the issuance fee or (more likely) IBM decided that the invention wasn't worth the issuance fees and projected maintenance fees.  Why IBM prosecuted the patent only to drop it after it was allowed is unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll let others on Ask Patents explain what would be involved in reviving a patent which was abandoned over four years ago.  At this point the patent is abandoned and it is not in force.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No obvious reason to look for prior art on the application at Ask Patents unless the patent is somehow revived.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/cfO18.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/bHw8j.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/I5dBe.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="552" RevisionGUID="4a147ead-8450-4212-9a5f-6cbe146456ad" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are two cases - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Assignment of a patent (Assignor, Assignee)&#xD;&#xA; 2. Licensing of a patent (Licensor, Licensee)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of assignment, as answered by @[Hal][1], the assignee can bring suit for patent infringement. Generally, when an inventor works for an employer, he/she assigns the patent to his/her employer, may not be so in all cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of a license, depending upon the licensing agreement, either the licensor can bring suit, or the licensee, or in some cases both of them together can do that. This scenario is when a company/R&amp;D unit/employer owns a patent and licenses it to another company/R&amp;D unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/users/1390/hal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5426" RevisionGUID="a0181031-add4-4475-9e04-6b68275c4045" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="(ref: [this question][1], George White's answer)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm writing a software patent that includes a system and a method claim. I've heard of something called a CRM (Computer Readable Medium) claim, but am unfamiliar with the concept. Is this a real type of claim? What are the advantages/disadvantages of including a CRM claim, in addition to a system and a method claim? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm located in the US, by the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5304/software-patents-claiming-as-a-method-vs-as-a-system/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="583" RevisionGUID="ebc6e2a4-24d9-42d2-8e3f-30bbc28902e4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="To begin with I read: [Is it practical for a novice to successfully file a patent without hiring a patent lawyer?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a large community of hobbyist and DIYselfers who are constantly working on new stuff. Assuming that one of them comes up with something new what are the avenues that he/she can profitably explore. What I did understand from the link that I referenced, is that it is impractical to fight out your Patent Wars all alone. Are there communities, which for a certain percentage in the returns, help a small-time individual in filing for a patent of his/her idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first two communities that come to mind are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Universities (for those who have that option)&#xD;&#xA; - Sites like InventHelp ([link][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other groups out there who will do a similar/better job?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/90/is-it-practical-for-a-novice-to-successfully-file-a-patent-without-hiring-a-pate&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.similarsitesearch.com/alternatives-to/inventhelp.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5452" RevisionGUID="97dc85b7-4ad0-4cf7-9587-ed9903f04ff1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON product comparison table interfaces** - This application from [CompareMetrics][6] (funded by [FLOODGATE Ventures][8]) seeks to patent the idea of...Comparing products for a user by adjusting one criteria based on user preference for another criteria! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/23/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Adjusting two criteria (e.g. price and memory) which are related to one another when comparing different products in a product comparison table&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Quantitative criteria (such as memory, weight or screen size) and displaying criteria in a tabulated format (!).  See figures below for an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Changing criteria for a user when comparing complex product offering**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Display two or more criteria for two or more products in a table. Receive an input from a user related to one criteria.  Automatically modifying the other criteria in the table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120330778 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/477,831&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: CompareMetrics&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/25/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of providing a comparison among two or more offerings, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying a tabulation of two or more criteria for two or more offerings;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving an input from a user relating to a first one of the criteria in the tabulation; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Automatically modifying, by a computer system, based on the input received from the user for the first one of the criteria, the tabulation with respect to at least one criterion other than the first one of the criteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing a comparison among two or more products, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying at least two criteria for two or more products&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receive an input from a user related to one criteria (e.g. screen size)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Automatically modifying the other criteria (e.g. weight) and displaying it in the table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming **quantitative criteria** which move together in a user interface - e.g. change the screen size on the laptop product and the weight goes up automatically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Comparison interface and a visual trade-off analysis of criteria&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/XoSjEJQ.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120330778&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://comparemetrics.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120330778&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.floodgate.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="596" RevisionGUID="6e067f45-b0e5-45d0-8649-a11f36eb7fd8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question asked for an explanation of *inter partes review* and *ex parte reexamination* when considering challenging patent with prior art.  This is a big question that cannot be fully answered here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are *the* two primary administrative procedures currently available to a third party to challenge an issued US patent. My answer on [this other post discusses][1] a few other options. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both procedures, a third party can challenge a patent based upon prior art that arguably renders the patent invalid as either anticipated (not novel) or obvious.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The primary difference between the two options involves process. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In ex parte reexamination, the third party is merely a &quot;requester&quot; and has no direct input in the reexamination following the submission of that request.  Further, ex parte reexamination is conducted by patent examiners (technical experts) within the USPTO's central reexamination unit (CRU).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inter partes review is a new process that only became available in September 2012.  As such, only a handful of inter partes reviews have been filed and none have been completed (other than some requests rejected as inadequate).  Unlike ex parte reexamination, the requester in an inter partes review remains a party to the dispute has an opportunity to continue to file opposition briefs and present evidence throughout the process. Inter partes reviews are conducted by administrative patent judges (legal/technical experts) that serve as members of the Patent Trials and Appeals Board (PTAB).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In one sense, the reexamination is closer to ordinary patent examination while the inter partes review is more like ordinary patent litigation.  While both are expensive, hiring a patent attorney to conduct an inter partes review run in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is some fear that ex parte reexamination is ineffective. The idea is that if the patentee already convinced an examiner once, they can probably do it again.  That fear used to have some merit when reexaminations were sent back to the same examiner who issued the original patent to check his own work.  With the creation of the central reexamination unit, that fear is misplaced.  The results from ex parte reexaminations have been impressive with the bulk of reexamined patents being narrowed or outright cancelled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further background reading [here][2] and [here][3].&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/590/over-time-which-patent-legislation-applies-current-or-past&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.grayonclaims.com/storage/Critical_Analysis_of_Inter_Partes_Review.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.rppostgrant.com/ComparisonCharts/post-grant-review-comparison.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5453" RevisionGUID="42191882-74ad-4623-805c-270ca88dc28b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON DNA Analytics in the cloud** - This application from [Illumina][6] seeks to patent the idea of...DNA analysis done by a server which is remote to the DNA sequencer! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 4/11/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Separating the DNA analysis in the cloud from the DNA sequencer in the lab&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - DNA sequencing with standard fluorescent nucleotides but where server is remote to the sequencing machine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Cloud-based DNA sequencing analysis**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Connecting a cloud computing environment to multiple DNA sequencers and doing DNA analysis in the cloud (remote from the sequencers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130275486 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/790,596&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Illumina][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 4/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/15/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for analyzing biological samples, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A cloud computing environment in communication with a plurality of sequencing devices, wherein &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the cloud computing environment comprises at least one server,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the server being configured to communicate with a sequencing system remote from the server to receive and store sequence data from the sequencing system while the sequence data is being generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for analyzing biological samples, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A cloud computing environment communicating with multiple sequencing devices, where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The cloud computing servers communicate with a remote sequencing system to receive and store sequence data while the sequence data is being generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 4/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Cloud-based sequence analysis which uses multiple, distributed networks of computers to do the analysis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method of providing sequence data to the cloud computing environment&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fpRVIWq.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A first example of prior art is **[www.dnanexus.com](http://www.dnanexus.com)**, which has been offering this solution since 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130275486&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.illumina.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130275486&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="609" RevisionGUID="489c585e-5eae-4b4a-989f-6d66c2060438" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="If I discuss or seek advice from others on portions of a patent on public sites such as SO, does that invalidate the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, lets say I have an idea in mind of a software patent  which consists of `X`, `Y`, and `Z`? I know that step `Y` can be done, but just don't know exactly how would be the best approach.  Say for example that step `Y` requires a sorting algorithm (perhaps this is not the best example, but should clarify what I am thinking of),  and I post on SO a very detailed description of things I need sorted, and asked for advice.  A detailed solution is posted along with the a description of how it works and why it would be the best approach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not posting the entire patent but just a step in the overall process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To protect my self I would think that filing a provisional would be best so that I have time to fill in the details. But if someone else actually solved `X` for me, does that effect my patent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, taking this a bit further, suppose I post three different questions, one for each of the three steps? Basically, I have gotten others to do the work for me. But I am still putting the steps together.  Would this invalidate the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##References:&#xD;&#xA;* https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/372/can-software-be-patented-after-being-made-public&#xD;&#xA;* https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/282/should-i-patent-my-idea-before-posting-it-on-the-internet?rq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5472" RevisionGUID="54f38303-7a77-41f8-88e6-ebe38bdfdd69" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Showing information about local businesses on a map on a webpage** - This application from Abra Inc. seeks to patent the idea of...Showing website visitors a map containing information about local businesses! This application is now owned by a presumed patent troll known as &quot;FAN CHIANG HOLDINGS&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/18/1999** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Showing a web page with a map based on user selected geographical information.  In reponse to user request, showing a second web page with more information about a local business on the map.  (Note **1999 priority date** of application.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - User selected information is a **zip code** or location of local businesses are shown with **markers** on the map &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Providing local business information on a website**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Send user a first customized web page which includes **a map** localized to any geographical area specified by user.  Sending a second web page with more information pertaining to businesses on the map (in response to user request).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120284613 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/551,267&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: FAN CHIANG HOLDINGS (presumably an NPE/patent troll)&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/18/1999&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 5/7/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Sending, by a first computing device to a second computing device, a first web page customized based on user selected information and including map information localized to a user selected geographic area; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Responsive to a request for information pertaining to a business indicated on the first web page, sending, by the first computing device to the second computing device, the requested information in the form of a second web page customized based on the business and including information pertaining to the business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Sending a web page customized in any way based on **user selected information** which includes a **map** localized to some geographical area selected by the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. In reponse to the user requesting more information about a business on the web page, Sending a second web page customed with more information pertaining to the business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/18/1999&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming User-entered zip codes and local businesses indicated with map markers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method of providing sequence data to the cloud computing environment&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/BGt49Pl.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120284613&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120284613#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=11%2F18%2F1999" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="617" RevisionGUID="b1e066d8-75e8-4e56-9686-604b2ad56578" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question is impossible to answer directly, primarily because we have no idea what they're claiming in their patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First off, keep in mind it only says patent pending.  Strategically, the ability to use that term can have at least some inherent value of its own (e.g. attracting potential investors or discouraging potential competitors).  Anyone with a few hundred bucks can file a provisional patent application on anything they want and label it &quot;Patent Pending&quot; for a year.  For a couple of thousand more they can file a non-provisional and it will still be a year and a half before their application gets published. That's two and a half years of having &quot;patent pending&quot; on your website without having to explain to anyone outside the patent office what it is you're actually claiming to have invented. (Assuming you can stave off a final rejection - depending on how lame your application is and how motivated the examiner is that could be anywhere from trivial to impossible/expensive.)   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, that's just the extreme corner case of getting the best return on investment one can get out of the system without actually intending to obtain a patent. There's no reason to assume that is what Lockitron is doing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They could have filed claims aimed at protecting the broad concept, and frankly it seems like they certainly should have - as I mentioned in another [post][1], the best strategy for an applicant is frequently to ask for the broadest claim coverage you can support with your specification and let the examiner tell you where the prior art is hedging you in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even beyond the broad idea you think is &quot;pretty damn obvious,&quot; they could be going for something narrower, e.g. something innovative they had to do in order to solve problems raised by their particular implementation of the idea.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just as a possible example, their website mentions &quot;intelligent power management&quot; - maybe they came up with a novel and non-obvious way of conserving battery power while still being reliable.  Speaking of which, what happens when a Lockitron runs out of juice? Are users locked out or can anyone let themselves in? Solving that issue could generate some patentable ideas.  What about security? Maybe they've came up with features to prevent someone stealing your lock/unlock credentials off the airwaves.  The customizable-shared access feature the website talks about would probably be worth filing on too.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's just what I can pull out off the top of my head from looking at their website.  I **am not** saying any of that is ultimately patentable, but there's plenty of room to try.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/611/prior-art-for-a-url-to-a-point-in-time-of-video &quot;post&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5515" RevisionGUID="c039d875-8986-43cc-b726-95b86287ef4a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Targeting promotions based on location of vendors with respect to user's current location.** - This application from [Finnoble Solutions, now Capital One][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying vendors from a user's transaction history, determining a vendor whose location is proximate to the user's current location, and delivering promotions associated with the determined vendor to the user! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/9/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Targeting promotions based on location of vendors with respect to the user's location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Vendors are identified from the **transaction history** of a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Presenting promotions offered by vendors in proximity to a consumer's current location.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying vendors from the **transaction history** of a consumer, determining location of the consumer based on location of the consumer's **mobile device**, identifying a vendor in proximity to the consumer, and presenting promotions offered by the identified vendor on the consumer's **mobile device**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120290389 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/103,855&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Finnoble Solutions, Inc. / CapitalOne&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/9/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 5/14/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of providing a list of current offers from retailers to a user operating a mobile client device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Analyzing a transaction history of the user to identify a vendor who has transacted with the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining a present geographic location of the user based on a location of the mobile client device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining a location of the vendor proximate the user based on the transaction history and the present geographic location of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Searching for a current promotion offered by the vendor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Transmitting, the current promotion to the user, wherein the transmitted current promotion comprises information related to the transaction history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing a list of current offers from retailers to consumers operating a mobile device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying vendors who have transacted with the consumer from the consumer's transaction history;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining location of the consumer based on the location of the mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining a vendor in proximity to the user's location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Searching for current promotion offered by the vendor ; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Presenting the current promotion offered by the vendor on the consumer's mobile device, where the promotion is related to the user's transaction history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/9/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Matching one or more locations of a vendor with the consumer's location to identify the nearest vendor location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Display of matched offers based on a user's location and transaction history&quot;&quot;&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/y9Jerqn.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120290389&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.bankons.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120290389" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="626" RevisionGUID="55aa4ffc-aaa5-4bf4-8579-8beee0d28428" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Yes. An issued patent is presumed to be valid, but a challenger can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; produce prior art to demonstrate that the claims of the patent were&#xD;&#xA;&gt; anticipated or rendered obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are administrative post-grant procedures for challenging an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; issued patent, and, of course, anyone who is sued by a patent holder&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can support a defense of invalidity by producing prior art - even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; possibly art that was originally considered by the Patent Office when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the patent was issued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/587/if-a-patent-has-been-issued-can-it-still-be-invalidated-by-prior-art&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That said, **the America Invents Act** does create a new avenue for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; challenging patents, albeit a limited one. It allows third parties to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; introduce evidence of so-called “prior art” (proof the invention had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; already been invented) to block patents from being issued, and it also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **introduces a new framework to challenge patents in a “post-grant review” process.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/09/obama-signs-patent-reform-bill-crustless-sandwich-still-patented" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="632" RevisionGUID="664875dd-9327-42a4-99ce-cd1e7ab83f74" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Let's look at a typical case, in plain English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (A) for a first data item comprising a first plurality of parts,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider a file or message A composed of several blocks A1,…,An, where each block is a sequence of bits: A = A1 || … || An where || denotes concatenation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a1) applying a first function to each part of said first plurality of parts to obtain a corresponding part value for each part of said first plurality of parts, wherein each part of said first plurality of parts comprises a corresponding sequence of bits, and wherein the part value for each particular part of said first plurality of parts is based, at least in part, on the corresponding bits in the particular part, and wherein two identical parts will have the same part value as determined using said first function, wherein said first function comprises a first hash function; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let H be a hash function. For each block Ai, compute H(Ai): that's the “corresponding part value” of the part Ai. “Based on the corresponding bits in the particular part” is inherent in using a hash function, as in “two identical parts will have the same part value”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a2) obtaining a first value for the first data item, said first value obtained by applying a second function to the part values of said first plurality of parts of said first data item, said second function comprising a second hash function;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let G be a hash function of many arguments — for example, calculating the hash of the concatenation of its argument. The “first value for the first data item” is U = G(H(A1),…,H(An)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (B) for a second data item comprising a second plurality of parts, (…)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do it again for a second file B = B1 || … || Bm: the second value is V = G(H(B1),…,H(Bm)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (C) ascertaining whether or not said first data item corresponds to said second data item based, at least in part, on said first value and said second value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claimed method is to compare A and B using U and V, i.e. to compare two messages using the hash of the concatenation of the hashes of the blocks in each message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a well-known technique called [hash trees](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_tree), here with a depth of 2. Hash trees are also called Merkle trees, because they were invented and patented by Ralph Merkle in 1979. [US patent 4309569](http://www.google.com/patents?vid=4309569) is prior art for this claim. Merkle teaches breaking a message into parts, calculating the hash of each part (F(Yi) in equation (1)) and calculating the hash of a plurality of parts (H(i,j,Y) in equation (2)) (col.2 l.54–65). Merkle teaches applying the same method to a second message (col.3 l.50–56: the method is applied both by the transmitter and by the receiver). Merkle teaches comparing the two data items based on the hash values (called “root values” in Merkle, col.3 l.52–56).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 2–21 are simple refinements of claim 1 and are not inventive in their own right. Claims 22, 32 and 36 concern the use of the hash values to look up objects in a database. This is arguably not obvious from Merkle. However, the use of hash trees in Python [as shown by peastman](https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/631) is prior art for that use.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5534" RevisionGUID="37ed2848-bf95-47bf-abc6-8f39d8222944" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON managing consumer profiles based on detailed visit records of consumers.** - This application from [Rapidblue Solutions / Shoppertrak][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving **location information** and a **unique identifier** of a consumer, retrieving consumer profile associated with the unique identifier, and **updating a consumer profile** based on information related to their location! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 4/28/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Updating consumer profiles based on consumer's visit record info.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A visit record information includes **a location visited by a consumer**, **date and time of visit**, and **length of time spent at the location**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Updating consumer profile based on location information received from the consumer's mobile device.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receive **visit record information** (such as location, **date and time of visit**, and **time spent at the location**) and **unique identifier** of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device, retrieve **consumer profile** associated with the **unique identifier** from a server, and update the retrieved **consumer profile** based on the **visit record information**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120278132 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/458,337&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Rapidblue Solutions / ShopperTrak][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 4/28/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/30/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for profiling a consumer, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An agent with a memory in communication with a processor, the memory including program instructions for execution by the processor to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receive a visit record information element comprising information about a location visited by the consumer and a unique consumer identifier;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Retrieve location information element associated with the location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Retrieve a consumer profile element associated with the unique consumer identifier;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Generate an updated consumer profile information element based at least in part on one or more of the consumer profile information element, the detailed visit record information element, and the location characterization information element; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Store the updated consumer profile information element in the server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving visit record information and unique identifier of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Retrieving consumer profile associated with the unique identifier from a server;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Updating the retrieved consumer profile based on the received visit record information; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Storing the updated consumer profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 4/28/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A tracking device (e.g. using **bluetooth**) that receives location information and unique identifier of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Location based consumer profiling&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/d3T4jbc.png&quot; width=&quot;421&quot; height=&quot;646&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20120278132&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://rapidbluesolutions.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120278132#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=04%2F28%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="637" RevisionGUID="eb8c108e-6b13-4666-82fd-3c3d742b72d0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Considering I'm not going to spend money trying to defend something I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; never intended to profit from in the first place, is there anything I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can do to invalidate the patent so no one has an exclusive right to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it, or at least help weaken it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The short answer is yes, but only by investing a decent amount of money in the process with no guarantee of success - something that doesn't seem particularly practical for someone in your position.  (There is a really good explanation of the various options [here][1].) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, writing a detailed post on a site like this one, citing the patents, linking to your sources to the extent they're still available, and asking if others here are aware of other prior art, could certainly make a difference if the patent owners ever try to enforce them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/590/over-time-which-patent-legislation-applies-current-or-past" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="669" RevisionGUID="ef656340-7629-4460-b573-10ba5e948399" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Almost every patent depends on a prior invention. If the invention is a material object, it probably depends on metal or plastic production techniques, chemical engineering, and other steps necessary to its manufacture. If the invention is the use of an algorithm on a computer, it depends on the many pieces of technology that are necessary to build a computer. It wouldn't make any sense to prevent patenting an invention that cannot be realized without other technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is in fact perfectly permissible, and routine, to patent improvements on previous inventions. For example, a cheaper manufacturing process, or a smaller device that was previously known to be possible. In the United States, the applicable law ([USC 35 §101](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/101)) reads (my emphasis):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any *new and useful improvement thereof*, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several flaws in your reasoning. One is that there is no such thing as “the patent for touch screens”. A patent is granted on a specific method for achieving a result, not on the result itself. A touchscreen is a result: an apparatus that both displays images and reacts to the touch of a finger or stylus. There are [many ways](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchscreen#Technologies) to accomplish this result (e.g. resistive, capacitive, etc.), and each of these is likely to be covered by many patents that concern a small part of the device or its manufacturing process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A second flaw is that even if person A held a patent covering a specific use of touchscreens, it would not prevent person B or anyone else from using touchscreens for another purpose. It is practically impossible to patent “all obvious uses of touchscreens”. For one thing, if it's obvious, it isn't patentable. Assuming you really meant *all the uses of touchscreens that anybody has thought of*, that's a tall order. Once again, a patent would have to cover a specific use of touchscreens, for one specific purpose. It does happen sometimes that a company can effectively “lock” the use of a technology by holding key patents related to that technology, but even then what it usually means is that the alternate ways to accomplish the same result, while known, are more expensive than paying royalties for the best method.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the specific case of [two Apple patents related to multi-touch screens](https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/394/could-apples-recent-patents-be-based-on-prior-art/667#667), these patents cover the use of specific gestures to accomplish specific results (a particular way to scroll or zoom). Even if the patents are valid, they would not cover any method to scroll or zoom using multiple fingers on a touchscreen that does not follow the precise sequence of steps listed in the claims, let alone the use of multi-touch to do anything other than scroll or zoom.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="3c32391c-6d90-487a-9ac2-293dac132073" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions** - This application from [Smart Destinations, Inc][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Enhanced data collection and reporting for improved ticket pricing and marketing. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/15/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Enhanced data collection related to a customer's travel path in order to improve ticket pricing and marketing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Dynamically pricing and validating access to goods, services, attractions, events and other items&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Method for enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving an identification of a location of a user and a **first attraction** selected for access by a user, determining a **travel path** between the location of the user and the **first attraction**, identifying a **second attraction** within a predetermined distance from the **travel path**, and transmitting an offer of access to the **second attraction** to a computing device of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120323691 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/523,213&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Smart Destinations, Inc.][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/15/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for enhanced marketing responsive to customer path data between attractions, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, by a first device, an identification of a location of a user and a first attraction selected for access by a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining, by a path analyzer, a travel path between the location of the user and the first attraction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identifying, by the path analyzer, a second attraction within a predetermined distance from the travel path; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmitting, by the first device to a computing device of the user, an offer of access to the second attraction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for better customer marketing based on customer path data between attractions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receive an identification of a user's location and a first attraction selected for access by the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determine a travel path between the location of the user and the first attraction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identify a second attraction within a predetermined distance from the travel path; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmit an offer of access to the second attraction to a computing device of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/15/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Identifying the second attraction based on a net price. The  net price being below a net price threshold or an average customer visit time of the second attraction being above a visit time threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Location-based marketing for attraction access&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/gIUuqQa.png&quot; width=&quot;315&quot; height=&quot;458&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120323691&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.smartdestinations.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120323691" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="686" RevisionGUID="a29b7948-2a34-4be5-9baf-af3ea9ad563b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are two forms of intellectual property that might apply here: [patents](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent) and [copyright](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright). Patents can cover the idea but require considerable effort to get. Copyright is automatic but does not cover the idea, only the software itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent covers a specific method to accomplish a certain practical result. If your idea leads to some new practical realization, you can apply for a patent; this gives you an exclusive right to use the specific method for the specified purpose for a few years. New is called “no prior art”: it means that no one has ever done it that way before (except perhaps in private), or publicly described how to do it (even if they merely described the method but never wrote the software, that's prior art), or filed a patent about it. Getting a patent requires a substantial initial effort and expense (see e.g. https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/90/is-it-practical-for-a-novice-to-successfully-file-a-patent-without-hiring-a-pate). It is not automatic. If you publish your work, you can no longer patent it (except in a few countries, including the Unites States, where you have a 1 year grace period to file a patent). Your project defense or report would count as a public disclosure unless you take care to require a confidentiality agreement from all the people who have access to your report (some schools might be accommodating).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Copyright applies to works of literature, art and other original creations. Software is subject to copyright. Copyright is automatic: as soon as you create the work, you hold the copyright on it. You do not need to apply for or file anything (though in some jurisdiction filing increases the damages you can claim if someone breaches your copyright). Copyright only covers the software or works derived from that software. Someone else may look at how your software works and write their own code that implements the same idea, or they might have the same idea independently; you do not have a monopoly on the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way you might try to benefit from your idea is by keeping it secret, and making people pay to use the software or to obtain a description of the idea. Under [trade secret](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret) regulations, you do get some protection from the law if someone divulges your secret while under an agreement not to do so. If you accidentally release some information, or if someone else independently discovers the idea, you do not have any protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is fairly rare that a “final year project” leads to an idea that is so valuable that it is worthwhile going to the expense of protecting it. Do consult your educational institution: they might have in-house legal help, or conversely they might require you to publish your work in order to get your degree. They might also lay claim to some part of any benefit you get from the idea, as that idea might have been partly due to your advisor or other professors or mentors.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="4b9ac034-8cf5-4db9-98be-095c52e3f894" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" Apple [recently filed for an &quot;Interactive Map&quot; patent][1] that in every way resembles a collection of technologies and methods known as &quot;Geographic Information Systems&quot; (GIS). 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 in particular has been in active use by the GIS community for over 40 years:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for **displaying a map on a computing device**, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Storing information to be displayed on the map in a memory of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computing device, the stored information comprising a plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different layers of information, wherein each layer contains a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; respective type of information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Displaying a map on a display of the computing device, the map comprising&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a plurality of the layers of information superimposed upon one another;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - In response to a user selection of a display mode corresponding to a topic of interest, displaying at least one layer containing information that is associated with the selected mode; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Enhancing the value of at least one display parameter for map features of each displayed layer that are associated with the selected mode, relative to a default value for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the display parameter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likely innovators/publishers(manuals...)/patentees in this vein include [Esri][2], [Pitney Bowes][3] and [Google][4]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help find prior art from **June 5th 2012 or earlier**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior art can be any publication (webpage, user manual, paper, book, youtube video, patent pre-grant publication) or patent. **It is helpful to establish a date when the prior art was available to the public and a solid reference which can be cited by the USPTO**.  A citable reference can often be found in a contemporaneous publication about the technology in magazine, blog, or scientific article.  Another place to look is [The Wayback Machine](https://archive.org/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's help inform the USPTO!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Publication Number: **[US 20130339891 A1][5]**&#xD;&#xA;- Priority Date: Seeking prior art predating **Jun 5, 2012**&#xD;&#xA;- Assignee: Apple, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Interactive Map US20130339891][6]&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][7].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][8] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&amp;r=2&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=%28715/771.CCLS.%20AND%2020131219.PD.%29&amp;OS=ccl/715/771%20and%20pd/12/19/2013&amp;RS=%28CCL/715/771%20AND%20PD/20131219%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.esri.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.mapinfo.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/maps/about/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&amp;r=2&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=%28715/771.CCLS.%20AND%2020131219.PD.%29&amp;OS=ccl/715/771%20and%20pd/12/19/2013&amp;RS=%28CCL/715/771%20AND%20PD/20131219%29&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/pkgiB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5670" RevisionGUID="0668fe8e-e7a2-468c-bd27-7bb0b7f881d4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="[US20130130212 - Language phoneme practice engine][1]&#xD;&#xA;This is a patent **application**. It is not an issued patent.&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some sense, anyone can file a patent application for anything.  Whatever is filed is assigned an application number as an administrative matter to keep things in order. The USPTO uses the application number to track the application while the USPTO evaluates whether the claims are novel, non-obvious, useful, and pertain to a subject matter which can be patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically 18 months after the application is filed it is made public and the dialog between the applicant and the USPTO appears as documents in [Public Pair][2] where anyone can read them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject patent application [US20130130212][3] has received two **non-final rejections** and a **final rejection** by the USPTO on 5/21/13.  The applicant is allowed to pay another fee and file a **Request for Continued Examination** to continue modifying the claims and arguing with the USPTO examiner, which is what this applicant has done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicant had a telephone meeting with the USPTO examiner in December 2013.  The summary of that can be read in the file history as well.  No agreement was reached with the examiner and the patent application would appear to be dead in the water as currently written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent application doesn't entitle the applicant to do anything (except to keep discussions going with the USPTO by paying fees).  It doesn't give the applicant any right to prevent others from making, using or selling a **Language phoneme practice engine** unless it is allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If claims ever are allowed by the USPTO for this application, one would need to read to read the claims of the issued patent carefully to understand what has been patented.  The title of the patent application is not a complete summary and often is only tangentially related to the actual invention (which can be much more limited).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see the file history here on [Public PAIR][4]&#xD;&#xA;![Public PAIR][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130130212&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3330/1767&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130130212&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/fmSLf.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="694" RevisionGUID="1ba71e7f-cd5f-45bb-8d41-716bb9d16a44" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="The short answer is that an essential patent is a patent that covers technology required to implement a technology standard. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, it is used more specifically to refer to patents owned by companies that work together to create a standard, and agree to license their &quot;essential patents&quot; to other people who are implementing the standard. But in some contexts &quot;essential patents&quot; can also refer to patents held by third parties that did not participate in the drafting of the standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some nuances:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every standards body has slightly different definitions of what constitutes an essential patent. For example, the [W3C patent policy says][1]: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Essential Claims&quot; shall mean all claims in any patent or patent application in any jurisdiction in the world that would necessarily be infringed by implementation of the Recommendation. A claim is necessarily infringed hereunder only when it is not possible to avoid infringing it because there is no non-infringing alternative for implementing the normative portions of the Recommendation. Existence of a non-infringing alternative shall be judged based on the state of the art at the time the specification becomes a Recommendation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see by reading this where things might change from standards body to standards body: what does it mean to be &quot;necessarily infringed&quot;? (Some standards bodies don't define this at all, or use slightly different definitions.) When might we analyze whether something is necessarily infringed? And so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third parties who did not participate in a standards body process can also sometimes be said to have an essential patent, depending on how the term is being used. For example, [BT's supposed patent on hyperlinking][2] (if it had been upheld) would be an &quot;essential patent&quot; for HTML in at least some senses of the term, because no one could implement HTML without infringing it. But unless BT had agreed to license the patent as part of the standards body that defined HTML, then in many formal settings the patent might not necessarily considered an essential patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exactly who has to license their essential patents also varies from standards body to standards body. Generally speaking, all participants in the creation of the standard will agree to license their relevant patents, but some standards bodies allow patent owners to withdraw from a process at certain points, or publish specific patents that are excluded from the process. Again, figuring out the exact answer can result in litigation: for example, [Rambus spent almost all of the '00s engaged in litigation with various parties over whether or not Rambus should have licensed their essential patents in certain RAM standards to various RAM manufacturers][3]. Deciding who has to license which patents is usually a matter of interpreting the specific terms of the standards body's legal agreements. It can also become an antitrust issue under certain conditions, in particular where the holder of the essential patent is not part of the standards body (as in the BT example above).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the exact terms of how the patents must be licensed can also vary from standards body to standards body. For example, W3C requires royalty-free licensing (see [point 5][4]), while many other standards bodies require &quot;[reasonable and non-discriminatory][5]&quot; licenses - which requires interpreting what &quot;reasonable&quot; means. Some standards bodies only require licenses be granted to companies that write &quot;compatible&quot; implementations, which requires understanding what is or isn't a compatible implementation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bottom line: there is no one answer for what an essential patent is; it varies from standards body to standards body, can be influenced by antitrust considerations, and in some cases can be used more broadly to mean &quot;any patent that is necessary to implement a standard, whether or not the patent holder participated in the creation of the standard.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#def-essential&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cptech.org/ip/business/hyperlink.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus#Lawsuits&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Requirements&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/634/frand-rand-patents/657#657" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="743" RevisionGUID="0e6d76d5-1696-4f22-bd02-505662d0c5b6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Looking for prior art for Apple's search algorithm patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In January 2000, Apple filed its original patent application to a heuristic search approach that uses a variety of algorithms that depend upon the area being searched.  The application also suggests that some of the searches will be done on the local computer while others will be over the network.  Although developed much later, Apple has claimed that this invention is embodied by its iPhone Siri application.   Apple has also sued Samsung for infringing one of the resulting patents. The courts have rejected that claim, but Apple still has a continuation application pending in the case. (Published as [US Pub. No. 2012-0166477][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new application claims: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computerized method, comprising &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving at least a partial search query;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; storing the at least partial search query on a non-transitory computer readable medium; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; searching a first plurality of files for matches with the at least partial search query, wherein the first plurality of files is located across an internet connection coupled to the non-transitory computer readable medium; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; searching a second plurality of files for matches with the at least partial search query, wherein the second plurality of files is only available via local access from  a computer that includes the non-transitory computer readable medium; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving a notification of at least one search result; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO has identified two relevant references: Patent Nos. [6,185,567][2] and [6,070,158][3], but I suspect that others are available.  Prior art must be submitted to the USPTO before December 28, 2012. [Directions for Sending Prior Art to USPTO][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: This application is related to Apple's Patent No. 8,086,604 discussed in a [different AskPatents question][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=303204&amp;OS=303204&amp;RS=303204&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6185567&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6070158?pg=PA5&amp;dq=6,070,158&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=1NV-UKWsC8iLywG9wIHIAQ&amp;ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120916162139282&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/699/prior-art-for-apples-unified-search-patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5685" RevisionGUID="5a3f5e88-003f-46f2-8c56-3f533574f4b4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON determining the shareability of online content and generating customer relevance scores** - This application from a few independent social media &quot;experts&quot; seeks to patent the idea of...Obtaining social media data from multiple social media platforms relative to online content, calculating a customer relevance score that represents shareability of the online content and providing the customer relevance score to an end user client device.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/18/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Measuring &quot;shareability&quot; of online content; evaluating tone of content and whether content is relevant to potential customers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Calculation of the **customer relevance score** comprises calculating an **author rank** for an author by determining an influence for the author, dividing the **author rank** by a sum of **author ranks** for a plurality of authors to calculate an **adjusted author rank score**, multiplying the adjusted **author rank score** with three weighted components .&#xD;&#xA;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determine shareability of online content and generate customer relevance scores**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Obtaining **social media data** from multiple **social media platforms** relative to **online content**, calculating a **customer relevance score** that represents shareability of the **online content** and providing the **customer relevance score** to an **end user**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130046760 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/587,789&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Michelle Amanda Evans, Elizabeth Ann High, Russell Taufa&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/18/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for determining the shareability of online content, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining, via a social media intelligence system, social media data from one or more social media platforms relative to online content;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Calculating, via the social media intelligence system, a customer relevance score that represents shareability of the online content; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing the customer relevance score to an end user client device by the social media intelligence system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for determining the shareability of online content, the method comprising the following steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining social media data from multiple social media platforms relative to online content;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Calculating a customer relevance score that represents shareability of the online content; and Calculating a customer relevance score that represents shareability of the online content; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing the customer relevance score to an end user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/18/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Identifying content that is to be tracked to determine the shareability of the content, tracking social media conversations of authors related to the content, grouping the social media conversations into one or more shareability classifications by conducting a semiotic evaluation of the social media conversations, and categorizing any of authors and social media conversations based upon the classification of social media conversations into one or more shareability classifications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Determine shareability of online content and generate customer relevance scores&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/2L2EiTs.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130046760 &#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130046760 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="749" RevisionGUID="1f9ec1a4-3071-44d0-bbbe-61afcd4a69a6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="As far as I can guess, it's probably very much like pricing any other asset, but with several caveats that are very specific to the patent system. One such significant caveat is the unpredictable effect of case law as it is made. As an extreme example, imagine if you had a &quot;valuable&quot; business method patent, and the Bilski decision had flat out ruled business methods as un-statutory. Suddenly your patent value basically drops to 0.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it certainly is possible; after all, licensing executives and damages experts in patent lawsuits do it regularly. The best person to comment here would be an experienced licensing executive, but I doubt we'll get one here anytime soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From some light research, hearsay and guesswork, here is an approach at a very broad level. (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, licensing executive or a business person, and it'll be obvious; Heck, I don't even have an MBA.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Identify the potential target market for licensing. This may include: firms that would like to use the invention encapsulated in the patent and license it; firms that are already using the invention and thus infringing; or firms that are likely to infringe in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Identify the finances of the potential licensee firms, such as annual revenue statements etc. from public records and quarterly reports. This is typically pretty straightforward market research, especially for public companies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Identify the value of the invention with respect to the annual revenues above, i.e. what portion of their revenues could be attributed, either directly or indirectly, to this patent. Now *this* is a very complex problem because, as you can imagine, such detailed information is rarely available. Sometimes it is only accessible on discovery, which means a lawsuit has been filed and you're at one of the most expensive stages. Even with discovery things are complicated. For instance, a company may not be making any meaningful revenue from the product that practices the invention itself, but from other auxiliary sources. An example of this is Google's use of Java in Android in Oracle vs. Google; since Google mostly licenses Android for free and makes money from ads, Oracle had to work a bit to show how much *advertising* revenue could be attributed to *Android's* alleged infringement of their Java patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Once you get a number, say F, for the fraction of annual revenues attributable to the invention, determine the number of years, say T, left until your patent expires, and the period of past infringements during its term, if any. Multiply the number of years T by the fraction F to get a value V.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You now have a rough idea of the value V of the patent over its term based on the fraction of the revenues of potential licensees which could be attributable to the invention. However, no business is simply going to pay up that amount without negotiation, if at all they even bother to negotiate before filing a [Declaratory Judgement][1] to preemptively torpedo you. So this number is more of a rough *upper bound* on the value of that patent, since the actual value will typically be much lower. It *may* be higher, but I'd guess such cases are rare; say, for instance, if you can prove willful infringement and get treble damages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now the task is to identify the various factors, costs and risks involved in monetizing this patent. I discussed a few of the risks in the second half of [this previous answer][2]. Rest assured there are many more (such as the imaginary Bilski scenario above.) More interesting are the various factors that come into play. The value of the patent will change drastically depending on how you assert it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Would the potential licensee be amenable to a license, or do they have a strict &quot;anti-patent troll&quot; stance (for whatever their definition of &quot;troll&quot; is)? If they don't license easily, a lawsuit is in the offing and will reduce the value to you greatly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Can the potential licensee bring a countersuit against you? If so, the value of the patent would be offset by the liability of the countersuit, or you may be forced into a cross-license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Are you cross-licensing it? If so you have to estimate a value in terms of the value of the patents being offered for cross-license, and monetary value may well be 0.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Are you practicing the invention yourself? If so, your case becomes stronger as you could show damages from lost profits, which may raise the estimated value. If you're not practicing the invention yourself, your estimate should be lower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Are you asserting through your own lawyers or a licensing executive? If so, their fees will add a very significant cost that could reduce the value of that patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Alternatively, are you asserting through a NPE/patent assertion entity or a &quot;contingency&quot; law firm? If so, the value of the patent *to you* is much lower, because the NPE /contingency firm is taking most of the upfront risk, and as such will negotiate to keep most of the winnings, if any. Typically, the longer the case goes on, the greater their effort and risk and hence more of the pie they get. For instance, if the licensee settles immediately, they may keep less than 20%, but if the case goes all the way to trial and a jury decision, they may keep more than 50%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To reiterate, note that this is a *very* simplified and generalized approach. Actual methods would be much more sophisticated, taking into account many more factors I can't even begin to contemplate, such as industry-specific nuances. I imagine huge, complex, multi-sheet spreadsheets would be involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as in the other linked post, I simply want to emphasize that monetizing patents is not nearly as easy as many people think, and it begins right from estimating a &quot;value&quot; for the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/declaratory+judgment&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/674/can-a-new-idea-for-a-software-project-be-an-intellectual-property/692#692" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="c22c03d3-70a9-4d87-9457-8b19a6d20ef4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" ![enter image description here][8]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An **initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the grounds for rejection (can be seen in Public PAIR) are based on prior art from [Lycos][9], [Yahoo][12], [Oracle][10], and [Microsoft's own patent applications][11].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Applying administrator defined ranking rules to alter the ranking of search results** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Applying a user-defined ranking rule on search results and re-ordering the search results based on the ranking rule! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Re-ordering search results based on rules defined by a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Graphical User Interface allows a user to: configure the **ranking rules** such as to enter **key/value restrictions** or set a **boost value**,  preview an application of one or more of the **ranking rules**, specify a portion of results from which statistics such as **standard deviation**, **average score** are calculated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: User-configured rules to re-order search results.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving search results, applying user-defined re-ranking rules to the search results, and re-ranking the search results based on the user-defined re-ranking rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130198174 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/360,536&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/28/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for re-ranking search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results that are ranked; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. applying a ranking rule defined by a user to the search results that re-ranks the search results, wherein the ranking rule includes user specified parameters that influence how a result within the search results is re-ranked using statistical information relating to the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for re-ordering search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving search results in an order in response to a search query executed using a search engine;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.    applying a re-ordering rule defined by a user to re-order the search results, where the re-ordering rule defines ordering a result within the search results on the basis of statistical information related to search results; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. re-ordering the search results on the basis of user-defined re-ordering rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A Graphical User Interface (GUI) displays options for a user to set search parameters to re-rank search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;User defined re-ordering of search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Ie8wCzF.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130198174&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130198174#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=01%2F27%2F2012&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6012053&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7996392&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20090006358&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8412702" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="f34b7f6b-84c9-4b31-a102-32d86754fff6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question][1] answers whether a prior patent application can be used against a newer commonly owned patent application, but my question is what situations (if any) exist where a prior publication, or patent, cannot be used as prior art against a pending application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/633/can-my-own-published-application-be-used-against-my-newer-application-on-the" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5739" RevisionGUID="a2ddc30a-ee3b-415b-a5bf-74aa5ebaf7a0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Determining whether or not features of discussion thread pages have changed with time** - This application from [Sony][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Recording contents of an electronic page at different intervals and determining changes in the contents! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 7/26/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining change in contents of a discussion thread page with time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - An **electronic bulletin board system**: includes **discussion thread pages** each associated with a **discussion topic**, allows a user to create a new **discussion thread page** for a new **discussion topic**, or post a comment to an already created **discussion thread page**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining changes in contents of a discussion thread with time.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying contents of a page at various time intervals, and determining whether a feature of the page has changed based on the content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130031118 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/554,135&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Sony&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 7/26/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An information processing system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An identifying unit that repeatedly identifies a content of a page whose content changes with a lapse of time; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A determination unit that determines based on contents of the page identified at different timings whether or not a feature of the identified page has changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An information processing system for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying contents of a page whose contents changes with time, at various time intervals; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining whether a feature of the page has changed on the basis of the identified contents of the page at the various time intervals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 7/26/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Receiving a search request and searching discussion thread pages matching the received search request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Identify change in contents of a discussion thread&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/wgPel4S.png&quot; width=&quot;450&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130031118&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.scei.co.jp/index_e.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130031118#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=07%2F20%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1976" RevisionGUID="e7f9487c-2826-4948-9f08-86e8bb6a202f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Related to this question on [3D Systems patent expiry][1], it appears that 3D Systems are raising a patent infringement lawsuit on the basis that Kickstarter and Formlabs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; knew or should have known about, or were willfully blind to, 3D&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Systems' extensive patent rights in thearea of three-dimensional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; printing and stereolithography&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be more on the legal side rather than the patent side, but surely they must have to first find out whether any of their specific patents are infringed, rather than just say, &quot;We have a lot of patents in this field, you must have infringed some...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the correct process here? Shouldn't they wait to see what technology is implemented in this process?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/1975/81" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1984" RevisionGUID="a3ec90c8-6953-4ba2-9c17-bc90deb9aaf1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I don't know about the first question, but the second is no.  Calculating a patent term can be [complicated][1], but assuming the maintenance fees were paid, etc., there's no reason it should have expired in 2007.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/1905/is-u-s-patent-6578010-in-the-public-domain/1912#1912" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1991" RevisionGUID="35febfe4-92b2-432f-92a7-358f6645fa95" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="In reading the [Whitserv v Computer Packages][1] case and [blog entry from Patently-O,][2] I’m having problems in seeing how patent [6,981,007][3] is valid. I noticed that there is [another question][4] regarding this patent but the claim wording always confuses me. I tried to put Claim 1 into non-patent language to say this: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Users access service over the Internet from client computers to create Internet- based data such as documents which are stored on servers.&#xD;&#xA;User downloads and backs up data off internet based app&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent claims continuity from 1999. Is there prior art that pre-dates this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1: A system for onsite backup of internet-based data comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * a central computer;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * a client computer;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * a communications link between said central computer and the Internet;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * a communications link between said client computer and the Internet;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * at least one database containing a plurality of data records accessible by said central computer, each data record containing a client identification number;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * software executing on said central computer for receiving a data backup request from said client computer;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * software executing on said central computer for transmitting said data backup to said client computer for onsite backup of internet-based data on said client computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentlyo.com/files/11-1206-1261.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/08/whitserve-v-computer-packages.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us6981007&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/808/prior-art-for-onsite-backup-for-internet-based-data-processing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5776" RevisionGUID="b3aa3442-38b8-4ce7-9135-188ab561eeb1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Dynamic preloading of web pages** - This [Apple][10] application seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying links in a loaded first web page, determining an order of pre-loading second web pages based on links to those web pages, and loading one or more of the second web pages according to the order!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The assignment history here is illustrative because [Julien Nguyen][3] apparently assigned the patent in 1996 to his employer at the time, MagicWeb.  After a [long chain of assignments and reassignments][11] over 15 years... the patent family is purchased by [Apple][10].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apple is trying to &quot;improve&quot; the claims of the patent through this continuation while retaining the 1996 priority date of Nguyen's original application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/13/1996** (this is a continuation of an old patent by Julien Nguyen) that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Dynamic pre-loading of web pages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Dynamically selecting and preloading **web pages** from **page server** to **page client** using parameters indicated by the **page client** or the **page server**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Dynamic preloading of web pages**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying a plurality of links in a loaded **first web page**, each of the plurality of links pointing to a respective one of a plurality of **secondary web pages**, determining an order of the plurality of **secondary web pages** for loading, and loading one or more of the plurality of **secondary web pages** according to the order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120221930 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/439,226&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Julien Tan Nguyen][3]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/13/1996&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method implemented by a computing device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Loading a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a plurality of links in the loaded first web page, each of the plurality of links pointing to a respective one of a plurality of secondary web pages;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining an order of the plurality of secondary web pages for loading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Loading one or more of the plurality of secondary web pages according to the order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method implemented by a computing device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Loading a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying multiple links in the loaded first web page, each of the multiple links pointing to a respective one of multiple secondary web pages;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining an order of the multiple secondary web pages for loading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Loading one or more of the multiple secondary web pages according to the determined order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/13/1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Dynamically saving and recalling behavior information, by the page client, about web pages to be presented, the behavior information being independent of actual links indicated on the web pages. The behavior information is further responsive to parameters selected by the operator parameters adaptively determined by the page client, or responsive to a combination thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Dynamic preloading of web pages&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/J5Xz9q9.png&quot; width=&quot;448&quot; height=&quot;486&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120221930&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://twitter.com/julien888&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120221930#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=09%2F13%2F1996&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.apple.com&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&amp;pat=6584498" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2128" RevisionGUID="0e65aa0a-2c9c-4c7e-be8e-0f883d0c6933" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [is there an infringement between this patent and lufthansa us8216392 patent?](https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/2126/is-there-an-infringement-between-this-patent-and-lufthansa-us8216392-patent)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;[us8216392][1] patent produced &quot;cyclean&quot; you can google for images and [us7445677][2] drawings are very close, and also claims are very close&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8216392&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7445677" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5814" RevisionGUID="939250b0-9196-4631-840b-b2367069d127" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Publishing data items related to an event of interest to a user** - This application from [Ebay][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Determining a news event, identifying data items associated with the determined news event, and publishing the identified data items online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 10/22/2009** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining data items related to an event of interest to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A sample **list of events** may include elections, wars or conflicts, debates, **movie premiers**, **movie times**, **sporting events**, conventions, **celestial events**, **anniversaries of events**, or other **media events**. The **data items** may be in the form of **item listings**, links, **advertisements for products or services**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Publishing data items related to an event of interest**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Determining a news event based on a recent increase in interest of a user, identifying data items related to the determined news event, and presenting the relationship between the news event and the identified data items to the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120197752 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/440,865&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Ebay&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 10/22/2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/29/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining, using one or more processors, a news event of a plurality of news events, the news event corresponding to a recent increase in user interest above a baseline user interest;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying one or more listings from a plurality of listings as matching the news event associated with the user interest, wherein the one or more listings include search results retrieved in response to a search query from a user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Presenting, to the user, a visual representation of a relationship between the news event and the one or more listings such that the one or more listings are displayed as visually related to the news event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining a news event related to a recent increase in interest of a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying a list of data items matching the determined news event,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * the identified list of data items includes search results retrieved in response to a search query from the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Displaying a relationship between the list of data items and the determined news event to the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 10/22/2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming An event of interest to a user is determined based on change in frequency of search queries related to a search category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Publishing data items related to an event of interest to a user&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Scsc9sE.png&quot; width=&quot;550&quot; height=&quot;900&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120197752&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ebayinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120197752#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=10%2F22%2F2009" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6074" RevisionGUID="8c12af25-f7aa-4268-b31e-e86ba336e6fc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Patent [US 8255828 B2][1] (publication US 10/955,967, assigned to Microsoft), *Command user interface for displaying selectable software functionality controls*, is the main patent protecting the [Ribbon UI][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent is heavily contested by the open-source software community, and I'm sure there's prior art out there. Have you seen anything **published before August 16, 2004** that discusses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a tabbed toolbar, each tab containing a series of logical groups of buttons, check boxes, drop-down boxes, and other UI controls for a related set of functions (such as editing a table inserted into a Word document)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question, one piece of prior art per answer. If you have several pieces of prior art, you may submit multiple answers, each describing a particular piece of prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Diagram 1 shows Windows Explorer in Windows 8.1, which contains an example of the Ribbon UI, and demonstrates a function covered in claim 1 of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim of the aforementioned patent is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for providing functionality from a software application by displaying an improved user interface at a display device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;organizing a plurality of software functionalities according to tasks to be performed by the software application, the tasks being identified textually by user interface tabs;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  upon receiving an indication of a selection of a first user interface tab, providing a plurality of selectable controls associated with a first task, each selectable control being presented by a graphic representation and a textual representation;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  grouping the plurality of selectable controls into logical groupings of the plurality of selectable controls, wherein each of the logical groupings combine a subset of functionalities associated with the selected first user interface tab;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  dynamically adjusting a layout of at least one of the logical groupings to accommodate the user interface, wherein dynamically adjusting the layout of the at least one logical grouping comprises reducing a size of the graphical representation of at least one selectable control within the logical grouping eliminating the textual representation of at least one selectable control associated with the at least one logical grouping, and preserving the graphical representation associated with the at least one selectable control associated with the at least one logical grouping;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  upon receiving an indication of a selection of a second user interface tab, providing in the user interface a plurality of additional selectable controls for selecting functionalities organized under a second task associated with the second user interface tab;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  after providing in the user interface the plurality of additional selectable controls for selecting functionalities organized under the second task, receiving an indication of a selection of one of the additional selectable controls organized under the second task;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  applying functionality associated with the selected additional selectable control to a selected object; and&#xD;&#xA;when the second user interface tab is not selected in the user interface, providing in the user interface the plurality of selectable controls organized under the first task associated with the selected first user interface tab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More simply, this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A user interface for a software application which:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - consists of a series of tabs each representing a set of functions to be performed by the application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - provides a set of UI controls relevant to a particular task when the user selects a particular tab, with each control consisting of an icon and text&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - arranges the controls in each tab into a series of subgroups&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - if necessary, hides the text for at least one UI control in a tab, leaving only the icon for that control(s), while retaining the text and graphics for other controls (*see Diagram 1*)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - provides a second set of UI controls relevant to a different task when the user clicks on a second tab&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - accepts user selection of one of the UI controls in the second set after displaying the controls in the second tab&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - performs the function associated with a UI control in the second tab when the user selects it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - displays the UI controls in the first selected tab when a second tab is not selected&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that followed all of these steps before August 16, 2004.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Diagram 1&#xD;&#xA;![Diagram 1: Windows Explorer in Windows 8.1: Shrinking the controls in the Ribbon to adapt to a smaller window by removing text from UI controls][3]&#xD;&#xA;*Windows Explorer in Windows 8.1: Shrinking the controls in the Ribbon to adapt to a smaller window by removing text from UI controls*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- FAQ link replaced with link to help center --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see the [help center][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US pending and issued patents.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8255828&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribbon_%28computing%29&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/zbpR1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+post-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3226" RevisionGUID="c392c50e-6c68-4879-82e3-8b28381b4c18" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Related to a previous question https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3218/patent-specification-level-of-detail&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to file two patent applications for two inventions that use some common underlying technologies (the same ones I'm talking about in the related question).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Should I describe these underlying technologies in both applications?&#xD;&#xA;These would implicate that some drawings and descriptions would be repeated in both applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6103" RevisionGUID="48462b8d-bf72-4c0a-9d53-b17079e16e80" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON location-based online marketplaces** - This application from [Zaarly, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...An online marketplace which associates a geographic location with each listing and and **search radius** with a prospective buyer or seller! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/3/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Online marketplaces which specify location of items and a radius of interest for buyer or seller &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Geographic interest may be specificed by **search radius** and items for sale may be assigned to **keyword categories**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Proximity-based online marketplace**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] An online marketplace where each listing is associated with a geographic target areas; potential buyers are shown example listings based on their location and target area of each listing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120284143 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/414,278&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Zaarly, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/3/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An online system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A database storing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    * Example listings, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    * A geographic target area associated with each of the example listings; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A server configured to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    * Detect a location of a client device accessing the system over a network,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    * Identify a set of the example listings based on the detected location and the geographic target areas, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    * Provide the identified set of example listings to the client device over the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A proximity-based online marketplace, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A database storing listings and a geographic target area associated with each listing; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A server configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - Detect the location of a client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - Identify a set of listings based on the detected location and the geographic target area; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - Provide the listings to the client&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/3/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Assigning items to keyword categories, showing example listing and using demographic information about buyer to target items to potential buyers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Network &quot;architecture&quot; for proximity-based online marketplace&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/VpFMWt8.png&quot; width=&quot;550&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120284143&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.zaarly.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120284143#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=03%2F07%2F2012&amp;t=1online%20marketplace.1proximity.1example.0listings.0sellers.0buyers.0allow%20listings.0offer.0post%20listings.0detected%20location%20data." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3408" RevisionGUID="31b2f4c3-1c2b-4062-ad62-2743fbe53cb3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question is a continuation on the results of https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3351/detailed-description-of-a-system-to-suit-system-and-method-claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice too I'm the guy of https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3225/patent-without-an-attorney-what-are-the-risks and I'm trying to write myself the description of my invention, then before 12 months after filing get a patent lawyer to review my claims or write different ones. So my description writing is a bit speculative to what final claims will be used. I have written some claims myself but I expect them to be rewritten within a year. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I finished writing a description of a computer implemented system.  As I described it I've been talking about  “embodiments of the system” all the time. Now I wanted to add some language to the description to be able to support method claims. I'm a bit confused to what “language” may be required. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have some thoughts about how to introduce this method language in the description. It would be great if someone could comment on them, or point out the right way of introducing this language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) Describe as a method all what I have already described as a system and that involves steps of some sort. I have many flowcharts in the description, maybe I can re-describe them as a method. If I do that, shall I do it interlaced with the system description or shall I start a new section and describe all again as a method.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) Describe as a method only the human performed steps of the described system. Meaning the actions that a user would perform to use the system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c) Forget about the method claims and use only system claims, or use system claims and claims starting with “ A computer-implemented process for...”  In this case my current description language could already support both system claims and computer-implemented process claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;d) Just add the word “method” to the title, so that reads something like “system and method for...”. Then in the description add the word “method” to some of the places where I had system, so that now they are “system and method”. It sounds a bit weird though to refer to “embodiments of a system and method”. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related with my thought d) I've seen some patents that have the word “method” in the title and then have method claims, but they don't really use the word method in the description, they actually describe flowcharts but talk about a system. I made a search in the USPTO database http://patft1.uspto.gov and search for patents that have the word “method” in the title, but do not have the word “method” in the description. ie. ttl/method andnot spec/method&#xD;&#xA;This search results in 39713 hits!!! I checked a few of them and effectively they had “method” in the title and method claims but no references to methods in the description. &#xD;&#xA;Were all these people lazy? Or is it understood that if you describe something that can be interpreted as a method then I can claim it as a method regardless of specific language with the “method” word in the description?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6362" RevisionGUID="8c55ead1-07a5-44d7-863e-9d0928047c4c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON utilizing a mobile station for the transmission of authorization information in a telecommunication network** - This application from [IV][6] seeks to patent the idea of...A transmitter configured to transmit information to a mobile station, and a processor in communication with the transmitter and configured to generate a verification result indicating a verification status of the transaction, in response to a request received from a verifying device.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/2/2000** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Transmission of authorization information utilizing a mobile station &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Authorization information may refer to information which can be used to verify a **person's right of admission**, **right to use a service**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Authorization information transmission using a mobile station**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A transmitter configured to transmit information to a **mobile station**, the information corresponds to a transaction to be verified, a processor in communication with the transmitter and configured to generate a **verification result** indicating a **verification status** of the transaction, in response to a request received from a **verifying device**, and the **verifying device** is configured to receive information from the **mobile device** and transmit the request to verify the transaction to the **authorization server** based on the information received from the **mobile station**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20140012609 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 14/023,812&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IV&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/2/2000&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 7/8/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An authorization server comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a transmitter configured to transmit information to a mobile station, wherein the information corresponds to a transaction to be verified; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a processor in communication with the transmitter and configured to generate a verification result indicating a verification status of the transaction, in response to a request received from a verifying device, wherein the verifying device is configured to receive information from the mobile device and transmit the request to verify the transaction to the authorization server based on the information received from the mobile station.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1a. A transmitter configured to transmit information to a mobile station,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1b. The information corresponds to a transaction to be verified; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2a. A processor in communication with the transmitter and configured to generate a verification result indicating a verification status of the transaction, in response to a request received from a verifying device, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2b. The verifying device is configured to receive information from the mobile device and transmit the request to verify the transaction to the authorization server based on the information received from the mobile station.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/2/2000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming The receiver comprises a wireless communications receiver to receive the information through a wireless connection&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Authorization Information&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zrsiVIK.png&quot; width=&quot;776&quot; height=&quot;574&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140012609&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.intellectualventures.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20140012609#c=0&amp;d1=05%2F02%2F2000" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3493" RevisionGUID="88e1eb31-bcb3-427d-9caa-e35a10b39435" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="&lt;em&gt;This call for prior art is part of the [EFF][1]'s effort to keep 3D printing open. Read about the initiative [here][2], and check out [Google Patents][3] or the [USPTO][4] for full details about this particular application.&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Additive manufacturing system and method for printing customized chocolate confections][5]&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Additive Manufacturing System and Method for Printing Customized Chocolate Confections&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application claims that 3D printing with chocolate is sufficiently inventive to receive a patent, paving the way for every thermoplastic material to be covered by its own patent when used for 3D printing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC APPLICATION DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number:** 13/432424&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** US20120251688 A1&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Stratasys, Inc. &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date:** Prior Art **predating** March 30, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until At Least April 4, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**APPLICATION OVERVIEW:** This application claims the use of chocolate in extrusion-based 3D printing. The chocolate is held in a heated reservoir.  When printing begins, the chocolate is pumped from the reservoir to the print head, while still being heated to maintain its temperature and tempered state.  The print head then extrudes the chocolate material to build the 3D object.  Unused chocolate in the print head is then sent back to the reservoir and heated again.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An additive manufacturing system for printing a chocolate confection, the additive manufacturing system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;at least one controller configured to receive instructions for printing the chocolate confection, and further configured to relay commands relating to the received instructions;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a platen;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a recirculation loop configured to circulate a flow of a chocolate material, and further configured to maintain a temper of the chocolate material; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a print head in signal communication with the at least one controller, the print head being configured to receive at least a portion of the chocolate material from the recirculation loop, and further configured to extrude and deposit the chocolate material onto the platen to print at least a portion of the chocolate confection based on the commands from the at least one controller.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS:** Printing with chocolate is wonderful, but this isn’t just about chocolate. There is a vast array of thermoplastic materials that can be used in 3D printing, and it should not be possible to get an exclusive patent on each new material that is used in conjunction with well-known technology. The use of a recirculation loop (sending unused print material back to the reservoir) is also an obvious idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**.  We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one.  This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][7], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][8], and the [Ask Patents][9] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on  submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/join-effs-efforts-keep-3d-printing-open&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120251688&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20120251688&amp;OS=20120251688&amp;RS=20120251688&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/v4YzF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/ask?source=3dask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6388" RevisionGUID="cf5ab52c-928c-42d0-a37f-611cd37ab5ae" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="You can typically contact the inventor through his or her attorney. The attorney's contact information is available on [Public PAIR][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the subject patent US7448400 the contact information for the attorney is as follows: [Dianoosh Salehi at Snell &amp; Wilmer][3] LLP in Costa Mesa, CA, telephone 714-427-7404 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/KA0pN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/3797/1767&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/KA0pN.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6667" RevisionGUID="315733c8-aa95-457b-bfab-6d5d8cda922c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="You can easily search for patents on [Google Patents][1] using their publication number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [Google.com/patents/us3039165][2] (it even has a link to *this* page):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Method and apparatus for production of lightweight aggregate from dust**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Publication number: US3039165 A&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Publication type:	Grant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Publication date:	Jun 19, 1962&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Filing date:	Apr 28, 1954&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priority date:	Apr 28, 1954&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems like it used to be owned by [Solite Corp][3], but [old patents expire 17 years after grant or 20 years from filing, whichever greater][4]. This means that *everyone* has been free to use it since 1979.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://google.com/patents&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://Google.com/patents/us3039165&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com.sg/search?q=solite%20corp&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3803/8289" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3494" RevisionGUID="1b7a9244-d0a8-4575-b8c2-0d8e4f40e71a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="&lt;em&gt;This call for prior art is part of the [EFF][1]'s effort to keep 3D printing open. Read about the initiative [here][2], and check out [Google Patents][3] or the [USPTO][4] for full details about this particular application.&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Process for producing three-dimensionally shaped object and device for producing same][5]&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Process for Producing Three-dimensionally Shaped Object and Device for Producing Same&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application relates to 3D printing using laser sintering, a process capable of better resolution than traditional hobbyist 3D printing using thermoplastic extrusion, where the object is built in a chamber with a localized gas flow to capture fumes generated by the laser melting the powder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC APPLICATION DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number:** 13/503,217&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** US20120251378 A1&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Panasonic Corporation &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date:** Prior Art **predating** October 21, 2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least April 4, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**APPLICATION OVERVIEW:** This application claims the use of a chamber with a localized gas flow in laser sintering 3D printing. The 3D object is built in the chamber, and the localized gas flow captures the fumes resulting from the laser melting the powder in the process of building each layer of the object.  If the fumes are not captured, they may interfere with the laser’s beam.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS:** The idea of a localized gas flow is not a new one, and is an obvious solution to the problem of fumes interfering with a laser beam. The open source community has begun to use laser sintering 3D printing methods, which promise of better resolution and a new variety of materials. This type of patent, which covers both the gas capture method and any devices using this method, could block a wide range of inventive activity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**.  We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one.  This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes effective prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][7], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][8], and the [Ask Patents][9] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][10] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/join-effs-efforts-keep-3d-printing-open&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120251378&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20120251378&amp;OS=20120251378&amp;RS=20120251378&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/WBTmz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/ask?source=3dask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3495" RevisionGUID="7385d818-3d68-46c6-8298-207718655b4c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="  &lt;em&gt;This call for prior art is part of the [EFF][1]'s effort to keep 3D printing open. Read about the initiative [here][2], and check out [Google Patents][3] or the [USPTO][4] for full details about this particular application.&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Ribbon Filament and Assembly for Use in Extrusion-based Digital Manufacturing Systems&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application relates to 3D printing with a flattened, rectangular filament shaped like a ribbon instead of a cylindrical filament, taking advantage of the “insight” that larger surface area results in faster melting of print material. (Think fettuccine versus spaghetti.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC APPLICATION DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number:** 13/530,191&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** US20120258190 A1&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Stratasys, Inc. &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date:** Prior Art **predating** September 30, 2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until At Least April 11, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**APPLICATION OVERVIEW:** This application claims the use of a ribbon-shaped build material for use in 3D printing. The build material is shaped like ribbon rather than a cylinder and put through a ribbon liquefier rather than a cylindrical liquefier.  The ribbon shape allows the build material to melt faster and reduces build times.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS:** This patent is about using a basic, well-known scientific principle and applying it in an obvious way to 3D printing technology to improve melting and print speed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**.  We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one.  This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [EFF][7], the [Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School][8], and the [Ask Patents][9] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][10] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/join-effs-efforts-keep-3d-printing-open&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120258190&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20120258190&amp;OS=20120258190&amp;RS=20120258190&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/05h0n.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/ask?source=3dask" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3533" RevisionGUID="6d3b1bbd-e1ef-46fe-a8a4-c8c941e00684" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="&lt;em&gt;This is a recently issued patent from Twitter&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Device independent message distribution platform][5]&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Device independent message distribution platform&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This recently issued patent describes the basic mechanics and functionality of Twitter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;b&gt;BASIC PATENT DATA:&lt;/b&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Patent Number:** [8,401,009][3]&#xD;&#xA; - **Priority Number:** US2008177589&#xD;&#xA; - **Issue Date:** March 19, 2013&#xD;&#xA; - **Priority Date:** July 22, 2008 (provisional filed July 23, 2007)&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee:** Twitter, Inc. &#xD;&#xA; - **Inventor:** Jack Dorsey, San Francisco and Christopher Isaac Stone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PATENT OVERVIEW:** This is the patent that describes the basic mechanics and functionality of Twitter, summarized roughly as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A method of communicating among users &#xD;&#xA; - One user (the &quot;first&quot; user) can &quot;follow&quot; another user (the &quot;second&quot; user).&#xD;&#xA; - The &quot;second&quot; user can post a message. The message is not posted &quot;to&quot; anyone, it is just posted.&#xD;&#xA; - All followers of the second user receive the posted message.&#xD;&#xA; - The first user can choose from a set of possible methods for receiving messages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim contains more steps such as, if the first user tells the system whom they wish to follow, the system records that fact. And when the second user posts a message, the system looks up the list of all users previously recorded as following that user so it knows who to send copies of the message to. And so on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 requires, specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for device-independent point to multipoint communication, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Receiving** from a first computing device of a first user a selection of one or more endpoints for receiving update messages;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Receiving**, from the first computing device, a request to follow a second user;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Designating**, by a computer processor, the first user as a follower of the second user in response to the request, wherein designating the first user comprises configuring an account of the first user to reference update messages broadcasted by the second user;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Receiving**, from a computing device of the second user, a broadcast request to broadcast an update message in a first format, wherein the update message lacks identification of the first user as an intended recipient, and wherein the update message includes an identification of the second user as a sender of the update message;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Identifying**, by the computer processor, a plurality of followers of the second user in response to the broadcast request, wherein the first user is among the plurality of followers;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Determining** addressing information of each of the plurality of followers, wherein the addressing information of the first user identifies the endpoints for receiving messages;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Applying**, for each of the plurality of followers, rules to the update message based on the addressing information;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Translating** the update message into an appropriate format for each of the endpoints; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Broadcasting** the update message to each of the endpoints in the appropriate format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other claims are for the computer system that does this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS:** This patent covers the basic functionality of a Twitter-like service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?&lt;/h2&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**.  We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one.  This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][6]. &#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on  submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us8401009b1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US8401009B1/US08401009-20130319-D00001.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6668" RevisionGUID="d0318164-be56-48fa-9c98-abff689e22b4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="The [challenge on Microsoft's patent US 20130063492][1] states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Availability for Challenge: Open Until at least Sept 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is the &quot;available for challenge&quot; date obtained?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What steps must we take to extend the challenge date of an application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/3566/8289" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10863" RevisionGUID="61caa49e-5b0d-498c-9fa5-b0cc5aebfd2c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="I mentioned this very briefly in [my answer to your previous question](https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/10859/10011), but from the sound of what you're asking, that's probably not only your best option, but it might be your *only* option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent is on an invention, not an implementation or use-case for that invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good way of thinking of that differentiation is if I designed a table. Now, of course, I use the word &quot;table&quot; here because we both know what that is, but the actual patent application would likely refer more to a flat surface with four legs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's worth understanding here, is that my patent here for &quot;a table&quot; really wouldn't say anything about how I use it. It would say &quot;a flat surface with four legs,&quot; and it would then be up to manufacturers to make it useful for something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you came along and said &quot;I'm going to use that flat surface and those four legs, but in my version, it's for people to sit on,&quot; that would *not* be patentable. You'd still be infringing on my patent if you tried to use it for something different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Utility patents *do* require their invention to have a use (utility, in other words), but the patent is on the invention itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bringing it back to your question about formulas, the same thing applies. You can't patent a formula's use any more than I could patent the table as a piece of furniture meant to hold objects. Your patent will be for a specific chemical formula (I imagine), then uses for that will be up to you and anyone who buys your product or licenses the patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3566" RevisionGUID="cc82b73b-137a-47e9-a279-636c8bbc04ca" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;In 2013, this Patent Application has received a **final rejection** by the US Patent Office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community below! The main reference cited by the Patent Examiner in the rejection was found by Ask Patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An applicant has several ways to keep an application in this state alive. They include a request for continuing examination (RCE), which involves paying more fees and responding to the rejection. Appealing the rejection is another avenue. If nothing is done it will go abandoned six months from the final rejection. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this application, applicant requested RCE and proposed amendments to the claims. The application received another non-final rejection to which applicant responded with another amendment narrowing the claims further. According to the examiner this placed the application in condition for allowance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accordingly, the office issued a notice of allowance and **on 01/13/2015 the application was granted US Patent No. 8,933,971.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to the **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **TITLE: Scale factors for visual presentations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130063492 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/230445][3]  &#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 12, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This application generates and display graphical elements based on *pixel density.* The invention selects a *scale factor* from a *scale factor set* that is within the *range* of the pixel density.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires, among other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of generating, using a device having a processor, a presentation comprising elements to be displayed on a display component, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - executing on the processor instructions configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - identify a ***pixel density*** of the display component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - for respective elements of the presentation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - from a ***scale factor set***, select a ***scale factor*** having a ***pixel density range*** including the pixel density of the display component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        - request the element to generate a scaled representation using the scale factor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - generate the presentation comprising the scaled representations of the elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample figure** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/WgDnr.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application is similar to other resolution-independent scaling applications, patents, and implementations carried out in the industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 09/12/2011** that discusses (1) scale factor; (2) scale factor set; and (3) pixel density range in the manner described in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][5] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][6] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130063492&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12168" RevisionGUID="3446ba62-a4eb-44d0-8d04-3c2efd686154" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; How long does it take to patent a product and how do I start the process?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It all depends on the quality of invention and number of examination reports issued for said patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Europe**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The European patent grant procedure takes about three to five years from the date your application is filed. It is made up of two main stages. The first comprises a formalities examination, the preparation of the search report and the preliminary opinion on whether the claimed invention and the application meet the requirements of the EPC. The second involves substantive examination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**US**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently average wait time after filing patent application at USPTO is about 21 months. The average time it takes to obtain a patent from the patent office at this time is about 32 months or a little under 3 years. An applicant can also apply for a fast track prioritized examination (i.e. [Track One][1]), to be considered for the prioritized examination, the applicant must pay additional large fee to USPTO. time limit for eaxmination report is 12 month in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At what stage of the patenting process can I start showing my product&#xD;&#xA;&gt; without the risk of someone copying it? How many months for that since&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I start the process?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all jurisdiction you can start marketing or promoting your product right after filing your patent application and disclosure will not hamper novelty of application. However you have to keep in mind that all embodiment of inventions are mentioned in application. if you add matter on later date and your prior disclosure had same feature examiner might grill you on novelty and inventive step. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Once my product is patented, for how long is the product patented? We&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are speaking about a medical device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;question has been already replied :- [How do you determine a patent's expiration date?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost all European patents expiry &#xD;&#xA;is lot simpler it is 20 years from filing date (inid 22). However in some countries it can be upto 25 years on payment of additional fee.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;according to Article 63 of EPC&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;(1)&#xD;&#xA;The term of the European patent shall be 20 years from the date of filing of the application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;(2)&#xD;&#xA;Nothing in the preceding paragraph shall limit the right of a Contracting State to extend the term of a European patent, or to grant corresponding protection which follows immediately on expiry of the term of the patent, under the same conditions as those applying to national patents: &#xD;&#xA;(a)&#xD;&#xA;in order to take account of a state of war or similar emergency conditions affecting that State; &#xD;&#xA;(b)&#xD;&#xA;if the subject-matter of the European patent is a product or a process for manufacturing a product or a use of a product which has to undergo an administrative authorisation procedure required by law before it can be put on the market in that State. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;(3)&#xD;&#xA;Paragraph 2 shall apply mutatis mutandis to European patents granted jointly for a group of Contracting States in accordance with Article 142.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;(4)&#xD;&#xA;A Contracting State which makes provision for extension of the term or corresponding protection under paragraph 2(b) may, in accordance with an agreement concluded with the Organisation, entrust to the European Patent Office tasks associated with implementation of the relevant provisions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/usptos-prioritized-patent-examination-program&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3801/how-do-you-determine-a-patents-expiration-date" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12176" RevisionGUID="3fb9b583-71fa-4b0f-829d-f7028eb16cbb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="For finding applicant or inventor information please follow these procedures&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Find Family members of patent: [Link][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Find US patent member&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Find Inventors or attorney address [Link][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/12153/11895&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/5351/11895" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3577" RevisionGUID="b7b695af-6a7e-4251-ab74-fd30bae3bdb5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="   **TITLE**: Computer-Readable Storage Medium, Information Processing System, And Information Processing Method &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **App Number**: [13/028,329][1]&#xD;&#xA; - **Publication Number**: [US 2012/0146993 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: Nintendo Co., Ltd. &#xD;&#xA; - **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: *predating* December 09, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This invention sets the transparency of a virtual object based on the distance between the viewpoint and the virtual object in a virtual environment generating both left eye and right eye images. Note: transparency in this context could be interpreted to mean several related concepts, such as fading and alpha level adjusting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** (as filed) is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a display&#xD;&#xA;&gt; control program which is executed by a computer of a display control&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparatus that displays a predetermined virtual space on a display&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparatus capable of stereoscopic display, the display control program&#xD;&#xA;&gt; causing the computer to function as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - object placement means for placing a predetermined object in the virtual space;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ***transparency degree setting means*** for, in accordance with a distance specified between (1) the **predetermined object** placed in the virtual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; space, and (2) a **viewpoint position** based on the position of a virtual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; camera used for virtually shooting the virtual space, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; setting the degree of transparency of a part or the entirety of the predetermined&#xD;&#xA;&gt; object such that **the longer the distance is, the higher the degree of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transparency** is; (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - image generation means for generating **an image for a right eye and an image for a left eye** by shooting the virtual space with a right&#xD;&#xA;&gt; virtual camera and a left virtual camera, respectively, so that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; predetermined object, which is included in each of the image for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; right eye and the image for a left eye, has the degree of transparency&#xD;&#xA;&gt; set by the transparency degree setting means; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - display control means for displaying the image for a right eye and the image for a left eye generated by the image generation means, on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the display apparatus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample Figure**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS**: Object transparency based on distance between a viewpoint and an object appears to have been done before, such as in the area of ray tracing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION**: Have you seen anything (published before December 09, 2010) that describes the ***transparency degree setting means*** in the manner recited in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][5]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][8] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120146993?dq=20120146993&amp;ei=TD9TUYr2IeH20gGfm4CACA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120146993?printsec=abstract&amp;dq=20120146993&amp;ei=TD9TUYr2IeH20gGfm4CACA#v=onepage&amp;q=20120146993&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/2IAAr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/FqHGI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12186" RevisionGUID="19ab1858-17bf-4664-93bd-fe64feb8df5f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="First of all both are patent applications and not granted Patent. So there is no question of infringement for now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you feel that inventive concept they are claiming was disclose and obvious over your application you can file third party submission in WIPO. [already answered][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will be more helpful if you include some more references based on their claim (i.e. pperistaltic fluid pump).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind of publication dates. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/12079/11895" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3596" RevisionGUID="8777a9cb-1caf-4a24-a917-0055eb52d024" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; The patent for the four bar linkage (perhaps better known as the Horst&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Link) as a bicycle suspension platform is only applicable in the US&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and not Canada, Europe, or other countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is true, but the [Horst Link patent][1] is not far from its expiration. [According to Wikipedia][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &quot;For applications that were pending on and for patents that were still&#xD;&#xA;      in force on June 8, 1995, the patent term is either 17 years from the&#xD;&#xA;      issue date or 20 years from the filing date of the earliest U.S. or&#xD;&#xA;      international (PCT) application to which priority is claimed&#xD;&#xA;      (excluding provisional applications), the longer term applying.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Horst link patent was filed on September 9th, 1994 and issued on April 23rd, 1996. So best case for Specialized, the patent will expire September 9th, 2014. &#xD;&#xA;However, the patent that was granted was a continuation of a patent filed January 21, 1993, and that abandoned patent was a &quot;continuation-in-part&quot; of a patent filed one year earlier to the day. If either of those earlier patents are considered the earliest filing date then The longer of the two terms outlined above would be 17 years after the date of April 23, 1996. That means that the patent would expire the 23rd of next month (April 23rd, 2013). I'm not a patent lawyer, but I would imagine that if Specialized has any grounds to argue that the earlier filings are irrelevant and that the 1994 filing date is the earliest that should be considered, they will do so in court.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; How does this affect the design of bikes ridden in the US compared to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; countries where it is not patented?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is the Horst link more popular elsewhere, or does the patent not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; restrict the availability of bikes equipped with Horst Link?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many designs that closely resemble the Horst Linkage but are different enough to avoid patent infringement exist. The classic example is the &quot;faux bar&quot; linkage (as opposed to Horst four bar linkage). The faux bar linkage moves the pivot on the rear of the bike off of the chainstay and onto the seatstay. Among others, [Kona][3] and [Scott][4] use this design and argue that it works as well if not better than the classic four bar linkage. Some companies license the FSR (Horst link) design from Specialized as well, perhaps the most well known of which is [Titus][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that designs that would infringe on the Horst Link patent exist in abundance overseas. For instance, that is why Scott entered the US market with hardtails but did not bring their full suspension bikes over until recent years when they switched to a faux bar design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Am I allowed to import a bike with Horst link suspension into the US,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or would I be breaching the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a manufacturer/company overseas was selling patent protected goods to US consumers they could be held liable and the goods could be [confiscated by customs][6]. For transactions between individuals you would be unlikely to encounter any issues. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said, I'm no patent attorney, so take this answer with a grain of salt. I would love to get some eyes from [patents.stackexchange.com][7] on this question and answer to ensure that everything I've said here is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents?id=WLMbAAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=drawing&amp;zoom=4#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.konaworld.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.scott-sports.com/us/en/category/bike/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.titusti.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://corporate.findlaw.com/intellectual-property/u-s-customs-and-protection-of-intellectual-property-rights.html#Customs&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12247" RevisionGUID="3dd9fcef-2fe5-47ce-aab4-40381c57f000" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Your Query contains Two Issues:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **1. Can Any person revive Patent after not paying Maintenance fees?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;YES but in certain circumstances and not after 2 years.&#xD;&#xA;For more information see [Failure to pay maintenance fees][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **MPEP2590    Acceptance of Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in Expired Patent to Reinstate Patent** &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;II.   UNINTENTIONAL DELAY Under 35 U.S.C. 41(c)(1), the Director of&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; the Office may accept late payment of any maintenance fee filed within&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; 24 months after the 6-month grace period, if the delay in payment is&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; shown to the satisfaction of the Director of the Office to have been&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; unintentional. See MPEP § 711.03(c) for a general discussion of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;“unintentional” delay standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **2. Assignment and payment of dues to patent office**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;YES after acquiring IP right rightful holder should pay all fees, but the person should keep in mind that patent register should be updated for this assignments. i.e. patent office should be notified that IP transfer has been made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/12140/11895" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3659" RevisionGUID="753795fc-8279-4760-b759-60c3aa0a4350" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here's something for you to consider: [35 U.S.C. 102][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under 102(a), you cannot obtain a patent if the claimed invention was &quot;patented, described in a printed publication, or in **public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public** before the effective filing date.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several exceptions to this rule, however. One of them is 102(b)(1), which provides a 1-year time period to file after disclosure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Public disclosure can help establish ownership of the invention, but you must be careful in doing so or you risk losing the ability to obtain a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent/IP law is complicated. This is not legal advice. Take this information with a grain of salt, as it is not complete and may not be applicable, and consult a patent attorney before you do anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: This [previous post][2] also has responses that you might find useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/282/should-i-patent-my-idea-before-posting-it-on-the-internet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12292" RevisionGUID="b4d08c19-178c-46df-bf60-a75095a96fe4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="In Short You dont need a attorney if you are inventor of invention. All patent offices can deal with the inventor/applicant itself. Its the local address requirement which makes it harder or to require attorney (because of confidentiality). However for filing you can follow my earlier answer here [Patent filing procedure without a patent attorney](https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/6287/11895)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some relevant excerpts are:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **what if inventor or applicant is not from the USA?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the countries prohibit direct filing of patent application to foreign countries. These are called security restriction. It depends on your resident country. TO better evaluate situation inventor has to check respective country ACT and Rules before filing a patent application in foreign country. PCT has listed respective sections of some countries -- [following link][2]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **How to file a patent with the USPTO without a patent attorney?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can file patent application using [EFS-WEB][3] provided you are inventor of invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Can be a patent filed online?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;YES USPTO application can be filed online at [EFS-WEB][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can open a EFS-WEB account in [USPTO online filing system][7]. This account requires you to have digital certificate which can be obtained freely from [USPTO LINK][8] also read [HELP][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Where can I get detailed information about the procedures and fees?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Detailed information are available on [Fee][5] &#xD;&#xA;Detailed information on filing forms and their respective formats can be found [at Link][6] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/inventors/Checklist_for_Filing_a_Nonprovisional_Utility.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/nat_sec.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/file-online&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/file-online&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payments&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012&#xD;&#xA;[7]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/file-online&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://dcm.uspto.gov/UserRegistration/do/Home&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/getting-started-new-users" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3682" RevisionGUID="ac9af134-85f7-41ed-bb7c-035f2162e236" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Information**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **App Number**: 13/297,604&#xD;&#xA; - **Publication Number**: [US 20120120094 A1][1] - Patent Allowed May 15, 2013&#xD;&#xA; - **Assignee**: Nintendo Co., Ltd.&#xD;&#xA; - **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: predating November 17, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: A confetti-like download progress animation, wherein the color(s) of the confetti pieces are based on the colors of the image or portion of the loading/downloading image.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** recites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a reception&#xD;&#xA;&gt; status display program executed by a computer of an information&#xD;&#xA;&gt; processing apparatus for displaying a reception status of a series of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data transmitted thereto, the computer-readable storage medium having&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stored therein the reception status display program causing the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computer to function as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a reception section configured to receive the series of data&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transmitted thereto;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a corresponding image display section configured to display, in a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stepwise manner, a corresponding image, which is an image&#xD;&#xA;&gt; corresponding to the series of data, in a predetermined region in a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; screen, in accordance with a progression of reception of the series of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an object moving section configured to continuously generate, **outside**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the predetermined region, movement objects &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - (1) each having a color&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selected from component colors of the corresponding image and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    - (2) move&#xD;&#xA;&gt; each movement object toward the predetermined region, during the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reception of the series of data by the reception section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sample Figures**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS**: This download progress animation builds on the normal download progress bars seen in virtually all operating systems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***QUESTION***: Have you seen anything that was published before November 17, 2010 that describes claim 1, especially the features of the object moving section?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][5] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][6] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120120094?pg=PA6&amp;dq=20120120094&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=cExsUZHbGLOG0QGRz4HQBA&amp;ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/R6Y5F.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/S5CjV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12293" RevisionGUID="bec1ffdc-41ac-4496-831b-cf9a98182e45" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="you can file patent application online using EPO online. however they are require you to provide complete application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**what is the cost of the provisional patent application?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;already answered:- [Cost of patenting in Europe](https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/12162/11895)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If patent application has 15 claims and 35 pages then official cost for natural person will be approximately 600 EUR. see [Article 78][1], [Rule 17][2] and [Article 14(4)][3]. Time limit for providing fee is one month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How long it will protect my product?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If granted patent will protect your product for 20 years from date of filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Where to look?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Guide for applicants, Part 1](http://www.epo.org/applying/european/Guide-for-applicants.html): How to get a European patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Requirement of Attorney?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have your residence or principal place of business in a contracting state, you may act on your own behalf in proceedings before the EPO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have neither a residence nor your principal place of business in a contracting state, you must appoint a representative and act through him in all proceedings before the EPO other than in filing your European patent application and paying the fees. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/ar78.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/r17.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/ar14.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3684" RevisionGUID="d0bbcb64-92f4-40b9-b3f0-9e6a862c84ac" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="&lt;b&gt;Information&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;App Number&lt;/b&gt;: 13/586,057&lt;/li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Publication Number&lt;/b&gt;: US 20130055357 A1&lt;/li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Assignee&lt;/b&gt;: Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Prior Art Cutoff Date&lt;/b&gt;: predating August 15, 2010&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Summary&lt;/b&gt;: A personal information server provides personal information about an individual to a third-party only when authorized by the individual through use of a previously authenticated computing device. The personal information server authenticates both the computing device used by the third-party to access the personal data and the device used by the individual to grant or deny such access using highly secure digital fingerprints of each. The individual can allow the third-party multiple instances of access to the personal information within restrictions specified by the individual. Other advantages also arise from large-scale tracking of which devices access and control personal information of many people--particularly with respect to identifying and preventing fraud and identity theft.&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Claim 1&lt;/b&gt; recites:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;A method for controlling access to personal information about an individual, the method comprising: receiving data from a third-party device through a computer network that represents a request for the personal information about the individual and that includes a digital fingerprint of the third-party device; sending data representing notification of the request for the personal information of the individual to the individual; receiving authorization data that indicates whether the individual intends to grant the request for the personal information of the individual and a digital fingerprint of a device from which the authorization data is sent; and upon a condition in which both (i) the authorization data indicates that the individual intends to grant the request for the personal information of the individual and (ii) the digital fingerprint of the authorization data matches a digital fingerprint of at least one predetermined authorized device, sending the personal information to the third-party device.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Claim 11&lt;/b&gt; recites:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;A computer system comprising: at least one processor; a computer readable medium that is operatively coupled to the processor; network access circuitry that is operatively coupled to the processor; and personal information server logic (i) that executes in the processor from the computer readable medium and (ii) that, when executed by the processor, causes the computer to control access to personal information about an individual by at least: receiving data from a third-party device through a computer network that represents a request for the personal information about the individual and that includes a digital fingerprint of the third-party device; sending data representing notification of the request for the personal information of the individual to the individual; receiving authorization data that indicates whether the individual intends to grant the request for the personal information of the individual and a digital fingerprint of a device from which the authorization data is sent; and upon a condition in which both (i) the authorization data indicates that the individual intends to grant the request for the personal information of the individual and (ii) the digital fingerprint of the authorization data matches a digital fingerprint of at least one predetermined authorized device, sending the personal information to the third-party device.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Sample Figures&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure 0][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure 1][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure 2][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure 3][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure 4][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Figure 5][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;WHY IT MATTERS&lt;/b&gt;: The primary claim to uniqueness of the personal information server described in this application relates to the ability of the individual to fully control who has access to the personal information.&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;QUESTION&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt;: Have you seen anything that was published before August 15, 2010 that describes claim 1 or claim 11, especially a personal information server that gives an individual full control over what other entities have access to personal information about the individual?&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][7]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][8] community have chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/DLCHb.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/kR4vsm.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/zB272.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/bs7ja.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/MPrOu.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/l0wno.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12294" RevisionGUID="742626cb-f73a-4ead-876d-6ca054623104" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2013093909A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013093909A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to get in contact with the Company or Hama Energy Ltd. or its owner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5059/how-can-i-contact-the-owner-of-a-patent, but it applies only to United States patents. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12328" RevisionGUID="21732433-1643-4570-9fbb-41108d11bc67" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="In addition to Judith reply There are few easy way to find related applications:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. From applicant reference:- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. generally applicant itself cite patent application number in their utility patent, therefore by using forward citation you can get some of the application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B. viewing Patent Register of application (USPTO PAIR)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example they cite [US6561549][2] patent in one of their PAIR submissions. Further you can extend same approach to this utility patent and get its family. ([14 applications][1]). DO forward citation and Backward citation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. researching on priority data:- since this patent itself cite french application you can research over it and get related application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. rely on family patent indexing on ESPACENET. See [Find family memeber](https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/12153/11895)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example this patent was also listed in Canada [CA99099][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. view all examiner cited application as he thinks they are related to subject patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. research on inventor and applicant in patent databases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?CC=US&amp;NR=6561549B1&amp;KC=B1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=3&amp;date=20030513&amp;DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&amp;locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6561549&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/CA99099" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3693" RevisionGUID="efeadf87-f894-4b1c-b32a-5e799f62f192" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Interactive Try-On Platform for Eyeglasses&quot;** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This issued patent relates to a method by which a consumer can submit a 3D model of his/her face to generate a visualization of how a pair of eyeglasses may fit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BASIC PATENT DATA:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Patent Number:** [US 7,016,824][2] &#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Geometrix, Inc. &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date:** Prior art must predate February 6, 2001&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PATENT ABSTRACT:**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Techniques and systems that provide interactions between a 3D representation of a selected pair of glasses and a fully-textured 3D face model are disclosed. According to one embodiment, an interactive platform is displayed to allow a user to select a pair of glasses and try the selected glasses on a user-provided 3D face model. The interactions provided in the platform include spatial adjustments of the glasses around the face model, various perspective views of the 3D face with the glasses on and other cosmetic alternations to the selected glasses. According to one application, when the user finishes the try-on process, the information about the glasses can be transmitted to a business that can subsequently produce a pair of customized glasses for the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1:**&#xD;&#xA;A method for commercializing pairs of eyeglasses over a network, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- providing an interactive platform that can be displayed on a computing device;&#xD;&#xA;- requesting a 3D face model from a user to be used in the interactive platform;&#xD;&#xA;- determining characteristics of the 3D face model with respect to a 3D reference frame;&#xD;&#xA;- retrieving a 3D representation of a pair of eyeglasses when a request identifying the pair of eyeglasses is received over the network; and&#xD;&#xA;- placing the 3D representation of the glasses onto a default position with respect to the 3D face model in accordance with the characteristics thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**REASON FOR ALLOWANCE:** The following is an excerpt of the Examiner's Statement of Reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The instant application is directed to a non-obvious improvement over the invention described in [U.S. Patent No. 5,983,201][3] to Fay, the improvement comprising a method for commercializing pairs of eyeglasses over a network, wherein a 3D face model is requested by a user via an interactive platform, characteristics of a 3D face model are determined with respect to a 3D reference frame, and a 3D representation of a pair of eyeglasses is retrieved and placed onto a default position with respect to the 3D face model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR ART:** The following is a list of prior art that we are already aware of (in addition to the prior art identified on the face of this patent under the References Cited):  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. WO 01/11886 A1&#xD;&#xA;2. WO 97/29441 A1&#xD;&#xA;3. US 5,175,806 &#xD;&#xA;4. EP 1 011 006 &#xD;&#xA;5. AU 1 334 097&#xD;&#xA;6. JP 9-145324&#xD;&#xA;7. WO 95/04975&#xD;&#xA;8. US 6,034,698&#xD;&#xA;9. WO 86/05374&#xD;&#xA;10. JP 10-283455&#xD;&#xA;11. KR 2001-0008011&#xD;&#xA;12. “Automatic construction of 3D human face models based on 2D images”, PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON IMAGE PROCESSING (ICIP) LAUSANNE, 16-19 September 1996, pp. 467-470. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything (published before February 6, 2001) that describes providing a 3D representation of the glasses onto a default position with respect to the 3D face model in the manner recited in claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer** below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual, but please create separate answers for each one so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents community][5] has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office. If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to post your own request for prior art if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/hfUvD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7016824?pg=PA9&amp;dq=7,016,824&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=BOtuUbPEDcTviQKWzoGIBg&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5983201&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12625" RevisionGUID="4009b1c5-9a79-4ee5-8fe6-cac238a8ac86" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="You need to calculate expiry from the US5662332 Re-issue is just publication of information. Here is another answer to calculate the same [How do you determine a patent's expiration date?](https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/3801/11895)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**MPEP 1405    Reissue and Patent Term [R-11.2013]** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;35 U.S.C. 251 prescribes&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; the effect of reissue on the patent term by stating that &quot;**the Director&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shall… reissue the patent… for the unexpired term of the original&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The maximum term of the original patent is fixed at the time the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent is granted. While the term may be subsequently shortened, e.g.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; through the filing of a terminal disclaimer, **it cannot be extended&#xD;&#xA;&gt; through the filing of a reissue**. Accordingly, a deletion in a reissue&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application of an earlier-obtained benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120&#xD;&#xA;&gt; will not operate to lengthen the term of the patent to be reissued." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12681" RevisionGUID="61312582-01e5-44bd-a431-cfceeef2c356" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="If patent is lapsed due to non-payment of Maintenance fee one can revive it filing a Petition See Earlier answer [Failure to pay maintenance fees](https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/12140/11895)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now Such Petition is Hard to track As I see no option to find this information on PAIR. If a Petition is filed it is the matter between Patent office and applicant Ideally It should be made available via **Transaction History** of USPTO PAIR, but unfortunately its not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ways the hard way is to weekly check for petition decided in said revival time frame.&#xD;&#xA;One need to browse [USPTO Official Gazette][1] **Notices** Section and further &quot; Notice of Expiration of Patents Due to Failure to Pay Maintenance Fee&quot; and &quot; Patents Reinstated Due to the Acceptance of a Late Maintenance Fee from....&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another quick way to do it using Google Advance search on USPTO OFFICIAL GAZETTE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/official-gazette/official-gazette-patents&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/HD2fW.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3714" RevisionGUID="b9458900-f256-414c-afe2-b4096a45a572" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="You can read the file history of a US patent or published US Patent application on [Public Pair][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent examiner issued a notice of allowance (&quot;NOA&quot;) for this patent on 4/15/13 following an interview with the inventor(s) by telephone.  The text from the examiner's NOA is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The claimed invention is directed to providing a method for recycling cutting fluid, which can be processed with a high recycling rate of cutting fluid.  See page 2, lines 15-17, of the specification.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The claimed invention specifically provides a method for recycling cutting fluid comprises a step of &quot;separation,&quot; by preparing and oxidizing a cutting fluid of silicon including a silicon mixture and a cutting fluid at 150C to 350C in a container, to obtain a vaporized cutting fluid and a silicon slurry; and a step of &quot;recycling,&quot; by condensing the vaporized cutting fluid to obtain a recycled cutting fluid.  See page 3, lines 2-7 of the specification.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No such combination of methodprocess is disclosed or suggested in the cited references of record.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus, the subject matter of claims 1-5 is neither disclosed by the prior art nor is obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The claims are deemed allowable over the prior of record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicant disclosed as prior-art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Patents [5,693,596][4], [6,932,855][5], [5,795,400][6], [6,821,437][7] and no non-patent documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner cited as prior-art:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Patents [5,795,400][6], [8,029,756][8], US patent application 2010/0061913 and no non-patent documents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not familiar with technology described in this patent.  So I can't speak to whether the invention as described is obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if the invention is in fact obvious then **this is a good example of why we need to submit prior art to the USPTO within six months after a patent application is published**.  Under the America Invents Act the patent examiner is allowed to consider any prior art we submit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[AskPatents.com][2] was designed to facilitate the submission of prior art to the patent office during the patent prosecution process.  Any interested party can post a [Request for Prior Art][3] (&quot;RFPA&quot;) on Ask Patents.  The interested party is encouraged to answer his own question with any prior art he can cite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once a patent is issued it is presumed valid and a re-examination is much more difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/a/146/1767&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5693596&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6932855&#xD;&#xA;[6]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5795400&#xD;&#xA;[7]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6821437&#xD;&#xA;[8]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8029756&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12796" RevisionGUID="432f331d-3648-40a2-bf91-68b09840e47b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="extension of duplicate [Is this patent valid in USA or Australia?](https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/12132/11895) ; A person need to cross-check kind codes of patents for granted patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Limitation:- EPO or INPADOC database might have inherent limitation e.g. non avalability or software errors. try more with inventor and applicant search." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12834" RevisionGUID="dde39f50-c2fd-476b-a74e-a06b0f3c457f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="You are right that presently Google Patent displays error while viewing or downloading pdf copy of the said patent but, please note they are just information provider you can download the pdf and scan images from other resources like USPTO or Espacenet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for more information on [How do you correct errors in Google Patents?](https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/12392/11895)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For queried patent you can download pdf copy via visiting expacenet or USPTO image database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/xOIcs.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3884" RevisionGUID="c63c3773-3592-4346-bf7e-925c0eb4d953" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" *This call for prior art is part of [EFF][1]'s effort to bust a patent being asserted against podcasting. Read more about the initiative [here][2]. Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][5]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This issued patent relates to a system for distributing serial episodes of media content over the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BASIC PATENT DATA:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	Patent Number: [US 8,112,504][3]&#xD;&#xA;-	Assignee: Personal Audio, LLC&#xD;&#xA;-	Prior Art Cutoff Date: Prior art must predate October 2, 1996&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PATENT SUMMARY:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent generally relates to a system whereby a server provides media content to client devices over the Internet. On the server, the provider maintains a “compilation file,” which is essentially a list of available media files. The compilation file generally includes the URL for each available media file in a series and may also include descriptive text. This compilation file may be static, such as a simple web page with links to each available file to which new files are added, or may be customized for a particular user, perhaps only showing them content from feeds to which they have subscribed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claim that has been asserted against podcasters to date is Claim 31. This claim is agnostic as to the media type representing “episodes.” It can be images, text, video, or audio. Prior art can involve any media format. Some dependent claims specifically require audio, however, so prior art of that type is especially useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 31:** Apparatus for disseminating a series of episodes represented by media files via the Internet as said episodes become available, said apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more data storage servers,&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more communication interfaces connected to the Internet for receiving requests received from remotely located client devices, and for responding to each given one of said requests by downloading a data file identified by a URL specified by said given one of said requests to the requesting client device,&#xD;&#xA;-	one or more processors coupled to said one or more data storage servers and to said one or more communications interfaces for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +	storing one or more media files representing each episode as said one or more media files become available, each of said one or more media files being stored at a storage location specified by a unique episode URL;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +   from time to time, as new episodes represented in said series of episodes become available, storing an updated version of a compilation file in one of said one or more data storage servers at a storage location identified by a predetermined URL, said updated version of said compilation file containing attribute data describing currently available episodes in said series of episodes, said attribute data for each given one of said currently available episodes including displayable text describing said given one of said currently available episodes and one or more episode URLs specifying the storage locations of one or more corresponding media files representing said given one of said episodes; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +	employing one of said one or more communication interfaces to:&#xD;&#xA;        +	(a) receive a request from a requesting client device for the updated version of said compilation file located at said predetermined URL;&#xD;&#xA;        +	(b) download said updated version of said compilation file to said requesting client device; and&#xD;&#xA;        +	(c) thereafter receive and respond to a request from said requesting client device for one or more media files identified by one or more corresponding episode URLs included in the attribute data contained in said updated version of said compilation files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR ART:** Examples of prior art include the prior art identified on the face of the patent and Deb Kumar Roy (June 1995), NewsComm: A Hand-Held Interface for Interactive Access to Structured Audio, available at http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/60444/33214083.pdf?sequence=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen any additional prior art (published before October 2, 1996) that describes a system like the one in Claim 31? &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;We are interested in any prior art that describes accessing a series of media files organized as episodes, tracks, installments, or the like, through the use of “compilation” data that (a) available to be downloaded by a client device, and (b) updated to describe the media files that are currently available. We are particularly interested in prior art where this “compilation” data includes both URLs for the individual media files, and some other displayable text describing each available episode/track/installment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do know prior art, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit **only one piece of prior art per answer below**. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual, but please create separate answers for each one so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents community][5] has chosen your prior art as a candidate to submit to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office. If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to post your own request for prior art if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/help-save-podcasting&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8112504&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12940" RevisionGUID="173e30c0-a90c-442d-af94-fd3db78859fd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="'Ask Patents' user has already answered a similar question [Expiry date of patent no 6676109](https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/5622/11895) but in your specific case you'll need to apply that answer as follows: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US MPEP 2701    Patent Term [R-11.2013] states that..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Design patents have a term of fourteen years from the date of patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; grant, except for any design patent issued from applications filed on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or after the date of entry into force of the Hague Treaty as to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; United States, has a term of fifteen years from the date of patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; grant (see Pub. L. No. 112-211). See 35 U.S.C. 173 and MPEP § 1505.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;above goes with duly payment of maintenance fee and subject to any invalidation or re-examination proceeding. if all above are full filled then a design patent to last 14 years after the expiry of said term patent will be in public domain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13221" RevisionGUID="d2682bc8-45b5-49f2-be0d-72daf37a1c05" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Does Prior Art apply to Design Patents, and can they be invalidated based on Prior Art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, if a product has been on the market for twenty years without modification, can an unrelated company obtain a design patent describing part of that product (or even exactly that product)? If not, then how different does a design need to be from existing products?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question was prompted from [a related question][1] regarding a bottle cap that looks remarkably like a [Nalgene cap][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm asking in the broader sense of what constitutes Prior Art for Design Patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/13205/14622&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://store.nalgene.com/v/vspfiles/photos/Wide%20Mouth%20Bottle%20Cap-2.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13222" RevisionGUID="9fdcca49-355d-4219-9e74-de97779df9f8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="For the current rules governing Design Patents, refer to MPEP Chapter 16, [Section 171][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whoever invents any new, original and ornamental design for an article&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of manufacture may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and requirements of this title.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The provisions of this title relating to patents for inventions shall&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apply to patents for designs, except as otherwise provided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, most of the rules governing Utility Patents also apply to Design Patents. This includes Prior Art and novelty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is excerpt from an old article that sums up the basic requirements for a Design Patent. Note that since this is from 1993, there have been several changes to patent law. However, these basic parameters are still in effect. I couldn't really restate it any better than the original:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Silverman, A. 1993. [What Are Design Patents and When Are They Useful?][2] *JOM* **45**(3), p. 63.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To qualify for a design patent, the subject must be new in the sense that **no single, identical design exists in the prior art**, it must satisfy the ornamental standards, and it must be original to the inventor or inventors seeking protection. It must also be unobvious on the basis of any previously existing design or combination of designs when viewed through the eyes of a hypothetical designer skilled in the art. Further, design patents cannot be obtained for ornamental features that are not visible when the product is in use. In general, a design patent is obtained for the aesthetically appealing features of a product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an overall design that an ordinary observer would likely find substantially the same&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, [Case No. 11-CV-1846][3], May 14, 2012.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is from the ruling on the *Apple vs. Samsung Electronics* design patent infringement case. Now, I'm not claiming that this is an official test for novelty of a design patent, but if this is how infringement is tested, then it makes sense that the phrase would also apply to novelty tests of new designs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, regarding the Nalgene cap, the second figure certainly looks like it incorporates all of the design elements, which means the Nalgene cap should have served as Prior Art for the design. However, further discussion regarding that patent should occur in the [original question][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title35/USCODE-2011-title35-partII-chap16-sec171&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9303.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/12-1105.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/13205/14622" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3891" RevisionGUID="790d9b5a-b386-4c11-a88d-1ad27eedaa93" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="**HELP SAVE STREAMING RADIO** - This application seeks to patent a system for discovering new radio stations and podcasts online! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Nov, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of Internet radio station programs; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **dynamically categorizing** this list of programs by mapping a **dynamically identified topic** to a **content classifier**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **speech-to-text conversion** on audio content. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System And Method For Internet Radio Station Program Discovery**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A service for discovering Internet radio station programs. A list of Internet radio station programs is obtained. Each program on the list is categorized by mapping a topic to a program using a content classifier. User can discover new programs of interest from the list of programs based on the categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110502 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Lemi Technology, LLC&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** November, 2008&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Note**: This application is a [continuation][3] of US Patent  [8,359,192][6]. The applicant is attempting to “improve” the claims with this child patent by writing new (evidently broader) claims while retaining the original 2008 priority date.  So prior art should predate November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining a plurality of Internet radio station programs;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. For each Internet radio station program of the plurality of Internet radio station programs, dynamically categorizing the Internet radio station program by mapping a dynamically identified topic of the Internet radio station program to a content classifier;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Enabling a user to discover an Internet radio station program of interest from the plurality of Internet radio station programs based on the dynamic categorizations for the plurality of Internet radio station programs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a list of internet radio station programs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. “Dynamically categorizing” this list of programs by mapping a “dynamically identified topic” to a content classifier; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  Allowing the user to discover programs from the list based on the “dynamic categorization” (presumably created by the classifier)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the November, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and including **speech-to-text conversion** to categorize the radio station programs. Extra credit would include systems that do all of the steps above and also involve speech-to-text conversion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Internet Radio Station program discovery service&quot; flow chart from the Applicant** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/wagCM.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;300&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130110502&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application&#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;[5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;[6]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8359192?dq=8,359,192&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8359192" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13246" RevisionGUID="20f74cbd-8bca-4714-a977-c7d654fd9e0a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="A Provisional Application is not considered to be publicly disclosed, as it never published. Therefore, it cannot serve as Prior Art because it is not generally accessible. The Provisional is there as proof that you have created something novel in a particular area by a particular date, the Priority Date. If it had been a full application, it could serve as Prior Art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You probably have a document somewhere that provides your Provisional Patent Number and Priority Date from 1994. That could be helpful in establishing that you were the First to Invent. In order to have been included as an inventor based on the Provisional Application, you would have needed to submit the full application within a year of your Priority Date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this application has not yet been granted. This means there is still time to collect Prior Art and challenge the patent by first collecting Prior Art as described [here][1] and then (or concurrently) submitting the Prior Art to the USPTO as described [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to contact the inventor on this application, you should be able to find the information using the instructions in [this answer][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your last question on novelty, I'm going to give you a qualified &quot;yes&quot;, if there is Prior Art for everything in the application, then it may be enough to invalidate the entire application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there several other important points to consider before you even think about contacting the inventor. First, the claims are the most important section to look at, and in particular, the independent claims. Even if the background and figures read almost identically to an existing design, it is possible to get novel claim language granted. Without seeing the Prior Art, I have no way of answering that question more completely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing to consider is that novelty is not defined as &quot;every part of a claim must be novel&quot;, but also like &quot;a novel combination of three or more existing things&quot;. You will want to have a very close look at the Independent Claims (Claim 1, Claim 10 and Claim 15) in this application. If an Independent Claim is invalidated, then all of its Dependent Claims will also be invalidated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applications are often rejected on first examination over claims that are too broad or obvious over existing Prior Art. The inventor has the ability to revise claims after a rejection through a series of Office Actions to attempt to work around the problems. This process may take years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/a/146/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/a/107/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/5351/14417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4055" RevisionGUID="2b453ccf-f73a-48a5-940e-95d3b2d77bf2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="  **HELP SAVE MOBILE PURCHASES** - This application from Apple seeks to patent a method for purchasing a product in a store using a smartphone! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Nov, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Using a mobile device to obtain a **product identifier** of a product in a store (e.g., a UPC code); and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. On a mobile device, receiving the **product price** from a server; transmitting a **purchase request** to a server; and receiving a **purchase confirmation** from a server;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **an image taken by the camera on the device** to determine the product identifier (e.g. a UPC code or any other product identifier). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PURCHASING A PRODUCT IN A STORE USING A MOBILE DEVICE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for purchasing a product in a store using a mobile phone. The user’s mobile phone sends a **product identifier** for a product offered for sale in a store to a server somewhere.  The mobile phone receives **product information** including the price of the product from the server.  The mobile phone sends a **purchase request** including digital credentials (of any kind) to identify the user.  The mobile device **receives a confirmation** from the server and presents a confirmation to the user that the product has been purchased.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110678 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/555,753 &#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Apple, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** November, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 2, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for purchasing a product by a customer operating a customer mobile device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Obtaining, by the customer mobile device, a product identifier for a product offered for sale in a store;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Transmitting, by the customer mobile device, the product identifier to a store server associated with the store;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving, by the customer mobile device, product information from the store server, the product information including a price of the product;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Presenting to the customer, by the customer mobile device, at least some of the received product information, including the price of the product;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Receiving, by the customer mobile device, customer purchasing input, the customer purchasing input including a digital credential for the customer, the digital credential being usable to access a user account record that stores financial account information for a financial account of the customer, the user account record being maintained at an account data server;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Transmitting, by the customer mobile device, a purchase request to the store server, the purchase request including the digital credential, wherein the store server uses the digital credential to obtain the financial account information and uses the financial account information to charge the price of the product to the financial account of the customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Receiving, by the customer mobile device, a purchase confirmation from the store server, the purchase confirmation indicating that the product has been purchased by the customer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. Presenting to the customer, by the customer mobile device, a confirmation message confirming that the purchase transaction for the product has successfully completed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Using a phone to obtain a product identifier (e.g. a UPC code) identifying a product in a store&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Phone sends the product identifier to a server&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Phone receives information about the product identified, including the price&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Phone displays price of product to the user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Customer indicates intent to purchase and provides user information&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Phone sends the purchase request to the server&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Phone receives confirmation of purchase; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. Phone confirms product has been purchased with the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the November, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and including **camera phone** to capture an image of the product identifier (presumably rather than having the user type it in). Extra credit would include systems that do all of the steps above and also involve a cameraphone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Welcome to Our Store&quot; screen shots from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/NT8to.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130110678?dq=us20130110678&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13248" RevisionGUID="30c3ec64-2478-4cc3-8a29-499f2ca58f69" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="First off, don't disclose any more details about your ideas on the Internet. Also, don't disclose the idea to others without a [Non-Disclosure Agreement][1] (NDA) in place first. Almost any public disclosure can be used as Prior Art, which is one way to invalidate patents. You need to keep this information confidential until you have a judicial disclosure (patent, trademark or copyright filing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, document your ideas in as much detail as possible. Collect anything you have written down, sketched on paper or napkins, whatever you have. If the documents have dates on them, even better. Write up any additional details and bring the whole bundle to a Notary to get them notarized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the legal work begins. You had marked your question only with the copyright tag, but I'm going to take it a step further so you know what your other options are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A copyright is good, especially if you have manuals, instructional videos or books. If you additionally have a name and logo, you will want to also seek a Trademark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you also have equipment and a method of using the equipment, you may want to additionally seek a combination of Design Patents and/or Utility Patents. There were some questions recently about the games &quot;[4 Square in the Air][2]&quot; and &quot;[9 Square in the Air][3]&quot;, which covered variations of an outdoor game with two extremely simple Design Patents for the equipment and one Utility Patent for the game(s) itself. I honestly don't know how well those would hold up to infringement, but they were all granted and should be instructive examples for you. Of course, read these from the perspective of what can go wrong if claims are written too narrowly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a Utility Patent (this might cover something like equipment and a method of using the equipment) you can use your collected and notarized documents to file a Provisional Patent Application, which doesn't cost much (compared to a full application), doesn't publicly disclose the information, gets you a Priority Date (important!) and gives you one year from filing to complete your Patent Application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, and this may the most important advice, hire a *reputable* patent attorney or patent law firm to prepare, file and offer legal advice. This is not something you should do on your own. Yes, it costs money to hire an expert, but they will prevent you making mistakes (and there are so many mistakes that can be made).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that since the [Bilski Decision][4] in 2010 you may not be able to get &quot;abstract methods of playing&quot; claims patented unless they are tied directly to hardware/equipment, as described in this [other answer][5]. This likely also ties to exercise, which means your equipment would need to be specified in a non-abstract manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this has been helpful. Feel free to ask additional questions on the process, but do not disclose additional details about your ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreement&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/1994/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/1995/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3180/14417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13274" RevisionGUID="f27ab8a9-ffb8-4641-b7e3-4ca75d42f498" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Patent applications can't be illegal unless they are disclosing trade secrets that fall under some form of legally binding non-disclosure agreement (NDA). Anyone not under such an NDA can *attempt* to patent whatever they want. However, this is ultimately a negotiation with the patent authorities over what constitutes a novel and non-obvious invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a Patent *Application*, which only means that someone is applying for a patent. If there is Prior Art publicly available, then it is up to the Patent Examiner at the USPTO (or the examiner at WIPO, because there was also a WIPO (Worldwide Patent) applied for, [WO 2013/134161 A1][1]. The examination process exists to prevent patents from being granted over already-existing ideas. The examiners at the USPTO and at WIPO actually do a really excellent job at finding Prior Art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that just because a specific idea is in the title, abstract or description of a patent application (or even in the claims), it doesn't necessarily mean that the Patent Grant(s) will cover it. In an application or grant, the most important things to look at are the independent claims. This is what describes the invention, regardless of anything else in the document. These might go through several revisions before the examiners agree that something novel has been created.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of the application you referred to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 1.** An energy-saving device, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one starting capacitor;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one running capacitor; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one power factor capacitor,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - all in electrical communication with a power supply and at least one induction motor,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - wherein the power supply needs to supply a much smaller input than the output current of the at least one induction motor after the induction motor has been running for at least from one second to about 30 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 6.** An energy-saving device, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one starting capacitor;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one running capacitor; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - at least one power factor capacitor,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - an automatically adjustable tuning system with computer algorithms for progressively interconnecting said starting, running and power factor capacitors to achieve the lowest possible input,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - all in electrical communication with a power supply and at least one induction motor, wherein the power supply is tuned to need a much smaller input than the output current of the at least one induction motor after the induction motor has been running for at least from one second to about 30 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These claims are so broad that they will likely fail several tests for novelty and inventive step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you consider device described in the above claims to already be in the Public Domain, then there are some things you can do to help the patent examiners find the appropriate material, for which you can find references [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, some applications are filed and abandoned solely to put material into the Public Domain in a place that is easily findable by patent examiners, since online forums are not considered to contain persistent material. This effectively prevents anyone else from seeking broad claims in a particular area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013134161A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/help/found-prior-art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4064" RevisionGUID="741427ff-8ef5-48f4-a487-bc8c07a12040" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="  Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTION - Have you seen anything that was **published before August, 2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A capacitor with a **3 dimensional electrode** made of **sintered material** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Sintered Capacitor Electrode Including a 3-Dimensional Framework**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: This patent relates generally to sintered electrodes including a 3-Dimensional (“3D”) framework with specific applications to batteries in medical devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130041420 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Gregory Sherwood&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** August, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge** at USPTO: Open through October 1, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Note**: This application has an August, 2011 priority date, so prior art should preferably predate August, 2010 but art **prior to June, 2011 can also be used**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An apparatus, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a capacitor case sealed to retain electrolyte;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. at least one electrode disposed in the capacitor case, the at least one electrode comprising a sintered portion disposed on a current collector formed of a framework defining cells extending to three axes;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a conductor coupled to the current collector in electrical communication with the sintered portion, the conductor sealingly extending through the capacitor case to a terminal disposed on an exterior of the capacitor case with the terminal in electrical communication with the sintered portion;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. a second electrode disposed in the capacitor case;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. a separator disposed between the electrode and the second electrode; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. a second terminal disposed on the exterior of the capacitor case and in electrical communication with the second electrode, wherein the terminal and the second terminal electrically are isolated from one another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A sealed capacitor with electrolyte inside a case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A 3D electrode made of sintered material as part of the capacitor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A wire or other conductor that connects the inside of the capacitor to a terminal on the ouside of the case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Another (2nd) electrode inside the case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. That second electrode isolated from the first one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Another terminal on the outside of the case, electrically coupled to the second electrode, but isolated from the first terminal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a device that had each and every one of these elements prior to August, 2010. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Schematic of Medical System including Sintered Capacitor from the Applicant.**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/9Rdb5.png&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130041420&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13282" RevisionGUID="fb4ba338-8030-4efb-827b-9b43b074e104" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="The title is not part of the claims. In order to determine the scope of the claims, the best place to start is with the Independent Claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 1.** A method for treatment of seawater comprising the step of subjecting the seawater to an ion exchange reaction to exchange H+ ions for Na+ ions in the seawater under conditions sufficient to lower a pH of the seawater to less than about 6.5.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 13.** An electrolytic process for producing carbon dioxide and hydrogen gas from seawater comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - feeding a liquid anolyte into an anode compartment to generate hydrogen ions;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - feeding a liquid catholyte substantially free of hardness ions into a cathode compartment, wherein the central compartment is separated from the anode and cathode compartments by cation exchange membranes;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - feeding seawater into the central compartment;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - acidifying the seawater by exchanging the hydrogen ions for sodium ions therein to produce an acidified seawater effluent from the central compartment;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - reacting the sodium ions with hydroxyl ions in the cathode compartment to produce an effluent comprising sodium hydroxide and hydrogen gas;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - reacting carbonate and bicarbonate ions in the acidified seawater with the hydrogen ions to produce carbon dioxide;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and removing the carbon dioxide from the acidified seawater and removing the hydrogen gas from the cathode compartment effluent.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 32.** A process for treating seawater in an electrolytic reactor to produce carbon dioxide gas and hydrogen gas comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - electrolytically generating hydrogen ions from water in an anode compartment;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - exchanging sodium ions in the seawater with the hydrogen ions in an amount effective to reduce a pH of the seawater to less than 6.5, wherein exchanging the odium ions in the seawater with the hydrogen ions forms carbon dioxide gas;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - electrolytically generating hydroxyl ions and hydrogen gas from water in a cathode compartment;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and forming sodium hydroxide from the hydroxyl ions and the sodium ions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that these claims are part of a Patent *Application* and are not yet granted. They are a starting point for negotiating novel and non-obvious claims of appropriate scope with the USPTO (and in this case, WIPO).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are not satisfied with the scope of these claims and you feel that Prior Art exists that covers these claims, you can revise your question and add the `prior-art-request` tag, or [submit your own list][1] of Prior Art directly to the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/help/found-prior-art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4071" RevisionGUID="68472465-03c8-4a21-93b6-6d396784616c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="  **HELP SAVE HOME AUDIO** - This application from Creative Labs seeks to patent the general idea of a self-calibrating audio systems! Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.... [HERE!][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining **physical features** around speakers and calibrating at least one of the speakers; where&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **Physical features** are determined by sending a test signal from the speaker and calibrating the speakers based on the test signal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**HINT** - Haven’t self-calibrating speaker systems or networks been around for a while?  Did Dynaudio AIR do this? Can you help find evidence that Dynaudio AIR or any other system did this prior to Dec 2010?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: SELF-CALIBRATING SPEAKER SYSTEMS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalish into English] A method for calibrating multi-speaker audio system wherein an audio test signal is sent from a speaker and the test signal is used to measure a **physical features** of the speaker.  This **physical feature** (for example, volume) is used to calibrate the speaker.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130051572 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Creative Labs, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A calibration method for calibrating a variable number of speakers, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining **physical features** around a location of each of the variable number of speakers and calibrating at least one of the variable number of speakers;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Wherein the **physical features** around a location of each of the variable number of speakers are determinable by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Transmitting an instruction signal, the instruction signal being transmittable from a device which is indicative of listener location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Communicating a **test signal** based on the instruction signal, the **test signal** being communicable from at least one of the variable number of speakers to the device; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Receiving and processing the **test signal** by the device in a manner so as to produce **calibration signals**, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Wherein the **calibration signals** are communicable from the device to at least one of the variable number of speakers so as to calibrate at least one of the variable number of speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for calibrating audio speakers; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determining physical features of the audio speakers using an audio test signal from at least one of the speakers;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Using the physical features which have been determined to calibrate at least one of the speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already - haven’t self-calibrating speaker systems or networks been around for a while?  Did Dynaudio AIR do this? Can you help find evidence that Dynaudio AIR or any other system did this prior to Dec 2010?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The method of  self-calibrating speaker systems from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Hrc3R.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130051572&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13402" RevisionGUID="7eeb3e1e-8aa0-4c21-b4d6-141c31aa0d1b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="No, [US 6,608,366 B1][1] and the continuation patent [US 7,183,630 B1][2] (from the same application) are not in the public domain. I double-checked the [Public Pair][3] records to verify. Both of these patents are enforceable until April 15, 2022.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please also refer to a related question describing [how to calculate patent expiration dates][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6608366&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7183630&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3803/14417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13411" RevisionGUID="88d97541-6be2-4bb5-939c-673f8882b295" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="As of lately, I've noticed quite an increase in software algorithm patents, that is: patents that explain certain data structures and/or software algorithms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem I personally have with patents is that a lot of those patents reflect (in my personal opinion) pretty trivial solutions to common problems (in that certain area of expertise). Now, regardless of my personal feelings, I'm not looking for a lawsuit of any sorts, so I prefer avoiding patent claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make this statement a bit more concrete: say you're building a small database system for some reason. Because CPU's are better at processing vectors than individual rows of data, you decide to store data in columns - after all, it's the trivial solution for my problem. Well, guess what, that is apparently patented in US20080059492 .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is the patent for calculating an absolute value without branching. After a bit of fiddling in Excel with bits you find the formula `const int mask = v &gt;&gt; sizeof(int) * 8 - 1; r = (v ^ mask) - mask;`. As it turns out, this is apparently patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that these are just some random examples; I've read dozens of patents that I think are pretty obvious solutions to common problems (given that you are an expert in the field). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This made me worry. Each time I implement an algorithm that trivially sounds feels like it solves the problem at hand, you might inadvertently create a patent claim. I'm not worried about the patents I know about or that I can reasonably search -- I'm mostly worried about the patents that *I don't know about*. I really feel like I could be making 'logical' decisions like this a thousand times a day - but in truth, I have absolutely no idea what possible patent infringements are buried in these hundred thousands lines of code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I've been questioning myself if this is the right place for this question -- and read [on-topic][1]. If however, I've got it wrong, please explain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: **How can I implement software, knowing that I'm walking in a huge minefield of trivial patents, but unsure where these mines are buried?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I'm not asking about specific patents, I'm mostly looking for a practical way-of-work regarding patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4082" RevisionGUID="d0127015-7542-4464-986e-4364a93c10b7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **HELP SAVE MESH NETWORKING** —This application from General Electric seeks to patent a system for extending the range of communication for low rate wireless mesh networks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.... [HERE!][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was **published before June 27, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.	A low-rate wireless mesh network that uses several directional antennas (communication nodes including: directional wSIM, any directional wireless sensor interface) to extend the range of wireless communication between devices; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.	A method of assembling such a network; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.	A sensor and controller connected to such a mesh network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT ---** &#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses one or more omnidirectional antennas.&#xD;&#xA;	A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses a memory device connected to a processor. &#xD;&#xA;	A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses two adjacent directional antennas with opposite polarization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ENHANCING WIRELESS MESH NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** [Translated from Legalish into English] A system for increasing the range of communication between devices in low-rate wireless mesh networks by using multiple directional antennas (for example directional wSIM or any directional wireless sensor interface device).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Publication Number:** [US 2012/0326927][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Assignee:** General Electric&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Prior Art Date:** June 27, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Open for Challenge at USPTO: open until _June 27, 2013_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A wireless mesh network comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	At least one data collection device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A plurality of directional antennas operatively coupled to each other and to said at least one data collection device,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Wherein said wireless mesh network is configured to transmit information with a data rate of approximately 250 Kilobits per second (Kbits/sec) or less, and at a frequency of approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz) or less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.	At least one device that collects data input from any kind of sensor or user input interface (including, for example, a microcontroller programmed to collect, store and process input from sensors, user interfaces such as touch screens or keyboards, or GPS); AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.	Multiple mesh nodes using directional radio antennas configured in such a way that they are in communication with each other and with the device described in (1); AND &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.	The mesh network is configured to transmit information with a low-data rate, using either the Zigbee® specification, the WirelessHART™ standard, or any low-rate specification, standard or protocol based on IEEE standard 802.15.4™ [a data rate of approximately 250 Kilobits per second (250Kbits/sec) or less, at a frequency of approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz) or less].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 15** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A monitoring system comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	At least one sensor measurement device; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	At least one data collection device; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	A wireless mesh network coupled to said at least one data collection device and said at least one sensor measurement device, said wireless mesh network comprising a plurality of directional antennas operatively coupled to each other and to said at least one data collection device, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Wherein, said wireless mesh network is configured to transmit information with a data rate of approximate 250 Kilobits per second (Kbits/sec) or less, and at a frequency of approximately 2.4 GigaHertz (GHz) or less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.	At least one sensor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.	At least one device that collects data input from any kind of sensor or user input interface (including, for example, a microcontroller programmed to collect, store and process input from sensors, or user interfaces such as touch screens or keyboards, or GPS); AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.	Multiple mesh nodes using directional antennas configured such that the nodes are in communication with each other, the sensor, and the data collection device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4.	The mesh network is configured to transmit information with a low-data rate, using either the Zigbee® specification, the WirelessHART™ standard, or any low-rate specification, standard or protocol based on IEEE standard 802.15.4™ [a data rate of approximately 250 Kilobits per second (250Kbits/sec) or less, at a frequency of approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz) or less].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You’re probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet these criteria already...&#xD;&#xA;Separately, the applicant is claiming:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	A method and system using all of the elements described above and including multiple omnidirectional antennas;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	A data collection device composed of any memory device coupled to a processor, where the memory device includes programmed instructions to the processor to transmit data through the network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	An arrangement of antennas where the first directional antenna is positioned within range of a first omnidirectional antenna; and a second directional antenna positioned within range of a second omnidirectional antenna.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_What is good prior art? Please see our &lt;a href=&quot;https://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt;_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post prior art you know about][2] on other questionable US patent applications._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120326927&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13518" RevisionGUID="ff17fdb3-525b-451a-82db-46aad2c53e8f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Say I may have a &quot;computer-implemented invention&quot; which is very easy on the hardware side but very complicated on the software side. I may be thinking about getting a patent for it. What would be my reasons for revealing my complicated (read &quot;sophisticated&quot;) methods that the software is based on to the world? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean such a patent may bring me more problems then advantages since it reveals all internals to the public and it may be very difficult (and costly!) for me to actually find and fight down patent infringements (see [this post][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I don't patent a thing there is a danger that someone else will try to patent it. In such case, can I hijack such patent application if I prove (with internal documents and human witnesses) that I have been selling same product for some time already? I guess that application would go public then which would be a disadvantage for me then since I wouldn't be able to patent it myself anymore - most likely competition would start...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The final thought is I may be able to earn more money using the invention without a patent keeping my methods in secret but if I get a patent there may be a lot of competition using it without me really being able to prevent them from doing so or event being able to track them down at all...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3707/general-knowledge-on-how-software-patent-infringement-lawsuits-are-evaluated" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13553" RevisionGUID="ce386cd5-3297-4fb8-a5b0-e27728ae651b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Great question, this one looks really interesting from an expiration and enforcement perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually, calculating an expiration date for a patent is straightforward. You can use the [Patent Term Calculator Excel sheet][1] from the USPTO, as described [here][2]. This spreadsheet works in this case, but there are some interesting things about this one that are worth noting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue date of this patent was April 22, 1997. From the specification:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This application is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 08/231,035 filed Apr. 22, 1994, now abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above indicates a claim of domestic benefit (in this case, a continuation-in-part) from an earlier application, which sets the priority date of this patent to April 22, 1994. This, in itself, isn't unusual, and it effectively limits the term of the patent by establishing an earlier priority date while potentially limiting the earliest date the claims are enforceable (unknown without opening the provisional).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The filing date of the application (Appl. No. 08/537,541) for the patent grant (October 2, 1995) is also important, because it was shortly *after* June 7, 1995, when a revised set of rules went into effect, potentially providing a second type of Patent Term Extension (PTE) under 154 (*in addition to* PTE 156), while the provisional was filed *prior* to that date. I'm going to have to look in to this part a little more in order to provide a correct interpretation of the actual effect of this on the patent term. *I believe this patent did not have a PTE, but I haven't verified that yet.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This document is actually an Ex-Parte Re-Examination Certificate (US 5,623,660 C1), issued October 4, 2011 based on Re-Examination Request No. 90/010,636, filed December 16, 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; AS A RESULT OF REEXAMINATION, IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claims 1, 2, 8, 18, 22-27 and 42 are cancelled.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; New claims 49-94 are added and determined to be patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claims 3-7, 9-17, 19-21, 28-41 and 43-48 were not reexamined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above re-examination effectively altered the enforceability of the original claims, but added 45 new claims (I assume that these are based on the 11 cancelled claims in the original grant, but narrowed based on the re-examination). I'm tempted to work through these, but it probably won't add anything to the conversation; however, (pure speculation) this re-examination and the subsequent claims allowed *may have occurred based on information added during the continuation-in-part vs. what was available in the original provisional application*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If my understanding of the priority rules for continuation-in-part are correct, then at the date of the issue of the C1 document, the revised claims are in effect and enforceable *from that date* until the end of the original patent term, which would be April 22, 2014. *However, the original claims are in effect from (depending on the content of the provisional specification vs. the continuation-in-part specification) either April 22, 1994 or October 2, 1995 until October 5, 2011.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is the best I can do from my recollection of the rules, and I'm not that confident of that last paragraph. If nobody else provides a more complete answer in a day or two, I will look into it a bit more. The parts I need to research are in italics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm certain there is a wealth of interesting reading material in the [Public Pair][3] Image File Wrapper for this patent. I'll revise this answer when I have more time to read through it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** The reason I'm so interested in when the specific claims were enforceable is that if a past infringement were identified within the term of the claims, it could still result in damages being awarded. More specifically, the amended claims awarded from the re-examination resulted in an amendment of at least one independent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/patent_term_calculator.jsp#heading-1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3803/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4087" RevisionGUID="92101c78-cdf1-428d-bae6-123ef06e43c8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **HELP SAVE MESH NETWORKING** — This application from Schlage seeks to patent a secure gateway between a mesh network and an IP network, and a lock device connected through the mesh network. Because mesh networks often use protocols that don’t work well with IP clients, it’s important to have a secure bridge that allows web browsers and other traditional IP clients to use mesh network based systems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.... [HERE!][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was published before **May 27, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.	A **gateway** device for transmitting signals between an IP network and a radio frequency mesh network that uses a **secure data connection** to communicate with the IP network; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.	A gateway device that meets all of the criteria above where the gateway is configured to **enroll a lock device** in the mesh network; OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.	A method for **synchronizing** the gateway device described above with **a lock device.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT ---** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND that was published BEFORE **December 31, 2007.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses a **secure socket layer protocol** to implement the secure data connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND where the gateway is configured to enroll an **additional device that is not a lock** in the mesh network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the logic and memory unit **translates** between the mesh and IP network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: MESH NETWORK SECURITY SYSTEM GATEWAY AND METHOD**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** [Translated from Legalish into English] A secure data connection gateway between an IP or computer network and a radio-frequency mesh network, with a power supply, that could allow for web browsers and other traditional IP client software to control or use a mesh network. Separately, the applicant is claiming a method of enrolling a lock device in the mesh network and synchronizing it with the gateway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Publication Number:** &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US20130014219&quot;&gt;US 20130014219 A1&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Assignee:** Schlage&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;•	**Prior Art Date:** May 27, 2008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	**Open for Challenge at USPTO: open through at least *July 10, 2013***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gateway for transmitting signals between a computer network and a radio-frequency mesh network, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A housing;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A radio-frequency transceiver for communicating with the radio-frequency mesh network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	An Internet Protocol transceiver, operatively coupled to the radio frequency transceiver, for communicating with the computer network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	A power supply; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	A logic and memory unit configured to communicate with the computer network using a secure data connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A gateway device with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.	A housing; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.	A radio frequency transceiver and IP transceiver in communication with each other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.	A power supply; AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4.	Any logic and memory device that can communicate with the IP or computer network through a secure data connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 9** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gateway for transmitting signals between a computer network and a radio-frequency mesh network, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A housing;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A radio-frequency transceiver for communicating with the radio-frequency mesh network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	An Internet Protocol transceiver, operatively coupled to the radio-frequency transceiver, for communicating with the computer network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	A power supply; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	A logic and memory unit configured to enroll devices into the radio-frequency mesh network, at least one of the devices being a radio-frequency mesh network lock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gateway device with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A housing; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A radio frequency transceiver and IP transceiver in communication with each other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	A power supply; AND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Any logic and memory device that can add nodes to the mesh network, where at least one of those nodes is a lock device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 14** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A method of synchronizing a radio-frequency mesh network lock device with a mesh network gateway, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Positioning the gateway adjacent to the lock device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	Initiating synchronization procedures on the lock device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Initiating synchronization procedures on the gateway;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Exchanging identifying information between the gateway and the lock device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	Indicating that synchronization is successfully completed at the gateway;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.	Increasing radio signal power of a lock device transceiver associated with the lock device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.	Adding the lock device to a list stored in the gateway of devices that make-up the radio-frequency mesh network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In plain English this could mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A process where the lock an the gateway are synchronized by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.	Placing the lock and gateway next to each other; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.	Entering a security code into the lock device (or otherwise initiating a synchronization procedure);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.	Pressing a button on the gateway (or otherwise initiating a synchronization procedure);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4.	Transmitting the security code (or other identifying information) between the gateway and the lock;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5.	Increasing the amount of power going to the lock’s transceiver; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6.	Enrolling the lock device in the network. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][1]![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;What is good prior art? Please see our &lt;a href=&quot;https://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post prior art you know about][3] on other questionable US patent applications.&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/6WC9e.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Q01fI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14140" RevisionGUID="81078d92-7372-4e17-9d40-1bb708048cdb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Title: Foam insulation/shading system for transparent structures. &#xD;&#xA;Assignee name:	Sunarc Of Canada Inc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HELP SAVE INDUSTRY THREATENED BY OVERLY BROAD US 7818924 B2 patent.&#xD;&#xA;Sunrac of Canada patent is:&#xD;&#xA;A periodically shieldable solar structure (10) comprises a cavity formed between a pair of light transmitting members (12). A foam insulation/shading system (14) is provided for periodically filling the cavity with degradable foam. The foam insulation/shading system (14) comprises a series of foam generators (28) mounted within the cavity and distributed to provide multiple foam generating points. The foam generators (28) are operatively coupled to a source of pressurized air and a source of foaming solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10 minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent or have it be declared invalid.&#xD;&#xA;FIG. 1 is a schematic perspective vieW of a loW pressure&#xD;&#xA;foam generation system used in the insulation and/ or shading&#xD;&#xA;of a greenhouse in accordance With one embodiment of the&#xD;&#xA;present invention; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you seen anything that was published before: Mar. 9, 2004. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This invention relates to a structure (typically a green house) that has as walls and roof an outside membrane and an inside membrane. The membranes are transparent and allows light to pass through. The outside and inside membranes form cavities or compartments into which foam is deposited to block the sunlight. After a while the foam turns into water and is replaced by new foam. This way the light that penetrates the structure can be controlled. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question -- one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: FOAM INSULATION/SHADING SYSTEM FOR TRANSPARENT STRUCTURES&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summary:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Foam insulation/Shading System is provided for the cavity With degradable foam. The foam insulation/shading system (14) comprises a series of foam generators (28) mounted Within the cavity and distributed there along to provide multiple foam generating points The foam generators (28) are operatively coupled to a source of pressurized air and a source of foaming solution. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication Number:Oct. 26, 2010 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;A periodically shieldable solar structure comprising at least one cavity formed between a pair of light transmitting members, &#xD;&#xA;and a foam insulation/shading system for periodically filling said at least one cavity with degradable foam, &#xD;&#xA;said foam insulation/shading system comprising an air supply pipe connected to a source of low-pressure air and extending along said at least one cavity, &#xD;&#xA;a foaming solution supply pipe connected to a source of foaming solution and extending along said at least one cavity, &#xD;&#xA;and a series of axially spaced-apart foam generators mounted within said at least one cavity and distributed therealong to provide multiple discrete points of mixture for the air and foaming solution as well as multiple foam outlet points within each single one of said at least one cavity, the foam generators being located in an upper end portion of the at least one cavity, &#xD;&#xA;the low pressure air and the foaming solution being separately supplied to said foam generators via said air supply pipe and said foaming solution supply pipe to locally produce the foam at each of said axially spaced-apart foam generators, each of the foam generators having a body defining a chamber, &#xD;&#xA;the chamber having an outlet provided with a screen, each foam generator further having an air inlet configured to provide for a flow of low-pressure air from the air supply pipe to the chamber and at least one nozzle connected to the foaming solution pipe for directly spraying the foaming solution onto an inner face of the screen such that foam is generated by the low-pressure air released through the screen, the axis of the at least one nozzle intersecting the screen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ](https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google patent link: http://www.google.com/patents/US7818924&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;USPTO link: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=7818924.PN.&amp;OS=PN/7818924&amp;RS=PN/7818924&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4207" RevisionGUID="d0065544-a87b-42e6-9f80-838d694fedf5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE DATING** - This application from [Zoosk][6] seeks to patent the idea of finding other people who are nearby and compatible with you online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Finding **location information** about users on a dating site; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Finding **compatible users** to a target user, based on any characteristic defined by the target user (for example, age, gender, height, interests, etc.); and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing information about these compatible users to the target user based on the **location information** of the compatible users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Identifying Nearby, Compatible Users**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of online dating which uses location information and compatibility, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;receiving location information from a bunch of users, getting a **compatibility preference** for one of the users, and finding other users **near that user** who are **compatible** with that user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130145288 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/706,182&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Zoosk, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 5, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 6, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying location information of at least one first user to a second user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving location information from a plurality of third users comprising the at least one first user, and from the second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving from the second user information indicating at least one preference for a plurality of characteristics of other users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving from each of the plurality of third users information comprising a plurality of characteristics of that user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Selecting the at least one first user from the plurality of third users responsive to the current locations of the plurality of third users and the second user, the preference of the second user and the characteristics of the plurality of the third users; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the second user information responsive to the location information of the at least one first user selected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of showing location information about users to another user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Collecting **LOCATION INFORMATION** from a bunch of users, for example, their zip codes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. One user expresses a “preference for a characteristic” about those users, for example, “I only want to meet guys who are taller than 5’11””&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Other users provide (or have provided) information about that characteristic, for example, “I’m a guy and I am six feet tall”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Identifying a subset of the users who meet the characteristic, for example, “all male users who are taller than 5’11”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying to the first user location information about the subset of users who are compatible with them, for example, “See here on this map are guys who are taller than 5’11” and who are LOCATED near you.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December 5, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and uses **common friends** (e.g. on Facebook), **speed of travel between users** or **length of time** users have been on the site to determine compatibility between users. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Identifying and notifying users of nearby potential matches - Flowchart&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/GUpwM.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130145288?dq=US20130145288A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.zoosk.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14407" RevisionGUID="807607dc-c4ab-4f59-9574-8e55822d7861" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="I did a little digging and found this post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/13860/register-prior-art-but-not-wanting-a-patent/13869#13869&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case it might help anyone else, I'll answer my own questions for archival reasons. If I got anything wrong, any help correcting would be much appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Yes, GitHub can be used as a published prior art.&#xD;&#xA;2. If I wrote the code on GitHub, and I was the first that invented it, no one else but me can file the patent. However, I only have 1 year from the publish date to file that patent. After that year passes, no one can file the patent (I assume its under public domain?)&#xD;&#xA;3. From the URL I linked, it seems like the GitHub page must be publicly available for it to be considered a published prior art. I'm not sure on the specifics if the repository was initially private, then set to public, then set to private again some time later, then public again. I assume the publish date of the prior art is on the first time it was set to public (so the 1 year grace period would start ticking on that time)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14462" RevisionGUID="7faa968b-5637-414e-9567-b1d5cd528241" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Software as such are potentially patentable. However there is quite some limitations to this, even in the US.&#xA;See for a related question that has been answered here:https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/6160/16118&#xA;&#xA;It is as you say there will be issues with copyright and this expires generally 70 years after the death of the author. For the game you will even have multiple authors,  since you said there is music etc..&#xA;&#xA;Patent protection runs out after 20 years.&#xA;&#xA;Related note:&#xA;For softwarepatents in the US the hurdle to pass could be summarised in inverting one of the last sentences of Justia Opinion Summary on the Alice case:&#xA;&#xA;A patent on software needs to  &#xA;&#xA;&gt; &quot;purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself or improve any other technology or technical field.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;Otherwise it will be just seen as an &quot;abstract idea&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;The Justia Opinion Summary you find here:&#xA;https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/13-298/&#xA;&#xA;Therefore it is even quite unlikely that a valid softwarepatent even existed in this case.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;I hope you get more details in Law Stackexchange. Good luck. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4209" RevisionGUID="a74b4823-2bc9-4eb5-9c22-a4f1db689a10" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="[US6796360][1] was filed and has a priority date of: **Feb 25, 2003**  The original life of the patent would have been 20 years from Feb 25, 2003 or **Feb 25, 2023**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim of '360 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A tension shade comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A headrail supporting a window covering;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A bottom rail operatively connected to the window covering;&#xD;&#xA;at least one tension cord extending from the headrail and operatively connected to the bottom rail;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. At least one tensioner connected to the tension cord and configured to be releasably secured to a structure;&#xD;&#xA;the tensioner including...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a first component having an engagement surface and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a second component having a second engagement surface;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a portion of the first component interfering with a portion of the second component inhibiting the first and second components from separating,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the first and second components having a first position wherein the first engagement surface and the second engagement surface are spaced apart a predetermined distance sufficient to frictionally engage a portion of the tension cord,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the first component being movable within the second component from the first position to a second fully engaged position clamping the tension cord between the first and second engagement surfaces. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Public Pair][2] the patent was issued **May 20, 2004**.  It **expired** due to non-payment of maintenance fees on **Oct, 27, 2008**.  So long as it is expired **the patent is no longer current and is no longer in force**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which can also be seen on [Google Patents][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not clear what is meant by &quot;if speciality window coverings still have claim to us6796360 patent&quot;.  However, if the question is whether a third party should worry about the owner of the '360 preventing the manufacture or sale of products which infringe the '360 patent, the answer is **NO** (unless and until the patent is revived).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll leave it to other participants on [Ask Patents][5] to opine on whether the '360 patent could in principle be revived by payment of the overdue maintenance fees 5 years after patent has expired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]:  https://www.google.com/patents/US6796360?pg=PA8&amp;dq=6796360&#xD;&#xA;  [2]:  https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3971/is-this-patent-still-valid-and-in-force/3972#3972&#xD;&#xA;  [3]:  http://i.stack.imgur.com/2mQa0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]:  http://i.stack.imgur.com/3cSHH.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]:  https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14500" RevisionGUID="cce8507a-6d7f-473c-9a93-d0365ecac001" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Let me starts with an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US 7598276 B2 was filed on Nov 7, 2006 having 1 day of PTA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US 8557852 B2 was filed on Aug 28, 2009 which is division of '276 with 546 days of PTA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no terminal disclaimer filed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;what should be the expiry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nov 7, 2026 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nov 7, 2026 + 546 days of PTA?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is certainly different from : https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/10754/parent-patent-expired-due-to-non-payment-are-issued-continuations-still-valid" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14623" RevisionGUID="f2df2b8b-f4f1-478a-84ac-f6d8a756b04d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="I wondered which countries this patent covers other than the US?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brett&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/us20040035049" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4216" RevisionGUID="aad46a67-5685-4b23-b0df-1e4d1ad8d48f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE GAME PROMOTION** - This application from [Gree][6] seeks to patent the idea of cross-promotion of games in an online community, in other words promoting one game from within another game! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before June, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Promoting **a 2nd game** from a **2nd game maker** to users of **a 1st game** from a **1st game maker**; where &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Users of **a 2nd game** have previously been promoted another game by the **1st game maker**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Basically, any kind of cross-game promotion between game makers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses a **social graph**, **game level**, **game score** to determine whether to promote a game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Cross-promotion of games**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Displaying cross-game promotions among different game makers, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;promoting a **2nd game** to users running a **1st game** where other users of the **2nd game** have previously been promoted the **1st game**, basically trading promotion between two game makers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151342 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/530,067&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Gree, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** June 21, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;A method for cross-promotion of games, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Transmitting, to a server, an indication that the first video game is running on the local computing device, wherein the first video game is made by the first game maker; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving, from the server, an instruction to display a second message on the local computing device,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the second message promotes a second game maker,&#xD;&#xA;wherein the second message is received if a first message has been previously transmitted from the server to a remote computing device and has been previously displayed on the remote computing device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Displaying, on the local computing device, the second message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of cross-promotion of games, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A **local computer** (desktop or mobile) tells the server that it is running a **1st game**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The server gives the **local computer** instructions to display a **promotion** for a **2nd game**, where&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Other local computers have previously received instructions to promote the **1st game**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The local computer displays the promotion for the **2nd game**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the June, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above AND ALSO uses a **social graph**, **game level**, **game score** to determine whether to promote a game.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Online Gaming Cross-Promotion&quot; screen shots from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/LpuQ9.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151342?dq=US20130151342A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.gree-corp.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4217" RevisionGUID="66559f70-b4f1-4367-ba5f-0709894f03d6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="[US20110056000][1] is a **Patent Application**, not an issued patent.  It received a **Final Rejection** on Oct 12, 2012.  It was subsequently abandoned by the applicant for failure to respond to the **Final Rejection** on June 2, 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting public resource and the way any user can see all of this information is through [Public Pair][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good primer on [using Public Pair can be found in this answer][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current status of US20110056000 can be seen here.  Note the status **&quot;Abandoned - Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot;**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Status of US20110056000][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you are still interested in getting in touch with the applicant you can see his contact information on the applicant information form submitted with the patent application in September, 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Information about the Applicant of US20110056000][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20110056000&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3972/1767&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/sa6NY.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Fkz8A.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14750" RevisionGUID="c160dd20-5a31-4af2-aeeb-cff1b61d11a4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question is similar to [this one][1], but not speaking of an offense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What will happen if one marks his product that it is patented, having no patents at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. one is having written a patent ptotection for a thing that cannot be patented - with intention this to be his scarecrow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is it in the US and other countries?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/12841/what-happens-if-a-company-publicises-they-have-patents-when-they-have-not/12844" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4218" RevisionGUID="54492424-6321-4a7f-b5ac-21b76907d0c0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT FOR ONLINE ADVERTISING** - This application from [Facebook][6] seeks to patent the idea of... suggesting changes to your advertising campaign based on the performance of your current campaign! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Measuring the performance** of an initial online advertisement; AND &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Suggesting changes to **targeting criteria** an advertiser might use to increase its performance;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **click-through rate**, **conversion rate** or **brand lift rate** as a measurement of performance of the advertisement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Adjusting an Advertising Campaign**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of adjusting an online advertisement which uses click-through-rate, conversion rate, brand-lift rate or any other measurement of an initial advertisement to suggest new targeting criteria to the advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151332 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/316,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Facebook, Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 10, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, at a **publishing system from an advertiser**, data for an **advertising campaign** comprising an initial ad and **targeting criteria** defining an initial **target group** for receiving the initial ad;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Providing the **initial ad** for display to a plurality of users in a plurality of segments of the initial target group;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining, by the publishing system, a value of an **advertising metric** for a first one of the plurality of segments based on the display of the initial ad to the users of the first segment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Based on the value of the advertising metric, determining by the publishing system **a suggestion** for the advertiser to modify the **targeting criteria** to **remove** the first segment from the targeting criteria to be used for the initial ad; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Sending the suggestion from the publishing system to the advertiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of suggesting adjustments to an advertising campaign, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving an initial advertisement and proposed targeting criteria from an advertiser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Displaying the initial advertisement to the target group using the targeting crtieria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Measuring something (anything!) about the performance of the initial advertisement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Suggesting that the advertiser modify the targeting criteria to narrow which members of the target group see the advertisement.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the December, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and using **click-through rate**, **conversion rate** or **brand lift rate** as a measurement of performance of the advertisement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Modifying ad campaign based on the performance of the ad&quot;** from Figures of Application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/MlviX.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151332?dq=US20130151332A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.facebook.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16380" RevisionGUID="a732865c-95c6-464c-acf4-7a5e6df5ace6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="You should talk to an attorney. See [Is It Possible to Notify Small Infringers With An Informal Letter][1] and [Avoiding Declaratory Judgment When Sending Licensing/Cease&amp;Desist Letters][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should discuss with your attorney if competitor's prior knowledge of your patent would lead to a willful infringement claim (see [this article][3] on a recent Supreme Court decision).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Definitely don't explain your claim and reason why you your competitor infringes on your claim. Everything you said can and will be used against you. Let your attorney do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/13921/is-it-possible-to-notify-small-infringers-with-an-informal-letter/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/13654/avoiding-declaratory-judgment-when-sending-licensing-ceasedesist-letters&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.weil.com/articles/so-long-seagate-a-new-test-for-willful-patent-infringement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4232" RevisionGUID="18330892-12ca-46fb-825f-374ab5d544cb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ELECTRONIC CALENDARS** - This application from [HTC][6] seeks to patent the idea of... calendar reminders based on location! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on Twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Aug 22, 2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating **EVENT REMINDERS** for a user; where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **EVENT REMINDERS** are based on **TRAVEL TIME** to a next event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **GPS**, **Traffic conditions**, **Walking time** to estimate travel time, or involves **contacting another individual** when it appears you will be late to a meeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: METHOD FOR REMINDING CALENDAR SCHEDULE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method in which a reminding message is provided in advance to a user according to the distance between the location of the user’s previous event and the location of an upcoming event, so that the user will not be late for the upcoming event.  Basically a standard iPhone reminder of “Your meeting with David Kappos will occur in {X} minutes”, where {X} is calculated in part by how long will be required for you to get to the event”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130151143 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/761,161&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [HTC Corporation][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating August 22, 2008**&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for creating a calendar reminder, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Setting a first schedule and a first **location** of a first event in a calendar;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Obtaining first positioning information of a **current location** of the mobile apparatus during the first event according to the first schedule, and storing the first positioning information as event positioning information of the first location; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Retrieving the event positioning information for reminding the calendar schedule when the first location is set in a next event.d&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for creating a calendar reminder, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a 1st event on a calendar;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Using the current location of the user as the location of the 1st event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Creating a reminder for the next event based on the location of the next event and location of the 1st event.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the August, 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and AND ALSO uses **GPS**, **Traffic conditions**, **Walking time** to estimate travel time, or involves **contacting another individual** when it appears you will be late to a meeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A method of creating event reminders&quot; screen shots from HTC**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/7X5oi.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130151143?dq=US+20130151143+A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.htc.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17079" RevisionGUID="a7a84ea3-80f9-4d6b-886b-4bd06bb7793d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="I know there are [similar question][1] out there. I am slightly specific about my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say, there is an overall machine &quot;TookAllTheIdeasMachine&quot; by Inventor &quot;PlayedWithWordsForHisFirstInvention&quot;, which achieves functionality A. Functionality A has many sub-functionalities, like SF1, SF2, etc. To achieve functionality SF2, the inventor owner used elements E1 and E2. To achieve functionality  SF2, he used Processes P1 and P2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scenario 1:&#xD;&#xA;I being a new inventor, created a product with the only goal to achieve functionality SF1. I used exactly elements E1 and E2 and exactly same process P1 and P2 to achieve functionality SF1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I have any grounds to get a patent for my invention? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If no, inventor &quot;PlayedWithWordsForHisFirstInvention&quot; has not come up with the small unit which only performs dedicated task &quot;SF1&quot; but my invention does. And because my invention is dedicated to functionality &quot;SF1&quot; and fairly not complex, It is cheaper. But because &quot;PlayedWithWordsForHisFirstInvention&quot; has created a heavily costlier invention, I cant bring my invention to market because I cant afford to be sued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I get patent for my invention SF1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please assist me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/10322/how-different-must-an-invention-be-to-be-patented" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17235" RevisionGUID="1000bb9c-2245-4ca2-8f55-b1f605698041" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="In this comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/16579/multiple-priority-date-options/16580?noredirect=1#comment12098_16580&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maca said that an unpublished provisional patent does not count as prior art regarding novelty of another patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to admit that I do not believe this. I am certain that for normal patent applications it is not that way, even while they have not been published, they count as prior art for novelty, but not for inventive step. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question therefore is, can anybody provide any part of the US patent law  proving or disproving the statement that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Dropped and unpublished provisionals do not impede novelty of other inventions*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And how about dropped but published provisionals for patents with priority date between filing and publishing of said provisional?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**:&#xD;&#xA;*Disclaimer*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Including a comment from olsonist about US patent law:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When you file your patent, you will sign the DECLARATION FOR UTILITY OR DESIGN PATENT APPLICATION. The first paragraph of this declaration says: I hereby declare that: (1) Each inventor's residence, mailing address, and citizenship are as stated below next to their name; and (2) I believe the inventor(s) named below to be the original and first inventor(s) of the subject matter which is claimed and for which a patent is sought on the invention titled. Do not lie on this form. It is a Federal offense. If someone else filed the provisional then you are not the original and first inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is only about novelty and inventive step in this case or about unpublished provisionals beeing prior art, but the above should be remembered if using the question/answers as advice, as it's a very important point. However sometimes many or changing entities might have the right to apply for a patent on a given invention, so the case discussed here does exist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4233" RevisionGUID="7a9fceb4-0b9c-4aca-ab0d-11c778ca7e06" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON DISPLAYING ICONS** - This application from [Samsung][6] seeks to patent the idea of... changing icon appearance based on their frequency of use! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents [HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 9, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Storing **FREQUENCY OF USE** of screen icons; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Modifying the **APPEARANCE OF AN ICON** based on its **FREQUENCY OF USE**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO modifies **ICON SIZE** or **ICON SPACING** based on frequency of use of an **ICON**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: CHANGING ICONS BASED ON FREQUENCY OF USE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of displaying icons on a screen which involves displaying multiple icons, storing the frequency of use of each icon, and modifying how the icons appear based on their frequency of use.  Yes, the applicant wants to patent **any kind of modification** to icons based on **frequency of use**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130152017 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/674,833&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Samsung Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 9, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 13, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for creating a graphic user interface (GUI), comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying a **plurality of icons** on a screen;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Storing a **frequency of use** of each of the icons displayed on the screen; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Changing an **external appearance** of at least one **icon** on the screen from among the plurality of icons **to reflect the frequency of use** of the at least one icon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for modifying icons displayed on a screen, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying multiple icons;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Storing the **frequency of use** of each icon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. **Changing the appearance** of at least one icon based on **frequency of use** of that icon.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming a method using all of the steps above and AND ALSO modifies **ICON SIZE** or **ICON SPACING** based on **frequency of use** of an **icon**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A method of resizing icons based on frequency of use&quot; screen shots from Samsung**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/vWn0G.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130152017?dq=US20130152017+A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.samsung.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17349" RevisionGUID="4f64bc5e-5298-4ae0-afbc-49a2ea90a2c5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="DonQuiKong's answer very good and you should heed his advice. I would say that no patent is absolutely watertight. While you really need to consult a patent attorney, there are steps you can take to make that process as efficient and cost effective as possible. First, you should, to the best of your ability, perform your own prior art search. This [answer][1] relates my general approach and this [answer][2] is also helpful. What you want to do is identify relevant prior art. They may not be the same as your invention, but are in some way similar or related. Finding relevant prior art will greatly improve the speed and accuracy of a paid search which lowers your cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing you can do is try to draft a thorough description of your invention. You can read some similar patents to get an idea of the information needed. Don't bother trying to write claims. Include, where appropriate, how your invention differs from the most similar prior art you found. Don't assume a patent attorney will use your text directly, but doing this ground work again improves the efficiency of working with the lawyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking as an inventor, doing this groundwork is important even if you have an employer paying for the legal work. The better you understand and can communicate your invention and prior art to the attorney, the stronger the resulting patent application will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17010/any-other-patents-involving-baseball-caps-for-pigtails/17011#17011&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/10431/ideas-on-how-to-do-patent-searching" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4301" RevisionGUID="0a005e28-136d-4bef-a333-ba8213f3bb8d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON LOCATING DATA ON A COMPUTER** - This application seeks to patent the idea of... locating data for applications on a computer! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure whether &quot;locating for application-specific data&quot; can be patentable. This sounds like inventing a wheel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Patent:  **[US 20130166517 A1][1]**&#xD;&#xA;- **Title**: **Systems and methods for locating application specific data**&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 12, 2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 27, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A system for locating for application-specific data comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - at least one data storage device, having unidentified data stored therein;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - at least one processor operatively coupled to the at least one data storage device, the at least one processor configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (i) access unidentified data from at least one data storage device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (ii) examine the unidentified data to detect at least one application-specific data pattern associated with at least one application;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (iii) for each detected application-specific data pattern, execute an application-specific validation process to determine whether the unidentified data includes valid data associated with a corresponding application; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (iv) if it is determined that the unidentified data includes valid data associated with the corresponding application, then recover the valid data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130166517&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17423" RevisionGUID="d8b7c1f0-58c7-4347-970d-886a60bd091b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Almost identical in most cases means that one is an improvement of the other, which is patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both patent applications you have cited have later been granted (for the difference between application and grant see for example [here][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference, as you said, seems to be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;entry to the lower chamber being by means of door means, the device further comprising a locking means which prevents the door means from opening when the gate is in the open position and which prevents opening of the gate means when the door means is open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Claim 1 was granted like this).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to know if the patent can be invalidated, you either need to find this feature in the other patent you cited or in another document that can be combined (read: is from a similar technology area or would be considered by a person skilled in the art for other reasons) with the other patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd suggest first checking the prosecution history (you can find that if you follow the google patents link, then the espacenet link for example) to see if the examiner did consider the patent you cited during the examination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/17115/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17424" RevisionGUID="16eb60f4-e87f-4bd9-b426-da1f2b6724dc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is [this][1] link which was posted by another user as a comment and an answer to [this][2] question at the same time you asked this question, however I have no experience with this site nor do I see any campaigns yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://unpatent.co/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/4266/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4458" RevisionGUID="52c1392e-c969-4f00-8402-314a56e64496" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON NETWORK CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of... creating a policy script and ensuring the policy is enforced! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Broad language, current independent claim listed in [Distributed Configuration Management Using Constitutional Documents][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** June 26, 2008&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** CLOSED&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20090327301 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. One or more computer storage memory having stored thereon a data structure, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - at least one schematic language statement comprising a statement of schema;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - at least one data transformation statement of a transformation language, the at least one data transformation statement comprising a data transformation declaration comprising one or mathematic functions whose processing results in generation of a data instance conforming to the schema;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - at least one rule statement of a rule language, the at least one rule statement comprising a data rule with regard to validity of data in the data instance conforming to the schema; and the data structure structured so as to be validated, without reference to an external source, as being correct with respect to executing the data transformation statement and the at least one rule statement of the data structure to perform a management task&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;        wherein the data structure comprises a single document which can be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; commonly serialized, and each of the schematic language, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transformation language and the rule language has an ability to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; process the others of the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NOTE** according to [Public Pair][2] this patent received a **Final Rejection** on 3/13/2013. However, Microsoft has filed a [Request for Continued Examination][3] and revised the claims.  The claim listed above is as currently revised by Microsoft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the AIA it appears not to be possible to submit prior art under the pre-grant process used by Ask Patents.  Prior art which is found below would need to submitted under the six-month post-grant process.  (This could be done by a company or an individual.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20090327301&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3972/1767&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application#Request_for_continued_examination&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17558" RevisionGUID="9115fd25-3e8a-4da7-adf8-ca20778eaf06" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:31.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Based on what you've told us in the question, no one tell you whether your gadget is patentable. This is understandable since you can't divulge your invention publicly before you file for a patent. You really should consider two questions. Freedom to operate and patentability. Freedom to operate means that no one else's intellectual property precludes you from selling your product. You need to perform a patent search. This [answer][1] describes how I approach this challenge, but having a profession do a search can be very helpful. If you have freedom to operate, you can then market your product, but it doesn't necessarily mean you can obtain a patent. In order to get a patent, you need to show that your gadget is novel (no one has thought of it before), useful (it performs a function) and non-obvious (to someone of ordinary skill in the field).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lets consider a hypothetical situation. Lets say someone invents an entirely new type of electronic image sensor. The implementation of this sensor utilizes some open source image processing software. She has performed a through patent search and found all the relevant patents on electronic image sensors. She consults with a patent attorney who confirms that none of the claims in those patents covers the new design. I'm suggesting that the patent attorney is important because reading and interpreting claims requires skill and a knowledge of the law is useful. At this point, the attorney may provide an opinion that there is freedom to operate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent attorney also can provide an opinion of patentability. This is related to freedom to operate but not the same thing. Lets say there was one patent that did cover the new invention, but it had expired. The new image sensor would not then be considered novel, but because the patent expired the person could still sell it. Assuming there is patentability, the inventor could then file for a patent. Although there is no legal requirement that you use a lawyer to draft the patent application, my experience suggests it is important to do so. Just because you might get a patent doesn't mean it is a good one that truly protects your invention. There is a lot of legal knowledge necessary to write a strong patent and the laws can differ depending on the country you are applying to. A strong patent means it covers the broadest embodiments of your invention so that it isn't easily designed around. In addition, the process of obtaining a patent generally requires some back and forth negotiation with the patent office and a patent attorney understands how to do this. This [question and answer][2] provides a good overview of the patenting process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't speak to your use of GPL software libraries. Of course you can't patent those. But neither do they preclude your from patenting your gadget. You can only patent what is novel. If this is a circuit, then the circuit may be patented even if you need code to use it. If you have some software which you believe is patentable, then you can patent that, but you wouldn't be patenting source code, you would be patenting the algorithm as applied to solving a problem. Software patents are particularly tricky so you need to consult with an attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17010/any-other-patents-involving-baseball-caps-for-pigtails/17011#17011&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17115/is-this-patent-valid-granted-which-countries-does-it-cover-are-there-family-m" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4469" RevisionGUID="3d7b5ddf-ee3b-4cb8-b7ad-a7e8d1a51c22" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent Application: [US 20120030046 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Title: **Buying and Selling Portions of a Composite good in an Electronic Marketplace**&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;Priority Date: Seeking **public disclosure** of Prior Art prior to **Jul 27, 2010**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;System and Method for Buying and Selling Portions of a Composite good in an Electronic Marketplace - Described herein is an improved system and method for buying and selling portions of a composite good in an electronic marketplace. One method and system comprise communicating to a buyer a first good post associated with a seller, and communicating to a seller a “want to buy” post from the buyer, wherein the “want to buy” post is for a second good different from, but associated with, the first good. Another system and method comprise displaying online a want to buy post from a buyer, for a first good, and communicating to a buyer a seller offer for a second good, associated with the first good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for buying and selling a portion of a composite good in an electronic marketplace comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - providing an application operable by a buyer and a seller over a network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - receiving a want-to-sell post for a composite good by said seller using said application over said network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - writing said want-to-sell post to a first memory space accessible to buyer over said network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - receiving a want-to-buy post for a portion of said composite good by said buyer using said application over said network; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - writing said want-to-buy post to a second memory space accessible to said seller over said network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NOTE** according to [Public Pair][2] this patent received a **Final Rejection** on 3/13/2013. It is possible for the applicant to file a [Request for Continued Examination][3] and revise the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the AIA it appears not to be possible to submit prior art under the pre-grant process used by Ask Patents for this application.  Prior art which is found below would need to submitted under the six-month post-grant process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120030046&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3972/1767&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application#Request_for_continued_examination&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4537" RevisionGUID="e7a0fb6a-45da-4604-9193-f33d4eabe18b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="  ![enter image description here][9]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** below!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed.   **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ONLINE SEARCH** - This application from [Yahoo!][6] seeks to patent the idea of... user editing search results for themselves and other users! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 19, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Accepting **USER EDITS** to **SEARCH RESULTS**; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Modifying the **SEARCH RESULTS PAGE** based on its **USER EDITS** with a **DRAG AND DROP** interface;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves user edits applying **GLOBALLY** to other users’ search results pages, **REMOVING DUPLICATE RESULTS** or a **DRAG AND DROP INTERFACE** to proposed user edits to search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: EDITORIAL CURATION OF SEARCH RESULTS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of modifying search results pages based on user edits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159222 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/330,405&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 19, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for editorial curation of search results, comprising steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; using a processor device configured to perform:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a search results page rendered in response to a search query;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. receiving user edits comprising changes to objects in the search results page; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. applying the user edits to the search results page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for curating search results using a computer, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a search results page in response to a search query&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving user edits to objects in the search results page; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Applying the user edits to the search results page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming user edits applying **GLOBALLY** to other users’ search results pages, **REMOVING DUPLICATE RESULTS** or a **DRAG AND DROP INTERFACE** to proposed user edits to search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Drag and Drop User Curated Search Results Pages from Yahoo!**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/JCCnb.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130159222&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/201038072/US-20130159222-A1&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4538" RevisionGUID="0d0d3352-02a9-498b-8aa8-eaed4dfaefc8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON PROMOTION WITH DIGITAL CONTENT** - This application from [eBay][6] seeks to patent the idea of... providing digital content to users to visit a physical store! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 21, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Offering **digital content** to a user as a promotion to visit a **physical store**; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Checks whether the user visits the **physical store** and then provides the **digital content** to the user?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves **providing free e-Books**, **loyalty programs**, or **requiring** user to purchase something at the store to get the digital content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: DIGITAL CONTENT PROVIDED TO A USER A PHYSICAL LOCATION**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of providing digital content to users as an incentive to get them to visit a physical store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130166369 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/333,170&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: eBay, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 21, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 27, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing a promotion to a user to do commerce at a physical location, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. offering a right to a particular piece of digital content to the user as an incentive to a commercial transaction that occurs at least partly at the physical location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. discerning that the user is located at the physical location; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. in response to the discerning, interacting with the user to provide the digital content to the user on a mobile device associated with the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing promotion to a user to buy something at a physical store, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Offering the **digital content** to the user an incentive to visit a physical store&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Recognizing the user is at the **physical store**; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing the digital content to the user on a mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming **providing free e-Books**, **loyalty programs**, or **requiring** user to purchase something at the store to get the digital content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Showing a user at a physical location receiving digital content&quot; from eBay**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/tJABr.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130166369&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ebay.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4551" RevisionGUID="23bf76ee-b33f-47ad-828d-ea474bf44d3d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON DYNAMIC EMAIL NOTIFICATION** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of... email which changes appearance dynamically based on an external event! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 15, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A external system which sends **EVENT SIGNALS** to an email server; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. an email server which modifies the appearance of email messages based on the external **EVENT SIGNALS**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves event signals such as: **CHANGING MEMBERSHIP IN A GROUP**,  and dynamic updates such as **CREATING CALENDAR EVENT** &#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: DYNAMIC CONTROL OF EMAIL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of modifying the appearance of email or creating or deleting a calendar event based on an external event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159426 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/327,240&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corp.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 15, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of controlling an electronic message system, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving at a messaging service in the electronic message system, an event signal relating to an event external to the messaging service, the event signal being received from an **external system** which is separate from the **messaging service**; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying one or more electronic messages within the electronic message system based on the **event signal** received and triggering a **dynamic update** to the identified electronic messages in response to receipt of the event signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing an external signal to an email service:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving an **event signal** (e.g. community response to a particular message, the location of one or more users, or a change in membership of a group.); and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Triggering a **dynamic update** (e.g. displaying in a different manner or the message being delivered or deleted, a calendar event being created or destroyed) in response to the **event signal**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming event signals such as: **CHANGING MEMBERSHIP IN A GROUP**,  and dynamic updates such as **CREATING/DELETING CALENDAR EVENT** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method of controlling an electronic message system from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/lvihZ.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159426?dq=US20130159426A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4569" RevisionGUID="9445dd91-d456-4f3b-8085-c6667531a7f6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE**: Personalized headphone virtualization&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** A method for a listener to experience the sound of virtual loudspeakers over headphones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Publication Number:** [US7936887][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Priority Date:** Sep 1, 2004&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is claimed in the patent is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An audio system for personalized virtualization of a set of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; loudspeakers in a pair of headphones, the system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. an audio input interface for receiving a loudspeaker input signal;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a speaker output interface for driving each of a set of loudspeakers with an audio signal;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a headphone output interface for driving a pair of headphones with an audio signal; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. a microphone input interface for receiving response signals from one or more microphones positionable near each ear of a listener;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. a head tracking system for detecting an orientation of a listener's head;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. an excitation signal generator coupled to the speaker output interface, wherein when the audio system is in a personalized measurement mode, the excitation signal generator is configured to provide excitation signals to the speaker output interface for driving one or more of the loudspeakers to generate audio responses at a location near each of a listener's ears; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. a measurement module coupled to the microphone input interface to receive signals from the microphone input interface for the audio responses, the measurement module configured to generate personalized response functions for the audio responses for a plurality of head orientations, and associate each personalized response function with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; particular loudspeaker, a particular ear, and a particular head orientation of the listener; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. a virtualizer coupled to the headphone output interface, wherein when the audio system is in a normal mode, the virtualizer is configured to transform the loudspeaker input signal using a set of response functions that is based on one or more sets of the plurality of personalized response functions, and provide the transformed loudspeaker input signal to the headphone output interface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some sample prior art: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://old.iem.at/Members/noisternig/science/msc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://interface.cipic.ucdavis.edu/sound/research.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/publications/rendering-localized-spatial-audio-virtual-auditory-space-0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you help find more?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7936887&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="d5f2eaaf-ac0a-4bbf-bbc8-317f803ad004" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" ![enter image description here][8]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application has received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON PREDICTING USER BEHAVIOR** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...automatically predicting actions a user is likely to take in response to receiving data! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 15, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of **MONITORING USER ACTION** in response to **INCOMING DATA FOR A USER**; determining a **PATTERN OF USER ACTIONS**; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Predicting the **USER’S ACTION**  in response to his receiving **NEW INCOMING DATA**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses a **SEED MODEL** to make predictions for new users, to utilize **OTHER USER BEHAVIOR** for existing and new users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PREDICTION OF USER RESPONSE TO RECEIVED DATA**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of detecting when a user receives new data, monitoring what the user does in response the the data, and building a model of the user’s future behavior, and predicting the user’s action in response to new incoming data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159220 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/326,877&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 15, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method executed for predicting user actions in response to receiving incoming data, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. detecting incoming data from a data source for a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. monitoring the user's actions in response to receiving the incoming data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining a pattern of user actions in response to the received incoming data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. detecting new incoming data from a data source; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. predicting the user's action in response to receiving the new incoming data based on the pattern of user actions, an incoming data context and an incoming data content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 19** gives insight into what Microsoft claims to have invented with more specificity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 19. {A method, comprising}:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. detecting incoming data from a data source for a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. extracting one or more features of the incoming data utilizing a feature extractor component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. enabling a sensor component to continuously detect the user's actions in response to receiving the incoming data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. uploading detected user action information from the sensor component and extracted feature information from the feature extractor component to an actions processor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. enabling the actions processor to combine, store, and organize the information from the sensor component and the feature extractor component into a user action database, wherein the user action database includes a list of past actions the user has taken in response to receiving data having one or more features;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6.  determining a pattern of user actions in response to the received incoming data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. detecting new incoming data from a data source; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. predicting the user's action in response to receiving the new incoming data based on the pattern of user actions, an incoming data context and an incoming data content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method predicting user actions comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Detecting that user has received some new data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Monitoring what the user does in response to the data; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Extracting patterns of user action in response to the new data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Predicting the user’s action based on the previous pattern of user actions and the incoming data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 15, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using a **SEED MODEL** to make predictions for new users, to utilize **OTHER USER BEHAVIOR** for existing and new users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Cloud-based system for observing and predicting user actions” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/pmGRz.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159220?dq=US20130159220A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4591" RevisionGUID="ca0a7104-fd9e-4b44-8a14-a498bfb5d6df" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON TRANSLATING USER MESSAGES** - This application from [Nhn Corporation][6] seeks to patent the idea of...automatically translating IM messages from one language to another! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 21, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Translating IM messages automatically in a messaging application;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO does the translation in **REAL-TIME** or uses **PUSH NOTIFICATION**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: TRANSLATING USER MESSAGES**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Within a messaging application, translating received messages from a 1st language and displaying them in a 2nd language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130166275 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/550,467&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Nhn Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 21, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 27, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing an interpretation service using a messaging application, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a message of a first language in a conversation session provided by the messaging application in a terminal;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Translating the message of the first language into a message of a second language; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing the message of the second language in the conversation session.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for translating IM messages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a message in a 1st language in a conversation session&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Translating the message into a 2nd language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Displaying the message in a 2nd language in the same conversation session&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 21, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming translation in **REAL-TIME**, using **PUSH NOTIFICATION**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Translation bots being added in an instant messaging service” from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/1Aoks.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130166275?dq=US20130166275A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.nhncorp.com/nhn/index.nhn" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4602" RevisionGUID="893d8822-ef18-4989-8bb6-d2a95c4c4050" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON AUDIO SEARCHING BY KEYWORD** - This application from [Electronics And Telecommunications Research Institute (Korea)][6] seeks to patent the idea of...indexing recording conversation with keywords for search! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 20, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Recording conversations and indexing them with keywords which can be searched;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **MORPHEMES**, **ONTOLOGIES** or **END-POINT DETECTION** (EDP).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: METHOD FOR PROVIDING CONTENTS ABOUT CONVERSATION**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Recording an audio conversation, indexing it with search keywords, searching the conversation by the search keywords.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159003 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/592,615&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Electronics And Telecommunications Research Institute (Korea)&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 20, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of providing contents about conversation, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a voice information collecting step of collecting voice information from conversation between a user and another person;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a keyword creating control step of creating search keywords by using the collected voice information; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a contents providing control step of searching contents by using the created search keywords, and providing the searched contents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for indexing audio conversations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Recording a conversation between a user and another person&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Creating search keywords from the recorded conversation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Allowing user to search the audio conversation based on the keyword and returning search results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 20, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using **MORPHEMES**, **ONTOLOGIES** or **END-POINT DETECTION** (EDP)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Providing contents about conversation” from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/FbVEw.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159003?dq=US20130159003A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronics_and_Telecommunications_Research_Institute" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4613" RevisionGUID="3ab5195b-a73a-4a4f-9d24-7712c42724d8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="There's very good discussion here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100315/0058408555.shtml - one of the comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Jim Vitek says on his LinkedIn profile that he is one of the named&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inventors. Yet there's nothing on the PTO search site - I'm a patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; practitioner, and I looked. Assuming a provisional was filed in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; January 2008, and an application filed in January 2009, then under the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 18-month rule, this application should be published in a few months,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; after which we'll be able to see what exactly was claimed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you might need to search for the USPTO Patent # so you can know the updates on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE: Found it: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2001054478A2 and http://www.google.com/patents/US20030065565 you can ask for an update via:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/WO2001054478A2 and&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/US20030065565" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4621" RevisionGUID="62061307-b6bd-4dd0-99e1-383ff93e7dd6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="US patent 6,188,756 (‘756) -- “Efficient communication through networks.” This patent describes routing a communication between a calling party and a called party through a central control location, selecting the “best” path based on a particular criterion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim for which is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of use of a communication network, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) receiving a calling party access number and a called party access&#xD;&#xA;&gt; number at a control location;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) determininng which service providers service connections between&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said calling party access number and said called party access number;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) comparing said service providers based on criteria;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (d) selecting appropriate ones of said service providers that satisfy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said criteria as a result of the step of comparing;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (e) instructing said selected service providers to provide service&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between said connections for establishing contact between said calling&#xD;&#xA;&gt; party access number and said called party access number;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (f) **receiving a status signal at said control location indicating if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said called party access number is available for taking an incoming&#xD;&#xA;&gt; communication;**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (g) if said status signal indicates an available status, initiating a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first communication from said control location to said called party&#xD;&#xA;&gt; access number and a second communication from said control location to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said calling party access number;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (h) bridging said first and second communications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you seen anything that was **published before October 11th, 1994** that discusses claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][5]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][8] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][9] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.eff.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4622" RevisionGUID="086314cd-bd9c-4cd4-a4c5-3b3b0fe14770" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON SOCIAL NETWORKING** - This application from [Renren (China)][6] seeks to patent the idea of...initiating social network services between two users based on contact information! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 20, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Initiating a “social networking service” between a first and second user based on the contact information of the second user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses **PHYSICAL BUSINESS CARDS** to identify the 2nd user contact information (i.e. when you hand someone a business card at a conference), or social networking services such as a **FRIEND INVITING MESSAGE** or an **INVITATION TO AN EVENT** .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: PROCESSING USER CONTACT INFORMATION**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for “processing user contact information” comprising: You provide contact information about another user and a server initiates a “social networking service” between you and that user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159435 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/607,532&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Renren, Inc. (China)&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 20, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 20, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for processing user contact information, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. obtaining, at a user equipment of a first user, contact information associated with a second user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. initiating a social networking service SNS operation between the first user and the second user based on the contact information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for connecting users in a social network:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. First user provides contact information about a second user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Initiating a “social networking service” (e.g. a friend request, event invitation, etc.) between the first user and the second user based on the contact information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Dec 20, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using **PHYSICAL BUSINESS CARDS** to identify the 2nd user contact information (i.e. when you hand someone a business card at a conference)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Processing User Contact Information” from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/C6IBv.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159435?dq=US20130159435A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renren" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4632" RevisionGUID="ee5560af-bd2e-4049-aacc-3de902fe5bc0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Patents are state-granted monopolies for a limited time in exchange for providing the community (public domain) all elements allowing it to reproduce the invention (especially after the monopoly lapses).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This principle has three consequences that makes building *at least* a prototype **desirable** before filing a formal patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- in most international patent laws, patents must satistify the [**industrial applicability**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_applicability) requirement. If something is wrong in your description and just wouldn't work, the patent could be denied. In US patent law, there is the more or less equivalent principle of [**utility**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_(patent)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the description must be concrete and detailed enough to allow skilled in the art to reproduce the invention. This is the [**sufficiency of disclosure**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufficiency_of_disclosure) principle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- part of the game of patents is to obtain a monopoly as large as possible with broad claims. Building your prototype will help you realize the exact perimeter of the difficulties (the technical problem your invention solves) as well as possible other ways to solve them. It is important to cover those as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Timing** might drive you to skip the actual implementation of the invention. Yet several mechanisms exist to handle this including provisional applications in the US. Also, typically, since an invention can be improved while being patented (as the inventor is exploiting a working implementation), mechanisms exist to cover these improvements (divisional applications). The golden rule of timing is to not publically disclose how the invention works before filing (there are national variants here including in the US). Yet if a demo reveals too much, it might means the invention lacks an inventive step. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent agents and attorneys are specialized in finding the proper minimal disclosure and the proper balance between vague conceptualization and implementation. Cf [George White](https://patents.stackexchange.com/users/3076/george-white)'s warning about &quot;proposing an idea&quot; in his reply.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4674" RevisionGUID="a5e9d0e6-31c1-40a0-8b75-93f62c95b152" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="While I think that [user4857's answer](https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/4671/5071) on Text Mining is good, I think it could be said that most text mining services qualify for 1-5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I think it's quite clear that [Web Mining](https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/4671/5071) does cover it quite completely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Particularly, I'm thinking about those pages that give you custom ads that highlight certain words in the webpages you visit. I can't think of any of those pages offhand, mostly because I don't like pages like that, but they qualify. They even put up a popup on the text to help the user understand (or purchase) the text in question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4675" RevisionGUID="e532e631-c353-49c7-b505-3d96ded5a50a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="  US Patent Application: [US 20130196757 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Multiplayer Gaming with Head-Mounted Display**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method of inviting other playes to join you in a multiplayer game on head-mounted display (e.g. Google Glass).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130196757 A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: 13/361,798&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: [Microsoft, Inc.][6]&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Jan 30, 2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to the Jan 30, 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Inviting users to multiplayer games with head-mounted display” from Microsoft**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/qdtbi.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A method for inviting a potential player to participate in a multiplayer game with a user, the multiplayer game displayed by a display of a user head-mounted display device, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving user voice data from the user; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining that the user voice data is an invitation to participate in the multiplayer game;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving eye-tracking information, depth information, facial recognition information, potential player head-mounted display device information, and/or potential player voice data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. associating the invitation with the potential player using the eye-tracking information, the depth information, the facial recognition information, the potential player head-mounted display device information, and/or the potential player voice data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. matching a potential player account with the potential player;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. receiving an acceptance response from the potential player; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. joining the potential player account with a user account associated with the user in participating in the multiplayer game. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for inviting a potential player to participate in a multiplayer game which is displayed on a head-mounted display (e.g. two users using Google Glass):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. First user invites a second user to a multiplayer game with his voice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Recognizing the second player using face recognition, voice, device information, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Matching a player account with the second user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving an acceptance to play from the second user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Letting the two accounts participate in the multiplayer game together&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]:  http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20130196757.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20130196757RS=DN/20130196757&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4692" RevisionGUID="582ca896-aceb-4cf1-ae30-c2b6a5e865ca" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Recognizing objects in images** - This application from [Sony][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying objects through image process and registering content information about those objects! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Object recognition combined with sensor data (e.g. GPS, Inertial Sensors, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses environmental data (e.g. inertial sensor or GPS) or positional data about the object to be recognized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Recognizing objects in images and environmental data**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A camera-type device which recognizes objects in images and attaches content to the recognized objects, which content could include environmental data (e.g. GPS, orientation of camera, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130124518 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/670,705&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Sony&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/12/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. an object information acquiring unit that acquires object information obtained by performing processing for detecting and identifying an object for image data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a content information registering unit that registers target content information in a database in association with the object information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A device for recogizing objects in images, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a unit that detects and identifies an object in the image data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a unit that associates content information with the object and registers that in a database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Object recognition involving environmental data.  Examples of environmental data cited by the applicant include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - temperature, atmospheric pressure, and humidity,&#xD;&#xA; - orientation and acceleration,&#xD;&#xA; - proximity,&#xD;&#xA; - illuminance,&#xD;&#xA; - noise, &#xD;&#xA; - date,&#xD;&#xA; - attitude (six axes)&#xD;&#xA; - user's vital data (complexion, body temperature, body mass index (BMI),&#xD;&#xA; - user's operation (commuting, playing golf, having dinner, cleaning, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;an information registration system from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/HHftf.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130124518?dq=US20130124518A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.sony.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4702" RevisionGUID="5c267a50-61eb-4eb7-899c-366ce9bdb1f6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="This **overly broad patent application** claims methods of storing bitcoin public and private keys on a physical device (a paper wallet), and claims methods of protecting value stored on a physical device using tamper-resistant features.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;While the patent application was filed with Bitcoins in mind and especially to cover [BitBills](http://www.bitbills.com/) cards, claims are much broader and there probably is plenty of prior art for all the claims. This patent application was covered in [Bitcoin Magazine](http://bitcoinmagazine.com/bitbillss-patent-will-patents-hinder-bitcoins-evolution/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: CREATING AND USING DIGITAL CURRENCY**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** Among other things, a physical device carries value and can be physically delivered in a transaction. The physical device includes a representation of the value carried by the physical device. The representation is usable to transfer the value from the physical device to a digital domain. A security feature can change from a state indicating that the value carried by the physical device has not been compromised to a state indicating that the value carried by the physical device may have been compromised. The change in state is detectable, the representation of the value carried by the physical device being inaccessible except in a manner that causes the security feature to change state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Translated from legalese:* Applicant tries to patent a paper wallets or smart card containing some monetary value that can be invalidated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number:** [US 20130166455 A1](http://www.google.com/patents/US20130166455)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number:** US 13/336,779&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee:** Douglas Feigelson (inventor) from [BitBills](http://www.bitbills.com/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date:** Seeking Prior Art predating Dec 23, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An apparatus comprising a physical device that carries value and can be physically delivered in a transaction, the physical device comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a representation of the value carried by the physical device, the representation being usable to transfer the value from the physical device to a digital domain, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a security feature that can change from a state indicating that the value carried by the physical device has not been compromised to a state indicating that the value carried by the physical device may have been compromised, the change in state being detectable,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - the representation of the value carried by the physical device being inaccessible except in a manner that causes the security feature to change state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A smart card or paper wallet with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A monetary value that can be transferred out from the paper wallet **to a digital domain**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A security feature determining if the value on the paper wallet was compromised (withdrawn)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A mechanism to trigger the security feature when the value is transferred out (to prevent double-spending)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to Dec 23, 2011. The **to a digital domain** part is probably the tricky part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ](https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art](https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant) on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4722" RevisionGUID="808d43ce-8fb7-407a-a317-4532c8655599" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here is how to check on the status of a US Patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The first place to look is Google Patents: [US4132029][1]&#xD;&#xA;2. The second place to look is the [Public Pair][2] system at USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject patent [US4132029][3] was issued Jan 2, 1979:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Public Pair you can also see that the patent was issued on Jan 2, 1979.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For older applications (filed prior to Jun 8, 1995), the term of the patent was generally **[17 years from the date of issuance][6]** (or 20 years from the earliest priority date, whichever is later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the subject **patent is expired**.  No patent rights to own and the invention is now in the public domain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4132029?dq=4132029&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/3797/1767&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4132029?dq=4132029&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/HkWTk.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/5mMf5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4727" RevisionGUID="005e9713-7db5-48e1-8688-4f8f9bf1f183" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" ![enter image description here][8]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application has received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON online video advertisements** - This application from [Yahoo!][6] seeks to patent the idea of...stopping a video advertisement on one browser tab and resuming the video advertisement within another browser tab! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/20/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - starting and resuming a video advertisements across tabs during browsing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO records the current time of play so as to resume at exactly the same place in the video advertisement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Seemless online video advertisement during browsing**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Online video advertisement during browsing - ad unit on first web page is paused when user sends request for second web page.  On loading second web page the video advertisement resumes in the same time time during video&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130132211 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/300,583&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo!&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/20/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method of providing seamless online video advertisements, the computer-implemented method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. rendering a video advertisement on a first web page in a first tab;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. recording current time of play constantly during the rendering of the video advertisement;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving a request for a second web page in the first tab from a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. unloading the first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. loading the second web page in the first tab;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. retrieving the current time of play stored corresponding to the unloading; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. resume the rendering of the video advertisement on the second web page based on the current time of play retrieved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing seamless online video ads, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Playing video ad in first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Recording current time of video while playing the video;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving request for second web page and loading second web page; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Resume playing video ad in second web page at same time video was stopped in first web page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/20/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming recording the stop time of the video so as to resume in the same place during browsing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;providing seemless online video advertisements from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zBFVoxZ.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132211?dq=US20130132211A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4728" RevisionGUID="97516e3b-19d9-43c1-a5a1-90603563eb0e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Online shopping for clothes with input from your friends** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...Getting feedback from your friends on clothes and outfit while you shop online! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/18/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Social feedback on clothes or outfits while shopping online&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves a **virtual mannequin**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Online shopping for clothes with feedback from your friends**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] First user shopping for clothes online.  Second user presented same item. First user picks the item as part of an outfit.  Second user provides a comment which is presented to both first and second users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130132240 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/300,421&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/18/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for online shopping in an online shopping system, the method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. providing a first user interface identifying an item of apparel for presentation to a first user; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. providing a second user interface identifying the item of apparel for presentation to a second user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving from the first user an indication to associate the item of apparel with an outfit; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. receiving from the second user a comment regarding at least one of the outfit and the item of apparel; and interfaces such that the comment and outfit are viewable by the first user and the second user.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. providing the comment and the outfit for presentation in the first and second user &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for shopping online for clothes, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. First and second users are shown an item of apparel (e.g. sneakers)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. First user associates the item of apparel with an outfit (e.g. a tuxedo)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Second user comments on the item and the outfit (&quot;hey, those sneakers look great with that blue tuxedo!&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Comment is provided to first and second user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/18/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming displaying the clothes on a **virtual mannequin**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Online shopping with integrated social experience from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/WA4GVfT.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130132240&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4740" RevisionGUID="cf5b0d7b-8850-426f-adf7-66f06421e94b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON classifying mobile users based on who they call in a network** - This application from [Ericsson][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Social network analysis applied to mobile phones...Keep [PRISM][7] free of patent licenses!  10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/24/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Social network analysis to classify individuals in a community based on who they communicate with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves demographic information about users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Social network analysis on cell phone calling networks to segment users**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130138479 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/699,796&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/24/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for classifying a new mobile user in a communication network based on demographics associated with the new mobile user, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Representing, for a sample set of mobile users, each mobile user in the sample set by a node and mobile usage between two nodes by an edge connecting the two nodes;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Forming one or more communities of nodes;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identifying a plurality of demographic subunits by splitting each of the one or more communities;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining one or more structural properties associated with each of the plurality of subunits;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Mapping the one or more structural properties to demographics of the plurality of subunits; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Classifying the new mobile user based on the determined structural properties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for classifying a new user in a communication network, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Creating a graph structure with users as nodes and edges as communication between users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Forming communities of nodes (using any clustering technique)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Looking for correlation between demographic features of groups of nodes (e.g. rich, white, parent, etc…) and structural features of same groups of nodes (all communicate with one another, for example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Classifying a new user based on these structural features (i.e. who he talk to)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/24/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming segmenting customers based on **standard clustering algorithms** applied to a social graph&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Determining and presenting demographics of mobile users in a communication network from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/R2i0mp3.png&quot; width=&quot;350&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130138479&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ericsson.com/us&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4745" RevisionGUID="c95de4ee-6f7d-4579-bc77-a687e989df88" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **A PATENT APPLICATION ON embedding hyperlinks into audio signals** - This application from [Apple][6] seeks to patent the idea of...putting hypertextual information into sound streams. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/7/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Embedding textual information (e.g. a hyperlink) into a sound stream. The information could be added as meta information to the audio file or it could be embedded into the sound, interleaved with normal audio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [AppleInsider](http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/08/apples-audio-hyperlink-tech-can-control-devices-with-inaudible-sonic-pulses)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves embedding a hyperlink so that it is inaudible or so that it is audible to listeners and where the metadata is a link or where it contains information about the audio stream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Audio Hyperlinking**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130204413 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/368,129&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  Apple, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/8/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Computer code to cause an audio stream to playback on an electronic device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Computer code to traverse a hyperlink encoded with the audio stream to a destination object during playback of the audio stream; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Computer code to perform an activity corresponding to the destination object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer program, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Code to to play an audio stream&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Code to follow a hyperlink encoded with the audio stream to a destination object (e.g. a webpage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Code to perform an activity corresponding to the destination object (e.g. display the webpage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming encoding the hyperlink so that it is **inaudible** or so that it is **audible** to listeners and where the metadata is a **link** or where it contains *information about the audio stream**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that some of claims were implemented before 2012.. Adding metadata to an audio file as a separate stream, hiding metadata in the sound stream, recognition of metadata from audio signal. So, **prior art is welcome**...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Audio Hyperlink from one audio track to another&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/IJl4S.jpg&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS I'm not sure if I will be able to send information of found prior arts to patent office, so I ask you to send this to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&amp;r=3&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=(20130808.PD.+AND+700%2F94.CCLS.)&amp;OS=pd/8/8/2013+and+ccl/700/94&amp;RS=(PD/20130808+AND+CCL/700/94)&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.apple.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="36653c0d-d6cc-4663-b0c6-83ca1e523984" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" ![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application has received a **&quot;final rejection&quot;** by the US Patent Office. An applicant has several ways to keep an application in this state alive. They include a request for continuing examination. It just involves paying more fees and responding to the rejection. Appealing the rejection is another avenue. If nothing is done it will go abandoned six months from the final rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** below!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **A PATENT APPLICATION ON updating apps on mobile devices to restricted &quot;dummy&quot; apps** This application from [Good Technologies][2] seeks to patent the idea of...deleting sensitive information on a device by creating dummy apps. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents] (https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A management system for apps on mobile devices where apps are updated to dummy apps that, when invoked, destroy the respective apps' sensitive data.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your company has as &quot;Bring Your Own Device&quot; policy.  The company email app on your personal phone is &quot;updated&quot; to a new version. Then, when you launch that app, it will delete all the company email on your device and present a &quot;YOU'RE FIRED&quot; message instead of an inbox view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Another example would be having version 1.0 of a game updated to a limited trial of version 2.0 that encrypts your old save file on first being run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that standard mobile app management/mobile device management platforms do not necessarily anticipate the invention. That is, **remote deletion of an application and/or data is not sufficient to meet the claim limitations**. It's critical that the prior art disclose updating/modifying the app to a restricted functionality &quot;dummy&quot; version and for the updated app to itself delete/modify the existing data upon being run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: System and Method for Remote Management of Applications Downloaded to a Personal Portable Wireless Appliance** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110145932 A1][0]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/975,145&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:  [Appcentral, Inc.][1] / [Good Technologies][2] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for downloading and monitoring applications, programs and data structures to a personal portable appliance coupled to a server via a network configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;0. determine that the appliance is connected; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. generating a connection request from the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. authenticating the appliance; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. determining that one or more applications must be updated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. receiving at least one updated application comprising a dummy application such that when the application is invoked the data structures of the previous application are manipulated; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. modifying the functionality of the application; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. offering the user one or more indications that the application is restricted or limited. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010. (Please note that although that this patent application is a continuation-in-part of earlier-filed parent cases, the claimed invention is not supported by the disclosure of the parent cases, rendering the actual filing date the effective filing date.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A diagram of the application management system&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NhpR6yB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [0]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110145932?dq=US20110145932&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.appcentral.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.good.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/173445073/US-20110145932-A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4801" RevisionGUID="7ab86dcd-96fa-485b-902d-da87a9211f04" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" ![enter image description here][8]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application has received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON cloud-based video editing** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...sending large video files to a server and providing **cloud-based applications to edit video** files! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/23/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Video-editing software as a service run on a cloud-based server&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves segmenting large files into smaller segments so that encoding and delivery can be managed in segments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Databases and web applications for large video files**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for editing and managing large video files by uploading the files to a server and doing editing through web applications&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130132523 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/478,772&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for the acquisition and management of digital files and their display and management through the internet, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. communicating with a plurality of electronic storage devices via the internet;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. copying files from said electronic storage devices;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. storing said files and facilitating the download of said files; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. providing tools for the management of said files, said tools comprising a tool for delivering only a portion of one of said files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for managing and displaying video files on the internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Communicating with more than one storage device (e.g. a laptop or a smartphone)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Copying files from the storage device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Storing files on server(s) on the internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Providing tools to manage the files, including tools to download only a portion of one of the files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming breaking large files into segments to help with uploading, encoding, and editing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Acquiring, managing and uploading video files from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/8owuaJl.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132523?dq=US20130132523A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4802" RevisionGUID="9bef23b1-73f7-49b3-95c7-f9e6b5a8dcd5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON synchronizing the output of data across devices** - This application from [Accenture][6] seeks to patent the idea of...synchronizing playback of streaming media on multiple devices! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Synchronously outputting media to multiple devices over a network &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves **Synchronous Stream Protocol (SSP)** or where devices can adjust playback speed or skip to keep streams in sync with one another&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Synchronizing playback of media across multiple devices**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for synchronizing output of audio or video streams across multiple devices by adjusting playback speed or skipping frames so as to keep the streams synchronized with one another during playback&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130138778 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/675,846&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Accenture&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for synchronizing output of media data across a plurality of output devices, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. providing a communication network between a media server and the plurality of output devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. synchronously outputting media data files on the plurality of output devices, wherein the media data files are transmitted to the output devices from the media server in form of a data stream over different delivery networks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for synchronizing the output of media (think audio/video) across devices, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Connecting a media server to mulitiple devices across a network&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **synchronously** playing the media over streams across different delivery networks (such as HDMI, fixed wired Ethernet, wireless IP, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A **Synchronous Stream Protocol (SSP)** and adjusting playback speed or skip to keep streams in sync with one another across devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;System for integrating playback of media across multiple devices from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/j6VDbND.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130138778?dq=US20130138778&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: www.accenture.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4803" RevisionGUID="f4443607-6d01-4f9a-b20d-0a5f764b8d0f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON detecting &quot;problematic phrases&quot; in a document** - This application from [Google][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Alerting a user when a phrase in a document matches a &quot;problematic phrase&quot; in a database (i.e. phrases with legal or policy issues for the company)! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/30/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Searching for problematic phrases in a document and alerting the user or a third party&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves sending an alert to a third party if there is a match&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Detecting problematic phrases**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for detecting &quot;problematic phrases&quot; in documents and alerting the user when he has entered a problematic phrase.  A problematic phrase is one which has legal implications or is a policy violation for the company&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130110748 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/599,731&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 10/29/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of identifying problematic phrases in an electronic document, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. detecting a context of the electronic document;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. capturing a textual phrase entered by a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. comparing the textual phrase against a database of phrases previously identified as having legal implications or violating policy; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. alerting the user via an in-line notification when the textual phrase matches a phrase in the database having legal implications or violating policy, based on the detected context of the electronic document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of identifying problematic phrases in a document, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Detecting a context of the document (e.g. Word file, Spreadsheet file, intended recipient of the document, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Capturing a text phrase entered by the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Comparing the text phrase against a database of problematic phrases (e.g. with legal implications or policy violations)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Alerting the user in-line when he has entered a problematic phrase in a document, based on the context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming sending an alert to a third party if the user enters a problematic phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Project ABC is going to totally *KILL* the company&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/L8yTgFu.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130110748?dq=US20130110748A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.google.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4809" RevisionGUID="12985636-676b-4230-9f4d-3f3f6ab7a83a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON EXAMPLE SOURCE CODE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google has patented the generation of client libraries and example&#xD;&#xA;code from API descriptions. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US&#xD;&#xA;patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow&#xD;&#xA;@askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before March, 2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Automatically generating a client library for accessing a given API from a given operating&#xD;&#xA;system using a given programming language, together with sample code&#xD;&#xA;that uses the client library, and making the generated code&#xD;&#xA;available for download from the web?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question.&#xD;&#xA;Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers&#xD;&#xA;from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Generate custom client library samples based on a machine readable&#xD;&#xA;API description**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: It’s common for a web application to provide a&#xD;&#xA;programming-language-agnostic HTTP API. It’s also common for web&#xD;&#xA;applications to provide example code for accessing the API from many&#xD;&#xA;different programming languages. Google wants to patent automating this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US8510762 B1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** March 2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Feb 13, 2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://google.com/patents/US8510762&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below::&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method performed by one or more processors, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a request for a client library for an API, the request&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    including an API identifier, a target programming language, and a&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    target operating system platform&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Retrieving a machine-readable description of the API based on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    identifier for the API&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Building a model of the API based on the machine-readable description&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generating an API library source code in the target programming language&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Receiving a sample template for a generic sample application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Expanding the sample template by incorporating a data structure in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    target programming language to generate one or more code samples using&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    the API library source code&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Storing in a unique Web location the generated code samples for later&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    download.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. The server requests a client library for accessing the [Foo][] API&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    using the Bar programming language&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2. The server looks up a description of the Foo API&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  3. The server parses the API description&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  4. The server generates a Bar-programming-language client library for the&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Foo API&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  5. The server looks up sample code for using the Foo API. The patent does&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    not specify if this sample code is in the Bar programming language,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    or in some other format that is then translated to the Bar programming&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    language.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  6. The server generates Bar-language sample code that uses the&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Bar-language client library. It does so by using the impossibly vague&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    procedure of “expanding the sample template by incorporating a data&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    structure in the [Bar] programming language.”&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  7. The server returns a URL of the generated client library and sample&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Foo]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foobar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of&#xD;&#xA;these steps prior to **March, 2012**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you&#xD;&#xA;to [post your own request for prior art][prior-art] on other questionable&#xD;&#xA;US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[FAQ]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;[prior-art]: https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/47/how-do-i-write-a-prior-art-request-for-a-u-s-patent-application&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4827" RevisionGUID="729b4860-0d55-49cd-906b-c085a22e80df" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON targeting mobile ads based on a map** - This application from [Huyundai][6] seeks to patent the idea of...an advertisement server providing ads to users in a geographic region based on a map! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/15/2009** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - specifying a &quot;region of interest&quot; on a map and targeting ads to users who go there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO uses time of day or text of the advertisement to decide whether to display ads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Embedded map with dedicated advertising region**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A system using a map which targets ads based on a region of interest on the map and location of users&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130132198 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/618,188&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Huyundai&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/15/2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 11/19/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An advertisement system using an embedded map, the system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A space of interest (SOI) server for generating location based data using an SOI object; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. An advertisement server for providing advertisement content information to an advertisement region of the embedded map using the location based data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An advertisement system which uses an embedded map, comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An &quot;SOI&quot; server which manages location information for the user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. An advertisement server which provides ad information to the dedicated advertising region of the embedded map&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/15/2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using time of day or text of advertisement to targeted ads to specific &quot;spaces of interest&quot; on a map&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Embedded map with dedicated advertising region from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/JVo9hvR.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132198?dq=US20130132198A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.hyundaiusa.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4834" RevisionGUID="fe84c4d5-8a2a-4189-9cae-343df2bcfebb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON suggesting customer migrate to the Cloud** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Suggesting customers use a cloud computer infrastructure...! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/8/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Measuring historical performance data, identifying recurring IT problem which could be mitigated with cloud computing infrastructure and generating customer reports identifying migration to the cloud&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO involves measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Suggesting cloud migration**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for suggesting a customer use cloud computing… Measuring historical data, identifying recurring IT problems, determing cloud computing could solve the problem, and generating a report&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130205007 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/368,491&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting migration to a cloud computing infrastructure, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. at least one processor analyzing historical incident data of an information technology (IT) environment, the analysis indicating any problems occurring in the IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the at least one processor determining, based on the historical incident data, that a problem is recurring in the IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. the at least one processor determining that the problem can be mitigated in the cloud computing infrastructure; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. the at least one processor generating a report particular to the IT environment, the report identifying a benefit of migrating the IT environment to the cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Analyzing historical IT data and finding problems in the customer's IT environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying recurring IT problem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determing problem can be mitigated in cloud computing infrastructure;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generating a report showing the benefits of cloud computing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/8/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is measuring cost or scope of the recurring IT problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Suggesting customers use cloud computing infrastructure from the Applicant from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/agiOz4X.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130205007?dq=20130205007&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130144978" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4845" RevisionGUID="9eb80311-39bd-4fa9-8f4a-3f9b7ccf53d3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="US4820036 is lapsed and expired.  The best place to look this up is on [Google Patents][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Patent lifetime in US][2] prior to 1995 was generally 17 years from date of issuance (after 1995 is generally 20 years from the priority date, or the date of the earliest application to which priority is claimed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent US4820036 was issued in 1989 so it would have **fallen into the public domain in 2006**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Owners of US Patents are required to pay maintenance fees during the term of the patent or the patent lapses before the end of its term.  It looks like this patent lapsed before the end of its term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also look up more detail about the file history for this patent on [Public PAIR][3]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information overall on how to determine remaining patent life for a US Patent see this question: [Patent Lifetime and PAIR][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/cE6D1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/58Dcq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3972/1767" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4853" RevisionGUID="5545cfa5-27b5-495d-ab36-15726df75fd8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" ![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was **based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community** below!  The first two references cited by the Patent Examiner were found by Ask Patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON self-destructing email** - This application from [AT&amp;T][6] seeks to patent the idea of...electronic mail which deletes itself after a specific period of time has elapsed and warns sender if it recipient is outside the sender's email domain (where self-destruction presumably cannot be assured)! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/9/2002** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - self-destructing email&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO prohibits forwarding or copying the email into another application (such as a word processor) or which warns the sender if it is being sent outside to a recipient outside the sender's email domain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Self-destructing email**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for sending email which identifies a time period after which the email destroys itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130159436 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/690,555&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: AT&amp;T&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/9/2002&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/17/2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for transmitting self-destructing electronic mail messages comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a request, at an electronic mail server, from a sender to send a self-destructing electronic mail message, the request identifying a time period after which the self-destructing electronic mail message is to be destroyed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. sending a security warning to the sender when an electronic mail address of an intended recipient of the self-destructing electronic mail message is located beyond a home domain of the sender;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. sending the self-destructing electronic mail message to the electronic mail address of the intended recipient in response to input from the sender responsive to the security warning;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4.deleting any instances of the self-destructing electronic mail message that are being stored at the electronic mail server after the sending and after expiration of the time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for sending self-destructing email, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Sender specifies time period after which email self-destructs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Warn sender if recipient email address is outside home domain (where self-destruction presumably cannot be assured)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Send the self-destructing email&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Delete the email after expiration of the time period specified by sender&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/9/2002&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming self-destructing email which is prohibited from being **forwarded** or **copied** into an application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;email which is time-limited from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ao0cGJA.jpg&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/T7xdF.jpg&quot; width=&quot;200&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130159436?dq=20130159436&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.att.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4854" RevisionGUID="36f4b7f5-6bcf-4e72-beba-a9f07d76d9a0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Away/Available/Busy status** - This application from [Apple][6] seeks to patent the idea of...displaying a status to contacts that would indicate whether you’re available to field a call or not! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/13/2007** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sharing Away/Available/Busy status on a mobile phone along with your location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO takes into account user preferences, determining what information it can share as set by a user, or filtering inbound calls against a phone’s contact list to help preserve privacy before sharing any information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Away/Available/Busy status on a mobile phone**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for displaying contact information about a first phone to user of a second phone.  Contact information of user includes Away/Available/Busy status for the user of the first phone and his location.  Main idea is letting user set and forget preferences around just how much status they’re willing to share and with who, and letting the automated system do the rest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130177141 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/785,294&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Apple&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/13/2007&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/7/2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a command at an operating system of a first mobile phone for displaying contact information of a remote user having a mobile phone number of a second mobile phone;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. in response to the command, transmitting a request to a remote server from the first mobile phone over a cellular network requesting an operating status of the second mobile phone; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving the operating status of the second mobile phone from the remote server over the cellular network; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. displaying the operating status of the second mobile phone on a display of the first mobile phone as a part of contact information of the remote user associated with the second mobile phone, the operating status including current locality of the second mobile phone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of displaying contact information of a remote user, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. User of first phone asks for contact information of user of second phone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. First phone asks remote server for contact information of user of second phone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. First phone receives contact information over a cellular network&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. First phone displays status of second phone (e.g. Away/Available/Busy) and location of second user as part of contact information for the second user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/13/2007&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming using user preferences and privacy settings to show Away/Available/Busy selectively&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Away/Available/Busy status on a mobile phone from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Hjkucu1.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220130217364%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20130217364&amp;RS=DN/20130217364&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.apple.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4881" RevisionGUID="5a6e73ec-8902-4b84-aef6-9e8a0e42dd97" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="George White nails all of the important points as usual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [US20120185456][4] is a **Patent Application** not a granted patent.  Until and unless it is issued it does not prohibit you from doing anything.  In some sense anyone can **file** a patent application which says anything.  The patent which is allowed may be much narrower than what is described in the specification, and no patent may be allowed at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. According to [Public PAIR][1] the application US20120186456 was issued a non-final rejection by the USPTO and has since gone **abandoned**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. It's not trivial to look for patents which might [read on][3] the implementation of your idea. A specialized search from a patent agent or a patent lawyer would be your best bet. There are also searching professionals. However the search is accomplished, only an attorney can advise on how what is turned up in the search might affect you in court. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. You need to read the **Patent Claims** to know what exactly the inventor claims to have invented.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3972/1767&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/DS2Uf.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/read-on-term.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120185456?dq=US20120185456" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4888" RevisionGUID="22ea174d-f579-4b27-8413-cdf83f464d1a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON using acceleration sensor to turn on/off GPS receiver on a phone only when it has moved** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...persistent motion tracking on a smartphone by using acceleration sensor to turn on/off GPS receiver! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/30/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using acceleration sensors and GPS sensors together&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO creates profiles of users based on where they are at rest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Using acceleration sensor to turn on/off GPS receiver**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A battery-saving technique of turning on/off the GPS receiver on a phone based on signal from acceleration sensor on phone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130085861 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/629,299&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Scott Dunlop&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 10/1/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A mobile device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a geopositioning receiver configured to determine a geoposition of the mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. an accelerometer configured to determine an acceleration rate of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a processor in communication with the geopositioning receiver and the accelerometer, the processor configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. determine, using the accelerometer, whether the mobile device is in motion based on a duration of movement, an acceleration rate, and/or a velocity, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. engage the geopositioning receiver upon determining that the mobile device is in motion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A mobile device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. GPS receiver&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. An accelerometer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A program which determines whether the mobile devices is in motion and engages the GPS receiver if it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming creating user profiles based on where the phone is at rest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;GPS Receiver and Accelerometer Flowchart from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/3MuCLT9.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130085861?dq=US20130085861A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130085861" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4889" RevisionGUID="2a0e8896-5266-45b0-8419-aed6e022fe3f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON targeting ads based on distance between potential customer and a store** - This application invented by [a patent attorney][6] seeks to patent the idea of...geo-targeting promotions from stores to potential customers! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/5/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using location between potential customer and a store to target ads to a potential customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO where user and store owner both set radii within which they are willing to receive or send promotional material&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A good example of a spammy patent that (if allowed) will end up being used by patent trolls**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Location-based promotion delivery system**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Delivering mobile promotions to potential customers based on location of user and location of store and respective radii determined by store owner and user for sending or receiving promotions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130179265 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/734,968&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Christopher Winslade (a [patent attorney][6])&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/5/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/7/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing location-based promotions, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. determining a current location of a mobile potential customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. providing the current location of the mobile potential customer to a proprietor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining, based at least in part on information received from the proprietor, whether to communicate a promotional offer to the mobile potential customer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. if it is determined to communicate a promotional offer to the customer, then communicating the promotional offer to the mobile potential customer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing location-based promotions, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine location of potential customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Providing current location of potential customer to a store owner (or automatically based on preferences he has setup in advance)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining whether to send promotional offer to potential customer &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Sending promotional offer to potential customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/5/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming the store owner and the mobile user setting radii within which they are willing to send or receive promotional material&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Communicating promotional content from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/SCaIYmI.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130179265?dq=US20130179265A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.mcandrews-ip.com/profile/cwinslade&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130179265" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4919" RevisionGUID="5a351675-da9d-4862-8c65-7c61465fb3d5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="![enter image description here][8]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application has received a **final rejection** by the US Patent Office!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON targeting messages to users based on based on distance between user and a location** - This application from [a self-proclaimed &quot;Internet visionary&quot;][6] seeks to patent the idea of...geo-targeting messages to users! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/11/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using location between a user and a location to send messages to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO a radiofrequency tags are used to identify the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Delivering messages to users based on their location**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for delivering ads to users based on location: if user's device is within a predetermined distance of a location, sending the user a message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130179263 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/348,282&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**:[a self-proclaimed &quot;Internet visionary&quot;][6] &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 1/7/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for linking a person to a location, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a computer determining that a device of a person is within a predetermined distance of a location, based on data received from the device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the computer identifying the at least one of the person and the device, based on the received data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. the computer associating the at least one of the person and the device with the location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. the computer generating a message based on the association; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. the computer communicating the message to the person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for delivering ads to users based on user's location:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine with user is within predetermined distance of a location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identify the user or device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Associate (presumably in a database) the user with the location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generate a message for the user and send the message to the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/11/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Using RFID tags to identify the device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Communicating promotional content from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/BlZj7kI.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130179263?dq=US20130179263A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://gawker.com/5516162/visionary-eric-leebow-thinks-he-invented-the-social-network&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130179263&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46238" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4934" RevisionGUID="ff1d8672-8a58-4ac7-a451-aa202fcd7ce6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Did you take a look at [How does one know if a patent was reexamined?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All your answers with graphical illustrations are there.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/4893/how-does-one-know-if-a-patent-was-reexamined" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4935" RevisionGUID="06ae4569-1a9f-4fc0-a2b2-2522565eb72d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Q&amp;A SERVICES** - This application from Nuance Communications, Inc. seeks to patent looking up a corpus of previously asked questions in a Q&amp;A service like Stack Exchange! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent application before it becomes a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 6, 2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for operating a frequently asked questions (FAQ)-based system, the method comprising: training a classifier based on questions stored in the FAQ-based system, each question corresponding to at least one answer; and applying the classifier to a query to return an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question -- one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: **METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR OPERATING A FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)-BASED SYSTEM**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  searches a user generated query in a classifier trained to search a database of questions in a set of FAQs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [20130144890][1]&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Nuance Communications, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 6, 2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 06, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for operating a frequently asked questions (FAQ)-based system, the method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. training a classifier based on questions stored in the FAQ-based system, each question corresponding to at least one answer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. applying the classifier to a query to return an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to Dec 6, 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ](https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art](https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request) on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130144890" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4943" RevisionGUID="73d08d52-ecb1-4726-923e-2d7369c2bf3b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="US20090292295 is a **US Patent Application** not an issued Patent.&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;The application has received a **Final Rejection** by the US Patent Office as seen from thes screen shot from [Public PAIR][1] below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicant has modified the claims as follows and paid the USPTO for a **Request for Continued Examination**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A device positionable on an umbilical cord, said device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a ligature assembled on **a substantially smooth** external surface of a **semi** rigid ring having a slit therethrough; wherein,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - by manually twisting said rigid ring **into a helical shape** said ligature is liberated while said ring is positioned on an umbilical cord such that &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - said ligature compresses and closes the umbilical cord assuring hemostasis and preventing fluid leakage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point (prior to any allowance and grant) this is just an application for a patent is not enforceable unless and until grant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To learn more about Public PAIR and how to determine whether a patent application is issued see this question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/3971/1767&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/6qyJ5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46241" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5027" RevisionGUID="617bd75f-63ec-4583-b0e8-1731bb797f04" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **A PATENT APPLICATION WITH SOME OVER-BROAD CLAIMS ON synchronizing groups of files from a storage system to a client device** - This application from [Citrix][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Selecting groups of files to copy from a storage system to a client device! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 	Feb 14, 2013** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Selecting groups of files to copy together when synchronizing a client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria to the question above AND ALSO scores files based on relevancy to determine whether they should be synchronized as part of a group of files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Synchronizing groups of files to client device**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for synchronizing data between client device and storage system, comprising: selecting a set of files which are **related to a particular file** based on any selection criteria and copying those files to from the storage system to the client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130212067 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/767,510&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Citrix&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 	Feb 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/11/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of synchronizing data between a client device and a storage repository, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Establishing a communications channel between the client device and the storage repository;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. From a storage location for files to be synchronized between the client device and the storage repository, **selecting** a set of files which is related to a particular file based on a set of selection criteria; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. While the communications channel is established, **copying** data of the selected set of files between the client device and the storage repository to synchronize the selected set of files between the client device and the storage repository.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for sychronizing data between a client device and a storage system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Connecting the client device and the storage system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a set of files which is related to a particular file based on **any** selection criteria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Copying the set of files to/from the storage system to the client device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the features of claim 1 seem old and that claim may be quickly rejected, as the claims get narrower they get closer to what the applicant seems to consider important. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application is about files that are given an *overall figure of merit* that is used to decide what gets automatically moved to the client and in what order or priority. They are trying to solve the problem of having much more stored in the cloud than you want to dedicate space to on the client, but to still have synced copies of things locally,hopefully before you need them, by heuristics predicting your needs based on this overall figure of merit that involves frequency of access and access to things with similar names or in nearby folders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner will not need our help to reject Claim 1. See **Claim 5** below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A method as in claim 4 wherein providing, for each file of the group of files, the respective overall score includes:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;applying each file relevancy factor of the set of file relevancy factors to each file of the group of files to generate a set of relevancy scores for that file, and&#xD;&#xA;for each file,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA; aggregating the set of relevancy scores for that file to generate an aggregate score as the respective overall score for that file, the selected set of files being distinguished from the remaining files of the group based on the aggregate score generated for each file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to  Feb 14, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming scoring files based on relevancy to determine whether they should be synchronized as part of a group of files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Selecting groups of files to synchronize together from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zTHarXn.png&quot; width=&quot;900&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130212067?dq=US20130212067&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.citrix.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130212067" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5144" RevisionGUID="64027394-8c7c-45f6-9d1a-f73f9ae99c33" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Please take a look at https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/4190/how-can-an-individual-participate-in-the-examination-process-for-us-patent-appli&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also you can search this site for &quot;third party submission&quot;. That process involves submission of published documents. Just stating &quot;we did it years ago&quot; isn't good enough. The documents you send need to be published before the date of the filing. That means an internal company memo or specification is may not qualify. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5167" RevisionGUID="c492306a-3616-4c36-a48e-6449419e52f1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON delivering video to a user devices** - This application from [Google][6] seeks to patent the idea of...offering a list of registered devices to a user so a video can be transferred to the selected device and the user can watch it! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/27/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Transferring video (or other content) to selected devices from among a list of devices **previously registered** to a user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - reformatting or transcoding the content into a format that is compatible with the selected device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Delivering videos to user-selected device**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for delivering video to a user.  User selects among a list of registered devices.  Video is transferred to the selected device so user can view it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130227076 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/406,407&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/25/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving at a content delivery system, from a content provider system, a request, associated with a user accessing the content provider system, to transfer a video stored on a content source system to a viewing device of the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying a plurality of viewing devices registered to the user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. providing, to the user, a list of the user's registered viewing devices;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. receiving, from the user, a selection of one of the user's viewing devices; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. transferring the video from the content source system to the selected viewing device, whereby the user is able to subsequently view the content item on the selected viewing device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of content deliver, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving request to transfer a video from a content store to a device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying multiple viewing devices associated with user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Providing user a list of registered viewing devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. User selects a viewing device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Transferring video from content source to the selected viewing device so user can view it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/27/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming reformatting or transcoding the content to be compatible with selected device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Delivering user's video to a selected device from a list of registered devices from the Applicant&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/vtN9G.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130227076?dq=US20130227076A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130227076" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5224" RevisionGUID="df4dc18d-841b-4d63-92d9-b66d245b1c0e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Search results based on user location and whether stores are open or closed nearby** - This application from [Inrix, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...determining a user's location and giving search results which depend on whether stores are open nearby! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/29/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - User location to modify search results and using provider (e.g. store) availability to modify search results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Search results based on whether store is open, ETA for user to visit store, and route user would take to visit store&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Organization of search results based upon availability of respective providers.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for providing search results to a user based on the user's location and whether the providers nearby (within any **&quot;temporal or geographic proximity&quot;** to the user) are open or closed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130226915 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/407,841&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Inrix, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/29/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/25/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing one or more search results comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving a query;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. determining a location of a user performing the query; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. providing one or more search results for presentation based upon the query, the search results indicative of one or more providers within at least one of a temporal and a geographic proximity of the location, and the search results provided as a function of whether the one or more providers are available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for providing search results, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a query from user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining user's location; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Presenting search results to the user indicating one or more providers in spatial or temporal proximity, where the search results are a function of whether the providers are available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/29/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming modifying search results by determining whether provider store is open, whether it is nearby user based on user's location, and current ETA for user to visit the provider store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Location and nearby stores are used to modify search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/n8JHjES.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130226915&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.inrix.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130226915" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5266" RevisionGUID="d051c7f3-d7c1-4884-8b37-4e56dfd0f8ba" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="[US2006081742][1] is a Patent application.  The best way to find information about a US patent application or an issued US patent is on Google Patents.  The second best way is through the [Public PAIR][6] system of the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US2006081742 was rejected by the USPTO in 2007 and subsequently abandoned. The inventor was Guadalupe Garcia and he used an IP service called [Lumen IP][7], which is located in Palo Alto, California and is frequently used by nearby Stanford University:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent was subsequently assigned to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Worldwide Safety, Inc&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 648 46th Street&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sacramento, CA 95819&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Worldwide Safety, Inc. does not appear to have a website.  The address appears to be a home address. The best way to reach the inventor is probably through [Lumen IP][7], which may still have contact information and an email address for the inventor. The second best way is to look through the [other patent applications Guadalupe Garcia has filed at the USPTO][4]  It appears the inventor may now live in Santa Monica, California.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20060081742&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/phsQW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/R79Tb.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&amp;tbm=pts&amp;hl=en&amp;q=ininventor:%22Guadalupe+Garcia%22&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/eYXZd.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3972/1767&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://lumen.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5366" RevisionGUID="96f4d399-2bd7-438c-8563-d7b94c14b3e6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON ad targeting based on demographic profiles of website visitors** - This application from [Tonemedia, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Determining user characteristic, inferring a demographic profile based on this characteristic and showing an advertisement based on the demographic profile of the website visitor! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2/7/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using user characteristics to select a demographic profile for a website visitor, and showing ads based on that demographic profile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Using content preference of user as a characteristic to determine user profile, or **correlating** a bunch of users to generate demographic profiles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Demographic profiling to select website advertisements**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] A method for presenting an online ad to a website visitor based on a linking the user to a demographic profile and selecting an ad based on that demographic profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130204709 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/367,442&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Tonemedia / Cellfish, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 2/4/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method of presenting an ad from an ad server to a visitor of a site available from a server comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.  Determining a characteristic parameter associated with the visitor based on an action of the visitor at said site;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2.  Selecting a demographic profile for said visitor based on said characteristic parameter;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting by said ad server at least one ad associated with said demographic profile; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Presenting the selected ad to said visitor on said site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of presenting an advertisement to a website visitor, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Measuring any parameter associated with the visitor **based on an action of the visitor on the site** (so presumably simply the IP address doesn't count);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a demographic profile of user based on measured parameter;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting an ad basedo the demographic profile; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Presenting the selected ad to the visitor on the website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2/7/2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming creating demographic profiles by correlating a user characteristic across a bunch of users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Typical concordance between preferences for various singers and various target segments&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/5C1Boj3.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130204709&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://tonemedia.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130204709" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="e3e3f3ec-f319-44b4-9fdd-d112939c4a60" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON online ads based on current events** - This application from [Yahoo! Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying current events, categorizing them, and showing ads based on the current event! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Real-time ads triggered by current events&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Current events such as earthquakes, fires, or floods, **drop in prices** or **sale for a particular type of product** (e.g., cars), a general **reduction in inventory** of a particular type of product, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Showing ads based on current events**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identify a current event of any kind (examples: earthquakes, fires, or floods, drop in prices or sale for a particular type of product (e.g., cars), a general reduction in inventory of a particular type of product, etc.), categorize the current event, determine an advertisement based on the **category of event** (Halloween is here?  Buy a costume!), and send the advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130159094 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/326,033&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/17/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying by a network device an event that has recently occurred;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Categorizing by the network device the event into a category of events from a plurality of categories;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Ascertaining by the network device a set of one or more advertisements associated with the category of events;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Selecting by the network device at least one advertisement from the set of one or more advertisements associated with the category of events; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Providing by the network device the at least one advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identify an event that has recently occurred;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Categorizing the event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Find one or more advertisements associated with the category of the current event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Select an advertisement associated with the category of event; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Show the advertisement to a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A variety of specific types of current events used to trigger ads, such as earthquakes, fires, or floods, **drop in prices** or **sale for a particular type of product** (e.g., cars), a general **reduction in inventory** of a particular type of product, etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method of serving advertisements based on current events&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fSlhSt4.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130159094&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.yahoo.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130159094" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5512" RevisionGUID="b117014f-43aa-4675-9330-db5872088e0c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="![enter image description here][9]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** below!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications. **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON the display of contextually relevant communications based on viewer information and weather information.** - This application from [Weatheralpha, Llc][6] seeks to patent the idea of...dynamically selecting, rotating or altering digital advertisements based on constantly changing weather conditions, thereby allowing advertisers to include weather specific details and improve the contextual accuracy in targeting such advertisements! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 10/5/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Analyzing viewer information and weather information to adjust display of contextually relevant digital communications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - **Weather information** pertaining to current, forecasted, or past atmospheric and **environmental conditions** affecting the viewer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TITLE: **Method of targeting contextually relevant digital communication based on weather conditions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Automatically receiving **geolocation information** of a viewer's location, receiving **weather data** relevant to the viewer's location, analysing the **weather data** to identify a **weather condition**, accessing a database multiple available advertisements assigned to the **weather condition**, and selecting a **digital communication** associated with the identified **weather condition** based on the viewer's preference. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20120290372A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/555,494&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Weatheralpha, Llc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 10/5/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 5/14/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A computerized method of analyzing weather data to improve the selection of contextually relevant communication, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving passive geolocation information;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving weather data relevant to the location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Analyzing the weather data to identify a weather condition;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Accessing a database containing a plurality of available advertisements assigned to weather conditions; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Selecting a communication associated with the identified weather condition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A computerized method of analyzing weather data to improve the selection of contextually relevant communication, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Automatically receiving geolocation information of a viewer's location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving weather data relevant to the viewer's location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Analyzing the weather data to identify a weather condition;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Accessing a database containing multiple available advertisements assigned to weather conditions; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Selecting a communication associated with the identified weather condition based on a viewer's preference. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 10/5/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Weighting weather factor and selecting targeted contextual communications based on rules associated with available digital communication. The selected targeted contextual communications are prioritized based on user preferences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;The advertisement selection process as determined by current weather events&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/WOczLV5.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120290372&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.weatheralpha.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120290372&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/188743700/US-20120290372-A1&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5540" RevisionGUID="73093c75-7293-40a3-9707-f422d2c827e5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON managing information associated with a data set based on location of the consumer.** - This application from [Cadio, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving an input from a consumer, obtaining location of the consumer, identifying a setting visited by the consumer based on the obtained location, and adjusting the information associated with the identified setting based on the obtained location and input from the consumer.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/27/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Managing information in a data set for identifying settings visited by a consumer based on consumer's location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A setting refers to a place corresponding to the consumer's location, such as a **commercial place** or a **non-commercial place** (e.g., business or park).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Adjusting a process for identifying a setting visited by a consumer based on the consumer's location and input received from the consumer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving location of a consumer, identifying a setting (such as **a commercial place** or **a non-commercial place** (e.g., business or park)) from a **data set** corresponding to the received location, and changing the information associated with the identified setting in the from a **data set** based on the identification process.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20120330722 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/535,150&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Cadio, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/27/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/25/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of operating a consumer analytics system in which information about consumers is generated at least in part based on applying a visit detection process to location data relating to one or more consumers, to identified settings visited by the one or more consumers, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving input provided by a consumer identifying a setting visited by the consumer at a time;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Obtaining information identifying a physical location of the consumer at the time; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Adjusting, using at least one processor and based at least in part on the input provided by the consumer and the physical location of the consumer, the visit detection process for identifying settings visited by the plurality of consumers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving input from a consumer to identify a setting visited by the consumer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Obtaining location of the consumer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Identifying a setting corresponding to the location of the consumer; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Adjusting information stored in a data set used for identifying whether the consumer has visited the setting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/27/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Comparing location of the consumer with location boundaries of one or more settings to identify a setting corresponding to the location of the consumer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Identifying a place visited by a consumer&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NtMqOcJ.png&quot; width=&quot;446&quot; height=&quot;629&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120330722&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.locately.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120330722#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=06%2F27%2F2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5555" RevisionGUID="72d4dae0-b15e-431a-9184-9f7994dfadb6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Personalized purchase offers** - This application from [Ibotta, Inc.][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Personalized purchase offers based on item-level transaction data from a physical retail receipt! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/20/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Generating and providing personalized purchase offers based on item-level purchase data. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Matching the item-level purchase data of at least one user with offer data. The offer data indicates purchases of a product of a provider of the offer over a specified number of shopping outings, manufactured by the provider of the offer  or a competitor of the provider of the offer. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Method for generating and providing personalized purchase offers based on item-level purchase data.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Aggregating **item-level purchase data** for each of a plurality of users from multiple sources, the aggregated **item-level purchase data** comprising **item-level purchase data** from a **physical retail receipt**, receiving **offer data** from **offer providers**, selecting a user to receive an offer based on the aggregated **item-level purchase data** and the **offer data**, and transmitting the offer to a **communication device** of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120323663 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/571,150&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Ibotta, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/20/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/18/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Aggregating item-level purchase data for each of a plurality of users from multiple sources, the aggregated item-level purchase data comprising item-level purchase data from a physical retail receipt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receiving offer data from offer providers;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting, using at least one processor of a machine, at least one user of the plurality of users to receive an offer based on the aggregated item-level purchase data and the offer data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmitting the offer to a communication device of the at least one user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Aggregate item-level purchase data from a physical retail receipt of multiple users from multiple sources;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Receive offer data from offer providers;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Select the user to receive an offer based on the aggregated item-level purchase data and the offer data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Transmit the offer to a communication device of the selected user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/20/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Personalized purchase offers based on item-level transaction data&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/qkjbqs2.png&quot; width=&quot;428&quot; height=&quot;621&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120323663&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://ibotta.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120323663" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5573" RevisionGUID="bd8d6e75-996e-433c-9ff7-8cce32c77d05" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON pitch detection** - This issued patent from [Overtone Labs][2] seeks to patent the idea of...pitch detection for resonance tuning of a musical instrument. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A new method patent was granted in August of 2013 which is extremely dangerous.  The patent is being asserted against a small veteran-owned company which released an app. Other apps have fearfully withdrawn from global app markets as a result of this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/30/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Using power spectral analysis to tune musical instruments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please review Patent [US8502060][1] The app that is being sued is being forced into cease and desist and black out social media communities 60,000 musicians strong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Publication number:	[US8502060 B2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Publication type:	Grant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Application number:	US 13/768,799&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Issued date:	Aug 6, 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Priority date: 	Nov 30, 2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Assignee: [OVERTONE LABS, INC.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Link to Google Prior Art Search - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 1 &amp; 13 are particularly concerning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1: A method for resonance tuning, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Receiving a signal in response to a resonance of a structure;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining a frequency or musical note related to an overtone from the signal;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Selecting the frequency or musical note related to the overtone as a filter mode reference frequency or musical note; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Suppressing a display of frequencies or musical notes from a subsequent signal that deviate from the filter mode reference frequency or musical note by a predetermined threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; .&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 13: A method for pitch detection, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Providing one or more power spectrum frequency samples;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Selecting a frequency in a frequency band having a largest power spectrum magnitude from the one or more power spectrum frequency samples, the frequency band having an upper frequency limit and a lower frequency limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;A schematic view of an embodiment of the Pitch Estimator&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/wFNKZHe.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FIG. 16 cited by applicant in Supplemental Examination Support Doc as providing support for Claim 13. (annotation emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BbE2PxUCMAARScl.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8502060?dq=8502060&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://tune-bot.com/&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US8502060&#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;[5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5728" RevisionGUID="bf09ad65-7ebc-4619-b1b4-a3dda086f0c3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON providing recommendations based on relative preferences across items for a customer.** - This application from [MIT][6] seeks to patent the idea of...identifying a relative preference list of all users, comparing a user's relative preference list with the canonical preference list, and inferring preferences of the user on the basis of comparison with other users. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/29/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Providing a personalized recommendation to a user regarding items that the user has not ranked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A user's preference is identified based on **pair-wise preferences** of items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining preferences of a user based on comparative rating across items.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Comparing preference of a user with identified preferences of all users and inferring preference of the user based on a correlation factor between the user preference and each of the identified preferences.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130054498 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/598,124&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: MIT&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/29/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for inferring the preferences of a user in relation to a population, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying a preference distribution of said population comprising a plurality of ranked lists and a weight of each of said plurality of ranked lists;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. comparing a revealed preference of said user to one of said plurality of ranked lists;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. assigning an affinity weight between said user and each of said plurality of ranked lists; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. taking a weighted average of each of said affinity weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for inferring preferences of a user, the method comprises the following steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. identifying preferences of all users over a number of choices; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. comparing preferences of the user with each of the identified preferences;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. assigning a correlation factor between the user preferences and each of the identified preferences; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. averaging the assigned correlation factors to infer preferences of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/29/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A preference list  providing comparisons between every pair of items for a user is represented by a comparison matrix indexed by i and j, where entry (i, j) is set to 1 if item i is preferred to item j, and 0 otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Providing recommendations based on pair-wise comparison of items.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/1c7H9Dw.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130054498a1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://web.mit.edu/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130054498#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=08%2F29%2F2011&amp;t=1providing%20personalized%20recommendations.1ranked%20lists.1preference.0preference%20distribution.0revealed%20preference.0affinity%20weight.0population.0weighted%20average.0index.0sparse%20distribution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5755" RevisionGUID="90fe28d5-bd02-4f36-9500-50dd8455f2f0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Methods of detecting similar documents** - This application from [Nhn][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Extracting an entity from two or more web documents, calculating weights based on the two or more documents, and determining a similarity between the two or more documents! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/4/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Methods for detecting similar documents by matching and comparing extracted entities from the documents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - A **characteristic index** for each of the **web documents** is calculated based on weight of the corresponding entity. A similarity between the **web documents** is determined based on the calculated **characteristic indices**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Method and device to detect similar documents**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Extracting an entity from two **web documents**, calculating weights for the entity based on **importance contribution elements** corresponding to both of the two **web documents**, and determining a similarity between the two **web documents** based on the calculated weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120284270 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/462,592&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Nhn&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/4/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 5/7/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method that uses a processor for detecting similar documents, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Extracting an entity from each of a first web document and a second web document;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining an importance contribution element corresponding to each of the web documents;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Calculating, using the processor, weights for each entity based on the determined importance contribution elements; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining whether the web documents are similar documents based on the calculated weights. Determining whether the web documents are similar documents based on the calculated weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method for detecting similar documents, the method comprises the following steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Extracting an entity from two web documents;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining an importance contribution element corresponding to both the web documents;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Calculating weights for each entity based on the determined importance contribution elements; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining whether the two web documents are similar documents based on the calculated weights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 5/4/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Each importance contribution element comprises at least one of a hash value of the corresponding entity, and a frequency of which the corresponding entity is duplicated within the corresponding web document.  Further, the calculating the weights comprises using an inverted document frequency concept, the inverted document frequency concept increasing a weight of each entity in inverse proportion to decreasing frequency of duplication of the respective entity.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Method and device to detect similar documents&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/oOqv6nJ.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120284270&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.navercorp.com/en/index.nhn&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120284270#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=05%2F04%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5803" RevisionGUID="446aa1c1-5fdd-4f25-9e48-0e0fa72145fb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="1. **First, you need to figure out if this is really worth your energy.** Why are you concerned about this patent application? If you want to become a patent crusader, you might consider answering some prior art requests on here, or helping out on a crowdsourced prior art search site. Googling that phrase will get you more info. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If you are a paintball enthusiast doing this because you think this patent could be used to suppress competition amongst manufacturers of paintball equipment, understand that a minority of patent applications ever become patents and an even smaller minority of those patents ever get asserted. If the prior art is as abundant as you seem to think it is, the odds of both of those things go down even more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **tl;dr**: it's pretty unlikely that anyone will be sued over this patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **As George White suggested, you need to track down some actual prior art.** Look for things like articles, other patent applications, or product manuals, that (a) describes what the application claims and (b) were published (posted on the internet) before the priority date of this application (Feb 27, 2012). Post the 3 most detailed things you find on here and see if anyone will give you their thoughts on their substance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Follow George White's other guide on third party prior art submissions:** https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3599/i-have-prior-art-for-a-pending-patent-what-should-i-do/3600#3600" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5826" RevisionGUID="16a5f168-6721-4105-ae0b-1472dad0fd72" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON prioritizing search results based on content creation trends of terms in the search results** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving search results in response to a search query, ranking the search results, retrieving trend data related to terms in the search results, weighting the ranked search results according to the trend data, and displaying the weighted ranked search results! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/14/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ranking search results based on trend data related to terms in the search results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - **Trend data** indicates an extent to which a content associated with the terms in the **search query** and/or **search results** have been requested and/or retrieved by other users, or created by other users for example in the form of **blog entries**, **wiki pages**, **news stories**, **twitter tweets** and the like, and can be provided by a **trend service** such as the &quot;Insights&quot; (TM'') tool provided by Google Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Weighting rank of search results based on trend data related to terms in the search results**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving search results in response to a search query, ranking the search results according to a ranking factor, retrieving trend data that indicates a degree to which documents associated with the terms in the search results have been created, weighting the rank of the search results based on the trend data, and displaying the weighted rank of the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120323879 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/411,579&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/18/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for ranking search results based upon content creation trends, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a result set of results from a search engine produced in response to a search engine query of a plurality of search terms;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Ranking the results of the result set according to at least one ranking factor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Retrieving trend data indicating content creation trends from a trend feed offered by a commercial trend service for terms associated with the results of the result set, the trend data including data indicating a degree to which documents in the form of blog entries, wiki pages, news stories, and twitter tweets associated with the plurality of search terms corresponding to the results of the result set have been created;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Weighting the ranked results in the result set according to the retrieved trend data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying the weighted ranked results in response to the search engine query.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for ranking search results, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving search results from a search engine in response to a search query;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Ranking the search results based on a ranking factor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3a. Retrieving trend data related to search terms of the search results,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3b. The trend data indicates a degree to which contents related to terms in the search results have been created;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Weighting the ranked search results according to trend data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Displaying the weighted search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/14/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Weight for each rank corresponding to the search results is computed based upon a combination of 1. a mutual expectation function that measures how likely a search term of the search query giving rise to the corresponding search results and an additional search term not included in the search query will occur together, 2. a mutual dependency function measuring how strongly the additional search term relates to the search terms in current content creation, and 3. a relevancy function calculating relevancy of the search terms to the corresponding search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Prioritizing search results based on terms in the search results&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/UNF7yfX.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;900&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120323879&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120323879#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=06%2F14%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5873" RevisionGUID="26c888bf-bbc5-4970-9810-f8855d1e425e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON offering coupons based on an item of interest at a user's location** - This application from [Ebay][6] seeks to patent the idea of...determining the geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item at the geographic location, and generating an incentive offered by a merchant based on the determined geographic location and the identified item! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 3/17/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Presenting incentives offered by nearby merchants based on an item identified at the geographic location of the user&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Incentives may be discounts, sales, rebates, coupons, **item recommendations** etc. A user may specify an item of interest using various input means of a mobile device such as **text identification**, **audio identification**, **machine-readable symbol identification**, **image identification**, or **video identification**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining incentives related to items identified at user location**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Determining geographic location of a mobile device, identifying an item specified via the mobile device at the determined geographic location, generating an incentive offered by a merchant within a fixed geographic area based on the determined geographic location and the identified item, and expanding the fixed geographic area when the generated incentive is not related to the identified item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120239483 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/339,235&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Ebay&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a first module configured to determine a geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a second module configured to identify an item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device via an optical input of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a processor-implemented incentive module configured to generate a limited-time incentive offer from at least one merchant within a predefined geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device, the limited-time incentive offer based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device, and to expand the predefined geographic area when the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device does not correspond to any item identified in the at least one limited-time incentive offer of the at least one merchant within the predefined geographic area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising various modules to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Determine geographic location of a mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identify an item specified at the determined geographic location via an **optical** input to the mobile device (the example given is the phone reading the bar code of the item using its camera);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Generate limited-time incentive offers from merchants within a fixed geographic area determined using the geographic location of the mobile device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Expand the fixed geographic area if the generated limited-time incentive offers are not related to the specified item,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * The limited-time incentive offers are based on the item specified at the geographic location of the mobile device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 3/17/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A user preference setting to define a search radius and preferred merchants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Offering incentives related to an item based on geographic location of the item&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NioC9f0.png&quot; width=&quot;450&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120239483&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ebayinc.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120239483#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=03%2F17%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5881" RevisionGUID="d0cd6f32-ad62-4c3d-a760-ea7b7f0f0b68" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON initiating a vendor check-in procedure on a customer's mobile device** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...Receiving a customer's location, comparing the customer location with a list of vendor locations, and identifying vendors based on the comparison! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 4/1/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Identifying vendors based on customer location and initiating check-in for an identified vendor on customer's mobile device &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Check-in includes displaying a vendor's **promotional video**, displaying a vendor's **threshold reward status**, updating **game status** of the customer, etc. on the customer's **mobile device**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Initiating vendor check-in or displaying a map of nearby vendors on a customer's mobile device based on location of the customer**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving location of a customer from a mobile device of the customer, comparing the location of the customer with a list of vendor locations, initiating vendor check-in on the mobile device if the customer corresponds to a vendor associated with the list of vendor locations, and displaying a map showing location of vendors within a fixed distance of the customer location if the customer location does not correspond to any of the vendor locations in the list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120253902 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/435,115&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 4/1/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 4/2/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A location-based marketing method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, by a computing device, a participating customer location from a mobile communication device of said participating customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Comparing, by said computing device, said participating customer location to a list of participating vendor locations;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. If said participating customer location corresponds to one of said participating vendor locations, initiating by said computing device a vendor check-in procedure on said mobile communication; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. If said participating customer location does not correspond to one of said participating vendor locations, initiating by said computing device, a map displaying participating vendor locations within a predetermined distance of said participating customer location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for location-based marketing comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving customer location from a mobile  device of the participating customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Comparing location of the participating customer to a list of participating vendor locations;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Initiating a vendor check-in procedure on the mobile  device if the location of the participating customer corresponds to any of the participating vendor locations; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Displaying a map showing locations of participating vendors within a fixed distance from the location of the participating customer if the location of the participating customer does not correspond to any of the participating vendor locations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 4/1/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Designating one or more identified vendors under various categories of a **marketing game** played by the customer on the **mobile device**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Initiate vendor check-in on a customer's mobile device&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/bTHjUMs.png&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120253902&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120253902#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=04%2F01%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5891" RevisionGUID="53797bcd-405d-4a84-836b-5ad9f76b8b18" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON performing frequency analysis on the occurrence of target words in a stream of words** - This application from [Citizennet][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Generating a discrete time sequence of counts for a target word, performing frequency analysis of the generated discrete time sequence, and determining that the target keyword is a trending keyword based on the frequency analysis! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/7/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Detecting trends from a stream of words based on frequency analysis of word counts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Streams of words are taken from **word sources** such as **news stories**, tweets, posts on **social networking sites**, or **blog entries**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determine whether a target word is a trending keyword based on frequency analysis of discrete time sequence of counts for the target word**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Generating a discrete time sequence of counts for a target word from a stream of words, performing frequency analysis of the generated discrete time sequence to determine contributions of frequency components within different frequency ranges, and determining that the target keyword is a trending keyword based on the frequency analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130036107 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/568,851&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Citizennet&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 8/7/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for trend detection, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Generating a discrete time sequence of word counts for a target word using a trend detection device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Performing frequency analysis of the discrete time sequence of word counts to determine contributions of frequency components within different frequency ranges to the discrete time sequence of word counts using the trend detection device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Detecting that the target word is a trending keyword based upon at least the frequency analysis of the discrete time sequence of word counts for the target word using the trend detection device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for trend detection, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Generating a discrete time sequence of counts for a target word;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Performing frequency analysis of the generated discrete time sequence to measure frequency of target word counts within different frequency ranges; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Detecting that the target word is a trending keyword based on the frequency analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 8/7/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Performing **frequency analysis** refers to applying **discrete Fourier transform** to the **discrete time sequence** of counts for the target word(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Trend detection using frequency analysis of streams of words&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/UBd9kRB.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;650&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130036107&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://citizennet.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130036107#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=08%2F07%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5900" RevisionGUID="9663e1c4-9869-429e-a398-7d8f92dd40ea" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON arranging transport amongst parties through use of mobile devices** - This application from [Uber][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Enabling customers to order drivers from a mobile phone and tracking the location of the driver as it arrives! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/4/2009** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Mobile phone-based taxi services&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Location of driver is displayed on a map on user's phone, user and driver can communicate with one another prior to pickup, and/or user is able to provide feedback on driver's service after the ride.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Arranging transportation among parties at different locations using a mobile phone**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] User at one location requests driver.  From a pool of candidate drivers, the user chooses a driver to pick him up.  The user's location is communicated to the driver, the driver's location is communicated to the user as the vehicle progresses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20110313804 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/961,493&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Uber&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/4/2009&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer implemented method for arranging transport amongst parties located at different locations, the method being implemented by one or more processors of a server and comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, at the server from a customer device at a first geographic location a request for transport, the request including information about the first geographic location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. In response to receiving the request, from a pool of candidate respondents, selecting, by the server and for a customer operating the customer device, a driver at a second geographic location based, at least in part, on location information of the candidate driver;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Communicating, by the server, an invitation to a corresponding device of the driver, the invitation enabling the driver to accept the invitation to provide transport for the customer and including (i) the first geographic location, and (ii) identification information of the customer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Communicating, from the server to the customer device, a status of fulfilling the request for the customer, including communicating one or more notifications that informs the customer that the server is selecting the driver; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Once the dirver has accepted the invitation, communicating, from the server to the customer device, a location of the driver as the driver progresses to or arrives at the first geographic location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for arranging transport amongst parties located at different locations, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, a request for transport, the request including information about the first geographic location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Selecting a driver at a second geographic location from a pool of candidate driveres based, at least in part, on the location of the driver&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Inviting the driver to provide transport for the customer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Informing the customer that the server is selecting the driver; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Communicating the location of the driver as the driver progresses to or arrives at the first geographic location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/4/2009&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Displaying driver location on a map, feedback system for user to rate driver (and vice-versa) after trip&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;User-interfaces as transportation is requested and provided&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/G2VcnfE.png&quot; width=&quot;700&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Uber does not deserve this overly broad set of claims!  As just one example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **US 6,356,838 System and method for determining an efficient transportation route**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The driver then proceeds to the pickup point. As the driver continues on her way, she may update the passenger 170 of any changes to the arrival time estimate including, for example, the fact that she has arrived at the pickup point. &quot; from [US6356838][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you help find more Prior Art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110313804&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.uber.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20110313804#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=12%2F06%2F2010&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6356838&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="433ea860-5952-418d-8bb2-0ee4e6c5e1b1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="  **Patent Application: **US20140019842** from Bank of America **reminds me a lot of [Software from Tableau](http://www.tableausoftware.com/)**.  I'm looking for a Tableau or other reference which can be given to the patent examiner to help block or narrow this patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overview: &quot;A set of measure/dimension boxes in an &quot;available fields&quot; region, which can then be dragged to &quot;Row&quot; or &quot;Column&quot; region.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was published before **7/11/2012** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1 is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An apparatus, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a processor operable to:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Determine** a plurality of field identifiers of a data set, the data set comprising a plurality of data entries, a data entry comprising one or more data values, a data value associated with a field identifier of the plurality of field identifiers;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Generate** a plurality of field cells that each correspond to a field identifier of the plurality of field identifiers;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Display** the plurality of field cells within an available fields region; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Display** a column field region and a row field region, the column field region operable to define one or more columns of a pivot table, the row field region operable to define one or more rows of the pivot table; and&#xD;&#xA;an interface operable to accept a first input from a user; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wherein the processor is further operable to:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Move** a first field cell of the plurality of field cells from the available fields region to the column field region or the row field region in response to the first input from a user; and&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Update** the pivot table to include one or more rows or columns corresponding to the first field cell upon detection of the movement of the first field cell to the column field region or the row field region.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FIGURE FROM PATENT APPLICATION IN QUESTION&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FIGURE FROM &quot;Tableau&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question**: Can anyone find a reference to patents from Tableau (or any other company) which predates the subject patent application from Bank of America (filed 7/11/2012).  It definitely does not seem novel to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/fRd99.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/lzOS1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5954" RevisionGUID="76f8df86-6dfa-4afa-83c5-e48951c7c733" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON determining user opinions related to a product or service from online contents** - This application from [Metavana][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying keywords from social media contents, determining a category related to the identified keywords, and determining sentiments associated with the identified keywords! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 9/30/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining sentiments expressed in social media contents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Category refers to products, people, hotels, events, services, places, or **real world** objects. Social media content refers to contents from websites (for e.g. **amazon.com**, **bestbuy.com**, **yelp.com**, **tripAdvisor.com** etc.), blogs, **micro-blogging** sites .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE:** Providing opinions about various categories based on sentiments expressed in social media contents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying keywords in a sentence from social media contents, identifying polarity of the identified keywords using phase transition formula, determining categories related to the identified keywords, and determining sentiments corresponding to the categories related to the identified keywords.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130091117 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/632,011&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Metavana&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 9/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for sentiment analysis from social media content, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Crawling, by a processor, a plurality of websites to obtain metadata from social media content;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Extracting, by a processor, the metadata from the social media content by identifying a polarity of the sentiment-bearing keywords in a sentence from social media content using a phase transition formula;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining at least one category corresponding to the at least one sentiment-bearing keyword of the sentence; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining at least one sentiment corresponding to the at least one category based on the at least one sentiment-bearing keyword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for analyzing sentiments expressed in social media contents, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Visiting a plurality of websites to obtain metadata from social media contents;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying polarity of keywords that express sentiments in a sentence from social media contents;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Determining categories related to the keywords; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining sentiments associated with the determined categories based on the keywords. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 9/30/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Calculating a number of online documents that include a keyword, and number of instances of the keyword in the online documents, to determine relevancy of the keyword&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Determining public opinion based on social media contents&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/EWRrVjl.png&quot; width=&quot;750&quot; height=&quot;550&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130091117&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.metavana.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130091117#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=09%2F30%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6139" RevisionGUID="7e93e279-f013-4a18-be97-31729ec363e6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON online advertisements being displayed on a webpage based on a timer** - This application from [Yahoo! Inc][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Displaying a primary advertisement on a first web page, initiating a timer to measure a first predetermined time period for which the primary advertisement is displayed, detecting a user reaction, and switching the primary advertisement with a second advertisement based  on the user responses.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/21/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Changing advertisements on a webpage based on user's responses and expiration of a timer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - User responses may be expiration of the **first time period**, detecting **user interaction** with the **first web page**, lack of detection of **user interaction** with the **primary advertisement**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Switching advertisements on a webpage based on the timer and the user responses**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Displaying a **primary advertisement** on a **first web page**, initiating a timer to measure a **first predetermined time period** for which the **primary advertisement** is displayed, switching the **primary advertisement** with a **second advertisement** based on responses such as expiration of the **first predetermined time period**, detecting **user interaction** with the **first web page**, lack of detection of **user interaction** with the **primary advertisement**. Further, receiving a request to recall the **primary advertisement** after the switching has occurred, and switching the **secondary advertisement** with the **primary advertisement**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120158519 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/973,954&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Yahoo! Inc&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 12/18/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for placing online advertisements on a display of a computer device coupled to a communication network, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying a primary advertisement on at least a portion of a first web page on the display;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Initiating a timer to measure a first predetermined period of time that the first web page is displayed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Responsive to &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - (i) Expiration of the first predetermined period of time, &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - (ii) Detecting user interaction with the first web page, and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - (iii) Lack of detection of user interaction with the primary advertisement, switching the primary advertisement to display a secondary advertisement on the portion of the first web page on the display;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving a request to recall the primary advertisement after the switching has occurred; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Switching the secondary advertisement with the primary advertisement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying a primary advertisement on a first web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Initiating a timer to measure a first time period for which the primary advertisement is displayed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Switching the primary advertisement with a secondary advertisement based on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - 3a. Expiration of the first time period, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - 3b. Detecting a user interaction with the first web page, and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - 3c. Detecting that user is **not** interacting with the primary advertisement;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving a request to recall the primary advertisement after the switching has occurred; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Switching the secondary advertisement with the primary advertisement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/21/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming The primary and secondary advertisements are targeted advertisements that are tailored to a user, an identified location,  and a current time of day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Online advertisements &quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/v9rdeQb.png&quot; width=&quot;406&quot; height=&quot;469&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120158519&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.yahoo.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120158519#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=12%2F21%2F2010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6148" RevisionGUID="9d4df9b2-7ebf-4d68-a093-1411d45a3755" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="  **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON exploring social connections from an in-memory database** - This application from [SAP][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Identifying an attribute in a profile associated with a first user, executing a query including the identified attribute, and identifying a second user based on the query! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/5/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Implementing social networking based on data objects in an in-memory database&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Examples of attributes may include **contact information**, expertise, **past projects**, **current projects**, manager, supervisor etc. Data objects may include a variety of objects that store **business data**, **reference data** from **content sources**, such as **web content**, feeds, **REST services**, **business data** repositories, reports, status updates, discussions, wikis, blogs etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Identifying social networks within an organization based on business data of the organization stored in an in-memory database**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Identifying an attribute in a profile associated with a first user, executing a query including the identified attribute against data objects stored in an in-memory database, identifying a second user from the results of query based on a relationship between data objects associated with the second user and the attribute of the first user, and displaying information of the second user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130144957 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/310,913&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: SAP&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/5/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method performed with a computing system for exploring social connections in an in-memory database, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying a user profile associated with a first user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying one or more updates to one or more attributes of the user profile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Updating, in real-time, the user profile, based on the one or more updates, as the one or more updates are identified;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Identifying a particular attribute of the one or more attributes in the updated user profile that is associated with the first user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Executing a query against a data element stored in an in-memory database, the query including the particular attribute in the updated user profile;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Identifying a second user from results of the query, the second user associated with the data element based on a relationship between the second user and the first user defined by the attribute; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Generating displayable information associated with the second user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for exploring social connections in an in-memory database, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Identifying the profile of a first user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Identifying updates to the first user profile;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Updating the user profile based on the updates;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Identifying a particular attribute of the updated profile and executing a a database query (in an in-memory database) for the particular attribute;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Identifying a second user based on a relationship between data objects associated with the second user and the first user defined by the particular attribute; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Displaying information related to the second user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/5/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Data sources from various enterprise systems are replicated to the in-memory database before executing the query against the data element stored in the in-memory database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Exploring social connections from an in-memory database&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/XpChjTN.png&quot; width=&quot;550&quot; height=&quot;450&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130144957&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.sap.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130144957#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=12%2F05%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6170" RevisionGUID="856d9ed4-e3cb-4115-b86a-c1c0583b2fa8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON asking friends for advice while shopping** - This application from [Turnto Network][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Displaying, to a user who is engaged in a commercial activity on an online site, information that is associated with another user of the online site, would normally be private to the other user, relates to the commercial activity of the user, and is controlled by the site! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 1/2/2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Users asking other users for shopping advice online&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Transaction may include **purchases of products**, **money-based transactions**, retail, wholesale, **business sales activities**, lending, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Transaction information on online sites**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Exposing, to a user  who is engaged in a **commercial activity** on a **commercial online site**, information that is associated with one user of the **commercial online site**, would be private to the other user, relates to the **commercial activity** of the first user, and is controlled by the **commercial online site**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120233020 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/393,008&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Turnto Network&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 1/2/2008&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 3/12/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. exposing, to a user who is engaged in a commercial activity on a commercial online site, computer-stored information that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - a. is associated with another user of the online site,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - b. would otherwise be private to the other user, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - c. relates to the commercial activity of the user, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - d. is controlled by the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Displaying, to a user who is engaged in a commercial activity on a commercial online site, a computer-stored information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - a. Associated with the another user of the online site,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - b. Private to the other user, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - c. Related to the Commercial activity of the user, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - d. Controlled by the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 1/2/2008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Commercial activity includes shopping for a product or service &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Information transaction on online sites&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/RNOLhZT.png&quot; width=&quot;827&quot; height=&quot;537&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120233020&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.turntonetworks.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120233020#c=0&amp;d1=01%2F02%2F2008" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46265" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6238" RevisionGUID="3e0b179c-1979-4ce0-b08d-9eca2e0e8523" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON implementing a CAPTCHA test based on an advertisement** - This application from [IBM][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Providing a CAPTCHA test which includes an advertisement and a question related to the advertisement and determining a reward for the user based on the response. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 3/23/2011** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - CAPTCHA tests which include questions on advertisements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Questions are selected based on **demographic information** associated with a user or a **random number**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Determining rewards based on CAPTCHA test**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving a request to access content from a user, providing a **CAPTCHA test** which includes an advertisement and a question related to the advertisement based on the **user response**, receiving a response to the question appearing in the provided **CAPTCHA test**, and determining a reward for the user based on the response and the **reward level** associated with the provided CAPTCHA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20120246008 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 13/070,065&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IBM&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 3/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 3/26/2013&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method for implementing CAPTCHA tests, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, using at least one computing device, a request to access content from a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Providing, using the at least one computing device, a CAPTCHA test to the user in response to the request, the CAPTCHA test comprising an advertisement and a question related to the advertisement, wherein the providing comprises:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2a. determining a demographic to which the user belongs, wherein the demographic is a measure of a level of potential familiarity with subject matter of the CAPTCHA test,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2b. determining a current affiliation level of the user, wherein an affiliation level comprises a measure of a level of access to the content allowed for the user,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2c. selecting a random number,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2d. determining whether the random number is even or odd,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2e. if the random number is even, fetching all CAPTCHA tests having an associated reward level that matches a next affiliation level as compared to the current affiliation level, remove therefrom any CAPTCHA tests not matching the demographic to yield a first remaining set of CAPTCHA tests, and providing a CAPTCHA test having a lowest impression count of the first remaining set of CAPTCHA tests, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2f. if the random number is odd, fetching all CAPTCHA tests having an associated reward level that matches the current affiliation level, remove therefrom all CAPTCHA tests matching the demographic to yield a second remaining set of CAPTCHA tests, and providing a CAPTCHA test having a lowest impression count of the second remaining set of CAPTCHA tests;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. receiving, using the at least one computing device, a response to the question appearing in the provided CAPTCHA test;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining a reward for the user based on the response and the reward level&#xD;&#xA; associated with the provided CAPTCHA.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for implementing CAPTCHA tests, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a request from a user to access content;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Providing a CAPTCHA test to the user in response to the request, the CAPTCHA test includes an advertisement and a question related to the advertisement, the providing a CAPTCHA test comprises:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2a. Determining a demographic to which the user belongs,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2b. Determining a current affiliation level of the user,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2c. Selecting a random number,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2d. Determining whether the random number is even or odd,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2e. If the random number is even, fetching all CAPTCHA tests having an associated reward level that matches a next affiliation level as compared to the current affiliation level, remove therefrom any CAPTCHA tests not matching the demographic to yield a first remaining set of CAPTCHA tests, and providing a CAPTCHA test having a lowest impression count of the first remaining set of CAPTCHA tests, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2f. If the random number is odd, fetching all CAPTCHA tests having an associated reward level that matches the current affiliation level, remove therefrom all CAPTCHA tests matching the demographic to yield a second remaining set of CAPTCHA tests, and providing a CAPTCHA test having a lowest impression count of the second remaining set of CAPTCHA tests;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Receiving a response to the question appearing in the provided CAPTCHA test;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining a reward for the user based on the response and the reward level&#xD;&#xA; associated with the provided CAPTCHA.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 3/23/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Granting a level of access to the content for the user based on an elapsed time for the user to input the response&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Offering rewards based on CAPTCHA test related to advertisements&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/PTBRIIb.png&quot; width=&quot;950&quot; height=&quot;539&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Offering rewards based on CAPTCHA test related to advertisements&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/lwIj55Z.png&quot; width=&quot;950&quot; height=&quot;539&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120246008&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ibm.com/us/en/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20120246008#c=0&amp;d1=03%2F23%2F2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6252" RevisionGUID="8f75210f-f72c-4947-9d33-c70d9b7c5ef8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON employing a forwarding service to track online recommendations** - This application from [Microsoft][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Tracking online product recommendations by modifying a URL when user forwards recommendation to another user and tracking a recommendation flow from the recommending user to the consuming user! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 6/18/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Tracking of a recommendation to a consuming user by replacing original URL with a trackable URL&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Recommendation may be of product, service, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Forwarding services for tracking online recommendations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving a **recommended resource identifier** from a  **recommending user**, generating a **first trackable recommendation identifier** based on the **recommended resource identifier** that is different from the **recommended resource identifier**, sending the **first trackable recommendation identifier** to the **recommending user**, receiving the **first trackable recommendation identifier** from a **first consuming user** other than the **recommending user**, generating a **second trackable recommendation identifier** based on the **first trackable recommendation identifier** that is different from the **first trackable recommendation identifier**, receiving the **second trackable recommendation identifier** from a **second consuming user** other than the **first consuming user** and the **recommending user**, and tracking a recommendation flow from the **recommending user** to the **first consuming user** and from the **first consuming user** to the **second consuming user** by looking up the **second trackable recommendation identifier**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20110313833 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/818,170&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 6/18/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 6/19/2012&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One or more computer-readable storage media encoding computer-executable instructions for executing a computing process on a computer system, the computing process comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving, from a recommending user, a recommended resource identifier that identifies a network resource;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. generating a first trackable recommendation identifier based on the recommended resource identifier, wherein the first trackable recommendation identifier is different than the recommended resource identifier and is mapped to the network resource and the recommending user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. sending the first trackable recommendation identifier to the recommending user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. receiving the first trackable recommendation identifier from a first consuming user other than the recommending user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. generating a second trackable recommendation identifier based on the first trackable recommendation identifier, wherein the second trackable recommendation identifier is different than the first trackable recommendation identifier and is mapped to the network resource, the first consuming user, and the recommending user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. receiving the second trackable recommendation identifier from a second consuming user other than the first consuming user and the recommending user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. tracking a recommendation flow from the recommending user to the first consuming user and from the first consuming user to the second consuming user by looking up the second trackable recommendation identifier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A computing method comprises:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving a recommended resource identifier from a  recommending user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Generating a first trackable recommendation identifier based on the recommended resource identifier that is different from the recommended resource identifier,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - 2a. The first trackable recommendation identifier is mapped to the network resource and the recommending user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Sending the first trackable recommendation identifier to the recommending user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving the first trackable recommendation identifier from a first consuming user other than the recommending user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Generating a second trackable recommendation identifier based on the first trackable recommendation identifier that is different than the first trackable recommendation identifier,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - 5a. The second trackable recommendation identifier is mapped to the network resource, the first consuming user, and the recommending user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Receiving the second trackable recommendation identifier from a second consuming user other than the first consuming user and the recommending user; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Tracking a recommendation flow from the recommending user to the first consuming user and from the first consuming user to the second consuming user by looking up the second trackable recommendation identifier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 6/18/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming the idea of crediting the recommending user for sending recommendations which are clicked by another user. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Online recommendations tracking through forwarding service&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/odtGNfA.png&quot; width=&quot;622&quot; height=&quot;610&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110313833&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/default.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20110313833#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=06%2F18%2F2010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6328" RevisionGUID="51cb29d7-3aed-42bf-a28e-16e7e608bc74" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON streaming media through a session initiation protocol** - This application from [Intellectual Ventures][1] seeks to patent the idea of...Sending a first session initiation protocol (SIP) message from a first device to a second device, receiving a second SIP message from the second device at the first device, sending a third SIP message from the first device to the second device, and receiving the requested media stream from the second device at the first device.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/30/2002** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Streaming media based on streaming parameters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - The streaming parameters may include range, scale, speed, **a length of the requested media stream**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Session initiation Protocol for media streaming**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Sending a **first session initiation protocol (SIP) message** from a **first device** to a **second device**, a **first header field** of the **first SIP message** includes a **first indicator** indicating a request for a **media stream** and a source of the requested **media stream**, receiving a **second SIP message** from the **second device** at the **first device**, a **second header field** of the **second SIP message** includes a **second indicator** indicating acceptance of the request for the **media stream**, sending a **third SIP message** from the **first device** to the **second device**, a **third header field** of the **third SIP message** includes a **third indicator** indicating that the **second device** initiate streaming of the requested **media stream**, and receiving the requested **media stream** from the **second device** at the **first device**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20140059238 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 14/069,817&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Intellectual Ventures&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/30/2002&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 8/26/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. sending a first session invitation protocol (SIP) message from a first device to a second device, wherein a first header field of the first SIP message includes a first indicator indicating a request for a media stream and a source of the requested media stream;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. receiving a second SIP message from the second device at the first device, wherein a second header field of the second SIP message includes a second indicator indicating acceptance of the request for the media stream;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. sending a third SIP message from the first device to the second device, wherein a third header field of the third SIP message includes a third indicator indicating that the second device initiate streaming of the requested media stream; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. receiving the requested media stream from the second device at the first device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1a. Sending a first session initiation protocol (SIP) message from a first device to a second device,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1b. A first header field of the first SIP message includes a first indicator indicating a request for a media stream and a source of the requested media stream;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2a. Receiving a second SIP message from the second device at the first device, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2b. A second header field of the second SIP message includes a second indicator indicating acceptance of the request for the media stream;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3a. Sending a third SIP message from the first device to the second device, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3b. A third header field of the third SIP message includes a third indicator indicating that the second device initiate streaming of the requested media stream; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving the requested media stream from the second device at the first device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/30/2002&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Receiving a third SIP message at the first device from the second device, wherein the third SIP message includes streaming parameters for the requested media stream&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Streaming Media through a session initiation protocol messages&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][5].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][6] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.intellectualventures.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140059238&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20140059238#c=0&amp;d1=12%2F30%2F2002&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/lFNge.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6340" RevisionGUID="0aeccef9-7960-4911-b9be-0b5e080c493d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Seen this before? Web Site Mapping - Bogus #Patent Application #Intellectual Ventures #priorartrequest &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON organizing and displaying information about Internet web pages on web maps** - This application from [Intellectual Ventures][6] seeks to patent the idea of...A server system receiving, from a client system, a search request specifying a set of search criteria, the server system performing a search based on the search criteria to obtain a plurality of search results, and the server system providing, to the client system, one or more of the plurality of search results.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 4/15/1999** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Organising and displaying web pages information on web maps&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Web maps may include a **graphical representation of information contained on another Web page**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Web Site Mapping on a Wide Area Network**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Receiving, by a **server system**, a **search request** specifying a **set of criteria** from a **client system**, performing, by a **server system**, a search based on the **search criteria** to obtain a **plurality of results**, providing, to the client system, one or more of the plurality of search results, and one or more search results include a result that specifies a corresponding web page as well as at least one other web page referenced by the corresponding web page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20140052778 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 14/065,308&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Intellectual Ventures&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 4/15/1999&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 8/19/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a server system receiving, from a client system, a search request specifying a set of search criteria;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the server system performing a search based on the search criteria to obtain a plurality of search results; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. the server system providing, to the client system, one or more of the plurality of search results, wherein provided ones of the search results include a result that specifies a corresponding web page as well as at least one other web page referenced by the corresponding web page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, by a server system, a search request specifying a set of criteria from a client system; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Performing, by a server system, a search based on the search criteria to obtain a plurality of results; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3a. Providing, to the client system, one or more of the plurality of search results, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3b. One or more search results include a result that specifies a corresponding web page as well as at least one other web page referenced by the corresponding web page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 4/15/1999&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming The web page referenced by the corresponding web page includes a block of text, and the result further specifies phrases extracted from the block of text&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Web pages information through Web Maps&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/21Zf41B.png&quot; width=&quot;441&quot; height=&quot;622&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140052778&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.intellectualventures.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20140052778#c=0&amp;d1=04%2F15%2F1999" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6347" RevisionGUID="36901034-5b17-46b3-911d-9f46f6879b6c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON classifying digital images into semantic categories** - This application from [IV][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Generating time-based event boundaries detected in a plurality of images, computing inter-event durations, grouping events into clusters based on the inter-event durations, and validating that each event belongs to an associated cluster based on event level content based features using a rule-based system.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 11/19/2008** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Classification of digital images into event based semantic categories &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - Semantic categories may include events, people, places etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Semantic classification of digital images based on events**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Generating **time-based event** boundaries detected in a **plurality of images**, computing **inter-event durations**, grouping events into clusters based on the **inter-event durations**, and validating that each event belongs to an associated cluster based on **event level content** based features using a **rule-based system**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20140046914 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 14/054,954&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: IV&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 11/19/2008&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 8/12/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. generating, using a processor, time-based event boundaries detected in a plurality of images;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. computing inter-event durations;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. grouping events into clusters based on the inter-event durations; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. validating, using a rule-based system, that each event belongs to an associated cluster based on event level content based features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Generating time-based event boundaries detected in a plurality of images;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Computing inter-event durations;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Grouping events into clusters based on the inter-event durations; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Validating whether each event belongs to an associated cluster based on event level content based features using a rule-based system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 11/19/2008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming A location is determined for each image in an event and grouping events into clusters based upon the locations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Semantic classification of digital images&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zbwqM2i.png&quot; width=&quot;710&quot; height=&quot;582&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140046914&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.intellectualventures.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20140046914#c=0&amp;d1=11%2F19%2F2008" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6350" RevisionGUID="8b82161d-ac61-41e7-80ed-3918b5c863d3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON finding the nearby picture hotspots based on location data and user data** - This application from [Intellectual Ventures][6] seeks to patent the idea of...Transmit location data and user data over a wireless network via the communication module, and receive notification data from a network connected server over the wireless network in response to the transmitted location data.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 10/28/2010** that discusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Determining nearby picture hotspots based on location data and user data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - User data may include data retrieved from the digital storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Locating picture hotspots based on location data and user data**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Transmit **location data** and **user data** over a **wireless network** via the **communication module**, the **location data** is provided by the **GPS receiver module** based in part on stored **user data**, receive **notification data** from a network connected server over the **wireless network** in response to the transmitted **location data**, the **notification data** indicates that the device is within a vicinity of a **hot spot location**, and the notification includes **directional information** associated with finding the **hot spot location**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20140032715 A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 14/043,934&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Intellectual Ventures&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 10/28/2010&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 7/29/2014&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. a communication module;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. a GPS receiver module; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a processor configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3a. transmit location data and user data over a wireless network via the communication module, wherein the location data is provided by the GPS receiver module based in part on stored user data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3b. receive notification data from a network connected server over the wireless network in response to the transmitted location data, wherein the notification data indicates that the device is within a vicinity of a hot spot location, wherein the notification includes directional information associated with finding the hot spot location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A communication module;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. A GPS receiver module; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. A processor configured to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3a. Transmit location data and user data over a wireless network via the communication module,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3b. The location data is provided by the GPS receiver module based in part on stored user data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3c. Receive notification data from a network connected server over the wireless network in response to the transmitted location data,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3d. The notification data indicates that the device is within a vicinity of a hot spot location, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3e. The notification includes directional information associated with finding the hot spot location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 10/28/2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming The notification data includes directional information from a current location to the hotspot location and the current location is based on the location data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Nearby Picture Hotspots&quot; from the Applicant**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/XRUCbpF.png&quot; width=&quot;356&quot; height=&quot;604&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140032715&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.intellectualventures.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20140032715#c=0&amp;d1=10%2F28%2F2010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6684" RevisionGUID="edbd13cb-1d31-413a-821f-c809359e21e2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Suppose there is a patent whose first claim essentially covers &quot;a system comprising *a* computing device having code usable by said computing device, said code comprising: code configured to do A; code configured to do B&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now if I implement a system with *two* computers such that computer 1 has the code to do A and computer 2 has the code to do B, and the computers are connected via ethernet or similar, do I violate this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it help if I can reasonably justify that the two-computer implementation is more natural (because of physical distance between the stuff needed for A and B, and also fault tolerance) and therefore it would have been built like that, even if the patent had not existed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia [says][1]: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;An apple&quot; never means more than one apple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I trust that this is true in the patent context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A related but not identical question: [Does plurality mean that it must have more than 1 camera?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_%28grammar%29#Indefinite_article&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/2045/does-plurality-mean-that-it-must-have-more-than-1-camera" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9994" RevisionGUID="60e6388f-e891-4d56-8b4a-bdc7ee38a42f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="In reference to [this question][1] which -- what is the legal status of patents filed by and granted to the U.S Federal Government?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that any work done by the Federal government is in the public domain, and can be used by anybody without any licensing -- and hence this would include patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that a correct understanding?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/9987/what-is-the-purpose-of-this-ebola-related-patent-of-the-us-government" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10032" RevisionGUID="c375c7b0-602f-4432-b68e-1c2f156ed1d9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you're sure that the patent has really expired, then the specific invention in the patent is no longer patent-protected, so the patent holder can't sue over it.  However, make sure of this, because figuring out when a patent has really expired can be complicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, keep in mind that patents can overlap, which means that even if that one specific patent you're looking at has expired, there may still be other patents out there that will block some features, or maybe all features, of the invention that you were thinking about using or selling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, you asked if someone can restore a patent that has expired due to failure to pay the maintenance fees (although &quot;lapsed&quot; or &quot;abandoned&quot; might be a more technically accurate term).  The answer is yes.  See http://www.clm.com/publication.cfm?ID=489 for the details (I also posted a longer answer to this question on https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/10031/11213)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10253" RevisionGUID="cdec5c2a-6c4c-4c11-8bdc-0a13f4a1a1a8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="You need not obtain permission to use the figure as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_on_the_content_of_patents_and_in_the_context_of_patent_prosecution#cite_note-2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, see answers to this previous question; https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/44/are-text-and-images-in-the-patent-copyrighted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may visit the below link to know more about patent drawings:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.invntree.com/blogs/patent-drawings-and-their-importance-in-a-patent-specification" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10266" RevisionGUID="8d6df0b6-4091-4362-a30a-79b0d08174b8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="If the patent have been published it can be used a prior art, regardless of the status of the application.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Filing patents without follow up is sometime done as a defensive measure -- See also the answers [here][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/10216/patent-application-as-defensive-disclosure" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10595" RevisionGUID="07d9415e-43e5-4e8d-a10f-b9000b17c284" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="I asked [this question][1] and it seems there divisional applications can have the same detailed description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that before the patent is issued, I can file another application claim priority date of the first application, e.g. continuation or divisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I am trying to do is filing a application with multiple unrelated inventions (see the image below). I will pursue an invention but repeat the whole detailed description about multiple invention. While I pursue one invention, I will try to find commercial potential of other inventions. If another invention has commercial potential, I will file continuation application about it. It seems this will be perfectly legal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an independent inventor, I hope that strategy will reduce cost, as I only pursue just one invention instead of pursuing multiple ones at the same time. But in practice, they are unrelated inventions, so can I file continuation application like that?&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/10497/do-divisional-applications-have-the-same-detailed-description &quot;this&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/l0HU7.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10641" RevisionGUID="fdd1d195-53b4-4689-a1c8-ebb65b403602" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="*[When does US Patent 6,905,424 expire?][1]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3283/when-does-us-patent-5-720-421-expire" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10805" RevisionGUID="6bd488b6-63b6-437c-a954-433d23420970" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="An [earlier answer][1] by user @Soren:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Having skimmed though the patent, it looks like it is a patent for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; weakened version of the virus, that is taking the existing virus and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; making it non-threatening -- it is certainly not a patent which is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; supposedly creating the virus.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Weakened version of a virus and disease agents in general are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; desirable for research purposes, so that they can be studied in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; laboratories without any unnecessary risk to staff or for using it in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a vaccination effort.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The process of weakening the virus is known as 'inactivation' and you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can read more about it on Wikipedia [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Your yearly flu short contains flu virus which has been 'inactivated'&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and you can read more about it [here][3].&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exact purpose for the patent is very likely basic research which is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; why it is being done by the government rather than by some private&#xD;&#xA;&gt; institution. As the motivation, it is very likely to gain sufficient&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information of the virus to defend against it should it ever come to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the US as an outbreak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/9988/11895&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_processing&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_vaccine#Manufacturing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11946" RevisionGUID="bb0903e4-c73f-4fde-94cd-097090fa8884" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm interested in contacting the owner of [EP1870511A1](http://www.google.com/patents/EP1870511A1?cl=from). Where can I find information to do so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've reviewed &quot;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5059/how-can-i-contact-the-owner-of-a-patent,&quot; but it appears to only cover American patents and applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12031" RevisionGUID="aeb7b03e-9915-44ae-8ca7-94ccd2c93ad1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="This application from Samsung seeks to patent a method for using one type of wireless connection, such as Bluetooth, to setup a second wireless connection such as Wi-Fi Direct.  10 minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent application before it becomes a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2013-Apr-16** that describes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using one wireless protocol to setup a second wireless connection&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - using Bluetooth to setup a Wi-Fi Direct connection&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question — one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title**: Communication control method and electronic device implementing the same&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: A method for communicating with an electronic device. The method includes  establishing a communication channel between two devices and sending data through that channel in order to establish a second communication channel. This could include, for example, using Bluetooth to setup a Wi-Fi direct connection for transmitting image data from a smartphone to a tv.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20140308898](http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20140308898&amp;OS=20140308898&amp;RS=20140308898) (**NOTE**: Not available on Google Patent as of 2015-Jan-28)&#xD;&#xA;- **App Number**: 14/254,860&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2013-Apr-16&#xD;&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO**: Open through ~2015-Apr-16. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A communication control method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. establishing, at a source device, a preliminary channel via a first communications module;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. communicating data for establishing a communication channel through the preliminary channel, the communication channel being established via a second communication module; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. establishing the communication channel via the second communication channel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2013-Apr-16.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is good prior art? Please see the [FAQ](https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art](https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request) on other questionable US Patent Applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior art cited by applicants:&#xD;&#xA;KR 10-2008-0071379&#xD;&#xA;KR 10-2013-009088" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12199" RevisionGUID="1c86b43c-49fb-43a7-83c5-a5752a8cb314" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are vast method to cover all patents filed by inventor, It depends on indexing of database, truncation or errors made while filing or indexing, language etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A person has to design various keywords to cover all possibilities. Still researcher may not get complete information if patent office is not included in searchable database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To search inventor you can visit [&quot;Is it possible to search patents by assignee?&quot;][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may include Family Patents of results [&quot;Is this patent valid in USA or Australia?&quot;][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To Get Automatic update if new patents are listed on your search term You need to have RSS reader. To get update you need to click on RSS icon as below image and subscribe the same-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/11954/11895&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/12153/11895&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/aE3vC.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12202" RevisionGUID="f27766cb-9949-4685-bd73-109963931a7e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Ordering a certified copy of a patent from the patent office does not grant the right to practice the invention. It is simply a copy. Certified copies are commonly used when filing in a different country or when the patent is required in court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to practice the invention, you need to either own the patent or have permission from the owner. Purchasing a patent may be prohibitively expensive, or simply not possible.  The the more likely course of action is to negotiate a license. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In either case, you will need to contact the owner of the patent. See [How can I contact the owner of a patent?](https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/5351/9802) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12341" RevisionGUID="9c2437c9-595f-4776-ae64-8c0f0800d68c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Since this is a design patent, the patent covers the particular design shown in the figures and any design substantially similar enough that someone would be deceived into buying it believing they were getting the one described in the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it certainly covers 5 horizontal lines of crystals around the collar of a cane, but not necessarily any crystal applied to any cane in any design.  In order to get a better idea of what might be substantially similar, see [this answer](https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/11955/9802) to [How can I make sure my design doesn't infringe on existing design patents?](https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/11919/9802)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in this case, the dotted lines mean that the handle is not claimed as part of the design. The two collars at the bottom are included, in addition to the crystals at the top.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12349" RevisionGUID="139bfff6-3957-4f73-8f40-fab7070b98ad" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would like some help in finding prior art for patent WO2013165367A8 'Prioritization of continuous deployment pipeline tests'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 2009 paper by Jiang et al describes prioritization of tests: http://www.cs.hku.hk/research/techreps/document/TR-2009-09.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What other examples of prior art for CI test case prioritization are there? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Related to: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/12307/prior-art-request-for-wo2014027990-performance-tests-in-a-continuous-deployment)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [WO2013165367A8][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013165367A8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12415" RevisionGUID="8a2a6668-43eb-4f76-a1bd-f4bed70efaaf" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Unless it has a specific copyright notice, patent images are in the public domain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [Are text and images in the patent copyrighted?](https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/44/9802)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12449" RevisionGUID="526f98f6-f0d7-48bb-86b0-2a0edcd97d16" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Just read &quot;[this-is-a-direct-copy-of-a-previous-patent-we-own][1]&quot;, in conjunction with &quot;[Are text and images in the patent copyrighted?][2]&quot;, and &quot;[Can I copy texts from other applications into my application?][3]&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm curious if anyone has attempted to force an application or patent to be: un-published / revoked / re-examined on the grounds the patent application itself infringes on someone else's copyrighted material. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you revoke a patent simply by issuing a DMCA takedown notice against a patent hosted on the USPTO site (if the details can't be published, there's no way to avoid infringement, so the patent would obviously become invalid).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/12182/this-is-a-direct-copy-of-a-previous-patent-we-own&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/44/are-text-and-images-in-the-patent-copyrighted?lq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3952/can-i-copy-texts-from-other-applications-into-my-application/3968#3968" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12586" RevisionGUID="68a1afda-bb14-41ee-85c7-36ea31729160" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Claims 2,4,5,7-10 will remain to be valid. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**35 U.S. Code § 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) In General.— A patent shall be presumed valid. Each claim of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent (whether in independent, dependent, or multiple dependent form)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shall be presumed valid independently of the validity of other claims;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dependent or multiple dependent claims shall be presumed valid even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; though dependent upon an invalid claim. The burden of establishing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party&#xD;&#xA;&gt; asserting such invalidity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also reed book exerpts [Patent Law Essentials][1] page 86-87&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see answer [Is a patent enforceable based on a claim that is dependent on an independent claim that is not enforceable?](https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/11991/11895)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=zfDXAQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA87&amp;dq=The%20presumption%20of%20validity%20applies%20separately%20to%20each%20claim%20of%20a%20patent.%20Even%20if%20Claim%201%20has%20been%20proven%20invalid%20by%20clear%20and%20convincing%20evidence&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=1y4dVajvA42WuATty4HIAQ&amp;ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=The%20presumption%20of%20validity%20applies%20separately%20to%20each%20claim%20of%20a%20patent.%20Even%20if%20Claim%201%20has%20been%20proven%20invalid%20by%20clear%20and%20convincing%20evidence&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12848" RevisionGUID="681de016-41f6-472a-90c6-e6acfac2320d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes it is broader but was never granted a patent, applicant failed to reply examiner objections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; status on date 10-23-2009-- Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Office Action&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;presently no child applications are pending for this application and it seems all doors are closed for this application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you are also requested to refer Ask patents another answer on [how to check USPTO patent status on official register.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/4722/11895" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12930" RevisionGUID="54f6e5c7-78e5-4587-be89-c16063771d4c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="In all  offices its allowed that inventor first file all enabling disclosure (what you have) as provisional application (not WIPO) and then come up with an attorney of your choice and file all forms and claims according to ACT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have a question which is context based. There are two mindsets through which to consider this question: one says disclose what you have and project what you want, and the other says provide all components of what you have and almost all possible ways to interpret things where it can be applied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the inventor is not sure what the broadest claim they can have is, they should disclose all information without limiting their interpretation and briefly outline in separate paragraphs with non-limiting objectives with all possible ways where they can be applied. Later they can have an attorney assist in finding appropriate claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all cases, if your words indicate some limiting subject matter, you will end up with a narrow claim or PaperIP. It's best to have an IP law expert as a drafter from the start.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An earlier 'Ask Patents' user has answered a similar question [Fixing a poorly written patent application that has not been published](https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/12425/11895). Also see [Which countries require a claim for using a PPA as priority date?](https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/12495/11895). You might also find these questions interesting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Provisional application drawings vs non provisional patent drawings](https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/10546/11895)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How similar does non provisional and provisional patent have to be?](https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/5393/11895)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How detailed should a provisional patent application be? (Software)](https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/3331/11895)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Should I file multiple provisional patent applications when my invention can span different sizes?](https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/12742/11895)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12945" RevisionGUID="689d2823-d8d2-4651-a564-9a59c10c19a5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am quite interested in trading card games and as a result the patent that Wizards of the Coast holds on the subject interests me. Since it's been about 20 years since the original trading card game (by Wizards of the Coast) was created, I was looking at whether the patent was still active.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I looked at [US5662332](https://www.google.nl/patents/US5662332) and [USRE37957](https://www.google.nl/patents/USRE37957). Following the guide laid out [here](https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3801/how-do-you-determine-a-patents-expiration-date) (and ignoring the reissue, since my understanding is that it does not change the term of the patent), I came to the conclusion that the patent was still valid till 17 October 2015 (20 years after 17 October 1995, which is after 8 June 1995).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Wizards recently sued Cryptozoic on the IP in question (though they are suing on Copyright, Trade dress and Patent infringement) and Cryptozoic response ran along the lines of &quot;Now that their Patent has expired, WotC is being the corporate bully&quot; (see [here](http://www.cardboardconnection.com/news/law-cards-cryptozoic-rants-wizards-coast)). This would suggest that this patent has in fact expired, contrary to my own conclusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I looked at the patent again and saw that it was under **also published as** as [CA2128634A1](https://www.google.nl/patents/CA2128634A1) and [CA2128634C](https://www.google.nl/patents/CA2128634C) (one being the application and the other the grant). I think these must be Canadian patents because of the CA prefix. A little googling showed that for Canadian patents, I should also count 20 years from filing. Since this Canadian patent has the filing date of 22 July 1994, that would mean it expired last year. This conclusion lines up neatly with the other evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: What is the status of this patent. Has it expired in Canada while still being active in the United States? In other words: if I make a product that does things lined out in this product, am I correct in stating that I *can* sell it in Canada but *cannot* sell it in the U.S.? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the Patent Cooperation Treaty factor into this at all?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12971" RevisionGUID="49ace29a-c6e1-4bdd-b056-18953bdeabaa" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="USPTO PAIR can be found at:- http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;put the patent number and select the corresponding radio button&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;review the information:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example your patent document was expired due to non payment, but its related patent application also called parent application was found to be active. therefore you should know about family patent US5946673;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier an answer has been made to know about family patents See [Find family memeber](https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/12153/11895)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/4zPdj.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13092" RevisionGUID="138fd4fe-8452-49dd-80d9-76dcb407e2ca" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Unpaid maintenance fees expire the patent I believe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2501.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Unless payment of the applicable maintenance fee is received in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on or before the date the fee is due or within a grace period of 6 months thereafter, the patent will expire as of the end of such grace period.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems either the inventor was lazy, perhaps dead, or purposely desired the idea to enter the public domain quickly whilst memorializing his contribution forever in the patent system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People, including you, are likely free to manufacture the idea described by this patent.  You might consider patenting some subtle and novel improvement.  You should also be wary of others than might have done the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see this...&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/12140/failure-to-pay-maintenance-fees&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13187" RevisionGUID="c71bc2c1-116e-4a47-bd7e-23a578d801b6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Unfortunately, the patent system is far from perfect. That's a big part of [why we're here](https://blog.stackexchange.com/2012/09/askpatents-com-a-stack-exchange-to-prevent-bad-patents).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the core of the patent examination process are people: people tasked with searching through the world's literature. In every language. From all time. It's definitely possible for things to slip through those cracks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a case like this, and this is a pretty famous example in the community, it could have been any number of things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. An examiner just couldn't find anything written that fit their bar for what was:&#xD;&#xA; * Non-obviousness: if they couldn't find documentation that proved that someone having ordinary skill in &quot;the art&quot; (which in this case may be a bit of an over-reach) couldn't have reproduced this particular method from previously known methods without undue experimentation.&#xD;&#xA; * Novelty: if they couldn't find anything that matched the claims exactly.&#xD;&#xA;2. An examiner wasn't familiar with the practice, and honestly thought it was novel. Especially if the examiner was new to a culture where this was popular, they might not have been exposed to this before.&#xD;&#xA;3. An examiner who decided to just have fun. I like to think it wasn't this one, but remember: it's just people. Someone easily could have seen that this was done as a joke, known it wouldn't hold up against anyone, and just granted it for fun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure there are resources out there that talk about this specific example and the motives, and perhaps even cause of grant, behind it, but I'd hazard the guess that it was probably filed either in gest, or as an example of the flawed system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reality, though, something like this would be thrown out *pretty quickly* once it hit the courts, in the very unlikely case that the filer behind this patent actually intended to enforce it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you find other patents or applications that fit obviousness or a lack of novelty like this, feel free to post them here on [Ask Patents](https://patents.stackexchange.com/tour) under the tag [tag:prior-art-request] so that we can help avoid some of these edge-cases where the system really does fall short." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13207" RevisionGUID="5a5f9fd1-8b05-41aa-8e7c-72d28b1f0d92" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, you may (at least for now) because the patent is only at the application phase, which means it is not yet enforceable. However, if the patent is granted, then it is retroactive to the Priority Date, which could potentially make you (your institution) liable for damages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would not expect the WIPO application to succeed in its current form because there are multiple independent claims. This usually does not pass examination for software patents at WIPO. It may, however, survive in a narrower form that uses more specific language (the current claim language is overly broad). Also note that there is a separate US application ([US 2014/0180986][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please refer to this [other answer][2] for a detailed analysis of the patent application and its potential Prior Art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is illegal to build a patented design for personal use, even in single quantity copies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, experimental use (research use) is allowed (with caveats).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Studying the invention**][3]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is always permissible to use a patented invention for research purposes. Such study may give new insights in possible uses of the invention, or possible alternatives to what is described in the patent. This might even result in new patents for the alternatives, or in workarounds.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Of course, the &quot;research&quot; should not simply be a commercial exploitation in disguise. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But make sure you also refer to [*Madey v. Duke University*][4], a case where the common law of experimental use was rejected. The criteria for rejection was that the experimental use was within the business of the university, even though it was a non-profit. As the [Wikipedia article on Madey][5] states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Madey v. Duke University, 307 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002)], the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals on October 3, 2002 effectively ended a 170-year-old practice of allowing scientists to freely borrow patented technologies for limited use in basic research that is not aimed at commercial use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The good news is that WIPO is considering extensions to private and non-commercials use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Standing Committee on the Law of Patents Twentieth Session Geneva, January 27 to 31, 2014&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [EXCEPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS TO PATENT RIGHTS: PRIVATE AND/OR NON-COMMERCIAL USE][6]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Promotion of private, creative and academic activity**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9. Some Member States highlighted the additional aspects of the policy objectives to be promoted, in particular, private and academic activity and creativity, personal and family use, research and teaching, as well as dissemination of knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There has not yet been a good test of [35 U.S.C. § 271(a)][7], in the case of private, personal or family use, but academic use is clear via the Madey v. Duke decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20140180986&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/13206/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/crashcourse/rights/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1446&amp;context=btlj&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Madey&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/patent_policy/en/scp_20/scp_20_3.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title35/html/USCODE-2011-title35-partIII-chap28-sec271.htm&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13210" RevisionGUID="bf7763ce-0213-4d2b-a687-65e9ab79cafd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="If it is not too late, and if the new claims fit into the existing background (i.e., you have all of the necessary definitions), you may be able to file a continuation patent. There is a [related question][1] that discusses this in detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/571/14417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13217" RevisionGUID="fec10c7a-d76b-462a-9a2d-9354dbf6e006" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="As noted in [an answer][1] [regarding the expiration][2] of [US 5,618,582][3], the effective expiration date of the patent was calculated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The patent application was filed on June 7, 1995 and issued on April&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8, 1997.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; US patents issuing from patent applications filed on or after June 8,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1995 have a term of 20 years from the earliest non-provisional patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application priority date. US patents issuing from patent applications&#xD;&#xA;&gt; filed prior to June 8, 1995 have a term equal to the greater of 17&#xD;&#xA;&gt; years from issuance or 20 years from the earliest non-provisional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent application priority date.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In this case, since 17 years after issuance is greater, the patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; expires on April 9, 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above reasoning is clear. However, the patent is a divisional of a continuation of a continuation-in-part of an abandoned application filed July 25, 1990:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Division of Ser. No. 254,136, Jun. 6, 1994, which is a continuation of Ser. No. 7,664, Jan. 22, 1993, abandoned, which is a continuation of PCT WO 92/02,307 filed Jul. 23, 1991, which is a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 557,104, Jul. 25, 1990, abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, this would affect the expiration date of the patent by using the earliest filing date. In this case, that would appear to be July 25, 1990, giving an expiration date of April 8, 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Legal Status are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Feb 20, 1996    AS      Assignment	&#xD;&#xA;                            Owner name: TRIMEX COMPANY, NORTH CAROLINA&#xD;&#xA;                            Effective date: 19930521&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Jun 27, 2000    FPAY    Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;                            Year of fee payment: 4&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Sep 13, 2004    FPAY    Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;                            Year of fee payment: 8&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Sep 25, 2008    FPAY    Fee payment	&#xD;&#xA;                            Year of fee payment: 12&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do the expiration date rules for divisional patents and continuations not apply to patents filed prior to June 8, 1995?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do abandoned or continuation-in-part normally have any additional effect on the calculation of an expiration date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/6137/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/5972/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5618582" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13218" RevisionGUID="d95ab56f-3518-49dc-a188-33dcfe4d6d4a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Personal communications do not qualify as Prior Art, as they are not publicly accessible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the Form 19-2 that you signed is proof of inventorship at a particular time. If you additionally have proof of the e-mail correspondence, then you may have a case against the cited inventors and original assignee of the patent, under MPEP Chapter 0600.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following rules might be of interest to you, as they might be represent viable options for pursuing legal action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MPEP Section 602 Oaths and Declarations [R-11.2013], [602.01(b) Inventor’s Oath or Declaration in Application Filed Before September 16, 2012][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **35 U.S.C. 115  (pre-AIA) Oath of applicant.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The applicant shall make oath that *he believes himself to be the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; original and first inventor* of the process, machine, manufacture, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; composition of matter, or improvement thereof, for which he solicits a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent; and shall state of what country he is a citizen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **37 C.F.R. 1.68   Declaration in lieu of oath.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Any document to be filed in the Patent and Trademark Office and which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is required by any law, rule, or other regulation to be under oath may&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be subscribed to by a written declaration. Such declaration may be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; used in lieu of the oath otherwise required, if, and only if, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; declarant is on the same document, warned that willful false&#xD;&#xA;&gt; statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; both ([18 U.S.C. 1001][2]) and may jeopardize the validity of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application or any patent issuing thereon. The declarant must set&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forth in the body of the declaration that all statements made of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; declarant's own knowledge are true and that all statements made on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information and belief are believed to be true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **35 U.S.C. 25 Declaration in lieu of oath.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Whenever such written declaration is used, the document must warn the declarant that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both ([18 U.S.C. 1001][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an [answer to an related question][4], non-confidential disclosures start a one year clock for filing. I'm not familiar with that section of the MPEP. Perhaps someone else could offer an explanation of that rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s602.html#ch600_d1ffbe_2a437_2a7&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307411&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307411&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3770/14417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13223" RevisionGUID="6ce7e1b0-47e4-4de5-895d-8f7bb558137b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Just to test the [instructions for finding contact information for inventors][1], I went through the steps and found that searching on [US 2012/0321478][2] led to the appropriate contact information, which is Hitachi, Ltd. IP Group:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    c/o Hitachi, Ltd., Intellectual Property Group&#xD;&#xA;    12th Floor, Marunouchi Center Building, 6-1&#xD;&#xA;    Marunouchi 1-chrome, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo&#xD;&#xA;    100-8220, Japan&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, it would be inappropriate to contact the inventors directly, as they would likely need to vet any information through this group anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/5351/14622&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120321478" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13224" RevisionGUID="404d378f-88c2-43cd-b966-eac2d2d47c60" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, a different combination of ingredients (possibly including a range of ingredient ratios to comprise a formula) and a specific application are enough to ensure novelty. You will want to cite this patent in your own application in order to make the examiner aware that you are attempting to create a different product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a [similar case][1] where a patent was issued based on a novel ratio of ingredients, with prior art (existing patents) covering the same application using each of the individual ingredients.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/13213/14417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13250" RevisionGUID="9989ae74-0736-489b-ae99-0a68a6aeab1b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Independent claims can be extremely long. Refer to the patent for the game &quot;[4 Square in the Air][1]&quot;, which contains a number of sub-clauses that describe the set-up of a playing field, apparatus and some rules of the game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more specific an Independent Claim is, the more likely it is to pass examination on the first pass. However, providing claims that are too narrow are likely to lead to extremely weak protection over your invention, as shown in the above post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically, you want to write claims with as broad coverage as possible (i.e., as broadly as would be non-obvious and novel) in the initial application, and use Office Actions (expensive but useful) as a fallback to narrow the scope of claims do not pass examination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use the independent claims for the purpose they were intended: broad coverage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use the dependent claims to add specific refinements and alternative implementations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/1994/14417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13298" RevisionGUID="494b5684-42fe-41ff-8f47-754754034a96" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="In reference to the patents: [US8159357][1] and its citation [US7439887][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patents seemingly have nothing to do with one another, yet the patent examiner added the citation US7439887 (GIF decompression) __to__ US8159357 (Means for prospecting water on heavenly bodies)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, do examiners sometimes 'mess up'? Would this be one of those cases or is there some subtext I do not see? How similar do patents have to be for an examiner to add it as a citation? What is the process in which examiners add citations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the following response from a [different question][3] I gather Google uses OCR to categorize the patents- as such this might not be so much an examiner error such as a software error, [although it really doesn't look like it][4]. However, I would still like to know about human error among examiners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8159357&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7439887&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/12392/how-do-you-correct-errors-in-google-patents&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US8159357.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13393" RevisionGUID="defa2ab3-0344-4d7a-989b-56f03fc0d624" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is a question that has been raised about the patent system many times. Attempts to patent inventions based on pseudo-science are as old as the patent system itself. Just have a look through the [USPTO Perpetual Motion Machine Collection][1], and you will see that the USPTO is familiar with these attempts and has an institutional memory on how to address them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO has to walk a fine line, and they are able to do that based on a set of examination rules that have been refined over the years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just imagine if the USPTO had adopted an extremely conservative view of what constitutes real science, resulting in the rejection of *all* aircraft, spacecraft and nuclear fission patents in the early 1900’s because they were considered to be in the realm of pseudo-science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, the examiners actually do a pretty reasonable job at rejecting claims based on pseudo-science, as demonstrated in this [examiner’s response][2] to a patent on a time machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case that you mention, there was actually a grant issued ([US 8,058,483][3]). Now compare the claims in that grant to those in the application(s). You will find that in order to obtain a grant from this application, the examiner required the inventor to limit his claims to something physical that can be reproduced, and the resulting claims are very narrowly defined. To paraphrase an [answer][4] to a different question, “industrial applicability is not a requirement under U.S. patent law”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO is mandated to provide all filings to the public, which they provide through their [Public Pair][5] database ([MPEP 103][6], *Right of Public To Inspect Patent Files and Some Application Files*). If you look at the Image File Wrapper for that patent, you will likely find some interesting back-and-forth discussions between the examiner and the inventor that illustrate how the examination rules are applied in these cases. I’d like to highlight this as a counter-point to your statement about the pollution of innovation by hoaxes. Hoaxes are going to happen no matter what, and at least in the case of patents there is public discourse available as part of the permanent record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as an application or issued grant lending credibility to shady businesses, that may be true to some extent, but policing business practices is well beyond the scope of the USPTO, which receives its mandate from Congress ([United States Code, Title 35][7]) as authorized by [Article I, Section 8][8] of the [U.S. Constitution][9]. As a corollary, consider the inability of the U.S. Postal Service to regulate junk mail, a shady business practice that is outside of their mandate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc074/sched074.htm#C074SDIG009&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/13313/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8058483&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/10619/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s103.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title35/pdf/USCODE-2011-title35.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://copyright.gov/title17/92preface.html&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-110hdoc50/pdf/CDOC-110hdoc50.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13585" RevisionGUID="e0766ddd-5f1a-4ee0-9cea-b649b528292a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Background:**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Let's look at a simplified example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent Claim #1:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;A system for 'some function X' comprising:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a sending device...&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a receiving device...*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;If a new product provides the function of the sending device but not the receiving device (or vice versa), does the new product infringe on the patented product? Moreover, if the new product only works with the patented receiving device being built and sold by the patent holder, does the new product infringe on the patented product? Lastly, if the new product which can provide the function of the sending device, does so as a free *value-added feature* and is not the main function of the new product, does the new product infringe on the patented product? Or does that even matter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this new product be covered under the &quot;exhaustion doctrine&quot; or &quot;first-sale doctrine&quot; since it requires the purchase of the patented product to complete the &quot;sending &amp; receiving system&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the new product only contributes the functionality of one element of the claim and the patented product the other element of the claim, does the claim still &quot;read on&quot; the new product? Or does the &quot;doctrine of equivalents&quot; apply here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Related Questions:**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5422/when-does-a-patent-prohibit-the-use-of-a-patented-product-in-another-product&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/4655/claim-with-three-elements-are-products-infringing-if-they-contain-any-of-the-e" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13592" RevisionGUID="79071811-6ff1-496a-aa33-f4983497b433" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="From [Public Pair][1] you can find that the inventor is identified as &quot;John J. Bartucco , Meeker, CO (US)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a corresponding [whitepages search result][2] and [google results][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please also see earlier [question][4] indicated by [Pushpack][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More over, not sure it is worth trying to buy it... [USPTO][6] [Public PAIR][1] indicates that its status is &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot;. In Final Rejection examiner indicates that the content of the patent application is unpatentable over [CA2164917][7] in view of [US4456947][8] - there is not enough novelty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.whitepages.com/name/John-J-Bartucco/Meeker-CO&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://bit.ly/1UQKUqe&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5059/how-can-i-contact-the-owner-of-a-patent&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/users/11895/pushpak&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.uspto.gov/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.google.com/patents/CA2164917A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.google.com/patents/US4456947" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46310" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13954" RevisionGUID="04c7284b-3da6-4c30-8891-3c546118dfbf" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="There have been several recent questions in the form of “My [family member] was granted patent [x]. How can I claim it?”. So far, these patents have all been long since expired or assigned to companies, not individuals, and so the possibility of getting them revived or reassigned was not even an option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll provide a few of those questions here for reference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/13947/is-us-4-915-276-a-still-owned-by-ermin-devito&#xD;&#xA; - https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/13452/my-grandfathers-patent-expired/13453#13453&#xD;&#xA; - https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/13408/information-regarding-my-father-s-invention/13409#13409&#xD;&#xA; - https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5249/my-grandfathers-patent-d94036&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now, this has me wondering about the case where a patent is currently enforceable. I feel that my own answers to the above questions are not fully satisfactory for those asking the question. I hope that asking the following questions directly will provide the missing piece:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is inheritance of a patent (assigned to an individual) possible?&#xD;&#xA; - What part of the U.S. legal Code covers the inheritance of a patent?&#xD;&#xA; - Would patent inheritance need to be recorded as a re-assignment by the USPTO?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A satisfactory answer to this question would include references to the legal code, and any publicly available resources that could serve as starting points for someone who finds themselves in the above situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46311" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14142" RevisionGUID="637c25c4-de50-4c64-8512-a12f8fa054b0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Google is the clearing house for USPTO XML, via their [Bulk Downloads][1] site. The [Grant Full Text][2] is probably what you're looking for. The only company (that I am aware of) that currently offers full text XML on a per-patent basis via an API is Fairview Research (paid service with non-redistribution of XML source), and they are also the source of the [Public Pair][3] (legal events/status) data for Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as the reasons why there is no public API available, it is easier to paint a picture based on the historical patent services. EDS, IBM, MicroPatent and now Google have all had (at some point) free USPTO patent text available, but not in a way as to have a useful free API available. Historically, the trend is to eventually monetize, spin off, or retire the services:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [IBM Patent Server][4] -&gt; [Delphion][5] -&gt; [Thomson Reuters (Delphion)][6] -&gt; decommissioned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [MicroPatent][7] -&gt; [Thomson Reuters (Aureka)][6] -&gt; [Thomson Innovation][8] -&gt; recent sale?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Derwent World Patents (commercial) -&gt; [Thomson Reuters (Derwent)][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [EDS Shadow Patent Office][10] -&gt; HP -&gt; decommissioned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Google Patents][11] -&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact is, it costs a lot of money to maintain these services ([even the USPTO has budget-related maintenance issues][12]), and it is no secret that Google has non-altruistic motives for the USPTO partnership ([Jun 2010][13], [May 2011][14], [Aug 2012][15], [Sep 2012][16], [Nov 2013][17], [Oct 2014][18], [Feb 2015][19], [May 2015][20], [Jun 2015][21]). There used to be a Google Patents &quot;[Developer API][22]&quot; but it was limited to integration of Google Patent content into a web site and was deprecated in 2011 (exactly 12 months after they obtained the USPTO hosting deal) - I'm not sure, but that may be what the Ask Patents sidebar is based on; you may be able to extract some amount of metadata from that service. This paragraph may seem overly cynical, but this is the story I have seen unfold over the last few years, and this is why I am not holding my breath for a developer-friendly API from Google. My interpretation of the above trend is that they have no interest in making it easy for third-party developers, but you're welcome to draw your own conclusions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, before the Google-USPTO arrangement, the XML had to be [purchased][23] and distributed via tape/CD/ftp (again, in bulk form) from the USPTO, but it was cost-prohibitive (about $12,000/year IIRC), so it was fairly common practice for developers ([including those at Google][12]) to resort to screen-scraping their broken HTML and normalizing to XML or other structured formats (non-trivial) - this often crippled the USPTO servers. With the bulk downloads freely available, the situation is much better than it was a few years ago (as least there is a free &quot;nearly Open&quot; path to the XML), however you will still need to download the huge ZIP files, extract/parse, etc. It is possible to write a wrapper around the site to perform this; of course with the corresponding penalties of bandwidth and drive space it does not lend itself to an interactive experience for an end-user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe you already have the optimal *free* solution worked out, and this is the approach I have taken with several of my own projects. However, under the right circumstances you might also consider the API from Fairview if you need current legal events and one-off XML retrievals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also note the following resources, which provide the schemas and descriptions of the XML available from the USPTO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [XML Resources][24]&#xD;&#xA; - [Issued Patents (Patent Grants) Data Products][25]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to 1976, only the patent metadata is available in a structured form. Everything before that relies on uncorrected OCR scans, and coverage is very spotty. It is a dark area for patent text. Also, the XML for applications is only available from 2001 forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might have some luck with the [European Patent Office][26] [Open Patent Services][27], which does provide download access (maximum volume of 2.5 GB per week free-of-charge). However, I've found their APIs to be somewhat unreliable and slow, and they discontinued several of the services I was using in 2014. I ditched OPS out of frustration (would have required a complete re-write of my code), but maybe its time to reconsider it. YMMV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I want to note a common misconception in patent identifiers as they relate to individual documents. The number you mention ('8978162') is indeed the patent number, but a full unique identifier for the document also comprises the patent authority ('US' in this case) and the *kind code* (the document type), ('B2' in this case, which indicates a Patent Grant). The codes have changed several times in the past (older grants have a kind code of 'A' and new applications have a kind code of 'A1'). Therefore, to uniquely identify a document, the full identifier for the document should take a form like 'US-8978162-B2'. This will save you from refactoring, re-indexing and link construction headaches the first time you need to work with a different type of publication (e.g., application, re-issue, correction, design, plant) or patent authority (e.g., EP, CA, AU). Also refer to this [write-up on patent families][28] and an example of how the [Kind Code][29] is used to differentiate related documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related resources (I will add to this as I find them):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Python module for searching patent databases, ie USPTO or EPO][30]&#xD;&#xA; - [Obtaining Patent Data: Patent Databases][31]&#xD;&#xA; - [Alternatives of Thomson Innovation Patent Database][32]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto-patents-grants-text.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.patents.ibm.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.delphion.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://ip.thomsonreuters.com/maketheswitch&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.micropat.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://info.thomsoninnovation.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://thomsonreuters.com/en/products-services/intellectual-property/patent-research-and-analysis/derwent-world-patents-index.html&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.spo.eds.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://patents.google.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/12/28/uspto-catastrophic-failure-electronic-patent-and-trademark-systems/id=64200/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-teams-google-provide-bulk-patent-and-trademark-data-public&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://www.infoq.com/news/2011/05/deprecated-google-apis&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.cnet.com/news/google-time-to-ditch-our-current-software-patent-system/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://www.droid-life.com/2012/09/12/google-vp-we-werent-investing-in-the-patent-ecosystem-like-we-should-have-been/&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/12/11/michelle-lee-named-uspto-deputy-director-will-serve-as-acting-director/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/10/16/obama-nominates-former-google-exec-to-lead-u-s-patent-office/&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/5/patent-law-reform-bill-to-stop-trolls-could-stifle/?page=all&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/05/03/google-collects-patents-while-lobbying-against-them/id=57302/&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/243943-patent-legislation-will-destroy-inventive-small-businesses&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://developers.google.com/patent-search/?hl=en&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/ab39.html&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/xml-resources&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/electronic-data-products/issued-patents-patent-grants-data-products&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://www.epo.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://www.epo.org/searching/free/ops.html&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/10617/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/13267/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: http://stackoverflow.com/a/20133916/2074605&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: http://poldham.github.io/Patent-Databases/&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: http://wiki.piug.org/display/PIUG/Alternatives+of+Thomson+Innovation+Patent+Database" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14172" RevisionGUID="d8bc9eb4-c957-4f8d-b87c-164e6bc37d2c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Since the AIA went into effect, you may submit prior art online at the USPTO via a [3rd party submission][1] (refer to [this answer][2]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [MPEP 1134][3] Third Party Inquiries and Correspondence in a Published Application&#xD;&#xA; - [MPEP 2205][4] Content of Prior Art or Section 301 Written Statements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [another related question][5]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The AIA 3rd party submission process window opens at publication and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; closes six months later or at first action on the merits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/third-party-preissuance-submissions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/6409/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1134.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2205.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/5656/14417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14414" RevisionGUID="1441bb3f-4e48-49c4-8eb9-280a33ddcc8d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Different forms of intellectual property have different legal protections. In very simplified language, they break down like so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Copyright][1]: automatic upon creation, no registration required to be able to claim infringement&#xD;&#xA;* [Trademark][2]: arises out of regular usage, but a registered trademark affords additional rights&#xD;&#xA;* [Patent][3]: only enforceable after being granted by a recognized body (a patent office)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words the very definition of a patent requires it be issued by the USPTO (or an equivalent legally recognized body in another jurisdiction). While no one would stop you from operating a private &quot;patent office&quot;, a court of law would not consider the &quot;patents&quot; issued by that office in infringement proceedings, rendering such a &quot;patent&quot; useless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The USPTO solely examines and then documents patents to save for a later date if someone infringes on your intellectual property, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, the USPTO does more than simply examine and document. They have the authority to grant or reject patent applications, and therefore decide what patents are issued. It isn't enough to simply apply for a patent; you must also be *granted* the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it doesn't make sense for a private entity to grant patents, it does make sense for inventions to be registered elsewhere than the USPTO. There are a number of services ([including this site][4]) which maintain data about inventions, patents, applications, and prior art in order to ensure the USPTO does not grant patents erroneously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Obtaining_and_enforcing_copyright&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Fundamental_concepts&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_application&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14457" RevisionGUID="c1541c75-1197-48bc-8036-d4ecf793164e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="No, bacteria as such can't be patented.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;It is true that this application (you mention the appl. no.) is now patented e. g. in Europe and the patent specification will be published there under the publication no.: EP2763685 B1&#xA;&#xA;The last action was:20.01.2016 ANNOUNCEMENT OF INTENTION TO GRANT&#xA;&#xA;You find the text proposed for grant here:&#xA;https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP12775538&amp;lng=en&amp;tab=doclist&#xA;&#xA;The patent will however cover only products with the bacteria and methods using it or for producing the products. **The bacteria as such** are not claimed. &#xA;&#xA;Pure discoveries are not seen as inventions and are therefore not patentable subject-matter, bacteria will be seen as a discovery. E. g. in Europe regulated by Article 52 (2)(a):&#xA;&gt; &quot;(2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; (a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods&quot;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/ar52.html&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;However this is valid only for the mentioned things, like discoveries, **as such**. See therefore Article 52 (3):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; &quot;(3) **Paragraph 2 shall exclude the patentability** of the subject-matter or activities referred to therein **only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such**&quot;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;For more details for other countries or regions and their patent law see here:&#xA;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentable_subject_matter&#xA;&#xA;Another related question can be found here:&#xA;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/13381/can-you-patent-an-existing-bacteria-without-any-modifications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14466" RevisionGUID="15aeba7b-4b3c-4e25-b9a0-9bf50e0f4813" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree with [zip's answer](https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/14463/15503) on the whole, and I would probably take the approach they recommend. However, it occurred to me that you asked if there was **any** benefit to omitting the patent number. Which I think the answer is yes, for two reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Speed and cost of prosecution**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your patent agent is probably right, in that mentioning a specific document in your application will cause the examiner to consider it. Even if the examiner doesn't cite it directly, the document may lead the examiner towards a tranche of related documents (by the same authors, for example) which might have otherwise remained unfound. Some of these might then be cited against your invention, and may prevent you getting a granted patent, or at least delay prosecution (and increase costs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory, you would want a patent to be actually novel and non-obvious over any given prior art. However, in practice, sometimes you just want a granted patent as cheaply as possible. Because even an invalid granted patent has value (in that it can deter competitors). So avoiding the reference to a patent can speed up prosecution and reduce prosecution cost, at the risk of having less knowledge about the patent's validity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Notice**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some territories (such as the US), damages for patent infringement are linked to whether the infringer knows about the patent. It can therefore be beneficial to disclaim any knowledge of a patent if there is any potential infringement. If you have a patent application which expressly refers to that patent, it would be quite difficult to argue that you didn't know about that patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14558" RevisionGUID="a2afeb6f-4570-474f-bbb8-cf87996102c6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="The answer is:&#xA;Continuing applications die 20 years after their parents application date:&#xA;So it is 7th November 2026.&#xA;&#xA;See here for more details:&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/10754/16118" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14563" RevisionGUID="306da95a-da25-4ba4-a59c-3d92a1ffbe1b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="I can see a few issues which I will briefly discuss, though this is more of a long comment rather than an answer. This is very much a case where a patent attorney or lawyer should get involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Who owns the invention?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have an explicit agreement about ownership with the company, which should make this clear. Without seeing the agreement, I can only speculate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that's what I'll do. I would expect that you have already agreed that the company owns the rights to the inventions. In that case, it is really up to them whether and how they wish to patent it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can you be added as an inventor?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. You cannot assign away your right to be named as an inventor. However, just being named as the inventor doesn't really give you any rights, it just lets you see your name on the document. See [this question](https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/14037/i-was-not-named-on-this-patent-and-i-was-the-primary-inventor-can-i-be-added/) and the answers for details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is to become of your patent applications?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you have agreed that the company owns the invention, you probably did not have the right to file your own patent applications for it. In any case, if you failed to file a non-provisional after a year, you have probably lost your rights anyway, so it's a moot point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14657" RevisionGUID="93293886-1ef7-4c0a-8ec5-bfe132dce2e3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here it is stated that due to recent rule changes at the USPTO, patents may now be revived even after a two year period: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5766/is-an-expired-patent-in-the-public-domain#comment5451_5768&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; George - just for edification, they recently changed the rule to get&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rid of the two-year limit. See Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-211, 126 Stat. 1527; see also 35 U.S.C. §&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 41(c)(1). 35 U.S.C. § 27; and 37 C.F.R. 1.137. There's a good summary&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of this at clm.com/publication.cfm?ID=489. – HTH Aug 12 '14 at 17:22&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They link to this summary:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.clm.com/publication.cfm?ID=489&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Recent changes to Title 35 of the U.S. Code effected by the Patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-211, 126&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Stat. 1527, eliminate the unavoidable standard and remove the 24-month&#xD;&#xA;&gt; time limit to reinstate an unintentionally abandoned patent. Now, any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent which has expired for failure to pay a maintenance fee can be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; revived, at any time, upon a statement that the delay in paying the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maintenance fee was unintentional. 35 U.S.C. § 41(c)(1). Similarly,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; any patent application that has gone abandoned for an unintentional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; failure to file a timely response can be revived at any time. 35&#xD;&#xA;&gt; U.S.C. § 27; 37 C.F.R. 1.137.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?  Ideas?  Is there any case law regarding this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14845" RevisionGUID="a6a39742-c5ba-4d6c-a0a6-d0ada4c4ed54" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="The link in your question *is* the granted patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see on the box at the right of the Google Patents page that its Publication Type is &quot;Grant,&quot; meaning it's a patent and no longer an application, and that its Publication date was July 15, 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Status box from Google Patents][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I can't speak to the licensing that its assignee has in place, if any, and I don't know whether they're still alive (although having filed this in 2014, it wouldn't surprise me).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest checking out https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/5059/10011 for information about finding the owner. Contacting them would be your best bet to work out a licensing arrangement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/KzqPW.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14863" RevisionGUID="c27588e0-0c87-4371-ae0a-0882a9cc3d8e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, you can submit Videos (Whether from Youtube or other platforms), voice, and even images as prior art for an invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As [@patentico][1] mentioned that providing the hard copy of a video is a bad idea as you may face difficulties in providing publication date of that video. You may need to collect evidence of original publication date of the same. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, a video will be considered prior art even if the source of that video and patent are same (if the time frame between the publication date of video and filing date of the patent is more than a considerable time provided by local IP laws). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As your request, I have found one infamous patent case of Apple where their patent was invalidated by using a video as Prior art. The interesting fact about that case is, the video considered as prior art was Apple's own keynote video on iPhone release presented by Steve Jobs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Iphone's [Rubber-banding effect patent][2] was invalidated in Germany after Google submitted Steve Jobs' presented keynote video as prior art. The court even rejected various amended claims by Apple. Only 3 out of 20 claims were granted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While searching for cases, I found an article with 4 such patent disputes where visual content was considered as prior art (including the above case I mentioned). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not just a YouTube video but, a comic, picture, or even Movie can be used a prior art as long as you're able to provide strong relation with the invention and publication date of the same. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the other 3 patent cases including one where a movie from 1968 was considered as prior art for Apple's iPad design. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[4 cases where examiner found ridiculously awesome prior art.][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/212/15787&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&amp;date=20100929&amp;DB=EPODOC&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;CC=EP&amp;NR=2059868B1&amp;KC=B1&amp;ND=4&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.greyb.com/4-cases-examiner-found-ridiculously-awesome-prior-art/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16053" RevisionGUID="1b7377c6-ce6b-431e-8d63-ca117e93110c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've noticed that patent applications go through pains to describe widely understood concepts such as what is a computer or a mobile device. For instance this patent by Apple [US 20150042819 A1][1] devotes 8 paragraphs to just explain what a smartphone is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My patent also requires a mobile device for an embodiment, so can I just lift the description out of another patent maybe with small changes do adjust for the required hardware capability or do I have to write my own risking that I'm missing some finer points of how this should be done?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, I'm aware of [this][2] question, but I'm not exactly meaning boilerplate text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PTXT&amp;s1=9,380,225&amp;OS=9,380,225&amp;RS=9,380,225&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3952/can-i-copy-texts-from-other-applications-into-my-application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16058" RevisionGUID="b3f0e4fb-6a74-4fa5-b1dd-fe89110d2be0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="To prevent yourself from being sued, you need to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. find out what patents cover the invention&#xD;&#xA;2. check if those patents are still valid&#xD;&#xA;3. read the patent claims to determine if your application includes &quot;all&quot; elements written in the claims.&#xD;&#xA;4. try to work around the patents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You shouldn't discuss your invention without at least filing a [provisional patent application][1]. You can file a provisional patent application yourself. After the filing, you have 12 month to discuss with potential client and decide if it's worthwhile to file a formal, non-provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, nobody can guarantee you any loyalty. Even if yo get a laywer, s/he won't make such guarantee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/provisional-application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16767" RevisionGUID="4e2124bf-2fd1-42b0-bc2b-b0576bc29824" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="You may reword your question to make a [prior art request][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most all inventions that field utility patents have prior art listed.  If the prior art is too similar to the claims those certain claims will not be allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the application does not list these prior art instances then the applicant has not completed due diligence on their invention by not doing a proper prior art search. The examiner may find the prior art as you noted on his/her own.  If the application has been docketed to an examiner now would be the time to inform.  You can use the [Public Pair][2] to check the status.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17052" RevisionGUID="47e636be-888f-4fec-b1de-3a62e1f1a80a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="A thorough patent search is something even professionals need hrs for. The problem is that there might be many patents in that general direction. To do a complete search one needs the exact specifications of the invention (don't post them, that would destroy novelty and therefore patentability).&#xA;And even professionals will never promise that they found everything.&#xA;This question provides a good starting point: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/21/18033&#xA;Try different search terms. The claims of a patent describes its literal protection scope, the description helps with understanding them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17066" RevisionGUID="dd9d72cb-063d-45e1-b20b-8de7adee02c6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Fresnel lenses date back to the 1700's. I doubt anyone &quot;owns&quot; the basic idea at this point. This is not to say that people don't have patents on novel configurations or methods of constructing fresnel lenses or the use of a fresnel lens in another device. If you are interested in those, you can perform a patent search. Here is a [link][1] to an earlier answer where I describe my process of patent searching. A quick search on [The Lens][2] resulted in 24,157 granted patents 1480 of which have been published in the last 20 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17010/any-other-patents-involving-baseball-caps-for-pigtails&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/search?types=Granted%20Patent&amp;l=en&amp;st=true&amp;q=fresnel%20lens&amp;p=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17149" RevisionGUID="f4beacdc-6323-4836-8913-4a57bcfc3b57" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="## Application ##&#xD;&#xA;The life cycle of a patent starts with the application. The inventor files this application with a patent office, for example the USPTO (US Patent and Trademark Office). &#xD;&#xA;This grants them the right to say &quot;patent pending&quot;, but no enforceable protection rights. Everyone can file a patent application, containing basically everything (apart from obviously illegal texts submitted as patent applications, insults maybe or applications that don't meet the formal requirements as to how a patent application has to be submitted).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A recent patent application gets an publication number that starts with a country code (US, EP, ...), followed by a year (e.g. 2007) and a number. (Note: This is true for the US and Europe and many other countries, but may not be true for all countries, keep reading). This is the number you normaly find for applications when looking on the internet. If you somehow got the application number and can't find it on google, try the &quot;Public Pair&quot; (http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair) for US applications or the national patent office (or espacenet for Europe) for other applications to find the publication number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A recent patent application publication is followed by the 'kind code' A or A1 or A2 or ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent kind codes and publication numbers have changed in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only because a patent has been published as an application (not every patent is), this does not mean it hasn't been granted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Grant ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the application there may (or may not!) come the grant of the patent. This means that the claims in the new publication of the granted patent are enforceable rights. Infringing them can get you in legal trouble. Those claims are regularly not the same as those in the application. It is normal to include very braod claims in the application and then iteratively narrow them during the examination. For the patent (application) holder this has the advantage that third parties don't yet know what the final claims will be, so they have to fear them, if they are broad at the beginning. A thorough analysis can get you a hint at how much might be patentable, but in the end, if you infringe the claims of an application and that part stays in the granted claims, you are liable for the time were the patent was an application too.       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is indicated by a new patent number (they are awarded counting up, recent grants in the US start with a 9) and a 'B' kind code. **The application number does not disappear and can still be found! **&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How to tell what it is ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google patents shows a summary on the right of the page where you can find other numbers the patent document has been published as. If you find a granted patent number there, the patent has been granted. Click on it to find the date of grant. If there is non, you should make sure google is not mistaken. Click on the espacenet link and check for the &quot;published as&quot; links there again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And thats it. It is that simple. However ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The thing with the fees and ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not every granted patent still is enforceable. If the fees aren't paid or the patent is invalidated, the rights vanish. &#xD;&#xA;And nowadays the normal patent term is 20 yrs. (https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/17059/18033 this answer provides a way to figure out if the patent has lapsed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## In which countries and are there associated patents? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From google patents click on the espacenet link and then on family members. Those are the associated patents. They have a country code (and it says the country if you click on it). Only countries with a granted patent in it are part of the protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;European and PCT (international) patent applications have a national phase where they enter the designated countries, European patents enter when granted, PCT applications never get granted on the international level, they enter national phase as applications. So if you cannot find a national patent for the PCT application, it has no protection in that country (or you failed). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Countries for a European granted patent can be looked up on the legals tab of espacenet. This however relies on data from the national patent offices, so if in doud, search for the national counterpart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## An example ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US20100289665?hl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Number:&#xD;&#xA;US20100289665 A1 &#xD;&#xA;This is an application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google shows us:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US8531308?hl=en&#xD;&#xA;(The granted version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&amp;NR=2010289665A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Espacenet link)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Family members:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?CC=US&amp;NR=2010289665A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=20101118&amp;DB=&amp;locale=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Itself and the PCT application (WO....))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We see, at this moment, this patent is only enforceable in the US." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17195" RevisionGUID="f0263eae-b8e9-4afd-a84c-2bb65f5ae642" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="You can try to contact the owner of the patent (see https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5059/how-can-i-contact-the-owner-of-a-patent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in general, no, a patent can be traced back to the owner, but not to any product directly, so you can try to research that owner or the owners company maybe, other than that, there is no way to know from a patent view. Of course, you can try to find the invention via google. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17210" RevisionGUID="f3af6e74-107c-4b57-a5ec-832384d43163" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is a patent application, not a patent. Thus it isn't yet enforceable. Even if it does become a patent, it is likely the claims would be modified. If you look this application up in the [US Public Pair][1] website, you can find out that it seems to be abandoned. Thus, it seems unlikely to become a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [question and answer][2] provides more general guidance on researching a patents status so I recommend you review it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17115/is-this-patent-valid-granted-which-countries-does-it-cover-are-there-family-m" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17220" RevisionGUID="b21b8666-340c-4648-89b0-25472a8c70f1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="The second answer to [this question][1] suggest [patents.google.com][2] as the best way to search for reexamined patents. However, if I search for the classification 'F25B' and 'reexamination', the results haven't actually been reexamined, they just have the word in the text. Is there a better way to search for reexamined patents by classification?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/4893/how-does-one-know-if-a-patent-was-reexamined/4899#4899&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.google.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17241" RevisionGUID="e8385aef-200e-45de-8034-927ac79d231a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="The cited document is a patent application. It may or may not become a patent. Even if it does become a patent, its claims may be narrowed or changed based on prior art. It is also important to understand that there may be multiple patentable technologies that address the same field. I'm not in a position to assess the patentability of the application. You may want to review this [question][1] to better understand the patent process. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think you have relevant prior art and want to make the European patent office aware of this, there are two procedures, [one prior][2] to grant and one [within 9 months][3] of grant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your last question, to infringe a patent, you must implement every step of at least one claim. It is unlikely that someone using a technology for 15 years prior to a patent being filed will be sued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17115/is-this-patent-valid-granted-which-countries-does-it-cover-are-there-family-m&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar115.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/apv.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17249" RevisionGUID="df1b6ef2-f561-45fc-ae38-51427631fcf1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Read this answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/17059/18033 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to find out how long the patent is valid. If you have questions about the status of the patent, go here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/17115/18033.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those linked questions and answers provide you with a way to find out. To check if what you find our is right: it's not valid anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17254" RevisionGUID="c2443c2c-290e-4cc2-bd48-94e395c8dfd0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="The cited Microsoft document is a patent application, not yet a patent. Applications are often written with broad claims that get narrowed as the patent is prosecuted. You should review this question and answer to understand better the patent process: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17115/is-this-patent-valid-granted-which-countries-does-it-cover-are-there-family-m.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are worried about this application, then you could post the question as a request for prior art and community members would help you find such." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17318" RevisionGUID="75079162-da2d-4a0e-b273-bac02980daf2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="You forgot a question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Can I protect both inventions in one patent?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer to this question will answer a big chunk fo the rest too. The concept in question is called *unity of invention*. It exists in the PCT and the US and Europe and most other countries and it more or less says *Two independent claims may only be granted in one patent if the underlying invention is the same*. Normally this leads to the problem that the underlying invention has to be claimed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case that means that C1 and C2 as a combination would be the underlying invention. So one of your independent claims should be *C1 + C2*.&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have that claim, chances are the examiner will say you are missing unity of invention and you'll have to decide to go for either C1 or C2 and file another patent application for the other one claiming priority (continuation, divisional, ...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question isn't exactly &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;will C1 and C2 be regarded as a single method or two methods in this invention&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as this can only be answered for the exact case and the correct answer will be determined (and defined) by the examiner. But if they are not, you will not get a patent containing both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Also, what if I want to protect both C1 and C2. Should I write C1 in independent claim 1 and C2 in independent claim 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As is obvious from my explanations above, both should be contained in one claim to make sure the unity of invention is accepted. But of course you want to protect C1 and C2 independently. As long as the examiner thinks it is one invention, there is no problem with claiming C1 and C2 in separate independent claims too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leads you to having at least 3 independent claims, C1 + C2, C1 and C2. Leaving out the first might result in having to file another application, leaving out the second or third will result in narrowed protection. If you claim only C1 + C2, everyone is free to implement only C1 or C2. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a discussion on how many separate but *united* inventions an application can have see https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/17323/18033 ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17320" RevisionGUID="086275b1-9b51-4997-a3f9-e78e83c79175" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="In a software invention, if you describe two or more aspects of the invention. Are those aspects referred to as methods or they are defined as the method of the invention which cannot be divided. Referring to my [previous client/server abstract invention][1]. Where both the client and server are part of the invention. Can the client be described as method and the server be described as another method? Or must I describe them as a single method then say they are two components. I guess what I am asking is, are methods divided or single in an invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/17308/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17321" RevisionGUID="543e0c81-aac4-415f-a729-b331d31b8c81" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am trying to find out how/where I can download large amount of patent application data. I'm particularly interested in readable data e.g. XML rather than PDF files which can be processed by machines. I've seen [this question](https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/14449/where-to-do-download-patents-data) but it's linking to US patent data whereas I'd be interested to get data from the European Patent Office (EPO).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since one can object a patent application if it collides with one of his or her own I hope there is an easy way to download large amounts of patents from a particular category/group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for any help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17444" RevisionGUID="680fc3f2-d8d2-4b33-9a73-0bf1a9415da1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="chempatents1981's answer is excellent and should be accepted. That said, I'd like to provide an alternative viewpoint. I am an inventor, not a patent lawyer. As such I don't have a specific financial interest in recommending using a patent lawyer rather than writing your own submission. Patent attorneys first need to get a degree in a technical field. All that I've worked with have followed that up with a advanced degree in science, math or engineering even before going to law school. You aren't going to match that background taking on-line courses. Drafting a patent application is only the first step in obtaining a patent. Nearly all my applications have had office actions and rejections that needed to be dealt with. This is a negotiation. An attorney understands this process and the very specific language necessary to convince an examiner of the worthiness of your patent. I can't imagine doing this on my own, and I have more than 80 patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there are steps you can do that will make working with an attorney most efficient and thus less expensive. First you can try to perform your own prior art search. This [answer][1] describes my general approach. You are bound to find some patents that are related to your invention. Those can be useful as examples of what your patent may end up like. Next, you'll need to educate the patent attorney on the field of your invention and how your invention is novel and useful. Some of those related patents can provide useful text for the background information. Trying to write all this down in an informal &quot;disclosure&quot; that looks like a patent is a useful exercise that will speed this transfer of knowledge to the attorney. Don't bother trying to write claims, that is really an attorney's task. Remember, when using lawyers, time is literally money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17010/any-other-patents-involving-baseball-caps-for-pigtails/17011#17011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17587" RevisionGUID="90206b87-bc78-4ad3-a311-de20e15fa785" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="While working for a major US company headquartered in California (but registered in Delaware), I was the named first inventor of a patent application. I quit the company in 2014 to pursue a full time PhD outside the US (present status).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, I learnt that the patent application was successful and notice of allowance was mailed out by USPTO on Jan 17, 2017. There is a non-negotiable 3 month deadline to pay the issue fees of $960, i.e on or before April 16, 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, due to their present business strategy, my ex-employer decided not to go ahead with this application, and instead chose to abandon this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite contacting the company and offering to pay the issue fees myself, the company flatly declined this opportunity. They also refused to reassign the patent back to the inventors (me and my manager, who is currently with the company).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, my chance to take forward the application has been blocked by my employer and there is no reasonable chance of getting the patent granted for this invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the [original question][1] that I posted here, I was suggested to look whether the employer is obligated to give a reasonable chance to the inventor to take it forward in their personal capacity before abandoning. Apparently, some states have this provision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering if either the states of CA or DE have this provision. Which one should I consult? Where can I find an official online resource about this? I currently study full time PhD outside the US and I am not a US citizen or resident alien.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/17569/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17596" RevisionGUID="0fda60b2-030e-43bd-962a-8af9081c3243" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:32.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/" Text="Performing a patent search is something you can do for yourself for free. This [answer describes my process][1]. Searching with the terms &quot;oversize golf grip&quot; on The Lens resulted in [428 granted US patents][2] dating back to 1977. Please understand that obtaining a patent takes time, typically three or more years. If you saw a product that looked like your idea less than three years later, it is very possible that someone else thought of it first. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The majority of patents don't make it to the market, so the fact that you hadn't seen a similar product doesn't mean there wasn't already an existing patent. If you could link us to the product in question, we may be able to find out what the relevant patents are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17010/any-other-patents-involving-baseball-caps-for-pigtails/17011#17011&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/search?q=oversize+golf+grip&amp;predicate=%26%26&amp;j=US&amp;types=Granted+Patent&amp;l=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46341" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14315" RevisionGUID="d96836c6-9083-4775-b995-84ba3c260368" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:00:26.667" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://law.stackexchange.com/ with https://law.stackexchange.com/" Text="To figure out whether your proposed product would infringe anyone's patents, you would have to review all the relevant patents. A good starting place would be looking at the granted patents assigned to company X, but it's possible that there are relevant patents held by others as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other intellectual property rights are outside the scope of this site, but you might be able to get information about those from [Law.SE](https://law.stackexchange.com/). There may be some copyright attached to the control sequences, but that's far from my area of expertise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17621" RevisionGUID="36d9c336-293f-4e00-bdec-4035fe15ea70" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:50:42.677" UserId="18873" Text="I have a patent idea, and searched the US patents. Nothing comes up, but then I searched the European patent office and a similar, but not the same item comes up. Does this matter since I would be patenting in the US? I am totally new to this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46343" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17621" RevisionGUID="36d9c336-293f-4e00-bdec-4035fe15ea70" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:50:42.677" UserId="18873" Text="Patent comes up in European Patent search but not in US" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46344" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17621" RevisionGUID="36d9c336-293f-4e00-bdec-4035fe15ea70" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:50:42.677" UserId="18873" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;european&gt;&lt;design&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17622" RevisionGUID="e2c9b510-29e9-4b24-8fbd-17b4a138b9f0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:53:00.473" UserId="18033" Text="Prior art for novelty and for inventive step is assessed worldwide, so it doesn't matter where the document originated, it has to be considered for patentability.&#xA;&#xA;For patent infringement only the countries your product enters or is produced in matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46350" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12505" RevisionGUID="c3b88831-9afd-46ea-873b-f6460986d2b8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T22:35:45.350" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5133" RevisionGUID="e2e6a2b9-a083-46d5-a354-eab93ed11655" CreationDate="2017-04-14T02:59:25.973" UserId="18033" Comment="Added a clarification on when to use the tag. Missing a better solution, we should use it for all rejected applications, with or without our contribution. That was not clear before." Text="![Rejected Graphic][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [tag:rejected] tag is used to tag [tag:prior-art-request] which have been successfully **narrowed or rejected** by the USPTO after having been posted on Ask Patents.  If the USPTO rejection cites prior art which was discovered at Ask Patents this can be indicated in the appropriate answer with a special graphic.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions on which to use the [tag:rejected] tag:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **US Patent Applications** which were the subject of a [tag:prior-art-request] [tag:pre-grant] on Ask Patents and which have subsequently been given a non-final or a final rejection by the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Issued US Patents** which were the subject of a [tag:prior-art-request] [tag:post-grant] and which have been subsequently rejected or narrowed by the USPTO in a post-grant review or inter-partes review.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of the tag is to focus community effort on finding prior art for [tag:prior-art-request]  which have not yet been rejected by the USPTO.  Plus it's nice to celebrate success. The tag may be used if the application / patent was narrowed / rejected after a prior art request but without measurable contribution of this community to indicate that a prior-art-rquest question is no longer relevant / needs no more answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/VFiZs.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46357" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5133" RevisionGUID="e2e6a2b9-a083-46d5-a354-eab93ed11655" CreationDate="2017-04-14T02:59:25.973" Comment="Proposed by 18033 approved by 14417, 3076 edit id of 2027" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17626" RevisionGUID="06749966-55eb-4682-b0c0-b8b23b16218c" CreationDate="2017-04-14T03:05:20.350" UserId="3076" Text="A simple way to think about it is you can only patent something new. If it has been written about before, anywhere in the world in any language, it isn't new. Of course, like everything else about patents, it is more complicated than that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46359" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17208" RevisionGUID="4b8dd20c-62ab-4c0b-8831-a8e9b0e55d61" CreationDate="2017-04-14T03:39:30.427" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46363" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16577" RevisionGUID="6534f30a-617d-4ab9-afc3-918f836b61f2" CreationDate="2017-04-14T10:57:36.697" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46364" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16114" RevisionGUID="641d962f-6868-4fa6-b2f6-89a4cb3e58a1" CreationDate="2017-04-14T12:57:36.793" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46365" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17407" RevisionGUID="1ebebc4b-41cf-454f-8e60-a2fc7f399e06" CreationDate="2017-04-14T13:57:42.683" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17627" RevisionGUID="304b8a96-08c6-4228-b46b-3310d21f7675" CreationDate="2017-04-14T18:47:36.637" UserId="18880" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8807568][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8807568&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know how this patent works. Is it only a utility patent for a certain part of the game or is the patent broader, i.e the whole game is patented? I'm working on a school project where we need to evaluate different patents and I found this one interesting. What would happen if the game was re-created under a different brand but with the same core idea? Many thanks in advance. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46367" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17627" RevisionGUID="304b8a96-08c6-4228-b46b-3310d21f7675" CreationDate="2017-04-14T18:47:36.637" UserId="18880" Text="How does this patent work?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46368" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17627" RevisionGUID="304b8a96-08c6-4228-b46b-3310d21f7675" CreationDate="2017-04-14T18:47:36.637" UserId="18880" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46369" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17041" RevisionGUID="7e6b2421-9a8b-44af-8655-eb05f4e7c07b" CreationDate="2017-04-14T20:06:08.543" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46370" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16118" RevisionGUID="68266b27-0678-4e37-862a-a16568cdbc38" CreationDate="2017-04-14T22:06:37.520" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17628" RevisionGUID="9244b7be-4969-46c5-92a3-b36a0cf6400f" CreationDate="2017-04-14T22:09:31.027" UserId="17003" Text="Briefly reading the claims, it looks like only the apparatus and how it is constructed is claimed. The claims don't specify the rules of the game. For a instance, it claims an elastic surface. If you make a version with a rigid surface you are probably safe from infringement. To infringe on a claim, you have to implement every part of the claim. You do, however need to recognize that there is potential for a different patent that claims rigid surfaces. Avoiding infringement of one patent doesn't guarantee you avoid infringement of all patents. &#xA;&#xA;This is just an analysis based on a brief readings for the claims. You should also read the rest of the patent so that some aspects of the claims aren't interpreted in a nonstandard way. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17628" RevisionGUID="180088c8-7b32-4ed5-a0ce-cc06a398cb8e" CreationDate="2017-04-14T22:38:34.453" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Briefly reading the claims, it looks like only the apparatus and how it is constructed is claimed. The claims don't specify the rules of the game. For a instance, it claims an elastic surface. If you make a version with a rigid surface you are probably safe from infringement. To infringe on a claim, you have to implement every part of the claim. You do, however need to recognize that there is potential for a different patent that claims rigid surfaces. Avoiding infringement of one patent doesn't guarantee you avoid infringement of all patents. &#xA;&#xA;This is just an analysis based on a brief readings for the claims. You should also read the rest of the patent in case some aspects of the claims are interpreted in a nonstandard way. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17629" RevisionGUID="454f31d1-2125-4cb9-b176-0989525b325c" CreationDate="2017-04-14T23:05:14.427" UserId="3076" Text="Not sure I understand the question and the comment from the OP but, once made, patent rules go in chapter 37 of the CFR. The Federal Register in published daily and any proposed USPTO rule making would go into the next daily issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17630" RevisionGUID="403af273-0b6f-433f-a524-1f9a77926c06" CreationDate="2017-04-14T23:24:20.180" UserId="3076" Text="In a case: 286 F. 3d 1326 - In Re John Kollar it was established that licensing the rights to a patent was not the same as selling a patented item. However, the issue was triggering of the &quot;on sale&quot; bar. The laws and regulation regarding &quot;export regulations&quot; are about exporting from the U.S. A technology transfer, patented or not from the U.S. is subject to export regulations. If the technology was developed outside the U.S. there should be no issue of exporting from the U.S. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17629" RevisionGUID="807a7128-55e6-4c0a-99ee-0840fd67bd7b" CreationDate="2017-04-14T23:26:55.507" UserId="3076" Comment="edited body" Text="Not sure I understand the question and the comment from the OP but, once made, patent rules go in chapter 37 of the CFR. The Federal Register is published daily and any proposed USPTO rule making would go into the next daily issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46377" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16022" RevisionGUID="c0a178c2-4e1c-4887-88dd-8c613e90573b" CreationDate="2017-04-15T00:07:18.047" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46384" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17226" RevisionGUID="d8d94eb4-8966-4c70-af9d-ddb316270b94" CreationDate="2017-04-15T09:14:59.893" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46385" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17225" RevisionGUID="f23183d2-27ba-4d44-aa4e-4d4a51919afc" CreationDate="2017-04-15T17:11:43.680" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17631" RevisionGUID="efd8167d-7de5-4b1f-9d70-ea22a88bc8df" CreationDate="2017-04-15T20:21:13.413" UserId="18883" Text="For question 1) you need to check which combination of existing disclosures are preventing your application to be registered. Find what is unique in your idea that other didn't think about. Answer to the office action for each section. One at the time and within the delay given to you.&#xD;&#xA;For question 2) Do not approach companies if your idea is not protected by a grant. Or else they can use the idea for free." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17628" RevisionGUID="09c56ae7-6261-4255-a121-2480e6dd0deb" CreationDate="2017-04-15T23:06:52.887" UserId="17003" Comment="added 244 characters in body" Text="Briefly reading the claims, it looks like only the apparatus and how it is constructed is claimed. The claims don't specify the rules of the game. For a instance, it claims an elastic surface. If you make a version with a rigid surface you are probably safe from infringement. To infringe on a claim, you have to implement every part of the claim. You do, however need to recognize that there is potential for a different patent that claims rigid surfaces. Avoiding infringement of one patent doesn't guarantee you avoid infringement of all patents. &#xA;&#xA;This is just an analysis based on a brief readings for the claims. You should also read the rest of the patent in case some aspects of the claims are interpreted in a nonstandard way. &#xA;&#xA;With regards to your last question:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;  What would happen if the game was re-created under a different brand but with the same core idea?&#xA;&#xA;The brand name doesn't matter with patents.  If you infringe only one or more claims, you may be sued. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46392" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="1b11f702-452e-4a0a-9ceb-66d4087de17d" CreationDate="2017-04-16T11:42:27.030" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46393" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16149" RevisionGUID="22be5ecf-89ef-479d-9a5c-cc5ab5fab042" CreationDate="2017-04-17T02:02:31.960" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17634" RevisionGUID="f12a8fb8-b56b-40b2-ad95-dbe68d4ef630" CreationDate="2017-04-17T06:55:51.807" UserId="18891" Text="our team is working on prototype of C3P0 from the famous series STAR WARS. The features added in our prototype are quite different from the one shown in movies. Will we be able to file a patent for our prototype?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46400" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17634" RevisionGUID="f12a8fb8-b56b-40b2-ad95-dbe68d4ef630" CreationDate="2017-04-17T06:55:51.807" UserId="18891" Text="Patent of prototype" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46401" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17634" RevisionGUID="f12a8fb8-b56b-40b2-ad95-dbe68d4ef630" CreationDate="2017-04-17T06:55:51.807" UserId="18891" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;technology&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17635" RevisionGUID="0ae850b6-e9e5-4547-aef6-be0c80324ffe" CreationDate="2017-04-17T10:34:30.990" UserId="17764" Text="We have:&#xD;&#xA;Patent A, filed Nov. 29, 2006 in the US, claimed the benefit of a DE application, filed Feb. 02, 2006，(there is a PCT application filed Nov. 29, 2006 along with the publication date Aug. 30, 2007);  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent B, filed Jul. 19, 2006.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accordingly, Patent A has a priority date Feb. 02, 2006 and a US national filing date (also an international filing date) Nov. 29, 2006.   &#xD;&#xA;Patent B (US patent) has a filing date Jul. 19, 2006.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, can Patent A be considered as a prior art over Patent B? Is there any legal basis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46403" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17635" RevisionGUID="0ae850b6-e9e5-4547-aef6-be0c80324ffe" CreationDate="2017-04-17T10:34:30.990" UserId="17764" Text="Can Patent A be considered as a prior art over Patent B with a priority date before the filing date of Patent B?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46404" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17635" RevisionGUID="0ae850b6-e9e5-4547-aef6-be0c80324ffe" CreationDate="2017-04-17T10:34:30.990" UserId="17764" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;invalid&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17635" RevisionGUID="ec340389-8a1e-4a1c-a657-cd530254705b" CreationDate="2017-04-17T10:47:21.657" UserId="17764" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="We have:  &#xD;&#xA;Patent A, filed Nov. 29, 2006 in the US, claimed the benefit of a DE application, filed Feb. 02, 2006，(there is a PCT application filed Nov. 29, 2006 along with the publication date Aug. 30, 2007);  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent B, filed Jul. 19, 2006.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, Patent A has a priority date Feb. 02, 2006 and a US national filing date (also an international filing date) Nov. 29, 2006.   &#xD;&#xA;Patent B (US patent) has a filing date Jul. 19, 2006.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, can Patent A be considered as a prior art over Patent B? Is there any legal basis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17635" RevisionGUID="08d699e9-afdf-4a07-b55d-df5fdbea6541" CreationDate="2017-04-17T12:40:35.153" UserId="17764" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="We have:  &#xD;&#xA;Patent A, filed Nov. 29, 2006 in the US, claimed the benefit of a DE application, filed Feb. 02, 2006，(there is a PCT application filed Nov. 29, 2006 with the publication date Aug. 30, 2007, designated US, in German);  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent B, filed Jul. 19, 2006.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, Patent A has a priority date Feb. 02, 2006 and a US national filing date (also an international filing date) Nov. 29, 2006.   &#xD;&#xA;Patent B (US patent) has a filing date Jul. 19, 2006.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, can Patent A be considered as a prior art over Patent B? Is there any legal basis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17636" RevisionGUID="f9c3a09a-edab-4647-bb08-a6cc29aeed05" CreationDate="2017-04-17T12:41:18.450" UserId="18033" Text="The DE application is prior art for patent application B concerning **novelty**.&#xA;&#xA;For **inventiveness** it's the publication date that matters, German applications are normally published after 18 months, so if it remained unpublished until after the filing of B, it is no prior art for B's obviousness.&#xA;&#xA;This follows directly from the relevant sections of 35. USC and the Pct. I'm sure it appears in MPEP too. If you have trouble finding them leave a comment and I'll look them up.&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17637" RevisionGUID="58580868-6077-429d-ba18-29a8c77cc8c3" CreationDate="2017-04-17T12:45:10.617" UserId="18033" Text="If it distinguishes in a non obvious manner over the known prior art (C3PO and other known robots) - yes. (You can file the patent no matter what, but that's the requirement for having the patent granted)'&#xA;&#xA;If you want to sell your product, the name and design are probably protected, so you would have to take care of that issue, but for patentability that doesn't matter.&#xA;&#xA;As the function of the robot isn't shown in the movies, they will probably not even be the relevant prior art. Other robots from the real world will be described in more detail and come closer to yours, so for the assessment of novelty and non obviousness, they will probably matter more. If you want a design patent too, the movies could be relevant though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17634" RevisionGUID="aea38480-e6aa-4c29-829c-fa717304c582" CreationDate="2017-04-17T12:47:16.257" UserId="18033" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Our team is working on a prototype of C3P0 from the famous series STAR WARS. The features added in our prototype are quite different from the one shown in the movies. Will we be able to file a patent for our prototype?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46410" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14680" RevisionGUID="f0fca616-1c59-4cc3-a336-dc8511ca1fd8" CreationDate="2017-04-17T14:18:01.157" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46411" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14248" RevisionGUID="980b132c-de0a-4b1d-bbb2-5d3e642c1088" CreationDate="2017-04-17T15:22:00.520" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17636" RevisionGUID="dc5000a3-9e3a-47fd-b8e6-c77c9196eb02" CreationDate="2017-04-17T20:16:17.230" UserId="18033" Comment="added 5401 characters in body" Text="*Due to the application beeing pre AIA, I have to revise my previous answer*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lets start with two of the three conditions for patentability - novelty and non-obviousness (the third is usefulness). Prior art for both is **different**! More to that below, but it's an important note, both are named prior art, but it is not the same prior art for novelty and non obviousness. This is based in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Post AIA, so for your question the next section is not relevant, however I find it very important as it is the current state of the law).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**35 U.S. Code § 101 - Inventions patentable:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Whoever invents or discovers any **new** and **useful** process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Novelty:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**35 U.S. Code § 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a)Novelty; Prior Art.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—&#xD;&#xA;(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or&#xD;&#xA;(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;35 USC 102 (b) and (c) describe excemptions, I won't cite them, but please read them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(d)Patents and Published Applications Effective as Prior Art.—For purposes of determining whether a patent or application for patent is prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2), such patent or application shall be considered to have been effectively filed, with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or application—&#xD;&#xA;(1) if paragraph (2) does not apply, as of the actual filing date of the patent or the application for patent; or&#xD;&#xA;(2) if the patent or application for patent is entitled to claim a right of priority under section 119, 365(a), 365(b), 386(a), or 386(b), or to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date under section 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), based upon 1 or more prior filed applications for patent, as of the filing date of the earliest such application that describes the subject matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for novelty, anything published before the effective filing date is prior art and patent applications filed before or based on a priority document filed before the effective filing date (of the patent application assessed for novelty) if published later. This is called the first to file principle. **But** this only applies for AIA patent applications (after March 16th 2013). I'll get to pre AIA later. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there is no &quot;in this country&quot; or &quot;in english&quot; post AIA!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For non obviousness (35 USC 103) only published documents are counted, so an unpublished application is not prior art concerning the non-obviousness, even if published later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pre AIA (filed before March 16th 2013)**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US was a first to invent countra pre AIA, therefore there are some differences. Also, prior art for novelty had to be used/known &quot;in this country&quot; (the US) or published elsewhere. As we are talking about a published publication or a hidden earlier application, this doesn't matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[MPEP][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *****&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (e) the invention was described in — (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*****&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) allows the use of certain international application publications and U.S. patent application publications, and certain U.S. patents as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as of their respective U.S. filing dates, including certain international filing dates. The prior art date of a reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) may be the international filing date if the international filing date was on or after November 29, 2000, the international application designated the United States, and the international application was published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Article 21(2) in the English language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) is explicitly limited to certain references “filed in the United States before the invention thereof by the applicant” (emphasis added). Foreign applications’ filing dates that are claimed (via 35 U.S.C. 119(a)–(d), (f) or 35 U.S.C. 365(a)) in applications, which have been published as U.S. or WIPO application publications or patented in the U.S., may not be used as pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) dates for prior art purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which should answer your question. The reference date for the US assessment of novelty is the date in which a US application was filed or a PCT application was filed which included the US as designated country and was published in english under PCT article 21(2) (see MPEP section a little below the previous cited).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If any of the applications had been published - in any language - it would be prior art. If that was not the case, A is not prior art for B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2135.html#d0e205339" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46420" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="4a7c3cb6-d09f-4872-9519-ca6af7136745" CreationDate="2017-04-17T20:23:36.233" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46422" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12543" RevisionGUID="b82eee3c-13a4-4c2b-8565-f47f32b806c2" CreationDate="2017-04-18T06:42:08.450" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17636" RevisionGUID="118d2916-6290-46ac-90d9-7a65f2635dd3" CreationDate="2017-04-18T13:28:22.193" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="*Due to the application beeing pre AIA, I had to revise my previous answer*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lets start with two of the three conditions for patentability - novelty and non-obviousness (the third is usefulness). Prior art for both is **different**! More to that below, but it's an important note, both are named prior art, but it is not the same prior art for novelty and non obviousness. This is based in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Post AIA, so for your question the next section is not relevant, however I find it very important as it is the current state of the law).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**35 U.S. Code § 101 - Inventions patentable:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Whoever invents or discovers any **new** and **useful** process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Novelty:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**35 U.S. Code § 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a)Novelty; Prior Art.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—&#xD;&#xA;(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or&#xD;&#xA;(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;35 USC 102 (b) and (c) describe excemptions, I won't cite them, but please read them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(d)Patents and Published Applications Effective as Prior Art.—For purposes of determining whether a patent or application for patent is prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2), such patent or application shall be considered to have been effectively filed, with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or application—&#xD;&#xA;(1) if paragraph (2) does not apply, as of the actual filing date of the patent or the application for patent; or&#xD;&#xA;(2) if the patent or application for patent is entitled to claim a right of priority under section 119, 365(a), 365(b), 386(a), or 386(b), or to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date under section 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), based upon 1 or more prior filed applications for patent, as of the filing date of the earliest such application that describes the subject matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for novelty, anything published before the effective filing date is prior art and patent applications filed before or based on a priority document filed before the effective filing date (of the patent application assessed for novelty) if published later. This is called the first to file principle. **But** this only applies for AIA patent applications (after March 16th 2013). I'll get to pre AIA later. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there is no &quot;in this country&quot; or &quot;in english&quot; post AIA!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For non obviousness (35 USC 103) only published documents are counted, so an unpublished application is not prior art concerning the non-obviousness, even if published later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pre AIA (filed before March 16th 2013)**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US was a first to invent countra pre AIA, therefore there are some differences. Also, prior art for novelty had to be used/known &quot;in this country&quot; (the US) or published elsewhere. As we are talking about a published publication or a hidden earlier application, this doesn't matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[MPEP][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *****&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (e) the invention was described in — (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*****&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) allows the use of certain international application publications and U.S. patent application publications, and certain U.S. patents as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as of their respective U.S. filing dates, including certain international filing dates. The prior art date of a reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) may be the international filing date if the international filing date was on or after November 29, 2000, the international application designated the United States, and the international application was published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Article 21(2) in the English language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) is explicitly limited to certain references “filed in the United States before the invention thereof by the applicant” (emphasis added). Foreign applications’ filing dates that are claimed (via 35 U.S.C. 119(a)–(d), (f) or 35 U.S.C. 365(a)) in applications, which have been published as U.S. or WIPO application publications or patented in the U.S., may not be used as pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) dates for prior art purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which should answer your question. The reference date for the US assessment of novelty is the date in which a US application was filed or a PCT application was filed which included the US as designated country and was published in english under PCT article 21(2) (see MPEP section a little below the previous cited).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If any of the applications had been published - in any language - it would be prior art. If that was not the case, A is not prior art for B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2135.html#d0e205339" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46428" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17407" RevisionGUID="fa0bdf31-8d54-4119-8403-4f22908dd1c7" CreationDate="2017-04-18T14:26:40.747" UserId="18033" Comment="edited title" Text="Is this patent applicable for gaming industry only? Can some parts of it be used in other fields of work without infringement of rights?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17636" RevisionGUID="4e448534-9862-4cda-8415-876468c14727" CreationDate="2017-04-18T16:13:53.983" UserId="18033" Comment="added 4 characters in body; added 28 characters in body" Text="*Due to the application beeing pre AIA, I had to revise my previous answer*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lets start with two of the three conditions for patentability - novelty and non-obviousness (the third is usefulness). Prior art for both is **different**! More to that below, but it's an important note, both are named prior art, but it is not the same prior art for novelty and non obviousness. This is based in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Post AIA, so for your question the next section is not relevant, however I find it very important as it is the current state of the law).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**35 U.S. Code § 101 - Inventions patentable:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Whoever invents or discovers any **new** and **useful** process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Novelty:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**35 U.S. Code § 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a)Novelty; Prior Art.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—&#xD;&#xA;(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or&#xD;&#xA;(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;35 USC 102 (b) and (c) describe excemptions, I won't cite them, but please read them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(d)Patents and Published Applications Effective as Prior Art.—For purposes of determining whether a patent or application for patent is prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2), such patent or application shall be considered to have been effectively filed, with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or application—&#xD;&#xA;(1) if paragraph (2) does not apply, as of the actual filing date of the patent or the application for patent; or&#xD;&#xA;(2) if the patent or application for patent is entitled to claim a right of priority under section 119, 365(a), 365(b), 386(a), or 386(b), or to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date under section 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), based upon 1 or more prior filed applications for patent, as of the filing date of the earliest such application that describes the subject matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for novelty, anything published before the effective filing date is prior art and patent applications filed before or based on a priority document filed before the effective filing date (of the patent application assessed for novelty) if published later. This is called the first to file principle. **But** this only applies for AIA patent applications (after March 16th 2013). I'll get to pre AIA later. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there is no &quot;in this country&quot; or &quot;in english&quot; post AIA!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For **non obviousness** (35 USC 103) only published documents are counted, so an unpublished application is not prior art concerning the non-obviousness, even if published later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pre AIA (filed before March 16th 2013)**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US was a first to invent country pre AIA, therefore there are some differences. Also, prior art for novelty had to be used/known &quot;in this country&quot; (the US) or published elsewhere. As we are talking about a published publication or a hidden earlier application, this doesn't matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[MPEP][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *****&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (e) the invention was described in — (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*****&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) allows the use of certain international application publications and U.S. patent application publications, and certain U.S. patents as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as of their respective U.S. filing dates, including certain international filing dates. The prior art date of a reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) may be the international filing date if the international filing date was on or after November 29, 2000, the international application designated the United States, and the international application was published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Article 21(2) in the English language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) is explicitly limited to certain references “filed in the United States before the invention thereof by the applicant” (emphasis added). Foreign applications’ filing dates that are claimed (via 35 U.S.C. 119(a)–(d), (f) or 35 U.S.C. 365(a)) in applications, which have been published as U.S. or WIPO application publications or patented in the U.S., may not be used as pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) dates for prior art purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which should answer your question. The reference date for the US assessment of novelty is the date in which a US application was filed or a PCT application was filed which included the US as designated country and was published in english under PCT article 21(2) (see MPEP section a little below the previous cited).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If any of the applications had been published before the filing date of B - in any language - it would be prior art. If that was not the case, A is not prior art for B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2135.html#d0e205339" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17640" RevisionGUID="7308c28d-95d7-4b50-9da0-5d3e3d3b894c" CreationDate="2017-04-18T16:45:02.937" UserId="18899" Text="In reference to the patent: [US6328675][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6328675&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking to get in touch with the owner of this patent, are you interested in selling?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46431" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17640" RevisionGUID="7308c28d-95d7-4b50-9da0-5d3e3d3b894c" CreationDate="2017-04-18T16:45:02.937" UserId="18899" Text="Contact Patent Owner" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46432" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17640" RevisionGUID="7308c28d-95d7-4b50-9da0-5d3e3d3b894c" CreationDate="2017-04-18T16:45:02.937" UserId="18899" Text="&lt;us6328675&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17642" RevisionGUID="b799e4fd-fa2e-45f7-8d5d-779c27960429" CreationDate="2017-04-18T18:31:09.110" UserId="3076" Text="It has expired. At the very bottom of the google patents page for this patent you will find -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;Feb 2, 2010	FP	Expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee	&#xD;&#xA;Effective date: 20091211&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46438" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17640" RevisionGUID="4e08d1b7-cd95-40d6-badd-637db82a4d83" CreationDate="2017-04-18T18:44:31.107" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5059],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:18033,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DonQuiKong&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="46440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17643" RevisionGUID="e39de72a-5626-4f7f-aa82-f924bbb288ac" CreationDate="2017-04-19T01:10:28.387" UserId="18658" Text="I'm in an antitrust law class and we are talking about the competitiveness of patents.  Several cases and economists have referred to both one-way and two-way blocking patents.&#xA;&#xA;I fully understand how a patent can be one way blocking.  I.e. a base patent then an improvement patent on that same technology, therefore base patent will block the practice of the improvement.  However, the improvement does not block the practice of the base patent so this is only one way blocking.&#xA;&#xA;But how can two patents ever be two way blocking?  Wouldn't their claims have to be identical?  Can someone give me an example of two way blocking?&#xA;&#xA;I've seen several economics papers stating one and two way and they give an example of one way but not two way.  My assumption is that a two way blocking patent would be an improvement so essential to a consumer they wouldn't accept the base product without it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46441" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17643" RevisionGUID="e39de72a-5626-4f7f-aa82-f924bbb288ac" CreationDate="2017-04-19T01:10:28.387" UserId="18658" Text="How can patents ever be two way blocking?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46442" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17643" RevisionGUID="e39de72a-5626-4f7f-aa82-f924bbb288ac" CreationDate="2017-04-19T01:10:28.387" UserId="18658" Text="&lt;blocking-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46446" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16996" RevisionGUID="21aeb331-9c6c-49b3-87b4-268e64960ea4" CreationDate="2017-04-19T04:09:34.160" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46447" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="2a1b23ef-185b-4697-ab0c-25d2dd22f935" CreationDate="2017-04-19T05:14:01.487" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17645" RevisionGUID="5892c729-6645-4dd3-94ef-f0c925c27ea0" CreationDate="2017-04-19T05:46:39.760" UserId="17325" Text="By doing a little Google search and based on my everyday work as well, I have come down to this: a two-way blocking position (and not patent) is a situation where there are two patents which cannot be used without infringing one another. For example, a patent for a chemical compound and a patent for a certain crystalline form of the chemical compound (which is the most stable and therefore more preferable). Each patent holder needs a licence from the other one to produce this chemical compound in said crystalline form. And everybody else would be infringing both of those patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46452" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17543" RevisionGUID="82203578-8d67-4117-ab4c-43e183b43023" CreationDate="2017-04-19T08:12:32.473" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46453" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17548" RevisionGUID="a4fdcddf-a57c-418c-9dc6-03410fbf9571" CreationDate="2017-04-19T08:13:13.220" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prosecution&gt;&lt;indefiniteness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46454" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12561" RevisionGUID="8651d2b9-b66f-46fb-b3f6-a3f103ba8543" CreationDate="2017-04-19T08:13:56.277" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17647" RevisionGUID="c0c59513-d9ea-46f7-b2f2-5b07eb523565" CreationDate="2017-04-19T08:32:15.400" UserId="18903" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20080229509][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20080229509&#xD;&#xA;Has this patent  come to market? If not would they have a date at witch they would have to or otherwise lose their intitlement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46456" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17647" RevisionGUID="c0c59513-d9ea-46f7-b2f2-5b07eb523565" CreationDate="2017-04-19T08:32:15.400" UserId="18903" Text="Entitlement to patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46457" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17647" RevisionGUID="c0c59513-d9ea-46f7-b2f2-5b07eb523565" CreationDate="2017-04-19T08:32:15.400" UserId="18903" Text="&lt;time&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17647" RevisionGUID="550cd61e-ade5-450e-acb9-543b61481957" CreationDate="2017-04-19T08:58:36.403" UserId="18033" Comment="Removed off topic part of question" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20080229509][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20080229509&#xD;&#xA;Is there a date where the product would  have to be on the market or otherwise they would lose their entitlement to the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46459" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17647" RevisionGUID="550cd61e-ade5-450e-acb9-543b61481957" CreationDate="2017-04-19T08:58:36.403" UserId="18033" Comment="Removed off topic part of question" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;time&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17648" RevisionGUID="a9e2119b-97ba-4f36-a14e-e588f5427e7f" CreationDate="2017-04-19T11:55:33.977" UserId="18033" Text="The [MPEP][1] chapter for design patents provides one section about priority (1504.10   Priority Under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), 386(a) and (b) [R-07.2015]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The right of priority provided for by subsections (a) through (d) of section 119 shall be six months in the case of designs. The right of priority provided for by section 119(e) shall not apply to designs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The provisions of 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), 172, 386(a) and (b) apply to design patent applications. In order to obtain the benefit of an earlier foreign filing date, the United States application must be filed within 6 months of the earliest date on which any foreign application for the same design was filed. Under certain conditions, a right of priority to a foreign application may be restored if the U.S. design application is filed within two months of the expiration of the six-month period specified in 35 U.S.C. 172. See 37 CFR 1.55(c). Design applications may not make a claim for priority of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e). See 37 CFR 1.55 and MPEP § 213 - 216 for further information concerning the right of priority to a foreign application and the formal requirements applicable thereto.&#xD;&#xA;¶ 15.01    Conditions Under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), 172, 386(a) and (b)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Applicant is advised of conditions as specified in 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), 172, 386(a) and (b). An application for a design patent for an invention filed in this country by any person who has, or whose legal representatives have **previously filed an application for a design patent, or equivalent protection for the same design** in a foreign country which offers similar privileges in the case of applications filed in the United States or in a WTO member country, or to citizens of the United States, shall have the same effect as the same application would have if filed in this country on the date on which the application for patent for the same invention was first filed in such foreign country, if the application in this country is filed within six (6) months from the earliest date on which such foreign application was filed. If the design application is filed within two months from the expiration of the six-month period and the delay was unintentional, the right of priority in the design application may be restored by filing a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(c).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(emphasis added).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there where other possibilities of claiming priority for a design, I think it would be noted in the MPEP. My conclusion is therefore, that a design patent cannot claim priority from an invention patent (application), as it is no equivalent protection or design patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1504.html#d0e159958" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46463" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17647" RevisionGUID="211adfb3-2447-4033-965c-2a2f6aa06a59" CreationDate="2017-04-19T14:18:44.700" UserId="1" Comment="edited title" Text="Does a patented product have to be produced to be enforced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17649" RevisionGUID="5cfa2bec-e03d-4a9e-9339-03af79adbd98" CreationDate="2017-04-19T16:36:57.070" UserId="17003" Text="First of all, the cited document is a patent application, not yet a patent. It may or may not become a patent and even if it does, the claims may change. To answer your question, however you do not have to market a product to maintain your ability to enforce a patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46485" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16604" RevisionGUID="2d3f90ce-e0a1-4b8c-995c-beb4b00142df" CreationDate="2017-04-20T01:30:33.263" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17656" RevisionGUID="008877c4-dda0-44a3-93dd-55d63fe64145" CreationDate="2017-04-20T02:23:40.107" UserId="3500" Text="A claim is infringed if ALL the elements of that claim are met. As you implicitly note, there is far more to these claims then the number of sides of the board. Unless your game includes these other elements (and that's a potentially complex factual and legal question in and of itself)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17657" RevisionGUID="7aeac443-7d5e-420e-b300-b1502564ae8b" CreationDate="2017-04-20T04:44:32.433" UserId="3076" Text="Some countries do require a patent holder to either &quot;work&quot; their patents or be subject to compulsory licensing. India is one example. In the U.S., practicing your patent is not required to keep a patent valid. In fact, you may not even be allowed to make and sell a product that incorporates your patent. An example would be a patent that was on an improvement of an already patented product. Without a license on the &quot;base&quot; product, making your thing might infringe an older patent. Or a product that was regulated to the point that you can't make it. You could get a patent on an aircraft design that the FAA doesn't think is airworthy. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17657" RevisionGUID="35b4e064-8b7d-4e4e-9c9e-5c62ab684d4c" CreationDate="2017-04-20T06:50:20.780" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Some countries do require a patent holder to either &quot;work&quot; their patents or be subject to compulsory licensing. India is one example. In the U.S., practicing your patent is not required to keep a patent valid. In fact, you may not even be allowed to make and sell a product that incorporates your patent. An example would be a patent that was an improvement of an already patented product. Without a license on the &quot;base&quot; product, making your thing might infringe an older patent. Or a product that was regulated to the point that you can't make it. You could get a patent on an aircraft design that the FAA doesn't think is airworthy. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17660" RevisionGUID="32501dbb-4908-4077-908b-074b0546d037" CreationDate="2017-04-20T13:25:51.893" UserId="18912" Text="In reference to the patent: [US3906934][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3906934&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to use this technology for a research project. The project pertains to water usage and would be recorded based on the time of how long a pressure sensor is activated. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46502" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17660" RevisionGUID="32501dbb-4908-4077-908b-074b0546d037" CreationDate="2017-04-20T13:25:51.893" UserId="18912" Text="Would it be legal to use this technology for my project? If not, what other technologies could I use to get the results?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46503" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17660" RevisionGUID="32501dbb-4908-4077-908b-074b0546d037" CreationDate="2017-04-20T13:25:51.893" UserId="18912" Text="&lt;us3906934&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46508" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17660" RevisionGUID="4634b8e1-241b-4ea8-aee5-6f443c5de5c8" CreationDate="2017-04-20T14:42:37.987" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="46509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17660" RevisionGUID="7e772f06-8af3-47b2-a75f-14d11f594bf0" CreationDate="2017-04-20T14:51:41.893" UserId="18033" Comment="removed off topic part" Text="In reference to the patent: [US3906934][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3906934&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to use this technology for a research project, is that legal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46510" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17660" RevisionGUID="7e772f06-8af3-47b2-a75f-14d11f594bf0" CreationDate="2017-04-20T14:51:41.893" UserId="18033" Comment="removed off topic part" Text="Would it be legal to use this technology for my research project?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46512" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="6bf787db-bec1-41aa-90e4-84f221768d7f" CreationDate="2017-04-20T16:45:04.417" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46513" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="17660" RevisionGUID="02151fa3-799d-45bc-8ee6-e5220cf8d336" CreationDate="2017-04-20T17:47:20.890" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:18033,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DonQuiKong&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:17003,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Eric Shain&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="46518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17662" RevisionGUID="54058b29-8bb1-450c-834a-069445b4bc66" CreationDate="2017-04-20T20:04:15.123" UserId="18915" Text="I have proof of development and marketing of concept, in advance of conflicting application that has been filed in advance of mine.  Can I use this as prior art to insure that I can still produce my original product without limitation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46519" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17662" RevisionGUID="54058b29-8bb1-450c-834a-069445b4bc66" CreationDate="2017-04-20T20:04:15.123" UserId="18915" Text="application conflict" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46520" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17662" RevisionGUID="54058b29-8bb1-450c-834a-069445b4bc66" CreationDate="2017-04-20T20:04:15.123" UserId="18915" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46521" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17662" RevisionGUID="c6635bcb-baea-4f10-88cf-89d2f6af8f88" CreationDate="2017-04-20T20:21:51.770" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46522" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17248" RevisionGUID="a4ba647a-ab3d-4194-a2ce-3a5b9c52ddd1" CreationDate="2017-04-20T20:45:29.883" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17663" RevisionGUID="39a15eb1-554d-4e1b-985e-e729ffddc1c1" CreationDate="2017-04-20T20:45:47.300" UserId="18033" Text="Article 89 of the EPC provided that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The right of priority shall have the effect that the date of priority shall count as the date of filing of the European patent application for the purposes of Article 54, paragraphs 2 and 3, and Article 60, paragraph 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, inventive step is defined in Article 56 which is not mentioned. Does that mean that for the provisions of article 56 documents published between the priority date and the filing date of a european patent application are part of the prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46524" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17663" RevisionGUID="39a15eb1-554d-4e1b-985e-e729ffddc1c1" CreationDate="2017-04-20T20:45:47.300" UserId="18033" Text="Does claiming priority change the effective date prior art concerning EPC §56?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46525" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17663" RevisionGUID="39a15eb1-554d-4e1b-985e-e729ffddc1c1" CreationDate="2017-04-20T20:45:47.300" UserId="18033" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;inventive-step&gt;&lt;epc&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17664" RevisionGUID="4bc3fe63-f563-44c4-882e-c4cd072c07ab" CreationDate="2017-04-20T20:56:00.087" UserId="18915" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20160203808][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20160203808&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have PRIOR ART to this invention.  In fact, I have originated, designed and developed several collections that have been introduced to manufacturers for distribution, for this concept.   I cannot allow this filing to restrict potential of my original works, proof of marketing in 2006, and again in 2012." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46527" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17664" RevisionGUID="4bc3fe63-f563-44c4-882e-c4cd072c07ab" CreationDate="2017-04-20T20:56:00.087" UserId="18915" Text="Prior Art Challenge to application US20160203808" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46528" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17664" RevisionGUID="4bc3fe63-f563-44c4-882e-c4cd072c07ab" CreationDate="2017-04-20T20:56:00.087" UserId="18915" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20160203808&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17665" RevisionGUID="0674dd77-679e-48d1-8cb6-ab42717ffc49" CreationDate="2017-04-20T21:00:37.113" UserId="18033" Text="If this application was filed **after March 16th 2013** then the AIA patent law applies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That would be 37 USC 102&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151 , or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b) , in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, if the invention was not known to the public in any way, the fact that you knew about it does not help you (unless it was stolen from you). You do not get some kind of exclusion or license just for having invented it first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if the application was filed pre AIA, the law was different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102   Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pre AIA the US was a &quot;first to invent&quot; country, so you having invented it first could get you the patent granted and theirs rejected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2132.html for more information pre AIA." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17666" RevisionGUID="61f566c6-e2dc-4ab5-b725-0618924733e5" CreationDate="2017-04-20T21:01:13.873" UserId="3076" Text="&gt; Additionally, the content of European patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applications as filed, the dates of filing of which are prior to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; date referred to in paragraph 2 and which were published on or after&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that date, shall be considered as comprised in the state of the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the EPO, unpublished EP applications filed before the date of filing of an application are prior art for novelty but not prior art for inventive step. The theory is that even if it is unpublished, if someone filed on &quot;the same thing&quot; before you did your invention is not novel. However, to be in the state of the art for purposes of a document pointing someone in the direction of your invention (inventive step) it must actually have been available to the public before your filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the same in the US. If a reference is prior art for section 102 purposes, it is prior art for section 103 purposes.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17667" RevisionGUID="78d19698-09c1-4714-af25-c21c64c5dc68" CreationDate="2017-04-20T21:11:21.640" UserId="3076" Text="I understand that your question is can you make your product without worrying about the other person's patent. If the public activity you have evidence of occurred more than a year before they filed, it could have been used as prior art against them. It is complicated but if you have a published document (their marketing literature), you could potentially use it against them in an Inter Partes Review." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46532" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17663" RevisionGUID="96bec377-352d-4a7d-920c-7aca6b3cac97" CreationDate="2017-04-20T21:14:58.053" UserId="18033" Comment="edited title" Text="Does claiming priority change the effective date for prior art concerning EPC §56?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17664" RevisionGUID="00887d4e-f4d6-492c-8e79-22771b6858be" CreationDate="2017-04-20T21:16:26.000" UserId="18915" Comment="deleted 85 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20160203808][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20160203808&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PRIOR ART to this &quot;invention&quot; is available for review.  ORIGINAL collections  have been introduced to manufacturers for distribution, for this concept.  Distribution of marketing in 2006, and License negotiations in 2012." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17666" RevisionGUID="3df2bdf6-04f3-42c2-aa90-6c3c51aae1e8" CreationDate="2017-04-20T21:20:26.543" UserId="3076" Comment="added 556 characters in body" Text="&gt; Additionally, the content of European patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applications as filed, the dates of filing of which are prior to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; date referred to in paragraph 2 and which were published on or after&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that date, shall be considered as comprised in the state of the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the EPO, unpublished EP applications filed before the date of filing of an application are prior art for novelty but not prior art for inventive step. The theory is that even if it is unpublished, if someone filed on &quot;the same thing&quot; before you did your invention is not novel. However, to be in the state of the art for purposes of a document pointing someone in the direction of your invention (inventive step) it must actually have been available to the public before your filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the same in the US. If a reference is prior art for section 102 purposes, it is prior art for section 103 purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding priority date vs actual filing date -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Article 89 Effect of priority right The right of priority shall&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have the effect that the date of priority shall count as the date of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; filing of the European patent application for the purposes of Article&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 54, paragraphs 2 and 3, and Article 60, paragraph 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a proper claim of priority moves the &quot;effective date&quot; back from the actual fining date to the priority date. One concern is whether or not the priory claim is to a filing that really qualifies under the Paris Agreement Article 4.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46535" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="579fff1e-54df-41bc-a46c-da004352d4f2" CreationDate="2017-04-21T02:45:49.643" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17668" RevisionGUID="5bdc46ac-0ccf-4334-9b3e-8306edf9b4f3" CreationDate="2017-04-21T02:52:36.500" UserId="17003" Text="I find [The Lens][1] a good and generally more reliable alternative to Google Patents. Here is the cited patent application on The Lens: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_2014_0276230_A1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17664" RevisionGUID="e793d1b6-c0b4-4c1a-a2dc-d61b023aac8f" CreationDate="2017-04-21T02:54:29.453" UserId="17003" Comment="Changed link to patent to patents.google.com which works better." Text="In reference to the patent: [US20160203808][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160203808A1/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PRIOR ART to this &quot;invention&quot; is available for review.  ORIGINAL collections  have been introduced to manufacturers for distribution, for this concept.  Distribution of marketing in 2006, and License negotiations in 2012." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46554" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16666" RevisionGUID="de2550a2-b379-45d2-85c9-e9d00ac0e7e7" CreationDate="2017-04-21T03:49:46.260" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46558" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="2bfa2d9b-e621-4541-b233-69e265ee61cf" CreationDate="2017-04-21T04:49:49.173" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46570" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13366" RevisionGUID="e3bb17bc-3bd6-4769-9a9c-73f237cb0133" CreationDate="2017-04-21T15:00:07.750" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17672" RevisionGUID="32840997-8328-452b-a95b-f4c48699916b" CreationDate="2017-04-21T15:09:23.927" UserId="18921" Text="The process , or recipe, was patented 40 years ago and is still in use today at a few centers in and out of the US who still pay the Dr royalties. The patent has expired and the Dr/scientist who invented it is very elderly. I want to offer my knowledge of this process to patients on my own without my current employer who taught it to me 10 years ago. I am his nurse. I am the only one in my state with the knowledge. Can I do that? I would like to offer my service to patients to use with their existing Dr." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46572" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17672" RevisionGUID="32840997-8328-452b-a95b-f4c48699916b" CreationDate="2017-04-21T15:09:23.927" UserId="18921" Text="An expired patent, medical process using different ingredients to use in a medical procedure. I have been taught this and want to use it on my own" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46573" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17672" RevisionGUID="32840997-8328-452b-a95b-f4c48699916b" CreationDate="2017-04-21T15:09:23.927" UserId="18921" Text="&lt;process&gt;&lt;expired&gt;&lt;medical&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17673" RevisionGUID="f76d3926-2e9a-4a2f-89cc-9737bab03e55" CreationDate="2017-04-21T15:46:40.903" UserId="18033" Text="Most patents from 40 years ago will be expired now. But there are three points which might still forbid the usage of the process:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Newer patents on improvements - there could still be patents for parts of the method patented later. If every part of it was known exactly like it is now 40 years ago, this is unlikly, if not, it's entirely possible.&#xD;&#xA; 2. 40 years ago the patent term was 17 years *from the date of grant* - some few patents which are decades old are still in force because the grant of the patent or a continuation was delayed. It's not many, but without a thorugh search for the patent(s) in question, there's no way to tell.&#xD;&#xA; 3. If other people are still paying royalties, chances are good there still is some right protecting the invention. After all, if all patents had lapsed, why would they be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ask others that are still paying to tell you why and which patents or other rights are relevant.&#xD;&#xA; - Do a patent search for the relevant patents. Start with the name of the inventor (the dr.) and from there follow the citations and the terminology until possibly arriving at recent patents. (There are many tutorials on how to do a patent search, for example here: https://www.ecosia.org/search?q=how+to+patent+search&amp;addon=firefox )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17674" RevisionGUID="de488d80-fa34-407e-b225-bf873d3434ef" CreationDate="2017-04-21T16:55:21.590" UserId="17003" Text="I did find this: [bellbottombeverageware.com][1]. This company is from Houston, TX as is the inventor so it seems likely they are related. I did a Google image search and found this [page with a similar product][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no indication when this product went on the market, but you might be able to track down the manufacturer and ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://bellbottombeverageware.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dealers.bigmouthinc.com/BMT/Drinking-Stuff/Ring-for-Wine-Glass&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/crNdc.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17676" RevisionGUID="e55c74e1-5c18-4206-9222-229c2cdd2bda" CreationDate="2017-04-21T19:08:32.923" UserId="17003" Text="This patent expired a long time ago so you are free to practice the technology described within it. This doesn't mean there aren't newer patents you might need to be aware of. In either case, if you are only doing research and not applying the work commercially, I think you are Ok, but it would be nice for one of the actual patent attorneys or agents to verify that his. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46581" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17676" RevisionGUID="58663997-d5be-4957-9bde-e403504550c4" CreationDate="2017-04-21T22:18:45.930" UserId="17003" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="This patent expired a long time ago so you are free to practice the technology described within it. This doesn't mean there aren't newer patents you might need to be aware of. In either case, if you are only doing research and not applying the work commercially, I think you are Ok, but it would be nice for one of the actual patent attorneys or agents to verify that I'm correct. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17666" RevisionGUID="7632bc07-3a0c-405e-9809-fb288d3e4b7a" CreationDate="2017-04-22T00:07:23.853" UserId="3076" Comment="added 295 characters in body" Text="&gt; Additionally, the content of European patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applications as filed, the dates of filing of which are prior to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; date referred to in paragraph 2 and which were published on or after&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that date, shall be considered as comprised in the state of the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the EPO, unpublished EP applications filed before the date of filing of an application are prior art for novelty but not prior art for inventive step. The theory is that even if it is unpublished, if someone filed on &quot;the same thing&quot; before you did your invention is not novel. However, to be in the state of the art for purposes of a document pointing someone in the direction of your invention (inventive step) it must actually have been available to the public before your filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the same in the US. If a reference is prior art for section 102 purposes, it is prior art for section 103 purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding priority date vs actual filing date -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Article 89 Effect of priority right The right of priority shall&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have the effect that the date of priority shall count as the date of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; filing of the European patent application for the purposes of Article&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 54, paragraphs 2 and 3, and Article 60, paragraph 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a proper claim of priority moves the &quot;effective date&quot; back from the actual fining date to the priority date. One concern is whether or not the priory claim is to a filing that really qualifies under the Paris Agreement Article 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, In the EPO's Guidelines for Examination Part G , Chapter IV paragraph-3. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Date of filing or priority date as effective date It should be noted&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that &quot;date of filing&quot; in Art. 54(2) and (3) is to be interpreted as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; meaning the date of priority in appropriate cases (see F‑VI, 1.2)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17678" RevisionGUID="62868ee1-efab-4abc-ad7f-b1553742ad63" CreationDate="2017-04-22T04:52:49.133" UserId="18924" Text="Can I use the  (Hand loom provided with a mechanism for variation of the distance between breast beam and back beam &#xD;&#xA;US 4582096 A) patent in commercial issues?&#xD;&#xA; US-4582096-A" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46599" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17678" RevisionGUID="62868ee1-efab-4abc-ad7f-b1553742ad63" CreationDate="2017-04-22T04:52:49.133" UserId="18924" Text="Using patent US 4582096 A in commercial?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46600" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17678" RevisionGUID="62868ee1-efab-4abc-ad7f-b1553742ad63" CreationDate="2017-04-22T04:52:49.133" UserId="18924" Text="&lt;louet&gt;&lt;breast-beam&gt;&lt;hand-loom&gt;&lt;hand-weaving&gt;&lt;us-4582096-a&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46601" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="1b3f63aa-df23-4e1c-a12b-6cf61312d33a" CreationDate="2017-04-22T08:17:35.157" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17679" RevisionGUID="ed8a0391-aa50-4ea6-96fb-489477cea70e" CreationDate="2017-04-22T09:11:46.167" UserId="16543" Text="Dear Patents Exchange!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have filed design patents and utility patent for my invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The utility patent is still under examiner and I have received an Ex Parte Quayle decision on the design patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are the USPTO examiners permitted by law to have contradicting opinions and views on the invention? (not saying they have, but I'd like to know the MPEP section where such cases are discussed)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46603" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17679" RevisionGUID="ed8a0391-aa50-4ea6-96fb-489477cea70e" CreationDate="2017-04-22T09:11:46.167" UserId="16543" Text="Design and Utility Patent for Same Invention, Ex Parte Quayle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46604" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17679" RevisionGUID="ed8a0391-aa50-4ea6-96fb-489477cea70e" CreationDate="2017-04-22T09:11:46.167" UserId="16543" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;utility&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17680" RevisionGUID="eda77ac4-6ae2-4af7-ad26-cb4d07213f44" CreationDate="2017-04-22T17:57:54.180" UserId="17003" Text="This patent has expired (probably in 2003). The patent was granted in 1986 so its term was 17 years from grant date. Since 1995, the rules on patent terms have changed so they are now 20 years from the priority date. You are allowed to use the technology described in the patent without taking a license. In case you make any improvements to the technology, you should be aware that other patents potentially may still be in effect so a patent search is always a good idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17681" RevisionGUID="a1058e17-4e9d-4d29-9aa1-6f111a82bb94" CreationDate="2017-04-22T18:17:32.530" UserId="14038" Text="MPEP 1502 sets forth the differences between the requirements for patentability of a utility patent application and a design patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In general terms, a “utility patent” protects the way an article is used and works (35 U.S.C. 101), while a “design patent” protects the way an article looks (35 U.S.C. 171). The ornamental appearance for an article includes its shape/configuration or surface ornamentation applied to the article, or both. Both design and utility patents may be obtained on an article if invention resides both in its utility and ornamental appearance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1502.html#d0e150263&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As DonQuiKong stated, there are different patentability requirements for the two types of patent applications, thus the patentability of one has no bearing on the patentability of the other.  You should provide the examiners of each patent application any prior art cited by the other examiner just to ensure that the duty of disclosure has been met." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17682" RevisionGUID="a8316205-cb6f-422b-8411-6985e88b2304" CreationDate="2017-04-22T21:28:42.827" UserId="18927" Text="It may be a silly question, but I cannot answer to myself.&#xD;&#xA;Let's say I have a big invention in my hands and I am working as engineer in a company. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are opening two main scenarios: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Finalize the invention and make the patent within the company. In the contract, is stated that the credit may be assigned to the inventor, but the owner is still the company. Are existing cases in which the name of the inventor is completely hidden?&#xD;&#xA; 2. In order to be sure that the attribution missing is avoided, I will patent as a private person. It will cost to me the whole patent, without actually doing anything with it. This is odd, because, translating, with this approach while you are in a company and you have an idea, you save it for yourself and patenting outside such a company, which translates again in NOT doing useful work in the company. You became frustrated and go to the #1 of this itemlist or you start your own business. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you may see, I don't have clear ideas. My purpose is not to gain money from such a patent, but have all the attribution as a person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples: to made an extremization, let's consider Jack Kilby, the inventor if the integrated circuit technology: he did it within Texas Instruments, which hold the patent, but here there is attribution. As a plus, in average if someone thinks who invented the IC, thinks to Kilby, not to Texas Instruments. But if I think to who invented the pitch to zoom technique on smartphones, one may think to Apple, not to the person (assuming that is Apple).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe the answer is in the company's respect towards their employees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46608" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17682" RevisionGUID="a8316205-cb6f-422b-8411-6985e88b2304" CreationDate="2017-04-22T21:28:42.827" UserId="18927" Text="A patent from a company and from private" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46609" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17682" RevisionGUID="a8316205-cb6f-422b-8411-6985e88b2304" CreationDate="2017-04-22T21:28:42.827" UserId="18927" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;intellectual-property&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17683" RevisionGUID="5130be44-e7e1-4010-a6e1-98a77d6b5096" CreationDate="2017-04-22T22:57:36.043" UserId="17003" Text="In every company I've worked for, if I invent something as a part of my employment, the company owns the rights to the patent. I simply would not have the option of patenting it myself. If I patented something outside the job then I might have the rights to the patent, but it may get a bit tricky if the knowledge that lead to the invention is due to my employment. It all depends on your employment agreement, but what I'm describing is the standard in the US. Many companies reward their inventors with some sort of monetary reward when a patent is granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I, as the inventor, will be listed on the patent as the inventor. The company simply doesn't have the option of leaving the true inventor's name off the patent. While you may not know the inventor at Apple who came up with pinch to zoom, that person's name will be on the patent. There are cases where the patent attorneys have to determine who will be listed as inventors, but if you are actually the inventor your name will be on the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ownership and inventorship are not the same thing. If you look at the first page of any patent, you will see the inventor and assignee listed. They may or may not be the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46611" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="420491ee-0a3b-4964-8932-af768f7c54be" CreationDate="2017-04-23T00:39:30.497" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17683" RevisionGUID="92971c40-51ca-4d75-9096-d7555c095588" CreationDate="2017-04-23T02:04:47.503" UserId="17003" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="In every company I've worked for, if I invent something as a part of my employment, the company owns the rights to the patent. I simply would not have the option of patenting it myself. If I were to invent something outside of my job then I might have the rights to the patent, but it may get a bit tricky if the knowledge that lead to the invention is due to my employment. It all depends on your employment agreement, but what I'm describing is the standard in the US. Many companies reward their inventors with some sort of monetary reward when a patent is granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I, as the inventor, will be listed on the patent as the inventor. The company simply doesn't have the option of leaving the true inventor's name off the patent. While you may not know the inventor at Apple who came up with pinch to zoom, that person's name will be on the patent. There are cases where the patent attorneys have to determine who will be listed as inventors, but if you are actually the inventor your name will be on the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ownership and inventorship are not the same thing. If you look at the first page of any patent, you will see the inventor and assignee listed. They may or may not be the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17684" RevisionGUID="c4ded3f3-2a8e-4ac0-b527-5668280e8de5" CreationDate="2017-04-23T07:56:17.030" UserId="18033" Text="The inventor has to be named on the patent, so there's that. &#xA;&#xA;But I think your question relates more to the scientific acknowledgment of an invention. Your example show one great scientific invention (inventor known) and one great idea which didn't contribute to science (maybe a little, but not like the blue diode or relativity theory -&gt; inventor unknown).&#xA;&#xA;I don't think anyone can tell you what exactly makes an inventor famous, maybe writing a paper after the patent helps, maybe not. In the end, I think it boils down to the scientific community noticing you. &#xA;&#xA;The chance is there, you have to be listed as an inventor, but nobody can promise that you will be.&#xA;&#xA;If you don't care about the money, patenting or yourself shouldn't be an option - it doesn't matter if your name is on the patent once or twice and you'll spare yourself the trouble and money." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46615" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17466" RevisionGUID="804f9efe-f22f-42c3-b839-bafe71e42ddb" CreationDate="2017-04-23T08:45:21.767" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17684" RevisionGUID="7b6e5cb8-14bb-4711-934d-3b6f2c4fca80" CreationDate="2017-04-23T11:36:58.030" UserId="18033" Comment="added 1 character in body; added 8 characters in body; deleted 3 characters in body" Text="The inventor has to be named on the patent, so there's that. &#xA;&#xA;But I think your question relates more to the scientific acknowledgment of an invention. Your example shows one great scientific invention (inventor known) and one great idea which didn't contribute to science (maybe a little, but not like the blue diode or relativity theory -&gt; inventor unknown).&#xA;&#xA;I don't think anyone can tell you what exactly makes an inventor famous, maybe writing a paper after the patent helps, maybe not. In the end, I think it boils down to the scientific community noticing you. &#xA;&#xA;The chance is there, you have to be listed as an inventor, but nobody can promise that you will be noticed.&#xA;&#xA;If you don't care about the money, patenting yourself shouldn't be an option - it doesn't matter if your name is on the patent once or twice and you'll spare yourself the trouble and money." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46617" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17636" RevisionGUID="7495714c-2691-440b-ac1f-68e6a5941ed3" CreationDate="2017-04-23T12:42:18.193" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 302 characters in body; deleted 1 character in body; added 68 characters in body" Text="*Due to the application beeing pre AIA, I had to revise my previous answer*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lets start with two of the three conditions for patentability - novelty and non-obviousness (the third is usefulness). Prior art for both is **the same** (see [mpep 2141.01][1]) ! This is based in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Post AIA, so for your question the next section is not relevant, however I find it very important as it is the current state of the law).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**35 U.S. Code § 101 - Inventions patentable:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Whoever invents or discovers any **new** and **useful** process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Novelty:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**35 U.S. Code § 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a)Novelty; Prior Art.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—&#xD;&#xA;(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or&#xD;&#xA;(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;35 USC 102 (b) and (c) describe excemptions, I won't cite them, but please read them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(d)Patents and Published Applications Effective as Prior Art.—For purposes of determining whether a patent or application for patent is prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2), such patent or application shall be considered to have been effectively filed, with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or application—&#xD;&#xA;(1) if paragraph (2) does not apply, as of the actual filing date of the patent or the application for patent; or&#xD;&#xA;(2) if the patent or application for patent is entitled to claim a right of priority under section 119, 365(a), 365(b), 386(a), or 386(b), or to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date under section 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), based upon 1 or more prior filed applications for patent, as of the filing date of the earliest such application that describes the subject matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for novelty, anything published before the effective filing date is prior art and patent applications filed before or based on a priority document filed before the effective filing date (of the patent application assessed for novelty) if published later. This is called the first to file principle. **But** this only applies for AIA patent applications (after March 16th 2013). I'll get to pre AIA later. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there is no &quot;in this country&quot; or &quot;in english&quot; post AIA!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pre AIA (filed before March 16th 2013)**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US was a first to invent country pre AIA, therefore there are some differences. Also, prior art for novelty had to be used/known &quot;in this country&quot; (the US) or published elsewhere. As we are talking about a published publication or a hidden earlier application, this doesn't matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[MPEP][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *****&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (e) the invention was described in — (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*****&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) allows the use of certain international application publications and U.S. patent application publications, and certain U.S. patents as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as of their respective U.S. filing dates, including certain international filing dates. The prior art date of a reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) may be the international filing date if the international filing date was on or after November 29, 2000, the international application designated the United States, and the international application was published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Article 21(2) in the English language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) is explicitly limited to certain references “filed in the United States before the invention thereof by the applicant” (emphasis added). Foreign applications’ filing dates that are claimed (via 35 U.S.C. 119(a)–(d), (f) or 35 U.S.C. 365(a)) in applications, which have been published as U.S. or WIPO application publications or patented in the U.S., may not be used as pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) dates for prior art purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which should answer your question. The reference date for the US assessment of novelty is the date in which a US application was filed or a PCT application was filed which included the US as designated country and was published in english under PCT article 21(2) (see MPEP section a little below the previous cited).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If any of the applications had been published before the filing date of B - in any language - it would be prior art. If that was not the case, A is not prior art for B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2141.html&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2135.html#d0e205339" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17686" RevisionGUID="8d4f30fe-33e2-4235-ad1f-c9c8efe516aa" CreationDate="2017-04-23T18:22:46.537" UserId="18932" Text="This patent holder is trying exert her rights in the USA using a EUIPO European patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/designs/003220508-0001&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this something that can be enforceable or would she need a US patent? What about is she is registered with the WIPO?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks (hopefully this is the right area to ask a question like this)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46624" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17686" RevisionGUID="8d4f30fe-33e2-4235-ad1f-c9c8efe516aa" CreationDate="2017-04-23T18:22:46.537" UserId="18932" Text="Can a EUIPO patent be enforced in the USA?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46625" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17686" RevisionGUID="8d4f30fe-33e2-4235-ad1f-c9c8efe516aa" CreationDate="2017-04-23T18:22:46.537" UserId="18932" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;euipo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17687" RevisionGUID="b693beb8-884a-4ee3-935d-6fe495047738" CreationDate="2017-04-23T19:02:38.050" UserId="18033" Text="A European intellectual property right is not enforceable in the US. It is enforceable on imports into a country where the protection applies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't find more information on this special design apart from this source https://www.google.de/search?sclient=psy-ab&amp;site=&amp;tbm=pts&amp;source=hp&amp;btnG=Suche&amp;q=+++++6PetalTulip-1-L+ where the abstract of the webpage says there is a WIPO registered design, so I'll assume that is correct for the sake of providing an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;WIPO does not grant rights, it is merely something like a distributor. If you register a design in your country, you can use the WIPO to help you register the design in other countries (it's a little more complex than that, but that will do as an explanation). So the design in question could have had the US as one designated country in the WIPo application and the applicants could have proceeded to the national phase in the US. That means, that they could now have a US design right. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a US design patent is enforceable in the US. However, if somewhere on the way they didn't enter the national phase in the US or the US right is not valid, then they cannot enforce the right, even if the WIPO application led to rights in other countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, intellectual property protection is a territorial thing. WIPO is only a intermediary step to applying for national rights all over the world, it does not grant anything. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17688" RevisionGUID="3cfee91a-50f3-4e0d-97f2-2c9f49479939" CreationDate="2017-04-23T19:18:32.370" UserId="18814" Text="I'm about to file two provisional patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent A and Patent B are different patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However a tiny section of Patent A depends on Patent B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I reference patent B in patent A?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46628" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17688" RevisionGUID="3cfee91a-50f3-4e0d-97f2-2c9f49479939" CreationDate="2017-04-23T19:18:32.370" UserId="18814" Text="How do I reference provisional patent B in provisional patent A?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46629" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17688" RevisionGUID="3cfee91a-50f3-4e0d-97f2-2c9f49479939" CreationDate="2017-04-23T19:18:32.370" UserId="18814" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;reference&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17689" RevisionGUID="d823f3ba-836a-4e63-b27d-8be2df763104" CreationDate="2017-04-23T20:07:03.667" UserId="18033" Text="## What to comply with ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two reasons for the description of the invention in anything else than claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - enablement requirement&#xD;&#xA; - written description requirement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Enablement means&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The enablement requirement refers to the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph that the specification describe how to make and how to use the invention. The invention that one skilled in the art must be enabled to make and use is that defined by the claim(s) of the particular application or patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The purpose of the requirement that the specification describe the invention in such terms that one skilled in the art can make and use the claimed invention is to ensure that the invention is communicated to the interested public in a meaningful way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([MPEP][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not the same as the written description requirement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, is separate and distinct from the written description requirement. Vas-Cath,Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116-17 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“the purpose of the ‘written description’ requirement is broader than to merely explain how to ‘make and use’”). See also MPEP § 2161. Therefore, the fact that an additional limitation to a claim may lack descriptive support in the disclosure as originally filed does not necessarily mean that the limitation is also not enabled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(same MPEP section)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For enablement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2164.01   Test of Enablement [R-08.2012]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Any analysis of whether a particular claim is supported by the disclosure in an application requires a determination of whether that disclosure, when filed, contained sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claims as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the claimed invention. The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Minerals Separation Ltd. v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916) which postured the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? That standard is still the one to be applied. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Accordingly, even though the statute does not use the term “undue experimentation,” it has been interpreted to require that the claimed invention be enabled so that any person skilled in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation. In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d at 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See also United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785, 8 USPQ2d 1217, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1988) **(“The test of enablement is whether one reasonably skilled in the art could make or use the invention from the disclosures in the patent coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation.”)**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Still quoting the MPEP section on enablement, emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you need to include every important part of B into A to have a basis for the claims and enable them. The basis for the claims should be that every claim is literally listed and explained in the description, everything else, while theoretically possible, gets you into trouble in practice. Claims and patents are regularly invalidated because someone added something to a claim which was only between the lines or they deemed &quot;clear from context&quot;. For enabling, references and prior art can be used too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How to do that ##&#xD;&#xA;If what is needed for the claims of A is in B, B has to be part of the prior art or part of the description of A. For what is part of the prior art see [this answer][2]. If B gets abandoned and not published, it won't be prior art for A, so I'd strongly advise against not making it part of A's description *because it will be prior art*, even if that might work. Additionally, I don't know the case law, but having to use the prior art from only one other application to enable might be *undue experimentation*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we are left with either adding every important aspect of B into A, e.g. by copying it into it, or **incorporation by reference**.&#xD;&#xA;## Incorporation by reference: ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on [37 CFR 1.57: Incorporation by reference][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(d) “Essential material” may be incorporated by reference, but only by way of an incorporation by reference to a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication, which patent or patent application publication does not itself incorporate such essential material by reference. “Essential material” is material that is necessary to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (1) Provide a written description of the claimed invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) ;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (2) Describe the claimed invention in terms that particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) ; or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;   (3) Describe the structure, material, or acts that correspond to a claimed means or step for performing a specified function as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(f) .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a incorporation by reference only cannot be done as B is not published nor granted. Which leaves us with 37 CFR 1.57 (a) and (b) - claim priority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can validly claim priority of B, you can incorporate it by reference. It won't give you an ealier filing date for the claims if they aren't based on only B, but it can allow you the incorporation by reference. Please note that I'm not citing 37 CFR 1.57 (a) and (b) which have quite some requirements to be fulfilled. Also you would have to fulfill all requirements to validly claim priority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do not want to do that, the only way left is to copy every important part into the description. Which I would advise you do anyways because it gives you more possibilites to amend your claims in case they aren't granted on the first try.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/17636/18033&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#ar_d22415_18920_3a0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17689" RevisionGUID="6491e7ba-71dc-46b6-a419-73fd41df531f" CreationDate="2017-04-23T20:51:00.517" UserId="18033" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="## What to comply with ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two reasons for the description of the invention in anything else than claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - enablement requirement&#xD;&#xA; - written description requirement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Enablement means&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The enablement requirement refers to the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph that the specification describe how to make and how to use the invention. The invention that one skilled in the art must be enabled to make and use is that defined by the claim(s) of the particular application or patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The purpose of the requirement that the specification describe the invention in such terms that one skilled in the art can make and use the claimed invention is to ensure that the invention is communicated to the interested public in a meaningful way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([MPEP][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not the same as the written description requirement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, is separate and distinct from the written description requirement. Vas-Cath,Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116-17 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“the purpose of the ‘written description’ requirement is broader than to merely explain how to ‘make and use’”). See also MPEP § 2161. Therefore, the fact that an additional limitation to a claim may lack descriptive support in the disclosure as originally filed does not necessarily mean that the limitation is also not enabled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(same MPEP section)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For enablement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2164.01   Test of Enablement [R-08.2012]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Any analysis of whether a particular claim is supported by the disclosure in an application requires a determination of whether that disclosure, when filed, contained sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claims as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the claimed invention. The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Minerals Separation Ltd. v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916) which postured the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? That standard is still the one to be applied. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Accordingly, even though the statute does not use the term “undue experimentation,” it has been interpreted to require that the claimed invention be enabled so that any person skilled in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation. In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d at 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See also United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785, 8 USPQ2d 1217, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1988) **(“The test of enablement is whether one reasonably skilled in the art could make or use the invention from the disclosures in the patent coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation.”)**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Still quoting the MPEP section on enablement, emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you need to include every important part of B into A to have a basis for the claims and enable them. The basis for the claims should be that every claim is literally listed and explained in the description, everything else, while theoretically possible, gets you into trouble in practice. Claims and patents are regularly invalidated because someone added something to a claim which was only between the lines or they deemed &quot;clear from context&quot;. For enabling, references and prior art can be used too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How to do that ##&#xD;&#xA;If what is needed for the claims of A is in B, B has to be part of the prior art or part of the description of A. For what is part of the prior art see [this answer][2]. If B gets abandoned and not published, it won't be prior art for A, so I'd strongly advise against not making it part of A's description *because it will be prior art*, even if that might work. Additionally, I don't know the case law, but having to use the prior art from only one other application to enable might be *undue experimentation*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we are left with either adding every important aspect of B into A, e.g. by copying it into it, or **incorporation by reference**.&#xD;&#xA;## Incorporation by reference: ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on [37 CFR 1.57: Incorporation by reference][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(d) “Essential material” may be incorporated by reference, but only by way of an incorporation by reference to a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication, which patent or patent application publication does not itself incorporate such essential material by reference. “Essential material” is material that is necessary to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (1) Provide a written description of the claimed invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) ;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (2) Describe the claimed invention in terms that particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) ; or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;   (3) Describe the structure, material, or acts that correspond to a claimed means or step for performing a specified function as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(f) .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So an incorporation by reference only cannot be done as B is not published nor granted. Which leaves us with 37 CFR 1.57 (a) and (b) - claim priority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can validly claim priority of B, you can incorporate it by reference. It won't give you an earlier filing date for the claims if they aren't based on only B, but it can allow you the incorporation by reference. Please note that I'm not citing 37 CFR 1.57 (a) and (b) which have quite some requirements to be fulfilled. Also you would have to fulfill all requirements to validly claim priority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do not want to do that, the only way left is to copy every important part into the description. Which I would advise you do anyways because it gives you more possibilites to amend your claims in case they aren't granted on the first try if you incorporate it not only by copying but also logically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/17636/18033&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#ar_d22415_18920_3a0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17690" RevisionGUID="8438b928-8e35-44db-8ddf-f8ee55569afc" CreationDate="2017-04-23T22:12:58.507" UserId="11863" Text="A European company has filed a patent application with USPTO. Can an employee of the company represent himself on behalf of the company for prosecuting the patent application? Can he do a telephone interview with the Examiner?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;European Patent Office does not allow a non-resident employee to represent his employer before EPO. Are there similar restrictions before USPTO?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46633" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17690" RevisionGUID="8438b928-8e35-44db-8ddf-f8ee55569afc" CreationDate="2017-04-23T22:12:58.507" UserId="11863" Text="Can an employee of an European Company (applicant) represent his company before USPTO?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46634" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17690" RevisionGUID="8438b928-8e35-44db-8ddf-f8ee55569afc" CreationDate="2017-04-23T22:12:58.507" UserId="11863" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;representation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46635" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16926" RevisionGUID="b7df2242-6f06-456e-8094-8e9029355f3f" CreationDate="2017-04-23T23:53:13.457" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17686" RevisionGUID="402da1d2-e468-4029-a8d4-0e4b5c785e78" CreationDate="2017-04-24T04:30:05.953" UserId="15503" Comment="Clarify that the question is about RCDs, not patents" Text="A design holder is trying exert her rights in the USA using [EM 003220508-0001](https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/designs/003220508-0001).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this something that can be enforceable or would she need a US design patent? What if she is registered with WIPO?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46640" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17686" RevisionGUID="402da1d2-e468-4029-a8d4-0e4b5c785e78" CreationDate="2017-04-24T04:30:05.953" UserId="15503" Comment="Clarify that the question is about RCDs, not patents" Text="Can a registered Community design be enforced in the USA?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46641" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17686" RevisionGUID="402da1d2-e468-4029-a8d4-0e4b5c785e78" CreationDate="2017-04-24T04:30:05.953" UserId="15503" Comment="Clarify that the question is about RCDs, not patents" Text="&lt;design&gt;&lt;euipo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46642" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17496" RevisionGUID="d53543ec-fd7b-428e-8654-d7eac1b5e467" CreationDate="2017-04-24T05:55:23.297" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46647" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="c5854099-bbe7-4f7d-addd-51d61616375b" CreationDate="2017-04-24T19:12:15.753" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46648" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="14fd7656-11d6-49f3-9500-8231e2e32955" CreationDate="2017-04-24T21:17:10.737" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17693" RevisionGUID="02a915ac-033c-4b63-821c-42a88af98824" CreationDate="2017-04-24T21:55:38.230" UserId="14038" Text="If the applicant is a company (juristic entity), then it may only use a patent practitioner to prosecute the patent application in the US.  If the applicant is an individual or group of individuals, then one of the inventors may prosecute the application pro se.  A patent practitioner is an attorney or agent who have been admitted to practice before the US Patent Office.  This requires having the necessary technical background and passing the Patent Bar.   So the answer to your question is that unless the employee has been admitted to practice before the US Patent Office, they may not prosecute the patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 37 CFR 1.31  Applicant may be represented by one or more patent practitioners or joint inventors.&#xD;&#xA;An applicant for patent may file and prosecute the applicant's own case, or the applicant may give power of attorney so as to be represented by one or more patent practitioners or joint inventors, except that a juristic entity (e.g., organizational assignee) must be represented by a patent practitioner even if the juristic entity is the applicant. The Office cannot aid in the selection of a patent practitioner.  An applicant who is a juristic entity must be represented by a patent practitioner. An applicant for patent, other than a juristic entity (e.g., organizational assignee), may file and prosecute his or her own application, and thus act as his or her own representative (pro se) before the Office." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46653" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17273" RevisionGUID="d0c75da8-9640-48ff-a0e9-a7038f74de5a" CreationDate="2017-04-24T23:17:52.930" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46654" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="f874944f-1287-4f76-84e3-8b90135e5966" CreationDate="2017-04-25T00:17:53.850" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46657" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17290" RevisionGUID="c3459197-d30b-4e0d-bf00-ea9ce21a9b64" CreationDate="2017-04-25T01:17:56.613" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46658" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="a6024bae-8439-4554-9fe9-c66fbe450029" CreationDate="2017-04-25T02:17:59.023" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17695" RevisionGUID="1692455e-d7c9-4a3e-a731-0ced3f621566" CreationDate="2017-04-25T04:00:44.723" UserId="18521" Text="The patent application was initially rejected twice, and then on 10/1/2014, the attorneys added this language to claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;wherein the initial track centerline data defines a centerline of the track, and wherein the subsequent track centerline data defines another centerline of the track.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and added this language to claim 33:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;wherein the initial track parseable data comprises textual representations of the data in the initial database, and wherein the subsequent track parseable data comprises textual representations of the data in the verification database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These additions were apparently enough to convince the US Patent Office that the invention was worthy of a patent. I haven't analyzed what these statements mean, but I've shown you where to look in order to understand why the patent was allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, even though the application was initially rejected twice, the USPTO indicated that the original claims 27 and 28 were allowable from the get-go. Those claims originally read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;27. The system of claim 26, wherein the processing device is further configured to: compare the prediction data with the actual measured data for a plurality of trains at the specified portion of the track, thereby compiling expected performance data for the plurality of trains; establish an expected error margin value based upon the compiled expected performance data for the plurality of trains at the specified portion of the track; and log the identity of any train or locomotive where difference between the prediction data and the actual measured data exceeds the expected error margin value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;28. The system of claim 26, wherein the processing device is further configured to: compare the prediction data with the actual measured data for a plurality of trains at the specified portion of the track, thereby compiling expected performance data for the plurality of trains; establish an expected error margin value based upon the compiled expected performance data for the plurality of trains at the specified portion of the track; determine an acceptable error margin value associated with the expected error margin value; and log the identity of any train where difference between the prediction data and the actual measured data exceeds the acceptable error margin value. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and understanding why the patent was allowed would require analyzing the meaning of these claims (and interpreting them in light of the detailed description).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just as a property line sets forth the boundaries of one's land, the **claims** set forth the boundaries of the invention. A patent is only broad if the **claims** are broad. This patent has lots of claims, and if you infringe just one claim, then you infringe the patent. But to infringe a claim, you must make, use, or sell a system that contains every feature described that claim. This is why a long claim is sometimes said to be easy to &quot;design around.&quot; If your system omits just one feature required by the claim, then you no longer infringe that claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found this info by navigating to the USPTO's [site for public records](http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair), searching for patent number 9,002,545, and pulling up the &quot;Image File Wrapper.&quot; From there, you can see the back and forth communication between the attorneys and the Patent Office." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46666" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="077e012a-0fb9-4903-ac06-baf6b0aa1aa0" CreationDate="2017-04-25T07:21:40.407" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46669" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17678" RevisionGUID="9a604caf-bcbc-4961-afb1-ff90e39a512c" CreationDate="2017-04-25T17:37:51.423" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;us4582096&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17697" RevisionGUID="2eda3b5a-ad6d-400d-b76f-cbafa73884aa" CreationDate="2017-04-25T18:52:04.103" UserId="18521" Text="It's a tough question to answer because it can depend on the particular facts of your invention. The application must describe the invention with enough detail that a software developer with an ordinary level of skill in computer programming could read the application and then build your invention. It's not uncommon for companies/inventors to omit algorithms from the patent description, though, for the same reason that developers don't paste their code into the patent application. However, if the algorithm is a key novel feature, then describing it in the provisional is very important. If you envision several possible implementations, an option is to describe all of those as different non-limiting examples. In a similar way, you can describe how the invention can be implemented as a standalone device or can be integrated into a larger system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're unsure whether or not the provisional application describes the invention with sufficient detail, but you don't want to risk losing the filing date, one option is to: file a first provisional with whatever description you're able to put together describing all of the alternatives you envision, then build the device/write &amp; test the code to determine the final implementation, and then file a second provisional application expanding on the first and adding additional detail. It would be important to file the second provisional application before the first provisional application expires. The two provisional applications will have different filing dates, so if you decide to file a nonprovisional application, it will also have to be filed within a year of the *first* provisional application's filing date, or else you risk your nonprovisional application not receiving the benefit of that first provisional filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These strategies are nuanced and have legal consequences; it becomes important to discuss them with a patent lawyer/patent agent who knows the facts of your case. As one example, a possible outcome is that you describe an implementation in the first provisional application, then file the first provisional application, then test the implementation, and subsequently find that the implementation simply doesn't work. Describing something that **doesn't** work could have negative consequences on the application as a whole and on whether the description has enabled one of ordinary skill in the art to make the invention. As another example, if you file a first provisional application, and then you start making/using/describing the invention in a public capacity, and then later file a second provisional application, your public activities could destroy the validity of the second provisional application (if you're not careful)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46672" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="0afe7649-7e1b-4486-8050-8c4e045c37d0" CreationDate="2017-04-25T19:10:02.540" UserId="18033" Comment="edited title" Text="Does the Patent D-120891 hold 2 different creations/inventions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16926" RevisionGUID="94004957-ba6a-461c-85a2-245e1892d8e8" CreationDate="2017-04-25T19:14:40.717" UserId="17003" Comment="Changed link to the application to one that shows figures." Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2015015158A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/WO_2015_015158_A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you get a patent for a product that sells in high volume on the market over the past 40 years?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16927" RevisionGUID="622122be-f438-4670-a023-bab6914e80ce" CreationDate="2017-04-25T19:19:01.837" UserId="17003" Comment="Added a bit of additional content to my answer." Text="You figure out an improvement and patent the improvement. I'm not passing any judgement of the cited application as I didn't read it thoroughly and I'm not an expert in this field. Do you suppose that the first and only airplane patent went to the Wright brothers? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also remember, that the cited document is a patent application, not yet a patent. It may never become a patent and if it does, the claims may be significantly narrowed. The application also cites 6 other patents as prior art dating back to 1980." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46675" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16748" RevisionGUID="4db9eedf-4f7f-4be4-84b0-79ae609c1ad8" CreationDate="2017-04-25T19:33:28.563" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17698" RevisionGUID="053fb4fe-aced-4c0b-b8a5-dd9961c7152a" CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:27:06.783" UserId="15192" Text="Some patents seem to be filed for fairly well-known ideas. Even large, industry-leading companies, rather than patent trolls, appear to apply for such patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since prior art is a defense against infringement, what's the motivation for applying for patents, where prior art already exists?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it normally an oversight by the &quot;inventor&quot;, or is there a business case for such filings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46677" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17698" RevisionGUID="053fb4fe-aced-4c0b-b8a5-dd9961c7152a" CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:27:06.783" UserId="15192" Text="Why do people patent well-known ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46678" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17698" RevisionGUID="053fb4fe-aced-4c0b-b8a5-dd9961c7152a" CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:27:06.783" UserId="15192" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17699" RevisionGUID="9b1c21f4-6457-402c-9fbd-a2b9e7e95370" CreationDate="2017-04-25T21:08:13.047" UserId="18033" Text="I think this question is based on a misunderstanding. I think this misunderstanding is based on two facts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Patent trolls do try to get broad patents on existing technology and then sue others. They don't do that by patenting the prior art but by filing divisionals / continuations and fuzzy claims. Essentially they try to take an inventive idea and formulate the patent in a way that its as broad as possible. Then they wait for improvements others find and file a continuation with claims encompassing that improvement but based on the priority date of the earlier application and somehow on the wording but often not the meaning of it's text. Why? Because money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Broad claims. **Every** good application will *start* with overly broad claims that claim part of the prior art. That is because it's easy to narrow claims but almost impossible to broaden them and it's hard to exactly know how broad a patent the examiner will allow. So you try iteratively, starting with broad. And another point is that the description of the patent has to be enabling. If it is not, the patent might get invalidated. So the description will of course have many well known aspects, just to make sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not completly untrue that people try to patent prior art - or rather - they patent minor improvements. Because having many patents is important. If another company wants to sue you and you have 20 patents on minor things they are infringing too, you can get a good deal. If however you only have one good patent, they might design around it or attack it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can approve the patent system or not, but it does allow patenting of minor but inventive improvements. And that's not inherently bad. There are patents out there that should never have been granted and patent trolls monetarizing them. But the patent system isn't full of people trying to patent prior art. Because it costs money and - apparently opposite to popular believe - patent attorneys, patent examiners and inventors are neither stupid nor blind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course, sometimes it costs less money to file for a patent then to do more and more prior art search. It's impossible to only file good patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17698" RevisionGUID="4f4c878b-ebb5-4ee8-93e0-9eecced94ce9" CreationDate="2017-04-25T21:16:43.280" UserId="15192" Comment="examples added" Text="Some patents seem to be filed for fairly well-known ideas, like for example, [&quot;out-of-office email&quot;][1]. Even large, industry-leading companies, rather than patent trolls, [appear to apply for such patents][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since prior art is a defense against infringement, what's the motivation for applying for patents, where prior art already exists?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it normally an oversight by the &quot;inventor&quot;, or is there a business case for such filings?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/stupid-patent-month-ibm-patents-out-office-email&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.eff.org/issues/stupid-patent-month" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17699" RevisionGUID="97696c04-31cc-4106-ab32-d85e3bbcb846" CreationDate="2017-04-25T21:26:45.653" UserId="18033" Comment="added 1086 characters in body" Text="I think this question is based on a misunderstanding. I think this misunderstanding is based on two facts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Patent trolls do try to get broad patents on existing technology and then sue others. They don't do that by patenting the prior art but by filing divisionals / continuations and fuzzy claims. Essentially they try to take an inventive idea and formulate the patent in a way that its as broad as possible. Then they wait for improvements others find and file a continuation with claims encompassing that improvement but based on the priority date of the earlier application and somehow on the wording but often not the meaning of it's text. Why? Because money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Broad claims. **Every** good application will *start* with overly broad claims that claim part of the prior art. That is because it's easy to narrow claims but almost impossible to broaden them and it's hard to exactly know how broad a patent the examiner will allow. So you try iteratively, starting with broad. And another point is that the description of the patent has to be enabling. If it is not, the patent might get invalidated. So the description will of course have many well known aspects, just to make sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not completly untrue that people try to patent prior art - or rather - they patent minor improvements. Because having many patents is important. If another company wants to sue you and you have 20 patents on minor things they are infringing too, you can get a good deal. If however you only have one good patent, they might design around it or attack it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can approve the patent system or not, but it does allow patenting of minor but inventive improvements. And that's not inherently bad. There are patents out there that should never have been granted and patent trolls monetarizing them. But the patent system isn't full of people trying to patent prior art. Because it costs money and - apparently opposite to popular believe - patent attorneys, patent examiners and inventors are neither stupid nor blind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course, sometimes it costs less money to file for a patent then to do more and more prior art search. It's impossible to only file good patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your sources, the first one cites a patent &quot;for out of office messages&quot; without analyzing it's limitations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;said first processor determining that an e-mail has not been sent from the first system to a receiver in a second system linked to the first system since said activating;&#xD;&#xA;said processor ascertaining whether a current date is prior to the start date and determining, from said ascertaining, that the current date is prior to the start date;&#xD;&#xA;in response to said determining that the current date is prior to the start date and to said determining that the e-mail has not been sent from the first system to the receiver in the second system, said first processor attaching the extracted availability indicator metadata to the e-mail;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it sends messages only prior to the start date and only if they hadn't been sent, a fact your source doesn't mention. This is a very good example of said minor improvements. The website however seems dedicated to prove a point by ridiculing and oversimplifying. I don't see any real analysis there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46682" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12070" RevisionGUID="0570a6b2-7f0c-4355-945a-6385629aea02" CreationDate="2017-04-25T22:33:46.553" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17699" RevisionGUID="b3e874e6-b3f2-4278-b7eb-93f0b2b607b5" CreationDate="2017-04-26T00:50:45.953" UserId="17003" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I think this question is based on a misunderstanding. I think this misunderstanding is based on two facts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Patent trolls do try to get broad patents on existing technology and then sue others. They don't do that by patenting the prior art but by filing divisionals / continuations and fuzzy claims. Essentially they try to take an inventive idea and formulate the patent in a way that its as broad as possible. Then they wait for improvements others find and file a continuation with claims encompassing that improvement but based on the priority date of the earlier application and somehow on the wording but often not the meaning of it's text. Why? Because money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Broad claims. **Every** good application will *start* with overly broad claims that claim part of the prior art. That is because it's easy to narrow claims but almost impossible to broaden them and it's hard to exactly know how broad a patent the examiner will allow. So you try iteratively, starting with broad. And another point is that the description of the patent has to be enabling. If it is not, the patent might get invalidated. So the description will of course have many well known aspects, just to make sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not completly untrue that people try to patent prior art - or rather - they patent minor improvements. Because having many patents is important. If another company wants to sue you and you have 20 patents on minor things they are infringing too, you can get a good deal. If however you only have one good patent, they might design around it or attack it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can approve of the patent system or not, but it does allow patenting of minor but inventive improvements. And that's not inherently bad. There are patents out there that should never have been granted and patent trolls monetarizing them. But the patent system isn't full of people trying to patent prior art. Because it costs money and - apparently opposite to popular believe - patent attorneys, patent examiners and inventors are neither stupid nor blind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course, sometimes it costs less money to file for a patent then to do more and more prior art search. It's impossible to only file good patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your sources, the first one cites a patent &quot;for out of office messages&quot; without analyzing it's limitations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;said first processor determining that an e-mail has not been sent from the first system to a receiver in a second system linked to the first system since said activating;&#xD;&#xA;said processor ascertaining whether a current date is prior to the start date and determining, from said ascertaining, that the current date is prior to the start date;&#xD;&#xA;in response to said determining that the current date is prior to the start date and to said determining that the e-mail has not been sent from the first system to the receiver in the second system, said first processor attaching the extracted availability indicator metadata to the e-mail;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it sends messages only prior to the start date and only if they hadn't been sent, a fact your source doesn't mention. This is a very good example of said minor improvements. The website however seems dedicated to prove a point by ridiculing and oversimplifying. I don't see any real analysis there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46684" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7765" RevisionGUID="87f891df-48da-4b3e-a183-910e72d035bf" CreationDate="2017-04-26T01:33:55.683" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17700" RevisionGUID="0680fe2c-68d2-47cc-afe2-bb9e31226730" CreationDate="2017-04-26T06:38:23.043" UserId="15192" Text="[Alice vs CLS Bank][1] decided that an abstract idea implemented on a generic computer is not patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most experts seem to believe that the SCOTUS's decision invalidated some, but not all software patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What concrete lessons should software patent applicants learn from this decision?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should applications be phrased differently now? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Post-Alice, what algorithmic inventions should be kept as a trade secret instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Please don't upvote &quot;answers&quot; plagiarizing Wikipedia)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46686" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17700" RevisionGUID="0680fe2c-68d2-47cc-afe2-bb9e31226730" CreationDate="2017-04-26T06:38:23.043" UserId="15192" Text="What lessons should software patent applicants learn from Alice vs CLS Bank?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46687" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17700" RevisionGUID="0680fe2c-68d2-47cc-afe2-bb9e31226730" CreationDate="2017-04-26T06:38:23.043" UserId="15192" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;alice&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46688" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="47198e72-3171-4217-be37-674e3d909dcb" CreationDate="2017-04-26T06:43:23.327" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17700" RevisionGUID="f4ef2672-9c3b-442f-8faa-78cd1f3de036" CreationDate="2017-04-26T06:47:22.073" UserId="15192" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="[Alice vs CLS Bank][1] decided that an abstract idea implemented on a generic computer is not patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most experts seem to believe that the SCOTUS's decision invalidated some, but not all software patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What concrete lessons should software patent applicants learn from this decision?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should applications be phrased differently now? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Post-Alice, what algorithmic inventions should be kept as a trade secret instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Please don't upvote &quot;answers&quot; plagiarizing Wikipedia)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17701" RevisionGUID="4507733a-69c2-4e49-90b9-b34250e9f168" CreationDate="2017-04-26T13:18:26.613" UserId="18947" Text="I'm looking for some data, on how many patents, related to life science are filed each year in countries such as USA, EU, Japan, Aus, India, China, Brazil etc. I don't know Where to look for to find such data? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking for a trend over the years..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46691" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17701" RevisionGUID="4507733a-69c2-4e49-90b9-b34250e9f168" CreationDate="2017-04-26T13:18:26.613" UserId="18947" Text="where will I find some data on how many patents are filed in each country over the last 10-15 years, in lifesciences?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46692" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17701" RevisionGUID="4507733a-69c2-4e49-90b9-b34250e9f168" CreationDate="2017-04-26T13:18:26.613" UserId="18947" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;patent-search&gt;&lt;data-processing-software&gt;&lt;databases&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17703" RevisionGUID="9ef8c4a8-f4a0-462b-976e-56a02174de8e" CreationDate="2017-04-26T17:36:16.420" UserId="17003" Text="I think any of the usual patent search sites may be able to help with this. I particularly like [The Lens][1], but patents.google.com or www.freepatentsonline.com/search.html would do as well. The secret is to use classification codes to define the field of search. Here are links for [US][2] and [international][3] codes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can limit your search to specific date ranges, countries and classification codes. The Lens also provides some neat graphical representations of the results you might find helpful. If you register, which is free, you can save searches and access a few additional features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/selectnumwithtitle.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/en/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17700" RevisionGUID="eb338644-48e4-4d9f-8553-efd921d8cbf7" CreationDate="2017-04-26T18:57:20.103" UserId="15192" Comment="deleted 61 characters in body; edited title" Text="[Alice vs CLS Bank][1] decided that an abstract idea implemented on a generic computer is not patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most experts seem to believe that the SCOTUS's decision invalidated some, but not all software patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What concrete lessons should software patent applicants learn from this decision?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should applications be phrased differently now? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Post-Alice, what algorithmic inventions should be kept as a trade secret instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46701" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17700" RevisionGUID="eb338644-48e4-4d9f-8553-efd921d8cbf7" CreationDate="2017-04-26T18:57:20.103" UserId="15192" Comment="deleted 61 characters in body; edited title" Text="What concrete lessons should software patent applicants learn from Alice vs CLS Bank?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46702" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="9ad39830-774d-454e-80e8-b900ef3ae610" CreationDate="2017-04-26T20:54:33.910" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46703" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13870" RevisionGUID="fabad47e-6503-4f0a-b024-9c87ff138381" CreationDate="2017-04-26T22:54:28.090" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46704" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16340" RevisionGUID="07213837-b62d-4ed8-b91e-4cba1646f907" CreationDate="2017-04-26T23:54:27.923" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46708" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10643" RevisionGUID="d3c6c9c6-787a-40f1-9916-165ddb1c0ce9" CreationDate="2017-04-27T04:56:23.437" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17705" RevisionGUID="bcbf6c9f-bb4f-4642-ba16-8952492e3dae" CreationDate="2017-04-27T05:48:39.633" UserId="15503" Text="First I should note that the ratio in *Alice*, while easy to state, is rather hard to apply. Many words have been shed trying to characterise precisely what *Alice*-style abstractness really is. But the reality is, unless high courts rule further on this, we're left with working it out as we go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, I'm feeling brave, so I'll give it a go. For simplicity, all my quotes are from the headnote (though I note that this is not part of the opinion proper).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The judgment**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The holding of *Alice* is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Because the claims are drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea, &#xD;&#xA;they are not patent eligible under §101.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This provides a concise statement. The claimed invention must not relate to an abstract idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But &quot;abstract&quot; is not defined anywhere. Instead, the majority indirectly characterises it, with reference to *Mayo*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In applying the §101 exception, this Court must distinguish patents that claim the &quot;buildin[g] block[s]&quot; of human ingenuity, which are ineligible for patent protection, from those that integrate the building blocks into something more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This approach is somewhat formalised:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Using this framework, the Court must first determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. If so, the Court then asks whether the claim's elements, considered both individually and &quot;as an ordered combination,&quot; &quot;transform the nature of the claim&quot; into a patent-eligible application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The majority apply this approach to the subject patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept: the abstract idea of intermediated settlement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Viewed as a whole, these method claims simply recite the concept of intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer. They do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. An instruction to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement using some unspecified, generic computer is not &quot;enough&quot; to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should applications be phrased differently?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. Or at least, not without something more:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This Court has long &quot;warn[ed] . . . against&quot; interpreting §101 &quot;in ways that make patent eligibility 'depend simply on the draftsman's art.'&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this seems right. The substance of the claim is what matters, not that it uses any magic words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So, how does one approach this in practice?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that you simply have to ask: what really is the point of the invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the point of the invention is a method of trading securities (which is embodied on a computer), it seems that that is a fundamentally abstract idea: you're not claiming anything technological, you're just claiming a fundamental building block of business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if your method is faster for computers to perform than prior art methods which have the same aim, then this is more than abstract. The point of your invention is no longer just business, but better technology. So while the overall concept may well still be abstract in general, at least some features improve the function of a computer such that the invention is transformed into a patent-eligible invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What inventions should be kept as trade secrets?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your invention really doesn't do anything particularly technical, you should probably keep it a secret: it's likely to be abstract and patent-ineligible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A digression on comparative patent law**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though there is no mention, even implicitly, of a desire to align the US with the European approach, it seems to me that there are some clear parallels between *Alice* requirement for non-abstractness and the European requirement for a technical effect. That is, for an invention to be patentable in Europe, the novel features must have some technical effect: the effect of the invention cannot solely be non-technical, such as a better business method, and the technical effect cannot solely be from well-known features like a general purpose computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to me to generally be saying the same thing as the US approach, but with different words. But as far as I know, there have been no formal studies into the similarity between the two approaches, so this is nothing more than idle speculation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46711" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="8c14d5f0-5e0a-4758-9888-6b2debcf460b" CreationDate="2017-04-27T07:07:07.740" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46712" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="a6732771-bf33-4600-a238-2b4b72a852a2" CreationDate="2017-04-27T08:06:56.450" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17703" RevisionGUID="f4f448c4-8a2c-46cd-8e0b-4553abf93f92" CreationDate="2017-04-27T14:14:36.150" UserId="17003" Comment="added 144 characters in body" Text="I think any of the usual patent search sites may be able to help with this. I particularly like [The Lens][1], but patents.google.com or www.freepatentsonline.com/search.html would do as well. The secret is to use classification codes to define the field of search. Here are links for [US][2] and [international][3] codes. Classification codes are complex and generally more specific than &quot;life sciences&quot; so you'll need to think hard about what you are looking for. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can limit your search to specific date ranges, countries and classification codes. The Lens also provides some neat graphical representations of the results you might find helpful. If you register, which is free, you can save searches and access a few additional features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/selectnumwithtitle.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/en/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46718" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17133" RevisionGUID="5224cdd8-366a-44cf-aa63-8e567e7d6001" CreationDate="2017-04-27T17:17:26.013" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46719" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14934" RevisionGUID="0c22fcd1-ba01-45d5-b9b6-33e319d2030f" CreationDate="2017-04-27T18:19:48.533" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17700" RevisionGUID="db3b6178-4730-4860-8e42-971558e1f8b2" CreationDate="2017-04-27T18:36:31.327" UserId="15192" Comment="added 303 characters in body" Text="[Alice vs CLS Bank][1] decided that an abstract idea implemented on a generic computer is not patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most experts seem to believe that the SCOTUS's decision invalidated some, but not all software patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What concrete lessons should software patent applicants learn from this decision?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should applications be phrased differently now? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Post-Alice, what algorithmic inventions should be kept as a trade secret instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Edit*: I found this article that seems pertinent: [A Strategy for Protecting Software Claims from Invalidation Under the Algorithm Requirement][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/07/22/a-strategy-for-protecting-software-claims-from-invalidation-under-the-algorithm-requirement/id=59586/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46721" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17700" RevisionGUID="db3b6178-4730-4860-8e42-971558e1f8b2" CreationDate="2017-04-27T18:36:31.327" UserId="15192" Comment="added 303 characters in body" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;algorithms&gt;&lt;alice&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17700" RevisionGUID="7f874e2e-99d1-4d90-91db-0c24ca305e28" CreationDate="2017-04-27T19:27:57.720" UserId="15192" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="[Alice vs CLS Bank][1] decided that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most experts seem to believe that the SCOTUS's decision invalidated some, but not all software patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What concrete lessons should software patent applicants learn from this decision?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should applications be phrased differently now? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Post-Alice, what algorithmic inventions should be kept as a trade secret instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Edit*: I found this article that seems pertinent: [A Strategy for Protecting Software Claims from Invalidation Under the Algorithm Requirement][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/07/22/a-strategy-for-protecting-software-claims-from-invalidation-under-the-algorithm-requirement/id=59586/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46723" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16491" RevisionGUID="ad11abd3-7001-40bf-8178-55dd2c9f685c" CreationDate="2017-04-27T20:19:45.483" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46724" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16759" RevisionGUID="9e3c8dd7-64e2-465f-af66-45f8aa64e918" CreationDate="2017-04-27T22:18:31.950" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46725" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16365" RevisionGUID="2e7c0f93-95f6-431c-aa12-e3f546f12623" CreationDate="2017-04-27T23:18:36.810" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17697" RevisionGUID="4a4a2152-bc63-4dea-a58e-17692e965b0b" CreationDate="2017-04-27T23:28:29.173" UserId="18521" Comment="improved clarity" Text="It's a tough question to answer because it can depend on the particular facts of your invention. The application must describe the invention with enough detail that a software developer with an ordinary level of skill in computer programming could read the application and then build your invention. It's not uncommon for companies/inventors to omit certain algorithms from the patent description, though, for the same reason that developers don't paste their code into the patent application. However, if the algorithm is a key novel feature, then describing it in the provisional is very important. If you envision several possible implementations, an option is to describe all of those as different non-limiting examples. In a similar way, you can describe how the invention can be implemented as a standalone device or can be integrated into a larger system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're unsure whether or not the provisional application describes the invention with sufficient detail, but you don't want to risk losing the filing date, one option is to: file a first provisional with whatever description you're able to put together describing all of the alternatives you envision, then build the device/write &amp; test the code to determine the final implementation, and then file a second provisional application expanding on the first and adding additional detail. It would be important to file the second provisional application before the first provisional application expires. The two provisional applications will have different filing dates, so if you decide to file a nonprovisional application, it will also have to be filed within a year of the *first* provisional application's filing date, or else you risk your nonprovisional application not receiving the benefit of that first provisional filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These strategies are nuanced and have legal consequences; it becomes important to discuss them with a patent lawyer/patent agent who knows the facts of your case. As one example, a possible outcome is that you describe an implementation in the first provisional application, then file the first provisional application, then test the implementation, and subsequently find that the implementation simply doesn't work. Describing something that **doesn't** work could have negative consequences on the application as a whole and on whether the description has enabled one of ordinary skill in the art to make the invention. As another example, if you file a first provisional application, and then you start making/using/describing the invention in a public capacity, and then later file a second provisional application, your public activities could destroy the validity of the second provisional application (if you're not careful)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17707" RevisionGUID="3c5ae81e-a974-4290-a96f-edeceef5dde9" CreationDate="2017-04-27T23:57:13.127" UserId="18521" Text="First, a small note about terminology: the word &quot;limitation&quot; is almost a synonym for &quot;feature.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer the questions, I'll come up with a simple example. Let's say your invention is a chair that levitates. You submit only three claims, and they read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. A chair comprising: a stool and at least three legs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. The chair of claim 1, further comprising a magnetic levitation device attached&#xD;&#xA;    below each of the three legs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. The chair of claim 2, further comprising a cushion seat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim is not patentable because it has been invented before. So the independent claim 1 would be rejected. Let's pretend the second claim passes all tests for patentability. The second claim would then allowable even though it depends from a rejected independent claim. The third claim would be allowable because, in its entirety, it reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;q&gt;A chair comprising: a stool and at least three legs [A], further comprising a magnetic levitation device attached below each of the three legs [B], further comprising a cushion seat [C].&lt;/q&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If an invention made from A + B is novel and nonobvious, then an invention made from A + B + C will, by extension, be novel and nonobvious too. Claim 3 merely adds another limitation/feature to the already-allowable claim 2. Another way to say it is that claim 3 further narrows the scope of an invention that is already deemed patentable. So for these reasons, claim 3 is allowable, too, even though claim 3 doesn't introduce a separate novel feature from the original novelty of magnetic levitation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the Patent Office would not permit a patent to issue until you: (a) amended claim 1 to include the limitation/feature of claim 2, (b) canceled claim 2, and (c) amended claim 3 so that it refers to claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. (Amended) A chair comprising: a stool &lt;s&gt;and at&lt;/s&gt;&lt;b&gt;, at&lt;/b&gt; least three legs&lt;b&gt;, and a magnetic levitation device attached below each of the three legs&lt;/b&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. (Canceled) The chair of claim 1, further comprising a magnetic levitation device attached below each of the three legs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. (Amended) The chair of &lt;s&gt;claim 2&lt;/s&gt;&lt;b&gt; claim 1&lt;/b&gt;, further comprising a cushion seat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17707" RevisionGUID="5f0a4c12-9ddf-4714-9f33-1dc5ceb4739f" CreationDate="2017-04-28T00:06:21.210" UserId="18521" Comment="improved format" Text="First, a small note about terminology: the word &quot;limitation&quot; is almost a synonym for &quot;feature.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer the questions, I'll come up with a simple example. Let's say your invention is a chair that levitates. You submit only three claims, and they read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. A chair comprising: a stool and at least three legs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. The chair of claim 1, further comprising a magnetic levitation device attached&#xD;&#xA;    below each of the three legs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. The chair of claim 2, further comprising a cushion seat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim is not patentable because it has been invented before. So the independent claim 1 would be rejected. Let's pretend the second claim passes all tests for patentability. The second claim would then allowable even though it depends from a rejected independent claim. The third claim would be allowable because, in its entirety, it reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A chair comprising: a stool and at least three legs [A], further comprising a magnetic levitation device attached below each of the three legs [B], further comprising a cushion seat [C].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If an invention made from A + B is novel and nonobvious, then an invention made from A + B + C will, by extension, be novel and nonobvious too. Claim 3 merely adds another limitation/feature to the already-allowable claim 2. Another way to say it is that claim 3 further narrows the scope of an invention that is already deemed patentable. So for these reasons, claim 3 is allowable, too, even though claim 3 doesn't introduce a separate novel feature from the original novelty of magnetic levitation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the Patent Office would not permit a patent to issue until you: (a) amended claim 1 to include the limitation/feature of claim 2, (b) canceled claim 2, and (c) amended claim 3 so that it refers to claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. (Amended) A chair comprising: a stool &lt;s&gt;and at&lt;/s&gt;&lt;b&gt;, at&lt;/b&gt; least three legs&lt;b&gt;, and a magnetic levitation device attached below each of the three legs&lt;/b&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. (Canceled) The chair of claim 1, further comprising a magnetic levitation device attached below each of the three legs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. (Amended) The chair of &lt;s&gt;claim 2&lt;/s&gt;&lt;b&gt; claim 1&lt;/b&gt;, further comprising a cushion seat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17683" RevisionGUID="7f54d63c-4090-49f3-8d4d-22517e7aaff4" CreationDate="2017-04-28T00:46:05.947" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="In every company I've worked for, if I invent something as a part of my employment, the company owns the rights to the patent. I simply would not have the option of patenting it myself. If I were to invent something outside of my job then I might have the rights to the patent, but it may get a bit tricky if the knowledge that lead to the invention is due to my employment. It all depends on your employment agreement, but what I'm describing is the standard in the US. Many companies reward their inventors with some sort of monetary reward when a patent is granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I as the inventor, will be listed on the patent as the inventor. The company simply doesn't have the option of leaving the true inventor's name off the patent. While you may not know the inventor at Apple who came up with pinch to zoom, that person's name will be on the patent. There are cases where the patent attorneys have to determine who will be listed as inventors, but if you are actually the inventor your name will be on the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ownership and inventorship are not the same thing. If you look at the first page of any patent, you will see the inventor and assignee listed. They may or may not be the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46730" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="9eb3678f-b8eb-4333-80b6-4f523cac5079" CreationDate="2017-04-28T01:19:35.183" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46734" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="2f1bceb3-1109-4769-94fc-4b6c63f9a2be" CreationDate="2017-04-28T16:39:02.363" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46735" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16740" RevisionGUID="70a3607b-5adf-467b-8834-235bd1f4d09c" CreationDate="2017-04-28T17:39:05.347" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17700" RevisionGUID="4eaabcd3-d395-49da-b8e5-71eab8ca0a08" CreationDate="2017-04-28T17:42:47.993" UserId="15192" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="[Alice vs CLS Bank][1] decided that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most experts seem to believe that SCOTUS's decision invalidated some, but not all software patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What concrete lessons should software patent applicants learn from this decision?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should applications be phrased differently now? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Post-Alice, what algorithmic inventions should be kept as a trade secret instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Edit*: I found this article that seems pertinent: [A Strategy for Protecting Software Claims from Invalidation Under the Algorithm Requirement][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/07/22/a-strategy-for-protecting-software-claims-from-invalidation-under-the-algorithm-requirement/id=59586/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46737" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17528" RevisionGUID="d445305f-adf6-41f2-9b53-6bc9e978ffce" CreationDate="2017-04-28T19:49:33.743" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17709" RevisionGUID="20766c0d-8f4f-433e-9bd4-081b2f06be76" CreationDate="2017-04-28T21:42:38.760" UserId="18958" Text=" I don't want to make my video publicly visible on YouTube for everyone, especially if you haven’t applied for Provisional Patent. But I know that I have two more options there. Besides “Public” there are two more video releasing options there in YouTube &quot;Unlisted&quot; and &quot;Private&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think &quot;Unlisted&quot; is a great option. You still can do screen shots (1 second increment print screens) of the video and save it as a PDF with date and URL visible. You can send a link of the “Unlisted” video to any friend or person to see it. Other than that no one can see or search to see your unlisted video in your YouTube account.Again,you still can see &quot;Unlisted&quot; video released date, and year in the bottom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You actually cannot use “Private” option for that kinda Patent application because as soon as you change the “Private” for “Public” to show someone else, the data below is changing for the date that you made that change. That’s the worst nightmare. That’s not good if you want to keep the original date of the video.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you think about this? Is it a good idea to use &quot;Unlisted&quot; video, instead of &quot;Public&quot; video in YouTube to use as prior art in an Office action?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46739" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17709" RevisionGUID="20766c0d-8f4f-433e-9bd4-081b2f06be76" CreationDate="2017-04-28T21:42:38.760" UserId="18958" Text="Can I use &quot;Unlisted&quot; Youtube video rather than &quot;Public&quot; as a prior art prove" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46740" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17709" RevisionGUID="20766c0d-8f4f-433e-9bd4-081b2f06be76" CreationDate="2017-04-28T21:42:38.760" UserId="18958" Text="&lt;unlisted-youtube-video&gt;&lt;video-as-a-prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46751" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13260" RevisionGUID="11fcd96a-1c69-4e00-9977-c7e33d3f8306" CreationDate="2017-04-29T12:09:47.893" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17711" RevisionGUID="e209331a-4235-4325-a677-4048a00e663b" CreationDate="2017-04-29T13:47:20.337" UserId="18521" Text="As some other answers have suggested, there are two major requirements that are relevant to your question. The two requiresments are: **novelty** and **nonobviousness**. (Nonobviousness is a U.S. term; in Europe this is referred to as *inventive step*.) To earn a patent, your invention must pass both tests. In your case, the invention passes the test of novelty because there is no single publication or no single device that describes/possesses *every single* feature of your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's consider the test of nonbviousness. Let's say your invention consists of components A, B, C, and D. The Patent Office finds a prior patent (&quot;patent 1&quot;) that describes A and B together. They also find an earlier patent (&quot;patent 2&quot;) that describes C and D together. If they get lucky, they'll find a third prior patent (&quot;patent 3&quot;) that suggests combining B and C (or A &amp; C, or A, B, &amp; D, etc.). On the basis of patents 1, 2, and 3, the Patent Office will reject your patent application for being an obvious invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what makes an invention obvious? All of the components making up the invention have been described in the prior patents, and there's a known reason to combine them together. But even if the Patent Office never finds Patent 3 (which suggests the combination), the Patent Office can still reject your application and make this argument that the invention is obvious. In place of Patent 3, the Patent Office can simply assert (and often does) that &quot;it would be obvious for someone with an ordinary level of skill in this field to combine Patent 1 with Patent 2 because doing so would have an obvious benefit.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, combatting nonobviousness rejections can be difficult, but they're certainly not impossible to overcome. There are many ways to approach this hurdle: you can defeat a nonobviousness rejection by showing that experts *taught away* from / discouraged the combination, or by having an expert in the field submit an affidavit stating on record that it *wouldn't* have been obvious to combine Patents 1 &amp; 2, etc. Consulting with a patent attorney or patent agent is the best approach--not only on this matter but on everything I've written. Laws change and differ from country to country and from technology area to technology area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You do have something that might be a benefit: you have unique functionality. In most cases, unique functionality is not by itself enough to earn a patent. For example, if I discover that chairs can be used as fuel for nuclear fusion, then that's great, but it doesn't mean I'm allowed to go patent a chair. A new use or functionality for a device does not make the device itself patentable. But depending on the details, a patent agent/attorney might be able to write that unique functionality into the application as a *structural feature* (or tie it closely to a structural feature), which could improve your chances of earning a patent. This could be something to discuss with your patent agent or attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, the answer to your question depends on the specific facts of your case, but in general, attorneys do have ways to overcome obviousness.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(I am no expert, and this response is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney or legal expert to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Laws can differ dramatically from country to country, state to state, and technology field to technology field.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17711" RevisionGUID="137c3489-56ad-46fb-9817-f03d3671dd05" CreationDate="2017-04-29T13:53:10.920" UserId="18521" Comment="fixing grammar" Text="As some other answers have suggested, there are two major requirements that are relevant to your question. The two requiresments are: **novelty** and **nonobviousness**. (Nonobviousness is a U.S. term; in Europe this is referred to as *inventive step*.) To earn a patent, your invention must pass both tests. In your case, the invention passes the test of novelty because there is no single publication or no single device that describes/possesses *every single* feature of your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's consider the test of nonbviousness. Let's say your invention consists of components A, B, C, and D. The Patent Office finds a prior patent (&quot;patent 1&quot;) that describes A and B together. They also find an earlier patent (&quot;patent 2&quot;) that describes C and D together. If they get lucky, they'll find a third prior patent (&quot;patent 3&quot;) that suggests combining B and C (or A &amp; C, or A, B, &amp; D, etc.). On the basis of patents 1, 2, and 3, the Patent Office will reject your patent application for being an obvious invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what makes an invention obvious? All of the components making up the invention have been described in the prior patents, and there's a known reason to combine them together. But even if the Patent Office never finds Patent 3 (which suggests the combination), the Patent Office can still reject your application and make this argument that the invention is obvious. In place of Patent 3, the Patent Office can simply assert (and often does) that &quot;it would be obvious for someone with an ordinary level of skill in this field to combine Patent 1 with Patent 2 because doing so would have an obvious benefit.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, combatting nonobviousness rejections can be difficult, but they're certainly not impossible to overcome. There are many ways to approach this hurdle: you can defeat a nonobviousness rejection by showing that experts *taught away* from / discouraged the combination, or by having an expert in the field submit an affidavit stating on record that it *wouldn't* have been obvious to combine Patents 1 &amp; 2, etc. Consulting a patent attorney, patent agent, or patent expert is the best approach. The particular strategy worth pursuing depends on the facts of the case, and it's hard to be more specific than this without detailed information about the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You do have something that might be beneficial as you and your attorney formulate a strategy: you have unique functionality. In most cases, unique functionality is not by itself enough to earn a patent. For example, if I discover that chairs can be used as fuel for nuclear fusion, then that's great, but it doesn't mean I'm allowed to go patent a chair. A new use or functionality for a device does not make an old device eligible for patent protection. But depending on the details, a patent agent/attorney might be able to write that unique functionality into the application as a *structural feature* (or tie it closely to a structural feature), which could improve your chances of earning a patent. This could be something to discuss with your patent agent or attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, the answer to your question depends on the specific facts of your case, but in general, attorneys do have a variety of ways to overcome obviousness.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*I am no expert, and this response is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney or legal expert to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Laws can differ dramatically from country to country, state to state, and technology field to technology field.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46754" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="dff64bbc-832b-4ce5-bdca-38256f996103" CreationDate="2017-04-29T15:14:26.150" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17712" RevisionGUID="63b1a4c0-3e83-4cca-9b06-973081cb6c72" CreationDate="2017-04-29T15:29:41.593" UserId="18964" Text="https://www.google.com/patents/CN202615055U?cl=en &#xD;&#xA;is this expired, i know patents last 20 yearsbut if its cessation does that void it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46756" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17712" RevisionGUID="63b1a4c0-3e83-4cca-9b06-973081cb6c72" CreationDate="2017-04-29T15:29:41.593" UserId="18964" Text="This says cessation of patent right does that mean its expired?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46757" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17712" RevisionGUID="63b1a4c0-3e83-4cca-9b06-973081cb6c72" CreationDate="2017-04-29T15:29:41.593" UserId="18964" Text="&lt;cn202615055&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46758" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16193" RevisionGUID="8607e875-c56b-4b55-b3e7-738ecd9663f3" CreationDate="2017-04-29T16:14:27.393" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46759" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="5f3a594e-6ee5-4b60-aa3e-f977fd137851" CreationDate="2017-04-29T17:19:10.330" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46760" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13986" RevisionGUID="bec2c342-46cf-4b81-94d2-31e59e471941" CreationDate="2017-04-29T18:19:35.340" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17703" RevisionGUID="463db487-cc3d-4d6f-9987-da23d7fa218a" CreationDate="2017-04-29T19:21:09.187" UserId="17003" Comment="added 167 characters in body" Text="I think any of the usual patent search sites may be able to help with this. I particularly like [The Lens][1], but patents.google.com or www.freepatentsonline.com/search.html would do as well. The secret is to use classification codes to define the field of search. Here are links for [US][2] and [international][3] codes. Classification codes are complex and generally more specific than &quot;life sciences&quot; so you'll need to think hard about what you are looking for. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can limit your search to specific date ranges, countries and classification codes. The Lens also provides some neat graphical representations of the results you might find helpful. If you register, which is free, you can save searches and access a few additional features.&#xA;&#xA;In addition, I found this [paper][4] that may be of interest. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/selectnumwithtitle.htm&#xA;  [3]: http://www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/en/&#xA;  [4]: http://blogs.nature.com/tradesecrets/2014/12/15/university-life-science-patent-transactions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17713" RevisionGUID="770823a3-9a80-4dd8-95dc-fafb9375b1b0" CreationDate="2017-04-29T23:03:21.740" UserId="14700" Text="A small space is like a camper, conversion van, or boat.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Galley in this question is limited to sink, burner (hobb), and food preparation.&#xD;&#xA;Something like this: &#xD;&#xA;[![sink and hobb][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cannot disclose the specific design but using the same space expand food preparation and cooking options significantly.  In the design all the components exists today but from what I can tell not used in this combination. The components would need to be built to specification but they are not fundamentally unique. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have searched and pretty sure no one markets this design.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patentable?  If so what type of patent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a degree in engineering and could produce some detailed drawings and decent technical language to describe the device.  My thought is to just file for a provisional patent and hope to sell it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am doing a van conversion and know exactly what I want and cannot find the pieces.  I will need to forego the utility or use significant space. Paying for a custom fabrication would be very expensive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/x6aH7.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46763" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17713" RevisionGUID="770823a3-9a80-4dd8-95dc-fafb9375b1b0" CreationDate="2017-04-29T23:03:21.740" UserId="14700" Text="Is a galley / kitchen layout for a small space patentable" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46764" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17713" RevisionGUID="770823a3-9a80-4dd8-95dc-fafb9375b1b0" CreationDate="2017-04-29T23:03:21.740" UserId="14700" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17714" RevisionGUID="511b1366-fee3-406f-9736-7ec200ad111e" CreationDate="2017-04-30T07:23:18.570" UserId="18965" Text="I was introduce to an activation water system in Malaysia. However I found out that this type of activated water system was patented by the inventor and legally selling by another company also in Malaysia. The one I was introduce has the same function but was told is a better improved version with different outlook..&#xD;&#xA;My concern, is it against the patent law or since there has been alter for improvement, it is not subjected to this law. &#xD;&#xA;My another question is if the function is exactly copied the original but the external design is different, can we continue with it legally. In what situation is only consider as copied. &#xD;&#xA;CONCERN,&#xD;&#xA;Regards and TQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46768" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17714" RevisionGUID="511b1366-fee3-406f-9736-7ec200ad111e" CreationDate="2017-04-30T07:23:18.570" UserId="18965" Text="Copied Activated water system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46769" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17714" RevisionGUID="511b1366-fee3-406f-9736-7ec200ad111e" CreationDate="2017-04-30T07:23:18.570" UserId="18965" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17715" RevisionGUID="dbe6cbf5-95bc-49f8-83fc-7c8242afdc06" CreationDate="2017-04-30T14:34:11.647" UserId="11863" Text="We are a lean startup and looking out for ways to define our patent strategy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to file multiple applications, each application with invention-focussed modifications to the specification to cover the problem and the solution claimed by that specific application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, we intend to reuse the text of the parent application with some modifications for the subsequent application (based on the new problem it solves) and drafting a new claim set. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We see this as a strategy to lower legal costs for the technical team producing incremental and improvement innovations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please provide some examples if you have analyzed some of the patent applications disclosing incremental and improvement innovations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46771" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17715" RevisionGUID="dbe6cbf5-95bc-49f8-83fc-7c8242afdc06" CreationDate="2017-04-30T14:34:11.647" UserId="11863" Text="Common Disclosures for multiple applications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46772" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17715" RevisionGUID="dbe6cbf5-95bc-49f8-83fc-7c8242afdc06" CreationDate="2017-04-30T14:34:11.647" UserId="11863" Text="&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;start-ups&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17716" RevisionGUID="bc751ddc-bffb-4e37-ac0a-7203882dd516" CreationDate="2017-04-30T15:11:38.743" UserId="17003" Text="There is no way to tell you definitively if your specific design is patentable. That said, there is nothing about the field that precludes patentability. To get a utility patent, there are three main criteria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The invention must be novel&#xD;&#xA; 2. It must be non-obvious&#xD;&#xA; 3. It must be useful&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being novel is not just about no one selling the design. Patent examiners will examine earlier patents and publications. Most patents don't make it to the market so you should perform a patent search at the least. Non-obvious is harder to define. It means approximately that someone skilled in the art of the field wouldn't find it a logical thing to do. It is usually nice to find some unexpected benefit to avoid obviousness. Such as: I mix chemical A and B and get some resulting chemical that has an property neither A nor B has. In your case, you may have an arrangement of components that is more efficient, but is there an unexpected benefit? Lastly the need to be useful seems clear for your application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another kind of patent called a &quot;Design Patent&quot; that may be an option for you. Design patents cover the ornamental design of functional items. The basic layout of the iPhone is covered by a design patent. I would guide you to the [Wikipedia article][1] for more information than I can provide here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46774" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17713" RevisionGUID="3771b38b-e6c6-40cc-ac76-19ead8ca8389" CreationDate="2017-04-30T15:12:33.087" UserId="17003" Comment="Added the patentability tag" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17717" RevisionGUID="06ee79f9-2449-4f58-9d00-cb6c625f700e" CreationDate="2017-04-30T15:26:10.850" UserId="17003" Text="There are several questions here. First, do you infringe on an existing patent. To assess this, you need to carefully read the claims of the existing patent. To infringe on a patent, you need to implement every part of at least one claim. Thus if a patent has a claim which shows a method of water purification with step A, B and C, if your method implements steps A, B and C you infringe. If however, your method only uses steps A and C or perhaps, steps A, B and a new step D, you possibly avoid infringement. What is important to remember, is the idea of purifying water isn't patented, only a specific implementation for achieving that function. And the specific implementation is defined by the patent claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A second question has to do with improving the technology described in the existing patent. If you find a method of improving an existing invention, you may be able to get a patent on that improvement. This enables you to stop anyone from practicing the improvement including the inventor of the original technology. However, the improvement by it self doesn't avoid infringement of the original patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would caution you that reading and understanding patents isn't always straightforward and I would greatly recommend that you access a patent lawyer or agent to help you assess both infringement and potential patentability of your implementation.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17718" RevisionGUID="61019a94-9d98-420c-8bbf-c7a2018ec57a" CreationDate="2017-04-30T20:06:34.843" UserId="18822" Text="The USPTO has recently issued a patent for which I am an inventor.&#xA;&#xA;However, the patent has been issued to my ex-employer who is the applicant (since the patent has been assigned to them by me right at the time of filing , nearly 4 years ago).&#xA;&#xA;As an inventor, is there a provision of getting a plaque issued to me, recognising my contribution? &#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46777" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17718" RevisionGUID="61019a94-9d98-420c-8bbf-c7a2018ec57a" CreationDate="2017-04-30T20:06:34.843" UserId="18822" Text="Can I order an Inventor plaque from USPTO?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46778" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17718" RevisionGUID="61019a94-9d98-420c-8bbf-c7a2018ec57a" CreationDate="2017-04-30T20:06:34.843" UserId="18822" Text="&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;inventor&gt;&lt;employer&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17719" RevisionGUID="98139c85-a836-4ea8-87ae-e82edbe9f494" CreationDate="2017-04-30T20:54:05.573" UserId="17003" Text="I don't believe the USPTO issues plaques. At least they've never sent me one. However, there are several companies who do sell them. They are very efficient. Sometimes the way I've found out a patent has issued is from a the company trying to sell me a plaque. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46780" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17719" RevisionGUID="69379a5f-4cbc-47a8-8880-cf6caf80f91b" CreationDate="2017-04-30T20:59:08.013" UserId="17003" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="I don't believe the USPTO issues plaques. At least they've never sent me one. However, there are several companies who do sell them. They are very efficient. Sometimes the way I've found out a patent has issued is from a the company trying to sell me a plaque. &#xA;&#xA;I was lucky in that my employer bought plaques for the inventors. Another option is to simply print out the first page of the patent and frame that. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17714" RevisionGUID="238cb694-78eb-49ad-8d17-b4cef5dd140e" CreationDate="2017-05-01T01:32:15.053" UserId="15503" Comment="Improve grammar and formatting" Text="I was introduced to an activation water system in Malaysia. However I found out that this type of activated water system was patented by the inventor and is legally sold by another company also in Malaysia. The one I was introduced to has the same function, but was told it is an improved version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My concern is whether it against the patent law to do this? Or, since there has been an improvement, is it not an infringement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My other question is: if the function is exactly copied from the original but the external design is different, can we continue with it legally? In what situation would this be considered an infringement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46783" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="f001fba7-af9e-4c06-a996-3b04b5687dfb" CreationDate="2017-05-01T10:00:41.830" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17720" RevisionGUID="28f0ec32-8060-4f09-80d7-56d6a181b37c" CreationDate="2017-05-01T14:44:04.140" UserId="18970" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2016138968A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2016138968A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will there or are there any independent claims relative to how the supercapacitors are charged in the cited patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46785" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17720" RevisionGUID="28f0ec32-8060-4f09-80d7-56d6a181b37c" CreationDate="2017-05-01T14:44:04.140" UserId="18970" Text="Supercap liquid heater" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46786" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17720" RevisionGUID="28f0ec32-8060-4f09-80d7-56d6a181b37c" CreationDate="2017-05-01T14:44:04.140" UserId="18970" Text="&lt;wo2016138968a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46787" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13171" RevisionGUID="f8357843-0092-4bc4-ab20-2975d976b292" CreationDate="2017-05-01T20:09:52.657" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17703" RevisionGUID="5ac69d9c-5b9b-484a-b218-3b614fbe2c7c" CreationDate="2017-05-01T22:37:00.930" UserId="17003" Comment="added 117 characters in body" Text="I think any of the usual patent search sites may be able to help with this. I particularly like [The Lens][1], but patents.google.com or www.freepatentsonline.com/search.html would do as well. The secret is to use classification codes to define the field of search. Here are links for [US][2] and [international][3] codes. Classification codes are complex and generally more specific than &quot;life sciences&quot; so you'll need to think hard about what you are looking for. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can limit your search to specific date ranges, countries and classification codes. The Lens also provides some neat graphical representations of the results you might find helpful. If you register, which is free, you can save searches and access a few additional features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [site][4] has a list of life science IPC codes. In addition, I found this [paper][5] that may be of interest. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/selectnumwithtitle.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/en/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.uibm.gov.it/biotech/en/dati/classifica_ls.php&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://blogs.nature.com/tradesecrets/2014/12/15/university-life-science-patent-transactions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46789" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17711" RevisionGUID="c8b0a8ee-03c2-488e-824d-a5a29e9385d6" CreationDate="2017-05-02T00:56:53.917" UserId="18521" Comment="elaborating on ways to combat nonobviousness rejection" Text="As some other answers have suggested, there are two major requirements that are relevant to your question. The two requiresments are: **novelty** and **nonobviousness**. (Nonobviousness is a U.S. term; in Europe this is referred to as *inventive step*.) To earn a patent, your invention must pass both tests. In your case, the invention passes the test of novelty because there is no single publication or no single device that describes/possesses *every single* feature of your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's consider the test of nonbviousness. Let's say your invention consists of components A, B, C, and D. The Patent Office finds a prior patent (&quot;patent 1&quot;) that describes A and B together. They also find an earlier patent (&quot;patent 2&quot;) that describes C and D together. If they get lucky, they'll find a third prior patent (&quot;patent 3&quot;) that suggests combining B and C (or A &amp; C, or A, B, &amp; D, etc.). On the basis of patents 1, 2, and 3, the Patent Office will reject your patent application for being an obvious invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what makes an invention obvious? All of the components making up the invention have been described in the prior patents, and there's a known reason to combine them together. But even if the Patent Office never finds Patent 3 (which suggests the combination), the Patent Office can still reject your application and make this argument that the invention is obvious. In place of Patent 3, the Patent Office can simply assert (and often does) that &quot;it would be obvious for someone with an ordinary level of skill in this field to combine Patent 1 with Patent 2 because doing so would have an obvious benefit.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, combatting nonobviousness rejections can be difficult, but they're certainly not impossible to overcome. There are many ways to approach this hurdle: you can defeat a nonobviousness rejection by showing that experts *taught away* from / discouraged the combination, by showing that the combination had an unexpected result, or by having an expert in the field submit an affidavit stating on record that it *wouldn't* have been obvious to combine Patents 1 &amp; 2, etc. Consulting a patent attorney, patent agent, or patent expert is the best approach. The particular strategy worth pursuing depends on the facts of the case, and it's hard to be more specific than this without detailed information about the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You do have something that might be beneficial as you and your attorney formulate a strategy: you have unique functionality. In most cases, unique functionality is not by itself enough to earn a patent. For example, if I discover that chairs can be used as fuel for nuclear fusion, then that's great, but it doesn't mean I'm allowed to go patent a chair. A new use or functionality for a device does not make an old device eligible for patent protection. But depending on the details, a patent agent/attorney might be able to write that unique functionality into the application as a *structural feature* (or tie it closely to a structural feature), which could improve your chances of earning a patent. This could be something to discuss with your patent agent or attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, the answer to your question depends on the specific facts of your case, but in general, attorneys do have a variety of ways to overcome obviousness.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*I am no expert, and this response is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney or legal expert to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Laws can differ dramatically from country to country, state to state, and technology field to technology field.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17721" RevisionGUID="875e9579-eb4b-40da-98fb-c8a684f40615" CreationDate="2017-05-02T18:10:05.587" UserId="17003" Text="The application has only one independent claim and it doesn't mention how the supercapacitor is charged. While claims can and most often are changed between the application and eventual granted patent, it seems unlikely that a completely new one will be added covering the charging circuit. I'm assuming this is because this isn't what the inventor considers novel. If you are wondering how the charging is accomplished, there is some description in the specification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46792" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="45d9d623-723d-4faf-bc79-3082534bc15e" CreationDate="2017-05-02T20:32:55.870" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17724" RevisionGUID="18f7d032-98dc-4cd2-9ad6-404b16de0420" CreationDate="2017-05-03T08:30:47.300" UserId="17325" Text="This is a utility model, which can last at maximum 10 years from the filing date. But this is not the reason of cessation of rights. The owner stopped paying the renewal fees after 2012." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46809" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="7e09ea6e-105d-4950-8215-b4046e624749" CreationDate="2017-05-03T12:43:00.530" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17726" RevisionGUID="015a7cb7-1554-4c25-b75b-1e2b11ced2fb" CreationDate="2017-05-03T15:51:58.900" UserId="18980" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20060280294][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20060280294&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent granted or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46811" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17726" RevisionGUID="015a7cb7-1554-4c25-b75b-1e2b11ced2fb" CreationDate="2017-05-03T15:51:58.900" UserId="18980" Text="Patent pending for 12 years" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46812" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17726" RevisionGUID="015a7cb7-1554-4c25-b75b-1e2b11ced2fb" CreationDate="2017-05-03T15:51:58.900" UserId="18980" Text="&lt;us20060280294&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46813" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="50d9a58d-eb71-4b28-980d-3597d8929ac2" CreationDate="2017-05-03T16:43:01.040" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17727" RevisionGUID="1f4a2397-94c3-46a5-8a11-329565da8221" CreationDate="2017-05-03T18:09:46.613" UserId="17003" Text="The [US Public Pair][1] site is you best place to check out the status of a US patent or application. In this case, the latest status as of 3-27-2009 is: &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot;. The office action was a non-final rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46815" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17529" RevisionGUID="2b3e768a-5777-4175-94c3-46e9a279f586" CreationDate="2017-05-03T18:19:47.183" UserId="17003" Comment="Added an illustrative picture." Text="Congratulations on discovering your Grandfather's patent. This patent describes a device for winding coils used in electric motors. Many electric motors (even now) utilize cores made with ferro-magnetic material like iron or steel around which magnet wire is wound. Magnet wire is usually normal copper wire with a thin varnish insulation. Essentially you create a series of electromagnets that interact with permanent magnets or external coils to turn a shaft. Winding these coils by hand can be pretty tedious so an automated system would be very useful. This shows a typical rotor from a small electric motor that the patent would apply to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading these sorts of questions is fun for me as I wonder if some day my grandchildren (should I be so lucky) will happen upon my patents...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EyT9w.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17728" RevisionGUID="3c85e478-5cf2-4ef2-922a-f4a3d964dfab" CreationDate="2017-05-03T18:52:47.273" UserId="18981" Text="Is there any value to this patent for the inventors? They were all Xerox employees at the time, but are retired now" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46817" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17728" RevisionGUID="3c85e478-5cf2-4ef2-922a-f4a3d964dfab" CreationDate="2017-05-03T18:52:47.273" UserId="18981" Text="Is there any value to this patent for the inventor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46818" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17728" RevisionGUID="3c85e478-5cf2-4ef2-922a-f4a3d964dfab" CreationDate="2017-05-03T18:52:47.273" UserId="18981" Text="&lt;us7006778&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17728" RevisionGUID="caa6b6e4-d87d-48ad-bba5-f30c0319ce5f" CreationDate="2017-05-03T19:39:31.153" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to patent" Text="Is there any value to this [patent][1] for the inventors? They were all Xerox employees at the time, but are retired now&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7006778B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17729" RevisionGUID="47b3d159-1713-4179-a0b3-15ceb20ba1ad" CreationDate="2017-05-03T19:45:01.000" UserId="17003" Text="When you work for a company, the standard employment agreement (at least in the US) is that the company owns the results of your work. Thus when you invent something while working, the company owns the rights to that invention. As you can see with this patent, the assignee is Xerox Corporation. Many companies reward inventors with an reward of some sort when a patent issues, but beyond that, the value of this patent belongs completely with the assignee, Xerox and not the inventors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17729" RevisionGUID="cc986a53-5e97-4d69-a576-048c153dcabf" CreationDate="2017-05-03T21:55:26.390" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="When you work for a company, the standard employment agreement (at least in the US) is that the company owns the results of your work. Thus when you invent something while working, the company owns the rights to that invention. As you can see with this patent, the assignee is Xerox Corporation. Many companies reward inventors with an award of some sort when a patent issues, but beyond that, the value of this patent belongs completely with the assignee, Xerox and not the inventors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17727" RevisionGUID="1f73dcc4-f8c3-4618-8dbe-90f28f1f9a48" CreationDate="2017-05-03T23:21:23.993" UserId="17003" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="The [US Public Pair][1] site is you best place to check out the status of a US patent or application. In this case, the latest status as of 3-27-2009 is: &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot;. The office action was a non-final rejection. Thus, I believe this application is dead and will never become a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17730" RevisionGUID="a343df78-9a99-492d-9313-313cac6c3666" CreationDate="2017-05-03T23:37:33.540" UserId="18982" Text="In reference to the patent: [USD729508][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD729508&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is picture in figure 1? I can't see it. I want to know so that i don't copy it. What feature is this patent protecting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46824" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17730" RevisionGUID="a343df78-9a99-492d-9313-313cac6c3666" CreationDate="2017-05-03T23:37:33.540" UserId="18982" Text="What feature is this patent protecting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46825" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17730" RevisionGUID="a343df78-9a99-492d-9313-313cac6c3666" CreationDate="2017-05-03T23:37:33.540" UserId="18982" Text="&lt;usd729508&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46826" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16952" RevisionGUID="efc03eef-0c23-4794-8ec6-bad6a70c332a" CreationDate="2017-05-03T23:47:28.473" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46827" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="1668ae1e-bfad-4476-8d6f-40c93a30b0ce" CreationDate="2017-05-04T01:47:28.890" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17731" RevisionGUID="cc369cb5-4193-4ed5-9295-82dd3488442a" CreationDate="2017-05-04T02:13:11.740" UserId="18886" Text="Go to here to see what feature it is protecting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&amp;docid=D0729508&amp;IDKey=A324085C8B64%0D%0A&amp;HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO2%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsearch-bool.html%2526r%3D3%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526co1%3DAND%2526d%3DPTXT%2526s1%3D%252522us%252Bd729508%252522%2526OS%3D%252522us%252Bd729508%252522%2526RS%3D%252522us%252Bd729508%252522][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that it is a design patent so only the ornamental design is protected and not any functional use of it. Also, note that only the solid lines are what is protected by this patent. The dotted lines are either a) protected by a currently enforceable patent, or a patent that has since expired, or has been dedicated to the public domain without having been patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&amp;docid=D0729508&amp;IDKey=A324085C8B64%0D%0A&amp;HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO2%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsearch-bool.html%2526r%3D3%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526co1%3DAND%2526d%3DPTXT%2526s1%3D%252522us%252Bd729508%252522%2526OS%3D%252522us%252Bd729508%252522%2526RS%3D%252522us%252Bd729508%252522" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46833" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12629" RevisionGUID="598d1ff1-ecd8-4b2e-ba09-5eebcd014916" CreationDate="2017-05-04T04:50:02.293" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17732" RevisionGUID="51d7bdef-5796-49de-8ffe-116c94a032cb" CreationDate="2017-05-04T06:32:39.183" UserId="18984" Text="I would like to patent a product in the USA but someone has this product Patented  in Sounth Korea, I have called the KIPO, Korean Intellectual Property Offcice, and this patent is not registered in the US patent and trademark office. Can I go ahead and register it in the USA patent office? what are the chances I will get the registration denied?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thanks in advance for any help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46835" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17732" RevisionGUID="51d7bdef-5796-49de-8ffe-116c94a032cb" CreationDate="2017-05-04T06:32:39.183" UserId="18984" Text="patent a product in the USA that is already patented in south Korea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46836" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17732" RevisionGUID="51d7bdef-5796-49de-8ffe-116c94a032cb" CreationDate="2017-05-04T06:32:39.183" UserId="18984" Text="&lt;product&gt;&lt;other&gt;&lt;country&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17733" RevisionGUID="428d920d-bb7b-4a55-8048-7e26e1a7ab42" CreationDate="2017-05-04T06:45:28.623" UserId="18033" Text="The requierements for a patent are &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- novelty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- inventive step&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- usability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Novelty is anchored in 35 USC 102, which reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151 , or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b) , in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Leaving out everything that follows because it treats special cases and isn't relevant here)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming the reason you know about the patent in South Korea is because the South Korean patent application has been published 35 USC 102 (a) (1) contains your answer -&gt; it will get denied if the prior art publication (the korean patent) is found by the examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it hasn't been published the situation is a little more complex. (For a complete answer see [here][1]), in summary, if the patent application is ever published, it can be held against your US application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are named as an inventor on the korean application, the situation is even more complex, but I assume from your question that you are not, so I won't elaborate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/17636/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17734" RevisionGUID="5c18c7ee-f3c8-41f3-9cb4-d72483cf0354" CreationDate="2017-05-04T09:10:25.023" UserId="18985" Text="I had a summer internship with a big corporation last year and I just found that they filed a patent based on my work without notifying me or including my name. I signed IP waivers but cannot recall the details. Is this something I should worry about?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46839" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17734" RevisionGUID="5c18c7ee-f3c8-41f3-9cb4-d72483cf0354" CreationDate="2017-05-04T09:10:25.023" UserId="18985" Text="Company Patented My Intership Work" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46840" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17734" RevisionGUID="5c18c7ee-f3c8-41f3-9cb4-d72483cf0354" CreationDate="2017-05-04T09:10:25.023" UserId="18985" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17733" RevisionGUID="f4abdac3-7f2e-4d59-80c8-27a742d53187" CreationDate="2017-05-04T09:50:01.593" UserId="18033" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="The requierements for a patent are &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- novelty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- inventive step&#xD;(called non obviousness in the US)&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- usability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Novelty is anchored in 35 USC 102, which reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151 , or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b) , in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Leaving out everything that follows because it treats special cases and isn't relevant here)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming the reason you know about the patent in South Korea is because the South Korean patent application has been published 35 USC 102 (a) (1) contains your answer -&gt; it will get denied if the prior art publication (the korean patent) is found by the examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it hasn't been published the situation is a little more complex. (For a complete answer see [here][1]), in summary, if the patent application is ever published, it can be held against your US application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are named as an inventor on the korean application, the situation is even more complex, but I assume from your question that you are not, so I won't elaborate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/17636/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17735" RevisionGUID="647687ba-0cae-4f92-9205-49272d0e1dbd" CreationDate="2017-05-04T11:07:26.500" UserId="18033" Text="If it's your invention you have to be named as inventor, but why would you worry about it? If any it's their problem. If you want to know if you can get anything out of it, the ip weavers (you have copies?) can tell you.&#xA;&#xA;If you want to be named as an inventor, I'd suggest contacting them as a first step. If you lost your copies of the waivers, you can also ask them to provide you new copies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46848" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17709" RevisionGUID="ae473f9d-9b0e-481f-97b1-7ec9e59742d1" CreationDate="2017-05-04T15:58:38.977" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17738" RevisionGUID="874e5289-7173-4db4-ad40-26df75aa3c31" CreationDate="2017-05-04T17:40:23.867" UserId="18991" Text="Is the patent us4690821 still in force and valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46850" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17738" RevisionGUID="874e5289-7173-4db4-ad40-26df75aa3c31" CreationDate="2017-05-04T17:40:23.867" UserId="18991" Text="Is the patent us4690821 still valid and in force?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46851" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17738" RevisionGUID="874e5289-7173-4db4-ad40-26df75aa3c31" CreationDate="2017-05-04T17:40:23.867" UserId="18991" Text="&lt;us4690821&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17739" RevisionGUID="7b302905-704c-443f-9311-da46bd7b1ddc" CreationDate="2017-05-04T21:51:52.157" UserId="18814" Text="I'm about to file a provisional patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of my patent flowcharts diagrams looks way bigger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any limit in patent image height and width?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46853" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17739" RevisionGUID="7b302905-704c-443f-9311-da46bd7b1ddc" CreationDate="2017-05-04T21:51:52.157" UserId="18814" Text="Is there any limit in patent image height and width?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46854" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17739" RevisionGUID="7b302905-704c-443f-9311-da46bd7b1ddc" CreationDate="2017-05-04T21:51:52.157" UserId="18814" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46855" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16606" RevisionGUID="1be98618-9a6d-4793-a795-89d4cfc66a37" CreationDate="2017-05-04T23:25:21.777" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17740" RevisionGUID="d83af14c-0414-4d95-8654-525ae99daa47" CreationDate="2017-05-05T02:05:44.803" UserId="17003" Text="My understanding (and I'm not a lawyer), it that the patent can be invalidated if it doesn't correctly list the inventors. Since it doesn't cost the company any more money to list you as an inventor, they really should if you indeed merit it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, you need to determine if you actually are an inventor. Here is a scenario. Lets say that Mary has a great idea for a new widget. She sketches it up and her management decides to pursue it. Bob works for two weeks creating CAD models and then Sarah spends a month machining a prototype. Jack spends 2 months testing and characterizing the widget showing it works. A patent application is drafted and the patent attorneys decide that only Mary is the inventor because only she came up with the novel idea which is expressed in the claims. While the other contributed greatly to the success of the invention, they didn't actually invent anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the bottom line is you need to look at the claims. Is there at least one claim where you were the one who came up with the novel or inventive step? If so, you need to be listed as an inventor on the application. Applications typically take 18 months to publish so you may not be able to see the application for a while. I would contact your former employer (perhaps you manager) and ask about the status of the application and whether you need to be included as one of the inventors. You can express concern that the patent be valid with respect to inventorship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although there really isn't anything you personally should worry about, I do think you should verify whether you should be listed as an inventor and if so make sure you are. Having a patent on your resume looks good and could help you while seeking future employment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17741" RevisionGUID="d3a1d9fe-c2e0-4e06-ac99-987462416097" CreationDate="2017-05-05T02:10:51.340" UserId="17003" Text="Because this patent issued before 1995, the expiration date should be 17 years from the grant date of 9-01-1987. For patents that issue after 1995, it is generally 20 years from the priority date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46864" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="4c969fb3-8abb-4d36-8609-d902de9f6d15" CreationDate="2017-05-05T02:30:22.343" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17746" RevisionGUID="81fac531-ceb8-4932-99b0-28fd5220241c" CreationDate="2017-05-05T02:40:41.583" UserId="18886" Text="not sure this is what you are looking for or mean but...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or there is a private version if you filed the patent. Talk to the USPTO if you need access and don't have it or consult your patent attorney." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17747" RevisionGUID="0413873c-c591-4bb3-8239-8fc7068355fd" CreationDate="2017-05-05T02:46:53.937" UserId="18886" Text="Prior art anticipates if each claim element of the later patent is found in the prior art. Here, each claim element of claim a system which detects X is found in prior art and therefore prior art anticipates claim. So yes, assuming system of prior art = system of claim and x of prior art = x of claim. Without more in the claim it would rejected under 102." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17748" RevisionGUID="50dc9fc8-21d8-4e42-bc96-1e9f414b687c" CreationDate="2017-05-05T04:49:28.563" UserId="18697" Text="As per the law 37 CFR 1.84,the size of the sheets on which drawings are made must be:&#xD;&#xA;(1) 21.0 cm. by 29.7 cm. (DIN size A4), or&#xD;&#xA;(2) 21.6 cm. by 27.9 cm. (8 1/2 by 11 inches).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A long view can be sub-divided into single or multiple sheets if there is no loss in facility of understanding the view&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17741" RevisionGUID="c57dbc3e-c00b-4e93-b317-35a2ef682e98" CreationDate="2017-05-05T07:04:17.207" UserId="18697" Comment="Improved the Answer" Text="Because this patent issued before 1995, the expiration date should be 17 years from the grant date of 9-01-1987 or 20 years from the earliest filing date, whichever is longer. For patents that issue after 1995, it is generally 20 years from the priority date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46875" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17741" RevisionGUID="c57dbc3e-c00b-4e93-b317-35a2ef682e98" CreationDate="2017-05-05T07:04:17.207" Comment="Proposed by 18697 approved by 17325, 18033 edit id of 2031" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46876" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17171" RevisionGUID="d38f71e3-ee6a-4f80-91ec-ec5aba33117b" CreationDate="2017-05-05T15:39:58.847" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46877" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16962" RevisionGUID="1bb526bd-4c5d-4e28-8edd-b0bf359c057a" CreationDate="2017-05-05T18:40:18.977" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46879" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16771" RevisionGUID="d5736c35-c18a-4ed3-b9bc-68a868ca69b8" CreationDate="2017-05-05T21:40:26.187" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46880" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="29648c7b-8e1d-4249-a57f-ff2a86e24c6b" CreationDate="2017-05-05T22:40:30.603" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46881" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17734" RevisionGUID="c1df81ff-574b-43be-b5d9-303599fe97c0" CreationDate="2017-05-05T22:55:19.997" UserId="17003" Comment="edited title" Text="Company Patented My Internship Work" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46886" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16544" RevisionGUID="c4295ba0-ebc8-4f5f-bb65-ba087cf0dcd8" CreationDate="2017-05-06T05:43:23.393" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46887" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="f2ce15ac-53d5-4925-8820-76163e957160" CreationDate="2017-05-06T07:43:24.110" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46888" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="50c93b95-a09d-4ff0-bd3c-79a7723f4836" CreationDate="2017-05-06T08:43:25.290" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46889" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16810" RevisionGUID="29d19f2b-48c0-48bf-adf1-796acc2e1654" CreationDate="2017-05-06T11:43:25.947" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46890" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14883" RevisionGUID="24840c0b-fe66-49ec-9eff-4fd6415a9835" CreationDate="2017-05-06T12:43:26.177" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46891" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12994" RevisionGUID="f66d3e6a-c5cf-4ed3-b852-35d3aaea2957" CreationDate="2017-05-06T13:43:26.357" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46892" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17178" RevisionGUID="77475415-49ba-40f4-bce7-d552cc3194f9" CreationDate="2017-05-06T14:47:23.930" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17750" RevisionGUID="2caabbf6-f91f-424f-aab9-39593d28cff2" CreationDate="2017-05-06T16:04:42.663" UserId="18521" Text="If your goal is to file a provisional patent application, describing the invention in a YouTube video does not have any positive consequences. The Patent Office does not allow inventors to preserve the date of their conception via a YouTube video, and it does not award earlier filing dates on the basis of videos, publications, etc. In the U.S., the only way to receive any patent rights whatsoever is to file a patent application (either provisional or nonprovisional). In the U.S., there was formerly a rare process called &quot;interference&quot; which would arise when two people claimed the same invention in pending patent applications. In those cases, it could be helpful to have documentation of the date you conceived of the invention. However, I believe this process no longer exists under the AIA--you should confirm this with your patent counsel, and in the meantime, you can read more about it [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in the US (and in most systems around the world), describing your invention in a publicly accessible YouTube video will almost have **extremely** serious negative consequences. Let's first take the case of a public video. As soon as you describe your invention in a public video, it is now available as prior art for any patent application--even a patent application that *you* later file. An inventor is not immune from *any* prior art that predate the earliest filing/ priority date. If I invent a new chair on Jan. 1, describe it in a publicly available YouTube video on Feb. 1, and then file my first patent application on Mar. 1, then once my patent application receives examination, the claims could be rejected in light of the prior art (the YouTube video) I created on Jan. 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to the question I think you're asking, I believe the short answer is: any video you create in attempts to exclude *others* from filing will also exclude *you* from filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might be asking separate question: &quot;I want to share information about my invention and the best way to do that is in a video. My goal is not for the video to prevent others from filing. Rather, my goal is to distribute information in a controlled way only to select people I work with. I must prevent the information from reaching the public, as I plan to file a patent application. Can I do this in an unlisted YouTube video, or will the unlisted YouTube video become prior art which would then preclude any later-filed patent?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know enough case law to answer this question. But my suspicion is that unlisted YouTube videos would qualify as prior art for later-filed applications that do not predate the video through priority claims. There is a lot of case law involving things like conversations between friends at closed parties, websites that were accessible by link but weren't password protected, websites accessible only through a complex file system. It's a thorny field to navigate, and the advice of patent counsel in your jurisdiction is important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other sources you might want to read are [here (start at second half of p. 3)][2], [here (section II)][3], [here][4], and [here][5]. Note that these relate to different countries/jurisdictions.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*I am no expert, and this response is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney or legal expert to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Laws can differ dramatically from country to country, state to state, and technology field to technology field.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.insidecounsel.com/2012/02/14/ip-interference-proceedings-in-post-aia-america&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lernerdavid.com/Templates/media/files/Articles/NJ%20Law%20Journal%20EAO.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2128.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.iposgoode.ca/2009/12/standard-of-proof-in-determining-accessibility-of-online-prior-art/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.citiusminds.com/blog/can-youtube-videos-be-used-as-prior-arts/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17750" RevisionGUID="cb66d0a8-7d8a-4501-be54-3cdc772f23f2" CreationDate="2017-05-06T16:09:55.873" UserId="18521" Comment="fixing content" Text="If your goal is to file a provisional patent application, describing the invention in a YouTube video does not have any positive consequences. The Patent Office does not award earlier filing dates or confer any patent rights on the basis of videos, publications, etc. The only way to receive patent rights is to file a patent application (either provisional or nonprovisional). In the U.S., there was formerly a rare process called &quot;interference&quot; which would arise when two people claimed the same invention in pending patent applications. In those cases, it could be helpful to have documentation of the date you conceived of the invention. However, I believe this process no longer exists under the AIA--you should confirm this with your patent counsel, and in the meantime, you can read more about it [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in the U.S. (and in most systems around the world), describing your invention in a publicly accessible YouTube video will have **extremely** serious negative consequences. Let's start with the case of a video that is listed as &quot;Public.&quot; As soon as you describe your invention in an electronic publication, it is now available as prior art for *any* patent application that is filed later--even a patent application that *you* might file later. (The exception to this is a patent application which was filed after the video published, but the application claims &quot;priority&quot; to an previous application that was filed before the video published.) An inventor is not immune from *any* prior art that predate the earliest filing/ priority date. If I invent a new chair on Jan. 1, describe it in a publicly available YouTube video on Feb. 1, and then file my first patent application on Mar. 1, then once my patent application receives examination, the claims could be rejected in light of the prior art (the YouTube video) I created on Jan. 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to the question I think you're asking, I believe the short answer is: any video you create in attempts to exclude *others* from filing will also exclude *you* from filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might be asking separate question: &quot;I want to share information about my invention and the best way to do that is in a video. My goal is not for the video to prevent others from filing. Rather, my goal is to distribute information in a controlled way only to select people I work with. I must prevent the information from reaching the public, as I plan to file a patent application. Can I do this in an unlisted YouTube video, or will the unlisted YouTube video become prior art which would then preclude any later-filed patent?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know enough case law to answer this question. But my suspicion is that unlisted YouTube videos would qualify as prior art for later-filed applications that do not predate the video through priority claims. There is a lot of case law involving things like conversations between friends at closed parties, websites that were accessible by link but weren't password protected, websites accessible only through a complex file system. It's a thorny field to navigate, and the advice of patent counsel in your jurisdiction is important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other sources you might want to read are [here (start at second half of p. 3)][2], [here (section II)][3], [here][4], and [here][5]. Note that these relate to different countries/jurisdictions.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*I am no expert, and this response is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney or legal expert to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Laws can differ dramatically from country to country, state to state, and technology field to technology field.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.insidecounsel.com/2012/02/14/ip-interference-proceedings-in-post-aia-america&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lernerdavid.com/Templates/media/files/Articles/NJ%20Law%20Journal%20EAO.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2128.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.iposgoode.ca/2009/12/standard-of-proof-in-determining-accessibility-of-online-prior-art/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.citiusminds.com/blog/can-youtube-videos-be-used-as-prior-arts/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17751" RevisionGUID="412b62bb-53ec-4f86-956e-5d2d42e6e2f7" CreationDate="2017-05-06T16:16:55.117" UserId="18995" Text="I have recently read about patents and am in a confusion on how these patents are handled internationally?&#xD;&#xA;Which is the foremost authority on patents?&#xD;&#xA;And at last how much time on an average does it take to patent something and if it is long do we get a provisional patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46896" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17751" RevisionGUID="412b62bb-53ec-4f86-956e-5d2d42e6e2f7" CreationDate="2017-05-06T16:16:55.117" UserId="18995" Text="How are patents managed internationally?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46897" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17751" RevisionGUID="412b62bb-53ec-4f86-956e-5d2d42e6e2f7" CreationDate="2017-05-06T16:16:55.117" UserId="18995" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17750" RevisionGUID="6e338336-3295-4571-9c04-cacc814cdb6e" CreationDate="2017-05-06T16:17:28.887" UserId="18521" Comment="improving clarity" Text="If your goal is to file a provisional patent application, describing the invention in a YouTube video does not have any positive consequences. The Patent Office does not award earlier filing dates or confer any patent rights on the basis of videos, publications, etc. The only way to receive patent rights is to file a patent application (either provisional or nonprovisional). In the U.S., there was formerly a rare process called &quot;interference&quot; which would arise when two people claimed the same invention in pending patent applications. In those cases, it could be helpful to have documentation of the date you conceived of the invention. However, I believe this process no longer exists under the AIA--you should confirm this with your patent counsel, and in the meantime, you can read more about it [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in the U.S. (and in most systems around the world), describing your invention in a publicly accessible YouTube video will have **extremely** serious negative consequences. Let's start with the case of a video that is listed as &quot;Public.&quot; As soon as you describe your invention in an electronic publication, it is now available as prior art for *any* patent application--even a patent application that *you* might file later. (To qualify as prior art, the video must have been published before the application was filed and before any &quot;parent&quot; application was filed.) For example, let's say I invent a new chair on Jan. 1, describe it in a publicly available YouTube video on Feb. 1, and then file my first patent application on Mar. 1. Once my patent application receives examination, the claims will be rejected in light of the YouTube video I created on Jan. 1. The fact that it's *my* video is inconsequential; this fact does not make my patent application immune to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to the question I think you're asking, I believe the short answer is: any video you create in attempts to exclude *others* from filing will also exclude *you* from filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might be asking a separate question: &quot;I want to share information about my invention and the best way to do that is in a video. My goal is not for the video to prevent others from filing. Rather, my goal is to distribute information in a controlled way only to select people I work with. I must prevent the information from reaching the public, as I plan to file a patent application. Can I do this in an unlisted YouTube video, or will the unlisted YouTube video become prior art which would then preclude any later-filed patent?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know enough case law to answer this question. But my suspicion is that unlisted YouTube videos would qualify as prior art for later-filed applications that do not predate the video through priority claims. There is a lot of case law involving things like conversations between friends at closed parties, websites that were accessible by link but weren't password protected, websites accessible only through a complex file system. It's a thorny field to navigate, and the advice of patent counsel in your jurisdiction is important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other sources you might want to read are [here (start at second half of p. 3)][2], [here (section II)][3], [here][4], and [here][5]. Note that these relate to different countries/jurisdictions.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*I am no expert, and this response is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney or legal expert to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Laws can differ dramatically from country to country, state to state, and technology field to technology field.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.insidecounsel.com/2012/02/14/ip-interference-proceedings-in-post-aia-america&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lernerdavid.com/Templates/media/files/Articles/NJ%20Law%20Journal%20EAO.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2128.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.iposgoode.ca/2009/12/standard-of-proof-in-determining-accessibility-of-online-prior-art/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.citiusminds.com/blog/can-youtube-videos-be-used-as-prior-arts/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17752" RevisionGUID="9d59d967-a096-46f1-9bf3-4a6a245ba2a0" CreationDate="2017-05-06T19:39:04.690" UserId="18886" Text="**Provisional vs. Non-provisional (Basics)**&#xD;&#xA;Provisional patents are submitted prior to non-provisional patents and are not the same thing. Non-provisional patents are what most everyone thinks of as a patent, e.g., including right to exclude, etc. Provisional patents are not reviewed by the patent office unless you are trying to use the filing date of a provisional patent to &quot;file behind&quot; an unfavorable event, e.g., discovery of a piece of prior art dated before non-provisional filing but after provisional filing, etc. Non-provisionals get provisional filing date if matter is the same and other nuances are met (filed within 1 year of provisional filing, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**International**&#xD;&#xA;Generally, each country handles its own patent affairs, including acceptance, enforcement, etc. So a patent filed in the USA is not meaningful in Canada, a patent filed in China is not enforceable in the US, etc. There are treaties that help to streamline international patenting such as the PCT, but generally you would still need to file separately in all the countries for which you want protection. As far as prior art, for the US, at least, any art in the world may be prior art preventing a US application from becoming a US patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Length of Prosection**&#xD;&#xA;This depends on the art unit, how the patent is drafted initially, how skilled the prosecutor is at circumventing prior art and interviewing the patent examiner, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Length of prosecution has little to do with whether you want to get a provisional or not. To get the benefit of the provisional filing date to swear behind prior art, you must file the non-provisional within 1 year of having filed the provisional. If a patent is granted from the non-provisional, the enforcement date of that patent is from 20 years from when you filed the non-provisional, not the provisional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17752" RevisionGUID="371922ae-394e-48ef-b933-34aad6f14e42" CreationDate="2017-05-06T19:45:24.253" UserId="18886" Comment="added 245 characters in body" Text="**Provisional vs. Non-provisional (Basics)**&#xD;&#xA;Provisional patents are submitted prior to non-provisional patents and are not the same thing. Non-provisional patents are what most everyone thinks of as a patent, e.g., including right to exclude, etc. Provisional patents are not reviewed by the patent office unless you are trying to use the filing date of a provisional patent to &quot;file behind&quot; an unfavorable event, e.g., discovery of a piece of prior art dated before non-provisional filing but after provisional filing, etc. Non-provisionals get provisional filing date if matter is the same and other nuances are met (filed within 1 year of provisional filing, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**International**&#xD;&#xA;Generally, each country handles its own patent affairs, including acceptance, enforcement, etc. So a patent filed in the USA is not meaningful in Canada, a patent filed in China is not enforceable in the US, etc. There are treaties that help to streamline international patenting such as the PCT, but generally you would still need to file separately in all the countries for which you want protection. As far as prior art, for the US, at least, any art in the world may be prior art preventing a US application from becoming a US patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Length of Prosection**&#xD;&#xA;This depends on the art unit, how the patent is drafted initially, how skilled the prosecutor is at circumventing prior art and interviewing the patent examiner, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Length of prosecution has little to do with whether you want to get a provisional or not. To get the benefit of the provisional filing date to swear behind prior art, you must file the non-provisional within 1 year of having filed the provisional. If a patent is granted from the non-provisional, the enforcement date of that patent is from 20 years from when you filed the non-provisional, not the provisional. You can get damages from any unauthorized use of your protected aspect from the date of publication of your non-provisional patent (which is usually 18 months after filing the non-provisional application). Provisional applications never publish." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46901" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="17752" RevisionGUID="22798d1a-b620-4fd1-9d99-f629a730e90d" CreationDate="2017-05-06T20:08:07.947" UserId="18886" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:18886,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;user7875084&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="46902" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="17752" RevisionGUID="f1bce988-225e-4097-8924-a03af5170fbc" CreationDate="2017-05-06T20:08:13.913" UserId="18886" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:18886,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;user7875084&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="46903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17753" RevisionGUID="1d111a65-f8fb-4c46-8714-d1c566ed1413" CreationDate="2017-05-06T21:45:00.300" UserId="18814" Text="In most of the USPTO patent description, I see serial numbers like [0001], [0002] etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it there for readability or is it a requirement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm working on provisional patent. Does provisional patent contain those serial numbers in description?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46904" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17753" RevisionGUID="1d111a65-f8fb-4c46-8714-d1c566ed1413" CreationDate="2017-05-06T21:45:00.300" UserId="18814" Text="Why do patent description contains serial numbers like [0001], [0002] etc?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46905" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17753" RevisionGUID="1d111a65-f8fb-4c46-8714-d1c566ed1413" CreationDate="2017-05-06T21:45:00.300" UserId="18814" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17754" RevisionGUID="4008b3cb-a853-461c-a2c1-0baf793a0ea3" CreationDate="2017-05-06T23:04:53.787" UserId="18886" Text="Does anyone know of any good patent drafting software? The software I am thinking of will automate some of the aspects of patent drafting and may reduce careless errors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46907" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17754" RevisionGUID="4008b3cb-a853-461c-a2c1-0baf793a0ea3" CreationDate="2017-05-06T23:04:53.787" UserId="18886" Text="Patent Drafting Software" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46908" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17754" RevisionGUID="4008b3cb-a853-461c-a2c1-0baf793a0ea3" CreationDate="2017-05-06T23:04:53.787" UserId="18886" Text="&lt;drafting&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17755" RevisionGUID="8360f3f7-bd54-413f-82d8-ec9a7f12691a" CreationDate="2017-05-07T01:01:06.840" UserId="18997" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7441367][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7441367&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What royalties would be due for an implementation of this patent (Or is the intent to prevent said invention from being implemented)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46910" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17755" RevisionGUID="8360f3f7-bd54-413f-82d8-ec9a7f12691a" CreationDate="2017-05-07T01:01:06.840" UserId="18997" Text="What does an implementation cost?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46911" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17755" RevisionGUID="8360f3f7-bd54-413f-82d8-ec9a7f12691a" CreationDate="2017-05-07T01:01:06.840" UserId="18997" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17756" RevisionGUID="877b4800-bb16-4fae-be8c-f2517e8ac174" CreationDate="2017-05-07T01:06:43.820" UserId="15503" Text="These are paragraph numbers. They are considered good practice to include since they aid referencing portions of the description, but are not mandatory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are described in a extremely detailed manner by [37 CFR § 1.52(b)(6)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.52), which provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Other than in a reissue application or reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding, the paragraphs of the specification, other than in the claims or abstract, may be numbered at the time the application is filed, and should be individually and consecutively numbered using Arabic numerals, so as to unambiguously identify each paragraph. The number should consist of at least four numerals enclosed in square brackets, including leading zeros (e.g., [0001]). The numbers and enclosing brackets should appear to the right of the left margin as the first item in each paragraph, before the first word of the paragraph, and should be highlighted in bold. A gap, equivalent to approximately four spaces, should follow the number. Nontext elements (e.g., tables, mathematical or chemical formulae, chemical structures, and sequence data) are considered part of the numbered paragraph around or above the elements, and should not be independently numbered. If a nontext element extends to the left margin, it should not be numbered as a separate and independent paragraph. A list is also treated as part of the paragraph around or above the list, and should not be independently numbered. Paragraph or section headers (titles), whether abutting the left margin or centered on the page, are not considered paragraphs and should not be numbered. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you will notice that this provision uses &quot;may&quot; and &quot;should&quot; pretty consistently. This reflects that paragraph numbering is considered a recommendation, rather than a mandate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For provisional applications, you may well choose to include paragraph numbers, since there are no disadvantages to doing so. But there are no formality requirements for provisional applications anyway, so you are doubly insulated from any need for paragraph numbering." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17753" RevisionGUID="3399f2e9-8b56-4bd0-9bc8-722d1bbe25b0" CreationDate="2017-05-07T01:07:36.587" UserId="15503" Comment="Improve grammar" Text="In most US patent descriptions, I see serial numbers like [0001], [0002] etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are they there for readability or are they a requirement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm working on provisional patent application. Does a provisional patent  application contain those serial numbers in the description?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17757" RevisionGUID="97a1b7bd-82c3-4ae5-a1d1-888bb0c68a03" CreationDate="2017-05-07T04:10:15.753" UserId="14403" Text="    Any element (e.g. motion sensor, means of communication and of interface between functional parts) which is well known in the industry field and performs routine function does not add &quot;some thing more&quot; to claimed invention and will raise judicial exception (abstract idea) if such an element is found in claims. &#xD;&#xA;    However, if a machine is 'novel' and 'non-obvious' and a particular element(like motion sensor, means of communication) helps to link functional steps of the claims and in combination with other elements of the machine achieves a novel result or prove to be a novel means for achieving any known result then the claims are likely to be found eligible for allowance. &#xD;&#xA;    Inclusion of generic computer or computer elements (e.g. memory, processor, CPU etc) and information technology in claims now faces a great hurdle in the form of judicial exception post 'Alice opinion' which is a supreme court (US) judgement. Whenever these elements are involved, the drafting of specification and claims become really tricky. If combination of claim elements conforms to judgement such as  Diehr, Bascom and SiRF Technology then a patent application has chance of being considered patent eligible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46916" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="7cf44088-3d9c-4170-a040-7f90638b9c2c" CreationDate="2017-05-07T04:11:47.027" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17757" RevisionGUID="337752b9-649b-41f8-9189-13ecc2494424" CreationDate="2017-05-07T04:18:36.527" UserId="15503" Comment="correct formatting" Text="Any element (e.g. motion sensor, means of communication and of interface between functional parts) which is well known in the industry field and performs routine function does not add &quot;some thing more&quot; to claimed invention and will raise judicial exception (abstract idea) if such an element is found in claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if a machine is 'novel' and 'non-obvious' and a particular element(like motion sensor, means of communication) helps to link functional steps of the claims and in combination with other elements of the machine achieves a novel result or prove to be a novel means for achieving any known result then the claims are likely to be found eligible for allowance. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inclusion of generic computer or computer elements (e.g. memory, processor, CPU etc) and information technology in claims now faces a great hurdle in the form of judicial exception post 'Alice opinion' which is a supreme court (US) judgement. Whenever these elements are involved, the drafting of specification and claims become really tricky. If combination of claim elements conforms to judgement such as  Diehr, Bascom and SiRF Technology then a patent application has chance of being considered patent eligible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17758" RevisionGUID="f333433d-d097-4f63-80d2-a0b0ce831e46" CreationDate="2017-05-07T12:16:16.727" UserId="18886" Text="Royalty payments, to my understanding, are negotiated and memorialized in a contract between the parties, often without one party bringing a lawsuit. Alternately if one wanted to enforce his or her patent retrospective royalties may either be a) agreed to in a settlement of a judicial proceeding or b) adjudicated as damages by a judge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just as Maca said above, the decision on whether to license out a patent (e.g., gain royalties) or enforce the patent via the judicial system is the patent owner's." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46919" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17755" RevisionGUID="6cf9be28-f3d3-418b-ad15-221d350cd320" CreationDate="2017-05-07T13:49:12.000" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:15503,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Maca&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="46921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17759" RevisionGUID="4adfda3f-402e-4d22-a1be-05e0b65a6815" CreationDate="2017-05-07T15:02:07.793" UserId="17003" Text="If a generic motion sensor enables your invention than that is sufficient. If a specific patented sensor is required than you need to specify that since your patent description must enable the invention. You can indeed obtain a patent that builds upon another patented device as long as your invention meets the standards for patentability. Namely it must be novel, non-obvious (contain an inventive element) and be useful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, you must also consider freedom-to-operate. Just because you may obtain a patent, doesn't mean you automatically gain access to the previously patented device. You will still need to obtain permission to use it if it is essential to the functioning of your invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17760" RevisionGUID="4a8c7745-4e0e-4614-9fa0-d143ff7132fb" CreationDate="2017-05-07T15:20:55.497" UserId="17003" Text="I am an inventor and have worked with quite a few patent attorneys both inside and outside my company. In every case, the patents were written using Microsoft Word. It is important to understand that the drafting of an application is an iterative process where the attorney/agent creates a draft and the inventor(s) review and comment. This pretty much limits you to commonly available word processing software since the inventors are unlikely to have specialized legal software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can imagine that there would be a need for broader patent management activities such as organizing prior art results and citations, managing communications with patent offices and tracking deadlines and required payments. If you could describe those needs specifically, I would recommend you post a question on the [Software Recommendation SE site][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17761" RevisionGUID="9976463f-8cd1-408e-acf7-7a2d9e4761b1" CreationDate="2017-05-07T18:18:51.537" UserId="18999" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2015152722A3][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is prazza inc the patent owner or the licensee?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015152722A3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46924" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17761" RevisionGUID="9976463f-8cd1-408e-acf7-7a2d9e4761b1" CreationDate="2017-05-07T18:18:51.537" UserId="18999" Text="Is Prazza the patent owner or licensee" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46925" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17761" RevisionGUID="9976463f-8cd1-408e-acf7-7a2d9e4761b1" CreationDate="2017-05-07T18:18:51.537" UserId="18999" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17762" RevisionGUID="449cd34b-7e3c-4326-bfe9-e47d276f4701" CreationDate="2017-05-07T18:27:36.873" UserId="17003" Text="This is only an application at this point. Praxis is the applicant and should the patent be granted, the owner (assignee)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46927" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16676" RevisionGUID="de2858ff-506c-4a9f-9e77-23b021eba2b5" CreationDate="2017-05-07T20:14:21.650" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17762" RevisionGUID="d98f000d-1b12-4419-99ad-a7377ee024ec" CreationDate="2017-05-07T21:32:50.710" UserId="17003" Comment="edited body" Text="This is only an application at this point. Prazza is the applicant and should the patent be granted, the owner (assignee)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46929" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="490db29c-e866-4472-9c26-69b194b8c896" CreationDate="2017-05-07T22:14:18.510" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17763" RevisionGUID="1073aa17-05a2-44da-8f40-3ef764c78f88" CreationDate="2017-05-07T23:38:57.433" UserId="15192" Text="On another site, I learned that many words in U.S. patents have very specific meanings, subtly different from their usual meanings in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;comprising&quot; is different from &quot;consisting of&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What other examples are there? Is there a comprehensive list?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46931" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17763" RevisionGUID="1073aa17-05a2-44da-8f40-3ef764c78f88" CreationDate="2017-05-07T23:38:57.433" UserId="15192" Text="Is there a Patent-to-English dictionary?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46932" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17763" RevisionGUID="1073aa17-05a2-44da-8f40-3ef764c78f88" CreationDate="2017-05-07T23:38:57.433" UserId="15192" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17764" RevisionGUID="87cd9989-1b6d-4b63-ad69-d21a6fbd1ca6" CreationDate="2017-05-08T00:53:23.087" UserId="15503" Text="Neither. Prazza BV is the applicant or owner, but not the &quot;patent owner&quot; or a &quot;licensee&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a PCT application. PCT applications can never themselves become a patent. Because of this, it would be incorrect to call the applicant a &quot;patent owner&quot;. Similarly, because it will never be a patent, it cannot be enforced. Because of this, it cannot be licensed, and so there cannot be a licensee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of a PCT application is to buy the applicant additional time in which to select the countries to proceed in. In those countries, a national phase application will be filed, usually around 30 months from priority. Each of these national phase applications may become a patent, and so those may have patent owners or licensees." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46934" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17761" RevisionGUID="bea2851a-707c-4205-aa61-59b8e8388341" CreationDate="2017-05-08T01:05:59.173" UserId="15503" Comment="fixed tags" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17765" RevisionGUID="25fea81e-e373-4c67-ba7a-16f805375575" CreationDate="2017-05-08T02:57:57.107" UserId="19002" Text="I am trying to track patent #20080310908. How do i find out if it was sold, to who and for how much? I have been searching for a long time and don't know where to go to find this info." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46936" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17765" RevisionGUID="25fea81e-e373-4c67-ba7a-16f805375575" CreationDate="2017-05-08T02:57:57.107" UserId="19002" Text="How to check if a patent was sold" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46937" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17765" RevisionGUID="25fea81e-e373-4c67-ba7a-16f805375575" CreationDate="2017-05-08T02:57:57.107" UserId="19002" Text="&lt;dispensing&gt;&lt;20080310908&gt;&lt;metered&gt;&lt;devise&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46938" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17765" RevisionGUID="63355f52-7f9c-428d-a532-f376edb643e4" CreationDate="2017-05-08T07:06:45.780" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;20080310908&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17766" RevisionGUID="c1a48759-28bd-4da7-8f7c-8db15a743720" CreationDate="2017-05-08T07:10:16.933" UserId="15503" Text="First, US 2008/0310908 is a patent application, not a patent. This is important for reasons that I touch on at the end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best place to check ownership is on the [USPTO's assignments database](https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html#/patent/search). Typically, though not necessarily, patent assignments are registered pretty promptly, as the ramifications for not doing so can be dire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By looking at US 2008/0310908 (that is, publication number = 20080310908), you can see that this was assigned from the inventors to Metcom Plastics International Inc of Canada on 20 June 2008. No further assignments are registered, so we can assume that no further assignments took place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, the current ownership is likely moot, as this application was abandoned before grant in 2012 (which can be seen at [USPTO PAIR](https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17766" RevisionGUID="64176f68-371d-4b2c-9568-e930d19af8e5" CreationDate="2017-05-08T11:29:20.463" UserId="15503" Comment="adjust answer based on comments" Text="First, US 2008/0310908 is a patent application, not a patent. This is important for reasons that I touch on at the end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best place to check ownership is on the [USPTO's assignments database](https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html#/patent/search). Typically, though not necessarily, patent assignments are registered pretty promptly, as the ramifications for not doing so can be dire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By looking at US 2008/0310908 (that is, publication number = 20080310908), you can see that this was assigned from the inventors to Metcom Plastics International Inc of Canada on 20 June 2008. No further assignments are registered, so we might assume that no further assignments took place. Though there is no way to be sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount is not typically public, so there is no real way to find this out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, the current ownership is likely moot, as this application was abandoned before grant in 2012 (which can be seen at [USPTO PAIR](https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17767" RevisionGUID="ca4f657d-3f9e-4473-a367-7386028a262d" CreationDate="2017-05-08T13:31:43.523" UserId="18697" Text="2 types of these language are used: A) Transitional phrases and B) Connecting clauses.&#xD;&#xA;A) Transitional Phases: The transitional phrases “comprising”, “consisting essentially of”, “consisting of” and &quot;having&quot; define the scope of a claim. Transitional Phases defines what is included and what is not included.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;comprising”, also refer as “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional step/method/ingredients.&#xD;&#xA;“consisting of” excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim. This is why most of the Pharma company patents include consisting of.&#xD;&#xA;“consisting essentially of” it basically limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps but do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic of the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;“having” it is interpreted in light of the specification to determine whether open or closed claim language is intended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B) Connecting clauses&#xD;&#xA;Wherein&#xD;&#xA;Whereby&#xD;&#xA;Adapted to&#xD;&#xA;Adapted for&#xD;&#xA;Preferably&#xD;&#xA;May&#xD;&#xA;Optional&#xD;&#xA;Not essential&#xD;&#xA;Essential&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have mentioned about few key features. Others can even include in this one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further information, there are few links https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2111.html, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2016/e/clr_ii_e_1_13.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17768" RevisionGUID="7f2b077c-6120-463e-800b-4b62b6b05ed7" CreationDate="2017-05-08T18:30:28.807" UserId="19006" Text="Lets say two people work on an idea or product. Then they decide to go their separate ways since they are both moving to different countries, but agree to patent the invention in the respective countries they are moving to. Is this allowed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46943" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17768" RevisionGUID="7f2b077c-6120-463e-800b-4b62b6b05ed7" CreationDate="2017-05-08T18:30:28.807" UserId="19006" Text="Can two different people own a patent in different countries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46944" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17768" RevisionGUID="7f2b077c-6120-463e-800b-4b62b6b05ed7" CreationDate="2017-05-08T18:30:28.807" UserId="19006" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17769" RevisionGUID="a3801aa8-ffa2-4e24-a737-f31406c97d32" CreationDate="2017-05-08T18:59:41.660" UserId="19007" Text="In reference to the patent: [US3165887][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3165887" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46946" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17769" RevisionGUID="a3801aa8-ffa2-4e24-a737-f31406c97d32" CreationDate="2017-05-08T18:59:41.660" UserId="19007" Text="Has the Patent been abandoned? Can Someone else pick it up after being abandoned?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46947" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17769" RevisionGUID="a3801aa8-ffa2-4e24-a737-f31406c97d32" CreationDate="2017-05-08T18:59:41.660" UserId="19007" Text="&lt;us3165887&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46948" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14767" RevisionGUID="e8d265b2-716f-407b-a8c9-1d488f3b45ef" CreationDate="2017-05-08T19:28:14.420" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17770" RevisionGUID="c2f01087-621a-474a-8dd3-4b9994757c47" CreationDate="2017-05-08T19:59:28.753" UserId="17003" Text="This patent was granted in January 19th of 1965 and would have expired 17 years later. There is no way at this time to resurrect it. It is now free for anyone to use. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17772" RevisionGUID="c6abbcf0-9eef-4d12-8d45-9813489d6c6b" CreationDate="2017-05-08T21:31:14.033" UserId="18814" Text="I do understand that provisional patent has one year grace period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I able to add important points within this one year grace period (Ex: after 1 month) and file the non provisional patent in the last day of grace period?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46952" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17772" RevisionGUID="c6abbcf0-9eef-4d12-8d45-9813489d6c6b" CreationDate="2017-05-08T21:31:14.033" UserId="18814" Text="Can I make changes to provisional patent once filed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46953" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17772" RevisionGUID="c6abbcf0-9eef-4d12-8d45-9813489d6c6b" CreationDate="2017-05-08T21:31:14.033" UserId="18814" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17773" RevisionGUID="a6507f3a-ab67-484e-bb57-86c391978ebb" CreationDate="2017-05-08T21:46:22.203" UserId="18033" Text="No but kinda yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot change the provisional patent once filed, but there are two other ways to achieve the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can file another provisional and claim priority to both when filing the non provisional and get both priority dates, effectively having different priority dates for different claims in the non provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively you can add the new information to the non provisional (you can file that earlier, too) and then have the priority of the prov. for whats in there and the priority of the non prov. for the rest." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46955" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14635" RevisionGUID="1e69fac0-be4b-4ebf-a3d7-4e62b1066786" CreationDate="2017-05-09T01:29:53.797" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46959" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="2981eefd-bbda-4924-a4bc-861366a5df80" CreationDate="2017-05-09T06:43:51.267" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17775" RevisionGUID="00a6d3e2-cded-4482-a3cb-0f21ff9a98ac" CreationDate="2017-05-09T08:43:19.277" UserId="17764" Text="Just get an extended European search report with Unity rejection, stating that the the application does not meet the requirement of unity according to Article 82 EPC, the reason being as follows:  &#xD;&#xA;**independent claims does not involve an inventive step within the meaning of Article 56 EPC.**&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;On this condition, I would like to know if I could just amend the independent claims to aovid obviousness and argue with the Office by stating that the instant application does involve unity because the amended independent claims possess inventive step?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46961" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17775" RevisionGUID="00a6d3e2-cded-4482-a3cb-0f21ff9a98ac" CreationDate="2017-05-09T08:43:19.277" UserId="17764" Text="Just get an extended European search report with Unity rejection, how can I do to argue with the Examiner?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46962" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17775" RevisionGUID="00a6d3e2-cded-4482-a3cb-0f21ff9a98ac" CreationDate="2017-05-09T08:43:19.277" UserId="17764" Text="&lt;european&gt;&lt;prosecution&gt;&lt;response&gt;&lt;unity&gt;&lt;inventive-step&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17772" RevisionGUID="dfa665a8-a248-4740-bee1-d490f2e180c3" CreationDate="2017-05-09T09:55:34.400" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I do understand that provisional patent has one year grace period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I able to add important points within this one year grace period (Ex: after 1 month) and file the non provisional patent in the last day of grace period?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17776" RevisionGUID="d5616804-8fb7-4448-bef4-c22e3146c371" CreationDate="2017-05-09T10:54:19.757" UserId="18809" Text="&#xA;Suppose I'm filing a patent about a new web based utility. &#xA;&#xA;Can various aspects of it, such as presentation, database setup, processing method, etc. be grouped together as individual claims in the same patent? Assuming that the claims are individually valid, and bearing in mind that each of the above can also be their own independent patent application. I see many patents by larger companies focusing on just a single element, and not a broad grouping together of different things, hence the question. &#xA;&#xA;The product in practice does not necessarily utilize each of the claims. And each claim can be used as part of a different setup too. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46966" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17776" RevisionGUID="d5616804-8fb7-4448-bef4-c22e3146c371" CreationDate="2017-05-09T10:54:19.757" UserId="18809" Text="Can seemingly unrelated claims be grouped together if they're part of the same broader invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46967" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17776" RevisionGUID="d5616804-8fb7-4448-bef4-c22e3146c371" CreationDate="2017-05-09T10:54:19.757" UserId="18809" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17777" RevisionGUID="008efe04-a372-45bb-8a7f-2b3bfcab2861" CreationDate="2017-05-09T11:46:24.260" UserId="15503" Text="Not really.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have two unrelated inventions, even if they might co-operate in a final functional product, you are likely to get a restriction requirement. If this occurs, and you cannot overcome it (which, in general, is pretty likely), you will need to elect one invention and file a divisional application for each non-elected invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The circumstances in which a restriction requirement may be raised are set out in [MPEP § 803](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s803.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There are two criteria for a proper requirement for restriction between patentably distinct inventions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(A) The inventions must be independent (see MPEP § 802.01, § 806.06, § 808.01) or distinct as claimed (see MPEP § 806.05 - § 806.05(j)); and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(B) There would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required (see MPEP § 803.02, § 808, and § 808.02).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A related, but different approach is used in most non-US jurisdictions. If there is no common inventive subject matter linking two independent claims, they lack unity of invention, and so are not allowable. This generally also results in a need to file a divisional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46969" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="8409067c-2d50-4946-97e9-9daf71b46256" CreationDate="2017-05-09T12:48:18.003" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="46970" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17776" RevisionGUID="c9b4e244-a385-42dd-954e-b1e11c46607f" CreationDate="2017-05-09T12:53:13.107" UserId="18809" Comment="added 498 characters in body" Text="&#xA;Suppose I'm filing a patent about a new web based utility. &#xA;&#xA;Can various aspects of it, such as presentation, database setup, processing method, etc. be grouped together as individual claims in the same patent? Assuming that the claims are individually valid, and bearing in mind that each of the above can also be their own independent patent application. I see many patents by larger companies focusing on just a single element, and not a broad grouping together of different things, hence the question. &#xA;&#xA;The product in practice does not necessarily utilize each of the claims. And each claim can be used as part of a different setup too. &#xA;&#xA;(The clarifying example below was added after the first answer): &#xA;To clarify, For example, I'm patenting a new kind of car that I invented, and the claims include a new kind of wheels, and a new kind of steering system. Both these (wheels and steering system) might well be usable independently in other kinds of cars; but they were both invented by me as part of the process of inventing my new kind of car. And they are both used (although they don't have to be) in building my new kind of car." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17776" RevisionGUID="653a3b3e-84fb-4d31-9820-97264e268aa4" CreationDate="2017-05-09T12:58:53.310" UserId="18809" Comment="added 236 characters in body; deleted 8 characters in body" Text="&#xA;Suppose I'm filing a patent about a new web based utility. &#xA;&#xA;Can various aspects of it, such as presentation, database setup, processing method, etc. be grouped together as individual claims in the same patent? Assuming that the claims are individually valid, and bearing in mind that each of the above can also be their own independent patent application. I see many patents by larger companies focusing on just a single element, and not a broad grouping together of different things, hence the question. &#xA;&#xA;The product in practice does not necessarily utilize each of the claims. And each claim can be used as part of a different setup too. &#xA;&#xA;(The clarifying example below was added after the first answer): &#xA;To clarify, For example, I'm patenting a new kind of car that I invented, and the claims include a new kind of wheels, and a new kind of steering system. Both these (wheels and steering system) might well be usable independently in other kinds of cars; but they were both invented by me as part of the process of inventing my new kind of car. And they are both used (although they don't have to be) in building my new kind of car.&#xA;&#xA;[This question on an invention with two components][1] almost answers my question but in my case the components can possibly be used  by themselves in a different setup. &#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/17317/18809" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17778" RevisionGUID="979ac2f6-c4a9-4a04-9351-bb5f11419dbd" CreationDate="2017-05-09T14:40:39.207" UserId="18989" Text="If there is a company in the US wanting to patent a design, but there is a &quot;Lapsed&quot; Australian patent on a similar design, can the US company pursue a patent? A similar US patent does not exist. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46973" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17778" RevisionGUID="979ac2f6-c4a9-4a04-9351-bb5f11419dbd" CreationDate="2017-05-09T14:40:39.207" UserId="18989" Text="Lapsed Patent outside of US" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46974" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17778" RevisionGUID="979ac2f6-c4a9-4a04-9351-bb5f11419dbd" CreationDate="2017-05-09T14:40:39.207" UserId="18989" Text="&lt;lapsed&gt;&lt;austailia&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17779" RevisionGUID="f8e2dd68-b969-496e-9f8d-5f5d48256fc1" CreationDate="2017-05-09T14:49:20.203" UserId="17003" Text="The Australian patent represents prior art even in the US. It doesn't matter whether or not it is lapsed. Whether the new patent application will be granted depends on how &quot;similar&quot; the prior art is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17775" RevisionGUID="9d17579f-9a51-49ee-a9b5-4051e2ad58ae" CreationDate="2017-05-09T20:53:56.733" UserId="18033" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Just got an extended European search report with Unity rejection, stating that the the application does not meet the requirement of unity according to Article 82 EPC, the reason being as follows:  &#xD;&#xA;**independent claims does not involve an inventive step within the meaning of Article 56 EPC.**&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;On this condition, I would like to know if I could just amend the independent claims to aovid obviousness and argue with the Office by stating that the instant application does involve unity because the amended independent claims possess inventive step?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46977" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17775" RevisionGUID="9d17579f-9a51-49ee-a9b5-4051e2ad58ae" CreationDate="2017-05-09T20:53:56.733" UserId="18033" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Just got an extended European search report with Unity rejection, how can I do to argue with the Examiner?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46978" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17778" RevisionGUID="b8ee4afe-65a2-40c1-8433-924937eb0992" CreationDate="2017-05-09T22:31:09.817" UserId="15503" Comment="fix tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;design&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17780" RevisionGUID="eec0464b-c9fe-437b-b73c-47d39fa82101" CreationDate="2017-05-10T01:37:38.297" UserId="19012" Text="I would like some help in regards to patent number US 20020187719 A1. I would like to manufacture something similar in Brazil, but dont want to infringe any patents. That is why I'd like to know if this patent is valid internationally or only in the US and if I can manufacture something similar without breaking any rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for your time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gabriela" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46980" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17780" RevisionGUID="eec0464b-c9fe-437b-b73c-47d39fa82101" CreationDate="2017-05-10T01:37:38.297" UserId="19012" Text="Understanding an existing patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46981" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17780" RevisionGUID="eec0464b-c9fe-437b-b73c-47d39fa82101" CreationDate="2017-05-10T01:37:38.297" UserId="19012" Text="&lt;existing&gt;&lt;understanding&gt;&lt;help&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46982" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="17780" RevisionGUID="460fe421-b595-4a9d-a4f6-4c09e1faaef7" CreationDate="2017-05-10T01:37:48.783" UserId="19012" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:19012,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Gabriela Zveibil&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="46983" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="17780" RevisionGUID="caecc5d3-f813-43d0-9e8f-f943701b08e9" CreationDate="2017-05-10T01:45:20.563" UserId="19012" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:19012,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Gabriela Zveibil&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="46984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17780" RevisionGUID="fc00e768-d049-45cd-9691-82cc4ff46b50" CreationDate="2017-05-10T01:49:08.603" UserId="19012" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="I would like some help in regards to patent number US 20020187719 A1/ US6666740. I would like to manufacture something similar in Brazil, but dont want to infringe any patents. That is why I'd like to know if this patent is valid internationally or only in the US and if I can manufacture something similar without breaking any rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for your time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gabriela" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46985" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17780" RevisionGUID="335088a9-1186-4f28-a55d-d0e5b9fa407d" CreationDate="2017-05-10T01:58:34.300" UserId="19012" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;help&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17781" RevisionGUID="06d1f6a8-e5d2-4e11-9533-9ab8216a2b52" CreationDate="2017-05-10T02:06:32.893" UserId="15503" Text="You have referred to a US patent (and application). This is only effective in the US, and therefore could not apply in other countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, by searching for the inventor's name at [INPI](https://gru.inpi.gov.br/pePI/jsp/patentes/PatenteSearchAvancado.jsp), it appears that no related Brazilian patent exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It therefore appears at first blush that this patent (or any equivalents) would not prevent you manufacturing this product in Brazil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, other relevant patents may exist in Brazil which could affect you. You would need to perform (or engage an attorney to perform) a freedom-to-operate search to establish this. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17780" RevisionGUID="bfea7360-1f81-4efe-ad43-d851a8de9077" CreationDate="2017-05-10T02:08:36.293" UserId="15503" Comment="Make title more representative of the question and adjust tags" Text="I would like some help in regards to patent number US 20020187719 A1/ US6666740. I would like to manufacture something similar in Brazil, but don't want to infringe any patents. That is why I'd like to know if this patent is valid internationally or only in the US and if I can manufacture something similar without breaking any rules." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46988" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17780" RevisionGUID="bfea7360-1f81-4efe-ad43-d851a8de9077" CreationDate="2017-05-10T02:08:36.293" UserId="15503" Comment="Make title more representative of the question and adjust tags" Text="What is the effect of a US patent in Brazil?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46989" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17780" RevisionGUID="bfea7360-1f81-4efe-ad43-d851a8de9077" CreationDate="2017-05-10T02:08:36.293" UserId="15503" Comment="Make title more representative of the question and adjust tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17775" RevisionGUID="1b92078e-3fb3-4e93-a90a-39e1f4707d43" CreationDate="2017-05-10T03:01:19.747" UserId="17764" Comment="supplementary" Text="Just got an extended European search report with Unity rejection, stating that the the application does not meet the requirement of unity according to Article 82 EPC, the reason being as follows:  &#xD;&#xA;**independent claims does not involve an inventive step within the meaning of Article 56 EPC.**&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;On this condition, I would like to know if I could just amend the independent claims to aovid obviousness and argue with the Office by stating that the instant application does involve unity because the amended independent claims possess inventive step?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below is an extract from the EESR.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Unity**  &#xD;&#xA;1.1 The present application deos meet the requirement of unity according to Article 82 EPC, the reasons being as follows:  &#xD;&#xA;The subject matter of claims 1 and 12 does not involve an inventive step within the meaning of Article 56 EPC (see detailed reasoning below in points 3.1 and 3.2).&#xD;&#xA;Strating from document D1 as the prior art within the meaning of Rule 44(1) EPC, the dependent claims 2 to 11 and 13 to 19 do not introduce a same or corresponding special technical feature. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Then the Office started specifying the technical features of each group of claims. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In summary, the dependent claims 2 to 19 either do not provide an further contribution over the prior art or they introduce different special technical features which do no correspond as regards their technical effect.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hence, the technical relationship between the subject-matter of said claims required by Rule 44 EPC is lacking, and the requirement for unity of invention referred to in Article 82 EPC is not fulfilled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.8   Hence, the following separate inventions or groups of inventions are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept: ... ...&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.9 In accordance with Rule 164(1) EPC, the supplementary European search report has been drawn up for those parts of the application which relate to the invention, or group of inventions, first mentioned in the claims.  &#xD;&#xA;Since no additional search fee has been paid upon invitation for the other invention(s) (Rule 164(1) EPC), the application will be prosecuted on the basis of the invention in respect of which a search has been carried out, in other words the invention first mentioned in the claims.  &#xD;&#xA;The applicatn is therefore inventied to limit the application to the invention covered by the supplementary European search report and excise those parts of the application relating to the other invention(s).  &#xD;&#xA;The subject-matter to be excised may be made the subject of one or more divisional applications according to Rule 36 EPC.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17783" RevisionGUID="03add6b4-53e8-46dd-a943-234de3554129" CreationDate="2017-05-10T05:26:17.213" UserId="18697" Text="How to open Indian patent in Inpass?(Link http://ipindiaservices.gov.in/publicsearch/newpublicsearch/)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46995" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17783" RevisionGUID="03add6b4-53e8-46dd-a943-234de3554129" CreationDate="2017-05-10T05:26:17.213" UserId="18697" Text="Open Indian Patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46996" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17783" RevisionGUID="03add6b4-53e8-46dd-a943-234de3554129" CreationDate="2017-05-10T05:26:17.213" UserId="18697" Text="&lt;databases&gt;&lt;open&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17784" RevisionGUID="762957ef-20e8-4f88-90f8-2c49b68afa93" CreationDate="2017-05-10T05:26:17.213" UserId="18697" Text="Indian Patent office assignee patent application as IN YYYYAAAAA BC. YYYY means Year, AAAAA means Number and BC is the kind code. B can be of 2 type I and P. I respresent that patent file in indian patent office(Not claiming priority from PCT) and P represent that patent claims the priority from PCT. Further, C can be 1,2,3 and 4 which represent the city. 1 represent delhi, 2 represent mumbai, 3 represent kolkata and 4 represent chennai. if the patent application kind code is I then we have to open I1,I2,I3,I4 by DEL, MUM,KOL and CHE respectively. if the patent application kind code is P then we have to open  P1,P2,P3,P4 by DELNP, MUMNP,KOLNP and CHENP respectively&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you can open patent application In the application number tab of the link, for ex:  IN200701142P2 . This number can be open as 1142/MUMNP/2007.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17785" RevisionGUID="99d6236a-4551-46ab-a160-b881204b1fd7" CreationDate="2017-05-10T06:17:02.277" UserId="17325" Text="It is not clear from your answer that the number format *you need to enter at the search form* is the latter (1142/MUMNP/2007).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This numbering system is not in force anymore. With effect **from 01.01.2016** the new numbering system is yyyyJTnnnnnn, Y and N have the normal meaning as above, J=jurisdiction (can be any of 1-4) and T= application type (can be 1-9). More details here: http://forums.epo.org/asian-patent-information-services/topic4662.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17786" RevisionGUID="eb68da15-e7f3-47f7-aac5-1f1ef001689a" CreationDate="2017-05-10T07:35:37.823" UserId="17325" Text="From the above I come to the conclusion that the unity objection is raised because claim 1 was found non-inventive (non compliance with Art. 56) and therefore the *single general inventive concept* exists no more for the depended claims 2-11 (I assume they were dependent to 1). Same goes for (independent?) claim 12, which is considered to lack inventive step, hence the claims dependent to 12 lose their unity as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check also the guidelines for examination for unity https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/b_vii.htm and for the search opinion https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/b_xi.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am afraid there is not much left to do with respect to unity. You received a Rule 164(1) communication which provided you with a time limit to pay further search fees. Since you received the supplementary european search report (ISA was not the EPO, right?), the time limit under R.164(1) has expired and apparently you did not pay any further search fees. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In principle, you may challenge a unity objection, but to do so, you must have paid the further search fees and request a refund during the substantive examination, providing relevant arguments (Guidelines part B, Chapter VII/2.1). Since you have not paid any further search fees, you cannot do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can you do now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can continue prosecution on the basis of those **claims that have been searched**. You are not supposed to use subject matter from parts of the application not searched to proceed to amendments, as the communication states to you (R.137(5)). However, if you want to challenge the unity objection, you could request for a decision with respect to this matter (e.g. allowing you to amend with unsearched subject matter, because the non-unity finding is not right), which is **appealable**. And then file an appeal. If the application is refused for violation of R.137(5) you can also appeal (because refusal is a decision) and challenge the non-unity objection (which prevents you from amending using unsearched subject matter). There is some relevant case law at the EPO (http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2016/e/clr_ii_b_6_2_1.htm), but whether or not you stand a chance rests on the characteristics of your case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more simple way is to pursue unsearched subject matter with a divisional application. It probably is cheaper than paying for an appeal and a good Eur. Patent Attorney to prepare and file the appeal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the above assuming that you wrote correctly *Supplementary* European Search Report, which means it is a PCT application entering the EP phase and **EPO was not the ISA**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17783" RevisionGUID="4d76c2e9-1163-4928-841f-dd1d775a4560" CreationDate="2017-05-10T09:12:41.933" UserId="15503" Comment="clarify question based on answer given" Text="[Inpass](http://ipindiaservices.gov.in/publicsearch/newpublicsearch/) is the search engine provided by IP India for Indian patents. However, it accepts application numbers in a different format from those assigned by IP India when filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I format a patent application number for use in Inpass?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47001" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17783" RevisionGUID="4d76c2e9-1163-4928-841f-dd1d775a4560" CreationDate="2017-05-10T09:12:41.933" UserId="15503" Comment="clarify question based on answer given" Text="How do I format a patent application number for use in Inpass?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47002" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17783" RevisionGUID="4d76c2e9-1163-4928-841f-dd1d775a4560" CreationDate="2017-05-10T09:12:41.933" UserId="15503" Comment="clarify question based on answer given" Text="&lt;databases&gt;&lt;india&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47003" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15983" RevisionGUID="50fe0526-1a8d-48c5-ab8d-d3f6a8bedd5d" CreationDate="2017-05-10T09:19:29.973" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17787" RevisionGUID="554cc01f-8a17-41fb-9b4c-5ce53174bd22" CreationDate="2017-05-10T12:55:15.263" UserId="19013" Text="This will be my first time asking a question, so forgive me if I duplicate an existing question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have designed which I believe is a novel method in the form of a product for an existing process (i.e. from all my research and patent searching I see no one else doing the same). I understand that I can apply for a provision patent application while exploring the commercial value of the idea; my first question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, If I submitted for the provisional patent application - protecting my idea for 12 months, and deliberately don't apply for a full patent (due to it be extortionately expensive for starting inventors). Will someone else be able to carry on where I left off and patent the idea, or is it the case that in those 12 months if I publically disclose the idea and commercialise it that it will be a free-for-all and I can rely of my reputation to carry forward?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I am in the UK, could I apply for the provisional patent application for the U.S? Seeming as the bulk of the market that I am interested in is located there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for your attention &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47005" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17787" RevisionGUID="554cc01f-8a17-41fb-9b4c-5ce53174bd22" CreationDate="2017-05-10T12:55:15.263" UserId="19013" Text="Patenting Inventions and Commercialisation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47006" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17787" RevisionGUID="554cc01f-8a17-41fb-9b4c-5ce53174bd22" CreationDate="2017-05-10T12:55:15.263" UserId="19013" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;invention&gt;&lt;commercial-use&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17787" RevisionGUID="2258c846-b740-4f83-bda9-8967be6137a6" CreationDate="2017-05-10T14:18:17.527" UserId="19013" Comment="removed second question" Text="This will be my first time asking a question, so forgive me if I duplicate an existing question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have designed which I believe is a novel method in the form of a product for an existing process (i.e. from all my research and patent searching I see no one else doing the same). I understand that I can apply for a provision patent application while exploring the commercial value of the idea; my first question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I submitted for the provisional patent application - protecting my idea for 12 months, and deliberately don't apply for a full patent (due to it be extortionately expensive for starting inventors). Will someone else be able to carry on where I left off and patent the idea, or is it the case that in those 12 months if I publically disclose the idea and commercialise it that it will be a free-for-all and I can rely of my reputation to carry forward?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for your attention &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47008" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="3657dc29-79e1-49f0-b0ca-bb3f6f9ae6be" CreationDate="2017-05-10T14:19:30.643" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17787" RevisionGUID="da67dba9-b6f7-4ebe-b379-dd2cd41de9b5" CreationDate="2017-05-10T14:54:28.160" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="This will be my first time asking a question, so forgive me if I duplicate an existing question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have designed which I believe is a novel method in the form of a product for an existing process (i.e. from all my research and patent searching I see no one else doing the same). I understand that I can apply for a provisional patent while exploring the commercial value of the idea; my first question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I submitted for the provisional patent application - protecting my idea for 12 months, and deliberately don't apply for a full patent (due to it be extortionately expensive for starting inventors). Will someone else be able to carry on where I left off and patent the idea, or is it the case that in those 12 months if I publically disclose the idea and commercialise it that it will be a free-for-all and I can rely of my reputation to carry forward?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for your attention &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17788" RevisionGUID="d63e2bac-40c2-4f32-aa81-9dea17a56663" CreationDate="2017-05-10T15:14:17.323" UserId="18033" Text="&gt;I have designed which I believe is a novel method in the form of a product for an existing process (i.e. from all my research and patent searching I see no one else doing the same). I understand that I can apply for a provision patent application while exploring the commercial value of the idea; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume you want to write this application on your own and maybe consult an attorney for the non provisional application. While this is a common strategy and it is true that the non provisional can be amended to fix mistakes later, I would like to emphasize that every mistake made in the provisional application can lead to losing the filing date of the provisional application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that if you (or any one else) disclose anything which might render your invention not patentable (due to it beeing not novel or not inventive anymore), you cannot correct any mistakes anymore and you could easily be stuck with a pretty much worthles patent application. I know the pro's of this decision, but you should also understand the problems with doing this on your own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, back to your question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If I submitted for the provisional patent application - protecting my idea for 12 months, and deliberately don't apply for a full patent (due to it be extortionately expensive for starting inventors). Will someone else be able to carry on where I left off and patent the idea, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In principle, yes. For more information see my question [here][1]. But you have already mentioned the solution:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;or is it the case that in those 12 months if I publically disclose the idea and commercialise it that it will be a free-for-all and I can rely of my reputation to carry forward?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you publicly disclose your invention, it counts as prior art for every patent application around the world (or at least in almost every country, there might be a few where this part of the law differs, I don't know of any though) filed after the disclosure. That means, nobody should be able to get a patent on that invention anymore, if they file the application after your disclosure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This kind of defensive publication should be made in written form, somewhere publicly accessible and with as much information as possible to be a good prior art document. The date of publication should be visible and provable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does have the drawback that you are also creating prior art for your non provisional application (thats what you called &quot;full patent&quot; application), so everything you left out of your provisional, formulated in the wrong patent language style or simply missed cannot be protected anymore. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also constitutes prior art for minor improvements you might come up with in the time between the filing of the provisional and the non provisional, which is the reason peple don't run around talking about their still unpublished patent applications most of the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know exactly which fees have to be paid at the filing but I think the fees that are so &quot;extortionat&quot; can be delayed for the first year while you make your decision, so you can use a normal application the same way as a provisional application (you have to check for the UK, but Germany for example allows most fees to be paid later (or not at all if the application is abandoned later)). This way you have your defensive publication without it beeing published. And as you - and only you - can claim priority to the first application, it won't be in your way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But as a protection against others, it does work. There is another way though. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not 100% certain about the UK so the next explanation will be about EP patents and if applicable you can just do the same with UK patents, if not, go to the UK through the EP application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An EP application may claim priority to another EP or national application for one year. An EP patent application is always published after 18 months and then counts as prior art regarding novelty (EP + US) and inventiveness (US) **dated backwards** to the day of filing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, it is published later but counts as prior art from the day of filing!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same goes for most national applications in europe, so if you file any kind of patent application which is inherently published after some time, this will prevent anyone from getting a patent for the same invention filed afterwards and in the US it will even prevent similar patents (which are obvious in light of your invention). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And while for Europe you only have protection regarding novelty of other patent applications (= others cannot patent the same invention after you), for the US cou are protected against someone else filing an obvious imporvement too. So for the US , this will protect you in the same way as a normal publication would - just with less drawbacks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/17235/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17788" RevisionGUID="4f1b309d-6c6c-4d63-b13d-c8174ac56217" CreationDate="2017-05-10T15:29:12.377" UserId="18033" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="&gt;I have designed which I believe is a novel method in the form of a product for an existing process (i.e. from all my research and patent searching I see no one else doing the same). I understand that I can apply for a provision patent application while exploring the commercial value of the idea; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume you want to write this application on your own and maybe consult an attorney for the non provisional application. While this is a common strategy and it is true that the non provisional can have more information to fix mistakes in the provisional or add other specifics, I would like to emphasize that every mistake made in the provisional application can lead to [losing the filing date of the provisional application.][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that if you (or any one else) disclose anything which might render your invention not patentable (due to it beeing not novel or not inventive anymore), you cannot correct any mistakes anymore and you could easily be stuck with a pretty much worthles patent application. I know the pro's of this decision, but you should also understand the problems with doing this on your own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, back to your question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If I submitted for the provisional patent application - protecting my idea for 12 months, and deliberately don't apply for a full patent (due to it be extortionately expensive for starting inventors). Will someone else be able to carry on where I left off and patent the idea, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In principle, yes. For more information see my question [here][2]. But you have already mentioned the solution:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;or is it the case that in those 12 months if I publically disclose the idea and commercialise it that it will be a free-for-all and I can rely of my reputation to carry forward?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you publicly disclose your invention, it counts as prior art for every patent application around the world (or at least in almost every country, there might be a few where this part of the law differs, I don't know of any though) filed after the disclosure. That means, nobody should be able to get a patent on that invention anymore, if they file the application after your disclosure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This kind of defensive publication should be made in written form, somewhere publicly accessible and with as much information as possible to be a good prior art document. The date of publication should be visible and provable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does have the drawback that you are also creating prior art for your non provisional application (thats what you called &quot;full patent&quot; application), so everything you left out of your provisional, formulated in the wrong patent language style or simply missed cannot be protected anymore. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also constitutes prior art for minor improvements you might come up with in the time between the filing of the provisional and the non provisional, which is the reason peple don't run around talking about their still unpublished patent applications most of the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know exactly which fees have to be paid at the filing but I think the fees that are so &quot;extortionat&quot; can be delayed for the first year while you make your decision, so you can use a normal application the same way as a provisional application (you have to check for the UK, but Germany for example allows most fees to be paid later (or not at all if the application is abandoned later)). This way you have your defensive publication without it beeing published. And as you - and only you - can claim priority to the first application, it won't be in your way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But as a protection against others, it does work. There is another way though. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not 100% certain about the UK so the next explanation will be about EP patents and if applicable you can just do the same with UK patents, if not, go to the UK through the EP application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An EP application may claim priority to another EP or national application for one year. An EP patent application is always published after 18 months and then counts as prior art regarding novelty (EP + US) and inventiveness (US) **dated backwards** to the day of filing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, it is published later but counts as prior art from the day of filing!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same goes for most national applications in europe, so if you file any kind of patent application which is inherently published after some time, this will prevent anyone from getting a patent for the same invention filed afterwards and in the US it will even prevent similar patents (which are obvious in light of your invention). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And while for Europe you only have protection regarding novelty of other patent applications (= others cannot patent the same invention after you), for the US cou are protected against someone else filing an obvious imporvement too. So for the US , this will protect you in the same way as a normal publication would - just with less drawbacks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/17337/18033&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/17235/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17789" RevisionGUID="5cc57797-8a17-49b8-97d2-4c7c204d1427" CreationDate="2017-05-10T16:50:48.050" UserId="19014" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20110299168][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110299168&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking to discuss this patent as we have the tech to develop it. Why has it been left under status of application for so long? Has something similar already been granted? Looking to file for something similar. Since this patent was not approved, how can I find out why? Thanks so much!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47014" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17789" RevisionGUID="5cc57797-8a17-49b8-97d2-4c7c204d1427" CreationDate="2017-05-10T16:50:48.050" UserId="19014" Text="Is this patent still active? Was it rejected prior? If so why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47015" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17789" RevisionGUID="5cc57797-8a17-49b8-97d2-4c7c204d1427" CreationDate="2017-05-10T16:50:48.050" UserId="19014" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;mobile-phone&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47020" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16103" RevisionGUID="2104d00f-d06a-41fe-9752-eca85f7f7509" CreationDate="2017-05-10T17:19:30.693" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47021" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17310" RevisionGUID="21986113-1618-431e-95c3-37fd55b64913" CreationDate="2017-05-10T18:19:30.583" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47022" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14266" RevisionGUID="ca15b886-4f57-4d36-ace0-316307f2f96f" CreationDate="2017-05-10T19:19:35.957" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47024" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17587" RevisionGUID="3f9c0367-3821-453b-9422-5f638df426c7" CreationDate="2017-05-10T22:23:27.457" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17149" RevisionGUID="934dbebc-0e72-49e0-9c19-241680943c2c" CreationDate="2017-05-10T23:28:31.750" UserId="15503" Comment="added an extended discussion about PCTs" Text="## Application ##&#xD;&#xA;The life cycle of a patent starts with the application. The inventor files this application with a patent office, for example the USPTO (US Patent and Trademark Office). &#xD;&#xA;This grants them the right to say &quot;patent pending&quot;, but no enforceable protection rights. Everyone can file a patent application, containing basically everything (apart from obviously illegal texts submitted as patent applications, insults maybe or applications that don't meet the formal requirements as to how a patent application has to be submitted).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A recent patent application gets an publication number that starts with a country code (US, EP, ...), followed by a year (e.g. 2007) and a number. (Note: This is true for the US and Europe and many other countries, but may not be true for all countries, keep reading). This is the number you normaly find for applications when looking on the internet. If you somehow got the application number and can't find it on google, try the &quot;Public Pair&quot; (http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair) for US applications or the national patent office (or espacenet for Europe) for other applications to find the publication number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A recent patent application publication is followed by the 'kind code' A or A1 or A2 or ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent kind codes and publication numbers have changed in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only because a patent has been published as an application (not every patent is), this does not mean it hasn't been granted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Grant ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the application there may (or may not!) come the grant of the patent. This means that the claims in the new publication of the granted patent are enforceable rights. Infringing them can get you in legal trouble. Those claims are regularly not the same as those in the application. It is normal to include very braod claims in the application and then iteratively narrow them during the examination. For the patent (application) holder this has the advantage that third parties don't yet know what the final claims will be, so they have to fear them, if they are broad at the beginning. A thorough analysis can get you a hint at how much might be patentable, but in the end, if you infringe the claims of an application and that part stays in the granted claims, you are liable for the time were the patent was an application too.       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is indicated by a new patent number (they are awarded counting up, recent grants in the US start with a 9) and a 'B' kind code. **The application number does not disappear and can still be found! **&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How to tell what it is ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google patents shows a summary on the right of the page where you can find other numbers the patent document has been published as. If you find a granted patent number there, the patent has been granted. Click on it to find the date of grant. If there is non, you should make sure google is not mistaken. Click on the espacenet link and check for the &quot;published as&quot; links there again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And thats it. It is that simple. However ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The thing with the fees and ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not every granted patent still is enforceable. If the fees aren't paid or the patent is invalidated, the rights vanish. &#xD;&#xA;And nowadays the normal patent term is 20 yrs. (https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/17059/18033 this answer provides a way to figure out if the patent has lapsed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## In which countries and are there associated patents? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From google patents click on the espacenet link and then on family members. Those are the associated patents. They have a country code (and it says the country if you click on it). Only countries with a granted patent in it are part of the protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;European and PCT (international) patent applications have a national phase where they enter the designated countries, European patents enter when granted, PCT applications never get granted on the international level, they enter national phase as applications. So if you cannot find a national patent for the PCT application, it has no protection in that country (or you failed). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Countries for a European granted patent can be looked up on the legals tab of espacenet. This however relies on data from the national patent offices, so if in doud, search for the national counterpart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## An example ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US20100289665?hl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Number:&#xD;&#xA;US20100289665 A1 &#xD;&#xA;This is an application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google shows us:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US8531308?hl=en&#xD;&#xA;(The granted version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&amp;NR=2010289665A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Espacenet link)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Family members:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?CC=US&amp;NR=2010289665A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=20101118&amp;DB=&amp;locale=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Itself and the PCT application (WO....))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We see, at this moment, this patent is only enforceable in the US.&#xD;&#xA;# PCT #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Overview ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A PCT application is an application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, which is an international treaty with 150ish members. A key characteristic of a PCT application is that its patent number will begin with PCT (for an application number, such as PCT/US2016/012345) or WO (for a publication number, such as WO 2016/123456 A1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of the PCT system is to provide the applicant with additional time in which to select their final countries for protection. Without a PCT application, the applicant must decide which foreign countries they wish to file Convention applications in before 12 months after filing the first priority document. With the PCT system, this is extended to 30–31 months from the filing date of the first priority document (and occasionally longer for certain countries). Some might therefore consider a PCT application to be nothing more than an expensive extension of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Dates ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A PCT application must be filed before the end of 12 months after the earliest priority document was filed. For example, if a priority document was filed on 1 Jan 2010, the PCT application must be filed by 1 Jan 2011 in order to validly claim priority. It is also possible for a PCT application to not have any priority claim, though this is relatively rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the 30–31 month stage, the applicant must &quot;enter national phase&quot; by filing an application directly in each country in which the application wishes to pursue protection. These applications are deemed to have been filed (for the purposes of prior art) at the time that the original priority document was filed. At this point, the PCT application has no rights outstanding, and effectively lapses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Between filing and national phase, the PCT application will be searched by an International Searching Authority (ISA), and sometimes subsequently examined by an International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA). These are national patent offices working in the capacity of ISAs and IPEAs. The applicant need not respond to these a international search report (ISR) provided by the ISA or an international preliminary report on patentability (IPRP) provided by the IPEA, so a negative finding by the ISA or IPEA will not hamper the application. But the results may be used by a national patent offices during the national phase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example timeline of a PCT application is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 Apr 2015: US provisional application filed (P1).&#xD;&#xA;1 Apr 2016: PCT application filed (WO1) claiming priority to P1 (before 12 months from P1's filing date).&#xD;&#xA;1 Oct 2016: WO1 publishes (18 months from P1's filing date), and its details are now made public on Patentscope.&#xD;&#xA;1 Oct 2017: WO1 enters national phase (30 months from P1's filing date) in selected countries, so national applications are filed in Europe, China and Japan claiming priority to P1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Finding information about a PCT ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;WIPO administers the PCT system. They provide [Patentscope](&#xD;&#xA;https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf) which allows you to check the status and documents related to a PCT application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notably, it also provides a listing of countries in which national phase has been entered. However, this is not always accurate, so further investigation would be prudent in important cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What rights does a PCT application provide? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PCT applications never directly result in a granted patent, and therefore do not directly provide rights of enforcement anywhere in the world. They effectively just act as a placeholder before the applicant needs to enter the national phase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the applications which are filed as part of entering national phase can result in a granted patent which provides rights of enforcement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, if you are considering the infringement risk presented by a PCT application, you should look at what applications have been filed during the national phase, and consider their status, rather than the status of the PCT application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47026" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16096" RevisionGUID="2232adfe-de1a-4b5d-b04d-89b2c6b7eec1" CreationDate="2017-05-11T00:34:28.610" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12083" RevisionGUID="97e66f57-af86-497b-8bb4-2f21ced34b81" CreationDate="2017-05-11T07:33:31.693" UserId="18033" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="After filing an US application how much time should the applicant wait to file a PCT application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the benefits of filing early or late?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17792" RevisionGUID="bdfe6552-e7aa-4ea6-b0ba-248055fd0a23" CreationDate="2017-05-11T08:43:46.577" UserId="15503" Text="**Benefits of filing late (that is, at the 12 month date)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The costs of filing a PCT application are deferred.&#xD;&#xA;- You reserve the ability to skip the PCT stage if your circumstances change within the 12 month Convention period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Benefits of filing early (that is, substantially before the 12 month date)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You may possibly get the international search report early. Possibly. It depends on your ISA, and whether they order applications by the filing date or the priority date. In the latter case, the search will be performed at a time irrespective of the filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I should note that this benefit of filing early is more theoretical than anything else. Because the sole reason to file a PCT application is to defer when you need to make a decision about subsequent countries (or to defer the costs of those countries). Thus if you are looking to file a PCT application, you are not going to be in any particular hurry to proceed to grant. Thus the value in getting an ISR early is negligible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17785" RevisionGUID="c3fd0438-20e3-4a97-b364-e1ee254a40b9" CreationDate="2017-05-11T12:10:08.830" UserId="17325" Comment="provide a  complete answer, rather than the initial comment about old and new format" Text="It is not clear from your answer that the number format *you need to enter at the search form* is the latter (1142/MUMNP/2007).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In India there are two numbers which are useful for identifying a patent (or application): the application number and the patent number. Until 31.12.2015 the numbering system for applications was NNNN/OFF/YYYY or NNNN/OFF*NP*/YYYY (NP stands for national phase and this means its a PCT entry). The office (OFF) of jurisdiction can be KOL, MUM, CHE, DEL, or KOLNP, MUMNP, CHENP, DELNP. This is the format required when using the INPASS. Databases may provide the application number in other formats, but one must convert it as shown above. Unfortunately, it is not rare to retrieve an application number which uses the NNNN and the YYYY but does not show the office. In this unfortunate case, there is no straightforward way of finding (and opening) the patent application at the INPASS. You must find it by searching with inventor name/applicant name and time span. From my experience those are the best fields to be used at the INPASS. The title may be substantially different than the one e.g. of a PCT application and key words may be an obstacle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This numbering system is not in force anymore. With effect **from 01.01.2016** the new numbering system is yyyyJTnnnnnn, Y and N have the normal meaning as above, J=jurisdiction (can be any of 1-4) and T= application type (can be 1-9). There is no difficulty with the format used, just type the numbers as provided, without spaces. More details here: http://forums.epo.org/asian-patent-information-services/topic4662.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The numbering system for patents is IN-NNNNNN-B and can be used either to check the fees (patent E-register) or at the patent search tab. The latter will provide you with the application number which is always required to open the file of the patent and check the documents of examination and formalities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;INPASS has changed its interface the past weeks. From my own experience, the new one does not function well yet, at least with Chrome, as I have not been able to find (and open) a specific patent application I have been monitoring for more than two years. What is more frustrating is that I can find and open it from another computer. Unfortunately, I have no explanation for this (yet).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general comment, the most reliable source (in a comparative level) for an FTO search is the Indian Patent Office itself. Few databases intergrate data from them. What's more, is that the Patent Office itself shows serious defects, some divisionals are not shown in searches (while they clearly met the conditions of the search), or the status displayed at the registry is not correct because there is a delay in updating it with respect to the actual status of the file. For what it's worth, a national entry in India from a PCT application is shown at the tab &quot;national phase&quot; of WIPO Patentscope with the correct format!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope it helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47045" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17789" RevisionGUID="cb26d9fc-c61e-4840-bddc-c6d86672afe1" CreationDate="2017-05-11T12:48:49.747" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[17115],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="47053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17799" RevisionGUID="19c4552e-9334-4067-8e5e-302c5ffbc25a" CreationDate="2017-05-12T00:48:46.170" UserId="18484" Text="Say I had a design/concept presented to an expert, and that person had analyzed and discovered a mistake in my work, then I proceeded to solve that problem. Do they have rights to my idea? Claiming their contributions as valid corrections that inspired my success? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is based on the patent laws in the United States. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47054" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17799" RevisionGUID="19c4552e-9334-4067-8e5e-302c5ffbc25a" CreationDate="2017-05-12T00:48:46.170" UserId="18484" Text="If an individual had a role in &quot;correcting&quot; my mistakes/work, do they have rights to my idea(s)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47055" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17799" RevisionGUID="19c4552e-9334-4067-8e5e-302c5ffbc25a" CreationDate="2017-05-12T00:48:46.170" UserId="18484" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17783" RevisionGUID="1c53ca89-36e0-40d0-9ece-f5a8c7412bde" CreationDate="2017-05-12T06:15:20.367" UserId="17325" Comment="Indicate the problem of transforming number format to the one accepted by Inpass." Text="[Inpass](http://ipindiaservices.gov.in/publicsearch/newpublicsearch/) is the search engine provided by IP India for Indian patents. It accepts the numbers of the patent applications in a specific format. Indian patent applications, as retrieved by search engines, often have a different format than that required from Inpass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I format a patent application number for use in Inpass?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47064" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17799" RevisionGUID="3d927ad5-fcf6-498e-9fbb-2b5f667ddda8" CreationDate="2017-05-12T08:35:19.947" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;us&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17802" RevisionGUID="cd9fd4eb-df74-48d1-8871-054e3da0e56f" CreationDate="2017-05-12T16:12:57.033" UserId="17003" Text="I'm speaking as an inventor here, not a lawyer. There are generally several if not many people associated with a technology that spawns a patent. The question of whether one of those people is considered an inventor goes directly to the claims. Did that person contribute the essential inventive step in at least one claim? If not, then they aren't the inventor. So the question is whether the correction provided provided the inventive step to one of your claims. Here is an example. I have a patent on an algorithm for analyzing real time PCR data. One of my colleagues suggested an alternative to a part of the algorithm. It was worthwhile to include the alternative in the specification and claims to keep someone from designing around the preferred implementation. Therefore, my colleague was included as a co-inventor. If that claim had been left out, then he wouldn't have been included as a co-inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I'm speaking specifically of whether someone should be considered an inventor on a patent. Whether there is any legal standing regarding providing inspiration or encouragement that may lead to an invention I can't say and will leave to one of the trained legal contributors to this site. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47080" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="c3b5f638-b3ce-4d83-b8fa-b3746d6792af" CreationDate="2017-05-13T01:14:19.047" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17802" RevisionGUID="6a93a553-d8f1-4d42-9bb5-887464cbc7c5" CreationDate="2017-05-13T02:04:30.613" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="I'm speaking as an inventor here, not a lawyer. There are generally several if not many people associated with a technology that spawns a patent. The question of whether one of those people is considered an inventor goes directly to the claims. Did that person contribute the essential inventive step in at least one claim? If not, then they aren't the inventor. So the question is whether the correction provided the inventive step to one of your claims. Here is an example. I have a patent on an algorithm for analyzing real time PCR data. One of my colleagues suggested an alternative to a part of the algorithm. It was worthwhile to include the alternative in the specification and claims to keep someone from designing around the preferred implementation. Therefore, my colleague was included as a co-inventor. If that claim had been left out, then he wouldn't have been included as a co-inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I'm speaking specifically of whether someone should be considered an inventor on a patent. Whether there is any legal standing regarding providing inspiration or encouragement that may lead to an invention I can't say and will leave to one of the trained legal contributors to this site. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17804" RevisionGUID="165587fe-59c1-4856-a7df-9fdb6f3bc1c4" CreationDate="2017-05-13T03:47:07.563" UserId="19030" Text="What does this patent actually cover? If there is a key holder with a completely different design etc. but the same theory does that infringe? I mean does the look/design just have to be different or what?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47088" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17804" RevisionGUID="165587fe-59c1-4856-a7df-9fdb6f3bc1c4" CreationDate="2017-05-13T03:47:07.563" UserId="19030" Text="What does this patent cover? USD705533" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47089" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17804" RevisionGUID="165587fe-59c1-4856-a7df-9fdb6f3bc1c4" CreationDate="2017-05-13T03:47:07.563" UserId="19030" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47090" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="7b6c3576-ac4a-4338-a0fb-842801f0a305" CreationDate="2017-05-13T05:20:19.973" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47094" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17614" RevisionGUID="7c69a9c7-57cf-4057-8851-6dcb94fd17f5" CreationDate="2017-05-13T10:22:40.030" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47095" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17613" RevisionGUID="5dea7e07-07c7-4a2b-9a3f-ebfb1a9c281f" CreationDate="2017-05-13T11:27:38.047" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17806" RevisionGUID="e6437bb9-6218-4c4d-a86a-d04993591ef4" CreationDate="2017-05-13T13:22:44.453" UserId="17003" Text="The cited patent is a [design patent][1]. Design patents cover the ornamental design of a functional object. Thus, the specific function is not covered by patent, but you should avoid making a product that looks like what is shown in the patent's figures. If your key holder is truly a &quot;completely different design&quot;, it is likely fine with respect to this patent even if it functions similarly. There is a gray area regarding whether similar products look similar enough to infringe on design patents so you may want to consult with an expert before going to market. As always, I caution that the fact that you may avoid infringement of this particular design patent doesn't mean there isn't some other relevant patent art that you need to make yourself aware of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17804" RevisionGUID="21b2236c-79ba-40ab-b89c-43868d047713" CreationDate="2017-05-13T13:23:12.530" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to patent" Text="What does [this patent][1] actually cover? If there is a key holder with a completely different design etc. but the same theory does that infringe? I mean does the look/design just have to be different or what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD705533S1/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17808" RevisionGUID="9ca785dd-38a7-4fb8-8a3b-9aa238231c26" CreationDate="2017-05-13T14:55:08.613" UserId="18814" Text="English is not my first language. I'm about to file Provisional application. But it might contain grammatical errors. I'm planning to hire a patent attorney for drafting the non provisional. Can I file the provisional now with grammatical errors and fix later in non provisional?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47104" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17808" RevisionGUID="9ca785dd-38a7-4fb8-8a3b-9aa238231c26" CreationDate="2017-05-13T14:55:08.613" UserId="18814" Text="Are grammatical errors allowed in provisional application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47105" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17808" RevisionGUID="9ca785dd-38a7-4fb8-8a3b-9aa238231c26" CreationDate="2017-05-13T14:55:08.613" UserId="18814" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17809" RevisionGUID="0f2ab590-fd84-4c2c-a829-efda485caded" CreationDate="2017-05-13T15:06:50.127" UserId="18033" Text="They are allowed and if they don't alter the content they are not a problem. Mistakes that make something unclear or change the meaning of the sentence should be avoided - they cannot be corrected when filing the non provisional.&#xA;&#xA;If a charge introduced with the non provisional introduces a substantial change, you lose the priority date for that changed content - and if the change is not substantial the mistake wasn't substantial. In that case it can be corrected but there is no need to - and introducing changes without need bears the danger of invalidation if a court later later finds the change to have been substantial.&#xA;&#xA;See [this question][1] and its answer for more information. Macs explained in the answer why changes shouldn't be made, too. Spelling might be fine, grammar however is already dangerous.&#xA;&#xA;TL;DR: no.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/17337/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17809" RevisionGUID="d2c4a2b7-9f23-4f19-be53-1b59edfd889e" CreationDate="2017-05-13T15:59:47.417" UserId="18033" Comment="edited body; edited body" Text="They are allowed and if they don't alter the content they are not a problem. Mistakes that make something unclear or change the meaning of the sentence should be avoided - they cannot be corrected when filing the non provisional.&#xA;&#xA;If a change introduced with the non provisional introduces a substantial change, you lose the priority date for that changed content - and if the change is not substantial the mistake wasn't substantial. In that case it can be corrected but there is no need to - and introducing changes without need bears the danger of invalidation if a court later later finds the change to have been substantial.&#xA;&#xA;See [this question][1] and its answer for more information. Maca explained in the answer why changes shouldn't be made, too. Spelling might be fine, grammar however is already dangerous.&#xA;&#xA;TL;DR: no.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/17337/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47115" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12505" RevisionGUID="4c8b0f26-0248-4730-b752-624a0e9d8888" CreationDate="2017-05-13T23:33:09.263" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47120" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16577" RevisionGUID="09e8e42b-fbb7-4e08-b4a4-8b0fcfb958a8" CreationDate="2017-05-14T11:37:59.077" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47121" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16114" RevisionGUID="eac5e611-0ba1-4aea-b81e-cdf714a0f4a7" CreationDate="2017-05-14T13:38:05.810" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17812" RevisionGUID="cc7efe10-aacf-4e86-b100-b35bad967e13" CreationDate="2017-05-14T17:01:14.357" UserId="17003" Text="I'm posting my comment to 3dalliance's answer as an answer since it might be a bit simpler to understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Essentially this what people call a mobile hot spot. Your computer connects by WiFi with your phone and the phone provides the connection to the internet through the cellular signal. I've done it with my iPhone and it works great assuming your cellular connection is good. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47125" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17041" RevisionGUID="0eeae0d4-36ff-4d0a-aef7-aaee056794ae" CreationDate="2017-05-14T20:45:52.437" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47126" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16118" RevisionGUID="00b4528c-539a-495f-94fa-9a20ffaaac16" CreationDate="2017-05-14T22:45:52.337" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47127" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17564" RevisionGUID="e9e17d76-71a4-47bc-8da3-16b110f48442" CreationDate="2017-05-14T23:48:27.817" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47128" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16022" RevisionGUID="bae6c9a2-3e4f-4089-b4b7-95a392a956ee" CreationDate="2017-05-15T00:48:22.977" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16022" RevisionGUID="ef6c267a-886c-4662-ae5e-2bc4f775daf5" CreationDate="2017-05-15T07:32:47.497" UserId="18033" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="I am currently a Master's student in Engineering. Recently I have begun working on a project that (I believe) to have tremendous value and applicability to industry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being that I am a master's student, I am looking for feedback and possible collaboration on my project. For this reason, I have the idea of posting software on a site (github) that will make the source-code available, with instructions on assembling the necessary hardware, running the program, and interpreting the results. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question boils down to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is it advisable to post source-code online for a project which may lead to patents? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What are some of the considerations when deciding to take this course of action (posting source-code online) ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17222" RevisionGUID="692b8a4c-e457-460a-a811-f8adf0d3cf42" CreationDate="2017-05-15T07:35:34.647" UserId="18033" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="If it is published, it is prior art (and as @DonQuiKong states, 'publishing' may be oral). If it is your own application that has not yet been publised (within deadline from filing or provisional filing) you may seek to amend the first application to keep its priority date or withdraw the first application to avoid publication and file a new one (with new priority date)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47131" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17225" RevisionGUID="8cae1231-3d2d-4a5b-9e04-27282656a57a" CreationDate="2017-05-15T17:51:23.100" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47135" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17627" RevisionGUID="b59f9940-f186-41ca-b74a-4c71f865eca7" CreationDate="2017-05-16T00:08:43.057" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47137" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="dec70d1c-c190-4835-8f55-a22297cd64e9" CreationDate="2017-05-16T12:09:41.927" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17814" RevisionGUID="9ad6208d-5760-4b98-91bd-aaed6ccf1492" CreationDate="2017-05-16T13:17:19.867" UserId="19044" Text="I am a corrective exercise expert, and have some techniques and ideas I would like to see how to protect, and/or what types of things are already protected. Is there a database of specific types of patents I may have access to?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47139" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17814" RevisionGUID="9ad6208d-5760-4b98-91bd-aaed6ccf1492" CreationDate="2017-05-16T13:17:19.867" UserId="19044" Text="How can I see what exercise/small soft tissue designs are currently patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47140" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17814" RevisionGUID="9ad6208d-5760-4b98-91bd-aaed6ccf1492" CreationDate="2017-05-16T13:17:19.867" UserId="19044" Text="&lt;exercise&gt;&lt;foam&gt;&lt;roller&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17815" RevisionGUID="a74eb2be-e063-4642-9a3c-9ab7d38dfe3d" CreationDate="2017-05-16T14:18:00.950" UserId="17003" Text="If you would like to do a patent search, there are several free sites available. [This answer][1] describes my approach to searching and has links to some sites so you should read that first. Also, you should review this answer which will educate you on the patent system: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17115/is-this-patent-valid-granted-which-countries-does-it-cover-are-there-family-m/17149#17149.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you get a handle on what patents exist and how patents work, then you should be able to ask specific questions related to your own ideas. I suggest however that you shouldn't disclose your ideas publicly before filing for a patent or else you may lose the ability to protect your intellectual property.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17010/any-other-patents-involving-baseball-caps-for-pigtails/17011#17011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47142" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17814" RevisionGUID="3f745dad-2844-445a-ba44-bd74dca58a96" CreationDate="2017-05-16T15:37:15.627" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-search&gt;&lt;databases&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17816" RevisionGUID="95565457-18f7-4899-8ccd-8c5e9cc8ffb7" CreationDate="2017-05-16T18:34:31.127" UserId="14403" Text="     If the assertion &quot;This new 'Button' that im talking has a very specific and unique function .. very useful for internet users .. just conceptualize it as a new button near the refresh button that could be very useful for billions of internet users.&quot; has real substance and not 'my baby is the cutest' hype than in the light of CAFC judgement in 'BASCOM' and also 'Alice' (US Supreme Court judgement) it may be patent eligible (i.e. may survive the zica for software patents namely 35 USC 101 rejection being directed to a judicial exception, an abstract etc) subject to being found patentable under 102, 103 scrutiny.&#xD;&#xA;     Since browsing action is generally accomplished by using computer or like machines, it is possible to draft craftily for passing what is called 'machine test'.&#xD;&#xA;     Best course of action is i) carry out a preliminary search in USPTO, WIPO, ESPACENET data base ii) if prior art hurdles are not standing on the way iii) assess financial affordability of self iv) if feasible (always advisable) consult and engage a patent attorney v) if not possible give it a try yourself: one who can be pioneer in a tech field can also re-discover the art of patent drafting and patent application filing. After all why to fall without a fight. &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17816" RevisionGUID="18a10364-23cd-43e6-827a-b4580eb10f6b" CreationDate="2017-05-16T18:36:20.430" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="If the assertion &quot;This new 'Button' that im talking has a very specific and unique function .. very useful for internet users .. just conceptualize it as a new button near the refresh button that could be very useful for billions of internet users.&quot; has real substance and not 'my baby is the cutest' hype than in the light of CAFC judgement in 'BASCOM' and also 'Alice' (US Supreme Court judgement) it may be patent eligible (i.e. may survive the zica for software patents namely 35 USC 101 rejection being directed to a judicial exception, an abstract etc) subject to being found patentable under 102, 103 scrutiny.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since browsing action is generally accomplished by using computer or like machines, it is possible to draft craftily for passing what is called 'machine test'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best course of action is i) carry out a preliminary search in USPTO, WIPO, ESPACENET data base ii) if prior art hurdles are not standing on the way iii) assess financial affordability of self iv) if feasible (always advisable) consult and engage a patent attorney v) if not possible give it a try yourself: one who can be pioneer in a tech field can also re-discover the art of patent drafting and patent application filing. After all why to fall without a fight. &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17817" RevisionGUID="81f5fd27-aabe-423e-a79f-dc4c8fd3d230" CreationDate="2017-05-16T18:52:48.357" UserId="13884" Text="It is true that if someone makes a contribution to your invention and that contribution is an inventive step and leads to a claim he should be cited as a co-inventor, it still does not however necessarily mean he is entitled to any rights to the resulting patent. One must distinguish between inventorship of the invention and ownership of the patent. If one was hired to draft a patent specification by an inventor and one makes a suggestion that leads to an additional claim one should be cited as a co-inventor. However, it is suggested that the correct approach should be that one cede all one's interest in the patent to the original inventor. If this is not done, there is the risk that inventors will never engage the services of someone to draft a patent specification for them.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47147" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16149" RevisionGUID="700e010d-8c5e-4370-a394-bcba5cf65df0" CreationDate="2017-05-17T02:27:19.753" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17821" RevisionGUID="d85b490e-c573-4e4e-92ea-f0a449d1c30f" CreationDate="2017-05-17T11:16:34.213" UserId="18033" Text="I was just asked if a novel way of applying a known pharmaceutical would be patentable - and I had to admit, I don't know. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example, ASS (aspirin) is a known pharmaceutical. The known way of ingesting it includes a pill which is swallowed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I found out that crushing said pill and diluting it in water allows introducing the ASS into the body by taking a bath in the pill-water-solution, would that be patentable? And if yes, what aspect of it? Also, I am assuming that diluting a pill in water is **not** novel, so the patent shouldn't be on a ASS-solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Afaik a new use for a known pharmaceutical is patentable, but how about the same use with a different way of ingestion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example - suppose you could apply ASS directly to the brain by laying the pill on your forehead while sleeping - patentable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, last question, if diluting a pill in water was known, but not especially for ASS, would the combination of diluting it and taking a bath in it be patentable? I suspect that diluting a pill would be obvious but because of the unexpected performance of doing so and getting the ASS into the body, it might be patentable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47153" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17821" RevisionGUID="d85b490e-c573-4e4e-92ea-f0a449d1c30f" CreationDate="2017-05-17T11:16:34.213" UserId="18033" Text="Is a novel way of applying a pharmaceutical patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47154" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17821" RevisionGUID="d85b490e-c573-4e4e-92ea-f0a449d1c30f" CreationDate="2017-05-17T11:16:34.213" UserId="18033" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17822" RevisionGUID="bb7c38ea-e25f-447b-906a-cd9f1506dd56" CreationDate="2017-05-17T12:08:40.173" UserId="17325" Text="If you are referring to novel pharmaceutical formulations, the answer is absolutely yes. The technology behind the preparation of a pill, a solution, an injection, a transdermal patch, are all subjects of patents, even the dosage regime is, if it can be proved that it has some kind of unexpected effect or property. They are products, which contain other staff except aspirin, so by changing the &quot;vehicle&quot; that delivers the drug to the body you may create something novel and patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patentability of the use of them is a different story. In Europe you are not allowed to claim &quot;*methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy and diagnostic methods practised on the human or animal body; this provision shall not apply to products, in particular substances or compositions, for use in any of these methods.*&quot; (Article 53c EPC). So you are not allowed to claim a method (which is not the case for US), but you are allowed to claim a product for use in treatment of disease Y (see http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_vi_7_1.htm)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47156" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14680" RevisionGUID="92adcfb2-2cf0-4373-9161-3ae4f19b2272" CreationDate="2017-05-17T14:31:48.093" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17823" RevisionGUID="85be0390-2034-4b35-b3d4-6f97f9fc5094" CreationDate="2017-05-17T16:51:42.090" UserId="19051" Text="My experience with design patents is fairly limited. I generally have a good idea what the scope of the claim is and know that dashed lines are not part of the claim. That being said, I have very little idea what the scope of the linked patent would be, but it seems so broad as to almost be incomprehensible, much less valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone have any insight into this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/USD745194S1/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47163" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17823" RevisionGUID="85be0390-2034-4b35-b3d4-6f97f9fc5094" CreationDate="2017-05-17T16:51:42.090" UserId="19051" Text="What is the scope of a particular design patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47164" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17823" RevisionGUID="85be0390-2034-4b35-b3d4-6f97f9fc5094" CreationDate="2017-05-17T16:51:42.090" UserId="19051" Text="&lt;design&gt;&lt;scope&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47165" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="3afd5062-b8cc-4617-8590-834689f4973c" CreationDate="2017-05-17T20:36:42.620" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17825" RevisionGUID="50481d2a-f9a7-401d-b5a5-550b459dd1f4" CreationDate="2017-05-18T03:58:42.400" UserId="14403" Text="The instant application entered National Phase in Australia and Canada. It lapsed in Australia, was patented in Canada (status as per search sites of both the countries). The technology could have been exploited in any other country of the world (including India which was excluded right from WIPO stage)subject to condition, the product should not have been marketed to Canada in patent life period to avoid infringement. &#xD;&#xA;To me the important aspect of this question at present is: i)how to find out status of a particular WIPO patent application in any country, ii) whether the said application will moot patent infringement in a particular country.&#xD;&#xA;The simple steps to answer of these are: Go to WIPO patent search-  open field combination under search button- enter application number- click National Phase button and you know the countries the application entered national phase. One can know the application status from 'patent search site' for a country.&#xD;&#xA;Any country not mentioned in WIPO application is excluded from the beginning. Countries not entered in National Phase are also excluded. Excluded countries are happy domain for exploiting knowledge put in public domain.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17825" RevisionGUID="428c8f43-ca94-46a6-9123-8a3e3b47b28b" CreationDate="2017-05-18T17:56:02.857" UserId="14403" Comment="Edited to provide relevant search sites, to correct a information regarding patent status in Canada and load some screen shots" Text="The instant application entered National Phase in Australia and Canada. It lapsed in Australia https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/patents, was a dead patent in Canada (http://www.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/search/number.html) by 2002-02-26 (status as per search sites of both the countries). The technology could have been exploited in any other country of the world (including India which was excluded right from WIPO stage) if thought useful by anyone.&#xD;&#xA;To me the important aspect of this question at present is: i)how to find out status of a particular WIPO patent application (e.g. WO1998038266A1) in any country, ii) whether the said application will moot patent infringement in a particular country.&#xD;&#xA;The simple steps to answer of these are: Go to WIPO patent search (https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf),  open field combination under search button- enter application number- click National Phase button and you know the countries the application entered national phase. One can know the application status from 'patent search site' for a country.&#xD;&#xA;Any country not mentioned in WIPO application is excluded from the beginning. Countries not entered in National Phase are also excluded. Excluded countries are happy domain for exploiting knowledge put in public domain.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17828" RevisionGUID="be374d06-79e6-4cf2-a08c-ffbfd75bf5a0" CreationDate="2017-05-18T20:29:11.250" UserId="17325" Text="This PCT application actually entered only Australia and Canada. It has lapsed in Australia and is &quot;dead&quot; in Canada.&#xD;&#xA;Not all national entries are visible through the WIPO page. By saying that I mean that only patent offices which cooperate with WIPO share their data. If someone is interested, e.g. in Saudi Arabia, he should make a search there or ask someone from that country to run a search." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17830" RevisionGUID="f21dc2b6-18bb-4290-ba2c-23355d7b9946" CreationDate="2017-05-19T02:05:30.887" UserId="19057" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2000078123A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2000078123A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cant seem to find if this patent is still valid (or been renewed)... Can anyone point me in the direction of the answer? And the source of this information?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bow" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47192" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17830" RevisionGUID="f21dc2b6-18bb-4290-ba2c-23355d7b9946" CreationDate="2017-05-19T02:05:30.887" UserId="19057" Text="Is this still valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47193" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17830" RevisionGUID="f21dc2b6-18bb-4290-ba2c-23355d7b9946" CreationDate="2017-05-19T02:05:30.887" UserId="19057" Text="&lt;validity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47203" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="0fee1d91-b2ab-477b-9d94-3432278b771a" CreationDate="2017-05-19T06:05:11.583" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17832" RevisionGUID="80b31775-6d5b-49a5-97db-86b0feffc2dd" CreationDate="2017-05-19T07:12:32.027" UserId="19060" Text="In reference to the patent: [USD613180][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD613180&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am in interested in creating a similar product that cooks potatoes/vegetables in the microwave, but the name would be different and the design would include a variety of vegetables on the pouch rather than potatoes. The product would also have a similar shape to the pouch.&#xD;&#xA;Is this anywhere near patent infringement? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47205" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17832" RevisionGUID="80b31775-6d5b-49a5-97db-86b0feffc2dd" CreationDate="2017-05-19T07:12:32.027" UserId="19060" Text="Creating a similar product to a patented product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47206" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17832" RevisionGUID="80b31775-6d5b-49a5-97db-86b0feffc2dd" CreationDate="2017-05-19T07:12:32.027" UserId="19060" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47210" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17832" RevisionGUID="491c1244-6c8c-4c6c-8118-4d6f887178c5" CreationDate="2017-05-19T08:39:50.913" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47213" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12561" RevisionGUID="e0625fae-cd20-43db-9074-a25c7dac45b9" CreationDate="2017-05-19T09:05:11.087" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47214" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17548" RevisionGUID="049cb195-50ea-46f3-9d0a-352a1b09e72c" CreationDate="2017-05-19T10:05:12.523" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17834" RevisionGUID="5334b2d0-0ad0-4df3-a224-5385f06e7dc5" CreationDate="2017-05-19T11:20:27.927" UserId="19064" Text="Let's have the following hypothetical case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Company develops a product using method 'X' for some testing procedure qualifying it.&#xD;&#xA;- Company releases product, development is frozen, testing no longer takes place, product sells.&#xD;&#xA;- Someone raises an infringement claim over method 'X'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What this case? The product as-is doesn't incorporate method 'X', it was only used in its development process, so technically the infringement doesn't take place at the time the claim is raised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if the product had some qualification based on its development and testing process incorporating method 'X'? Could this revoke that qualification? (maybe this is a bit ridiculous to expect, just for completeness)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course it may be possible if necessary to implement a different, non-infringing method for testing then, but this is just the same case like any ordinary patent infringement case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47216" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17834" RevisionGUID="5334b2d0-0ad0-4df3-a224-5385f06e7dc5" CreationDate="2017-05-19T11:20:27.927" UserId="19064" Text="How an infringement in a qualification method would affect a product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47217" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17834" RevisionGUID="5334b2d0-0ad0-4df3-a224-5385f06e7dc5" CreationDate="2017-05-19T11:20:27.927" UserId="19064" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;legal&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17836" RevisionGUID="4b560a90-ac82-4c10-8d9c-5b43f3724ad5" CreationDate="2017-05-19T14:23:22.350" UserId="17003" Text="This is a design patent. What is important here is the ornamental design as described in the figures. Since the figures only describe images of potatoes, you are probably okay with respect to this patent if you use images of other vegetables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not a legal opinion (I'm not a lawyer). I'd also like to caution you that there is the potential for other relevant patents so you would be well served with a patent search and a freedom-to-operate analysis. Lastly, the name of a product is usually protected by trademark and not patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17836" RevisionGUID="2ba24501-2bfd-42dc-83fc-a733bbac6d65" CreationDate="2017-05-19T14:31:17.043" UserId="17003" Comment="added link to similar patents." Text="This is a design patent. What is important here is the ornamental design as described in the figures. Since the figures only describe images of potatoes, you are probably okay with respect to this patent if you use images of other vegetables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not a legal opinion (I'm not a lawyer). I'd also like to caution you that there is the potential for other relevant patents so you would be well served with a patent search and a freedom-to-operate analysis. For instance check out this [page][1]. Lastly, the name of a product is usually protected by trademark and not patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD744851S1/en#patentCitations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17837" RevisionGUID="c6f8c8a0-a14e-4bde-b629-0c9be8a29f12" CreationDate="2017-05-19T16:07:27.400" UserId="19066" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8937118][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8937118&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does using newspaper and masking tape for bridge building violate this patent in any way shape or form? If so how do we ascertain the rights to build said bridge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47225" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17837" RevisionGUID="c6f8c8a0-a14e-4bde-b629-0c9be8a29f12" CreationDate="2017-05-19T16:07:27.400" UserId="19066" Text="Newspaper Bridges" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47226" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17837" RevisionGUID="c6f8c8a0-a14e-4bde-b629-0c9be8a29f12" CreationDate="2017-05-19T16:07:27.400" UserId="19066" Text="&lt;us8937118&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17838" RevisionGUID="5802360a-806f-4cb7-b46d-ff484a244cd5" CreationDate="2017-05-19T16:39:03.567" UserId="3076" Text="One, design patents *are* published. Design patents and utility patents cover different aspects of a product.  Design patents cover the ornamental features of a product, not the function of a product. For example, the design patent was for an airplane and B made an actual airplane that looked like the drawings in the published design patent. If B gets one or more utility patents on aspects of the plane then C could certainly build an airplane that infringes on B's patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible, but unlikely, that A's design patent constituted enabled prior art to the claims B was granted. In that case, C might be able to get the patent invalidated in an IPR proceeding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17839" RevisionGUID="c7ccc40a-728a-4462-b37c-b04417cdf7ab" CreationDate="2017-05-19T16:43:15.677" UserId="17003" Text="The coverage of a patent is defined by its claims. In order to infringe on a patent, you need to incorporate each and every element of at least one claim. In this case the first (and only independent) claim reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A solid load-bearing article provided in a three-dimensional geometric shape, said article including at least some content of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first recyclable component including at least one constituent selected&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from the group consisting of paper, paperboard, and clothing fibers,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and any combination thereof; at least some content of a second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; recyclable component including at least one constituent selected from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the group consisting of wood chips and wood strips, and at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; constituent selected from the group consisting of used motor oil, used&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cooking oil, and a combination thereof; and a third recyclable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; component including at least some content of polypropylene fibers;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein said article further includes structural additives selected&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from the group consisting of perlite, pozzolan, calcium hydroxide,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Portland Cement, and any combination thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, one element of this claim includes either used motor oil or used cooking oil. In addition you need to include a structural additive selected from perlite, pozzolan, calcium hydroxide and Portland Cement. Therefore if you are building your bridge from only newspaper and masking tape you are completely free and clear from infringement of this patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17840" RevisionGUID="e0c18bd8-125d-4499-a192-d23eee93a76e" CreationDate="2017-05-19T16:51:04.790" UserId="17003" Text="This application seems to have been issued in the US as [US6543460][1]. Normally it would expire on June 24, 2019, but it is listed as lapsed so not enforceable. It may be possible to resurrect the patent. There is also an associated patent application [EP1194032A1][2], which is listed as &quot;withdrawn&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6543460&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP1194032A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17838" RevisionGUID="537b06b1-902d-4a49-a7b1-874f518d9faf" CreationDate="2017-05-19T17:11:39.497" UserId="3076" Comment="clarify point" Text="One, granted design patents *are* published. Design patents and utility patents cover different aspects of a product.  Design patents cover the ornamental features of a product, not the function of a product. For example, the design patent was for an airplane and B made an actual airplane that looked like the drawings in the published design patent. If B gets one or more utility patents on aspects of the plane then C could certainly build an airplane that infringes on B's patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible, but unlikely, that A's design patent constituted enabled prior art to the claims B was granted. In that case, C might be able to get the patent invalidated in an IPR proceeding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47244" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16604" RevisionGUID="bc1d2be9-c3c3-43e5-889b-bdd6f182c81e" CreationDate="2017-05-20T02:20:15.743" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47246" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17468" RevisionGUID="226b6cf0-7644-489f-8667-6ac1985d2f6d" CreationDate="2017-05-20T03:20:34.640" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17842" RevisionGUID="8dee4d3e-f122-4080-968b-be082a59b021" CreationDate="2017-05-20T04:02:17.447" UserId="14403" Text="This concerns application No 14/378346 (USPTO) reference https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair. It is facing 101 rejection . Can any one please point out what probably I had missed to make it allowable and what is the best course of action left for me. I am left with one month time to respond to Final OA. Already received two advisories.&#xD;&#xA;I am the inventor and, not an attorney. Thanks. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47248" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17842" RevisionGUID="8dee4d3e-f122-4080-968b-be082a59b021" CreationDate="2017-05-20T04:02:17.447" UserId="14403" Text="How to overcome 101 rejection uspto" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47249" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17842" RevisionGUID="8dee4d3e-f122-4080-968b-be082a59b021" CreationDate="2017-05-20T04:02:17.447" UserId="14403" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47250" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17842" RevisionGUID="9cf827b6-4f77-4a42-94b6-c016f2ff3232" CreationDate="2017-05-20T04:26:10.653" UserId="18033" Comment="Added dossier link" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17842" RevisionGUID="9cf827b6-4f77-4a42-94b6-c016f2ff3232" CreationDate="2017-05-20T04:26:10.653" UserId="18033" Comment="Added dossier link" Text="This concerns application No 14/378346 (USPTO) https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair ([dossier][1]). It is facing 101 rejection . Can any one please point out what probably I had missed to make it allowable and what is the best course of action left for me. I am left with one month time to respond to Final OA. Already received two advisories.&#xD;&#xA;I am the inventor and, not an attorney. Thanks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://globaldossier.uspto.gov/#/result/application/US/14378346/553231" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17843" RevisionGUID="5d7ac747-1d58-4053-be1f-915c620bfbc5" CreationDate="2017-05-20T05:18:51.050" UserId="15503" Text="It seems to me that your claim basically comes down to: measure some data, calculate some other data, and show it to a user. While you are necessarily performing at least the measurements using hardware (though I understand it's all conventional hardware), there's nothing hardware specific about the approach itself. That is, any time you say &quot;do X with a processor&quot;, that seemingly could be done by a person (albeit much more slowly) without any substantive change in the result. Because of this, it does seem to be at the level of an abstract invention, and so in my view there is nothing patently incorrect about the rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a little difficult to see good options for you at this stage, at least without a detailed study of the description. But you may want to consider whether you can direct your claims to something much more tightly linked to the vehicle, rather than just displaying information. For example, if you were using this to automatically pilot an aircraft or something in a specific way based on the results (and not just a generic step of &quot;controlling the vehicle based on the results&quot;), that may help you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17840" RevisionGUID="1e30e37a-a430-44a7-8137-707fee60d224" CreationDate="2017-05-20T13:42:35.067" UserId="17003" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="This application seems to have been issued as a patent in the US as [US6543460][1]. Normally it would expire on June 24, 2019, but it is listed as lapsed so not enforceable. It may be possible to resurrect the patent. There is also an associated patent application [EP1194032A1][2], which is listed as &quot;withdrawn&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6543460&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP1194032A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17840" RevisionGUID="22bffac3-5a73-408a-8d88-097542f66681" CreationDate="2017-05-20T13:49:49.840" UserId="17003" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="This application seems to have been issued as a patent in the US as [US6543460][1]. Normally it would expire on June 24, 2019, but it is listed as lapsed so not enforceable. It may be possible to resurrect the patent. There is also an associated patent application [EP1194032A1][2], which is listed as &quot;withdrawn&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6543460&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP1194032A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47256" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="b3a666ac-11f9-483e-b381-c1ef34c5e502" CreationDate="2017-05-20T17:37:38.280" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47257" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17662" RevisionGUID="f70b3068-eb5f-40d3-b691-65735305f9c6" CreationDate="2017-05-20T21:41:38.753" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47258" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17248" RevisionGUID="a16f5252-a1a7-4dc7-b79c-dc6af4cfddda" CreationDate="2017-05-20T22:41:37.887" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47259" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="fae325eb-1028-4f3b-9ed2-31ee299eca92" CreationDate="2017-05-21T02:52:46.007" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47263" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16666" RevisionGUID="29aabf5b-fdad-4898-80d1-ddd0bf4722d6" CreationDate="2017-05-21T03:52:46.970" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47264" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="41f6d08b-0429-4b42-bb30-f2753d1c9134" CreationDate="2017-05-21T04:52:47.353" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17844" RevisionGUID="71ca1eb8-898f-4c68-834e-ad7c0ff39a9f" CreationDate="2017-05-21T13:38:35.843" UserId="19071" Text="I haved seek more diagram of continuous process of mononitrotoluene, but I haven't. Do you have a diagram on this patent us6583327?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47266" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17844" RevisionGUID="71ca1eb8-898f-4c68-834e-ad7c0ff39a9f" CreationDate="2017-05-21T13:38:35.843" UserId="19071" Text="Diagram of Patent us6583327" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47267" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17844" RevisionGUID="71ca1eb8-898f-4c68-834e-ad7c0ff39a9f" CreationDate="2017-05-21T13:38:35.843" UserId="19071" Text="&lt;us6583327&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47268" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13366" RevisionGUID="e3068b49-2f5c-496b-a9d5-1edc71b07018" CreationDate="2017-05-21T15:12:39.340" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17845" RevisionGUID="a5bb7ece-ea2d-426a-9df8-333bc1c1b14d" CreationDate="2017-05-21T15:25:36.777" UserId="17003" Text="I tend to use two sites for initial viewing of patents and applications. [Patents.google.com][1] and [The Lens][2]. This simple question was interesting in that it looks like this particular patent doesn't have any figures. I downloaded the PDF and in no place is the term &quot;fig&quot; or &quot;figure&quot; present. I also briefly read through the patent and couldn't find any references to figures or diagrams.  This may be the only patent I've seen without a figure. Here are links to the PDFs obtained from [patents.google.com][3] and [The Lens][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/85256fbb14dd8c74aea4/US6583327.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.lens.org/images/patent/US/6583327/B2/US_6583327_B2.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47270" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17664" RevisionGUID="62c8d9a4-5d2a-4727-8b30-b73a2b9f4100" CreationDate="2017-05-21T17:12:38.943" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47271" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17660" RevisionGUID="7c00632b-c6e2-417d-9146-4933d5a2bc4b" CreationDate="2017-05-21T23:22:12.663" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47273" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="dc23d4ad-41c6-4114-9acc-9c9a11fcf5ed" CreationDate="2017-05-22T08:22:13.180" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17846" RevisionGUID="7e59feab-98f6-4a96-aedf-2ab24de7857e" CreationDate="2017-05-22T18:22:39.457" UserId="18832" Text="The examination process for design patents is extremely limited. In this case, it seems like an invalid patent was granted. Yes, the scope of this patent is almost infinite because the claimed design is merely two parallel faces/edges. However, if the owners were to attempt to enforce their patent, it could be effortlessly invalidated by presenting evidence of prior art. It is likely that the patent was drafted by the inventors, who did not have a good understanding of patent law. A patent attorney would never file a patent like this one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47276" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="6515fcd8-019b-49a4-bc43-b745ba2f9d93" CreationDate="2017-05-23T01:35:10.153" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47288" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17466" RevisionGUID="26738602-e63e-485c-b798-2ef63be02989" CreationDate="2017-05-23T09:42:46.610" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17852" RevisionGUID="79b99879-c1aa-4c23-b8b7-03d0c83b484a" CreationDate="2017-05-23T11:31:32.200" UserId="19082" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2012046284A2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2012046284A2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no technology described in this patent. There are wrong descriptions of scientific theories and many other errors. It even invokes religious concepts as part of the reasons why it should work yet fails to give any technical description of how it will work. In effect, it is completely vacuous." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47293" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17852" RevisionGUID="79b99879-c1aa-4c23-b8b7-03d0c83b484a" CreationDate="2017-05-23T11:31:32.200" UserId="19082" Text="Is this an actual patent? WO2012046284A2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47294" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17852" RevisionGUID="79b99879-c1aa-4c23-b8b7-03d0c83b484a" CreationDate="2017-05-23T11:31:32.200" UserId="19082" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;rules&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5872" RevisionGUID="3e38b85f-875a-4ef3-8c70-b4f0d95817de" CreationDate="2017-05-23T12:41:54.330" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="The need to determine if page content has changed is commonly associated with cache busting or clearing a cached page based on changes which have been made to it. Because of how common this particular problem is, techniques readily exist to determine if changes have been made to any page and even partial pages (comment threads, etc.). I've written them myself for certain projects but I'll link to some which are easy to find online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Generational Caching][1] is a means of keeping track of any object or piece of data as it is modified over time. This is generic to basically anything which could be stored in a database, including the individual comments of a comment thread and even the comment thread itself. A comment looks like anything else in a database. It's just data. So specifying that this solution addresses comment threads doesn't make it novel. Even if it were novel because of that, [here][2] are some Drupal developers solving the same problem in 2005 specifically for comment threads. They are caching comment threads and then analyzing the threads to determine if a change has occurred.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, [this Stackoverflow discussion][3] specifically shows a user (Nixarn) attempting to solve a caching issue in which it is necessary to determine if a comment thread has been modified. To solve his issue, he will have to determine if the comments have changed over time. Other users recommend ready-made solutions including an open source package called [Django-groupcache][4] which was created in April of 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, [here][5] is an open source command posted on commandlinefu.com by user, &quot;Emzy&quot; in 2010 which does exactly what this patent application claims to be novel and unobvious. The user recommends putting this command &quot;in a cron&quot; which simply means to set the script up to be run automatically at a specified interval. The command makes use of &quot;diff&quot; which is part of the GNU toolset &quot;diffutils&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, this command will store the contents of a webpage (including any comments sections which may exist) and compare it with future versions of the same piece of information. If there is a difference, it will even email you to let you know that it's changed. It does all of this in two lines of code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be one of the most solved problems available to humanity in this day and age. Diff is used extensively to find changes within text-based and even binary data and has been around since the 70's. My guess is that ~90% of web applications employ some type of automated cache-clearing solution where they monitor the changes being made to various types of objects (including objects representing comments). They would all infringe on this patent the day it was approved because they've been doing it for years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.regexprn.com/2011/06/web-application-caching-strategies_05.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://drupal.org/comment/332784#comment-332784&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2268417/expire-a-view-cache-in-django&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://syfou.bitbucket.org/django-groupcache/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.commandlinefu.com/commands/view/5989/check-if-a-web-page-has-changed-last-time-checked." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10534" RevisionGUID="decb9bcf-cca0-439f-a0e3-e13a915a6419" CreationDate="2017-05-23T12:41:54.330" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="I am making a website code that will display popup when user tries to leave website. Javascript code is used for that. A solution how to detect mouse leave window was published 5 years ago inside Stackoverflow ([link to solution][1]). The solution doesn't mention to show popup, it is just how to detect user leaving the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What worries me is Bounce Exchange company has a patent to display popup when user leaves window.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Use action in the form of movement of a tracking device on a webpage, represented by cursor gestures on the webpage, is used to detect it a user intends to leave the webpage. Upon detection of an intent to leave the webpage, an advertisement may be displayed to a use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Patent url][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you think I can use the solution mentioned inside Stackoverflow for displaying popup? The solution also uses cursor gestures to track exit intend. But it doesn't say anything about displaying popup. So that worries me because Bounce Exchange claims to have a patent of using similar solution to display popup.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/923299/how-can-i-detect-when-the-mouse-leaves-the-window&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20140222502" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12310" RevisionGUID="64345194-3b2b-4828-b86c-1577d08b9567" CreationDate="2017-05-23T12:41:54.330" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2013115797A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent from Hewlett-Packard relates to automatically running a set of tests against a &quot;plurality of code changes&quot; to determine &quot;the failed code change&quot; by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;removing at least one of the plurality of code changes from the subset each time the subset fails the set of tests&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;management tool&quot; claim reads like the use of a Continuous Integration tool, e.g. CruiseControl available since 2001.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;decision engine&quot; claim reads like the use of **`git bisect run`**, available since at least 2007, possibly earlier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earliest article I can find on the web about the use of `git-bisect`'s `run` feature is &quot;[An introduction to the git bisect feature][2]&quot; by [Nicolas Trangez][3], published in August 2007, an excerpt of which is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No[w] the magic can start:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; $ git-bisect run ./testcase.sh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; running ./testcase.sh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; d6514e8d9fe55827fe78d650548d948a4647fc50 is first bad commit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bisect run success&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exactly, like it should, it figured out commit 16 [...] broke our application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2009, Atlassian's Justus Pendleton [blogged about][4] using `git bisect run`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since [early 2010][5] Mozilla have provided the open source [mozregression][6] tool, used as a regression range finder for their nightly builds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have examples of `git bisect run` (or similar) used in an automated manner, perhaps as part of a continuous integration/delivery tool, prior to 2012?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013115797A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.eikke.com/index.php/ikke/2007/08/09/an_introduction_to_the_git_bisect_featur.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://stackoverflow.com/users/1285443/nicolas-trangez&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://blogs.atlassian.com/2009/01/git_bisect/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://github.com/mozilla/mozregression/commit/d50509b36cb6ba45d7c54917f528bdf482d2c5e6&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://mozilla.github.io/mozregression/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13161" RevisionGUID="0782cf62-6371-4f72-aa4b-795e05e7e95c" CreationDate="2017-05-23T12:41:54.330" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20110320926][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110320926&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I worked on a project that became an Apache (open source) project. The functionality and methods described in this patent existed in the Apache XMLBeans project dating back to at least 2004.&#xD;&#xA;Tool Description:&#xD;&#xA;http://xmlbeans.apache.org/docs/2.0.0/guide/tools.html#inst2xsd&#xD;&#xA;Source Code showing date of 2004&#xD;&#xA;http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/xmlbeans/trunk/src/tools/org/apache/xmlbeans/impl/xsd2inst/SampleXmlUtil.java?view=log&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, there were/are other projects and tooling that provide similar functionality to that described in this patent. &#xD;&#xA;This query was posted in 2008, 2 years before the patent filing date.&#xD;&#xA;https://stackoverflow.com/questions/74879/any-tools-to-generate-an-xsd-schema-from-an-xml-instance-document&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Microsoft also has a tool that provides similar functionality (see the XML to XSD section)&#xD;&#xA;https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/x6c1kb0s(VS.80).aspx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't find anything novel or unique about the approach this patent describes, in fact it seems quite similar to the algorithm used by Apache XMLBeans' inst2xsd tool:&#xD;&#xA;http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/xmlbeans/trunk/src/tools/org/apache/xmlbeans/impl/xsd2inst/SampleXmlUtil.java?revision=825680&amp;view=markup&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone see the uniqueness in this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13229" RevisionGUID="d32fa693-deeb-40c3-86fc-2ee5f5be8079" CreationDate="2017-05-23T12:41:54.330" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="There are 3 independent claims in that patent, so you need to examine each of those claims on a clause-by-clause basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 is the &quot;Method&quot; claim embodying  the process that can be implemented in software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 8 is the &quot;System&quot; claim that implements the method on physical hardware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 15 uses the clause &quot;[non-transitory][1]&quot;, which is becoming common-place to make it clear that the data is actually stored somewhere in a physical medium and not simply being transmitted over the wire. This clause could in fact be used to argue that since the Active Object and Object Relation patterns are applicable to transitory data as well as *non-transitory* data, that Claim 15 would be obvious over Claim 8 to one skilled in the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The remainder of the clauses for Claims 8 and 15 are identical to those of Claim 1 except for a few inconsequential grammar variations. Therefore, due to the similarity between all of these independent claims, you only need to invalidate Claim 1 in order to invalidate the entire application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 1.** A method for creating data objects, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - performing a first query of a database to locate a first table associated with a first data type to be created;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - loading a plurality of rows from only the first table during the query associated with the first table;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - creating a first set of data objects associated with the first data type, wherein each data object of the first set is created from only data stored in each of the rows loaded from the first table;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - performing a second query of the database to locate a second table associated with a second data type to be created, wherein the second data type depends from the first data type;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - loading a plurality of rows from only the second table during the query associated with the second table;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - creating a second set of data objects associated with the second data type, wherein each data object of the second set is created from only data stored in each of the rows loaded from the second table, wherein the data objects of the second set depend from the data objects of the first set;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - and associating each data object of the second set to an associated parent object of the first set, wherein the database is queried only once for the first table and the database is queried only once for the second table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is your checklist for Prior Art on Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    method for creating data objects: yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    perform a first query of database: yes&#xD;&#xA;        locate first table associated with first data type: ???&#xD;&#xA;        load rows from only first table: ???&#xD;&#xA;        create first set of data objects of first data type: ???&#xD;&#xA;            each data object is created only from those rows retrieved: ???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    perform second query of database: ???&#xD;&#xA;        locate second table associated with second data type: ???&#xD;&#xA;            second data type depends on first data type: ???&#xD;&#xA;        load rows from only second table: ???&#xD;&#xA;        create second set of data objects of second data type: ???&#xD;&#xA;            each data object is created only from those rows retrieved: ???&#xD;&#xA;            data objects from second set depend on data objects from first set: ???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    associate each data object from second set with a parent data object from the first set: &#xD;&#xA;    database is queried only once for first table: ???&#xD;&#xA;    database is queried only once for second table: ???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not deeply familiar with the Ruby implementation, so I'll leave it to others to fill in the blanks in the above list. For instance, are there two different data types, or only a single composite data type in the Ruby ActiveRecord inheritance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 8.** A system for creating data objects, the system comprising: a machine comprising a processor, wherein the machine is operable to:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - ...repeated&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 15.** Logic for creating data objects, the logic being embodied in a non-transitory computer-readable medium and when executed operable to:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - ...repeated&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, some things to note. The claims in this application are limited only to retrieval and nothing is claimed for INSERT or UPDATE. The retrieval itself is limited to Single-Table Inheritance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [Stack Overflow answer][2] proves that Ruby ActiveRecord implemented Single-Table Inheritance by 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.foundpersuasive.com/101_nontransitory.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://stackoverflow.com/a/1598982/2074605" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13973" RevisionGUID="e5c7330a-b5de-4dd1-8b85-d01219929054" CreationDate="2017-05-23T12:41:54.330" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="This is a post-grant prior art request for [US7263687](https://www.google.com/patents/US7263687), which has a filing date of Sep. 9, 2002.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent is a generalization of what most developers know as an `enum` in the Java programming language. In particular, this patent focuses on the aspects of `enum` in Java which distinguish it from enumerated types in languages like C and C++. In C and C++, the members of an enumerated type are, to varying degrees, simply a named alias for a particular integer value. In Java, each member of an `enum` class is actually an instance of the class.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Claims overview&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 1-10 (method) focus on the ability to represent these enumerated types in source code and compile them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 11-20 (method) are a duplication of claims 1-10, but in the context of storing the compiled version of the enumerated types in a &quot;computer-readable storage medium&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 21-30 (apparatus) essentially define the characteristics of the system capable of performing the method in claims 1-10.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 31 is a &quot;means&quot; claim, which is generally beyond my understanding of patent law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Additional claims information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following is my interpretation of claims 1-10 in the context of Java. Claim 1 stands by itself. Each of claims 2-10 combine with claim 1, but are otherwise unrelated to each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. This is the basic definition of an **enumerated type** within the context of this patent.&#xD;&#xA;2. This is a generalization of the **&quot;SwitchMap&quot;** feature in the `javac` compiler [[1]](http://www.javaspecialists.eu/archive/Issue161.html) [[2]](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1834632/java-enum-and-additional-class-files).&#xD;&#xA;3. This is the ability to **add methods** to the enumerated type.&#xD;&#xA;4. This is the ability of the enumerated type to **implement interfaces**.&#xD;&#xA;5. This is the ability to **add fields** to the enumerated type.&#xD;&#xA;6. This is the ability to **add virtual/abstract methods** to the enumerated type, and implement or override them for each instance of the enumerated type [[1]](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7413872/can-an-enum-have-abstract-methods).&#xD;&#xA;7. This applies if handling for enumerated types is performed as a **pre-compilation step**.&#xD;&#xA;8. This applies if handling for enumerated types is performed as a **compilation step**.&#xD;&#xA;9. This applies if the compiler treats each member of the enumerated type as a **&quot;public static final self-typed field&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;10. This applies if the enumerated type **does not have any public constructors**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Potential prior art&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Claims 1, 11, 21, 31&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe [ECMA-334, 1st Edition](http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST-WITHDRAWN/ECMA-334,%201st%20edition,%20December%202001.pdf) (December 2001) demonstrates prior art for Claims 1, 11, 21, and possibly 31 in §21 (Enums). The following is a breakdown of each part of Claim 1 with respect to this section of ECMA-334.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving source code for the computer program, wherein the source code contains a declaration for an enumerated type;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ECMA-334 §21.1 defines &quot;enum declarations&quot; for &quot;enum types&quot; within the C# programming language (source code).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein the declaration specifies a fixed number of enumeration constants that comprise the enumerated type, wherein the computer automatically generates the enumerated type comprising a class defined within an object oriented programming language, wherein the class includes a self-typed constant for each enumeration constant specified in the declaration and includes methods for operating on those constants;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ECMA-334 §21.3 starts with this line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; The body of an enum type declaration defines zero or more enum members, which are the named constants of the enum type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ECMA-334 §21.4 starts with this line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Each enum type defines a distinct type; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ECMA-334 §21.3 includes this statement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Each enum member has an associated constant value. The type of this value is the underlying type for the containing enum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ECMA-334 §21.4 includes this statement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Every enum type automatically derives from the class `System.Enum`. Thus, inherited methods and properties of this class can be used on values of an enum type&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; defining the enumerated type using a class defined within an object-oriented programming language, wherein the class includes a self-typed constant for each enumeration constant specified in the declaration; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Seems to be met by the items listed for the previous clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if the source code specifies a multi-way branch statement associated with the enumerated type, implementing the multi-way branch statement as a switch statement so that different enumeration constants are associated with different cases of the switch statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ECMA-334 §15.7.2 includes this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; The ***governing type*** of a `switch` statement is established by the switch expression. If the type of the switch expression is ... an *enum-type*,&#xD;&#xA;then that is the governing type of the `switch` statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; A compile-time error occurs if two or more `case` labels in the same `switch` statement specify the same constant value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; If one of the constants specified in a `case` label in the same `switch` statement is equal to the value of the switch expression, control is transferred to the statement list following the matched `case` label.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  A possible challenge to this is the wording of &quot;different enumeration constants are associated with different cases&quot;. However, by default C# assigns unique values to the constants defined in an enum type, and it is this functionality which I believe forms the prior art. *Beyond* this support and as a distinct feature unrelated to the prior art, C# allows users to explicitly assign multiple names for values in the enumeration. In this separate case it is not possible to create distinct switch statements for two named constants which have the same underlying value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Claims 8, 18, 28&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The C# compiler handles enum types as a step of the compilation process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Claims 9, 19, 29&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe [ECMA-335, 1st Edition](http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST-WITHDRAWN/ECMA-335,%201st%20edition,%20December%202001.pdf) (December 2001) demonstrates prior art for Claims 9, 19, and 29. The following is a breakdown of Claim 9 with respect to this section of ECMA-335.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The method of claim 1, wherein the class includes a public static final self-typed field for each enumeration constant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ECMA-335 Partition II §13.3 includes this statement which covers the &quot;static final self-typed field&quot; portion of this claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; The static literal fields of an enum declare the mapping of the symbols of the enum to the underlying values. All of these fields shall have the type of the enum and shall have field init metadata that assigns them a value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ECMA-334 §10.5.1 provides an additional clause which ensures that the fields are &quot;public&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Enumeration members implicitly have public declared accessibility.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14142" RevisionGUID="84141864-4c6a-49ea-a2bc-bd57ecfa8088" CreationDate="2017-05-23T12:41:54.330" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="Google is the clearing house for USPTO XML, via their [Bulk Downloads][1] site. The [Grant Full Text][2] is probably what you're looking for. The only company (that I am aware of) that currently offers full text XML on a per-patent basis via an API is Fairview Research (paid service with non-redistribution of XML source), and they are also the source of the [Public Pair][3] (legal events/status) data for Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as the reasons why there is no public API available, it is easier to paint a picture based on the historical patent services. EDS, IBM, MicroPatent and now Google have all had (at some point) free USPTO patent text available, but not in a way as to have a useful free API available. Historically, the trend is to eventually monetize, spin off, or retire the services:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [IBM Patent Server][4] -&gt; [Delphion][5] -&gt; [Thomson Reuters (Delphion)][6] -&gt; decommissioned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [MicroPatent][7] -&gt; [Thomson Reuters (Aureka)][6] -&gt; [Thomson Innovation][8] -&gt; recent sale?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Derwent World Patents (commercial) -&gt; [Thomson Reuters (Derwent)][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [EDS Shadow Patent Office][10] -&gt; HP -&gt; decommissioned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Google Patents][11] -&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact is, it costs a lot of money to maintain these services ([even the USPTO has budget-related maintenance issues][12]), and it is no secret that Google has non-altruistic motives for the USPTO partnership ([Jun 2010][13], [May 2011][14], [Aug 2012][15], [Sep 2012][16], [Nov 2013][17], [Oct 2014][18], [Feb 2015][19], [May 2015][20], [Jun 2015][21]). There used to be a Google Patents &quot;[Developer API][22]&quot; but it was limited to integration of Google Patent content into a web site and was deprecated in 2011 (exactly 12 months after they obtained the USPTO hosting deal) - I'm not sure, but that may be what the Ask Patents sidebar is based on; you may be able to extract some amount of metadata from that service. This paragraph may seem overly cynical, but this is the story I have seen unfold over the last few years, and this is why I am not holding my breath for a developer-friendly API from Google. My interpretation of the above trend is that they have no interest in making it easy for third-party developers, but you're welcome to draw your own conclusions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, before the Google-USPTO arrangement, the XML had to be [purchased][23] and distributed via tape/CD/ftp (again, in bulk form) from the USPTO, but it was cost-prohibitive (about $12,000/year IIRC), so it was fairly common practice for developers ([including those at Google][12]) to resort to screen-scraping their broken HTML and normalizing to XML or other structured formats (non-trivial) - this often crippled the USPTO servers. With the bulk downloads freely available, the situation is much better than it was a few years ago (as least there is a free &quot;nearly Open&quot; path to the XML), however you will still need to download the huge ZIP files, extract/parse, etc. It is possible to write a wrapper around the site to perform this; of course with the corresponding penalties of bandwidth and drive space it does not lend itself to an interactive experience for an end-user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe you already have the optimal *free* solution worked out, and this is the approach I have taken with several of my own projects. However, under the right circumstances you might also consider the API from Fairview if you need current legal events and one-off XML retrievals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also note the following resources, which provide the schemas and descriptions of the XML available from the USPTO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [XML Resources][24]&#xD;&#xA; - [Issued Patents (Patent Grants) Data Products][25]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to 1976, only the patent metadata is available in a structured form. Everything before that relies on uncorrected OCR scans, and coverage is very spotty. It is a dark area for patent text. Also, the XML for applications is only available from 2001 forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might have some luck with the [European Patent Office][26] [Open Patent Services][27], which does provide download access (maximum volume of 2.5 GB per week free-of-charge). However, I've found their APIs to be somewhat unreliable and slow, and they discontinued several of the services I was using in 2014. I ditched OPS out of frustration (would have required a complete re-write of my code), but maybe its time to reconsider it. YMMV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I want to note a common misconception in patent identifiers as they relate to individual documents. The number you mention ('8978162') is indeed the patent number, but a full unique identifier for the document also comprises the patent authority ('US' in this case) and the *kind code* (the document type), ('B2' in this case, which indicates a Patent Grant). The codes have changed several times in the past (older grants have a kind code of 'A' and new applications have a kind code of 'A1'). Therefore, to uniquely identify a document, the full identifier for the document should take a form like 'US-8978162-B2'. This will save you from refactoring, re-indexing and link construction headaches the first time you need to work with a different type of publication (e.g., application, re-issue, correction, design, plant) or patent authority (e.g., EP, CA, AU). Also refer to this [write-up on patent families][28] and an example of how the [Kind Code][29] is used to differentiate related documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related resources (I will add to this as I find them):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Python module for searching patent databases, ie USPTO or EPO][30]&#xD;&#xA; - [Obtaining Patent Data: Patent Databases][31]&#xD;&#xA; - [Alternatives of Thomson Innovation Patent Database][32]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto-patents-grants-text.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.patents.ibm.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.delphion.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://ip.thomsonreuters.com/maketheswitch&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.micropat.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://info.thomsoninnovation.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://thomsonreuters.com/en/products-services/intellectual-property/patent-research-and-analysis/derwent-world-patents-index.html&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.spo.eds.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://patents.google.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/12/28/uspto-catastrophic-failure-electronic-patent-and-trademark-systems/id=64200/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-teams-google-provide-bulk-patent-and-trademark-data-public&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://www.infoq.com/news/2011/05/deprecated-google-apis&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.cnet.com/news/google-time-to-ditch-our-current-software-patent-system/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://www.droid-life.com/2012/09/12/google-vp-we-werent-investing-in-the-patent-ecosystem-like-we-should-have-been/&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/12/11/michelle-lee-named-uspto-deputy-director-will-serve-as-acting-director/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/10/16/obama-nominates-former-google-exec-to-lead-u-s-patent-office/&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/5/patent-law-reform-bill-to-stop-trolls-could-stifle/?page=all&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/05/03/google-collects-patents-while-lobbying-against-them/id=57302/&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/243943-patent-legislation-will-destroy-inventive-small-businesses&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://developers.google.com/patent-search/?hl=en&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/ab39.html&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/xml-resources&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/electronic-data-products/issued-patents-patent-grants-data-products&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://www.epo.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://www.epo.org/searching/free/ops.html&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/10617/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/13267/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: https://stackoverflow.com/a/20133916/2074605&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: http://poldham.github.io/Patent-Databases/&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: http://wiki.piug.org/display/PIUG/Alternatives+of+Thomson+Innovation+Patent+Database" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17855" RevisionGUID="eb2694a0-ea52-4367-b61a-f39e390a0077" CreationDate="2017-05-23T19:58:08.647" UserDisplayName="user19087" Text="Is there a service that culls the Internet in search of entities selling things they don't have permission to sell, specifically, something that you've patented or are in the process of patenting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47316" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17855" RevisionGUID="eb2694a0-ea52-4367-b61a-f39e390a0077" CreationDate="2017-05-23T19:58:08.647" UserDisplayName="user19087" Text="Is there a &quot;Hey, you're selling my invention without permission. Stop that.&quot; service?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47317" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17855" RevisionGUID="eb2694a0-ea52-4367-b61a-f39e390a0077" CreationDate="2017-05-23T19:58:08.647" UserDisplayName="user19087" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47318" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17855" RevisionGUID="58e5744a-778e-4b72-8f09-c36887288604" CreationDate="2017-05-23T20:51:25.690" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="47320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17856" RevisionGUID="09c00ec2-3000-4b5a-8cba-f7d396a43c90" CreationDate="2017-05-24T04:10:18.203" UserId="19091" Text="I'm interested in selling a product for which there is currently a patent granted for the recipe on. I'd like to be able to offer customized features of this product - such as natural color dyes and scent upon ordering, thus making it a custom order which isn't currently offered anywhere. Is that legal to do? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47321" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17856" RevisionGUID="09c00ec2-3000-4b5a-8cba-f7d396a43c90" CreationDate="2017-05-24T04:10:18.203" UserId="19091" Text="Can you sell an item that already has a patent but your product differs in the ability to be customized?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47322" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17856" RevisionGUID="09c00ec2-3000-4b5a-8cba-f7d396a43c90" CreationDate="2017-05-24T04:10:18.203" UserId="19091" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47323" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17686" RevisionGUID="afdb9252-23b1-4329-b752-3f32f2eb72aa" CreationDate="2017-05-24T04:56:04.583" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47324" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17496" RevisionGUID="8074bbc6-d688-49bd-9608-1c1d20df98fd" CreationDate="2017-05-24T05:56:04.407" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17857" RevisionGUID="02200543-46ac-43b2-8889-f2c9f07e72b6" CreationDate="2017-05-24T06:05:48.937" UserId="17325" Text="After customizing the color and the scent, does the end product possess all the features claimed in the patent? If yes, then it is still an infringement and I presume this is illegal in every country the patent exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if the patent claims aromatic candles, which are made of features A, B and C and you provide aromatic candles with features A, B and C, plus color and scent customizing, then your product still falls into the scope of the claim. This is pretty much the definition of infringement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17859" RevisionGUID="ad589c4f-9f9f-4cae-a1f4-5f0952577ae2" CreationDate="2017-05-24T08:15:56.290" UserId="19094" Text="I have some algorithms that I am considering patenting, but I wonder whether I should just trust that rivals won't simply read the patent papers and copy my ideas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I hope that my inventions will soon improve my financial circumstances, I currently do not have the time, money or skills to determine whether another commercial software application is stealing my ideas. Their software would be closed-source, so the only ways to verify that they are infringing my intellectual property would be to either to seek a whistle-blower within that organisation or to reverse-engineer their application. And then I still have to come up with the money to sue!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do the pros of having a patent outweigh the cons?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47332" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17859" RevisionGUID="ad589c4f-9f9f-4cae-a1f4-5f0952577ae2" CreationDate="2017-05-24T08:15:56.290" UserId="19094" Text="Is it worth patenting an algorithm if I don't have the money to defend against infringements?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47333" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17859" RevisionGUID="ad589c4f-9f9f-4cae-a1f4-5f0952577ae2" CreationDate="2017-05-24T08:15:56.290" UserId="19094" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17860" RevisionGUID="7e65a861-54f7-4f56-befb-79a2d9417c45" CreationDate="2017-05-24T08:44:17.977" UserId="15503" Text="This is a great question, with no one right answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The strength of a patent comes from the ability to enforce it. If the patent owner cannot enforce it for whatever reason (such as a lack of funding), the patent is effectively toothless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But your competitors will likely not know that. They may therefore be dissuaded from infringing simply by the existence of a patent and the assumption that you would sue. Such a chilling effect on competition may be valuable to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, if there is infringement, you may be able to get a licensing agreement without the need for litigation. This can be a very lucrative business model, and so may justify the cost of patenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if litigation seems likely, there is a nascent field of litigation funding. While your funders will take quite a great deal of the damages, you may at least get something out of the end of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, even if *you* can't sue, someone else could. You might therefore get quite some value from selling it off at some point. There are a number of tech businesses where most of their value comes from their IP portfolio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the whole therefore it depends how you see yourself proceeding. If you're unsure, it may pay to err on the side of patenting: you only get one chance to patent something before it's forever unpatentable, whereas it's easy to abandon a patent (or application) later down the track if you wish." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17865" RevisionGUID="43561bf7-051f-435d-ba04-138b16f09945" CreationDate="2017-05-24T11:10:37.023" UserId="17895" Text="I was wondering if there is a tool / a database or something different that can be used to show the **date of appearance** of certain products in the market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could perhaps be something similar to the &quot;wayback machine&quot; at https://archive.org/ , even if it cannot be used in courts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I recall correctly, patent examiners have to rely on the information shown in printed journals. But is there an electronic equivalent for quick searches?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47346" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17865" RevisionGUID="43561bf7-051f-435d-ba04-138b16f09945" CreationDate="2017-05-24T11:10:37.023" UserId="17895" Text="Tool for checking/proving the appearance of a product in the market" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47347" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17865" RevisionGUID="43561bf7-051f-435d-ba04-138b16f09945" CreationDate="2017-05-24T11:10:37.023" UserId="17895" Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;product&gt;&lt;tools&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17866" RevisionGUID="eda4bd7c-9652-4cdf-a1cb-8defe76ed585" CreationDate="2017-05-24T14:16:51.690" UserId="17003" Text="As stated by Robert Cartaino in a comment, if the patent itself was particularly important or the inventor famous, then the documents have might have collectible value. I imagine that Thomas Edison's original signed patent application for the light bulb would have significant value. I sincerely doubt the USPTO provides authentication services, but don't know for sure. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17867" RevisionGUID="e687d81e-e8c1-4ae7-9f17-62c27961b0d0" CreationDate="2017-05-24T15:23:15.240" UserId="19107" Text="My answer is yes, and I agree with Maca.  I'll add that your ability to enforce it might change in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not implying that your situation is the same as mine, but consider this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my industry at my company, we basically lack the ability to enforce the patent as well, but the more patents we have that our very large competitors infringe or might infringe, the less likely they are to try to sue us, either for any frivolous reason or for something we might be inadvertently infringing.  I'm not sure, but I'd think this is fairly common in crowded technology areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, we are basically unable to enforce, but also unable to easily withstand suits initiated by others as well and a patent portfolio is a reasonably priced arsenal for dissuading others from litigating against us due to counter-suit possibilities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's very similar to cold-war nuclear game theory." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17868" RevisionGUID="6d5c49c7-ff4b-4975-9bae-6ccb2bc8302a" CreationDate="2017-05-24T18:44:26.530" UserId="19112" Text="To my knowledge, depending where you are located, patenting something as abstract as an Algorithm is not even possible (EU). How to tie your laces is an Algorithm. Can you patent it? Hopefully not! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17869" RevisionGUID="b6b8bea5-f475-461c-9a32-e115ffdc667b" CreationDate="2017-05-24T18:55:56.183" UserId="19111" Text="I have an idea that I am currently researching and I cannot find a product like it on the market. I looked through some existing patents and am now curious what I should be looking for..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do realize that an attorney would do a thorough patent search to make sure I am not infringing on something so at this stage I am just trying to make sure there is nothing obvious. Would love some insight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea I have would be a small sleeve/pouch for a smartphone, tablet or even laptop. I see sleeves like this all the time but I am looking to improve the properties of the fabric/lining for a very specific purpose. I did find some patents for a &quot;Phone Pouch&quot; or &quot;Phone Sleeve&quot; but at first glance I don't see anything covering the specific need I am looking to address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would appreciate and guidance you can give. Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47353" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17869" RevisionGUID="b6b8bea5-f475-461c-9a32-e115ffdc667b" CreationDate="2017-05-24T18:55:56.183" UserId="19111" Text="I see some vague patents somewhat related to a new product idea. How can I tell if I am infringing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47354" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17869" RevisionGUID="b6b8bea5-f475-461c-9a32-e115ffdc667b" CreationDate="2017-05-24T18:55:56.183" UserId="19111" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47355" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="b9fb782a-5a23-41f4-81ee-d79c23881f88" CreationDate="2017-05-24T20:11:46.190" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47357" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="38303c3c-b38a-4c8a-aae2-9e0f8c603675" CreationDate="2017-05-24T22:11:46.620" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17869" RevisionGUID="a7d5146a-5ec0-4adf-bf28-16af78e5f315" CreationDate="2017-05-24T22:58:25.097" UserId="19111" Comment="added 301 characters in body" Text="I have an idea that I am currently researching and I cannot find a product like it on the market. I looked through some existing patents and am now curious what I should be looking for..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do realize that an attorney would do a thorough patent search to make sure I am not infringing on something so at this stage I am just trying to make sure there is nothing obvious. Would love some insight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea I have would be a small sleeve/pouch for a smartphone, tablet or even laptop. I see sleeves like this all the time but I am looking to improve the properties of the fabric/lining for a very specific purpose. I did find some patents for a &quot;Phone Pouch&quot; or &quot;Phone Sleeve&quot; but at first glance I don't see anything covering the specific need I am looking to address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would appreciate and guidance you can give. Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RE: possible duplicate. I disagree with the duplicate question since I am not really asking about searching patents but asking about the limitations of the related patents. An example, can someone patent all variations of a &quot;phone sleeve&quot; and if so, how do I discern that when looking at the patent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47359" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17273" RevisionGUID="0b824bf8-320f-4bb8-8c05-502814fac5c1" CreationDate="2017-05-25T00:11:44.577" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17871" RevisionGUID="a947588d-7415-4fb3-9bf9-94ddba649e53" CreationDate="2017-05-25T00:27:40.550" UserId="15503" Text="The Wayback Machine is actually the closest thing available for this too, even if it's not quite the main purpose. This should show, in most cases, at least when a product is offered for sale. Though its dating is relatively coarse, and it certainly wouldn't do anything to show non-Internet offers, nor actual sales.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Archive.org is actually prior art too, since it contains documents which are available to the public at a given date.  I have seen examiners (particularly in Europe) rely on it as such." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47361" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="8a47db80-0eab-47c3-a1e0-e007537f5987" CreationDate="2017-05-25T01:11:57.477" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47362" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17290" RevisionGUID="9c4290f9-7a9a-400f-bacb-dbc9ee228f59" CreationDate="2017-05-25T02:11:58.773" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47364" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12639" RevisionGUID="8a62c867-eacd-4a47-9e15-581016396f5a" CreationDate="2017-05-25T04:11:59.200" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47365" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="35f36647-3f9b-4677-9601-cd05fc753091" CreationDate="2017-05-25T08:25:56.137" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12879" RevisionGUID="a68aa063-670b-4c30-9cd3-a9a7b4240a28" CreationDate="2017-05-25T09:38:49.170" UserId="17737" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="If a I'm filling a broad patent claim, should I file as a separate patent a specific embodiment I'm more interested in? The reasons for this are that the specific embodiment is easier to defend, and has far higher chances of being approved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't want to lose out on any advantages accruing due to a broader patent, but it will obviously be more challenging. So how does it work, if it does, when I file a embodiment and broader patent similarly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47367" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12879" RevisionGUID="a68aa063-670b-4c30-9cd3-a9a7b4240a28" CreationDate="2017-05-25T09:38:49.170" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 18033, 17325 edit id of 2032" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47373" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16926" RevisionGUID="b8938e2d-01fe-45fe-a0d6-3ab5346dac73" CreationDate="2017-05-25T19:31:37.440" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47374" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="e2154fba-dc26-4d52-9c1f-7e9f31acada3" CreationDate="2017-05-25T20:31:31.970" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47375" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16748" RevisionGUID="d1a12024-d21c-4ed0-825a-5bdbcb330ec6" CreationDate="2017-05-25T21:31:32.253" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47376" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12070" RevisionGUID="35c149c0-5f9d-4dc9-9254-16979b0cf710" CreationDate="2017-05-25T23:33:10.390" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47377" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7765" RevisionGUID="beea1bd1-1d38-4e13-861e-9b7da70ff4ee" CreationDate="2017-05-26T02:33:24.083" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17873" RevisionGUID="91742587-969f-4c56-865c-7d038b7ec644" CreationDate="2017-05-26T05:30:29.653" UserId="19094" Text="You are correct to say that an idea cannot be patented. And if your friend has a unique way of solving this problem, then he probably can seek a patent. But I think you are asking the wrong question. The question is whether or not your friend has come up with an idea that will have a value to anyone. For example, if your friends idea is less costly than existing methods, is more effective, or harder for thieves to overcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47379" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="d8399916-cbac-4df4-a6ba-2ae7f2df7719" CreationDate="2017-05-26T07:41:42.430" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47386" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="7d7dd6e3-c203-445f-8389-6445b21cfb46" CreationDate="2017-05-26T21:52:20.640" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47387" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13870" RevisionGUID="20f26f52-82c8-4d56-9f55-1081954e34e1" CreationDate="2017-05-26T23:52:19.820" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47388" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16340" RevisionGUID="502346d3-8ef7-4927-aa78-21196ccc1725" CreationDate="2017-05-27T01:02:03.063" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47398" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10643" RevisionGUID="b9ad000d-fd6e-49df-93dd-2d2e6dc83522" CreationDate="2017-05-27T05:04:35.200" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47399" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="c49debbd-6fc9-462c-9cc9-3129781f5ca1" CreationDate="2017-05-27T08:07:01.687" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47400" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="9108d794-9554-4374-808a-388a803947ab" CreationDate="2017-05-27T09:07:01.373" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47401" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17133" RevisionGUID="1b776427-d3da-4af6-9739-78ea6defb1c2" CreationDate="2017-05-27T17:18:36.830" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47402" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14934" RevisionGUID="49ce5b02-443f-4950-bfe3-0379cee28444" CreationDate="2017-05-27T19:18:36.970" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47403" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16491" RevisionGUID="804a8706-9072-4621-9c20-8c8f5e8496ec" CreationDate="2017-05-27T21:18:38.980" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17134" RevisionGUID="9588a350-ebd1-4e6c-9910-e9eb04c45d94" CreationDate="2017-05-27T21:24:43.040" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="If your measurement technique doesn't implement each and every step mentioned in at least one claim, then you don't infringe this patent. The independent claims of this patent are very detailed, consisting of many steps so I think there is likely significant room to implement alternative solutions. You do have to be aware that there could be other patents that also need to be avoided. Start searching for those by looking at the cited prior art from the patent and patents that cite this one. Also, this patent is listed as lapsed, so it may not an issue in any case, but I'd rather one or the attorneys who lurk here comment on that. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47405" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16365" RevisionGUID="dcf2f1c9-f4e7-4023-a134-91229487b459" CreationDate="2017-05-27T23:18:40.213" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47406" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="1b0beba6-3197-473a-ad04-b05ff1317ebb" CreationDate="2017-05-28T02:20:33.013" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17875" RevisionGUID="4dae2a93-6058-4454-81ec-78eb8976c2a3" CreationDate="2017-05-28T15:47:16.607" UserId="18521" Text="Based on your description, here is one possible/likely progression we can piece together:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **6/21/2013**: filed an  US provisional patent application&#xD;&#xA; - **late 2013**: filed an &quot;international&quot; PCT application based on the provisional application&#xD;&#xA; - **5/5/2014**: filed a US nonprovisional application based on the international PCT application&#xD;&#xA; - **10/21/2015**: the US Patent Office determined a technology area for your nonprovisional application and assigned the application to an examiner at the US Patent Office&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your original post states that you began with a US provisional application. US provisional applications are placeholders: they automatically expire after one year, they are never examined by the US Patent Office, and they cannot mature into full patents. But they're cheap and they buy you a year of extra time to raise funds to pay for the more expensive applications-to-come. The one-year waiting period also gives you time to develop the invention and get a sense of its marketability--many people realize the invention isn't desirable to consumers and save themselves a lot of money by waiting to file a full US nonprovisional application. At any rate, to keep a US provisional application alive, you must subsequently file either a US nonprovisional application or a PCT international application. This second filing must be done within a year of the first filing, *before* the US provisional application expires. That second filing must have a proper priority claim to the US provisional application, which imposes nuanced requirements like *new material can't be added to the application* (although this is a gross simplification and there are occasions where the rules don't apply).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You and your partner went the route of filing an international PCT application, probably because you were interested in some foreign markets but weren't quite ready to shell out $50,000. Similar to the US provisional application, the international PCT application is a way to gain information without paying too much money. And there's another similarity to US provisional applications: every PCT application expires after a set period of time. (In most cases, the expiration date is 30-31 months from the date of the US provisional application. But the exact expiration date of the PCT application changes from country to country and [is 21 months in a couple countries][1].) Before the end of that 30-31 month timeframe, the PCT application must be converted into one or more national applications--in the US, this means filing a US nonprovisional application. Whereas US provisional applications aren't examined and can't turn into patents, US nonprovisional applications *are* examined and *can* grant into patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when you finally filed that third application in the US, there were two dates: the *effective* filing date of 6/21/2013 (i.e., the &quot;priority date&quot; established by your US provisional application) and the *actual* filing date of 5/5/2014, which is when you entered the &quot;national stage&quot; in the US by filing a US nonprovisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This USPTO page][2] contains a nice flowchart of the full timeline:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/graphics/1842_1.png][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and [this WIPO page][4] has a nice overview along with definitions of important terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only thing worth mentioning is that it might be unusual for an application to have the lifetime you've described/implied. In particular, it's not very common to file the PCT application just a few months after filing the US provisional application. There are sometimes reasons for doing this (you raised some cash very quickly, a big investor wanted to see more steps toward patent protection, it became strategically important to acquire a patent sooner rather than later, etc.). But it's not always the most common scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*I am no expert, and this response is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney or legal expert to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Laws can differ dramatically from country to country, state to state, and technology field to technology field.*&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/time_limits.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1842.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NBjfh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/faqs/faqs.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17875" RevisionGUID="16680942-607c-4db8-8ddc-0c92bbf8bdff" CreationDate="2017-05-28T15:52:32.570" UserId="18521" Comment="adding headings" Text="##What's the history of your application?##&#xD;&#xA;Based on your description, here is one possible/likely progression we can piece together:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **6/21/2013**: filed an  US provisional patent application&#xD;&#xA; - **late 2013**: filed an &quot;international&quot; PCT application based on the provisional application&#xD;&#xA; - **5/5/2014**: filed a US nonprovisional application based on the international PCT application&#xD;&#xA; - **10/21/2015**: the US Patent Office determined a technology area for your nonprovisional application and assigned the application to an examiner at the US Patent Office&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your original post states that you began with a US provisional application. US provisional applications are placeholders: they automatically expire after one year, they are never examined by the US Patent Office, and they cannot mature into full patents. But they're cheap and they buy you a year of extra time to raise funds to pay for the more expensive applications-to-come. The one-year waiting period also gives you time to develop the invention and get a sense of its marketability--many people realize the invention isn't desirable to consumers and save themselves a lot of money by waiting to file a full US nonprovisional application. At any rate, to keep a US provisional application alive, you must subsequently file either a US nonprovisional application or a PCT international application. This second filing must be done within a year of the first filing, *before* the US provisional application expires. That second filing must have a proper priority claim to the US provisional application, which imposes nuanced requirements like *new material can't be added to the application* (although this is a gross simplification and there are occasions where the rules don't apply).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You and your partner went the route of filing an international PCT application, probably because you were interested in some foreign markets but weren't quite ready to shell out $50,000. Similar to the US provisional application, the international PCT application is a way to gain information without paying too much money. And there's another similarity to US provisional applications: every PCT application expires after a set period of time. (In most cases, the expiration date is 30-31 months from the date of the US provisional application. But the exact expiration date of the PCT application changes from country to country and [is 21 months in a couple countries][1].) Before the end of that 30-31 month timeframe, the PCT application must be converted into one or more national applications--in the US, this means filing a US nonprovisional application. Whereas US provisional applications aren't examined and can't turn into patents, US nonprovisional applications *are* examined and *can* grant into patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when you finally filed that third application in the US, there were two dates: the *effective* filing date of 6/21/2013 (i.e., the &quot;priority date&quot; established by your US provisional application) and the *actual* filing date of 5/5/2014, which is when you entered the &quot;national stage&quot; in the US by filing a US nonprovisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Where does your application currently stand? ##&#xD;&#xA;It's still alive in the US and possibly also in other countries (depending on where you converted your PCT application). In the US, your application is awaiting examination. You might be waiting for a long time--I encountered US nonprovisional applications that sat on an examiner's desk in queue for 3 years before the examiner finally picked it up, read it, and mailed back an initial evaluation. There is a notorious backlog at the US Patent Office, although the wait time depends on the technology area of your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Resources &amp; a note##&#xD;&#xA;[This USPTO page][2] contains a nice flowchart of the full timeline:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/graphics/1842_1.png][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and [this WIPO page][4] has a nice overview along with definitions of important terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only thing worth mentioning is that it might be unusual for an application to have the lifetime you've described/implied. In particular, it's not very common to file the PCT application just a few months after filing the US provisional application. There are sometimes reasons for doing this (you raised some cash very quickly, a big investor wanted to see more steps toward patent protection, it became strategically important to acquire a patent sooner rather than later, etc.). But it's not always the most common scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*I am no expert, and this response is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney or legal expert to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Laws can differ dramatically from country to country, state to state, and technology field to technology field.*&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/time_limits.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1842.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NBjfh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/faqs/faqs.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17875" RevisionGUID="2084bccf-2d6f-42f1-aa70-d64fbb0284ef" CreationDate="2017-05-28T16:07:30.307" UserId="18521" Comment="fixing grammar" Text="##What's the history of your application?##&#xD;&#xA;Based on your description, here is one possible/likely progression we can piece together:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **6/21/2013**: filed an  US provisional patent application&#xD;&#xA; - **late 2013**: filed an &quot;international&quot; PCT application based on the provisional application&#xD;&#xA; - **5/5/2014**: filed a US nonprovisional application based on the international PCT application&#xD;&#xA; - **10/21/2015**: the US Patent Office determined a technology area for your nonprovisional application and assigned the application to an examiner at the US Patent Office&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your original post states that you began with a US provisional application. US provisional applications are placeholders: they automatically expire after one year, they are never examined by the US Patent Office, and they cannot mature into full patents. But they're cheap and they buy you a year of extra time to raise funds to pay for the more expensive applications-to-come. The one-year waiting period also gives you time to develop the invention and get a sense of its marketability--during that year, many people realize the invention isn't desirable to consumers and greatly reduce their sunk costs by abandoning a US provisional application instead of abandoning a US nonprovisional application. At any rate, to keep a US provisional application alive, you must subsequently file either a US nonprovisional application or a PCT international application, and this second filing must be done within that one-year lifetime of the US provisional application. That second filing must have a proper priority claim to the US provisional application, which imposes nuanced requirements like *new material can't be added to the application* (although this is a gross simplification and there are occasions where certain rules don't apply).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You and your partner went the route of filing an international PCT application, probably because you were interested in some foreign markets but weren't quite ready to shell out $50,000. Similar to the US provisional application, the international PCT application is a way to gain information (&quot;test the waters&quot;) without paying too much money. And there's another similarity to US provisional applications: every PCT application expires after a set period of time. (In most cases, the expiration date is 30-31 months from the date of the US provisional application. But the exact expiration date of the PCT application changes from country to country and [is 21 months in a couple countries][1].) Before the end of that 30-31 month timeframe, the PCT application must be converted into one or more national applications--in the US, this means filing a US nonprovisional application. Whereas US provisional applications aren't examined and can't turn into patents, US nonprovisional applications *are* examined and *can* grant into patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when you finally filed that third application in the US, there were two dates: the *effective* filing date of 6/21/2013 (i.e., the &quot;priority date&quot; established by your US provisional application) and the *actual* filing date of 5/5/2014, which is when you entered the &quot;national stage&quot; in the US by filing a US nonprovisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Where does your application currently stand? ##&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like your application is still alive in the US and possibly also in other countries (depending on where you converted your PCT application). In the US, your application is awaiting examination. You might be waiting for a long time--I encountered US nonprovisional applications that sat on an examiner's desk in queue for 3 years before the patent examiner finally picked it up, read it, and mailed back an initial evaluation. There is a notorious backlog at the US Patent Office, though the wait time depends on the particular technology area of your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Resources &amp; a note##&#xD;&#xA;[This USPTO page][2] contains a nice flowchart of the full timeline:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/graphics/1842_1.png][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and [this WIPO page][4] has a nice overview along with definitions of important terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only thing worth mentioning is that it might be unusual for an application to have the lifetime you've described/implied. In particular, it's not very common to file the PCT application *so soon* after filing the US provisional application, followed by such a *quick* entry into the national stage. There are sometimes reasons for doing this (you raised some cash very quickly, a big investor wanted to see more steps toward patent protection, it became strategically important to acquire a patent sooner rather than later, another company entered the scene and they're infringing your future patent, etc.). But it may not be the most common scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*I am no expert, and this response is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney or legal expert to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Laws can differ dramatically from country to country, state to state, and technology field to technology field.*&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/time_limits.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1842.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NBjfh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/faqs/faqs.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47411" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="f1d39b1e-f46e-48b5-9d00-7ef42bd57f82" CreationDate="2017-05-28T17:23:52.090" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47415" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16740" RevisionGUID="34cfe53e-1de3-4f2d-8ff8-90aacdcbbb99" CreationDate="2017-05-28T18:23:52.457" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17877" RevisionGUID="21a7169e-55ce-4264-8304-c7da004aed9e" CreationDate="2017-05-29T04:12:50.820" UserId="19153" Text="As it seems, you are assuming (I guess it is because it's typical on your industry) that someone will try to use your ideas without your permission. I believe that having them patented will, at least, give your the chance to fight (or to find a sponsor for a fight).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I see your problem, if you file a patent, you benefits may derive from:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) Selling your patent to someone who might make profit from it and has the resources to protect its legal rights on the patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) Commercial exploitation via royalties for licenses of the patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c) Suing people who infringed your legal rights by using your patent without your permission (alone or with a sponsor)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if you don't patent your work, you will have no access to any of these benefits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, the worst thing that may happen to you is that someone steals your work, right? So, in that case, what other mechanism may help you to fight back better than a recognition of your ownership of the intellectual property with a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you already thought of any other way to protect your work?&#xD;&#xA;Keeping it hidden doesn't seems like a very good plan, either...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17878" RevisionGUID="876be313-54dd-4e9a-9bce-8805bd9c45e3" CreationDate="2017-05-29T04:58:24.147" UserId="19094" Text="At times I have considered going down the open source route, while at other times I have felt that perhaps a patent might be more suitable. I have a general understanding of both approaches, but am wondering what the practical implications of these two pathways are nowadays in realistic terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I am inspired by the notion an open source environment might encourage the sharing of ideas, where other users contribute code. But the skeptic in me feels that most people who access open source libraries will be takers and not givers. That is, they will be passive users and not contribute anything at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47419" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17878" RevisionGUID="876be313-54dd-4e9a-9bce-8805bd9c45e3" CreationDate="2017-05-29T04:58:24.147" UserId="19094" Text="Pros and Cons: Software Patent vs Restrictive Open Source" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47420" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17878" RevisionGUID="876be313-54dd-4e9a-9bce-8805bd9c45e3" CreationDate="2017-05-29T04:58:24.147" UserId="19094" Text="&lt;open&gt;&lt;source&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17860" RevisionGUID="9400e7f7-efff-404f-94df-a9070f2ecb8a" CreationDate="2017-05-29T10:08:20.630" UserId="15503" Comment="clarify meaning" Text="This is a great question, with no one right answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The strength of a patent comes from the ability to enforce it. If the patent owner cannot enforce it for whatever reason (such as a lack of funding), the patent is effectively toothless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But your competitors will likely not know that. They may therefore be dissuaded from infringing simply by the existence of a patent and the assumption that you would sue. Such a chilling effect on competition may be valuable to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, if there is infringement, you may be able to get a licensing agreement without the need for litigation. This can be a very lucrative business model, and so may justify the cost of patenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if litigation seems likely, there is a nascent field of litigation funding. While your funders will take quite a great deal of the damages, you may at least get something out of the end of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, even if *you* can't sue, someone else could. You might therefore get quite some value from selling it off at some point. There are a number of tech businesses where most of their value comes from their IP portfolio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the whole therefore it depends how you see yourself proceeding. If you're unsure, it may pay to err on the side of patenting: once you disclose or use your invention publicly, you're generally barred from patenting it later (but for a short grace period in some countries), whereas it's easy to abandon a patent (or application) later down the track if you wish." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47425" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17859" RevisionGUID="f05e8cc4-41e8-4eb1-9a83-f214a62d47c2" CreationDate="2017-05-29T11:47:40.063" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;litigation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47426" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13260" RevisionGUID="2db2c0db-bf50-49c4-b99c-f9624044647d" CreationDate="2017-05-29T12:23:21.220" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47427" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="18e34e86-3808-42dc-b4b7-3301fb27afe2" CreationDate="2017-05-29T15:28:43.180" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47428" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16193" RevisionGUID="b6c2c291-3ffe-4a58-80b4-c90831105b74" CreationDate="2017-05-29T16:31:01.353" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47429" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="1b9a38d8-6a86-4239-8a98-4e8c612a6a6f" CreationDate="2017-05-29T17:32:15.610" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17881" RevisionGUID="7c76f9ec-3d32-4719-9a68-549b63f10e18" CreationDate="2017-05-30T01:01:38.433" UserId="19156" Text="If the patent is &quot;Expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee&quot; what happens to the patent? That is, can the idea be produced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47434" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17881" RevisionGUID="7c76f9ec-3d32-4719-9a68-549b63f10e18" CreationDate="2017-05-30T01:01:38.433" UserId="19156" Text="Failure to pay Patent maintenance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47435" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17881" RevisionGUID="7c76f9ec-3d32-4719-9a68-549b63f10e18" CreationDate="2017-05-30T01:01:38.433" UserId="19156" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17882" RevisionGUID="6320810c-b98f-445a-9176-2cd22fbcf4d8" CreationDate="2017-05-30T05:03:48.777" UserId="18697" Text="You can use idea of expired application (&quot;Expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee&quot;) but you have to further check the similar type of innovation before you use it for a product, because there might be other relevant patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, this patent can be resurrect by additional paying the fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17875" RevisionGUID="df68df1e-cfd5-4cb7-bd16-1e414cad9490" CreationDate="2017-05-30T12:45:36.720" UserId="18521" Comment="improving grammar" Text="##What's the history of your application?##&#xD;&#xA;Based on your description, here is one possible/likely progression we can piece together:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **6/21/2013**: filed an  US provisional patent application&#xD;&#xA; - **late 2013**: filed an &quot;international&quot; PCT application based on the provisional application&#xD;&#xA; - **5/5/2014**: filed a US nonprovisional application based on the international PCT application&#xD;&#xA; - **10/21/2015**: the US Patent Office determined a technology area for your nonprovisional application and assigned the application to an examiner at the US Patent Office&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your original post states that you began with a US provisional application. US provisional applications are placeholders: they automatically expire after one year, they are never examined by the US Patent Office, and they cannot mature into full patents. But they're cheap and they buy you a year of extra time to raise funds to pay for the more expensive applications-to-come. The one-year waiting period also gives you time to develop the invention and get a sense of its marketability--during that year, many people realize the invention isn't desirable to consumers and greatly reduce their sunk costs by abandoning a US provisional application instead of abandoning a US nonprovisional application. At any rate, to keep a US provisional application alive, you must subsequently file either a US nonprovisional application or a PCT international application, and this second filing must be done within that one-year lifetime of the US provisional application. That second filing must have a proper priority claim to the US provisional application, which imposes nuanced requirements like *new material can't be added to the application* (although this is a gross simplification and there are occasions where certain rules don't apply).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You and your partner went the route of filing an international PCT application, probably because you were interested in some foreign markets but weren't quite ready to shell out $50,000 by filing in each country. Similar to the US provisional application, the international PCT application is a way to gain information (&quot;test the waters&quot;) without paying too much money. And there's another similarity to US provisional applications: every PCT application expires after a set period of time. (In most cases, the expiration date is 30-31 months from the date of the US provisional application. But the exact expiration date of the PCT application changes from country to country and [is 21 months in a couple countries][1].) Before the end of that 30-31 month timeframe, the PCT application must be converted into one or more national applications--in the US, this means filing a US nonprovisional application. Whereas US provisional applications aren't examined and can't turn into patents, US nonprovisional applications *are* examined and *can* grant into patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when you finally filed that third application in the US, there were two dates: the *effective* filing date of 6/21/2013 (i.e., the &quot;priority date&quot; established by your US provisional application) and the *actual* filing date of 5/5/2014, which is when you entered the &quot;national stage&quot; in the US by filing a US nonprovisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Where does your application currently stand? ##&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like your application is still alive in the US and possibly also in other countries (depending on where you converted your PCT application). In the US, your application is awaiting examination. You might be waiting for a long time--I encountered US nonprovisional applications that sat on an examiner's desk in queue for 3 years before the patent examiner finally picked it up, read it, and mailed back an initial evaluation. There is a notorious backlog at the US Patent Office, though the wait time depends on the particular technology area of your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Resources &amp; a note##&#xD;&#xA;[This USPTO page][2] contains a nice flowchart of the full timeline:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/graphics/1842_1.png][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and [this WIPO page][4] has a nice overview along with definitions of important terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only thing worth mentioning is that it might be unusual for an application to have the lifetime you've described/implied. In particular, it's not very common to file the PCT application *so soon* after filing the US provisional application, followed by such a *quick* entry into the national stage. There are sometimes reasons for doing this (you raised some cash very quickly, a big investor wanted to see more steps toward patent protection, it became strategically important to acquire a patent sooner rather than later, another company entered the scene and they're infringing your future patent, etc.). But it may not be the most common scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*I am no expert, and this response is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney or legal expert to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Laws can differ dramatically from country to country, state to state, and technology field to technology field.*&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/time_limits.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1842.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NBjfh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/faqs/faqs.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17884" RevisionGUID="f818d593-b953-418a-bab7-db9bb1d4aaf4" CreationDate="2017-05-30T18:34:40.230" UserId="11947" Text="I was in the same situation and wrote and submitted utility patent application myself. Unfortunately after &quot;Alice&quot; US supreme court decision virtually any algorithm could be qualified as&quot;abstract idea&quot;, which happened in my case. With lawyer's help I rewrote the application to increase the chances and now waiting for USPTO response. I requested the application unpublished so if it doesn't go through I can keep a trade secret. Good luck to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17885" RevisionGUID="3df8c269-7201-4b10-89d9-6f1f4fe664ac" CreationDate="2017-05-30T18:42:11.430" UserId="1698" Text="The US generally does not care about your home country's security clearance (or foreign filing license) requirements. Unless you try to file for a patent in your home country, there may be no penalty at all for filing for a patent first outside your home country, other than no patent rights being available in your home country. Other countries may fine or imprison you, if they find out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17886" RevisionGUID="8c486762-bf32-4aea-929e-f2b73168ded0" CreationDate="2017-05-30T18:54:10.120" UserId="1698" Text="Was it good advice? **Yes, if:** your goal is to move forward in the US no matter what other people are doing elsewhere. **No, if:** your goal was to obtain worldwide rights and try to license your rights or if you only want to move forward yourself if no one else is in the same business arena. As others have mentioned, your goals and the invention development company's goals may not be aligned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17887" RevisionGUID="11660736-a8cd-43dc-9c16-d0b2b87579c2" CreationDate="2017-05-30T20:46:00.317" UserId="19163" Text="1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD763495&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hired a company to design and bring my product to the market. They drug there feet and took so long other similar inventions came into play. What can I do since it's been such a long time , to be sure they did not purposely stall the process or give the details to others? Thanks " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47446" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17887" RevisionGUID="11660736-a8cd-43dc-9c16-d0b2b87579c2" CreationDate="2017-05-30T20:46:00.317" UserId="19163" Text="patent Infringment on my product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47447" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17887" RevisionGUID="11660736-a8cd-43dc-9c16-d0b2b87579c2" CreationDate="2017-05-30T20:46:00.317" UserId="19163" Text="&lt;design&gt;&lt;infringment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17888" RevisionGUID="e6096b1f-1370-4f11-adcf-60ca95adef0c" CreationDate="2017-05-31T02:52:56.407" UserId="19165" Text="I have a product I purchase in China. It is similar to a product with a patent being sold by company (A) in a different country to mine. I understand. I can continue to sell my product in any country company (A) doesn't hold a patent for this product. However, if company (A) then applies and gains a patent in my country. can I still continue to sell my similar product as I established my business prior to the company (A's) patent registration. Or Must I seek to have my product deemed not similar to continue selling it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47449" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17888" RevisionGUID="e6096b1f-1370-4f11-adcf-60ca95adef0c" CreationDate="2017-05-31T02:52:56.407" UserId="19165" Text="Selling similar item to one yet to to be patent registered in my country" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47450" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17888" RevisionGUID="e6096b1f-1370-4f11-adcf-60ca95adef0c" CreationDate="2017-05-31T02:52:56.407" UserId="19165" Text="&lt;patent-infringment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47457" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="0b851090-3f35-4cd8-9ecf-fd0fbecb7f78" CreationDate="2017-05-31T10:13:15.617" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17891" RevisionGUID="0f1ca5f5-81f0-4860-a5ad-b13ee62f0671" CreationDate="2017-05-31T16:08:28.040" UserId="19171" Text="In reference to the patent: [US3951134][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3951134&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent claims in simplest terms that by broadcasting two radio signals into the brain, that the brain's own radio signals can be modulated onto the combined signals and then picked up by receivers for processing, analysis, and other actions. If any radio signal can be modulated by another radio signal, then all radio signals are modulated by all radio signals (untrue). The patent makes no mention of this, and fails to provide a means to detect and filter out all other radio signals other than the brain's which would additionally be present, and neither does it specify that the process must be conducted within a faraday cage in order to isolate the process from all other ambient radio signals. In point of fact, radio signals do not modulate one another; the process as described is nonsense. Modulation is achieved by directly embedding a signal through electronic circuitry prior to broadcast, as in AM/FM radio (AM means Amplitude Modulation, FM means Frequency Modulation), and decoded in like means by radio receivers. Were this patent true and workable, AM/FM radio would be incapable of producing useful sound." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47459" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17891" RevisionGUID="0f1ca5f5-81f0-4860-a5ad-b13ee62f0671" CreationDate="2017-05-31T16:08:28.040" UserId="19171" Text="Why is this unworkable patent claim approved?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47460" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17891" RevisionGUID="0f1ca5f5-81f0-4860-a5ad-b13ee62f0671" CreationDate="2017-05-31T16:08:28.040" UserId="19171" Text="&lt;us3951134&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17892" RevisionGUID="30643d74-9a60-499e-83b7-e5069590defd" CreationDate="2017-05-31T16:15:44.773" UserId="17003" Text="There is no burden on the inventors to prove their invention actually works. This patent is a good example of a useless patent. The examiner is just looking for novelty and apparent utility. In any case these types of patents aren't all that problematic since no one would want to infringe them. Lastly, this patent has expired so if someone wanted to waste their time in this technology, they are free to do so. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17892" RevisionGUID="cf024486-0344-4b0c-813b-e97d0da99de4" CreationDate="2017-05-31T16:40:18.143" UserId="17003" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="There is no burden on the inventors to prove their invention actually works. This patent is a good example of a useless patent. The examiner is just looking for novelty and apparent utility. In any case these types of patents aren't usually all that problematic since no one would want to infringe them. Much worse in my opinion are overly broad patents. Lastly, this patent has expired so if someone wanted to waste their time in this technology, they are free to do so. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17542" RevisionGUID="e16bdc2b-837e-4dc2-8113-810afb207fbd" CreationDate="2017-05-31T16:41:35.453" UserId="18521" Comment="expanding the already great answer to address the published application" Text="You generally don't find expiration dates on patents or in the Public Pair. This is unfortunate. Unless there is an [extension][1], the patents cited will expire 20 years from their priority date. For both of these patents that should be March 10th, 2024. Similarly, any patent arising from the published application US 2016-0095523 will also expire no later than March 10th, 2024, because that published application is a continuation of the original abandoned application 10/797,593 filed on 3-10-2004. Of course, all three patents could expire sooner than 3-10-24, for reasons like unpaid maintenance fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-2700.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47464" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17542" RevisionGUID="e16bdc2b-837e-4dc2-8113-810afb207fbd" CreationDate="2017-05-31T16:41:35.453" Comment="Proposed by 18521 approved by 18033, 17003 edit id of 2033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47465" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17701" RevisionGUID="83ed5319-d4a6-4e19-b6d3-0b3bd9e14edd" CreationDate="2017-05-31T23:18:48.387" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17893" RevisionGUID="95f95108-739c-482f-8ef0-7dda77a77540" CreationDate="2017-06-01T15:39:53.283" UserId="19177" Text="My great grandfather invented several jacks IE: lift jack, screw jack, etc. He worked for the Buda company in Illinois at the time. Their agreement was my gr.grandfather would receive the royalties for five years and then the royalties would go to Buda company.  Some time after my gr.grandfather passed away, the Buda company went out of business. From what I understand the patents would then be returned to the original owner, my gr. grandfather.  I actually have the book of his patents. But nobody ever turned anything back over when the company shut down. So, who owns the patents? Me, because I have the book of them? Someone else? Why did the royalties not return to our family after Buda shut down? It's like it all disappeared when the Buda Co closed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47473" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17893" RevisionGUID="95f95108-739c-482f-8ef0-7dda77a77540" CreationDate="2017-06-01T15:39:53.283" UserId="19177" Text="Who owns the patent now?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47474" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17893" RevisionGUID="95f95108-739c-482f-8ef0-7dda77a77540" CreationDate="2017-06-01T15:39:53.283" UserId="19177" Text="&lt;buda&gt;&lt;patentownership&gt;&lt;lifitng&gt;&lt;liftingjack&gt;&lt;screwjack&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47478" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="17895" RevisionGUID="be4c8612-1323-4775-8f94-c3cabdaa6720" CreationDate="2017-06-01T16:53:26.393" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/19292/can-i-patent-a-process-in-us-being-from-another-country" />
  <row Id="47479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17895" RevisionGUID="2f896d45-9fce-499d-8626-c1abb8201e1f" CreationDate="2017-05-31T23:09:00.743" UserId="19180" UserDisplayName="Devin" Text="sorry if this question is too stupid or something, but couldn't find the answer anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, there are 2 (conditional) questions in one: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **1. can I file to patent a process in US?**&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; **2. if so: can I file for a patent being from another country?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Context&#xD;&#xA;=&#xD;&#xA;I tried to file for a patent in my country (Argentina). However, law in my country indicates that I can't file processes (including software) or flows comprised of different elements. Instead, I had to file for **Intellectual Property**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the system I'm trying to patent uses already known technologies (plus new software) in order to create a new process flow that is completely original. **Simply put:** it's an app that connects to a certain governmental area in a very special way to perform a whole new process  via AI. The system itself is very useful for the community and replaces an existing process with less than 5% of the cost, less human power and accuracy increased by 20x at least. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In short:** exception made of software, all elements exists, only that I want to use them in a particular way *(dealing with governments, there's a whole legal side to it, of course, but it has to be considered on a one-by-one basis, so I don't care for that on this question, just assume everything is fine on that side)* .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While right now I have no hurry to patent this on another country, I want to cover all bases with this since there's quite an investment (pretty high, at least for me).  And filing for a patent on US would make this a lot simpler than patenting this on every country. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I'm aware flow systems can be patented. A good example is [**Uber**][1]: **all the technologies and systems for their patents existed before Uber**, they just patented **a way to use them** (*in an extremely abstract way*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence my questions: **can I patent something like this in US?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.quora.com/Does-Uber-have-any-patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47480" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17895" RevisionGUID="2f896d45-9fce-499d-8626-c1abb8201e1f" CreationDate="2017-05-31T23:09:00.743" UserId="19180" UserDisplayName="Devin" Text="Can I patent a process in US being from another country?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47481" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17895" RevisionGUID="2f896d45-9fce-499d-8626-c1abb8201e1f" CreationDate="2017-05-31T23:09:00.743" UserId="19180" UserDisplayName="Devin" Text="&lt;untagged&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47482" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17720" RevisionGUID="e638b533-43bd-4113-ac79-ee2ff13bc3ac" CreationDate="2017-06-01T18:33:28.687" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47484" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="8f134862-3f31-4be8-8e8a-6d3487d56c6d" CreationDate="2017-06-01T20:33:29.087" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17882" RevisionGUID="6934937c-0301-45b1-8760-d3d8a5c8fea0" CreationDate="2017-06-01T20:54:59.420" UserId="3076" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="You can use idea of expired application (&quot;Expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee&quot;) but you have to further check the similar type of innovation before you use it for a product, because there might be other relevant patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, this patent can possibly be resurrected by the patent owner paying the fees (including surcharge) and petitioning for revival.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47492" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17895" RevisionGUID="2099c4f9-75c0-4a52-8457-9a892a07f3ad" CreationDate="2017-06-02T09:05:36.570" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;process&gt;&lt;us&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17897" RevisionGUID="7f912ae3-b6eb-4427-ae3b-5d481f686eaf" CreationDate="2017-06-02T11:00:17.690" UserId="19185" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20100065236][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why was it rejected in the US?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20100065236" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47494" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17897" RevisionGUID="7f912ae3-b6eb-4427-ae3b-5d481f686eaf" CreationDate="2017-06-02T11:00:17.690" UserId="19185" Text="Rejection in US" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47495" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17897" RevisionGUID="7f912ae3-b6eb-4427-ae3b-5d481f686eaf" CreationDate="2017-06-02T11:00:17.690" UserId="19185" Text="&lt;rejection&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17898" RevisionGUID="c9b30547-077a-46aa-a46a-174b4c22ec7f" CreationDate="2017-06-02T13:18:32.630" UserId="19186" Text="Make a complete comprehensive list of unique features you think are in your idea. Explain your idea in as much detail as possible, and explain the field you are inventing in. Take this and file a provisional patent application. This counts as a patent pending, and you have a year to turn this over into a full patent application.  Provisional Patent will cost the average man $65, or a successful one $130. It is valid for a year, and is then converted into a full patent or lost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Avoid the Inventing companies. They are in the business of getting you some kind of patent, even if worthless. They will take $10-25K from you for their efforts. They will show you 2-3 people who they helped. They are in the patent selling business, and this is where they make $. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Find someone who has successfully invented a product that has been on the market and ask them for their patent attorney's name. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a tough business, and it is dirty. Lots of scams, lots of people who are in the business of taking your money and not getting you to market. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Avoid design patents. So many of these companies want to get you this so they can say they got you a real patent. Almost every design patent is easy to design around, and not worth the paper it is printed upon. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Get a trusted patent attorney, and he can help you find the right help, and guide you. I have 47 patents and 44 are utility patents. I know what I am talking about. The other three design patents were used by top designers in their product design and protecting the look of the part was necessary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47497" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="9c1408b9-31c8-469f-83d8-03894efba163" CreationDate="2017-06-02T13:41:42.517" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47498" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17893" RevisionGUID="94b70dae-7033-4562-aee7-4f239f6c50b9" CreationDate="2017-06-02T13:46:15.480" UserId="1" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="47500" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="17893" RevisionGUID="f8da69b0-8447-46a6-97ce-0cd323c46eac" CreationDate="2017-06-02T13:52:31.280" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="47502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17899" RevisionGUID="4e96377b-ac46-4753-8e64-9ce166dca5e0" CreationDate="2017-06-02T13:58:30.997" UserId="17003" Text="According to Wikipedia, the [Buda Engine Co.][1] was founded in 1881 in Buda, Illinois. Buda seems to have been involved very early in the automotive industry. Rather than going out of business, it was acquired by [Allis-Chalmers][2] in 1953. When a company is purchased by another company, typically all the assets are acquired including intellectual property such as trademarks, trade secrets and patents. Unless the terms of ownership of the patents were defined in a specific contract, I don't think it ownership would necessarily revert to your grandfather rather than being held by Allis-Chalmers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, based on your question, the patents must have be issued at least 5 years prior to 1953 which means they would have an expiration date 17 years after their grant date. This is part of the basic idea of patents. The government wants to encourage individuals and companies to spend the time and effort developing new technologies. In return for a public description of how the invention works, it grants the owner of the patent a limited duration of exclusivity after which, anyone else can use the invention without license. Thus, even if the patents all issued in 1953 (and they likely were much earlier) the latest anyone would have to pay royalties on them would have been 1970.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bottom line is that the patents probably expired more than 50 years ago and thus the potential for royalties. At this point the patents have no commercial value. It is possible that the patent documentation you posses could have some collector value especially considering they may be automotive related.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buda_Engine_Co.&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allis-Chalmers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17899" RevisionGUID="a2974e60-4c93-4c4f-9f37-a70137e27373" CreationDate="2017-06-02T14:20:04.407" UserId="17003" Comment="added 3 characters in body; added 7 characters in body" Text="According to Wikipedia, the [Buda Engine Co.][1] was founded in 1881 in Buda, Illinois. Buda seems to have been involved very early in the automotive industry. Rather than going out of business, it was acquired by [Allis-Chalmers][2] in 1953. When a company is purchased by another company, typically all the assets are acquired including intellectual property such as trademarks, trade secrets and patents. Unless the terms of ownership of the patents were defined in a specific contract, I don't think their ownership would necessarily revert to your grandfather rather than being held by Allis-Chalmers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, based on your question, the patents must have be issued at least 5 years prior to 1953 which means they would have an expiration date 17 years after their grant date. This is part of the basic idea of patents. The government wants to encourage individuals and companies to spend the time, money and effort developing new technologies. In return for a public description of how the invention works, it grants the owner of the patent a limited duration of exclusivity after which, anyone else can use the invention without license. Thus, even if the patents all issued in 1953 (and they likely were much earlier) the latest anyone would have to pay royalties on them would have been 1970.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bottom line is that the patents probably expired more than 50 years ago and thus the potential for royalties. At this point the patents have no commercial value. It is possible that the patent documentation you posses could have some collector value especially considering they may be automotive related.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buda_Engine_Co.&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allis-Chalmers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17900" RevisionGUID="b906af35-7096-43f5-8c8b-9e31d6772aa9" CreationDate="2017-06-02T16:27:07.793" UserId="17003" Text="The best way to get specific information about a US patent or application is the [US Public Pair][1] site. In this case, you get past a CAPTCHA, enter &quot;20100065236&quot;, select &quot;document number&quot; and you will find that this application's status is &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot;. The Transaction History tab lists communications between the inventor's agent and the USPTO. You can order the file wrapper if you don't mind paying something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17901" RevisionGUID="f79daa62-4702-409a-b2c6-23a3aefd53f1" CreationDate="2017-06-02T16:50:24.703" UserId="19187" Text="(I originally posted this on [law.SE](https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/19317) and was directed here.)&#xA;&#xA;[Patent US4309569](https://www.google.com/patents/US4309569), published in 1982 and expiring 20 years later, describes an algorithm for creating hash trees (known as Merkle trees, after its inventor), used for data validation. How is this patentable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US has granted &quot;software patents&quot; since the 70s, but my understanding is that this does not extend to obvious/trivial algorithms or mathematical formulae. In my view, hash trees -- and, thereupon, the application of the mathematical formulae presented in the patent -- are entirely obvious and non-novel. I believe this would be the view of any computer scientist or seasoned programmer; it therefore strikes me as unlikely that it was never independently reinvented (before or since), hence invoking a legal challenge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47507" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17901" RevisionGUID="f79daa62-4702-409a-b2c6-23a3aefd53f1" CreationDate="2017-06-02T16:50:24.703" UserId="19187" Text="Validity of patent on Merkle Trees" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47508" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17901" RevisionGUID="f79daa62-4702-409a-b2c6-23a3aefd53f1" CreationDate="2017-06-02T16:50:24.703" UserId="19187" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;algorithms&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47509" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17901" RevisionGUID="ed21a876-da9c-48e1-8710-07c880984173" CreationDate="2017-06-02T17:06:03.243" UserId="19187" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;algorithms&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47510" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="08b14e30-ceb2-409f-92bc-6fc65dca8e67" CreationDate="2017-06-02T17:45:22.767" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17902" RevisionGUID="d588c2e0-14af-4051-b4d8-927d1723e6ea" CreationDate="2017-06-02T23:16:47.520" UserId="17003" Text="Back in 1982, patent terms were 17 years from the grant date, not 20 years. This patent should have expired no later than January 5th, 1999. This is a pretty early software related patent. One of the issues with software patents is that patent examiners generally focus on earlier patents for prior art. That far back it wasn't as common for software patents to be generated and the examiners themselves were not necessarily experts in computer science. The threshold for non-obviousness was sometimes too low. Thus, fairly routine programming techniques were sometimes granted because there was no previous example in the patent art. I'm not a computer scientist so I can't comment on how obvious the algorithm presented in the cited patent would have been in 1979 when the patent was filed. At least this patent covers using a mathematical algorithm to accomplish a specific task (creating and authenticating a digital signature) rather than patenting the abstract mathematics themselves." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17902" RevisionGUID="ec1fb1d3-71be-44dc-a861-7adf3d5e05aa" CreationDate="2017-06-02T23:26:41.287" UserId="17003" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="Back in 1982, patent terms were 17 years from the grant date, not 20 years. This patent should have expired no later than January 5th, 1999. This is a pretty early software related patent. One of the issues with software patents is that patent examiners generally focus on earlier patents for prior art. That far back it wasn't as common for software patents to be generated and the examiners themselves were not necessarily experts in computer science. The threshold for non-obviousness was sometimes too low. Thus, fairly routine programming techniques were sometimes granted because there was no previous example in the patent art. I'm not a computer scientist so I can't comment on how obvious the algorithm presented in the cited patent would have been in 1979 when the patent was filed. The fact that they are referred to as Merkle Trees and the inventor on this patent is Ralph Merkle suggests it may have been novel. At least this patent covers using a mathematical algorithm to accomplish a specific task (creating and authenticating a digital signature) rather than patenting the abstract mathematics themselves." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47513" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16952" RevisionGUID="6892e327-afde-4961-b4b0-523ea6e605bc" CreationDate="2017-06-02T23:52:02.957" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16960" RevisionGUID="f83cee73-34c6-4b01-9519-f6b70bbb5b25" CreationDate="2017-06-02T23:57:46.603" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to US Public Pair site and fixed minor punctuation." Text="You can answer this for yourself. I'll briefly explain how to generally attack such a problem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent description starts with a prior art description and the problem(s) to be solved:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Description of the Prior Art&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the patent describes some general prior art and 3 patents (or applications) that are related. It should describe the most important similar items that are already known.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can then compare these to the claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further information, also on the evaluation of novelty and inventiveness by the examiner you can consult [US Public PAIR][1]. There is a prosecution history where documents sent by the applicant/attorney and the examiner are stored. This is a little more text than the first approach, but these documents normally explain exactly which elements are considered new and inventive by the examiner and which are not. Plus, somebody else did the work for you, you just have to read it. ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47517" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="97d7b743-06a0-4e3f-ae66-8404ae156fec" CreationDate="2017-06-03T01:52:01.123" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47518" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12629" RevisionGUID="808d016c-c03d-4837-b57f-983a77412cf3" CreationDate="2017-06-03T04:52:26.030" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17904" RevisionGUID="447f4de2-0c11-4281-b6b8-f97e104c8ffe" CreationDate="2017-06-03T17:12:53.023" UserId="19075" Text="We are a non-profit and considering releasing software and devices for self medical diagnostics.  Doing a quick patent search, we found that the software and devices we would be distributing are already covered by some patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some legal experts told us that while the patent holder has a right to sue, they are generally reticent to litigate against non-profits.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47523" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17904" RevisionGUID="447f4de2-0c11-4281-b6b8-f97e104c8ffe" CreationDate="2017-06-03T17:12:53.023" UserId="19075" Text="What is the best strategy to avoid patent tyranny?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47524" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17904" RevisionGUID="447f4de2-0c11-4281-b6b8-f97e104c8ffe" CreationDate="2017-06-03T17:12:53.023" UserId="19075" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;legal&gt;&lt;troll&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17905" RevisionGUID="7549e6dd-91c5-470e-bbee-8e6daef35072" CreationDate="2017-06-03T18:20:13.427" UserId="17003" Text="Why do you consider this patent tyranny. Someone came up with the idea before you. They spent the time and money to obtain a patent to protect it. The fact that you are a non-profit doesn't mean you aren't potentially reducing the patent holders ability to sell his product. Your best bet is to contact the patent owners and see if you can get permission to use the technology gratis or at a sufficiently nominal royalty. While you at it, you should consider whether your &quot;self medical diagnostics&quot; are going to require FDA approval (hint: they might)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47527" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16606" RevisionGUID="3c3647ac-e3c2-4481-a2df-5f7723500ab1" CreationDate="2017-06-04T00:13:04.437" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47529" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="1cdd67ec-576a-4ce1-a555-6e53fff1a08c" CreationDate="2017-06-04T03:16:09.653" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47530" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16450" RevisionGUID="97fd0c90-90d2-4e75-aebc-1bd02042077c" CreationDate="2017-06-04T04:16:09.530" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47531" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16569" RevisionGUID="c7eb5e83-2003-43e7-a506-8dba042079b0" CreationDate="2017-06-04T05:16:14.557" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17906" RevisionGUID="851c9d92-516d-4cb1-ae98-c9748108a3e5" CreationDate="2017-06-04T09:44:24.500" UserId="18033" Text="This is the google patents summary, so the only way to get that summary is to enter the application number at google (patents.google.com).&#xA;&#xA;If the application is not public yet, you can find information on it through your private PAIR access from the USPTO, but you won't get a summary like the one you posted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17907" RevisionGUID="b3282e22-bb54-43aa-a29c-47ac6469f74b" CreationDate="2017-06-04T10:07:58.823" UserId="4329" Text="Let's say you created a patent, and big company A infringes it.  Damn you, big company A.  Cease and desist.  Big company A laughs at you and says fuck you, you're tiny, we can do whatever we want.  At this point, you turn around and contact your friends at big company B and say hey, I can sell you a cheap way to fuck over big company A.  Big company B shakes your hand and buys you drinks and says you're our boy, you sell them your patent, and big company B sues big company A, making big company A sorry that they said fuck you to you in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's complicated, because patents can change hands.  Transactions and future technology development can change the value of a patent, sometimes dramatically.  Don't assume that just because you personally can't enforce your patent, no one will want to.  A patent has no value if it is never written in the first place.  Protect the idea first and foremost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, and in case no one has told you this, you can't patent an algorithm.  Algorithms are math.  You can't patent math.  You can however patent a method or a VLSI or an apparatus, which is what everyone does instead.  Go read a textbook on patent authorship." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47534" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17171" RevisionGUID="00c5a7cd-162e-4ee7-9e03-af828548fe98" CreationDate="2017-06-04T16:27:58.250" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17908" RevisionGUID="831ef302-6ac7-4c77-8b81-1c48371c5c8b" CreationDate="2017-06-04T17:43:06.243" UserId="17003" Text="Using www.google.com/patents tends to be unreliable especially in regards to patent figures. You should get better results using patents.google.com. In this case you can find the patent application with figures here: [US20160034139A1][1]. This is a patent application and not yet a patent. It was applied for less than three years ago so it isn't unusual that it hasn't issued yet. If and when it issues it is quite likely the claims will be amended or narrowed so what is there now isn't necessarily indicative of how broad the final patent's claims will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not my field, but from what I can gather it describes a method of adjusting what is displayed with a computer user interface depending on the type of data being received and predicting what the data type will be received next.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160034139A1/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17902" RevisionGUID="53ca8d92-e5fc-4978-b807-ce67f01e0b0d" CreationDate="2017-06-04T17:45:59.923" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to Wikipedia article about Merkel Trees" Text="Back in 1982, patent terms were 17 years from the grant date, not 20 years. This patent should have expired no later than January 5th, 1999. This is a pretty early software related patent. One of the issues with software patents is that patent examiners generally focus on earlier patents for prior art. That far back it wasn't as common for software patents to be generated and the examiners themselves were not necessarily experts in computer science. The threshold for non-obviousness was sometimes too low. Thus, fairly routine programming techniques were sometimes granted because there was no previous example in the patent art. I'm not a computer scientist so I can't comment on how obvious the algorithm presented in the cited patent would have been in 1979 when the patent was filed. The fact that they are referred to as Merkle Trees and the inventor on this patent is Ralph Merkle suggests it may have been novel. There is even a [Wikipedia article][1] devoted to them. At least this patent covers using a mathematical algorithm to accomplish a specific task (creating and authenticating a digital signature) rather than patenting the abstract mathematics themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle_tree" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47537" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16962" RevisionGUID="217f8680-4309-4318-9a27-244fb9a7c075" CreationDate="2017-06-04T19:28:02.577" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17908" RevisionGUID="67087c23-1a52-4905-9af4-da0bdf860f88" CreationDate="2017-06-04T19:32:50.953" UserId="17003" Comment="Added information regarding application status from US Public Pair." Text="Using www.google.com/patents tends to be unreliable especially in regards to patent figures. You should get better results using patents.google.com. In this case you can find the patent application with figures here: [US20160034139A1][1]. This is a patent application and not yet a patent. It was applied for less than three years ago so it isn't unusual that it hasn't issued yet. If and when it issues it is quite likely the claims will be amended or narrowed so what is there now isn't necessarily indicative of how broad the final patent's claims will be. In any case, according to the [US Public Pair][2] site, on 2-21-17 a Final Rejection was issued. It was rejected as unpatentable over [US20140282178][3] in view of [US20150082242][4]. The final rejection can be challenged still, so perhaps there is still a faint chance for the patent to be issued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not my field, but from what I can gather it describes a method of adjusting what is displayed with a computer user interface depending on the type of data being received and predicting what the data type will be received next.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160034139A1/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20140282178A1/en&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20150082242A1/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47539" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16771" RevisionGUID="afe4df7d-03bd-427f-b5df-946a9203a61f" CreationDate="2017-06-04T22:29:12.550" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17909" RevisionGUID="43b85bf9-8047-42e3-a2c4-3e12023e9494" CreationDate="2017-06-04T22:38:23.467" UserId="19196" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5727352][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5727352&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there penalties for a business using the ideas presented in this patent, in a country outside of the USA?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to purchase this patent?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47541" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17909" RevisionGUID="43b85bf9-8047-42e3-a2c4-3e12023e9494" CreationDate="2017-06-04T22:38:23.467" UserId="19196" Text="Use of Patent outside the USA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47542" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17909" RevisionGUID="43b85bf9-8047-42e3-a2c4-3e12023e9494" CreationDate="2017-06-04T22:38:23.467" UserId="19196" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47543" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="692aa028-9f43-4769-9007-f6e784197ba0" CreationDate="2017-06-04T23:29:16.460" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17910" RevisionGUID="4bc748d5-1d1b-4d41-bee1-65080ceb531a" CreationDate="2017-06-04T23:40:47.123" UserId="17003" Text="US patents only protect the use of the patented invention in the United States. There are often equivalent patents filed in other countries. In any case, patents expire and this patent should have expired a couple of years ago. In the US you should be free to practice the invention described by this patent. Outside the US you will need to verify that any equivalent patents have also expired. You also need to understand that there is potential for other similar patents. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17910" RevisionGUID="09a868c9-0927-4cc9-bc8c-66b6b02030c8" CreationDate="2017-06-04T23:51:55.833" UserId="17003" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="US patents only protect the use of the patented invention in the United States. There are often equivalent patents filed in other countries. In any case, patents expire and this patent should have expired a couple of years ago. In the US you should be free to practice the invention described by this patent. Outside the US you will need to verify that any equivalent patents have also expired. You also need to understand that there is potential for other similar patents that are still in force. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47546" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17909" RevisionGUID="84580c99-2465-4c53-9a07-4a200de022b6" CreationDate="2017-06-05T01:02:23.223" UserId="1" Comment="2nd question removed. Personal inquires and the purchase of patents is off topic. We do not have a direct link to patent holders" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5727352][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5727352&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there penalties for a business using the ideas presented in this patent, in a country outside of the USA?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17911" RevisionGUID="d732484d-a6bc-4775-a0ae-4a97bc163851" CreationDate="2017-06-05T01:38:54.927" UserId="19197" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20020111572][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20020111572" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47548" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17911" RevisionGUID="d732484d-a6bc-4775-a0ae-4a97bc163851" CreationDate="2017-06-05T01:38:54.927" UserId="19197" Text="how can i contact the inventor and owner of this patent to be able to buy the rights to this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47549" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17911" RevisionGUID="d732484d-a6bc-4775-a0ae-4a97bc163851" CreationDate="2017-06-05T01:38:54.927" UserId="19197" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;vibrating&gt;&lt;mattress&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17912" RevisionGUID="08c929f9-7ec4-4b50-a762-ec1f1678db97" CreationDate="2017-06-05T03:15:48.083" UserId="17003" Text="This is a patent application, not a patent. It was abandoned in 2003 so at this point it seems unlikely it will ever be a patent. You can determine this for yourself at the US Public Pair site. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47551" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16544" RevisionGUID="be394904-d2e3-45a9-8e93-ff2b436dd4d4" CreationDate="2017-06-05T06:37:13.373" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17913" RevisionGUID="f9614790-1e73-468f-84d9-3248b3b18ba3" CreationDate="2017-06-05T06:46:58.190" UserId="19199" Text="Hello I am trying to sell a letterboard online and I would like to know if my metal bar for hanging the letterboard violate this patent. Mine is a letterboard and this is a picture frame so I want to be in the clear and would like to know thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47553" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17913" RevisionGUID="f9614790-1e73-468f-84d9-3248b3b18ba3" CreationDate="2017-06-05T06:46:58.190" UserId="19199" Text="patent question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47554" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17913" RevisionGUID="f9614790-1e73-468f-84d9-3248b3b18ba3" CreationDate="2017-06-05T06:46:58.190" UserId="19199" Text="&lt;us1300137&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17914" RevisionGUID="da4f5e08-e309-49f8-a9a8-be7717a947a0" CreationDate="2017-06-05T07:04:15.687" UserId="15503" Text="This patent issued on 8 April 1919. At that time, patents lasted for 17 years from grant. This patent therefore expired in 1936 (if not earlier).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is therefore well expired, and will therefore not be a problem for you: you could freely copy it if you wanted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47556" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="edc27342-08ab-4b6d-9cdb-5c18c6814633" CreationDate="2017-06-05T08:40:11.070" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47557" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="b4279ee7-3a37-413a-aba0-55f295e9b298" CreationDate="2017-06-05T09:40:10.977" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47558" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16810" RevisionGUID="0e9d9ef8-19eb-4dbb-9931-4f05573f6dbc" CreationDate="2017-06-05T11:53:04.450" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47559" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17911" RevisionGUID="db567913-f815-4eb8-9f53-6f00caadff20" CreationDate="2017-06-05T12:13:11.327" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5059],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:18033,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DonQuiKong&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="47563" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14883" RevisionGUID="47417ccd-2042-49fe-8d99-0f0d4a3a56e7" CreationDate="2017-06-05T12:53:04.297" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47564" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17709" RevisionGUID="9e060dc9-bb4a-4a16-9b37-ca95891f3603" CreationDate="2017-06-05T16:53:05.157" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47566" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17751" RevisionGUID="5514b70c-878e-4af4-bc2c-a668cc768ea2" CreationDate="2017-06-05T19:55:00.067" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17916" RevisionGUID="a21a05b2-35c2-44fb-8690-31f76777d610" CreationDate="2017-06-05T19:56:07.053" UserId="19201" Text="When does patent US 5891453 A expire? Also, does it fully encompass the entire suite of Crest Whitestrips line of products, or were individual patents filed for each &quot;strength&quot; of their Crest Whitestrip line (regular vs advanced whitening)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47568" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17916" RevisionGUID="a21a05b2-35c2-44fb-8690-31f76777d610" CreationDate="2017-06-05T19:56:07.053" UserId="19201" Text="When does patent US 5891453 A expire?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47569" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17916" RevisionGUID="a21a05b2-35c2-44fb-8690-31f76777d610" CreationDate="2017-06-05T19:56:07.053" UserId="19201" Text="&lt;us5891453&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17917" RevisionGUID="d23f0ea9-cc85-42c6-ba80-ce7ff6eea6f2" CreationDate="2017-06-05T20:11:56.810" UserId="19202" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20160288972][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20160288972&#xD;&#xA;the following links we believe show proof of prior art:&#xD;&#xA;http://survco.com/credit-card-ax/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.sparrowslockpicks.com/product_p/ccard.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://store.itstactical.com/its-entry-card.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.knifecountryusa.com/store/manufacturer/879/touch-of-ginger.html&#xD;&#xA;These are just a few we have many more that we have found." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47571" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17917" RevisionGUID="d23f0ea9-cc85-42c6-ba80-ce7ff6eea6f2" CreationDate="2017-06-05T20:11:56.810" UserId="19202" Text="Prior art and very broad description" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47572" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17917" RevisionGUID="d23f0ea9-cc85-42c6-ba80-ce7ff6eea6f2" CreationDate="2017-06-05T20:11:56.810" UserId="19202" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;broad-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17918" RevisionGUID="ae5afe06-22d6-45c0-b5ee-a221e921d9e2" CreationDate="2017-06-05T20:38:41.533" UserId="16696" Text="Patent litigation is often described as &quot;ruinously expensive&quot; to pursue, thus there generally must be some financial incentive.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My take on the advice given by your legal experts is that because you are a non-profit, there is no profit in trying to sue you for damages, or even spend the money to try and block you.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there are many variables.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For instance, what if your device cuts into the bottom-line of the patent holders by costing them sales of similar products?  In this case, there is a financial incentive to bar you from being able to make your products available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The prior art may be shaky if it is overly broad.  Certain patents issued prior to the [Alice ruling (2014)][1] and [Mayo (2012)][2] are particularly vulnerable.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem regarding tyranny goes back to the high cost of patent litigation, which is generally hundreds of thousands of dollars on the low end, and which can easily rise into the millions.  Thus a &quot;deep pocket player&quot; can sue at will, regardless of the merit of their claims, and if the target cannot afford the legal fees to defend themselves, the plaintiff will prevail by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, patent trolls are in the business of shaking down big companies, who will settle rather than defend, b/c it's generally cheaper to do so.  (This is the patent troll strategy.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By contrast, if a giant company infringes on an individuals IP, there are plenty of attorneys who will take on the case for the individual on a contingency basis, because the target (the giant company) has deep pockets and represents a &quot;prize&quot; worth going after.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayo_Collaborative_Services_v._Prometheus_Laboratories,_Inc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17918" RevisionGUID="1849c3d3-3535-46e6-b896-af9897cdd125" CreationDate="2017-06-05T20:44:20.253" UserId="16696" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Patent litigation is often described as &quot;ruinously expensive&quot; to pursue, thus there generally must be some financial incentive.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My take on the advice given by your legal experts is that because you are a non-profit, there is no profit in trying to sue you for damages, or even spend the money to try to block you.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there are many variables.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For instance, what if your device cuts into the bottom-line of the patent holders by costing them sales of similar products?  In this case, there is a financial incentive to bar you from being able to make your products available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The prior art may be shaky if it is overly broad.  Certain patents issued prior to the [Alice (2014)][1] and [Mayo (2012)][2] rulings are particularly vulnerable, and could be overturned.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem regarding tyranny goes back to the high cost of patent litigation, which is generally hundreds of thousands of dollars on the *low end*, and which can easily rise into the millions.  Thus a &quot;deep pocket player&quot; can sue at will, regardless of the merit of their claims, and if the target cannot afford the legal fees required to defend themselves, the plaintiff will prevail by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, patent trolls are in the business of shaking down big companies, who will settle rather than defend, b/c it's generally cheaper to do so.  (This is the patent troll strategy.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By contrast, if a giant company infringes on an individual's IP, there are plenty of attorneys who will take on the case for the individual on a contingency basis, because the target (the giant company) has deep pockets and represents a &quot;prize&quot; worth going after.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayo_Collaborative_Services_v._Prometheus_Laboratories,_Inc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17913" RevisionGUID="52b6e224-f2b7-4fea-bfe8-b52e73bad354" CreationDate="2017-06-05T22:33:46.993" UserId="15503" Comment="Make title more representative of the question" Text="I am trying to sell a letterboard online and I would like to know if my metal bar for hanging the letterboard would violate this patent. Mine is a letterboard and this is a picture frame so I want to be in the clear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47576" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17913" RevisionGUID="52b6e224-f2b7-4fea-bfe8-b52e73bad354" CreationDate="2017-06-05T22:33:46.993" UserId="15503" Comment="Make title more representative of the question" Text="Can I manufacture my device in view of US 1300137?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17918" RevisionGUID="98a85b15-be31-4c26-975b-1713cb4ed03c" CreationDate="2017-06-05T22:40:04.420" UserId="16696" Comment="felt I needed to bring up the question of liability, and add a disclaimer" Text="Patent litigation is often described as &quot;ruinously expensive&quot; to pursue, thus there generally must be some financial incentive.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My take on the advice given by your legal experts is that because you are a non-profit, there is no profit in trying to sue you for damages, or even spend the money to try to block you.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there are many variables.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For instance, what if your device cuts into the bottom-line of the patent holders by costing them sales of similar products?  In this case, there is a financial incentive to bar you from being able to make your products available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If you're going after a market they don't care about, say poor people who can't afford their products in the first place, and for whom no 3rd parties will subsidize the products, you might not be cutting into their bottom line...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The prior art may be shaky if it is overly broad.  Certain patents issued prior to the [Alice (2014)][1] and [Mayo (2012)][2] rulings are particularly vulnerable, and could be overturned.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem regarding tyranny goes back to the high cost of patent litigation, which is generally hundreds of thousands of dollars on the *low end*, and which can easily rise into the millions.  Thus a &quot;deep pocket player&quot; can sue at will, regardless of the merit of their claims, and if the target cannot afford the legal fees required to defend themselves, the plaintiff will prevail by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, patent trolls are in the business of shaking down big companies, who will settle rather than defend b/c it's generally cheaper to do so.  (This is the patent troll strategy.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By contrast, if a giant company infringes on an individual's IP, there are plenty of attorneys who will take on the case for the individual on a contingency basis, because the target (the giant company) has deep pockets and represents a &quot;prize&quot; worth going after.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another critical question to ask is do you or other individual members of the non-profit have personal liability?  This will likely depend on the type of corporation and its structure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also want to give the disclaimer that I am not an attorney, and this answer should not be taken to constitute advice, but merely a perspective on the issue.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayo_Collaborative_Services_v._Prometheus_Laboratories,_Inc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47578" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17916" RevisionGUID="5c51793b-7eaa-4c75-8615-092594cabe99" CreationDate="2017-06-05T23:06:50.307" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to patent." Text="When does patent [US 5891453 A][1] expire? Also, does it fully encompass the entire suite of Crest Whitestrips line of products, or were individual patents filed for each &quot;strength&quot; of their Crest Whitestrip line (regular vs advanced whitening)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5891453A/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17919" RevisionGUID="6e8556fa-2161-4ddd-a970-f0621239dd1e" CreationDate="2017-06-05T23:09:46.493" UserId="17003" Text="I can answer the first question easily enough. The patent term is 20 years from the priority date of June 6th, 1997. Thus it should expire on June 6th, 2017. To answer the other questions would require searching of other patents from Procter and Gamble to see if there are others in the family." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17917" RevisionGUID="ff5a0a16-b0ca-41be-bb04-34485a10d03a" CreationDate="2017-06-05T23:11:52.963" UserId="17003" Comment="Changed link to application to one that shows the figures." Text="In reference to the patent: [US20160288972][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_2016_0288972_A1&#xD;&#xA;the following links we believe show proof of prior art:&#xD;&#xA;http://survco.com/credit-card-ax/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.sparrowslockpicks.com/product_p/ccard.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://store.itstactical.com/its-entry-card.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.knifecountryusa.com/store/manufacturer/879/touch-of-ginger.html&#xD;&#xA;These are just a few we have many more that we have found." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47586" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="002b465f-206f-44f2-b32a-a4ab7cbdebb4" CreationDate="2017-06-06T04:13:00.870" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="176c556f-d482-4f91-856b-8e8085acc1cc" CreationDate="2017-06-06T14:47:17.530" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to youtube video." Text="In reference to application [US20160239804][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering what is the legal situation here, &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Thererefore, at least the following is claimed:&#xD;&#xA;*assessing weather along a route...&#xD;&#xA;*evaluating approach to drop&#xD;&#xA;*calculating amount of time&#xD;&#xA;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, and other subclaims are replicating capability of a product sold in small quantities circa 2009-2013 worldwide (Norway, Poland US, France, Czech Rep. to name a few) being integrated with unamanned aerial vehicles (UAVs: EasyUAV, Pteryx UAV, Demon UAV, and Manta/EasyMap UAV). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A computer performing said flight planning was FLEXIPILOT and in its flexipilot1.35-navigation-en manual that circulated on the web for years before the product was discontinued, one can achieve exactly this delivery functionality using UAV. It was designed for such missions, including Australian Outback Delivery Challenge, which was performed by similar control devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of FLEXIPILOT, weather was estimated prior to takeoff by entering variables SIM_WIN_SPEED and SIM_WIND_HEADING on its delivery console (which allowed communication via modem). For example command WPTITERALL was assessing total flight time both including or neglecting wind estimates, RETHOME logic is evaluating possible outcomes in realtime based on both its own internal estimate of wind speed and SIM_WIND_SPEED that could be transmitted and received at any moment, using those factors and published (exported to US for University) telemetry protocol FLEXIPILOT integrated with PTERYX device ws able to report in realtime flight times to takeoff, any of its emergency landign sites, projected time to impact earth at any time, and time to WPT_TARGET which was location of generalized geographic hook, relative to which any waypoint could be placed. Because relative placement of waypoints included the option of displacement and heading depending on wind direction estimate, device was effectively used for planning landing as a function of meteo conditions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because at any waypoint which could be looped one could perform any servo movement action using TRIGGER or PARA logic, this UAV control computer was capable and was tested  for delivery missions and indeed similar missions were performed as early as 2010 by several contestans of DIYDRONES T2 contest - airdrop challenge (egg delivery) using also open-source counterparts of said autopilot. IMO there is nothing innovative in this patent, not even the fact that they are delivering a container which was subject of contests 6 years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NOTE:&#xD;&#xA;I have also found this presentation on public diydrones forum, claiming almost identical behaviour for delivery drones:&#xD;&#xA;Pigeon Post presentation dated 2013-02-13&#xD;&#xA;[www.youtube.com/watch?v=3boZtKRseSA][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FLEXIPILOT navigation manual is here, all versions are from 2013:&#xD;&#xA;https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9-O1_5eWoN9Q2tNWUpvbndaV2s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FLEXIPILOT telemetry manual is here, showing sample display application for parameters&#xD;&#xA;https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9-O1_5eWoN9WGZEenVINWtxaHc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FLEXIPILOT open source telemetry code:&#xD;&#xA;https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9-O1_5eWoN9SGhib2xtMVhsNms&#xD;&#xA;which contains ID=12&#xD;&#xA;time2ground variable with impact_type=2 designating payload delivery time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160239804A1/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3boZtKRseSA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47590" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16361" RevisionGUID="01c33844-6520-436f-acbb-030a9fd16bf4" CreationDate="2017-06-06T15:28:13.443" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47595" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17830" RevisionGUID="9c1c2641-f96f-4232-a381-2e80082bf034" CreationDate="2017-06-06T19:02:56.643" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[17115],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:18033,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DonQuiKong&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:81,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Rory Alsop&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="47596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17923" RevisionGUID="16a32047-e07c-455e-9516-cf6478da368e" CreationDate="2017-06-06T20:22:22.000" UserId="3076" Text="It depends. Phrasing this as if your invention were a thing, most patent claims are made of of existing &quot;parts&quot;. How the parts are arranged and coupled relative to each other to function is usually what makes something novel and non-obvious. This is also true for a process. You could have an obvious arrangement of old steps or you could have a non-obvious arrangement of old things. And, after Alice, etc., you could have a great non-obvious invention that is deemed to be abstract without &quot;something more&quot; and then no patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone can file for a U.S. patent. By international treat countries cannot treat outsiders any differently than their citizens and residents. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47597" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16676" RevisionGUID="37595efe-f6c9-45f9-9802-e33e4daa04a5" CreationDate="2017-06-06T20:28:50.750" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47600" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="638847da-f064-4716-9625-4208a5cc7e84" CreationDate="2017-06-06T22:32:13.790" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17902" RevisionGUID="e464c8d8-3b98-48e7-8a5d-deb152d867dd" CreationDate="2017-06-06T22:34:35.213" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed expiration date and added some explanation." Text="For patents issued before June 5, 1995 and which expired after that date, patent terms were either 17 years from the grant date, or 20 years from the application date whichever was later. This patent should have expired no later than September 5th, 1999. This is a pretty early software related patent. One of the issues with software patents is that patent examiners generally focus on earlier patents for prior art. That far back it wasn't as common for software patents to be generated and the examiners themselves were not necessarily experts in computer science. The threshold for non-obviousness was sometimes too low. Thus, fairly routine programming techniques were sometimes granted because there was no previous example in the patent art. I'm not a computer scientist so I can't comment on how obvious the algorithm presented in the cited patent would have been in 1979 when the patent was filed. The fact that they are referred to as Merkle Trees and the inventor on this patent is Ralph Merkle suggests it may have been novel. There is even a [Wikipedia article][1] devoted to them. At least this patent covers using a mathematical algorithm to accomplish a specific task (creating and authenticating a digital signature) rather than patenting the abstract mathematics themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle_tree" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47610" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14767" RevisionGUID="f5324fb9-1ed1-4d13-8f11-896497bd7801" CreationDate="2017-06-07T19:52:45.510" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17869" RevisionGUID="447b1668-8cb5-4441-ba89-d3808eb85c3d" CreationDate="2017-06-07T19:54:52.303" UserId="19111" Comment="deleted 278 characters in body; edited title" Text="I have an idea that I am currently researching and I cannot find a product like it on the market. I looked through some existing patents and am now curious what I should be looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do realize that an attorney would do a thorough patent search to make sure I am not infringing on something so at this stage I am just trying to make sure there is nothing obvious. Would love some insight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example: The idea I have would be a small sleeve/pouch for a smartphone, tablet or even laptop. I see sleeves like this all the time but I am looking to improve the properties of the fabric/lining for a very specific purpose. I did find some patents for a &quot;Phone Pouch&quot; or &quot;Phone Sleeve&quot; but at first glance I'm not sure if my idea would infringe on the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I be reviewing when trying to understand if my idea infringes on the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47612" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17869" RevisionGUID="447b1668-8cb5-4441-ba89-d3808eb85c3d" CreationDate="2017-06-07T19:54:52.303" UserId="19111" Comment="deleted 278 characters in body; edited title" Text="How can I determine whether my product infringes this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47613" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17769" RevisionGUID="a2115b69-41ba-422d-8922-21331e0c2f77" CreationDate="2017-06-07T20:54:46.110" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47614" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17768" RevisionGUID="1871283a-261c-4590-9fa8-416998d537f7" CreationDate="2017-06-07T21:59:10.597" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17926" RevisionGUID="7d3325b1-be80-44b3-b071-6cc9a52ce438" CreationDate="2017-06-07T22:04:29.497" UserId="18804" Text="Better course -and legally required in the US- is to file both applications as co-inventors and then used assignment to reach the desired ownership." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47616" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14635" RevisionGUID="25d81053-fec2-4a14-9d37-181a9c011290" CreationDate="2017-06-08T01:59:11.470" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47620" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="acdd1cf7-f256-4eae-952c-38df2bbd24e5" CreationDate="2017-06-08T07:04:18.683" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47622" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="11476a81-98ff-4f03-ac66-23cc546f3152" CreationDate="2017-06-08T13:07:09.900" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17928" RevisionGUID="aed81c41-78f6-4cec-bee8-ffccc9cdaa96" CreationDate="2017-06-08T14:51:49.770" UserId="17003" Text="What you are asking about is called freedom to operate. Freedom to operate is a challenging question to answer. Even the best legal opinion might not matter if you get before a jury of lay people. That said, what you need to focus on when evaluating a patent is what is described in the claims. It is pretty routine to find a patent where the specification seems to be describing broad areas of technology and find the claims are actually narrowly written. So focus on the claims first, especially the independent claims. Independent claims don't refer to other claims. To infringe on a claim, you need to implement each and every aspect of the claim. Thus, if a claims states something like: &quot;...a phone sleeve implementing feature A, B and C&quot; and your product only implements features A and C, you probably don't infringe on that claim. It doesn't mean there isn't another patent that covers just A and C however. When you find a relevant patent, look at the cited patents to get more possible patents to review. You can look at the file history in the [US Public Pair][1] site. This can be really useful to see what the examiner cited as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doing your own research is important, but I can't emphasize too strongly that you should also consult with a patent attorney or agent. Doing your homework will make this interaction more efficient and thus cheaper. I'm not an attorney, but I've been told that if you have a legal opinion of freedom to operate, it could help keep you from having to pay punitive damages should you eventually lose an infringement suit. (Perhaps one of the actual attorneys on this site could confirm this information.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47624" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17869" RevisionGUID="5a66ce93-8f6b-43fa-b51e-4164b9ed1f5e" CreationDate="2017-06-08T14:52:27.953" UserId="17003" Comment="Added freedom to operate tag" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;freedom-to-operate&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17929" RevisionGUID="a50f95e8-e0d5-4783-b8a3-5d9355f6848f" CreationDate="2017-06-09T00:26:23.837" UserId="19218" Text="If I produce a open source product with an idea, lets say; an algorithm or protocol that nobody did before, can a company register a patent with my idea and sued me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47626" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17929" RevisionGUID="a50f95e8-e0d5-4783-b8a3-5d9355f6848f" CreationDate="2017-06-09T00:26:23.837" UserId="19218" Text="If I produce a open source algorithm, can a company register a patent with my idea and sued me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47627" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17929" RevisionGUID="a50f95e8-e0d5-4783-b8a3-5d9355f6848f" CreationDate="2017-06-09T00:26:23.837" UserId="19218" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;opensource&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47628" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17929" RevisionGUID="438b4f0b-41f6-49e4-8322-68b5e84c27e7" CreationDate="2017-06-09T08:50:44.353" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;opensource&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17930" RevisionGUID="168ab6e2-04ff-4f3a-868b-2e98e6b2637a" CreationDate="2017-06-09T09:02:11.243" UserId="18033" Text="**No.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the basic sections of the patent law is 35 USC 102. It describes some of the requierements for getting a patent, especially novelty. While the law is mostly short and doesn't offer a lot of explanation, there is a manual for patent examination (MPEP). The relevant section is [this one][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A claimed invention may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 when the invention is anticipated (or is “not novel”) over a disclosure that is available as prior art. To anticipate a claim, the disclosure must teach every element of the claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost every publication impedes patents (for the same thing) all over the world.  To some extent oral publications don't meet that criteria, but something which is written and in English makes it impossible for anyone to get a valid patent on the disclosed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is one issue - examiners don't always find all the relevant prior art and sometimes, sources are not traceable back to their publication date. You could file for a patent or write a paper to have more certainty, but in this case I would advise you to just make sure you can prove at what point in time you had what part of your open source project available to the public. If really you got sued by someone who was able to patent your invention after your disclosure (note: not likely), you could still easily defend yourself with that prove.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some more reading on novelty and publications, check [this answer][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2131.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/17636/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47630" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15983" RevisionGUID="b241873e-3abb-42c1-aa6c-9b2be7e931f6" CreationDate="2017-06-09T09:33:35.473" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17929" RevisionGUID="2eff193b-00b7-40e0-9efb-c0ba8b585842" CreationDate="2017-06-09T11:08:06.177" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="If I produce an open source product with an idea, lets say; an algorithm or protocol that nobody did before, can a company register a patent with my idea and sue me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47632" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17917" RevisionGUID="63da4c9e-2239-484a-a019-de38242839c3" CreationDate="2017-06-09T11:10:15.437" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;broad-patent&gt;&lt;us20160288972&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17931" RevisionGUID="f9e2ba2a-73d8-45f5-95f4-b8ce8b0f319d" CreationDate="2017-06-09T11:15:32.450" UserId="18033" Text="This is not a patent yet but still an application, so it hasn't been examined. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only during ther examination is a patent application checked for novelty and non-obviousness. It might be that the examiner finds this patent to be obvious over the prior art and rejects it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to help the examiner / make sure / provide prior art to the examiner, this site is not the right place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is however a tool in place, it's called third party observations and can be found [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you submit an observation please make sure to include reasoning as to how the prior art anticipates which claims/part of the claims to maximize your chances of the examiner considering your submission.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/third-party-preissuance-submissions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47634" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="045f75e1-ecf0-4838-a3d1-a3b76cfa3ff3" CreationDate="2017-06-09T14:43:29.943" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17928" RevisionGUID="a74b1ca6-22f6-4c5a-91b5-1fa3750cc2bf" CreationDate="2017-06-09T17:27:43.813" UserId="16696" Comment="added a coda per Eric's suggestion.  (Feel free to rework the text, or add any clarifications!) " Text="What you are asking about is called freedom to operate. Freedom to operate is a challenging question to answer. Even the best legal opinion might not matter if you get before a jury of lay people. That said, what you need to focus on when evaluating a patent is what is described in the claims. It is pretty routine to find a patent where the specification seems to be describing broad areas of technology and find the claims are actually narrowly written. So focus on the claims first, especially the independent claims. Independent claims don't refer to other claims. To infringe on a claim, you need to implement each and every aspect of the claim. Thus, if a claims states something like: &quot;...a phone sleeve implementing feature A, B and C&quot; and your product only implements features A and C, you probably don't infringe on that claim. It doesn't mean there isn't another patent that covers just A and C however. When you find a relevant patent, look at the cited patents to get more possible patents to review. You can look at the file history in the [US Public Pair][1] site. This can be really useful to see what the examiner cited as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doing your own research is important, but I can't emphasize too strongly that you should also consult with a patent attorney or agent. Doing your homework will make this interaction more efficient and thus cheaper. I'm not an attorney, but I've been told that if you have a legal opinion of freedom to operate, it could help keep you from having to pay punitive damages should you eventually lose an infringement suit. (Perhaps one of the actual attorneys on this site could confirm this information.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------&#xD;&#xA;There is an added element related to patent law regarding legal precedents.  This may be particularly important in the current era, due to recent changes in the interpretation of eligibility requirements. Thus, you need to look not just at potentially prior art in relation to your invention, but also prior rulings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Law review articles are a great place to do preliminary research, and the financial publications always publish stories on important patent cases.  You can also generally find the rulings themselves online. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17932" RevisionGUID="e575a9e4-8899-4c10-84e4-347ed7cf821e" CreationDate="2017-06-09T17:38:32.477" UserId="16696" Text="You may also find that filing the algorithm with the [copyright office][1] is useful because it makes the content a matter of public record.  Copyright isn't going to protect a procedural mechanism because mechanics are the domain of patents, but as a [prophylactic][2], it may be quite effective, and provides iron-clad evidence of the date of the public disclosure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Submissions to the copyright office in the US cost $35, and [the process can be done online in a few minutes][3], and does not require an attorney.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prophylactic&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.copyright.gov/registration/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47637" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16103" RevisionGUID="5f0f534a-75ef-449d-9cce-ed1bd89bce6a" CreationDate="2017-06-09T17:45:49.707" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17932" RevisionGUID="6cc078f6-6045-467a-a3a0-319c70130405" CreationDate="2017-06-09T17:49:51.610" UserId="16696" Comment="added 522 characters in body" Text="You may also find that filing the algorithm with the [copyright office][1] is useful because it makes the content a matter of public record.  Copyright isn't going to protect a procedural mechanism because mechanics are the domain of patents, but as a [prophylactic][2], it may be quite effective, and provides iron-clad evidence of the date of the public disclosure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Submissions to the copyright office in the US cost $35, and [the process can be done online in a few minutes][3], and does not require an attorney.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;This technique alone may not help, because as DonQuiKong points out, an examiner may not find the documentation that shows the malefactor's claims to be non-novel.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, you should probably also heavily publicize the algorithm, what it does, and links to documentation. (Publicization in this case may be simply a matter of posting on forums, etc., using basic SEO strategies such as relevant key-words, and utilizing high-traffic forums so that the posts show up on search engines.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prophylactic&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.copyright.gov/registration/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47639" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17310" RevisionGUID="bdc75607-acc7-4078-b6a1-44aadc65f667" CreationDate="2017-06-09T18:45:56.003" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47640" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14266" RevisionGUID="c6331030-2971-40c8-8b24-f6ff62d9297b" CreationDate="2017-06-09T19:45:56.540" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17933" RevisionGUID="64b8b27b-e5f8-4ded-ae90-ac60c9774e63" CreationDate="2017-06-09T20:27:24.780" UserId="19223" Text="I was looking up some prior art that reads, &quot;Termination of patent right or utility model&quot;, in the LEGAL EVENT notice on the patent document. what does this mean? why would/could it say this? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47642" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17933" RevisionGUID="64b8b27b-e5f8-4ded-ae90-ac60c9774e63" CreationDate="2017-06-09T20:27:24.780" UserId="19223" Text="Termination of patent right or utility model" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47643" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17933" RevisionGUID="64b8b27b-e5f8-4ded-ae90-ac60c9774e63" CreationDate="2017-06-09T20:27:24.780" UserId="19223" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17934" RevisionGUID="9af89067-55ae-4f15-8f3b-50675587c3bd" CreationDate="2017-06-09T21:19:02.037" UserId="19221" Text="Prior Art Request for US patent WO 2016164368 A1 / US20160295376 - ***Bluetooth low energy location system and method***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Help keep the use of iBeacon and Low Energy Bluetooth as location-based technology from being restricted due to an unoriginal and obvious patent.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An application by Awarepoint Corporation seeks to patent the use of Low Energy Bluetooth as a location system based upon received signals at 2.4GHz.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application seeks protection for the use of Low Energy Bluetooth (a.k.a. BLE) in a radio location system using signal averaging and trilateration techniques.  This seems like a standard and indeed intended use of BLE and would threaten its use and deployment if this obvious patent were granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question** - Does anyone have any applicable prior art in reference to this, especially in regards to claim #1, published prior to April 2016?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title:** Bluetooth low energy location system and method&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Assignee:** Awarepoint Corporation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Publication Number:** WO 2016164368 A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(also published as US20160295376)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prior Art Date:** seeking information prior to April 5th 2016&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 comprises the bulk of the application with most of the subsequent parts being use-cases (such as navigation based upon the location result).  The claim as stated is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A location engine for location determination, comprising:  an input stabilization component that receives one or more signals from one or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more BLE beacons by a BLE enabled object and normalizes the one or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more signals;  a location method component that receives one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; signals from one or more BLE beacons by a BLE enabled object and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; determines a location result of the BLE enabled object in a plurality&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of different location uses; and  an arbitration and switching&#xD;&#xA;&gt; component that automatically decides the location result to output.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stated plainly, this boils down to receiving signals from one or multiple BLE devices, averaging or otherwise filtering the received signals and then computing the location using well established mathematical techniques such as trilateration (which are later referenced in subsequent claims). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 2 builds on that with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The engine of claim 1 further comprising a context-aware location component that minimizes a location error of the output location&#xD;&#xA;&gt; result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plainly stated, the output position takes into account other things (the 'context') to reduce the error in the computed location.  This seems at best overly broad and has been covered through the use of techniques such as Kalman filters in GPS receivers for decades.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 3 states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The engine of claim 1, wherein the plurality of different location uses are one of a way finding, a real-time location system, a zone&#xD;&#xA;&gt; location and a fast room entry determination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are simply the most generic uses of a location system: navigation, locating and determining whether the location is within a given boundary.  These seem like obvious uses of location data even to one not skilled in the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The remaining 27 claims are all dependant upon these first three and are also mainly just restating use-cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick check found patent US 20150119077 A1 which covers much of the same specifically references time of flight as well as a number of published experiments (such as https://www.mutuallyhuman.com/blog/2014/07/21/geolocation-with-bluetooth-beacons) and academic papers (such as http://ipapapa.github.io/Files/globecom2015.pdf) but I would be interested in prior art specifically related to the aforementioned three claims as well as information of the best way to bring an objection to the PTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47645" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17934" RevisionGUID="9af89067-55ae-4f15-8f3b-50675587c3bd" CreationDate="2017-06-09T21:19:02.037" UserId="19221" Text="BLE location system and method - PRIOR ART REQUEST for US patent 2016164368" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47646" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17934" RevisionGUID="9af89067-55ae-4f15-8f3b-50675587c3bd" CreationDate="2017-06-09T21:19:02.037" UserId="19221" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47647" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17587" RevisionGUID="ae3c12d6-97bc-4afe-8ab9-7a1b596e51e0" CreationDate="2017-06-09T22:51:12.150" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47648" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16096" RevisionGUID="e82701a7-5237-47ed-988a-8a3b981da083" CreationDate="2017-06-10T00:51:41.507" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17389" RevisionGUID="0afe6ae8-f7ea-471d-a1f5-013a7f4ce10a" CreationDate="2017-06-10T19:24:12.570" UserId="17003" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Since you are the assignee, you would be the only one allowed to sell the patent. Although a patent provides you with a limited term of exclusivity, it is up to the patent owner to enforce the patent. At this point so long after the expiration of the patent, there would likely be no way to obtain royalties even if you could prove someone made your device during the patent's term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did a Google image search of telephone locks and didn't see anything that looks the same as what is described in the patent so it may be that your friends recollection is faulty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47669" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="655daee3-456b-4eea-b1ac-1d34ed5dd9eb" CreationDate="2017-06-12T01:43:14.880" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17936" RevisionGUID="be0c819a-cc13-41b9-9f94-338a39f47aa0" CreationDate="2017-06-12T03:31:29.327" UserId="19232" Text="Referring specifically to a computing device interface invention: when a substantially similar set of claim statements is being repeated under categories of &quot;a method for,&quot; &quot;a system for,&quot; &quot;a computer program product...,&quot; and possibly also &quot;a computer device for,&quot; what are the differences in wording that need to be applied to claims statements in each of these groups?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47671" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17936" RevisionGUID="be0c819a-cc13-41b9-9f94-338a39f47aa0" CreationDate="2017-06-12T03:31:29.327" UserId="19232" Text="Claims statements repeated in different categories such as &quot;a method for,&quot; &quot;a system for,&quot; etc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47672" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17936" RevisionGUID="be0c819a-cc13-41b9-9f94-338a39f47aa0" CreationDate="2017-06-12T03:31:29.327" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47673" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="78397cf0-987b-4804-806a-25c0813b515a" CreationDate="2017-06-12T05:52:48.990" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17937" RevisionGUID="44445229-3899-4432-a66d-0eb4853e9c53" CreationDate="2017-06-12T09:53:31.597" UserId="15503" Text="**Method**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A method is the simplest: it simply comprises a series of steps. There is no obligation for any hardware to be included at all, though in most cases there will be some mention of the method being performed on a computer or the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But a simple example of a method would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1\. A method, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;receiving a message;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;performing a calculation in response to the message; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;sending a response based on the calculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**System**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A system has some more nuance to it. It is generally seen as an error to include method steps directly in a system, since a system comprises physical things, not intangible steps. One common approach is to nominalise the steps as components:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2A. A system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a receiver adapted to receive a message;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a processor adapted to perform a calculation in response to the message; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a sender adapted to send a response based on the calculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically, these would be &quot;receiving means&quot;, &quot;processing means&quot;, and &quot;sending means&quot;. However, such &quot;means plus function&quot; terminology is now held in the US to be limited to precisely the options provided in the description. It is therefore seen as generally a risky approach to explicitly say &quot;means&quot;; hence, the &quot;receiver&quot; above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But using this approach is not risk-free as well. One day, in principle, such terms might well be seen as &quot;means plus function&quot; too, despite not including the word &quot;means&quot;. Unfortunately, there is no real alternative to get a system claim with its broadest scope without any real system features that avoids such a risk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't mind narrower, an alternative way is to use a pseudo-method claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2B. A system comprising a processor and a memory, the memory comprising instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the system to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;receive a message;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;perform a calculation in response to the message; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;send a response based on the calculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This requires software (as instructions), so would almost certainly exclude pure hardware implementations from its scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Computer program products**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A relatively rare European form of claim is a computer program product. This would typically be of the form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3A. A computer program product, comprising instructions which when executed by a computer, cause the computer to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;receive a message;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;perform a calculation in response to the message; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;send a response based on the calculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US equivalent is the Beauregard claim, which is directed to a computer readable medium:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3B. A non-transient computer-readable medium containing instructions for causing a computer to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;receive a message;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;perform a calculation in response to the message; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;send a response based on the calculation.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47675" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17614" RevisionGUID="faec83b6-c8e4-4b2e-bb72-d05cefe63427" CreationDate="2017-06-12T10:52:56.043" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17938" RevisionGUID="0465c5da-7484-45ca-8683-69c428ec4638" CreationDate="2017-06-12T12:28:45.957" UserId="19232" Text="I have read and heard that known similar patents and other prior art should be disclosed in the patent application, yet I find no examples of such disclosures in the &quot;Background&quot; sections (or any other sections) of existing similar or related patents, granted or not. So is it important or advisable to include, or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so: Should the patent prior art be a listing of existing similar patents (number and title) with commentary on the similarities and differences as compared with the submitted invention disclosure? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For non-patent prior art, and referring specifically to software, how should existing software be presented for comparison to the invention of the disclosure? Links to the software's website, or articles about it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it better to list all of this in an IDS form rather than in the main patent application document?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47677" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17938" RevisionGUID="0465c5da-7484-45ca-8683-69c428ec4638" CreationDate="2017-06-12T12:28:45.957" UserId="19232" Text="Including existing patents and non-patent prior art in a nonprovisional application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47678" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17938" RevisionGUID="0465c5da-7484-45ca-8683-69c428ec4638" CreationDate="2017-06-12T12:28:45.957" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17939" RevisionGUID="2231b854-588e-453c-b7a8-559a4edb9d69" CreationDate="2017-06-12T13:23:00.707" UserId="19232" Text="It's my novice patent-drafter understanding that independent claims (especially the first one) should be as broad as possible without being so broad that as to easily negated by prior art of any kind – whether currently patented, previously patented, or never patented. So, some more narrow specifications (that might have originally been planned as dependent claim statements) may need to be pulled into the independent claim in order to set it apart. What's puzzling me a bit is, how far to go with that? Should I add what seems to be &quot;just enough,&quot; or do I play it safer by pulling in more than one of what (I think) are unique distinguishing features? And is there any practical guideline for how complicated an independent claim can be? (referring specifically to how many indented statements are added following a &quot;comprising&quot; statement) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47680" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17939" RevisionGUID="2231b854-588e-453c-b7a8-559a4edb9d69" CreationDate="2017-06-12T13:23:00.707" UserId="19232" Text="Guidelines or advice about establishing limits on independent claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47681" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17939" RevisionGUID="2231b854-588e-453c-b7a8-559a4edb9d69" CreationDate="2017-06-12T13:23:00.707" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47682" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17938" RevisionGUID="0f6e8d20-1f5f-4acc-8827-4a3709fa562f" CreationDate="2017-06-12T13:59:47.617" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17940" RevisionGUID="fe8df96b-3019-4645-9a05-2249b0ab51fb" CreationDate="2017-06-12T14:09:39.250" UserId="18033" Text="There are two forces at play here. For one, you want your claim as broad as possible - simply because the broader the claim, the broader your protection. On the other hand, the examiner, in combination with the prior art has a certain limit of what they will allow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the &quot;perfect&quot; broadness of your claim would be to exactly hit the limit of what is allowable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cheapest and fastest prosecution would be to start with only allowable claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is, you cannot (!) know exactly what claim will be accepted and when it is too broad. So you play a kind of guessing game with the examiner. You start your claim at a certain level of broadness where you are sure it's outside of the allowable, but not by far and then take narrowing steps until arriving at some dependent claim which is certainly allowable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You submit that for examination and the examiner will hopefully hint to you, where the border between allowable and not allowable lies. You then iteratively try to get as close as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem here is, if you iterate into the allowable part, your patent passes and you can't go back - so you have to approach this border from the outside, overstepping it only a little bit at the end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If all goes well, after a few office actions you have a reasonably broad patent, didn't waste too much time/money and everyone is happy. If your patent passes with the first claims you submit, they were too narrow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to how complicated a claim can be - complicated normally means narrow, it can be as complicated/narrow as you want, but the thing is, you don't want that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47684" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17938" RevisionGUID="5dffba56-f700-4b77-a9a4-996c551e9401" CreationDate="2017-06-12T14:10:46.220" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us&gt;&lt;description&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17941" RevisionGUID="ce50db80-b2ce-4b03-85c4-596508289e44" CreationDate="2017-06-12T18:37:22.917" UserId="11537" Text="Your question is somewhat vague, so I will provide a somewhat vague answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You must tell the patent office about any relevant references you know about.  The best way to do this is in an information disclosure statement (IDS).  You do not have to search for references, but it is to your advantage to do so.  It's hard to write a good patent application if you don't know what is in the prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anything mentioned in the background section is considered admitted prior art, so be careful about what you put there.  As the saying goes, &quot;Anything you say can and will be used against you.&quot;  A background section is not required, so you can skip it if you want, but it is customary to include one.  References listed in an IDS are not considered admitted prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You do not need to include &quot;commentary on similarities and differences&quot; and I suggest that you do not include any such commentary.  It is up to the examiner to decide whether or not a reference is prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For software, present what you know.  Is there a relevant code snippet you know about?  Or just a description of what some code does?  Whatever it is, you can cite it in an IDS and include a copy if it is not a patent document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="eea2a644-e9c4-419a-9d05-c53e9d4fd43f" CreationDate="2017-06-12T23:17:11.413" UserId="18814" Text="I have a US Intent to Use Trademark. My Intent to Use application got approved in Feb 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also gonna file provisional patent this month. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How long do I have to file international trademark and patent via WIPO?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47687" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="eea2a644-e9c4-419a-9d05-c53e9d4fd43f" CreationDate="2017-06-12T23:17:11.413" UserId="18814" Text="What is the duration to file international trademark and patents after filing in USPTO?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47688" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="eea2a644-e9c4-419a-9d05-c53e9d4fd43f" CreationDate="2017-06-12T23:17:11.413" UserId="18814" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;trademark&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17943" RevisionGUID="dce62b5a-1449-44db-80e1-ed74619b9c05" CreationDate="2017-06-13T00:24:44.317" UserId="15503" Text="A PCT patent application must be filed within 12 months of the date that the provisional patent application was filed ([Paris Convention art 4(C)(1)](http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/text.jsp?file_id=288514#P83_6610))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17944" RevisionGUID="e52d0c02-21b3-41bb-b00d-ad9827dfa199" CreationDate="2017-06-13T03:13:55.073" UserId="19237" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8863947][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8863947&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to claims 1 &amp; 11 the controlled substance is placed into a plastic bag prior to sealing the pop-top can. If a plastic bag is not used and the controlled substance is loose in the can is it patent infringement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47692" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17944" RevisionGUID="e52d0c02-21b3-41bb-b00d-ad9827dfa199" CreationDate="2017-06-13T03:13:55.073" UserId="19237" Text="Possible infringement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47693" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17944" RevisionGUID="e52d0c02-21b3-41bb-b00d-ad9827dfa199" CreationDate="2017-06-13T03:13:55.073" UserId="19237" Text="&lt;infringment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16023" RevisionGUID="822083d8-edd7-4c67-8b35-878475dfaf70" CreationDate="2017-06-13T03:30:13.600" UserId="13706" Comment="Add link cites to universities" Text="*Patents Demystified* is indeed a great book for startups, entrepreneurs and inventors and was written specifically for this audience. In addition to teaching the secrets of how successful businesses get patents, it also helps save companies money where possible and points out where spending money is necessary. In fact, I require all my clients to have a copy of *Patents Demystified* when I am working with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to being used as a guide to the patent process that patent attorneys give to their clients, *Patents Demystified* is also used in top universities including [Harvard][1], [Stanford][2] and [M.I.T.][3] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/908483635?page=frame&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhollisclassic.harvard.edu%2FF%2F%3Ffunc%3Dfind-b%26find_code%3Dkon%26request%3Docn908483635%26checksum%3D4e60ddce4eacecefd2adbda0afea503a&amp;title=Harvard%20Law%20School%20Library&amp;linktype=opac&amp;detail=HVL%3AHarvard%20Law%20School%20Library%3ALaw%20Library&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/11503380&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://library.mit.edu/item/002451797" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17945" RevisionGUID="4122c8b3-9040-4642-97a5-a77a395b74cd" CreationDate="2017-06-13T06:06:03.400" UserId="19238" Text="My business is trying to sell Lawn Aerator shoes, and I would like to know if this item holds any patent. I have searched on google patent, and found some patent information. However, I would like to know if the patent has expired:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.co.kr/patents/US6223456?dq=lawn+aerator+shoes&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiFrsjzkbrUAhXDS7wKHY0sCS0Q6AEIIjAA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be more patents relating to Lawn Aerator shoes other than the above link. Does anyone know if the lawn aerator shoes hold patents? Please let me know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uVivL.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you,&#xD;&#xA;Y. Shin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47696" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17945" RevisionGUID="4122c8b3-9040-4642-97a5-a77a395b74cd" CreationDate="2017-06-13T06:06:03.400" UserId="19238" Text="Does the Lawn Aerator Shoes hold patent? I am trying to sell lawn aerator shoes and would like to check if it has any patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47697" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17945" RevisionGUID="4122c8b3-9040-4642-97a5-a77a395b74cd" CreationDate="2017-06-13T06:06:03.400" UserId="19238" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17947" RevisionGUID="4e719e65-bb28-4665-9763-6c78f0ba7de8" CreationDate="2017-06-13T10:16:50.590" UserId="19241" Text="In reference to the patent: [US9045201][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9045201&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hello, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would to know if all this images are available anywhere to better understand to meanning of this documment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance.&#xD;&#xA;Rémy ARVIEU" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47702" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17947" RevisionGUID="4e719e65-bb28-4665-9763-6c78f0ba7de8" CreationDate="2017-06-13T10:16:50.590" UserId="19241" Text="Images available?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47703" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17947" RevisionGUID="4e719e65-bb28-4665-9763-6c78f0ba7de8" CreationDate="2017-06-13T10:16:50.590" UserId="19241" Text="&lt;image-processing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17951" RevisionGUID="9ae9dde5-95fb-4b39-b252-0f6dca872367" CreationDate="2017-06-13T11:47:10.280" UserId="16993" Text="I partially read this response to a patent application related to assigning seats to airline passengers, such that they are &quot;happy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this [response][1], the examiner says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ... the subject matter of the Smartgene application was determined to be able to be performed in one's head. Much like Appellant's claimed invention, determining a seating arrangement based on geomatic shapes can be reasonably be performed by hand or by way of a mental process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is relevant to me since I hear the term mental process or rule of game or the like often. The problem I'm concerned with is however very complex (i.e. computational expensive) and further it must be performed within a certain time (usually 0.3 seconds). If it can not be conducted within this time frame it is useless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that a human could handle the problem I'm facing - however not within the time frame. I fact, he might work on this his entire live...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is something that is computational complex still a mental task/model? Is that handled differently between EU and US?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://register.epo.org/documentView?number=US.66152710.A&amp;documentId=1-7-US%20%20126615271EP1%20" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47716" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17951" RevisionGUID="9ae9dde5-95fb-4b39-b252-0f6dca872367" CreationDate="2017-06-13T11:47:10.280" UserId="16993" Text="Does the pure complexity of a computational task make it not to be a mental model?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47717" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17951" RevisionGUID="9ae9dde5-95fb-4b39-b252-0f6dca872367" CreationDate="2017-06-13T11:47:10.280" UserId="16993" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;european&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17951" RevisionGUID="249aeaae-6bd3-4f4f-a19a-794e4bd1d4fe" CreationDate="2017-06-13T11:50:46.950" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="I partially read this response to a patent application related to assigning seats to airline passengers, such that they are &quot;happy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this [response][1], the examiner says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the subject matter of the Smartgene application was determined to be able to be performed in one's head. Much like Appellant's claimed invention, determining a seating arrangement based on geomatic shapes can be reasonably be performed by hand or by way of a mental process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is relevant to me since I hear the term mental process or rule of game or the like often. The problem I'm concerned with is however very complex (i.e. computational expensive) and further it must be performed within a certain time (usually 0.3 seconds). If it can not be conducted within this time frame it is useless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that a human could handle the problem I'm facing - however not within the time frame. I fact, he might work on this his entire live...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is something that is computational complex still a mental task/model? Is that handled differently between EU and US?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://register.epo.org/documentView?number=US.66152710.A&amp;documentId=1-7-US%20%20126615271EP1%20" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17952" RevisionGUID="cb953762-cda0-44d6-b3a7-57bb5380cc8e" CreationDate="2017-06-13T12:40:19.850" UserId="18033" Text="I don't know why they are not available at google, but if you follow for example the [espacenet link][1] (at the google page at the right where it says external links) or the [USPTO link][2] you will find the images.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&amp;NR=9045201B1&amp;KC=B1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=20150602&amp;DB=&amp;locale=#&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=09045201&amp;homeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect2%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526d%3DPALL%2526S1%3D9045201.PN.%2526OS%3DPN%2F9045201%2526RS%3DPN%2F9045201&amp;PageNum=&amp;Rtype=&amp;SectionNum=&amp;idkey=NONE&amp;Input=View%20first%20page" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17953" RevisionGUID="b23a8497-8364-4245-9076-0a9806f80373" CreationDate="2017-06-13T14:10:47.100" UserId="17003" Text="It turns out that &quot;www.google.com/patents&quot; often has issues with displaying images and really shouldn't be used. If you really want to use Google then use the site &quot;patents.google.com&quot;. Here is the same patent at [patents.google.com][1]. You'll notice that the images are displayed. Another option is [The Lens][2]. It is also completely free, but if you register, you get various useful advantages including the ability to save searches. I find it better and more reliable than Google for searching patents. Here is the same patent found on [The Lens][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course you can also use the official sites provided by DonQuiKong. I find &quot;patents.google.com&quot; and &quot;www.lens.org/lens&quot; easier and faster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9045201B1/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_9045201_B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17954" RevisionGUID="5b4940c2-7219-4259-9daf-1de1a1f02b56" CreationDate="2017-06-13T14:21:39.570" UserId="17003" Text="According to the [US Public Pair][1], the patent has been listed as expired on June 2nd, 2005. It is listed as &quot;Patent Expired Due to NonPayment of Maintenance Fees Under 37 CFR 1.362&quot;. Normally the term for a patent is 20 years from the filing date which should have extended out to November 22, 2019 in this case but the patent is clearly listed as expired. There might be a way to resurrect the patent by paying old fees and penalties, but at this point I rather doubt it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With respect to prior art and other patents, you can click on the [citations link][2] in the page you listed to see what patents were either cited or cite the listed patent. This is a good way to find other relevant patents, but doesn't guarantee finding all prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.co.kr/patents/US6223456?dq=lawn%20aerator%20shoes&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiFrsjzkbrUAhXDS7wKHY0sCS0Q6AEIIjAA#forward-citations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17944" RevisionGUID="ecf27038-cdf6-4993-87f2-4ac702c70307" CreationDate="2017-06-13T14:28:28.353" UserId="17003" Comment="Provided better link to patent which includes images" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8863947][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8863947B2/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to claims 1 &amp; 11 the controlled substance is placed into a plastic bag prior to sealing the pop-top can. If a plastic bag is not used and the controlled substance is loose in the can is it patent infringement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17955" RevisionGUID="1ff9dc87-c69f-4525-b76c-f03dccfc22ef" CreationDate="2017-06-13T14:37:29.487" UserId="17003" Text="In order to infringe on a claim, your device must include each and every element of the claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the first claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A container for preservation, storage, tracking and transport of a controlled substance comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (a) a one piece lower can portion containing a controlled substance;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;       (b) a one piece lid having a pop-top opening affixed to said lower can portion;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (c) a sealable plastic bag and an insert spacer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for taking up empty space left within said lower can portion;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (d) means for identifying the controlled substance held within said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; container; wherein the controlled substance is placed in said sealable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plastic bag and said sealable plastic bag is sealed before the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; container is sealed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't implement the plastic bag, you are avoiding step 1(c) and 1(d) so presumably you would be OK with respect to infringement of this claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, freedom-to-operate evaluations can be tricky and there are potentially other patents that may be relevant. It is always best to obtain an actual legal opinion from a patent lawyer or agent before proceeding." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17956" RevisionGUID="ab58bcb3-8412-4f44-a7d7-eeb038bc78c6" CreationDate="2017-06-13T15:27:48.643" UserId="19245" Text="I am about to apply for a patent with regard to a specific type of interaction between website users. My website has been developed to allow Facebook logins for users (but not implemented yet), but I am worried about their extensive terms and conditions, which I will never even be able to read let alone understand. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering if the terms could theoretically contain a clause stating that any patent awarded for something which could be accessed by Facebook in the past would not prevent them from using the said process themselves, since they had been granted access through the login?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47725" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17956" RevisionGUID="ab58bcb3-8412-4f44-a7d7-eeb038bc78c6" CreationDate="2017-06-13T15:27:48.643" UserId="19245" Text="Can terms and conditions trump patent awards?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47726" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17956" RevisionGUID="ab58bcb3-8412-4f44-a7d7-eeb038bc78c6" CreationDate="2017-06-13T15:27:48.643" UserId="19245" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="8c10db54-a092-4fa5-b7f0-d2fa118bb302" CreationDate="2017-06-13T15:55:37.673" UserId="1" Comment="Trademark law is off topic for this site." Text="I'm also gonna file provisional patent this month. I already have a US Intent to Use Trademark. My Intent to Use application got approved in Feb 2017. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How long do I have to file international patent via WIPO?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47728" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="8c10db54-a092-4fa5-b7f0-d2fa118bb302" CreationDate="2017-06-13T15:55:37.673" UserId="1" Comment="Trademark law is off topic for this site." Text="What is the duration to file international patents after filing in USPTO?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47730" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="6505ed40-2820-44c3-9920-fdd7995ceddc" CreationDate="2017-06-13T16:06:42.337" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17957" RevisionGUID="a67d318d-784a-4399-874c-2659fa42d340" CreationDate="2017-06-13T17:04:45.593" UserId="19232" Text="(**lead-in/background to the questions**): I spent nearly a year developing the idea and determining what distinguishes the concept from prior art. I filed a provisional application in April. I have received in-person help from an examiner in the USPTO Pro Se Inventor Assistance Program. I am now about a week away from submission of the nonprovisional application and beginning the long wait for (probably) the initial rejection and all that. Meanwhile I will step-up the work already begun on animated simulations of the concept. I do not intend to develop this into a product myself, I am only interested in licensing or selling outright, if that opportunity is ever found. I am, for now, doing this without an attorney. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Question(s)**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- At what point does it make sense to do anything regarding attempts to&#xD;&#xA;   license the concept to (it is hoped) a major tech company? &#xD;&#xA;- Is it&#xD;&#xA;   totally pointless without a granted patent? &#xD;&#xA;- Is it a hopeless effort without an agent who is connected with the industry, and would such an agent even be willing to talk about a patent that's far from a final decision?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand well that from a purely objective viewpoint, an applied-for patent is worthless, and could still be judged as worthless even if granted. But I'm wondering: If a tech company insider were to see a demonstration and liked the concept – and from extensive knowledge of what's already out there, believes there's a good chance it could be granted a patent – might they be willing to make a contingent agreement? Does that ever happen? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are some suggestions for locating agents who specialize in software and computer related I.P.? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47732" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17957" RevisionGUID="a67d318d-784a-4399-874c-2659fa42d340" CreationDate="2017-06-13T17:04:45.593" UserId="19232" Text="Planning ahead for exploring licensing possibilities for a computer-related patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47733" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17957" RevisionGUID="a67d318d-784a-4399-874c-2659fa42d340" CreationDate="2017-06-13T17:04:45.593" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;marketing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47734" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16114" RevisionGUID="c1af8942-3a53-465b-aed4-dc9715ea175e" CreationDate="2017-06-13T17:26:59.933" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47735" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17957" RevisionGUID="f5249cb4-876b-4527-aa2d-0bb7e10a0cda" CreationDate="2017-06-13T18:35:23.867" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="47736" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17041" RevisionGUID="8c3a4a92-4a81-44ce-b854-b7f26186ba84" CreationDate="2017-06-13T21:27:43.817" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17930" RevisionGUID="81675d4d-e93d-4b1c-b994-9bfc46089994" CreationDate="2017-06-13T21:59:35.620" UserId="18033" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="**No.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the basic sections of the patent law is 35 USC 102. It describes some of the requierements for getting a patent, especially novelty. While the law is mostly short and doesn't offer a lot of explanation, there is a manual for patent examination (MPEP). The relevant section is [this one][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A claimed invention may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 when the invention is anticipated (or is “not novel”) over a disclosure that is available as prior art. To anticipate a claim, the disclosure must teach every element of the claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost every publication in any language impedes patents (for the same thing) all over the world.  To some extent oral publications don't meet that criteria, but something which is written and in English makes it impossible for anyone to get a valid patent on the disclosed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is one issue - examiners don't always find all the relevant prior art and sometimes, sources are not traceable back to their publication date. You could file for a patent or write a paper to have more certainty, but in this case I would advise you to just make sure you can prove at what point in time you had what part of your open source project available to the public. If really you got sued by someone who was able to patent your invention after your disclosure (note: not likely), you could still easily defend yourself with that prove.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some more reading on novelty and publications, check [this answer][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2131.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/17636/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17958" RevisionGUID="bbf53a4e-39bc-4f5f-a77b-0090841bf79f" CreationDate="2017-06-14T02:40:57.180" UserId="1" Text="Remember that a patent does *not* grant you permission to actually create the product or service you invent. It only grants you exclusive rights to prevent *others* from using or making your invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider if you came up with formumula for a new opioid. Opiates are federally controlled and often illegal, so granting that patent does not give you permission to create that product. But it DOES prevent others from using that process without your consent (license). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what about Facebook? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you came up with a truly new and novel method to allow users to log into a social media site like Facebook, Facebook may indeed be able to prevent you from accessing their site through their Terms of Service. But (assuming your patent was granted) **you may indeed have prevented Facebook from using your methods** for their own purposes without properly licensing it from you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17958" RevisionGUID="88b126c7-eccb-4a42-9715-05df3fe997ac" CreationDate="2017-06-14T02:49:26.490" UserId="1" Comment="edited body" Text="Remember that a patent does *not* grant you permission to actually create the product or service you invent. It only grants you exclusive rights to prevent *others* from making or using your invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider if you came up with formumula for a new opioid. Opiates are federally controlled and often illegal, so granting that patent does not give you permission to create your product. But it DOES prevent others from using that process without your consent (license). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what about Facebook? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you came up with a truly new and novel method to allow users to log into a social media site like Facebook, Facebook may indeed be able to prevent you from accessing their site through their Terms of Service. But (assuming your patent was granted) **you may indeed have prevented Facebook from using your methods** for their own purposes without properly licensing it from you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17961" RevisionGUID="1ea34c64-aa6a-4350-a6f9-e796ec08f9de" CreationDate="2017-06-14T08:36:32.420" UserId="19249" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5803725][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5803725" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47748" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17961" RevisionGUID="1ea34c64-aa6a-4350-a6f9-e796ec08f9de" CreationDate="2017-06-14T08:36:32.420" UserId="19249" Text="is this expired now? open for using freely? Expired?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47749" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17961" RevisionGUID="1ea34c64-aa6a-4350-a6f9-e796ec08f9de" CreationDate="2017-06-14T08:36:32.420" UserId="19249" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17962" RevisionGUID="c1af3fa7-bddd-46ce-a5ce-cce16395f294" CreationDate="2017-06-14T12:30:28.660" UserId="17003" Text="The patent's priority date is June 13th, 1997 so it should expire 20 years later on June 13th, 2017. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47751" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17961" RevisionGUID="858ca3f8-7f27-4be3-bddb-637c354fc89c" CreationDate="2017-06-14T15:28:15.110" UserId="18033" Comment="edited title" Text="is this expired now? open for using freely?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17963" RevisionGUID="4c2acfd5-8a3a-4876-b8f9-b6fbaae5498c" CreationDate="2017-06-14T16:53:47.457" UserId="19032" Text="A patent is a personal property and can be inherited as shown in this answer:&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/13954/inheritance-of-enforceable-patents# .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However what happens if a provisional application is filed. Can an heir claim the invention and file a patent application referencing the earlier provisional application. In such a scenario would the filing date of the provisional application be used or would the filing date of the new patent application be used (since the final patent us using the heirs name).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47753" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17963" RevisionGUID="4c2acfd5-8a3a-4876-b8f9-b6fbaae5498c" CreationDate="2017-06-14T16:53:47.457" UserId="19032" Text="Can a provisional patent applicationl be inherited?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47754" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17963" RevisionGUID="4c2acfd5-8a3a-4876-b8f9-b6fbaae5498c" CreationDate="2017-06-14T16:53:47.457" UserId="19032" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47757" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17225" RevisionGUID="b060109f-85e6-4e77-9951-581f51bb3bbb" CreationDate="2017-06-14T18:38:43.723" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47758" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17627" RevisionGUID="51308b33-cfdf-4817-ab6e-122820a1708d" CreationDate="2017-06-15T00:49:31.353" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17964" RevisionGUID="88bf4c90-6396-439c-970d-27741adb880f" CreationDate="2017-06-15T01:39:19.637" UserId="19250" Text="(Apologies if my terminology is inexact, I hope people can get the drift of my question regardless of the detail).&#xD;&#xA;Assume there are 2 parties, say A and B, unknown to each other.&#xD;&#xA;A files a provisional patent and gets a priority date.&#xD;&#xA;Some time later B files a provisional patent covering much the same invention.&#xD;&#xA;After a year, A allows the provisional to lapse.&#xD;&#xA;A and B then meet up and B learns about the content of A's provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;B wishes to continue and pursue a patent filing. &#xD;&#xA;My question is this: Does the fact that A has documented evidence of prior knowledge of the invention (even though this is not in the public domain) mean that the novelty of B's filing can be challenged (by A, for example)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47760" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17964" RevisionGUID="88bf4c90-6396-439c-970d-27741adb880f" CreationDate="2017-06-15T01:39:19.637" UserId="19250" Text="priority dates and disclosure" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47761" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17964" RevisionGUID="88bf4c90-6396-439c-970d-27741adb880f" CreationDate="2017-06-15T01:39:19.637" UserId="19250" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;validity&gt;&lt;priority-date&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47763" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17964" RevisionGUID="6a6b0d4b-65ef-4869-bae2-0e5c7a25ea6e" CreationDate="2017-06-15T06:10:15.253" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[17235],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:18033,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DonQuiKong&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="47764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17225" RevisionGUID="e906bf9b-dcf4-4418-9329-a95e542d1ae1" CreationDate="2017-06-15T09:18:52.453" UserId="18033" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="Does it mean that it simply must be able to become patent, and not have a similar patent already filed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47765" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17225" RevisionGUID="e906bf9b-dcf4-4418-9329-a95e542d1ae1" CreationDate="2017-06-15T09:18:52.453" UserId="18033" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="What do companies mean when they say your idea has to be patent or potentially patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17947" RevisionGUID="c00dad47-bf44-4096-afd6-6f038c788c86" CreationDate="2017-06-15T09:20:05.323" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 45 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In reference to the patent: [US9045201][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9045201&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know if all this images are available anywhere to better understand the meaning of this document. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47767" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17947" RevisionGUID="c00dad47-bf44-4096-afd6-6f038c788c86" CreationDate="2017-06-15T09:20:05.323" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 45 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;image-processing&gt;&lt;us9045201&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17965" RevisionGUID="cdf994a0-eb33-4f51-b626-565617c48bf1" CreationDate="2017-06-15T09:49:50.703" UserId="19251" Text="I have a question regarding how “close” a product can be in terms of IP infringement in the US and the use of language in a claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We make a specific kind of paracord / kernmantle. This includes additional cores of Jute tinder material, woven line (for fishing and emergency suturing) and copper wire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have been told to cease trading this product as it infringes on IP in the USA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The IP holders IP states in the Claims section of their IP that do not apply to our product. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IP CLAIM: “a continuous full-length strand of abrasion-resistant and clear and transparent nylon or fluorocarbon monofilament and added to said core”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OUR VERSION: Does not contain clear monofilament line. It is a tightly woven additional thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IP CLAIM: “the abrasion-resistant and transparent nylon or fluorocarbon monofilament has at least a fifty pound test rating.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OUR VERSION: As above - There is no monofilament, the breaking strain is less than 50 lb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IP CLAIM: “a continuous metal wire that runs inside the full-length of the improved woven mantle sheathing; wherein the mantle further provides electrical insulation for the continuous metal wire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OUR VERSION: This is correct - we have a continuous metal wire running through the length - however….&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IP CLAIM: “a plastic coating applied to the surface of the continuous metal wire, and protecting the material from corrosion, and for mitigating any wire breaks; wherein the plastic coating further provides a degree of electrical insulation for the continuous metal wire.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OUR VERSION: Our wire is NOT covered in a protective coating of any kind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Claims section then broadens out in language toward the end to state:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at least one strand adapted for fire-starting and tindering;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at least one strand adapted for inclusion in a fishing line, leader, and tippet;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a number of strands in combination adapted for roping with at least a 550-pound breaking strength; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a single woven covering that sheaths the above together into a single pliable cord;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a single length of the whole is twisted, looped, knotted, and otherwise fashioned into a bracelet adaptable to the wrist of a user; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a strand of metal wire included within said single length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent then further broadens in the description stating: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“      Although the present invention has been described in terms of the presently preferred embodiments, it is to be understood that the disclosure is not to be interpreted as limiting. Various alterations and modifications no doubt become apparent to those skilled in the art after having read the above disclosure. Accordingly, it is intended that the appended claims be interpreted as covering all alterations and modifications as fall within the “true” spirit and scope of the invention.&#xD;&#xA;“&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been told that “In order to infringe on a claim, your device must include each and every element of the claim.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is true, then the CLAIMS area is the critical part - however, the claims goes from very specific for example from a metal wire covered in plastic - through to a “metal wire”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am i infringing on this patent? If the patent issued has language in the claims section that goes from specific to broad - which one applies?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Really appreciate any advice you can give me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47769" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17965" RevisionGUID="cdf994a0-eb33-4f51-b626-565617c48bf1" CreationDate="2017-06-15T09:49:50.703" UserId="19251" Text="Must I infringe on EVERY PART of a claim to infringe...?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47770" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17965" RevisionGUID="cdf994a0-eb33-4f51-b626-565617c48bf1" CreationDate="2017-06-15T09:49:50.703" UserId="19251" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17966" RevisionGUID="0aee616c-07a2-4309-9207-26d17ff2859b" CreationDate="2017-06-15T10:06:08.057" UserId="18033" Text="First of all &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We have been told to cease trading this product as it infringes on IP in the USA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the part where I tell you to get a lawyer. What I'm providing next is my opinion, but if I'm wrong, you're the one with the problem and furthermore, I don't know anything more about your situation than what's in the question, there could be something crucial which you didn't recognize as crucial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“In order to infringe on a claim, your device must include each and every element of the claim.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is true. (Equivalents might infringe too though) If your product implements all limitations of **any** (so not all , one is enough) claim, you are infringing the patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim language is normally as broad as the patent holder could get it through the examination. The description is used for defining purposes if necessary and to some extent, but at that point we're deep in a lawsuit, so please don't try to interpret a claim yourself. If you are sure that there are parts in every claim which your product does not implement (and it sounds like you are from the question), then chances are, you are not infringing that patent. there might be others though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what to do? Again, get a lawyer. But for starting, you could try talking to the opposing party and asking them why they think you infringe their IP if your product doesn't *insert argumentation*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should also know that time is playing against you if you are, in fact, infringing. If you ignore such allegations or stall them, you can be found guilty of willfull infringement - that means treble damages (You pay 3x what you would have without if you lose a lawsuit).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The right way is to get a non-infringement-opinion by a patent professional (lawyer) and then -unless your attorney advises differently - send that to the other party. The non-infringement-opinion should have a detailed argumentation why your product is not infringing the patent. This will also serve as a defense against a willfull infringement claim because then you can say you were sure you did not infringe. It should cost some thousand dollar, unless the case is  for some reason very difficult, then it might be a few more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47772" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="bad14711-0d18-4dc5-a9a5-97e369f9e856" CreationDate="2017-06-15T12:17:31.553" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17967" RevisionGUID="53bbfe3e-52cb-453e-8fb7-c5c1ffda1eb2" CreationDate="2017-06-15T19:13:31.120" UserId="17003" Text="You need to take each claim separately and in its entirety. For example the first claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An improved kernmantle cord, the improvements comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  an improved kern that includes: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   a plurality synthetic thread fibers braided into a parallel number of yarns that principally make up a core; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a continuous full-length strand of jute twine fiber tinder&#xD;&#xA;&gt; waterproofed with paraffin-wax and added to said core; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a continuous full-length strand of abrasion-resistant and clear and transparent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nylon or fluorocarbon monofilament and added to said core; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and an improved woven-thread mantle sheathing that is widened and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; supplemented along its continuous full-length and that accommodates&#xD;&#xA;&gt; additional threads that increase the diameter of the improved kern,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and without significant gaps between threads in the mantle sheathing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that would otherwise expose or allow parts of the improved kern to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; extrude, and environmental protection from abrasion and pliability of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the improved kern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that claim one doesn't include the continuous wire. Claim 2 is dependent on Claim 1 and added the continuous wire without an insulating protective coating. Perhaps the most problematic claim is claim 10:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10. A paracord, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  at least one strand adapted for fire-starting and tindering;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  at least one strand adapted for inclusion in a fishing line, leader,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and tippet;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a number of strands in combination adapted for roping with at least a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 550-pound breaking strength; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a single woven covering that sheaths the above together into a single&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pliable cord;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a single length of the whole is twisted, looped, knotted, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; otherwise fashioned into a bracelet adaptable to the wrist of a user;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a strand of metal wire included within said single length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This claim doesn't mention the monofilament line although it mentions a strand adapted to fishing, etc. It also doesn't specify the protective coating on the metal wire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point of my parsing the claims, is that reading and interpreting claims is tricky and **you really need an attorney** to help you deal with this. My own preference is to have your attorney contact the party claiming infringement, but I understand this may cost a bit more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17968" RevisionGUID="7b5d003a-3688-4638-8856-f9d0985cc3d4" CreationDate="2017-06-15T19:42:14.757" UserId="19252" Text="I have some patent questions related to several Chinese patent applications, which belong to my company (US company) and a Chinese company. I asked the Chinese company with my company to file a US patent application based on the contents of the Chinese patent applications. However, the Chinese company does not want to do so and let my company file such a US patent application alone (orally permit my company to do so without any problem). In addition, the Chinese patent applications have not filed a PCT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the situation above, my questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can my company file such a patent application alone legitimately (the Chinese patent applications belong to both companies but the US patent application will belong to my company only)?&#xD;&#xA;If it is legitimate to do so, what kind of documents do I need from the Chinese company to allow my company to file such a US patent application?&#xD;&#xA;Can my company file such a US patent application without any legal permission document from the Chinese company?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I look forward to receiving your opinions and very much appreciate your comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kind regards,&#xD;&#xA;John" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47775" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17968" RevisionGUID="7b5d003a-3688-4638-8856-f9d0985cc3d4" CreationDate="2017-06-15T19:42:14.757" UserId="19252" Text="US patent application based on the contents of Chinese patent applications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47776" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17968" RevisionGUID="7b5d003a-3688-4638-8856-f9d0985cc3d4" CreationDate="2017-06-15T19:42:14.757" UserId="19252" Text="&lt;filing-us-patent&gt;&lt;based-on&gt;&lt;contents-chinese-patents&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47777" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17968" RevisionGUID="20210277-87f6-4f07-8cf3-29e4595b1438" CreationDate="2017-06-15T20:43:00.540" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;us&gt;&lt;china&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17969" RevisionGUID="fb6b0dc2-b6d2-43da-af55-4fdc9b0d3e50" CreationDate="2017-06-16T11:37:10.903" UserId="15503" Text="Priority is governed by [35 USC §119(a)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/119). The important part for us is the beginning, which provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An application for patent for an invention filed in this country by any person who has, or whose legal representatives or assigns have, previously regularly filed an application for a patent for the same invention in a foreign country …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It then ends with a long-winded explanation of the effect of claiming priority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO interprets this in an unusual way, per [MPEP § 213.02(II)](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s213.html#ch200_d1ff72_1b289_213):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 119(a), the foreign application must have been filed by the same applicant as the applicant in the United States, or by his or her legal representatives or assigns. Consistent with longstanding Office policy, this is interpreted to mean that the U.S. and foreign applications must name the same inventor or have at least one joint inventor in common. … The application in the foreign country may have been filed by the assignee, or by the legal representative or agent of the inventor, rather than by the inventor, but in such cases the name of the inventor is usually given in the foreign application on a paper filed therein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as long as the US and foreign applications have a common inventor, for the purposes of the USPTO it seemingly doesn't matter who the actual applicants are. As such, as long as you name the same inventors on the US application as on the foreign application, it should be irrelevant that you are the only applicant for the purpose of a valid priority claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it is possible the USPTO is interpreting this in an improper fashion. But it is impossible to know until a case precisely on all fours with yours is considered by the courts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Documents**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seemingly nothing is *necessary* from the Chinese company. However, you should have an assignment of the rights from the inventors to you, at least in respect of the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you wanted to put matters beyond doubt, you might want to have the Chinese company explicitly assign their rights to you, at least in respect of the US. You would not need to file this, but it would be worth having in case it is needed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47782" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="7d6ede56-607f-424e-a117-fcc02269bd78" CreationDate="2017-06-16T20:45:05.017" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17971" RevisionGUID="4cba4748-fcc5-4fd3-a7dc-1e5dd7973c19" CreationDate="2017-06-17T09:39:44.130" UserId="19251" Text="A patent holder in the USA has filed for a PCT for their patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have found that we whilst we can’t sell a product that looks like it conflicts with the US IP in the USA, are we able to continue selling the item in the UK / Europe up until the PCT is approved? I assume so - however…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware that retrospective damages can be sought for any infringement - can someone tell me if retrospective damages can be sought in PCT areas PRIOR to the time it is issued. More than likely not but I am seeking clarification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am assuming that damages can only be sought retrospectively from the time of the issuance of the IP in that locale onwards. though I have heard of a US based “provisional rights” clause that may enable the IP holder to subject royalties prior to the issuance of IP and wonder if that is valid for cross border PCT applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also - does the IP holder needs to have some legal representative - a person or a company - in the area that the IP is made post PCT in order for the IP to be issued?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to find out the status of any PCT applications online - I have looked around but am having trouble locating anything outside of location specific (e.g. UK) IP searches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks for your any feedback on this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47796" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17971" RevisionGUID="4cba4748-fcc5-4fd3-a7dc-1e5dd7973c19" CreationDate="2017-06-17T09:39:44.130" UserId="19251" Text="US IP holder making PCT : at what stage do retrospective claims start?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47797" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17971" RevisionGUID="4cba4748-fcc5-4fd3-a7dc-1e5dd7973c19" CreationDate="2017-06-17T09:39:44.130" UserId="19251" Text="&lt;usa&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;uk&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17972" RevisionGUID="9ceba4e1-b665-44c4-baeb-254eba1db135" CreationDate="2017-06-17T17:17:57.767" UserId="19258" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5265515][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5265515" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47799" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17972" RevisionGUID="9ceba4e1-b665-44c4-baeb-254eba1db135" CreationDate="2017-06-17T17:17:57.767" UserId="19258" Text="Would this patent prevent a patent of the same type of product made from a different material? Would that be considered a variation of this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47800" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17972" RevisionGUID="9ceba4e1-b665-44c4-baeb-254eba1db135" CreationDate="2017-06-17T17:17:57.767" UserId="19258" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17974" RevisionGUID="c5c111ae-e8e3-46f3-9595-d83493214634" CreationDate="2017-06-17T20:06:03.373" UserId="17003" Text="The cited patent has expired. Thus, it does not inhibit you from making a product as specified in its claims. Whether you can obtain a patent for the same device with a different material is harder to assess. The challenge is obviousness. Would someone knowledgeable in the field think it an obvious substitution? My guess is that if you are simply changing one plastic with a similar one not mentioned in the patent it wouldn't be patentable. If however there were some unexpected benefit then it might be. It should be pointed out that there is every possibility that there are other patents or prior art that may impact the evaluation of patentability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17975" RevisionGUID="dd9f7550-15b4-4eab-b84c-5d45843544f9" CreationDate="2017-06-18T02:30:27.997" UserId="19232" Text="In the course of developing specifications for one patent application, one of the subordinate details envisioned and described among alternate embodiments seems to have potential to be split off into a separate application. It is shown in the drawings. If it is suggested as an embodiment detail of the first application but not explicitly included in claims, can it then be written up as a separate application? The first application has not yet been filed, except as provisional. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47808" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17975" RevisionGUID="dd9f7550-15b4-4eab-b84c-5d45843544f9" CreationDate="2017-06-18T02:30:27.997" UserId="19232" Text="Extracting a detail from specifications of one patent application to create a new patent application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47809" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17975" RevisionGUID="dd9f7550-15b4-4eab-b84c-5d45843544f9" CreationDate="2017-06-18T02:30:27.997" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;specification&gt;&lt;embodiments&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17971" RevisionGUID="2c960cb2-9d43-4bf5-9018-7a0b8f4f3067" CreationDate="2017-06-18T03:58:10.537" UserId="15503" Comment="Remove references to a PCT application being granted" Text="A patent holder in the USA has filed for a PCT for their invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have found that we we can’t sell a product that would infringe the US IP in the USA. However, are we able to continue selling the item in the UK/Europe up until national phase applications from the PCT are granted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I am aware that retrospective damages can be sought for any infringement. Can retrospective damages can be sought in states designated by a PCT application before a national phase application is granted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am assuming that damages can only be sought retrospectively from the time of the issuance of the patent in that locale onwards. Though I have heard of a US based “provisional rights” clause that may enable the IP holder to subject royalties prior to the issuance of IP and wonder if that is valid for cross border PCT applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also - does the IP holder needs to have some legal representative - a person or a company - in the area that the IP is made post PCT in order for the IP to be issued?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to find out the status of any PCT applications online - I have looked around but am having trouble locating anything outside of location specific (e.g. UK) IP searches." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47812" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="beb5cea6-394e-488d-be3c-9fc4e05d0d75" CreationDate="2017-06-18T06:10:01.300" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47813" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17548" RevisionGUID="e3735405-ba13-4af9-afe4-6efba0f278cd" CreationDate="2017-06-18T10:20:51.487" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47814" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17832" RevisionGUID="2ef896c4-ef3b-4a28-ad8a-b97763dcb5e0" CreationDate="2017-06-18T15:20:56.127" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47815" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17972" RevisionGUID="55c0f06c-b140-4357-b7ef-fdc34df150b7" CreationDate="2017-06-18T17:13:58.463" UserId="17003" Comment="Changed tags to be more relevant.  " Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;freedom-to-operate&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47816" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16604" RevisionGUID="05cc8e72-37c9-45f7-bbcd-9c48fc81e741" CreationDate="2017-06-19T02:34:33.787" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17977" RevisionGUID="7073f1ab-5160-4e0c-a048-9f1179d68b70" CreationDate="2017-06-19T13:57:38.587" UserId="19264" Text="In reference to the patent: [US9538311][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9538311&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why the images of this patent does not show up in web browser? or even i can't download the pdf file?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47822" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17977" RevisionGUID="7073f1ab-5160-4e0c-a048-9f1179d68b70" CreationDate="2017-06-19T13:57:38.587" UserId="19264" Text="Images are not loaded" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47823" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17977" RevisionGUID="7073f1ab-5160-4e0c-a048-9f1179d68b70" CreationDate="2017-06-19T13:57:38.587" UserId="19264" Text="&lt;us9538311&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47824" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17977" RevisionGUID="ff5c97d6-fd98-41dc-8ed7-79cf5b5d8c22" CreationDate="2017-06-19T15:11:47.160" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[17947],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:17003,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Eric Shain&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="47825" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="9d9688d1-0b88-4b07-8959-3c0c2116a9fd" CreationDate="2017-06-19T17:54:08.337" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47826" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17947" RevisionGUID="73a96cbe-0087-49fe-9230-7ee6f2da50a5" CreationDate="2017-06-19T19:49:49.713" UserId="17003" Comment="Selected more relevant tags" Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;patent-figures&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47827" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17662" RevisionGUID="920b9c56-b0d0-47fd-9056-1da95d24bfe3" CreationDate="2017-06-19T22:04:16.907" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17978" RevisionGUID="70540f04-f997-4370-b838-8dd6c6f4a646" CreationDate="2017-06-19T22:40:44.867" UserId="11537" Text="Q. &quot;Can it then be written up as a separate application?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. Yes.  Each of the two regular applications should claim priority to the provisional application which you have already filed.  To do that, the regular applications must both be filed within one year of the provisional filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inventors of the two regular applications are not necessarily the same.  But, for each regular application at least one inventor must have been an inventor named in the provisional application.  Naming the proper inventors in each regular application depends on who invented the inventions claimed in that application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: A, B and C are inventors named in the provisional application.  A and B are inventors in one regular application and C is the inventor in the other regular application because A and B invented what is claimed in the first application while C invented what is claimed in the second application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47829" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17248" RevisionGUID="b78313e6-dada-4a09-8068-3ef1838a79a9" CreationDate="2017-06-19T23:04:19.827" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47831" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="a4735d7d-9ac6-4621-887c-ebd26fbc44a3" CreationDate="2017-06-20T03:06:05.023" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47832" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16666" RevisionGUID="e476fac8-c2e1-46d1-9c39-922c59d752ab" CreationDate="2017-06-20T04:06:05.190" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47833" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="12b1df6c-7f57-42dc-bf54-a644619f77e8" CreationDate="2017-06-20T05:09:29.440" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47839" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13836" RevisionGUID="c6f13d89-a48d-4ae0-bfb9-d89e198fa43b" CreationDate="2017-06-20T14:13:51.890" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;legal-status&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47841" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13366" RevisionGUID="30d16666-7f4f-4bb1-8e70-89609410bdd5" CreationDate="2017-06-20T15:18:01.590" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47842" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17844" RevisionGUID="df0a7d36-0435-41d4-be4d-54e2077458f4" CreationDate="2017-06-20T16:18:08.583" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47843" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17664" RevisionGUID="b6a1be75-2728-4a0f-9ed7-a34d63af6bae" CreationDate="2017-06-20T17:18:02.623" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47852" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17660" RevisionGUID="95940091-6bac-43a4-9a06-ef9e324fb348" CreationDate="2017-06-20T23:25:25.183" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17983" RevisionGUID="1d86e688-bba8-42f8-b730-b2dfccf03ef8" CreationDate="2017-06-21T03:27:04.297" UserId="15503" Text="**Can retrospective damages can be sought in states designated by a PCT application before a national phase application is granted?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It depends on the country, as this is not the subject of any international treaty. I will therefore talk about the US, UK and Europe, as you referenced these in your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**US**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Provisional rights are defined by [35 USC § 154(d)(1)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154), which makes an explicit reference to PCT applications.  This is further explained by [35 USC § 154(d)(4)(A)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154), which provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The right under paragraph (1) to obtain a reasonable royalty based upon the publication under the treaty defined in section 351(a) of an international application designating the United States shall commence on the date of publication under the treaty of the international application, or, if the publication under the treaty of the international application is in a language other than English, on the date on which the Patent and Trademark Office receives a translation of the publication in the English language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, once a PCT application designating the US is published, provisional rights may be triggered, providing it was published in English (or a translation is filed), and the other usual requirements for provisional rights are met.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UK**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Patents Act 1977 s 69(1)](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/37/section/69) provides that a patent applicant will have the same rights as a patentee for damages from the date of publication. Subsection 2 sets out that action can only be taken after grant, and that the published claims must have been infringed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Patents Act 1977 s 89B(3)](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/37/section/89B) provides that PCT applications shall be treated as published for the purposes of s 69 if they are published in accordance with the PCT and they are in English (or a translation is filed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Europe**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, probably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[EPC art 67(1)](https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar67.html) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A European patent application shall, from the date of its publication, provisionally confer upon the applicant the protection provided for by Article 64, in the Contracting States designated in the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Article 64 sets out the rights conferred by a European patent. Thus, these articles in combination provide that an application may have the same rights as a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paragraph 3 provides that the publication may be required to be in an official language of a contracting state, or such a translation has been filed before the rights apply. Paragraph 4 provides that provisional rights retrospectively do not apply once an application is withdrawn or refused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, because the precise implementation is left to contracting states, who are given some leeway in implementing this (by paragraph 2), it is possible provisional rights may be more or less available in some states. Without considering the case of each state individually, I could not be more precise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47854" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17971" RevisionGUID="f98375f3-9e30-4698-9fcf-e8398c3e522a" CreationDate="2017-06-21T03:28:53.843" UserId="15503" Comment="Remove additional questions (which should be asked separately) and adjust title to be more idiomatic" Text="A patent holder in the USA has filed for a PCT for their invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have found that we we can’t sell a product that would infringe the US IP in the USA. However, are we able to continue selling the item in the UK/Europe up until national phase applications from the PCT are granted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I am aware that retrospective damages can be sought for any infringement. Can retrospective damages can be sought in states designated by a PCT application before a national phase application is granted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am assuming that damages can only be sought retrospectively from the time of the issuance of the patent in that locale onwards. Though I have heard of a US based “provisional rights” clause that may enable the IP holder to subject royalties prior to the issuance of IP and wonder if that is valid for cross border PCT applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47855" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17971" RevisionGUID="f98375f3-9e30-4698-9fcf-e8398c3e522a" CreationDate="2017-06-21T03:28:53.843" UserId="15503" Comment="Remove additional questions (which should be asked separately) and adjust title to be more idiomatic" Text="When do provisional rights arise for a PCT application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47856" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="1efb3c80-55da-48d6-81fa-d825f97f6b01" CreationDate="2017-06-21T08:30:34.177" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17984" RevisionGUID="3cbd945a-d104-43eb-88c3-745aef1de9d0" CreationDate="2017-06-21T18:57:00.853" UserId="19232" Text="A &quot;Field of the Invention&quot; or &quot;Technical Field of the Invention&quot; section has been seen in fairly recently-granted patents, but not always. I have read the advice that it's better not to include such a section because it may, in certain later circumstances of litigation, impose limitations. Is there a current consensus about this, among experienced attorneys and agents? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47858" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17984" RevisionGUID="3cbd945a-d104-43eb-88c3-745aef1de9d0" CreationDate="2017-06-21T18:57:00.853" UserId="19232" Text="What is the current thinking about inclusion of a &quot;Field of the Invention&quot; section?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47859" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17984" RevisionGUID="3cbd945a-d104-43eb-88c3-745aef1de9d0" CreationDate="2017-06-21T18:57:00.853" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;specification&gt;&lt;us&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17984" RevisionGUID="8aeed9a0-d0ee-4b77-b186-010534749c50" CreationDate="2017-06-21T19:03:36.080" UserId="19232" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="A &quot;Field of the Invention&quot; or &quot;Technical Field of the Invention&quot; section has been seen in fairly recently-granted patents, but not always. I have read advice that it's better not to include such a section because it may, in certain later circumstances of litigation, impose limitations. Is there a current consensus about this among experienced attorneys and agents? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17985" RevisionGUID="c85adb10-c245-4e04-81bc-9c40551de764" CreationDate="2017-06-21T22:13:01.513" UserId="16696" Text="I urge extreme caution, as I was urged to be extremely cautious by numerous patent attorneys regarding eligibility related to a novel algorithm which has the potential for widespread use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most critically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [In the US in 2013 the law changed from &quot;first to invent&quot; to &quot;first to file&quot;][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially this means that any disclosure will render the Intellectual Property ineligible for patent.  I was advised that this also includes formally copyrighting the material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because algorithmic patents have a greater degree of uncertainty in the current environment, partially related to the definition of &quot;abstract&quot;, which is far from clear, algorithm companies are seeming to prefer to protect IP though [trade secrets][3] as opposed to patents.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here is an interesting article related to DeepMind][4] which should be illustrative of the issue, and of interest to all algorithm designers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This also a very useful series of articles by Eugene Quinn, regarding [the history of software and algorithmic patents in the United States][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/01/01/a-software-patent-history-the-algorithm-cases/id=52935/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/the-chess-engine-that-died-so-alphago-could-live-giraffe-matthew-lai" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47863" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="98019564-49a7-4e0f-8dbe-761da372d86e" CreationDate="2017-06-22T01:45:22.050" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17986" RevisionGUID="ab158619-a4f5-4718-ac6b-2eced9ef438b" CreationDate="2017-06-22T01:51:00.980" UserId="19277" Text="I have a product that I am at the last stages of importing and have stumbled on a another product of similar design that is currently in application (29598689) of a design patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the product itself is generic across the board, I am not sure if I would be infringing such a patent if approved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would my design that is currently manufactured by a number of companies and sold in parts of Asia infringe the relating applicants design? Photos attached &amp; links below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My suppliers product:**http://www.organicfactory.co.kr/product/list.html?cate_no=69&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Patent pending product:** https://www.amazon.com/Toddler-Travel-DMoose-16-Inch-13-Inch/dp/B01N2YJYEY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1498095371&amp;sr=8-1-spons&amp;keywords=car+seat+travel+tray&amp;psc=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;[![Patent Pending product][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qrNZD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Qased.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47865" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17986" RevisionGUID="ab158619-a4f5-4718-ac6b-2eced9ef438b" CreationDate="2017-06-22T01:51:00.980" UserId="19277" Text="Could this be a design patent infringement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47866" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17986" RevisionGUID="ab158619-a4f5-4718-ac6b-2eced9ef438b" CreationDate="2017-06-22T01:51:00.980" UserId="19277" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;design&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47867" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17466" RevisionGUID="a529f388-cda2-4762-8e1a-656ef0fbc001" CreationDate="2017-06-22T09:51:51.600" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17984" RevisionGUID="851eaa0c-80e7-4a22-b074-78d2f8edb246" CreationDate="2017-06-22T13:04:00.953" UserId="19232" Comment="Added example wording of a &quot;Field of the Invention&quot; section, so the original question may be more readily answered or responded to. " Text="A &quot;Field of the Invention&quot; or &quot;Technical Field of the Invention&quot; section has been seen in fairly recently-granted patents, but not always. I have read advice that it's better not to include such a section because it may, in certain later circumstances of litigation, impose limitations. Is there a current consensus about this among experienced attorneys and agents? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(added for clarity)**: I am referring to a separate section near the beginning of the application, not part of &quot;Background.&quot; Below is an example of the kind of statements that may be relevant in such a section. I would like to understand in what way could this ever limit the patent, since it is the claims that will actually define its scope. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The present invention is in the technical field of computing devices&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of both mobile and non-mobile types, encompassing both devices&#xD;&#xA;&gt; controlled by a touchscreen and devices controlled by a moving cursor.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More specifically, the present invention is in the technical field of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interface design and related functions for initiating and managing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Internet and network communications involving ...*(more detail here&#xD;&#xA;&gt; about specifically what its purpose is, from a user POV)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17988" RevisionGUID="7e6a35ee-0ad6-494f-b1b4-2237a47c6af5" CreationDate="2017-06-22T17:52:25.357" UserId="16696" Text="This answer is not intended to constitute advice (I'm an inventor, not a patent attorney;) but rather provide perspective, based on my recent software patent application, filed in 2016.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In drafting the non-provisional, I engaged a patent attorney who specializes in my sub-field.  The draft was reviewed by two advisory patent attorneys, one in tech and one in biotech (the latter for an alternate perspective.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My engaged attorney did not include a &quot;Field of the Invention&quot;, and neither of the advisory attorneys suggested I should do otherwise.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This indicates to me that &quot;Field of the Invention&quot; is not necessary, and is probably avoided to keep the scope as broad as possible at the outset.  (Claims can always be subsequently limited during the review process.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your &quot;Field of the Invention&quot; seems broad enough to encompass any potential application, but since this section is not required, the safest bet may be to avoid it entirely. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17989" RevisionGUID="f6e27720-9778-4e54-ba03-d55f64139387" CreationDate="2017-06-23T01:44:35.457" UserId="18557" Text="For the non provisional patent application - I will say do it on your own. According to me going with the lawyers is good for nothing. In my life - I have hired lawyers at least 4 times and I can tell you they are not adding much value. They will scare you that it's complex or almost impossible but we don't need them most of the times." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47875" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17686" RevisionGUID="6e591bf4-82ce-4104-9067-21c1c450a602" CreationDate="2017-06-23T05:06:50.970" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47879" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17496" RevisionGUID="8357156a-4bc9-4c94-87ee-24c4bc4c542d" CreationDate="2017-06-23T06:06:52.343" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17991" RevisionGUID="01ff8748-3048-4626-a671-8e006c91b089" CreationDate="2017-06-23T08:44:46.107" UserId="19286" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2015022446A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015022446A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I published this same idea on Sep 18 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see here: http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Inflatable_20Hoodie#1284821376&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;how can this idea obtain a patent when I published it an earlier date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;xz" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47881" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17991" RevisionGUID="01ff8748-3048-4626-a671-8e006c91b089" CreationDate="2017-06-23T08:44:46.107" UserId="19286" Text="I published this same idea on Sep 18 2010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47882" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17991" RevisionGUID="01ff8748-3048-4626-a671-8e006c91b089" CreationDate="2017-06-23T08:44:46.107" UserId="19286" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17993" RevisionGUID="94b34220-a322-4fc4-bc14-d4a72ccb21f8" CreationDate="2017-06-23T14:17:06.450" UserId="17003" Text="The cited document is not a patent yet. It looks like its been filed in China and the US also. The European application number is EP20140752649, US is US20160192718 and the Chinese is CN106413448A. In this case what you have published is considered prior art and could very possibly cause the applications to be rejected. This assumes the corresponding patent examiners can find your publication. I believe there are mechanisms for you to inform the respective patent offices of your publication. These are called &quot;Third Party Submissions or Observations&quot;. This [USPTO page][1] discusses the process in the US. This [FAQ][2] covers similar information for the European Patent office I'm sure there are similar procedures in China. This [article][3] is also informative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/third-party-preissuance-submissions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.epo.org/service-support/faq/online-services/faq.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.law360.com/articles/588491/7-things-to-know-about-3rd-party-submissions-of-art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17993" RevisionGUID="c15537a9-56c4-4cb7-8ea7-ebc65cb8a090" CreationDate="2017-06-23T14:34:36.587" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="The cited document is not a patent yet. It looks like its been filed in China and the US also. The European application number is EP20140752649, US is US20160192718 and the Chinese is CN106413448A. In this case what you have published is considered prior art and could very possibly cause the applications to be rejected. This assumes the corresponding patent examiners can find your publication. There are mechanisms for you to inform the respective patent offices of your publication. These are called &quot;Third Party Submissions or Observations&quot;. This [USPTO page][1] discusses the process in the US. This [FAQ][2] covers similar information for the European Patent office I'm sure there are similar procedures in China. This [article][3] is also informative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/third-party-preissuance-submissions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.epo.org/service-support/faq/online-services/faq.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.law360.com/articles/588491/7-things-to-know-about-3rd-party-submissions-of-art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47895" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="a42a866b-066d-4dc2-8873-12822274b7d2" CreationDate="2017-06-23T20:15:50.880" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47896" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="045cd74b-893e-4e99-a8d4-aad396b23b6f" CreationDate="2017-06-23T22:18:49.317" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17995" RevisionGUID="e0929332-0b50-41fb-8c16-5c6a8b477149" CreationDate="2017-06-23T23:37:07.383" UserId="19292" Text="For example, there are scannable images/codes that create augmented reality experiences.  I've seen this applied to advertising materials and even T-shirts.  If I wanted to apply this to a product it hasn't yet been applied to, can this be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47898" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17995" RevisionGUID="e0929332-0b50-41fb-8c16-5c6a8b477149" CreationDate="2017-06-23T23:37:07.383" UserId="19292" Text="Can one patent a technology applied to a very specific physical product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47899" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17995" RevisionGUID="e0929332-0b50-41fb-8c16-5c6a8b477149" CreationDate="2017-06-23T23:37:07.383" UserId="19292" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;technology&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47900" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17273" RevisionGUID="20b12437-9e30-4a18-bd63-4e719d415741" CreationDate="2017-06-24T00:18:49.080" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47901" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17865" RevisionGUID="99477c56-7df0-4c0a-8f5c-600a928d8861" CreationDate="2017-06-24T01:18:51.710" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47907" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17290" RevisionGUID="2693d369-3116-4a0a-82f5-322b2de44f77" CreationDate="2017-06-24T02:23:24.090" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47910" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="1ca814f9-fe5a-45bb-99f6-3891a34c523a" CreationDate="2017-06-24T03:23:23.880" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47911" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12639" RevisionGUID="82d9b117-60f9-4a17-bf71-28c1e92c288d" CreationDate="2017-06-24T04:23:23.433" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47912" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="38d14211-b969-4bcf-af79-356ff1124466" CreationDate="2017-06-24T09:23:41.710" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17996" RevisionGUID="a5209cac-86a8-4656-bb40-586db1d5a905" CreationDate="2017-06-24T13:24:47.103" UserId="17003" Text="Like many things, the answer is maybe. To be patentable, an invention must be novel, non-obvious and useful. Novel means no one has already thought of it (and published the idea). Non-obvious means that someone skilled in the associated area of technology wouldn't find the idea to be obvious to do. In other words there needs to be some inventive step. Lastly, the invention needs to fulfill some use, it can't be abstract. In this case, if you are taking an idea that exists and applying it to a new product the question is whether there is some unexpected or surprising result of this application. If so, there there is every possibility of patentability. Here is an example. Lets say someone invented silk screening as a method of applying graphics to clothing. If you want to apply silk screening to to canvas bags, I'd guess it would be considered obvious and thus non-patentable. On the other hand if you were the first person to use silk screening to apply conductive inks to fabricate electrical circuits, it probably would be patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An important consideration is freedom-to-operate. You really need to try to track down the relevant patents that already exist. It is quite possible that the claims in those patents are broader than is exhibited in the products you see on market. If so, even if you could get a patent for your specific application, you might need to obtain a license from the original patent holder for the more general use of the technology." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17997" RevisionGUID="8b78e422-7bf3-443e-8fe6-0aa39ff14315" CreationDate="2017-06-24T16:48:42.167" UserId="19294" Text="We have designed a new soft technique (algorithm) and we want to file it. The USPTO website is very complicated for tracing the correct answers, and it needs professionals like you. We have some basic questions and hopping to hear from you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our gross income is less than the maximum limit, and our total patients are less than 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are we eligible to apply for micro-entity? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we want to publish that technique in conference, but after **guarantee** receiving a letter from USPTO that indicates the &quot;filing date&quot; (just filing date) .. Can we apply it just as a non-provisional patent or do we need to apply first for provisional patent to have 12 months? As we said, we will not publish it unless getting a confirmed &quot;filing date&quot; letter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case we want to file that software-based technique (or algorithm), then which type should we select: design or utility or something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you so much&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47915" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17997" RevisionGUID="8b78e422-7bf3-443e-8fe6-0aa39ff14315" CreationDate="2017-06-24T16:48:42.167" UserId="19294" Text="Micro, Small, Provisional, Non-Provisional" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47916" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17997" RevisionGUID="8b78e422-7bf3-443e-8fe6-0aa39ff14315" CreationDate="2017-06-24T16:48:42.167" UserId="19294" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;micro-entity&gt;&lt;non-provisional&gt;&lt;small-entity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47917" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16926" RevisionGUID="62650e66-824c-4688-bfa5-4231fc33a31a" CreationDate="2017-06-24T19:38:49.267" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47918" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="84dd207a-826d-4d06-b0fb-771655301fe6" CreationDate="2017-06-24T20:38:48.677" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17997" RevisionGUID="2be10b7a-1a90-4b9b-bab7-0c6acb6cdc0b" CreationDate="2017-06-24T21:24:37.263" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="We have designed a new soft technique (algorithm) and we want to file it. The USPTO website is very complicated for tracing the correct answers, and it needs professionals like you. We have some basic questions and hopping to hear from you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our gross income is less than the maximum limit, and our total patents are less than 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are we eligible to apply for micro-entity? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we want to publish that technique in conference, but after **guarantee** receiving a letter from USPTO that indicates the &quot;filing date&quot; (just filing date) .. Can we apply it just as a non-provisional patent or do we need to apply first for provisional patent to have 12 months? As we said, we will not publish it unless getting a confirmed &quot;filing date&quot; letter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case we want to file that software-based technique (or algorithm), then which type should we select: design or utility or something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you so much&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47920" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12070" RevisionGUID="7bf2b211-f09c-499b-9726-ea8165544498" CreationDate="2017-06-24T23:38:48.593" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47922" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="372c4069-7801-475e-ab39-fd614362fa6c" CreationDate="2017-06-25T07:43:16.953" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17998" RevisionGUID="ea466333-5937-488f-9a79-b5ed888cf5d7" CreationDate="2017-06-25T14:03:37.317" UserId="18557" Text="Can somebody suggest me a template for non provisional patent. I am looking for one in the area of mobile App?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47924" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17998" RevisionGUID="ea466333-5937-488f-9a79-b5ed888cf5d7" CreationDate="2017-06-25T14:03:37.317" UserId="18557" Text="template for non provisional patent - I am filing for a mobile App" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47925" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17998" RevisionGUID="ea466333-5937-488f-9a79-b5ed888cf5d7" CreationDate="2017-06-25T14:03:37.317" UserId="18557" Text="&lt;non-provisional&gt;&lt;template&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17999" RevisionGUID="3aa4c677-be7b-4fcc-861e-65abf32d942c" CreationDate="2017-06-25T18:29:01.567" UserId="19300" Text="I want to file a patent for a mobile application, however I'm not located in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did some research and found out that I could start with a national patent filing in my country and then follow it by an international patent filing (PTC) within 12 months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Would this be an enough protection for my app/idea not be stolen or replicated?&#xD;&#xA;2. Can I file a non-provisional patent in the US even if I'm not a US resident?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47927" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17999" RevisionGUID="3aa4c677-be7b-4fcc-861e-65abf32d942c" CreationDate="2017-06-25T18:29:01.567" UserId="19300" Text="Patent for mobile application outside USA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47928" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17999" RevisionGUID="3aa4c677-be7b-4fcc-861e-65abf32d942c" CreationDate="2017-06-25T18:29:01.567" UserId="19300" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18000" RevisionGUID="2b0ac9bf-03c4-4eae-86fe-6256cc1d7fb7" CreationDate="2017-06-25T21:32:13.283" UserId="16696" Text="&gt; &quot;The patent laws of the United States make no discrimination with respect to the citizenship of the inventor. Any inventor, regardless of his/her citizenship, may apply for a patent on the same basis as a U.S. citizen. There are, however, a number of particular points of special interest to applicants located in foreign countries&quot; &lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[Excerpted from *General Information Concerning Patents* print brochure][1], US Patent and Trademark Office&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of the PCT, you want to make sure that you don't have to do an initial application when you file in your country.  (In my case, I was advised to file the PCT app concurrently, which subsequently gives me about 18 months to decide to undertake the expense of filing in specific regions.)  You definitely want to consult with an attorney on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you follow all of the procedures correctly, this should be sufficient to prevent cloning in PCT regions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/foreign.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18001" RevisionGUID="abff6070-9cec-4218-8ab2-43e1a6bc1d90" CreationDate="2017-06-25T21:51:40.047" UserId="16696" Text="What @EricShain is indicating is that, while provisionals are much more forgiving, filing a non-provisional without engaging an attorney is never recommended. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You want to stay away from &quot;mills&quot; such as LegalZoom, which will likely do more harm than good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solo-practitioners are the way to go if budget is an issue.  I've gotten quotes as low as $3500, flat rate, not including filing fees, which will be low initially if you are a solo inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root of the problem is that it's not enough to properly describe the process in the patent.  You also need to take into account legal precedents, and that will be reflected not just in the structure of the patent document, but the language used.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could give you a long list of cases you need to be an expert on to navigate this at a high level for a software patent ([Enfish][1], [Bascomb][2], [Alice][3], etc., but you'll still lack the experience and specialized knowledge of a patent attorney.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what you situation is with the provisional patent, but it's a low cost way to get a year of &quot;blanket&quot; protection before you have to file the non-provisional.  If you never publicly disclose, you can keep refiling provisionals until you have the funds to engage a patent attorney for the non-provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A template for an app patent won't be much help, except as a starting point.  The problem is, &quot;the devil is in the details&quot;, and this factor weighs very heavily in patent law.  Even a slight mis-step in the provisional could irreparably harm the viability of the application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enfish,_LLC_v._Microsoft_Corp.,&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/bascom-global-internet-v-ATT.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18002" RevisionGUID="a7bfd413-0ac6-4c1b-a8e3-70752ca6d60c" CreationDate="2017-06-25T21:58:25.187" UserId="16696" Text="For perspective, I was advised to file as a small entity as opposed to micro entity for various esoteric reasons.  The main point was that $130 and $65 are both trivial figures, and inadvertent, improper use of &quot;micro-entity&quot; status can be an avenue for challenge in the future, should you receive a grant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a patent attorney, but my advice is don't push it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - File as small entity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------&#xD;&#xA;In terms of provisional/non-provisional, if budget is an issue, go for the provisional first.  This gives you a kind of &quot;blanket protection&quot; for a year, and if you don't make a public disclosure, you can always refile a provisional at very low cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do make a disclosure, the provisional still protects you, but you will have no option but to file the non-provisional at the end of the year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;USPTO publishes non-provisionals about 18 months from the first filing (either the provisional or non-provisionals.)  Provisionals without a subsequent non-provisional are discarded and never made public.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18002" RevisionGUID="230ffac2-530c-423c-992c-034ab200068f" CreationDate="2017-06-25T22:42:43.597" UserId="16696" Comment="Added a note on provisionals since there seems to be some disconnect as to the function for solo inventors and small entities" Text="For perspective, I was advised to file as a small entity as opposed to micro entity for various esoteric reasons.  The main point was that $130 and $65 are both trivial figures, and inadvertent, improper use of &quot;micro-entity&quot; status can be an avenue for challenge in the future, should you receive a grant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a patent attorney, but my advice is don't push it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - File as small entity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------&#xD;&#xA;In terms of provisional/non-provisional, if budget is an issue, go for the provisional first.  This gives you a kind of &quot;blanket protection&quot; for a year, and if you don't make a public disclosure, you can always refile a provisional at very low cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do make a disclosure, the provisional still protects you, but you will have no option but to file the non-provisional at the end of the year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;USPTO publishes non-provisionals about 18 months from the first filing (either the provisional or non-provisionals.)  Provisionals without a subsequent non-provisional are discarded and never made public.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;Note: Since there is some disagreement on the issue of provisionals, I feel the need to point out that provisional applications were introduced as a low cost route for inventors to gauge viability of a technology, and potentially raise funds, before committing to the expensive process of formally filing.  I fear this aspect of the provisional application is all too often overlooked:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Since June 8, 1995, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has offered inventors the option of filing a provisional application for patent which was designed to provide a lower-cost first patent filing in the United States...&quot;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Source: USPTO &quot;[Provisional Application for Patent][1]&quot;&lt;/sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it is always optimal to engage a patent attorney in drafting the provisional, it is not strictly necessary so long as you do your research and are thorough regarding what you include in the provisional.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/provisional-application-patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47933" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="cff53a1f-3e81-41a0-b8b1-47ccfd73bc26" CreationDate="2017-06-25T22:48:28.037" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47934" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13870" RevisionGUID="4504a649-b790-49e5-b1ef-69f41e1a5981" CreationDate="2017-06-26T00:48:29.383" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47935" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16340" RevisionGUID="c958448f-b9f5-46af-aebf-3d49933bad4b" CreationDate="2017-06-26T01:48:29.093" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47936" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10643" RevisionGUID="2a43e972-3921-47c6-8eb4-ceff8612dbc3" CreationDate="2017-06-26T05:51:32.573" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47937" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="902e989c-e7d1-4e46-8ff3-c34cc0fd59ea" CreationDate="2017-06-26T08:52:28.440" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47938" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="6ac40b26-d811-4b9e-8d88-f021aab83942" CreationDate="2017-06-26T09:52:29.557" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17998" RevisionGUID="624c048b-20aa-49d0-a1e1-1eb845413b83" CreationDate="2017-06-26T15:18:09.300" UserId="18557" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Can somebody suggest me a template for provisional patent. I am looking for one in the area of mobile App?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47940" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17998" RevisionGUID="e758055d-9a50-4320-b844-679687575685" CreationDate="2017-06-26T15:51:53.133" UserId="18557" Comment="edited title" Text="template for provisional patent - I am filing for a mobile App" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18003" RevisionGUID="4e291d55-6fe7-4524-b218-1134de52d241" CreationDate="2017-06-26T20:08:29.447" UserId="19306" Text="I purchased an invention along with the intellectual property rights. The original owner and inventor had no patent but had been manufacturing and selling the product for a few years prior to my purchase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since it had been sold and advertised publicly, can I still patent it? It is unique. No one else manufactures or sells it. I am the only one. I want the protection offered by a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What type of patent would apply to my situation? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47942" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18003" RevisionGUID="4e291d55-6fe7-4524-b218-1134de52d241" CreationDate="2017-06-26T20:08:29.447" UserId="19306" Text="Invention purchased including rights to intellectual properties" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47943" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18003" RevisionGUID="4e291d55-6fe7-4524-b218-1134de52d241" CreationDate="2017-06-26T20:08:29.447" UserId="19306" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;design&gt;&lt;intellectual-property&gt;&lt;unprovisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18004" RevisionGUID="1d56777b-72be-4342-a1b3-b319155da281" CreationDate="2017-06-26T20:31:25.977" UserId="19307" Text="Let's say person A has patented a machine that converts apples into oranges. Can person B go ahead and make use of this patent and start mass producing the machine while crediting A for his idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47945" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18004" RevisionGUID="1d56777b-72be-4342-a1b3-b319155da281" CreationDate="2017-06-26T20:31:25.977" UserId="19307" Text="Can person A make person B's patented design a reality?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47946" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18004" RevisionGUID="1d56777b-72be-4342-a1b3-b319155da281" CreationDate="2017-06-26T20:31:25.977" UserId="19307" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18005" RevisionGUID="0ee5cd93-7cfa-4c45-87ff-99bce29577b7" CreationDate="2017-06-26T20:58:22.190" UserId="18033" Text="Short: No.&#xA;&#xA;Long: One requirement for patentability is called novelty. It basically translates to “nothing which is known to the public (be it by public use or publication) can be patented.“&#xA;&#xA;However, if you invent improvements who which are not obvious in light of the prior art which is known to the public, those can be patentable.&#xA;&#xA;Other than that, you can protect trademarks and brand names to establish some barrier against copy cats." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18006" RevisionGUID="967ee3af-1d2c-4ef4-bd43-dfaecfa83a5d" CreationDate="2017-06-26T21:01:35.470" UserId="18033" Text="A patent gives the owner an exclusive right to forbid others to make, use, sell, import or export the claimed invention. Anybody else has to get the owners permission (license) or can be sued.&#xA;&#xA; Note: the owner themself might be impeded from using their invention due to other patents forbidding a part or all of it.&#xA;&#xA;In the US and most other countries (I think I heard India is an exception) not using a patent does not take away any of those rights to forbid the usage. &#xA;&#xA;And it's always forbidden implicitly unless explicitly allowed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47949" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16491" RevisionGUID="cb191361-a4fc-4bbb-ab7a-9a0e26f94c63" CreationDate="2017-06-26T21:19:05.723" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47950" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16365" RevisionGUID="daad113b-d620-4c03-b657-6b0dabffc0b5" CreationDate="2017-06-26T23:19:04.737" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47951" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="955ac3e4-7b0c-409f-a031-7decc7b7ee90" CreationDate="2017-06-27T03:19:26.840" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18007" RevisionGUID="b3eeb838-2dbb-423e-b049-17a25fd8773c" CreationDate="2017-06-27T15:58:46.680" UserId="19313" Text="Can we get the patent on set of equation discoveries between the properties of a set of numbers that can be applied for any two numbers of that set..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for e.g. multi relational equations between two odd numbers,consecutive numbers,etc.." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47953" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18007" RevisionGUID="b3eeb838-2dbb-423e-b049-17a25fd8773c" CreationDate="2017-06-27T15:58:46.680" UserId="19313" Text="Can we get a patent for set of mathematical instructions of similar types" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47954" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18007" RevisionGUID="b3eeb838-2dbb-423e-b049-17a25fd8773c" CreationDate="2017-06-27T15:58:46.680" UserId="19313" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;theorem&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18002" RevisionGUID="7bfd6ffe-0ea5-4f2c-9c33-306021fdafbf" CreationDate="2017-06-27T16:14:30.797" UserId="16696" Comment="I tried to be more clear about critical aspects of software patents, post-Alice" Text="As @EricShain has advised, an algorithm would be a utility patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you are attempting to draft a non-provisional application for an algorithm without expert knowledge of Alice, Enfish, Bascom, and several key cases leading up to Alice, you're asking for trouble and putting the viability of the patent in great peril.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Even with extensive knowledge of these critical precedents regarding software patents you should use an experienced patent attorney who specializes in software patents.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;Filing Fees: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For perspective, I was advised to file as a small entity as opposed to micro entity. The reason is that numbers like $130 vs. $65 are both trivial, and **improper use of &quot;micro-entity&quot; status can be an avenue for challenge in the future, should you receive a grant**. (Even if you fully meet the criteria, it doesn't mean someone won't use it as an avenue of challenge, forcing you to spend money to defend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a patent attorney, but my advice is don't push it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **- File as small entity**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The money you save filing micro-entity does not outweigh the risk.  **Apply minimax to your decision-making** and weigh the future cost of a challenge against slightly higher fees today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------&#xD;&#xA;In terms of provisional/non-provisional, **if budget is an issue, go for the provisional first**.  This gives you a kind of &quot;blanket protection&quot; for a year, and if you don't make a public disclosure, you can always refile a provisional at very low cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do make a disclosure, the provisional still protects you, but you will have no option but to file the non-provisional at the end of the year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;USPTO publishes non-provisionals about 18 months from the first filing (either the provisional or non-provisionals.)  Provisionals without a subsequent non-provisional are discarded and never made public.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;Note: Since there is some disagreement on the issue of provisionals, I feel the need to point out that provisional applications were introduced as a low cost route for inventors to gauge viability of a technology, and potentially raise funds, before committing to the expensive process of formally filing.  I fear this aspect of the provisional application is all too often overlooked:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Since June 8, 1995, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has offered inventors the option of filing a provisional application for patent which was designed to provide a lower-cost first patent filing in the United States...&quot;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Source: USPTO &quot;[Provisional Application for Patent][1]&quot;&lt;/sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it is always optimal to engage a patent attorney in drafting the provisional, it is not strictly necessary so long as you do your research and are thorough regarding what you include in the provisional.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/provisional-application-patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18008" RevisionGUID="1c97596f-2760-4b58-bd0d-147e370abe2e" CreationDate="2017-06-27T16:46:42.950" UserId="19314" Text="My great-grandfather said that his father, John Enos French, had obtained a patent for a machine that would make two bales of hay at the same time.  I have seen half of the blueprint.  No one living knows why it was torn in half nor what happened to the other half.  The half we had has disappeared.  John E. French lived 1845 to 1891, so I searched 1900 and back for hay, bale, baling, baler, French, and possibly some other terms but nothing was even close.  Perhaps it was only nan application, or maybe even never filed.  But if it was filed, how would I find it?  I know it wasn't &quot;merely an idea&quot; because it was an actual blueprint and had an attorney's signature." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47957" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18008" RevisionGUID="1c97596f-2760-4b58-bd0d-147e370abe2e" CreationDate="2017-06-27T16:46:42.950" UserId="19314" Text="Trying to find a patent for a hay baler" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47958" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18008" RevisionGUID="1c97596f-2760-4b58-bd0d-147e370abe2e" CreationDate="2017-06-27T16:46:42.950" UserId="19314" Text="&lt;patent-search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18008" RevisionGUID="89a5195b-99f8-4adb-a939-d95f3368f5e5" CreationDate="2017-06-27T17:08:24.787" UserId="19314" Comment="added 62 characters in body; deleted 1 character in body" Text="My great-grandfather said that his father, John Enos French, had obtained a patent for a machine that would make two bales of hay at the same time.  I have seen half of the blueprint.  No one living knows why it was torn in half nor what happened to the other half.  The half we had has disappeared.  &#xA;&#xA;John E. French lived 1845 to 1891 in Illinois, Missouri, and Kansas, so I searched Google Patents and USPTO 1900 and &#xA;back for hay, bale, baling, baler, French, and possibly some other terms but nothing was even close.  Perhaps it was only an application, or maybe even never filed.  But if it was filed, how would I find it?  I know it wasn't &quot;merely an idea&quot; because it was an actual blueprint and had an attorney's signature." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18009" RevisionGUID="51d0d9c3-7723-4b6b-951e-bfbab5ee9f3f" CreationDate="2017-06-27T17:11:15.343" UserId="18033" Text="While the USPTO allows searching old patents only by patent number and classification, espacenet allows searches by inventors and/or keywords (title).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried finding the patent in question searching for &quot;French&quot; as inventor between 01/01/1800 and 01/01/1900 and skimmed through the list, but couldn't find it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to look more thoroughly, here's the search:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;DB=EPODOC&amp;ST=advanced&amp;TI=&amp;AB=&amp;PN=&amp;AP=&amp;PR=&amp;PD=18000101-19000101&amp;PA=&amp;IN=French&amp;CPC=&amp;IC=&amp;Submit=Search&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried the same with &quot;French&quot; as applicant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;DB=EPODOC&amp;ST=advanced&amp;TI=&amp;AB=&amp;PN=&amp;AP=&amp;PR=&amp;PD=18000101-19000101&amp;PA=French&amp;IN=&amp;CPC=&amp;IC=&amp;Submit=Search&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, I guess espacenet is your best bet, but maybe someone else has a better idea. If you find the patent number, you can enter it into the USPTO database to find the documents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47961" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="3214694d-82ca-43ae-a66e-3f440989c592" CreationDate="2017-06-27T17:26:41.073" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18010" RevisionGUID="8737d9eb-beac-4c7a-8e15-d7913f766519" CreationDate="2017-06-27T18:12:34.310" UserId="16696" Text="I see a lot of questions on software patents, but very few questions about eligibility, post-Alice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the current thinking, particularly in the wake of Enfish and Bascomb? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47963" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18010" RevisionGUID="8737d9eb-beac-4c7a-8e15-d7913f766519" CreationDate="2017-06-27T18:12:34.310" UserId="16696" Text="How to determine eligibility for software patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47964" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18010" RevisionGUID="8737d9eb-beac-4c7a-8e15-d7913f766519" CreationDate="2017-06-27T18:12:34.310" UserId="16696" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;algorithms&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18011" RevisionGUID="e8c208ca-db5c-4fd8-9b78-27e8deb8f10c" CreationDate="2017-06-27T22:35:40.907" UserId="15503" Text="No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you are describing is pure mathematics without any particular implementation. Every state (as far as I know) disallows patents for pure mathematics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, such an invention:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- would not comply with 35 USC §101 in the US, since unapplied mathematics is probably the only area which everyone agrees is an abstract invention without anything more;&#xD;&#xA;- would not comply with Art 52(a) EPC at the EPO, which explicitly excludes mathematical methods; and&#xD;&#xA;- would not comply with PCT rule 39.1(i) in the international phase, which provides that mathematical theories may not be searched.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18012" RevisionGUID="05267233-a427-4f17-b553-2356fed15fe5" CreationDate="2017-06-27T22:52:58.323" UserId="16696" Text="Maca's answer is excellent and all I have to add is that &quot;laws of nature&quot; are specifically excluded. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some links:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.bilskiblog.com/blog/laws-of-nature/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-99-issue-3/the-natural-complexity-of-patent-eligibility/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/new_laws_of_nature_law_ruling_questions_scientific_patents/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the above links are older, and refer to previous cases. I suspect you'll want to look at CRISPR, for more recent developments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/02/15/broad-institute-scientist-prevails-in-epic-patent-fight-over-crispr/?utm_term=.4602c683a8b7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's *possible* if you narrow your claims to a concrete application of the algorithm, there may be some wiggle room, but you'll need to consult with an experience patent attorney.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*As Maca notes, what you describe is ineligible because &quot;it is pure mathematics without any particular implementation.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Certainly don't disclose until you've determined there is no strategy that may produce a viable patent application.**  (This always carries the caveat that, in this particular area, the only certainty is uncertainty.  Patenting can be an expensive process, and there are no guarantees of a grant.  Eligibility, particularly in regard to algorithms, has narrowed significantly &quot;[post-Alice][1]&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also might be worth checking out Gene Quinn's [A Software Patent History: The Algorithm Cases][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/01/01/a-software-patent-history-the-algorithm-cases/id=52935/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18013" RevisionGUID="356e7bac-1cd9-4685-9abb-79dd13c298bf" CreationDate="2017-06-28T04:24:43.987" UserId="13775" Text="There is no technically correct answer under US law because the Supreme Court left patent eligibility a confusing mess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, however, a practical answer.  The practical answer is to follow a &quot;cover all possibilities&quot; strategy.  As a preliminary matter, consider filing in other countries where the law is better settled.  Believe it or not, the patent system in China is becoming more stable and software-friendly.  Similarly, consider filing in larger English speaking countries (because translation is expensive) as well as in Germany (biggest EU economy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the US, you'll want to draft as broad a specification as possible.  Assume that the specification needs to cover a situation where patent eligibility broadens (a possible outcome if the Supreme Court experiences retirements and Trump replaces some Justices with ones holding the typical conservative pro-private property attitudes), and to cover a situation where patent eligibility narrows (a possible outcome if the infringer lobby continues to succeed in getting Congress to restrict patents and patent enforcement).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't file a &quot;track one&quot; application.  Instead, file a provisional application (gets you an extra year) followed a year later by a non-track-one utility application.  The USPTO will probably sit on it for 3 years or more.  That puts you at least four years out.  I expect US patent law to be more settled four years from now, and at that point you can amend the claims to reflect whatever happens to eligilibity standards.  If the law remains unclear four years out, you can appeal, which adds another four years.  Hopefully the law would settle while on appeal, making the case either a winner or loser (and if it is a loser, you can then amend in an RCE).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bottom line is that your best bet is to hedge your bets.  Your ability (or your lawyer's ability) to draft a broad, enabling disclosure will be critical, since your disclosure is going to need to support claims that track the state of the law in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, it is inexcusible that Congress hasn't clarified eligibility -- they could do so quickly and decisively.  Instead, the Supreme Court is left writing the law itself (seriously, read Section 101 and it looks like everything is patent eligible; all of the restrictions in the Alice and similar cases are pretty much what the Supreme Court guesses Congress would do if Congress could walk and chew gum at the same time).  This leads to yet another point of uncertainty -- even if the Supreme Court finally hands down clear guidance, Congress could alter it at any time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of which means you need to keep the maximum number of options available.  File foreign, the law is in flux in the US in a way that it isn't in other major economies.  File a broad specification that will support claims in the US no matter which way eligibility goes.  By all means, it is smart to file on something valuable if you think there is a reasonable chance patent law does or will support those claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You do need to see a lawyer, though.  This isn't legal advice, and you do need legal advice.  What I'm trying to do is give you practical issues to ask your lawyer about.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18014" RevisionGUID="42864e3c-0785-41ee-89bb-b2adfaaba3b2" CreationDate="2017-06-28T04:32:23.007" UserId="13775" Text="I've got almost 200 issued patents and my experience is that the USPTO automatically calculates the patent term adjustment, but it is worth double checking the calculation, making sure they got it right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions like this, you can always google &quot;patent term adjustment MPEP&quot;.  The MPEP is basically the rulebook for patent examiners.  In this case, it says that the patent term adjustment preliminary calculation is provided with the issue notification, so it should happen automatically.  https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2733.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18017" RevisionGUID="fcb1deb1-7f6b-49bc-87d9-06a59b79e35f" CreationDate="2017-06-28T14:25:44.580" UserId="15787" Text="You can use Google Patent Search to conduct free patent searches. It contains more than 87 million patents from 17 patent offices. Added to that, its sleek UI and some functionalities that help you find a prior art in non-patent literature makes it a go to source to conduct a free patent search. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Type [patents.google.com][1] in the address bar of your browser and you are all set to search. Now you should know that we can divide Google Patent Search into two categories: **Simple Search and Advanced Search.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Google Patent Search – Basic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the name suggest, simple search is similar to normal Google search. You enter a keyword – I inserted 'Indoor Position System' – and you get results:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;There is a lot of information in the above screenshot which could be critical for your patent search. For example, consider the first result Indoor positioning systems and wireless fingerprints. &#xD;&#xA;Here is what this result tells you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Title: Indoor positioning systems and wireless fingerprints&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Abstract: An indoor positioning system and method that correlates map &#xD;&#xA;              locations to respective wireless access point (AP) fingerprints, &#xD;&#xA;              and wherein each&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Publication Number: US9301100&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Filing Date: 20 Jul 2015 ‎Date of Issue: 29 Mar 2016&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Inventors: ‎Krishnam Raju Jampani&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Assignee: Blackberry Limited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you click on the result, you’ll get all this information tabulated on the RHS of the UI. Then why did I bother mentioning all this? It’s because opening all the results to get this info is not a good idea. You must get key info there and then on the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![\[image\]][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Also, you can utilize the below Boolean search operators to get a desire result by running an advanced key string in the search box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I advise you to go through this article that explains how to use different functionalities and operators of this tool with examples: [7 Tricks to make most out of Google Patent Search - GreyB][5] . This will for sure be of a help to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Google Patent Search: Advance**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Type [patents.google.com/advanced][7] in the address bar for Google Advanced Patent search which, to some extent, is equivalent to Boolean operators used in the simple search. If you look at the below screenshot, you will find that you can search patents by setting multiple criteria like patent title, inventor name, keyword or by applying date restrictions, etc.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**A word of Caution**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One advice I would like to give you is that you shouldn’t be banking too much on Google patent search if you are an entrepreneur who is running a patent search on his own. Google patent search has some serious limitations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its database gets update pretty late and there are going to be patents – applications as well as granted – existing and you won’t be able to find them. This has happened a lot with me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can consider using Freepatentsonline.com also. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OwJoi.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/r7tFX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WXaQ9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.greyb.com/7-tricks-google-patent-prior-art-search/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/M9cUp.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://patents.google.com/advanced" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18017" RevisionGUID="1676b74a-2aae-43d4-b826-f7997bf0ef28" CreationDate="2017-06-28T14:31:31.407" UserId="15787" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body" Text="You can use Google Patent Search to conduct free patent searches. It contains more than 87 million patents from 17 patent offices. Added to that, its sleek UI and some functionalities that help you find a prior art in non-patent literature makes it a go to source to conduct a free patent search. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Type [patents.google.com][1] in the address bar of your browser and you are all set to search. Now you should know that we can divide Google Patent Search into two categories: **Simple Search and Advanced Search.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Google Patent Search – Basic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the name suggest, simple search is similar to normal Google search. You enter a keyword – I inserted 'Indoor Position System' – and you get results:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[![Image][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;There is a lot of information in the above screenshot which could be critical for your patent search. For example, consider the first result Indoor positioning systems and wireless fingerprints. &#xD;&#xA;Here is what this result tells you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Title: Indoor positioning systems and wireless fingerprints&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Abstract: An indoor positioning system and method that correlates map &#xD;&#xA;              locations to respective wireless access point (AP) fingerprints, &#xD;&#xA;              and wherein each&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Publication Number: US9301100&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Filing Date: 20 Jul 2015 ‎Date of Issue: 29 Mar 2016&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Inventors: ‎Krishnam Raju Jampani&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Assignee: Blackberry Limited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you click on the result, you’ll get all this information tabulated on the RHS of the UI. Then why did I bother mentioning all this? It’s because opening all the results to get this info is not a good idea. You must get key info there and then on the search results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![\[image\]][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Also, you can utilize the below Boolean search operators to get a desire result by running an advanced key string in the search box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I advise you to go through this article that explains how to use different functionalities and operators of this tool with examples: [7 Tricks to make most out of Google Patent Search - GreyB][5] . This will for sure be of a help to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Google Patent Search: Advance**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Type [patents.google.com/advanced][7] in the address bar for Google Advanced Patent search which, to some extent, is equivalent to Boolean operators used in the simple search. If you look at the below screenshot, you will find that you can search patents by setting multiple criteria like patent title, inventor name, keyword or by applying date restrictions, etc.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**A word of Caution**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One advice I would like to give you is that you shouldn’t be banking too much on Google patent search if you are an entrepreneur who is running a patent search on his own. Google patent search has some serious limitations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its database gets update pretty late and there are going to be patents – applications as well as granted – existing and you won’t be able to find them. This has happened a lot with me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can consider using Freepatentsonline.com also. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LuPKx.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/r7tFX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WXaQ9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.greyb.com/7-tricks-google-patent-prior-art-search/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/M9cUp.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://patents.google.com/advanced" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47978" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="f73383a1-e6d6-410b-bd84-e30f3a90e1a8" CreationDate="2017-06-28T15:44:11.577" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18018" RevisionGUID="84542a81-8b43-464c-99e9-bcf443ef368c" CreationDate="2017-06-28T16:50:35.257" UserId="17003" Text="I am not a patent attorney so this advice is probably inadequate. That said, I do have several algorithm based patents so perhaps my insights are of value. My understanding is that abstract mathematical algorithms are simply not patentable. However, the use of an algorithm to solving a specific technical application may be patentable. If you are just automating a series of steps that could otherwise be done manually, don't expect a patent to be issued either. In my case, the algorithm patents I have are the application of unique mathematics to solving a very specific problem where the solution was unexpectedly advantageous over the prior art. This unexpected advantage was a key aspect to convincing the patent examiner of novelty and non-obviousness." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47980" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="5b4b8ecc-6bd3-4ea7-8e37-9659fb43f5fe" CreationDate="2017-06-28T17:44:27.637" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="47982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18019" RevisionGUID="5ba0115d-0ee8-4715-a9f2-6f6110e547d5" CreationDate="2017-06-28T19:51:28.190" UserId="15192" Text="What does the entry called &quot;Designated countries for regional patents&quot; mean (in Google Patents)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you make your U.S. patent international by simply designating some other countries in your filing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47983" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18019" RevisionGUID="5ba0115d-0ee8-4715-a9f2-6f6110e547d5" CreationDate="2017-06-28T19:51:28.190" UserId="15192" Text="&quot;Designated countries for regional patents&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47984" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18019" RevisionGUID="5ba0115d-0ee8-4715-a9f2-6f6110e547d5" CreationDate="2017-06-28T19:51:28.190" UserId="15192" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;united-states&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47985" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18019" RevisionGUID="1ff36bd9-d84d-40ce-97c9-7c7988570394" CreationDate="2017-06-28T19:56:57.653" UserId="15192" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;wipo&gt;&lt;united-states&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18020" RevisionGUID="96b1a6fc-08d5-421f-b9bb-f63c418e556d" CreationDate="2017-06-28T19:59:28.367" UserId="15192" Text="For most patents (at least the ones I looked at) there is no more than 1 year difference between &quot;Priority Date&quot; and &quot;Filing Date&quot;: often exactly 1 year, and if not, just under 1 year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This must be due to the fact that one has 1 year to do the actual filing after the provisional one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, rarely, the delay between &quot;Priority Date&quot; and &quot;Filing Date&quot; is significantly more than 1 year. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this legally possible?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47987" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18020" RevisionGUID="96b1a6fc-08d5-421f-b9bb-f63c418e556d" CreationDate="2017-06-28T19:59:28.367" UserId="15192" Text="How can the difference between &quot;Priority Date&quot; and &quot;Filing Date&quot; be greater than 1 year?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47988" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18020" RevisionGUID="96b1a6fc-08d5-421f-b9bb-f63c418e556d" CreationDate="2017-06-28T19:59:28.367" UserId="15192" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;priority&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18021" RevisionGUID="8e25c406-6741-4cb0-8948-669bf6c900fa" CreationDate="2017-06-28T22:45:24.290" UserId="15503" Text="Designated countries only applies to PCT applications, not to US applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Designated countries are those states in which a PCT application may subsequently enter national or regional phase. That is, if a state is not designated, no national or regional phase entry application can be filed later from that PCT application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are four [regional patent offices](http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/reg_des.html) which may be designated: ARIPO (roughly covering English-speaking Africa), EAPO (roughly covering Central Asian countries), EP (roughly covering Europe), and OAPI (roughly covering French-speaking Africa).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before 2004, it was necessary to select which states you wanted to designate.  However, since 2004 all PCT contracting states and regional offices are automatically designated in the request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Designating a state does not mean you have an application in that state. It simply means you have the option of subsequently filing a national or regional phase application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18022" RevisionGUID="dca9546d-8ba4-40f3-bcda-134ab27c44a7" CreationDate="2017-06-28T22:52:11.740" UserId="15503" Text="It is likely you are seeing the effects of a continuation (or divisional, outside of the US). The continuation retains the priority date of its parent, but has a much later filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By way of example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A Canadian application (CA1) is filed on 1 Jun 2012. CA1 therefore has a filing date of 1 Jun 2012, but no priority date.&#xD;&#xA;- A US application (US1) claiming priority to CA1 is filed on 31 May 2013 (within 12 months of CA1). US1 therefore has a filing date of 31 May 2013, and a priority date of 1 Jun 2012.&#xD;&#xA;- A US continuation (US2) is filed from US1 on 1 Oct 2016. US2 retains the priority claims of its parent (US1). US2 therefore has a filing date of 1 Oct 2016, and a priority date of 1 Jun 2012.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18023" RevisionGUID="ee8d29fb-52bb-41c5-aae4-61efd40e8d77" CreationDate="2017-06-29T01:36:15.897" UserId="19277" Text="If a product listing on a website is noted &quot;PATENT&quot; or &quot;PANTENTED&quot;, must the &#xD;&#xA;patent owner provide patent details such as a patent number when asked for from the general public?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47992" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18023" RevisionGUID="ee8d29fb-52bb-41c5-aae4-61efd40e8d77" CreationDate="2017-06-29T01:36:15.897" UserId="19277" Text="Request Design Patent number/details?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47993" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18023" RevisionGUID="ee8d29fb-52bb-41c5-aae4-61efd40e8d77" CreationDate="2017-06-29T01:36:15.897" UserId="19277" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;design&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18024" RevisionGUID="c328cac3-bda3-4964-b5a0-95ba2c3ce8ef" CreationDate="2017-06-29T02:34:58.180" UserId="19232" Text="In an IDS for a software/computer-implemented method application, how should existing software products be documented, if at all, when the software products in question have a subset of functions of the application? It appears the IDS form is set up for citation of literature, not names and descriptions of existing products. Some may have journal articles about them, but many have only short reviews or announcements that don't cover enough detail for making a comparison. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original intention was to describe some existing software that, upon cursory look, may appear to duplicate the functions of the disclosed invention – but with detailed explanation, can be shown not to be in conflict. (Since there are no claims, it can't be compared on the same basis as existing patents.) But it seems the IDS is not for this kind of information. True, or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[By the way, why is there no “IDS” tag available in this system?]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47995" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18024" RevisionGUID="c328cac3-bda3-4964-b5a0-95ba2c3ce8ef" CreationDate="2017-06-29T02:34:58.180" UserId="19232" Text="How should existing software products be described in an IDS, if at all?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47996" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18024" RevisionGUID="c328cac3-bda3-4964-b5a0-95ba2c3ce8ef" CreationDate="2017-06-29T02:34:58.180" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;non-provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18023" RevisionGUID="6bb5a5d7-e42f-45f9-b622-45f5dcd1ae4b" CreationDate="2017-06-29T03:32:08.523" UserId="15503" Comment="Make title more representative of the question" Text="If a product listing on a website is noted &quot;PATENT&quot; or &quot;PATENTED&quot;, must the patent owner provide patent details such as a patent number when asked for from the general public?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47999" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18023" RevisionGUID="6bb5a5d7-e42f-45f9-b622-45f5dcd1ae4b" CreationDate="2017-06-29T03:32:08.523" UserId="15503" Comment="Make title more representative of the question" Text="Does a patent owner need to provide details of the patent on request?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48000" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18024" RevisionGUID="34d242fd-1383-4dd9-a7cf-9684f23a5e5e" CreationDate="2017-06-29T06:53:03.360" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;non-provisional&gt;&lt;ids&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18024" RevisionGUID="34d242fd-1383-4dd9-a7cf-9684f23a5e5e" CreationDate="2017-06-29T06:53:03.360" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="In an IDS for a software/computer-implemented method application, how should existing software products be documented, if at all, when the software products in question have a subset of functions of the application? It appears the IDS form is set up for citation of literature, not names and descriptions of existing products. Some may have journal articles about them, but many have only short reviews or announcements that don't cover enough detail for making a comparison. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original intention was to describe some existing software that, upon cursory look, may appear to duplicate the functions of the disclosed invention – but with detailed explanation, can be shown not to be in conflict. (Since there are no claims, it can't be compared on the same basis as existing patents.) But it seems the IDS is not for this kind of information. True, or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18025" RevisionGUID="15a545b5-e105-4db2-888b-5a8f20619da4" CreationDate="2017-06-29T16:08:10.827" UserId="19323" Text="This is nothing more than a slider that calculates unit price in between standard price breaks. How exactly is this ground-breaking?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US7979318][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7979318" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48004" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18025" RevisionGUID="15a545b5-e105-4db2-888b-5a8f20619da4" CreationDate="2017-06-29T16:08:10.827" UserId="19323" Text="How is this patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48005" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18025" RevisionGUID="15a545b5-e105-4db2-888b-5a8f20619da4" CreationDate="2017-06-29T16:08:10.827" UserId="19323" Text="&lt;us7979318&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48006" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14680" RevisionGUID="9ed487b6-d9f2-454c-a5c7-f78fc602ca39" CreationDate="2017-06-29T18:59:58.733" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48007" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13260" RevisionGUID="10b160b1-84bc-4694-86c3-7fd8e21071db" CreationDate="2017-06-29T19:59:58.610" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="2bedcb70-58c4-4a72-bef0-36fcab9ee740" CreationDate="2017-06-30T01:33:13.367" UserId="19104" Comment="Formatted with quote blocks and lists; grammar." Text="**Call for prior art:**  Can you find better art doe this patent that claims novelty based on a comparison of device output with a known constant?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;U.S. Patent No. 7,888,125 (Theranos)&#xD;&#xA;Filed March 24, 2006&#xD;&#xA;Priority May 9, 2005.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 recites -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1.  A method of improving the accuracy of calibrating a fluidic system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    a)  providing a system for detecting an analyte in a bodily fluid from a subject comprising a fluidic device for providing said bodily fluid, said fluidic device having a calibration assembly and a reader assembly for detecting the presence of said analyte;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    b) measuring one or more parameters that are fitted to a calibration curve associated with said fluidic device;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    c) comparing said one or more parameters with predetermined parameters associated with said fluidic device;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    d) adjusting a signal output from the fluidic device by multiplying a ratio of said predetermined parameters to said one or more parameters, wherein the ratio is selected from the group consisting of: a ratio of maximum signal level during factory calibration to maximum signal level measured within the assay, and a ratio of minimun signal level during factory calibration to minimum signal level measured within an assay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this university battle I’ll pit Duke and one of their then Ph.D. student’s thesis (which results in a company Advanced Liquid Logics bought by Illumina) against Stanford and one of their drop outs (who has a company Theranos).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you find better prior art than Duke’s:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Amicrofluidic lab-on-a-chip (LoC) platform for in vitro measurement of glucose for clinical diagnostic applications is presented in this paper. The LoC uses a discrete droplet format in contrast to conventional continuous flow microfluidic systems. The droplets act as solution-phase reaction chambers and are manipulated using the electrowetting effect. Glucose is measured using a colorimetric enzyme-kinetic method based on Trinder’s reaction. The color change is detected using an absorbance measurement system consisting of a light emitting diode and a photodiode. The linear range of the assay is 9–100 mg/dl using a sample dilution factor of 2 and 15–300 mg/dl using a sample dilution factor of 3.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  The voltage V(t) is directly proportional to the light intensity incident on the photodiode and is related to the absorbance by the following equation:&#xD;&#xA;A(t) = ln {(V0 – Vdark) / (V(t) – Vdark)}  (5)&#xD;&#xA;V0 corresponds to zero absorbance (or 100% transmittance), and Vdark corresponds to the voltage output of the photodiode under dark conditions. The rate of the change of absorbance dA(t)/dt is equivalent to the reaction rate, and is related to the glucose concentration by Eq. (3).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  -Srinivasan, et al., Droplet-based microfluidic lab-on-a-chip for glucose detection, Analytica Clinica Acta 507 (2004), 145-50. (equation edited to conform).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48009" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="2bedcb70-58c4-4a72-bef0-36fcab9ee740" CreationDate="2017-06-30T01:33:13.367" Comment="Proposed by 19104 approved by 18033, 17003 edit id of 2034" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18027" RevisionGUID="e04e93dc-42b4-4ade-9640-49e319bba557" CreationDate="2017-06-30T03:34:28.020" UserId="19327" Text="I am referring to [this](https://www.google.com/patents/US5737841) patent for a locking mechanism for a folding knife.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This](https://www.reddit.com/r/knifeclub/comments/43mcdn/to_clarify_benchmades_axis_lock_patent/?st=j4jaxv7n&amp;sh=24665a90) Reddit discussion seems to imply that there is some confusion about whether the patent has expired or not. Why are so many people unsure about this? Is it possible for the patent to be valid 20 years after it was filed? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48012" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18027" RevisionGUID="e04e93dc-42b4-4ade-9640-49e319bba557" CreationDate="2017-06-30T03:34:28.020" UserId="19327" Text="Why is there so much confusion about the expiry of this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48013" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18027" RevisionGUID="e04e93dc-42b4-4ade-9640-49e319bba557" CreationDate="2017-06-30T03:34:28.020" UserId="19327" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48016" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="ba80a6de-1319-4420-a29e-801d0f6d56fb" CreationDate="2017-06-30T11:10:33.273" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="24c67a33-71e3-464f-bd41-6fc3e756ec68" CreationDate="2017-06-30T11:34:44.353" UserId="17737" Comment="typo corrected" Text="**Call for prior art:**  Can you find better art for this patent that claims novelty based on a comparison of device output with a known constant?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;U.S. Patent No. 7,888,125 (Theranos)&#xD;&#xA;Filed March 24, 2006&#xD;&#xA;Priority May 9, 2005.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 recites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1.  A method of improving the accuracy of calibrating a fluidic system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    a)  providing a system for detecting an analyte in a bodily fluid from a subject comprising a fluidic device for providing said bodily fluid, said fluidic device having a calibration assembly and a reader assembly for detecting the presence of said analyte;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    b) measuring one or more parameters that are fitted to a calibration curve associated with said fluidic device;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    c) comparing said one or more parameters with predetermined parameters associated with said fluidic device;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    d) adjusting a signal output from the fluidic device by multiplying a ratio of said predetermined parameters to said one or more parameters, wherein the ratio is selected from the group consisting of: a ratio of maximum signal level during factory calibration to maximum signal level measured within the assay, and a ratio of minimun signal level during factory calibration to minimum signal level measured within an assay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this university battle I'll pit Duke and one of their then Ph.D. student's thesis (which results in a company Advanced Liquid Logics bought by Illumina) against Stanford and one of their drop outs (who has a company Theranos).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you find better prior art than Duke's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Amicrofluidic lab-on-a-chip (LoC) platform for in vitro measurement of glucose for clinical diagnostic applications is presented in this paper. The LoC uses a discrete droplet format in contrast to conventional continuous flow microfluidic systems. The droplets act as solution-phase reaction chambers and are manipulated using the electrowetting effect. Glucose is measured using a colorimetric enzyme-kinetic method based on Trinder’s reaction. The color change is detected using an absorbance measurement system consisting of a light emitting diode and a photodiode. The linear range of the assay is 9–100 mg/dl using a sample dilution factor of 2 and 15–300 mg/dl using a sample dilution factor of 3.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  The voltage V(t) is directly proportional to the light intensity incident on the photodiode and is related to the absorbance by the following equation:&#xD;&#xA;A(t) = ln {(V0 – Vdark) / (V(t) – Vdark)}  (5)&#xD;&#xA;V0 corresponds to zero absorbance (or 100% transmittance), and Vdark corresponds to the voltage output of the photodiode under dark conditions. The rate of the change of absorbance dA(t)/dt is equivalent to the reaction rate, and is related to the glucose concentration by Eq. (3).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  -Srinivasan, et al., Droplet-based microfluidic lab-on-a-chip for glucose detection, Analytica Clinica Acta 507 (2004), 145-50. (equation edited to conform).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48018" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="24c67a33-71e3-464f-bd41-6fc3e756ec68" CreationDate="2017-06-30T11:34:44.353" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 18033, 17325 edit id of 2035" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18028" RevisionGUID="4e36bfb7-7bd8-4b2d-9c81-e999d01377eb" CreationDate="2017-06-30T14:03:13.487" UserId="17003" Text="For US patents filed on or after June 8th, 1995 the expiration date is 20 years from the filing date or priority date if it claims priority from an earlier patent. This Wikipedia article covers [patent terms][1] in more detail. Thus for this patent, the expiration date should be July 12th, 2016. There are provisions for adjustments if the patenting process is delayed excessively, but since this patent issued less than 2 years after filing, I can't imaging that is the issue here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48020" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17891" RevisionGUID="6eca372c-f98b-4b02-a324-4878ea763899" CreationDate="2017-06-30T17:15:54.083" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18029" RevisionGUID="63c99c52-e7f8-427c-923f-698a8fa72c10" CreationDate="2017-06-30T18:00:04.257" UserId="19329" Text="In Google Patents, how can a priority date be more than one year before a non-provisional patent application filing date?  My understanding was that you have to file a non-provisional patent application within 12 months of a public disclosure to retain patent rights." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48022" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18029" RevisionGUID="63c99c52-e7f8-427c-923f-698a8fa72c10" CreationDate="2017-06-30T18:00:04.257" UserId="19329" Text="In Google Patents, how can a priority date be more than one year before a non-provisional patent application filing date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48023" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18029" RevisionGUID="63c99c52-e7f8-427c-923f-698a8fa72c10" CreationDate="2017-06-30T18:00:04.257" UserId="19329" Text="&lt;google-patents&gt;&lt;priority-date&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48025" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17701" RevisionGUID="8634b143-0d9b-4bbf-97ca-240c9094ed90" CreationDate="2017-06-30T23:22:44.743" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18031" RevisionGUID="e8618410-bf4a-4585-be55-621c1f9877e9" CreationDate="2017-07-01T11:41:28.613" UserId="18033" Text="To be granted a patent has to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art at the time of filing. It **does not** have to be ground-breaking, ingenuous, the next world wonder or even commercially viable. That's simply no requierement for a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [1997 a mother of three][1] filed a patent for online shopping carts which was auctioned of for 2.5 million pounds in London ~10 years afterwards. Retrospectively, that seems like a pretty obvious invention. Nevertheless, nobody had thought of it or if they did, nobody published it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**An invention does not have to be ground-breaking to become a strong patent.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.out-law.com/page-8119" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48034" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17720" RevisionGUID="493337f3-b1e3-4aca-8299-c33aafc98c70" CreationDate="2017-07-01T18:43:02.463" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18032" RevisionGUID="92a4561c-e2fb-463a-8ed6-04ec66daeb8d" CreationDate="2017-07-01T20:42:58.707" UserId="19334" Text="I am the first name inventor. Unfortunately I received a notice of abandonment.&#xD;&#xA;Due to incorrect address I did not received any mail from the USPTO until I was aware of the wrong address and I made an address change. I just received a notice of abandonment which in my case was unintentional.&#xD;&#xA;The patent application has not been published yet.&#xD;&#xA;The petition fee is 850 USD for micro entity.&#xD;&#xA;Can I just reapply for the same idea? (I would pay 400 USD for application fee)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48036" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18032" RevisionGUID="92a4561c-e2fb-463a-8ed6-04ec66daeb8d" CreationDate="2017-07-01T20:42:58.707" UserId="19334" Text="Reapply for patent after notice of abandonment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48037" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18032" RevisionGUID="92a4561c-e2fb-463a-8ed6-04ec66daeb8d" CreationDate="2017-07-01T20:42:58.707" UserId="19334" Text="&lt;notice&gt;&lt;abandonment&gt;&lt;reapply&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48038" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="5c730886-57f9-4d35-bd3f-3a4fecc3725c" CreationDate="2017-07-01T20:43:10.670" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48039" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17881" RevisionGUID="176ec8b0-c550-4917-80fa-801c6e806f2e" CreationDate="2017-07-02T08:47:42.310" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48040" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="a6b029bf-c7e6-43e1-b65c-04475b64a5b2" CreationDate="2017-07-02T13:51:45.847" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48041" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17897" RevisionGUID="bb1aac21-f85e-402b-a9b3-d38ea42d4ba3" CreationDate="2017-07-02T17:03:26.577" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48042" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="9b198b3a-26ed-497a-99c2-729e4a52ccf9" CreationDate="2017-07-02T18:03:26.470" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18033" RevisionGUID="6f9d9511-639f-4a3e-941c-7113a552aae3" CreationDate="2017-07-02T20:34:30.340" UserId="18489" Text="This is hypothetical&#xA; &#xA;I am new to the patent world. I heard that when you file a patent and make claims, you must break your invention down. And if no one has had that combination your patent will be granted. But they need that exact combination. So if i break my invention down and they use that same order but leave a few things out. Could they legally sell my product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48044" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18033" RevisionGUID="6f9d9511-639f-4a3e-941c-7113a552aae3" CreationDate="2017-07-02T20:34:30.340" UserId="18489" Text="If i have 8 claims and Someone uses 7 of them in the same order can i take legal action?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48045" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18033" RevisionGUID="6f9d9511-639f-4a3e-941c-7113a552aae3" CreationDate="2017-07-02T20:34:30.340" UserId="18489" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18034" RevisionGUID="1a74f9c2-3aee-48aa-91c8-75559fc5a7a1" CreationDate="2017-07-02T20:53:45.840" UserId="18033" Text="You're mixing a few concepts here so I'll start with a basic explanation about patent protection. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The protection fo a patent is defined by - and only by - the claims. You can have as many claims (more than a certain number cost extra, but in theory) as you want. To get granted they have to fulfill the requirements of novelty and non-obviousness which I will shortly explain. Furthermore, they have to have a common concept, meaning they have to be based on a single invention (unity requirement).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Novelty: the invention may not be known to the public.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Non-Obviousness: the invention has to be non-obvious in light of what's known to the public. This means that a person skilled in the art would not reach the claimed invention by combining known prior art references. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unity: You can for example have one claim claiming a car with 4 wheels and one claiming it with 5 wheels but not a chair and a candle in the same patent - because the concept behind the claims has to be the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I say that the invention has to be novel and non-obvious, what I mean is, every claim has to be novel and non-obvious. If we are precise, every claim is like a mini-patent united in a bigger patent, every claim has to be novel, non obvious but in exchange defines it's own protection. Someone infringing any claim can be sued by you for patent infringement. There is no necessity of them infringing every claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you say that an invention has to be broken down, probably what you mean are not different claims but the style of drafting claims. A claim consists of different elements. For example, a chemical compound could be produced by combining compounds A, B and C. This would leave you with the claim of &quot;A, B and C combined.&quot; Somebody using only A and B or A and C would not infringe your claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is not exactly breaking the invention down, it's rather a thing of describing every part of the invention. If your invention is a car, you don't claim &quot;a car&quot;, you claim something like &quot;a vehicle with wheels, a motor, a chassy, seats, a wheel&quot; etc. Your second claim might be &quot;wheels, a motor, seats and axes.&quot; (Or whatever). To infringe the patent, someone would have to use all elements of a single claim. - This is the protection. Every claim has it's own protection, but the protection is only the combination of the elements. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in a sense with a little of interpreting, you're right, someone who uses 7 elements of a claim but not the eigth does not infringe your patent. which is why you break the invention down to contain only the necessary elements. Someone using less elements would have made their own invention because they would have found out that one of the elements you deemed necessary was not necessary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18035" RevisionGUID="9709760c-f66b-427f-a447-1bb2dc3f560c" CreationDate="2017-07-03T01:30:46.510" UserId="18489" Text="Lets say i come up with a new improvement to my invention and want to file another PPA and tag it on my old one. If i only include a drawling but no claims, am i protected at all? If Someone try to infringe could i successful argue in court?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48048" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18035" RevisionGUID="9709760c-f66b-427f-a447-1bb2dc3f560c" CreationDate="2017-07-03T01:30:46.510" UserId="18489" Text="If i added an improvement to my PPA using only a drawling am i covered?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48049" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18035" RevisionGUID="9709760c-f66b-427f-a447-1bb2dc3f560c" CreationDate="2017-07-03T01:30:46.510" UserId="18489" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48050" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="f5464413-3991-4c0e-96e6-e7a104c35908" CreationDate="2017-07-03T02:04:11.287" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48052" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12629" RevisionGUID="f077013b-8b12-4446-bfcd-0409153a38c8" CreationDate="2017-07-03T05:07:20.913" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18036" RevisionGUID="df946bdb-063a-4dfc-a59b-59e323af0698" CreationDate="2017-07-03T16:17:22.787" UserId="19232" Text="To state that something is but one among a field of many possibilities, which of these is the better way to structure it?: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...to at least one of a plurality of...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...to at least one among a plurality of...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or does the phrase &quot;at least one&quot; even need a mention of pluralities?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48054" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18036" RevisionGUID="df946bdb-063a-4dfc-a59b-59e323af0698" CreationDate="2017-07-03T16:17:22.787" UserId="19232" Text="What is the proper structure for a claim statement involving “a plurality”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48055" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18036" RevisionGUID="df946bdb-063a-4dfc-a59b-59e323af0698" CreationDate="2017-07-03T16:17:22.787" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;usa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18036" RevisionGUID="e955eeba-15b1-433c-bb3c-41f62a33b3b4" CreationDate="2017-07-03T16:53:32.120" UserId="19232" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="To state that something is but one among a field of many possibilities, which of these is the better way to structure it?: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “...executing transmission of the digital content to at least one **of** a plurality of network destinations...”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “...executing transmission of the digital content to at least one **among** a plurality of network destinations...”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or does the phrase &quot;at least one&quot; even need a mention of pluralities?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48063" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16606" RevisionGUID="8c7d3c3f-742b-49ff-8436-30db7adead03" CreationDate="2017-07-04T00:22:18.727" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48068" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="3654ba41-5fec-4947-917d-dc5091dd5328" CreationDate="2017-07-04T03:22:32.430" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48073" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16569" RevisionGUID="54e557e2-a0f6-4e75-b50a-085d5291a868" CreationDate="2017-07-04T10:24:45.460" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18041" RevisionGUID="e0acd480-bc2f-48e7-802a-620a3a7c5371" CreationDate="2017-07-04T11:16:25.097" UserId="19289" Text="This patent belongs to US (United States)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18042" RevisionGUID="a9e7f8db-7b65-4460-b368-94a26bb74568" CreationDate="2017-07-04T15:39:04.803" UserId="19347" Text="Just wondering if there's anything in this patent that covers a technology." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48079" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18042" RevisionGUID="a9e7f8db-7b65-4460-b368-94a26bb74568" CreationDate="2017-07-04T15:39:04.803" UserId="19347" Text="Does this patent cover anything that can be construed as &quot;Router Milling Technology?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48080" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18042" RevisionGUID="a9e7f8db-7b65-4460-b368-94a26bb74568" CreationDate="2017-07-04T15:39:04.803" UserId="19347" Text="&lt;us9009986&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48081" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17171" RevisionGUID="20efcf74-d58e-4d98-aded-bb9c2f980638" CreationDate="2017-07-04T17:27:50.063" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18042" RevisionGUID="bd27303b-af94-4e35-aff8-79d484a1b16a" CreationDate="2017-07-04T18:03:48.963" UserId="19347" Comment="Added video for context" Text="Just wondering if there's anything in this patent that covers a technology.&#xD;&#xA;[Video for Reference][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igJsMdfm3G8&amp;index=2&amp;list=PLtGkwA1Fvkj817muQMVJq8IJaAMtYtBop&amp;t=10s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48083" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16962" RevisionGUID="41f70c95-e669-48d0-868e-fdaf6fe7ad76" CreationDate="2017-07-04T19:28:10.860" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48084" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16450" RevisionGUID="0d3c4fe1-21c2-43a8-823c-6a14af3398e7" CreationDate="2017-07-04T20:28:18.000" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48088" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16771" RevisionGUID="ea1323bb-edd3-4076-a72a-e4accc54bd56" CreationDate="2017-07-04T22:37:14.703" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18044" RevisionGUID="03fa2b99-3988-49a4-a8d9-47901aa14f5b" CreationDate="2017-07-04T22:43:13.703" UserId="19349" Text="But there is this US 3516422 A. &#xD;&#xA;Publication number	US3516422 A&#xD;&#xA;Publication type	Grant&#xD;&#xA;Publication date	Jun 23, 1970&#xD;&#xA;Filing date	Jun 26, 1967&#xD;&#xA;Priority date	Jun 26, 1967&#xD;&#xA;Inventors	Alworth Kathleen M, Bechtold Arthur W&#xD;&#xA;Original Assignee	Chemway Corp&#xD;&#xA;Export Citation	BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan&#xD;&#xA;Patent Citations (3), Referenced by (37), Classifications (5), Legal Events (4)&#xD;&#xA;External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have another question regarding disclosure of US 2016020603. If inventor discussed or sold invention on social media, Facebook for example would that  be the date of disclosure? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48090" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18044" RevisionGUID="03fa2b99-3988-49a4-a8d9-47901aa14f5b" CreationDate="2017-07-04T22:43:13.703" UserId="19349" Text="US 20160206031 A1 is a patent that states its the only patent of its kind? Is this true ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48091" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18044" RevisionGUID="03fa2b99-3988-49a4-a8d9-47901aa14f5b" CreationDate="2017-07-04T22:43:13.703" UserId="19349" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;patent-pending&gt;&lt;lawsuit&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18044" RevisionGUID="1a2e7e0f-78da-47b1-84f0-a125d2b2ed53" CreationDate="2017-07-04T23:06:59.527" UserId="19349" Comment="added 337 characters in body; edited title" Text="But there is this US 3516422 A. &#xD;&#xA;Publication number	US3516422 A&#xD;&#xA;Publication type	Grant&#xD;&#xA;Publication date	Jun 23, 1970&#xD;&#xA;Filing date	Jun 26, 1967&#xD;&#xA;Priority date	Jun 26, 1967&#xD;&#xA;Inventors	Alworth Kathleen M, Bechtold Arthur W&#xD;&#xA;Original Assignee	Chemway Corp&#xD;&#xA;Export Citation	BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan&#xD;&#xA;Patent Citations (3), Referenced by (37), Classifications (5), Legal Events (4)&#xD;&#xA;External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have another question regarding disclosure of US 2016020603. If inventor discussed or sold invention on social media, Facebook for example would that  be the date of disclosure? Here are a few links.&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/search?q=All+Glam+eyelash+extension+solution.+...+PATENTed+TECHNOLOGY.&amp;rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS718US718&amp;oq=All+Glam+eyelash+extension+solution.+...+PATENTed+TECHNOLOGY.&amp;aqs=chrome..69i57&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US3516422&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US20160206031" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48093" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18044" RevisionGUID="1a2e7e0f-78da-47b1-84f0-a125d2b2ed53" CreationDate="2017-07-04T23:06:59.527" UserId="19349" Comment="added 337 characters in body; edited title" Text="US 20160206031 A1 is a patent that states its the only patent of its kind? Is this true?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48095" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="4fcc98ca-4179-40cc-93ad-097da6dd6a65" CreationDate="2017-07-04T23:37:14.610" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48098" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17909" RevisionGUID="07354bb1-9451-4127-bf43-afff77e14f6f" CreationDate="2017-07-05T01:37:15.533" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18045" RevisionGUID="6a704c16-fb92-4cf4-8f1a-e743e624ec37" CreationDate="2017-07-05T05:13:47.403" UserId="15503" Text="**Phrasing for &quot;at least one&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;At least one network destination&quot; means that a situation in which there is only one network destination would still be covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;At least one of/among a plurality of network destinations&quot; means that there must be more than one network destination for the claim to be literally infringed, otherwise there would be no plurality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former would therefore be broader, in a naive, literal sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Choosing between &quot;of&quot; and &quot;among&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm reasonably sure these are synonymous. I feel that the former would be more common, but I have no data to support that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48101" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18036" RevisionGUID="bcc827cf-ea69-4374-867f-7b06099dc6e9" CreationDate="2017-07-05T05:14:24.130" UserId="15503" Comment="adjust tags" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;drafting&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18046" RevisionGUID="54600250-a2d9-4da5-88fc-0cd7f0984846" CreationDate="2017-07-05T05:49:28.110" UserId="18033" Text="I see only two short questions here so I'll make a short answer too.&#xA;&#xA;Is it the only patent of its kind? No. Obviously not, you proved that already, but generally there will always be more than one. And if not, it's only an “not yet“.&#xA;&#xA;Does social media count as disclosure?&#xA;Yes. Any disclosure which *could* reach at least one person of the public (who is not obligated to keep the invention secret) counts. Even if nobody ever saw it, if they could have, it counts.&#xA;&#xA;I might add that the US has a grace period of one year where disclosures of the inventor don't impede patentability. They do however impede patentability for almost every other country." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18044" RevisionGUID="047c9966-aeae-4f7d-a44c-8b64ddf6243f" CreationDate="2017-07-05T05:49:52.663" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 173 characters in body" Text="But there is this US 3516422 A. &#xD;&#xA;Publication number	US3516422 A&#xD;&#xA;Publication type	Grant&#xD;&#xA;Publication date	Jun 23, 1970&#xD;&#xA;Filing date	Jun 26, 1967&#xD;&#xA;Priority date	Jun 26, 1967&#xD;&#xA;Inventors	Alworth Kathleen M, Bechtold Arthur W&#xD;&#xA;Original Assignee	Chemway Corp&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have another question regarding disclosure of US 2016020603. If inventor discussed or sold invention on social media, Facebook for example would that  be the date of disclosure? Here are a few links.&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/search?q=All+Glam+eyelash+extension+solution.+...+PATENTed+TECHNOLOGY.&amp;rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS718US718&amp;oq=All+Glam+eyelash+extension+solution.+...+PATENTed+TECHNOLOGY.&amp;aqs=chrome..69i57&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US3516422&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US20160206031" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48104" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16544" RevisionGUID="e358b74d-d923-4bf5-a458-d97c0008959d" CreationDate="2017-07-05T06:42:00.447" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48105" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="80aff7cd-e513-4210-9dea-9f5995aa1662" CreationDate="2017-07-05T08:45:00.063" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48106" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="13b93e41-e7b5-421b-a845-424262bfab15" CreationDate="2017-07-05T09:44:59.930" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18047" RevisionGUID="1a2d6189-b279-45a1-8bb0-6727ac392e42" CreationDate="2017-07-05T11:41:04.130" UserId="19355" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8636237][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8636237&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hello, I am planning to start producing new product which does not exist on the market yet. Problem is that one of its main parts is grinder card sticked inside of the product. We are not planning to use valleys which are main point of this patent (if I understand right) and not even any specific shape created from the grinding holes. Since the grinder card will be sticked inside of the product it will not fit into wallet anymore. Would I break any law by producing my product which contain grinder card manufactured without using these specific patented features?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thank you in advance for any advices. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48108" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18047" RevisionGUID="1a2d6189-b279-45a1-8bb0-6727ac392e42" CreationDate="2017-07-05T11:41:04.130" UserId="19355" Text="Can I produce grinder card without breaking this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48109" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18047" RevisionGUID="1a2d6189-b279-45a1-8bb0-6727ac392e42" CreationDate="2017-07-05T11:41:04.130" UserId="19355" Text="&lt;us8636237&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48110" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16810" RevisionGUID="4980f720-d6cb-4fea-a44f-84122b74cb7c" CreationDate="2017-07-05T12:48:23.957" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48114" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14883" RevisionGUID="a5bc4dcc-181b-46b3-ab5e-d890a0b2a35c" CreationDate="2017-07-05T13:51:09.833" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18044" RevisionGUID="b98d5c8a-ba9d-4d99-95a8-79ffd9e5ed68" CreationDate="2017-07-05T14:57:17.143" UserId="17003" Comment="Embedded links for easier readability and used better links" Text="But there is this [US 3516422 A][1]. &#xD;&#xA;Publication number	US3516422 A&#xD;&#xA;Publication type	Grant&#xD;&#xA;Publication date	Jun 23, 1970&#xD;&#xA;Filing date	Jun 26, 1967&#xD;&#xA;Priority date	Jun 26, 1967&#xD;&#xA;Inventors	Alworth Kathleen M, Bechtold Arthur W&#xD;&#xA;Original Assignee	Chemway Corp&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have another question regarding disclosure of [US 2016020603][2]. If inventor discussed or sold invention on social media, Facebook for example would that  be the date of disclosure? Here are a [few links][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US3516422A/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160206031A1/en&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/search?q=All%20Glam%20eyelash%20extension%20solution.%20...%20PATENTed%20TECHNOLOGY.&amp;rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS718US718&amp;oq=All%20Glam%20eyelash%20extension%20solution.%20...%20PATENTed%20TECHNOLOGY.&amp;aqs=chrome..69i57&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18048" RevisionGUID="7ce1d921-2736-4caf-adc9-534f26a54ae3" CreationDate="2017-07-05T15:17:09.603" UserId="17003" Text="Patent US3516422 likely expired in 1987. Anyone can practice exactly what is disclosed in that patent. However, there is no guarantee there aren't other more recent patents that also may relate to a product. As you found there is a patent application US20160206031. This is an application, not yet a patent. It may or may not ever become a patent and even if it does, the claims may be changed or narrowed from what is in the application. In this case US3516422 is considered prior art to US20160206031. There is very likely to be other prior art too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I can see, US20160206031 is different from US3516422. In the case of the US3516422 there is a substrate glued to the eyelid to which a magnetic false eyelash is the attached through magnetic attraction. With US20160206031 there are two separate magnetic false eyelashes placed on either side of the users natural eyelash. The magnetic force keeps the two magnetic lashes clamped to the natural lash.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I deduced from your comments from your closed question that you had a similar product and received a request to stop selling your product from the owners of US20160206031. You should consult with a patent attorney as first, US20160206031 is not an issued patent and may never become one and second it is possible that your product doesn't actually infringe on that application. A patent attorney is best able to provide guidance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regards to your second question, the application was filed on July 16th, 2015 and has a priority date of January 19th, 2015 so any publication after that (and I believe up to a year before) won't invalidate the patentability. If you can find a publication before January 19th of 2014 it may be grounds for invalidation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please understand that I am not an attorney, so please don't construe my answer as legal advice. Definitely consult with a patent attorney for that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18049" RevisionGUID="60864d25-5d30-4701-8f98-de0303359741" CreationDate="2017-07-05T15:30:29.107" UserId="17003" Text="For you to infringe on a patent, you need to implement each and every step of at least one of the claims. In this patent's case, there is one independent claim and seven dependent claims. Always focus on the independent claims first. Here is claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A herb grinder comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a metal sheet having a first surface and second surface opposite the first surface, the sheet being configured&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to include, on the first surface, a plurality of grooves, each groove&#xD;&#xA;&gt; extending parallel with one another and spaced apart from one another,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein the grooves and the first surface define, in cross section, a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; square wave shape having valleys and peaks, wherein each valley has a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; planar floor that is roughened to provide a finely abrasive surface,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and each peak has a planar cap that is not roughened; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a plurality of holes of a first type, the first type of hole extending from a peak to the second surface of the metal sheet; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a plurality of holes of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; second type, the second type of hole extending from a valley to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; second surface of the metal sheet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your product doesn't employ every aspect of claim 1 then you shouldn't infringe on this patent. Since I don't know everything about your product, I can't make such an evaluation. Even if I did have sufficient knowledge, I wouldn't since I'm not an attorney and don't provide legal advice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your best bet is to **consult with a patent attorney** to get a &quot;freedom to operate&quot; opinion. First, this will guide you as to whether this or other patents are going to be a problem for you. Second, a freedom to operate opinion may be able to provide protection from punitive damages which result from an infringement suit. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48118" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17751" RevisionGUID="9f43816d-79a5-4661-bbfa-6455ca03926a" CreationDate="2017-07-05T20:54:12.933" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48119" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17916" RevisionGUID="27b43543-8ce7-424e-a57e-9d93a7ad5925" CreationDate="2017-07-05T23:57:21.827" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18050" RevisionGUID="2b276a66-0ebc-403f-bac8-c5a9e2088b62" CreationDate="2017-07-06T05:12:50.980" UserId="14403" Text="Ref. 35 USC 117 and 37 USR 1.43 and MPEP 409.01(a). Assuming the case to be of single inventor: Heir can take up prosecution of the application with USPTO (provisional to non-provisional) i. by filing substitute statement for oath (PTO/AIA/02) ii. along with all documents such as complete specification iii. within prescribed time limit and iv. with applicable fees.&#xD;&#xA;For applications with joint inventor heir of deceased inventor may intervene to stake claim of his right.&#xD;&#xA;After grant of patent what you read in 'Inheritance of enforceable patents' is applicable.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48121" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16361" RevisionGUID="c05a359b-6382-41a1-96f3-a70fc72b30de" CreationDate="2017-07-06T15:29:59.993" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48122" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="ebdffb1e-1b2e-465f-9b2c-11a15fc2f4f5" CreationDate="2017-07-06T16:29:59.010" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48126" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="1016d221-d4be-4402-a959-02900082877a" CreationDate="2017-07-06T22:35:41.073" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18052" RevisionGUID="ca109fc6-7584-4451-b656-1d2cffb3c8b4" CreationDate="2017-07-07T03:03:21.257" UserId="18489" Text="This information may be wrong but as im researching patents and PPAs. I heard if i get a PPA then after someone file a full patent if i don't get a full patent after my PPA ended they can legally take my idea. This doesn't make sense personally but i thought I'd ask to make sure i fully understand how things work. So is this possible?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48128" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18052" RevisionGUID="ca109fc6-7584-4451-b656-1d2cffb3c8b4" CreationDate="2017-07-07T03:03:21.257" UserId="18489" Text="If someone file for a full patent after i file for a PPA can they steal my idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48129" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18052" RevisionGUID="ca109fc6-7584-4451-b656-1d2cffb3c8b4" CreationDate="2017-07-07T03:03:21.257" UserId="18489" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;non-provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18053" RevisionGUID="6a92b375-2d82-4efe-a5f4-9fa5d2ce4746" CreationDate="2017-07-07T17:24:35.193" UserId="19365" Text="My question is, &quot;When will the Tesla Coil patent expire?&quot;, What year will it expire?, how soon? and after it expires, will anyone have access to mimick the invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48131" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18053" RevisionGUID="6a92b375-2d82-4efe-a5f4-9fa5d2ce4746" CreationDate="2017-07-07T17:24:35.193" UserId="19365" Text="When does patent US512340 A expire?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48132" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18053" RevisionGUID="6a92b375-2d82-4efe-a5f4-9fa5d2ce4746" CreationDate="2017-07-07T17:24:35.193" UserId="19365" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18054" RevisionGUID="bb9094bd-e697-40f5-9a7a-6dea0e695bd9" CreationDate="2017-07-07T18:06:05.760" UserId="17003" Text="This [patent][1] was issued January 9th of 1894. Back then, I believe US patents lasted for 17 years from their grant date so it should have expired January 9th of 1911 (more than 100 years ago). Since 1995, US patents expire 20 years after their filing or priority date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once a patent expires, anyone can use the technology described in it. This is the basic premise of patents. In return for teaching the world about a new technology, you get a limited term of exclusivity. You always need to be aware, that there is the potential for other relevant patents such as refinements to the original so a patent search is often a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US512340A/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18055" RevisionGUID="2a9bdef2-4659-4665-acd8-ef954adb6b24" CreationDate="2017-07-07T19:57:35.210" UserId="19366" Text="In reference to the patent: [US6182594][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6182594&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent still valid ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jeff" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48135" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18055" RevisionGUID="2a9bdef2-4659-4665-acd8-ef954adb6b24" CreationDate="2017-07-07T19:57:35.210" UserId="19366" Text="Is this patent on a rudder intertube still valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48136" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18055" RevisionGUID="2a9bdef2-4659-4665-acd8-ef954adb6b24" CreationDate="2017-07-07T19:57:35.210" UserId="19366" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48137" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14767" RevisionGUID="b69294db-89e1-4bf7-a864-6438e2667b66" CreationDate="2017-07-07T20:03:29.837" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48138" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17769" RevisionGUID="4fffb8e1-b748-44bc-acf4-c5ee9c018841" CreationDate="2017-07-07T21:03:29.687" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48142" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17734" RevisionGUID="79ed7f62-6800-4bbf-9fb3-a975b152cfc9" CreationDate="2017-07-07T22:03:42.420" UserId="19280" Comment="subject of the question is not about infringement but about ownership and/or inventorship, possibly licensing as well" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48143" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17734" RevisionGUID="79ed7f62-6800-4bbf-9fb3-a975b152cfc9" CreationDate="2017-07-07T22:03:42.420" Comment="Proposed by 19280 approved by 17003, 18033 edit id of 2036" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48144" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17768" RevisionGUID="e376347a-318e-436b-93a3-b4011b9377a5" CreationDate="2017-07-07T22:06:33.783" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48146" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14635" RevisionGUID="104a251e-a6fe-4da3-8f18-080b13b6ec20" CreationDate="2017-07-08T02:15:31.833" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48148" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="704b4c5b-b618-45c4-9458-292e0767e09a" CreationDate="2017-07-08T07:16:54.900" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18057" RevisionGUID="0b3a557f-fb82-4cbd-b1a6-2c597474c3a9" CreationDate="2017-07-08T07:48:30.697" UserId="17429" Text="Say I have a patent whose claimed invention is a series of actions performed by a user as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. User enters a pub&#xD;&#xA; 2. Orders a beer&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Pay with credit card**&#xD;&#xA; 4. Leaves the pub&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now say I discover that someone else, in his pub allows users to do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. User enters a pub&#xD;&#xA; 2. Orders a beer&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Pay with cash**&#xD;&#xA; 4. Leaves the pub&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I do something? &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;My broader question is: Is there a concrete method to decide whether a patent is infringed? Or is it just about the judge to decide whether he infringed my patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48150" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18057" RevisionGUID="0b3a557f-fb82-4cbd-b1a6-2c597474c3a9" CreationDate="2017-07-08T07:48:30.697" UserId="17429" Text="Patent vulnerability" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48151" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18057" RevisionGUID="0b3a557f-fb82-4cbd-b1a6-2c597474c3a9" CreationDate="2017-07-08T07:48:30.697" UserId="17429" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18058" RevisionGUID="18414270-ddcb-40d4-b182-e20778890260" CreationDate="2017-07-08T12:43:09.953" UserId="19372" Text="I have filed a US provisional patent application.  Can I label my products sold in Singapore, Germany, Australia, China and Hong Kong with &quot;patent pending&quot;? are there legislations in these countries restricting the use of &quot;patent pending&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48153" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18058" RevisionGUID="18414270-ddcb-40d4-b182-e20778890260" CreationDate="2017-07-08T12:43:09.953" UserId="19372" Text="Use of patent pending outside the filing country" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48154" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18058" RevisionGUID="18414270-ddcb-40d4-b182-e20778890260" CreationDate="2017-07-08T12:43:09.953" UserId="19372" Text="&lt;patent-pending&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48155" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="bcb56e0a-9eb8-4e65-b754-a3d904a900e3" CreationDate="2017-07-08T13:33:20.137" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48159" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18055" RevisionGUID="4e90354e-54b2-4929-928e-15f5b28ed3b6" CreationDate="2017-07-08T14:44:26.933" UserId="17003" Comment="edited title" Text="Is this patent on a rudder innertube still valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18060" RevisionGUID="dd660907-08a3-4e37-9d48-52934f42d344" CreationDate="2017-07-08T14:48:18.003" UserId="17003" Text="US6192594 was filed on Oct. 12th, 1999 and should expire 20 years from that date assuming all fees are kept up to date. The best site to confirm the status of US patents is the [US Public Pair][1]. I checked and the fees are paid and up to date so the patent should expire on Oct. 12th, 2019.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18061" RevisionGUID="fc49eccc-663a-4d7c-8a7b-cabbdb6f55b0" CreationDate="2017-07-08T22:22:50.557" UserId="19232" Text="The more complete question is: Does a “Petition to Make Special Based on Age” (65+) type of Accelerated Examination still have the same search documentation and 3/20 (3 independent, 20 total) claims limitation as other Accelerated Examinations? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What seems confusing or incomplete is, in MPEP 708.02(a) it states: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; All petitions to make special, except those based on applicant’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; health or age or participation in the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pilot program must meet the requirements set forth in subsection I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me this implies that maybe those restrictions *don't* apply for the age exception. But it is not clearly stated one way or the other. One of the more &quot;onerous&quot; of those requirements in that &quot;subsection I&quot; is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The accelerated examination support document must include a detailed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; explanation of how each of the claims are patentable over the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; references cited with the particularity required by 37 CFR 1.111(b)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and (c).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can try getting an answer directly from USPTO but would like to know if anyone here has dealt with this issue directly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be more specific about the reasons for my question: I want accelerated examination. I am 65, so could qualify for the apparently cost-free petition for accelerated examination. *However*, my claims group is 3/24, not 3/20 and I really prefer not to pare it down. Plus I have concerns about all that extra discussion of prior art, which normally would be “inadvisable” in a standard application, from my understanding. Maybe paying the extra cost ($1,000 if micro-entity) for the Prioritized Patent Examination program would be better and worth it? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48162" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18061" RevisionGUID="fc49eccc-663a-4d7c-8a7b-cabbdb6f55b0" CreationDate="2017-07-08T22:22:50.557" UserId="19232" Text="Does a “Petition to Make Special Based on Age” (65+) type of Accelerated Examination still have the same 3/20 claims limitation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48163" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18061" RevisionGUID="fc49eccc-663a-4d7c-8a7b-cabbdb6f55b0" CreationDate="2017-07-08T22:22:50.557" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;usa&gt;&lt;fees&gt;&lt;examination&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18063" RevisionGUID="2136facd-d6f1-4eba-8275-e8e15fbb16ec" CreationDate="2017-07-09T02:49:45.490" UserId="19378" Text="I think that there are many other inventions similar to the present invention, but for the time being we will introduce the following prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Date of publication of application：14.10.2010&#xD;&#xA;Application number：2009-075056(JP) &#xD;&#xA;[0027] &#xD;&#xA; The introductory information transmission section 222 transmits the introductory information held at the information holding part 212 to the mobile terminal 150 through the server communications department 210 based on the acquisition request of the terminal position information and introductory information which were transmitted from the mobile terminal 150. In this embodiment, the introductory information which the introductory information transmission section 222 transmits is the introductory information of the object which exists in the prescribed range on the basis of the position which terminal position information shows. This terminal position information is information transmitted from the mobile terminal 150, and shows the present position of this mobile terminal 150. Here, although the introductory information transmission section 222 transmits the introductory information of the object which exists in the prescribed range on the basis of the position of the mobile terminal 150 which terminal position information shows, it can also transmit all the introductory information related to the map information concerned held at the information holding part 212. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18064" RevisionGUID="1afd26c0-8d48-40de-8fb0-cd1774f029ff" CreationDate="2017-07-09T03:38:42.290" UserId="15503" Text="I will limit myself to the English-speaking jurisdictions, which happen to have adopted UK patents acts from various points in time, and which are therefore very similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would assume that Germany and China have equivalent provisions, though I do not provide any evidence to this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Australia**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Patents Act 1990 (AU) s 178](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/pa1990109/s178.html) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2) A person must not falsely represent that an article sold by him or her is patented in Australia, or is the subject of an application for a patent in Australia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(3) Without limiting subsection (2): …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(b)  a person is to be taken to represent that an article is the subject of an application for a patent in Australia if the words &quot;patent applied for&quot; or &quot;patent pending&quot;, or any other word or words implying that an application for a patent for the article has been made in Australia, are stamped, engraved or impressed on, or otherwise applied to, the article. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Singapore**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Patents Act (Cap 221, 2005 Rev Ed) (SG) s 100](http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;ident=a8c2c9a1-e41f-4ecb-9a8a-bc6d7aada95e;page=0;query=DocId%3A2e82e574-7304-4657-b7c4-54e289938d1d%20Depth%3A0%20Status%3Ainforce;rec=0#pr100-he-.) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1)  If a person represents that a patent has been applied for in respect of any article disposed of for value by him and —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a) no such application has been made; …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;he shall, subject to this section, be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Hong Kong**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Patents Ordinance, Cap 514 (HK) s 143](https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap514/s143) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1) Subject to this section, a person who represents that a patent has been applied for in respect of any article disposed of for value by him when in fact—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a) no such application for a patent has been made; …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine at level 3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person who for value disposes of an article having stamped, engraved or impressed on it or otherwise applied to it the words “patent applied for” or “patent pending” or “已申請專利” or “專利申請待決”, or anything expressing or implying that an application has been made for a patent in respect of the article, shall be taken to represent that an application for such a patent has been made." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18065" RevisionGUID="e52154a1-31a4-46f2-a592-48f6633ffafb" CreationDate="2017-07-09T09:42:55.323" UserId="19379" Text="In reference to the patent: [US3166129][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3166129" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48170" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18065" RevisionGUID="e52154a1-31a4-46f2-a592-48f6633ffafb" CreationDate="2017-07-09T09:42:55.323" UserId="19379" Text="Is this patent still legally protected?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48171" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18065" RevisionGUID="e52154a1-31a4-46f2-a592-48f6633ffafb" CreationDate="2017-07-09T09:42:55.323" UserId="19379" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;design&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48172" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15983" RevisionGUID="91fb587a-9cc2-4949-b752-7da62906c852" CreationDate="2017-07-09T10:18:21.217" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18067" RevisionGUID="2dad8fbf-7622-48ab-8314-bd13faa76740" CreationDate="2017-07-09T15:11:46.433" UserId="17003" Text="This is a utility patent, not a design patent. Because it was issued well before 1995, its term is 17 years from the issue date so it should have expired on Jan 19, 1982.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent terms are easily researched and have been answered multiple times on this site. Please see this [Wikipedia article][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48181" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="f87eae5e-9961-4ac9-91f4-dfb9e278aaf1" CreationDate="2017-07-09T15:19:34.757" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48182" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16103" RevisionGUID="20ba5b7f-456e-40d6-8f18-30717b359e71" CreationDate="2017-07-09T18:19:59.767" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48183" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17310" RevisionGUID="9ac339d3-b0d2-4299-b3d2-62c800106d18" CreationDate="2017-07-09T19:19:59.633" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18064" RevisionGUID="7d0f8269-9ab6-4f15-abe4-652972a90318" CreationDate="2017-07-09T21:09:43.610" UserId="15503" Comment="clarify" Text="I will limit myself to the English-speaking jurisdictions, which happen to have adopted UK patents acts from various points in time, and which are therefore very similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would assume that Germany and China have equivalent provisions, though I do not provide any evidence to this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Australia**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could not use &quot;patent pending&quot; in Australia on the basis of a US provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Patents Act 1990 (AU) s 178](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/pa1990109/s178.html) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2) A person must not falsely represent that an article sold by him or her is patented in Australia, or is the subject of an application for a patent in Australia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(3) Without limiting subsection (2): …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(b)  a person is to be taken to represent that an article is the subject of an application for a patent in Australia if the words &quot;patent applied for&quot; or &quot;patent pending&quot;, or any other word or words implying that an application for a patent for the article has been made in Australia, are stamped, engraved or impressed on, or otherwise applied to, the article. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Singapore**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could not use &quot;patent pending&quot; in Singapore on the basis of a US provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Patents Act (Cap 221, 2005 Rev Ed) (SG) s 100](http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;ident=a8c2c9a1-e41f-4ecb-9a8a-bc6d7aada95e;page=0;query=DocId%3A2e82e574-7304-4657-b7c4-54e289938d1d%20Depth%3A0%20Status%3Ainforce;rec=0#pr100-he-.) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1)  If a person represents that a patent has been applied for in respect of any article disposed of for value by him and —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a) no such application has been made; …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;he shall, subject to this section, be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Hong Kong**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could not use &quot;patent pending&quot; in Hong Kong on the basis of a US provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Patents Ordinance, Cap 514 (HK) s 143](https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap514/s143) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1) Subject to this section, a person who represents that a patent has been applied for in respect of any article disposed of for value by him when in fact—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a) no such application for a patent has been made; …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine at level 3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person who for value disposes of an article having stamped, engraved or impressed on it or otherwise applied to it the words “patent applied for” or “patent pending” or “已申請專利” or “專利申請待決”, or anything expressing or implying that an application has been made for a patent in respect of the article, shall be taken to represent that an application for such a patent has been made." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48186" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17587" RevisionGUID="32801fca-98ee-4491-84a7-243c6f4427b5" CreationDate="2017-07-09T23:25:06.810" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="292" RevisionGUID="16ea6ff7-1ac9-43ea-95b2-1370af1957c8" CreationDate="2017-07-10T05:22:11.280" UserId="8601" Comment="English punctuation etc" Text="I've been granted 3 provisional Patents and it cost me an arm and a leg - over $20,000 (this was in 1998 and 1999). Unless you have money to burn I offer my personal advice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Using snail mail I post a letter via registered post to myself with the idea and get people&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I discuss the idea with to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements. I never open the registered letters; I keep them all in my safe. This way if someone beats me/you to it and you (or your attorney) are monitoring Patent applications, you have evidence to show the Patent Office it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Never put a good idea up on a forum. Thats one way RedGate use to come up with new products. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I discuss [Provisional Patents here](https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/293/764)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My answer is you should register post a letter containing the idea to yourself, include pics, videos, documents diagrams etc and mail them to yourself. Then get any Venture Capitalist to sign an NDA, then get funding to apply for the Patent if it's got backing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Questions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Is there a Registered-Post Patent legal precedent? [Wikikpedia Poor Man's Copyright](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_man's_copyright)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is no provision in US copyright law regarding any such type of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; protection. However if the letter is forensically certified as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unopened and officially dated, stamped with an authentic Registered Barcode. You can still object to the Patent being granted on the grounds that the Patent is not a new idea.  To object a competing application being granted you have to lodge a complaint within 6 months. * *May differ per country*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48193" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="292" RevisionGUID="16ea6ff7-1ac9-43ea-95b2-1370af1957c8" CreationDate="2017-07-10T05:22:11.280" Comment="Proposed by 8601 approved by 764 edit id of 2037" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18072" RevisionGUID="2aa13398-ba18-4992-ae0d-dad9eccf6590" CreationDate="2017-07-10T07:59:22.653" UserId="19386" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2012138548A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2012138548A1&#xD;&#xA;The current application is invalid because the application Moving Rides 61412879 was made Nov 12 2010 and is therefore in the public domain" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48195" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18072" RevisionGUID="2aa13398-ba18-4992-ae0d-dad9eccf6590" CreationDate="2017-07-10T07:59:22.653" UserId="19386" Text="Invalid application because of filing dates" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48196" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18072" RevisionGUID="2aa13398-ba18-4992-ae0d-dad9eccf6590" CreationDate="2017-07-10T07:59:22.653" UserId="19386" Text="&lt;validity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18074" RevisionGUID="edb9c2d3-ea11-44e0-9de7-ce7d58f94354" CreationDate="2017-07-10T09:40:56.903" UserId="15503" Text="Not really.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US 61/412879 was a provisional filed on 12 November 2010. A subsequent non-provisional application US 13/295961 was filed on 14 November 2011. This was published as US 2012/0129617 A1 on 24 May 2012. Thus US ’617 would only be prior art for applications filed after 24 May 2012, since everything before was unpublished and therefore not prior art.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;WO 2012/138548 A1 was filed as PCT/US2012/031278 on 29 March 2012, and claims priority from US 13/083297, which was filed on 8 April 2011. This is before the publication date of the application mentioned above.  So assuming the priority claim is valid, US ’617 is not prior art for PCT ’278.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;*Except in the US, where the effective publication date of US ’617 is backdated to the filing date of the provisional (that is, 12 November 2010).&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18072" RevisionGUID="c32702f8-a107-4d6d-a2f7-850e9c7c459e" CreationDate="2017-07-10T09:42:24.083" UserId="15503" Comment="Make title more representative of the question and adjust tags" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2012138548A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2012138548A1&#xD;&#xA;The current application is invalid because the application US 61/412879 was made Nov 12 2010 and is therefore in the public domain" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48202" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18072" RevisionGUID="c32702f8-a107-4d6d-a2f7-850e9c7c459e" CreationDate="2017-07-10T09:42:24.083" UserId="15503" Comment="Make title more representative of the question and adjust tags" Text="Does this PCT application lack novelty over an earlier filed US application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48203" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18072" RevisionGUID="c32702f8-a107-4d6d-a2f7-850e9c7c459e" CreationDate="2017-07-10T09:42:24.083" UserId="15503" Comment="Make title more representative of the question and adjust tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18075" RevisionGUID="36cbda33-5f28-4a75-a57d-b5a7a39ac8a5" CreationDate="2017-07-10T15:11:49.073" UserId="19389" Text="Is this patent #7,927,287 still valid?&#xD;&#xA;For me is a copy of #6,467,430" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48207" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18075" RevisionGUID="36cbda33-5f28-4a75-a57d-b5a7a39ac8a5" CreationDate="2017-07-10T15:11:49.073" UserId="19389" Text="Is this patent #7,927,287 still valid and in force?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48208" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18075" RevisionGUID="36cbda33-5f28-4a75-a57d-b5a7a39ac8a5" CreationDate="2017-07-10T15:11:49.073" UserId="19389" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17598" RevisionGUID="6e2ff88b-c7ff-4327-ad88-44cce316129d" CreationDate="2017-07-10T15:52:46.547" UserId="18804" Comment="added 367 characters in body" Text="Assignments may be differently worded; but you very likely assigned full title and ownership.  If the assignee wants to waste the patent opportunity it’s their right.  Actually, the assignee may have decided that going the trade secret approach would provide a better return than a patent.  The facts of this situation may support this theory. But you did assign the invention so, like selling your house, it's no longer yours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some states have employment laws that are a bit more bases on equity.  This may go to your original standing to assign your ownership without limitations.  But that varies by state and is not the general rule.  Were you informed of the nature of the assignment prior to signing?  This could be an equitable issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18075" RevisionGUID="c5aa05bb-bcf0-452f-b959-3f44973bc135" CreationDate="2017-07-10T17:28:30.667" UserId="17003" Comment="Adde links to the patents." Text="Is this patent [#7,927,287][1] still valid?&#xD;&#xA;For me is a copy of [#6,467,430][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7927286B2/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6467430B1/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18075" RevisionGUID="c3a36420-8e36-4b25-8eab-cba44097d4ad" CreationDate="2017-07-10T17:41:03.043" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed link to patent" Text="Is this patent [#7,927,287][1] still valid?&#xD;&#xA;For me is a copy of [#6,467,430][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7927287B2/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6467430B1/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18076" RevisionGUID="be1bf7e9-76f4-46d7-a896-5ae175374b60" CreationDate="2017-07-10T17:47:03.537" UserId="17003" Text="Yes, the patent is still active. Google patents indicates that the expected expiration date is April 5th, 2029. This is later than 20 year from the priority date so there likely has been a patent term adjustment. I checked on the [US Public Pair][1] site and there seems to be 629 days of patent term adjustments. This can occur when there are delays in processing the patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the similarity between the patents, the earlier patent was cited in the later one so the examiner clearly knew of it. I'd review the patent's file on the US Public Pair to understand how and why US 7,927,287 was deemed patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18077" RevisionGUID="e58f4c00-f3a3-4b69-83df-7def1f3a66b4" CreationDate="2017-07-10T17:49:40.020" UserId="19232" Text="The short answer is “no,” which is the answer I was hoping for. This was first confirmed in an answer written by a patent attorney (U.S. - CA) responding to my same question posted on quota.com. It was later confirmed to me in a phone call today with the USPTO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it appears the Accelerated Examination option, when accessed based on the age or medical condition exception ($0 extra cost) is essentially *equal* to the Prioritized Examination program ($1,000 to $4,000 depending on entity status) – meaning equal in regard to their promise that you get a first office action within 12 months. (Whether one truly gets the same treatment is probably not something that can be determined by an outsider.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48216" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16096" RevisionGUID="884db7f7-a165-4ace-aeef-94a014f765f4" CreationDate="2017-07-10T19:39:04.927" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48217" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18029" RevisionGUID="b9a59950-9711-403b-91dc-f6ba8442cdee" CreationDate="2017-07-11T15:46:23.570" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[18020],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:18033,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DonQuiKong&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:17003,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Eric Shain&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="48227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18081" RevisionGUID="47a324c9-97a4-4648-9c9a-61d56341017c" CreationDate="2017-07-11T23:44:36.950" UserId="19396" Text="I designed a product over 10 years ago, never got it patented, a machine shop is making and selling it.  They have not made any design or usage changes.  Can they get a patent on it?  Can I get a patent on it?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48228" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18081" RevisionGUID="47a324c9-97a4-4648-9c9a-61d56341017c" CreationDate="2017-07-11T23:44:36.950" UserId="19396" Text="I designed a product 10 yrs. ago and have been selling it, can a person who is copying it patent it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48229" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18081" RevisionGUID="47a324c9-97a4-4648-9c9a-61d56341017c" CreationDate="2017-07-11T23:44:36.950" UserId="19396" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48230" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="7a36fd9c-ea12-4a3a-99af-c902e75cd43b" CreationDate="2017-07-12T01:44:24.147" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18082" RevisionGUID="13728b8e-7379-467b-8243-4438c71c6f22" CreationDate="2017-07-12T01:45:07.753" UserId="19397" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7878930][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7878930" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48232" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18082" RevisionGUID="13728b8e-7379-467b-8243-4438c71c6f22" CreationDate="2017-07-12T01:45:07.753" UserId="19397" Text="Is this a design or a utility patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48233" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18082" RevisionGUID="13728b8e-7379-467b-8243-4438c71c6f22" CreationDate="2017-07-12T01:45:07.753" UserId="19397" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18083" RevisionGUID="e52624a7-7bf9-4df2-939a-3bd92fa00de8" CreationDate="2017-07-12T03:26:29.007" UserId="16696" Text="Great question.  Neither you nor the machine shop can patent it.  Once the invention enters the public domain, it is no longer eligible.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;...an invention cannot be patented if...the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, **or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.** &lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[Source: [USPTO][1]]&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_____________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Your best protection is to make sure the Intellectual Property is easy to find on the web, just in case someone decides to be sneaky and see if they can slip it by the review board. You may find these links useful:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/12074/defensive-publication-and-public-domain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/4582/availibility-to-the-public-domain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/general-information-concerning-patents#heading-5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48235" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="82d28904-efb7-4a2e-929c-e845c336c826" CreationDate="2017-07-12T05:52:51.267" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48240" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17614" RevisionGUID="e7e7cf49-dcb0-42ee-bfea-d8f9a5a4913e" CreationDate="2017-07-12T11:52:50.843" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18084" RevisionGUID="9129e10b-223d-40bd-a0a0-551489097b96" CreationDate="2017-07-12T14:19:18.250" UserId="17003" Text="The cited patent is a utility patent. For US patents, the patent number for design patents is prefixed with a &quot;D&quot;. Utility patents just have a number (currently in the 9 millions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Design patents only cover the ornamental design of a functional object, not function. Thus most design patents consist mainly of drawings and very little text. The claims usually just refer to the drawing. Something like &quot;1. The ornamental design for a container, as shown and described.&quot;. The original Coke bottle design patent [D48,160][1] is a classic example. This [Wikipedia article][2] may be helpful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Utility patents cover something inventive with [utility][3] (duh). There is a need to be novel, useful and non-obvious. Utility patents are usually longer, have n abstract, a background section and detailed description about how to implement the invention. In particular the claims section of utility patents are usually quite detailed and specific in their description of what is patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD48160S/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_(patent)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18083" RevisionGUID="cb3b4c1b-772e-4ddf-bbbf-c18e1fec11f4" CreationDate="2017-07-12T17:11:12.117" UserId="16696" Comment="added a note/link on the 1 year grace period in the US, per EricShain's suggestion." Text="Great question.  Neither you nor the machine shop can patent it.  Once the invention enters the public domain, it is no longer eligible.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;...an invention cannot be patented if...the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, **or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.** &lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[Source: [USPTO][1]]&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US, there is a one-year grace period from the time of public disclosure in which the inventor can file for a patent. [Details as USPTO][2]&#xD;&#xA;_____________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Your best protection is to make sure the Intellectual Property is easy to find on the web, just in case someone decides to be sneaky and see if they can slip it by the review board. You may find these links useful:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/12074/defensive-publication-and-public-domain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/4582/availibility-to-the-public-domain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/general-information-concerning-patents#heading-5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2153.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18084" RevisionGUID="98b2a8aa-4077-49ce-9dab-389675a5c3e9" CreationDate="2017-07-12T18:10:19.463" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The cited patent is a utility patent. For US patents, the patent number for design patents is prefixed with a &quot;D&quot;. Utility patents just have a number (currently in the 9 millions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Design patents only cover the ornamental design of a functional object, not function. Thus most design patents consist mainly of drawings and very little text. The claims usually just refer to the drawing. Something like &quot;1. The ornamental design for a container, as shown and described.&quot;. The original Coke bottle design patent [D48,160][1] is a classic example. This [Wikipedia article][2] may be helpful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Utility patents cover something inventive with [utility][3] (duh). There is a need to be novel, useful and non-obvious. Utility patents are usually longer, have an abstract, a background section and detailed description about how to implement the invention. In particular the claims section of utility patents are usually quite detailed and specific in their description of what is patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD48160S/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_(patent)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18085" RevisionGUID="a69f8542-d12a-40f7-be8d-c578f438f2c3" CreationDate="2017-07-12T21:10:45.263" UserId="16757" Text="(a) I filed a non-provisional application with claims, followed later by a provisional application for a new preferred embodiment of the same invention.&#xD;&#xA;(b) The new preferred embodiment enables a broader independent claim than those submitted for the prior non-provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Q)Is there some way to get the benefit of a broader independent claim (made possible by the new embodiment of the invention)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48245" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18085" RevisionGUID="a69f8542-d12a-40f7-be8d-c578f438f2c3" CreationDate="2017-07-12T21:10:45.263" UserId="16757" Text="Broader claim for a Provisional application after non-provisional application - same invention" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48246" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18085" RevisionGUID="a69f8542-d12a-40f7-be8d-c578f438f2c3" CreationDate="2017-07-12T21:10:45.263" UserId="16757" Text="&lt;continuation-in-part&gt;&lt;independent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18089" RevisionGUID="5974fa66-3444-4239-96b4-4ec9923d597c" CreationDate="2017-07-13T08:46:57.900" UserId="19403" Text="In reference to the patent: [US4464123][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4464123" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48251" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18089" RevisionGUID="5974fa66-3444-4239-96b4-4ec9923d597c" CreationDate="2017-07-13T08:46:57.900" UserId="19403" Text="I want to know the place of publicationa and publisher name" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48252" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18089" RevisionGUID="5974fa66-3444-4239-96b4-4ec9923d597c" CreationDate="2017-07-13T08:46:57.900" UserId="19403" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48259" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17944" RevisionGUID="81b9ce70-8ea7-4d16-aaaf-176ccba829bb" CreationDate="2017-07-13T15:08:03.173" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13616" RevisionGUID="2be356dd-c399-4af0-a5c9-232e58cc8e07" CreationDate="2017-07-13T15:20:35.270" UserId="17737" Comment="signature removed as per https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/2950/295232" Text="I think you can. Because no one has patented it before and there is no patent-pending on the product. So I believe the answer is yes. I recommend you get some advice from the patent institution. By the way, it's days after you first made this question, have you made the decision?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48261" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13616" RevisionGUID="2be356dd-c399-4af0-a5c9-232e58cc8e07" CreationDate="2017-07-13T15:20:35.270" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 18033, 17003 edit id of 2039" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48262" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17945" RevisionGUID="60027518-42b9-435b-8e62-10991b767017" CreationDate="2017-07-13T16:08:03.570" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48263" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16114" RevisionGUID="f2e21e29-1d3a-4bab-b31e-49db8bffcf7e" CreationDate="2017-07-13T18:08:03.897" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18090" RevisionGUID="2b0b2595-a8ed-4781-9fd3-bc57d53831f1" CreationDate="2017-07-13T21:34:34.657" UserId="19404" Text="In reference to the patent: [US860486][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US860486" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48265" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18090" RevisionGUID="2b0b2595-a8ed-4781-9fd3-bc57d53831f1" CreationDate="2017-07-13T21:34:34.657" UserId="19404" Text="I, Michael William Holland, am the only direct decendant of T R King, my great grandfather. How do I go about claiming ownership of this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48266" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18090" RevisionGUID="2b0b2595-a8ed-4781-9fd3-bc57d53831f1" CreationDate="2017-07-13T21:34:34.657" UserId="19404" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18091" RevisionGUID="6418dd4e-36ec-4d68-b9ec-c32f9270fb3a" CreationDate="2017-07-13T21:41:58.827" UserId="18033" Text="The term of a patent is (now) 20 years after the date of filing. Before 1995 the term of a patent was 17 years from the date of grant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent you linkes was granted on 16 of July 1907. It probably expired 17 years later. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no way to claim this patent anymore because it does not protect anything anymore. A patent grants an exclusive right in change for the publication of an invention and free use for everyone after the expiry of that right, which is what happened here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18091" RevisionGUID="4140fb50-7654-49f0-9eb3-560f059f43db" CreationDate="2017-07-13T21:51:44.007" UserId="17003" Comment="edited body" Text="The term of a patent is (now) 20 years after the date of filing. Before 1995 the term of a patent was 17 years from the date of grant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent you linkes was granted on 16 of July 1907. It probably expired 17 years later. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no way to claim this patent anymore because it does not protect anything anymore. A patent grants an exclusive right in return for the publication of an invention and free use for everyone after the expiry of that right, which is what happened here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48269" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17041" RevisionGUID="e64de349-46e5-4830-a1a3-7e0f3832493b" CreationDate="2017-07-13T22:08:14.373" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18085" RevisionGUID="d29019dc-331d-4df8-8bb8-1637dc49490c" CreationDate="2017-07-13T23:32:57.673" UserId="16757" Comment="additional information re dates and new uses; correction regarding the basis for a broader claim. " Text="(a) I filed a non-provisional application with claims in March 2017, followed in May 2017 by a provisional application for a new preferred embodiment of the same invention.&#xD;&#xA;(b) The new preferred embodiment makes it more evident that the independent claims of the previous non-provisional could have been broader, even without the new embodiment, which (latter) discloses new uses in addition to differences in design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Q)Is there some way to get the benefit of a broader independent claim for the invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18085" RevisionGUID="cd762038-9334-481f-80b0-997a848efd92" CreationDate="2017-07-13T23:52:19.303" UserId="16757" Comment="added 158 characters in body" Text="(a) I filed a non-provisional application with claims in March 2017, followed in May 2017 by a provisional application for a new preferred embodiment of the same invention.&#xD;&#xA;(b) The later provisional discloses an improved design, new applications, as well as new uses for previous embodiments, so that the 'whereby' clauses (resulting benefits) of the previous independent claims have become too narrow. &#xD;&#xA;(c) the new design also makes it more evident that the independent claims of the previous non-provisional could have stated more broadly, even without the new embodiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Q)Is there some way to get the benefit of a broader independent claim for the invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18092" RevisionGUID="84f547da-5a42-4732-82b5-32bb5ad6c125" CreationDate="2017-07-14T00:02:22.123" UserId="15503" Text="Because the first non-provisional was filed less than a year ago, a simple approach would be to convert the non-provisional into a provisional application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is allowed by 37 CFR § 1.53(c)(2), which provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;An application for patent filed under paragraph (b) of this section may be converted to a provisional application and be accorded the original filing date of the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO has a quite readable [page setting out the process](https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/petitions/22-converting-patent-applications). In short, you file a request for converstion and pay the USD 50 fee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then at 1 year from the first filing (that is, by March 2018), you would file a non-provisional (and any international filings) claiming the benefit of both the March application (which is now a provisional) and the May provisional. This non-provisional will be entitled to both dates, and therefore can rely on matter from either provisional application if need be. That said, ideally you would rely on the earlier filed application as much as possible for your claims, to ensure they have the earlier date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18094" RevisionGUID="d639b123-8b1f-4710-b787-f54927ff0b31" CreationDate="2017-07-14T02:59:59.713" UserId="14403" Text="Prima facie (assuming the product or packaging also is not marked as required) the product does not comply marking requirement as in 35 USC 287(a). 35 USC 287(b)3(A) allows a &quot;request for disclosure&quot; right to a person described therein and as in 35 USC 287(b)4(B) the patent owner has to disclose the patent details for which he can charge the requester 35 USC 287(b)6. Argumentitively, any person from the general public can exercise a &quot;request for disclosure&quot;. Non-compliance can affect adversely infringement damage claim suit by patent owner if the said person actually wishes to manufacture, sell similar product and eventually does so. Incidentally, non-compliance sends a wrong message and may encourage civil suits under 35 USC 292(b)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48279" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17956" RevisionGUID="4a300355-aae8-485f-a7e3-637159a5c54f" CreationDate="2017-07-14T03:11:33.480" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18095" RevisionGUID="0cfadb88-6938-4e8c-afde-65f14a4bc468" CreationDate="2017-07-14T09:00:34.760" UserId="19408" Text="Is there any online database that provides the firm level patent statistics of India for research purposes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48281" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18095" RevisionGUID="0cfadb88-6938-4e8c-afde-65f14a4bc468" CreationDate="2017-07-14T09:00:34.760" UserId="19408" Text="Is there any online database that provides the firm level patent statistics for research purposes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48282" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18095" RevisionGUID="0cfadb88-6938-4e8c-afde-65f14a4bc468" CreationDate="2017-07-14T09:00:34.760" UserId="19408" Text="&lt;statistics&gt;&lt;firm-level&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48283" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17961" RevisionGUID="a88b94b2-bf9a-4d20-be79-abfd2d955985" CreationDate="2017-07-14T16:11:58.237" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18097" RevisionGUID="9e7a017b-ae97-4aad-88d7-7bb76c8f75cc" CreationDate="2017-07-14T17:09:06.607" UserId="17003" Text="It is a little unclear what you are asking for, but I would like to recommend [The Lens][1]. This is an excellent site for searching for patents. You can easily limit to search to India and there is cool graphing of results. Here is one example of a search for patent documents in India using the search term &quot;plant&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of other things graphed as well. The Lens is free to use. If you create an account, you get some additional features like saved searches and collections, but you don't need to log in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YvXlC.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18098" RevisionGUID="a309c2f3-2166-4c9a-9c95-82aaeb21bd81" CreationDate="2017-07-14T17:41:04.070" UserId="19412" Text="I know the cost will probably vary greatly but what is the &quot;average&quot; percentage of each cost of the patent. If cost percentages varies between utility and design patents I would like to know primarily for a Utility patent as that is what I may pursue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. 34% cost goes towards engineerings and drafting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48291" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18098" RevisionGUID="a309c2f3-2166-4c9a-9c95-82aaeb21bd81" CreationDate="2017-07-14T17:41:04.070" UserId="19412" Text="Cost of a patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48292" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18098" RevisionGUID="a309c2f3-2166-4c9a-9c95-82aaeb21bd81" CreationDate="2017-07-14T17:41:04.070" UserId="19412" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;cost&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18099" RevisionGUID="a3d8e9b0-8b1c-44ac-89d3-1b760299dc44" CreationDate="2017-07-14T19:33:23.377" UserId="16696" Text="Assuming you are based in the US, you'll find the [USPTO fee schedules][1] to be useful. *(The link also includes PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) fees for international filing.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The biggest cost will be your attorney's time.**  If you go with a large, established firm, they are going to bill at a rate of ~$500/hr., minimum.  A way to reduce this cost is to find a solo practitioner who doesn't have the overhead of a large firm and can charge lower rates.  (Often solo practitioners will offer a fixed price.  I've had quotes ranging from $3500 to $12,000 for the non-provisional, images included.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where attorney costs can start to spiral is in the review process.  Each time you have to engage with the patent board, you are going to rack up billable hours with your attorney.  (~$5000 ballpark).  You probably want to budget for ~6 responses, although it could be much fewer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This factor, along with international filing (which can get expensive quickly, particularly in regions that require translation into the local language) is why Robert Cartiano quotes a range up to $100,000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gene Quinn has a good article on the process: [An Overview of the U.S. Patent Process][2] from 2014, which is after the US law changed from first-to-invent to first-to-file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule#Patent%20Fees&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/03/15/an-overview-of-the-u-s-patent-process-2/id=48506/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48294" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17627" RevisionGUID="a5df9977-ca60-46db-8244-4431bc5ae70d" CreationDate="2017-07-15T01:15:18.073" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48296" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18053" RevisionGUID="869adaf9-1ff2-4f77-97fa-c6a5e6f887e5" CreationDate="2017-07-15T03:25:07.870" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[3801],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:17003,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Eric Shain&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:18033,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DonQuiKong&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="48297" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18065" RevisionGUID="1050e754-e981-4e51-a3ed-284df7bcb67f" CreationDate="2017-07-15T03:25:38.153" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[3801],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:17003,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Eric Shain&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:18033,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DonQuiKong&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="48299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18100" RevisionGUID="3f3d2d1c-5cf6-4b0a-ac4c-0edded250306" CreationDate="2017-07-15T04:50:19.560" UserId="19414" Text="In reference to the patent: [US1365692][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US1365692&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am Master student from University of Malaya, Malaysia. I have written  a review paper on Improvement on upper-limb body-powered prosthesis (1921-2016). Before sending this paper to the journal I would like to ask your permission to use the information of this patent. You can contact me at nurafiqahhashim92@yahoo.com &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48300" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18100" RevisionGUID="3f3d2d1c-5cf6-4b0a-ac4c-0edded250306" CreationDate="2017-07-15T04:50:19.560" UserId="19414" Text="Ask for Permission" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48301" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18100" RevisionGUID="3f3d2d1c-5cf6-4b0a-ac4c-0edded250306" CreationDate="2017-07-15T04:50:19.560" UserId="19414" Text="&lt;us1365692&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48302" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="53e8b836-b23b-4810-9d9f-9d8b304334e7" CreationDate="2017-07-15T12:20:57.993" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18101" RevisionGUID="d9f05e58-4fb3-487e-b638-cefa2e0db58c" CreationDate="2017-07-15T14:00:25.607" UserId="17003" Text="Posting a question on this site is not the likely to reach the inventor of a patent. I am not a lawyer and certainly not in Malaysia, but I believe you should be able to cite the patent without obtaining permission of the inventor or assignee. This patent was granted in 1921 and most likely expired in 1938. The inventor is almost assuredly dead and the assignee is the Miracle Artificial Arm Co which doesn't seem to be in business anymore. In any case, academic use of patent information is considered fair use in the US and very likely in Malaysia. Just make sure you cite the patent information accurately." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48304" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18100" RevisionGUID="094b6a20-8cac-4d3c-ab39-9507b6a7c377" CreationDate="2017-07-15T14:11:44.000" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:18033,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DonQuiKong&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="48305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18101" RevisionGUID="4995ff0e-9270-43a5-82c2-cef7510e009f" CreationDate="2017-07-15T14:24:29.293" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; added 2 characters in body" Text="Posting a question on this site is not likely to reach the inventor of a patent. I am not a lawyer and certainly not in Malaysia, but I believe you should be able to cite the patent without obtaining permission from the inventor or assignee. This patent was granted in 1921 and most likely expired in 1938. The inventor is almost assuredly dead and the assignee is the Miracle Artificial Arm Co which doesn't seem to be in business anymore. In any case, academic use of patent information is considered fair use in the US and very likely in Malaysia. Just make sure you cite the patent information accurately." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18104" RevisionGUID="cd25b67c-9b25-4db9-a215-c357bbd0860b" CreationDate="2017-07-16T17:53:19.670" UserId="19418" Text="It's a utility patent. Design patents start with prefix &quot;USD&quot;. Also design patents does not contains textual claims , and only contains images as claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48316" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="5f1359e9-164e-416c-912d-38e472f21f4a" CreationDate="2017-07-16T21:32:07.687" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18105" RevisionGUID="6e61694c-85ec-4b45-b5aa-b7ef4add73bc" CreationDate="2017-07-18T01:15:54.233" UserId="19426" Text="What is the deadline time frame for a Non-Final Restriction Requirement, one month or two months!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48318" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18105" RevisionGUID="6e61694c-85ec-4b45-b5aa-b7ef4add73bc" CreationDate="2017-07-18T01:15:54.233" UserId="19426" Text="Non-Final Action response timeframe?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48319" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18105" RevisionGUID="6e61694c-85ec-4b45-b5aa-b7ef4add73bc" CreationDate="2017-07-18T01:15:54.233" UserId="19426" Text="&lt;non-final&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48322" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="282" RevisionGUID="c3683c64-cd8a-46d8-a4ba-1016ccb4b6f2" CreationDate="2017-07-18T04:55:19.797" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="48323" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="89956341-c005-4647-836e-46b8748dd8d4" CreationDate="2017-07-18T07:02:36.850" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18105" RevisionGUID="117cd788-44b8-4079-bfb4-e44033bcb5c3" CreationDate="2017-07-18T07:54:38.343" UserId="18033" Comment="edited body" Text="What is the deadline time frame for a Non-Final Restriction Requirement, one month or two months?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48325" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17548" RevisionGUID="d7787ece-7dae-4099-b1f6-c5d0f5daeda7" CreationDate="2017-07-18T11:02:39.093" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18106" RevisionGUID="4c264550-a51f-4fb1-95a9-971f46c7eedf" CreationDate="2017-07-18T12:25:51.633" UserId="19430" Text="In reference to the patent: [US1116828][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US1116828&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found the original patent and the physical model for this patent will cleaning up.  I am interested to know if this preceeds Andersen Window patents. This was my grandfather who was a inventor in Jamestown NY.  We have heard stories that he didn't have enough money to protect this patent.  Andersen manufactured windows starting in 1903.  I can't find the original patent for what they are known for, a window like this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48327" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18106" RevisionGUID="4c264550-a51f-4fb1-95a9-971f46c7eedf" CreationDate="2017-07-18T12:25:51.633" UserId="19430" Text="Markham window or Anderson window? Who was first?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48328" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18106" RevisionGUID="4c264550-a51f-4fb1-95a9-971f46c7eedf" CreationDate="2017-07-18T12:25:51.633" UserId="19430" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18107" RevisionGUID="340dd7e9-bf5f-49ad-b201-6ddcba77c748" CreationDate="2017-07-18T14:02:10.957" UserId="19431" Text="You can actually still revive an patent that has been abandoned for non payment of an Issue Fee. We have done it several times, and are going to do it again now. Of course, the petition fee to revive is expensive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, yes your application can block someone else from patenting the same exact idea if it has been published. Anything can be prior art, a website, an expired patent, an abandoned application etc. However, it does not block someone else from making or distributing your idea. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18108" RevisionGUID="10b7a292-fd50-4e9e-87a0-0e5ed7fef023" CreationDate="2017-07-18T14:07:14.253" UserId="19431" Text="I am shocked at the answers. There are only certain instances when a provisional is a good idea. Design patents are inexpensive, and can not claim priority to a provisional so you would be wasting money if you file a provisional patent application. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18109" RevisionGUID="bffedd18-5595-4415-813e-6c3a91d12139" CreationDate="2017-07-18T14:37:28.840" UserId="17003" Text="If you are asking who manufactured windows first, then probably Andersen. Their [history][1] states they were manufacturing windows since 1905 at least. That said, examples of double hung sash windows from [at least 1670][2] still exist. Thus, your grandfather didn't invent the double hung window, he invented a specific implementation which had some advantageous feature sufficiently novel to merit a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Andersen's innovation seems to be called the &quot;two bundle method&quot;. From their history page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In 1905 Andersen originates the “two bundle” method, which streamlines the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; window construction process. By standardizing sizes of frame pieces,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; then packaging them in separate horizontal and vertical pairs, units&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can be assembled on the job site in as little as 10 minutes. It was&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nicknamed the 10-Minute Window.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not at all clear that Andersen received a patent for this innovation. Patent search tools aren't all that good with such early patents since they need to be scanned. Using patents.google.com I can only find patents listing Andersen as the assignee going back to 1927. However the assignee listed for Andersen could be different in earlier patents and it is possible they licensed another companies patents. In any case, you do not need a patent to sell a product, you only need a patent to protect a specific specific and novel feature. It is quite likely Andersen's windows at the time (and certainly before 2013) did not implement the novel features as described in your grandfather's patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To determine if Andersen or any other window manufacturer infringed on your grandfather's patent, one would need to look at the specific construction of their windows during the term of the patent (roughly 1914 to 1931). Specific technology questions are off topic for this site and this would be more of a history project anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.andersencorporation.com/about-andersen/history/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sash_window" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18109" RevisionGUID="511881a3-b12f-42b1-a7a6-163283ebc5db" CreationDate="2017-07-18T15:55:12.447" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body; edited body" Text="If you are asking who manufactured windows first, then probably Andersen. Their [history][1] states they were manufacturing windows since 1905 at least. That said, examples of double hung sash windows from [at least 1670][2] still exist. Thus, your grandfather didn't invent the double hung window, he invented a specific implementation which had some advantageous feature sufficiently novel to merit a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Andersen's innovation seems to be called the &quot;two bundle method&quot;. From their history page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In 1905 Andersen originates the “two bundle” method, which streamlines the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; window construction process. By standardizing sizes of frame pieces,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; then packaging them in separate horizontal and vertical pairs, units&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can be assembled on the job site in as little as 10 minutes. It was&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nicknamed the 10-Minute Window.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not at all clear that Andersen received a patent for this innovation. Patent search tools aren't all that good with such early patents since they need to be scanned. Using patents.google.com I can only find patents listing Andersen as the assignee going back to 1927. However the assignee listed for Andersen could be different in earlier patents and it is possible they licensed another companies patents. In any case, you do not need a patent to sell a product, you only need a patent to protect a specific and novel feature. It is quite likely Andersen's windows at the time (and certainly before 1913) did not implement the novel features as described in your grandfather's patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To determine if Andersen or any other window manufacturer infringed on your grandfather's patent, one would need to look at the specific construction of their windows during the term of the patent (roughly 1914 to 1931). Specific technology questions are off topic for this site and this would be more of a history project anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.andersencorporation.com/about-andersen/history/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sash_window" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48333" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17832" RevisionGUID="77e8159f-47f6-42ef-a0e5-522c5797bfc3" CreationDate="2017-07-18T16:03:22.003" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48344" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16604" RevisionGUID="034f15ad-84c5-47ce-9b39-2538a85f1e63" CreationDate="2017-07-19T03:07:28.943" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18113" RevisionGUID="dd3d0f71-e287-4246-a82d-01e0f3a148d8" CreationDate="2017-07-19T17:34:35.810" UserId="19437" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8790719][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dr Cristina Sanchez shows prior art [video][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8790719&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.facebook.com/illegallyhealed/videos/vb.645148008872123/1107576179295968/?type=2&amp;theater" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48349" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18113" RevisionGUID="dd3d0f71-e287-4246-a82d-01e0f3a148d8" CreationDate="2017-07-19T17:34:35.810" UserId="19437" Text="Dr Cristina Sanchez shows prior art for patent [US8790719]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48350" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18113" RevisionGUID="dd3d0f71-e287-4246-a82d-01e0f3a148d8" CreationDate="2017-07-19T17:34:35.810" UserId="19437" Text="&lt;us8790719&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48351" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="385605ea-a129-4fe1-919a-fefd09b71644" CreationDate="2017-07-19T18:09:40.000" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18114" RevisionGUID="c15e4c53-e082-45d4-b2a7-6e0e9c292d30" CreationDate="2017-07-19T18:26:06.690" UserId="17003" Text="The video is dated April 23rd, 2016. The priority date for the patent is March 12th, 2010. For something to be considered prior art to this patent it needs to have been published before March 12th, 2010. Perhaps you can find specific publications from Dr. Sanchez which predate the priority date of the patent. Also, you need to consider the claims. Unusually, this patent has but one claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of treating a human suffering from a glioma consisting essentially of administering therapeutically effective amounts of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; isolated or highly purified tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; together with temozolomide to said human to treat said glioma in said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; human.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you show specifically a publication (by Dr. Sanchez or others) that employs the combination of tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabidiol and temozolomide in the treatment of glioma? If so, then there may be grounds for invalidation, but the video only mentions tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol, not temozolomide. Because the claim utilizes all three compounds, it should not preclude the use of just tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol for the treatment of glioma." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48354" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17662" RevisionGUID="663e247c-d831-47dc-8a5b-ace0c8cdb8b8" CreationDate="2017-07-19T22:10:37.907" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48355" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17248" RevisionGUID="eb50d994-0f1b-42c7-977c-f6e07ae485d3" CreationDate="2017-07-19T23:10:39.073" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48358" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="1b248247-01f6-4b42-9551-39881414f9d6" CreationDate="2017-07-20T03:10:56.247" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48359" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16666" RevisionGUID="23b4a502-3333-4fca-bde7-fb2e70fb6973" CreationDate="2017-07-20T04:11:23.403" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48360" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="0127241e-2c07-4fc6-9a56-f1f8d9410a9c" CreationDate="2017-07-20T05:14:07.060" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18116" RevisionGUID="0ca03f3c-daca-4684-9e60-9c2f8a2912fe" CreationDate="2017-07-20T06:44:31.830" UserId="19440" Text="Here is the situation: my patent has gone through several Office Actions (OA). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first 2 Office Actions, the examiner found some legitimate arguments against my application and I have amended some claims accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then the examiner cited parts of another patent as prior art for obviousness, and to sustain his rejection, quoted sections of this patent as arguments against my invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have carefully considered his arguments, made a detailed and thorough analysis of the cited prior art and replied to said OA by respectfully arguing against each argument advanced by the examiner. (It appeared that the examiner hadn't read in details the prior art but merely referred to some drawings and grasped vague concepts of the prior art, so it wasn't too difficult to provide counter-arguments). In view of my arguments, my invention is non-obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in the latest OA, the examiner totally ignored my arguments against his (as if he himself hadn't advanced any prior arguments) and rejects my invention on obviousness grounds simply quoting the prior art he had already cited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What steps could I take so that my arguments be taken into account, so that they be heard? I am in the final OA...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48362" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18116" RevisionGUID="0ca03f3c-daca-4684-9e60-9c2f8a2912fe" CreationDate="2017-07-20T06:44:31.830" UserId="19440" Text="Examiner ignores inventor's arguments against his owns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48363" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18116" RevisionGUID="0ca03f3c-daca-4684-9e60-9c2f8a2912fe" CreationDate="2017-07-20T06:44:31.830" UserId="19440" Text="&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;examiner&gt;&lt;obviousness&gt;&lt;office-action&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6357" RevisionGUID="118dafd4-f221-4be6-8a76-1f6b1b286b02" CreationDate="2017-07-20T15:11:30.030" UserId="1" Comment="Focused on procedure rather than soliciting specific services. Asking for websites/service too vulnerable to spam over time. " Text="How I can find patent attorneys or agents who are reliable? After a lot of searching, I find most of the websites of attorneys very 'spammy looking'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answers from people with previous experience on working with an agent or attorney will help the newbies with this dilemma. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48365" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6357" RevisionGUID="118dafd4-f221-4be6-8a76-1f6b1b286b02" CreationDate="2017-07-20T15:11:30.030" UserId="1" Comment="Focused on procedure rather than soliciting specific services. Asking for websites/service too vulnerable to spam over time. " Text="How to find patent Agents/Attorneys?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48367" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="6357" RevisionGUID="7c1b97a9-f98c-4534-8062-b557356545ae" CreationDate="2017-07-20T15:12:31.130" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="48368" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13366" RevisionGUID="2fdf376a-c4ab-4f2e-9138-ff7eea0032f1" CreationDate="2017-07-20T16:17:56.410" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48369" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17844" RevisionGUID="38beac7a-ccd8-4f98-ae7b-34a3297a8f3c" CreationDate="2017-07-20T17:17:55.933" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48370" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17664" RevisionGUID="f4215e0c-713e-42bb-8161-e1e8f4a76b06" CreationDate="2017-07-20T18:17:56.493" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18117" RevisionGUID="e723382d-5924-4a6d-a27e-f987d7ff0d14" CreationDate="2017-07-20T18:36:41.713" UserId="11717" Text="If the non-provisional application has not been issued, you could file a continuation application where you could file newer specifications, drawings and claims and still get the priority of the non-provisional.&#xD;&#xA;This is true for USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;No knowledge of other countries.&#xD;&#xA;Ashok" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18118" RevisionGUID="e3504388-299a-4577-9769-3fa35057cb2f" CreationDate="2017-07-20T22:48:46.793" UserId="18489" Text="I'm learning about drafting a patent. I was told you should walk a line between broad and narrow. You want the claims to include many things but not to many to wherr it infringe prior art. So I was told the best thing to do is make it vague and later down the line argue that it means something. Is this a good strategy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48373" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18118" RevisionGUID="e3504388-299a-4577-9769-3fa35057cb2f" CreationDate="2017-07-20T22:48:46.793" UserId="18489" Text="Should patent claims he narrow yet vague?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48374" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18118" RevisionGUID="e3504388-299a-4577-9769-3fa35057cb2f" CreationDate="2017-07-20T22:48:46.793" UserId="18489" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48378" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17660" RevisionGUID="0d9e2c40-1c24-477e-bcb8-7804225fccae" CreationDate="2017-07-21T00:18:26.797" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18121" RevisionGUID="b5443259-248e-4e4a-ab57-1642da0454d1" CreationDate="2017-07-21T04:02:23.977" UserId="15503" Text="Whether it is good depends on your view of why you are applying for a patent. This gets a little philosophical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The classical view is that a patent protects an invention so that an inventor can exploit it with a limited monopoly. The value of the patent is inherently linked to how it enables the owner to exploit the underlying invention, and to prevent infringement. Such a view is common for many pharmaceutical patents, where a monopoly over a drug can be worth billions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The modern view is that a patent itself is an asset, independent of how it might link to the owner's exploitation of the underlying invention. That is, a patent has value through licensing fees, so it is useful to encourage infringement so as to enable such fees. Such a view is common for many telecommunications patents, where having a standards-essential patent can bring you licensing fees worth millions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This neatly dovetails into how a patent application should be drafted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a patent to protect your exploitation of the invention, then it makes sense to clearly define what your invention is: protection for things other than those that affect the exploitation of your invention is  unnecessary. Your description would be tightly linked to the implementation of your invention, with relatively few alternative embodiments. Your claims would not be overly broad, and would be clearly directed to the core of the invention. The chance that relevant prior art will arise will be lower, but if does turn up, it's more likely to be fatal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a patent for secondary reasons like licensing fees, then it makes sense to be cagey about what you are protecting. Your description would be full of &quot;mays&quot;, optional embodiments, and ranges of possibilities. The claims would be very broad, to make it hard for someone else to avoid infringement. The chance that relevant prior art will arise is much higher, since your broad and vague claims will encompass a lot more, but you will have more freedom to find suitable amendments and argue around it. Moreover, the chance that you will receive clarity or sufficiency objections is much higher (particularly in stricter jurisdictions like the EPO), which may be impossible to overcome if you have been too greedy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18118" RevisionGUID="cd5fa247-18ab-4e20-8ea6-16d61adbd0e8" CreationDate="2017-07-21T04:12:06.573" UserId="15503" Comment="fix spelling and grammar" Text="I'm learning about drafting a patent. I was told you should walk a line between broad and narrow. You want the claims to cover many things but not so many that they infringe prior art. So I was told the best thing to do is make the claims vague and later down the line argue that they means something. Is this a good strategy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48388" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18118" RevisionGUID="cd5fa247-18ab-4e20-8ea6-16d61adbd0e8" CreationDate="2017-07-21T04:12:06.573" UserId="15503" Comment="fix spelling and grammar" Text="Should patent claims be narrow yet vague?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48389" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18118" RevisionGUID="cd5fa247-18ab-4e20-8ea6-16d61adbd0e8" CreationDate="2017-07-21T04:12:06.573" UserId="15503" Comment="fix spelling and grammar" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;drafting&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18122" RevisionGUID="3ec0b8f9-cb4c-4fe7-967c-77d6cba471da" CreationDate="2017-07-21T14:49:24.320" UserId="13884" Text="I know this question has been previously raised under the heading: &quot;Can I describe two different ideas inside a provisional patent application&quot; however what concerns me is the priority dates of the different inventions. Let's say a provisional application contains two inventions. You file the subsequent non-provisional application for the two inventions. The examiner makes a restriction requirement and requires you to select claims for one invention. You do that for the first invention and file a divisional application for the second invention. I accept the examiner will give you the priority date of the provisional application as far as the first invention is concerned. The question is will he allow you the priority date of the provisional application as far as the second invention is concerned?  The reason I ask this is you paid only one provisional application fee. Can you get two priority dates for the price of one provisional application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48398" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18122" RevisionGUID="3ec0b8f9-cb4c-4fe7-967c-77d6cba471da" CreationDate="2017-07-21T14:49:24.320" UserId="13884" Text="What happens to the priority dates if a provisional application has more than one invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48399" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18122" RevisionGUID="3ec0b8f9-cb4c-4fe7-967c-77d6cba471da" CreationDate="2017-07-21T14:49:24.320" UserId="13884" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;priority-date&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48401" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16022" RevisionGUID="3368bce7-c42c-4e72-8393-568db3702c1b" CreationDate="2017-07-21T22:29:34.363" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18123" RevisionGUID="79e72d31-3bcc-4258-b0be-75565d65c21b" CreationDate="2017-07-22T01:51:08.223" UserId="15503" Text="**Can you get two priority dates for the price of one provisional application?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is clear from [35 USC § 121](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/121) which provides (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If two or more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in one application, the Director may require the application to be restricted to one of the inventions. If the other invention is made the subject of a divisional application which complies with the requirements of section 120 **it shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original application**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The filing date of the original application is the date of the provisional. This is clear from [35 USC § 120](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/120), which provides that a non-provisional application which is filed on the basis of a provisional application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, the filing fees are not the issue, and the provisional is not exhausted by the filing of the first non-provisional. You could quite legitimately file 10 non-provisionals, all claiming the benefit of the same provisional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18092" RevisionGUID="d9064728-5f0f-433c-942d-da073770e76e" CreationDate="2017-07-22T01:53:47.027" UserId="15503" Comment="added 128 characters in body" Text="**Update**: Turns out there was an earlier provisional, so this answer no longer applies. I've left it for posterity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because the first non-provisional was filed less than a year ago, a simple approach would be to convert the non-provisional into a provisional application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is allowed by 37 CFR § 1.53(c)(2), which provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;An application for patent filed under paragraph (b) of this section may be converted to a provisional application and be accorded the original filing date of the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO has a quite readable [page setting out the process](https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/petitions/22-converting-patent-applications). In short, you file a request for converstion and pay the USD 50 fee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then at 1 year from the first filing (that is, by March 2018), you would file a non-provisional (and any international filings) claiming the benefit of both the March application (which is now a provisional) and the May provisional. This non-provisional will be entitled to both dates, and therefore can rely on matter from either provisional application if need be. That said, ideally you would rely on the earlier filed application as much as possible for your claims, to ensure they have the earlier date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18124" RevisionGUID="61eb2c6e-911c-4893-9af8-40422b1c4243" CreationDate="2017-07-22T13:51:02.733" UserId="19446" Text="I have a PCT application with a publication number and I would like to know how I can mention my patent &quot;legally&quot; in a business agreement if my patent is not yet entered the &quot;National&quot; stage in any country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you &#xD;&#xA;Waheed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48405" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18124" RevisionGUID="61eb2c6e-911c-4893-9af8-40422b1c4243" CreationDate="2017-07-22T13:51:02.733" UserId="19446" Text="Mentioning legally PCT in an agreement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48406" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18124" RevisionGUID="61eb2c6e-911c-4893-9af8-40422b1c4243" CreationDate="2017-07-22T13:51:02.733" UserId="19446" Text="&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48408" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17466" RevisionGUID="b39b412f-13bb-444d-9e80-91c69d422fdd" CreationDate="2017-07-22T19:39:21.470" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48409" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="3c96ed5f-73ca-4c6f-8032-4a2056a2ba10" CreationDate="2017-07-22T20:39:31.157" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18125" RevisionGUID="8b2a9ac0-7b66-427b-9375-7840777fb206" CreationDate="2017-07-23T00:02:52.807" UserId="15503" Text="Every PCT application has an application number. If you refer to this, the application is clearly and uniquely identified. For example, &quot;PCT application number PCT/US2016/012345&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The publication isn't really the application, so you probably don't want to refer to the publication number necessarily. Though you could say &quot;the application corresponding to PCT publication number WO 2016/012345&quot;, though that's somewhat of an unnecessary circumlocution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18126" RevisionGUID="4ed62436-911c-4930-8112-72a62e884e68" CreationDate="2017-07-23T02:30:55.363" UserId="19450" Text="I'm not a lawyer (nor am I an expert in the technology area for this patent), but here are some applications that may be of interest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - US20160286348A1: [Ble rapid room entry system and method][1]&#xD;&#xA; - US20150323675A1: [Multipath rejection using cooperative gps receivers][2]&#xD;&#xA; - US20150071274A1: [Cable assembly with integrated wireless proximity sensors][3]&#xD;&#xA; - US20140274150A1: [Proximity fence][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first application in the list is also an Awarepoint app, and received a final rejection in April, and it does not look like the applicant has made any response since then. You can find the prosecution history by search for the application on [Public PAIR][5], in the Image File Wrapper tab, and then you can read the rejection itself. All but the first application in the above list are patents or apps which were art cited by the examiner in final rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for filing new art with the USPTO, third parties can submit what's called a [Third Party Submission][6] (form is on the [forms page][7]), or you can try [this page][8].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160286348A1/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20150323675A1/en&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20150071274A1/en&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20140274150A1/en&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1134.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/third-party-preissuance-submissions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18128" RevisionGUID="a2fa93f7-cffc-4988-9ce8-5f9379a8d9e8" CreationDate="2017-07-23T06:38:05.357" UserId="18489" Text="Lets say I file a PPA that's very broad but when I have patent wrtiten it's very detailed. Or if I add features to my patent that weren't in the PPA will my patent get reject since the patent office will use my PPA as a reference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48417" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18128" RevisionGUID="a2fa93f7-cffc-4988-9ce8-5f9379a8d9e8" CreationDate="2017-07-23T06:38:05.357" UserId="18489" Text="If my PPA and patent are written differently will the patent get rejected?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48418" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18128" RevisionGUID="a2fa93f7-cffc-4988-9ce8-5f9379a8d9e8" CreationDate="2017-07-23T06:38:05.357" UserId="18489" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;non-provisional&gt;&lt;approving&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48419" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17496" RevisionGUID="2bbc1ace-e0f9-4457-8058-c8b3c16498e1" CreationDate="2017-07-23T06:46:48.427" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6517" RevisionGUID="9fdf0d2e-5c77-44a1-8c00-829d29b5f7df" CreationDate="2017-07-23T07:57:05.460" UserId="19449" Comment="Fixed URL.  " Text="Design patents protect the &quot;look and feel&quot; of a GUI.  You don't have to show copying the way you do with copyright.  A design patent is infringed if another GUI would be confused for yours by an ordinary observer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example from Apple v Samsung&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Comparison of patented Apple GUI vs Samsung infringing GUI](https://ipwatchdog.com/images/mn-d2-2.jpg) (Fixing a one-character URL error doesn't mesh with SE's 6 char edit minimum.  Seriously SE?  Somebody please delete this parenthetical.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Samsung GUI was found to be &quot;confusingly similar&quot; to Apple's patent even though there were many differences between the two.  The Blackberry GUI was provided by Apple as an example of a GUI that had the same functionality but was not confusingly similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Design patents can be quite strong if properly written.  Apple's iPhone GUI patent was worth several hundred million dollars.  More information here: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/08/06/strong-design-patents-the-power-of-color/id=44342/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48421" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6517" RevisionGUID="9fdf0d2e-5c77-44a1-8c00-829d29b5f7df" CreationDate="2017-07-23T07:57:05.460" Comment="Proposed by 19449 approved by -1 edit id of 2040" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6517" RevisionGUID="a3c7589e-aa4d-4361-a6c6-d8b32d15e58a" CreationDate="2017-07-23T07:57:05.460" UserId="18033" Comment="Fixed URL.  " Text="Design patents protect the &quot;look and feel&quot; of a GUI.  You don't have to show copying the way you do with copyright.  A design patent is infringed if another GUI would be confused for yours by an ordinary observer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example from Apple v Samsung&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Comparison of patented Apple GUI vs Samsung infringing GUI](https://ipwatchdog.com/images/mn-d2-2.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Samsung GUI was found to be &quot;confusingly similar&quot; to Apple's patent even though there were many differences between the two.  The Blackberry GUI was provided by Apple as an example of a GUI that had the same functionality but was not confusingly similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Design patents can be quite strong if properly written.  Apple's iPhone GUI patent was worth several hundred million dollars.  More information here: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/08/06/strong-design-patents-the-power-of-color/id=44342/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18129" RevisionGUID="3d703a7d-4266-42e8-97e8-72ea35153d50" CreationDate="2017-07-23T15:04:54.633" UserId="18033" Text="No, that's not a reason for rejection. &#xA;&#xA;However, every new subject matter (read: every change) does lead to losing the provisional's filing date for every claim using (referencing, being based on) the new subject matter, even if only marginally using it.&#xA;&#xA;You would then get a patent (if not rejected for other reasons) having different filing dates for different claims or the new one for all, depending. &#xA;&#xA;The claims with the new filing date could therefore be rejected referencing documents published between prov. and non-prov. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48424" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="ed19d85b-c0e2-4c3c-8127-480d15ec1c61" CreationDate="2017-07-23T20:59:36.890" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48425" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="cbb1b9c6-cac2-4631-8418-b4950e598d2c" CreationDate="2017-07-23T22:59:37.600" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48426" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="436bded2-a7d0-4e4b-8129-1bb1b3e4449d" CreationDate="2017-07-24T00:12:56.000" UserId="15503" Comment="Make title more representative of the question" Text="What does claim 1 of US 2008/0255822 A1 cover?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48427" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17273" RevisionGUID="93de1b22-480c-4c6a-a3df-b65265d5e67d" CreationDate="2017-07-24T00:59:37.580" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48428" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17865" RevisionGUID="eca2732f-fdf5-458d-afe0-606919dbef03" CreationDate="2017-07-24T01:59:38.337" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48430" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17290" RevisionGUID="f7906f43-5822-4f9a-a116-e02fab5fe8b9" CreationDate="2017-07-24T02:59:37.747" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48431" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17290" RevisionGUID="9517977c-54e8-469a-815e-6867f5b5327a" CreationDate="2017-07-24T03:34:47.290" UserId="15503" Comment="Make title more representative of the question" Text="What is the difference between the inventions in US 2015/0291122 A1 and WO 2012/113362 A1?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48432" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="51a3ea8b-1162-45b3-a05b-0826676c09ca" CreationDate="2017-07-24T03:59:37.967" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48433" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12639" RevisionGUID="3288dc47-4c87-4294-8dfe-43195dcccfa0" CreationDate="2017-07-24T04:59:37.950" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48434" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="93693064-f811-4be5-9267-7ef10469b3a4" CreationDate="2017-07-24T10:05:50.200" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48435" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17995" RevisionGUID="1177e6e1-cea8-4996-ba02-1ad55bbfe201" CreationDate="2017-07-24T14:08:10.523" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18130" RevisionGUID="39648a61-b314-46ae-a051-84e87d4c6936" CreationDate="2017-07-24T14:24:57.063" UserId="19453" Text="My current understanding:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a PCT application was filed before, but published after, the filing of a different European patent application, then the PCT application may be considered a 54(3) EPC document (i.e. Only novelty destroying prior art), **ONLY IF** the PCT enters the European phase (fees paid and translations provided) within 31 months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could the EP application be allowed to grant if the PCT application has not yet entered the European phase (i.e. is currently not a 54(3) document but could become one in the future), but would appear to be novelty destroying? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also if such a case arose, what would be the smartest course of action for the inventor of the EP application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48437" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18130" RevisionGUID="39648a61-b314-46ae-a051-84e87d4c6936" CreationDate="2017-07-24T14:24:57.063" UserId="19453" Text="Schrödingers Prior art 54(3) EPC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48438" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18130" RevisionGUID="39648a61-b314-46ae-a051-84e87d4c6936" CreationDate="2017-07-24T14:24:57.063" UserId="19453" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;european&gt;&lt;543&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48439" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16926" RevisionGUID="4c5b593a-7512-4ea5-b05b-6183dae95bda" CreationDate="2017-07-24T20:12:13.853" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48440" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="8646ff27-9b63-45f6-946d-3d18bfad2ca9" CreationDate="2017-07-24T21:12:06.877" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48441" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18130" RevisionGUID="d66b867f-f5b1-4539-a738-343960bb7a11" CreationDate="2017-07-24T21:16:36.983" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;european&gt;&lt;epc&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18131" RevisionGUID="cc1fc8d1-01c7-45a3-9ae0-f7762e746ed8" CreationDate="2017-07-24T21:29:12.863" UserId="18033" Text="First of all, your understanding of 54(3) EPC seems to be right. More information can be found in the [guidelines for examination][1] where one can also read that the EP application has to be valid (e.g. not withdrawn) at the date of publication to qualify as prior art for 54(3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Could the EP application be allowed to grant if the PCT application has not yet entered the European phase (i.e. is currently not a 54(3) document but could become one in the future), but would appear to be novelty destroying? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, therefore, seems to be a correct interpretation. In theory. In practice, (almost) no european patent application will make it to a grant in less than 31 months. And if the examiner knew about a unpublished application (afaik they can search at least unpublished european apps and I think PCT too - plus the pCT will get published prior to the 31 months so they can find it then even if not), they'd simply wait.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming however, some prior art did turn up after the grant - the course of action would be the same as for other prior art found after grant - do nothing. Know that the patent could be challenged and include that in a possible litigation strategy, other than that, you have a valid patent unless proven otherwise. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, examiners never find all prior art, so the few cases where this particular possibility for hidden prior art might be the reason, there's really no important difference to cases with any other reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_iv_5_1.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18132" RevisionGUID="29b6481c-417a-492c-8acd-38f73ff71aea" CreationDate="2017-07-24T23:52:10.697" UserId="19454" Text="I did a provisional patent efilling, but unregistred, and I would like to know if now I register myselft if I can link those filling to my uspto account ? as I found that its usefull to have an account to make a minor change in the filling.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48444" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18132" RevisionGUID="29b6481c-417a-492c-8acd-38f73ff71aea" CreationDate="2017-07-24T23:52:10.697" UserId="19454" Text="USPTO Link an unregistred efilling to a account" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48445" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18132" RevisionGUID="29b6481c-417a-492c-8acd-38f73ff71aea" CreationDate="2017-07-24T23:52:10.697" UserId="19454" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;pair&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48446" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12070" RevisionGUID="c448c730-2634-4447-aa95-911bb1316396" CreationDate="2017-07-25T00:19:17.713" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18132" RevisionGUID="9652f830-01f5-4fd3-a5fd-6a3c99fe9af3" CreationDate="2017-07-25T02:27:37.100" UserId="15503" Comment="correct spelling" Text="I made an eFiling for a provisional patent application while unregistered. Can I now register myself and link that filing to my USPTO account? I have found that it would be useful to have an account to make a minor change to the filing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48448" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18132" RevisionGUID="9652f830-01f5-4fd3-a5fd-6a3c99fe9af3" CreationDate="2017-07-25T02:27:37.100" UserId="15503" Comment="correct spelling" Text="Can I link an unregistered eFiling to a new account?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48456" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="32cafffc-3f07-4ccc-a10a-376617f4c6c3" CreationDate="2017-07-25T08:26:15.043" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48461" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17999" RevisionGUID="7c83a0f1-1e22-4113-a524-bab6ed1c09ad" CreationDate="2017-07-25T22:28:26.513" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48462" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="c2e1ee71-d631-4f75-8f77-70433003b98d" CreationDate="2017-07-25T23:32:09.640" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48463" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13870" RevisionGUID="c83e83f9-d6c6-4812-ba9f-db75c658a9ac" CreationDate="2017-07-26T01:37:07.630" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48464" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16340" RevisionGUID="f5dacf58-b4c8-46b6-9eb0-bd40b23f4f2c" CreationDate="2017-07-26T02:37:07.427" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18137" RevisionGUID="bb67ed9a-eff6-4015-8ff9-5ec14e8500e6" CreationDate="2017-07-26T04:46:01.253" UserId="3076" Text="Yes. In a USPTO pdf it states -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Once you have your Customer Number, you must also associate your current patent&#xD;&#xA;applications with it. . . . &#xD;&#xA;- Download and complete the Customer Number Upload Spreadsheet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get more information and to download this form you can go to [Electronic Business Center][1]. People at the EBC are very helpful for this type of question. 571-272-4100. They are available by phone from **6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight**, Eastern Time, Monday through Friday&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/getting-started-new-users" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48468" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10643" RevisionGUID="32732c0f-63b6-4383-bb7b-23e7e35ebc0d" CreationDate="2017-07-26T06:37:11.747" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18138" RevisionGUID="c4d49eae-25f8-4e27-b8cf-5e2f986e47dc" CreationDate="2017-07-26T09:07:25.643" UserId="19463" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2014044321A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014044321A1&#xD;&#xA;How can I get the images?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48470" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18138" RevisionGUID="c4d49eae-25f8-4e27-b8cf-5e2f986e47dc" CreationDate="2017-07-26T09:07:25.643" UserId="19463" Text="Why I cannot see the images?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48471" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18138" RevisionGUID="c4d49eae-25f8-4e27-b8cf-5e2f986e47dc" CreationDate="2017-07-26T09:07:25.643" UserId="19463" Text="&lt;wo2014044321a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48472" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="74e7209b-41c6-444f-92cc-77dab8873236" CreationDate="2017-07-26T10:40:20.513" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18139" RevisionGUID="815e46cd-454a-47b9-b919-f48b720fe523" CreationDate="2017-07-26T14:38:58.250" UserId="17003" Text="The site [www.google.com/patents][1] is not always good with displaying patent figures. Better is [patents.google.com][2]. However in this case neither site seems to be providing images. My recommendation for searching patents is [The Lens][3] (https://www.lens.org) which is usually the most reliable. In this case, you can see [WO2014044321A][4] and see the entire PDF including figures and images. The Lens also provides additional features over Google that you might find useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.lens.org&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/WO_2014_044321_A1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BBnwj.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18140" RevisionGUID="822a9f51-c4fc-47e6-895c-19e2d7a26234" CreationDate="2017-07-26T16:17:21.427" UserId="18489" Text="Would this counter balance the patent well? So people know exactly what my invention is but but are very limited in work around cause my independent claim is so broad and hard to work around. Its Very hard to find that right balance between narow and broad so will this be a good fit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48475" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18140" RevisionGUID="822a9f51-c4fc-47e6-895c-19e2d7a26234" CreationDate="2017-07-26T16:17:21.427" UserId="18489" Text="Is it best to make indpendent claims very broad and depended claims very narrow?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48476" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18140" RevisionGUID="822a9f51-c4fc-47e6-895c-19e2d7a26234" CreationDate="2017-07-26T16:17:21.427" UserId="18489" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18141" RevisionGUID="c0419cc0-f145-4945-a35e-19b09d490bf8" CreationDate="2017-07-26T16:40:00.573" UserId="18033" Text="If you want to show people what you're invention is, use the description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;The claims are there to get you the protection you want/need. In most (or all?) cases, this is the broadest possible protection (because else, why would you even apply for a patent and not publish a paper?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Granted dependent claims do not offer protection*. Granted independent claims define what's protected.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why even have dependent claims then? Because you can't know exactly how much protection you can get granted. So you start with broader claims and have dependent backup claims. If you independent claims are rejected or fall later, you can use the dependent claims as a fall back position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how do you design them? Like an onion. Design the independent claims then think about how they might fall and what features you can add to have the broadest possible narrower protection. Scale inwards. The ultimate goal of claim design is to have a backup claim for any prior art that could turn up which excludes only that prior art and still protects everything else the broadest claims would have protected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;*Unless the patent is challenged and the independent claims fall. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18141" RevisionGUID="ffdb54b8-83dc-4d71-abcc-288018902330" CreationDate="2017-07-26T16:45:09.493" UserId="18033" Comment="added 165 characters in body" Text="**No.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to show people what you're invention is, use the description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;The claims are there to get you the protection you want/need. In most (or all?) cases, this is the broadest possible protection (because else, why would you even apply for a patent and not publish a paper?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Granted dependent claims do not offer protection*. Granted independent claims define what's protected.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why even have dependent claims then? Because you can't know exactly how much protection you can get granted. So you start with broader claims and have dependent backup claims. If you independent claims are rejected or fall later, you can use the dependent claims as a fall back position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how do you design them? Like an onion. Design the independent claims then think about how they might fall and what features you can add to have the broadest possible narrower protection. Scale inwards. The ultimate goal of claim design is to have a backup claim for any prior art that could turn up which excludes only that prior art and still protects everything else the broadest claims would have protected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that produces too many claims or is unpractical for another reason, focus on the most important parts and start adding layers of protection in that direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;*Unless the patent is challenged and the independent claims fall. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48479" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18140" RevisionGUID="22f6f1c8-11d4-469b-bfe6-9ad68144100f" CreationDate="2017-07-26T17:05:14.577" UserId="18033" Comment="edited title" Text="Is it best to make independent claims very broad and depended claims very narrow?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18139" RevisionGUID="ec68c700-0ca6-4c37-92d0-0739326f66ff" CreationDate="2017-07-26T17:47:19.217" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The site [www.google.com/patents][1] is not always good with displaying patent figures. Better is [patents.google.com][2]. However in this case neither site seems to be providing images. My recommendation for searching patents is [The Lens][3] (https://www.lens.org) which is usually the most reliable. In this case, you can find [WO2014044321A][4] and see the entire PDF including figures and images. The Lens also provides additional features over Google that you might find useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.lens.org&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/WO_2014_044321_A1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BBnwj.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18142" RevisionGUID="953ac5e5-dd89-4eb8-9711-c5746445d264" CreationDate="2017-07-26T19:46:02.853" UserId="19468" Text="It's been awhile since I did this, but IIRC, one may file a CIP at any time during pendency of the original non-provisional and its descendents, which is the only way to &quot;add new material&quot; to an application already filed. The new material in a CIP only gets priority of the CIP filing date unless it cites one or more non-expired provisionals. Thus, the patentability of any &quot;broader&quot; claim would be tested against the state of the art at each respective disclosure date. In theory, you can repeatedly file CIPs indefinitely and choose to divide and issue claim sets as you go, providing it's still only &quot;one invention&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, you can file as many provisionals as you want, whenever you want, but may only claim priority of those under a year old and containing materials not already disclosed in a publication or used in public, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18143" RevisionGUID="7a128633-549f-40ef-8c4f-323f8b4870a8" CreationDate="2017-07-26T20:37:24.397" UserId="19468" Text="It is not unusual for companies to buy the rights for inventions that are not patented, including those that appear in one or more provisionals or in pending non-provisional applications. Similarly, it is not unusual for a VC firm to appraise a portfolio of provisional applications for investment purposes, i.e., to buy shares of the company owning the applications for the purpose of financing the filing of one or more non-provisional applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A random provisional application, by itself, has no inherent enforcement rights but could certainly be used as evidence of relevant prior art, were it to become &quot;published&quot; by its owners or if the disclosed invention were offered for sale or used in public, etc.  If a company buys it, they may also reference it for priority (in a CIP or new application) for the invention as disclosed, or may take steps to suppress any further disclosure, under some NDA clause of the contract." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18144" RevisionGUID="38cae8a1-cbbe-4a2d-844e-4bcd5e7542f8" CreationDate="2017-07-26T20:47:40.850" UserId="19468" Text="Patents are issued for protection of a claimed INVENTION, not just &quot;ideas&quot;.  Your invention (and ideas) can be freely implemented and marketed (without your permission) in any country where you have not chosen to obtain and enforce an issued patent.  Simply &quot;filing&quot; applications does not result in enforceable rights." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18145" RevisionGUID="5d5ae8b4-dc42-45e1-b793-50bfede02b69" CreationDate="2017-07-26T21:24:34.053" UserId="19468" Text="The patent system intentionally includes and encourages the possibility of obtaining patents for inventions comprised of &quot;new and useful&quot; improvements upon existing inventions, previously patented or not. 35 USC § 101.  Were the underlying invention still patented in your country, an implementation of the improvement may necessitate licensing from the owners of the underlying patent, regardless of whether the improvement is, itself, patentable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18146" RevisionGUID="12dad344-4a3a-4533-862d-30a2e2f76ea8" CreationDate="2017-07-26T21:44:54.927" UserId="11537" Text="&gt; Is there a concrete method to decide whether a patent is infringed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.  On a claim-by-claim basis, an accused product or process infringes a claim if *every* element and limitation of the claim is found in the product or process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your example is a process claim comprising step A, step B, step C and step D.  The accused infringing process includes step A, step B, step E and step D, *but not step C*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One element of the claim, step C, does not appear in the accused process; therefore the process does not infringe the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roughly speaking, a jury decides facts (Does the accused process contain step C or not?), while the judge applies the law (Based on the facts of the case, has infringement occurred?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48489" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18003" RevisionGUID="8b60467d-e2ef-4f7e-a861-9d69e653aa8a" CreationDate="2017-07-26T21:49:05.350" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48490" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16491" RevisionGUID="b05031a9-4839-42cd-b737-4c650031fa13" CreationDate="2017-07-26T22:49:06.710" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48491" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16365" RevisionGUID="f44b2c75-f92c-48b6-96af-740c8d40b17b" CreationDate="2017-07-26T23:49:06.407" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48492" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="41bc125c-b247-4132-b12b-bf9f897cd1fc" CreationDate="2017-07-27T03:49:06.563" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18147" RevisionGUID="94c25f50-1ce9-4cc9-aba6-df889ac89a6d" CreationDate="2017-07-27T05:10:13.227" UserId="19470" Text="I mean if I patented something for example in the United States, then my invention could be said to be American? Something like &quot;the airplane was patented in USA so now the airplane is American and belongs to USA and is an american invention&quot; or &quot;the car was patented in Germany and now the car belongs to Germany and is a German invention&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The United States Patent Office registers patents as American and US owned or patents have no nationality and belong to all the countries of the world?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if a patent belongs to the US government then you could say that patent belongs to the US and is an American patent?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48494" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18147" RevisionGUID="94c25f50-1ce9-4cc9-aba6-df889ac89a6d" CreationDate="2017-07-27T05:10:13.227" UserId="19470" Text="A patent have nationality?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48495" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18147" RevisionGUID="94c25f50-1ce9-4cc9-aba6-df889ac89a6d" CreationDate="2017-07-27T05:10:13.227" UserId="19470" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;nationality&gt;&lt;register&gt;&lt;question&gt;&lt;goverment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48496" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18057" RevisionGUID="0b8ee588-c410-4570-9277-2f11e885c986" CreationDate="2017-07-27T05:39:49.677" UserId="15503" Comment="Make title more representative of the question" Text="How can I decide whether a patent is infringed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18141" RevisionGUID="d5ecfa56-e852-4e40-8e00-462b8f0b7553" CreationDate="2017-07-27T07:59:24.583" UserId="18033" Comment="added 3239 characters in body" Text="**No.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to show people what you're invention is, use the description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;The claims are there to get you the protection you want/need. In most (or all?) cases, this is the broadest possible protection (because else, why would you even apply for a patent and not publish a paper?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Granted dependent claims do not offer protection*. Granted independent claims define what's protected.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why even have dependent claims then? Because you can't know exactly how much protection you can get granted. So you start with broader claims and have dependent backup claims. If you independent claims are rejected or fall later, you can use the dependent claims as a fall back position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how do you design them? Like an onion. Design the independent claims then think about how they might fall and what features you can add to have the broadest possible narrower protection. Scale inwards. The ultimate goal of claim design is to have a backup claim for any prior art that could turn up which excludes only that prior art and still protects everything else the broadest claims would have protected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that produces too many claims or is unpractical for another reason, focus on the most important parts and start adding layers of protection in that direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;*Unless the patent is challenged and the independent claims fall. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You invented a mobile telephone. (Imagine this in a time where there where none). Your preferred emodiment (= your core invention) of the mobile telephone uses a satellite connection to send and receive data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1**: An apparatus enabled to receive and send data, using a wireless antenna to send data and the same or another wireless antenna to receive data. The apparatus is enabled to record sound via a microphone and convert this sound into said data which can be sent. The apparatus furthermore is enabled to convert said incoming data into sound via a speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Claim 1 is an independent claim.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 2**: The apparatus from claim 1 where the wireless antenna is enabled to send data with /*enough energy to reach something a few hundred meters away or more, preferredly something over thousand meters away, more preferredly something over 2 km away.*/ (this part would have to be elaborated saying for example with 5 watt or in the range of such and such frequency and with at least x watt or something like this, but I don't have any numbers for this).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 3**: The apparatus from claim 1 where the wireless connection is a satellite connection. (*Of course there is no wireless connection which I am referecning here in claim 1 so in a real patent application this claim would fall, it would have to be something like &quot;where the send data is send to a satellite enabled to receive and process it etc&quot;*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(claim 2 and 3 are dependent claims).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the beginning I said imagine a world without wireless telephones. But maybe I was wrong and somewhere there is a wireless telephone which sends data to it's basis station in the same room. Then it has very low transmitting power and a mobile phone using a cell tower or a satellite phone would probably be inventive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But claim 1 is anticipated by a phone which transmits data wirelessly over 2 meters to a station in the same room! Claims 2 and 3 are protective against such a disclosure. They offer a broad protection of my invention (a phone sending data wirelessly over a great distance). While claim 3 protects only the satellite phone which is actually what I invented, claim 2 would also protect mobile phones using cell towers and could be amended (by leaving out the first preferred with the few hundred meters) even if a home phone was known which sends data up to &quot;a few hundred meters&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I had had the idea of using cell towers, I would have written that in the patent. But even like this, I didn't know about them and still protected it. &#xD;&#xA;If I had, as you said, made a broad and a narrow claim, claim 2 wouldn't exist. In that case, I would have made some money on satellite phones after claim 1 fell, but wouldn't be one of the richest people in the world because every mobile phone pays for my patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you see what I did there? I tried to anticipate how claim 1 could fall and protect the maximum of what remains. Of course, in this case I knew what the prior art would be, because I just made it up, but in reality you have to try and formulate many of these around many possible prior art documents *which you don't know*. This is the art of claim design. Try to have claims which you can modularily add little details to (from the description or the dependent claims) combining yourself away from prior art the examiner found - but only in such a manner that you don't lose a lot of protection, only the little space that the prior art already occupies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18148" RevisionGUID="9b2d0a7d-9ec9-49f2-863b-c13ed22ff770" CreationDate="2017-07-27T08:08:40.487" UserId="19472" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20160144214][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20160144214&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dear Sir/Madam,&#xD;&#xA;I want to develop a new product. Can I use this open patent?&#xD;&#xA;Looking forward  to your advise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sincerely,&#xD;&#xA;Hubert" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48499" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18148" RevisionGUID="9b2d0a7d-9ec9-49f2-863b-c13ed22ff770" CreationDate="2017-07-27T08:08:40.487" UserId="19472" Text="Is it open patent so that we can use it to our new product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48500" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18148" RevisionGUID="9b2d0a7d-9ec9-49f2-863b-c13ed22ff770" CreationDate="2017-07-27T08:08:40.487" UserId="19472" Text="&lt;us20160144214&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18149" RevisionGUID="e46c8115-ec05-4c6e-ba8e-4c5834f9fa8e" CreationDate="2017-07-27T08:17:31.090" UserId="18033" Text="As of now this is a pending patent application. Look at [this][1] question for more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means it does not protect anything right now, **but** if it is granted, it will protect something. That protection applies backwards in time. If you infringe the claims of the future patent (in case it's granted) now, you might have to pay later. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-&gt; No, using it now bears the risk of it becoming a patent in the future. It cannot yet be said what that patent will exactly protect, if anything, because the claims might change during the prosecution (=examination of the patent application).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/17115/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18141" RevisionGUID="2cd1ad9d-7b49-4777-8015-dc8525ab2ff4" CreationDate="2017-07-27T08:26:18.400" UserId="18033" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="**No.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to show people what you're invention is, use the description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;The claims are there to get you the protection you want/need. In most (or all?) cases, this is the broadest possible protection (because else, why would you even apply for a patent and not publish a paper?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Granted dependent claims do not offer protection*. Granted independent claims define what's protected.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why even have dependent claims then? Because you can't know exactly how much protection you can get granted. So you start with broader claims and have dependent backup claims. If your independent claims are rejected or fall later, you can use the dependent claims as a fall back position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how do you design them? Like an onion. Design the independent claims then think about how they might fall and what features you can add to have the broadest possible narrower protection. Scale inwards. The ultimate goal of claim design is to have a backup claim for any prior art that could turn up which excludes only that prior art and still protects everything else the broadest claims would have protected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that produces too many claims or is unpractical for another reason, focus on the most important parts and start adding layers of protection in that direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;*Unless the patent is challenged and the independent claims fall. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You invented a mobile telephone. (Imagine this in a time where there where none). Your preferred emodiment (= your core invention) of the mobile telephone uses a satellite connection to send and receive data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1**: An apparatus enabled to receive and send data, using a wireless antenna to send data and the same or another wireless antenna to receive data. The apparatus is enabled to record sound via a microphone and convert this sound into said data which can be sent. The apparatus furthermore is enabled to convert said incoming data into sound via a speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Claim 1 is an independent claim.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 2**: The apparatus from claim 1 where the wireless antenna is enabled to send data with /*enough energy to reach something a few hundred meters away or more, preferredly something over thousand meters away, more preferredly something over 2 km away.*/ (this part would have to be elaborated saying for example with 5 watt or in the range of such and such frequency and with at least x watt or something like this, but I don't have any numbers for this).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 3**: The apparatus from claim 1 where the wireless connection is a satellite connection. (*Of course there is no wireless connection which I am referencing here in claim 1 so in a real patent application this claim would fall, it would have to be something like &quot;where the send data is send to a satellite enabled to receive and process it etc&quot;*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(claim 2 and 3 are dependent claims).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the beginning I said imagine a world without wireless telephones. But maybe I was wrong and somewhere there is a wireless telephone which sends data to it's basis station in the same room. Then it has very low transmitting power and a mobile phone using a cell tower or a satellite phone would probably be inventive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But claim 1 is anticipated by a phone which transmits data wirelessly over 2 meters to a station in the same room! Claims 2 and 3 are protective against such a disclosure. They offer a broad protection of my invention (a phone sending data wirelessly over a great distance). While claim 3 protects only the satellite phone which is actually what I invented, claim 2 would also protect mobile phones using cell towers and could be amended (by leaving out the first preferred with the few hundred meters) even if a home phone was known which sends data up to &quot;a few hundred meters&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I had had the idea of using cell towers, I would have written that in the patent. But even like this, I didn't know about them and still protected it. &#xD;&#xA;If I had, as you said, made a broad and a narrow claim, claim 2 wouldn't exist. In that case, I would have made some money on satellite phones after claim 1 fell, but wouldn't be one of the richest people in the world because every mobile phone pays for my patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you see what I did there? I tried to anticipate how claim 1 could fall and protect the maximum of what remains. Of course, in this case I knew what the prior art would be, because I just made it up, but in reality you have to try and formulate many of these around many possible prior art documents *which you don't know*. This is the art of claim design. Try to have claims which you can modularily add little details to (from the description or the dependent claims) combining yourself away from prior art the examiner found - but only in such a manner that you don't lose a lot of protection, only the little space that the prior art already occupies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18150" RevisionGUID="b2f09745-a554-4ece-a09c-14b2fe2ae8d6" CreationDate="2017-07-27T08:34:55.183" UserId="19473" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2013102859A4][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013102859A4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally this patent should be subject to a patentable subject matter, utility, novelty, non-obviousness, and prior disclosure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does not carry any added propositions of novelty at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This &quot;inventor&quot; has not just derived the invention from someone else, but also used information from abandoned and expired patents that have been abandoned probably due to prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They did not &quot;invent the materials&quot; nor the &quot;methodology for EL lights&quot;, nor the EL technology as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior abandoned and expired patents:&#xD;&#xA;2002: http://www.google.sc/patents/US20030129297 (anybody can use the content of this BASF patent. probably abandoned by BASF due to prior art.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the earliest EL paint adopters (2006) is the Original-XTRA DYNAMICS-Lackschicht prozess.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.xtra-dynamics.com/EL-Beschichtung.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior art: &#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20111119171026/http://www.xtra-dynamics.com:80/md.static/faltblatt_xtralight.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Winner of the NoAE innovation contest in 2008:&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20091106140538/http://www.xtra-dynamics.com:80/winner-of-the-noae-innovation-contest.n3.htm &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20111114162842/http://www.xtra-dynamics.com:80/el-paint.en.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, there is this prior thesis published in 2012:&#xD;&#xA;http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/56133/1/WRAP_THESIS_Middleton_2012.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48504" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18150" RevisionGUID="b2f09745-a554-4ece-a09c-14b2fe2ae8d6" CreationDate="2017-07-27T08:34:55.183" UserId="19473" Text="Patent has multiple prior art, how can this been granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48505" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18150" RevisionGUID="b2f09745-a554-4ece-a09c-14b2fe2ae8d6" CreationDate="2017-07-27T08:34:55.183" UserId="19473" Text="&lt;wo2013102859a4&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18152" RevisionGUID="59aecabe-90cd-4df7-b8dd-b1fbad7c3c92" CreationDate="2017-07-27T10:46:59.077" UserId="19475" Text="I'm a journalist who recently reported on this patent from GROW software - patent number: 20170157859. Could I have confirmation that it has been granted? I originally reported it as such and was sent an email to say an application had only been published. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sam Davies, TCT Magazine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US20170157859][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20170157859" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48510" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18152" RevisionGUID="59aecabe-90cd-4df7-b8dd-b1fbad7c3c92" CreationDate="2017-07-27T10:46:59.077" UserId="19475" Text="Has GROW Software's patent application (publication number: 20170157859) been granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48511" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18152" RevisionGUID="59aecabe-90cd-4df7-b8dd-b1fbad7c3c92" CreationDate="2017-07-27T10:46:59.077" UserId="19475" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18153" RevisionGUID="5b2bf778-8904-488d-a359-761ede827d9c" CreationDate="2017-07-27T11:34:36.100" UserId="18033" Text="This patent has **not** been granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [here][1] for the dossier of the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here][2] for more information about patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A source for the confusion might be [US9604406 (B2)][3] which is a granted patent coming from application US2014156053 (A1). The patent you named is a continuation of this application (US2014156053) which has been granted. But US20170157859 is still an application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=US.201715432881.A&amp;lng=en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/17115/18033&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&amp;NR=9604406B2&amp;KC=B2&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=1&amp;date=20170328&amp;DB=&amp;locale=#" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18153" RevisionGUID="343a94f5-3dc8-49df-a7b0-1246769ff952" CreationDate="2017-07-27T12:55:56.940" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="This patent has **not** been granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [here][1] for the dossier of the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here][2] for more information about patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A source for the confusion might be [US9604406 (B2)][3] which is a granted patent coming from application US2014156053 (A1). The patent you named is a continuation of this (now granted) application (US2014156053). But US20170157859 is still an application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=US.201715432881.A&amp;lng=en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/17115/18033&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&amp;NR=9604406B2&amp;KC=B2&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=1&amp;date=20170328&amp;DB=&amp;locale=#" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18154" RevisionGUID="47a55920-f55e-4eb5-9a21-880ed2455462" CreationDate="2017-07-27T14:55:34.807" UserId="17003" Text="I think you are confused by the difference between an invention and a patent. A patent is a legal document that provides a limited duration protection to an invention in a specific jurisdiction. The same invention may be, and often is, patented in multiple jurisdictions. Having a US patent does not mean, in any way, that the invention is &quot;American&quot; as the inventor and the owner of the patent (which is often not the same) may be from some other country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for a patent &quot;belonging to the US government&quot;, this is in general not the case for US patents. My US patents are owned by my employer. You can identify the owner of the patent by looking for who is listed as the assignee. However, if the invention was developed at a national laboratory or agency (such as Los Alamos or NASA) then it is likely the owner would be the US government. I guess you could consider those to be &quot;American Invention&quot;, but even then it is possible that the inventor is not an American citizen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you insist on assigning a nationality to an invention (not a patent), then I suppose you could either refer to the inventor's nationality or perhaps the assignee's. This isn't altogether clean as there can be multiple inventors on the same patent and multinational companies can have facilities in several countries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18155" RevisionGUID="82c9ea3e-eff0-4de5-a1d5-c7ce39168249" CreationDate="2017-07-27T16:07:24.880" UserId="19473" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8470388][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8470388&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US9642212][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9642212&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally this patent should be subject to patentable subject matter, utility, novelty, non-obviousness, and prior disclosure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does not carry any added propositions of novelty at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This &quot;inventor&quot; has not just derived the invention from someone else, but also used information from abandoned and expired patents that have been abandoned probably due to prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They did not &quot;invent the materials&quot; nor the &quot;methodology for EL lights&quot;, nor the EL technology as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior abandoned and expired patents:&#xD;&#xA;2002: http://www.google.sc/patents/US20030129297 (anybody can use the content of this BASF patent. probably abandoned by BASF due to prior art.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the earliest EL paint adopters (2006) is the Original-XTRA DYNAMICS-Lackschicht prozess.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.xtra-dynamics.com/EL-Beschichtung.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior art: &#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20111119171026/http://www.xtra-dynamics.com:80/md.static/faltblatt_xtralight.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Winner of the NoAE innovation contest in 2008:&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20091106140538/http://www.xtra-dynamics.com:80/winner-of-the-noae-innovation-contest.n3.htm &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20111114162842/http://www.xtra-dynamics.com:80/el-paint.en.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In addition, there is this prior thesis published in 2012:**&#xD;&#xA;http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/56133/1/WRAP_THESIS_Middleton_2012.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48516" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18155" RevisionGUID="82c9ea3e-eff0-4de5-a1d5-c7ce39168249" CreationDate="2017-07-27T16:07:24.880" UserId="19473" Text="With prior art prove, can this patent be invalidated?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48517" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18155" RevisionGUID="82c9ea3e-eff0-4de5-a1d5-c7ce39168249" CreationDate="2017-07-27T16:07:24.880" UserId="19473" Text="&lt;us8470388&gt;&lt;us9642212&gt;&lt;electroluminescent&gt;&lt;us20130171903&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48521" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18008" RevisionGUID="103b1fff-76ba-4471-818d-58225405abf2" CreationDate="2017-07-27T17:53:49.890" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48522" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="2926a24f-f32c-4da1-8f8b-1cfb6a3445d4" CreationDate="2017-07-27T18:53:49.877" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18148" RevisionGUID="fb656d28-a684-438a-9e54-596b4555ce95" CreationDate="2017-07-27T19:26:02.457" UserId="17003" Comment="Provided an improved link to the patent application which shows figures." Text="In reference to the patent: [US20160144214][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160144214A1/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dear Sir/Madam,&#xD;&#xA;I want to develop a new product. Can I use this open patent?&#xD;&#xA;Looking forward  to your advise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sincerely,&#xD;&#xA;Hubert" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18158" RevisionGUID="02f7300c-1e70-406d-8b93-9a79e7e7bf00" CreationDate="2017-07-28T03:58:53.433" UserId="18769" Text="Assume a patent is awarded with apparatus and method claims applying to some device with an intended process.  For example, consider a potato peeler intended to be swiped across potatoes, in which both the peeler and process of swiping the peeler are patented.  If someone wanted to then open a potato-peeling shop, and they bought the device from a patent owner or licensee, would they owe royalties on the revenue generated by peeling potatoes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my case, I am working out a license agreement with such a patent owner in order to manufacture and sell it.  I am wondering if I can somehow buy the device from myself or sell the device to a family member (i.e. not at arm's length) at 'market price', and then open a shop providing royalty-free services using the device.  Would exhaustion apply in this case?  What if I instead sold the device to someone who was at arm's length?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48527" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18158" RevisionGUID="02f7300c-1e70-406d-8b93-9a79e7e7bf00" CreationDate="2017-07-28T03:58:53.433" UserId="18769" Text="Patent exhaustion: services utilizing a patented device" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48528" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18158" RevisionGUID="02f7300c-1e70-406d-8b93-9a79e7e7bf00" CreationDate="2017-07-28T03:58:53.433" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;patent-exhaustion&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18159" RevisionGUID="0dc71146-448e-4304-9f88-e5aebe1ee7cf" CreationDate="2017-07-28T04:43:03.223" UserId="18769" Text="Consider a patent licensee. It is quite possible that the expected royalty payments, cost of challenge (post grant, inter partes, or ex parte reexam), and probability of invalidation would justify a validity challenge (i.e. expected value &gt;$0).  For example, if the expected lifetime royalties may amount to a few million, the cost of a challenge was $100k, and the probability of invalidation may be 20%, it would probably make sense to challenge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this done in practice?  Are there traditional license terms that forbid this?  Does the challenging licensee lose credibility in the case given that they were concerned enough to sign a license in the first place?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read that validity challenges are usually initiated by those being sued for infringement, but it seems like a valid action for a licensee as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48530" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18159" RevisionGUID="0dc71146-448e-4304-9f88-e5aebe1ee7cf" CreationDate="2017-07-28T04:43:03.223" UserId="18769" Text="Challenging validity of licensor's patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48531" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18159" RevisionGUID="0dc71146-448e-4304-9f88-e5aebe1ee7cf" CreationDate="2017-07-28T04:43:03.223" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;post-grant-review&gt;&lt;reexamination&gt;&lt;interpartes&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18160" RevisionGUID="4895f9a0-f23e-46ab-9992-7abda66b9720" CreationDate="2017-07-28T06:59:37.360" UserId="19477" Text="In reference to the patent: [EP0999335A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP0999335A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48533" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18160" RevisionGUID="4895f9a0-f23e-46ab-9992-7abda66b9720" CreationDate="2017-07-28T06:59:37.360" UserId="19477" Text="expiry date patent EP 0999335 for Europe - Holland?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48534" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18160" RevisionGUID="4895f9a0-f23e-46ab-9992-7abda66b9720" CreationDate="2017-07-28T06:59:37.360" UserId="19477" Text="&lt;date&gt;&lt;expiry&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18155" RevisionGUID="2ade7be9-0201-45cc-b0ae-4b8c13264f23" CreationDate="2017-07-28T09:57:47.413" UserId="19473" Comment="added 297 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8470388][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8470388&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US9642212][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9642212&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally this patent should be subject to patentable subject matter, utility, novelty, non-obviousness, and prior disclosure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**It does not carry any added propositions of novelty at all.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This &quot;inventor&quot; has not just **derived the invention from someone else**, but also used information from abandoned and expired patents that have been abandoned probably due to prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They did not &quot;invent the materials&quot; nor the &quot;methodology for EL lights&quot;, nor the EL technology as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior abandoned and expired patents:&#xD;&#xA;2002: http://www.google.sc/patents/US20030129297 (anybody can use the content of this BASF patent. probably abandoned by BASF due to prior art.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the earliest EL paint adopters (2006) is the **Original-XTRA DYNAMICS-Lackschicht** prozess.  &#xD;&#xA;http://www.xtra-dynamics.com/EL-Beschichtung.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prior art that has been copied and translated**&#xD;&#xA;(2007)https://google.com/patents/WO2007112715A1?cl=en&amp;hl=de&#xD;&#xA;(2009)https://google.com/patents/DE102009020191A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior art: &#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20111119171026/http://www.xtra-dynamics.com:80/md.static/faltblatt_xtralight.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Winner of the NoAE innovation contest in 2008:&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20091106140538/http://www.xtra-dynamics.com:80/winner-of-the-noae-innovation-contest.n3.htm &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20111114162842/http://www.xtra-dynamics.com:80/el-paint.en.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In addition, there is this prior thesis published in 2012:**&#xD;&#xA;http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/56133/1/WRAP_THESIS_Middleton_2012.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**On top of this all, there is also this granted patent:**&#xD;&#xA;https://google.com/patents/CN104507194A?cl=en " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18155" RevisionGUID="5cd407fb-ee12-4a0c-81ce-067ab482db3e" CreationDate="2017-07-28T10:22:15.547" UserId="19473" Comment="deleted 59 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8470388][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8470388&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US9642212][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9642212&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally this patent should be subject to patentable subject matter, utility, novelty, non-obviousness, and prior disclosure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**It does not carry any added propositions of novelty at all.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This &quot;inventor&quot; has not just **derived the invention from someone else**, but also used information from abandoned and expired patents that have been abandoned probably due to prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They did not &quot;invent the materials&quot; nor the &quot;methodology for EL lights&quot;, nor the EL technology as such. what they did is simply called: **Plagiarism**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior abandoned and expired patents:&#xD;&#xA;2002: http://www.google.sc/patents/US20030129297 (anybody can use the content of this BASF patent. probably abandoned by BASF due to prior art.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the earliest EL paint adopters (2006) is the **Original-XTRA DYNAMICS-Lackschicht** prozess.  &#xD;&#xA;http://www.xtra-dynamics.com/EL-Beschichtung.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prior art that has been copied and translated**&#xD;&#xA;(2007)https://google.com/patents/WO2007112715A1?cl=en&amp;hl=de&#xD;&#xA;(2009)https://google.com/patents/DE102009020191A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior art: &#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20111119171026/http://www.xtra-dynamics.com:80/md.static/faltblatt_xtralight.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Winner of the NoAE innovation contest in 2008:&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20091106140538/http://www.xtra-dynamics.com:80/winner-of-the-noae-innovation-contest.n3.htm &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20111114162842/http://www.xtra-dynamics.com:80/el-paint.en.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In addition, there is this prior thesis published in 2012:**&#xD;&#xA;http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/56133/1/WRAP_THESIS_Middleton_2012.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48537" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18155" RevisionGUID="0dc35186-00b8-4281-a178-e56365c511b6" CreationDate="2017-07-28T10:48:28.040" UserId="19473" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;electroluminescent&gt;&lt;us20130171903&gt;&lt;us8470388&gt;&lt;us9642212&gt;&lt;lumilor&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48538" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18159" RevisionGUID="d18f931a-3967-4898-b7f8-636b1eccd8cb" CreationDate="2017-07-28T12:20:43.120" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="48542" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18155" RevisionGUID="51dd79d1-eadb-48dd-b2b0-8e1959bc8b6d" CreationDate="2017-07-28T12:53:42.143" UserId="19473" Comment="corrected tags" Text="&lt;electroluminescent&gt;&lt;us20130171903&gt;&lt;us8470388&gt;&lt;us9642212&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48543" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18155" RevisionGUID="c704d854-0bd4-4b3a-b594-cfa4268018b5" CreationDate="2017-07-28T13:11:53.270" UserId="19473" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us20130171903&gt;&lt;us8470388&gt;&lt;us9642212&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18161" RevisionGUID="611cf4e8-1f6a-46cf-ab5c-476ed03aaf7f" CreationDate="2017-07-28T13:21:41.360" UserId="17003" Text="Often it is hard to decipher what makes a patent unique enough to get issued. Very often, the description in the patent seems very general. What is actually patented is contained in the claims which can be far more specific. In some cases the actual invention is a subtle refinement to an existing technology. In the case of the two patents you cited, one has 29 and the other 44 cited patents in addition to several non patent citations. In other words the patent examiner reviewed a lot of prior art before granting the patents. I would recommend you review the file wrapper for each patent on the [US Public Pair][1] site. I do believe there are processes for invalidating a granted patent, but will leave it up to more knowledgable persons to provide those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18162" RevisionGUID="6f00ceb0-5871-44d9-b366-bee3d2ffdfae" CreationDate="2017-07-28T13:24:33.870" UserId="17003" Text="You link to an application. The issued patent associated with that application is [EP0999355B1][1]. This patent should expire 20 years from the priority date of Nov 6, 1998. Thus I believe the patent will expire on Nov 6, 2018.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP0999335B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48549" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18150" RevisionGUID="a581520b-878f-414f-8534-f999d928f603" CreationDate="2017-07-28T16:03:31.923" UserId="19473" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Patent has multiple prior art, why is it not preventing the grant of this app" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48550" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18150" RevisionGUID="a581520b-878f-414f-8534-f999d928f603" CreationDate="2017-07-28T16:03:31.923" UserId="19473" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;wo2013102859a4&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18150" RevisionGUID="16a89c5f-2d07-418f-9811-177d6413fb4c" CreationDate="2017-07-28T16:17:34.143" UserId="19473" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8470388][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8470388&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;COUNTRY - Patent Number&#xD;&#xA;United States - 8470388&#xD;&#xA;Australia - 2013207081&#xD;&#xA;Austria - EP2801242&#xD;&#xA;China - CN104115561B&#xD;&#xA;Czech Republic - EP2801242&#xD;&#xA;EPO - EP2801242&#xD;&#xA;France - EP2801242&#xD;&#xA;Germany - 60 2013 011 574.5&#xD;&#xA;Italy - EP2801242&#xD;&#xA;Mexico - MX336165&#xD;&#xA;Netherlands - EP2801242&#xD;&#xA;New Zealand - 628041&#xD;&#xA;Poland - EP2801242&#xD;&#xA;Singapore - 11201403300X&#xD;&#xA;Slovakia - EP2801242&#xD;&#xA;South Africa - 2014/05710&#xD;&#xA;Spain - EP2801242&#xD;&#xA;Sweden - SE2801242&#xD;&#xA;Switzerland - EP2801242&#xD;&#xA;Turkey - 2016-GE-501932&#xD;&#xA;United Kingdom - EP2801242&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally this patent should be subject to a patentable subject matter, utility, novelty, non-obviousness, and prior disclosure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does not carry any added propositions of novelty at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This &quot;inventor&quot; has not just derived the invention from someone else, but also used information from abandoned and expired patents that have been abandoned probably due to prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They did not &quot;invent the materials&quot; nor the &quot;methodology for EL lights&quot;, nor the EL technology as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior abandoned and expired patents:&#xD;&#xA;2002: http://www.google.sc/patents/US20030129297 (anybody can use the content of this BASF patent. probably abandoned by BASF due to prior art.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the earliest EL paint adopters (2006) is the Original-XTRA DYNAMICS-Lackschicht prozess.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.xtra-dynamics.com/EL-Beschichtung.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior art: &#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20111119171026/http://www.xtra-dynamics.com:80/md.static/faltblatt_xtralight.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Winner of the NoAE innovation contest in 2008:&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20091106140538/http://www.xtra-dynamics.com:80/winner-of-the-noae-innovation-contest.n3.htm &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20111114162842/http://www.xtra-dynamics.com:80/el-paint.en.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, there is this prior thesis published in 2012:&#xD;&#xA;http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/56133/1/WRAP_THESIS_Middleton_2012.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48552" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18150" RevisionGUID="16a89c5f-2d07-418f-9811-177d6413fb4c" CreationDate="2017-07-28T16:17:34.143" UserId="19473" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Patent has multiple prior art, why is the multiple prior art not preventing the grant of this app?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48553" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18150" RevisionGUID="16a89c5f-2d07-418f-9811-177d6413fb4c" CreationDate="2017-07-28T16:17:34.143" UserId="19473" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;wo2013102859a4&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48554" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18150" RevisionGUID="866fdc5e-a06c-483f-bae3-142456cbda9b" CreationDate="2017-07-28T16:24:28.337" UserId="19473" Comment="edited title" Text="Patent has multiple prior art, why is the multiple prior art not preventing the grant of it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48555" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="0caf75bf-339a-48ba-be12-3ec297bafd77" CreationDate="2017-07-28T16:25:03.997" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18150" RevisionGUID="6969af07-7cb3-4c57-b586-55566f02afaf" CreationDate="2017-07-28T16:43:24.327" UserId="19473" Comment="fixed some links" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8470388][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8470388&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;COUNTRY - Patent Number&#xD;&#xA;United States - 8470388&#xD;&#xA;Australia - 2013207081&#xD;&#xA;Austria - EP2801242&#xD;&#xA;China - CN104115561B&#xD;&#xA;Czech Republic - EP2801242&#xD;&#xA;EPO - EP2801242&#xD;&#xA;France - EP2801242&#xD;&#xA;Germany - 60 2013 011 574.5&#xD;&#xA;Italy - EP2801242&#xD;&#xA;Mexico - MX336165&#xD;&#xA;Netherlands - EP2801242&#xD;&#xA;New Zealand - 628041&#xD;&#xA;Poland - EP2801242&#xD;&#xA;Singapore - 11201403300X&#xD;&#xA;Slovakia - EP2801242&#xD;&#xA;South Africa - 2014/05710&#xD;&#xA;Spain - EP2801242&#xD;&#xA;Sweden - SE2801242&#xD;&#xA;Switzerland - EP2801242&#xD;&#xA;Turkey - 2016-GE-501932&#xD;&#xA;United Kingdom - EP2801242&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally this patent should be subject to a patentable subject matter, utility, novelty, non-obviousness, and prior disclosure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does not carry any added propositions of novelty at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This &quot;inventor&quot; has not just derived the invention from someone else, but also used information from abandoned and expired patents that have been abandoned probably due to prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They did not &quot;invent the materials&quot; nor the &quot;methodology for EL lights&quot;, nor the EL technology as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior abandoned and expired patents:&#xD;&#xA;2002: http://www.google.sc/patents/US20030129297 (anybody can use the content of this BASF patent. probably abandoned by BASF due to prior art.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the earliest EL paint adopters (2006) is the Original-XTRA DYNAMICS-Lackschicht prozess.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.xtra-dynamics.com/EL-Beschichtung.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior art that has been copied and translated (2007)https://google.com/patents/WO2007112715A1?cl=en&amp;hl=de (2009)https://google.com/patents/DE102009020191A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior art: &#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20111119171026/http://www.xtra-dynamics.com:80/md.static/faltblatt_xtralight.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Winner of the NoAE innovation contest in 2008:&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20091106140538/http://www.xtra-dynamics.com:80/winner-of-the-noae-innovation-contest.n3.htm &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20111114162842/http://www.xtra-dynamics.com:80/el-paint.en.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, there is this prior thesis published in 2012:&#xD;&#xA;http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/56133/1/WRAP_THESIS_Middleton_2012.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18164" RevisionGUID="482b3877-f0a7-4cf2-9d8b-dd1062f87026" CreationDate="2017-07-28T19:29:32.653" UserId="18489" Text="If my description has enough detail where, someone in the field can recreate it no problems. But my claims ( the part which off the real protect ) are broad to make it hard for infringers. Will this be rejected? &#xA;&#xA;For an example lets say I invented the stop light. And I mention I have created a signaling device with changing lights to control traffic. The lights are red, yellow and green. But in my claims I just say a traffic controlling device with lights. Could this hold up in court even if someone. Invent around my description but not my claims could I win in court or even get that claim passed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48558" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18164" RevisionGUID="482b3877-f0a7-4cf2-9d8b-dd1062f87026" CreationDate="2017-07-28T19:29:32.653" UserId="18489" Text="If I in my specifications explained enough where someone can recreate my invention but broad in claims could that pass in the uspto?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48559" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18164" RevisionGUID="482b3877-f0a7-4cf2-9d8b-dd1062f87026" CreationDate="2017-07-28T19:29:32.653" UserId="18489" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;specification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18164" RevisionGUID="0c75ea2c-aee8-412d-b040-4cede02ba851" CreationDate="2017-07-28T20:23:23.057" UserId="18033" Comment="I took the liberty to correct some grammar, hope you don't mind." Text="If my description has enough detail such that someone in the field could recreate it without problems, but my claims ( the part which is the real protect ) are broad to make it hard for infringers. Will this be rejected? &#xA;&#xA;For example lets say I invented the stop light. I mention I have created a signaling device with changing lights to control traffic. The lights are red, yellow and green. But in my claims I just say a traffic controlling device with lights. Could this hold up in court even if someone invented around my description but not my claims? Could I win in court or even get that claim passed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18131" RevisionGUID="6e585024-8a6d-424a-8d94-ca5fdb632822" CreationDate="2017-07-28T20:25:36.960" UserId="18033" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="First of all, your understanding of 54(3) EPC seems to be right. More information can be found in the [guidelines for examination][1] where one can also read that the EP application has to be valid (e.g. not withdrawn) at the date of publication to qualify as prior art for 54(3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Could the EP application be allowed to grant if the PCT application has not yet entered the European phase (i.e. is currently not a 54(3) document but could become one in the future), but would appear to be novelty destroying? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, therefore, seems to be a correct interpretation. In theory. In practice, (almost) no european patent application will make it to a grant in less than 31 months. And if the examiner knew about an unpublished application (afaik they can search at least unpublished european apps and I think PCT too - plus the PCT will get published prior to the 31 months so they can find it then even if not), they'd simply wait.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming however, some prior art did turn up after the grant - the course of action would be the same as for other prior art found after grant - do nothing. Know that the patent could be challenged and include that in a possible litigation strategy, other than that, you have a valid patent unless proven otherwise. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, examiners never find all prior art, so the few cases where this particular possibility for hidden prior art might be the reason, there's really no important difference to cases with any other reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_iv_5_1.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18165" RevisionGUID="69b8975e-c2b6-4e43-b09e-55e5df1dbda4" CreationDate="2017-07-28T21:00:36.693" UserId="19468" Text="Generally the contents of unpublished abandoned applications are not available to the public unless the application is later referenced in one that is published, or in an SIR or otherwise relied upon.  37 CFR 1.14. However, anyone may still petition the USPTO for access under limited circumstances, such as conformity with an Act of Congress or other special circumstances. It is NOT a FOIA request. It is a petition with the necessary fees and justification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17985" RevisionGUID="f8a67ccf-84b1-434f-9f29-e2274f8e84a6" CreationDate="2017-07-28T21:08:22.867" UserId="16696" Comment="Added a detail on the US disclosure rules and potential pitfalls" Text="I urge extreme caution, as I was urged to be extremely cautious by numerous patent attorneys regarding eligibility related to a novel algorithm which has the potential for widespread use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most critically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [In the US in 2013 the law changed from &quot;first to invent&quot; to &quot;first to file&quot;][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially this means that disclosure [prior to filing could render the Intellectual Property ineligible for patent in the US. (I was advised that this also includes formally copyrighting the description of the mechanics.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although there is some [leniency in the US and some regions][2] per a grace period from the time initial disclosure by the inventor, it nevertheless opens up an avenue of attack should a grant be subsequently challenged, regardless of the merit of that tactic. (i.e. it's expensive to defend a challenge.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find a clear breakdown of [the rules and exceptions in the US statutes in regard to disclosure here][3]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because algorithmic patents have a greater degree of uncertainty in the current environment, partially related to the definition of &quot;abstract&quot;, which is far from clear, algorithm companies are seeming to prefer to protect IP though [trade secrets][4] as opposed to patents.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here is an interesting article related to DeepMind][5] which should be illustrative of the issue, and of interest to all algorithm designers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This also a very useful series of articles by Eugene Quinn, regarding [the history of software and algorithmic patents in the United States][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://mewburn.com/resource/grace-periods-for-disclosure-of-an-invention-before-applying-for-a-patent/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://stlr.org/2016/03/03/the-ptos-grace-period-for-prior-art-disclosures-under-the-leahy-smith-america-invents-act/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/the-chess-engine-that-died-so-alphago-could-live-giraffe-matthew-lai&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/01/01/a-software-patent-history-the-algorithm-cases/id=52935/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18166" RevisionGUID="53145d06-bd03-4889-8e2f-1e83e799539a" CreationDate="2017-07-28T21:17:24.360" UserId="19468" Text="In theory, claims in a patent issued with incomplete inventorship disclosure may be invalid for fraud and thus unenforceable. If the applicants still have a pending application, they may amend the claims to remove your part of the work, or amend the file to include your inventorship (which may require an &quot;explanation&quot; at this point). A resulting patent may still be of questionable validity in view of the earlier &quot;ownership error&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48565" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18150" RevisionGUID="2746547a-ba6f-4a91-a2cb-f7bad106a204" CreationDate="2017-07-29T02:58:34.953" UserId="15503" Comment="adjust tag" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;us8470388&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48566" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18155" RevisionGUID="1ad4cd7d-97f1-4bf6-8403-a42fbb2c19d3" CreationDate="2017-07-29T10:10:39.090" UserId="19473" Comment="corrected addressing of the question of the related subject" Text="With prior art prove, can this electroluminescent paint patent be invalidated?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18162" RevisionGUID="dc70a2eb-daee-44e6-9c3e-781318551f45" CreationDate="2017-07-29T13:39:09.590" UserId="17003" Comment="Added a reference to the designated countries." Text="You link to an application. The issued patent associated with that application is [EP0999355B1][1]. This patent should expire 20 years from the priority date of Nov 6, 1998. Thus I believe the patent will expire on Nov 6, 2018. According to [Espacenet][2], the designated countries are: DE ES FR GB IT NL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP0999335B1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=EP&amp;NR=0999335B1&amp;KC=B1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=20011010&amp;DB=&amp;locale=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48568" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14680" RevisionGUID="d6e206cb-e5b9-4683-879c-7ebb65469593" CreationDate="2017-07-29T19:50:13.310" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48572" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="25afc4ba-4072-4936-8c8b-134357af73d8" CreationDate="2017-07-30T12:01:20.780" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48573" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="0379bcb1-b09d-4a5b-8122-d178997567b4" CreationDate="2017-07-30T13:01:20.770" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48575" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17701" RevisionGUID="47a4a326-c578-404a-9347-2f1c9d1b1bdf" CreationDate="2017-07-31T00:03:12.423" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18168" RevisionGUID="e76cb54a-79ad-44cd-8ba1-7048bc5a8266" CreationDate="2017-07-31T01:06:28.417" UserId="19487" Text="I would like to manufacture and resell this product, what steps would I have to take considering it has a patent.  Would changing the size of the product make it okay or adding a strap to the product make it okay?  Please let me know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US20100180382][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20100180382" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48577" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18168" RevisionGUID="e76cb54a-79ad-44cd-8ba1-7048bc5a8266" CreationDate="2017-07-31T01:06:28.417" UserId="19487" Text="maufacture and . resell" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48578" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18168" RevisionGUID="e76cb54a-79ad-44cd-8ba1-7048bc5a8266" CreationDate="2017-07-31T01:06:28.417" UserId="19487" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18169" RevisionGUID="1bb0203a-1038-4040-aabd-8966baa6b5ce" CreationDate="2017-07-31T01:39:29.580" UserId="17003" Text="The document you linked is a US patent application, not a patent. To check its status, you can use the site [US Public Pair][1]. Get past the CAPTCHA and then enter 20100180382 and select &quot;Publication Number&quot;. When I did this I found the status as: &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What this means, is that this particular application is unlikely to be problem with respect to manufacturing and selling your project. This doesn't mean you are home free however. It could be there are another relevant patents. I recommend you carefully read the communications listed in the &quot;Image File Wrapper&quot; tab in the US Public Pair site for this document. It will contain the communications between the filer and the patent office. In particular look at the &quot;List of references cited by examiner&quot; which should list relevant patents found by the examiner. It is also useful to read the Non-Final and Final Rejection documents and responses. Ultimately, you may find it useful to have a patent attorney or agent do a freedom-to-operate assessment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18169" RevisionGUID="99df0028-29d1-45de-b99b-6d906c604a91" CreationDate="2017-07-31T02:10:04.217" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="The document you linked is a US patent application, not a patent. To check its status, you can use the site [US Public Pair][1]. Get past the CAPTCHA and then enter 20100180382 and select &quot;Publication Number&quot;. When I did this I found the status as: &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What this means, is that this particular application is unlikely to be problem with respect to manufacturing and selling your project. This doesn't mean you are home free however. It could be there are other relevant patents. I recommend you carefully read the communications listed in the &quot;Image File Wrapper&quot; tab in the US Public Pair site for this document. It will contain the communications between the filer and the patent office. In particular look at the &quot;List of references cited by examiner&quot; which should list relevant patents found by the examiner. It is also useful to read the Non-Final and Final Rejection documents and responses. Ultimately, you may find it useful to have a patent attorney or agent do a freedom-to-operate assessment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48581" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18168" RevisionGUID="e384917f-d4f2-4450-9d94-a99ba7027760" CreationDate="2017-07-31T02:37:24.337" UserId="15503" Comment="Make title more representative of the question" Text="I would like to manufacture and resell this product. What steps would I have to take considering it has a patent? Would changing the size of the product make it okay or adding a strap to the product make it okay?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US20100180382][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20100180382" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48582" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18168" RevisionGUID="e384917f-d4f2-4450-9d94-a99ba7027760" CreationDate="2017-07-31T02:37:24.337" UserId="15503" Comment="Make title more representative of the question" Text="Can I manufacture and sell the product shown in US 2010/0180382?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18170" RevisionGUID="871c8c05-3d08-4363-9cf1-7fe771aa6b38" CreationDate="2017-07-31T08:13:23.653" UserId="17325" Text="The patent was filed on 04.11.2019 and will expire 20 years after (06.11.2018 is priority date).&#xD;&#xA;The patent was validated in Netherlands and anual fees have been up to now been paid on time.&#xD;&#xA;Note that the patent application was granted as EP0999355B1, but was amended by limitation procedure on 2011. You now should refer to the claims of [EP0999355B3][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&amp;date=20110831&amp;DB=&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;CC=EP&amp;NR=0999335B3&amp;KC=B3&amp;ND=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18171" RevisionGUID="e08361b8-88a7-4ee5-b03a-49a857778089" CreationDate="2017-07-31T13:46:54.627" UserId="19489" Text="I have done some searching and couldn't find a definitive answer. Is there an active patent on a living hinge or is it a common utility without a patent that someone can freely use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48586" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18171" RevisionGUID="e08361b8-88a7-4ee5-b03a-49a857778089" CreationDate="2017-07-31T13:46:54.627" UserId="19489" Text="Patent on a living hinge" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48587" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18171" RevisionGUID="e08361b8-88a7-4ee5-b03a-49a857778089" CreationDate="2017-07-31T13:46:54.627" UserId="19489" Text="&lt;hinge&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18172" RevisionGUID="99ca8eb2-cefe-4afe-986a-bddb20c8f914" CreationDate="2017-07-31T17:57:55.410" UserId="19491" Text="I'd like to be clear when responding to a Notice to File Corrected Application Papers. The required item is: &quot;...The substitute specification must be submitted with markings and be accompanied by a clean version (without markings) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.125(c) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter (see 37 CFR 1.125(b)). The specification, claims, and/or abstract page(s) submitted is not acceptable and cannot be scanned or property stored because: The line spacing on the specification, claims, and/or abstract is not 1-1/2 or double spaced (see 37 CFR 1.52(b)).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps I'm over-thinking this. What is meant by the phrase &quot;submitted with markings and be accompanied by a clean version (without markings)&quot;? Is it only necessary to submit a response where the line spacing of the specification, claims, and/or abstract is double spaced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48589" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18172" RevisionGUID="99ca8eb2-cefe-4afe-986a-bddb20c8f914" CreationDate="2017-07-31T17:57:55.410" UserId="19491" Text="Substitute specification with markings - clean version" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48590" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18172" RevisionGUID="99ca8eb2-cefe-4afe-986a-bddb20c8f914" CreationDate="2017-07-31T17:57:55.410" UserId="19491" Text="&lt;specification&gt;&lt;substitute&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48591" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17720" RevisionGUID="8a135ea4-bb41-41e1-8187-2acfd039ed1a" CreationDate="2017-07-31T19:14:43.683" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48592" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="92e02f78-9b3c-4ea3-939d-5bfbacffe581" CreationDate="2017-07-31T21:14:44.303" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48593" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17881" RevisionGUID="83f3a892-b727-483f-858d-ba1dc76b58d9" CreationDate="2017-08-01T09:25:53.233" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18142" RevisionGUID="b2fd2714-a2ae-4e61-9fe1-d654e693bf04" CreationDate="2017-08-01T13:21:50.207" UserId="19468" Comment="demystifies the initialism for the uninitiated " Text="It's been awhile since I did this, but IIRC (if I recall correctly ), one may file a CIP at any time during pendency of the original non-provisional and its descendents, which is the only way to &quot;add new material&quot; to an application already filed. The new material in a CIP only gets priority of the CIP filing date unless it cites one or more non-expired provisionals. Thus, the patentability of any &quot;broader&quot; claim would be tested against the state of the art at each respective disclosure date. In theory, you can repeatedly file CIPs indefinitely and choose to divide and issue claim sets as you go, providing it's still only &quot;one invention&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, you can file as many provisionals as you want, whenever you want, but may only claim priority of those under a year old and containing materials not already disclosed in a publication or used in public, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48595" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="5c553da2-99fa-4deb-ac18-64c60741b6dc" CreationDate="2017-08-01T14:25:51.473" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48596" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="07bf546a-765a-4cf3-b69e-53aca46c5f74" CreationDate="2017-08-01T18:32:55.620" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48597" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="c219db73-e1ec-4535-9cb1-f945a674a7b3" CreationDate="2017-08-02T02:33:12.767" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48599" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12629" RevisionGUID="0e982020-5d47-4f20-96b9-7d1bd988c715" CreationDate="2017-08-02T05:33:13.973" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18173" RevisionGUID="2b6f1451-f5bd-4376-b105-32349919fef5" CreationDate="2017-08-02T09:40:34.680" UserId="18583" Text="According to the [CPC classification][1], which is used by the EPO and USPTO, you may find groups of classification that fits into lifesciences, namely the [group C][2] (Chemestry). There is no specific classification for lifesciences. Thus you have to filter what groups apply. Then you may use Esp@cenet, the biggest world repository of patent publications, and then you can filter those results by country of publication and by date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cooperativepatentclassification.org/index.html;jsessionid=qxj2xkhgfca8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cooperativepatentclassification.org/cpc/scheme/C/scheme-C.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18174" RevisionGUID="9e1beb17-c5a1-49aa-b969-2b1fede6c7c4" CreationDate="2017-08-02T12:59:12.763" UserId="19502" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20170153408][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20170153408&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please let me know what kind of Patent this is,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Design or Utility&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp; If someone want ed to protect the Look of how a new sunglass's lens looks, would that be a design or utility patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48602" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18174" RevisionGUID="9e1beb17-c5a1-49aa-b969-2b1fede6c7c4" CreationDate="2017-08-02T12:59:12.763" UserId="19502" Text="Is this a Design Patent or Utility Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48603" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18174" RevisionGUID="9e1beb17-c5a1-49aa-b969-2b1fede6c7c4" CreationDate="2017-08-02T12:59:12.763" UserId="19502" Text="&lt;rejected&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18175" RevisionGUID="dea86494-9d7e-4e3f-82dc-dbd167195331" CreationDate="2017-08-02T14:04:17.867" UserId="19442" Text="US20170153408 is an utility patent. Utility patents describe a process/method of production of an article/device. Design patents protect the visual/aesthetic appearance of an article. If you're planning on patenting a novel way of making the sunglasses lens you'd need to file an utility patent. In your case I feel you just need to protect the design of your lens hence a Design Patent should suffice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helped!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18174" RevisionGUID="e5e22cc6-c614-4763-a283-551adf83b1f6" CreationDate="2017-08-02T14:45:12.980" UserId="17003" Comment="Replaced link with one that shows the figures." Text="In reference to the patent: [US20170153408][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170153408A1/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please let me know what kind of Patent this is,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Design or Utility&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp; If someone want ed to protect the Look of how a new sunglass's lens looks, would that be a design or utility patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18176" RevisionGUID="88419c87-fd40-45f8-9454-ffacc1a91b23" CreationDate="2017-08-02T17:14:00.723" UserId="19329" Text="When a continuation application is filed, does publication of the patent application occur 18 mo. after the original application or the continuation filing date (assuming 18 mo. disclosure is required)?  So in the example listed in this post https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/18020/how-can-the-difference-between-priority-date-and-filing-date-be-greater-than, does U.S. publication occur 18 mo. after 31 May 2013 or 1 Oct. 2016?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, my understanding is that Canada would publish the application in its jurisdiction 18 mo. after 1 Jun. 2012, right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48607" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18176" RevisionGUID="88419c87-fd40-45f8-9454-ffacc1a91b23" CreationDate="2017-08-02T17:14:00.723" UserId="19329" Text="18 mo application publication start from continuation filing date or original filing date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48608" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18176" RevisionGUID="88419c87-fd40-45f8-9454-ffacc1a91b23" CreationDate="2017-08-02T17:14:00.723" UserId="19329" Text="&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;uspublication&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48610" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18174" RevisionGUID="fd78aa8f-bf26-4758-819c-b45e8c7c47e3" CreationDate="2017-08-02T23:31:35.357" UserId="15503" Comment="Fix tags" Text="&lt;design&gt;&lt;utility&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18178" RevisionGUID="ea3d6884-133f-4dc5-8167-b8c6bb1a2d36" CreationDate="2017-08-02T23:57:13.483" UserId="19507" Text="I am owner of a similar cosmetic and i want to know if in my packaging i must add same patent number or i need to ask permission to patent owner to do that. Product is not same but pretty similar. I need to know the step to folllow with this as we are manufacturers of our products for more than 13 years and selling our products but outside United States. We are now going to sell in US market and we want to be prepared about this. Regards.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48613" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18178" RevisionGUID="ea3d6884-133f-4dc5-8167-b8c6bb1a2d36" CreationDate="2017-08-02T23:57:13.483" UserId="19507" Text="I am concern about some cosmetic products from different brands that all have same patent number. What does that mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48614" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18178" RevisionGUID="ea3d6884-133f-4dc5-8167-b8c6bb1a2d36" CreationDate="2017-08-02T23:57:13.483" UserId="19507" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48618" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16606" RevisionGUID="33551170-2bf4-4134-b4de-4ff0903963fd" CreationDate="2017-08-03T00:49:47.630" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48620" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="e62a4440-e737-4f1b-942c-6a35ba3fcad3" CreationDate="2017-08-03T03:54:58.933" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18180" RevisionGUID="d465eff2-cd17-4066-988f-b5c8dd593996" CreationDate="2017-08-03T04:45:55.260" UserId="15503" Text="**What should you do in relation to this patent?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, talk to a lawyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, you should obtain a copy of the patent, and determine whether (1) the patent is still in force; and (2) whether your product infringes the claims of the patents. If the answer to both is yes, then you would be liable for damages if you used, import, manufactured or sold your product in the country of that patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mentioned [US 5972360](https://www.google.com/patents/US5972360). This appears to still be in force, and will be until 3 September 2018. The independent claims are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1\. A self-tanning product in the form of a towelette comprising a towel impregnated with a self-tanning composition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7\. A self-tanning product in the form of a towel impregnated with a self-tanning composition containing an effective amount of dihydroxyacetone and ethoxydiglycol and enclosed in a liquid-proof packet which can readily be opened for one step application to the body and/or face.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you make, sell, import, or use either of these in the US without a licence, you will be infringing the patent. Assuming the patent is valid, you might therefore be liable for damages for your acts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could therefore look to obtain a licence, or just wait until 3 September 2018 when the patent expires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should I add the same patent number to my packaging?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Absolutely not. The patent number there is added to put others on notice that the products sold are covered by the patent, so that the patent owner can maximise their damages from infringement. It would be very much an own goal to put the patent number of your own packaging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why do different manufacturers mark their products with the same patent?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They probably subcontract the manufacturing to the patent owner, or are licensees of the patent owner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18178" RevisionGUID="593a86e2-fdd5-4344-b47e-c1b6eb523793" CreationDate="2017-08-03T04:47:28.603" UserId="15503" Comment="Improve grammar and spelling" Text="I am the owner of a similar cosmetic and I want to know if in my packaging I must add same patent number, or if I need to ask for the permission of the patent owner to do that. The product is not same but is pretty similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need to know the next steps with this as we are manufacturers of our products for more than 13 years and selling our products outside the United States. We are now going to sell in the US market and we want to be prepared.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48623" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18178" RevisionGUID="593a86e2-fdd5-4344-b47e-c1b6eb523793" CreationDate="2017-08-03T04:47:28.603" UserId="15503" Comment="Improve grammar and spelling" Text="I am concerned about some cosmetic products from different brands that all have same patent number. What does that mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18181" RevisionGUID="7f48e478-0015-471f-a8ae-f697a53bb3d5" CreationDate="2017-08-03T05:33:32.327" UserId="19510" Text="As a general rule of thumb, what would be the main approach/advantages to designing a series of secondary patents, all based on a broad initial patent, but which are themselves more specific to certain use-cases/industries over having a long claims list in the initial patent? &#xD;&#xA;This, while the initial and subsequent patents being owned by the same inventor(s)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example : an inventor is granted a Patent over a process of making a wheel turn. He/she then files two more patents, both of which utilize that same process, but where one describes a method for generating electricity instead of turning a wheel, and the second describes a method for powering a saw mill (to cut timber). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why submit these two extra patents over submitting just the initial one with these use-cases as claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this approach is more advantageous, how would an inventor refer to the initial patent without re-writing everything?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Context: Basing this on a real-life case I'm studying concerning sports tracking equipment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48625" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18181" RevisionGUID="7f48e478-0015-471f-a8ae-f697a53bb3d5" CreationDate="2017-08-03T05:33:32.327" UserId="19510" Text="Advantages of Designing Sub-Patents based on an initial wide-ranging Patent owned by the same inventor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48626" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18181" RevisionGUID="7f48e478-0015-471f-a8ae-f697a53bb3d5" CreationDate="2017-08-03T05:33:32.327" UserId="19510" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;reference&gt;&lt;referencingpatent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18175" RevisionGUID="d5f67555-ae80-4c74-b850-fc7544ae085b" CreationDate="2017-08-03T07:33:38.727" UserId="19442" Comment="added Eric's suggestion about the patent being an application patent." Text="US20170153408 is an *utility patent application*. Utility patents describe a process/method of production of an article/device. Design patents protect the visual/aesthetic appearance of an article. If you're planning on patenting a novel way of making the sunglasses lens you'd need to file an utility patent. In your case I feel you just need to protect the design of your lens hence a Design Patent should suffice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helped!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48628" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16569" RevisionGUID="a4de7421-f325-4c6d-9dae-b85e599850ba" CreationDate="2017-08-03T10:57:18.170" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48629" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="eb96825d-407a-4786-9192-dd062eeb74c9" CreationDate="2017-08-03T11:57:18.177" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18178" RevisionGUID="68ff7acf-1deb-42f1-868f-02a5605856a0" CreationDate="2017-08-03T14:29:46.030" UserId="17003" Comment="Added patent documents and links from your comment." Text="I am the owner of a similar cosmetic and I want to know if in my packaging I must add same patent number, or if I need to ask for the permission of the patent owner to do that. The product is not same but is pretty similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need to know the next steps with this as we are manufacturers of our products for more than 13 years and selling our products outside the United States. We are now going to sell in the US market and we want to be prepared.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent number is this one [WO 2002067887A3][1] and also this one [US 5972360A][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2002067887A2/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5972360A/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18184" RevisionGUID="e40042e0-e11d-4e03-9378-a53d9aa33ad9" CreationDate="2017-08-03T14:37:03.870" UserId="17003" Text="In addition to Maca's excellent answer, please be advised that there may be other patents relevant to your product. For instance, [WO2002067887][1] (which isn't a granted patent itself) is associated with two granted patents: [EP1363597B1][2] and [US7198780B2][3]. These patents cite other patents, so it would be prudent to review those too. As Maca advised, a patent lawyer would be the best source to guide you through a freedom-to-operat evaluation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2002067887A2/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP1363597B1/en&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7198780B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48638" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17171" RevisionGUID="ef89b632-0d43-4e14-ad5c-a48746dbabb7" CreationDate="2017-08-03T17:58:04.387" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18185" RevisionGUID="43cac604-dcd8-41ee-9e45-9fd73a699869" CreationDate="2017-08-03T19:14:49.957" UserId="19514" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140148197][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140148197" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48640" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18185" RevisionGUID="43cac604-dcd8-41ee-9e45-9fd73a699869" CreationDate="2017-08-03T19:14:49.957" UserId="19514" Text="I would like to get this patent assigned to my company since it infringes on DQWA, which is assigned to Ether-2. How do I do that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48641" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18185" RevisionGUID="43cac604-dcd8-41ee-9e45-9fd73a699869" CreationDate="2017-08-03T19:14:49.957" UserId="19514" Text="&lt;assignment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48645" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16962" RevisionGUID="90bd528b-b6e4-4ef3-9f90-08bd26dcac62" CreationDate="2017-08-03T19:58:04.397" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18187" RevisionGUID="b56b7fb4-eaef-404f-aa8b-a7d0dc365d8c" CreationDate="2017-08-03T20:57:25.687" UserId="17003" Text="This is an application, not a granted patent. If it ever gets granted and it infringes on a patent your company owns, they they will need to get a license in order to utilize it. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that patents are property and this one (if were to issue) would belong to Arynga Inc. I do not believe the US government can just assign the patent to another company. So there is no way to get the (potential) patent to be assigned to your company short of purchasing it from Arynga Inc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48650" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16450" RevisionGUID="02aa0a6c-a030-4c81-a619-ef7c02035f55" CreationDate="2017-08-03T20:58:04.457" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18188" RevisionGUID="9f9d49a2-ece8-4630-b635-6182d645fdfa" CreationDate="2017-08-03T21:22:36.357" UserId="19516" Text="I would like to know if the patent is still valid because I have the same type of &#xD;&#xA;invention I want to patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48652" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18188" RevisionGUID="9f9d49a2-ece8-4630-b635-6182d645fdfa" CreationDate="2017-08-03T21:22:36.357" UserId="19516" Text="is the patent US20140253038 still valid and in force" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48653" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18188" RevisionGUID="9f9d49a2-ece8-4630-b635-6182d645fdfa" CreationDate="2017-08-03T21:22:36.357" UserId="19516" Text="&lt;us20140253038&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18187" RevisionGUID="2b33691f-a862-4d18-9926-5f2f828d4721" CreationDate="2017-08-03T21:26:14.250" UserId="17003" Comment="Updated answer with the issued patent and assignee information." Text="The linked document is an application. The issued patent is [US9702961B2][1]. If you believe it infringes on a patent your company owns, then the assignee will need to get a license in order to utilize it. Its up to your company to initiate a law suit if you think your intellectual property is being infringed. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that patents are property and this one would belong to assignee: Intel Corporation. I do not believe the US government can just assign the patent to another company. So there is no way to get the patent to be assigned to your company short of purchasing it from Intel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9702961B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48655" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16771" RevisionGUID="807c07b9-f236-4d32-9adf-73e433c28ae1" CreationDate="2017-08-03T22:59:37.197" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48656" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="c5dac94c-174b-402f-a77a-e1fb167d184b" CreationDate="2017-08-03T23:59:37.297" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18189" RevisionGUID="25d9cbde-3ea5-43b3-848b-76b1b043ab1e" CreationDate="2017-08-04T00:16:11.830" UserId="19517" Text="In reference to the patent: [EP0282796B1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP0282796B1&#xD;&#xA;is there anyone who has this patent in English version. I can not understand the e auto translation version.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48658" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18189" RevisionGUID="25d9cbde-3ea5-43b3-848b-76b1b043ab1e" CreationDate="2017-08-04T00:16:11.830" UserId="19517" Text="EP0282796B1 english version request" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48659" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18189" RevisionGUID="25d9cbde-3ea5-43b3-848b-76b1b043ab1e" CreationDate="2017-08-04T00:16:11.830" UserId="19517" Text="&lt;translation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48660" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17909" RevisionGUID="057aed21-4420-4aec-abc6-a711019982fd" CreationDate="2017-08-04T01:59:38.247" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18190" RevisionGUID="cfd224b3-6090-491e-8e5e-42f695d1135e" CreationDate="2017-08-04T06:52:34.253" UserId="19442" Text="Eric's answer was concise, I'm just adding onto it and presenting an answer instead of a comment.&#xD;&#xA;So the document with the publication number:[US20140253038A1][1] is a **Utility patent application**. It has been **Abandoned** -- *Failure to Respond to an Office Action*, the status recorded on **03-07-2016**. This patent application was never granted. But since it's application was published, if you have a similar invention you will have to consider it as a prior art for your invention and show non-obviousness and novelty over the existing prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to answer your question, the patent application is **no longer valid** *(Abandoned)* but its claims will still restrict the grant of your invention unless your invention can prove its novelty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20140253038" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48662" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16544" RevisionGUID="c9ac572e-1953-434f-b1a0-32e0881b5343" CreationDate="2017-08-04T06:59:45.950" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48663" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="bd46cd9b-6a9a-425d-b7a9-df9282844e88" CreationDate="2017-08-04T08:59:48.277" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48664" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="4b1b12bb-6ea3-4d59-abe6-c09efd5dc6e5" CreationDate="2017-08-04T09:59:49.447" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48665" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16810" RevisionGUID="dfc93c36-785a-4b78-a131-58d43ce9297b" CreationDate="2017-08-04T13:01:20.817" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48666" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14883" RevisionGUID="508d4d3c-aa47-4376-9a2f-40eb8c59b151" CreationDate="2017-08-04T14:01:30.087" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18189" RevisionGUID="215490d7-ef25-47ef-8538-ee5d902e6801" CreationDate="2017-08-04T17:21:08.777" UserId="1" Comment="Removed personal soliction for contact offline (not permitted by this site)" Text="In reference to the patent: [EP0282796B1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP0282796B1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent available in English? I cannot understand the e auto translation version." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48668" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18189" RevisionGUID="215490d7-ef25-47ef-8538-ee5d902e6801" CreationDate="2017-08-04T17:21:08.777" UserId="1" Comment="Removed personal soliction for contact offline (not permitted by this site)" Text="EP0282796B1 Is there an English version available?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18178" RevisionGUID="3c4ec136-114f-4447-a8ef-b3e6bf1be262" CreationDate="2017-08-04T18:10:39.430" UserId="19507" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body" Text="I am the owner of a similar cosmetic and I want to know if in my packaging I must add same patent number, or if I need to ask for the permission of the patent owner to do that. The product is not same but is pretty similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need to know the next steps with this as we are manufacturers of our products for more than 13 years and selling our products outside the United States. We are now going to sell in the US market and we want to be prepared.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent number is this one [WO 2002067887A3][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2002067887A2/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5972360A/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18178" RevisionGUID="2cc4a9a2-958e-465f-bc5c-a3d168524559" CreationDate="2017-08-04T18:21:46.980" UserId="19507" Comment="deleted 537 characters in body; edited title" Text="Here all the answers I have bookmarked, which is the highest accolade one can bestow upon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48675" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18178" RevisionGUID="2cc4a9a2-958e-465f-bc5c-a3d168524559" CreationDate="2017-08-04T18:21:46.980" UserId="19507" Comment="deleted 537 characters in body; edited title" Text="Questions answered" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48676" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17751" RevisionGUID="b709cc70-dc9e-4076-88a8-3b95fe9c5f0d" CreationDate="2017-08-04T21:02:57.567" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18191" RevisionGUID="0291924f-136b-44a6-ba93-cbbe6a7d3605" CreationDate="2017-08-04T21:20:02.763" UserId="11537" Text="First, call the supervisor (SPE).  His/her name and number should be listed at the end of each office action.  Most likely the SPE will set up an interview with you, the examiner and the SPE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the interview you can try to argue your point, but if that is not immediately fruitful, let me suggest another approach: Try hard to understand precisely what the examiner's position is.  Go over it in detail.  Understand his arguments and his evidence.  The better you know his point of view, the more likely you can rebut it successfully later.  It is much more difficult to argue against a vague or misunderstood position than against a clear, well defined position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, prepare an appeal brief.  It's really just an office action reply done right.  You need to lay out the facts of the case, the relevant law and your explanation of where the examiner has made a mistake.  Get help from a patent attorney or agent if you can afford it.  That will stop you from making rookie mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, file a notice of appeal and your appeal brief.  The fees are actually less than fees for a request for continued examination (RCE).  In my experience, examiners take appeal briefs much more seriously than RCEs.  Sometimes the next action you receive after filing an appeal brief is a notice of allowance!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More likely, the examiner will submit an examiner's answer to your appeal brief.  At that point you can decide whether to pay to forward the appeal to the appeal board or to go back to regular prosecution via an RCE, for example.  The examiner's answer may help you understand and evaluate the examiner's position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, don't be afraid to appeal.  But, as a note of caution, be sure your argument is correct and supported by evidence.  One very helpful internal exercise is to try to defend the examiner's argument.  Don't assume you're right without first trying to see if there is any way you could be wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48678" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="18178" RevisionGUID="3eaace5a-c748-4d7c-becd-612906d2fb33" CreationDate="2017-08-04T23:56:05.240" UserId="15503" Comment="Rollback to [3c4ec136-114f-4447-a8ef-b3e6bf1be262]" Text="I am the owner of a similar cosmetic and I want to know if in my packaging I must add same patent number, or if I need to ask for the permission of the patent owner to do that. The product is not same but is pretty similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need to know the next steps with this as we are manufacturers of our products for more than 13 years and selling our products outside the United States. We are now going to sell in the US market and we want to be prepared.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent number is this one [WO 2002067887A3][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2002067887A2/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5972360A/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48679" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="18178" RevisionGUID="3eaace5a-c748-4d7c-becd-612906d2fb33" CreationDate="2017-08-04T23:56:05.240" UserId="15503" Comment="Rollback to [3c4ec136-114f-4447-a8ef-b3e6bf1be262]" Text="I am concerned about some cosmetic products from different brands that all have same patent number. What does that mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48689" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17916" RevisionGUID="7fa6d615-290c-493f-9226-83a1880cedd2" CreationDate="2017-08-05T00:03:20.313" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18192" RevisionGUID="c4ec607b-d39a-4809-98c3-923a240bbe30" CreationDate="2017-08-05T01:47:21.880" UserId="18489" Text="When writing a PPA do i need to treat it as uf im drafting a non provisional? Or can i just explain my invention and send it in and will be good as long as the ppa support it? I am trying to file my PPA to hurry and make sure im the first to file. But i have an internal battle stopping me from just filing my ppa application i feel as jf i need to learn evrty detail of how to write a patent before hand. Should i just stop worry. Sit down and write a great PPA explaining my invention in detail and get the benefit of priority date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48691" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18192" RevisionGUID="c4ec607b-d39a-4809-98c3-923a240bbe30" CreationDate="2017-08-05T01:47:21.880" UserId="18489" Text="How important is a PPA?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48692" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18192" RevisionGUID="c4ec607b-d39a-4809-98c3-923a240bbe30" CreationDate="2017-08-05T01:47:21.880" UserId="18489" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48696" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17963" RevisionGUID="c4b7d800-9cf0-4b01-bd84-035b1a74ddec" CreationDate="2017-08-05T06:07:41.300" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18193" RevisionGUID="44cafc52-f6b7-45a3-b6ab-06d79851c1e1" CreationDate="2017-08-05T06:43:57.020" UserId="19442" Text="The document [US5891453A][1] has **expired** on **6th of June 2017** (i.e. 20 years from the priority date). To answer the second part of your question I had to assess the claims of the document and its family members.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The document belongs to family of 79 patents. [Click for Espacenet family link][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did a quick read through of the publications with distinct names and it appears that the claims usually encompass combinations of a delivery system, teeth whitening strips, teeth whitening gel, shapes of teeth whitening strips and a toothbrush. There is no mention about the &quot;*strength*&quot; of its product line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am led to believe that this is the entire range of Crest whitestrips productline that is in existence now([Crest whitestrips][3]). It appears that around 2010 the productline saw major changes as most of the previous products were discontinued ([Wikipedia link][4]) And around the same time another family of patents are noted to be filed. [CA2888199A1][5] is a representative of that family. It seems that this family of patents are an improvement over the previous family and this family of patents discloses information on similar products in the market (for eg. CREST 3D WHITE WHITESTRIPS ADVANCED SEAL PROFESSIONAL EFFECT). As I'm not entirely sure about what you mean by *strength* of their Crest Whitestrip line, I suggest you read through the publications of this family as well([Espacenet link to this family][6]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to sum up, the document [US5891453A][1] and its family members to my best knowledge have broad claims and they do not disclose information regarding the *strength* of their Crest Whitestrip line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helped. Always open to constructive criticism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5891453A&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?CC=US&amp;NR=5879691A&amp;KC=A&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=19990309&amp;DB=&amp;locale=&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.pgshop.com/pgshop-hers-oral-whiten/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crest_Whitestrips&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.google.com/patent/CA2888199A1&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?CC=CA&amp;NR=2888199A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=20140424&amp;DB=&amp;locale=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18193" RevisionGUID="27dc579a-e7ab-4c49-b111-44356d4e1c04" CreationDate="2017-08-05T08:06:14.933" UserId="19442" Comment="minor changes" Text="The document [US5891453A][1] has **expired** on **6th of June 2017** (i.e. 20 years from the priority date). To answer the second part of your question I had to assess the claims of the document and its family members.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The document belongs to family of **79 patents**. [Click for Espacenet family link][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did a quick read through of the publications with distinct names and it appears that the claims usually consist of various combinations of a delivery system, teeth whitening strips, teeth whitening gel, shapes of teeth whitening strips and a toothbrush. There is no mention about the &quot;*strength*&quot; of its product line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am led to believe that this is the entire range of Crest whitestrips productline that is in existence now([Crest whitestrips][3]). It appears that around 2010 the productline saw major changes as most of the previous products were discontinued ([Wikipedia link][4]) And around the same time another family of patents are noted to be filed. [CA2888199A1][5] is a representative of that family. It seems that this family of patents are an improvement over the previous family and this family of patents discloses information on similar products in the market (for eg. CREST 3D WHITE WHITESTRIPS ADVANCED SEAL PROFESSIONAL EFFECT). As I'm not entirely sure about what you mean by *strength* of their Crest Whitestrip line, I suggest you read through the publications of this family as well([Espacenet link to this family][6]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to sum up, the document [US5891453A][1] and its family members to my best knowledge have broad claims and they **do not disclose** information regarding the *strength* of their Crest Whitestrip line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helped. Always open to constructive criticism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5891453A&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?CC=US&amp;NR=5879691A&amp;KC=A&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=19990309&amp;DB=&amp;locale=&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.pgshop.com/pgshop-hers-oral-whiten/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crest_Whitestrips&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.google.com/patent/CA2888199A1&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?CC=CA&amp;NR=2888199A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=20140424&amp;DB=&amp;locale=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18194" RevisionGUID="e9891c78-38c4-4abf-b1ca-c25d6b7eba0d" CreationDate="2017-08-05T08:52:23.643" UserId="19442" Text="Any patent application information for a US patent can be obtained from this link ([USPTO][1]). The information retrieval is pretty simple and I'll walk you through it so you can do it yourself here forth. I feel that the question I'm addressing here is generic and It would be great if this answer is linked for future questions regarding USPTO information retrieval. I'll try to make it as elaborate as I can so it's easy for anyone to obtain the required information. Click the link and lets get started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1.As soon as you're on the site you will be asked to verify that you're a human being with the help of a captcha code. Go ahead and verify your existence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2.Next, you will be asked to fill in the reference number of your document to retrieve the relevant information. Here you'll have to choose the right column to enter your document number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Application Number (If you have the application number)&#xD;&#xA; - Control Number (If you have the control number provided by USPTO)&#xD;&#xA; - Patent Number (If the patent is granted)&#xD;&#xA; - PCT Number (If you have thePCT application number)&#xD;&#xA; - Publication Number (If the patent is an application)&#xD;&#xA; - International Design Registration Number (If it's a US design reference)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.Choose the relevant column and fill in the details. Remember to remove the **kind code** when you enter the number. Kind codes are the prefixes to the reference number. For eg. For the document under question US4464123, remove US and enter **4464123** in the patent column as the document is granted. It should take you to the Patent Application Information Retrieval page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.Here in the application data tab you'll find all the relevant information you need. While you're here you can choose the Assignments tab and see all the assignments of the document under question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There you go, you have your information. I'm gonna go ahead and answer your question but I would recommend you to confirm my answer by cross checking it on the USPTO site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The document under question is a US patent document and hence its place of publication is United States. And I'm assuming you mean the **applicant's** name when you talk about publishers name and for the document under question it is WAYNE GLOVER , ODESSA, FL (US).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helped!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48700" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16361" RevisionGUID="cd826b6a-946c-47c1-9b13-0bb844a5274a" CreationDate="2017-08-05T16:09:52.613" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48701" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="84af0b04-2ab4-4a5f-90e6-87caac24356b" CreationDate="2017-08-05T17:09:53.113" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48705" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="d7946115-a297-4d3b-a8e7-66bedecbae3c" CreationDate="2017-08-05T23:19:14.453" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48711" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14767" RevisionGUID="1768e82e-07be-450a-8619-1bfb4e683102" CreationDate="2017-08-06T20:22:01.550" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48712" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17769" RevisionGUID="163a38df-db3d-4436-a80f-8e65ae107a32" CreationDate="2017-08-06T21:22:01.250" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18196" RevisionGUID="80937385-9297-4b28-8a1b-a87c280f1aa4" CreationDate="2017-08-06T22:13:12.477" UserId="18489" Text="We have a first to file system but as im learning someone can still knock your patent out if they can prove they had and worked on the idea longer. So this seem like it pushed you to disclose early. I heard if i disclose my invention publicly I'll have benefits one being i have a year to get a patent and now have the early disclose date. Is this true? As to counter that i also hear if i make my idea public before i have a ppa or non provisional ill lose all rights?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48714" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18196" RevisionGUID="80937385-9297-4b28-8a1b-a87c280f1aa4" CreationDate="2017-08-06T22:13:12.477" UserId="18489" Text="If i publish my invention before i get a patent do i have a year to get a patent before i lose my rights?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48715" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18196" RevisionGUID="80937385-9297-4b28-8a1b-a87c280f1aa4" CreationDate="2017-08-06T22:13:12.477" UserId="18489" Text="&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;public-disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48716" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17768" RevisionGUID="3ad837da-1008-4d9c-bb4b-d710a3709530" CreationDate="2017-08-06T22:22:01.397" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48720" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="59b9be5b-7f58-47b7-96f2-37441b41324c" CreationDate="2017-08-07T07:25:39.373" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48724" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="fa098588-2464-43e9-883a-4d2fae47d7d7" CreationDate="2017-08-07T13:34:55.493" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48725" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18055" RevisionGUID="8dad6df3-edae-4795-91f2-74706c81689e" CreationDate="2017-08-07T15:34:55.030" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48731" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18174" RevisionGUID="b549507d-5027-428e-ae5a-bd01726f9ba6" CreationDate="2017-08-07T18:09:51.513" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[18082],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:15503,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Maca&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="48733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18085" RevisionGUID="45ea20ea-e70c-49cb-ac1f-d5be49b7ba19" CreationDate="2017-08-07T22:54:53.253" UserId="16757" Comment="Revised version of the original question for improved detail and clarity." Text="a)  Filed several provisionals [P1] between March 2016 and March 2017.&#xD;&#xA;b)  Filed a non-Provisional [NP1] in March 2017 claiming priorities from P1.&#xD;&#xA;c)  Filed a provisional [P2] in May 2017 containing improvements, new uses for N1.&#xD;&#xA;d) Independent Claims of N1 too narrow and exclude patentable matter in N1.&#xD;&#xA;Question: Is there a way to get a broader independent claim to include excluded material in NP1 and new material in P2.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18199" RevisionGUID="9339c76b-00eb-4284-849c-fabda43270ef" CreationDate="2017-08-07T23:22:39.647" UserId="15503" Text="Disclosures made by the inventor less than 1 year before the effective filing date is not prior art in the US ([35 USC § 102(b)(1)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102)). Accordingly, as long as the effective filing date (which can be the date of filing a provisional, where the benefit of the provisional is validly claimed in a subsequent non-provisional) is less than 1 year after such a disclosure, the disclosure is not prior art in the US for that inventor. It is, however, prior art for everyone else in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is still prior art in most other jurisdictions for the inventor. Notably, there are no such general grace periods in Europe or China. The disclosure would therefore prevent you getting a patent there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can someone still knock your patent out, if they can prove they had and worked on the idea longer?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. Secretly working on something is not prior art, no matter how long they have done so. Prior art must be available to the public ([35 USC § 102(a)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may, if the quite strict requirements are met, give rise to prior user rights ([35 USC § 273](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/273)), which can restrict the ability of a patent holder suing the prior user. However, this would not invalidate the patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18200" RevisionGUID="4a7e0253-188d-478a-bcaa-127a5cb3ed29" CreationDate="2017-08-07T23:37:08.527" UserId="15503" Text="**Should my provisional be written as if it were a non-provisional?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A claim of your non-provisional application is entitled to the filing date of your provisional application if your provisional application adequately supports and enables the subject matter of the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reverse of this is that if your provisional does not adequately support and enable the subject matter of a claim, the claim is not entitled to the filing date of the provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this reason, it is essential that your provisional application describes your invention is as much detail as you would describe it in a non-provisional application. If you fail to meet the &quot;adequately support and enable&quot; standard, it will be as if you never filed a provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Then why use a provisional application at all?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It entitles you to one more year of protection (since the 20 year term starts from the filing date of the non-provisional), and defers the filing and prosecution costs associated with the non-provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While a provisional application does not **have** to meet the formality requirements of a non-provisional application, this is no benefit. This is because you would generally want your non-provisional application to be identical to your provisional application (though optionally omitting  claims in the provisional), to avoid any doubt as to whether the claims of your non-provisional application are entitled to the filing date of your provisional application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18192" RevisionGUID="08310f86-dbe6-4639-a18a-8982336412ca" CreationDate="2017-08-07T23:39:38.980" UserId="15503" Comment="Fix spelling and make title more representative" Text="When writing a provisional application, do I need to treat it as if I'm drafting a non-provisional? Or can I just explain my invention and send it in, and it will be good as long as the provisional supports it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am trying to file my provisional application in a hurry to make sure I'm the first to file. But I have an internal battle stopping me from just filing my provisional application, as I feel I need to learn every detail of how to write a patent beforehand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I just stop worrying, sit down and write a great provisional application explaining my invention in detail and get the benefit of priority date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48737" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18192" RevisionGUID="08310f86-dbe6-4639-a18a-8982336412ca" CreationDate="2017-08-07T23:39:38.980" UserId="15503" Comment="Fix spelling and make title more representative" Text="How important is the level of disclosure in a provisional application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18200" RevisionGUID="5209c06a-cd7d-4f1f-ab85-1f59c957986f" CreationDate="2017-08-07T23:43:42.317" UserId="15503" Comment="added 685 characters in body" Text="**Should my provisional be written as if it were a non-provisional?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A claim of your non-provisional application is entitled to the filing date of your provisional application if your provisional application adequately supports and enables the subject matter of the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reverse of this is that if your provisional does not adequately support and enable the subject matter of a claim, the claim is not entitled to the filing date of the provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this reason, it is essential that your provisional application describes your invention is as much detail as you would describe it in a non-provisional application. If you fail to meet the &quot;adequately support and enable&quot; standard, it will be as if you never filed a provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Then why use a provisional application at all?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It entitles you to one more year of protection (since the 20 year term starts from the filing date of the non-provisional), and defers the filing and prosecution costs associated with the non-provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While a provisional application does not **have** to meet the formality requirements of a non-provisional application, this is no benefit. This is because you would generally want your non-provisional application to be identical to your provisional application (though optionally omitting  claims in the provisional), to avoid any doubt as to whether the claims of your non-provisional application are entitled to the filing date of your provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What if I'm in a hurry?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Get a patent attorney to do it for you. They know what they're doing, and can do it quickly if necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if that is not an option, you could quickly file a rough draft early, then file a second provisional shortly after which is more robust. You would then file a non-provisional (and any foreign applications) within 12 months of the first provisional, claiming the benefit of both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first provisional may or may not give you an earlier priority date, but it's at least arguable. But even if the first provisional is defective, the second one will at least save you (with only the cost of a few days or weeks of effective filing date)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18085" RevisionGUID="feef4cfb-a961-4364-8e80-427579b5fab2" CreationDate="2017-08-08T00:32:13.593" UserId="16757" Comment="edited body" Text="a)  Filed several provisionals [P1] between March 2016 and March 2017.&#xD;&#xA;b)  Filed a non-Provisional [NP1] in March 2017 claiming priorities from P1.&#xD;&#xA;c)  Filed a provisional [P2] May 2017 containing improvements, new uses for NP1.&#xD;&#xA;d) Independent Claims of NP1 too narrow and exclude patentable matter in NP1.&#xD;&#xA;Question: Is there a way to get a broader independent claim to include excluded material in NP1 and new material in P2.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48740" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="77214bb4-094a-4f6d-a8a8-3f3120a2033a" CreationDate="2017-08-08T03:38:33.023" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48747" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15983" RevisionGUID="968ca307-d825-41a9-80db-f55c63407662" CreationDate="2017-08-08T10:42:35.197" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48753" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="292139b7-6838-4a85-b5fc-701cade375fb" CreationDate="2017-08-08T15:47:35.580" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18204" RevisionGUID="f2619d7c-a5df-4dbc-be1c-a6ede308c414" CreationDate="2017-08-08T16:47:46.603" UserId="19534" Text="I thought patents expired a max of 15 years after publication date. Why does it seem like this patent still has until US Copyright Law expires (75 years)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US2717437][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US2717437" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48755" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18204" RevisionGUID="f2619d7c-a5df-4dbc-be1c-a6ede308c414" CreationDate="2017-08-08T16:47:46.603" UserId="19534" Text="When does this patent expire?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48756" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18204" RevisionGUID="f2619d7c-a5df-4dbc-be1c-a6ede308c414" CreationDate="2017-08-08T16:47:46.603" UserId="19534" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18205" RevisionGUID="5fc07818-598c-4b8a-a6bc-4b28f7590966" CreationDate="2017-08-08T17:32:16.590" UserDisplayName="user19535" Text="This is a prior art request for [U.S. Patent No. 7051342][1] &quot;Method and system for remote automation of object oriented applications&quot;, belonging to Microsoft Corporation. The patent expires 2021-10-22, was filed 2004-10-22 and was granted 2006-05-23.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.tl/patents/US7051342" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48758" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18205" RevisionGUID="5fc07818-598c-4b8a-a6bc-4b28f7590966" CreationDate="2017-08-08T17:32:16.590" UserDisplayName="user19535" Text="PRIOR ART REQUEST: US7,051,342 - Method and system for remote automation of object oriented applications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48759" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18205" RevisionGUID="5fc07818-598c-4b8a-a6bc-4b28f7590966" CreationDate="2017-08-08T17:32:16.590" UserDisplayName="user19535" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;microsoft&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48760" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18205" RevisionGUID="09b92d9a-06cc-4f95-b4ba-b6adcc3da3f9" CreationDate="2017-08-08T17:42:45.337" UserDisplayName="user19535" Comment="Add claims 1-3 of patent" Text="This is a prior art request for [U.S. Patent No. 7051342][1] &quot;Method and system for remote automation of object oriented applications&quot;, belonging to Microsoft Corporation. The patent expires 2021-10-22, was filed 2004-10-22 and was granted 2006-05-23.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim and the claims related to it are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. In a distributed computing system including a client computer having a multi-tasking, threaded, operating system, and plural threads in a client process sharing processor resources, the client computer communicating with plural remote computers providing business services applications on behalf of the client process, the computing system handling object references requested by said plural threads in the client process, the client computer comprising: &#xD;&#xA;at least one processing unit and a memory;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;means for providing a common operating system thread to handle the runtime resolution of object reference requests;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;means for receiving from a first thread running in the client process, a reference request for a first object providing business application services;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;means for determining by the common operating system thread, a first remote computer providing access to the first object and establishing a first communications channel with the first remote computer;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;means for receiving from the first thread running in the client process, a reference request for a second object providing business application services;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;means for determining by the common operating system thread, a second remote computer providing access to the second object and establishing a second communications channel with the second remote computer;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;means for receiving from a second thread running in the client process, a reference request for an object providing business application services;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;means for determining by the common operating system thread, that the reference requested by the second thread resolves to the first object; and&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;means for providing business applications services to the client process via the established communications channels;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;wherein said business application services provided to the client process comprise data received via the established communications channels and wherein said data received was obtained by the business application services from one or more additional remote computers comprising data application services.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The computing system of claim 1 wherein the data received via the established communications channels is sent from the first and the second objects.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The computing system of claim 2 wherein the first and second objects obtained the received data from plural of said additional remote computers comprising data application services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.tl/patents/US7051342" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48765" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16103" RevisionGUID="0928f369-8e4c-4a9f-8587-0693721f3fa7" CreationDate="2017-08-08T18:47:36.097" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48766" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17310" RevisionGUID="0a3cec22-4a95-4fb6-82c3-a050c4569cdc" CreationDate="2017-08-08T19:47:35.510" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18207" RevisionGUID="15c8b323-1025-4503-8e52-d083d02da376" CreationDate="2017-08-08T21:22:00.153" UserId="19468" Text="A US patent issued in 1955 had an expiration of 17 years after issuance.  US copyright expiration has nothing to do with patent expiration. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18211" RevisionGUID="53e20561-30f4-4a1a-9f0e-d57b2c79fe65" CreationDate="2017-08-09T01:03:24.723" UserId="19539" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20080121654][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20080121654&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the whole idea of a dual-squeezable bottle have a patent or is it just this particular cap and this particular bottle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48775" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18211" RevisionGUID="53e20561-30f4-4a1a-9f0e-d57b2c79fe65" CreationDate="2017-08-09T01:03:24.723" UserId="19539" Text="Is the whole idea of a dual-squeezable bottle have a patent or is it just this particular cap and this particular bottle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48776" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18211" RevisionGUID="53e20561-30f4-4a1a-9f0e-d57b2c79fe65" CreationDate="2017-08-09T01:03:24.723" UserId="19539" Text="&lt;us20080121654&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48782" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17587" RevisionGUID="fd1a7cf8-3c43-465a-bb86-90bcaecb1aaa" CreationDate="2017-08-09T16:02:40.800" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18213" RevisionGUID="a203b544-7665-4da3-8f00-e3aa219660fa" CreationDate="2017-08-09T17:46:43.550" UserId="17003" Text="The document you linked to is a patent application. The resulting granted patent is [US7665631][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your question, what the patent covers is described in its claims. In this case, there is only one independent claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A dual liquid condiment dispenser bottle, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a. a squeezable bottle having two separate chambers, defined by a flat wall&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dividing the bottle into two separate halves; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  b. a dual valve housing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with two rectangular slots or apertures, each rectangular slot or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aperture positioned over one of said two separate chambers through&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which the condiments are to flow upon squeezing said liquid condiment&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dispenser bottle, said dual valve housing affixed to the top of said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; liquid condiment dispenser bottle by a press fit or mutually keyed or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mated molded means; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  c. two rotating valves, each one having a flexible&#xD;&#xA;&gt; locking tab that rides inside a mating groove inside said dual valve&#xD;&#xA;&gt; housing for the express purpose of retaining each said rotating valve&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in position to maintain alignment with a corresponding rectangular&#xD;&#xA;&gt; slot or aperture in each said rotating valve and said rectangular&#xD;&#xA;&gt; slots or apertures located in said dual valve housing; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  d. a finger tab&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on each rotating valve to provide the external means with which to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rotate each valve separately; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  e. an external threaded portion molded&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on the exterior of the neck of the squeezable bottle; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  f. a cap&#xD;&#xA;&gt; having a threaded portion that corresponds to said external threaded&#xD;&#xA;&gt; portion on the neck of said squeezable bottle, said cap fitting over&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said dual valve housing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, this patent is quite specific to the implementation described with a relatively long and complicated claim. To infringe on this patent you would need to implement each and every step in the claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't mean there might not be other patents that are generally relevant to dual squeeze bottles. This patent has four cited patents as prior art, although none are obviously about squeezable bottles. There are seven patents that cite this patent and may be relevant. This doesn't guarantee there aren't others. For instance, I've seen epoxy packaged in flexible pouches where there the two components are meant to be squeezed out to mix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7665631" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="b0985aa8-bdfc-4875-81df-87e59f05d50c" CreationDate="2017-08-10T13:41:50.487" UserId="19550" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20160206031][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20160206031&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just wanted to know if other companies are aloud to sell the magnetic eyelashes? is the patent for adding a any kind of magnet to the lash (whereby no other company could sell magnetic lashes)? or is this patent for a special magnetic on the lashes? and other companies can sell magnetic lashes as long as they don't copy this special magnetic? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;many thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48789" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="b0985aa8-bdfc-4875-81df-87e59f05d50c" CreationDate="2017-08-10T13:41:50.487" UserId="19550" Text="is the patent for adding a any kind of magnet to the lash" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48790" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="b0985aa8-bdfc-4875-81df-87e59f05d50c" CreationDate="2017-08-10T13:41:50.487" UserId="19550" Text="&lt;magnet&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48791" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="8907b310-15aa-4360-ac85-f8ef848faaa2" CreationDate="2017-08-10T14:12:25.723" UserId="1" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18216" RevisionGUID="4f87f244-1315-4b5f-875b-afbb6a230965" CreationDate="2017-08-10T15:31:59.360" UserId="17003" Text="First of all, this is a patent application, not yet a patent. Even if the patent gets granted, the claims may be narrowed from what is in the application. You should review the [question and answers][1] already posted about this application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your question, a patent restricts the use of the implementation as specified in the claims. As we don't know the final claims yet we aren't sure how broad or narrow the restriction will be. To infringe on a patent, you must implement every step of at least one claim. So, if you can figure out a way to make false lashes that works differently to what is detailed in the claims of an issued patent, you should be able to manufacturer them. I will warn you however that claims are sometimes complicated to interpret and there is always the potential for other relevant patents to exist. As always, it is best to consult with an actual patent attorney about whether you are free to manufacturer your product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/18044/us-20160206031-a1-is-a-patent-that-states-its-the-only-patent-of-its-kind-is-th/18048#18048" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48793" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="29aaa162-3a8c-4f50-9685-e5b2a49277bf" CreationDate="2017-08-10T15:55:59.523" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;us20160206031&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48794" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18044" RevisionGUID="9afe23fc-029c-4f0d-8fdf-d8dee187f438" CreationDate="2017-08-10T15:56:29.790" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;patent-pending&gt;&lt;lawsuit&gt;&lt;us20160206031&gt;&lt;us3516422&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48795" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="18217" RevisionGUID="38438d39-2584-43c4-b8bd-a98120fc61aa" CreationDate="2017-08-10T17:48:46.307" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/21874/do-i-mention-the-involved-mathematics-in-my-patent-application" />
  <row Id="48796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18217" RevisionGUID="6441d635-0c5c-409b-99d2-787e722cf6b1" CreationDate="2017-08-10T09:34:54.967" UserDisplayName="Ekdeep Singh Lubana" Text="My application is for a hardware based patent, however, there's a significant mathematical relation, which completes my invention. I haven't seen mathematical equations being described in applications, so should I mention the equation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48797" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18217" RevisionGUID="6441d635-0c5c-409b-99d2-787e722cf6b1" CreationDate="2017-08-10T09:34:54.967" UserDisplayName="Ekdeep Singh Lubana" Text="Do I mention the involved mathematics in my patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48798" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18217" RevisionGUID="6441d635-0c5c-409b-99d2-787e722cf6b1" CreationDate="2017-08-10T09:34:54.967" UserDisplayName="Ekdeep Singh Lubana" Text="&lt;untagged&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48799" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18217" RevisionGUID="e6689902-068c-42cc-9205-4dd5952194d1" CreationDate="2017-08-10T18:02:53.850" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;description&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18218" RevisionGUID="38d50451-470e-4adb-b51b-eb7c614bf06f" CreationDate="2017-08-10T18:26:28.907" UserId="18769" Text="One would not be surprised to read from 35 USC 102(a)(1) that novelty is not satisfied when:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) only disallowed that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country **or in public use or on sale *in this country***, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why was it that in the past, it was allowable to patent something in the US which was publicly used/sold in another country?  I encountered an (old) MPEP exam question that made this distinction." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48801" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18218" RevisionGUID="38d50451-470e-4adb-b51b-eb7c614bf06f" CreationDate="2017-08-10T18:26:28.907" UserId="18769" Text="Public sales abroad constitute disclosure" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48802" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18218" RevisionGUID="38d50451-470e-4adb-b51b-eb7c614bf06f" CreationDate="2017-08-10T18:26:28.907" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;public-disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18207" RevisionGUID="c7d04152-0a57-4de7-abe9-9425106abf02" CreationDate="2017-08-10T20:23:28.367" UserId="19468" Comment="added more explanation of why it's 17 years." Text="A US patent issued in 1955 had an expiration of 17 years after issuance.  US copyright expiration has nothing to do with patent expiration. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Longer answer: The  17-year rule was changed for utility patent applications filed after June 8, 1995, at which point the patent term became &quot;20 years after filing&quot;. More variations and details can be found at 35 USC § 154 and MPEP § 2701." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18220" RevisionGUID="fbb6a542-9d88-4e3e-bcc1-44abb18bb299" CreationDate="2017-08-10T21:29:33.627" UserId="19555" Text="I know this is a common question but I received a letter from an attorney claiming I have infringed on a patent. I believed the patent in question had expired since the published filing date is 1993 (24 years ago). Is there any way this patent is still enforceable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In reference to the patent: [US5361739][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5361739" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48810" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18220" RevisionGUID="fbb6a542-9d88-4e3e-bcc1-44abb18bb299" CreationDate="2017-08-10T21:29:33.627" UserId="19555" Text="Is this patent expired" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48811" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18220" RevisionGUID="fbb6a542-9d88-4e3e-bcc1-44abb18bb299" CreationDate="2017-08-10T21:29:33.627" UserId="19555" Text="&lt;us5361739&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18221" RevisionGUID="5a97be1f-699c-4fa1-826c-1bceb3a7582f" CreationDate="2017-08-11T01:30:38.857" UserId="17003" Text="From Wikipedia:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; For applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, the patent term is&#xA;&gt; 20 years from the filing date of the earliest U.S. or international&#xA;&gt; (PCT) application to which priority is claimed (excluding provisional&#xA;&gt; applications). &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;For applications filed before June 8, 1995 and&#xA;&gt; for patents that were still in force on June 8, 1995, the patent term&#xA;&gt; is either 17 years from the issue date or 20 years from the filing&#xA;&gt; date of the earliest U.S. or international (PCT) application to which&#xA;&gt; priority is claimed (excluding provisional applications), the longer&#xA;&gt; term applying.&#xA;&#xA;This patent should have expired on May 12, 2013. In any case, faced with such a communication, you should consult with your attorney. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48813" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="0763894d-1356-4a69-b910-7da547fea576" CreationDate="2017-08-11T02:21:39.680" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48814" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="5f662f0d-69d1-4b15-acf1-d77e39118726" CreationDate="2017-08-11T06:25:27.637" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48815" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17614" RevisionGUID="ef2a4236-614d-45b6-a189-e5913befc54c" CreationDate="2017-08-11T12:25:28.323" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18222" RevisionGUID="5393df0b-d92e-4e55-8684-032e0008c759" CreationDate="2017-08-12T00:19:06.883" UserId="18769" Text="35 USC 102 (novelty) speaks of disqualifying prior art in the singular.  Further, [MPEP 2131.01][1] states that disqualifying prior art 'should' be singular except for three scenarios.  Assume that none of those scenarios applies to the following situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim in question: Invention comprising A and B, where B contains C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference 1: Thing comprising A and B.  (Note C is not inherent to or implied by B.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference 2: Thing B containing C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a valid way to use multiple sources to invalidate the claim under 102 (novelty), or is this a matter of invalidity under 103 (obviousness)?  Technically, the claim is covered by Reference 1, but not fully specified unless Reference 2 is introduced.  I don't have a specific example this applies to, just a theoretical question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2131.html#d0e203057" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48819" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18222" RevisionGUID="5393df0b-d92e-4e55-8684-032e0008c759" CreationDate="2017-08-12T00:19:06.883" UserId="18769" Text="Disproving novelty from more than one reference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48820" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18222" RevisionGUID="5393df0b-d92e-4e55-8684-032e0008c759" CreationDate="2017-08-12T00:19:06.883" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18222" RevisionGUID="4cb7677f-a33c-47a0-b9c4-d64767d8090b" CreationDate="2017-08-12T00:38:20.457" UserId="18769" Comment="added 18 characters in body; edited tags" Text="35 USC 102 (novelty) speaks of disqualifying prior art in the singular.  Further, [MPEP 2131.01][1] states that disqualifying prior art 'should' be singular except for three scenarios.  Assume that none of those scenarios applies to the following situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim in question: Invention comprising A and B, where B contains C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference 1: Thing comprising A and B.  (Note C is not inherent to or implied by B.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference 2: Thing B containing C.  (Assume no motivation is provided to combine Reference 2 with Reference 1, such that 103/obviousness cannot be invoked.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a valid way to use multiple sources to invalidate the claim under 102 (novelty)?  Technically, the claim is covered by Reference 1, but not fully specified unless Reference 2 is introduced.  I don't have a specific example this applies to, just a theoretical question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2131.html#d0e203057" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48822" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18222" RevisionGUID="4cb7677f-a33c-47a0-b9c4-d64767d8090b" CreationDate="2017-08-12T00:38:20.457" UserId="18769" Comment="added 18 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18222" RevisionGUID="d0478e09-e3dd-4913-b329-3183baa079ee" CreationDate="2017-08-12T00:44:50.283" UserId="18769" Comment="deleted 55 characters in body; edited tags" Text="35 USC 102 (novelty) speaks of disqualifying prior art in the singular.  Further, [MPEP 2131.01][1] states that disqualifying prior art 'should' be singular except for three scenarios.  Assume that none of those scenarios applies to the following situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim in question: Invention comprising A and B, where B contains C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference 1: Thing comprising A and B.  (Note C is not inherent to or implied by B.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference 2: Thing B containing C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a valid way to use multiple sources to invalidate the claim under 102 (novelty)?  Technically, the claim is covered by Reference 1, but not fully specified unless Reference 2 is introduced.  Assume it is non-obvious to combine Reference 2 with Reference 1.  I don't have a specific example this applies to, just a theoretical question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2131.html#d0e203057" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48824" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18222" RevisionGUID="d0478e09-e3dd-4913-b329-3183baa079ee" CreationDate="2017-08-12T00:44:50.283" UserId="18769" Comment="deleted 55 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;novelty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18223" RevisionGUID="0020c6b8-01bd-4e2d-bc1b-53c8b482c9d8" CreationDate="2017-08-12T08:25:45.580" UserId="18033" Text="&gt;(A) Prove the primary reference contains an “enabled disclosure;”&#xA;&#xA;&gt;(B) Explain the meaning of a term used in the primary reference; or&#xA;&#xA;&gt;(C) Show that a characteristic not disclosed in the reference is inherent.&#xA;&#xA;Non of these apply to your example. The definition of novelty is - for practical purposes - that a single source had the invention before you did. Adding to that source by using another source defies that purpose. There needs to be prove that an invention was known with all characteristics claimed before the filing. Therefore the three exceptions only allow another document if it had auxiliary purposes. &#xA;&#xA;Proving enablement doesn't change the invention, it merely proves that the source is valid. Explaining a term doesn't change the reference, it just shows the reference actually says what the examiner says it does. The third is probably the most difficult. To validly use a second source against novelty the source would have to clearly state something like “all cars have wheels“ when “A + a car“ is used against “A + a car with wheels“ for example. “Some cars have wheels“ would probably not be enough as it doesn't prove wheels to be inherent to cars.&#xA;&#xA;However, for all practical purposes, the definition of obviousness during US examination is, in my experience, “combining two references leads to the core invention (use more references for not so important elements) even if they clearly don't for together unless they explicitly state they can't be combined.“&#xA;&#xA;So a second source will in almost all cases impede non-obviousness. And what you described -the claim is only fully specified if source 2 is introduced- is a by the book definition of obviousness." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18223" RevisionGUID="f63d336b-62e3-48a0-981f-ea53d8b0712a" CreationDate="2017-08-12T09:31:06.313" UserId="18033" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt;(A) Prove the primary reference contains an “enabled disclosure;”&#xA;&#xA;&gt;(B) Explain the meaning of a term used in the primary reference; or&#xA;&#xA;&gt;(C) Show that a characteristic not disclosed in the reference is inherent.&#xA;&#xA;Non of these apply to your example. The definition of novelty is - for practical purposes - that a single source had the invention before you did. Adding to that source by using another source defies that purpose. There needs to be prove that an invention was known with all characteristics claimed before the filing. Therefore the three exceptions only allow another document if it had auxiliary purposes. &#xA;&#xA;Proving enablement doesn't change the invention, it merely proves that the source is valid. Explaining a term doesn't change the reference, it just shows the reference actually says what the examiner says it does. The third is probably the most difficult. To validly use a second source against novelty the source would have to clearly state something like “all cars have wheels“ when “A + a car“ is used against “A + a car with wheels“ for example. “Some cars have wheels“ would probably not be enough as it doesn't prove wheels to be inherent to cars.&#xA;&#xA;However, for all practical purposes, the definition of obviousness during US examination is, in my experience, “combining two references leads to the core invention (use more references for not so important elements) even if they clearly don't fit together unless they explicitly state they can't be combined.“&#xA;&#xA;So a second source will in almost all cases impede non-obviousness. And what you described -the claim is only fully specified if source 2 is introduced- is a by the book definition of obviousness." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48831" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17944" RevisionGUID="300daf0b-8cc0-42a3-81da-6cee91e7e9b4" CreationDate="2017-08-12T15:40:21.930" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48833" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17945" RevisionGUID="1c6bfa15-fc18-46fa-b17a-e5f37f5ec9b6" CreationDate="2017-08-12T16:40:22.323" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48834" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16114" RevisionGUID="8a33095d-c99c-4a10-aca3-0eec60c951e4" CreationDate="2017-08-12T18:40:22.337" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18225" RevisionGUID="4115504d-cfdd-4c32-8fc4-d06b7efb52eb" CreationDate="2017-08-12T18:43:37.637" UserId="19568" Text="I am a student and I only intend to apply for a certification for my business idea and then, I'll sell it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This business idea has potential to have branches in different countries and I have considered up to four countries in order to be the first country for start and I will sell it to someone from these countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1-Which one is better for me? national patent or international(WIPO.int)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2-Is it possible to apply for both at same time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3-Which one is sooner?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48836" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18225" RevisionGUID="4115504d-cfdd-4c32-8fc4-d06b7efb52eb" CreationDate="2017-08-12T18:43:37.637" UserId="19568" Text="national or international? for a student" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48837" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18225" RevisionGUID="4115504d-cfdd-4c32-8fc4-d06b7efb52eb" CreationDate="2017-08-12T18:43:37.637" UserId="19568" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48841" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17041" RevisionGUID="861420f8-a9d9-4d61-87d1-8f8e166128cc" CreationDate="2017-08-12T22:40:54.170" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48845" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18023" RevisionGUID="ad1079b4-4a9c-420a-b2af-e66e27742fc6" CreationDate="2017-08-13T03:41:12.587" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48846" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17956" RevisionGUID="81999edd-4385-4ce8-897e-5ffc0e4fb0ff" CreationDate="2017-08-13T04:41:21.817" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18228" RevisionGUID="da2bf134-ab17-4ddc-8eda-f5b6ddf05fda" CreationDate="2017-08-13T15:59:02.527" UserId="18769" Text="Based on case law, there seem to be two contradictory tests for valid prior art when considering novelty of an invention.  I would paraphrase them as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(i) If information was made accessible and copyable to (even a limited) public audience with sufficient expertise and without explicit/implicit expectations to not copy/distribute the information (i.e. not trying to 'keep secret'), it is considered valid prior art.  (See Rosaire v Bariod 1955, Klopfenstein 2004.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(ii) On the other hand, if a printed publication was not indexed by subject matter and not reasonably possible for an interested researcher to find, it is not considered prior art.  (I don't have an a specific case for this, but the precedent of a manuscript filed with and publicly accessible via the federal govt,  though not indexed by subject matter was highlighted as an example of non-printed publication in this [video][1].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The contradiction comes about because if information is disclosed to an arm's length party in as in (i), that party may not distribute/index the material, and thus it would not be reasonably possible for an interested researcher to find unless he interviewed every person on the planet.  Did I misintpret something in my paraphrasing of (i)/(ii), or am I confusing the definition of 'printed publication' (ii) with 'valid prior art' (i)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75kDT1PxgXQ&amp;t=33m07s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48852" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18228" RevisionGUID="da2bf134-ab17-4ddc-8eda-f5b6ddf05fda" CreationDate="2017-08-13T15:59:02.527" UserId="18769" Text="Are private discussions valid prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48853" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18228" RevisionGUID="da2bf134-ab17-4ddc-8eda-f5b6ddf05fda" CreationDate="2017-08-13T15:59:02.527" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;public-disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18229" RevisionGUID="2d068334-3ea5-45e6-a52a-921c59047557" CreationDate="2017-08-13T16:40:43.027" UserId="18769" Text="Consider a patent with broad specification and claims.  Would it be considered infringement if one then practices the invention in a way that was not PHOSITA-enabled by the spec/claims at the effective filing date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example, consider an issued patent that claims a method for cutting down trees with a wooden-handled instrument, and describes an example using an ax.  If rogue wizard escaped from Hogwarts to become a lumberjack (bear with me), would using his (wooden) wand and an incantation to cut down trees constitute infringement?  Are there other factors to consider?  Presumably, the original patentee would not have considered this future improvement, but it technically is a subset of the claims.  This is the point I intend to make." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48855" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18229" RevisionGUID="2d068334-3ea5-45e6-a52a-921c59047557" CreationDate="2017-08-13T16:40:43.027" UserId="18769" Text="Does non-enabled use constitute infringement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48856" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18229" RevisionGUID="2d068334-3ea5-45e6-a52a-921c59047557" CreationDate="2017-08-13T16:40:43.027" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;enablement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18229" RevisionGUID="918ba09e-9e50-4be9-9265-51b75fb489bb" CreationDate="2017-08-13T16:58:25.293" UserId="18769" Comment="deleted 72 characters in body" Text="Consider a patent with broad specification and claims.  Would it be considered infringement if one then practices the invention in a way that was not PHOSITA-enabled by the spec/claims at the effective filing date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example, consider an issued patent that claims a method for cutting down trees with a wooden-handled instrument, and describes an example using an ax.  If a rogue wizard escaped from Hogwarts to become a lumberjack (bear with me), would using his (wooden) wand with an incantation to cut down trees constitute infringement?  Presumably, the original patentee would not have considered this future improvement, but it technically is a subset of the claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18230" RevisionGUID="2e09d10f-3170-4ca1-9daa-16e7d0d0968d" CreationDate="2017-08-13T17:47:23.250" UserId="19468" Text="1. 37 CFR 1.4(d) identifies the acceptable uses of the &quot;slanted&quot; S-signature, including the electronic filing of a patent application.[USPTO 37 CFR 1.4][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. the only &quot;date&quot; on a PPA cover sheet (PTO/SB/16) would pertain to the date of the signature.&#xD;&#xA;3. there are spaces for two phone numbers because they are possibly two different offices; one is for correspondence (e.g., inventor, employer, patent attorney) and the other is for the signatory (i.e., the inventor or patent attorney).&#xD;&#xA;4. the &quot;authorized party&quot; is either the sole inventor, all of the joint inventors, or the registered patent attorney representing them.&#xD;&#xA;[USPTO help page - micro-entity signatures][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pages of a provisional application for patent filed electronically as a PDF need not have visible page numbers, but having them can make future reference more efficient. There are special rules about documents such as computer listings of large biological sequence listings and large tables. There are PCT rules about page numbering for drawings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e313174&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/sign_micro.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18228" RevisionGUID="b530cc41-4d09-4250-9359-c925e6e287a9" CreationDate="2017-08-13T18:42:45.213" UserId="18769" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="Based on case law, there seem to be two contradictory tests for valid prior art when considering novelty of an invention.  I would paraphrase them as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(i) If information was made accessible and copyable to (even a limited) public audience with sufficient expertise and without explicit/implicit expectations to not copy/distribute the information (i.e. not trying to 'keep secret'), it is considered valid prior art.  (See Rosaire v Bariod 1955, Klopfenstein 2004.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(ii) On the other hand, if a printed publication was not indexed by subject matter and not reasonably possible for an interested researcher to find, it is not considered prior art.  (I don't have an a specific case for this, but the precedent of a manuscript filed with and publicly accessible via the federal govt,  though not indexed by subject matter was highlighted as an example of non-printed publication in this [video][1].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The contradiction comes about because if information is disclosed to an arm's length party in as in (i), that party may not distribute/index the material, and thus it would not be reasonably possible for an interested researcher to find unless he interviewed every person on the planet.  So if an invention was disclosed 'publicly', but was not publicly disseminated or indexed such that it was searchable, would an uninformed third party who independently came up with the invention still have the ability to acquire a patent if it filed first? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75kDT1PxgXQ&amp;t=33m07s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18231" RevisionGUID="59209ca8-f614-4e23-9aa9-b1d841c6736f" CreationDate="2017-08-13T18:45:50.040" UserId="19468" Text="Yes, in the USA, the copyrighted nature of patents and applications for patents would, like anything else, depend upon when and how it was created and published. Prior to 1989 the publication was required to have a &quot;proper copyright notice&quot; or registration, but that is no longer the case. Many patents do, in fact, contain copyright notices, under 37 CFR 1.71(d) or 1.84(s). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people are confused that &quot;patents&quot; are &quot;government publications&quot; and thus &quot;public domain. This is not true of publications for which the authors were not officers or employees of the US government.  17 USC 105. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US Copyright Office will, in fact, register claims for copyright in such things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **717.3 Patents, Patent Applications, and Non-Patent Literature** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Copyright Office may register a claim to copyright in the written&#xD;&#xA;&gt; description for an invention or the drawings or photographs set forth&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in a patent or a patent application, provided that the work contains a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sufficient amount of original authorship. Likewise, the Office may&#xD;&#xA;&gt; register a claim to copyright in articles, publications, or other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non-patent literature that may be submitted with a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, the copyright in a patent, a patent application, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non-patent literature does not extend to any “idea, procedure,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; discovery” that may be disclosed in these works. 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).&#xD;&#xA;[Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition, 2014, p.408.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether a federal court might limit the enforcement of such copyright would be a different question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for OP's example of a &quot;stock&quot; paragraph, copied in thousands of patents, there would be little if any &quot;original work of creative authorship&quot; to protect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/docs/compendium.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18228" RevisionGUID="42236068-b6be-4215-a4ea-08fb8776d96f" CreationDate="2017-08-13T19:00:01.100" UserId="18769" Comment="added 297 characters in body" Text="Based on case law, there seem to be two contradictory tests for valid prior art when considering novelty of an invention.  I would paraphrase them as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(i) If information was made accessible and copyable to (even a limited) public audience with sufficient expertise and without explicit/implicit expectations to not copy/distribute the information (i.e. not trying to 'keep secret'), it is considered valid prior art.  (See Rosaire v Bariod 1955, Klopfenstein 2004.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(ii) On the other hand, if a printed publication was not indexed by subject matter and not reasonably possible for an interested researcher to find, it is not considered prior art.  (I don't have an a specific case for this, but the precedent of a manuscript filed with and publicly accessible via the federal govt,  though not indexed by subject matter was highlighted as an example of non-printed publication in this [video][1].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The contradiction comes about because if information is disclosed to an arm's length party in as in (i), that party may not distribute/index the material, and thus it would not be reasonably possible for an interested researcher to find unless he interviewed every person on the planet.  So if an invention was disclosed 'publicly', but was not publicly disseminated or indexed such that it was searchable, would an uninformed third party who independently came up with the invention still have the ability to acquire a patent if it filed first?  If the non-disseminated disclosure is considered 'public', then this [video][2] states that it would disallow others from patenting.  The video also notes that a more apt description for post-AIA is 'first-to-disclose' for this reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75kDT1PxgXQ&amp;t=33m07s&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXQVwN9FMdk&amp;t=26m30s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18231" RevisionGUID="4f736dbc-90d8-48d6-89f5-7012bd1e1bcc" CreationDate="2017-08-13T19:11:06.280" UserId="19468" Comment="disambiguate &quot;patent&quot; with &quot;text or drawing of a patent&quot;" Text="Copyrighted? Yes. Enforceable? Probably not. In the USA, the copyrighted nature of patents and applications for patents would, like anything else, initially depend upon when and how it was created and published. Prior to 1989 the publication was required to have a &quot;proper copyright notice&quot; or registration, but that is no longer the case. Works of US authors published prior to 1989 without copyright notice or the required registration automatically lost their copyrights to the public domain. Some older patents do, in fact, contain copyright notices, under 37 CFR 1.71(d) or 1.84(s).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Published works of foreign authors are subject to different rules, such as 17 USC 104A, restoring US copyright in certain works where their US publications failed to adhere to all US copyright formalities (notice, renewal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people are confused that &quot;patents&quot; are &quot;government publications&quot; and thus &quot;public domain&quot; for that reason. This is not true of publications for which the authors were not officers or employees of the US government.  17 USC 105. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US Copyright Office will, in fact, register claims for copyright in such things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **717.3 Patents, Patent Applications, and Non-Patent Literature** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Copyright Office may register a claim to copyright in the written&#xD;&#xA;&gt; description for an invention or the drawings or photographs set forth&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in a patent or a patent application, provided that the work contains a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sufficient amount of original authorship. Likewise, the Office may&#xD;&#xA;&gt; register a claim to copyright in articles, publications, or other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non-patent literature that may be submitted with a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, the copyright in a patent, a patent application, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non-patent literature does not extend to any “idea, procedure,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; discovery” that may be disclosed in these works. 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).&#xD;&#xA;[Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition, 2014, p.408.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether a federal court might limit the enforcement of such copyright would be a different question.  The applicant for a patent may have granted an implied license for the entire world to duplicate and distribute the work, not to mention that an issued patent may have similar status to a statute that defines the parameters of unlawful conduct, and strong public policies to encourage widespread dissemination. It may also be hard to find a use of a patent text or drawing that is not also &quot;fair use&quot;, under the overriding public policy concerns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for OP's example of a &quot;stock&quot; paragraph, copied in thousands of patents, there would be little if any &quot;original work of creative authorship&quot; to protect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/docs/compendium.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18231" RevisionGUID="a561d299-c8f9-4a1e-a055-9e2571ee2b3f" CreationDate="2017-08-13T21:13:17.643" UserId="19468" Comment="right without a remedy" Text="Copyrighted? Yes. Enforceable? Probably not. In the USA, the copyrighted nature of patents and applications for patents would, like anything else, initially depend upon when and how it was created and published. Prior to 1989 the publication was required to have a &quot;proper copyright notice&quot; or registration, but that is no longer the case. Works of US authors published prior to 1989 without copyright notice or the required registration automatically lost their copyrights to the public domain. Some older patents do, in fact, contain copyright notices, under 37 CFR 1.71(d) or 1.84(s).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Published works of foreign authors are subject to different rules, such as 17 USC 104A, restoring US copyright in certain works where their US publications failed to adhere to all US copyright formalities (notice, renewal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people are confused that &quot;patents&quot; are &quot;government publications&quot; and thus &quot;public domain&quot; for that reason. This is not true of publications for which the authors were not officers or employees of the US government.  17 USC 105. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US Copyright Office will, in fact, register claims for copyright in such things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **717.3 Patents, Patent Applications, and Non-Patent Literature** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Copyright Office may register a claim to copyright in the written&#xD;&#xA;&gt; description for an invention or the drawings or photographs set forth&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in a patent or a patent application, provided that the work contains a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sufficient amount of original authorship. Likewise, the Office may&#xD;&#xA;&gt; register a claim to copyright in articles, publications, or other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non-patent literature that may be submitted with a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, the copyright in a patent, a patent application, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non-patent literature does not extend to any “idea, procedure,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; discovery” that may be disclosed in these works. 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).&#xD;&#xA;[Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition, 2014, p.408.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether a federal court might limit the enforcement of such copyright would be a different question.  The applicant for a patent may have granted an implied license for the entire world to duplicate and distribute the work, not to mention that an issued patent may have similar status to a statute that defines the parameters of unlawful conduct, and strong public policies to encourage widespread dissemination. It may also be hard to find a use of a patent text or drawing that is not also &quot;fair use&quot;, under the overriding public policy concerns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bottom line: it is axiomatic that &quot;a right without a remedy is not a right at all&quot;, meaning that if you cannot enforce it, such a right is meaningless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/docs/compendium.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48864" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17627" RevisionGUID="32c4b50c-b9a9-4e0d-800b-0832cc2e059a" CreationDate="2017-08-14T01:49:26.233" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18232" RevisionGUID="5d766c76-a992-436e-97ed-96e737d5fb02" CreationDate="2017-08-14T03:33:01.547" UserId="15503" Text="**Which is better, national or PCT?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is impossible to answer in an absolute sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By way of summary, you have three options to get protection in multiple countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Option 1: a first filing in one country, a PCT application (within 12 months), and a number of national phase applications from the PCT in other countries (within 30–31 months from the first filing);&#xD;&#xA;- Option 2: a first filing in one country, then a number of Convention applications (within 12 months); or&#xD;&#xA;- Option 3: filings in each country on the same day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Option 1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only real benefit of a PCT is that you defer the decision of which countries to file in (and the costs associated with this) by 18 months. You also get an indication of its allowability by the search and examination performed on a PCT, but in most cases an applicant would ignore these anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The disadvantage is that a PCT costs money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A PCT application therefore functions essentially like an expensive extension of time. If paying for this is worthwhile to you, then file a PCT. If not, skip the PCT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Option 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Skipping the PCT stage means you have to file all your foreign applications within 12 months of your first filing. This brings forward costs, but is cheaper overall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Option 3**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Filing all your applications without claiming priority brings forward all the costs to day 1. It also requires a good amount of coordination between your lawyers in each country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is little advantage to this over Option 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is it possible to apply for both at the same time?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, if you want to file in countries which are not part of the PCT (notably, Taiwan), but also use a PCT for other countries, your only option is to file a Convention application and a PCT application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Which one is faster?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A PCT application will defer filing a national application for 18 months. Arguably this should mean it's slower than filing a Convention application directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But patent offices may handle national phase and Convention applications differently and by opaque means, so it's impossible to say for sure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18233" RevisionGUID="4888fa45-1491-464d-a141-89d131558154" CreationDate="2017-08-14T07:27:32.520" UserId="18557" Text="I am trying to file utility patent - provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;Facing these kind of issues?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![At the time of submitting it - got these issues][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;How to deal with it? I prepared all my documents using MS Word or MS Visio - then just saved them as PDF file. Is that an issue? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/57ouo.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48867" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18233" RevisionGUID="4888fa45-1491-464d-a141-89d131558154" CreationDate="2017-08-14T07:27:32.520" UserId="18557" Text="Facing issues while e-filing provisional patent application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48868" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18233" RevisionGUID="4888fa45-1491-464d-a141-89d131558154" CreationDate="2017-08-14T07:27:32.520" UserId="18557" Text="&lt;validity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18233" RevisionGUID="f20fb9e6-c99a-4a48-a976-bacc4bd16554" CreationDate="2017-08-14T07:42:17.093" UserId="18557" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="I am trying to file utility patent - provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;Facing these kind of issues?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![At the time of submitting it - got these issues][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;How to deal with it? I prepared all my documents using MS Word or MS Visio - then just saved them as PDF file. Is that an issue? &#xD;&#xA;My file are in landscape mode NOT portrait. Is that a problem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/57ouo.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48878" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18233" RevisionGUID="9daf3b43-b2a4-443b-8814-82e2ef8d2d0b" CreationDate="2017-08-14T11:25:13.877" UserId="18557" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48879" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18225" RevisionGUID="9ab6c1c8-4a1d-4652-bdd8-c3b6b2099d1b" CreationDate="2017-08-14T11:47:20.247" UserId="15503" Comment="Make title more representative of the question and adjust tags" Text="Should I file a national or an international patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48880" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18225" RevisionGUID="9ab6c1c8-4a1d-4652-bdd8-c3b6b2099d1b" CreationDate="2017-08-14T11:47:20.247" UserId="15503" Comment="Make title more representative of the question and adjust tags" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18236" RevisionGUID="b83eb230-9bd6-4e36-82b5-bbf8712da53c" CreationDate="2017-08-14T12:06:16.807" UserId="15503" Text="You are conflating two different questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A person infringes a claim if they perform all the steps of it. It generally doesn't matter whether the original inventors foresaw the particular details of that infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Enablement affects the validity of a claim. That is, a claim may be invalid if it is not suitably enabled, independently of whether it is infringed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only place in which the inventors' intentions might matter for infringement is in the interpretation of terms in the claims where there is some ambiguity. In your example, the argument may well be that the inventors did not use the term &quot;instrument&quot; with a view to including a wand, and so “instrument” should be interpreted to exclude wands. This sort of thing quickly becomes complicated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48882" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="68b7c5fb-9016-4c36-9f6b-72464f7f5dc0" CreationDate="2017-08-14T12:51:43.473" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18228" RevisionGUID="e0f85e67-d7f1-4a07-8d7e-e66773b077ee" CreationDate="2017-08-14T16:00:44.357" UserId="18769" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Based on case law, there seem to be two contradictory tests for valid prior art when considering novelty of an invention.  I would paraphrase them as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(i) If information was made accessible and copyable to (even a limited) public audience with sufficient expertise and without explicit/implicit expectations to not copy/distribute the information (i.e. not trying to 'keep secret'), it is considered valid prior art.  (See Rosaire v Bariod 1955, Klopfenstein 2004.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(ii) On the other hand, if a printed publication was not indexed by subject matter and not reasonably possible for an interested researcher to find, it is not considered prior art.  (I don't have a specific case for this, but the precedent of a manuscript filed with and publicly accessible via the federal govt,  though not indexed by subject matter was highlighted as an example of non-printed publication in this [video][1].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The contradiction comes about because if information is disclosed to an arm's length party in as in (i), that party may not distribute/index the material, and thus it would not be reasonably possible for an interested researcher to find unless he interviewed every person on the planet.  So if an invention was disclosed 'publicly', but was not publicly disseminated or indexed such that it was searchable, would an uninformed third party who independently came up with the invention still have the ability to acquire a patent if it filed first?  If the non-disseminated disclosure is considered 'public', then this [video][2] states that it would disallow others from patenting.  The video also notes that a more apt description for post-AIA is 'first-to-disclose' for this reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75kDT1PxgXQ&amp;t=33m07s&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXQVwN9FMdk&amp;t=26m30s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16099" RevisionGUID="1379f2c9-ad9c-49a8-8beb-1cde6b7619e4" CreationDate="2017-08-14T20:21:03.993" UserId="17077" Comment="added my comment to answer" Text="You can't sell the patent but you could make and sell the product it describes.  This is the technology broadcast function of the US Patent and Trademark Office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be careful though because if it was manufactured they might be new patents referencing this one and a particular product may have a newer patent that would prevent you. This is called freedom to operate. –&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18239" RevisionGUID="2866f4ab-8f3a-42a0-b349-61763e670814" CreationDate="2017-08-14T20:59:15.543" UserId="18557" Text="In MS Word(MS Office 2010)-you can make it save the PDF following these steps. Try to save the MS Word document as PDF and check the ISO* checkbox.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aPumM.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18241" RevisionGUID="158aa998-a607-4b78-be1f-1a786f503e36" CreationDate="2017-08-15T05:55:46.643" UserId="19583" Text="In reference to the patent: [USD779828][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD779828&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know how this patent differs from previous trolley bag patents. See below Patent dating back to 1996.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US5531366" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48905" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18241" RevisionGUID="158aa998-a607-4b78-be1f-1a786f503e36" CreationDate="2017-08-15T05:55:46.643" UserId="19583" Text="Is this patent not in contention with patent number US5531366?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48906" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18241" RevisionGUID="158aa998-a607-4b78-be1f-1a786f503e36" CreationDate="2017-08-15T05:55:46.643" UserId="19583" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18242" RevisionGUID="1fcbd895-b4fc-4cce-818a-7643c988e775" CreationDate="2017-08-15T13:37:37.580" UserId="19585" Text="I understand the term plurality to mean many or multiple within patent law.&#xD;&#xA;Patent No. 9,598,822 uses the following sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more drone vehicles includes a plurality of the drone vehicles&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this mean:&#xD;&#xA;There could be many drone vehicles within each drone vehicle?&#xD;&#xA;When referring to one drone vehicle this could include many drone vehicles?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help greatly appreciated as this was recently granted and I would like to use the language as a template.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48908" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18242" RevisionGUID="1fcbd895-b4fc-4cce-818a-7643c988e775" CreationDate="2017-08-15T13:37:37.580" UserId="19585" Text="Use of the term plurality" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48909" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18242" RevisionGUID="1fcbd895-b4fc-4cce-818a-7643c988e775" CreationDate="2017-08-15T13:37:37.580" UserId="19585" Text="&lt;language&gt;&lt;plurality&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48910" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18228" RevisionGUID="35318c87-2e45-4092-8424-cb9e2ef4632f" CreationDate="2017-08-15T16:00:18.513" UserId="18769" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;public-disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18228" RevisionGUID="35318c87-2e45-4092-8424-cb9e2ef4632f" CreationDate="2017-08-15T16:00:18.513" UserId="18769" Comment="edited tags" Text="Based on case law, there seem to be two contradictory tests for valid prior art when considering novelty of an invention.  I would paraphrase them as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(i) If information was made accessible and copyable to (even a limited) public audience with sufficient expertise and without explicit/implicit expectations to not copy/distribute the information (i.e. not trying to 'keep secret'), it is considered valid prior art.  (See Rosaire v Bariod 1955, Klopfenstein 2004.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(ii) On the other hand, if a printed publication was not indexed by subject matter and not reasonably possible for an interested researcher to find, it is not considered prior art.  (I don't have a specific case for this, but the precedent of a manuscript filed with and publicly accessible via the federal govt,  though not indexed by subject matter was highlighted as an example of non-printed publication in this [video][1].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The contradiction comes about because if information is disclosed to an arm's length party in as in (i), that party may not distribute/index the material, and thus it would not be reasonably possible for an interested researcher to find unless he interviewed every person on the planet.  So if an invention was disclosed 'publicly', but was not publicly disseminated or indexed such that it was searchable, would an uninformed third party who independently came up with the invention still have the ability to acquire a patent if it filed first?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the non-disseminated disclosure is considered 'public', then this [video][2] states that it *would* disallow others from patenting.  The video also notes that a more apt description for post-AIA is 'first-to-disclose' for this reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75kDT1PxgXQ&amp;t=33m07s&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXQVwN9FMdk&amp;t=26m30s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48912" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="f92029a8-9c29-4811-b771-cf83899f4a80" CreationDate="2017-08-15T22:02:23.633" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18228" RevisionGUID="0458b679-0ce4-4bb7-941a-aee793c4358f" CreationDate="2017-08-16T14:28:04.343" UserId="18769" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Based on case law, there seem to be two contradictory tests for valid prior art when considering novelty of an invention.  I would paraphrase them as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(i) If information was made accessible and copyable to (even a limited) public audience with sufficient expertise and without explicit/implicit expectations to not copy/distribute the information (i.e. not trying to 'keep secret'), it is considered valid prior art.  (See Rosaire v Bariod 1955, Klopfenstein 2004.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(ii) On the other hand, if a printed publication was not indexed by subject matter and not reasonably possible for an interested researcher to find, it is not considered prior art.  (I don't have a specific case for this, but the precedent of a manuscript filed with and publicly accessible via the federal govt,  though not indexed by subject matter was highlighted as an example of non-printed publication in this [video][1].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The contradiction comes about because if information is disclosed to an arm's length party as in (i), that party may not distribute/index the material, and thus it would not be reasonably possible for an interested researcher to find unless he interviewed every person on the planet.  So if an invention was disclosed 'publicly', but was not publicly disseminated or indexed such that it was searchable, would an uninformed third party who independently came up with the invention still have the ability to acquire a patent if it filed first?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the non-disseminated disclosure is considered 'public', then this [video][2] states that it *would* disallow others from patenting.  The video also notes that a more apt description for post-AIA is 'first-to-disclose' for this reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75kDT1PxgXQ&amp;t=33m07s&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXQVwN9FMdk&amp;t=26m30s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18245" RevisionGUID="f7f288a9-0e64-4c9d-a696-40df6eddd7b9" CreationDate="2017-08-16T14:40:16.713" UserId="17003" Text="To answer the question, yes publication on an internet forum could constitute prior art. It is even possible to submit such a citation to patent authorities during the processing of an application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will say (as a serial inventor) most postings I've seen that are &quot;ideas&quot; aren't actually &quot;patentable ideas&quot;. I like to refer to them as &quot;ideas for ideas&quot;. An example might be someone posting: &quot;What if we made a pill that would cause the body's immune system to fight cancer?&quot;. This is actually a good thought and is under active research in may laboratories. What it isn't is an actual invention in that there is no enablement. In no way does it actually teach how to make such a pill. If a company, after a billion dollars of investment and years of development, brings such a pill to market, the person who made the original post doesn't get to say &quot;hey, they stole my idea&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18241" RevisionGUID="bc0fa7cb-9309-4712-969b-752a84a4e2a3" CreationDate="2017-08-16T18:38:46.840" UserId="17003" Comment="Replaced links with ones that show patent figures." Text="In reference to the patent: [USD779828][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD779828S1/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know how this patent differs from previous trolley bag patents. See below Patent dating back to 1996.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US5531366A/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18246" RevisionGUID="4aa9c2d7-f811-4092-81c2-fc663775d1df" CreationDate="2017-08-16T18:57:00.953" UserId="17003" Text="**How this patent differs from previous trolley bag patents?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most obvious difference between USD779828 and US5531366 is the first is a design patent and the other is a utility patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Design patents only cover the ornamental design of a functional object, not function. Thus most design patents consist mainly of drawings and very little text. The claims usually just refer to the drawing. Something like &quot;1. The ornamental design for a container, as shown and described.&quot;. The original Coke bottle design patent [D48,160][1] is a classic example. This [Wikipedia article][2] may be helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Utility patents cover something inventive with utility. There is a need to be novel, useful and non-obvious. Utility patents are usually longer, have an abstract, a background section and detailed description about how to implement the invention. In particular the claims section of utility patents are usually quite detailed and specific in their description of what is patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interesting part of this question is whether US5531366 should have been considered prior art for USD779828. According to [Section 1504][3] of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Novelty and nonobviousness of a design claim must generally be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; determined by a search in the pertinent design classes. It is also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mandatory that the search be extended to the mechanical classes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; encompassing inventions of the same general type. Catalogs and trade&#xD;&#xA;&gt; journals as well as available foreign patent databases are also to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consulted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US5531366 is not cited in USD779828 so it is likely the examiner didn't consider it when granting the design patent. I agree with the questioner that the drawings in US5531366 are pretty similar to what is shown in USD779828 and probably should, at least, been considered by the examiner. I am not a lawyer so I cannot comment on whether or not USD779828 should have been allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD48160S/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1504.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18246" RevisionGUID="2b9ff1a3-5aa5-4fd7-90b2-aa751f25e864" CreationDate="2017-08-16T19:03:09.330" UserId="17003" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="**How this patent differs from previous trolley bag patents?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most obvious difference between USD779828 and US5531366 is the first is a design patent and the other is a utility patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Design patents only cover the ornamental design of a functional object, not function. Thus most design patents consist mainly of drawings and very little text. The claims usually just refer to the drawing. Something like &quot;1. The ornamental design for a container, as shown and described.&quot;. The original Coke bottle design patent [D48,160][1] is a classic example. This [Wikipedia article][2] may be helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Utility patents cover something inventive with utility. There is a need to be novel, useful and non-obvious. Utility patents are usually longer, have an abstract, a background section and detailed description about how to implement the invention. In particular the claims section of utility patents are usually quite detailed and specific in their description of what is patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interesting part of this question is whether US5531366 should have been considered prior art for USD779828. According to [Section 1504][3] of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, it sounds like it could have been considered as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Novelty and nonobviousness of a design claim must generally be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; determined by a search in the pertinent design classes. It is also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mandatory that the search be extended to the mechanical classes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; encompassing inventions of the same general type. Catalogs and trade&#xD;&#xA;&gt; journals as well as available foreign patent databases are also to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consulted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US5531366 is not cited in USD779828 so it is likely the examiner didn't consider it when granting the design patent. I agree with the questioner that the drawings in US5531366 are pretty similar to what is shown in USD779828 and probably should, at least, been considered by the examiner. I am not a lawyer so I cannot comment on whether or not USD779828 should have been allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD48160S/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1504.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18247" RevisionGUID="ce388975-af5b-4631-9e15-b4ea82b577a3" CreationDate="2017-08-16T21:26:07.207" UserId="19595" Text="what is the legal status of this patent 6869679B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48925" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18247" RevisionGUID="ce388975-af5b-4631-9e15-b4ea82b577a3" CreationDate="2017-08-16T21:26:07.207" UserId="19595" Text="What is the legal status of Patet 6869679B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48926" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18247" RevisionGUID="ce388975-af5b-4631-9e15-b4ea82b577a3" CreationDate="2017-08-16T21:26:07.207" UserId="19595" Text="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;status&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18247" RevisionGUID="4d6056ce-21b9-4bbc-b6b5-fa73555c2f32" CreationDate="2017-08-16T23:29:28.277" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to patent ; edited title" Text="what is the legal status of this patent [US6869679B1][1]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://encrypted.google.com/patents/US6869679" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48929" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18247" RevisionGUID="4d6056ce-21b9-4bbc-b6b5-fa73555c2f32" CreationDate="2017-08-16T23:29:28.277" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to patent ; edited title" Text="What is the legal status of Patent 6869679B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18248" RevisionGUID="39cc411e-59d1-47fd-8ada-27cd5aa1ceda" CreationDate="2017-08-16T23:46:32.743" UserId="17003" Text="**What is the legal status of this patent US6869679B1?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An excellent way to check the status of US patents is the [US Public Pair][1] site. In this case, the patent has been granted and all fees have been paid. Both the inventor and assignee is listed as Edward Negola. It is possible the assignee has changed. I would expect the patent to expire 20 years from its priority date in Oct 8, 2022. There is a divisional patent published as [US7335414B2][2] with the assignee as Aquadye Fibers, Inc. It shares the priority date with US6869679B1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7335417B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48932" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="d792b6e8-4722-4dcb-a031-8610f3ff2f93" CreationDate="2017-08-17T07:10:27.777" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18249" RevisionGUID="71dc81c5-00df-46ab-bc7a-58d201ba99aa" CreationDate="2017-08-17T08:52:57.620" UserId="19598" Text="I filed a patent from India for National phase. But mistakenly i uploaded a wrong document of claims. As a result i got many flows in First Examination Report regarding my claims. I have applied for PCT where i have uploaded a fresh updated copy of claims and complete specification. I want to upload the PCT claims for my National phase application, but the problem is new claims will cause contradiction with National phase complete specification and drawings. Can i replace the drawings also along with claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48934" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18249" RevisionGUID="71dc81c5-00df-46ab-bc7a-58d201ba99aa" CreationDate="2017-08-17T08:52:57.620" UserId="19598" Text="Amendments in Claims and complete Specification" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48935" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18249" RevisionGUID="71dc81c5-00df-46ab-bc7a-58d201ba99aa" CreationDate="2017-08-17T08:52:57.620" UserId="19598" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18251" RevisionGUID="b2e56a15-a077-4bb8-962f-4c0488cd0836" CreationDate="2017-08-17T10:43:15.100" UserId="17325" Text="From EPO perspective, your question boils down to &quot;when are private discussions considered public&quot;? In general, the information is regarded as having been made public if even *just one single member of the public is in a position to gain access to it and understand it, and if there is no obligation to maintain secrecy*. You can find a lot more here:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2016/e/clr_i_c_3_3.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea is that it does not really matter if the single member of the public did actually distribute the information, the focus is rather on the question if there was a secrecy agreement or something. In this sense, the word &quot;private&quot; in your questions, implies some sort of secrecy. However, if the secrecy is not expressely agreed, such a disclosure would at least be debatable with the EPO." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48941" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17548" RevisionGUID="4fe556ce-047d-44fe-82e8-7241fa92d826" CreationDate="2017-08-17T11:10:34.237" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48943" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17832" RevisionGUID="27f21307-24a5-4d49-84f3-f4570628ff58" CreationDate="2017-08-17T16:12:20.590" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18253" RevisionGUID="34e73b15-bfae-4bed-a61d-15f6f283d305" CreationDate="2017-08-17T16:18:12.510" UserId="19603" Text="US240287 is listed as my Father William Atley Jenkins being on the patent. Would like to be able to research it more. Hope you can help me! Betty Monday" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48945" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18253" RevisionGUID="34e73b15-bfae-4bed-a61d-15f6f283d305" CreationDate="2017-08-17T16:18:12.510" UserId="19603" Text="what became of patent us240287?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48946" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18253" RevisionGUID="34e73b15-bfae-4bed-a61d-15f6f283d305" CreationDate="2017-08-17T16:18:12.510" UserId="19603" Text="&lt;us2402871&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18254" RevisionGUID="048592f0-e97f-4f9b-9f49-a903edf024bd" CreationDate="2017-08-17T16:57:13.987" UserId="17003" Text="I assume you mean [US2402871][1]. Your father, William Atley Jenkins is listed as the original assignee. The inventor is William Madison Butler. The assignee is the &quot;owner&quot; of the patent and is the person or company that can monetize it. It is possible he bought the patent from the inventor or perhaps the inventor worked for your father. Your father is not the inventor. In any case the patent was granted in June 25, 1946 and would have expired 17 years later (which is how patent terms worked prior to 1995).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to be a device for vaporizing a liquid gas (maybe propane) for use in domestic applications requiring burning of the gas (perhaps a stove or home heating). It was cited by only a single other [patent application][2] which is listed as withdrawn. This suggests in was not a very important patent. There is no way for me to determine if a commercial device was ever sold based on this patent or whether it was a commercial success outside of normal web searching techniques which you can do for yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US2402871A/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/FR2850736A1/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48951" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16604" RevisionGUID="47db71c0-9beb-49f4-93ac-91597c4db684" CreationDate="2017-08-18T03:18:01.210" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18256" RevisionGUID="cf587df6-1925-4dee-81a5-b279ac650fa0" CreationDate="2017-08-18T09:26:18.177" UserId="19606" Text="Almost all literary works have abstract, brief, introduction, synopsis including but not limited to overview. Meaning anything that is most relevant to the complete subject may have any of those elements. It would help prospects or readers what to expect as well serve as a teaser or an appetite to make them want or be curious and interested to dig in the content. For patent it will guide the evaluator what to expect from the entirety of the application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18254" RevisionGUID="292653fe-1b00-4d58-8f8e-00f5140d3812" CreationDate="2017-08-18T12:41:12.607" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="I assume you mean [US2402871][1]. Your father, William Atley Jenkins is listed as the original assignee. The inventor is William Madison Butler. The assignee is the &quot;owner&quot; of the patent and is the person or company that can monetize it. It is possible he bought the patent from the inventor or perhaps the inventor worked for your father. Your father is not the inventor. In any case the patent was granted in June 25, 1946 and would have expired 17 years later (which is how patent terms worked prior to 1995).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to be a device for vaporizing a liquid gas for use in domestic applications requiring burning of the gas (perhaps a stove or home heating). It was cited by only a single other [patent application][2] which is listed as withdrawn. This suggests in was not a very important patent. There is no way for me to determine if a commercial device was ever sold based on this patent or whether it was a commercial success outside of normal web searching techniques which you can do for yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US2402871A/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/FR2850736A1/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48962" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18113" RevisionGUID="c95eb8a4-af27-481c-84db-a7a8f7b31cdc" CreationDate="2017-08-18T18:35:15.347" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48963" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="359fb879-b7b5-4da4-bb82-517c2733617d" CreationDate="2017-08-18T19:35:15.033" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48964" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17662" RevisionGUID="9df4d598-db45-4ded-a8d3-5f2080cfa23e" CreationDate="2017-08-18T22:35:18.583" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48965" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17248" RevisionGUID="68171244-0e9c-48ef-a132-c1ed99a08132" CreationDate="2017-08-18T23:35:17.717" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18258" RevisionGUID="e22f4eb8-0fd6-4773-92eb-4698159a0931" CreationDate="2017-08-19T00:29:07.287" UserId="19611" Text="I can't find patent citations on patents from 1836.  Was there a specific date or year that citations were added to patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48971" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18258" RevisionGUID="e22f4eb8-0fd6-4773-92eb-4698159a0931" CreationDate="2017-08-19T00:29:07.287" UserId="19611" Text="When did patents start citing each other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48972" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18258" RevisionGUID="e22f4eb8-0fd6-4773-92eb-4698159a0931" CreationDate="2017-08-19T00:29:07.287" UserId="19611" Text="&lt;citation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48975" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="5e31294b-f5b2-4156-8f4d-babbbaed1f3b" CreationDate="2017-08-19T03:43:40.897" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48976" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16666" RevisionGUID="7b933da6-a28f-477b-a9ab-1703983c896e" CreationDate="2017-08-19T04:43:41.467" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48977" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="dd22fb6b-839d-4355-afc5-aa08a0bdf955" CreationDate="2017-08-19T05:43:50.183" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48978" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13366" RevisionGUID="64c9375a-8538-42e4-ae0f-54ebf366bfad" CreationDate="2017-08-19T16:47:20.997" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18259" RevisionGUID="6c5a2663-f732-465f-8b13-af34055e5112" CreationDate="2017-08-19T17:31:22.763" UserId="19568" Text="Which protections is needed to be bought for a business idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like to sell it to a European citizen (of Course, for starting it in that country) and I am from a non-EU country." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48980" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18259" RevisionGUID="6c5a2663-f732-465f-8b13-af34055e5112" CreationDate="2017-08-19T17:31:22.763" UserId="19568" Text="Protections for selling a business idea" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48981" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18259" RevisionGUID="6c5a2663-f732-465f-8b13-af34055e5112" CreationDate="2017-08-19T17:31:22.763" UserId="19568" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;european&gt;&lt;idea&gt;&lt;protection&gt;&lt;sell&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48982" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17844" RevisionGUID="b32072c3-7dfa-4064-bb1f-fe140cb88829" CreationDate="2017-08-19T17:47:21.103" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48986" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17664" RevisionGUID="b7b5b3c3-5f70-4771-8ba8-8b72d7610958" CreationDate="2017-08-19T18:47:29.767" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18261" RevisionGUID="a7154468-3b00-44a8-acf9-23181f28aa3b" CreationDate="2017-08-19T19:21:36.640" UserId="19620" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20170027219][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20170027219&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hi,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would very much like to see the photos of the actual design of this patent, but cannot find a way to view them despite the method I try.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to have them re-uploaded or emailed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48988" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18261" RevisionGUID="a7154468-3b00-44a8-acf9-23181f28aa3b" CreationDate="2017-08-19T19:21:36.640" UserId="19620" Text="Why are the pictures not viewable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48989" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18261" RevisionGUID="a7154468-3b00-44a8-acf9-23181f28aa3b" CreationDate="2017-08-19T19:21:36.640" UserId="19620" Text="&lt;drawing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48994" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17660" RevisionGUID="5a6d5490-2e46-4a3d-b514-73491d6874b6" CreationDate="2017-08-20T00:47:29.337" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18263" RevisionGUID="b3463f97-574a-4abc-bf74-8b2c79b8a864" CreationDate="2017-08-20T08:24:23.030" UserId="18033" Text="Google/patents has some issues, patents.google however normally works fine:&#xA;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170027219A1/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18254" RevisionGUID="73d17b44-242e-4c67-b0c1-3a40300fa40e" CreationDate="2017-08-20T17:38:42.310" UserId="17003" Comment="Added a picture showing how the assignor was divided and edited text." Text="I assume you mean [US2402871][1]. Your father, William Atley Jenkins is listed as the original assignee. The inventor is William Madison Butler. The assignee is the &quot;owner&quot; of the patent and is the person or company that can monetize it. Looking at the actual patent, we see the following:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would seem the Mr. Butler valued your fathers contributions enough to award him one third the value of the patent. The patent was granted in June 25, 1946 and would have expired 17 years later (which is how patent terms worked prior to 1995).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to be a device for vaporizing a liquid for use in domestic applications requiring burning of the gas (perhaps a stove or home heating). It was cited by only a single other [patent application][3] which is listed as withdrawn. This suggests in was not a very important patent. There is no way for me to determine if a commercial device was ever sold based on this patent or whether it was a commercial success outside of normal web searching techniques which you can do for yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US2402871A/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3z3LD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/FR2850736A1/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48999" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17466" RevisionGUID="d3b9340a-a99c-475b-a09f-4a343a921927" CreationDate="2017-08-21T20:00:32.963" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49000" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="b630ad77-e27a-43f9-a118-8e4062451e71" CreationDate="2017-08-21T21:01:44.380" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49001" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18124" RevisionGUID="4bd363ba-ea9e-464b-82cd-95eba750dd8d" CreationDate="2017-08-22T01:01:47.207" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49002" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17496" RevisionGUID="d0ca68cd-82a3-41a4-8a3b-a14cf2c301c2" CreationDate="2017-08-22T07:12:42.593" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18264" RevisionGUID="48b7ec20-4ad7-4a41-8476-4b681ad407f4" CreationDate="2017-08-22T19:22:29.533" UserId="19628" Text="To create short URLs to the pdf files of a given patent, this construct works for me (for 00000000 enter the patent number, older ones require leading 0):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Full Doc - http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&amp;docid=00000000 &#xD;&#xA;* Front Pg - http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?docid=00000000&amp;SectionNum=1&#xD;&#xA;* Drawings - http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?docid=00000000&amp;SectionNum=2&#xD;&#xA;* Specs    - http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?docid=00000000&amp;SectionNum=3&#xD;&#xA;* Claims   - http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?docid=00000000&amp;SectionNum=4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples: (using 1964 patent 3,541,541 on computer mouse)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Full Doc - http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&amp;docid=03541541&#xD;&#xA;* Drawings - http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?docid=03541541&amp;SectionNum=2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're starting with a longform URL provided by the site, you can simply strip off the extraneous code following the Section number or patent number to get the shortened URL:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sample URLs provided by the site&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&amp;docid=03541541&amp;IDKey=&amp;HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpdfpiw.uspto.gov%2F&#xD;&#xA;* http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?docid=03541541&amp;SectionNum=2&amp;IDKey=&amp;HomeUrl=http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49007" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="e64c9840-bedc-4987-bf48-52c1007b7b44" CreationDate="2017-08-22T23:12:42.867" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49009" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17273" RevisionGUID="0b182fb5-8d1b-4259-8cf3-4b84d20840ed" CreationDate="2017-08-23T01:12:41.533" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49010" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17865" RevisionGUID="1a3ce3f1-9f4c-4851-95e3-29f4afc17faa" CreationDate="2017-08-23T02:12:41.517" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49014" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="e07a9671-0625-4119-a307-19761540bedc" CreationDate="2017-08-23T03:12:41.573" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49015" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="3bc8a32b-5cbf-4d8d-b482-0a5c8235b6aa" CreationDate="2017-08-23T04:18:31.777" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49016" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12639" RevisionGUID="d22593d8-caf2-4ee0-a533-bba49738efb2" CreationDate="2017-08-23T05:19:33.810" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18269" RevisionGUID="2533d93e-cbd8-4fbc-9584-e2ef87fecc81" CreationDate="2017-08-23T08:51:10.213" UserId="15787" Text="I've been using Lens.org from quite sometime now and I am stuck on the exporting part. I can't add more than &quot;top 10k results&quot; in a collection and hence can't export more than that. The number of patents in my search query is well, above 50k. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any alternative from where I can get data in similar format?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clear up any confusion, Lens.org is a free patent database. I'm not sure if this is the right community to ask this question.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49024" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18269" RevisionGUID="2533d93e-cbd8-4fbc-9584-e2ef87fecc81" CreationDate="2017-08-23T08:51:10.213" UserId="15787" Text="How to export more than top 10k results from Lens.org?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49025" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18269" RevisionGUID="2533d93e-cbd8-4fbc-9584-e2ef87fecc81" CreationDate="2017-08-23T08:51:10.213" UserId="15787" Text="&lt;databases&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49026" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="07ba8785-195d-4b28-8ad8-8a889bfa1871" CreationDate="2017-08-23T10:19:40.357" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49031" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17995" RevisionGUID="e359e56d-1630-423f-b1f8-bdd532990166" CreationDate="2017-08-23T14:19:51.100" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18270" RevisionGUID="1b2e3803-348b-4639-ae31-eb837d029d9c" CreationDate="2017-08-23T15:17:34.970" UserId="17003" Text="According to The Lens' support [pages][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The lens supports exporting of metadata for up to 1000 search results&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or 10,000 collection items. You can access the export function via its&#xD;&#xA;&gt; icon on the result listing header or from the “Collections” tab of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Work Area. When exporting from the result listing header, the export&#xD;&#xA;&gt; function takes into account any filtering or sorting you may have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; done, giving you the ability to finely tune the documents you wish to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; export.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might try to break up your collection by date ranges and then merge after exporting. There may be other sites that are better suited to your needs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/support/help-resources/workspaces/export-collections-and-results/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/search.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18271" RevisionGUID="5f366b42-770d-4dc0-b844-0acc0fa5c059" CreationDate="2017-08-23T16:17:13.913" UserId="19637" Text="In reference to the patent: [US9102221][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9102221&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It reads like this is just a bunch of off the rack parts and a little fabrication of brackets" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49034" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18271" RevisionGUID="5f366b42-770d-4dc0-b844-0acc0fa5c059" CreationDate="2017-08-23T16:17:13.913" UserId="19637" Text="How is an electric motor conversion kit patent eligible?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49035" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18271" RevisionGUID="5f366b42-770d-4dc0-b844-0acc0fa5c059" CreationDate="2017-08-23T16:17:13.913" UserId="19637" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;eligibility&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49039" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16926" RevisionGUID="00027800-da13-4c60-958b-570dd6668fee" CreationDate="2017-08-23T20:19:45.207" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49041" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="e97dd98e-8b85-4dbc-a087-e05358f317bb" CreationDate="2017-08-23T21:21:55.963" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16927" RevisionGUID="bb6d299d-ae43-4123-9cb6-5717789d347b" CreationDate="2017-08-23T22:31:04.570" UserId="17003" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="**Can you get a patent for a product that sells in high volume on the market over the past 40 years?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You figure out an improvement and patent the improvement. I'm not passing any judgement of the cited application as I didn't read it thoroughly and I'm not an expert in this field. Do you suppose that the first and only airplane patent went to the Wright brothers? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also remember, that the cited document is a patent application, not yet a patent. It may never become a patent and if it does, the claims may be significantly narrowed. The application also cites 6 other patents as prior art dating back to 1980." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18273" RevisionGUID="dcd503bf-bb29-4322-8529-8df4b6b51853" CreationDate="2017-08-23T22:42:36.233" UserId="17003" Text="**How is an electric motor conversion kit patent eligible?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is patented is defined by the claims. In this case there is only one claim (below). One thing to remember about claims. Long complicated claims where there are a lot of specifics are usually narrow and thus easily circumvented. Short claims are generally broader. In this case, there is a very long claim with many specifics. I'm not sure why the examiner found this patent sufficiently novel, but I would say as an engineer, it should be trivial to engineer around this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An internal combustion engine to electric motor conversion kit system for supporting vehicle components in operative proximity to an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electric direct/alternating current motor and for powering such&#xD;&#xA;&gt; supported vehicle components from the electric direct/alternating&#xD;&#xA;&gt; current motor, the supporting and powering being done in a safe,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ecological, convenient and economical manner, the system comprising,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in combination: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a vehicle having a plurality of wheels and an operator&#xD;&#xA;&gt; controlled region,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  the electric direct/alternating current motor being&#xD;&#xA;&gt; within the vehicle, the electric direct/alternating current motor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; having a forward end and a rearward end and a cylindrical side wall,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the electric direct/alternating current motor having a central shaft,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the central shaft having a rearward section within the electric&#xD;&#xA;&gt; direct/alternating current motor and a forward section extending&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forward of the electric direct/alternating current motor, the central&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shaft being rotatable about a horizontal axis;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a support assembly for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; retaining the electric direct/alternating current motor in an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; operative position, the support assembly including a central motor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; support and side motor supports, the motor mounts, the motor mounts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coupling the central and side motor supports to the vehicle, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; support assembly also including two vertically extending lateral&#xD;&#xA;&gt; brackets coupling the side wall of the electric direct/alternating&#xD;&#xA;&gt; current motor to the central motor support; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a primary bracket formed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with a vertically oriented first section removably coupled to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forward end of the electric direct/alternating current motor, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; primary bracket formed with a vertically oriented second section&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rearwardly of and above the first section, the primary bracket formed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with a third section perpendicular to and joining the first and second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sections, an aperture in the first section in a key-hole shape for the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; passage of wires and the central shaft; vehicle components including&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at least one alternator and at least one air conditioning compressor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and at least one power steering pump, the vehicle components being&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rotatably coupled to the second section of the primary bracket;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a motion imparting assembly for driving the vehicle components, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; motion imparting assembly including at least one drive pulley secured&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to and rotatable with the central shaft, the motion imparting assembly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; also including at least one driven pulley on the at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; alternator, at least one driven pulley on the at least one air&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conditioning compressor, and at least one driven pulley on the at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least one power steering pump, the motion imparting assembly also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; including at least one idler pulley and at least one tensioning&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pulley, the motion imparting assembly also including at least one belt&#xD;&#xA;&gt; movable in a vertical plane and operatively coupling the at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; drive pulley and the at least one driven pulleys and the at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; idler and tensioning pulleys; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a supplemental bracket secured to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; second section of the primary bracket at an elevation above the third&#xD;&#xA;&gt; section, cable lines mounted on the supplemental bracket to increase&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and decrease the speed of the electric direct/alternating current&#xD;&#xA;&gt; motor and the vehicle; a radiator and a cooling fan, the radiator and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cooling fan being positioned forward of the electric&#xD;&#xA;&gt; direct/alternating current motor to facilitate cooling of the electric&#xD;&#xA;&gt; direct/alternating current motor and the vehicle components; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; battery pack and controller in the vehicle for powering and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; controlling the electric direct/alternating current motor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18271" RevisionGUID="3ef53d67-f506-4e04-ad87-b92326dadc63" CreationDate="2017-08-23T22:43:17.480" UserId="17003" Comment="Changed link to patent to one which shows the figures." Text="In reference to the patent: [US9102221][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9102221B1/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It reads like this is just a bunch of off the rack parts and a little fabrication of brackets" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49045" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12070" RevisionGUID="608e32ec-e9b1-4beb-8856-43238aa6f522" CreationDate="2017-08-24T00:26:44.823" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18274" RevisionGUID="b33df575-1e65-456f-9f07-4804e814f1d6" CreationDate="2017-08-24T06:33:19.767" UserId="19641" Text="Like  2 years ago a develop a product in Africa and made a prototype that end up working amazing.&#xD;&#xA;So i search any product in Africa and there is none, but in USA  there are two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One with Utility Patent and Pct Patent. 2010-12(patent filed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second has a Pending Patent.came out on 2015&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If am not mistaken the first one is like 2 years older than the second one.&#xD;&#xA;How is this possible in the same country?&#xD;&#xA;pretty much the same product.&#xD;&#xA;The only thing that changes from the first is the material and just a bit of the design.&#xD;&#xA;Now, my question is, can i patent my product and sell it in Africa and Australia?&#xD;&#xA;The differences from mine:&#xD;&#xA;They claim their product works on ABC.&#xD;&#xA;Mine Just AB.&#xD;&#xA;My design was made and developed using engineers and physics.&#xD;&#xA;Mine is two times larger.&#xD;&#xA;The materials i use are very different.&#xD;&#xA;The only thing that is the same to both is how the product is attach.&#xD;&#xA;Can i Patent this for Africa and Australia and launch the product to sell it or not?&#xD;&#xA;I am not interested in selling my product in Europe or USA, because i developed for areas like Africa and Australia.&#xD;&#xA;Many Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ata " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49051" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18274" RevisionGUID="b33df575-1e65-456f-9f07-4804e814f1d6" CreationDate="2017-08-24T06:33:19.767" UserId="19641" Text="Utility patent and Pct/ two products/ another continent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49052" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18274" RevisionGUID="b33df575-1e65-456f-9f07-4804e814f1d6" CreationDate="2017-08-24T06:33:19.767" UserId="19641" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49053" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="3350f580-830d-4672-b027-d3cc29679e65" CreationDate="2017-08-24T08:37:17.373" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18276" RevisionGUID="682c5604-7a77-455c-968a-9bfe9910c304" CreationDate="2017-08-24T15:29:50.990" UserId="17003" Text="Your question is difficult to parse so I'm assuming English is not your native language. I'm not a patent lawyer and rules vary by country. Also I can't assess the earlier patent art since you haven't provided patent numbers. What I can say is that in most of the world you need to file for a patent before you publicly disclose the invention. If you built a prototype and disclosed it in within the last two years, you will probably disqualify yourself from patenting the invention. If you have kept it secret, you may be able to file for patents, but patentability depends on prior art. Your best next step is to consult with an actual patent lawyer to assess the patentability of your device. There is really no way to get a sufficient answer posting vague questions on the internet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49059" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18278" RevisionGUID="393411e5-3482-44f7-90c5-c4eb6c624a80" CreationDate="2017-08-24T17:52:16.853" UserId="19646" Text="The markings do not apply to you if line spacing is the only change to your documents. Submitting the corrected documents and including a note to the examiner about no new matter should satisfy the request. See [posting][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.intelproplaw.com/ip_forum/index.php/topic,6882.0.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49065" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13870" RevisionGUID="0c5cef54-587d-4100-80c7-a8d8a0e2656b" CreationDate="2017-08-25T01:41:44.597" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49067" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10643" RevisionGUID="7a9e4483-d25c-4b7c-859c-d459f2ff829c" CreationDate="2017-08-25T06:41:52.227" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49068" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="988a2355-2bf4-4514-90d4-3925b6f3d7ab" CreationDate="2017-08-25T10:42:31.543" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49076" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="c8e82fef-f4cf-4315-a196-991590693348" CreationDate="2017-08-25T21:43:45.620" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49077" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18003" RevisionGUID="521b9483-c76a-4286-b0eb-927b02dcc9de" CreationDate="2017-08-25T22:43:45.690" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49079" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16491" RevisionGUID="7a5c79f3-5a4d-44ed-9a87-0d27b24f7f37" CreationDate="2017-08-25T23:43:45.680" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49087" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16365" RevisionGUID="aef8a194-d457-4f57-a02f-ec7b9e419257" CreationDate="2017-08-26T00:44:04.663" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18282" RevisionGUID="74d6e467-c77e-4146-aca5-19e475887834" CreationDate="2017-08-26T03:33:08.713" UserId="16696" Text="&quot;Business Ideas&quot; cannot be patented, only novel processes that are not deemed wholly abstract.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, if you had a design for a new type of engine, you could seek a patent.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you had an idea for a new type of business, such as an app that utilizes the Uber model to utilize ride sharing for delivery services, it would not be patent eligible.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Cooperation_Treaty" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49091" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="66288b8a-5fcd-4ee4-ab88-06f04dd28d9c" CreationDate="2017-08-26T04:47:49.997" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18283" RevisionGUID="793230fb-f640-4f14-9770-c664f7f613dd" CreationDate="2017-08-26T14:30:30.833" UserId="17003" Text="I'm guessing there is some way to do this with Google Scholar, but haven't discovered it yet. If you try [The Lens][1], you can do something close by searching on a term relevant to the article you are looking for and then trying to find the article in the &quot;Cited Articles&quot; option and selecting it. &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qKyVb.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49093" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18008" RevisionGUID="635f9242-7b99-4878-b9e8-7a9cdd07dae7" CreationDate="2017-08-26T18:10:37.477" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49094" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18148" RevisionGUID="fa7171a5-51af-4430-9b3d-285a1c730bb2" CreationDate="2017-08-26T20:10:38.767" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18276" RevisionGUID="0cb769de-1611-42cf-ad1b-a26efcd01a62" CreationDate="2017-08-27T14:07:39.097" UserId="17003" Comment="added 142 characters in body" Text="Your question is difficult to parse so I'm assuming English is not your native language. I'm not a patent lawyer and rules vary by country. Also I can't assess the earlier patent art since you haven't provided patent numbers. What I can say is that in most of the world you need to file for a patent before you publicly disclose the invention. If you built a prototype and disclosed it in within the last two years, you will probably disqualify yourself from patenting the invention. If you have kept it secret, you may be able to file for patents, but patentability depends on prior art. Even though the prior art you found is not in your country, they still count as prior art and may keep you from obtaining a patent in Africa. Your best next step is to consult with an actual patent lawyer to assess the patentability of your device. There is really no way to get a sufficient answer posting vague questions on the internet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18284" RevisionGUID="105114f0-1fd7-412e-9c86-cf102d213756" CreationDate="2017-08-27T14:11:01.540" UserId="18521" Text="The search tool I always used was [www.freepatentsonline.com](www.freepatentsonline.com). I'll go through the searches I tried.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Searching for &quot;bale&quot;###&#xD;&#xA;[When I search](http://www.freepatentsonline.com/result.html?p=1&amp;edit_alert=&amp;srch=xprtsrch&amp;query_txt=apd%2F1%2F1%2F1845-%3E1%2F1%2F1895+and+%28bale+or+baler+or+baling%29&amp;uspat=on&amp;usapp=on&amp;eupat=on&amp;jp=on&amp;pct=on&amp;depat=on&amp;npl=on&amp;date_range=all&amp;stemming=on&amp;sort=relevance&amp;search=Search) all documents dated between 1840 and 1895, I only find 5 that mention baling, bale, or baler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All 5 documents name Peter Dederick of Loudonville, New York. [Here is](http://www.freepatentsonline.com/0662558.pdf) a sample of these docs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Searching for &quot;John E. French&quot;###&#xD;&#xA;[When I search](http://www.freepatentsonline.com/result.html?p=1&amp;edit_alert=&amp;srch=xprtsrch&amp;query_txt=in%2F%28%22John+E.+French%22+or+%22John+E+French%22+or+%22French%2C+John+E%22+or+%22French%2C+John+E.%22%29&amp;uspat=on&amp;usapp=on&amp;eupat=on&amp;jp=on&amp;pct=on&amp;depat=on&amp;npl=on&amp;date_range=all&amp;stemming=on&amp;sort=relevance&amp;search=Search) all documents for John E. French or John Enos French (with no time only two results come up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of these two results, [only one has a PDF available](http://www.freepatentsonline.com/0736085.pdf). This patent is for a &quot;Combination Shade and Curtain Bracket&quot; and was issued in 1903 to John E. French, resident of Keuka Park, New York. This doesn't sound like your John E. French. The other document is German and is dated 1963, so this doesn't sound like your John E. French either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some Searching Tips###&#xD;&#xA;I have a vague memory of studying for the patent bar and reading that, in older times, only one person was allowed to be named to a patent as inventor. (This was 8 years ago, so I'll let others verify this too in the comments.) If this is indeed the case, then you might keep an eye out for patent documents relating to bale which *don't* list John French. Maybe it's worth looking through those 5 documents from the first search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Conclusions###&#xD;&#xA;If none of the 5 documents naming Peter Dederick are a match, then unfortunately I don't think you'll find a patent document containing your drawing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49098" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="afa9de07-6362-4999-ba74-045b14e83021" CreationDate="2017-08-27T17:18:07.750" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49099" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14635" RevisionGUID="1442fd2e-5918-4169-834c-09a7afecdfe7" CreationDate="2017-08-27T21:19:03.413" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49100" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="633cb3bb-09b8-420c-9ddb-7265eb5b450d" CreationDate="2017-08-27T22:20:39.850" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18285" RevisionGUID="a6a416a4-40cc-4c88-89a5-f6cd0f66bfee" CreationDate="2017-08-27T22:56:22.863" UserId="19081" Text="In reference to the patent: [EP2722762A3][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP2722762A3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49102" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18285" RevisionGUID="a6a416a4-40cc-4c88-89a5-f6cd0f66bfee" CreationDate="2017-08-27T22:56:22.863" UserId="19081" Text="Why is no downloadable PDF version available?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49103" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18285" RevisionGUID="a6a416a4-40cc-4c88-89a5-f6cd0f66bfee" CreationDate="2017-08-27T22:56:22.863" UserId="19081" Text="&lt;ep2722762a3&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18286" RevisionGUID="047e7a74-0a0b-4326-a51b-abc712cacc24" CreationDate="2017-08-27T23:32:10.840" UserId="17003" Text="www.google.com/patents is generally unreliable for viewing patents. Better is [patents.google.com][1]. If you go to [patents.google.com/patent/EP2722762A3/en][2] you can view both the PDF and file he figures. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2722762A3/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18286" RevisionGUID="d9358338-0939-404d-8359-d22d7a10c61b" CreationDate="2017-08-28T00:39:04.147" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="www.google.com/patents is generally unreliable for viewing patents. Better is [patents.google.com][1]. If you go to [patents.google.com/patent/EP2722762A3/en][2] you can view both the PDF and file the figures. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2722762A3/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18286" RevisionGUID="711ae22a-c175-4f14-b3f8-7bc43c0837c6" CreationDate="2017-08-28T02:12:20.913" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body" Text="www.google.com/patents is generally unreliable for viewing patents. Better is [patents.google.com][1]. If you go to [patents.google.com/patent/EP2722762A3/en][2] you can view the PDF file. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2722762A3/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49110" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18155" RevisionGUID="8193acce-fdb8-48da-8943-4247e072864d" CreationDate="2017-08-28T10:26:56.110" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18161" RevisionGUID="a2d23a82-e323-4744-9942-918a835a371b" CreationDate="2017-08-28T13:38:20.090" UserId="17003" Comment="Added information about US20130171903." Text="It is a little unclear what you are asking. You have a tag referencing [US20130171903][1] which is an application, not a patent. Are you asking if this application is patentable over your cited prior art? If so, you may be happy find out that this application has been abandoned according to the [US Public Pair][2] site. The examiner had rendered a Final Rejection and the applicant failed to respond to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If on the other hand you, are asking about the patentability of of US9642212 over US8470388, often it is hard to decipher what makes a patent unique enough to get issued. Very often, the description in the patent seems very general. What is actually patented is contained in the claims which can be far more specific. In some cases the actual invention is a subtle refinement to an existing technology. In the case of the two patents you cited, one has 29 and the other 44 cited patents in addition to several non patent citations. In other words the patent examiner reviewed a lot of prior art before granting the patents. I would recommend you review the file wrapper for each patent on the [US Public Pair][2] site. I do believe there are processes for invalidating a granted patent, but will leave it up to more knowledgable persons to provide those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20130171903A1/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18286" RevisionGUID="8a765a9a-da98-4b86-bfee-b3be41367ea9" CreationDate="2017-08-28T13:44:13.437" UserId="17003" Comment="Added links to The Lens and Espacenet." Text="**Why is no downloadable PDF version available?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;www.google.com/patents is often unreliable for viewing patents. Better is [patents.google.com][1]. If you go to patents.google.com/patent you can view the PDF file. Other sites you might try are [The Lens][3] or [Espacenet][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2722762A3/en&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/EP_2722762_A3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?ST=singleline&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;submitted=true&amp;DB=&amp;query=EP2722762A3&amp;Submit=Search" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18286" RevisionGUID="559c4c4e-1e7f-4e89-9b7a-8bc75e3f9428" CreationDate="2017-08-28T18:51:38.513" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="**Why is no downloadable PDF version available?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;www.google.com/patents is often unreliable for viewing patents. Better is [patents.google.com][1]. If you go to patents.google.com you can view the PDF file. Other sites you might try are [The Lens][3] or [Espacenet][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2722762A3/en&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/EP_2722762_A3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?ST=singleline&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;submitted=true&amp;DB=&amp;query=EP2722762A3&amp;Submit=Search" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18283" RevisionGUID="1a979629-4a63-439c-954a-6ef9af20dd31" CreationDate="2017-08-28T19:20:16.097" UserId="17003" Comment="Added information about PatCite" Text="I'm guessing there is some way to do this with Google Scholar, but haven't discovered it yet. If you try [The Lens][1], you can do something close by searching on a term relevant to the article you are looking for and then trying to find the article in the &quot;Cited Articles&quot; option and selecting it. &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, there seems to be a new capability at The Lens called [PatCite][3]. According to that page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Using this toolkit you can track, filter, sort, and link scholarly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; articles that are cited in patents, examine the citing patents, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; discover new partners and collaborators. Influence Mapping provides an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; evidence base to guide decision-making and enables improved public&#xD;&#xA;&gt; policies and institutional practices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't used this capability, but it looks promising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qKyVb.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patcite" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18288" RevisionGUID="9a9925af-0e01-47d3-a23d-694d968ea9e5" CreationDate="2017-08-28T20:01:00.030" UserId="19658" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8317762][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8317762&#xD;&#xA;I am looking to sell a product online but a similar product has a patent for it. How can i sell a product that wont break the patent law?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49116" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18288" RevisionGUID="9a9925af-0e01-47d3-a23d-694d968ea9e5" CreationDate="2017-08-28T20:01:00.030" UserId="19658" Text="questions on selling a product similar to a patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49117" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18288" RevisionGUID="9a9925af-0e01-47d3-a23d-694d968ea9e5" CreationDate="2017-08-28T20:01:00.030" UserId="19658" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49118" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14680" RevisionGUID="e73f1d31-6c57-4793-ad76-a8e4d8d42df7" CreationDate="2017-08-28T20:31:46.773" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18290" RevisionGUID="a5ea72ef-15ef-45e9-85e4-74284f25ba9a" CreationDate="2017-08-28T21:15:17.953" UserId="17003" Text="I'm reasonably confident that the technology described in this patent is junk and doesn't work. That said, if you want to make something similar you simply need to avoid some aspect of the claims. For instance, having a different mixture of chemicals. Just don't expect your product to have any efficacy. If you make health claims, you will probably violate other laws depending on your country. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18290" RevisionGUID="1db4daef-0516-4452-b051-f5def80b7910" CreationDate="2017-08-28T23:22:13.460" UserId="17003" Comment="Added first claim for clarity." Text="I'm reasonably confident that the technology described in this patent is junk and wouldn't work to an extent that has a useful health benefit. That said, if you want to make something similar you simply need to avoid some aspect of the claims. Here is the first claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A skin patch for absorbing toxins from a body comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a first side comprising a heat reflective foil comprising titanium; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; side comprising a non-woven rayon surface configured for absorbing and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; retaining the toxins, said rayon surface comprising a plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; openings configured for enhancing transmission of far infrared ray&#xD;&#xA;&gt; emission into a skin when said second side is placed in contact with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the skin; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a mixture of natural ingredients consisting of, by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; weight, 24% vinegar, 0.8% chitosan, 0.8% loquat leaf, 0.8% houttuynia&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cordata, 0.8% vitamin C, 60% tourmaline, 4% vegetable fiber, and 8.8%&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dextrin, said mixture formulated to emit said far infrared ray&#xD;&#xA;&gt; emission, whereby blood circulation is promoted and perspiration and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; any toxins contained therein are absorbed by said rayon surface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, if you used a foil not containing titanium or use a different mixture of chemicals. Just don't expect your product to have any efficacy. If you make health claims, you will probably violate other laws depending on your country. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18291" RevisionGUID="e1467a38-d31e-46e2-a5a2-b95164ab0398" CreationDate="2017-08-28T23:45:04.363" UserId="19661" Text="One example of how this could be done is [Lonnie Johnson][1] and his [Super Soaker][2] idea. In short, he created a prototype, presented it at an exhibition event, and pitched his idea to a company executive. Along the way he protected his idea with patent(s) and/or copyright(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonnie_Johnson_(inventor)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Soaker" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18290" RevisionGUID="983ea411-bea6-4573-bc6e-93d1a9d83344" CreationDate="2017-08-29T02:18:49.537" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I'm reasonably confident that the technology described in this patent is junk and wouldn't work to an extent that has a useful health benefit. That said, if you want to make something similar you simply need to avoid some aspect of the claims. Here is the first claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A skin patch for absorbing toxins from a body comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a first side comprising a heat reflective foil comprising titanium; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; side comprising a non-woven rayon surface configured for absorbing and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; retaining the toxins, said rayon surface comprising a plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; openings configured for enhancing transmission of far infrared ray&#xD;&#xA;&gt; emission into a skin when said second side is placed in contact with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the skin; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a mixture of natural ingredients consisting of, by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; weight, 24% vinegar, 0.8% chitosan, 0.8% loquat leaf, 0.8% houttuynia&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cordata, 0.8% vitamin C, 60% tourmaline, 4% vegetable fiber, and 8.8%&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dextrin, said mixture formulated to emit said far infrared ray&#xD;&#xA;&gt; emission, whereby blood circulation is promoted and perspiration and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; any toxins contained therein are absorbed by said rayon surface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, you could use a foil not containing titanium or a different mixture of chemicals. Just don't expect your product to have any efficacy. If you make health claims, you will probably violate other laws depending on your country. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18294" RevisionGUID="7019829d-090b-454e-8fd3-b52d01875e87" CreationDate="2017-08-29T10:52:22.287" UserId="19665" Text="My previous company contacted me to sign a &quot;declaration for utility or design application using an application data sheet&quot;. They have filed a new patent application a few months ago based on the work I did when I was their employee (few years ago).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Do I have to sign this 37 CFR 1.63 and adknowledge I am the inventor ?&#xD;&#xA; - Do I own any right ? (I do not on the first patents that were filed&#xD;&#xA;   on this invention, they were made during the course of my&#xD;&#xA;   employment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know if they are new claims (first patent was 2008, last one not published yet, I can only assume they have decided finally decided to launch the product based on the invention in the end...)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49136" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18294" RevisionGUID="7019829d-090b-454e-8fd3-b52d01875e87" CreationDate="2017-08-29T10:52:22.287" UserId="19665" Text="Patent being filed by previous employer on invention made during the time I was employed by them" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49137" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18294" RevisionGUID="7019829d-090b-454e-8fd3-b52d01875e87" CreationDate="2017-08-29T10:52:22.287" UserId="19665" Text="&lt;employer&gt;&lt;employee&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49140" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="f3169d79-f25e-4f66-b409-5dd9073db8f3" CreationDate="2017-08-29T12:40:05.770" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49141" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="159bc139-54f1-4d8f-895b-2829e629ff46" CreationDate="2017-08-29T13:40:19.227" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18296" RevisionGUID="e1ecd258-3cd5-46f9-8e27-46d0c5829b98" CreationDate="2017-08-29T22:39:27.313" UserId="17003" Text="**I have to sign this 37 CFR 1.63 and acknowledge I am the inventor?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I doubt anyone can force you to sign anything. The question really is why wouldn't you want to. If you are the inventor why not take some credit? I suppose you could be trying to punish you old company, but having a patent on your resume is a plus. If they are willing to foot the bill to obtain a patent, I can't see any reason not to sign.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Do I own any right ? (I do not on the first patents that were filed on this invention, they were made during the course of my employment).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It probably depends on what your agreement was with the company when you were an employee. Most likely you signed an agreement assigning ownership of your inventions to your company as a condition of employment. This is pretty standard and understandable since you are being paid to do the work. In that case, the company would own it. Many companies provide some monetary incentives to inventors. If this were the case when you were an employee, then I'd certainly expect and would request you get it now if the patent is granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm answering as an inventor who has had patents issued since leaving a company. I am not an attorney so please don't take this as legal advice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18297" RevisionGUID="dfb45256-e5ac-4646-8342-a9b14d534f6a" CreationDate="2017-08-30T03:03:08.920" UserId="19671" Text="I want to patent my product which does something based on your proximity to it, using your smartphone's GPS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm searching for existing patents, and I found [this one][1] which is about an LED light, using a similar concept for the proximity bit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My product has nothing to do with lighting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I noticed in the above patent, it has a line about communicating with the smartphone: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The communications and processing functions can also be integrated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; into other household and commercial electrical devices, such as wall&#xD;&#xA;&gt; outlets, light switches, plug in timers, appliances, and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does that mean, this existing patent covers all other products which involve changing behavior based on proximity using smartphone GPS?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or since my product is not about lighting, can I still patent it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20150120000?dq=plug%20gps%20smartphone%20radius%20%22turn%20off%22%20-%22personal%20-safety%22%20-%22web%20-safety%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjDwJmR9v3VAhUKxWMKHcCADzAQ6AEI0AEwGA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49149" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18297" RevisionGUID="dfb45256-e5ac-4646-8342-a9b14d534f6a" CreationDate="2017-08-30T03:03:08.920" UserId="19671" Text="Can I patent in spite of this existing patent with very broad description?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49150" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18297" RevisionGUID="dfb45256-e5ac-4646-8342-a9b14d534f6a" CreationDate="2017-08-30T03:03:08.920" UserId="19671" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18298" RevisionGUID="8bc36a27-ed6a-4c6d-9187-60dbef2f043e" CreationDate="2017-08-30T03:06:22.310" UserId="19672" Text="Let's say I had thought of the idea of a &quot;computer mouse&quot;, but I did not know how to design the circuitry.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be a safe thing to solicit the services of an expert?  What type of protections should I consider?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I submit the patent's idea before contracting this work out?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49152" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18298" RevisionGUID="8bc36a27-ed6a-4c6d-9187-60dbef2f043e" CreationDate="2017-08-30T03:06:22.310" UserId="19672" Text="What if I do not know how to design the circuit board for my idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49153" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18298" RevisionGUID="8bc36a27-ed6a-4c6d-9187-60dbef2f043e" CreationDate="2017-08-30T03:06:22.310" UserId="19672" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;design&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49154" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18297" RevisionGUID="178ff29c-15e5-4db2-bf04-fb389b00d997" CreationDate="2017-08-30T10:47:47.443" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;us20150120000&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18299" RevisionGUID="9ca60b2a-bc68-4ac6-9302-19a5dd2c32ad" CreationDate="2017-08-30T10:55:39.003" UserId="18033" Text="You're mixing two things here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The protection of a patent is defined by - and only by - the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Protection only applies after the grant of a patent and the claims may change substantially between application and grant. You're citing an application, so no protection yet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [here][1] for more information about granting etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Filing a patent yourself has nothing to do with what other patents protect, only with the &quot;prior art&quot;. In short, if your invention is obvious in light of what's known, you won't get a patent. If it's not, you will. In practice that means, if a person skilled in the art can combine known elements in a obvious manner (using elements from 2, maybe 3, prior art documents), your invention is considered obvious and not patentable. We have detailed explanations somewhere around here, search for non-obviousness or prior art. if I stumble across one I'll link it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leads to the problem that you might get a patent but not actually produce your ivnention because parts of it are protected by another patent. But that's a different topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/17115/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18300" RevisionGUID="0a2637b1-b82e-43a2-bbac-f5cf93e3a744" CreationDate="2017-08-30T13:17:54.280" UserId="19674" Text="In reference to the patent: [CA2829469A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/CA2829469A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BPM (Business Process Management) and WfMS (Workflow Management System) technologies, implementations, platforms, COTS solutions, and application have been known for decades, with numerous systems implemented in variety of verticals, including real estate. I do not see why this particular patent is different from prior art?&#xD;&#xA;Examples of prior art: ManyWho (now Boomi's Workflow Automation). This prior art provides a low-code application development platform to rapidly build scalable and secure solutions. With this offering, you can build and deploy workflow applications, from simple to sophisticated, through a modern, native-cloud platform.There are thousands of other IT applications that are implemented on the basis of known business workflow engines." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49157" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18300" RevisionGUID="0a2637b1-b82e-43a2-bbac-f5cf93e3a744" CreationDate="2017-08-30T13:17:54.280" UserId="19674" Text="There is nothing new in this patent. WfMS and BPM platforms have been known for decades" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49158" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18300" RevisionGUID="0a2637b1-b82e-43a2-bbac-f5cf93e3a744" CreationDate="2017-08-30T13:17:54.280" UserId="19674" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18301" RevisionGUID="c2651a97-8eb5-4216-9072-c0d8877b5e67" CreationDate="2017-08-30T14:51:53.153" UserId="17003" Text="I've contracted engineers and product development firms several times. The standard agreement is that any patentable content developed during the course of the agreement would be owned by you (or your company) since you are paying for the work. You need to make sure this is clearly spelled out in the contract, but as I said, it is pretty much standard at least in the US and the UK. If patentable material is generated, the contracted engineer may be listed as an inventor, but the assignee would be you or your firm." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18302" RevisionGUID="beceb76d-8ee1-4f03-a1c8-5ded6f1327cd" CreationDate="2017-08-30T15:01:59.460" UserId="17003" Text="The document you have linked to is a patent application, not a patent. There are many applications that don't get granted. In addition, the claims in applications are often far broader than what might eventually get granted. At least for the US equivalent of this application, it looks like examination has not yet been started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do agree that the current claim seems both broad, vague and abstract. Although I'm not a lawyer or particularly knowledgeable in this field, I very much doubt it would be granted in its current state. There are provisions that allow you to submit prior art to patent offices so I encourage you to pursue that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18305" RevisionGUID="e8457cfa-6fab-461d-96b5-cc222f7f54ec" CreationDate="2017-08-30T18:45:50.840" UserId="19677" Text="In reference to the patent: [US2666001][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US2666001" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49167" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18305" RevisionGUID="e8457cfa-6fab-461d-96b5-cc222f7f54ec" CreationDate="2017-08-30T18:45:50.840" UserId="19677" Text="what is the application number of this patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49168" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18305" RevisionGUID="e8457cfa-6fab-461d-96b5-cc222f7f54ec" CreationDate="2017-08-30T18:45:50.840" UserId="19677" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;number&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18306" RevisionGUID="b8558f17-a466-46e5-8665-f467f061b339" CreationDate="2017-08-30T20:04:28.197" UserId="11537" Text="The application number is: US16837750A." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49170" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17720" RevisionGUID="9bf5cecb-11f6-4d62-ab7b-599afb72ea9b" CreationDate="2017-08-30T20:10:30.717" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18307" RevisionGUID="071974be-ba72-4f49-aa9a-f99a589b6e4f" CreationDate="2017-08-30T20:24:18.377" UserId="11537" Text="Read the restriction requirement.  The answer will be printed right on it!  It used to be a month, but now it's two months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See: [https://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/PLT_Memo_to_Examiners_12-13-2013.pdf][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, you can extend the time up to six months by paying extension of time fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/PLT_Memo_to_Examiners_12-13-2013.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18308" RevisionGUID="0252a054-7bb7-4e41-9644-4513bdbeb213" CreationDate="2017-08-30T20:29:58.183" UserId="11537" Text="&quot;Can I just reapply for the same idea?&quot; Yes, but you will lose the original priority date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49173" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="a8184795-b20a-4cf1-b1c4-28b74a89ba80" CreationDate="2017-08-30T22:10:30.420" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18310" RevisionGUID="756bc8f8-f9c4-4290-98ec-dff7a72df063" CreationDate="2017-08-31T04:52:18.200" UserId="19678" Text="Are you able to reinstate a patent if it has been abandoned for 4 years due to failure to pay maintenance fees?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49176" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18310" RevisionGUID="756bc8f8-f9c4-4290-98ec-dff7a72df063" CreationDate="2017-08-31T04:52:18.200" UserId="19678" Text="Buying Patent that has been abandoned" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49177" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18310" RevisionGUID="756bc8f8-f9c4-4290-98ec-dff7a72df063" CreationDate="2017-08-31T04:52:18.200" UserId="19678" Text="&lt;abandoned-patent&gt;&lt;buying&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49178" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17881" RevisionGUID="8d7b0f56-0e30-4cf2-be6c-10a621ad3d32" CreationDate="2017-08-31T10:11:04.353" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18296" RevisionGUID="13d87777-e41f-4aa2-8771-306af13f7d70" CreationDate="2017-08-31T14:51:01.627" UserId="17003" Comment="Added an additional paragraph." Text="**I have to sign this 37 CFR 1.63 and acknowledge I am the inventor?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I doubt anyone can force you to sign anything. The question really is why wouldn't you want to. If you are the inventor why not take some credit? I suppose you could be trying to punish you old company, but having a patent on your resume is a plus. If they are willing to foot the bill to obtain a patent, I can't see any reason not to sign.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Do I own any right ? (I do not on the first patents that were filed on this invention, they were made during the course of my employment).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It probably depends on what your agreement was with the company when you were an employee. Most likely you signed an agreement assigning ownership of your inventions to your company as a condition of employment. This is pretty standard and understandable since you are being paid to do the work. In that case, the company would own it. Many companies provide some monetary incentives to inventors. If this were the case when you were an employee, then I'd certainly expect and would request you get it now if the patent is granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What if I'm trying to get back at my previous employer?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You didn't ask this question, but from your comments it seems you have an axe to grind with your previous employer. In that case what I might suggest is you tell them that you would be happy to sign, but not until you review the patent application for correctness. After all, your name is on the application as an inventor, you should want it to be correct. As an inventor you are uniquely qualified for the task. And, by the way, your fee for this task is 200 euros/hour (or whatever you feel is justified).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm answering as an inventor who has had patents issued since leaving a company. I am not an attorney so please don't take this as legal advice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49184" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="767fc81b-cf33-4c0e-82b3-7108f3a09813" CreationDate="2017-08-31T15:13:39.410" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18312" RevisionGUID="9523adbe-efa8-4bd3-9dfe-9366277749b9" CreationDate="2017-08-31T15:17:35.940" UserId="19681" Text="Can a feature available in a software product patented? For eg, there are various Core Banking Systems and will they be patenting these features? &#xD;&#xA;Then how are other products able to give the features?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49186" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18312" RevisionGUID="9523adbe-efa8-4bd3-9dfe-9366277749b9" CreationDate="2017-08-31T15:17:35.940" UserId="19681" Text="A feature in Software Product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49187" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18312" RevisionGUID="9523adbe-efa8-4bd3-9dfe-9366277749b9" CreationDate="2017-08-31T15:17:35.940" UserId="19681" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;feature&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49188" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="82bf0066-60ba-4c3b-b9cb-607330e835c1" CreationDate="2017-08-31T19:13:39.403" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18313" RevisionGUID="0d3a5a5e-a6c3-4762-ba04-4b83396f3c74" CreationDate="2017-08-31T20:22:42.917" UserId="19468" Text="There used to be a 24-month limit, assuming the owners could prove that the non-payment was &quot;unintentional&quot;, but also &quot;at any time after the six-month grace period if the delay is shown to the satisfaction of the Director to have been unavoidable.&quot;  35 USC § 41(c)(1), as effective in 2007. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today, the statute reads, in part: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;35 USC § 41(c)(1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Director may accept the payment of any maintenance fee required by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; subsection (b) after the 6-month grace period if the delay is shown to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the satisfaction of the Director to have been unintentional...   If the &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Director accepts payment of a maintenance fee after the 6-month grace &#xD;&#xA;&gt; period, the patent shall be considered as not having expired at the end of &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the grace period." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18299" RevisionGUID="8bd3d405-fab2-467f-b3bd-27286bb57e01" CreationDate="2017-08-31T21:01:20.173" UserId="18033" Comment="edited body" Text="You're mixing two things here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The protection of a patent is defined by - and only by - the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Protection only applies after the grant of a patent and the claims may change substantially between application and grant. You're citing an application, so no protection yet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [here][1] for more information about granting etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Filing a patent yourself has nothing to do with what other patents protect, only with the &quot;prior art&quot;. In short, if your invention is obvious in light of what's known, you won't get a patent. If it's not, you will. In practice that means, if a person skilled in the art can combine known elements in a obvious manner (using elements from 2, maybe 3, prior art documents), your invention is considered obvious and not patentable. We have detailed explanations somewhere around here, search for non-obviousness or prior art. If I stumble across one I'll link it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leads to the problem that you might get a patent but not actually produce your invention because parts of it are protected by another patent. But that's a different topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/17115/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49194" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="5ec9ee9f-1161-4519-a859-97f160afe823" CreationDate="2017-09-01T03:14:07.680" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49195" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12629" RevisionGUID="0d596197-1947-4575-8401-f0a2b21c56af" CreationDate="2017-09-01T06:14:06.800" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18315" RevisionGUID="c7f9ff05-9831-43d2-9532-0b3f0546f86d" CreationDate="2017-09-01T17:11:53.047" UserId="19686" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2016149578A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2016149578A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent, like many others I've noticed, give amino acid sequences a sequence number. Whenever they are mentioned, they go by seq 1, 2, etc. However, I can't find the exact sequences they're referring to. Where can I find the sequences?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sincerely,&#xD;&#xA;Brandon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49199" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18315" RevisionGUID="c7f9ff05-9831-43d2-9532-0b3f0546f86d" CreationDate="2017-09-01T17:11:53.047" UserId="19686" Text="Sequence disclosure" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49200" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18315" RevisionGUID="c7f9ff05-9831-43d2-9532-0b3f0546f86d" CreationDate="2017-09-01T17:11:53.047" UserId="19686" Text="&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49201" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18315" RevisionGUID="76d082cb-0e6b-417f-935f-b952da379d7f" CreationDate="2017-09-01T18:08:17.430" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:18033,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DonQuiKong&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="49202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18316" RevisionGUID="eb9a2093-fa52-4d03-930f-7c69b9064e25" CreationDate="2017-09-01T18:27:22.527" UserId="8153" Text="Headline:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;## JP Morgan Chase just got a patent on basic app communications&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [article][1] alleges that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A simple Google search would have found oodles of prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure JP Morgan should pursue any patents they can get as a matter of strategic defense, but with this patent in hand, they can probably cause any application developer a lot of trouble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should this [patent][2] have been awarded? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Systems and methods for communication among mobile applications are disclosed. In one embodiment, a method for a first mobile application and a second mobile application on a mobile device to share information includes (1) a first mobile application executed by a computer processor on a mobile device determining that a second mobile application is present on the mobile device; (2) receiving, from a user, permission for the first mobile application to access data from the second application; (3) the first application executed by the computer processor requesting data from the second application; and (4) the first application receiving the requested data from the second application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2017/09/jp-morgan-chase-just-got-a-patent-on-basic-app-communications/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=9,747,468.PN.&amp;OS=PN/9,747,468&amp;RS=PN/9,747,468" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49203" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18316" RevisionGUID="eb9a2093-fa52-4d03-930f-7c69b9064e25" CreationDate="2017-09-01T18:27:22.527" UserId="8153" Text="JP Morgan patents &quot;basic app communication&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49204" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18316" RevisionGUID="eb9a2093-fa52-4d03-930f-7c69b9064e25" CreationDate="2017-09-01T18:27:22.527" UserId="8153" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;post-grant-review&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18316" RevisionGUID="17de2876-a933-45c8-94a3-d35fdf4c0ba6" CreationDate="2017-09-01T21:25:26.843" UserId="16696" Comment="Replaced the abstract with the claims from the linked " Text="Headline:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;## JP Morgan Chase just got a patent on basic app communications&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [article][1] alleges that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A simple Google search would have found oodles of prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure JP Morgan should pursue any patents they can get as a matter of strategic defense, but with this patent in hand, they can probably cause any application developer a lot of trouble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should this [patent][2] have been awarded? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for a first mobile application and a second mobile application on a mobile device to share information, comprising: the first mobile application executed by a computer processor on a mobile device determining that the second mobile application is present on the mobile device; receiving, from a user, permission for the first mobile application to access data from the second mobile application; the first mobile application executed by the computer processor requesting data from the second mobile application; and the first mobile application receiving the requested data from the second mobile application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the first mobile application determines that the second mobile application is present on the mobile device by accessing a mobile device registry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The method of claim 2, wherein the mobile device registry is on the mobile device. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the first mobile application determines that the second mobile application is present on the mobile device by scanning the mobile device for applications. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the permission is received by the first mobile application directly from the user. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the permission is received at a website for a host of the mobile device. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the permission is received at a website for a host of the first mobile application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the permission is received by the second mobile application directly from the user. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9. The method of claim 1, wherein the permission is based on the first mobile application and the second mobile application being grouped together on the mobile device. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10. The method of claim 1, wherein the first mobile application requests data from the second mobile application by providing the user's name and password. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 11. The method of claim 1, further comprising: the first mobile application executed by the computer processor providing the received requested data to a third mobile application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12. A method for a first mobile application and a second mobile application to share information, comprising: the first mobile application executed by a computer processor on a first mobile device determining that the second mobile application is present on a second mobile device; receiving, from a user, permission for the first mobile application to access data from the second mobile application; the first mobile application executed by the computer processor requesting data from the second mobile application by providing the second mobile application with a uniform resource locator; and the first mobile application receiving the requested data from the second mobile application via the uniform resource locator. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 13. The method of claim 12, wherein the uniform resource locator is provided in a machine-readable code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2017/09/jp-morgan-chase-just-got-a-patent-on-basic-app-communications/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=9,747,468.PN.&amp;OS=PN/9,747,468&amp;RS=PN/9,747,468" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18317" RevisionGUID="ff793cd6-eccc-42a4-b01a-07951088d8fd" CreationDate="2017-09-01T21:39:09.470" UserId="16696" Text="On cursory review, I don't see anything in the claims that is non-abstract, except, potentially, the organization of the functions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The deeper issue relates to a quote from the article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;How was such a broad and obvious idea allowed to be patented?&quot; asks EFF patent attorney Daniel Nazer. &quot;As we have explained many times before, the Patent Office seems to operate in an alternate universe where the only evidence of the state of the art in software is found in patents. Indeed, the examiner considered only patents and patent applications when reviewing JP Morgan's application. It's no wonder the office gets it so wrong.&quot;  &lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Source: [Forbes][1]&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More than obviousness, I think non-novelty (i.e. is there truly no existing application that uses these series of steps to validate, which is distinct from prior art based only on previous patents?) is the question.  **Nazer is suggesting it is highly unlikely a similar system is not already in use.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The rationale for issuing the grant would likely have been that the organization of these steps constitutes a novel method.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect we'll see a number of [review articles][2] on this grant in the coming weeks and months, and I wouldn't be surprised if the grant were challenged if JP Morgan tried to enforce against competitors with equally deep pockets. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2017/09/jp-morgan-chase-just-got-a-patent-on-basic-app-communications/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_review" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18318" RevisionGUID="fe09f61d-b7ec-43af-bfe0-789bfd519553" CreationDate="2017-09-01T22:49:24.290" UserId="17003" Text="On my iPhone, the Health app communicates with the Strava app to get exercise related data. The apps ask me to allow this communication. This seems pretty much what the first claim covers. Not sure if this his predates the patent, but I'm sure there are other examples that would. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49214" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16606" RevisionGUID="5bdd6737-fa57-4f10-88a1-cf4b27bdc278" CreationDate="2017-09-02T01:23:49.000" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49219" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="caffdbfb-3975-4768-aba4-4275038f746b" CreationDate="2017-09-02T04:23:49.837" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49220" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16569" RevisionGUID="48ad884c-8917-4758-8521-9fd1d9557ce0" CreationDate="2017-09-02T11:27:43.537" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49221" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="e9d571e6-3e79-4a34-abff-e5ef0c3ba3d5" CreationDate="2017-09-02T12:27:43.537" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18319" RevisionGUID="bb355410-2b78-43ee-bb19-969bc8551942" CreationDate="2017-09-02T14:06:59.197" UserId="19691" Text="In reference to the patent: [US6089502][1] ,  Boeing's patent on the Raked Wingtip&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6089502&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm struggling to understand how this patent is legal.  When I went through the process of getting my patent, I was taught that only a device can be patented, and that it is not legal to patent an existing device to use on some &quot;new&quot; thing.  In other words, I cannot patent the use of pneumatic tires on cars that are manufactured after 2020.  While I could claim that this is completely new and novel, in that, so far no one has ever put a pneumatic tire on a car manufactured after 2020 (as it is presently only 2017), the device of a pneumatic tire has already been invented.  I cannot patent this &quot;new&quot; use of the existing device.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent #US6089502 is a Boeing patent on the raked wingtip device.  The earliest example of the raked wingtip I know of was used on the Rumpler Taube aircraft as far back as 1910 (an example of which hangs in the Boeing Museum of Flight).  In the past 100 years, there have been many other implementations of raked wingtips used on aircraft.  I don't understand how Boeing can patent the invention of putting a raked wingtip on a new airplane that flies at transonic speeds.  It's the same invention used on the Taube, but used on a &quot;new&quot; airplane that flies faster.  To my understanding, this is not a patentable invention.  Am I missing something here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How did Boeing get this patent granted, and how is this patent legal, or enforceable?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49223" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18319" RevisionGUID="bb355410-2b78-43ee-bb19-969bc8551942" CreationDate="2017-09-02T14:06:59.197" UserId="19691" Text="Raked wingtips are not new... What can be legitimately patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49224" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18319" RevisionGUID="bb355410-2b78-43ee-bb19-969bc8551942" CreationDate="2017-09-02T14:06:59.197" UserId="19691" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18320" RevisionGUID="fbe75a3b-dd94-42ae-a40b-9a7e431851fe" CreationDate="2017-09-02T15:48:44.337" UserId="19232" Text="I have received a First Office Action, and this is a new experience for me. As many had advised and warned me to expect at this stage, the claims are rejected. The examiner's report appears to acknowledge several items in the claims to be unique and uncovered by prior art, but judges them to be logical extensions of prior art that could have been conceptualized by one skilled in the art. If and how this can be overcome is yet unclear but I must try. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see in the report that I may contact the examiner directly if desired. In general, to what degree should such communications be understood to be cooperative vs. adversarial? Are examiners allowed to suggest ways to address objections?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49226" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18320" RevisionGUID="fbe75a3b-dd94-42ae-a40b-9a7e431851fe" CreationDate="2017-09-02T15:48:44.337" UserId="19232" Text="In the attempt to address claim rejections, how much assistance can I get from the examiner who handled my application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49227" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18320" RevisionGUID="fbe75a3b-dd94-42ae-a40b-9a7e431851fe" CreationDate="2017-09-02T15:48:44.337" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;usa&gt;&lt;examination&gt;&lt;office-action&gt;&lt;rejection&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18321" RevisionGUID="6a6278e9-9341-4764-b32d-8e4769f1c8de" CreationDate="2017-09-02T16:42:41.503" UserId="17003" Text="**Raked wingtips are not new… What can be legitimately patented?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost anything that has been invented can be improved upon. In this case, Boeing is patenting a very specific design of winglet which the the patent examiner found sufficiently novel to merit a patent. The examiner cited 9 previous patents in addition to two non-patent documents. Since this patent was issued it has subsequently been cited by 63 patents and applications which attempt to patent other improvements. As for your referencing the Taube, I would argue that despite the &quot;bird-like&quot; wing shape, it is unlikely to cancel out wingtip vortices which is the point of the Boeing patent. Also, it in no way teaches the technology demonstrated in this patent which applies to aircraft flying at or above Mach 0.7. However, Wikipedia has a nice article on [wingtip devices][1] which notes a patent from 1897 which is before the Wright Brothers first flew.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One note on patents that contain improvements on existing technologies. While the improvement may be protected, it doesn't guarantee freedom to operate from earlier patents. Thus, even if you improve upon an earlier device, you might need a license to use or sell your improvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingtip_device" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49229" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17171" RevisionGUID="466811d3-f903-4c50-9919-ae5b1177582b" CreationDate="2017-09-02T18:27:58.390" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49230" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16962" RevisionGUID="c1e92755-d635-4e6c-8e1a-c6ab37c6394f" CreationDate="2017-09-02T20:28:31.693" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49231" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18185" RevisionGUID="f9fb9b68-f5bc-4206-83ed-58759bcb10e1" CreationDate="2017-09-02T21:28:32.850" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49232" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16450" RevisionGUID="22eac82a-5927-4ad6-a28d-c869bdb06883" CreationDate="2017-09-02T22:28:32.763" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18321" RevisionGUID="b597a95c-1885-4263-b0df-4186fa2f77a0" CreationDate="2017-09-02T22:33:37.757" UserId="17003" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="**Raked wingtips are not new… What can be legitimately patented?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost anything that has been invented can be improved upon. In this case, Boeing is patenting a very specific design of raked wingtip which the the patent examiner found sufficiently novel to merit a patent. The examiner cited 9 previous patents in addition to two non-patent documents. Since this patent was issued it has subsequently been cited by 63 patents and applications which attempt to patent other improvements. As for your referencing the Taube, I would argue that despite the &quot;bird-like&quot; wing shape, it is unlikely to cancel out wingtip vortices which is the point of the Boeing patent. Also, it in no way teaches the technology demonstrated in this patent which applies to aircraft flying at or above Mach 0.7. However, Wikipedia has a nice article on [wingtip devices][1] which notes a patent from 1897 which is before the Wright Brothers first flew.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One note on patents that contain improvements on existing technologies. While the improvement may be protected, it doesn't guarantee freedom to operate from earlier patents. Thus, even if you improve upon an earlier device, you might need a license to use or sell your improvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingtip_device" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49234" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16771" RevisionGUID="1e508adf-747b-4ca2-9faa-897fde933d3a" CreationDate="2017-09-02T23:28:39.827" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49235" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="3c3ac72c-6f2c-46b5-94a7-15bd24ed1ba4" CreationDate="2017-09-03T00:28:39.920" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49236" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17909" RevisionGUID="81ef5fbe-f12d-492d-b04f-04f407270885" CreationDate="2017-09-03T02:32:19.487" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49243" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16544" RevisionGUID="f1d5c321-3f1b-49f9-98a4-348c49f66c92" CreationDate="2017-09-03T07:33:14.617" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49244" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="7a2016aa-8461-4785-8880-48f265f8e2e2" CreationDate="2017-09-03T09:33:16.810" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49245" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="9b58ac0a-b3cd-4aed-abb2-b63504c753a6" CreationDate="2017-09-03T10:33:18.980" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49246" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16810" RevisionGUID="0f0e29ca-06e6-4b06-841d-012b06c439e7" CreationDate="2017-09-03T13:33:36.100" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49247" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14883" RevisionGUID="f79fdc89-d30e-4515-a40a-9d1a0bf268f7" CreationDate="2017-09-03T14:38:27.203" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18315" RevisionGUID="d9cd05b8-5f6e-4458-bd09-43fa4949fa4c" CreationDate="2017-09-03T16:06:21.013" UserId="19686" Comment="deleted 90 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2016149578A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/images/patent/WO/2016149578/A1/WO_2016_149578_A1.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent mentions a file filled with supplementary material (mentioned in section [0002]). Where can I find this file?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sincerely,&#xD;&#xA;Brandon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49249" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18315" RevisionGUID="d9cd05b8-5f6e-4458-bd09-43fa4949fa4c" CreationDate="2017-09-03T16:06:21.013" UserId="19686" Comment="deleted 90 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Supplementary material" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49250" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18315" RevisionGUID="d9cd05b8-5f6e-4458-bd09-43fa4949fa4c" CreationDate="2017-09-03T16:06:21.013" UserId="19686" Comment="deleted 90 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;supplements&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18322" RevisionGUID="183a4ef8-22ac-46bc-88dd-2a2fd6cf2151" CreationDate="2017-09-03T20:37:03.190" UserId="18769" Text="ISR's are non-binding preliminary opinions on the patentability of a PCT application.  The 'non-binding'ness is in part due to the slight heterogeneity of standards for patentability in each country.  &#xD;&#xA;See section 'International Search' of this [link][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my limited anecdotal experience with what the ISR's turn up in terms of prior art/patentability, it seems that they are very superficial and so lenient as to not provide any useful measure of patentability for the public or national offices.  Therefore, what is the point of instituting such a search?  Is it just a low-cost 'first-pass' to potentially avoid a more expensive, in-depth search?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/faqs/faqs.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49252" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18322" RevisionGUID="183a4ef8-22ac-46bc-88dd-2a2fd6cf2151" CreationDate="2017-09-03T20:37:03.190" UserId="18769" Text="Are International Search Reports/Written Opinions useful?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49253" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18322" RevisionGUID="183a4ef8-22ac-46bc-88dd-2a2fd6cf2151" CreationDate="2017-09-03T20:37:03.190" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18322" RevisionGUID="1ce42570-c1a4-4306-b2c1-6e48ed54f491" CreationDate="2017-09-03T20:46:23.687" UserId="18769" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="ISR's are non-binding preliminary opinions on the patentability of a PCT application.  The 'non-binding'ness is in part due to the slight heterogeneity of standards for patentability in each country.  &#xD;&#xA;See section 'International Search' of this [link][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my limited anecdotal experience with what the ISR's turn up in terms of prior art/patentability, it seems that they are very superficial and so lenient as to not provide any useful measure of patentability for the public or national offices.  Does this contrast with your experience?  Is ISR quality largely a function of the international search authority (ISA) used?  What is the purpose of an ISR if it's non-binding?  Is it just a low-cost 'first-pass' to potentially avoid a more expensive, in-depth search?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/faqs/faqs.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49255" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17751" RevisionGUID="d36fe267-f699-4554-be3b-cb0d88e7808c" CreationDate="2017-09-03T21:38:27.153" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18323" RevisionGUID="6066011c-c045-458f-a7d0-aae147a859bb" CreationDate="2017-09-03T22:00:26.603" UserId="18484" Text="If I was not sure how to calculate a certain aspect of my work, and asked help for it. And was provided with a good modeling formula for my work, and I pursued using it to approximate my findings, do they have rights towards my concept or deserve anything?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They did not provided any intellectual aid to the patent, so I don't see how they have rights towards it, it's like using a software,tool during my work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I did not pay them, only asked and they provided. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49257" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18323" RevisionGUID="6066011c-c045-458f-a7d0-aae147a859bb" CreationDate="2017-09-03T22:00:26.603" UserId="18484" Text="Help in a task, do they have rights towards my patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49258" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18323" RevisionGUID="6066011c-c045-458f-a7d0-aae147a859bb" CreationDate="2017-09-03T22:00:26.603" UserId="18484" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;intellectual-property&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18324" RevisionGUID="7576c842-bfc3-4b67-900d-4d5756fa7b4d" CreationDate="2017-09-04T00:22:01.813" UserId="17003" Text="You have to ask yourself &quot;what is the actual invention?&quot;. If the help you received was helpful, but didn't actually contribute the inventive step, then you should be okay. If, however, the help provided the inventive step in at least one of the claims, then the contributor is a co-inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first patent arose this way. I did some brainstorming with a co-worker and had some interesting ideas. Later the co-worker remembered that one of my suggestions ended up as one of the claims and had me added as in inventor. As we both worked for the same company, there wasn't any issue with ownership, so you may have a more complicated situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49262" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17963" RevisionGUID="984630b3-950e-41b3-8297-4d961905ab33" CreationDate="2017-09-04T06:50:06.507" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49263" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17916" RevisionGUID="c5040b64-d8bb-4266-bfcc-007a37d9debe" CreationDate="2017-09-04T08:50:42.460" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18325" RevisionGUID="32787e57-a99f-46fc-8b06-d0f5cd486898" CreationDate="2017-09-04T09:13:04.533" UserId="17325" Text="In my experience, the value of an ISR depends partially on the International Searching Authority (ISA) and partially on the style of the claims. Many applicants choose to file broad-scope claims at the international phase, aiming to restrict them to novel subject matter during the various national phases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, it is a fact that some authorities are better at scrutinizing than others. EPO examiners usually spot even the oldest prior art. Japanese examiners are very skilled searchers as well and as you can imagine they retrieve valuable prior art from old japanese patents, which others might miss for obvious reasons. I suppose this relates also to the availability of search databases in each patent office. Chinese examiners are particularly good in analyzing details, so their comments about dependent claims are extremely useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the usefulness of an ISR, I have asked this question myself a thousand times. I ended up thinking that, for big enterprises they are not particularly useful, they have large departments which already know all the available prior art. For middle or small businesses, an ISR assures you that you have done your homework well (or not!), because most likely they do not have all the resources available, to do an in-depth prior art search. And don't forget that an ISR is useful to a competitor monitoring patents related to his products: he quickly aqcuires knowledge of relevant prior art, for a given patent application. He is in a position of evaulating the situation with less effort." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18326" RevisionGUID="d9bb69a4-be7b-40bf-90f8-03d7f3460fbc" CreationDate="2017-09-04T16:45:45.657" UserId="19699" Text="In reference to the patent: [US3498685][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3498685&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the companies names that use this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49266" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18326" RevisionGUID="d9bb69a4-be7b-40bf-90f8-03d7f3460fbc" CreationDate="2017-09-04T16:45:45.657" UserId="19699" Text="Specific Companies that use this patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49267" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18326" RevisionGUID="d9bb69a4-be7b-40bf-90f8-03d7f3460fbc" CreationDate="2017-09-04T16:45:45.657" UserId="19699" Text="&lt;usa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49268" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16361" RevisionGUID="94fdf16f-9cf5-4aed-85f0-bfa463f5efc9" CreationDate="2017-09-04T16:55:01.480" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49269" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="b9cd3a42-0652-4fe7-95fd-2ce606255fd6" CreationDate="2017-09-04T17:55:01.453" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49270" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18326" RevisionGUID="0771485a-d06f-4665-8ae3-1be040c6f11b" CreationDate="2017-09-04T18:51:42.720" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:18033,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DonQuiKong&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="49271" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="18320" RevisionGUID="4bf75f1d-be5e-4405-b909-5dc37391ea3b" CreationDate="2017-09-04T20:57:58.280" UserId="19700" Comment="37" />
  <row Id="49272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18327" RevisionGUID="74941d78-be76-4531-afc6-b6d7ec1e86ec" CreationDate="2017-09-04T21:14:39.273" UserId="18033" Text="They certainly don't have to help you, but as far as I know they might. I heard that as an inventor without attorney calling an examiner ans asking nicely for some discussion can lead to good results. But it depends on the examiner and the interpersonal dynamics. My guess is that you could try asking what claim combinations the examiner thinks have a chance, arguing against what they said might be a lot harder. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to sources, there was an AMA (ask me anything) by a patent examiner on reddit:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In the past it wasn’t so much. Now it is becoming more and more common as we are supposed to help the attorney and work with them not against. If we have a question, or there needs to be an election or something like that, we can just give a call to help speed up the process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Secondary source][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, not exactly at the point of the question, but I'd like to add, don't worry too much, sometimes claims get rejected at the first try, then you make your case and you might even convince the examiner. There's [an interview with a former patent examiner][2] that raises a few good points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What advice do you have for applicants?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;When examiners have only maybe an hour to understand what your invention is, clarity is appreciated. There's definitely a balance to be struck. Drawings are helpful, especially in the United States, where you can sometimes rely on drawings to express claim language. From the outside, it's tempting to include as much as you can. Make sure you convey the idea to them reasonably quickly, though.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Are all claims rejected the first time around? If so, why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Yes, I almost always rejected claims the first time. There are a couple of reasons why. I was a younger examiner. We were almost never permitted to allow anything the first time around. The way that it was explained to me was, it's up to the patent office to establish the best case for why it's not patentable. The applicant then needs to put forth his or her best case as to why the office is wrong. It's a dialogue. Examiners assess the contrary evidence put forth in the applicant's response to the office action to make a decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner doesn't have a lot of time for your application. If you call them or if you respond to the office action, try to show how your invention is not obvious, amend your claims if necessary. It's a process, it goes back and forth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.greyb.com/patent-examiner/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.inc.com/stephen-key/a-former-patent-examiner-pulls-back-the-curtain-at-the-uspto.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49273" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="8b248a5c-d665-4606-a4a9-e3f9825d927c" CreationDate="2017-09-04T23:57:41.030" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18328" RevisionGUID="667fea87-d2f8-421e-b836-da068154e0b8" CreationDate="2017-09-05T03:50:23.107" UserId="19702" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2006064519A2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2006064519A2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the status of this patent - whether granted or is under consideration?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49275" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18328" RevisionGUID="667fea87-d2f8-421e-b836-da068154e0b8" CreationDate="2017-09-05T03:50:23.107" UserId="19702" Text="What is the status of the patent WO2006064519A2?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49276" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18328" RevisionGUID="667fea87-d2f8-421e-b836-da068154e0b8" CreationDate="2017-09-05T03:50:23.107" UserId="19702" Text="&lt;patent-search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17339" RevisionGUID="f1fa7f71-5472-4a4c-ab1e-950e9849c491" CreationDate="2017-09-05T08:39:02.977" UserId="18033" Comment="edited body" Text="Short: you cannot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If** you paid your patent attorney for doing a search prior to drafting your patent (because if not then it wasn't even their job) then obviously they didn't do that to the best possible outcome. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a patent search needs time and time costs money. If you want to find *everything* then you will find no patent attorney in his right mind that would promise this to you, as it is impossible to find every relevant document. There are always some that even the most thorough search does not turn up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In every other case, the number of prior art documents found directly correlates with the money you are willing to invest. Would you have stayed with the patent attorney if they had said, hey, give me $30k I'll do 100 hrs of patent search? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heck, that would cost more than the whole patent process, then I'd rather occasionally lose a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now all of this is assuming that the document you found is actually **that** relevant. Maybe it does not teach all limitations contained in your claims? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, it happens. Be happy, it didn't turn up during the examination so you got a patent. Invalidating a patent takes longer than litigation, so if the case arises, you might even use your patent. Though that strategy should be carefully evaluated by a professional. And in the end, if the process was perfect and every prior art document was found, there would never be an invalidated patent, invalidation wouldn't even exist. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another point for you to consider, do you get sued every time somebody finds out that you could have done your job better? Do you want to? For good reasons only screwing up on purpose and sometimes through negligence is punishable. Beeing unlucky or just not beeing the best at your job is not (or not through the law)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18331" RevisionGUID="7cd1b42a-10b0-4d10-882a-48dcb0186833" CreationDate="2017-09-05T13:34:06.257" UserId="19706" Text="patent ownership has not yet come to an end" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18332" RevisionGUID="233a605f-c377-4129-bfbf-a5951ccc7fed" CreationDate="2017-09-05T19:12:07.323" UserId="19707" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20160332236][1]&#xD;&#xA;Several published articles of previous work into AM of cutting tools existed long before the application of this patent was even thought of. The &quot;inventor&quot; does not even have one article or publication related to AM. Does that not then constitute as plagiarism or copyright infringement? Then why did the US, Chinese, and German patent offices grant the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20160332236" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49290" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18332" RevisionGUID="233a605f-c377-4129-bfbf-a5951ccc7fed" CreationDate="2017-09-05T19:12:07.323" UserId="19707" Text="How was this patent even granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49291" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18332" RevisionGUID="233a605f-c377-4129-bfbf-a5951ccc7fed" CreationDate="2017-09-05T19:12:07.323" UserId="19707" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49295" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14767" RevisionGUID="f9370ef6-a128-43fe-b6f1-202c40c22821" CreationDate="2017-09-05T21:11:53.553" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49297" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17769" RevisionGUID="0fa9d6e9-0831-487c-a2f5-05412323f44d" CreationDate="2017-09-05T22:11:53.627" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18334" RevisionGUID="2767276b-0e9f-429f-91a3-639fb55d5408" CreationDate="2017-09-05T22:14:11.990" UserId="17003" Text="**How was this patent even granted?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you linked to is not a US patent. It is a patent application. It may never be a patent. You can use the [US Public Pair][1] site to determine the status of this application. At this point, the application is still not granted. The latest communications from the examiner is: &quot;Final Rejection Mailed&quot; on 07-10-2017. Final rejections aren't necessarily completely final, so there is likely still some ability to appeal or amend the claims. The links to the German and Chinese versions are likewise only applications at this point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Then why did the US, Chinese, and German patent offices grant the patent?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, you need to be aware that patent applications are published typically 18 months after filing. The fact that an application publishes does not indicate that it will ever be granted as a patent. Indeed, it is very likely even if the patent is granted, the claims will be narrowed. I will also say, that just because the inventor hasn't published does not mean he can't invent anything of value. Many inventors that work for commercial companies don't publish their work. Indeed publishing before filing for a patent can keep you from obtaining the patent. Also even if there is substantial prior art in a field, it doesn't mean new inventions are impossible. Even a subtle improvement on an existing technology can be granted a patent. I won't comment on the specific application you cited, but it helps to actually see the figures which your link doesn't provide. This [link to the application][2] does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160332236A1/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18332" RevisionGUID="fb498969-f78e-4a35-94fa-e080cb6bcdb6" CreationDate="2017-09-05T22:14:45.813" UserId="17003" Comment="Updated link to one that shows the figures." Text="In reference to the patent: [US20160332236][1]&#xD;&#xA;Several published articles of previous work into AM of cutting tools existed long before the application of this patent was even thought of. The &quot;inventor&quot; does not even have one article or publication related to AM. Does that not then constitute as plagiarism or copyright infringement? Then why did the US, Chinese, and German patent offices grant the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160332236A1/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18335" RevisionGUID="703e5eb3-709a-4b7a-89a9-ec54cc9109c4" CreationDate="2017-09-05T22:42:37.923" UserId="19710" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20070257041][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20070257041&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hello&#xD;&#xA;What is the status of this application?&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49301" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18335" RevisionGUID="703e5eb3-709a-4b7a-89a9-ec54cc9109c4" CreationDate="2017-09-05T22:42:37.923" UserId="19710" Text="Status of the application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49302" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18335" RevisionGUID="703e5eb3-709a-4b7a-89a9-ec54cc9109c4" CreationDate="2017-09-05T22:42:37.923" UserId="19710" Text="&lt;legal-status&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18334" RevisionGUID="892773d3-4ee9-41f4-baf3-d8b977eb8a7c" CreationDate="2017-09-05T23:00:02.647" UserId="17003" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="**How was this patent even granted?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you linked to is not a US patent. It is a patent application. It may never get to be a patent. You can use the [US Public Pair][1] site to determine the status of this application. At this point, the application is still not granted. The latest communications from the examiner is: &quot;Final Rejection Mailed&quot; on 07-10-2017. Final rejections aren't necessarily completely final, so there is likely still some ability to appeal or amend the claims. The links to the German and Chinese versions are likewise only applications at this point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Then why did the US, Chinese, and German patent offices grant the patent?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, you need to be aware that patent applications are published typically 18 months after filing. The fact that an application publishes does not indicate that it will ever be granted as a patent. Indeed, it is very likely even if the patent is granted, the claims will be narrowed. I will also say, that just because the inventor hasn't published does not mean he can't invent anything of value. Many inventors that work for commercial companies don't publish their work. Indeed publishing before filing for a patent can keep you from obtaining the patent. Also even if there is substantial prior art in a field, it doesn't mean new inventions are impossible. Even a subtle improvement on an existing technology can be granted a patent. I won't comment on the specific application you cited, but it helps to actually see the figures which your link doesn't provide. This [link to the application][2] does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160332236A1/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49304" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17768" RevisionGUID="a00a2db0-4e66-44e2-856d-1c2911aa86d6" CreationDate="2017-09-05T23:11:53.563" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18336" RevisionGUID="185b2f86-a2c1-4543-b9cd-ec9588b0bf4d" CreationDate="2017-09-06T02:41:15.597" UserId="19711" Text="Is there a process to use an already patented idea that I can use along with my idea? Also if not, how can I protect my idea if I approach the original company to pitch it.....What can I do to protect my idea and keep them from stealing it when I approach them with it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49306" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18336" RevisionGUID="185b2f86-a2c1-4543-b9cd-ec9588b0bf4d" CreationDate="2017-09-06T02:41:15.597" UserId="19711" Text="Improvement on an already idea" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49307" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18336" RevisionGUID="185b2f86-a2c1-4543-b9cd-ec9588b0bf4d" CreationDate="2017-09-06T02:41:15.597" UserId="19711" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49308" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="d9b6e8aa-1aa9-404e-a68e-d8fbd5c42917" CreationDate="2017-09-06T08:26:11.167" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49309" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18336" RevisionGUID="613707ed-604a-4519-8f1b-0e8d2db96bec" CreationDate="2017-09-06T13:32:59.840" UserId="18033" Comment="edited title; edited tags" Text="Improvement on an already patented idea" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49310" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18336" RevisionGUID="613707ed-604a-4519-8f1b-0e8d2db96bec" CreationDate="2017-09-06T13:32:59.840" UserId="18033" Comment="edited title; edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49311" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="70af3b6e-6fa7-48f8-b759-2fe58d2d79f7" CreationDate="2017-09-06T14:31:20.960" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18337" RevisionGUID="a3867029-8ae5-41bb-b114-e1266d2abf23" CreationDate="2017-09-06T15:11:24.873" UserId="17003" Text="**What can I do to protect my idea and keep them from stealing it when I approach them with it?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can obtain a patent on an improvement to an existing technology. This is done all the time. One thing to remember, just because you may obtain a patent on your improvement, doesn't mean you avoid having to obtain a license from other patents already in force.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A common strategy is to file a patent application before approaching other companies about licensing opportunities. In the US there is something called a provisional patent application which is often used for this purpose. Patents themselves take significant time and money to obtain, but at least the application provides some protection from someone stealing your idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although it is possible to file for a patent application on your own, I highly recommend you work with a patent attorney or agent. A poorly constructed patent may provide little real protection. If you do some of the work up front, you can make the process of working with a patent lawyer more efficient. Please see [this answer][1] for some suggestions. The attorney may also be able to provide you with guidance about contacting the firm in the safest manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17010/any-other-patents-involving-baseball-caps-for-pigtails/17011#17011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49313" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18055" RevisionGUID="b1387c13-d41b-4ad6-bae9-31b74d519bcd" CreationDate="2017-09-06T16:31:20.203" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18338" RevisionGUID="2a254dfc-ac57-4ecd-9e7d-1392ca64b386" CreationDate="2017-09-06T17:23:49.880" UserId="17003" Text="**What is the status of this patent - whether granted or is under consideration?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the US equivalent patent application [US20090010907A1][1], the current status is: &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot; as of 03-07-2013. I found this information at the [US Public Pair][2] site. The European application equivalent is [EP1833966A2][3]. According to [Espacenet][4] that application's status is: &quot;DEEMED TO BE WITHDRAWN&quot; with an effective date of 2014/08/20.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20090010907A1/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP1833966A2&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=EP&amp;NR=1833966A2&amp;KC=A2&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=20070919&amp;DB=&amp;locale=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18339" RevisionGUID="a719db73-b727-4239-b05a-da01019ff086" CreationDate="2017-09-06T22:16:02.107" UserId="19715" Text="does anyone know how i can find the contact details from chinese patent holder for this patent CN102853400 B&#xD;&#xA;would be great&#xD;&#xA;thank you in advance&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49316" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18339" RevisionGUID="a719db73-b727-4239-b05a-da01019ff086" CreationDate="2017-09-06T22:16:02.107" UserId="19715" Text="Searching contact details patend CN102853400 B" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49317" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18339" RevisionGUID="a719db73-b727-4239-b05a-da01019ff086" CreationDate="2017-09-06T22:16:02.107" UserId="19715" Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18340" RevisionGUID="a36e03a9-7ffa-4dd4-a500-fabcd6391a7f" CreationDate="2017-09-06T22:39:40.723" UserId="17003" Text="The best place to determine the status of US patents and applications is the [US Public Pair][1] site. In the case of US20070257041, the current status is &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot;.  The status date is 10-15-2008 which means the applicant failed to respond to an office action (in this case a non-final rejection) in 2008. While it may be possible to resurrect the application, at this point I'd rather doubt it will happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18341" RevisionGUID="914971a6-4b73-4acd-82e5-05feaed2f77d" CreationDate="2017-09-06T22:49:31.290" UserId="17003" Text="If you pull up [CN102853200B][1] on patents.google.com you can click on the Espacenet link. From there you can see that the assignee is &quot;SHENZHEN KAPATA PHOTOELECTRIC CO.,LTD&quot;. Looking them up on Google yields the following website: http://www.led-purchase.com/5141523/index.html. On that page, is a button which purports to allow you to send a message to the company. It also lists the contact details as follows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/CN102853400B/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AdpS6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49322" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="5f0c9658-3a17-4e1f-af77-255d4dc3c4e0" CreationDate="2017-09-07T04:38:21.937" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18343" RevisionGUID="05655de5-5a1d-4bee-b0f6-694ed6c291d0" CreationDate="2017-09-07T09:10:28.470" UserId="19718" Text="I know that chemical compounds are usually first patented right after discovery, long before they are clinically tested. Is there, however, any requirement on the application for proof of its intended therapeutic benefit?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If the answer to this question is no, why wouldn't an applicant claim use for a plethora of diseases?&#xD;&#xA;- If yes, what kind of evidence is required?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for your time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49324" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18343" RevisionGUID="05655de5-5a1d-4bee-b0f6-694ed6c291d0" CreationDate="2017-09-07T09:10:28.470" UserId="19718" Text="Drug patents: Is some proof of therapeutic use required before patenting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49325" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18343" RevisionGUID="05655de5-5a1d-4bee-b0f6-694ed6c291d0" CreationDate="2017-09-07T09:10:28.470" UserId="19718" Text="&lt;drugpatent&gt;&lt;pharmaceutical&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18344" RevisionGUID="91b93555-8d5d-4211-b1d2-7aca03548678" CreationDate="2017-09-07T10:24:40.253" UserId="19719" Text="Here i provide a patent search engine supported by SIPO officially.&#xD;&#xA;http://epub.sipo.gov.cn/index.action&#xD;&#xA;u can use chrome and translate the page into English, good luck for u.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for CN102853400B , its right is holded by tianman（田满）, a natural man, which is the result of patent right transfer. Before the transfer,its right is held by (深圳市科普达光电股份有限公司,深圳市深博创照明股份有限公司,深圳市深博创照明股份有限公司） all of the above thress names is the same company that changed its name during the past years.&#xD;&#xA;As for tianman（田满）, his(generally speaking this is a male name in China) address is 435300 湖北省蕲春县张榜镇塘坻村五组, which is typical address in China mainland country. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49327" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15983" RevisionGUID="e88efba1-b7f6-48cc-9356-1d0677dab5b9" CreationDate="2017-09-07T11:40:28.767" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18344" RevisionGUID="6ee07a0d-a349-44d4-aa8f-6cf815ca014a" CreationDate="2017-09-07T13:52:47.780" UserId="8601" Comment="Fix English; remove email solicitation" Text="This is a patent search engine supported by SIPO officially:&#xD;&#xA;http://epub.sipo.gov.cn/index.action&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use Chrome and translate the page into English, though of course the results are often not entirely reliable or even understandable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for CN102853400B, its rights are held by Tianman（田满), a private person, as the result of a patent rights transfer. Before the transfer, the rights were held by 深圳市科普达光电股份有限公司 aka 深圳市深博创照明股份有限公司 aka 深圳市深博创照明股份有限公司 (all these three names are the same company; it changed its name during the past years).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for Tianman（田满; generally speaking this is a male name in China) his address is 435300 湖北省蕲春县张榜镇塘坻村五组, which is typical address in China mainland country." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49329" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18344" RevisionGUID="6ee07a0d-a349-44d4-aa8f-6cf815ca014a" CreationDate="2017-09-07T13:52:47.780" Comment="Proposed by 8601 approved by 1 edit id of 2042" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49335" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="45fee9ca-88c5-4b4a-b154-1ccfaf9a9f71" CreationDate="2017-09-07T16:43:50.823" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18346" RevisionGUID="d15bfec4-60dd-4706-8993-9e72652ccea3" CreationDate="2017-09-07T17:33:31.237" UserId="16696" Text=" - This is a hard **no** as the theraputic benefits of a drug, or even the feasibility of an invention are outside of the scope of what the patent office considers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See this [patent grant for a spaceship][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pharmaceutical patents are not my area, and it's very specialized in that patent attorneys in working in the field tend to have related PhD's, but at a high-level. what is being patented are methods of production, delivery, or chemical composition of medicines. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I found this interesting article that [discusses patent protections for new uses of known drugs][2]. So this answer should be taken as high-level and non-definitive, pending an answer from one with direct experience in pharmaceutical patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd highly recommend looking up some famous drug patents and reviewing the claims, and seeking out law review articles on the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5305974?dq=space%20ship&amp;ei=QcOhVLzpGIXmoATciIGoCg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0CFkQ6AEwCA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.iam-media.com/Intelligence/IP-Value/2013/Legal-perspectives-Cross-border/Patent-protection-for-new-uses-of-known-drugs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18346" RevisionGUID="ee087410-6bab-4a4d-b861-a0cf2cee1771" CreationDate="2017-09-07T17:47:23.757" UserId="16696" Comment="Added a few links to legal review sites, and a disclaimer" Text=" - This is a hard **no** as the theraputic benefits of a drug, or even the feasibility of an invention are outside of the scope of what the patent office considers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See this [patent grant for a spaceship][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pharmaceutical patents are not my area, and it's very specialized in that patent attorneys in working in the field tend to have related PhD's, but at a high-level. what is being patented are methods of production, delivery, or chemical composition of medicines. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I found this interesting article that [discusses patent protections for new uses of known drugs][2]. So this answer should be taken as high-level and non-definitive, pending an answer from one with direct experience in pharmaceutical patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd highly recommend looking up some famous drug patents and reviewing the claims, and seeking out review articles on the subject from sites like [ipwatchdog][3] and The [National Law Review][4], among others.  Certain financial publications may also have relevant articles, such as [this recent article on Forbes][5].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5305974?dq=space%20ship&amp;ei=QcOhVLzpGIXmoATciIGoCg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0CFkQ6AEwCA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.iam-media.com/Intelligence/IP-Value/2013/Legal-perspectives-Cross-border/Patent-protection-for-new-uses-of-known-drugs&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/category/tech-blog/pharma/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/uncertain-times-biotech-and-pharma-patents&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertpearl/2017/01/19/why-patent-protection-in-the-drug-industry-is-out-of-control/#48b46e5078ca" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49338" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16103" RevisionGUID="61124c75-e6d7-4f11-9cb8-a15b503447bd" CreationDate="2017-09-07T19:43:47.960" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49339" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17310" RevisionGUID="ed443481-bc2c-43f9-8641-7b4d63fa1759" CreationDate="2017-09-07T20:43:46.787" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18347" RevisionGUID="79824da1-7b1a-4e20-909e-da50bd77777e" CreationDate="2017-09-08T13:42:27.123" UserId="17325" Text="I am European-based so I will talk only for Europe. But I do know that US is more free than Europe, so most likely the same goes for US, perhaps with different claim formulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Europe (EPO proceedings) the applicants actually often claim use for a plethora of diseases. There are claims like &quot;Use of compound X as a medicament&quot;. If the compound is new and depending on the disclosure, this might be patentable. Otherwise you go for a claim like &quot;Use of compound X as a medicament for...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Now, if in future you discover a new use for this drug (and this is not obvious of course) you may also claim that use. So if you had the use of compound X for diabetes and then you find out that it may be used for e.g. Parkinson, you can claim it.&#xD;&#xA;Independently of the above, you may also claim stuff like dosage strength of a pill (if for some reason it proves non-obvious), the type of the drug formulation (transdermal patch, double-layered pill, syrup, etc). Those are all actual cases.&#xD;&#xA;For the disease-related types of claims you can have further reading here:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_vi_7_1.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49350" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17587" RevisionGUID="cd071b13-23fe-4d10-8449-aaac3a228bb5" CreationDate="2017-09-08T16:03:40.820" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18346" RevisionGUID="2507d4db-7998-43dc-a03d-8c55ee311a6c" CreationDate="2017-09-08T16:12:30.590" UserId="16696" Comment="Updated with USPTO guidelines " Text="Pharmaceutical patents are not my area, and it's very specialized in that patent attorneys in working in the field tend to have related PhDs.  Therefore, this answer will be evolving as I learn more.  At a high-level, my understanding is that what is being patented are methods of production, delivery, or chemical composition of medicines, but absolute proof of efficacy seems not a requirement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd highly recommend looking up some famous drug patents and reviewing the claims, and seeking out review articles on the subject from sites like [ipwatchdog][1] and The [National Law Review][2], among others.  Certain financial publications may also have relevant articles, such as [this recent article on Forbes][3].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may also want to look at USPTO guidelines for the US.  It's fairly complicated.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Utility of a drug or therapeutic technique is a requirement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An invention that is “inoperative” (i.e., it does not operate to produce the results claimed by the patent applicant) is not a “useful” invention in the meaning of the patent law ...&lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[II.WHOLLY INOPERATIVE INVENTIONS; “INCREDIBLE” UTILITY | USPTO 2017 Guidelines for Examination][4]&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...the defense of non-utility cannot be sustained without proof of total incapacity.” If an invention is only partially successful in achieving a useful result, a rejection of the claimed invention as a whole based on a lack of utility is not appropriate. &lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[ibid.][4]&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actual therapeutic efficacy seems not to be a requirement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Courts have repeatedly found that the mere identification of a pharmacological activity of a compound that is relevant to an asserted pharmacological use provides an “immediate benefit to the public” and thus satisfies the utility requirement. As the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals held in Nelsonv.Bowler: &quot;Knowledge of the pharmacological activity of any compound is obviously beneficial to the public.&quot; &lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[ibid.][4]&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a lot more complex than these two excerpts convey, but the cited source goes into much greater detail, with the relevant precedents.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - An examiner may request proof of utility&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In appropriate situations the Office may require an applicant to substantiate an asserted utility for a claimed invention... (“When the operativeness of any process would be deemed unlikely by one of ordinary skill in the art, it is not improper for the examiner to call for evidence of operativeness.”)&lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[ibid. | V.EVIDENTIARY REQUESTS BY AN EXAMINER TO SUPPORT AN ASSERTED UTILITY][4]&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, the cited document goes into much greater detail.  You'll probably also want to review [2112 Requirements of Rejection Based on Inherency; Burden of Proof \[R-07.2015\]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;I also found this interesting article that [discusses patent protections for new uses of known drugs][6]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/category/tech-blog/pharma/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/uncertain-times-biotech-and-pharma-patents&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertpearl/2017/01/19/why-patent-protection-in-the-drug-industry-is-out-of-control/#48b46e5078ca&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2107.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2112.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.iam-media.com/Intelligence/IP-Value/2013/Legal-perspectives-Cross-border/Patent-protection-for-new-uses-of-known-drugs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49361" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18211" RevisionGUID="99602369-ad99-488d-8664-089c1cb990ca" CreationDate="2017-09-08T18:03:40.827" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49363" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="18315" RevisionGUID="56cf7791-4d33-461f-afd9-a2ea439fbf4e" CreationDate="2017-09-08T18:18:29.087" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:17003,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Eric Shain&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:18033,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DonQuiKong&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="49367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18352" RevisionGUID="b0c7d1a2-53a6-421b-a486-9e91affd0ff9" CreationDate="2017-09-08T19:14:01.283" UserId="19725" Text="Can you submit an animated drawing to illustrate your invention in a non-provisional application?&#xD;&#xA;If so, how?&#xD;&#xA;Mike Z" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49368" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18352" RevisionGUID="b0c7d1a2-53a6-421b-a486-9e91affd0ff9" CreationDate="2017-09-08T19:14:01.283" UserId="19725" Text="Animated Drawings In Patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49369" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18352" RevisionGUID="b0c7d1a2-53a6-421b-a486-9e91affd0ff9" CreationDate="2017-09-08T19:14:01.283" UserId="19725" Text="&lt;video&gt;&lt;animated&gt;&lt;file&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18353" RevisionGUID="112f6248-3f25-49f3-be40-7709137d170b" CreationDate="2017-09-08T20:46:50.440" UserId="16696" Text="Common sense and experience would lead me to say &quot;absolutely not&quot;, but when I searched through the [submission guidelines for drawings][1], and although they heavily suggest it is not acceptable, I couldn't find anything explicitly barring this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My next step was to get on the phone with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and ask if animated drawings are allowed.  The answer I got was surprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;The only requirement is that the document be submitted in PDF format and that drawings are in portrait orientation and 300dpi.&quot;* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I don't fully trust this answer.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. As far as I know, it's wildly non-standard.  That alone could make it a sub-optimal choice.  If there is a problem, or if it's not allowed, you'll have to correct it, which will not kill the application, but if using an attorney, you would surely be billed for the extra work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The [PCT rules referenced in the USPTO guidelines][2] are very specific and include physical requirements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (a) All elements of the international application (i.e., the request, the description, the claims, the drawings, and the abstract) shall be so presented as to admit of direct reproduction by photography, electrostatic processes, photo offset, and microfilming, in any number of copies.&lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Source: [Appendix T - Patent Cooperation Treaty and Regulations Under the PCT | 11.2    Fitness for Reproduction][3]&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just the fact that there is a [dpi][4] requirement suggests the documents must be printable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The animation would not display in printed forms of the patent, and would not likely display on web versions of the patent, such as Google patents, [WIPO][5], and the various national patent databases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. There is a technical risk.  [Although it *may* be possible to embed an animation in a PDF][6], having that animation display properly on any given system, such as an examiner's, is far from guaranteed.  It may require the proper plugins.  Again not a fatal flaw, but one that will delay the process, and potentially drive up the cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On this last point in particularly, stick with the [KISS][7] principle.  Complications are useful [in limited contexts][8], and are best avoided in general.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/nonprovisional-utility-patent#heading-24&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1825.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e366850&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://stackoverflow.com/q/9009771/3400155&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complication_(horology)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49388" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="c77b2aae-5b4f-414c-afac-f6298c47d71c" CreationDate="2017-09-09T16:11:57.593" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49389" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18220" RevisionGUID="cffcfa88-cb33-487f-93d0-9973b79b52af" CreationDate="2017-09-10T02:17:20.157" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49394" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="c5db6c53-6f5a-4c73-b535-5c148df78d97" CreationDate="2017-09-10T03:18:39.710" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49396" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="be274e58-aac0-4299-a6c4-9117cc3057e5" CreationDate="2017-09-10T07:22:46.447" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18358" RevisionGUID="d0060e61-e822-42f9-b893-41925e5c9ee4" CreationDate="2017-09-10T13:13:59.367" UserId="19733" Text="In reference to the patent: [US9729556][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9729556&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hello,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Open Badges have been invented in 2011.&#xD;&#xA;https://openbadges.org/about/#history&#xD;&#xA;and digital badging has a longer history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how can there be a patent for this and a man called John Arlan Brock claiming he's the inventor?!?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for providing an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Philippe from France - Open Recognition Alliance.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.openrecognition.org/bord/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49401" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18358" RevisionGUID="d0060e61-e822-42f9-b893-41925e5c9ee4" CreationDate="2017-09-10T13:13:59.367" UserId="19733" Text="Isn't this patent abusive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49402" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18358" RevisionGUID="d0060e61-e822-42f9-b893-41925e5c9ee4" CreationDate="2017-09-10T13:13:59.367" UserId="19733" Text="&lt;us9729556&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49403" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17614" RevisionGUID="f8d71b13-8fe4-45eb-ab6d-f8b0eb7b6082" CreationDate="2017-09-10T13:29:20.253" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18359" RevisionGUID="10c26337-e04f-45e8-a9d8-801fae351bea" CreationDate="2017-09-10T15:16:04.870" UserId="17003" Text="I'm going to preface this answer with the fact that I'm not an attorney nor expert in this field so don't take any of this as legal opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of possibilities here. First, it is possible that the cited patent is merely an incremental improvement to an existing technology. In that case, the detailed specifics of the claims would relate the novel improvement. However, in that case, I would have expected the patent specification to cite the earlier implementation and describe how the new implementation is different and improved. I could find no reference to OpenBadges.org (which clearly existed before the filing of the application) in the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second and perhaps more likely is that the USPTO when searching for prior art, limited itself to patent literature only. There are 113 prior patent citations listed, but no non-patent citations. In this case, the USPTO could be unaware of openbadges.org. The inventor works for Salesforce.com which is the assignee. Salesforce is a large and sophisticated organization so I would be surprised if it was unaware of openbadges.org.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bottom line is in my less than expert opinion, I think you are justified in questioning the validity of this patent. There are provisions to challenge an issued patent. A [Post Grant Review][1] can be filed within 9 months of the grant date. Unfortunately, there is a fee for filing this challenge. I would certainly make the issue known to those in the Open Badges organization and perhaps reach out to the [Electronic Frontier Foundation][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/appealing-patent-decisions/trials/post-grant-review&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.eff.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18358" RevisionGUID="6c700c0d-0153-47e4-a40d-0032e3d8ed5b" CreationDate="2017-09-10T17:31:21.357" UserId="17206" Comment="Please don't link to your website in your posts as signature, if it is not related. That might be perceived as spam. You can put it in your profile's About Me sction instead." Text="In reference to the patent: [US9729556][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9729556&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hello,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Open Badges have been invented in 2011.&#xD;&#xA;https://openbadges.org/about/#history&#xD;&#xA;and digital badging has a longer history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how can there be a patent for this and a man called John Arlan Brock claiming he's the inventor?!?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49407" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18358" RevisionGUID="6c700c0d-0153-47e4-a40d-0032e3d8ed5b" CreationDate="2017-09-10T17:31:21.357" Comment="Proposed by 17206 approved by 17003, 1 edit id of 2043" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18362" RevisionGUID="7692e48d-e2d8-4699-a6da-0016ab39fdd6" CreationDate="2017-09-11T13:31:02.440" UserId="18809" Text="Looking at Snapchat's patent [Ephemeral message galleries][1] it would seem, at least superficially, that vanishing status updates on WhatsApp do exactly what this patent protects. I copy the relevant portion of the first claim below: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; maintaining an ephemeral gallery comprising a plurality of&#xA;&#xA;&gt; ephemeral messages that respectively comprise visual media content and that are available for viewing by one or more recipients via respective user devices, each ephemeral message having an associated gallery participation parameter that indicates a time value for continued availability of the corresponding ephemeral message in the ephemeral gallery;&#xA;&#xA;&gt;in response to identifying expiry of a corresponding gallery&#xA;&#xA;&gt; participation parameter for a particular one of the plurality of ephemeral messages, removing the particular ephemeral message from the ephemeral gallery; and in response identifying expiry of a gallery availability parameter that indicates a time value for continued availability of the ephemeral gallery, eliminating the ephemeral gallery.&#xA;&#xA;From what I see on WhatsApp, they effectively do all of it. &#xA;&#xA;Do they actually not (and my reading of the patent is erroneous) or could there be other reasons Snapchat is okay having its patents infringed by the same entity that seems well poised to crush it? &#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2016054562A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49418" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18362" RevisionGUID="7692e48d-e2d8-4699-a6da-0016ab39fdd6" CreationDate="2017-09-11T13:31:02.440" UserId="18809" Text="How do vanishing stories on WhatsApp not infringe Snapchats patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49419" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18362" RevisionGUID="7692e48d-e2d8-4699-a6da-0016ab39fdd6" CreationDate="2017-09-11T13:31:02.440" UserId="18809" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;facebook&gt;&lt;infringment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18362" RevisionGUID="859cf99d-1ca9-481e-92be-4716a4ed850a" CreationDate="2017-09-11T13:42:03.967" UserId="17003" Comment="Linked to actual patent." Text="Looking at Snapchat's patent [Ephemeral message galleries][1] it would seem, at least superficially, that vanishing status updates on WhatsApp do exactly what this patent protects. I copy the relevant portion of the first claim below: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maintaining an ephemeral gallery comprising a plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ephemeral messages that respectively comprise visual media content and that are available for viewing by one or more recipients via respective user devices, each ephemeral message having an associated gallery participation parameter that indicates a time value for continued availability of the corresponding ephemeral message in the ephemeral gallery;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;in response to identifying expiry of a corresponding gallery&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; participation parameter for a particular one of the plurality of ephemeral messages, removing the particular ephemeral message from the ephemeral gallery; and in response identifying expiry of a gallery availability parameter that indicates a time value for continued availability of the ephemeral gallery, eliminating the ephemeral gallery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I see on WhatsApp, they effectively do all of it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do they actually not (and my reading of the patent is erroneous) or could there be other reasons Snapchat is okay having its patents infringed by the same entity that seems well poised to crush it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9537811B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18362" RevisionGUID="d4898a5d-63c1-41de-9bfb-8b22cdd56a06" CreationDate="2017-09-11T13:43:57.417" UserId="18033" Comment="Added the first claim from the actually granted US patent" Text="Looking at Snapchat's patent [Ephemeral message galleries][1] it would seem, at least superficially, that vanishing status updates on WhatsApp do exactly what this patent protects. I copy the relevant portion of the first claim below: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. A server, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a processor; and&#xD;&#xA;a memory storing instructions executed by the processor to:&#xD;&#xA;maintain an ephemeral gallery comprising a plurality of ephemeral messages posted by a user for viewing by one or more recipients, wherein each of the ephemeral messages comprises a photograph or a video, the maintaining of the ephemeral gallery comprising making the ephemeral gallery available for viewing, upon request, via respective user devices associated with the one or more recipients;&#xD;&#xA;for each of the plurality of ephemeral messages,&#xD;&#xA;maintain an associated message duration parameter that indicates a display duration for the corresponding ephemeral message during viewing of the ephemeral gallery, and&#xD;&#xA;maintain a gallery participation parameter that indicates a time value for continued availability of the corresponding ephemeral message in the ephemeral gallery;&#xD;&#xA;responsive to receiving an ephemeral gallery view request from one of the one or more recipients, cause automated sequential display of the plurality of ephemeral messages on a corresponding user device by performance of operations comprising:&#xD;&#xA;starting a message timer when viewing of one of the plurality of the ephemeral messages is commenced,&#xD;&#xA;determining that the message timer expires when the message timer equals the corresponding display duration,&#xD;&#xA;responsive to expiry of the message timer, displaying a next one of the plurality of ephemeral messages in the ephemeral gallery, and&#xD;&#xA;repeating the starting, determining, and displaying operations until all ephemeral messages in the ephemeral gallery are viewed;&#xD;&#xA;remove a particular one of the plurality ephemeral messages from the ephemeral gallery in response to the identification of an expired gallery participation parameter corresponding to the particular ephemeral message, the particular ephemeral message after removal thereof being unavailable for recipient viewing as part of the ephemeral gallery; and&#xD;&#xA;eliminate the ephemeral gallery so that the ephemeral gallery is unavailable for viewing responsive to any recipient request, the ephemeral gallery being eliminated upon expiration of either a gallery timer or upon expiration of the gallery participation parameter of a last message in the ephemeral gallery, the last message being that one of the plurality of ephemeral messages which was posted to the ephemeral gallery last.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I see on WhatsApp, they effectively do all of it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do they actually not (and my reading of the patent is erroneous) or could there be other reasons Snapchat is okay having its patents infringed by the same entity that seems well poised to crush it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9537811B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18362" RevisionGUID="ffafdb93-3ff0-4b6f-8092-f5cdd8932039" CreationDate="2017-09-11T13:46:16.830" UserId="18033" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="Looking at Snapchat's patent [Ephemeral message galleries][1] it would seem, at least superficially, that vanishing status updates on WhatsApp do exactly what this patent protects. I copy the relevant portion of the first claim below: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. A server, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a processor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a memory storing instructions executed by the processor to:&#xD;&#xA;maintain an ephemeral gallery comprising a plurality of ephemeral messages posted by a user for viewing by one or more recipients, wherein each of the ephemeral messages comprises a photograph or a video, the maintaining of the ephemeral gallery comprising making the ephemeral gallery available for viewing, upon request, via respective user devices associated with the one or more recipients;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;for each of the plurality of ephemeral messages,&#xD;&#xA;maintain an associated message duration parameter that indicates a display duration for the corresponding ephemeral message during viewing of the ephemeral gallery, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;maintain a gallery participation parameter that indicates a time value for continued availability of the corresponding ephemeral message in the ephemeral gallery;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;responsive to receiving an ephemeral gallery view request from one of the one or more recipients, cause automated sequential display of the plurality of ephemeral messages on a corresponding user device by performance of operations comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;starting a message timer when viewing of one of the plurality of the ephemeral messages is commenced,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;determining that the message timer expires when the message timer equals the corresponding display duration,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;responsive to expiry of the message timer, displaying a next one of the plurality of ephemeral messages in the ephemeral gallery, and&#xD;&#xA;repeating the starting, determining, and displaying operations until all ephemeral messages in the ephemeral gallery are viewed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;remove a particular one of the plurality ephemeral messages from the ephemeral gallery in response to the identification of an expired gallery participation parameter corresponding to the particular ephemeral message, the particular ephemeral message after removal thereof being unavailable for recipient viewing as part of the ephemeral gallery; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;eliminate the ephemeral gallery so that the ephemeral gallery is unavailable for viewing responsive to any recipient request, the ephemeral gallery being eliminated upon expiration of either a gallery timer or upon expiration of the gallery participation parameter of a last message in the ephemeral gallery, the last message being that one of the plurality of ephemeral messages which was posted to the ephemeral gallery last.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I see on WhatsApp, they effectively do all of it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do they actually not (and my reading of the patent is erroneous) or could there be other reasons Snapchat is okay having its patents infringed by the same entity that seems well poised to crush it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9537811B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18362" RevisionGUID="f3bdcdb4-ea69-4a2d-8673-b8e9385a084b" CreationDate="2017-09-11T13:47:46.800" UserId="17003" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Looking at Snapchat's patent [Ephemeral message galleries][1] it would seem, at least superficially, that vanishing status updates on WhatsApp do exactly what this patent protects. I copy the relevant portion of the first claim below: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. A server, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a processor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a memory storing instructions executed by the processor to:&#xD;&#xA;maintain an ephemeral gallery comprising a plurality of ephemeral messages posted by a user for viewing by one or more recipients, wherein each of the ephemeral messages comprises a photograph or a video, the maintaining of the ephemeral gallery comprising making the ephemeral gallery available for viewing, upon request, via respective user devices associated with the one or more recipients;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  for each of the plurality of ephemeral messages,&#xD;&#xA;maintain an associated message duration parameter that indicates a display duration for the corresponding ephemeral message during viewing of the ephemeral gallery, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  maintain a gallery participation parameter that indicates a time value for continued availability of the corresponding ephemeral message in the ephemeral gallery;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  responsive to receiving an ephemeral gallery view request from one of the one or more recipients, cause automated sequential display of the plurality of ephemeral messages on a corresponding user device by performance of operations comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  starting a message timer when viewing of one of the plurality of the ephemeral messages is commenced,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  determining that the message timer expires when the message timer equals the corresponding display duration,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  responsive to expiry of the message timer, displaying a next one of the plurality of ephemeral messages in the ephemeral gallery, and&#xD;&#xA;repeating the starting, determining, and displaying operations until all ephemeral messages in the ephemeral gallery are viewed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  remove a particular one of the plurality ephemeral messages from the ephemeral gallery in response to the identification of an expired gallery participation parameter corresponding to the particular ephemeral message, the particular ephemeral message after removal thereof being unavailable for recipient viewing as part of the ephemeral gallery; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  eliminate the ephemeral gallery so that the ephemeral gallery is unavailable for viewing responsive to any recipient request, the ephemeral gallery being eliminated upon expiration of either a gallery timer or upon expiration of the gallery participation parameter of a last message in the ephemeral gallery, the last message being that one of the plurality of ephemeral messages which was posted to the ephemeral gallery last.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I see on WhatsApp, they effectively do all of it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do they actually not (and my reading of the patent is erroneous) or could there be other reasons Snapchat is okay having its patents infringed by the same entity that seems well poised to crush it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9537811B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18364" RevisionGUID="f41d1acd-fa37-4001-99ba-241ed6fd4dbd" CreationDate="2017-09-11T14:15:29.220" UserId="18809" Text="Let's first pardon my impertinence to answer my own question in an area where my knowledge is only cursory. &#xA;&#xA;The patent application of Snapchat was what might be construed as overly broad and most, if not all, of the functionality of WhatsApp's feature of ephemeral status updates infringe upon it. &#xA;&#xA;But the actually granted patent significantly narrowed those claims down to the very specific implementation of Snapchat. In particular: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; ... responsive to receiving an ephemeral gallery view request from one of&#xA;&gt; the one or more recipients, cause automated sequential display of the&#xA;&gt; plurality of ephemeral ... &#xA;&#xA;WhatsApp doesn't automatically display the messages sequentially. The user has to manually select each for viewing. So, no infringement. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49427" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17944" RevisionGUID="e66efa27-a242-466a-bb9d-93557ad9efdf" CreationDate="2017-09-11T16:34:54.347" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18365" RevisionGUID="a13a67dd-7012-49ef-9000-27980ddf735d" CreationDate="2017-09-11T17:27:40.593" UserId="19739" Text="I have some provisional patents for new EEG and ECG dry electrodes that I think are pretty cool. Now I would like to file an official patent because I have talked to some people in the field and they agree that it is worth trying to patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What kind of patent lawyer would I contact for this? I can't tell whether the category is electrical or biological or medical something else. For context, EEG and ECG are the big machines that people use to read brainwaves and heart signals to tell if you have a mental or other ailment. However, this patent is primarily focused on consumer EEG/ECG electrodes, which would be used more for meditation and other techniques outside of medicine (in these areas, accuracy is less important than convenience, and these are convenient electrodes -- easy to apply and remove, etc).  I'm tempted to just Google &quot;Patent lawyer NYC&quot;, but I think I remember reading somewhere that its best to file patents like these with a specialist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49429" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18365" RevisionGUID="a13a67dd-7012-49ef-9000-27980ddf735d" CreationDate="2017-09-11T17:27:40.593" UserId="19739" Text="How to find a patent lawyer for EEG / ECG electrodes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49430" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18365" RevisionGUID="a13a67dd-7012-49ef-9000-27980ddf735d" CreationDate="2017-09-11T17:27:40.593" UserId="19739" Text="&lt;lawyers&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49431" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17945" RevisionGUID="a8e32c08-3a0c-4aa2-930e-79151636b897" CreationDate="2017-09-11T17:34:54.350" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49432" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16114" RevisionGUID="c8bb70e3-e636-44e8-8ffe-7943bf3707dd" CreationDate="2017-09-11T19:34:54.413" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49434" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17041" RevisionGUID="1c6919e2-89ae-4a27-bb6e-0d0c4c6049f8" CreationDate="2017-09-11T23:38:53.203" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18367" RevisionGUID="2286b6df-6700-484c-bf51-431b5cea9816" CreationDate="2017-09-12T00:52:42.953" UserId="9848" Text="Tethering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It basically claims a cell phone that can do certain things which, of course, pretty much all cell phones can do -- particularly, things like tethering. Claim one is limited in that the phone can stop devices after the first one from tethering, and limit the number of devices that can tether based on time or place. Most of the claims after it look very obvious to me, but maybe some of them aren't. If you want more specific an analysis than that in plain English, hire an attorney." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18364" RevisionGUID="0b2afcc2-8031-4711-a189-05acff47226a" CreationDate="2017-09-12T04:15:28.983" UserId="18809" Comment="added 572 characters in body" Text="Let's first pardon my impertinence to answer my own question in an area where my knowledge is only cursory. &#xA;&#xA;The patent application of Snapchat was what might be construed as overly broad and most, if not all, of the functionality of WhatsApp's feature of ephemeral status updates infringe upon it. &#xA;&#xA;But the actually granted patent significantly narrowed those claims down to the very specific implementation of Snapchat stories. In particular: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; ... responsive to receiving an ephemeral gallery view request from one of&#xA;&gt; the one or more recipients, cause automated sequential display of the&#xA;&gt; plurality of ephemeral ... &#xA;&#xA;WhatsApp doesn't automatically display the messages sequentially. The user has to manually select each for viewing. So, no infringement. &#xA;&#xA;Of course this does raise the interesting concern of 1) whether the patent office(r) checked out the Snapchat app, understood what it was all about, then narrowed the patent claims down to that particular implementation. And 2) if Snapchat hadn't actually implemented it, might they have been granted the patent they'd applied for, I.e the ephemeral messages format in general. Since there'd have been no implementation, the whole ephemerality business could have been considered a specific implementation of mobile messages, rather than its own generic format. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49437" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18023" RevisionGUID="0b5f50e4-72ea-46c5-afe7-03a9cd8ebbc9" CreationDate="2017-09-12T04:41:10.270" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49445" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="18320" RevisionGUID="474ea3e4-844b-45a4-88b0-72232a27f254" CreationDate="2017-09-12T22:48:40.417" UserId="-1" Comment="37" />
  <row Id="49446" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17627" RevisionGUID="aa183bbf-ff11-40b6-a1cd-184a83160c10" CreationDate="2017-09-13T01:54:07.230" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18371" RevisionGUID="c0d40776-d76d-45d2-b1f4-7f25f7dcac45" CreationDate="2017-09-13T11:02:02.633" UserId="19750" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2017024291A3][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2017024291A3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49451" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18371" RevisionGUID="c0d40776-d76d-45d2-b1f4-7f25f7dcac45" CreationDate="2017-09-13T11:02:02.633" UserId="19750" Text="What are they patenting on this product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49452" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18371" RevisionGUID="c0d40776-d76d-45d2-b1f4-7f25f7dcac45" CreationDate="2017-09-13T11:02:02.633" UserId="19750" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;patent-design&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49459" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="673dd3ee-b193-4d5c-a975-b6780e198a76" CreationDate="2017-09-13T13:04:57.867" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18374" RevisionGUID="73dbbf37-8d7d-4fb1-9bc6-2023b0e5b5ed" CreationDate="2017-09-13T13:58:22.877" UserId="17003" Text="As you just found, using www.google.com/patents is unreliable when searching patents. You can find a better version at [patents.google.com][1] and even better at [The Lens][2]. In any case, this is a patent application (not yet a patent) and it is for a children's play fort that floats on a cushion of air. Please see the figure below from the patent. Also, you used the tag &quot;design-patent&quot;, but this is not a design patent, but a utility patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2017024291A2/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/WO_2017_024291_A2&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/trNvv.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18377" RevisionGUID="840c82fb-0e60-420a-beab-f43d0d2a6c37" CreationDate="2017-09-14T00:31:43.207" UserId="17003" Text="This may seem far fetched, but you could do a patent search and when you find good patents in the field look up the attorneys who filed them. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18379" RevisionGUID="1f988581-9d43-4b72-8918-763871620e53" CreationDate="2017-09-14T10:45:53.650" UserId="19104" Text="There's a seemingly odd claim in the &quot;_Background_&quot; section of a granted patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Yuri Gagarin's historic flight into space, he returned in near critical condition after only one hour and forty eight minutes in space. Clearly there was some vital element missing in space that we receive on earth. Yuri had plenty of food, water, and oxygen and since the flight was less than 2 hours he really only needed oxygen. The critical missing element appears to be PEMF—Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields. Since that first flight, pulsed magnetic devices have been used in every space suit and space station. Further studies have been done on earth (zero field studies) with both laboratory animals and human subjects. In a matter of hours without exposure to healthy PEMF's, cell metabolism begins to break down causing bone loss, muscle weakness, depressed metabolism, disorientation and depression.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -[&quot;Sequentially programmed magnetic field therapeutic system (SPMF)&quot;, US 9278231 B2](https://www.google.com/patents/US9278231)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because this is a patent that's been granted by the US Patent Office, is it the Patent Office's position that these claims stood up to scrutiny?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49474" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18379" RevisionGUID="1f988581-9d43-4b72-8918-763871620e53" CreationDate="2017-09-14T10:45:53.650" UserId="19104" Text="Does the US Patent Office fact check an application's Background section before granting a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49475" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18379" RevisionGUID="1f988581-9d43-4b72-8918-763871620e53" CreationDate="2017-09-14T10:45:53.650" UserId="19104" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;background&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18381" RevisionGUID="b645d74d-1189-422d-906f-b9ee3494c95a" CreationDate="2017-09-14T15:10:37.533" UserId="17003" Text="My experience is that (at least at the USPTO) there is no burden to prove the truth of the specification or that the patented technology actually works. I'm guessing their logic is that if a useless technology is patented, it doesn't really harm anyone since no one would want to practice it. Unfortunately, an issued patent may suggest a level legitimacy to fake science which can be used to con people. This is just an opinion and not backed up except by my personal experience." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49482" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="cadafbea-455c-47d3-9cf5-a1c22c6555e3" CreationDate="2017-09-14T22:20:21.623" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18385" RevisionGUID="3ed96092-59bd-4106-85b7-96c007c20eb7" CreationDate="2017-09-15T15:27:45.927" UserId="19767" Text="I am a 3D designer (SOLIDWORKS, AutoDesk, etc...) who does product design, mechanical engineering, 3D modeling for people with ideas for new products. I previously worked at a state educational institution where I was put on two patents, but am now thinking of launching my own company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is as follows: If someone comes to me with an idea, and they want me to do the design, prototyping, and provide manufacturing files, is it reasonable for me, in addition to my standard labor and materials costs, to ask a small percentage of the patent? Is this common practice?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49497" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18385" RevisionGUID="3ed96092-59bd-4106-85b7-96c007c20eb7" CreationDate="2017-09-15T15:27:45.927" UserId="19767" Text="Should a 3D designer be on patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49498" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18385" RevisionGUID="3ed96092-59bd-4106-85b7-96c007c20eb7" CreationDate="2017-09-15T15:27:45.927" UserId="19767" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;legal&gt;&lt;product&gt;&lt;development&gt;&lt;3d&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18387" RevisionGUID="90d6b315-d95a-49ad-add4-f29616a3dc0f" CreationDate="2017-09-15T16:00:35.600" UserId="19510" Text="Common to all jurisdictions (as far as I am aware of): It all depends on who commissions the drawing, and how. If the client makes you, the designer, or the firm that will come up with the drawing sign a work for hire clause, or any clause really that all works produced are owned by the commissioning party, then unfortunately you have no say over the published drawing's origins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, the designer of a drawing would probably have a really hard time arguing in court that they had the original idea for the drawing, since at that point the patent would be approved for a lawsuit to even be worth it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I (as someone who has commissioned designers in the past), would argue that there is a moral argument against the designer seeking ownership over a client's patent. Technically, as a designer you are being asked to fulfill a role in the application process, unless you were part of the team or group that came up with the invention obviously. If the later isn't the case, then you are in a position where the best tool to fight a patent in court would be to seek a prior art argument.. which is inherently going against the service you provide as a designer since you would have to prove that what you actually put on paper was not original. This would imply that you did not do your own due diligence in drafting the patent drawings which, depending on who you face in court, could find you in hot waters. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionnaly, going through this route would also mean that you'd be undermining your professional credibility if you actually do find prior art to your OWN drawings. This creates a precedence around you that what you produce might not actually be original or performed in the interest of your client. So really, a form of career suicide..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, if this is something you absolutely want, then you should bring it up, especially if you actually end up bringing feedback or positive alterations to the original inventions. However, this is still tricky, since that final decision is at the discretion of your client, which can very well walk out the door to another designer who wont ask this of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18387" RevisionGUID="f3c9da43-e3e8-4f7f-ac45-8d34fbe768cc" CreationDate="2017-09-15T16:06:30.187" UserId="19510" Comment="added 433 characters in body" Text="Common to all jurisdictions (as far as I am aware of): It all depends on who commissions the drawing, and how. If the client makes you, the designer, or the firm that will come up with the drawing sign a work for hire clause, or any clause really that all works produced are owned by the commissioning party, then unfortunately you have no say over the published drawing's origins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, the designer of a drawing would probably have a really hard time arguing in court that they had the original idea for the drawing, since at that point the patent would be approved for a lawsuit to even be worth it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I (as someone who has commissioned designers in the past), would argue that there is a moral argument against the designer seeking ownership over a client's patent. Technically, as a designer you are being asked to fulfill a role in the application process, unless you were part of the team or group that came up with the invention obviously. If the later isn't the case, then you are in a position where the best tool to fight a patent in court would be to seek a prior art argument.. which is inherently going against the service you provide as a designer since you would have to prove that what you actually put on paper was not original. This would imply that you did not do your own due diligence in drafting the patent drawings which, depending on who you face in court, could find you in hot waters. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionnaly, going through this route would also mean that you'd be undermining your professional credibility if you actually do find prior art to your OWN drawings. This creates a precedence around you that what you produce might not actually be original or performed in the interest of your client. So really, a form of career suicide..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, if this is something you absolutely want, then you should bring it up, especially if you actually end up bringing feedback or positive alterations to the original inventions. However, this is still tricky, since that final decision is at the discretion of your client, which can very well walk out the door to another designer who wont ask this of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To balance out my point though: you could always, if dealing with a startup for example and if you have authority to make this kind of arrangement, ask for small equity in your client's project/company if they can't afford paying your for perpetual licensing royalties; ask for name recognition somewhere or work references etc. You can be creative, as long as your client is too and agrees to put it in writing (very important)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18388" RevisionGUID="ce4e1e90-6372-4a39-80d4-1833462b5587" CreationDate="2017-09-15T21:21:41.433" UserId="18769" Text="The requirements for PPH request at the USPTO (OLE - office of later examination, in this case) include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - at least one claim was allowed in office of earlier examination (OEE)&#xD;&#xA; - all claims requested for PPH correspond to all allowed claims from OEE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question: is one allowed to request PPH for only a subset of the claims at the OLE office, such that some of the claims get accelerated exam under PPH and the other claims get 'normal' processing?  If not, is it common that if only some claims are allowed at the OEE, one will forfeit the corresponding rejected claims at the OLE before requesting PPH?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best source I could find for this is a [FAQ pdf][1] from the USPTO, though I have seen a more rigorous list of eligibility elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Global%20PPH%20FAQs%20-%20082815_updated.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49506" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18388" RevisionGUID="ce4e1e90-6372-4a39-80d4-1833462b5587" CreationDate="2017-09-15T21:21:41.433" UserId="18769" Text="PPH: Only requesting subset of claims in OLE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49507" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18388" RevisionGUID="ce4e1e90-6372-4a39-80d4-1833462b5587" CreationDate="2017-09-15T21:21:41.433" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;pph&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18389" RevisionGUID="62ab50af-8ef3-46f9-9f93-5192ebda3f17" CreationDate="2017-09-15T23:39:35.210" UserId="17003" Text="**If someone comes to me with an idea, and they want me to do the design, prototyping, and provide manufacturing files, is it reasonable for me, in addition to my standard labor and materials costs, to ask a small percentage of the patent?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can always try to negotiate the terms of your contract. However, I doubt anyone would hire you on the basis of a paying you for your time and also getting a fraction of the patent earnings. The standard consulting agreement essentially says &quot;I hire you to do work and I own the work product&quot;. Normal design engineering and modeling of an idea brought to you wouldn't amount to the inventive step so you wouldn't be an inventor in any case. If you were to extend the idea in a way that becomes inventive, you would probably be added as an inventor on the patent application. Even then, the company who hired you would own the work product and would have no reason to cut you in on future earnings from the patent. It is possible some small companies might agree to pay you a royalty on earnings, but only on the basis of paying you less (or nothing) for your work up front." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18390" RevisionGUID="3fb2e93b-164a-4cb9-9fb2-9d07d3a8e43e" CreationDate="2017-09-16T03:17:29.313" UserId="8374" Text="I have a utility patent in China for over 2 years and I recently decided to go ahead and patent my invention in North America. Problem, because there is an existing patent in China for this invention (which is mine) and has been granted over 2 years, it is now impossible to patent it anywhere else.&#xD;&#xA;I just don't want to believe that I'm screwed by my own patent! How can this be, it is plain unfair.&#xD;&#xA;So I'm asking here if anyone knows a workaround or anything that would enable me to protect this invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49515" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18390" RevisionGUID="3fb2e93b-164a-4cb9-9fb2-9d07d3a8e43e" CreationDate="2017-09-16T03:17:29.313" UserId="8374" Text="Impossible to patent to other countries because 12 months have passed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49516" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18390" RevisionGUID="3fb2e93b-164a-4cb9-9fb2-9d07d3a8e43e" CreationDate="2017-09-16T03:17:29.313" UserId="8374" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49517" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="d968e9ed-c9e6-471d-bc7a-7d7f8ca1c05c" CreationDate="2017-09-16T07:39:03.937" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49518" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17832" RevisionGUID="7731ad4a-5ea1-477d-a1e4-c192cdb88bc4" CreationDate="2017-09-16T16:41:26.973" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18391" RevisionGUID="45728b84-67df-415e-ae61-7f96acb94fe9" CreationDate="2017-09-17T01:38:02.410" UserId="19771" Text="Product design, mechanical engineering, and 3D modeling is work for hire and not part of the inventive process unfortunately. Does it add value? Yes. Does it add more value than you charge for your services? Maybe. Makes a good selling point but it doesn't change things. It's still work for hire. Inventing is outside the scope of the work requested. But if you do invent something in the course of your work and/or you are required to deliver inventive work to complete your agreement then you should consult a lawyer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18393" RevisionGUID="697c6f40-aa4a-45a3-a78b-62c5c72c93c9" CreationDate="2017-09-17T11:50:09.710" UserId="19773" Text="My question &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have two patents on 100% same  product. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One patent is from 2000 and other from 2005. &#xD;&#xA;Till which year they are valid. &#xD;&#xA;What I understood if product is still 100% same official you can't get new patent. But correction or add extra information to first patent. &#xD;&#xA;Seams in this case company extended protection of product for another 5 years what is official not Allowed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example this two patents. &#xD;&#xA;http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5903803.pdf &#xD;&#xA;http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6128454.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49525" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18393" RevisionGUID="697c6f40-aa4a-45a3-a78b-62c5c72c93c9" CreationDate="2017-09-17T11:50:09.710" UserId="19773" Text="Two patents same product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49526" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18393" RevisionGUID="697c6f40-aa4a-45a3-a78b-62c5c72c93c9" CreationDate="2017-09-17T11:50:09.710" UserId="19773" Text="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;gear&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18394" RevisionGUID="0cad414f-4589-40cf-b32f-6335bd832c9d" CreationDate="2017-09-17T15:02:14.873" UserId="17003" Text="**Seams in this case company extended protection of product for another 5 years what is official not Allowed.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US6128454][1] is a divisional patent from [US5903803][2]. Here is a quote from Wikipedia's article on [Divisional Patents][3] which explains their use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Divisional applications are generally used in cases where the parent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application may lack unity of invention; that is, the parent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application describes more than one invention and the applicant is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; required to split the parent into one or more divisional applications&#xD;&#xA;&gt; each claiming only a single invention. The ability to file divisional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applications in cases of lack of unity of invention is required by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Article 4G of the Paris Convention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you read them carefully you'll see there are differences in the claims. If you look into it, you'll also find that both patents share the same priority date so they will expire at the same time. Thus, the applicant did not gain an additional 5 years of patent protection. I believe at this time both patents have expired.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6128454A/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5903803A/en&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisional_patent_application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18395" RevisionGUID="56bccb8d-36a8-4813-a8f7-d4e81fa259ea" CreationDate="2017-09-17T15:57:58.013" UserId="19775" Text="Say I patent my invention and 2 years later I have a huge breakthrough that drastically improves the overall design (like putting wings on a tiger). Would the patent still stand, would it need to be updated, or would you need to file a new patent altogether?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49529" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18395" RevisionGUID="56bccb8d-36a8-4813-a8f7-d4e81fa259ea" CreationDate="2017-09-17T15:57:58.013" UserId="19775" Text="What happens if you improve/alter your invention after it has been successfully patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49530" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18395" RevisionGUID="56bccb8d-36a8-4813-a8f7-d4e81fa259ea" CreationDate="2017-09-17T15:57:58.013" UserId="19775" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18396" RevisionGUID="52a3217b-6f46-40e8-bf66-f076e967bc26" CreationDate="2017-09-17T16:33:40.653" UserId="18033" Text="It doesn't matter for the old patent. Improvements not described are not protected (unless encompassed in the old claims if they are broad).&#xA;&#xA;You can file a new application and the old one would be prior art.&#xA;&#xA;The patent system only cares about whats in your final application, not about what your actually build. It only protects whats in the granted claims, not what you're really doing.&#xA;&#xA;Which is why there are always so many patents per technology - people are patenting improvements. It can even happen that somebody patents a non obvious improvement which they can't build because it would infringe your patent. Then you can't build that improvement because it would infringe their patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49532" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="752e850d-2e19-4854-ab14-ca9eb5b0fbe4" CreationDate="2017-09-17T19:57:52.437" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18398" RevisionGUID="363d09e2-ea25-44ed-892b-0d9afd03f1e5" CreationDate="2017-09-17T22:53:11.947" UserId="19778" Text="I have a European view on the above problem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 2012 book chapter from Dave Musker, a European &amp; UK patent attorney [&quot;The Overlap between patent and design protection&quot;; http://www.beck-shop.de/fachbuch/leseprobe/9780199696444_LP.pdf ] is helpful on this &amp; talks about the interaction between patents and &quot;industrial designs&quot; (design patents in US, registered designs in Europe).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Musker article says there is case law in the UK and in Australia that neither a UK patent application nor a AU patent application (in that specific case, an AU &quot;petty patent&quot; application) can claim priority from a foreign (non-UK or non-AU) design application [UK Court decision in Agfa-Gevaert AG’s Application, (1982) RPC 441; and Australian court decision in Anchor Wall Systems Inc v Keystone Retaining Wall Systems Inc [1996] APO 33.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, a European patent application cannot validly claim priority from a registered/industrial design application, as decided in EPO case J 15/80 [ARENHOLD/Deposit of an Industrial Design], published as (1981) OJ EPO 213, or [1979-85] EPOR A56, or [1982] ECC 74.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I doubt that design &amp; patent priorities are mutually claimable/interchangeable, except in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Article 4E(1) of the Paris Convention does say that where, in an &quot;industrial design&quot; application, you claim priority from a utility model (UM) application, then &quot;the period for priority shall be the same as that fixed for industrial designs&quot; [i.e. 6 months only, NOT 12 months which is usual for UMs].  Thus, certainly you CAN file a design application claiming priority from a UM application.  [So - in your case, the question is: is the earlier Chinese application a patent appl or a utility model appl?]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FYI, Implicitly (though not explicitly), Article 4E(1) of the Paris Convention may well also imply that you can claim priority from a design application in a UM application.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From memory, I believe that in a PCT application (which confers patent and UM protection), you can claim priority from a design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Warning: The likely interchangeability / inter-claimability of design and UM priorities probably causes a danger, because you must claim priority from the FIRST application disclosing the relevant subject matter, which may be either a design filing or a UM filing (the latter including a PCT application) ...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps.&#xD;&#xA;All the best, &#xD;&#xA;Tony Breen (Dr)&#xD;&#xA;European and UK patent attorney&#xD;&#xA;European design attorney&#xD;&#xA;17 Sept 2017&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49538" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17662" RevisionGUID="05788711-b142-4d15-8881-c8219c59b948" CreationDate="2017-09-17T22:57:53.687" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49539" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17248" RevisionGUID="919905e6-eeff-47ee-9427-28a6ae852afb" CreationDate="2017-09-17T23:57:54.137" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18399" RevisionGUID="c991dbe1-97b4-49aa-b52b-b84e5979d343" CreationDate="2017-09-18T03:05:03.807" UserId="19781" Text="I would like to search for the previous or alternate names that a US-based company uses or has used in the past. Where would I find the name history of a company? I would like to perform this search on lots of different companies. Manually searching through SEC documents would be unfeasible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example: I want to find out if IBM had a previous/alternate name; I should be able to retrieve that is also goes/went by International Business Machines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The end goal is to use this data to find all the patents assigned to a company." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49543" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18399" RevisionGUID="c991dbe1-97b4-49aa-b52b-b84e5979d343" CreationDate="2017-09-18T03:05:03.807" UserId="19781" Text="How do I find the previous or alternate names of a company?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49544" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18399" RevisionGUID="c991dbe1-97b4-49aa-b52b-b84e5979d343" CreationDate="2017-09-18T03:05:03.807" UserId="19781" Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;patent-search&gt;&lt;research&gt;&lt;united-states&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49545" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="186b9fa2-2393-4c62-905e-76227d0f327e" CreationDate="2017-09-18T03:57:53.760" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49546" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16666" RevisionGUID="fe8c6943-783c-452b-b5c1-345c9b3078c4" CreationDate="2017-09-18T04:59:09.300" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49548" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="5aea35df-51e9-4b41-8c85-b6ee5a3f47ca" CreationDate="2017-09-18T06:02:19.700" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18400" RevisionGUID="e5f160ba-440a-4bc2-9dd7-c35a31280cb8" CreationDate="2017-09-18T07:54:09.307" UserId="19774" Text="Can we patent integrated business processes combined and rearranged into a single business process flow?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49550" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18400" RevisionGUID="e5f160ba-440a-4bc2-9dd7-c35a31280cb8" CreationDate="2017-09-18T07:54:09.307" UserId="19774" Text="Data Processing in urban design" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49551" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18400" RevisionGUID="e5f160ba-440a-4bc2-9dd7-c35a31280cb8" CreationDate="2017-09-18T07:54:09.307" UserId="19774" Text="&lt;data-processing-vehicles&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49552" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13366" RevisionGUID="1098387f-3bc8-46ad-b21e-ae350e9b7657" CreationDate="2017-09-18T17:05:26.253" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49557" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17844" RevisionGUID="bee9869c-57bf-4cd9-abf0-19a6ae5e70e0" CreationDate="2017-09-18T18:05:32.457" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49558" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17664" RevisionGUID="044c1b0e-ec0a-4d4b-bc79-e69788e5f4a6" CreationDate="2017-09-18T19:05:51.567" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18402" RevisionGUID="6162fe41-06ce-4034-b233-92f80e5effdd" CreationDate="2017-09-18T23:00:27.340" UserId="19784" Text="In reference to the patent: [US1130741][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US1130741" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49560" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18402" RevisionGUID="6162fe41-06ce-4034-b233-92f80e5effdd" CreationDate="2017-09-18T23:00:27.340" UserId="19784" Text="Why does a silly patent like this and others exist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49561" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18402" RevisionGUID="6162fe41-06ce-4034-b233-92f80e5effdd" CreationDate="2017-09-18T23:00:27.340" UserId="19784" Text="&lt;us1130741&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49562" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18402" RevisionGUID="e0f5d1f0-23f4-4dfa-a368-a7313b866a94" CreationDate="2017-09-19T00:18:01.297" UserId="1" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="49563" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17660" RevisionGUID="3ba9a91a-0ec8-4bfd-84b9-87d04bb0a45d" CreationDate="2017-09-19T01:08:02.540" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18404" RevisionGUID="b399a1ce-065d-46fc-992e-7316bf9ae386" CreationDate="2017-09-19T06:16:29.690" UserId="19786" Text="Lets say i go to a crowed funding site to rasie money to help with research and development. Will that void my future patent rights? I dont go into detail about jow it work just tell them my my what it does and my vison for the idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49569" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18404" RevisionGUID="b399a1ce-065d-46fc-992e-7316bf9ae386" CreationDate="2017-09-19T06:16:29.690" UserId="19786" Text="If i explain my idea to raise fund will that void my patentability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49570" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18404" RevisionGUID="b399a1ce-065d-46fc-992e-7316bf9ae386" CreationDate="2017-09-19T06:16:29.690" UserId="19786" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18405" RevisionGUID="b20b547e-025a-45c7-880c-3b74aad2ae4f" CreationDate="2017-09-19T07:30:22.467" UserId="17003" Text="You need to keep the patentable idea secret until you file an application. In the US you have one year from disclosure to file an application, but in reality if someone who seems your presentation files ahead of you, they might get the patent. Also public disclosure will be prior art for foreign patents. Many people in your circumstances file a provisional patent application before any disclosure. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49572" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18261" RevisionGUID="bc4562e7-f29e-4079-b8b5-ee48e46c9fc6" CreationDate="2017-09-19T09:11:15.473" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18406" RevisionGUID="1a338b33-3cdd-4969-891a-6a47978a9c23" CreationDate="2017-09-19T09:54:01.970" UserId="19787" Text="Many of us put our ideas on github or in articles, hoping there will be just used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as I have currently a tough lesson, if your idea turns out successful, you can count on patent vultures trying to monopolize it, or its basic applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How to protect from it - safely share your ideas? How to defend when it has turned out insufficient?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory, making your idea public makes it &quot;prior art&quot; and should prevent patenting. In practice, from my experience USPTO examiner just checks US PATENTS for KEYWORDS, often with no understanding - making it extremely simple to smuggle something one has found on the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One big problem is realizing such attempt - and it seems nearly impossible if they don't cite you, don't use some characteristic keywords? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have found it and it is not too late, you can submit e.g. third-party observation ([good tutorial for USPTO][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my situation there at least two ongoing attempts for basic application of my [ANS entropy coding][2]. One is in combination with the most basic statistical modelling (Markov): that probability of a symbol depends on the previous symbol. It was explicitly mentioned in my papers, there was much earlier implementation,  used in popular CRAM DNA compressor ([complaint by its author][3]) ... but still literally description of this DNA compressor was recently given second [Notice of Allowance by USPTO][4]. The [second attempt is by **Google**][5] trying to monopolize image/video compression application of ANS, even though I have originally suggested it them and helped them in this adaptation for three years through their public discussion forum ([my complaint][6]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are other options to defend your work from patent vultures?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://%20https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/105/i-want-to-make-a-difference-how-can-i-submit-prior-art-to-the-patent-office&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_numeral_systems&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB1502286.6/8c510575-b5bc-4852-80a4-d5adbf60a641/GB2538218-20170125-Third%20party%20observations.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=US.201615041228.A&amp;lng=en&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/google/google-accused-of-trying-to-patent-public-domain-technology/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://th.if.uj.edu.pl/~dudaj/protestGoogle.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49574" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18406" RevisionGUID="1a338b33-3cdd-4969-891a-6a47978a9c23" CreationDate="2017-09-19T09:54:01.970" UserId="19787" Text="How to defend your work from patent vultures?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49575" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18406" RevisionGUID="1a338b33-3cdd-4969-891a-6a47978a9c23" CreationDate="2017-09-19T09:54:01.970" UserId="19787" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;defensive-publications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18406" RevisionGUID="2792f936-b670-44b1-bb8e-4ee20b3544b8" CreationDate="2017-09-19T13:24:56.097" UserId="19787" Comment="added 20 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Many of us put our ideas in github or articles, hoping they will be just used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as I have currently a tough lesson, if your idea turns out successful, you can count on patent vultures trying to monopolize it, or its basic applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How to protect from it - safely share your ideas? How to defend when protection has turned out insufficient?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory, making your idea public makes it &quot;prior art&quot; and should prevent patenting. In practice, from my experience USPTO examiner just checks US PATENTS for KEYWORDS, often with no understanding - making it extremely simple to smuggle something one has found on the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One big problem is realizing such attempt - and it seems nearly impossible to find if they don't cite you, don't use some characteristic keywords?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have found it and it is not too late, you can submit e.g. third-party observation ([good tutorial for USPTO][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my situation there at least two ongoing attempts for basic application of my [ANS entropy coding][2]. One is in combination with the most basic statistical modelling (Markov): that probability of a symbol depends on the previous symbol. It was explicitly mentioned in my papers, there was much earlier implementation,  used in popular CRAM DNA compressor ([complaint by its author][3]) ... but still literally description of this DNA compressor was recently given second [Notice of Allowance by USPTO][4]. The [second attempt is by **Google**][5] trying to monopolize image/video compression application of ANS, even though I have originally suggested it them and helped them in this adaptation for three years through their public discussion forum ([my complaint][6]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are other options while defending your work from patent vultures?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://%20https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/105/i-want-to-make-a-difference-how-can-i-submit-prior-art-to-the-patent-office&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_numeral_systems&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB1502286.6/8c510575-b5bc-4852-80a4-d5adbf60a641/GB2538218-20170125-Third%20party%20observations.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=US.201615041228.A&amp;lng=en&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/google/google-accused-of-trying-to-patent-public-domain-technology/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://th.if.uj.edu.pl/~dudaj/protestGoogle.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49580" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18406" RevisionGUID="2792f936-b670-44b1-bb8e-4ee20b3544b8" CreationDate="2017-09-19T13:24:56.097" UserId="19787" Comment="added 20 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;defensive-publications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49581" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18406" RevisionGUID="675c92d1-6d33-4935-b555-180f8c2e25d9" CreationDate="2017-09-19T14:46:07.070" UserId="19787" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="Many of us put our ideas in github or articles, hoping they will be just used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as I have currently a tough lesson, if your idea turns out successful, you can count on patent vultures trying to monopolize it or its basic applications, variations, consequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How to protect from it - safely share your ideas? How to defend when protection has turned out insufficient?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory, making your idea public makes it &quot;prior art&quot; and should prevent patenting. In practice, from my experience USPTO examiner just checks US PATENTS for KEYWORDS, often with no understanding - making it extremely simple to smuggle something one has found on the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first big problem is finding out about such attempt - and it seems nearly impossible to find if they don't cite you, don't use some characteristic keywords?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have found it and it is not too late, you can submit e.g. third-party observation ([good tutorial for USPTO][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my situation there at least two ongoing attempts for basic application of my [ANS entropy coding][2]. One is in combination with the most basic statistical modelling (Markov): that probability of a symbol depends on the previous symbol. It was explicitly mentioned in my papers, there was much earlier implementation,  used in popular CRAM DNA compressor ([complaint by its author][3]) ... but still literally description of this DNA compressor was recently given second [Notice of Allowance by USPTO][4]. The [second attempt is by **Google**][5] trying to monopolize image/video compression application of ANS, even though I have originally suggested it them and helped them in this adaptation for three years through their public discussion forum ([my complaint][6]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are other options while defending your work from patent vultures?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://%20https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/105/i-want-to-make-a-difference-how-can-i-submit-prior-art-to-the-patent-office&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_numeral_systems&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB1502286.6/8c510575-b5bc-4852-80a4-d5adbf60a641/GB2538218-20170125-Third%20party%20observations.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=US.201615041228.A&amp;lng=en&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/google/google-accused-of-trying-to-patent-public-domain-technology/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://th.if.uj.edu.pl/~dudaj/protestGoogle.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18408" RevisionGUID="bff535df-1415-43bd-a9e8-ecc0307d80e8" CreationDate="2017-09-19T15:55:35.613" UserId="391" Text="This is the kind of thing that commercial IP databases do well. The assignment information is available from the various national patent offices. The commercial concerns cross reference all of the assignments with data from state/national corporate registration databases to ensure that these are all found. The process is, I expect, rather intensive and so while the information does exist, it can only be accessed by paying the service that generated the data. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18409" RevisionGUID="5bb13a03-61ac-4eba-9abb-8bff85690cae" CreationDate="2017-09-19T18:40:50.840" UserId="3076" Text="The only &quot;work around&quot; is to invent something new. By now you may have come up with a non-obvious improvement or optimization. A previously unknown method for producing or using your invention might also be patentable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18410" RevisionGUID="19bac0cb-77e3-4f4d-98c8-54714430d8e0" CreationDate="2017-09-19T20:08:19.260" UserId="17003" Text="One hopes that should Google actually obtain a patent in this area, it will be a minor &quot;improvement&quot; that should be easy to circumvent. I don't see how they can block you and others from practicing your technology as you have already implemented it. As for your original question of how to prevent such patents in the future, one approach would be to file for a patent yourself. You don't need to actually see it through to a grant but you might want to. Then, it becomes prior art that is within the various patent offices systems. Since you are an academic, your institution may be willing to pursue this for you. If you do obtain a patent, you can grant licenses on any terms you want including free. In any case, I would work with the [Electronic Frontier Foundation][1] to oppose any such bogus patents in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eff.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18411" RevisionGUID="dd300972-b514-4f44-a10a-1ff8001e0930" CreationDate="2017-09-19T21:23:09.740" UserId="19792" Text="Can I get a single design patent for a design with multiple interchangeable parts? Let's say I design a hat with multiple interchangeable decorative parts. You could buy the base hat with some velcro or other fastening method and then buy various heads, tails and legs to change it's appearance. The parts would be sold in sets: a horse, a cow, a chicken etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I apply for one design patent for the whole system including the various parts? If so, would I need a new patent very time I added a new set of animal parts? Or would I have to apply for a separate patent for each set of parts? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am thinking of Crocs with those little decorative buttons they attach to the holes. Would that have been one patent that covered that whole decorative shoe system? Would they have illustrated the exact design of each button prior to applying for the patent? And reapplied every time they wanted to add new ones to the line?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for the advice!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49587" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18411" RevisionGUID="dd300972-b514-4f44-a10a-1ff8001e0930" CreationDate="2017-09-19T21:23:09.740" UserId="19792" Text="One design patent for multiple interchangeable parts on a product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49588" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18411" RevisionGUID="dd300972-b514-4f44-a10a-1ff8001e0930" CreationDate="2017-09-19T21:23:09.740" UserId="19792" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;interchangeable&gt;&lt;multiple-parts&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18413" RevisionGUID="4f9d70bd-8488-459e-a8c4-557a68b69da7" CreationDate="2017-09-20T05:44:50.570" UserId="19795" Text="Just wondering can you violate a Copyright/Patent by having a similar look and feel in your product which users are accustomed to by using other products?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example does Google Docs violate any laws by having a similar look and feel like Microsoft Word? They essentially use similar look and feel and even the button labels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49596" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18413" RevisionGUID="4f9d70bd-8488-459e-a8c4-557a68b69da7" CreationDate="2017-09-20T05:44:50.570" UserId="19795" Text="Is having a look and feel of another product copyright violation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49597" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18413" RevisionGUID="4f9d70bd-8488-459e-a8c4-557a68b69da7" CreationDate="2017-09-20T05:44:50.570" UserId="19795" Text="&lt;ui&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18414" RevisionGUID="3b206ea1-2ea9-427e-a7e0-558d8917f0b0" CreationDate="2017-09-20T07:37:28.963" UserId="19796" Text="I have invented something that achieves an important new performance metric that overcomes an existing video communications issue and will have large commercial value. My invention is comprised of existing components, some of which are used in entirely new ways. The intellectual property law firm I retained to prepare a patentability opinion said there is less than a 50-50 chance a patent will be granted because a patent examiner will reject it for obviousness because all of the components are currently available. Period. He said that secondary considerations could lead to the granting of a patent if persuasive enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are the examples of patents that have been granted when all of the components that comprise the invention are available? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49599" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18414" RevisionGUID="3b206ea1-2ea9-427e-a7e0-558d8917f0b0" CreationDate="2017-09-20T07:37:28.963" UserId="19796" Text="When wouldn't a patent examiner reject an invention for obviousness because all of the components are currently available?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49600" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18414" RevisionGUID="3b206ea1-2ea9-427e-a7e0-558d8917f0b0" CreationDate="2017-09-20T07:37:28.963" UserId="19796" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18414" RevisionGUID="13e77c41-4b7b-4dc8-aa95-233f3ba4a4d5" CreationDate="2017-09-20T13:45:55.380" UserId="19796" Comment="Attempted to clarify the question and correct a typo" Text="I have invented something that achieves an important new performance metric that overcomes an existing video communications issue and will have large commercial value. My invention is comprised of available components, some of which are used in entirely new ways. The intellectual property law firm I retained to prepare a patentability opinion said there is less than a 50-50 chance a patent will be granted because a patent examiner will reject it for obviousness because all of the components are currently available. Period. He said that secondary considerations could lead to the granting of a patent if persuasive enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there examples of inventions comprised of available components that have been patented and, if so, what were the key reasons why?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49602" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18414" RevisionGUID="13e77c41-4b7b-4dc8-aa95-233f3ba4a4d5" CreationDate="2017-09-20T13:45:55.380" UserId="19796" Comment="Attempted to clarify the question and correct a typo" Text="Can an invention comprised of available components be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49603" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18414" RevisionGUID="00b658d1-70be-4115-8474-8ce9e0ba15a3" CreationDate="2017-09-20T14:00:11.213" UserId="19796" Comment="Attempted again to improve title." Text="Under what circumstances can an invention comprised of available components be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18415" RevisionGUID="398144a7-fe28-4462-8618-e7109de83e47" CreationDate="2017-09-20T14:51:21.627" UserId="17003" Text="**Are there examples of inventions comprised of available components that have been patented and, if so, what were the key reasons why?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not a lawyer, but I do have a fair number of patents. What you are fighting against is called &quot;obviousness&quot;. Many patents are comprised of the combination of two or more different components. The patent examiner may indeed challenge the issuing of the patent citing the separate components by suggesting it would be obvious for someone skilled in the art to combine them. A persuasive argument around this is when the two components combined produce an *unexpected result*. For example, say chemical A can treat headaches with 1X effectiveness. Similarly chemical B can also treat headaches with 1X effectiveness. But if you combine them and get 5X effectiveness, you may be able to claim that the combination has a non-obvious synergistic effect. Even better is when the two components don't perform the same function. The combination would then be even more surprising to produce an improvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not be surprised if the patent examiner initially rejects your application, citing lack of novelty or obviousness. This seems to almost always happen on my patents. I think examiners do this as a matter of course. Most of the time, they are asking you to interpret cited prior art and to describe why your patent is different and patentable. I don't know of any &quot;less than 50-50 chance&quot; probability of success. Patentability really is based on the specific technology you are trying to patent and the related prior art. In my opinion a good patent attorney is important in this process. It would help if they have specific experience in the field." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18416" RevisionGUID="abed89f2-0729-4187-80be-78ec5f415bae" CreationDate="2017-09-20T18:09:59.750" UserId="19802" Text="In reference to the patent: [US9005603][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9005603&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How long will Mayo Clinic &quot;own&quot; this naturally occurring Microbe? I want my mother to be able to benefit from this, however, the Mayo Clinic has had it patented since 2009. I want to know how long I need to tell my mother she must wait in pain and complications until she can benefit from this NATURALLY occurring microbe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How long, please?   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49606" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18416" RevisionGUID="abed89f2-0729-4187-80be-78ec5f415bae" CreationDate="2017-09-20T18:09:59.750" UserId="19802" Text="Length of Time Before Invention is released or Patent is up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49607" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18416" RevisionGUID="abed89f2-0729-4187-80be-78ec5f415bae" CreationDate="2017-09-20T18:09:59.750" UserId="19802" Text="&lt;chemistry-microbiology&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18417" RevisionGUID="2991d98e-c514-4342-aaec-50312bfcad0c" CreationDate="2017-09-20T18:32:11.157" UserId="17003" Text="**Length of Time Before Invention is released or Patent is up**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The priority date of this patent is Oct. 30, 2009. The expiration date is 20 years from this date or Oct. 30, 2029. I checked on the [US Public Pair][1] site and there is no patent term adjustments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the patent itself, what is covered is described in the claims. There is only one independent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A composition comprising live Prevotella histicola, dead Prevotella histicola, or a culture supernatant of a Prevotella histicola culture,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein said composition is in the form of a pill, a tablet, or a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; capsule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In principle, if you made a concoction which was delivered in a form other than pill, tablet or capsule, you would likely be clear of this patent. By the way, just because Mayo has a patent, doesn't mean the treatment is effective or safe or better than other treatments. A patent by itself has no great value for Mayo, so there is a good chance the patent has been licensed to a drug development company to bring to market. Drug development is a long and expensive process so this may take some time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18417" RevisionGUID="47eebf6a-c386-4277-a2cb-6e90a9318fac" CreationDate="2017-09-20T18:43:55.497" UserId="17003" Comment="added 407 characters in body" Text="**Length of Time Before Invention is released or Patent is up**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The priority date of this patent is Oct. 30, 2009. The expiration date is 20 years from this date or Oct. 30, 2029. I checked on the [US Public Pair][1] site and there is no patent term adjustments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the patent itself, what is covered is described in the claims. There is only one independent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A composition comprising live Prevotella histicola, dead Prevotella histicola, or a culture supernatant of a Prevotella histicola culture,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein said composition is in the form of a pill, a tablet, or a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; capsule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is a continuation of [US8617536][2]. That patent's first claim is as follows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for treating an autoimmune condition in a mammal, wherein said method comprises oral administration of a composition comprising&#xD;&#xA;&gt; live isolated Prevotella histicola or a culture supernatant of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Prevotella histicola culture to said mammal, wherein said autoimmune&#xD;&#xA;&gt; condition is multiple sclerosis or rheumatoid arthritis, and wherein&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the severity of said autoimmune condition is reduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because Mayo has a patent, doesn't mean the treatment is effective or safe or better than other treatments. A patent by itself has no great value for Mayo, so there is a good chance the patent has been licensed to a drug development company to bring to market. Drug development is a long and expensive process so this may take some time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8617536B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18416" RevisionGUID="18da75c3-7eaa-4207-976a-52b4576f5d77" CreationDate="2017-09-20T18:44:40.430" UserId="17003" Comment="Changed link to patent to a better one." Text="In reference to the patent: [US9005603][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9005603B2/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How long will Mayo Clinic &quot;own&quot; this naturally occurring Microbe? I want my mother to be able to benefit from this, however, the Mayo Clinic has had it patented since 2009. I want to know how long I need to tell my mother she must wait in pain and complications until she can benefit from this NATURALLY occurring microbe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How long, please?   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49611" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18416" RevisionGUID="18da75c3-7eaa-4207-976a-52b4576f5d77" CreationDate="2017-09-20T18:44:40.430" UserId="17003" Comment="Changed link to patent to a better one." Text="Length of Time Before Invention is released or Patent is up" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18418" RevisionGUID="964b967f-c9e6-408a-a25c-74692128dcc1" CreationDate="2017-09-20T18:47:56.140" UserId="17204" Text="We are trying to get a European patent issued through our patent attorney in Munich. To save money, we would like to send him a first draft of a response to the examiner's rejection for lack of inventive step. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I cannot find any examples of what form that response would take. Is there anyway to find those kinds of documents online? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49613" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18418" RevisionGUID="964b967f-c9e6-408a-a25c-74692128dcc1" CreationDate="2017-09-20T18:47:56.140" UserId="17204" Text="Where can I find European Patent Office documents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49614" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18418" RevisionGUID="964b967f-c9e6-408a-a25c-74692128dcc1" CreationDate="2017-09-20T18:47:56.140" UserId="17204" Text="&lt;european&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18419" RevisionGUID="0158073f-87f5-452b-b651-92ece99f9bec" CreationDate="2017-09-20T19:38:13.923" UserId="17204" Text="I was able to find what I was looking for at the [European Patent Register][1]. I found a patent application that looked promising and then clicked on &quot;All documents&quot; on a menu on the side. That gave me a list of all correspondence between the European Patent Office and the applicant. Some of those were exactly the examples I was looking for. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://register.epo.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49616" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17466" RevisionGUID="efb392e2-f5ce-4b25-a77d-7fdb2064fb58" CreationDate="2017-09-20T20:38:44.450" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49617" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="e991713d-8393-464f-b097-f30dd3f6ac48" CreationDate="2017-09-20T21:38:43.687" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49622" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18124" RevisionGUID="78f9ff1c-8519-4a70-b8e7-95608ac4c804" CreationDate="2017-09-21T01:38:44.423" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49623" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17496" RevisionGUID="743c3df0-7d08-4d75-a56c-3dc49282d9fb" CreationDate="2017-09-21T07:48:53.717" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18421" RevisionGUID="16bba015-59bb-486c-a7a2-271ddd311f29" CreationDate="2017-09-21T11:32:54.657" UserId="19786" Text="I came up with an idea to solve a major problem but Theres  was already a patent out. But it was patented back in the 40s and have since expired. But i see similar patents which are newer. I am not to sure if they all have changes &quot; it's a lot and im to lazy to go over every detail &quot;the original is really all i need to copy so can i legally use it or is there a change the other patent holders already repatents it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49625" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18421" RevisionGUID="16bba015-59bb-486c-a7a2-271ddd311f29" CreationDate="2017-09-21T11:32:54.657" UserId="19786" Text="If a patent expire can someone else repatent it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49626" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18421" RevisionGUID="16bba015-59bb-486c-a7a2-271ddd311f29" CreationDate="2017-09-21T11:32:54.657" UserId="19786" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;expired-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18422" RevisionGUID="4408f6cc-fac9-448e-b0ce-5f3e896a31e8" CreationDate="2017-09-21T14:26:39.270" UserId="17003" Text="**If a patent expires can someone else repatent it?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic requirements for a patent is that the idea be useful, novel and non-obvious. If someone has already patented an idea, then you can't re-patent it because it would not be novel since someone else already thought of it. This goes to the fundamental deal with patents. In return to teaching the word about your idea, you get a limited period of exclusivity. Once that limited period is up, anyone can use the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mention other related patents. It is very common for people to invent improvements to existing technologies. You do need to understand what those improvements are as they relate to the product you intend to sell. If you search for the original patent on [https://patents.google.com][1] you will see a section on the right side of the page that looks something like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;Cited by&quot; link will take you to patents that cite this patent as prior art. This is a good place to start to look for newer, related patents. You don't need to read each and every word of the related patents. Mostly you need to focus on the claims, especially the independent claims (claims that don't refer to other claims). It takes some practice to read claims, but you need to understand whether a non-expired patent exists that impacts your product. Patents now expire 20 years from the filing or priority date which ever is earlier so any patent from before 1997 is probably expired by now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5jJyL.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18423" RevisionGUID="b20950aa-ae71-45c6-9e56-970b9bfcb256" CreationDate="2017-09-21T15:15:51.383" UserId="14623" Text="It is worth noting that in some countries, including Ethiopia, Jamaica, Nepal, it is possible to receive grant of a patent based on granted patent rights overseas. However, as you have received a petty patent (utility model) you most likely would not be able take advantage of these provisions, although if such territories were of any commercial relevance, it would be worth consulting with a local attorney to be sure. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18422" RevisionGUID="3c5cd263-a5b3-464f-83cc-f8f2440c76c9" CreationDate="2017-09-21T16:13:22.490" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="**If a patent expires can someone else repatent it?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic requirements for a patent is that the idea be useful, novel and non-obvious. If someone has already patented an idea, then you can't re-patent it because it would not be novel since someone else already thought of it. This goes to the fundamental deal with patents. In return to teaching the world about your idea, you get a limited period of exclusivity. Once that limited period is up, anyone can use the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mention other related patents. It is very common for people to invent improvements to existing technologies. You do need to understand what those improvements are as they relate to the product you intend to sell. If you search for the original patent on [https://patents.google.com][1] you will see a section on the right side of the page that looks something like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;Cited by&quot; link will take you to patents that cite this patent as prior art. This is a good place to start to look for newer, related patents. You don't need to read each and every word of the related patents. Mostly you need to focus on the claims, especially the independent claims (claims that don't refer to other claims). It takes some practice to read claims, but you need to understand whether a non-expired patent exists that impacts your product. Patents now expire 20 years from the filing or priority date which ever is earlier so any patent from before 1997 is probably expired by now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5jJyL.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49631" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="684bc6d4-994e-4ef1-881a-5cd238263bb4" CreationDate="2017-09-21T23:52:15.067" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18424" RevisionGUID="621878d1-01d4-4a7f-97e2-c7dd2a47b555" CreationDate="2017-09-22T00:29:43.527" UserId="16537" Text="Suppose company A thought they developed something new and attempted to patent it. But in actuality company B already patented the same thing a few months ago. However when company A was filing the patent, the patent examiner overlooked company B's patent because there is simply too much existing patents to go over to check for infringement, and he granted company A's patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a couple of years, company A starts to make and sell a product based on the patent, and company B saw it and rightfully decides to sue company A. It seems to me company A is very unlucky in the sense that they have to pay all the consequences even though the fault is on the patent examiner. What is typically done in this type of situation? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49633" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18424" RevisionGUID="621878d1-01d4-4a7f-97e2-c7dd2a47b555" CreationDate="2017-09-22T00:29:43.527" UserId="16537" Text="What happens if a patent has claims that infringes prior art got granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49634" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18424" RevisionGUID="621878d1-01d4-4a7f-97e2-c7dd2a47b555" CreationDate="2017-09-22T00:29:43.527" UserId="16537" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;examination&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18425" RevisionGUID="91891599-f816-4775-b912-aee817915e3d" CreationDate="2017-09-22T01:38:13.380" UserId="19807" Text="I work in an industry, where a large portion of the manufacturing process is &quot;black box&quot; - you don't get instant production feedback, from the equipment. You literally take notes, on the product that you are manufacturing, and just do that again next time. Machine adjustments are not visible for several minutes, and sometimes even an hour or more. They are also subject to change over time, due to other variables, such as temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I developed a process, and even created an Android app. That takes just 2 points of sample data, along with fixed physical constants, such as mechanical properties of the materials being used, and then uses that data to &quot;simulate&quot; the process. This can also later be applied to entirely new products, with new finished dimensions/specifications, but the same material previously sampled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once a material/machine combination has been sampled twice; that's it - put in your specs, out comes precision machine settings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I patent this? From reading the information on Legal Zoom, it looks like I can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Legal Zoom - What can be patented?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.legalzoom.com/knowledge/patent/topic/what-is-patentable" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49636" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18425" RevisionGUID="91891599-f816-4775-b912-aee817915e3d" CreationDate="2017-09-22T01:38:13.380" UserId="19807" Text="Can I patent a calculation method or application, that uses previously undefined variables?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49637" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18425" RevisionGUID="91891599-f816-4775-b912-aee817915e3d" CreationDate="2017-09-22T01:38:13.380" UserId="19807" Text="&lt;intellectual-property&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18425" RevisionGUID="efe64f8e-e290-4837-96ce-dd7395fa318e" CreationDate="2017-09-22T01:46:32.720" UserId="19807" Comment="added 220 characters in body" Text="I work in an industry, where a large portion of the manufacturing process is &quot;black box&quot; - you don't get instant production feedback, from the equipment. You literally take notes, on the product that you are manufacturing, and just do that again next time. Machine adjustments are not visible for several minutes, and sometimes even an hour or more. They are also subject to change over time, due to other variables, such as temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I developed a process, and even created an Android app. That takes just 2 points of sample data, along with fixed physical constants, such as mechanical properties of the materials being used, and then uses that data to &quot;simulate&quot; the process. This can also later be applied to entirely new products, with new finished dimensions/specifications, but the same material previously sampled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once a material/machine combination has been sampled twice; that's it - put in your specs, out comes precision machine settings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I patent this? From reading the information on Legal Zoom, it looks like I can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Legal Zoom - What can be patented?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking into this, because the of the shock and awe reactions, that I still get. From our engineering department, and maintenance staff, regarding the absolute precision and repeatability, that my tools produce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.legalzoom.com/knowledge/patent/topic/what-is-patentable" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49639" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17273" RevisionGUID="56221840-f160-42fd-8d89-363f19cea9e9" CreationDate="2017-09-22T01:52:17.960" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18426" RevisionGUID="6f2f27bd-5185-47dd-9a35-9acba98335c0" CreationDate="2017-09-22T02:01:58.127" UserId="16537" Text="Suppose I developed a novel video compression algorithm that compresses video in a higher rate than commonly seen method, and I patented it. Now I want to discover whether some other companies might be compressing video with my method without licensing my patent, but I don't really know how.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I see a video file from a company that has the similar compression rate, I can only suspect that this company infringes. If I contact the company, they will likely deny it and say they are compressing the video with their own method, and it's impossible for me to request them to show me the source code to see what algorithm they are exactly using. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is patent infringement usually being discovered?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49641" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18426" RevisionGUID="6f2f27bd-5185-47dd-9a35-9acba98335c0" CreationDate="2017-09-22T02:01:58.127" UserId="16537" Text="How is patent infringement usually being discovered?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49642" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18426" RevisionGUID="6f2f27bd-5185-47dd-9a35-9acba98335c0" CreationDate="2017-09-22T02:01:58.127" UserId="16537" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49643" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17865" RevisionGUID="0122cb06-0820-461e-a27b-1570c4a3aba8" CreationDate="2017-09-22T02:52:18.567" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49646" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="77d45e12-ac9f-47d9-96ee-af277b21d0ab" CreationDate="2017-09-22T03:52:18.667" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49647" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="7c830844-1b27-4963-8689-03a9a30eea68" CreationDate="2017-09-22T04:59:14.453" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17456" RevisionGUID="4739f633-b3f9-4ff1-a089-7b0a75213f91" CreationDate="2017-09-22T05:54:56.677" UserId="13706" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="Check out a book called &quot;[Patent it Yourself][1]&quot; - I believe it's published by Nolo press and should be available on [amazon.com][1]. It's probably one of the best layman's guides to drafting patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://amzn.to/2jNwuka" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49649" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12639" RevisionGUID="2bc60f15-ec3d-4d33-9cc3-6092189b72ba" CreationDate="2017-09-22T05:59:14.407" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18427" RevisionGUID="2c33e92b-e9b9-4893-bddc-6686f3072f46" CreationDate="2017-09-22T07:07:52.187" UserId="19808" Text="I have recived a Notice of Allowability for claims contained in an examiner's amendment.But I don't know the formal format of the reply.I will be very grateful if you can send me a model." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49651" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18427" RevisionGUID="2c33e92b-e9b9-4893-bddc-6686f3072f46" CreationDate="2017-09-22T07:07:52.187" UserId="19808" Text="model about Formal format reply after examiner's amendment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49652" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18427" RevisionGUID="2c33e92b-e9b9-4893-bddc-6686f3072f46" CreationDate="2017-09-22T07:07:52.187" UserId="19808" Text="&lt;response&gt;&lt;allowability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18428" RevisionGUID="550840b0-da71-40e9-a434-8933f4ad95b3" CreationDate="2017-09-22T07:54:25.580" UserId="17325" Text="The validity of the other patent may be challenged, or, a simpler approach, a license may be obtained. Regarding the insufficient work of an examiner, well... that's unfortunately something we have to live with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally come very often across patents that are ridiculous in light of prior art, or they are even prior art themselves. In those cases, one should also consider if they are really enforcable (and if not, to what extend can that be useful to the other party).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18429" RevisionGUID="6765565e-e827-4703-a05f-a8d2e06897f1" CreationDate="2017-09-22T08:20:31.230" UserId="19809" Text="I am studying the Patent Numbers 5,161,396 and 5,549,337 and found&#xD;&#xA;Grant date of &#xD;&#xA;5161396 is on NOV 10, 1992 ,&#xD;&#xA;5549337 is on AUG 27, 1996&#xD;&#xA;they are over patent protechtion time,but they are all in force&#xD;&#xA;can someone help me and tell me why?&#xD;&#xA;thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49655" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18429" RevisionGUID="6765565e-e827-4703-a05f-a8d2e06897f1" CreationDate="2017-09-22T08:20:31.230" UserId="19809" Text="I found 2 patent,which are over 26 years ,but still in force,can someone help tell me why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49656" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18429" RevisionGUID="6765565e-e827-4703-a05f-a8d2e06897f1" CreationDate="2017-09-22T08:20:31.230" UserId="19809" Text="&lt;expire&gt;&lt;day&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49657" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="49df7d9a-144e-4f53-853f-56700f78dff0" CreationDate="2017-09-22T10:59:19.673" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18430" RevisionGUID="329e5fbb-e9fe-428c-98b6-f04cb2e79415" CreationDate="2017-09-22T14:00:55.193" UserId="17003" Text="What you are asking about is patentability of software or algorithms. This is a tricky subject and there have been recent court decisions that have impacted this. I am not a lawyer but I do have a couple of algorithm patents. My best understanding is that in the US you can patent the application of a specific algorithm to a specific need. For instance, I have a patent on an algorithm used to perform quantitative analysis of polymerase chain reactions. I will say that I had a highly experienced patent attorney doing the drafting and processing of the patent and the claim language needed to be in a very strict form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There  is the question of whether you actually want to pursue a patent. Remember when you file an application, it will publish 18 months later. You need to teach how the technology works so your potential customers will learn how from the application. For in-house manufacturing processes it can be very difficult to determine or even prove that a company is using your technology. It might be better for you to keep the algorithm as &quot;Trade Secret&quot; and sell it as a service." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18431" RevisionGUID="ea4cc2ef-1003-4344-8926-5df5dd732e4c" CreationDate="2017-09-22T14:08:11.373" UserId="17003" Text="As far as I can tell, both the cited patents are clearly expired. There are no provisions I am aware of for having them extended. This doesn't mean the company who owns the patents would list the patents, or has newer patents that are still in force." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49660" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17995" RevisionGUID="d2b24072-0d4e-4a16-ba04-b47214f46d21" CreationDate="2017-09-22T15:01:28.740" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18427" RevisionGUID="3ea511c4-a4bf-4574-a909-7af2cab546fd" CreationDate="2017-09-22T15:33:55.400" UserId="1" Comment="This is a public resource. Removed appeal for contact offline." Text="I have received a Notice of Allowability for claims contained in an examiner's amendment, but I don't know the formal format to reply. I would be very grateful if someone can provide an example. Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18433" RevisionGUID="3e2296cb-0f36-49d3-b56a-80db3c118b6e" CreationDate="2017-09-22T20:35:30.400" UserId="16696" Text="Unfortunately, in this case you would have to take the infringing company to court and force them to disclose the source code.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Intellectual Property litigation is often described as &quot;ruinously expensive&quot;, which is why most cases reach some settlement to avoid protracted court fights.  Although as an individual, it would be difficult to initiate and maintain such litigation, if the process is valuable and the infringing party has substantial assets, there will very likely be attorneys willing to work on a [contingency basis][1].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_______________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;Note: Infringement is only possible against a granted patent.  (It typically takes 3-5 years for a non-provisional Patent application to get a grant in the US.  [Accelerated examination][2] is available in the US.)  However, if the patent is ultimately granted, you can sue for damages retroactively, which is to say damages incurred while the ultimately granted patent was still in review, i.e. &quot;Patent Pending&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also your responsibility to make your patent status known, typically by putting a notice on your product. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_fee&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/aia_implementation/fast_exam_table20130912v1017.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18434" RevisionGUID="044e963f-6779-4d56-b10e-75948d46eb31" CreationDate="2017-09-22T20:52:53.633" UserId="16696" Text="I recommending looking at two recent US cases in particular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Tetris vs. Xio][1]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Case Summary (Willamette University Law)][2] &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[Tetris Gets Permanent Injunction Against Xio (IP Watchdog][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[SpryFox vs. LolApps][4]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Recent Ruling in Triple Town/Yeti Town Game App Dispute Provides Cautionary Lessons for Both EA and Zynga (Forbes)][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is interesting about both cases is that the plaintiffs prevailed and that they were copyright (as opposed to patent) cases, seemingly moving copyright into patent-ish territory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an especially pressing issue as eligibility of game and software patents has come into question, post-[Alice][6]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If game mechanics and software are deemed purely abstract and no longer eligible, it represents a gap in Intellectual Property protection that represents a violation of the &quot;spirit of IP law.&quot;  *(i.e. the laws are very clear in regard to protecting creative work, but if that creative work is process-based, to which is to say, mechanical, the creator has no rights to that work?)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically, [design patents][7] are filed for &quot;look and feel&quot; of a product, and distinct from copyright in that parts of the design can be mod-able or process-oriented (such as a clever positioning of a hidden drawer.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, patents do expire, and any process-based intellectual property (the domain of patents) that has been in the public domain, with minor caveats, is no longer protectable.  This may well be the case with Google docs in relation to MS Word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18064882260025243346&amp;q=863%20F.Supp.2d%20394&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://willamette.edu/law/resources/journals/wlo/ip/2012/05/Tetris_Holding_LLC_v_Xio_Interactive_Inc.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/02/12/tetris-gets-permanent-injunction-against-xio/id=34996/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&amp;context=historical&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2012/09/27/recent-ruling-in-triple-townyeti-town-game-app-dispute-provides-cautionary-lessons-for-both-ea-and-zynga/#2c3995bcf922&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18435" RevisionGUID="dd7a5a39-d453-4545-9fc2-d72aa6c085b6" CreationDate="2017-09-22T21:07:28.400" UserId="16696" Text="A provisional patent is a low cost way to &quot;mark your territory&quot; and allows public disclosure.  This is due to the informal nature of a provisional patent--it merely needs to describe the process fully--and this may be self-filed.  *(Opinions vary on self-filing of provisionals, but I've consulted with numerous, experienced, well-respected patent attorneys who feel it to be low risk.  In self-filing, be exhaustive in your description, and include any and all information you believe is relevant.  You can always take things out in the nonprovisional, but adding things in will lose you the priority of the initial nonprovisional filing date, at least for those additions.)*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you only have 1 year to followup with a formal, nonprovisional patent application.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Provisional applications can also be useful in seeking funding because investors are unlikely to sign non-disclosure agreements, which open potential liability for them with no benefit.  *(i.e. They already be looking at similar technologies or processes.)*  With the provisional patent you can publicly disclose and still retain the right to subsequently submit the nonprovisional application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49669" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="6d77aede-de72-4508-af80-acaee83c4662" CreationDate="2017-09-22T22:04:16.200" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49670" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16926" RevisionGUID="bc54ea6f-cbfc-41b4-885d-416febf26180" CreationDate="2017-09-22T23:07:40.807" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18431" RevisionGUID="2e7e386f-d3d8-486c-a3a9-b424ea76f0c5" CreationDate="2017-09-23T01:43:07.967" UserId="17003" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="As far as I can tell, both the cited patents are clearly expired. There are no provisions I am aware of for having them extended. This doesn't mean the company who owns the patents wouldn't list the patents, or has newer patents that are still in force." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18436" RevisionGUID="a3165993-9372-4c26-8151-c388ce266b87" CreationDate="2017-09-23T02:05:02.827" UserId="16537" Text="I read somewhere that attempts to make the distinction of novel and obvious by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you combine two or more existing things in a way that would make&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sense to one of skill in the art to accomplish a predictable result,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; then that idea is obvious and also not patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this statement to me seems to be very subjective. &#xD;&#xA;A lot of these novelty seemed obvious after it is being discovered and could be easily duplicated by someone skilled in the art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I was watching shark tank and one company was making a  polyester fiberfill designed to prevent items from falling between a car's front seats and center console. I am pretty sure that someone thought about this idea before. It seems so obvious and sure enough someone skilled in the art can reproduce this easily hence all the similar products being available in China. Yet this company still get the patent for this idea granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the line between obvious and novel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49686" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18436" RevisionGUID="a3165993-9372-4c26-8151-c388ce266b87" CreationDate="2017-09-23T02:05:02.827" UserId="16537" Text="What is the line between obvious and novel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49687" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18436" RevisionGUID="a3165993-9372-4c26-8151-c388ce266b87" CreationDate="2017-09-23T02:05:02.827" UserId="16537" Text="&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18437" RevisionGUID="b3caf100-8ce8-4b08-9339-8e48b5247565" CreationDate="2017-09-23T04:02:11.433" UserId="15832" Text="I'm a big fan of [Patents Demystified][1] as a guide to patents for inventors and startups. Some folks here on Stack Exchange suggested it to me and it was just what I was looking for. Seems like the patent book that most people use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has a great foundation of the basics and works up to intermediate and advanced patent strategies. Unlike most patent books I found, this one is really easy to understand and has specific actionable steps and strategies for protecting inventions and maximizing protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's primarily directed to the U.S. patent process, but also discusses how the foreign patent process works as well.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://amzn.to/2xv5YkE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18438" RevisionGUID="2e854bf6-97e4-4014-a0aa-7d5651b6f4cf" CreationDate="2017-09-23T04:18:09.020" UserId="13706" Text="YES! You can theoretically include as many inventions in a provisional application as you want. At the non-provisional stage, you can still include as many inventions as you want in the specification and drawings, but you can only claim one invention. In other words, the claims are only allowed to be directed to one invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if the filed claims do include multiple inventions, the Examiner will issue a &quot;restriction requirement&quot; and require the applicant to elect only one invention for examination. The non-elected invention(s) can be protected via divisional or continuation applications as long as such applications are filed before the original issues as a patent or goes abandoned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49693" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="2a6734a1-3154-420d-8d28-3d532b2fbf51" CreationDate="2017-09-23T09:14:39.503" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18440" RevisionGUID="f403cb11-03cf-4527-8816-8a13a577153f" CreationDate="2017-09-23T11:30:06.777" UserId="18033" Text="For prosecution not novel means all features of the claim are described in a single document.&#xA;&#xA;Obvious means the combination of a first document with a second document or otherwise documented knowledge the person skilled in the art has leads to the invention.&#xA;&#xA;There are some highly theoretical edge cases relevant in one of a million cases where something might be not new but not obvious, but there is no complete theoretical basis for those, it's more a question of case law, so the edge is sometimes blurry and changes with examiners/judges. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18441" RevisionGUID="03612e1c-92d1-4209-ae19-cc389ae032f5" CreationDate="2017-09-23T11:49:13.310" UserId="9812" Text="I came across one completed product that is already patented (based on 2-3 parts).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will it be a problem for the vendor if it sells the kits (non-patentable parts) instead of complete patented product that would allow the customer to put the parts together that will work exactly the same as the patented product?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your thoughts, please.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference (different): &#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/10826/criteria-for-patenting-an-item-whose-main-part-uses-the-design-of-a-patents-par&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49696" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18441" RevisionGUID="03612e1c-92d1-4209-ae19-cc389ae032f5" CreationDate="2017-09-23T11:49:13.310" UserId="9812" Text="Selling a &quot;kit&quot; instead of completely patentable design" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49697" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18441" RevisionGUID="03612e1c-92d1-4209-ae19-cc389ae032f5" CreationDate="2017-09-23T11:49:13.310" UserId="9812" Text="&lt;multiple-parts&gt;&lt;kits&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18442" RevisionGUID="e4e9f308-d7eb-482f-b020-0757100b6ea4" CreationDate="2017-09-23T12:12:38.600" UserId="18033" Text="Yes. It's called induced infringement and selling a kit for someone to infringe a patent is exactly that.&#xA;&#xA;See https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/inducement_of_infringement&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Any person who actively induces infringement of a patent is liable as an infringer.  See 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). &#xA;&#xA;&gt;Infringement by inducement is a form of secondary liability for patent infringement.  A person who does not commit direct infringement but asks or induces another to do so, or sells a product with advertising or instructions about an infringing use may be held liable for inducing infringement.&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49699" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18441" RevisionGUID="cd9ba2c8-a0ac-4366-99f3-142479c83e1e" CreationDate="2017-09-23T12:15:32.810" UserId="18033" Comment="edited title; edited title" Text="Selling a &quot;kit&quot; instead of complete patented product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18442" RevisionGUID="eb601e64-ab63-495c-823c-7b916c50013f" CreationDate="2017-09-23T12:17:47.823" UserId="18033" Comment="added 222 characters in body" Text="Yes. It's called induced infringement and selling a kit for someone to infringe a patent is exactly that.&#xA;&#xA;See https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/inducement_of_infringement&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Any person who actively induces infringement of a patent is liable as an infringer.  See 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). &#xA;&#xA;&gt;Infringement by inducement is a form of secondary liability for patent infringement.  A person who does not commit direct infringement but asks or induces another to do so, or sells a product with advertising or instructions about an infringing use may be held liable for inducing infringement.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;That doesn't apply if your selling the parts just as such though just because they could be used to infringe a patent. It comes down to you advertising for putting them together or somehow else inducing the infringement. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18443" RevisionGUID="103a4240-85ce-4364-be89-b138c8c5d3da" CreationDate="2017-09-23T16:22:59.600" UserId="17003" Text="DonQuiKong's answer is a good one and should be accepted. As an inventor, I thought I might share a few other insights. Obviousness really is vague and subjective. It is thrown out by examiners almost by reflex now a days. My experience is the examiner does a prior art search, finds some related patents and then rejects pretty much everything based on obviousness. What this really is doing is asking the applicant to explain what is in the cited art and why the invention is not obvious. Usually if you have a good patent attorney or agent, and a good invention, you can convince the examiner of the ideas merit, perhaps with careful tailoring of the claims. This process can take quite a while with some cases. Having a good attorney is essential in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As much as this seeming laziness on the examiners part is annoying, I highly prefer it to an examiner allowing a bad patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18444" RevisionGUID="120a42b1-574c-4922-9d7a-103e48b9b83e" CreationDate="2017-09-23T16:24:32.073" UserId="19820" Text="I want to sell a kit that contains multiple products within a plastic carrying case. Each product is produced in China and the same design of the product is sold by multiple factories in China. I guess each item can be considered something that is very common like a mug or a dinner plate. I am guessing that these items cannot be patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The one thing that I may be able to patent is the case. One item is a high powered magnet and the case needs to contain a certain amount of material so that the magnetic force is contained in the case and does not interfere with electronics or pacemakers. I believe this will require some not so obvious knowledge regarding the direction of the magnetic force and the type of material and dimension of the material in order to create a well functioning case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could this case be patented or could the simple fact of combining all these common items together be a patentable product to sell?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49704" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18444" RevisionGUID="120a42b1-574c-4922-9d7a-103e48b9b83e" CreationDate="2017-09-23T16:24:32.073" UserId="19820" Text="Combining multiple items to make a kit with some non obvious knowledge is required" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49705" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18444" RevisionGUID="120a42b1-574c-4922-9d7a-103e48b9b83e" CreationDate="2017-09-23T16:24:32.073" UserId="19820" Text="&lt;combination&gt;&lt;kit&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17456" RevisionGUID="589760da-4848-46d1-b7a2-80ac8b6fbd8b" CreationDate="2017-09-23T17:33:52.937" UserId="13706" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body" Text="Check out a book called &quot;[Patent it Yourself][1]&quot; - It's published by Nolo press and is available on [amazon.com][1]. It's probably one of the best layman's guides to drafting patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://amzn.to/2jNwuka" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17203" RevisionGUID="9f122e19-a06a-411b-a952-a6bb05bf4697" CreationDate="2017-09-23T17:35:56.633" UserId="13706" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="I have read somewhere that we can have multiple ideas inside a provisional patent but I can't remember where it was! I think I read it in  &quot;[Patent it yourself][1]&quot;.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://amzn.to/2wO5Skx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49708" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18172" RevisionGUID="bd4ca1e3-d9ca-42bb-9c72-abe8fc1a9e0e" CreationDate="2017-09-23T18:25:00.303" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10190" RevisionGUID="42791385-f5f7-424d-9c11-4a681e1ba751" CreationDate="2017-09-24T00:03:08.723" UserId="13706" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="If your budget dictates you are going to do it yourself I would get a [Patent It Yourself][1] book, study it and follow it as if you were creating a regular application - other than claiming. Aiming high might help you get close to target when you are done. If the date is needed (if not the provisional didn't end up coming into play at all) to show that the topic in question was described to a required level of depth, the words of the provisional will be evaluated exactly as they would be in studying a regular application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://amzn.to/2jV4pr4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6546" RevisionGUID="26b2019b-4829-4637-b4a7-562b405fb307" CreationDate="2017-09-24T00:06:03.230" UserId="13706" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="You need to pay all three in order for your application to move forward. They are listed separately in the fee schedule but, other than for one very specific case, it is best to think of them as one fee. The fees do not need to be paid at the time of filing but if not paid then there is a surcharge and you will get a notice that it must be paid by a certain date - usually a month or two after the date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would recommend that you get the book &quot;[Patent it yourself][1]&quot;. Patenting is a deep, subtle and confusing field but with that you have a fighting chance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://amzn.to/2jV4pr4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49711" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13870" RevisionGUID="4caa6260-7bf5-4787-b287-b5bc00fc83f8" CreationDate="2017-09-24T02:26:54.013" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18445" RevisionGUID="8381c3ac-b367-4597-9cbb-46d638d17126" CreationDate="2017-09-24T04:30:06.287" UserId="18769" Text="[This question][1] asks if a priority claim under the Paris Convention can be made after the 12-month deadline, and the accepted answer is 'no'.  However, I wanted to ask again if this is really the case.  Specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(i) Does the Paris Convention or PCT allow for an extension (e.g. due to 'unintentional' error)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(ii) Do individual countries allow for an extension?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that the PCT in fact mandates ('shall') a 2-month extension for unintentional delay. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **PCT 26 bis.3(a)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Where the international application has an international filing date which is later than the date on which the priority period expired but within the period of two months from that date, the receiving Office shall, on the request of the applicant, and subject to paragraphs (b) to (g) of this Rule, restore the right of priority if the Office finds that a criterion applied by it (“criterion for restoration”) is satisfied, namely, that the failure to file the international application within the priority period: (i) occurred in spite of due care required by the circumstances having been taken; or (ii) was unintentional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [MPEP 213][2] for the US implementation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **35 USC 119**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Director may prescribe regulations, including the requirement for payment of the fee specified in section 41(a)(7) , pursuant to which the 12-month period set forth in this subsection may be extended by an additional 2 months if the delay in filing the application in this country within the 12-month period was unintentional. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**37 CFR 1.55(c)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Delayed filing of subsequent application.  If the subsequent application has a filing date which is after the expiration of the period set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, but within two months from the expiration of the period set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the right of priority in the subsequent application may be restored under PCT Rule 26bis.3 for an international application, or upon petition pursuant to this paragraph, if the delay in filing the subsequent application within the period set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section was unintentional. ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/16578/can-wipo-application-filed-after-12-months-from-priority-date&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s213.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49715" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18445" RevisionGUID="8381c3ac-b367-4597-9cbb-46d638d17126" CreationDate="2017-09-24T04:30:06.287" UserId="18769" Text="Is 12-month Paris Convention priority claim deadline extendable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49716" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18445" RevisionGUID="8381c3ac-b367-4597-9cbb-46d638d17126" CreationDate="2017-09-24T04:30:06.287" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;paris-convention&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18446" RevisionGUID="a310dcfa-a3da-4a52-8bc5-5f9decc83675" CreationDate="2017-09-24T04:37:42.767" UserId="19823" Text="In reference to the patent: [US6405939][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6405939&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How long is this Patent standing and valid for?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49718" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18446" RevisionGUID="a310dcfa-a3da-4a52-8bc5-5f9decc83675" CreationDate="2017-09-24T04:37:42.767" UserId="19823" Text="Validity and Standing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49719" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18446" RevisionGUID="a310dcfa-a3da-4a52-8bc5-5f9decc83675" CreationDate="2017-09-24T04:37:42.767" UserId="19823" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;validity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49720" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="b8de2e7d-de57-4137-b28b-10069bf78e6c" CreationDate="2017-09-24T11:27:20.130" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18447" RevisionGUID="5dd654fa-b18f-4b94-a4eb-1ab3577afe03" CreationDate="2017-09-24T12:49:48.790" UserId="9812" Text="See the list of prior arts from bar code developer web sites before May 9, 2001 WO2002091307A9 file date:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.barcodefaq.com/barcode-printing.html (Feb 2001) and &#xD;&#xA;http://www.barcodehq.com/primer.html (Feb 2001)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18448" RevisionGUID="3054b7e8-81a0-4265-abb2-00613bea5b1b" CreationDate="2017-09-24T12:59:55.630" UserId="19824" Text="can one provisional patent or design patent cover the same product but with different designs? example picture frame (a) the frame is a rope design, picture frame (b) the frame is checker boarded design and picture frame (c) the picture fame has a flower design, will one provisional patent or one design patent legally cover all picture frames, Thanks jacob   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49723" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18448" RevisionGUID="3054b7e8-81a0-4265-abb2-00613bea5b1b" CreationDate="2017-09-24T12:59:55.630" UserId="19824" Text="same product, different designs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49724" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18448" RevisionGUID="3054b7e8-81a0-4265-abb2-00613bea5b1b" CreationDate="2017-09-24T12:59:55.630" UserId="19824" Text="&lt;product&gt;&lt;same&gt;&lt;different&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18449" RevisionGUID="9834c2df-4b76-4592-9a6f-8dec8e178cfd" CreationDate="2017-09-24T21:50:17.670" UserId="18769" Text="It appears that a 2-month grace period was added as part of the PLTIA (effective Dec 18, 2013).  See [this article][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The rule changes also permit the restoration of a priority claim in a U.S. application that is filed more than 12 months after the priority application (which can be a foreign or provisional application). Prior to this change, it was not possible to claim priority to foreign and provisional applications filed more than 12 months earlier. Priority can [now] be restored in pending applications filed no more than 2 months after the 12-month statutory filing period. For design patent applications, the subsequent application must be filed no more than 2 months after the 6-month statutory filing period. ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.blankrome.com/index.cfm?contentID=37&amp;itemID=3197" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49726" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="d357cc47-3563-424c-ba38-da716267d196" CreationDate="2017-09-24T22:28:05.837" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49727" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16491" RevisionGUID="bb13cf24-ecab-45f3-96bd-765c894d9917" CreationDate="2017-09-25T00:28:10.453" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17757" RevisionGUID="39be27da-3664-4483-b6b3-dfbaf1a8f9c2" CreationDate="2017-09-25T01:26:36.503" UserId="14403" Comment="An addition to already cited judgements." Text="Any element (e.g. motion sensor, means of communication and of interface between functional parts) which is well known in the industry field and performs routine function does not add &quot;some thing more&quot; to claimed invention and will raise judicial exception (abstract idea) if such an element is found in claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if a machine is 'novel' and 'non-obvious' and a particular element(like motion sensor, means of communication) helps to link functional steps of the claims and in combination with other elements of the machine achieves a novel result or prove to be a novel means for achieving any known result then the claims are likely to be found eligible for allowance. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inclusion of generic computer or computer elements (e.g. memory, processor, CPU etc) and information technology in claims now faces a great hurdle in the form of judicial exception post 'Alice opinion' which is a supreme court (US) judgement. Whenever these elements are involved, the drafting of specification and claims become really tricky. If combination of claim elements conforms to judgement such as  Diehr, Bascom and SiRF Technology then a patent application has chance of being considered patent eligible. CAFC judgement in Thales Visionix  Inc vs US dtd 08 Mar 2017 is another recent judgement which patent applicants may find as favorable precedent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49732" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18259" RevisionGUID="77cee273-8f1d-4892-a944-ff1e6210e711" CreationDate="2017-09-25T04:29:44.200" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49733" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="8f8ca902-9c34-4f15-8fea-4a508c61f603" CreationDate="2017-09-25T05:29:43.957" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18450" RevisionGUID="d9e14d8c-1f07-4737-a6be-e3a9372893dc" CreationDate="2017-09-25T12:10:59.490" UserId="19828" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2017054090A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2017054090A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just wanted to know if someone can barely do the same thing as claimed but with a cloud located where the patent is null.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For exemple, I give this cloud authentication to a user located in US but with a cloud located in Taiwan? Is it a forgery or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49735" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18450" RevisionGUID="d9e14d8c-1f07-4737-a6be-e3a9372893dc" CreationDate="2017-09-25T12:10:59.490" UserId="19828" Text="What if the cloud is located where the patent is null?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49736" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18450" RevisionGUID="d9e14d8c-1f07-4737-a6be-e3a9372893dc" CreationDate="2017-09-25T12:10:59.490" UserId="19828" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18450" RevisionGUID="37e62678-b3ad-480b-8193-dad634eff23f" CreationDate="2017-09-25T12:14:29.093" UserId="18033" Comment="added 16 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2017054090A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2017054090A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just wanted to know if someone can barely do the same thing as claimed but with a cloud located where the patent is not filed/granted/valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For exemple, I give this cloud authentication to a user located in US but with a cloud located in Taiwan? Is this considered infringement or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49738" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18450" RevisionGUID="37e62678-b3ad-480b-8193-dad634eff23f" CreationDate="2017-09-25T12:14:29.093" UserId="18033" Comment="added 16 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;usa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18451" RevisionGUID="24f5f567-9e05-47d2-8f02-5a644a720e98" CreationDate="2017-09-25T12:25:39.990" UserId="17325" Text="In a nutshell, NO, the 12 month priority period is non-extendable. BUT... in legal stuff there is almost always an available remedy for time limits. This is only for rare and extreme cases though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if you are ready to file your application on the last day of the priority period and suddenlty your computer breaks down and you don't have copies of your files anywhere else? You would need at least a few days to recover your files and file the application and by then the 12M period will have lapsed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the PCT, you can request restoration of priority right according to Rule 26bis.3 of PCT (Restoration of Right of Priority by Receiving Office). See also PCT-Applicant's Guide point 5.063 and onwards. You have &quot;two months from the date on which the priority period expired&quot; to do that. BUT, you need to prove either that &quot;the failure to file the international application within the priority period occurred in spite of due care required by the circumstances having been&#xD;&#xA;taken&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;the failure to file the international application within the priority period was unintentional&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The offices require serious evidence and they won't accept excuses, there has to be a major difficulty which prevented you to comply with the 12M period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mind that some Receiving Offices might have declared &quot;reservation&quot; with respect to this rule. It might also be the case that while the Receiving Office (of a PCT procedure) accepts your arguments, another national patent office (in national phase entries) will not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO does accept requests for restoration of priority rights as receiving office within the PCT procedure, so it makes sense that they have a similar provision for US proceedings as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18452" RevisionGUID="a877a345-de8b-40a7-8660-f99f39aa830f" CreationDate="2017-09-25T13:52:39.607" UserId="19830" Text="My current organization provides support in the complete process of taking forward the invention disclosure till the last which is patent filling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I want some help in drawing patent illustrations which I can then attach as images in my invention disclosure document. Can anyone suggest good software paid/free which I can use to draw the illustrations based on my idea ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49741" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18452" RevisionGUID="a877a345-de8b-40a7-8660-f99f39aa830f" CreationDate="2017-09-25T13:52:39.607" UserId="19830" Text="How to draw patent illustrations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49742" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18452" RevisionGUID="a877a345-de8b-40a7-8660-f99f39aa830f" CreationDate="2017-09-25T13:52:39.607" UserId="19830" Text="&lt;patent-drawings&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18453" RevisionGUID="e458093d-92e1-41c6-a260-12db5100b82c" CreationDate="2017-09-25T14:57:32.203" UserId="17003" Text="**Can anyone suggest good software paid/free which I can use to draw the illustrations based on my idea?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most patent illustrations are line drawings. As such, they are best created with a vector drawing program. Vector drawing programs edit graphic primitives such as lines and curves rather than pixels. For this reason, they can be easily rescaled and will always render and print out at high resolution. Commercial examples are [Adobe Illustrator][1] and [Corel Draw][2]. There are free options available such as [Inkscape][3] and [Gravit Designer][4]. There are many other options depending on your operating system. Do a search for &quot;vector graphics software&quot;. Although you can do really colorful artwork with these programs, they work great for black and white line drawings. Other types of illustrations such as plots and flow charts are usually generated in appropriate corresponding applications. Mechanical parts are often created in CAD modeling programs such as [Solidworks][5] or [AutoCad][6]. You should probably stay away from pixel editing software such as MS Paint or even Adobe Photoshop unless you are working from actual photographs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.adobe.com/products/illustrator.html?sdid=KKQML&amp;mv=search&amp;s_kwcid=AL!3085!3!155829415152!e!!!!adobe%20illustrator&amp;ef_id=VWM7IQAABahct2UN:20170925144755:s&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.coreldraw.com/en/pages/ppc/coreldraw/?sourceid=cdgs2017-xx-ppc_brkws&amp;x-vehicle=ppc_brkws&amp;gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-tKmncrA1gIV17rACh2smwq1EAAYASAAEgL6NfD_BwE&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://inkscape.org/en/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.designer.io&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.solidworks.com&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.autodesk.com/campaigns/original-autocad?mktvar002=709781&amp;mkwid=sgYb1JMiD%7Cpcrid%7C199123816963%7Cpkw%7Cautocad%7Cpmt%7Ce%7Cpdv%7Cc%7C%7C&amp;utm_medium=cpc&amp;utm_source=google&amp;utm_campaign=GGL_ACD_US_BR_SEM_EXACT%3EProspecting&amp;utm_term=autocad&amp;utm_content=sgYb1JMiD%7Cpcrid%7C199123816963%7Cpkw%7Cautocad%7Cpmt%7Ce%7Cpdv%7Cc%7Cpid%7C%7C&amp;gclid=CPe0gr3LwNYCFQmmaQodY-EBSg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18454" RevisionGUID="8fec0306-e7c6-4c97-a122-1907bddd6ddd" CreationDate="2017-09-25T15:00:23.163" UserId="17003" Text="I am not well versed on design patents, so I'd like to hold off on answering that part of you question. However, from what I can deduce, a provisional application is not likely an option. Provisionals are a precursor to a utility patent. Utility patents do not apply to designs of decorative elements." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18453" RevisionGUID="383f478a-69a4-42de-bdee-1000e694b8cc" CreationDate="2017-09-25T15:08:27.933" UserId="1" Comment="Removed annoying habit from quora" Text="Most patent illustrations are line drawings. As such, they are best created with a vector drawing program. Vector drawing programs edit graphic primitives such as lines and curves rather than pixels. For this reason, they can be easily rescaled and will always render and print out at high resolution. Commercial examples are [Adobe Illustrator][1] and [Corel Draw][2]. There are free options available such as [Inkscape][3] and [Gravit Designer][4]. There are many other options depending on your operating system. Do a search for &quot;vector graphics software&quot;. Although you can do really colorful artwork with these programs, they work great for black and white line drawings. Other types of illustrations such as plots and flow charts are usually generated in appropriate corresponding applications. Mechanical parts are often created in CAD modeling programs such as [Solidworks][5] or [AutoCad][6]. You should probably stay away from pixel editing software such as MS Paint or even Adobe Photoshop unless you are working from actual photographs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.adobe.com/products/illustrator.html?sdid=KKQML&amp;mv=search&amp;s_kwcid=AL!3085!3!155829415152!e!!!!adobe%20illustrator&amp;ef_id=VWM7IQAABahct2UN:20170925144755:s&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.coreldraw.com/en/pages/ppc/coreldraw/?sourceid=cdgs2017-xx-ppc_brkws&amp;x-vehicle=ppc_brkws&amp;gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-tKmncrA1gIV17rACh2smwq1EAAYASAAEgL6NfD_BwE&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://inkscape.org/en/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.designer.io&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.solidworks.com&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.autodesk.com/campaigns/original-autocad?mktvar002=709781&amp;mkwid=sgYb1JMiD%7Cpcrid%7C199123816963%7Cpkw%7Cautocad%7Cpmt%7Ce%7Cpdv%7Cc%7C%7C&amp;utm_medium=cpc&amp;utm_source=google&amp;utm_campaign=GGL_ACD_US_BR_SEM_EXACT%3EProspecting&amp;utm_term=autocad&amp;utm_content=sgYb1JMiD%7Cpcrid%7C199123816963%7Cpkw%7Cautocad%7Cpmt%7Ce%7Cpdv%7Cc%7Cpid%7C%7C&amp;gclid=CPe0gr3LwNYCFQmmaQodY-EBSg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18455" RevisionGUID="d9d3d644-d0c6-48ae-b14f-ec39988d2b0a" CreationDate="2017-09-25T15:40:27.707" UserId="19329" Text="Are there jurisdictions where it is possible for a corporation to be listed as the inventor on a patent? Has that ever been the case historically?  I know in the US an inventor must be an individual and that's always been the case, but are there any jurisdictions where it is or has been possible?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49747" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18455" RevisionGUID="d9d3d644-d0c6-48ae-b14f-ec39988d2b0a" CreationDate="2017-09-25T15:40:27.707" UserId="19329" Text="Can a corporation be listed as an inventor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49748" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18455" RevisionGUID="d9d3d644-d0c6-48ae-b14f-ec39988d2b0a" CreationDate="2017-09-25T15:40:27.707" UserId="19329" Text="&lt;inventor&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18456" RevisionGUID="7585e8ca-7031-4bca-a3a6-08d6eb1fcad6" CreationDate="2017-09-25T18:05:39.023" UserId="16696" Text="Very interesting question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The European Rules would seem to mirror the US rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rule 19&#xD;&#xA;Designation of the inventor&#xD;&#xA;Art. 62, 128&#xD;&#xA;R. 21, 60, 163&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(1)&#xD;&#xA;The request for grant of a European patent shall contain the designation of the inventor. However, if the applicant is not the inventor or is not the sole inventor, the designation shall be filed in a separate document. **The designation shall state the family name, given names** and full address of the inventor, contain the statement referred to in Article 81 and bear the signature of the applicant or his representative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although entities like corporations are not explicitly excluded, the requirement of family name and given name would seem to render corporate entities ineligible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18457" RevisionGUID="3b90e97f-3fe9-48f5-b402-e9974e87f35f" CreationDate="2017-09-25T18:20:52.817" UserId="17003" Text="The definitive site to determine a US patent's status is the [US Public Pair][1]. In this case, the status is: Patent Expired Due to NonPayment of Maintenance Fees Under 37 CFR 1.362. The status date is 07-07-2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18458" RevisionGUID="e5e10164-3569-4d6b-902d-a23d3e3146d9" CreationDate="2017-09-25T18:48:42.603" UserId="16696" Text="Regarding &quot;obviousness&quot;, you may find this review article helpful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[When is an Invention Obvious? | IPwatchdog][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cited article begins with an issue relating to the determination:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;...unfortunately the law of obviousness can be quite subjective and difficult to understand. At times obviousness determinations almost seems arbitrary.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It then presents the analytical framework for the determination:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  In order to determine whether an invention is obvious one must work through this analytical framework: (1) Determine the scope and content of the prior art; (2) Ascertain the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; (3) Resolve the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (4) Consider objective indicia of non-obviousness (i.e., are there secondary considerations of non-obviousness that suggest a patent should issue despite an invention seeming to be obvious).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Case Law and precedent becomes important:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in [KSR v. Teleflex][2] obviousness was rather mechanical. With obviousness we are asking whether there is any combination of prior art references that when put together would be the invention in question. In other words, could an ordinary mechanic create your invention or was there some kind of non-obvious innovation..&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Six KSR rationales are listed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. If the invention a product of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results the invention is obvious.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. If the invention is created through a substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results the invention is obvious.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. If the invention is achieved by using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way the invention is obvious.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;4. If the invention is created by applying a known improvement technique in a way that would yield predictable results the invention is obvious.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;5. If the invention is achieved from choosing a finite number of identifiable, predictable solutions that have a reasonable expectation to succeed the invention is obvious.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;6. If known work in one filed of endeavor prompts variations based on design incentives or market forces and the variations are predictable to one of skill in the art the invention is obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article goes on to state:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;...what is obvious to some large degree is in the eye of the beholder.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and notes that most applications will receive at least one *pro forma* non-obviousness rejection.  The article concludes that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;...we don’t have a useful test for obviousness at the moment, which can make it exceptionally difficult to advise clients in cases where it could go one way or another depending on one’s particular point of view.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;See Also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Understanding Obviousness: John Deere and the Basics | IP Watchdog][3] &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[KSR the 5th Anniversary: One Supremely Obvious Mess | IP Watchdog][4]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[KSR's Effect on Patent Law | U. Michigan Law Review][5]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[Predictability and Nonobviousness in Patent Law&#xD;&#xA;After KSR | U. Michigan Law Review][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/02/01/when-is-an-invention-obvious/id=47709/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/04-1350.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/10/10/understanding-obviousness-john-deere-and-the-basics-2/id=62393/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/04/29/ksr-the-5th-anniversary-one-supremely-obvious-mess/id=24456/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1136&amp;context=mlr_fi&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1192&amp;context=mttlr" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18458" RevisionGUID="3a0fa4bc-c0b0-47ca-9a5c-81d89904954f" CreationDate="2017-09-25T19:10:07.343" UserId="16696" Comment="added a preface on Novelty" Text="Novelty just means a method is new/original, and has not been disclosed (with certain caveats, dependent on region.)  Novelty is distinct from obviousness.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Novelty is defined in the US as follows:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[a] person shall be entitled to a patent unless—&#xD;&#xA;(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or&#xD;&#xA;(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.&lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[35 U.S. Code § 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty][1]&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Obviousness&quot; is more cloudy and there is no simple answer.**  However, you may find this IPWatchdog review article helpful: [When is an Invention Obvious?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cited article begins with an issue relating to the determination:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;...unfortunately the law of obviousness can be quite subjective and difficult to understand. At times obviousness determinations almost seems arbitrary.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It then presents the analytical framework for the determination:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  In order to determine whether an invention is obvious one must work through this analytical framework: (1) Determine the scope and content of the prior art; (2) Ascertain the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; (3) Resolve the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (4) Consider objective indicia of non-obviousness (i.e., are there secondary considerations of non-obviousness that suggest a patent should issue despite an invention seeming to be obvious).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Case Law and precedent becomes important:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in [KSR v. Teleflex][3] obviousness was rather mechanical. With obviousness we are asking whether there is any combination of prior art references that when put together would be the invention in question. In other words, could an ordinary mechanic create your invention or was there some kind of non-obvious innovation..&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Six KSR rationales are listed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. If the invention a product of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results the invention is obvious.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. If the invention is created through a substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results the invention is obvious.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. If the invention is achieved by using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way the invention is obvious.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;4. If the invention is created by applying a known improvement technique in a way that would yield predictable results the invention is obvious.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;5. If the invention is achieved from choosing a finite number of identifiable, predictable solutions that have a reasonable expectation to succeed the invention is obvious.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;6. If known work in one filed of endeavor prompts variations based on design incentives or market forces and the variations are predictable to one of skill in the art the invention is obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article goes on to state:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;...what is obvious to some large degree is in the eye of the beholder.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and notes that most applications will receive at least one *pro forma* non-obviousness rejection.  The article concludes that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;...we don’t have a useful test for obviousness at the moment, which can make it exceptionally difficult to advise clients in cases where it could go one way or another depending on one’s particular point of view.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;See Also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Understanding Obviousness: John Deere and the Basics | IP Watchdog][4] &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[KSR the 5th Anniversary: One Supremely Obvious Mess | IP Watchdog][5]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[KSR's Effect on Patent Law | U. Michigan Law Review][6]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[Predictability and Nonobviousness in Patent Law&#xD;&#xA;After KSR | U. Michigan Law Review][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2152.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/02/01/when-is-an-invention-obvious/id=47709/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/04-1350.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/10/10/understanding-obviousness-john-deere-and-the-basics-2/id=62393/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/04/29/ksr-the-5th-anniversary-one-supremely-obvious-mess/id=24456/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1136&amp;context=mlr_fi&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1192&amp;context=mttlr" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49753" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18148" RevisionGUID="627dfe7e-4b86-485a-8c57-8e9e193892ae" CreationDate="2017-09-25T20:34:00.767" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18459" RevisionGUID="cefdb1fb-a461-4811-9b71-7165fbbbad75" CreationDate="2017-09-25T20:50:44.450" UserId="16696" Text="- Why does &quot;embodiment&quot; seem now to be so favored by patent attorneys over the term &quot;invention&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;______________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;CONTEXT: On a recent provisional, I had an experienced attorney consulting *pro bono* and the first thing they did was remove invention entirely from the application, favoring &quot;method&quot; or &quot;embodiment&quot;. But I was using a mill for low-cost formatting, and the first thing they did was change all of the &quot;embodiment&quot; instances back to &quot;invention&quot;.  Mills area only suitable for provisionals, but I found it interesting they seemed to be so behind the times.&lt;/sub&gt; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49755" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18459" RevisionGUID="cefdb1fb-a461-4811-9b71-7165fbbbad75" CreationDate="2017-09-25T20:50:44.450" UserId="16696" Text="&quot;embodiment&quot; vs. &quot;invention&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49756" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18459" RevisionGUID="cefdb1fb-a461-4811-9b71-7165fbbbad75" CreationDate="2017-09-25T20:50:44.450" UserId="16696" Text="&lt;invention&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;embodiments&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18460" RevisionGUID="3574e51a-ff18-49f6-baac-a3b04f018f81" CreationDate="2017-09-25T21:20:21.740" UserId="19832" Text="In reference to the patent: [US9396354][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9396354" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49758" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18460" RevisionGUID="3574e51a-ff18-49f6-baac-a3b04f018f81" CreationDate="2017-09-25T21:20:21.740" UserId="19832" Text="Is it legal to download a picture from clients device to company computers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49759" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18460" RevisionGUID="3574e51a-ff18-49f6-baac-a3b04f018f81" CreationDate="2017-09-25T21:20:21.740" UserId="19832" Text="&lt;law&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49760" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18460" RevisionGUID="475a4386-d32a-4a71-bb0d-f7e1237b2386" CreationDate="2017-09-25T21:22:25.770" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="49761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18449" RevisionGUID="17b6d44b-ae05-45ee-bee4-b273c7dbb7e8" CreationDate="2017-09-25T21:35:07.263" UserId="18769" Comment="added 1251 characters in body" Text="It appears that a 2-month grace period was added as part of the PLTIA (effective Dec 18, 2013).  See [this article][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The rule changes also permit the restoration of a priority claim in a U.S. application that is filed more than 12 months after the priority application (which can be a foreign or provisional application). Prior to this change, it was not possible to claim priority to foreign and provisional applications filed more than 12 months earlier. Priority can [now] be restored in pending applications filed no more than 2 months after the 12-month statutory filing period. For design patent applications, the subsequent application must be filed no more than 2 months after the 6-month statutory filing period. ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, note the distinction between filing the app that claims priority, and actually claiming priority.  The discussion in the question relates to the former matter, but the latter matter may have distinct deadlines.  E.g., see the US requirements in [MPEP 211.03][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the application is a utility or plant application ..., the benefit claim of the prior application ... must be made during the pendency of the application and within the *later of four months from the actual filing date* of the later-filed application *or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior-filed application*. If the application is a nonprovisional application entering the national stage from an international application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the benefit claim must be made within the later of: (1) four months from the date on which the national stage commenced ...; (2) four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage; or (3) sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. This time period is not extendable ... unless a petition to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim is granted. ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.blankrome.com/index.cfm?contentID=37&amp;itemID=3197&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s211.html#ch200_d1ff71_24d33_c" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49762" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="18460" RevisionGUID="e73aea87-3d01-4357-b5a2-d625ec85ac6b" CreationDate="2017-09-25T22:37:33.033" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:17003,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Eric Shain&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="49763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18461" RevisionGUID="9d307bd0-af2f-42a7-ac61-d91ffe459a53" CreationDate="2017-09-25T23:57:52.627" UserId="17003" Text="**Why does &quot;embodiment&quot; seem now to be so favored by patent attorneys over the term &quot;invention&quot;?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't speak for patent attorneys since I'm not one, but in my mind the words &quot;invention&quot; and &quot;embodiment&quot; aren't synonyms.  An embodiment is a particular way of implementing the invention. When a patent gets drafted, there is usually a preferred embodiment and several alternative embodiments. The idea is to make it harder for others to design around the specific implementation to get the equivalent result." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18462" RevisionGUID="4120ed73-1941-45a9-94c5-2e2c35953e2f" CreationDate="2017-09-26T00:01:52.367" UserId="17003" Text="**Is it legal to download a picture from clients device to company computers?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe you are asking if US9396354 in some ways prevents you from download in pictures to a company owned computer. The answer is yes it is quite legal to do so. The patent concerns a method for automatically blurring faces found on downloaded images so that privacy protections are honored." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18462" RevisionGUID="c74b2b6a-a82c-4d7a-8be7-aa4ff5231140" CreationDate="2017-09-26T01:40:55.620" UserId="17003" Comment="edited body" Text="**Is it legal to download a picture from clients device to company computers?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe you are asking if US9396354 in some ways prevents you from downloading pictures to a company owned computer. The answer is yes it is quite legal to do so. The patent concerns a method for automatically blurring faces found on downloaded images so that privacy protections are honored." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18463" RevisionGUID="0231472a-1bed-4e0e-aa70-d60f545e72b9" CreationDate="2017-09-26T02:21:57.527" UserId="19833" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20090237236][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20090237236" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49767" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18463" RevisionGUID="0231472a-1bed-4e0e-aa70-d60f545e72b9" CreationDate="2017-09-26T02:21:57.527" UserId="19833" Text="Has this patent been issued?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49768" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18463" RevisionGUID="0231472a-1bed-4e0e-aa70-d60f545e72b9" CreationDate="2017-09-26T02:21:57.527" UserId="19833" Text="&lt;reissue&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18464" RevisionGUID="04da6283-0af4-4493-813c-ee99ff308522" CreationDate="2017-09-26T05:20:07.227" UserId="19468" Text="As a former patent attorney, I recall routinely including terminology referring to &quot;these and other embodiments of the disclosed invention...&quot; as a way to help a reader more clearly focus on the fact that only the *CLAIMS* in a patent have any legal weight. A potential infringer cannot avoid liability by simply implementing &quot;another embodiment&quot; of the claimed invention that happens to be different from any described in the specification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18465" RevisionGUID="4d6aa96e-21d5-463b-948a-44a8f7b010ab" CreationDate="2017-09-26T05:55:46.113" UserId="19468" Text="There is no such thing as a &quot;provisional patent&quot;, so it's not clear what you're asking about there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a provisional *application* for patent, which is not a patent of any kind; meaning it does not provide an enforceable property claim. A provisional patent application  (PPA) simply reserves the right to file a non-provisional application within a year, claiming filing priority of the PPA for the invention disclosed in the PPA. The PPA may (in theory) describe multiple designs and multiple inventions. However, a design patent cannot claim any benefit from a PPA -- only an application for a utility patent may do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a design patent, one may generally only claim one &quot;distinct invention&quot;, although &quot;multiple embodiments&quot; may be illustrated in the application, if they are &quot;basically the same&quot;. If the designs are found not to be obvious variations of each other, or &quot;do not constitute a single inventive concept&quot;, a restriction requirement may arise.&#xD;&#xA;[MPEP § 1504.05][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some products may have both utility and design patents, not to mention trademarks and copyrights.  One example is a high-tech shoe having a utility patent on a functional adjustment device, design patents on the unique tread and logo ornamentation, trademark protection of the logo as indicator of source, and copyright of the artwork on the labels and packaging.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1504.html#d0e157283" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18466" RevisionGUID="4c67a37f-30d1-42b7-8b7c-3d4c144e9052" CreationDate="2017-09-26T06:39:19.337" UserId="19468" Text="No, 3D mapping of terrain (including a golf course) has been around since a long time before that patent was filed. The patent owners can only prevent others from infringing their claimed invention (in places where the patent is issued and enforceable) to the extent the claims are valid in light of prior art, among other things." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18467" RevisionGUID="8ce858d0-bbd0-4527-9b4a-8c5b01cf2936" CreationDate="2017-09-26T10:52:00.437" UserId="19835" Text="It does not appear so. The current status on PAIR indicates that it was abandoned whilst it was pending for failure to respond to an office action on 24th Feb 2011." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49773" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18462" RevisionGUID="3fdf68b7-52b2-49ba-b857-d766617a53cb" CreationDate="2017-09-26T13:13:29.660" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 83 characters in body" Text="I believe you are asking if US9396354 in some ways prevents you from downloading pictures to a company owned computer. The answer is yes it is quite legal to do so. The patent concerns a method for automatically blurring faces found on downloaded images so that privacy protections are honored." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18461" RevisionGUID="df618c67-d4d2-4bc6-be4c-5d6e5b634b5d" CreationDate="2017-09-26T13:14:43.823" UserId="1" Comment="Removed annoying &quot;reask the question again&quot; habit from quora" Text="I can't speak for patent attorneys since I'm not one, but in my mind the words &quot;invention&quot; and &quot;embodiment&quot; aren't synonyms.  An embodiment is a particular way of implementing the invention. When a patent gets drafted, there is usually a preferred embodiment and several alternative embodiments. The idea is to make it harder for others to design around the specific implementation to get the equivalent result." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18422" RevisionGUID="d1497812-093d-4b94-a85c-e5b34d354190" CreationDate="2017-09-26T13:15:07.177" UserId="1" Comment="Removed annoying &quot;reask the question again&quot; habit from quora" Text="The basic requirements for a patent is that the idea be useful, novel and non-obvious. If someone has already patented an idea, then you can't re-patent it because it would not be novel since someone else already thought of it. This goes to the fundamental deal with patents. In return to teaching the world about your idea, you get a limited period of exclusivity. Once that limited period is up, anyone can use the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mention other related patents. It is very common for people to invent improvements to existing technologies. You do need to understand what those improvements are as they relate to the product you intend to sell. If you search for the original patent on [https://patents.google.com][1] you will see a section on the right side of the page that looks something like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;Cited by&quot; link will take you to patents that cite this patent as prior art. This is a good place to start to look for newer, related patents. You don't need to read each and every word of the related patents. Mostly you need to focus on the claims, especially the independent claims (claims that don't refer to other claims). It takes some practice to read claims, but you need to understand whether a non-expired patent exists that impacts your product. Patents now expire 20 years from the filing or priority date which ever is earlier so any patent from before 1997 is probably expired by now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5jJyL.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49776" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18417" RevisionGUID="0c6e2a95-2877-4bc0-ac20-97b7e8a89001" CreationDate="2017-09-26T13:15:28.917" UserId="1" Comment="Removed annoying &quot;reask the question again&quot; habit from quora" Text="&#xD;&#xA;The priority date of this patent is Oct. 30, 2009. The expiration date is 20 years from this date or Oct. 30, 2029. I checked on the [US Public Pair][1] site and there is no patent term adjustments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the patent itself, what is covered is described in the claims. There is only one independent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A composition comprising live Prevotella histicola, dead Prevotella histicola, or a culture supernatant of a Prevotella histicola culture,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein said composition is in the form of a pill, a tablet, or a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; capsule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is a continuation of [US8617536][2]. That patent's first claim is as follows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for treating an autoimmune condition in a mammal, wherein said method comprises oral administration of a composition comprising&#xD;&#xA;&gt; live isolated Prevotella histicola or a culture supernatant of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Prevotella histicola culture to said mammal, wherein said autoimmune&#xD;&#xA;&gt; condition is multiple sclerosis or rheumatoid arthritis, and wherein&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the severity of said autoimmune condition is reduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because Mayo has a patent, doesn't mean the treatment is effective or safe or better than other treatments. A patent by itself has no great value for Mayo, so there is a good chance the patent has been licensed to a drug development company to bring to market. Drug development is a long and expensive process so this may take some time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8617536B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18415" RevisionGUID="8b271b99-326a-4008-8b49-51954ebf2e53" CreationDate="2017-09-26T13:15:41.340" UserId="1" Comment="Removed annoying &quot;reask the question again&quot; habit from quora" Text="I am not a lawyer, but I do have a fair number of patents. What you are fighting against is called &quot;obviousness&quot;. Many patents are comprised of the combination of two or more different components. The patent examiner may indeed challenge the issuing of the patent citing the separate components by suggesting it would be obvious for someone skilled in the art to combine them. A persuasive argument around this is when the two components combined produce an *unexpected result*. For example, say chemical A can treat headaches with 1X effectiveness. Similarly chemical B can also treat headaches with 1X effectiveness. But if you combine them and get 5X effectiveness, you may be able to claim that the combination has a non-obvious synergistic effect. Even better is when the two components don't perform the same function. The combination would then be even more surprising to produce an improvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not be surprised if the patent examiner initially rejects your application, citing lack of novelty or obviousness. This seems to almost always happen on my patents. I think examiners do this as a matter of course. Most of the time, they are asking you to interpret cited prior art and to describe why your patent is different and patentable. I don't know of any &quot;less than 50-50 chance&quot; probability of success. Patentability really is based on the specific technology you are trying to patent and the related prior art. In my opinion a good patent attorney is important in this process. It would help if they have specific experience in the field." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18394" RevisionGUID="0d426845-02e9-46c9-8d0c-3a9516abda42" CreationDate="2017-09-26T13:16:04.167" UserId="1" Comment="Removed the annoying &quot;reask the question again&quot; habit from quora" Text="[US6128454][1] is a divisional patent from [US5903803][2]. Here is a quote from Wikipedia's article on [Divisional Patents][3] which explains their use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Divisional applications are generally used in cases where the parent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application may lack unity of invention; that is, the parent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application describes more than one invention and the applicant is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; required to split the parent into one or more divisional applications&#xD;&#xA;&gt; each claiming only a single invention. The ability to file divisional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applications in cases of lack of unity of invention is required by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Article 4G of the Paris Convention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you read them carefully you'll see there are differences in the claims. If you look into it, you'll also find that both patents share the same priority date so they will expire at the same time. Thus, the applicant did not gain an additional 5 years of patent protection. I believe at this time both patents have expired.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6128454A/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5903803A/en&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisional_patent_application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18389" RevisionGUID="bbe3fddd-276e-4732-8b0e-e0be4f8fcb94" CreationDate="2017-09-26T13:16:15.973" UserId="1" Comment="Removed the annoying &quot;reask the question again&quot; habit from quora" Text="You can always try to negotiate the terms of your contract. However, I doubt anyone would hire you on the basis of a paying you for your time and also getting a fraction of the patent earnings. The standard consulting agreement essentially says &quot;I hire you to do work and I own the work product&quot;. Normal design engineering and modeling of an idea brought to you wouldn't amount to the inventive step so you wouldn't be an inventor in any case. If you were to extend the idea in a way that becomes inventive, you would probably be added as an inventor on the patent application. Even then, the company who hired you would own the work product and would have no reason to cut you in on future earnings from the patent. It is possible some small companies might agree to pay you a royalty on earnings, but only on the basis of paying you less (or nothing) for your work up front." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49780" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18338" RevisionGUID="0603c4cc-1dd6-4c49-82dc-c37187dfd365" CreationDate="2017-09-26T13:16:42.480" UserId="1" Comment="No need to restate the question in the answer" Text="For the US equivalent patent application [US20090010907A1][1], the current status is: &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot; as of 03-07-2013. I found this information at the [US Public Pair][2] site. The European application equivalent is [EP1833966A2][3]. According to [Espacenet][4] that application's status is: &quot;DEEMED TO BE WITHDRAWN&quot; with an effective date of 2014/08/20.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20090010907A1/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP1833966A2&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=EP&amp;NR=1833966A2&amp;KC=A2&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=20070919&amp;DB=&amp;locale=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18337" RevisionGUID="7f50c22d-399b-405a-b3d5-cb9b0b359906" CreationDate="2017-09-26T13:16:53.003" UserId="1" Comment="No need to restate the question in the answer" Text="&#xD;&#xA;You can obtain a patent on an improvement to an existing technology. This is done all the time. One thing to remember, just because you may obtain a patent on your improvement, doesn't mean you avoid having to obtain a license from other patents already in force.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A common strategy is to file a patent application before approaching other companies about licensing opportunities. In the US there is something called a provisional patent application which is often used for this purpose. Patents themselves take significant time and money to obtain, but at least the application provides some protection from someone stealing your idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although it is possible to file for a patent application on your own, I highly recommend you work with a patent attorney or agent. A poorly constructed patent may provide little real protection. If you do some of the work up front, you can make the process of working with a patent lawyer more efficient. Please see [this answer][1] for some suggestions. The attorney may also be able to provide you with guidance about contacting the firm in the safest manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17010/any-other-patents-involving-baseball-caps-for-pigtails/17011#17011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18334" RevisionGUID="b1a2ab2e-916e-46be-8678-394edf6afd1b" CreationDate="2017-09-26T13:17:18.520" UserId="1" Comment="No need to restate the question in the answer" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you linked to is not a US patent. It is a patent application. It may never get to be a patent. You can use the [US Public Pair][1] site to determine the status of this application. At this point, the application is still not granted. The latest communications from the examiner is: &quot;Final Rejection Mailed&quot; on 07-10-2017. Final rejections aren't necessarily completely final, so there is likely still some ability to appeal or amend the claims. The links to the German and Chinese versions are likewise only applications at this point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then why did the US, Chinese, and German patent offices grant the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, you need to be aware that patent applications are published typically 18 months after filing. The fact that an application publishes does not indicate that it will ever be granted as a patent. Indeed, it is very likely even if the patent is granted, the claims will be narrowed. I will also say, that just because the inventor hasn't published does not mean he can't invent anything of value. Many inventors that work for commercial companies don't publish their work. Indeed publishing before filing for a patent can keep you from obtaining the patent. Also even if there is substantial prior art in a field, it doesn't mean new inventions are impossible. Even a subtle improvement on an existing technology can be granted a patent. I won't comment on the specific application you cited, but it helps to actually see the figures which your link doesn't provide. This [link to the application][2] does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160332236A1/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18321" RevisionGUID="3f2bc97b-26af-4c07-bfda-3bb5f8abd963" CreationDate="2017-09-26T13:17:29.790" UserId="1" Comment="No need to restate the question in the answer" Text="Almost anything that has been invented can be improved upon. In this case, Boeing is patenting a very specific design of raked wingtip which the the patent examiner found sufficiently novel to merit a patent. The examiner cited 9 previous patents in addition to two non-patent documents. Since this patent was issued it has subsequently been cited by 63 patents and applications which attempt to patent other improvements. As for your referencing the Taube, I would argue that despite the &quot;bird-like&quot; wing shape, it is unlikely to cancel out wingtip vortices which is the point of the Boeing patent. Also, it in no way teaches the technology demonstrated in this patent which applies to aircraft flying at or above Mach 0.7. However, Wikipedia has a nice article on [wingtip devices][1] which notes a patent from 1897 which is before the Wright Brothers first flew.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One note on patents that contain improvements on existing technologies. While the improvement may be protected, it doesn't guarantee freedom to operate from earlier patents. Thus, even if you improve upon an earlier device, you might need a license to use or sell your improvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingtip_device" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18286" RevisionGUID="68f4c227-39a4-4242-99c1-69c6fbda6f77" CreationDate="2017-09-26T13:18:30.337" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 51 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;www.google.com/patents is often unreliable for viewing patents. Better is [patents.google.com][1]. If you go to patents.google.com you can view the PDF file. Other sites you might try are [The Lens][3] or [Espacenet][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2722762A3/en&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/EP_2722762_A3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?ST=singleline&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;submitted=true&amp;DB=&amp;query=EP2722762A3&amp;Submit=Search" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18273" RevisionGUID="4d3e9484-58d0-4f12-a633-de4db018066e" CreationDate="2017-09-26T13:18:46.937" UserId="1" Comment="No need to restate the question in the answer" Text="What is patented is defined by the claims. In this case there is only one claim (below). One thing to remember about claims. Long complicated claims where there are a lot of specifics are usually narrow and thus easily circumvented. Short claims are generally broader. In this case, there is a very long claim with many specifics. I'm not sure why the examiner found this patent sufficiently novel, but I would say as an engineer, it should be trivial to engineer around this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An internal combustion engine to electric motor conversion kit system for supporting vehicle components in operative proximity to an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electric direct/alternating current motor and for powering such&#xD;&#xA;&gt; supported vehicle components from the electric direct/alternating&#xD;&#xA;&gt; current motor, the supporting and powering being done in a safe,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ecological, convenient and economical manner, the system comprising,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in combination: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a vehicle having a plurality of wheels and an operator&#xD;&#xA;&gt; controlled region,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  the electric direct/alternating current motor being&#xD;&#xA;&gt; within the vehicle, the electric direct/alternating current motor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; having a forward end and a rearward end and a cylindrical side wall,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the electric direct/alternating current motor having a central shaft,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the central shaft having a rearward section within the electric&#xD;&#xA;&gt; direct/alternating current motor and a forward section extending&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forward of the electric direct/alternating current motor, the central&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shaft being rotatable about a horizontal axis;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a support assembly for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; retaining the electric direct/alternating current motor in an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; operative position, the support assembly including a central motor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; support and side motor supports, the motor mounts, the motor mounts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coupling the central and side motor supports to the vehicle, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; support assembly also including two vertically extending lateral&#xD;&#xA;&gt; brackets coupling the side wall of the electric direct/alternating&#xD;&#xA;&gt; current motor to the central motor support; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a primary bracket formed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with a vertically oriented first section removably coupled to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forward end of the electric direct/alternating current motor, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; primary bracket formed with a vertically oriented second section&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rearwardly of and above the first section, the primary bracket formed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with a third section perpendicular to and joining the first and second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sections, an aperture in the first section in a key-hole shape for the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; passage of wires and the central shaft; vehicle components including&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at least one alternator and at least one air conditioning compressor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and at least one power steering pump, the vehicle components being&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rotatably coupled to the second section of the primary bracket;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a motion imparting assembly for driving the vehicle components, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; motion imparting assembly including at least one drive pulley secured&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to and rotatable with the central shaft, the motion imparting assembly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; also including at least one driven pulley on the at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; alternator, at least one driven pulley on the at least one air&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conditioning compressor, and at least one driven pulley on the at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least one power steering pump, the motion imparting assembly also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; including at least one idler pulley and at least one tensioning&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pulley, the motion imparting assembly also including at least one belt&#xD;&#xA;&gt; movable in a vertical plane and operatively coupling the at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; drive pulley and the at least one driven pulleys and the at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; idler and tensioning pulleys; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a supplemental bracket secured to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; second section of the primary bracket at an elevation above the third&#xD;&#xA;&gt; section, cable lines mounted on the supplemental bracket to increase&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and decrease the speed of the electric direct/alternating current&#xD;&#xA;&gt; motor and the vehicle; a radiator and a cooling fan, the radiator and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cooling fan being positioned forward of the electric&#xD;&#xA;&gt; direct/alternating current motor to facilitate cooling of the electric&#xD;&#xA;&gt; direct/alternating current motor and the vehicle components; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; battery pack and controller in the vehicle for powering and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; controlling the electric direct/alternating current motor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18248" RevisionGUID="6861f845-e56f-497f-9af7-6ffc418269b9" CreationDate="2017-09-26T13:18:59.377" UserId="1" Comment="No need to restate the question in the answer" Text="An excellent way to check the status of US patents is the [US Public Pair][1] site. In this case, the patent has been granted and all fees have been paid. Both the inventor and assignee is listed as Edward Negola. It is possible the assignee has changed. I would expect the patent to expire 20 years from its priority date in Oct 8, 2022. There is a divisional patent published as [US7335414B2][2] with the assignee as Aquadye Fibers, Inc. It shares the priority date with US6869679B1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7335417B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18246" RevisionGUID="b071ccdb-889e-4715-aef5-851e2af8f28a" CreationDate="2017-09-26T13:19:09.650" UserId="1" Comment="No need to restate the question in the answer" Text="The most obvious difference between USD779828 and US5531366 is the first is a design patent and the other is a utility patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Design patents only cover the ornamental design of a functional object, not function. Thus most design patents consist mainly of drawings and very little text. The claims usually just refer to the drawing. Something like &quot;1. The ornamental design for a container, as shown and described.&quot;. The original Coke bottle design patent [D48,160][1] is a classic example. This [Wikipedia article][2] may be helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Utility patents cover something inventive with utility. There is a need to be novel, useful and non-obvious. Utility patents are usually longer, have an abstract, a background section and detailed description about how to implement the invention. In particular the claims section of utility patents are usually quite detailed and specific in their description of what is patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interesting part of this question is whether US5531366 should have been considered prior art for USD779828. According to [Section 1504][3] of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, it sounds like it could have been considered as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Novelty and nonobviousness of a design claim must generally be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; determined by a search in the pertinent design classes. It is also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mandatory that the search be extended to the mechanical classes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; encompassing inventions of the same general type. Catalogs and trade&#xD;&#xA;&gt; journals as well as available foreign patent databases are also to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consulted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US5531366 is not cited in USD779828 so it is likely the examiner didn't consider it when granting the design patent. I agree with the questioner that the drawings in US5531366 are pretty similar to what is shown in USD779828 and probably should, at least, been considered by the examiner. I am not a lawyer so I cannot comment on whether or not USD779828 should have been allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD48160S/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1504.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18464" RevisionGUID="938f5923-27b9-40bd-b60d-3766c35280d5" CreationDate="2017-09-26T14:40:04.103" UserId="19468" Comment="design patents, multiple embodiments illustrated" Text="As a former patent attorney, I recall routinely including terminology referring to &quot;these and other embodiments of the disclosed invention...&quot; as a way to help a reader more clearly focus on the fact that only the *CLAIMS* in a patent have any legal weight. A potential infringer cannot avoid liability by simply implementing &quot;another embodiment&quot; of the claimed invention that happens to be different from any described in the specification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if it's a U.S.A. *design* patent, you can only claim one invention, same as with utility patents, but you might illustrate multiple embodiments in the figures for somewhat broader coverage for obvious variations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18468" RevisionGUID="f1bd8b5d-3b7e-496e-9228-c803937ec878" CreationDate="2017-09-26T14:58:16.297" UserId="19468" Text="Yes, in theory, the &quot;case&quot; having a new and non-obvious characteristic for handling magnetic fields may be patentable as an article of manufacture. A person attempting to obtain such a patent would first probably want to have someone carry out preliminary searching of existing patents or publications regarding similar devices.  From those results, one may more clearly estimate potential patentability of specific inventive elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, the simple packaging of multiple items would only be patentable if it somehow amounts to a new and non-obvious improvement to how that method or apparatus has been accomplished in the prior art for hundreds of years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49796" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="559aebc9-35b0-4100-9ada-4c6198daa9de" CreationDate="2017-09-26T17:44:40.473" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49798" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14635" RevisionGUID="83fe5544-73fe-4920-a4bf-460a5ffe8261" CreationDate="2017-09-26T21:47:10.313" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49799" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="04294cf1-00b3-4843-8537-6c4fb5261866" CreationDate="2017-09-26T22:47:32.887" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18471" RevisionGUID="754da140-378c-46ca-9a13-218026aadec3" CreationDate="2017-09-27T07:45:16.033" UserId="19842" Text="What happens if a patent for a specific biomarker (e.g. list of genes or genomic markers) was successfully filed, but later on discovered it was based on the wrong Science?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would that still preclude other people from filing that specific biomarker given new correct scientific evidence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49802" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18471" RevisionGUID="754da140-378c-46ca-9a13-218026aadec3" CreationDate="2017-09-27T07:45:16.033" UserId="19842" Text="what happens when a biomarker patent was filed based on wrong science?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49803" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18471" RevisionGUID="754da140-378c-46ca-9a13-218026aadec3" CreationDate="2017-09-27T07:45:16.033" UserId="19842" Text="&lt;science&gt;&lt;biomarker&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49812" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18155" RevisionGUID="855f7924-3c97-4ab0-a1d8-82da456cb41a" CreationDate="2017-09-27T13:56:17.497" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18474" RevisionGUID="1d77537e-aeb6-4d79-ada7-f4a9149b8ad3" CreationDate="2017-09-27T15:44:56.523" UserId="17003" Text="**Would that still preclude other people from filing that specific biomarker given new correct scientific evidence?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You haven't cited a specific patent so this will have to be a general answer. Also, I should point out that I'm not an attorney so this is just merely based upon the observations of an inventor. I've found that there seems to be no burden to prove that an invention works or that the science behind it is sound. Some might argue that if a worthless invention is granted, no one is harmed since no one would want to practice it. Your question is a bit different in that it implies that the use of the specific biomarker in the way patented actually works, but that the science presented in the specification is flawed. I don't think it matters that the scientific theory of operation is flawed if the patent has been granted. What matters is that the invention actually works and has value. After all, the inventor could have stated that the biomarker is indicative of medical condition &quot;A&quot; but we don't know why it works. Indeed, this might be helpful in the prosecution of the patent since it argues against obviousness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as far as I know, you can't just try to claim the same use in a new patent just because you now know why it works. Hopefully, your greater scientific insight will allow you to find different indications for the specific biomarker to patent. It is quite possible that there is patent case law I'm unaware of, so I would encourage an actual patent attorney to weigh in on this question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18475" RevisionGUID="dcd230be-75d0-401f-97d2-acdffaad4205" CreationDate="2017-09-27T20:58:46.323" UserId="16696" Text="If it has been granted it will say &quot;Grant&quot; in the &quot;Publication type&quot; heading.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applications that are subsequently granted will link to the grant document.  As an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Publication number:	[CA2128634 A1][1]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Publication type:	**Application**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Application number:	CA 2128634&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Publication date:	Dec 23, 1995&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Filing date:	Jul 22, 1994&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Priority date:	Jun 22, 1994&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Also published as:	CA2128634C, US5662332, USRE37957&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Publication number:	[CA2128634 C][2]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Publication type:	**Grant**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Application number:	CA 2128634&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Publication date:	Sep 27, 2005&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Filing date:	Jul 22, 1994&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Priority date:	Jun 22, 1994&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Also published as	CA2128634A1, US5662332, USRE37957&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The example you asked about is listed as an application, and the links to alternate publications are both also only applications  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To verify 100% you may want to check the official Patent Agency databases, such as [WIPO][3] or [USPTO][4].  *[Note that the USPTO database is notoriously difficult to navigate, so in some ways it may be less reliable from a result standpoint than Google Patents.]*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another method would be to do a followup search by inventor name to see if there is a grant for them on a similar invention (i.e. to eliminate the possibility of error based on lack of link to the grant in the application page.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/CA2128634A1?dq=magic%20the%20gathering&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/CA2128634C?dq=magic%20the%20gathering&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/search-patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49815" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14680" RevisionGUID="1c9161a1-e7e4-42b0-b6e4-94f33ac179d4" CreationDate="2017-09-27T21:13:18.373" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49816" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13731" RevisionGUID="2ed70d21-43b3-40a3-9747-0fc9cea1efc6" CreationDate="2017-09-28T00:19:37.867" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18477" RevisionGUID="9fab200e-424a-4bf7-9487-936e137c8431" CreationDate="2017-09-28T03:16:51.777" UserId="19847" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7743760][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7743760" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49823" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18477" RevisionGUID="9fab200e-424a-4bf7-9487-936e137c8431" CreationDate="2017-09-28T03:16:51.777" UserId="19847" Text="Is this patent up for purchase since it has expired, if so can I buy it and how?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49824" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18477" RevisionGUID="9fab200e-424a-4bf7-9487-936e137c8431" CreationDate="2017-09-28T03:16:51.777" UserId="19847" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18478" RevisionGUID="06cbf1c8-ed1b-4e62-b56b-52d3dc793502" CreationDate="2017-09-28T03:45:32.730" UserId="19848" Text="I recently found out my Great Grandfather was an inventor and could possibly have received a patent. I am looking for genealogical reasons. How can I find it? I would date back to the later part of the 19th century." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49826" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18478" RevisionGUID="06cbf1c8-ed1b-4e62-b56b-52d3dc793502" CreationDate="2017-09-28T03:45:32.730" UserId="19848" Text="Finding a Patent of My Great Grandfather" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49827" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18478" RevisionGUID="06cbf1c8-ed1b-4e62-b56b-52d3dc793502" CreationDate="2017-09-28T03:45:32.730" UserId="19848" Text="&lt;research&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18479" RevisionGUID="b25cf8eb-55c5-46db-a83b-e26c3bf50120" CreationDate="2017-09-28T05:38:37.533" UserId="17325" Text="One of the most old patent collections is that of Espacenet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/advancedSearch?locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just type the name of your grandfather.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can try the same search here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/structuredSearch.jsf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's a US patent, it should be there ;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18480" RevisionGUID="f17a671a-5091-49fb-b42b-6b5e0940657d" CreationDate="2017-09-28T06:31:50.810" UserId="19849" Text="First off sorry if this isn't the right place, I am new here. I took a job creating a computer program for a client. No formal contract was signed, though he did agree to pay me a flat rate. I gave him the completed program and then he asked me to sign a contract. I declined as there were a lot of unfair things in the contract, like having to do repairs for free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now he has told me that he has trade marked the name, and patented the program. He says that if I ever reuse any part he will sue me, and if he find any part of the program being given away or sold he will sue me. Is this possible? How can I tell if a patent is pending or has been filed? It seems unlikely to me as it's been less than a month since this transpired. I'm in Canada and the client is in the Republic of China. What do I need to ask him for to check, a patent number or something? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49830" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18480" RevisionGUID="f17a671a-5091-49fb-b42b-6b5e0940657d" CreationDate="2017-09-28T06:31:50.810" UserId="19849" Text="Someone stole my computer program and said he will patent it. How can I check if patent exists?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49831" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18480" RevisionGUID="f17a671a-5091-49fb-b42b-6b5e0940657d" CreationDate="2017-09-28T06:31:50.810" UserId="19849" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;legal&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18481" RevisionGUID="36436617-71c2-4353-8dd2-7fa1348eb9eb" CreationDate="2017-09-28T06:47:19.407" UserId="18033" Text="There are several resources for checking published patents and applications (espacenet, google patents, uspto, wipo, ...), the problem is that applications are published normally after 18 months. So you cannot find it yet, even if it was filed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, it has not been granted yet, so there are no patent rights (from this situation) impeding you from doing anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A trade mark for the name might be possible, there is a database somewhere, but I don't know enough about trademarks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But another thing is, there is no global patent or global trademark, so he would have to file in each country separately (the patent cooperation treaty allows doing that easier) and pay the fees in each region and get the patent granted in each region in which he wishes to have protection. &gt; Time + money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, in the USA at least, it's illegal to name the wrong inventor, so apart from your rights to the patent, if you can prove you're the inventor, that's another point against them. Canada probably has something similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in short: Theres nothing granted and nothing you can find, if you want to do something you would have to sue, however from Canada to China ... well .. not so easy. Check again in 18 months if you think he is not bluffing or ask for a copy of the application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18467" RevisionGUID="6df8d703-0b7e-4225-a3dd-18e8e01801ac" CreationDate="2017-09-28T08:09:42.103" UserId="19835" Comment="added 295 characters in body" Text="It does not appear so. The current status on PAIR indicates that it was abandoned whilst it was pending for failure to respond to an office action on 24th Feb 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: link to the US PTO Public Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) website is below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have attached a screenshot evidencing the current status.[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OdkCy.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18482" RevisionGUID="2dada04b-9ed3-4ee9-a4d2-614be59f770f" CreationDate="2017-09-28T08:54:54.267" UserId="19835" Text="Once a patent is expired, the claimed subject matter of the patent is considered to be in the public domain i.e. it is not owned by anybody, and anybody can use the technology without paying any assignment or licensing fee. So, in principal there is no need to buy an expired patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, although the status of US Patent 7743760 indicates that it has lapsed through failure to pay the maintenance fee due by 29th June 2014 (see link to the Maintenance Fees Portal at the USPTO below), you should be aware that a patent can be reinstated by the patent owner at any time, upon provision of a statement that the delay in paying the maintenance fee was unintentional, see 35 U.S.C. 41 (c) (1) [here][1], subject to the pre-existing intervening rights provision of 35 U.S.C. 41 (c) (2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://fees.uspto.gov/MaintenanceFees/fees/details?applicationNumber=11252300&amp;patentNumber=7743760&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to purchase expired patents, and that would occur in the same manner for an unexpired patent, namely contact the patent owner (in this case the first named inventor is a DENNIS R WOODLAND, and there is no evidence of an assignment of rights being recorded) or the recorded attorney who appears to be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;David K. Benson&#xD;&#xA;1712 E. Mallory St.&#xD;&#xA;Mesa, AZ 85203&#xD;&#xA;UNITED STATES&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and make them an offer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any event purchasing an expired patent has advantages as the owner can sue for past infringement that occurred before the patent expired (not more than 6 years from when a lawsuit is filed however).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e301581" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49839" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="ab428693-d72c-46e5-910c-50eb694d1750" CreationDate="2017-09-28T13:21:07.380" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49840" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="357e2abf-95cb-46a1-84ca-ab1d30c7518b" CreationDate="2017-09-28T14:21:09.410" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18484" RevisionGUID="4d83942b-07b0-4001-8beb-d80916ae4a0d" CreationDate="2017-09-28T15:43:35.473" UserId="17003" Text="It sounds like he is pulling a snow job on you. For one thing you can't patent a software program. What you might be able to patent is a specific algorithm as applied to a specific use. In that case, the patent would be defined by the claims and wouldn't cover every part of the program. In any case, as DonQuiKong stated, if there is an application for a patent, it won't publish for 18 months and the patent itself, should if ever be granted, probably won't grant for 3 years or more from the filing date. If a patent does issue, it can be enforced back to the filing date. I reiterate, for the patent to be valid in the US, you would need to be named as the inventor and since he can't prove you ceded your rights to you, it is pretty questionable that he would be able to win a lawsuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Computer programs are generally protected by copyright. Questions about copyright are not covered in this site so you might want to try the Law SE site. I am not a lawyer so please don't take this answer as legal advice. Indeed if you feel the program is valuable, you may want to consult with an attorney." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18486" RevisionGUID="fb64367f-286c-4c1d-8787-3c3c491929b8" CreationDate="2017-09-29T02:04:04.093" UserId="12203" Text="I'm working on app not similar to Uber, but one that also facilitates peer-to-peer economic activity. However, I recently came across [a patent filed by Uber][1], entitled &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;**Providing a summary or receipt for on-demand services through use of portable computing devices**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ABSTRACT** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A method for providing a service summary or receipt on a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computing device is provided. One or more processors determine&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information for a service rendered for a user. The information&#xD;&#xA;&gt; includes a cost for the service, a type of service performed, and a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; person who performed the service. A summary receipt panel is provided&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on a display of the computing device and includes the information for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the service rendered. The one or more processors provide, on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; summary receipt panel, a map that identifies a location relevant to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the service rendered and a feedback feature that enables the user to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rate the service received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm baffled that this could even be patented at all. Regardless, how can I ensure that the receipts in my app do not infringe on this [ridiculous] patent? Is it enough to not use a map in the receipt, or to not include the feedback widget, etc?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a more general note, and the title of this question - **is it at all possible to avoid software patent infringement? ** By now it would seem everything you can think of is patented.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132246" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49849" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18486" RevisionGUID="fb64367f-286c-4c1d-8787-3c3c491929b8" CreationDate="2017-09-29T02:04:04.093" UserId="12203" Text="Is it possible to write software that doesn't infringe on patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49850" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18486" RevisionGUID="fb64367f-286c-4c1d-8787-3c3c491929b8" CreationDate="2017-09-29T02:04:04.093" UserId="12203" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;business-methods&gt;&lt;uber&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18488" RevisionGUID="b721bc28-940d-43da-88e8-1f2f83de195e" CreationDate="2017-09-29T10:14:16.097" UserId="18033" Text="Thats not a patent, that's a patent application. Which means, it doesn't protect anything yet and might never. See [this question][1] for more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, the abstract and description of a patent can contain **anything**. The protection of a patent is defined by the claims. The independent claims of the patent application currently read as follows below, however they are subject to change (read: narrowing) during the prosecution, so this might not be the final form. It is normal to have very broad claims in the application - but those have not yet been found patentable by the patent office - I can go and claim the world, doesn't mean anyone will give it to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Independent claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. A method for providing a service summary or receipt on a computing device, the method being performed by one or more processors and comprising:&#xD;&#xA;determining information for a service rendered for a user, the information including a cost for the service, a type of service performed, and a person who performed the service;&#xD;&#xA;providing a summary receipt panel on a display of the computing device that includes the information for the service rendered;&#xD;&#xA;providing, on the summary receipt panel, a map that identifies a location relevant to the service rendered; and&#xD;&#xA;providing, on the summary receipt panel, a feedback feature that enables the user to rate the service received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Independent claim 8&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform steps comprising:&#xD;&#xA;determining information for a service rendered for a user, the information including a cost for the service, a type of service performed, and a person who performed the service;&#xD;&#xA;providing a summary receipt panel on a display of the computing device that includes the information for the service rendered;&#xD;&#xA;providing, on the summary receipt panel, a map that identifies a location relevant to the service rendered; and&#xD;&#xA;providing, on the summary receipt panel, a feedback feature that enables the user to rate the service received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Independent claim 15&#xD;&#xA;&gt;15. A mobile computing device comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a display;&#xD;&#xA;one or more memory resources; and&#xD;&#xA;one or more processors coupled to the display and the one or more memory resources, the one or more processors to:&#xD;&#xA;determine information for a service rendered for a user, the information including a cost for the service, a type of service performed, and a person who performed the service;&#xD;&#xA;provide a summary receipt panel on a display of the computing device that includes the information for the service rendered;&#xD;&#xA;provide, on the summary receipt panel, a map that identifies a location relevant to the service rendered; and&#xD;&#xA;provide, on the summary receipt panel, a feedback feature that enables the user to rate the service received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/17115/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18489" RevisionGUID="a190b74e-5c32-4050-a1ca-a17f524fe1a5" CreationDate="2017-09-29T15:30:27.197" UserId="19856" Text="For the patenting of one idea, found an existing granted patent which is slightly similar, though seems to not cover the entire idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One aspect though is not so clear whether it will be an issue or not. It has to do with a vague description in an independent claim, followed by two dependent claims with specific description. The structure is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. *(Independent claim)*: X uses a **plurality** of Y&#xD;&#xA; 2. *(Dependent claim)*: The method of claim 1, using **two** of Y&#xD;&#xA; 2. *(Dependent claim)*: The method of claim 1, using **three** of Y&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further claims do not have higher numbers for *&quot;plurality&quot;*. I am interested in larger &quot;pluralities&quot; and from the background description it does not seems evident that the authors had this specific approach in mind. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the concequences of this for my patentability? Could the effect of the limited specification of plurality (to 2-3 of Y) in the dependent claims be interpreted as the authors having it in mind, or would it not be patentable becuase the independent claim protects for this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49862" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18489" RevisionGUID="a190b74e-5c32-4050-a1ca-a17f524fe1a5" CreationDate="2017-09-29T15:30:27.197" UserId="19856" Text="Patentability due to conflicts between dependent and independent claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49863" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18489" RevisionGUID="a190b74e-5c32-4050-a1ca-a17f524fe1a5" CreationDate="2017-09-29T15:30:27.197" UserId="19856" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49864" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18300" RevisionGUID="c5602b63-0fd2-4a82-87cd-81c6df334135" CreationDate="2017-09-29T15:35:26.297" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18491" RevisionGUID="36f22bd9-da69-4421-b35b-debf096c98e6" CreationDate="2017-09-29T17:08:56.223" UserId="19859" Text="In reference to the patent: [US4034489][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4034489&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent abandoned?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49869" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18491" RevisionGUID="36f22bd9-da69-4421-b35b-debf096c98e6" CreationDate="2017-09-29T17:08:56.223" UserId="19859" Text="Heated Snow Shovel Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49870" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18491" RevisionGUID="36f22bd9-da69-4421-b35b-debf096c98e6" CreationDate="2017-09-29T17:08:56.223" UserId="19859" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18492" RevisionGUID="c1b16906-befd-4a7c-bff8-2d3ba8103e40" CreationDate="2017-09-29T19:49:30.730" UserId="17003" Text="**Is this patent abandoned?**&#xA;&#xA;Doesn't matter as it would have expired naturally in the early 1990's. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49873" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18032" RevisionGUID="f7f04129-a25a-48ed-a857-3979af5bd0bf" CreationDate="2017-09-29T20:35:33.510" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18492" RevisionGUID="39560adc-ebaa-4ba7-b88f-43977a14da0d" CreationDate="2017-09-29T20:40:51.910" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 31 characters in body" Text="Doesn't matter as it would have expired naturally in the early 1990's. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49879" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17720" RevisionGUID="15baa976-804e-4a78-86b2-66114b3f2d3f" CreationDate="2017-09-29T21:35:34.013" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49880" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="ff724a42-26c1-4f45-a025-89ea7fbccd62" CreationDate="2017-09-29T22:35:34.367" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5608" RevisionGUID="3c3f441a-3770-40ff-ba9d-e02c3b48d3df" CreationDate="2017-09-30T06:04:42.363" UserId="13706" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="If you are not going to pay to use a registered patent attorney or agent you have a few options. One is do it yourself. It will take much studying and isn't really reliable. You can join a local inventors club and get some advice from other inventors. To have a reasonable chance doing it yourself, you would need to make patent law and patent office procedures an all-consuming hobby. The book [Patent it Yourself][1] is a good start if you were going for a simple mechanical invention. Starting with a computer implemented invention is biting off a huge task with tons of pitfalls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The actual fees to the USPTO aren't too bad for a &quot;small entity&quot;  if you qualify as a &quot;micro entity&quot; you get 75% off most fees. That would make filing a regular non-provisional application about $370. If you go through the system **very** smoothly the next fee due will be the issue fee of about $400 for micro entities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [USPTO has started a pro bono program][2] in conjunction with bar associations around the country. It might be worth looking into that. I know the program is up and running in Minnesota and California.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://amzn.to/2yypLgv&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/proseprobono/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17485" RevisionGUID="b44dbac7-27eb-4593-89e6-982b1a9f770f" CreationDate="2017-09-30T06:07:30.477" UserId="13706" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="I am reading [*Patent It Yourself* (18th edition)][1]. In this, page 210 explains about advantages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;g. Advantages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Although it is optional, you may list the advantages of&#xD;&#xA;your invention in a narrative form. If you do so, make it&#xD;&#xA;the first paragraph in your Detailed Description section.&#xD;&#xA;Include this because it helps orient your readers to your&#xD;&#xA;subject matter, and helps sell the invention to the&#xD;&#xA;examiner or a judge who may rule on your patent. The&#xD;&#xA;advantages may also help distinguish your invention&#xD;&#xA;from a “judicial exception” that is not patentable.&#xD;&#xA;For example, if your invention does any of the&#xD;&#xA;following, explain in narrative form the shortcoming&#xD;&#xA;of the prior art and the advantage of your invention:&#xD;&#xA;improves another technology or technical field;&#xD;&#xA;improves the functioning of the computer itself; or&#xD;&#xA;includes a feature or function that is more than what&#xD;&#xA;is well-&#xD;&#xA;understood, routine, and conventional in the&#xD;&#xA;field. However, it’s important not to use language&#xD;&#xA;that a court may consider limiting; don’t use the&#xD;&#xA;words “invention” or “objects”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author says not to use words “invention” or “objects&quot;. But if I don’t use these words, how do I state the object of the current invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://amzn.to/2yypLgv" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18495" RevisionGUID="4ed7239b-ae90-4ee6-b949-4a88f530f59d" CreationDate="2017-09-30T08:02:41.167" UserId="19864" Text="I have designed a web and mobile application process that has 2 different functions and processes working on the same application.&#xD;&#xA;I have discovered through patent search that they both seem to be unique. &#xD;&#xA;I would like to protect both applications from being copied. &#xD;&#xA;They perform 2 separate tasks and functions but they both function off the same information required. &#xD;&#xA;I need to know if i should patent as one invention or should I patent separately?&#xD;&#xA;I also need to know that if I patent the whole application as one invention, someone can or will copy just one of the 2 functions as an application because i have combined the invention?    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49891" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18495" RevisionGUID="4ed7239b-ae90-4ee6-b949-4a88f530f59d" CreationDate="2017-09-30T08:02:41.167" UserId="19864" Text="Combining 2 inventions risk" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49892" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18495" RevisionGUID="4ed7239b-ae90-4ee6-b949-4a88f530f59d" CreationDate="2017-09-30T08:02:41.167" UserId="19864" Text="&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;data-processing-software&gt;&lt;functionality&gt;&lt;combination&gt;&lt;web&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18496" RevisionGUID="4bd1c04d-b496-49ab-9818-33545b779fd4" CreationDate="2017-09-30T09:37:14.970" UserId="15787" Text="I am familiar about the average time it take for a US patent to get published but in Japan's case, I'm not sure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it would be great if you can tell me average publishing and grant time for other major countries. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49894" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18496" RevisionGUID="4bd1c04d-b496-49ab-9818-33545b779fd4" CreationDate="2017-09-30T09:37:14.970" UserId="15787" Text="How long does it takes for a Japanese patent to get published?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49895" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18496" RevisionGUID="4bd1c04d-b496-49ab-9818-33545b779fd4" CreationDate="2017-09-30T09:37:14.970" UserId="15787" Text="&lt;intellectual-property&gt;&lt;country&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49896" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17881" RevisionGUID="87f3c2f3-7657-4d50-a5c3-8ed535f9b821" CreationDate="2017-09-30T10:37:55.883" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49898" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18294" RevisionGUID="e2e88190-3455-4ad0-9a42-948a941c82e4" CreationDate="2017-09-30T15:38:01.147" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49902" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="f36228e0-4694-4ba1-bda0-0a325f79d8e7" CreationDate="2017-09-30T16:38:03.420" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18498" RevisionGUID="622f9814-9368-4eeb-ad29-483766e71df2" CreationDate="2017-09-30T18:10:26.160" UserId="17003" Text="You can try to combine them into one patent but the patent authority may not allow you to. If you do, you should have separate claims covering each function. As long as there are separate claims, no one should be able to circumvent by just coping one function or the other. That said, the patent examiner very well might make you split up the two inventions into separate patents. This happened to me. I invented an algorithm for analyzing PCR reactions. The algorithm generated two separate values which provided different information about the reaction. We had claims for the use of value &quot;A&quot;, value &quot;B&quot; and the combination of &quot;A&quot; and &quot;B&quot;. The USPTO made us split this into three patents. The international patent was granted as written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also caution you that not finding your idea in patents doesn't mean there isn't other prior art. Especially with software, there are significant sources of non-patent literature any of which could impact patentability. Now, the patent examiner might not find it either, but that is a different issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49904" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="123fc1be-cbea-4f94-a9db-b4cd37fab17e" CreationDate="2017-09-30T19:38:05.577" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18498" RevisionGUID="6c3cb2ec-4636-46d1-be6a-6e4572393894" CreationDate="2017-09-30T19:41:33.670" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="You can try to combine them into one patent but the patent authority may not allow you to. If you do, you should have separate claims covering each function. As long as there are separate claims, no one should be able to circumvent by just copying one function or the other. That said, the patent examiner very well might make you split up the two inventions into separate patents. This happened to me. I invented an algorithm for analyzing PCR reactions. The algorithm generated two separate values which provided different information about the reaction. We had claims for the use of value &quot;A&quot;, value &quot;B&quot; and the combination of &quot;A&quot; and &quot;B&quot;. The USPTO made us split this into three patents. The international patent was granted as written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also caution you that not finding your idea in patents doesn't mean there isn't other prior art. Especially with software, there are significant sources of non-patent literature any of which could impact patentability. Now, the patent examiner might not find it either, but that is a different issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49918" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="7d64c1ec-9de4-49e0-92aa-9fe01284a305" CreationDate="2017-10-01T03:42:22.167" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49919" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12629" RevisionGUID="3990a97b-4f89-480f-b73a-76f4beee0229" CreationDate="2017-10-01T06:42:22.713" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18501" RevisionGUID="198c6dd5-bec7-47a0-9743-b99d3c7818ca" CreationDate="2017-10-01T14:24:22.460" UserId="17145" Text="#Most Likely will not hold up if ligated(challenge of claims)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most examiners have a hard time with software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Challenging patents is a function of cost to litigate. JP Morgan was strategic with this patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Why did they patent this?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; 1. They know that the probability of someone big enough to challenge&#xD;&#xA;    them, is few and far between,&#xD;&#xA; 2. sends a signal to  others&#xD;&#xA; -  the appearance that have the exclusive rights to do whatever they claim to do &#xD;&#xA; 3. and the ability to either sue others or be sued which will result in either clarification of patent claims or a settlement in their favor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*This is an investment vehicle. If the costs of getting the patent and maintaining it are less than everything I mentioned above, then it makes sense to arbitrary. 90% of the time is does.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# What can you do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Find prior art to invalidate competitors claims &#xD;&#xA; 2. Do not be dissuaded from inventing if you really think that they are patenting something so generic. &#xD;&#xA; - Eventually it will be challenged. There are very few novel patents whose claims are bulletproof, where everyone decides to license. Software is an entirely different animal&#xD;&#xA; 3. Get good legal counsel.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Hope for the future crackdown of non-specific claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18502" RevisionGUID="b72cf8ee-4e79-4b2c-ba3e-72294dcbf2a5" CreationDate="2017-10-01T15:05:37.377" UserId="17145" Text="# Question from&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [How can someone get a patent on a system of off-the-shelf components such as this patent utilizes][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/6324/how-can-someone-get-a-patent-on-a-system-of-off-the-shelf-components-such-as-thi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49923" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18502" RevisionGUID="b72cf8ee-4e79-4b2c-ba3e-72294dcbf2a5" CreationDate="2017-10-01T15:05:37.377" UserId="17145" Text="Why is ease or difficulty of implementation, in general, NOT relevant to patentablity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49924" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18502" RevisionGUID="b72cf8ee-4e79-4b2c-ba3e-72294dcbf2a5" CreationDate="2017-10-01T15:05:37.377" UserId="17145" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18492" RevisionGUID="6c017836-e026-4d24-9044-9888d958a4ff" CreationDate="2017-10-01T17:04:19.157" UserId="17003" Comment="added 160 characters in body" Text="It doesn't matter as it would have expired naturally in the early 1990's. Strangely enough this is the first US patent I've been unable to access in the [US Public Pair site][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18502" RevisionGUID="8c66d8b2-4f14-478a-819c-72d5ca030a7f" CreationDate="2017-10-01T17:21:31.943" UserId="17145" Comment="explanation, " Text="# Question from&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [How can someone get a patent on a system of off-the-shelf components such as this patent utilizes][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Hypothetical Example&#xD;&#xA;- If I were to take a **toothbrush**, which is normally used for brushing teeth, and **duct tape** which is used as [a strong, flexible, and very sticky tape...adhesive and resistance to weathering.][2] and decide to combine the two and create a surface mounted sundial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that patent-able? I understand it is highly dependent on system versus method, but both of those exist in the wild, but I do not see them used together as described in the process above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Process of whether to patent components together/combination (Correct if Wrong)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Is it novel?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - i.e., has the particular combination of components in your claimed invention been described, sold, or used before you filed your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Is it non-obvious from a legal perspective?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  -  i.e., would a person with normal skills in this particular field, knowing everything that has ever been done before in this field, have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a good reason for putting together the components to come up with your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claimed invention&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Is it useful?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Source: [Dan Homiller, patent attorney][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Argument&#xD;&#xA; If someone has a system or method claim on how to do something, which currently has not existed because of multitude of reasons, how is that not relevant to patentability?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/6324/how-can-someone-get-a-patent-on-a-system-of-off-the-shelf-components-such-as-thi&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duct_tape#Common_uses&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-apply-for-a-patent-that-uses-components-that-are-already-patented-I-wish-to-patent-a-system-which-involves-off-the-shelf-parts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18503" RevisionGUID="c00842a7-3ac1-473a-9e8f-487913a2c8c2" CreationDate="2017-10-01T19:07:00.273" UserId="17003" Text="**Why is ease or difficulty of implementation, in general, NOT relevant to patentablity?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think what Maca was getting at in his comment on the original linked question is that the fact that an invention is easy or hard to implement is not invalidating to its patentability. To illustrate lets consider a couple of hypothetical inventions. The transistor is one of the seminal inventions of the 20th century. Lets say someone invents a bacterial based transistor. Now it might be hideously difficult to execute, but it would be novel, non-obvious and probably useful. Thus it is and should be patentable. On the other hand we have graphene. A true wonder material. Lets say another person (I wish it were me) invents a new way of fabricating graphene which is faster and less costly than current methods. You might argue it is easier than the current approach but again, so long as it is novel, non-obvious and useful it is patentable. An invention does not have to be practical to be patented." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18504" RevisionGUID="e0fd00af-c208-4141-bc59-575ab4ab4d4b" CreationDate="2017-10-01T19:18:32.820" UserId="19872" Text="Please forgive the cross-post&#xD;&#xA;I'm considering making the work I've done on my experimental VTOL aircraft scale model prototype design public in return for sales of code predicting the performance of the novel means of propulsion in Python, CAD models, possible book royalties and speaking/lecture fees.&#xD;&#xA;I have estimated an idealized lift to weight ratio of 1.6:1 but I have not built and tested a scale model prototype.&#xD;&#xA;What are your thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49929" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18504" RevisionGUID="e0fd00af-c208-4141-bc59-575ab4ab4d4b" CreationDate="2017-10-01T19:18:32.820" UserId="19872" Text="Pros and Cons of going public with my invention rather than obtaining a patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49930" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18504" RevisionGUID="e0fd00af-c208-4141-bc59-575ab4ab4d4b" CreationDate="2017-10-01T19:18:32.820" UserId="19872" Text="&lt;public-disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18506" RevisionGUID="adc1eeeb-961a-4ba0-afef-02191f130e48" CreationDate="2017-10-01T23:47:18.503" UserId="17003" Text="To assess the pros and cons of going with &#xD;&#xA;a patent requires you to understand the economics of your market. I'm going to assume you are thinking people will want to build experimental VTOL aircraft. My guess is there are relatively few people that want to do the design work. For this reason, I doubt you can get much income from selling software. In addition, Python is an interpreted language so the software will be really hard to protect. If you are an academic, there can be significant career advantages to publications but otherwise, I doubt book sales would be extensive for the same reason as software sales. Airplane homebuilders might be interested, but probably more for predesigned kits or plans. Perhaps only large aerospace corporations will be interested. Corporations are potentially a significant source of licensing income, but only if you have a patent and probably patents in several countries. Now my assessment of the potential market is very likely ignorant or naive so you have to do your own. So here is my list of pros and cons for a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pros**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Allows for licensing opportunities to aerospace companies.&#xD;&#xA;  - Licensing can be exclusive or nonexclusive so there are various options for income.&#xD;&#xA; - Doesn't preclude any of the other options like software sales, book deals or speeches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cons**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Patents cost money, potentially many thousands of dollars.&#xD;&#xA; - You can't communicate anything publicly about your invention until applications are filed.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18507" RevisionGUID="c398c3d5-deba-4282-9e88-08f8631b15dd" CreationDate="2017-10-02T00:26:29.520" UserId="19874" Text="Can anyone point me to recent (post-*Alice*) successful examination responses to section 101 for computer implemented inventions (software patents). I am currently prosecuting a s101 objection for a computer implemented method and would be grateful if I could get some guidance based on some previous successful responses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49936" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18507" RevisionGUID="c398c3d5-deba-4282-9e88-08f8631b15dd" CreationDate="2017-10-02T00:26:29.520" UserId="19874" Text="Section 101 - Computer Implemented Invention" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49937" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18507" RevisionGUID="c398c3d5-deba-4282-9e88-08f8631b15dd" CreationDate="2017-10-02T00:26:29.520" UserId="19874" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;business-methods&gt;&lt;computer&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49939" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16606" RevisionGUID="e9dcf887-9995-4bb8-b13e-7f2ea9c72586" CreationDate="2017-10-02T01:52:11.720" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18508" RevisionGUID="4bbb3f7b-ec4f-470c-82c5-2877e6dda17f" CreationDate="2017-10-02T03:03:05.397" UserId="19849" Text="I'm new to patents and am a bit confused by the whole system. To my understanding a patent is applied at a federal level. Does this mean someone can go to France, see an invention that is patented their, find out how it works, and patent it in another country that doesn't have a patent for it yet? Do countries respect patents from other countries? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49941" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18508" RevisionGUID="4bbb3f7b-ec4f-470c-82c5-2877e6dda17f" CreationDate="2017-10-02T03:03:05.397" UserId="19849" Text="If each country is resonsible for its own patents, can an invention be copied from one country to another?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49942" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18508" RevisionGUID="4bbb3f7b-ec4f-470c-82c5-2877e6dda17f" CreationDate="2017-10-02T03:03:05.397" UserId="19849" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18509" RevisionGUID="2024066f-de20-45d0-ab8d-e5db1d3153d2" CreationDate="2017-10-02T03:30:43.773" UserId="15503" Text="No, for two reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, if you are copying someone else's invention, then you are not an inventor. Only the inventors (or people who have been assigned the rights by the original inventors) are allowed to validly apply for a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, an invention must be novel (among other things) in view of what's available across the world to receive a patent. But if you are copying something that already exists, then the invention would not be novel. Thus, if a product is available in one country, it cannot be patented anywhere in the world (excepting grace periods, which are a little outside the scope of the question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, as a minor historical note, in countries which derive their patent law from the UK, there used to be the concept of invention-by-importation. If you were the first to import a product, and the product was novel for that country, you could receive a patent for it. However, this sort of thing hasn't been available for very many decades." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49944" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="fd413bd4-f246-4069-97f7-0a7786849aa9" CreationDate="2017-10-02T04:55:30.567" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49945" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16569" RevisionGUID="a444d7fd-c1b3-4a8a-863a-032bc981748c" CreationDate="2017-10-02T11:57:55.093" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49946" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="45bd1bcd-9a60-4ac1-b315-1afce7ef2a3d" CreationDate="2017-10-02T12:57:51.217" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18496" RevisionGUID="ca1af7a8-359d-4148-bc37-40a21ef857a7" CreationDate="2017-10-02T13:08:45.020" UserId="15787" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="I am familiar about the average time a US patent takes to get published but in Japan's case, I'm not sure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it would be great if you can tell me average publishing and grant time for other major countries. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18510" RevisionGUID="6cbd5d57-c2a1-419a-82f1-94d9b4c6635e" CreationDate="2017-10-02T15:29:00.820" UserId="391" Text="I attended an IP CLE conference last week and the following cases were discussed in relation to Alice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - McRO, 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)&#xD;&#xA; - Amdocs, 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016)&#xD;&#xA; - Trading Technologies, Inc., CAFC Appeal No. 16-1616 (non-precedential opinion that describes how 101 applies to GUI's)&#xD;&#xA; - Thales Visonix, Inc., 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017)&#xD;&#xA; - Visual Memory LLC, CAFC Appeal No. 16-2254&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these cases appear to offer hope to overcoming Alice 101 rejections. A somewhat simple way of looking at this was related by a colleague at the conference: &quot;if the invention improves the computer itself, then it is patentable; if the invention improves how you use the computer, then you may have 101 problems.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49949" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17171" RevisionGUID="9ab2ca67-b657-4d82-b1fe-d6d6ca226f7c" CreationDate="2017-10-02T18:57:53.530" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49955" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16962" RevisionGUID="36476869-e5bb-4a06-805c-66cc996d1f7f" CreationDate="2017-10-02T21:03:09.553" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49956" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18185" RevisionGUID="eace6ba7-56fe-44e4-9788-353f3f35f04c" CreationDate="2017-10-02T22:03:08.833" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49957" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16450" RevisionGUID="cc2a03be-d92f-42fe-834e-faea57a88b68" CreationDate="2017-10-02T23:03:08.967" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49958" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16771" RevisionGUID="116828b7-e5d1-414a-80c0-495db8a3dd37" CreationDate="2017-10-03T00:03:08.947" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49959" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="193a33e4-8681-416c-a4f4-7e2539ed71ed" CreationDate="2017-10-03T01:03:08.980" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49961" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17909" RevisionGUID="76cebda0-df39-46ec-a9e0-25a8ca9b9b8c" CreationDate="2017-10-03T03:03:09.917" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49962" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16544" RevisionGUID="bd7cc2f2-36f4-42f5-b8fe-10713a22282c" CreationDate="2017-10-03T08:04:09.257" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49963" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="e446c6d1-2dc1-43f5-b85b-61e1272d0378" CreationDate="2017-10-03T10:04:05.490" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49964" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="12d996dc-838f-4e7e-ad0d-221cf51f28ff" CreationDate="2017-10-03T11:04:06.907" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49969" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16810" RevisionGUID="997a295a-ba77-4857-aaf4-49abd54cf21c" CreationDate="2017-10-03T14:04:05.953" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49970" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14883" RevisionGUID="da30fc6a-6446-4fda-80cb-b6c07dbcb170" CreationDate="2017-10-03T15:04:35.080" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18513" RevisionGUID="ac080091-fcf6-4563-a027-091313cfa0f4" CreationDate="2017-10-03T17:00:17.240" UserId="18769" Text="For 103/obviousness (but not obvious-type double patenting) reasons, does an application published by the same inventor/owner count as prior art against future applications of the inventor/owner based on **(a) the effective filing date** or **(b) publication date** of the earlier application?  Does it change from pre-AIA to post-AIA?  And are international applications treated differently?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if I file an application on Jan 1 2015 which publishes on Jul 1 2017, can the examiner cite that application against me in a 103 rejection on an application filed Aug 1 2017 (i.e. citing the earlier app's effective filing date of Jan 1 2015) or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on my interpretation of 35 USC 102, it seems that one's own prior applications are treated differently (count as prior art as of pub date) relative to others' prior-filed applications (count as prior art as of EFD)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49972" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18513" RevisionGUID="ac080091-fcf6-4563-a027-091313cfa0f4" CreationDate="2017-10-03T17:00:17.240" UserId="18769" Text="Does same owner's prior application count as of filing or publication date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49973" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18513" RevisionGUID="ac080091-fcf6-4563-a027-091313cfa0f4" CreationDate="2017-10-03T17:00:17.240" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18513" RevisionGUID="dd3c4d81-ebda-44d4-86cf-280e2c19b860" CreationDate="2017-10-03T17:19:41.767" UserId="18769" Comment="added 445 characters in body" Text="For 103/obviousness (but not obvious-type double patenting) reasons, does an application published by the same inventor/owner count as prior art against future applications of the inventor/owner based on **(a) the effective filing date** or **(b) publication date** of the earlier application?  Does it change from pre-AIA to post-AIA?  And are international applications treated differently?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if I file an application on Jan 1 2015 which publishes on Jul 1 2017, can the examiner cite that application against me in a 103 rejection on an application filed Aug 1 2017 (i.e. citing the earlier app's effective filing date of Jan 1 2015) or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on my interpretation of 35 USC 102, it seems that one's own prior applications are treated differently (count as prior art as of pub date) relative to others' prior-filed applications (count as prior art as of EFD).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In pre-AIA times, a [Patently-O article][1] makes the following statement (emphasis mine) in regards to CIP applications, which does not contradict my interpretation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus, for the claims with new matter *any patent issued or document published more than one-year before* the CIP filing date would count as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2012/09/continuations-in-part-and-priority-claims.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16812" RevisionGUID="0613b26f-acbf-4092-aa50-ed36ba8961a6" CreationDate="2017-10-03T20:24:08.817" UserId="18033" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="A patent is not a way to put some kind of copyright on your software. As far as I know, there is no reason to include that much code in &quot;any&quot; patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your question, you should not add new matter to the non-provisional if you already know that matter. If you add anything substantial, all claims relating to the new matter will have the new priority date. So if you add the main part of the description later, you could have filed later with almost the same effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Try getting a more abstract patent. If you need 3500 lines of code to describe what you are protecting, then taking your code and from there getting around your claims will be easier than reinventing what you wrote and getting around your claims from there. So basically, you would be hurting yourself with that application and it would have no value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh and do you really think any examiner will read and understand 3500 lines of code? Getting that patent would not involve much fun.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49976" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17751" RevisionGUID="73a4a690-986f-4137-bf83-8e6caf93fcb7" CreationDate="2017-10-03T22:05:17.527" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18513" RevisionGUID="e078c82e-fb5a-4b95-9062-8ae2dfd05f38" CreationDate="2017-10-04T00:25:47.490" UserId="18769" Comment="added 15 characters in body; edited tags" Text="For 103/obviousness (but not obvious-type double patenting) reasons, does an application published by the same inventor/owner count as prior art against future applications of the inventor/owner based on **(a) the effective filing date** or **(b) publication date** of the earlier application?  Does it change from pre-AIA to post-AIA?  And are international applications treated differently?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if I file an application on Jan 1 2015 which publishes on Jul 1 2017, can the examiner cite that application against me in a 103 rejection on an application filed Aug 1 2017 (i.e. citing the earlier app's effective filing date of Jan 1 2015) or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on my interpretation of 35 USC 102, it seems that one's own prior applications are treated differently (count as prior art as of pub date) relative to others' prior-filed applications (count as prior art as of EFD).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A pre-AIA [Patently-O article][1] makes the following statement (emphasis mine) in regards to CIP applications, which neither contradicts nor explicitly confirms my interpretation: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus, for the claims with new matter *any patent issued or document published more than one-year before* the CIP filing date would count as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2012/09/continuations-in-part-and-priority-claims.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49978" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18513" RevisionGUID="e078c82e-fb5a-4b95-9062-8ae2dfd05f38" CreationDate="2017-10-04T00:25:47.490" UserId="18769" Comment="added 15 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18514" RevisionGUID="3d3c8300-1bee-496d-8eba-92a457f35c6a" CreationDate="2017-10-04T02:30:23.000" UserId="19883" Text="If I prepare a provisional application for a, say, disk holder. The descriptions, drawings, etc. indicate a rack with 10 slots for disks. After receiving the pending patent status, can I add or substract slots in the patent app. which do not affect the concept of the invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49980" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18514" RevisionGUID="3d3c8300-1bee-496d-8eba-92a457f35c6a" CreationDate="2017-10-04T02:30:23.000" UserId="19883" Text="alteration of provisional patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49981" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18514" RevisionGUID="3d3c8300-1bee-496d-8eba-92a457f35c6a" CreationDate="2017-10-04T02:30:23.000" UserId="19883" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;alteration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49982" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17963" RevisionGUID="c7ba8e91-6b08-417f-8b21-7c9bd5a324ea" CreationDate="2017-10-04T07:10:59.610" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49983" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17916" RevisionGUID="827e6a15-f083-48f4-a6fe-d6b88fc8c07e" CreationDate="2017-10-04T09:10:59.303" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18515" RevisionGUID="92e0f915-8c97-4457-9dc3-3434642c1d9a" CreationDate="2017-10-04T11:49:29.363" UserId="19884" Text="Regarding U.S. Patent No. [9,501,456][1] granted Nov 22, 2016.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like auto-correct for XML to me. I am guessing this isn't new in any way. Is it really possible to patent a smaller domain application of a larger idea or concept?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any prior art for that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9501456" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49985" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18515" RevisionGUID="92e0f915-8c97-4457-9dc3-3434642c1d9a" CreationDate="2017-10-04T11:49:29.363" UserId="19884" Text="Did they patent Auto-Correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49986" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18515" RevisionGUID="92e0f915-8c97-4457-9dc3-3434642c1d9a" CreationDate="2017-10-04T11:49:29.363" UserId="19884" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18516" RevisionGUID="1a830dda-fe14-4a17-b992-538e366ee9ff" CreationDate="2017-10-04T17:00:40.787" UserId="16696" Text="Provisionals are not reviewed for grants, but merely establish an earlier priority date for the invention in regard to a subsequent nonprovisional application.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because the provisional is not reviewed in this manner, there is no back-and-forth with the examiner during which alternations can be made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You would have to file a subsequent provisional patent to introduce changes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be useful for additions, but you don't need to do so for subtractions, as you can simply omit the latter material in a subsequent nonprovisional application.&#xD;&#xA;____________________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;PS: What you're describing sounds more like a [design patent][1].  &quot;Provisional applications for patent may not be filed for design inventions.&quot; [See: [Provisional Application for Patent; Cautions\]][2]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/provisional-application-patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18517" RevisionGUID="51cc04dd-24fb-49f7-b98d-cea14db82b08" CreationDate="2017-10-04T17:37:47.160" UserId="16696" Text="As DonQuiKong notes, if there is no patent publication or the product is not publicly available with a &quot;patent pending&quot; notice, there is nothing stopping you from freely releasing the software.  However I would caution you that if the malefactor has financial resources, they could sue you regardless of the merit of the suit.  Baseless legal actions and suits are a pretty common strategy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What you should definitely do is keep records of the entire interaction, emails, source code, etc.**  Although this sounds like 'work for hire', and for that reason it's probably best to just walk away and take it as a learning experience, if a patent application did appear, you could look to provide the patent examiner with the evidence the thief is not the inventor, and throw a wrench in their scheme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As general advice, in future get a contract *before* you engage in work-for-hire, and also think about asking for 50% up front.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*PS&#xD;&#xA;If this software turns out to be lucrative enough that the IP thief becomes a target for well funded competitors, and the IP thief has a patent grant or patent pending that renders the processes proprietary, you could certainly provide your evidence to the competitors to use against the malefactor.*  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49989" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="56873472-518e-48b2-951e-36c0717682c0" CreationDate="2017-10-04T18:11:07.950" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18518" RevisionGUID="f95039fb-0f67-41ac-ae15-7101fd01eb49" CreationDate="2017-10-04T22:34:09.410" UserId="17003" Text="Assuming you are applying for a utility patent, then you shouldn't be limiting the claims to exactly one configuration. Instead of say 10 slots, the claim language should read something like &quot;a plurality of slots...&quot;. Its important when applying for a utility patent to very clearly understand what the actual invention is and to try to claim it as broadly as the patent office will allow. A qualified patent attorney or agent is extremely valuable in this regard." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49991" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="594fa472-b682-4aa6-986b-dd6a35bf6d5b" CreationDate="2017-10-05T00:13:00.207" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="49992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18519" RevisionGUID="0ac0abdd-e3d2-46e3-81c8-7e335fab7eca" CreationDate="2017-10-05T05:13:11.177" UserId="11717" Text="Beware that you may not have the legal standing to get either a copyright or a patent.&#xD;&#xA;For co pyright standing you need to check the correspondence that you did not agree to produce the programme under a hire contract. If you have done so the copyright is of the hirer. You have only the right to sue for the contract amount and damages.&#xD;&#xA;In a patent application the hirer may name you as the inventor but himself as the assignee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49993" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="18502" RevisionGUID="2d2e696e-1fc7-487d-a884-1574c612d0ba" CreationDate="2017-10-05T13:50:09.790" UserId="17145" Comment="38" />
  <row Id="49994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18520" RevisionGUID="72f56537-0fbb-4451-aafa-241264e578d8" CreationDate="2017-10-05T15:50:23.787" UserId="19890" Text="US6155695 specifies decorative lighting. Would a similar product that serves a clearly non-decorative purpose have any risk of infringing this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would a non-decorative version be patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49995" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18520" RevisionGUID="72f56537-0fbb-4451-aafa-241264e578d8" CreationDate="2017-10-05T15:50:23.787" UserId="19890" Text="Utility patent specifies decorative purpose" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49996" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18520" RevisionGUID="72f56537-0fbb-4451-aafa-241264e578d8" CreationDate="2017-10-05T15:50:23.787" UserId="19890" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18521" RevisionGUID="41476903-88f2-4f07-8d60-bbf0618c1e3d" CreationDate="2017-10-05T16:02:56.173" UserId="19891" Text="The non-obviousness requirement of 35 U.S.C. 103 states that a patent may not be obtained if it contains only obvious differences from prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A is known prior art.   &#xD;&#xA; - B is known prior art.   &#xD;&#xA; - An inventor has an 'invention' that improves A by using B in conjunction with A to extend the usefulness of A.  The inventor files a utility patent application that claims an improved version of A based on the use of B with A to improve A.  The inventor is the first to file a patent application with such a claim, and there are no known examples of prior art indicating that anyone else had conceived or practiced such an 'invention' prior to the filing of the application - even though A and B have both been known for several years.&#xD;&#xA; - To someone familiar with A but not familiar with B, it would not be obvious that A could be improved by using B with A.   &#xD;&#xA; - However, to someone familiar with both A and B, it would be obvious that A could be improved by using B with A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the above, would you expect the USPTO to deem that the non-obviousness requirement has been satisfied? Or, would you expect the USPTO to reject the application based on failure to meet the non-obviousness requirement?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49998" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18521" RevisionGUID="41476903-88f2-4f07-8d60-bbf0618c1e3d" CreationDate="2017-10-05T16:02:56.173" UserId="19891" Text="Question about the Non-obviousness Requirement of 35 U.S.C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49999" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18521" RevisionGUID="41476903-88f2-4f07-8d60-bbf0618c1e3d" CreationDate="2017-10-05T16:02:56.173" UserId="19891" Text="&lt;non-obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18522" RevisionGUID="a9818cd1-4f19-408b-b981-c6356ac09e98" CreationDate="2017-10-05T16:42:22.583" UserId="19892" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8565243][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8565243&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.swirlds.com/ip/ they are using gossip protocol in 3 patents without mention of this patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50001" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18522" RevisionGUID="a9818cd1-4f19-408b-b981-c6356ac09e98" CreationDate="2017-10-05T16:42:22.583" UserId="19892" Text="does this patent have to mentioned in" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50002" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18522" RevisionGUID="a9818cd1-4f19-408b-b981-c6356ac09e98" CreationDate="2017-10-05T16:42:22.583" UserId="19892" Text="&lt;us8565243&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18523" RevisionGUID="caf6c6b1-4b8c-46d9-af30-b78ffb836114" CreationDate="2017-10-05T17:46:55.383" UserId="19893" Text="Example&#xA;[![Patent][1]][1]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oeAzh.jpg&#xA;&#xA;You see how the **United States** Has a (19) in brackets. What do that mean? I see on othet patents the United States patent is also (19) and inventor is also matched up with (76) or (75) and invention titles bracket with (54). Do this has a special meaning? I just want to know ever inch of patents &amp; there meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50004" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18523" RevisionGUID="caf6c6b1-4b8c-46d9-af30-b78ffb836114" CreationDate="2017-10-05T17:46:55.383" UserId="19893" Text="What are the bracket numbers in a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50005" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18523" RevisionGUID="caf6c6b1-4b8c-46d9-af30-b78ffb836114" CreationDate="2017-10-05T17:46:55.383" UserId="19893" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18524" RevisionGUID="be48b780-fdf8-4faf-bac5-616af8ac0305" CreationDate="2017-10-05T18:30:29.620" UserId="17003" Text="To infringe on a patent, you need to implement every part of at least one claim. In the cited patent here is the first claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. In combination, a decorative light and a light cover placed thereover, said combination comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a light bulb having a filament&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for producing light of a first color; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a light bulb base connected to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said light bulb for supporting said bulb; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  at least one conductor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; communicating with said filament for providing a source of power&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thereto; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a flexible light cover of a desired color placed over&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said light bulb, said light cover having a continuous side wall in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; frictional contact with said light bulb, and extending over said light&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bulb, and an integral cap attached to said continuous side wall, said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; light cover causing said light of a first color to be changed in color&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to a second different color;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   a receptacle having an opening for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving said light bulb base; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  at least one insulated wire&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electrically connected to said receptacle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would guess that non-decorative applications would be clear of this claim, but there are quite a few steps listed and avoiding any of them would likewise avoid infringement. Of course, you need to consider the other claims particularly 5 and 6 which are the other independent claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for whether a non decorative use would be patentable, it really depends on two questions. Is the new application novel and is it non-obvious. To be novel, you have to have some inventive step. In my mind just taking an existing patent and removing the word &quot;decorative&quot; would not sufficiently novel. You could also be blocked from patenting on the grounds of obviousness. This means would someone skilled in the field find the new application obvious to implement given the prior art. I am not a patent lawyer, but my guess is that obtaining such a patent would be unlikely. Also, you need to evaluate whether there are other related patents and prior art to consider." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18520" RevisionGUID="c08b7aa8-4aa4-4ad0-ac92-72c8f5fbc83c" CreationDate="2017-10-05T18:31:08.657" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to the patent for everyone's convenience" Text="[US6155695][1] specifies decorative lighting. Would a similar product that serves a clearly non-decorative purpose have any risk of infringing this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would a non-decorative version be patentable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6155695A/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18525" RevisionGUID="4292bbf2-2f49-4cb6-afb2-d68ed48ca26e" CreationDate="2017-10-05T18:42:58.040" UserId="17003" Text="It isn't at all clear that the Swirds patents are related to US8565243. It is true that in one of the examples the word &quot;Gossip&quot; is included, but you would have to carefully examine whether the actual patented technology was related to US8565243. I'm not an expert in this field so I'll have to defer on that evaluation. However, this is one of those cases where the possible prior art to a US patent is another US patent. My experience is that the USPTO is pretty good about finding prior art within their own records. I'd have to surmise that the patent examiner decided that US8565243 is not prior art to Swirds' patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, the assignee for US8565243 is Red Hat which is a substantial organization. I would assume they would demand a license if they thought that Swirds was infringing on their IP." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18515" RevisionGUID="c503e603-1cfd-40f7-a41a-56fb5015c3a3" CreationDate="2017-10-05T18:45:35.340" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed link to patent with one that shows the figures." Text="Regarding U.S. Patent No. [9,501,456][1] granted Nov 22, 2016.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like auto-correct for XML to me. I am guessing this isn't new in any way. Is it really possible to patent a smaller domain application of a larger idea or concept?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any prior art for that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9501456B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18526" RevisionGUID="d8315c78-90a1-4ceb-8e7b-ea739b8f970b" CreationDate="2017-10-05T19:02:53.903" UserId="17003" Text="It would seem that the patent is for a very specific implementation of automatic correction for XML documents. Here is the first claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  in a computing system having at least a processor, a memory and a display unit, detecting a location causing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an error in a markup language document; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  displaying the location and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the error in the markup language document on the display unit;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  analyzing the error in the markup language document and underlying&#xD;&#xA;&gt; causes of the error in the markup language document; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  computing a set&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of possible actions to remedy the error in the markup language&#xD;&#xA;&gt; document; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  displaying information about the error in the markup&#xD;&#xA;&gt; language document and its underlying causes on the display unit;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  displaying the set of possible actions to remedy the error in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; markup language document on the display unit; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  receiving a user input&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selecting one of the possible actions to remedy the error in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; markup language document; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and replacing the location causing the error&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the markup language document with the selected one of the possible&#xD;&#xA;&gt; actions to remedy the error in the markup language document, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  wherein&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the information about the error in the markup language document and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; its underlying causes comprises: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a link to the error in the working&#xD;&#xA;&gt; XML file; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a link to the corresponding definition(s) in an associated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; schema file; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and links to relevant information in an applicable W3C&#xD;&#xA;&gt; specification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To infringe on this patent, you have to implement each and every step of this claim. I don't think they are claiming auto correction in general and a peek at the [cited documents][1] shows 24 patents and applications including ones from Intel, IBM, Microsoft, Xerox, Samsung and Philips. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a patent attorney and I haven't studied the patent wrapper or cited patents, but I will say that US9501456 seems pretty straightforward to me and I'm not sure where the novelty is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9501456B2/en#patentCitations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18527" RevisionGUID="706940f3-73f8-4435-9260-30bd2cf3084a" CreationDate="2017-10-05T19:15:27.767" UserId="17003" Text="Obviousness is a tricky concept with respect to patentability. In my experience it is a common reason for rejection. The threshold I see generally applied is would someone with [&quot;ordinary skill in the art&quot;][1] find the combination of the two ideas obvious to implement. Since you state: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, to someone familiar with both A and B, it would be obvious&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that A could be improved by using B with A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that statement, I would say that the application would be rejected. You can attempt to persuade the examiner that the combination would not be obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art. My experience is that the argument &quot;Hey, no one else thought of it so it must be non-obvious&quot; won't fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_having_ordinary_skill_in_the_art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18528" RevisionGUID="50dd9833-307b-4b65-ae2a-08da773e5c97" CreationDate="2017-10-05T19:35:05.523" UserId="15503" Text="These are INID numbers, which most countries use to identify the nature of each field in a patent publication. These are defined in [WIPO standard ST.9](http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/standards/en/pdf/03-09-01.pdf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, 19 refers to the identifier of the office publishing the document." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50013" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14767" RevisionGUID="0928515c-d44c-457b-941c-77e30afefbb3" CreationDate="2017-10-05T21:17:18.790" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50014" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17769" RevisionGUID="d2b11ae0-c02e-465b-850d-c630147f21d4" CreationDate="2017-10-05T22:17:19.240" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50015" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17768" RevisionGUID="d3a47cfd-8589-4a2c-aac6-7e0943bb8409" CreationDate="2017-10-05T23:17:18.867" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18529" RevisionGUID="7d3d6255-5d30-4cb4-8c3a-929d3d32b90c" CreationDate="2017-10-06T01:49:40.413" UserId="19894" Text="In general, the end result of creative effort determines whether or not a patent is granted. Not the simplicity or complexity of the creativity that goes into the effort. There's a quote in Wikipedia under Inventive Step and Non-Obviousness that attempts to account for this &quot;The non-obviousness bar, hence, is a measure of what we, as a society, accept as a valuable discovery.&quot; - [Mojibi, A. (2010). &quot;AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF KSR V. TELEFLEX ON THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT's PATENT VALIDITY JURISPRUDENCE &quot; Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology 20(3): 559-596]. Citation copied from source. Substituting parts to achieve a result that is not new is not enough to meet the minimum bar for a patent although the combination in the above example is quite unique. On the other hand, if by change the above combination resulted in a &quot;valuable discovery&quot;, then congratulations. Chances are good that a patent would be granted even though it is a simple combination of parts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18531" RevisionGUID="dc013d5e-c12f-4690-94ef-b63160bfd024" CreationDate="2017-10-06T06:40:09.750" UserId="19771" Text="How to get past the big boys? If you have a good idea, there's bound to be somebody already cashing in and telling others that they got this one in the bag. But if you step back and take it all in, there's really nothing stopping someone else from cutting a slice of the pie. IBM had the computer industry in the palm of there hands. But that didn't stop the likes of Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. Hard to believe that &quot;giving a kid a break&quot; could result in billionaires. But they were smart kids. And they didn't let the patent world get in the way of making there idea a reality." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50021" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="10066" RevisionGUID="7cc5175e-4a05-4322-a62d-0a78ea1a8308" CreationDate="2017-10-06T07:19:02.993" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="50022" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="4234068d-9b59-4f4c-8877-c3dee18a0bd7" CreationDate="2017-10-06T09:18:28.433" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18532" RevisionGUID="69aef5e9-17a9-4df5-9c01-4571863339c5" CreationDate="2017-10-06T14:21:02.350" UserId="19899" Text="I am looking to manufacture and sell a &quot;cocktail shaker set&quot;  I've found a few patents that might prevent that, but I have no idea how patents work nor do I know if so.ething this broad can be patented?  There may be more, but here are some that I'm worried about...&#xD;&#xA;1. USD483982 S1 (https://www.google.com/patents/USD483982)&#xD;&#xA;2. US6913165B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6913165B2/en?q=Cocktail+shaker)&#xD;&#xA;3. US20040066705A1 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20040066705A1/en?q=Cocktail+shaker)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help would be very much appreciated!!!&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50024" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18532" RevisionGUID="69aef5e9-17a9-4df5-9c01-4571863339c5" CreationDate="2017-10-06T14:21:02.350" UserId="19899" Text="Please help with patent question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50025" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18532" RevisionGUID="69aef5e9-17a9-4df5-9c01-4571863339c5" CreationDate="2017-10-06T14:21:02.350" UserId="19899" Text="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;illegal&gt;&lt;patented&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18532" RevisionGUID="404d6f50-eb8b-4954-8325-e8764c25e0cd" CreationDate="2017-10-06T14:39:57.423" UserId="17003" Comment="Added links to patents for convenience" Text="I am looking to manufacture and sell a &quot;cocktail shaker set&quot;  I've found a few patents that might prevent that, but I have no idea how patents work nor do I know if so.ething this broad can be patented?  There may be more, but here are some that I'm worried about...&#xD;&#xA;1. [USD483982 S1][1] &#xD;&#xA;2. [US6913165B2][2] &#xD;&#xA;3. [US20040066705A1][3] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help would be very much appreciated!!!&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD483982&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6913165B2/en?q=Cocktail%20shaker&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20040066705A1/en?q=Cocktail%20shaker" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50030" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="0afade0b-97f6-4f1e-935f-7bb2415928c2" CreationDate="2017-10-06T15:19:23.133" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50032" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18532" RevisionGUID="c4e4f964-49de-4e81-aa3a-489cee9bf518" CreationDate="2017-10-06T16:53:18.987" UserId="16696" Comment="Amended the title to reflect the actual question, and replaced the tags" Text="How can I tell if my product would infringe on a previous design patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50033" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18532" RevisionGUID="c4e4f964-49de-4e81-aa3a-489cee9bf518" CreationDate="2017-10-06T16:53:18.987" UserId="16696" Comment="Amended the title to reflect the actual question, and replaced the tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18534" RevisionGUID="151b3b57-b0a1-4151-9838-760e32667900" CreationDate="2017-10-06T17:18:40.833" UserId="17003" Text="USD483982 is a design patent. Design patents cover the ornamental design of functional objects. Basically the shape of the object. For design patents granted before May 13, 2015, the term of the patent expires 14 years from the grant date. Thus, I believe that patent expired on April 15 of 2017. US6913165B2 is the granted patent associated with the patent application US20050066705. You only need to concern yourself with the granted patent. US6913165B2 is a utility patent. It will expire 20 years from its priority date of October 7, 2007. To understand what it covers, you need to read the claims. Claim 1 is the only independent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A cocktail shaker far mixing drinks comprising &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (1) a shaker top consisting of &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   a. a dome portion, said dome portion having an opening&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at one end for pouring mixed drinks from said shaker, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  b. a separate cylindrical portion secured to said dome portion remote from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said one end opening, said cylindrical portion having &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (i) a stepped&#xD;&#xA;&gt; portion for receiving said dome portion thereover and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (ii) a channel&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on the periphery of said cylindrical portion; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (2) a container for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving drink materials for mixing, said container consisting of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spaced apart insulating wails, and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  b. a smooth circumferential lip&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bridging and securing said walls together; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (3) a sealing gasket&#xD;&#xA;&gt; seated in said peripheral channel, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  said sealing gasket having flexible&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ribs extending from said channel adaptable to removably seal said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cylindrical portion within said container when said top is installed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; within said container.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To infringe on this patent, you need to implement each and every step described in this claim. You need to be aware that other patents may exist. A good first step to finding them would be to read the [cited patents to US6914165B2][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6913165B2/en#patentCitations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18535" RevisionGUID="6f61a4a6-594e-4a42-80fc-1bf885691f59" CreationDate="2017-10-06T17:59:40.620" UserId="19901" Text="https://www.google.lk/patents/WO2000073955A9?dq=ininventor:%22Michael+F.+Guheen%22&amp;cl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I happened on this and started wondering why this guy doesn't own half the Internet because shopping carts are pretty ubiquitous.  What does the patent give this person here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Methods, concepts and technology for a virtual shopping system capable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; of assessing needs of a customer and recommending a product or service&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; based on such assessed needs   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; WO 2000073955 A9  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ABSTRACT  translated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; from French The present invention relates to a system for performing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; virtual business transactions after identifying the needs of the user.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Firstly, the system assesses the needs of a user. It then generates,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; based on the user's needs, a solution, which is displayed. Payment is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; then accepted in exchange for the solution. It should be noted that in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; the present specification of the invention, the solution is, but not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; limited to, a product or a service." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50036" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18535" RevisionGUID="6f61a4a6-594e-4a42-80fc-1bf885691f59" CreationDate="2017-10-06T17:59:40.620" UserId="19901" Text="If someone owns a patent, does this mean they some sort of rights from places that use their invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50037" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18535" RevisionGUID="6f61a4a6-594e-4a42-80fc-1bf885691f59" CreationDate="2017-10-06T17:59:40.620" UserId="19901" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50038" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18335" RevisionGUID="8f953136-7aaf-4da7-a2f2-af8ae0e29ec9" CreationDate="2017-10-06T23:20:55.673" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50043" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="f3bbf891-fb20-4715-a7b5-b58172a63e06" CreationDate="2017-10-07T05:24:06.167" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18536" RevisionGUID="46aab6c7-418a-4954-9b59-34f6900833a5" CreationDate="2017-10-07T10:46:11.490" UserId="19902" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20150162784][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20150162784" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50045" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18536" RevisionGUID="46aab6c7-418a-4954-9b59-34f6900833a5" CreationDate="2017-10-07T10:46:11.490" UserId="19902" Text="What is this patent US20150162784 all about? and how is it relevant in other countries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50046" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18536" RevisionGUID="46aab6c7-418a-4954-9b59-34f6900833a5" CreationDate="2017-10-07T10:46:11.490" UserId="19902" Text="&lt;us20150162784&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50047" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15983" RevisionGUID="d4ce4866-9795-42e6-b53a-f2fc2ab0c3d1" CreationDate="2017-10-07T12:26:14.137" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18537" RevisionGUID="5634c284-afc4-4216-8092-98d47218c29d" CreationDate="2017-10-07T14:11:33.570" UserId="17003" Text="The document you linked to is a patent application. The issued patent corresponding to that application is [US9566867B2][1]. Essentially, what this patent seems to be about is using plugged in electric car batteries to provide power energy storage to the electric grid. It is a US patent only. I looked on [Espacenet][2] and didn't find any equivalent patents in other countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9566867B2/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?CC=US&amp;NR=9566867B2&amp;KC=B2&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=20170214&amp;DB=&amp;locale=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18537" RevisionGUID="dca8f9e7-6247-4ac4-9845-58dbb00d30eb" CreationDate="2017-10-07T15:02:04.490" UserId="17003" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="The document you linked to is a patent application. The issued patent corresponding to that application is [US9566867B2][1]. Essentially, what this patent seems to be about is using plugged in electric car batteries to provide power energy storage to the electric grid. It is a US patent only so it only imparts protection in the US. I looked on [Espacenet][2] and didn't find any equivalent patents in other countries. It would, however represent prior art in other countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9566867B2/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?CC=US&amp;NR=9566867B2&amp;KC=B2&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=20170214&amp;DB=&amp;locale=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18538" RevisionGUID="5d035e61-1600-418a-ab28-26e19aec9959" CreationDate="2017-10-07T16:48:03.780" UserId="19893" Text="This is a kind of random question but are patents once there granted required to scanned and put online to allow people to check for past art? Or do companies like Google pay to have this done?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50051" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18538" RevisionGUID="5d035e61-1600-418a-ab28-26e19aec9959" CreationDate="2017-10-07T16:48:03.780" UserId="19893" Text="Are patents required to be put online?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50052" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18538" RevisionGUID="5d035e61-1600-418a-ab28-26e19aec9959" CreationDate="2017-10-07T16:48:03.780" UserId="19893" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50053" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="95910d4f-6795-44ab-bcd4-a68ee1763e00" CreationDate="2017-10-07T17:34:10.007" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18539" RevisionGUID="dfc1ed24-77bf-44fd-a49f-f6889f06669f" CreationDate="2017-10-07T18:22:10.077" UserId="17003" Text="Patent authorities such as the USPTO publish applications 18 months after filing and patents upon grant. You can access patent documents directly from the various patent authorities. Websites such as [Google Patent][1] and [The Lens][2] generally make it a bit easier to access these publications. I don't know if they pay for access, but I doubt it as the information is public and The Lens in particular is non-profit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50055" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16103" RevisionGUID="3ed82a06-8991-44a5-86cb-a3cfd7a7b77e" CreationDate="2017-10-07T19:43:54.303" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50056" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17310" RevisionGUID="905f8663-9547-4bab-b8be-c3c0ab6be48a" CreationDate="2017-10-07T20:43:54.050" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18540" RevisionGUID="3adfaf93-b225-4ff7-ae93-b3a2ac27778c" CreationDate="2017-10-08T08:04:48.417" UserId="19906" Text="In reference to the patent: [US6910697][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6910697 is the patent US 6,910,697 B2 still valid and in force? Also I noticed it was first submited in 2000 and approved in 2005.This is 2017 And i have thought of this idea since 1999 didn't know it had been patented. Can I, go ahead and get a patent for it, if it is no longer in use" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50059" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18540" RevisionGUID="3adfaf93-b225-4ff7-ae93-b3a2ac27778c" CreationDate="2017-10-08T08:04:48.417" UserId="19906" Text="Is this patent US 6,910,697 still valid and in force" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50060" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18540" RevisionGUID="3adfaf93-b225-4ff7-ae93-b3a2ac27778c" CreationDate="2017-10-08T08:04:48.417" UserId="19906" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18541" RevisionGUID="9b6cde49-3744-47a5-b523-3fa2bbda0663" CreationDate="2017-10-08T15:43:32.000" UserId="17003" Text="US6910697 is still active and will continue to be until December 15th of 2020. It really doesn't matter when you think you thought of this idea first, someone else procured the patent before you did. When this patent does expire, you can not just get your own patent for the same idea. The whole idea behind patents is that in exchange for teaching the world how to use your invention, you get a limited term of exclusivity. **After the patent expires, anyone can utilize the technology**. You many be able to get a patent on an improvement to the technology in this patent. However, you need to be aware that there may be other patents that are relevant. One good way to start looking into this is the [patent citations][1] link and the [referenced by][2] link of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6910697#backward-citations&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6910697#forward-citations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50065" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17587" RevisionGUID="8f208f75-251d-4a47-8f2d-552a4190b4da" CreationDate="2017-10-08T16:51:07.013" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50067" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18211" RevisionGUID="d5c17c53-5cfe-4e1e-ada3-e3537677c8b0" CreationDate="2017-10-08T18:51:14.280" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18541" RevisionGUID="79a1ebb6-af01-458e-be0d-055a48aace77" CreationDate="2017-10-08T19:51:57.293" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="US6910697 is still active and will continue to be until December 15th of 2020. It really doesn't matter if you think you thought of this idea first, someone else procured the patent before you did. When this patent does expire, you can not just get your own patent for the same idea. The whole idea behind patents is that in exchange for teaching the world how to use your invention, you get a limited term of exclusivity. **After the patent expires, anyone can utilize the technology**. You many be able to get a patent on an improvement to the technology in this patent. However, you need to be aware that there may be other patents that are relevant. One good way to start looking into this is the [patent citations][1] link and the [referenced by][2] link of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6910697#backward-citations&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6910697#forward-citations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50080" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="efba9e1d-abb4-41c8-acbc-c47fd4219e9c" CreationDate="2017-10-09T17:06:22.997" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18547" RevisionGUID="6069483d-f3eb-426e-bf86-5b213abe97de" CreationDate="2017-10-09T21:45:34.697" UserId="19915" Text="Our idea achieving same results and it's basically the same thing, but it's &#xD;&#xA;slightly different system used and the way is installed. &#xD;&#xA;On the top of that, I see other companies doing same thing, how can I check if they pay some kind of royalties to the owner of the patents, or they just do something slightly different?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50091" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18547" RevisionGUID="6069483d-f3eb-426e-bf86-5b213abe97de" CreationDate="2017-10-09T21:45:34.697" UserId="19915" Text="Product is made in Europe, can I sell it in US where similar patents already exist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50092" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18547" RevisionGUID="6069483d-f3eb-426e-bf86-5b213abe97de" CreationDate="2017-10-09T21:45:34.697" UserId="19915" Text="&lt;usa&gt;&lt;sell&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18548" RevisionGUID="73dff792-2741-46c8-802d-f814ae29b95b" CreationDate="2017-10-09T23:37:01.230" UserId="17003" Text="If you sell a product in the US and infringe on a US patent, you indeed may be sued by the patent's owner. It doesn't matter where the product is manufactured. That said, you have to carefully read the specific patent's claims to know whether or not your product infringes. A patent attorney is your best bet to do a &quot;freedom to operate&quot; analysis. As for whether some company is paying royalties on a patent, I doubt there is a way of figuring that out unless the company itself makes the information public. However, I could be wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50101" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18220" RevisionGUID="5b6763a7-5677-4171-b058-86bf476a83c1" CreationDate="2017-10-10T03:06:32.193" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50102" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="1200611f-df66-47bf-b047-fcb2a18410b2" CreationDate="2017-10-10T04:06:32.940" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18550" RevisionGUID="14f783d5-01dd-441c-b47d-a0e285a7c53b" CreationDate="2017-10-10T04:10:10.647" UserId="19920" Text="HELLO I AM TRYING TO FIND OUT IF THIS PATENT IS UPDATED AND PAID ITS FEES OR ABANDONED.  CAN SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME OUT WHERE WOULD I FIND OUT IF ITS OK OR NOT TO TRY TO PATENT SOMETHING LIKE THIS OR SIMILAR OR NO QUESTION YOU CANNOT PATENT ANYTHING SIMILAR TO THIS IDEA. US20120324755 A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50104" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18550" RevisionGUID="14f783d5-01dd-441c-b47d-a0e285a7c53b" CreationDate="2017-10-10T04:10:10.647" UserId="19920" Text="TRYING TO FIND OUT IF A PATENT IS CURRENTLY VALID OR ACTIVE OR PAID ITS FEES" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50105" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18550" RevisionGUID="14f783d5-01dd-441c-b47d-a0e285a7c53b" CreationDate="2017-10-10T04:10:10.647" UserId="19920" Text="&lt;us20120324755&gt;&lt;a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18540" RevisionGUID="3d114437-f2c1-4b4a-af1c-d4df94b144d9" CreationDate="2017-10-10T06:59:04.200" UserId="397" Comment="Fix link and grammar" Text="In reference to the patent: [US6910697](https://www.google.com/patents/US6910697). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the patent US 6,910,697 B2 still valid and in force? Also I noticed it was first submitted in 2000 and approved in 2005. This is 2017. And I have thought of this idea since 1999, though I didn't know it had been patented. Can I go ahead and get a patent for it, if it is no longer in use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50107" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18540" RevisionGUID="3d114437-f2c1-4b4a-af1c-d4df94b144d9" CreationDate="2017-10-10T06:59:04.200" Comment="Proposed by 397 approved by 18033, 17325 edit id of 2044" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50108" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="7c8da202-f5b1-428c-b6ba-604c0d4c67db" CreationDate="2017-10-10T08:06:40.360" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18551" RevisionGUID="e82c2696-4f00-4e74-9832-197723e4e543" CreationDate="2017-10-10T09:29:01.327" UserId="19898" Text="Last Event were	PG-Pub Issue Notification and Notice of Publication on December 27, 2012. So it's even not a patent, just pending application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18552" RevisionGUID="f245650a-cfd5-4879-ac48-4952697672bf" CreationDate="2017-10-10T13:37:54.740" UserId="19921" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20160152452][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20160152452&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the samples of the pulleys which are done much earlier than the patent application. This is the concept of the simplest block. The application here is a commonly known and used system to create the pulley with rope and spacer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0qHFbAYifE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br2P2QB2ihQ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV01_KK8jz4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50111" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18552" RevisionGUID="f245650a-cfd5-4879-ac48-4952697672bf" CreationDate="2017-10-10T13:37:54.740" UserId="19921" Text="Commonly known simplest pulley concept earlier than the apllication" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50112" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18552" RevisionGUID="f245650a-cfd5-4879-ac48-4952697672bf" CreationDate="2017-10-10T13:37:54.740" UserId="19921" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50113" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17614" RevisionGUID="6e37eaa5-49cc-46da-93c0-197043f62c3c" CreationDate="2017-10-10T14:08:24.760" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18553" RevisionGUID="e3717c29-08e2-42bb-a8da-ac9267b72f92" CreationDate="2017-10-10T14:38:40.010" UserId="17003" Text="Before I answer, please understand that writing in all caps is the internet equivalent of shouting at the top of your lungs. It is hard to read and makes people think you are rude.  That said, if you look at [Google Patent's][1] view you see the application is listed as &quot;Abandoned&quot;. The definitive check for US patents and applications is the [US Public Pair][2] site. You need to get by a CAPTCHA and, select Publication Number and enter 20120324755. Here you will find all sorts of information about the application. The current status is indeed &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot; as of 02-04-2015. I don't know whether or not it is possible to recover the application, but I doubt this application will ever be granted as a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your second question about patenting something similar, it is hard to definitively answer. You can't patent the same idea since this application is still considered prior art. It may be possible to patent something similar so long as there is some new inventive aspect. The cited application received a non-final rejection, so it would be very helpful for you to review the documents on the US Public Pair to see what the patent examiner communicated in the rejection. It could lead you to other relevant patents and prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120324755A1/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18552" RevisionGUID="fbb60b55-a252-446c-8c5a-2ab6748c8cb6" CreationDate="2017-10-10T14:41:10.213" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed link to application with one that shows images." Text="In reference to the patent: [US20160152452][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160152452A1/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the samples of the pulleys which are done much earlier than the patent application. This is the concept of the simplest block. The application here is a commonly known and used system to create the pulley with rope and spacer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0qHFbAYifE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br2P2QB2ihQ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV01_KK8jz4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18557" RevisionGUID="c94bb948-95b1-4828-8ce2-cdcc8bd3aa19" CreationDate="2017-10-10T20:42:20.000" UserId="18033" Text="There are a few aspects to the non-oviousness (US) / inventive step (EU) requirement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're asking why the difficulty of implementation is not relevant to patentability. I take it that your question is about the difficulty of inventing the invention (the invention that is to be patented), not about actually implementing it afterwards. However, the premise is not exactly correct. First, we should clearly parse between theory and (case) law. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory, non-obviousness and inventive step are the burden of not only providing a new combination of known objects/steps/whatever, but doing so in an inventive manner. That means, that a person skilled in the field(s) of the invention would not reach this invention if confronted with the problem, without acting &quot;inventive&quot;. In other words, a person merely using the known skills and products would not **necessarily** arrive at the invention. The necessarily is important, because it doesn't matter if the person skilled in the art could arrive at the solution, but rather if they would.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the person skilled in the art would not necessarily find the solution, it is considered inventive. The [wikipedia page][1] (section &quot;rationale&quot; and &quot;Controversies and alternatives&quot;) provides some theoretical discussion and research for the question if that's enough, however it seems to be a little anti-patent-system, so I wouldn't say it's completly unbiased.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the EU patent law, this has led to the problem solution approach, which I cite from the same wikipedia page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Problem-solution approach&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Examining Divisions, the Opposition Divisions, and the Boards of Appeal of the EPO almost always apply the &quot;problem-solution approach&quot; in order to assess and decide whether an invention involves an inventive step. The approach consists in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - identifying the closest prior art, the most relevant prior art, or at least a realistic starting point;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - determining the objective technical problem, that is, determining, in the view of the closest prior art, the technical problem which the claimed invention addresses and successfully solves; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - examining whether or not the claimed solution to the objective technical problem is obvious for the skilled person in view of the state of the art in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This last step is conducted according to the &quot;could-would approach&quot;. Pursuant to this approach, the question to address in order to assess whether the invention involves an inventive step is the following (the question is the climax of the problem-solution approach):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is there any teaching in the prior art, as a whole, that would, not simply could, have prompted the skilled person, faced with the objective technical problem formulated when considering the technical features not disclosed by the closest prior art, to modify or adapt said closest prior art while taking account of that teaching [the teaching of the prior art, not just the teaching of the closest prior art], thereby arriving at something falling within the terms of the claims, and thus achieving what the invention achieves?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If the skilled person would have been prompted to modify the closest prior art in such a way as to arrive at something falling within the terms of the claims, then the invention does not involve an inventive step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The point is not whether the skilled person could have arrived at the invention by adapting or modifying the closest prior art, but whether he would have done so because the prior art incited him to do so in the hope of solving the objective technical problem or in expectation of some improvement or advantage. This must have been the case for the skilled person before the filing or priority date valid for the claim under examination.&#xD;&#xA;Problem inventions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;The discovery of an unrecognised problem may in certain circumstances give rise to patentable subject-matter in spite of the fact that the claimed solution is retrospectively trivial and in itself obvious.&quot; However, &quot;[t]he appreciation of a technical problem could thus only contribute to the inventive step in very exceptional circumstances.&quot;[19]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For a discussion of the inventive step test for &quot;software patents&quot; and &quot;computer-implemented inventions&quot; under the EPO case law, see also &quot;Inventive step test&quot; section in Software patents under the EPC.&#xD;&#xA;Combination inventions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Since most inventions comprise a combination of know features, European Patent Convention establishes specials rules regarding the inventive step requirement for such combinations. Briefly, in such cases involving &quot;any combination of features having known advantages (and disadvantages) is obvious unless it provides an unexpected effect.&quot;[2] For example, &quot;in the absence of any unexpected effect, the mere substitution of an element by another known for its relevant properties to provide that known effect could not be regarded as patentable.&quot; http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2013/e/clr_i_d_9_6.htm &quot;It was said to be obvious to try to solve the individual problems as long as the corresponding solutions were &quot;merely aggregated together&quot; in the claim.&quot;http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2013/e/clr_i_d_9_7.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The quote provides some more readings, especially to the question of what is considered inventive for combinations of known stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other [secondary indicators for inventivess][2], namely&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Predictable disadvantage; non‑functional modification; arbitrary choice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Unexpected technical effect; bonus effect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Long‑felt need; commercial success.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the &quot;difficulty&quot; is part of the inventive step. Or rather, it comes down to a binary decision - was something &quot;easy&quot;, meaning someone skilled in the art would have had to find it if prompted with the objective technical problem, or was it &quot;difficult&quot;, meaning the person skilled in the art would have to invent a solution and might arrive at a different one or not at all? If I tell you to turn the screwdriver to get the screw into the wall, without telling you in which direction, it's still obvious that it's either right or left, so you have to come to the conclusion that it's right after trying left. However, if I gave you a Hammer and you invented the nail, that wasn't obvious, because you could have used it to bash in my head, to pick your teeth or anything. (Bad example, I know, but I'm trying to brake it down).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the US, let's say, they have some problems with defining their non-obviousness. If you read the rest of the wikipedia article, at the moment they combine something close to the EU definition with a question of combining elements in a predictable manner which yields obviousness. So without knowing the problem, if your solution could have been predicted to yield the result it did by knowing the prior art, it is obvious (very short, not complete explanation). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Citing wikipedia as to what is obvious in the US:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  3. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  4. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  5. &quot;Obvious to try&quot; – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  6. Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  7. Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But still, *and I think this might be the answer to your question, but the rest was necessary for explaining anyways*, if you combine something and the result is unexpected (meaning the prior art doesn't hint that the result would be as it is) and it wasn't the obvious thing to try, it does not matter how easy it is to try. Selecting, even by luck, a good solution from an infinite number of possible solutions is, per definition, inventive. Either in the EU (secondary indicators cited above) or the US (one of the 7 points in the wikipedia page). This is the difference between an [ex post facto][3] and an ex ante analysis. It's a nice little latin phrase, but it just means that an invention, to be obvious, has to be obvious *before* knowing it. If I'm standing on a big Island and ask a hundred persons to dig for a gold treasure and one of them finds it, ex post it's obvious where it was - where he digged, but ex ante it was almost impossible to find and if the person that did thought of something the others didn't and saw some kind of different grwoing grass patern and therefore found the treasure, that was inventive (well, another bad example, but I think it makes my point).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary however, there is no one &quot;obviousness&quot; or &quot;inventiveness&quot;. They definition is subject to change with every case that is decided and from patent examiner to patent examiner. It's not a line, it's a big grey region. Which explains why some patents are granted, that never should have been and maybe later revoked. or why the supreme court seems to change the definition every other decade. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a lot more of literature around this topic and *a lot* of case law. If your interested, follow the links behind the links I provided and you'll find some of it. It's not possible to give a complete analysis of inventiveness, but I think a good summary would be to say that an invention should be conceivable only by doing something which not everyone would do that way. In practice, sometimes examiners rely too much on prior art to prove non-obviousness, because they have to establish a case with what they have and cannot just say &quot;ah but that's obviously obvious&quot;. But that's, especially in the US, a bug in the implementation which is beeing fixed bit by bit as you can see from the recent and not so recent supreme court decisions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_vii_10.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_vii_8.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50129" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="18502" RevisionGUID="98d108cc-15a7-4d34-98f6-28a8aec7eabb" CreationDate="2017-10-11T00:49:09.870" UserId="17145" Comment="38" />
  <row Id="50131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18557" RevisionGUID="9140503d-e893-4c7a-98f5-a3e3ac4ccca4" CreationDate="2017-10-11T05:32:26.903" UserId="18033" Comment="edited body" Text="There are a few aspects to the non-oviousness (US) / inventive step (EU) requirement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're asking why the difficulty of implementation is not relevant to patentability. I take it that your question is about the difficulty of inventing the invention (the invention that is to be patented), not about actually implementing it afterwards. However, the premise is not exactly correct. First, we should clearly parse between theory and (case) law. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory, non-obviousness and inventive step are the burden of not only providing a new combination of known objects/steps/whatever, but doing so in an inventive manner. That means, that a person skilled in the field(s) of the invention would not reach this invention if confronted with the problem, without acting &quot;inventive&quot;. In other words, a person merely using the known skills and products would not **necessarily** arrive at the invention. The necessarily is important, because it doesn't matter if the person skilled in the art could arrive at the solution, but rather if they would.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the person skilled in the art would not necessarily find the solution, it is considered inventive. The [wikipedia page][1] (section &quot;rationale&quot; and &quot;Controversies and alternatives&quot;) provides some theoretical discussion and research for the question if that's enough, however it seems to be a little anti-patent-system, so I wouldn't say it's completly unbiased.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the EU patent law, this has led to the problem solution approach, which I cite from the same wikipedia page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Problem-solution approach&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Examining Divisions, the Opposition Divisions, and the Boards of Appeal of the EPO almost always apply the &quot;problem-solution approach&quot; in order to assess and decide whether an invention involves an inventive step. The approach consists in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - identifying the closest prior art, the most relevant prior art, or at least a realistic starting point;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - determining the objective technical problem, that is, determining, in the view of the closest prior art, the technical problem which the claimed invention addresses and successfully solves; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - examining whether or not the claimed solution to the objective technical problem is obvious for the skilled person in view of the state of the art in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This last step is conducted according to the &quot;could-would approach&quot;. Pursuant to this approach, the question to address in order to assess whether the invention involves an inventive step is the following (the question is the climax of the problem-solution approach):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is there any teaching in the prior art, as a whole, that would, not simply could, have prompted the skilled person, faced with the objective technical problem formulated when considering the technical features not disclosed by the closest prior art, to modify or adapt said closest prior art while taking account of that teaching [the teaching of the prior art, not just the teaching of the closest prior art], thereby arriving at something falling within the terms of the claims, and thus achieving what the invention achieves?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If the skilled person would have been prompted to modify the closest prior art in such a way as to arrive at something falling within the terms of the claims, then the invention does not involve an inventive step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The point is not whether the skilled person could have arrived at the invention by adapting or modifying the closest prior art, but whether he would have done so because the prior art incited him to do so in the hope of solving the objective technical problem or in expectation of some improvement or advantage. This must have been the case for the skilled person before the filing or priority date valid for the claim under examination.&#xD;&#xA;Problem inventions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;The discovery of an unrecognised problem may in certain circumstances give rise to patentable subject-matter in spite of the fact that the claimed solution is retrospectively trivial and in itself obvious.&quot; However, &quot;[t]he appreciation of a technical problem could thus only contribute to the inventive step in very exceptional circumstances.&quot;[19]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For a discussion of the inventive step test for &quot;software patents&quot; and &quot;computer-implemented inventions&quot; under the EPO case law, see also &quot;Inventive step test&quot; section in Software patents under the EPC.&#xD;&#xA;Combination inventions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Since most inventions comprise a combination of know features, European Patent Convention establishes specials rules regarding the inventive step requirement for such combinations. Briefly, in such cases involving &quot;any combination of features having known advantages (and disadvantages) is obvious unless it provides an unexpected effect.&quot;[2] For example, &quot;in the absence of any unexpected effect, the mere substitution of an element by another known for its relevant properties to provide that known effect could not be regarded as patentable.&quot; http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2013/e/clr_i_d_9_6.htm &quot;It was said to be obvious to try to solve the individual problems as long as the corresponding solutions were &quot;merely aggregated together&quot; in the claim.&quot;http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2013/e/clr_i_d_9_7.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The quote provides some more readings, especially to the question of what is considered inventive for combinations of known stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other [secondary indicators for inventivess][2], namely&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Predictable disadvantage; non‑functional modification; arbitrary choice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Unexpected technical effect; bonus effect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Long‑felt need; commercial success.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the &quot;difficulty&quot; is part of the inventive step. Or rather, it comes down to a binary decision - was something &quot;easy&quot;, meaning someone skilled in the art would have had to find it if prompted with the objective technical problem, or was it &quot;difficult&quot;, meaning the person skilled in the art would have to invent a solution and might arrive at a different one or not at all? If I tell you to turn the screwdriver to get the screw into the wall, without telling you in which direction, it's still obvious that it's either right or left, so you have to come to the conclusion that it's right after trying left. However, if I gave you a Hammer and you invented the nail, that wasn't obvious, because you could have used it to bash in my head, to pick your teeth or anything. (Bad example, I know, but I'm trying to brake it down).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the US, let's say, they have some problems with defining their non-obviousness. If you read the rest of the wikipedia article, at the moment they combine something close to the EU definition with a question of combining elements in a predictable manner which yields obviousness. So without knowing the problem, if your solution could have been predicted to yield the result it did by knowing the prior art, it is obvious (very short, not complete explanation). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Citing wikipedia as to what is obvious in the US:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  3. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  4. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  5. &quot;Obvious to try&quot; – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  6. Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  7. Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But still, *and I think this might be the answer to your question, but the rest was necessary for explaining anyways*, if you combine something and the result is unexpected (meaning the prior art doesn't hint that the result would be as it is) and it wasn't the obvious thing to try, it does not matter how easy it is to try. Selecting, even by luck, a good solution from an infinite number of possible solutions is, per definition, inventive. Either in the EU (secondary indicators cited above) or the US (one of the 7 points in the wikipedia page). This is the difference between an [ex post facto][3] and an ex ante analysis. It's a nice little latin phrase, but it just means that an invention, to be obvious, has to be obvious *before* knowing it. If I'm standing on a big Island and ask a hundred persons to dig for a gold treasure and one of them finds it, ex post it's obvious where it was - where he digged, but ex ante it was almost impossible to find and if the person that did thought of something the others didn't and saw some kind of different growing grass patern and therefore found the treasure, that was inventive (well, another bad example, but I think it makes my point).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary however, there is no one &quot;obviousness&quot; or &quot;inventiveness&quot;. They definition is subject to change with every case that is decided and from patent examiner to patent examiner. It's not a line, it's a big grey region. Which explains why some patents are granted, that never should have been and maybe later revoked. or why the supreme court seems to change the definition every other decade. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a lot more of literature around this topic and *a lot* of case law. If your interested, follow the links behind the links I provided and you'll find some of it. It's not possible to give a complete analysis of inventiveness, but I think a good summary would be to say that an invention should be conceivable only by doing something which not everyone would do that way. In practice, sometimes examiners rely too much on prior art to prove non-obviousness, because they have to establish a case with what they have and cannot just say &quot;ah but that's obviously obvious&quot;. But that's, especially in the US, a bug in the implementation which is beeing fixed bit by bit as you can see from the recent and not so recent supreme court decisions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_vii_10.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_vii_8.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18558" RevisionGUID="65214b5b-52a5-466f-b67f-e2d2427f38b3" CreationDate="2017-10-11T15:41:08.497" UserId="17003" Text="The short answer is no it shouldn't be possible to get a patent on something that is already in use. In fact pulley's have been in use since more like [1500BC][1]. So it doesn't seem likely that [US20160152452][2] is actually trying to patent a simple pulley. What is actually patented is defined by the claims. To infringe on a claim, you need to implement each and every aspect of the claim. You have to look at those and not simply focus on the title or abstract. Also, **claims in applications are almost always broader than what actually gets allowed**. Here is the first claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A pulley comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a monobloc sheave comprising two opposing longitudinal faces, a transverse central recess and a concave external&#xD;&#xA;&gt; surface forming an annular groove which is provided in order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; redirect a rope, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  the central recess and the concave external surface&#xD;&#xA;&gt; being fixed relative to each other, a fixing rope of the sheave which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; extends through the central recess of the sheave,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  the fixing rope&#xD;&#xA;&gt; being in direct contact with the central recess, a spacer element&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which is arranged in order to space the fixing rope away from the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; longitudinal faces of the sheave.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I expect this claim will not get allowed as written because it doesn't specify clearly the design, but I could be wrong. I'd need to read the rest of the patent to clearly understand how some of the terms are defined. What I believe this patent is getting at is a specific design of the monobloc sheave in order to reduce friction without the cost of ball bearings. So the real question is whether the actual design of the pulley as defined by the eventual claims in a granted patent (and it may not be) are anticipated by prior art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you believe you have prior art to this application, you can submit it to the USPTO. This is called a [Third Party Preissuance Submission][3]. Here is another [link][4] that describes the process. It looks like there is a $180 fee for submitting up to 10 items of prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Pulley&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160152452A1/en&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/third-party-preissuance-submissions&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.klemchuk.com/339-preissuance-patent-submissions-a-new-way-to-participate-in-patent-prosecution/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50133" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18552" RevisionGUID="2fb0a880-d2a7-459f-a43e-f5a525428eae" CreationDate="2017-10-11T15:41:48.880" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed spelling in title" Text="Commonly known simplest pulley concept earlier than the aplication" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50134" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17944" RevisionGUID="7ad5b191-3b27-4bd6-b2ed-2a6f8d608480" CreationDate="2017-10-11T17:21:48.940" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50135" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17945" RevisionGUID="d3a61773-930e-4171-b2ee-bbcdcf6e41ca" CreationDate="2017-10-11T18:21:46.797" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18559" RevisionGUID="4832d76d-eb72-4560-b60a-e67c784b87ed" CreationDate="2017-10-11T21:46:14.527" UserId="13775" Text="You are looking for a &quot;freedom to operate&quot; opinion.  Few lawyers will issue those anymore because of the malpractice risk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll want to (a) identify the countries where you will sell the product; (b) disclose the product features (and preferably provide a specimen) to a lawyer in each country; and (c) have that lawyer confirm that there are no issued patents still in force that cover the product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your link was google.kr, so I'm assuming you accessed from Korea.  If you plan to sell the shoes only in Korea, US patents don't matter (unless they get exported to the US).  But Korean patents will matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hate to give the very expensive &quot;see a lawyer&quot; advice, but see a lawyer.  As one of the comments mentioned, variants of this have been around for a while, so if you are positive that you are implementing something more than 30 years old, you should be fine.  Between 20 and 30 years, there are sometimes patents that exceed the 20 year lifespan (at least in the USA, due to patent term adjustments)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50140" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17041" RevisionGUID="a23b317b-c7fb-4cd8-a490-45361c4b74df" CreationDate="2017-10-12T00:24:49.457" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18561" RevisionGUID="62586fe7-729c-4c36-94bc-a46650b59320" CreationDate="2017-10-12T00:41:36.427" UserId="19931" Text="I added a co-inventor from a previous patent to a continuation patent application. He felt he should not be named, so didn't send an oath or declaration. I forgot to remove his name, so his name was on the ADS but there was no declaration etc. So now I have a notice of missing parts to file the declaration. He's willing to sign any necessary paperwork. How should I respond? Is it the same process as change of inventorship?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50142" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18561" RevisionGUID="62586fe7-729c-4c36-94bc-a46650b59320" CreationDate="2017-10-12T00:41:36.427" UserId="19931" Text="Added inventor to ADS accidentally, received Notice for Missing Parts for declaration" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50143" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18561" RevisionGUID="62586fe7-729c-4c36-94bc-a46650b59320" CreationDate="2017-10-12T00:41:36.427" UserId="19931" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50146" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16114" RevisionGUID="03387495-11b8-43df-a02b-a1fba0c01bc4" CreationDate="2017-10-12T01:24:49.170" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50148" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18023" RevisionGUID="670eb758-afce-47e2-98a8-5fa78415abcc" CreationDate="2017-10-12T05:24:49.737" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18562" RevisionGUID="ab815393-1921-4f54-b05c-586cb7d90380" CreationDate="2017-10-12T13:01:00.610" UserId="19934" Text="Hi friends I would like to know if there is a patent for this wallet: http://zenlet.co&#xD;&#xA;The ZENLET wallet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(https://i.stack.imgur.com/pRKNh.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50150" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18562" RevisionGUID="ab815393-1921-4f54-b05c-586cb7d90380" CreationDate="2017-10-12T13:01:00.610" UserId="19934" Text="A patent for a specific wallet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50151" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18562" RevisionGUID="ab815393-1921-4f54-b05c-586cb7d90380" CreationDate="2017-10-12T13:01:00.610" UserId="19934" Text="&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18563" RevisionGUID="cb5115da-60d1-4fb1-9346-710186e46372" CreationDate="2017-10-12T15:13:32.727" UserId="17003" Text="According to this [page][1], there is the notation &quot;[Patent pending]&quot; below one of the pictures. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any patents were Zenlet was listed as the owner or assignee on either patents.google.com or www.lens.org/lens. At this point it gets tricky since the patent assignee might be the inventor and we don't know who that is and the actual inventor or patent number doesn't seem to come up in a Google search. You best bet might be to contact Zenlet and ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1562350776/zenlet-amazingly-intuitive-wallet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18563" RevisionGUID="09a3e28a-8351-4437-b43e-146677b9e40f" CreationDate="2017-10-12T19:55:57.173" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="According to this [page][1], there is the notation &quot;[Patent pending]&quot; below one of the pictures. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any patents where Zenlet was listed as the owner or assignee on either patents.google.com or www.lens.org/lens. At this point it gets tricky since the patent assignee might be the inventor and we don't know who that is and the actual inventor or patent number doesn't seem to come up in a Google search. You best bet might be to contact Zenlet and ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1562350776/zenlet-amazingly-intuitive-wallet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18567" RevisionGUID="2ff9dc3d-bf39-487f-ae53-dd967b382194" CreationDate="2017-10-13T00:34:28.340" UserId="19941" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140311475][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140311475&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The MSR Reactor stove is &quot;Patent Pending&quot;, so I am curious to know how they are able to sell a device nearly identical to Jetboil's design? How are they not infringing on the existing patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.msrgear.com/stoves/reactor-stove-systems-10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50168" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18567" RevisionGUID="2ff9dc3d-bf39-487f-ae53-dd967b382194" CreationDate="2017-10-13T00:34:28.340" UserId="19941" Text="How does MSR Reactor camp stove not infringe on this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50169" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18567" RevisionGUID="2ff9dc3d-bf39-487f-ae53-dd967b382194" CreationDate="2017-10-13T00:34:28.340" UserId="19941" Text="&lt;us20140311475&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18568" RevisionGUID="c4e8986b-79f8-434f-bdf1-74bf0b502b51" CreationDate="2017-10-13T01:35:50.760" UserId="19942" Text="Is Patent No. : 9,717,352 Issue Date : August 1, 2017 in US is valid in India" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50171" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18568" RevisionGUID="c4e8986b-79f8-434f-bdf1-74bf0b502b51" CreationDate="2017-10-13T01:35:50.760" UserId="19942" Text="Is Patent No. : 9,717,352 Issue Date : August 1, 2017 valid in India" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50172" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18568" RevisionGUID="c4e8986b-79f8-434f-bdf1-74bf0b502b51" CreationDate="2017-10-13T01:35:50.760" UserId="19942" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;india&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18569" RevisionGUID="fbda61f9-51a6-4bdd-941c-30ec8e97f47e" CreationDate="2017-10-13T01:59:28.530" UserId="17003" Text="US patents are effective only in the US. I could find to foreign equivalents so there should be no coverage in India. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50174" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17627" RevisionGUID="240997a3-53e9-4cc1-9fad-0f0df8a4e3a5" CreationDate="2017-10-13T02:29:01.383" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50176" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="76142cbd-ca65-4420-8a99-d8771bb96c7e" CreationDate="2017-10-13T13:30:47.610" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18569" RevisionGUID="f77ce6b7-e316-4b4a-b85f-a31abebaf9df" CreationDate="2017-10-13T13:58:13.847" UserId="17003" Comment="edited body" Text="US patents are effective only in the US. I could find no foreign equivalents so there should be no coverage in India. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50178" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18371" RevisionGUID="6d191dd4-744c-4a30-bcc4-d48a2be7c5e9" CreationDate="2017-10-13T14:30:47.610" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18570" RevisionGUID="ba10248d-0341-48b5-abcb-99dcbe6b924b" CreationDate="2017-10-13T17:56:08.483" UserId="19945" Text="I took @DonQuiKong's advice and called the USPTO's Pro Se assistance hotline. They advised me to simply file a corrected ADS. It's unclear if there are any fees involved other than for filing the corrected ADS. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18571" RevisionGUID="1bdc8457-4cb5-465d-ad02-313c840ca6cb" CreationDate="2017-10-13T23:24:54.843" UserId="17003" Text="US20140311475 is not an existing patent. It is a patent application. We don't know what the status is of the MSR Reactor stove patent application since you don't list it. It may very well predate US20140311475. Looking at the file wrapper in the [US Public Pair][1], US20140311475 has received a Final Rejection which has been appealed. I'm not an attorney, but at this point, US20140311475 is not a patent and could very likely never become a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional, other than a visual similarity between the MSR Reactor stove and the figures in US20140311475, you have no way to understand whether it actually would have infringed on the resulting patent from US20140311475 without knowing its specific technical details compared to the claims. Claims in applications are very often far broader than what eventually gets granted in patents. Camp stoves have existed for many years, so US20140311475 could not be patenting camp stoves in general. It would have to be trying to patent a very specific implementation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18567" RevisionGUID="927472c7-96da-4b7e-a872-33889224efe8" CreationDate="2017-10-13T23:25:17.453" UserId="17003" Comment="Provided an improved link to the patent application which shows figures." Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140311475][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20140311475A1/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The MSR Reactor stove is &quot;Patent Pending&quot;, so I am curious to know how they are able to sell a device nearly identical to Jetboil's design? How are they not infringing on the existing patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.msrgear.com/stoves/reactor-stove-systems-10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18571" RevisionGUID="b2e672ca-bef9-45d7-8294-cf45d04b7a4c" CreationDate="2017-10-14T01:14:32.530" UserId="17003" Comment="added 221 characters in body" Text="US20140311475 is not an existing patent. It is a patent application. If you are unclear about the distinction, you may want to review this [question][1]. We don't know what the status is of the MSR Reactor stove patent application since you don't list it. It may very well predate US20140311475. Looking at the file wrapper in the [US Public Pair][2], US20140311475 has received a Final Rejection which has been appealed. I'm not an attorney, but at this point, US20140311475 is not a patent and could very likely never become a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional, other than a visual similarity between the MSR Reactor stove and the figures in US20140311475, you have no way to understand whether it actually would have infringed on the resulting patent from US20140311475 without knowing its specific technical details compared to the claims. Claims in applications are very often far broader than what eventually gets granted in patents. Camp stoves have existed for many years, so US20140311475 could not be patenting camp stoves in general. It would have to be trying to patent a very specific implementation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17115/is-this-patent-valid-granted-which-countries-does-it-cover-are-there-family-m&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18563" RevisionGUID="0aecb85d-3406-4f8a-9766-11adaaeb03ca" CreationDate="2017-10-14T01:48:09.577" UserId="17003" Comment="added 182 characters in body" Text="According to this [page][1], there is the notation &quot;[Patent pending]&quot; below one of the pictures. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any patents where Zenlet was listed as the owner or assignee on either patents.google.com or www.lens.org/lens. At this point it gets tricky since the patent assignee might be the inventor and we don't know who that is and the actual inventor or patent number doesn't seem to come up in a Google search. You could try just searching for &quot;wallet&quot; on patents.google.com, but there are [17,168 hits][2] for documents after 2014. You best bet might be to contact Zenlet and ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1562350776/zenlet-amazingly-intuitive-wallet&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/?q=wallet&amp;after=20131231" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50202" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="18573" RevisionGUID="a03a5076-283d-4faf-87ea-404bd8277002" CreationDate="2017-10-14T15:59:08.157" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/23311/is-no-one-ever-allowed-to-use-a-simplex-grid-in-procedural-generation-until-the" />
  <row Id="50203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18573" RevisionGUID="e1b229e9-1cde-4fd2-ac4d-7dd923f9481a" CreationDate="2017-10-13T19:10:32.250" UserId="19952" UserDisplayName="snb" Text="I'm having a hard time interpreting the claims found in [Ken Perlin's patent for simplex noise][1].  It seems that if I do not use the same method of hashing indicies that he used, I'm not violating claim 1.  Claim 2-&gt;6 on the other hand seems *very broad*, it seems the very idea of using simplexes at all in any procedural noise generation would violate the patent claim on 2 -&gt; 6, especially number 5:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;producing the images with texture that do not have visible grid artifacts with the computer by decomposing a hypercube into n! simplices, where each simplex corresponds to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;an ordering of an edge traversal of the hypercube from its lowest vertex (0,0, . . . , 0) to its upper vertex (1,1 . . . , 1), where n is greater than or equal to 3 and is an integer; and&#xD;&#xA;displaying the images on a display.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which to me reads, &quot;You can't use simplexes for any dimension above 2 when generating noise&quot;.   I'm not sure how [OpenSimplex Noise][2] gets away with this because despite using a different method of simplex generation, it is still actually using simplex decomposition and hypercubes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6867776&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSimplex_noise" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50204" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18573" RevisionGUID="e1b229e9-1cde-4fd2-ac4d-7dd923f9481a" CreationDate="2017-10-13T19:10:32.250" UserId="19952" UserDisplayName="snb" Text="Is no one ever allowed to use a simplex grid in procedural generation until the Simplex Noise patent expires?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50205" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18573" RevisionGUID="e1b229e9-1cde-4fd2-ac4d-7dd923f9481a" CreationDate="2017-10-13T19:10:32.250" UserId="19952" UserDisplayName="snb" Text="&lt;united-states&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18574" RevisionGUID="ac13fc75-3d96-4de3-a308-a365be23e070" CreationDate="2017-10-14T17:45:52.857" UserId="17003" Text="Unfortunately this isn't my field so I'll only give general guidance. US6867776 is indeed a granted patent which should expire on Jan 10, 2021. In order to infringe on a patent you must infringe on **each and every step of at least one claim**. Thus even if one of the steps of a claim is a problem, so long as there is another step that you don't implement, you shouldn't infringe on the claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18574" RevisionGUID="018bdbfd-0bfb-4cbf-aef6-0b576fae6277" CreationDate="2017-10-14T17:56:10.343" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1079 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately this isn't my field so I'll only give general guidance. US6867776 is indeed a granted patent which should expire on Jan 10, 2021. In order to infringe on a patent you must infringe on **each and every step of at least one claim**. Thus even if one of the steps of a claim is a problem, so long as there is another step that you don't implement, you shouldn't infringe on the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for OpenSimplex Noise, I can only guess that they circumvent the claims of US6867776 sufficiently. From the cited Wikipedia article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The algorithm shares numerous similarities with Simplex noise, but has two primary differences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Whereas Simplex noise starts with a Hypercubic honeycomb and squashes&#xD;&#xA;it down the main diagonal in order to form its grid structure,[1] OpenSimplex noise instead swaps the skew and inverse-skew factors and uses a stretched hypercubic honeycomb. The stretched hypercubic honeycomb becomes a Simplectic honeycomb after subdivision.[2] This means that 2D Simplex and 2D OpenSimplex both use different orientations of the Triangular tiling, but whereas 3D Simplex uses the Tetragonal disphenoid honeycomb, 3D OpenSimplex uses the Tetrahedral-octahedral honeycomb.[2]&#xD;&#xA; - OpenSimplex noise uses a larger kernel size than Simplex noise. The result is a smoother appearance at the cost of performance, as additional vertices need to be determined and factored into each evaluation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perlin_noise" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18574" RevisionGUID="ff668526-7acd-4df4-9488-a931c141cf95" CreationDate="2017-10-14T22:11:06.953" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately this isn't my field so I'll only give general guidance. US6867776 is indeed a granted patent which should expire on Jan 10, 2021. In order to infringe on a patent you must infringe on **each and every step of at least one claim**. Thus even if one of the steps of a claim is a problem, so long as there is another step that you don't implement, you shouldn't infringe on the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for OpenSimplex Noise, I can only guess that they circumvent the claims of US6867776 sufficiently. From the cited Wikipedia article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The algorithm shares numerous similarities with Simplex noise, but has two primary differences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Whereas Simplex noise starts with a Hypercubic honeycomb and squashes&#xD;&#xA;it down the main diagonal in order to form its grid structure, OpenSimplex noise instead swaps the skew and inverse-skew factors and uses a stretched hypercubic honeycomb. The stretched hypercubic honeycomb becomes a Simplectic honeycomb after subdivision. This means that 2D Simplex and 2D OpenSimplex both use different orientations of the Triangular tiling, but whereas 3D Simplex uses the Tetragonal disphenoid honeycomb, 3D OpenSimplex uses the Tetrahedral-octahedral honeycomb.&#xD;&#xA; - OpenSimplex noise uses a larger kernel size than Simplex noise. The result is a smoother appearance at the cost of performance, as additional vertices need to be determined and factored into each evaluation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perlin_noise" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50213" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="fe3627bc-78c0-4550-b1bf-1dacebf9f828" CreationDate="2017-10-14T22:53:46.810" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18576" RevisionGUID="bdceeafc-fb5d-4453-b642-d000be91043f" CreationDate="2017-10-15T12:49:21.680" UserId="19953" Text="I'm a citizen of another country and currently reside there. Is it possible to file an online patent using USPTO from my country? Or s I can file should I file an international Patent through USPTO?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50215" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18576" RevisionGUID="bdceeafc-fb5d-4453-b642-d000be91043f" CreationDate="2017-10-15T12:49:21.680" UserId="19953" Text="Can I file a Patent in the US from a different country?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50216" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18576" RevisionGUID="bdceeafc-fb5d-4453-b642-d000be91043f" CreationDate="2017-10-15T12:49:21.680" UserId="19953" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;foreign&gt;&lt;wipo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18577" RevisionGUID="17cd47d6-1f74-4df0-b51d-341a216468bc" CreationDate="2017-10-15T23:54:02.833" UserId="19955" Text="Sandwich Grill&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to know if the patent of this product is still active, or is it available?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[enter link description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US2463439" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50218" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18577" RevisionGUID="17cd47d6-1f74-4df0-b51d-341a216468bc" CreationDate="2017-10-15T23:54:02.833" UserId="19955" Text="¿Is this patent still active? 1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50219" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18577" RevisionGUID="17cd47d6-1f74-4df0-b51d-341a216468bc" CreationDate="2017-10-15T23:54:02.833" UserId="19955" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18578" RevisionGUID="324affd5-0160-45e0-8d16-1b4edd6cfb9d" CreationDate="2017-10-16T01:41:30.893" UserId="17003" Text="That patent was issued on March 1st, 1949. Back then, patents expired 17 years after the issue date. Thus the patent expired on March 1st, 1966. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18579" RevisionGUID="f8a17884-b34c-461e-bdc7-9203d1d67285" CreationDate="2017-10-16T02:25:09.453" UserId="14403" Text="For the first part, after filing patent application in the patent office of own country one has to take permission to file patent in foreign country. If permitted, one has to get registered with private pair of USPTO (uspto.gov/pair) and then one can file application with USPTO on line from anywhere. For second part, international application can be filed with WIPO through patent office of own country. USPTO handles international application of only US Nationals. By the by, WIPO does not grant any patent. It facilitates search for prior art, opinion on patentability and two years of additional time to apply in country of one's interest." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50226" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="d4f64e00-9573-47dd-92fc-13d7b5db86a3" CreationDate="2017-10-16T08:13:04.683" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18581" RevisionGUID="04702bec-f2b8-4e38-9d9c-576b387b758a" CreationDate="2017-10-16T14:22:44.140" UserId="19958" Text="We have been given sole distribution rights in Africa of a patented product from Poland. We've also just discovered that one of our clients who requested a sample &quot;for their showroom&quot; has had the design copied in China and is flogging a really bad remake here in South Africa. Does our distribution rights automatically transfer the patent? Is there any protection that we can rely on?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50230" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18581" RevisionGUID="04702bec-f2b8-4e38-9d9c-576b387b758a" CreationDate="2017-10-16T14:22:44.140" UserId="19958" Text="Patents and distribution rights" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50231" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18581" RevisionGUID="04702bec-f2b8-4e38-9d9c-576b387b758a" CreationDate="2017-10-16T14:22:44.140" UserId="19958" Text="&lt;distribution&gt;&lt;rights&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18582" RevisionGUID="6251ed0e-a096-4d0d-afc9-da5ef8524bba" CreationDate="2017-10-16T17:01:53.597" UserId="19959" Text="[US20070143326A1 - Dynamic Circular Work-Stealing Deque][1] concerns a method of scheduling work on multiple threads by means of [work stealing][2] using a resizable buffer. Since it was filed by David Chase and Yosef Lev, I assume it refers to their [Dynamic Circular Work Stealing Deque][3] paper. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The techniques outlined in that paper represent the backbone of many open source multithreading libraries including Rust's [Rayon][4]. However, this patent appears to solely cover an abstract algorithm. I am just wondering if this patent is still valid after Alice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20070143326&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Work_stealing&amp;oldid=746938916&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3771/77bb82105c35e6e26ebad1698a20688473bd.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://github.com/rayon-rs/rayon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50233" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18582" RevisionGUID="6251ed0e-a096-4d0d-afc9-da5ef8524bba" CreationDate="2017-10-16T17:01:53.597" UserId="19959" Text="Is the Chase-Lev Deque patent (US20070143326A1) still valid after Alice?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50234" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18582" RevisionGUID="6251ed0e-a096-4d0d-afc9-da5ef8524bba" CreationDate="2017-10-16T17:01:53.597" UserId="19959" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50235" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17832" RevisionGUID="1695bcf2-dd68-4132-9174-9deb8552eb8a" CreationDate="2017-10-16T17:15:39.840" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18583" RevisionGUID="3318caf1-6929-4bdf-b70b-54892a672df8" CreationDate="2017-10-16T20:42:05.297" UserId="17003" Text="US2007014332A1 is a patent application. It has been granted as [US7346753B2][1] so it is currently a valid patent. It was issued in 2008 so the [Alice decision][2] came well after it. Whether Alice impacts the enforceability of US7346753B2 probably won't be known until Sun Microsystems (Oracle) tries to enforce it and if there is a resulting court case. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if this has happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7346753B2/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18585" RevisionGUID="502bc716-8947-4f7e-9802-ddeaef5338cb" CreationDate="2017-10-17T09:05:44.460" UserId="19961" Text="If am I going to use licensed technology to come up with a new patent, how should I mention it while drafting the application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50239" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18585" RevisionGUID="502bc716-8947-4f7e-9802-ddeaef5338cb" CreationDate="2017-10-17T09:05:44.460" UserId="19961" Text="Asking about a patent drafting advice" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50240" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18585" RevisionGUID="502bc716-8947-4f7e-9802-ddeaef5338cb" CreationDate="2017-10-17T09:05:44.460" UserId="19961" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18587" RevisionGUID="d72af3a6-5ab8-4203-b516-aa24edc40bc5" CreationDate="2017-10-17T14:12:41.890" UserId="1480" Text="I work in an R&amp;D department at an international company and since a few years I file patents on a regular basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Due to private reasons I and my wife seriously took care not to publish our private postal address on any website. This worked well until I discovered via google that my private postal address is published online along with my patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify: I am not concerned that my private postal address is known to the patent office, or even in print somewhere. But I don't want it to be searchable, since this way anybody can type my name into google, get my address, and drive to our house (and kids).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The German patent office realised this problem in 2010 and changed the &quot;Private Address&quot;-Field to &quot;Address&quot; ([link][1]), however, most of our patents are at least EU &amp; US wide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I talked to our patent lawyer, but he basically said he can't do anything about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Can I avoid publishing my private address for new patent applications and can I change my address for existing patents? &#xD;&#xA; - May I legally use a post-office box instead? &#xD;&#xA; - How would you handle this situation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.dpma.de/docs/dpma/mitteilungen/mitteilungen_der_praesidentin_2010.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50244" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18587" RevisionGUID="d72af3a6-5ab8-4203-b516-aa24edc40bc5" CreationDate="2017-10-17T14:12:41.890" UserId="1480" Text="Publication of Private Address" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50245" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18587" RevisionGUID="d72af3a6-5ab8-4203-b516-aa24edc40bc5" CreationDate="2017-10-17T14:12:41.890" UserId="1480" Text="&lt;privacy&gt;&lt;address&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18588" RevisionGUID="60311da9-b438-43d6-aa3f-231c280155f1" CreationDate="2017-10-17T18:57:32.800" UserId="19964" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5517187][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5517187&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is if this patent is still valid or already expired? I mean, can the invention of this patent be used into my product or the invetor still have the exclusive rights of it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50247" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18588" RevisionGUID="60311da9-b438-43d6-aa3f-231c280155f1" CreationDate="2017-10-17T18:57:32.800" UserId="19964" Text="Is this patent still valid (inventer still have exclusive rights)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50248" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18588" RevisionGUID="60311da9-b438-43d6-aa3f-231c280155f1" CreationDate="2017-10-17T18:57:32.800" UserId="19964" Text="&lt;rights&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50252" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="e9e14812-5224-4c18-9f65-b9435be9ee4a" CreationDate="2017-10-17T20:32:02.307" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50254" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17662" RevisionGUID="ca7a5320-9a94-4ac5-b6f9-a17fce934428" CreationDate="2017-10-17T23:32:11.093" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18590" RevisionGUID="7049496a-dd55-41f2-b73d-4a957f332071" CreationDate="2017-10-18T00:14:10.597" UserId="17003" Text="This patent has expired. Anyone is free to practice what is described in the claims. Always understand that other relevant patents may exist. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50256" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17248" RevisionGUID="178dafeb-0f1d-4491-816a-b1ced9067cc8" CreationDate="2017-10-18T00:32:18.503" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18591" RevisionGUID="d5b107a2-45aa-491d-b26c-a55b4cf95dd8" CreationDate="2017-10-18T00:57:04.163" UserId="15503" Text="You don't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of a patent application is to describe your invention. Whether you have a licence to some technology used in the implementation of your invention is irrelevant, because that doesn't relate to the invention itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if your invention is predicated on another piece of technology (whether licensed or not), and no other more generic technology could replace it, then you would need to refer to that technology in the description. This could be by referring to a patent publication for that technology, or failing that, to the manufacturer and brand name." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18592" RevisionGUID="33820aa9-3eaa-4982-8916-b21c1391f39f" CreationDate="2017-10-18T01:18:33.573" UserId="15503" Text="**Can I avoid publishing my private address for new patent applications and can I change my address for existing patents?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just give a business address on new cases. In most countries, that'll be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed it's quite common for the address of inventors to be the address of the applicant. In this way, mail for the inventors (such as the forms the EPO frustratingly insists on sending to inventors) actually goes to the applicant for the in-house patent team to deal with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for existing patents, you could have your address updated in the records of each patent office. However, it would retrospectively change the publications already released which show your address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**May I legally use a post-office box instead?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some countries, sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for some countries there is an obligation to include a physical residential address. For example, in the US, 37 CFR 1.63(b)(2) provides that an inventor's oath must include:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A mailing address where the inventor customarily receives mail, and residence, if an inventor lives at a location which is different from where the inventor customarily receives mail, for each inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In such cases, a post office box would not be sufficient." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50260" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="e597c102-328f-4e4d-a16f-ddb515bd1e82" CreationDate="2017-10-18T04:32:12.050" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50261" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16666" RevisionGUID="33aca01c-9210-468c-b400-1a80b74b1c43" CreationDate="2017-10-18T05:32:11.503" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50262" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="44b27928-a086-432d-b928-81fada202a12" CreationDate="2017-10-18T06:32:11.523" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18593" RevisionGUID="5a191467-8baa-4733-b9b8-f0bf9d5d73af" CreationDate="2017-10-18T07:26:49.920" UserId="19968" Text="I had an idea when working in previous job that I also come to implement it at my workplace. The workplace didn't want to issue this patent since it is not the main field in which the company is doing business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I already moved to a new job and thinking of issuing the patent on my own. Can I do it? will it consider to be my patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50264" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18593" RevisionGUID="5a191467-8baa-4733-b9b8-f0bf9d5d73af" CreationDate="2017-10-18T07:26:49.920" UserId="19968" Text="writing my own patent to an idea I developed at my work" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50265" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18593" RevisionGUID="5a191467-8baa-4733-b9b8-f0bf9d5d73af" CreationDate="2017-10-18T07:26:49.920" UserId="19968" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;workplace&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14142" RevisionGUID="4bb14d5d-6721-4a0a-a761-230a342866d9" CreationDate="2017-10-18T12:02:27.130" UserId="14417" Comment="Updated information." Text="Google is the clearing house for USPTO XML, via their [Bulk Downloads][1] site. The [Grant Full Text][2] is probably what you're looking for. The only company (that I am aware of) that currently offers full text XML on a per-patent basis via an API is Fairview Research (paid service with non-redistribution of XML source), and they are also the source of the [Public Pair][3] (legal events/status) data for Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as the reasons why there is no public API available, it is easier to paint a picture based on the historical patent services. EDS, IBM, MicroPatent and now Google have all had (at some point) free USPTO patent text available, but not in a way as to have a useful free API available. Historically, the trend is to eventually monetize, spin off, or retire the services:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [EDS Shadow Patent Office][4] -&gt; HP -&gt; decommissioned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [IBM Patent Server][5] -&gt; [Delphion][6] -&gt; [Thomson Reuters (Delphion)][7] -&gt; decommissioned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [MicroPatent][8] -&gt; [Thomson Reuters (Aureka)][7] -&gt; [Thomson Innovation][9] -&gt; [Clarivate (Derwent Innovation)][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Derwent World Patents (commercial) -&gt; [Thomson Reuters (Derwent)][11] -&gt; [Clarivate (Derwent World Patents Index)][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Google Patents][13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact is, it costs a lot of money to maintain these services ([even the USPTO has budget-related maintenance issues][14]), and it is no secret that Google has non-altruistic motives for the USPTO partnership ([Jun 2010][15], [May 2011][16], [Aug 2012][17], [Sep 2012][18], [Nov 2013][19], [Oct 2014][20], [Feb 2015][21], [May 2015][22], [Jun 2015][23]). There used to be a Google Patents &quot;[Developer API][24]&quot; but it was limited to integration of Google Patent content into a web site and was deprecated in 2011 (exactly 12 months after they obtained the USPTO hosting deal) - I'm not sure, but that may be what the Ask Patents sidebar is based on; you may be able to extract some amount of metadata from that service. This paragraph may seem overly cynical, but this is the story I have seen unfold over the last few years, and this is why I am not holding my breath for a developer-friendly API from Google. My interpretation of the above trend is that they have no interest in making it easy for third-party developers, but you're welcome to draw your own conclusions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, before the Google-USPTO arrangement, the XML had to be [purchased][25] and distributed via tape/CD/ftp (again, in bulk form) from the USPTO, but it was cost-prohibitive (about $12,000/year IIRC), so it was fairly common practice for developers ([including those at Google][14]) to resort to screen-scraping their broken HTML and normalizing to XML or other structured formats (non-trivial) - this often crippled the USPTO servers. With the bulk downloads freely available, the situation is much better than it was a few years ago (as least there is a free &quot;nearly Open&quot; path to the XML), however you will still need to download the huge ZIP files, extract/parse, etc. It is possible to write a wrapper around the site to perform this; of course with the corresponding penalties of bandwidth and drive space it does not lend itself to an interactive experience for an end-user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe you already have the optimal *free* solution worked out, and this is the approach I have taken with several of my own projects. However, under the right circumstances you might also consider the API from Fairview if you need current legal events and one-off XML retrievals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also note the following resources, which provide the schemas and descriptions of the XML available from the USPTO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [XML Resources][26]&#xD;&#xA; - [Issued Patents (Patent Grants) Data Products][27]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to 1976, only the patent metadata is available in a structured form. Everything before that relies on uncorrected OCR scans, and coverage is very spotty. It is a dark area for patent text. Also, the XML for applications is only available from 2001 forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might have some luck with the [European Patent Office][28] [Open Patent Services][29], which does provide download access (maximum volume of 2.5 GB per week free-of-charge). However, I've found their APIs to be somewhat unreliable and slow, and they discontinued several of the services I was using in 2014. I ditched OPS out of frustration (would have required a complete re-write of my code), but maybe its time to reconsider it. YMMV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I want to note a common misconception in patent identifiers as they relate to individual documents. The number you mention ('8978162') is indeed the patent number, but a full unique identifier for the document also comprises the patent authority ('US' in this case) and the *kind code* (the document type), ('B2' in this case, which indicates a Patent Grant). The codes have changed several times in the past (older grants have a kind code of 'A' and new applications have a kind code of 'A1'). Therefore, to uniquely identify a document, the full identifier for the document should take a form like 'US-8978162-B2'. This will save you from refactoring, re-indexing and link construction headaches the first time you need to work with a different type of publication (e.g., application, re-issue, correction, design, plant) or patent authority (e.g., EP, CA, AU). Also refer to this [write-up on patent families][30] and an example of how the [Kind Code][31] is used to differentiate related documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related resources (I will add to this as I find them):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Python module for searching patent databases, ie USPTO or EPO][32]&#xD;&#xA; - [Obtaining Patent Data: Patent Databases][33]&#xD;&#xA; - [Alternatives of Thomson Innovation Patent Database][34]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: Thomson Reuters has has consolidated three of the five public APIs into a single service and spun them off into Clarivate Analytics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto-patents-grants-text.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.spo.eds.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.patents.ibm.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.delphion.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://ip.thomsonreuters.com/maketheswitch&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.micropat.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://info.thomsoninnovation.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://clarivate.com/products/derwent-innovation/&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://thomsonreuters.com/en/products-services/intellectual-property/patent-research-and-analysis/derwent-world-patents-index.html&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://clarivate.com/products/derwent-world-patents-index/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://patents.google.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/12/28/uspto-catastrophic-failure-electronic-patent-and-trademark-systems/id=64200/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-teams-google-provide-bulk-patent-and-trademark-data-public&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://www.infoq.com/news/2011/05/deprecated-google-apis&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.cnet.com/news/google-time-to-ditch-our-current-software-patent-system/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://www.droid-life.com/2012/09/12/google-vp-we-werent-investing-in-the-patent-ecosystem-like-we-should-have-been/&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/12/11/michelle-lee-named-uspto-deputy-director-will-serve-as-acting-director/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/10/16/obama-nominates-former-google-exec-to-lead-u-s-patent-office/&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/5/patent-law-reform-bill-to-stop-trolls-could-stifle/?page=all&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/05/03/google-collects-patents-while-lobbying-against-them/id=57302/&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/243943-patent-legislation-will-destroy-inventive-small-businesses&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: https://developers.google.com/patent-search/?hl=en&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/ab39.html&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/xml-resources&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/electronic-data-products/issued-patents-patent-grants-data-products&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://www.epo.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://www.epo.org/searching/free/ops.html&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/10617/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/13267/14417&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: https://stackoverflow.com/a/20133916/2074605&#xD;&#xA;  [33]: http://poldham.github.io/Patent-Databases/&#xD;&#xA;  [34]: http://wiki.piug.org/display/PIUG/Alternatives+of+Thomson+Innovation+Patent+Database" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18594" RevisionGUID="4ba6b65e-7415-4f41-9618-81f0171feeb4" CreationDate="2017-10-18T15:04:43.973" UserId="19973" Text="I have been asked to update some drawings for an application I submitted online, and told I could submit my reply via EFS-Web. However, after authentication, I am told that I am not authorized to access the application &amp; confirmation numbers which I was sent by the USPTO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot find any other way to submit the drawings online. Where should I look?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50268" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18594" RevisionGUID="4ba6b65e-7415-4f41-9618-81f0171feeb4" CreationDate="2017-10-18T15:04:43.973" UserId="19973" Text="Where is Applicant Response to Pre-Exam Formalities Notice on EFS Web?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50269" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18594" RevisionGUID="4ba6b65e-7415-4f41-9618-81f0171feeb4" CreationDate="2017-10-18T15:04:43.973" UserId="19973" Text="&lt;applicant-response&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50270" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18593" RevisionGUID="69b90f80-5ae0-44da-8740-9bf448be1fdf" CreationDate="2017-10-18T15:59:56.483" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="50271" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13366" RevisionGUID="c836da03-3b1f-4ac2-96ab-295ade763146" CreationDate="2017-10-18T17:35:07.927" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50272" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17844" RevisionGUID="f82bb18f-1fac-43d3-a521-872122405b1e" CreationDate="2017-10-18T18:37:33.397" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50273" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17664" RevisionGUID="26d4856a-92ec-4e83-b872-374ffbb78ec0" CreationDate="2017-10-18T19:43:30.557" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18595" RevisionGUID="6005eac0-1a54-4347-a78e-c904e64e9e60" CreationDate="2017-10-18T21:27:29.867" UserId="16696" Text="If the patent includes regions in Africa, you should be able to enforce exclusivity, but, as DonQuiKong mentions, patents are specific to regions, and it may not cover South Africa.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You need to check which international regions the patent was filed and granted in. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50276" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17660" RevisionGUID="c6b79b14-7edd-4a23-bd51-4e6f58195c8b" CreationDate="2017-10-19T01:47:52.440" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18597" RevisionGUID="5dd3676a-8401-4157-a61f-00f978364655" CreationDate="2017-10-19T08:48:37.937" UserId="19977" Text="I am looking at a particular patent where they are claiming a GUI (graphical user interface) that contains a draggable interactive controller as a critical element of the invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But one of the images in the application has a simple tick box for the user to insert specify what is applicable. In the application (not in the claims section), they are saying that image is an embodiment of the invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I have ground to object to the USPTO that their image is inconsistent with claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they manage to get a patent for it, would (if I use the tick box interface), have defence against their claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50282" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18597" RevisionGUID="5dd3676a-8401-4157-a61f-00f978364655" CreationDate="2017-10-19T08:48:37.937" UserId="19977" Text="Patent image irrelevant to claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50283" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18597" RevisionGUID="5dd3676a-8401-4157-a61f-00f978364655" CreationDate="2017-10-19T08:48:37.937" UserId="19977" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;user-interface&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50284" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18261" RevisionGUID="0f9c6bca-0679-421b-938b-197cea9d40b8" CreationDate="2017-10-19T09:48:39.480" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18598" RevisionGUID="0ee5aa9f-0f4e-422b-a64d-37d99299ddd7" CreationDate="2017-10-19T17:38:27.230" UserId="17003" Text="Since you don't list the specific patent, I'll have to answer in general. Often in the prosecution of a patent, an application's claims will be narrowed in order to avoid objections from the examiner. Only the claims may be amended so you may get figures and text in he specification that extend past the claims. This is pretty common and the source of much confusion to some readers of patents. I'm not a patent attorney, but I don't think this is grounds for challenging an issued patent. The important point is to that the claims define what is protected by the patent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14875" RevisionGUID="d62fd5d7-2e5a-4915-97f5-bda878004d00" CreationDate="2017-10-19T18:29:58.030" UserId="16696" Comment="Added a little detail on Smith (i.e. the generic nature of every step in that claim)" Text="[This article is worth looking at](http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/navigating-the-needle-s-eye-patenting-38523/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The PTAB found that (i) the claimed method is directed to a set of rules for conducting a wagering game, which is a patent-ineligible abstract idea, and (ii) the manipulations of the deck of cards (e.g., shuffling, dealing) are conventional steps in playing a wagering game that do not add enough to the claims to transform the recited methods into patent-eligible subject matter.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, they were trying to patent a new method betting on Blackjack, which was deemed a &quot;business method&quot; and purely abstract. (i.e. It's simply a set of mental steps for managing risk.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ostensibly, truly novel game methods should still be patentable, regardless of whether they involve computers, although patent attorneys recommend using one of the claims to tie the game to computer systems for software-based implementations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another element to bear in mind is that patents are not a monolith.  Typically you will have a few independent claims and a bunch of dependent claims (which are extensions of the independent claims.) Each claim is treated separately, so having any particular claim denied does not necessarily invalidate the entire patent.  The review process generally takes a few years and involves some back-and-forth with the patent office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rules vary internationally. US patents can usually be defended in patent treaty regions, although if a game catches on, foreign filing may be worthwhile. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------&#xD;&#xA;This answer is updated based on a this **[recent article from IP Watchdog](http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/08/15/monopoly-patent-ineligible-alice/id=71926/)**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article mentions *[In re Smith][1]*, where a new method of betting on Blackjack was rejected and raised alarm.  However, although such a method technically constitutes a &quot;new game&quot;, all of the steps listed in the application were *generic* (such as shuffling cards.)  In other words, the only novel aspect of the Smith patent application was the order of the steps that constitute the &quot;new game&quot;.  It's unclear that the result would have been the same had the claims included a step that was actually novel and inventive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deciding to pursue a patent can be risk.  There is no guarantee of securing a grant and it can be expensive.  A recent game that may be helpful to consider is [Threes!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threes), aka 2048. Would it have been possible to patent that game mechanic? Maybe. The more relevant question might be would it have been worthwhile to pursue a patent? *(Based on the number of times the clones have been downloaded, I'd lean towards yes, but in this context, it is really an assessment of risk vs. reward.)* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;Copyright and Game Mechanics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a more positive note, this recent case, [Spry Fox vs. Lolapps](http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&amp;context=historical) seems to extend protection of game mechanics into Copyright law. It could be overturned at any time by a higher court, but word on the street is it is a kind of &quot;third rail&quot; and no one wants to go near it.  Further, there is some precedent for this extension of Copyright law in [Tetris vs. Xio](http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/02/12/tetris-gets-permanent-injunction-against-xio/id=34996/), which is bordering on Design Patent territory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Copyright is a great, no-cost way to pursue some degree protection of your game.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Creative work of all types have very strong Intellectual Property protection, even something as simple as a photo snapped on a phone.  Games are distinct in being algorithms, but still constitute creative work.  Current climate aside regarding game patent eligibility, the spirit of the law&quot; clearly indicates that rule sets for games should be granted the same intellectual property protection rights as other forms of art.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/08/15/monopoly-patent-ineligible-alice/id=71926/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18597" RevisionGUID="56ce42c8-6959-4eee-9e9b-8583f5981c31" CreationDate="2017-10-19T21:02:06.013" UserId="19977" Comment="inserted missing word, deleted word" Text="I am looking at a particular patent where they are claiming a GUI (graphical user interface) that contains a draggable interactive controller as a critical element of the invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But one of the images in the application has a simple tick box for the user to specify what is applicable. In the application (not in the claims section), they are saying that image is an embodiment of the invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I have ground to object to the USPTO that their image is inconsistent with claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they manage to get a patent for it, would I (if I use the tick box interface), have defence against their claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18599" RevisionGUID="735e5384-e0ec-49d0-86a0-308b8a474280" CreationDate="2017-10-19T21:55:06.027" UserId="19980" Text="In addition to the answer provided by Eric Shain, while reading this patent it becomes apparent that usefulness of this antenna design is wildly impractical and expensive for the small amount of current it produces." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18600" RevisionGUID="4b7cad35-b444-4791-a6cd-92ffbf9e07df" CreationDate="2017-10-19T23:32:11.933" UserId="19981" Text="When does 7930340 expire?  PTA days are  577;  filed 5/23/2001;  issued  4/19/2011;  last RCE  filed 6/30/2009." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50292" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18600" RevisionGUID="4b7cad35-b444-4791-a6cd-92ffbf9e07df" CreationDate="2017-10-19T23:32:11.933" UserId="19981" Text="when does U.S. Patent No. 7930340 expire?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50293" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18600" RevisionGUID="4b7cad35-b444-4791-a6cd-92ffbf9e07df" CreationDate="2017-10-19T23:32:11.933" UserId="19981" Text="&lt;expire&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50294" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17466" RevisionGUID="ab5ec41d-7864-40e1-891a-277692d39349" CreationDate="2017-10-20T20:57:01.387" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50298" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="ee584a0d-8e11-478f-a5fd-bb059ad0999a" CreationDate="2017-10-20T22:06:06.960" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50305" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18124" RevisionGUID="40c00d20-4fa7-4dbc-b7b0-32abd9196d52" CreationDate="2017-10-21T02:06:47.070" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50310" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="30c59ddd-a107-4f3b-bb07-76ef81d581dd" CreationDate="2017-10-22T00:16:39.783" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50312" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17865" RevisionGUID="fa32f41c-003f-4d17-9032-e5a893009a3f" CreationDate="2017-10-22T03:16:39.830" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50313" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="e0e928cc-777b-4a72-bdb8-188cc7dec8e7" CreationDate="2017-10-22T04:24:29.167" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50314" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="2aa48dc1-5441-4cb5-8879-f22323c99aaa" CreationDate="2017-10-22T05:24:29.073" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50315" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12639" RevisionGUID="e29abb7c-faac-48a3-b581-6383c143a824" CreationDate="2017-10-22T06:24:31.787" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50316" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="43c395bc-5ffc-4637-89c0-6ac62e91518a" CreationDate="2017-10-22T11:24:45.157" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50317" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18425" RevisionGUID="8a355bca-a6dc-4038-92f3-5d3e291b5659" CreationDate="2017-10-22T14:29:11.133" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50318" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17995" RevisionGUID="2500bee7-d07e-4e2b-a885-fc53450b87ed" CreationDate="2017-10-22T15:29:15.860" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50324" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="4fd5dce3-dba5-4f25-ae25-5efffa4be1bd" CreationDate="2017-10-22T22:30:16.757" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50325" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16926" RevisionGUID="77534364-43ff-4727-aaf1-2be0eadb0d12" CreationDate="2017-10-22T23:30:17.467" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50327" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="c4e38837-b510-459b-a0df-f1c8a32f27b0" CreationDate="2017-10-23T09:45:12.443" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18604" RevisionGUID="9a1af434-3857-40e9-ac5d-07d4279e8712" CreationDate="2017-10-23T17:46:44.727" UserId="19997" Text="In reference to the patent: [US4146939][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4146939&#xD;&#xA;I don't know much about patents and I can't figure out what the status is on this patent. I'm working on a new invention that attaches to this patent[US4146939]. I want to cut down my costs so my question is am I allowed to replicate and sell the product from the patent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50329" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18604" RevisionGUID="9a1af434-3857-40e9-ac5d-07d4279e8712" CreationDate="2017-10-23T17:46:44.727" UserId="19997" Text="Patent valid or expired?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50330" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18604" RevisionGUID="9a1af434-3857-40e9-ac5d-07d4279e8712" CreationDate="2017-10-23T17:46:44.727" UserId="19997" Text="&lt;status&gt;&lt;expired&gt;&lt;valid&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50331" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18172" RevisionGUID="461e2dd9-4a0b-4e79-a8a4-f5df7e5ff693" CreationDate="2017-10-23T18:54:41.580" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18605" RevisionGUID="c1f2067e-c6c4-4349-a5b2-b916d94e762c" CreationDate="2017-10-23T19:37:01.990" UserId="17003" Text="That patent was issued in 1979 and expired 17 years later. The rules changed in 1995 and now patents expire 20 years from their priority date which is usually the filing date. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18606" RevisionGUID="cbf5b6e1-e817-41cc-a2ff-b3b0f63e2817" CreationDate="2017-10-24T01:30:37.657" UserId="19913" Text="Is it possible to provide too much information in describing a novel device?  By too much I mean providing detail that unnecessarily makes it easy to reproduce the device.  I am seeking to understand if there is any disadvantage to disclosing beyond the minimum necessary to meet the patent examiner's approval criteria.  Any example (and link) is highly appreciated: thank you.  Any editing that narrows the question is also appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50334" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18606" RevisionGUID="cbf5b6e1-e817-41cc-a2ff-b3b0f63e2817" CreationDate="2017-10-24T01:30:37.657" UserId="19913" Text="Excessive disclosure in a provisional utility patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50335" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18606" RevisionGUID="cbf5b6e1-e817-41cc-a2ff-b3b0f63e2817" CreationDate="2017-10-24T01:30:37.657" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50337" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13870" RevisionGUID="8ebc99f6-da7c-4b6f-b027-6934668cd6c1" CreationDate="2017-10-24T03:11:28.377" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50346" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="7cec9c7b-08ad-4ee3-8bff-f9d16bd0efc0" CreationDate="2017-10-24T13:17:49.470" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50348" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="a939c391-8058-40cd-8709-d39345a8169b" CreationDate="2017-10-24T23:23:54.197" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50349" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16491" RevisionGUID="1eec3224-d292-4d2a-9367-506ae8c84cae" CreationDate="2017-10-25T01:23:54.303" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18610" RevisionGUID="0b4f69a5-a571-46df-b176-3ae3c6e72054" CreationDate="2017-10-25T01:45:42.400" UserId="3076" Text="You are not required to give manufacturing specifications and the best embodiment you have in mind the day you file does not have to be the final, production ready version that works in an optimum manner. You do not need to go back and add that informant later (you can't add anything later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is definitely possible to provide *too little information* in a specification. A patent application needs to have enough information to allow someone skilled in the pertinent art to made and use the claimed invention. A judicial add-on to that is the &quot;without undo experimentation&quot;. https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html&#xD;&#xA;You do not want your patent successfully attacked in the future for lack of enablement. The patent examiner will probably not put any focus on enablement unless it is egregiously poor or you are trying to patent something very unlikely, on its face, to work. Weakness in enablement, if push comes to shove, will be by an issue at a court in the future.  It will need to first decide what education and background the theoretical person of ordinary skill in the art has and then whether that person has enough information for enablement. It is not cut-and-dried and getting the patent does not end the question. Further, there is still a &quot;best mode&quot; requirement that says you can't hide the ball by not providing the best way you know how to make and use it at the time of filing. You do not need to label it as the best mode among any other embodiments you provide. You might come up with a better embodiment the day after you file. &#xD;&#xA;In the past patents were torn up by courts for lack of best mode. After the AIA law that is no longer an issue but your patent practitioner can't ethically, knowingly, file something missing a best mode.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50351" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16361" RevisionGUID="ed48e4ea-2f8f-46f0-a605-8c4513ca579e" CreationDate="2017-10-25T02:23:54.310" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50352" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18259" RevisionGUID="ca9bec3c-e7aa-4bf7-b938-0e873394f0e6" CreationDate="2017-10-25T04:31:13.750" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18611" RevisionGUID="28174245-b46e-4d55-8fbc-0da3832109ae" CreationDate="2017-10-25T04:33:58.253" UserId="20005" Text="What does the patent grant for Golang mean? Can I use Golan for whatever I want (like the BSD license implies) or does it limit my use of Golang in any way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the text of the patent:&#xD;&#xA;https://golang.org/PATENTS?m=text&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50354" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18611" RevisionGUID="28174245-b46e-4d55-8fbc-0da3832109ae" CreationDate="2017-10-25T04:33:58.253" UserId="20005" Text="What does Golang patent mean" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50355" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18611" RevisionGUID="28174245-b46e-4d55-8fbc-0da3832109ae" CreationDate="2017-10-25T04:33:58.253" UserId="20005" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50356" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="e5dd7c10-e759-4739-a27b-dabc941c00c1" CreationDate="2017-10-25T05:31:13.807" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18612" RevisionGUID="20678f9e-b0a8-4c72-b586-534b8545c4e5" CreationDate="2017-10-25T05:42:38.173" UserId="3076" Text="I agree that the CFR text is as Maca quotes. However, the USPTO declaration form https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0001.pdf first asks for residence city state and country and then asks for mailing address. If your mailing address is a PO Box, there is actually no place on the form to put the street and address." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18613" RevisionGUID="6c17e167-0826-474f-a36d-60330562615c" CreationDate="2017-10-25T09:30:24.497" UserId="20006" Text="I had filed a patent earlier in India and have got the patent granted from one country through PCT. At that time I had selected only one country and I have missed the PCT deadline. Can I refile a new patent with same information and little more enhancement in India and file for PCT in few more countries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50359" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18613" RevisionGUID="6c17e167-0826-474f-a36d-60330562615c" CreationDate="2017-10-25T09:30:24.497" UserId="20006" Text="Can I file same patent I filed couple of years ago, but missed PCT for few countries" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50360" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18613" RevisionGUID="6c17e167-0826-474f-a36d-60330562615c" CreationDate="2017-10-25T09:30:24.497" UserId="20006" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18614" RevisionGUID="f8d784bc-65cb-4634-a5c0-c6f166f327d0" CreationDate="2017-10-25T15:45:39.603" UserId="19913" Text="In the course of solving a problem a new [methods][1] was developed.   To support the method, a novel measurement device was required and developed.  Assume that the&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* methods &#xD;&#xA;* device &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;must work together to deliver the claims associated with the patent.  It would seem necessary to file all methods and required novel support-device under one patent to ensure that claims are supported.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand it both would fall under utility patents (method and machine respectively).  In what situations would it make sense to disclose these method and device under a single patent?  Likewise, in what situations would it make sense to disclose under two different patents?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_(patent)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50362" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18614" RevisionGUID="f8d784bc-65cb-4634-a5c0-c6f166f327d0" CreationDate="2017-10-25T15:45:39.603" UserId="19913" Text="Utility patent and method patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50363" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18614" RevisionGUID="f8d784bc-65cb-4634-a5c0-c6f166f327d0" CreationDate="2017-10-25T15:45:39.603" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;patentscope&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18615" RevisionGUID="ab87b254-6d4d-4d19-971d-78afa78fc47f" CreationDate="2017-10-25T16:01:16.570" UserId="16696" Text="I've been reading a little about this case and reviewing the claim in the Charpentier application.  Biotech patents are not an area where I have much knowledge, but I have great interest in what constitutes &quot;abstract&quot; in a patent context, both in the US and Internationally. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my initial review, it seems as though the patents under dispute relate to methods, CRISPR &quot;techniques&quot;, as opposed to actual machines.  Is this correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50365" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18615" RevisionGUID="ab87b254-6d4d-4d19-971d-78afa78fc47f" CreationDate="2017-10-25T16:01:16.570" UserId="16696" Text="Are CRISPR patents actual device or merely methods that utilizing devices?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50366" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18615" RevisionGUID="ab87b254-6d4d-4d19-971d-78afa78fc47f" CreationDate="2017-10-25T16:01:16.570" UserId="16696" Text="&lt;chemistry-microbiology&gt;&lt;crispr&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18615" RevisionGUID="a530ec19-0d7f-4141-8735-8fd001ec215d" CreationDate="2017-10-25T17:49:42.140" UserId="16696" Comment="added links to the patent documents" Text="I've been reading a little about this case and reviewing the claims in the [Charpentier application][1] and the [Zhang grant][2].  Biotech patents are not an area where I have much knowledge, but I have great interest in what constitutes &quot;abstract&quot; in a patent context, both in the US and Internationally. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my initial review, it seems as though the patent grant and application referenced methods, CRISPR &quot;techniques&quot;, as opposed to actual machines.  Is this correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP3071695A2?dq=Charpentier%20CRISPR&amp;cl=en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8697359" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50368" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18455" RevisionGUID="0a43a397-92f3-4d04-9a68-850121654e00" CreationDate="2017-10-25T18:34:06.550" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50369" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18148" RevisionGUID="29adc5bd-022e-489f-aefc-fb8b07a7ef6e" CreationDate="2017-10-25T20:34:07.797" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18616" RevisionGUID="262ea25a-8f18-41a3-a381-9c79b87e5a75" CreationDate="2017-10-25T22:08:35.100" UserId="20009" Text="So say there exists a patent for a hammer simulator, it consists of a piece of hardware: a specific hammer's (modified) handle connected to sensor base that detects any movement and translates that movement in real time to a virtual software running on a computer - simulating a hammer's movements. The device functions and looks similar to a horizontal, manual stick-shift, with the hammer handle having enough freedom of motion within the sensor base (which is stationary) to be moved like an actual hammer. The purpose of the invention is to practice beating the hammer against a surface, for simplicity's sake, but the hammer head and surface are virtual, so essentially the user is just moving a handle connected to a sensor to simulate beating a hammer virtually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now say I have created a similar hardware/software system where the handle is externally the same specific handle (it is a popular hammer!), but internally has differently positioned hardware to send similar outputs. The sensor is entirely different in design, make, and model, it only functions the same in sending information to the software to give virtual coordinates for positioning the virtual hammer. My invention also has more freedom of motion in that you can lift it and the sensor and swing it around your head (so long as the cables do not rip or disconnect). The virtual software also replicates the same (very popular) hammer head, but a different developing engine was used to create the software and all the assets are original creations that only slightly resemble the prior art in shape (different color, different size, significantly more detailed, etc.), and the surface is different from the prior art simulator. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, in the existing patent for the old system, it claims: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;1. A system for creating an interactive virtual model of a hammer comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&gt;an input device that can be manipulated similarly or identically to a hammer such that manipulations of the input device generate at least one signal that corresponds to a similar or identical manipulation of the hammer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;at least one feedback device in connection with input device, such that at least one signal is transmitted to the at least one feedback device wherein the feedback device can transmit information to the input device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;a video display device in connection with the at least one feedback device wherein information from the at least one feedback device is transmitted to the video display device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;a computer application stored on a computer readable medium accessible by the video display device that, when executed, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;&gt;generates a virtual model on the viewing apparatus of at least a portion of the hammer head of the hammer corresponding to the input device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;&gt;interprets information received from the at least one feedback device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;such that the manipulations of the input device correspond to and cause modification of the display of the virtual model of the hammer head of the hammer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. the system, according to claim 1, wherein the input device operates similarly or identically to a hammer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. the system, according to claim 2, wherein the input device operates similarly or identically to a &quot;Hammer Company (R) Hammer model x12345 (TM)&quot; hammer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. the system, according to claim 1, wherein the hammer head displayed in the virtual environment on the video display device resembles that of an &quot;Hammer Company (R) Hammer model x12345 (TM)&quot; hammer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. the system, according to claim 1, wherein the video display device is a computer monitor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. the system, according to claim 1, wherein the feedback device is a &quot;Feedback Company (R) Feedback device (TM)&quot; feedback device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. the system, according to claim 1, wherein the at least one virtual object is a wooden, metal, concrete, sediment, ice, or synthetic surface&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8. the system, according to claim 1, wherein the input device is the modified handle of a &quot;Hammer Company (R) Hammer model x12345 (TM)&quot; hammer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9. the system, according to claim 8, wherein the display of the virtual hammer head includes at least the hammer head and the hammer peen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;10. the system, according to claim 9, wherein the display of the virtual hammer head correspond, in approximately real time, to the manipulations of the modified handle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;11. the system, according to claim 8, wherein the input device comprises a tool handle modified with at least one microswitch that transmits a signal to the feedback device when the input device is manipulated&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;12. the system, according to claim 11, wherein at least one microswitch is used to detect at least one manipulation of a handle component&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;13. the system, according to claim 11, wherein the operable connection of the modified handle to the feedback device is by electrical connection&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;14. the system, according to claim 11, wherein the electrical connection is facilitated by an electric jack&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I think almost all of these claims can be argued to be infringed upon by my invention. My invention consists of an input device (the same handle, modified differently but still uses microswitches) connected to a feedback device (completely different sensor and different assembly) that transmits information through a USB cable to a video display device (laptop/computer/tablet/mobile monitor), to manipulate virtual objects (similar physical shape but different color, size, and significantly more detailed) in real time in a computer/mobile application (different developing engine, original assets) to simulate hammer beating (different surfaces).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I decide to file a patent for my hammer simulator, which is in every regard superior to the prior art, despite having some identical/similar aspects, what is the feasibility of having a patent granted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate your response in advance. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50371" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18616" RevisionGUID="262ea25a-8f18-41a3-a381-9c79b87e5a75" CreationDate="2017-10-25T22:08:35.100" UserId="20009" Text="Does my invention infringe on this hardware/software system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50372" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18616" RevisionGUID="262ea25a-8f18-41a3-a381-9c79b87e5a75" CreationDate="2017-10-25T22:08:35.100" UserId="20009" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18616" RevisionGUID="34a11b52-4775-4db1-bba9-e6f61a1d78f4" CreationDate="2017-10-25T22:25:46.477" UserId="20009" Comment="added 672 characters in body" Text="So say there exists a patent for a hammer simulator, it consists of a piece of hardware: a specific hammer's (modified) handle connected to sensor base that detects any movement and translates that movement in real time to a virtual software running on a computer - simulating a hammer's movements. The device functions and looks similar to a horizontal, manual stick-shift, with the hammer handle having enough freedom of motion within the sensor base (which is stationary) to be moved like an actual hammer. The purpose of the invention is to practice driving nails into a surface by beating the hammer against said surface, for simplicity's sake, but the hammer head, nail, and surface are virtual, so essentially the user is just moving a handle connected to a sensor to simulate beating a hammer virtually. The nail is always partially inserted into the surface, there is no interaction with the nail except for hammering it, and it is always the same nail (no diversity in shape, color, 3D model design, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now say I have created a similar hardware/software system where the handle is externally the same specific handle (it is a popular hammer!), but internally has differently positioned hardware to send similar outputs. The sensor is entirely different in design, make, and model, it only functions the same in sending information to the software to give virtual coordinates for positioning the virtual hammer. My invention also has an additional component, a glove, that simulates hand movement for the user who wears it. The purpose of the glove is only for picking up and holding a virtual nail (different types, sizes, colors, shapes, etc). The virtual nail starts off just lying flat on the surface, the user is to pick it up and position it properly for the user to hammer it. That is all the glove is used for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My invention also has more freedom of motion in that you can lift the hammer handle and the sensor and swing it around your head (so long as the cables do not rip or disconnect). The virtual software also replicates the same (very popular) hammer head, but a different developing engine was used to create the software and all the assets are original creations that only slightly resemble the prior art in shape (different color, different size, significantly more detailed, etc.), and the surface is different from the prior art simulator. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, in the existing patent for the old system, it claims: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;1. A system for creating an interactive virtual model of a hammer comprising:&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&gt;an input device that can be manipulated similarly or identically to a hammer such that manipulations of the input device generate at least one signal that corresponds to a similar or identical manipulation of the hammer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;at least one feedback device in connection with input device, such that at least one signal is transmitted to the at least one feedback device wherein the feedback device can transmit information to the input device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;a video display device in connection with the at least one feedback device wherein information from the at least one feedback device is transmitted to the video display device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;a computer application stored on a computer readable medium accessible by the video display device that, when executed, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;&gt;generates a virtual model on the viewing apparatus of at least a portion of the hammer head of the hammer corresponding to the input device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;&gt;interprets information received from the at least one feedback device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;such that the manipulations of the input device correspond to and cause modification of the display of the virtual model of the hammer head of the hammer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. the system, according to claim 1, wherein the input device operates similarly or identically to a hammer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. the system, according to claim 2, wherein the input device operates similarly or identically to a &quot;Hammer Company (R) Hammer model x12345 (TM)&quot; hammer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. the system, according to claim 1, wherein the hammer head displayed in the virtual environment on the video display device resembles that of an &quot;Hammer Company (R) Hammer model x12345 (TM)&quot; hammer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. the system, according to claim 1, wherein the video display device is a computer monitor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. the system, according to claim 1, wherein the feedback device is a &quot;Feedback Company (R) Feedback device (TM)&quot; feedback device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. the system, according to claim 1, wherein the at least one virtual object is a wooden, metal, concrete, sediment, ice, or synthetic surface&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8. the system, according to claim 1, wherein the input device is the modified handle of a &quot;Hammer Company (R) Hammer model x12345 (TM)&quot; hammer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9. the system, according to claim 8, wherein the display of the virtual hammer head includes at least the hammer head and the hammer peen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;10. the system, according to claim 9, wherein the display of the virtual hammer head correspond, in approximately real time, to the manipulations of the modified handle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;11. the system, according to claim 8, wherein the input device comprises a tool handle modified with at least one microswitch that transmits a signal to the feedback device when the input device is manipulated&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;12. the system, according to claim 11, wherein at least one microswitch is used to detect at least one manipulation of a handle component&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;13. the system, according to claim 11, wherein the operable connection of the modified handle to the feedback device is by electrical connection&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;14. the system, according to claim 11, wherein the electrical connection is facilitated by an electric jack&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I think almost all of these claims can be argued to be infringed upon by my invention. My invention consists of an input device (the same handle, modified differently but still uses microswitches) connected to a feedback device (completely different sensor and different assembly) that transmits information through a USB cable to a video display device (laptop/computer/tablet/mobile monitor), to manipulate virtual objects (similar physical shape but different color, size, and significantly more detailed) in real time in a computer/mobile application (different developing engine, original assets) to simulate hammer beating (different surfaces). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I decide to file a patent for my hammer simulator, which is in every regard superior to the prior art, despite having some identical/similar aspects, what is the feasibility of having a patent granted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate your response in advance. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50376" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18613" RevisionGUID="cd5868ef-709d-4132-a169-d9f6684d673d" CreationDate="2017-10-26T04:59:08.967" UserId="20006" Comment="edited title" Text="Can I file new patent, copy of patent I filed couple of years ago, as I missed PCT for few countries" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50377" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17273" RevisionGUID="b755a50e-7e66-498c-a56f-31b28c3ffc29" CreationDate="2017-10-26T07:35:07.083" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50378" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18332" RevisionGUID="944658d4-b04d-4cdf-bc15-ab8bb082ba58" CreationDate="2017-10-26T13:37:28.120" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50379" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18285" RevisionGUID="c43fbdcc-cf9f-48e6-afd7-bc3c708b3e24" CreationDate="2017-10-26T14:40:44.503" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50380" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18444" RevisionGUID="9cf424a1-06d5-408a-9802-7dfc86f4139a" CreationDate="2017-10-26T15:42:52.163" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50381" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18385" RevisionGUID="13459cc8-0e4a-4725-978b-4f4ee274aed1" CreationDate="2017-10-26T16:42:51.953" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18617" RevisionGUID="1f6a9029-0b01-442f-b66c-d7c6aff406f7" CreationDate="2017-10-26T17:02:43.437" UserId="17003" Text="I believe both cited documents have method claims. I see references to proteins, but not specific apparatus. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50383" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18414" RevisionGUID="5e508ad5-a373-420c-9d20-4b19665f986e" CreationDate="2017-10-26T17:42:51.957" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50384" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18328" RevisionGUID="4b7a88ae-d384-4d6b-856a-06455c6db7ee" CreationDate="2017-10-26T18:42:51.993" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50385" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18416" RevisionGUID="15897e1f-4155-4db8-81eb-5dc8bf2f493d" CreationDate="2017-10-26T19:43:01.073" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18618" RevisionGUID="15031914-9865-42c4-a18c-87cd2d4a5ea5" CreationDate="2017-10-26T20:13:31.543" UserId="17325" Text="Absolutely no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mention that you already got a patent granted and you followed the PCT route upon which only one national entry followed. This means that both the granted patent and the PCT are published and form now part of the prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you file the same patent application, the PCT and probably the granted patent will be cited and destroy novelty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So no one will stop you from filing a copy of an old patent application, but it will be a waste of time and money. Don't do it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50387" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18336" RevisionGUID="5a2e7740-55f1-4220-9a65-4a9dece9a21f" CreationDate="2017-10-26T20:43:02.887" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50388" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="ce008216-562c-4467-af52-270f359b1ab7" CreationDate="2017-10-26T21:43:02.843" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50389" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14635" RevisionGUID="717d67e1-f608-47e6-8595-09de1fddc6c7" CreationDate="2017-10-26T22:43:04.210" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50390" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="d23ff668-6534-42f2-a6dd-f311d67ba7d8" CreationDate="2017-10-26T23:43:04.413" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18619" RevisionGUID="95d6b1e7-1faf-4f8b-9025-e73d2efb8335" CreationDate="2017-10-27T10:38:30.213" UserId="17325" Text="Be careful of what you disclose in your post, if you are intenting to file a patent application. It is a public disclosure and may be cited as prior art against yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, infringement and patentability are two separate issues. Let's assume someone has a patent for A and you apply for a patent for A+B. If A+B is novel and inventive over A, you may get a patent granted. However, that does not mean that if you actually own a patent for A+B you are free to manufacture and sell. That requires the permission from the person who owns patent for A (let's say a license).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, the person who owns a patent for A may not manufacture and sell A+B without your permission.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So be careful here. Patents are not rights to business activities. They are rights for exclusivity over others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mind also that if you want to know about patentability of your idea, it is a high load of work and you should not expect an answer from a forum. Besides, we would require so many information, that as I said above, it would be novelty destroying over your future filing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18620" RevisionGUID="d8d438ad-a504-4271-aac9-a5608e0a2ee0" CreationDate="2017-10-27T10:56:55.307" UserId="20012" Text="To conduct an international patent search, you have two options. First, either you conduct it on your own on free patent databases or second, you get it conducted from a patent search firm. Purchasing a paid subscription of a commercial patent database, considering its cost, will be of no use if you have to conduct only a handful of searches. &#xD;&#xA;If you want to go through consultancy route, find a patent search firm that you find reliable and get your patent search conducted. If your budget doesn’t allow that or due to some other reasons you want to conduct the search on your own, the below free database –  I’ve provided some links to user guide/tutorial as well – will help you. &#xD;&#xA;Google Patents:&#xD;&#xA;What Google patents is, why you should use it, its pro and cons, and the like have been already mentioned in one of answers by my friend Nitin. I recommend you to read it from here: https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-use-Google-Custom-Search-to-search-only-for-patents/answer/Nitin-Balodi-1 &#xD;&#xA;Espacenet:&#xD;&#xA;Espacenet is free patent database offered by the European Patent Office that has more than 95 million patent documents in its database from around the globe.  Espacenet, in 2013, voted #1 for its patent data coverage hence I recommend you to include this database in your list. You can access it by pasting this link on address bar of your browser: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/  &#xD;&#xA;Here is a detailed tutorial that will help you know how to use various functionalities of this database: https://www.greyb.com/definitive-guide-patent-searching-101/#EPO &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patentscope&#xD;&#xA;Patentscope is offered by the World Intellectual Property Organization. Like Espacenet this is another free patent database that provides you an access to 65+ million patent documents from patent office across the world. &#xD;&#xA;Paste this link to access Patentscope: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf. &#xD;&#xA;Go through this user manual by WIPO to learn how to use the tool: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/help/users_guide_summer2017.pdf . Further, the link I provided above for Espacenet, that also can help you have an understanding of various features of Patentscope by WIPO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this information will be of a help to you. In case you need any help, don’t hesitate to send a PM." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50394" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18155" RevisionGUID="2d4d90e6-684c-4643-98b6-9b01799500fe" CreationDate="2017-10-27T14:54:12.153" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18622" RevisionGUID="b64fa2bd-c132-48e9-b2e3-3b9bee831d8a" CreationDate="2017-10-27T21:10:10.730" UserId="1279" Text="I came across a patent that was issued a few days ago: [US 9,799,066][1]: *System and method for providing commercial functionality from a product data sheet*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent describes a process where &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - products can be searched for in an ecommerce type system&#xD;&#xA; - When a product is selected, a product page is displayed. &#xD;&#xA; - The product page then displays a link to purchase the product as well as a link to an additional page where further information about the product can be displayed, in the form of a product datasheet (something like a PDF). &#xD;&#xA; - The product datasheet is unmodified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to infer what could be considered novel about this arrangement? From the description it sounds like an ecommerce system, not quite unlike most online retailers, such as Amazon, Walmart, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A computer-implemented electronic commerce system, comprising: a primary product information display system including a computer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; processor, memory, an input device and an output device and configured&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to implement a product ordering method, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; including receiving a product&#xD;&#xA;&gt; search inquiry from the input device, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; displaying a plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; products in a product listing available for purchase through the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electronic commerce system based on the product search inquiry on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; output device, &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving a selection of a product from the product&#xD;&#xA;&gt; listing, and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; displaying a first product information page including at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least a product name, a product price, general product information, a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first product ordering link for accessing a product ordering interface&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and a product information detail link; and a secondary product&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information display system configured to display additional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information based on a selection of the product information detail&#xD;&#xA;&gt; link, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; including receiving a product datasheet including the product&#xD;&#xA;&gt; name, the general product information, and product technical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information associated with the first product information page;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; generating a functional product datasheet including at least one of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; second product ordering link for accessing the product ordering&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interface and an inventory reporting display, without modifying the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; product datasheet; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; modifying the product information detail link prior&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to displaying the first product information page such that the link&#xD;&#xA;&gt; redirects from the product datasheet to the functional product&#xD;&#xA;&gt; datasheet; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving the selection of the modified product information&#xD;&#xA;&gt; detail link; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; displaying the functional product datasheet based on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the received selection of the modified product information detail&#xD;&#xA;&gt; link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PTXT&amp;s1=9799066.PN.&amp;OS=PN/9799066&amp;RS=PN/9799066" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50400" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18622" RevisionGUID="b64fa2bd-c132-48e9-b2e3-3b9bee831d8a" CreationDate="2017-10-27T21:10:10.730" UserId="1279" Text="Basic eCommerce system re-patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50401" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18622" RevisionGUID="b64fa2bd-c132-48e9-b2e3-3b9bee831d8a" CreationDate="2017-10-27T21:10:10.730" UserId="1279" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;us9799066&gt;&lt;ecommerce&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50405" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14680" RevisionGUID="5637563c-61fa-4370-9538-c268a1782508" CreationDate="2017-10-27T21:54:55.213" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50419" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13731" RevisionGUID="b5ab7211-560d-48f5-b8e8-36506b59bedf" CreationDate="2017-10-28T00:54:55.213" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18624" RevisionGUID="837d5421-3d37-42d7-bcec-ddc3069e46d5" CreationDate="2017-10-28T02:10:26.120" UserId="20017" Text="We were asked to assist a person who had a concept of creating avatars to raise funds and become partners in a JV. In the process we found out he did not have any technicle knowledge what so ever and was using two young engineers to acquire technicle details so he could write a patent with the promise of a shareholding in the company. After many months of work the first person informed everyone that he had set up a company and applied for a patent in his name only and expected everyone who had participate in the venture to sign over rights such as videos and the technicle information to himself.&#xD;&#xA;Is this acceptable under patent law especially as there is clear plagoriztion of the engineers work who had been working free of charge?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Victor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50421" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18624" RevisionGUID="837d5421-3d37-42d7-bcec-ddc3069e46d5" CreationDate="2017-10-28T02:10:26.120" UserId="20017" Text="Can a person with a concept patent technicle specifications of an engineer Without adding his name to a patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50422" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18624" RevisionGUID="837d5421-3d37-42d7-bcec-ddc3069e46d5" CreationDate="2017-10-28T02:10:26.120" UserId="20017" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50424" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18478" RevisionGUID="2d3a912c-45ac-499a-b686-64323bae0ffe" CreationDate="2017-10-28T05:57:37.450" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50425" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18477" RevisionGUID="5569520d-04f0-4ddf-a8d9-fcd1f26b68f8" CreationDate="2017-10-28T08:57:37.547" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50426" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="fa9a4c4a-de3c-4233-bdd1-54a8e07e3c79" CreationDate="2017-10-28T14:00:03.770" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50427" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="c35aaf87-9e6e-43e9-ba88-ad5be72df655" CreationDate="2017-10-28T15:00:12.553" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18626" RevisionGUID="3a5524d0-335f-4455-bcd9-413cee4855a6" CreationDate="2017-10-28T17:10:30.050" UserId="17003" Text="I’m not a lawyer, but in the US at least (and I think most venues), falsely claiming inventorship can invalidate a patent. There is no need either since the assignee (owner) of the patent need not be the inventor. It depends on the employment agreement between the actual inventors any the employer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14317" RevisionGUID="0de406a0-f796-47ab-845b-573344cdbfd2" CreationDate="2017-10-28T18:45:44.743" UserId="15954" Comment="fixed typo" Text="In order to be allowed, the broader claims must be supported by the disclosure of the original application, and be novel and non-obvious in light of art prior to the original application's priority date. If that is not the case, and the inventor is relying on a new specification to support the new claims, it is possible that those new claims read on the material in your patent application (and therefore would not be allowed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without specific details, that's as much of an answer as anyone can offer you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16923" RevisionGUID="fef6a396-ebe3-4ed2-a5b3-06b2c342eff0" CreationDate="2017-10-28T19:51:30.623" UserId="13706" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="I am looking for some intermediate level books on patents.&#xD;&#xA;I heard about a book called &quot;[Patent It Yourself][1]&quot;, has anyone read it and can you recommend it? What group is the book targeting and does it give some deeper insight? Is it country specific?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Other suggestions are appreciated too)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://amzn.to/2zUr7Ut" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12307" RevisionGUID="8a366ce9-ccd5-4122-a945-ce99a2b44e0c" CreationDate="2017-10-28T19:55:34.857" UserId="13706" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="I would like help finding prior art for [WO2014027990 A1](http://www.google.com/patents/WO2014027990A1), please.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent &quot;Performance tests in a continuous deployment pipeline&quot; by some employees of HP (filed Aug 13 2012, published Feb 20, 2014) describes how to establish automated performance testing in a deployment pipeline, which is an approach I was first aware of in 2008 when working with Dave Farley. In July 2010 Dave Farley and Jez Humble published the book &quot;[Continuous Delivery][1]&quot; which described in detail how to create an automated pipeline including automated latency, throughput, and soak testing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I consider the patent to be without merit and am looking for help in finding prior art from the &quot;Continuous Delivery&quot; book and/or prior to book publication, preferably pre-2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://amzn.to/2gLgOtm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18627" RevisionGUID="959dc273-9445-448f-8683-5e140a652207" CreationDate="2017-10-29T02:25:58.160" UserId="17003" Text="To infringe on a claim you have to implement each and every aspect of that claim. Long and complicated claims are generally easier to circumvent. Looking at the claim you quoted, the following section stands out to me. &#xA;&#xA;&gt; generating a functional product datasheet including at least one of a&#xA;&gt; second product ordering link for accessing the product ordering&#xA;&gt; interface and an inventory reporting display, without modifying the&#xA;&gt; product datasheet;&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; modifying the product information detail link prior to displaying the&#xA;&gt; first product information page such that the link redirects from the&#xA;&gt; product datasheet to the functional product datasheet;&#xA;&#xA;It seems the claim is specifying actively generating the datasheet and modifying a link to it on demand. Is you have a already existing datasheet and link to it, I’d imagine you avoid infringement. &#xA;&#xA;Infringement analysis is tricky and I’d have to study the specification and other claims to be more confident. In addition, I’m not an attorney. Even if I were, I’d recommend consulting with one if you are worrying about infringing on any patent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18627" RevisionGUID="c70c98ef-393d-4ca5-954a-cf641c8c04fb" CreationDate="2017-10-29T06:33:15.963" UserId="17003" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="To infringe on a claim you have to implement each and every aspect of that claim. Long and complicated claims are generally easier to circumvent. Looking at the claim you quoted, the following section stands out to me. &#xA;&#xA;&gt; generating a functional product datasheet including at least one of a&#xA;&gt; second product ordering link for accessing the product ordering&#xA;&gt; interface and an inventory reporting display, without modifying the&#xA;&gt; product datasheet;&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; modifying the product information detail link prior to displaying the&#xA;&gt; first product information page such that the link redirects from the&#xA;&gt; product datasheet to the functional product datasheet;&#xA;&#xA;It seems the claim is specifying actively generating the datasheet and modifying a link to it on demand. If you have a already existing datasheet and existing link to it, I’d imagine you avoid infringement. &#xA;&#xA;Infringement analysis is tricky and I’d have to study the specification and other claims to be more confident. In addition, I’m not an attorney. Even if I were, I’d recommend consulting with one if you are worrying about infringing on any patent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50439" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18486" RevisionGUID="67b4a184-2e61-47d3-b758-31fc66fa6735" CreationDate="2017-10-29T11:06:25.067" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50440" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18300" RevisionGUID="18af8ff7-a3ef-46c2-991a-7165e12120d9" CreationDate="2017-10-29T16:08:15.790" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50442" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="13629" RevisionGUID="8013b584-e3a0-4ccc-8930-43d0b857bfe0" CreationDate="2017-10-29T20:34:55.230" UserId="14093" Comment="39" />
  <row Id="50443" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18032" RevisionGUID="0a796a6a-4152-4d9a-b6cd-1c7642ef92e6" CreationDate="2017-10-29T21:09:29.747" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50444" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17720" RevisionGUID="587ca1c2-8c00-4d63-8845-537190af01ac" CreationDate="2017-10-29T22:09:36.200" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50445" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="5e2e560d-1f89-4bf8-888b-cfe4f40a1dcc" CreationDate="2017-10-29T23:09:32.010" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18626" RevisionGUID="1dd8bf0c-d868-436b-9ccc-07a57a5c5682" CreationDate="2017-10-30T06:10:10.957" UserId="17003" Comment="edited body" Text="I’m not a lawyer, but in the US at least (and I think most venues), falsely claiming inventorship can invalidate a patent. There is no need either since the assignee (owner) of the patent need not be the inventor. It depends on the employment agreement between the actual inventors and the employer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50451" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17881" RevisionGUID="dfd22236-46f0-4581-ac03-71b407c4ac8c" CreationDate="2017-10-30T11:10:18.580" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18629" RevisionGUID="b7b372d5-e1fd-4267-adb8-84f5f882d9cf" CreationDate="2017-10-30T15:40:12.270" UserId="20028" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8780542][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8780542&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;USI-Tech is claiming a patent on a similar sounding technology, see link, do they now own this technology?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.bitcoincoaches.com/energy-creation-recyclable-energy-new-techcoin-among-major-usi-tech-announcements/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50454" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18629" RevisionGUID="b7b372d5-e1fd-4267-adb8-84f5f882d9cf" CreationDate="2017-10-30T15:40:12.270" UserId="20028" Text="Who owns this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50455" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18629" RevisionGUID="b7b372d5-e1fd-4267-adb8-84f5f882d9cf" CreationDate="2017-10-30T15:40:12.270" UserId="20028" Text="&lt;business&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50456" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18294" RevisionGUID="e9d762ef-eec5-4adc-8707-5e3c79dc6186" CreationDate="2017-10-30T16:10:44.260" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50457" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="a83633e5-0c8d-4133-879f-44762eabc633" CreationDate="2017-10-30T17:10:42.680" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18630" RevisionGUID="89c19cab-8972-4c3c-8ebe-7ab111207531" CreationDate="2017-10-30T18:23:17.007" UserId="20010" Text="I am trying to automatically retrieve patents claims from different jurisdictions. &#xD;&#xA;[Open Patent Services][1] allows to retrieve patents Claims from WO, EU, and several other patent offices whereas no coverage for US jurisdiction is provided. [USPTO PatentsView][2] supports fetching abstracts from US patents but no Claims. To adhere to Terms of Use of patent search engines, I don't want to use a web crawler. **What patent search engines do allow to automatically retrieve Claims of patents and patent applications from USPTO patent databases (via API)?**    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ops.epo.org&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.patentsview.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50459" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18630" RevisionGUID="89c19cab-8972-4c3c-8ebe-7ab111207531" CreationDate="2017-10-30T18:23:17.007" UserId="20010" Text="Retrieve US patents claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50460" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18630" RevisionGUID="89c19cab-8972-4c3c-8ebe-7ab111207531" CreationDate="2017-10-30T18:23:17.007" UserId="20010" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;databases&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50461" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="c0baad86-2ff3-4a59-bc4f-7b08e58c66cf" CreationDate="2017-10-30T20:12:35.840" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18631" RevisionGUID="5807b367-9d61-4e73-b520-12856b6b20e5" CreationDate="2017-10-30T20:34:31.183" UserId="20029" Text="They will have IP rights over this technology if the patent is granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes Applicants have merely a patent application but they announce it as the patent has already been granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To know if they have the patent granted, go to USPTO site and search by Applicant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18632" RevisionGUID="50116fd5-5008-48ba-8e59-13b31d5ebc47" CreationDate="2017-10-30T20:41:15.767" UserId="20029" Text="If field (22) is 2001, and it is not a continuation from a previous patent, than add 20 years + 551 days to 2001 and you have your date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18633" RevisionGUID="a70417aa-9520-42eb-9493-e17036f8fe53" CreationDate="2017-10-30T20:46:10.803" UserId="20029" Text="Just check in US PAIRS if the yearly fees have been payed. If fees have not been payed by the Applicant, the invention is free. But watch out for patent family members or continuations. And check also if patent cannot be restored, even if after lapsing by non-payment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18634" RevisionGUID="bfd2046b-30a1-448f-9482-0f57ca939820" CreationDate="2017-10-30T21:00:44.107" UserId="14341" Text="I filed a provisional patent app about a year ago.  Seven months later I refiled the exact same provisional.  Does the second filing delete or get rid of my original filing date?  Do I now only have the second filing to rely on as a priority date? Or is the original first provisional priority date still valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50466" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18634" RevisionGUID="bfd2046b-30a1-448f-9482-0f57ca939820" CreationDate="2017-10-30T21:00:44.107" UserId="14341" Text="Does filing a duplicate provisional within the 12 months of filing the original negate my original filing date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50467" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18634" RevisionGUID="bfd2046b-30a1-448f-9482-0f57ca939820" CreationDate="2017-10-30T21:00:44.107" UserId="14341" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;priority-date&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18635" RevisionGUID="35bc6933-3425-4ba8-bb1b-13f5be7d1586" CreationDate="2017-10-31T01:39:13.360" UserId="15503" Text="The second provisional filing does not affect the validity of the first one at all. You could freely claim priority to just the first one if you wanted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, assuming you filed the second provisional before the first was abandoned, the 12 month Convention deadline still runs from the first provisional, even if you only claim priority to the second. That is, it would be an invalid priority claim if you only claimed priority to the second provisional 12 months after its filing date (since that's outside the 12 months of the first provisional)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18636" RevisionGUID="ce672790-7499-4ef4-b60f-ee61602c4a96" CreationDate="2017-10-31T02:26:23.350" UserId="20031" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140149315][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140149315&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is this patent an international one?&#xD;&#xA;Also what exactly is this patent protecting? this website does the samething twitter or facebook does." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50470" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18636" RevisionGUID="ce672790-7499-4ef4-b60f-ee61602c4a96" CreationDate="2017-10-31T02:26:23.350" UserId="20031" Text="What exactly is this patent on?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50471" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18636" RevisionGUID="ce672790-7499-4ef4-b60f-ee61602c4a96" CreationDate="2017-10-31T02:26:23.350" UserId="20031" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50473" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="2ce60dba-032c-4808-8817-bf91e9436cf4" CreationDate="2017-10-31T04:23:17.883" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50474" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12629" RevisionGUID="8df8df66-6cbd-409f-8d6b-2a5f7c8c865b" CreationDate="2017-10-31T07:24:11.720" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18637" RevisionGUID="7e125111-3108-4c74-87c6-df939096443c" CreationDate="2017-10-31T13:17:09.977" UserId="19864" Text="If I provisionally patent an invention in 1 country(USA) and then develop and take to market in that country and others, before patenting within 1 year, can someone copy the invention and take it to market in another country without worrying about any consequences of infringement?   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50476" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18637" RevisionGUID="7e125111-3108-4c74-87c6-df939096443c" CreationDate="2017-10-31T13:17:09.977" UserId="19864" Text="Patent protection per country" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50477" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18637" RevisionGUID="7e125111-3108-4c74-87c6-df939096443c" CreationDate="2017-10-31T13:17:09.977" UserId="19864" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;protection&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18638" RevisionGUID="27692b40-c41b-499a-9256-26c6867d33c0" CreationDate="2017-10-31T20:22:34.337" UserId="16696" Text="1. The provisional patent shouldn't become a part of the public domain unless you publish it (at least for the USPTO, provisional applications are not published, and non-provisional applications are not published until ~18 months after the initial submission, which includes the provisional.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Provisional applications and pre-grant nonprovisionals only confer the &quot;Patent Pending&quot; status.  Violating a patent pending is not technically infringement b/c the patent may not receive a grant.  However, if the application does receive a grant, and the &quot;patent pending&quot; was listed along with the description or product of the invention, it does become infringement and damages may be sought retroactively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: You will have to file a non-provisional application in each region or country you plan to seek protection.  You won't have protection in regions where you don't file an application. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18639" RevisionGUID="58791f23-a696-4807-ad01-11ad5441b559" CreationDate="2017-11-01T00:49:01.880" UserId="17003" Text="The assignee for the patent you cited is EMC. While it is possible USI-Tech took a license or purchased that patent outright, I think it is more likely they are pursuing a different approach to a similar problem. Although the title of a patent may seem general in scope, the actual protected technology is described in the claims and should be quite specific. There are often alternative solutions to the same problem. Each alternative solution can potentially get its own patent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50480" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16606" RevisionGUID="232ee617-f390-4065-933d-8eb4311dcf18" CreationDate="2017-11-01T02:30:35.540" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50481" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18508" RevisionGUID="0725c0b6-8197-4191-b9d4-3ffd80e9401d" CreationDate="2017-11-01T04:30:36.263" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50482" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="0851ac64-e665-42da-b1e7-2a9a9ae3292e" CreationDate="2017-11-01T05:30:36.293" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50483" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16569" RevisionGUID="1439e8b0-efb6-4b86-a7ee-7175195206be" CreationDate="2017-11-01T12:47:20.250" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50484" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="cc5c513d-657b-4e37-a351-5e02c4f9b017" CreationDate="2017-11-01T13:47:27.657" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50490" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17171" RevisionGUID="9fb3342b-cfff-4dec-adc8-25deeb24ac41" CreationDate="2017-11-01T19:50:37.180" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18641" RevisionGUID="e7767702-770a-4321-9815-bda26102fbe7" CreationDate="2017-11-01T21:00:10.220" UserId="20041" Text="In reference to the patent application: [US20140088397][1]. There are multiple versions of the same thing I don't know which is which: [US20150289775][2], [WO2014047032][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A friend of mine is a researcher in biomedical engineering. During literature review she encountered this patent filed by a seemingly prominent researcher, claiming the invention of a carbon black-doped PDMS electrode (priority date: 2012). However, the said device has been in use in the research field for almost two decades. A simple search on Google Scholar could easily present dozens of prior arts. However, there is more to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's look at the first claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A surface mountable electrode comprising:&#xD;&#xA; - a conductive substrate having a substantially planar sensing area adapted for communication with an electrically sensitive surface; &#xD;&#xA; - a terminal for connection to a monitor circuit, the terminal having    electrical continuity with the planar sensing area; &#xD;&#xA; - the planar sensing area defining an impedance with a sensing surface conducive to electrical monitoring; and &#xD;&#xA; - the conductive substrate being flexible for electrical communication upon surface placement on the electrically sensitive surface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I am reading it correctly, did they just claim all electrodes as their invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thereafter a search on WIPO showed that they received a Final Rejection in March 2017, but they filed for Continued Examination in September, so it is still alive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![WIPO][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since it has been way over 6 months after publication or first rejection, I can no longer submit prior art to dispute this troll, right? Or is the PCT system different?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In this period after the submission window, but before the patent is rejected/granted, what else can I do, hopefully without breaking the bank? Is the process of dispute identical to that after issuance?** And is this really a troll?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(A possibly opinionated side-question: Given that it has been blatantly rejected, should I be concerned at all? In fact, would ordinary people pay attention to these things? I just hate trolls.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Options for submitting prior art on a patent application after the 6 month window passed?][5] (Similar to my question but the answer wasn't satisfactory.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How do you invalidate a patent?][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I had invented and published before this patent application][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I have prior art for a pending patent. What should I do?][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Upon reading their latest amendment, my friend commented that adding hydrophobic treatment with a specific chemical to Claim 1 may get their patent approved, as it is disguised as a feature to permit underwater use. Whereas in reality all such PDMS devices, electrode or not, normally undergo hydrophobic treatment as part of the fabrication process. Should we be concerned that the Examiner could be fooled?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140088397&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20150289775&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014047032A1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/J8ECL.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/16272/options-for-submitting-prior-art-on-a-patent-application-after-the-6-month-windo&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5628/how-do-you-invalidate-a-patent&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/13629/i-had-invented-and-published-before-this-patent-application-how-do-i-get-it-in&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3599/i-have-prior-art-for-a-pending-patent-what-should-i-do" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50492" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18641" RevisionGUID="e7767702-770a-4321-9815-bda26102fbe7" CreationDate="2017-11-01T21:00:10.220" UserId="20041" Text="Is this patent on electrodes a troll and how to get it invalidated after 6-month window has passed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50493" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18641" RevisionGUID="e7767702-770a-4321-9815-bda26102fbe7" CreationDate="2017-11-01T21:00:10.220" UserId="20041" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;us20140088397&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18642" RevisionGUID="7a7cbbb9-ab2a-43ee-8a8f-cce2187a7653" CreationDate="2017-11-01T21:00:54.830" UserId="17003" Text="The issued US patent for the cited application is [US9135662B2][1]. This is a US patent and only covers the United States. It is possible there are international equivalents filed, but it isn't indicated by patents.google.com. To understand what is covered by a patent, it is necessary to read and parse the claims. Here is the first claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for communicating information, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  providing and/or receiving with a data processor a continuous feed of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; relevant data extracted from a machine-readable data broadcast of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; financial news analytic data and/or a trading exchange data;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  the data processor automatically ranking the relevant data; the data processor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; automatically creating graphical output data messages from the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; extracted relevant data, wherein the graphical output data messages&#xD;&#xA;&gt; differ in content and/or format from the continuous feed of relevant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data and the data broadcast;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   the data processor automatically&#xD;&#xA;&gt; delivering the graphical output data messages to a user device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   the data processor automatically determining highly ranked distinct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; financial events from the extracted relevant data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   the data processor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; automatically creating spoken audio output data messages for the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; highly ranked distinct financial events;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and the data processor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; automatically delivering the spoken audio output data messages to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you an see, there is a lot to this, but it seems to be a method for aggravating financial data and providing a graphical output along with spoken audio. There several other independent claims (13, 15 and 19) also. To infringe on this patent you must implement each and every step of at least one claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for whether this just duplicates Facebook or Twitter, I won't comment as I'm not an expert (especially with Twitter). I will say, this fits a form of software patent I find problematic as claims pretty much state **what it does**, but not **how it does it**. In my opinion, the how is what should be patentable not the what. This patent was issued after the [Alice Decision][2] so one would hope the USPTO kept that in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9135662B2/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50495" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18185" RevisionGUID="b3ca38fd-c85a-461d-bea2-3f009725749c" CreationDate="2017-11-01T22:50:55.010" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50496" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16450" RevisionGUID="3bc11341-63ab-4ad8-86ca-026ca7d99ac7" CreationDate="2017-11-01T23:50:54.510" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50500" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16771" RevisionGUID="bdec774b-ef69-4f97-899b-19ef76f916bd" CreationDate="2017-11-02T00:50:54.330" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50502" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="fd840f19-8251-4f78-8ea0-4bd2157a3453" CreationDate="2017-11-02T01:50:54.560" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18642" RevisionGUID="afe0c244-42cf-45e1-a2a5-67eaf17e3785" CreationDate="2017-11-02T02:16:53.280" UserId="17003" Comment="edited body; added 5 characters in body" Text="The issued US patent for the cited application is [US9135662B2][1]. This is a US patent and only covers the United States. It is possible there are international equivalents filed, but it isn't indicated by patents.google.com. To understand what is covered by a patent, it is necessary to read and parse the claims. Here is the first claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for communicating information, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  providing and/or receiving with a data processor a continuous feed of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; relevant data extracted from a machine-readable data broadcast of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; financial news analytic data and/or a trading exchange data;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  the data processor automatically ranking the relevant data; the data processor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; automatically creating graphical output data messages from the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; extracted relevant data, wherein the graphical output data messages&#xD;&#xA;&gt; differ in content and/or format from the continuous feed of relevant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data and the data broadcast;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   the data processor automatically&#xD;&#xA;&gt; delivering the graphical output data messages to a user device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   the data processor automatically determining highly ranked distinct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; financial events from the extracted relevant data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   the data processor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; automatically creating spoken audio output data messages for the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; highly ranked distinct financial events;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and the data processor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; automatically delivering the spoken audio output data messages to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you an see, there is a lot to this, but it seems to be a method for aggragating financial data and providing a graphical output along with spoken audio. There several other independent claims (13, 15 and 19) also. To infringe on this patent you must implement each and every step of at least one claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for whether this just duplicates Facebook or Twitter, I won't comment as I'm not an expert (especially with Twitter). I will say, this fits a form of software patent I find problematic as it’s claims pretty much state **what it does**, but not **how it does it**. In my opinion, the how is what should be patentable not the what. This patent was issued after the [Alice Decision][2] so one would hope the USPTO kept that in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9135662B2/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50504" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17909" RevisionGUID="71ce1132-5736-4a03-90ce-c3906d9ad633" CreationDate="2017-11-02T03:50:55.313" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50508" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16544" RevisionGUID="4b64ab77-cb6d-442a-86e5-36edb2b576be" CreationDate="2017-11-02T08:51:50.340" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50509" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="9046d6fe-c73b-4835-b7d4-4417782c46ba" CreationDate="2017-11-02T10:51:54.667" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50510" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="f9c509e5-98c7-4dac-9156-f979444235fc" CreationDate="2017-11-02T11:51:58.917" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50515" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14883" RevisionGUID="5da12261-a85f-4311-b48e-74a6b1fba6bd" CreationDate="2017-11-02T15:56:28.513" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18635" RevisionGUID="69e26a82-5f3f-4b75-8ec4-0e38e7329946" CreationDate="2017-11-02T22:56:24.823" UserId="15503" Comment="added 689 characters in body" Text="The second provisional filing does not affect the validity of the first one at all. You could freely claim priority to just the first one if you wanted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, assuming you filed the second provisional before the first was abandoned, the 12 month Convention deadline still runs from the first provisional, even if you only claim priority to the second. That is, it would be an invalid priority claim if you only claimed priority to the second provisional 12 months after its filing date (since that's outside the 12 months of the first provisional).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Could you abandon the first provisional subsequently to use the second provisional for priority?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. The [Paris Convention art 4(C)(4)](http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/text.jsp?file_id=288514#P83_6610) expressly provides that a second filed application can only be used for priority if:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;at the time of filing the subsequent application, the said previous application has been withdrawn, abandoned, or refused, without having been laid open to public inspection and without leaving any rights outstanding, and if it has not yet served as a basis for claiming a right of priority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, once the second one has been filed, there is nothing you can do to recover it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50523" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17751" RevisionGUID="86f8fc24-1306-45fa-adf7-17878bfaeb33" CreationDate="2017-11-02T22:56:53.473" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18648" RevisionGUID="8756d03a-604c-4950-9775-0979027e6c7c" CreationDate="2017-11-02T23:54:05.090" UserId="20051" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8433843][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8433843&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm convinced this patent is invalid.&#xD;&#xA;This patent, in summary, is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The idea of combining wear leveling with a secure erase in the write step.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Various claims involving concrete steps of achieving the abstract idea in claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, the entire patent is a collection of concrete methods to perform &#xD;&#xA;the abstract process of combining wear leveling and secure erasure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe it is obvious because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Combining wear leveling and secure erasure in the abstract is an obvious solution to the problem of wear leveling leaking sensitive data, and&#xD;&#xA; 2. All the claims comprise obvious concrete methods of performing the obvious abstract method.&#xD;&#xA; 3. The methods are obvious in light of prior known secure erasure on devices without wear leveling, because in light of the prior known methods of performing secure erasure, adapting these methods to work with wear leveling is obvious and trivial. While the exact details may vary significantly between devices, the patent covers a multitude of different methods that are all obviously derived from the same basic abstract idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, it can be said that patent US8433843 contains obvious concrete implementations of a non-patentable abstract idea. Not only is the idea abstract, but it's also an obvious abstract idea (which was only not done before because the problem was non-obvious, and most of the industry is oblivious to security issues.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, if anyone know's prior art or anything prior that's close enough that this is invalid as obvious in light of the prior art, I'd like to know.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50525" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18648" RevisionGUID="8756d03a-604c-4950-9775-0979027e6c7c" CreationDate="2017-11-02T23:54:05.090" UserId="20051" Text="Is US8433843 invalid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50526" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18648" RevisionGUID="8756d03a-604c-4950-9775-0979027e6c7c" CreationDate="2017-11-02T23:54:05.090" UserId="20051" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;us8433843&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50531" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17963" RevisionGUID="d9d25474-54a3-480e-ae78-b189d6ca90d1" CreationDate="2017-11-03T08:04:54.463" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50532" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17916" RevisionGUID="bc3f3cad-c313-4b9c-a1f8-600963d6aee4" CreationDate="2017-11-03T10:06:14.910" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18649" RevisionGUID="32c050d9-b0f4-4cb0-9175-b167c7835e97" CreationDate="2017-11-03T17:38:20.263" UserId="20054" Text="In reference to the patent: [US6667877][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6667877&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google says the fees are lapsed on this patent. IS this still enforceable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50534" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18649" RevisionGUID="32c050d9-b0f4-4cb0-9175-b167c7835e97" CreationDate="2017-11-03T17:38:20.263" UserId="20054" Text="Is this patent enforceable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50535" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18649" RevisionGUID="32c050d9-b0f4-4cb0-9175-b167c7835e97" CreationDate="2017-11-03T17:38:20.263" UserId="20054" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;lapsed-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50536" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="692264a0-62c7-46df-9760-82a499e7e43e" CreationDate="2017-11-03T19:11:53.223" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18651" RevisionGUID="4e3dc3eb-b2d8-4e3a-92bb-6f95a76324d5" CreationDate="2017-11-03T22:39:40.447" UserId="17003" Text="According to the [US Public Pair][1], this patent's status is &quot;Patent Expired Due to NonPayment of Maintenance Fees Under 37 CFR 1.362&quot; as of 01-21-2008. While there might theoretically be a way to pay those fees and reinstate the patent, considering its been almost 10 years, I kind of doubt they will do so. According to the [USPTO][2], here are the rules for trying to reinstate an expired patent due to nonpayment of fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Reinstate an expired patent**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If a maintenance fee has not been paid in a timely manner and the owner of the patent wants to get the patent rights reinstated, a petition and proper fees are required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What are the petition requirements? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Any petition to accept an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unintentionally delayed payment of a maintenance fee must include: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. the required maintenance fee set forth in § 1.20(e) through (g)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the petition fee as set forth in § 1.17(m)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. a statement that the delay in payment of the maintenance fee was unintentional &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. be signed in compliance with § 1.33(b).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it may be hard to justify over nine years of nonpayment as unintentional although I suppose they could try. I am not a lawyer so there may be more to this and I hope one of the patent attorneys that contribute will provide more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/maintain-your-patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50544" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="d9656416-9d53-4127-9ddd-6a1d293535b2" CreationDate="2017-11-04T01:11:52.963" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50549" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18522" RevisionGUID="aa59cb4c-63b4-4eba-8260-70b22eb0c86a" CreationDate="2017-11-04T19:13:35.160" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18653" RevisionGUID="e00b141e-ecb6-4801-891f-356cbe93ff20" CreationDate="2017-11-04T19:21:42.123" UserId="20061" Text="I have an outstanding patent application that has gone through 5 Office Actions, 9 prior art citations, and one improper final office action withdrawn by the TC Director over the past 3 years. On the last Office Action, the Examiner cited art in a 102 and 103 rejection that I clearly disclosed in my specification in the original application. I am not sure the Examiner realizes it was cited originally, but aside from pointing out the mistake, are there any positions I can take to eliminate this art from consideration because she didn't address it for 5 office actions? It's worth noting this art is easily traversable (which I will address in the OA response), and was cited on claims that were previously allowed. (IMHO she cited the art as a punitive measure for my refusal to negotiate with her on claim scope, but I can't put that in the OA response). I think there is an argument that because the Examiner didn't previously see the 103 combination even though the art was known to her, it can't be obvious, but is there a legal argument to be made for estoppel, laches, or something similar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50551" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18653" RevisionGUID="e00b141e-ecb6-4801-891f-356cbe93ff20" CreationDate="2017-11-04T19:21:42.123" UserId="20061" Text="Examiner Cited Disclosed Art 3 Years After the fact in a 102 Rejection" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50552" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18653" RevisionGUID="e00b141e-ecb6-4801-891f-356cbe93ff20" CreationDate="2017-11-04T19:21:42.123" UserId="20061" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;prosecution&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18654" RevisionGUID="f41e3a2e-e749-4943-8718-dd4704a9c8e4" CreationDate="2017-11-04T21:23:22.370" UserId="15503" Text="No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a starting point, the USPTO is under an obligation to ensure that an application meets the various requirements before a patent is issued. That is, [35 USC § 131](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/131) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Director shall cause an examination to be made of the application and the alleged new invention; and if on such examination it appears that the applicant is entitled to a patent under the law, the Director shall issue a patent therefor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The converse of this is that if an examiner does not believe the application meets the requirements, they cannot allow the patent to be issued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, until prosecution has been closed, there is no prohibition on raising a rejection based on new art, and indeed there is an obligation to do so. As such, there could be no basis for equitable procedural limits, like estoppel or laches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neverthless, if you believe there has been some procedural impropriety, there are two options. You could contact the examiner's supervisor (reasonably informal), or you could file an appeal to an office action (formal and costly)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50554" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14767" RevisionGUID="fe290a85-d336-404c-b82c-304530970d5a" CreationDate="2017-11-04T22:14:52.700" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50555" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17769" RevisionGUID="fb61dba1-6e44-4103-8499-0fa957eba928" CreationDate="2017-11-04T23:14:52.413" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50556" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17768" RevisionGUID="75a7c9cc-a523-46c4-824e-12c28194ef56" CreationDate="2017-11-05T00:15:08.223" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50558" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="d8d44baa-1266-41b9-ae93-b8ea9dfdeaf2" CreationDate="2017-11-05T09:22:27.103" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50559" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="b9faed8a-736c-4795-a8e7-22f024fec64c" CreationDate="2017-11-05T15:23:12.313" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50560" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="18655" RevisionGUID="b7a91dd6-17da-42c8-a21d-d880e6883624" CreationDate="2017-11-05T17:34:55.133" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/362/signing-application-data-sheet-ads-using-efs-web" />
  <row Id="50561" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="18656" RevisionGUID="b419ba44-ea26-4206-9c76-d9e417ebe6b8" CreationDate="2017-11-05T17:34:55.133" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/362/signing-application-data-sheet-ads-using-efs-web/363#363" />
  <row Id="50562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18656" RevisionGUID="9539aa26-83d0-4dd7-8b08-0468c9507569" CreationDate="2017-11-05T12:22:12.677" UserId="19294" Text="After few searches, I found the answer in the following example given by USPTO:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/aia_implementation/oath_declaration_examples.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I put it just in case someone faces the same problem&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18655" RevisionGUID="1da0ef94-cc34-47a8-9413-23cbbe00f87a" CreationDate="2017-11-04T23:16:38.370" UserId="19294" Text="This is the first time to file my application using USPTO's EFS-Web service. When I used the regular mail, the ADS document is always signed by hand, while here with EFS-Web I'm facing the following contradiction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I sign on it by hand (i.e., handwritten signature), then I have to scan it before uploading it. If I try to upload that scanned pdf document using EFS-Web, I received a warning message said: the file template is not compatible with ADS template!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I ignore that warning and go forward with the scanned ADS or should I stick with the original readable ADS and use S-Signature?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking to sign on that readable pdf file using S-Signature, but I'm afraid that USPTO may contact me later and asking me for a one missing part &gt;&gt; which is about: &quot;The ADS received on xxxxxx was not properly signed&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are your experiences with this problem? Do you use handwritten or S-Signature when you use EFS-Web?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you so much" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50564" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18655" RevisionGUID="1da0ef94-cc34-47a8-9413-23cbbe00f87a" CreationDate="2017-11-04T23:16:38.370" UserId="19294" Text="Signing Application-Data-Sheet (ADS) Using EFS-Web" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50565" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18655" RevisionGUID="1da0ef94-cc34-47a8-9413-23cbbe00f87a" CreationDate="2017-11-04T23:16:38.370" UserId="19294" Text="&lt;untagged&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50566" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18335" RevisionGUID="955c2148-b7df-4255-8963-19c2d9bea490" CreationDate="2017-11-05T23:27:05.977" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50568" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="c1dbad63-478d-4fcc-947f-5ed2ad8a2b2c" CreationDate="2017-11-06T05:28:54.187" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50569" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15983" RevisionGUID="77ca9d34-95dd-49b1-92df-15f323c52584" CreationDate="2017-11-06T12:29:27.217" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18657" RevisionGUID="87f85c54-6a8e-49dd-9954-44dd95293edc" CreationDate="2017-11-06T16:13:01.777" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50571" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18657" RevisionGUID="87f85c54-6a8e-49dd-9954-44dd95293edc" CreationDate="2017-11-06T16:13:01.777" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18658" RevisionGUID="8ce68aeb-efc3-4879-a6ba-2becf4b200d0" CreationDate="2017-11-06T16:13:01.777" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50573" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18658" RevisionGUID="8ce68aeb-efc3-4879-a6ba-2becf4b200d0" CreationDate="2017-11-06T16:13:01.777" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18659" RevisionGUID="f9fa9fd0-f2c7-4c8a-9d7b-cbb34fab3572" CreationDate="2017-11-06T16:43:42.983" UserId="19850" Text="Advisory action is issued by USPTO if reply to final office action is within 2 months from mailing date of final office action and also reply time to Final Office Action including Advisory is 3 months from its mailing date. What if advisory action is received after 3 months from mailing date of final office action ?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50575" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18659" RevisionGUID="f9fa9fd0-f2c7-4c8a-9d7b-cbb34fab3572" CreationDate="2017-11-06T16:43:42.983" UserId="19850" Text="What is time to give reply to advisory action if it is received after 3 months of Final Office Action mailing date" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50576" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18659" RevisionGUID="f9fa9fd0-f2c7-4c8a-9d7b-cbb34fab3572" CreationDate="2017-11-06T16:43:42.983" UserId="19850" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;final&gt;&lt;advisory&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50577" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="48ecde5b-9295-4164-ac34-646c6917171c" CreationDate="2017-11-06T18:30:03.110" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50578" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16103" RevisionGUID="95e2359b-9dd6-438a-8094-ef02f2beef2e" CreationDate="2017-11-06T20:30:03.320" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50579" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="13629" RevisionGUID="9d662c47-5977-4955-8aee-93efc765c49d" CreationDate="2017-11-06T21:37:33.797" UserId="-1" Comment="39" />
  <row Id="50580" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17310" RevisionGUID="58eed9a5-5d8b-455d-bfa0-14823bf33193" CreationDate="2017-11-06T21:37:33.797" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18660" RevisionGUID="dddb58be-16dc-4299-9300-89127421a457" CreationDate="2017-11-07T04:45:43.783" UserId="20069" Text="In reference to the patent: [US2704622][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US2704622&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is it called a &quot;Soffer&quot; when the inventor is named &quot;Softer&quot; or &quot;Soifer&quot; as seen in various locations on the patent?  Which ones are spelling errors and which ones are not.  Were errors like this common back in the day?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50583" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18660" RevisionGUID="dddb58be-16dc-4299-9300-89127421a457" CreationDate="2017-11-07T04:45:43.783" UserId="20069" Text="Soffer, Softer, Soifer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50584" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18660" RevisionGUID="dddb58be-16dc-4299-9300-89127421a457" CreationDate="2017-11-07T04:45:43.783" UserId="20069" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18662" RevisionGUID="b03c2994-6387-4fdd-aae8-2e36255425f1" CreationDate="2017-11-07T06:30:49.543" UserId="20071" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7926598][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7926598" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50589" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18662" RevisionGUID="b03c2994-6387-4fdd-aae8-2e36255425f1" CreationDate="2017-11-07T06:30:49.543" UserId="20071" Text="Is this patent for the entire unit or just a specific part?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50590" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18662" RevisionGUID="b03c2994-6387-4fdd-aae8-2e36255425f1" CreationDate="2017-11-07T06:30:49.543" UserId="20071" Text="&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18665" RevisionGUID="bf95fb19-d3de-4ee1-b0ce-7f628edae84b" CreationDate="2017-11-07T15:05:19.620" UserId="17003" Text="This is the result of imperfect optical character recognition of an old patent. Try reviewing the pdf version. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18665" RevisionGUID="eb11eb32-f347-4cd5-b783-4718ac0d6c3d" CreationDate="2017-11-07T15:29:39.807" UserId="17003" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="This is the result of imperfect optical character recognition of an old patent. Try reviewing the pdf version. Google patents tries to automatically generate a text version of the patent. For old patents that are scanned from paper copies, this is prone to errors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50603" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17587" RevisionGUID="631752e4-e065-4113-8cb8-ab3a96cfde05" CreationDate="2017-11-07T17:47:02.770" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18666" RevisionGUID="6be9d255-f831-4874-9043-30d480b00fbf" CreationDate="2017-11-07T18:55:44.953" UserId="17003" Text="What a patent covers is described by its claims. You should first read the independent claims (claims that don't refer to other claims). Here is the first claim of the cited patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for operating a mobile robotic vehicle to surmount a series of stair risers, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  driving a support surface to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; propel the vehicle to place the support surface in contact with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; riser of a first stair below an uppermost edge of the first stair&#xD;&#xA;&gt; riser; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  further driving the support surface to cause the forward end of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the vehicle to ascend the riser of the first stair, the support&#xD;&#xA;&gt; surface generating sufficient traction against the riser to climb the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; riser as the support surface is driven; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  pivoting a first pivoting trailing arm to raise a rearward end of the vehicle while the forward end of the vehicle is supported by the first stair; driving the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; support surface to advance the forward end of the robot over the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; uppermost edge of the first stair riser;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  pivoting the arm to further raise the rearward end of the vehicle such that the forward end of the vehicle tips downward beyond the uppermost edge of the riser of the first stair;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and repeating the driving and pivoting to surmount a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; second stair of the series of stair risers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see this covers not an entire robot, but the method of enabling the robot to climb stairs using specific design features." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50605" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18211" RevisionGUID="87beb142-624f-4b6e-8412-853fab27ee50" CreationDate="2017-11-07T19:47:02.893" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18638" RevisionGUID="1cf415c6-3f13-45b7-aeb1-997ac8c1041a" CreationDate="2017-11-08T01:26:42.053" UserId="3076" Comment="clarify" Text="1. The provisional patent shouldn't become a part of the public domain unless you publish it (at least for the USPTO, provisional applications are not published, and non-provisional applications are not published until ~18 months after the initial submission, which includes the provisional.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Provisional applications and pre-grant nonprovisionals only confer the &quot;Patent Pending&quot; status.  Violating a patent pending is not technically infringement b/c the patent may not receive a grant.  However, if the application does receive a grant, and the &quot;patent pending&quot; was listed along with the description or product of the invention, it does become infringement and damages may be sought retroactively under certain circumstances. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: You will have to file a non-provisional application in each region or country you plan to seek protection.  You won't have protection in regions where you don't file an application. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50614" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="df6ce021-3958-4580-981b-7dd853163364" CreationDate="2017-11-08T17:56:38.983" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18669" RevisionGUID="e1a29099-bc41-4ee2-8934-0f2c77a5b50a" CreationDate="2017-11-08T21:25:19.803" UserId="18114" Text="I have an idea that I have been working on for a while, which, I hope I can get a utility patent for. Since, I live hand to mouth, with little savings, could Inventhelp assist me to get this utility patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that there is a lot of fraud on the internet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50616" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18669" RevisionGUID="e1a29099-bc41-4ee2-8934-0f2c77a5b50a" CreationDate="2017-11-08T21:25:19.803" UserId="18114" Text="Is Inventhelp wise to use for an inventor with no money to get a utility patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50617" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18669" RevisionGUID="e1a29099-bc41-4ee2-8934-0f2c77a5b50a" CreationDate="2017-11-08T21:25:19.803" UserId="18114" Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18635" RevisionGUID="0c57ff31-44b2-4021-9ce7-6f1f1c3d15c3" CreationDate="2017-11-08T23:39:21.543" UserId="15503" Comment="added 185 characters in body" Text="The second provisional filing does not affect the validity of the first one at all. You could freely claim priority to just the first one if you wanted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, in the US, you could validly file a non-provisional application based on the second provisional only, at any point within 12 months of the second provisional's filing date if you wanted. The key risk though is that there is some disclosure between the two provisionals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for non-US Conventional applications, assuming you filed the second provisional before the first was abandoned, the 12 month Convention deadline still runs from the first provisional, even if you only claim priority to the second. That is, it would be an invalid priority claim if you only claimed priority to the second provisional 12 months after its filing date (since that's outside the 12 months of the first provisional).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Could you abandon the first provisional subsequently to use the second provisional for international priority?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. The [Paris Convention art 4(C)(4)](http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/text.jsp?file_id=288514#P83_6610) expressly provides that a second filed application can only be used for priority if:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;at the time of filing the subsequent application, the said previous application has been withdrawn, abandoned, or refused, without having been laid open to public inspection and without leaving any rights outstanding, and if it has not yet served as a basis for claiming a right of priority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, once the second one has been filed, there is nothing you can do to recover it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18670" RevisionGUID="3204248e-880e-4c57-9870-8c41fa6bc355" CreationDate="2017-11-09T00:02:13.710" UserId="15503" Text="*By way of a preface, I have no experience with this firm. Everything below is therefore essentially reasoned opinion.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of their business seems to be acting as a middle-man between an inventor and a patent attorney. They imply they can charge a lower fee than if you commissioned the services yourself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From their FAQ:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Can InventHelp help me patent an idea?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For clients who want to know how to patent an invention idea, InventHelp can refer them to an independent licensed patent attorney to provide a preliminary US patent search and opinion. Based on the opinion, the attorney may then help prepare and file a US patent application for the idea with the US Patent and Trademark Office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Why would an inventor choose to work with InventHelp?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For the same reasons consumers buy any service: convenience and cost. For example, in order to obtain similar services as those offered by &quot;The Invent Help People,&quot; an inventor would have to [do a long list of things]. These services purchased individually by an inventor acting alone could cost much more than InventHelp's fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, they probably *could* assist you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as far as I could tell, they give no details about what their indicative fees would be. I would therefore be skeptical about such claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, I would be worried that their and your incentives aren't quite aligned: if they take a margin between the attorneys costs and what you pay, would they want to depress the attorneys costs to maximise their margin? So they would be incentivised to choose attorneys who have lower fees, regardless of the outcomes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would therefore caution against using them, at least without some serious consideration of the alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**An alternative**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're serious about getting a patent, I would recommend contacting one or more patent attorneys in your area, and have a discussion about their costs and what you can expect. You would typically want to find someone who has at least some knowledge of the technical area of your invention, and also someone who you find reasonable to work with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, smaller firms or solos will have lower fees, especially if they are based outside of major cities, without necessarily jeopardising quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is a patent even appropriate?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have limited means, then I would recommend giving some serious though about why you even want a patent. A patent has three business purposes:&#xD;&#xA;1. to prevent competitors (by passive dissuasion or active litigation).&#xD;&#xA;2. as an asset to be sold; and&#xD;&#xA;3. as a marketing tool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the likely cost of the patent going to present a good return on one of these? Or would the money be better invested in the business itself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18671" RevisionGUID="fddfe92c-60f4-4041-a7cc-2e4653fd6613" CreationDate="2017-11-09T02:32:55.587" UserId="16876" Text="17 months ago I filed for a provisional patent and approached a company the very next day to licence it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They claimed they have a provisional on my idea and that they are working on it already, yet til date, I have not seen any published applications using this idea in a provisional taking priority from that company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering if they had a provisional on my idea and they filed it earlier to mine they should have put it into a application by now and it must have been published (unless they abandoned it), correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since my application is about to go public in a month, am I safe to assume that if nothing comes up in the next few days that this was a lie?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50621" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18671" RevisionGUID="fddfe92c-60f4-4041-a7cc-2e4653fd6613" CreationDate="2017-11-09T02:32:55.587" UserId="16876" Text="A company claims they provisional patent on my idea 17 months ago, but haven't published anything that uses it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50622" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18671" RevisionGUID="fddfe92c-60f4-4041-a7cc-2e4653fd6613" CreationDate="2017-11-09T02:32:55.587" UserId="16876" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18670" RevisionGUID="a82b1f8e-5255-4b62-9498-527236889097" CreationDate="2017-11-09T03:11:08.297" UserId="15503" Comment="added 193 characters in body" Text="*By way of a preface, I have no experience with this firm. Everything below is therefore essentially reasoned opinion.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of their business seems to be acting as a middle-man between an inventor and a patent attorney. They imply they can charge a lower fee than if you commissioned the services yourself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From their FAQ:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Can InventHelp help me patent an idea?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For clients who want to know how to patent an invention idea, InventHelp can refer them to an independent licensed patent attorney to provide a preliminary US patent search and opinion. Based on the opinion, the attorney may then help prepare and file a US patent application for the idea with the US Patent and Trademark Office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Why would an inventor choose to work with InventHelp?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For the same reasons consumers buy any service: convenience and cost. For example, in order to obtain similar services as those offered by &quot;The Invent Help People,&quot; an inventor would have to [do a long list of things]. These services purchased individually by an inventor acting alone could cost much more than InventHelp's fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, they probably *could* assist you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as far as I could tell, they give no details about what their indicative fees would be. I would therefore be skeptical about such claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, I would be worried that their and your incentives aren't quite aligned: if they take a margin between the attorneys costs and what you pay, would they want to depress the attorneys costs to maximise their margin? So they would be incentivised to choose attorneys who have lower fees, regardless of the outcomes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would therefore caution against using them, at least without some serious consideration of the alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**An alternative**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're serious about getting a patent, I would recommend contacting one or more patent attorneys in your area, and have a discussion about their costs and what you can expect. You would typically want to find someone who has at least some knowledge of the technical area of your invention, and also someone who you find reasonable to work with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, smaller firms or solos will have lower fees, especially if they are based outside of major cities, without necessarily jeopardising quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is a patent even appropriate?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have limited means, then I would recommend giving some serious though about why you even want a patent. A patent has three business purposes:&#xD;&#xA;1. to prevent competitors (by passive dissuasion or active litigation).&#xD;&#xA;2. as an asset to be sold; and&#xD;&#xA;3. as a marketing tool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the likely cost of the patent going to present a good return on one of these? Or would the money be better invested in the business itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An anonymous editor of this post suggested that the USPTO has information on scam firms. It appears to be [here](https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ScamPrevent.pdf). I note this merely for completeness: I take no view on whether InventHelp is running a scam or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50625" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18220" RevisionGUID="f78fa859-5019-4169-99ff-1804b0aa477c" CreationDate="2017-11-09T04:04:12.337" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50629" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="c463ddb1-bd0a-48c3-aa22-765134500fb9" CreationDate="2017-11-09T05:04:11.657" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18673" RevisionGUID="cb0fdff7-292f-4c3e-82ae-04530138eadb" CreationDate="2017-11-09T06:39:45.280" UserId="15954" Text="No, you can't safely assume this was a lie. First, US patent applications do not generally publish until 18 months after their priority date (so, for an application claiming priority to a provisional, 18 months after the provisional's filing date). Therefore, if the company had filed their provisional the day before yours, it would not yet have become public. In reality, the USPTO is often slow about these publications, and so applications are often not published until well after the 18 month mark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, it is possible for an applicant to file a non-publication request with their application. In this case, the application is not made public until a patent is granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you don't mention whether you filed a non-provisional application claiming priority to your provisional. Please note that, if you did not file such an application within 12 months of filing the provisional: a) the provisional will have gone abandoned at the 12 month mark, and so its priority date could no longer be relied on, and b) the provisional will not become public. (If you did file an application to convert the provisional, it will indeed be published some time after the 18 month mark.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50632" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="e0d3ca34-4c1e-446d-810e-9eadedfe8e1b" CreationDate="2017-11-09T09:04:21.307" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18675" RevisionGUID="909f48f0-3e15-4e2a-bcff-147afac71f2d" CreationDate="2017-11-09T10:39:08.767" UserId="20083" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20150307941][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20150307941" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50634" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18675" RevisionGUID="909f48f0-3e15-4e2a-bcff-147afac71f2d" CreationDate="2017-11-09T10:39:08.767" UserId="20083" Text="Are gene mutations patentable for diagnostics as in LQTS" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50635" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18675" RevisionGUID="909f48f0-3e15-4e2a-bcff-147afac71f2d" CreationDate="2017-11-09T10:39:08.767" UserId="20083" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18676" RevisionGUID="d093d4ba-b328-4784-9fa7-4009dad480cc" CreationDate="2017-11-09T12:13:51.807" UserId="20084" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2016179586A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2016179586A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hi, ive discovered a manufacturer for this wallet, but also found a patent from a company called &quot;the ridge&quot; on the design, id like to know if this patent is valid in the UK, and if its possible to sell these in the UK" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50638" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18676" RevisionGUID="d093d4ba-b328-4784-9fa7-4009dad480cc" CreationDate="2017-11-09T12:13:51.807" UserId="20084" Text="Is this patented in the UK?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50639" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18676" RevisionGUID="d093d4ba-b328-4784-9fa7-4009dad480cc" CreationDate="2017-11-09T12:13:51.807" UserId="20084" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50644" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17614" RevisionGUID="0532efe0-bf2f-43b7-a9a6-9c388f7678c0" CreationDate="2017-11-09T15:07:34.853" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18679" RevisionGUID="167ff1e9-3f7a-4b32-ab9c-7a78604531ae" CreationDate="2017-11-09T16:02:33.040" UserId="17003" Text="The document you cited is an application. It has since been granted as [US8658358][1]. So, the answer seems to be yes it is patentable since the USPTO granted a patent. Its important to note that the claims can change significantly from application to granted patent so you must read the claims of the granted patent to understand exactly what is being protected by the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8658358B1/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18680" RevisionGUID="c6223270-3b4d-4640-88a9-b151c94a90a2" CreationDate="2017-11-09T21:08:25.137" UserId="16696" Text="Looking at it briefly, it is an application (patent pending) as opposed to a patent grant (enforceable.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application has the identifier PCT/US2016/031472 which indicates an international filing under the [Patent Cooperation Treaty][1].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is definitely a corresponding US filing, [US 14/706,019](https://www.google.com/patents/US20160324283) but you'd [have to search for a UK specific filing][2].  (Patents must be filed for each territory.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The filing is relatively new so it may be a while before it is reviewed.  You should definitely research the UK patent database to make sure you're not violating (if granted) or opening yourself to future liability (patent pending) should the patent be granted.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/faqs/faqs.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.gov.uk/search-for-patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18681" RevisionGUID="04c04f8b-34b4-4410-820a-0a19ac174ec4" CreationDate="2017-11-09T21:18:12.560" UserId="20088" Text="As indicated in the Advisory Action, the date for reply will be the date of the Advisory Action as it is later than the 3 month date set forth in the final Office Action.  As you will respond to the Advisory Action after the date of the Advisory Action, you will need a one-month extension if filed within one month of the Advisory Action.  Of course, you will still need to resolve everything within 6 months of the date of the final Office Action, be it by filing an RCE or Notice of Appeal, getting the examiner to allow the case, or letting it go abandoned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18682" RevisionGUID="6dc713d1-a22b-4898-b67e-b65e2e98e488" CreationDate="2017-11-10T00:25:49.367" UserId="20089" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7925036][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7925036&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has this patent been granted and how do I contact the named inventor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50653" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18682" RevisionGUID="6dc713d1-a22b-4898-b67e-b65e2e98e488" CreationDate="2017-11-10T00:25:49.367" UserId="20089" Text="Has this patent been granted and how do I contact the named inventor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50654" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18682" RevisionGUID="6dc713d1-a22b-4898-b67e-b65e2e98e488" CreationDate="2017-11-10T00:25:49.367" UserId="20089" Text="&lt;question&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18683" RevisionGUID="e964639b-f3bd-472b-b747-cabede844f13" CreationDate="2017-11-10T14:00:55.117" UserId="14403" Text="The patent was granted vide issue notification dated 12 April 2011. Please refer www.portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair. Application No. 12/200695. Direct communication address of first inventor Peter M. Bouvier is 6005 HUGHES STREET, SANDIEGO, CA 92115 as shown in his combined declaration and power of attorney. Attempt can also be made through his attorney of PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES &amp; SAVITCH LLP, 525 B STRRET, SUITE 2200,  SANDIEGO, CA 92101-4469,(619)238-1900 vide grant issue notification. However, in power of attorney the address reflects SUITE 2100.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18685" RevisionGUID="021edf8f-acd0-44c7-b563-0619257ad194" CreationDate="2017-11-10T17:17:00.820" UserId="20092" Text="During a market research, I found the patent EP1512055B1 from 2002. It protects a control-based balancing strategy for wheelchairs in a quite general way. However I know also about the published paper &quot;Front wheel raising and inverse pendulum control of power assist wheel chair robot&quot; from Yoshihiko Takahashi from the year 1999. It presents also a control-based strategy to balance on the rear wheels of a wheelchair. (In fact it uses the exact same method but 3 years earlier).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, I wanted to ask if the aforementioned patent is righteous?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [EP1512055B1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP1512055B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50661" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18685" RevisionGUID="021edf8f-acd0-44c7-b563-0619257ad194" CreationDate="2017-11-10T17:17:00.820" UserId="20092" Text="Is the balancing patent for wheelchairs from DEKA righteous?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50662" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18685" RevisionGUID="021edf8f-acd0-44c7-b563-0619257ad194" CreationDate="2017-11-10T17:17:00.820" UserId="20092" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50663" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17944" RevisionGUID="576578fa-0f2a-4503-a196-5a1f4050b683" CreationDate="2017-11-10T18:16:50.037" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50664" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17945" RevisionGUID="3e802c22-6073-4480-82d5-be28ded377cf" CreationDate="2017-11-10T22:19:54.130" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18680" RevisionGUID="0f7b49fa-a26d-4c72-bbc3-6acd0b95abca" CreationDate="2017-11-10T23:26:02.423" UserId="16696" Comment="Added a reference to Maca's note" Text="Looking at it briefly, it is an application (patent pending) as opposed to a patent grant (enforceable.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application has the identifier PCT/US2016/031472 which indicates an international filing under the [Patent Cooperation Treaty][1].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is definitely a corresponding US filing, [US 14/706,019](https://www.google.com/patents/US20160324283) but you'd [have to search for a UK specific filing][2].  (Patents must be filed for each territory. See Maca's note below on European/UK filing.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The filing is relatively new so it may be a while before it is reviewed.  You should definitely research the UK patent database to make sure you're not violating (if granted) or opening yourself to future liability (patent pending) should the patent be granted.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/faqs/faqs.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.gov.uk/search-for-patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18686" RevisionGUID="d0223ecc-6b09-4b86-b299-0df998e4f580" CreationDate="2017-11-10T23:53:45.670" UserId="20096" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8317762][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8317762&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the patent still hold if the product does not use the same material, and some different ingredients?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50667" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18686" RevisionGUID="d0223ecc-6b09-4b86-b299-0df998e4f580" CreationDate="2017-11-10T23:53:45.670" UserId="20096" Text="same product without foil" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50668" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18686" RevisionGUID="d0223ecc-6b09-4b86-b299-0df998e4f580" CreationDate="2017-11-10T23:53:45.670" UserId="20096" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;modification&gt;&lt;health&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50672" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17041" RevisionGUID="8839b618-4ba9-4b83-b260-48c07a020dd6" CreationDate="2017-11-11T01:19:57.040" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50673" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16114" RevisionGUID="091cc8d2-8ab9-40d2-ac01-71f1d76fa07d" CreationDate="2017-11-11T02:19:57.087" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18687" RevisionGUID="0916852f-04ae-4e74-bec4-595e970af686" CreationDate="2017-11-11T02:29:12.487" UserId="17003" Text="If by righteous you mean valid, one answer is that EP1512055B1 is a granted patent and thus legally enforceable. I looked on [Espacenet][1] and the [European Patent Register][2] for cited documents and the Takahashi paper wasn't listed (which doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't considered). However, the equivalent US patent [US7017686][3] does show the Takahashi paper as a [non-patent citation][4]. This means the USPTO knew of that paper and still found the patent sufficiently novel to grant a patent for. It is important to remember that what is protected by a patent is specified by the claims and patents that seem otherwise broad may be more limited once you parse the claim language. I'd have to carefully consider all the prior art to render an opinion on whether I personally feel the patent is justified and that is possibly beyond the scope of this site. Besides which, I am not a patent lawyer so my opinion doesn't carry much weight. Looking at the patent briefly, it seems to be related technologically to the Segway which is also invented by Dean Kamen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=EP&amp;NR=1512055B1&amp;KC=B1&amp;FT=D&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP03736981&amp;lng=en&amp;tab=citations&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7017686&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7017686#npl-citations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18688" RevisionGUID="ede15859-e003-4820-a707-f7238ffcccb5" CreationDate="2017-11-11T02:41:07.833" UserId="17003" Text="To determine freedom-to-operate, you must carefully review the claims. To infringe on a patent, you need to include every element of at least one claim. This patent has two independent claims. Here they are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A skin patch for absorbing toxins from a body comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a first side comprising a heat reflective foil comprising titanium;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; side comprising a non-woven rayon surface configured for absorbing and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; retaining the toxins, said rayon surface comprising a plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; openings configured for enhancing transmission of far infrared ray&#xD;&#xA;&gt; emission into a skin when said second side is placed in contact with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the skin;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and a mixture of natural ingredients consisting of, by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; weight, 24% vinegar, 0.8% chitosan, 0.8% loquat leaf, 0.8% houttuynia&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cordata, 0.8% vitamin C, 60% tourmaline, 4% vegetable fiber, and 8.8%&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dextrin, said mixture formulated to emit said far infrared ray&#xD;&#xA;&gt; emission, whereby blood circulation is promoted and perspiration and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; any toxins contained therein are absorbed by said rayon surface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9. A skin patch for absorbing toxins from a body comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  means for reflecting heat from far infrared ray emissions;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  means for absorbing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and retaining the toxins; means for enhancing transmission of far&#xD;&#xA;&gt; infrared ray emissions into a skin;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and means for emitting said far&#xD;&#xA;&gt; infrared ray emissions, whereby blood circulation is promoted and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; perspiration and any toxins contained therein are absorbed by said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; absorbing means;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  wherein said skin patch contains a mixture of natural&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ingredients consisting of by weight, 24% vinegar, 0.8% chitosan, 0.8%&#xD;&#xA;&gt; loquat leaf, 0.8% houttuynia cordata, 0.8% vitamin C, 60% tourmaline,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4% vegetable fiber, and 8.8% dextrin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These claims are remarkably specific so I would think they would be reasonably easy to circumvent. Perhaps by leaving one of the ingredients out. That said, people actually pay good money to patent attorneys to get freedom-to-operate opinions so please don't consider this as one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing to remember is that there is no burden to prove your invention actually works in order to obtain a patent. I've run across many patents that simply don't work as described. I'm not going to offer an opinion on this patent, but there are publications which research whether toxins are excreted with sweat. You might want to review those." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50681" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18023" RevisionGUID="bb5f3110-5b7d-447a-9d83-99193573a2f2" CreationDate="2017-11-11T06:22:48.713" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18687" RevisionGUID="174ff157-ef1f-4409-9012-811030d0b109" CreationDate="2017-11-11T18:27:39.580" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="If by righteous you mean valid, one answer is that EP1512055B1 is a granted patent and thus legally enforceable. I looked on [Espacenet][1] and the [European Patent Register][2] for cited documents and the Takahashi paper wasn't listed (which doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't considered). However, the equivalent US patent [US7017686][3] does show the Takahashi paper as a [non-patent citation][4]. This means the USPTO knew of that paper and still found the patent sufficiently novel to grant a patent for. It is important to remember that what is protected by a patent is specified by the claims and patents that seem otherwise broad may be more limited once you parse the claim language. I'd have to carefully consider all the prior art to render an opinion on whether I personally feel the patent is justified and that is possibly beyond the scope of this site. Besides which, I am not a patent lawyer so my opinion doesn't carry much weight. Looking at the patent briefly, it seems to be related technologically to the Segway which was also invented by Dean Kamen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=EP&amp;NR=1512055B1&amp;KC=B1&amp;FT=D&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP03736981&amp;lng=en&amp;tab=citations&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7017686&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7017686#npl-citations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18683" RevisionGUID="d493ff85-ce7f-4163-94ec-aedd941e4cdd" CreationDate="2017-11-12T01:41:46.810" UserId="14403" Comment="Attempted to re-format for easier reading." Text="The patent was granted vide issue notification dated 12 April 2011. Please refer 'grant issue notification' and 'combined declaration and power of attorney' at www.portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair for application No. 12/200695. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Direct communication address of first inventor **Peter M. Bouvier** is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**6005 HUGHES STREET,&#xD;&#xA;SANDIEGO, CA 92115** . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Attempt can also be made through his attorney of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES &amp; SAVITCH LLP,&#xD;&#xA;525 B STRRET,&#xD;&#xA;SUITE 2200,&#xD;&#xA;SANDIEGO, CA 92101-4469,&#xD;&#xA;(619)238-1900** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in power of attorney the address reflects SUITE 2100.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50689" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17627" RevisionGUID="c48df07e-a16f-4168-b32c-fd603eaa8b77" CreationDate="2017-11-12T03:26:29.267" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50694" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="1c09e90d-cebe-4779-8623-dd5e2ca3247d" CreationDate="2017-11-12T14:27:56.853" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50698" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18371" RevisionGUID="18f813d4-598e-4f9e-9848-b1f7d5c757d7" CreationDate="2017-11-12T15:29:11.027" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50704" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="55709236-a085-4ae4-a80d-ebeaa2b2ddcc" CreationDate="2017-11-13T23:39:09.457" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18693" RevisionGUID="8c4d058e-9502-4086-a652-a4e3189489a5" CreationDate="2017-11-14T09:38:55.653" UserId="20114" Text="I am Egyptian pharmacist studying for master degree in pharmacology, I have discovered new use of a current medication for treatment of gastric ulceration through my experiments on rats. What are the steps needed for having patency regarding that ?&#xD;&#xA;I have to publish article to have master degree , Should i have apply for patency before publishing ?   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50708" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18693" RevisionGUID="8c4d058e-9502-4086-a652-a4e3189489a5" CreationDate="2017-11-14T09:38:55.653" UserId="20114" Text="New use of current medication for treatment of gastric ulceration" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50709" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18693" RevisionGUID="8c4d058e-9502-4086-a652-a4e3189489a5" CreationDate="2017-11-14T09:38:55.653" UserId="20114" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18694" RevisionGUID="a5db233d-15e7-451c-9307-de28f5674c6d" CreationDate="2017-11-14T15:41:18.627" UserId="17003" Text="This is a pretty easy call. You absolutely, positively need to apply for patents before you publish. As you are at an institution of higher education, you should ask your school's intellectual property office for guidance. At least in the US, most universities have offices to pursue patent protection for technologies developed by professors and students. Although you may end up splitting eventual royalties with your institution, it generally is an excellent way to go. Obtaining patents incurs a significant cost and trying to do it without actual patent attorneys is either likely to fail or end up with patents which provide poor protection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18694" RevisionGUID="012236c4-3199-4c45-9434-c9ca24b93a94" CreationDate="2017-11-14T23:11:48.510" UserId="17003" Comment="Brief edit based on Robert Cartaino's comment." Text="This is a pretty easy call. You absolutely, positively need to apply for patents before you publish. As you are at an institution of higher education, you should ask your school's intellectual property office for guidance. At least in the US, most universities have offices to pursue patent protection for technologies developed by professors and students. Although you may end up splitting eventual royalties with your institution, it generally is an excellent way to go. In fact, depending on your institution's policies, you may be required to work with their IP office. Obtaining patents incurs a significant cost and trying to do it without actual patent attorneys is either likely to fail or end up with patents which provide poor protection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18673" RevisionGUID="9a820d97-5b17-46c8-a586-8d5b29ee5acd" CreationDate="2017-11-14T23:29:54.227" UserId="15954" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="No, you can't safely assume this was a lie. First, US patent applications do not generally publish until 18 months after their priority date (so, for an application claiming priority to a provisional, 18 months after the provisional's filing date). Therefore, if the company had filed their provisional the day before yours, it would not yet have become public. In reality, the USPTO is often slow about these publications, and so applications are often not published until well after the 18 month mark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, it is possible for an applicant to file a non-publication request with their application. In this case, the application is not made public until a patent is granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you don't mention whether you filed a non-provisional application claiming priority to your provisional. Please note that, if you did not file such an application within 12 months of filing the provisional: a) the provisional will have gone abandoned at the 12 month mark, and so its priority date could no longer be relied on, and b) the provisional will not become public. (If you did file an application claiming priority to the provisional, it will indeed be published some time after the 18 month mark.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50713" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18577" RevisionGUID="04b90803-b7f9-4efe-b7ff-cd4cad216c9e" CreationDate="2017-11-15T01:49:26.797" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18695" RevisionGUID="70a2d1ac-235e-4695-94e6-ca884a4724ec" CreationDate="2017-11-15T05:55:13.837" UserId="20120" Text="I invented a similar idea years ago but never sold it or disclosed it publicly. ALthough I thought about patenting it in 2013 and could not find any anything similar at the time, I just didn't have the money and had no idea about provisional  patents then.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now, I go to research again and find that there was a similar idea, and that it was submitted under a provisional in April 2013, AFTER the new rules went into effect.  I suspect that when I went to look in 2013, since it was a PPA, it was not yet published so I couldn't find it.  However it was publishe and viewable 18 months after filing.  ALL throughout this time, this inventor was selling her item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This inventor actually began making and publicly selling her item at least as early as 2011.  From what I can find, it looks like inventor may have filed a provisional in both 2012 (although there is no published record of a different PPA) and then in March 2013, after the new rules came into effect.  But I don't think she ever went forward with a full patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, now it is 4.5 years since filing the PPA and she still is using &quot;patent pending&quot; on her website and literature.  Is this legal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if she has abandoned her right to patent, can I patent my similar idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would an inventor with abandoned PPA 4 yrs out have any legal right against me for selling, marketing, licensing or patenting a similar idea? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now...I cant tell for sure if this is an expired PP or a non provisional patent application number?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need to know because if she actually has a patent filed, and it is just in pending status, I have to go a different route. I believe I can file an improvement patent, since my idea is a different design, although same function," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50715" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18695" RevisionGUID="70a2d1ac-235e-4695-94e6-ca884a4724ec" CreationDate="2017-11-15T05:55:13.837" UserId="20120" Text="US20140312193A1 Is this an expired PPA or a non provisional patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50716" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18695" RevisionGUID="70a2d1ac-235e-4695-94e6-ca884a4724ec" CreationDate="2017-11-15T05:55:13.837" UserId="20120" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;improvement&gt;&lt;expired&gt;&lt;similar&gt;&lt;abandoned&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18696" RevisionGUID="5d004357-f3f7-47f0-b109-632c82ea4c77" CreationDate="2017-11-15T07:24:50.513" UserId="20120" Text="How do I go about either purchasing or licensing an invention that has an abandoned PPA?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the inventor is already selling said invention but never filed a patent, only a PPA, which expired 4 years ago....do I need to get permission from the original inventor to make, sell or license my own idea, if it is similar to theirs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if it is slightly different than the original invention?  Same function, different materials or different design?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50718" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18696" RevisionGUID="5d004357-f3f7-47f0-b109-632c82ea4c77" CreationDate="2017-11-15T07:24:50.513" UserId="20120" Text="purchase or license a prior invention" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50719" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18696" RevisionGUID="5d004357-f3f7-47f0-b109-632c82ea4c77" CreationDate="2017-11-15T07:24:50.513" UserId="20120" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;expired&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50720" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="ca7a776f-0b1f-4e0e-8933-d24abacdfe58" CreationDate="2017-11-15T08:52:39.743" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50721" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18696" RevisionGUID="6d1c4876-fe0c-44bd-90ce-60b76bdec107" CreationDate="2017-11-15T13:56:30.353" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="50722" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="18696" RevisionGUID="0648f455-a024-4f42-a905-68bdbaae233d" CreationDate="2017-11-15T14:36:48.223" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:17003,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Eric Shain&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="50723" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18577" RevisionGUID="d7e77428-4ccd-4c22-8ea7-17ea2ea93a24" CreationDate="2017-11-15T14:37:42.047" UserId="17003" Comment="Added patent number to link" Text="Sandwich Grill&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to know if the patent of this product is still active, or is it available?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US2463439][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US2463439" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50724" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18577" RevisionGUID="d7e77428-4ccd-4c22-8ea7-17ea2ea93a24" CreationDate="2017-11-15T14:37:42.047" UserId="17003" Comment="Added patent number to link" Text="Is US2463439 still active?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18697" RevisionGUID="aab91b28-df54-4f77-90f0-db7e9f87a2b7" CreationDate="2017-11-15T15:34:16.140" UserId="18033" Text="Only granted patents allow the owner to exert any rights from the patent (backwards in time possibly until the filing date!).&#xA;&#xA;Only pending applications (and revived ones if abandoned recently, but that's a different topic) can become granted patents.&#xA;&#xA;A not recently abandoned application will never give the owner any rights. However, there might be other patents that are relevant, from other parties or for example continuations or divisionals.&#xA;&#xA;As to infringement, if you implement all steps/characteristics of any claim, it doesn't matter what else you do, you're infringing. If you don't but are very similar, ask an attorney, there's a lot of potential traps there.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;_______&#xA;&#xA;As a word of caution towards you're other question (I can't answer it right now from my phone because the answer is rather long) - ppas aren't published if no non-prov. Is filed. So there is or was a non provisional application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18698" RevisionGUID="81670df3-335a-47aa-87c2-d82f5abe8b50" CreationDate="2017-11-15T15:42:17.097" UserId="17003" Text="Before we answer the question, you should be aware that the cited application [US20140312193A1][1] is a full patent application and not a provisional application. Patent applications don't expire. Rather they are either granted or rejected. The definitive site to determine the status of a US patent application is the [US Public Pair][2]. For this case, get past the CAPTCHA and select document number and enter &quot;20140312193&quot;. There you can find the status as &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot; with a status date of 8-07-2017. If you click on the &quot;Transaction History&quot; tab you can see there was a final rejection (which generally aren't final) and some back and forth until the examiner declared failure to respond. It has only been a couple of months since this status declaration so I'm guessing there is still some possibility that the application could be resurrected, but I'm not a lawyer so I can't say for sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**she still is using &quot;patent pending&quot; on her website and literature. Is this legal?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think so, but as I said, it has only been a couple of months since the application has been declared abandoned and there still may be potential for reinstating it. I'd welcome a clarification from one of the lawyers who answer here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**if she has abandoned her right to patent, can I patent my similar idea?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It really depends on how your idea differs from that described in the application and other prior art. The application, even though abandoned is considered prior art to you. You can't patent an existing idea. Also note the examiner rejected the application so he/she found enough prior art that it wasn't considered patentable. You can read the communications in the US Public Pair to see what other prior art was cited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Would an inventor with abandoned PPA 4 yrs out have any legal right against me for selling, marketing, licensing or patenting a similar idea?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, this was not a provisional application. As of now, the assignee of US20140312193A1 has no patent protection. There is perhaps a non-zero chance of reactivating the application so before you go off selling or marketing the product, you may want to consult with your lawyer. I've already responded about you ability to pursue a patent, and unless you get a patent you don't have much basis for licensing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Now...I cant tell for sure if this is an expired PP or a non provisional patent application number?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say if you found it on patents.google.com, it is a full fledged patent application and not a provisional. Full fledged US application numbers start with he year, in this case &quot;2014&quot;. Also, you can see the reference to the provisional application in the text of the application: &quot;This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/687,494, filed on Apr. 26, 2012 by Kimberly M. Nelson.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I need to know because if she actually has a patent filed, and it is just in pending status, I have to go a different route. I believe I can file an improvement patent, since my idea is a different design, although same function**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can always try to file an application for an improvement to a product or technology. If a patent is granted, you would then gain protection to that improvement. This, however doesn't mean you avoid having to license an existing patented invention should it exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20140312193A1/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50727" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17832" RevisionGUID="b1d8a43e-7714-46f3-9e79-9a18f79c12a0" CreationDate="2017-11-15T17:54:10.897" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18698" RevisionGUID="e707f8c9-8a0a-47b5-bd41-9742af8dbf63" CreationDate="2017-11-15T21:53:00.367" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Before we answer the question, you should be aware that the cited application [US20140312193A1][1] is a full patent application and not a provisional application. Patent applications don't expire. Rather they are either granted or rejected. The definitive site to determine the status of a US patent application is the [US Public Pair][2]. For this case, get past the CAPTCHA and select document number and enter &quot;20140312193&quot;. There you can find the status as &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot; with a status date of 8-07-2017. If you click on the &quot;Transaction History&quot; tab you can see there was a final rejection (which generally aren't final) and some back and forth until the examiner declared failure to respond. It has only been a couple of months since this status declaration so I'm guessing there is still some possibility that the application could be resurrected, but I'm not a lawyer so I can't say for sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**she still is using &quot;patent pending&quot; on her website and literature. Is this legal?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think so, but as I said, it has only been a couple of months since the application has been declared abandoned and there still may be potential for reinstating it. I'd welcome a clarification from one of the lawyers who answer here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**if she has abandoned her right to patent, can I patent my similar idea?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It really depends on how your idea differs from that described in the application and other prior art. The application, even though abandoned is considered prior art to you. You can't patent an existing idea. Also note the examiner rejected the application so he/she found enough prior art that it wasn't considered patentable. You can read the communications in the US Public Pair to see what other prior art was cited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Would an inventor with abandoned PPA 4 yrs out have any legal right against me for selling, marketing, licensing or patenting a similar idea?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, this was not a provisional application. As of now, the assignee of US20140312193A1 has no patent protection. There is perhaps a non-zero chance of reactivating the application so before you go off selling or marketing the product, you may want to consult with your lawyer. I've already responded about you ability to pursue a patent, and unless you get a patent you don't have much basis for licensing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Now...I cant tell for sure if this is an expired PP or a non provisional patent application number?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say if you found it on patents.google.com, it is a full fledged patent application and not a provisional. Full fledged US application numbers start with the year, in this case &quot;2014&quot;. Also, you can see the reference to the provisional application in the text of the application: &quot;This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/687,494, filed on Apr. 26, 2012 by Kimberly M. Nelson.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I need to know because if she actually has a patent filed, and it is just in pending status, I have to go a different route. I believe I can file an improvement patent, since my idea is a different design, although same function**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can always try to file an application for an improvement to a product or technology. If a patent is granted, you would then gain protection to that improvement. This, however doesn't mean you avoid having to license an existing patented invention should it exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20140312193A1/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50729" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18696" RevisionGUID="c71bcdf8-3f5e-497f-8a79-8155f548d9fe" CreationDate="2017-11-16T01:53:13.857" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[18695],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:17003,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Eric Shain&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="50746" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="aa4b25cc-53cf-486d-8c80-0e4d4d360b7e" CreationDate="2017-11-16T21:03:21.717" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50750" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17662" RevisionGUID="915a9d23-f9f4-4e4f-b823-903f2900c573" CreationDate="2017-11-17T00:03:21.447" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50751" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17248" RevisionGUID="1f40eac2-bc0e-40dd-8999-e0c56ccfc15d" CreationDate="2017-11-17T01:03:22.237" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50755" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="c2df64bc-cab1-4923-a205-30ecac08cb74" CreationDate="2017-11-17T05:03:31.290" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50756" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16666" RevisionGUID="02de8ce7-8ee1-4c67-9a92-27f8c6f0f43d" CreationDate="2017-11-17T06:03:29.333" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50757" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="22c7e177-7580-45f5-8ba4-9b54bf6453a8" CreationDate="2017-11-17T07:03:29.330" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50758" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13366" RevisionGUID="aa38a26e-48c0-46f5-b622-5a1be4cf7056" CreationDate="2017-11-17T18:06:13.507" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50759" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17844" RevisionGUID="9c212c97-80b8-4c10-8853-c1243ccee141" CreationDate="2017-11-17T19:06:13.873" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18704" RevisionGUID="65f97d86-f25e-4b9e-9acc-4316272a391c" CreationDate="2017-11-17T19:37:46.947" UserId="19913" Text="&#xD;&#xA;BACKGROUND&#xD;&#xA;==========&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A novel invention features a new industrial measurement **process** and is implemented by configuring COTS (computer off the shelf) computers and COTS software to produce a utilitarian result.  Hardware is not modded in any way, however, in the course of integrating COTS hardware components, software was developed to control the COTS components and produce the result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTIONS&#xD;&#xA;=========   &#xD;&#xA;Can more than one 'Statutory Class' be claimed by an invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If yes, Which of these Statutory Classes apply and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Process: Software processes&#xD;&#xA; 2. Machines&#xD;&#xA; 3. Manufactures&#xD;&#xA; 4. New uses of the above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that a strong argument for line-item 1.  In contrast the examples I have see for line-item 3 seem to exclude a COTS measurement process. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to machines classification, if the device can be implemented all COTS parts, is the invention precluded from being classified as a machine, because it is a combination of existing (patented) parts?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50761" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18704" RevisionGUID="65f97d86-f25e-4b9e-9acc-4316272a391c" CreationDate="2017-11-17T19:37:46.947" UserId="19913" Text="Statutory Class for COTS systems" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50762" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18704" RevisionGUID="65f97d86-f25e-4b9e-9acc-4316272a391c" CreationDate="2017-11-17T19:37:46.947" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;classification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18705" RevisionGUID="37998872-9dd3-4640-90cd-f4078af5912f" CreationDate="2017-11-17T19:38:45.733" UserId="20131" Text="In reference to the patent: [US9476133][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9476133&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hi, I am Brian Gilman you can email me at brian@gilmanindustries.com.&#xD;&#xA;I viewed my patent and noticed the artwork was missing. Can your group update the artwork? it is the same as US 20140284209 A1 (https://www.google.com/patents/US20140284209).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you,&#xD;&#xA;Best regards,&#xD;&#xA;Brian Gilman, CEO&#xD;&#xA;Gilman Industries LLC." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50764" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18705" RevisionGUID="37998872-9dd3-4640-90cd-f4078af5912f" CreationDate="2017-11-17T19:38:45.733" UserId="20131" Text="artwork missing from US9476133" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50765" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18705" RevisionGUID="37998872-9dd3-4640-90cd-f4078af5912f" CreationDate="2017-11-17T19:38:45.733" UserId="20131" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18704" RevisionGUID="ef6b8153-883a-4981-8697-d800d62ced5a" CreationDate="2017-11-17T19:52:13.610" UserId="19913" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="BACKGROUND&#xD;&#xA;==========&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A novel invention features a new industrial measurement **process** and is implemented by configuring COTS (computer off the shelf) computers and COTS software to measure and calculate a utilitarian result.  Hardware is not modded in any way, however, in the course of integrating COTS hardware components, software was developed to control the COTS components and produce the result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTIONS&#xD;&#xA;=========   &#xD;&#xA;Can more than one 'Statutory Class' be claimed by an invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If yes, Which of these Statutory Classes apply and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Process: Software processes&#xD;&#xA; 2. Machines&#xD;&#xA; 3. Manufactures&#xD;&#xA; 4. New uses of the above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that a strong argument for line-item 1.  In contrast the examples I have see for line-item 3 seem to exclude a COTS measurement process. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to machines classification, if the device can be implemented all COTS parts, is the invention precluded from being classified as a machine, because it is a combination of existing (patented) parts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50767" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17664" RevisionGUID="d8b7af82-d48b-41c7-9d0f-bf565f0fa0f6" CreationDate="2017-11-17T20:06:14.350" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18706" RevisionGUID="8545c3fa-0219-4bae-8c6a-267210d2dfac" CreationDate="2017-11-17T20:09:40.503" UserId="20133" Text="A patent gives the holder right to prevent others from using it for commercial purposes.  Can he prevent others from using it for research purposes? Answer it for US,  Europe and India,  if answer depends on the jurisdiction." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50769" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18706" RevisionGUID="8545c3fa-0219-4bae-8c6a-267210d2dfac" CreationDate="2017-11-17T20:09:40.503" UserId="20133" Text="Using patents for research" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50770" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18706" RevisionGUID="8545c3fa-0219-4bae-8c6a-267210d2dfac" CreationDate="2017-11-17T20:09:40.503" UserId="20133" Text="&lt;research&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18704" RevisionGUID="f3ea150a-6507-4796-b2b7-b18ed9a4b739" CreationDate="2017-11-17T20:34:10.363" UserId="19913" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="BACKGROUND&#xD;&#xA;==========&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An American novel invention features a new industrial measurement **process** and is implemented by configuring COTS (computer off the shelf) computers and COTS software to measure and calculate a utilitarian result.  Hardware is not modded in any way, however, in the course of integrating COTS hardware components, software was developed to control the COTS components and produce the result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTIONS&#xD;&#xA;=========   &#xD;&#xA;Can more than one 'Statutory Class' be claimed by an invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If yes, Which of these Statutory Classes apply and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Process: Software processes&#xD;&#xA; 2. Machines&#xD;&#xA; 3. Manufactures&#xD;&#xA; 4. New uses of the above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that a strong argument for line-item 1.  In contrast the examples I have see for line-item 3 seem to exclude a COTS measurement process. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to machines classification, if the device can be implemented all COTS parts, is the invention precluded from being classified as a machine, because it is a combination of existing (patented) parts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50772" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18581" RevisionGUID="5bb63b52-c1ce-4665-bef2-c9fd68c82c75" CreationDate="2017-11-17T22:06:13.533" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50777" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17660" RevisionGUID="a6dfe3ef-e274-408f-8f3e-3e0f42dc5bc5" CreationDate="2017-11-18T02:10:16.037" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50779" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18261" RevisionGUID="25068051-0e1b-4541-bca0-27ffe5b5d69d" CreationDate="2017-11-18T10:15:16.837" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18707" RevisionGUID="6ac8d6ce-67e7-4d68-b781-b023fe73fafa" CreationDate="2017-11-18T14:50:33.180" UserId="17003" Text="For reasons no one can explain, Google provides two different sites for viewing patents [www.google.com/patents][1] and [patents.google.com][2]. Only patents.google.com reliably shows patent figures. I would suggest, however, that you seriously consider using [The Lens][3] for patent searching. Here is [US9476133][4] on The Lens. You'll find the entire PDF with figures. The Lens site provides (in my opinion) more and better tools for patent searching than Google. It is completely non-commercial and you don't need to register or log in. You get some very slick graphical analyses. If you do create an account you gain some useful additional tools like saved searches and collections. In my testing, I've found The Lens to provide more complete searching. Searching for my own patents, for instance, The Lens returns a complete and correct list whereas Google misses patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patents.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_9476133_B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50781" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18705" RevisionGUID="c16ecd73-ea9a-4781-8627-0019215ebabc" CreationDate="2017-11-18T14:51:32.473" UserId="17003" Comment="corrected tag to one which is more relevant." Text="&lt;patent-search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50786" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18705" RevisionGUID="123f2da2-471a-4ac5-9ea1-261cd0d10e87" CreationDate="2017-11-18T18:37:09.227" UserId="17003" Comment="Added tags" Text="&lt;patent-search&gt;&lt;drawing&gt;&lt;patent-drawings&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18709" RevisionGUID="99dea2fb-1021-49f8-af28-9bbf2398c697" CreationDate="2017-11-18T21:46:02.027" UserId="20135" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20060218693][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20060218693&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to inquire who owns this patent and if they are selling it ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50788" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18709" RevisionGUID="99dea2fb-1021-49f8-af28-9bbf2398c697" CreationDate="2017-11-18T21:46:02.027" UserId="20135" Text="Who is the inventor of this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50789" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18709" RevisionGUID="99dea2fb-1021-49f8-af28-9bbf2398c697" CreationDate="2017-11-18T21:46:02.027" UserId="20135" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18710" RevisionGUID="c2987429-09c6-42ef-8b2b-7de093301647" CreationDate="2017-11-19T00:32:47.860" UserId="15954" Text="Answers to [this question][1] address how to contact the inventors of a US patent or patent application (essentially, by looking up the case in Public PAIR and finding the inventor contact information in the Application Data Sheet).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inventors of a patent application are not necessarily the owner (&quot;assignee&quot;). However, in this case, it appears that the sole inventor (Andres Sinohui) is indeed the original assignee. That said, it is possible that the application has been assigned to someone else at a later date. You can use [this tool][2] to see if any new assignments have been registered with the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, keep in mind that this is not a patent, but just an application. It may never issue as a patent, and if it does, the claims (which define the invention protected by the patent) may be significantly different from those shown in the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5059/how-can-i-contact-the-owner-of-a-patent&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18711" RevisionGUID="fb875494-1c4c-4ef7-86e7-270740e52214" CreationDate="2017-11-19T04:45:26.607" UserId="20136" Text="I went to invent help with me invention and had a book made so i could get in made but they wanted too much money. However 5 years later I see my invention for sell. I have a letter the day I came up the with idea and a drawing of it. Then I had a book with it made at inventhelp. Is that proof that it is my invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50794" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18711" RevisionGUID="fb875494-1c4c-4ef7-86e7-270740e52214" CreationDate="2017-11-19T04:45:26.607" UserId="20136" Text="I want to know what my rights are?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50795" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18711" RevisionGUID="fb875494-1c4c-4ef7-86e7-270740e52214" CreationDate="2017-11-19T04:45:26.607" UserId="20136" Text="&lt;inventor&gt;&lt;sucker&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18712" RevisionGUID="b527bb2f-90e0-498e-a851-1fd333bd988b" CreationDate="2017-11-19T12:29:23.570" UserId="20137" Text="As the title says: Can an inventive step for an electronic based product be shown in a mere block diagram?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have an idea for a product and the components are a tablet or phone (on one side) and an Arduino microprocessor (on the other side).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a block diagram was drawn up, showing how the product worked in block diagram form, could the block diagram be sufficient to show the inventive step required for patentability?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50797" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18712" RevisionGUID="b527bb2f-90e0-498e-a851-1fd333bd988b" CreationDate="2017-11-19T12:29:23.570" UserId="20137" Text="Can an inventive step for an electronic based product be shown in a mere block diagram?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50798" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18712" RevisionGUID="b527bb2f-90e0-498e-a851-1fd333bd988b" CreationDate="2017-11-19T12:29:23.570" UserId="20137" Text="&lt;diagrams&gt;&lt;block&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50800" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18709" RevisionGUID="4cbe5676-ffa1-4235-b428-2f117eb7f55d" CreationDate="2017-11-19T14:25:31.630" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5059],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:18033,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DonQuiKong&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="50801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18713" RevisionGUID="b5211b3a-68f9-48e3-8f39-420b457ba499" CreationDate="2017-11-19T16:48:08.053" UserId="17003" Text="The whole of the patent application describes the invention including the background, prior art, description of the technology and preferred implementations. I have definitely seen patents including electronic and software patents whose figures were solely block diagrams. However, the text in the patent application needs to reference the diagrams and explain how they work and why the invention is novel. Thus, while the figures may only be block diagrams, the patent application as a whole is clearly more than that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50803" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18711" RevisionGUID="0b381a62-ac4b-47db-a000-576bd5bc35b7" CreationDate="2017-11-19T18:31:14.243" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;inventor&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18712" RevisionGUID="db362a75-51e7-489c-9d94-068e56bb8a47" CreationDate="2017-11-19T18:48:41.610" UserId="20137" Comment="added 210 characters in body" Text="As the title says: Can an inventive step for an electronic based product be shown in a mere block diagram?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have an idea for a product and the components are a tablet or phone (on one side) and an Arduino microprocessor (on the other side).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a block diagram was drawn up, showing how the product worked in block diagram form, could the block diagram be sufficient to show the inventive step required for patentability?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the particular circumstances where there is not a working model of the thing described in the block diagram. Only it being assumed the engineering required (software and hardware) is likely fairly straight-forward to accomplish, along with signals, outputs and inputs marked on the block diagram." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50805" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18713" RevisionGUID="518ac39c-0caf-47cf-bb57-7f8176b14232" CreationDate="2017-11-19T18:54:12.257" UserId="17003" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="The whole of the patent application describes the invention including the background, prior art, description of the technology and preferred implementations. I have definitely seen patents including electronic and software patents whose figures were solely block diagrams. However, the text in the patent application needs to reference the diagrams and explain how they work and why the invention is novel. Thus, while the figures may only be block diagrams, the patent application as a whole is clearly more than that. As for whether you need to show code or a working example, I believe the answer is no, the figures and description should be sufficient. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50806" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17466" RevisionGUID="14a541d2-0698-47a4-96a6-5da68a1a8240" CreationDate="2017-11-19T21:36:51.163" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50810" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="4c15042f-7f45-47fb-8cf2-558255e68f21" CreationDate="2017-11-19T22:38:19.337" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14943" RevisionGUID="71009395-5c18-42bd-8e5c-37f908d4a2af" CreationDate="2017-11-20T00:30:05.393" UserId="13706" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="In the book &quot;[Invention Analysis and Claiming, a patent lawyer's guide][1]&quot; (second edition) by Ronald Slusky he makes the point that &quot;A claim reading on prior art is unpatentable whether or not the prior art solves the problem or recognizes its existence.&quot; (Chapter &amp;, page 89).  Is this a true statement indeed?&#xD;&#xA;He references:&#xD;&#xA;In re Dillon, 892 F.2d 1554, 13 USPQ2s 1337 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (en banc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked up the reference in Westlaw and came across the following related reference:&#xD;&#xA;In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir 1990) &#xD;&#xA;whereby the conclusion was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Following the weight of precedent, I would hold that a prima facie case of obviousness of a new chemical compound or composition requires consideration of not only the chemical structure but also the newly discovered properties, in light of the teachings and suggestions of the prior art. I would expressly reject the Commissioner's position that determination of the prima facie case is made regardless of the properties disclosed in the inventor's application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there is no suggestion in the prior art references, alone or in combination, of the particulate-reducing property and use discovered by Dillon for her new compositions, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been made. Thus it is not necessary to patentability that Dillon establish *720 that the prior art compositions do not possess the same soot-reduction property and use. I would reverse the board's rejection of claims 2–14, 16–22, and 24–37, all of the claims before us on appeal.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference between these two references? Does the 1990 reference affect the above point made by Slusky? Doesn't the 'reverse doctrine of equivalence' makes his point not true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://amzn.to/2z0FINl" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50814" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18124" RevisionGUID="fececdd7-b7cd-425f-b3cd-fa8a6e91ff2a" CreationDate="2017-11-20T02:38:20.637" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14685" RevisionGUID="89354d34-cd76-44bf-9701-4d9963ca2d63" CreationDate="2017-11-20T08:03:38.597" UserId="15787" Comment="Changed &quot;Broadcom's&quot; to &quot;Bascom's&quot;. " Text="I am searching for few patent cases where a patent troll lost the case. My list includes cases which ended in one of the following ways - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Defendant wasn't infringing the patent(s)**&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Patent of patent troll got invalidated**&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Patent troll dropped the case due to whatever reason.**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Here's an example case -** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A troll, WiLAN, filed a patent case against Apple in 2011. Apple won the case by successfully proving that Apple's product do not infringe the said patent.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Another patent holding company, Bascom Research LLC, sued Facebook and LinkedIn over an obvious concept of &quot;Documenting objects&quot;. Facebook &amp; LinkedIn successfully argued about the validity of Bascom's patents. The case ended in favour of these tech giants and Bascom's patents were invalidated.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will be really grateful if you can help me find these type of cases. My purpose is to find few key points about how a company won against a patent troll.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please don't bother too much, you can just tell me the involved party names or even just a link to the article published about the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks,  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50817" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="14685" RevisionGUID="29dbad55-b357-431d-a14a-8d2a171cc2a3" CreationDate="2017-11-20T08:09:09.953" UserId="15787" Comment="40" />
  <row Id="50818" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14685" RevisionGUID="11ff0323-2902-471a-966a-bd841ba649d4" CreationDate="2017-11-20T08:11:58.990" UserId="15787" Comment="Previous question title was not appropriate for the answer that I'm expecting" Text="Some patent cases where a patent troll lost the lawsuit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18716" RevisionGUID="748ccc52-0e89-4c6f-999f-1fd18e0a0195" CreationDate="2017-11-20T10:46:16.110" UserId="20141" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5779129][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5779129&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is the patent valid coz its more than 20 years now.Can we use the design for our production" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50820" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18716" RevisionGUID="748ccc52-0e89-4c6f-999f-1fd18e0a0195" CreationDate="2017-11-20T10:46:16.110" UserId="20141" Text="Is the patent valid after 20 years" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50821" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18716" RevisionGUID="748ccc52-0e89-4c6f-999f-1fd18e0a0195" CreationDate="2017-11-20T10:46:16.110" UserId="20141" Text="&lt;us5779129&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18717" RevisionGUID="465b48c5-223f-46d8-88a6-138dbfd39078" CreationDate="2017-11-20T14:13:23.150" UserId="17003" Text="You are correct that for patents filed after 1995 that the expiration date is 20 years after the filing or priority date. In this case the filing date is January 24th, 1997 so this patent should have expired on January 24th, 2017. I looked in the [US Public Pair][1] site to see if there were any patent term extensions and didn't find anything. Extensions are sometimes issued when there is an excessive delay in processing a patent application. You should be okay making a product exactly reproducing the invention described by this patent. I would caution that there is always the potential for other patents that might be refinements that are still in force. A good way to start looking for these would be to look at the [forward citations][2] for this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please understand that I am not a lawyer and this is not a legal opinion. As always, I suggest consulting with an actual patent attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5779129#forward-citations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18718" RevisionGUID="3d46ab0f-5d50-4884-b1ed-22f607b9aabb" CreationDate="2017-11-20T17:33:12.900" UserId="20143" Text="I published four months before them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They filed for patent eight months after I published&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I claim their patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50824" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18718" RevisionGUID="3d46ab0f-5d50-4884-b1ed-22f607b9aabb" CreationDate="2017-11-20T17:33:12.900" UserId="20143" Text="First publication claim patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50825" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18718" RevisionGUID="3d46ab0f-5d50-4884-b1ed-22f607b9aabb" CreationDate="2017-11-20T17:33:12.900" UserId="20143" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18718" RevisionGUID="1705dbec-5569-43ef-93f2-f7420ca1198d" CreationDate="2017-11-20T18:19:33.633" UserId="20143" Comment="added 545 characters in body" Text="I published four months before them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They filed for patent eight months after I published&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I claim their patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I submitted an very similar patent two months before I published. &#xD;&#xA;I am just one man and don't have resources to really submit a thorough patent. The idea I published was more scientific so my patent publication into more of a applicable hardware device, because I don't understand what is &quot;patentable&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other patent was filed by a University 8 months after my publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any argument explaining that obviously if I had resources such as a University. I would have filed my patent before them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I have a case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18719" RevisionGUID="6d9c62c8-3820-47e8-9ead-4888e4bfc687" CreationDate="2017-11-20T21:26:29.783" UserId="20144" Text="any advice on the best places/web sites of record to list ideas which you want to be on record as prior art so others can't patent them  (UK/US/Europe) ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have some ideas, which I don't want to patent, but want to avoid others being able to do the same. I don't want to go to the effort of patent searches to see if they are original. Also, I would prefer not to publish all the ideas in the same location (I don't want patent protection, but I don't wan't to make it too easy for people to reproduce what I am doing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any advice on good places to post these ideas that satisfy the following criteria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - relatively low effort/ expense&#xD;&#xA; - likely to stay online for next 20+ years&#xD;&#xA; - preferably reputable and validateable with timestamp&#xD;&#xA; - place UK/European/US patent offices may plausibly search &#xD;&#xA; - don't want to cause any trouble to an existing community&#xD;&#xA; - possibly anonymous&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideas that come to mind including submitting to a patent office? (do they have a dumping ground for open ideas), maybe the EFF or similar, I could spam a reddit or hacker news comments or  similar, there may be some crazy blockchain validator. I've had a quick look at @askpatents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've had a quick look and can't find anything obvious, but I'm sure something like this exists and I'm too stupid to find it. I don't really use twitter/ facebook much. I can always use my blog if I have to &#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50828" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18719" RevisionGUID="6d9c62c8-3820-47e8-9ead-4888e4bfc687" CreationDate="2017-11-20T21:26:29.783" UserId="20144" Text="Best places to record ideas as prior art to avoid later patents (UK/US)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50829" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18719" RevisionGUID="6d9c62c8-3820-47e8-9ead-4888e4bfc687" CreationDate="2017-11-20T21:26:29.783" UserId="20144" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18719" RevisionGUID="854d759e-d9cd-41a8-bdd1-11af78e88db5" CreationDate="2017-11-20T21:34:34.630" UserId="20144" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="any advice on the best places/web sites of record to list ideas which you want to be on record as prior art so others can't patent them  (UK/US/Europe) ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have some ideas, which I don't want to patent, but want to avoid others being able to do the same. I don't want to go to the effort of patent searches to see if they are original. Also, I would prefer not to publish all the ideas in the same location (I don't want patent protection, but I don't wan't to make it too easy for people to reproduce what I am doing -specifically I don't mind any of the ideas being used but I'd like a head start on the combination of the ideas)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any advice on good places to post these ideas that satisfy the following criteria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - relatively low effort/ expense&#xD;&#xA; - likely to stay online for next 20+ years&#xD;&#xA; - preferably reputable and validateable with timestamp&#xD;&#xA; - place UK/European/US patent offices may plausibly search &#xD;&#xA; - don't want to cause any trouble to an existing community&#xD;&#xA; - possibly anonymous&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideas that come to mind including submitting to a patent office? (do they have a dumping ground for open ideas), maybe the EFF or similar, I could spam a reddit or hacker news comments or  similar, there may be some crazy blockchain validator. I've had a quick look at @askpatents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've had a quick look and can't find anything obvious, but I'm sure something like this exists and I'm too stupid to find it. I don't really use twitter/ facebook much. I can always use my blog if I have to &#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18720" RevisionGUID="d818a99a-0d6e-4833-b334-dcd98d87e31b" CreationDate="2017-11-20T22:34:13.493" UserId="17003" Text="The answer is no, you have no claim on anyone else's patent applications. What you have is prior art. Once you published your technology, you lost you ability to patent it. Nor should anyone else be able to patent it. That said, it is possible the patent examiners may not find your publication while examining the their applications. You may want to make the patent examiners aware of your publication to make sure it is considered during the examination of the applications you believe copy it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50835" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="fc5ab191-62e8-481e-a6ac-d65479b08296" CreationDate="2017-11-21T00:47:41.257" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18722" RevisionGUID="89500739-e604-43d8-a3ba-4a582f33159f" CreationDate="2017-11-21T00:58:02.343" UserId="16696" Text="If you didn't patent it and, and the people producing the product didn't patent it, I'm not aware of any action you would be able to take. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents are distinct from copyright, where the creator's rights are inherent *even if they didn't formally copyright the IP*, so long as they can prove authorship.  (In the old days, before electronic filing, it was recommended people mail themselves their manuscripts and keep the envelope sealed;) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, even if they did steal the idea and patent it, *you'd have to launch a suit to contest and invalidate the patent*, which would be a protracted process and expensive. In this scenario, it's possible you could approach the manufacturers for some type of settlement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2013, the US law changed from [&quot;first to invent&quot; to &quot;first to file&quot;][1]. But even before the change in the law, &quot;first to invent&quot; dealt largely with the precedence of the original inventor in the case of competing claims in a situation where multiple parties have filed separate applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18720" RevisionGUID="f788d81c-b276-4c0b-8dc0-45bbc88c5e39" CreationDate="2017-11-21T03:33:38.560" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The answer is no, you have no claim on anyone else's patent applications. What you have is prior art. Once you published your technology, you lost your ability to patent it. Nor should anyone else be able to patent it. That said, it is possible the patent examiners may not find your publication while examining the their applications. You may want to make the patent examiners aware of your publication to make sure it is considered during the examination of the applications you believe copy it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50838" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17865" RevisionGUID="12ad676e-70f0-499a-b7de-107b1873d01d" CreationDate="2017-11-21T03:47:41.463" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50839" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="584a0c73-ce3e-47df-a5ec-40bfe52054d0" CreationDate="2017-11-21T04:47:40.780" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50840" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="46b5db6f-baeb-470e-bf85-3744f4c74e1c" CreationDate="2017-11-21T05:47:40.803" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50841" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12639" RevisionGUID="1b7acf24-dee9-48c9-b2cd-76e878e5be1f" CreationDate="2017-11-21T06:49:34.787" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18723" RevisionGUID="832179f1-2408-4703-92df-e69740a2dadb" CreationDate="2017-11-21T07:29:26.290" UserId="17325" Text="The most famous one is ip.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if one has to pay for publishing there, but its main purpose is defensive publications, i.e. what you are looking for. Patent examiners include the ip.com database to their searches, I personally have seen many search reports citing ip.com articles. So it is guaranteed that your disclosure will be retrieved against any future patent filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also time stamped and may be anonymous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mind that for one to have access to the article, he has to pay. But this is irrelevant to the fact that major patent offices search within its database and cite relevant prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50843" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="1ba5503c-5dc4-4373-9be4-ada512f0a4c3" CreationDate="2017-11-21T11:49:36.040" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18720" RevisionGUID="6f0fd85f-d937-40ad-b5e3-71eeb38faa9b" CreationDate="2017-11-21T12:56:49.253" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="The answer is no, you have no claim on anyone else's patent applications. What you have is prior art. Once you published your technology, you lost your ability to patent it. Nor should anyone else be able to patent it. That said, it is possible the patent examiners may not find your publication while examining their applications. You may want to make the patent examiners aware of your publication to make sure it is considered during the examination of the applications you believe copy it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50845" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18425" RevisionGUID="e62a9e9d-bb90-492b-9361-e217f8139c4a" CreationDate="2017-11-21T14:49:36.843" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18717" RevisionGUID="76f236ee-4143-4d11-943a-1944261eae7a" CreationDate="2017-11-21T14:51:50.763" UserId="17003" Comment="added 249 characters in body" Text="You are correct that for patents filed after 1995 that the expiration date is 20 years after the filing or priority date. In this case the filing date is January 24th, 1997 so this patent should have expired on January 24th, 2017. I looked in the [US Public Pair][1] site to see if there were any patent term extensions and didn't find anything. Extensions are sometimes issued when there is an excessive delay in processing a patent application. You should be okay making a product exactly reproducing the invention described by this patent. I would caution that there is always the potential for other patents that might be refinements that are still in force. A good way to start looking for these would be to look at the [forward citations][2] for this patent. As DonQuiKong points out in his comments, there is at least a theoretical possibility that an older patent with a patent term extension might be relevant to your freedom to market this invention. I think this is  highly unlikely but not impossible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please understand that I am not a lawyer and this is not a legal opinion. As always, I suggest consulting with an actual patent attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5779129#forward-citations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50848" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18719" RevisionGUID="564dd8e4-8b81-4b07-9e6e-1a7665331b20" CreationDate="2017-11-21T14:53:00.643" UserId="1" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50849" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17995" RevisionGUID="1d68f254-ee6d-4de8-9c53-b52d8fe391de" CreationDate="2017-11-21T15:49:35.603" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18723" RevisionGUID="5320f4f8-6035-47c0-91ce-daf4f6b3406d" CreationDate="2017-11-21T18:02:07.923" UserId="17325" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="The most famous one is http://ip.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if one has to pay for publishing there, but its main purpose is defensive publications, i.e. what you are looking for. Patent examiners include the ip.com database to their searches, I personally have seen many search reports citing ip.com articles. So it is guaranteed that your disclosure will be retrieved against any future patent filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also time stamped and may be anonymous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mind that for one to have access to the article, he has to pay. But this is irrelevant to the fact that major patent offices search within its database and cite relevant prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50851" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="d9c39121-4aaf-475c-bbad-fcea7968aae9" CreationDate="2017-11-21T23:02:16.070" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50852" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16926" RevisionGUID="689c5adc-70c0-4f1b-9710-e2caf45a2a11" CreationDate="2017-11-22T00:02:15.783" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50858" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="c4a0092d-92ee-4dbc-b378-423d7016d940" CreationDate="2017-11-22T10:04:28.690" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18725" RevisionGUID="45470cbb-915b-4c6c-945f-0b5079b9b579" CreationDate="2017-11-22T14:43:54.110" UserId="20155" Text="I have an invention in the field of software &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My invention is the unique combination of A,B,C,and D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And each single component is already patented (A by itself is patented)&#xD;&#xA;A sub combination might also be patented (the combination of A &amp; B)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that my combination is unique and innovative by the field standards&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I want to know is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;does having components of my invention as prior art hinder my ability to get a patent on my invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to write my claim that doesn’t infringe the other patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50860" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18725" RevisionGUID="45470cbb-915b-4c6c-945f-0b5079b9b579" CreationDate="2017-11-22T14:43:54.110" UserId="20155" Text="Can different combinations of preexisting arts be patented" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50861" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18725" RevisionGUID="45470cbb-915b-4c6c-945f-0b5079b9b579" CreationDate="2017-11-22T14:43:54.110" UserId="20155" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18727" RevisionGUID="fdb3b6ad-6ecc-4d6f-9a98-78754b2c3d7f" CreationDate="2017-11-22T15:32:39.627" UserId="17003" Text="**does having components of my invention as prior art hinder my ability to get a patent on my invention?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having prior art usually makes things more difficult, but doesn't necessarily preclude you from obtaining a patent. It really depends on what are in the prior art's claims. In general, you don't just claim material A, you claim material A as applied in a specific situation. Lets say someone has a patent for compound A to treat cancer and someone else has compound B to treat cancer, you might run up against an rejection due to &quot;obviousness&quot; if you are try to patent the combination of A and B to treat cancer. Obviousness is where the examiner rejects the application because she feels that the combination is something someone with ordinary skill in the field would try. Just answering &quot;well, no one else tried it so it must not be obvious&quot; likely won't be convincing. In my experience, if there is an unexpected benefit, you have a better chance of avoiding an obviousness rejection. Lets say A and B have 1X effects, but the combination of A and B have a 10X effect. It is also helpful if say A is applied to one problem and B is applied to a different problem. Then the combination would seem less likely to work in concert.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there a way to write my claim that doesn’t infringe the other patents?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not a patent attorney. I have more than 80 patents worldwide, but would never attempt to draft my own claims. I have sometimes ask my attorneys why the claim language seems so arcane, and get a response referring to this or that legal precedent. That said, what is written in the specification has a real impact to what can be claimed. In my experience, if you are aware of important prior art that might be used against you, it is better to be proactive and explain in the background section of the application why you are different and why the combinations you are inventive are non-obvious. Remember, claims can be amended, but the specification can't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should point out that if some of the components you use in combination are applied to the same problem, you may need to obtain a license to use your invention. If, for instance A is applied to cancer and B is applied to diabetes. If your invention uses A and B to treat cancer, you probably need a license to use A. However if you want to apply A or B or the combination to treat a different disease, you might avoid needing licenses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18727" RevisionGUID="0d1897db-e912-43df-a679-be9ddf561869" CreationDate="2017-11-22T17:50:29.883" UserId="17003" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="**does having components of my invention as prior art hinder my ability to get a patent on my invention?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having prior art usually makes things more difficult, but doesn't necessarily preclude you from obtaining a patent. It really depends on what are in the prior art's claims. In general, you don't just claim material A, you claim material A as applied in a specific situation. Lets say someone has a patent for compound A to treat cancer and someone else has compound B to treat cancer, you might run up against an rejection due to &quot;obviousness&quot; if you are try to patent the combination of A and B to treat cancer. Obviousness is where the examiner rejects the application because she feels that the combination is something someone with ordinary skill in the field would try. Just answering &quot;well, no one else tried it so it must not be obvious&quot; likely won't be convincing. In my experience, if there is an unexpected benefit, you have a better chance of avoiding an obviousness rejection. Lets say A and B have 1X effects, but the combination of A and B have a 10X effect. It is also helpful if say A is applied to one problem and B is applied to a different problem. Then the combination would seem less likely to work in concert.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there a way to write my claim that doesn’t infringe the other patents?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not a patent attorney. I have more than 80 patents worldwide, but would never attempt to draft my own claims. I have sometimes asked my attorneys why a claim’s language seems so arcane, and have gotten a response referring to this or that legal precedent. That said, what is written in the specification has a real impact to what can be claimed. In my experience, if you are aware of important prior art that might be used against you, it is better to be proactive and explain in the background section of the application why you are different and why the combinations you are inventive are non-obvious. Remember, claims can be amended, but the specification can't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should point out that if some of the components you use in combination are applied to the same problem, you may need to obtain a license to use your invention. If, for instance A is applied to cancer and B is applied to diabetes. If your invention uses A and B to treat cancer, you probably need a license to use A. However if you want to apply A or B or the combination to treat a different disease, you might avoid needing licenses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50866" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18172" RevisionGUID="fa9c75e2-52c4-4112-9295-d2d7700b7afb" CreationDate="2017-11-22T19:06:35.367" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18727" RevisionGUID="75c11d0b-f1c2-4d35-93c9-3067cc174ed8" CreationDate="2017-11-22T21:49:55.803" UserId="17003" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="**does having components of my invention as prior art hinder my ability to get a patent on my invention?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having prior art usually makes things more difficult, but doesn't necessarily preclude you from obtaining a patent. It really depends on what are in the prior art's claims. In general, you don't just claim component A, you claim component A as applied in a specific situation. Lets say someone has a patent for compound A to treat cancer and someone else has compound B to treat cancer, you might run up against an rejection due to &quot;obviousness&quot; if you are try to patent the combination of A and B to treat cancer. Obviousness is where the examiner rejects the application because she feels that the combination is something someone with ordinary skill in the field would try. Just answering &quot;well, no one else tried it so it must not be obvious&quot; likely won't be convincing. In my experience, if there is an unexpected benefit, you have a better chance of avoiding an obviousness rejection. Lets say A and B have 1X effects, but the combination of A and B have a 10X effect. It is also helpful if say A is applied to one problem and B is applied to a different problem. Then the combination would seem less likely to work in concert.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there a way to write my claim that doesn’t infringe the other patents?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not a patent attorney. I have more than 80 patents worldwide, but would never attempt to draft my own claims. I have sometimes asked my attorneys why a claim’s language seems so arcane, and have gotten a response referring to this or that legal precedent. That said, what is written in the specification has a real impact to what can be claimed. In my experience, if you are aware of important prior art that might be used against you, it is better to be proactive and explain in the background section of the application why you are different and why the combinations you are inventive are non-obvious. Remember, claims can be amended, but the specification can't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should point out that if some of the components you use in combination are applied to the same problem, you may need to obtain a license to use your invention. If, for instance A is applied to cancer and B is applied to diabetes. If your invention uses A and B to treat cancer, you probably need a license to use A. However if you want to apply A or B or the combination to treat a different disease, you might avoid needing licenses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18728" RevisionGUID="8d3888d3-3a0d-4829-bd7e-cd5890525073" CreationDate="2017-11-22T23:39:50.930" UserId="3076" Text="This topic has come up here several times before. There are many helpful answers you can see by searching &quot;defensive publication&quot; on Ask Patents. Also, it is not expensive, but to publish on ip.com you still need to buy &quot;vouchers&quot; from them, I believe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some others of the defensive publication sites specialize. For example, OIN (Open Invention Network) has a site [www.defensivepublications.org][1] That is related to OIN's mission to keep Linux open. Their site's FAQs emphasize that a publication must be enabling to act as prior art to a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.defensivepublications.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18729" RevisionGUID="6b03c543-1d5a-454b-b0a4-d593074c6445" CreationDate="2017-11-23T00:25:15.383" UserId="3076" Text="A vast majority of patents can be thought of as a combination of known elements. If your particular arrangement of A, B, C, and D has not been done before, it is novel. It may or may not be obvious. If it was not &quot;obvious to try&quot; given the problem and particularly if the combination has an unexpected property, it is probably patentable. &#xD;&#xA;Composition of matter claims for alloys, chemicals and medications are often literally  “X% of A plus Y% of B with Z% of C added” where al the elements and the % make it patentable or not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anything with a more complex structure than a composition of matter might be novel and non-obvious even if prior art already teaches something with an A, B, C and D. The arrangement and interaction of the elements might be what is novel and non-obvious. More than one patent has a claim requiring a spring, a wheel, and a pawl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the secondary question – *patents do not infringe patents*, shipping products and services infringe patents. If your *product* includes a “B” and “B”, itself, is patented, then anyone who makes, sells, offers to sell, imports or uses your product will need to contend with the owner of the patent on “B”. This is independent of you getting a patent and of the wording of any claim you might have in a patent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18730" RevisionGUID="15bce941-5469-41bc-ba80-9ab10ad51229" CreationDate="2017-11-23T00:54:15.343" UserId="3076" Text="Regarding the U.S. only. There is a very specific carve out for generic pharmaceuticals in the process of approval, **but no, there is not a general research exemption in the U.S.**. Copyright has a &quot;fair use&quot; doctrine, patents do not. The last time the CAFC took this on they said it might be ok -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  “solely for amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or&#xD;&#xA;for strictly philosophical inquiry,” and that the defense does not apply if the use is “in furtherance&#xD;&#xA;of the alleged infringer’s legitimate business.”&#xD;&#xA; This is true regardless of the “profit or nonprofit”&#xD;&#xA;status of the user and “regardless of whether a particular institution or entity is engaged in&#xD;&#xA;an endeavor for commercial gain&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from  [SEALING THE COFFIN ON THE EXPERIMENTAL USE&#xD;&#xA;EXCEPTION][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1081&amp;context=dltr" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18704" RevisionGUID="c743acbb-fe14-4e74-bced-341988fdff97" CreationDate="2017-11-23T01:00:03.857" UserId="3076" Comment="small correction in acronym expansion" Text="BACKGROUND&#xD;&#xA;==========&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An American novel invention features a new industrial measurement **process** and is implemented by configuring COTS (commercial off the shelf) computers and COTS software to measure and calculate a utilitarian result.  Hardware is not modded in any way, however, in the course of integrating COTS hardware components, software was developed to control the COTS components and produce the result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTIONS&#xD;&#xA;=========   &#xD;&#xA;Can more than one 'Statutory Class' be claimed by an invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If yes, Which of these Statutory Classes apply and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Process: Software processes&#xD;&#xA; 2. Machines&#xD;&#xA; 3. Manufactures&#xD;&#xA; 4. New uses of the above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that a strong argument for line-item 1.  In contrast the examples I have see for line-item 3 seem to exclude a COTS measurement process. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to machines classification, if the device can be implemented all COTS parts, is the invention precluded from being classified as a machine, because it is a combination of existing (patented) parts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18731" RevisionGUID="4524efc8-c357-44c4-b647-e7e7cb478241" CreationDate="2017-11-23T01:16:24.353" UserId="3076" Text="The requirement for a single statutory class is *per claim*. Many patents have machine claims, and one or more types of process claims. A method of building the machine, a method of using the machine, and a process carried out by the machine's internal operation are all process claims. &quot;Machine&quot; is a very broad term and would apply to your system regardless of the components all being something you can buy &quot;off the shelf&quot;. It is the way the elements are arranged and programmed that would make it a novel and non-obvious machine. Normally the claims would be written to cover both a COTS built version and a custom made version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A machine claim can be infringed by something sitting on a shelf. To infringe a process claim, someone needs to at least turn it on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16101" RevisionGUID="3bd70a1b-57ef-4cd5-b737-184b1b606e53" CreationDate="2017-11-23T01:25:11.297" UserId="17077" Comment="Added more examples" Text="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/scan-to-e-mail-patent-troll-loses-appeal-cant-avoid-state-court-case/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How about this one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And: &quot;Uniloc, perhaps best known as Patent Troll in Chief, suffered a pretty devastating blow ... The Patent Trademark and Appeals Board has ruled that Uniloc's patent number 5,490,216 is invalid via an inter partes review (IPR). Essentially an IPR is a way for inventors to challenge a patent without getting federal courts involved. ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;[Patent Troll Defeated][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a scientific article that developed an algorithm for defeating patent trolls in the 3D printing space, perhaps you can get some ideas here:--- [A novel approach to obviousness: An algorithm for identifying prior art concerning 3-D printing materials][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.engadget.com/2016/03/26/uniloc-patent-troll-defeated/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0172219015000769" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18732" RevisionGUID="77f6b93e-e148-49fb-b63a-b60c1ad2bff5" CreationDate="2017-11-23T03:49:35.527" UserId="20162" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5881419][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5881419\&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent still active?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50875" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18732" RevisionGUID="77f6b93e-e148-49fb-b63a-b60c1ad2bff5" CreationDate="2017-11-23T03:49:35.527" UserId="20162" Text="Is patent US 5881419 A still active?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50876" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18732" RevisionGUID="77f6b93e-e148-49fb-b63a-b60c1ad2bff5" CreationDate="2017-11-23T03:49:35.527" UserId="20162" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50877" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13870" RevisionGUID="f67ef699-888e-43c2-80e5-6d28aa560638" CreationDate="2017-11-23T04:10:30.420" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50878" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="01e5ecd7-11b9-42b1-9ec6-d0b0821f8439" CreationDate="2017-11-23T14:14:03.413" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18732" RevisionGUID="38fa5e54-3b6b-42a7-bb89-aa1fbbcb12e1" CreationDate="2017-11-23T15:27:25.797" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed link to patent" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5881419][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5881419A/en&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent still active?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18733" RevisionGUID="33c529de-d0d8-4f04-9398-da39c7e0d760" CreationDate="2017-11-23T15:41:55.700" UserId="17003" Text="Here is how you check the status of a US patent or application. Go to the [US Public Pair][1] site. Get past the CAPTCHA and then enter the document's number to search. In this case it is a patent number so select that option and enter 5881419. Pair is very picky about formats. From the initial page in the upper right part of the window you can find the current status. In this case for US5881419, the current status is: &quot;Patent Expired Due to NonPayment of Maintenance Fees Under 37 CFR 1.362&quot; with a status date of 04-16-2003. This means the patent was expired due to not paying required fees. I think it is theoretically possible to reinstate the patent and pay back fees if you can convince the patent office the lack of payment wasn't intentional. However even if the owner of the patent wanted to do that, the patent would have naturally expired on 12-23-2017 which at the time of this answer is exactly 1 month away. This is determined by adding 20 years to the date listed in Pair as the &quot;Filing or 371 (c) Date&quot;. While there is a possibility of an extention, it would be mentioned in Pair if one existed. Thus, for all practical purposes, **this patent is expired**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18734" RevisionGUID="0623fc8b-f3f3-4294-a9a4-146b42f39d2e" CreationDate="2017-11-23T20:48:43.560" UserId="291" Text="In reference to the patent [US20160267056][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a quick read I have the impression this patent applies to any layout manager on computers as they have been around since the early days of computing, dating back to graphical user interfaces (GUIs) as developed at [Xerox PARC][2] and likely earlier (e.g., [Engelbart's NLS][3] system in 60s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More tellingly, also as is in use by the web browser used to outline the web page which shows the patent itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20160267056&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_(company)&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLS_(computer_system)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50882" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18734" RevisionGUID="0623fc8b-f3f3-4294-a9a4-146b42f39d2e" CreationDate="2017-11-23T20:48:43.560" UserId="291" Text="Does this patent apply to layout managers, as used on all computers and the rendering of the very patent itself?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50883" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18734" RevisionGUID="0623fc8b-f3f3-4294-a9a4-146b42f39d2e" CreationDate="2017-11-23T20:48:43.560" UserId="291" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;user-interface&gt;&lt;us20160267056&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50884" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18734" RevisionGUID="49e639d0-f93f-4822-887e-7475885028f3" CreationDate="2017-11-23T20:54:37.387" UserId="291" Comment="edited title" Text="Prior art for layout managers, as used on all computers and the rendering of the very patent itself" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50888" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="ddf00892-e338-4e3b-8156-ba2c3c97d11c" CreationDate="2017-11-24T00:15:26.993" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50889" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16491" RevisionGUID="519dd6f4-2c1f-43d5-b0dd-f736e9cfa54a" CreationDate="2017-11-24T02:15:27.323" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50890" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16361" RevisionGUID="fbd50b0a-5d4b-42b5-9712-6793a9a745cc" CreationDate="2017-11-24T03:16:41.130" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50891" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18259" RevisionGUID="5af92c3a-44af-4dc0-b574-85ab92a1a943" CreationDate="2017-11-24T05:16:37.733" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50892" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="47a4d91f-0cc8-4e1d-ad33-28def5b3790f" CreationDate="2017-11-24T06:16:50.427" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18734" RevisionGUID="774cb4ca-9fca-4d0b-87ed-82cc09a3e20a" CreationDate="2017-11-24T14:35:24.787" UserId="291" Comment="Introduced question for prior art." Text="In reference to the patent [US20160267056][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a quick read I have the impression this patent applies to any layout manager on computers as they have been around since the early days of computing, dating back to graphical user interfaces (GUIs) as developed at [Xerox PARC][2] and likely earlier (e.g., [Engelbart's NLS][3] system in 60s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More tellingly, also as is in use by the web browser used to outline the web page which shows the patent itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this constitute sufficient prior art, or can somebody provide prior art in a more suitable format?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20160267056&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_(company)&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLS_(computer_system)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18734" RevisionGUID="c6ccb031-3520-41a5-b287-250cfb03a527" CreationDate="2017-11-24T17:49:50.630" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed link to application with one that shows images." Text="In reference to the patent [US20160267056][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a quick read I have the impression this patent applies to any layout manager on computers as they have been around since the early days of computing, dating back to graphical user interfaces (GUIs) as developed at [Xerox PARC][2] and likely earlier (e.g., [Engelbart's NLS][3] system in 60s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More tellingly, also as is in use by the web browser used to outline the web page which shows the patent itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this constitute sufficient prior art, or can somebody provide prior art in a more suitable format?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160267056A1/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_(company)&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLS_(computer_system)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18736" RevisionGUID="f34c4c70-27bd-4441-aae1-67cc72ef8649" CreationDate="2017-11-24T18:15:05.743" UserId="17003" Text="It is important to understand that this application is not in any way trying to patent layout managers in general. Indeed the specification clearly describes existing layout manager systems including Swing, WPF, At, Cocoa and others. What it is attempting to patent is a specific method of providing layout management using a logical binary tree structure. Therefore, if one wants to provide prior art to invalidate this patent, you need to find an existing example of a similar scheme. I'm not personally aware of one, but I'm not particularly experienced in this field. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing to consider is that claims as published in applications are very frequently far broader that what might eventually get granted. I looked up the current status in the [US Public Pair][1] and the application has received a non-final rejection. In particular Claims 1-6, 15-20, 22, 29 and 10 were rejected as unpatentable over Dyar et al US2016/0092084 A1, in view of Atkins et al US 2010/0275152 A1 published 10/28/2010. Further claims 7 and 21 were rejected as unpatentable over Dyar in view of Atkins in view of Zeidler et al &quot;Constant Solving for Beautiful User Interfaces: How Solving Strategies Support Layout Aesthetics&quot;, 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not to say it wouldn't be valuable to seek additional prior art, but this doesn't seem to be one of those software patents that is trying to patent common knowledge, and it seems at least at this time that the examiner is doing her job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18736" RevisionGUID="7d7f16a0-9367-4898-834e-b1c78f5e96da" CreationDate="2017-11-24T19:07:50.167" UserId="17003" Comment="edited body" Text="It is important to understand that this application is not in any way trying to patent layout managers in general. Indeed the specification clearly describes existing layout manager systems including Swing, WPF, Qt, Cocoa and others. What it is attempting to patent is a specific method of providing layout management using a logical binary tree structure. Therefore, if one wants to provide prior art to invalidate this patent, you need to find an existing example of a similar scheme. I'm not personally aware of one, but I'm not particularly experienced in this field. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing to consider is that claims as published in applications are very frequently far broader that what might eventually get granted. I looked up the current status in the [US Public Pair][1] and the application has received a non-final rejection. In particular Claims 1-6, 15-20, 22, 29 and 10 were rejected as unpatentable over Dyar et al US2016/0092084 A1, in view of Atkins et al US 2010/0275152 A1 published 10/28/2010. Further claims 7 and 21 were rejected as unpatentable over Dyar in view of Atkins in view of Zeidler et al &quot;Constant Solving for Beautiful User Interfaces: How Solving Strategies Support Layout Aesthetics&quot;, 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not to say it wouldn't be valuable to seek additional prior art, but this doesn't seem to be one of those software patents that is trying to patent common knowledge, and it seems at least at this time that the examiner is doing her job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50900" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18148" RevisionGUID="0f4b6ea9-424c-40ad-bc3b-fcabf07536d2" CreationDate="2017-11-24T21:23:21.313" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50902" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17273" RevisionGUID="83c9eb7c-aa48-4234-91e5-70a64a7f01e9" CreationDate="2017-11-25T08:27:06.353" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50903" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18332" RevisionGUID="a1d33c2f-ae9e-4888-878f-9f8952ce985f" CreationDate="2017-11-25T14:28:15.707" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50904" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18285" RevisionGUID="4ede707a-7c55-4272-a0ec-17b3b5b408cf" CreationDate="2017-11-25T15:28:29.643" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50905" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18444" RevisionGUID="19839e06-8e3f-47a5-a9bf-8181125d31d8" CreationDate="2017-11-25T16:28:19.540" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50906" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18385" RevisionGUID="c095d79c-0d29-48c2-8341-de4975039389" CreationDate="2017-11-25T17:28:19.873" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50907" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18414" RevisionGUID="d5c24473-6fe6-481b-9478-71b01633ba2d" CreationDate="2017-11-25T18:28:31.877" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50908" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18328" RevisionGUID="7f378cf6-7579-4424-87a1-01c77420b7d1" CreationDate="2017-11-25T19:28:34.140" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18737" RevisionGUID="7ffce066-9dee-48cd-8075-b9a410aa6c11" CreationDate="2017-11-25T21:58:56.277" UserId="19913" Text="My patent mentor has advised me to utilize the NOLO &quot;Patent pending in 24 hours&quot; to learn how to craft a provisional patent.  The drawings are simple traditional  black and white sketches.  Is there any requirement that prevents me from taking photos or screenshots and including these images in place of a traditional drawing?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50910" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18737" RevisionGUID="7ffce066-9dee-48cd-8075-b9a410aa6c11" CreationDate="2017-11-25T21:58:56.277" UserId="19913" Text="Restrictions regarding drawings" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50911" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18737" RevisionGUID="7ffce066-9dee-48cd-8075-b9a410aa6c11" CreationDate="2017-11-25T21:58:56.277" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;drawing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50912" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="aa6ef110-53c6-404e-ba0e-ea9f1c03f440" CreationDate="2017-11-25T22:29:26.817" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18738" RevisionGUID="8c716b06-e3e5-4b30-af44-7145ffac3b31" CreationDate="2017-11-25T23:20:57.463" UserId="19495" Text="You can put anything you want in a provisional application.  Photos (even color photos) are frequently filed in regular utility applications too, but they don't reproduce well, so examiners will often require you to submit line drawings.  (Still, a fair number of patents issue with crappy, hard-to-see photos, so it's not a guarantee that you'll have to do anything.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most important thing is that the photos (or drawings or whatever) clearly show whatever part of the invention you're trying to show.  If they don't, you may get stuck in a &quot;new matter&quot; trap: you have to submit new drawings, but you're not allowed to do so because your original drawings don't show everything, which means you (presumably) didn't have &quot;possession&quot; of the invention on your filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The drawings and description must do at least two things: teach a person of ordinary skill how to make or use your invention; and prove that _you_ were able to make or use your invention, on the date you filed the application.  If you have any hand-waving in there, it looks like you didn't really know how to do what you're claiming you could do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50914" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="efe6f9d9-520f-475b-b8e5-a12ff3552d13" CreationDate="2017-11-26T00:29:32.730" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50917" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18155" RevisionGUID="69ebf436-d6ff-430a-b5c1-69f05cea6077" CreationDate="2017-11-26T15:31:10.827" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18741" RevisionGUID="41733cd0-d305-4d0a-99c8-10a4e9c34884" CreationDate="2017-11-26T18:26:20.987" UserId="20179" Text="We are looking for this patent for business patient. &#xD;&#xA;We would like to know about the licensing fee and technology related questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US6304775][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6304775&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50923" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18741" RevisionGUID="41733cd0-d305-4d0a-99c8-10a4e9c34884" CreationDate="2017-11-26T18:26:20.987" UserId="20179" Text="Patent Licensing Query" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50924" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18741" RevisionGUID="41733cd0-d305-4d0a-99c8-10a4e9c34884" CreationDate="2017-11-26T18:26:20.987" UserId="20179" Text="&lt;us6304775&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18742" RevisionGUID="432caefd-f3f7-4ef7-a2fc-0a36dd08d5b0" CreationDate="2017-11-26T22:09:13.100" UserId="18033" Text="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/appeals-court-throws-out-six-intellectual-ventures-do-it-on-a-computer-patents/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140421/07070326977/intellectual-ventures-big-case-shut-down-judge-over-completely-bogus-patents.shtml&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and probably a few more of the search results for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.de/search?client=firefox-b-ab&amp;dcr=0&amp;ei=3DkbWpK4CNKVkwXQsK_wDg&amp;q=intellectual+ventures+lost+case&amp;oq=intellectual+ventures+lost+case&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160k1.10624.14715.0.14844.31.31.0.0.0.0.115.2731.22j9.31.0..3..0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.31.2720...0j0i131k1j0i67k1j35i39k1j0i203k1j33i21k1.0.Z_4sFM1E92s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which brings me to the main point of this rather short answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.ipcheckups.com/blog/a-list-of-some-npes/#acacia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take the names there, google them, find the cases. The list of companies is huge, you should find hundreds of lost cases. If you have access to a database that lets you search for court cases with a company name it should be easier. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50926" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14680" RevisionGUID="9c1e2c92-cea8-404e-8557-57c177a64595" CreationDate="2017-11-26T22:33:35.063" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50927" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13731" RevisionGUID="d2fe1aaa-8b61-40b8-b4a4-ef59113e505d" CreationDate="2017-11-27T01:33:40.040" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18743" RevisionGUID="b33e9625-8f54-4369-971c-9776bc663669" CreationDate="2017-11-27T01:33:54.657" UserId="19495" Text="It looks like the US Government (National Institutes of Health, DHHS) licensed the patent from the University of Florida in 2001.  [Here's the assignment.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd probably start by contacting University of Florida to inquire.  Note that it looks like the patent doesn't have much time left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html#/patent/search/resultAssignment?id=27373-952" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50929" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18741" RevisionGUID="ac10e4e0-2e20-4269-8820-e8f92290dcc9" CreationDate="2017-11-27T05:56:30.753" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:18033,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DonQuiKong&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:17003,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Eric Shain&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="50933" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18478" RevisionGUID="c0472f8c-2ff2-440c-8683-01e34c3e6558" CreationDate="2017-11-27T06:36:54.787" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50934" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="14685" RevisionGUID="5ea812fd-f2db-4a5c-88bb-76c58d656367" CreationDate="2017-11-27T08:59:32.520" UserId="15787" Comment="40" />
  <row Id="50938" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="15d1752c-48af-4036-b9e0-e4f8986cd27b" CreationDate="2017-11-27T14:39:32.957" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50939" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="4c3794fd-36dc-4d98-b02a-cb45a9424818" CreationDate="2017-11-27T15:40:42.010" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18746" RevisionGUID="f1d19fbf-efd6-4b5d-ba17-b46e9ef3705e" CreationDate="2017-11-27T20:58:36.410" UserId="20186" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5786562][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5786562&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this the original Arcam EBM patent? if so when does it expire?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50944" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18746" RevisionGUID="f1d19fbf-efd6-4b5d-ba17-b46e9ef3705e" CreationDate="2017-11-27T20:58:36.410" UserId="20186" Text="Is this the original Arcam EBM patent? when does it expire?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50945" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18746" RevisionGUID="f1d19fbf-efd6-4b5d-ba17-b46e9ef3705e" CreationDate="2017-11-27T20:58:36.410" UserId="20186" Text="&lt;us5786562&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18747" RevisionGUID="c16d7660-6049-462e-be9c-52cc3e07e1ba" CreationDate="2017-11-27T21:54:59.063" UserId="20187" Text="The patent only holds value when 3D geospatial data (photogrammetry or LiDAR) of golf course is integrated or utilized in a 3D gaming (SIM, Console, AR, VR, MR), visualization environment, web mapping (Google Earth/Bing Maps) or various mobile (iOS/Android/Win), or golf cart mounted GPS system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether you use satellite data, a plane with a camera, a pet pelican with a camera or a drone with a camera, using the collected stereo photogrammetry or LiDAR data to produce a 3D DEM; then integrating that geodetic, 3D golf course data into a software platform or device is the patent. (*We have been mapping golf courses in 3D since 1999, however, this is not prior art.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...a three-dimensional (x,y,z) geospatial model is built and then integrated into 3-D gaming, visualization and web mapping environments such as Microsoft Bing Maps, Google Earth, and various mobile and golf cart mounted, golf course navigation systems.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Karl Engstrom - CEO - Terra Imaging - www.terraimaging.com - www.3dgolfcourse.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18747" RevisionGUID="1cd0da36-3b35-4920-a5bd-d887febb2b55" CreationDate="2017-11-27T22:01:50.717" UserId="20187" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="The patent only holds value when 3D geospatial data (photogrammetry or LiDAR) of golf course is integrated or utilized in a 3D gaming (SIM, Console, AR, VR, MR), visualization environment, web mapping (Google Earth/Bing Maps) or various mobile (iOS/Android/Win), or golf cart mounted GPS system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether you use satellite data, a plane with a camera, a pet pelican with a camera or a drone with a camera, using the collected stereo photogrammetry or LiDAR data to produce a 3D DEM; then integrating that geodetic, 3D golf course data into a software platform or device is the patent. (**We have been mapping golf courses in 3D/stereo since 1999, shooting in stereo with Leica RC30 film cameras, however, this is not prior art.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...a three-dimensional (x,y,z) geospatial model is built and then integrated into 3-D gaming, visualization and web mapping environments such as Microsoft Bing Maps, Google Earth, and various mobile and golf cart mounted, golf course navigation systems.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Karl Engstrom - CEO - Terra Imaging - www.terraimaging.com - www.3dgolfcourse.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18720" RevisionGUID="5efa585a-2e20-4bea-a405-c7ae0725e700" CreationDate="2017-11-27T23:08:29.077" UserId="17003" Comment="Edited to mention US grace period." Text="The answer is no, you have no claim on anyone else's patent applications. What you have is prior art. Once you published your technology, you lost your ability to patent it in many countries. In the US, you do have a 12 month grace period, but it is dangerous to publish before filing for a patent as someone else could file  before you. Your publication should prevent anyone else being able to patent your invention. That said, it is possible the patent examiners may not find your publication while examining their applications. You may want to make the patent examiners aware of your publication to make sure it is considered during the examination of the applications you believe copy it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18748" RevisionGUID="af235823-c479-4f6d-8144-73634e3edd6c" CreationDate="2017-11-27T23:25:25.613" UserId="19468" Text="Her 2013 patent application was apparently published, meaning the cited 2012 PPA also became &quot;available&quot; in 2014, but not technically &quot;published&quot;. You say she was also selling the items (perhaps since 2011). As such, it is all considered &quot;prior art&quot; representing the &quot;state of the art&quot; as of their respective filing date, and any offer to sell to the public, whether or not issued as a patent.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there was a &quot;final rejection&quot; with the usual &quot;shortened statutory period for reply&quot;, then it probably went abandoned two or three months later, when no reply was filed. MPEP § 711.02. Where such inaction was &quot;unintentional&quot;. the possibility remains that the applicant may petition to revive the abandoned application and even petition for reconsideration of a refusal to revive, which may take more months (and fees).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even in light of the prior art, you, she, or anyone else may file an application for patent of any similar invention, claiming something &quot;new and non-obvious&quot;, and claim &quot;patent pending&quot; -- which has no legally enforceable effect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18750" RevisionGUID="2f6a5ca2-7950-473c-b0b3-2276a1b79b67" CreationDate="2017-11-28T01:50:23.217" UserId="19468" Text="They might help you turn your &quot;idea&quot; into an invention, but they're not your patent attorneys and probably have no legal obligations of an attorney (confidentiality, professional ethics and competence, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For about $65 nearly anyone with the time can file a provisional patent application, which reserves your right to later file an application for a utility patent, the issuance of which will cost thousands of dollars (minimum).  Many inventors use some of this time (up to a year) to share their invention confidentially with others who may wish to invest or to purchase the rights.   As suggested by others, many competent patent attorneys do offer a &quot;free&quot; exploratory consultation for new clients. You would be well advised to at least read up on the basic process (Nolo book &quot;Patent It Yourself&quot;, Wikipedia: Patent_Application, etc) before taking it to that level." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18751" RevisionGUID="c35f8ae9-7677-4146-b82a-0f6342424702" CreationDate="2017-11-28T02:33:02.077" UserId="17003" Text="Just to be clear, the cited document is a WO application, not yet a patent. It is entirely possible that it is also applied for in the US. Indeed if you look at the bottom of the [document][1] you will see a reference to US201562235742 which is a US application. There may even be applications filed in Taiwan. I am not a lawyer, but my guess is if you conduct business in the US, then a US patent would apply. However, it is an interesting question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2017054090A1/en#legalEvents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18752" RevisionGUID="3e901bc7-42ce-4311-9458-cec552d2aa0b" CreationDate="2017-11-28T02:54:39.863" UserId="19468" Text="The actual inventorship of claims for a pending patent, filed with incomplete naming of all inventors,  may (in theory) be &quot;corrected&quot;, under some circumstances, assuming the omission was in &quot;error&quot; and not intentional fraud. MPEP § 506, 35 USC § 116, 37 CFR § 48, etc. Even after issuance, an &quot;erroneous&quot; inventorship may be amended in some cases (e.g., 35 USC § 256), as otherwise the claims on an invention by &quot;others&quot; would be invalid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Intentionally filing false declarations in US federal matters is also a felony. 18 USC § 1001.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Working free of charge&quot; does not mean there was not a valid &quot;joint venture&quot; with implied anticipated upside (shareholder benefits) for all who contributed in what might be a de facto partnership.  State statutes of frauds may govern the technicalities of enforcing oral contracts not memorialized in any sort of &quot;writing&quot; (including emails or texts). Someone in law.stackexchange may have more to say upon submission of a proper a question in that regard.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18673" RevisionGUID="e6d020ca-6dd9-4389-a63f-90a241a0a046" CreationDate="2017-11-28T06:01:42.660" UserId="15954" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="No, you can't safely assume this was a lie. First, US patent applications do not generally publish until 18 months after their priority date (so, for an application claiming priority to a provisional, 18 months after the provisional's filing date). Therefore, if the company had filed their provisional the day before yours, it would not yet have become public. In reality, the USPTO is often slow about these publications, and so applications are often not published until well after the 18 month mark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, it is possible for an applicant to file a non-publication request with their application. In this case, the application is not made public until a patent is granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you don't mention whether you filed a non-provisional application claiming priority to your provisional. Please note that, if you did not file such an application within 12 months of filing the provisional: a) the provisional will have gone abandoned at the 12 month mark, and so its priority date could no longer be relied on, and b) the provisional will not become public. (If you did file an application claiming priority to the provisional, it will indeed become available to the public some time after the 18 month mark.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18753" RevisionGUID="e1fcb651-a3ae-40c2-a138-0e2184ff2377" CreationDate="2017-11-28T11:10:24.387" UserId="18033" Text="In europe, infringement is dealt with in national patent law (and afaik the EPC doesn't have any provisions on that matter). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't answer for all EU states therefore, but at least for the UK and Germany from [this presentation][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UK:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The&#xD;&#xA;Research&#xD;&#xA;Exemption&#xD;&#xA;in&#xD;&#xA;the&#xD;&#xA;United&#xD;&#xA;Kingdom&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;•&#xD;&#xA;Statutory&#xD;&#xA;exemption&#xD;&#xA;–&#xD;&#xA;Section&#xD;&#xA;60(5)(b)&#xD;&#xA;of&#xD;&#xA;the&#xD;&#xA;Patents&#xD;&#xA;Act&#xD;&#xA;1977&#xD;&#xA;An&#xD;&#xA;act&#xD;&#xA;which,&#xD;&#xA;apart&#xD;&#xA;from&#xD;&#xA;this&#xD;&#xA;subsection,&#xD;&#xA;would&#xD;&#xA;constitute&#xD;&#xA;an&#xD;&#xA;infringement&#xD;&#xA;of&#xD;&#xA;a&#xD;&#xA;patent&#xD;&#xA;for&#xD;&#xA;an&#xD;&#xA;invention&#xD;&#xA;shall&#xD;&#xA;not&#xD;&#xA;do&#xD;&#xA;so&#xD;&#xA;if&#xD;&#xA;–&#xD;&#xA;(b)&#xD;&#xA;it&#xD;&#xA;is&#xD;&#xA;done&#xD;&#xA;for&#xD;&#xA;experimental&#xD;&#xA;purposes&#xD;&#xA;relating&#xD;&#xA;to&#xD;&#xA;the&#xD;&#xA;subject&#xD;&#xA;matter&#xD;&#xA;of&#xD;&#xA;the&#xD;&#xA;invention&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;•&#xD;&#xA;Limited&#xD;&#xA;case&#xD;&#xA;law&#xD;&#xA;–&#xD;&#xA;Leading&#xD;&#xA;authority&#xD;&#xA;–&#xD;&#xA;See&#xD;&#xA;Monsanto&#xD;&#xA;v.&#xD;&#xA;Stauffer&#xD;&#xA;RPC&#xD;&#xA;[1985]&#xD;&#xA;515&#xD;&#xA;–&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Useful&#xD;&#xA;–&#xD;&#xA;See&#xD;&#xA;decisions&#xD;&#xA;of&#xD;&#xA;the&#xD;&#xA;German&#xD;&#xA;Federal&#xD;&#xA;Supreme&#xD;&#xA;Court&#xD;&#xA; ‐ &#xD;&#xA;Clinical&#xD;&#xA;Trials&#xD;&#xA;I&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;II&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Germany:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Section&#xD;&#xA;11&#xD;&#xA;No.2&#xD;&#xA;German&#xD;&#xA;Patent&#xD;&#xA;Act&#xD;&#xA;“&#xD;&#xA;Experimental&#xD;&#xA;use&#xD;&#xA;privilege&#xD;&#xA;”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;•&#xD;&#xA;Section&#xD;&#xA;11&#xD;&#xA;No.2PatG&#xD;&#xA;–&#xD;&#xA;The&#xD;&#xA;rights&#xD;&#xA;conferred&#xD;&#xA;by&#xD;&#xA;the&#xD;&#xA;Patent&#xD;&#xA;shall&#xD;&#xA;not&#xD;&#xA;extend&#xD;&#xA;to&#xD;&#xA;acts&#xD;&#xA;done&#xD;&#xA;for&#xD;&#xA;experimental&#xD;&#xA;purposes&#xD;&#xA;relating&#xD;&#xA;to&#xD;&#xA;the&#xD;&#xA;subject&#xD;&#xA;matter&#xD;&#xA;of&#xD;&#xA;the&#xD;&#xA;patented&#xD;&#xA;invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;–&#xD;&#xA;Experimental&#xD;&#xA;use&#xD;&#xA;is&#xD;&#xA;exempted&#xD;&#xA;from&#xD;&#xA;patent&#xD;&#xA;protection.&#xD;&#xA;–&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Prerequisites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;•&#xD;&#xA;acts&#xD;&#xA;done&#xD;&#xA;for&#xD;&#xA;experimental&#xD;&#xA;purposes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;–&#xD;&#xA;“&#xD;&#xA;any&#xD;&#xA;systematic&#xD;&#xA;procedure&#xD;&#xA;aimed&#xD;&#xA;at&#xD;&#xA;obtaining&#xD;&#xA;new&#xD;&#xA;information&#xD;&#xA;is&#xD;&#xA;considered&#xD;&#xA;an&#xD;&#xA;experiment&#xD;&#xA;”&#xD;&#xA;(&#xD;&#xA;BGH&#xD;&#xA;“&#xD;&#xA;Clinical&#xD;&#xA;Trials&#xD;&#xA;I&#xD;&#xA;”&#xD;&#xA;)&#xD;&#xA;considered&#xD;&#xA;an&#xD;&#xA;experiment&#xD;&#xA;(&#xD;&#xA;BGH&#xD;&#xA;,&#xD;&#xA;Clinical&#xD;&#xA;Trials&#xD;&#xA;I)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;•&#xD;&#xA;they&#xD;&#xA;must&#xD;&#xA;relate&#xD;&#xA;to&#xD;&#xA;the&#xD;&#xA;subject&#xD;&#xA;matter&#xD;&#xA;of&#xD;&#xA;the&#xD;&#xA;patented&#xD;&#xA;invention&#xD;&#xA;–&#xD;&#xA;i.e.,&#xD;&#xA;to&#xD;&#xA;the&#xD;&#xA;“technical&#xD;&#xA;teaching&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;its&#xD;&#xA;beneficial&#xD;&#xA;utilization&#xD;&#xA;”&#xD;&#xA;(BGH,&#xD;&#xA;“Clinical&#xD;&#xA;Trials&#xD;&#xA;I”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an explanation for the last point, the use has to relate to the subject matter of the invention means, you can try to find a better way of using an invention, but you can not use a patented microscope (without license) to do research on biology, because it has nothing to do with the microscope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.mayerbrown.com/public_docs/11-11-10_IP_Webinar_Research_Exemption.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18754" RevisionGUID="5503e0c2-b4a2-4ec0-8c66-9e4d44a34bf2" CreationDate="2017-11-28T17:23:20.813" UserId="3671" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20160299031][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20160299031&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent has claims such as:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; 1. The apparatus of claim 1 where the acoustic tracking system is comprised of at least one pinger and at least three hydrophone base stations; where the acoustic tracking system tracks the location of the automated tank surveyor in the vessel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet, this is trying to patent common subsea positioning technology called USBL or LBL, developed in the 90's&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The apparatus of claim 3 where the automated tank surveyor is powered up only when it is below a pre-determined exclusion zone.&#xD;&#xA;5. The apparatus of claim 3 where the automated tank surveyor is powered down when it is above a pre-determined exclusion zone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a commonly used method of creating explosion proof devices, and used for 20+ years&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The apparatus of claim 1 where the automated tank surveyor is further comprised of a sediment plow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tank plows have been in use for 20+ years&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The apparatus of claim 1 where the acoustic tracking system is comprised of at least one multi-beam phased array; where the multi-beam phase array is steered in a pre-determined pattern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;multi-beam phased arrays (3d sonars) are decades old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of this patent is not valid due to prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50964" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18754" RevisionGUID="5503e0c2-b4a2-4ec0-8c66-9e4d44a34bf2" CreationDate="2017-11-28T17:23:20.813" UserId="3671" Text="how can this patent be valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50965" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18754" RevisionGUID="5503e0c2-b4a2-4ec0-8c66-9e4d44a34bf2" CreationDate="2017-11-28T17:23:20.813" UserId="3671" Text="&lt;us20160299031&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18754" RevisionGUID="9b6c09bc-a8c2-44c6-9ec8-fd46ab6936fa" CreationDate="2017-11-28T20:55:16.503" UserId="17003" Comment="Changed link to patent to one which shows the figures." Text="In reference to the patent: [US20160299031][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160299031A1/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent has claims such as:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; 1. The apparatus of claim 1 where the acoustic tracking system is comprised of at least one pinger and at least three hydrophone base stations; where the acoustic tracking system tracks the location of the automated tank surveyor in the vessel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet, this is trying to patent common subsea positioning technology called USBL or LBL, developed in the 90's&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The apparatus of claim 3 where the automated tank surveyor is powered up only when it is below a pre-determined exclusion zone.&#xD;&#xA;5. The apparatus of claim 3 where the automated tank surveyor is powered down when it is above a pre-determined exclusion zone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a commonly used method of creating explosion proof devices, and used for 20+ years&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The apparatus of claim 1 where the automated tank surveyor is further comprised of a sediment plow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tank plows have been in use for 20+ years&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The apparatus of claim 1 where the acoustic tracking system is comprised of at least one multi-beam phased array; where the multi-beam phase array is steered in a pre-determined pattern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;multi-beam phased arrays (3d sonars) are decades old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of this patent is not valid due to prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18755" RevisionGUID="d31d850a-7695-4455-8793-2d13f9a1a7d4" CreationDate="2017-11-28T21:22:33.527" UserId="17003" Text="First and foremost, the cited document is a patent application. It is not yet a patent and might never be granted. Second, you cite several claims, but all of them are dependent claims. This means they refer to a different claim. A dependent claim is limited by the scope of the referenced claim. Claim 1 is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An apparatus to test the integrity of a vessel comprising an automated tank surveyor mobilizing at least an ultrasound measurement&#xD;&#xA;&gt; system and acoustic tracking system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every claim that refers to claim 1 is limited in scope to an apparatus used to test the integrity of a vessel as described. None of the claims tries to patent &quot;common subsea positioning technology called USBL or LBL&quot;. Nor is claim 6 in any way trying to generally patent tank plows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. The apparatus of claim 1 where the automated tank surveyor is further comprised of a sediment plow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This claim is adding a specific case of claim 1. The fact that the invention is utilizing ultrasound transducers does not mean it is trying to patent the general use of ultrasound detectors. Lasers were invented decades ago, but new uses of them are still being invented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, none of what I've written means that I believe this application is patentable, only that your concerns are a bit overblown. It is common for applications to have broader claims than are eventually granted. Claims can be amended and most always are based on objections by the patent examiner. Patents like this one where existing technologies are combined are usually open to rejection due to &quot;obviousness&quot;. This is where the examiner will reject claims based on the idea that someone with normal skill in the field would find it obvious to combine said technologies. If you go to the [US Public Pair][1] site, get past the CAPTCHA you can search for this application by selecting &quot;Document Number&quot; and entering &quot;20160299031&quot;. If you click on the &quot;Transaction History&quot; tab you can see the application has received a non-final rejection. This doesn't mean it won't become a patent, just that the claims, as written, have failed to convince the examiner of their merit. There is now a process of negotiation where claims are amended and explanations made to try to circumvent the objections. If you click on the &quot;File Wrapper&quot; tab, you can actually read the communications between the applicant and the examiner and see, for instance, what the examiner's objections were and the subsequent response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18756" RevisionGUID="b85f5c23-8699-4c6a-a316-6e8a82421620" CreationDate="2017-11-28T21:39:02.853" UserId="17003" Text="One way to see if this is the original electron beam melting patent is to see if it cites any earlier patents by Arcam. This [link shows the cited patents][1]. While there are several earlier patents cited, none are by Arcam so it seems likely this is the first Arcam EBM US patent. It's priority date refers to a Swedish application so there very well might be a earlier international patent, but it hadn't issued at the time of application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to patent expiration this [Wikipedia article][2] describes the rules. The patent has a priority date of May 12, 1993. Since this is before June 8, 1995 but the patent grant date of July 28, 1998 is after June 8, 1995 the rules state that the expiration date is the later of 20 years from the priority date or 17 years from the grant date. I didn't find any patent term extensions in the [US Public Pair][3] site. The latest of these dates is July 28, 2015 so the patent has expired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5786562#backward-citations&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50969" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18032" RevisionGUID="c5922f72-2b21-4ce7-9b0b-e4bb3fdff6d2" CreationDate="2017-11-28T21:47:07.007" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50970" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17720" RevisionGUID="87c35350-fd48-48a1-8fec-52b97fa63146" CreationDate="2017-11-28T22:47:07.060" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50971" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="26686405-4023-431f-a6c3-b67ad5b60bd0" CreationDate="2017-11-28T23:47:22.330" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18757" RevisionGUID="81818164-4a8e-44ba-be97-b0cd09a15398" CreationDate="2017-11-29T01:15:08.467" UserId="20203" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140001760][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140001760&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hi Does this patent US20120286513 A1 already violate the above patent. This clearly the same thing in principal. Please let me know as I would like to file a patent in a different way powered via wind  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50973" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18757" RevisionGUID="81818164-4a8e-44ba-be97-b0cd09a15398" CreationDate="2017-11-29T01:15:08.467" UserId="20203" Text="Patent Violation due to same principal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50974" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18757" RevisionGUID="81818164-4a8e-44ba-be97-b0cd09a15398" CreationDate="2017-11-29T01:15:08.467" UserId="20203" Text="&lt;electricity-charging&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18757" RevisionGUID="0dfc9720-3e0b-4f90-aea8-6f24b8be1f87" CreationDate="2017-11-29T01:40:47.050" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to second application" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140001760][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hi Does this patent [US20120286513 A1][2] already violate the above patent. This clearly the same thing in principal. Please let me know as I would like to file a patent in a different way powered via wind  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140001760&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120286513A1/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18758" RevisionGUID="be99fbc6-4fa7-4fbd-9d2e-a23c19791118" CreationDate="2017-11-29T01:55:46.987" UserId="17003" Text="The documents you've identified are patent applications, not yet patents. Applications may or may not get to be patents depending on the examination process which includes searching for prior art. As you have pointed out US20120286513 A1 certainly looks like prior art to US20140001760 A1. I looked in to the [US Public Pair][1] site and US20120286513 A1 has been abandoned after receiving a final rejection. Final rejections aren't necessarily final, but it looks like the applicant decided to give up in the face of the examiner's objections. In the case of S20140001760 A1, the status is also abandoned. It looks like it's applicant gave up after receiving a non-final rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the bottom line is neither of these applications are at all likely to become patents. They are, however still prior art to any invention you might try to patent. Since they both received rejections, it would be an excellent idea for you to review the rejection documents for the two applications. The process is to go to the [US Public Pair][1] site, get past the CAPTCHA, select &quot;Document Number&quot; and then enter just the numbers between the US and A1. For example, &quot;20120286513&quot; or &quot;20140001760&quot;. Click on the &quot;Image File Wrapper&quot; tab and you will find links to the documents containing the rejections and other communications between the applicants and the patent office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18759" RevisionGUID="17837b0f-7629-4324-af30-3d22bf133bae" CreationDate="2017-11-29T01:56:33.187" UserId="16696" Text="The invention is a difference engine, a new type of computer that produces a very specific output.  The rules governing the difference engine are entirely novel, as is the output.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the implementation (and monetization) of this ninvention would be as a virtual computer, running on existing chips, as opposed to requiring custom hardware, and running on top of existing operating systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Would such an invention be patent eligible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: I'm not specifying any region, because I'm interested in answers relating to any given region." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50978" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18759" RevisionGUID="17837b0f-7629-4324-af30-3d22bf133bae" CreationDate="2017-11-29T01:56:33.187" UserId="16696" Text="Would a virtual &quot;difference engine&quot; (i.e. computer) be patent eligible?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50979" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18759" RevisionGUID="17837b0f-7629-4324-af30-3d22bf133bae" CreationDate="2017-11-29T01:56:33.187" UserId="16696" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;computer&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18755" RevisionGUID="20d5e425-e1f8-4142-bacf-bc0942f8e501" CreationDate="2017-11-29T01:57:25.407" UserId="17003" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="First and foremost, the cited document is a patent application. It is not yet a patent and might never be granted. Second, you cite several claims, but all of them are dependent claims. This means they refer to a different claim. A dependent claim is limited by the scope of the referenced claim. Claim 1 is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An apparatus to test the integrity of a vessel comprising an automated tank surveyor mobilizing at least an ultrasound measurement&#xD;&#xA;&gt; system and acoustic tracking system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every claim that refers to claim 1 is limited in scope to an apparatus used to test the integrity of a vessel as described. None of the claims tries to patent &quot;common subsea positioning technology called USBL or LBL&quot;. Nor is claim 6 in any way trying to generally patent tank plows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. The apparatus of claim 1 where the automated tank surveyor is further comprised of a sediment plow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This claim is adding a specific case of claim 1. The fact that the invention is utilizing ultrasound transducers does not mean it is trying to patent the general use of ultrasound detectors. Lasers were invented decades ago, but new uses of them are still being invented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, none of what I've written means that I necessarily believe this application is patentable, only that your concerns are a bit overblown. It is common for applications to have broader claims than are eventually granted. Claims can be amended and most always are based on objections by the patent examiner. Patents like this one where existing technologies are combined are usually open to rejection due to &quot;obviousness&quot;. This is where the examiner will reject claims based on the idea that someone with normal skill in the field would find it obvious to combine said technologies. If you go to the [US Public Pair][1] site, get past the CAPTCHA you can search for this application by selecting &quot;Document Number&quot; and entering &quot;20160299031&quot;. If you click on the &quot;Transaction History&quot; tab you can see the application has received a non-final rejection. This doesn't mean it won't become a patent, just that the claims, as written, have failed to convince the examiner of their merit. There is now a process of negotiation where claims are amended and explanations made to try to circumvent the objections. If you click on the &quot;File Wrapper&quot; tab, you can actually read the communications between the applicant and the examiner and see, for instance, what the examiner's objections were and the subsequent response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18755" RevisionGUID="47c0fc47-6ea5-4627-8036-7ea250068d60" CreationDate="2017-11-29T03:07:37.813" UserId="15954" Comment="Changed &quot;objections&quot; (which are based on non-compliance with USPTO rules) to &quot;rejections&quot; (based on failure to satisfy the statute). The answer only addresses rejections (and uses the correct term elsewhere)." Text="First and foremost, the cited document is a patent application. It is not yet a patent and might never be granted. Second, you cite several claims, but all of them are dependent claims. This means they refer to a different claim. A dependent claim is limited by the scope of the referenced claim. Claim 1 is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An apparatus to test the integrity of a vessel comprising an automated tank surveyor mobilizing at least an ultrasound measurement&#xD;&#xA;&gt; system and acoustic tracking system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every claim that refers to claim 1 is limited in scope to an apparatus used to test the integrity of a vessel as described. None of the claims tries to patent &quot;common subsea positioning technology called USBL or LBL&quot;. Nor is claim 6 in any way trying to generally patent tank plows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. The apparatus of claim 1 where the automated tank surveyor is further comprised of a sediment plow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This claim is adding a specific case of claim 1. The fact that the invention is utilizing ultrasound transducers does not mean it is trying to patent the general use of ultrasound detectors. Lasers were invented decades ago, but new uses of them are still being invented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, none of what I've written means that I necessarily believe this application is patentable, only that your concerns are a bit overblown. It is common for applications to have broader claims than are eventually granted. Claims can be amended and most always are based on rejections by the patent examiner. Patents like this one where existing technologies are combined are usually open to rejection due to &quot;obviousness&quot;. This is where the examiner will reject claims based on the idea that someone with normal skill in the field would find it obvious to combine said technologies. If you go to the [US Public Pair][1] site, get past the CAPTCHA you can search for this application by selecting &quot;Document Number&quot; and entering &quot;20160299031&quot;. If you click on the &quot;Transaction History&quot; tab you can see the application has received a non-final rejection. This doesn't mean it won't become a patent, just that the claims, as written, have failed to convince the examiner of their merit. There is now a process of negotiation where claims are amended and explanations made to try to circumvent the objections. If you click on the &quot;File Wrapper&quot; tab, you can actually read the communications between the applicant and the examiner and see, for instance, what the examiner's objections were and the subsequent response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50986" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17881" RevisionGUID="3e648cd5-595d-4824-9fb1-2bc73cdcf8b1" CreationDate="2017-11-29T11:50:24.237" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18758" RevisionGUID="713abf9b-8c5b-49c3-969d-509e4a48b9c6" CreationDate="2017-11-29T13:30:01.533" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The documents you've identified are patent applications, not yet patents. Applications may or may not get to be patents depending on the examination process which includes searching for prior art. As you have pointed out US20120286513 A1 certainly looks like prior art to US20140001760 A1. I looked in to the [US Public Pair][1] site and US20120286513 A1 has been abandoned after receiving a final rejection. Final rejections aren't necessarily final, but it looks like the applicant decided to give up in the face of the examiner's objections. In the case of S20140001760 A1, the status is also abandoned. It looks like it's applicant gave up after receiving a non-final rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the bottom line is neither of these applications are at all likely to become patents. They are, however still prior art to any invention you might try to patent. Since they both received rejections, it would be an excellent idea for you to review the rejection documents for the two applications. The process is to go to the [US Public Pair][1] site, get past the CAPTCHA, select &quot;Document Number&quot; and then enter just the number between the US and A1. For example, &quot;20120286513&quot; or &quot;20140001760&quot;. Click on the &quot;Image File Wrapper&quot; tab and you will find links to the documents containing the rejections and other communications between the applicants and the patent office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18761" RevisionGUID="26c4688e-5335-444c-ac38-11f7c6ee707e" CreationDate="2017-11-29T15:49:14.867" UserId="17003" Text="I'm going to take a crack at this. To preface, I am not a patent attorney so I am not suggesting my answer is aligned with any legal precedent. I do, however have several granted algorithm based patents. My take is that an algorithm by itself is not patentable as it is deemed abstract. My algorithm based patents all use an algorithm to solve a very specific problem. In my case taking data generated on a real-time PCR thermocycler from a biological sample and interpreting that data to result in a quantitative or qualitative assay determination. Someone might take inspiration from my patent and apply the same algorithm to a different problem and obtain a different patent. Thus, your &quot;virtual difference engine&quot; might be deemed an abstract algorithm whether or not it is implemented on a conventional computer. However, if you have a specific application of that algorithm to solve a practical problem, perhaps it might be patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All this said, the patent attorneys I have used all use very particular claim language when referring to computing devices so I'm sure there is important legal precedent to consider. Also much of this is a moving target and it is possible that patents I acquired years ago may not be considered patentable now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50992" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18294" RevisionGUID="d4196ee4-890d-485b-a74d-d77baf4d078d" CreationDate="2017-11-29T16:50:27.703" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50993" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="6dbccd69-7fea-4dd9-a136-eb56a932a203" CreationDate="2017-11-29T17:53:09.410" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50995" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18540" RevisionGUID="d7b5720f-c434-4700-b838-05445d361174" CreationDate="2017-11-29T20:53:11.273" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50996" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18600" RevisionGUID="4ac4d3a0-53e1-4d90-aeaa-818f947e5a61" CreationDate="2017-11-29T21:53:11.277" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50997" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="b0017117-bff4-4270-939c-99ed74da086e" CreationDate="2017-11-29T22:56:18.353" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="50998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18600" RevisionGUID="20cf9714-0d8e-4563-9991-ba05fb00753c" CreationDate="2017-11-29T23:03:40.433" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to patent" Text="When does [7930340][1] expire?  PTA days are  577;  filed 5/23/2001;  issued  4/19/2011;  last RCE  filed 6/30/2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7930340B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51002" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="6c1620ea-8a1a-4366-9c0c-759da10414d2" CreationDate="2017-11-30T04:56:33.033" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51003" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="7d56340e-21e1-44ce-84a6-bfb651d9b494" CreationDate="2017-11-30T05:19:01.957" UserId="15954" Comment="Added &quot;priority-date&quot; tag (question appears to relate to priority dates of different inventions in related applications)" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;specification&gt;&lt;us&gt;&lt;priority-date&gt;&lt;recapture&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51004" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12629" RevisionGUID="3cdbc288-9bc3-46da-aa34-44dbe74094a7" CreationDate="2017-11-30T07:57:58.427" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18763" RevisionGUID="649baee0-7ff5-4c78-ae10-be992bc81bc4" CreationDate="2017-11-30T13:34:48.850" UserId="20234" Text="I am working in a improved diagnostic tool with an innovation in sample handling and in time reducing modifications of an existing PCR protocol. I would like to know whether is it commandatory to design new primers for the detection of such pathogens (not published) in order to patent such diagnostic kit. Thanks in advance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51006" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18763" RevisionGUID="649baee0-7ff5-4c78-ae10-be992bc81bc4" CreationDate="2017-11-30T13:34:48.850" UserId="20234" Text="PCR based diagnostic kit. Primer design" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51007" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18763" RevisionGUID="649baee0-7ff5-4c78-ae10-be992bc81bc4" CreationDate="2017-11-30T13:34:48.850" UserId="20234" Text="&lt;design&gt;&lt;kit&gt;&lt;diagnostic&gt;&lt;pcr&gt;&lt;primer&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18764" RevisionGUID="9748247a-8ffe-4f48-b9a4-1fbbc9788d30" CreationDate="2017-11-30T15:24:53.447" UserId="17003" Text="To answer this question requires some specialized knowledge. Fortunately I know a bit about this field. If you are trying to get a patent in order to make money licensing to other companies, there is an incentive to make the patent as universal as possible. If your innovation applies across a range of assays then it could be very valuable to others. In this case, I would clearly recommend trying to pursue a patent that is not specific to a single pathogen and thus doesn't necessitate the design of new primers. Even if the innovation applied to a single assay, I'd try to get the patent without needing new primer design. If you specify new primers as a requirement of the claims, then it would be easy to circumvent your patent by simply using existing primers or primers of a different sequence. Thus, you may get a patent, but it wouldn't provide much protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I highly recommend you work with a patent attorney or agent with experience in molecular diagnostics. Going it alone may seem like it will save you money, but you are much more likely to either find your patent application rejected or a patent so narrow as to be of little value." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18765" RevisionGUID="53faa392-f87c-4cb5-b156-311a0b8fe562" CreationDate="2017-11-30T21:57:44.767" UserId="20248" Text="My partner and I interviewed hundreds of high-achievers and reverse engineered their process to discover universal practices and methods of goal achievement. We wrote a book on the subject. Then a school asked us to develop the research into a curriculum to teach young people the practices and methods derived from our research. Can the curriculum be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51010" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18765" RevisionGUID="53faa392-f87c-4cb5-b156-311a0b8fe562" CreationDate="2017-11-30T21:57:44.767" UserId="20248" Text="Can a method of teaching based on research be patented" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51011" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18765" RevisionGUID="53faa392-f87c-4cb5-b156-311a0b8fe562" CreationDate="2017-11-30T21:57:44.767" UserId="20248" Text="&lt;process&gt;&lt;education&gt;&lt;teaching&gt;&lt;school&gt;&lt;curriculum&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18766" RevisionGUID="67a56235-e6ef-4137-b1b1-56d1b08d68e7" CreationDate="2017-11-30T23:46:12.013" UserId="19495" Text="A method of teaching is likely to be rejected as unpatentable under §101 (commonly used to reject software and business methods, but it seems like teaching would be treated similarly). @EricShain is likely correct: copyright will probably be more useful to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Copied from comment to answer per @EricShain's suggestion.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51013" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18629" RevisionGUID="dc4e8d0b-8445-4ef8-bd7a-2347005dd7b0" CreationDate="2017-12-01T01:11:05.210" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18768" RevisionGUID="e7197f56-fc26-496d-93bb-47d234e19ece" CreationDate="2017-12-01T02:14:15.543" UserId="14109" Text="How is it possible to get a patent on something that is very generic in nature and not an invention like stating a sporting events, storing it in a database and showing it to the public live in some way? Am I missing something there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/us8731458" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51019" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18768" RevisionGUID="e7197f56-fc26-496d-93bb-47d234e19ece" CreationDate="2017-12-01T02:14:15.543" UserId="14109" Text="Scorekeeping patent and live results" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51020" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18768" RevisionGUID="e7197f56-fc26-496d-93bb-47d234e19ece" CreationDate="2017-12-01T02:14:15.543" UserId="14109" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51022" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16606" RevisionGUID="c9d4468b-087c-4867-b10f-a2df29756ecc" CreationDate="2017-12-01T03:11:05.273" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51023" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18508" RevisionGUID="014d1d0a-39f2-49e7-a651-e11274293ba8" CreationDate="2017-12-01T05:11:05.330" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18769" RevisionGUID="c1338dc5-85f2-40df-abb7-2b7d87e6a1d2" CreationDate="2017-12-01T05:46:12.913" UserId="20257" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2007061430A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2007061430A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was filed way back in 2006. I am one of the co-inventor of this patent application. The event code seems to be '121' - what does this exactly mean? What do I need to do here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks,&#xD;&#xA;Sujeet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51025" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18769" RevisionGUID="c1338dc5-85f2-40df-abb7-2b7d87e6a1d2" CreationDate="2017-12-01T05:46:12.913" UserId="20257" Text="What needs to be done?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51026" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18769" RevisionGUID="c1338dc5-85f2-40df-abb7-2b7d87e6a1d2" CreationDate="2017-12-01T05:46:12.913" UserId="20257" Text="&lt;wo2007061430a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51027" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="861eadfd-ad6c-4110-a642-59c15448da27" CreationDate="2017-12-01T06:11:06.247" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18770" RevisionGUID="bc2dff3a-f590-464d-942c-95c78dc475e8" CreationDate="2017-12-01T06:59:17.957" UserId="17239" Text="Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18770" RevisionGUID="10b31ae2-db53-496e-8986-8b64aa711e9b" CreationDate="2017-12-01T07:06:07.800" UserId="17239" Comment="added 478 characters in body" Text="    +--------------+------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Date         | Code | Event                                                                            |&#xD;&#xA;    +--------------+------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Aug 29, 2007 | 121  | Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application |&#xD;&#xA;    +--------------+------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51030" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16569" RevisionGUID="2bb027e2-a459-4a7a-8447-032009fe3363" CreationDate="2017-12-01T13:13:01.963" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51031" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="7c1f6d90-7388-4ff8-88cb-a4045d068e7b" CreationDate="2017-12-01T14:12:57.600" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18771" RevisionGUID="51383c5f-c1a5-411d-88f5-25cc98cc9e01" CreationDate="2017-12-01T14:51:00.817" UserId="17003" Text="When determining the scope of a patent you need to read the claims. Many patents that seem to be broad in scope are actually narrower because of limitations described in the claims. In the case of [US8731458][1], the first claim reads as follows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A system for tracking information related to a baseball game&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a mobile electronic device capable of communication with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wireless phone and data network; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a remote database in communication&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with said wireless phone and data network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a software application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; running on said mobile electronic device, said software application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; configured to receive game data from said database related to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conducting said baseball game, and wherein said software application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is further configured to receive statistical data from a user related&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to said baseball game and transmit said data to said database once&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said data is input into said mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a plurality of access&#xD;&#xA;&gt; points capable of accessing said database to view said game data&#xD;&#xA;&gt; related to said baseball game as it is uploaded to said database from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said mobile electronic device in real time;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  wherein said device&#xD;&#xA;&gt; includes a graphical user interface and said software application is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; configured to display a graphical representation of a baseball field,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and wherein the location of baseball hit into play may be indicated by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; contacting the corresponding location on said graphical representation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of a baseball field;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and wherein said software application is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; configured to prompt a user to input statistical data related to said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baseball game, including providing a menu having selections for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; possible outcomes of a baseball play or baseball pitch, and upload&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said statistical data to said remote database to allow said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; statistical data to be shared to said access points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't read through the patent, but it seems different from most sports apps in that it is asking to user to enter the statistical information into the app rather that just providing the information to the user. Thus is seems to be a patent mostly on the collecting of data rather than a patent on the providing of data. Also, it is limited to baseball only. It seems to be aimed at amateur baseball where there are no professional media sources collecting and transmitting information on the game. By providing a mobile app that fans can input the data it allows collecting and distribution of game information. How it deals with multiple users inputting conflicting information or missing stats and plays I don't know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not offing an opinion on whether this is a good or bad patent, but my guess is that ESPN isn't overly worried about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8731458B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18658" RevisionGUID="c56cd5c8-0264-470e-91a7-8a2c61fbb6c7" CreationDate="2017-12-01T15:03:47.010" UserId="17737" Comment="added 247 characters in body" Text="This is a special tag that is designed to be used only by the system for questions that have had all of their other tags removed. Do not add this tag to existing questions, it is reserved for use by the system to identify posts with no valid tags." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51034" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18658" RevisionGUID="c56cd5c8-0264-470e-91a7-8a2c61fbb6c7" CreationDate="2017-12-01T15:03:47.010" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 18033, 17003 edit id of 2046" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18772" RevisionGUID="f556b6d1-895a-4fdf-ae9a-15bcb137a3ca" CreationDate="2017-12-01T15:54:33.930" UserId="20263" Text="i need the images/ figures related to patent WO2017064292 (A1) ― 2017-04-20 as i have found difficulty to understand the procedure without having the figures. There is mentioned that figure 2/3 but i have not found any figure there. I have tried to find it by espacenet but its not clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kindly share it as soon as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51036" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18772" RevisionGUID="f556b6d1-895a-4fdf-ae9a-15bcb137a3ca" CreationDate="2017-12-01T15:54:33.930" UserId="20263" Text="Where are the figures related to patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51037" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18772" RevisionGUID="f556b6d1-895a-4fdf-ae9a-15bcb137a3ca" CreationDate="2017-12-01T15:54:33.930" UserId="20263" Text="&lt;patent-figures&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18770" RevisionGUID="240a513d-585e-4c12-bf0c-3967c2a45a10" CreationDate="2017-12-01T16:22:13.753" UserId="1" Comment="tables are not supported in markup" Text="&gt; Date: Aug 29, 2007   &#xD;&#xA;Code: 121    &#xD;&#xA;Event: Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18766" RevisionGUID="e754ed82-ffa2-42cc-bf76-087885c7dc56" CreationDate="2017-12-01T17:11:45.613" UserId="19495" Comment="Added information about §101" Text="A method of teaching is likely to be rejected as unpatentable under §101 (commonly used to reject software and business methods, but it seems like teaching would be treated similarly). @EricShain is likely correct: copyright will probably be more useful to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Section 101&quot; is part of US patent law, officially numbered 35 U.S.C. §101.  It says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That _looks_ pretty broad -- anything you invent or discover, you &quot;may obtain&quot; a patent for.  And there have been court cases that say patents can cover &quot;anything under the sun that is made by man.&quot;  But!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More recent cases have poked some holes in that -- think about DNA, and chemicals or compounds isolated from plants...those may be _discovered_ and _isolated_ by man, but not _**made**_ by man.  And so they are sometimes tricky to get patent coverage for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, in other technical areas, courts have said that mathematical formulae and laws of nature are not patentable -- a common shorthand you'll see is that they're &quot;abstract ideas.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent attorneys say &quot;rejected under §101&quot; to mean that the examiner says the invention is not eligible for a patent because it doesn't fit into §101 for some reason.  In the present question, I'm guessing that a teaching method would be one of those inventions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, _I'm_ not an examiner, I don't know any more about your invention than what you've written above, and I have no idea what you'd be trying to claim.  It's entirely possible that you're doing something that _is_ patentable.  For example, if you had built one of those sci-fi machines that looks like a colander with wires sticking out of it, and you can download information directly into somebody's brain, there's a very good chance it _is_ patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  But a textbook (no matter how well-researched and -written)?  Not so much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Copied from comment to answer per @EricShain's suggestion.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ilgAP.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18766" RevisionGUID="5bafcefd-0234-49ab-9445-3851bb764f0a" CreationDate="2017-12-01T17:42:00.097" UserId="17003" Comment="Removed comment at bottom." Text="A method of teaching is likely to be rejected as unpatentable under §101 (commonly used to reject software and business methods, but it seems like teaching would be treated similarly). @EricShain is likely correct: copyright will probably be more useful to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Section 101&quot; is part of US patent law, officially numbered 35 U.S.C. §101.  It says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That _looks_ pretty broad -- anything you invent or discover, you &quot;may obtain&quot; a patent for.  And there have been court cases that say patents can cover &quot;anything under the sun that is made by man.&quot;  But!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More recent cases have poked some holes in that -- think about DNA, and chemicals or compounds isolated from plants...those may be _discovered_ and _isolated_ by man, but not _**made**_ by man.  And so they are sometimes tricky to get patent coverage for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, in other technical areas, courts have said that mathematical formulae and laws of nature are not patentable -- a common shorthand you'll see is that they're &quot;abstract ideas.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent attorneys say &quot;rejected under §101&quot; to mean that the examiner says the invention is not eligible for a patent because it doesn't fit into §101 for some reason.  In the present question, I'm guessing that a teaching method would be one of those inventions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, _I'm_ not an examiner, I don't know any more about your invention than what you've written above, and I have no idea what you'd be trying to claim.  It's entirely possible that you're doing something that _is_ patentable.  For example, if you had built one of those sci-fi machines that looks like a colander with wires sticking out of it, and you can download information directly into somebody's brain, there's a very good chance it _is_ patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  But a textbook (no matter how well-researched and -written)?  Not so much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ilgAP.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18773" RevisionGUID="044908e0-3c02-4961-8aa0-856fb80f2fa0" CreationDate="2017-12-01T17:49:08.923" UserId="17003" Text="You don't provide a link to where you found the document, but I think if you use [The Lens][1] for your patent search, you find the [entire PDF including figures][2]. This is just one example where The Lens beats Google at patent searching. There are others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, this document is not a patent, but a WO patent application. It may or may not eventually become a granted patent and even if it does, the claims very likely will change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/WO_2017_064292_A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51042" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17171" RevisionGUID="5ee0877f-c254-4a73-ba0b-f33a3ae08877" CreationDate="2017-12-01T20:13:35.057" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18774" RevisionGUID="d2c47441-992e-4625-9223-3d249a33c6c6" CreationDate="2017-12-01T22:15:17.353" UserId="19495" Text="When you're looking at an issued patent (which you can recognize by the 9-digit patent number, 9,207,318 in this case, vs. the 11-digit publication number of a not-yet-granted patent application, _e.g._, US2012/0319893), you can figure out what it covers (and what you're not allowed to do) by reading the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As @EricShain says, it's often a highly-technical chore to construe the claims, and if you have money riding on the correct answer, you'll certainly want to hire competent counsel to advise you.  But most moderately-literate technical people can at least get an idea of what's going on by reading the claims themselves.  They're written in a weird, lawyerly jargon, but it's not like they're in Greek.  In your patent, claim 1 recites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A computer-implemented method for generating a damage proxy map, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving first radar signals for an area prior to a damage event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtaining, based on the first radar signals, a master coherence map for the area prior to the damage event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving second radar signals for the area spanning the damage event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtaining, based on the second radar signals, a slave coherence map for the area including the damage event;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; registering the slave coherence map to the master coherence map;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; modifying pixel values of the slave coherence map using histogram matching, wherein a first histogram of the master coherence map exactly matches a second histogram of the slave coherence map;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computing a coherence difference between the modified slave coherence map and the master coherence map to produce a damage proxy map; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; displaying the damage proxy map, wherein the coherence difference is displayed in a visually distinguishable manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, it's a list of things that a computer program does, where the end result is &quot;generating a damage proxy map.&quot;  (I don't know what a &quot;damage proxy map&quot; is; you'd have to read the rest of the patent to find out.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, let's say you also wanted to generate a damage proxy map, or you already have a program that does that, and you want to know if it infringes this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To a first approximation, you can just go down the list of &quot;elements&quot; in the claim, and ask yourself: &quot;does my program do this?  Or does it do something else?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a method claim, it's not necessarily significant that you do things in a different order...the if the steps all happen, and if the claim doesn't explicitly say step 2 must happen after step 1, then the claim may cover a system where step 2 happens before step 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're designing a new program to generate damage proxy maps, then you would want to look for other ways of doing it, so that if the owner of this patent shows up to hassle you, you can say &quot;Well, my program doesn't 'register the slave coherence map to the master coherence map'&quot; (element 5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that you usually can't just change the names of your variables or something; if you got into an infringement fight, both sides would be looking at your program and trying to figure out if there's _some_ way to match up the claim elements to the program.  If it's impossible to match up, then you ought to be able to avoid an infringement finding.  But if it's questionable, then the patent owner might be able to beat you in court, force you to stop using or selling your program, and even force you to pay them for infringing the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, this is a very technical, detailed area of law*, and you shouldn't rely on your own uneducated understanding of the claims if you'll have a lot of resources at risk in your operations.  But you don't have to hire a lawyer right out of the gate if you're just trying to figure out what's going on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* Note that I am a lawyer, but I am not _your_ lawyer.  This is not legal advice.  I am not claiming to tell you what patent #9,207,318 covers; I am only attempting to explain the general steps one would take to begin figuring out the answer to that question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51044" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18185" RevisionGUID="3502424e-8b2e-4c55-8014-212aac2b8f60" CreationDate="2017-12-01T23:13:35.517" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18775" RevisionGUID="6e7657fb-1de0-48ed-982e-fee610a0d64c" CreationDate="2017-12-01T23:24:40.990" UserId="20267" Text="Unified patents has petitioned for inter parties review of this patent and after rejecting General Patent Corp's preliminary response, the USPTO has granted the inter parties review (as of Oct 10, 2017).  There is a strict timeline and this patent likely be toast in 6-7 months.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51051" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16450" RevisionGUID="eeecf4f3-6536-4fda-a628-0f167c824593" CreationDate="2017-12-02T00:13:35.553" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51052" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16771" RevisionGUID="5e344625-7964-4792-936b-bd70fc45d7ba" CreationDate="2017-12-02T01:14:41.433" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51053" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="8a4588c6-7a08-4ce8-ad15-a20109f3d4b6" CreationDate="2017-12-02T02:14:40.923" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18771" RevisionGUID="65e8ed6f-2598-44fa-8dcd-86ce745788b4" CreationDate="2017-12-02T04:01:55.833" UserId="17003" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="When determining the scope of a patent you need to read the claims. Many patents that seem to be broad in scope are actually narrower because of limitations described in the claims. In the case of [US8731458][1], the first claim reads as follows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A system for tracking information related to a baseball game&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a mobile electronic device capable of communication with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wireless phone and data network; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a remote database in communication&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with said wireless phone and data network;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a software application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; running on said mobile electronic device, said software application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; configured to receive game data from said database related to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conducting said baseball game, and wherein said software application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is further configured to receive statistical data from a user related&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to said baseball game and transmit said data to said database once&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said data is input into said mobile device;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a plurality of access&#xD;&#xA;&gt; points capable of accessing said database to view said game data&#xD;&#xA;&gt; related to said baseball game as it is uploaded to said database from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said mobile electronic device in real time;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  wherein said device&#xD;&#xA;&gt; includes a graphical user interface and said software application is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; configured to display a graphical representation of a baseball field,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and wherein the location of baseball hit into play may be indicated by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; contacting the corresponding location on said graphical representation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of a baseball field;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and wherein said software application is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; configured to prompt a user to input statistical data related to said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baseball game, including providing a menu having selections for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; possible outcomes of a baseball play or baseball pitch, and upload&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said statistical data to said remote database to allow said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; statistical data to be shared to said access points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't read through the patent, but it seems different from most sports apps in that it is asking to user to enter the statistical information into the app rather that just providing the information to the user. Thus is seems to be a patent mostly on the collecting of data rather than a patent on the providing of data. Also, it is limited to baseball only. It seems to be aimed at amateur baseball where there are no professional media sources collecting and transmitting information on the game. By providing a mobile app that fans can input the data it allows collecting and distribution of game information. How it deals with multiple users inputting conflicting information or missing stats and plays I don't know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not offering an opinion on whether this is a good or bad patent, but my guess is that ESPN isn't overly worried about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8731458B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51056" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17909" RevisionGUID="ced1761a-78b2-4bb1-a0c9-dbf710f21399" CreationDate="2017-12-02T04:14:46.320" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18776" RevisionGUID="8a05541a-e43b-4ac9-b950-657bdd066b98" CreationDate="2017-12-02T07:45:42.540" UserId="20273" Text="Hi i believe i have developed certain functional usage/interface in an app which are unique. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to explain - they arent invention or technological breakthrough. But would fall under the purview of user interface (UI) or utility to the users. To be more precise I am bringing 2 specific functions (which are presently accessed separately) into one screen. It gives a great utility for users for their convenience and improves user efficiency. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been given to understand that patent is done on the process and not the end result. And if it so, then i am pretty sure the end result that i have achieved by making the unique interface could be achieved by someone else achieving it using slightly or entirely other processes too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is - can i not patent the end result here which is that specific user interface instead of the patenting of process? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can this unique interface be patentable? or i would have to copyright it for whatever worth it is (if you can through some light if copyright can secure the novelty of interface/ functions? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would really appreciate inputs from you all guys. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best regards&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51058" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18776" RevisionGUID="8a05541a-e43b-4ac9-b950-657bdd066b98" CreationDate="2017-12-02T07:45:42.540" UserId="20273" Text="patent for an interface of functions presently not in use in any mobilepp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51059" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18776" RevisionGUID="8a05541a-e43b-4ac9-b950-657bdd066b98" CreationDate="2017-12-02T07:45:42.540" UserId="20273" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;app&gt;&lt;interface&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51060" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16544" RevisionGUID="7e847fa6-5660-4a98-8c3e-4378fa0a21e6" CreationDate="2017-12-02T09:15:15.127" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51061" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="28a4c825-f798-49a8-8bd6-2d1c720c4b8e" CreationDate="2017-12-02T11:17:26.937" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51062" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="44c5003a-82ea-41ad-879b-f544196bc863" CreationDate="2017-12-02T12:17:27.790" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18777" RevisionGUID="235f4c0f-a2cc-4cf8-ae94-9a0750366381" CreationDate="2017-12-02T13:27:02.463" UserId="20277" Text="The following is intended to illustrate my question and is not a description of my idea, but it will express my concern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose someone has an active rock solid and un-contestable design AND utility patent or group of patents detailing a &quot;shoe horn&quot; with elaborate details on every possible way the &quot;shoe horn&quot; could be used -- ***BUT*** -- they overlooked one possible use.  A &quot;door stop&quot;.  Can I patent and market a product that is in every way identical in size, shape, design, color and material, call it a &quot;door stop&quot; and market it as a &quot;door stop?  Or is that infringing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Boy, I hope I didn't just give away a great idea in my example and lose $20,000,000 on a stupid door stop.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51064" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18777" RevisionGUID="235f4c0f-a2cc-4cf8-ae94-9a0750366381" CreationDate="2017-12-02T13:27:02.463" UserId="20277" Text="Identical design / Completely different purpose" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51065" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18777" RevisionGUID="235f4c0f-a2cc-4cf8-ae94-9a0750366381" CreationDate="2017-12-02T13:27:02.463" UserId="20277" Text="&lt;patent-infringment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18778" RevisionGUID="84d7e060-6495-4946-b198-6c1643719171" CreationDate="2017-12-02T15:15:08.367" UserId="17003" Text="Freedom-to-operate opinions are always complex so you will absolutely need to consult with a real live patent attorney or agent to get an informed opinion. That said, given your hypothetical, you very well may be able to get a patent for the application of the patented device as a &quot;door stop&quot;. This assumes there are no other patents with similar devices applied to door stops. In my experience, when you see a surprising gap in the claims, it often is due to prior art. Looking at the file wrapper of the patent in the [US Public Pair][1] (assuming its a US patent) is a good way to find out what limitations to claims were brought about during the examination process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your second question is whether you can market a product identical in every way to an existing product except applied to an alternative problem. In this case, there is no way to provide an opinion without actually analyzing the claims to the original patent and other relevant patents. Lets say someone invents the laser (assuming this is the first laser). You might invent a novel application of a laser. You get a patent on the new application, but might still require a license to make the laser. Also, there are other types of intellectual property than utility patents. The original device might be covered by a design patent which precludes you from marketing something that looks identical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not an attorney, just an inventor with several patents. As I always do, I recommend consulting with a patent attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51067" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18513" RevisionGUID="3e8b1cf7-2b79-4775-b5fa-c18026f239c3" CreationDate="2017-12-02T15:33:13.227" UserId="18769" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="For 103/obviousness (but not obvious-type double patenting) reasons, does an application published by the same inventor/owner count as prior art against future applications of the inventor/owner based on **(a) the effective filing date** or **(b) publication date** of the earlier application?  Does it change from pre-AIA to post-AIA?  And are international applications treated differently?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if I file an application on January 1 2015 which publishes on July 1 2017, can the examiner cite that application against me in a 103 rejection on an application filed June 1 2017 (i.e. citing the earlier app's effective filing date of Jan 1 2015) or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on my interpretation of 35 USC 102, it seems that one's own prior applications are treated differently (count as prior art as of pub date) relative to others' prior-filed applications (count as prior art as of EFD).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A pre-AIA [Patently-O article][1] makes the following statement (emphasis mine) in regards to CIP applications, which neither contradicts nor explicitly confirms my interpretation: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus, for the claims with new matter *any patent issued or document published more than one-year before* the CIP filing date would count as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2012/09/continuations-in-part-and-priority-claims.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51068" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14883" RevisionGUID="a34848f1-d721-41c9-97b7-87a1d4255fdc" CreationDate="2017-12-02T16:17:28.960" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18780" RevisionGUID="92c1c1fe-96ec-44a9-837f-b7ca457534ec" CreationDate="2017-12-02T22:11:17.357" UserId="19495" Text="You may be able to patent a new use for an old thing, but you can't patent the thing itself unless it's somehow different from the old thing.  What you _may_ be able to do is patent the new _method_ _of_ _use_.  For your example, you might be successful in claiming:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method of preventing a door from closing, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inserting a shoe horn between a bottom of the door and a floor, thereby wedging the door in a fixed position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This is a crappy claim, and it may be invalid as a single-step method, but hopefully it communicates the idea.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A method-of-use claim is often inferior to an article-of-manufacture claim, because you would have to sue each end user who buys a shoe horn and uses it to wedge open a door...you'd probably prefer to sue the manufacturer of shoe horns, or go to a retailer and seize all the shoe horns off their shelves.  But if you really just have a new use for an old product, you probably don't have much choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An important part of designing patent claims is to consider, &quot;who will make this device?&quot; or &quot;who will do the steps in this method?&quot;  That's the person who might infringe the patent, it's the person whom you might be able to sue, and from whom you might be able to collect damages or royalties.  If it's an individual end user, it's likely that the cost of suing them will exceed the money you could recover from them, so that sort of claim may not be worth the cost of prosecuting it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51073" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17751" RevisionGUID="781d3302-eb22-470c-b7c4-14a0e1490494" CreationDate="2017-12-02T23:22:00.380" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51081" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17963" RevisionGUID="55369150-c0b2-488e-b145-4e33fd8ac801" CreationDate="2017-12-03T08:28:09.140" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51082" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17916" RevisionGUID="f0e7ff87-280e-4f93-ada9-a81a539cc846" CreationDate="2017-12-03T10:28:09.897" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18783" RevisionGUID="eabe744f-9d66-447d-a453-5170385edee8" CreationDate="2017-12-03T12:56:30.120" UserId="20289" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20150244345][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20150244345&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why are the drawings not uploaded? In this patent, PDF is not available to see or download." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51084" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18783" RevisionGUID="eabe744f-9d66-447d-a453-5170385edee8" CreationDate="2017-12-03T12:56:30.120" UserId="20289" Text="Drawing not available and PDF not available" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51085" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18783" RevisionGUID="eabe744f-9d66-447d-a453-5170385edee8" CreationDate="2017-12-03T12:56:30.120" UserId="20289" Text="&lt;us&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18785" RevisionGUID="37a8bc07-9bcb-433e-93d5-d24b3758c5c7" CreationDate="2017-12-03T16:13:46.057" UserId="17003" Text="Google provides two portals for viewing patents. The one you used (www.google.com/patents) frequently has problems displaying figures. The better Google site is [patents.google.com][1]. Here is a link to [US20150244345 on patents.google.com][2]. You will find both figures an a downloadable pdf. In my opinion, an even better site for searching and viewing patents is The Lens ([www.lens.org][3]). Here is a link to [US20150244345 on The Lens][4]. The Lens is non-commercial so you won't be tracked, has better search facilities and analytics and, if you choose to sign up, some useful additional features like collections and saved searches. I've made some searches where The Lens finds patents that are missed on either of the Google sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20150244345A1/en&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_2015_0244345_A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51095" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="26a99b2a-0af7-433e-9200-268cedad2cca" CreationDate="2017-12-03T19:28:58.263" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51096" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18649" RevisionGUID="1b143324-fc6b-4087-ae91-5776f370b4d8" CreationDate="2017-12-03T23:30:20.587" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51097" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="bd3c885e-71b9-4802-b954-b10959be2720" CreationDate="2017-12-04T01:30:23.903" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18787" RevisionGUID="6c135c25-3ffa-4159-9aae-0bdca3ecdc75" CreationDate="2017-12-04T15:16:06.780" UserId="20155" Text="Is going against prior art that conflicts with my patent or product with 10 years remaining or 10 days remaining the same?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51104" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18787" RevisionGUID="6c135c25-3ffa-4159-9aae-0bdca3ecdc75" CreationDate="2017-12-04T15:16:06.780" UserId="20155" Text="Effect of remaining term length" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51105" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18787" RevisionGUID="6c135c25-3ffa-4159-9aae-0bdca3ecdc75" CreationDate="2017-12-04T15:16:06.780" UserId="20155" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51109" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18522" RevisionGUID="82e6153a-419e-4533-b42b-cfc3aad23286" CreationDate="2017-12-04T19:35:34.357" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51113" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18787" RevisionGUID="6d5f9a76-c49f-4f4c-8330-e050e1b031c9" CreationDate="2017-12-04T22:32:21.123" UserId="1" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="51114" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14767" RevisionGUID="1b7facb7-baa5-479b-889f-d5b47de4d3f9" CreationDate="2017-12-04T22:35:33.863" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18789" RevisionGUID="d23fab40-f0d6-47e8-9aae-097cc5403c6d" CreationDate="2017-12-04T23:32:02.683" UserId="20304" Text="This is an update from another question: This patent does not exactly change mankind, but it was an idea that I came up with a few years ago to make a product much better and stronger, while reducing costs (can get by with just 2 layers of foam). My patent is patents.google.com/patent/US9771133B2/en       I am working with a few companies on a licensing/royalty deal, and one of them said that they already had a patent pending on the same idea, but it had been rejected a few times since the initial 2013 (or so) filing date. I cannot find the pending patent that they claim to have. I suspect that they attempted to be very broad to cover many uses, while mine was always very specific to a floating water mat for recreational purposes. Assuming that they were too broad, are they out of luck? To give you an idea, here are a couple of companies that could use this to make thier products better. https://thewatermat.com/  aqualilypad.com    https://www.walmart.com/ip/Lazy-Bunz-6-Foot-Water-Mat/186637587?wmlspartner=wlpa&amp;selectedSellerId=0&amp;adid=22222222227100816928&amp;wmlspartner=wmtlabs&amp;wl0=&amp;wl1=g&amp;wl2=c&amp;wl3=217456548656&amp;wl4=pla-351996687344&amp;wl5=9018570&amp;wl6=&amp;wl7=&amp;wl8=&amp;wl9=pla&amp;wl10=8175035&amp;wl11=online&amp;wl12=186637587&amp;wl13=&amp;veh=sem  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51116" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18789" RevisionGUID="d23fab40-f0d6-47e8-9aae-097cc5403c6d" CreationDate="2017-12-04T23:32:02.683" UserId="20304" Text="A final patent was granted, but in the process of a licensing deal, another claims first to file" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51117" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18789" RevisionGUID="d23fab40-f0d6-47e8-9aae-097cc5403c6d" CreationDate="2017-12-04T23:32:02.683" UserId="20304" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51118" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17769" RevisionGUID="4cd84363-b6cb-4a1a-92dc-b2c5f32d1353" CreationDate="2017-12-04T23:35:39.037" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18789" RevisionGUID="262b7b37-45a2-4fc7-81f2-ac14ee3d0514" CreationDate="2017-12-04T23:54:15.203" UserId="17003" Comment="Cleaned up the question using embedded links." Text="This is an update from another question: This patent does not exactly change mankind, but it was an idea that I came up with a few years ago to make a product much better and stronger, while reducing costs (can get by with just 2 layers of foam). My patent is [US9771133B2][1]. I am working with a few companies on a licensing/royalty deal, and one of them said that they already had a patent pending on the same idea, but it had been rejected a few times since the initial 2013 (or so) filing date. I cannot find the pending patent that they claim to have. I suspect that they attempted to be very broad to cover many uses, while mine was always very specific to a floating water mat for recreational purposes. Assuming that they were too broad, are they out of luck? To give you an idea, here are a couple of companies that could use this to make their products better. [The Water Mat][2], [Aqua Lily Pad][3] and [Walmart][4].    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.google.com/patent/US9771133B2/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://thewatermat.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://aqualilypad.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.walmart.com/ip/Lazy-Bunz-6-Foot-Water-Mat/186637587?wmlspartner=wlpa&amp;selectedSellerId=0&amp;adid=22222222227100816928&amp;wmlspartner=wmtlabs&amp;wl0=&amp;wl1=g&amp;wl2=c&amp;wl3=217456548656&amp;wl4=pla-351996687344&amp;wl5=9018570&amp;wl6=&amp;wl7=&amp;wl8=&amp;wl9=pla&amp;wl10=8175035&amp;wl11=online&amp;wl12=186637587&amp;wl13=&amp;veh=sem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51120" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17768" RevisionGUID="3d652745-8481-4d0b-9a8a-506b6c485cb1" CreationDate="2017-12-05T00:35:38.163" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51121" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="cfc112a0-aa8b-401e-8313-d9b54ad36f50" CreationDate="2017-12-05T09:37:30.783" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51126" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18655" RevisionGUID="28eeb5d1-a6de-4647-a8da-dfde45241d10" CreationDate="2017-12-05T17:38:37.310" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18791" RevisionGUID="479c13b7-78cd-4bef-91ce-0e818067d821" CreationDate="2017-12-05T17:39:55.110" UserId="17003" Text="I'm going to preface this by stating I am not a lawyer. You should get legal advice from your attorney. It would be helpful if you specified the company that claims to have filed the failed application as we might be able to track it down. Unless it was only a provisional application, it certainly should have published. You do have an issued patent and they don't. There are procedures to try to challenge the validity of an issued patent including [Inter Partes Review][1]. These challenges are not without cost and reasonable licensing terms are often preferable to companies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They way I see it, there are two situations. First is what you might do if you find someone actually infringing on your patent. It is a pretty straightforward patent to comprehend. You have two independent claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. A floatable water mat comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a first buoyant layer comprising at least one layer of foam, a top surface and a bottom surface&#xD;&#xA;&gt; opposite the top surface; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a netting comprising crisscrossing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fibers adhered to the bottom surface of the first buoyant layer,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein the crisscrossing fibers form a plurality of openings&#xD;&#xA;&gt; therebetween, wherein each of the plurality of openings comprises an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; area of at least about 1/16th of an inch squared.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say this claim would be pretty easy to circumvent if the opening of the mesh were less than 1/4th inch by 1/4th inch. However, if someone is making the product that infringes, they either have to license your patent, redesign the product or face a law suit from you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  7. A floatable water mat comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a first buoyant layer comprising at least one layer of foam, a top surface and a bottom surface&#xD;&#xA;&gt; opposite the top surface;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a netting comprising crisscrossing fibers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disposed at the bottom surface of the first buoyant layer; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and a second buoyant layer comprising at least one layer of foam, a top&#xD;&#xA;&gt; surface and a bottom surface opposite the top surface, wherein&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  the top&#xD;&#xA;&gt; surface of the second buoyant layer is laminated to the bottom surface&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the first buoyant layer sandwiching the netting therebetween.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This claim is better in that it doesn't specify the mesh opening size. It doesn't require two foam layers with the mesh in-between.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can find a company actually manufacturing or selling a floatable water mat which implements all the elements of either of these claims, then you can sue them for infringement of your patent. The threat of a lawsuit is an inducement to license your patent. You would repeat this process with every manufacturer of an infringing product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A second avenue to licensing is to convince a company that isn't infringing on your patent that they can produce a better product by implementing your invention. In this case, the company may request an exclusive license. This means only they can manufacturer the improved water mat. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Determining the most profitable approach to licensing your invention is business strategy and beyond the scope of this site. I can't express too strongly that your best course of action would be to discuss this situation with your attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/appealing-patent-decisions/trials/inter-partes-review" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18792" RevisionGUID="f6dc2fca-b931-4307-abfa-35392a6784eb" CreationDate="2017-12-05T18:30:14.263" UserId="19913" Text="BACKGROUND&#xD;&#xA;==========&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An American novel **invention** features a new industrial measurement **process** and is implemented by configuring COTS (commercial off the shelf) computers and COTS software to measure and calculate a utilitarian result.  Hardware is not modded in any way, however, in the course of integrating COTS hardware components, software was developed to control the COTS components and produce the result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTIONS&#xD;&#xA;=========&#xD;&#xA;There are 2 components to be patented: a process that drives the novel measurement device (invention) functionality of the measurement process. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Process disclosure: Is it sufficient to disclose a flowchart diagram of how the end user shall utilize the invention to perform the measurements?  It will be obvious how the measurement is electronically performed and recorded.  The utilitarian results are calculated from the recorded data and 'obvious' to someone skilled in the art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Device disclosure: Given that the device (invention) is a COTS software configured, is it sufficient to flowchart the software instructions so that the claim can be generalized to any COTS hardware and software language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Is there an expectation that the patent application provide the how-to build the device? i.e. Provide the software code and the COTS hardware specification?    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any questions or edits to the above to sharpen the question is appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51129" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18792" RevisionGUID="f6dc2fca-b931-4307-abfa-35392a6784eb" CreationDate="2017-12-05T18:30:14.263" UserId="19913" Text="Appropriate Level of detail to describe patents process and invention" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51130" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18792" RevisionGUID="f6dc2fca-b931-4307-abfa-35392a6784eb" CreationDate="2017-12-05T18:30:14.263" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18793" RevisionGUID="9ca11451-a6b8-4643-a565-8db126d73644" CreationDate="2017-12-05T19:04:22.057" UserId="20155" Text="I have an invention that is the combination of components A, B, C, D, F. If I file a patent for it, what scope does it cover exactly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the patent cover sub-combinations like A, B, C?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I write the claims so that they protect sub-parts of my invention?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51132" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18793" RevisionGUID="9ca11451-a6b8-4643-a565-8db126d73644" CreationDate="2017-12-05T19:04:22.057" UserId="20155" Text="Can someone use a sub combination of my original invention without infringing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51133" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18793" RevisionGUID="9ca11451-a6b8-4643-a565-8db126d73644" CreationDate="2017-12-05T19:04:22.057" UserId="20155" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18787" RevisionGUID="e76d1877-cd52-4450-86e4-230a2f99baa4" CreationDate="2017-12-05T19:08:31.303" UserId="20155" Comment="elaboration" Text="Is going against prior art that conflicts with my patent or product with 10 years remaining or 10 days remaining the same?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;edit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If in my invention or product uses an invention that was previously patented (prior art), does it make a difference how long is remaining in term for this prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be harder/easier to obtain a license or fight against infringement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18794" RevisionGUID="c161017b-b9bb-4b6f-bb3e-2eb65b49f9ef" CreationDate="2017-12-05T19:13:21.880" UserId="17003" Text="To infringe on a claim, the infringer must implement each and every aspect of the claim. Thus if a claim specifies steps A, B, C, D and E and someone makes a product that utilizes A, B, C and D but not E it doesn't infringe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for how to write claims so that they protect sub-parts, you have to show that the sub combinations are patentable by themselves and then claim them. Truthfully, the fact you are asking these very basic questions lead me to suggest that you shouldn't be writing claims at all. You would be working with a patent attorney or agent. I have quite a few patents and have read many hundreds of patents. I wouldn't dream of writing my own claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18795" RevisionGUID="0437c43a-d444-454f-907e-8c9c9db51c3e" CreationDate="2017-12-05T19:56:40.533" UserId="17003" Text="It sounds like you are trying to obtain a &quot;software patent&quot;. I'm not a lawyer, and there is a lot going on with respect to patentability of software so **you really should consult with a patent attorney with experience in the field**. That said, I do have a few patents which are based on the application of algorithms to solve a specific problem so I'll attempt to answer your questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1) Process disclosure: Is it sufficient to disclose a flowchart diagram of how the end user shall utilize the invention to perform the measurements? It will be obvious how the measurement is electronically performed and recorded. The utilitarian results are calculated from the recorded data and 'obvious' to someone skilled in the art.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, a caution about using the term &quot;obvious&quot;. In patents, &quot;obvious&quot; is a special word as it can be the basis for rejection. Several patent attorneys have cautioned me to avoid its use at all times. In any case, I do believe that the use of flowcharts is adequate so long as someone skilled in the field could take your flowcharts and other description and implement the invention. In my case, the patents also include some mathematical formulae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2) Device disclosure: Given that the device (invention) is a COTS software configured, is it sufficient to flowchart the software instructions so that the claim can be generalized to any COTS hardware and software language?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, you want to the greatest extent possible to avoid specifying the software language at least in claims. You want to describe the logic. I've seen flowcharts and I've seen pseudo-code. Either can be acceptable. It is ok to describe specific implementations in examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3) Is there an expectation that the patent application provide the how-to build the device? i.e. Provide the software code and the COTS hardware specification?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You certainly don't need to provide source code. In examples, you could specify the particular computer hardware and software products used, but thats for the specification only, not the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main thing to remember is you are enabling someone with normal skill in the field to implement your invention. You aren't providing source code anymore than a mechanical patent is providing dimensioned CAD models." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18796" RevisionGUID="f8e79c74-e0ed-401f-9953-185ca0912b8d" CreationDate="2017-12-05T21:05:07.310" UserId="17077" Text="No. A US patent has no protection in India unless they were manufacturing the invention for sale in the US.  The mere manufacturing of the invention is not protected but the sale of it to the US is.  The US patent only applies to US states and territories." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18798" RevisionGUID="fa5bb2d9-6d41-413a-9519-dd85645ca84a" CreationDate="2017-12-06T00:39:31.460" UserId="3076" Text="In oral arguments on a patentable subject matter case, Justice Scalia rhetorically and humorously asked if he could patent a &quot;method of keeping students awake in a constitutional law class&quot;. (I do not remember in which case.)  Unfortunately for patent law, this struck the justices as funny because, of course, it couldn't be patentable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incorrect - &quot;Method of keeping students awake in a constitutional law class&quot; is only the *preamble* of a possible claim. What are the steps? If they are by thinking positive thoughts or imagining the students are giant ants, then no. If it was by following a particular order of topics, inserting jokes at specific intervals and modulating the voice in an odd manner, probably no.If it involved a selective application of electric shocks to their seats, then probably yes. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18799" RevisionGUID="e4609208-86bf-491b-85c0-8781600bb427" CreationDate="2017-12-06T00:56:11.797" UserId="20340" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20170056751][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20170056751&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I design a hair cover that is made to attach to protective headgear am I in violation of this patent? The product would solely be a hair cover, with cutouts/holes/straps that would allow 3rd party headgear to attach to it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51144" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18799" RevisionGUID="e4609208-86bf-491b-85c0-8781600bb427" CreationDate="2017-12-06T00:56:11.797" UserId="20340" Text="Does this Patent cover the hair cover itself?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51145" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18799" RevisionGUID="e4609208-86bf-491b-85c0-8781600bb427" CreationDate="2017-12-06T00:56:11.797" UserId="20340" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18799" RevisionGUID="00c1d843-e92e-4e38-963b-93c237a5ce51" CreationDate="2017-12-06T02:55:22.410" UserId="17003" Comment="Changed link to patent to one which shows the figures." Text="In reference to the patent: [US20170056751][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170056751A1/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I design a hair cover that is made to attach to protective headgear am I in violation of this patent? The product would solely be a hair cover, with cutouts/holes/straps that would allow 3rd party headgear to attach to it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18800" RevisionGUID="cbb65ff4-31d6-49c0-85f9-4487a00875ce" CreationDate="2017-12-06T03:17:14.063" UserId="17003" Text="US20170056751 is a patent application, not a patent. It may or may not get granted as a patent. Even if a patent is granted, the claims are very likely to change from what is in the application. That said, in order to infringe on a patent, you need to implement every step of at least one claim. Reading claims isn't straightforward. Short simple claims are likely the hardest to avoid and long complicated claims are usually the easiest to circumvent. Looking at this application, there is only one independent claim. If you can avoid implementing every aspect of this claim, you should avoid infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Protective headgear for wrestling and other activities, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a cap having an outer surface configured to cover the head of a wearer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; while leaving the face exposed; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a jaw strap for holding the cap in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; position while worn; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  the cap including internally accessible side&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pockets associated with the ears of a wearer; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a pair of right and left&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ear guard inserts, each configured to be removably received by a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; respective one of the side pockets; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  wherein each ear protection&#xD;&#xA;&gt; insert is retained within its respective side pocket when the cap is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; worn and held in position with the jaw strap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your product avoids using even one of the specified steps in this claim you should be okay with regards to this application. A couple of caveats. First, the claims of this application are very likely to change before a patent is issued. Second there is every possibility of other patents that are relevant. A good first step in looking for other patents would be to look at the [cited prior art of this application][1]. A good way to keep track of the progress of this application is the [US Public Pair][2] site. Go their, get past the CAPTCHA, select &quot;document number&quot; and enter &quot;20170056751&quot;. I checked and the examiner has issued a non-final rejection. This is pretty typical even for applications that eventually get granted. The inventor's attorney had filed a response. You can see this process by clicking on the &quot;Transaction History&quot; tab. The &quot;Image File Wrapper&quot; tab contains the actual documents being communicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170056751A1/en#patentCitations&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51148" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="25b2486a-e670-4a25-a9f2-05be6679697b" CreationDate="2017-12-06T05:44:26.140" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51153" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15983" RevisionGUID="f5bfa90d-e79d-45b0-bce1-70bef2b79b92" CreationDate="2017-12-06T12:48:31.817" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18802" RevisionGUID="41a2ac12-fa34-4488-91b7-76e272b35a6d" CreationDate="2017-12-06T14:35:38.273" UserId="17325" Text="A claim's scope is mostly based on simple logic. If it claims A AND B AND C AND D AND E then, as Eric said, you need to have all those to be considered inside the claim's scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the claim reads (A or B) and C and (D or E) you can imagine the situation is more complicated. Sort of like searching with Boolean operators. The problem is that instead of letters A, B, C etc the claim uses words and words refer to something that might not be an object. And depending on the jurisdiction (country) you are active, the rules for interpreting claims might have their own special features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed very basic questions. Careful there, many individuals go file a PCT with a decent idea, but they try to save money by drafting themselves. Then the drafting is so poor that the damage is not repairable. And you cannot start all over again, by filing a new one (with the help of an attorney or not), because once something is published you cannot patent it anymore." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18803" RevisionGUID="3a6c60d5-a5df-4cd4-9ebd-7489b6ba6f35" CreationDate="2017-12-06T14:39:50.080" UserId="20333" Text="This is a part of my effort to help my friend who is thinking about patenting an idea (regarding some concept of security and compression). This is obviously not my idea and I am only helping my friend (let us call him/her X from company Y). This professional X is trying to see if his/her employer (a large company) Y would patent his/her idea or let him patent his idea by himself/herself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How would X contact Y's legal team/patent team directly? and where can that information be found?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;General questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. How would large companies notify employees about possible patenting processes?&#xD;&#xA; 2. How would the legal team of company be in touch with employees who hold intellectual property?&#xD;&#xA; 3. I have heard that some companies even reward employees with monetary and corporate benefits if they come up with intellectual property. How is that notified to the employees?&#xD;&#xA; 4. Does the normal process involve calling the general helpline or sending a draft of the patent to manager for review?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specific questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. In X's case, X has searched for patent process in Y's website and X has not found any information regarding the same.&#xD;&#xA; 2. X can also be fired if this patent is disclosed to manager as the manager might think that X is simply wasting time on useless stuffs even though X has worked on it mostly on weekends. This way, X can be fired for being &quot;innovative&quot; while the patent inventor's name might be someone other than X if the concepts of security and compression change significantly. Also, manager may think that X is &quot;over-smart&quot; or &quot;over-qualified&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;(Note: Manager may well receive the patent draft and appreciate X as well. But, X would not be sure as to which of the two scenarios would occur. X has not come  up on an idea that is part of the job description. But, X's idea may also be applicable to Y's software policies. X has come up with the idea during the period of employment with Y. So, to avoid risking future employability, X is seeking a review from Y)&#xD;&#xA; 3. X has tried the helpline method. But, X has been told to contact manager for approval as a first step.&#xD;&#xA; 4. X may end up getting stuck at the approval process itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;X will be safe for sure if X does not patent the idea and does not talk to anyone about it. But, X is not willing to let go of that idea and X needs a patent for it (either through Y or by himself/herself). X is not doing it because he/she would get financial/corporate rewards (He/she has not been notified about the same either).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.quora.com/How-are-patents-filed-in-big-companies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.quora.com/How-do-big-companies-reward-their-employees-for-patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51158" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18803" RevisionGUID="3a6c60d5-a5df-4cd4-9ebd-7489b6ba6f35" CreationDate="2017-12-06T14:39:50.080" UserId="20333" Text="How are patent processes initiated in big companies (typically)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51159" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18803" RevisionGUID="3a6c60d5-a5df-4cd4-9ebd-7489b6ba6f35" CreationDate="2017-12-06T14:39:50.080" UserId="20333" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;process&gt;&lt;employer&gt;&lt;employee&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18803" RevisionGUID="b4d283b6-a0b7-4003-94ea-d9f2cc3ba75c" CreationDate="2017-12-06T15:01:08.573" UserId="20333" Comment="Tried to consolidate one post into a single question" Text="This is a part of my effort to help my friend who is thinking about patenting an idea (regarding some concept of security and compression). This is obviously not my idea and I am only helping my friend (let us call him/her X from company Y). This professional X is trying to see if his/her employer (a large company) Y would patent his/her idea or let him patent his idea by himself/herself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Main Question: How would X contact Y's legal team/patent team directly? and where can that information be found?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**General questions** (sub-questions; It would greatly help if you can answer; Otherwise, please ignore):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. How would large companies notify employees about possible patenting processes?&#xD;&#xA; 2. How would the legal team of company be in touch with employees who hold intellectual property?&#xD;&#xA; 3. I have heard that some companies even reward employees with monetary and corporate benefits if they come up with intellectual property. How is that notified to the employees?&#xD;&#xA; 4. Does the normal process involve calling the general helpline or sending a draft of the patent to manager for review?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Specific scenario** (The reason for asking main question; It would be helpful if the answer also provides solutions for this situation):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. In X's case, X has searched for patent process in Y's website and X has not found any information regarding the same.&#xD;&#xA; 2. X can also be fired if this patent is disclosed to manager as the manager might think that X is simply wasting time on useless stuffs even though X has worked on it mostly on weekends. This way, X can be fired for being &quot;innovative&quot; while the patent inventor's name might be someone other than X if the concepts of security and compression change significantly. Also, manager may think that X is &quot;over-smart&quot; or &quot;over-qualified&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;(Note: Manager may well receive the patent draft and appreciate X as well. But, X would not be sure as to which of the two scenarios would occur. X has not come  up on an idea that is part of the job description. But, X's idea may also be applicable to Y's software policies. X has come up with the idea during the period of employment with Y. So, to avoid risking future employability, X is seeking a review from Y)&#xD;&#xA; 3. X has tried the helpline method. But, X has been told to contact manager for approval as a first step.&#xD;&#xA; 4. X may end up getting stuck at the approval process itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;X will be safe for sure if X does not patent the idea and does not talk to anyone about it. But, X is not willing to let go of that idea and X needs a patent for it (either through Y or by himself/herself). X is not doing it because he/she would get financial/corporate rewards (He/she has not been notified about the same either).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for your efforts in reading and answering this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.quora.com/How-are-patents-filed-in-big-companies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.quora.com/How-do-big-companies-reward-their-employees-for-patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18804" RevisionGUID="b70b40d7-f489-4ba9-a494-f3b0a6ffd6ad" CreationDate="2017-12-06T15:52:40.510" UserId="17003" Text="I am not a lawyer, but I have 30 years of working in industry and quite a few patents all of which are the property of my employers. I don't think you can get a definitive answer on this site as each company may have its own employment policies. In general, the rule of thumb is if you are being paid for the work, the work product (which includes inventions) is the property of the company. Indeed, depending on the company, even inventions done on your own time but enabled through knowledge obtained by the specific employment might be considered company property. Lets say you work for a tech company and have very proprietary knowledge of a company internal semiconductor process. Using this knowledge to invent an improvement to that process could possibly be considered the companies property even if you had the idea and did the work at home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the invention process, this also is highly variable company-by-company. Even at a company, it can change over time. Some companies have a formal invention disclosure process. Other companies don't do patents at all. I have worked for a consulting company where any patentable ideas would be the property of the company we were working for. Many software companies don't do patents at all. This is perhaps especially true for companies that can keep the software internal. Trade secret can be a more effective strategy. If there is a legal department, I would think that calling them up to inquire about the intellectual property process would be the way to go. I will say that the inventor shouldn't be drafting the patent. That is the job for the patent attorneys. The inventor needs to be able to document the idea and communicate the invention to the attorneys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes some companies do reward inventors. Some have cash awards, some award company stock. Some even award a percentage of licensing income. Some do none of the above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your specific scenario, it has more to do with employment culture than the specific patent process. I personally wouldn't work at a company or for a manager who punished an employee for being innovative assuming they get their assigned work done well. However, I understand each person's employment situation is different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18768" RevisionGUID="ffab31d1-deb5-4c39-a8cc-a08311f56230" CreationDate="2017-12-06T17:25:34.340" UserId="14109" Comment="deleted 20 characters in body" Text="How is it possible to get a patent on something that is very generic in nature and not an invention like stating a sporting events, storing it in a database and showing it to the public live in some way? Am I missing something there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US8731458" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18804" RevisionGUID="4c298637-72a5-4f4e-9e81-e6d2b3e9c54c" CreationDate="2017-12-06T17:27:08.020" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="I am not a lawyer, but I have 30 years of working in industry and quite a few patents all of which are the property of my employers. I don't think you can get a definitive answer on this site as each company may have its own employment policies. In general, the rule of thumb is if you are being paid for the work, the work product (which includes inventions) is the property of the company. Indeed, depending on the company, even inventions done on your own time but enabled through knowledge obtained by the specific employment might be considered company property. Lets say you work for a tech company and have very proprietary knowledge of a company internal semiconductor process. Using this knowledge to invent an improvement to that process could possibly be considered the companies property even if you had the idea and did the work at home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the invention process, this also is highly variable company-by-company. Even at a company, it can change over time. Some companies have a formal invention disclosure process. Other companies don't do patents at all. I have worked for a consulting company where any patentable ideas would be the property of the company we were working for. Many software companies don't do patents. This is perhaps especially true for companies that can keep the software internal. Trade secret can be a more effective strategy. If there is a legal department, I would think that calling them up to inquire about the intellectual property process would be the way to go. I will say that the inventor shouldn't be drafting the patent. That is the job for the patent attorneys. The inventor needs to be able to document the idea and communicate the invention to the attorneys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes some companies do reward inventors. Some have cash awards, some award company stock. Some even award a percentage of licensing income. Some do none of the above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your specific scenario, it has more to do with employment culture than the specific patent process. I personally wouldn't work at a company or for a manager who punished an employee for being innovative assuming they get their assigned work done well. However, I understand each person's employment situation is different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51167" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="d7741a52-10a6-4d6b-af8a-6e969216979d" CreationDate="2017-12-06T18:54:43.947" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18806" RevisionGUID="d503f347-6130-42e3-89a8-3c897527ae8d" CreationDate="2017-12-06T18:59:44.900" UserId="20350" Text="In a nutshell, I designed a water pump and I want to get a patent for that. I found that other patents have similarities of about 80% as my design. The main differences of my design is angle of blades is different, so the compression is different, internal volume is different, bearing fixed to the mid axis is different than other patented designs (but the bearing used is not a my invention). And the pump shape is slightly different. Material used is similar as I also use steel, iron, titanium and aluminium for internal parts. So, the basic idea is same. Same principles are used. But the machine is not identical to any of other patented machines. But after-all it will pump water like other patented machines. So in this case do patents cover the idea and basic principles? or the specific materials used or the technology such as slightly different shape, different blade angles etc?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51169" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18806" RevisionGUID="d503f347-6130-42e3-89a8-3c897527ae8d" CreationDate="2017-12-06T18:59:44.900" UserId="20350" Text="Do Patents cover the idea or the specific build?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51170" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18806" RevisionGUID="d503f347-6130-42e3-89a8-3c897527ae8d" CreationDate="2017-12-06T18:59:44.900" UserId="20350" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18807" RevisionGUID="80b6012c-da04-4989-bb45-2e65ef2d0538" CreationDate="2017-12-06T20:57:11.747" UserId="20351" Text="In reference to the patent: [US9243796][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This appears to be the a very generic patent as it covers any flexible heatsink that may be made of numerous different materials. They are not specifying a design but more less a common everyday products used for a design.  This is the same as patenting copper for heat dissipation.  That is not patentable as it is an everyday item already used for this application, but copper wire bent in a certain formation with measurements for spacing, design and engineering is patentable. Same with this patent for the flexible heatsink. Utilizing a flexible metal fabric (aka: wire) placed in any formation to dissipate heat from an LED is saying that no wire, flexible metals, or a combination of either may be used. These are common items already in use therefore it should not have been approved.  If they are specifying a specific design for the fabric or a configuration of the wires I would understand a patent for that, but to say that they came up with the idea of a flexible heatsink is preposterous. And since when is copper or aluminum being flexible now a patentable item? Are we in the 1800's? When utilized in the automobile industry, as referenced, the heatsinks are not in motion or &quot;flexed&quot; repeatedly, but merely are of a certain thin design than has some sort of maneuverability that may or may not be utilized, depending on the installer and the vehicle make/model.  See the below image of my LED headlight.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;My question is... Should I continue with my production or halt until further review?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9243796&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JswqO.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51173" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18807" RevisionGUID="80b6012c-da04-4989-bb45-2e65ef2d0538" CreationDate="2017-12-06T20:57:11.747" UserId="20351" Text="New Heatsink Patent Questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51174" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18807" RevisionGUID="80b6012c-da04-4989-bb45-2e65ef2d0538" CreationDate="2017-12-06T20:57:11.747" UserId="20351" Text="&lt;us9243796&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18807" RevisionGUID="55cf0ef7-55cc-4fdc-9cc4-9fae9e280fe7" CreationDate="2017-12-06T21:15:05.813" UserId="17003" Comment="Changed link to patent to one which shows the figures." Text="In reference to the patent: [US9243796][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This appears to be the a very generic patent as it covers any flexible heatsink that may be made of numerous different materials. They are not specifying a design but more less a common everyday products used for a design.  This is the same as patenting copper for heat dissipation.  That is not patentable as it is an everyday item already used for this application, but copper wire bent in a certain formation with measurements for spacing, design and engineering is patentable. Same with this patent for the flexible heatsink. Utilizing a flexible metal fabric (aka: wire) placed in any formation to dissipate heat from an LED is saying that no wire, flexible metals, or a combination of either may be used. These are common items already in use therefore it should not have been approved.  If they are specifying a specific design for the fabric or a configuration of the wires I would understand a patent for that, but to say that they came up with the idea of a flexible heatsink is preposterous. And since when is copper or aluminum being flexible now a patentable item? Are we in the 1800's? When utilized in the automobile industry, as referenced, the heatsinks are not in motion or &quot;flexed&quot; repeatedly, but merely are of a certain thin design than has some sort of maneuverability that may or may not be utilized, depending on the installer and the vehicle make/model.  See the below image of my LED headlight.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;My question is... Should I continue with my production or halt until further review?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9243796B1/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JswqO.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18808" RevisionGUID="23ae0dea-47db-4c2b-9e70-a2b634f284cd" CreationDate="2017-12-06T21:35:25.787" UserId="17003" Text="The claims of a patent determine how broad it is. The important thing to remember with claims is you have to implement each and every element of the claim to infringe on it. If you can avoid even one step, you avoid infringement. Looking at the first claim we see the following.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An LED lamp with a heat sink, the lamp comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a wire harness adapted for connection to an electrical system;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a first circuit board&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electrically connected to the wire harness;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a second circuit board&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electrically connected to the wire harness;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a heat conducting member,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein the circuit boards are mounted on opposite sides of the heat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conducting member; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a first light emitting diode on the first circuit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; board; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a second light emitting diode on the second circuit board; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a flexible heat sink mechanically connected to the heat conducting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; member; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and wherein the flexible heat sink comprises a flexible metal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fabric.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This claim is actually pretty narrow requiring two circuit boards, two LEDs a wire harness, etc. The other independent claim is as follows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15. A method of installing an LED lamp into a light fixture comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  providing an LED lamp that has a light emitting diode on a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; circuit board, a heat conducting member supporting the circuit board,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a flexible heat sink made from a flexible metal fabric attached to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; heat conducting member, and a mounting body enclosing the circuit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; board and heat conducting member; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  shaping the flexible heat sink into&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a desired shape to fit in a space behind the light fixture; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; installing the mounting body in the light fixture with the light&#xD;&#xA;&gt; emitting diode on a front side of the fixture and the flexible heat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sink in the space behind the light fixture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, shorter claims are harder to circumvent. You need to assess whether you are implementing each and every element of this claim. For instance is your design shaping the flexible heat sink into a desired shape to fit in the space behind the light fixture?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not passing judgement on the validity of the patent, but it is granted so unless you are willing to try to get it invalidated you have to live with it. I don't think it is anywhere near as broad as your question implies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My question is... Should I continue with my production or halt until further review?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a good question, but not one you should rely on opinions on the internet to answer. Every product needs to be concerned with existing patents. You've identified one, but there could be other relevant patents. Getting a freedom-to-operate opinion from a qualified patent attorney or agent is important." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18808" RevisionGUID="d2ecd06b-b532-47e1-963e-af2d820d868d" CreationDate="2017-12-06T21:53:26.057" UserId="3076" Comment="slight clarification" Text="The claims of a patent determine how broad it is. The important thing to remember with claims is you have to implement each and every element of the claim to infringe on it. If you can avoid even one element (in an apparatus claim) or one step(in a method claim), you avoid infringement. Looking at the first claim we see the following.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An LED lamp with a heat sink, the lamp comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a wire harness adapted for connection to an electrical system;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a first circuit board&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electrically connected to the wire harness;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a second circuit board&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electrically connected to the wire harness;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a heat conducting member,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein the circuit boards are mounted on opposite sides of the heat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conducting member; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a first light emitting diode on the first circuit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; board; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a second light emitting diode on the second circuit board; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a flexible heat sink mechanically connected to the heat conducting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; member; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and wherein the flexible heat sink comprises a flexible metal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fabric.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This claim is actually pretty narrow requiring two circuit boards, at least one LED per board, the two boards sandwiched above and below a heat sink, a wire harness, the flexible heat sink, etc. The other independent claim is as follows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15. A method of installing an LED lamp into a light fixture comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  providing an LED lamp that has a light emitting diode on a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; circuit board, a heat conducting member supporting the circuit board,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a flexible heat sink made from a flexible metal fabric attached to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; heat conducting member, and a mounting body enclosing the circuit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; board and heat conducting member; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  shaping the flexible heat sink into&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a desired shape to fit in a space behind the light fixture; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; installing the mounting body in the light fixture with the light&#xD;&#xA;&gt; emitting diode on a front side of the fixture and the flexible heat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sink in the space behind the light fixture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, shorter claims are harder to circumvent. You need to assess whether you are implementing each and every element of this claim. For instance is your design shaping the flexible heat sink into a desired shape to fit in the space behind the light fixture?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not passing judgement on the validity of the patent, but it is granted so unless you are willing to try to get it invalidated you have to live with it. I don't think it is anywhere near as broad as your question implies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My question is... Should I continue with my production or halt until further review?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a good question, but not one you should rely on opinions on the internet to answer. Every product needs to be concerned with existing patents. You've identified one, but there could be other relevant patents. Getting a freedom-to-operate opinion from a qualified patent attorney or agent is important." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18800" RevisionGUID="d4a5092e-8cb6-4cc0-819d-2d1a60e7eff0" CreationDate="2017-12-06T21:55:12.587" UserId="3076" Comment="an apparatus claim has no steps." Text="US20170056751 is a patent application, not a patent. It may or may not get granted as a patent. Even if a patent is granted, the claims are very likely to change from what is in the application. That said, in order to infringe on a patent, you need to implement every element of at least one claim. Reading claims isn't straightforward. Short simple claims are likely the hardest to avoid and long complicated claims are usually the easiest to circumvent. Looking at this application, there is only one independent claim. If you can avoid implementing every aspect of this claim, you should avoid infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Protective headgear for wrestling and other activities, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a cap having an outer surface configured to cover the head of a wearer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; while leaving the face exposed; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a jaw strap for holding the cap in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; position while worn; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  the cap including internally accessible side&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pockets associated with the ears of a wearer; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a pair of right and left&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ear guard inserts, each configured to be removably received by a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; respective one of the side pockets; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  wherein each ear protection&#xD;&#xA;&gt; insert is retained within its respective side pocket when the cap is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; worn and held in position with the jaw strap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your product avoids using even one of the specified steps in this claim you should be okay with regards to this application. A couple of caveats. First, the claims of this application are very likely to change before a patent is issued. Second there is every possibility of other patents that are relevant. A good first step in looking for other patents would be to look at the [cited prior art of this application][1]. A good way to keep track of the progress of this application is the [US Public Pair][2] site. Go their, get past the CAPTCHA, select &quot;document number&quot; and enter &quot;20170056751&quot;. I checked and the examiner has issued a non-final rejection. This is pretty typical even for applications that eventually get granted. The inventor's attorney had filed a response. You can see this process by clicking on the &quot;Transaction History&quot; tab. The &quot;Image File Wrapper&quot; tab contains the actual documents being communicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170056751A1/en#patentCitations&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18808" RevisionGUID="a9bb0704-dae9-4ec1-94d7-aa41f04574dc" CreationDate="2017-12-06T22:00:02.663" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="The claims of a patent determine how broad it is. The important thing to remember with claims is you have to implement each and every element of the claim to infringe on it. If you can avoid even one element (in an apparatus claim) or one step(in a method claim), you avoid infringement. Looking at the first claim we see the following.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An LED lamp with a heat sink, the lamp comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a wire harness adapted for connection to an electrical system;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a first circuit board&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electrically connected to the wire harness;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a second circuit board&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electrically connected to the wire harness;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a heat conducting member,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein the circuit boards are mounted on opposite sides of the heat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conducting member; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a first light emitting diode on the first circuit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; board; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a second light emitting diode on the second circuit board; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a flexible heat sink mechanically connected to the heat conducting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; member; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and wherein the flexible heat sink comprises a flexible metal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fabric.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This claim is actually pretty narrow requiring two circuit boards, at least one LED per board, the two boards sandwiched above and below a heat sink, a wire harness, the flexible heat sink, etc. The other independent claim is as follows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15. A method of installing an LED lamp into a light fixture comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  providing an LED lamp that has a light emitting diode on a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; circuit board, a heat conducting member supporting the circuit board,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a flexible heat sink made from a flexible metal fabric attached to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; heat conducting member, and a mounting body enclosing the circuit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; board and heat conducting member; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  shaping the flexible heat sink into&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a desired shape to fit in a space behind the light fixture; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; installing the mounting body in the light fixture with the light&#xD;&#xA;&gt; emitting diode on a front side of the fixture and the flexible heat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sink in the space behind the light fixture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, shorter claims are harder to circumvent. You need to assess whether you are implementing each and every element of this claim. For instance is your design shaping the flexible heat sink into a desired shape to fit in the space behind the light fixture?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not passing judgement on the validity of the patent, but it is granted so unless you are willing to try to get it invalidated you have to live with it. I don't think it is anywhere near as broad as your question implies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My question is... Should I continue with my production or halt until further review?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a good question, but not one you should rely on opinions on the internet to answer. Every product needs to be concerned with existing patents. You've identified one, but there could be other relevant patents. Getting a freedom-to-operate opinion from a qualified patent attorney is important." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18809" RevisionGUID="eb6df292-ae09-4aa2-8ba9-0bacfaaf8a57" CreationDate="2017-12-06T22:04:21.477" UserId="3076" Text="I do not understand what the examiner saw as non-obvious over the prior art but the examiner did look at the following - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - US20020019677A1 	2000-08-09	2002-02-14	Lee Jae Woo	-- Method for&#xD;&#xA;   providing personal golf record information using the internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   US20020049507A1 	1999-12-07	2002-04-25	Tapio&#xD;&#xA;   Hameen-Anttila	-- Recording game information into a server&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   US20020091723A1 	2001-01-10	2002-07-11	Talknsports&#xD;&#xA;   Enterprises	-- System and method for collection, conversion and&#xD;&#xA;   presentation of sports data" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18810" RevisionGUID="047304e3-a5cf-4b34-9198-5c6f05648e78" CreationDate="2017-12-06T23:31:02.073" UserId="17003" Text="A patent covers what the claims specify. In general, the claims aren't specific to a single implementation, but cover as broad a description of the novel idea as allowed by the examination process. You do sometimes see ranges specified for certain items, but not always and sometimes only in dependent claims. In order for your design to get patent protection, there needs to be something novel over the prior art. Merely tweaking some design aspect to optimize performance is likely not sufficient to obtain a patent. It would be considered &quot;obvious&quot; which means someone with ordinary skill in the field is likely to think of the change. If you make a change which results in an unexpected benefit, then you have a greater chance of getting the improvement patented." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18811" RevisionGUID="175a5124-171c-4540-9139-b47cbede9e4b" CreationDate="2017-12-07T00:12:05.440" UserId="3076" Text="Patent claims can be broad or narrow. Sometimes, the basic concept, speaking very loosely, is so novel/non-obvious that one can get a broad claim. Other times you need to narrow and narrow to a specific embodiment to get a claim allowed. In that case the patent might not be worth much if someone can leave out a detail you needed to achieve patentability with little loss of customer appeal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18812" RevisionGUID="2bf30539-8500-4bc9-a28b-47fad467c20a" CreationDate="2017-12-07T02:00:14.023" UserId="18769" Text="This is a public policy question, which you may find answers to in legal/economic literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Just wondering why there is no requirement for foreign entities&#xD;&#xA;&gt; seeking to patent an idea / technology in a territory be obliged to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; manufacture, license and / or offer to sell a product based on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent in the territory?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is largely true, but there may be some exceptions.  See for instance, [compulsory license][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patents obviously grant a monopoly on a particular technology, for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; defined period. Primarily to allow the inventor time to recoup the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; development costs and profit from their labours, and to foster further&#xD;&#xA;&gt; innovation, but if an entity simply seeks a patent to block / prevent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a technology being used in a territory for 20 years, what possible&#xD;&#xA;&gt; benefit is there for the territory to grant the monopoly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The general 'trade' is that an inventor discloses useful information to the public (a 'novel', 'non-obvious', and 'enabled' disclosure such that one having ordinary skill in the art can practice), and the government grants temporary offensive rights to go after others.  Therefore, the primary intended benefit is that one inventor can inform others such that they don't have to re-invent the wheel.  However, in practice it does not seem that patents are the 'go-to' source of information one would consult before inventing, in part because patents aren't optimized to 'teach', but rather are optimized to secure as broad of rights as possible with minimal effort.  Additionally, knowledge of prior art may have deleterious effects in pursuing rights to one's own invention (e.g. duty of disclosure, inequitable conduct) or practicing in that area (e.g. treble damages).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If there is no conceivable benefit then why isn't there an explicit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; requirement that an entity seeking a patent must either: manufacture,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; license and / or offer to sell a product based on the technology in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the territory, within a defined time frame, or the patent will expire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, patents aren't exactly &quot;free&quot; in terms of fees (USPTO and/or laywer) and time.  They cost at least $5K on the low end, and possibly up to $20K (esp. if you include Office Action responses).  However, even assuming patent costs weren't a concern to filers, here are some reasons we might not want to require practice of claimed inventions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - doing so would couple the action of 'inventing' to business execution (which would disallow one to specialize as an 'inventor'), or at minimum may require some inventors to license their patents for less than desired, foreclosing on the option to wait until a better buyer came along&#xD;&#xA; - doing so may prohibit the 'little guy' from getting into the inventing/business game at all if competitors can box him/her out of practicing by other patents and/or economies of scale; with the current system, the little guy can perhaps strike a cross-licensing deal to gain access to the business or license the patent; there definitely seem to be abuses to this though, i.e. trolls&#xD;&#xA; - what if someone intended to take their claimed invention to market, but were only willing to do so if they were guaranteed patent protection?&#xD;&#xA;    - would you require operation immediately at application or upon grant?&#xD;&#xA;    - what would be the metric for 'being in business'?  what if it took them years until they were able to commercialize the claimed invention?  such a determination would get messy&#xD;&#xA; - if you force a non-practicing entity to license/sell their patents, how would you avoid them from making ineffectual such a requirement, e.g. by making the license/sale fee $1B+? would you have courts determine a &quot;reasonable&quot; license or price?  this would similarly get messy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I personally would prefer that patent rights were weakened (I operate in the electrical/computer area which requires less patent incentive to invent as opposed to, e.g., pharma), it would seem difficult in practice to enforce practice of claimed inventions as you suggest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18813" RevisionGUID="70726cf2-4428-4378-9ae4-3076e0d06f35" CreationDate="2017-12-07T04:47:21.537" UserId="20352" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20100244435][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20100244435&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the patent block the use of chucks on threaded tubes?, my design uses a rotating wheel to screw the chuck on which is locked at the end " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51188" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18813" RevisionGUID="70726cf2-4428-4378-9ae4-3076e0d06f35" CreationDate="2017-12-07T04:47:21.537" UserId="20352" Text="Does this patent cover up the use of a chuck to screw on to a threaded pipe" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51189" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18813" RevisionGUID="70726cf2-4428-4378-9ae4-3076e0d06f35" CreationDate="2017-12-07T04:47:21.537" UserId="20352" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18810" RevisionGUID="620b06b5-ae0b-4f70-80c1-18409b543a35" CreationDate="2017-12-07T15:06:07.080" UserId="17003" Comment="Added second paragraph." Text="A patent covers what the claims specify. In general, the claims aren't specific to a single implementation, but cover as broad a description of the novel idea as allowed by the examination process. You do sometimes see ranges specified for certain items, but not always and sometimes only in dependent claims. In order for your design to get patent protection, there needs to be something novel over the prior art. Merely tweaking some design aspect to optimize performance is likely not sufficient to obtain a patent. It would be considered &quot;obvious&quot; which means someone with ordinary skill in the field is likely to think of the change. If you make a change which results in an unexpected benefit, then you have a greater chance of getting the improvement patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't want to discourage you from trying to obtain a patent. I don't know enough about your design and the prior art to do that. What I would say it to focus on the specific improvements and try to patent those. For example, from your description is sounds like the impeller is more effective. If you can describe specific design differences with your impeller from what has been used previously, you may be able to get a patent on those differences. The trick is to not get so narrow with the claims that someone can avoid your patent with trivial design changes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51200" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18660" RevisionGUID="85a03f90-5665-45e2-98f7-bcacc3e110cf" CreationDate="2017-12-07T15:57:18.843" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18817" RevisionGUID="080522fd-d5c9-46b9-a13a-b0a6220f0c1e" CreationDate="2017-12-07T16:13:54.920" UserId="20350" Text="If the machine is already patented 3 years ago in the USA and if Chinese person patent the exact same machine in china, what happens? what will be the limitations to the Chinese person? And limitations (if any) to the person in the USA. Can the china person start productions and sell the product for profit? within country? to international clients? I'm asking this for educational purposes. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51202" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18817" RevisionGUID="080522fd-d5c9-46b9-a13a-b0a6220f0c1e" CreationDate="2017-12-07T16:13:54.920" UserId="20350" Text="what happens if chinese person filed a patent of a machine which is already patented in USA by an other person?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51203" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18817" RevisionGUID="080522fd-d5c9-46b9-a13a-b0a6220f0c1e" CreationDate="2017-12-07T16:13:54.920" UserId="20350" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18818" RevisionGUID="b797ef5b-d5c0-4d83-8105-a27040c0e0a3" CreationDate="2017-12-07T17:49:02.477" UserId="20350" Text="The patent &quot;US 5782079 A&quot; is filed on February 1997. So it's been more than 20 years since it first patented. So this means this patent is no longer protected by the patent. So, can this be manufactured by someone who's not the patent holder and sell the product worldwide? and What's the legal status of the patents after 20 years.&#xD;&#xA;I need to know this for educational purposes. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51205" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18818" RevisionGUID="b797ef5b-d5c0-4d83-8105-a27040c0e0a3" CreationDate="2017-12-07T17:49:02.477" UserId="20350" Text="Since this patent is expired, can anyone in the world freely manufacture this and sell for proffit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51206" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18818" RevisionGUID="b797ef5b-d5c0-4d83-8105-a27040c0e0a3" CreationDate="2017-12-07T17:49:02.477" UserId="20350" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51207" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17587" RevisionGUID="88009c8d-931f-4062-96f8-8e778017bf39" CreationDate="2017-12-07T17:57:23.637" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18819" RevisionGUID="aa6bc0c1-943e-4159-8824-4f7ad8b8ca65" CreationDate="2017-12-07T18:18:20.507" UserId="17003" Text="A US patent provides protection only in the US. It does, however represent prior art so no one should be able to patent the same thing in any other country. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but the patent examiner should reject the application as not being novel. A US patent does not prevent you from manufacturing and selling in other countries. You do need to be careful because there are often equivalent patents granted in other countries. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51209" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18662" RevisionGUID="453e8eb6-b915-4b84-b8b4-46c169eb14bb" CreationDate="2017-12-07T18:57:38.010" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18818" RevisionGUID="c109128c-7e78-4ccb-911d-dd1bd8241b24" CreationDate="2017-12-07T19:04:37.510" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to patent." Text="The patent [US 5782079 A][1] is filed on February 1997. So it's been more than 20 years since it first patented. So this means this patent is no longer protected by the patent. So, can this be manufactured by someone who's not the patent holder and sell the product worldwide? and What's the legal status of the patents after 20 years.&#xD;&#xA;I need to know this for educational purposes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5782079A/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18820" RevisionGUID="84ec0061-d825-4d64-95c1-0f970ed9b6d8" CreationDate="2017-12-07T19:15:10.203" UserId="17003" Text="For patents applied for after June 8, 1995, the expiration date is 20 years from the priority date. You are correct that means US5782079A has expired. I checked the [US Public Pair][1] to see if there was a patent term extension and there wasn't. According to Pair, the patent expired for non-payment of fees on 08-16-2010. US patents only apply to the US so you have to make sure there aren't international patent equivalents although those usually share priority and expiration dates. In principal you should be able to sell the device as described in the patent. You need to be aware that there can be other relevant patents. If you look at the [cited and similar documents][2] link for this patent you can see other patent citations many of which are newer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5782079A/en#citedBy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18813" RevisionGUID="781bd2b0-3aba-488d-9d1d-c2533908f0b4" CreationDate="2017-12-07T19:16:31.920" UserId="17003" Comment="Changed link to application to the granted patent" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8567823][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8567823&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the patent block the use of chucks on threaded tubes?, my design uses a rotating wheel to screw the chuck on which is locked at the end " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51213" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18211" RevisionGUID="295630c9-673b-4df5-b8b1-2dba099c68db" CreationDate="2017-12-07T19:57:29.703" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18821" RevisionGUID="818d64ef-fb8c-4d79-93de-11c87cdb2a78" CreationDate="2017-12-08T01:59:36.407" UserId="18769" Text="Are there any consequences for disclosing &quot;too many&quot; references in an IDS?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, one may do this to bury a damning reference, overwhelm the examiner so that most IDS references are skipped over, and/or achieve 'presumption of validity' over all disclosed references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[37 CFR 1.56][1] instructs to disclose the &quot;closest information&quot; for each claim, and not to disclose cumulative references.  But this is a fuzzy standard, and not over-disclosing may lead to inequitable conduct issues (despite the standard being raised via Theranos).  Is there some sort wrist-slapping if too many IDS references are disclosed without necessity (e.g. from co-pending pros history), and/or do you lose examiner goodwill?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bitlaw.com/source/37cfr/1_56.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51215" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18821" RevisionGUID="818d64ef-fb8c-4d79-93de-11c87cdb2a78" CreationDate="2017-12-08T01:59:36.407" UserId="18769" Text="Burying prior art/achieving broad presumption of validity via IDS" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51216" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18821" RevisionGUID="818d64ef-fb8c-4d79-93de-11c87cdb2a78" CreationDate="2017-12-08T01:59:36.407" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;ids&gt;&lt;duty-of-disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18822" RevisionGUID="5f48362c-ef0a-4ad2-b5a6-775e02bd2dd6" CreationDate="2017-12-08T02:49:51.017" UserId="18769" Text="If I forget and/or cannot relocate a reference that would otherwise be required in an information disclosure statement (IDS) under duty of disclosure, are there potential inequitable conduct issues even though I am unable to provide the reference?  For instance, in a litigation scenario, discovery could turn up the reference (or at least exposure to such a reference) which one was previously unable to find or recall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My specific scenario is that for one step/limitation of at least one claim, I feel like I have come across such information before, but cannot recall where.  I suppose it is possible I used another product that had such a feature.  An examiner search may turn up such a reference, or may not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess would be that failure to recall/relocate is a weak defense, as it is hard to prove and subject to abuse.  But at the same time, if even *I* can't relocate the reference despite my best efforts, it will probably be difficult for a potential challenger to do so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51218" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18822" RevisionGUID="5f48362c-ef0a-4ad2-b5a6-775e02bd2dd6" CreationDate="2017-12-08T02:49:51.017" UserId="18769" Text="Forgotten Prior Art - IDS" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51219" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18822" RevisionGUID="5f48362c-ef0a-4ad2-b5a6-775e02bd2dd6" CreationDate="2017-12-08T02:49:51.017" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;ids&gt;&lt;duty-of-disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18821" RevisionGUID="f90530cc-a357-4cfb-9626-6f329bb9f4b6" CreationDate="2017-12-08T02:50:15.740" UserId="18769" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="Are there any consequences for disclosing &quot;too many&quot; references in an information disclosure statement (IDS)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, one may do this to bury a damning reference, overwhelm the examiner so that most IDS references are skipped over, and/or achieve 'presumption of validity' over all disclosed references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[37 CFR 1.56][1] instructs to disclose the &quot;closest information&quot; for each claim, and not to disclose cumulative references.  But this is a fuzzy standard, and not over-disclosing may lead to inequitable conduct issues (despite the standard being raised via Theranos).  Is there some sort wrist-slapping if too many IDS references are disclosed without necessity (e.g. from co-pending pros history), and/or do you lose examiner goodwill?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bitlaw.com/source/37cfr/1_56.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51222" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="24b4de9b-9dca-4b25-b2ae-d120d33fcfde" CreationDate="2017-12-08T18:05:58.720" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51226" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="8008972a-defa-4830-b52c-76f33388f83d" CreationDate="2017-12-09T05:14:48.463" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51227" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="c802dd86-5fa4-4d08-ade9-e6a5c6e316b6" CreationDate="2017-12-09T09:14:47.627" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51231" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17614" RevisionGUID="48eda9a5-a0ce-499a-8989-9dc4b203b7bd" CreationDate="2017-12-09T15:18:05.913" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18824" RevisionGUID="fa6519b2-2192-45ec-a5d0-2e9a68f31312" CreationDate="2017-12-09T18:27:25.473" UserId="18769" Text="There is a [similarly-titled question][1] that asks whether it is possible to split an invention into multiple patents.  The question here is what are potential risks of doing so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents may potentially be split up when two processes/systems have overlapping and non-overlapping steps/components.  Patents may also be split up when one further expounds on or makes an &quot;improvement&quot; to a subset of another (e.g. more in-depth step/component).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be desirable to have a quantitatively large number of patents and/or non-terminal disclaimered (non-TDed) patents for reasons not discussed here.  In order to achieve this, one may file according to two different scenarios A and B, shown below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scenario A involves a provisional containing all related subject matter, which will be split up via a non-provisional and continuation.  The benefit here is that one has all the original information together if needed for claiming purposes.  Also, if one is lucky, an examiner might even issue a restriction/election requirement, giving safe harbor to a 'consonant' divisional, thus avoiding TD issues.  However, because the disclosures of what are believed to be two distinct inventions are combined, the examiner may be more likely to issue a TD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In scenario B, the subject matter has been split up from the beginning (i.e. Prov 0 split into Prov 3,4).  Splitting up the material as shown in scenario B may reduce the likelihood of an examiner requiring a terminal disclaimer, among other things.  However, the risk is that if non-provisional 1,2 are not 'inventive' enough to stand on their own, it may be too late to salvage the overall invention (e.g. attempting to file a continuation-in-part from the two non-provisionals may pose prior art issues).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions: Should scenario A always be used?  Is scenario B too risky?  Are there other ways to salvage scenario B if the two different disclosures need to be combined in order to get an allowance?  Is the assumption that scenario B is less likely to invoke a TD requirement incorrect?  Is there a better way to safely acquire multiple non-TDed patents on related but distinct inventions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/16583/split-an-invention-into-multiple-patents&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0Xktx.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dZXq9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ipogi.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51233" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18824" RevisionGUID="fa6519b2-2192-45ec-a5d0-2e9a68f31312" CreationDate="2017-12-09T18:27:25.473" UserId="18769" Text="Risks of splitting invention into multiple patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51234" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18824" RevisionGUID="fa6519b2-2192-45ec-a5d0-2e9a68f31312" CreationDate="2017-12-09T18:27:25.473" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;continuation-in-part&gt;&lt;divisional&gt;&lt;strategy&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18827" RevisionGUID="fedc2919-27c3-4eba-84df-bf3aeff2be9d" CreationDate="2017-12-10T04:12:27.117" UserId="15503" Text="This is opinion, as I'm not aware of any empirical way to measure this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest that scenario B should always be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you have two separable inventions, then it makes sense that you would want to protect them separately, with separate description and claims, in order to maximise the scope of your protection. If they are described together, there is a risk that they will be described in such a way as to seem like a single invention. This can lead to the two inventions being seen as essential to one another, such that features could be imputed into the claims (in the US) or could be required to be explicitly inserted (in Europe).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, if one invention by itself is not sufficiently non-obvious, then adding in another invention won't save it. Instead, you've either just limited your non-obvious invention with obvious features, or combined two obvious inventions to get a new obvious combination. There is no benefit to being able to combine two separable inventions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, separating the two inventions makes the attorney's life a lot easier. This is, I believe, a factor which is most often overlooked, since attorneys would never admit it. While it's nice to consider that a hypothetical attorney will review every page of your specification to determine whether a feature could be added to the claims, the reality is that a time-pressured attorney will glance through it. The more unrelated features that are involved, the more chance there is of something material or useful being missed, or that a mistake will be made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, keeping to one invention per application is honorable (though I realise this is an old-fashioned sentiment). If your invention is obvious, then you should not get a patent for it, and should not be unhappy that you haven't got a patent for it. You might be able to bamboozle an examiner to get a grant by throwing everything at them to see what sticks, but really, is that going to result in an enforceable, useful claim? Doubtful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18828" RevisionGUID="059d8ecb-4935-43bb-9d26-7138938ca990" CreationDate="2017-12-10T05:56:17.653" UserId="20367" Text="I started manufacturing some multilayer golf balls for sale and i discovered that there is chance that construction is protected under invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to what i found in google patent it seems there is a patent of the way of making multi layer golf balls.&#xD;&#xA;But how van i know if pstent google shows me is valid? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://encrypted.google.com/patents/US20030050396&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/WO2003039683A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The strangest thing is that few of those big companies have a patent on the same thing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.ch/patents/US8231482&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/WO2005018755A2?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Appreciate your reply&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51243" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18828" RevisionGUID="059d8ecb-4935-43bb-9d26-7138938ca990" CreationDate="2017-12-10T05:56:17.653" UserId="20367" Text="If i open a store and sell multi layer golf ball as my brand am i in trouble?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51244" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18828" RevisionGUID="059d8ecb-4935-43bb-9d26-7138938ca990" CreationDate="2017-12-10T05:56:17.653" UserId="20367" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18829" RevisionGUID="b7a72191-fdc3-4a0a-b846-e990f4cf0b3d" CreationDate="2017-12-10T11:29:46.953" UserId="20368" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2017013302A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2017013302A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51246" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18829" RevisionGUID="b7a72191-fdc3-4a0a-b846-e990f4cf0b3d" CreationDate="2017-12-10T11:29:46.953" UserId="20368" Text="Where are the images?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51247" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18829" RevisionGUID="b7a72191-fdc3-4a0a-b846-e990f4cf0b3d" CreationDate="2017-12-10T11:29:46.953" UserId="20368" Text="&lt;patent-figures&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18830" RevisionGUID="88e42a47-014f-46e5-8d58-d6440e63f76d" CreationDate="2017-12-10T14:16:22.837" UserId="14403" Text="The query refers to WIPO publication number. To view figures one can browse WIPO patent search. Link https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf. Select field combination under search.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;For this application, use **title** (System and method for guided implantoplasty) or **publication no**. (WO2017013302A1) or **PCT application no**. (PCT/ES2016/070559) for **search**.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Click on search. Click on Drawing on next page to see figures. One can also see drawings after clicking on documents and then clicking on Application as filed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Directly these links can be browsed for this application.&#xD;&#xA; (https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2017013302&amp;recNum=1&amp;tab=Drawings&amp;maxRec=&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=&amp;queryString=) else (https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2017013302&amp;recNum=1&amp;tab=PCTDocuments&amp;maxRec=&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=&amp;queryString=).   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18831" RevisionGUID="c9cd9ff9-42b6-455d-9358-74a9935c62f4" CreationDate="2017-12-10T15:29:36.340" UserId="17003" Text="First off, you need to understand the difference between an application and a patent. Applications typically have the publication year as the first four numbers. Like &quot;US2003...&quot; or &quot;WO2014...&quot;. Google and other patent search engines usually indicate the publication type. You also may see &quot;Also published as&quot; which might provide links to the associated granted patent and corresponding patents in other countries. Applications may or may not eventually get granted as patents. If they do, the claims often are amended so if you are worried about patent infringement you should try hard to look for the granted patents associated with applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for golf balls, I'm sure there are quite a few patents around for you to consider before determining whether your ball is infringing on a patent. The most important thing to remember is the claims define what is covered. It is common to see patents that seemingly describe the same product. The claims, however may only protect a very specific idea, possibly only a refinement of a previously patented  invention. Additionally, multilayer golf balls have been around for quite a while, so it is possible the earliest patents on them have expired. Lastly, you don't mention where you reside, but patents are tied to specific jurisdictions. US patents, for instance, only provide protection for goods manufactured or sold in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can try to track down all the relevant patents to review. For each patent you find, there will be other cited patents and applications which give you other documents to read. Ultimately if you really want to know whether you have freedom-to-operate, it is best to consult with a patent attorney who can commission a professional search and provide a legal opinion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18828" RevisionGUID="f6305d7d-7792-40ec-b557-0b5ff812dc12" CreationDate="2017-12-10T16:27:23.473" UserId="1" Comment="removed solicition for personal contact offline" Text="I started manufacturing some multilayer golf balls for sale and i discovered that there is chance that construction is protected under invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to what i found in google patent it seems there is a patent of the way of making multi layer golf balls.&#xD;&#xA;But how van i know if pstent google shows me is valid? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://encrypted.google.com/patents/US20030050396&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/WO2003039683A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The strangest thing is that few of those big companies have a patent on the same thing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.ch/patents/US8231482&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/WO2005018755A2?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Appreciate your reply&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51253" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18829" RevisionGUID="910d086d-742d-4732-b70c-d03fed4ac788" CreationDate="2017-12-10T16:28:21.173" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[18783],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:17003,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Eric Shain&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="51257" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17944" RevisionGUID="3eeac07f-adaf-444a-9184-b5b1b1edea34" CreationDate="2017-12-10T18:28:16.683" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51260" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17945" RevisionGUID="d1b9df66-b9c8-4b0a-85a2-89c02e50aca6" CreationDate="2017-12-10T22:28:17.610" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51261" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17041" RevisionGUID="3793be53-7ec9-4205-ab81-b5167c77707f" CreationDate="2017-12-11T01:31:54.620" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51262" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16114" RevisionGUID="52054cfd-a590-4220-8e5e-48019fef70e5" CreationDate="2017-12-11T02:31:54.763" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51263" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18023" RevisionGUID="572e9b74-f59e-486b-972a-6b706724fcc3" CreationDate="2017-12-11T06:32:03.300" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18834" RevisionGUID="b62904d7-f307-48c2-91de-61d02b226998" CreationDate="2017-12-11T15:12:17.010" UserId="17003" Text="I am not a lawyer, so this is a layman's reply. Assuming the patent is valid, you are breaking a law by infringing. Now if your product is obscure, the patent holder might not notice, but really even without the legal aspect, infringing on a valid patent is essentially stealing someone's intellectual property. To me this is an ethical issue. As I said, I'm not a lawyer, but I believe willful infringement can incur greater penalties if you are sued. As for licensing, I'm relatively confident it is cheaper to license than to be sued considering you would be in the wrong and the infringement is willful. As for the length of time before patent expiration, clearly if the time is only 10 days, you would simply wait. The longer the patent has until expiration, the more valuable it is and that would be reflected in the licensing terms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51268" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="18787" RevisionGUID="814d16e8-460a-4a90-b284-5f0c1ee1244d" CreationDate="2017-12-11T16:00:28.370" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:18033,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DonQuiKong&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="51274" PostHistoryTypeId="38" PostId="18834" RevisionGUID="9614aa39-00a6-4404-b4eb-6611aea8a2e1" CreationDate="2017-12-11T16:02:34.157" UserId="1" Comment="from https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/18833/is-going-against-prior-art-that-conflicts-with-my-patent-or-product-with-10-year" />
  <row Id="51275" PostHistoryTypeId="38" PostId="18787" RevisionGUID="9614aa39-00a6-4404-b4eb-6611aea8a2e1" CreationDate="2017-12-11T16:02:34.157" UserId="1" Comment="from https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/18833/is-going-against-prior-art-that-conflicts-with-my-patent-or-product-with-10-year" />
  <row Id="51277" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="18834" RevisionGUID="cd1e69fc-8546-4998-b7d4-253dc4d4ce59" CreationDate="2017-12-11T16:02:52.350" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="51279" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17627" RevisionGUID="fcbaa681-8286-4d6b-9082-843c2f969a52" CreationDate="2017-12-12T03:36:00.570" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18835" RevisionGUID="24823dbd-1a74-4edf-8d32-5ebb2d114523" CreationDate="2017-12-12T05:12:49.160" UserId="391" Text="Every country in the world has some sort of export regulations. These regulations cover information and data in addition to things. From the US point of view, patent applications filed outside of the US will require a foreign filing license which is routinely granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When an inventor sends information regarding their invention outside of their home country, one needs to check the regulations to determine whether the information in question is controlled. For example, if you are in Malaysia, you would check the [MITI website][1] to ensure that your invention can be &quot;exported&quot; in the form of a patent application. Since I don't know which country you are in, I am not aware of your local regulations. In general, you will not need an export license for things for which you don't need an export license. (A tautology, I know.) You would keep track of the export, the dates, to whom the items were shipped, etc. It would only be in the instance where a violation occurred that you would have a problem. Check with your local patent office before filing overseas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To continue the Malaysia example, if your invention related to a novel method of operating a nuclear reactor, your invention would probably be categorized under ECCN 0E001. ECCN stands for 'export control classification number'. Sending that type of patent application outside the country would require a license from Malaysia's Atomic Energy Licensing Board (AELB). As you might imagine, knowingly exporting controlled information like this is a crime and you may well be visited by local law enforcement as a result. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US, the USPTO will handle the basics of this inquiry and grant foreign filing licenses where appropriate (i.e. most of the time). Where an invention is classified at a higher level, the relevant government agencies will be notified and given and opportunity to weigh in on whether you should be able to file outside the US. For dual use (civilian/military) items the Department of Commerce will get the nod and you will be working with the [US Export Administration Regulations (EAR)][2]. For military items, the Department of State has jurisdiction and the relevant rules will be the [International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)][3]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize, improper exports of information in the form of a patent application generally only matter to the home country. Note that if your invention falls afoul of export regulations in your home country, your products may also have these restrictions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.miti.gov.my/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/regulations/export-administration-regulations-ear&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/itar.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18836" RevisionGUID="a2a72105-1d51-4632-9d2e-8765789f3943" CreationDate="2017-12-12T05:25:11.380" UserId="391" Text="I also recommend Filemaker. I will say however that you are trading low upfront cost for a lot of development time. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51282" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="24f19507-5841-4169-9632-5614b52dbb03" CreationDate="2017-12-12T14:37:17.327" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51283" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18371" RevisionGUID="3544476e-c95f-48fe-a33a-fc0b6b4b325c" CreationDate="2017-12-12T15:38:29.040" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18838" RevisionGUID="e1a445d5-c42b-44ac-ae1f-29883e43c32d" CreationDate="2017-12-13T00:06:09.400" UserId="20380" Text="Part of the claims are published in a casual publicaties in sailmagazine november 2012 issue: https://www.sailmagazine.com/gear/low-friction-rings:   [![A sheave rotating in a fixing rope][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/G6bQA.jpg&#xD;&#xA;The white rope, when pulled on one end, will rotate the black sheave. The combination of black sheave with the red/white rope tied through the center of the sheave will then act as a pulley. The mentioned article in sailmagazine describes the use of “low friction rings”, which is actually exactly the sheave type described in the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18839" RevisionGUID="94fb81c7-6b1b-41be-8e84-e4e078934927" CreationDate="2017-12-13T00:56:01.890" UserId="20380" Text="In the Colligo marine catalogue of 2013 on page 7 (http://pdf.nauticexpo.com/pdf/colligo-marine/catalog-2013/32670-22520.html) a picture is shown where a low friction ring is used in combination with a fixing rope to act as a pulley: [![Colligo marine low friction ring as a pulley][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/euCyk.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The low friction ring shown is in shape and function the same as the sheave described in the patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18840" RevisionGUID="adacfc7d-0b12-4338-b512-e850b7a5c6cb" CreationDate="2017-12-13T02:11:55.067" UserId="6089" Text="(For the purposes of this question, assume the application is free of syntactical errors that would obviously lead to an office action.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have corporate experience preparing patent applications.  Invariably, we have started broad, received office actions, tightened up the claims, and if we have experienced success it has been after many back-and-forth rounds resulting in something more narrowly defined than in the first pass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I am wondering what would happen if we submit an application with claims that are very, very narrowly defined on the original submission, and which thus avoid prior art objections?  Assuming we are happy with the scope, have you ever seen a narrow set of claims be approved without an office action?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way of considering this question is do you think we need to purposely start a little bit broad just so we have something left over for debate?  In business negotiations, one would do that.  I just don't know if you have to play that game with patent applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51291" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18840" RevisionGUID="adacfc7d-0b12-4338-b512-e850b7a5c6cb" CreationDate="2017-12-13T02:11:55.067" UserId="6089" Text="Have you ever seen a patent be approved on the first try without an office action?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51292" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18840" RevisionGUID="adacfc7d-0b12-4338-b512-e850b7a5c6cb" CreationDate="2017-12-13T02:11:55.067" UserId="6089" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51306" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18840" RevisionGUID="44f68a3f-faa6-4b36-8d1a-5526963593c1" CreationDate="2017-12-13T15:18:37.097" UserId="1" Comment="clarified question to whether this was a good idea rather than if it EVER happened." Text="Should initial patent applications be a bit broad as a negotiating point?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51307" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18840" RevisionGUID="44f68a3f-faa6-4b36-8d1a-5526963593c1" CreationDate="2017-12-13T15:18:37.097" UserId="1" Comment="clarified question to whether this was a good idea rather than if it EVER happened." Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;best-practices&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18844" RevisionGUID="5b25036b-9808-4baf-8d7f-12fa744a1ee2" CreationDate="2017-12-13T20:16:24.547" UserId="20390" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20170290869][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20170290869&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems this patent would eliminate or preclude 100's of companies in states where cannabis processing is legal, most companies are now processing by CO2 extraction to obtain active cannabinoids including THC and CBD being the main constituents. Is the author(s) making a claim on their particular extraction conditions or methodology or trying to encompass the entire &quot;extraction by CO2&quot; process, an already burgeoning industry in states like CO and CA." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51313" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18844" RevisionGUID="5b25036b-9808-4baf-8d7f-12fa744a1ee2" CreationDate="2017-12-13T20:16:24.547" UserId="20390" Text="Elimination of Cannabis Manufacturing/Processing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51314" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18844" RevisionGUID="5b25036b-9808-4baf-8d7f-12fa744a1ee2" CreationDate="2017-12-13T20:16:24.547" UserId="20390" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51315" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="9d335da5-80ea-4aaf-9faa-1804b3320d1c" CreationDate="2017-12-13T23:56:38.890" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18845" RevisionGUID="a9381174-791b-4b2d-9c0f-102fe68a99d3" CreationDate="2017-12-14T01:31:57.243" UserId="18769" Text="It is possible to get a first action allowance (FOA), i.e. without any rejections to the claims.  As you state, that generally implies you left claim scope on the table, but it can be subsequently argued in, e.g., a continuation application.  Just be aware that if you narrow claims (esp. in response and/or to overcome an office action on the merits), you may be subject to estoppel; i.e. you may not be allowed to renegotiate forfeited scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe it is generally advisable to start broad with your first application and narrow from there, as it will be quicker to obtain the broad scope one ultimately wants and avoid any estoppel/support issues.  However, if you would like to get something through quickly (e.g. scope that is limited to an embodiment you plan to sell for enforcement purposes), a first application with narrow claim scope may achieve that.  In this case, the broad claims should be determined ahead of time and supported in the spec." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18846" RevisionGUID="97253de5-46ed-4ec7-be56-63e833033827" CreationDate="2017-12-14T01:33:47.030" UserId="3076" Text="Looking at very the beginning of the application you will see -  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This application is a continuation of Ser. No. 12/049,588, filed Mar.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 17, 2008, now pending, which is a divisional of U.S. patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application Ser. No. 10/218,972, filed Aug. 14, 2002, now U.S. Pat.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No. 7,344,736, the entire contents of each of which are incorporated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; herein by reference in their entireties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That says the initial filing was done in 2002 so your feeling that it is old only matters if it was old as of Aug. 14th 2002." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18847" RevisionGUID="b88b0333-c093-4934-b75b-c7b8b793db46" CreationDate="2017-12-14T01:53:12.067" UserId="18769" Text="One example that would lead me to believe 'no':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider a modern cellphone, which could easily comprise technology covered by 100s of patents.  Would it be reasonable for Apple to maintain a list of all the (ever-changing) patents covering their product?  Additionally, would they be responsible for listing the patents of the components provided by subcontractors, or the list of subcontractors providing components for their patented iPhone so one could contact them for such information individually?  It would seem an onerous requirement, as this would require legal opinion from Apple (what is covered and what is not covered), which can be an expensive effort (e.g. in infringement contentions) and would further open up potential inequitable conduct issues (disclosing too much or not enough).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example that would lead me to believe 'no':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the ultimate intention in having patent disclosure from a company is to know what 'rights' you have when making/selling a product, what about non-practicing entities (NPEs)?  Would NPEs be exempt from such a requirement to disclose related patents to potential products (which would be unfair relative to practicing entities), and if not how would one know which NPEs to contact?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example that would lead me to believe 'no':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although this may be outside the scope of your question, assume a product has been marked 'Patent Pending', and one has filed a corresponding provisional application to justify such marking without yet claiming priority to the provisional application.  If one were required to disclose the contents of their unpublished provisional, they would forfeit priority rights in 'strict novelty' countries (e.g. Europe), thus losing an intended benefit of a provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, the question is one of equity and public notice, which may be stated with certainty in the statutes or case law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although there is risk of going to market only to be struck with infringement suits from unknown patents, potential infringement analysis can't be performed with 100% certainty, as there is always a rolling 18-month window of unpublished patents (assuming they wouldn't have to be disclosed as discussed in the third example).  Ultimately, it seems the more equitable policy is to require those desiring freedom to operate perform a search on their own." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18846" RevisionGUID="4fc0de1a-cf30-47e5-a889-944e7ddf5122" CreationDate="2017-12-14T02:44:09.597" UserId="17003" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="Looking at very the beginning of the application you will see -  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This application is a continuation of Ser. No. 12/049,588, filed Mar.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 17, 2008, now pending, which is a divisional of U.S. patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application Ser. No. 10/218,972, filed Aug. 14, 2002, now [U.S. Pat.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No. 7,344,736][1], the entire contents of each of which are incorporated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; herein by reference in their entireties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That says the initial filing was done in 2002 so your feeling that it is old only matters if it was old as of Aug. 14th 2002.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7344736B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18775" RevisionGUID="2ea4f970-e193-4d02-b179-0f9c30adb999" CreationDate="2017-12-14T19:49:37.797" UserId="20267" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Unified patents has petitioned for inter parties review of this patent and after rejecting General Patent Corp's preliminary response, the USPTO has granted the inter parties review (as of Oct 10, 2017).  There is a strict timeline and this patent will likely be toast in 6-7 months.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18775" RevisionGUID="f1a2633c-5319-4794-a75f-36ecca3539b5" CreationDate="2017-12-14T19:58:48.890" UserId="20267" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="Unified patents has [petitioned](https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2017-01370) for inter parties review of this patent.  After rejecting General Patent Corp's preliminary response, the USPTO has [granted](https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2017-01370%2F10) the inter parties review (as of Oct 10, 2017).  There is a strict [timeline](https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2017-01370%2F11) and this patent will likely be toast in 6-7 months.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51330" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="4c326f5f-631d-46cd-ae1d-de01c11d7396" CreationDate="2017-12-15T09:02:55.463" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18845" RevisionGUID="daa71564-9fce-4d22-a569-27b9d8ffb4c3" CreationDate="2017-12-15T14:05:21.617" UserId="18769" Comment="added 369 characters in body" Text="It is possible to get a first action allowance (FOA), i.e. without any rejections to the claims.  As you state, that generally implies you left claim scope on the table, but it can be subsequently argued in, e.g., a continuation application.  Just be aware that if you narrow claims (esp. in response and/or to overcome an office action on the merits), you may be subject to estoppel; i.e. you may not be allowed to renegotiate forfeited scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe it is generally advisable to start broad with your first application and narrow from there, as it will be quicker to obtain the broad scope one ultimately wants and avoid any estoppel/support issues.  However, if you would like to get something through quickly (e.g. scope that is limited to an embodiment you plan to sell for enforcement purposes), a first application with narrow claim scope may achieve that.  In this case, the broad claims should be determined ahead of time and supported in the spec.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**: I should add, you may be able to get a fast and broad patent by requesting prioritized/expedited examination (e.g. TrackOne).  However, [this article][1] makes some great points regarding the potential cons of doing so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.rdoip.com/blog/2017/9/24/inventor-series-pros-and-cons-of-expediting-examination-with-the-track-one-program" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51332" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18577" RevisionGUID="8200d721-a8ad-4a3d-b68d-706e2ec0bcb6" CreationDate="2017-12-15T15:03:06.323" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51338" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17832" RevisionGUID="8d86ceb6-8654-4fdb-bd34-0ed562157bd4" CreationDate="2017-12-15T18:03:17.103" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18850" RevisionGUID="ef7011eb-d080-4cc7-81dd-3456f0743fc6" CreationDate="2017-12-15T21:10:36.793" UserId="20407" Text="Let's say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Company A releases a software with a specific algorithm in January 2016. There are **many proofs that the design of the software has been made before January 2016**: customers have bought it in January 2016, press articles in January 2016 and after, many social media posts in January 2016. There are proofs of existence of the product in January 2016 from at least 100 different sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Company A hasn't made any patent at all&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Company B releases a similar product today and register a patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Can Company B say *&quot;Dear Company A, you're not allowed to use this technology anymore because we have a patent for it&quot;*, even if there are proofs of anteriority for Company A?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Can Company B sue Company A?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51340" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18850" RevisionGUID="ef7011eb-d080-4cc7-81dd-3456f0743fc6" CreationDate="2017-12-15T21:10:36.793" UserId="20407" Text="Can a company who has released a product long before another be asked to remove it because of a posterior patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51341" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18850" RevisionGUID="ef7011eb-d080-4cc7-81dd-3456f0743fc6" CreationDate="2017-12-15T21:10:36.793" UserId="20407" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;data-processing-software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18851" RevisionGUID="4f83193b-b3d9-47c1-a8f6-efc69fe6de9c" CreationDate="2017-12-16T00:42:10.047" UserId="17003" Text="Companies don't just register patents. Patents are applied for. The process can take three or more years. Once filed, a patent examiner will evaluate the application to determine if it is 1) useful, 2) novel and 3) non-obvious. In the scenario you describe, company A's software would constitute prior art to company B's application and if the examiner is doing his/her job right would reject the patent application for lack of novelty. Of course, patent examiners might not find every instance of prior art so it is possible for Company A's product wouldn't be considered. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Company A can read company B's application when it publishes 18 months after filing. Many companies keep on top of evaluating patent applications to head off future problems. They can file opposing documents during the examination process. Should the patent actually be granted there are also procedures for challenging its validity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming company B gets a patent for exactly the same technology company A has already been selling (before the filing). Company B can sue company A. If they do, the suit can go to trial where company A would have an excellent chance of winning. If they do, then the precedent means company B's patent would be essentially useless. That said patent suits are very expensive and the companies may decide to settle with some sort of licensing agreement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51345" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18850" RevisionGUID="e1dbb78e-d487-4747-8966-db9664cf16a8" CreationDate="2017-12-16T01:20:06.633" UserId="20407" Comment="edited title" Text="Can a company who has released a product before another be asked to remove it because of a posterior patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18852" RevisionGUID="d44a75b4-eab3-489d-84d5-c477c05038b1" CreationDate="2017-12-16T03:54:37.903" UserId="20410" Text="I am developing a cosmetics line and have come up with a unique packaging design. It's not just the look, the package actually opens in a different way. Would I need a design patent or utility patent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51349" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18852" RevisionGUID="d44a75b4-eab3-489d-84d5-c477c05038b1" CreationDate="2017-12-16T03:54:37.903" UserId="20410" Text="Which patent is right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51350" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18852" RevisionGUID="d44a75b4-eab3-489d-84d5-c477c05038b1" CreationDate="2017-12-16T03:54:37.903" UserId="20410" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;utility&gt;&lt;patent-design&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18853" RevisionGUID="114f0c68-a685-4f38-a8a0-b838ae7c03ad" CreationDate="2017-12-16T14:39:31.563" UserId="17003" Text="The answer is maybe both. Design patents cover the ornamental design of functional objects. If you want to protect the look of the packaging then a design patent is a good way of doing it. Utility patents cover the function of the design. If your package actually works in a way distinct and novel compared to previous designs, it may be able to get a utility patent. The patented functionality must be novel not just over cosmetic packages, but all previous packages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, design patents are easier and cheaper to obtain but perhaps easier to circumvent. In any case, I would strongly suggest you discuss this with a patent attorney or agent. Since you can't disclose your idea publicly, you can't get definitive answers from Q and A sites like this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18851" RevisionGUID="2daa9d5a-b52d-488e-a3e0-18580b398d45" CreationDate="2017-12-16T18:24:54.667" UserId="17003" Comment="Added last paragraph" Text="Companies don't just register patents. Patents are applied for. The process can take three or more years. Once filed, a patent examiner will evaluate the application to determine if it is 1) useful, 2) novel and 3) non-obvious. In the scenario you describe, company A's software would constitute prior art to company B's application and if the examiner is doing his/her job right would reject the patent application for lack of novelty. Of course, patent examiners might not find every instance of prior art so it is possible for Company A's product wouldn't be considered. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Company A can read company B's application when it publishes 18 months after filing. Many companies keep on top of evaluating patent applications to head off future problems. They can file opposing documents during the examination process. Should the patent actually be granted there are also procedures for challenging its validity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming company B gets a patent for exactly the same technology company A has already been selling (before the filing). Company B can sue company A. If they do, the suit can go to trial where company A would have an excellent chance of winning. If they do, then the precedent means company B's patent would be essentially useless. That said patent suits are very expensive and the companies may decide to settle with some sort of licensing agreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One additional thing to be aware of. Patents take time to acquire. It is not uncommon for the process to take 4 or 5 years. If company A starts selling their software in 2016 and company B gets their patent in 2017, then company B probably applied for their patent in 2013 or 2014. This means they indeed could had the idea first and the patent may indeed be valid." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18831" RevisionGUID="93fff2df-7f7e-420a-855d-acd423b5afa4" CreationDate="2017-12-16T18:35:24.123" UserId="3076" Comment="added more activities covered by patents." Text="First off, you need to understand the difference between an application and a patent. Applications typically have the publication year as the first four numbers. Like &quot;US2003...&quot; or &quot;WO2014...&quot;. Google and other patent search engines usually indicate the publication type. You also may see &quot;Also published as&quot; which might provide links to the associated granted patent and corresponding patents in other countries. Applications may or may not eventually get granted as patents. If they do, the claims often are amended so if you are worried about patent infringement you should try hard to look for the granted patents associated with applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for golf balls, I'm sure there are quite a few patents around for you to consider before determining whether your ball is infringing on a patent. The most important thing to remember is the claims define what is covered. It is common to see patents that seemingly describe the same product. The claims, however may only protect a very specific idea, possibly only a refinement of a previously patented  invention. Additionally, multilayer golf balls have been around for quite a while, so it is possible the earliest patents on them have expired. Lastly, you don't mention where you reside, but patents are tied to specific jurisdictions. US patents, for instance, only provide protection for goods manufactured, sold, offered for sale, imported or used in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can try to track down all the relevant patents to review. For each patent you find, there will be other cited patents and applications which give you other documents to read. Ultimately if you really want to know whether you have freedom-to-operate, it is best to consult with a patent attorney who can commission a professional search and provide a legal opinion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51355" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="bf1ac8e5-f4b1-4c70-8c3b-ad2b36896a97" CreationDate="2017-12-16T21:20:45.213" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51356" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17662" RevisionGUID="a3184654-fec0-41ab-85d2-71562b75b439" CreationDate="2017-12-17T00:20:45.940" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18853" RevisionGUID="903e6a3a-426d-4d93-b9ca-63cdb706cb5f" CreationDate="2017-12-17T00:29:31.680" UserId="17003" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="The answer is maybe both. Design patents cover the ornamental design of functional objects. If you want to protect the look of the packaging then a design patent is a good way of doing it. Utility patents cover the function of the design. If your package actually works in a way distinct and new compared to previous designs, it may be able to get a utility patent. The patented functionality must be novel and non-obvious not just over cosmetic packages, but possibly other types of packages also.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, design patents are easier and cheaper to obtain but perhaps easier to circumvent. In any case, I would strongly suggest you discuss this with a patent attorney or agent. Since you can't disclose your idea publicly, you can't get definitive answers from Q and A sites like this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51358" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17248" RevisionGUID="bf2a76e9-37e7-4189-a2bb-658ca427e8d6" CreationDate="2017-12-17T01:20:48.110" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18855" RevisionGUID="65a5066b-3b22-43db-b29f-9110ab22fe88" CreationDate="2017-12-17T02:36:02.367" UserId="19232" Text="It is understood that minor changes in claims wording are done with strike-throughs, with underlined new wording either immediately preceding or following. What about when more extensive changes are planned that would change the order of a series of indented clauses under an independent or dependent claim? Let's say an entire indented item is desired to be moved to a different order position. Should everything affected by the order change be struck through, following by the newly ordered items, even if the section(s) have no wording changes? To further clarify, this relates to order changes of subsections of a claim, not necessarily any reordering of numbered claims. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51363" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18855" RevisionGUID="65a5066b-3b22-43db-b29f-9110ab22fe88" CreationDate="2017-12-17T02:36:02.367" UserId="19232" Text="Accepted method for writing claims revisions when both rewording and reordering are needed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51364" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18855" RevisionGUID="65a5066b-3b22-43db-b29f-9110ab22fe88" CreationDate="2017-12-17T02:36:02.367" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;claim-amendment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51368" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="57e53778-7565-4bea-b76c-a7103781d6a2" CreationDate="2017-12-17T05:27:09.503" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51369" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16666" RevisionGUID="349d4a08-b1ca-44ad-90ae-b296e9eeeeed" CreationDate="2017-12-17T06:27:09.623" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51370" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="b0a6362c-1596-473d-865b-e79e9fe3125d" CreationDate="2017-12-17T07:27:12.593" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51371" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13366" RevisionGUID="0da51112-194c-4474-98b4-859f3575e477" CreationDate="2017-12-17T18:32:19.390" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51372" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17844" RevisionGUID="185fee25-3cca-472a-b96e-63d28ae53cb3" CreationDate="2017-12-17T19:32:21.720" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51373" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17664" RevisionGUID="3f315d31-676c-4c10-b734-4ae1a0addd72" CreationDate="2017-12-17T20:32:19.137" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51374" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18581" RevisionGUID="17547ef9-e995-4993-82ff-46e8b664a95b" CreationDate="2017-12-17T22:32:19.953" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51375" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17660" RevisionGUID="17754b96-eb3a-46e6-a033-7f38031ee832" CreationDate="2017-12-18T02:32:20.970" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18856" RevisionGUID="c57b4eb7-11cb-4683-af9b-93c5fda4cbb2" CreationDate="2017-12-18T07:32:25.723" UserId="20417" Text="Is patent number US4553576 still active, or available?  What are the contact numbers if any?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51377" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18856" RevisionGUID="c57b4eb7-11cb-4683-af9b-93c5fda4cbb2" CreationDate="2017-12-18T07:32:25.723" UserId="20417" Text="What is the status of Patent US 4553576A?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51378" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18856" RevisionGUID="c57b4eb7-11cb-4683-af9b-93c5fda4cbb2" CreationDate="2017-12-18T07:32:25.723" UserId="20417" Text="&lt;wood&gt;&lt;splitter&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51379" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18261" RevisionGUID="1cd3d937-1dba-4236-b766-9d289258123e" CreationDate="2017-12-18T10:38:35.237" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18857" RevisionGUID="815ac1c0-1924-448a-b319-700e200b4065" CreationDate="2017-12-18T13:30:03.770" UserId="20420" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2017179083A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2017179083A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L'inventore si chiama Giuseppe Verde. Si prega di correggere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51381" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18857" RevisionGUID="815ac1c0-1924-448a-b319-700e200b4065" CreationDate="2017-12-18T13:30:03.770" UserId="20420" Text="Error Inventor!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51382" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18857" RevisionGUID="815ac1c0-1924-448a-b319-700e200b4065" CreationDate="2017-12-18T13:30:03.770" UserId="20420" Text="&lt;error&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18858" RevisionGUID="67622902-6412-483e-a92e-410dfe261b6d" CreationDate="2017-12-18T15:10:49.243" UserId="17003" Text="Patents issued before June 8th, 1995 for the most part expire 17 years after the grant date (see this [Wikipedia article][1]). In this case, the patent was granted on Nov. 19th, 1985 and would have expired Nov. 19th, 2002. You should be free to use the invention as described in the patent. As for contacting the inventor, you can try looking at the [US Public Pair site][2] which may have a correspondence address for the patent's attorney, but this is an old patent and the contact info may not be current. I checked for you and the attorney is listed as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    J.WARREN WHITESEL&#xD;&#xA;    LAFF, WHITESEL, CONTE &amp; SARET &#xD;&#xA;    CHICAGO IL 60611&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is quite possible the attorney has retired but perhaps the firm is still in business. In any case, you can also try googling the inventor or assignee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18856" RevisionGUID="37a992be-0311-4a19-8e47-d74df3b97def" CreationDate="2017-12-18T15:11:24.220" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to patent." Text="Is patent number [US4553576][1] still active, or available?  What are the contact numbers if any?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_4553576_A" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51385" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18857" RevisionGUID="dd46a5cf-6acb-40c5-ac1d-64424a4d53f1" CreationDate="2017-12-18T15:49:03.357" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[12392],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="51386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18857" RevisionGUID="b0c3a7c9-bc26-4b11-91bc-70fd979d5e04" CreationDate="2017-12-18T22:03:09.953" UserId="17003" Comment="Added translation" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2017179083A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2017179083A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L'inventore si chiama Giuseppe Verde. Si prega di correggere.&#xD;&#xA;(The inventor is called Giuseppe Verde. Please correct.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51387" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18712" RevisionGUID="1f51c66f-2e5c-4414-9e87-62a1caf0664e" CreationDate="2017-12-19T19:02:20.433" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18713" RevisionGUID="4bcbdd29-3760-42b2-a927-848ba2c0a890" CreationDate="2017-12-19T19:06:26.847" UserId="17003" Comment="Removed last paragraph." Text="The whole of the patent application describes the invention including the background, prior art, description of the technology and preferred implementations. I have definitely seen patents including electronic and software patents whose figures were solely block diagrams. However, the text in the patent application needs to reference the diagrams and explain how they work and why the invention is novel. Thus, while the figures may only be block diagrams, the patent application as a whole is clearly more than that. As for whether you need to show code or a working example, I believe the answer is no, the figures and description should be sufficient. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51389" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17466" RevisionGUID="36c8463b-751a-4a3b-9337-3da089c12b0e" CreationDate="2017-12-19T22:02:20.563" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51390" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="62a38516-6752-4a81-87e4-cdef66b9f0d7" CreationDate="2017-12-19T23:02:23.737" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18859" RevisionGUID="cfd8ac5d-f6e7-4c33-b21b-ff604bfc5b1c" CreationDate="2017-12-20T05:31:41.787" UserId="20432" Text="OK i finally finished my software, now i want to write a patent request,&#xD;&#xA;my software is like a big network that contains many internal softwares.&#xD;&#xA;the problem is that the internal   software is made for specific company, but  the big software which is the network it can be used in every company,i just need to edit the internal software and make other depend what the other company needs..&#xD;&#xA;the question is, when i write my software description do i describe the software &#xD;&#xA;that its for specific company, or i describe it as a global one?&#xD;&#xA;and do i talk about the conceptual model as well? or maybe i should just find &#xD;&#xA;someone else to do this in my place? im not sure. any advice would be a big help! ty&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51393" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18859" RevisionGUID="cfd8ac5d-f6e7-4c33-b21b-ff604bfc5b1c" CreationDate="2017-12-20T05:31:41.787" UserId="20432" Text="how to write software description for patent request" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51394" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18859" RevisionGUID="cfd8ac5d-f6e7-4c33-b21b-ff604bfc5b1c" CreationDate="2017-12-20T05:31:41.787" UserId="20432" Text="&lt;description&gt;&lt;request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51407" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="75b3a203-e52a-4824-9b8c-2cbdd827b2db" CreationDate="2017-12-21T01:10:11.377" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51408" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17865" RevisionGUID="ddb82fed-85e7-46be-9f55-eb7c011f83f3" CreationDate="2017-12-21T04:10:11.737" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51409" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="b7123195-1d28-47c8-be13-61a734c982a9" CreationDate="2017-12-21T05:10:11.350" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51413" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="634ff4c5-8425-4e24-977d-6b82e8d4790d" CreationDate="2017-12-21T06:10:55.930" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51415" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12639" RevisionGUID="137d1a89-371c-41f5-88d7-36b19a7a1200" CreationDate="2017-12-21T07:10:46.950" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51416" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="01c6186d-7c2a-4fc0-a046-dc1c2867ad56" CreationDate="2017-12-21T12:11:05.243" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51417" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18425" RevisionGUID="e8f1381f-c626-42e7-b324-239453e9c835" CreationDate="2017-12-21T15:11:31.860" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51418" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17995" RevisionGUID="23451146-d8b0-439e-8359-d155bdcbfb25" CreationDate="2017-12-21T16:11:23.403" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17697" RevisionGUID="fe4c16f6-7cab-4b9e-93db-6b75c76047fe" CreationDate="2017-12-21T17:03:37.533" UserId="18521" Comment="added 356 characters in body" Text="It's a tough question to answer because it can depend on the particular facts of your invention. The application must describe the invention with enough detail that a software developer with an ordinary level of skill in computer programming could read the application and then build your invention. It's not uncommon for companies/inventors to omit certain algorithms from the patent description, though, for the same reason that developers don't paste their code into the patent application. However, if the algorithm is a key novel feature, then describing it in the provisional is very important. If you envision several possible implementations, an option is to describe all of those as different non-limiting examples. In a similar way, you can describe how the invention can be implemented as a standalone device or can be integrated into a larger system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're unsure whether or not the provisional application describes the invention with sufficient detail, but you don't want to risk losing the filing date, one option is to: file a first provisional with whatever description you're able to put together describing all of the alternatives you envision, then build the device/write &amp; test the code to determine the final implementation, and then file a second provisional application expanding on the first and adding additional detail. It would be important to file the second provisional application before the first provisional application expires. The two provisional applications will have different filing dates, so if you decide to file a nonprovisional application, it will also have to be filed within a year of the *first* provisional application's filing date, or else you risk your nonprovisional application not receiving the benefit of that first provisional filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These strategies are nuanced and have legal consequences; it becomes important to discuss them with a patent lawyer/patent agent who knows the facts of your case. As one example, a possible outcome is that you describe an implementation in the first provisional application, then file the first provisional application, then test the implementation, and subsequently find that the implementation simply doesn't work. Describing something that **doesn't** work could have negative consequences on the application as a whole and on whether the description has enabled one of ordinary skill in the art to make the invention. As another example, if you file a first provisional application, and then you start making/using/describing the invention in a public capacity, and then later file a second provisional application, your public activities could destroy the validity of the second provisional application (if you're not careful).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*I am no expert, and this response is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney or legal expert to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Laws can differ dramatically from country to country, state to state, and technology field to technology field.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18284" RevisionGUID="05459ea9-2f83-44d7-b603-4e45b9098623" CreationDate="2017-12-21T17:03:58.410" UserId="18521" Comment="added 356 characters in body" Text="The search tool I always used was [www.freepatentsonline.com](www.freepatentsonline.com). I'll go through the searches I tried.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Searching for &quot;bale&quot;###&#xD;&#xA;[When I search](http://www.freepatentsonline.com/result.html?p=1&amp;edit_alert=&amp;srch=xprtsrch&amp;query_txt=apd%2F1%2F1%2F1845-%3E1%2F1%2F1895+and+%28bale+or+baler+or+baling%29&amp;uspat=on&amp;usapp=on&amp;eupat=on&amp;jp=on&amp;pct=on&amp;depat=on&amp;npl=on&amp;date_range=all&amp;stemming=on&amp;sort=relevance&amp;search=Search) all documents dated between 1840 and 1895, I only find 5 that mention baling, bale, or baler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All 5 documents name Peter Dederick of Loudonville, New York. [Here is](http://www.freepatentsonline.com/0662558.pdf) a sample of these docs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Searching for &quot;John E. French&quot;###&#xD;&#xA;[When I search](http://www.freepatentsonline.com/result.html?p=1&amp;edit_alert=&amp;srch=xprtsrch&amp;query_txt=in%2F%28%22John+E.+French%22+or+%22John+E+French%22+or+%22French%2C+John+E%22+or+%22French%2C+John+E.%22%29&amp;uspat=on&amp;usapp=on&amp;eupat=on&amp;jp=on&amp;pct=on&amp;depat=on&amp;npl=on&amp;date_range=all&amp;stemming=on&amp;sort=relevance&amp;search=Search) all documents for John E. French or John Enos French (with no time only two results come up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of these two results, [only one has a PDF available](http://www.freepatentsonline.com/0736085.pdf). This patent is for a &quot;Combination Shade and Curtain Bracket&quot; and was issued in 1903 to John E. French, resident of Keuka Park, New York. This doesn't sound like your John E. French. The other document is German and is dated 1963, so this doesn't sound like your John E. French either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some Searching Tips###&#xD;&#xA;I have a vague memory of studying for the patent bar and reading that, in older times, only one person was allowed to be named to a patent as inventor. (This was 8 years ago, so I'll let others verify this too in the comments.) If this is indeed the case, then you might keep an eye out for patent documents relating to bale which *don't* list John French. Maybe it's worth looking through those 5 documents from the first search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Conclusions###&#xD;&#xA;If none of the 5 documents naming Peter Dederick are a match, then unfortunately I don't think you'll find a patent document containing your drawing.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*I am no expert, and this response is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney or legal expert to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Laws can differ dramatically from country to country, state to state, and technology field to technology field.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17707" RevisionGUID="2ef4e304-393c-400d-9db5-6db829227545" CreationDate="2017-12-21T17:04:10.123" UserId="18521" Comment="added 358 characters in body" Text="First, a small note about terminology: the word &quot;limitation&quot; is almost a synonym for &quot;feature.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer the questions, I'll come up with a simple example. Let's say your invention is a chair that levitates. You submit only three claims, and they read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. A chair comprising: a stool and at least three legs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. The chair of claim 1, further comprising a magnetic levitation device attached&#xD;&#xA;    below each of the three legs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. The chair of claim 2, further comprising a cushion seat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim is not patentable because it has been invented before. So the independent claim 1 would be rejected. Let's pretend the second claim passes all tests for patentability. The second claim would then allowable even though it depends from a rejected independent claim. The third claim would be allowable because, in its entirety, it reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A chair comprising: a stool and at least three legs [A], further comprising a magnetic levitation device attached below each of the three legs [B], further comprising a cushion seat [C].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If an invention made from A + B is novel and nonobvious, then an invention made from A + B + C will, by extension, be novel and nonobvious too. Claim 3 merely adds another limitation/feature to the already-allowable claim 2. Another way to say it is that claim 3 further narrows the scope of an invention that is already deemed patentable. So for these reasons, claim 3 is allowable, too, even though claim 3 doesn't introduce a separate novel feature from the original novelty of magnetic levitation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the Patent Office would not permit a patent to issue until you: (a) amended claim 1 to include the limitation/feature of claim 2, (b) canceled claim 2, and (c) amended claim 3 so that it refers to claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. (Amended) A chair comprising: a stool &lt;s&gt;and at&lt;/s&gt;&lt;b&gt;, at&lt;/b&gt; least three legs&lt;b&gt;, and a magnetic levitation device attached below each of the three legs&lt;/b&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. (Canceled) The chair of claim 1, further comprising a magnetic levitation device attached below each of the three legs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. (Amended) The chair of &lt;s&gt;claim 2&lt;/s&gt;&lt;b&gt; claim 1&lt;/b&gt;, further comprising a cushion seat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*I am no expert, and this response is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney or legal expert to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Laws can differ dramatically from country to country, state to state, and technology field to technology field.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17263" RevisionGUID="94a89467-e9cb-4f00-9a68-062862d1fed4" CreationDate="2017-12-21T17:04:24.777" UserId="18521" Comment="added 358 characters in body" Text="The freepatentsonline.com expert search (www.freepatentsonline.com/search.html) is really robust free resource. Scroll down for the expert search.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;To do the search you've described, check the box for US Patents (and uncheck any other boxes). Then enter: AN/stanford + &quot;machine learning&quot;  The AN stands for &quot;assignee name&quot; and entering &quot;machine learning&quot; searches every part of the patent. If you want to search just the specification, you could do: &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;AN/stanford + SPEC/&quot;machine learning&quot;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Here's a URL for the Stanford search you described:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;http://www.freepatentsonline.com/result.html?p=1&amp;edit_alert=&amp;srch=xprtsrch&amp;query_txt=AN%2Fstanford+%2B+SPEC%2F%22machine+learning%22&amp;uspat=on&amp;date_range=all&amp;stemming=on&amp;sort=relevance&amp;search=Search&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I believe it's not possible to search *pending applications* for a company assignee, because law firms typically delay the assignee forms, and hence applications publish before an assignee is named in the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*I am no expert, and this response is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney or legal expert to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Laws can differ dramatically from country to country, state to state, and technology field to technology field.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17695" RevisionGUID="3971d074-7fe5-4c04-bbf9-c1c1a5e4a461" CreationDate="2017-12-21T17:04:40.907" UserId="18521" Comment="added 358 characters in body" Text="The patent application was initially rejected twice, and then on 10/1/2014, the attorneys added this language to claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;wherein the initial track centerline data defines a centerline of the track, and wherein the subsequent track centerline data defines another centerline of the track.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and added this language to claim 33:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;wherein the initial track parseable data comprises textual representations of the data in the initial database, and wherein the subsequent track parseable data comprises textual representations of the data in the verification database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These additions were apparently enough to convince the US Patent Office that the invention was worthy of a patent. I haven't analyzed what these statements mean, but I've shown you where to look in order to understand why the patent was allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, even though the application was initially rejected twice, the USPTO indicated that the original claims 27 and 28 were allowable from the get-go. Those claims originally read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;27. The system of claim 26, wherein the processing device is further configured to: compare the prediction data with the actual measured data for a plurality of trains at the specified portion of the track, thereby compiling expected performance data for the plurality of trains; establish an expected error margin value based upon the compiled expected performance data for the plurality of trains at the specified portion of the track; and log the identity of any train or locomotive where difference between the prediction data and the actual measured data exceeds the expected error margin value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;28. The system of claim 26, wherein the processing device is further configured to: compare the prediction data with the actual measured data for a plurality of trains at the specified portion of the track, thereby compiling expected performance data for the plurality of trains; establish an expected error margin value based upon the compiled expected performance data for the plurality of trains at the specified portion of the track; determine an acceptable error margin value associated with the expected error margin value; and log the identity of any train where difference between the prediction data and the actual measured data exceeds the acceptable error margin value. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and understanding why the patent was allowed would require analyzing the meaning of these claims (and interpreting them in light of the detailed description).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just as a property line sets forth the boundaries of one's land, the **claims** set forth the boundaries of the invention. A patent is only broad if the **claims** are broad. This patent has lots of claims, and if you infringe just one claim, then you infringe the patent. But to infringe a claim, you must make, use, or sell a system that contains every feature described that claim. This is why a long claim is sometimes said to be easy to &quot;design around.&quot; If your system omits just one feature required by the claim, then you no longer infringe that claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found this info by navigating to the USPTO's [site for public records](http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair), searching for patent number 9,002,545, and pulling up the &quot;Image File Wrapper.&quot; From there, you can see the back and forth communication between the attorneys and the Patent Office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*I am no expert, and this response is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney or legal expert to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Laws can differ dramatically from country to country, state to state, and technology field to technology field.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17264" RevisionGUID="7a6e94c9-e963-458b-8a05-d990b5f1c0fa" CreationDate="2017-12-21T17:04:52.027" UserId="18521" Comment="added 358 characters in body" Text="Provisional applications cannot claim priority to any earlier-filed applications of any type (provisional or non-provisional). But they are, as you mention, extremely useful in establishing an earlier priority date for a later-filed *nonprovisional* application. One strategy some low-budget clients pursue is to put everything in a single application--even if that application potentially contains two inventions. Then, you can draft claims that primarily pursue one invention but still treat the other novel aspect as an additional feature, *e.g.*, as a &quot;dependent claim.&quot; This allows the applicant to gauge the USPTO's position on both the first feature's and the second feature's patentability (novelty, etc.). If the PTO responds favorably, you can then file a second application which separately claims the second feature. This is not legal advice, and I am no expert. Before taking any action, all of this strategy and information should be discussed with a patent attorney or patent agent who is an expert in the laws and strategic approaches. For example, this sort of approach could result in the USPTO requiring you to sign a &quot;terminal disclaimer,&quot; which limits the lifetime of the second patent to the term of the first patent. As another example, if this is not done without care, there might also be a possibility that the first patent can be used as &quot;prior art&quot; against the second patent. These are just some of the reasons to acquire legal advice from a registered patent agent or patent attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*I am no expert, and this response is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney or legal expert to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Laws can differ dramatically from country to country, state to state, and technology field to technology field.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51425" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="ba5868da-6f38-41bc-88a4-fc8c38067088" CreationDate="2017-12-21T23:11:40.397" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51426" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16926" RevisionGUID="7656da52-ccab-4a19-a83d-a0fa7698db8d" CreationDate="2017-12-22T00:11:41.223" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51429" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="8f12e78b-4f67-4d61-a78d-45bd7199bd75" CreationDate="2017-12-22T10:17:11.087" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18865" RevisionGUID="3edf4e71-e879-4e78-a22d-43611b7ae9dc" CreationDate="2017-12-22T17:32:37.623" UserId="20445" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20170291111][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20170291111&#xD;&#xA;I would like to make a competitor to Discord but i found this patent I want to know if it effects my ability to make a chat with party system " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51431" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18865" RevisionGUID="3edf4e71-e879-4e78-a22d-43611b7ae9dc" CreationDate="2017-12-22T17:32:37.623" UserId="20445" Text="Does this patent cover Discord or Discord like websites" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51432" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18865" RevisionGUID="3edf4e71-e879-4e78-a22d-43611b7ae9dc" CreationDate="2017-12-22T17:32:37.623" UserId="20445" Text="&lt;us20170291111&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51433" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18172" RevisionGUID="6c1fbb02-9fa3-4765-b11d-31cd8edaa122" CreationDate="2017-12-22T19:18:01.317" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17480" RevisionGUID="ef32ca7c-7bc1-48fe-92c8-35f275366d09" CreationDate="2017-12-22T20:49:08.993" UserId="18033" Comment="added 137 characters in body" Text="In short: as long as they have a valid patent, they can do that. &#xA;&#xA;However, if what you say is true then you have a very good position for negotiation. &#xA;&#xA;I strongly advise you to contact a patent lawyer to assist you. If you cannot do that, answer the cease and desist letter with proof that you were selling the product before their patent. But note however that if you understood something wrong or only had a similar product or they don't believe/understand what you are telling them you lost valuable time. (Normally invalidation takes more time then litigation, so time is critical here. - Germany)&#xA;In the US invalidity can be a good defense against a suit, but it will cost a lot of money to go through a law suit anyways." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18866" RevisionGUID="431792ff-b1ee-4f24-bdae-d7d106e24aca" CreationDate="2017-12-22T21:35:23.723" UserId="17077" Text="This is not a patent but a published US application.  Its status is that it is currently docketed for examination.  Until it has been examined and finalized you will not know if certain claims will or will not be allowed.  As of now it offers no patent protection for any of its claims but this may change if the patent is granted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18867" RevisionGUID="ab0bcb86-c531-4519-a8ea-2d45dc454701" CreationDate="2017-12-22T21:41:42.913" UserId="20447" Text="I am a founder of an enterprise software startup and am about to file provisional patent(s) on which the software is based. I realize the advantages of bypassing the provisional application, but the cost is the limiting factor. The invention is likely going to be multiple patents. From what I read, a provisional app may refer to another provisional app by reference, but that's a hairy route because if the referred application never examined, the reference is invalid. People have suggested just copying the relevant parts of the reference into the dependent application verbatim. I am also reading that multiple regular applications may be based on and claim priority date of a single provisional app. Should I then describe the entire invention in a single provisional app and not worry for now how many regular apps it will end up being. The reason I hesitate is that a patent application cannot claim multiple inventions, which is in effect, what this single provisional app will be doing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51437" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18867" RevisionGUID="ab0bcb86-c531-4519-a8ea-2d45dc454701" CreationDate="2017-12-22T21:41:42.913" UserId="20447" Text="Should provisional application anticipate regular application(s)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51438" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18867" RevisionGUID="ab0bcb86-c531-4519-a8ea-2d45dc454701" CreationDate="2017-12-22T21:41:42.913" UserId="20447" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18867" RevisionGUID="ca227c33-b7b8-40ad-b366-993ad757a5da" CreationDate="2017-12-22T21:49:04.227" UserId="20447" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I am a founder of an enterprise software startup and am about to file provisional patent(s) on which the software is based. I realize the advantages of bypassing the provisional application, but the cost is the limiting factor. The invention is likely going to be multiple patents. From what I read, a provisional app may refer to another provisional app by reference, but that's a hairy route because if the referred application never examined, the reference is invalid. People have suggested just copying the relevant parts of the reference into the dependent application verbatim. I am also reading that multiple regular applications may be based on and claim priority date of a single provisional app. Should I then describe the entire invention in a single provisional app and not worry for now how many regular apps it will end up being. The reason I hesitate is that a patent application cannot claim multiple inventions, which, in effect, is what this single provisional app will be doing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51441" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13870" RevisionGUID="ef864e2b-c28a-46e1-a80f-345ce380402e" CreationDate="2017-12-23T04:18:29.450" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18867" RevisionGUID="698ce4ea-4b0e-4fab-93f1-4ad536b77c83" CreationDate="2017-12-23T04:47:18.760" UserId="20447" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="I am a founder of an enterprise software startup and about to file provisional patent(s) on which the software is based. I realize the advantages of bypassing the provisional application, but the cost is the limiting factor. The invention is likely going to be multiple patents. From what I read, a provisional app may refer to another provisional app by reference, but that's a hairy route because if the referred application never examined, the reference is invalid. People have suggested just copying the relevant parts of the reference into the dependent application verbatim. I am also reading that multiple regular applications may be based on and claim priority date of a single provisional app. Should I then describe the entire invention in a single provisional app and not worry for now how many regular apps it will end up being. The reason I hesitate is that a patent application cannot claim multiple inventions, which, in effect, is what this single provisional app will be doing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17339" RevisionGUID="15d85cc1-16eb-4357-a114-6637a61def84" CreationDate="2017-12-23T11:49:13.680" UserId="18033" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="Short: you cannot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If** you paid your patent attorney for doing a search prior to drafting your patent (because if not then it wasn't even their job) then obviously they didn't do that to the best possible outcome. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a patent search needs time and time costs money. If you want to find *everything* then you will find no patent attorney in his right mind that would promise this to you, as it is impossible to find every relevant document. There are always some that even the most thorough search does not turn up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In every other case, the number of prior art documents found directly correlates with the money you are willing to invest. Would you have stayed with the patent attorney if they had said, hey, give me $30k I'll do 100 hrs of patent search? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heck, that would cost more than the whole patent process, then I'd rather occasionally lose a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now all of this is assuming that the document you found is actually **that** relevant. Maybe it does not teach all limitations contained in your claims? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, it happens. Be happy, it didn't turn up during the examination so you got a patent. Invalidating a patent can take longer than litigation and costs money too, so if the case arises, you might even use your patent. Though that strategy should be carefully evaluated by a professional. And in the end, if the process was perfect and every prior art document was found, there would never be an invalidated patent, invalidation wouldn't even exist. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another point for you to consider, do you get sued every time somebody finds out that you could have done your job better? Do you want to? For good reasons only screwing up on purpose and sometimes through negligence is punishable. Beeing unlucky or just not beeing the best at your job is not (or not through the law)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51444" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="06ea4be6-3692-46d7-b22e-9c8a255782d8" CreationDate="2017-12-23T14:18:40.923" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18868" RevisionGUID="eb1766c0-cd4f-4554-8e17-dc729d3b97e9" CreationDate="2017-12-23T16:52:03.303" UserId="17391" Text="While you can sue anyone for just about anything, I do not see any point in trying to recover losses by potentially expending even for money on a lost cause.  As an inventor, you should have done your due dilligence to understand the space and art under the classifications in which you were filing.  I spent almost an entire year researching prior art (both domestic and international), before filing my first patent (9,635,027).  You cannot leave this duty up to your lawyer or whoever is helping in drafting your patent as there is an obvious conflict of interest.  There are separate firms that can do prior art searches for you  but again YOU have to make yourself an expert.&#xA;&#xA;If this prior art was so obvious, why didn't you find it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51447" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="05e9a9ca-ae75-4492-b53b-7724711295d9" CreationDate="2017-12-24T00:35:44.213" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51448" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16491" RevisionGUID="bcb4fd06-783e-4924-a57d-b167f86a2c96" CreationDate="2017-12-24T02:38:14.650" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51450" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16361" RevisionGUID="e7f2a75b-9cee-4964-9c5e-7ffd95fd45e0" CreationDate="2017-12-24T03:38:16.587" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51451" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="04f37125-30f4-4300-8565-64e56417dd3f" CreationDate="2017-12-24T06:38:18.037" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18870" RevisionGUID="4f642eac-9c6c-4734-9947-6a8a232395b2" CreationDate="2017-12-24T16:41:29.120" UserId="19232" Text="For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...the message data source content to be transmitted, hereinafter&#xD;&#xA;&gt; referred to as “the source content” ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel I need to do something like this in multiple places because the examiner has brought up rejections based on unclear or incomplete distinctions of terms or phrases. I will have it all reviewed by an attorney but would like to understand now if it's a reasonable plan as part of the revisions. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51454" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18870" RevisionGUID="4f642eac-9c6c-4734-9947-6a8a232395b2" CreationDate="2017-12-24T16:41:29.120" UserId="19232" Text="In claims, is it allowed and of proper form to define a term or phrase in the form “hereinafter referred to as ...”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51455" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18870" RevisionGUID="4f642eac-9c6c-4734-9947-6a8a232395b2" CreationDate="2017-12-24T16:41:29.120" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claim-amendment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51456" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18734" RevisionGUID="a33b02d1-b5e2-4a7c-98a3-7efa73c1dae4" CreationDate="2017-12-24T19:41:09.827" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51457" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18148" RevisionGUID="8719e697-a009-47c1-b1ef-6673158bf04e" CreationDate="2017-12-24T21:41:14.330" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51459" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18332" RevisionGUID="d09e74fb-32e9-45c2-81fe-3c7eac1439ae" CreationDate="2017-12-25T14:52:31.107" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51463" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18285" RevisionGUID="e68b0cf6-1b8b-43b9-8100-d0c39b78257f" CreationDate="2017-12-25T15:52:30.560" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51464" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18385" RevisionGUID="3bc17943-ea2e-483f-84cd-3fc77e1421f9" CreationDate="2017-12-25T17:52:31.650" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51465" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18328" RevisionGUID="c2003678-bd3c-4862-82e4-47c8c485fc7c" CreationDate="2017-12-25T19:52:35.990" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18872" RevisionGUID="1e1d9d84-1120-40f2-aa19-3a5209bc2320" CreationDate="2017-12-25T22:46:29.247" UserId="15503" Text="It's not really a typical approach. I can't recall ever having seen it in fact. For this reason, I can't say for sure whether it would be allowed or not, but examiners are generally pretty conservative about such things, so I would expect not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the example you provide, it seems that you want to abbreviate the phrase &quot;message data source content&quot;. If there is no other source content in the claims, it would be reasonable to simply say &quot;the source content&quot; later, since the only reasonable interpretation would be that it refers to the message data source content. However, it would also be a reasonable approach to refer to &quot;the message data source content&quot;, without any abbreviation. Brevity should not come at the cost of clarity, after all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US, you can also use the description to define terms used in the claims. However, this approach is not typically available in other jurisdictions (notably, Europe), so you would want to at least make sure any definitions in the description are in claim-like language such that they can be straightforwardly inserted into the claims by amendment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51468" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="c2f5c3dd-66a4-4182-91ef-399758374e16" CreationDate="2017-12-25T22:53:26.847" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51469" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="2b904032-58a4-40fd-aee6-b6ec70dcd801" CreationDate="2017-12-26T00:53:30.580" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51470" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18155" RevisionGUID="aa9942c4-f15c-4daf-ba39-d96196a2fc67" CreationDate="2017-12-26T16:09:39.947" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18855" RevisionGUID="a0e6ec16-11e5-438b-ac6c-b1c0427e42d7" CreationDate="2017-12-26T17:02:38.390" UserId="19232" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="It is understood that minor changes in claims wording are done with strike-throughs, with underlined new wording either immediately preceding or following. What about when more extensive changes are planned that would change the order of a series of indented clauses under an independent or dependent claim? Let's say one or more entire indented items of an independent claim is desired to be moved to a different order position. Should *everything* affected by the order change be struck through, following by the newly ordered items, even if the section(s) have no wording changes? To further clarify, this relates to order changes of subsections of a claim, not reordering of numbered claims since that's not allowed. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51472" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18414" RevisionGUID="d62bbb5f-7322-479d-9b42-9cd965873011" CreationDate="2017-12-26T17:09:44.343" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18828" RevisionGUID="c23a9a18-caf6-4963-aa6a-b1611cbe8b0a" CreationDate="2017-12-26T19:58:41.640" UserId="17737" Comment="grammar corrections, fluff removed as per https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/2950/295232" Text="I started manufacturing some multilayer golf balls for sale and I discovered that there is a chance that the construction is protected under invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to what I found in Google Patents, it seems there is a patent for the way of making multilayer golf balls.&#xD;&#xA;But how can I know if the patent Google shows me is valid? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://encrypted.google.com/patents/US20030050396&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/WO2003039683A1?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The strangest thing is that a few of those big companies have a patent on the same thing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.ch/patents/US8231482&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/WO2005018755A2?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51474" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18828" RevisionGUID="c23a9a18-caf6-4963-aa6a-b1611cbe8b0a" CreationDate="2017-12-26T19:58:41.640" UserId="17737" Comment="grammar corrections, fluff removed as per https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/2950/295232" Text="If I open a store, and sell multi layer golf ball as my brand, am I in trouble?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51475" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18828" RevisionGUID="c23a9a18-caf6-4963-aa6a-b1611cbe8b0a" CreationDate="2017-12-26T19:58:41.640" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 18033, 17003 edit id of 2049" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51476" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13731" RevisionGUID="7a38624a-bb2c-4393-badd-618850e095d4" CreationDate="2017-12-27T02:18:27.803" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51478" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18478" RevisionGUID="9b249d79-4efd-4de5-ad5d-24e4938fd5bc" CreationDate="2017-12-27T07:18:31.080" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51479" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="19dd5031-01f3-455e-a774-ec9677a4d568" CreationDate="2017-12-27T15:20:20.843" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18873" RevisionGUID="4f8c3444-b409-4252-8de7-3ae9a1adb431" CreationDate="2017-12-27T16:09:58.037" UserId="19232" Text="I would like to include mention of a secondary feature that's fully described in specifications and claims, but not currently mentioned in the abstract. Process is currently at the stage of pending response to 2nd OA." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51481" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18873" RevisionGUID="4f8c3444-b409-4252-8de7-3ae9a1adb431" CreationDate="2017-12-27T16:09:58.037" UserId="19232" Text="Can the wording of the Abstract be modified during the prosecution phase, if it only adds matter already in the specifications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51482" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18873" RevisionGUID="4f8c3444-b409-4252-8de7-3ae9a1adb431" CreationDate="2017-12-27T16:09:58.037" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;abstract&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51483" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="09a2defd-c576-4355-ab90-25f8ae6ef4b5" CreationDate="2017-12-27T16:20:22.363" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18874" RevisionGUID="47e796a8-a0db-4bca-96d5-e9facf6b221b" CreationDate="2017-12-27T18:46:23.207" UserId="20459" Text="I unintentionally abandoned my non-provisional patent application because I ended up in a still-pending legal dispute with the attorney who filed that application on my behalf (I since have filed a Revocation of Power of Attorney form). By the time I understood what was going on with the application, it was given an &quot;abandoned&quot; status by the USPTO. Unfortunately, that was more than five years ago... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Given that the dispute with my attorney is well-documented and in current legal proceedings, is there any recommended way to revive the abandoned application with the USPTO?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) If not, is it possible for me to simply re-file it as a new non-provisional patent application with the same title and modified/improved claims? (I do not believe any similar applications have been filed but I would do a prior-art search before refiling.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51485" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18874" RevisionGUID="47e796a8-a0db-4bca-96d5-e9facf6b221b" CreationDate="2017-12-27T18:46:23.207" UserId="20459" Text="I Abandoned my Non-Provisional Patent Application - What Now?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51486" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18874" RevisionGUID="47e796a8-a0db-4bca-96d5-e9facf6b221b" CreationDate="2017-12-27T18:46:23.207" UserId="20459" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;non-provisional&gt;&lt;revive&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18876" RevisionGUID="34539cce-9e14-485a-84ad-3088c13fc70f" CreationDate="2017-12-27T20:53:31.160" UserId="15503" Text="Yes, it can be amended in the same way as any part of the specification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[MPEP § 714 II.B](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s714.html) makes this clear, and even provides details of the format. It provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Specifically regarding amendments to the abstract of the disclosure, where the amendments to the abstract are minor in nature, the abstract should be provided as a marked-up version under 37 CFR 1.121(b)(2)(ii) using strike-through and underlining as the methods to show all changes relative to the immediate prior version. Where the abstract is being substantially rewritten and the amended abstract bears little or no resemblance to the previously filed version of the abstract, a new (substitute) abstract may be provided in clean form accompanied by an instruction for the cancellation of the previous version of the abstract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, I would note that it is pretty unusual to amend the abstract, since the applicant doesn't really get any benefit from it: it just risks further issues being raised for no gain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51494" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17273" RevisionGUID="2dfd55ce-26d0-434f-a906-c806fe0cc434" CreationDate="2017-12-27T22:20:34.423" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18877" RevisionGUID="c6cd24b9-f8c9-4ba9-b7b5-1cce82420d06" CreationDate="2017-12-27T23:22:38.893" UserId="3076" Text="I would put the whole system into one provisional.  (Oh - a provisional is never &quot;published&quot; per se but it is made publicly available when any application or patent that gets priority from it is published.)&#xD;&#xA; A non-provisional filing possibility is filing simultaneous applications for each major subsystem (if relevant) They would all claim the benefit of the provisional. They could have identical content other than the title, summary and the claims.  Those sections would be targeted to the specific subsystem. While a patent can cover only one invention, that requirement doesn't come up very often in practice. More likely, is the examiner issuing a restriction requirement stating that the claims cover things that are different enough that it would be a substantial burden to search and examine them separately. At that point you pick one and either acquiesce to the restriction or try to fight it to have more breadth in the resulting patent. Whatever doesn't get examined in a specific filing can be addressed by another filing. That can be done immediately or anytime later as long as there is a &quot;live&quot; application that chains back to the present application or to any application with sufficient support for the claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are different inventors of the various inventions there is a possibly of some applications being used against each other if not filed on the same day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18878" RevisionGUID="356f0a91-c9be-4ba7-9557-359acb03de3f" CreationDate="2017-12-28T02:43:44.353" UserId="3076" Text="There is no shortcut for indicating a change of the order of text in amending a claim so crossing out all the indented sections and repeating them in the desired order would be needed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However there is an alternative that might look better. You can cancel the claim  in question (just indicate its status as canceled - no need to have crossed through text). Then you add a claim at the end, with the next number. As an example, if you have 8 claims and the one you want to re-arrange is claim 1, then cancel claim 1 and add a &quot;new&quot; claim 9 that has the wording you now prefer. If another claim, say claim 2, is dependent on claim 1, then amend claim two so that its dependency is on claim 9, not claim 1." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18879" RevisionGUID="4194ef7d-a5f9-41bb-9feb-896da71fa341" CreationDate="2017-12-28T02:52:25.450" UserId="3076" Text="Considering recent court cases [(most prominently Alice][1]), it is difficult to draft an application to get a patent on software innovations. A more narrow and specific question on the topic might get a good answer here, but this very general question is not really answerable. I recommend you get professional help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18880" RevisionGUID="58a929ac-6d16-4cf0-8bf6-dd364854af75" CreationDate="2017-12-28T03:05:18.797" UserId="20462" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20080264895][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20080264895&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51499" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18880" RevisionGUID="58a929ac-6d16-4cf0-8bf6-dd364854af75" CreationDate="2017-12-28T03:05:18.797" UserId="20462" Text="Is this an old patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51500" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18880" RevisionGUID="58a929ac-6d16-4cf0-8bf6-dd364854af75" CreationDate="2017-12-28T03:05:18.797" UserId="20462" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51501" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18450" RevisionGUID="3d5f0248-b6bb-43f9-84e4-af190e216ad6" CreationDate="2017-12-28T03:27:26.843" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18881" RevisionGUID="e8d44483-430c-401d-9e89-8f77ab2a9d83" CreationDate="2017-12-28T10:38:48.903" UserId="20464" Text="This Question has two parts.&#xD;&#xA;1) If you are working for a company, lets say, apple for example. As an engineer, you have a brilliant idea/invention that is specific to the job you are working in, lets say mobile phones. You can't go patent it and make money as you don't own a phone company to use the invention. So do you try to sell it? To your own company? Their competitors? Give it away to the company you are working for? I understand *some* company's give a percentage to the inventor/employee, but if they don't like most, then what? Seems there is no win in this situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Why Invent or innovate? Working in a company, I can see its always a select few that invent or bring new ideas forward, yet receive no benefit, other than a pat on the back. Why not just sit back and do your 9-5 like the other employees? Why bother? I have never seen a company that actively encourages or rewards this behaviour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interested in seeing your takes on this.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51503" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18881" RevisionGUID="e8d44483-430c-401d-9e89-8f77ab2a9d83" CreationDate="2017-12-28T10:38:48.903" UserId="20464" Text="Why invent things for a company?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51504" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18881" RevisionGUID="e8d44483-430c-401d-9e89-8f77ab2a9d83" CreationDate="2017-12-28T10:38:48.903" UserId="20464" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;inventor&gt;&lt;invention&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51505" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="18881" RevisionGUID="598b533c-a1eb-41e8-bb79-07123bd7c055" CreationDate="2017-12-28T10:39:52.023" UserId="20464" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:20464,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sidA30&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="51506" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="18881" RevisionGUID="6a3cecfd-c3e4-4020-a9cf-bf249910a7e1" CreationDate="2017-12-28T12:03:00.533" UserId="20464" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:20464,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sidA30&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="51507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18882" RevisionGUID="abe33edc-a636-4271-8af8-a5494c06ab48" CreationDate="2017-12-28T12:43:38.517" UserId="20466" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2015130230A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015130230A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this patent conflict with the following patents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“一种在水体中原位取样、分离、富集、测量水体污染物的方法” with Nos. CN101021514 B, CN200710010550.1， CN200710010553.5，and  CN200710010554.X etc.  in China?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51508" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18882" RevisionGUID="abe33edc-a636-4271-8af8-a5494c06ab48" CreationDate="2017-12-28T12:43:38.517" UserId="20466" Text="patent conflicts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51509" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18882" RevisionGUID="abe33edc-a636-4271-8af8-a5494c06ab48" CreationDate="2017-12-28T12:43:38.517" UserId="20466" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;conflict-of-interest&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18883" RevisionGUID="ccb1e019-7f1e-4b93-b57c-06379a28a9a2" CreationDate="2017-12-28T13:44:59.690" UserId="17325" Text="If by conflict you mean that WO2015130230A1 claims subject matter which can be found in the chinese patents and patent applications, I would say no, because the search report of the WO2015130230A1 would have them cited. The International Search report will cite any relevant document which was disclosed to the public **before the date of filing** of the WO2015130230 (or priority date).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't say more, because I don't know Chinese :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18884" RevisionGUID="65dbbfd5-f36d-49dd-a65c-75735ffe323a" CreationDate="2017-12-28T15:31:35.503" UserId="17003" Text="To answer you questions, if you are working for a company and invent something while being paid by the company, you do not own the invention and have no rights to use it yourself or sell it to anyone else. This is the standard agreement when working (at least in the US). It is true some companies provide additional incentives to inventors, but that doesn't change the fundamental premise that if you are being paid to do work, the company owns your work product. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to why you you should invent or innovate, I can only answer for myself. For me, solving problems and inventing is the most fun I have at work. Also, invention rarely is a solo endeavor and working with other smart and creative people is very enjoyable. My inventions made me valuable at my company and I enjoyed a long career and was well paid. My company did provide some rewards when patents issued, but these were never the reason I invented. For sure there are people who would rather go it alone and try to monetize their ideas themselves rather than work for a company. That's cool and the motivation for many entrepreneurs. Part of what I do now is help start-up companies develop their ideas. I would warn you, however that going it alone is very risky and requires a lot of skills beyond invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51512" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18881" RevisionGUID="6147be97-de75-49c7-8ddd-60045d1410f1" CreationDate="2017-12-28T16:00:17.877" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="51513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18885" RevisionGUID="dbe75ecc-8755-4988-a7c4-fd66e5f2b0b9" CreationDate="2017-12-28T18:38:07.720" UserId="18033" Text="US patents and applications can be revived if the relevant fees are paid and a statement is made that the delay was unintentional. In theory, there is no time limit on this. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/petitions/09-revival-based-unintentional-delay&#xA;&#xA;You could state your case in the petition trying to show that the entire delay was unintentional.&#xA;&#xA;I have no practical experience with this but strongly suspect that five years are to long. However, if you do try, please add an answer here afterwards to tell us how it went. &#xA;&#xA;It does seem to be your best bet as any published application becomes prior art for new applications and the us grace period for your own publications is one year. Therefore your old application will be prior art for a new filing, no exemptions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51514" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18032" RevisionGUID="163dde32-6219-4055-bc85-d4bdd430923c" CreationDate="2017-12-28T22:31:59.667" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51515" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17720" RevisionGUID="92e71768-934f-44d7-b0b9-93abff09bb6d" CreationDate="2017-12-28T23:32:02.573" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51516" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="53a39635-4fd4-406b-ac17-fc7d3b437107" CreationDate="2017-12-29T00:31:59.750" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18886" RevisionGUID="d8ac1110-27d2-448d-a076-e3a614b60824" CreationDate="2017-12-29T08:32:37.120" UserId="20468" Text="How can a patent be grant when we never signed our names to the documents? We had an employee take device,had someone do drawings of the device and and apply for a patent after the patent was rejected the first time by my husband the designer.&#xD;&#xA;This person had no knowledge of our operation since our sad but bitter parting. She never put one red cent into the company and now she thinks she owns 1/3 of the company.&#xD;&#xA;I don't understand how she was able to get a patent on this item, her name being listed first with myself and my husband on the patents second and third parties. We never  were given or signed any consent papers yet our name is on the patent.&#xD;&#xA;She basically stole all of our information and got her name on my husbands work. She also know nothing about the field of the product. She's an x friend and neighbor &#xD;&#xA;Mickey Perreaud&#xD;&#xA;kyleaz@earthlink.net  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51518" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18886" RevisionGUID="d8ac1110-27d2-448d-a076-e3a614b60824" CreationDate="2017-12-29T08:32:37.120" UserId="20468" Text="Granting Patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51519" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18886" RevisionGUID="d8ac1110-27d2-448d-a076-e3a614b60824" CreationDate="2017-12-29T08:32:37.120" UserId="20468" Text="&lt;granted&gt;&lt;wrongfuly&gt;&lt;of&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51520" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17881" RevisionGUID="e8fc39f0-4101-4a8a-8ffe-31776215d305" CreationDate="2017-12-29T12:32:51.927" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18886" RevisionGUID="d6c6b6e3-8c46-4610-a5e8-a06cc569a11c" CreationDate="2017-12-29T15:54:29.370" UserId="17737" Comment="tags edited, signature removed as per https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/2950/295232" Text="How can a patent be grant when we never signed our names to the documents? We had an employee take device,had someone do drawings of the device and and apply for a patent after the patent was rejected the first time by my husband the designer.&#xD;&#xA;This person had no knowledge of our operation since our sad but bitter parting. She never put one red cent into the company and now she thinks she owns 1/3 of the company.&#xD;&#xA;I don't understand how she was able to get a patent on this item, her name being listed first with myself and my husband on the patents second and third parties. We never  were given or signed any consent papers yet our name is on the patent.&#xD;&#xA;She basically stole all of our information and got her name on my husbands work. She also know nothing about the field of the product. She's an x friend and neighbor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51522" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18886" RevisionGUID="d6c6b6e3-8c46-4610-a5e8-a06cc569a11c" CreationDate="2017-12-29T15:54:29.370" UserId="17737" Comment="tags edited, signature removed as per https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/2950/295232" Text="&lt;grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51523" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18886" RevisionGUID="d6c6b6e3-8c46-4610-a5e8-a06cc569a11c" CreationDate="2017-12-29T15:54:29.370" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 1 edit id of 2050" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51524" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18294" RevisionGUID="898819ae-46b4-45de-9d49-1fa88d4e7eb6" CreationDate="2017-12-29T17:33:24.283" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51525" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="8f00437f-4247-4902-a5fc-eedeb692cf86" CreationDate="2017-12-29T18:36:37.707" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51526" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18540" RevisionGUID="51458b55-14aa-4cc5-bdff-1a395c7ae2df" CreationDate="2017-12-29T21:37:05.870" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51527" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18600" RevisionGUID="29aa9e12-8d13-4e86-aba5-ed512fbf5365" CreationDate="2017-12-29T23:37:22.670" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18887" RevisionGUID="b09d3a38-4c92-4f37-818d-46c45c6cc1b6" CreationDate="2017-12-30T01:43:36.917" UserId="3076" Text="Without seeing the file on the case, some important points that might be helpful are - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) The USPTO should have required signed declarations from each person listed as an inventor stating that they consider themselves collectively to be true inventors and understand their responsibilities to the patent office. However, there are ways around this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) The order of the inventors has no legal significance, so the first listed has *no rights above the others simply by being listed  first*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) Unless there is some assignment document or other contract  between the listed inventors, they share an undivided interested in the patent. Any one of the inventors can practice or license the patent without any accounting with the others. You can make, sell, use, etc. the patented item, as can the person you have this dispute with. In practice this propably means she will not be able to license the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(4) I'm not an attorney, but one might be able to get a person listed as an inventor removed if they, in fact, didn't contribute conceptually to the claimed invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51530" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="e7b96bba-54c4-44c9-aed5-3e4bc68f7cdf" CreationDate="2017-12-30T05:40:27.290" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51531" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="2b696974-22ab-483b-b98d-a63d7abef441" CreationDate="2017-12-30T06:41:19.820" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18888" RevisionGUID="4dc4d71a-c5b1-43a4-9918-8cc9799e3ba5" CreationDate="2017-12-30T15:11:03.023" UserId="17003" Text="The cited document is a patent application, not a patent. To determine the status of a US application the best approach is to look it up in the [US Public Pair][1] site. Go to Pair, get past the CAPTCHA and then (for this application) select the &quot;Document Number&quot; option and enter &quot;20080264895&quot;. If you do, you will find that this application is listed as: &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot; as of 02-13-2012. The application had received a &quot;non-final rejection&quot;. Many if not most applications receive non-final rejections&quot; so that, by itself isn't an indication that the application could ever be granted. However, it looks like the applicant gave up on it. It is still possible for the applicant to resurrect the application, but I would seem at this point unlikely. Please understand that I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18888" RevisionGUID="22bdeba7-61a3-43a2-8d11-d56f2338e8f9" CreationDate="2017-12-30T15:20:26.870" UserId="17003" Comment="added 275 characters in body" Text="The cited document is a patent application, not a patent. To determine the status of a US application the best approach is to look it up in the [US Public Pair][1] site. Go to Pair, get past the CAPTCHA and then (for this application) select the &quot;Document Number&quot; option and enter &quot;20080264895&quot;. If you do, you will find that this application is listed as: &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot; as of 02-13-2012. The application had received a &quot;non-final rejection&quot;. Many if not most applications receive non-final rejections&quot; so that, by itself isn't an indication that the application could ever be granted. However, it looks like the applicant gave up on it. It is still possible for the applicant to resurrect the application, but I would seem at this point unlikely. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you click on the &quot;Image File Wrapper&quot; tab, you can look at the communications between the applicant and the examiner. It would be useful to read the Non-Final Rejection document as this might point out prior art that could keep you from using the described invention. Please understand that I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18889" RevisionGUID="5c24f4ae-6885-40a2-936d-ee5ff301e79f" CreationDate="2017-12-31T01:12:47.513" UserId="20470" Text="I am from the UK, just looking for a pretty simple answer as I have been spending abit more time looking at patents now than ever before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I understand independent claims are broad. Then you have dependent claims. Currently I am working against a patent with dependent claims. What I am trying to understand is, if I invalidate a dependent claim, but not the original claim then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Can this be possible?&#xD;&#xA;2. If it is, then is it infringement?&#xD;&#xA;3. If for example the initial claim mentions 3 parts in this manner: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;a flexible structure with three specific, clearly differentiated areas of a different nature&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but I reduce it to 2 parts whilst keeping the like for like functionality, is this infringement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you all, i have spent the whole day racking my brains!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51535" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18889" RevisionGUID="5c24f4ae-6885-40a2-936d-ee5ff301e79f" CreationDate="2017-12-31T01:12:47.513" UserId="20470" Text="Patents and Dependent Claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51536" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18889" RevisionGUID="5c24f4ae-6885-40a2-936d-ee5ff301e79f" CreationDate="2017-12-31T01:12:47.513" UserId="20470" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;independent&gt;&lt;dependent-claim&gt;&lt;changing&gt;&lt;variation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51538" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16606" RevisionGUID="43280596-5b1d-48bb-8ace-497484336b6a" CreationDate="2017-12-31T03:42:41.803" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18890" RevisionGUID="8522d6d0-6916-4634-877b-62249fff9e3c" CreationDate="2017-12-31T04:22:17.487" UserId="13775" Text="It is often better to include everything in a single specification and then file different claim sets in different patents sharing the common specification.  The downside is that if you sell the patent, typically the buyer requires that you sell them all patents in a given patent family.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that the US is using a first-inventor-to-file system, which all of the other major economies were already using, you need to be very careful that your own patent filings, once published, don't render obvious subsequent filings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine this sequence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1/1/2016: File first patent wheel turning&#xD;&#xA;7/1/2017: First patent gets published&#xD;&#xA;8/1/2017: File second patent generating power from turning wheel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner could then cite the published first patent application as rendering obvious the second application.  It is well known that a turning wheel may be used to generate power.  The other issue is that somebody else may publish a thing rendering the second patent obvious between filing the first and second application.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are solutions when you come up with new material later, but they also have a downside.  For example, there is a continuation in part, which allows you to get the benefit of the first patent's filing date for stuff enabled in the first filing and then you get the actual continuation in part filing date for stuff enabled in the second filing.  You can mix and match.  The expiration of the patent will go back to the 20 years from filing the first application, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, this is a complex question where the answers vary based on how you intend to dispose of the patent (if you're selling it, separate filings may be preferred).  Best to see a patent lawyer to get the answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51540" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18508" RevisionGUID="255a6b45-d5b2-402e-826f-1f1df9adbf59" CreationDate="2017-12-31T05:42:51.263" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51541" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="c48e5f00-e090-4e4b-ba63-ef7444e308a8" CreationDate="2017-12-31T06:44:25.277" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18891" RevisionGUID="e8c6a1db-b896-487c-b16f-08064b611044" CreationDate="2017-12-31T09:19:44.960" UserId="18033" Text="An independent claim will always encompass all of its dependent claims. That means that something infringing a dependent claim will always infringe the independent claim to. A dependent claim is just anarrow version of the independent claim.&#xA;&#xA;So let's imagine you would invalidate a dependent claim, e.g. a+b+c. Then your abc would still infringe the independent a+b claim. Because a+b means a+b+ anything (x). And that's the catch. Abc is prior art for ab+x and can invalidate the ab claim.&#xA;&#xA;It it's impossible to invalidate a claim that only specifies a broader claim without invalidating the broader claim. Dependent claims exist for a similar case. Because abd would invalidate ab, abc is used as a fallback position. &#xA;&#xA;There is one exception that's actually not an exception but could lead to confusion. If in the past abc was thought to be impossible without a and b and c you can invent ac. By the above logic that would mean that abc infringes your ac claim. But that's just a limitation of this simple example structure. Ac in this case is actually abc-b. &#xA;&#xA;If you tried to make abc a dependent claim because it's more narrow than ac, that wouldnt work because abc-b+b doesn't make sense.&#xA;&#xA;To summarise, any protection that a dependent claim grants may not be broader than the protection the independent claim grants. And an example of prior art that falls into the protection of a claim is enough for invalidation, so by definition invalidating a dependent claim must invalidate the independent claim. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;-------&#xA;&#xA;&gt;&quot;a flexible structure with three specific, clearly differentiated areas of a different nature&quot;&#xA;&#xA;&gt;but I reduce it to 2 parts whilst keeping the like for like functionality, is this infringement?&#xA;&#xA;If the claim clearly states that the parts have to be present then no, **unless** you're running into equivalency. That's basically infringing by substituting a part of the claim without functional differences. But that's a different, very complex topic. I just mention it because shipping around the wording of a claim without shipping around the meaning will get you into problems with that.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51543" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16569" RevisionGUID="d8e2dab5-fb5d-47af-bf1b-b9d960452bd0" CreationDate="2017-12-31T13:44:30.023" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51544" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="42ac03fb-38a1-40de-ae04-a7f0e0567759" CreationDate="2017-12-31T14:45:29.260" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18893" RevisionGUID="22c31d4a-5f68-4da6-8de8-b73c9ff6398f" CreationDate="2017-12-31T19:32:32.523" UserId="19232" Text="Specifically it is an Information Disclosure Statement in which some dates for non-patent refs were missing, but no new references are being added. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51554" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18893" RevisionGUID="22c31d4a-5f68-4da6-8de8-b73c9ff6398f" CreationDate="2017-12-31T19:32:32.523" UserId="19232" Text="If a standard form needs some format corrections described in the OA, should the resubmitted form be re-dated or should it keep its original date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51555" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18893" RevisionGUID="22c31d4a-5f68-4da6-8de8-b73c9ff6398f" CreationDate="2017-12-31T19:32:32.523" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;ids&gt;&lt;forms&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51556" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17171" RevisionGUID="e5a154c1-030d-4efe-ac97-338e4953b7c2" CreationDate="2017-12-31T22:50:03.887" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51557" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18185" RevisionGUID="6445eadb-a20b-408e-a7c3-4a46b004f4ef" CreationDate="2017-12-31T23:50:01.167" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51558" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16450" RevisionGUID="b6d17a47-86ee-42a6-a835-8c0de51c8113" CreationDate="2018-01-01T00:50:01.350" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51559" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16771" RevisionGUID="e32c7303-b7f5-4b9c-9f27-9081ed712f4a" CreationDate="2018-01-01T01:50:01.127" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51560" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="51d22061-2acb-41be-8d7c-996ef1cc9fa8" CreationDate="2018-01-01T02:50:08.943" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51564" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17909" RevisionGUID="89b6a1bb-cd87-4746-9e21-b2dd0e8b4940" CreationDate="2018-01-01T04:50:11.977" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51566" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16544" RevisionGUID="e5e9618a-4200-4cc0-b7d2-ecfe9225d9d8" CreationDate="2018-01-01T10:00:34.237" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18891" RevisionGUID="e5b21f07-f29b-4027-8209-eae6881aae30" CreationDate="2018-01-01T10:56:39.107" UserId="18033" Comment="added 2 characters in body; added 43 characters in body" Text="An independent claim will always encompass all of its dependent claims. That means that something infringing a dependent claim will always infringe the independent claim too. A dependent claim is just a narrow version of the independent claim.&#xA;&#xA;So let's imagine you would invalidate a dependent claim, e.g. a+b+c. Then your abc would still infringe the independent a+b claim. Because a+b means a+b+ anything (x). And that's the catch. Abc is prior art for ab+x and can invalidate the ab claim.&#xA;&#xA;It it's impossible to invalidate a claim that only specifies a broader claim without invalidating the broader claim. Dependent claims exist for a similar case. Because abd would invalidate ab, abc is used as a fallback position. &#xA;&#xA;There is one exception that's actually not an exception but could lead to confusion. If in the past abc was thought to be impossible without a and b and c you can invent ac. By the above logic that would mean that abc infringes your ac claim. But that's just a limitation of this simple example structure. Ac in this case is actually abc-b or only ac“. &#xA;&#xA;If you tried to make abc a dependent claim because it's more narrow than ac, that wouldnt work because abc-b+b doesn't make sense and neither does “only ac“ + b.&#xA;&#xA;To summarise, any protection that a dependent claim grants may not be broader than the protection the independent claim grants. And an example of prior art that falls into the protection of a claim is enough for invalidation, so by definition invalidating a dependent claim must invalidate the independent claim. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;-------&#xA;&#xA;&gt;&quot;a flexible structure with three specific, clearly differentiated areas of a different nature&quot;&#xA;&#xA;&gt;but I reduce it to 2 parts whilst keeping the like for like functionality, is this infringement?&#xA;&#xA;If the claim clearly states that the parts have to be present then no, **unless** you're running into equivalency. That's basically infringing by substituting a part of the claim without functional differences. But that's a different, very complex topic. I just mention it because shipping around the wording of a claim without shipping around the meaning will get you into problems with that.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51568" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="a23441a1-cd85-4d4c-8e4e-6202877dfd2e" CreationDate="2018-01-01T12:00:39.067" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51569" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="6e17665b-d042-4c2c-ab94-902d2e2b4074" CreationDate="2018-01-01T13:00:52.807" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18895" RevisionGUID="0157f7bf-708e-41ec-bd00-b4261feb5048" CreationDate="2018-01-01T16:08:32.720" UserId="17003" Text="I don't think it is possible for someone other than the assignee to &quot;gain control&quot; of an abandoned patent. Regardless, A patent issued in 1994 will almost certainly have expired by the time of your question regardless of maintenance fees. US patents back then expired either 17 years from the grant date or 20 years from the priority date whichever was later. International patents were generally 20 years from the priority or filing date. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51571" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14883" RevisionGUID="6d53bc30-f7a6-41c8-a58a-752bf701ca36" CreationDate="2018-01-01T17:02:46.733" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18897" RevisionGUID="f12374ff-ba9c-4bae-ae95-0ca53ded2dba" CreationDate="2018-01-01T23:52:06.283" UserId="20476" Text="I was looking to create a game mechanic where save game files from the first title in a series could be loaded by another game in the series so that actions the player took in the first game could affect game play in the second.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example would be this: The player chooses to help a beggar in the first game. In the second game, the beggar, having become a successful merchant, repays the player for their kindness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that EA has created [a patent][1] for this behavior which would appear to cover this use case. Is this interpretation correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming this behavior is covered by the patent, would the patent also prevent me from saving/distributing the game data on a remote database (i.e. not in a file)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7156733B2/en?q=save&amp;q=game&amp;page=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51577" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18897" RevisionGUID="f12374ff-ba9c-4bae-ae95-0ca53ded2dba" CreationDate="2018-01-01T23:52:06.283" UserId="20476" Text="Does US7156733B2 include data saved to databases in addition to files?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51578" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18897" RevisionGUID="f12374ff-ba9c-4bae-ae95-0ca53ded2dba" CreationDate="2018-01-01T23:52:06.283" UserId="20476" Text="&lt;databases&gt;&lt;video-games&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51579" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17751" RevisionGUID="5fc970b2-7b37-4702-ba49-785f0a0fdf5e" CreationDate="2018-01-02T00:04:46.430" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18898" RevisionGUID="d4993565-6684-4814-924f-1743f77a8f1f" CreationDate="2018-01-02T05:27:35.007" UserId="20468" Text="How is it possible that my name is on a newly issued patent that someone stole information and files a patent on my husband invention?&#xD;&#xA;My husband filed for a patent and it was not granted. He has all original information. The thief had given the product to someone to make drawling. Very easy to do but the thief never had all of the knowledge that was written in the patent.&#xD;&#xA;Patent was granted with out my signature or knowledge or that of my husbands. How can a patent be granted like this, to me this should be fraud.&#xD;&#xA;Kyle " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51581" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18898" RevisionGUID="d4993565-6684-4814-924f-1743f77a8f1f" CreationDate="2018-01-02T05:27:35.007" UserId="20468" Text="How can I be on a patend when I never signed the paper work" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51582" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18898" RevisionGUID="d4993565-6684-4814-924f-1743f77a8f1f" CreationDate="2018-01-02T05:27:35.007" UserId="20468" Text="&lt;wrongly&gt;&lt;issued&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18899" RevisionGUID="7dcc79d9-e33d-41b6-9fc1-c592ce7fac3b" CreationDate="2018-01-02T15:32:23.537" UserId="17003" Text="A patent's coverage is defined by its claims. In particular, it is good to start by focusing on the independent claims (in this case claims 1, 13, 19, 24 and 27). Lets look at claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for enabling interaction with a shared game data file using a game device, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  providing logic to perform&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one or more actions associated with the shared game data file;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   providing logic to cause the game device to perform an action in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one or more actions with the shared game data file as part of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; operating a game of a plurality of games, the shared game data&#xD;&#xA;&gt; configured to store at least first game data associated with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accomplishments attained in a first game of the plurality of games and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; second game data associated with accomplishments attained in a second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; game of the plurality of games, the shared game data being such that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at least one accomplishment attainable in the first game is distinct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from accomplishments attainable in the second game;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and providing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; logic in the second game to use the first game data to provide a user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; game opportunities in the second game not available to the user based&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on accomplishments attained in the second game alone, wherein at least&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one game opportunity made available in the second game is the result&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of an accomplishment in the first game distinct from accomplishments&#xD;&#xA;&gt; possible in the second game, wherein the logic to perform one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; actions is included on a game medium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A cursory review seems to suggest that this patent indeed potentially covers your scenario. In addition, the claim doesn't seem to limit the location of the game data file to local storage so it indeed may cover storage on a remote database. However, this might hinge on how the term &quot;data file&quot; is defined within the specification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless of my brief review, I strongly suggest you get a freedom-to-operate evaluation by a qualified patent attorney. Especially with software patents, details and precedents are important. I certainly wouldn't rely on unqualified opinions provided on the internet. Just to be clear, I am not an attorney so my comments do not represent legal opinions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18898" RevisionGUID="773c1923-8e55-46d7-a328-f967c2eaa2b1" CreationDate="2018-01-02T15:34:13.257" UserId="17003" Comment="Brief spelling and formatting corrections." Text="How is it possible that my name is on a newly issued patent that someone stole information and files a patent on my husband invention?&#xD;&#xA;My husband filed for a patent and it was not granted. He has all original information. The thief had given the product to someone to make drawings. Very easy to do but the thief never had all of the knowledge that was written in the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent was granted with out my signature or knowledge or that of my husbands. How can a patent be granted like this, to me this should be fraud.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kyle " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51585" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18898" RevisionGUID="773c1923-8e55-46d7-a328-f967c2eaa2b1" CreationDate="2018-01-02T15:34:13.257" UserId="17003" Comment="Brief spelling and formatting corrections." Text="How can I be on a patent when I never signed the paper work" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51586" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="b85291bd-bf3f-4af6-8e80-94858fbc10ce" CreationDate="2018-01-02T20:11:44.667" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51587" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14684" RevisionGUID="a2e67638-74ba-46a9-bfd2-7a4ac33b8767" CreationDate="2018-01-02T23:40:46.103" UserId="3076" Comment="slight terminology correction" Text="**Will claiming priority from a provisional reveal it to public?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. A provisional application is never itself published (37 CFR 1.211(b)). However, a provisional application becomes part of the file wrapper of any later-filed application which relies on it. When the later-filed application is published, the contents of the provisional application becomes publicly available with it. Therefore, if you rely on a provisional for priority, the provisional will not technically be &quot;published&quot; but will be available to the public via the file wrapper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the main reason that each application should generally only contain a single invention. Although it seems attractive to save the filing costs at first, you are then committed to having every invention stand or fall together. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can I claim the priority from a single file in the provisional and keep other files hidden from public?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. You must claim priority to a whole provisional patent application. This is because priority comes from the application (which is a single indivisible unit), not from one file within the application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51588" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18649" RevisionGUID="273e243c-c127-42e5-9586-c995c4f82148" CreationDate="2018-01-03T00:13:03.197" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18900" RevisionGUID="777fee94-f8c2-452f-a0e0-f7cdd204ae1a" CreationDate="2018-01-03T01:29:39.713" UserId="20479" Text="In reference to the patent: [US429497][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US429497&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not a question, just a correction, the inventor is Charles D. Bingham. My family bought his house from his daughter (Viola?) in Watertown NY and I lived there back in the 1980s. I remember finding old books and some of his hand made wooden gears and such, I wish I still had them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51590" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18900" RevisionGUID="777fee94-f8c2-452f-a0e0-f7cdd204ae1a" CreationDate="2018-01-03T01:29:39.713" UserId="20479" Text="Charles D. Bingham is correct Inventor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51591" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18900" RevisionGUID="777fee94-f8c2-452f-a0e0-f7cdd204ae1a" CreationDate="2018-01-03T01:29:39.713" UserId="20479" Text="&lt;us429497&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51592" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="565c95c9-c163-4ea9-a84d-486a8051240f" CreationDate="2018-01-03T02:13:05.910" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18901" RevisionGUID="89194834-a9d7-45b4-b3ce-be9a8d474386" CreationDate="2018-01-03T02:21:35.437" UserId="17003" Text="What you are experiencing is less than accurate optical character recognition. Old patents like this are scanned and text generated using OCR. At the bottom of the page you linked to is a link for sending feedback to Google if you would like them to fix the error. Interestingly, Google's other (and better) patent site has the inventor's name correctly transcribed: [https://patents.google.com/patent/US429497A/en][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please understand that this site is not connected to Google or the USPTO so posting your correction here has no impact on what is displayed on Google's site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US429497A/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51594" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18900" RevisionGUID="3a41f957-723d-4da5-8abb-f49431e717e7" CreationDate="2018-01-03T04:00:05.003" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[12392],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="51595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18902" RevisionGUID="662deacd-ed02-41be-8d50-403853c3a596" CreationDate="2018-01-03T04:32:32.110" UserId="20466" Text="Method for in-situ sampling, separating enriching and measuring heavy metal ion in water body &#xD;&#xA;CN 101021515 A&#xD;&#xA;ABSTRACT&#xD;&#xA;A method to sample in situ, separate, enrich and measure heavy metal ion in waters. Its steps contain: (1) Puts some high-molecular compound being capable of occurring chemical reaction with heavy metal ion into device and uses a semi-permeable membrane being able to permeate heavy metal ion to cover it. (2) Puts device into waters and detaches it from waters by membrane. (3) Sets in waters for a period of time. Recur to osmosis of membrane, heavy metal ion enters into back of device to occur chemical reaction with high-molecular compound. (4) Takes out device located in waters to measure concentration and mean concentration of heavy metal in waters by atomic absorption spectrometry. It is characterized in that simple, economical, providing concentration and measurement in situ for much heavy metal, has selectivity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18903" RevisionGUID="3ec3280c-4c7a-4a58-abaf-9d6a704fd4de" CreationDate="2018-01-03T16:45:33.627" UserId="20481" Text="I'm working on a comicbook and want to publish an alternative mobile version of it where the panels are presented one by one and in a linear fashion, similar to how you would browse through images in a folder one by one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I saw that Comixology has a (pending?) patent on a process called &quot;Guided View&quot;, which is quite similar to what I'm trying to do. See this related question: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/6044/will-my-comic-reader-app-violate-comixology-patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Guided View technology covers navigation across a page consisting of panels, and involves zoom changes, masking adjacent panels, panning from one panel to the next, etc. My approach on the other hand is to simply publish two versions of the comicbook, one in the traditional comicbook format and the other as a series of panel images.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two approaches aren't the same (and mine is arguably trivial and not patent-worthy), yet I'm worried that I might run into legal trouble by publishing the aforementioned mobile version of my comicbook. So, does anyone know of prior art for presenting comicbook panels sequentially?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51597" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18903" RevisionGUID="3ec3280c-4c7a-4a58-abaf-9d6a704fd4de" CreationDate="2018-01-03T16:45:33.627" UserId="20481" Text="Comixology patent vs. presenting comicbook panels sequentially" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51598" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18903" RevisionGUID="3ec3280c-4c7a-4a58-abaf-9d6a704fd4de" CreationDate="2018-01-03T16:45:33.627" UserId="20481" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;computer-graphics&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51599" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18903" RevisionGUID="6bad9780-178a-43b3-bbd7-0e4ea287931b" CreationDate="2018-01-03T16:52:24.200" UserId="20481" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;computer-graphics&gt;&lt;us20100318895&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18904" RevisionGUID="6bd48b86-3f6f-4045-add5-b890516a29db" CreationDate="2018-01-03T19:32:32.570" UserId="13257" Text="If you have left the company, or have refused to sign the document, there is a clause in the [MPEP][1] that states the company can sign a substitute statement. This is common for inventors who leave companies and moved away without leaving contact information. The company tries to e-mail you, message you on linkedin, etc, and if they fail, then they put your name down and file this statement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 37 CFR 1.64 Substitute statement in lieu of an oath or declaration.&#xD;&#xA;(a) An applicant under § 1.43, 1.45 or 1.46 may execute a **substitute statement** in lieu of an oath or declaration under § 1.63 if the inventor is deceased, is under a legal incapacity, has refused to execute the oath or declaration under § 1.63, or cannot be found or reached after **diligent effort**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s604.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51601" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18522" RevisionGUID="1fd2931a-c93d-4267-acd6-583c5693a2fb" CreationDate="2018-01-03T20:20:03.997" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18905" RevisionGUID="cb081bfb-c9fd-45af-b6fc-a85e1abbdf23" CreationDate="2018-01-03T21:11:24.507" UserId="17003" Text="I believe the application cited has been granted as the US patent [US9672585B1][1]. The assignee is Amazon Technologies, Inc. Claims are often changed considerably between an application and subsequent patent. You should carefully read the issued patent's claims to determine if you infringe on them. Remember, to infringe on a patent, you must implement every step of at least one claim. Thus, if a claim has steps A, B, and C and you only implement A and C, you should avoid infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not a lawyer and this shouldn't be taken as legal advice. As always, I recommend consulting with a patent attorney to discuss matters of freedom-to-operate over existing patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9672585B1/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18906" RevisionGUID="0a08fa59-2f78-4647-96d0-5886d92e9e21" CreationDate="2018-01-03T22:21:32.840" UserId="20483" Text="In reference to the patent: [CA2216243A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/CA2216243A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am an artist, not a specialist. I recreated the formula of the patent in my studio and applied it onto glass with an airbrush, and it seems to work perfectly when cured at about 200°C for 20 minutes in a kitchen oven, with the grill switched ON. However, the author of the patent says that this paint can be cured at low temperature, between 100° and 200°C, or even lower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I noticed that when the layer of potassium silicate paint is not properly dried, it tends to attract humidity and becomes soft again after a few days in a humid environment. My problem is that I want to work on large glass sheets that are already in place in a building, and I dont have the budget to unmount them, transport them to a company that has an oven, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I came up with a few ideas, would you help me figure out if these ideas are realistic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I work in summer (the work is in Rome, Italy), the temperature is between 18 and 28°C and there's a lot of sun, long days, so it could help the drying process (but humidity is always around 80%). But would it be enough?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could I &quot;seal&quot; the as-dry-as-possible coatings with a waterproof mixture of Syton X30 (link: https://www.kremer-pigmente.com/media/pdf/31430e.pdf) and acrylic medium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read that treatment with chemical setting agents could cure potassium silicate (link: www.pqcorp.com/docs/default-source/recommended-literature/pq-corporation/potassium-silicates/bulletin_12-31.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any other suggestions on how to cure such a coating at low temperature?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51604" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18906" RevisionGUID="0a08fa59-2f78-4647-96d0-5886d92e9e21" CreationDate="2018-01-03T22:21:32.840" UserId="20483" Text="Low temperature curing process?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51605" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18906" RevisionGUID="0a08fa59-2f78-4647-96d0-5886d92e9e21" CreationDate="2018-01-03T22:21:32.840" UserId="20483" Text="&lt;paint&gt;&lt;ca2216243a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51606" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14767" RevisionGUID="eeafcad2-50eb-4437-b7f8-1f65226d99c0" CreationDate="2018-01-03T23:24:06.573" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51607" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17769" RevisionGUID="e44474d4-bda5-4be3-8b07-656bc2fbfdfb" CreationDate="2018-01-04T00:24:06.630" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51609" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17768" RevisionGUID="5c80c27e-446e-4be9-bd50-26fc76e61376" CreationDate="2018-01-04T01:24:06.710" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18883" RevisionGUID="6d363211-7f4c-4085-96ae-ce6330ec4f0f" CreationDate="2018-01-04T08:48:42.413" UserId="17325" Comment="added 535 characters in body" Text="If by conflict you mean that WO2015130230A1 claims subject matter which can be found in the chinese patents and patent applications, I would say no, because the search report of the WO2015130230A1 would have them cited. The International Search report will cite any relevant document which was disclosed to the public **before the date of filing** of the WO2015130230 (or priority date). As suggested below in the comments, the search performed by a patent examiner is not always complete, but it is a good starting point. In this case, the prior art you are referring to are chinese patent documents. From my experience, I would not expect a (japanese!) patent examiner to miss them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had a look at  CN101021514B and CN101021515B. As far as I can see, the general idea appears to be the same, but they use different polymers and/or different solutions to collect the samples. This seems to be a big difference to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't say more, because I don't know Chinese :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51615" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="c9e2cfd4-db04-4262-959d-175ce19a62ea" CreationDate="2018-01-04T10:24:22.463" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18909" RevisionGUID="6cc940f3-507b-4078-bb1b-fe7911381944" CreationDate="2018-01-04T15:25:56.300" UserId="20485" Text="I was reading about a known retail process that was interesting. However, there are industries I feel it could be uniquely applied to and solve multiple problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I googled application of other retail processes and patents and found Priceline, which uses a 'reverse auction' system which has been patented to use in their specific areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was going to take the steps of drafting a provisioning patent application then use SCORE to find a lawyer who would look it over for me before submitting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does this sound? Is it worth pursuing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51617" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18909" RevisionGUID="6cc940f3-507b-4078-bb1b-fe7911381944" CreationDate="2018-01-04T15:25:56.300" UserId="20485" Text="How can you patent a known process that is used in a unique way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51618" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18909" RevisionGUID="6cc940f3-507b-4078-bb1b-fe7911381944" CreationDate="2018-01-04T15:25:56.300" UserId="20485" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51622" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18655" RevisionGUID="c05bb6ca-5896-4b48-9113-086604eafb6d" CreationDate="2018-01-04T18:25:42.323" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51623" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18789" RevisionGUID="ed73d76d-6d31-48d4-a3cf-5e279bf243f8" CreationDate="2018-01-04T19:29:25.907" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18911" RevisionGUID="52f99067-2b94-4a13-b7e1-c68153f09d29" CreationDate="2018-01-04T20:08:54.803" UserId="15503" Text="In principle yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, you can't patent a known process in a new area if it's an obvious way to use the known process. For example, you likely couldn't patent a method of providing a supermarket-style self-checkout system in a pet store, because there's no real underlying invention. You're just using the prior art system from a supermarket in a known way, exactly in the way you would expect it to work, just in a slightly different type of shop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if in the process of porting the method into the new field, you have to solve some difficulties, this can support some patentable invention.  For example, if you had to adjust the system to allow for puppies without barcodes to be scanned on the self-checkout system in the pet store, this goes beyond an obvious use of the prior art, and becomes potentially a non-obvious invention in its own right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to drafting the provisional yourself, I would strongly advise not doing this. If you have an invention you want to protect, then you want to protect it properly, so you need a patent attorney. Doing it yourself will almost certainly result in you not getting a useful patent, because there are far too many snags that can catch you out (and that you may not find out about until years down the track, when it's too late to fix). In this respect, having an attorney review it is more or less a waste of money: they may pick up some things, but it's more likely that they would need to rewrite it anyway. Incidentally, because of this, every firm I've worked for has a policy of refusing to review applications drafted by individuals, since it never ends well (and the income doesn't justify the liability)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51625" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14890" RevisionGUID="e3b7552f-8879-4b68-be3a-b16f6b916d73" CreationDate="2018-01-04T21:29:25.723" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18912" RevisionGUID="a701fdb3-bcfc-43fe-b4c7-a377f9268adc" CreationDate="2018-01-04T21:55:06.273" UserId="13775" Text="I've drafted my own provisionals for years and it didn't pose a problem -- but I'm also a lawyer.  Self-drafted provisionals often create problems by accidentally hitting a third rail of patent law, like saying &quot;In one obvious application of this invention....&quot; or &quot;while people have done this using pencil and paper, this invention automates it....&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the patentability question, you need to check with your lawyer, as a high level and vague description like you posted may well miss a point of patentability.  You should be aware that there are two ways that prior art can be a problem:  Obviousness and novelty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviousness asks &quot;knowing what people skilled in the art knew at the time of invention, would it have been obvious to combine other stuff that is well known to create the invention&quot;?  If the new use of a known process wouldn't be obvious, you don't have an obviousness problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Novelty asks &quot;has this thing existed or been done before&quot;?  Normally, something that not novel is also obvious, but there are exceptions -- and this may be one.  For example, I can't patent a jet engine that already exists just because I propose we attach it to a boat instead of a jet.  Or using a real world example, Amazon's &quot;one click&quot; patent covers keeping somebody logged in and then buying and shipping it based on a single click.  If I proposed using the same invention in a car's console to order gas while parked at a gas station, the one click portion would not be novel even though it might not be an obvious use of the one-click invention. Of course, actually implementing it in a gas station might create new twists that are novel and non-obvious, such as where you also determine fuel level and capacity and trigger an automated pump to open the gas cap, extend a fuel line to the car, and fill the car.  But the baseline &quot;this already exists, but look, I'm using it in an unexpected way&quot; would normally present a novelty problem (although with processes the new way you use it may be part of the process, so that may get around the novelty issue).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18913" RevisionGUID="b6cfabd9-9221-45b4-af68-a26e8aa895ee" CreationDate="2018-01-05T04:09:29.423" UserId="19808" Text="I have received an office action. In this action, the examiner pointed that, in figure 7, there are some solid contour lines that are not shown in Figs. 1-6.&#xD;&#xA;Could i delete these lines directly or amend them to broken lines?&#xD;&#xA;Look forward to your reply!!!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51628" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18913" RevisionGUID="b6cfabd9-9221-45b4-af68-a26e8aa895ee" CreationDate="2018-01-05T04:09:29.423" UserId="19808" Text="Reply to US Design Patent Office Action(amend to lines)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51629" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18913" RevisionGUID="b6cfabd9-9221-45b4-af68-a26e8aa895ee" CreationDate="2018-01-05T04:09:29.423" UserId="19808" Text="&lt;oa&gt;&lt;lines&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18914" RevisionGUID="17fc8eec-b115-455b-bdb4-f5170b448d60" CreationDate="2018-01-05T06:11:17.160" UserId="20492" Text="I would like to buy patents related to oil and gas drilling and production activities. Is there a market where patents are bought sold or traded? A secondary market? I’ve found several that are not in use but they are not for sale. How do I find potential sellers? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51631" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18914" RevisionGUID="17fc8eec-b115-455b-bdb4-f5170b448d60" CreationDate="2018-01-05T06:11:17.160" UserId="20492" Text="Patent marketplace" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51632" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18914" RevisionGUID="17fc8eec-b115-455b-bdb4-f5170b448d60" CreationDate="2018-01-05T06:11:17.160" UserId="20492" Text="&lt;traded&gt;&lt;resale&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18915" RevisionGUID="211f19ec-0221-4bf3-8aff-b5f13504022e" CreationDate="2018-01-05T06:17:27.423" UserId="20491" Text="Craig 623-552-8216              I have been ripped off by an attorney that claimed he was going to partner up with me. He disappeared over night from Chandler Az. Apparently moving to California and filing  U S provisional patent application.  And now his name is on the patent I took to his office and I haven't reviewed any money or recognition . I do not understand how he can do this and get away with it . &#xD;&#xA;i have a contract from the first IP lawyer I went to see. thjs firm was very interested in my invention and ran a patent search and they offered me in writing a contract for my invention. They would do everything  I would get 15 percent yet would have no say so or voting rights concerning  my invention.  I took the contract they offered and said I would think about it..    I met with&#xD;&#xA;david george schellenberg the following day another patent attorney and he too was very interested in my invention and told me not to sign the contract I had showed him that the other patent attorney offered me the day before. there trying steal your purse and blow smoke up dress at the same time he said you can make lot more than 15 percent they are offering   m here sure don't get ripped off&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51634" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18915" RevisionGUID="211f19ec-0221-4bf3-8aff-b5f13504022e" CreationDate="2018-01-05T06:17:27.423" UserId="20491" Text="I would like to have contact information for the inventor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51635" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18915" RevisionGUID="211f19ec-0221-4bf3-8aff-b5f13504022e" CreationDate="2018-01-05T06:17:27.423" UserId="20491" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51636" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="487966da-72b6-449b-bec5-0209b9252514" CreationDate="2018-01-05T06:29:28.513" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51637" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15983" RevisionGUID="564151a1-af14-44d9-8245-8c371fcd82a3" CreationDate="2018-01-05T13:35:33.947" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18916" RevisionGUID="4df73f69-ecb9-4c65-b3f1-9de06360e5fa" CreationDate="2018-01-05T14:25:28.783" UserId="17003" Text="Patents are owned by the assignees. If you want to purchase or license a patent you will have to contact the assignee directly.  There is no guarantee they will be willing to sell or license. I know of no secondary markets for patents. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51642" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="32652bcc-d4ce-4624-9338-716f3bf472c7" CreationDate="2018-01-05T19:41:09.347" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18918" RevisionGUID="1bbe21ab-0b6b-4e21-9861-fd7fe170b103" CreationDate="2018-01-05T22:36:31.203" UserId="3076" Text="If I understand your question, you had an invention and showed it to two different patent attorneys who each offered to patent it and take it to market and give you 15%  percent or more of the profits. **Patent attorney do not offer to take over peoples' inventions and pay them a royalty.** It is against the code of ethics and, no matter how significant an invention was, no informed and honest person would make such an offer after a short meeting and a quick search. Some &quot;invention promotion&quot; companies do that sort of thing. They have generally no interest in the invention, just your payment for them to get started on the project.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I do not think either person was an actual patent attorney. The person you named does not show up on the [roster of patent attorneys][1] at the USPTO. For what it is worth, someone of that name is listed as one of the co-inventors on [Method for tinting a cartridge of caulking material &#xD;&#xA;US 7527421][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/practitionerSearchEntry&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7527421?dq=20090179050" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51644" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18799" RevisionGUID="5b55fa42-73f5-4ef6-af45-5d7fe28aa227" CreationDate="2018-01-05T22:41:00.733" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51650" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17587" RevisionGUID="11464ef7-617a-4161-b296-078af816def6" CreationDate="2018-01-06T18:51:48.883" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18920" RevisionGUID="b0b6a148-af60-4d69-9fd2-89c6b901076e" CreationDate="2018-01-06T18:52:05.323" UserId="19913" Text="As I understand it, the patent application must state the name of the inventor and if necessary assign the IP rights  If the attorney is not an inventor, then (technically) the USPTO would need deny the patent on the basis that the attorney is not the inventor.  That being said, this would raise the question how would the USPTO know that the attorney is not the inventor? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18921" RevisionGUID="0ee60701-54c5-4ac0-adee-7fe47d74d264" CreationDate="2018-01-06T19:02:29.370" UserId="19913" Text="I am reviewing a PPA template from Brad Fach's patentfile.org.   The PPA section comments include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Claims are not required for a provisional application so if you are in a rush for time then please don’t worry about adding them.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **I would actually prefer people to NOT write claims or only include 1 claim.  I have seen many applications where people have written pages&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and pages of claims and this is a waste of your time and could be very&#xD;&#xA;&gt; risky if not done properly.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you feel that you must, please only write one or two fairly broad&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims that summarize your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the claims errors that would jeopardize the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51653" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18921" RevisionGUID="0ee60701-54c5-4ac0-adee-7fe47d74d264" CreationDate="2018-01-06T19:02:29.370" UserId="19913" Text="Provisional Patent Application (PPA) Claims Strategy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51654" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18921" RevisionGUID="0ee60701-54c5-4ac0-adee-7fe47d74d264" CreationDate="2018-01-06T19:02:29.370" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51655" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18211" RevisionGUID="b50eb4c3-e9be-4503-bb00-877da4e33aee" CreationDate="2018-01-06T20:51:49.933" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18921" RevisionGUID="9aff29e3-1f40-4b4f-9f29-2217e14f194f" CreationDate="2018-01-06T22:43:36.307" UserId="19913" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="I am reviewing a [PPA template from Brad Fach's patentfile.org][1].   The PPA section comments include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Claims are not required for a provisional application so if you are in a rush for time then please don’t worry about adding them.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **I would actually prefer people to NOT write claims or only include 1 claim.  I have seen many applications where people have written pages&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and pages of claims and this is a waste of your time and could be very&#xD;&#xA;&gt; risky if not done properly.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you feel that you must, please only write one or two fairly broad&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims that summarize your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the claims errors that would jeopardize the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update&#xD;&#xA;======&#xD;&#xA;The template contains a section:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    DETAILED DESCRIPTION AND BEST MODE OF IMPLEMENTATION&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this section the author indicates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; insert a detailed description of your invention here.  This is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; most important section.  Once you file your provisional patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application you cannot add to it so make sure you describe your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention in plenty of detail.  How does your invention work?  What&#xD;&#xA;&gt; material is it made from?  What features or parts does it have?  How&#xD;&#xA;&gt; else could you make your invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8vthe6tami48rf4/provisional-patent-template-basic-free-microsoft-word-format.doc?dl=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18922" RevisionGUID="c3035818-5f8e-4ac8-9790-a9288b6e3c1f" CreationDate="2018-01-07T05:23:40.120" UserId="19232" Text="I have been told by someone at the USPTO that it really doesn't matter whether the revised IDS form's date is revised to the date of resubmission or just kept with its original date. Not sure this was a reliable answer but that's the response I received. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18923" RevisionGUID="722f7089-e00e-460a-96bb-e1ed18238db0" CreationDate="2018-01-07T05:41:39.223" UserId="19232" Text="In attorney-authors Pressman &amp; Tuytschaevers' book *Patent It Yourself*, in the section on responding to rejections based on combinations of multiple prior art refs to achieve the same result (18th edition, pg. 397, item #41), it is stated that dependence on a combination of more than 3 refs can be argued to be evidence of nonobviousness. In practice of countering this type of rejection, how successful has this form of argument been? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51660" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18923" RevisionGUID="722f7089-e00e-460a-96bb-e1ed18238db0" CreationDate="2018-01-07T05:41:39.223" UserId="19232" Text="Can the examiner's use of more than 3 prior art refs in combination be successfully argued as &quot;nonobviousness&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51661" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18923" RevisionGUID="722f7089-e00e-460a-96bb-e1ed18238db0" CreationDate="2018-01-07T05:41:39.223" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;rejection&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51667" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="9aad7720-b967-4904-a3bc-4b6e5752ccbc" CreationDate="2018-01-07T18:54:04.727" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18925" RevisionGUID="0485a65a-9c3c-4700-94cd-c9f7ca14d1ea" CreationDate="2018-01-07T19:49:54.983" UserId="20501" Text="I know all of you are really well versed with patents here and I am a completely novice .&#xD;&#xA;Me and My team have come up with a working system which implements behavioral bio-metric identification system , which can be used practically anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have checked extensively but have not found a patent similar to what we are doing. We are also not infringing any patent which has not already expired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are in Europe and since our system involves a particular software method on a particular hardware, we are confused where to register the patent? US or Europe?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which one is easier and less expensive if we hire a lawyer? Also should we register under electronic hardware or software? I heard Software patents are almost never granted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51669" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18925" RevisionGUID="0485a65a-9c3c-4700-94cd-c9f7ca14d1ea" CreationDate="2018-01-07T19:49:54.983" UserId="20501" Text="How should I patent my behavioral bio-metric identification idea in the US or Europe?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51670" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18925" RevisionGUID="0485a65a-9c3c-4700-94cd-c9f7ca14d1ea" CreationDate="2018-01-07T19:49:54.983" UserId="20501" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;european&gt;&lt;hardware-patents&gt;&lt;bio-metric&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18926" RevisionGUID="d7917129-ce8c-43bc-8d96-162da95f7a5e" CreationDate="2018-01-07T20:30:54.583" UserId="15503" Text="**We are confused where to register the patent? US or Europe?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents are territorial. If you want to prevent competitors from using your invention in the US, then you'll need a US patent. If you want to prevent competitors from using your invention in Europe, then you'll need a European patent. Similarly for any other country you're interested in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The decision about where to obtain a patent is a complex one. It generally involves considering market potential, where your competitors are, and the cost of obtaining and maintaining the patent in each country. If you never expect to sell your product in the US, and you don't have any competitors there, it probably doesn't make sense to get a US patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most businesses would aim for the US and Europe as a first stage, due to the size and wealth of the respective markets. Then, if the business wants a bit more protection, generally China and Japan as a second stage. But it very much depends on what your business plan is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of procedure, typically you would first apply in your home country (either with the European Patent Office or a national one, such as the UK Intellectual Property Office), then within the next year apply in other countries (or file a PCT, to get an extra 18 months to choose other countries).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Which one is easier and less expensive if we hire a lawyer?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither the US or Europe is particularly easier than the other these days. The requirements for patentability are reasonably similar. The cost of an attorney for each is pretty similar too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically you would use an attorney in your country. They would act as a go-between for any foreign attorneys you might need. While this is more expensive than engaging all the attorneys yourself, it makes the whole process a lot easier to manage for an inexperienced inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should we register under electronic hardware or software? I heard Software patents are almost never granted.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't really register under a particular category. You (or preferably, your attorney) drafts claims to cover your invention. If your invention is in software, then you would have claims to software. If your invention is in hardware, you would have claims to hardware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Software patents are grantable if the claimed invention has a technical effect (in Europe) or is non-abstract (in the US). This generally requires that there is an effect occuring outside the software being executed. So software to better use memory in the computer is fine (since it affects the computer itself), but software to automate an algorithm is not (since it doesn't really do anything other than produce some data)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18927" RevisionGUID="7868bf06-3a02-46cb-a1e2-97476da4c2b9" CreationDate="2018-01-07T20:44:03.613" UserId="15503" Text="It is unfortunately common for US examiners to combine 3 or more documents to argue obviousness. I recall once having 6 documents cited in combination (which, predictably, we did not react kindly to). While there is generally some need for the examiner to articulate why the combination is made, there is a wide range of ways they can do so. [MPEP § 2143](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2143.html#d0e209516) provides quite some discourse about this. Notably, while an explicit motivation to combine in the prior art is one rationale, it is only one of many.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of this, in my experience, examiners generally do not yield to arguing simply that there are too many documents. That is, while such an argument has merit on a theoretical level (since the skilled person has to combine lots of different teachings from different areas, then it seems less obvious), in practice I can't see that winning you the case. You would typically need to show either something undisclosed by any document, some incompatibility between the teachings, or some kind of teaching away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a comparative note, at the EPO it is very rare for an examiner to combine 3 or more documents (though 2 is common). This is because EPO examiners take the requirement for the skilled person to have a good reason to add in each document a lot more strictly. There, multiple documents are a strong secondary indicator of an inventive step. Indeed, it is entirely possible to successfully argue that the skilled person would have no reason to combine even two documents, in the absence of some suggestion in the art to do so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18928" RevisionGUID="d99a0df0-c58a-444f-9e9f-e9919b2cde17" CreationDate="2018-01-08T00:25:08.913" UserId="15503" Text="The risk would be that they imply that the invention has certain features. If in your non-provisional you go for broader claims, there is a line of reasoning that suggests that you were not in possession of the broader embodiment when the provisional was filed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, this is only a theoretical risk. I'm not aware of any case in which this has been a deciding factor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, including claims in your provisional has one key benefit. If those claims are also in your non-provisional, there is no question of whether the provisional properly supports those claims. Of course, these do not need to be in an explicit &quot;claims&quot; section in the provisional, and could quite reasonably be in a set of statements of invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, as DonQuiKong mentioned in comments, it is usual practice for drafters to start with claims and work backwards through the description to ensure that the description properly enables the claims. The alternative runs the risks that the claims will need to include certain features which are not present (or properly described) in the description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, since you will likely be starting with claims, why not include them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18929" RevisionGUID="00ae0d4c-43e5-4f3f-bac4-74e8f8eae219" CreationDate="2018-01-08T03:21:34.740" UserId="20503" Text="I know that prior art deems that a patent application should be denied.  However, what is the specific chain of events for a company that wants to release a product asap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can they release product at application time?  Must they wait until grant time?  Can they have released the product before the patent application? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51675" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18929" RevisionGUID="00ae0d4c-43e5-4f3f-bac4-74e8f8eae219" CreationDate="2018-01-08T03:21:34.740" UserId="20503" Text="Can a company apply for a patent after they release the product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51676" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18929" RevisionGUID="00ae0d4c-43e5-4f3f-bac4-74e8f8eae219" CreationDate="2018-01-08T03:21:34.740" UserId="20503" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51677" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="267bf3e7-9ac4-4c41-bbb0-c3410915070e" CreationDate="2018-01-08T06:01:55.963" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51678" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="689d2d10-c482-4fd8-a5af-abedb37c4c84" CreationDate="2018-01-08T10:03:00.143" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18931" RevisionGUID="2a991dc1-4e45-47cc-a92c-f0b02b0911ba" CreationDate="2018-01-08T11:09:54.213" UserId="18814" Text="Can someone tell me when exactly [Patent No. US 7,716,161 B2][1] expire?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's File on Dec. 6, 2002&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US7716161.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51683" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18931" RevisionGUID="2a991dc1-4e45-47cc-a92c-f0b02b0911ba" CreationDate="2018-01-08T11:09:54.213" UserId="18814" Text="When exactly Patent No. US 7,716,161 B2 expire?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51684" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18931" RevisionGUID="2a991dc1-4e45-47cc-a92c-f0b02b0911ba" CreationDate="2018-01-08T11:09:54.213" UserId="18814" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;expiration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18932" RevisionGUID="8351c8ef-8ce0-493b-a0df-b784db228214" CreationDate="2018-01-08T11:38:03.623" UserId="20505" Text="I have a specific exercise class i have created on my own that I wish to patent and promote globally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51686" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18932" RevisionGUID="8351c8ef-8ce0-493b-a0df-b784db228214" CreationDate="2018-01-08T11:38:03.623" UserId="20505" Text="I have an exercise class I want to patent so no-one can infringe on my creation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51687" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18932" RevisionGUID="8351c8ef-8ce0-493b-a0df-b784db228214" CreationDate="2018-01-08T11:38:03.623" UserId="20505" Text="&lt;group&gt;&lt;exercise&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18933" RevisionGUID="d0d6b656-33e0-4d61-972b-77acb9054b72" CreationDate="2018-01-08T14:24:55.553" UserId="20507" Text="I need to file an extension on my patent, for the patent review process. The examiner told me there is a nominal $100.00 fee to accomplish this.  Please direct me to the appropriate form and mechanics for accomplishing this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51689" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18933" RevisionGUID="d0d6b656-33e0-4d61-972b-77acb9054b72" CreationDate="2018-01-08T14:24:55.553" UserId="20507" Text="The Patent Review Process" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51690" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18933" RevisionGUID="d0d6b656-33e0-4d61-972b-77acb9054b72" CreationDate="2018-01-08T14:24:55.553" UserId="20507" Text="&lt;extension&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18915" RevisionGUID="b1bf7c5a-5f62-4c7a-a419-483795ee5610" CreationDate="2018-01-08T16:05:37.930" UserId="19913" Comment="best estimate of what OP is trying to ask" Text="Craig 623-552-8216              I have been ripped off by an attorney that claimed he was going to partner up with me. He disappeared over night from Chandler Az. Apparently moving to California and filing  U S provisional patent application.  And now his name is on the patent I took to his office and I haven't reviewed any money or recognition . I do not understand how he can do this and get away with it . &#xD;&#xA;i have a contract from the first IP lawyer I went to see. thjs firm was very interested in my invention and ran a patent search and they offered me in writing a contract for my invention. They would do everything  I would get 15 percent yet would have no say so or voting rights concerning  my invention.  I took the contract they offered and said I would think about it..    I met with&#xD;&#xA;david george schellenberg the following day another patent attorney and he too was very interested in my invention and told me not to sign the contract I had showed him that the other patent attorney offered me the day before. there trying steal your purse and blow smoke up dress at the same time he said you can make lot more than 15 percent they are offering   m here sure don't get ripped off&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question: Is there any basis upon which the PPA (provisional patent) be denied?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51692" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18915" RevisionGUID="b1bf7c5a-5f62-4c7a-a419-483795ee5610" CreationDate="2018-01-08T16:05:37.930" Comment="Proposed by 19913 approved by 1 edit id of 2051" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51694" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18932" RevisionGUID="d4d7cee9-06b5-4bc0-b4bf-831017e267d0" CreationDate="2018-01-08T16:22:29.480" UserId="1" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="51695" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18933" RevisionGUID="6c20969f-6fb4-41f0-8d41-78722917ba1c" CreationDate="2018-01-08T16:25:05.270" UserId="1" Comment="Added question to the title." Text="Where can I find the forms to file an extension for my patent review?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18934" RevisionGUID="b0618469-4fdd-4773-8fda-5e51e2de832e" CreationDate="2018-01-08T16:52:42.853" UserId="391" Text="You should use the resources at the USPTO to determine this yourself. The USPTO maintains a [patent term calculator][1] that is helpful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/patent-term-calculator" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18935" RevisionGUID="6941ea39-af77-4139-944c-6e018a1ba360" CreationDate="2018-01-08T17:18:19.527" UserId="18033" Text="I apologize for the click bait title, but that's really my question. &#xA;&#xA;37 USC 121 or 122 (I'm at my phone, if anyone cares to correct/add paragraphs, be my guest) says something along the lines (summarized, feel free to add the exact quote)&#xA;&#xA;&gt;a patent is awarded unless ... a previously filed application that names a different inventor makes it obvious&#xA;&#xA;Claiming priority is valid if one inventor is the same (plus a few nor things) according to the relevant paragraph.&#xA;&#xA;If the priority is not valid for any claim x because the claim is not sustained by the old description, this could mean a valid priority for the patent application **and** the priority document being prior art for the obviousness of claim x. &#xA;&#xA;Wouldn't that make claiming with a different inventor (and one that's the same) a mad gamble? &#xA;&#xA;Or to put it into practical terms, shouldn't an additional inventor for an application that's supposed to claim priority reiterate if their contribution was actually enough to merit inventorship because it might kill claim x, even if they only contributed to claim y?&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51698" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18935" RevisionGUID="6941ea39-af77-4139-944c-6e018a1ba360" CreationDate="2018-01-08T17:18:19.527" UserId="18033" Text="Is claiming priority with a different inventor essentially madness?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51699" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18935" RevisionGUID="6941ea39-af77-4139-944c-6e018a1ba360" CreationDate="2018-01-08T17:18:19.527" UserId="18033" Text="&lt;usa&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18936" RevisionGUID="1b0d6c6d-fd12-4c72-9e36-054723963c7d" CreationDate="2018-01-08T17:30:21.350" UserId="18033" Text="Anywhere, it is enough to have filed an application. A patent is not granted if the known technology at the filing date makes the invention obvious or not novel.&#xA;&#xA;What happens afterwards doesn't matter for that specific patents. It does matter for following patents of improvements for example because bringing a product to market counts as publishing it.&#xA;&#xA;There is a grace period in the US and some more places (not EU or other big countries though!) Which gives you some time to file after your own publication. Don't use that if you want your patent anywhere outside the US because it even impedes a PCT application originating from the US one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18935" RevisionGUID="b6c061b7-3b17-40d8-aae1-9ff38100f601" CreationDate="2018-01-08T21:18:51.097" UserId="15503" Comment="Included a quote from the legislation" Text="I apologize for the click bait title, but that's really my question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[35 USC § 102(a)(2)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claiming priority is valid if one inventor is the same (plus a few nor things) according to the relevant paragraph.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the priority is not valid for any claim x because the claim is not sustained by the old description, this could mean a valid priority for the patent application **and** the priority document being prior art for the obviousness of claim x. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wouldn't that make claiming with a different inventor (and one that's the same) a mad gamble? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or to put it into practical terms, shouldn't an additional inventor for an application that's supposed to claim priority reiterate if their contribution was actually enough to merit inventorship because it might kill claim x, even if they only contributed to claim y?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18935" RevisionGUID="4c4becc5-a3b1-432e-9380-b079fbed8741" CreationDate="2018-01-08T21:39:45.200" UserId="18033" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I apologize for the click bait title, but that's really my question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[35 USC § 102(a)(2)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claiming priority is valid if one inventor is the same (plus a few more things) according to the relevant paragraph.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the priority is not valid for any claim x because the claim is not sustained by the old description, this could mean a valid priority for the patent application **and** the priority document being prior art for the obviousness of claim x. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wouldn't that make claiming with a different inventor (and one that's the same) a mad gamble? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or to put it into practical terms, shouldn't an additional inventor for an application that's supposed to claim priority reiterate if their contribution was actually enough to merit inventorship because it might kill claim x, even if they only contributed to claim y?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18938" RevisionGUID="1a6152ec-02ae-4c3d-a123-8732ae319dc8" CreationDate="2018-01-08T21:53:10.990" UserId="15503" Text="Consider the following scenario:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prov1 - Filed on 1 July 2016&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NP1 - Filed on 1 June 2017, claiming priority to Prov1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NP2 - Filed on 1 July 2017, claiming priority to Prov1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once NP1 is published, it is prior art as of 1 July 2016 (the filing date of Prov1). So if a claim of NP2 does not have a valid priority claim to Prov1, it must be novel/non-obvious over NP1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, [35 USC § 102(b)(2)(A)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, if an inventor of NP2 is also an inventor of NP1, then NP1 cannot be prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is analysed at [MPEP § 2154(02)(a)](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2154.html#ch2100_d20034_13f89_241):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Thus, if the subject matter in a U.S. patent document upon which the rejection is based is by another who obtained the subject matter from the inventor or a joint inventor, the applicant may establish by way of an affidavit or declaration that a disclosure is not prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I do not believe there should be any harm caused by the situation you note." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18939" RevisionGUID="f8215d12-cdf8-48f6-ab64-b811cdefb78b" CreationDate="2018-01-08T22:37:17.373" UserId="15503" Text="I assume you are looking for a one month extension of time for responding to an office action. The fee for this for a small entity is $100.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form can be found at [the USPTO](https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0022.pdf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fill this out then file it at the USPTO." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18938" RevisionGUID="35587fbd-0b29-4165-a2eb-c3c1ed003373" CreationDate="2018-01-09T05:36:46.240" UserId="3076" Comment="exception only applies for 1 year" Text="Consider the following scenario:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prov1 - Filed on 1 July 2016&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NP1 - Filed on 1 June 2017, claiming priority to Prov1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NP2 - Filed on 1 July 2017, claiming priority to Prov1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once NP1 is published, it is prior art as of 1 July 2016 (the filing date of Prov1). So if a claim of NP2 does not have a valid priority claim to Prov1, it must be novel/non-obvious over NP1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, [35 USC § 102(b)(2)(A)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(A) (b) EXCEPTIONS.—&#xD;&#xA;(1) DISCLOSURES **MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS** BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, if an inventor of NP2 is also an inventor of NP1, then NP1 cannot be prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is analysed at [MPEP § 2154(02)(a)](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2154.html#ch2100_d20034_13f89_241):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Thus, if the subject matter in a U.S. patent document upon which the rejection is based is by another who obtained the subject matter from the inventor or a joint inventor, the applicant may establish by way of an affidavit or declaration that a disclosure is not prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I do not believe there should be any harm caused by the situation you note." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18941" RevisionGUID="f4e1c8cc-2bf5-4e41-bac2-264f0268c243" CreationDate="2018-01-09T05:58:08.823" UserId="20514" Text="Are there any patent databases, besides USPTO database, that allows bulk extraction of patent information free of charge / for a minimal fee? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51715" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18941" RevisionGUID="f4e1c8cc-2bf5-4e41-bac2-264f0268c243" CreationDate="2018-01-09T05:58:08.823" UserId="20514" Text="Bulk extraction of patent information" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51716" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18941" RevisionGUID="f4e1c8cc-2bf5-4e41-bac2-264f0268c243" CreationDate="2018-01-09T05:58:08.823" UserId="20514" Text="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;databases&gt;&lt;extraction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18938" RevisionGUID="92accea1-4d67-4933-ad97-48cf7dccc7e2" CreationDate="2018-01-09T08:32:35.513" UserId="15503" Comment="There is no 1 year time limit for 102(b)(2), only for 102(b)(1)" Text="Consider the following scenario:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prov1 - Filed on 1 July 2016&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NP1 - Filed on 1 June 2017, claiming priority to Prov1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NP2 - Filed on 1 July 2017, claiming priority to Prov1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once NP1 is published, it is prior art as of 1 July 2016 (the filing date of Prov1). So if a claim of NP2 does not have a valid priority claim to Prov1, it must be novel/non-obvious over NP1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, [35 USC § 102(b)(2)(A)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Disclosures appearing in applications and patents.**—A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, if an inventor of NP2 is also an inventor of NP1, then NP1 cannot be prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is analysed at [MPEP § 2154(02)(a)](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2154.html#ch2100_d20034_13f89_241):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Thus, if the subject matter in a U.S. patent document upon which the rejection is based is by another who obtained the subject matter from the inventor or a joint inventor, the applicant may establish by way of an affidavit or declaration that a disclosure is not prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I do not believe there should be any harm caused by the situation you note." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51722" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17944" RevisionGUID="0f24c5e3-a8c7-48a1-9d16-42aea1aef2bc" CreationDate="2018-01-09T19:21:08.443" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5999" RevisionGUID="42178055-0aa0-4030-b0d6-6920b95078c8" CreationDate="2018-01-09T20:38:29.440" UserId="3076" Comment="brought info up to date" Text="Yes, google makes several different [downloads][1] available in a zip format. This data is from the USPTO and does not include OCR'd version of older patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google no longer offers this service. Go directly to the [USPTO bulk download page][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/bulk-data-products" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51729" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17944" RevisionGUID="3ead0d8f-9bfb-4f68-9eb5-b4b4a3a89419" CreationDate="2018-01-09T22:32:44.683" UserId="15503" Comment="Make the title more representative of the question" Text="Would omitting a plastic bag avoid infringement of US 8863947?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51730" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17945" RevisionGUID="385d41d7-0a36-463f-ac77-0c31ad2d76cb" CreationDate="2018-01-09T23:21:08.523" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18944" RevisionGUID="7682df3d-d64c-4421-8c66-06e0a3b9250e" CreationDate="2018-01-09T23:50:06.750" UserId="20420" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2017179083A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2017179083A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inventore Errato&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Il cognome corretto è &quot;VERDE&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51732" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18944" RevisionGUID="7682df3d-d64c-4421-8c66-06e0a3b9250e" CreationDate="2018-01-09T23:50:06.750" UserId="20420" Text="Thermal Operating Machine" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51733" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18944" RevisionGUID="7682df3d-d64c-4421-8c66-06e0a3b9250e" CreationDate="2018-01-09T23:50:06.750" UserId="20420" Text="&lt;wo2017179083a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51734" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18944" RevisionGUID="bc2b47e7-5be4-4172-9e76-10ee687c904d" CreationDate="2018-01-10T01:38:39.133" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[12392],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="51735" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17041" RevisionGUID="fe1cd438-4faa-4b81-9613-17e843018a54" CreationDate="2018-01-10T02:24:56.103" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51736" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16114" RevisionGUID="af083d15-d899-4b69-adb1-c60331939161" CreationDate="2018-01-10T03:24:57.577" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18946" RevisionGUID="d01ae78b-f1b9-4c00-8f28-adea8edd0636" CreationDate="2018-01-10T04:33:09.800" UserId="19232" Text="(Clarifying with more detail): With the original application in prosecution with multiple rejections to be resolved, is there an advantage of filing a Continuation application with the same specs but a substantially different set of claims, *as compared to* just canceling a substantial portion of original claims and resubmitting as original application with significant claims revisions? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I have been advised to consider this, but it's not yet clear to me what the advantage is.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can understand that if it's believed there's a strong chance of getting the first application through, and there's a opening seen for submitting a different set of claims that cover the invention from a very different angle, then I see how that could be an advantage. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51739" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18946" RevisionGUID="d01ae78b-f1b9-4c00-8f28-adea8edd0636" CreationDate="2018-01-10T04:33:09.800" UserId="19232" Text="Is there a clear advantage of filing a Continuation application with new claims vs. heavy revisions of original claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51740" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18946" RevisionGUID="d01ae78b-f1b9-4c00-8f28-adea8edd0636" CreationDate="2018-01-10T04:33:09.800" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;continuation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51751" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18787" RevisionGUID="d2388ad6-6bcc-4d7b-899a-02aff991945a" CreationDate="2018-01-10T16:35:02.667" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18949" RevisionGUID="24385705-e1e6-4b3d-a1a4-86156ddbf772" CreationDate="2018-01-10T21:58:29.020" UserId="19232" Text="The example is a statement such as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...a transmission function of **at least one of**:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a communications subsystem of the device, or program application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; installed on the device, capable of connecting with a communications&#xD;&#xA;&gt; service or data submission portal on a network; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a communications subsystem of the device, or program application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; installed on the device, capable of connecting with a device to which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data can be transmitted;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;–– where the conflicting prior art covers one of those options but not the other. In such a case, is the conflict unavoidable without stating that it includes both? Or restating without the use of 2 or more options?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I intend to try asking the examiner about it, but based on past efforts I am not confident I will get a useful answer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51753" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18949" RevisionGUID="24385705-e1e6-4b3d-a1a4-86156ddbf772" CreationDate="2018-01-10T21:58:29.020" UserId="19232" Text="When the examiner's rejection is based on &quot;one of&quot; language, does this necessarily mean the statement can only be allowed by changing to plural?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51754" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18949" RevisionGUID="24385705-e1e6-4b3d-a1a4-86156ddbf772" CreationDate="2018-01-10T21:58:29.020" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18950" RevisionGUID="f536e736-297d-401f-b503-19ee06283699" CreationDate="2018-01-10T22:13:04.263" UserId="15503" Text="Consider the claim:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1\. A system comprising one of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a first widget; or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a second widget.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This claim covers two completely different things: a first widget alone, or a second widget alone. It therefore is logically two claims written together:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1A. A system comprising a first widget and not a second widget.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1B. A system comprising a second widget and not a first widget.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A claim lacks novelty if the prior art shows all the features of a claimed embodiment. As such, claim 1 would lack novelty if the prior art showed either a first widget (logical claim 1A) or a second widget (logical claim 1B).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In principle, it could still be novel if the prior art discloses both the first widget and the second widget together, however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the claim were amended to read:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2\. A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a first widget; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a second widget.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 2 would lack novelty if the prior art showed a first widget and a second widget together in the same system. It is therefore a different claim from claim 1, though not necessarily narrower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, claim 2 may still may be obvious if the prior art discloses both separately. That comes down to the precise facts of course." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18951" RevisionGUID="64883ce4-b05c-4b56-82ab-6a617239a81a" CreationDate="2018-01-10T23:28:59.290" UserId="20526" Text="In reference to the patent: [US6029723][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6029723" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51757" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18951" RevisionGUID="64883ce4-b05c-4b56-82ab-6a617239a81a" CreationDate="2018-01-10T23:28:59.290" UserId="20526" Text="Is this patent abandoned?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51758" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18951" RevisionGUID="64883ce4-b05c-4b56-82ab-6a617239a81a" CreationDate="2018-01-10T23:28:59.290" UserId="20526" Text="&lt;prior&gt;&lt;us6029723&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18952" RevisionGUID="c13eb679-6527-4338-bb53-3d97e840b76a" CreationDate="2018-01-10T23:50:32.493" UserId="17003" Text="I went to the [US Public Pair][1] to check this patent's status. Checking the Fees tab yields &quot;Patent expired on 02/29/2004 due to non-payment of maintenance fee.&quot;. It might be possible to resurrect the patent, but in any case it would expire normally by Oct. 7, 2018.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51761" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17627" RevisionGUID="be56907e-7214-438a-9502-4d898f58f337" CreationDate="2018-01-11T03:40:51.673" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18953" RevisionGUID="2cc1d448-968a-48d0-8c01-e6fbdd9ddc90" CreationDate="2018-01-11T03:41:53.397" UserId="20528" Text="I am looking to add a product to my online business but want to make sure I am not infringing any patents. Dog shoes have so many styles it is very confusing. Please see below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Date App/Pub Number Status&#xD;&#xA;2002-06-17 US10173363 Expired - Fee Related&#xD;&#xA;2003-03-04 US6526920B1 Grant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2002 it is expired and then 2003 it says grant. What does this mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51763" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18953" RevisionGUID="2cc1d448-968a-48d0-8c01-e6fbdd9ddc90" CreationDate="2018-01-11T03:41:53.397" UserId="20528" Text="What does it mean if a patent's status is expired and grant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51764" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18953" RevisionGUID="2cc1d448-968a-48d0-8c01-e6fbdd9ddc90" CreationDate="2018-01-11T03:41:53.397" UserId="20528" Text="&lt;expired&gt;&lt;grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18954" RevisionGUID="4031d453-9eb6-457b-a9c1-04e6381cd86e" CreationDate="2018-01-11T04:46:31.347" UserId="20447" Text="[This old Science paper][1], among others, explains well how any public disclosure precludes patentability. How does this equation change if I file a provisional first, then publish the invention in a peer reviewed journal? Will that affect a regular patent app, based on the provisional?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2001/10/patent-first-publish-later-how-not-ruin-your-chances-winning-patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51766" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18954" RevisionGUID="4031d453-9eb6-457b-a9c1-04e6381cd86e" CreationDate="2018-01-11T04:46:31.347" UserId="20447" Text="Will publishing parts of a provisional application jeopardize regular application based on it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51767" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18954" RevisionGUID="4031d453-9eb6-457b-a9c1-04e6381cd86e" CreationDate="2018-01-11T04:46:31.347" UserId="20447" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;public-disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51768" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14445" RevisionGUID="0cd1653d-7e27-4181-b53e-e12fb3e6281e" CreationDate="2018-01-11T05:40:58.297" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18955" RevisionGUID="d16eadde-709f-40de-b451-318c02efec5e" CreationDate="2018-01-11T06:28:43.537" UserId="18033" Text="A provisional (or a non provisional) allows you to claim priority to it. That means, any application validly claiming priority in the period of one year after the filing will be assumed to have the same filing date as the priority document. &#xA;&#xA;(I'm talking about a first and second application, if you want to claim priority to an application that is already claiming priority to another application stuff becomes more complicated, but that wasn't part of the question, so this is just a side note).&#xA;&#xA;That does mean that anything published after the first application won't be prior art for the second one. **Unless** - and this is a big one - the first application isn't the same as the second. While in the US there is at least some margin, in the EU, and if you want to make sure, in the US too, the second application should be exactly the same as the first one, maybe apart from the claims, but even those need to have a solid, for the EU literal, basis in the first description.&#xA;&#xA;Which leads to a question. Why file a provisional? You could just as well file a non provisional. The biggest advantage of a provisional is that it's easier and cheaper to file and later add a non provisional with more information. But that partial priority that this way gets you might (probably will) not be enough to fight against your publication. &#xA;&#xA;Therefore, be it a provisional or not, make sure it's a good application because once the invention is published, it's to late to change the application. (In only the US there is a grace period for own publications, but that shouldn't be used of protection outside the US is needed/wanted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18955" RevisionGUID="f692fa76-97f4-4ea6-8abb-624215323755" CreationDate="2018-01-11T08:47:29.243" UserId="18033" Comment="edited body" Text="A provisional (or a non provisional) allows you to claim priority to it. That means, any application validly claiming priority in the period of one year after the filing will be assumed to have the same filing date as the priority document. &#xA;&#xA;(I'm talking about a first and second application, if you want to claim priority to an application that is already claiming priority to another application stuff becomes more complicated, but that wasn't part of the question, so this is just a side note).&#xA;&#xA;That does mean that anything published after the first application won't be prior art for the second one. **Unless** - and this is a big one - the first application isn't the same as the second. While in the US there is at least some margin, in the EU, and if you want to make sure, in the US too, the second application should be exactly the same as the first one, maybe apart from the claims, but even those need to have a solid, for the EU literal, basis in the first description.&#xA;&#xA;Which leads to a question. Why file a provisional? You could just as well file a non provisional. The biggest advantage of a provisional is that it's easier and cheaper to file and later add a non provisional with more information. But that partial priority that this way gets you might (probably will) not be enough to fight against your publication. &#xA;&#xA;Therefore, be it a provisional or not, make sure it's a good application because once the invention is published, it's to late to change the application. (In only the US there is a grace period for own publications, but that shouldn't be used if protection outside the US is needed/wanted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18956" RevisionGUID="76a4e36d-bdac-41b0-a92d-069e2c54f8ce" CreationDate="2018-01-11T10:24:51.990" UserId="17325" Text="The first date (2002-06-17) is the filing date, US10173363 is the application number. The second date (2003-03-04) is the date of issuance of the patent, and US6529620B1 is the patent number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, yes, the patent has expired for not paying renewal fees, since 2015.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The words &quot;expired-fee related&quot; in that order simply means that the patent although granted, expired fue to fee-related reasons." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51772" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="d71f74ac-54e4-4470-aacb-3724efc151ec" CreationDate="2018-01-11T14:48:54.973" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51773" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18371" RevisionGUID="4896e06d-c380-4c9f-99a0-80057cfb3f28" CreationDate="2018-01-11T15:50:55.343" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51774" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18371" RevisionGUID="9e2e444d-40c3-4206-85fc-0dad2c61aed9" CreationDate="2018-01-11T17:30:34.607" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="&lt;scope&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18960" RevisionGUID="de7e4888-ed00-4e1a-8cfb-aa910ff375f9" CreationDate="2018-01-12T12:17:35.887" UserId="20535" Text="According to my search, patent is already expired as 20 years have already passed. Below is the link.&#xD;&#xA;http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=4261226.PN.&amp;OS=PN/4261226&amp;RS=PN/4261226" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18962" RevisionGUID="b2ae6838-403e-44de-8a72-e2e2fb2a74a8" CreationDate="2018-01-12T20:36:59.303" UserId="20538" Text="I have documentation that shows that a number of individuals who claimed to be the original inventors when they signed the Declaration (37 CFR 1.63) knowingly made false statements in the filing of a Patent Application. The USPTO claims that any cure would have to be handled by an Attorney. What good does the Declaration do if the office won't enforce their own rules?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51793" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18962" RevisionGUID="b2ae6838-403e-44de-8a72-e2e2fb2a74a8" CreationDate="2018-01-12T20:36:59.303" UserId="20538" Text="Violating the rules for filing a patent application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51794" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18962" RevisionGUID="b2ae6838-403e-44de-8a72-e2e2fb2a74a8" CreationDate="2018-01-12T20:36:59.303" UserId="20538" Text="&lt;penalties&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18963" RevisionGUID="2e58693b-0c9a-4af3-85cf-763ea85eadb1" CreationDate="2018-01-12T21:12:45.640" UserId="16696" Text="This is one of the pitfalls of Patent Law in particular, IP law overall, and the field of law in general. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's quite common to see the opposite, where well funded individuals or companies can launch spurious challenges and suits, just to slow down their competitors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There a version of the golden rule for business &quot;He who has the gold, makes the rules&quot; and that definitely comes into play in situations like these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because patent litigation, in particular, is extremely expensive, one strategy you might try is to reach out to competitors of the malefactors, and see if they'd be willing to fund a challenge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's an invention with heavy social benefit, it might be possible to find an attorney willing to go [pro bono][1].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry I don't have better advice.  &quot;The law is imperfect&quot; is a fundamental concept, and here, you're dealing a regulatory agency, and potentially the courts, as opposed to elected officials and legislators.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_bono" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51797" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="03d25247-8496-4909-a742-f8bfa14a142b" CreationDate="2018-01-13T00:11:34.920" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51798" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18023" RevisionGUID="6b431a36-cf66-4574-9c72-c1fe183eed6f" CreationDate="2018-01-13T02:11:34.897" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51799" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18844" RevisionGUID="12ad7022-9fc3-4fc7-9ae2-687a1141eed5" CreationDate="2018-01-13T03:11:35.323" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18965" RevisionGUID="0e8edf09-cb63-46c9-acb1-646ee95e995e" CreationDate="2018-01-13T11:02:29.883" UserId="19929" Text="The real 'knowledge' or the learning that makes a neural network give results is the values behind of the edge weights which are literal expressions (numbers) as seen below.&#xD;&#xA;The neural network is essentially useless without these appropriate values and hence this is an extremely valuable intellectual property. Is copy-right protection available for this? What all elements of a neural network get IP protection? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9FVqo.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51804" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18965" RevisionGUID="0e8edf09-cb63-46c9-acb1-646ee95e995e" CreationDate="2018-01-13T11:02:29.883" UserId="19929" Text="Do the weights of a neural network get any kind of IP protection?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51805" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18965" RevisionGUID="0e8edf09-cb63-46c9-acb1-646ee95e995e" CreationDate="2018-01-13T11:02:29.883" UserId="19929" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;machine-learning&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18966" RevisionGUID="c1f618cc-af16-4c31-95f0-b6fc94c159b1" CreationDate="2018-01-14T01:02:12.997" UserId="15503" Text="**Do the weights of a neural network get any kind of IP protection?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost certainly not, as they are obvious (in a patent sense). The reasoning for this is a little bit indirect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neural networks in general are very well-known and commonplace. In addition, training methods for neural networks are very well-known. By applying a known training method to a known neural network, you are doing nothing more than what has been done thousands of times before. The fact that you have a unique series of values as an output is not in itself non-obvious, since they were obtained by well-known and obvious techniques. As such, it would be obvious for the person skilled in the art to try the same approach, and they would then obtain substantially the same results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you have invented a unique type of neural network, or a unique method for training, or a unique step of filtering data, or the neural network is being applied in a suprising area, then you're really doing nothing non-obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Copyright**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Copyright is off-topic here, and I would encourage you to post a similar question on Law.SE to get a full answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as an aside, almost certainly there would be no copyright in the weights of a neural network, since they would not involve even a modicum of creativity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51809" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="e2bdd69d-740f-45b7-97e7-355fa9b69684" CreationDate="2018-01-14T09:21:21.910" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51810" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18577" RevisionGUID="b9d9f195-2cb0-41e7-8505-4eba1b834696" CreationDate="2018-01-14T15:23:09.840" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51811" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17832" RevisionGUID="1bf82fec-8184-417e-bfce-4eae5881c7d0" CreationDate="2018-01-14T18:23:30.067" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18967" RevisionGUID="ae470bc3-e0d8-4704-8363-f7b7b18e5e7d" CreationDate="2018-01-14T19:12:09.313" UserId="19913" Text="When filing a patent application for a device &amp; process, is the Trademark name associated with the device &amp; process filed separately or within the patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51813" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18967" RevisionGUID="ae470bc3-e0d8-4704-8363-f7b7b18e5e7d" CreationDate="2018-01-14T19:12:09.313" UserId="19913" Text="Device trademark inutility patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51814" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18967" RevisionGUID="ae470bc3-e0d8-4704-8363-f7b7b18e5e7d" CreationDate="2018-01-14T19:12:09.313" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;trademark&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18968" RevisionGUID="c8135236-9502-4f90-a4b5-06bc6eba6041" CreationDate="2018-01-14T20:03:50.010" UserId="15503" Text="Separately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents and trademarks are entirely unrelated kinds of intellectual property. Indeed, in some cases, they are handled by different agencies (such as in Europe, with the EPO for patents and the EUIPO for trademarks)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18967" RevisionGUID="9266f0fb-b4ac-4ab2-a0a5-2b057608b082" CreationDate="2018-01-14T20:27:33.067" UserId="15503" Comment="Make the title more representative of the question" Text="When filing a patent application for a device &amp; process, is the trademark name associated with the device &amp; process filed separately or within the patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51817" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18967" RevisionGUID="9266f0fb-b4ac-4ab2-a0a5-2b057608b082" CreationDate="2018-01-14T20:27:33.067" UserId="15503" Comment="Make the title more representative of the question" Text="Can I apply for a patent and a trademark in the same application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18967" RevisionGUID="74bb9524-08bc-454e-81b3-909c61421b9a" CreationDate="2018-01-14T21:58:46.460" UserId="19913" Comment="Updated to confine scope to USPTO" Text="When filing a USPTO patent application for a device &amp; process, is the trademark name associated with the device &amp; process filed separately or within the patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18969" RevisionGUID="929ede66-a10f-49e5-8f98-42f670ed080a" CreationDate="2018-01-14T22:12:01.580" UserId="19913" Text="I plan to have either an attorney or patent agent review a **patent application**.  I would like to avoid any pitfalls regarding patent information disclosure that would jeopardize the patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If sent through email to the patent attorney / agent, does there need to be any verbiage or agreement to ensure that I am not 'disclosing' and leaving the door open to the recipient to patent the content?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is there any label that can be put in the header / footer of the patent application that would indicate intent to not disclose?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to the second, classified information is clearly labeled in a header so as to ensure that the reader knows the context.  Not sure if this is possible in this question's context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any best practices or pitfalls to avoid are always appreciated: thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51820" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18969" RevisionGUID="929ede66-a10f-49e5-8f98-42f670ed080a" CreationDate="2018-01-14T22:12:01.580" UserId="19913" Text="Labeling Patent Applications to avoid disclosure" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51821" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18969" RevisionGUID="929ede66-a10f-49e5-8f98-42f670ed080a" CreationDate="2018-01-14T22:12:01.580" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;public-disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18970" RevisionGUID="22ed8abe-cbdb-4dbc-8fcf-dcae7e8fae07" CreationDate="2018-01-14T22:27:01.647" UserId="19913" Text="Many patented devices have drawing to illustrate physical form to support functional claims.   If the device is a data-collection system (using existing non-patentable components):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is the physical form of the system irrelevant: there is no reason to draw an example of the embodiment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The arrangement / interconnection of the components is the patent 'secret sauce': I would think the USPTO expect that this should be drawn to clarify.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is there any other purpose for drawings in this context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any questions or suggestions to sharpen the question are appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51823" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18970" RevisionGUID="22ed8abe-cbdb-4dbc-8fcf-dcae7e8fae07" CreationDate="2018-01-14T22:27:01.647" UserId="19913" Text="Purpose of drawings" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51824" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18970" RevisionGUID="22ed8abe-cbdb-4dbc-8fcf-dcae7e8fae07" CreationDate="2018-01-14T22:27:01.647" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;drawing&gt;&lt;patent-drawings&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18971" RevisionGUID="592d981f-58f3-436d-8181-1cb272dc9c0c" CreationDate="2018-01-14T22:36:32.183" UserId="19913" Text="If I am searching for a patent agent to review a patent application, I would expect that the agent would want to understand the size / complexity of the work. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this typically ballparked?  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* page count of the drawings and &#xD;&#xA;* a page count non-drawings (reading material)&#xD;&#xA;* number of claims + page count of claims " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51826" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18971" RevisionGUID="592d981f-58f3-436d-8181-1cb272dc9c0c" CreationDate="2018-01-14T22:36:32.183" UserId="19913" Text="Patent Application Size" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51827" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18971" RevisionGUID="592d981f-58f3-436d-8181-1cb272dc9c0c" CreationDate="2018-01-14T22:36:32.183" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18973" RevisionGUID="95a4b453-6c3e-4e39-b3a7-85521e4fe171" CreationDate="2018-01-14T23:15:52.373" UserId="15503" Text="The purpose of drawings is to help explain the invention, including ensuring it is enabled. Consequently, you should include any drawings that would be useful for the reader to this end. If no drawings would be useful, then there is no obligation to include any.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the invention subsists in how the known elements are connected together, then this could well be shown in the drawings. For example, a diagram of components with lines showing connections would be reasonable. Additionally or alternatively, a flow chart showing the steps performed at different components would also be reasonable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18974" RevisionGUID="abafb636-459d-4cc5-b9f5-023f43923147" CreationDate="2018-01-14T23:45:48.057" UserId="15503" Text="Headers are more or less irrelevant. The issue is one of fact: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For patent attorneys and agents who you have engaged, any disclosures you make to them are confidential and privileged. They would not be able to make any of the matter public (at the risk of losing their licence to practice). You should therefore feel quite comfortable disclosing matter to your attorney/agent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, they would likely want to have accepted you as a client beforehand before you send a patent application, to ensure they have no conflicts. And that's just politeness really.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anything you write in the body of the email is more or less irrelevant to whether the content is confidential or not. If you have disclosed your invention, it's been disclosed, regardless of whether you say you intended to or not (since by sending the email, you clearly intended to disclose it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some cases (and specifically for large US corporates where litigation is a real likelihood), it may be prudent to explicitly mark communications with your attorneys as being privileged, so as to facilitate the inevitable discovery process. But that's not going to really change whether it's privileged or not, it just makes it clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, where the recipient has a duty of confidence (such as after they have disclosed an NDA), it may be useful to mark communications as being confidential, as a prompt to remind them of their duty. But you can't unilaterally import a duty of confidence on someone just by saying &quot;this is confidential&quot; at the top of an email.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, it's for this reason that those ridiculous paragraphs at the end of emails about unintended recipients make no sense. They have no legal force, and just waste everyone's time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18974" RevisionGUID="b2cfc682-c0a4-497a-8bf9-d227498212b4" CreationDate="2018-01-15T00:27:14.887" UserId="15503" Comment="deleted 67 characters in body" Text="For patent attorneys and agents who you have engaged, any disclosures you make to them are confidential and privileged. They would not be able to make any of the matter public (at the risk of losing their licence to practice). You should therefore feel quite comfortable disclosing matter to your attorney/agent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, they would likely want to have accepted you as a client beforehand before you send a patent application, to ensure they have no conflicts. And that's just politeness really.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anything you write in the body of the email is more or less irrelevant to whether the content is confidential or not. If you have disclosed your invention, it's been disclosed, regardless of whether you say you intended to or not (since by sending the email, you clearly intended to disclose it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some cases (and specifically for large US corporates where litigation is a real likelihood), it may be prudent to explicitly mark communications with your attorneys as being privileged, so as to facilitate the inevitable discovery process. But that's not going to really change whether it's privileged or not, it just makes it clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, where the recipient has a duty of confidence (such as after they have disclosed an NDA), it may be useful to mark communications as being confidential, as a prompt to remind them of their duty. But you can't unilaterally import a duty of confidence on someone just by saying &quot;this is confidential&quot; at the top of an email.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, it's for this reason that those ridiculous paragraphs at the end of emails about unintended recipients make no sense. They have no legal force, and just waste everyone's time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18976" RevisionGUID="64ce0bde-3e90-45cf-a351-a20dde68ba1e" CreationDate="2018-01-15T11:25:13.173" UserId="20549" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8060994][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8060994&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please look at the following existing patent for a self-locking carabiner: https://www.google.co.in/patents/US5005266&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In lieu of the same, is not the patent in instant case a mere improvement over the existing patent? How can it be deemed to be 'novel' and 'non-obvious'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51839" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18976" RevisionGUID="64ce0bde-3e90-45cf-a351-a20dde68ba1e" CreationDate="2018-01-15T11:25:13.173" UserId="20549" Text="How does this particular patent satisfy the tests of obviousness and novelty?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51840" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18976" RevisionGUID="64ce0bde-3e90-45cf-a351-a20dde68ba1e" CreationDate="2018-01-15T11:25:13.173" UserId="20549" Text="&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;us8060994&gt;&lt;us5005266&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18977" RevisionGUID="343bfecb-f1ba-4b43-8b47-b7ffdcece383" CreationDate="2018-01-15T15:05:30.947" UserId="17003" Text="Many if not most patents are improvements on existing technology. While US5005266  patents a particular method of self-locking carabiner, it by no means patents the general idea of self-locking carabiners or every possible mechanism. In this case, the new patent has a different method of locking closed the pivoting gate mechanism. It is pretty clearly different based on the figures as it uses a threaded barrel to lock the pivot. I'm not sure why you singled out US5005266 as prior art. US8060994 cites quite a [few other patents][1] too. The status of US8060994 as listed in the [US Public Pair][2] is: &quot;Patent Expired Due to NonPayment of Maintenance Fees Under 37 CFR 1.362&quot; as of 12-21-2015. So it isn't currently enforceable. It is possible there is yet some other prior art that keeps it from being enforced so that the assignee decided it wasn't worth paying maintenance fees. However, that is pure speculation on my part. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8060994#backward-citations&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18978" RevisionGUID="ab9552e0-7b39-4a17-ae23-991a9520e833" CreationDate="2018-01-15T17:23:02.780" UserId="20551" Text="How do you get money from your account to any patent offices bank account across the world with certainty of them receiving the correct amount in various currencies as cheap as possible?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51846" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18978" RevisionGUID="ab9552e0-7b39-4a17-ae23-991a9520e833" CreationDate="2018-01-15T17:23:02.780" UserId="20551" Text="Best way of transfering money to patent offices" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51847" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18978" RevisionGUID="ab9552e0-7b39-4a17-ae23-991a9520e833" CreationDate="2018-01-15T17:23:02.780" UserId="20551" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;bank&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51848" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="717f57d7-5df0-4cf8-b098-b2374eb03cb2" CreationDate="2018-01-15T21:36:00.913" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18979" RevisionGUID="8e659721-854e-492c-96bc-32234c70981e" CreationDate="2018-01-15T21:55:21.423" UserId="20552" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8424138][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8424138" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51850" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18979" RevisionGUID="8e659721-854e-492c-96bc-32234c70981e" CreationDate="2018-01-15T21:55:21.423" UserId="20552" Text="Is this patent limited to the usa or internationally?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51851" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18979" RevisionGUID="8e659721-854e-492c-96bc-32234c70981e" CreationDate="2018-01-15T21:55:21.423" UserId="20552" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;us&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18980" RevisionGUID="d5548147-b908-4898-a09f-605281ee39d1" CreationDate="2018-01-15T23:10:19.290" UserId="17003" Text="This is a US patent. The hint is the first two letters being &quot;US&quot;. US patents only cover products made or sold in the US. Often US patents will have international equivalents. In Google Patents you often see a link for &quot;Also published as&quot; where you will find other patents and applications associated with the invention. I prefer [The Lens][1] for patent searching. There you will find a tab for &quot;Family Info&quot; which contains links to other associated patent documents. [This link][2] shows that there is no international equivalents for US8424138. Please note that although this patent is limited to the US, there are a lot of patents related to portable infant seats so you may need to consider other patents before marketing a product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_8424138_B1/family" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51853" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18852" RevisionGUID="2bc62807-224d-4bad-9aae-ff93f03fb7f5" CreationDate="2018-01-16T00:35:46.780" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18981" RevisionGUID="7ce40697-09db-43f5-852b-9f0c3d33dd58" CreationDate="2018-01-16T01:22:53.470" UserId="14403" Text="In most countries, it is mandatory that patent applications are filed by patent attorney or agent registered in that country on behalf of inventor. For those countries means of payment of fees from 'your account' is purely academic. What @ DonQuiKong has said about payment procedure is right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, few countries like the US, India allow filing by inventor himself. For those countries, one can pay online by credit card. Correct amount is paid since, amount to be paid is calculated by the office site before payment. I have always found the correct amount has been credited to official account immediately. Your additional fees are credit card fee for the transaction which you pay after billing.      " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18982" RevisionGUID="eabe7e03-f53f-428f-8b42-b2193240e76c" CreationDate="2018-01-16T01:29:32.943" UserId="19232" Text="Is there necessarily any risk or self-imposed limitation in having a Claim 1 statement like this –  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for [*fill in details here*] on a computing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; device controlled by touchscreen input, and ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;– if there will also be a dependent claim that covers other means of controlling the computing device, such as by a moving cursor?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tentative reasoning is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The invention actually is primarily for touchscreen devices, but would also be applicable in other environments;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Based on prior art cited in an earlier rejection, it seems I may have to narrow it in this way, but I am not sure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51856" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18982" RevisionGUID="eabe7e03-f53f-428f-8b42-b2193240e76c" CreationDate="2018-01-16T01:29:32.943" UserId="19232" Text="Stating a specific class of computing device, such as touchscreen devices, in the first independent claim" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51857" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18982" RevisionGUID="eabe7e03-f53f-428f-8b42-b2193240e76c" CreationDate="2018-01-16T01:29:32.943" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51858" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17662" RevisionGUID="90b3b48f-ce57-4e1f-a086-575f4e013a9a" CreationDate="2018-01-16T01:36:03.520" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51859" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17248" RevisionGUID="c7669ef3-d762-44a0-a3c0-ecda611f798c" CreationDate="2018-01-16T02:36:02.140" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18983" RevisionGUID="cc6c67e3-68a5-43c9-9e2c-3b9381d2b98b" CreationDate="2018-01-16T04:59:32.510" UserId="15503" Text="Is it essential that the computing device has a touchscreen? If not, then it should not be in your independent claim. It is generally irrelevant whether it is your most likely implementation or not, if your goal is to maximise your scope of protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, by including this feature, you are limiting your protection to a single embodiment. While this can be necessary if there is prior art, you do not seem to be specifically aware of any prior art requiring this. Because of this, it seems an own goal to limit yourself unnecessarily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, you cannot have a dependent claim broaden an independent claim, as that is not the role for a dependent claim. Your dependent claim would likely be objected to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51861" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="7269fd9b-02d8-4073-a8a9-1e6050afa90a" CreationDate="2018-01-16T05:36:02.280" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51862" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16666" RevisionGUID="dbf891f3-062b-498f-93e4-f95a7d287770" CreationDate="2018-01-16T06:36:02.507" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18984" RevisionGUID="5a4f615c-0d55-4831-bfdf-e31ea3895100" CreationDate="2018-01-16T07:12:05.140" UserId="17325" Text="Important to add that patents are territorial rights. Patents with No US-N,NNN,NNN are US patents with effect only to the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;JP is for Japana, CA is for Canada, etc etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you see WO-YYYY-NNNNNN this is a **patent application** filed and published via the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). They never mature to patents. They are only used as a centralized procedure from which the applicant chooses to **enter** territories and countries of his choice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51864" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="0116b151-2f1f-4976-aa6a-1f3a00b13e80" CreationDate="2018-01-16T07:36:02.417" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18986" RevisionGUID="7bd56690-167b-4d78-b438-a5f94f546ab9" CreationDate="2018-01-16T13:14:03.743" UserId="18033" Text="As Macas answer already says, you can't have dependent claims that protect anything outside the scope of the independent claim. &#xA;&#xA;What you can do would be saying “... controlled by an input device, preferably a touch screen,“. This gives you a way of having a dependent claim (touchscreen) in the independent claim as an optional element. So basically two claims in one. &#xA;&#xA;Note however, if you need to add the touchscreen the other claims with other input means won't be dependent anymore and you'll likely have to give them up.&#xA;&#xA;More important however, using a touchscreen as an input device will, in almost all cases, not be enough to merit non-obviousness. So apart from novelty against unpublished applications in the EU for example, where unpublished prior art doesn't count for inventive step, there is likely no benefit from adding the touchscreen as a must-have feature. &#xA;&#xA;The person skilled in the art knows that touch screens are a thing today. If your invention works without one, it's not inventive to add one (&gt;99% of the cases)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18984" RevisionGUID="0618abe0-5bf4-4ef0-a2eb-bdcc98d45fb7" CreationDate="2018-01-16T15:21:38.963" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Important to add that patents are territorial rights. Patents with No US-N,NNN,NNN are US patents with effect only to the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;JP is for Japan, CA is for Canada, etc etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you see WO-YYYY-NNNNNN this is a **patent application** filed and published via the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). They never mature to patents. They are only used as a centralized procedure from which the applicant chooses to **enter** territories and countries of his choice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51871" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13366" RevisionGUID="b927fb52-eb41-414d-bfcf-0166e27b8f88" CreationDate="2018-01-16T18:40:50.680" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18987" RevisionGUID="9658252d-2adc-4cd6-a1f9-a1a5dc77a30e" CreationDate="2018-01-16T18:55:02.460" UserId="19232" Text="*More specifically:* The claim is not in regard to a new type of memory or storage, or a new usage of storage. It only refers to a computing device's capabilities to store data both temporarily and semi-permanently. For example, the difference between a captured photo or video image, or audio sample, that is dismissed if not specifically designated to be saved, vs. ones that are saved on a drive of any type. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51873" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18987" RevisionGUID="9658252d-2adc-4cd6-a1f9-a1a5dc77a30e" CreationDate="2018-01-16T18:55:02.460" UserId="19232" Text="Does the phrase “data stored in the memory or persistent storage of the device” (if used in a claim) adequately cover data storage functions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51874" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18987" RevisionGUID="9658252d-2adc-4cd6-a1f9-a1a5dc77a30e" CreationDate="2018-01-16T18:55:02.460" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51875" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17844" RevisionGUID="59ea2997-fdd0-4a29-bf81-74fa1829ebc6" CreationDate="2018-01-16T19:41:07.197" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18988" RevisionGUID="600f5483-5b48-4193-b44c-642e249a4b11" CreationDate="2018-01-16T19:54:40.230" UserId="3076" Text="You do not suggest adding new matter in either scenario. In that case it is infinitely better to file the new application as a continuation of the first application. Designating it as a continuation basically means you are claiming priority from the previous application. Without that priority, anything that came out between the filing of the first and the filing of the second application is fair game to use as prior art against the second application. If enough time has past, the first application itself might be prior art against the second application!  In a continuation application the specification is usually identical to the parent application but that is not a rule. The rule is that the specification of the second application cannot add new matter and the claims of the second application must be supported by the specification of the first application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51877" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17664" RevisionGUID="deb85ab7-cffb-476d-9b68-08ac30b34926" CreationDate="2018-01-16T20:41:08.317" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51878" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18581" RevisionGUID="3a021380-5fa4-44ad-b4b1-62e738f8119d" CreationDate="2018-01-16T22:41:10.543" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18988" RevisionGUID="203f4eb8-6896-4655-9935-011c03c15814" CreationDate="2018-01-16T23:53:55.830" UserId="3076" Comment="added third possible option" Text="You do not suggest adding new matter in either scenario. In that case it is infinitely better to file the new application as a continuation of the first application. Designating it as a continuation basically means you are claiming priority from the previous application. Without that priority, anything that came out between the filing of the first and the filing of the second application is fair game to use as prior art against the second application. If enough time has past, the first application itself might be prior art against the second application!  In a continuation application the specification is usually identical to the parent application but that is not a rule. The rule is that the specification of the second application cannot add new matter and the claims of the second application must be supported by the specification of the first application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A third option, that I'm not sure you were asking about, is to cancel most or all of the claims in the present application and amend-in a completely different claim set. This is often done if the initial claim set has turned out to be indefinite and confusingly worded or the examiner has turned up art that is very on-target. If you do that, the examiner can push back and state that the new claims cover a different invention or different species of the invention of the initial claims and that you have already effectively made an election by initial presentation. If the new claims are directed to an entirely different aspect of disclosed subject matter, this is very likely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18989" RevisionGUID="598a85a7-a3af-4230-89d9-957dfe7b2398" CreationDate="2018-01-17T01:08:10.923" UserId="3076" Text="A basic requirement of design patent application drawings is that all of the views show the same, consistent, item. If a line is solid in one view it needs to solid in other views of the same thing. Design patents can cover alternate embodiments and a feature that is shown as a solid line in one embodiment might be a broken line in another embodiment. An issue you have in amending a drawing is avoiding adding new matter. There is a fine line between a clarification and adding new matter. Fortunately, design application examiners are almost universally helpful and will often look at a faxed proposed drawing on an informal basis before you settle on something you will actually submit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18990" RevisionGUID="3c6e5c5b-fd19-4c72-9db8-26b6bbf792bc" CreationDate="2018-01-17T01:14:25.107" UserId="14547" Text="I filed a patent application as a pro se inventor and I've now received an office action. Between the filing date of the application and now, I've discovered that I don't have a need for this patent application and I would like to abandon the application entirely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I respond to this office action so I can successfully abandon this patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51882" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18990" RevisionGUID="3c6e5c5b-fd19-4c72-9db8-26b6bbf792bc" CreationDate="2018-01-17T01:14:25.107" UserId="14547" Text="How would I go about abandoning this patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51883" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18990" RevisionGUID="3c6e5c5b-fd19-4c72-9db8-26b6bbf792bc" CreationDate="2018-01-17T01:14:25.107" UserId="14547" Text="&lt;pro-se&gt;&lt;intellectual-property&gt;&lt;office-action&gt;&lt;response&gt;&lt;abandonment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18991" RevisionGUID="b1a821f4-3d12-4cee-849e-99f4c82b9fb5" CreationDate="2018-01-17T01:53:14.860" UserId="15503" Text="You need not do anything. It will become abandoned by your failure to reply in time ([37 CFR 1.135(a)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.135)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, if you want, you can expressly abandon your application by filing a letter to this effect ([37 CFR 1.138](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.138)). However, if you do this, there's little chance of reviving it later. It would therefore be a pretty rare case that this is a good idea, and perhaps only to avoid publication." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18946" RevisionGUID="6f85e344-deda-4f42-a96e-a9216d607244" CreationDate="2018-01-17T02:14:28.853" UserId="19232" Comment="added 374 characters in body" Text="(Clarifying with more detail): With the original application in prosecution with multiple rejections to be resolved, is there an advantage of filing a Continuation application with the same specs but a substantially different set of claims, *as compared to* just canceling a substantial portion of original claims and resubmitting as original application with significant claims revisions? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I have been advised to consider this, but it's not yet clear to me what the advantage is.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**CORRECTION:** I was one word off, causing some confusion. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;resubmitting as original application with significant claims revisions&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;should have been:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;resubmitting as *amended* application with significant claims revisions.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, in my case, an RCE (Request for Continued Examination) because it's already had 2 O.A.'s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can understand that if it's believed there's a strong chance of getting the first application through, and there's a opening seen for submitting a different set of claims that cover the invention from a very different angle, then I see how that could be an advantage. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51886" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17660" RevisionGUID="96d1b5a2-c6d0-4378-927d-7fdf4eeb760c" CreationDate="2018-01-17T02:41:36.730" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51898" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18261" RevisionGUID="d549891a-1712-4e3d-8b07-8def32128058" CreationDate="2018-01-17T10:46:04.180" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18994" RevisionGUID="811aa11b-c04c-43f3-b1ec-40e19a7de461" CreationDate="2018-01-17T19:52:17.310" UserId="20571" Text="I read something earlier that discussed a scenario something might be created under.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is what I am trying to understand.  If I created lets say a &quot;vacuum cleaner&quot; and rather than opening on the top or side to get to the bag, I created it so that it would open at the BOTTOM!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would that be a significant enough of a difference to qualify?  Or is it ALSO that I did something to MY version that others weren't doing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously my &quot;idea&quot; isn't a &quot;vacuum cleaner&quot;, I am simply trying to understand whether its worth persuing if there are other &quot;variations&quot; out there.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And how do CLAIMS fit it the whole process?   You cant make the SAME claim as someone else?  Or you have to make claims they DON'T?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for your attempt to &quot;educate me&quot;!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HELP me Obi Wan Kenobi!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stan THE man" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51900" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18994" RevisionGUID="811aa11b-c04c-43f3-b1ec-40e19a7de461" CreationDate="2018-01-17T19:52:17.310" UserId="20571" Text="Understanding how patents work" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51901" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18994" RevisionGUID="811aa11b-c04c-43f3-b1ec-40e19a7de461" CreationDate="2018-01-17T19:52:17.310" UserId="20571" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18995" RevisionGUID="374b55bc-08b1-4737-9a0b-63fab5d1bba2" CreationDate="2018-01-17T20:14:50.997" UserId="20572" Text="The original manufacturer still holds the patent (Lapsed ) but no longer produces the item. What are my options to license or buy the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51903" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18995" RevisionGUID="374b55bc-08b1-4737-9a0b-63fab5d1bba2" CreationDate="2018-01-17T20:14:50.997" UserId="20572" Text="I want to manufacture a product that is patented but no longer produced" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51904" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18995" RevisionGUID="374b55bc-08b1-4737-9a0b-63fab5d1bba2" CreationDate="2018-01-17T20:14:50.997" UserId="20572" Text="&lt;lapsed&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17446" RevisionGUID="d66b3552-ed68-4bf4-ac1d-1ba1c0b095cf" CreationDate="2018-01-17T21:04:50.877" UserId="17003" Comment="Added comment as to whether inoperable patents should be granted." Text="It is a real patent in that it has been granted. That does not guarantee that the invention actually works. There is no burden to prove that a patented technology works before having a patent granted. If it doesn't work, it isn't much value as no one would want to infringe the patent anyway. This doesn't mean the patent won't cause problems as prior art for other inventions. That said, an invention that doesn't actually work should not, in my opinion, be granted a patent as it doesn't demonstrate utility or enablement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18996" RevisionGUID="2d8e397a-72d2-4a72-b7c7-ec8bc958513e" CreationDate="2018-01-17T21:24:30.717" UserId="17003" Text="In order to obtain a patent, your invention must demonstrate novelty, usefulness, and non-obviousness. Novelty means the invention is new and not known to the public. Useful means there must be some utility. Non-obvious means someone skilled in the field wouldn't find your invention straightforward or within the state-of-the-art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your scenario, I'm not sure just having your vacuum cleaner bag access open at the bottom would be considered sufficiently novel or non-obvious. One thing the patent examiner will do is search all previous patents and applications for documents related to your invention. If there is some unique advantage to your scheme, then you might convince the examiner, but I think in this case that isn't likely. In any case, if there is no advantage to your invention, then there isn't a strong case for pursuing a patent since no one will likely want to use your idea anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for claims, these are what define precisely what is protected. Writing claims is serious legal work where the exact language and legal precedent are important. In my opinion, you should always work with an actually patent attorney or agent when drafting and prosecuting a patent. A poorly drafted patent may provide little if any actual value." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16666" RevisionGUID="3a2f3672-0557-462b-b30e-d9c1928093b2" CreationDate="2018-01-17T21:25:59.807" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to patent" Text="I want to know how I can find out if [US6506148][1] is a real patent or a hoax?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is currently my first attempt to answer my question. I have not looked or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;searched anywhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6506148B2/en?oq=US6506148" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18997" RevisionGUID="fa19f7e3-cf34-4aa5-82bb-8c5c46c116a3" CreationDate="2018-01-17T22:26:42.510" UserId="16696" Text="Regarding claims, having claims that are &quot;too broad&quot; can also impact viability.  Thus the concept of **&quot;limiting the claims&quot; can be very important.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a somewhat recent trend, via pharma, that new uses for an existing method are patent eligible, which demonstrates the principle of limiting claims.  (i.e. not seeking patent for the method in general, as applicable to any use, but claiming a specific use.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See: [Understanding Patent Claims][1] and [35 U.S. Code § 112][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eligibility may also depend on the &quot;field of the invention&quot; [37 CFR 1.71 ][3]. *[See also:  [Understanding the Specification of the Invention][4]]*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, certain types of methods may be deemed too &quot;abstract&quot; by the patent reviewer, as in the case of some algorithmic patents.  If the invention is for a physical device, either mechanical or computer hardware, the poorly defined term &quot;abstract&quot; won't likely be an issue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also understand that in patent law, nothing is certain, and the scope of what constitutes patent eligible subject matter is always changing.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;Provisional Patents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you believe in your invention, but aren't quite ready to shell our a lot of money, definitely pursue a provisional patent.  This gives you a year of &quot;blanket protection&quot;, and does not require public disclosure.  You can use this to protect the IP if you plan on &quot;shopping it&quot; to investors, who are unlikely to sign non-disclosure agreements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many recommend attorneys, even for provisionals, but not all attorneys share this view.  So long as the provisional is clearly written, it should protect temporarily whatever is covered, so long as a formal patent application is subsequently submitted, and ultimately receives a grant.  Provisional patents also carry the right to use &quot;patent pending&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key for provisionals is to be exhaustive.  Anything you omit will not receive protection, and, even if subsequently filed, will not have the the same priority (date of submission of the original document).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/07/12/understanding-patent-claims/id=50349/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/112&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/01/02/patent-drafting-understanding-specification-invention/id=64380/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18998" RevisionGUID="b5b2cd73-a4ec-4efb-9267-2a85b572fb50" CreationDate="2018-01-17T23:18:32.557" UserId="17003" Text="It would be helpful if you provided the patent number. Assuming the patent is lapsed due to non-payment of maintenance fees, the patent isn't enforceable. However it may be possible to revive a lapsed patent. [This is the USPTO page][1] covering this process. Here is another [webpage][2] with more information. If the patent has reached its regular expiration date of 20 years after the filing (or priority) date including any patent term extensions, then it can not be revived.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2590.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patentassociate.com/patentblog/2016/09/21/reviving-abandoned-patents/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51910" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18994" RevisionGUID="805fc98a-a29b-4bdb-a513-c87e866e8bb8" CreationDate="2018-01-18T01:37:06.920" UserId="-1" Comment="remove thanks &amp; sig" Text="I read something earlier that discussed a scenario something might be created under.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is what I am trying to understand.  If I created lets say a &quot;vacuum cleaner&quot; and rather than opening on the top or side to get to the bag, I created it so that it would open at the BOTTOM!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would that be a significant enough of a difference to qualify?  Or is it ALSO that I did something to MY version that others weren't doing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously my &quot;idea&quot; isn't a &quot;vacuum cleaner&quot;, I am simply trying to understand whether its worth persuing if there are other &quot;variations&quot; out there.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And how do CLAIMS fit it the whole process?   You cant make the SAME claim as someone else?  Or you have to make claims they DON'T?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51911" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18994" RevisionGUID="805fc98a-a29b-4bdb-a513-c87e866e8bb8" CreationDate="2018-01-18T01:37:06.920" Comment="Proposed by 108.184.182.152|0e2d11fd-f5d4-48de-835f-8a91a60e891b approved by -1 edit id of 2052" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18997" RevisionGUID="9497908f-0021-4a55-bbcc-30519b10b468" CreationDate="2018-01-18T01:45:37.423" UserId="3076" Comment="no such thing as a provisional patent" Text="Regarding claims, having claims that are &quot;too broad&quot; can also impact viability.  Thus the concept of **&quot;limiting the claims&quot; can be very important.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a somewhat recent trend, via pharma, that new uses for an existing method are patent eligible, which demonstrates the principle of limiting claims.  (i.e. not seeking patent for the method in general, as applicable to any use, but claiming a specific use.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See: [Understanding Patent Claims][1] and [35 U.S. Code § 112][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eligibility may also depend on the &quot;field of the invention&quot; [37 CFR 1.71 ][3]. *[See also:  [Understanding the Specification of the Invention][4]]*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, certain types of methods may be deemed too &quot;abstract&quot; by the patent reviewer, as in the case of some algorithmic patents.  If the invention is for a physical device, either mechanical or computer hardware, the poorly defined term &quot;abstract&quot; won't likely be an issue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also understand that in patent law, nothing is certain, and the scope of what constitutes patent eligible subject matter is always changing.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;Provisional Patent Applications&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you believe in your invention, but aren't quite ready to shell our a lot of money, definitely pursue a provisional patent.  This gives you a year of &quot;priority&quot;, and does not require public disclosure.  You can use this to protect the IP if you plan on &quot;shopping it&quot; to investors, who are unlikely to sign non-disclosure agreements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many recommend attorneys, even for provisionals, but not all attorneys share this view.  So long as the provisional is clearly written, supported by clear drawings and sufficiently explains how to make and use the invention, it can protect temporarily whatever is covered, so long as a formal patent application is subsequently submitted, and ultimately receives a grant.  Provisional patent applications also carry the right to use &quot;patent pending&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key for provisionals is to be exhaustive.  Anything you omit will not receive protection, and, even if subsequently filed, will not have the the same priority (date of submission of the original document).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/07/12/understanding-patent-claims/id=50349/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/112&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/01/02/patent-drafting-understanding-specification-invention/id=64380/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18999" RevisionGUID="356342f2-9d7f-44db-a46f-2b13623eb967" CreationDate="2018-01-18T08:32:56.197" UserId="20577" Text="My grandfather Arden A. Alfvegren - patented this screen in his spare time, while working for an architecture firm. He died in 1976, nine months before I was born. I am the only grandchild in the family; my mother and her three siblings are all a bit crazy. My uncle tells me that this screen held his invention, a proto-solar panel, and that the architecture firm he worked for at the time, sued him for it, although they didn't understand the concept of solar power. I know he started his own company, called Solar-On. And he affixed prototypes of this invention in a few places around Los Angeles. How can I find out if someone still holds this patent? Or is doing anything with it? I understand patents expire within two decades of their being issued, but know nothing of patent law beyond that. Thank you kindly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [USD201045][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD201045" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51915" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18999" RevisionGUID="356342f2-9d7f-44db-a46f-2b13623eb967" CreationDate="2018-01-18T08:32:56.197" UserId="20577" Text="My grandfather's patent... a screen to hold a solar panel (before they existed)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51916" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18999" RevisionGUID="356342f2-9d7f-44db-a46f-2b13623eb967" CreationDate="2018-01-18T08:32:56.197" UserId="20577" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18999" RevisionGUID="c9c1122d-0b45-4966-935e-1d8ac8917b82" CreationDate="2018-01-18T15:01:14.827" UserId="1" Comment="removed solicition for personal contact offline" Text="My grandfather Arden A. Alfvegren - patented this screen in his spare time, while working for an architecture firm. He died in 1976, nine months before I was born. I am the only grandchild in the family; my mother and her three siblings are all a bit crazy. My uncle tells me that this screen held his invention, a proto-solar panel, and that the architecture firm he worked for at the time, sued him for it, although they didn't understand the concept of solar power. I know he started his own company, called Solar-On. And he affixed prototypes of this invention in a few places around Los Angeles. How can I find out if someone still holds this patent? Or is doing anything with it? I understand patents expire within two decades of their being issued, but know nothing of patent law beyond that. Thank you kindly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [USD201045][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD201045" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19001" RevisionGUID="f90781bf-fce5-46ec-b67a-f048c2041353" CreationDate="2018-01-18T15:27:36.053" UserId="20580" Text="In writing my Independent Claim is it necessary that every item term, nouns, identifying parts or processes of the invention be included in said Independent Claim? I currently have Dependent Claims introducing items not previously stated by using the phrase &quot; further including&quot;.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51926" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19001" RevisionGUID="f90781bf-fce5-46ec-b67a-f048c2041353" CreationDate="2018-01-18T15:27:36.053" UserId="20580" Text="Appearance of words in Claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51927" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19001" RevisionGUID="f90781bf-fce5-46ec-b67a-f048c2041353" CreationDate="2018-01-18T15:27:36.053" UserId="20580" Text="&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19002" RevisionGUID="ccd2bfd3-ae01-4a36-9ef3-5bf94501aaac" CreationDate="2018-01-18T16:17:49.610" UserId="17003" Text="USD201045 is a United States [design patent][1]. Design patents cover the ornamental design of functional objects. Back then, the term for design patents was 14 years from the issue date. Since May 13, 2015 the term is 15 years from the issue date. Since your grandfather's patent was issued on May 4, 1965, it would have expired May 4, 1979. It therefore has no monetary value. Although your grandfather was the inventor, it looks like it was assigned to the California Metal Enameling Company. This means your grandfather never &quot;owned&quot; the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked at the figures in the design patent and it looks like design for a screen that provides shade. You might consider this a &quot;solar screen&quot; in that it shades you from the sun, but in no way does it relate to generating power from solar radiation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19003" RevisionGUID="2b18e207-bc09-460f-a954-9e1b5b4c9e3f" CreationDate="2018-01-18T16:27:43.683" UserId="20580" Text="I just spoke to an attorney about reviewing my pro se patent application. He told me that if an attorney reviews my application it must legally be done as a client. In the case of reviewing my application as my attorney he makes recommendations to changes and I then submit my application after making said changes it no longer technically is pro se. If the USPTO discovers this the helping attorney can be possibly disbarred. &#xD;&#xA;He told me good luck on finding an attorney that is willing to risk their license." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19002" RevisionGUID="3cac6306-3da4-46a9-aca0-0884fede06e3" CreationDate="2018-01-18T19:18:21.250" UserId="17003" Comment="added 428 characters in body" Text="USD201045 is a United States [design patent][1]. Design patents cover the ornamental design of functional objects. Back then, the term for design patents was 14 years from the issue date. Since May 13, 2015 the term is 15 years from the issue date. Since your grandfather's patent was issued on May 4, 1965, it would have expired May 4, 1979. It therefore has no monetary value. Although your grandfather was the inventor, it looks like it was assigned to the California Metal Enameling Company. This means your grandfather never &quot;owned&quot; the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked at the figures in the design patent and it looks like design for a screen that provides shade. You might consider this a &quot;solar screen&quot; in that it shades you from the sun, but in no way does it relate to generating power from solar radiation. It is possible your uncle was referring to a different patent. I searched both [patents.google.com][2] and [www.lens.org][3] and only found the one design patent. Practical [photovoltaic cells][4] date back at least to the 1950's. Your uncle's story like many old family stories may have &quot;evolved&quot; over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19004" RevisionGUID="0686c771-6963-4236-bd22-41988d362164" CreationDate="2018-01-18T19:54:34.207" UserId="15503" Text="The independent claim must include everything essential to the broadest conception of your invention. You can include other things if you want, but there is no need unless you're trying to avoid specific prior art that you're aware of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, there is no need to include every feature in an independent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you suggest, dependent claims are for those features which are useful for your invention, but are not essential. Phrases like &quot;further including&quot;, &quot;further comprising&quot;, or &quot;wherein&quot; are quite common when introducing such features in a dependent claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51932" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18712" RevisionGUID="4fc7ea6a-f0fd-454d-a182-8eac345984b1" CreationDate="2018-01-18T20:02:00.670" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51933" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="351" RevisionGUID="f0710d8d-fb4b-4b6d-9cb1-582b785ec1d0" CreationDate="2018-01-18T23:03:56.213" UserId="17003" Comment="Updated the term for design patents to account for changes from the USPTO." Text="One problem with our patent system is that it is actually somewhat difficult to figure out whether a patent is still in force.  There are a few steps that get usually you to the answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If it is a design patent, then the patent remains in force for 14-years from the patent issue date. Case closed. **Edit: Since May 13, 2015, the term for a design patent is 15 years from the issue date. Here is the [requisite USPTO page][1].**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following steps apply to Utility Patents in the US.  The same rules apply to all utility patents regardless of whether the subject is a software patent or something else. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the patent application was filed on or after June 8, 1995, the starting patent term is 20 years. This accounts for the vast majority of patents in force today.  The 20 year term is calculated based upon the priority filing date, not counting provisional application or the original filing in a foreign country.  Patents that issued before the 1995 changeover have a term of 17 years from the patent issuance date.  Patents that were filed before the 1995 date but issued afterwards get the longer of the two terms.&#xD;&#xA; - Most patents issued in the past decade have an added term adjustment (PTA) due to delays in examination at the USPTO.  This adjustment can be found on the face of the patent in terms of the number of days that should be added to the patent term. &#xD;&#xA; - To stay in force for the entire 20 year term, utility patent owners must pay three maintenance fees.  If one of those fees is not paid then the patent will be seen as expired and no longer enforceable.  *Most patentees do not pay all three fees - thus most patents expire before completion of the 20 year term.*  &#xD;&#xA; - When a patent owner has a family of related patents, the USPTO often requires that the patentee file a &quot;terminal disclaimer&quot; that (partially) ensures that the patents all expire at the same time.  These terminal disclaimers sometimes impact the patent term, but they can only be found by digging through the file history. &#xD;&#xA; - There are a few other ways to extend the effective patent term, but most of these are related to pharmaceutical and other medical related patents rather than software. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you follow these steps then you'll get to the right answer in the vast majority of cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1505.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19002" RevisionGUID="46f8221e-5810-4865-b1d2-aadac445f92a" CreationDate="2018-01-19T03:44:33.933" UserId="17003" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="USD201045 is a United States [design patent][1]. Design patents cover the ornamental design of functional objects. Back then, the term for design patents was 14 years from the issue date. Since May 13, 2015 the term is 15 years from the issue date. Since your grandfather's patent was issued on May 4, 1965, it would have expired May 4, 1979. It therefore has no monetary value. Although your grandfather was the inventor, it looks like it was assigned to the California Metal Enameling Company. This means your grandfather likely never &quot;owned&quot; the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked at the figures in the design patent and it looks like design for a screen that provides shade. You might consider this a &quot;solar screen&quot; in that it shades you from the sun, but in no way does it relate to generating power from solar radiation. It is possible your uncle was referring to a different patent. I searched both [patents.google.com][2] and [www.lens.org][3] and only found the one design patent. Practical [photovoltaic cells][4] date back at least to the 1950's. Your uncle's story like many old family stories may have &quot;evolved&quot; over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19006" RevisionGUID="48ccb319-25d1-414a-9c53-74fc480a7eac" CreationDate="2018-01-19T08:23:15.170" UserId="20584" Text="can i modify a patented product that is owned by another person and charge for my labor ?&#xD;&#xA;for example if a person wanted there crossbow modified can i charge them for the modification ? is this patent infringement ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51942" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19006" RevisionGUID="48ccb319-25d1-414a-9c53-74fc480a7eac" CreationDate="2018-01-19T08:23:15.170" UserId="20584" Text="Charging labor to modify another persons patented product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51943" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19006" RevisionGUID="48ccb319-25d1-414a-9c53-74fc480a7eac" CreationDate="2018-01-19T08:23:15.170" UserId="20584" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19007" RevisionGUID="c5dc5aa4-4d2e-4925-b4a1-0abf13cd25ee" CreationDate="2018-01-19T10:48:02.393" UserId="18033" Text="Assume I have the number of a PCT application ([example][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I find the russian document? In the linked example it does say, however google doesn't link the russian version and entering the WO number into the [russian patent search field][2] doesn't yield any result. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarise, I need the published russian-national-phase document of any given PCT application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;13. Nov. 2012	ENP	Entry into the national phase in:	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ref document number: 2012147905&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Country of ref document: RU&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Kind code of ref document: A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2011128254A1?cl=nl&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.eapo.org/en/ru.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51945" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19007" RevisionGUID="c5dc5aa4-4d2e-4925-b4a1-0abf13cd25ee" CreationDate="2018-01-19T10:48:02.393" UserId="18033" Text="Finding russian document of PCT-application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51946" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19007" RevisionGUID="c5dc5aa4-4d2e-4925-b4a1-0abf13cd25ee" CreationDate="2018-01-19T10:48:02.393" UserId="18033" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;russia&gt;&lt;eapo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19002" RevisionGUID="098a0c66-c881-47d5-a903-448da78ef059" CreationDate="2018-01-19T13:28:05.793" UserId="17003" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="USD201045 is a United States [design patent][1]. Design patents cover the ornamental design of functional objects. Back then, the term for design patents was 14 years from the issue date. Since May 13, 2015 the term is 15 years from the issue date. Since your grandfather's patent was issued on May 4, 1965, it would have expired May 4, 1979. It therefore has no monetary value. Although your grandfather was the inventor, it looks like it was assigned to the California Metal Enameling Company. This means your grandfather likely never &quot;owned&quot; the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked at the figures in the design patent and it looks like a design for a screen that provides shade. You might consider this a &quot;solar screen&quot; in that it shades you from the sun, but in no way does it relate to generating power from solar radiation. It is possible your uncle was referring to a different patent. I searched both [patents.google.com][2] and [www.lens.org][3] and only found the one design patent. Practical [photovoltaic cells][4] date back at least to the 1950's. Your uncle's story like many old family stories may have &quot;evolved&quot; over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19008" RevisionGUID="baa0b876-b69d-4cc5-ae41-510520741534" CreationDate="2018-01-19T14:31:26.380" UserId="20586" Text="Microsoft recently [filed a claim](http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=9864431.PN.&amp;OS=PN/9864431&amp;RS=PN/9864431) relating to brain-computer interfaces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 sets out the basic 'invention', and other claims following using 'whereby' and 'further comprising' seem to specify certain details about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the patent claim therefore an attempt to patent not just claim 1 with regard to the other claims but also claim 1 in itself?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would claim 1 be infringed only if all of the following claims were also infringed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would claim 1 be infringed if only one or some of the following claims were also infringed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would claim 1 be infringed if none of the following claims were also infringed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51950" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19008" RevisionGUID="baa0b876-b69d-4cc5-ae41-510520741534" CreationDate="2018-01-19T14:31:26.380" UserId="20586" Text="What effect do the 'wherein' and 'further comprising' clauses have in this Microsoft brain-computer interface patent claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51951" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19008" RevisionGUID="baa0b876-b69d-4cc5-ae41-510520741534" CreationDate="2018-01-19T14:31:26.380" UserId="20586" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19009" RevisionGUID="97df678b-570c-4f16-a6f6-b30bebb042da" CreationDate="2018-01-19T14:42:28.570" UserId="17003" Text="I'm not a lawyer, but to infringe on a patent, you need only infringe on a single claim. Thus if you implement every feature of claim 1 that alone is sufficient to constitute infringment. You don't need to infringe on any dependent claim of claim 1 to infringe claim 1." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19011" RevisionGUID="511389b0-e0fc-4af1-9e2d-1b20bca2c3ca" CreationDate="2018-01-19T15:17:58.180" UserId="20588" Text="In this case right choise would be to use Espacenet, as in my experience the coverage is the largest among the free patent databases. Simply use &#xD;&#xA;WOYYYYYYYYYY, where yyyyyyyy is the number of the application, in your example WO2011128254.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/?locale=en_EP " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19013" RevisionGUID="fa34211f-a362-4912-a0a5-1ec4856e162f" CreationDate="2018-01-19T19:48:33.487" UserId="20010" Text="I am digging into the USPTO bulk patents and patent applications and I observe a pattern for any independent claim: it never starts with a definite article 'The'. However, I have not proved that yet. If it is true then it would be much easier to accurately determine independent claims when parsing *.xml files. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence the question: is it possible for a US independent claim to start with 'The' article?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51966" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19013" RevisionGUID="fa34211f-a362-4912-a0a5-1ec4856e162f" CreationDate="2018-01-19T19:48:33.487" UserId="20010" Text="A US independent claim never starts with a definite article 'The'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51967" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19013" RevisionGUID="fa34211f-a362-4912-a0a5-1ec4856e162f" CreationDate="2018-01-19T19:48:33.487" UserId="20010" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;&lt;independent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19009" RevisionGUID="8646d752-72cc-4556-8756-756fb897bf8b" CreationDate="2018-01-19T23:07:44.643" UserId="3076" Comment="spelling and (hopefully) added clarity" Text="I'm not a lawyer, but to infringe on a patent, you need only infringe on a single claim. Thus if you implement every feature of claim 1 that alone is sufficient to constitute infringement. You don't need to infringe on any dependent claim of claim 1 to infringe claim 1. Each claim stands alone except that dependent claims include, by reference, the text of the claims or chain of claims they depend from." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19014" RevisionGUID="1da9b9ab-e16d-4fca-8aa6-bab635ce3270" CreationDate="2018-01-20T00:02:46.507" UserId="3076" Text="The document you are specifically looking for is [here][1]. This [RU information retrieval system][2] is in English&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www1.fips.ru/wps/portal/IPS_En#1516406406393&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www1.fips.ru/wps/portal/IPS_En#1516406355137" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51970" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19014" RevisionGUID="c08e2e79-b35c-4589-9771-2d8962776ed1" CreationDate="2018-01-20T00:07:55.587" UserId="3076" Comment="added PCT appl. numbers" Text="The document Russian  publication of WO2012147905 you are specifically looking for is [here][1]. This [link is to a Russian information retrieval system][2]. However, the PCT application WO2011128254 in your example link does not appear to have ever entered the national stage in Russia,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www1.fips.ru/wps/portal/IPS_En#1516406406393&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www1.fips.ru/wps/portal/IPS_En#1516406355137" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19015" RevisionGUID="7b74f188-e318-47d7-9c00-e73fad8292ec" CreationDate="2018-01-20T00:43:58.900" UserId="3076" Text="To infringe a patent one must make, sell, offer for sale, use or import a claimed device in the jurisdiction of the patent, without permission of the patent owner. Or induce anyone else to infringe or sell or import a customized part whose purpose is to be a component of an infringing device. &#xD;&#xA;If you do not do any of these things without the patent owners permission, you should be OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51972" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10610" RevisionGUID="22417931-137c-4780-92ec-81ce2a66125b" CreationDate="2018-01-20T00:49:19.853" UserId="3076" Comment="fixed my spelling errors" Text="When Google patents says &quot;also published as&quot; it is not being precise and that is a primary cause for the confusion. As you are aware, each country has its own system of patent numbering. More fundamentally, the have their own entire patent systems. A Canadian patent number is not just a different name given to a U.S. patent. They may have the same specification and drawings, but different claims. Even if the claim wording is the same, the words are interpreted under each countries laws. The same words can lead to very different scope of claimed material. There are two more dimensions to the multiplicity of numbers. First, these are publication numbers. If the only difference is the number in the suffix, it is a different publication of the same patent. If it is a completely different number but in the same country, the spec. and drawings mat be the same but the claims are to different aspects of the invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51973" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="90eb8d15-43a6-4e57-b0a6-e59772c597f3" CreationDate="2018-01-20T01:19:11.027" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19016" RevisionGUID="d5f303a8-81c1-4f75-b7ce-84ac4816d251" CreationDate="2018-01-20T04:09:49.093" UserId="20594" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7130878][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7130878" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51976" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19016" RevisionGUID="d5f303a8-81c1-4f75-b7ce-84ac4816d251" CreationDate="2018-01-20T04:09:49.093" UserId="20594" Text="How is the system described novel in any way? It is simply a proxy registration that has been digitzed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51977" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19016" RevisionGUID="d5f303a8-81c1-4f75-b7ce-84ac4816d251" CreationDate="2018-01-20T04:09:49.093" UserId="20594" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51978" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17865" RevisionGUID="0601dd10-6973-46e2-9b81-a80a1eaebd70" CreationDate="2018-01-20T04:19:23.253" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51979" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="fa288f2a-f694-404a-8675-290515cd1116" CreationDate="2018-01-20T05:19:42.253" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51980" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="3f738fa7-d24d-4409-b4f0-17f309f580a4" CreationDate="2018-01-20T06:19:48.933" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51981" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="8fc24244-d9f0-4f3d-8a41-09e1ab8809bc" CreationDate="2018-01-20T12:21:07.830" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19017" RevisionGUID="dafaa874-1d3b-44a1-bb7e-8b5c0ec3bd50" CreationDate="2018-01-20T14:38:08.440" UserId="17003" Text="I am not a lawyer nor a software engineer, but in essence I agree with you. This is a patent that predates the [Bilski v. Kappos][1] and [Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International][2] decisions. In particular looking at the first claim, I see vague descriptions of what is done rather than how things are done. I question whether such a patent would be issued now or if it is enforceable, but as I said, I'm not an attorney and can't comment authoritatively on that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51983" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18425" RevisionGUID="2f159c23-88b6-46a7-8832-2f10cc037488" CreationDate="2018-01-20T15:21:14.893" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18425" RevisionGUID="e5359115-60e0-46c5-8b6c-451726d2b83c" CreationDate="2018-01-20T15:53:46.223" UserId="18521" Comment="improved tags &amp; fixed punctuation" Text="I work in an industry where a large portion of the manufacturing process is &quot;black box&quot; - you don't get instant production feedback from the equipment. You literally take notes on the product that you are manufacturing, and just do that again next time. Machine adjustments are not visible for several minutes, and sometimes even an hour or more. They are also subject to change over time due to other variables, such as temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I developed a process, and even created an Android app that takes just 2 points of sample data along with fixed physical constants, such as mechanical properties of the materials being used, and then uses that data to &quot;simulate&quot; the process. This also can be applied later to entirely new products with new finished dimensions/specifications, but which use the same material previously sampled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once a material/machine combination has been sampled twice, that's it: you put in your specs, and out comes precision machine settings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I patent this? From reading the information on Legal Zoom, it looks like I can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Legal Zoom - What can be patented?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking into this because of the shock and awe reactions that I still get from our engineering department and maintenance staff regarding the absolute precision and repeatability that my tools produce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.legalzoom.com/knowledge/patent/topic/what-is-patentable" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51985" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18425" RevisionGUID="e5359115-60e0-46c5-8b6c-451726d2b83c" CreationDate="2018-01-20T15:53:46.223" UserId="18521" Comment="improved tags &amp; fixed punctuation" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;algorithms&gt;&lt;patenting-an-algorithm&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19018" RevisionGUID="6e05498c-1497-497f-bf04-3b981b8691c5" CreationDate="2018-01-20T16:17:18.780" UserId="18521" Text="As I understand, the [Alice decision](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International) set up a [two-step rule](http://www.skgf.com/uploads/1378/doc/LSIPR_Jan15_AfterALice.pdf) for determining patent eligibility. Subsequent rulings in the U.S. (like [McRO, Inc. v. Activision Publishing](https://www.law360.com/articles/839299/fed-circ-reverses-abstract-ruling-for-patents-under-alice), [McRO v. Bandai Namco Games America](https://www.paulhastings.com/publications-items/details/?id=084fea69-2334-6428-811c-ff00004cbded), [Enfish LLC v. Microsoft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enfish,_LLC_v._Microsoft_Corp.), and [Amdocs v. Openet Telecom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdocs_(Israel)_Ltd._v._Openet_Telecom,_Inc.)) have been favorable to software patents and have clarified the landscape a bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when drafting claims directed to software inventions, what are the best and/or most used strategies for avoiding Alice-based §101 rejections? I recall reading that a strong post-Alice strategy is to write the claims in [means-plus-function](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_patent_claim_types#Means-plus-function) language which refers back to specific hardware in the specification. Is this the best approach? Are there other approaches that don't limit the claims as much?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51987" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19018" RevisionGUID="6e05498c-1497-497f-bf04-3b981b8691c5" CreationDate="2018-01-20T16:17:18.780" UserId="18521" Text="What are the best post-Alice strategies for drafting claims in software patent applications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51988" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19018" RevisionGUID="6e05498c-1497-497f-bf04-3b981b8691c5" CreationDate="2018-01-20T16:17:18.780" UserId="18521" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;alice&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51990" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17995" RevisionGUID="050389a8-b339-4a1b-a291-07314f1fa8a2" CreationDate="2018-01-20T16:21:15.083" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19019" RevisionGUID="d0ae7841-8327-4488-a258-2f7f29b8f954" CreationDate="2018-01-20T16:47:53.630" UserId="18521" Text="###My experience is that it's very unlikely&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like you're asking whether it's possible to win a patent when the invention takes existing technology and applies it to a new product. If I understand correctly, you're suggesting that there's no technical hurdle or obstacle involved in the new application. That is, if you described your idea to a reasonably skilled software developer, he/she could implement your idea without encountering any problems or hiccups.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My personal experience with the scenario I've described is that a patent is not within reach. When patent examiners reject an application, they can draw on multiple different sources to arrive at your invention. So if the examiner finds any patent, article, etc. that suggests using the existing technology in your domain, then the examiner will probably use this to reject your application. Overcoming those rejections can be extremely difficult. I've even seen scenarios where an examiner even rejected an application on the basis of a very broad statement along the lines of &quot;this technology can be used in many other contexts.&quot; If the examiner thinks it would've been obvious for an ordinarily-skilled developer, technician, engineer, etc. to do what you've done, then your application will probably be rejected for being obvious or non-inventive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there are scenarios where applying an existing technology to a new domain can result in a patentable invention. As one example, your application might really involve an inventive step if the literature/state of the art contains teachings that would *discourage* people from applying the software in the way you have. As another example, applying the software might result in several significant hurdles that your engineers had to overcome. Overcoming those obstacles can result in inventive solutions that rise to the level of a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------&#xD;&#xA;*I am no expert, and this response is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney or legal expert to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Laws can differ dramatically from country to country, state to state, and technology field to technology field. And I might simply be wrong.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51992" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="db6eba00-6452-4289-8835-1d218352d2bf" CreationDate="2018-01-20T23:30:13.133" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19020" RevisionGUID="aa65e2d4-fbb9-489e-b9f0-5d7c71301fdc" CreationDate="2018-01-20T23:36:18.650" UserId="19232" Text="I had a [previous question about stating a specific class of computing device, or input method of a computing device][1]. This is a related follow-up question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume a form of click-and-drag-over interaction is stated in the first independent claim because it's a key feature of the invention as a preferred embodiment (regardless of whether actually stated as &quot;preferred.&quot;) With the mention of &quot;touchscreen device&quot; dropped from the independent claim as previously recommended here, how does it look to have something like this in one of the dependent claims?: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [stated task] is accomplished by means other than icon dragging, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other means including but not limited to successive click-selection&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with a moving cursor or selection by voice command or eye-tracking&#xD;&#xA;&gt; control.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or as an alternate structure, using a Markush claim construction such as: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [stated task] is accomplished by means other than icon dragging, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other means selected from the group consisting of:  &#xD;&#xA;a) successive click-selection with a moving cursor  &#xD;&#xA;b) successive selection by voice command or eye-tracking control.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which construction, if either, is better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/18982/stating-a-specific-class-of-computing-device-such-as-touchscreen-devices-in-th?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51994" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19020" RevisionGUID="aa65e2d4-fbb9-489e-b9f0-5d7c71301fdc" CreationDate="2018-01-20T23:36:18.650" UserId="19232" Text="Follow-up question about mentions of how the user interacts with a graphical user interface" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51995" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19020" RevisionGUID="aa65e2d4-fbb9-489e-b9f0-5d7c71301fdc" CreationDate="2018-01-20T23:36:18.650" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51996" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16926" RevisionGUID="cb04ffa0-c947-49f6-8bd3-1c19e4de4c30" CreationDate="2018-01-21T00:30:14.307" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19021" RevisionGUID="79a00af7-6d4d-4a67-8eb0-899ba5b1b68c" CreationDate="2018-01-21T04:13:50.617" UserId="15503" Text="**Is it possible for a US independent claim to start with 'the'?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically you would not have an independent claim starting with &quot;the&quot;. That is because the term lacks an antecedent, so would generally be objected to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is only a tendency, and not an inviolable rule. So there is a reasonable chance that at least some patents have been issued with an independent claim beginning with &quot;the&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51998" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="2a39e1b3-90c4-4602-9ae8-06f3d102efab" CreationDate="2018-01-21T10:34:40.887" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="51999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19022" RevisionGUID="d45fe77c-dab8-41a2-b6bf-77ae09416483" CreationDate="2018-01-21T11:04:53.053" UserId="18033" Text="Your dependent claim, if I understand your question correctly, won't be allowable for two reasons:&#xA;&#xA;**1:** A dependent claim may not leave out any limitation of the independent claim it depends on. Your first claim says “by drag and drop“ the second says “claim one plus something other than drag and drop“. &#xA;&#xA;Combined, your second claim says “by drag and drop and not by drag and drop“. Which is not doable an therefore not allowable. &#xA;&#xA;A possible solution would be to add the proposed list with drag and drop and click and etc. to the first claim. &#xA;&#xA;**2:** Formalities: a claim cannot have a negative feature. “by something else than drag and drop“ doesn't define what's inside of the scope but only what's outside. That, however, is not allowable (in the EU, I'm not 100% certain about the US, but I think it's the same there, if not, please correct me in a comment and I'll edit this. If you want a PCT application and/or go to Europe it's important anyways. Additionally, it might require more thinking about the wording, but there's no good reason to risk this, even it were allowable somewhere).&#xA;&#xA;So what could you do? &#xA;&#xA;Claim 1: “selected by selection means“&#xA;&#xA;Claim 2:“the selection means being one of the group comprising ...“.&#xA;&#xA;This way you are not limiting yourself to any specific selection means and can still go back to one or more if necessary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19023" RevisionGUID="6362daa8-cb07-481c-867a-1995a0da5549" CreationDate="2018-01-21T11:30:32.803" UserId="18033" Text="In the EU its customary to have claims like&#xA;&#xA;1. Method for...&#xA;&#xA;2. Method from claim 1 plus ...&#xA;&#xA;3. Method from claim 1 or 2 plus ...&#xA;&#xA;... (only dependent claims here)&#xA;&#xA;16. Method from one of the previous claims plus ...&#xA;&#xA;17. Method from claim 16 plus ... (Because 17 works only with the additional stuff from 16, for example 16 introduces means for showing something to the user and 17 describes how it's shown which can't happen without means for showing).&#xA;&#xA;18. Method from claim 16. or 17. Plus ...&#xA;&#xA;Recently (for a PCT national phase), I saw US attorneys removing the “multiple dependencies“ (citing their explanation) leaving the claims with something like:&#xA;&#xA;1. Method for...&#xA;&#xA;2. Method from claim 1 plus ...&#xA;&#xA;3. Method from claim 1 plus ...&#xA;&#xA;... (only dependent claims here)&#xA;&#xA;16. Method from claim 1 plus ...&#xA;&#xA;17. Method from claim 16 plus ... &#xA;&#xA;18. Method from claim 16. Plus ...&#xA;&#xA;My question is: Why?&#xA;&#xA;(I suppose it's equivalent and they aren't messing up, but then there needs to be a reason why this differs between US and EU)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52001" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19023" RevisionGUID="6362daa8-cb07-481c-867a-1995a0da5549" CreationDate="2018-01-21T11:30:32.803" UserId="18033" Text="Multiple references US vs EU" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52002" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19023" RevisionGUID="6362daa8-cb07-481c-867a-1995a0da5549" CreationDate="2018-01-21T11:30:32.803" UserId="18033" Text="&lt;claim-construction&gt;&lt;us&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19020" RevisionGUID="14f1a7c1-57be-4953-ab8f-720dced49612" CreationDate="2018-01-21T18:22:04.667" UserId="19232" Comment="added 636 characters in body" Text="I had a [previous question about stating a specific class of computing device, or input method of a computing device][1]. This is a related follow-up question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume a form of click-and-drag-over interaction is stated in the first independent claim because it's a key feature of the invention as a preferred embodiment (regardless of whether actually stated as &quot;preferred.&quot;) With the mention of &quot;touchscreen device&quot; dropped from the independent claim as previously recommended here, how does it look to have something like this in one of the dependent claims?: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [stated task] is accomplished by means other than icon dragging, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other means including but not limited to successive click-selection&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with a moving cursor or selection by voice command or eye-tracking&#xD;&#xA;&gt; control.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or as an alternate structure, using a Markush claim construction such as: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [stated task] is accomplished by means other than icon dragging, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other means selected from the group consisting of:  &#xD;&#xA;a) successive click-selection with a moving cursor  &#xD;&#xA;b) successive selection by voice command or eye-tracking control.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which construction, if either, is better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**REVISION for comment:** Still assuming the independent claim(s) states a drag-and-drop method of interaction, how about this revised version of the dependent claim?:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The method of claim x wherein detecting user selection of [state what&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is being selected] is accomplished by a means selected from the group&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consisting of:  &#xD;&#xA;a) detecting successive click-selection of icons by a moving cursor;  &#xD;&#xA;b) detecting successive selection of icons by voice command;  &#xD;&#xA;c) detecting successive selection of icons by eye-tracking control;  &#xD;&#xA;d) detecting successive selection of icons by other assistive technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/18982/stating-a-specific-class-of-computing-device-such-as-touchscreen-devices-in-th/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19020" RevisionGUID="9f05937d-fc3b-455b-a8da-60784d9d13a7" CreationDate="2018-01-21T19:05:36.513" UserId="19232" Comment="added 272 characters in body" Text="I had a [previous question about stating a specific class of computing device, or input method of a computing device][1]. This is a related follow-up question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume a form of click-and-drag-over interaction is stated in the first independent claim because it's a key feature of the invention as a preferred embodiment (regardless of whether actually stated as &quot;preferred.&quot;) With the mention of &quot;touchscreen device&quot; dropped from the independent claim as previously recommended here, how does it look to have something like this in one of the dependent claims?: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [stated task] is accomplished by means other than icon dragging, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other means including but not limited to successive click-selection&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with a moving cursor or selection by voice command or eye-tracking&#xD;&#xA;&gt; control.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or as an alternate structure, using a Markush claim construction such as: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [stated task] is accomplished by means other than icon dragging, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other means selected from the group consisting of:  &#xD;&#xA;a) successive click-selection with a moving cursor  &#xD;&#xA;b) successive selection by voice command or eye-tracking control.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which construction, if either, is better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**REVISION for comment:** Still assuming the independent claim(s) states a drag-and-drop method of interaction, how about this revised version of the dependent claim?:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The method of claim x wherein detecting user selection of [state what&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is being selected] can be accomplished by a means selected from the group&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consisting of:  &#xD;&#xA;a) detecting successive click-selection of icons by a moving cursor;  &#xD;&#xA;b) detecting successive selection of icons by voice command;  &#xD;&#xA;c) detecting successive selection of icons by eye-tracking control;  &#xD;&#xA;d) detecting successive selection of icons by other assistive technology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;––In the above statement, would &quot;can be accomplished&quot; be more inclusive than &quot;is accomplished&quot;? (I am thinking &quot;is accomplished&quot; could imply use of only the alternate input method(s) but does not also include the originally claimed method which is drag-and-drop.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/18982/stating-a-specific-class-of-computing-device-such-as-touchscreen-devices-in-th/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52009" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18172" RevisionGUID="fb9c71c7-257d-4b5c-9996-d8e8c0420e83" CreationDate="2018-01-21T19:52:17.340" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52010" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17466" RevisionGUID="25691202-083f-4f99-b95c-cd59751b0abd" CreationDate="2018-01-21T20:52:17.353" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19025" RevisionGUID="d2fcb094-b4f0-4204-95d1-aeb1d1fe6461" CreationDate="2018-01-21T23:44:10.387" UserId="15503" Text="I agree with DonQuiKong's answer in that your dependent claim seems to be broader than your independent claim, which is not appropriate. I will therefore limit myself to your later question about &quot;can be accomplished&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Importantly, &quot;can be accomplished&quot; is not really a useful limitation, since you're only stating that it's possible, not that it actually occurs. It would only be good for distinguishing against prior art in which it was explicitly impossible to detect user selection in any of the noted ways, which is unlikely. In this way, your dependent claim is extremely weak, and verging on pointless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be much more usual to say &quot;detecting user selection comprises one of: detecting successive...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, you may have heard of the limits of means-plus-function wording in the US. It's beyond the scope here, but you may wish to look into it, given you've used it in all of your claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19026" RevisionGUID="03e6e9f5-974e-447a-8cce-2c38ee0c43e4" CreationDate="2018-01-21T23:49:24.757" UserId="15503" Text="In the US, there is an extremely punitive fee of [USD 820](https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule) for each multiple dependent claim. Moreover, since the US isn't so strict with added matter arising from combining claims independent of each other, there is not a huge benefit in multiple dependencies anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, the EPO doesn't charge for multiple dependent claims, but does generally require claims to be dependent on each other to be inserted into the same independent claim (or otherwise you better include a lot of argument in support).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of this, it makes a lot of sense to use multiple dependencies at the EPO, and to omit them at the USPTO." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19028" RevisionGUID="5cb05a66-e112-4d87-aaf6-a744fc589b47" CreationDate="2018-01-22T02:48:36.293" UserId="19232" Text="Admittedly this is squeezing two questions into one, but they're both directly about Markush Group claim construction. From all I've read, the structure of this type *always* uses &quot;selected from the group consisting of (A, B, and C or A, B, or C)&quot; and it is *always* &quot;consisting of&quot; not &quot;comprising.&quot; (In fact that last part is explicitly stated in MPEP 2173.05(h) Alternative Limitations [R-11.2013] - I.MARKUSH GROUPS.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question, part 1:** I have assumed it's just as acceptable to list the components in an ordered list form such as a), b), c), as to list them linearly in a statement. True? It seems so, from MPEP's statement &quot;a list of alternatively useable species regardless of format.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question, part 2:** I have read (from someone who asserts he's used it repeatedly with success) that using *&quot;and combinations thereof&quot;* as the last component of the Markush Group is the best solution to eliminating any uncertainty about &quot;A, B, C with mutual exclusion&quot; vs. &quot;A, B, C individually OR in any combination.&quot; True?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52015" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19028" RevisionGUID="5cb05a66-e112-4d87-aaf6-a744fc589b47" CreationDate="2018-01-22T02:48:36.293" UserId="19232" Text="How common and how acceptable is the use of ordered lists and the phrase &quot;and combinations thereof&quot; as the last component of a Markush Group claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52016" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19028" RevisionGUID="5cb05a66-e112-4d87-aaf6-a744fc589b47" CreationDate="2018-01-22T02:48:36.293" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19029" RevisionGUID="015bab86-0c2d-4111-982a-0b2c6bbd93bc" CreationDate="2018-01-22T03:10:29.030" UserId="13706" Text="A PDF of US patent 3,263,485 is available here: http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat3263485.pdf . The Google Patents version is not that great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application number or serial number (Ser. No.) is 341,349 as shown on the second page of the patent publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent has 6 claims - 3 independent claims and 3 dependent claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was filed January 30, 1964, issued August 2, 1966, and is now expired." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52020" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13870" RevisionGUID="62bf4c2b-bdd7-468f-96e7-b9c0751d7128" CreationDate="2018-01-22T04:54:07.790" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19030" RevisionGUID="f9a9c9ee-d57f-4095-aa01-b9d83136d318" CreationDate="2018-01-22T13:28:27.210" UserId="11599" Text="Let's assume there is a patent on a machine that &quot;dries hair with hot air&quot;, and I have five other ideas how to dry hair (ice cubes, friction, whatever). I would like to avoid having to file five patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, I cannot claim a machine that &quot;dries hair&quot; any more, and I would like to avoid issues with the &quot;unity of invention&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When restricting myself to one independent claim, I would like to have a *claim* about a machine that &quot;dries hair by other means than hot air&quot;? Is that possible at all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When *not* restricting myself to one independent claim, I would like to have a *patent* about machines that &quot;dry hair by other means than hot air&quot;, with several independent claims claiming 1. a machines that &quot;dries hair with ice cubes&quot;, 2. a machine that &quot;dries hair with friction&quot;, etc. Would that still be a &quot;unity invention&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52022" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19030" RevisionGUID="f9a9c9ee-d57f-4095-aa01-b9d83136d318" CreationDate="2018-01-22T13:28:27.210" UserId="11599" Text="Can I broaden the scope of a patent (claim) w.r.t. prior art through the use of &quot;other than&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52023" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19030" RevisionGUID="f9a9c9ee-d57f-4095-aa01-b9d83136d318" CreationDate="2018-01-22T13:28:27.210" UserId="11599" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;unity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19030" RevisionGUID="91defc4c-a535-4d17-835e-9753c00896ca" CreationDate="2018-01-22T13:36:06.987" UserId="11599" Comment="added 133 characters in body" Text="Let's assume there is a patent on a machine that &quot;dries hair with hot air&quot;, and I have five other ideas how to dry hair (ice cubes, friction, whatever). I would like to avoid having to file five patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, I cannot claim a machine that &quot;dries hair&quot; any more, and I would like to avoid issues with the &quot;unity of invention&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When restricting myself to one independent claim (e.g., at the [EPO][1]), I would like to have a *claim* about a machine that &quot;dries hair by other means than hot air&quot;? Is that possible at all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When *not* restricting myself to one independent claim (e.g., at the USPTO), I would like to have a *patent* about machines that &quot;dry hair by other means than hot air&quot;, with several independent claims claiming 1. a machines that &quot;dries hair with ice cubes&quot;, 2. a machine that &quot;dries hair with friction&quot;, etc. Would that still be a &quot;unity invention&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/f_iv_3_2.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52025" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="38ffe502-fdf7-4ff7-a226-474296154331" CreationDate="2018-01-22T14:55:00.823" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19030" RevisionGUID="7dda0e45-2697-413f-833a-b94f9e073800" CreationDate="2018-01-22T15:24:32.793" UserId="11599" Comment="deleted 419 characters in body; edited tags" Text="This question is closely related to https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/19031/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume there is a patent on a machine that &quot;dries hair with hot air&quot;, and I have five other ideas how to dry hair (ice cubes, friction, whatever). I would like to avoid having to file five patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, I cannot claim a machine that &quot;dries hair&quot; any more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When restricting myself to one independent claim (e.g., at the [EPO][1]), I would like to have a *claim* about a machine that &quot;dries hair by other means than hot air&quot;? Is that possible at all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/f_iv_3_2.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52027" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19030" RevisionGUID="7dda0e45-2697-413f-833a-b94f9e073800" CreationDate="2018-01-22T15:24:32.793" UserId="11599" Comment="deleted 419 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19031" RevisionGUID="ddc6ac4f-2c6e-4afe-94d3-6da0034b5d54" CreationDate="2018-01-22T15:28:19.433" UserId="11599" Text="(This question is closely related to https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/19030/can-i-broaden-the-scope-of-a-patent-claim-w-r-t-prior-art-through-the-use-of, in which I ask about patentability in case I have to compress all claims into one independent claims.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume there is a patent on a machine that &quot;dries hair with hot air&quot;, and I have five other ideas how to dry hair (ice cubes, friction, whatever). I would like to avoid having to file five patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, I cannot claim a machine that &quot;dries hair&quot; any more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When *not* restricting myself to one independent claim (e.g., at the USPTO), I would like to have a *patent* about machines that &quot;dry hair by other means than hot air&quot;, with several independent claims claiming 1. a machines that &quot;dries hair with ice cubes&quot;, 2. a machine that &quot;dries hair with friction&quot;, etc. This seems possible from a point of view of writing the claims and filing the patent from a purely logistical standpoint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, would that still be a &quot;unity invention&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52029" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19031" RevisionGUID="ddc6ac4f-2c6e-4afe-94d3-6da0034b5d54" CreationDate="2018-01-22T15:28:19.433" UserId="11599" Text="What practical requirements are there for unity of an invention with multiple independent claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52030" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19031" RevisionGUID="ddc6ac4f-2c6e-4afe-94d3-6da0034b5d54" CreationDate="2018-01-22T15:28:19.433" UserId="11599" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;unity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52031" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19030" RevisionGUID="7dda0e45-2697-413f-833a-b94f9e073800" CreationDate="2018-01-22T15:24:32.793" UserId="11599" Comment="deleted 419 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Can I broaden the scope of a claim w.r.t. prior art through the use of &quot;other than&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19030" RevisionGUID="032f3f77-e0c4-44ac-8ed1-9878621fd3d9" CreationDate="2018-01-22T15:29:46.260" UserId="11599" Comment="deleted 419 characters in body; edited tags" Text="(This question is closely related to https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/19031/, in which I ask for details about the &quot;unity&quot; of an invention when I can break down the invention into several independent claims.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume there is a patent on a machine that &quot;dries hair with hot air&quot;, and I have five other ideas how to dry hair (ice cubes, friction, whatever). I would like to avoid having to file five patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, I cannot claim a machine that &quot;dries hair&quot; any more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When restricting myself to one independent claim (e.g., at the [EPO][1]), I would like to have a *claim* about a machine that &quot;dries hair by other means than hot air&quot;? Is that possible at all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/f_iv_3_2.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19022" RevisionGUID="1431e926-97be-46a5-8c89-b33fe2ad4f3c" CreationDate="2018-01-22T15:32:41.390" UserId="18033" Comment="added 214 characters in body" Text="Your dependent claim, if I understand your question correctly, won't be allowable for two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1:** A dependent claim may not leave out any limitation of the independent claim it depends on. Your first claim says “by drag and drop“ the second says “claim one plus something other than drag and drop“. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Combined, your second claim says “by drag and drop and not by drag and drop“. Which is not doable an therefore not allowable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible solution would be to add the proposed list with drag and drop and click and etc. to the first claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2:** Formalities: a claim should not have a negative feature. “by something else than drag and drop“ does, in most cases, not clearly define what's inside of the scope but only what's outside. There is some discussion about when and how this is allowable, especially concerning a recent US case and a EPO decision, but they relate to either not needing a special item (e.g. doing only a when everyone else thought you needed to do a + b and then claiming a without b) or excluding prior art in prosecution mostly. I can't say with certainty that a negative feature like that is impossible, but you will run into issues with clarity and insufficient disclosure, so you should probably not do this if you can't foresee the problems that will arise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what could you do? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1: “selected by selection means“&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 2:“the selection means being one of the group comprising ...“.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This way you are not limiting yourself to any specific selection means and can still go back to one or more if necessary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19031" RevisionGUID="243205a7-e366-4c45-b526-3a7daa5c8207" CreationDate="2018-01-22T15:34:27.683" UserId="11599" Comment="deleted 76 characters in body" Text="(This question is closely related to https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/19030/, in which I ask about patentability in case I have to compress all claims into one independent claims.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume there is a patent on a machine that &quot;dries hair with hot air&quot;, and I have five other ideas how to dry hair (ice cubes, friction, whatever). I would like to avoid having to file five patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, I cannot claim a machine that &quot;dries hair&quot; any more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When *not* restricting myself to one independent claim (e.g., at the USPTO), I would like to have a *patent* about machines that &quot;dry hair by other means than hot air&quot;, with several independent claims claiming 1. a machines that &quot;dries hair with ice cubes&quot;, 2. a machine that &quot;dries hair with friction&quot;, etc. This seems possible from a point of view of writing the claims and filing the patent from a purely logistical standpoint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, would that still be a &quot;unity invention&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19033" RevisionGUID="0080a848-f577-4bf4-aec6-d3a6def45821" CreationDate="2018-01-22T16:41:03.367" UserId="20608" Text="I'm trying to programatically access _updated_ application information for USPTO patents including transaction details, continuity information, and dates and codes from the Image File Wrapper (IFW) section.  Here's what I've tried so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The information I'm after is available on https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair; however, this is a CAPATCHA website and not conducive to web-scraping.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The information also is available for bulk download from http://patents.reedtech.com/ (which apparently is partnered with the USPTO to scrape data).  Unfortunately, the data on Reed appears to often be much out of date compared to what is on the PublicPair site.  This is the most hopeful path so far because it seems to show the data can be scraped somehow and it gives me everything I need, but is just out of date is many cases.&#xD;&#xA; 3. I've tried using the [USPTO bulk download API](https://developer.uspto.gov/api-catalog/bulk-search-and-download).  This has a few problems.  First, many of the applications I look for are not found and return &quot;Packaging Error.&quot; (others return a package).  Even when I do get a package back, I don't get transactions, IFW, continuity, etc.&#xD;&#xA; 4. [USPTO PAIR API](https://pairbulkdata.uspto.gov/) - I can't get this site to work. I emailed the address at the bottom of the page and they responded: &quot;The PAIR Bulk Data (BETA) site is being removed soon.&quot; and pointed me towards the PEDS API.&#xD;&#xA; 5. [PEDS](https://ped.uspto.gov/peds/) - This API does give transaction detail, but nothing in the IFW or continuity.&#xD;&#xA; 6. [Bulk Data Downloads](https://developer.uspto.gov/data) - The USPTO generates raw files in XML format.  Perhaps I could download ALL of the historical data and generate my own transaction and continuity data?  This seems like an overwhelming task, but perhaps is theoretically possible.  Maybe this what Reed does?  I haven't dug deep enough into this to know whether or not all the information I'm after is even there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any suggestions of where to look for this sort of information? Third party sites? Pay for services? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52039" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19033" RevisionGUID="0080a848-f577-4bf4-aec6-d3a6def45821" CreationDate="2018-01-22T16:41:03.367" UserId="20608" Text="API access to USPTO application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52040" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19033" RevisionGUID="0080a848-f577-4bf4-aec6-d3a6def45821" CreationDate="2018-01-22T16:41:03.367" UserId="20608" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;api&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19034" RevisionGUID="09f48b55-56b8-4e25-8725-41cc5d804441" CreationDate="2018-01-22T17:01:22.547" UserId="19468" Text="The term &quot;other than&quot; is, by nature, rather vague. The primary purpose of patents is to teach the world how to implement your &quot;new, useful and non-obvious&quot; contribution to the state of the art.  Therefore, unless you have also defined what are the specific &quot;new and non-obvious&quot; alternatives you are claiming, you will have failed to &quot;enable&quot; others with adequate teaching and your claim would not be valid, even if accidentally granted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taken to absurdity, you could not claim, &quot;A device for drying food, where such device is unlike any other.&quot; You must specify **HOW** it is unlike anything ever used in public or disclosed in any publication, using terms that contribute beyond the &quot;prior art&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19035" RevisionGUID="4e07e1e7-8e76-4eb6-b23c-776efb97b3eb" CreationDate="2018-01-22T18:42:56.877" UserId="20010" Text="I did my own research and found out that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among 3,019,895 utility patents published  04/01/2005 through 16/01/2018, 1,866 patents (**%0.062**) have at least one independent claim starting with 'The' article.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, the chance is about %0.062." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19015" RevisionGUID="819e1fb3-1ed6-41b3-a98f-19f1d1808eec" CreationDate="2018-01-22T18:44:28.597" UserId="3076" Comment="update to comprehend questioner's comment" Text="To infringe a patent one must make, sell, offer for sale, use or import a claimed device in the jurisdiction of the patent, without permission of the patent owner. Or induce anyone else to infringe or sell or import a customized part whose purpose is to be a component of an infringing device. &#xD;&#xA;If you do not do any of these things without the patent owners permission, you should be OK.  If you are buying a crossbow in the U.S. that was made and sold with the patent owners' authorization, the patents of **that** patent owner which cover the crossbow are exhausted. That owner, or others might have other patents that cover the modification you are planning to do. The issue isn't charging money to make a modification. If the modifications were covered by someone else's patent, making them would be an infringement whether or not you charged money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52047" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="16996" RevisionGUID="018192ee-b103-4652-8010-41c6b013ea7c" CreationDate="2018-01-22T18:46:49.893" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="52048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19035" RevisionGUID="a0639b2f-f88d-4f4b-b3d1-0ee161c66433" CreationDate="2018-01-22T20:47:01.503" UserId="20010" Comment="corrected value" Text="I did my own research and found out that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among 3,019,895 utility patents published  04/01/2005 through 16/01/2018, 1,707 patents (**%0.057**) have at least one independent claim starting with 'The' article.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, the chance is about %0.057." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18997" RevisionGUID="5960f6ee-b3f2-4c6e-bd86-3e41a71e8925" CreationDate="2018-01-22T21:27:58.190" UserId="16696" Comment="Added a link to the USPTO site which shows the usage of Provisional Patent Application" Text="Regarding claims, having claims that are &quot;too broad&quot; can also impact viability.  Thus the concept of **&quot;limiting the claims&quot; can be very important.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a somewhat recent trend, via pharma, that new uses for an existing method are patent eligible, which demonstrates the principle of limiting claims.  (i.e. not seeking patent for the method in general, as applicable to any use, but claiming a specific use.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See: [Understanding Patent Claims][1] and [35 U.S. Code § 112][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eligibility may also depend on the &quot;field of the invention&quot; [37 CFR 1.71 ][3]. *[See also:  [Understanding the Specification of the Invention][4]]*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, certain types of methods may be deemed too &quot;abstract&quot; by the patent reviewer, as in the case of some algorithmic patents.  If the invention is for a physical device, either mechanical or computer hardware, the poorly defined term &quot;abstract&quot; won't likely be an issue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also understand that in patent law, nothing is certain, and the scope of what constitutes patent eligible subject matter is always changing.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;[Provisional Patent Applications][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you believe in your invention, but aren't quite ready to shell our a lot of money, definitely pursue a provisional patent.  This gives you a year of &quot;priority&quot;, and does not require public disclosure.  You can use this to protect the IP if you plan on &quot;shopping it&quot; to investors, who are unlikely to sign non-disclosure agreements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many recommend attorneys, even for provisionals, but not all attorneys share this view.  So long as the provisional is clearly written, supported by clear drawings and sufficiently explains how to make and use the invention, it can protect temporarily whatever is covered, so long as a formal patent application is subsequently submitted, and ultimately receives a grant.  Provisional patent applications also carry the right to use &quot;patent pending&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key for provisionals is to be exhaustive.  Anything you omit will not receive protection, and, even if subsequently filed, will not have the the same priority (date of submission of the original document).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/07/12/understanding-patent-claims/id=50349/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/112&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/01/02/patent-drafting-understanding-specification-invention/id=64380/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/provisional-application-patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52053" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="9918ed1c-1ed3-44ca-b14f-d2004197e6ac" CreationDate="2018-01-23T00:58:44.163" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19037" RevisionGUID="4086fc0a-5e13-472d-9a93-2effab06555d" CreationDate="2018-01-23T01:35:47.170" UserId="19913" Text="As I understand it, ne needs to understand the prior art because any prior art may NOT be patented.  My research indicates that one should not discuss the prior art in a USPTO patent application.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the patent agent / attorney determines that there isn't any prior art, isn't it the role and the responsibility of the USPTO to search for any prior art and confirm / refute the application scope of claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52055" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19037" RevisionGUID="4086fc0a-5e13-472d-9a93-2effab06555d" CreationDate="2018-01-23T01:35:47.170" UserId="19913" Text="Why would a patent application discuss the prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52056" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19037" RevisionGUID="4086fc0a-5e13-472d-9a93-2effab06555d" CreationDate="2018-01-23T01:35:47.170" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52057" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16491" RevisionGUID="41cb5406-4bbb-4d6a-a1ba-2634f0d058c5" CreationDate="2018-01-23T02:58:44.213" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52059" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16361" RevisionGUID="a96758b1-503a-4489-9cc8-7f6d046ecdc0" CreationDate="2018-01-23T03:58:44.237" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19038" RevisionGUID="d1e77661-e711-4b8e-b252-49bd30d79bd6" CreationDate="2018-01-23T05:47:47.820" UserId="3076" Text="That changed in the last 15 years and now it is strongly recommended by most practitioners that the words &quot;prior art&quot; do **not** appear in a patent application and there is not a listing or discussion of previous work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The reason for the change is that people were accused in court of misleading the examiner, for example, by saying - Patent X doesn't teach method Y when you haven't studied patent X thoroughly to really know that is true. We do need to let the patent office know about anything we know. That is done just by listing items on an Information Disclosure Statement form. There is a place on the form to indicate page numbers or sections of each listed prior art. Most practitioners do not fill that in for fear of being accused of hiding the ball if a court finds that a different section was more relevant than the one you specifically pointed out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is always prior art - but it is not always dead-on. Yes, it is the examiner's job do a search and see how the claims are anticipated or shown to be obvious in light of the prior art.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52061" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="bac4ff20-0510-4e24-a08c-8a7d76582b55" CreationDate="2018-01-23T07:07:10.247" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19031" RevisionGUID="a80c5d3f-0173-4cde-90c1-72a3bfd20f43" CreationDate="2018-01-23T10:19:57.763" UserId="11599" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="(This question is closely related to https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/19030/, in which I ask about patentability in case I have to compress all claims into a single independent claim.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume there is a patent on a machine that &quot;dries hair with hot air&quot;, and I have five other ideas how to dry hair (ice cubes, friction, whatever). I would like to avoid having to file five patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, I cannot claim a machine that &quot;dries hair&quot; any more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When *not* restricting myself to one independent claim (e.g., at the USPTO), I would like to have a *patent* about machines that &quot;dry hair by other means than hot air&quot;, with several independent claims claiming 1. a machines that &quot;dries hair with ice cubes&quot;, 2. a machine that &quot;dries hair with friction&quot;, etc. This seems possible from a point of view of writing the claims and filing the patent from a purely logistical standpoint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, would that still be a &quot;unity invention&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19037" RevisionGUID="66761157-cbf2-4757-8d6a-26defedb5dcf" CreationDate="2018-01-23T19:01:46.453" UserId="19913" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="As I understand it, one needs to understand the prior art because any prior art may NOT be patented.  My research indicates that one should not discuss the prior art in a USPTO patent application.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the patent agent / attorney determines that there isn't any prior art, isn't it the role and the responsibility of the USPTO to search for any prior art and confirm / refute the application scope of claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52065" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18734" RevisionGUID="2e490e7c-4673-437f-879b-2d0e3cd45925" CreationDate="2018-01-23T20:12:22.537" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19040" RevisionGUID="ed3c00a8-7437-413d-a75e-89d000163d31" CreationDate="2018-01-23T21:50:34.280" UserId="20619" Text="This is a frivolous patent application. Patented items are supposed to be non-obvious inventions. Hot glue and a brass casing is not exactly high art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [USD791006][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD791006" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52067" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19040" RevisionGUID="ed3c00a8-7437-413d-a75e-89d000163d31" CreationDate="2018-01-23T21:50:34.280" UserId="20619" Text="Patents need to be non-obvious" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52068" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19040" RevisionGUID="ed3c00a8-7437-413d-a75e-89d000163d31" CreationDate="2018-01-23T21:50:34.280" UserId="20619" Text="&lt;usd791006&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19042" RevisionGUID="debaaa70-9fde-478e-997b-55ab4ca1e03b" CreationDate="2018-01-24T14:57:54.397" UserId="20623" Text="Is it possible to file with PCT without filing for a national application first? My search on the web so far indicates yes, but the recommended route is to file a national/regional application first before proceeding to PCT within 12 months (ex. this link from WIPO http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/pct/en/seminar/basic_1/timeline.pdf). What are the disadvantages of proceeding with a PCT filing first? I am assuming that the filing date in this case would be the PCT filing date. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52074" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19042" RevisionGUID="debaaa70-9fde-478e-997b-55ab4ca1e03b" CreationDate="2018-01-24T14:57:54.397" UserId="20623" Text="Filing with PCT first before any national application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52075" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19042" RevisionGUID="debaaa70-9fde-478e-997b-55ab4ca1e03b" CreationDate="2018-01-24T14:57:54.397" UserId="20623" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52076" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18332" RevisionGUID="2733c842-89ce-49a9-8127-cb8c32ec491e" CreationDate="2018-01-24T15:22:49.770" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19040" RevisionGUID="fbe19202-18dd-49cb-bcf4-1dcb03210b56" CreationDate="2018-01-24T15:28:39.877" UserId="17003" Comment="Changed link to patent to one which shows the figures." Text="This is a frivolous patent application. Patented items are supposed to be non-obvious inventions. Hot glue and a brass casing is not exactly high art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [USD791006][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD791006S1/en?oq=USD791006" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19042" RevisionGUID="b5ae9751-980c-4627-9693-8d0f9ff36f13" CreationDate="2018-01-24T15:56:33.227" UserId="20623" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Is it possible to file with PCT without filing for a national application first? My search on the web so far indicates yes, but the recommended route is to file a national/regional application first before proceeding to PCT within 12 months (ex. this link from WIPO http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/pct/en/seminar/basic_1/timeline.pdf). What are the disadvantages of proceeding with a PCT filing first? I am assuming that the priority date in this case would be the PCT filing date. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52082" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18285" RevisionGUID="dad32d6d-1592-4f86-83b6-6646fd9d4fdb" CreationDate="2018-01-24T16:22:52.600" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19040" RevisionGUID="5a7e233d-644e-4bee-8eff-8b18407639f1" CreationDate="2018-01-24T16:33:44.137" UserId="16696" Comment="Slightly rephrased the to make it more of a question.  Useful, imo, for disambiguating between utility and design patents" Text="Patented items are supposed to be non-obvious inventions. However, this patent would seem to be frivolous, consisting of hot glue and a brass casing used to produce a type of bracelet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [USD791006][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this patentable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD791006S1/en?oq=USD791006" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52084" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19040" RevisionGUID="5a7e233d-644e-4bee-8eff-8b18407639f1" CreationDate="2018-01-24T16:33:44.137" UserId="16696" Comment="Slightly rephrased the to make it more of a question.  Useful, imo, for disambiguating between utility and design patents" Text="Patents need to be non-obvious, but this patent is clearly obvious" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52085" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19040" RevisionGUID="5a7e233d-644e-4bee-8eff-8b18407639f1" CreationDate="2018-01-24T16:33:44.137" UserId="16696" Comment="Slightly rephrased the to make it more of a question.  Useful, imo, for disambiguating between utility and design patents" Text="&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;usd791006&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52086" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18385" RevisionGUID="66e0a8fb-bfd4-4420-ba08-3f2dd3caefd1" CreationDate="2018-01-24T18:22:56.140" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52087" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18328" RevisionGUID="689cd5be-6d93-43c9-a270-29e3a40d6453" CreationDate="2018-01-24T20:22:52.033" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19045" RevisionGUID="77ace069-77be-4c70-9702-80d681f75af1" CreationDate="2018-01-24T22:14:38.693" UserId="3076" Text="Design patents **are** definitely subject to 35 USC (**obviousness**). A glass beverage bottle with an indented right-hand spiral would presumably be obvious in light of a similar bottle with a left-hand spiral. It has been unclear how to apply the non-obvious criteria to designs and rejections on 35 USC 103 are not a frequent in design application as in utility applications. see [this PatentlyO article][1] titled &quot;Design Patents §103 – Obvious to Whom and As Compared to What?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/09/%C2%A7103-obvious-compared.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19045" RevisionGUID="cb4228c0-7c07-414f-884b-32aa2500b4d5" CreationDate="2018-01-24T22:21:28.380" UserId="3076" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Design patents **are** definitely subject to 35 USC (**obviousness**). A glass beverage bottle with an indented right-hand spiral would presumably be obvious in light of a similar bottle with a left-hand spiral. It has been unclear how to apply the non-obvious criteria to designs; and rejections on 35 USC 103 are not as frequent in design application as in utility applications. See [this PatentlyO article][1] titled &quot;Design Patents §103 – Obvious to Whom and As Compared to What?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/09/%C2%A7103-obvious-compared.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19045" RevisionGUID="33d21e2b-877f-47d2-b3fc-b14e513a14df" CreationDate="2018-01-24T23:05:18.413" UserId="3076" Comment="add apple iPhone example" Text="Design patents **are definitely subject to obviousness**. A glass beverage bottle with an indented right-hand spiral would presumably be obvious in light of a similar bottle with a left-hand spiral. Many millions of dollars hung in the balance on whether or not Apples'D618,677 design patent on the iPhone was or wasn't obvious in light of previous art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is true that it has not always been clear how to apply the non-obviousness criteria to designs; and rejections on 35 USC 103 are not as frequent in design application as in utility applications. See [this PatentlyO article][1] titled &quot;Design Patents §103 – Obvious to Whom and As Compared to What?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/09/%C2%A7103-obvious-compared.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52091" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="f9397ce5-fd69-406e-8b65-49ca47eea3ba" CreationDate="2018-01-24T23:22:52.327" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19045" RevisionGUID="c516c1d3-2b78-444c-a963-34772b6603e5" CreationDate="2018-01-25T00:32:10.867" UserId="3076" Comment="ref to 10 cited items" Text="Design patents **are definitely subject to obviousness**. A glass beverage bottle with an indented right-hand spiral would presumably be obvious in light of a similar bottle with a left-hand spiral. Many millions of dollars hung in the balance on whether or not Apples's D618,677 design patent on the iPhone was or wasn't obvious in light of previous art. Regarding the patent in question, on google patents you will see ten cited items listed that the examiner found in searching for things that might show the bracelet as obvious in light of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is true that it has not always been clear how to apply the non-obviousness criteria to designs; and rejections on 35 USC 103 are not as frequent in design application as in utility applications. See [this PatentlyO article][1] titled &quot;Design Patents §103 – Obvious to Whom and As Compared to What?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/09/%C2%A7103-obvious-compared.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52093" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="a7ae7253-3cb2-4326-a9dd-4cf8f9a8a267" CreationDate="2018-01-25T01:22:55.673" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52103" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18155" RevisionGUID="572822da-75ec-44fb-863b-581dc8171e02" CreationDate="2018-01-25T16:32:13.797" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52104" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18414" RevisionGUID="1a3784b2-e0c8-4a11-80c9-074ce01c79f5" CreationDate="2018-01-25T17:32:13.527" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19048" RevisionGUID="24490895-490a-450a-b520-f0536f2e36bd" CreationDate="2018-01-25T17:59:34.690" UserId="3076" Text="If the first application you file is a PCT application its filing date will be the priority date for everything that flows from the PCT filing. You can take advantage of that priority by entering national stages in select countries (within the 30 or 31 month deadlines) and/or by filing national applications in individual locations within 12 months (under the Paris Convention). There are a few countries that are not contracting states with the PCT - Argentina and Taiwan, for example. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As is mentioned in multiple comments, a PCT application is more expensive than a national application and there are some pitfalls that can make it even more expensive. If you are planning on doing this by yourself I would recommend filing it as a national application.&#xD;&#xA;An example of a PCT gotcha is that if you chose the EPO as your ISA, they can let you know that they do not search in the subject matter area of your claims and,  &quot;thank you we will keep your 2k search fee&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19049" RevisionGUID="284ad1bb-9c64-4a54-afc6-75c05a73246e" CreationDate="2018-01-25T18:53:20.810" UserId="20631" Text="I'm new to the world of law and trying to get a high level picture of things. Am I right to think of the structure of information (at least in the patent realm) as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. USC title 35 = high level source, compilation of laws&#xD;&#xA; 2. MPEP = detailed guidance on interpretation of the USC title 35&#xD;&#xA; 3. Guidance docs and cases = further colour on the interpretation of law along with Interim updates to the MPEP, until the MPEP is updated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do all titles of the USC have an associated manual along with supporting guidance documents?&#xD;&#xA;How often does the manual get updated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Delving a little deeper: I understand that the manual of patent examining procedure serves to provide guidance for use by USPTO professionals in applying the laws set forth in USC 35.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see mention of the judicial exceptions (abstract ideas/laws of nature/natural phenomena) in the USC. Is the MPEP along with guidance documents such as [these][1]/relevant cases the only place to find information on them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52107" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19049" RevisionGUID="284ad1bb-9c64-4a54-afc6-75c05a73246e" CreationDate="2018-01-25T18:53:20.810" UserId="20631" Text="USC / MPEP / Guidance Docs / Cases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52108" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19049" RevisionGUID="284ad1bb-9c64-4a54-afc6-75c05a73246e" CreationDate="2018-01-25T18:53:20.810" UserId="20631" Text="&lt;mpep&gt;&lt;eligibility&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19049" RevisionGUID="2b8af14f-b5db-49a0-9c45-eb0c9155976a" CreationDate="2018-01-25T19:03:07.383" UserId="20631" Comment="added 254 characters in body" Text="I'm new to the world of law and trying to get a high level picture of things. Am I right to think of the structure of information (at least in the patent realm) as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. USC title 35 = high level source, compilation of laws&#xD;&#xA; 2. MPEP = detailed guidance on interpretation of the USC title 35&#xD;&#xA; 3. Guidance docs and cases = further colour on the interpretation of law along with Interim updates to the MPEP, until the MPEP is updated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see a set of patent 'rules' as opposed to laws in [this][1] doc. What this the purpose of the rules at a very high level? Trying to understand how everything fits together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do all titles of the USC have an associated manual along with supporting guidance documents?&#xD;&#xA;How often does the manual get updated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Delving a little deeper: I understand that the manual of patent examining procedure serves to provide guidance for use by USPTO professionals in applying the laws set forth in USC 35.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see mention of the judicial exceptions (abstract ideas/laws of nature/natural phenomena) in the USC. Is the MPEP along with guidance documents such as [these][2]/relevant cases the only place to find information on them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolidated_rules.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19050" RevisionGUID="15172498-b0c2-45ca-b39d-f758860082c8" CreationDate="2018-01-25T20:17:03.833" UserId="15503" Text="The US is a common law country, which means law comes from a few sources: statutes (bills passed by Congress), administrative law (rules passed by federal agencies), and common law (rules derived from judgments in cases).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Statute law**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US Congress passes bills (though at a somewhat decreasing rate in recent years). For example, in 2011, Congress passed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act to revamp the US patents system. There are thousands of bills enacted in total, around a couple of hundred per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The United States Code is a compilation of enacted statutes, which are reordered into titles based on subject area. For example, title 35 relates to patents. Each USC title can include parts of many different statutes, and each statute may go into a few different titles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Statutes in the USC are law, and will be applied by the courts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Regulations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Various federal agencies are empowered to establish regulations to administer their area. Notably, the USPTO is empowered to establish regulations for how patents are applied for. These are published in the Federal Register. There are thousands of these regulations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Code of Federal Regulations is a compilation of regulations from the different federal agencies, which are reordered into titles based on subject area. For example, title 37 (which you linked to) relates to patents, trademarks, and copyrights. Each CFR title can include hundreds of different regulations, and each set of regulations may go into a few different titles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regulations in the CFR are law (albeit secondary to the statutes in the USC), and will be applied by the courts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cases**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a case comes before a US court, the court will issue a judgment with their reasoning for how they decided the case. The doctrine established by that reasoning becomes part of the common law. For example, there was a series of cases over the years, which established the doctrine of nonstatutory double patenting. This doctrine does not appear in the USC or CFR, since it does not originate from a statute or regulations, but it is law nonetheless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This continues to be part of the law until a statute is passed (which renders the original common law doctrine moot) or a higher court overrules it. For example, if the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit rules one way, this is law until the US Supreme Court rules in a contrary way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Case law is not officially compiled in any real way, and practitioners simply have to wade through thousands of judgments to distill what the common law is. There are various secondary sources which attempt to compile doctrines, like the Restatements of the Law, but these are just for convenience and do not themselves have force.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Case law is law, and will be applied by the courts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**MPEP**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The MPEP is a manual for examiners to apply the law. This is because there is so much statute, regulation, and case law that examiners cannot be expected to have read and understood it all, and to consistently come to the same interpretation. The MPEP therefore works as an interface between examiners and the law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examiners are required to apply the MPEP (since they cannot act arbitrarily), so applicants and practioners should therefore also follow it, to guide their interactions with examiners. However, it is not in itself law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The MPEP gets updated when there are changes in the law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other agencies can have similar manuals, generally to regulate the operation of their employees. But there is no real obligation to do so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19048" RevisionGUID="eca530a0-5504-48b6-9fb5-75096dd41787" CreationDate="2018-01-25T20:24:02.240" UserId="3076" Comment="removed ref. to Paris convention" Text="If the first application you file is a PCT application its filing date will be the priority date for everything that flows from the PCT filing. You can take advantage of that priority by entering national stages in select countries (within the 30 or 31 month deadlines). There are a few countries that are not contracting states with the PCT - Argentina and Taiwan, for example. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As is mentioned in multiple comments, a PCT application is more expensive than a national application and there are some pitfalls that can make it even more expensive. If you are planning on doing this by yourself I would recommend filing it as a national application.&#xD;&#xA;An example of a PCT gotcha is that if you chose the EPO as your ISA, they can let you know that they do not search in the subject matter area of your claims and,  &quot;thank you we will keep your 2k search fee&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52112" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18828" RevisionGUID="2e0fbff1-3f75-422b-8bb0-c7cb23de8233" CreationDate="2018-01-25T20:33:17.597" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52113" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="19018" RevisionGUID="80dabdfe-0f24-414c-be50-af36e4ae3810" CreationDate="2018-01-25T22:18:53.583" UserId="18521" Comment="41" />
  <row Id="52114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19051" RevisionGUID="b44671c5-e910-4381-9c20-f96d43409af0" CreationDate="2018-01-25T23:24:33.260" UserId="20632" Text="In reference to the patent: [USD613300][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD613300" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52115" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19051" RevisionGUID="b44671c5-e910-4381-9c20-f96d43409af0" CreationDate="2018-01-25T23:24:33.260" UserId="20632" Text="Does this patent hold true for all carousel view images or card view images in an application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52116" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19051" RevisionGUID="b44671c5-e910-4381-9c20-f96d43409af0" CreationDate="2018-01-25T23:24:33.260" UserId="20632" Text="&lt;apple&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52117" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13731" RevisionGUID="02cac4c1-ba50-4694-9963-0c109ccfa938" CreationDate="2018-01-26T02:33:20.027" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52119" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18478" RevisionGUID="b918d34e-5a68-4e9f-8dbf-0461a595e4aa" CreationDate="2018-01-26T07:35:49.990" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52123" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="76ca6732-687a-4329-a39b-c051c10fe9d5" CreationDate="2018-01-26T15:37:55.617" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52125" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="06c28585-2c3c-49bc-8b0e-b0916c7f86ee" CreationDate="2018-01-26T16:37:55.467" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19053" RevisionGUID="d82107c4-1317-4a43-821d-675bdfa6a283" CreationDate="2018-01-26T16:52:27.170" UserId="20635" Text="My initial reaction to the above question was yes. However, consider the following - if DE, JP and KR have problems with earlier applications, is the second PCT considered to supersede the first? Does a second PCT automatically mean that the first PCT is deemed withdrawn in these countries?  The Euro-PCT guide seems to suggest it is automatic, irrespective of new subject-matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“According to the national law of these states, the filing of an international application which contains the designation of that state and claims the priority of an earlier national application filed in that state (for Germany: for the same kind of protection) will have the result that the earlier national application ceases to have effect, with the same consequences as the withdrawal of the earlier national application”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not asking for the community to look all this up, I just wanted to demonstrate that I have given this thought and would like an opinion from those here. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52127" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19053" RevisionGUID="d82107c4-1317-4a43-821d-675bdfa6a283" CreationDate="2018-01-26T16:52:27.170" UserId="20635" Text="Can you claim internal priority with the PCT?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52128" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19053" RevisionGUID="d82107c4-1317-4a43-821d-675bdfa6a283" CreationDate="2018-01-26T16:52:27.170" UserId="20635" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;epo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19054" RevisionGUID="b0271147-982c-4213-b3d8-73b2ec40650f" CreationDate="2018-01-26T20:25:08.057" UserId="15403" Text="Suppose Alice comes up with an novel invention idea for a machine to do very useful work, but which requires as part of the larger machine a component perpetual motion machine as its energy source.  (The perpetual motion machine was patented by Bob, who has licensed the patent to Alice.)   Alice applies for and receives a patent without demonstrating any working model, and is never subsequently able to demonstrate a working model.  The invention is never commercialized and nobody obtains the benefits of the work Alice's Marvelous Machine is not actually able to produce.  Alice and Bob's patents can be assumed to be from a different country if that helps the premise seem more plausible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Independently and slightly later, Claire comes up with a similar machine intended to accomplish the same goal, but it uses rechargeable batteries instead of the perpetual motion machine as an energy source.  Claire's machine actually works and can provide the benefits that Alice's machine could not.  However, substituting the energy source may be seen as relatively obvious, and the effect on its feasibility as an energy source might be seen as a reasonably predictable consequence of the swap-out.  Other differences between the machines are immaterial to performance (just a result of independence of invention).  Claire is applying to the USPTO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does Alice's patent on something that does not work prevent Claire from obtaining a patent on something that does? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can this strategy be used to prevent patenting of an invention someone thinks would be more useful if open, even if that patenter can't quite get such an invention to work? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52130" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19054" RevisionGUID="b0271147-982c-4213-b3d8-73b2ec40650f" CreationDate="2018-01-26T20:25:08.057" UserId="15403" Text="Does a patent on an invention which does not work (but granted as if it does) count as invalidating prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52131" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19054" RevisionGUID="b0271147-982c-4213-b3d8-73b2ec40650f" CreationDate="2018-01-26T20:25:08.057" UserId="15403" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52132" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17273" RevisionGUID="59fa615c-d7be-439b-931d-1173fbe28a6f" CreationDate="2018-01-26T22:37:57.900" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19055" RevisionGUID="f1124008-0cbc-4e22-9ace-3a426b9f6318" CreationDate="2018-01-26T23:45:18.037" UserId="17003" Text="I think your example is contrived. The way you explain it, Alice's invention actually would function given a working power source. No one, in my experience would patent such a device with claims specifying Bob's perpetual motion machine if another power source would also work. You would claim a generic power source and then maybe have a dependent claim specifying Bob's device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, Alice's patent is indeed prior art for Claire's invention. The fact that Claire may have started first is of no importance since Alice filed a patent first. Also irrelevant is whether Alice commercialized her invention. The simple fact is that Alice has a patent. Claire must either avoid infringing it or else negotiate a license. Also, I doubt that Claire can obtain a patent for her device if it is functionally the same as Alice's except it uses batteries. Substituting a power source would likely be deemed obvious by the examiner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19054" RevisionGUID="3fca2f65-08ec-4788-af71-d450d3d40732" CreationDate="2018-01-26T23:47:23.810" UserId="15403" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="Suppose Alice comes up with an novel invention idea for a machine to do very useful work, but which requires as part of the larger machine a component perpetual motion machine as its energy source.  (The perpetual motion machine was patented by Bob, who never built it but licensed the patent to Alice.)   Alice applies for and receives a patent without demonstrating any working model, and is never subsequently able to demonstrate a working model.  The invention is never commercialized and nobody obtains the benefits of the work Alice's Marvelous Machine is not actually able to produce.  Alice and Bob's patents can be assumed to be from a different country if that helps the premise seem more plausible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Independently and slightly later, Claire comes up with a similar machine intended to accomplish the same goal, but it uses rechargeable batteries instead of the perpetual motion machine as an energy source.  Claire's machine actually works and can provide the benefits that Alice's machine could not.  However, substituting the energy source may be seen as relatively obvious, and the effect on its feasibility as an energy source might be seen as a reasonably predictable consequence of the swap-out.  Other differences between the machines are immaterial to performance (just a result of independence of invention).  Claire is applying to the USPTO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does Alice's patent on something that does not work prevent Claire from obtaining a patent on something that does? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can this strategy be used to prevent patenting of an invention someone thinks would be more useful if open, even if that patenter can't quite get such an invention to work?   Does Bob's patent block anybody else from patenting a perpetual motion machine? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52136" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18450" RevisionGUID="8a75d970-867e-42af-a8ea-8e066f40958b" CreationDate="2018-01-27T03:41:06.847" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19056" RevisionGUID="112bd8e1-72e1-46bb-bddb-157467b69a1d" CreationDate="2018-01-27T05:06:03.873" UserId="3076" Text="Using a better example. Postulate that Alice's invention would never work because it assumes something that is untrue. It is a device that moves you directly from any arbitrary stage of sleep to another arbitrary state of sleep by making a specific but undefined soft sound. It is not a perpetual motion machine but current science has found no way to do this and the experts in the field are sure it can't be done.   Clare finds a specific soft sound, that she characterizes in detail, that will raise the stage of sleep to a more aroused state than the current state 90% of the time. Maybe she has done experiments and presents data. Claire's is a special case of Alice's and is therefore not even novel let alone non-obvious. Past patents and publications must be enabling in order to qualify as usable prior art. Alice's patent is not actually enabled but is presumed to be enabled because it was granted. To get past this, Claire will need convincing affidavits from experts in the field that, at the time of Alice's filing, it was flat out scientifically impossible to do what she claimed her device does. True story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the topic of perpetual motion machines specifically - they can't get a patent because they fail the &quot;usefulness&quot; criteria since it is an impossibly. However you can get a patent on a novel and non-obvious mechanical device that spins around for a very long time as long as no energy is being extracted from it. It is an amusement device that is fun to watch spin. I think there is a class/subclass just for this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19057" RevisionGUID="92c4dc54-34fb-4062-a50c-b5f74a5c9f6a" CreationDate="2018-01-27T14:36:01.123" UserId="20637" Text="In reference to the patent: [US9474214][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9474214" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52139" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19057" RevisionGUID="92c4dc54-34fb-4062-a50c-b5f74a5c9f6a" CreationDate="2018-01-27T14:36:01.123" UserId="20637" Text="What is the expiration date of this patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52140" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19057" RevisionGUID="92c4dc54-34fb-4062-a50c-b5f74a5c9f6a" CreationDate="2018-01-27T14:36:01.123" UserId="20637" Text="&lt;us9474214&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19058" RevisionGUID="a099edd7-e1e9-48a2-b7ee-6ab0ec915c45" CreationDate="2018-01-27T15:02:23.260" UserId="17003" Text="The best way to determine the expiration date of a US patent is at the [US Public Pair][1] site. Go to Pair, get past the CAPTCHA and then select &quot;Patent Number&quot; and enter 9474214. Pair is extremely picky about format so don't add any commas. From there you can find that this patent will expire 20 years from it's filing or 371(c) date of 09-07-2012 plus 523 days of patent term adjustment. If I calculate correctly that ends up with an expiration date of **February 12, 2034**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19060" RevisionGUID="e01a0812-9245-4b90-8b94-c0a7bc32148b" CreationDate="2018-01-27T22:12:20.587" UserId="3076" Text="The title of your question is confusing but this is a very specific, non-intuitive, situation that does require research to answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically the patent laws of Germany, Japan and Korea provide that a later-filed international application that claims priority of an earlier filed national application has the effect of essentially withdrawing the earlier filed application. To address this, the PCT Request form has boxes to check for each of these countries that &quot;non-designate&quot; the country as one of the countries the PCT application bundle includes. Originally you had to affirmatively designate countries on your PCT Request form, now it is automatic that all PCT member countries are designated - unless one or more of those boxes is checked. This is the [explanation given by the EPO][1] -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non-designation for reasons of national law&#xD;&#xA;117&#xD;&#xA;For reasons of national law, check-boxes in Box No. V of the PCT request form provide for exceptions to the otherwise automatic designation of Germany (DE), Japan (JP) and the Republic of Korea (KR). Crossing the check-box for these designations is not considered as withdrawal of a designation, but as non-designation of the state(s) concerned.&#xD;&#xA;R. 4.9(b) PCT&#xD;&#xA;WIPO PCT Guide 5.053 &#xD;&#xA;118&#xD;&#xA;According to the national law of these states, the filing of an international application which contains the designation of that state and claims the priority of an earlier national application filed in that state (for Germany: for the same kind of protection) will have the result that the earlier national application ceases to have effect, with the same consequences as the withdrawal of the earlier national application. To avoid this effect, the appropriate box must be crossed (Box No. V PCT request form). More information on so-called &quot;self-designation&quot; can be obtained from the national patent offices concerned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.epo.org/applying/international/guide-for-applicants/html/e/ga_b_29.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19060" RevisionGUID="ddda758c-7212-4543-92b9-e5ef58978e1f" CreationDate="2018-01-27T22:20:30.230" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 113 characters in body" Text="As you have found, the patent laws of Germany, Japan and Korea provide that a later-filed international application that claims priority of an earlier filed national application has the effect of essentially withdrawing the earlier filed application. To address this, the PCT Request form has boxes to check for each of these countries that &quot;non-designate&quot; the country as one of the countries the PCT application bundle includes. Originally you had to affirmatively designate countries on your PCT Request form, now it is automatic that all PCT member countries are designated - unless one or more of those boxes is checked. This is the full text of the [explanation given by the EPO][1] -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non-designation for reasons of national law&#xD;&#xA;117&#xD;&#xA;For reasons of national law, check-boxes in Box No. V of the PCT request form provide for exceptions to the otherwise automatic designation of Germany (DE), Japan (JP) and the Republic of Korea (KR). Crossing the check-box for these designations is not considered as withdrawal of a designation, but as non-designation of the state(s) concerned.&#xD;&#xA;R. 4.9(b) PCT&#xD;&#xA;WIPO PCT Guide 5.053 &#xD;&#xA;118&#xD;&#xA;According to the national law of these states, the filing of an international application which contains the designation of that state and claims the priority of an earlier national application filed in that state (for Germany: for the same kind of protection) will have the result that the earlier national application ceases to have effect, with the same consequences as the withdrawal of the earlier national application. To avoid this effect, the appropriate box must be crossed (Box No. V PCT request form). More information on so-called &quot;self-designation&quot; can be obtained from the national patent offices concerned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.epo.org/applying/international/guide-for-applicants/html/e/ga_b_29.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19061" RevisionGUID="cca94458-b485-4db6-b5ce-d884526b65b3" CreationDate="2018-01-27T22:26:54.757" UserId="20640" Text="I am a fan of beelinereader, I want to use same idea to implement a reader app,in their website it is written that their technology is patented as here https://patents.google.com/patent/US20150234788A1/en?oq=20150234788&#xD;&#xA;Does using gradient in the text(possibly any other color combination that beelinereader doesnt show in their list),which also means using different color for each letter, violate their patent coverage ?&#xD;&#xA;It sounds little weird the idea that typing letters in different colors violates a patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52148" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19061" RevisionGUID="cca94458-b485-4db6-b5ce-d884526b65b3" CreationDate="2018-01-27T22:26:54.757" UserId="20640" Text="beelinereader patent coverage" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52149" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19061" RevisionGUID="cca94458-b485-4db6-b5ce-d884526b65b3" CreationDate="2018-01-27T22:26:54.757" UserId="20640" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52150" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18032" RevisionGUID="5639f203-3c06-4aa6-93f0-de6751a1fd1d" CreationDate="2018-01-27T22:50:57.890" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52151" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17720" RevisionGUID="e39f7fa5-576b-4915-b026-c1d5cc2d3b0d" CreationDate="2018-01-27T23:51:00.717" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52152" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="7a054dec-e309-4bab-a8c4-c6df6e835687" CreationDate="2018-01-28T00:51:00.693" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19054" RevisionGUID="86a30a54-d101-4594-a877-11c773926314" CreationDate="2018-01-28T03:39:15.863" UserId="15403" Comment="added 495 characters in body" Text="Suppose Alice comes up with an novel invention idea for a machine to do very useful work, but which requires as part of the larger machine a component perpetual motion machine as its energy source.  (The perpetual motion machine was patented by Bob, who never built it but licensed the patent to Alice.)   Alice applies for and receives a patent without demonstrating any working model, and is never subsequently able to demonstrate a working model.  The invention is never commercialized and nobody obtains the benefits of the work Alice's Marvelous Machine is not actually able to produce.  Alice and Bob's patents can be assumed to be from a different country if that helps the premise seem more plausible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Independently and slightly later, Claire comes up with a similar machine intended to accomplish the same goal, but it uses rechargeable batteries instead of the perpetual motion machine as an energy source.  Claire's machine actually works and can provide the benefits that Alice's machine could not.  However, substituting the energy source may be seen as relatively obvious, and the effect on its feasibility as an energy source might be seen as a reasonably predictable consequence of the swap-out.  Other differences between the machines are immaterial to performance (just a result of independence of invention).  Claire is applying to the USPTO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does Alice's patent on something that does not work prevent Claire from obtaining a patent on something that does? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can this strategy be used to prevent patenting of an invention someone thinks would be more useful if open, even if that patenter can't quite get such an invention to work?   Does Bob's patent block anybody else from patenting a perpetual motion machine? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edited to add specific better example: Can someone patent a machine providing what they (incorrectly) think is a solution to solve an NP problem in P steps (i.e. claiming [P=NP][1]), even if not in the US, and have that block any later inventor from patenting a real solution that works?  (If P=NP, such a machine would be one of the most valuable inventions to have been invented; patent rights could be very important on this.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52154" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17881" RevisionGUID="7d60e3d9-4803-4fee-8181-62a353274922" CreationDate="2018-01-28T12:59:01.353" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52160" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="ba87b9e6-b2e2-45f6-bafe-d5123c574331" CreationDate="2018-01-28T18:59:14.393" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19063" RevisionGUID="318fb50f-cd30-4a8a-8ba9-d977ab39498c" CreationDate="2018-01-28T20:23:32.280" UserId="19232" Text="The example is an invention depending on precise definitions of a series of antecedent phrases that will be repeated numerous times in a series of following claim parts, some of the phrases being partly similar therefore need to be carefully distinguished. Here is an attempt at constructing something that is parallel to my invention’s claim characteristics: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim construction 1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for [doing something useful with a computing device having a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; graphical user interface] comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; upon detecting [something], displaying **a message input interface**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [having these specific characteristics];&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; displaying one or more of **special icons of type 1** [that represent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a function A];&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; accepting user input to select one or more of **the special icons of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; type 1**;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; displaying one or more of **special icons of type 2** [that represent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a function B];&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; accepting user input to select one or more of **the special icons of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; type 2**;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; etc. (several more statements of this sort).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;–– Compared TO to this kind of construction, for any benefit or advantage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim construction 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for [doing something useful with a computing device having a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; graphical user interface] comprising **a message input interface**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **special icons of type 1**, and **special icons of type 2**, wherein &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; upon detecting [something], displaying **the message input&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interface** [having these specific characteristics];&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; displaying one or more of **the special icons of type 1** [that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; represent a function A];&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; accepting user input to select one or more of **the special icons of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; type 1**;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; displaying one or more of **the special icons of type 2** [that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; represent a function B];&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; accepting user input to select one or more of **the special icons of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; type 2** ;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; etc. (several more statements of this sort).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summarizing the question:** Is there any reason for stating those antecedent phrases in what I believe is called the Preamble of the independent claim? In my actual case, there would be exactly 10 of them. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52164" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19063" RevisionGUID="318fb50f-cd30-4a8a-8ba9-d977ab39498c" CreationDate="2018-01-28T20:23:32.280" UserId="19232" Text="In an independent claim is there any advantage of stating all the critical antecedents up front rather than introducing them individually?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52165" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19063" RevisionGUID="318fb50f-cd30-4a8a-8ba9-d977ab39498c" CreationDate="2018-01-28T20:23:32.280" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52166" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18540" RevisionGUID="8311d98f-a593-49ba-806d-96a4119c84dc" CreationDate="2018-01-28T21:59:23.770" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52167" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19063" RevisionGUID="ba358d80-65f4-4a4c-9d76-e9ffe4c6cd60" CreationDate="2018-01-28T22:51:46.867" UserId="19232" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;usa&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52168" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18600" RevisionGUID="366e00db-84b8-4178-bfcc-f99674feac27" CreationDate="2018-01-29T00:03:34.687" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19064" RevisionGUID="b50d9563-66e6-403e-a9f6-7ad4660c0c7d" CreationDate="2018-01-29T04:28:53.837" UserId="15503" Text="It's purely a stylistic difference, based on how the drafter thinks the claim would be most clearly described. Notably, there is no scope difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The real benefit is to allow you to explain each element with proper antecedence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's less obvious in your claims, but consider this example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a first device, configured to send a message to a second device using a cable;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;the second device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;the cable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, it feels wrong for the second device and the cable to be described before it is noted that they are part of the system. It is not unclear as such, but it feels wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is avoided by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system comprising a first device, a second device, and a cable, wherein:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;the first device is configured to send a message to the second device using the cable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This feels better, but contains no different features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Two-part form**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The EPO mandates that the novel part of the claim (the &quot;characterising portion&quot;) is separated from the known part of the claim (the &quot;preamble&quot;) by the phrase &quot;characterised by&quot; or &quot;characterised in that&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since most components per se are known, they should be in the preamble: it is how they are configured that is novel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus you might have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising a first device, a second device, and a cable, characterised in that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;the first device is configured to send a message to the second device using the cable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such two-part form is impossible if you don't list the components initially.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The EPO's requirement for two-part form should not guide your drafting now though, as it's something that can be easily added later (and there are many much more important European requirements to be wary of). And indeed, you don't know what prior art the EPO will require you to use to characterise your claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52175" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="7d80805a-c99d-4262-b28b-cf9ff51f17a8" CreationDate="2018-01-29T06:06:45.220" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52176" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="89eb7fcb-d0fe-4993-b5ad-42b2c6f4a41d" CreationDate="2018-01-29T07:06:45.247" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19066" RevisionGUID="63b76637-8536-455b-bb6a-a89c212233bd" CreationDate="2018-01-29T10:29:03.233" UserId="20647" Text="What is the expiry date of patent US2014/0086986A1 on Capsicum." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52178" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19066" RevisionGUID="63b76637-8536-455b-bb6a-a89c212233bd" CreationDate="2018-01-29T10:29:03.233" UserId="20647" Text="Expiry date of patent -US2014/0086986A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52179" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19066" RevisionGUID="63b76637-8536-455b-bb6a-a89c212233bd" CreationDate="2018-01-29T10:29:03.233" UserId="20647" Text="&lt;us9247694&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52180" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="19066" RevisionGUID="0cdbe0e2-c0a5-4cc7-b6e4-9cdd18da1bf6" CreationDate="2018-01-29T12:05:39.663" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[19057],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="52185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19068" RevisionGUID="c77b700d-dc51-432a-a509-c59a0977f532" CreationDate="2018-01-29T18:21:58.793" UserId="20649" Text="Is a conversation between two colleagues or a group in a lab meeting considered prior art?  Neither are in a public forum.  Is there an assumption of confidentiality?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52186" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19068" RevisionGUID="c77b700d-dc51-432a-a509-c59a0977f532" CreationDate="2018-01-29T18:21:58.793" UserId="20649" Text="At what point do conversations become prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52187" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19068" RevisionGUID="c77b700d-dc51-432a-a509-c59a0977f532" CreationDate="2018-01-29T18:21:58.793" UserId="20649" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;discloaure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19069" RevisionGUID="61edc7a9-d054-4014-b777-a0aebed60f42" CreationDate="2018-01-29T19:30:34.313" UserId="17003" Text="I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that something has to be publicly disclosed to be considered prior art. Conversations between colleagues within the same business is clearly not prior art. What conversations with other employees does impact is inventorship. If someone contributes an idea that gets reflected in a patent's claims, then they probably should be considered a co-inventor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52189" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19068" RevisionGUID="97627761-87e4-4354-b0f7-a78c95edc400" CreationDate="2018-01-29T19:37:51.850" UserId="1" Comment="edited title" Text="At what point does a conversations become prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52190" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="19068" RevisionGUID="983c346c-632e-47ab-b860-8ea601a53fce" CreationDate="2018-01-29T20:28:59.213" UserId="15503" Comment="Rollback to [c77b700d-dc51-432a-a509-c59a0977f532]" Text="At what point do conversations become prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19071" RevisionGUID="2d5c7c04-1948-4ec3-8963-480e7ec2d66a" CreationDate="2018-01-30T01:26:53.190" UserId="20655" Text="If I have an idea that I present and to someone or a group at a school function, and they take the idea directly from our meeting and sell it, can I sue? Or do I literally have ZERO protection without a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52196" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19071" RevisionGUID="2d5c7c04-1948-4ec3-8963-480e7ec2d66a" CreationDate="2018-01-30T01:26:53.190" UserId="20655" Text="Patentless Invention" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52197" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19071" RevisionGUID="2d5c7c04-1948-4ec3-8963-480e7ec2d66a" CreationDate="2018-01-30T01:26:53.190" UserId="20655" Text="&lt;legal&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52199" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16606" RevisionGUID="a53a811e-36ef-4f41-8087-38d1bf089263" CreationDate="2018-01-30T04:11:32.920" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52200" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18181" RevisionGUID="3ff0e5ef-8d54-436b-967f-7845b3a9b5d5" CreationDate="2018-01-30T05:11:35.653" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52201" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18508" RevisionGUID="54d6ca56-67eb-42c8-af37-4fce0f3c0a79" CreationDate="2018-01-30T06:11:37.480" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52203" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="64564c44-18fa-4244-9bf5-ceba9e993c6e" CreationDate="2018-01-30T07:11:52.087" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19073" RevisionGUID="e67ebdd0-8e3c-409b-9422-ac6bfff3ffb7" CreationDate="2018-01-30T07:48:06.783" UserId="17325" Text="This is a very interesting topic and a short answer is rather impossible. It's all about how you define the public and its access to prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The EPO (Europe, for the most part of it) considers that &quot;information is generally to be regarded as having been made public if even **just one single member** of the public is in a position to gain access to it and understand it, and if there is **no obligation to maintain secrecy**&quot;. What happens, though, in practice is that such guidelines driven by the case law is a dynamic set of rules which changes with time. Some examples are clear-cut cases and some are subject to new-created case law.&#xD;&#xA;For practice as per EPO you can read more here: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2016/e/clr_i_c_3_3.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the US I am not fully aware of the rules that regulate such issues, but there should be relevant case law there as well (who is &quot;public&quot;, the concept of &quot;secrecy&quot;). Mind that in the US there is an exception, a one-year grace period, within which a disclosure made by the inventor or someone who got access to the information by the inventor, is not prejudicial in a patent application's novelty (US experts may correct me here, if I am wrong). This exception does not apply, though, in other jurisdictions, particularly the EPO, so &quot;handle with care&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19074" RevisionGUID="4c9cbfeb-8917-46c9-a02f-a6220d51f120" CreationDate="2018-01-30T07:59:14.550" UserId="17325" Text="In the EPO, a machine that dries hair with ice cubes and one that dries hair with friction would not be considered unitary. As mentioned in the comments by George White, the EPO looks for something that is &quot;a single general inventive concept&quot; (European Patent Convention, Article 82). In your example, you solve the problem of providing a machine that dries hair with two different solutions, one with ice cubes and one with friction. It really would not be fair if you had only one patent to pay and two &quot;inventions&quot; protected under it.&#xD;&#xA;To reverse the situation, if Apple had two new breakthrough ideas for screens that i.e. respond to the movement of the eye and another one wherein the screens respond to the tempo of breathing, would you consider it reasonable to have them both in one patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US is more liberal regarding the term of unity which is why US attorneys need EPO attorneys to file in Europe and vice versa. This relates to more delicate issues though. In your example, I do not think the USPTO would allow those two hair drying machine to be present in the same patent. At the end it is all about the payment a patent office receives about searching, examining and issuing your patent. They don't want to be paid once for two patents. US-based members might offer some additional info here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52206" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19068" RevisionGUID="3c90da1c-cb4c-463f-a3d0-2e349997d33c" CreationDate="2018-01-30T08:19:20.877" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19074" RevisionGUID="5c69ac2b-680b-4b1c-8e3c-f3cd7884bf6a" CreationDate="2018-01-30T09:17:41.337" UserId="17325" Comment="changed example after comment" Text="In the EPO, a machine that dries hair with ice cubes and one that dries hair with friction would not be considered unitary. As mentioned in the comments by George White, the EPO looks for something that is &quot;a single general inventive concept&quot; (European Patent Convention, Article 82). In your example, you solve the problem of providing a machine that dries hair with two different solutions, one with ice cubes and one with friction. It really would not be fair if you had only one patent to pay and two &quot;inventions&quot; protected under it.&#xD;&#xA;To reverse the situation, if Apple had two new breakthrough ideas for touch screens that are manufactured by some novel ion-based nanomaterial and another one for touch screens manufacture by some novel polymer, would you consider it reasonable to have them both in one patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US is more liberal regarding the term of unity which is why US attorneys need EPO attorneys to file in Europe and vice versa. This relates to more delicate issues though. In your example, I do not think the USPTO would allow those two hair drying machine to be present in the same patent. At the end it is all about the payment a patent office receives about searching, examining and issuing your patent. They don't want to be paid once for two patents. US-based members might offer some additional info here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19075" RevisionGUID="c8417c93-ed17-4652-b5ff-564d9b113a9b" CreationDate="2018-01-30T13:02:45.297" UserId="17325" Text="Is anyone experienced in searching patent applications/patents whose subject is either an enzyme (protein sequence) and/or the gene which encodes a particular enzyme (dna sequence)? There should be a way to search across the sequences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52209" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19075" RevisionGUID="c8417c93-ed17-4652-b5ff-564d9b113a9b" CreationDate="2018-01-30T13:02:45.297" UserId="17325" Text="Patent searching in biotechnology" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52210" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19075" RevisionGUID="c8417c93-ed17-4652-b5ff-564d9b113a9b" CreationDate="2018-01-30T13:02:45.297" UserId="17325" Text="&lt;patent-search&gt;&lt;biotechnology&gt;&lt;enzyme&gt;&lt;dna&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52213" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16569" RevisionGUID="6bef2375-ef2a-416d-8529-44572e01d530" CreationDate="2018-01-30T14:11:46.847" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19076" RevisionGUID="896bafe0-9e90-4f96-8548-6c70e2edc9f9" CreationDate="2018-01-30T15:07:50.323" UserId="20658" Text="The method of calibrating the sensor is not novel. It is the same method used in most systems to calibrate a sensor. Here is a patent that uses this procedure for calibrating fluid flow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Electro-pneumatic converter calibration” , Pub # P0859302 A2, Filing Data 1993&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Background Of The Invention&#xD;&#xA;Electro-pneumatic converters, such as current to pressure transducers are in common use as field instruments mounted in pipeline systems for controlling the process fluid. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CLAIMS(5)&#xD;&#xA;1.	A temperature compensation method for an electro-pneumatic converter device (10) having a microprocessor (96) receiving an electrical input signal and other inputs and a current to pressure converter (I/P) coupled to the microprocessor for providing an output pressure signal, comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;a calibration sequence including,&#xD;&#xA;(1) applying a first temperature to said device (10);&#xD;&#xA;(2) applying a predetermined electrical signal input to said device;&#xD;&#xA;(3) reading said first temperature and predetermined electrical signal input;&#xD;&#xA;(4) determining correction values;&#xD;&#xA;(5) storing said correction values for said first temperature and said predetermined signal input;&#xD;&#xA;(6) repeating steps (1) and (3) - (5) for other respective temperatures and other respective inputs to store said respective correction values for said other respective temperatures and inputs;&#xD;&#xA;a compensation sequence including,&#xD;&#xA;(7) reading the present temperature;&#xD;&#xA;(8) determining active correction values for each electrical signal input at said present temperature;&#xD;&#xA;(9) storing said active correction values for said electrical signal inputs; and&#xD;&#xA;an operation sequence, including&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52215" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="fb5adcd1-1933-4eea-af91-71cd12fa1011" CreationDate="2018-01-30T15:11:46.577" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19077" RevisionGUID="c77b4dee-0f0a-453e-9a3c-085621291716" CreationDate="2018-01-30T22:55:37.520" UserId="20659" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20160278604][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20160278604&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd need to contact Mr. Alpert or one of the others inventors of this patent for having some more information about this patent and others like this.&#xD;&#xA;Where could I find an e-mail address for contacting them?&#xD;&#xA;One more information: &#xD;&#xA;has the dishwasher been built or ther is any plans of realising it?&#xD;&#xA;If I wanted to built something like that outside of US, for example in Europe, could I do it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance for your collaboration.&#xD;&#xA;Best regards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vanna Gotti&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52217" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19077" RevisionGUID="c77b4dee-0f0a-453e-9a3c-085621291716" CreationDate="2018-01-30T22:55:37.520" UserId="20659" Text="Making of the dishwasher" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52218" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19077" RevisionGUID="c77b4dee-0f0a-453e-9a3c-085621291716" CreationDate="2018-01-30T22:55:37.520" UserId="20659" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52219" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17171" RevisionGUID="187336fc-fca5-422d-b0e7-357d2ccedec1" CreationDate="2018-01-30T23:14:07.183" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52220" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18185" RevisionGUID="4834758f-67fb-4e16-9e3a-88969331610a" CreationDate="2018-01-31T00:14:17.597" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19078" RevisionGUID="2203c8ea-94a2-4b01-9efe-2c6e63f60a86" CreationDate="2018-01-31T00:22:33.703" UserId="3076" Text="From the form of the document number, this is an application for a patent, not a grant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the google patent link you can see &quot;also published as&quot;  US7604012 and US9386902. These are U.S. patents. Ask Patents is a forum for discussing certain aspects of patents and patenting. It is not a direct way to communicate with the inventors. The USPTO has a web site called Public PAIR that provides the public with access to all of the back-and-forth communications between applicants and the USPTO. If you search Ask Patents for PAIR you will find direction on getting to that site. On US9386902, PAIR shows ALPERT, MARTIN A.&#xD;&#xA;26061 ANNESLEY ROAD BEACHWOOD, OHIO 44122 as the assignee (owner) and shows Renner, Otto, Boisselle &amp; Sklar, LLP ; 19th Floor ; 1621 Euclid Avenue ; Cleveland OH; 44115-219 as the attorney of record.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52222" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="19077" RevisionGUID="21f6a0eb-6fa0-4f4a-8b51-e0c3b1263523" CreationDate="2018-01-31T00:57:58.313" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5059],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="52223" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16450" RevisionGUID="5b8fb5f6-096c-4df3-b1f6-d5b9d5ab0429" CreationDate="2018-01-31T01:14:17.423" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52224" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16771" RevisionGUID="ef22d4ed-a503-4995-9cb4-a5b76fc06813" CreationDate="2018-01-31T02:14:18.783" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52226" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="a8230cfd-8169-44c5-b9f3-339fcb597187" CreationDate="2018-01-31T03:14:18.813" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52230" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17909" RevisionGUID="5e712f0c-6f03-4b91-980a-cdc801f9455c" CreationDate="2018-01-31T05:20:05.043" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19080" RevisionGUID="1b106d8c-b7fe-4372-b957-1415a1bc20ea" CreationDate="2018-01-31T09:57:09.910" UserId="18033" Text="The lens has a search machine for sequences plus some analytics tools at [lens.org/lens/bio][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lens.org/lens/bio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52232" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="0ce5c541-c3ce-4068-a79a-a7cdc1fa98eb" CreationDate="2018-01-31T12:20:57.620" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52233" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="f00a77b7-fb53-43ea-820d-994c9b946197" CreationDate="2018-01-31T13:21:53.060" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16636" RevisionGUID="575afe6b-00d8-4f03-a6a4-e390f6704408" CreationDate="2018-01-31T15:53:47.780" UserId="17003" Comment="added 565 characters in body" Text="An excellent free 3-D drawing tool is [OnShape][1]. It is free and runs within the browser so it works on any computer. Surprisingly capable. You can also generate 2D drawings. Much better than SketchUp for precision drawing. The website provides plenty of tutorials also.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, OnShape changed their policies and now the free license doesn't provide for private documents. This makes the software unusable for patent drawing purposes. It is still excellent software and relatively cheap to use. At this point, I would recommend Autodesk Fusion 360 which is free for [educational use and for start-up businesses][2] with less than $100,000 of income.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.onshape.com &quot;OnShape&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/fusion-360/troubleshooting/caas/sfdcarticles/sfdcarticles/How-to-activate-start-up-or-educational-licensing-for-Fusion-360.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19081" RevisionGUID="2b83b74c-c0d6-4e32-8815-d862b704fbca" CreationDate="2018-01-31T16:09:19.803" UserId="14051" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140356867][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140356867&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hello, I recently came across (US20170107560) NUCLEIC ACID ENRICHMENT USING CAS9, which does not have any data to suggest that the inventors have reduced the invention to practice. Is it likely that this patent will be granted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for your time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52238" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19081" RevisionGUID="2b83b74c-c0d6-4e32-8815-d862b704fbca" CreationDate="2018-01-31T16:09:19.803" UserId="14051" Text="Possible to patent without reduction to practice?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52239" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19081" RevisionGUID="2b83b74c-c0d6-4e32-8815-d862b704fbca" CreationDate="2018-01-31T16:09:19.803" UserId="14051" Text="&lt;us20140356867&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19082" RevisionGUID="52a12da9-4b7d-4737-b66d-eb2df95d0c23" CreationDate="2018-01-31T16:14:58.670" UserId="20663" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2017168412A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2017168412A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The  claims of patent application are all void, it is a group of replicated and cited idea from multiple published research papers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claims 1/2/3/..../17 ,21  are copied from research papers**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Paper 1:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**On the Design of a Bioacoustic Sensor for the Early Detection of the Red Palm Weevil**&#xD;&#xA;Miguel Martínez Rach 1, Héctor Migallón Gomis 1, Otoniel López Granado 1, Manuel Perez Malumbres 1,*  OrcID, Antonio Martí Campoy 2 and Juan José Serrano Martín 2&#xD;&#xA;1&#xD;&#xA;Department of Physics and Computer Science, Miguel Hernandez University, Ave. Universidad s/n-Ed. Alcudia, 03202 Elche, Spain&#xD;&#xA;2&#xD;&#xA;Department of Computer Engineering, Technical University of Valencia, Camino de Vera s/n, 46021 Valencia, Spain&#xD;&#xA;*&#xD;&#xA;Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.&#xD;&#xA;Received: 21 December 2012 / Revised: 25 January 2013 / Accepted: 25 January 2013 / Published: 30 January 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a link]&#xD;&#xA;(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23364196)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a link]&#xD;&#xA;(http://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/13/2/1706/pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Paper 2:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Development of a bioacoustic sensor for the early detection of Red Palm Weevil (Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Olivier)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AbelardoGutiérrezaVicenteRuizaEnriqueMoltóaGervasioTapiabMariadel Mar Téllezb&#xD;&#xA;a&#xD;&#xA;Centro de AgroIngeniería, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Agrarias (IVIA), Ctra. de Moncada a Náquera km. 5, 46113 Moncada, Valencia, Spain&#xD;&#xA;b&#xD;&#xA;Centro IFAPA, Agricultural Research Station of Almería, Junta de Andalucía, Almería, Spain&#xD;&#xA;Received 27 August 2009, Revised 11 January 2010, Accepted 4 February 2010, Available online 12 March 2010.&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a link]&#xD;&#xA;(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261219410000256)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Paper 3:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A relative analysis on sound of red palm weevil based on field and lab recordings**&#xD;&#xA;January 2015International Journal of Applied Engineering Research 10(6):5261-5268&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a link]&#xD;&#xA;(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283474312_A_relative_analysis_on_sound_of_red_palm_weevil_based_on_field_and_lab_recordings)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Paper 4:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wireless implementation of mems accelerometer to detect red palm weevil on palms**&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a link(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261430319_Wireless_implementation_of_mems_accelerometer_to_detect_red_palm_weevil_on_palms)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a link]&#xD;&#xA;(http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6659402/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**paper 5:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Automatic bioacoustic detection of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus** &#xD;&#xA;Here's [a link] (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7080308/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Paper 6:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**https://academic.oup.com/ae/article/57/1/30/2462094**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a link] (https://academic.oup.com/ae/article/57/1/30/2462094)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Paper 7:**&#xD;&#xA; **Acoustic system for insect detection in plant stems: comparisons of Cephus cinctus in wheat and Metamasius callizona in bromeliads**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a link] (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43275024_Acoustic_system_for_insect_detection_in_plant_stems_comparisons_of_Cephus_cinctus_in_wheat_and_Metamasius_callizona_in_bromeliads)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For claims 18/19/20, they are copied from paper:**  &#xD;&#xA;**Detection of Wood Boring Insects’ Larvae Based on the Acoustic Signal&#xD;&#xA;Analysis and the Artificial Intelligence Algorithm**&#xD;&#xA;Piotr BILSKI(1), Piotr BOBIŃSKI(1), Adam KRAJEWSKI(2), Piotr WITOMSKI(2)&#xD;&#xA;(1) Institute of Radioelectronics and Multimedia Technology&#xD;&#xA;Faculty of Electronics and Information Technology&#xD;&#xA;Warsaw University of Technology&#xD;&#xA;Nowowiejska 15/19, 00-665 Warsaw, Poland&#xD;&#xA;(received April 18, 2016; accepted October 21, 2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a link]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(http://acoustics.ippt.gov.pl/index.php/aa/article/view/1777)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of above papers confirm that this application has no kind of novel or invention " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52241" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19082" RevisionGUID="52a12da9-4b7d-4737-b66d-eb2df95d0c23" CreationDate="2018-01-31T16:14:58.670" UserId="20663" Text="Claims of Patent Application WO2017168412A1 are cited from previous research papers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52242" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19082" RevisionGUID="52a12da9-4b7d-4737-b66d-eb2df95d0c23" CreationDate="2018-01-31T16:14:58.670" UserId="20663" Text="&lt;wo2017168412a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52243" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16544" RevisionGUID="ec01210a-f697-4259-82be-0f79481b0c07" CreationDate="2018-01-31T16:22:02.610" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19081" RevisionGUID="5035ac26-6d8a-467e-8624-146dc31387fe" CreationDate="2018-01-31T16:37:31.593" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body; edited title" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140356867][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140356867&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hello, I recently came across (US20170107560) NUCLEIC ACID ENRICHMENT USING CAS9, which does not have any data to suggest that the inventors have reduced the invention to practice. Is it likely that this patent will be granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52245" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19081" RevisionGUID="5035ac26-6d8a-467e-8624-146dc31387fe" CreationDate="2018-01-31T16:37:31.593" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can a patent be granted without &quot;reduction to practice&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52246" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14883" RevisionGUID="720c7a0b-83d9-4ce7-bdc9-59b5657fcfd7" CreationDate="2018-01-31T17:22:02.823" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19083" RevisionGUID="88efa0f7-5542-4074-87c5-87946d0f774b" CreationDate="2018-01-31T17:38:25.633" UserId="17003" Text="I can't comment on the likelihood of this particular patent application to get granted as I don't know the prior art. However it is true that you don't have to prove a patent works with data (at least in the US)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19084" RevisionGUID="1e8b3d1e-7b01-4be8-94d7-eb458443e79c" CreationDate="2018-01-31T22:42:38.490" UserId="19913" Text="Context: USPTO for an electronic device.   Are **Claims** required to answer the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    What can the device do?&#xD;&#xA;    How is it useful?&#xD;&#xA;    How is it novel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand it the **description and drawings** answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    How do I build it?&#xD;&#xA;    What does it look like?&#xD;&#xA;    How do I use it?&#xD;&#xA;    What is the scope of the device?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any others questions I may have missed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52251" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19084" RevisionGUID="1e8b3d1e-7b01-4be8-94d7-eb458443e79c" CreationDate="2018-01-31T22:42:38.490" UserId="19913" Text="What are the key questions that should be answered in Claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52252" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19084" RevisionGUID="1e8b3d1e-7b01-4be8-94d7-eb458443e79c" CreationDate="2018-01-31T22:42:38.490" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52253" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17751" RevisionGUID="7faa3aee-2aea-46f2-811b-ca79f27f5707" CreationDate="2018-02-01T00:28:01.097" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19082" RevisionGUID="caab279a-80ee-4e50-8803-332118ab0397" CreationDate="2018-02-01T01:43:40.063" UserId="20663" Comment="added 518 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2017168412A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2017168412A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The  claims of patent application are all void, it is a group of replicated and cited idea from multiple published research papers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea of using Metal Rod to insert inside tree to enhance detection of internal acoustic activity has been used before as per below research papers&#xD;&#xA;Similarly relying on acoustic and vibration activity using microphone or accelerometer has been also used before as in below research papers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly using Machine learning to classify the acoustics activity has been used in below paper&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using wireless system/Internet network/Internet of Things in agriculture has been also used before as per below references&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claims 1/2/3/..../17 ,21  are copied from research papers**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Paper 1:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**On the Design of a Bioacoustic Sensor for the Early Detection of the Red Palm Weevil**&#xD;&#xA;Miguel Martínez Rach 1, Héctor Migallón Gomis 1, Otoniel López Granado 1, Manuel Perez Malumbres 1,*  OrcID, Antonio Martí Campoy 2 and Juan José Serrano Martín 2&#xD;&#xA;1&#xD;&#xA;Department of Physics and Computer Science, Miguel Hernandez University, Ave. Universidad s/n-Ed. Alcudia, 03202 Elche, Spain&#xD;&#xA;2&#xD;&#xA;Department of Computer Engineering, Technical University of Valencia, Camino de Vera s/n, 46021 Valencia, Spain&#xD;&#xA;*&#xD;&#xA;Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.&#xD;&#xA;Received: 21 December 2012 / Revised: 25 January 2013 / Accepted: 25 January 2013 / Published: 30 January 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a link]&#xD;&#xA;(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23364196)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a link]&#xD;&#xA;(http://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/13/2/1706/pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Paper 2:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Development of a bioacoustic sensor for the early detection of Red Palm Weevil (Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Olivier)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AbelardoGutiérrezaVicenteRuizaEnriqueMoltóaGervasioTapiabMariadel Mar Téllezb&#xD;&#xA;a&#xD;&#xA;Centro de AgroIngeniería, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Agrarias (IVIA), Ctra. de Moncada a Náquera km. 5, 46113 Moncada, Valencia, Spain&#xD;&#xA;b&#xD;&#xA;Centro IFAPA, Agricultural Research Station of Almería, Junta de Andalucía, Almería, Spain&#xD;&#xA;Received 27 August 2009, Revised 11 January 2010, Accepted 4 February 2010, Available online 12 March 2010.&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a link]&#xD;&#xA;(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261219410000256)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Paper 3:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A relative analysis on sound of red palm weevil based on field and lab recordings**&#xD;&#xA;January 2015International Journal of Applied Engineering Research 10(6):5261-5268&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a link]&#xD;&#xA;(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283474312_A_relative_analysis_on_sound_of_red_palm_weevil_based_on_field_and_lab_recordings)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Paper 4:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wireless implementation of mems accelerometer to detect red palm weevil on palms**&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a link(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261430319_Wireless_implementation_of_mems_accelerometer_to_detect_red_palm_weevil_on_palms)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a link]&#xD;&#xA;(http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6659402/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**paper 5:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Automatic bioacoustic detection of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus** &#xD;&#xA;Here's [a link] (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7080308/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Paper 6:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**https://academic.oup.com/ae/article/57/1/30/2462094**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a link] (https://academic.oup.com/ae/article/57/1/30/2462094)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Paper 7:**&#xD;&#xA; **Acoustic system for insect detection in plant stems: comparisons of Cephus cinctus in wheat and Metamasius callizona in bromeliads**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a link] (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43275024_Acoustic_system_for_insect_detection_in_plant_stems_comparisons_of_Cephus_cinctus_in_wheat_and_Metamasius_callizona_in_bromeliads)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For claims 18/19/20, they are copied from paper:**  &#xD;&#xA;**Detection of Wood Boring Insects’ Larvae Based on the Acoustic Signal&#xD;&#xA;Analysis and the Artificial Intelligence Algorithm**&#xD;&#xA;Piotr BILSKI(1), Piotr BOBIŃSKI(1), Adam KRAJEWSKI(2), Piotr WITOMSKI(2)&#xD;&#xA;(1) Institute of Radioelectronics and Multimedia Technology&#xD;&#xA;Faculty of Electronics and Information Technology&#xD;&#xA;Warsaw University of Technology&#xD;&#xA;Nowowiejska 15/19, 00-665 Warsaw, Poland&#xD;&#xA;(received April 18, 2016; accepted October 21, 2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a link]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(http://acoustics.ippt.gov.pl/index.php/aa/article/view/1777)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of above papers confirm that this application has no kind of novel or invention " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19085" RevisionGUID="f5848033-75c7-4201-8417-a3d3c7e11def" CreationDate="2018-02-01T04:57:27.210" UserId="20666" Text="I have an idea for a T-shirt design. It involves artwork plus captioning. Do I have to patent the artwork and the captioning separately? How does one afford such patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52257" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19085" RevisionGUID="f5848033-75c7-4201-8417-a3d3c7e11def" CreationDate="2018-02-01T04:57:27.210" UserId="20666" Text="How to Patent Artwork Plus Captioning" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52258" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19085" RevisionGUID="f5848033-75c7-4201-8417-a3d3c7e11def" CreationDate="2018-02-01T04:57:27.210" UserId="20666" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19086" RevisionGUID="65e51099-4b75-47a9-b756-b3532d85cc2b" CreationDate="2018-02-01T07:15:08.797" UserId="15503" Text="Patents cover inventions. Neither an artwork nor captioning are inventions, and so would not eligible for a patent. You may be thinking of copyright, which covers creative works. If so, that's off topic here, so your question would be better asked [thataway](http://law.stackexchange.com/)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19087" RevisionGUID="dcc42765-acfe-47df-a627-3c6e9b8987d7" CreationDate="2018-02-01T07:17:59.540" UserId="18033" Text="&gt;What can the device do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How is it useful?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How is it novel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How do I build it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What does it look like?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How do I use it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What is the scope of the device?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of those should be explicitly or implicitly answered by the description/drawings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims only answer one question which would be something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What **invention** am I trying to protect?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims must be novel and inventive by themselves only looking into the description to understand what they mean exactly. The question(s) why that is the case are answered by/in the description.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19084" RevisionGUID="b57fd1a7-0d09-49e2-a2b7-4bcf4a547464" CreationDate="2018-02-01T16:17:53.013" UserId="19913" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Context: USPTO for an electronic device.   Are **Claims** required to answer the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    What can the device do?&#xD;&#xA;    How is it useful?&#xD;&#xA;    How is it novel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand it the **description and drawings** answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    How do I build it?&#xD;&#xA;    What does it look like?&#xD;&#xA;    How do I use it?&#xD;&#xA;    What is the scope of the device?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any others questions I may have missed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52265" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19084" RevisionGUID="1f9c18ed-88e4-479a-a05a-62bd4d36ff80" CreationDate="2018-02-01T18:01:02.793" UserId="19913" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="Context: USPTO for an electronic device.   Are **[Claims][1]** required to answer the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    What can the device do?&#xD;&#xA;    How is it useful?&#xD;&#xA;    How is it novel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand it the **description and drawings** answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    How do I build it?&#xD;&#xA;    What does it look like?&#xD;&#xA;    How do I use it?&#xD;&#xA;    What is the scope of the device?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any others questions I may have missed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bpmlegal.com/howtopat5.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19087" RevisionGUID="7a703156-b6f1-4cb0-bcb8-72075c522811" CreationDate="2018-02-01T18:48:21.850" UserId="18033" Comment="added 309 characters in body" Text="&gt;What can the device do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How is it useful?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How is it novel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How do I build it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What does it look like?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How do I use it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What is the scope of the device?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of those should be explicitly or implicitly answered by the description/drawings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims only answer one question which would be something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What **invention** am I trying to protect?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims must be novel and inventive by themselves only looking into the description to understand what they mean exactly. The question(s) why that is the case are answered by/in the description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;------&#xA;&#xA;For the edit, please have a look at the relevant law or a commentary, there are definitions and examples as to what a description needs to provide. And a commentary with years of experience from judges/etc. is certainly more than an answer here could cover. (I don't have any English recommendations)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19089" RevisionGUID="27777e6e-28ef-4a9d-ba08-d9b5c08c4a78" CreationDate="2018-02-01T19:46:53.990" UserId="20670" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2011137930A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2011137930A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52269" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19089" RevisionGUID="27777e6e-28ef-4a9d-ba08-d9b5c08c4a78" CreationDate="2018-02-01T19:46:53.990" UserId="20670" Text="Is BabyDoppler.com infringing on this Patent? And can I make a small fetal doppler?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52270" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19089" RevisionGUID="27777e6e-28ef-4a9d-ba08-d9b5c08c4a78" CreationDate="2018-02-01T19:46:53.990" UserId="20670" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52274" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="0719cc51-6fb0-45c7-b8bc-18f2007b3b0b" CreationDate="2018-02-01T20:49:30.930" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19091" RevisionGUID="e0dab25e-9f26-4e44-a72c-01c8c2f8ad8e" CreationDate="2018-02-01T23:31:47.577" UserId="17003" Text="The cited document is not a patent, it is a patent application. Unfortunately I'm not very skilled in determining the status of foreign patent applications so I hope another answer will be able to establish the application's status (and teach how it was determined). You can't infringe on an application since it isn't a granted patent. However, if the application does get granted, the protection goes back to the filing date. One thing to note is that the claims in an application are often far broader than what ends up in a resulting patent. I can't answer about whether BabyDoppler.com infringes since I don't have the claims of a granted patent to review.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for whether you can make a small fetal doppler without infringing on someone's patent, it would depend on your design and what other relevant patents exist. It generally is a bad idea to rely upon random internet opinions in matters like this. A better approach to answering you question would be to consult with a patent attorney and request a freedom-to-operate opinion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52277" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18649" RevisionGUID="3486764c-67b4-48d4-bead-53a880184991" CreationDate="2018-02-02T00:49:55.313" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18655" RevisionGUID="e59d5d5b-fabe-4108-93c0-87089e0a4aae" CreationDate="2018-02-02T05:44:04.370" UserId="17737" Comment="tags edited, thanks removed as per https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/2950/295232" Text="This is the first time to file my application using USPTO's EFS-Web service. When I used the regular mail, the ADS document is always signed by hand, while here with EFS-Web I'm facing the following contradiction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I sign on it by hand (i.e., handwritten signature), then I have to scan it before uploading it. If I try to upload that scanned PDF document using EFS-Web, I received a warning message said: the file template is not compatible with ADS template!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I ignore that warning and go forward with the scanned ADS or should I stick with the original readable ADS and use S-Signature?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking to sign on that readable PDF file using S-Signature, but I'm afraid that USPTO may contact me later and asking me for a one missing part &gt;&gt; which is about: &quot;The ADS received on xxxxxx was not properly signed&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are your experiences with this problem? Do you use handwritten or S-Signature when you use EFS-Web?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52281" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18655" RevisionGUID="e59d5d5b-fabe-4108-93c0-87089e0a4aae" CreationDate="2018-02-02T05:44:04.370" UserId="17737" Comment="tags edited, thanks removed as per https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/2950/295232" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52282" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18655" RevisionGUID="e59d5d5b-fabe-4108-93c0-87089e0a4aae" CreationDate="2018-02-02T05:44:04.370" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 17003, 15503 edit id of 2055" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52283" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3594" RevisionGUID="deb07a74-a5c2-460f-82c9-531d79c16ef8" CreationDate="2018-02-02T05:44:10.127" UserId="17737" Comment="tags edited" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;bicycles&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52284" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3594" RevisionGUID="deb07a74-a5c2-460f-82c9-531d79c16ef8" CreationDate="2018-02-02T05:44:10.127" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 17003, 15503 edit id of 2054" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16601" RevisionGUID="605ba375-a432-433d-b03e-770423b4212d" CreationDate="2018-02-02T05:44:18.227" UserId="17737" Comment="tags edited, thanks removed as per https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/2950/295232" Text="I would like to ask what the patent and or licensing restrictions of the MP3 file format are, and when did these arise?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52286" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16601" RevisionGUID="605ba375-a432-433d-b03e-770423b4212d" CreationDate="2018-02-02T05:44:18.227" UserId="17737" Comment="tags edited, thanks removed as per https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/2950/295232" Text="&lt;technology&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52287" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16601" RevisionGUID="605ba375-a432-433d-b03e-770423b4212d" CreationDate="2018-02-02T05:44:18.227" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 17003, 15503 edit id of 2053" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19094" RevisionGUID="7db428e3-e504-43bd-8855-7a386a47bef9" CreationDate="2018-02-02T19:56:41.493" UserId="16696" Text="DonQuiKong's comment &quot;you should be asking if you can win a lawsuit&quot; is quite salient, as Intellectual Property litigation, and patent litigation in general, is extremely expensive.  *(This was a reason &quot;patent trolls&quot; were able to extort companies to the average tune of $2 million dollars--cheaper than going to court.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One means of protection is to file a provisional patent application.  Not everyone agrees on the wisdom of self-filing, but I know experienced patent attorneys who are adamant an attorney is not strictly required for a provisional, so long as the invention is fully and rigorously described.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other route is to have the person or people sign a non-disclosure agreement.  This allows you to disclose in a manner that does not constitute public disclosure which could render your invention ineligible, depending on the rules for the region(s) you may be planning to file in.  (See also: [At What Point Do Conversations Become Prior Art?][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are not planning to file a patent application yourself, then public disclosure may be a way to invalidate a subsequent filing of your invention by another party, but the problem is, the patent examiners may not become aware of the public disclosure, and the application could still receive a grant.  In that case, you'd have to challenge in court, which, again, could be ruinously expensive.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/19073/16696" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52291" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18522" RevisionGUID="161894ca-7c57-4889-938e-a7dcd870ba54" CreationDate="2018-02-02T21:02:09.810" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19054" RevisionGUID="57d44c71-61f3-4668-bf94-06e72ad0f56d" CreationDate="2018-02-02T21:12:33.443" UserId="15403" Comment="clarify fictional name" Text="Suppose Alice (a fictional name for this example) comes up with an novel invention idea for a machine to do very useful work, but which requires as part of the larger machine a component perpetual motion machine as its energy source.  (The perpetual motion machine was patented by Bob, who never built it but licensed the patent to Alice.)   Alice applies for and receives a patent without demonstrating any working model, and is never subsequently able to demonstrate a working model.  The invention is never commercialized and nobody obtains the benefits of the work Alice's Marvelous Machine is not actually able to produce.  Alice and Bob's patents can be assumed to be from a different country if that helps the premise seem more plausible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Independently and slightly later, Claire comes up with a similar machine intended to accomplish the same goal, but it uses rechargeable batteries instead of the perpetual motion machine as an energy source.  Claire's machine actually works and can provide the benefits that Alice's machine could not.  However, substituting the energy source may be seen as relatively obvious, and the effect on its feasibility as an energy source might be seen as a reasonably predictable consequence of the swap-out.  Other differences between the machines are immaterial to performance (just a result of independence of invention).  Claire is applying to the USPTO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does Alice's patent on something that does not work prevent Claire from obtaining a patent on something that does? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can this strategy be used to prevent patenting of an invention someone thinks would be more useful if open, even if that patenter can't quite get such an invention to work?   Does Bob's patent block anybody else from patenting a perpetual motion machine? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edited to add specific better example: Can someone patent a machine providing what they (incorrectly) think is a solution to solve an NP problem in P steps (i.e. claiming [P=NP][1]), even if not in the US, and have that block any later inventor from patenting a real solution that works?  (If P=NP, such a machine would be one of the most valuable inventions to have been invented; patent rights could be very important on this.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19095" RevisionGUID="6c223a0a-c589-4d09-b2d4-48990938a6c3" CreationDate="2018-02-02T21:46:59.663" UserId="3076" Text="The document is a PCT application. To turn into something enforceable via the PCT process, it would have needed to enter the nation stage in one or more countries. The PatentScope link in the google patents page shows that it has no national stages and it is too late to file any. As Eric Shain said, it is a bad idea to rely on random internet information.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52294" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="19018" RevisionGUID="1029c8fd-72fa-4bf5-aa15-5c264378aafd" CreationDate="2018-02-03T00:02:09.887" UserId="-1" Comment="41" />
  <row Id="52295" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14767" RevisionGUID="420e2704-9795-4147-83b3-1f03d3c6aac3" CreationDate="2018-02-03T00:02:09.887" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12558" RevisionGUID="c6fa062c-eb48-495a-9b94-d1d0ab12e593" CreationDate="2018-02-03T00:05:52.883" UserId="17737" Comment="obsolete text removed, tags edited" Text="If I file a provisional patent application in the US and then convert it to a full patent in 1 year, can I name additional inventors on that full patent application? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52297" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12558" RevisionGUID="c6fa062c-eb48-495a-9b94-d1d0ab12e593" CreationDate="2018-02-03T00:05:52.883" UserId="17737" Comment="obsolete text removed, tags edited" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52298" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12558" RevisionGUID="c6fa062c-eb48-495a-9b94-d1d0ab12e593" CreationDate="2018-02-03T00:05:52.883" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 16696, 17003 edit id of 2057" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16969" RevisionGUID="a38bf6af-dfcf-446f-ad9a-64d529c817c3" CreationDate="2018-02-03T00:06:38.650" UserId="17737" Comment="grammar corrections, tags edited" Text="Can I get a patent from a device which was made with open source parts? I have some concept of a device but it's made with Arduino and other (Arduino-friendly) components. Is it possible to pass all appropriate steps to get a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52300" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16969" RevisionGUID="a38bf6af-dfcf-446f-ad9a-64d529c817c3" CreationDate="2018-02-03T00:06:38.650" UserId="17737" Comment="grammar corrections, tags edited" Text="Can I get a patent from a device which was made with open source parts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52301" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16969" RevisionGUID="a38bf6af-dfcf-446f-ad9a-64d529c817c3" CreationDate="2018-02-03T00:06:38.650" UserId="17737" Comment="grammar corrections, tags edited" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52302" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16969" RevisionGUID="a38bf6af-dfcf-446f-ad9a-64d529c817c3" CreationDate="2018-02-03T00:06:38.650" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 16696, -1 edit id of 2056" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16969" RevisionGUID="796271ae-694e-45e3-8e82-b0bc03c739f6" CreationDate="2018-02-03T00:06:38.650" UserId="17003" Comment="grammar corrections, tags edited" Text="Can I get a patent for a device which was made with open source parts? I have some concept of a device but it's made with Arduino and other (Arduino-friendly) components. Is it possible to pass all appropriate steps to get a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19082" RevisionGUID="6d85eb3c-f5db-40ed-955f-4b306b5aebf4" CreationDate="2018-02-03T00:07:00.600" UserId="17737" Comment="formatting, tags edited" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2017168412A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2017168412A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The  claims of patent application are all void, it is a group of replicated and cited idea from multiple published research papers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea of using Metal Rod to insert inside tree to enhance detection of internal acoustic activity has been used before as per below research papers&#xD;&#xA;Similarly relying on acoustic and vibration activity using microphone or accelerometer has been also used before as in below research papers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly using Machine learning to classify the acoustics activity has been used in below paper&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using wireless system/Internet network/Internet of Things in agriculture has been also used before as per below references&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claims 1/2/3/..../17 ,21  are copied from research papers**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Paper 1:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**On the Design of a Bioacoustic Sensor for the Early Detection of the Red Palm Weevil**&#xD;&#xA;Miguel Martínez Rach 1, Héctor Migallón Gomis 1, Otoniel López Granado 1, Manuel Perez Malumbres 1,*  OrcID, Antonio Martí Campoy 2 and Juan José Serrano Martín 2&#xD;&#xA;1&#xD;&#xA;Department of Physics and Computer Science, Miguel Hernandez University, Ave. Universidad s/n-Ed. Alcudia, 03202 Elche, Spain&#xD;&#xA;2&#xD;&#xA;Department of Computer Engineering, Technical University of Valencia, Camino de Vera s/n, 46021 Valencia, Spain&#xD;&#xA;*&#xD;&#xA;Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.&#xD;&#xA;Received: 21 December 2012 / Revised: 25 January 2013 / Accepted: 25 January 2013 / Published: 30 January 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a link](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23364196)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a link](http://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/13/2/1706/pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Paper 2:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Development of a bioacoustic sensor for the early detection of Red Palm Weevil (Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Olivier)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AbelardoGutiérrezaVicenteRuizaEnriqueMoltóaGervasioTapiabMariadel Mar Téllezb&#xD;&#xA;a&#xD;&#xA;Centro de AgroIngeniería, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Agrarias (IVIA), Ctra. de Moncada a Náquera km. 5, 46113 Moncada, Valencia, Spain&#xD;&#xA;b&#xD;&#xA;Centro IFAPA, Agricultural Research Station of Almería, Junta de Andalucía, Almería, Spain&#xD;&#xA;Received 27 August 2009, Revised 11 January 2010, Accepted 4 February 2010, Available online 12 March 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a link](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261219410000256)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Paper 3:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A relative analysis on sound of red palm weevil based on field and lab recordings**&#xD;&#xA;January 2015International Journal of Applied Engineering Research 10(6):5261-5268&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a link](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283474312_A_relative_analysis_on_sound_of_red_palm_weevil_based_on_field_and_lab_recordings)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Paper 4:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wireless implementation of mems accelerometer to detect red palm weevil on palms**&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a link](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261430319_Wireless_implementation_of_mems_accelerometer_to_detect_red_palm_weevil_on_palms)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a link](http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6659402/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**paper 5:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Automatic bioacoustic detection of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus** &#xD;&#xA;Here's [a link](http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7080308/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Paper 6:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**https://academic.oup.com/ae/article/57/1/30/2462094**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a link](https://academic.oup.com/ae/article/57/1/30/2462094).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Paper 7:**&#xD;&#xA; **Acoustic system for insect detection in plant stems: comparisons of Cephus cinctus in wheat and Metamasius callizona in bromeliads**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a link](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43275024_Acoustic_system_for_insect_detection_in_plant_stems_comparisons_of_Cephus_cinctus_in_wheat_and_Metamasius_callizona_in_bromeliads).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For claims 18/19/20, they are copied from paper:**  &#xD;&#xA;**Detection of Wood Boring Insects’ Larvae Based on the Acoustic Signal&#xD;&#xA;Analysis and the Artificial Intelligence Algorithm**&#xD;&#xA;Piotr BILSKI(1), Piotr BOBIŃSKI(1), Adam KRAJEWSKI(2), Piotr WITOMSKI(2)&#xD;&#xA;(1) Institute of Radioelectronics and Multimedia Technology&#xD;&#xA;Faculty of Electronics and Information Technology&#xD;&#xA;Warsaw University of Technology&#xD;&#xA;Nowowiejska 15/19, 00-665 Warsaw, Poland&#xD;&#xA;(received April 18, 2016; accepted October 21, 2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a link](http://acoustics.ippt.gov.pl/index.php/aa/article/view/1777).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of above papers confirm that this application has no kind of novel or invention " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52305" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19082" RevisionGUID="6d85eb3c-f5db-40ed-955f-4b306b5aebf4" CreationDate="2018-02-03T00:07:00.600" UserId="17737" Comment="formatting, tags edited" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52306" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19082" RevisionGUID="6d85eb3c-f5db-40ed-955f-4b306b5aebf4" CreationDate="2018-02-03T00:07:00.600" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 16696, 17003 edit id of 2058" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52307" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19057" RevisionGUID="c9274367-0a87-407b-bfc2-45c1a4d7bc85" CreationDate="2018-02-03T00:07:11.027" UserId="17737" Comment="tags edited" Text="What is the expiration date of this patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52308" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19057" RevisionGUID="c9274367-0a87-407b-bfc2-45c1a4d7bc85" CreationDate="2018-02-03T00:07:11.027" UserId="17737" Comment="tags edited" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52309" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19057" RevisionGUID="c9274367-0a87-407b-bfc2-45c1a4d7bc85" CreationDate="2018-02-03T00:07:11.027" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 16696, 17003 edit id of 2059" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52310" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17769" RevisionGUID="c83cc2e3-2a6e-4809-8a0d-4ea984c2dcbf" CreationDate="2018-02-03T01:02:09.803" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52311" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17768" RevisionGUID="f65e9568-954f-4f94-b7d9-dcfb9add8d59" CreationDate="2018-02-03T02:02:09.877" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19087" RevisionGUID="1c15cebe-6a5d-4cd3-9b22-410d525980d2" CreationDate="2018-02-03T11:11:25.017" UserId="18033" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="&gt;What can the device do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How is it useful?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How is it novel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How do I build it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What does it look like?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How do I use it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What is the scope of the device?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of those should be explicitly or implicitly answered by the description/drawings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims only answer one question which would be something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What **invention** am I trying to protect?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject matter of the claims must be novel and inventive by themselves only looking into the description to understand what they mean exactly. The question(s) why that is the case are answered by/in the description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;------&#xA;&#xA;For the edit, please have a look at the relevant law or a commentary, there are definitions and examples as to what a description needs to provide. And a commentary with years of experience from judges/etc. is certainly more than an answer here could cover. (I don't have any English recommendations)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52314" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="b2d9600a-78d8-4150-bc41-ea7bf986a44a" CreationDate="2018-02-03T11:12:56.283" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19096" RevisionGUID="b794c715-2d77-48e5-83d4-4d2ff44d9ef4" CreationDate="2018-02-03T12:05:53.473" UserId="20680" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20170205785][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20170205785&#xD;&#xA;When is this patent going to be granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52316" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19096" RevisionGUID="b794c715-2d77-48e5-83d4-4d2ff44d9ef4" CreationDate="2018-02-03T12:05:53.473" UserId="20680" Text="Status of Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52317" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19096" RevisionGUID="b794c715-2d77-48e5-83d4-4d2ff44d9ef4" CreationDate="2018-02-03T12:05:53.473" UserId="20680" Text="&lt;us20170205785&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19097" RevisionGUID="e09c7c64-90b8-4736-abe1-5e736d768acd" CreationDate="2018-02-03T13:42:28.773" UserId="18033" Text="When and if the examiner finds it fit for granting.&#xA;&#xA;This process can take a few months up to many years.&#xA;&#xA;Some applications never become granted.&#xA;&#xA;There's no way for us to know more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52319" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18789" RevisionGUID="04a8eaa5-733e-41a4-b507-77777feacd29" CreationDate="2018-02-03T20:16:44.397" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19099" RevisionGUID="0e482619-635b-4de2-a3fa-4e35d8e0101f" CreationDate="2018-02-03T21:11:43.620" UserId="19913" Text="BACKGROUND&#xD;&#xA;====&#xD;&#xA;I am interested in a patenting a novel measurement device to prevent other operators from using a copy of the measurement device in the field: a very low volume of these devices would be produced.  The return on investment is not in the sale of the device or licensing: it is in the operation of the device because the market demands very few measurement devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTION&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;As I understand it, a patent grants exclusive rights to manufacture the device.  However, if someone decided to copy \ DIY the device and put a system in production, would a patent grant the right to shutdown the fielded DIY device?  Is there any remedy or precedent in such a case?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52324" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19099" RevisionGUID="0e482619-635b-4de2-a3fa-4e35d8e0101f" CreationDate="2018-02-03T21:11:43.620" UserId="19913" Text="Does a patent prevent users / operators from using an unlicensed device?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52325" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19099" RevisionGUID="0e482619-635b-4de2-a3fa-4e35d8e0101f" CreationDate="2018-02-03T21:11:43.620" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;precedent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52326" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14890" RevisionGUID="b8790c9c-d903-4bf4-922c-5ca6f19616c7" CreationDate="2018-02-03T22:20:53.373" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19100" RevisionGUID="93525b03-51ae-4898-82a8-2607ef39ff05" CreationDate="2018-02-04T01:25:50.403" UserId="3076" Text="A patent give you the right to try to prevent unlicensed people from (1) making, (2) offering for sale (3) importing or (4) **using**. Making does not only mean volume, professional manufacturing. A DIY maker infringes just like a big company infringes - but it is inefficient to go after them. Regarding using, if that is where the money is, you can have claims specifically directed to the steps of a method of using it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19101" RevisionGUID="0f5bdd9e-75d0-47bf-9a30-cc75a60cce81" CreationDate="2018-02-04T01:31:42.463" UserId="3076" Text="It seems pretty broad. It does seem limited to left-to-right and there are probably other ways to depict the perspective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52332" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="9bc3baad-2c53-4899-a736-4da70eac070e" CreationDate="2018-02-04T07:22:39.927" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52334" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15983" RevisionGUID="4a06d11c-ea12-414c-a11a-bab4f722a066" CreationDate="2018-02-04T14:23:31.193" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19103" RevisionGUID="c74eb213-2a41-4b34-8c73-bce417a3d9a0" CreationDate="2018-02-04T19:54:03.570" UserId="20687" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8082499][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8082499&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confused, does the patent ONLY apply to the graphical designs shown in Image 1, Image 2, Image 3, Image 4, and Image 5, or does it apply to all/any type of interactive dialogs? If it's the latter, I don't understand because there are plenty of games that used interactive dialog years before SWTOR and Mass Effect was even created. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like, could you make a game that uses just interactive dialog and not the graphic designs from the patent, or is that still not allowed? Again, there are plenty of games that had this waaay before SWTOR and Mass Effect existed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52340" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19103" RevisionGUID="c74eb213-2a41-4b34-8c73-bce417a3d9a0" CreationDate="2018-02-04T19:54:03.570" UserId="20687" Text="Interactive dialog question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52341" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19103" RevisionGUID="c74eb213-2a41-4b34-8c73-bce417a3d9a0" CreationDate="2018-02-04T19:54:03.570" UserId="20687" Text="&lt;video-games&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52342" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="d313513b-1b67-4a37-b28f-afe1545593d1" CreationDate="2018-02-04T20:26:03.010" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52343" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18799" RevisionGUID="c62b3d58-f56f-48d3-8121-952228baa078" CreationDate="2018-02-04T23:31:48.537" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19104" RevisionGUID="85f3b229-9135-40e7-8fac-159cec704a59" CreationDate="2018-02-05T01:37:05.957" UserId="13775" Text="Your priority date is 09-08-2015 and is considered under first inventor to file rules.  If another patent application has been on file since 2013, it may be treated under first to invent (if filing was before March 16, 2013) or first to file. Under either scenario, your invention is not going to hold a superior priority claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the correspondence you've engaged in, including the claim that another company was on file first, will need to be produced in any litigation you engage in over the patent. About ten years ago, most big companies started to push back hard on patent claims.  It used to be that reasonable licensing terms would get you a license deal even in the face of potentially invalidating prior art.  That is no longer the case. There are actually companies (Unified Patent comes to mind) that file post-grant review applications on their own when they believe a patent is not valid.  After the America Invents Act created several new ways to invalidate patents, it is not uncommon for a patent to end up being challenged in an administrative proceeding while simultaneously seeing the same defenses raised in federal district court.  The catch is that each defendant in a patent infringement case has a constitutional right to challenge the validity of the patent, but a single judge (or administrative panel) holding the patent invalid will wipe it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You apparently haven't filed a continuation.  A continuation raises licensing/sale value substantially as it prevents people from developing work-arounds (for example, not infringing claim 1 by making the holes 1/14th of an inch).  It also gives you a second bite at the apple in the event your primary patent gets invalidated.  That's the downside to failing to file a continuation.  The upside is that since there is no active proceeding at the USPTO, you'll want to check with your lawyer to be sure, but it is very unlikely that you are required to disclose to the USPTO the art that potential licensees have disclosed to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is actually quite common to have multiple applications pending on a single invention and for the later inventor to get the issuance before the earlier inventor.  However, the later inventor's patent will not be prior art to the earlier filed patent application, so the earlier filed one can still issue.  This creates all kinds of licensing headaches, since licensees will hate licensing a patent only to be approached again for a license, this time to an earlier-filed but later-issued patent.  In this situation, I've seen the earlier-to-file inventor send the later-filed patent to reexamination (or to IPR) in order to clear the field for licensing their own patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bottom line is that you have an issued patent, but if you're aware of a previously filed application that renders your obvious or not novel, you may get into serious trouble asserting a patent you know to be invalid.  This is an issue your lawyer needs to deal with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the future, I would be very careful about disclosing this kind of thing in a public forum. If somebody is approached for a license and they google your patent number, this page may well come up and give them plenty of ammunition for a challenge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19105" RevisionGUID="a0dbecd7-c2d1-4dc2-811d-5da50d1b6d53" CreationDate="2018-02-05T01:49:47.770" UserId="13775" Text="In patents, &quot;the name of the game is the claim&quot;.  The images may help you to understand the claims, but (other than for design patents, which all start with a D, like D123456) the only protection that exists is for the precise things claimed.  For example, in the '499 patent you cite, to infringe claim 1 you would have to infringe each of the parts of the claim -- as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A computer program for a computer system, wherein the computer program resides on a non-transitory medium, the computer program configured to present a graphical interface to be displayed during execution of the computer program, enabling a user of the computer program to participate in a simulated conversation with the computer program, the computer program comprising:&#xD;&#xA;program code for managing a plurality of possible dialog responses, at least some of which have a stored associated definable conversation segment type;&#xD;&#xA;program code for generating a displayable choice indicator, wherein the displayable choice indicator indicates directional choices selectable by the user;&#xD;&#xA;program code for reading from memory an indication of a definable conversation segment type associated with each of a set of the directional choices;&#xD;&#xA;program code for generating dialog responses associated with each of the set of directional choices, wherein a given dialog response is associated with a given directional choice when the definable conversation segment type of the given dialog response matches the definable conversation segment type of the directional choice;&#xD;&#xA;program code for receiving an input indication from the user, wherein the input indication corresponds to a directional choice&#xD;&#xA;wherein the stored associated definable conversation segment type for each possible dialog response corresponds to an emotion related to the dialog response, wherein the definable conversation segment type associated with each of a set of the directional choices also corresponds to an emotion such that, over a plurality of user interface displays, the program code for generating dialog responses repeatedly places possible dialog responses that relate to the same emotion with the same directional choice, thereby providing the user with a consistent location for selecting dialog responses corresponding to a particular emotion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&#xD;&#xA;An easy but very rough way to evaluate claim value is:  The longer the claim, the less likely it is to be invalid, but the less likely it is to be infringed (and the easier it is to work around the claim).  The shorter the claim, the more likely to be infringed but the less likely it is to be valid." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19106" RevisionGUID="33c7898f-6272-4323-8455-755ae25a85e3" CreationDate="2018-02-05T01:52:06.717" UserId="13775" Text="Your lawyer should be able to obtain an estimate for the first office action date.  Although the examiner issues the estimate, it is often inaccurate.  If you are in a hurry to get it issued, you may want to ask your lawyer to consider filing a continuation as a &quot;Track One&quot; application.  I've had those issue in well under six months." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52353" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17587" RevisionGUID="64d536c8-00d1-412f-b922-01a34aa12f69" CreationDate="2018-02-05T19:34:25.813" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52354" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18211" RevisionGUID="84d0c731-bf5d-48cd-bab7-982e28ff6e2f" CreationDate="2018-02-05T21:34:30.207" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19108" RevisionGUID="d69bda65-c4ea-4938-a56f-fb90f52bc432" CreationDate="2018-02-06T04:01:27.083" UserId="19913" Text="As I understand it, the USPTO will not examine the provisional patent until the non-provisional is submitted.   Once filed with the USPTO is there any reason not to share the provisional application with the public?  Family members?  Potential customers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52356" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19108" RevisionGUID="d69bda65-c4ea-4938-a56f-fb90f52bc432" CreationDate="2018-02-06T04:01:27.083" UserId="19913" Text="Provisional Patent Confidentiality" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52357" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19108" RevisionGUID="d69bda65-c4ea-4938-a56f-fb90f52bc432" CreationDate="2018-02-06T04:01:27.083" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19109" RevisionGUID="11009c41-68ef-45da-a9f0-064d1db8189b" CreationDate="2018-02-06T14:05:14.343" UserId="18033" Text="Yes, improvements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you file the same application content of the prov. as a non-provisional, you're fine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you add a few improvements, they get the filing date of the non-prov. app. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The non-disclosure of the prov. in combination with the priority protects you against having that prov. used as a basis for obviousness. If however you disclose the prov., your improvements (= anything not disclosed in the prov.) can (and often will) be obvious in light of your disclosure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'm ignoring the grace period, because it's US only.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52359" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="9a48f7a6-e190-4d77-b3ad-2c16a271a13d" CreationDate="2018-02-06T19:48:26.570" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19087" RevisionGUID="d88fb72c-cb8a-47d6-8abf-847e815a8536" CreationDate="2018-02-06T21:07:47.440" UserId="18033" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt;What can the device do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How is it useful?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How is it novel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How do I build it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What does it look like?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How do I use it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What is the scope of the device?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of those should be explicitly or implicitly answered by the description/drawings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims only answer one question which would be something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What **invention** am I trying to protect?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject matter of the claims must be novel and inventive by itself only looking into the description to understand what the words mean exactly. The question(s) why that is the case are answered by/in the description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;------&#xA;&#xA;For the edit, please have a look at the relevant law or a commentary, there are definitions and examples as to what a description needs to provide. And a commentary with years of experience from judges/etc. is certainly more than an answer here could cover. (I don't have any English recommendations)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18921" RevisionGUID="b2337344-fd21-499c-8e37-4fb38bb39e27" CreationDate="2018-02-06T22:01:46.030" UserId="19913" Comment="added 830 characters in body" Text="I am reviewing a [PPA template from Brad Fach's patentfile.org][1].   The PPA section comments include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Claims are not required for a provisional application so if you are in a rush for time then please don’t worry about adding them.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **I would actually prefer people to NOT write claims or only include 1 claim.  I have seen many applications where people have written pages&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and pages of claims and this is a waste of your time and could be very&#xD;&#xA;&gt; risky if not done properly.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you feel that you must, please only write one or two fairly broad&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims that summarize your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the claims errors that would jeopardize the patent?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Updates&#xD;&#xA;======&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Although you aren't required to include claims in your provisional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent application, patent attorneys disagree over whether you should&#xD;&#xA;&gt; include include them.  Those who oppose including them argue that any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; calim in a provisional patent application will probably be changed by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the time the inventor files a regular patent application.  These&#xD;&#xA;&gt; attorneys are concerned that changing he claims might be considered an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; amendment of the claims--which might limit the scope of the patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Fest corp v Shoketsu Kinzoku 2002).  Other Attorneys believe that you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; should include at least one claim in your provisional patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application to protect your rights outside the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Patent Pending in 24 hours 6th ed.  pp80][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The template contains a section:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    DETAILED DESCRIPTION AND BEST MODE OF IMPLEMENTATION&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this section the author indicates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; insert a detailed description of your invention here.  This is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; most important section.  Once you file your provisional patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application you cannot add to it so make sure you describe your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention in plenty of detail.  How does your invention work?  What&#xD;&#xA;&gt; material is it made from?  What features or parts does it have?  How&#xD;&#xA;&gt; else could you make your invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8vthe6tami48rf4/provisional-patent-template-basic-free-microsoft-word-format.doc?dl=0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.amazon.com/Patent-Pending-Hours-Richard-Attorney/dp/1413322018/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19110" RevisionGUID="e7d67924-c579-49f2-9872-87c4b1e5a29e" CreationDate="2018-02-07T03:51:13.330" UserId="20695" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2016183695A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2016183695A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hi. I am writing a report about pearls sooo the patent in reference claims a surgical procedure to culture abalone pearls in Chile. Yet I found this paper published 6 years earlier: Monteforte M. and Bervera H. 2010. Abalone pearl culture west coast of Baja California peninsula, Mexico. World Aquaculture 41(3):12-17. &#xD;&#xA;The paper describes practically the same claims. Thoroughly, in fact. Even the same species of abalone. How this patent got the registration ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52364" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19110" RevisionGUID="e7d67924-c579-49f2-9872-87c4b1e5a29e" CreationDate="2018-02-07T03:51:13.330" UserId="20695" Text="is this patent original?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52365" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19110" RevisionGUID="e7d67924-c579-49f2-9872-87c4b1e5a29e" CreationDate="2018-02-07T03:51:13.330" UserId="20695" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;validity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52366" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="7ccd5777-f912-4b14-88a4-12ba28bb09df" CreationDate="2018-02-07T06:59:59.880" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19111" RevisionGUID="6825ec96-29e6-43c1-a974-b2958868d4fd" CreationDate="2018-02-07T07:28:24.057" UserId="20696" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20140190333][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140190333&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was a patent granted / is a patent currently in force appertaining to this application please?  I see that 2 prior patents have been cited.  I am **not** looking to patent something similar - I'm looking to include a similar technology (use of magnetic suspension) on an artisan product for sale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best regards, Andrew" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52368" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19111" RevisionGUID="6825ec96-29e6-43c1-a974-b2958868d4fd" CreationDate="2018-02-07T07:28:24.057" UserId="20696" Text="Was a patent granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52369" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19111" RevisionGUID="6825ec96-29e6-43c1-a974-b2958868d4fd" CreationDate="2018-02-07T07:28:24.057" UserId="20696" Text="&lt;granted&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19112" RevisionGUID="a4d4716d-2fda-400a-8095-4bf5ff111428" CreationDate="2018-02-07T10:30:33.647" UserId="169" Text="This application is not granted. Status: Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action.&#xD;&#xA;You can check statuses of applications and patents on USPTO PAIR:&#xD;&#xA;[https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52371" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="419e8618-7012-4c1f-be39-bda64fc1fd80" CreationDate="2018-02-07T11:00:04.023" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19114" RevisionGUID="b82b59b3-9768-4d98-9143-41f9daabd935" CreationDate="2018-02-08T07:04:14.027" UserId="8751" Text="In a PCT filing, is there any estoppel effect of arguments presented during the international phase (under art 19 or art 34) on national phase filings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52375" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19114" RevisionGUID="b82b59b3-9768-4d98-9143-41f9daabd935" CreationDate="2018-02-08T07:04:14.027" UserId="8751" Text="PCT -International phase examination" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52376" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19114" RevisionGUID="b82b59b3-9768-4d98-9143-41f9daabd935" CreationDate="2018-02-08T07:04:14.027" UserId="8751" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;estoppel&gt;&lt;phase&gt;&lt;national&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52389" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17944" RevisionGUID="fce09c5a-b336-4eda-b851-fe7e5616cd48" CreationDate="2018-02-08T23:04:14.900" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52390" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17945" RevisionGUID="9e84bafc-2b04-42e0-bcdf-f297bf0bf687" CreationDate="2018-02-09T00:04:39.177" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52391" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17041" RevisionGUID="b99632a8-b186-423d-a178-95c368bd6a02" CreationDate="2018-02-09T03:06:13.533" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52392" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16114" RevisionGUID="22dc66e0-d0ad-450e-9d9a-20da69673067" CreationDate="2018-02-09T04:06:14.450" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19118" RevisionGUID="0943b5b3-eafe-4c62-a1b6-9a7e229cd13a" CreationDate="2018-02-09T13:42:31.230" UserId="14077" Text="Official publication of RU2012147905 is [here][1], and its prosecution data may be seen [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;The application was rendered withdrawn on 11.01.2016.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Data of any RU application may be found in the [Registers][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Do not mix up RUPTO (Rospatent) with EAPO (Eurasian Patent Office); they are different patent organizations, and they have separate patent registers.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.fips.ru/Archive/PAT/2014FULL/2014.05.20/DOC/RUNWA/000/002/012/147/905/DOCUMENT.PDF&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www1.fips.ru/fips_servl/fips_servlet?DB=RUPAT&amp;DocNumber=2012147905&amp;TypeFile=html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www1.fips.ru/wps/portal/Registers/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52394" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18787" RevisionGUID="83934659-b410-41b3-989d-7508f37b9286" CreationDate="2018-02-09T17:09:25.710" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19119" RevisionGUID="caa3b508-d056-4ed7-878f-db54c6e42c63" CreationDate="2018-02-09T21:43:46.890" UserId="20711" Text="Big difference in electronics. An electrical diagram show the sections of a circuit in a flowchart style without regard to physical space or connection of individual components. A schematic shows (from left to right)the signal path and every individual component in it's relationship to the other components, including it's type, rating, polarity, etc. You could not do detailed electrical repairs without a schematic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19120" RevisionGUID="9a3c7684-5886-49d3-97b4-06a7a15339b9" CreationDate="2018-02-10T00:05:43.260" UserId="20712" Text="In reference to the patent: [EP2111747A3][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP2111747A3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52397" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19120" RevisionGUID="9a3c7684-5886-49d3-97b4-06a7a15339b9" CreationDate="2018-02-10T00:05:43.260" UserId="20712" Text="Has patent EP2111747A3 been granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52398" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19120" RevisionGUID="9a3c7684-5886-49d3-97b4-06a7a15339b9" CreationDate="2018-02-10T00:05:43.260" UserId="20712" Text="&lt;granted&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19121" RevisionGUID="1574002a-b828-41d9-b2f7-ecab7ebf0794" CreationDate="2018-02-10T00:39:37.040" UserId="17003" Text="At least in the US it has: [US8859846][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8859846" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="5dcefa0f-fb40-4f7d-98c9-ae8999ac300e" CreationDate="2018-02-10T00:43:00.420" UserId="169" Comment="Corrected terminology" Text="In reference to the patent application: [WO2002091307A9][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2002091307A9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an international patent application which claims a method for issuing over the internet a ticket, wherein the ticket contains a barcode in an image file format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's more, we have just received a letter from Ticketogo Limited inviting us to take a license and indicating that others have already done the same:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://me2.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/ApplicationNumber/GB0317362.2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To a layman (non-legal person), this just seems such an &quot;obvious&quot; solution and I can't see how it could be patentable. Perhaps this is only naivety or hindsight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if anyone else has had similar demands world wide?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And/or ideas about whether there is any prior art, or how we can show this is invalid, etc? Or even if it is indeed valid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for issuing a ticket to a user of a communication interface for communicating with a data server over a publicly accessible communication network (4) and formatting data received from the server (7) and of a printer (10) capable of printing information formatted by the communication interface, the method comprising: generating a code number for the ticket; formatting an image file of an image file format, the image file representing an image in that format of a bar code corresponding to the code number; and providing to the communication interface over the publicly accessible communication network (4) by means of a data server ticket data defining the appearance of a ticket, the ticket data including the image file." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52401" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="5dcefa0f-fb40-4f7d-98c9-ae8999ac300e" CreationDate="2018-02-10T00:43:00.420" Comment="Proposed by 169 approved by 18033, 17003 edit id of 2061" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52403" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17627" RevisionGUID="f532fb8e-b5b3-44a2-87f4-38c9d5729302" CreationDate="2018-02-10T04:16:51.837" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52404" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14445" RevisionGUID="b47610f7-66de-4fbb-917e-8c98275a760e" CreationDate="2018-02-10T06:16:52.310" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52405" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="25994ea9-9cbd-4950-97ec-fdeae296c8af" CreationDate="2018-02-10T15:19:29.843" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17628" RevisionGUID="2e4b5c28-bbc0-49a9-98e3-85a349605253" CreationDate="2018-02-10T20:47:36.150" UserId="17003" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Briefly reading the claims, it looks like only the apparatus and how it is constructed is claimed. The claims don't specify the rules of the game. For instance, it claims an elastic surface. If you make a version with a rigid surface you are probably safe from infringement. To infringe on a claim, you have to implement every part of the claim. You do, however need to recognize that there is potential for a different patent that claims rigid surfaces. Avoiding infringement of one patent doesn't guarantee you avoid infringement of all patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just an analysis based on a brief readings for the claims. You should also read the rest of the patent in case some aspects of the claims are interpreted in a nonstandard way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regards to your last question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  What would happen if the game was re-created under a different brand but with the same core idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The brand name doesn't matter with patents.  If you infringe only one or more claims, you may be sued. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19122" RevisionGUID="0fa27d41-8a32-4168-b5f6-11065c315a8b" CreationDate="2018-02-10T22:19:08.317" UserId="20719" Text="In reference to the patent: [US4244057][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4244057" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52408" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19122" RevisionGUID="0fa27d41-8a32-4168-b5f6-11065c315a8b" CreationDate="2018-02-10T22:19:08.317" UserId="20719" Text="expired? can this be resubmitted differently and get a new patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52409" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19122" RevisionGUID="0fa27d41-8a32-4168-b5f6-11065c315a8b" CreationDate="2018-02-10T22:19:08.317" UserId="20719" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19123" RevisionGUID="9d44ee09-3f62-4412-90a4-c5f54f180b1a" CreationDate="2018-02-10T22:51:05.210" UserId="17003" Text="US4244057A probably expired about Jan 13, 1998 so the invention described in it is available for anyone to be used. Of course, it cannot be resubmitted for a new patent since an invention needs to be novel in order for a patent to be granted. If you can think of a new improvement than the improvement could potentially be patented, but it would also have to novel in light of other patents that might exist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52416" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="b676ee69-15ec-4d7f-a972-766822a98792" CreationDate="2018-02-12T00:37:40.453" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52417" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18023" RevisionGUID="408e5eda-f1f7-4478-83ad-53d6fae66c85" CreationDate="2018-02-12T02:37:42.620" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19123" RevisionGUID="1ae256e7-94fc-42b7-bae4-6c84fb880178" CreationDate="2018-02-12T03:20:04.813" UserId="13706" Comment="added 169 characters in body" Text="US4244057A probably expired about Jan 13, 1998 so the invention described in it is available for anyone to be used. Of course, it cannot be resubmitted for a new patent since an invention needs to be novel in order for a patent to be granted. In other words, the expired patent would be prior art against a new patent application on the same idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can think of a new improvement to the invention in the expired patent, then that improvement could potentially be patented, but it would also have to novel and non-obviousness in light of other patents that might exist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52420" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18844" RevisionGUID="18ef8211-fc45-441a-8eb7-a67f3b367e89" CreationDate="2018-02-12T03:37:43.207" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19126" RevisionGUID="0a38ab6e-eb63-4f73-9d34-6578d96ace0c" CreationDate="2018-02-12T17:07:01.253" UserId="3264" Text="Imagine I have data describing something, i.e. a person&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Name Ander&#xD;&#xA;    Id  123123&#xD;&#xA;    tel 1313333333&#xD;&#xA;    some_other_unusual_id 1212&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I store it in a XML. The structure of the data (4 fields, those ones specifically) is unique and my company only uses it, but the data itself its stored in something common, such as XML. Can this structure be &quot;private&quot;, under a license or patented? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone get his hands in an example, can they write a `Ander_data_XML_read()` function in a programming language and release that function under GPL/BSD/MIT license?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52427" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19126" RevisionGUID="0a38ab6e-eb63-4f73-9d34-6578d96ace0c" CreationDate="2018-02-12T17:07:01.253" UserId="3264" Text="Can a data-fomat be patented and saved with a common storage format?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52428" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19126" RevisionGUID="0a38ab6e-eb63-4f73-9d34-6578d96ace0c" CreationDate="2018-02-12T17:07:01.253" UserId="3264" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;european&gt;&lt;license&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19127" RevisionGUID="6e348709-0029-4f02-8fdf-e6b917882ccb" CreationDate="2018-02-12T19:13:04.140" UserId="20725" Text="Last month I filed a PCT application with the US as the receiving office, using EFS-web.  I uploaded everything (I think) correctly and paid my microentity fees.  I want to now file an information disclosure, using for SB08a.  Previously, for a US-only application, there's a drop down selection under &quot;Category&quot; for IDS documents. However, for my PCT application, this field is not an option, and nothing looks like it's the correct &quot;document description&quot; for an IDS and attachments.  Please Help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52430" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19127" RevisionGUID="6e348709-0029-4f02-8fdf-e6b917882ccb" CreationDate="2018-02-12T19:13:04.140" UserId="20725" Text="PCT with US RO --- how to file the IDS?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52431" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19127" RevisionGUID="6e348709-0029-4f02-8fdf-e6b917882ccb" CreationDate="2018-02-12T19:13:04.140" UserId="20725" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;ids&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19128" RevisionGUID="a4bb8b73-9e74-4363-a9e8-c01136f50b3e" CreationDate="2018-02-12T21:40:03.517" UserId="20726" Text="If a product is handmade in the UK, not sold in the united states, does not have a patent, can that product ne created and patented in the states?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52433" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19128" RevisionGUID="a4bb8b73-9e74-4363-a9e8-c01136f50b3e" CreationDate="2018-02-12T21:40:03.517" UserId="20726" Text="Handmade Product In UK" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52434" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19128" RevisionGUID="a4bb8b73-9e74-4363-a9e8-c01136f50b3e" CreationDate="2018-02-12T21:40:03.517" UserId="20726" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;european&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52435" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="19128" RevisionGUID="2b852be1-2dcf-4d76-85b5-4d5f69999f67" CreationDate="2018-02-13T00:40:29.970" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[6502],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="52436" PostHistoryTypeId="20" PostId="6476" RevisionGUID="a6127a40-4089-42e7-9497-16d4b7771e3c" CreationDate="2018-02-13T00:41:56.437" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="52437" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6476" RevisionGUID="7b86d248-7a68-4fe6-b4ac-9c7a8da46be3" CreationDate="2018-02-13T00:55:35.483" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52439" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="41084bbe-7006-4c4b-ac51-03fcf9ebe883" CreationDate="2018-02-13T09:58:49.070" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19130" RevisionGUID="fd6f1c46-6f12-4e80-9ad4-e800d510f522" CreationDate="2018-02-13T15:09:05.617" UserId="17003" Text="I am not a lawyer, but my opinion is that the data structure, as you describe it, would not be patentable. One requirement of a patent is inventiveness. I can see nothing inventive about storing data in a common data storage format. I suppose if you use the data or storage format in some unexpected way and gain an unexpected advantage, there might be a patentable aspect, but this is not suggested in your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically software companies such as Microsoft, who wanted to protect their file formats used undisclosed binary files which were difficult to reverse engineer. This coupled with subtle changes to the formats with new versions of the software made file compatibility for competitors difficult. Another potential avenue to format protection might be copyright, but that is beyond my expertise and the scope of this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6482" RevisionGUID="7782cc2f-543f-4f06-ba13-c7b7cad603bc" CreationDate="2018-02-13T15:10:32.653" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to Google's patent searching site." Text="There are several characteristics that a patent office will look at to determine whether the invention is patentable. These are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Novelty&#xD;&#xA; 2. Inventive Step/Non-Obviousness&#xD;&#xA; 3. Industrial Applicability/Utility&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should also have a patentable subject matter. &#xD;&#xA;You can search your innovation in the existing patent ([Google Patent Search][1] or http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/index.html/) list. If there is no existing patent as per you idea then yes it is patentable. But it must pass all predefined test to get patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52446" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18577" RevisionGUID="bf2b2a36-fe19-416c-9d55-439f08a2c22d" CreationDate="2018-02-13T16:02:57.537" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52450" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17832" RevisionGUID="baa0cf6a-1d32-4b6f-8706-ba05371b58cf" CreationDate="2018-02-13T19:03:03.983" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19132" RevisionGUID="9226e4f7-07d1-4f3e-bf49-72eb021fb03d" CreationDate="2018-02-13T19:21:26.393" UserId="169" Text="By &quot;patent to get published&quot; do you mean how long it takes to get patent granted and the publication of granted patent? Or do you mean how long it takes to the publication of patent application? The latter is normally 18 months.&#xD;&#xA;You may find some useful information about Japanese patent system here:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.epo.org/searching-for-patents/helpful-resources/asian/japan/faq.html " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19133" RevisionGUID="2bab5b4b-1959-42b4-a677-6e723032e241" CreationDate="2018-02-14T02:18:07.233" UserId="20731" Text="If you use a technology design that has a non-expired patent application, once that application has been approved, assuming it will, then will the product be considered a patent infringement? Are there any issues to address now that the patent has been approved? What to do and what to fix?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52453" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19133" RevisionGUID="2bab5b4b-1959-42b4-a677-6e723032e241" CreationDate="2018-02-14T02:18:07.233" UserId="20731" Text="Using a design with pending patent (application) then patent is approved" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52454" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19133" RevisionGUID="2bab5b4b-1959-42b4-a677-6e723032e241" CreationDate="2018-02-14T02:18:07.233" UserId="20731" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;united-states&gt;&lt;technology&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19134" RevisionGUID="877ded1b-3a4a-46e6-beaa-f8faea93f485" CreationDate="2018-02-14T03:17:12.667" UserId="15503" Text="What you are asking about is called provisional rights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a person infringes the invention claimed in a published patent application, and that application is later granted, the patent owner is entitled to a &quot;reasonable royalty&quot; from the infringer ([35 USC § 154(d)(1)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154)), if:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the infringer had actual notice of the publication (35 USC § 154(d)(1)(B)); and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the invention claimed in the patent is substantially identical to the patent claimed in the published patent application (35 USC § 154(d)(2)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What to do now that the patent has been issued?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well first, stop infringing the patent. Then get yourself a lawyer to assess your liability for infringing the provisional rights." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19135" RevisionGUID="59ec7a87-8326-4bf1-800e-e3aff7df06f3" CreationDate="2018-02-14T12:38:45.553" UserId="169" Text="Not granted, [examination is in progress][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP09010216" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18888" RevisionGUID="76bd0c74-4014-4e22-8aac-4f2fc039a77c" CreationDate="2018-02-14T13:37:34.823" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The cited document is a patent application, not a patent. To determine the status of a US application the best approach is to look it up in the [US Public Pair][1] site. Go to Pair, get past the CAPTCHA and then (for this application) select the &quot;Document Number&quot; option and enter &quot;20080264895&quot;. If you do, you will find that this application is listed as: &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot; as of 02-13-2012. The application had received a &quot;non-final rejection&quot;. Many if not most applications receive non-final rejections&quot; so that, by itself isn't an indication that the application could never be granted. However, it looks like the applicant gave up on it. It is still possible for the applicant to resurrect the application, but I would seem at this point unlikely. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you click on the &quot;Image File Wrapper&quot; tab, you can look at the communications between the applicant and the examiner. It would be useful to read the Non-Final Rejection document as this might point out prior art that could keep you from using the described invention. Please understand that I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19136" RevisionGUID="07d7f1db-6056-4e31-956f-95d45f628dae" CreationDate="2018-02-14T19:21:56.830" UserId="19913" Text="Within the context of describing a patent claim  for a USPTO patent, would use of the term **apparatus** to represent a group of inter-networked computers be correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the USPTO have a formal definition of **apparatus**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to me to use the correct term properly: any constructive guidance regarding the term is appreciated.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52460" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19136" RevisionGUID="07d7f1db-6056-4e31-956f-95d45f628dae" CreationDate="2018-02-14T19:21:56.830" UserId="19913" Text="Apparatus Terminology" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52461" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19136" RevisionGUID="07d7f1db-6056-4e31-956f-95d45f628dae" CreationDate="2018-02-14T19:21:56.830" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;apparatus&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52462" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19120" RevisionGUID="9ba75b67-7683-4ea6-826d-14cd5be044a8" CreationDate="2018-02-14T20:03:54.707" UserId="169" Comment="Added correct tags" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;legal-status&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52463" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19120" RevisionGUID="9ba75b67-7683-4ea6-826d-14cd5be044a8" CreationDate="2018-02-14T20:03:54.707" Comment="Proposed by 169 approved by 18033, 15503 edit id of 2063" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18552" RevisionGUID="b28a3a75-e684-4f49-a007-ff2b66f3fc40" CreationDate="2018-02-14T20:04:30.340" UserId="169" Comment="Corrected the question, added specifying information about the request." Text="Looking prior art for: [US20160152452][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A **pulley** comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **a monobloc sheave** comprising two opposing longitudinal faces, a transverse central recess and a concave external surface forming an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; annular groove which is provided in order to redirect a rope, the central recess and the concave external surface being fixed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; relative to each other,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **a fixing rope** of the sheave which extends through the central recess&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the sheave, the fixing rope being in direct contact with the central recess,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **a spacer element** which is arranged in order **to space the fixing rope&#xD;&#xA;&gt; away from the longitudinal faces of the sheave**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aim of the pulley described in US20160152452A1 is to reduce friction between fixing rope and sheave. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is achieved by using closed rope loop as a fixing rope and a spacer element and the spacer element is arranged to provide pressure to the fixing rope so, that the fixing rope moves away from the sides of sheave in two directions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For better understanding, please see the drawings of different embodiments of claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160152452A1/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ti3VY.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52465" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18552" RevisionGUID="b28a3a75-e684-4f49-a007-ff2b66f3fc40" CreationDate="2018-02-14T20:04:30.340" UserId="169" Comment="Corrected the question, added specifying information about the request." Text="Prior art request: low or reduced friction pulleys/blocks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52466" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18552" RevisionGUID="b28a3a75-e684-4f49-a007-ff2b66f3fc40" CreationDate="2018-02-14T20:04:30.340" UserId="169" Comment="Corrected the question, added specifying information about the request." Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pulleys&gt;&lt;sailing&gt;&lt;yachts&gt;&lt;friction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52467" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18552" RevisionGUID="b28a3a75-e684-4f49-a007-ff2b66f3fc40" CreationDate="2018-02-14T20:04:30.340" Comment="Proposed by 169 approved by 17003, 15503 edit id of 2060" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10547" RevisionGUID="d04c5489-f410-43c8-b4ac-ec62faa906e2" CreationDate="2018-02-14T20:04:50.417" UserId="-1" Comment="change author to applicant" Text="According to the USPTO 37 C.F.R. 1.45 Application for patent by joint inventors, you can apply for joint inventorship provided you have contributed in the development of the patent and each inventors must make an inventor's oath or declaration as required by Section 1.63. Inventors can apply for a joint patent even though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) They did not physically work together or at the same time;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Each inventor did not make the same type or amount of contribution; or&#xD;&#xA;(3) Each inventor did not make a contribution to the subject matter of every claim of the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you fit the definition of a co-inventor and the applicant did not include you and your co-worker as an inventor of the patent, you might have the right to file a case against the applicant. Ask an expert for the right thing to do in such situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52469" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10547" RevisionGUID="d04c5489-f410-43c8-b4ac-ec62faa906e2" CreationDate="2018-02-14T20:04:50.417" Comment="Proposed by 47.147.131.33|89eb8e6c-7447-496b-a658-aa55b0684795 approved by 18033, 15503 edit id of 2062" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19137" RevisionGUID="67eff4f4-0ed1-44c1-a752-6125b7e22a1c" CreationDate="2018-02-14T20:11:39.897" UserId="15503" Text="There is no formal definition, just the meaning which is derived from usage over the years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically an apparatus is a single device. Multiple devices which work together would be a system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, you would not often refer to something as an apparatus, but rather as the thing you are claiming, so a &quot;computer&quot;, &quot;mobile device&quot;, &quot;base station&quot;, &quot;display&quot; etc. This is aids in clearing setting the scope of your invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19136" RevisionGUID="c3e0d146-78f6-4c1d-aa88-9c8aa31553b9" CreationDate="2018-02-14T20:25:09.537" UserId="19913" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="Within the context of describing a patent claim  for a USPTO patent, would use of the term **apparatus** to represent a group of inter-networked computers be correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the USPTO have a formal definition of **apparatus**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to me to use the correct term properly in the sense that my audience is a patent examiner: any constructive guidance regarding the term is appreciated.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52472" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="6e1bbac4-7c35-4c98-b7ae-32af669aea47" CreationDate="2018-02-14T22:18:05.697" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52473" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18852" RevisionGUID="72bef3a6-d969-4f41-8b34-047dd5d5e263" CreationDate="2018-02-15T01:18:06.523" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19138" RevisionGUID="8e1e9ee2-6286-4b48-9301-2478e01754cf" CreationDate="2018-02-15T01:35:00.213" UserId="14403" Text="Under Art 19 and 34 of WIPO, for an amendment, a statement for basis of amendment is required.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I feel, if amendment is made to specification and/or drawing than the section of specification and the drawing prior to amendment and statements thereto may cause estoppel action because the later version is chosen as the best mode of practice and applicant is supposed to frame claims for protection of best mode of practice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For claims it's a bit different. USPTO allows reinstatement of withdrawn claims and canceled claims (with new serial number). So, prima facie, amendment of claims and arguments thereto need not have estoppel effect. But, if your claim includes limitations as to what your invention can not do, then it surely will have estoppel effect. Because, if it is explicitly claimed that a certain invention can not do a function A and afterwards an amendment is done to claim list to include that the invention can perform the function A, that will face estoppel.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52475" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17248" RevisionGUID="fe6800e7-484f-4756-9bc7-6ee1982755dd" CreationDate="2018-02-15T03:18:08.277" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19139" RevisionGUID="d44eb06d-a54a-4a7b-880a-c12ee6653533" CreationDate="2018-02-15T04:00:14.300" UserId="20746" Text="Would it be acceptable to have all the drawings aka &quot;the 7 standard views&quot; for my design patent on a single page if they all fit well. The design is not very big, and I am able to fit all 7 figures on 1 page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example of what I mean (for obvious reasons I will not be sharing the actual drawings)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![example of the 7 figures][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very excited to file my first design patent 100% independently without a lawyer! (Please don't recommend I seek professional legal advice, half the reason I am filing the patent is for the personal learning experience of navigating the USPTO + I want to protect my design)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JGfK5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52477" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19139" RevisionGUID="d44eb06d-a54a-4a7b-880a-c12ee6653533" CreationDate="2018-02-15T04:00:14.300" UserId="20746" Text="Design Patent - Having all 7 drawings / figures on 1 page" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52478" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19139" RevisionGUID="d44eb06d-a54a-4a7b-880a-c12ee6653533" CreationDate="2018-02-15T04:00:14.300" UserId="20746" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;patent-drawings&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52479" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="2a1853f5-ef03-4f27-8444-4d28fefd6bcd" CreationDate="2018-02-15T06:18:34.537" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19140" RevisionGUID="a2d81245-8fa0-44c4-ae42-8d244f369367" CreationDate="2018-02-15T07:03:55.723" UserId="20746" Text="I have been researching design patent drawings, and from what I read they typically have to be shaded, I just found an example of the GoPro Karma Drone Battery, and it appears to have no shading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you get away without shading?&#xD;&#xA;[link to design patent drawings for gopro battery][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD790454S1/en?after=priority:20170101&amp;type=DESIGN&amp;oq=(a)%20after:priority:20170101%20type:DESIGN&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/l4zwS.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52481" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19140" RevisionGUID="a2d81245-8fa0-44c4-ae42-8d244f369367" CreationDate="2018-02-15T07:03:55.723" UserId="20746" Text="Modern Design Patent Drawings without Shading? - Example" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52482" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19140" RevisionGUID="a2d81245-8fa0-44c4-ae42-8d244f369367" CreationDate="2018-02-15T07:03:55.723" UserId="20746" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;patent-drawings&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19141" RevisionGUID="fefb5f95-2f55-4a8d-b1b4-1e65c14c7565" CreationDate="2018-02-15T07:16:03.080" UserId="15503" Text="It's fine to not have surface shading, as long as your drawings are clear without it. That is, surface shading is just one technique that is used to completely and adequately show the nature of the design you are claiming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[MPEP § 1503.02(II)](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1503.html#d0e151275) specifically addresses this exactly question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;While surface shading is not required under 37 CFR 1.152, it may be necessary in particular cases to shade the figures to show clearly the character and contour of all surfaces of any 3-dimensional aspects of the design. Surface shading is also necessary to distinguish between any open and solid areas of the article. However, surface shading should not be used on unclaimed subject matter, shown in broken lines, to avoid confusion as to the scope of the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Lack of appropriate surface shading in the drawing as filed may render the design nonenabling and indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), (or for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs). Additionally, if the surface shape is not evident from the disclosure as filed, the addition of surface shading after filing may comprise new matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52484" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="6f5995a4-5f85-4cf7-bea7-84b8baf2e854" CreationDate="2018-02-15T08:18:37.063" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52485" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="18552" RevisionGUID="233e205f-5002-44f1-b857-cad6c7331fea" CreationDate="2018-02-15T14:15:54.717" UserId="169" Comment="42" />
  <row Id="52486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19142" RevisionGUID="dad5f813-4ccd-4793-bd6e-3f4262bba894" CreationDate="2018-02-15T14:37:09.477" UserId="169" Text="In reference to the patent application: [US20180018649][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20180018649&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Independent claims**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1. A system** for controlling a service station related to a vehicle, comprising a user interface element (10) comprising an app installed in a user apparatus (20); an identification element (30);&#xD;&#xA;a control element (40) connected to the service station; and&#xD;&#xA;a back-end element (50); wherein&#xD;&#xA;the identification element (30) is configured to retrieve identifying information and to send it to the back-end element (50);&#xD;&#xA;the back-end element (50) is configured to enable via the control element (40) the use of the service station based on the identifying information; and wherein&#xD;&#xA;the user interface element (10) after receiving an authentication of an access right from the back-end element (50) is configured to enable the user to start a service of the service station.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**10. A method** for controlling a service station related to a vehicle, comprising&#xD;&#xA;initiating a user interface element (10) comprising an app installed in a user apparatus (20);&#xD;&#xA;retrieving identifying information with an identification element (30);&#xD;&#xA;authenticating an access right on the basis of the identifying information with a back-end element (50);&#xD;&#xA;enabling the use of the service station via a control element (40);&#xD;&#xA;enabling the user to start a service of the service station via the user interface element (10) after receiving an authentication of an access right from the back-end element (50).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52487" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19142" RevisionGUID="dad5f813-4ccd-4793-bd6e-3f4262bba894" CreationDate="2018-02-15T14:37:09.477" UserId="169" Text="Prior art request: A system and method for controlling a service station related to a vehicle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52488" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19142" RevisionGUID="dad5f813-4ccd-4793-bd6e-3f4262bba894" CreationDate="2018-02-15T14:37:09.477" UserId="169" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;us20180018649&gt;&lt;self-service&gt;&lt;car-wash&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19143" RevisionGUID="cccb399e-55c4-4ae1-a81b-9e43aac0eeea" CreationDate="2018-02-15T15:19:00.747" UserId="169" Text="In reference to the European patent: [EP1889808B1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP1889808B1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim:**&#xD;&#xA;A crane arm having a fixing device for working implements, wherein the fixing device has rotary joints spaced along a vertical axis with a rotary joint at the crane arm side and a rotary joint at the working implement side in the manner of a cardan joint whose axes of rotation are arranged perpendicularly to each other, wherein hose lines lead from the crane arm to connections to a rotator arranged between the working implement and the rotary joint at the working implement side and wherein the rotary joint at the crane arm side has two spaced rotary bearings along its axis of rotation and the hose lines lead from the crane arm to the connections between the two rotary bearings **characterised in that** the connections (8) for the hose lines (7) are arranged at the side (1a) of the fixing device (2), that is towards the crane arm (1) and the hose lines (7) pass the rotary joint shifted in the direction of the axis of rotation of the rotary joint at the working implement side." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52490" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19143" RevisionGUID="cccb399e-55c4-4ae1-a81b-9e43aac0eeea" CreationDate="2018-02-15T15:19:00.747" UserId="169" Text="Prior art request: crane arms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52491" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19143" RevisionGUID="cccb399e-55c4-4ae1-a81b-9e43aac0eeea" CreationDate="2018-02-15T15:19:00.747" UserId="169" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;ep1889808b1&gt;&lt;crane-arm&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19144" RevisionGUID="d328cf03-04f5-45f7-8a9c-d6cb7c88ce65" CreationDate="2018-02-15T15:30:21.560" UserId="169" Text="It's probably faster, much easier and cheaper to get US design patent granted than US utility patent. Depending on your resources you may apply for both, design and utility patent. But design patent application may be sufficient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But before making your decision you should always discuss it with patent attorney." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19139" RevisionGUID="0d5eadd9-3f6b-4c41-8926-9e45635fdbe4" CreationDate="2018-02-15T18:31:37.713" UserId="20746" Comment="deleted 275 characters in body" Text="Would it be acceptable to have all the drawings aka &quot;the 7 standard views&quot; for my design patent on a single page if they all fit well. The design is not very big, and I am able to fit all 7 figures on 1 page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example of what I mean (for obvious reasons I will not be sharing the actual drawings)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![example of the 7 figures][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JGfK5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19143" RevisionGUID="b89d4fb4-ad2b-437d-9125-c8e7c67af1ed" CreationDate="2018-02-15T18:35:45.973" UserId="169" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="In reference to the European patent: [EP1889808B1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP1889808B1/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim:**&#xD;&#xA;A crane arm having a fixing device for working implements, wherein the fixing device has rotary joints spaced along a vertical axis with a rotary joint at the crane arm side and a rotary joint at the working implement side in the manner of a cardan joint whose axes of rotation are arranged perpendicularly to each other, wherein hose lines lead from the crane arm to connections to a rotator arranged between the working implement and the rotary joint at the working implement side and wherein the rotary joint at the crane arm side has two spaced rotary bearings along its axis of rotation and the hose lines lead from the crane arm to the connections between the two rotary bearings **characterised in that** the connections (8) for the hose lines (7) are arranged at the side (1a) of the fixing device (2), that is towards the crane arm (1) and the hose lines (7) pass the rotary joint shifted in the direction of the axis of rotation of the rotary joint at the working implement side." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52495" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13366" RevisionGUID="d2d6561d-479c-456a-8285-48911d178b4c" CreationDate="2018-02-15T19:20:55.283" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19143" RevisionGUID="6466f372-8033-446c-a159-354790deda8f" CreationDate="2018-02-15T20:06:00.143" UserId="17003" Comment="Changed link to one that provides the patent in english" Text="In reference to the European patent: [EP1889808B1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/EP_1889808_B1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim:**&#xD;&#xA;A crane arm having a fixing device for working implements, wherein the fixing device has rotary joints spaced along a vertical axis with a rotary joint at the crane arm side and a rotary joint at the working implement side in the manner of a cardan joint whose axes of rotation are arranged perpendicularly to each other, wherein hose lines lead from the crane arm to connections to a rotator arranged between the working implement and the rotary joint at the working implement side and wherein the rotary joint at the crane arm side has two spaced rotary bearings along its axis of rotation and the hose lines lead from the crane arm to the connections between the two rotary bearings **characterised in that** the connections (8) for the hose lines (7) are arranged at the side (1a) of the fixing device (2), that is towards the crane arm (1) and the hose lines (7) pass the rotary joint shifted in the direction of the axis of rotation of the rotary joint at the working implement side." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19142" RevisionGUID="b51fc65c-fd2f-4e11-9769-71fdfeb470cc" CreationDate="2018-02-15T20:14:46.417" UserId="17003" Comment="Formatted the claims to be more readable." Text="In reference to the patent application: [US20180018649][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20180018649&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Independent claims**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1.  A system** for controlling a service station related to a vehicle, comprising&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a user interface element (10) comprising an app&#xD;&#xA;&gt; installed in a user apparatus (20);&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an identification element (30);&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a control element (40) connected to the service station;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and a back-end&#xD;&#xA;&gt; element (50);&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  wherein the identification element (30) is configured to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; retrieve identifying information and to send it to the back-end&#xD;&#xA;&gt; element (50); &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the back-end element (50) is configured to enable via&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the control element (40) the use of the service station based on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identifying information; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and wherein the user interface element (10)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; after receiving an authentication of an access right from the back-end&#xD;&#xA;&gt; element (50) is configured to enable the user to start a service of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the service station.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **10. A method** for controlling a service station related to a vehicle, comprising&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; initiating a user interface element (10)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comprising an app installed in a user apparatus (20);&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  retrieving&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identifying information with an identification element (30);&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authenticating an access right on the basis of the identifying&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information with a back-end element (50);&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  enabling the use of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; service station via a control element (40);&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  enabling the user to start&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a service of the service station via the user interface element (10)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; after receiving an authentication of an access right from the back-end&#xD;&#xA;&gt; element (50).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52498" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17844" RevisionGUID="b1249cc3-81d5-4b6a-a0c0-a26c9c1f13f6" CreationDate="2018-02-15T20:20:56.863" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19143" RevisionGUID="ef43bdc7-25e5-4f1d-b713-2653219c487b" CreationDate="2018-02-15T20:40:54.587" UserId="169" Comment="added 144 characters in body" Text="In reference to the European patent EP1889808B1, available in Lens [EP1889808B1][1] and in Google Patents [EP1889808B1][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim:**&#xD;&#xA;A crane arm having a fixing device for working implements, wherein the fixing device has rotary joints spaced along a vertical axis with a rotary joint at the crane arm side and a rotary joint at the working implement side in the manner of a cardan joint whose axes of rotation are arranged perpendicularly to each other, wherein hose lines lead from the crane arm to connections to a rotator arranged between the working implement and the rotary joint at the working implement side and wherein the rotary joint at the crane arm side has two spaced rotary bearings along its axis of rotation and the hose lines lead from the crane arm to the connections between the two rotary bearings **characterised in that** the connections (8) for the hose lines (7) are arranged at the side (1a) of the fixing device (2), that is towards the crane arm (1) and the hose lines (7) pass the rotary joint shifted in the direction of the axis of rotation of the rotary joint at the working implement side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/EP_1889808_B1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP1889808B1/en?oq=EP1889808B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19145" RevisionGUID="62b9ad3a-3720-4f33-8114-f00fa5834d0a" CreationDate="2018-02-15T20:51:43.543" UserId="169" Text="For the process patents it's not rare that there is no diagrams, figures, drawings, images nor illustrations. It's normal. It happens all the time.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52501" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17664" RevisionGUID="36d463b7-ffb5-4037-8f50-7c20a52ac522" CreationDate="2018-02-15T21:20:56.893" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52502" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17660" RevisionGUID="0ae80746-e1a7-4185-af21-2b5adffe3b6a" CreationDate="2018-02-16T03:21:00.143" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19146" RevisionGUID="dcb57fd7-8c4f-4ea9-9226-88e775d99403" CreationDate="2018-02-16T06:06:23.467" UserId="3076" Text="Since the AIA went into effect it is easier to correct inventorship.  [See this article][1] &quot;AIA Breathes Life into Inventorship Correction in PTO&quot;, or any of numerous articles that pop up in a google search of [AIA inventorship][2]. For applications filed prior to the AIA taking effect, a patent being asserted in court could be challenged and invalidated for incorrect inventorship and correcting inventorship at that point required that the original error was &quot;without deceptive intent&quot;. If that was not true, everybody with a stake in the patent was unfixably screwed. Now that requirement is gone and it can be fixed in court and also fixed via the USPTO without a court case without establishing no deceptive intent. So you bringing this up with the applicant/co-inventors/assignee should not backfire and kill the patent that you hope lays the golden egg. Obviously you need professional advice about your specific case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Post AIA we have -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Correction of inventorship in patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 256.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(b) Any request to correct inventorship of a patent pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section must be accompanied by:&#xD;&#xA;(1) A statement from each person who is being added as an inventor and each person who is **currently named as an inventor either agreeing to the change of inventorship or stating that he or she has no disagreement in regard to the requested change**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pre AIA we have -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2.14    Correction of Inventorship Under 37 CFR 1.48(a) or (c) Filed Before Sept. 16, 2012, Sufficient&#xD;&#xA;In view of the request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48  and the accompanying papers filed before September 16, 2012, it has been found that this nonprovisional application, as filed, through error and **without deceptive intent**, improperly set forth the inventorship, and accordingly, this application has been corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48  ([1]). The inventorship of this application has been changed by [2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/aia-breathes-life-into-inventorship-correction-in-pto.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS564US564&amp;ei=MG-GWuDHOcT8jwPu85iADQ&amp;q=aia%20inventorship&amp;oq=aia%20inventorship&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i71k1l8.0.0.0.337523.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1..64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.39GexO0XXxQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19147" RevisionGUID="1c490a39-29e9-4bf9-86bd-45aee284e811" CreationDate="2018-02-16T06:30:33.857" UserId="3076" Text="Yes,  many figures can be on one sheet. There is no need to use multiple sheets but if you have more than one figure per sheet you need to be careful that everything is correctly drawn under the USPTO rules to be seen as individual figures. If you look at older patents you will see many figures per sheet. However, making the figures small might hurt clarity and since there is no cost to use seven sheets rather than one sheet, there is no benefit to squeezing it together. The patent office has a very good [guide to drafting design patents][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/design-patent-application-guide" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19134" RevisionGUID="d1983944-e11f-4d13-9ddf-7cdda3adfee0" CreationDate="2018-02-16T06:38:49.323" UserId="3076" Comment="added note to avoid possible confusion between provisional rights and a provisional application" Text="What you are asking about is called provisional rights. Not be confused with the completely unrelated &quot;provisional patent application&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a person infringes the invention claimed in a published patent application, and that application is later granted, the patent owner is entitled to a &quot;reasonable royalty&quot; from the infringer ([35 USC § 154(d)(1)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154)), if:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the infringer had actual notice of the publication (35 USC § 154(d)(1)(B)); and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the invention claimed in the patent is substantially identical to the patent claimed in the published patent application (35 USC § 154(d)(2)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What to do now that the patent has been issued?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well first, stop infringing the patent. Then get yourself a lawyer to assess your liability for infringing the provisional rights." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19148" RevisionGUID="6dc67dd4-9426-420f-b490-43dfc3b3ee6a" CreationDate="2018-02-16T06:48:09.097" UserId="3076" Text="This kind of thing was considered patent eligible but isn't any longer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A somewhat well known patent 6,128,415 of Polaroid's   - &quot;Device profiles for use in a digital image processing system&quot;, that covers a data structure for a profile in a digital camera. It was struck down a few years ago. Patents on data structures were killed by court cases. The PatentlyO blog had an article about this called [Data Structure Patent Ineligible][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/07/structure-patent-ineligible.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52507" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19148" RevisionGUID="ae0ec35a-5e48-41de-ada8-cc8d16704913" CreationDate="2018-02-16T06:53:52.520" UserId="3076" Comment="added 196 characters in body" Text="This kind of thing was previously considered patent eligible (and some examples were found to be novel and non-obvious and granted patents) but they aren't considered patent eligible any longer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A somewhat well known patent 6,128,415 of Polaroid's   - &quot;Device profiles for use in a digital image processing system&quot;, that covers a data structure for a profile in a digital camera. It was struck down a few years ago. The first issue now is not novelty or obviousness, but patent eligible subject matter, regardless of how inventive it might be. The PatentlyO blog had an article about this called [Data Structure Patent Ineligible][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/07/structure-patent-ineligible.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19123" RevisionGUID="b746a9be-e19c-488b-872c-55ea28726b85" CreationDate="2018-02-16T06:57:50.737" UserId="3076" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="US4244057A probably expired about Jan 13, 1998 so the invention described in it is available for anyone to be used. Of course, it cannot be resubmitted for a new patent since an invention needs to be novel in order for a patent to be granted. In other words, the expired patent would be prior art against a new patent application on the same idea. And, importantly you can only patent what you actually invent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can think of a new improvement to the invention in the expired patent, then that improvement could potentially be patented, but it would also have to novel and non-obviousness in light of other patents that might exist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19149" RevisionGUID="5e18e0f3-daa1-4ac8-951e-4f305cf9ddb5" CreationDate="2018-02-16T11:16:49.267" UserId="20746" Text="Why would one cite another patent, specifically when applying for a design patent (non utility)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen design patents that have been cited by other patents. But also design patents that cite other patents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example of a design patent that has citations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[https://patents.google.com/patent/USD790454S1/en?assignee=go+pro&amp;type=DESIGN&amp;oq=(go+pro)+type:DESIGN][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD790454S1/en?assignee=go%20pro&amp;type=DESIGN&amp;oq=(go%20pro)%20type:DESIGN" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52510" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19149" RevisionGUID="5e18e0f3-daa1-4ac8-951e-4f305cf9ddb5" CreationDate="2018-02-16T11:16:49.267" UserId="20746" Text="Why Cite a Patent when filing for a Design Patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52511" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19149" RevisionGUID="5e18e0f3-daa1-4ac8-951e-4f305cf9ddb5" CreationDate="2018-02-16T11:16:49.267" UserId="20746" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;citation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52512" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18261" RevisionGUID="5bc3e098-2110-424a-988e-f16f06ee5820" CreationDate="2018-02-16T11:21:07.730" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52513" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19149" RevisionGUID="c0ee2b3c-c3c6-4140-9081-bb96cf8bba8a" CreationDate="2018-02-16T11:28:08.783" UserId="20746" Comment="edited title" Text="Why Cite a Patent when filing for a Design Patent? - Example" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19150" RevisionGUID="43963339-3167-49fc-8abc-334f7f0a9516" CreationDate="2018-02-16T19:44:04.957" UserId="169" Text="Not sure that, looks like that the glass that Eric found, maybe was available on the market already before the priority date.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DJddR.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19151" RevisionGUID="2b0215d2-ba5e-4bb2-9ef4-8e2afa881f02" CreationDate="2018-02-16T19:47:02.643" UserId="169" Text="[US6066021A][1] Glass drinking vessel with a bottom ornament. Published on 2000-05-23.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6066021A/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CMwb7.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19152" RevisionGUID="956e5a83-c53f-417d-86c2-264eac9fa0ed" CreationDate="2018-02-16T21:00:52.233" UserId="3076" Text="For the identical reason patents and other references are cited in utility applications. Design patents are searched and examined by patent examiners. What they turn up in the search ends up cited at the beginning of a granted patent. Also, the applicant is required to notify the examiner (on an IDS form) of everything they know off that might be relevant to the examination. Those references get cited at the beginning of a patent publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Design patents really are subject to the requirements of novelty and non-obviousness that utility patents are. The relevant sections 35 USC 102 and 103 make no distinction between the three types of US patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19152" RevisionGUID="ae4448c9-a57e-440f-953d-1e3a78351904" CreationDate="2018-02-17T03:38:31.360" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="For the identical reason patents and other references are cited in utility applications. Design patents are searched and examined by patent examiners. What they turn up in the search ends up cited at the beginning of a granted patent. Also, the applicant is required to notify the examiner (on an IDS form) of everything they know of that might be relevant to the examination. Those references get cited at the beginning of a patent publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Design patents really are subject to the requirements of novelty and non-obviousness that utility patents are. The relevant sections 35 USC 102 and 103 make no distinction between the three types of US patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19154" RevisionGUID="898db574-cf6c-45da-ae8f-a2794d483fba" CreationDate="2018-02-17T09:42:38.103" UserId="20503" Text="Here are two links to GitHub projects that can be used to help download and parse USPTO data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://github.com/USPTO/PatentPublicData&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://github.com/USPTO/bulk-data-tools&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am also in the process of building a comprehensive tool in Python that downloads, parses and builds an SQL database of all patent, application, PAIR, and classification data-sets.  I should be finished in a week or two.  Otherwise, the other two on Github may be fully functional and working properly. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52524" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18971" RevisionGUID="412510d0-afa1-4fc0-83ab-0e06bdf016e9" CreationDate="2018-02-17T17:25:33.000" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52525" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18712" RevisionGUID="de07a247-f326-4134-b44f-ee7269901d30" CreationDate="2018-02-17T20:25:45.513" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19156" RevisionGUID="dbcf0684-3cb1-4f2a-8f61-339cb82b60ae" CreationDate="2018-02-18T19:52:23.173" UserId="18557" Text="**How much specific details I need to provide in utility non provisional patent application?**&#xD;&#xA;I am into IT for around 2 decades now. Provisional - I filed on my own. My provisional application was around 13 pages with almost 5 diagrams. How much details I need to provide in my utility non provisional patent application? I am in the process of hiring the patent attorney also. But i will do all the invention specific work. &#xD;&#xA;I am taking the analogy that provisional patent application is more like &quot;Business Idea and requirements document&quot; while Non provisional patent application is more like &quot;Architecture and High level design&quot;. Is my understanding good enough? I am into IT and working as an IT Architect into Java/Bigdata for Business applications development. First time working for the patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help me out with this. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52533" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19156" RevisionGUID="dbcf0684-3cb1-4f2a-8f61-339cb82b60ae" CreationDate="2018-02-18T19:52:23.173" UserId="18557" Text="How much specific details I need to provide in utility non provisional patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52534" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19156" RevisionGUID="dbcf0684-3cb1-4f2a-8f61-339cb82b60ae" CreationDate="2018-02-18T19:52:23.173" UserId="18557" Text="&lt;non-provisional&gt;&lt;detailed&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19157" RevisionGUID="18ca54fa-dafe-4499-a4c9-f679e257c4e2" CreationDate="2018-02-18T23:04:38.027" UserId="15503" Text="You need to include enough details to comply with the various requirements for a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in the US, you must provide a written description which enables any person skilled in the art to make and use the invention, and provides the best mode ([35 USC § 112](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/112)). There are of course a number of other requirements, and it would be impossible to describe them all: that is why you need an attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Eric Shain points out in his comment, the analogy to software documents is not really appropriate. The purpose of a provisional patent application is to provide priority for a non-provisional patent application, whereas a requirements document does not. The purpose of a non-provisional patent application is to obtain a patent, whereas an architecture design document does not. A non-provisional patent application specification is really a singular document, which cannot be approached as anything other than a non-provisional patent application specification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52536" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="eeab74b7-30d8-4f38-8e2d-047c8f144c4f" CreationDate="2018-02-19T01:35:39.113" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52537" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17865" RevisionGUID="2fbc6202-8fb5-46a4-b631-8a6328f9d470" CreationDate="2018-02-19T04:35:39.633" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19158" RevisionGUID="53e8ccf2-634f-40eb-8b84-63cac20f074c" CreationDate="2018-02-19T05:17:02.797" UserId="20746" Text="I have been searching for an easy sample application for a design patent. I feel The USPTO is not really that good at providing an example filing application bundle. I will be filing as a Micro Entity and single inventor. **Are there any places / videos with a good example filing application bundle you know of?** There are a lot of documents to supply so I want to make sure I have them all. I will be filing on the EFS web online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far I have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Drawings&#xD;&#xA;2. Description of Drawings&#xD;&#xA;3. Feature Description&#xD;&#xA;4. Claim&#xD;&#xA;5. Forms 8 , 17, 18, 15A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Am I missing anything?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the example of my description of drawings, claim, and feature description:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I, &quot;name&quot; have invented a new design for a &quot;design title&quot; as set forth in the following specification:&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    FIG. 1 is a northeast isometric view of a &quot;design title&quot; showing my new design;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    FIG. 2 is a front view thereof;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    FIG. 3 is a back view thereof;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    FIG. 4 is a left view thereof;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    FIG. 5 is a right view thereof;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    FIG. 6 is a top view thereof; and&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    FIG. 7 is a bottom view thereof.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Feature Description: My &quot;design title&quot; is characterized by bla bla bla and it is used for bla bla bla&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    I claim: The ornamental design for a &quot;design title&quot; as shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52539" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19158" RevisionGUID="53e8ccf2-634f-40eb-8b84-63cac20f074c" CreationDate="2018-02-19T05:17:02.797" UserId="20746" Text="Everything I need to file my design patent - application examples?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52540" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19158" RevisionGUID="53e8ccf2-634f-40eb-8b84-63cac20f074c" CreationDate="2018-02-19T05:17:02.797" UserId="20746" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52541" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="4a19b5b2-6180-421f-86ec-f3679841dd49" CreationDate="2018-02-19T06:35:45.230" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19159" RevisionGUID="94926c64-e24a-4c73-9552-1c6e9f8888c7" CreationDate="2018-02-19T07:17:48.703" UserId="169" Text="There are special requirements for the design drawings. You should definitely discuss the drawings with some craftsman who has previous experiences regarding design drawings. It is not good idea to use just examples because every patent application is different depending on what exactly and how do you need to protect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19160" RevisionGUID="ee6e8a41-eeae-440c-9d9c-c9d56d8bb69a" CreationDate="2018-02-19T12:10:49.057" UserId="20756" Text="uk patent application GB 2340070 A IS VALIAD AND INFORCE ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52544" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19160" RevisionGUID="ee6e8a41-eeae-440c-9d9c-c9d56d8bb69a" CreationDate="2018-02-19T12:10:49.057" UserId="20756" Text="Is this patent still valid and in force? 1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52545" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19160" RevisionGUID="ee6e8a41-eeae-440c-9d9c-c9d56d8bb69a" CreationDate="2018-02-19T12:10:49.057" UserId="20756" Text="&lt;status&gt;&lt;valid&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52546" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="d049e96f-cadb-4960-b2dd-85db2672e157" CreationDate="2018-02-19T12:35:39.730" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19161" RevisionGUID="e43481c8-cab0-46ca-8224-81ea42cf61e0" CreationDate="2018-02-19T13:56:44.697" UserId="169" Text="Still valid, 20th year renewal paid on 26 July 2017. &#xD;&#xA;Please see https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2340070. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52548" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19016" RevisionGUID="a5ed8179-beb6-452c-ae3f-1da057325925" CreationDate="2018-02-19T15:37:47.043" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19162" RevisionGUID="f631065f-0431-43d0-9ad1-2f5254458d79" CreationDate="2018-02-19T16:01:42.853" UserId="169" Text="When assessing patent claims, one thing you always need to consider is the priority date, which in this case is 2002-08-30. This means that you can compare patent claims only with information what was publicly available until the priority date. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19159" RevisionGUID="d67152d7-501b-487c-837b-5bde70cb193d" CreationDate="2018-02-19T16:05:23.617" UserId="169" Comment="edited body" Text="There are special requirements for the design drawings. You should definitely discuss the drawings with some draftsman who has previous experiences regarding design drawings. It is not good idea to use just examples because every patent application is different depending on what exactly and how do you need to protect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19163" RevisionGUID="28e16f97-3c82-4984-8d4c-c24d65fce5fa" CreationDate="2018-02-19T17:12:55.647" UserId="20757" Text="There's the idea to build a business out of, but how would I know I'm not infringing any of those thousands of applications and grants? It seems to be impossible to read the claims in all of those in details. I'm interested to know what the routine is here as I've never done it before and I do not want to introduce any issues relating to infringement, so what are my options of preventing legal actions and reasonable loyalties?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52552" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19163" RevisionGUID="28e16f97-3c82-4984-8d4c-c24d65fce5fa" CreationDate="2018-02-19T17:12:55.647" UserId="20757" Text="How would do entrepreneurs know if their idea is not infringing any patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52553" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19163" RevisionGUID="28e16f97-3c82-4984-8d4c-c24d65fce5fa" CreationDate="2018-02-19T17:12:55.647" UserId="20757" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;united-states&gt;&lt;granted&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19164" RevisionGUID="329725de-5455-4765-ad41-0f06da2c8a43" CreationDate="2018-02-19T20:18:03.403" UserId="17003" Text="The typical approach is to perform a &quot;freedom-to-operate&quot; analysis. You can take a crack at this yourself using patent searching tools like [Google Patents][1] or my preference [The Lens][2]. Patent searching is a skill so I would advise starting with a broad search and when you find patents that are relevant (not necessarily the same idea, but with some similarities) then look at those patent's citations. After a few rounds of this you can get a rough idea of what is out there. When you look at a patent, don't read the whole thing. I usually read the abstract and then go straight to the claims. Focus on the independent claims. Those are the ones that don't reference other claims. If you can't figure out the claims, then reviewing the figures and text of the patent might be necessary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interpreting claims is a another skill and you may need professional help to do an adequate job of it. In any case doing your own search first will make consulting with a patent attorney or agent more efficient and thus less expensive. If there is a specific patent or two you need help interpreting, then posting a question on this site might be a good step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19165" RevisionGUID="12df59a3-63a4-4afe-a48a-32b91cb50d4b" CreationDate="2018-02-19T21:09:18.427" UserId="3076" Text="The USPTO has a [very good guide for design patents][1]. One tip - be sure the lines are dark. I know someone who discovered that, as far as the USPTO was concerned, his drawings were all but blank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/design-patent-application-guide" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19166" RevisionGUID="2ce64f9e-2290-48c6-850a-f3fcf3790d08" CreationDate="2018-02-19T21:31:10.270" UserId="3076" Text="Agreeing with @Maca, if push comes to shove and the date of filing of the provisional is needed to  overcome some reference that came out between filing the provisional and the non-provisional, it will looked at for support of the claims with *exactly the same criteria* as would be applied to looking for adequate support in a non-provisional; Overcoming such a reference is the only real job of a provisional and if does not teach how to make and use the claimed invention, in the identical detail required of a non-provisional, it will not do that job. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52557" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18719" RevisionGUID="953661f0-5d40-4a44-95a3-d7163e0b5505" CreationDate="2018-02-19T21:58:54.353" UserId="169" Comment="Add a tag defencive publication." Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;defensive-publications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52558" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18719" RevisionGUID="953661f0-5d40-4a44-95a3-d7163e0b5505" CreationDate="2018-02-19T21:58:54.353" Comment="Proposed by 169 approved by 18033, 17003 edit id of 2064" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52562" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="9bc7d852-4676-4759-88b7-30a41ddf4f73" CreationDate="2018-02-19T23:37:43.820" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52564" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16926" RevisionGUID="4952639e-9411-4ab8-869d-d54d35d1535e" CreationDate="2018-02-20T00:37:44.737" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19168" RevisionGUID="64002b7e-76c4-4498-975d-4915db0e3807" CreationDate="2018-02-20T15:02:35.580" UserId="169" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Defensive Publication In France. Study on usage of defensive publication strategy &quot;; Felix Coxwell, Eva Gimello; Nov 12, 2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.researchdisclosure.com/pdf-download/Defensive-Publication-Study.pdf &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UCPls.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19169" RevisionGUID="d9c3674d-f3b0-450d-b9e8-22f15cd92ad0" CreationDate="2018-02-20T15:57:34.837" UserId="169" Text="At first it depends in which countries is your market, i.e. in which countries you are planning to start your business. &#xD;&#xA;You may start patent search in random patent databases to get some preliminary overview about possible relevant patent documents, but finally you need to analyze the legal and geographic protection coverage and statuses of critical patents in respect of those countries where you are planning to do your business (e.g. production, selling, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;For that kind of patent search like freedom to operate, Google Patents may not be very good because the coverage of countries is relatively small, the search features are not very good and the content of Google Patents is not up to date. &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever of free patent search tools or databases you use (Google Patents, The Lens, Espacenet, Patentscope, Depatisnet, PatentInspiration, etc), before detailed analysis and any decisions you **always** need to check national patent databases and registers also. Only national patent registers can give you most up to date and correct information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the possible critical and valid patents in relevant countries has been detected, then claim analysis and comparing with your products starts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time you need to continue monitoring publications of new patent applications. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But these are just few aspects to consider. To start, the best thing is to consult with patent attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/T12Km.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18995" RevisionGUID="c3d21894-54c2-4bda-93af-02d2ba2a9055" CreationDate="2018-02-20T16:35:55.497" UserId="20572" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="The original manufacturer still holds the patent (US5787839 Lapsed ) but no longer produces the item. What are my options to license or buy the patent?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18998" RevisionGUID="aa00fd30-9fbd-4f55-b558-97a78f5d0781" CreationDate="2018-02-20T18:33:16.990" UserId="17003" Comment="added 289 characters in body" Text="It would be helpful if you provided the patent number. Assuming the patent is lapsed due to non-payment of maintenance fees, the patent isn't enforceable. However it may be possible to revive a lapsed patent. [This is the USPTO page][1] covering this process. Here is another [webpage][2] with more information. If the patent has reached its regular expiration date of 20 years after the filing (or priority) date including any patent term extensions, then it can not be revived.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: US5787839 was granted in 1998-08-04 and has a priority date of 1994-07-22. Patents from that era expire either 20 years from the priority date or 17 years from the grant date whichever is later. Either way, that patent is now expired. You should have no reason to need a license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2590.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patentassociate.com/patentblog/2016/09/21/reviving-abandoned-patents/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18998" RevisionGUID="3b001f7a-6c37-4999-880e-f12e6beee290" CreationDate="2018-02-20T19:19:06.427" UserId="17003" Comment="added 274 characters in body" Text="It would be helpful if you provided the patent number. Assuming the patent is lapsed due to non-payment of maintenance fees, the patent isn't enforceable. However it may be possible to revive a lapsed patent. [This is the USPTO page][1] covering this process. Here is another [webpage][2] with more information. If the patent has reached its regular expiration date of 20 years after the filing (or priority) date including any patent term extensions, then it can not be revived.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: [US5787839][3] was granted in 1998-08-04 and has a priority date of 1994-07-22. Patents from that era expire either 20 years from the priority date or 17 years from the grant date whichever is later. Either way, that patent is now expired. You should have no reason to need a license. That said, you may want to look at the [patents that cite US5787830][4] as this might lead you to a newer relevant patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2590.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patentassociate.com/patentblog/2016/09/21/reviving-abandoned-patents/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5787839A/en?oq=US5787839&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5787839A/en?oq=US5787839#citedBy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52570" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18172" RevisionGUID="fc8798ab-70bb-4831-a1d6-188f97751dca" CreationDate="2018-02-20T20:49:26.513" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52571" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17466" RevisionGUID="a5a602fc-3286-4d0a-9f08-e55a2ddf68b0" CreationDate="2018-02-20T21:49:25.907" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52573" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="d244b020-3bba-445f-8833-5572e44f9d2a" CreationDate="2018-02-21T03:49:31.727" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52574" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13870" RevisionGUID="5efca495-3c72-484a-b3b0-20b7208ff4f7" CreationDate="2018-02-21T05:49:31.810" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19170" RevisionGUID="f134a264-481b-41b4-8d47-312660e0d2e6" CreationDate="2018-02-21T19:32:32.537" UserId="20764" Text="I have an idea that I would like to pitch to a software partner that I currently work with. What is the best approach to protect my idea?  I'm not sure if I can patent it since it's s concept and not sure if copywrite provided coverage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52576" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19170" RevisionGUID="f134a264-481b-41b4-8d47-312660e0d2e6" CreationDate="2018-02-21T19:32:32.537" UserId="20764" Text="Software Patent or Copywrite?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52577" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19170" RevisionGUID="f134a264-481b-41b4-8d47-312660e0d2e6" CreationDate="2018-02-21T19:32:32.537" UserId="20764" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;idea&gt;&lt;concepts&gt;&lt;copywrite&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52578" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="90c070b5-da5b-4fc2-b1e8-77000fff5cd1" CreationDate="2018-02-22T01:49:46.257" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19171" RevisionGUID="5b07bf75-4293-49f9-97b1-b9da75b5ce49" CreationDate="2018-02-22T03:15:13.060" UserId="15503" Text="Patents and copyright in the context of software cover different aspects of your product. You would want to consider both. Since this very much turns precisely on your idea, you really ought to go see an attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent covers the inventive concept. That is, you can obtain a patent if you have an invention which is novel and non-obvious (and patent-eligible, which is a particular difficulty with software patents). Once you have a patent, you can prevent someone else from using the patented concept.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Copyright covers the precise code that you use, regardless of whether it's novel. That is, as soon as you right a piece of code, it is protected by copyright (as long as it's original etc): there is no need to apply. You can then prevent others from copying your code. However, they would be free to write their own, different code, even if it did the same thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19170" RevisionGUID="691040d3-fc3a-4cc1-94da-19ba391662eb" CreationDate="2018-02-22T03:15:31.623" UserId="15503" Comment="Copywrite -&gt; copyright" Text="I have an idea that I would like to pitch to a software partner that I currently work with. What is the best approach to protect my idea?  I'm not sure if I can patent it since it's s concept and not sure if copyright provided coverage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52581" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19170" RevisionGUID="691040d3-fc3a-4cc1-94da-19ba391662eb" CreationDate="2018-02-22T03:15:31.623" UserId="15503" Comment="Copywrite -&gt; copyright" Text="Software Patent or Copyright?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52582" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16491" RevisionGUID="c7d14a5f-8d42-4af6-927e-f30cc1c0bddf" CreationDate="2018-02-22T03:49:47.050" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52583" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16361" RevisionGUID="3843f390-4178-4ebb-927d-5721d06c1bd2" CreationDate="2018-02-22T04:49:46.277" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19172" RevisionGUID="be3999d8-edd7-42f6-9f70-d67b3a1a840f" CreationDate="2018-02-22T07:40:38.853" UserId="20766" Text="I have a cure for Bipolar Disorder. I haven't patented it yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I started sending emails with the idea to Universities before (a record exists in my email inbox).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I have been sending my ideas to Pharmaceutical firms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the conclusion of the idea is unique, and based on a lot of science I have done (theory). I have sent that theory along with the idea or the conclusion to these outlets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These ideas are also on a blog I keep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the firms simply patent my invention, now that the ideas are with them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52585" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19172" RevisionGUID="be3999d8-edd7-42f6-9f70-d67b3a1a840f" CreationDate="2018-02-22T07:40:38.853" UserId="20766" Text="I have a cure, I haven't patented it, but sent the ideas to Pharmaceutical firms. Can they just patent my inventions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52586" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19172" RevisionGUID="be3999d8-edd7-42f6-9f70-d67b3a1a840f" CreationDate="2018-02-22T07:40:38.853" UserId="20766" Text="&lt;idea&gt;&lt;invetion&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52587" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="7a54b51f-008e-4019-ae3f-b7bca0f066e7" CreationDate="2018-02-22T07:51:17.543" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52588" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19170" RevisionGUID="16c2075e-b271-40eb-93cc-4bfa0f891ca8" CreationDate="2018-02-22T11:09:45.043" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;idea&gt;&lt;concepts&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19171" RevisionGUID="1f0f96d8-0f76-4aef-9d27-a0db588011cb" CreationDate="2018-02-22T11:10:26.697" UserId="18033" Comment="edited body" Text="Patents and copyright in the context of software cover different aspects of your product. You would want to consider both. Since this very much turns precisely on your idea, you really ought to go see an attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent covers the inventive concept. That is, you can obtain a patent if you have an invention which is novel and non-obvious (and patent-eligible, which is a particular difficulty with software patents). Once you have a patent, you can prevent someone else from using the patented concept.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Copyright covers the precise code that you use, regardless of whether it's novel. That is, as soon as you write a piece of code, it is protected by copyright (as long as it's original etc): there is no need to apply. You can then prevent others from copying your code. However, they would be free to write their own, different code, even if it did the same thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52590" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19172" RevisionGUID="f3433c5a-da27-42a3-b600-5c8ffc5f1db9" CreationDate="2018-02-22T14:25:29.590" UserId="1" Comment="edited title" Text="Can a pharmaceutical firm patent a cure I disclosed to them publicly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19173" RevisionGUID="2ca37038-097d-4738-9a55-9f8b74d88bd0" CreationDate="2018-02-22T14:39:47.383" UserId="18033" Text="There's two aspects here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For one, in many countries, especially the US, you're required to disclose the inventor truthfully. Not doing that could suffice to invalidate the patent or you could sue for it to be transferred to you, etc, depending on location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But let's put that aside as it's a lot of work and proving etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject matter of a patent application (=what you're trying to patent) needs to be novel and non-obvious. That means, compared to all publications out there, you need to claim something unknown and not obviously derivable if you want your application to get granted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, the decision, while it should be, is not completly objective or perfect (of course not). It's made by a patent examiner. If that patent examiner doesn't know about yor mails and your blog, they don't know they shouldn't grant the patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The resulting patent would still be invalidatable with proof of your public disclosures (sending it to a few companys without making them keep it secret counts as public disclosure). But at first, it would be a granted patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, yes, technically they could or could try, but no they couldn't  as in *it woudn't be a valid patent.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Btw. almost the same goes for yourself. The US offers a grace period for disclosures by the/an inventor where you can still file a patent application and get it granted afterwards, but for most parts of the world your &quot;I haven't patented it yet.&quot; is a terminal &quot;I never will be able to.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52592" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19172" RevisionGUID="9676e4aa-cc6c-4dd6-9f0e-a97c2746ff62" CreationDate="2018-02-22T14:40:26.900" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;idea&gt;&lt;invetion&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19174" RevisionGUID="5fa62f0a-0776-488c-88a9-cea64679fb59" CreationDate="2018-02-22T14:41:31.130" UserId="17325" Text="If they are ideas and not actual data, they are most likely not patentable. You cannot patent a theory, you can patent an actual method, a technical process, etc. Even if this fact is disregarded, if you disclosed the content of your emails in your blog, they are publicly available and thus prior art. Anything that belongs to prior art cannot be patented." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52594" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18734" RevisionGUID="dc4bfba3-1b55-4417-8bfc-0721bb3340e1" CreationDate="2018-02-22T20:51:40.303" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52595" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="19128" RevisionGUID="0bfb9d2d-ae97-4743-bf9c-d720eb34d27f" CreationDate="2018-02-23T06:12:01.770" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:18033,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DonQuiKong&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:17003,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Eric Shain&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="52596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19175" RevisionGUID="b8c602c9-3c1c-4e0f-8af5-9124d4632995" CreationDate="2018-02-23T06:34:19.193" UserId="20772" Text="This [patent][1] claims to have the source code attached in a microfiche appendix:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  MICROFICHE APPENDIX&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This application includes, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§1.77(c)(2), 1.96(b), a microfiche appendix consisting of four (4) sheets of microfiche containing 297 frames of a program listing embodying the present invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this appendix publicly available?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can it be obtained for personal research purposes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20060073976" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52597" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19175" RevisionGUID="b8c602c9-3c1c-4e0f-8af5-9124d4632995" CreationDate="2018-02-23T06:34:19.193" UserId="20772" Text="How to obtain the microfiche appendix of a patent (containing the relevant source code)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52598" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19175" RevisionGUID="b8c602c9-3c1c-4e0f-8af5-9124d4632995" CreationDate="2018-02-23T06:34:19.193" UserId="20772" Text="&lt;microfiche&gt;&lt;appendix&gt;&lt;us6544098&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19175" RevisionGUID="9463884f-ed5d-4b14-8424-70140c92669e" CreationDate="2018-02-23T07:20:54.243" UserId="20772" Comment="corrected link" Text="This [patent][1] claims to have the source code attached in a microfiche appendix:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  MICROFICHE APPENDIX&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This application includes, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§1.77(c)(2), 1.96(b), a microfiche appendix consisting of four (4) sheets of microfiche containing 297 frames of a program listing embodying the present invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this appendix publicly available?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can it be obtained for personal research purposes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6544098&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*EDIT: corrected the patent link.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19176" RevisionGUID="b7548a42-0c89-4387-9238-5c0763d66c39" CreationDate="2018-02-23T13:07:19.660" UserId="169" Text="There are many ways to find prior art (books, thesis, magazines, patents, etc etc). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When doing online prior art search, what tools and databases do you use? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52601" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19176" RevisionGUID="b7548a42-0c89-4387-9238-5c0763d66c39" CreationDate="2018-02-23T13:07:19.660" UserId="169" Text="What are the best prior art databases and search tools?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52602" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19176" RevisionGUID="b7548a42-0c89-4387-9238-5c0763d66c39" CreationDate="2018-02-23T13:07:19.660" UserId="169" Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;databases&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19177" RevisionGUID="c9fea229-4bb5-46e4-89a9-dee207fd6aad" CreationDate="2018-02-23T13:38:31.703" UserId="18033" Text="Google patents, google books, google, patbase and library catalogues sometimes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't seen any tools delivering (good/better) natural language results or anything like that (though many promise to). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd love to be proven wrong on this one as a search is just tedious work, but as of now I haven't seen anything beat a good old &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;search - understand what you're finding and why / why not what you were looking for - search more &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;approach with varying keywords." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19178" RevisionGUID="f03407be-701b-46d3-b888-013cd9f36fe4" CreationDate="2018-02-23T15:49:38.373" UserId="17003" Text="In my corporate life I used paid services such as Micropatent and TotalPatent. Of the free patent search tools, I prefer [The Lens][1] over [Google patents][2]. The Lens provides more fine grained control and if you register (completely free) provides useful additional features such as saved searches, search history and collections. In addition, I find The Lens provides more accurate searches. Google Patents sometimes, inexplicably, doesn't find patents that The Lens does. If you insist on using Google patents, only use &quot;patents.google.com&quot; and not &quot;www.google.com/patents&quot; which often has problems like not displaying patent figures. Why Google has two different patent search portals, is puzzling. I also think [Espacenet][3] is really useful for patent searching. There are other good options. I've heard decent things about [Free Patents Online][4], but haven't used it much myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do use [Google Scholar][5] for non-patent searching although I do think paid services are probably stronger. The Lens has some new capabilities in this area, but it is immature as yet. Other sites you might try out are [Microsoft Academic][6], [Science.gov][7], [PubMed Central][8], and [WordWideScience.org][9].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a lot of skill to doing prior art searching and professionals are really useful as resources. I've worked with professional patent librarians and they use techniques such as patent classification codes to make searches more accurate. If you are associated with an academic institution, you should really consider utilizing your school's library and librarians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/?locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/search.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://scholar.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://academic.research.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.science.gov&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://worldwidescience.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52605" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="18552" RevisionGUID="9cbdc20e-f13d-44f9-ad81-c06e9187e48f" CreationDate="2018-02-23T15:52:20.773" UserId="-1" Comment="42" />
  <row Id="52606" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18332" RevisionGUID="a98d8fc8-d7b8-408e-abfe-97fa7e5eec2e" CreationDate="2018-02-23T15:52:20.773" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19173" RevisionGUID="087990f3-b85a-463a-9080-a31f19124c50" CreationDate="2018-02-23T17:57:24.517" UserId="18033" Comment="grace period" Text="There's two aspects here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For one, in many countries, especially the US, you're required to disclose the inventor truthfully. Not doing that could suffice to invalidate the patent or you could sue for it to be transferred to you, etc, depending on location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But let's put that aside as it's a lot of work and proving etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject matter of a patent application (=what you're trying to patent) needs to be novel and non-obvious. That means, compared to all publications out there, you need to claim something unknown and not obviously derivable if you want your application to get granted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, the decision, while it should be, is not completly objective or perfect (of course not). It's made by a patent examiner. If that patent examiner doesn't know about yor mails and your blog, they don't know they shouldn't grant the patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The resulting patent would still be invalidatable with proof of your public disclosures (sending it to a few companys without making them keep it secret counts as public disclosure). But at first, it would be a granted patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, yes, technically they could or could try, but no they couldn't  as in *it woudn't be a valid patent.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Btw. almost the same goes for yourself. The US offers a grace period for disclosures by the/an inventor where you can still file a patent application and get it granted afterwards, but for most parts of the world your &quot;I haven't patented it yet.&quot; is a terminal &quot;I never will be able to.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;Edit: &#xA;&#xA;Grace period:&#xA;&#xA;Some countries like the US offer a grace period for publications from the/an inventor that allow the inventors to apply for a patent even after publishing the invention. Only in those countries it is possible to get a patent after a publication. A non exhaustive list: http://mewburn.com/resource/grace-periods-for-disclosure-of-an-invention-before-applying-for-a-patent/&#xA;&#xA;In the US that's 12 months after the first publication.&#xA;&#xA;There are also grace periods for utility models, in Germany that would be 6 months for example. That might be a way to get at least some protection (10yrs)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52608" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18385" RevisionGUID="2b954f84-9c8f-4cba-839b-1cfa49872d70" CreationDate="2018-02-23T18:54:33.340" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19179" RevisionGUID="3451bf1c-91c2-4c6b-b7ce-bf102eac27a7" CreationDate="2018-02-23T19:00:34.280" UserId="17003" Text="Whether or not the product is handmade is of no consequence. Once a product is disclosed publicly if no longer becomes patentable. A few countries such as the US have a grace period which allows filing a patent within a period after disclosure (12 months for the US). However, for most of the world, you no longer can pursue a patent. If a product is disclosed outside the US is still counts as prior art within the US. So the bottom line is if you have been selling the product for more than a year, you can't obtain a US patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if the product has been for sale less than one year, you may or may not be able to obtain a patent depending on whether the invention meets the requirements of patentability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19180" RevisionGUID="97aff919-bef7-4944-ae68-4b2e6e10d802" CreationDate="2018-02-23T19:09:10.650" UserId="20774" Text="Here is the original claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A method of generating, using a device having a processor, a presentation comprising elements to be displayed on a display component, &#xD;&#xA;the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	executing on the processor instructions configured to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	identify a pixel density of the display component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	for respective elements of the presentation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	- from a scale factor set, select a scale factor having a pixel density range including the pixel density of the display component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	- request the element to generate a scaled representation using the scale factor; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	generate the presentation comprising the scaled representations of the elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the allowed claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	A method of generating, using a device having a processor and an operating system, a presentation of an application comprising elements to be displayed on a display component, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	executing on the processor instructions that cause the operating system to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	identify a pixel density of the display component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	for respective elements of the presentation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	- from a scale factor set comprising at least two scale factors that are respectively associated with a pixel density range, identify a selected scale factor that is associated with a pixel density range including the pixel density of the display component, wherein the scale factor is different from the pixel density of the display component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	- request the application to provide a selected representation of the element using the selected scale factor that does not match the pixel density of the display component; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	generate the presentation comprising the selected representations of the elements provided by the application and displayed with the selected scale factor.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52611" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18328" RevisionGUID="0213d967-8b0a-4bae-bc33-6a03fae342de" CreationDate="2018-02-23T21:03:03.133" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19178" RevisionGUID="d8a35080-916c-48af-9819-9adcf62e12d2" CreationDate="2018-02-23T23:31:43.817" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 228 characters in body" Text="In my corporate life I used paid services such as Micropatent and TotalPatent. Of the free patent search tools, I prefer [The Lens][1] over [Google patents][2]. The Lens provides more fine grained control and if you register (completely free) provides useful additional features such as saved searches, search history and collections. In addition, I find The Lens provides more accurate searches. Google Patents sometimes, inexplicably, doesn't find patents that The Lens does. I also think [Espacenet][3] is really useful for patent searching. There are other good options. I've heard decent things about [Free Patents Online][4], but haven't used it much myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do use [Google Scholar][5] for non-patent searching although I do think paid services are probably stronger. The Lens has some new capabilities in this area, but it is immature as yet. Other sites you might try out are [Microsoft Academic][6], [Science.gov][7], [PubMed Central][8], and [WordWideScience.org][9].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a lot of skill to doing prior art searching and professionals are really useful as resources. I've worked with professional patent librarians and they use techniques such as patent classification codes to make searches more accurate. If you are associated with an academic institution, you should really consider utilizing your school's library and librarians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/?locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/search.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://scholar.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://academic.research.microsoft.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.science.gov&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://worldwidescience.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19179" RevisionGUID="cc8cb71e-561f-4692-9244-dcf67c397126" CreationDate="2018-02-23T23:32:33.580" UserId="17003" Comment="edited body" Text="Whether or not the product is handmade is of no consequence. Once a product is disclosed publicly it no longer becomes patentable. A few countries such as the US have a grace period which allows filing a patent within a period after disclosure (12 months for the US). However, for most of the world, you no longer can pursue a patent. If a product is disclosed outside the US is still counts as prior art within the US. So the bottom line is if you have been selling the product for more than a year, you can't obtain a US patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if the product has been for sale less than one year, you may or may not be able to obtain a patent depending on whether the invention meets the requirements of patentability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52614" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="52e5f18c-4eed-4e71-810d-ef393c060fa4" CreationDate="2018-02-24T00:04:03.987" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19181" RevisionGUID="21461648-b330-41d9-8703-1b63bd9746b9" CreationDate="2018-02-24T00:13:48.573" UserId="14403" Text="This refers to my application no 14/378346 with USPTO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After first RCE, Office action was mailed to me on 06 December, 2018. I sent response on 02 February, 2018 which was duly acknowledged. But the same has not been docketed to examiner till date (23 Feb,2018). Confirmed from Private PAIR and the examiner. Previously, docketing to examiner used to be done in two to three days. Hardly ten days are left for expiry of response period. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Question is: i) What could be the reason for non docketing? iii) What can I do to find out exact present status ? iii) If I do not get response before 06 February, 2018; do I have to apply for extension of time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52616" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19181" RevisionGUID="21461648-b330-41d9-8703-1b63bd9746b9" CreationDate="2018-02-24T00:13:48.573" UserId="14403" Text="Non docketing of response to examiner" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52617" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19181" RevisionGUID="21461648-b330-41d9-8703-1b63bd9746b9" CreationDate="2018-02-24T00:13:48.573" UserId="14403" Text="&lt;office-action&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19181" RevisionGUID="f82ff697-dc21-47fe-8f19-72b8baad44aa" CreationDate="2018-02-24T13:44:55.170" UserId="14403" Comment="Fixed typos. Date amended to 06 December, 2017." Text="This refers to my application no 14/378346 with USPTO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After first RCE, Office action was mailed to me on 06 December, 2017. I sent response on 02 February, 2018 which was duly acknowledged. But the same has not been docketed to examiner till date (23 Feb,2018). Confirmed from Private PAIR and the examiner. Previously, docketing to examiner used to be done in two to three days. Hardly ten days are left for expiry of response period. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Question is: i) What could be the reason for non docketing? iii) What can I do to find out exact present status ? iii) If I do not get response before 06 February, 2018; do I have to apply for extension of time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19181" RevisionGUID="53bf9874-63e5-48c9-a9f9-e9be1c5ec7d3" CreationDate="2018-02-24T14:04:21.403" UserId="14403" Comment="To correct Typos." Text="This refers to my application no 14/378346 with USPTO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After first RCE, Office action was mailed to me on 06 December, 2017. I sent response on 02 February, 2018 which was duly acknowledged. But the same has not been docketed to examiner till date (23 Feb,2018). Confirmed from Private PAIR and the examiner. Previously, docketing to examiner used to be done in two to three days. Hardly ten days are left for expiry of response period. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Question is: i) What could be the reason for non docketing? iii) What can I do to find out exact present status ? iii) If I do not get response before 06 March, 2018; do I have to apply for extension of time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52620" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18155" RevisionGUID="5b3f699d-0619-4d1c-8194-28dbf096e35b" CreationDate="2018-02-24T17:09:43.840" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52621" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18414" RevisionGUID="6d6f4f41-3c88-4824-92b8-72258fb6ace0" CreationDate="2018-02-24T18:09:44.067" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52622" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18828" RevisionGUID="3f3a6d66-3377-42fb-bdae-a4b187bd2559" CreationDate="2018-02-24T21:09:43.940" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52623" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13731" RevisionGUID="2e48805c-3e4b-46c2-b917-2ab53c91c2e5" CreationDate="2018-02-25T03:09:44.983" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19182" RevisionGUID="5a38178e-f53a-4daa-baf2-53c81d82b4cc" CreationDate="2018-02-25T06:48:28.510" UserId="20778" Text="The idea of the app need to be new and non-obvious for patent. Then you need to check it over the patent website whether that idea is already present or it is unique. If it is not there and you believe its a new invention you can file your application for patent with a nominal fee of 1600 (if it is individual) or 8000 (if it is of some organization). In your case it will be 1600." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52625" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="19175" RevisionGUID="9ff86d64-b498-4355-a400-22b71f7e8284" CreationDate="2018-02-25T08:15:05.047" UserId="20772" Comment="43" />
  <row Id="52626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19183" RevisionGUID="63023663-6f39-4919-8fd0-d0ac8630e490" CreationDate="2018-02-25T09:49:46.153" UserId="18033" Text="Intuitively the microfiche should be part of the publication and therefore accessible. The [relevant MPEP section][1] calls the cd (successor of the microfiche) part of the publication and disclosure. I conclude that access must be possible, however this section doesn't help. &#xA;&#xA;The [MPEP section on availability to the public of patent (applications)][2] clearly supports this:&#xA;&#xA;It does not explicitly mention cds/microfiches, however as they are part of the publication upon paying the relevant fee I see no reason why one would not obtain a copy. &#xA;&#xA;Furthermore, [the fee listing for copies of patent documents][3] in section 1.19 (b) (1) (ii) provides the fee for patent documents submitted on physical electronic storage devices.&#xA;&#xA;Even if that section wouldn't apply, below is noted that a fee will be set by the director if non applies. &#xA;&#xA;Conclusion: it's possible, but you'll probably have to pay for it.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/E8r8#/E8r8/d0e50993.html&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s103.html&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e315991" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19184" RevisionGUID="4cc232a5-b7b5-412d-9d43-9b50da979334" CreationDate="2018-02-25T10:03:52.277" UserId="18033" Text="I was wondering, if I applied for a patent (non prov. app) by submitting the description, abstract, claims, drawings and other documents if necessary but did not pay any fee, how would that be treated?&#xA;&#xA;Specifically, would the application be published or treated as published for prior art purposes or could I get it published later effectively making it count as if it had been public as of the filing date for prior art purposes?&#xA;&#xA;If not, what is the cheapest way to make a defensive patent application publication? &#xA;&#xA;I'll accept the answer with the lowest cost associated with that publication. Additionally I'm interested in the US and EU cost but please feel free to omit any of those and still add an answer.&#xA;&#xA;The application doesn't have to be in shape for a grant, the only requirement would be ensuring it counts as public disclosure regarding other applications in at least the US.&#xA;&#xA;Exact figures concerning fees would be appreciated to ensure comparability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52628" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19184" RevisionGUID="4cc232a5-b7b5-412d-9d43-9b50da979334" CreationDate="2018-02-25T10:03:52.277" UserId="18033" Text="Minimum requirement for a patent application to be published" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52629" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19184" RevisionGUID="4cc232a5-b7b5-412d-9d43-9b50da979334" CreationDate="2018-02-25T10:03:52.277" UserId="18033" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;defensive-publications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19185" RevisionGUID="5a2d053b-648d-40c9-8924-7d689c1c5cd5" CreationDate="2018-02-25T13:03:32.320" UserId="169" Text="One option is to call to the examiner. Under &quot;Conclusions&quot; of the Office Action you should find examiner's contact number." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52631" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="8c3660b1-d295-4aa1-a819-217b3279d420" CreationDate="2018-02-25T17:14:06.340" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52632" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17273" RevisionGUID="681e0422-6e65-47c5-8b9e-28e5ce3ace4a" CreationDate="2018-02-25T23:14:12.403" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19186" RevisionGUID="f990d82f-e101-47ec-83ca-8351dfa3458f" CreationDate="2018-02-26T00:43:18.147" UserId="19913" Text="A passage from the NOLO's &quot;Patent Pending in 24 hours&quot; 6th ed. pp 124 indicates &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Be sure to include a disclaimer to introduce your advantages section&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as we have done above and if possible, avoid referring to your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention as an &quot;invention&quot;.  The simplest way to do this is by using&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a statement such as: &quot;Various aspects of my [name of invention] may&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have one or more of the following advantages ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not refer to the invention as &quot;the invention&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52634" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19186" RevisionGUID="f990d82f-e101-47ec-83ca-8351dfa3458f" CreationDate="2018-02-26T00:43:18.147" UserId="19913" Text="Why not refer to the invention as the invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52635" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19186" RevisionGUID="f990d82f-e101-47ec-83ca-8351dfa3458f" CreationDate="2018-02-26T00:43:18.147" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;invention&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19187" RevisionGUID="927674e1-b3c4-4488-97d4-6f269ac85c16" CreationDate="2018-02-26T01:33:03.953" UserId="15503" Text="If you say &quot;the invention includes a widget&quot;, this can be seen as equivalent to saying that a widget is an essential feature which must be present. This means that if a claim omitted the widget, it would not be allowable or enforceable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you say &quot;one embodiment of the invention includes a widget&quot;, then this implies that other embodiments of the invention do not have a widget. The widget is therefore optional, and need not appear in your claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some practitioners take this to mean that you should never use the word &quot;invention&quot; (as implied by your quote). I disagree. As long as you use &quot;invention&quot; carefully (that is, when you are actually talking about the invention, and not merely an embodiment), it is a useful tool in your toolbox." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19189" RevisionGUID="d1c7258c-aec2-4c43-a0cb-aa25102402d0" CreationDate="2018-02-26T02:02:33.680" UserId="3076" Text="Your question should not be when will it be forwarded to the examiner but if there is any bureaucratic reason why it might not be considered as a properly submitted responsive document as of the date you uploaded it. A properly submitted response stops the  stops the clock. It doesn't matter if it is help up being forwarded to the examimer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Call or otherwise contact the [USPTO Application Assistance Unit.][1]  If that doesn't work, you can call the examiner's supervisor. I looked up your application and, as you say, it is clear that the documents are in PAIR. I see that you signed it, so that should not be the problem, but if the administrative people do not think a response is signed, then the response hasn't really occur - even though it is in PAIR. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/support-centers/application-assistance-unit-aau" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19191" RevisionGUID="cb36ddad-0023-4efb-be58-4b1b73114587" CreationDate="2018-02-26T03:00:11.353" UserId="15503" Text="Since a key benefit would be to allow an examiner to find the publication, it seems the publication would need to be in English. I have therefore focused on jurisdictions which publish in English. I have also of course omitted the costs of local agents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order from most to least expensive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**US**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A non-provisional patent application must include the filing, search, and examination fees. For a micro entity, this is USD 1720/1080/430 for a large/small/micro entity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can then request early publication. This takes at least 14 weeks. There is no fee for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EPO**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A European application requires the filing and search fees to be paid. This is EUR 1420.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can the request early publication, which should occur shortly afterwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UK**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can request accelerated publication once the search and application fee (GBP 160) have been paid. This occurs within six weeks of the request, as long as the formalities and search has been performed. However, the search can take 6 months or so (unless you have a reason to accelerate it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Australia**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can file an application for an innovation patent. The fee for this is AUD 180. This will typically be granted within a few weeks, then published shortly after.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is therefore a fast and cheap process (and you do actually get some sort of protection out of it). However, innovation patents are likely to be abolished soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other jurisdictions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I vaguely recall from studying for a foreign patent law exam some years ago that South Africa may be a good jurisdiction, since they don't currently examine patent applications. You could therefore in principle file an application which is granted pretty quickly. But having never handled in a case in South Africa, I have no idea how long this takes, and what the associated costs are. I've also never seen a South African application cited, so I'm not sure if that would actually be of any use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52641" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18450" RevisionGUID="f1966329-606c-4c69-abe9-54441d904100" CreationDate="2018-02-26T04:16:33.390" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19189" RevisionGUID="4e788f70-8d7a-4fc8-9bec-4a9763ac3793" CreationDate="2018-02-26T07:25:02.197" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="Your question should not be when will it be forwarded to the examiner but if there is any bureaucratic reason why it might not be considered as a properly submitted responsive document as of the date you uploaded it. A properly submitted response stops the clock. It doesn't matter if it is held up being forwarded to the examimer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Call or otherwise contact the [USPTO Application Assistance Unit.][1]  If that doesn't work, you can call the examiner's supervisor. I looked up your application and, as you say, it is clear that the documents are in PAIR. I see that you signed it, so that should not be the problem, but if the administrative people do not think a response is signed, then the response hasn't really occured - even though it is in PAIR. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/support-centers/application-assistance-unit-aau" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19192" RevisionGUID="ff56db6b-42a1-4b5c-8234-c04ac838f9e8" CreationDate="2018-02-26T07:56:49.403" UserId="18033" Text="**German utility model**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fee for registering a German utility model is **40€** (30€ for the electronic version which needs a signature card though). Apparently a search fee is not necessary. The utility model is published ~ **4 weeks** after registering and registration is done after paying the fee (max. 3 months of time) and an examination for formal requirements. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has to be submitted in German or officially translated to German, however I don't see any reason not to include an informal translation to English which should actually be published too then. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a stretch, but I think this would be a solution too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plus, without further fees you are actually getting some protection for 3 years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19186" RevisionGUID="85589653-119a-4600-9246-eb88566933bc" CreationDate="2018-02-26T17:14:30.260" UserId="19913" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="A passage from the NOLO's &quot;Patent Pending in 24 hours&quot; 6th ed. pp 124 indicates &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Be sure to include a disclaimer to introduce your advantages section&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as we have done above and if possible, avoid referring to your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention as an &quot;invention&quot;.  The simplest way to do this is by using&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a statement such as: &quot;Various aspects of my [name of invention] may&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have one or more of the following advantages ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not refer to the invention as &quot;the invention&quot;?  Any 'pitfalls' to avoid are appreciated. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52649" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18032" RevisionGUID="96f27e9f-fe81-4e1d-8745-6438815681a2" CreationDate="2018-02-26T23:34:10.140" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52650" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17720" RevisionGUID="534b8a2e-869b-41b2-b786-c5b9dc738cff" CreationDate="2018-02-27T00:34:09.957" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52651" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="1501e6b4-f31e-4c5f-a978-743340149232" CreationDate="2018-02-27T01:34:09.967" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52652" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17881" RevisionGUID="da49a20d-406c-4717-86f1-dbcefa2f2465" CreationDate="2018-02-27T13:34:18.433" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19195" RevisionGUID="d2a098f8-0863-4539-acc0-fd436ade323e" CreationDate="2018-02-27T18:07:03.863" UserId="20784" Text="Has this 1984 patent expired or was it renewed? I am considering referencing it. If it has expired, I will reference the authors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52654" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19195" RevisionGUID="d2a098f8-0863-4539-acc0-fd436ade323e" CreationDate="2018-02-27T18:07:03.863" UserId="20784" Text="Status, Patent No. 4,442,710" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52655" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19195" RevisionGUID="d2a098f8-0863-4539-acc0-fd436ade323e" CreationDate="2018-02-27T18:07:03.863" UserId="20784" Text="&lt;us4442710&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19196" RevisionGUID="b6df72e3-99c6-4218-8aac-497875edbf2b" CreationDate="2018-02-27T19:16:59.230" UserId="20786" Text="I have read on the poor mans patent, but I am wondering if there is any legal backing for a idea that was written in a document and stored on a local file system. I do realize that this is faulty because the date and what not can be forged on the local file system, but does it merit any sort of legal backing. Are provisionals filed through USPTO the only ones that are recognized?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52657" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19196" RevisionGUID="b6df72e3-99c6-4218-8aac-497875edbf2b" CreationDate="2018-02-27T19:16:59.230" UserId="20786" Text="Does a provisional patent have to be filed through USPTO?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52658" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19196" RevisionGUID="b6df72e3-99c6-4218-8aac-497875edbf2b" CreationDate="2018-02-27T19:16:59.230" UserId="20786" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52659" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="2bd46172-acae-4f22-bd94-7c64f71c7b73" CreationDate="2018-02-27T19:39:33.373" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19197" RevisionGUID="f7fa8cb6-34af-45be-8f83-0f9fd6ebf20e" CreationDate="2018-02-27T21:30:30.630" UserId="3076" Text="No, especially now that the US is in a first-inventor-to-file regime. Documenting that you conceived of it first did have relevance pre the AIA patent law in 2012. Who was first to conceive  is no longer relevant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only way your own documentation of your inventive progress can help you is if you told someone about it under a condition of confidentially and they filed, stealing your invention. You could try to use whatever evidence you had to show that they derived it from you. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52662" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18540" RevisionGUID="ca298a93-6832-4aa8-b85c-faa88417d602" CreationDate="2018-02-27T22:39:34.563" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52663" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18600" RevisionGUID="444f84c9-bd6e-4528-a5fe-086f3fc4dc75" CreationDate="2018-02-28T00:39:38.890" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19198" RevisionGUID="0c62b89f-10f3-4652-8dda-a93bcf9d012d" CreationDate="2018-02-28T00:59:40.540" UserId="17003" Text="In 1984, patents expired 17 years from the grant date. This patent would have expired long ago. Patents are not renewable. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52666" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="745ce427-2f58-4a5f-aa68-7a2b3b56fd87" CreationDate="2018-02-28T06:48:38.547" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19197" RevisionGUID="a22e21ef-da5d-40b1-8cf7-743bc43932a2" CreationDate="2018-02-28T07:33:17.793" UserId="18033" Comment="added 126 characters in body" Text="&gt; I am wondering if there is any legal backing for a idea that was written in a document and stored on a local file system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, especially now that the US is in a first-inventor-to-file regime. Documenting that you conceived of it first did have relevance pre the AIA patent law in 2012. Who was first to conceive  is no longer relevant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only way your own documentation of your inventive progress can help you is if you told someone about it under a condition of confidentially and they filed, stealing your invention. You could try to use whatever evidence you had to show that they derived it from you. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52668" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="ae1e1331-482c-4735-ba1c-82a492e6e0c2" CreationDate="2018-02-28T07:49:20.483" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19199" RevisionGUID="e403acdc-634c-4c52-a3a6-a5c4e3b9c522" CreationDate="2018-02-28T15:29:29.297" UserId="19607" Text="This is the Illinois Employee Patent Act:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2238&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relevant passage for you is here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) A provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign or offer to assign any of the employee's rights in an invention to the employer does not apply to an invention for which no equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information of the employer was used and which was developed entirely on the employee's own time, unless (a) the invention relates (i) to the business of the employer, or (ii) to the employer's actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or (b) the invention results from any work performed by the employee for the employer. Any provision which purports to apply to such an invention is to that extent against the public policy of this State and is to that extent void and unenforceable. The employee shall bear the burden of proof in establishing that his invention qualifies under this subsection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19200" RevisionGUID="78323955-9890-46f4-b4ae-46c64b5dae71" CreationDate="2018-02-28T16:00:26.007" UserId="11599" Text="This is clearly the Japan version of https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3304/how-to-get-a-patent-or-patent-application-permalink-at-the-uspto-website, so I steal from there:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'd like to link to certain patents &lt;s&gt;or patent applications&lt;/s&gt; filed with the &lt;s&gt;USPTO&lt;/s&gt; JPO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there a &lt;s&gt;simpler&lt;/s&gt; way to link to applications and granted patents at the &lt;s&gt;USPTO&lt;/s&gt; JPO?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52671" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19200" RevisionGUID="78323955-9890-46f4-b4ae-46c64b5dae71" CreationDate="2018-02-28T16:00:26.007" UserId="11599" Text="How to get a patent or patent application permalink at the JPO website?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52672" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19200" RevisionGUID="78323955-9890-46f4-b4ae-46c64b5dae71" CreationDate="2018-02-28T16:00:26.007" UserId="11599" Text="&lt;patent-search&gt;&lt;databases&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19201" RevisionGUID="191b2792-9193-4dd7-a085-fc82993d0cd6" CreationDate="2018-02-28T19:51:51.800" UserId="17003" Text="&gt; Are provisionals filed through USPTO the only ones that are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; recognized?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a word, **yes**. As George White said in his answer, the US and pretty much the rest of the world works on a first to file system. To gain patent protection, you must first file an application with a patent authority. In the US, that is the USPTO." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19202" RevisionGUID="4cffd903-0925-4020-9a75-132bce5c76d6" CreationDate="2018-02-28T20:52:15.977" UserId="15503" Text="How good is your Japanese? This method only works using the Japanese portal for J-PlatPat. The English one omits the key link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Search for the patent using [J-PlatPat](https://www.j-platpat.inpit.go.jp/web/tokujitsu/tkbs/TKBS_GM101_Top.action). The three important fields are 特許出願番号 (for patent application numbers), &#xD;&#xA; 公開・公表特許公報（A） (for publication numbers) and 特許公報・公告特許広報（B） (for patent numbers). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Click on the publication or registration number (as the case may be).&#xD;&#xA;3. Click on the URLコピー button. This will cause a pop up to display a URL for that patent/application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wanted a link to an English site, you could try Espacenet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19203" RevisionGUID="b6adba01-4bb5-489e-892e-af3cc79f9739" CreationDate="2018-02-28T21:56:23.670" UserId="3076" Text="It is proper to interpret claims in light of the specification. It is not proper to &quot;import&quot; limitations from the specification into the claims. This was a relatively clear line until a decade or so ago. Now courts often find some wording in a specification that they look at and decide that they now know &quot;what the inventor invented&quot; or &quot;what the inventor intended&quot;. Then they narrow the claims. A few years ago people started publishing lists of words they called &quot;patent profanity&quot; including must, necessary, and the worst one, &quot;invention&quot;. If you are careful you can use invention but it is very easy to not use it carefully so I recommend avoiding it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19197" RevisionGUID="23ef28b9-af69-45f7-8eb7-2f561492173d" CreationDate="2018-02-28T22:12:13.820" UserId="3076" Comment="answered the second question" Text="&gt; I am wondering if there is any legal backing for a idea that was written in a document and stored on a local file system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, especially now that the US is in a first-inventor-to-file regime. Documenting that you conceived of it first did have relevance pre the AIA patent law in 2012. Who was first to conceive  is no longer relevant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only way your own documentation of your inventive progress can help you is if you told someone about it under a condition of confidentially and they filed, stealing your invention. You could try to use whatever evidence you had to show that they derived it from you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are provisionals filed through USPTO the only ones that are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; recognized?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a word, no. The UK also has provisional applications. From the [blog of the UK IPO][1] -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Market&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it’s new and there is a market for it. The next step is to try and protect it. This is where your 'patent pending' or 'patent applied for' comes into play. By filing a provisional patent application with us at the IPO, this establishes a priority date for your invention. It gives the applicant a fixed period of 12 months in which you can research the invention further and make those important decisions whether you wish to pursue the application to grant.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ipo.blog.gov.uk/2015/06/05/patent-pending/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52679" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16606" RevisionGUID="ebbcb023-5d84-4d37-a736-f68ef01f37db" CreationDate="2018-03-01T04:54:12.937" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52680" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18181" RevisionGUID="508eb824-b64f-4aa4-a6f5-9720eb51ea27" CreationDate="2018-03-01T05:54:09.887" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52681" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="5c9d9aa8-67e2-4de3-82eb-8a0d462c7846" CreationDate="2018-03-01T06:54:10.907" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52682" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="c517ffe3-d9e8-49b2-94cd-9c904d43bf36" CreationDate="2018-03-01T07:54:16.447" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19204" RevisionGUID="cf119ae2-88df-4917-997e-c33f0fa61ec9" CreationDate="2018-03-01T10:21:05.613" UserId="11599" Text="I am confused by terminology, I feel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google &quot;how to cite a patent&quot;, and every piece of instruction will refer to &quot;the patent number&quot;. Google Patent, however, does not show a patent number, having only application numbers and publication numbers. I feel I have derived the following rules of thumb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A patent application is filed - under an application number.&#xD;&#xA;2. The patent application is published - under a publication number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That seemed easy - now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The patent application is granted. Is there always a &quot;grant number&quot;? (I feel not.) Is this the &quot;patent number&quot;? (I feel not.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The patent grant is published - under a publication number. Is this the same or a different one than the previous publication number (I feel this may vary: different with the PTO, same with the SIPO)? Is this the &quot;patent number&quot;? (I feel yes, for the PTO. I have no idea whether to refer to a Chinese patent by application number of publication number.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52684" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19204" RevisionGUID="cf119ae2-88df-4917-997e-c33f0fa61ec9" CreationDate="2018-03-01T10:21:05.613" UserId="11599" Text="(What) is the relationship between a &quot;patent number&quot; and a &quot;publication number&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52685" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19204" RevisionGUID="cf119ae2-88df-4917-997e-c33f0fa61ec9" CreationDate="2018-03-01T10:21:05.613" UserId="11599" Text="&lt;numbering&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52686" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19204" RevisionGUID="3656fc3d-9f3b-49e0-bff1-2b7a51f29289" CreationDate="2018-03-01T11:01:17.103" UserId="11599" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the relationship between a &quot;patent number&quot; and application and publication numbers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19204" RevisionGUID="3656fc3d-9f3b-49e0-bff1-2b7a51f29289" CreationDate="2018-03-01T11:01:17.103" UserId="11599" Comment="edited title" Text="I am confused by terminology, I feel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google &quot;how to cite a patent&quot;, and every piece of instruction will refer to &quot;the patent number&quot;. Google Patent, however, does not show a patent number, having only application numbers and publication numbers. I feel I have derived the following rules of thumb (ignoring the country prefixes and the kind codes):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A patent application is filed - under an application number.&#xD;&#xA;2. The patent application is published - under a publication number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That seemed easy - now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The patent application is granted. Is there always a &quot;grant number&quot;? (I feel not.) Is this the &quot;patent number&quot;? (I feel not.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The patent grant is published - under a publication number. Is this the same or a different one than the previous publication number (I feel this may vary: different with the PTO, same with the EPO and SIPO)? Is this the &quot;patent number&quot;? (I feel yes, for the PTO and the EPO; I have no idea whether to refer to a Chinese patent by application number of publication number. Part of that is that do not see a grant date/grant number/grant publication number on the english SIPO database.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52688" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16569" RevisionGUID="07b57a7f-7124-493d-8082-f230083662e9" CreationDate="2018-03-01T14:58:45.087" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19205" RevisionGUID="d0517740-9939-4167-b6a4-622f81cb8022" CreationDate="2018-03-01T15:29:38.380" UserId="20792" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2016169199A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2016169199A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How was this patent even granted when it clearly copies prior art US6464275 October 2002 and other prior art that is clearly improved upon by US7721837 May 2010? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is believed that CN/China Nation is used within their country where by their own law in 2001 they can not challenge any prior art and they use WO/World Order to file for patents in other countries, can you elaborate? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;China needs to comply to World Trade (IP) Intellectual Property Rights Globally! Reference: https://medium.com/@daviddeveau/fair-world-trade-means-china-has-to-really-play-fair-b1c77f92e983&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52690" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19205" RevisionGUID="d0517740-9939-4167-b6a4-622f81cb8022" CreationDate="2018-03-01T15:29:38.380" UserId="20792" Text="World Trade Intellectual Property Rights" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52691" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19205" RevisionGUID="d0517740-9939-4167-b6a4-622f81cb8022" CreationDate="2018-03-01T15:29:38.380" UserId="20792" Text="&lt;us6464275&gt;&lt;wo2016169199a1&gt;&lt;us7721837&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19206" RevisionGUID="eab7a8b6-fd2a-47f5-9d6d-a2fb3c444758" CreationDate="2018-03-01T15:38:43.737" UserId="18033" Text="That's a patent application - it was not granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information please read about the difference between applications and granted patents, for example [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/17115/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52693" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="a04c7c32-4e97-489d-9dab-e8a660e829ba" CreationDate="2018-03-01T16:02:13.750" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19207" RevisionGUID="0e738433-16ea-4a59-83b8-67cb379ca1db" CreationDate="2018-03-01T16:16:01.123" UserId="17003" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. A patent application is filed - under an application number. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2. The patent application is published - under a publication number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of those statements are true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  3. The patent application is granted. Is there always a &quot;grant number&quot;? (I feel not.) Is this the &quot;patent number&quot;? (I feel not.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  4. The patent grant is published - under a publication number. Is this the same or a different one than the previous publication number...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least for US patents the number assigned to a granted patent is the &quot;Patent Number&quot;. This number is different from the &quot;Publication Number&quot; which is what the application is published as. I think EP patents have the same number but follow that up with &quot;A&quot; for published applications and &quot;B&quot; for patents. For instance EP0783694 (A1) is the publication number for patent EP0783694 (B1). It gets a bit confusing for me because there is an earlier application number and a WO number (in this case WO9610747 (A1)). [This question][1] provides a good review of the process for patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Patents is not a government entity and can label things any way they want. If you look at an [example patent][2] you see they label the document number column as &quot;App/Pub Number&quot; which isn't at all specific. Depending on the Status column, it might be an application number or publication number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the first page of the actual patent, you will see that the patent number is actually listed as &quot;Patent No.&quot;. The application number is the original number used when filing the non-provisional application and what is sometimes wrongly referred to as an application number but what is really the publication number is listed as &quot;Prior Publication Data&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you go to the [US Public Pair site][5]. You will see &quot;Application Number&quot;, &quot;Patent Number&quot; and &quot;Publication Number&quot; clearly delineated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking in PAIR for this particular patent shows all three numbers listed appropriately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17115/is-this-patent-valid-granted-which-countries-does-it-cover-are-there-family-m&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8093020B2/en?oq=us+8%2c093%2c020&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sCjJd.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nRvkp.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/E1s6a.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Zbqxo.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19205" RevisionGUID="38774921-0851-4d1f-b38a-b52018d8a4c0" CreationDate="2018-03-01T16:18:25.213" UserId="20792" Comment="from: can you elaborate / to: can anyone elaborate " Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2016169199A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2016169199A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How was this patent even granted when it clearly copies prior art US6464275 October 2002 and other prior art that is clearly improved upon by US7721837 May 2010? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is believed that CN/China Nation is used within their country where by their own law in 2001 they can not challenge any prior art and they use WO/World Order to file for patents in other countries, can anyone elaborate? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;China needs to comply to World Trade (IP) Intellectual Property Rights Globally! Reference: https://medium.com/@daviddeveau/fair-world-trade-means-china-has-to-really-play-fair-b1c77f92e983&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19205" RevisionGUID="7a9e7ca9-c828-489a-b827-1ab13a548f2b" CreationDate="2018-03-01T16:39:20.417" UserId="20792" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2016169199A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2016169199A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent application clearly copies prior art US6464275 October 2002 and other prior art that is clearly improved upon by US7721837 May 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is believed that CN/China Nation is used within their country where by their own law in 2001 they can not challenge any prior art and they use WO/World Order to file for patents in other countries, can anyone elaborate? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;China needs to comply to World Trade (IP) Intellectual Property Rights Globally! Reference: https://medium.com/@daviddeveau/fair-world-trade-means-china-has-to-really-play-fair-b1c77f92e983&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52697" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="74e360ff-60df-4378-a60e-77037a322e24" CreationDate="2018-03-01T17:07:04.463" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19208" RevisionGUID="bf5eab0d-c588-4531-913e-2f6a581808fe" CreationDate="2018-03-01T17:31:09.200" UserId="16696" Text="This is a US patent.  You can tell by the publication numbers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**US**08540616 &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**US**5710377A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;both of which begin with the letters &quot;US&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent would be expired as of 2015, since it was filed in 1995.  (The grant was in 1998, but the period of protection extends retroactively from the date of first filing.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't see any links to an international application, so the protection would have been in the US exclusively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5710377" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52700" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19186" RevisionGUID="90942b32-43d5-4755-8a77-d32e89663c57" CreationDate="2018-03-01T17:58:26.390" UserId="16696" Comment="Added an embodiment tag for search" Text="&lt;invention&gt;&lt;embodiments&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19210" RevisionGUID="2681294e-c578-459c-b30c-c278d9c923cd" CreationDate="2018-03-01T18:10:09.423" UserId="16696" Text="Without having specific details, my sense is you can't protect your idea.  In the past, it was possible to patent purely abstract ideas such as &quot;a computing device that is mobile&quot; but this led to widespread patent abuse, and changes in the guidelines and eligibility standards.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if your idea is specific, meaning a new method of doing something with software, ideally which improves the function of the hardware, you should definitely file a provisional patent application.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A provisional application would give you protection should you subsequently decide to file a nonprovisional application, and allow you to disclose the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Maca has suggested, you should definitely seek a consultation with a patent and copyright attorney.  In my experience, most IP attorneys are happy to do a free consultation.  (I'd even advise speaking to multiple attorneys before making a decision to engage, if that is the path you ultimately take.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52702" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19163" RevisionGUID="69f6e155-5da9-48a9-8b02-1cda92ad32f6" CreationDate="2018-03-01T18:10:39.763" UserId="16696" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;united-states&gt;&lt;granted&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19169" RevisionGUID="917a2e35-4adf-4c2a-8c94-993fd4ee67f8" CreationDate="2018-03-01T18:16:11.980" UserId="16696" Comment="added links per Eric Shain's suggestion" Text="At first it depends in which countries is your market, i.e. in which countries you are planning to start your business. &#xD;&#xA;You may start patent search in random patent databases to get some preliminary overview about possible relevant patent documents, but finally you need to analyze the legal and geographic protection coverage and statuses of critical patents in respect of those countries where you are planning to do your business (e.g. production, selling, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For that kind of patent search like freedom to operate, Google Patents may not be very good because the coverage of countries is relatively small, the search features are not very good and the content of Google Patents is not up to date. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever of free patent search tools or databases you use ([Google Patents][2], [The Lens][3], [Espacenet][4], [Patentscope][5], [Depatisnet][6], [PatentInspiration][7], etc), before detailed analysis and any decisions you **always** need to check national patent databases and registers also. Only national patent registers can give you most up to date and correct information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the possible critical and valid patents in relevant countries has been detected, then claim analysis and comparing with your products starts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time you need to continue monitoring publications of new patent applications. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But these are just few aspects to consider. To start, the best thing is to consult with patent attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/T12Km.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.lens.org/about/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/en/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.dpma.de/english/search/index.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.patentinspiration.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19211" RevisionGUID="0e27cbf4-38fb-4704-be4b-8bc1628fb22d" CreationDate="2018-03-01T20:36:27.040" UserId="15503" Text="I defer to Eric Shain's excellent answer about how to obtain the numbers from Google Patents. I will therefore limit myself to a comparison of different countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Broadly, every country follows the same process:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Application → (Application) Publication → Grant (Publication)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically, &quot;publication&quot; refers to the application publication, and &quot;grant&quot; refers to the grant publication. &quot;Patent number&quot; always refers to the grant publication, since the application number and the application publication do not relate to a patent (that is, a granted patent), but only to a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every country has a number to refer to each of these. Rarely the application publication is skipped (if the grant occurs quickly). And the grant publication may not be available (if it hasn't been granted).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication numbers (whether in the application stage or the grant stage) comprise three parts: a country code, a number, and a kind code. The country code and number are obvious. In the [kind code](https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/14357/patent-number-suffix-a1-b2-etc/14360#14360), an &quot;A&quot; always denotes an application publication, and a &quot;B&quot; always denotes a grant publication. The relevance of any numbers in the kind code (such as the difference between A1 and A2) vary from country to country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An application publication number and a grant publication number may be the same (such as with EP applications), since the kind code uniquely distinguishes them. They may also be different (such as with US applications). This is country-specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applications don't have a kind code, since an application isn't a publication per se.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The formats of each of the numbers differs from country-to-country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**US**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A US application, publication and grant each get different numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Application: US 12/343233&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication: US 2009/0246777 A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grant: US 8093020 B2 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EPO**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the EPO, the publication number and grant number differ only by the kind code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Application: EP 95936210.4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication: EP 0783694 A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grant: EP 0783694 B1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**WIPO**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a PCT application, the application number includes the country of the receiving office of the application (because actually the number is assigned by the receiving office, so this avoids the need to sync numbers between receiving offices). But it is still a PCT application regardless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Application: PCT/US2008/088220&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication: WO 2009/086415 A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grant: None, PCT applications are never granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**China**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At SIPO, the publication number and grant number differ only by the kind code. China changed its numbering system in 2010. The [EPO provides an overview](http://www.epo.org/searching-for-patents/helpful-resources/asian/china/numbering.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Application: CN 201080059371.7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication: CN 102656458 A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grant: CN 102656458 B&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Japan**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Japan unhelpfully uses the same format for application and publication numbers, but with different numbers. This leads to no end of confusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Japan also changed its format in 2000. Before then, the publication number actually changed after it was examined (but before it was granted). The [EPO provides an overview](http://www.epo.org/searching-for-patents/helpful-resources/asian/japan/numbering.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Application: JP 2015-245934&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication: JP 2016-119900 A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grant: JP 6141396 B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19205" RevisionGUID="62c4c767-f937-4365-b804-10f9e0a39db0" CreationDate="2018-03-01T20:39:55.967" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 192 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2016169199A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2016169199A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent application clearly copies prior art US6464275 October 2002 and other prior art that is clearly improved upon by US7721837 May 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is believed that CN/China Nation is used within their country where by their own law in 2001 they can not challenge any prior art and they use WO/World Order to file for patents in other countries, can anyone elaborate? &#xD;&#xA;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19173" RevisionGUID="e6a8ab2c-e0b9-4792-9a89-94a7e9bb279c" CreationDate="2018-03-01T20:42:07.230" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="There's two aspects here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For one, in many countries, especially the US, you're required to disclose the inventor truthfully. Not doing that could suffice to invalidate the patent or you could sue for it to be transferred to you, etc, depending on location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But let's put that aside as it's a lot of work and proving etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject matter of a patent application (=what you're trying to patent) needs to be novel and non-obvious. That means, compared to all publications out there, you need to claim something unknown and not obviously derivable if you want your application to get granted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, the decision, while it should be, is not completly objective or perfect (of course not). It's made by a patent examiner. If that patent examiner doesn't know about yor mails and your blog, they don't know they shouldn't grant the patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The resulting patent would still be invalidatable with proof of your public disclosures (sending it to a few companys without making them keep it secret counts as public disclosure). But at first, it would be a granted patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, yes, technically they could or could try, but no they couldn't  as in *it woudn't be a valid patent.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Btw. almost the same goes for yourself. The US offers a grace period for disclosures by the/an inventor where you can still file a patent application and get it granted afterwards, but for most parts of the world your &quot;I haven't patented it yet.&quot; is a terminal &quot;I never will be able to.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;Grace period:&#xA;&#xA;Some countries like the US offer a grace period for publications from the/an inventor that allow the inventors to apply for a patent even after publishing the invention. Only in those countries it is possible to get a patent after a publication. A non exhaustive list: http://mewburn.com/resource/grace-periods-for-disclosure-of-an-invention-before-applying-for-a-patent/&#xA;&#xA;In the US that's 12 months after the first publication.&#xA;&#xA;There are also grace periods for utility models, in Germany that would be 6 months for example. That might be a way to get at least some protection (10yrs)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19210" RevisionGUID="c62b3d76-986a-4e4b-8e2a-dc02be7f8891" CreationDate="2018-03-01T21:02:36.187" UserId="16696" Comment="added 458 characters in body" Text="Without having specific details, my sense is you can't protect your idea.  In the past, it was possible to patent purely abstract ideas such as &quot;a computing device that is mobile&quot; but this led to widespread patent abuse, and changes in the guidelines and eligibility standards.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if your idea is specific, meaning a new method of doing something with software, ideally which improves the function of the hardware, you should strongly consider filing a provisional patent application.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A provisional application would give you protection should you subsequently decide to file a nonprovisional application, and allow you to disclose the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Maca has suggested, you should definitely seek a consultation with a patent and copyright attorney.  In my experience, most IP attorneys are happy to do a free consultation.  (I'd even advise speaking to multiple attorneys before making a decision to engage, if that is the path you ultimately take.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;NOTE: Depending on the region(s) you are potentially targeting for future nonprovisional applications, be aware that there are differences related to grace period after disclosure.  The provisional won't be a matter of public record, put if you pitch the idea without a non-disclosure agreement, that almost certainly constitutes public disclosure.  Grace period in the US is 1 year from disclosure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19212" RevisionGUID="fe2d5c41-0a39-45a9-8fcb-92507e16ed1c" CreationDate="2018-03-02T00:01:32.613" UserId="3076" Text="If you follow the link to the google patents page for this application you will see a box on the right that includes a &quot;non-patent citation&quot; link. If you go there you will see that there are seven references listed, three references are -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;MONTEFORTE, M. ET AL.: &quot;Condiciones para el desarrollo de granjas perleras y producción de perlas: estado del arte, potencial y perspectivas.&quot;, REVISTA DE BIOLOGIA MARINA Y OCEANOGRAFIA, vol. 48, no. 1, 2013, pages 1 - 16, XP055330093 *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;MONTEFORTE, M. ET AL.: &quot;III Foro Iberoamericano de los Recursos Marinos y la Acuicultura&quot;, 2011, article MONTEFORTE, M. ET AL.: &quot;Tecnología de perlicultura en abulón.&quot;, pages: 199 - 208, XP055330079 *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;MONTEFORTE, M.: &quot;Granjas perleras y perlicultura.&quot;, BIODIVERSITAS, vol. 89, 2010, pages 12 - 15, XP055330120, Retrieved from the Internet &lt;URL:http://wvvw.biodiversidad.gob.mx/Biodiversitas/Articulos/biod iv89art3.pdf&gt; [retrieved on 20160819] *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the various patent offices (AU, MX and Republic of Korea) now looking at this application know about the previous work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52709" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17171" RevisionGUID="28e7235d-f00b-42e1-8aaa-1afd504b54e5" CreationDate="2018-03-02T00:13:21.713" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19213" RevisionGUID="2bf2c6db-b0c1-4702-9a84-ff754260f6dc" CreationDate="2018-03-02T00:46:20.873" UserId="3076" Text="Yes, at least in the U.S., a bacterium can be, and has been, patented. In 1980 the SCOTUS, in [Diamond v. Chakrabarty][1], famously ruled that the fact that it was a living thing did not make it unpatentable. It was an oil eating organism *not found in nature.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/intellectual-property-law/intellectual-property-keyed-to-merges/patent-law-intellectual-property-keyed-to-merges/diamond-v-chakrabarty/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52711" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18185" RevisionGUID="9490a303-7bd8-471d-97fb-c0c2a2919d92" CreationDate="2018-03-02T01:13:21.713" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19186" RevisionGUID="f05ebc89-65cc-4fe1-868d-08395f443f34" CreationDate="2018-03-02T01:42:24.547" UserId="19913" Comment="added 1184 characters in body" Text="A passage from the NOLO's &quot;Patent Pending in 24 hours&quot; 6th ed. pp 124 indicates &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Be sure to include a disclaimer to introduce your advantages section&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as we have done above and if possible, avoid referring to your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention as an &quot;invention&quot;.  The simplest way to do this is by using&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a statement such as: &quot;Various aspects of my [name of invention] may&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have one or more of the following advantages ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not refer to the invention as &quot;the invention&quot;?  Any 'pitfalls' to avoid are appreciated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE&#xD;&#xA;====&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding of the term 'invention' is a device, process, or both.  That being said, the only interpretation that really matters interprets the term to somehow be limiting: I am seeking to understand the thought \ interpretation behind this limitation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Snippet example that is unclear regarding why the court (unfavorably) narrowed the scope:][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Federal Circuit once again highlighted the effects of “patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; profanity” in Research Corp. Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010).  In this recent case, Research&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Corporation Technologies, Inc. (Research Corp.) filed a patent seeking&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to claim priority of earlier-filed parent applications.  However,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft) argued that Research Corp.’s use of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the characterizations “the present invention” and the “objects of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention” in the specification of the parent applications strongly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; suggested that the claimed invention is limited in scope.  Because of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; these assertions, the court sided with Microsoft and read the claims&#xD;&#xA;&gt; narrowly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.finnegan.com/files/Upload/FullDisclosure_May11_1.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19186" RevisionGUID="73e23b5d-0469-4b2e-b111-99230027dce5" CreationDate="2018-03-02T01:55:09.533" UserId="19913" Comment="added 199 characters in body" Text="A passage from the NOLO's &quot;Patent Pending in 24 hours&quot; 6th ed. pp 124 indicates &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Be sure to include a disclaimer to introduce your advantages section&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as we have done above and if possible, avoid referring to your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention as an &quot;invention&quot;.  The simplest way to do this is by using&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a statement such as: &quot;Various aspects of my [name of invention] may&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have one or more of the following advantages ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not refer to the invention as &quot;the invention&quot;?  Any 'pitfalls' to avoid are appreciated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE&#xD;&#xA;====&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding of the term 'invention' is a device, process, or both.  That being said, the only interpretation that really matters interprets the term to somehow be limiting: I am seeking to understand the thought \ interpretation behind this limitation and avoid patent 'profanity'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples of 'profanity': &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chief, majority, critical, essential, necessary, solely, only, main,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; significant, principal, important, fundamental, and vital&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Snippet example that is unclear regarding why the court (unfavorably) narrowed the scope:][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Federal Circuit once again highlighted the effects of “patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; profanity” in Research Corp. Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010).  In this recent case, Research&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Corporation Technologies, Inc. (Research Corp.) filed a patent seeking&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to claim priority of earlier-filed parent applications.  However,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft) argued that Research Corp.’s use of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the characterizations “the present invention” and the “objects of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention” in the specification of the parent applications strongly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; suggested that the claimed invention is limited in scope.  Because of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; these assertions, the court sided with Microsoft and read the claims&#xD;&#xA;&gt; narrowly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.finnegan.com/files/Upload/FullDisclosure_May11_1.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52717" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16450" RevisionGUID="85630f29-602e-48fe-a5af-ed267e4c1b92" CreationDate="2018-03-02T02:13:21.737" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52718" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16771" RevisionGUID="0fd7b292-7e40-4350-9ba4-88b90a1791b0" CreationDate="2018-03-02T03:13:21.783" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52719" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="77332e5b-a41d-4df4-94ac-40ddb13d4804" CreationDate="2018-03-02T04:13:21.773" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52720" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17909" RevisionGUID="3cce0468-6a61-4a7e-a3d4-9c1d4a598a5c" CreationDate="2018-03-02T06:13:21.837" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52721" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="d3fffdb9-28b4-46c7-832d-0cb2719f3b99" CreationDate="2018-03-02T13:16:20.543" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52722" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="6e187864-0746-4a76-95c4-ac083764502d" CreationDate="2018-03-02T14:16:33.417" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52723" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16544" RevisionGUID="24291f18-b0d2-4490-9b77-e5093a636d88" CreationDate="2018-03-02T17:16:32.623" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52725" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14883" RevisionGUID="48cd1a11-e2be-4ee7-a616-70deb95b8314" CreationDate="2018-03-02T18:16:34.230" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19215" RevisionGUID="8bbd0999-bb93-458d-95ae-ae761a5ab578" CreationDate="2018-03-02T21:44:24.237" UserId="19913" Text="I am interested in filing a [provisional patent application][1] via [EFS][2] and would like to understand:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is there any paperwork (tax returns, etc.) I need to prepare to file as a micro-entity?&#xD;&#xA;* Is filing as a micro-entity embedded completely within the EFS workflow?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The motivation behind these questions is that I would like to do whatever prep work that can be done ASAP so that I can file the PPA quickly.  **Any lessons-learned or landmines to avoid** are always appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have actually filed a provisional patent via EFS successfully as a micro-entity, please state this in your response: thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/provisional-application-patent&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/about-efs-web&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mDagi.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52727" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19215" RevisionGUID="8bbd0999-bb93-458d-95ae-ae761a5ab578" CreationDate="2018-03-02T21:44:24.237" UserId="19913" Text="Where in the EFS process does one indicate micro-entity membership?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52728" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19215" RevisionGUID="8bbd0999-bb93-458d-95ae-ae761a5ab578" CreationDate="2018-03-02T21:44:24.237" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;micro-entity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52730" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17751" RevisionGUID="21e30c6c-4d08-4877-a192-e163b0ce5dab" CreationDate="2018-03-03T01:17:44.423" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19216" RevisionGUID="0ccf4425-9b85-4adc-9527-e120af88f7f5" CreationDate="2018-03-03T03:12:14.407" UserId="19913" Text="As I understand it: there is no 'bright line' to demarcate the boundary.   [USPTO instructs examiners][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in section 102 , **if the differences between the claimed invention&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art** to which the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; manner in which the invention was made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A custom designed measurement device, using existing technology, was developed because the prior-art was not reliable.  The novel measurement (unexpectedly to the all) approach yielded unexpected results that dramatically enhanced the utility (value) of the measurement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTIONS&#xD;&#xA;====&#xD;&#xA;A significant amount of trial and error (months) was involved in developing the system: I am concerned that when presented with the final results: the examiner will see how nicely the measurements integrate into the big picture and find for obvious based on that the measurements are used as inputs for another system.  Hindsight feeds obviousness bias.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What concrete steps can be taken / avoided to convey that the invention is not obvious?&#xD;&#xA;* What questions does the examiner ask himself when determining obviousness?&#xD;&#xA;* Is the obviousness issue not a concern in a provisional patent?&#xD;&#xA;* Who decides &quot;ordinary person skilled in the art&quot; and how?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1fbe1_234ed_52" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52733" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19216" RevisionGUID="0ccf4425-9b85-4adc-9527-e120af88f7f5" CreationDate="2018-03-03T03:12:14.407" UserId="19913" Text="What questions does an examiner ask when determining if an application is non obvious?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52734" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19216" RevisionGUID="0ccf4425-9b85-4adc-9527-e120af88f7f5" CreationDate="2018-03-03T03:12:14.407" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;non-obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19216" RevisionGUID="ac623b18-1177-4711-88fe-cf0d502f1249" CreationDate="2018-03-03T03:17:59.107" UserId="19913" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="As I understand it: there is no 'bright line' to demarcate the boundary.   [USPTO instructs examiners][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in section 102 , **if the differences between the claimed invention&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art** to which the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; manner in which the invention was made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A custom designed measurement device, using existing technology, was developed because the prior-art was not reliable.  The novel measurement (unexpectedly to the all) approach yielded unexpected results that dramatically enhanced the utility (value) of the measurement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTIONS&#xD;&#xA;====&#xD;&#xA;A significant amount of trial and error (months) was involved in developing the system: I am concerned that when presented with the final results: the examiner will see how nicely the measurements integrate into the big picture and find for obvious based on that the measurements are used as inputs for another system.  Hindsight feeds obviousness bias.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What concrete steps can be taken / avoided to convey that the&#xD;&#xA;    invention is not obvious?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. What questions does the examiner ask himself when determining obviousness?&#xD;&#xA; 3. Is the obviousness issue not a concern in a provisional patent?&#xD;&#xA; 4. Who decides &quot;ordinary person skilled in the art&quot; and how?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1fbe1_234ed_52" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19217" RevisionGUID="e2a03ce4-a54e-423b-acad-bfef455f12db" CreationDate="2018-03-03T06:38:56.353" UserId="3076" Text="1. I would avoid writing that you used &quot;existing technology&quot;. Most inventions are improvements on something that previously existed. As you mention &quot;unexpected result&quot; is one key to not being found obvious. There is also &quot;obvious to try&quot;. If there are manageable hand full of different ways to put two things together then you will see that argument from the examiner. One way for you to approach this is to assume you will get an obviousness rejection and understand the ways one fights an obvious rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;One way, for example, is to argue that the base reference, when combined with a second reference, is no longer useful for its original purpose and that it's operating mechanism is defeated. A good argument is that there is an element of your claim that is not found in any of the individual references. This is called the &quot;all elements rule&quot;. If you claim requires an A, a B a C and a D, the there needs to be an A, a B a C and a D within the multiple references cited in to 103 rejection. And also, &quot;inventions&quot; do not get rejected, specific claim wording is what gets examined and objected to/rejected/allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Another approach to a 103 rejection is to argue that one or more of the references are not from an analogous field. That is a hard argument to win. More practically, you often need to amend a claim to get out from under an obviousness rejection, so you want enough support in the specification that a fallback position has sufficient support. A search might help you have some insight as to what the examiner might find close enough to use a the base reference in a 103 rejection, although they often come up with something not found in your search. We all know about hindsight bias. Applicant arguments will often contain an assertion that the only reason it might seem obvious is that one has read the present application. This sometimes helps.&#xD;&#xA;2. They want to find the fewest number of references that, together, contain all of the limitations in your claim and that are arguably in the same field. They do not need to think their argument is airtight to make the rejection. They just make it and then it is your job to find the flaw in reasoning.&#xD;&#xA;3. As you will read every time someone uses the term &quot;provisional patent&quot;, there is no such thing as a provisional *patent*. It is a provisional *application* for a patent. Obviousness is a ground of rejecting a claim. Provisional applications, unless directly converted to a non-provisional application (almost never done - sorry for being too detailed), need not have claims, are never examined, and therefore never subject to any form of rejection. However, the subject matter you end up relying upon to argue against obviousness or to allow amending to get out from a 103 rejection, should find adequate support in your provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;4. An office action almost never takes official notice of the qualification of the POSITA. They just assert that such an individual would have thought to combine the features of the references to solve the problem. A response to a 103 rejection could argue that the hypothetical person would have a high school education and only a PhD in a narrow field could have made the invention. I have not seen that and doubt if it would work. I do know that it often comes up in court and can make a difference there.&#xD;&#xA;______&#xD;&#xA;If you are planning on drafting this yourself you might consider looking up a recent patent in your field in the Public PAIR system of the USPTO. All of the back and forth between the examiner and the applicant is there for the public to study. You will see the original application, the grounds for rejection, and the examiner's responses. I understand that, on average, there are about 2.2 rejections before either there is an allowance or the applicant gives up. Studying a few cases from start to finish might help you draft something that anticipates what treatment it will receive.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19218" RevisionGUID="4a497256-8e87-4cea-a180-b3481352ef21" CreationDate="2018-03-03T06:47:40.493" UserId="3076" Text="As a patent agent, I have filed many applications for people who claimed micro entity. It is a box to check on the fee calculation page of the EFS system and a form to sign and upload. There is more that one basis for claiming micro-entity so you need to have the right form [SB15a certification for micro entity based on gross income.][1] They take you at your word and do not need any backup information. If it turns out you do not actually qualify, the patent you end up getting will have that error/deception as a weak spot when you come to defend it in court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/forms/sb0015a.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19197" RevisionGUID="baba86bd-33ca-4746-82ad-6049ea74891f" CreationDate="2018-03-03T06:49:25.347" UserId="3076" Comment="removed erroneous information regarding UK system" Text="&gt; I am wondering if there is any legal backing for a idea that was written in a document and stored on a local file system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, especially now that the US is in a first-inventor-to-file regime. Documenting that you conceived of it first did have relevance pre the AIA patent law in 2012. Who was first to conceive  is no longer relevant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only way your own documentation of your inventive progress can help you is if you told someone about it under a condition of confidentially and they filed, stealing your invention. You could try to use whatever evidence you had to show that they derived it from you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19216" RevisionGUID="1efb11f4-92dd-4b02-a832-52a80182ec4e" CreationDate="2018-03-03T13:18:10.823" UserId="19913" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="As I understand it: there is no 'bright line' to demarcate the boundary.   [USPTO instructs examiners][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in section 102 , **if the differences between the claimed invention&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art** to which the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; manner in which the invention was made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A custom designed measurement device, using existing technology, was developed because the prior-art was not reliable.  The novel measurement (unexpectedly to the all) approach yielded unexpected results that dramatically enhanced the utility (value) of the measurement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTIONS&#xD;&#xA;====&#xD;&#xA;A significant amount of trial and error (months) was involved in developing the system: I am concerned that when presented with the final results: the examiner will see how nicely the measurements integrate into the big picture and find for obvious based on that the measurements are used as inputs for another system.  Hindsight feeds obviousness bias.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What concrete steps can be taken / avoided to convey that the&#xD;&#xA;    invention is not obvious?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. What questions does the examiner ask himself when determining obviousness?&#xD;&#xA; 3. Is the obviousness issue not a concern in a provisional patent application?&#xD;&#xA; 4. Who decides &quot;ordinary person skilled in the art&quot; and how?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1fbe1_234ed_52" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19219" RevisionGUID="6076f5df-de13-42d0-86e7-968221d8fa4c" CreationDate="2018-03-03T17:58:11.710" UserId="19913" Text="I am concerned that using the phrase **comprising**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An entertainment system for children to marvel upon, glass spheres are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; contained in a glass jar, the system **comprising**:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * red marbles;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * white marbles; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * blue marbles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume that the I have invented and claimed a blue marble in the application and that red &amp; white are prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The concern here is that **comprising** indicates that the system must have at least one of each of the three colors.  In this case, a competitor with a system of 1 or 2 marbles would not infringe (these systems do not have the requisite 3 colored marbles) and the claim is defeated.  Is there a less restrictive version of the term **comprising** in the sense that the line items **may, but NOT necessarily** be included?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[As I understand it from this example,][1] the examiner will interpret the keyword **comprising** that only combinations the include all 3 line-items are claimed.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By use of the connecting or transition word &quot;comprising&quot; (&quot;open&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; language), the claim says, &quot;the device has **at least these things**, but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; might have other things also.&quot; Other connecting words have other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; meanings - for example, if what was claimed was a motor vehicle&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;consisting of&quot; the list (&quot;closed&quot; transition language), then the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; motor vehicle would have that list and nothing else. A car having the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; listed elements and seats would not infringe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a replacement for **comprising**? So as to communicate the system has at least one marble and that in 3+ marble systems, combinations of 1,2,or3 marbles are within scope of the claim and that possibly 4 if another marble is introduced (the goal is to deter competitors from working around the claim with systems not including all 3 marbles or introducing a fourth marble color and defeating the claim).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bpmlegal.com/howtopat5.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52741" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19219" RevisionGUID="6076f5df-de13-42d0-86e7-968221d8fa4c" CreationDate="2018-03-03T17:58:11.710" UserId="19913" Text="Wording for: may include but not necessarily all elements in a list" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52742" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19219" RevisionGUID="6076f5df-de13-42d0-86e7-968221d8fa4c" CreationDate="2018-03-03T17:58:11.710" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;wording&gt;&lt;work-around&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19220" RevisionGUID="7c83b696-3a62-48eb-8939-18c02eda837b" CreationDate="2018-03-03T19:17:05.080" UserId="19913" Text="At what education level should I assume of the examiner.   Is suspect that if I KISS it that will only help: is this correct?  In not,  Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am interested in applying for a utility patent with a device and method to electronically measure events." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52744" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19220" RevisionGUID="7c83b696-3a62-48eb-8939-18c02eda837b" CreationDate="2018-03-03T19:17:05.080" UserId="19913" Text="USPTO examiner audience" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52745" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19220" RevisionGUID="7c83b696-3a62-48eb-8939-18c02eda837b" CreationDate="2018-03-03T19:17:05.080" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;examiner&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19221" RevisionGUID="14e06972-7862-4e5c-b062-4604949c2cf9" CreationDate="2018-03-03T21:09:21.410" UserId="18033" Text="None. The examiner is not the person you should have in mind when determining how you explain your invention.&#xA;&#xA;The “person skilled in the art“ must be able to make/build your invention from the description. While the person skilled in the art is not a real person, they can be assumed to have a relevant background both educational and working experience. &#xA;&#xA;The examiner will like you if your patent description is clear, precise and structured, but that's beside the point. If the examiner or a judge doesn't understand something in your description you must be able to provide literature (standard books used in universities for teaching, dictionaries and similar, no papers or research) that explains it. If you can't, it's not disclosed in sufficient detail. &#xA;&#xA;The person skilled in the art basically knows what the relevant standard literature teaches and uses that to interpret your description and the prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19222" RevisionGUID="90de4fe9-a033-4419-b9b9-52bc9cbbd727" CreationDate="2018-03-03T21:11:57.143" UserId="15503" Text="What about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The system comprising one or more of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    one or more red marbles;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    one or more white marbles; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    one or more blue marbles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This allows for a system including only red, or only, white, or only blue, or a combination of those. Moreover, because &quot;comprising&quot; is used, it generally implies that further colours would be within the scope too (as long as one of the red, white, or blue are present).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19222" RevisionGUID="414ab00a-c558-4b9f-a825-98017b113870" CreationDate="2018-03-03T21:18:18.850" UserId="15503" Comment="added 271 characters in body" Text="What about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The system comprising one or more of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    one or more red marbles;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    one or more white marbles; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    one or more blue marbles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This allows for a system including only red, or only, white, or only blue, or a combination of those. Moreover, because &quot;comprising&quot; is used, it generally implies that further colours would be within the scope too (as long as one of the red, white, or blue are present).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I should note that &quot;comprising&quot; is only presumed to be inclusive. You should be sure not to use it in an exclusive manner, and optionally to include an interpretation clause providing your intended interpretation, otherwise this presumption may be dispelled." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52749" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="9a8dde06-6d3e-4eaf-85e5-31c5d6440e0e" CreationDate="2018-03-03T21:19:57.110" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19223" RevisionGUID="91137f56-581a-4c43-9895-a0c261c43735" CreationDate="2018-03-03T21:21:22.480" UserId="18033" Text="You know, english grammar applies to patents. Sure, comprising etc sound like patent language, but honestly you can write “it has this and or that and at least this and maybe that“ into a claim. Standard wording is about structure of  writing. You don't want to invent new words every time you write a patent.&#xA;&#xA;Now, to answer your question, comprising is the go for alternative to “consisting of“ in most cases because the later means that only those features are present.&#xA;&#xA;You are right, comprising means all of those are there. &#xA;&#xA;Specifically for your example, it's easy, you claim your invention and totally leave out the prior art if its not necessary. &#xA;&#xA;Put the combination of your invention with specific prior art into other claims if you think the combination might be interesting. &#xA;&#xA;In other cases where you need something but it can be substituted, find a general term, for example “it comprises one or more marvels“ and make another claim with “the marvels can be blue and or green and or red marvels.“" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19222" RevisionGUID="dd4f2755-c9d0-42ad-b6cc-a4c86620f89f" CreationDate="2018-03-03T21:33:31.893" UserId="15503" Comment="deleted 432 characters in body" Text="What about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The system comprising one or more blue marbles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You've noted that red and white marbles are prior art. Then why include them? As DonQuiKong suitably notes in his answer: &quot;you claim your invention and totally leave out the prior art if it's not necessary&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19217" RevisionGUID="0be50e33-3730-45b9-8c81-c98b60bc3019" CreationDate="2018-03-04T00:13:17.273" UserId="3076" Comment="pasted sub-parts of question in answer" Text="&gt; What concrete steps can be taken / avoided to convey that the invention is not obvious?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I would avoid writing that you used &quot;existing technology&quot;. Most inventions are improvements on something that previously existed. As you mention &quot;unexpected result&quot; is one key to not being found obvious. There is also &quot;obvious to try&quot;. If there are manageable hand full of different ways to put two things together then you will see that argument from the examiner. One way for you to approach this is to assume you will get an obviousness rejection and understand the ways one fights an obvious rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;One way, for example, is to argue that the base reference, when combined with a second reference, is no longer useful for its original purpose and that it's operating mechanism is defeated. A good argument is that there is an element of your claim that is not found in any of the individual references. This is called the &quot;all elements rule&quot;. If you claim requires an A, a B a C and a D, the there needs to be an A, a B a C and a D within the multiple references cited in to 103 rejection. And also, &quot;inventions&quot; do not get rejected, specific claim wording is what gets examined and objected to/rejected/allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Another approach to a 103 rejection is to argue that one or more of the references are not from an analogous field. That is a hard argument to win. More practically, you often need to amend a claim to get out from under an obviousness rejection, so you want enough support in the specification that a fallback position has sufficient support. A search might help you have some insight as to what the examiner might find close enough to use a the base reference in a 103 rejection, although they often come up with something not found in your search. We all know about hindsight bias. Applicant arguments will often contain an assertion that the only reason it might seem obvious is that one has read the present application. This sometimes helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What questions does the examiner ask himself when determining obviousness?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; They want to find the fewest number of references that, together, contain all of the limitations in your claim and that are arguably in the same field. They do not need to think their argument is airtight to make the rejection. They just make it and then it is your job to find the flaw in reasoning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is the obviousness issue not a concern in a provisional patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; As you will read every time someone uses the term &quot;provisional patent&quot;, there is no such thing as a provisional *patent*. It is a provisional *application* for a patent. Obviousness is a ground of rejecting a claim. Provisional applications, unless directly converted to a non-provisional application (almost never done - sorry for being too detailed), need not have claims, are never examined, and therefore never subject to any form of rejection. However, the subject matter you end up relying upon to argue against obviousness or to allow amending to get out from a 103 rejection, should find adequate support in your provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Who decides &quot;ordinary person skilled in the art&quot; and how?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; An office action almost never takes official notice of the qualification of the POSITA. They just assert that such an individual would have thought to combine the features of the references to solve the problem. A response to a 103 rejection could argue that the hypothetical person would have a high school education and only a PhD in a narrow field could have made the invention. I have not seen that and doubt if it would work. I do know that it often comes up in court and can make a difference there.&#xD;&#xA;______&#xD;&#xA;If you are planning on drafting this yourself you might consider looking up a recent patent in your field in the Public PAIR system of the USPTO. All of the back and forth between the examiner and the applicant is there for the public to study. You will see the original application, the grounds for rejection, and the examiner's responses. I understand that, on average, there are about 2.2 rejections before either there is an allowance or the applicant gives up. Studying a few cases from start to finish might help you draft something that anticipates what treatment it will receive.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19224" RevisionGUID="8b1cccc2-6af2-4f63-b21c-27037856a80a" CreationDate="2018-03-04T00:53:23.427" UserId="3076" Text="In the U.S. there is a type of claim called a Markush claim. The conventional wording  is : &quot;selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C.&quot;  So, if it correctly defines your *minimum configuration*, you could say, &quot;a container containing at least two marbles where at least one marble is blue and at least one marble is of a color selected from the group consisting of red and white.&quot; Be careful to use &quot;and&quot;, not &quot;or&quot;, in your list even though &quot;or&quot; might sound more standard to the ear. I would also use the Oxford comma if the list has more than two items. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52754" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18649" RevisionGUID="1f8bbfac-3863-40fa-a3e8-fdf42d4c30d2" CreationDate="2018-03-04T01:20:02.317" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52755" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18655" RevisionGUID="e30540ed-c83d-411f-bc5e-e9a91efb3a97" CreationDate="2018-03-04T06:20:01.920" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52756" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18522" RevisionGUID="72e33d23-fedb-4534-9d84-01984fc772f1" CreationDate="2018-03-04T21:21:31.290" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52757" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14767" RevisionGUID="22d5bff1-63d4-42f4-b341-b7866c42afdf" CreationDate="2018-03-05T00:21:31.650" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52761" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17769" RevisionGUID="7db22899-2518-44b9-a38b-24632ce3e290" CreationDate="2018-03-05T01:21:32.973" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52762" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17768" RevisionGUID="b5fc24b2-2286-438e-9563-31ea9b18e61f" CreationDate="2018-03-05T02:21:31.703" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52764" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="19175" RevisionGUID="b89dda4a-b4d1-431d-8e01-d33b8f7f6de5" CreationDate="2018-03-05T09:21:31.863" UserId="-1" Comment="43" />
  <row Id="52765" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="44336693-426e-44c9-8e72-d1da3baf0896" CreationDate="2018-03-05T11:21:33.887" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19227" RevisionGUID="cf53164a-be87-44d6-bde1-5411825bcbc2" CreationDate="2018-03-05T11:31:49.693" UserId="20798" Text="A few examples would illustrate the problem:&#xD;&#xA;Below are publication numbers without entry into substantive examination phase for patents granted in State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO):&#xD;&#xA;CN1167313C&#xD;&#xA;CN1192475C&#xD;&#xA;CN1195142C&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, the question is why is the date not available?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52767" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19227" RevisionGUID="cf53164a-be87-44d6-bde1-5411825bcbc2" CreationDate="2018-03-05T11:31:49.693" UserId="20798" Text="When is &quot;Entry into substantive examination phase&quot; as provided by &quot;INPADOC Legal Status&quot; unavailable even though the patent has been granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52768" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19227" RevisionGUID="cf53164a-be87-44d6-bde1-5411825bcbc2" CreationDate="2018-03-05T11:31:49.693" UserId="20798" Text="&lt;entry-substantive-examination&gt;&lt;sipo&gt;&lt;inpadoc&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19228" RevisionGUID="fbe3e74d-6503-4dae-b425-611215e93d74" CreationDate="2018-03-05T14:11:11.767" UserId="20792" Text="Isn't the basic premise of a utility patent to be unique and at the very least show innovative improvements over prior arts and usefulness in the current arts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To explain from my point of view and experience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In specific categories if you have a unique design, that is something for the first time used in say the automotive industry, then I do not have to specifically address cited references because they are only being used as like design examples to validate the design's abilities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However if I am improving on every prior art that is cited as a reference with a unique design approach to a already existing design problem that was to date not completely solved than I must address why my design is an advancement over every prior related design to validate my complete design's solution. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first question is a patent stronger, more defendible, if it specifically addresses why it is in an improvement over related prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My second question is it easier to obtain a patent if the application includes references cited by the inventor and the inventor addresses the improvements?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;Before answering please read this patent first that I researched, wrote, and argued and included why my design is an improvement to all design features over every like design in all 22 prior arts cited and understand so far at least one attempt by others to patent a design for this intention was denied a patent grant because they could not show improvement over US7721837B1.&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US7721837B1/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52770" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19228" RevisionGUID="fbe3e74d-6503-4dae-b425-611215e93d74" CreationDate="2018-03-05T14:11:11.767" UserId="20792" Text="Basic Premise Of A Utility Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52771" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19228" RevisionGUID="fbe3e74d-6503-4dae-b425-611215e93d74" CreationDate="2018-03-05T14:11:11.767" UserId="20792" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;utility-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19229" RevisionGUID="cf08d715-e398-4709-87a0-ebe42840c891" CreationDate="2018-03-05T16:54:42.950" UserId="20799" Text="In reference to the patent: [US3189127][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3189127&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been conducting research about the navy wheel chocks and have been only able to find this patent.  Are there any additional patents out there with regards to the modified tread pattern? Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52774" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19229" RevisionGUID="cf08d715-e398-4709-87a0-ebe42840c891" CreationDate="2018-03-05T16:54:42.950" UserId="20799" Text="Navy Wheel Chocks - Additional Patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52775" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19229" RevisionGUID="cf08d715-e398-4709-87a0-ebe42840c891" CreationDate="2018-03-05T16:54:42.950" UserId="20799" Text="&lt;military&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19230" RevisionGUID="f2ee306d-b38c-45ef-bec7-7774ad8547ec" CreationDate="2018-03-05T19:38:31.267" UserId="17003" Text="You could do a patent search on wheel chocks. A good place to start would be the [patents that cite][1] this patent. Look at those patents/applications and then look at the citations for those. Repeat as necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US3189127#citedBy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19231" RevisionGUID="af7a7a34-efba-4ff8-884d-a8a985ca7709" CreationDate="2018-03-05T19:48:51.657" UserId="15503" Text="**Isn't the basic premise of a utility patent to be unique and at the very least show innovative improvements over prior arts and usefulness in the current arts?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent system exists to incentivize the creation and disclosure of inventions that meet the criteria for a patent. Those criteria include novelty, non-obviousness, and utility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no requirement that an invention be an improvement over anything. Being an improvement is one facet of non-obviousness, but alone it's not enough. If my improvement is to use 8mm screws instead of the 6mm screws of the prior art, since that holds the components together more reliably, that's an improvement. But it's also dreadfully obvious (since that's the basic and well-established concept behind screws), and therefore unpatentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simply being a unique (that is, novel), useful improvement is not enough, because you're failing to consider non-obviousness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is a patent stronger, more defendible, if it specifically addresses why it is in an improvement over related prior art?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're at the point of defending your patent (presumably because you're suing someone for infringement), then you will have a well-motivated opponent who will exploit your gaps. If you've said in the description that the different is X, and the opponent then finds another piece of prior art to supplement that difference, you're reasonably prevented from arguing that actually Y is the difference. In other words, by laying down your non-obviousness arguments before you know what prior art the opponent will rely on, you're limiting yourself to one argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is it easier to obtain a patent if the application includes references cited by the inventor and the inventor addresses the improvements?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not necessarily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some practitioners would argue that mentioning the prior art at all is asking for an obviousness rejection. Because if you set out what has happened in the prior art, you often inevitably frame the difference in such a way that it seems an obvious modification to make. While this should not change the approach taken by examiners, the USPTO in particular is notorious for doing so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is a balance. You can simply note the prior art, and possibly disclose its problems or weaknesses without reference to how it compares to your invention. This does however necessarily mean you are precluded from stating what your improvement is.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19231" RevisionGUID="b868242f-943f-4d76-ba39-abc9a7802c89" CreationDate="2018-03-05T20:08:28.830" UserId="15503" Comment="added 226 characters in body" Text="**Isn't the basic premise of a utility patent to be unique and at the very least show innovative improvements over prior arts and usefulness in the current arts?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent system exists to incentivize the creation and disclosure of inventions that meet the criteria for a patent. Those criteria include novelty, non-obviousness, and utility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no requirement that an invention be an improvement over anything. Being an improvement is one facet of non-obviousness, but alone it's not enough. If my improvement is to use 8mm screws instead of the 6mm screws of the prior art, since that holds the components together more reliably, that's an improvement. But it's also dreadfully obvious (since that's the basic and well-established concept behind screws), and therefore unpatentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simply being a unique (that is, novel), useful improvement is not enough, because you're failing to consider non-obviousness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, what you're describing is more-or-less the premise of a utility model system, for countries that have them. That is, improvements per se should be protectable (though at a lesser level of protection than patents).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is a patent stronger, more defendible, if it specifically addresses why it is in an improvement over related prior art?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're at the point of defending your patent (presumably because you're suing someone for infringement), then you will have a well-motivated opponent who will exploit your gaps. If you've said in the description that the different is X, and the opponent then finds another piece of prior art to supplement that difference, you're reasonably prevented from arguing that actually Y is the difference. In other words, by laying down your non-obviousness arguments before you know what prior art the opponent will rely on, you're limiting yourself to one argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is it easier to obtain a patent if the application includes references cited by the inventor and the inventor addresses the improvements?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not necessarily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some practitioners would argue that mentioning the prior art at all is asking for an obviousness rejection. Because if you set out what has happened in the prior art, you often inevitably frame the difference in such a way that it seems an obvious modification to make. While this should not change the approach taken by examiners, the USPTO in particular is notorious for doing so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is a balance. You can simply note the prior art, and possibly disclose its problems or weaknesses without reference to how it compares to your invention. This does however necessarily mean you are precluded from stating what your improvement is.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52781" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14890" RevisionGUID="630b4f9d-6784-4d10-b2ef-0547d42435c6" CreationDate="2018-03-05T22:21:33.440" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19233" RevisionGUID="92afe4f1-5777-440d-9182-9a4fabce5e72" CreationDate="2018-03-06T00:00:33.223" UserId="19913" Text="The few patents I have reviewed do not address the ['POSITA'][1] skill set.  For example, would it not be helpful / constructive to state that skill set should include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Bachelors of Science Electrical Engineering&#xD;&#xA;* Experience with mixed signal simulation&#xD;&#xA;* C++ and Python Programming&#xD;&#xA;* TCP / IP Networking&#xD;&#xA;* Relational Database Design &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is  specifying the POSITA  skill set not practiced?&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_having_ordinary_skill_in_the_art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52783" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19233" RevisionGUID="92afe4f1-5777-440d-9182-9a4fabce5e72" CreationDate="2018-03-06T00:00:33.223" UserId="19913" Text="Why is specifying the POSITA skill set not practiced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52784" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19233" RevisionGUID="92afe4f1-5777-440d-9182-9a4fabce5e72" CreationDate="2018-03-06T00:00:33.223" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;posita&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19234" RevisionGUID="d9f5c3bd-3061-4688-8d28-41b42a8d1ed7" CreationDate="2018-03-06T00:01:19.817" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52786" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19234" RevisionGUID="d9f5c3bd-3061-4688-8d28-41b42a8d1ed7" CreationDate="2018-03-06T00:01:19.817" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19235" RevisionGUID="c2a5c94a-676a-4a30-855c-a8da387582d0" CreationDate="2018-03-06T00:01:19.817" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52788" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19235" RevisionGUID="c2a5c94a-676a-4a30-855c-a8da387582d0" CreationDate="2018-03-06T00:01:19.817" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19236" RevisionGUID="2cc9eb04-952b-47fa-9700-a16b163f4bb5" CreationDate="2018-03-06T00:05:53.127" UserId="15503" Text="Because it's a very contentious issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the applicant, it's impossible to guess what you'll need the skilled person to have. For example, you want them to have a high-degree of education and experience to be able to put your invention into practice, and fill any gaps in your description based on their broad knowledge. But you also want them to be a dunce, so that they can't consider any of your invention to be obvious based on their limited knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Until you know what is at issue in your particular case (or in other words, when you're in court on the day you're enforcing and defending your patent), you don't want to commit either way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19219" RevisionGUID="716c0adb-352e-4898-b004-cca264514ad4" CreationDate="2018-03-06T00:06:44.463" UserId="16555" Comment="Copy edited." Text="I am concerned that using the phrase **comprising**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An entertainment system for children to marvel upon, glass spheres are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; contained in a glass jar, the system **comprising**:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * red marbles;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * white marbles; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * blue marbles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume that the I have invented and claimed a blue marble in the application and that red &amp; white are prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The concern here is that **comprising** indicates that the system must have at least one of each of the three colors.  In this case, a competitor with a system of 1 or 2 marbles would not infringe (these systems do not have the requisite 3 colored marbles) and the claim is defeated.  Is there a less restrictive version of the term **comprising** in the sense that the line items **may, but NOT necessarily** be included?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[As I understand from this example,][1] the examiner will interpret from the keyword **comprising** that only combinations that include all 3 line-items are claimed.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By use of the connecting or transition word &quot;comprising&quot; (&quot;open&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; language), the claim says, &quot;the device has **at least these things**, but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; might have other things also.&quot; Other connecting words have other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; meanings - for example, if what was claimed was a motor vehicle&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;consisting of&quot; the list (&quot;closed&quot; transition language), then the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; motor vehicle would have that list and nothing else. A car having the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; listed elements and seats would not infringe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a replacement for **comprising**? So as to communicate the system has at least one marble and that in 3+ marble systems, combinations of 1, 2, or 3 marbles are within scope of the claim and that possibly 4 if another marble is introduced (the goal is to deter competitors from working around the claim with systems not including all 3 marbles or introducing a fourth marble color and defeating the claim).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bpmlegal.com/howtopat5.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52791" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19219" RevisionGUID="716c0adb-352e-4898-b004-cca264514ad4" CreationDate="2018-03-06T00:06:44.463" Comment="Proposed by 16555 approved by 18033, 15503 edit id of 2066" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19237" RevisionGUID="85a8ef0e-0536-4fde-96e0-0672a9913dc7" CreationDate="2018-03-06T01:25:35.533" UserId="19913" Text="An excerpt from [The Provisional Patent Application: What You Need to Know] [1] includes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; most other countries usually base the time for filing a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non-provisional application in their countries on the PPA filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This means that an international or foreign application may need to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; filed at the same time that a non-provisional application claiming&#xD;&#xA;&gt; benefit of a PPA is filed in the U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, I would like my invention to be patented in not only in the US, but in Europe, Brazil, India &amp; China.  If a USPTO PPA is filed on April 15, 2017  then do I have until April 15, 2018 to file a non provisional application with the EPO and  each country's patent office? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have experience filing a US PPA and then filing a the corresponding foreign (non-US) patent application please state this in your reply: thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/newsletter/inventors-eye/provisional-patent-application-what-you-need-know" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52793" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19237" RevisionGUID="85a8ef0e-0536-4fde-96e0-0672a9913dc7" CreationDate="2018-03-06T01:25:35.533" UserId="19913" Text="Clarification of USPTO PPA and foreign (non-US) venues" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52794" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19237" RevisionGUID="85a8ef0e-0536-4fde-96e0-0672a9913dc7" CreationDate="2018-03-06T01:25:35.533" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19238" RevisionGUID="e3e5c1bc-acb3-4ae9-a0eb-4703703181d3" CreationDate="2018-03-06T01:35:13.633" UserId="19913" Text="An experienced patent attorney wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the US, it is not wise to try to point out, in the application,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which aspect of your invention is the part that makes it non-obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is it unwise to communicate the aspect of the invention that makes it non-obvious?  What pitfall does this create?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52796" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19238" RevisionGUID="e3e5c1bc-acb3-4ae9-a0eb-4703703181d3" CreationDate="2018-03-06T01:35:13.633" UserId="19913" Text="Why is it unwise to communicate the aspect of the invention that makes it non-obvious?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52797" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19238" RevisionGUID="e3e5c1bc-acb3-4ae9-a0eb-4703703181d3" CreationDate="2018-03-06T01:35:13.633" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19239" RevisionGUID="0184a80d-5e83-4d33-9cfe-a9e4738b6675" CreationDate="2018-03-06T02:16:52.230" UserId="15503" Text="**If a USPTO PPA is filed on April 15, 2017 then do I have until April 15, 2018 to file a non provisional application with the EPO and each country's patent office?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because all of the countries you mention are members of the [Paris Convention (1883)](http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/text.jsp?file_id=288514). The Paris Convention provides at article 4(A)(1):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Any person who has duly filed an application for a patent … in one of the countries of the Union, or his successor in title, shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing in the other countries, a right of priority during the periods hereinafter fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, article 4(C)(1) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The periods of priority referred to above shall be twelve months for patents and utility models, and six months for industrial designs and trademarks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A provisional patent application is an application for a patent filed in one of the countries of the Union (that is, the US). The applicant therefore is entitled to a period of priority in every other country of 12 months. This means that an application filed in a second country within 12 months which claims priority to the provisional application will be deemed (for the purposes of prior art) to have been filed in the second country on the same day as the provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason the 12 months doesn't restart when you file a non-provisional is because of article 4(C)(2), which provides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;These periods shall start from the date of filing of the first application; the day of filing shall not be included in the period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A non-provisional application (which relies on an earlier-filed provisional application) is not &quot;the first application&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**And then comes the PCT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an alternative (or additionally, if you have money to burn), you can file a PCT application within 12 months of your provisional instead of filing applications directly in the foreign countries. This PCT is deemed to be filed in every designated state (for the purposes of a Convention priority claim), which includes all of the countries you mentioned. By 30–31 months of your provisional, you can then file national phase entries in your selected states. These national phase entries will then have a valid priority claim to your provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This allows you to defer the cost associated with the various national filings for an additional 18–19 months. Though it also adds the cost of filing a PCT application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Experience**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have indeed filed a US provisional then a bunch of foreigns claiming priority to the US provisional. I have even co-filed a US provisional and a UK application, both of which were then only used for priority to file a PCT application which then ended up entering national phase only in US and EP. That was a particularly weird and expensive arrangement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52799" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19051" RevisionGUID="71fa6629-b66f-4ae5-8ca9-a8cc48357a85" CreationDate="2018-03-06T02:22:04.793" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19240" RevisionGUID="dba3f73f-91d2-43bc-bf3b-58a8135b60dc" CreationDate="2018-03-06T02:22:13.567" UserId="15503" Text="Essentially by saying &quot;feature X is the non-obvious bit&quot;, you're saying everything else is obvious. You can't later go back on that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means you've made the job a lot easier for the examiner (or an opponent when you try to enforce) to craft their obviousness argument. That's no benefit to you. So why do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, you might get it wrong. Even if you think a feature is obvious, that doesn't mean it's necessarily obvious to someone else (for example, a judge). Again, there's no benefit to you to admitting some is obvious, so why do so?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19241" RevisionGUID="98732717-7d15-40d0-ba69-05fe447afed0" CreationDate="2018-03-06T06:02:51.890" UserId="20798" Text="Any patent applied for in India (or any country) will have a priority number. The priority number may be the application number in India, that is to say it was applied first in India or may contain another priority number from any other country, which means it was applied for in other jurisdictions before applying in India.&#xD;&#xA;Along with priority number, INPADOC family ID is available through ESPACENET, which links same patents with a single ID.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to know whether the mentioned patent was also applied in India, you must search for the US patent as priority number and/or its INPADOC family ID in India. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52802" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="cfa3c92a-9433-4413-b84d-944482be85ca" CreationDate="2018-03-06T07:26:00.000" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19235" RevisionGUID="9436b9f5-4cde-4dc2-b679-39a163a666ad" CreationDate="2018-03-06T09:40:54.733" UserId="19913" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="Person skilled in the art.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_having_ordinary_skill_in_the_art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52804" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19235" RevisionGUID="9436b9f5-4cde-4dc2-b679-39a163a666ad" CreationDate="2018-03-06T09:40:54.733" Comment="Proposed by 19913 approved by 15503, 18033 edit id of 2067" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19242" RevisionGUID="0fc87380-042c-46c7-a1c7-5ba5ae3a5206" CreationDate="2018-03-06T11:02:13.963" UserId="20800" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2012168930A3][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2012168930A3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know if the fact to isolate the stem cells and grow them in organoids is forbidden without an authorization. &#xD;&#xA;I mean : &#xD;&#xA;In this patent we understand that if we grow stem cells in organoids we need a special medium, and in this case it's protected. But, is the fact to take out the the crypt, isolate the stem cells and culture them with a commercialized medium is authorized ?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52806" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19242" RevisionGUID="0fc87380-042c-46c7-a1c7-5ba5ae3a5206" CreationDate="2018-03-06T11:02:13.963" UserId="20800" Text="Technic for stem cell isolation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52807" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19242" RevisionGUID="0fc87380-042c-46c7-a1c7-5ba5ae3a5206" CreationDate="2018-03-06T11:02:13.963" UserId="20800" Text="&lt;wo2012168930a3&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19243" RevisionGUID="58f16d26-9798-4879-a46f-67063f005845" CreationDate="2018-03-06T11:56:00.750" UserId="14403" Text="This application had french priority (FR 2003002061, 2002-07-12). Through WIPO it entered eight countries including US. It did not enter India in National Phase. Hence, it is not appicable in India. For confirmation search:&#xD;&#xA;https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2004007313&amp;recNum=1&amp;maxRec=&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=&amp;queryString=&amp;tab=PCT+Biblio (WO2004007313); &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?ST=singleline&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;submitted=true&amp;DB=&amp;query=FR2003002061&amp;Submit=Search (FR2003002061)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52809" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15983" RevisionGUID="e127d4e6-74c2-46f5-bef4-90aa75aa9057" CreationDate="2018-03-06T14:31:14.143" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19244" RevisionGUID="0051b4b0-bb45-4090-a9ee-0e0381465c9a" CreationDate="2018-03-06T16:38:10.920" UserId="17003" Text="The document you linked to is an application, not a patent. I looked and there is at least one patent currently granted associated with this application. It is [EP2718422B1][1]. It is important to use actual patents where possible as the claims in applications may be far broader than the resulting patent. Also patents apply to specific countries so whether or not a patent applies to you can depend on the country you are in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your specific question, this patent is outside my field of expertise. What is important to understand is that the claims define what is protected by the patent. To infringe on a patent, you must implement each and every aspect of at least one claim. The patent has only one independent claim and 25 dependent claims. The independent claim is as follows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A culture medium for expanding a population of adult epithelial stem&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cells, wherein said culture medium comprises a basal medium to which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is added: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  i. an agonist of Lgr5; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ii. a BMP inhibitor; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  iii. one or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more TGF-beta inhibitor, which binds to and reduces the activity of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ALK5, ALK4 and/or ALK7.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This claim seems specific to the culture medium and doesn't cover anything else so I would guess if you used a commercial culture medium that doesn't infringe on this claim you would be OK. Regardless, I must advise that I am not a patent attorney and this is not legal advise. There is always the potential for other patents to be applicable.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2718422B1/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19245" RevisionGUID="028d05b1-c4bf-4b9f-9077-ecac54974e47" CreationDate="2018-03-06T17:25:23.210" UserId="20802" Text="Say there's an independent claim broken down into several steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A method for ...., comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) .... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c) ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's say that a dependent claim is to be written such that only the step (b) is modified. Would it be correct to use the term 'comprising' or 'further comprising'? The term 'further comprising' would suggest that a feature is being to the already existing step (b), rather than actually modifying it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this be a correct way to express the required dependent claim?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The method of claim 1, wherein step (b) comprises ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option could be to simply have another independent claim with all the steps in claim 1, with a modified step (b). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52812" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19245" RevisionGUID="028d05b1-c4bf-4b9f-9077-ecac54974e47" CreationDate="2018-03-06T17:25:23.210" UserId="20802" Text="A dependent claim that modifies just one aspect of the independent claim" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52813" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19245" RevisionGUID="028d05b1-c4bf-4b9f-9077-ecac54974e47" CreationDate="2018-03-06T17:25:23.210" UserId="20802" Text="&lt;method&gt;&lt;independent&gt;&lt;dependent-claim&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19246" RevisionGUID="07392fe9-6208-4f00-bc4c-656efb8e922a" CreationDate="2018-03-06T18:00:02.983" UserId="18033" Text="You  cannot modify any feature of the independent claim in an dependent claim. &#xA;&#xA;Per definition, any dependent claim implements all features of the independent claim plus something. &#xA;&#xA;Therefore only “further comprising“ makes sense in your example.&#xA;&#xA;If you want to modify a step, find a broader independent claim and make your current independent claim and the modification dependent on that;&#xA;&#xA;Or decide which one is more important and make the other one dependent (having both features);&#xA;&#xA;Or file another application (divisional, continuation, ...);&#xA;&#xA;Or try two independent claims and good luck with arguing a common inventive concept. It's possible, but hard, and going into that would merit a whole new question or a bunch thereof. If you're thinking about that, please ask a new question about it.&#xA;&#xA;Mostly you'll find more than one independent claim only if one is for example tires for a car and the other one a car with those tires. Almost everything else gets you an election requirement where the examiner tells you to choose one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52815" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19246" RevisionGUID="c630841b-fad1-4982-932f-68113656c9c5" CreationDate="2018-03-06T18:05:53.637" UserId="18033" Comment="added 92 characters in body; added 120 characters in body" Text="You  cannot modify any feature of the independent claim in an dependent claim. &#xA;&#xA;Per definition, any dependent claim implements all features of the independent claim plus something. &#xA;&#xA;Therefore only “further comprising“ makes sense in your example.&#xA;&#xA;If you want to modify a step, find a broader independent claim and make your current independent claim and the modification dependent on that;&#xA;&#xA;Or decide which one is more important and make the other one dependent (having both features);&#xA;&#xA;Or file another application (divisional, continuation, ...);&#xA;&#xA;Or try two independent claims and good luck with arguing a common inventive concept. It's possible, but hard, and going into that would merit a whole new question or a bunch thereof. If you're thinking about that, please ask a new question about it.&#xA;&#xA;Mostly you'll find more than one independent claim only if one is for example tires for a car and the other one a car with those tires. Almost everything else gets you an election requirement where the examiner tells you to choose one.&#xA;&#xA;If your step (b) only additionally comprises something else, “further comprising“ is fine, everything that means the same is fine too, another independent claim not so much if technically its dependent anyways." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19247" RevisionGUID="1b025690-1ce1-47d9-b206-09110bdbffa7" CreationDate="2018-03-06T18:44:49.367" UserId="3076" Text="You can't remove anything required by a referenced claim but you can *add to it* or you can *narrow it*. For example - The method of claim 1 where the hammer used in step b is a claw hammer. Or - the method of claim 1 where the dusting is accomplished with a feather." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19248" RevisionGUID="47581427-fef6-433f-802b-e21d7bc85f1b" CreationDate="2018-03-06T18:56:31.873" UserId="3076" Text="The date is not universally available in a summary like INPADOC because it provides no information regarding the patent holders rights and is not even universally recognized as an event in all patent systems." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52818" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="439f57a0-49aa-4552-a0ed-edcf9c8e3bfd" CreationDate="2018-03-06T20:31:25.863" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19217" RevisionGUID="27cbbff9-653e-4a0a-99e9-621d1313de0a" CreationDate="2018-03-06T21:16:04.113" UserId="3076" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="&gt; What concrete steps can be taken / avoided to convey that the invention is not obvious?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I would avoid writing that you used &quot;existing technology&quot;. Most inventions are improvements on something that previously existed. As you mention &quot;unexpected result&quot; is one key to not being found obvious. There is also &quot;obvious to try&quot;. If there are manageable hand full of different ways to put two things together then you will see that argument from the examiner. One way for you to approach this is to assume you will get an obviousness rejection and understand the ways one fights an obvious rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;One way, for example, is to argue that the base reference, when combined with a second reference, is no longer useful for its original purpose and that it's operating mechanism is defeated. A good argument is that there is an element of your claim that is not found in any of the individual references. This is called the &quot;all elements rule&quot;. If you claim requires an A, a B a C and a D, the there needs to be an A, a B a C and a D within the multiple references cited in to 103 rejection. And also, &quot;inventions&quot; do not get rejected, specific claim wording is what gets examined and objected to/rejected/allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Another approach to a 103 rejection is to argue that one or more of the references are not from an analogous field. That is a hard argument to win. More practically, you often need to amend a claim to get out from under an obviousness rejection, so you want enough support in the specification that a fallback position has sufficient support. A search might help you have some insight as to what the examiner might find close enough to use a the base reference in a 103 rejection, although they often come up with something not found in your search. We all know about hindsight bias. Applicant arguments will often contain an assertion that the only reason it might seem obvious is that one has read the present application. This sometimes helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What questions does the examiner ask himself when determining obviousness?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; They want to find the fewest number of references that, together, contain all of the limitations in your claim and that are arguably in the same field. They do not need to think their argument is airtight to make the rejection. They just make it and then it is your job to find the flaw in reasoning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is the obviousness issue not a concern in a provisional patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; As you will read every time someone uses the term &quot;provisional patent&quot;, there is no such thing as a provisional *patent*. It is a provisional *application* for a patent. Obviousness is a ground of rejecting a claim. Provisional applications, unless directly converted to a non-provisional application (almost never done - sorry for being too detailed), need not have claims, are never examined, and therefore never subject to any form of rejection. However, the subject matter you end up relying upon to argue against obviousness or to allow amending to get out from a 103 rejection, should find adequate support in your provisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Who decides &quot;ordinary person skilled in the art&quot; and how?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; An office action almost never takes official notice of the qualification of the POSITA. They just assert that such an individual would have thought to combine the features of the references to solve the problem. A response to a 103 rejection could argue that the hypothetical person inventing in this field would have a high school education and that it would take a PhD, in some narrow field, of ordinary skill  to see this as an obvious invention. I have not seen that and doubt if it would work. I do know that it often comes up in court and can make a difference there.&#xD;&#xA;______&#xD;&#xA;If you are planning on drafting this yourself you might consider looking up a recent patent in your field in the Public PAIR system of the USPTO. All of the back and forth between the examiner and the applicant is there for the public to study. You will see the original application, the grounds for rejection, and the examiner's responses. I understand that, on average, there are about 2.2 rejections before either there is an allowance or the applicant gives up. Studying a few cases from start to finish might help you draft something that anticipates what treatment it will receive.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52820" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18799" RevisionGUID="b7c75f79-ecdb-4d38-b439-0046c1931519" CreationDate="2018-03-07T00:31:30.440" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18800" RevisionGUID="9cfd4853-0b68-4a11-a59d-b3bd46daa9b4" CreationDate="2018-03-07T15:50:21.377" UserId="17003" Comment="Added last paragraph more specifically answering question." Text="US20170056751 is a patent application, not a patent. It may or may not get granted as a patent. Even if a patent is granted, the claims are very likely to change from what is in the application. That said, in order to infringe on a patent, you need to implement every element of at least one claim. Reading claims isn't straightforward. Short simple claims are likely the hardest to avoid and long complicated claims are usually the easiest to circumvent. Looking at this application, there is only one independent claim. If you can avoid implementing every aspect of this claim, you should avoid infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Protective headgear for wrestling and other activities, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a cap having an outer surface configured to cover the head of a wearer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; while leaving the face exposed; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a jaw strap for holding the cap in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; position while worn; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  the cap including internally accessible side&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pockets associated with the ears of a wearer; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a pair of right and left&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ear guard inserts, each configured to be removably received by a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; respective one of the side pockets; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  wherein each ear protection&#xD;&#xA;&gt; insert is retained within its respective side pocket when the cap is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; worn and held in position with the jaw strap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your product avoids using even one of the specified steps in this claim you should be okay with regards to this application. A couple of caveats. First, the claims of this application are very likely to change before a patent is issued. Second there is every possibility of other patents that are relevant. A good first step in looking for other patents would be to look at the [cited prior art of this application][1]. A good way to keep track of the progress of this application is the [US Public Pair][2] site. Go their, get past the CAPTCHA, select &quot;document number&quot; and enter &quot;20170056751&quot;. I checked and the examiner has issued a non-final rejection. This is pretty typical even for applications that eventually get granted. The inventor's attorney had filed a response. You can see this process by clicking on the &quot;Transaction History&quot; tab. The &quot;Image File Wrapper&quot; tab contains the actual documents being communicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize, I would guess that if your product was simply a hair cover and didn't include either a jaw strap, side pockets for ear guards or ear guards then you should be fine with respect to this application. That said, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advise. There is also the potential for other relevant patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170056751A1/en#patentCitations&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19249" RevisionGUID="470d7652-3072-4cf2-8844-702b3e8b357d" CreationDate="2018-03-07T16:58:05.437" UserId="19913" Text="As I understand it, a dependent claim would be invalidated if the cited independent claim is found invalid by the authority (examiner or judge). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTIONS&#xD;&#xA;=====&#xD;&#xA;Scenario 1: USPTO examiner finds an invalid dependent claim and for this conversation irrefutable (be it merit or rules). Does the examiner provide the option to grant the patent without the defective claims or does the patent application completely denied?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scenario 2: USPTO examiner finds an invalid **in**dependent claim and for this conversation irrefutable. Does the examiner provide the option to grant the patent without the invalid claim or does is the patent application completely denied?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scenario 3: An American patent court judge finds a single claim invalid: does this mean that the entire patent does not hold (other independent claims fail)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After submitting the non provisional application, is (if any) any negotiating of the scope claims performed if the USPTO examiner rejects a claim?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52823" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19249" RevisionGUID="470d7652-3072-4cf2-8844-702b3e8b357d" CreationDate="2018-03-07T16:58:05.437" UserId="19913" Text="Does the finding of an invalid claim defeat the patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52824" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19249" RevisionGUID="470d7652-3072-4cf2-8844-702b3e8b357d" CreationDate="2018-03-07T16:58:05.437" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19250" RevisionGUID="b576d8e2-55c1-47eb-ac4f-736ab749228a" CreationDate="2018-03-07T17:20:55.617" UserId="19913" Text="If the patent invention is a Television: when considering the obviousness of the part, is the  POSITA skill level a typically a user, maintainer or engineer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this discussion we will define:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* user: not having the knowledge of a maintainer or engineer and trained only to operate the TV.   Primary role is to operate: does not have the skill or training to design or maintain.  May identify design defects or innovation opportunities&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* maintainer: trained only to install parts and repair.  Does not have the training \ experience of an engineer.   Primary role is maintain or repair, not design, but may identify design defects or innovation opportunities&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* engineer: trained in physics, chemistry and mathematics from an ABET college and engaged. Primary role is design and innovate improvements to TVs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am trying to get a sense of the skill-level &amp; experience a POSITA will have n the mind of a USPTO examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52826" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19250" RevisionGUID="b576d8e2-55c1-47eb-ac4f-736ab749228a" CreationDate="2018-03-07T17:20:55.617" UserId="19913" Text="Is the POSITA skill level a typically a user, maintainer or design engineer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52827" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19250" RevisionGUID="b576d8e2-55c1-47eb-ac4f-736ab749228a" CreationDate="2018-03-07T17:20:55.617" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;posita&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19251" RevisionGUID="8d27565b-a63a-4992-b765-96a7103d5919" CreationDate="2018-03-07T18:16:42.427" UserId="17003" Text="I suspect it has more to do with the specifics of the invention. Say the invention is a novel bit of TV electronics. Then I would think a person with ordinary skill in the art would be an electrical engineer probably with at least a BS or MS. If the invention is related to the design of the box the TV is delivered in than a packaging engineer. If the invention is related to the user interface then perhaps an industrial designer. In any case, I believe the POSITA should exhibit skill in the specific technological area of the invention itself with additional awareness of the field the invention is applied to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19252" RevisionGUID="f5e4452b-04fe-4ac7-9c86-43f932ddd49a" CreationDate="2018-03-07T18:17:38.277" UserId="20803" Text="What is the right format of a second use claim? Is it the same as the swiss style format? The patent office in my country does not accept the swiss style claims that I submitted, then I am supposed to change them into second use claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52830" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19252" RevisionGUID="f5e4452b-04fe-4ac7-9c86-43f932ddd49a" CreationDate="2018-03-07T18:17:38.277" UserId="20803" Text="Second use claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52831" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19252" RevisionGUID="f5e4452b-04fe-4ac7-9c86-43f932ddd49a" CreationDate="2018-03-07T18:17:38.277" UserId="20803" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19253" RevisionGUID="6e11a547-7aa6-476b-8c36-dd7e9aeb6d12" CreationDate="2018-03-07T18:35:16.023" UserId="20805" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20170183057][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20170183057&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I overheard from this &quot;inventor&quot; that he sold this tech to professional cycling teams. Including a multiple winning famous cyclist &quot;LA&quot;!! What?? Surely this patent is unethical and by granting it will allow this company/individual to go on performing this type of operation hidden behind the commercial side." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52833" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19253" RevisionGUID="6e11a547-7aa6-476b-8c36-dd7e9aeb6d12" CreationDate="2018-03-07T18:35:16.023" UserId="20805" Text="CHEETING WITH LANCE AMSTRONG" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52834" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19253" RevisionGUID="6e11a547-7aa6-476b-8c36-dd7e9aeb6d12" CreationDate="2018-03-07T18:35:16.023" UserId="20805" Text="&lt;invalidate&gt;&lt;ethics&gt;&lt;patent-invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19254" RevisionGUID="efd48791-7e64-43a2-b368-68c959b659de" CreationDate="2018-03-07T19:27:24.510" UserId="3076" Text="Using a device under particular circumstances might be unethical. I think it would be *huge* stretch to consider inventing and patenting a specific mechanism for an electric bike to be unethical. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, the USPTO considers if something is useful, novel and non-obvious. The use of something might be illegal somewhere but a patent does not give one the right to make or use the patented item, just the right to try to stop someone else from making, selling, offering for sale, using or importing it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52836" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17587" RevisionGUID="94740cc1-8f35-4d64-abf4-b1aa0836e4e1" CreationDate="2018-03-07T19:35:03.660" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19255" RevisionGUID="bbd50bec-d533-4ea8-a1e6-93409c8409ea" CreationDate="2018-03-07T19:43:18.910" UserId="3076" Text="No. First, you have it backwards. A dependent claim found not novel or obvious means the independent claim is even worse, not the other way around. A reason for having dependent claims is to fall back on them if the independent claim they depend from is found not novel or obvious. As a narrower claim, the dependent claim might hold up. During prosecution it is fundamental that the applicant can amend the claims in response to the examiner's findings and arguments. While you can't amend claims in court, an independent claim being found too broad does not automatically mean a narrower dependent version of the claim is also too broad." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52838" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19255" RevisionGUID="33c68ace-3931-4d49-89a4-89b69834d330" CreationDate="2018-03-07T19:48:16.273" UserId="3076" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="No. First, you have it backwards. A dependent claim found not novel or obvious means the independent claim is even worse, not the other way around. A reason for having dependent claims is to fall back on them if the independent claim they depend from is found not novel or obvious. As a narrower claim, the dependent claim might hold up. During prosecution it is fundamental that the applicant can amend the claims in response to the examiner's findings and arguments. While you can't amend claims in court (at least in the U.S.), an independent claim being found too broad does not automatically mean a narrower dependent version of the claim is also too broad." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19256" RevisionGUID="d85c9c10-7b7c-448d-9e19-23e2be1d1bc2" CreationDate="2018-03-07T20:22:30.840" UserId="17003" Text="This document is an application, not a patent. It may or may not get issued as a patent. As George White explains, the invention itself is not unethical. As a device, it could be useful to any manner of consumers who need a little extra help riding their bike.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I absolutely do agree that if the inventor or company owning the invention intentionally sells such a technology to bike racers with the intention of getting an unfair advantage then that activity is unethical. It is even possible this activity might be illegal although I'm not a lawyer. The publication of the application, if anything, helps bike racing authorities be aware of the potential for &quot;mechanical doping&quot; and may help them develop ways of detecting it. As for &quot;LA&quot;, he stopped racing long before this application was submitted so I'm skeptical he ever used a motor assisted bike. The question there was more about conventional doping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is essentially the same as the development of medications such as steroids which have a useful therapeutic value but can be used off-label for unfair and unethical advantage. The fact that the drug was developed and patented isn't the problem, it is how the drug is used that matters." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19256" RevisionGUID="7e3bf04b-bc84-467b-bec3-28215bbfd3b0" CreationDate="2018-03-07T20:30:40.473" UserId="17003" Comment="added 303 characters in body" Text="This document is an application, not a patent. It may or may not get issued as a patent. As George White explains, the invention itself is not unethical. As a device, it could be useful to any manner of consumers who need a little extra help riding their bike.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I absolutely do agree that if the inventor or company owning the invention intentionally sells such a technology to bike racers with the intention of getting an unfair advantage then that activity is unethical. It is even possible this activity might be illegal although I'm not a lawyer. The publication of the application, if anything, helps bike racing authorities be aware of the potential for &quot;mechanical doping&quot; and may help them develop ways of detecting it. As for &quot;LA&quot;, he stopped racing long before this application was submitted so I'm skeptical he ever used a motor assisted bike. The question there was more about conventional doping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is essentially the same as the development of medications such as steroids which have a useful therapeutic value but can be used off-label for unfair and unethical advantage. The fact that the drug was developed and patented isn't the problem, it is how the drug is used that matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, I'm not even sure this patent application is novel. The priority date for this application is 12-26-2016. [This article][1] published 2/1/2016 and shows a picture of pretty much the same technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear/news/how-does-mechanical-doping-work" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19256" RevisionGUID="ccd2e205-b953-4558-a683-e93545dbe709" CreationDate="2018-03-07T20:37:41.903" UserId="17003" Comment="added 144 characters in body" Text="This document is an application, not a patent. It may or may not get issued as a patent. As George White explains, the invention itself is not unethical. As a device, it could be useful to any manner of consumers who need a little extra help riding their bike.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I absolutely do agree that if the inventor or company owning the invention intentionally sells such a technology to bike racers with the intention of getting an unfair advantage then that activity is unethical. It is even possible this activity might be illegal although I'm not a lawyer. The publication of the application, if anything, helps bike racing authorities be aware of the potential for &quot;mechanical doping&quot; and may help them develop ways of detecting it. As for &quot;LA&quot;, he stopped racing in 2012, long before this application was submitted so I'm skeptical he ever used a motor assisted bike. The question there was more about conventional doping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is essentially the same as the development of medications such as steroids which have a useful therapeutic value but can be used off-label for unfair and unethical advantage. The fact that the drug was developed and patented isn't the problem, it is how the drug is used that matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, I'm not even sure this patent application is novel. The priority date for this application is 12-26-2016. [This article][1] published 2/1/2016 and shows a picture of pretty much the same technology. [Here is a different company][2] that sells pretty much the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear/news/how-does-mechanical-doping-work&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.vivax-assist.com/en/product/vivax-assist/vivax-assist_4-0.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52842" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18211" RevisionGUID="fb029e30-91c4-4ac8-8a55-929c1f3a09f7" CreationDate="2018-03-07T21:35:03.817" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19256" RevisionGUID="b9dc10f1-62e7-4244-8ef9-05e99ebae860" CreationDate="2018-03-08T00:14:54.790" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="This document is an application, not a patent. It may or may not get issued as a patent. As George White explains, the invention itself is not unethical. As a device, it could be useful to any manner of consumers who need a little extra help riding their bike.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I absolutely do agree that if the inventor or company owning the invention intentionally sells such a technology to bike racers with the intention of getting an unfair advantage then that activity is unethical. It is even possible this activity might be illegal although I'm not a lawyer. The publication of the application, if anything, helps bike racing authorities be aware of the potential for &quot;mechanical doping&quot; and may help them develop ways of detecting it. As for &quot;LA&quot;, he stopped racing in 2012, long before this application was submitted so I'm skeptical he ever used a motor assisted bike. The question there was more about conventional doping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is essentially the same as the development of medications such as steroids which have a useful therapeutic value but can be used off-label for unfair and unethical advantage. The fact that the drug was developed and patented isn't the problem, it is how the drug is used that matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, I'm not even sure this patent application is novel. The priority date for this application is 12-26-2016. [This article][1] published 2/1/2016 and shows a picture of much the same technology. [Here is a different company][2] that sells pretty much the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear/news/how-does-mechanical-doping-work&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.vivax-assist.com/en/product/vivax-assist/vivax-assist_4-0.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19258" RevisionGUID="8247fd29-08d1-45a2-9f09-5da180c47456" CreationDate="2018-03-08T05:52:35.923" UserId="20810" Text=" I have developed a computer program for power system FACTS And load modelling to analyse the performance of electrical power system. How can i patent it india." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52849" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19258" RevisionGUID="8247fd29-08d1-45a2-9f09-5da180c47456" CreationDate="2018-03-08T05:52:35.923" UserId="20810" Text="Electrical engineering Software developed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52850" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19258" RevisionGUID="8247fd29-08d1-45a2-9f09-5da180c47456" CreationDate="2018-03-08T05:52:35.923" UserId="20810" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19259" RevisionGUID="70f7cdb8-5756-4523-ad7d-993003585dde" CreationDate="2018-03-08T07:39:04.983" UserId="20811" Text="Can a new English dictionary be patented?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, can it be patented as an article of manufacture? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What category would it fall into?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52852" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19259" RevisionGUID="70f7cdb8-5756-4523-ad7d-993003585dde" CreationDate="2018-03-08T07:39:04.983" UserId="20811" Text="English Dictionary Patentability" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52853" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19259" RevisionGUID="70f7cdb8-5756-4523-ad7d-993003585dde" CreationDate="2018-03-08T07:39:04.983" UserId="20811" Text="&lt;dictionary&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19260" RevisionGUID="c31fbf2c-a8a3-44ff-9bf3-c1c7da28ae0a" CreationDate="2018-03-08T08:45:20.553" UserId="15503" Text="In the same way as you patent anything anywhere: by preparing and filing a patent application. This should of course only be done if your invention is novel and non-obvious, and is not otherwise excluded from patentability. Since you obviously cannot provide the full details of your invention to us (since that would be a public disclosure) we cannot comment further on your particular invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To this end, a patent attorney would certainly be the first port of call for you to proceed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19261" RevisionGUID="b275a9c3-10e2-4171-981d-137f37f674b2" CreationDate="2018-03-08T08:48:02.033" UserId="15503" Text="No. An English dictionary is not a novel invention. They've been around for quite some time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, simply changing the words or definitions does not provide a patentable difference, as textual matter is not patent-eligible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, a new dictionary would likely be covered by copyright. But that is off-topic here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19262" RevisionGUID="c0c129e3-c81d-4f24-ba3e-0731e7560fd7" CreationDate="2018-03-08T09:02:47.007" UserId="20811" Text="Can a new invention of phonetic symbols (just like IPA) be categorized as process or article of manufacture?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52857" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19262" RevisionGUID="c0c129e3-c81d-4f24-ba3e-0731e7560fd7" CreationDate="2018-03-08T09:02:47.007" UserId="20811" Text="Phonetic Symbols Patent Category" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52858" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19262" RevisionGUID="c0c129e3-c81d-4f24-ba3e-0731e7560fd7" CreationDate="2018-03-08T09:02:47.007" UserId="20811" Text="&lt;phonetic&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19263" RevisionGUID="fd9fb91e-4e9a-4ed9-bec0-4704b04c9b5b" CreationDate="2018-03-08T13:24:37.943" UserId="20814" Text="In Canada I'm told liquid formulas (such as bug sprays) can't be patented.  I was told it could only be Trade Secreted.  How does that work in the US?  Are you able to patent liquid formulas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52860" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19263" RevisionGUID="fd9fb91e-4e9a-4ed9-bec0-4704b04c9b5b" CreationDate="2018-03-08T13:24:37.943" UserId="20814" Text="Patenting Liquid Formulas" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52861" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19263" RevisionGUID="fd9fb91e-4e9a-4ed9-bec0-4704b04c9b5b" CreationDate="2018-03-08T13:24:37.943" UserId="20814" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;formula&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19264" RevisionGUID="c3decd87-8b96-44d1-8edc-8c476e228786" CreationDate="2018-03-08T20:22:14.153" UserId="15503" Text="I suspect what you've been told is not quite correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a set of components which, when combined, form a mixture that is novel and non-obvious, then you can certainly patent that (whether it's a liquid or not).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is true for Canada, the US, and every other country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it may well be that a new liquid formula could be unpatentable due to being obvious. This will likely be the case if the ingredients are used in a known way to achieve a known result with no surprising synergy between them. This of course very much turns on the specific facts of the invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19265" RevisionGUID="2a5457dc-ec27-425e-b47f-7f05b61b6712" CreationDate="2018-03-08T20:28:38.637" UserId="15503" Text="It depends how it's claimed. A method of using them is clearly a process, whereas a piece of paper displaying them would be an article of manufacture. Neither of them would be patent-eligible subject matter of course, since you'd be fundamentally claiming an abstract idea or printed matter (depending on the details)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52864" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="6cab5a65-62d8-490e-882a-e6438eb12f29" CreationDate="2018-03-08T20:35:47.053" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19266" RevisionGUID="a652a38a-b661-476e-9ed1-260fbe5b2d79" CreationDate="2018-03-08T21:00:53.167" UserId="20816" Text="Received 1st OA on design pat application.  Examiner advised to convert screws in drawing to broken lines and add broken line statement to the specification indicating I am not claiming this aspect of the drawing. I have had the drawings corrected, but do not know how to reply?  What forms are needed and drawing notations? Do I resubmit an entire specification sheet?  Do I cross reference the application umber?  Not sure how to proceed.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks, Matt" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52866" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19266" RevisionGUID="a652a38a-b661-476e-9ed1-260fbe5b2d79" CreationDate="2018-03-08T21:00:53.167" UserId="20816" Text="Office Action response on Design pat application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52867" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19266" RevisionGUID="a652a38a-b661-476e-9ed1-260fbe5b2d79" CreationDate="2018-03-08T21:00:53.167" UserId="20816" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;office-action&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19266" RevisionGUID="9ea1465c-08d2-4dca-bc57-176353823e79" CreationDate="2018-03-08T21:35:57.373" UserId="20816" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="Received 1st OA on design pat application.  Examiner advised to convert screws in drawing to broken lines and add broken line statement to the specification indicating I am not claiming this aspect of the drawing. I have had the drawings corrected, but do not know how to reply?  What forms are needed and drawing notations? Do I resubmit an entire specification sheet?  Do I cross reference the application umber?  Not sure how to proceed.  I filed by snail mail.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks, Matt" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52869" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19253" RevisionGUID="ddc2dd68-41c5-46a6-a418-167f76dd7500" CreationDate="2018-03-08T21:43:06.560" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed minor spelling error." Text="CHEATING WITH LANCE AMSTRONG" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19265" RevisionGUID="182d25b5-b64a-4d1a-8233-a3e3c66ebd9c" CreationDate="2018-03-08T23:04:52.303" UserId="15503" Comment="added 1427 characters in body" Text="There are two criteria for subject matter eligibility:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Does the claimed invention fall into one of the statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture, composition)?&#xD;&#xA;2. Does the claimed invention relate to patent-eligible subject matter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have specifically asked about the first criterion. Since this turns on what the *claimed* invention is, the answer depends on how your claims are constructed. For example, claim for a method of using phonetic symbols is clearly a process, whereas a claim for a piece of paper displaying phonetic symbols would be an article of manufacture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since it is easy to adjust your claims to fall into a suitable category, the first criterion is a low hurdle to cross.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You haven't asked about the second criterion, but I'll mention it anyway. Even if a claimed invention falls into a statutory category, it may still be patent-ineligible. For example, an abstract method is patent-ineligible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, phonetic symbols really have no meaning other than when read by a user. They are therefore analogous to printed matter (such as the words in a book). Printed matter per se is patent-ineligible (unless it effectively causes an effect in a computer, like computer instructions). As such, even if you had a suitable relating to your phonetic symbol system, it would not be patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no simple way to overcome this, as the problem relates to the core of the invention. It therefore requires further inventing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if you configured the symbols such that they could be read by a computer and converted to synthesized speech, that would probably be patent-eligible subject matter. But then you're really talking about an entirely different invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19267" RevisionGUID="cf676d27-cede-4d18-9052-13c10d0a0862" CreationDate="2018-03-08T23:20:55.873" UserId="3076" Text="The USPTO MPEP manual explains patent office procedure. This [section][1] is titled -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 37 CFR 1.121  Manner of making amendments in application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will need to study this and follow the required formalities. It explains that  new drawing sheets need to labeled REPLACEMENT SHEET in the upper margin and how to show where in the specification you are adding the new text. The examiner is helping you to have a broader coverage. If this is all she/he suggested, your application was already allowable, but needlessly narrowed to requiring the screw heads to be like what your drawing show. I have found the design patent examiners to be extremely helpful and will often allow you to fax in your draft amendment drawings for unofficial checking before you actually submit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s714.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19266" RevisionGUID="8f008ce3-c510-4309-84ac-574e7b1cc244" CreationDate="2018-03-08T23:21:27.290" UserId="3076" Comment="removed &quot;thanks&quot;" Text="Received 1st OA on design pat application.  Examiner advised to convert screws in drawing to broken lines and add broken line statement to the specification indicating I am not claiming this aspect of the drawing. I have had the drawings corrected, but do not know how to reply?  What forms are needed and drawing notations? Do I resubmit an entire specification sheet?  Do I cross reference the application umber?  Not sure how to proceed.  I filed by snail mail.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19268" RevisionGUID="9d0d49f0-e0c8-41b0-bbaf-b107bb3f36a7" CreationDate="2018-03-08T23:35:03.033" UserId="3076" Text="No. A symbol is an abstract concept and can't be patented, as such. The new symbols printed on a piece of paper would be an article of manufacture, but under the &quot;printed matter doctrine&quot; if the only difference from the prior art is the content of some printing, it is not patently different from the prior art. A new way to print a symbol on sheet metal is a process. The printing process would not likely be specific to printing the newly created symbol system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19266" RevisionGUID="fc536f83-b71d-451c-91f2-d74a3014f436" CreationDate="2018-03-09T00:08:47.860" UserId="1" Comment="fixed grammar " Text="I received a 1st OA on a design patent application.  The examiner advised me to convert screws in the drawing to broken lines and add a broken line statement to the specification indicating I am not claiming this aspect of the drawing. I had the drawings corrected, but do not know how to reply. What forms and drawing notations are needed? Do I resubmit an entire specification sheet?  Do I cross reference the application number?  I'm not sure how to proceed.  I filed by postal mail.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52875" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19266" RevisionGUID="fc536f83-b71d-451c-91f2-d74a3014f436" CreationDate="2018-03-09T00:08:47.860" UserId="1" Comment="fixed grammar " Text="Office Action response on Design patent application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19268" RevisionGUID="2fc89526-41b9-4a9f-bbb2-a15ff855da4d" CreationDate="2018-03-09T01:30:25.790" UserId="3076" Comment="softened to indicate this might have flown in the past" Text="Not now. A symbol would be considered an abstract concept and wouldn't be patented, as such. The new symbols printed on a piece of paper would be an article of manufacture, but under the &quot;printed matter doctrine&quot; if the only difference from the prior art is the content of some printing, it is not patently different from the prior art. A new way to print a symbol on sheet metal is a process. The printing process would not likely be specific to printing the newly created symbol system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52877" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="41e28ff7-c120-444c-902f-ce5b0dcb0666" CreationDate="2018-03-09T07:38:23.850" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52878" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="53648f92-b068-4b74-bf9a-0b50005dbf3a" CreationDate="2018-03-09T11:38:23.607" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19269" RevisionGUID="41c9f184-0e1d-4331-be98-361c0c56cc73" CreationDate="2018-03-09T12:19:12.070" UserId="17325" Text="The phrase &quot;second use claim&quot; and the swiss style format allow me to assume you are Europe-based.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't mention if it is a second **medical** use claim or not. If it is a second medical use claim, the (new) style accepted at the EPO is demonstrated in the Guidelines:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_vi_7_1.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is a non medical use, it might be more difficult to get a patent for it or even phrase it in a way that has decent chances of leading to grant. This is because prior art usually discloses something in a form that inherently comprises the use you are trying to claim. But every case is different. Take a look here for that matter: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2016/e/clr_i_c_8_1.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and here for the claim style:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_vi_7_2.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19270" RevisionGUID="0758b584-307b-483b-a776-c59073d63e78" CreationDate="2018-03-09T15:48:41.867" UserId="20819" Text="Our competition has patented a very simple device. Its prior art was a coffee spoon with a hook on the end, to hang it over the edge of a cup. &#xD;&#xA;The invention modified the spoon a bit (shape is bent, bottom part is made rectangular, measuring scale is added on bottom). The device is used to scoop out a specific supplement and hang it over a cup, to make the supplement dissolve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their patent includes an independent claim (regarding the device itself), and several dependent claims (one of which lists the method for scooping the supplement). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can we make and use a very similar device, for the same result (without patenting it)? &#xD;&#xA;Can we claim that: their invention is obvious &amp; non-novel? &#xD;&#xA;A spoon with a hook has been invented before. A ruler has been invented before. A bent spoon has been invented too. However all these weren't combined before, and they weren't used for this specific supplement before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52881" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19270" RevisionGUID="0758b584-307b-483b-a776-c59073d63e78" CreationDate="2018-03-09T15:48:41.867" UserId="20819" Text="Patent infringement on a very simple invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52882" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19270" RevisionGUID="0758b584-307b-483b-a776-c59073d63e78" CreationDate="2018-03-09T15:48:41.867" UserId="20819" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19270" RevisionGUID="21ca56b5-f9e6-4f20-9f51-d190a39dc492" CreationDate="2018-03-09T19:55:42.987" UserId="20819" Comment="added 364 characters in body" Text="Our competition has patented a very simple device. Its prior art was a coffee spoon with a hook on the end, to hang it over the edge of a cup. &#xD;&#xA;The invention modified the spoon a bit (shape is bent, bottom part is made rectangular, measuring scale is added on bottom). The device is used to scoop out a specific supplement and hang it over a cup, to make the supplement dissolve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their patent includes an independent claim (regarding the device itself), and several dependent claims (one of which lists the method for scooping the supplement). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can we make and use a very similar device, for the same result (without patenting it)? &#xD;&#xA;Can we claim that: their invention is obvious &amp; non-novel? &#xD;&#xA;A spoon with a hook has been invented before. A ruler has been invented before. A bent spoon has been invented too. However all these weren't combined before, and they weren't used for this specific supplement before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the link from USPTO: &#xD;&#xA;http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&amp;r=1&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PTXT&amp;S1=shilajit&amp;OS=shilajit&amp;RS=shilajit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to click on &quot;images&quot; on the bottom to access the pdf. Once you access it, click on &quot;full pages&quot; button on left.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19273" RevisionGUID="a665fe00-0c5a-41d1-9030-f457e159c3da" CreationDate="2018-03-09T22:47:33.100" UserId="3076" Text="Here is claim 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot; A combination of **a container which contains a paste-like or sticky&#xD;&#xA;&gt; substance** and **a device for dispersing** a quantity of the paste-like or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sticky substance to dissolve in a liquid, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt; &#xD;&#xA; a **first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; container of mineral pitch resin**; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt; a **device for dispersing**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a measured quantity of the mineral pitch resin from the first container&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to dissolve in a liquid, &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br) **the device comprising** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*an elongate member*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; having an outer face, an inner face, and opposite first and second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ends; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*an outwardly directed hook* at the first end of the device for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; suspending the elongate member from the rim of a second container into&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the interior of the second container; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the elongate member having a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; metered collection portion adjacent the second end configured for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; collection of an amount of mineral pitch resin from the first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; container, whereby the collected amount is adhered to the collection&#xD;&#xA;&gt; portion prior to dispersing of the collected mineral pitch resin into&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a liquid in the second container; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;and the elongate member *having a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scale marking at least on the inner face and spaced a predetermined&#xD;&#xA;&gt; distance from the second end* for indicating an amount of mineral pitch&#xD;&#xA;&gt; resin adhered to the collection portion between the scale marking and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; second end. &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to infringe a claim your product must have all of the elements called out in the claim. I tried to break down the claim so you can see its parts. Do you have a scale as-described? A metered area? Is your device used with a mineral resin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You getting a patent on your special version of this does not affect what it takes to infringe a patent. Having a patent lets you stop others, it does not give you permission to do anything. So if your device is a patentable improvement of their device, it might still infringe their patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19275" RevisionGUID="067e69c0-bd76-474d-8e02-6d6823dc9878" CreationDate="2018-03-10T17:46:56.407" UserId="20827" Text="I have designed a unique instrument , applied for temporary patent in UK and EU , got it granted and thereafter , due to lack of capital , the temporary patent expired after 18 months. I dont understand why I cant patent it now if 1) no one else has and 2) I designed it so the &quot;novelty&quot; remains the same unlike if someone else took it and claimed it as theirs after the temp patent expiration.&#xD;&#xA;Please explain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52899" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19275" RevisionGUID="067e69c0-bd76-474d-8e02-6d6823dc9878" CreationDate="2018-03-10T17:46:56.407" UserId="20827" Text="patent renewal /re-application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52900" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19275" RevisionGUID="067e69c0-bd76-474d-8e02-6d6823dc9878" CreationDate="2018-03-10T17:46:56.407" UserId="20827" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52901" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17944" RevisionGUID="6cbd0cb3-3318-4667-a342-e33d20f60e01" CreationDate="2018-03-10T23:45:16.757" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52902" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17945" RevisionGUID="4e0a4f54-7b6c-4b60-a362-9a5a73ec0243" CreationDate="2018-03-11T00:45:25.707" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52903" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17041" RevisionGUID="ff57ffc3-21d3-43b4-9482-cd649404b385" CreationDate="2018-03-11T03:45:22.247" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52904" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16114" RevisionGUID="692aac91-6ffe-440d-aee2-609697f21420" CreationDate="2018-03-11T04:45:21.933" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52905" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18787" RevisionGUID="01d759cb-8722-4761-84b8-84383990e640" CreationDate="2018-03-11T17:46:38.713" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19276" RevisionGUID="c687c9bf-880b-4496-b3f1-0f829edadf7b" CreationDate="2018-03-11T19:54:05.770" UserId="20831" Text="I have a product idea and working prototype - the fundamental uses and advantages of my product are clear, and I can describe clearly how the prototype is built.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is a somewhat crude prototype and needs work.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The remaining work is minor enhancements to make the product a little easier to work with and less &quot;clunky&quot;.  Also, I've taken off the shelf items and manually stitched and combined them together - I don't yet know how I would actually manufacture things at a larger scale.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it advisable to file a provisional patent now, based on how I've built the prototype?  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52907" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19276" RevisionGUID="c687c9bf-880b-4496-b3f1-0f829edadf7b" CreationDate="2018-03-11T19:54:05.770" UserId="20831" Text="Can a provisional patent be filed based on a prototype needing some refinement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52908" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19276" RevisionGUID="c687c9bf-880b-4496-b3f1-0f829edadf7b" CreationDate="2018-03-11T19:54:05.770" UserId="20831" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19277" RevisionGUID="313dacb0-8329-404b-82fc-f6f3dbdca90e" CreationDate="2018-03-11T23:31:58.757" UserId="15503" Text="**Is it advisable to file a provisional patent now, based on how I've built the prototype?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But more accurarely, it seems useful to consider the difference between a product and an invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you build a prototype, it may implement one or more of your inventions. There was be one invention in the means for connecting the bits connect together, another invention in the orientation of one of the components, and a another invention is how the parts interact to do something surprising. Each of these inventions are separate, even though there is only one product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you have developed your invention such that you know how the invention functions and that it's sound, you could reasonably file a patent application. It doesn't matter how your prototype is: that's just one implementation of your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have mentioned that your product needs a bit of refinement. That's obviously important for actually selling a product, but that may or may not be related to whether your invention needs refinement. There is usually no benefit holding off filing a patent application based on how your product is progressing, unless there is a reasonable chance the invention itself will change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I should note there is some facility to add in additional features in the 1 year between filing a provisional and filing a non-provisional (either by filing a second provisional, or when you file the non-provisional). While this has disadvantages compared to filing everything in the provisional (such that you wouldn't intentionally rely on doing so if it could be easily avoided), it can be useful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52913" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14445" RevisionGUID="8cd3dfa5-05ec-4d80-8721-644c03c8e0e0" CreationDate="2018-03-12T06:46:53.173" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52915" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="80774970-aee3-4130-b79f-e107a43c7912" CreationDate="2018-03-12T15:47:03.703" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19279" RevisionGUID="d5003211-4caa-49d7-b87f-4aaf70ede65b" CreationDate="2018-03-12T17:41:01.030" UserId="14403" Text="The original question &quot;scope of this  patent&quot; is narrowed down to whether  &quot;already connected wifi connection can be shared or not&quot; comes in the scope of claims , in the comment posted as response to Eric's comment (dated Oct 17, 17). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question is aimed at accessing wi-fi network through the device of the invention, the answer in brief is  &quot;YES&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Independent cliam 1 citation, &quot;access point for a wireless network&quot;, encompasses all wireless networks of present and even of future and arguably includes wi-fi too. Dependent claim 8 (besides claim 4 citing cellular network) citing, &quot;the wireless network is from a group of wireless networks consisting of wireless local  area network (WLAN), ...&quot; is supported by mention of  802.11 standard in specification and the term Wi-Fi is mentioned in summary of the invention. This nails the issue. Wi-fi refers to IEEE802.11 standard and is trade name for this standard applied in LWAN devices by Wi-Fi Alliances. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But 'already connected wi-fi connection can  be shared or not' is different issue. Say user 'A' is connected to a wi-fi network. 'A' wants to share the network he is connected to with user 'B' through the access point of the invention. To the best of my belief, this issue is not covered by claim scope of the patent in question nor by the specification. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My interpretation of the claims is, besides normal device functions, the mobile device can be 'set up' as base station (access point) for accessing a 'wireless network'. User 'A' can access a wireless network (including wi-fi) through the device of the invention which the device has access to and cannot connect (link) user 'B' to a network which he himself (A) is connected (linked) to.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52917" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17627" RevisionGUID="41802fcc-f35f-4073-b2ec-96568586ad81" CreationDate="2018-03-12T20:50:00.300" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52918" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17628" RevisionGUID="23c9c3cc-dda2-47c9-9a6e-cf96497f5274" CreationDate="2018-03-12T22:13:31.530" UserId="3076" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="Briefly reading the claims, it looks like only the apparatus and how it is constructed is claimed. The claims don't specify the rules of the game. For instance, it claims an elastic surface. If you make a version with a rigid surface you are probably safe from infringement. To infringe on a claim, you have to implement every part of the claim. You do, however need to recognize that there is potential for a different patent that claims rigid surfaces, or is not specific about the surface. Avoiding infringement of one patent doesn't guarantee you avoid infringement of all patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just an analysis based on a brief readings for the claims. You should also read the rest of the patent in case some aspects of the claims are interpreted in a nonstandard way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regards to your last question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  What would happen if the game was re-created under a different brand but with the same core idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The brand name doesn't matter with patents.  If you infringe only one or more claims, you may be sued. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19280" RevisionGUID="bfaad395-f7db-44eb-8180-78038fbcc405" CreationDate="2018-03-13T17:13:02.157" UserId="20496" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8227460][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8227460&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US 2836615 is for a method for removing methylene blue from monomers Col.1 line 35 &quot;Methylene blue is known to be a ueeful polymerization inhibitor for acrylic monomers.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Col.1 line 35 &quot;Methylene blue is known to be a useful polymerization inhibitor for acrylic monomers.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52920" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19280" RevisionGUID="bfaad395-f7db-44eb-8180-78038fbcc405" CreationDate="2018-03-13T17:13:02.157" UserId="20496" Text="Well known over 50 years ago; How could it issue?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52921" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19280" RevisionGUID="bfaad395-f7db-44eb-8180-78038fbcc405" CreationDate="2018-03-13T17:13:02.157" UserId="20496" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19281" RevisionGUID="678d1049-0d06-4336-a208-b1007874eada" CreationDate="2018-03-13T18:50:13.230" UserId="3076" Text="Claim 1 of that patent is -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A composition consisting essentially of:&#xD;&#xA;a polymerizable compound having two or more conjugated unsaturated groups and comprising a core having 2 to 10 chains, said conjugated unsaturated groups being attached to any of the last 20 atoms of the chains;&#xD;&#xA;and methylene blue in a concentration of 10 to 5000 ppm to prevent premature polymerization of the polymerizable compound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a claim for a composition, not a method. The specification your quoted from explains the invention, the claims define what is actually protected. The other claims are dependent claims that further narrow claim 1." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52924" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="2e5334be-c91b-4f66-9c7e-599bca0ff924" CreationDate="2018-03-14T00:55:16.133" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52925" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18023" RevisionGUID="54e9c7a1-147c-47f1-a768-8bd08520b683" CreationDate="2018-03-14T02:56:36.707" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52926" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18844" RevisionGUID="24ec797a-46fe-43b8-929a-0cb32ae384d5" CreationDate="2018-03-14T03:57:19.280" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52928" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="38291cd0-896b-40a8-8af4-5f0eeff8fcec" CreationDate="2018-03-15T10:58:04.877" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52929" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6476" RevisionGUID="8c1e8fe5-a15d-421e-a55f-c01f3b099f0f" CreationDate="2018-03-15T15:58:18.700" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52930" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18577" RevisionGUID="6882e37d-dba8-4350-bcf3-536eb6160cc2" CreationDate="2018-03-15T17:58:11.367" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52931" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17832" RevisionGUID="b6b95e30-9e56-4e81-a807-eae4acde28f3" CreationDate="2018-03-15T19:58:11.380" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19283" RevisionGUID="55d2c61c-b891-4bb7-8a6a-0e5752de2e17" CreationDate="2018-03-16T04:36:18.387" UserId="20844" Text="I am a web application developer and was looking to start an open sourced, free-to-use project that involves crowdsourced media recommendation functionality, then came across this patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160034454A1 (14/879469)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I've been doing some research on patents since this discovery. I learned that this one is not active yet, but I could potentially get used if and when their patent is issued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a bit annoyed as I feel these kinds of patents are far too broad. If you look at the other patents they filed, they're essentially trying to patent relatively simple software features. And if the patent gets issued, no one will be able use these simple features in any of their software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I tried looking for prior art and came across this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-04117-9_32&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this publication be considered as prior art and potentially challenge the patent? What about any web platform that involves crowdsourced recommendations? One could argue that sites like Reddit are essentially crowdsourcing recommended content to other users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless, would you recommend me to continue on with the project or give it a pass due to the pending patent? Is it likely that this patent gets approved, and if so, would it even be realistically enforceable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52933" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19283" RevisionGUID="55d2c61c-b891-4bb7-8a6a-0e5752de2e17" CreationDate="2018-03-16T04:36:18.387" UserId="20844" Text="I wanted to create a free web application, but found a possible patent infringement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52934" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19283" RevisionGUID="55d2c61c-b891-4bb7-8a6a-0e5752de2e17" CreationDate="2018-03-16T04:36:18.387" UserId="20844" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;websites&gt;&lt;web&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19284" RevisionGUID="56fdf634-827a-47b5-8175-2a16bff6e51c" CreationDate="2018-03-16T05:46:21.463" UserId="20845" Text="If I create something that has arduino and its modules, for example [RCWL-0516][1] which is protected(maybe?) by patents, the only unique thing will be the product body with custom made water pump, can I make this product commercial?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long story short: I noticed that every arduino module has lots of patents, so does it mean that for commercial project I have to invent my own modules to sell my final product?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://github.com/jdesbonnet/RCWL-0516#patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52936" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19284" RevisionGUID="56fdf634-827a-47b5-8175-2a16bff6e51c" CreationDate="2018-03-16T05:46:21.463" UserId="20845" Text="Invention based on arduino and its modules" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52937" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19284" RevisionGUID="56fdf634-827a-47b5-8175-2a16bff6e51c" CreationDate="2018-03-16T05:46:21.463" UserId="20845" Text="&lt;arduino&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19285" RevisionGUID="50d4d9a5-c118-4b0b-a7d4-89fa128c7786" CreationDate="2018-03-16T06:31:21.510" UserId="20846" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20070243307][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20070243307&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the patent application abandoned or technology abandoned?  what is the reason for abandoning it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52939" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19285" RevisionGUID="50d4d9a5-c118-4b0b-a7d4-89fa128c7786" CreationDate="2018-03-16T06:31:21.510" UserId="20846" Text="Why this patent is abandoned?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52940" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19285" RevisionGUID="50d4d9a5-c118-4b0b-a7d4-89fa128c7786" CreationDate="2018-03-16T06:31:21.510" UserId="20846" Text="&lt;us20070243307&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19286" RevisionGUID="50f9cb37-1043-49e5-881b-f2e23a3675f8" CreationDate="2018-03-16T08:44:38.787" UserId="20847" Text="If an examiner deliberately insists on flagrantly misinterpreting  the dictionary definition of a key word in a patent application in order to support  his &quot;belief&quot; that another cited patent contains    conflictual prior art  does the applicant have a  remedy. I might add that this is my case at the moment where my examiner insists on interpreting the word &quot; encompass&quot; as meaning &quot;replace&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52942" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19286" RevisionGUID="50f9cb37-1043-49e5-881b-f2e23a3675f8" CreationDate="2018-03-16T08:44:38.787" UserId="20847" Text="misinterpretation of key word by examiner" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52943" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19286" RevisionGUID="50f9cb37-1043-49e5-881b-f2e23a3675f8" CreationDate="2018-03-16T08:44:38.787" UserId="20847" Text="&lt;examiner&gt;&lt;misinterpretation&gt;&lt;of&gt;&lt;word&gt;&lt;by&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52944" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19286" RevisionGUID="66f8587b-657f-481e-a83f-18cfb1fc271d" CreationDate="2018-03-16T09:47:43.197" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;examiner&gt;&lt;misinterpretation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19287" RevisionGUID="4266406f-0336-4b70-aa90-3c64bda028ab" CreationDate="2018-03-16T13:47:21.617" UserId="17003" Text="I'm not a lawyer, but during the prosecution of one of my patents, the examiner was clearly misinterpreting some prior art. Sort of the equivalent of saying that a bicycle is the technical equivalent of an airplane because both can be used to transport people. After several rounds of ineffective communications with the examiner my attorney raised the issue up to the examiner's supervisor who overruled him. So my best suggestion is to appeal to the examiner's supervisor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19288" RevisionGUID="4892939b-9bd2-458a-90b1-4a1140ad1701" CreationDate="2018-03-16T13:52:49.327" UserId="17003" Text="The best way to track the status of a US patent is the USPTO's [Public Pair][1] site. In this case select document number as the option and enter 20070243307 and you can read the entire history of the application's prosecution by clicking on the &quot;Transaction History&quot; tab. The application received a final rejection on 4-19-13. Final rejection's aren't necessarily final, but evidently the applicant decided to give up at that point. You can download and read the rejection by clicking on the &quot;Image File Wrapper&quot; tab to see the examiner's rationale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19290" RevisionGUID="03f0f309-070d-4f86-8307-5dcec50cc102" CreationDate="2018-03-16T14:01:05.570" UserId="17003" Text="There is really two questions. First is whether you can market a product using available modules which have patent protection. Second is whether you can receive a patent for the final product. As to the first question, the module's patent protection might be on a specific component contained within the module. The manufacturer wants to sell modules so I would contact the manufacturer and find out what, if any, limitations there are on the use of their modules in your product. My guess is they would be happy to allow this and you would want to negotiate volume licensing anyways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With respect to whether you product is patentable, this has to do whether it meets the requirements of patentability which includes novelty (inventive step), non-obviousness and utility. There is no way for us to answer that question without knowing more about your product and you can't disclose that before filing an application. I will say that if you are using off the shelf components in ways that they are intended to be used and there isn't some unexpected cleverness involved then there isn't much chance for a patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19283" RevisionGUID="138ea74f-0f71-4ff6-ac1c-7537c569f7b5" CreationDate="2018-03-16T14:05:06.310" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed &quot;used&quot; with &quot;sued&quot;" Text="I am a web application developer and was looking to start an open sourced, free-to-use project that involves crowdsourced media recommendation functionality, then came across this patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160034454A1 (14/879469)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I've been doing some research on patents since this discovery. I learned that this one is not active yet, but I could potentially get sued if and when their patent is issued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a bit annoyed as I feel these kinds of patents are far too broad. If you look at the other patents they filed, they're essentially trying to patent relatively simple software features. And if the patent gets issued, no one will be able use these simple features in any of their software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I tried looking for prior art and came across this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-04117-9_32&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this publication be considered as prior art and potentially challenge the patent? What about any web platform that involves crowdsourced recommendations? One could argue that sites like Reddit are essentially crowdsourcing recommended content to other users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless, would you recommend me to continue on with the project or give it a pass due to the pending patent? Is it likely that this patent gets approved, and if so, would it even be realistically enforceable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19288" RevisionGUID="724d6529-fcae-4121-b673-f1acf8b06057" CreationDate="2018-03-16T16:42:50.717" UserId="17003" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="The document you cite is an application, not a patent. The best way to track the status of a US patent or application is the USPTO's [Public Pair][1] site. In this case select document number as the option and enter 20070243307 and you can read the entire history of the application's prosecution by clicking on the &quot;Transaction History&quot; tab. The application received a final rejection on 4-19-13. Final rejection's aren't necessarily final, but evidently the applicant decided to give up at that point. You can download and read the rejection by clicking on the &quot;Image File Wrapper&quot; tab to see the examiner's rationale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19290" RevisionGUID="26b7d4e3-2951-4d0d-a675-a1234cfabc69" CreationDate="2018-03-16T16:44:18.063" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="There is really two questions. First is whether you can market a product using available modules which have patent protection. Second is whether you can receive a patent for the final product. As to the first question, the module's patent protection might be on a specific component contained within the module. The manufacturer wants to sell modules so I would contact the manufacturer and find out what, if any, limitations there are on the use of their modules in your product. My guess is they would be happy to allow this and you would want to negotiate volume licensing anyways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With respect to whether your product is patentable, this has to do whether it meets the requirements of patentability which includes novelty (inventive step), non-obviousness and utility. There is no way for us to answer that question without knowing more about your product and you can't disclose that before filing an application. I will say that if you are using off the shelf components in ways that they are intended to be used and there isn't some unexpected cleverness involved then there isn't much chance for a patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19291" RevisionGUID="f3b1489b-f306-4d29-93cd-17c4a6961c32" CreationDate="2018-03-16T17:15:04.000" UserId="17003" Text="You are correct that you could potentially get sued. However, this is current only an application. It may or many not get granted as a patent. Claims in applications are frequently broader than what eventually gets allowed. To infringe on a patent you need to implement each and every aspect of at least one claim. There are three independent claims in this patent. Here is the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of generating media pair similarity ratings, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  presenting a user with a first media item;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  querying the user regarding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one or more additional media items that are most similar to the first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; media item; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  receiving input from the user indicating the one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; additional media items that are most similar to the first media item;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  setting a pair similarity rating for the first media item and at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least one of the one or more additional media items based at least in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; part on the input indicating the one or more additional media items&#xD;&#xA;&gt; most similar to the first media item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree this seems overly broad. It is very likely this claim and others may be narrowed if the application manages to get granted. That said, you don't know what those claims will be yet. In addition, this patent application has a complex history. From the application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ser. No. 14/483,452, filed on Sep. 11, 2014, which claims the benefit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/876,653, filed on Sep. 11,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2013. This application is also a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/832,279, filed on Aug. 21, 2015, which is a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/792,729,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; filed on Mar. 11, 2013, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application Ser. No. 12/892,274, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,401,983, filed on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sep. 28, 2010. The present application is further continuation-in-part&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/892,320, now U.S. Pat. No.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8,825,574, filed on Sep. 28, 2010. This application is further&#xD;&#xA;&gt; continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/903,830,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; filed on Oct. 13, 2010, and which claims the priority of U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Provisional Application No. 61/251,191, filed on Oct. 13, 2009. All of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the U.S. priority applications are herein incorporated by reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point, your best bet is to discuss this issue with a competent patent attorney with whom you can describe your implementation and get a freedom-to-operate opinion. You can't rely on opinions from the internet especially as we don't know your implementation. I should also warn you that this application may not be the only piece of prior art you need to be concerned with. Please understand I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19283" RevisionGUID="cd3be6eb-9658-4766-b688-bd48b2352564" CreationDate="2018-03-16T17:50:22.607" UserId="20844" Comment="Added an active patent related to the question" Text="I am a web application developer and was looking to start an open sourced, free-to-use project that involves crowdsourced media recommendation functionality, then came across this patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160034454A1 (14/879469)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I've been doing some research on patents since this discovery. I learned that this one is not active yet, but I could potentially get sued if and when their patent is issued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a bit annoyed as I feel these kinds of patents are far too broad. If you look at the other patents they filed, they're essentially trying to patent relatively simple software features. And if the patent gets issued, no one will be able use these simple features in any of their software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I tried looking for prior art and came across this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-04117-9_32&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this publication be considered as prior art and potentially challenge the patent? What about any web platform that involves crowdsourced recommendations? One could argue that sites like Reddit are essentially crowdsourcing recommended content to other users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless, would you recommend me to continue on with the project or give it a pass due to the pending patent? Is it likely that this patent gets approved, and if so, would it even be realistically enforceable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Found an active patent by the same &quot;inventor&quot; which is even broader than the pending patent.. https://patents.google.com/patent/US8825574B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19292" RevisionGUID="2879b36a-8b58-4c0d-bdec-23e4e0fae742" CreationDate="2018-03-16T18:56:55.837" UserId="18521" Text="Eric Shain provides a good answer which can work. There is a risk associated with that route, though: you might upset the examiner by going over his/her head. At the end of the day, if going to the supervisor is the only route forward, then it must be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But before going that far, you might consider having a phone interview. In my limited experience, phone interviews were almost always far more productive than written replies to Office actions. On the phone, you can ask the examiner what basis he/she is using for his/her interpretation of the word &quot;encompass.&quot; You can politely that you've never heard of that definition and then ask for a dictionary reference which supports his/her interpretation. A lot of the time, you'll find there's something *else* the examiner is getting hung up on, and you can tease it out in a phone interview. (Examiners aren't given sufficient time to carefully explain all the nuances of their rationale--and it's much harder to do so on paper than in a conversation.) Once you know the real reason for the examiner's rejection, you can respond more appropriately and productively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a phone interview, you can also sometimes make tremendous progress by asking the examiner directly: &quot;Look, we really think the described invention is different from the prior art you've cited, and we think you'll agree with us that X is different from Y. What language would I need to add to the claims to narrow them enough so they don't encompass this prior art?&quot; An examiner might not always be willing to go down that route--he/she might say &quot;that's the job of the attorney.&quot; If you get this sort of resistance, you might politely say: &quot;I agree, but you're using words in non-conventional ways that I can't find in dictionaries. My goal here is to work with you and make progress. What about X, Y, or Z? Are any of those words better? Why not?&quot; When you go into the phone call, have a few alternatives ready to propose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among the many things to be aware of, one is whether or not the new term is adding new material to the application. You can't amend the claims in a way that goes beyond the original disclosure. Check with your patent attorney (and potentially also with the examiner) on whether the amendment/the new language would be considered new matter.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*I am no expert, and this response is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney or legal expert to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Laws can differ dramatically from country to country, state to state, and technology field to technology field.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19287" RevisionGUID="526e5be9-ee67-41c8-96a7-cbb5c0ee0caa" CreationDate="2018-03-16T19:05:36.927" UserId="17003" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="I'm not a lawyer, but during the prosecution of one of my patents, the examiner was clearly misinterpreting some prior art. Sort of the equivalent of saying that a bicycle is the technical equivalent of an airplane because both can be used to transport people. After several rounds of ineffective communications with the examiner my attorney raised the issue up to the examiner's supervisor who overruled him. So my best suggestion is to appeal to the examiner's supervisor. Also, based on jdpatent's excellent answer I would suggest this approach is a best as a last ditch effort." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19293" RevisionGUID="15d931b7-8b50-4812-947b-49d098dba92b" CreationDate="2018-03-16T19:13:15.123" UserId="20851" Text="Can you remove a diagram from a provisional application when filing for a utility patent and not change the priority date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52957" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19293" RevisionGUID="15d931b7-8b50-4812-947b-49d098dba92b" CreationDate="2018-03-16T19:13:15.123" UserId="20851" Text="Remove Diagram from filing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52958" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19293" RevisionGUID="15d931b7-8b50-4812-947b-49d098dba92b" CreationDate="2018-03-16T19:13:15.123" UserId="20851" Text="&lt;utility&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19294" RevisionGUID="e858fb29-94fc-40fb-9cb9-f61d454ae617" CreationDate="2018-03-16T19:36:43.937" UserId="18521" Text="There are many reasons for abandoning an application, and rarely can they be known to us. Some reasons include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the cost of examination was too high&#xD;&#xA; - the company went under before acquiring the patent&#xD;&#xA; - the company discovered that the technology had already been patented&#xD;&#xA; - the company decided the technology wasn't commercially viable&#xD;&#xA; - the cost of a patent, if awarded, was too high&#xD;&#xA; - the company thought that a patent would never be awarded&#xD;&#xA; - the company decided they were philosophically/morally opposed to patents (this can happen)&#xD;&#xA; - the company that created the invention was bought out, and the buyer doesn't worry about acquiring patents because they have a monopoly, or because they pursue licensing whenever possible infringement occurs&#xD;&#xA; - the company decided that a patent wouldn't add value because the most important thing would be making it to market first&#xD;&#xA; - the company improved on the technology, and they were only concerned with patenting the improvement, which wasn't described in the original application&#xD;&#xA; - the application is part of a larger family of continuation patents, and while the particular application you're seeing is abandoned, other more important applications in the family are still alive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, it isn't possible to look at the history of the patent application and decipher which of these reasons applied. Business concerns drive patent strategy, and we often don't have access to what the business was thinking/experiencing when the patent was being prosecuted/examined.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*I am no expert, and this response is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney or legal expert to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Laws can differ dramatically from country to country, state to state, and technology field to technology field.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19295" RevisionGUID="8f752f66-59ef-4a4d-a3d9-06062064490b" CreationDate="2018-03-16T19:46:28.493" UserId="18521" Text="In the US, it is permissible to remove information from the patent and still preserve the priority claim. Many nonprovisional applications will include a statement at the beginning that the provisional application is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety into the present disclosure. So they're effectively saying &quot;everything in the original provisional application should be considered a part of this application too&quot; (or something along those lines--I don't remember the exact language). That's not a bad move, because if you omit something and later realize it's needed in order to overcome an examiner's rejection, then you can easily add it back in with no risk that you're adding new material. Moreover, you don't want a court to later say that your description fails to &quot;enable&quot; the invention when the diagram is omitted. Incorporating the provisional application by reference might help avoid that sort of issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The priority date applies to any material that *is* described in the original provisional application. If the nonprovisional application includes *new* material that wasn't in the provisional application, then that material doesn't receive the benefit of the earlier priority date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I recall correctly, once the nonprovisional application publishes, anyone can view the original provisional application in its entirety by submitting a request to the USPTO. I believe the provisional is never scanned and put into their online database. Rather, I think it's only made available if a copy is specifically requested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a lot about this that I don't fully remember. The info above could be wrong. I'm not a patent attorney. As always, it's extremely important to contact an expert who practices patent law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*I am no expert, and this response is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney or legal expert to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Laws can differ dramatically from country to country, state to state, and technology field to technology field.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52961" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19120" RevisionGUID="f86f338a-f1df-4823-8532-4c0a4936e989" CreationDate="2018-03-16T20:12:02.210" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52962" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="e11c287c-8545-4797-83e0-af485deae54e" CreationDate="2018-03-16T23:12:55.107" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19287" RevisionGUID="a9bc5dd3-c20e-469c-ab9a-f12deb181940" CreationDate="2018-03-17T02:07:26.663" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I'm not a lawyer, but during the prosecution of one of my patents, the examiner was clearly misinterpreting some prior art. Sort of the equivalent of saying that a bicycle is the technical equivalent of an airplane because both can be used to transport people. After several rounds of ineffective communications with the examiner my attorney raised the issue up to the examiner's supervisor who overruled him. So my best suggestion is to appeal to the examiner's supervisor. Also, based on jdpatent's excellent answer I would suggest this approach be used as a last ditch effort." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19296" RevisionGUID="4fd39a76-cd1b-419f-bc95-1f45a87c9fb7" CreationDate="2018-03-17T02:10:52.887" UserId="20852" Text="The US granted patent no: US6489542B1 has been filed through PCT in  Canada, Israel, South Africa,Mexico,China,Australia and European Union. This patent describes a method of transformation using a particular vector construct which enables  plastid targeted gene expression. All such mechanisms have been described in prior art with other genes and this patent particularly describes Cry2 A family genes and claims for all plants embodying the Cry2 A nucleaotide sequence. The purpose of the invention is to delay insect resistance and recover transformants effectively. Given the prior art and the flimsy grounds of inventive step and novelty, can this patent be granted in the first place? Can broad spectrum claims covering entire plant kingdom be granted based on few examples tried by the inventor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52969" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19296" RevisionGUID="4fd39a76-cd1b-419f-bc95-1f45a87c9fb7" CreationDate="2018-03-17T02:10:52.887" UserId="20852" Text="Do the broad claims covering entire plant kingdom justify the grant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52970" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19296" RevisionGUID="4fd39a76-cd1b-419f-bc95-1f45a87c9fb7" CreationDate="2018-03-17T02:10:52.887" UserId="20852" Text="&lt;wo2000026371a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52971" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19114" RevisionGUID="d97b4bdc-d74e-4b32-a995-bd9ae66b87d9" CreationDate="2018-03-17T02:13:13.950" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52972" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17248" RevisionGUID="32a1b5ca-6249-4a91-9310-e22c7dc2832e" CreationDate="2018-03-17T04:13:22.777" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19297" RevisionGUID="eb8dfe49-179d-4604-b637-91db8fab4677" CreationDate="2018-03-17T04:34:58.967" UserId="3076" Text="Claim 1 is -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A plant comprising a nucleotide sequence encoding a Cry2Ab Bacillus thuringiensis δ-endotoxin protein comprising a plant functional promoter sequence operably linked to a first polynucleotide sequence encoding a plastid transit peptide, which linked in-frame to a second polynucleotide sequence encoding said Cry2Ab Bacillus thuringiensis δ-endotoxin protein, said second polynucleotide sequence being operably linked to a plant functional 3′ end transcription termination and polyadenylation sequence, wherein expression of said nucleotide sequence in said plant yields a fusion protein comprised of an amino-terminal plastid transit peptide covalently linked to said δ-endotoxin protein, and said plastid transit peptide functions to localize said δ-endotoxin protein to a plastid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like it requires many more details than just having a  Cry2 A nucleaotide sequence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19298" RevisionGUID="0307fb40-1782-4a3d-a741-3aefbbc39ffa" CreationDate="2018-03-17T04:57:56.917" UserId="3076" Text="There is a concept called &quot;patent exhaustion&quot;. If you buy something from a party that is licensed to every patent embedded in the product, then &quot;using&quot; the item would not, per-se, be an infringement of patents fully embodied in the item itself, as shipped. The specific use you put it to and how it is connected to other components could infringe some patent not directly related to the purchased item. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52975" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="00235d78-f25f-4438-b1a7-03ba084c53c6" CreationDate="2018-03-17T07:13:55.747" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52976" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="eff867fd-c50e-4762-82f2-9d624218fcba" CreationDate="2018-03-17T09:13:55.693" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52977" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18852" RevisionGUID="7acc74d4-b996-4a37-a0f0-65d97a5a9dbf" CreationDate="2018-03-17T16:14:01.743" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19299" RevisionGUID="bbff0f9a-fcf5-422e-9edb-ed6996b9c530" CreationDate="2018-03-17T18:21:16.710" UserId="18033" Text="It has been mentioned in other answers that you can discuss with the examiner in a phone interview, request the examiners superviser be present in that interview or contact the superviser directly. (Preferrably in that order). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding to that, you can actually send the exainer a copy of the dictionary page (or offer to do so in the phone interview). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To mention a complete set of possiblities, you can also file a [notice of appeal][1] against the office action if the claim(s) has/have been rejected twice. I heard that many examiners reconsider their arguments on the notice of appeal already if they aren't completly sure. A benefit is, even if the examiner reopens prosecution that way, your appeal fees aren't wasted, you can use them on the next appeal for that application if you run into trouble again. If you think the examiner is behaving irrationally and nothing else helps, that's a way to get a different authority to judge your argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1204.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52979" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13366" RevisionGUID="7b25f2d4-ba6f-43ce-8757-3d52c770da18" CreationDate="2018-03-17T20:16:59.350" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52980" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17844" RevisionGUID="40e14e12-2923-4508-9563-ee8a79b25f8d" CreationDate="2018-03-17T21:17:27.097" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52982" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17660" RevisionGUID="bec7f13b-bf31-4215-963d-9d0afd958656" CreationDate="2018-03-18T04:20:45.813" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52983" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="4cdbbecb-dcae-4a2b-b986-6aa470b65c19" CreationDate="2018-03-18T06:21:25.770" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52984" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18261" RevisionGUID="e30e90a1-5e9f-46f9-ab36-6d853f80ba1a" CreationDate="2018-03-18T11:21:29.640" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52990" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17664" RevisionGUID="93f282a1-bf26-4de8-a449-0796cad4a605" CreationDate="2018-03-18T20:21:48.600" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="52991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19301" RevisionGUID="4047f839-019a-460e-b1e4-bfe8f85c0687" CreationDate="2018-03-19T01:40:03.997" UserId="19232" Text="In an article written by a prominent patent attorney and broker, he stated: *“...recent studies show that more than half of the patents in circulation will end up being invalidated if challenged.”*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much truth in this? Or does it apply mainly to patents prosecuted before some of the still-fairly-recent Supreme Court cases such as *Alice* and *Bilski* ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52992" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19301" RevisionGUID="4047f839-019a-460e-b1e4-bfe8f85c0687" CreationDate="2018-03-19T01:40:03.997" UserId="19232" Text="Is it true that a significant percentage of patents do not hold up when challenged?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52993" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19301" RevisionGUID="4047f839-019a-460e-b1e4-bfe8f85c0687" CreationDate="2018-03-19T01:40:03.997" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;patent-invalidation&gt;&lt;supreme-court&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19302" RevisionGUID="5fee5ac8-1578-4be6-8fa5-770d7eaa8280" CreationDate="2018-03-19T02:17:39.400" UserId="13775" Text="The term &quot;in circulation&quot; is a little confusing.  Does he mean &quot;patents that are being circulated among potential buyers&quot;?  If so, that may well be the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to Alice and the America Invents Act, issued patents were normally on pretty solid ground.  As a result, patent lawyers typically sought claims as broad as possible.  In order to infringe a patent, you must infringe every element of a claim.  Similarly, in order to invalidate a patent, there cannot be a patentable limitation/element.  So if the patent is &quot;a device with A, B and C&quot; and A, B and the combination of A and B is obvious, but adding in C is not obvious, it is patentable (assuming the subject matter is eligible).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The impact of this is that post-Alice and the AIA, good patent lawyers make sure that the claims are not overly broad.  So there is something to the idea that patents filed for post-Alice are sometimes stronger in terms of validity (but weaker in terms of coverage).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think what the attorney was thinking about was an &quot;Inter-Parties Review&quot;, or &quot;IPR&quot;, a creation of the America Invents Act.  The AIA actually created Post-Grant Review, Covered Business Method Review, and Inter-Parties Review.  Each of these happens before an administrative law panel (so a so-called &quot;Article 1 Court&quot;).  The Supreme Court is currently considering whether those panels are constitutional (in a pending case known as Oil States).  These panels have a track record of basically killing the vast majority of patent claims that they look at (see http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/06/14/90-percent-patents-challenged-ptab-defective/id=84343/).  Of interest is that it is not uncommon for a federal district court (or courts) to have determined the patent to be valid, only to have the Article 1 court invalidate the patent later.  This may be a bias against patents on the part of the USPTO panels (my guess), but also stems in part from the different standard of review.  Proper Article 3 Courts give deference to the termination of the patent examiner, while Article 1 Courts do not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd say that the more than half statistic is valid if applied to patents reviewed via the post-grant procedures created by the AIA.  This is particularly so if we're considered only patents that are being shopped around for sale, as that would eliminate patents being held by operating entities that are typically more limited in scope, covering the actual thing the company does." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19303" RevisionGUID="901433c3-a822-4800-9666-bef1a388eea2" CreationDate="2018-03-19T02:19:42.503" UserId="13775" Text="If Google Patents doesn't work (it won't work for very recently issued patents), try https://www.pat2pdf.org/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that doesn't work for you and you know how to code in PERL, the article at http://www.fresnoip.com/2018/03/patent-tuesdays-and-application.html contains PERL code at the bottom that retrieves the image of the patent, including the drawings, for you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19287" RevisionGUID="af657d60-e7a6-4e94-a682-9498e64445ec" CreationDate="2018-03-19T03:08:48.530" UserId="3076" Comment="inserted my comment as an edit as suggested by Eric Shain" Text="I'm not a lawyer, but during the prosecution of one of my patents, the examiner was clearly misinterpreting some prior art. Sort of the equivalent of saying that a bicycle is the technical equivalent of an airplane because both can be used to transport people. After several rounds of ineffective communications with the examiner my attorney raised the issue up to the examiner's supervisor who overruled him. So my best suggestion is to appeal to the examiner's supervisor. Also, based on jdpatent's excellent answer I would suggest this approach be used as a last ditch effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While going around the examiner by calling the supervisor directly could be risky, requesting that the supervisor be on the call with the examiner is not unusual and would not be going around the examiner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19304" RevisionGUID="dd29f02a-649b-44fc-9b4e-f3c5f9ac5d8c" CreationDate="2018-03-19T03:16:03.703" UserId="13775" Text="Another option is to file a continuation application with claims focusing on slightly different things in order to get the continuation examined in a different art unit -- and thus before a different examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for talking to the supervisor, this often happens on its own.  I once had the reverse problem of what you describe -- the examiner called my patent lawyer and said &quot;I can't find any prior art to support a rejection, but my supervisor insists that I not issue this one, so just file an appeal.&quot;  Another time I got an office action where they inadvertently left &quot;track changes&quot; turned on.  The office action had notes from the supervisor where the supervisor said in one place &quot;this is a weak ground for rejection&quot; -- but of course the rejection was left in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19305" RevisionGUID="56965bed-f274-4d2b-9657-ba4e24e3bb0a" CreationDate="2018-03-19T03:24:07.490" UserId="13775" Text="I'd add this advice: Don't use the same software as your patent lawyers. Once you're going to the trouble of tracking your portfolio, you should also track key dates (i.e. maintenance fee due dates, office action response dates, patent expiration date, etc.).  If there is a bug in the software your lawyer uses, you serve as a backup. The lawyer should also use at least two different systems to track dates, but not all lawyers do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use Google Sheets. I previously used an Excel spreadsheet, but this way I can allow my patent lawyers read-only access to my own sheet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53000" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18971" RevisionGUID="bcea600f-a79b-4b51-b6fa-5d1645a79e40" CreationDate="2018-03-19T18:24:21.423" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19302" RevisionGUID="fca214f4-2a0b-4b23-a24e-92003f8c9b47" CreationDate="2018-03-19T20:31:24.903" UserId="-1" Comment="It's &quot;inter partes&quot;: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter_partes" Text="The term &quot;in circulation&quot; is a little confusing.  Does he mean &quot;patents that are being circulated among potential buyers&quot;?  If so, that may well be the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to Alice and the America Invents Act, issued patents were normally on pretty solid ground.  As a result, patent lawyers typically sought claims as broad as possible.  In order to infringe a patent, you must infringe every element of a claim.  Similarly, in order to invalidate a patent, there cannot be a patentable limitation/element.  So if the patent is &quot;a device with A, B and C&quot; and A, B and the combination of A and B is obvious, but adding in C is not obvious, it is patentable (assuming the subject matter is eligible).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The impact of this is that post-Alice and the AIA, good patent lawyers make sure that the claims are not overly broad.  So there is something to the idea that patents filed for post-Alice are sometimes stronger in terms of validity (but weaker in terms of coverage).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think what the attorney was thinking about was an &quot;*Inter Partes* Review&quot;, or &quot;IPR&quot;, a creation of the America Invents Act.  The AIA actually created Post-Grant Review, Covered Business Method Review, and *Inter Partes* Review.  Each of these happens before an administrative law panel (so a so-called &quot;Article 1 Court&quot;).  The Supreme Court is currently considering whether those panels are constitutional (in a pending case known as Oil States).  These panels have a track record of basically killing the vast majority of patent claims that they look at (see http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/06/14/90-percent-patents-challenged-ptab-defective/id=84343/).  Of interest is that it is not uncommon for a federal district court (or courts) to have determined the patent to be valid, only to have the Article 1 court invalidate the patent later.  This may be a bias against patents on the part of the USPTO panels (my guess), but also stems in part from the different standard of review.  Proper Article 3 Courts give deference to the termination of the patent examiner, while Article 1 Courts do not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd say that the more than half statistic is valid if applied to patents reviewed via the post-grant procedures created by the AIA.  This is particularly so if we're considered only patents that are being shopped around for sale, as that would eliminate patents being held by operating entities that are typically more limited in scope, covering the actual thing the company does." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53002" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19302" RevisionGUID="fca214f4-2a0b-4b23-a24e-92003f8c9b47" CreationDate="2018-03-19T20:31:24.903" Comment="Proposed by 211.14.8.251|adda7393-f39c-47ed-aa0a-a2b8402f5c85 approved by 18033, 13775 edit id of 2068" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19295" RevisionGUID="33201de5-b438-4b70-b10a-22a64fec9122" CreationDate="2018-03-19T20:56:11.877" UserId="3076" Comment="correct info about on-line access to provisional." Text="In the US, it is permissible to remove information from the patent and still preserve the priority claim. Many nonprovisional applications will include a statement at the beginning that the provisional application is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety into the present disclosure. So they're effectively saying &quot;everything in the original provisional application should be considered a part of this application too&quot; (or something along those lines--I don't remember the exact language). That's not a bad move, because if you omit something and later realize it's needed in order to overcome an examiner's rejection, then you can easily add it back in with no risk that you're adding new material. Moreover, you don't want a court to later say that your description fails to &quot;enable&quot; the invention when the diagram is omitted. Incorporating the provisional application by reference might help avoid that sort of issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The priority date applies to any material that *is* described in the original provisional application. If the nonprovisional application includes *new* material that wasn't in the provisional application, then that material doesn't receive the benefit of the earlier priority date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;Once the nonprovisional application publishes, anyone can view the original provisional application in the online database of the USPTO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a lot about this that I don't fully remember. The info above could be wrong. I'm not a patent attorney. As always, it's extremely important to contact an expert who practices patent law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*I am no expert, and this response is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney or legal expert to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Laws can differ dramatically from country to country, state to state, and technology field to technology field.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53004" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18712" RevisionGUID="2c0bd14f-3315-4006-9dbe-10cb48a139f5" CreationDate="2018-03-19T21:24:58.363" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53005" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="19295" RevisionGUID="c40af94f-e8a3-4d09-947f-3f81c9b5b3a4" CreationDate="2018-03-19T23:11:12.180" UserId="18521" Comment="Rollback to [8f752f66-59ef-4a4d-a3d9-06062064490b]" Text="In the US, it is permissible to remove information from the patent and still preserve the priority claim. Many nonprovisional applications will include a statement at the beginning that the provisional application is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety into the present disclosure. So they're effectively saying &quot;everything in the original provisional application should be considered a part of this application too&quot; (or something along those lines--I don't remember the exact language). That's not a bad move, because if you omit something and later realize it's needed in order to overcome an examiner's rejection, then you can easily add it back in with no risk that you're adding new material. Moreover, you don't want a court to later say that your description fails to &quot;enable&quot; the invention when the diagram is omitted. Incorporating the provisional application by reference might help avoid that sort of issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The priority date applies to any material that *is* described in the original provisional application. If the nonprovisional application includes *new* material that wasn't in the provisional application, then that material doesn't receive the benefit of the earlier priority date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I recall correctly, once the nonprovisional application publishes, anyone can view the original provisional application in its entirety by submitting a request to the USPTO. I believe the provisional is never scanned and put into their online database. Rather, I think it's only made available if a copy is specifically requested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a lot about this that I don't fully remember. The info above could be wrong. I'm not a patent attorney. As always, it's extremely important to contact an expert who practices patent law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*I am no expert, and this response is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney or legal expert to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Laws can differ dramatically from country to country, state to state, and technology field to technology field.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19295" RevisionGUID="73e530d0-0413-4410-afd0-16e348811578" CreationDate="2018-03-19T23:24:22.250" UserId="18521" Comment="correcting info on provisional applications" Text="In the US, it is permissible to remove information from the patent and still preserve the priority claim. Many nonprovisional applications will include a statement at the beginning that the provisional application is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety into the present disclosure. So they're effectively saying &quot;everything in the original provisional application should be considered a part of this application too&quot; (or something along those lines--I don't remember the exact language). That's not a bad move, because if you omit something and later realize it's needed in order to overcome an examiner's rejection, then you can easily add it back in with no risk that you're adding new material. Moreover, you don't want a court to later say that your description fails to &quot;enable&quot; the invention when the diagram is omitted. Incorporating the provisional application by reference might help avoid that sort of issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The priority date applies to any material that *is* described in the original provisional application. If the nonprovisional application includes *new* material that wasn't in the provisional application, then that material doesn't receive the benefit of the earlier priority date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the nonprovisional application publishes, I believe anyone can view the original provisional application in its entirety by going into the USPTO's [PAIR system](https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair). For example, if you search for an application by number and put in 62/343525, you'll be able to click on the &quot;Image File Wrapper&quot; tab and then click on the links (specification, drawings, etc.) to see the various parts of the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a lot about this that I don't fully remember. The info above could be wrong. I'm not a patent attorney. As always, it's extremely important to contact an expert who practices patent law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*I am no expert, and this response is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney or legal expert to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Laws can differ dramatically from country to country, state to state, and technology field to technology field.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19301" RevisionGUID="43ed50da-17db-4292-a71b-e217a46de018" CreationDate="2018-03-20T01:51:36.477" UserId="19232" Comment="added 159 characters in body" Text="In an article written by a prominent patent attorney and broker, he stated: *“...recent studies show that more than half of the patents in circulation will end up being invalidated if challenged.”*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much truth in this? Or does it apply mainly to patents prosecuted before some of the still-fairly-recent Supreme Court cases such as *Alice* and *Bilski* ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE – source of quote:**&#xD;&#xA;http://www.iam-media.com/Intelligence/IAM-Yearbook/2015/Monetisation-and-strategy/How-to-work-with-patent-brokers-and-buyers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19308" RevisionGUID="ede2b72b-b21c-4b86-8b8f-76da0865199f" CreationDate="2018-03-20T02:35:16.287" UserId="20859" Text="I came across a pair of granted patents that seem rather frivolous, and I'd appreciate some help digging up prior art around them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US9445150B2/en&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US9178631B2/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They cover Asynchronous live streaming media from a mobile phone; one focuses on video, the other on audio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first independent, system claim from the first patent:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Periodically performs the following:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;1. Receive and buffer a series of contiguous video files. After enough video files have been received:&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;&gt;1. Assign an index for the received video files&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;&gt;2. Transmit the received files &amp; associated index to a remote server for broadcasting&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;2. Next, send a notification containing the index to an application on the broadcast server telling it the index &amp; video files were sent, which causes the application to retrieve the video index &amp; associated files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second independent claim is a method claim that adds a requirement that the camera is the source for the video file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third independent claim covers the server-side application receiving messages from the above process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, the async part refers to streaming using HTTP Live Streaming protocol, but it can also refer to a node.js server implementation. Not 100% sure. Would appreciate some input from the community on this one. Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53012" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19308" RevisionGUID="ede2b72b-b21c-4b86-8b8f-76da0865199f" CreationDate="2018-03-20T02:35:16.287" UserId="20859" Text="Prior Art Request: US9445150, Asynchronous Live Streaming from a mobile phone" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53013" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19308" RevisionGUID="ede2b72b-b21c-4b86-8b8f-76da0865199f" CreationDate="2018-03-20T02:35:16.287" UserId="20859" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;streaming&gt;&lt;us9445150&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53014" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19308" RevisionGUID="568cedb1-a76f-40d8-84db-675bcc0bd671" CreationDate="2018-03-20T02:41:54.037" UserId="20859" Comment="Rearranged title for easier reading" Text="Prior Art Request: Asynchronous Live Streaming from a mobile phone, US9445150" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19308" RevisionGUID="568cedb1-a76f-40d8-84db-675bcc0bd671" CreationDate="2018-03-20T02:41:54.037" UserId="20859" Comment="Rearranged title for easier reading" Text="I came across a pair of granted patents that seem rather frivolous, and I'd appreciate some help digging up prior art around them. Priority date on both is April 19, 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US9445150B2/en&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US9178631B2/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They cover Asynchronous live streaming media from a mobile phone; one focuses on video, the other on audio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first independent, system claim from the first patent:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Periodically performs the following:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;1. Receive and buffer a series of contiguous video files. After enough video files have been received:&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;&gt;1. Assign an index for the received video files&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;&gt;2. Transmit the received files &amp; associated index to a remote server for broadcasting&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;2. Next, send a notification containing the index to an application on the broadcast server telling it the index &amp; video files were sent, which causes the application to retrieve the video index &amp; associated files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second independent claim is a method claim that adds a requirement that the camera is the source for the video file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third independent claim covers the server-side application receiving messages from the above process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, the async part refers to streaming using HTTP Live Streaming protocol, but it can also refer to a node.js server implementation. Not 100% sure. Would appreciate some input from the community on this one. Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19308" RevisionGUID="d4e13977-e491-4b26-9d1f-9951da065cb7" CreationDate="2018-03-20T02:56:08.077" UserId="20859" Comment="added 1602 characters in body" Text="I came across a pair of granted patents that seem rather frivolous, and I'd appreciate some help digging up prior art around them. Priority date on both is April 19, 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US9445150B2/en&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US9178631B2/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They cover Asynchronous live streaming media from a mobile phone; one focuses on video, the other on audio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a summary of the first independent claim (system) from the first patent:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Periodically performs the following:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;1. Receive and buffer a series of contiguous video files. After enough video files have been received:&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;&gt;1. Assign an index for the received video files&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;&gt;2. Transmit the received files &amp; associated index to a remote server for broadcasting&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;2. Next, send a notification containing the index to an application on the broadcast server telling it the index &amp; video files were sent, which causes the application to retrieve the video index &amp; associated files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second independent claim is a method claim that adds a requirement that the camera is the source for the video file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third independent claim covers the server-side application receiving messages from the above process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, the async part refers to uploading to the server using something similar to HTTP Live Streaming protocol, but it can also refer to a node.js server implementation. Not 100% sure. Would appreciate some input from the community on this one. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:&#xD;&#xA;I tried to summarize the first claim, but here's the full text of the claim, as requested:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a handheld computing device that is configured to perform the following on a periodic basis when in an asynchronous streaming mode for a streaming video session:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receive and buffer video data, wherein the buffered video data includes a plurality of contiguous video samples;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; after a predefined amount of contiguous video samples have been buffered, perform the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; assign an index for the predefined amount of contiguous video samples, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; asynchronously transmit that predefined amount of contiguous video samples and the assigned index for that predefined amount of contiguous video samples to a storage subsystem of a broadcast server system, wherein the storage subsystem is located remotely from the handheld computing device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;upon a determination that the predefined amount of contiguous video samples and the corresponding assigned index have been received by the storage subsystem, transmit a notification message to an application server of the broadcast server system that includes the assigned index and indicates that the predefined amount of contiguous video samples is stored on the storage subsystem of the broadcast server, wherein the notification message is configured to cause the application server to fetch the predefined amount of contiguous video samples according to the index included in the notification message and process those video samples for broadcasting to a plurality of client computing devices." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19308" RevisionGUID="8511a383-4867-4d57-9063-705ff3e6c32f" CreationDate="2018-03-20T03:05:14.277" UserId="20859" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="I came across a pair of granted patents that seem rather frivolous, and I'd appreciate some help digging up prior art around them. Priority date on both is April 19, 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US9445150B2/en&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US9178631B2/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They cover Asynchronous live streaming media from a mobile phone; one focuses on video, the other on audio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a summary of the first independent claim (system) from the first patent:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Periodically performs the following:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;1. Receive and buffer a series of contiguous video files. After enough video files have been received:&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;&gt;1. Assign an index for the received video files&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;&gt;2. Transmit the received files &amp; associated index to a remote server for broadcasting&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;2. Next, send a notification containing the index to an application on the broadcast server telling it the index &amp; video files were sent, which causes the application to retrieve the video index &amp; associated files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second independent claim is a method claim that adds a requirement that the camera is the source for the video file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third independent claim covers the server-side application receiving messages from the above process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, the async part refers to uploading to the server using something similar to HTTP Live Streaming protocol, but it can also refer to a node.js server implementation. Not 100% sure. Would appreciate some input from the community on this one. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:&#xD;&#xA;I tried to summarize the first claim, but here's the full text as requested:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a handheld computing device that is configured to perform the following on a periodic basis when in an asynchronous streaming mode for a streaming video session:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receive and buffer video data, wherein the buffered video data includes a plurality of contiguous video samples;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; after a predefined amount of contiguous video samples have been buffered, perform the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; assign an index for the predefined amount of contiguous video samples, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; asynchronously transmit that predefined amount of contiguous video samples and the assigned index for that predefined amount of contiguous video samples to a storage subsystem of a broadcast server system, wherein the storage subsystem is located remotely from the handheld computing device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;upon a determination that the predefined amount of contiguous video samples and the corresponding assigned index have been received by the storage subsystem, transmit a notification message to an application server of the broadcast server system that includes the assigned index and indicates that the predefined amount of contiguous video samples is stored on the storage subsystem of the broadcast server, wherein the notification message is configured to cause the application server to fetch the predefined amount of contiguous video samples according to the index included in the notification message and process those video samples for broadcasting to a plurality of client computing devices." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53018" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19308" RevisionGUID="77f96c54-2002-4abb-9e10-1261272eb775" CreationDate="2018-03-20T04:56:39.950" UserId="20859" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;streaming&gt;&lt;us9445150&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19308" RevisionGUID="531248f2-5aa8-4001-aef8-ac53bbe44930" CreationDate="2018-03-20T05:04:44.050" UserId="20859" Comment="added 557 characters in body" Text="I came across a pair of granted patents that seem rather frivolous, and I'd appreciate some help digging up prior art around them. Priority date on both is April 19, 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US9445150B2/en&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US9178631B2/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They cover Asynchronous live streaming media from a mobile phone; one focuses on video, the other on audio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a summary of the first independent claim (system) from the first patent:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Periodically performs the following:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;1. Receive and buffer a series of contiguous video files. After enough video files have been received:&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;&gt;1. Assign an index for the received video files&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;&gt;2. Transmit the received files &amp; associated index to a remote server for broadcasting&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;2. Next, send a notification containing the index to an application on the broadcast server telling it the index &amp; video files were sent, which causes the application to retrieve the video index &amp; associated files&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second independent claim is a method claim that adds a requirement that the camera is the source for the video file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third independent claim covers the server-side application receiving messages from the above process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, the async part refers to uploading to the server using something similar to HTTP Live Streaming protocol, but it can also refer to a node.js server implementation. Not 100% sure. Would appreciate some input from the community on this one. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:&#xD;&#xA;I tried to summarize the first claim, but here's the full text as requested:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a handheld computing device that is configured to perform the following on a periodic basis when in an asynchronous streaming mode for a streaming video session:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receive and buffer video data, wherein the buffered video data includes a plurality of contiguous video samples;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; after a predefined amount of contiguous video samples have been buffered, perform the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; assign an index for the predefined amount of contiguous video samples, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; asynchronously transmit that predefined amount of contiguous video samples and the assigned index for that predefined amount of contiguous video samples to a storage subsystem of a broadcast server system, wherein the storage subsystem is located remotely from the handheld computing device; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;upon a determination that the predefined amount of contiguous video samples and the corresponding assigned index have been received by the storage subsystem, transmit a notification message to an application server of the broadcast server system that includes the assigned index and indicates that the predefined amount of contiguous video samples is stored on the storage subsystem of the broadcast server, wherein the notification message is configured to cause the application server to fetch the predefined amount of contiguous video samples according to the index included in the notification message and process those video samples for broadcasting to a plurality of client computing devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Potential Prior Art. Please comment if you think any of these SO QAs sufficiently address these patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3444791/streaming-video-from-an-iphone&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11849591/how-can-i-convert-iphone-captured-video-to-http-live-streaming-files&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5719538/realtime-audio-video-streaming-from-iphone-to-another-device-browser-or-iphone&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1960782/upload-live-streaming-video-from-iphone-like-ustream-or-qik" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19313" RevisionGUID="c7d1f6ee-be8f-4abc-bbd2-48e3da8cf5d3" CreationDate="2018-03-20T20:30:43.580" UserId="15503" Text="In that quote, there is a kernel of truth, with a candy-coating of editorializing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The facts**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the [February 2018 USPTO statistics for the PTAB](https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/trial_statistics_20180228.pdf) as an example, the final page shows some stats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Final written decisions:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Instituted claims unpatentable&#xD;&#xA;&gt;No claims: 389 (19%)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Some claims: 323 (16%)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;All claims: 1304 (65%)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So one way to view it is 81% of patents do not hold up when challenged (in that at least one claim is found unpatentable). I think 81% would be regarded as a significant percentage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, we don't know if the quotee meant PTAB, or court, or what. But this at least indicates that the underlying statistics referred to by the quote, on their face, are plausible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The opinion**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The quote itself is very misleading, since it implies that this can be extrapolated across all patents (&quot;in circulation&quot;, whatever that means). While this sounds good, it is almost certainly not the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, there is no way to know what would happen to all cases generally, and anyone professing to know is only speculating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent will generally only be challenged if the challenger has a reasonable expectation of winning. Why throw money away otherwise? So immediately you will see that only weak patents will be in a position to have a decision issued. The non-challenged cases are inherently not analogous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, it could well be that 99% of issued patents would pass through the IPR process unscathed (if this ever occurred), and all the current invalidations relate only to the other 1%. This would be consistent with the statistics too. But you can't get attention by saying &quot;most patents are pretty good, no cause for alarm&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53034" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="7487f3e0-b6e6-41b1-aa0f-17bd8c232fbb" CreationDate="2018-03-21T02:34:29.293" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53035" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17865" RevisionGUID="0eddbdcd-39be-46c7-b67b-94c327590722" CreationDate="2018-03-21T05:34:30.070" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19314" RevisionGUID="dd0bd648-f3ae-4ddf-a470-98d8ddcad677" CreationDate="2018-03-21T06:13:37.733" UserId="3076" Text="The USPTO patent search [site][1] provides an unusually large set of searchable fields. For a project to advise a local city, I have searched with AC/&quot;assignee city&quot; and AACI/&quot;applicant city&quot;.  It also has applicant and assignee state and country. I'm looking for other patent databases, preferably free, that provide  fields like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53037" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19314" RevisionGUID="dd0bd648-f3ae-4ddf-a470-98d8ddcad677" CreationDate="2018-03-21T06:13:37.733" UserId="3076" Text="Search Patents by applicant or assignee city?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53038" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19314" RevisionGUID="dd0bd648-f3ae-4ddf-a470-98d8ddcad677" CreationDate="2018-03-21T06:13:37.733" UserId="3076" Text="&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53039" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="4e5b567f-6b38-4e77-9af3-26995010ca9a" CreationDate="2018-03-21T07:34:33.303" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19315" RevisionGUID="a527d53a-7f2b-40c4-a44e-23520aba0782" CreationDate="2018-03-21T08:45:34.483" UserId="15503" Text="The field search function of [WIPO's Patentscope](https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/structuredSearch.jsf) may help. For example, the search &quot;AAD:(San Jose)&quot; gives any application in which the applicant's address contains the string &quot;San Jose&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this only works for PCT applications. That is, while Patentscope contains some bibliographic data for applications from a whole bunch of countries, it only contains address data for PCT applications, which limits the value a bit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53041" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="42dc9ecd-f980-43ac-8292-31cd118d62bf" CreationDate="2018-03-21T13:34:35.253" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19316" RevisionGUID="874f8137-0e64-4891-ba00-0cf1bb93baee" CreationDate="2018-03-21T14:54:34.103" UserId="20580" Text="In reference to the detailed description for my provisional patent application, I believe my description does not need numerical references back to the drawings. Am I correct in that the numerical references are not required in the provisional patent application but are required in the nonprovisional application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53043" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19316" RevisionGUID="874f8137-0e64-4891-ba00-0cf1bb93baee" CreationDate="2018-03-21T14:54:34.103" UserId="20580" Text="Numerical references in the detailed description of a provisional patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53044" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19316" RevisionGUID="874f8137-0e64-4891-ba00-0cf1bb93baee" CreationDate="2018-03-21T14:54:34.103" UserId="20580" Text="&lt;detailed-description&gt;&lt;numerical-references&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19317" RevisionGUID="67800601-07cd-422c-b5f7-0d2a245c46f8" CreationDate="2018-03-21T16:51:11.783" UserId="20868" Text="I am searching for patents similar to my product. Is performing a search on google patents using CPC adequate to find prioir art?&#xD;&#xA;If i do not find patents similar to my product in the search result, is it safe to assume that there is a high probability of patenting my product? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53046" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19317" RevisionGUID="67800601-07cd-422c-b5f7-0d2a245c46f8" CreationDate="2018-03-21T16:51:11.783" UserId="20868" Text="Is searching by CPC adequate while performing a patent search?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53047" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19317" RevisionGUID="67800601-07cd-422c-b5f7-0d2a245c46f8" CreationDate="2018-03-21T16:51:11.783" UserId="20868" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;search&gt;&lt;cpc&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19318" RevisionGUID="876a3ea1-2bec-4c8b-91f4-5c62535bc48d" CreationDate="2018-03-21T22:20:43.447" UserId="3076" Text="While the &quot;formalities&quot; requirements of a provisional application are low, if you ever need to actually make use of the rights a provisional provides, the content of the provisional will be subject to the same scrutiny as a non-provisional. For example - does it teach someone skilled in the art how to make and use the invention? If lack of reference numbers means that one skilled in the art can't clearly understand what you are disclosing, then the provisional will have failed to do its job. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19319" RevisionGUID="63334b8b-04c4-4c71-8c5e-0e650d1876c1" CreationDate="2018-03-21T22:31:52.800" UserId="3076" Text="As mentioned in a comment, patents and patent publications are not the only sources of prior art. Professional technical journals, magazine articles, books and even youtube videos could contain relevant prior art. Also, CPC is a joint program of the U.S. and the EPO. Patent documents from other locations may not even have a CPC classification. To get a US patent, for example, the claims must be *novel and non-obvious over everything ever published anywhere*. Not just in relation to US patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most DIY patent searches only use keywords where professional searchers tend to use both keywords and classification searches. Only using classification  searching could miss something that is mis-classified and the boundaries between classes can sometimes be obscure or otherwise misunderstood by the searcher. After getting close with these searches, it can then payoff to follow forward and backward citations from the things you found that seem the closest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last, it is almost unheard of to not find things &quot;similar to your product&quot;. If you do not find anything similar, you have most likely not yet done an adequate search." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53050" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="16a3251c-d2e9-4a95-8092-53dde81ee043" CreationDate="2018-03-21T23:41:44.020" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19320" RevisionGUID="a01cc0b4-7b68-4967-bc06-a0d538b7920e" CreationDate="2018-03-22T00:34:22.487" UserId="19913" Text="[As I understand it, claims can be][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **rejected**: the ***substance*** is unallowable under 35 U.S.C. [101][2], [102][3], [103][4] and/or [112][5].&#xD;&#xA;* **objected**: the ***form*** of the claim is improper [37 CFR 75 grouping requirement][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. How many chances does one get to resubmit the corrected claim?&#xD;&#xA;2. Can I perform Q&amp;A with examiner via phone to clarify the issue?&#xD;&#xA;3. Is there a standard example of rejection / objection that is used to teach newbies? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any lessons-learned or avoidable landmines are appreciated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://%20http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/04/02/patent-process-rejections-vs-objections/id=67761/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/101&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/103&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/112&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=46c20d7450ae0f89d9e35d18afaec4c4&amp;mc=true&amp;node=se37.1.1_175&amp;rgn=div8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53052" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19320" RevisionGUID="a01cc0b4-7b68-4967-bc06-a0d538b7920e" CreationDate="2018-03-22T00:34:22.487" UserId="19913" Text="Amendment of objectionable or rejected claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53053" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19320" RevisionGUID="a01cc0b4-7b68-4967-bc06-a0d538b7920e" CreationDate="2018-03-22T00:34:22.487" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53054" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16926" RevisionGUID="59bae650-55e4-4cc6-be5f-8a2884fc58b7" CreationDate="2018-03-22T00:42:42.840" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19321" RevisionGUID="be533b6d-0fda-454b-921d-372a1303c673" CreationDate="2018-03-22T02:47:29.940" UserId="14341" Text="I have filed a US provisional patent application last year.  I filed a US non-provisional and PCT applications within the 12 month limit of the provisional and claimed the provisional as priority. The 12 months limit on claiming the provisional as priority has now passed.   &#xD;&#xA;I won't have the filing fees for the PCT in the set time limits. It looks like my only option is to withdraw the PCT application, and refile the PCT soon after withdrawing... Is there any extension that may allow me to still claim the priority of the provisional claimed in the original PCT filing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53056" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19321" RevisionGUID="be533b6d-0fda-454b-921d-372a1303c673" CreationDate="2018-03-22T02:47:29.940" UserId="14341" Text="Can a PCT application, filed with piority, be withdrawn and refiled, and retain the original, now lapsed, priority?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53057" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19321" RevisionGUID="be533b6d-0fda-454b-921d-372a1303c673" CreationDate="2018-03-22T02:47:29.940" UserId="14341" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;epo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19322" RevisionGUID="7568b290-3a33-4c2d-bc17-f3921b642340" CreationDate="2018-03-22T07:47:03.157" UserId="18033" Text="According to decision  T 1857/07 (2.4.2) of the EPO boards of appeal, a combination of dependent claims (e.g. 2 and 3) that are both/all dependent on the same independent claim but not each other is not disclosed by the claims (and can therefore not be claimed later rule 123(2) unless disclosed otherwise in the description).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;claim 1: xyz&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;claim 2: xyz as in 1 + a&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;claim 3: xyz as in 1 + b&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not disclosed: xyz + a + b.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However [multiple dependencies cost a lot of money in the US][1]. What's the preferred solution to avoid a rule 123(2) when writing a US application so that claiming priority to a the application in Europe doesn't provide grounds for rejection on basis of 123(2) if a combination of the dependent claims needs to be claimed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/19023/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53059" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19322" RevisionGUID="7568b290-3a33-4c2d-bc17-f3921b642340" CreationDate="2018-03-22T07:47:03.157" UserId="18033" Text="Combination of dependent claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53060" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19322" RevisionGUID="7568b290-3a33-4c2d-bc17-f3921b642340" CreationDate="2018-03-22T07:47:03.157" UserId="18033" Text="&lt;european&gt;&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;us&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53061" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19320" RevisionGUID="cddaea55-a6fd-4759-87e1-ed0fb03fa899" CreationDate="2018-03-22T14:40:26.670" UserId="19913" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="[As I understand it, claims can be][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **rejected**: the ***substance*** is unallowable under 35 U.S.C. [101][2], [102][3], [103][4] and/or [112][5].&#xD;&#xA;* **objected**: the ***form*** of the claim is improper [37 CFR 75 grouping requirement][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. How many chances, and under what guise, does one get to resubmit the corrected claim?&#xD;&#xA;2. Can I perform Q&amp;A with the USPTO examiner via phone to clarify the issue?&#xD;&#xA;3. Is there a standard example of rejection / objection that is used to teach newbies? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any lessons-learned or avoidable landmines are appreciated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://%20http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/04/02/patent-process-rejections-vs-objections/id=67761/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/101&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/103&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/112&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=46c20d7450ae0f89d9e35d18afaec4c4&amp;mc=true&amp;node=se37.1.1_175&amp;rgn=div8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19319" RevisionGUID="d572c8e2-1acf-48e7-aa7c-004f6c6f029f" CreationDate="2018-03-22T17:30:35.840" UserId="3076" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="No. As mentioned in a comment, patents and patent publications are not the only sources of prior art. Professional technical journals, magazine articles, books and even youtube videos could contain relevant prior art. Also, CPC is a joint program of the U.S. and the EPO. Patent documents from other locations may not even have a CPC classification. To get a US patent, for example, the claims must be *novel and non-obvious over everything ever published anywhere*. Not just in relation to US patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most DIY patent searches only use keywords where professional searchers tend to use both keywords and classification searches. Only using classification  searching could miss something that is mis-classified and the boundaries between classes can sometimes be obscure or otherwise misunderstood by the searcher. After getting close with these searches, it can then pay off to follow forward and backward citations from the things you found that seem the closest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last, it is almost unheard of to not find things &quot;similar to your product&quot;. If you do not find anything similar, you have most likely not yet done an adequate search." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19324" RevisionGUID="309b6244-f0df-4f81-96fc-b15c6a09afdd" CreationDate="2018-03-22T17:48:29.697" UserId="3076" Text=" Under most circumstances the examiner can make a second rejection a &quot;final rejection&quot;. After a final rejection you can keep the process going by filing an RCE (request for continuing examination) along with your response. While there is no fee to respond in a timely manner to a rejection, there is a fee to file an RCE. A second or subsequent RCE fee is a little higher. Technically there is no limit to the right to file RCE's At one point several years ago a former director of the USPTO tried to make a rule limiting the number of RCE's filed in a case but it was struck down in court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are points in the process were the applicant is entitled to an interview with the examiner and examiners are encouraged to participate in interviews even at points when it is not required. An interview is usually restricted to 30 min. don't expect more than one interview per office action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book &quot;Patent it Yourself&quot; by Pressman can be helpful in learning the basics of drafting a patent application and responding to office actions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19324" RevisionGUID="64b37d14-6cc5-4bdf-91fa-139a401a6ee7" CreationDate="2018-03-23T01:40:37.930" UserId="3076" Comment="added 253 characters in body" Text=" Under most circumstances the examiner can make a second rejection a &quot;final rejection&quot;. After a final rejection you can keep the process going by filing an RCE (request for continuing examination) along with your response. While there is no fee to respond in a timely manner to a rejection, there is a fee to file an RCE. A second or subsequent RCE fee is a little higher. So, generally, for every second rejection there would be an RCE fee. Technically there is no limit to the right to file RCE's. At one point several years ago a former director of the USPTO tried to make a rule limiting the number of RCE's filed in a case but it was struck down in court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are points in the process were the applicant is entitled to an interview with the examiner and examiners are encouraged to participate in interviews even at points when it is not required. An interview is usually restricted to 30 min. and don't expect more than one interview per office action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book &quot;Patent it Yourself&quot; by David Pressman can be helpful in learning the basics of drafting a patent application and responding to office actions. You can also learn by looking at the whole history of the back-and-forth between the applicant and examiner and any patent granted in the last several years at Public PAIR." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53070" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="735735c3-dca2-466f-b5a6-c90280d7153d" CreationDate="2018-03-23T04:45:37.377" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53071" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13870" RevisionGUID="6c4b286e-6b21-4bfb-a5d8-3a4400737ba4" CreationDate="2018-03-23T06:46:57.503" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19326" RevisionGUID="f3e6f090-e409-455a-aeb5-ffe46aa16cab" CreationDate="2018-03-23T13:10:05.020" UserId="14093" Text="[This question][1] explains how authenticators like Google Authenticator and Authy are able to generate one-time passwords without connecting to a server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any patents preventing someone from implementing this in their own app? There is a conspicuous lack of authenticators besides the above two, and that makes me worry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, if there are some patents that a basic implementation would be infringing on (such as possibly [this one][2] from 2014?), how does one go about getting a license on FRAND terms from the patent holders?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/47901/how-does-authys-2fa-work-if-it-doesnt-connect-to-the-server/47902&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20130014237" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53076" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19326" RevisionGUID="f3e6f090-e409-455a-aeb5-ffe46aa16cab" CreationDate="2018-03-23T13:10:05.020" UserId="14093" Text="Is Time-based One Time Password patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53077" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19326" RevisionGUID="f3e6f090-e409-455a-aeb5-ffe46aa16cab" CreationDate="2018-03-23T13:10:05.020" UserId="14093" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;authentication&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19327" RevisionGUID="e93e5083-be95-445e-bfa2-82d39f233b47" CreationDate="2018-03-23T14:13:41.850" UserId="20879" Text="Unfortunately, you won't be able to file a new application and still claim priority to the provisional application now that the 12 month priority period has lapsed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is worth noting that there are methods to pay the PCT filing fees late and keep the current PCT application pending (with priority intact).  Filing fees are due within 1 month of the filing date, but if this deadline is missed then you will be sent an invitation to pay the fees + 50% with a 1 month time limit.  If you miss this time limit, it is still possible to pay the fees and keep the application pending provided that the receiving office receives the fees before it declares the application to be withdrawn.  See point 5.193 here: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/appguide/text.jsp?page=ip05.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53079" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="a6e960d5-3bfc-4627-9c2c-95d15c18c0ca" CreationDate="2018-03-24T02:01:32.747" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53080" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16491" RevisionGUID="fa86ec02-33d3-44a4-9478-72359870a5a6" CreationDate="2018-03-24T04:02:43.933" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53081" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16361" RevisionGUID="733dc8b2-37ad-42fe-ae99-35389f519bcb" CreationDate="2018-03-24T05:02:07.007" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19322" RevisionGUID="b243c325-28bd-4c84-9ae0-f09d6ec1f3f3" CreationDate="2018-03-24T07:24:14.327" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="According to decision  T 1857/07 (2.4.2) of the EPO boards of appeal, a combination of dependent claims (e.g. 2 and 3) that are both/all dependent on the same independent claim but not each other is not disclosed by the claims (and can therefore not be claimed later rule 123(2) unless disclosed otherwise in the description).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;claim 1: xyz&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;claim 2: xyz as in 1 + a&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;claim 3: xyz as in 1 + b&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not disclosed: xyz + a + b.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However [multiple dependencies cost a lot of money in the US][1]. What's an easy solution to avoid a rule 123(2) when writing a US application so that claiming priority to a the application in Europe doesn't provide grounds for rejection on basis of 123(2) if a combination of the dependent claims needs to be claimed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/19023/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53083" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="d1361650-2dc1-4844-aab1-e80a747d5013" CreationDate="2018-03-24T08:02:07.210" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53084" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18734" RevisionGUID="0516b117-095b-4517-8e6b-221e59e8d2ac" CreationDate="2018-03-24T21:02:21.493" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19328" RevisionGUID="ebb64840-01bd-402b-b0c2-a2af0d244fc8" CreationDate="2018-03-25T05:02:02.447" UserId="3076" Text="One option is to file provisional in the US the same day as the nonprovisional with the claims exactly as you plan to have them in rest of the world and use it for priority. Since it is not examined, there are no claims-specific fees. Another approach is to add pseudo claims in the description. I have seen lists of &quot;Aspects of the Invention&quot; written like claims but without the word &quot;claim&quot;. People do it to avoid excess claim fees but have support in the application-as-filed to introduce claims later in prosecution or in corresponding applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53087" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18332" RevisionGUID="2ac2c442-6953-4cd4-b12d-e88c3ab992ed" CreationDate="2018-03-25T16:04:33.370" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53088" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18385" RevisionGUID="dbdd2fc3-25e3-498c-a5dd-5426539237c1" CreationDate="2018-03-25T19:04:33.630" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53089" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18328" RevisionGUID="dcbb8e7b-d51b-445e-b5d3-fbd801ce11d3" CreationDate="2018-03-25T21:04:39.537" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53090" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="f148837b-5cf3-4bfc-b2c6-d13a7edcba64" CreationDate="2018-03-26T00:04:40.517" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53091" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18155" RevisionGUID="1ba539f1-6b07-4b1c-8305-13c49d91108a" CreationDate="2018-03-26T18:09:28.973" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53092" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18414" RevisionGUID="72fdc716-965c-4850-a28c-4d82c482d770" CreationDate="2018-03-26T19:09:29.090" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53093" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18828" RevisionGUID="629c1349-e001-4154-90a3-5a9f78bc3514" CreationDate="2018-03-26T22:09:28.667" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19329" RevisionGUID="7ead841a-c768-4b83-a6a1-9a6da91906e0" CreationDate="2018-03-27T03:05:11.537" UserId="20891" Text="If i have an idea for an app, can I patent it so that no one else executes the idea first while I am still working on it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53095" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19329" RevisionGUID="7ead841a-c768-4b83-a6a1-9a6da91906e0" CreationDate="2018-03-27T03:05:11.537" UserId="20891" Text="Can I patent an idea for an app?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53096" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19329" RevisionGUID="7ead841a-c768-4b83-a6a1-9a6da91906e0" CreationDate="2018-03-27T03:05:11.537" UserId="20891" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19330" RevisionGUID="013995be-e80f-4046-8245-3bbe92efb365" CreationDate="2018-03-27T03:27:29.310" UserId="15503" Text="Sure, as long as it meets the various requirements (such as being patent-eligible subject matter, being novel, being non-obvious, being enabled etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difficulty is that at the idea stage, you may not have enough substance to meet these requirements (especially enablement). Without knowing more, it is impossible to say." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53098" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13731" RevisionGUID="1eb07c7e-bbb9-4d47-b161-fb2c4294c871" CreationDate="2018-03-27T07:12:24.260" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53099" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="0e3d33ea-c7f8-4be7-850d-409fd7fcc632" CreationDate="2018-03-27T18:13:20.423" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53100" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17273" RevisionGUID="869539d1-0773-4547-97b5-60ae50c5c36e" CreationDate="2018-03-28T00:13:20.473" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53102" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18450" RevisionGUID="60ba3183-8a4b-47d2-b5ad-273634626908" CreationDate="2018-03-28T05:14:04.997" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19331" RevisionGUID="d6bec638-0273-4b98-866e-f255b1edce89" CreationDate="2018-03-28T07:34:12.533" UserId="20798" Text="Person A has a patent in India, granted in 2000. A applies for protection in the US in 2005 and gets granted in 2010. Firm B and C were using the patent from 2004 and 2006 respectively to manufacture and sell a product in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. From which year will A be reimbursed given that she has been granted the patent in 2010 in the US?&#xD;&#xA;2.	What will happen if B stops production in 2009?&#xD;&#xA;3.	What will happen in B stops production in 2011?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53104" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19331" RevisionGUID="d6bec638-0273-4b98-866e-f255b1edce89" CreationDate="2018-03-28T07:34:12.533" UserId="20798" Text="Patent infringement issues, damages and royalty settlement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53105" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19331" RevisionGUID="d6bec638-0273-4b98-866e-f255b1edce89" CreationDate="2018-03-28T07:34:12.533" UserId="20798" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;royalty&gt;&lt;retrospective&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19332" RevisionGUID="0c5e81df-6c48-448b-b635-0649ecbb1308" CreationDate="2018-03-28T10:04:47.373" UserId="18033" Text="B will invalidate A's patent with the indian patent as prior art because a priority claim can be made only for 12 months so the US application can't claim priority to the indian application and therefore has 2005 as the filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B could also invalidate A's patent by proving that they had the product in public use prior to the filing date of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B could claim a [&quot;prior use&quot; exception][1] and not pay royalties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, a valid patent can claim royalties for the time between publishing of the application and grant. See for example [here][2]. -&gt; If B infringed only while the patent was still an application (but not before filing), A won't be able to enforce royalties or punishment as high/strong as if B infringed afterwards, but will be able to enforce royalties nonetheless. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, if B stops production before the grant, they will still &quot;be punished&quot; (with royalties) but that should be less than if they infringed a granted patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ip/global/prior_user_rights.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sunsteinlaw.com/media/judithBPLA.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19332" RevisionGUID="772a3a7a-e13a-452e-af73-d02af17c94b2" CreationDate="2018-03-28T10:29:30.897" UserId="18033" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="B will invalidate A's patent with the indian patent as prior art because a priority claim can be made only for 12 months so the US application can't claim priority to the indian application and therefore has 2005 as the filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B could also invalidate A's patent by proving that they had the product in public use prior to the filing date of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B could claim a [&quot;prior use&quot; exception][1] and not pay royalties (pre AIA that's pretty much theoretical).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, a valid patent can claim royalties for the time between publishing of the application and grant. See for example [here][2]. -&gt; If B infringed only while the patent was still an application (but not before filing), A won't be able to enforce royalties or punishment as high/strong as if B infringed afterwards, but will be able to enforce royalties nonetheless. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, if B stops production before the grant, they will still &quot;be punished&quot; (with royalties) but that should be less than if they infringed a granted patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ip/global/prior_user_rights.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sunsteinlaw.com/media/judithBPLA.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19332" RevisionGUID="32611e1e-2d6d-4024-8561-4e04ad53e4a2" CreationDate="2018-03-28T10:42:53.847" UserId="18033" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="B will invalidate A's patent with the indian patent as prior art because a priority claim can be made only for 12 months so the US application can't claim priority to the indian application and therefore has 2005 as the filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B could also invalidate A's patent by proving that they had the product in public use prior to the filing date of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B could claim a [&quot;prior use&quot; exception][1] and not pay royalties (pre AIA that's pretty much theoretical).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, a valid patent can claim royalties for the time between publishing of the application and grant under some circumstances. See for example [here][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This provisional right comes with two &#xD;&#xA;caveat [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The invention as claimed in the &#xD;&#xA;patent must be “substantially identical” to &#xD;&#xA;the patent as claimed in the published patent &#xD;&#xA;application. 35 U.S.C. § 154(d)(2) [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The second caveat concerns notice. The &#xD;&#xA;statute requires the infringer to have &#xD;&#xA;“actual notice” of the published &#xD;&#xA;application. 35 U.S.C. § 154(d)(1)(B).  [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Commentators agree that based on &#xD;&#xA;congressional intent, the courts will &#xD;&#xA;likely require notice from the applicant. &#xD;&#xA;See, e.g., 82 &#xD;&#xA;JPTOS at 748; Patrick J. &#xD;&#xA;Birde, Nicholas J. Nowak, &#xD;&#xA;Analyzing &#xD;&#xA;Provisional Rights for Patent Applicants, 9 &#xD;&#xA;No. 12 Intell. Prop. Strategist 1 (2003); &#xD;&#xA;Terence P. Ross, &#xD;&#xA;Intelectual Property &#xD;&#xA;Law: Damages and &#xD;&#xA;Remedies § &#xD;&#xA;3.08 &#xD;&#xA;(2004); Brian J. Massey, &#xD;&#xA;Reasonable &#xD;&#xA;Royalties for 18 Month Patent Publication &#xD;&#xA;Infringement: &#xD;&#xA;An Unreasonable Remedy for &#xD;&#xA;Smal Businesses, &#xD;&#xA;8 J. Small &amp; Emerging &#xD;&#xA;Bus. L. 87, 103 (2004). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-&gt; If B infringed only while the patent was still an application (but not before filing), A won't be able to enforce royalties or punishment as high/strong as if B infringed afterwards, but will be able to enforce royalties nonetheless. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, if B stops production before the grant, they will still &quot;be punished&quot; (with royalties) but that should be less than if they infringed a granted patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ip/global/prior_user_rights.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sunsteinlaw.com/media/judithBPLA.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53112" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18032" RevisionGUID="ccd4e6cd-ca78-42dc-ae75-50e50816f978" CreationDate="2018-03-29T00:27:14.697" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53113" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17720" RevisionGUID="71881d6e-c704-4002-afa4-1a7a3331ce22" CreationDate="2018-03-29T01:27:14.550" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53114" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="87a9962e-317e-4dfe-aab3-ce973efecb33" CreationDate="2018-03-29T02:27:15.930" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53118" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17881" RevisionGUID="7929d8c3-2e1a-47d1-af53-c0df1a5ef5ed" CreationDate="2018-03-29T14:34:02.153" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19335" RevisionGUID="81d0e6f7-dfe5-44fb-b08b-efa2d6db8920" CreationDate="2018-03-29T16:26:11.667" UserId="13683" Text="After doing a bit of research on the different types of patents that are available, and what it would cost to get patents in multiple countries, it is a mystery to me why anyone would bother with getting specifically and only a United States patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most patents are only good for the specific country where it is issued, and this is the case with US patent. It does nothing to protect you from people using your patented technology in other countries. It only provides defense for the United States.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) provides a way to do a single filing that applies in a huge number of 152 countries (currently) simultaneously:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This then leaves me with the question of why most anyone would bother at all with merely filing a US patent. It seems to have no purpose for general filing, and should only be done in very specific and uncommon conditions.... which I can’t even come up with, if a WIPO multi-country filing can already fulfill those functions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53120" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19335" RevisionGUID="81d0e6f7-dfe5-44fb-b08b-efa2d6db8920" CreationDate="2018-03-29T16:26:11.667" UserId="13683" Text="WIPO patent filing vs US patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53121" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19335" RevisionGUID="81d0e6f7-dfe5-44fb-b08b-efa2d6db8920" CreationDate="2018-03-29T16:26:11.667" UserId="13683" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;wipo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19337" RevisionGUID="a992d89d-cec8-4365-ac59-06f350871905" CreationDate="2018-03-29T18:05:46.617" UserId="20902" Text="and thanks for your assistance.  Is the STATUS DATE listed for an application on Public Pair the date the STATUS action happened or just the date it was last updated?&#xD;&#xA;My confusion lies in an 2007 application (11/811041) where the STATUS is &quot;FINAL REJECTION MAILED&quot; but the status date is December 2017, 10 years later.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering what the real status of the application is.  If the final rejection was truly December 2017, it may well still be live as unlikely as it seems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;Eric" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53124" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19337" RevisionGUID="a992d89d-cec8-4365-ac59-06f350871905" CreationDate="2018-03-29T18:05:46.617" UserId="20902" Text="Public Pair application STATUS DATE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53125" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19337" RevisionGUID="a992d89d-cec8-4365-ac59-06f350871905" CreationDate="2018-03-29T18:05:46.617" UserId="20902" Text="&lt;status&gt;&lt;public&gt;&lt;pair&gt;&lt;date&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53126" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="a1b24172-ada7-4882-ba65-eb77c81c8aaf" CreationDate="2018-03-29T20:34:36.697" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53127" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18540" RevisionGUID="78227f0f-add3-45b5-a552-bc0a01ef91c0" CreationDate="2018-03-29T23:34:36.617" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53131" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18600" RevisionGUID="898a4436-378d-4614-8d00-387731a63d52" CreationDate="2018-03-30T01:34:42.100" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19340" RevisionGUID="e5155db9-66b8-4966-87e2-3599d4d6bb52" CreationDate="2018-03-30T05:34:04.513" UserId="3076" Text="If you look it up in Public PAIR and click on the Image File Wrapper tab, you will see -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 03-27-2018	N/AP	Notice of Appeal Filed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than responding with a RCE/response/amendment to the final rejection, the application has filed for the first steps of an appeal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19337" RevisionGUID="213db858-729e-42fd-afaf-bdf9b64286e1" CreationDate="2018-03-30T05:34:47.367" UserId="3076" Comment="removed &quot;thanks&quot;" Text="and thanks for your assistance.  Is the STATUS DATE listed for an application on Public Pair the date the STATUS action happened or just the date it was last updated?&#xD;&#xA;My confusion lies in an 2007 application (11/811041) where the STATUS is &quot;FINAL REJECTION MAILED&quot; but the status date is December 2017, 10 years later.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering what the real status of the application is.  If the final rejection was truly December 2017, it may well still be live as unlikely as it seems.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19340" RevisionGUID="0e3dc303-862d-490e-919c-97c20feec01e" CreationDate="2018-03-30T05:39:58.830" UserId="3076" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="If you look it up in Public PAIR and click on the Image File Wrapper tab, you will see -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 03-27-2018	N/AP	Notice of Appeal Filed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than responding with a RCE/response/amendment to the final rejection, the application has filed for the first steps of an appeal. Along the way it has had other &quot;final&quot; rejections and also went abandoned briefly in 2010." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19341" RevisionGUID="6f0da8df-0935-43d5-b42b-0ed5d0aa4ca3" CreationDate="2018-03-30T05:53:04.690" UserId="3076" Text="The answer is money. The single WIPO/PCT application (that, itself, costs more than a U.S. application) just starts an application in 140 some countries. To actually proceed in each location costs more in fees and must be separately prosecuted by a patent attorney in each location, under the laws and rules of each location. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The U.S. is a huge percent of the world market for many types of products. If you can control the use, sale, offer for sale, manufacturing, and importing into the U.S. you might be able to make a lot of money in relation to your patenting budget. Of course, many inventors file in one or more other locations besides the U.S. If you plan to file in several foreign places, the WIPO/PCT path can make sense. It is also possible to file in specific countries and regions without the PCT process. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53145" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="3a6a48ec-1d56-476b-9d69-c1937ed695f0" CreationDate="2018-03-30T07:34:42.560" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19342" RevisionGUID="dd5dce8f-218b-42ce-873b-1bda0bef23aa" CreationDate="2018-03-30T07:47:49.670" UserId="20904" Text="how do you know if patent is design or utility, as no marking is mentioned on the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53147" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19342" RevisionGUID="dd5dce8f-218b-42ce-873b-1bda0bef23aa" CreationDate="2018-03-30T07:47:49.670" UserId="20904" Text="how do you know if this patent is design or utility, as no marking is mentioned on the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53148" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19342" RevisionGUID="dd5dce8f-218b-42ce-873b-1bda0bef23aa" CreationDate="2018-03-30T07:47:49.670" UserId="20904" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;utility&gt;&lt;utility-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53149" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="c5a66ceb-49c5-4386-bf90-a356902d56ba" CreationDate="2018-03-30T08:34:42.437" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19343" RevisionGUID="0f992ea1-ad00-4dfa-bc51-1a62586ffe02" CreationDate="2018-03-30T08:57:15.720" UserId="20904" Text="Am I infringing the patent in this case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/USD747895S1/en?oq=award+medal+rack&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZWoDg.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XUKEx.jpg**strong text**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53151" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19343" RevisionGUID="0f992ea1-ad00-4dfa-bc51-1a62586ffe02" CreationDate="2018-03-30T08:57:15.720" UserId="20904" Text="Am i infringing on this existing patent? i have build something based on existing patent ( improved)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53152" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19343" RevisionGUID="0f992ea1-ad00-4dfa-bc51-1a62586ffe02" CreationDate="2018-03-30T08:57:15.720" UserId="20904" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;utility-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19344" RevisionGUID="5301ca54-c686-4d8d-a519-277ed9d34eeb" CreationDate="2018-03-30T09:44:50.120" UserId="18033" Text="The PCT application is not an application for a 'world patent'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But some basics first. If you file a patent application in any PCT-country, you have 12 months to file other applications in (the same or) other PCT-countries claiming priority to the first application. You can do that in each country without the PCT application. However, this way you need to pay for all the translations and attorney fees in the different countries upfront and need to organize all that in 12 months, possibly before even having a report on patentability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The PCT-application allows you to defer the filing in the other countries to 30 months (with some exceptions where its 20 months or 31 etc.). The PCT-application is basically a prolongation of the 12 months. At the end of the 30 months (12 + 18 not 12 + 30) you need to file (enter the national phase) in each designated country separately. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, the PCT application is a way to pay less money upfront, get an international search report and maybe more business information, before filing in the countries. All in all, you do pay **more** money this way if you decide to file in the same countries. But you pay the big chunk (translation costs) later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our clients for example mostly wait for the german search report (which often issues in about 11 months) before going PCT and then for the international search report before deciding if they want to nationalize and where." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19345" RevisionGUID="0cbbbf8e-63de-4f4f-aeba-2bf8fba10555" CreationDate="2018-03-30T14:24:14.980" UserId="17003" Text="The cited patent is a design patent. It covers the ornamental design of a functional object. Your question isn't very clear in that I'm not sure what is being communicated by the second link. Is that your product? In any case, with design patents, the question is whether your product looks like what is described in the patent's drawings. I'm not a lawyer and even if I was one, you really shouldn't rely on the internet for legal opinions. I would suggest getting a freedom to operate opinion from a patent attorney. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19345" RevisionGUID="5ea5c3af-7abe-432f-a76d-0d0fda19b0ad" CreationDate="2018-03-30T14:32:01.637" UserId="17003" Comment="added 291 characters in body" Text="The cited patent is a design patent. It covers the ornamental design of a functional object. Your question isn't very clear in that I'm not sure what is being communicated by the second link. Is that your product? In any case, with design patents, the question is whether your product looks like what is described in the patent's drawings. I'm not a lawyer and even if I was one, you really shouldn't rely on the internet for legal opinions. I would suggest getting a freedom to operate opinion from a patent attorney. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, it is important to note that this is only a single design patent. There is the potential for other relevant patents to exist. A good start would be to review the patents cited in the linked patent. If you see something close there then look at that documents citations, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19347" RevisionGUID="9b5ccedf-6f24-4af3-9674-3ea24529f4d6" CreationDate="2018-03-30T21:13:20.327" UserId="15489" Text="If I'm filing a patent application with one or more co-inventors, and I'm going to be the one prosecuting it pro se, the rest of the inventors need to fill in an aia0081 form to assign power of attorney to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I need to file an aia0081 form for myself as well, ceding power of attorney to myself? Logically, I'd think the answer is &quot;no&quot;, but logic doesn't always give you the right answer when it comes to the law." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53162" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19347" RevisionGUID="9b5ccedf-6f24-4af3-9674-3ea24529f4d6" CreationDate="2018-03-30T21:13:20.327" UserId="15489" Text="Do all inventors need to fill in an aia0081 to nominate a single inventor as having power of attorney?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53163" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19347" RevisionGUID="9b5ccedf-6f24-4af3-9674-3ea24529f4d6" CreationDate="2018-03-30T21:13:20.327" UserId="15489" Text="&lt;pro-se&gt;&lt;aia0081&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19345" RevisionGUID="5978f1e4-2132-4086-af2c-1d7fa8349c1b" CreationDate="2018-03-30T21:34:58.563" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The cited patent is a design patent. It covers the ornamental design of a functional object. Your question isn't very clear in that I'm not sure what is being communicated by the second link. Is that your product? In any case, with design patents, the question is whether your product looks like what is described in the patent's drawings. I'm not a lawyer and even if I was one, you really shouldn't rely on the internet for legal opinions. I would suggest getting a freedom to operate opinion from a patent attorney. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, it is important to note that this is only a single design patent. There is the potential for other relevant patents to exist. A good start would be to review the patents cited in the linked patent. If you see something close there then look at that document's citations, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19348" RevisionGUID="23df16ea-bc5e-4e28-a5fa-29c48e05e281" CreationDate="2018-03-30T22:56:59.453" UserId="3076" Text="It seems logical to assume that you would be ok with yourself having power of attorney but when it comes to the USPTO I would be safe and sign it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--George&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/forms/guid_aia-poa.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53166" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16606" RevisionGUID="a969b84c-bebd-41ed-a4e7-a38e2cf79b6d" CreationDate="2018-03-31T05:40:50.643" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53167" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18181" RevisionGUID="ade048e2-e320-4f30-bc91-9731ee0bf612" CreationDate="2018-03-31T06:41:19.213" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53168" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="9e32b415-66e5-4d4d-9db8-7ceba0b70001" CreationDate="2018-03-31T07:41:20.153" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53169" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="e3149a20-1fcf-49fe-9c39-e51f595c0d7e" CreationDate="2018-03-31T08:41:20.200" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19349" RevisionGUID="f416c4ef-b677-46cf-967c-63e078639621" CreationDate="2018-03-31T08:57:00.470" UserId="20908" Text="I wish to patent an animal footstool featuring a secret storage compartment it would look identical on the outside to an existing one already on the market without any storage within. The existing one has never had a Patent applied for but relies on its IP. Would my addition of the secret storage be sufficient to render it different enough as an improvement to design to be accepted for a Patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you Peter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53171" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19349" RevisionGUID="f416c4ef-b677-46cf-967c-63e078639621" CreationDate="2018-03-31T08:57:00.470" UserId="20908" Text="animal footstool storage" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53172" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19349" RevisionGUID="f416c4ef-b677-46cf-967c-63e078639621" CreationDate="2018-03-31T08:57:00.470" UserId="20908" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;prior&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19350" RevisionGUID="98b281c6-1337-48cb-9ff3-626c4e2e6eda" CreationDate="2018-03-31T11:13:51.643" UserId="18814" Text="I need to file around 5 patents. Patent A, B, C, D and E&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent A is the core invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent B, C, D and E are derivative patents and it depends on the Patent A invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no problem in filing patent A. I'm confused about patent B, C, D and E. Do I have to duplicate Patent A content in B, C, D and E?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record I'm talking about provisional application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53174" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19350" RevisionGUID="98b281c6-1337-48cb-9ff3-626c4e2e6eda" CreationDate="2018-03-31T11:13:51.643" UserId="18814" Text="How to create multiple patents from core patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53175" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19350" RevisionGUID="98b281c6-1337-48cb-9ff3-626c4e2e6eda" CreationDate="2018-03-31T11:13:51.643" UserId="18814" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;multiple-parts&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19351" RevisionGUID="b7aebedf-1520-4974-844b-c33a1eef5291" CreationDate="2018-03-31T14:45:45.500" UserId="17003" Text="Like most questions with patents, the answer is &quot;it depends&quot;. To know if an idea is patentable over prior art one needs carefully consider both the idea and the prior art. You can't divulge the invention here without potentially poisoning the ability to obtain a patent so we can't give you a definitive answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be patented, your invention needs to be novel, non-obvious and useful. There are other questions on this site which deal with patentability so I encourage you to read them. Prior art is not limited to what is found in patents. You make the statement: &quot;The existing one has never had a Patent applied for but relies on its IP.&quot; Since there isn't a patent, it isn't clear what IP you are referring to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My advice is to do as thorough a prior art search as you can yourself using Google, [Google Patents][1], or [The Lens][2]. When you find similar ideas in patents, follow the cited patents links to find other relevant art. Lastly, you should consult with a qualified patent attorney or agent to get a patentability assessment. It is my opinion, as an inventor, that an patent attorney or agent is well worth the expense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53177" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16569" RevisionGUID="25352b08-848a-46c1-9e1a-e0c2f7f3d77f" CreationDate="2018-03-31T15:41:22.560" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53178" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="45d34c9d-344d-4f2b-8506-914956bff81a" CreationDate="2018-03-31T16:41:25.680" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53179" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="419c3f90-2286-475b-aa99-0c30488be159" CreationDate="2018-03-31T17:41:22.610" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19352" RevisionGUID="31fa6ac8-fbf1-43fd-ae26-c06f8c298481" CreationDate="2018-03-31T18:38:20.463" UserId="19913" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, there would be a .dot files (for provisional / non-provisional patent applications) that would take care of [formatting details per the USPTO spec][1].  In addition would be helpful if the .dot template included the outline for the document: prompting inventors with specific questions to advance a draft as far as possible so that it can be handed off to a patent attorney or agent.   A superior .dot would incorporate advance word-processing features such as auto-numbering of paragraphs and references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am interested in understanding:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Is there a USPTO preferred ['style' in the MS-Word sense][2] for patent applications?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Are there good .dot templates (provisional / non provisional) templates that meet the description above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Links to good .doc patent application or .dot template is appreciated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/nonprovisional-utility-patent#heading-4&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://shaunakelly.com/word/styles/stylesms.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53181" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19352" RevisionGUID="31fa6ac8-fbf1-43fd-ae26-c06f8c298481" CreationDate="2018-03-31T18:38:20.463" UserId="19913" Text="Application .dot templates for PPA and Non-Provisionals Patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53182" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19352" RevisionGUID="31fa6ac8-fbf1-43fd-ae26-c06f8c298481" CreationDate="2018-03-31T18:38:20.463" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53183" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19110" RevisionGUID="6b076f80-a3ea-401e-9cc5-255fcd752481" CreationDate="2018-04-01T00:41:33.513" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53184" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18185" RevisionGUID="3e2baced-6882-4613-8b5d-d37fa9fcc80c" CreationDate="2018-04-01T01:41:33.367" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53185" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16450" RevisionGUID="69fc51e7-6fc8-48a7-92a5-1a85a691ee8e" CreationDate="2018-04-01T02:41:33.547" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53187" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16771" RevisionGUID="a3cb514a-6b4b-4967-a1b4-7d51499fbcc1" CreationDate="2018-04-01T03:41:33.400" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53188" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="40de3d9d-f793-409b-b077-575e2dbbc3bb" CreationDate="2018-04-01T04:41:40.043" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19353" RevisionGUID="9cc238c8-1478-40cd-8b33-936f00a0988b" CreationDate="2018-04-01T04:47:03.167" UserId="15666" Text="Is there a government supplement that offsets the cost of obtaining a patient for low income families? What countries have the cheapest patient funding and is homered internationally?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53190" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19353" RevisionGUID="9cc238c8-1478-40cd-8b33-936f00a0988b" CreationDate="2018-04-01T04:47:03.167" UserId="15666" Text="Obama Patent for low income?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53191" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19353" RevisionGUID="9cc238c8-1478-40cd-8b33-936f00a0988b" CreationDate="2018-04-01T04:47:03.167" UserId="15666" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;utility&gt;&lt;cost&gt;&lt;goverment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53192" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17909" RevisionGUID="8aa8baee-9a70-4080-98e8-549768e163ce" CreationDate="2018-04-01T06:42:38.147" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19354" RevisionGUID="378df805-8f26-4df0-963f-8973a26eb51b" CreationDate="2018-04-01T06:54:55.393" UserId="15503" Text="You should duplicate the description of A in each of the others. This ensures that every patent application has a complete description. If your invention relies on A, but you don't describe A (and it's not something common in the art), then you would not be enabling your invention. If you have not enabled your invention in a provisional application/priority document, there is an argument that you would not have a valid priority claim. Better to avoid this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, while the US allows you to incorporate another document by reference (that is, you simply refer to it in the description), this technique does not fly in other countries (notably Europe). So if you want international protection, you should duplicate the description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an alternative however, you can file a single patent application which describes (and at the non-provisional/Convention stage, claims) all the inventions. You will receive a restriction requirement (in the US) or a unity objection (elsewhere) when you file a non-provisional/foreign application. You would then have to narrow your claims to one of the inventions, and file divisional applications to the others. This defers the costs of filing all the applications by a couple of years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53194" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="dbb3500e-15f1-4a1b-a2b3-e581d02ea638" CreationDate="2018-04-01T13:49:30.793" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53195" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="62582bd7-2831-4b76-98cc-e268c66c3007" CreationDate="2018-04-01T14:49:30.680" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19353" RevisionGUID="5ad21531-885d-4cad-a3ff-c1857d02687e" CreationDate="2018-04-01T16:54:26.570" UserId="15666" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Is there a government supplement that offsets the cost of obtaining a patient for low income families?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19355" RevisionGUID="a885ae4c-28ca-4fc2-a595-d9934024506b" CreationDate="2018-04-01T17:04:55.267" UserId="15666" Text="I have 100s of inventions on paper in short hand. I have improvements on the rubber glove to improvements on the electric generator. I do not know how to pick a winner and go with that one first? Should I go with the cheapest to make first?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53198" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19355" RevisionGUID="a885ae4c-28ca-4fc2-a595-d9934024506b" CreationDate="2018-04-01T17:04:55.267" UserId="15666" Text="How to tell which idea to patent first?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53199" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19355" RevisionGUID="a885ae4c-28ca-4fc2-a595-d9934024506b" CreationDate="2018-04-01T17:04:55.267" UserId="15666" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;process&gt;&lt;examination&gt;&lt;cost&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53200" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16544" RevisionGUID="379f3004-ed8f-4ba0-88e8-9cbb4cee1f6a" CreationDate="2018-04-01T17:49:30.713" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53201" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14883" RevisionGUID="864f11a1-0269-4a3e-ac4a-05a52913045f" CreationDate="2018-04-01T18:49:32.960" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19356" RevisionGUID="a843d338-a596-4bdf-be29-bf422244fcc9" CreationDate="2018-04-01T21:45:37.723" UserId="15503" Text="Consider what, if patented, would really bring you commercial value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're never going to actually make and sell the patented device, then what's the point of applying for a patent? For example, are you really going to make and sell an electric generator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exception is if you want to be a non-practising entity. You can then sell your patented improvement to others, or sue others when they independently implement it. The former is very rare (except perhaps in pharmaceuticals and telecommunications). The latter is somewhat more common, but depends on whether you want a livelihood built on shaking down legitimate businesses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, consider why you want a patent at all. If you haven't commercialised any of your ideas already, then perhaps a lack of a patent isn't the underlying issue. A business without a patent is better than no business with a patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19357" RevisionGUID="a1288928-d4de-472b-af98-16df25d0fb3d" CreationDate="2018-04-01T21:58:18.343" UserId="15503" Text="Sort of, but only in the US (as far as I know).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can file an application with micro entity status, which means most of the official fees are 75% less than the usual rate. This has some pretty strict requirements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- No inventor/applicant is named on more than four previously filed applications.&#xD;&#xA;- No inventor/application has a gross income more than three times the median household income preceding the year in which the fee is paid.&#xD;&#xA;- No inventor/applicant has an obligation too assign a licence or ownership to someone who wouldn't meet the gross income test above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If any of these change over time, you have to update your status. If you wrongly claim micro-entity status, your patent can be invalid. So it's a pretty big deal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19353" RevisionGUID="479ee35b-2745-4830-aa0d-78be1e3ac13f" CreationDate="2018-04-01T21:59:09.683" UserId="15503" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Is there a government supplement that offsets the cost of obtaining a patent for low income families?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53205" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19353" RevisionGUID="479ee35b-2745-4830-aa0d-78be1e3ac13f" CreationDate="2018-04-01T21:59:09.683" UserId="15503" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Is there a cheaper patent for low income applicants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53206" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="19355" RevisionGUID="169bc4d7-9158-4aae-9f05-7d7570cac0b4" CreationDate="2018-04-01T22:19:19.907" UserId="1" Comment="105" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="53207" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19355" RevisionGUID="93c135c8-ca59-454e-a668-167a70f15df5" CreationDate="2018-04-01T22:19:32.283" UserId="1" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;cost&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53208" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17751" RevisionGUID="324ee260-d3ba-4bed-a020-7d9b8bf20e53" CreationDate="2018-04-02T01:49:33.990" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19358" RevisionGUID="e765f9d7-5a4a-4c14-b48b-4e96c15aa768" CreationDate="2018-04-02T20:20:11.880" UserId="20913" Text="My Chinese patent is good for another 5 years. Can i apply for US patent in the meantime if i plan to sell the product in the US?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53210" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19358" RevisionGUID="e765f9d7-5a4a-4c14-b48b-4e96c15aa768" CreationDate="2018-04-02T20:20:11.880" UserId="20913" Text="If I have a patent in china, can I also apply for a US patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53211" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19358" RevisionGUID="e765f9d7-5a4a-4c14-b48b-4e96c15aa768" CreationDate="2018-04-02T20:20:11.880" UserId="20913" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;us&gt;&lt;utility-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53212" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="d90356f4-7c3a-4ecd-9856-b3327167f327" CreationDate="2018-04-02T21:51:50.857" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19360" RevisionGUID="c24d30da-468d-4263-b805-9d5078a33c97" CreationDate="2018-04-02T23:49:54.270" UserId="15503" Text="If you have 5 years left, that implies that the application date of your Chinese patent was 15 years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that case, you are too late to obtain another patent for the same invention in another country. This needs to be done within 12 months of the first filing date (the priority date if priority is claimed, the filing date otherwise)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19362" RevisionGUID="0aff3e74-5d0a-4b89-8203-a06d3e6100c7" CreationDate="2018-04-03T01:13:06.383" UserId="15666" Text="I have design improvement to the rubber glove for restaurants that work with gloves in front of the customer. It will reduce the cost significantly on production and material. Can I make it in the public domain and start production right away less then the cost of patenting etc.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53220" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19362" RevisionGUID="0aff3e74-5d0a-4b89-8203-a06d3e6100c7" CreationDate="2018-04-03T01:13:06.383" UserId="15666" Text="Can an improvement be made on a patent and then made in the public domain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53221" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19362" RevisionGUID="0aff3e74-5d0a-4b89-8203-a06d3e6100c7" CreationDate="2018-04-03T01:13:06.383" UserId="15666" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;process&gt;&lt;utility&gt;&lt;cost&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53226" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18655" RevisionGUID="838fd085-44bd-4c3a-bb61-37b5db8df665" CreationDate="2018-04-03T06:57:48.690" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19363" RevisionGUID="bb7528fe-0129-44e6-98a1-b391cdf31307" CreationDate="2018-04-03T14:27:25.713" UserId="17003" Text="You question is a bit confusing, but I'll try to answer my interpretation. If you make an improvement to an existing patented device, you could potentially obtain a patent on the improvement, but if the existing patent has yet to expire, you can not produce the product without obtaining a license. For any manufacturer, it is a good idea to perform a freedom-to-operate search to assure yourself that no relevant active patents exist. If there are no active patents, then you can go ahead and produce the improved product without a patent, but then nothing stops your competitors from copying your improvement and selling functionally identical products. In some cases, the improvement might be in the manufacturing process and not obvious in the product sold. In that case, a very common tactic is to keep the improvement as a trade secret. In any case I'm not sure what you mean with the term pubic domain. Selling a product counts as public disclosure and should preempt anyone else from being able to patent the improvement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19364" RevisionGUID="8db3ece3-f822-45ff-8258-3d0839c14472" CreationDate="2018-04-03T14:56:28.107" UserId="20916" Text="Nope. Can't patent game mechanics. Or, you can, but you'd be wasting your money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.wiltgren.com/game-design/ip-law-dummies-game-designers/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19363" RevisionGUID="cc91530f-58c0-4bf5-a364-eb10e941b5b4" CreationDate="2018-04-03T18:01:14.783" UserId="18033" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="You question is a bit confusing, but I'll try to answer my interpretation. If you make an improvement to an existing patented device, you could potentially obtain a patent on the improvement, but if the existing patent has yet to expire, you can not produce the product without obtaining a license. For any manufacturer, it is a good idea to perform a freedom-to-operate search to assure yourself that no relevant active patents exist. If there are no active patents, then you can go ahead and produce the improved product without a patent, but then nothing stops your competitors from copying your improvement and selling functionally identical products. In some cases, the improvement might be in the manufacturing process and not obvious in the product sold. In that case, a very common tactic is to keep the improvement as a trade secret. In any case I'm not sure what you mean with the term public domain. Selling a product counts as public disclosure and should preempt anyone else from being able to patent the improvement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19363" RevisionGUID="efed6126-d442-46d1-9658-aa8fda7dbe53" CreationDate="2018-04-03T21:27:01.367" UserId="3076" Comment="added parenthetical" Text="You question is a bit confusing, but I'll try to answer my interpretation. If you make an improvement to an existing patented device, you could potentially obtain a patent on the improvement, but if the existing patent has yet to expire, you can not produce the product without obtaining a license (assuming your product is covered by its claims). For any manufacturer, it is a good idea to perform a freedom-to-operate search to assure yourself that no relevant active patents exist. If there are no active patents, then you can go ahead and produce the improved product without a patent, but then nothing stops your competitors from copying your improvement and selling functionally identical products. In some cases, the improvement might be in the manufacturing process and not obvious in the product sold. In that case, a very common tactic is to keep the improvement as a trade secret. In any case I'm not sure what you mean with the term public domain. Selling a product counts as public disclosure and should preempt anyone else from being able to patent the improvement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53231" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18522" RevisionGUID="89d6a9d4-e680-4cd1-9cda-e38ab60ee635" CreationDate="2018-04-03T21:58:40.787" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53232" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14767" RevisionGUID="1b927d83-7765-4094-88b0-e90b58ffd308" CreationDate="2018-04-04T00:58:43.847" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53233" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17769" RevisionGUID="21ebdfdb-7e28-4478-8c38-31d258a12084" CreationDate="2018-04-04T01:58:44.533" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19365" RevisionGUID="5190e1d0-36f9-4655-a3d2-946c403b32ad" CreationDate="2018-04-04T02:35:08.233" UserId="20919" Text="I filed a provisional patent application &quot;PPA&quot; on January 1st, 2017 with the USPTO.  Then I missed the 12 month deadline to file in the PCT to preserve my international rights in those participating jurisdictions (I did file timely with the USPTO, but have not paid the fees yet, so could abandon that application, along with the priority date of the PPA, if necessary).  Then I missed the two month grace period.  Ugh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My IP has great value in both the U.S. and international markets (estimated value added of about $2B/year.  No, that's not a typo.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I now file in the PCT, I obviously do not get the priority date of the PPA.  Here's the big question: Does the PPA, or the Non-Provisional Patent Application in the USPTO, count as prior art against me in PCT countries for novelty purposes?  I think (emphasize &quot;think&quot;) that since neither has been published it doesn't count.  My patent attorney (who admittedly has done very little outside the U.S.) says he thinks the PCT countries may count the priority date as the published date for novelty purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is if you can understand what I'm trying to say above, you're probably qualified to answer the question, and I'll be eternally grateful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a follow up question: Assuming that the answer is not a favorable one, is there any way to move the priority date of a PPA forward (akin to moving a golf ball &quot;no nearer the hole&quot;, so that I lose some priority over the art for patentability purposes, but gain the benefit of filing a timely application in the PCT?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53235" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19365" RevisionGUID="5190e1d0-36f9-4655-a3d2-946c403b32ad" CreationDate="2018-04-04T02:35:08.233" UserId="20919" Text="publish date vs priority date in pct countries for novelty purposes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53236" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19365" RevisionGUID="5190e1d0-36f9-4655-a3d2-946c403b32ad" CreationDate="2018-04-04T02:35:08.233" UserId="20919" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53237" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17768" RevisionGUID="aa986889-2362-42cd-a7f0-674b4542dcce" CreationDate="2018-04-04T02:58:45.103" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19368" RevisionGUID="6dc6b9df-b60f-4d01-bee4-eb8c0e68d6d6" CreationDate="2018-04-04T06:23:50.257" UserId="18033" Text="There are a few ways. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For one, US design patents have a USD number, for example USD543181: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/USD543181S1/en?oq=USD543181&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In google it also says &quot;US Design Grant&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [USPTO page][1] is a little harder, though &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;CLAIM The ornamental design for a folder-type cellular phone with digital camera, as shown and described.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in combination with only figures and no description is a good hint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or if you look at the [pdf][2], it says &quot;United States Design Patent&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While [your example][3] does not say so and that's how you know it's a &quot;normal&quot; patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PALL&amp;RefSrch=yes&amp;Query=PN/D543181&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=D0543181&amp;homeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect2%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526d%3DPALL%2526S1%3DD543181.PN.%2526OS%3DPN%2FD543181%2526RS%3DPN%2FD543181&amp;PageNum=&amp;Rtype=&amp;SectionNum=&amp;idkey=NONE&amp;Input=View%20first%20page&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/d1/56/02/b74a96bfb0de03/US20150090676A1.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19370" RevisionGUID="2fb0589f-04fa-4a57-a85d-4731511ec1bd" CreationDate="2018-04-04T07:43:13.387" UserId="15503" Text="In every country, prior art must be published (that is, available to the public). An expired provisional patent application which has not been used for priority is not available to the public: that is, even a motivated member of the public could not obtain a copy. Therefore it is not prior art, and you are correct in your thinking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some countries, and in limited circumstances, a pending application can also be prior art as of its application date. However, this does not apply to a provisional patent application. The answer may well be different if an application were already filed in other countries however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, while I'm generally a little hesitant to disparage other members of the profession, that should probably be the last time you get advice from your current patent attorney: if they lack such fundamental knowledge, they are not an adequate representative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a next step, you should probably file your PCT ASAP without any priority claims. As long as you have a pending non-provisional in the US, you wouldn't be able to have a valid priority claim, so there's little point waiting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19269" RevisionGUID="8f0af5c5-dfef-4fae-8b55-abbf58659330" CreationDate="2018-04-04T08:51:56.167" UserId="17325" Comment="Provide examples in addition to the links." Text="The phrase &quot;second use claim&quot; and the swiss style format allow me to assume you are Europe-based.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't mention if it is a second **medical** use claim or not. If it is a second medical use claim, the (new) style accepted at the EPO is demonstrated in the Guidelines:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_vi_7_1.htm&#xD;&#xA;and boils down to the following format:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Product X for use as a medicament&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can get even more specific. So if X is known generally as a medicament, but not e.g. for cancer, you can still get a claim like &quot;Product X for use in the treatment of cancer&quot; if it is novel &amp; inventive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is a non medical use, it might be more difficult to get a patent for it or even phrase it in a way that has decent chances of leading to grant. This is because prior art usually discloses something in a form that inherently comprises the use you are trying to claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my field (organic chemistry), it is not that unusual to claim something like &quot;Use of compound X as an intermediate in the synthesis of...&quot;. It is not very easy to get such claims, because it is hard to get an inventive step, but depeneds on the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For simple use claims, every case is different. Take a look here for that matter: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2016/e/clr_i_c_8_1.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and here for the claim style:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_vi_7_2.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19370" RevisionGUID="8d543eaf-10e3-4e63-b8c7-7a1ca4dd6eb0" CreationDate="2018-04-04T08:58:29.193" UserId="15503" Comment="added 359 characters in body" Text="In every country, prior art must be published (that is, available to the public). An expired provisional patent application which has not been used for priority is not available to the public: that is, even a motivated member of the public could not obtain a copy. Therefore it is not prior art, and you are correct in your thinking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, while I'm generally a little hesitant to disparage other members of the profession, that should probably be the last time you get advice from your current patent attorney: if they lack such fundamental knowledge, they are not an adequate representative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a next step, you should get a reputable attorney to check the status of your PCT application: there's an off chance it might be recovered. Otherwise, you should probably file a new PCT ASAP without any priority claims. This is particularly important before your US non-provisional publishes (around 18 months from the filing date of the provisional). As long as you have a pending non-provisional in the US, you wouldn't be able to have a valid priority claim*, so there's little point waiting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, I'm fairly sure it is possible to file a Convention application in some countries directly (that is, skipping the PCT stage), and validly claim priority to the non-provisional slightly after the 12 month Convention period. You would likely have an extra fee for claiming late priority though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* Because the non-provisional was presumably filed claiming priority to the provisional application, the non-provisional is not the first-filed application for the invention. It can therefore never be used for priority outside the US (including for a PCT application), and there's no way to retrospectively cure this. If you abandoned the US non-provisional, you could then file a new application which is later usable for priority outside the US, but then you lose a LOT of priority time in the US.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53252" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="1823a7de-1fd2-490e-998a-a1fd0f1dfbd1" CreationDate="2018-04-04T11:59:21.803" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19365" RevisionGUID="520c18e5-fdff-4dbe-b94b-aca2f7a1aa1e" CreationDate="2018-04-04T15:37:04.903" UserId="20919" Comment="corrected grammar, content, explained misunderstood statements better, dropped irrelevant statements" Text="I filed a provisional patent application &quot;PPA&quot; on January 1st, 2017 with the USPTO.  Then I missed the 12 month deadline to file in the PCT to preserve my international rights in those participating jurisdictions.  I did file a timely non-provisional application with the USPTO, but I have a few more weeks to pay the fees, so I could abandon that application if necessary, but would lose the priority date of the PPA.  Then I missed the two month grace period.  Ugh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My IP has great value in both the U.S. and international markets, more than enough to justify the very large international fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need to file in the PCT, and I obviously do not get the priority date of the PPA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But here's the big question: For novelty purposes, does either the PPA, or the Non-Provisional Patent Application in the USPTO, count as prior art against me in PCT countries?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a reference in the European Patent Office rules (Article 54-3) that suggests only a European patent application would be &quot;backdated&quot; to it's priority date (there is notably no mention of applications in other jurisdictions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the USPTO application DOES count against novelty as of it's priority date, then I must abandon the priority date afforded by the PPA.  I'm assuming (maybe I shouldn't) that I can still amend the non-provisional application to forgo the PPA priority date, and still keep the priority date of the non-provisional?  If so, then I think (again, &quot;think&quot;) I have 12 months from that date to file in the PCT?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, if the PCT countries determine novelty based on the publication date of applications in countries other than their own (in this case a U.S. application in any other PCT country), rather than the PRIORITY DATE of those applications, then I should keep the USPTO priority date of the PPA and file in the PCT asap?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a follow up question: Assuming that the answer is not a favorable one, is there any way to move the priority date of a PPA forward (akin to moving a golf ball &quot;no nearer the hole&quot;, so that I lose some priority over the art for patentability purposes, but gain the benefit of filing a timely application in the PCT?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19371" RevisionGUID="66b01e46-ace0-461d-bcc8-825b057fee1d" CreationDate="2018-04-04T15:45:41.793" UserId="20926" Text="My name is Diego Camilo Peña Ramírez, i'm employee in the patent office in Colombia and we are looking for information about patentability in electronic circuits, more specifically about the distribution of the components inside the circuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if There are literature, lawsuits, examples, laws or something about the topic, we are still building the regulation and we are taking USA law as reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53257" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19371" RevisionGUID="66b01e46-ace0-461d-bcc8-825b057fee1d" CreationDate="2018-04-04T15:45:41.793" UserId="20926" Text="Are an electronic circuit/schematics patentable there are lawsuits or literature about?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53258" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19371" RevisionGUID="66b01e46-ace0-461d-bcc8-825b057fee1d" CreationDate="2018-04-04T15:45:41.793" UserId="20926" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;lawsuit&gt;&lt;communications-electrical&gt;&lt;electronics&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53259" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19229" RevisionGUID="3f8c9e6d-a98a-4e67-bba3-aa6294e1b26f" CreationDate="2018-04-04T20:03:14.987" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19370" RevisionGUID="5b0e0283-eee3-4ee2-962d-0b7dde6266ac" CreationDate="2018-04-04T20:18:30.660" UserId="15503" Comment="Delete reference to the already-filed PCT application that I invented" Text="In every country, prior art must be published (that is, available to the public). An expired provisional patent application which has not been used for priority is not available to the public: that is, even a motivated member of the public could not obtain a copy. Therefore it is not prior art, and you are correct in your thinking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, while I'm generally a little hesitant to disparage other members of the profession, that should probably be the last time you get advice from your current patent attorney: if they lack such fundamental knowledge, they are not an adequate representative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a next step, you should probably file a new PCT ASAP without any priority claims. This is particularly important before your US non-provisional publishes (around 18 months from the filing date of the provisional). As long as you have a pending non-provisional in the US, you wouldn't be able to have a valid priority claim*, so there's little point waiting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, I'm fairly sure it is possible to file a Convention application in some countries directly (that is, skipping the PCT stage), and validly claim priority to the non-provisional slightly after the 12 month Convention period. You would likely have an extra fee for claiming late priority though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* Because the non-provisional was presumably filed claiming priority to the provisional application, the non-provisional is not the first-filed application for the invention. It can therefore never be used for priority outside the US (including for a PCT application), and there's no way to retrospectively cure this. If you abandoned the US non-provisional, you could then file a new application which is later usable for priority outside the US, but then you lose a LOT of priority time in the US.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19230" RevisionGUID="7aa8a05f-27e4-4052-acad-e192667026c8" CreationDate="2018-04-05T01:33:09.757" UserId="17003" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="You could do a patent search on wheel chocks. A good place to start would be the [patents that cite][1] this patent. As you can see, this patent cites 5 earlier patents as is cited by 7 later patents and one application. Look at those patents/applications and then look at the citations for those. Repeat as necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US3189127#citedBy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53262" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19237" RevisionGUID="039dc738-610c-46cf-a8b3-8fa6911ef54a" CreationDate="2018-04-05T03:03:19.427" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53263" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19051" RevisionGUID="f6aceca4-06b4-49bd-bf51-f001a840be9e" CreationDate="2018-04-05T04:03:19.437" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53264" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="734632f7-1aeb-4ef9-a420-745d8130473c" CreationDate="2018-04-05T08:03:50.380" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53265" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15983" RevisionGUID="2e3a9cdb-8e0e-490a-9984-5646858ba271" CreationDate="2018-04-05T15:03:52.997" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53266" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19242" RevisionGUID="abd4d355-b2d7-4376-9141-ac31109bb06e" CreationDate="2018-04-05T17:03:52.340" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53267" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19227" RevisionGUID="61826bde-fa7e-4f81-8368-1445acd7c124" CreationDate="2018-04-05T19:03:53.420" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19372" RevisionGUID="dff6ff46-23f8-4528-9a47-ebc32d18d99c" CreationDate="2018-04-05T19:54:34.387" UserId="20932" Text="The cultivar Watson is a variety of red raspberry that is trademarked as Ruby by  Cornell University (Cornell Research Foundation). It has larger fruit, is more resistant to disease, and has an early peak production than the average industry competitor cultivar known as Heritage. Would this classify as a plant patent or a utility patent? The question is: **What type of IP protection does this product have?**  https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/5156 (here is a link to Cornell website information on the raspberry). Thanks so much in advance!!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53269" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19372" RevisionGUID="dff6ff46-23f8-4528-9a47-ebc32d18d99c" CreationDate="2018-04-05T19:54:34.387" UserId="20932" Text="Raspberry Cultivar Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53270" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19372" RevisionGUID="dff6ff46-23f8-4528-9a47-ebc32d18d99c" CreationDate="2018-04-05T19:54:34.387" UserId="20932" Text="&lt;plant-patent&gt;&lt;utility-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53271" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="d17b9e71-ff2f-4d3b-b901-4642ff9a974d" CreationDate="2018-04-05T21:03:53.340" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19373" RevisionGUID="c83cf69f-a3b1-412a-870a-39734cf5c72e" CreationDate="2018-04-05T21:23:33.403" UserId="20933" Text="If I have a product and start manufacturing it and publicly sell it but don't patent it can someone file a patent on it and thus preventing me from making and selling it?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53273" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19373" RevisionGUID="c83cf69f-a3b1-412a-870a-39734cf5c72e" CreationDate="2018-04-05T21:23:33.403" UserId="20933" Text="Can someone patent something I invented if sell it but I don't patent it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53274" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19373" RevisionGUID="c83cf69f-a3b1-412a-870a-39734cf5c72e" CreationDate="2018-04-05T21:23:33.403" UserId="20933" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;public&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53275" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="19373" RevisionGUID="e1502ba0-929b-4ebd-a006-12d548357510" CreationDate="2018-04-05T21:47:12.783" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[2060],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="53276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19374" RevisionGUID="91a338ff-af57-4180-8745-cfc5d354fd3e" CreationDate="2018-04-05T22:07:32.743" UserId="20934" Text="I’m an undergraduate student in Boston, MA and I interned for 6 months at a start-up biotechnology company. &#xA;&#xA;I made some gene pathway suggestions that, a year later, they’re still working on some. &#xA;&#xA;The company’s patent lawyer sat down with me and said they filed patent applications, and that my name was going to be on ~4 of them. She asked me about who else contributed to the projects, and she took my legal name and my permanent address. &#xA;&#xA;I heard in passing that they were applications she submitted in January. &#xA;&#xA;What does that mean for me?&#xA;What does the patent process look like? As a biologist (in training) I’m really in the dark about how this all works. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53277" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19374" RevisionGUID="91a338ff-af57-4180-8745-cfc5d354fd3e" CreationDate="2018-04-05T22:07:32.743" UserId="20934" Text="IP Patent Biotech" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53278" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19374" RevisionGUID="91a338ff-af57-4180-8745-cfc5d354fd3e" CreationDate="2018-04-05T22:07:32.743" UserId="20934" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;usa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19373" RevisionGUID="4972fe7e-4baf-485e-a1c0-daea365dd384" CreationDate="2018-04-05T22:08:38.750" UserId="20933" Comment="Rewording my question, was not asked very well first time I think" Text="From my understanding if I manufacture and sell a product publicly before applying for a patent then it can not be patented. If that is the case then does that also prevent anyone else from apply for a patent on the same product which would then prevent me from manufacturing and selling the product.  If that is also the case it would not stop them from manufacturing and selling it legally though right?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19375" RevisionGUID="2bda077b-c435-46ed-8ad8-63085010c73f" CreationDate="2018-04-06T00:52:00.607" UserId="17003" Text="As someone who has obtained patent while working for a company I think I can answer your questions. The standard work arrangement is that your work product is owned by the company. Thus any inventions the come about as a consequence of your employment is owned by the company. Some companies reward inventors with some compensation when patents are granted, but it really depends on the company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, the company is doing the right thing in identifying you as an inventor. It is possible the company will ask you discuss the invention with a patent lawyer and to review the patent drafts before they are filed, but if there are other inventors still at the company they might not. The patenting process can easily take 3 or more years. In any case, with luck in a few years you may have one or more patents with your name listed as an inventor. In my case, I proudly put patents on my resume and LinkedIn page. I think it looks good to potential employers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19375" RevisionGUID="d5ef5962-2ba4-4f35-b07b-8c3129887d8d" CreationDate="2018-04-06T00:57:34.787" UserId="17003" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="As someone who has obtained patent while working for a company I think I can answer your questions. The standard work arrangement is that your work product is owned by the company. Thus any inventions the come about as a consequence of your employment is owned by the company. Some companies reward inventors with some compensation when patents are granted, but it really depends on the company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, the company is doing the right thing in identifying you as an inventor. It is possible the company will ask you discuss the invention with a patent lawyer and to review the patent drafts before they are filed, but if there are other inventors still at the company they might not. The patenting process can easily take 3 or more years. In any case, with luck in a few years you may have one or more patents with your name listed as an inventor. In my case, I proudly put patents on my resume and LinkedIn page. In the mean time you can list application numbers. I think it looks good to potential employers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19377" RevisionGUID="d46e46ab-01bb-4b27-858b-aeb33677ce95" CreationDate="2018-04-06T14:01:54.677" UserId="17003" Text="You can use [Google Patents][1] to search for patents. In this case I search with the terms &quot;raspberry&quot; and &quot;cultivar&quot; as search terms. I then refined the search by typing &quot;Cornell&quot; into the Assignee field which popped up with &quot;Cornell Res Foundation Inc&quot;. I then limited the date range with 1960-01-01 to 1988-12-31 since the cited publication was in 1988. I ended up with this [search result][2]. There are two US Plant Patents: [USPP5404][3] and [USPP5405][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is my first experience with US Plant patents. [This page][5] on the USPTO website provides some background. At least now, plant patents like utility patents expire 20 years from their filing date. Even if these patents, being issued in 1985, used the old 17 year from grant date expiration rules they would now be expired and thus no longer provide IP protection. I cannot comment as to other forms of IP which are beyond my expertise and off topic for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/?q=raspberry&amp;q=cultivar&amp;assignee=Cornell%20Res%20Foundation%20Inc&amp;before=priority:19881231&amp;after=priority:19600101&amp;num=50&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/8f/59/b2/8495afc4d42c49/USPP5404.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/20/e0/d3/50c7024698d466/USPP5405.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/general-information-about-35-usc-161" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19375" RevisionGUID="801bb659-8076-478f-8796-2cf35193181e" CreationDate="2018-04-06T14:03:38.933" UserId="17003" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="As someone who has obtained patent while working for a company I think I can answer your questions. The standard work arrangement is that your work product is owned by the company. Thus any inventions the come about as a consequence of your employment is owned by the company. Some companies reward inventors with some compensation when patents are granted, but it really depends on the company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, the company is doing the right thing in identifying you as an inventor. It is possible the company will ask you discuss the invention with a patent lawyer and to review the patent drafts before they are filed, but if there are other inventors still at the company they might not. The patenting process can easily take 3 or more years. In any case, with luck in a few years you may have one or more patents with your name listed as an inventor. In my case, I proudly put patents on my resume and LinkedIn page. In the mean time you can list application numbers once they publish (18 months after filing). I think it looks good to potential employers especially since you were able to make a patent worthy contribution in only a six month internship." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53288" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18799" RevisionGUID="aea20d64-3735-44af-aea7-48832be2a44e" CreationDate="2018-04-06T16:05:38.107" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53289" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17587" RevisionGUID="993daf5d-fc98-4daa-a56c-462703f25f3c" CreationDate="2018-04-06T20:08:21.983" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53290" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18211" RevisionGUID="af5e97b4-42c6-4753-9ba0-ac513f445b2c" CreationDate="2018-04-06T22:08:27.837" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19378" RevisionGUID="c713fdf7-e801-4aff-8029-5108dc839640" CreationDate="2018-04-06T22:39:02.323" UserId="20943" Text="The examiners that I know would see through this and be at least slightly annoyed.  This would not help you.  I look at the IDS as a list of references that I am aware of and that I have had time to make an argument against.  I would place it first on the list and let it stand there to suggest that I am aware of it and I'm ready to defend against it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19379" RevisionGUID="50e05298-472a-489f-8f24-5559f5cb51fa" CreationDate="2018-04-07T04:52:15.687" UserId="20945" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7216870][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7216870&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [US7216870][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7216870&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this mean that one cannot create a game that allows players to gain a resource when playing a card?  Or would making resource accumulation as part of a cards &quot;summon&quot; effect circumvent this - I think that card effects were described in the patent as different from their &quot;invention&quot; since it is an instance of the card itself and not the game. Control-F &quot;instance&quot; and read the small yugioh sentence in the section; perhaps I'm not reading/understanding it properly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the mechanic itself of resource accumulation by playing a card even be claimed in a general sense?  After all Netrunner (1996) provided players with &quot;credits&quot; when playing a card, which were the players resource.  Is it just their terminology, or the process of having a specific phase/step where the game &quot;checks&quot; all cards in play and grants resource points for it?  Or is it their entire unique process from start to finish?  Perhaps I'm way off, since I really don't get it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance.  I sincerely appreciate everyone who takes the time to look into/advise on this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53293" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19379" RevisionGUID="50e05298-472a-489f-8f24-5559f5cb51fa" CreationDate="2018-04-07T04:52:15.687" UserId="20945" Text="What Exactly Is It That Is Covered By This Resource Mechanic Patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53294" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19379" RevisionGUID="50e05298-472a-489f-8f24-5559f5cb51fa" CreationDate="2018-04-07T04:52:15.687" UserId="20945" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19379" RevisionGUID="14d7d692-5553-4beb-b3dd-d93a5539d5a7" CreationDate="2018-04-07T08:08:41.447" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 97 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [US7216870][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US7216870&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this mean that one cannot create a game that allows players to gain a resource when playing a card?  Or would making resource accumulation as part of a cards &quot;summon&quot; effect circumvent this - I think that card effects were described in the patent as different from their &quot;invention&quot; since it is an instance of the card itself and not the game. Control-F &quot;instance&quot; and read the small yugioh sentence in the section; perhaps I'm not reading/understanding it properly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the mechanic itself of resource accumulation by playing a card even be claimed in a general sense?  After all Netrunner (1996) provided players with &quot;credits&quot; when playing a card, which were the players resource.  Is it just their terminology, or the process of having a specific phase/step where the game &quot;checks&quot; all cards in play and grants resource points for it?  Or is it their entire unique process from start to finish?  Perhaps I'm way off, since I really don't get it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance.  I sincerely appreciate everyone who takes the time to look into/advise on this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19380" RevisionGUID="6f26360f-271e-410a-a5ba-081ae8a2e07f" CreationDate="2018-04-07T14:17:50.633" UserId="17003" Text="As with all patents, what is covered is defined by the claims. Here is the first claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A game mechanic method for playing a game played by a plurality of players on a playing field, said game mechanic method comprising the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; steps of: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (a) at least one player obtaining a plurality of game&#xD;&#xA;&gt; components to form a playing hand of game components, each game&#xD;&#xA;&gt; component having a resource point value, and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  each game component being&#xD;&#xA;&gt; either in an “in play” state wherein the game component is placed on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the playing field or an “out of play” state wherein the game component&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is in a player's playing hand and not on the playing field; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (b) at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least one player transitioning one of said obtained game components&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from said “out of play” state to said “in play” state; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (c) at least&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one player earning resource points according to said resource point&#xD;&#xA;&gt; value of said selected game component by transitioning said selected&#xD;&#xA;&gt; game components from said “out of play” state to said “in play” state;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (d) accumulating resource points earned each time said step of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; earning resource points is performed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To infringe on a claim, you must implement each and every aspect of the claim. Thus if a claim has steps a, b, c and d and you only implement a, b and d in principle you should avoid infringement of that claim. Thus, long complicated claims are generally narrower than short simple claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With software it gets trick since there have been legal cases which significantly impacted patentability. In particular, [Alice Corp v. CLS Bank][1] and [Bilski v. Kappos][2]. This patent predates both decisions. It is quite possible that post Alice, this patent would not have been granted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I can't but note that at first glance a game of Gin Rummy would seem to be similar to what is covered in claim one. There are a plurality of players (two), there are game components (cards) having point value. components go from &quot;in play&quot; (in your hand) to &quot;out of play&quot; (discard pile). A player can transition a card from &quot;out of play&quot; (top card of discard pile) to &quot;in play&quot; (to their hand). In gin, each hand has a current point value and you accumulate points over various rounds. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not a lawyer and cannot comment on whether this patent would hold up in court. Perhaps one of the actual patent attorneys can comment on the current state of software patent prosecution. It is an issued patent and the process for invalidating a patent is, to my understanding, potentially complicated and expensive. In any case, the most prudent course of action is consult with an actual patent attorney who can review the design of your game with respect to this and other potential patents and provide a specific legal opinion on freedom-to-operate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19380" RevisionGUID="cb9023a9-7283-47ae-b2f8-9374c48c89b6" CreationDate="2018-04-07T15:36:28.470" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="As with all patents, what is covered is defined by the claims. Here is the first claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A game mechanic method for playing a game played by a plurality of players on a playing field, said game mechanic method comprising the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; steps of: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (a) at least one player obtaining a plurality of game&#xD;&#xA;&gt; components to form a playing hand of game components, each game&#xD;&#xA;&gt; component having a resource point value, and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  each game component being&#xD;&#xA;&gt; either in an “in play” state wherein the game component is placed on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the playing field or an “out of play” state wherein the game component&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is in a player's playing hand and not on the playing field; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (b) at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least one player transitioning one of said obtained game components&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from said “out of play” state to said “in play” state; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (c) at least&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one player earning resource points according to said resource point&#xD;&#xA;&gt; value of said selected game component by transitioning said selected&#xD;&#xA;&gt; game components from said “out of play” state to said “in play” state;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (d) accumulating resource points earned each time said step of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; earning resource points is performed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To infringe on a claim, you must implement each and every aspect of the claim. Thus if a claim has steps a, b, c and d and you only implement a, b and d in principle you should avoid infringement of that claim. Thus, long complicated claims are generally narrower than short simple claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With software it gets tricky since there have been legal cases which significantly impacted patentability. In particular, [Alice Corp v. CLS Bank][1] and [Bilski v. Kappos][2]. This patent predates both decisions. It is quite possible that post Alice, this patent would not have been granted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I can't but note that at first glance a game of Gin Rummy would seem to be similar to what is covered in claim one. There are a plurality of players (two), there are game components (cards) having point value. components go from &quot;in play&quot; (in your hand) to &quot;out of play&quot; (discard pile). A player can transition a card from &quot;out of play&quot; (top card of discard pile) to &quot;in play&quot; (to their hand). In gin, each hand has a current point value and you accumulate points over various rounds. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not a lawyer and cannot comment on whether this patent would hold up in court. Perhaps one of the actual patent attorneys can comment on the current state of software patent prosecution. It is an issued patent and the process for invalidating a patent is, to my understanding, potentially complicated and expensive. In any case, the most prudent course of action is consult with an actual patent attorney who can review the design of your game with respect to this and other potential patents and provide a specific legal opinion on freedom-to-operate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53298" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="fc63df07-1706-4afc-a557-2016d2439d97" CreationDate="2018-04-07T21:11:31.990" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53300" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="6027aee8-8237-4e63-84cf-c939c67f497e" CreationDate="2018-04-08T08:13:48.083" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53301" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="30eaf74d-5bb7-4dd5-87f6-18a18046709b" CreationDate="2018-04-08T12:13:47.657" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53307" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19270" RevisionGUID="a7b34ba7-105a-4242-8d67-c511a701cc57" CreationDate="2018-04-08T23:14:22.283" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19383" RevisionGUID="b7dbb1c7-3407-43e5-b0da-fbbdf60b403a" CreationDate="2018-04-09T00:39:01.680" UserId="19913" Text="An electronic measurement system is built of 'computer off the shelf' components: there are no custom designed parts.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTIONS&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;Does it make sense to provide a diagram of the interconnected parts or is it enough to state that a sensor is electronically connected to a general purpose computer?  Assume the sensor is a USB device to simplify context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a diagram is warranted, would it make more sense to simplify photograph the system and annotate the components?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53309" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19383" RevisionGUID="b7dbb1c7-3407-43e5-b0da-fbbdf60b403a" CreationDate="2018-04-09T00:39:01.680" UserId="19913" Text="Is a photograph appropriate for a PPA?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53310" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19383" RevisionGUID="b7dbb1c7-3407-43e5-b0da-fbbdf60b403a" CreationDate="2018-04-09T00:39:01.680" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;diagrams&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19384" RevisionGUID="eee3f354-33e8-4d4c-98da-845c2ee0c2e9" CreationDate="2018-04-09T03:38:02.977" UserId="19913" Text="Can one expect the patent examiner to know that an 'IOT sensor' is a sensor that communicates to a computer that is networked into a LAN or WWAN?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53313" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19384" RevisionGUID="eee3f354-33e8-4d4c-98da-845c2ee0c2e9" CreationDate="2018-04-09T03:38:02.977" UserId="19913" Text="Do I need to define 'IOT sensors' when using the term in claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53314" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19384" RevisionGUID="eee3f354-33e8-4d4c-98da-845c2ee0c2e9" CreationDate="2018-04-09T03:38:02.977" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19385" RevisionGUID="cccea32e-cad8-4655-98ab-7f4a11037167" CreationDate="2018-04-09T04:24:46.727" UserId="15503" Text="No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No one here can answer whether a future examiner will be familiar with a given term. There are so many examiners which such a range of knowledge and experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the fact that you are asking the question suggests that the term has not reached the point that an examiner (let alone the person of ordinary skill in the art) would necessarily be aware of it. In such a case, the prudent thing to do is to include a definition in the description. Because what is the downside of doing so?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19386" RevisionGUID="9c15f86f-1e68-442e-8c55-d77c352d67a9" CreationDate="2018-04-09T04:34:38.050" UserId="15503" Text="The purpose of a provisional application is to prove that you were in possession of the invention at the time of application and to support a priority claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is impossible to definitively answer whether you need a particular piece of disclosure, because it is only during litigation that that really becomes an issue. That is, if it turns out a court finds that your lack of precise description about how the components are connected implies that you did not possess the invention, then your provisional suddenly becomes worthless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this reason, it is always prudent to err on the side of more description. A few extra minutes of typing or another diagram added at the start may save your eventual patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to whether to simplify a photograph or to create a new diagram, that's an administrative decision: do whatever provides the result that serves you best." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53317" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17944" RevisionGUID="3970dc64-55a4-4303-89f6-b94e96a22f8f" CreationDate="2018-04-10T00:20:14.640" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53318" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17041" RevisionGUID="684b54d6-296f-4386-adba-841fdb0694af" CreationDate="2018-04-10T04:20:17.153" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19387" RevisionGUID="19377d50-3790-418f-9887-06891a319a41" CreationDate="2018-04-10T12:04:51.960" UserId="20956" Text="I am in process of patenting a device and was wondering if the order of the inventor has any weight? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  If there are 3 or 4 inventors, is there any special [reference given to the first author? Kind of how it is in a journal where the first author is the most important one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If there are 2 people with similar contributions, can we write in acknowledgment section that both are considered co-first authors? I have done this in few journals before. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Again, is the ordering of the authors rigid and is it considered unethical to rearrange the order in our CV?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53320" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19387" RevisionGUID="19377d50-3790-418f-9887-06891a319a41" CreationDate="2018-04-10T12:04:51.960" UserId="20956" Text="Order of Patent Inverntors" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53321" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19387" RevisionGUID="19377d50-3790-418f-9887-06891a319a41" CreationDate="2018-04-10T12:04:51.960" UserId="20956" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19387" RevisionGUID="e89e471b-30d0-4fc5-8c3a-93ec693ada50" CreationDate="2018-04-10T12:46:31.263" UserId="20956" Comment="edited body" Text="I am in process of patenting a device and was wondering if the order of the inventor has any weight? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  If there are 3 or 4 inventors, is there any special preference given to the first author? Kind of how it is in a journal where the first author is the most important one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If there are 2 people with similar contributions, can we write in acknowledgment section that both are considered co-first authors? I have done this in few journals before. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Again, is the ordering of the authors rigid and is it considered unethical to rearrange the order in our CV?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19388" RevisionGUID="bfd4604a-1dc6-4f92-aabc-cf28c6b39b8e" CreationDate="2018-04-10T13:28:24.630" UserId="20955" Text="From what I have understood so far,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a design patent** is a form of legal protection granted to the ornamental design of a functional item. Design patents are a type of industrial design right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a utility patent** is a patent that covers the creation of a new or improved — and useful — product, process or machine. A utility patent, also known as a “patent for invention,” prohibits other individuals or companies from making, using or selling the invention without authorization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of data visualization, the whole point of the visualization is to make a dataset consumable. To me, this is in sync with the utility definition (as it is a method of consuming data). However, it achieves this by using graphical (ornamental) design. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, with data visualization, it seems like the ornamental design *is* the utility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, if I were to invent a new kind of data visualization, what type of patent would it be. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53324" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19388" RevisionGUID="bfd4604a-1dc6-4f92-aabc-cf28c6b39b8e" CreationDate="2018-04-10T13:28:24.630" UserId="20955" Text="New data visualisation - Design or Utility patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53325" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19388" RevisionGUID="bfd4604a-1dc6-4f92-aabc-cf28c6b39b8e" CreationDate="2018-04-10T13:28:24.630" UserId="20955" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;utility-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19389" RevisionGUID="5f5eab3a-9746-47b2-b757-320241e37561" CreationDate="2018-04-10T14:26:46.130" UserId="18033" Text="As far as I know, patent law does not have any concept of first or second inventors. All inventors/owners need to come to an agreement by themselves about handling the patent (application), revenues, costs and communication with the patent office, but that's their own problem so to speak.&#xA;&#xA;Basically, who's listed first doesn't matter.&#xA;&#xA;A patent doesn't have an acknowledgement section, though you can put them in the description nevertheless. &#xA;&#xA;How to (ethically) handle that in your cv is therefore not answereable from a patent perspective, only from an academic perspective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53327" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18787" RevisionGUID="b74ce550-4e62-47d3-962f-dc107f2f6ea1" CreationDate="2018-04-10T18:30:51.267" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19390" RevisionGUID="bce55eb5-9d6a-45e0-a969-e88ce8b983d0" CreationDate="2018-04-10T19:21:32.987" UserId="17003" Text="So far as I know, DonQuiKong's answer is correct. For my patents, generally speaking, the lawyers usually listed the main inventor's name first, but it really doesn't matter. Certainly there is no importance like in academic publications. For CV purposes, I list all my patents whether or not I'm listed first. I just list the patent number and title, no names. I've never seen an acknowledgement section on a patent and would think it inappropriate. There are rare occasions where a patent gets known by the first listed inventor's name but that might be true for famous inventions or infamous inventions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19391" RevisionGUID="e732926a-655f-40bf-8dd0-ea187e5b70f1" CreationDate="2018-04-10T19:48:46.003" UserId="3076" Text="Since is an answer assuming US patent law. A design patent is for the ornamental appearance of an item of manufacture. An example would be a vase with a specific color, shape, and artistic design. You are not talking about an item with a single, specific, particular look, but a way of taking data and using it to draw a picture. If you used your technique on specific data to make a design that you were going to imprint on a towel, the towel could be covered by a design patent. But how you came up with the design would be irrelevant to that design's patentability. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  If do a search on google patents you will find [System and method for 4D reconstruction and visualization US6169817B1][1], [Method and system for the interactive visualization and examination of data US6400366B1][2] and many other similar things patented. Unlike in the EPO, the US doesn't require a technical effect or a technical solution to a technical problem (although you might have one).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6169817B1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6400366B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19383" RevisionGUID="65c6cf8e-4945-4e4e-933d-8b3360fff8a3" CreationDate="2018-04-10T19:52:02.277" UserId="3076" Comment="changed simplify to simply" Text="An electronic measurement system is built of 'computer off the shelf' components: there are no custom designed parts.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTIONS&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;Does it make sense to provide a diagram of the interconnected parts or is it enough to state that a sensor is electronically connected to a general purpose computer?  Assume the sensor is a USB device to simplify context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a diagram is warranted, would it make more sense to simply photograph the system and annotate the components?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19392" RevisionGUID="823e58d9-ba58-4ea7-bb27-fc88925074f0" CreationDate="2018-04-10T19:57:47.570" UserId="3076" Text="Photos are allowed in provisional applications. You will need to make sure it is legible at the other end. The process of submitting it will not preserve the color and resolution. Imagine that on the way to the USPTO it was faxed on a bad fax machine. One way to improve what ends up at the USPTO's computers is to do it electronically and select &quot;drawing other than black and white line drawings&quot; as the kind of document you are submit. You might want to play with the contrast before submitting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19393" RevisionGUID="048ca3a2-b32a-4b8f-a675-50854e925d20" CreationDate="2018-04-10T20:39:29.097" UserId="3076" Text="I hope this is helpful. Ask Patents is not part of the USPTO but is just a group of volunteers trying to provide patent information to the general public. Our answers are not authoritative. The USPTO does have a department of people specifically to work with the offices of other countries. It is called the Office of International Patent Cooperation. A link to their [organization chart][1] with the names of people responsible for various topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/OIPC%20Org%20Chart%20April%206%202018.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19394" RevisionGUID="0571777c-42cc-43c3-8572-4c87302226f0" CreationDate="2018-04-10T20:43:55.560" UserId="3076" Text="You will describe it, and give examples, in your specification and drawings. Then you can use it the term in your claims if it makes sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19192" RevisionGUID="ccc46a93-83cc-4cd3-833e-3f6eae6c0e42" CreationDate="2018-04-11T07:50:21.197" UserId="18033" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="**German utility model**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fee for registering a German utility model is **40€** (30€ for the electronic version which needs a signature card though). Apparently a search fee is not necessary. The utility model is published ~ **4 weeks** after registering and registration is done after paying the fee (max. 3 months of time) and an examination for formal requirements. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has to be submitted in German or officially translated to German, however I don't see any reason not to include an informal translation to English which should actually be published too then. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a stretch, but I think this would be a solution too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plus, without further fees you are actually getting some protection for 3 years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53335" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="e0a18b0e-98d0-4023-8304-79aa12bdc4c5" CreationDate="2018-04-11T16:36:59.700" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53336" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16114" RevisionGUID="af5825b4-1abd-4ed6-aaa4-1bd522609d31" CreationDate="2018-04-11T18:40:30.640" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19395" RevisionGUID="395eee8f-5c8f-48c1-91e3-dfb078e76e78" CreationDate="2018-04-11T19:49:11.410" UserId="20959" Text="I read this application (20060272266A1) on a modular structure that attempts to patent a well-known form of tension/compression structure. The application still seems open after all this time. I am new to this forum. This service is titled &quot;Help us find prior art.&quot; Is my disclosure of prior art here relevant and timely?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim *1. A structure comprising:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*a hub;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*a plurality of elongated substantially rigid support members, each rigid support member having a distal end and a proximal end, the proximal end configured to contact an outer surface of the hub;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*a plurality of elongated substantially flexible support members, each flexible support member configured to couple at least the distal ends of two of the rigid support members; and*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*wherein the flexible support members are in tension and the rigid support members are in compression to maintain the structure at equilibrium.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;R Buckminster Fuller's longstanding work is the quintessential prior art, including the Figure 730.12 and descriptive text [(See figure from Synergetics)][1], demonstrating a tetrahedron using, for example, a steel sphere as the hub. (Synergetics - Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking, R Buckminster Fuller in collaboration with EJ Applewhite, originally, Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc. 1975, 1979) He demonstrates how a stable structure can be developed by building and assembling these individual tensegrity units configured exactly as described and drawn in the application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s07/figs/f3012.html &quot;Fuller tetrahedron&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another publication from the '70's also covers this: &quot;an introduction to Tensegrity&quot; Anthony Pugh, (c) 1976  Univ of California Press Berkeley ISBN 0-520-02996-8  describes this type of structure at Diagram 2.6/Figure 11." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53338" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19395" RevisionGUID="395eee8f-5c8f-48c1-91e3-dfb078e76e78" CreationDate="2018-04-11T19:49:11.410" UserId="20959" Text="How do I identify prior art on US20060272266A1 Modular Structure in the form of a question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53339" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19395" RevisionGUID="395eee8f-5c8f-48c1-91e3-dfb078e76e78" CreationDate="2018-04-11T19:49:11.410" UserId="20959" Text="&lt;prior&gt;&lt;art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19391" RevisionGUID="b87c181d-7158-4e2e-ac0a-c6f69f0301d4" CreationDate="2018-04-11T20:25:47.307" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="This is an answer assuming US patent law. A design patent is for the ornamental appearance of an item of manufacture. An example would be a vase with a specific color, shape, and artistic design. You are not talking about an item with a single, specific, particular look, but a way of taking data and using it to draw a picture. If you used your technique on specific data to make a design that you were going to imprint on a towel, the towel could be covered by a design patent. But how you came up with the design would be irrelevant to that design's patentability. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  If do a search on google patents you will find [System and method for 4D reconstruction and visualization US6169817B1][1], [Method and system for the interactive visualization and examination of data US6400366B1][2] and many other similar things patented. Unlike in the EPO, the US doesn't require a technical effect or a technical solution to a technical problem (although you might have one).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6169817B1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6400366B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19396" RevisionGUID="d1068e3d-1999-4c4b-bd3d-935d1b05fef5" CreationDate="2018-04-11T20:48:24.790" UserId="3076" Text="This application went abandoned many years ago. You can look up the complete history of recent US patent applications at USPTO's Public PAIR web site. It allows access to all documents submitted by the applicant and issued by the patent office. This application was given a non-final rejection based upon [5014484 Tanizawa][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.google.com/patent/US570857A" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19396" RevisionGUID="a79300b3-88dd-4187-b6ff-7b21fc603540" CreationDate="2018-04-12T02:07:08.650" UserId="3076" Comment="elaborated" Text="This application went abandoned many years ago. You can look up the complete history of recent US patent applications at USPTO's Public PAIR web site. It allows access to all documents submitted by the applicant and issued by the patent office. This application was given a non-final rejection based upon [5014484 Tanizawa][1].  Examiners do not necessarily look for a &quot;quintessential&quot; reference. They are prone to look first in US patents for something with all or most of the elements recited in the claims. Besides being easy for them to search for, patents include a description and most often drawings. They provide a &quot;teaching&quot; of the claimed device. As an aside, the applicant in this case informed the USPTO of a prior art umbrella patent from the 1800's and another in the early 1900's. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mentioned that &quot;it seems open after all these years&quot;. Patents and patent publications are fixed publications, like an issue of a magazine. If you look up a copy of Time magazine with JFK on its cover from 1960, it will not mention anything about his death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patents.google.com/patent/US570857A" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19397" RevisionGUID="33456b05-c45a-4d77-a85d-d2b303ffca7b" CreationDate="2018-04-12T16:47:13.583" UserId="20963" Text="I have filed provisional application in USPTO about a year ago and now have prepared non-provisional application to file in US. May I file the same application (draft) into PCT or PCT has different requirements for application?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53344" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19397" RevisionGUID="33456b05-c45a-4d77-a85d-d2b303ffca7b" CreationDate="2018-04-12T16:47:13.583" UserId="20963" Text="filling US application to PCT" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53345" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19397" RevisionGUID="33456b05-c45a-4d77-a85d-d2b303ffca7b" CreationDate="2018-04-12T16:47:13.583" UserId="20963" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;us&gt;&lt;requirements&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19395" RevisionGUID="28a576b2-a56f-474b-85dd-6d5a5459a5bd" CreationDate="2018-04-12T16:55:48.410" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to application" Text="I read this application ([US20060272266A1][1]) on a modular structure that attempts to patent a well-known form of tension/compression structure. The application still seems open after all this time. I am new to this forum. This service is titled &quot;Help us find prior art.&quot; Is my disclosure of prior art here relevant and timely?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim *1. A structure comprising:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*a hub;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*a plurality of elongated substantially rigid support members, each rigid support member having a distal end and a proximal end, the proximal end configured to contact an outer surface of the hub;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*a plurality of elongated substantially flexible support members, each flexible support member configured to couple at least the distal ends of two of the rigid support members; and*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*wherein the flexible support members are in tension and the rigid support members are in compression to maintain the structure at equilibrium.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;R Buckminster Fuller's longstanding work is the quintessential prior art, including the Figure 730.12 and descriptive text [(See figure from Synergetics)][2], demonstrating a tetrahedron using, for example, a steel sphere as the hub. (Synergetics - Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking, R Buckminster Fuller in collaboration with EJ Applewhite, originally, Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc. 1975, 1979) He demonstrates how a stable structure can be developed by building and assembling these individual tensegrity units configured exactly as described and drawn in the application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another publication from the '70's also covers this: &quot;an introduction to Tensegrity&quot; Anthony Pugh, (c) 1976  Univ of California Press Berkeley ISBN 0-520-02996-8  describes this type of structure at Diagram 2.6/Figure 11.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20060272266A1/en?oq=us20060272266A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s07/figs/f3012.html &quot;Fuller tetrahedron&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19398" RevisionGUID="67538eb1-abf0-45dc-afbd-17cf9fbcaefe" CreationDate="2018-04-12T20:58:59.817" UserId="20965" Text="Try poxoq for patents (http://poxoq.com/). You can bulk download thousands of patents very quickly in a folder of your choice. I really recommend it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53348" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="0f0b02e2-8608-43d2-a0e7-9d77fc2269a9" CreationDate="2018-04-13T01:49:38.660" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53349" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18023" RevisionGUID="e55ee4ad-f0f1-4ff9-84b6-aef4ab130739" CreationDate="2018-04-13T03:49:39.693" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53350" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18844" RevisionGUID="624f0b96-78c6-4bc3-ae90-9613d5069b39" CreationDate="2018-04-13T04:49:46.137" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19400" RevisionGUID="65452d14-b483-4667-bc4e-81f761829f6b" CreationDate="2018-04-13T18:34:29.407" UserId="19913" Text="QUESTION 1&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;In the US: As I understand it, provisional applications (PPA) are not examined.  If this is correct, then are filing dates ever denied?  If yes, under what circumstances?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTION 2&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand it PPA claims are not required.  Can including PPA claims backfire.  For example, If the scope of the PPA claims is smaller than the NPA (non provisional application),  Is the entire NPA claims denied?  Any examples or citations are always appreciated.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Any pitfalls to avoid are always appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53356" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19400" RevisionGUID="65452d14-b483-4667-bc4e-81f761829f6b" CreationDate="2018-04-13T18:34:29.407" UserId="19913" Text="Are Provisional Applications ever denied filing dates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53357" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19400" RevisionGUID="65452d14-b483-4667-bc4e-81f761829f6b" CreationDate="2018-04-13T18:34:29.407" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16544" RevisionGUID="b296bc8f-6019-4003-ad2f-07ba43f59faa" CreationDate="2018-04-13T19:57:46.827" UserId="17737" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="I was granted a patent in 1994 and was unable to pay maintenance fees; therefore I lost the patent. I am looking to see if someone has gained control of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53359" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16544" RevisionGUID="b296bc8f-6019-4003-ad2f-07ba43f59faa" CreationDate="2018-04-13T19:57:46.827" UserId="17737" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="How do I find out if a patent is still active?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53360" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16544" RevisionGUID="b296bc8f-6019-4003-ad2f-07ba43f59faa" CreationDate="2018-04-13T19:57:46.827" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 18033, 17003 edit id of 2070" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53363" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="f9ce47af-5c52-416b-9490-eabd934e2522" CreationDate="2018-04-14T11:55:12.793" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53365" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6476" RevisionGUID="47f9ef8e-88b6-4c3c-8086-37cf4bc0428b" CreationDate="2018-04-14T16:56:05.927" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19401" RevisionGUID="e3fa52d8-afac-48af-8581-4819bd3decb1" CreationDate="2018-04-14T18:22:21.240" UserId="19232" Text="The question relates to a patent with a current status of NOA, but not officially granted and not yet published. Specifically the context is disclosure of the application details and (in my case) a video demonstration, to patent marketing firms/agents for consideration of their interest in a marketing effort agreement. The concern assumes the perhaps unlikely scenario of dishonest persons in the chain of communication; nevertheless I would like to know the relative risk and any precedents for it. And is that risk really any different from when the patent is officially granted and published?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53367" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19401" RevisionGUID="e3fa52d8-afac-48af-8581-4819bd3decb1" CreationDate="2018-04-14T18:22:21.240" UserId="19232" Text="In disclosing details of an approved (NOA) but unpublished U.S. patent, is there risk of adaptation for a foreign patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53368" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19401" RevisionGUID="e3fa52d8-afac-48af-8581-4819bd3decb1" CreationDate="2018-04-14T18:22:21.240" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;foreign&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53369" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18577" RevisionGUID="7114b67f-2f6c-4ef7-82c3-7cbad968979b" CreationDate="2018-04-14T18:56:06.310" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19402" RevisionGUID="8e836b2e-03d5-4e51-8a88-5affaaaf96fa" CreationDate="2018-04-15T01:04:07.933" UserId="18769" Text="Provisional rights are intended to give remedy to a patentee who's issued claims were infringed during prosecution.  See [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, are any sort of &quot;intervening rights&quot; (usually reserved for amendments during reissue, reexam, or PTAB trial) available to a commercializer who began use of filed/disclosed but not initially claimed matter that is later claimed via amendments or a continuation application?  (Note that prior user rights would not apply.)  It's a question of what is considered equitable public notice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the cases of an application that has claimed narrower than one would like to commercialize (e.g. originally claims 'ABC', but only want to use 'AB'), or the case of an application that discloses multiple distinct inventions that will be the subject of divisionals/continuations (e.g. application discloses 'ABC' and 'DEF', but only claims 'DEF' for now).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do some form of &quot;intervening rights&quot; exist in such scenarios?&#xD;&#xA;Does the party interested in commercializing the disclosed-but-presently-unclaimed matter have to wait around for the patent term to expire to avoid the patentee explicitly mapping the claims to his/her product, or bear the burden of determining what subject matter in the application the patentee has a right to claim?  It seems like this would be too big a burden on those performing FTO/clearance searches, but I can also appreciate that such intervening rights could be abused if too lenient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/liability-for-infringing-acts-before-a-patent-is-granted" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53371" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19402" RevisionGUID="8e836b2e-03d5-4e51-8a88-5affaaaf96fa" CreationDate="2018-04-15T01:04:07.933" UserId="18769" Text="Provisional Rights vs 'Intervening Rights'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53372" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19402" RevisionGUID="8e836b2e-03d5-4e51-8a88-5affaaaf96fa" CreationDate="2018-04-15T01:04:07.933" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;intervening-rights&gt;&lt;provisional-rights&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19403" RevisionGUID="0ea13728-d36d-47d9-aae0-767833bbb9eb" CreationDate="2018-04-15T01:15:22.200" UserId="18769" Text="IANAL, but my take: you don't need to proactively &quot;get&quot; the rights; you would only establish them in court if sued for infringement.  Instead, collect evidence/proof of the practice or substantial preparation to practice during the period of expiration.  Although ~15 years old, see [here][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Absolute rights are extended to those who actually practiced the patent during the period of abandonment, while equitable rights &quot;may&quot; be extended to those who made &quot;substantial preparation&quot; to do so. These rights are limited to the period beginning after the six month grace period after the maintenance fee due date up to the date that the Commissioner actually accepts the delayed maintenance fee and grants the petition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are granted intervening rights ('guaranteed' if practiced, 'maybe' if only prepared to practice), you may continue to practice after revival.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, note the current &quot;unintentional&quot; standard for revival of a patent expired due to failure to pay maintenance fees, with no time limit for petition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://invention-protection.com/ip/publications/docs/Intervening_Patent_Rights.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53374" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19401" RevisionGUID="935049bd-0073-4223-b0b8-db77e7e5e73b" CreationDate="2018-04-15T01:48:49.993" UserId="19232" Comment="edited title" Text="In disclosing details of an approved (NOA) but unpublished U.S. patent, is there risk of someone adapting it for a foreign patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19404" RevisionGUID="642e08e0-03df-4e9a-9b96-7ade7899b21c" CreationDate="2018-04-15T16:39:39.623" UserId="18033" Text="As I understood it, your question is if somebody could patent your invention in a non-US country after you showed it to them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll assume your non provisional is validly filed but not yet published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two risks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One, improvements. Everyone knowing about your invention can file patent applications for improvements. If there is no NDA or similar provision, that's completly legal. For places like Europe, your patent application will count as prior art for non-obviousness/inventiveness only if the other application is filed after your application. In theory, if there is no NDA etc., you telling other people could count as a publication, but proving that and the exact content etc. ... So that's one risk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other one, somebody else filing the same (your) invention elswhere. Art. 54 EPC (Europe) as an example provides that a patent application may not be granted if the same invention has been published or the content of an ep patent application or a PCT designating EP effectively from the filing date. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So your unpublished US aplication is not prior art for an EP application! If you file a PCT (designating EP) or EP application with valid priority to the US application, you can heal that. (Which is only possibl up to 12 months after the first application, so if your application claimed pirority of a provisional, 12 months after the filing date of the provisional!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means, if you tell someone about your invention, they could file it somewhere else. That would be illegal, but it would be up to you to prove they stole it. Or at least that you publicly disclosed it, which would count as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summ it up: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you have the money and will and can still validly claim priority to the first application (yes, ppas count) to file a PCT and it the priority holds because the first filing was well written -&gt;  improvement filings, but those can come after the normal publicaion anyways. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If any of those answers no -&gt; there is a risk." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19405" RevisionGUID="63674794-0106-4e69-8783-2902e4298a52" CreationDate="2018-04-15T17:21:43.473" UserId="18769" Text="Basically, are third party submissions (35 U.S.C. 122(e)) a proper subset of protests (37 CFR 1.291) in terms of what evidence and arguments can be presented?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the opportunity to file a protest on an unpublished continuation application.  Although I don't know the claims, I plan to make general arguments against patentability (103, 112, IC) based on claims of the issued parent application.  After doing so, I assume there is no benefit to filing a third party submission?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53378" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19405" RevisionGUID="63674794-0106-4e69-8783-2902e4298a52" CreationDate="2018-04-15T17:21:43.473" UserId="18769" Text="Do Protests make Third Party Submissions redundant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53379" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19405" RevisionGUID="63674794-0106-4e69-8783-2902e4298a52" CreationDate="2018-04-15T17:21:43.473" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;third-party-submission&gt;&lt;protest&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19404" RevisionGUID="6625b05f-9d84-4119-b545-f63a928023ff" CreationDate="2018-04-15T19:23:56.980" UserId="18033" Comment="added 10 characters in body; added 20 characters in body; added 42 characters in body; deleted 3 characters in body" Text="As I understood it, your question is if somebody could patent your invention in a non-US country after you showed it to them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll assume your non provisional is validly filed but not yet published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two risks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One, improvements. Everyone knowing about your invention can file patent applications for improvements. If there is no NDA or similar provision, that's completly legal. For places like Europe, your patent application will count as prior art for non-obviousness/inventiveness only if the other application is filed after your application publishes. &#xA;&#xA;In theory, if there is no NDA etc., you telling other people could count as a publication, but proving that and the exact content etc. ... So that's one risk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other one, somebody else filing the same (your) invention elswhere. Art. 54 EPC (Europe) as an example provides that a patent application may not be granted if the same invention has &#xA;&#xA;- been published or &#xA;&#xA;- the content of an ep patent application or a PCT designating EP (effectively from the filing date). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So your unpublished US aplication is not prior art for an EP application! If you file a PCT (designating EP) or EP application with valid priority to the US application, you can heal that. (Which is only possible up to 12 months after the first application, so if your application claimed pirority of a provisional, that's 12 months after the filing date of the provisional!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means, without an PCT (costs a lot of money),: &#xA;&#xA;if you tell someone about your invention, they could file it somewhere else. That would be illegal, but it would be up to you to prove they stole it. Or at least that you publicly disclosed it, which would count as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summ it up: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you have the money and will and can still validly claim priority to the first application (yes, ppas count) to file a PCT and the priority holds because the first filing was well written -&gt;  improvement filings, but those can come after the normal publicaion anyways. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If any of those answers no -&gt; there is a risk." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53387" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19120" RevisionGUID="407016dd-ecb0-4f09-90a9-0cc4bf6049e4" CreationDate="2018-04-15T21:01:34.003" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53391" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="baa2dc8c-71bb-47a0-8dbd-3a4bd1e1b5c8" CreationDate="2018-04-16T00:02:09.023" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19408" RevisionGUID="61ddfd3c-782e-433e-982e-2ced862c8357" CreationDate="2018-04-16T01:14:27.970" UserId="18769" Text="I would assume there are no such 'intervening rights' for amended or continuation application claims based on [this article][1], which from reiterates Kingsdown v Hollister (1988): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “... nor is it in any manner improper&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to amend or insert claims intended to cover a competitor’s product the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applicant’s attorney has learned about during the prosecution of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent application.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.pugetpatent.com/blog/2015/6/continuing-patent-applications/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53393" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19408" RevisionGUID="c53ec408-7d1a-41bc-ae68-69a325aca1ed" CreationDate="2018-04-16T01:31:05.550" UserId="18769" Comment="added 2347 characters in body" Text="I would assume there are no such 'intervening rights' for amended or continuation application claims based on [this article][1], which from reiterates Kingsdown v Hollister (1988): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... nor is it in any manner improper&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to amend or insert claims intended to cover a competitor’s product the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applicant’s attorney has learned about during the prosecution of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, this [2010 article][2] acknowledges the risks of competitors practicing disclosed-but-substantially-unclaimed subject matter, again implying that no such intervening rights exist:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &#xD;&#xA;effect &#xD;&#xA;of &#xD;&#xA;amending &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;claim &#xD;&#xA;is &#xD;&#xA;partially &#xD;&#xA;retroactive. &#xD;&#xA;While &#xD;&#xA;an&#xD;&#xA;amended &#xD;&#xA;claim &#xD;&#xA;cannot &#xD;&#xA;cover &#xD;&#xA;devices &#xD;&#xA;that &#xD;&#xA;were &#xD;&#xA;sold &#xD;&#xA;prior &#xD;&#xA;to &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;amendment,&#xD;&#xA;it &#xD;&#xA;can &#xD;&#xA;have &#xD;&#xA;retroactive &#xD;&#xA;effect &#xD;&#xA;against &#xD;&#xA;long-term &#xD;&#xA;investments. &#xD;&#xA;For &#xD;&#xA;example, &#xD;&#xA;a&#xD;&#xA;patentee &#xD;&#xA;changes &#xD;&#xA;his &#xD;&#xA;patent &#xD;&#xA;on &#xD;&#xA;four-legged &#xD;&#xA;tables &#xD;&#xA;to &#xD;&#xA;cover &#xD;&#xA;three-legged &#xD;&#xA;tables. &#xD;&#xA;This &#xD;&#xA;patentee &#xD;&#xA;cannot &#xD;&#xA;obtain &#xD;&#xA;royalties &#xD;&#xA;on &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;three-legged &#xD;&#xA;tables &#xD;&#xA;sold&#xD;&#xA;before &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;amendment &#xD;&#xA;receives &#xD;&#xA;patent &#xD;&#xA;office &#xD;&#xA;approval. &#xD;&#xA;However, &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;competitor &#xD;&#xA;who &#xD;&#xA;built &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;factory &#xD;&#xA;for &#xD;&#xA;manufacturing &#xD;&#xA;three-legged &#xD;&#xA;tables &#xD;&#xA;probably&#xD;&#xA;intended &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;factory &#xD;&#xA;to &#xD;&#xA;last &#xD;&#xA;for &#xD;&#xA;twenty &#xD;&#xA;years &#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;more. &#xD;&#xA;The &#xD;&#xA;patentee &#xD;&#xA;can &#xD;&#xA;force&#xD;&#xA;his &#xD;&#xA;competitor &#xD;&#xA;to &#xD;&#xA;shut &#xD;&#xA;down &#xD;&#xA;the &#xD;&#xA;entire &#xD;&#xA;factory. &#xD;&#xA;This &#xD;&#xA;&quot;hold-up&quot; &#xD;&#xA;leverage &#xD;&#xA;allows &#xD;&#xA;a &#xD;&#xA;claim &#xD;&#xA;amendment &#xD;&#xA;to &#xD;&#xA;have &#xD;&#xA;significant &#xD;&#xA;retroactive &#xD;&#xA;bite&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, a [2003 article][3] from Mark Lemley et. al.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... continuation practice can be – and has been – used strategically to gain advantages over competitors by waiting to see what product the competitor will make and then drafting patent claims specifically designed to cover that product. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the most extreme cases, patent applicants add claims during the continuation process to cover ideas they never thought of themselves, but instead learned from a competitor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, Lemley et. al. propose the idea of intervening rights for the pre-issuance/continuation amendments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another alternative that would eliminate many of the perils of submarine patents would be the creation of intervening rights for competitors who began making, using, or selling the patented invention prior to the broadening continuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.pugetpatent.com/blog/2015/6/continuing-patent-applications/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1295&amp;context=mlr&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=462404" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53394" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19114" RevisionGUID="a18496a7-3a6d-4e0f-a5ef-b50989dcb8ae" CreationDate="2018-04-16T03:04:22.873" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19404" RevisionGUID="aae1c03c-2f12-4eee-89c9-551b3f5e677e" CreationDate="2018-04-16T04:23:35.207" UserId="18033" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="As I understood it, your question is if somebody could patent your invention in a non-US country after you showed it to them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll assume your non provisional is validly filed but not yet published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two risks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One, improvements. Everyone knowing about your invention can file patent applications for improvements. If there is no NDA or similar provision, that's completly legal. For places like Europe, your patent application will count as prior art for non-obviousness/inventiveness only if the other application is filed after your application publishes. &#xA;&#xA;In theory, if there is no NDA etc., you telling other people could count as a publication, but proving that and the exact content etc. ... So that's one risk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other one, somebody else filing the same (your) invention elswhere. Art. 54 EPC (Europe) as an example provides that a patent application may not be granted if the same invention has &#xA;&#xA;- been published or &#xA;&#xA;- the content of an ep patent application or a PCT designating EP (effectively from the filing date). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So your unpublished US aplication is not prior art for an EP application! If you file a PCT (designating EP) or EP application with valid priority to the US application, you can heal that. (Which is only possible up to 12 months after the first application, so if your application claimed pirority of a provisional, that's 12 months after the filing date of the provisional!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means, without an PCT (costs a lot of money),: &#xA;&#xA;if you tell someone about your invention, they could file it somewhere else. That would be illegal, but it would be up to you to prove they stole it. Or at least that you publicly disclosed it, which would count as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;I can't talk about all countries, so there might be some where even a PCT application is not enough, but it would at least enable you to get the older patent right.&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summ it up: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you have the money and will and can still validly claim priority to the first application (yes, ppas count) to file a PCT and the priority holds because the first filing was well written -&gt;  improvement filings, but those can come after the normal publicaion anyways. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If any of those answers no -&gt; there is a risk." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53396" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19296" RevisionGUID="212f3d00-9616-4335-9502-c46e238099ab" CreationDate="2018-04-16T05:06:12.363" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19404" RevisionGUID="9686c2be-65ec-4513-9bc8-dd2546219631" CreationDate="2018-04-16T07:46:36.980" UserId="18033" Comment="added 362 characters in body" Text="As I understood it, your question is if somebody could patent your invention in a non-US country after you showed it to them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll assume your non provisional is validly filed but not yet published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two risks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One, improvements. Everyone knowing about your invention can file patent applications for improvements. If there is no NDA or similar provision, that's completly legal. For places like Europe, your patent application will count as prior art for non-obviousness/inventiveness only if the other application is filed after your application publishes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory, if there is no NDA etc., you telling other people could count as a publication, but proving that and the exact content etc. ... So that's one risk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other one, somebody else filing the same (your) invention elswhere. Art. 54 EPC (Europe) as an example provides that a patent application may not be granted if the same invention has &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- been published or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the content of an ep patent application or a PCT designating EP (effectively from the filing date). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So your unpublished US aplication is not prior art for an EP application! If you file a PCT (designating EP) or EP application with valid priority to the US application, you can heal that. (Which is only possible up to 12 months after the first application, so if your application claimed pirority of a provisional, that's 12 months after the filing date of the provisional!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't talk about all countries, so there might be some where even a PCT application is not enough, but it would at least enable you to get the older patent right. In Japan for example, a translation of the PCT application needs to be filed. There seem to be countries where the national phase needs to be entered for the application to be considered as prior art for novelty. So the risk of someone patenting your invention in other countries if you don't have the money to pursue the PCT application there exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means, without an PCT (costs a lot of money),: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you tell someone about your invention, they could file it somewhere else. That would be illegal, but it would be up to you to prove they stole it. Or at least that you publicly disclosed it, which would count as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summ it up: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you have the money and will and can still validly claim priority to the first application (yes, ppas count) to file a PCT and the priority holds because the first filing was well written -&gt;  improvement filings, but those can come after the normal publicaion anyways. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If any of those answers no -&gt; there is a risk." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53398" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="884125f1-a52c-4bd3-8a8f-ee572e6d883e" CreationDate="2018-04-16T08:06:13.337" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53399" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="b15a0b28-5e2b-44b5-9458-38ea5a0ac47d" CreationDate="2018-04-16T10:06:15.803" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19410" RevisionGUID="c73830d8-b4b8-4878-b56c-c5c098495e3e" CreationDate="2018-04-16T13:34:56.353" UserId="20978" Text="I understand that a successful patent application can take several years from first filing to granted. I'm trying to understand what options a startup has in making progress on developing the product during this time. As far as I can tell, the idea must remain out of the public domain until the patent is granted. Therefore the only way I can release any details about the product is under non-disclosure agreement. This seems extremely limiting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering if the idea can be released into the public domain (e.g. to sell an early version of the product) while the patent is pending (i.e. a provisional patent has been filed and a full application is being pursued) without invalidating the patent? I can't seem to find any clear yes or no answer on this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53404" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19410" RevisionGUID="c73830d8-b4b8-4878-b56c-c5c098495e3e" CreationDate="2018-04-16T13:34:56.353" UserId="20978" Text="Can an idea be released into the public domain while patent is pending?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53405" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19410" RevisionGUID="c73830d8-b4b8-4878-b56c-c5c098495e3e" CreationDate="2018-04-16T13:34:56.353" UserId="20978" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;public-domain&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19411" RevisionGUID="a619f9fd-424f-4ac7-9c51-333051b6e6ce" CreationDate="2018-04-16T13:58:56.297" UserId="18033" Text="The answer is very clearly: you can release anything you want without invalidating your patent application. Actually, 18 months after the filing, the USPTO and most other patent offices will publish your application by themselfs even if it hasn't been granted then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Legal basis][1] can be found in 35. USC 102 which describes what is prior art (=what can invalidate your patent) where it says published &quot;before the effective filing date&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**With a few caveats:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For one, we just had [a question][2] about the risks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, if you have filed the provisional but not the &quot;real&quot; application, you might want to add changes. However, those changes, as fas as not contained in the original provisional application, will have a **new** filing date. Everything disclosed in between the new and the first/old filing date will be prior art - which could invalidate **that part** of your non-provisional / the respective claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/19401/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19411" RevisionGUID="e740d073-c570-4d4c-84ca-ad86318711d2" CreationDate="2018-04-16T17:04:41.070" UserId="18033" Comment="edited body" Text="The answer is very clearly: you can release anything you want without invalidating your patent application. Actually, 18 months after the filing, the USPTO and most other patent offices will publish your application by themselfs even if it hasn't been granted then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Legal basis][1] can be found in 35. USC 102 which describes what is prior art (=what can invalidate your patent) where it says published &quot;before the effective filing date&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**With a few caveats:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For one, we just had [a question][2] about the risks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, if you have filed the provisional but not the &quot;real&quot; application, you might want to add changes. However, those changes, as far as not contained in the original provisional application, will have a **new** filing date. Everything disclosed in between the new and the first/old filing date will be prior art - which could invalidate **that part** of your non-provisional / the respective claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/19401/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53409" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18852" RevisionGUID="122a8121-0a02-4b80-98f6-4166b41fb233" CreationDate="2018-04-16T17:07:32.873" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53410" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13366" RevisionGUID="89c47334-957b-4b9a-b96a-9ee5188b6634" CreationDate="2018-04-16T21:07:38.267" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53411" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17844" RevisionGUID="c19ee331-9f70-44a6-96af-868e5c0c324c" CreationDate="2018-04-16T22:07:39.577" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53412" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17660" RevisionGUID="4d479ba9-88fc-42d4-978f-f4d51cc71bad" CreationDate="2018-04-17T05:07:59.843" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53416" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="edd70500-16de-4655-a7f9-0a5d60d59500" CreationDate="2018-04-17T07:09:11.857" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19411" RevisionGUID="fa2b9ffd-7ef1-431a-b39c-2f305f4bf782" CreationDate="2018-04-17T09:21:23.583" UserId="18033" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="The answer is very clearly: you can release anything you want without invalidating your patent application. Actually, 18 months after the filing, the USPTO and most other patent offices will publish your application by themselfs even if it hasn't been granted then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Legal basis][1] can be found in 35. USC 102 which describes what is prior art (=what can invalidate your patent) where it says published &quot;before the effective filing date&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**With a few caveats:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For one, we just had [a question][2] about the risks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, if you have filed the provisional but not the &quot;real&quot; application, you might want to add changes. However, those changes (basically **any** changes, explicitly also just rewording in many cases), as far as not contained in the original provisional application, will have a **new** filing date. Everything disclosed in between the new and the first/old filing date will be prior art - which could invalidate **that part** of your non-provisional / the respective claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/19401/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17676" RevisionGUID="f6321a8b-9387-4ccc-864a-5230a61a43ce" CreationDate="2018-04-17T16:57:03.910" UserId="17003" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="This patent expired a long time ago so you are free to practice the technology described within it. This doesn't mean there aren't newer patents you might need to be aware of. In either case, if you are only doing research and not applying the work commercially, I think you are Ok, but it would be nice for one of the actual patent attorneys or agents to verify that I'm correct. As was pointed out in the comments, you should cite the patent in any publications as you would any academic source." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53420" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17664" RevisionGUID="dd8aacb5-a82a-44ba-b812-053513026af9" CreationDate="2018-04-17T21:10:18.700" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19413" RevisionGUID="39235c7f-ce94-4736-aae1-3ace12754416" CreationDate="2018-04-18T01:28:02.293" UserId="19913" Text="I would like to submit a provisional patent via EFS to the USPTO.  There is an option to submit as a registered eFiler.  What reason would I want to perform the submission as a registered eFiler?   If I submit the PPA unregistered, can I register later and have the PPA attached to the registration as if I had submitted as registered?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53422" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19413" RevisionGUID="39235c7f-ce94-4736-aae1-3ace12754416" CreationDate="2018-04-18T01:28:02.293" UserId="19913" Text="Why become a Registered eFiler?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53423" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19413" RevisionGUID="39235c7f-ce94-4736-aae1-3ace12754416" CreationDate="2018-04-18T01:28:02.293" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53425" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18261" RevisionGUID="2645655b-68c3-4779-adb4-20e691601cad" CreationDate="2018-04-18T03:10:25.007" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53427" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14445" RevisionGUID="25127a18-8c76-442d-8b5c-fbbc57bbcac2" CreationDate="2018-04-18T04:10:27.010" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19415" RevisionGUID="8ceb4234-0328-494d-81d9-fe70a8eeb359" CreationDate="2018-04-18T05:39:25.760" UserId="20986" Text="1) Under the current patent laws (US/EU/wherever) are new ICA algorithms the discovery of mathematical truths or the invention of new procedures to identify independent components of a mixed signal set?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Would patenting something in a saturated market be economical anyway?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) If JADE or a FastICA variant were conceived/discovered today, could it be patented?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a more specific variation on :&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/13804/are-algorithm-based-inventions-patentable&#xD;&#xA;- In which the answer is given is a general  - Abstract algorithms can't be patented, but applications can be.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How abstract is too abstract?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53429" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19415" RevisionGUID="8ceb4234-0328-494d-81d9-fe70a8eeb359" CreationDate="2018-04-18T05:39:25.760" UserId="20986" Text="independent component analysis (ICA) algorithms: invention or discovery?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53430" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19415" RevisionGUID="8ceb4234-0328-494d-81d9-fe70a8eeb359" CreationDate="2018-04-18T05:39:25.760" UserId="20986" Text="&lt;computational-process&gt;&lt;mathematical-algorithm&gt;&lt;mathematical-computations&gt;&lt;independent-component-analysis&gt;&lt;fastica&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19416" RevisionGUID="4c084f12-f8d8-4cfa-b176-c5e182553a6d" CreationDate="2018-04-18T14:41:37.723" UserId="20988" Text="An item that is a health item for physical means for an individual. There is only one on the market for many years. Last updated patent was filed in 2013 and previous years. Can I take the idea itself and create my own that would serve the same purpose but not be exactly the same? As a like example, a prosthetic leg device for walking, simple design but there is only one company with a patent and manufacturing it. Can another be created and allowed a patent if it looks different but serves the same purpose? Thanks, in advance. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53432" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19416" RevisionGUID="4c084f12-f8d8-4cfa-b176-c5e182553a6d" CreationDate="2018-04-18T14:41:37.723" UserId="20988" Text="1 PATENT - ONE PRODUCT AVAILABLE - CAN I CHANGEAND PATENT" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53433" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19416" RevisionGUID="4c084f12-f8d8-4cfa-b176-c5e182553a6d" CreationDate="2018-04-18T14:41:37.723" UserId="20988" Text="&lt;device&gt;&lt;walking&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19417" RevisionGUID="7a2e479f-50bd-43dc-8fcd-02a8bd71cdc2" CreationDate="2018-04-18T17:23:57.777" UserId="17003" Text="A patent's protection is defined by its claims. For you to infringe on a patent, you must implement every aspect of at least one claim. If you do so, then you can be sued by the patent owner. It is possible that the original patents on the product are now expired. You really need to do a patent search and determine what patents are relevant and when their priority dates are. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for you second question, yes you may be able to obtain a patent for a device that serves the same purpose but works differently. Your idea would need to be patent eligible. Namely it would need to be novel, non-obvious and useful. These terms are specifically defined with respect to patents so you should perhaps read the [article][1] on Wikipedia. In any case, you would be well served to discuss your idea with a patent attorney or agent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53435" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18971" RevisionGUID="3192bd43-f4d7-4707-80fd-1792de4a340f" CreationDate="2018-04-18T19:21:30.807" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53436" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19416" RevisionGUID="f3f77c6e-9c49-4c46-976c-69568e028208" CreationDate="2018-04-18T21:06:00.207" UserId="20988" Comment="edited title" Text="An item that has patent, only this one kind of item exists, can I create a like item and patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53437" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18712" RevisionGUID="28169208-4157-4a1e-accb-9578739b5f6f" CreationDate="2018-04-18T22:21:30.697" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53438" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19293" RevisionGUID="9f79d3a6-7e21-4515-a555-515c0242dbe7" CreationDate="2018-04-19T00:21:42.540" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19418" RevisionGUID="2822f4dd-80d0-499d-8cee-33882503688e" CreationDate="2018-04-19T10:39:12.413" UserId="15489" Text="I have an application B that the examiner has provisionally rejected under double patenting, as the application has similarities with a prior application A that I made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two were submitted a month apart, and I think the loss of term for B is therefore not substantial enough to warrant spending time constructing an argument to traverse the rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner claims (to paraphrase) that B is like A if you read &quot;an arrival&quot; to be the same as &quot;a departure&quot;. If I sign a terminal disclaimer, am I opening myself up to estoppel, or can I simply submit the terminal disclaimer with no comment, thereby not admitting that &quot;an arrival&quot; is the same as &quot;a departure&quot; (I don't think they are)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any other pitfalls associated with signing and submitting terminal disclaimers? Also, what is a &quot;timely filed&quot; terminal disclaimer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53440" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19418" RevisionGUID="2822f4dd-80d0-499d-8cee-33882503688e" CreationDate="2018-04-19T10:39:12.413" UserId="15489" Text="Nonstatutory double patenting rejection and estoppel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53441" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19418" RevisionGUID="2822f4dd-80d0-499d-8cee-33882503688e" CreationDate="2018-04-19T10:39:12.413" UserId="15489" Text="&lt;terminal-disclaimer&gt;&lt;estoppel&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19419" RevisionGUID="aa1ad4eb-13f2-49bd-a1a7-c4439445bb07" CreationDate="2018-04-19T17:37:39.100" UserId="15491" Text="Thank you all for your suggestions. Meanwhile I solved the issue by creating Microsoft Access Database. It was my first time using and creating Access DB, I learned it via free youtube tutorials in couple of hours. It took some more time to fill in all the patents/inventions data and optimise it to my needs, but at the end it worked very well, I could easily trace important dates, costs, link one invention with several patents, analyze data, create reports, search for patents by different reference numbers, link them with patent registers etc. &#xA;Probably OpenOffice Base or similar software could be used for the same purpose.&#xA;I worked as lawyer (with IP background) in university TTO at that time. &#xA;Best regards" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19420" RevisionGUID="a6f92ffe-bef9-4524-ac48-9087e18057d5" CreationDate="2018-04-19T18:24:13.143" UserId="14403" Text="Application as filed with USPTO can be filed with WIPO too. The same can be filed with Receiving Office (RO) in USPTO. Structurally there is no different requirement except number of pages without extra fees. One can make changes keeping in view requirements of National phase countries and file. One will require pct-safe filing software also. Link is given below for software. All this from first hand experience. Having said that, it is always better to engage an experience attorney if budget permits.  &#xD;&#xA;http://www.wipo.int/pct-safe/en/download/download_client.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19420" RevisionGUID="5fa4cd4c-e57c-4db4-bf28-28356ac8d10e" CreationDate="2018-04-19T18:31:01.027" UserId="14403" Comment="To correct Typos." Text="Application as filed with USPTO can be filed with WIPO too. The same can be filed with Receiving Office (RO) in USPTO. Structurally there is no different requirement except number of pages without extra fees. One can make changes keeping in view requirements of National phase countries and file. One will require pct-safe filing software also. Link is given below for software. All this from first hand experience. Having said that, it is always better to engage an experienced attorney if budget permits.  &#xD;&#xA;http://www.wipo.int/pct-safe/en/download/download_client.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19421" RevisionGUID="3b15df46-0681-4fc4-94ce-d57f7c7b432e" CreationDate="2018-04-19T20:15:28.567" UserId="15489" Text="If I have an application B that I submit a terminal disclaimer for based on a non-statutory double patenting rejection due to a prior application A, and application A is subsequently rejected and not able to be allowed, what effect does this have on application B?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can B still be allowed, or is it &quot;game over&quot; for both?&#xD;&#xA;If B is subsequently allowed, does the reduction in the patent term for B still stand?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And further questions: if B is being examined before A for some reason, would an allowance of B improve the chances of A being allowed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53447" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19421" RevisionGUID="3b15df46-0681-4fc4-94ce-d57f7c7b432e" CreationDate="2018-04-19T20:15:28.567" UserId="15489" Text="What is the impact of submitting a terminal disclaimer on an application if the prior application is not allowed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53448" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19421" RevisionGUID="3b15df46-0681-4fc4-94ce-d57f7c7b432e" CreationDate="2018-04-19T20:15:28.567" UserId="15489" Text="&lt;terminal-disclaimer&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19422" RevisionGUID="d763690b-20a0-4bcb-8088-335a01ed9658" CreationDate="2018-04-20T01:16:45.410" UserId="20989" Text="On an old Non-provisional, if the patent owner keeps revising claims based on alternative embodiments and gets them granted, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What priority date do the new granted claims have? Old priority date or when the new claims are granted ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ex:&#xD;&#xA;Patent owner patents a walking teddy bear toy with alternative embodiments of walking pandas, and walking insects in 2000. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He is granted claims of a walking teddy bear. &#xD;&#xA;Claims date back to 2000. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2015 a walking grasshopper toy is all the rage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent owner deletes all claims on teddy bear and goes to revise all the patent claims to walking insects hoping to encompass the grasshopper toy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If granted, will the manufacturer of the walking insect toy be liable from 2015 or 2000 if claims are granted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53450" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19422" RevisionGUID="d763690b-20a0-4bcb-8088-335a01ed9658" CreationDate="2018-04-20T01:16:45.410" UserId="20989" Text="Edited Claims- what date priority?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53451" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19422" RevisionGUID="d763690b-20a0-4bcb-8088-335a01ed9658" CreationDate="2018-04-20T01:16:45.410" UserId="20989" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;priority-date&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19423" RevisionGUID="2bacebad-1e2f-44e6-85b7-be0c9f9da74e" CreationDate="2018-04-20T02:02:08.463" UserId="20990" Text="The answer you received is TOTALLY WRONG.  It is improper for a claim to depend from a later claim.  37 CFR 1.75(c) states: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c) One or more claims may be presented in dependent form, **referring back to** and further limiting another claim or claims in the same application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So dependent claims must refer back to an earlier claim.  The MPEP even gives examples of such improper dependent claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.   CLAIM DOES NOT REFER TO A PRECEDING CLAIM&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 3. A gadget as in any of the following claims, in which ---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 5. A gadget as in either claim 6 or claim 8, in which ---&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53453" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="6c852787-0eb4-41ff-b6be-693155182a7c" CreationDate="2018-04-20T02:42:40.123" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19424" RevisionGUID="62eb0c24-236b-4406-93fa-c39cb02388ac" CreationDate="2018-04-20T03:05:34.477" UserId="19913" Text="When describing a series of actions or steps to be performed:  What is the thought process that 'tips the scale' in one direction or the other, when trying decide if it is a **process** or a **method**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53455" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19424" RevisionGUID="62eb0c24-236b-4406-93fa-c39cb02388ac" CreationDate="2018-04-20T03:05:34.477" UserId="19913" Text="Process vs Method" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53456" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19424" RevisionGUID="62eb0c24-236b-4406-93fa-c39cb02388ac" CreationDate="2018-04-20T03:05:34.477" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;wording&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53457" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17865" RevisionGUID="20fe0812-a222-49d9-a498-dd8a15ccf9a7" CreationDate="2018-04-20T05:42:40.017" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19425" RevisionGUID="4dbeffd9-a023-49ac-a751-a2844135f613" CreationDate="2018-04-20T06:11:54.733" UserId="18033" Text="You are mixing two concepts there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Priority:** is in short the date up to which prior art publications can invalidate a claim. The priority date of the claim will be 2000. A publication from 2005 cannot invalidate the claim. (The claim needs to be fully supported by the original description though.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Provisional rights:** As I explained in [this answer][1], someone can be sued for infringing a patent application after it is granted and retrospectively, if and only if, they had notice of the application and the claims didn't substantially change (In the US, similar provisions, see linked answer, exist in other countries). Therefore if the claims are substantially changed, damages/royalties are owned only after the grant, if the manufacturer stops all &quot;would-be-infringing&quot; actions by then, they are not liable for patent infringement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/19332/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53459" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="d9075b12-7551-4d58-bc48-ba16eab21ac9" CreationDate="2018-04-20T07:42:40.243" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19426" RevisionGUID="22a9dd90-de62-4164-bc52-711881931e61" CreationDate="2018-04-20T08:42:23.950" UserId="17325" Text="There are actually only two claim categories, you either claim a physical entity (product, apparatus) or a physical activity (method, process, use), as outlined in decision G 2/88 of the Enlarged Board of Appeals of the EPO. You can find it here: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/eba/number.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my field (chemistry) we usually claim a process for preparing a chemical compound. But we also claim a method of preparation of a chemical compound. The scope of the claim is pretty much the same, as you can imagine, but the expression &quot;process&quot; is shorter that &quot;method of preparation&quot; and thus sounds more elegant. You really want to draft claims with as much less words as possible!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I have not see any examiners either in EPO (Europe) or in the US objecting about a using the word method vs process. I would dare to say that it mainly depenfs on the technical field in combination with adequate knowledge of the (english here) language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53461" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="0acfad8e-4f11-4172-8b00-b13555b9bce7" CreationDate="2018-04-20T13:43:43.460" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19427" RevisionGUID="a3f5a612-f60e-4079-aa44-583e9a632af5" CreationDate="2018-04-20T17:20:54.543" UserId="20992" Text="Kindly ask you to help me with this issue.&#xD;&#xA;I'm on 100% sure that SWIRLYDO™ coil/spiral hair ties has a prior rights than patent D698,996.&#xD;&#xA;But i can't find it :(&#xD;&#xA;Also pls help me to find other patent which has prior rights than patent D698,996&#xD;&#xA;Thanks  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53463" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19427" RevisionGUID="a3f5a612-f60e-4079-aa44-583e9a632af5" CreationDate="2018-04-20T17:20:54.543" UserId="20992" Text="which patents were prior to this patent D698,996" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53464" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19427" RevisionGUID="a3f5a612-f60e-4079-aa44-583e9a632af5" CreationDate="2018-04-20T17:20:54.543" UserId="20992" Text="&lt;design&gt;&lt;coil&gt;&lt;hair&gt;&lt;tie&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19426" RevisionGUID="45c58c0f-6a55-4652-9996-96f299d63411" CreationDate="2018-04-20T22:09:53.223" UserId="19913" Comment="spelling" Text="There are actually only two claim categories, you either claim a physical entity (product, apparatus) or a physical activity (method, process, use), as outlined in decision G 2/88 of the Enlarged Board of Appeals of the EPO. You can find it here: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/eba/number.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my field (chemistry) we usually claim a process for preparing a chemical compound. But we also claim a method of preparation of a chemical compound. The scope of the claim is pretty much the same, as you can imagine, but the expression &quot;process&quot; is shorter that &quot;method of preparation&quot; and thus sounds more elegant. You really want to draft claims with as much less words as possible!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I have not see any examiners either in EPO (Europe) or in the US objecting about a using the word method vs process. I would dare to say that it mainly depends on the technical field in combination with adequate knowledge of the (English here) language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53466" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="c7799a75-7230-4410-81fb-99f9a71f3d45" CreationDate="2018-04-20T23:46:22.607" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53468" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16926" RevisionGUID="b4832ff3-11a3-486c-81b6-dccb2ef12041" CreationDate="2018-04-21T00:46:22.927" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19430" RevisionGUID="ed1834d5-e536-4553-8c8c-00c76a1b6636" CreationDate="2018-04-21T16:09:16.187" UserId="18769" Text="&quot;Full scope enablement&quot; -- i.e. that the entire scope of the claim is enabled under 35 USC 112 -- has been identified as a requirement in case law.  See [here][1].  Also from MPEP 2164.08: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that &quot;the **specification must teach** those skilled in the art how to make and use **the full scope** of the claimed invention without 'undue experimentation'.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, the typical inquiry for obviousness is whether &quot;the subject matter as a whole was obvious&quot;.  Therefore, does this permit that some of the scope is obvious while the claim as a whole can still be deemed non-obvious?  I feel like I often see such &quot;partially obvious&quot; claims, but according to the following [CAFC case analysis][2], it appears that all claim scope must be non-obvious:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to the Court, the district court incorrectly focused on whether specific compounds containing a C1-amide group, like bimatoprost, were rendered obvious when **the proper analysis should focus on whether “any compounds within the broad genus** claimed by the ’029 patent, including those that did not have the C1-amide groups, **were obvious** at the time of the invention.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2008/02/enablement-cont.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.finnegan.com/files/Upload/Newsletters/Last_Month_at_the_Federal_Circuit/2014/July/FCN_Jul14_8.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53476" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19430" RevisionGUID="ed1834d5-e536-4553-8c8c-00c76a1b6636" CreationDate="2018-04-21T16:09:16.187" UserId="18769" Text="Full Scope Non-Obviousness?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53477" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19430" RevisionGUID="ed1834d5-e536-4553-8c8c-00c76a1b6636" CreationDate="2018-04-21T16:09:16.187" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;us&gt;&lt;scope&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19431" RevisionGUID="81822360-5471-4e95-a4c8-0f5b1af40877" CreationDate="2018-04-21T16:22:40.220" UserId="18769" Text="I may be missing something, but I am not sure why this would matter?  Both process and method claims would fall under the statutory ([35 USC 101][1]) category of &quot;process&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only place it would seem to matter is w.r.t. to &quot;product by process&quot; claims as DonQuiKong points out.  In this case, you would not be claiming the method/process, but the physical outcome as defined by the method/process, and thus this sort of claim would probably fall under the statutory category of &quot;composition of matter&quot; or &quot;manufacture&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/101" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19432" RevisionGUID="7e6ef0ef-0301-4030-b660-64ce776eb35f" CreationDate="2018-04-21T17:13:56.163" UserId="18769" Text="Based on a few utility patent prosecution histories I've looked through (at least based on their &quot;translated&quot; documents in USPTO Global Dossier), it appears that Chinese examiners make little effort to search for prior art or make substantive arguments against claims.  For instance, in one case the PCT prior art documents and arguments against patentability of all claims were merely regurgitated, after which an allowance was granted on all (slightly amended) claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It this &quot;weak&quot; examination of Chinese applications I've looked at representative of SIPO as a whole?  If so, are Chinese patents worth much?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53480" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19432" RevisionGUID="7e6ef0ef-0301-4030-b660-64ce776eb35f" CreationDate="2018-04-21T17:13:56.163" UserId="18769" Text="Does Chinese Patent Examination Lack Rigor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53481" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19432" RevisionGUID="7e6ef0ef-0301-4030-b660-64ce776eb35f" CreationDate="2018-04-21T17:13:56.163" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;examination&gt;&lt;china&gt;&lt;sipo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19434" RevisionGUID="8f117f67-7672-45fc-95c4-1fd4b41a7ca3" CreationDate="2018-04-22T00:29:27.363" UserId="15503" Text="By way of preface, this is all opinion. As far as I know, there are no empirical studies on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that a US or EP examiner is much more likely to reject an application for lacking novelty or being obvious (compared to China, or for that matter, Japan, the UK, Australia, Canada etc). If your yardstick for rigor is the likelihood of rejection, then certainly those other jurisdictions are less rigorous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would question whether that is an appropriate definition for rigor. Certainly a US examiner combining 4 unrelated documents to justify a non-obviousness rejection or an EP examiner declaring that all the novel features of a claim are mere implementation details with no technical effect based on the common general knowledge does not necessarily seem rigorous to me. Instead, in my view, it demotes the patent application process in the US and EP to a crapshoot, where you can do no more than hope the examiner is in a good mood on the day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, what you describe of Chinese examination seems generally representative of my experience. The Chinese examiner will generally adopt the IPRP (or the US or EP analysis, if they are available), and expect the applicant to address the rejections there. However, I should note that that is common among most offices (other the US and EP). And in fact, national offices adopting the analysis from the international phase is precisely one of the intentions of the PCT system. The fact that the US and EP choose to repeat the search and examination anew in most cases does not make them more rigorous necessarily (and I would cynically suggest they just want more search fees for themselves).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Are Chinese patents worth much?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It depends if you think a patent for one of the world's largest economies and the world's largest consumer market has any value. A Chinese patent would certainly be my third choice of jurisdiction (after the US and EP).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, from the point of view of an applicant (and ignoring broader externalities), weak examination is great. An invalid granted patent has significantly more value than a refused application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53490" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="0f4c0283-b045-449f-8c78-9f68a0a33f63" CreationDate="2018-04-22T04:51:43.173" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53491" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13870" RevisionGUID="e93017a2-7ae1-4785-afbe-8c9dea1e92c6" CreationDate="2018-04-22T09:51:49.833" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19430" RevisionGUID="5d1c0950-6a56-4861-aa5f-9cefa1806fe5" CreationDate="2018-04-22T21:27:04.063" UserId="18769" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="&quot;Full scope&quot; enablement -- i.e. that the entire scope of the claim is enabled under 35 USC 112 -- has been identified as a requirement in case law.  See [here][1].  Also from MPEP 2164.08: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that &quot;the **specification must teach** those skilled in the art how to make and use **the full scope** of the claimed invention without 'undue experimentation'.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Does such a &quot;full scope&quot; requirement also apply to non-obviousness/103?**  The typical inquiry for obviousness is whether &quot;the subject matter as a whole was obvious&quot;.  Therefore, does this permit that some of the scope is obvious while the claim as a whole can still be deemed non-obvious?  According to the following [CAFC case analysis][2], it appears that all claim scope must be non-obvious:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to the Court, the district court incorrectly focused on whether specific compounds containing a C1-amide group, like bimatoprost, were rendered obvious when **the proper analysis should focus on whether “any compounds within the broad genus** claimed by the ’029 patent, including those that did not have the C1-amide groups, **were obvious** at the time of the invention.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I feel like I have seen broad issued claims that would seem to encompass obvious species.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2008/02/enablement-cont.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.finnegan.com/files/Upload/Newsletters/Last_Month_at_the_Federal_Circuit/2014/July/FCN_Jul14_8.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19435" RevisionGUID="0abcdcab-7fc6-431b-8740-7fa623a4dea4" CreationDate="2018-04-23T00:30:04.330" UserId="3076" Text="I agree with Maca that, by definition, if any specific example that falls under the scope of a claim is obvious, the claim is obvious.  Examiners do not need to find &quot;full scope&quot; obviousness, applicants need to have full scope non-obviousness.  Some judges in district courts get a very small number of patent cases ever. Can you image a response to a 103 rejection in an office action - &quot;yes, that example case is obvious under X and Y and does fall under the scope of the claim but that doesn't establish that the claim is obvious&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19436" RevisionGUID="22f7284a-3b7f-49ad-8b8f-97cf46d05b80" CreationDate="2018-04-23T01:03:05.477" UserId="3076" Text="Design patents cover the ornamental appearance of an item. The patent in question was issued a final rejection for not being novel in light of US5,003,993. The applicant pointed out that the spacing between the spirals were wider in '993 (relative to the width of the spirals than in the applicant's design.) [![enter image description here][1]][1] If you look up [US5,003,993][2], you will see that its purpose is quite different that something for hair management!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am also including a image of the Swirlydo. [![enter image description here][3][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was not cited by the examiner. Possibly because their go-to resource is patents and possibly the SWIRLYDO was not yet made public before the filing date in 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NnamD.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5003993A&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VyZMH.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19436" RevisionGUID="5c38a28b-0d83-47c9-adfc-a31ea856d07c" CreationDate="2018-04-23T01:15:14.057" UserId="3076" Comment="added 228 characters in body" Text="Design patents cover the ornamental appearance of an item. The patent in question was issued a final rejection for not being novel in light of US5,003,993, Silver. The applicant pointed out that the spacing between the spirals were wider in '993 (relative to the width of the spirals than in the applicant's design.) [![enter image description here][1]][1] If you look up [US5,003,993][2], you will see that its purpose is quite different that something for hair management!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am also including a image of the Swirlydo. [![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was not cited by the examiner. Possibly because their go-to resource is patents and possibly the SWIRLYDO was not yet made public before the filing date in 2012. IF it were prior art and cited, the applicant might have pointed out that the coils in the swirlydo are tighter and the relationship between the width of the coils and the radius of the overall circle was not the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NnamD.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5003993A&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FeKBb.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19437" RevisionGUID="d0436e1e-980b-4221-9184-d16eddef2e66" CreationDate="2018-04-23T01:56:01.407" UserId="3076" Text="An *actual* non-statutory double patenting rejection can only be relative to an already issued patent. However a *provisional* non-statutory double patenting rejection can be issued based on a co-pending application. Often both applications will get such a rejection. If handled correctly, you would not end up with a terminal disclaimer based on a patent that never issued. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The merits of the prosecution of each application might be unconsciously affected positively or negatively if you have the same examiner. But if the applicant makes some admission, like - &quot;you are correct, those two sets of claims in those two patent applications do not seem patentably distinct to me&quot;, that admission can hurt in both cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19438" RevisionGUID="59d96fef-e031-4088-9f8b-f6aaa4ee0d10" CreationDate="2018-04-23T02:02:21.747" UserId="3076" Text="Clearly do not go on the record agreeing to the examiner's point of view; and much better if you explicitly state you do not agree. You probably already know this, but besides affecting the term, it also ties the ownership of the two patents together forever." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19439" RevisionGUID="18ab70dc-891d-4e90-8ba9-a9392dc25114" CreationDate="2018-04-23T02:09:36.643" UserId="3076" Text="Yes, you can attach it latter as long as you know the application number and filing date. If you lost that information you might have some hoops to go through to show that it was you that filed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19440" RevisionGUID="6fc1321d-f521-432f-8f95-23ed96c50cda" CreationDate="2018-04-23T02:21:38.857" UserId="3076" Text="After publication, when you can see the claims, you might find that the references you previously submitted are not as on-target as you assumed and end up filing both. A consideration might be that a third party submission can be done anonymously." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19441" RevisionGUID="3ee865a8-b0cf-4be8-a7ce-cd3baf6731f1" CreationDate="2018-04-23T02:44:56.923" UserId="3076" Text="I know an inventor who didn't get a filing date because the entire body of the short amount of text in the application was labeled something like &quot;Summary&quot; or &quot;Overview&quot;.  Another did get a filing date but the drawings he submitted had very light lines and all of the drawings in the USPTO's servers were blank." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19442" RevisionGUID="1565465d-c73b-44cc-aad9-e3982a9e9c56" CreationDate="2018-04-23T02:50:27.280" UserId="3076" Text="To the second question - The existence, breadth or narrowness of claims in a provisional application should not have any effect on the non-provisional applications that benefit from it. I suppose you might write something in a claim or anywhere in a provisional that demonstrates you are not &quot;in possession&quot; of the invention or defacto makes some admission about prior art, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19443" RevisionGUID="dadfdb10-f64c-4e0d-b9d2-120137f6f42f" CreationDate="2018-04-23T02:54:31.930" UserId="3076" Text="Regarding just the mechanics - the PCT is more strict on following drawing rules and they require the PDFs in an A4 size. They will usually let you/make you fix these things later if it is clear no new matter is being added." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53504" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="a7b24765-6fe3-4389-b955-d1da8a2cdfc9" CreationDate="2018-04-23T03:04:05.410" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53505" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16361" RevisionGUID="ecb9db56-bc7f-4fa9-a5ea-1fbab91587a1" CreationDate="2018-04-23T05:05:47.430" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19444" RevisionGUID="edd54ba6-16c8-4ddd-bb11-8ca44f20fee7" CreationDate="2018-04-23T06:40:12.050" UserId="17325" Text="I have a slightly different conclusion drawn based on my experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see that chinese examiners are tedious in searching prior art and their objections are almost always described in a detailed manner, which means they have at least checked that specific part of the cited prior art. I've seen them quite reluctant to grant an inventive step which usually forces chinese attorneys to narrow down the claims in a rediculously detailed manner (which in my view makes the claims non-enforcable). I am also under the strong impression that you have less chances to get a patent granted in China if you are a European (or US) applicant, than if you are a chinese one. Even smaller chances if you are a Japanese applicant! To be fair, though, US applicants have a harder time in EPO than Europeans and vice-versa, as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examination style is certainly different from that of the EPO or the USPTO, but this is something expected. Chinese patent law is younger than the European or American one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the quality of a granted patent, I tend to agree with Maca. A person working with patents may well understand that a certain granted patent is worthless. The problem is that he is rarely the one running the business or even worse, he is not a potential client. The decision maker or the potential client does not understand patents and he is usually scared off by granted patents. After all, we rarely can guarantee that the owner of a low-quality granted patent will NOT proceed to litigation, can we?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19445" RevisionGUID="0d6cf465-5a38-48a5-a3b9-e46e89dc657e" CreationDate="2018-04-23T07:40:20.943" UserId="18033" Text="Citing the relavnmt [section of the MPEP][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;B. Between Copending Applications—Provisional Rejections&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;An examiner may become aware of two or more copending applications that were filed by the same inventive entity, a different inventive entities having a common inventor, a common applicant, and/or a common owner/assignee, or that claim an invention resulting from activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement as defined in 35 U.S.C. 102(c) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2) and (3), that would raise an issue of double patenting if one of the applications became a patent. Where this issue can be addressed without violating the confidential status of applications (35 U.S.C. 122), the courts have sanctioned the practice of making applicant aware of the potential double patenting problem if one of the applications became a patent by permitting the examiner to make a “provisional” rejection on the ground of double patenting. In re Mott, 539 F.2d 1291, 190 USPQ 536 (CCPA 1976); In re Wetterau, 356 F.2d 556, 148 USPQ 499 (CCPA 1966). The merits of such a provisional rejection can be addressed by both the applicant and the examiner without waiting for the first patent to issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A provisional double patenting rejection should continue to be made by the examiner until the rejection has been obviated or is no longer applicable except as noted below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. Provisional Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejections&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). **Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, **such a filing should not be held in abeyance**. Only objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. Therefore, an application must not be allowed unless the required compliant terminal disclaimer(s) is/are filed and/or the withdrawal of the nonstatutory double patenting rejection(s) is made of record by the examiner. See MPEP § 804.02, subsection VI, for filing terminal disclaimers required to overcome nonstatutory double patenting rejections in applications filed on or after June 8, 1995.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If two (or more) pending applications are filed, in each of which a rejection of one claimed invention over the other on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting (NDP) is proper, the provisional NDP rejection will be made in each application. Where there are three applications containing claims that conflict such that a provisional NDP rejection is made in each application based upon the other two, and it is necessary to file terminal disclaimers to overcome the rejections, it is not sufficient to file a terminal disclaimer in only one of the applications addressing the other two applications. Rather, an appropriate terminal disclaimer must be filed in at least two of the applications to require common ownership or enforcement for all three applications. A terminal disclaimer may be required in each of the three applications in certain situations (e.g., when all three applications have the same effective U.S. filing date). See subsections (a) and (b) below. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And under 804.02&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**The filing of a terminal disclaimer to obviate a rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting is not an admission of the propriety of the rejection**. Quad Environmental Technologies Corp. v. Union Sanitary District, 946 F.2d 870, 20 USPQ2d 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In Quad Environmental Technologies, the court indicated that the “filing of a terminal disclaimer simply serves the statutory function of removing the rejection of double patenting, and raises neither a presumption nor estoppel on the merits of the rejection.” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(emphasis added both times)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the rejection has to be adressed. A terminal disclaimer can be filed without it beeing an admission.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't find any statements as to whether the TD can be withdrawn if the earlier application is withdrawn, but suspect no. I'll have to leave that question open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s804.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53508" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="cde0268f-80b6-4ad2-a382-f1fc4eb53581" CreationDate="2018-04-23T08:05:47.680" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19445" RevisionGUID="d1ed750b-b958-4d82-9ede-db7c2fb8e51e" CreationDate="2018-04-23T12:43:30.757" UserId="18033" Comment="added 411 characters in body" Text="Citing the relavnmt [section of the MPEP][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;B. Between Copending Applications—Provisional Rejections&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;An examiner may become aware of two or more copending applications that were filed by the same inventive entity, a different inventive entities having a common inventor, a common applicant, and/or a common owner/assignee, or that claim an invention resulting from activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement as defined in 35 U.S.C. 102(c) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2) and (3), that would raise an issue of double patenting if one of the applications became a patent. Where this issue can be addressed without violating the confidential status of applications (35 U.S.C. 122), the courts have sanctioned the practice of making applicant aware of the potential double patenting problem if one of the applications became a patent by permitting the examiner to make a “provisional” rejection on the ground of double patenting. In re Mott, 539 F.2d 1291, 190 USPQ 536 (CCPA 1976); In re Wetterau, 356 F.2d 556, 148 USPQ 499 (CCPA 1966). The merits of such a provisional rejection can be addressed by both the applicant and the examiner without waiting for the first patent to issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A provisional double patenting rejection should continue to be made by the examiner until the rejection has been obviated or is no longer applicable except as noted below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. Provisional Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejections&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). **Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, **such a filing should not be held in abeyance**. Only objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. Therefore, an application must not be allowed unless the required compliant terminal disclaimer(s) is/are filed and/or the withdrawal of the nonstatutory double patenting rejection(s) is made of record by the examiner. See MPEP § 804.02, subsection VI, for filing terminal disclaimers required to overcome nonstatutory double patenting rejections in applications filed on or after June 8, 1995.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If two (or more) pending applications are filed, in each of which a rejection of one claimed invention over the other on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting (NDP) is proper, the provisional NDP rejection will be made in each application. Where there are three applications containing claims that conflict such that a provisional NDP rejection is made in each application based upon the other two, and it is necessary to file terminal disclaimers to overcome the rejections, it is not sufficient to file a terminal disclaimer in only one of the applications addressing the other two applications. Rather, an appropriate terminal disclaimer must be filed in at least two of the applications to require common ownership or enforcement for all three applications. A terminal disclaimer may be required in each of the three applications in certain situations (e.g., when all three applications have the same effective U.S. filing date). See subsections (a) and (b) below. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And under 804.02&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**The filing of a terminal disclaimer to obviate a rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting is not an admission of the propriety of the rejection**. Quad Environmental Technologies Corp. v. Union Sanitary District, 946 F.2d 870, 20 USPQ2d 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In Quad Environmental Technologies, the court indicated that the “filing of a terminal disclaimer simply serves the statutory function of removing the rejection of double patenting, and raises neither a presumption nor estoppel on the merits of the rejection.” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(emphasis added both times)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the rejection has to be adressed. A terminal disclaimer can be filed without it beeing an admission.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The terminal disclaimer can then be withdrawn later acording to [this secondary source][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(3) A filed terminal disclaimer can be withdrawn prior to issuance of the patent by submitting a petition under 37 CFR 1.182.  This may be desirable if the rejected claims are later cancelled, are shown to be patentably distinct or if the examiner later withdraws the double patenting rejection.  However, once the patent issues, the terminal disclaimer cannot be withdrawn. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s804.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.wnlaw.com/blog/non-statutory-double-patenting-rejections-terminal-disclaimers/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19445" RevisionGUID="a9ccfdd3-c592-4bd8-981e-0132ee2082ef" CreationDate="2018-04-23T12:50:43.493" UserId="18033" Comment="added 131 characters in body" Text="Citing the relavnmt [section of the MPEP][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;B. Between Copending Applications—Provisional Rejections&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;An examiner may become aware of two or more copending applications that were filed by the same inventive entity, a different inventive entities having a common inventor, a common applicant, and/or a common owner/assignee, or that claim an invention resulting from activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement as defined in 35 U.S.C. 102(c) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2) and (3), that would raise an issue of double patenting if one of the applications became a patent. Where this issue can be addressed without violating the confidential status of applications (35 U.S.C. 122), the courts have sanctioned the practice of making applicant aware of the potential double patenting problem if one of the applications became a patent by permitting the examiner to make a “provisional” rejection on the ground of double patenting. In re Mott, 539 F.2d 1291, 190 USPQ 536 (CCPA 1976); In re Wetterau, 356 F.2d 556, 148 USPQ 499 (CCPA 1966). The merits of such a provisional rejection can be addressed by both the applicant and the examiner without waiting for the first patent to issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A provisional double patenting rejection should continue to be made by the examiner until the rejection has been obviated or is no longer applicable except as noted below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. Provisional Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejections&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). **Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, **such a filing should not be held in abeyance**. Only objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. Therefore, an application must not be allowed unless the required compliant terminal disclaimer(s) is/are filed and/or the withdrawal of the nonstatutory double patenting rejection(s) is made of record by the examiner. See MPEP § 804.02, subsection VI, for filing terminal disclaimers required to overcome nonstatutory double patenting rejections in applications filed on or after June 8, 1995.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If two (or more) pending applications are filed, in each of which a rejection of one claimed invention over the other on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting (NDP) is proper, the provisional NDP rejection will be made in each application. Where there are three applications containing claims that conflict such that a provisional NDP rejection is made in each application based upon the other two, and it is necessary to file terminal disclaimers to overcome the rejections, it is not sufficient to file a terminal disclaimer in only one of the applications addressing the other two applications. Rather, an appropriate terminal disclaimer must be filed in at least two of the applications to require common ownership or enforcement for all three applications. A terminal disclaimer may be required in each of the three applications in certain situations (e.g., when all three applications have the same effective U.S. filing date). See subsections (a) and (b) below. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And under 804.02&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**The filing of a terminal disclaimer to obviate a rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting is not an admission of the propriety of the rejection**. Quad Environmental Technologies Corp. v. Union Sanitary District, 946 F.2d 870, 20 USPQ2d 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In Quad Environmental Technologies, the court indicated that the “filing of a terminal disclaimer simply serves the statutory function of removing the rejection of double patenting, and raises neither a presumption nor estoppel on the merits of the rejection.” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(emphasis added both times)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the rejection has to be adressed. A terminal disclaimer can be filed without it beeing an admission.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The terminal disclaimer can then be withdrawn later acording to 804.02 MPEP (last paragraph)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If a terminal disclaimer is filed in an application in which the claims are then canceled or otherwise shown to be patentably distinct from the reference claims, the terminal disclaimer may be withdrawn before issuance of the patent by filing a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 requesting withdrawal of the recorded terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer may not be withdrawn after issuance of the patent. See MPEP § 1490, subsection VII., for a complete discussion of withdrawal of a terminal disclaimer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s804.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.wnlaw.com/blog/non-statutory-double-patenting-rejections-terminal-disclaimers/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19445" RevisionGUID="9f6e1a46-fd06-44c3-8975-5aadf9b0f030" CreationDate="2018-04-23T14:42:50.213" UserId="18033" Comment="edited body" Text="Citing the relevant [section of the MPEP][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;B. Between Copending Applications—Provisional Rejections&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;An examiner may become aware of two or more copending applications that were filed by the same inventive entity, a different inventive entities having a common inventor, a common applicant, and/or a common owner/assignee, or that claim an invention resulting from activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement as defined in 35 U.S.C. 102(c) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2) and (3), that would raise an issue of double patenting if one of the applications became a patent. Where this issue can be addressed without violating the confidential status of applications (35 U.S.C. 122), the courts have sanctioned the practice of making applicant aware of the potential double patenting problem if one of the applications became a patent by permitting the examiner to make a “provisional” rejection on the ground of double patenting. In re Mott, 539 F.2d 1291, 190 USPQ 536 (CCPA 1976); In re Wetterau, 356 F.2d 556, 148 USPQ 499 (CCPA 1966). The merits of such a provisional rejection can be addressed by both the applicant and the examiner without waiting for the first patent to issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A provisional double patenting rejection should continue to be made by the examiner until the rejection has been obviated or is no longer applicable except as noted below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. Provisional Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejections&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). **Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, **such a filing should not be held in abeyance**. Only objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. Therefore, an application must not be allowed unless the required compliant terminal disclaimer(s) is/are filed and/or the withdrawal of the nonstatutory double patenting rejection(s) is made of record by the examiner. See MPEP § 804.02, subsection VI, for filing terminal disclaimers required to overcome nonstatutory double patenting rejections in applications filed on or after June 8, 1995.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If two (or more) pending applications are filed, in each of which a rejection of one claimed invention over the other on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting (NDP) is proper, the provisional NDP rejection will be made in each application. Where there are three applications containing claims that conflict such that a provisional NDP rejection is made in each application based upon the other two, and it is necessary to file terminal disclaimers to overcome the rejections, it is not sufficient to file a terminal disclaimer in only one of the applications addressing the other two applications. Rather, an appropriate terminal disclaimer must be filed in at least two of the applications to require common ownership or enforcement for all three applications. A terminal disclaimer may be required in each of the three applications in certain situations (e.g., when all three applications have the same effective U.S. filing date). See subsections (a) and (b) below. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And under 804.02&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**The filing of a terminal disclaimer to obviate a rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting is not an admission of the propriety of the rejection**. Quad Environmental Technologies Corp. v. Union Sanitary District, 946 F.2d 870, 20 USPQ2d 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In Quad Environmental Technologies, the court indicated that the “filing of a terminal disclaimer simply serves the statutory function of removing the rejection of double patenting, and raises neither a presumption nor estoppel on the merits of the rejection.” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(emphasis added both times)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the rejection has to be adressed. A terminal disclaimer can be filed without it beeing an admission.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The terminal disclaimer can then be withdrawn later acording to 804.02 MPEP (last paragraph)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If a terminal disclaimer is filed in an application in which the claims are then canceled or otherwise shown to be patentably distinct from the reference claims, the terminal disclaimer may be withdrawn before issuance of the patent by filing a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 requesting withdrawal of the recorded terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer may not be withdrawn after issuance of the patent. See MPEP § 1490, subsection VII., for a complete discussion of withdrawal of a terminal disclaimer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s804.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.wnlaw.com/blog/non-statutory-double-patenting-rejections-terminal-disclaimers/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19446" RevisionGUID="2efc8026-1e9c-4824-bbac-b28ec0077275" CreationDate="2018-04-23T17:17:50.000" UserId="20990" Text="MPEP 608.01(N) simply reminds the Examiner or Applicant to carefully check the numbering of dependent claims to avoid improper dependence on later claims.  In other words, it  proves my point that you cannot claim dependence to a later claim.  Improper dependence on a later claim is NEVER unavoidable since claims can always be renumbered by canceling and/or adding new claims  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53513" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18734" RevisionGUID="81fef2bf-8a9d-423a-a70d-b74adcc86d65" CreationDate="2018-04-23T21:11:25.817" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19447" RevisionGUID="d6191b01-d0ee-4871-9f99-0bce2cfbeb7b" CreationDate="2018-04-24T01:14:16.700" UserId="18769" Text="E.g. assume first-filed application X disparages the prior art, thus implicitly disclaiming that scope.  Does later-filed application Y filing a terminal disclaimer over app X also lose this claim scope even if the app Y on its own would otherwise be considered to retain the scope?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar case could arise for parents of continuation applications that have created prosecution history estoppel (e.g. characterize a claim term in a limiting way in an office action response). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53515" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19447" RevisionGUID="d6191b01-d0ee-4871-9f99-0bce2cfbeb7b" CreationDate="2018-04-24T01:14:16.700" UserId="18769" Text="Do terminal disclaimers (TDs) inherit estoppel/disclaimers from TD &quot;family&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53516" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19447" RevisionGUID="d6191b01-d0ee-4871-9f99-0bce2cfbeb7b" CreationDate="2018-04-24T01:14:16.700" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;continuation&gt;&lt;continuation-in-part&gt;&lt;terminal-disclaimer&gt;&lt;estoppel&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19448" RevisionGUID="db28ebce-83fe-4a1d-98de-68d890f82a03" CreationDate="2018-04-24T02:13:52.563" UserId="18769" Text="It is common practice when writing specifications to disclose a broad range of possible embodiments &quot;just to be safe&quot;, and without much thought to how such embodiments might be realized in practice.  However, is there a downside to doing this?  Without thinking through and verifying that all embodiments are enabled (e.g. all combinations and subcombinations of features disclosed), it seems possible that generic claims encompassing the disclosure would be invalid over enablement.  E.g. see [here][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The claim was broad enough to cover both mechanical and electronic sensors. The patent's specification, on the other hand, described mechanical sensors in detail, however, the electronic sensor was described in broad terms and illustrated in one conceptual figure. The Court of Appeals ruled that the claim was invalid on the grounds that the full scope of the claims covered electronic sensors as well as mechanical sensors, but the specification did not teach a person skilled in the art how to make and use the invention with an electronic sensor (i.e. the claim was not enabled).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: This also could bring up the issue of operability/&quot;utility&quot; of embodiments within the claim scope (e.g. some combinations of disclosed features may result in a nonsense embodiment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.legalnews.com/detroit/1079616" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53518" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19448" RevisionGUID="db28ebce-83fe-4a1d-98de-68d890f82a03" CreationDate="2018-04-24T02:13:52.563" UserId="18769" Text="Risks of &quot;kitchen sink&quot; disclosures?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53519" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19448" RevisionGUID="db28ebce-83fe-4a1d-98de-68d890f82a03" CreationDate="2018-04-24T02:13:52.563" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;specification&gt;&lt;embodiments&gt;&lt;enablement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19449" RevisionGUID="ab9828b0-733c-49b3-93d8-e0db553e5592" CreationDate="2018-04-24T07:53:00.637" UserId="17325" Text="Practice differs across jurisdictions worldwide. The idea is the same behind all of them, but usually the tools to analyze enablement are different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think patent attorneys don't like broad claims because they know it is tough to support them and the danger of having an invalid claim granted lures around. The applicant, unfortunately, is in most cases very happy with that and very unhappy with a narrow claim - until (and if) he sees his patent invalidated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, it is quite common to see broad claims drafted, but in my experience they rarely make it through examination. It all boils down to the person who drafted the application, whose job is to create enough and robust &quot;falling back&quot; positions in order to amend the claim(s) to a narrower version. There are different requirements depending on the jurisdiction, in US I think it is more liberal, while in Europe the safest road is to literally have the falling back positions drafted at least inside the description (to avoid the notorious Article 123(2) EPC objection). If it is too much, at least make sure that specific combinations are clearly suggested and disclosed in the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What really is enabling and what is not, usually is subjective. If it was e.g. a technique about boiling pasta and the disclosure was about spaghetti, penne and farfale, then you would expect that a claim to all pasta would be considered enabling. But a claim to pasta, rice or noodles, in view of the above examples, could be considered non-enabling, because rice is so much different compared to pasta and the skilled person might not be expected to be able to implement the new technique to rice in the absence of an example. This is exactly what a skilled patent attorney should be able to judge, at least by way of probability and in view of recent case law (you need to be updated, legal tests to define that change sometimes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a final remark, what is called &quot;enablement&quot; in US is &quot;sufficiency of disclosure&quot; in EPO, defined by Article 83 EPC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19449" RevisionGUID="ea430cc9-97ad-4353-9704-e9c6419d521a" CreationDate="2018-04-24T07:58:49.687" UserId="17325" Comment="added 553 characters in body" Text="Practice differs across jurisdictions worldwide. The idea is the same behind all of them, but usually the tools to analyze enablement are different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think patent attorneys don't like broad claims because they know it is tough to support them and the danger of having an invalid claim granted lures around. The applicant, unfortunately, is in most cases very happy with that and very unhappy with a narrow claim - until (and if) he sees his patent invalidated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, it is quite common to see broad claims drafted, but in my experience they rarely make it through examination. It all boils down to the person who drafted the application, whose job is to create enough and robust &quot;falling back&quot; positions in order to amend the claim(s) to a narrower version. There are different requirements depending on the jurisdiction, in US I think it is more liberal, while in Europe the safest road is to literally have the falling back positions drafted at least inside the description (to avoid the notorious Article 123(2) EPC objection). If it is too much, at least make sure that specific combinations are clearly suggested and disclosed in the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What really is enabling and what is not, usually is subjective. If it was e.g. a technique about boiling pasta and the disclosure was about spaghetti, penne and farfale, then you would expect that a claim to all pasta would be considered enabling. But a claim to pasta, rice or noodles, in view of the above examples, could be considered non-enabling, because rice is so much different compared to pasta and the skilled person might not be expected to be able to implement the new technique to rice in the absence of an example. This is exactly what a skilled patent attorney should be able to judge, at least by way of probability and in view of recent case law (you need to be updated, legal tests to define that change sometimes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you get an objection based on enablement during examination that's fine, if you are prepared - amend and go on. If you have a too broad claim granted, it depends on the flexibility of the procedure under which this claim is challenged. In Europe it is fairly easy to amend during opposition proceedings and keep your claim alive in a narrower form (but you need a nice and robust drafting for that as explained). In US it is not clear to me how easy it is to amend during IPR challenges, I think the situation is currently in a dynamic situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a final remark, what is called &quot;enablement&quot; in US is &quot;sufficiency of disclosure&quot; in EPO, defined by Article 83 EPC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19450" RevisionGUID="5013e679-2c14-49f6-b422-d3aff4a67a46" CreationDate="2018-04-24T08:09:42.140" UserId="15489" Text="I think the following answers my question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MPEP 804.1.b.iv&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the reference application has been abandoned or where the reference application has not matured to a patent and the provisional double patenting rejection is the only remaining rejection in the application the examiner should withdraw the provisional rejection. See MPEP § 1214.06.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if B proceeds to allowance barring the provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection, and A hasn't issued yet, then the examiner should withdraw the provisional rejection. Which means B should technically, after PTA, have a normal 20 year term plus adjustments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subsequently, A will presumably have a nonprovisional non-statutory double patenting rejection applied to it, which can be overcome with a terminal disclaimer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53523" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18332" RevisionGUID="164148c9-f1ea-45aa-8d6a-55a40f46689a" CreationDate="2018-04-24T16:14:52.363" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19451" RevisionGUID="74950d8c-dad9-423d-9f88-6ca706debea1" CreationDate="2018-04-24T17:08:56.290" UserId="21006" Text="In reference to the patent: [EP3247374A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP3247374A1&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent an infringement in progress?&#xD;&#xA;This patent is currently being discussed (2018-4-24) as a hot topic in China Taiwan's media. &#xD;&#xA;The patent was originally owned by Dong Hua University in Taiwan and without documentation of approval or potentially without University's knowledge this patent in Taiwan maybe taken by Wu Maokun and applied as Patent in the USA. &#xD;&#xA;Is this considered an infringement? &#xD;&#xA;see youtube video:  www.youtube.com/watch?UsECC881dIY   (Part2 of video)&#xD;&#xA;starting from time 00:00 till 10:40 (~10 minutes) is talking about this is maybe illegal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53525" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19451" RevisionGUID="74950d8c-dad9-423d-9f88-6ca706debea1" CreationDate="2018-04-24T17:08:56.290" UserId="21006" Text="Is this patent legal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53526" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19451" RevisionGUID="74950d8c-dad9-423d-9f88-6ca706debea1" CreationDate="2018-04-24T17:08:56.290" UserId="21006" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;patent-infringment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19452" RevisionGUID="fc1e00f7-7d1f-4297-b389-cd31548cddce" CreationDate="2018-04-24T18:04:29.127" UserId="17003" Text="Your question is somewhat ambiguous. I'll attempt to answer it as well as I can. The linked document is an application, not a patent. It may or may not ever become a patent and even if it does, it's claims may be narrowed over what is in the application. If there is published prior art before the application's priority date of January 21, 2015 then that can be cause for the application being rejected. As for the Youtube video, talking about a patent or published application is not an infringement. A patent protects what is claimed. In this case, the application is attempting to patent a medication. If it gets granted, then the  medication as described in the claims is protected. Patent protection is limited to the country they are granted in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53528" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18385" RevisionGUID="6f831b58-f7de-4927-b47e-43cea8cef41f" CreationDate="2018-04-24T19:15:38.723" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53529" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18328" RevisionGUID="e1cf3c93-9ba2-43c2-82c4-09c4806c0cc3" CreationDate="2018-04-24T21:15:29.150" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53530" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="8348418e-de91-456b-99db-51326478d3dd" CreationDate="2018-04-25T00:16:48.873" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19453" RevisionGUID="76514779-9038-4089-bd33-6cdd84f8ce03" CreationDate="2018-04-25T01:43:50.417" UserId="3076" Text="&quot;Disparaging&quot; prior art does not automatically disclaim scope. Previously it was good practice to characterize prior art for its strengths and weaknesses - particularly weaknesses. Then some judges decided to read the specification into the claims and say that the the inventor must have meant to only claim less than was claimed. Another problem with characterizing prior art is that you might be in error when you say some prior art device has some specific weakness or limitation. Maybe that was covered on page 201 of the prior art and you didn't see it. You could be accused of hiding the ball and otherwise misleading the examiner. In fact, even calling something prior art is a no-no. There may be a technicality of dates or non-analogous fields that makes it arguable that a specific reference is not actually prior art. Unless you have said it was prior art - then it is **admitted prior art** you are stuck with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to generalize your question - can disparaging prior art, or other &quot;patent profanity&quot; spill from one of an inventor's applications into another related application?  My view is that it wouldn't make sense but worse twisting of the patent laws/rules have happened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19387" RevisionGUID="30425c26-d2e8-45d1-9001-4d7bfb5c83c2" CreationDate="2018-04-25T16:48:07.563" UserId="16696" Comment="Minor edits for clarity" Text="I am in process of patenting a device and was wondering if the order of the inventor has any significance? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  If there are 3 or 4 inventors, is there any special preference given to the first author? (Analogy is a and article in a review journal where the first author is the most important.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If there are 2 people with similar contributions, can we write in acknowledgment section that both are considered co-first authors? I have done this in few journals before. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Again, is the ordering of the authors rigid and is it considered unethical to rearrange the order in our CV?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53535" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19387" RevisionGUID="30425c26-d2e8-45d1-9001-4d7bfb5c83c2" CreationDate="2018-04-25T16:48:07.563" UserId="16696" Comment="Minor edits for clarity" Text="Order of Patent Inventors on a Patent Application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19454" RevisionGUID="f6942d43-f359-42c2-ae0d-545a9dbcae8c" CreationDate="2018-04-25T16:54:36.457" UserId="16696" Text="I think the key difference is that with a research paper or peer-review article, credit for the work is the tangible compensation. *(All for the glory, if you will;)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With patents, we're in the business world, where listed inventors dictates who has rights to potential revenues derived from the intellectual property. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents rights can subsequently be re-assigned, for instance if the the structure of the venture or business model changes. This can even be done through standard contracts, in the case of licensing deals, without re-assigning the patent.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53537" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18155" RevisionGUID="1741ce07-e01f-48c2-b413-cf2c6b7ca1ca" CreationDate="2018-04-25T18:20:38.867" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53538" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18414" RevisionGUID="10690df0-93aa-4d9c-8243-7a298819e2cf" CreationDate="2018-04-25T19:20:38.903" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53539" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18828" RevisionGUID="ff987ad2-56e9-4976-ba09-f67f385bf4dd" CreationDate="2018-04-25T22:20:49.723" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19455" RevisionGUID="a56da372-808f-4249-aff5-2d85fa2ad688" CreationDate="2018-04-26T00:35:50.727" UserId="21008" Text="I'm looking to hire a freelancer to help develop a product for me. Once the individual provides me the schematics and designs I would like to patent them before I work on creating the app/UI. What steps should I take during this process and what information do I need from the developer? Is there specific information, dates or conversations I need to record for legal purposes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53541" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19455" RevisionGUID="a56da372-808f-4249-aff5-2d85fa2ad688" CreationDate="2018-04-26T00:35:50.727" UserId="21008" Text="How to product when using a freelancer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53542" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19455" RevisionGUID="a56da372-808f-4249-aff5-2d85fa2ad688" CreationDate="2018-04-26T00:35:50.727" UserId="21008" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;employee&gt;&lt;development&gt;&lt;electronics&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19447" RevisionGUID="59e2aa00-575e-40f3-8ff8-ab2f7b53c1e2" CreationDate="2018-04-26T01:14:47.487" UserId="18769" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="E.g. assume first-filed application X disparages the prior art, thus implicitly disclaiming that scope.  Does later-filed application Y filing a terminal disclaimer over app X also lose this claim scope even if the app Y on its own would otherwise be considered to retain the scope?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar case could arise for parents of continuation applications that have created prosecution history estoppel (e.g. characterize a claim term in a limiting way in an office action response).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Case law evidence to support a finding either way is desirable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19456" RevisionGUID="803882a2-43ba-498a-bf20-4f473df8814a" CreationDate="2018-04-26T01:41:24.263" UserId="18769" Text="All inventions are some novel/non-obvious combination and/or configuration of existing components/methods.  Even if you come up with a new chemical element, it is merely a new combination of well-known subatomic particles.  Further, even if you discover a new physical force, you can't patent it over 35 USC 101, as it is a &quot;[judicially recognized exception][1]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point being, **there are no truly &quot;new&quot; inventions.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, the question is &quot;to what degree is this combination distinct from all pre-existing combinations in the solution space&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Practically speaking, you want something distinct enough such that **two prior art references in combination do not essentially teach** what you disclose.  If it takes more than two references, it starts to be a stretch for an examiner/challenger to make an obviousness rejection.  The &quot;glue&quot; between the explicit prior art references is the &quot;ordinary skill&quot; of someone who works in this field, so probably someone with an MS/PhD in EE/CS in this case.  For example, if the invention was to compress video using neural network auto-encoders with a Fourier transform input, then two research papers individually showing the benefits of auto-encoders and Fourier transforms for efficient lossy compression would probably make that invention obvious, especially since all the sub-components are known in relation to the problem at hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Secondary considerations are** generally a fairly **weak** way of proving non-obviousness, especially in front of examiners, who are more likely to stick with the status quo (unlike litigation scenarios, which may offer a more open-minded consideration of the facts).  You will at least need an expert affidavit/declaration backing up your secondary consideration argument.  Your best secondary consideration arguments would likely be identification of the problem to be solved (which is a core prong of the obviousness inquiry alongside solution to the problem), or teaching away by the prior art (e.g. prior authoritative publication says &quot;this isn't possible for so-and-so reasons&quot;, and you prove otherwise).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html#ch2100_d29a1b_13b6b_4c" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19448" RevisionGUID="2b2d5e48-6cd2-47b3-9241-fd91162544e3" CreationDate="2018-04-26T02:40:18.543" UserId="18769" Comment="added 2012 characters in body" Text="It is common practice when writing specifications to disclose a broad range of possible embodiments &quot;just to be safe&quot;, and without much thought to how such embodiments might be realized in practice.  However, is there a downside to doing this?  Without thinking through and verifying that all embodiments are enabled (e.g. all combinations and subcombinations of features disclosed), it seems possible that generic claims encompassing the disclosure would be invalid over enablement.  E.g. see [here][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The claim was broad enough to cover both mechanical and electronic sensors. The patent's specification, on the other hand, described mechanical sensors in detail, however, the electronic sensor was described in broad terms and illustrated in one conceptual figure. The Court of Appeals ruled that the claim was invalid on the grounds that the full scope of the claims covered electronic sensors as well as mechanical sensors, but the specification did not teach a person skilled in the art how to make and use the invention with an electronic sensor (i.e. the claim was not enabled).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: This also could bring up the issue of operability/&quot;utility&quot; of embodiments within the claim scope (e.g. some combinations of disclosed features may result in a nonsense embodiment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Here's an example to illustrate the question.  Assume you are disclosing a novel spring mechanism for a stapler.  In the description, you write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In some embodiments, the stapler may **comprise an anvil** to provide a counter-force with respect to the arm during a stapling operation.  In other embodiments, the stapler may **not comprise an anvil** to provide a counter-force with respect to the arm during a stapling operation, e.g. the counter-force may be provided by an external object such as a cork board.  In some embodiments, the stapler may be used for **office tasks** such as coupling paper.  In some embodiments, the stapler may be used in **surgical settings**, e.g. for coupling skin flaps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A stapler with [the novel spring mechanism].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, based on the explicit description, the claim scope presumably comprises at least the following four embodiments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. With anvil for office tasks&#xD;&#xA; 2. Without anvil for office tasks&#xD;&#xA; 3. With anvil for surgical settings&#xD;&#xA; 4. **Without anvil for surgical settings**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how would 4 be enabled?  It doesn't seem enabled to press a stapler without a bottom-part/anvil into flesh until a staple comes out.  That would not achieve the desired purpose, and let's assume it does not for the sake of argument here.  Therefore, is it implicit that the claim scope only includes embodiments which would be &quot;reasonable&quot; to a PHOSITA, thus excluding non-enabled embodiment 4 from the claim scope?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it were the case that embodiment 4 was not considered part of the claim scope, what if someone sold the no-anvil embodiment with a separate &quot;anvil plate&quot; that was to be manually held in place to achieve the desired result in surgical settings, though (for the sake of argument) not in a way that would infringe embodiment 3 under doctrine of equivalents (same way, function, and result). It seems like the patentee would point to the broad claim and the spec to say that the separate anvil plate embodiment clearly infringed what would be embodiment 4, even though as described above, embodiment 4 does not seem to be enabled on its own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.legalnews.com/detroit/1079616" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53546" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19448" RevisionGUID="517447b1-0ad2-4a6c-8d47-ef4487fcb658" CreationDate="2018-04-26T02:45:48.883" UserId="18769" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="It is common practice when writing specifications to disclose a broad range of possible embodiments &quot;just to be safe&quot;, and without much thought to how such embodiments might be realized in practice.  However, is there a downside to doing this?  Without thinking through and verifying that all embodiments are enabled (e.g. all combinations and subcombinations of features disclosed), it seems possible that generic claims encompassing the disclosure would be invalid over enablement.  E.g. see [here][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The claim was broad enough to cover both mechanical and electronic sensors. The patent's specification, on the other hand, described mechanical sensors in detail, however, the electronic sensor was described in broad terms and illustrated in one conceptual figure. The Court of Appeals ruled that the claim was invalid on the grounds that the full scope of the claims covered electronic sensors as well as mechanical sensors, but the specification did not teach a person skilled in the art how to make and use the invention with an electronic sensor (i.e. the claim was not enabled).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: This also could bring up the issue of operability/&quot;utility&quot; of embodiments within the claim scope (e.g. some combinations of disclosed features may result in a nonsense embodiment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Here's an example to illustrate the question.  Assume you are disclosing a novel spring mechanism for a stapler.  In the description, you write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In some embodiments, the stapler may **comprise an anvil** to provide a counter-force with respect to the arm during a stapling operation.  In other embodiments, the stapler may **not comprise an anvil** to provide a counter-force with respect to the arm during a stapling operation, e.g. the counter-force may be provided by an external object such as a cork board.  In some embodiments, the stapler may be used for **office tasks** such as coupling paper.  In some embodiments, the stapler may be used in **surgical settings**, e.g. for coupling skin flaps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A stapler with [the novel spring mechanism].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, based on the explicit description, the claim scope presumably comprises at least the following four embodiments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. With anvil for office tasks&#xD;&#xA; 2. Without anvil for office tasks&#xD;&#xA; 3. With anvil for surgical settings&#xD;&#xA; 4. **Without anvil for surgical settings**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how would 4 be enabled?  It doesn't seem enabled to press a stapler without a bottom-part/anvil into flesh until a staple comes out.  That would not achieve the desired purpose, and let's assume it does not for the sake of argument here.  Therefore, is it implicit that the claim scope only includes embodiments which would be &quot;reasonable&quot; to a PHOSITA, thus excluding non-enabled embodiment 4 from the claim scope?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it were the case that embodiment 4 was not considered part of the claim scope, what if someone sold the no-anvil embodiment with a separate &quot;anvil plate&quot; that was to be manually held in place to achieve the desired result in surgical settings, though (again assuming for the sake of argument) not in a way that would infringe embodiment 3 under doctrine of equivalents (same way, function, and result). It seems like the patentee would point to the broad claim and the spec to say that the separate anvil plate embodiment clearly infringed what would be embodiment 4, even though as described above, embodiment 4 does not seem to be enabled on its own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.legalnews.com/detroit/1079616" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53548" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13731" RevisionGUID="51ea8b3b-e626-4854-a539-f46ab55dd43d" CreationDate="2018-04-26T07:20:57.947" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19457" RevisionGUID="b706ca71-f782-4f34-8073-196859a6e0d1" CreationDate="2018-04-26T16:13:25.193" UserId="17003" Text="First and foremost make sure the employment agreement you have with the freelancer makes clear that you will own all intellectual property that comes about as a result of the work. It is likely that the designs and schematics will not be eligible for a patent. To obtain a patent an idea must be novel, non-obvious and useful. If the freelancer is simply designing a circuit to meet a well defined need, then there might not be any inventive step. This doesn't mean the work product isn't useful, just that you may not be able to obtain patent protection. If you do think there is something inventive, then consulting with a patent attorney or agent is suggested. The patent attorney can help you evaluate patentability along with freedom-to-operate. If there is a patentable idea, then it is quite possible that you will need to hire the freelancer to support the drafting of the application. Assuming the freelancer did the inventing, he or she would be listed as an inventor even if you are the assignee and own the patent. In any case, don't disclose the idea publicly in any way until a patent application is filed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53550" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="9833a0f9-1040-4561-8c08-38c54c153083" CreationDate="2018-04-26T18:20:58.947" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53551" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19455" RevisionGUID="696b9d89-40c0-4b88-972b-4c81ddb5269f" CreationDate="2018-04-26T19:48:29.790" UserId="1" Comment="edited title" Text="How to patent product when using a freelancer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53552" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17273" RevisionGUID="f943d065-6d3e-4eaa-8fbb-3624bd86c980" CreationDate="2018-04-27T00:20:58.773" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53553" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19455" RevisionGUID="25458d51-b0fe-4c4d-aec5-eb1f7a8445ce" CreationDate="2018-04-27T00:53:50.123" UserId="1" Comment="edited title" Text="How to patent a product when using a freelancer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53555" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18450" RevisionGUID="58301b11-9a4a-45fb-a873-63e802d61c7b" CreationDate="2018-04-27T05:20:59.787" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19458" RevisionGUID="db66357b-241a-4742-975e-8a10f58ed2a8" CreationDate="2018-04-27T06:27:13.627" UserId="3076" Text="This is a well understood problem. Method claims that require actions taking place in two or more locations are a problem in enforcement for two reasons - one is extraterritorially - the topic of the question. All actions need to be performed in the juristiction of a specific patent. The other is that all actions must be performed by a single infringing entity or at least controlled and commanded by a single entity. If actions are split they might be done by two different entities - then nobody infringes even if all action performed in the U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lets look at Claim 1 of the application. As a method or process claim, its required elements are not things, the elements are actions.  The question is who performs the actions and where they are performed. To infringe, one entity needs to perform all positively recited actions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; in order to infringe that patent. The several actions claim 1 requires are &quot;encoding; printing; capturing; **storing**; capturing; authenticating; selling; capturing; purchasing.  Other than &quot;storing said unique product identifier . . . in a cloud based data store&quot;, the actions all occur in the place the benefit is provided. The storing action kills the claim's attempt to have all actions take place in one local locality. A better wording would have been &quot;**sending** said unique product identifier to be stored on a cloud-based data store&quot;. Then the required action is &quot;sending&quot; and the storing brought in inferentially - not a positivity recited required step.  It can be a little difficult to see the distinction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine a system with a transmitter and a receiver. Some claims should be all about the transmitting and others all about the receiving." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19459" RevisionGUID="c3c4c00f-8536-41a1-8a70-6663249f56a1" CreationDate="2018-04-27T21:41:38.837" UserId="21012" Text="I have been reading an article describing exFAT which has patents owned by Microsoft. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the article, it also refers briefly to two sections which allegedly are patented, that being that a hash of the file name is used to lookup the directory entry, and the actual hash algorithm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hashing was used for lookups in various mainframes and minicomputers from at least the late 1970's. At the least, the Friden/Singer/ICL System Ten minicomputer using DMF II operating system supported Direct Access files which was based on hashing the lookup value to locate the data. As far as I am aware, that hash algorithm was user customisable/replaceable. &#xD;&#xA;In 1980/1981 ICL released a successor to the System Ten called the System 25, with DMF III as the operating system which supported Direct Access files. Direct Access files use a hashing algorithm to locate details in the file using the hashed result of a key. &#xD;&#xA;In that year, I wrote a software system that made extended use of hashing a value to lookup a Direct Access file used to return an address for use in locating particular data in another file relevant to the original key value. For example, an Invoice Number would be hashed to lookup the address in a file where the Invoice Detail would be held.&#xD;&#xA;I think that I still have microfiche of my code source from that era. I am reasonably sure I know who holds the source of at least the DMF III code. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMHO, this seems to be the basis of the exFAT patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Might the DMF II and DMF III operating system, and my use of that, constitute prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53558" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19459" RevisionGUID="c3c4c00f-8536-41a1-8a70-6663249f56a1" CreationDate="2018-04-27T21:41:38.837" UserId="21012" Text="EXFAT Patent. Is this prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53559" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19459" RevisionGUID="c3c4c00f-8536-41a1-8a70-6663249f56a1" CreationDate="2018-04-27T21:41:38.837" UserId="21012" Text="&lt;prior&gt;&lt;art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19459" RevisionGUID="91d8ac88-fb23-4793-870d-69a1e6752554" CreationDate="2018-04-27T21:48:31.763" UserId="21012" Comment="Grammar" Text="I have been reading an article describing exFAT which has patents owned by Microsoft. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the article, it also refers briefly to two sections which allegedly are patented, that being a hash of the file name (key) is used to lookup the directory entry, and the actual hash algorithm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hashing was used for lookups in various mainframes and minicomputers from at least the late 1970's. At the least, the Friden/Singer/ICL System Ten minicomputer using DMF II operating system supported Direct Access files which was based on hashing the lookup value (key) to locate the data. As far as I am aware, that hash algorithm was user customisable/replaceable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 1980/1981 ICL released a successor to the System Ten called the System 25, with DMF III as the operating system which supported Direct Access and Relative Access files. Direct Access files use a hashing algorithm to locate details in a file using the hashed result of a key. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that year, I wrote a software system that made extended use of hashing a value (key) to lookup a Direct Access file used to return an address for use in locating particular data in another Relative Access file relevant to the original key value. For example, an Invoice Number would be hashed to lookup the address in a file where the Invoice Detail would be held.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that I still have microfiche of my code source from that era. I am reasonably sure I know who holds the source of at least the DMF III code. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMHO, this seems to be the basis of the exFAT patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Might the DMF II and DMF III operating system, and my use of that, constitute prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19459" RevisionGUID="5eaae573-9df6-4487-b782-559a50871bdc" CreationDate="2018-04-27T21:57:29.833" UserId="21012" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I have been reading an article describing exFAT which has patents owned by Microsoft. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the article, it also refers briefly to two sections which allegedly are patented, that being a hash of the file name (key) is used to lookup the directory entry, and the actual hash algorithm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hashing was used for lookups in various mainframes and minicomputers from at least the late 1970's. At the least, the Friden/Singer/ICL System Ten minicomputer using DMF II operating system supported Direct Access files which was based on hashing the lookup value (key) to locate the data. As far as I am aware, that hash algorithm was user customisable/replaceable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 1980/1981 ICL released a successor to the System Ten called the System 25, with DMF III as the operating system which supported Direct Access and Relative Access files. Direct Access files use a hashing algorithm to locate details in a file using the hashed result of a key. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that year, I wrote a complete software system that made extended use of hashing a value (key) to lookup a Direct Access file which would return an address which would then be used to locate a particular data entry in another Relative Access file. For example, an Invoice Number would be hashed to lookup the address in a file where the Invoice Detail would be held.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that I still have microfiche of my code source from that era. I am reasonably sure I know who holds the source of at least the DMF III code. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMHO, this seems to be the basis of the exFAT patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Might the DMF II and DMF III operating system, and my use of that, constitute prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19460" RevisionGUID="d6ba3d72-fb19-45d8-bb4f-61fb294a0268" CreationDate="2018-04-27T23:37:03.107" UserId="21013" Text="The France patent FR2553560 was lapsed in 1998, as notification of lapse. The patent is valuable.&#xD;&#xA; I think it is used in MOX plant. I would like to know the reason of lapse of the valuable patent. How can I do that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53563" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19460" RevisionGUID="d6ba3d72-fb19-45d8-bb4f-61fb294a0268" CreationDate="2018-04-27T23:37:03.107" UserId="21013" Text="FR2553560 was lapsed for what reason?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53564" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19460" RevisionGUID="d6ba3d72-fb19-45d8-bb4f-61fb294a0268" CreationDate="2018-04-27T23:37:03.107" UserId="21013" Text="&lt;legal&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53565" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18032" RevisionGUID="4e8f3517-28a2-411a-bbc3-96c869420a42" CreationDate="2018-04-28T01:23:00.257" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18308" RevisionGUID="14aa8779-4f0c-4a80-813e-1b9a92440a3c" CreationDate="2018-04-28T02:02:22.277" UserId="3076" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="&quot;Can I just reapply for the same idea?&quot; Yes, but you will lose the original priority date. To try to keep the original filing date you may be able to revive the application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19461" RevisionGUID="5d413068-fbdc-46c8-9ec3-f64a524d04e1" CreationDate="2018-04-28T02:08:32.067" UserId="3076" Text="Other than a the first research on breakthrough idea, patents are much more specific than you might assume. I just searched &quot;hash lookup key&quot; in google patents and it says it found over 120,000 hits. To attempt to answer a question like, &quot;Does X server as killer prior art to Y?&quot; you need to start by having the wording of the claims of Y at hand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53568" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17720" RevisionGUID="c9069c93-ecee-4c7e-868b-bee20c52c000" CreationDate="2018-04-28T02:23:00.213" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53572" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="cf556a43-67d0-4222-bd6b-101446473a23" CreationDate="2018-04-28T03:23:00.147" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19460" RevisionGUID="8543f8ef-3fed-4454-9005-8361b9d69ab6" CreationDate="2018-04-28T13:21:48.353" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to patent" Text="The France patent [FR2553560][1] was lapsed in 1998, as notification of lapse. The patent is valuable.&#xD;&#xA; I think it is used in MOX plant. I would like to know the reason of lapse of the valuable patent. How can I do that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/FR2553560A1/en?oq=FR2553560" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19463" RevisionGUID="3a671419-202a-4d05-a611-982e0baaa3ad" CreationDate="2018-04-28T13:25:29.247" UserId="17003" Text="Short of asking the assignee of the patent: [Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute][1], there is no way to now why they allowed the patent to lapse. Generally the reason for allowing a patent to lapse is that the patent owner no longer feels the patent fees are justified by the income or protection derived by the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jaea.go.jp/jaeri/english/index.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19463" RevisionGUID="87c59362-9233-4567-9e62-96cd53b76fda" CreationDate="2018-04-28T13:34:03.957" UserId="17003" Comment="added 225 characters in body" Text="Short of asking the assignee of the patent: [Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute][1], there is no way to know why they allowed the patent to lapse. Generally the reason for allowing a patent to lapse is that the patent owner no longer feels the patent fees are justified by the income or protection derived by the patent. Perhaps no one in France was &quot;dissolving plutonium dioxide or a mixed oxide of uranium and plutonium&quot; using the described method after 1998? It should be noted that the patent would have expired anyway on October 12th, 2003.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jaea.go.jp/jaeri/english/index.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53577" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17881" RevisionGUID="0dc414a4-d594-4b95-b772-2f2a461f6e7f" CreationDate="2018-04-28T15:23:08.640" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53578" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="0cec1693-3089-4bd9-bec8-3c7760e6d39c" CreationDate="2018-04-28T21:23:08.340" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53579" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18540" RevisionGUID="c8e01842-2ea5-4669-bf1c-c06c101cdb9e" CreationDate="2018-04-29T00:23:09.183" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53580" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18600" RevisionGUID="31f84b31-3ab7-4024-8ebd-32bf737e9c7b" CreationDate="2018-04-29T02:23:18.137" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53581" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19337" RevisionGUID="b044f7fd-0e32-4749-82be-847cef5bb7e9" CreationDate="2018-04-29T06:23:21.873" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53582" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="6f3e3e7f-7e19-44a2-9323-5d536469e5bb" CreationDate="2018-04-29T08:23:45.197" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53583" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="5301b795-4c17-4cef-be47-c0cd4c11f179" CreationDate="2018-04-29T09:24:20.323" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19464" RevisionGUID="54d498c1-cf5d-402f-82ce-06c2122c10e0" CreationDate="2018-04-30T02:44:45.857" UserId="21013" Text="The Japanese version JP60081025(A) of France patent FR2553560 has been lapsed in 1997 April before the lapse of the France version in 1998. I suspect that the France Areva contracted with assignee JAERI for that valuable patent. I would like to know the specifics of the Japanese patent as the inventor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53585" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19464" RevisionGUID="54d498c1-cf5d-402f-82ce-06c2122c10e0" CreationDate="2018-04-30T02:44:45.857" UserId="21013" Text="JP60081025(A), Japanese version of FR2553560, Why was it lapsed in April 1997?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53586" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19464" RevisionGUID="54d498c1-cf5d-402f-82ce-06c2122c10e0" CreationDate="2018-04-30T02:44:45.857" UserId="21013" Text="&lt;licence&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53587" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16606" RevisionGUID="2a43c701-3f84-44f7-8092-7defd376f96e" CreationDate="2018-04-30T06:24:08.917" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53588" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18181" RevisionGUID="93a34cc0-15f6-4068-9fe4-c66e6b81319c" CreationDate="2018-04-30T07:24:08.940" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53589" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="abd280bb-181d-47ce-9d93-c0195c9272cc" CreationDate="2018-04-30T08:24:08.863" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53590" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="1f3c1283-8e8f-4f21-81bd-3e4634f3550e" CreationDate="2018-04-30T09:24:09.720" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53591" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16569" RevisionGUID="30a4d949-d64c-431e-a56b-31b110a0ba71" CreationDate="2018-04-30T16:24:11.813" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53596" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="8d7cd079-0a66-4f23-a050-5a6e0948f22a" CreationDate="2018-04-30T17:24:11.767" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53597" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="ac255cd2-e390-43d2-a014-648727014c62" CreationDate="2018-04-30T18:24:11.717" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53602" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19110" RevisionGUID="fa307326-0815-4377-9f17-62e2c83cda61" CreationDate="2018-05-01T01:24:42.037" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19467" RevisionGUID="7a6d04e9-4cde-4b43-b3c1-beb9cba99b14" CreationDate="2018-05-01T02:10:01.507" UserId="21023" Text="I have an idea for a different purpose.  The invention that already exists has another purpose.  Mine would serve as another idea for another purpose." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53604" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19467" RevisionGUID="7a6d04e9-4cde-4b43-b3c1-beb9cba99b14" CreationDate="2018-05-01T02:10:01.507" UserId="21023" Text="To redesign an existing invention to serve another purpose" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53605" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19467" RevisionGUID="7a6d04e9-4cde-4b43-b3c1-beb9cba99b14" CreationDate="2018-05-01T02:10:01.507" UserId="21023" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53606" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18185" RevisionGUID="8a0c3310-881a-476a-a8cb-f3c53a7c0196" CreationDate="2018-05-01T02:25:00.037" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53609" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16450" RevisionGUID="21028702-bf3d-4c0f-9f4f-69a2f700736e" CreationDate="2018-05-01T03:24:45.497" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53610" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16771" RevisionGUID="b68b6715-4e40-4ba6-a267-35363458bc43" CreationDate="2018-05-01T04:25:08.180" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53611" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="a5de5fb6-23d8-44e9-9872-c68e386e5f6a" CreationDate="2018-05-01T05:25:23.530" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53612" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17909" RevisionGUID="e894561b-55fa-473a-ab38-0fc69eb5dacf" CreationDate="2018-05-01T07:25:44.830" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53614" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="004c56e4-7088-489d-9641-48eb60893e46" CreationDate="2018-05-01T14:25:44.587" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53615" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="51968085-95b3-4316-ac9a-08ac2ac7a79a" CreationDate="2018-05-01T15:25:44.783" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53616" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14883" RevisionGUID="ca4b64e4-379d-4972-97aa-4d5bdc6b0765" CreationDate="2018-05-01T19:25:45.213" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53617" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17751" RevisionGUID="c6e34d29-3558-44e6-b21d-ec1025d7f94a" CreationDate="2018-05-02T02:25:54.677" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17235" RevisionGUID="d24e1528-83c3-48ad-b1b4-9eae08675fa9" CreationDate="2018-05-02T09:52:48.023" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 320 characters in body" Text="My question is, can anybody provide any part of the US patent law  proving or disproving the statement that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Dropped and unpublished provisionals do not impede novelty of other inventions*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And how about dropped but published provisionals for patents with priority date between filing and publishing of said provisional?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A provisional is filed and then dropped later, without beeing published. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone else files the exact same invention 2 years later (without knowledge of the other provisional).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Disclaimer*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Including a comment from olsonist about US patent law:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When you file your patent, you will sign the DECLARATION FOR UTILITY OR DESIGN PATENT APPLICATION. The first paragraph of this declaration says: I hereby declare that: (1) Each inventor's residence, mailing address, and citizenship are as stated below next to their name; and (2) I believe the inventor(s) named below to be the original and first inventor(s) of the subject matter which is claimed and for which a patent is sought on the invention titled. Do not lie on this form. It is a Federal offense. If someone else filed the provisional then you are not the original and first inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is only about novelty and inventive step in this case or about unpublished provisionals beeing prior art, but the above should be remembered if using the question/answers as advice, as it's a very important point. However sometimes many or changing entities might have the right to apply for a patent on a given invention, so the case discussed here does exist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19469" RevisionGUID="761337a1-52d9-43c1-ae72-46847682f238" CreationDate="2018-05-02T17:01:30.527" UserId="17003" Text="Your question is a bit ambiguous. Regardless, I'm going to try to answer. Lets say someone patents the use of a laser to detect cell types. If your invention is the use of a laser to transmit data, then you are non-infringing on the laser to detect cell type patent despite using a laser. However, the laser itself might be patented and if that patent is still in force you would need to obtain a license to practice your invention. You could potentially get a patent on your invention, but there is always the potential for other relevant patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you can't describe your invention without putting it's patentability at risk, there is no way people on this site can tell you if you might infringe a specific patent. As always, the best advice about patentability and freedom-to-operate is to consult with an actual patent attorney or agent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53620" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="963d0720-bc23-4236-b32d-ecd80622b3ae" CreationDate="2018-05-02T22:28:52.530" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53621" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18655" RevisionGUID="2671be75-78e2-4739-9577-1b275af59eda" CreationDate="2018-05-03T07:28:52.210" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19470" RevisionGUID="d9698a78-34fb-4342-be32-ad9030eddc4b" CreationDate="2018-05-03T11:48:15.737" UserId="21028" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2003061405A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2003061405A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good day, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like a printable/ downloadable copy of this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Megan Muir" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53623" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19470" RevisionGUID="d9698a78-34fb-4342-be32-ad9030eddc4b" CreationDate="2018-05-03T11:48:15.737" UserId="21028" Text="Downloadable PDF" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53624" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19470" RevisionGUID="d9698a78-34fb-4342-be32-ad9030eddc4b" CreationDate="2018-05-03T11:48:15.737" UserId="21028" Text="&lt;wo2003061405a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19471" RevisionGUID="8a982a67-8153-4ed0-bce4-f8dcebc14237" CreationDate="2018-05-03T12:06:39.147" UserId="17325" Text="Click on the word &quot;Espacenet&quot;, which is listed as the first of the external links in the google page. You will be navigated at the espacenet platform and then select &quot;original document&quot; (on the left side of the page). Then click &quot;download&quot;!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19472" RevisionGUID="d00d3110-016d-4d1e-9e03-71bfd2f08730" CreationDate="2018-05-03T14:01:31.703" UserId="17003" Text="You should try [The Lens][1] . If you go there and enter the application's number you get [this page][2] which contains a link to [the pdf][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Lens, in my opinion, is much better than Google Patents. For one, it actually finds all the patents relevant to a search which Google Patents has real problems with. Second it is more likely to have the PDF. Lastly it provides better search features, and if you create an account (totally free) you get some nice advantages like saved searches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/WO_2003_061405_A1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.lens.org/images/patent/WO/2003061405/A1/WO_2003_061405_A1.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19473" RevisionGUID="5f7b8e54-a44b-44db-b66a-1aeb9eb4f7fa" CreationDate="2018-05-03T18:10:03.313" UserId="21029" Text="I've got a really basic question.  On most, if not all fillable forms for the USTPO, there is a field that reads &quot;* Total of ____ forms are submitted.&quot;  What should I be entering here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53628" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19473" RevisionGUID="5f7b8e54-a44b-44db-b66a-1aeb9eb4f7fa" CreationDate="2018-05-03T18:10:03.313" UserId="21029" Text="Question about USPTO Forms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53629" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19473" RevisionGUID="5f7b8e54-a44b-44db-b66a-1aeb9eb4f7fa" CreationDate="2018-05-03T18:10:03.313" UserId="21029" Text="&lt;forms&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53630" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18522" RevisionGUID="3a2f484a-ee7d-4dc9-8a26-0303b681f705" CreationDate="2018-05-03T22:29:22.770" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19474" RevisionGUID="d918d1f8-225a-4086-aa75-9340eb704505" CreationDate="2018-05-04T01:23:24.090" UserId="18769" Text="Patent offices offering third-party observations/submissions generally impose a limit on the number of TPOs than can be filed anonymously.  Do PCT TPOs count against this limit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53632" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19474" RevisionGUID="d918d1f8-225a-4086-aa75-9340eb704505" CreationDate="2018-05-04T01:23:24.090" UserId="18769" Text="Do PCT Third Party Observations count against TPO limits at Receiving Offices?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53633" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19474" RevisionGUID="d918d1f8-225a-4086-aa75-9340eb704505" CreationDate="2018-05-04T01:23:24.090" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;third-party-submission&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53634" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14767" RevisionGUID="92f370be-ea20-4a3d-b200-4516b677f02f" CreationDate="2018-05-04T01:31:13.237" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19475" RevisionGUID="73a1e256-5bdc-434c-b5a8-f2f6417a36c8" CreationDate="2018-05-04T01:37:37.777" UserId="18769" Text="I would assume no based on the following from 37 CFR 1.56(a):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The duty to disclose information exists with respect to each **pending claim** until the claim is cancelled or withdrawn from consideration, or the application becomes abandoned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53636" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19475" RevisionGUID="73a1e256-5bdc-434c-b5a8-f2f6417a36c8" CreationDate="2018-05-04T01:37:37.777" UserId="18769" Text="Duty of Disclosure for US Provisional Apps?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53637" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19475" RevisionGUID="73a1e256-5bdc-434c-b5a8-f2f6417a36c8" CreationDate="2018-05-04T01:37:37.777" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;inequitable-conduct&gt;&lt;duty-of-disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19474" RevisionGUID="d5987aab-d037-4e21-85bc-cbd845f08a32" CreationDate="2018-05-04T01:55:47.013" UserId="18769" Comment="added 370 characters in body" Text="Patent offices offering third-party observations/submissions generally impose a limit on the number of TPOs than can be filed anonymously.  Do PCT TPOs count against this limit?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [article][1] seems to imply it does count:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Moreover, it is only possible to comment on novelty and inventive step at present. **Third parties may therefore prefer to wait** until national/regional phase proceedings before submitting more detailed observations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1b030e68-e2f0-42dd-a3bc-d54e26d6a896" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19474" RevisionGUID="63724c65-5383-46e7-89f5-2b290d5d3b85" CreationDate="2018-05-04T02:27:07.933" UserId="18769" Comment="added 565 characters in body" Text="Patent offices offering third-party observations/submissions generally impose a limit on the number of TPOs than can be filed anonymously.  Do PCT TPOs count against this limit?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [article][1] seems to loosely imply it does count:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Moreover, it is only possible to comment on novelty and inventive step [in a PCT TPO]. **Third parties may therefore prefer to wait** until national/regional phase proceedings before submitting more detailed observations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though this [article][2] seems to imply the opposite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus, the main objective of improving the quality of patents or of preventing frivolous and unworthy patents from being granted gets defeated if the national patent offices choose to ignore the comments. In such cases, **the third party who filed the observation [at the PCT] has to ultimately wait for the national phase prosecution in order to take appropriate further action** to challenge the invention and present its arguments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1b030e68-e2f0-42dd-a3bc-d54e26d6a896&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.rkdewan.com/articledetails.php?artid=89" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53643" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17769" RevisionGUID="13bf7109-ff55-4665-a6bd-4099829b3453" CreationDate="2018-05-04T02:31:12.647" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53644" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17768" RevisionGUID="2f3fe1e8-b32b-47bb-b7e2-9f94c1e40880" CreationDate="2018-05-04T03:31:14.233" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53645" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19342" RevisionGUID="75406143-7229-4375-add9-bae8bb928f29" CreationDate="2018-05-04T06:31:14.360" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19477" RevisionGUID="b83c6c6f-55f2-4ba5-873f-17859d2f744a" CreationDate="2018-05-04T07:41:15.473" UserId="17325" Text="Both articles discuss WIPO, EPO and UKIPO practice. There is **no limit** regarding the number of TPO that may be filed during EPO proceedings. The TPO may refer to novelty (A54 EPC), inventive step (A56 EPC), insufficiency of disclosure (A83 EPC), added subject matter [A123(2)] or even clarity (A84 EPC) and unity (A82 EPC), the two latter notably NOT being a possible ground for opposing the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the contrary, **there is a limit** in the number of TPO filed during the international phase, that is up until entry in the EP phase. And in addition one may only attack novelty or inventive step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On top of that, I personally don't think anyone will bother unless you file those TPO quickly enough before an IPEA is conducted - but IPEA is not always conducted. So what will probably happen is that the TPO filed during PCT phase will be forwarded to the national (or regional) patent offices and the examiner hopefully will take a look at them. If not, you might have to file again." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53651" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="b8fcb8fb-2ca4-4139-9f62-62108c830dab" CreationDate="2018-05-04T12:31:16.187" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19480" RevisionGUID="bce2c9cb-bcf5-4ab6-ad82-193268d8b15c" CreationDate="2018-05-04T15:03:31.193" UserId="18769" Text="It is generally stated in that one must both show ownership of and give the public the invention in order to get the monopoly rights of a claim (e.g. 112 in US, Art. 83 EPO).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for purposes of validity, is it acceptable to make a broad genus claim (e.g. all filamentous lightbulbs), but only disclose a few embodiments (e.g. with a horse hair filament), even when that scope (at least on its face) would include other embodiments that were unknown and/or required undue experimentation to be operably realized at the time of disclosure?  See the diagram below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, for the purposes of infringement, could a defense of non-infringement merely be an expert declaration stating that it required undue experimentation to realize the &quot;infringing&quot; embodiment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I often see such broad non-enabled/non-sufficiently disclosed claims.  However, the spirit of the law does not seem to support this, and e.g. this [wikipedia article][2] agrees:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patents may fail this test if they claim more than they teach--for example, a patent that claims all light bulbs but that only explains how to make a particular type of light bulb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: This question relates to a previous [question][3] I had, but perhaps did not phrase well even to get a satisfying answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3s5jL.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufficiency_of_disclosure&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/18229/18769" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53656" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19480" RevisionGUID="bce2c9cb-bcf5-4ab6-ad82-193268d8b15c" CreationDate="2018-05-04T15:03:31.193" UserId="18769" Text="Sufficiency of disclosure (enablement, written desc) for genus claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53657" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19480" RevisionGUID="bce2c9cb-bcf5-4ab6-ad82-193268d8b15c" CreationDate="2018-05-04T15:03:31.193" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;validity&gt;&lt;scope&gt;&lt;enablement&gt;&lt;written-description&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19481" RevisionGUID="768c7f25-130d-464e-97aa-f5b3eaa05aee" CreationDate="2018-05-04T18:25:48.247" UserId="21036" Text="this is my first question on Ask Patents and I'm new to this, so I want to thank everyone in advance for their understanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After completing my Senior Design, which is a capstone course for seniors at my university, I have been approached by a company inquiring about the intellectual property. We would love to have a patent and work with the company, however I want to ensure that we present the best possible image and handle everything in the most professional way possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The man with whom I spoke asked for a public summary of the design and a listing of all the times we had discussed and to whom we disclosed details. What does he expect in this public summary and what do I need to be wary of moving forward with this process?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The summary I had inferred to be a single page describing the functionality of the platform and its potential use cases. Should this include images? Is there a specific way of writing this of which I am unaware?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you all for your help and I hope that this question was asked appropriately." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53659" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19481" RevisionGUID="768c7f25-130d-464e-97aa-f5b3eaa05aee" CreationDate="2018-05-04T18:25:48.247" UserId="21036" Text="Private interest in IP for college project" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53660" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19481" RevisionGUID="768c7f25-130d-464e-97aa-f5b3eaa05aee" CreationDate="2018-05-04T18:25:48.247" UserId="21036" Text="&lt;intellectual-property&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19482" RevisionGUID="f89daacd-0be0-4e8b-9ec4-71de237cabdb" CreationDate="2018-05-04T22:46:14.903" UserId="17003" Text="Let me preface this by saying I am not a lawyer. I do, however have quite a few patents. One very important thing to remember about obtaining patents is that public disclosure of your invention before filing can represent prior art and block you from obtaining the patent. Since patents go to the first to file it is an excellent idea to process a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with anyone you discuss the invention with before filing. If you want to discuss the invention publicly, then try to describe what it does, but **not how it does it**. The company representative who asked for a summary of times and with whom the design was discussed is likely worried about patentability. An invention that isn't patented is much less valuable since other companies can copy it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you are at a university, I highly recommend you discuss potentially patenting your invention with the university's intellectual property department. Many universities can help you with creating NDAs and obtaining a patent and may even provide a patent attorney to draft the application. Although you may need to share the potential earnings with the university, it can be a good way to go." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53664" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5410" RevisionGUID="354d01d8-ff66-4c02-9170-d208930d6761" CreationDate="2018-05-05T00:03:22.947" UserId="17737" Comment="tags edited" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53665" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5410" RevisionGUID="354d01d8-ff66-4c02-9170-d208930d6761" CreationDate="2018-05-05T00:03:22.947" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 18033, -1 edit id of 2071" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5410" RevisionGUID="10ae174d-736e-457f-a900-5470f8200ce5" CreationDate="2018-05-05T00:03:22.947" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed some punctuation" Text="I made a flask out of one of my sculptures. This flask is made from a shrunken head that was sculptured by me. Now this guy says he has a patent pending and he is going to sue me. If I have never seen his product how can this be?  Is there a rule on how many similarities a product must have to infringe on his patent?  Or how many differences I must have if his item is patented? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53668" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19475" RevisionGUID="28102d4d-5d4b-4814-aa59-49486e553e1e" CreationDate="2018-05-05T00:38:53.703" UserId="18769" Comment="edited title" Text="Do you need to file Information Disclosure Statements for US Provisional Apps?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19480" RevisionGUID="b9ac9762-05eb-498e-a9be-98b74dd1b097" CreationDate="2018-05-05T00:40:20.270" UserId="18769" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text="It is generally stated in that one must both show ownership of and give the public the invention in order to get the monopoly rights of a claim (e.g. 112 in US, Art. 83 EPO).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for purposes of validity, is it acceptable to make a broad genus claim (e.g. all filamentous lightbulbs), but only disclose a few embodiments (e.g. with a horse hair filament), even when that scope (at least on its face) would include other embodiments that were unknown and/or required undue experimentation to be operably realized at the time of disclosure (e.g. triangle waveform instead of sinusoidal waveform, carbon nanotubes instead of horse hair)?  See the diagram below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, for the purposes of infringement, could a defense of non-infringement merely be an expert declaration stating that it required undue experimentation to realize the &quot;infringing&quot; embodiment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I often see such broad non-enabled/non-sufficiently disclosed claims.  However, the spirit of the law does not seem to support this, and e.g. this [wikipedia article][2] agrees:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patents may fail this test if they claim more than they teach--for example, a patent that claims all light bulbs but that only explains how to make a particular type of light bulb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: This question relates to a previous [question][3] I had, but perhaps did not phrase well enough to get a satisfying answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3s5jL.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufficiency_of_disclosure&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/18229/18769" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53670" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19229" RevisionGUID="01386eb9-53ca-431b-ae62-e2398694df0f" CreationDate="2018-05-05T02:31:23.270" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19482" RevisionGUID="a6146615-c52c-40aa-916b-c82f9a235659" CreationDate="2018-05-05T02:32:33.633" UserId="17003" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="Let me preface this by saying I am not a lawyer. I do, however have quite a few patents. One very important thing to remember about obtaining patents is that public disclosure of your invention before filing can represent prior art and block you from obtaining the patent. Since patents go to the first to file it is an excellent idea to process a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with anyone you discuss the invention with before filing. If you want to discuss the invention publicly, then try to describe what it does, but **not how it does it**. The company representative who asked for a summary of times and with whom the design was discussed is likely worried about patentability. An invention that isn't patented is much less valuable since other companies can copy it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you are at a university, I highly recommend you discuss potentially patenting your invention with the university's intellectual property department. Many universities can help you with creating NDAs and obtaining a patent and may even provide a patent attorney to draft the application. Although you may need to share the potential earnings with the university, it can be a good way to go because some schools are quite adept at out licensing. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19483" RevisionGUID="fdf996d9-3ba3-469c-91ed-69fc5383fff7" CreationDate="2018-05-05T03:49:31.313" UserId="18769" Text="Take this with a grain of salt (not formal legal advice), but I would be a bit skeptical of the outside company.  Although getting an NDA would be requisite for interacting with them (as Eric mentions), companies often will not go for this as it may preclude their rights relating to the subject matter even if they independently come up with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel the best way to approach it would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (a) have one of their in-house counsel file the application on the company's behalf for an interest in/ownership of the patent, but with attorney-client privilege in place (if that's even possible),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (b) have the company pay a third-party practitioner to draft the application for an interest in/ownership of the patent (in order to avoid NDA issues with the company), or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (c) have your university draft the application and have the company license from the university, as Eric suggests.  Though assuming that your university doesn't have any rights to the patent (e.g. may depend if you used university equipment during development), I would preferably keep them out of the process, as they probably won't provide the best deal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bottom line, I wouldn't disclose any matter to any non-attorney until you have an application filed, after which, feel free to do so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19483" RevisionGUID="0bc2b898-b2d6-4a0f-99f5-b43b1c47be0c" CreationDate="2018-05-05T03:59:44.620" UserId="18769" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="Take this with a grain of salt (not formal legal advice), but I would be a bit skeptical of the outside company.  Although getting an NDA would be requisite for interacting with them (as Eric mentions), companies often will not go for this as it may preclude their rights relating to the subject matter even if they independently come up with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel the best way to approach it would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (a) have one of their in-house counsel file the application on the company's behalf for an interest in/ownership of the patent, but with attorney-client privilege in place (if that's even possible),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (b) have the company pay a third-party practitioner to draft the application for an interest in/ownership of the patent (in order to avoid NDA issues with the company), or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (c) have your university draft the application and have the company license from the university, as Eric suggests.  Though assuming that your university doesn't have any rights to the patent (e.g. may depend if you used university equipment during development), I would preferably keep them out of the process, as they probably won't provide the best deal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bottom line, I wouldn't disclose any specific subject matter to any non-attorney until you have an application filed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53674" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19051" RevisionGUID="e03ffd0c-8639-4b18-a5a9-a19d04f89a39" CreationDate="2018-05-05T04:31:23.197" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53675" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="734d3553-a3c0-458d-adf3-1824cb89b39d" CreationDate="2018-05-05T08:32:29.927" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19484" RevisionGUID="946467a0-f9b2-4479-b0f0-2f5fdd975da1" CreationDate="2018-05-05T09:38:50.140" UserId="21038" Text="could you please so kind to explain the patent number US5333765A status GANT. Is it &quot;Valid&quot; or &quot;Expire&quot;? In PPAIR database I look at status &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot; for this patent number. &#xD;&#xA;I think this patent no. US5333765A is &quot;Expire&quot;. Do you think so too?&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very much for the answer. Best Regards, Neringa" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53677" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19484" RevisionGUID="946467a0-f9b2-4479-b0f0-2f5fdd975da1" CreationDate="2018-05-05T09:38:50.140" UserId="21038" Text="What does it means patent status Gant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53678" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19484" RevisionGUID="946467a0-f9b2-4479-b0f0-2f5fdd975da1" CreationDate="2018-05-05T09:38:50.140" UserId="21038" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19480" RevisionGUID="2fc72ca8-5efd-4681-ad5f-69a6f3265013" CreationDate="2018-05-05T14:01:27.547" UserId="18769" Comment="added 363 characters in body" Text="It is generally stated in that one must both show ownership of and give the public the invention in order to get the monopoly rights of a claim (e.g. 112 in US, Art. 83 EPO).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for purposes of validity, is it acceptable to make a broad genus claim (e.g. all filamentous lightbulbs), but only disclose a few embodiments (e.g. with a horse hair filament), even when that scope (at least on its face) would include other embodiments that were unknown and/or required undue experimentation to be operably realized at the time of disclosure (e.g. triangle waveform instead of sinusoidal waveform, carbon nanotubes instead of horse hair)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the question does not relate to instances where an *additional* limitation is added (e.g. a frosted lightbulb), but to the more fundamental case where the claimed limitation (e.g. a filament) is satisfied with an embodiment unknown at the time of disclosure.  Therefore, the typical &quot;three legged chair covers a four legged chair&quot; would not apply.  See the diagram below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, for the purposes of infringement, could a defense of non-infringement merely be an expert declaration stating that it required undue experimentation to realize the &quot;infringing&quot; embodiment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I often see such broad non-enabled/non-sufficiently disclosed claims.  However, the spirit of the law does not seem to support this, and e.g. this [wikipedia article][2] agrees:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patents may fail this test if they claim more than they teach--for example, a patent that claims all light bulbs but that only explains how to make a particular type of light bulb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: This question relates to a previous [question][3] I had, but perhaps did not phrase well enough to get a satisfying answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3s5jL.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufficiency_of_disclosure&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/18229/18769" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19485" RevisionGUID="6a521e3e-30d2-4438-93eb-80ebd43f170c" CreationDate="2018-05-05T14:07:13.817" UserId="17003" Text="I think you mean the word &quot;Grant&quot; not &quot;Gant&quot;. In the Google Patents listing for [US5333765A][1], its status is listed as &quot;Grant&quot; which means a patent was awarded. Checking in the [US Public Pair][2] indeed indicates that the patent's status is: &quot;Patent Expired Due to NonPayment of Maintenance Fees Under 37 CFR 1.362&quot; as of 08-30-2006. Nowhere in Pair for this patent did I see the phrase &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot;. I'm worried you looked up the wrong document. Pair searching is extremely picky. In this case you need to select &quot;Patent Number&quot; and type &quot;5333765&quot; in the search box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a patent is granted, fees are required periodically to keep it in force. The owner of this patent missed one of the later fee payments so the patent expired. While it might have been possible to resurrect the patent if the missed payment was inadvertent, the patent would have expired in any case 20 years from its priority date of August 22, 1991. Thus this patent has expired and can not be infringed upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5333765A/en?oq=US5333765A&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19482" RevisionGUID="860fb20c-b1da-48bf-8909-d26d339eafd1" CreationDate="2018-05-05T14:18:34.260" UserId="17003" Comment="added 238 characters in body" Text="Let me preface this by saying I am not a lawyer. I do, however have quite a few patents. One very important thing to remember about obtaining patents is that public disclosure of your invention before filing can represent prior art and block you from obtaining the patent. Since patents go to the first to file it is an excellent idea to process a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with anyone you discuss the invention with before filing. If you want to discuss the invention publicly, then try to describe what it does, but **not how it does it**. The company representative who asked for a summary of times and with whom the design was discussed is likely worried about patentability. An invention that isn't patented is much less valuable since other companies can copy it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you are at a university, I highly recommend you discuss potentially patenting your invention with the university's intellectual property department. Many universities can help you with creating NDAs and obtaining a patent and may even provide a patent attorney to draft the application. Although you may need to share the potential earnings with the university, it can be a good way to go because some schools are quite adept at out licensing. As DonQuiKong mentions in his comment, you may even be required to discuss this with your university. Since you used their resources and presumably discussed this with an advisor, they may legally have an ownership stake in the invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19486" RevisionGUID="931af0ad-837b-4a18-a144-7ec6455c7aa3" CreationDate="2018-05-05T15:19:59.563" UserId="18769" Text="**Disparaging the prior art/alternative embodiments**, especially in combination with a limited characterization of the disclosed embodiments (e.g. only describe embodiments without the disparaged characteristics), **may forfeit claim scope on claims that on their face might otherwise include the disparaged embodiments** (if not literally, then at least under DoE).  E.g., see [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance consider the following case outlined in this [2006 article][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Toro, claim 1 read in part “said cover including means for&#xD;&#xA;increasing the pressure developed by” blower. The specification&#xD;&#xA;stated that the invention is “advantageous in that it automatically&#xD;&#xA;restricts the size of the inlet … without having the operator&#xD;&#xA;manually insert or remove a replaceable ring.” At issue was the&#xD;&#xA;question of whether a separate ring/structure would be considered&#xD;&#xA;to be an infringement of claim 1. According to the Court of&#xD;&#xA;Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), **“there [was] no doubt&#xD;&#xA;that the specification … disclose[d] the separate ring/structure…&#xD;&#xA;it d[id] so by noting inferiority** of a device in which the operator&#xD;&#xA;manually insert[ed] or remove[d] a replaceable ring (Toro at 1334).”&#xD;&#xA;However, the disclosed separate ring/structure was not claimed.&#xD;&#xA;The subject matter directed to the blower wherein the operator&#xD;&#xA;manually inserts or removes a replaceable ring was held to be&#xD;&#xA;dedicated to the public (Id.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[As a side note, I believe the article incorrectly characterizes this outcome as application of the &quot;disclosure-dedication&quot; rule (disclosed but unclaimed embodiments are not covered under DoE), whereas it is actually application of narrowed claim construction due to disparaging prior art/limited characterization of the invention (since the &quot;forfeited&quot; scope was not excluded on the face of the broad claim).]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point for bringing up the article is that, as bolded, **disparaging the prior art in itself at least provides written description** of the disparaged embodiments, and likely enablement as well (which can rely more heavily on PHOSITA knowledge).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question is, can an applicant amend claims to cover a disparaged embodiment that would otherwise be excluded from the scope of a broad claim in a claim construction proceeding, assuming it was not an original claim?  Or, reiterating the title, &quot;**do disparaged embodiments lack claim support**&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am dealing with a potential competitor's patent with a very similar fact pattern to the quoted text above, and wondering if it is best to let the patent family continue to issue broad claims (which I assume would be deemed to exclude disparaged embodiments in a litigation context), or to intervene via pre-grant submissions requesting a narrowed claim scope not including the disparaged embodiments, with the risk that the applicant discovers the mistake and tries to claim the disparaged embodiments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.complexip.com/disparagement-of-prior-technology-limits-patent-claim-coverage/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ddkpatent.com/pubs/legal_review_R1.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53683" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19486" RevisionGUID="931af0ad-837b-4a18-a144-7ec6455c7aa3" CreationDate="2018-05-05T15:19:59.563" UserId="18769" Text="Do consistently disparaged embodiments lack claim support?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53684" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19486" RevisionGUID="931af0ad-837b-4a18-a144-7ec6455c7aa3" CreationDate="2018-05-05T15:19:59.563" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;&lt;written-description&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19487" RevisionGUID="56459226-c054-470b-b65e-85e4ebc5b98f" CreationDate="2018-05-05T15:27:18.317" UserId="18769" Text="Without going in detail, I want to point out some articles that address the risks of &quot;kitchen sink&quot; disclosures at least in the EPO, in the form of (a) intermediate generalization and (b) individualization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[\[1\]][1]: International standards against intermediate generalization and individualization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[\[2\]][2]: Individualization at the EPO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[\[3\]][3]: In the US, individualization is “common, and often permissible”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, in response to the stapler example given in the original question, an [article from Patently-O][4] makes an interesting comment that indeed, taken to the extreme, such general lack of specificity in claims could mean nearly all claims are invalid for 112/sufficiency of disclosure reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In a powerful rhetorical approach, Judge Moore chose to refer to the broad claims as “spikeless claims.” As mentioned, those claims do not include a “spikeless” limitation. Rather, they simply omit a “spike” element. As it turns out more than 99.9% all patent claims issued in 2008 are silent about “spikes,” and under the traditional interpretation of the “comprising” transition – all those claims would literally cover embodiments without spikes. The holding here cannot be that all those claims are invalid. I believe that the holding here is largely a result of the fact that the accused device was in-fact spikeless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.law360.com/articles/576349/tips-on-disclosing-embodiments-in-patent-apps-overseas&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2012/05/18/individualization-where-does-it-end-2/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.finnegan.com/en/tools/scriptpro-llc-v-innovation-associates/analysis.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2009/03/written-description-federal-circuit-again-invalidates-broadened-claims.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53686" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15983" RevisionGUID="7c99ee3e-77ce-42d6-88c7-3450a28321f0" CreationDate="2018-05-05T15:34:27.963" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19487" RevisionGUID="88681a68-e2c3-430c-8be0-e3fa15df7685" CreationDate="2018-05-05T15:42:04.057" UserId="18769" Comment="added 1251 characters in body" Text="Without going in detail, I want to point out some articles [1-3] below that address the risks of &quot;kitchen sink&quot; disclosures at least in the EPO, in the form of (a) intermediate generalization and (b) individualization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[\[1\]][1]: International standards against intermediate generalization and individualization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[\[2\]][2]: Individualization at the EPO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[\[3\]][3]: Though in the US, individualization is “common, and often permissible”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The overall point is that thoughtlessly including a long list of possible realizations for each feature without disclosing specific combinations of them could limit your ability to amend claims.  Another way of putting this is, if you disclose everything (e.g. the entire contents of the internet), you've really disclosed nothing in particular.  Therefore, there is a balance between disclosing enough to guarantee a potential infringer literally infringes on the claims (as opposed to weaker DoE infringement), and disclosing too much such that you can't amend claims to follow market development.  Even worse, there is at least a US precedent of &quot;disclosure-dedication&quot;, in which disclosed but unclaimed embodiments (i.e. those that technically fall outside of the claim scope), are not covered under DoE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, best practices are to (i) as chempatent1981 notes, disclose the exact combinations of features that you may want to claim in the future (i.e. don't expect that the spec is a &quot;bucket of legos&quot; from which you can arbitrarily pick and combine elements, especially in the EPO), and (ii) don't get too crazy with long lists of possible embodiments, especially if they start to fall outside the scope of what you want to claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, in response to the stapler example given in the original question, an [article from Patently-O][4] makes an interesting comment that indeed, taken to the extreme, such general lack of specificity in claims could mean nearly all claims are invalid for 112/sufficiency of disclosure reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In a powerful rhetorical approach, Judge Moore chose to refer to the broad claims as “spikeless claims.” As mentioned, those claims do not include a “spikeless” limitation. Rather, they simply omit a “spike” element. As it turns out more than 99.9% all patent claims issued in 2008 are silent about “spikes,” and under the traditional interpretation of the “comprising” transition – all those claims would literally cover embodiments without spikes. The holding here cannot be that all those claims are invalid. I believe that the holding here is largely a result of the fact that the accused device was in-fact spikeless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, it will likely not be ruled that &quot;all claims are invalid&quot;, but rather that most claims will have a narrower scope than what they technically claim, narrowed both by the disclosure and PHOSITA knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.law360.com/articles/576349/tips-on-disclosing-embodiments-in-patent-apps-overseas&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2012/05/18/individualization-where-does-it-end-2/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.finnegan.com/en/tools/scriptpro-llc-v-innovation-associates/analysis.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2009/03/written-description-federal-circuit-again-invalidates-broadened-claims.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19487" RevisionGUID="a958508e-cc03-429b-8395-ed0362db7c6d" CreationDate="2018-05-05T15:47:05.597" UserId="18769" Comment="added 1251 characters in body" Text="Without going in detail, I want to point out some articles [1-3] below that address the risks of &quot;kitchen sink&quot; disclosures at least in the EPO, in the form of (a) intermediate generalization and (b) individualization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[\[1\]][1]: International standards against intermediate generalization and individualization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[\[2\]][2]: Individualization at the EPO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[\[3\]][3]: Though in the US, individualization is “common, and often permissible”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The overall point is that thoughtlessly including a long list of possible realizations for each feature without disclosing specific combinations of them could limit your ability to amend claims.  Another way of putting this is, if you disclose everything (e.g. the entire contents of the internet), you've really disclosed nothing in particular.  Therefore, there is a balance between disclosing enough to guarantee a potential infringer literally infringes on the claims (as opposed to weaker DoE infringement), and disclosing too much such that you can't amend claims to follow market development.  Even worse, there is at least a US precedent of &quot;disclosure-dedication&quot;, in which disclosed but unclaimed embodiments (i.e. those that technically fall outside of the claim scope), are not covered under DoE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, best practices are to (i) as chempatent1981 notes, disclose the exact combinations of features that you may want to claim in the future (i.e. don't expect that the spec is a &quot;bucket of legos&quot; from which you can arbitrarily pick and combine elements, especially in the EPO), and (ii) don't get too crazy with long lists of possible embodiments, especially if they start to fall outside the scope of what you want to claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, in response to the stapler example given in the original question, an [article from Patently-O][4] makes an interesting comment that indeed, taken to the extreme, such general lack of specificity in claims could mean nearly all claims are invalid for 112/sufficiency of disclosure reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In a powerful rhetorical approach, Judge Moore chose to refer to the broad claims as “spikeless claims.” As mentioned, those claims do not include a “spikeless” limitation. Rather, they simply omit a “spike” element. **As it turns out more than 99.9% all patent claims issued in 2008 are silent about “spikes,” and under the traditional interpretation of the “comprising” transition – all those claims would literally cover embodiments without spikes.** The holding here cannot be that all those claims are invalid. I believe that the holding here is largely a result of the fact that the accused device was in-fact spikeless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, it will likely not be ruled that &quot;all claims are invalid&quot;, but rather that most claims will have a narrower scope than what they technically claim, narrowed both by the disclosure and PHOSITA knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.law360.com/articles/576349/tips-on-disclosing-embodiments-in-patent-apps-overseas&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2012/05/18/individualization-where-does-it-end-2/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.finnegan.com/en/tools/scriptpro-llc-v-innovation-associates/analysis.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2009/03/written-description-federal-circuit-again-invalidates-broadened-claims.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19486" RevisionGUID="42121e54-e51c-4811-bd5a-7811cd10123a" CreationDate="2018-05-05T15:59:06.017" UserId="18769" Comment="added 120 characters in body" Text="**Disparaging the prior art/alternative embodiments**, especially in combination with a limited characterization of the disclosed embodiments (e.g. only describe embodiments without the disparaged characteristics), **may forfeit claim scope on claims that on their face might otherwise include the disparaged embodiments** (if not literally, then at least under DoE), as described [here][1] and [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance consider the following case outlined in this [2006 article][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Toro, claim 1 read in part “said cover including means for&#xD;&#xA;increasing the pressure developed by” blower. The specification&#xD;&#xA;stated that the invention is “advantageous in that it automatically&#xD;&#xA;restricts the size of the inlet … without having the operator&#xD;&#xA;manually insert or remove a replaceable ring.” At issue was the&#xD;&#xA;question of whether a separate ring/structure would be considered&#xD;&#xA;to be an infringement of claim 1. According to the Court of&#xD;&#xA;Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), **“there [was] no doubt&#xD;&#xA;that the specification … disclose[d] the separate ring/structure…&#xD;&#xA;it d[id] so by noting inferiority** of a device in which the operator&#xD;&#xA;manually insert[ed] or remove[d] a replaceable ring (Toro at 1334).”&#xD;&#xA;However, the disclosed separate ring/structure was not claimed.&#xD;&#xA;The subject matter directed to the blower wherein the operator&#xD;&#xA;manually inserts or removes a replaceable ring was held to be&#xD;&#xA;dedicated to the public (Id.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[As a side note, I believe the article incorrectly characterizes this outcome as application of the &quot;disclosure-dedication&quot; rule (disclosed but unclaimed embodiments are not covered under DoE), whereas it is actually application of narrowed claim construction due to disparaging prior art/limited characterization of the invention (since the &quot;forfeited&quot; scope was not excluded on the face of the broad claim).]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point for bringing up the article is that, as bolded, **disparaging the prior art in itself at least provides written description** of the disparaged embodiments, and likely enablement as well (which can rely more heavily on PHOSITA knowledge).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question is, can an applicant amend claims to cover a disparaged embodiment that would otherwise be excluded from the scope of a broad claim in a claim construction proceeding, assuming it was not an original claim?  Or, reiterating the title, &quot;**do disparaged embodiments lack claim support**&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am dealing with a potential competitor's patent with a very similar fact pattern to the quoted text above, and wondering if it is best to let the patent family continue to issue broad claims (which I assume would be deemed to exclude disparaged embodiments in a litigation context), or to intervene via pre-grant submissions requesting a narrowed claim scope not including the disparaged embodiments, with the risk that the applicant discovers the mistake and tries to claim the disparaged embodiments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.iptechblog.com/2016/10/the-federal-circuit-clarifies-when-claim-scope-is-disavowed/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.complexip.com/disparagement-of-prior-technology-limits-patent-claim-coverage/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ddkpatent.com/pubs/legal_review_R1.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19488" RevisionGUID="7b539939-8272-45f1-a461-6e0f60f591b0" CreationDate="2018-05-05T16:14:18.333" UserId="18769" Text="TDs aside, patent families may share prosecution history estoppel.  From [article][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When one or more continuation or divisional applications are subsequently filed, as is often the case, the scope-limiting estoppel may similarly effect those related children applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To avoid the cascade of disclaimer and estoppel from parent to child applications, affirmative rescission of the disclaimer can be utilized to recapture the disclaimed subject matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.cdfslaw.com/publications/rescinding-estoppel-overlooked-means-broader-claim-construction/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53691" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19242" RevisionGUID="72dd6a19-2f8b-40ad-92e3-9075e3b41da8" CreationDate="2018-05-05T17:34:27.500" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53692" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19227" RevisionGUID="2341a4d6-5c58-4798-a0ad-4bb7d42febab" CreationDate="2018-05-05T19:34:27.700" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53693" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19242" RevisionGUID="759ce4f6-2e05-47dc-a6df-f6eef5788bfd" CreationDate="2018-05-05T19:41:28.663" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed misspelling in title" Text="Technique for stem cell isolation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19489" RevisionGUID="584612e4-b3ab-41cf-87a7-dfbdd65dcddf" CreationDate="2018-05-05T20:33:48.340" UserId="21013" Text="I suspect that the registration of Japanese version of the patent was transferred to AREVA Japan from assignee JAERI and maintained during the lifetime of the patent. French version of the patent was lapsed due to the nonpayment of patent fee on the basis of the contract beteween JAERI and AREVA. The French version of the patent is only recorded as lapsed in Google patent two times, 8/14 and 9/25 in 1998. What is the reason for that? Can I get any information about contract between JAERI and AREVA from France Patent Office?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53695" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19489" RevisionGUID="584612e4-b3ab-41cf-87a7-dfbdd65dcddf" CreationDate="2018-05-05T20:33:48.340" UserId="21013" Text="Why was the French patent FR2553560 lapsed two times in 1998?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53696" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19489" RevisionGUID="584612e4-b3ab-41cf-87a7-dfbdd65dcddf" CreationDate="2018-05-05T20:33:48.340" UserId="21013" Text="&lt;license&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53697" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="4b7fc9af-18a3-4e35-8179-ae77acdb3fad" CreationDate="2018-05-05T21:34:27.673" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53698" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="19489" RevisionGUID="b8fdbf65-b15b-40ba-b063-785f60e59b47" CreationDate="2018-05-06T06:58:46.847" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[19476],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:15503,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Maca&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="53699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19490" RevisionGUID="01258b97-5c7d-404c-aa82-c8a4a94d1437" CreationDate="2018-05-06T08:37:11.363" UserId="18033" Text="I'll start with a few basics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get an invention patent (there are also design patents to protect an ornamental design, I'm ignoring those now), the invention itself needs to be novel and non-obvious (over basically all prior public disclosures). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means, any dosclosure of how the invention works voids your ability to obtain a patent. In principle. There are a few exceptions, namely, if one of the inventors disclosed the invention, you can still file for a US-patent for one year (grace period for own disclosures). However, a European patent for example wouldn't be possible anymore. (There are other countries with a grace period, so some international protection is possible, but to a lesser extent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can tell the company about everything that has already been published (oral disclosures in front of a few people not bound by secrecy do count). And that's probably what they are asking about. They can then judge if they want to work with you to file a patent. The risk is relatively low because your disclosures are prior art for their patent applications even if they did file without your consent (&quot;stole your invention&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think there are still parts of the invention that are unknown to the public, the other answers already discussed a few points, but I'll reiterate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The universitys technology office might be helpful and you might be obligated to include them anyways &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- An NDA would be &quot;nice to have&quot;, but they might not sign one because it is a strong weapon against them coming up with your invention on their own. It's in most cases not a good business decision to sign one with an inventor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Try to not discuss specifics before having a deal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're invention is stolen, you can sue the stealing party, but, jokes on you, you'll have to prove it. I recently spoke with an experienced attorney in Germany who said he never had a case where it was even tried. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A last point, all this sounds worse than it is. Unless they can easily include your invention in an existing product, they probably want your expertise and having a patent additionally would be nice. Most firms don't steal your invention. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13629" RevisionGUID="f8d18f4a-e727-49a0-a9af-ae6fccceeb6b" CreationDate="2018-05-06T12:28:15.073" UserId="3127" Comment="Update on patent grant" Text="In reference to the patent: [PCT/GB2014/051152][6] [WO 2014/170646 A1][1] granted and pending patents: GB1307148.5, GB1500104.3 and GB1500105.0 to What3Words Limited:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the screenshot from the video I had published on [YouTube on 10th of April 2013][2] that showed 5 words for Mt. Everest's location:&#xD;&#xA;[![Video screenshot showing 5 words for a geo co-ordinate][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally here is crowd funding campaign page on [IndieGogo started on 11th of April 2013][8] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also here is the UK-IPO patent application record's screenshot **filed by What3Words just 9 days after my video**:&#xD;&#xA;[![UK IPO patent filing screenshot with application date][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another record is available from [archive.org][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only effective difference is that What3Words uses three words while my system would take up around 5 words - but mine is more simpler and thus more effective as it uses words from a much smaller set of only 1024 very common and unambiguous words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I get these patents invalidated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried submitting a `third party observation` but was unable to since the `priority date` is past 28 months limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update I**: I submitted my documents under the `third party observation` to the UK IPO office via email as per [Submitting observations concerning the patentability of an invention][7]. I then received an auto generated email acknowledging the receipt.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update II**: Sadly, the patent was granted as [US9883333B2][9] on 2018-01-30&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014170646A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://youtu.be/LfGeIWCeeKU?t=321&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Ny9Fv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/RJmMx.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://web.archive.org/web/*/wcodes.org&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO14/170646&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/submitting-observations-concerning-the-patentability-of-an-invention&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/wcode-encode-with-words/x/2245741#/story&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9883333B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53701" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13629" RevisionGUID="f8d18f4a-e727-49a0-a9af-ae6fccceeb6b" CreationDate="2018-05-06T12:28:15.073" UserId="3127" Comment="Update on patent grant" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;third-party-submission&gt;&lt;wo2014170646a1&gt;&lt;gb1307148.5&gt;&lt;us9883333b2&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19490" RevisionGUID="6434164b-2191-4bab-a36b-7429d786c8b2" CreationDate="2018-05-06T14:47:57.993" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed minor grammar issue. " Text="I'll start with a few basics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get an invention patent (there are also design patents to protect an ornamental design, I'm ignoring those now), the invention itself needs to be novel and non-obvious (over basically all prior public disclosures). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means, any dosclosure of how the invention works voids your ability to obtain a patent. In principle. There are a few exceptions, namely, if one of the inventors disclosed the invention, you can still file for a US-patent for one year (grace period for own disclosures). However, a European patent for example wouldn't be possible anymore. (There are other countries with a grace period, so some international protection is possible, but to a lesser extent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can tell the company about everything that has already been published (oral disclosures in front of a few people not bound by secrecy do count). And that's probably what they are asking about. They can then judge if they want to work with you to file a patent. The risk is relatively low because your disclosures are prior art for their patent applications even if they did file without your consent (&quot;stole your invention&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think there are still parts of the invention that are unknown to the public, the other answers already discussed a few points, but I'll reiterate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The universitys technology office might be helpful and you might be obligated to include them anyways &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- An NDA would be &quot;nice to have&quot;, but they might not sign one because it is a strong weapon against them coming up with your invention on their own. It's in most cases not a good business decision to sign one with an inventor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Try to not discuss specifics before having a deal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your invention is stolen, you can sue the stealing party, but, jokes on you, you'll have to prove it. I recently spoke with an experienced attorney in Germany who said he never had a case where it was even tried. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A last point, all this sounds worse than it is. Unless they can easily include your invention in an existing product, they probably want your expertise and having a patent additionally would be nice. Most firms don't steal your invention. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19491" RevisionGUID="5e5435ea-9dbc-4228-aaf5-1d51df038792" CreationDate="2018-05-06T15:20:58.773" UserId="21041" Text="So I have been reading patent US8010108B2 out of interest and it seems to list a lot of things the invention might do, rather than will do, and also it doesn't seem to say what it actually is? Generally just very confused." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53704" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19491" RevisionGUID="5e5435ea-9dbc-4228-aaf5-1d51df038792" CreationDate="2018-05-06T15:20:58.773" UserId="21041" Text="Have read this patent a few times and just don't understand what the invention is?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53705" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19491" RevisionGUID="5e5435ea-9dbc-4228-aaf5-1d51df038792" CreationDate="2018-05-06T15:20:58.773" UserId="21041" Text="&lt;intellectual-property&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53706" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18799" RevisionGUID="2d121602-93cb-44e6-9e7f-c462bb304063" CreationDate="2018-05-06T16:34:57.090" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19491" RevisionGUID="d4154983-3e45-46be-acfc-293431603d4c" CreationDate="2018-05-06T17:34:01.940" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to patent" Text="So I have been reading patent [US8010108B2][1] out of interest and it seems to list a lot of things the invention might do, rather than will do, and also it doesn't seem to say what it actually is? Generally just very confused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8010108B2/en?oq=US8010108B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19492" RevisionGUID="72dd1af6-396a-48da-b4f3-fefb5362b227" CreationDate="2018-05-06T17:42:00.207" UserId="17003" Text="Technology questions are off topic for this site so this question may get closed. However, what I will advise is to focus on the claims. Here is claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. A base station supporting a radio link handover in a cellular communication system, the base station comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   means for receiving&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a radio link handover initiation message from a network element for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; radio link supporting a communication between the base station and a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user equipment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  determining means for determining a handover switch&#xD;&#xA;&gt; delay; setting means for setting a characteristic of a radio link&#xD;&#xA;&gt; handover acknowledge message in response to the handover switch delay;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  means for transmitting the radio link handover acknowledge message&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the network element;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  wherein the determining means are arranged to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; determine the handover switch delay in response to a data discard&#xD;&#xA;&gt; measure of a previous radio link handover for the base station.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The description in the patent should enable the claims, so read it with in the context of this claim and it may become clearer. Patents are written to be comprehensible by people educated in the field of the invention so there is no guarantee that a lay person will understand it. The patent evidently is a method for handling the handover that happens when you move from one cell tower to another during cellular communications. Its really outside my field of expertise to describe it beyond this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19493" RevisionGUID="a7af5e79-28d4-4a17-b9b3-802ca167031c" CreationDate="2018-05-06T19:10:22.390" UserId="17003" Text="As far as I can tell, the patent has only issued in the US. You can file a Post Grant Review within 9 months of the grant date of January 30, 2018. [This article][1] describes the options for challenging the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=aac8d580-73bc-487b-9289-b9b73dde3166" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53710" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17587" RevisionGUID="399e1a5c-2867-4b72-a699-d7cd260821e8" CreationDate="2018-05-06T20:34:58.050" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19494" RevisionGUID="772841d5-e449-4a74-9cb8-55e7acb023e8" CreationDate="2018-05-06T21:58:45.207" UserId="19913" Text="I have filed a provisional patent application in order to establish a priority date.  That being said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* does Europe have a similar mechanism to establish a priority date?&#xD;&#xA;* what must I do / not do to remain eligible (i.e. not disqualify myself) for EPC patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I need to avoid selling the device or disclosing the device?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53712" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19494" RevisionGUID="772841d5-e449-4a74-9cb8-55e7acb023e8" CreationDate="2018-05-06T21:58:45.207" UserId="19913" Text="European Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53713" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19494" RevisionGUID="772841d5-e449-4a74-9cb8-55e7acb023e8" CreationDate="2018-05-06T21:58:45.207" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;epc&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53714" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18211" RevisionGUID="7ce80d5d-e8ce-4d84-ab43-c1d9df490643" CreationDate="2018-05-06T22:34:57.980" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53715" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18821" RevisionGUID="ec61abec-89a3-4186-9ba3-ed55ebf6d2bc" CreationDate="2018-05-06T23:34:58.267" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19490" RevisionGUID="0d62d511-d678-46e7-9d50-80eead51cc27" CreationDate="2018-05-07T07:04:25.940" UserId="18033" Comment="edited body" Text="I'll start with a few basics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get an invention patent (there are also design patents to protect an ornamental design, I'm ignoring those now), the invention itself needs to be novel and non-obvious (over basically all prior public disclosures). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means, any disclosure of how the invention works voids your ability to obtain a patent. In principle. There are a few exceptions, namely, if one of the inventors disclosed the invention, you can still file for a US-patent for one year (grace period for own disclosures). However, a European patent for example wouldn't be possible anymore. (There are other countries with a grace period, so some international protection is possible, but to a lesser extent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can tell the company about everything that has already been published (oral disclosures in front of a few people not bound by secrecy do count). And that's probably what they are asking about. They can then judge if they want to work with you to file a patent. The risk is relatively low because your disclosures are prior art for their patent applications even if they did file without your consent (&quot;stole your invention&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think there are still parts of the invention that are unknown to the public, the other answers already discussed a few points, but I'll reiterate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The universitys technology office might be helpful and you might be obligated to include them anyways &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- An NDA would be &quot;nice to have&quot;, but they might not sign one because it is a strong weapon against them coming up with your invention on their own. It's in most cases not a good business decision to sign one with an inventor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Try to not discuss specifics before having a deal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your invention is stolen, you can sue the stealing party, but, jokes on you, you'll have to prove it. I recently spoke with an experienced attorney in Germany who said he never had a case where it was even tried. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A last point, all this sounds worse than it is. Unless they can easily include your invention in an existing product, they probably want your expertise and having a patent additionally would be nice. Most firms don't steal your invention. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19496" RevisionGUID="3510dcc7-4cfa-429c-8d08-fe89e00d917f" CreationDate="2018-05-07T09:25:41.387" UserId="17325" Text="There is no direct equivalent to provisional patent app. in Europe (ie the EPO). However, you can establish a priority date by filing a normal national or European (or PCT) patent application and don't pay any fees. This gives you an established priority date for the filed subject matter and under the given applicant's name (only YOU can claim this priority and no one else). You can now use this patent application number to claim priority strictly within 12 months and file a normal european (or PCT) patent application, i.e. pay all fees etc. Another trick here is that only the first application may give a valid priority right. So if you have already filed  the US provisional, you can't file another patent application and claim prio from that one. BUT you CAN claim priority for filing a normal EP (or PCT) application by the US provisional. The danger here lies in the fact that US provisionals may well be only experimentals and that will give you limited subject matter to claim priority from in EPO proceedings. But if it is drafted like a normal patent application you will be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should strongly advice to consult an EQE qualified EPO patent attorney, because many US applicants have lost their patents for not being aware of the strict regulations about claiming priority. The most recent and painful example is the revocation of one of the CRISPR patents of the Broad Institute (see here for some reading  http://ipkitten.blogspot.gr/2018/01/epo-revokes-crispr-patent-clear-cut.html). They will probably lose more of them on the same basis and it is really a shame to lose a patent for invalidly claiming priority." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19494" RevisionGUID="63861a0e-28af-4553-b07a-41c00dd99596" CreationDate="2018-05-07T14:44:08.703" UserId="19913" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="I have filed a provisional patent application in order to establish a priority date with the USPTO.  That being said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* does Europe have a similar mechanism to establish a priority date?&#xD;&#xA;* what must I do / not do to remain eligible (i.e. not disqualify myself) for an EPC patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I need to avoid selling the device or disclosing the device?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19498" RevisionGUID="0f7398c1-2b69-4746-911a-6e47127bf5d2" CreationDate="2018-05-07T14:59:25.160" UserId="19913" Text="Is there a European (EPC) equivalent or substitute for [Nolo's &quot;Patent it Yourself&quot;][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like guidance to write the first draft of the EU patent for an EU attorney. Before doing so, it would be helpful to understand the differences between US and EU patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have read \ used the equivalent please state this in the response and any lessons-learned.  Thank you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.amazon.com/Patent-Yourself-Step-Step-Filing/dp/1413317197" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53726" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19498" RevisionGUID="0f7398c1-2b69-4746-911a-6e47127bf5d2" CreationDate="2018-05-07T14:59:25.160" UserId="19913" Text="Is there an European (EPC) equivalent or substitute for Nolo's Patent it Yourself?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53727" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19498" RevisionGUID="0f7398c1-2b69-4746-911a-6e47127bf5d2" CreationDate="2018-05-07T14:59:25.160" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;epc&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53728" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19379" RevisionGUID="21bd74fb-1f2b-4de3-b4f4-d2fdfbffd826" CreationDate="2018-05-07T15:37:10.800" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19499" RevisionGUID="632b062e-e462-44b8-b205-cda35d1ff84d" CreationDate="2018-05-07T16:31:26.587" UserId="21046" Text="I have a provisional filed with USPTO on June 1, 2017, and I plan to follow this up by June 1, 2018 with a PCT application to claim the provisional's priority date. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have enough cash to pay the PCT filing fee with the USPTO as Intl Search Authority (about $2000) but I do not have enough cash right now to pay attorney fees. I have done a prior art search and read many patent texts as well as some instructional books and websites, so I feel reasonably confident to be able to put together specs and claims that are not half bad. That being said, I realize that I won't do as good a job as when working with an attorney. However, by fall, we will have incorporated, raised capital, and an attorney at our side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the big picture is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I need to act now to keep the 2017 priority date alive&#xD;&#xA; - I want to keep costs as low as possible until the fall &#xD;&#xA; - I want to maximize options/salvageability at least for another 6 months until more funds will be available&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that the PCT timeline is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. 4 months after PCT filing date, the intl search report (ISR) gets issued&#xD;&#xA; 2. Amendments to specifications and claims can be made under Article 34 up to either (1) 3 months after the ISR is sent; or (2) 22 months from the priority date (i.e. 10 months after the PCT filing, so in my case April 1, 2019). &#xD;&#xA; 3. That means if I have incorporated and raised funds by fall 2018, I can then work with an attorney to refine the application and strengthen specs and claims to the degree of what's there (I understand that no new content can be added).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So the bottom line question is: how much of a half-decent PCT application can later be salvaged by a good attorney after pursuing the described low-cost approach in the first six months of a PCT filing (i.e. initial pro se filing)?** " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53730" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19499" RevisionGUID="632b062e-e462-44b8-b205-cda35d1ff84d" CreationDate="2018-05-07T16:31:26.587" UserId="21046" Text="Strategies for minimizing early cost while maximizing future options with PCT application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53731" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19499" RevisionGUID="632b062e-e462-44b8-b205-cda35d1ff84d" CreationDate="2018-05-07T16:31:26.587" UserId="21046" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;pro-se&gt;&lt;attorney&gt;&lt;cost&gt;&lt;strategy&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19499" RevisionGUID="56f36cba-0244-48d9-8330-13ff2a581f0d" CreationDate="2018-05-07T17:20:45.420" UserId="21046" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I have a provisional filed with USPTO on June 1, 2017, and I plan to follow it up by June 1, 2018 with a PCT application to claim the provisional's priority date. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have enough cash to pay the PCT filing fee with the USPTO as Intl Search Authority (about $2000) but I do not have enough cash right now to pay attorney fees. I have done a prior art search and read many patent texts as well as some instructional books and websites, so I feel reasonably confident to be able to put together specs and claims that are not half bad. That being said, I realize that I won't do as good a job as when working with an attorney. However, by fall, we will have incorporated, raised capital, and an attorney at our side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the big picture is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I need to act now to keep the 2017 priority date alive&#xD;&#xA; - I want to keep costs as low as possible until the fall &#xD;&#xA; - I want to maximize options/salvageability at least for another 6 months until more funds will be available&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that the PCT timeline is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. 4 months after PCT filing date, the intl search report (ISR) gets issued&#xD;&#xA; 2. Amendments to specifications and claims can be made under Article 34 up to either (1) 3 months after the ISR is sent; or (2) 22 months from the priority date (i.e. 10 months after the PCT filing, so in my case April 1, 2019). &#xD;&#xA; 3. That means if I have incorporated and raised funds by fall 2018, I can then work with an attorney to refine the application and strengthen specs and claims to the degree of what's there (I understand that no new content can be added).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So the bottom line question is: to which degree can a half-decent PCT application later be salvaged by a good attorney when pursuing the described low-cost approach during the first six months of a PCT filing (i.e. initial pro se filing)?** " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19499" RevisionGUID="8d738e45-012b-4bc1-9aab-972300b86117" CreationDate="2018-05-07T20:17:19.873" UserId="21046" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="**My basic question is: to which degree can an imperfectly written but substantially complete PCT application still be upgraded/fine-tuned (by a good attorney) in the first couple of months after filing?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are more details:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a provisional filed with USPTO on June 1, 2017, and I plan to follow it up by June 1, 2018 with a PCT application to claim the provisional's priority date. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have enough cash to pay the PCT filing fee with the USPTO as Intl Search Authority (about $2000) but I do not have enough cash right now to pay attorney fees. I have done a prior art search and read many patent texts as well as some instructional books and websites, so I feel reasonably confident to be able to put together specs and claims that are not half bad. That being said, I realize that I won't do as good a job as when working with an attorney. However, by fall, we will have incorporated, raised capital, and an attorney at our side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the big picture is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I need to act now to keep the 2017 priority date alive&#xD;&#xA; - I want to keep costs as low as possible until the fall &#xD;&#xA; - I want to maximize options/salvageability at least for another 6 months until more funds will be available&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that the PCT timeline is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. 4 months after PCT filing date, the intl search report (ISR) gets issued&#xD;&#xA; 2. Amendments to specifications and claims can be made under Article 34 up to either (1) 3 months after the ISR is sent; or (2) 22 months from the priority date (i.e. 10 months after the PCT filing, so in my case April 1, 2019). &#xD;&#xA; 3. That means if I have incorporated and raised funds by fall 2018, I can then work with an attorney to refine the application and strengthen specs and claims to the degree of what's there (I understand that no new content can be added).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that picture correct?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19500" RevisionGUID="ccb68f34-1036-4d52-b189-b485c8dc6b69" CreationDate="2018-05-07T20:19:51.907" UserId="15503" Text="**The international phase**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no requirement to respond to the ISR or written opinion. While you are provided with the opportunity to file article 19 or 34 amendments and provide arguments, and these may be considered at the international phase, many countries will just re-search and re-examine your application anyway during the national phase. You may therefore have amended your application in the international phase to address prior art that the USPTO or EPO don't consider relevant. Moreover, the requirements for amendments are so different in different countries, that you might want to defer filing amendments until the national phase anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this reason, once the PCT application is filed, it is an entirely valid approach to do nothing until national phase entry. You would of course likely want to review the prior art identified in the ISR and satisfy yourself that you can overcome it  before filing the national phase entry applications though, otherwise you'd just be throwing good money after bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, even if you had funds from day 1, you might still want to pursue a strategy of tactical waiting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For completeness, I should note of course that some applicants and attorneys prefer to argue their case throughout the international phase, with a view to getting a clear IPRP. The benefit is that this may simplify national phase applications (particularly outside of the USPTO and EPO). This is a valid approach too, and there is no right or wrong way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The national phase**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have pretty wide discretion with the claims when entering national phase (and these can be freely changed in a continuation/divisional anyway). So if your PCT application claims are suboptimal, this can be easily addressed. The bigger problem is the description: once you get to the deadline for filing a PCT application, there's nothing more you can do. It is therefore critical that your description is in good shape." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19501" RevisionGUID="43ec5702-27fe-4660-bc97-7b81439dc7c0" CreationDate="2018-05-07T21:30:01.830" UserId="15503" Text="It's more than not necessary. It's not possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[37 CFR § 1.51(d)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.51) provides:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Applicants are encouraged to file an information disclosure statement in nonprovisional applications. See § 1.97 and § 1.98. No information disclosure statement may be filed in a provisional application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[MPEP § 609](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s609.html) discusses this a little more:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Information Disclosure Statements (IDSs) are not permitted in provisional applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(b). See 37 CFR 1.51(d). Since no substantive examination is given in provisional applications, a disclosure of information is unnecessary. Any such statement filed in a provisional application will be returned or destroyed at the option of the Office. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53736" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="8de3bc57-f0b9-49b0-9e26-1f6f8e16d432" CreationDate="2018-05-07T21:37:10.083" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19486" RevisionGUID="ef2fc8db-02ff-4eb4-83cf-374817152317" CreationDate="2018-05-08T00:32:21.683" UserId="18769" Comment="deleted 510 characters in body" Text="**Disparaging the prior art/alternative embodiments**, especially in combination with a limited characterization of the disclosed embodiments (e.g. only describe embodiments without the disparaged characteristics), **may forfeit claim scope on claims that on their face might otherwise include the disparaged embodiments** (if not literally, then at least under DoE), as described [here][1] and [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance consider the following case outlined in this [2006 article][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Toro, claim 1 read in part “said cover including means for&#xD;&#xA;increasing the pressure developed by” blower. The specification&#xD;&#xA;stated that the invention is “advantageous in that it automatically&#xD;&#xA;restricts the size of the inlet … without having the operator&#xD;&#xA;manually insert or remove a replaceable ring.” At issue was the&#xD;&#xA;question of whether a separate ring/structure would be considered&#xD;&#xA;to be an infringement of claim 1. According to the Court of&#xD;&#xA;Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), **“there [was] no doubt&#xD;&#xA;that the specification … disclose[d] the separate ring/structure…&#xD;&#xA;it d[id] so by noting inferiority** of a device in which the operator&#xD;&#xA;manually insert[ed] or remove[d] a replaceable ring (Toro at 1334).”&#xD;&#xA;However, the disclosed separate ring/structure was not claimed.&#xD;&#xA;The subject matter directed to the blower wherein the operator&#xD;&#xA;manually inserts or removes a replaceable ring was held to be&#xD;&#xA;dedicated to the public (Id.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[As a side note, I believe the article incorrectly characterizes this outcome as application of the &quot;disclosure-dedication&quot; rule (disclosed but unclaimed embodiments are not covered under DoE), whereas it is actually application of narrowed claim construction due to disparaging prior art/limited characterization of the invention (since the &quot;forfeited&quot; scope was not excluded on the face of the broad claim).]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point for bringing up the article is that, as bolded, **disparaging the prior art in itself at least provides written description** of the disparaged embodiments, and likely enablement as well (which can rely more heavily on PHOSITA knowledge).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question is, can an applicant amend claims to cover a disparaged embodiment that would otherwise be excluded from the scope of a broad claim in a claim construction proceeding, assuming it was not an original claim?  Or, reiterating the title, &quot;**do disparaged embodiments lack claim support**&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.iptechblog.com/2016/10/the-federal-circuit-clarifies-when-claim-scope-is-disavowed/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.complexip.com/disparagement-of-prior-technology-limits-patent-claim-coverage/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ddkpatent.com/pubs/legal_review_R1.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19480" RevisionGUID="b96c4e05-afe1-4ba2-9645-a4a7106f1ce8" CreationDate="2018-05-08T00:35:25.353" UserId="18769" Comment="deleted 55 characters in body" Text="It is generally stated in that one must both show ownership of and give the public the invention in order to get the monopoly rights of a claim (e.g. 112 in US, Art. 83 EPO).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for purposes of validity, is it acceptable to make a broad genus claim (e.g. all filamentous lightbulbs), but only disclose a few embodiments (e.g. with a horse hair filament), even when that scope (at least on its face) would include other embodiments that were unknown and/or required undue experimentation to be operably realized at the time of disclosure (e.g. carbon nanotubes as filament)?  See the diagram below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the question does not relate to instances where an *additional* limitation is added (e.g. a frosted lightbulb), but to the more fundamental case where the claimed limitation (e.g. a filament) is satisfied with an embodiment unknown at the time of disclosure.  In other words, the typical &quot;three legged chair covers a four legged chair&quot; would not apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, for the purposes of infringement, could a defense of non-infringement merely be an expert declaration stating that it required undue experimentation to realize the &quot;infringing&quot; embodiment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I often see such broad non-enabled/non-sufficiently disclosed claims.  However, the spirit of the law does not seem to support this, and e.g. this [wikipedia article][2] agrees:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patents may fail this test if they claim more than they teach--for example, a patent that claims all light bulbs but that only explains how to make a particular type of light bulb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: This question relates to a previous [question][3] I had, but perhaps did not phrase well enough to get a satisfying answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3s5jL.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufficiency_of_disclosure&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/18229/18769" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19480" RevisionGUID="a0bcea1d-e1ff-423e-b00d-4d2f0ad76f13" CreationDate="2018-05-08T00:46:09.180" UserId="18769" Comment="deleted 55 characters in body" Text="It is generally stated in that one must both show ownership of and give the public the invention in order to get the monopoly rights of a claim (e.g. 112 in US, Art. 83 EPO).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for purposes of validity, is it acceptable to make a broad genus claim (e.g. all filamentous lightbulbs), but only disclose a few embodiments (e.g. with a horse hair filament), even when that scope (at least on its face) would include other embodiments that were unknown and/or required undue experimentation to be operably realized at the time of disclosure (e.g. carbon nanotubes as filament)?  See the diagram below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the question does not relate to instances where an *additional* limitation is added (e.g. a frosted lightbulb), but to the more fundamental case where the claimed limitation (e.g. a filament) is satisfied with an embodiment unknown at the time of disclosure.  In other words, the typical &quot;three legged chair covers a four legged chair&quot; would not apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I often see such broad non-enabled/non-sufficiently disclosed claims.  However, the spirit of the law does not seem to support this, and e.g. this [wikipedia article][2] agrees:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patents may fail this test if they claim more than they teach--for example, a patent that claims all light bulbs but that only explains how to make a particular type of light bulb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a previous [question][3], I asked generally about infringement of such broad claims, the answer of which was, paraphrasing, &quot;claim construction is limited to the intent of the claim terms&quot;.  The question I want to ask here is: **are such broad claims invalid when an unenabled/non-writtenly-described embodiment is identified?**  This is in the spirit of, &quot;claims should be taken at face value&quot; in the context of validity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3s5jL.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufficiency_of_disclosure&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/18229/18769" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19498" RevisionGUID="66017d6e-8d78-4c35-bddb-b97187d102d1" CreationDate="2018-05-08T01:54:40.013" UserId="19913" Comment="added 539 characters in body" Text="A pro se provisional patent application has been submitted to the USPTO and the plan is to sharpen the provisional patent into a non provisional application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I have received guidance that there EU authorities have strict requirements:][1] if I were to learn as much as I could from the equivalent European Nolo book, I could either mod the USPTO non provisional to address EU requirements or fork the US application into an EU application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a European (EPC) equivalent or substitute for [Nolo's &quot;Patent it Yourself&quot;][2]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like book guidance to write the first draft of the EU patent for an EU attorney. Before doing so, it would be helpful to understand the differences between US and EU patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have read \ used the equivalent please state this in the response and any lessons-learned.  Thank you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/19494/european-patent/19496#19496&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.amazon.com/Patent-Yourself-Step-Step-Filing/dp/1413317197" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19502" RevisionGUID="a2b6fecd-4154-4249-9be9-d5773dbaa49d" CreationDate="2018-05-08T02:01:32.780" UserId="15503" Text="**Are such broad claims invalid when an unenabled/non-writtenly-described embodiment is identified?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The written description requirements in the US and EPO require that the invention must be enabled or sufficient described (respectively) across the whole of its scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO sets this out reasonably clearly at [MPEP § 2164.02](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html#d0e215531):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For a claimed genus, representative examples together with a statement applicable to the genus as a whole will ordinarily be sufficient if one skilled in the art (in view of level of skill, state of the art and the information in the specification) would expect the claimed genus could be used in that manner without undue experimentation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The EPO is the same at the core (though perhaps different at the edges). This is neatly summarised by the EPO Guidelines at [F-III, 1](https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/f_iii_1.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There are some instances where even a very broad field is sufficiently exemplified by a limited number of examples or even one example (see also F‑IV, 6.3). In these latter cases the application must contain, in addition to the examples, sufficient information to allow the person skilled in the art, using his common general knowledge, to perform the invention over the whole area claimed without undue burden and without needing inventive skill (see T 727/95). In this context, the &quot;whole area claimed&quot; is to be understood as substantially any embodiment falling within the ambit of a claim, even though a limited amount of trial and error may be permissible, e.g. in an unexplored field or when there are many technical difficulties (see T 226/85 and T 409/91).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a consequence, if a broad claim includes an unenabled embodiment, then by definition this means that the broad claim is not enabled over its full scope. The claim therefore is prima facie invalid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, a claim which is prima facie invalid in such a way may be construed so as to be valid by excluding non-enabled species. This occurs somewhat more in the US, where implicit limitations are more frequently used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19503" RevisionGUID="24de0207-5f02-4d10-90de-cdc9466953d3" CreationDate="2018-05-08T02:26:48.467" UserId="15503" Text="No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's impossible to prove a negative, but I will say this: I've previously looked into this, and found nothing, whether for practitioners or pro se applicants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some materials for the drafting exam of the EQEs (which all European patent attorneys have to have passed in order to qualify). However, they are typically structured for the purposes of passing an exam, and are probably a little dense and impractical for anyone not sitting an exam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, the best resource (in the sense that it's the only existing one) would likely be the websites of marketing-focused patent attorney firms. They all have their own range of articles about how to avoid common pitfalls in using a US application at the EPO. [Hodgson Russ LLP](http://www.hodgsonruss.com/newsroom-publications-9172.html) has one which seems decent, for example. None really go into a huge amount of detail (because they don't want to give away their secrets), but it's something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19484" RevisionGUID="57017880-4307-42b0-9e14-ebdd404fcfda" CreationDate="2018-05-08T02:30:52.230" UserId="15503" Comment="Fixed language" Text="US 5333765 shows a status of &quot;grant&quot; on Google. However, in the PAIR database, the status &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot; is shown for this patent number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this mean the patent is valid or expired?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53744" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19484" RevisionGUID="57017880-4307-42b0-9e14-ebdd404fcfda" CreationDate="2018-05-08T02:30:52.230" UserId="15503" Comment="Fixed language" Text="What does it mean when a patent has a status of &quot;grant&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53746" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="c9bf87ef-f2a2-4e35-830b-d0426812a06c" CreationDate="2018-05-08T08:37:55.187" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19504" RevisionGUID="19889d95-31b7-41b6-85b8-47ac392302f5" CreationDate="2018-05-08T10:11:27.780" UserId="21049" Text="https://www.google.com/patents/US1743543&#xD;&#xA;IS THIS PATENT EXPIRED OR STILL VALID AS I PLAN TO DO SOMETHING THAT MAY BE A BIT SIMILAR" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53748" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19504" RevisionGUID="19889d95-31b7-41b6-85b8-47ac392302f5" CreationDate="2018-05-08T10:11:27.780" UserId="21049" Text="QUESTION ABOUT PATENT US1743543" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53749" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19504" RevisionGUID="19889d95-31b7-41b6-85b8-47ac392302f5" CreationDate="2018-05-08T10:11:27.780" UserId="21049" Text="&lt;us1743543&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53750" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="4135383c-50a0-4297-b8cd-13c93946d411" CreationDate="2018-05-08T12:37:55.910" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19505" RevisionGUID="b5cf11f7-6112-430d-b4d6-f63490c8f7f0" CreationDate="2018-05-08T13:42:05.123" UserId="17003" Text="Patents of that era expired 17 years from the grant date. Since 1995, patents expire 20 years from the filing (or priority) date. So US1743543 expired in 1947. Although Google Patents can't necessarily be relied upon, you can see that the status is listed as &quot;Expired - Lifetime&quot;. You can freely practice what is claimed in this patent. You should be aware that there could be other patents that are relevant. One good idea is to look at patents that [cite this one][1] for other relevant IP. Since the patent is so old you may need to repeat this procedure on any patent that looks similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US1743543#citedBy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19506" RevisionGUID="a28b9007-33c0-4b59-a9d0-503f60dd655a" CreationDate="2018-05-08T16:54:12.107" UserId="21054" Text="if you want to check patent expiry or current legal status &#xD;&#xA; of latest patents then you can do so by going to http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/index.html and clicking on public PAIR" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19507" RevisionGUID="5dd540c1-c518-4e73-95c5-61bc5a9a6edc" CreationDate="2018-05-08T17:11:59.703" UserId="21054" Text="check if those changes are falling within the scope of your claims. Suing is one option if your claim cover modified product (if not literally under doctrine of equivalence) but through understanding of costs involved is required." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19508" RevisionGUID="351065b2-467b-4daa-863f-d4abcebac5b7" CreationDate="2018-05-08T18:51:43.380" UserId="3076" Text="You will not be able to change the specification or drawings in any manner other than to correct a typo (an error in the text that is clearly an error and clearly only has one way to be fixed can be changed) or improve the legibility of a drawing. Your attorney will be stuck with your errors of omission and commission. As another answer mentions, the claims can be changed latter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53755" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19119" RevisionGUID="420bf285-0454-4b40-94da-2180a211c37a" CreationDate="2018-05-08T19:03:30.657" UserId="16696" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="Big difference in electronics. An electrical diagram show the sections of a circuit in a flowchart style without regard to physical space or connection of individual components. A schematic shows (from left to right)the signal path and every individual component in it's relationship to the other components, including it's type, rating, polarity, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to clarify the distinction would be that one could not do detailed electrical repairs without a schematic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19509" RevisionGUID="824c0b53-5e2b-4343-89d6-2d9d0c3a3df8" CreationDate="2018-05-08T19:39:02.257" UserId="18769" Text="In the US case, I would also like to add that reverse doctrine of equivalents (DOE) may apply as implicit claim scope limitation.  Reverse DOE essentially says literally infringing structure may not infringe if it does not satisfy all of the traditional function-way-result requirements.  E.g., see the [wikipedia article][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would apply to the previous question cited in the OP, i.e. the magic wand infringing a &quot;wooden handled instrument for cutting down trees&quot;, as it would perform the function in a substantially different way than an ax.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_doctrine_of_equivalents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53757" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19470" RevisionGUID="0b0b8188-6047-4e94-ad3f-de2f46a03ccf" CreationDate="2018-05-08T19:54:13.160" UserId="16696" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2003061405A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2003061405A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I would like a printable/ downloadable copy of this patent.  How might I go about this?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19510" RevisionGUID="ced70be8-fb51-4c4d-b689-c256ae424178" CreationDate="2018-05-08T22:05:03.573" UserId="18769" Text="Just following up on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Note that this **only applies in the US**, as the only &quot;duty of disclosure&quot; in other jurisdictions relates to citing co-pending prosecution history/search results, which I will assume one has not &quot;forgotten&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) In the US, not disclosing prior art that one was previously exposed to, understood the materiality of, but forgot about and/or could not re-locate by the time of filing **would likely not constitute inequitable conduct**, as the inaction would not satisfy the &quot;intentionality to deceive&quot; prong of the post-Therasense standard.  See more [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/therasense-raising-the-bar-for-inequitable-conduct.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53759" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19270" RevisionGUID="2949aae6-8a28-4cee-8964-03bbc28876c4" CreationDate="2018-05-08T23:38:34.950" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19511" RevisionGUID="b3726853-ff32-42d3-9235-2f26913348a4" CreationDate="2018-05-09T00:06:54.867" UserId="18769" Text="For PCT applications and WO publications thereof, I go to the &quot;official&quot; source: PatentScope (one of the links provided in Google Patents).  From there, click on the documents tab, and finally click on one of the multiple specification documents (e.g. &quot;Initial Publication with ISR&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19512" RevisionGUID="270f55c3-0a12-4a8d-b525-26c9e8ed1b2e" CreationDate="2018-05-09T00:23:55.957" UserId="18769" Text="Note that after filing the PCT, you won't really need to do anything until December 1, 2019 (30 months after the PCT app priority date), at which point you will incur costs going into the various national stages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the June 1, 2018 window closes, your application content will be effectively &quot;locked down&quot;.  Therefore, it's not possible to rectify lack of description while still maintaining your priority date.  You may be able to add/remove features from the claims during prosecution, but outside the US (esp. EPO), this may require explicit disclosure of such claim feature combinations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basic advice would be this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Include extensive description of those things you think are unique and are looking to claim -- what it is, how it works, and why it's useful.  You should have some idea of the distinctions based on what you've seen in the prior art.&#xD;&#xA; - Determine which specific embodiments/combinations of features you think are important and would like claim scope over.  Make sure to provide descriptions of those particular embodiments, and preferably have figures demonstrating each (esp. for mechanical inventions).  The claims you actually submit are not as consequential, as they can be modified later.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19512" RevisionGUID="75a176ac-8fba-43eb-838e-aaa2654bc68b" CreationDate="2018-05-09T00:29:26.607" UserId="18769" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="Note that after filing the PCT, you won't really need to do anything until December 1, 2019 (30 months after the PCT app priority date), at which point you will incur costs going into the various national stages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the June 1, 2018 window closes, your application content will be effectively &quot;locked down&quot;.  Therefore, it's not possible to rectify lack of description while still maintaining your priority date.  You may be able to add/remove features from the claims during prosecution, but outside the US (esp. EPO), this may require explicit disclosure of such claim feature combinations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basic advice would be this (which I see is redundant with that of others):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Include extensive description of those things you think are unique and are looking to claim -- what it is, how it works, and why it's useful.  You should have some idea of the distinctions based on what you've seen in the prior art.&#xD;&#xA; - Determine which specific embodiments/combinations of features you think are important and would like claim scope over.  Make sure to provide descriptions of those particular embodiments, and preferably have figures demonstrating each (esp. for mechanical inventions).  The claims you actually submit are not as consequential, as they can be modified later.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19513" RevisionGUID="36dddd97-e7a3-4abb-b153-b30de54481e6" CreationDate="2018-05-09T02:51:28.590" UserId="18769" Text="1. Is it true that third-party applications which are filed earlier but unpublished at the time of filing are not considered prior art for inventive step purposes in the EPO?  If so, this is a huge difference from the US, especially for fast-moving technologies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From EPO examination guidelines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The state of the art also comprises the content of other European applications filed or validly claiming a priority date earlier than – but published under Art. 93 on or after – the date of filing or valid date of priority of the application being examined. **Such earlier applications are part of the state of the art only when considering novelty and not when considering inventive step**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Assuming (1) is true, do the same rules apply in the EPO for non-EPO applications that are earlier-filed, not-yet-published?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. (Bonus) Are the other major jurisdictions (JP, CN, KR) in line with the EPO or US on this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53764" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19513" RevisionGUID="36dddd97-e7a3-4abb-b153-b30de54481e6" CreationDate="2018-05-09T02:51:28.590" UserId="18769" Text="Unpublished foreign applications considered prior art for EPO inventive step?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53765" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19513" RevisionGUID="36dddd97-e7a3-4abb-b153-b30de54481e6" CreationDate="2018-05-09T02:51:28.590" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;european&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;epo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19514" RevisionGUID="dfc3659b-9e1b-4292-8552-36207dac8315" CreationDate="2018-05-09T06:21:03.893" UserId="18033" Text="1. Yes. You already cited the correct source, a further one would be art. 54 (2), (3) (which literally answers this question):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2)&#xD;&#xA;The state of the art shall be held to comprise everything made available to the public by means of a written or oral description, by use, or in any other way, before the date of filing of the European patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(3)&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, the content of European patent applications as filed, the dates of filing of which are prior to the date referred to in paragraph 2 and which were published on or after that date, shall be considered as comprised in the state of the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Actually, only unpublished EP-Applications (or PCT-EP) are prior art before publishing for novelty, an unpublished US application is not even prior art for novelty. None is for inventive step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, in the US, prior US applications are prior art for both, *prior foreign applications for none*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Afaik JP, CN are in line with the EPO on this, with respective national applications. The US is the outlier." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19515" RevisionGUID="d1408cc1-1b41-4bcb-8a06-1866c14f9b6d" CreationDate="2018-05-09T06:56:30.340" UserId="21061" Text="Perhaps you can look at it this way. How many countries do you really plan to enter once the PCT Application enters national phase entry. If its only USA or few handful more (say Canada and Europe), then you can altogether avoid the PCT. Instead, by June 01, 2018 prepare the non-provisional application with a professional US patent agent / attorney and use that application to be filed in Europe and Canada by the said date. My thinking is if you can avoid the PCT application filing fees, you can use that money to hire a patent attorney to file on your behalf at least in the US. The PCT mostly buys you time, but then again it really depends in how many countries you want to really really want to protect your invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19514" RevisionGUID="4b708e07-254d-4e10-91dd-c4e3cb379282" CreationDate="2018-05-09T07:04:21.703" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 40 characters in body; added 423 characters in body" Text="1. Yes. You already cited the correct source, a further one would be art. 54 (2), (3) EPC:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2)&#xD;&#xA;The state of the art shall be held to comprise everything made available to the public by means of a written or oral description, by use, or in any other way, before the date of filing of the European patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(3)&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, the content of European patent applications as filed, the dates of filing of which are prior to the date referred to in paragraph 2 and which were published on or after that date, shall be considered as comprised in the state of the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;In combination with art 56 EPC which literally answers your question:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;An invention shall be considered as involving an inventive step if, having regard to the state of the art, it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art. If the state of the art also includes documents within the meaning of Article 54, paragraph 3, these documents shall not be considered in deciding whether there has been an inventive step.&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Actually, only unpublished EP-Applications (or PCT-EP) are prior art before publishing for novelty, an unpublished US application is not even prior art for novelty. None is for inventive step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, in the US, prior US applications are prior art for both, *prior foreign applications for none*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Afaik JP, CN are in line with the EPO on this, with respective national applications. The US is the outlier." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19516" RevisionGUID="555a037b-e935-48a3-b213-e3b008f1d5ee" CreationDate="2018-05-09T07:39:29.773" UserId="21061" Text="Could you put the patent number out? The link goes to a medical patent, in which I dont see what you are describing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19516" RevisionGUID="99a109ba-512b-4f3b-9983-02688e95fa9b" CreationDate="2018-05-09T08:45:19.783" UserId="21061" Comment="added 1270 characters in body" Text="Could you put the patent number out? The link goes to a medical patent, in which I don't see what you are describing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nontheless, I will give you some pointers on what you can consider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could be potentially infringing the patent, even if you substitute one element of the granted claims and that substitution has substantially the same function of the element and achieves substantially the same result via substantially the same way. If you have found a way to work around this, let us know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can file a request for post grant review and Inter parte review (time procedures apply, check USPTO). If you feel the patent has been issued despite glaring prior art out there, I recommend you to use these avenues to challenge the grant of these patents. It is far less expensive than blowing this up in court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gather your prior arts - patents or other research papers- and take it up with the USPTO. Remember you can use one (102) or multiple documents (103) to prove your point. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember, intent is a powerful concept in the US, and if caught infringing you may have to pay damages as well as potential attorney fees. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One strategy you could use, is if you find a damning prior art, share it with the patent counsel of your competitor. You can leverage a reasonable license (maybe even free) to avoid lengthy legal costs because nobody wants to go to court honestly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19517" RevisionGUID="62ab4bd9-4956-45a7-8799-b2927a666f58" CreationDate="2018-05-09T13:35:33.220" UserId="18033" Text="&gt;I have a provisional filed with USPTO on June 1, 2017, and I plan to follow it up by June 1, 2018 with a PCT application to claim the provisional's priority date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I feel reasonably confident to be able to put together specs and claims that are not half bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the EPO (and probably many other jurisdictions) the priority will probably not hold. Any changes introduced at first in the PCT application will have the new filing date then. Which basically also means, for jurisdictions other than the US, where a priority document doesn't need to basically literally support the following application, you don't have to care for the 1 year period because it doesn't benefit you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would then be possible to now file only a US-non.prov. and file the PCT application within 6 months, before any of the US applications publishes, so that they are not prior art for most, if not all, other jurisdictions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please be advised that this is **dangerous** and understand the implications completly before deciding! But if you wouldn't feel comfortable filing the exact text of the provisional as a PCT application, ignoring the one year priority might not do too much damage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can only work if you have not published anything about your invention! Otherwise, that would be prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you file a PCT application now, however, you would have to withdraw it prior to filing another one without priority, because it would be prior art retrospectively if it publishes. You would then not have the priority not even in the US.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19518" RevisionGUID="a6df3387-c391-4683-9880-1557d60519ed" CreationDate="2018-05-09T17:20:42.060" UserId="18769" Text=" 1. For the case of post-AIA US (i.e. applications filed on/after Mar 16, 2013), same inventor's prior application is not prior art until 1 year after publication date.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Pre-AIA, not sure?&#xD;&#xA; 3. In other jurisdictions, same inventor's prior application generally counts as prior art for novelty purposes as of date of filing (an in-built way to avoid double-patenting), but not for obviousness until publication (no 1-year grace period like the US).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [here][1] and [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A further question would be, do common assignees get the same benefit of common inventors?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://info.henrypatentfirm.com/blog/prior-art-under-aia&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://aboutiplaw.com/noteworthy/patent-noteworthy/1425/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19519" RevisionGUID="d48acdf5-b5e1-4f39-9f6a-580d8b046e82" CreationDate="2018-05-09T17:24:53.410" UserId="21062" Text="I patented a specific type of work location tool. The patent expired and I just recently saw another company selling a tool that does exactly what I claimed my tool does in it's description. I understand that I lost my patent protection and they can sell the tool, however they also patented the tool and claimed they are the inventors of it. Do I have a case against them for claiming they invented it when I have an earlier patent of the same tool? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53775" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19519" RevisionGUID="d48acdf5-b5e1-4f39-9f6a-580d8b046e82" CreationDate="2018-05-09T17:24:53.410" UserId="21062" Text="Can someone else claim to be the inventor after the original inventor's patent expires?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53776" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19519" RevisionGUID="d48acdf5-b5e1-4f39-9f6a-580d8b046e82" CreationDate="2018-05-09T17:24:53.410" UserId="21062" Text="&lt;inventor&gt;&lt;existing&gt;&lt;original&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19521" RevisionGUID="373b4ea2-d80f-434e-be90-e152b1f466a0" CreationDate="2018-05-09T18:42:11.810" UserId="17003" Text="First step is to review their patent(s). If you had a patent, it is very unlikely they patented the same thing as your patent would be prior art. If they indeed have a patent, it is probably on a refinement and only the refinement has patent protection. If you know the company and supposed inventor's names it should be easy to do a search on [Google Patents][1] or even better [The Lens][1]. If and when you find the patent focus on the claims to see what is protected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19521" RevisionGUID="d32ec45c-4b19-4c57-9872-48bc71cc47b0" CreationDate="2018-05-09T18:55:40.913" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body; added 235 characters in body" Text="First step is to review their patent(s). If you had a patent, it is very unlikely they patented the same thing as your patent would be prior art. If they indeed have a patent, it is probably on a refinement and only the refinement has patent protection. If you know the company and supposed inventor's names it should be easy to do a search on [Google Patents][1] or even better [The Lens][1]. If and when you find the patent, focus on the claims to see what is protected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for whether you can sue them for claiming to have invented something you previously invented, I fear this is a legal question requiring an actual lawyer's opinion. In any case, the lawyer would need to know the patents involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19522" RevisionGUID="7da98d67-103d-4608-8f3e-2d5318fd6ed9" CreationDate="2018-05-09T19:45:16.773" UserId="21038" Text="what do think about patents no. EP0529765A1 and no. EP0529766A1 ? The status both is: &quot;No opposition filed within time limit&quot; (Status updated on 18.07.1997). Does it means the patents expired ? Thanks again." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53781" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19522" RevisionGUID="7da98d67-103d-4608-8f3e-2d5318fd6ed9" CreationDate="2018-05-09T19:45:16.773" UserId="21038" Text="No opposition filed within time limit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53782" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19522" RevisionGUID="7da98d67-103d-4608-8f3e-2d5318fd6ed9" CreationDate="2018-05-09T19:45:16.773" UserId="21038" Text="&lt;expired-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19523" RevisionGUID="c4a4971d-4b1e-490c-ac28-240c92f17807" CreationDate="2018-05-09T19:51:32.323" UserId="18769" Text="[37 CFR 1.56][1] says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The duty to disclose information exists with respect to each pending claim until the claim is cancelled or withdrawn from consideration, or the application becomes abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Are claims &quot;pending&quot; until the date of issue (i.e. still after notice of allowance, and after issue fee is paid)?&#xD;&#xA;2. What happens if you come across material information (e.g. a search report from a foreign office action) the day before the patent issues (or immediately before whatever the appropriate duty of disclosure deadline is)?  Must you disclose it/withdraw and file an RCE/etc., or is it not necessary to disclose, e.g., due to the &quot;3 month&quot; period that is often referenced with respect to IDSes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bitlaw.com/source/37cfr/1_56.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53784" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19523" RevisionGUID="c4a4971d-4b1e-490c-ac28-240c92f17807" CreationDate="2018-05-09T19:51:32.323" UserId="18769" Text="How long does the US duty of disclosure last?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53785" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19523" RevisionGUID="c4a4971d-4b1e-490c-ac28-240c92f17807" CreationDate="2018-05-09T19:51:32.323" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;inequitable-conduct&gt;&lt;duty-of-disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19524" RevisionGUID="033a37ff-0c19-4e52-a0f7-32e95b7c3b8b" CreationDate="2018-05-09T20:40:51.527" UserId="21064" Text="Technically the duty ends when prosecution closes (after notice of allowance) but it's still a good idea to submit an RCE with the new reference before it issues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19519" RevisionGUID="15565fdd-3f2b-4880-adba-13efb47eadad" CreationDate="2018-05-09T21:49:54.783" UserId="21062" Comment="Added more information in response to one answer that I received. " Text="I patented a specific type of work location tool. The patent expired and I just recently saw another company selling a tool that does exactly what I claimed my tool does in it's description. I understand that I lost my patent protection and they can sell the tool, however they also patented the tool and claimed they are the inventors of it. Do I have a case against them for claiming they invented it when I have an earlier patent of the same tool? I did do a search of their patent and compared it to mine. Their abstract description and claims are almost identical to mine. They list another individual as the inventor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19525" RevisionGUID="80deae30-3f6d-4091-a882-3565b016bec0" CreationDate="2018-05-09T22:22:18.403" UserId="15503" Text="When a European patent application is in order for grant, it may be opposed within 9 months by any person ([EPC art 99](https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar99.html)). This is initiated by another person filing a notice of opposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consequently, if no notice of opposition is filed within the 9 months, the event &quot;no opposition filed within time limit&quot; occurs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does not mean that the patents have expired. They may or may not have expired, but that's separate from whether an opposition is filed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53789" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19270" RevisionGUID="044a6d81-f954-4b76-a838-61c5dd0517c9" CreationDate="2018-05-09T22:39:25.163" UserId="3076" Comment="added link to google patents" Text="Our competition has patented a very simple device. Its prior art was a coffee spoon with a hook on the end, to hang it over the edge of a cup. &#xD;&#xA;The invention modified the spoon a bit (shape is bent, bottom part is made rectangular, measuring scale is added on bottom). The device is used to scoop out a specific supplement and hang it over a cup, to make the supplement dissolve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their patent includes an independent claim (regarding the device itself), and several dependent claims (one of which lists the method for scooping the supplement). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can we make and use a very similar device, for the same result (without patenting it)? &#xD;&#xA;Can we claim that: their invention is obvious &amp; non-novel? &#xD;&#xA;A spoon with a hook has been invented before. A ruler has been invented before. A bent spoon has been invented too. However all these weren't combined before, and they weren't used for this specific supplement before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the [US9903747 link][1] from google patents: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9903747B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19273" RevisionGUID="d9782a71-e78f-41ab-904a-6b86774c7ebd" CreationDate="2018-05-09T22:42:43.563" UserId="3076" Comment="added link to patent" Text="Here is claim 1 of [US9903747][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot; A combination of **a container which contains a paste-like or sticky&#xD;&#xA;&gt; substance** and **a device for dispersing** a quantity of the paste-like or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sticky substance to dissolve in a liquid, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt; &#xD;&#xA; a **first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; container of mineral pitch resin**; and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt; a **device for dispersing**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a measured quantity of the mineral pitch resin from the first container&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to dissolve in a liquid, &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br) **the device comprising** &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*an elongate member*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; having an outer face, an inner face, and opposite first and second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ends; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*an outwardly directed hook* at the first end of the device for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; suspending the elongate member from the rim of a second container into&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the interior of the second container; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the elongate member having a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; metered collection portion adjacent the second end configured for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; collection of an amount of mineral pitch resin from the first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; container, whereby the collected amount is adhered to the collection&#xD;&#xA;&gt; portion prior to dispersing of the collected mineral pitch resin into&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a liquid in the second container; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;and the elongate member *having a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scale marking at least on the inner face and spaced a predetermined&#xD;&#xA;&gt; distance from the second end* for indicating an amount of mineral pitch&#xD;&#xA;&gt; resin adhered to the collection portion between the scale marking and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; second end. &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to infringe a claim your product must have all of the elements called out in the claim. I tried to break down the claim so you can see its parts. Do you have a scale as-described? A metered area? Is your device used with a mineral resin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You getting a patent on your special version of this does not affect what it takes to infringe a patent. Having a patent lets you stop others, it does not give you permission to do anything. So if your device is a patentable improvement of their device, it might still infringe their patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9903747B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19526" RevisionGUID="db82b766-fb6c-4c5a-8e75-ac244bb2f1f2" CreationDate="2018-05-09T22:47:16.200" UserId="18769" Text="It lasts **until the patent issues**, which occurs both after notice of allowance and issue fee payments.  See [MPEP 2001][1]: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The duty to disclose information, however, does not end when an application becomes allowed but extends until a patent is granted on that application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, per the &quot;intelproplaw&quot; links in the comments of another answer ([\[1\]][2], [\[2\]][3]), such disclosures filed near issue date may be ineffectual (i.e. examiner won't consider them) beyond cleansing one's hand of inequitable conduct issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2001.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://intelproplaw.com/ip_forum/index.php?topic=20637.0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://%20intelproplaw.com/ip_forum/index.php?topic=24788.0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19527" RevisionGUID="824680f4-f93c-4aff-be09-7235de008cc0" CreationDate="2018-05-09T22:56:09.063" UserId="3076" Text="The duty does **not** end at allowance - From the MPEP 2001.04 Information Under 37 CFR 1.56(a) [R-08.2017]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 37 CFR 1.56(a) states that the duty to disclose information exists until the application becomes abandoned. The duty to disclose information, however, does not end when an application becomes allowed but extends until a patent is granted on that application. The rules provide for information being considered after a notice of allowance is mailed and before the issue fee is paid (37 CFR 1.97(d)) (see MPEP § 609.04(b), subsection III). The rules also provide for an application to be withdrawn from issue:CFR 1.56(a) states that the duty to disclose information exists until&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the application becomes abandoned. The duty to disclose information,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; however, **does not end when an application becomes allowed but extends&#xD;&#xA;&gt; until a patent is granted** on that application. The rules provide for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information being considered after a notice of allowance is mailed and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; before the issue fee is paid (37 CFR 1.97(d)) (see MPEP § 609.04(b),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; subsection III). The rules also provide for an application to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; withdrawn from issue:" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53793" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17944" RevisionGUID="30a5c72e-11b0-4193-b815-c8195dcee02a" CreationDate="2018-05-10T00:39:32.940" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19528" RevisionGUID="ceff6bcd-42d1-4bc6-827c-2fd8c3e912c0" CreationDate="2018-05-10T01:24:38.523" UserId="21065" Text="Omitting the plastic bag would eliminate literal infringement of the claim but there is always the possibility of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.  However the claims already seem very broad even with the plastic bag.  Thus, I would be surprised if such a clean would be found valid if challenged and even more surprised if found Infringed by a product omitting the plastic bag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53795" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17041" RevisionGUID="a629335d-6ab5-4d7c-8b4b-0678ce02f550" CreationDate="2018-05-10T04:39:33.597" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19530" RevisionGUID="6e59db5b-474c-4a24-a170-82f155d78e2f" CreationDate="2018-05-10T18:31:53.610" UserId="21068" Text="What  happens if you manufacture something that someone else has a patent on. A company in China has a patent on the  product  that I also thought  of and would like  to make. To date the other company has  not began producing  the  product. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53801" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19530" RevisionGUID="6e59db5b-474c-4a24-a170-82f155d78e2f" CreationDate="2018-05-10T18:31:53.610" UserId="21068" Text="China has patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53802" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19530" RevisionGUID="6e59db5b-474c-4a24-a170-82f155d78e2f" CreationDate="2018-05-10T18:31:53.610" UserId="21068" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53803" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18787" RevisionGUID="3e4f4695-8571-4401-99fd-95e46bfb748a" CreationDate="2018-05-10T18:42:04.297" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19531" RevisionGUID="e64bc7a7-9977-4d8e-bb1d-82a63684f108" CreationDate="2018-05-10T19:36:40.240" UserId="18769" Text="It is not uncommon for patent applications to relate to &quot;systems&quot; comprising subject matter relating to more than one examination art unit and/or classification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider a self-driving car patent application that discloses novel steering and/or braking control methods based on novel analysis of sensor (e.g. LIDAR) data, e.g. with claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for automatically decreasing stopping distance of a vehicle, comprising: (a) projecting a structured light pattern from the vehicle; (b) detecting a non-transient obstacle external to the vehicle; (c) automatically pulsating brakes at an increasing duty cycle; and (d) automatically oscillating steering about a stopping axis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, there could be in-depth technical details relating to both vehicle control and wireless sensing.  However, it is unlikely an examiner would be proficient in both these technical areas (if not for this example, then at least for more complicated examples).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do examiners just &quot;do their best&quot; despite potentially not being able to apply appropriate obviousness and/or enablement arguments, and probably performing a poor search?  If so, are these types of patents more vulnerable to invalidity challenges due to weak examination?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53805" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19531" RevisionGUID="e64bc7a7-9977-4d8e-bb1d-82a63684f108" CreationDate="2018-05-10T19:36:40.240" UserId="18769" Text="Examination of applications with matter in more than one art unit/classification?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53806" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19531" RevisionGUID="e64bc7a7-9977-4d8e-bb1d-82a63684f108" CreationDate="2018-05-10T19:36:40.240" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;examination&gt;&lt;classification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53807" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19383" RevisionGUID="94c714a5-f867-4fbb-af4b-775d5fb429f4" CreationDate="2018-05-10T20:42:28.127" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19532" RevisionGUID="c7c9df90-2ce7-4d8d-b927-acd573d51481" CreationDate="2018-05-11T05:30:46.367" UserId="21071" Text="I am working on Patent Ranking project where I need to consider patent citations as one of the metric.&#xD;&#xA;I cant find the definition of family-to-family citations. And how is it different from patent-to-patent citations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53809" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19532" RevisionGUID="c7c9df90-2ce7-4d8d-b927-acd573d51481" CreationDate="2018-05-11T05:30:46.367" UserId="21071" Text="What is family-to-family citations and how is it different from patent-to-patent citations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53810" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19532" RevisionGUID="c7c9df90-2ce7-4d8d-b927-acd573d51481" CreationDate="2018-05-11T05:30:46.367" UserId="21071" Text="&lt;citation&gt;&lt;statistics&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19533" RevisionGUID="b0ea0f19-4da4-4f11-8470-b92afe6d8dd4" CreationDate="2018-05-11T06:20:08.663" UserId="18033" Text="When a patent cites a patent that's a patent-to-patent citation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a patent from the patent family (e.g. a [divisional application][1] or a continuation application) other than the patent itself cites a patent - that's a family citation, because the family cites the other patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, those citations normally include every citation made by the applicant, the examiner or a third party, so the meaningfulness differs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisional_patent_application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19534" RevisionGUID="b7fc1295-33b6-40c5-a9b7-d5802c79faf9" CreationDate="2018-05-11T08:36:33.593" UserId="18033" Text="Basically, (for most jurisdictions, including the US, Europe, China)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*a (granted) patent gives you the right to exclude others from selling, making, offering, etc. the patented invention in the country where the patent is granted.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither the nationality of the applicant nor the question if they are using the invention make any difference. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;=&gt; If the Chinese company has a patent in any place that you intend to manufacture or sell your product at, you're infringing the patent and might be sued for damages and/or liable to pay royalties. In other words, if they have a US-patent and you intend to produce or sell there, you'll be infringing the patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19535" RevisionGUID="e8f345ed-fd54-46bc-94c0-51857f42b83e" CreationDate="2018-05-11T16:22:37.953" UserId="18557" Text="My attorney finally filed my non provisional patent.&#xD;&#xA;Provisional was filed by me in Aug 2017.&#xD;&#xA;Once the non provisional patent is submitted to USPTO how long it takes to get the receipt number or patent pending status?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53817" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19535" RevisionGUID="e8f345ed-fd54-46bc-94c0-51857f42b83e" CreationDate="2018-05-11T16:22:37.953" UserId="18557" Text="Once the non provisional patent is submitted to USPTO how long it takes to get the receipt number or patent pending status?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53818" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19535" RevisionGUID="e8f345ed-fd54-46bc-94c0-51857f42b83e" CreationDate="2018-05-11T16:22:37.953" UserId="18557" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53819" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="cc0af311-95a1-434c-a0bc-2531cc4644dc" CreationDate="2018-05-11T16:42:35.617" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19528" RevisionGUID="e3906d7a-270c-42e5-b8d6-3937d18da5db" CreationDate="2018-05-11T19:51:15.293" UserId="17003" Comment="Changed &quot;clean&quot; with &quot;claim&quot; which by context it should be." Text="Omitting the plastic bag would eliminate literal infringement of the claim but there is always the possibility of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.  However the claims already seem very broad even with the plastic bag.  Thus, I would be surprised if such a claim would be found valid if challenged and even more surprised if found Infringed by a product omitting the plastic bag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17955" RevisionGUID="e2fc6e91-244c-4817-86cc-7252244c7972" CreationDate="2018-05-12T14:27:20.473" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="In order to infringe on a claim, your device must include each and every element of the claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the first claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A container for preservation, storage, tracking and transport of a controlled substance comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (a) a one piece lower can portion containing a controlled substance;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;       (b) a one piece lid having a pop-top opening affixed to said lower can portion;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (c) a sealable plastic bag and an insert spacer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means for taking up empty space left within said lower can portion;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (d) means for identifying the controlled substance held within said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; container; wherein the controlled substance is placed in said sealable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plastic bag and said sealable plastic bag is sealed before the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; container is sealed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't implement the plastic bag, you are avoiding step 1(c) and 1(d) so presumably you would be OK with respect to infringement of this claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, freedom-to-operate evaluations can be tricky and there are potentially other patents that may be relevant. It is always best to obtain an actual legal opinion from a patent lawyer before proceeding." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53823" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19395" RevisionGUID="2ae164a6-1200-419f-bb45-29a669d95074" CreationDate="2018-05-12T17:44:05.127" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19536" RevisionGUID="91d88eb3-0dd9-4c4d-8589-05295af71462" CreationDate="2018-05-12T19:17:48.780" UserId="17003" Text="As of May 12, 2018, according to the EP Registry, it is still under examination. The US version of this application was granted on February 4th, 2014 as [US864661B2][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is covered is defined by the claims. Here is the first claim of the US patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A combination comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (i) a therapeutically effective amount of a beta-3 adrenergic receptor agonist selected from the group&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consisting of solabegron and pharmaceutically acceptable salts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thereof; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (ii) a therapeutically effective amount, or a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sub-therapeutically effective amount, of a muscarinic receptor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; antagonist selected from the group consisting of tolterodine,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; oxybutynin, trospium, solifenacin, darifenacin, propiverine,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fesoterodine, and pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; combination being useful for relieving one or more symptoms of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; overactive bladder in a synergistic manner, versus the individual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; components (i) and (ii), wherein said one or more symptoms of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; overactive bladder are selected from the group consisting of frequency&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of urgency, nocturia, increase in urinary micturition frequency, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; urinary incontinence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the muscarinic receptor antagonist is specified from a group of seven compounds and salts thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims in the US version may not be the same as other versions of this patent so if they get granted you will need to review those separately to see what is covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8642661B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53825" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19502" RevisionGUID="ce3a9e54-0924-48ac-acfa-b788c84a3013" CreationDate="2018-05-13T00:25:14.860" UserId="15503" Comment="added 1392 characters in body" Text="**Are such broad claims invalid when an unenabled/non-writtenly-described embodiment is identified?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The written description requirements in the US and EPO require that the invention must be enabled or sufficient described (respectively) across the whole of its scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO sets this out reasonably clearly at [MPEP § 2164.02](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html#d0e215531):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For a claimed genus, representative examples together with a statement applicable to the genus as a whole will ordinarily be sufficient if one skilled in the art (in view of level of skill, state of the art and the information in the specification) would expect the claimed genus could be used in that manner without undue experimentation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The EPO is the same at the core (though perhaps different at the edges). This is neatly summarised by the EPO Guidelines at [F-III, 1](https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/f_iii_1.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There are some instances where even a very broad field is sufficiently exemplified by a limited number of examples or even one example (see also F‑IV, 6.3). In these latter cases the application must contain, in addition to the examples, sufficient information to allow the person skilled in the art, using his common general knowledge, to perform the invention over the whole area claimed without undue burden and without needing inventive skill (see T 727/95). In this context, the &quot;whole area claimed&quot; is to be understood as substantially any embodiment falling within the ambit of a claim, even though a limited amount of trial and error may be permissible, e.g. in an unexplored field or when there are many technical difficulties (see T 226/85 and T 409/91).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a consequence, if a broad claim includes an unenabled embodiment, then by definition this means that the broad claim is not enabled over its full scope. The claim therefore is prima facie invalid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, a claim which is prima facie invalid in such a way may be construed so as to be valid by excluding non-enabled species. This occurs somewhat more in the US, where implicit limitations are more frequently used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But what about claims that include a generic component?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a claim includes a temperature sensor, then this is enabled if the skilled person could perform the invention (that is, could identity and use a temperature sensor). This is particularly the case if it doesn't matter how the temperature sensor functions, just that it functions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of this, it doesn't really matter if a novel and non-obvious temperature sensor is later invented and used by an infringer with the other components of the claim: the claim only requires a temperature sensor (and is enabled for any kind of temperature sensor), and so a use of a new temperature sensor would equally infringe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, consider an invention that required a temperature sensor that measured temperatures in a range of 0K to 1000K. In this case, it does matter how the temperature sensor functions (in the sense that it must meet certain criteria). If we only described example temperature sensors that measured 100K to 200K, 400K to 600K, and 700K to 1000K, then the invention is not enabled across the whole scope. That is, the skilled person could not perform the invention across its whole scope, because they could not identify a suitable temperature sensor for certain parts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't change over time: it is assessed at the application date. If it's enabled on the application date, then it's enabled." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53826" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="4118e331-eb1c-457e-932e-f9b0cde37888" CreationDate="2018-05-13T02:47:17.177" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19537" RevisionGUID="ed7185a7-f7cd-455f-bc8f-5d75a10cbfea" CreationDate="2018-05-13T03:21:58.760" UserId="21076" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2003028746A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2003028746A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53828" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19537" RevisionGUID="ed7185a7-f7cd-455f-bc8f-5d75a10cbfea" CreationDate="2018-05-13T03:21:58.760" UserId="21076" Text="EP1429795A1 Is there an English version available? Why is no downloadable PDF version available?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53829" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19537" RevisionGUID="ed7185a7-f7cd-455f-bc8f-5d75a10cbfea" CreationDate="2018-05-13T03:21:58.760" UserId="21076" Text="&lt;google-patents&gt;&lt;bulk-download&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19538" RevisionGUID="f7c4ceea-3c6c-4fa4-91cc-5a8c7f1b3749" CreationDate="2018-05-13T04:40:54.837" UserId="21077" Text="Good evening,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I own a patented product and have found a company that has the ability to manufacture it in-house. Is there certain paperwork that needs to be in place since the product is patented or can I just go to them whenever I want them to make it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance,&#xD;&#xA;David" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53831" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19538" RevisionGUID="f7c4ceea-3c6c-4fa4-91cc-5a8c7f1b3749" CreationDate="2018-05-13T04:40:54.837" UserId="21077" Text="Manufacturing a patented product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53832" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19538" RevisionGUID="f7c4ceea-3c6c-4fa4-91cc-5a8c7f1b3749" CreationDate="2018-05-13T04:40:54.837" UserId="21077" Text="&lt;findmanufacturer&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53833" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18023" RevisionGUID="53a80dd0-54e5-4ba8-a9bb-30fcc32d1a85" CreationDate="2018-05-13T04:47:17.207" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53834" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18844" RevisionGUID="de903252-8358-4fda-ad9d-6f99b94c6515" CreationDate="2018-05-13T05:47:17.117" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53835" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19538" RevisionGUID="342e9cae-dd3a-49ed-94ab-cadc3c575dcf" CreationDate="2018-05-13T07:09:27.323" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19539" RevisionGUID="663d9180-42d0-4860-a8ce-2d448322205a" CreationDate="2018-05-13T15:56:45.627" UserId="17003" Text="First please note that I am not a lawyer. I don't think we can answer your question with certainty, but I will point out a few things to consider. First, while your patent provides protection for your technology, it doesn't guarantee freedom to operate. As an example lets say the patent for pneumatic tires were still in force. Someone could invent and patent the radial tire as an improvement, but would still need a license to the original pneumatic tire patent since a radial tire would infringe the original patent. Also, your product might implement other patented technologies such as wifi chips that require licensing. Thus, having a lawyer perform a freedom to operate analysis is a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, patents are used to keep someone else from manufacturing or selling the patented technology and don't incur any government paperwork (that I know of) for sale of products. However, depending on the type of product and the locale of sale, there can be government regulation. An obvious example are medical devices which may need to be approved by government entities before being marketed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bottom line is that you really can't rely on internet sites like this for legal advice on your specific situation. Competent legal advice is a necessary requirement for running a business these days and I would recommend you consult with an attorney." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19540" RevisionGUID="654e59eb-5160-40ba-bb8b-4f605b3ba4ed" CreationDate="2018-05-13T20:35:57.110" UserId="18769" Text="In the US, continuation applications of a given application can be checked for in the &quot;Continuity Data&quot; tab in PAIR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of EPO, divisionals (the analogue of continuations) may be less common due to EPO renewal fees due from the parent's EP filing date (e.g. see [here][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not been able to find any examples of EP divisionals.  How can I determine whether one has been filed for a given application (e.g. via EP register or GPI)?  Is it possible to provide an example EP divisional?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.schleeip.com/patents-2/continuing-patent-application-uspto-epo/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53838" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19540" RevisionGUID="654e59eb-5160-40ba-bb8b-4f605b3ba4ed" CreationDate="2018-05-13T20:35:57.110" UserId="18769" Text="How to check for EP divisional filings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53839" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19540" RevisionGUID="654e59eb-5160-40ba-bb8b-4f605b3ba4ed" CreationDate="2018-05-13T20:35:57.110" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;european&gt;&lt;continuation&gt;&lt;epo&gt;&lt;divisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19541" RevisionGUID="2b2c2ce8-30e9-4f27-9c24-6d89095d15a1" CreationDate="2018-05-14T01:38:21.010" UserId="15503" Text="On the EP register, there is a specific field called &quot;Divisional application(s)&quot;. This is only shown where there is actually a divisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example of this can be seen on [EP 11749534](https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP11749534&amp;tab=main). This shows EP 16178435 is a divisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to find more divisionals generally, one approach is to search for an application having an application date significantly more than 18 months before the publication date. This typically only occurs for divisional applications, and this is how I found EP 16178435 above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19542" RevisionGUID="84fbda10-fb6a-488d-9850-fbdadc5efe7f" CreationDate="2018-05-14T07:56:34.490" UserId="17325" Text="And in addition to the above answer, you can check if a divisional has been filed but is **not yet published** at the &quot;Event History&quot; tab of the page Maca provided already. It displays a message reading &quot;Change - divisional application(s)&quot; and on the far right the date on which the filing of the divisional **will be** announced at the EP Bulletin. This is particularly useful if you are monitoring a really important patent application and want to be informed as quickly as possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53844" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="29b927c5-99d9-4181-be1d-9622a6645079" CreationDate="2018-05-14T12:51:59.033" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53845" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6476" RevisionGUID="532d2d00-dd19-4c42-92ed-54939a618479" CreationDate="2018-05-14T17:52:19.330" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53846" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18577" RevisionGUID="22bb19bd-53b9-43b4-a7d9-668557f74d24" CreationDate="2018-05-14T19:52:20.900" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19543" RevisionGUID="655c1844-682a-49a5-9560-52bb27571e61" CreationDate="2018-05-15T13:31:08.460" UserId="21085" Text="Please advice if the following patents are still valid &#xD;&#xA;1) US 4104966A&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;2) US 3931884A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IS IT VALID IN INDIA OR EXPIRED AS ALREADY 20 YEARS PASSED?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53850" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19543" RevisionGUID="655c1844-682a-49a5-9560-52bb27571e61" CreationDate="2018-05-15T13:31:08.460" UserId="21085" Text="PATENT EXPIRY VERIFICATION FOR APPROVED PATENTS" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53851" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19543" RevisionGUID="655c1844-682a-49a5-9560-52bb27571e61" CreationDate="2018-05-15T13:31:08.460" UserId="21085" Text="&lt;post-grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19544" RevisionGUID="c4ea0868-ae50-48f5-b15c-2b5e68d676d9" CreationDate="2018-05-15T14:20:31.297" UserId="17003" Text="This [Wikipedia article][1] describes the term of patents. From that article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the United States, for utility patents filed on or after June 8,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1995, the term of the patent is 20 years from the earliest filing date&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the application on which the patent was granted and any prior U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applications from which the patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims priority (excluding provisional applications). For patents&#xD;&#xA;&gt; filed prior to June 8, 1995, the term of patent is either 20 years&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from the earliest filing date as above or 17 years from the issue&#xD;&#xA;&gt; date, whichever is longer. Extensions may be had for certain&#xD;&#xA;&gt; administrative delays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both the cited patents were granted in the 1970s and would have expired 17 years from their grant date. As such both would have expired long ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents are specific to a jurisdiction. US patents are enforceable only in the US. They have no validity in India. There is always the possibility of an equivalent patent in other countries, but since the US patents are prior art and so old, I would guess the specific invention described in them couldn't have an active patent in India or anywhere else. This doesn't mean that there aren't other relevant patents so it is always a good idea to search more broadly. A good place to start are the patents which cite these patents [here][2] and [here][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note, I am not a lawyer and this does not constitute legal advice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US3931884A/en?oq=US%203931884A#citedBy&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4104966A/en?oq=US%204104966A#citedBy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53853" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="19545" RevisionGUID="0c82abf1-11a7-42eb-a69c-925b74b67327" CreationDate="2018-05-15T17:20:23.970" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/28512/patent-2336970-interactive-electronically-presented-map" />
  <row Id="53854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19545" RevisionGUID="0df1602c-ce11-447c-9005-1ed2cd5b9eff" CreationDate="2018-05-15T13:48:41.097" UserId="21084" Text="One of our clients received a complaint regarding the use of a interactive map. In this case Google maps with a markers overlay showing store locations. The patent https://data.epo.org/gpi/EP2336970B1-Interactive-electronically-presented-map seems to have a very broad definition of map interaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We did a rough investigative lookup for cases regarding this patent or mentions of this patent and it's implications on interactive maps on websites but without conclusive results. We expected more impact and discussions as a lot of websites use visualization of data using a map-tile provider combined with a data-layer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are wondering if anyone has come in contact with this patent before or is aware of any legal issues regarding this specific patent as it possibly has implications on a lot of our clients.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For extra information this is the document defining this patent: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=EP&amp;NR=2336970B1&amp;KC=B1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=20160427&amp;DB=&amp;locale=en_EP#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ps. original question posted here https://stackoverflow.com/questions/50351100/patent-2336970-interactive-electronically-presented-map" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53855" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19545" RevisionGUID="0df1602c-ce11-447c-9005-1ed2cd5b9eff" CreationDate="2018-05-15T13:48:41.097" UserId="21084" Text="Patent 2336970 interactive electronically presented map" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53856" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19545" RevisionGUID="0df1602c-ce11-447c-9005-1ed2cd5b9eff" CreationDate="2018-05-15T13:48:41.097" UserId="21084" Text="&lt;untagged&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53860" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19120" RevisionGUID="f2074762-92b0-4f63-886d-edf2d81523ba" CreationDate="2018-05-15T21:55:21.857" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53861" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="1220f766-79a8-4ce1-8fb8-b267c85d7159" CreationDate="2018-05-16T00:58:46.810" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19486" RevisionGUID="da5b4702-cc7b-480d-9653-8734adad08a8" CreationDate="2018-05-16T01:06:44.433" UserId="18769" Comment="added 270 characters in body" Text="**Disparaging the prior art/alternative embodiments**, especially in combination with a limited characterization of the disclosed embodiments (e.g. only describe embodiments without the disparaged characteristics), **may forfeit claim scope on claims that on their face might otherwise include the disparaged embodiments** (if not literally, then at least under DoE), as described [here][1] and [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance consider the following case outlined in this [2006 article][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Toro, claim 1 read in part “said cover including means for&#xD;&#xA;increasing the pressure developed by” blower. The specification&#xD;&#xA;stated that the invention is “advantageous in that it automatically&#xD;&#xA;restricts the size of the inlet … without having the operator&#xD;&#xA;manually insert or remove a replaceable ring.” At issue was the&#xD;&#xA;question of whether a separate ring/structure would be considered&#xD;&#xA;to be an infringement of claim 1. According to the Court of&#xD;&#xA;Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), **“there [was] no doubt&#xD;&#xA;that the specification … disclose[d] the separate ring/structure…&#xD;&#xA;it d[id] so by noting inferiority** of a device in which the operator&#xD;&#xA;manually insert[ed] or remove[d] a replaceable ring (Toro at 1334).”&#xD;&#xA;However, the disclosed separate ring/structure was not claimed.&#xD;&#xA;The subject matter directed to the blower wherein the operator&#xD;&#xA;manually inserts or removes a replaceable ring was held to be&#xD;&#xA;dedicated to the public (Id.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[As a side note, I believe the article incorrectly characterizes this outcome as application of the &quot;disclosure-dedication&quot; rule (disclosed but unclaimed embodiments are not covered under DoE), whereas it is actually application of narrowed claim construction due to disparaging prior art/limited characterization of the invention (since the &quot;forfeited&quot; scope was not excluded on the face of the broad claim).]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point for bringing up the article is that, as bolded, **disparaging the prior art in itself at least provides written description** of the disparaged embodiments, and likely enablement as well (which can rely more heavily on PHOSITA knowledge).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question is, can an applicant amend claims to cover a disparaged embodiment that would otherwise be excluded from the scope of a broad claim in a claim construction proceeding, assuming it was not an original claim?  Or, reiterating the title, &quot;**do disparaged embodiments lack claim support**&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I won't muddy the question with this twist, the case at hand actually disparages a prior art embodiment repeatedly, but then also includes a &quot;catchall&quot; that would seem to include the disparaged embodiment.  Therefore, it is not clear which controls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.iptechblog.com/2016/10/the-federal-circuit-clarifies-when-claim-scope-is-disavowed/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.complexip.com/disparagement-of-prior-technology-limits-patent-claim-coverage/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ddkpatent.com/pubs/legal_review_R1.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53863" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="19486" RevisionGUID="6a514099-7659-4d79-bc93-5debba4b11df" CreationDate="2018-05-16T01:07:52.027" UserId="18769" Comment="44" />
  <row Id="53864" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19486" RevisionGUID="da5b4702-cc7b-480d-9653-8734adad08a8" CreationDate="2018-05-16T01:06:44.433" UserId="18769" Comment="added 270 characters in body" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;&lt;written-description&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19547" RevisionGUID="83a7794a-ae18-4cbb-85c6-56374eb99397" CreationDate="2018-05-16T03:01:47.097" UserId="15503" Text="**Do disparaged embodiments lack claim support?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will preface this by saying that, much to my frustration, I could not find a case on all-fours with what you are proposing. It could well a novel situation&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are two well-established principles that are related: claims are interpreted to exclude disparaged subject matter, and claims without essential elements lack support. I believe these two in combination provide the answer: yes, disparaged embodiments lack claim support.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Disparagement leads to narrowed claims**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When an embodiment is consistently disparaged so as to make clear that it is outside of the scope of the patent, then the claims must be interpreted to exclude it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is well established. *Ultimate Pointer*&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; is a recent CAFC authority for this, but it's much older. The most notable holding of the decision is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At every turn, Nintendo argues, the specification of the ’729 patent extolls direct pointing and disparages indirect pointing. Because the inventor described his invention as encompassing direct pointing and repeatedly criticized indirect pointing, Nintendo continues, Ultimate Pointer may not now claim that indirect pointing is within the claim scope.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We agree with Nintendo that the district court did not err in construing “handheld device” as “handheld direct pointing device.” …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Taken together, the repeated description of the invention as a direct-pointing system, the repeated extolling of the virtues of direct pointing, and the repeated criticism of indirect pointing clearly point to the conclusion that the “handheld device” in claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 12 is limited to a direct-pointing device.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, where the description consistently disparages X so as to make clear that the applicant is disavowing X, then the claims must be interpreted so as to exclude X.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But what if the claims are unambiguous?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ultimate Pointer* does not expressly consider what happens if the claims are unambiguous. That is, what if you *cannot* interpret the claims to avoid disavowed subject matter? Indeed, I couldn't see that anyone had directly considered this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think there is an answer by analogy with the &quot;essential element test&quot;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, it is well established that for claims to have support, the inventor must have been in possession of the invention at the time of application&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;. The &quot;essential element test&quot; provides that if a certain element is noted in the description as essential, then the inventor cannot be regarded as being in possession of an invention without that element. Such a claim therefore lacks support.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This principle was established in *Gentry*&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;. This is an older, formative decision, but is still considered good law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, Gentry had enforced claims relating to a sectional sofa with a center console and controls for reclining the seats. The alleged infringer argued, among other things, that this was invalid for lacking support, because the description provided that the controls were on the console. The appellate court agreed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Accordingly, when viewed in its entirety, the disclosure is limited to sofas in which the recliner control is located on the console. …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of this, claims could not be broader: the controls must be on the console.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Here, as indicated above, it is clear that Sproule [the inventor] considered the location of the recliner controls on the console to be an essential element of his invention. Accordingly, his original disclosure serves to limit the permissible breadth of his later-drafted claims. …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gentry referred to an earlier decision, which referred to allowing an applicant to claim broader than the specific embodiment. The court distinguished this based on the level of description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The claims at issue in Rasmussen, which were limited to the generic step of “adheringly applying” one layer to an adjacent layer, satisfied the written description requirement only because “one skilled in the art who read [the] specification would understand that it is unimportant how the layers are adhered, so long as they are adhered.” Here, on the contrary, one skilled in the art would clearly understand that it was not only important, but essential to Sproule's invention, for the controls to be on the console. …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In sum, the cases on which Gentry relies do not stand for the proposition that an applicant can broaden his claims to the extent that they are effectively bounded only by the prior art. Rather, they make clear that claims may be no broader than the supporting disclosure, and therefore that a narrow disclosure will limit claim breadth. Here, Sproule's disclosure unambiguously limited the location of the controls to the console. Accordingly, the district court clearly erred in finding that he was entitled to claims in which the recliner controls are not located on the console. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The summary is that is if the description makes clear that a certain element is essential, then the claims cannot be broader than that without lacking support.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A dangerous leap, in which a conclusion is reached**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would go out on a limb to say that these two principles can be combined, though I have no authority for this point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, *it is my opinion*&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; that if the description consistently disparages element X such that a broader claim would be interpreted to not include element X, then the inventor must not have been in possession of an invention involving element X. As such, a claim that is unambiguously to element X would be invalid for lacking support.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this relies on my opinion however, and I only play a lawyer on the anonymous Internet, you would very much be well-advised to talk to a real lawyer. They would be able to consider the facts of your situation, rather than abstract legal principles, and would be able to actually advise you.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Or I just missed something obvious in my search. But I prefer the other interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; [Ultimate Pointer LLC v. Nintendo Co. Ltd.](http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1297.Opinion.2-26-2016.1.PDF)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Many decisions have made clear is not a test, but is a way of looking at whether the inventor was in possession of the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Hopefully this isn't a controversial statement to make. The [MPEP](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2163.html) provides a good discussion to this end with a bunch of references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; [Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 45 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 1998)](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1222129.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; In the sense that it's what I reckon, not in the sense that this is a formal opinion from a lawyer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53868" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19114" RevisionGUID="79663970-9b41-401e-be45-416b9b2899ee" CreationDate="2018-05-16T03:06:34.903" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53869" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19114" RevisionGUID="982ef6a0-2ecf-4817-9922-4d3e340f0ff6" CreationDate="2018-05-16T04:03:08.003" UserId="15503" Comment="edited title" Text="Estoppel from international phase amendments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53870" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19296" RevisionGUID="2ebeb862-6695-4d21-8f2b-5d1a1eaa58a0" CreationDate="2018-05-16T05:06:34.827" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53871" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="a08306c6-258b-499a-b1f6-47dff17fcecd" CreationDate="2018-05-16T08:06:38.813" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53872" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="7ceea867-703e-496a-9556-b642a1ebf766" CreationDate="2018-05-16T10:06:38.667" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19548" RevisionGUID="b58090d9-40f5-4087-9485-2c18ef622bd1" CreationDate="2018-05-16T17:06:36.410" UserId="18769" Text="Although the following case does not address the specific question, it does shed some light on claim construction at the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *In Re Abbott* (2012), as analyzed [here][1], the USPTO was of the mind that the applicant had not disavowed disparaged scope due to an improper interpretation of *Retractable Technologies*, and therefore rejected claims encompassing disparaged embodiments over 102/103 (e.g. instead of 112 over lack of support):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The **specification stated that the disclosed sensor overcame** limitations in the prior art related to the bulk and size of prior art sensors, as well as the prior art’s **reliance on external wires and cables** connecting the various components that interfered with the daily life of the patient.  Specifically, the specification noted that existing sensor guides “are typically bulky and do not allow for freedom of movement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The examiner held that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “electrochemical sensor” included wires and cables**, even though the specification criticized the external cables and wires of the prior art, and none of the embodiments in Abbott’s patents included external cables or wires connecting to the associated control unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The Board upheld the examiner during the USPTO appeal and held that**, in the absence of a more express limiting statement, **the broadest reasonable interpretation** in light of the specification of the term “electrochemical sensor” **includes wires and cables**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Having construed the term to include wires, the rejection of the claims using prior art sensors having wires was, not surprisingly, upheld.  The real question remained: **was the claim construction reasonable?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abbott filed requests for rehearing, arguing to no avail that the Board improperly relied on the specification’s statement that “sensors include cables or wires. ... **The Board maintained its reasoning that because nothing in Abbott’s patents explicitly disclaims sensors that include external cables or wires, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims should still include these features.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... the court [CAFC] emphasized that the specifications of Abbott’s patents “repeatedly, consistently, and exclusively” described sensors without wires, while simultaneously disparaging sensors with external cables or wires.  Overall, based upon the findings discussed above, **the Federal Circuit found the USPTO’s interpretation of “an electrochemical sensor” unreasonable.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After this guidance from the CAFC, it would be expected that the USPTO would interpret consistently disparaged embodiments to be excluded from broad claims.  However, this does not answer the question of whether a claim specifically referring to the disavowed embodiments would lack support.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.finnegan.com/files/Upload/Newsletters/Full_Disclosure/2012/October/FullDisclosure_Oct12_1.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53875" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18852" RevisionGUID="b8c01db6-6ce2-4add-b069-dff9038a7f7f" CreationDate="2018-05-16T17:09:23.597" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19550" RevisionGUID="aab00975-1c6e-424d-b9dd-e6186aa79ba9" CreationDate="2018-05-16T20:53:07.597" UserId="21065" Text="I would file for the design patent which as stated is much easier and cheaper to get, then file a utility provisional application (which is also cheap and easy &amp; would at least allow you say you have a utility patent pending which you can abandon later or convert to a regular app if there is something patentable based on its functionality).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless there is some surprising or unexpected benefit, seems like it would be tough to overcome obviousness for rhe utility patent based on what you described." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19551" RevisionGUID="a08374c9-54a2-418e-9f91-af7e5a873d20" CreationDate="2018-05-16T21:37:55.913" UserId="21065" Text="Yes, it looks fairly narrow- its limited to a plant that produces a fusion protein ((1) amino-terminal plastid transit peptide covalently linked to (2) the Cry2Ab Bacillus thuringiensis δ-endotoxin protein)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53882" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17844" RevisionGUID="218d34e9-8e67-4dee-9ed1-dbf70642306e" CreationDate="2018-05-16T22:11:40.500" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19550" RevisionGUID="010b8163-acce-4b1f-a798-04550b2ee7ae" CreationDate="2018-05-16T23:10:18.070" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed type" Text="I would file for the design patent which as stated is much easier and cheaper to get, then file a utility provisional application (which is also cheap and easy &amp; would at least allow you say you have a utility patent pending which you can abandon later or convert to a regular app if there is something patentable based on its functionality).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless there is some surprising or unexpected benefit, seems like it would be tough to overcome obviousness for the utility patent based on what you described." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19552" RevisionGUID="3474b94a-eac8-4cf0-9244-02a90fc04898" CreationDate="2018-05-17T00:20:25.847" UserId="3076" Text="If it submitted electronically, the filing receipt is immediate. Patent pending starts when it is filed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53885" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="19486" RevisionGUID="2cb67b09-1aaa-4288-96b2-dde22d253f31" CreationDate="2018-05-17T02:11:50.167" UserId="18769" Comment="44" />
  <row Id="53886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19553" RevisionGUID="ccdbec18-0fb3-45de-a245-9eafa5e6c4da" CreationDate="2018-05-17T16:49:09.820" UserId="18769" Text="In support of Maca's answer, MPEP 2172 and 2174 elaborate on supported claims requiring essential elements.  E.g., from [MPEP 2174][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the specification discloses that a particular feature or element is critical or essential to the practice of the invention, failure to recite or include that particular feature or element in the claims may provide a basis for a rejection based on the ground that those claims are not supported by an enabling disclosure. In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In addition, if a claim is amended to include an invention that is not described in the application as filed, a rejection of that claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as being directed to subject matter that is not described in the specification as filed may be appropriate. In reSimon, 302 F.2d 737, 133 USPQ 524 (CCPA 1962). In Simon, which involved a reissue application containing claims to a reaction product of a composition, applicant presented claims to a reaction product of a composition comprising the subcombination A+B+C, whereas the original claims and description of the invention were directed to a composition comprising the combination A+B+C+D+E. **The court found no significant support for the argument that ingredients D+E were not essential to the claimed reaction product and concluded that claims directed to the reaction product of a subcombination A+B+C were not described (35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph) in the application as filed.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2174.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53887" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17660" RevisionGUID="7b5b68e6-f3e6-421c-8fc7-4ed0107eb290" CreationDate="2018-05-17T17:13:23.933" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19554" RevisionGUID="b946a7cb-b9e5-4ab7-9a47-21ca5506b65d" CreationDate="2018-05-17T18:41:52.050" UserId="21065" Text="Actually many chemical and pharmaceutical patents don’t have figures since the structures are contained in/with the text." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53889" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17664" RevisionGUID="904cca9c-25c5-426d-83c5-d60705653a51" CreationDate="2018-05-17T21:13:24.600" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19555" RevisionGUID="5ec902af-dc5b-442c-bd40-ac8bfeceb5f6" CreationDate="2018-05-18T00:35:16.057" UserId="21046" Text="In a concrete example, the patent application describes a particular method and, as part of the enabling disclosure, reports certain detector readings as confirmation of the expected outcome i.e. confirmation that the method works.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;However, one year later, the inventors publish a journal paper in which they summarize this work for a scientific audience. Here, the inventors describe the results as ambiguous and uncertain. They describe the same data referenced in the patent disclosure as indistinguishable from noise and call into question whether the expected outcome actually occurred or not. The inventors say they are not sure what was going on - the effect could have been there, or not. In any case, they have no confidence to argue either way based on the instrumentation used at the time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So, at this point, nobody actually knows whether the invention works or not as described in the patent application (and the experiment is too elaborate that anyone would try or has since tried again without confidence that it does work).** Again: maybe the effect does occur based on the proposed setup, if only a better detector were used - but there is just no way of telling based on the public information to date. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would think this questions the requirement of enablement &quot;without undue experimentation.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Does such a patent have a chance of surviving or can it be easily litigated?** Would it survive if it could later be shown that the effect was in fact present even if it was drowned out by noise at the time and in the described embodiment? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm asking because I was able to demonstrate the existence of the same effect in a different way which is unambiguous and I'm not sure whether the above patent application is prior art or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53891" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19555" RevisionGUID="5ec902af-dc5b-442c-bd40-ac8bfeceb5f6" CreationDate="2018-05-18T00:35:16.057" UserId="21046" Text="Can a patent be invalidated when the inventors themselves later publicly doubt operability and the reliability of reported results?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53892" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19555" RevisionGUID="5ec902af-dc5b-442c-bd40-ac8bfeceb5f6" CreationDate="2018-05-18T00:35:16.057" UserId="21046" Text="&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;litigation&gt;&lt;enablement&gt;&lt;operability&gt;&lt;experimentation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19555" RevisionGUID="e05c7666-e5a3-4709-a989-31c54a05ff65" CreationDate="2018-05-18T00:40:52.787" UserId="21046" Comment="deleted 196 characters in body" Text="In a concrete example, the patent application describes a particular method and, as part of the enabling disclosure, reports certain detector readings as confirmation of the expected outcome i.e. confirmation that the method works.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;However, one year later, the inventors publish a journal paper in which they summarize this work for a scientific audience. Here, the inventors describe the results as ambiguous and uncertain. They describe the same data referenced in the patent disclosure as indistinguishable from noise and call into question whether the expected outcome actually occurred or not. The inventors say they are not sure what was going on - the effect could have been there, or not. In any case, they have no confidence to argue either way based on the instrumentation used at the time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So, at this point, nobody actually knows whether the invention works or not as described in the patent application (and the experiment is too elaborate that anyone would try or has since tried again without confidence that it does work).** Again: maybe the effect does occur based on the proposed setup, if only a better detector were used - but there is just no way of telling based on the public information to date. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would think this questions the requirement of enablement &quot;without undue experimentation.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Does such a patent have a chance of surviving or can it be easily litigated?** Would it survive if it could later be shown that the effect was in fact present even if it was drowned out by noise at the time and in the described embodiment? If the latter were the case, then the patent author would have made &quot;the right guess&quot; at the time I suppose." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53894" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19555" RevisionGUID="e05c7666-e5a3-4709-a989-31c54a05ff65" CreationDate="2018-05-18T00:40:52.787" UserId="21046" Comment="deleted 196 characters in body" Text="Can a patent be invalidated when the inventors later publicly doubt operability and the reliability of reported results?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53895" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18261" RevisionGUID="506154ec-7ba4-4ed2-88f9-6f635b6d0818" CreationDate="2018-05-18T03:17:55.363" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19556" RevisionGUID="e0c1820b-bfd5-4dad-a91e-27323aa18e24" CreationDate="2018-05-18T04:46:37.940" UserId="21013" Text="The France patent FR2553560 was disgraded by a followed patent from France US5069827. They rejected to use the best solvent HNO3 of our invention and claimed to use H2SO4 instead of HNO3 in nuclear fuel reprocessing. We believe they are professional of nuclear fuel reprocessing. So that, they must intentionally reject our invention. I think that such a patent is illegal. Do you think so?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53897" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19556" RevisionGUID="e0c1820b-bfd5-4dad-a91e-27323aa18e24" CreationDate="2018-05-18T04:46:37.940" UserId="21013" Text="Is it legally justified to disgrade intentionally the preceding good patent by a wrong patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53898" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19556" RevisionGUID="e0c1820b-bfd5-4dad-a91e-27323aa18e24" CreationDate="2018-05-18T04:46:37.940" UserId="21013" Text="&lt;leagal&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19556" RevisionGUID="97f6be6e-4362-47d8-ac86-623090c23f7f" CreationDate="2018-05-18T04:55:49.910" UserId="21013" Comment="correction" Text="The France patent FR2553560 was disgraded by a following patent from France US5069827. They rejected to use the best solvent HNO3 of our invention and claimed to use H2SO4 instead of HNO3 in nuclear fuel reprocessing. We believe they are professional of nuclear fuel reprocessing. So that, they must intentionally have rejected our invention. I think that such a patent is illegal. Do you think so?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53900" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19556" RevisionGUID="45e1e8ec-1bed-4c40-a8cf-5c54d9694c4d" CreationDate="2018-05-18T05:39:36.327" UserId="21013" Comment="word correction" Text="Is it legally justified to disgrade intentionally the preceding good patent by a wrong patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53901" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19556" RevisionGUID="45e1e8ec-1bed-4c40-a8cf-5c54d9694c4d" CreationDate="2018-05-18T05:39:36.327" UserId="21013" Comment="word correction" Text="&lt;legal&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19557" RevisionGUID="1baa41d4-54fc-461b-83d5-4d4094bab562" CreationDate="2018-05-18T08:36:19.903" UserId="18033" Text="It#S not illegal to say yourinvention is useless, actually that's quite normal because one wants to argue how their invention is inventive, so naturally the prior art must have drawbacks. It really doesn't matter if that's true-ish or not. The patent attorney writing that probably doesn't even know if your invention or theirs is better. So just ignore that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If their patent is granted and their way of using H2SO4 works and doesn't infringe your patent, than they can use that. If it's worse than yours, they'll notice on a business level, but for patents, it doesn't matter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After all, them not using your invention is exactly what your patent is supposed to accomplish. If they find an alternative/better way, well, that's how it goes. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19558" RevisionGUID="82c1eae6-cd24-43d5-aba0-43ddcc07fb51" CreationDate="2018-05-18T08:42:45.853" UserId="18033" Text="It depends. If they are claiming (in the claims) the results or something related to the results, then maybe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If however they are claiming for example the method and it's described in a way that someone can reproduce it, then probably not. It doesn't matter if the results of that method are bogus if someone skilled in the art could still perform the method. If the result is bogus, then the patent doesn't protect anythig useful, so the patent isn't worth anything anyways though. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is why patent law kinda leaves that part open, an invention doesn't really have to be useful in the common meaning of that word, not the patent law meaning (how would the patent office determine that anyways), determining that is the job of the market - either the invention is used - or it isn't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19559" RevisionGUID="61091576-95f8-4203-81ab-2dc33d8fc016" CreationDate="2018-05-18T09:08:45.073" UserId="15503" Text="You can say whatever you want about other patents. It might not be sensible for various reasons, but no one will stop you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a patent must also set out the best mode of performing the invention. If it fails to do so, the patent is invalid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, best mode is pretty broad. It doesn't just mean highest performing. A cheapest, but lower performing option can be the best mode if you are looking for economy. A safer, but lower performing option can be the best mode if you are looking for safety. An inferior alternative can be the best mode, if you are looking for alternatives. Basically anything can be the best mode under the right lens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, US5069827 discusses FR2553560, and notes certain problems in it. These problems seem reasonable at first blush. US5069827 also presents a solution that ostensibly doesn't have those problems. So it seems they have disclosed the best mode of performing their invention. This is the case even if FR2553560 discloses a better invention (for some meaning of better)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19557" RevisionGUID="3d85cc7b-b661-404c-8735-21421e51082c" CreationDate="2018-05-18T09:10:57.653" UserId="18033" Comment="edited body" Text="It's not illegal to say your invention is useless, actually that's quite normal because one wants to argue how their invention is inventive, so naturally the prior art must have drawbacks. It really doesn't matter if that's true-ish or not. The patent attorney writing that probably doesn't even know if your invention or theirs is better. So just ignore that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If their patent is granted and their way of using H2SO4 works and doesn't infringe your patent, than they can use that. If it's worse than yours, they'll notice on a business level, but for patents, it doesn't matter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After all, them not using your invention is exactly what your patent is supposed to accomplish. If they find an alternative/better way, well, that's how it goes. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17844" RevisionGUID="485366ed-a74b-4d2d-b05a-4f590b61fb0c" CreationDate="2018-05-18T09:13:40.787" UserId="18033" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="I haved seeked more diagrams of the continuous process of mononitrotoluene, but I haven't found them. Do you have a diagram for the patent us6583327?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19560" RevisionGUID="b333e813-5015-4c5a-88a8-df109ad9caf6" CreationDate="2018-05-18T09:40:17.173" UserId="15503" Text="You haven't said what is actually claimed. But that's what matters. I have assumed that the claims relate to the particular method that you note is described.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Enablement requires that the reader can put the claimed invention into practice. In the case you describe, you have implied that the reader could perform the steps of the method. It is therefore enabled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Enablement does not look at whether the claimed invention achieves the aims set out in the description. Or to put it another way, whether the method achieves the stated effects is not relevant for enablement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more relevant requirement is utility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Utility requires that the invention has some use. It doesn't have to be particularly good, but it can't be completely useless. In the case you describe, it seems the method might well work. This is enough for the USPTO, who will not question a statement of utility that is prima facie credible. Subsequently, if a patent is litigated, it will be for the court to decide (based on the evidence submitted by each side). There is no way to know how this will go, but in general if there is a credible case for utility, this will often be enough, even if it cannot be proved to work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have assumed the description (and the data interpretation) was made in good faith, and then the inventors subsequently had a realisation. Intentional misinterpretation or misleading disclosure in bad faith would likely be a breach of the various duties owed to the USPTO, and would result in invalidity (even if the invention itself worked fine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, to your specific questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Does such a patent have a chance of surviving or can it be easily litigated?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, there's a reasonable chance of validity. The data being misread at the time is not necessarily fatal, since that's only one way of proving utility, and is not at all required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Would it survive if it could later be shown that the effect was in fact present even if it was drowned out by noise at the time and in the described embodiment?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be helpful, because then the claimed invention can be shown to have utility." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19556" RevisionGUID="b3e89363-7f57-4c2e-b28c-4489cfa2d11d" CreationDate="2018-05-18T11:20:33.447" UserId="17737" Comment="formatting" Text="The France patent FR2553560 was disgraded by a following patent from France US5069827. They rejected to use the best solvent HNO&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; of our invention and claimed to use H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;SO&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt; instead of HNO&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; in nuclear fuel reprocessing. We believe they are professional of nuclear fuel reprocessing. So that, they must intentionally have rejected our invention. I think that such a patent is illegal. Do you think so?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53909" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19556" RevisionGUID="b3e89363-7f57-4c2e-b28c-4489cfa2d11d" CreationDate="2018-05-18T11:20:33.447" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 18033, 15503 edit id of 2072" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53910" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19556" RevisionGUID="2248a467-9e45-48ee-856e-88b7ab1fcf13" CreationDate="2018-05-18T11:23:19.067" UserId="15503" Comment="clarify underlying question" Text="Our patent FR2553560 was disparaged by the subsequent patent US5069827. They rejected the use of the best solvent HNO&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; of our invention and claimed to use H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;SO&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt; instead of HNO&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; in nuclear fuel reprocessing. We believe they are nuclear fuel reprocessing professionals. So that, the inventors of US5069827 must intentionally have rejected our invention, despite it being the best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is their patent invalid because of this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53911" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19556" RevisionGUID="2248a467-9e45-48ee-856e-88b7ab1fcf13" CreationDate="2018-05-18T11:23:19.067" UserId="15503" Comment="clarify underlying question" Text="Is it legally justified to disparage intentionally the preceding good patent by a wrong patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19561" RevisionGUID="554f42ac-e4fa-4a71-b110-36d0b7e281bc" CreationDate="2018-05-18T16:13:37.940" UserId="18769" Text=" 1. If the application is still pending, you may even attempt filing third-party submission (if still possible), and state that the publication is relevant to 101/utility.  However, it sounds like this period has passed.  Following on from Maca's comments about duty of good faith, it may be considered a responsibility of the applicants to bring the publication to the notice of the Office if it does bring a material question to the operability/utility of the method.  Otherwise, there may be an inequitable conduct (unenforceability) argument you could bring in litigation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. There may be a reasonable chance of invalidating broad &quot;outcome&quot; claims over 112(a)/enablement, 112(a)/written description, and/or 112(b)/indefiniteness -- or at least obtaining a narrow claim construction (such that you could easily design around).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It sounds like the inventors don't exactly understand the mechanism by which the outcome is produced, but that it just &quot;magically&quot; does.  This on its own does not negate patentability, as long as the method to produce the desired outcome is described and the outcome actually does follow, satisfying 112(a)/enablement and 112(a)/written description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; a. However, if the inventors are claiming a broad range of methods to produce the outcome without fully understanding why the outcome is produced, this is unlikely to comply with 112(a)/enablement and 112(a)/written description, as they have likely not enabled a PHOSITA to produce the outcome via all possible methods (just the one method they disclosed), nor have they shown possession of all the possible methods at the time of disclosure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; b. Additionally, if the inventors are claiming all possible methods to produce the outcome, but even they do not understand the mechanism of outcome-production, it is unlikely that a PHOSITA would know which methods they are and aren't claiming -- therefore, invalid under 112(b)/indefiniteness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; c. Finally, if the claims are not invalidated, you could likely get a narrow claim construction covering only the specific method they described to produce the outcome.  Given that they do not understand the mechanism to produce the outcome, it is likely that their method will have extraneous steps.  Therefore, if the claims were narrowed in this way, you could likely avoid infringement by merely following the same method they described without an extraneous step, but at least avoid infringement by another method." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53913" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18971" RevisionGUID="ac39c46f-5732-4f57-a91c-61ead85ef66b" CreationDate="2018-05-18T20:18:09.163" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53914" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18712" RevisionGUID="522d3fd9-83d4-4b60-a9f7-4ff146e54cb7" CreationDate="2018-05-18T23:18:09.013" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53915" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19293" RevisionGUID="cf5ab9df-6f77-4f13-a735-7b283a3ba759" CreationDate="2018-05-19T01:18:09.043" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19563" RevisionGUID="0e1f30df-6760-4772-b119-5431194e9498" CreationDate="2018-05-19T10:02:35.613" UserId="20950" Text="can a foreign company file a patent in USPTO without a lawyer? If yes Please tell me how. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53920" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19563" RevisionGUID="0e1f30df-6760-4772-b119-5431194e9498" CreationDate="2018-05-19T10:02:35.613" UserId="20950" Text="can foreign company file patent in USPTO without a lawyer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53921" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19563" RevisionGUID="0e1f30df-6760-4772-b119-5431194e9498" CreationDate="2018-05-19T10:02:35.613" UserId="20950" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19564" RevisionGUID="6b1ee863-f5ee-40d1-a26c-a926b3a3946d" CreationDate="2018-05-19T14:06:02.710" UserId="14403" Text="1. USPTO permits filing of patent by individual inventor as applicant without patent attorney (lawyer). Company can be assignee and (I am not sure) need to be represented by registered attorney. Refer the answer by Puspak. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/6287/patent-filing-procedure-without-a-patent-attorney &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. For inventor:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a. If one is in India (assuming from your name), it is mandatory for one to file patent application in Indian Patent Office. This also is permitted without a lawyer. For filing look at IPO guide lines available in its site. www.ipindia.nic.in . A lot of 'how to' are also available in net. After six months, if the application is not in barred category, one can file application with USPTO with Indian priority. If one intends to file the application in several coutries (a very costly proposition as most countries allows registered attorneys only) and/or intends to buy some time for decision, one can go through WIPO route (File with International Branch IB of IPO).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b. For filing with USPTO, one can file online by registering with private PAIR (EFS-WEB). Log in to https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/checking-application-status/pair-resources for details. One has to append certified copy of patent application filed in India.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c. Individuals or educational institutions can avail 75% reduction in USPTO fees subjected to conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;d. These are just starters. For main menu a lot of net surfing is required. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19565" RevisionGUID="1dd9fe84-f783-4203-abb5-68f7aafee982" CreationDate="2018-05-19T18:19:53.033" UserId="15489" Text="I have two related but distinct inventions, which I have drafted one specification for. What is the best strategy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. file the specification with two sets of claims (which will include more than 20 claim fees), wait for a divisional, and then split the applications, or&#xD;&#xA;2. file an application with the specification and only one set of claims, but then shortly afterwards file a contination claiming the second invention, for which the claims are effectively in the first, or&#xD;&#xA;3. file two applications on the same day, with different claims but the same specification. In this case I might want to have a different title and abstract though. Would this trigger a provisional double-patenting objection?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've looked at continuation-in-part applications, and can't really see why anyone would file one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53925" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19565" RevisionGUID="1dd9fe84-f783-4203-abb5-68f7aafee982" CreationDate="2018-05-19T18:19:53.033" UserId="15489" Text="Divisional, continuation or two separate applications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53926" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19565" RevisionGUID="1dd9fe84-f783-4203-abb5-68f7aafee982" CreationDate="2018-05-19T18:19:53.033" UserId="15489" Text="&lt;continuation&gt;&lt;divisional&gt;&lt;double-patenting&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19566" RevisionGUID="d16f6f9c-89c9-48a3-ac41-dd2ccd2f338e" CreationDate="2018-05-19T20:51:07.767" UserId="21092" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2017209845A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2017209845A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scan detection is a well-known very old technique. https://github.com/eldondev/Snort/blob/master/rules/scan.rules are open source rules. Detection is through well-known scan detection technique deception or no deception scan can be detected through network packets. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53928" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19566" RevisionGUID="d16f6f9c-89c9-48a3-ac41-dd2ccd2f338e" CreationDate="2018-05-19T20:51:07.767" UserId="21092" Text="What is innovation here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53929" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19566" RevisionGUID="d16f6f9c-89c9-48a3-ac41-dd2ccd2f338e" CreationDate="2018-05-19T20:51:07.767" UserId="21092" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19567" RevisionGUID="5cb0178c-490c-4072-a35f-d9ef53850c11" CreationDate="2018-05-19T21:32:12.227" UserId="21092" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2017189593A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2017189593A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application is super simple, obvious and below is the list of opensource code as evidence which responses to the intent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://github.com/paralax/awesome-honeypots is a list of open source honey-pots which responses to the intent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53931" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19567" RevisionGUID="5cb0178c-490c-4072-a35f-d9ef53850c11" CreationDate="2018-05-19T21:32:12.227" UserId="21092" Text="What is the invention in the application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53932" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19567" RevisionGUID="5cb0178c-490c-4072-a35f-d9ef53850c11" CreationDate="2018-05-19T21:32:12.227" UserId="21092" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19568" RevisionGUID="83ad27da-e7d9-40d7-a9b8-63fc196e6b24" CreationDate="2018-05-20T00:19:51.070" UserId="21065" Text="The “invention” is always defined by the claims. In this case there are 39 claims (technically 39 separate but related inventions).  1, 14, and 27 are independent claims (with the dependent claims incorporating all limitations of the claims they depend on (plus whatever limitations they add making them more narrow).  Independent claims in an application are typically very broad and are typically narrowed during prosecution to one of the more narrow depedent claims or by adding additional limitations from the specfication.  Thus, I would expect that the independent claims not to be allowed if already disclosed before the priority date of this patent application, with some more narrow version ultimately being granted if something is actually patentable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19569" RevisionGUID="f74402e0-e959-445a-b88a-7a89178ddbe2" CreationDate="2018-05-20T01:00:23.110" UserId="18769" Text="In the US, there are at least two USPTO proceedings that can be filed by third parties against invalid or unduly broad patents (e.g., in light of prior art not considered during prosecution):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Ex Parte Re-Examination&#xD;&#xA; 2. Post-grant review (up to 9 mo after grant) / Inter-partes review (starting 9 mo after grant)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the EPO appears to have limited options for post-grant challenges.  Based on a [wikipedia article][1], &quot;limitation&quot; proceedings (analogous to US re-exam) can only be initiated by the patentee.  Additionally, in comparison with US AIA proceedings (PGR, CBM, IPR), I am only aware of &quot;opposition&quot; at the EPO, which has a 9 month window after grant, similar to the US PGR.  I am not aware of the upcoming UPC changes affecting these options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is this the extent of options for patent challenges at the EPO -- i.e. no options after 9 months?  I have some very strong (102/novelty) prior art that was not considered during examination, and I will miss the 9 month window.  However, bringing this up in litigation requires legal standing (which seems to essentially require infringement for savvy patentees who avoid triggering standing), which could push the patentee to counterclaim infringement, which could result in an even longer/pricier process, esp. if the court is DE (mandatory bifurcation) or UPC (discretionary bifurcation).  Though such strong prior art may make the patentee hesitant to litigate due to &quot;loser pays&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitation_and_revocation_procedures_before_the_European_Patent_Office" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53935" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19569" RevisionGUID="f74402e0-e959-445a-b88a-7a89178ddbe2" CreationDate="2018-05-20T01:00:23.110" UserId="18769" Text="Options for EPO post-grant challenges?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53936" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19569" RevisionGUID="f74402e0-e959-445a-b88a-7a89178ddbe2" CreationDate="2018-05-20T01:00:23.110" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;european&gt;&lt;epo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19569" RevisionGUID="f2c228f6-baed-4743-946a-a7a56079128f" CreationDate="2018-05-20T01:09:29.033" UserId="18769" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body" Text="In the US, there are at least two USPTO proceedings that can be filed by third parties against invalid or unduly broad patents (e.g., in light of prior art not considered during prosecution):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Ex Parte Re-Examination&#xD;&#xA; 2. Post-grant review (up to 9 mo after grant) / Inter-partes review (starting 9 mo after grant)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the EPO appears to have limited options for post-grant challenges  (see [wikipedia article][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &quot;Limitation&quot; proceedings (analogous to US re-exam), which can only be initiated by the patentee.&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;Opposition&quot; proceedings, which are only available up to 9 months after grant (analogous to US PGR).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of the upcoming UPC changes affecting these options.  **So is this the extent of options for patent challenges at the EPO -- i.e. no options after 9 months?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have some very strong (102/novelty) prior art that was not considered during examination, and I will miss the 9 month window.  However, bringing this up in litigation requires legal standing (which seems to essentially require infringement for savvy patentees who avoid triggering standing), which could push the patentee to counterclaim infringement, which could result in an even longer/pricier process, esp. if the court is DE (mandatory bifurcation) or UPC (discretionary bifurcation).  The only other out is if the patentee decides not to litigate due to the EPO &quot;loser pays&quot; fee shifting in light of the strength of the prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitation_and_revocation_procedures_before_the_European_Patent_Office" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53938" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="01107455-1bca-48a4-9f38-0ad82fbc7670" CreationDate="2018-05-20T03:22:21.603" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19570" RevisionGUID="f10b099d-dab7-4d54-8c0d-fcd68ba4ee34" CreationDate="2018-05-20T03:30:48.490" UserId="15503" Text="**So is this the extent of options for patent challenges at the EPO -- i.e. no options after 9 months?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the 9 month opposition period finishes, the only way to revoke another person's patent is to commence a revocation action in each country. For example, if a European patent was validated in the UK, France, and Germany, this would require three separate revocation actions: one in each country. It is consequently possible for a patent to be found invalid in some and valid in others. Similarly, standing and costs will be determined separately in each action. This makes revocation a high stakes course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will fundamentally change for the UPC, which will centrally determine validity for all UPC states in a single action. This makes revocation easier in some ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a practical matter, it would be much more common to hold on to invalidating prior art until you're threatened with infringement, for exactly the reasons you mention. When the first shot is fired, it can trigger a litigation war, and that benefits no one. Much better to keep your powder dry, so to speak." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53940" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17865" RevisionGUID="3301bbf1-c3af-4d42-8574-34d44f5102c9" CreationDate="2018-05-20T06:22:21.810" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53941" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="ad62cecd-1aeb-4d55-8e62-d14bdc54d50f" CreationDate="2018-05-20T08:22:54.330" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19571" RevisionGUID="1bc92360-a5c8-40fa-a7d9-d96d787d1b5e" CreationDate="2018-05-20T10:12:31.577" UserId="21094" Text="Alice owns the patent for a blood pressure measurement device consisting of three elements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A) a sensor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B) a particular signal processing circuit (the juice of the novel and unobvious functionality)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C) a display&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Shortly after the patent is granted, Alice realizes that monitoring one of the signals already available inside element B would allow to obtain additional diagnostic informations, besides blood pressure, which are on their own useful and unobvious. A key point is that said signal is available if and only if elements A, B, and C, are combined together exactly as disclosed in Alice patent. Now, here are some considerations that would appear &quot;common sense&quot; to me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Alice is afraid that Bob, her strongest competitor on the market, also realizes this possibility and might perhaps succeed in filing for a patent on the novel functionality/use of her patent before she had any chance to do it herself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- But in this case, in order to manufacture and sell such a product, would Bob need to obtain permission from Alice to use her patent? (e.g.: via a license Agreement, which Alice is anyway unlikely to find interesting).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Though, by filing for said &quot;enhanced&quot; blood pressure monitor, the most likely purpose of Bob is simply to prevent that Alice could manufacture and sell it herself, further etching away Bob's market share. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What about if Alice, upon realising the possibility for said additional functionality/use, quickly advertises it in her company's web site (article in the technical blog section, preliminary datasheet for the &quot;enhanced&quot; product, etc.), and this before Bob has had the time to file for a patent. Would the practical result be that only Alice can manufacture and market also the &quot;enhanced&quot; blood pressure monitor? this because her valid patent is anyway needed also for the &quot;enhanced&quot; product, which, after her public disclosure of said additional functionality/use, can no longer be patented by Bob (or any other competitor, for that matter). Compared with filing for a Continuation-In-Part patent, wouldn't this approach represent a much simpler, faster, and lower cost solution for Alice, while featuring practically the same advantages in terms of legal protection of her product IP? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though the above conclusions appear reasonable to me, I am not at all sure about possible hidden pitfalls.   &#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53943" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19571" RevisionGUID="1bc92360-a5c8-40fa-a7d9-d96d787d1b5e" CreationDate="2018-05-20T10:12:31.577" UserId="21094" Text="Adding useful and unobvious functionality to existing patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53944" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19571" RevisionGUID="1bc92360-a5c8-40fa-a7d9-d96d787d1b5e" CreationDate="2018-05-20T10:12:31.577" UserId="21094" Text="&lt;improvement&gt;&lt;continuation-in-part&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19572" RevisionGUID="5d11d6b1-f8a9-4cfa-88bd-852b3a18bb46" CreationDate="2018-05-20T10:52:40.147" UserId="15503" Text="**Would Bob need to obtain permission from Alice to use her patent?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, in the countries that Alice has a patent, Bob would need to obtain a licence before he could manufacture and sell his product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Would the practical result [of publication by Alice mean that the improvement] can no longer be patented by Bob?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, assuming it is sufficiently detailed so as to completely destroy the novelty of the improvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wouldn't this approach represent a much simpler, faster, and lower cost solution for Alice, while featuring practically the same advantages in terms of legal protection of her product IP?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is simpler, faster, and lower cost. But it's got a lot of disadvantages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, the improvement would have a slightly longer patent term. This could mean an extra few years of monopoly profits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, damages may be affected. The way that damages are assessed is a bit of a complex art. But there is a correlation between the number of claims and patents infringed and the specificity of those claims and the damages awarded for infringement. If Bob infringed, Alice would almost certainly be better off (in terms of the quantum of damages) by suing for infringing the general patent as well as a specific patent for the improvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, Alice might decide to licence out the general technology while keeping the improvement exclusive to herself. Indeed, it may be required that she offer a licence in certain cases (though this mostly relates to standards, and especially telecommunication standards).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, it could well be that the general patent is invalid for some reason. It may end up being obvious, or it may have been improperly prosecuted, or any of a number of reasons that no one could predict. Having a backup patent is a much better position to be in, compared to having no protection at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A defensive publication is therefore a suitable option for a party who wants to minimize IP expenditure. But it is almost certainly the wrong option for a party who wants to maximize their IP position." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53946" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="5ee08053-53f8-4bd1-bbaa-60f0985c1cc7" CreationDate="2018-05-20T14:23:17.947" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19572" RevisionGUID="91fa6f08-9ab3-4ef5-83cb-7540c68ecfd3" CreationDate="2018-05-20T17:01:24.380" UserId="1" Comment="changed bold to block quotes to denote they're from the original question" Text="&gt; Would Bob need to obtain permission from Alice to use her patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, in the countries that Alice has a patent, Bob would need to obtain a licence before he could manufacture and sell his product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Would the practical result [of publication by Alice mean that the improvement] can no longer be patented by Bob?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, assuming it is sufficiently detailed so as to completely destroy the novelty of the improvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wouldn't this approach represent a much simpler, faster, and lower cost solution for Alice, while featuring practically the same advantages in terms of legal protection of her product IP?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is simpler, faster, and lower cost. But it's got a lot of disadvantages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, the improvement would have a slightly longer patent term. This could mean an extra few years of monopoly profits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, damages may be affected. The way that damages are assessed is a bit of a complex art. But there is a correlation between the number of claims and patents infringed and the specificity of those claims and the damages awarded for infringement. If Bob infringed, Alice would almost certainly be better off (in terms of the quantum of damages) by suing for infringing the general patent as well as a specific patent for the improvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, Alice might decide to licence out the general technology while keeping the improvement exclusive to herself. Indeed, it may be required that she offer a licence in certain cases (though this mostly relates to standards, and especially telecommunication standards).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, it could well be that the general patent is invalid for some reason. It may end up being obvious, or it may have been improperly prosecuted, or any of a number of reasons that no one could predict. Having a backup patent is a much better position to be in, compared to having no protection at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A defensive publication is therefore a suitable option for a party who wants to minimize IP expenditure. But it is almost certainly the wrong option for a party who wants to maximize their IP position." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53948" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="0236fc2c-7378-4405-a57f-b738bea7ee0c" CreationDate="2018-05-21T00:23:35.330" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53949" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16926" RevisionGUID="9f3b83fa-0765-4494-b85d-a9f69a50e029" CreationDate="2018-05-21T01:23:38.280" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19573" RevisionGUID="aaec2687-71bf-4fe8-b959-de7b7e9de865" CreationDate="2018-05-21T08:49:47.320" UserId="21094" Text="Referring to this question:  &#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/19571/adding-useful-and-unobvious-functionality-to-existing-patent  &#xD;&#xA;Alice has thus decided to proceed with filing a Continuation-In-Part application. Would it suffice a simple drafting format, whereby, after referring to the parent patent, only the new functionality is described ? without needing to repeat the full content of the parent patent? Such as for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED PATENTS  &#xD;&#xA;This U.S. patent application is a Continuation-In-Part of U.S. Patent XYZ which was granted on ....  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FIELD OF THE INVENTION  &#xD;&#xA;The present disclosure relates to a blood pressure measurement method and apparatus, whereby the diagnostic functionality consisting of .......... is added to the Parent Patent XYZ by monitoring the signal W (shown at least in Fig. m and Fig. n of patent XYZ). The advantages obtained are ......... etc. etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To then formulate the claims as explicitly dependent from those in patent XYZ. Such as for example:  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;CLAIMS  &#xD;&#xA;1. The method of Claim 1 of the parent patent XYZ, further comprising the step of .... etc. etc.  &#xD;&#xA;2. An apparatus configured to implement the method as claimed in claim 1 of this application, wherein .... etc. etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would appear to me that such an approach would make it easier for everybody to identify and isolate the delta novelty with respect to the parent patent. However, I know there must be some formalities to be respected. Unfortunately, I have not been able to locate, on the USPTO website, published examples for what would be considered acceptable formats for Continuation-In-Part Specification and Claims. I did read few published Continuation-In-Part applications, but all seem to fully rewrite Specification and Claims, mostly fully rewording the Claims, and thus requiring, at least to my unexpert eyes (I am not an examiner), quite some effort to isolate the improvement part.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, would Claim 1 above be considered a dependent claim (being dependent on Claim 1 of the Parent Patent)? and would Claim 2 thus be considered a multi-dependent claim (depending on Claim 1, in turn depending on Claim 1 of the Parent Patent)? I am thinking about how to correctly calculate filing fees ...  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53952" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19573" RevisionGUID="aaec2687-71bf-4fe8-b959-de7b7e9de865" CreationDate="2018-05-21T08:49:47.320" UserId="21094" Text="Format of Continuation-In-Part Specification and format" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53953" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19573" RevisionGUID="aaec2687-71bf-4fe8-b959-de7b7e9de865" CreationDate="2018-05-21T08:49:47.320" UserId="21094" Text="&lt;continuation-in-part&gt;&lt;format&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53954" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19573" RevisionGUID="23983877-5ba8-41c7-9c1f-8d21f0957834" CreationDate="2018-05-21T09:10:37.003" UserId="21094" Comment="edited title" Text="Format of Continuation-In-Part Specification and Claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19574" RevisionGUID="a9297182-36f3-4c97-b09e-d72d7897ce4e" CreationDate="2018-05-21T10:26:52.890" UserId="15503" Text="By way of preface, I note that this answer only really applies to the US. No other country has continuations-in-part, and most countries don't allow incorporation by reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest that your proposed strategy would not really be ideal, from a commercial point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In US practice, a drafter typically wants to &quot;hide&quot; the invention, by talking only of embodiments and aspects. This is because if you state that the invention does X, then this can be a basis for implying extra limitations in the claim (or ending up with invalid claims). This style of drafting does indeed make it difficult for a reader to pin-point what the invention is. But this is a benefit to the applicant, who has some room to change course depending on how matters develop. Indeed, this is one reason to rewrite the description: to further obscure matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are proposing completely the opposite of this. That is, you are proposing to set out exactly what the invention is and what the advantages are. I agree that this will result in a very clear view of what your invention is. But while your aim to make life easy for your competitors and the examiner is laudable in a social sense, it is basically negligence in a commercial sense. Certainly it would, to my mind, come close to malpractice for an attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because a US patent typically has to achieve all of its aims. If it turns out one of the advantages you provide is not actually achieved, this could in principle result in an unenforceable patent. In addition, because you are stating exactly what the invention is, you have no room to move if relevant prior art comes up, or your commercial position changes. And there would be a very strong chance that a court would add in additional features into your claim if you do get into litigation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, you would likely have a weak, narrow patent, if it got granted at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, I feel confident that your claim format would be objected to as being improper. I don't imagine there's a specific MPEP passage relating to it, because I would doubt anyone has tried it. But I can see no chance that it would get through examination, simply because it's unusual. Examiners like novelty to be restrained to the invention; novel formalities are just asking for trouble." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16927" RevisionGUID="ae51f5a1-0c91-4e32-9b5b-e813995dc176" CreationDate="2018-05-21T13:56:32.637" UserId="17003" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="**Can you get a patent for a product that sells in high volume on the market over the past 40 years?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. You figure out an improvement and patent the improvement. I'm not passing any judgement of the cited application as I didn't read it thoroughly and I'm not an expert in this field. Do you suppose that the first and only airplane patent went to the Wright brothers? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also remember, that the cited document is a patent application, not yet a patent. It may never become a patent and if it does, the claims may be significantly narrowed. The application also cites 6 other patents as prior art dating back to 1980." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19575" RevisionGUID="c8f01c04-4ebd-4a8e-aa08-933a3b373a69" CreationDate="2018-05-21T15:47:33.867" UserId="18769" Text="In the US, a duty of disclosure to submit information material to patentability extends until the patent is granted.  This means that the duty still applies after notice of allowance (NoA) and after issue fee payment, but before issue (usually 6 weeks after issue fee payment). See [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Therefore, what if the applicant discovers new prior art either after NoA or after issue fee payment, but before issue?**  Is the applicant required to submit an IDS disclosing this information?  **What if the new prior art is discovered 1 day before the scheduled issue date?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the USPTO currently offers a &quot;QPIDS&quot; program for IDSes submitted after issue fee payment.  However, I have not seen anywhere that the QPIDS route is a &quot;requirement&quot;, only an option that &quot;may&quot; be utilized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like there is a &quot;fuzzy&quot; requirement here, as it is likely impractical to submit prior art discovered 1 day before issue.  Further, third parties may exploit the duty of disclosure by waiting until the end of prosecution, then serving the applicant with material art, which will require additional prosecution fees (e.g. RCE) and time, or else the applicant will be vulnerable to inequitable conduct charges at a later date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further discussion regarding this [here][2] and [here][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/19523/18769&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.intelproplaw.com/ip_forum/index.php?topic=20637.0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.intelproplaw.com/ip_forum/index.php?topic=24788.0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53958" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19575" RevisionGUID="c8f01c04-4ebd-4a8e-aa08-933a3b373a69" CreationDate="2018-05-21T15:47:33.867" UserId="18769" Text="Requirement to submit newly found prior art after Notice of Allowance or Issue Fee Payment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53959" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19575" RevisionGUID="c8f01c04-4ebd-4a8e-aa08-933a3b373a69" CreationDate="2018-05-21T15:47:33.867" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;us&gt;&lt;duty-of-disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19575" RevisionGUID="34d7d27e-5494-49e8-b90e-6576664c8ef4" CreationDate="2018-05-21T17:12:20.377" UserId="18769" Comment="added 206 characters in body" Text="In the US, a duty of disclosure to submit information material to patentability extends until the patent is granted.  This means that the duty still applies after notice of allowance (NoA) and after issue fee payment, but before issue (usually 6 weeks after issue fee payment). See [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Therefore, what if the applicant discovers new prior art either after NoA or after issue fee payment, but before issue?**  Is the applicant required to submit an IDS disclosing this information?  **What if the new prior art is discovered 1 day before the scheduled issue date?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, the applicant must submit known material prior art in order to avoid risk of inequitable conduct (IC) charges.  However, when the prior art is discovered close to issue, it appears there may be a &quot;fuzzy&quot; requirement, as it is likely impractical to submit prior art discovered 1 day before issue.  Further, third parties may exploit the duty of disclosure by waiting until the end of prosecution, then serving the applicant with material art, which will require additional prosecution fees (e.g. RCE) and time, or else the applicant will be vulnerable to IC charges at a later date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the USPTO currently offers a &quot;QPIDS&quot; program for IDSes submitted after issue fee payment.  However, I have not seen anywhere that the QPIDS route is a &quot;requirement&quot;, only an option that &quot;may&quot; be utilized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further discussion on recommended practice regarding late-discovered prior art [here][2] and [here][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/19523/18769&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.intelproplaw.com/ip_forum/index.php?topic=20637.0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.intelproplaw.com/ip_forum/index.php?topic=24788.0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53961" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="8ef9783c-0fb1-4cd9-8701-610382a98943" CreationDate="2018-05-22T05:28:00.897" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19577" RevisionGUID="8a0790f4-bf5c-4fd9-ae4b-05225886cfe3" CreationDate="2018-05-22T14:16:27.987" UserId="21098" Text="the priority claimed in the patent is 9 May 2001&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have a look at this prior art:&#xD;&#xA;etix.com from Feb 2001&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20010204150000/www.etix.com/about.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They were supplying tickets in the US for venues prior to the patent priority date.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19579" RevisionGUID="8eb05be5-aff9-4bdb-a4df-6a0fe1486af2" CreationDate="2018-05-22T22:32:33.597" UserId="21101" Text="What's wiser - since an applicant has the duty to disclose prior art to a point would it be better to send it anonymously to the owner or jump through all the hoops it takes to get it to an examiner?  In question is a child application.  The prior art is clear and concise from a book of software that's 2 years older than the original patent priority date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53972" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19579" RevisionGUID="8eb05be5-aff9-4bdb-a4df-6a0fe1486af2" CreationDate="2018-05-22T22:32:33.597" UserId="21101" Text="Send prior art to the patent owner or third party it to the examiner?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53973" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19579" RevisionGUID="8eb05be5-aff9-4bdb-a4df-6a0fe1486af2" CreationDate="2018-05-22T22:32:33.597" UserId="21101" Text="&lt;third-party-submission&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19580" RevisionGUID="1b2676ae-40fb-444d-a818-72e3eb24d13e" CreationDate="2018-05-22T23:25:36.510" UserId="21101" Text="Is there any valid reason to resubmit an application that's had an unfavorable office action and abandoned several years earlier?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53975" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19580" RevisionGUID="1b2676ae-40fb-444d-a818-72e3eb24d13e" CreationDate="2018-05-22T23:25:36.510" UserId="21101" Text="Resubmitting an application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53976" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19580" RevisionGUID="1b2676ae-40fb-444d-a818-72e3eb24d13e" CreationDate="2018-05-22T23:25:36.510" UserId="21101" Text="&lt;office-action&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53977" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19397" RevisionGUID="6e24a914-4bbf-41be-be95-7c52f21a63c6" CreationDate="2018-05-23T03:29:02.813" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53978" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="c84d9a37-39f7-47a7-9080-3ae1c272cd68" CreationDate="2018-05-23T04:28:52.573" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19581" RevisionGUID="c37b1d0d-e314-4055-a59e-17a8dc2a96d5" CreationDate="2018-05-23T16:18:21.650" UserId="18769" Text="**1) Third party submission/observation allows for detailed remarks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As DonQuiKong notes in an OP comment, a third party submission (US) or third party observation (outside US) allows accompanying statements on the relevance of specific portions of the prior art presented.  However, it is important to note that &quot;arguments&quot; relating to patentability are not allowed (at least in the US), and would be a grounds for ignoring the third party submission.  Therefore, statements should take the form of &quot;this prior art discloses X [which is claimed in the patent application]&quot;, but not &quot;the patent claim is invalid due to obviousness over this prior art&quot;.  Claim charts specifying the exact mapping between prior art content and the contested claims are preferable, as they &quot;spoon feed&quot; the examiner and minimize the amount of effort required to incorporate the third party submission into an Office Action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, a US applicant's duty of disclosure only requires an IDS (information disclosure statement) listing the bibliographic information of the prior art (e.g. patent number, article title), but does not require disclosure of specific portions or relevance thereof.  Therefore, as quite often does happen, an examiner will just ignore the applicant-submitted IDS, thus adding the prior art to the pile of prior art the patent is presumed to be valid over (which is bad).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2) Domestic patent prior art is most preferable**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Domestic patent prior art (or at least prior art in the language of the examiner) will likely be given the fullest consideration.  The examiner is used to dealing with it, and there will be no issues proving the publication date.  Therefore, even if you found great non-patent prior art, I would still endeavor to find a patent publication analogue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further patent applications are written to contemplate wide-ranging applications of the ideas, and often will be more relevant than &quot;narrow&quot; non-patent prior art, which may even disparage or teach against certain embodiments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3) You may not even want to send the prior art**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider carefully how the outcome of sending the prior art affects you. &#xD;&#xA; If you have no commercial stakes in the outcome, and this is simply an interesting learning experience, then feel free to go ahead.  However, with such limited grounds for argument in front of the examiner (esp. if sending the prior art through the applicant in an IDS), you are putting your fate in the examiner's hands.  Also, you note that you are dealing with a child application.  This would seem to imply that a parent application has already been allowed, and therefore there will likely be problem claims anyway, which this prior art can't really help with beyond placing a presumption of invalidity on the former claims vs future examiner arguments (assuming the child claims are similar enough to invite such arguments).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examiner's are very diligent in finding prior art and would take advantage of what's provided.  But more likely than not, your art will end up with an examiner who wants to put forth the minimum effort to get the job done, and does not have stakes in the outcome.  Note that it's not uncommon for examiner's to just largely ignore third party submissions.  Therefore, you may &quot;waste&quot; your prior art bullet, and have a higher hurdle to overcome if trying to present the same arguments in the future (or perhaps be prevented from bringing the same arguments altogether).  In any case, review the prosecution history (and examiner statistics) to get a better idea of the examiner at hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are both pros and cons to sending &quot;strong&quot; and &quot;weak&quot; prior art.  &quot;Strong&quot; prior art may make a rejection clear to an examiner, but if the examiner fails to utilize it, that's quite a disadvantage.  On the other hand, &quot;weak&quot; prior art will require the examiner to do more work to understand what's going on (which the examiner may just give up on and ignore), but it also provides an opportunity to &quot;test the waters&quot; and perhaps set the examiner on a new prior art search path without giving away your crown jewel (if you have one).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, sending prior art alerts the applicant that someone out their cares and may even be afraid of the patent.  This may encourage the applicant to work more vigorously to obtain claims (more prosecution rounds, more applications), and works against your goal of not having such claims to deal with.  Also, it lets the applicant know that someone else thinks the claims are valuable, which could affect future licensing negotiations or probability of infringement suit in the future (esp. if the applicant knows who sent the prior art).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, submitting the prior art now gives the applicant a great opportunity to appropriately amend the claims and create a stronger patent.  On the other hand, if you hold onto (esp. &quot;strong&quot;) prior art, you may easily destroy the patent in future litigation, where the applicant has less (or no) recourse to amend claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19581" RevisionGUID="68880d98-83ee-445e-8d1f-fb7633135636" CreationDate="2018-05-23T16:23:34.160" UserId="18769" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="**1) Third party submission/observation allows for detailed remarks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As DonQuiKong notes in an OP comment, a third party submission (US) or third party observation (outside US) allows accompanying statements on the relevance of specific portions of the prior art presented.  However, it is important to note that &quot;arguments&quot; relating to patentability are not allowed (at least in the US), and would be a grounds for ignoring the third party submission.  Therefore, statements should take the form of &quot;this prior art discloses X [which is claimed in the patent application]&quot;, but not &quot;the patent claim is invalid due to obviousness over this prior art&quot;.  Claim charts specifying the exact mapping between prior art content and the contested claims are preferable, as they &quot;spoon feed&quot; the examiner and minimize the amount of effort required to incorporate the third party submission into an Office Action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, a US applicant's duty of disclosure only requires an IDS (information disclosure statement) listing the bibliographic information of the prior art (e.g. patent number, article title), but does not require disclosure of specific portions or relevance thereof.  Therefore, as quite often does happen, an examiner will just ignore the applicant-submitted IDS, thus adding the prior art to the pile of prior art the patent is presumed to be valid over (which is bad).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2) Domestic patent prior art is most preferable**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Domestic patent prior art (or at least prior art in the language of the examiner) will likely be given the fullest consideration.  The examiner is used to dealing with it, and there will be no issues proving the publication date.  Therefore, even if you found great non-patent prior art, I would still endeavor to find a patent publication analogue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further patent applications are written to contemplate wide-ranging applications of the ideas, and often will be more relevant than &quot;narrow&quot; non-patent prior art, which may even disparage or teach against certain embodiments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3) You may not even want to send the prior art**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider carefully how the outcome of sending the prior art affects you. &#xD;&#xA; If you have no commercial stakes in the outcome, and this is simply an interesting learning experience, then feel free to go ahead.  However, with such limited grounds for argument in front of the examiner (esp. if sending the prior art through the applicant in an IDS), you are putting your fate in the examiner's hands.  Also, you note that you are dealing with a child application.  This would seem to imply that a parent application has already been allowed, and therefore there will likely be problem claims anyway, which this prior art can't really help with beyond placing a presumption of invalidity on the former claims via after-the-fact examiner arguments (assuming the child claims are similar enough to invite such arguments).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examiner's are very diligent in finding prior art and would take advantage of what's provided.  But more likely than not, your art will end up with an examiner who wants to put forth the minimum effort to get the job done, and does not have stakes in the outcome.  Note that it's not uncommon for examiner's to just largely ignore third party submissions.  Therefore, you may &quot;waste&quot; your prior art bullet, and have a higher hurdle to overcome if trying to present the same arguments in the future (or perhaps be prevented from bringing the same arguments altogether).  In any case, review the prosecution history (and examiner statistics) to get a better idea of the examiner at hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are both pros and cons to sending &quot;strong&quot; and &quot;weak&quot; prior art.  &quot;Strong&quot; prior art may make a rejection clear to an examiner, but if the examiner fails to utilize it, that's quite a disadvantage.  On the other hand, &quot;weak&quot; prior art will require the examiner to do more work to understand what's going on (which the examiner may just give up on and ignore), but it also provides an opportunity to &quot;test the waters&quot; and perhaps set the examiner on a new prior art search path without giving away your crown jewel (if you have one).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, sending prior art alerts the applicant that someone out their cares and may even be afraid of the patent.  This may encourage the applicant to work more vigorously to obtain claims (more prosecution rounds, more applications), and works against your goal of not having such claims to deal with.  Also, it lets the applicant know that someone else thinks the claims are valuable, which could affect future licensing negotiations or probability of infringement suit in the future (esp. if the applicant knows who sent the prior art).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, submitting the prior art now gives the applicant a great opportunity to appropriately amend the claims and create a stronger patent.  On the other hand, if you hold onto (esp. &quot;strong&quot;) prior art, you may easily destroy the patent in future litigation, where the applicant has less (or no) recourse to amend claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19581" RevisionGUID="9693c8d5-d50e-4eb6-ba77-44ef6718fb4c" CreationDate="2018-05-24T00:47:56.663" UserId="18769" Comment="added 660 characters in body" Text="**1) Third party submission/observation allows for detailed remarks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As DonQuiKong notes in an OP comment, a third party submission (US) or third party observation (outside US) allows accompanying statements on the relevance of specific portions of the prior art presented.  However, it is important to note that &quot;arguments&quot; relating to patentability are not allowed (at least in the US), and would likely result in the TPS being ignored (and there may not be a second chance to send due to the 6 month window).  Therefore, statements should take the form of &quot;this prior art discloses X [which is claimed in the patent application]&quot;, but not &quot;the patent claim is invalid due to obviousness over this prior art&quot;.  Claim charts specifying the exact mapping between prior art content and the contested claims are preferable, as they &quot;spoon feed&quot; the examiner and minimize the amount of effort required to incorporate the third party submission into an Office Action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, a US applicant's duty of disclosure only requires an IDS (information disclosure statement) listing the bibliographic information of the prior art (e.g. patent number, article title), but does not require disclosure of specific portions or relevance thereof.  Therefore, as quite often does happen, an examiner may ignore the applicant-submitted IDS, thus adding the prior art to the pile of prior art the patent is presumed to be valid over (which is bad).  However, one potential benefit of serving the applicant is that if the art is material, and the applicant doesn't follow through with submitting the art to the examiner, you may have an argument for patent unenforceability later (due to &quot;inequitable conduct&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2) Domestic patent prior art is preferable**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Domestic patent prior art (or at least prior art in the language of the examiner) will likely be given the fullest consideration.  It's what the examiner is used to, and there will be no issues proving the publication date.  Therefore, even if you found great non-patent prior art, I would still endeavor to find a patent publication analogue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further patent applications are written to contemplate wide-ranging applications of the ideas, and often will be more relevant than &quot;narrow&quot; non-patent prior art, which may even disparage or teach against certain embodiments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3) You may not even want to send the prior art**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider carefully how the outcome of sending the prior art affects you. &#xD;&#xA; If you have no commercial stakes in the outcome, and this is simply an interesting learning experience, then feel free to go ahead.  However, with such limited grounds for argument in front of the examiner (esp. if sending the prior art through the applicant in an IDS), you are putting your fate in the examiner's hands.  Also, you note that you are dealing with a child/continuation application.  This would seem to imply that a parent application has already been allowed, and therefore there will likely be problem claims anyway, which this prior art can't really help with beyond placing a presumption of invalidity on the former claims via after-the-fact examiner arguments (assuming the child claims are similar enough to invite such arguments).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Submitting art to an examiner or applicant reduces uncertainty of the valid patent scope.  Therefore, it's a double-edged sword: good if the uncertainty is reduced in your favor (e.g. pending claims rejected over submitted art) and vice versa (i.e. bad if examiner ignores art or disagrees with its relevance).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examiners are very diligent in finding prior art and would take advantage of what's provided.  But more likely than not, your art will end up with an examiner who wants to put forth the minimum effort to get the job done, and does not have stakes in the outcome.  Note that it's not uncommon for examiner's to just largely ignore third party submissions.  Therefore, you may &quot;waste&quot; your prior art bullet, and have a higher hurdle to overcome if trying to present the same arguments in the future (or perhaps be prevented from bringing the same arguments altogether).  In any case, review the prosecution history (and examiner statistics) to get a better idea of the examiner at hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are both pros and cons to sending &quot;strong&quot; and &quot;weak&quot; prior art.  &quot;Strong&quot; prior art may make a rejection clear to an examiner, but if the examiner fails to utilize it, you're in a much worse position than if you didn't send anything.  On the other hand, &quot;weak&quot; prior art will require the examiner to do more work to understand what's going on (which the examiner may just give up on and ignore), but it also provides an opportunity to &quot;test the waters&quot; and perhaps set the examiner on a new prior art search path without giving away your crown jewel (if you have one).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, sending prior art alerts the applicant that someone out their cares and may even be afraid of the patent.  This may encourage the applicant to work more vigorously to obtain claims (more prosecution rounds, more applications), and works against your goal of not having such claims to deal with.  Also, it lets the applicant know that someone else thinks the claims are valuable, which could affect licensing negotiations or probability of infringement suit in the future (esp. if the applicant knows who sent the prior art).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, submitting the prior art now gives the applicant a great opportunity to appropriately amend the claims and create a stronger patent.  On the other hand, if you hold onto (esp. &quot;strong&quot;) prior art, you may easily destroy the patent in future litigation, where the applicant has less (or no) recourse to amend claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19582" RevisionGUID="c505cc28-2cea-4c15-a30e-00d70abd9dfa" CreationDate="2018-05-24T12:31:36.780" UserId="21104" Text="I have a US non-provisional that claims priority to a provisional one. It is not published yet but its priority period has expired. I also have a pending Australian provisional application for exactly the same invention. Can I file a PCT application claiming the priority date only of the Australian provisional which is the first application in this country but has a later filing date than the US one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53983" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19582" RevisionGUID="c505cc28-2cea-4c15-a30e-00d70abd9dfa" CreationDate="2018-05-24T12:31:36.780" UserId="21104" Text="I have patent applications for the same invention in different countries. Can I choose which application to use as priority for a PCT one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53984" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19582" RevisionGUID="c505cc28-2cea-4c15-a30e-00d70abd9dfa" CreationDate="2018-05-24T12:31:36.780" UserId="21104" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;us&gt;&lt;australian&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53985" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18328" RevisionGUID="c93ed5b2-6c79-48be-b10b-03c649041fc2" CreationDate="2018-05-24T21:40:18.900" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53986" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="0aaff4f4-f7f3-4432-bd1e-86c3432f6125" CreationDate="2018-05-25T00:41:13.070" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19583" RevisionGUID="986ff871-2386-4320-b221-e180d703d1ae" CreationDate="2018-05-25T15:29:08.183" UserId="21046" Text="This question branched off an earlier question. The earlier question was about the strength of a patent/patent application if the inventors later publicly doubt operability because data that was meant to demonstrate the desired outcome had been wrongly interpreted at the time of filing: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/19555/can-a-patent-be-invalidated-when-the-inventors-later-publicly-doubt-operability&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above described situation brings forth another question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If the operability of an invention is seriously in doubt (in this case by the inventors themselves), could this application still be considered prior art to a later application that actually solves the same problem demonstrably and unambiguously?** &#xD;&#xA;The question is particularly relevant because some of the claims of both the earlier and the later application are broad and outcome-oriented (instead of method-centric). In both cases, the methods for the concrete main embodiment are somewhat different but the underlying physical mechanisms as well as the resulting, industrially useful effects are the same (except that in the earlier application it is not clear whether the effects actually occurred in the described manifestation or not).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me illustrate with a hypothetical example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume radio communication has not been discovered yet. A scientist suggests that electromagnetic waves can carry information through the air. Of course this in and off itself is not patentable as it is a principle of nature. Now, an engineer develops a simple antenna, attempts to transmit a pulsed signal and records the result. The pulsed signal seems to appear in the recorded data and a patent is filed describing the antenna in the specs but also claiming in a broad claim a general method for electromagnetic communication. Later, the engineer notices that the recorded signals that were deemed to be the sent pulse train were actually more likely just noise from a malfunction of the receiver. Another engineer builds a better antenna (less noise) and also sends a more sophisticated signal that cannot easily be mistaken with noise (less ambiguity). She then files a patent application describing her embodiment and also including a broad claim for electromagnetic communication in general.&#xD;&#xA;**In such a situation, can the patent office point to the similarity of the earlier claims as prior art (even though those claims were not supported by an operable invention)?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the concrete case, the earlier application is currently in the national phase of the PCT process (not yet granted). The later application is about to be filed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53989" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19583" RevisionGUID="986ff871-2386-4320-b221-e180d703d1ae" CreationDate="2018-05-25T15:29:08.183" UserId="21046" Text="To which degree can an earlier but inoperable invention still be seen as prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53990" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19583" RevisionGUID="986ff871-2386-4320-b221-e180d703d1ae" CreationDate="2018-05-25T15:29:08.183" UserId="21046" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;operability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53991" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18155" RevisionGUID="0383fca4-e7b1-4427-8e2a-c9359f735fe2" CreationDate="2018-05-25T18:43:03.640" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53992" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18828" RevisionGUID="b7dbe7ce-7d2b-473e-ab0f-2252740ed987" CreationDate="2018-05-25T22:43:03.847" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53994" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13731" RevisionGUID="f913af07-4387-457b-bb02-32791bb1d9a1" CreationDate="2018-05-26T07:43:24.490" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="53995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19584" RevisionGUID="1bbfd10f-5e1f-490c-8b65-8ffbdceb83b1" CreationDate="2018-05-26T16:20:49.780" UserId="21110" Text="I have an idea! (Just) in my mind.it is a very useful idea when it will b practicle for upcoming mobie phone which will be more convenient to use there phons easily...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So shall I patent my idea (non documentationly) at international n what I have to do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53996" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19584" RevisionGUID="1bbfd10f-5e1f-490c-8b65-8ffbdceb83b1" CreationDate="2018-05-26T16:20:49.780" UserId="21110" Text="An idea for mobile phones screen utility option" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53997" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19584" RevisionGUID="1bbfd10f-5e1f-490c-8b65-8ffbdceb83b1" CreationDate="2018-05-26T16:20:49.780" UserId="21110" Text="&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19584" RevisionGUID="6282133c-fc05-4be9-a7bb-7e3f10016ba2" CreationDate="2018-05-26T17:09:10.803" UserId="21110" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="I have an idea! (Just) in my mind.it is a very useful idea when it will b practicly use in  for upcoming mobie phone which will be more convenient to use there phons easily...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So shall I patent my idea (non documentationly) at international n what I have to do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="53999" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="f613af70-65e0-495f-8591-48e35d0addf6" CreationDate="2018-05-26T18:45:40.093" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54000" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17273" RevisionGUID="411635ac-7e12-452c-bc12-7633e17e2469" CreationDate="2018-05-27T00:46:22.750" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54003" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17720" RevisionGUID="0bff5eed-78ca-4b1a-9248-c6fab61279a3" CreationDate="2018-05-28T02:49:42.410" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54004" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="91ef1350-254e-451c-af3a-ad3d7b18047e" CreationDate="2018-05-28T03:49:42.647" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19585" RevisionGUID="c6e52bba-475f-46c5-b179-4bcb68905b0e" CreationDate="2018-05-28T08:18:06.997" UserId="14403" Text="Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent there for, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.-35 U.S.C. 101. Across the world the theme is same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second instant can be considered as 'new and useful improvement' to the first instant by providing a new antenna and for that matter any novel embodiment leading to useful improvement. The first instant is can be a prior art to the second, being in public domain and dealing in the identical technology as any person skilled in the art can use the disclosed knowledge to overcome disadvantages of first instant and make improvements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Importantly, inventor of first instant has ample opportunity to put forward child applications. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As regards, 'also including a broad claim for electromagnetic communication in general' and any similar claim; most likely to fall under 'basic tools of scientific and technological work' dragging the claim to exception category and can not be patented. - Refer Alice and similar judgement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately it comes down to art of prior art search and claim construction to circumvent hurdle of prior art best done by professional patent attorney.   &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54006" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17881" RevisionGUID="b727afc8-a57e-4272-810d-3f755c76a565" CreationDate="2018-05-28T15:55:48.760" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19586" RevisionGUID="7c33d502-f71c-43cf-8bc3-71022317aefb" CreationDate="2018-05-28T18:33:32.447" UserId="21092" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20170093910][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20170093910&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent describes the honeypot which has been used for a decade. There is no invention. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54008" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19586" RevisionGUID="7c33d502-f71c-43cf-8bc3-71022317aefb" CreationDate="2018-05-28T18:33:32.447" UserId="21092" Text="What is the invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54009" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19586" RevisionGUID="7c33d502-f71c-43cf-8bc3-71022317aefb" CreationDate="2018-05-28T18:33:32.447" UserId="21092" Text="&lt;us20170093910&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19587" RevisionGUID="260a1f51-7beb-48e5-9ffe-3d904dcb2725" CreationDate="2018-05-28T20:46:41.243" UserId="15489" Text="If I have a disclosure that lacks unity of invention, I believe that I can file an application, wait for a restriction requirement, elect one set of claims and then file a divisional with the second set.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, can I file the same disclosure with the first set of claims, ensure the second set of claims are properly supported in the disclosure, and then file a continuation to the first with the second set of claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, can I file the continuation on the same day, or even a few minutes after the first?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, is there any &quot;weird&quot; date stuff that could happen due to patent term adjustments to either of the applications? For example, if the continuation issues before the parent, does its term get extended to the term of the parent if that subsequently issues and has a longer patent term adjustment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54011" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19587" RevisionGUID="260a1f51-7beb-48e5-9ffe-3d904dcb2725" CreationDate="2018-05-28T20:46:41.243" UserId="15489" Text="Can you file a continuation immediately after filing an application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54012" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19587" RevisionGUID="260a1f51-7beb-48e5-9ffe-3d904dcb2725" CreationDate="2018-05-28T20:46:41.243" UserId="15489" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;continuation&gt;&lt;divisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54013" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="c1837474-9867-4aab-be0b-9cd628e8bef2" CreationDate="2018-05-28T21:55:57.793" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54014" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18540" RevisionGUID="cebbc918-81f8-4d41-a394-76c5c239e072" CreationDate="2018-05-29T00:56:45.903" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54015" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18600" RevisionGUID="f6f093d4-29df-462d-ba89-78e25cc0aa89" CreationDate="2018-05-29T02:56:47.377" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54017" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="b5f06f5b-d4c5-4092-b90b-e6af14855762" CreationDate="2018-05-29T08:56:58.080" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54018" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="4310f890-e2da-4baa-a928-d59a322f825b" CreationDate="2018-05-29T09:56:58.673" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19588" RevisionGUID="e2792f3f-e769-4d23-afea-12320e130984" CreationDate="2018-05-29T19:38:18.810" UserId="21120" Text="My father had this piece in his basement.  It works just fine.  Connected to an old lamp base. &#xD;&#xA;Can someone give me some info on it...I can't find anything like it on the web.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks so much.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aXTU1.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54020" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19588" RevisionGUID="e2792f3f-e769-4d23-afea-12320e130984" CreationDate="2018-05-29T19:38:18.810" UserId="21120" Text="Patent Pending Thyco vintage plug" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54021" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19588" RevisionGUID="e2792f3f-e769-4d23-afea-12320e130984" CreationDate="2018-05-29T19:38:18.810" UserId="21120" Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;design&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19589" RevisionGUID="84d44ab8-d1d4-473f-a4e5-fcc3459bac64" CreationDate="2018-05-29T20:11:03.723" UserId="17003" Text="I tried searching on [The Lens][1] and [Google Patents][2] for &quot;plug&quot; and &quot;Thyco&quot; as the assignee. I got not hits on either. This is not surprising as it is possible that the patent, if one exists, could be assigned to the inventor or a different company's name. If you search the web, however, you do find some vintage lamps with Thyco plugs from the 1930s and '40s. Beyond this, I don't think we can help you very much short of searching every patent relating to electrical plugs. If you are driven to learn more, you should try searching the patent sites yourself. I'll warn you that using &quot;electrical plug&quot; as the search term on The Lens yields 965,713 hits. I did find similar images on Google Image Search using &quot;Thyco Plug Electric Cord Lamp&quot; as the search term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19589" RevisionGUID="40f29352-6c01-4bf6-8213-bb5c1a6f5492" CreationDate="2018-05-30T02:53:19.817" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I tried searching on [The Lens][1] and [Google Patents][2] for &quot;plug&quot; and &quot;Thyco&quot; as the assignee. I got no hits on either. This is not surprising as it is possible that the patent, if one exists, could be assigned to the inventor or a different company's name. If you search the web, however, you do find some vintage lamps with Thyco plugs from the 1930s and '40s. Beyond this, I don't think we can help you very much short of searching every patent relating to electrical plugs. If you are driven to learn more, you should try searching the patent sites yourself. I'll warn you that using &quot;electrical plug&quot; as the search term on The Lens yields 965,713 hits. I did find similar images on Google Image Search using &quot;Thyco Plug Electric Cord Lamp&quot; as the search term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19591" RevisionGUID="4b3210b3-a963-4ee9-8a85-5733a9c56e26" CreationDate="2018-05-30T03:13:02.977" UserId="18769" Text="In the US, it is allowed to incorporate by reference (IBR) another document, and the IBRed document is treated as though it literally exists in the citing document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, in a non-provisional application, is it possible to IBR a provisional &#xD;&#xA;application that one is claiming priority to, and only include claims (i.e. no description or figures)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54031" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19591" RevisionGUID="4b3210b3-a963-4ee9-8a85-5733a9c56e26" CreationDate="2018-05-30T03:13:02.977" UserId="18769" Text="Non-provisional application merely incorporating by reference provisional application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54032" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19591" RevisionGUID="4b3210b3-a963-4ee9-8a85-5733a9c56e26" CreationDate="2018-05-30T03:13:02.977" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;reference&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54033" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16606" RevisionGUID="b99da34d-6612-41ac-b90b-e546aa19c767" CreationDate="2018-05-30T07:14:14.043" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54034" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18181" RevisionGUID="b7c436f0-e593-45f2-87b7-27234d0eecbe" CreationDate="2018-05-30T08:14:14.000" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54035" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="ffcff766-cf0b-4038-9512-d27d15127809" CreationDate="2018-05-30T09:14:14.457" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54036" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="1b67afdc-2db3-4084-81fd-32f328edf424" CreationDate="2018-05-30T10:14:14.383" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19593" RevisionGUID="38b60fd8-5252-46d2-987a-d4f79ce22fdb" CreationDate="2018-05-30T13:23:07.240" UserId="21123" Text="In reference to the patent: [USD513897][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/USD513897" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54039" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19593" RevisionGUID="38b60fd8-5252-46d2-987a-d4f79ce22fdb" CreationDate="2018-05-30T13:23:07.240" UserId="21123" Text="Can anyone tell where it is possible to check status and validity of an official design patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54040" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19593" RevisionGUID="38b60fd8-5252-46d2-987a-d4f79ce22fdb" CreationDate="2018-05-30T13:23:07.240" UserId="21123" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19594" RevisionGUID="6ed695e3-d32b-4234-95ab-faed44cad043" CreationDate="2018-05-30T15:06:26.163" UserId="17003" Text="The best site to check a US patent's status is the [US Public Pair][1]. Pair is extremely picky with respect to specifying the document to be searched. In this case, get past the CAPTCHA and then select &quot;Patent Number&quot; and enter &quot;D513897&quot; in the search box. If you do this you can see that the status is &quot;Patented Case&quot; which means the patent was granted. You can check the fee status and you'll get the message that for design patents, no fees are due. According to the [USPTO][2], the term for design patents is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; U.S. design patents resulting from applications filed on or after May&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 13, 2015 have a 15 year term from the date of grant. However, patents&#xD;&#xA;&gt; issued from design applications filed before May 13, 2015 have a 14&#xD;&#xA;&gt; year term from the date of grant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The grant date for this design patent is January, 31 2006 and it should expire 14 years from that date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1505.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54043" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16569" RevisionGUID="4499935a-1866-454d-a8f0-ca62e83e013a" CreationDate="2018-05-30T17:21:09.240" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54044" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="03832930-7e7c-4b8b-ae1c-cb8950821bb7" CreationDate="2018-05-30T18:21:10.213" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19596" RevisionGUID="ab7c434a-4047-4ae8-84fa-34ea32919552" CreationDate="2018-05-30T18:58:08.870" UserId="21124" Text="It looks like you can **file** it, but you will have to correct it later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;37 C.F.R. 1.57:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) Subject to the conditions and requirements of this paragraph, if all or a portion of the specification or drawing(s) is inadvertently omitted from an application, but the application contains a claim under § 1.55 for priority of a prior-filed foreign application or a claim under § 1.78 for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional, nonprovisional, international application, or international design application, that was present on the filing date of the application, and the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawing(s) is completely contained in the prior-filed application, the claim under § 1.55 or 1.78 shall also be considered an incorporation by reference of the prior-filed application as to the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawing(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) **The application must be amended to include the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawing(s)** within any time period set by the Office, but in no case later than the close of prosecution as defined by § 1.114(b), or abandonment of the application, whichever occurs earlier. The applicant is also required to:&#xD;&#xA;(i) Supply a copy of the prior-filed application, except where the prior-filed application is an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111;&#xD;&#xA;(ii) Supply an English language translation of any prior-filed application that is in a language other than English; and&#xD;&#xA;(iii) Identify where the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawings can be found in the prior-filed application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54046" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="083871c4-5d4e-4e3a-a9f0-1c2986f0e1e4" CreationDate="2018-05-30T19:21:09.307" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19597" RevisionGUID="08a92292-d29d-4f67-b1fd-4e876710d9a2" CreationDate="2018-05-31T00:45:43.077" UserId="21126" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2017193026A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2017193026A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see that claim number 1 is too broad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A waterjet system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a pump configured to pump fluid at a pressure between 2000psi and 8000psi;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point is that in the scientific literature there are public domain examples of waterjet cutting tests done a that pressures, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Characterization of low pressure AWJ cutting&quot; of Taggart, Nanduri y Kim, American Waterjet Conference 1999&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That paper clearly precedes the claims of the &quot;invention&quot;, in my opinion turning it invalid.&#xD;&#xA;To make an analogy, it would be like trying to patent a car whose maximum speed is 500 km/hour, there is no novelty on that, just a different operation point.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54048" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19597" RevisionGUID="08a92292-d29d-4f67-b1fd-4e876710d9a2" CreationDate="2018-05-31T00:45:43.077" UserId="21126" Text="Overly broad claim" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54049" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19597" RevisionGUID="08a92292-d29d-4f67-b1fd-4e876710d9a2" CreationDate="2018-05-31T00:45:43.077" UserId="21126" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54051" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19110" RevisionGUID="84ede1f7-4b75-4751-ae7f-929f62a449bf" CreationDate="2018-05-31T02:24:14.083" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54052" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18185" RevisionGUID="c96e31b2-7e95-4284-a28c-3d1443aae43c" CreationDate="2018-05-31T03:24:14.083" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54053" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16450" RevisionGUID="44d22e28-c540-4981-818b-bbbf122a5afe" CreationDate="2018-05-31T04:24:14.053" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54054" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16771" RevisionGUID="4cdefcb0-9c46-4da5-abbf-5d437c5aaf30" CreationDate="2018-05-31T05:24:19.603" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54055" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="9ecfd87f-2fd8-457e-8d15-3a16d67bdc9c" CreationDate="2018-05-31T06:24:14.320" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19596" RevisionGUID="78d81a4d-f56f-455e-bd0c-1047e5fbc399" CreationDate="2018-05-31T06:49:13.220" UserId="14403" Comment="The answer just missed the point raised in question" Text="It looks like you can **file** it, but you will have to correct it later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As provided in 35 U.S.C. 111(c), a nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after December 18, 2013, may be filed by a reference to a previously filed application (foreign, international, provisional, or nonprovisional) indicating that the specification and any drawings of the application are replaced by the reference to the previously filed application. (37 C.F.R. 1.57) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;37 C.F.R. 1.57:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) Subject to the conditions and requirements of this paragraph, if all or a portion of the specification or drawing(s) is inadvertently omitted from an application, but the application contains a claim under § 1.55 for priority of a prior-filed foreign application or a claim under § 1.78 for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional, nonprovisional, international application, or international design application, that was present on the filing date of the application, and the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawing(s) is completely contained in the prior-filed application, the claim under § 1.55 or 1.78 shall also be considered an incorporation by reference of the prior-filed application as to the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawing(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) **The application must be amended to include the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawing(s)** within any time period set by the Office, but in no case later than the close of prosecution as defined by § 1.114(b), or abandonment of the application, whichever occurs earlier. The applicant is also required to:&#xD;&#xA;(i) Supply a copy of the prior-filed application, except where the prior-filed application is an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111;&#xD;&#xA;(ii) Supply an English language translation of any prior-filed application that is in a language other than English; and&#xD;&#xA;(iii) Identify where the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawings can be found in the prior-filed application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54057" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17909" RevisionGUID="05acbaf3-b919-49f0-abd8-be393ce59665" CreationDate="2018-05-31T08:24:19.160" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54059" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="50a8e06b-2c82-4da0-b0c6-552518c0ba2d" CreationDate="2018-05-31T14:25:56.177" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54060" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="618c425c-1713-44d1-83e8-06f0f72b402d" CreationDate="2018-05-31T15:25:56.400" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19598" RevisionGUID="e64472bc-1e94-445a-a05d-e575a86e33c8" CreationDate="2018-05-31T17:11:32.753" UserId="17003" Text="This is a patent application, not yet a patent. It may or may not get granted. Even if it is granted, it is very likely the claims will be significantly narrowed. As to the first claim, it is important to understand that to infringe on a claim, you must implement each and every aspect of a claim. Thus focusing on a single sentence in the claim isn't helpful. Here is the first claim in its entirety.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A waterjet system, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a pump configured to pump fluid at a pressure between 2000psi and 8000psi;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  an electric motor configured to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; drive the pump; a hopper configured to store abrasive; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a mixing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chamber configured to mix abrasive from the hopper and the fluid from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the pump to produce a slurry; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a cutting bed configured to receive a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; workpiece to be cut;  and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a cutting head, including an outlet nozzle,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in downstream fluid communication from the mixing chamber, the cutting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; head configured to expel the slurry through the outlet nozzle as a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; high- velocity jet into the cutting bed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I sort of agree this seems pretty broad and anticipate this claim, as written, would be rejected. Also understand that there is significant prior art [cited in this application][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2017193026A1#patentCitations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19599" RevisionGUID="92fb456e-07be-43f3-af9f-539523450cbd" CreationDate="2018-05-31T17:12:29.533" UserId="18033" Text="Claim 1 is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A waterjet system, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a pump configured to pump fluid at a pressure between 2000psi and 8000psi;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;an electric motor configured to drive the pump;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a hopper configured to store abrasive;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a mixing chamber configured to mix abrasive from the hopper and the fluid from the pump to produce a slurry;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a cutting bed configured to receive a workpiece to be cut; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a cutting head, including an outlet nozzle, in downstream fluid communication from the mixing chamber, the cutting head configured to expel the slurry through the outlet nozzle as a high- velocity jet into the cutting bed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of those need to be present if one is to infringe this claim. Likewise, all of those in that combination need to be known or obvious from the prior art to invalidate the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, this claim hasn't been granted as you are merely citing an application. It has not been examined. That means, I can file an application claiming &quot; Everything&quot; and it will be published just as this one. I won't get a patent on it though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54063" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14883" RevisionGUID="c356971e-83f3-4a4c-a2db-16c0373717c2" CreationDate="2018-05-31T19:25:56.273" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54064" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17751" RevisionGUID="54bf5503-2746-4388-bfd8-31debb29ab29" CreationDate="2018-06-01T02:33:52.823" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19596" RevisionGUID="a4f9192f-3732-4179-93bb-a907945fe786" CreationDate="2018-06-01T05:12:24.677" UserId="21124" Comment="updating in light of comments" Text="Edited for below comments. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;MPEP 2163.07(b):&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Incorporation by Reference [R-11.2013] Instead of repeating some information contained in another document, an application may attempt to incorporate the content of another document or part thereof by reference to the document in the text of the specification. **The information incorporated is as much a part of the application as filed as if the text was repeated in the application**, and should be treated as part of the text of the application as filed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, this does not explicitly reference figures/drawings but I assume they would be included.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every IBR I have seen has been when a continuation/CIP is filed and the original application text is used but with new claims and the IBR portion tacked on to the beginning to preserve the priority date. Perhaps the USPTO assumes that omitting the actual text/figures would be in error and they would likely ask you to amend to include the reference text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However... One might interpret the CFR to not hold that a requirement for later amendment is not conditional on the omission being unintentional, but that &quot;inadvertent&quot; is mere decorative text operating under the assumption that such omission would only occur accidentally. When read in light of the other portions of MPEP 608, I think there is a strong argument for this interpretation (implying that 2163.07(b) is purely for the limited purpose of overcoming 'new matter' issues). Bad analogy, but it gets to what I mean: &quot;If you inadvertently dial the wrong number, you must hang up and try again.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In summary**, I think it would be interesting to try leaving it all out and purely relying on IBR, but I think the examiner on the case would likely ask you to amend it in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;37 C.F.R. 1.57:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(b) Subject to the conditions and requirements of this paragraph, if all or a portion of the specification or drawing(s) is inadvertently omitted from an application, but the application contains a claim under § 1.55 for priority of a prior-filed foreign application or a claim under § 1.78 for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional, nonprovisional, international application, or international design application, that was present on the filing date of the application, and the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawing(s) is completely contained in the prior-filed application, the claim under § 1.55 or 1.78 shall also be considered an incorporation by reference of the prior-filed application as to the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawing(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) **The application must be amended to include the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawing(s)** within any time period set by the Office, but in no case later than the close of prosecution as defined by § 1.114(b), or abandonment of the application, whichever occurs earlier. The applicant is also required to:&#xD;&#xA;(i) Supply a copy of the prior-filed application, except where the prior-filed application is an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111;&#xD;&#xA;(ii) Supply an English language translation of any prior-filed application that is in a language other than English; and&#xD;&#xA;(iii) Identify where the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawings can be found in the prior-filed application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19600" RevisionGUID="0bad1aa3-2c54-4819-afe5-8add91ffd0ef" CreationDate="2018-06-01T09:52:48.137" UserId="21130" Text=" How patents are handled internationally? Which is the foremost authority on patents?  Patents are territorial in nature.  So if your invention would have a market in a particular country , you would apply for a patent there.  The patent prosecution in that territory would be governed by the National laws of that country.  There is no such thing as an international patent.  The PCT tries to facilitate filing/applying for patents in many countries by an initial common filing after which you designate the countries you are interested in.  After the designation the National laws of the designated countries take over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And at last how much time on an average does it take to patent something and if it is long do we get a provisional patent?  This depends on the complexity of your invention and the patent prosecution process in the country of your interest.  You can file a provisional patent application, but there is no such thing as a granted provisional patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19601" RevisionGUID="ecab5632-afc1-497e-bf45-c16af8361366" CreationDate="2018-06-01T13:01:35.753" UserId="21130" Text=" This patent is also published as WO1996019627A1 (a PCT publication), JPH10510894A (a Japanese publication) and  CA2207907C (a Canadian publication).  In all probability, since in most places 20 years from the date of filing is the term of the patent, these would have expired. You could check for the status of these patents in INPADOC or the global dossier. With respect to the technology, you would need to check for in-force equivalent patents, to gain freedom to operate.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19602" RevisionGUID="d6e939a0-20f7-43fc-9a55-ba91230f3402" CreationDate="2018-06-01T14:57:13.640" UserId="21115" Text="The UK offers 'accelerated publication', aka early publication. Will a publication of a UK national patent, after for example 9 months, pose any risk for a PCT application based on this patent, submitted in the allowed 12 month window for converting a national patent to a PCT application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54069" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19602" RevisionGUID="d6e939a0-20f7-43fc-9a55-ba91230f3402" CreationDate="2018-06-01T14:57:13.640" UserId="21115" Text="UK patent, early publication risk for PCT?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54070" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19602" RevisionGUID="d6e939a0-20f7-43fc-9a55-ba91230f3402" CreationDate="2018-06-01T14:57:13.640" UserId="21115" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;uk&gt;&lt;early-publication&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19603" RevisionGUID="d5914c92-6682-46ad-859f-03a629d5eda9" CreationDate="2018-06-01T22:29:52.630" UserId="21131" Text="The Transaction History can be deceiving because it describes what is happening inside the office and not the final outcome.  The MPEP will provide little guidance on this information.  There are two answers, maybe and probably.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe, if the Examiner is a junior or assistant examiner (ie not a primary) then the allowance, reasons for allowance, updated search, etc. must be reviewed by a supervisory, who has the authority to sign off on the allowance or tell the junior Examiner issue another action (a notice of allowance is technically an &quot;office action&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably, if the Examiner is a primary examiner who generally has the authority to sign off on an allowance with minimal review.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, it is a good sign, but I wouldn't tell my client his application is allowed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54072" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="a1bd0bef-c758-46e7-80d5-004811b8cbf8" CreationDate="2018-06-01T22:56:05.513" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19604" RevisionGUID="a0284193-72b2-4318-ba75-797836287cd4" CreationDate="2018-06-02T01:52:03.047" UserId="21133" Text="[US9882740B2][1] appears to patent the transfer of images over wireless networks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The present disclosure relates generally to transferring digital images, and more particularly, to the wireless transmission of digital images.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I missing something about the claims that makes this patentable, or is this trivially invalid (bridged wireless networks have been transmitting images for decades)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It *seems* like the system was invented to display a downrange target on the shooter's smartphone (which doesn't sound like something you could patent either). But the patent language seems to cover every case of transmitting images.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9882740B2/en?assignee=targetvision&amp;oq=targetvision" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54074" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19604" RevisionGUID="a0284193-72b2-4318-ba75-797836287cd4" CreationDate="2018-06-02T01:52:03.047" UserId="21133" Text="Transferring images over wireless networks is patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54075" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19604" RevisionGUID="a0284193-72b2-4318-ba75-797836287cd4" CreationDate="2018-06-02T01:52:03.047" UserId="21133" Text="&lt;validity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19605" RevisionGUID="9983970b-0713-47eb-a363-c3bc33bd53cf" CreationDate="2018-06-02T12:24:20.620" UserId="17003" Text="Your quoted sentence is from the &quot;Technical Field&quot; section of the patent. This only describes the general application area of the invention. In no way does it suggest or imply that the patent covers all aspects of transferring digital images via wireless transmission.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent's specific coverage is defined by its claims. In specific, here is the first claim of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. A system comprising: a first remote device that measures first information at a first location; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a first transceiver unit coupled to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the first remote device, wherein the first transceiver unit controls a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first local network, wherein the first remote device is located within&#xD;&#xA;&gt; range of the first local network; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a smart device comprising an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application that processes the first information, wherein the smart&#xD;&#xA;&gt; device is located at a second location; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a second transceiver unit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wirelessly coupled to the smart device, wherein the second transceiver&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unit controls a second local network, wherein, the second transceiver&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unit is within range of the second local network, wherein the second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; local network avoids overlap with the first local network; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bridge network formed by the first transceiver unit and the second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transceiver unit, wherein the bridge network wirelessly joins the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first local network and the second local network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to infringe on a claim, you need to implement each and every aspect of the claim. I'm not an expert on this field, so I can't comment on the strength or validity of this patent. Please not it is a continuation of [US9485476][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I will say is it is a constant theme on this site that people find a patent (or even more likely an application) related to a common field and construe that it is trying to patent everything related to that field. Much more likely is the patent/application is trying to cover a refinement or improvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9485476B2/en?oq=US9485476" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54077" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18522" RevisionGUID="ddd90c38-8bf5-469b-a277-a0bddf9cd6d3" CreationDate="2018-06-02T22:58:24.810" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54079" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18978" RevisionGUID="8314ec89-0c31-485d-943f-ed4813770e87" CreationDate="2018-06-03T01:49:07.370" UserId="-1" Comment="ฉันสงสัยเกี่ยวกับข้อมูลบริษัทต่างๆที่ฉันมีส่วนเกี่ยวข้อง" Text="&lt;google&gt;&lt;facebook&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54080" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18978" RevisionGUID="8314ec89-0c31-485d-943f-ed4813770e87" CreationDate="2018-06-03T01:49:07.370" Comment="Proposed by 49.237.215.206|661b92d8-f121-46ba-8cc7-b0ee75467cb1 approved by -1 edit id of 2073" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54081" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18978" RevisionGUID="3554a9fb-5f64-4da2-b83c-c34e5581b6ea" CreationDate="2018-06-03T01:49:07.370" UserId="14403" Comment="ฉันสงสัยเกี่ยวกับข้อมูลบริษัทต่างๆที่ฉันมีส่วนเกี่ยวข้อง" Text="&lt;google&gt;&lt;facebook&gt;&lt;payment&gt;&lt;fee&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54082" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14767" RevisionGUID="d767ca00-b10a-4af3-a346-1608ac941aea" CreationDate="2018-06-03T02:01:45.370" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54083" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17769" RevisionGUID="8bac7fd4-ba49-4888-867c-b008863ff364" CreationDate="2018-06-03T03:04:41.917" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19600" RevisionGUID="87eca0c1-64ab-4775-b97f-ebdeca5ffd6c" CreationDate="2018-06-03T11:12:36.343" UserId="18033" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited body" Text="&gt; How are patents handled internationally? Which is the foremost authority on patents?  &#xA;&#xA;Patents are territorial in nature.  So if your invention would have a market in a particular country , you would apply for a patent there.  The patent prosecution in that territory would be governed by the National laws of that country.  There is no such thing as an international patent.  The PCT tries to facilitate filing/applying for patents in many countries by an initial common filing after which you designate the countries you are interested in.  After the designation the National laws of the designated countries take over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And at last how much time on an average does it take to patent something and if it is long do we get a provisional patent?  &#xA;&#xA;This depends on the complexity of your invention and the patent prosecution process in the country of your interest.  You can file a provisional patent application, but there is no such thing as a granted provisional patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54085" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="78fe9f88-28c9-4caf-91f9-6336192061d6" CreationDate="2018-06-03T13:07:56.290" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19608" RevisionGUID="08f3d53b-1ae4-46d9-b870-c5f01e1ba28c" CreationDate="2018-06-03T16:10:39.627" UserId="18769" Text="There are two scenarios where I am unsure what the practical limit on the number of &quot;Communications&quot;/objections from an EPO examiner would be.  However, I do realize that the annuity fee requirement of pending EPO applications may be a way to make the applicant pay for/compensate prolonged examination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Performing subsequent rounds of narrowing(/broadening?) amendments on the originally filed claims, that (a) are supported by the specification (e.g. long list of &quot;prose form&quot; claim alternatives included, or long list of claims originally filed then cancelled upon fee request), and (b) still satisfy unity of invention (e.g. assume no &quot;a posteriori&quot; lack of unity of invention issues arise).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US it is not uncommon for some applications to go through multiple rounds of back and forth with the examiner (e.g. 3+ RCEs), where the argument is over applicability of the cited prior art, and/or a sequence of minor claim adjustments are made.  **What is the analogous scenario for EPO prosecution?**  E.g. does the examiner and applicant go back and forth on multiple rounds of communication (e.g. up to 10 times in some cases), does lack of substantive arguments against the examiner constitute an essential abandonment of the application, and/or do the amendments generally require new searches to be paid for/performed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Replacing all claims with a new invention (supported in a &quot;compound&quot; application), and paying the supplementary search fee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of (2) is to avoid repaying the examination fee and a second set of annuities in a divisional application, in the case that the applicant has decided to &quot;abandon&quot; the original claim set.  However, this would essentially double the number of Communications from the examiner.  **Is this allowed?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54090" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19608" RevisionGUID="08f3d53b-1ae4-46d9-b870-c5f01e1ba28c" CreationDate="2018-06-03T16:10:39.627" UserId="18769" Text="Limit on number of &quot;Office Actions&quot;/Reasoned Communications at EPO?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54091" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19608" RevisionGUID="08f3d53b-1ae4-46d9-b870-c5f01e1ba28c" CreationDate="2018-06-03T16:10:39.627" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;epo&gt;&lt;office-action&gt;&lt;prosecution&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19609" RevisionGUID="5e0a4e4c-1e65-4906-97e5-5e997a3993b7" CreationDate="2018-06-03T16:19:52.250" UserId="18033" Text="As to your second point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/h_ii_6_2.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If amended claims are directed to subject-matter which has not been searched because it only appeared in the description (and the search division did not find it appropriate to extend the search to this subject-matter, see B‑III, 3.5) and which does not combine with the originally claimed and searched invention or group of inventions to form a single general inventive concept, such amendments are not admissible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the first one, if the examiner thinks you are not making progress and rejects your amended claims on basis of the same prior art as before, they will reject your application (or have oral proceedings if you requested them auxiliaryly which you should therefore **aways** do; and then either alllow or reject it or continue examination with amended claims). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no real maximum, but it's at the examiners discretion to stop communications and reject/go into oral proceedings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19604" RevisionGUID="bed4c44e-9f7d-43a8-b193-d14bf2146a03" CreationDate="2018-06-03T16:21:17.203" UserId="21136" Comment="Address comments" Text="[US9882740B2][1] appears to patent the transfer of images over wireless networks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The present disclosure relates generally to transferring digital images, and more particularly, to the wireless transmission of digital images.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I missing something about the claims that makes this patentable, or is this trivially invalid (bridged wireless networks have been transmitting images for decades)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It *seems* like the system was invented to display a downrange target on the shooter's smartphone (which doesn't sound like something you could patent either). But the patent language seems to cover every case of transmitting images.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9882740B2/en?assignee=targetvision&amp;oq=targetvision&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I can't comment, so I'll address things here. My question was not sparked by simply reading the introduction. Claim 1, which was pasted below, seems to patent bridged wireless networks (most of the other claims are simple variations on that). I suppose my question should be posed to a network expert to see what makes these claims special." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54094" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19604" RevisionGUID="bed4c44e-9f7d-43a8-b193-d14bf2146a03" CreationDate="2018-06-03T16:21:17.203" Comment="Proposed by 21136 approved by 14403, 18033 edit id of 2074" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19605" RevisionGUID="2933ee7d-7ca8-4f54-9f92-48a1bc74dae4" CreationDate="2018-06-03T17:50:11.130" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Your quoted sentence is from the &quot;Technical Field&quot; section of the patent. This only describes the general application area of the invention. In no way does it suggest or imply that the patent covers all aspects of transferring digital images via wireless transmission.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent's specific coverage is defined by its claims. In specific, here is the first claim of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. A system comprising: a first remote device that measures first information at a first location; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a first transceiver unit coupled to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the first remote device, wherein the first transceiver unit controls a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first local network, wherein the first remote device is located within&#xD;&#xA;&gt; range of the first local network; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a smart device comprising an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application that processes the first information, wherein the smart&#xD;&#xA;&gt; device is located at a second location; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a second transceiver unit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wirelessly coupled to the smart device, wherein the second transceiver&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unit controls a second local network, wherein, the second transceiver&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unit is within range of the second local network, wherein the second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; local network avoids overlap with the first local network; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bridge network formed by the first transceiver unit and the second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transceiver unit, wherein the bridge network wirelessly joins the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first local network and the second local network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to infringe on a claim, you need to implement each and every aspect of the claim. I'm not an expert on this field, so I can't comment on the strength or validity of this patent. Please note it is a continuation of [US9485476][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I will say is it is a constant theme on this site that people find a patent (or even more likely an application) related to a common field and construe that it is trying to patent everything related to that field. Much more likely is the patent/application is trying to cover a refinement or improvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9485476B2/en?oq=US9485476" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19605" RevisionGUID="1b35ed15-0cd7-4f65-947b-7cdb31597027" CreationDate="2018-06-03T22:59:12.433" UserId="17003" Comment="added 131 characters in body" Text="Your quoted sentence is from the &quot;Technical Field&quot; section of the patent. This only describes the general application area of the invention. In no way does it suggest or imply that the patent covers all aspects of transferring digital images via wireless transmission.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent's specific coverage is defined by its claims. In specific, here is the first claim of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. A system comprising: a first remote device that measures first information at a first location; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a first transceiver unit coupled to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the first remote device, wherein the first transceiver unit controls a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first local network, wherein the first remote device is located within&#xD;&#xA;&gt; range of the first local network; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a smart device comprising an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application that processes the first information, wherein the smart&#xD;&#xA;&gt; device is located at a second location; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a second transceiver unit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wirelessly coupled to the smart device, wherein the second transceiver&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unit controls a second local network, wherein, the second transceiver&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unit is within range of the second local network, wherein the second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; local network avoids overlap with the first local network; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bridge network formed by the first transceiver unit and the second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transceiver unit, wherein the bridge network wirelessly joins the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first local network and the second local network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to infringe on a claim, you need to implement each and every aspect of the claim. I'm not an expert on this field, so I can't comment on the strength or validity of this patent. It does seem suspiciously broad to me, but it may depend on how some phrases like &quot;smart device&quot; are defined in the specification. Please note it is a continuation of [US9485476][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I will say is it is a constant theme on this site that people find a patent (or even more likely an application) related to a common field and construe that it is trying to patent everything related to that field. Much more likely is the patent/application is trying to cover a refinement or improvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9485476B2/en?oq=US9485476" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54100" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19229" RevisionGUID="831ca261-be37-4d1e-ad1d-b546c1823c8d" CreationDate="2018-06-04T03:07:45.153" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54101" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19051" RevisionGUID="4b3c3361-87c9-4579-8f5c-66422694112a" CreationDate="2018-06-04T05:07:44.823" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19610" RevisionGUID="1546e441-231b-4671-be00-f1721d90b09c" CreationDate="2018-06-04T06:05:49.777" UserId="21130" Text="Please go to the link&#xD;&#xA;https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=US128465182&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will see the following (and more):&#xD;&#xA;Application Number:	14362446	Application Date:	21.12.2012&#xD;&#xA;Publication Number:	20170245476	Publication Date:	18.12.2014&#xD;&#xA;**Grant Number:	09826721	Grant Date:	28.11.2017**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are interested in the the grant date mentioned here.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternate method use google : https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170245476/pt-pt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the right hand side you will see:&#xD;&#xA;the granted patent number : **US9826721B2** and the &#xD;&#xA;granted patent date: 2017-11-28&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could get this information from espacenet (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/?locale=en_EP) or any other public domain database easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you need to know the status of the application in a particular country you will need to use the global dossier&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19611" RevisionGUID="3225f6f7-d42e-4fcd-acc0-f66645cce848" CreationDate="2018-06-04T06:22:31.460" UserId="21130" Text="so far, there does not seem to be a granted patent on this application.  The application has entered the National phase in India.  Please see the details here:&#xD;&#xA;https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2005071644&amp;recNum=1&amp;tab=NationalPhase&amp;maxRec=&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=&amp;queryString=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The National Number is :3252/CHENP/2007, and it was  Published: 16.11.2007" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19612" RevisionGUID="9ad188bd-c91f-4abf-85d7-51dc4cb31cde" CreationDate="2018-06-04T07:23:53.467" UserId="21130" Text="Please see&#xD;&#xA; https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2590.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question has been posted on Nov 2016, the text below is posted in 2017; but depending on the time-lapse it might still be relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2590 Acceptance of Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in Expired Patent to Reinstate Patent [R-08.2017]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of special relevance (from the URL given above): Petitions to accept unintentionally delayed payment of a maintenance fee in an expired patent, if expired for two years or less, can be processed electronically, and immediately, by the applicant using the EFS-Web version of the SB/66 form found on the USPTO forms website at www.uspto. gov/patent/patents-forms. An immediate decision regarding the petitions will be rendered. The EFS-Web version of the SB/66 form should not be used if applicant wishes the petition to be processed by the Office of Petitions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If applicant does not want immediate processing, but would prefer to submit the petition to the Office of Petitions for processing in due course, or if the patent has been expired for more than two years, applicant should use PTO/SB/66 form found on the USPTO forms website at www.uspto. gov/patent/patents-forms.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19613" RevisionGUID="c2b2245e-48b5-4ac5-8264-bfe0f84c0373" CreationDate="2018-06-04T07:55:27.157" UserId="21130" Text="'poxoq for patents' is a search and retrieval tool which can be used to easily download publications in PDF format of granted patents, patent applications and utility models from over 90 countries.  http://www.poxoq.com/   This might be worth trying altho the new license rules permit only the first 10 pages to be downloaded" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54106" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="415b01de-5997-4bd5-838a-9516a58b0380" CreationDate="2018-06-04T09:09:40.250" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19614" RevisionGUID="b23620cd-74ec-4d65-a8bf-aba2eaec6d2e" CreationDate="2018-06-04T09:53:51.963" UserId="21130" Text="&#xD;&#xA; Section 39 (Residents not to apply for patents outside India without prior permission; http://ipindia.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/ev/sections/ps39.html) of the Patents Act 1970, a person who is resident in India shall not make application for grant of patent outside India without:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Taking Foreign Filing Permission (FFP) from the Controller of patents. This permission is usually granted by the Controller within 21 days and is required not only for foreign filing but also for filing a PCT application.  You would use form 25 (http://www.ipindia.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/IPOFormUpload/1_37_1/form-25.pdf).  It can be signed by the applicant orb patent agent&#xD;&#xA; or&#xD;&#xA;2. Filing for a patent for the same invention in India and waiting for 6 weeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After this the process for the US filing would be as described in the previous answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19614" RevisionGUID="48d3c5f5-8bdd-423f-a48d-448810db8395" CreationDate="2018-06-04T10:00:21.073" UserId="21130" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text=" Section 39 (Residents not to apply for patents outside India without prior permission; http://ipindia.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/ev/sections/ps39.html) of the Patents Act 1970, a person who is resident in India shall not make application for grant of patent outside India without:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Taking Foreign Filing Permission (FFP) from the Controller of patents. This permission is usually granted by the Controller within 21 days and is required not only for foreign filing but also for filing a PCT application.  You would use form 25 (http://www.ipindia.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/IPOFormUpload/1_37_1/form-25.pdf).  It can be signed by the applicant or patent agent&#xD;&#xA; or&#xD;&#xA;2. Filing for a patent for the same invention in India and waiting for 6 weeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After this the process for the US filing would be as described in the previous answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19615" RevisionGUID="951058fd-9fae-4881-8d4a-72db90b41b2e" CreationDate="2018-06-04T10:23:27.083" UserId="21130" Text="Please see https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2590.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question has been posted over two years ago, the text below is posted in 2017; but depending on the time-lapse it might still be relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2590 Acceptance of Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in Expired Patent to Reinstate Patent [R-08.2017]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of special relevance (from the URL given above): Petitions to accept unintentionally delayed payment of a maintenance fee in an expired patent, if expired for two years or less, can be processed electronically, and immediately, by the applicant using the EFS-Web version of the SB/66 form found on the USPTO forms website at www.uspto. gov/patent/patents-forms. An immediate decision regarding the petitions will be rendered. The EFS-Web version of the SB/66 form should not be used if applicant wishes the petition to be processed by the Office of Petitions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If applicant does not want immediate processing, but would prefer to submit the petition to the Office of Petitions for processing in due course, or if the patent has been expired for more than two years, applicant should use PTO/SB/66 form found on the USPTO forms website at www.uspto. gov/patent/patents-forms.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, yes, an expired patent is in the public domain" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19616" RevisionGUID="405618a9-3dbb-458f-a797-c6a4364f8966" CreationDate="2018-06-04T10:41:11.413" UserId="21130" Text="This would probably depend on the Art Unit the allotted Examiner identifies with and would be very subjective depending on the expertise of the Examiner.  Some of the related concerns are analysed here: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/05/21/hardest-easiest-art-units/id=57864/&#xD;&#xA;**These Are the 20 Hardest and Easiest Art Units**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54111" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15983" RevisionGUID="a5d90abd-eeaf-4cad-bfa3-2b4804470d60" CreationDate="2018-06-04T16:16:49.073" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54112" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19242" RevisionGUID="f743697d-ca23-4c20-9a48-99542d1a3820" CreationDate="2018-06-04T20:28:31.390" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54113" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19227" RevisionGUID="2d007deb-20d0-42b0-a242-49cf9d8d60d3" CreationDate="2018-06-04T21:29:20.623" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54114" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="8aea61d8-5482-4aeb-bbfc-4a8f08a08384" CreationDate="2018-06-04T22:29:20.573" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19617" RevisionGUID="aca2a8f8-960d-4b70-be78-56b0b0ee795c" CreationDate="2018-06-05T16:14:50.323" UserId="21124" Text="Yes, examiners just try to do their best. Some practitioners deliberately obfuscate the field of their invention in hopes to get an Examiner that will be more friendly (inexperienced) to the technology." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54116" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18799" RevisionGUID="69d14479-984c-40fe-8160-6b33ee26dd7b" CreationDate="2018-06-05T17:33:07.720" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54117" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17587" RevisionGUID="44c637f3-4780-4850-a1ce-42dc3b7da412" CreationDate="2018-06-05T20:37:39.643" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54118" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18211" RevisionGUID="f8063164-a3eb-4a41-81a0-d1500c7cc26d" CreationDate="2018-06-05T22:37:39.910" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54119" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18821" RevisionGUID="89162caa-7dcd-406e-8add-036f649d94e9" CreationDate="2018-06-05T23:37:45.810" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54123" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19379" RevisionGUID="b7a37bf7-4c7e-4372-889a-62f7b42bd2ea" CreationDate="2018-06-06T15:48:20.283" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19531" RevisionGUID="cc9a81e0-0a88-42a2-bcbf-e8aae98d7f9a" CreationDate="2018-06-06T17:03:04.793" UserId="18769" Comment="added 332 characters in body" Text="It is not uncommon for patent applications to relate to &quot;systems&quot; comprising subject matter relating to more than one examination art unit and/or classification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider a self-driving car patent application that discloses novel steering and/or braking control methods based on novel analysis of sensor (e.g. LIDAR) data, e.g. with claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for automatically decreasing stopping distance of a vehicle, comprising: (a) projecting a structured light pattern from the vehicle; (b) detecting a non-transient obstacle external to the vehicle; (c) automatically pulsating brakes at an increasing duty cycle; and (d) automatically oscillating steering about a stopping axis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, there could be in-depth technical details relating to both vehicle control and wireless sensing.  However, it is unlikely an examiner would be proficient in both these technical areas (if not for this example, then at least for more complicated examples).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do examiners just &quot;do their best&quot; despite potentially not being able to apply appropriate obviousness and/or enablement arguments, and probably performing a poor search?  If so, are these types of patents more vulnerable to invalidity challenges due to weak examination?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Thank you for the answers so far, though they appear to focus on the &quot;easiness&quot;/difficulty of an art unit.  The question here is how to deal with a case where an examiner is not technically equipped (i.e. cannot represent and/or play the part of a PHOSITA) for at least one of the technologies he/she is examining." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54129" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="272b7b98-9783-4e3e-b98b-aa17f2498c77" CreationDate="2018-06-06T21:48:33.470" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19620" RevisionGUID="f579907f-f692-46ab-9034-032f670f7a98" CreationDate="2018-06-06T22:21:41.417" UserId="21149" Text="I have PCT and non-provisional US patent applications filed on the same invention. I will have to withdraw and later refile the PCT application due to inability to pay the filing fees at this time.&#xD;&#xA;What is the procedure for withdrawing, is there a form?&#xD;&#xA;Once the PCT application is refiled, can I claim the US non-provisional filing date as the priority date for the PCT application?&#xD;&#xA;Is there a certain procedure or form for refiling the PCT application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54131" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19620" RevisionGUID="f579907f-f692-46ab-9034-032f670f7a98" CreationDate="2018-06-06T22:21:41.417" UserId="21149" Text="How do I withdraw PCT application and refile later?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54132" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19620" RevisionGUID="f579907f-f692-46ab-9034-032f670f7a98" CreationDate="2018-06-06T22:21:41.417" UserId="21149" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;refiling&gt;&lt;withdrawal&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19621" RevisionGUID="d9714e4a-98f7-4d4b-bb2b-57a020c76206" CreationDate="2018-06-07T04:20:31.497" UserId="14403" Text="Excerpt of PCT Rules 90 bis http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/rules/r90bis.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;90bis.1       Withdrawal of the International Application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a)  The applicant may withdraw the international application at any time prior to the expiration of 30 months from the priority date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b)  Withdrawal shall be effective on receipt of a notice addressed by the applicant, at his option, to the International Bureau, to the receiving Office or, where Article 39(1) applies, to the International Preliminary Examining Authority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and from PCT news letter http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/newslett/practical_advice/pa_112012.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to withdraw the international application under PCT Rule 90bis.1 early enough to prevent publication, it is strongly recommended that you submit the notice of withdrawal directly to the International Bureau (IB) before it completes the technical preparations for publication (see PCT Rule 90bis.1(c)). Those technical preparations are generally completed 15 days before the publication date (which is scheduled to take place as soon as possible after the expiration of 18 months from the priority date)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19621" RevisionGUID="f682bb84-c8e9-4b4f-9786-9c3e92b29202" CreationDate="2018-06-07T04:27:05.710" UserId="14403" Comment="added 260 characters in body" Text="For withdrawal :&#xD;&#xA;Excerpt of PCT Rules 90 bis http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/rules/r90bis.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;90bis.1       Withdrawal of the International Application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a)  The applicant may withdraw the international application at any time prior to the expiration of 30 months from the priority date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b)  Withdrawal shall be effective on receipt of a notice addressed by the applicant, at his option, to the International Bureau, to the receiving Office or, where Article 39(1) applies, to the International Preliminary Examining Authority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and from PCT news letter http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/newslett/practical_advice/pa_112012.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to withdraw the international application under PCT Rule 90bis.1 early enough to prevent publication, it is strongly recommended that you submit the notice of withdrawal directly to the International Bureau (IB) before it completes the technical preparations for publication (see PCT Rule 90bis.1(c)). Those technical preparations are generally completed 15 days before the publication date (which is scheduled to take place as soon as possible after the expiration of 18 months from the priority date).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Form available on http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/pct/en/forms/ib/editable/ed_ib372.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can process PCT application within 12 months of filing of non-provisional. Procedure will be same. You can not file after the time period." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54136" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="a71553fb-56fb-460d-8899-985c33331c33" CreationDate="2018-06-07T08:48:43.447" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54137" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="7701613c-7c3e-491e-b896-9f0eed79afc1" CreationDate="2018-06-07T12:51:51.553" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19621" RevisionGUID="caedcbb9-b6d2-4d7d-9e81-21aa926b6cc7" CreationDate="2018-06-07T14:34:06.530" UserId="14403" Comment="The answer just missed an important point indicated by DonQuiKong" Text="For withdrawal :&#xD;&#xA;Excerpt of PCT Rules 90 bis http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/rules/r90bis.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;90bis.1       Withdrawal of the International Application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a)  The applicant may withdraw the international application at any time prior to the expiration of 30 months from the priority date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b)  Withdrawal shall be effective on receipt of a notice addressed by the applicant, at his option, to the International Bureau, to the receiving Office or, where Article 39(1) applies, to the International Preliminary Examining Authority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and from PCT news letter http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/newslett/practical_advice/pa_112012.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to withdraw the international application under PCT Rule 90bis.1 early enough to prevent publication, it is strongly recommended that you submit the notice of withdrawal directly to the International Bureau (IB) before it completes the technical preparations for publication (see PCT Rule 90bis.1(c)). Those technical preparations are generally completed 15 days before the publication date (which is scheduled to take place as soon as possible after the expiration of 18 months from the priority date).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Form available on http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/pct/en/forms/ib/editable/ed_ib372.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can process PCT application anytime within 12 months of filing of application (for which priority is sought in PCT application) with patent office of one's own country. Procedure will be same. One can not file after the time period." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19609" RevisionGUID="d9153a18-3a0a-4654-9dff-ac603eece6b8" CreationDate="2018-06-08T16:03:28.603" UserId="18033" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="As to your second point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/h_ii_6_2.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If amended claims are directed to subject-matter which has not been searched because it only appeared in the description (and the search division did not find it appropriate to extend the search to this subject-matter, see B‑III, 3.5) and which does not combine with the originally claimed and searched invention or group of inventions to form a single general inventive concept, such amendments are not admissible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the first one, if the examiner thinks you are not making progress and rejects your amended claims on basis of the same prior art as before, they will reject your application (or have oral proceedings if you requested them auxiliaryly which you should therefore **always** do; and then either alllow or reject it or continue examination with amended claims). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no real maximum, but it's at the examiners discretion to stop communications and reject/go into oral proceedings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54148" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18513" RevisionGUID="9fe1310e-5469-4468-87e9-fa650bdfa9d8" CreationDate="2018-06-08T17:42:20.507" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54151" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19270" RevisionGUID="415f98cf-e427-4832-9f64-078a2e0461b9" CreationDate="2018-06-08T22:46:24.877" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54155" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17041" RevisionGUID="1656c46b-3915-4caa-85d0-170867c78905" CreationDate="2018-06-09T04:46:31.567" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17043" RevisionGUID="4f727413-f412-4d0b-9ac8-92e8014f491f" CreationDate="2018-06-09T17:10:17.130" UserId="17003" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="A quick search in Google shows there are several air regulators which have a knob similar to what is shown in the cited application. My guess is that DeWalt purchases the regulator from an OEM. The application's claims aren't claiming any particular feature with respect to the knob so I don't think it's all that relevant. There may however be other patents that exist for regulators that are relevant and they may not be DeWalt's. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: According to the US Public Pair, this applications status is &quot;Abandoned -- After Examiner's Answer or Board of Appeals Decision&quot; as of 5-22-2015." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54159" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18787" RevisionGUID="7b3ce6c5-9dd1-4ced-b5f2-9419eaea2761" CreationDate="2018-06-09T19:03:18.083" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54161" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="cc033193-9ed8-4e17-b263-2676328107ed" CreationDate="2018-06-11T19:38:21.880" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54162" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="78b0bb5a-595a-4c4d-9ccd-c7c553a54125" CreationDate="2018-06-12T03:41:58.130" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54163" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18023" RevisionGUID="b7af2f1f-3e8f-461e-b9ea-94952d6afe38" CreationDate="2018-06-12T05:44:29.470" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54164" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18844" RevisionGUID="757e08e9-d5ba-46e2-9e56-39f8c7b52025" CreationDate="2018-06-12T06:44:36.537" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54165" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19538" RevisionGUID="b8c4fbc7-931b-487b-a9eb-4538999e801f" CreationDate="2018-06-12T16:49:09.373" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19626" RevisionGUID="df8a7be4-25be-4a45-b72b-fa298d12b836" CreationDate="2018-06-13T00:39:27.630" UserId="3076" Text="Good answers here are expected to be longer than one word. In this case the answer is the one word no. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54168" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="86f133a5-5d12-4746-adbb-f6f007a8684a" CreationDate="2018-06-13T13:07:05.707" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19627" RevisionGUID="3e6e969b-f3a8-4bef-892a-f480bb51daa3" CreationDate="2018-06-13T16:56:50.440" UserId="1279" Text="Per Google Patents, the order of dates for patent [DE19817372C1][1] appears incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Per the site, the patent expired on April 18th 1998 (Fee Related), but lists a grant date of Oct 7th, 1999.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the legal events listed on the page on Google Patents, a series of different dates show up:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's going on here? Is it nothing more than data import that got messed up?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/DE19817372C1/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1Sdst.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54170" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19627" RevisionGUID="3e6e969b-f3a8-4bef-892a-f480bb51daa3" CreationDate="2018-06-13T16:56:50.440" UserId="1279" Text="DE19817372C1 date order incorrect in Google Patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54171" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19627" RevisionGUID="3e6e969b-f3a8-4bef-892a-f480bb51daa3" CreationDate="2018-06-13T16:56:50.440" UserId="1279" Text="&lt;google-patents&gt;&lt;date&gt;&lt;priority-date&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19628" RevisionGUID="b9c7a472-354c-4398-9d0b-82f617177276" CreationDate="2018-06-13T17:35:35.280" UserId="18033" Text="The date shown on google patents on the right side next to the patent number where it says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;date - number - status&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is the application/filing/publication date for the number next to it, not the date of the status at the right side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the application was filed 1998 and is **now** deemed withdrawn/lapsed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54173" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6476" RevisionGUID="7d459043-0afb-45e3-ae1d-2b07c0d1610f" CreationDate="2018-06-13T18:19:35.850" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54174" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19120" RevisionGUID="3e5dc1b9-23f6-4b31-a6a9-6d005cef9bbc" CreationDate="2018-06-14T22:45:20.683" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54175" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="e11497fb-5824-462c-a150-e1f3801950a5" CreationDate="2018-06-15T01:48:08.793" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19629" RevisionGUID="69f9dd0a-ea31-4eba-a1ae-0fd12911cd58" CreationDate="2018-06-15T02:57:26.050" UserId="21170" Text="This is the list of examination (&quot;prosecution&quot;) events for this EPO application:&#xD;&#xA;https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP09010216&amp;lng=en&amp;tab=doclist&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, there has been a rejection, and a failed appeal which was dismissed:&#xD;&#xA;https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=E1PXMFAK9711DSU&amp;number=EP09010216&amp;lng=en&amp;npl=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application was closed on 20.04.2018.&#xD;&#xA;Although the applicant can attempt to revive it in the coming months and years, this application is most likely dead and buried." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19630" RevisionGUID="db334fc1-13e8-4a15-8ce9-99bc2122e697" CreationDate="2018-06-15T03:41:04.890" UserId="21170" Text="This granted EPO patent was published in German and has no English-language counterpart.&#xD;&#xA;However it does have English-language claims:&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/claims?CC=EP&amp;NR=0282796B1&amp;KC=B1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=19900905&amp;DB=&amp;locale=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, you can use Chrome's built-in translator (right click and select &quot;Translate to English&quot;) to translate the specification:&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=EP&amp;NR=0282796B1&amp;KC=B1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=19900905&amp;DB=&amp;locale=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19631" RevisionGUID="641322f8-7e8f-4238-b121-7edb8fca66ca" CreationDate="2018-06-15T03:46:45.893" UserId="21170" Text="Without a deeper dive, you might have a case against the broadest one of the independent claims: claim 10.&#xD;&#xA;However, independent claims 1 and 15 also contain a pay-for-emoji feature:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;prompting the viewing user for payment information associated with the selected emoji;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not clear at all if Path had this functionality." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19632" RevisionGUID="d0b23116-5d91-4f10-8040-ee5668570e89" CreationDate="2018-06-15T03:49:29.647" UserId="21170" Text="For reference, this patent was indeed rule invalid:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20150716881" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54180" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19114" RevisionGUID="51524ec9-3ae4-497b-ade6-799780c27712" CreationDate="2018-06-15T04:48:08.797" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19633" RevisionGUID="fe96d6c2-de2c-47dc-9add-e59486c69986" CreationDate="2018-06-15T05:00:54.607" UserId="21170" Text="That application has since been granted as:&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US9526111B2/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims have changed, and now read:&#xD;&#xA;1. A method of wireless communications, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;transmitting a clear-to-send (CTS) signal from a mobile device over a channel in an unlicensed radio frequency spectrum band, the transmitting of the CTS signal being based at least in part on resource schedule information transmitted in the unlicensed frequency spectrum band, the CTS signal being transmitted after transmitting an information portion comprising a shortened frame;&#xD;&#xA;transmitting, after transmitting the CTS signal, a full frame comprising information different from the information portion; and&#xD;&#xA;receiving data over the channel during a period of time set by the CTS signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would take some analysis to see if the HOU paper can still be used to challenge that claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the second paper (Ishida), keep in mind the patent was filed in 2014 and therefore predates the publication of that paper." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19634" RevisionGUID="cef970b4-f486-4620-b8bf-1367b160e580" CreationDate="2018-06-15T05:06:11.153" UserId="21170" Text="For reference, this application was abandoned on 09/18/2017" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19635" RevisionGUID="42b6ec2b-0b5f-4b1c-831f-1e855eb89b8c" CreationDate="2018-06-15T05:09:43.210" UserId="21170" Text="The first (and only) country where this was filed is China." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19636" RevisionGUID="c849ed09-1678-4085-af1f-ea812ebdbcc4" CreationDate="2018-06-15T05:14:46.817" UserId="21170" Text="The immediate document is an international application and it is not &quot;valid&quot;, it is merely an application.&#xD;&#xA;This international application has spawned two &quot;real&quot; applications:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DE102011013224 - In Germany, abandoned on 2015/10/01&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EP2683373 - In the EPO, still being actively examined:&#xD;&#xA;https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP12708816&amp;lng=en&amp;tab=doclist" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54185" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="14c08083-7b33-4011-b252-88d2f65d5fd1" CreationDate="2018-06-15T08:48:08.683" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54186" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19296" RevisionGUID="44760dad-2675-491c-ac70-8984042282ad" CreationDate="2018-06-15T21:57:09.230" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19637" RevisionGUID="cdc46a5e-2a09-4723-ba8a-e0bae22bc632" CreationDate="2018-06-15T23:35:31.013" UserId="21170" Text="The document in question is an international (&quot;PCT&quot;) application; it is not a granted patent.&#xD;&#xA;This application was never brought into the US as a national phase application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a time limit of 30 months to bring this application into the US:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1842.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This application, filed in September 2000, is long past that deadline.&#xD;&#xA;In short, this application has not and will not become a granted patent in the US or anywhere else." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19638" RevisionGUID="22a9c32f-bc8d-4ede-82de-d98c8f081578" CreationDate="2018-06-15T23:41:40.040" UserId="21170" Text="Are you certain you have the patent number correct? Let us look at claim 1 closely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A portable device for processing Web content comprising:&#xD;&#xA;a processor coupled to a Near Fields Communications (NFC) reader, an audio input interface, a speech recognition system, and memory; wherein:&#xD;&#xA;the NFC reader to:&#xD;&#xA;(i) read a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) from an NFC tag attached to an object, and&#xD;&#xA;(ii) read keywords specific to content of the object from the NFC tag attached to the object, wherein the keywords are previously stored on the NFC tag attached to the object;&#xD;&#xA;the memory to store the URI and the keywords read by the NFC reader in a relationship to each other such that the stored keywords directly correspond to the stored URI;&#xD;&#xA;the audio input interface in conjunction with the speech recognition system to be used as a voice assisted lookup mechanism to enable a user of the portable device to verbally request retrieval of the stored URI from memory by speaking one or more of the keywords previously read by the NFC reader and stored in the memory;&#xD;&#xA;the speech recognition system to retrieve the verbally requested URI from the memory as a function of matching the one or more keywords spoken by the user with the directly corresponding URI stored in the memory; and&#xD;&#xA;the portable device to:&#xD;&#xA;(i) access a server over a network to retrieve and display Web content associated with the URI retrieved from the memory,&#xD;&#xA;(ii) obtain meta-data embedded within the Web content retrieved from the server, and&#xD;&#xA;(iii) augment the URI stored in the memory with the meta-data obtained from the Web content to facilitate subsequent search and retrieval of the stored URI by the user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The invention is, generally speaking, directed to using NFC to retrieve a URL and keywords, detecting a spoken command matching those keywords, opening that URL and fetching the data at that address." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19639" RevisionGUID="2b45c258-83ec-4d3c-8cec-27845690f73e" CreationDate="2018-06-15T23:46:06.410" UserId="21170" Text="The patent in question was granted in the US only:&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US8267291B2/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same patent was not filed in the European Patent Office (EPO) or any other office or country, and too much time has elapsed to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, the only risk of infringement is within the US market." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19640" RevisionGUID="59be8569-08c7-42a5-b875-412fd1ffb419" CreationDate="2018-06-16T00:10:11.903" UserId="21170" Text="The document is an international (&quot;PCT&quot;) application filed in 2006;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also claims priority to U.S. application serial number 11/284,659, which does not appear to have ever been published as an application or granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this page, the application was positively denied entry into the EPO and German patent offices:&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=WO&amp;NR=2007061430A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=3&amp;date=20070531&amp;DB=&amp;locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most countries have a time limit of ~30 months to transition from an international application into a national. Therefore, no other national-stage applications are possible based off this PCT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a small chance that U.S. application ser. no. 11/284,659 is still pending rather than abandoned (because it was never published, its status is unknown to the public)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19641" RevisionGUID="a994e14f-9a93-4343-8cf7-59454c2f14b4" CreationDate="2018-06-16T00:16:12.233" UserId="21170" Text="Per the following link, this international application was denied entry into the European and German patent offices:&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=WO&amp;NR=2014118527A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=3&amp;date=20140807&amp;DB=&amp;locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Per the following link, the UK application that this PCT claimed priority to has also been abandoned:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/ApplicationNumber/GB1301774.4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There do not appear to be any other applications in other offices or countries using this PCT as a priority." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19642" RevisionGUID="cf3233b6-5046-4a88-8d12-92fe1a86c813" CreationDate="2018-06-16T00:34:08.383" UserId="21170" Text="This is an application. Per the following, it was abandoned in 2009:&#xD;&#xA;https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=US.68701307.A&amp;lng=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19643" RevisionGUID="de51d462-79a9-46c1-a4dd-ba93fd1a7c9b" CreationDate="2018-06-16T00:56:00.303" UserId="21170" Text="This international application has resulted in the following US patent:&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US9101979B2/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A method of fabricating a multi-functional multilayer article comprising:&#xD;&#xA;determining a shape for the article and defining at least two spatially separated regions on said article, said two regions to be formed of at least two distinct materials being joined by at least one compositional gradient transition region;&#xD;&#xA;mapping a compositional gradient pathway onto said article between said at least two regions such that the at least one compositional gradient transition region substantially excludes any undesirable compositional phases; and&#xD;&#xA;forming the article, wherein at least the at least one compositional gradient transition region comprises a plurality of distinct gradient layers formed by incrementally adjusting the compositional ratio between the at least two distinct materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This claim may or may not be valid in light of prior art the examiner hasn't seen, but the PTO deemed it novel. If you believe otherwise, there are proper channels for asking the PTO to review the novelty of granted patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19644" RevisionGUID="0185d1e8-cef3-49fd-9eec-51140f1585b6" CreationDate="2018-06-16T01:06:04.780" UserId="21170" Text="For reference, this application was indeed abandoned in 2015:&#xD;&#xA;https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=US.201213461837.A&amp;lng=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54195" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17660" RevisionGUID="347391ed-f09a-4902-9b24-e92fd245da7c" CreationDate="2018-06-16T18:03:15.013" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19645" RevisionGUID="a4c18f4b-cff5-4d10-9f9d-0e71195b9b4f" CreationDate="2018-06-16T18:49:20.777" UserId="21172" Text="Sorry for such a newbe question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand the purpose of making independent claims as broad as possible, and I understand that if something infringes a dependent claim, it also infringes those claims it's based on.  That being the case, I don't see the point.  What's the point of a claim that narrows the scope of another claim?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54197" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19645" RevisionGUID="a4c18f4b-cff5-4d10-9f9d-0e71195b9b4f" CreationDate="2018-06-16T18:49:20.777" UserId="21172" Text="Why have dependent claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54198" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19645" RevisionGUID="a4c18f4b-cff5-4d10-9f9d-0e71195b9b4f" CreationDate="2018-06-16T18:49:20.777" UserId="21172" Text="&lt;dependent-claim&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19646" RevisionGUID="3ddef074-be36-4b90-8dfe-53f287c1cc13" CreationDate="2018-06-17T02:25:28.567" UserId="5769" Text="You're right that a dependent claim is necessarily narrower than its associated independent claim.  Nonetheless, there are benefits to dependent claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If the independent claim is not allowed, its narrower independent claims may still survive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Different claims are presumed to have different scope (*doctrine of claims differentiation*).  Therefore, &quot;fruit&quot; in an independent claim will be presumed to have broader scope than just apples or bananas when &quot;an apple or banana as said fruit&quot; is specifically stated in a dependent claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54200" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18261" RevisionGUID="b1166e64-8049-41a2-baef-b1fa56e4ee17" CreationDate="2018-06-17T04:07:13.093" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19640" RevisionGUID="e199c6b9-6fd6-4859-bb79-f734f65eeaf0" CreationDate="2018-06-17T05:02:14.457" UserId="21170" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="The document is an international (&quot;PCT&quot;) application filed in 2006;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also claims priority to U.S. application serial number 11/284,659, which does not appear to have ever been published as an application or granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this page, the application was positively denied entry into the EPO and German patent offices:&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=WO&amp;NR=2007061430A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=3&amp;date=20070531&amp;DB=&amp;locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most countries have a time limit of ~30 months to transition from an international application into a national application. Therefore, no other national-stage applications are possible based off this PCT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a small chance that U.S. application ser. no. 11/284,659 is still pending rather than abandoned (because it was never published, its status is unknown to the public)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19647" RevisionGUID="cae3170f-9087-4950-a0bb-67dc2f9365e1" CreationDate="2018-06-17T08:26:15.033" UserId="21151" Text="The independent claim declares „comprising … at least one support.“&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dependent claim state „a body joined to said support.“&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the dependent claim cover a body that is joined to, say, four supports?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54203" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19647" RevisionGUID="cae3170f-9087-4950-a0bb-67dc2f9365e1" CreationDate="2018-06-17T08:26:15.033" UserId="21151" Text="Does „at least one“ mean a four?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54204" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19647" RevisionGUID="cae3170f-9087-4950-a0bb-67dc2f9365e1" CreationDate="2018-06-17T08:26:15.033" UserId="21151" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;interpretation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19648" RevisionGUID="e606b233-bc3d-4445-9116-7184142ce694" CreationDate="2018-06-17T09:33:14.603" UserId="18033" Text="Yes.&#xD;&#xA;It would even suffice to say &quot;comprising a support, the body joined to the support.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means the device has a support which is connected to the body. One with 4 supports still has 1 support that is connected to the body -&gt; 4 times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if the description doesn't hint otherwise, the interpretation that a support may have 4 pieces could be possible. (In this case, &quot;at least one&quot; *could* be a hint otherwise.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19649" RevisionGUID="e5cc31a5-61e7-4605-a41e-a10262acb031" CreationDate="2018-06-17T10:01:57.097" UserId="18033" Text="This is a great qestion! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dependent claims are such a prominent thing and they don't give you anything in regards to claim scope. (Apart from interpretation maybe, but a well written description could get you there too.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But let's look a little closer. (I'll be citng the epo manual because I know it better, but it's pretty close to the US thing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Drafting the patent:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traditionally, the description will be drafted as to enable the claims. It's very hard to write a description without dependent claims. Sure, you could remove them afterwards, but I'll get to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dependent claims are something you have in front of you - in the form of a claim - so you can make sure it's clear and precise and consistet. During prosecution, it is always harder to enter something from the description, because the description is in, in lack of a better word, description format and you might run into an ([intermediate][1]) [generalisation][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, writing good dependent claims which may become independent later is the basis for a strong patent. in this stage, it's only about having thought them through, you could now throw them away theoretically. Which leads to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prosecution:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims will be searched by the examiner (as long as they relate to one invention). If you have no dependent claims, it's at the examiners discretion to search all those tiny bits and pieces from the description (spoiler: they won't). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trying to include limitations from the description can then lead you to [unsearched matter][3], which at the EPO means you have to file a divisional or not include it, because they won't examine (and therefore grant) anything not searched. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, the above as to generalisations and in general missing support for the new claims applies, but that could be remedied by a well drafted description as I said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So let's say you got through prosecution, why not remove all dependent claims now and not pay [claim fees][4]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Litigation:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or rather, invalidation. Funny enough, what I said for the phases above still holds, let's say your independent claim is invalidated. You now want to add a limitation from the description. But oh, it wasn't searched, is a generalisation or not clear? Too bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there's another point. Litigation goes: &quot;opponent files an invalidity suit/opposition/... - responses - oral proceedings&quot;. Somewhere along those, you will have to add auxiliary requests with new independent claims which you can then go through with your opponent in the oral proceedings. Your opponent needs to be prepared for all your dependent claims and the axuliary requests in the oral proceedings. Not for you entering stuff from the description. So the proceedings will be a lot longer if you keep adding stuff from the description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it might even brake your neck in the end, because Art 84. (EPC), also called &quot;clarity (and brevity)&quot; is not a reason for opposition (at the EPO). If you got your dependent claims through the examination, they are presumed clear! If however you enter limitations from the description, your opponent may argue missing clarity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, you'll have to believe me on this one, examiners almost don't care for clarity. Many many many granted claims would be found unclear after thorough dissection by your opposing attorney. But they may not argue that for the existing claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, did I say that was it? Well there's more. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Interpretation in invalidity and litigation:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say the examiner granted your claims. Some of the dependent claims (and the independent one too then) would be non novel over the prior art which the examiner examiner *in a special, but possible, interpretation*. The EPO grants the examiner a presumption of having done his work well, so in most cases, your claims will be interpreted to not contain that interpretation. So they aren't invalid and you can actually use them. Technically, the independent claim would be enough, but maybe that one fell against a new prior art document and etc. In the end, the dependent claims allow many arguments as to what is part of your claims and what not, most of them good for you as the arguments against you could almost all be made from the description anyways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only case where you might get a problem is if you include a dependent claim with an embodiment which could have been interpreted to be outside of the independent claim and is not novel. The you opponent can argue that anything in the dependent claims is definitly part of the independent claims. That argument is harder if the description doesn't clearly state it is part of the independent claim. But again, in that case you would also not be able to include that limitation into your independent claim if you had it only in the description because that would be unclear. So This one is an error in the drafting of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/h_v_3_2_1.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/f_iv_6_2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/h_ii_6_2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/a_iii_9.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54207" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17844" RevisionGUID="f1e7f660-2dea-498f-ad4f-c4c42d9e8e43" CreationDate="2018-06-17T10:09:25.287" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19635" RevisionGUID="d7c87381-6234-4db2-8273-d4f37ead17ff" CreationDate="2018-06-17T15:36:01.823" UserId="21170" Comment="added 416 characters in body" Text="The first (and only) country where this was filed is China.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit with more details:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider this page: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?II=0&amp;ND=3&amp;adjacent=true&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;FT=D&amp;date=20140723&amp;CC=CN&amp;NR=203733449U&amp;KC=U&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Priority number of this Chinese Utility Model is identical to its Application number; ergo, there is no claim to priority from any other application in China or elsewhere, and so China is indeed the first filed country." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19650" RevisionGUID="afba2cde-18ea-4307-9242-960705ea7d85" CreationDate="2018-06-17T19:46:43.697" UserId="21151" Text="My PCT application (at EPO) has been rejected due to the lack of novelty and inventive step. Now, I am considering amendment of the claims under Article 34 PCT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The description contains the following sentence: „When more than one widget is needed, a plurality of widgets should be arranged, aligned in a row.“ Also, in the drawings, a figure showing the widgets aligned in a row is provided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The method of use claim reads „said widgets are aligned in a row.“, whereas claim 1 does not mention this feature at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it allowable to amend the claim 1 by adding „a plurality of said widgets is aligned in **at most one** row,“ and removing the corresponding part of the method of use claim?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54210" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19650" RevisionGUID="afba2cde-18ea-4307-9242-960705ea7d85" CreationDate="2018-06-17T19:46:43.697" UserId="21151" Text="The allowability of amendments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54211" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19650" RevisionGUID="afba2cde-18ea-4307-9242-960705ea7d85" CreationDate="2018-06-17T19:46:43.697" UserId="21151" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;claim-amendment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54212" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18971" RevisionGUID="2c58b5a6-041f-44b3-8bf5-853f9180aed9" CreationDate="2018-06-17T21:13:49.640" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19643" RevisionGUID="26fff369-0015-471c-8133-5fc541da99e9" CreationDate="2018-06-17T23:32:18.950" UserId="21170" Comment="added 412 characters in body" Text="This international application has resulted in the following US patent:&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US9101979B2/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A method of fabricating a multi-functional multilayer article comprising:&#xD;&#xA;determining a shape for the article and defining at least two spatially separated regions on said article, said two regions to be formed of at least two distinct materials being joined by at least one compositional gradient transition region;&#xD;&#xA;mapping a compositional gradient pathway onto said article between said at least two regions such that the at least one compositional gradient transition region substantially excludes any undesirable compositional phases; and&#xD;&#xA;forming the article, wherein at least the at least one compositional gradient transition region comprises a plurality of distinct gradient layers formed by incrementally adjusting the compositional ratio between the at least two distinct materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This claim may or may not be valid in light of prior art the examiner hasn't seen, but the PTO deemed it novel. If you believe otherwise, there are proper channels for asking the PTO to review the novelty of granted patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: regarding those &quot;proper channels&quot;, you can request a re-examination from the PTO, or request an IPR from the PTAB, or ask a court for a declaratory judgement of invalidity. There is so much more to this topic such as CBM and PGR proceedings and other rabbit holes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a summary, see:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.dilworthbarrese.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/CHALLENGING-THE-VALIDITY-OF-A-U.S.-PATENT-UNDER-AIA.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19651" RevisionGUID="930491df-13e5-4690-a922-43b8e1158a81" CreationDate="2018-06-17T23:50:13.123" UserId="21170" Text="The claims were amended in November 2017 to read as follows:&#xD;&#xA;https://register.epo.org/ipApplication?documentId=5-3-US%20%20140288170RP1%20&amp;number=US.201314028817.A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the inventors added a mention of FPOSS to differentiate over the examiner's findings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner responded with:&#xD;&#xA;https://register.epo.org/ipApplication?number=US.201314028817.A&amp;documentId=1-10-US++140288170TP1+&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, additional findings were brought in to show that FPOSS is well known, and that bolting it onto the invention doesn't make the invention patentable.&#xD;&#xA;This kind of a song and dance is extremely common, and the application is still very much alive. It might get granted in a very restricted shape, or get abandoned, or go to appeal and be granted broadly - it's impossible to foretell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I am reading this correctly, the time has elapsed for submitting 3rd party information regarding this application:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/third-party-preissuance-submissions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this application does ever issue, you can launch a Post-Grant Review:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/appealing-patent-decisions/trials/post-grant-review" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54215" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18712" RevisionGUID="a3935780-3174-4071-a6b4-bddb9fbc19a8" CreationDate="2018-06-18T00:13:48.260" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54216" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19293" RevisionGUID="1940ecff-e3f2-49b0-a301-06bb29d34644" CreationDate="2018-06-18T02:13:48.397" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19652" RevisionGUID="c08e2126-d020-4a9d-bf4a-8b4dfad141f0" CreationDate="2018-06-18T08:10:55.923" UserId="17325" Text="Amendment under Article 34 PCT is only possible if you are proceeding to International Preliminary Examination. Is this the case?&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, if you only intend to proceed to EPO, is there any special reason you want to amend the claims now and not within the EP phase? Provisional protection perhaprs? I just want to make sure that you are aware of the fact that you can amend claims upon entry in EP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, to the point. I think the phrase &quot;*at most one*&quot; will be objected to. But I am only using the short expert from the description you provided me with. Is it important to limit to only one row? After all the description reads &quot;a row&quot; which implies singular. Is there basis in the description for the indefinite article &quot;a&quot; to be interpeted as plural as well? Is there any example you may be able to use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19653" RevisionGUID="dd73c502-dac3-43fb-bfc8-8ca46bab91c7" CreationDate="2018-06-18T13:31:07.820" UserId="18033" Text="The wording &quot;at most one row&quot; cannot be derived from solely the example of &quot;a row&quot; and is therefore not allowable (generalisation/missing support). [Unless there are other examples]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason is, &quot;at most one&quot; means &quot;exactly zero or exactly one&quot;. Exactly one could be derived from &quot;a&quot;, depending on context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So without an example of no rows, zero rows would be added matter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question if a row and exactly one row are the same would be a question of context, but unless you have an example for zero rows, it's almost purely academical because there's a risk and no gain - either &quot;a row&quot; is equal to &quot;exactly one row&quot;, then it doesn't matter, or it's not, then you rather want &quot;a row&quot; to fall in examination than &quot;exactly one row&quot; to maybe pass and then get invalidated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either you have some wording for &quot;exactly one row&quot; in the description that you can use, or you will probably have to risk your chances with &quot;a row&quot;. Which I would consider reasonable (at least for meaning &quot;exactly one row&quot;, I don't know about inventiveness).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disclaimer: As the information is limited, this is a rather general analysis and your spcific case might just be one of those edge cases. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19654" RevisionGUID="dea71d9b-51e2-457d-8112-840ef5983fba" CreationDate="2018-06-18T16:11:31.353" UserId="21176" Text="What happens when a TD is taken to a patent which itself is a continuation of a patent family that now has been sold? Only the latest member of the family is cited in the TD." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54220" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19654" RevisionGUID="dea71d9b-51e2-457d-8112-840ef5983fba" CreationDate="2018-06-18T16:11:31.353" UserId="21176" Text="Terminal disclamier" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54221" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19654" RevisionGUID="dea71d9b-51e2-457d-8112-840ef5983fba" CreationDate="2018-06-18T16:11:31.353" UserId="21176" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19655" RevisionGUID="b1bdd8cb-b911-4fe2-9de2-53f301251891" CreationDate="2018-06-18T22:13:02.507" UserId="84" Text="If i patent a device that puts mail in peoples mail boxes and the someone else tries to patent a different way of doing the same thing, and one of my approved claims is for devices that put mail in mailboxes, would that invalidate the new patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54223" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19655" RevisionGUID="b1bdd8cb-b911-4fe2-9de2-53f301251891" CreationDate="2018-06-18T22:13:02.507" UserId="84" Text="How broad are patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54224" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19655" RevisionGUID="b1bdd8cb-b911-4fe2-9de2-53f301251891" CreationDate="2018-06-18T22:13:02.507" UserId="84" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54225" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="dc9142f9-d5bf-4d6b-ac6c-13efc46821dc" CreationDate="2018-06-19T03:33:59.370" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54226" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17865" RevisionGUID="0be9fbb5-f8e3-42b1-a4cb-cfe823610774" CreationDate="2018-06-19T06:33:59.540" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54227" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19654" RevisionGUID="1289ddee-d1f2-466b-ba90-ea109a73efb5" CreationDate="2018-06-19T12:56:08.580" UserId="21176" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;continuation&gt;&lt;terminal-disclaimer&gt;&lt;double-patenting&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19656" RevisionGUID="b296522f-d2a4-45b3-a6b3-5e399f6be571" CreationDate="2018-06-19T15:47:10.290" UserId="17003" Text="A patent is as broad as its allowed claims are. In your example, if a patent gets a claim for &quot;devices that put mail in mailboxes&quot;. Then if someone figures out a different implementation they still infringe. However, I think it is very unlikely for your patent to get such a claim. Generally speaking there needs to be an inventive step to get a patent granted. Usually this is a specific implementation with something novel and non-obvious over prior art. Yes, there are bad patents out there with overly broad claims. This in no way implies all patents are ridiculously broad. Indeed my experience is that the USPTO sometimes goes through extraordinary lengths to conjure up unlikely combinations of prior art to reject patent applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19657" RevisionGUID="8e717ee5-f304-450b-bc0d-39703ef5fc00" CreationDate="2018-06-19T19:43:36.443" UserId="21180" Text="When I worked for a tech company, I was involved in patent applications. Searching the US PTO site, I see four patents with the same name and inventor lists but different patent numbers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Nielsen, Thomas A.; Spertus, Ellen; and Drobychev, Alexandre. &#xD;&#xA;   [Methods and Systems for Controlling Access to Relationship&#xD;&#xA;   Information in a Social Network][1].  US Patent #7,716,140, May 11, 2010.&#xD;&#xA; - Nielsen, Thomas A.; Spertus, Ellen; and Drobychev, Alexandre. &#xD;&#xA;   [Methods and Systems for Controlling Access to Relationship&#xD;&#xA;   Information in a Social Network][2].  US Patent #8,429,090, April 23, 2013. &#xD;&#xA; - Nielsen, Thomas A.; Spertus, Ellen; and Drobychev, Alexandre.  [Methods and Systems for Controlling Access to Relationship&#xD;&#xA;   Information in a Social Network][3].  US Patent #8,489,516, July 16, 2013. &#xD;&#xA; - Nielsen, Thomas A.; Spertus, Ellen; and Drobychev, Alexandre.  [Methods and Systems for Controlling Access to Relationship&#xD;&#xA;   Information in a Social Network][4].  US Patent #8,775,326, July 8, 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these really 4 distinct patents that I can list on my CV and brag to my current employer about (useless as I consider software patents)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=7716140.PN.&amp;OS=PN/7716140&amp;RS=PN/7716140&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&amp;r=3&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PTXT&amp;S1=%28%22Spertus,%20Ellen%22.INNM.%29&amp;OS=IN/%22Spertus,%20Ellen%22&amp;RS=IN/%22Spertus,%20Ellen%22&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&amp;r=2&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PTXT&amp;S1=%28%22Spertus,%20Ellen%22.INNM.%29&amp;OS=IN/%22Spertus,%20Ellen%22&amp;RS=IN/%22Spertus,%20Ellen%22&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PTXT&amp;S1=%28%22Spertus,%20Ellen%22.INNM.%29&amp;OS=IN/%22Spertus,%20Ellen%22&amp;RS=IN/%22Spertus,%20Ellen%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54230" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19657" RevisionGUID="8e717ee5-f304-450b-bc0d-39703ef5fc00" CreationDate="2018-06-19T19:43:36.443" UserId="21180" Text="Are these software patents with the same name and inventors distinct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54231" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19657" RevisionGUID="8e717ee5-f304-450b-bc0d-39703ef5fc00" CreationDate="2018-06-19T19:43:36.443" UserId="21180" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19658" RevisionGUID="99c08885-40e2-4fb7-bdde-3138f682f761" CreationDate="2018-06-19T21:42:05.770" UserId="17003" Text="In a word yes. At least I do. There are four distinct US patents and you can list them as such. On my CV I list all my US patents and titles. What I don't list is the equivalent patents in other countries, but I know of some people who do. I list my patents along with my other publications as sort of an addendum to my CV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I think you will find even more interesting is that searching patents on Google Patents (and evidently the USPTO site for you) doesn't always find all the patents with your name listed as an inventor. At least for me Google Patents won't list them all. I much prefer [The Lens][1] which always lists all my patents. For instance I searched on your name as inventor and found [8 issued patents][2]. They all have the same assignee so I'm pretty sure their yours. Not all of them share a title and on [at least one patent][3] you are listed as the first inventor (not that that matters). You now seem twice as impressive to me...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/search?inventor=SPERTUS%20ELLEN&amp;types=Granted%20Patent&amp;l=en&amp;st=true&amp;q=Spertus%3B%20Ellen&amp;p=0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/180-073-880-499-916" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19659" RevisionGUID="ed7b1214-1c3f-4a42-8ed1-a3f908a74377" CreationDate="2018-06-19T22:05:03.157" UserId="21183" Text="I am the inventor of patent #8,425,176. I would like to know the date at which I will be required to pay another maintenance fee." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54234" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19659" RevisionGUID="ed7b1214-1c3f-4a42-8ed1-a3f908a74377" CreationDate="2018-06-19T22:05:03.157" UserId="21183" Text="when is the next maintenance due on patent #8,425,176" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54235" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19659" RevisionGUID="ed7b1214-1c3f-4a42-8ed1-a3f908a74377" CreationDate="2018-06-19T22:05:03.157" UserId="21183" Text="&lt;araf&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19660" RevisionGUID="1ce9e757-573c-4d9c-9fb1-23b453e6d0b8" CreationDate="2018-06-19T23:36:59.850" UserId="21170" Text="Please see this page:&#xD;&#xA;https://fees.uspto.gov/MaintenanceFees/fees/details?applicationNumber=12800886&amp;patentNumber=8425176&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next maintenance fee payment window opens on 04/23/2020." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54237" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="39f9bdb6-bb67-4e31-b388-0ac93ce9b1fb" CreationDate="2018-06-20T00:39:10.063" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54238" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19658" RevisionGUID="c0686349-c665-4ab9-a634-a7ffc5010cd4" CreationDate="2018-06-20T01:28:15.623" UserId="17003" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In a word yes. At least I do. There are four distinct US patents and you can list them as such. On my CV I list all my US patents and titles. What I don't list is the equivalent patents in other countries, but I know of some people who do. I list my patents along with my other publications as sort of an addendum to my CV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I think you will find even more interesting is that searching patents on Google Patents (and evidently the USPTO site for you) doesn't always find all the patents with your name listed as an inventor. At least for me Google Patents won't list them all. I much prefer [The Lens][1] which always lists all my patents. For instance I searched on your name as inventor and found [8 issued patents][2]. They all have the same assignee so I'm pretty sure they’re yours. Not all of them share a title and on [at least one patent][3] you are listed as the first inventor (not that that matters). You now seem twice as impressive to me...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/search?inventor=SPERTUS%20ELLEN&amp;types=Granted%20Patent&amp;l=en&amp;st=true&amp;q=Spertus%3B%20Ellen&amp;p=0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/180-073-880-499-916" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19661" RevisionGUID="8f47898a-6755-40b5-a2f1-17ae92cecd25" CreationDate="2018-06-20T01:46:08.300" UserId="21182" Text="The USPTO grants about 300,000 patents per year.  Maybe half of these patents would not hold up in court simply because of &quot;missed prior art&quot; (i.e., prior art similar or identical to the invention but not included in the writing of the patent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For patents with no &quot;missed prior art&quot;, it looks to me like many seemingly-obvious inventions hold up in court.  E.g., [TiVo vs Comcast][1], but I know that being obvious is just my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there high-profile examples where a patent with no &quot;missed prior art&quot; did not hold up in court (so I can see how obvious something really needs to be)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.fiercecable.com/cable/comcast-loses-ruling-patent-dispute-tivo&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54240" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19661" RevisionGUID="8f47898a-6755-40b5-a2f1-17ae92cecd25" CreationDate="2018-06-20T01:46:08.300" UserId="21182" Text="What's obvious when there really is no good prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54241" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19661" RevisionGUID="8f47898a-6755-40b5-a2f1-17ae92cecd25" CreationDate="2018-06-20T01:46:08.300" UserId="21182" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;troll&gt;&lt;lawsuit&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19662" RevisionGUID="e847d418-3a3b-4bc0-b9b9-5f75c8419515" CreationDate="2018-06-20T19:35:47.863" UserId="21170" Text="A similar Rovi/Tivo lawsuit against Netflix concluded with all patents ruled invalid under 101 (non-patentable subject matter). This decision was rendered based on an investigation of the patents themselves, without prior art being a factor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20150716881 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54246" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="e068590c-6682-403f-aac1-3cab36ba587a" CreationDate="2018-06-21T05:50:40.973" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19664" RevisionGUID="c3d270a2-ce3a-4e8d-aee6-7fb5071831f9" CreationDate="2018-06-21T08:59:27.570" UserId="21188" Text="I am here to find out the what exactly step take in order to invalidate a patent. I went through many of the articles but I got confused , is it ok to cite the fasmily  patent  in invalidation if the inventor is same but the assignee is different?  what should we actually look in aptent in order to inavalidate a patent/&#xD;&#xA;  please answer this question  in brief/..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54248" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19664" RevisionGUID="c3d270a2-ce3a-4e8d-aee6-7fb5071831f9" CreationDate="2018-06-21T08:59:27.570" UserId="21188" Text="Validity / Invalidity of patent : How to approach from the beginning to end" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54249" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19664" RevisionGUID="c3d270a2-ce3a-4e8d-aee6-7fb5071831f9" CreationDate="2018-06-21T08:59:27.570" UserId="21188" Text="&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;invalidate&gt;&lt;patent-invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19665" RevisionGUID="3df24cdb-84d0-4e57-88c5-9cb2e3599d4d" CreationDate="2018-06-21T09:41:32.617" UserId="21189" Text="Is it possible to get US patents schema in xsd format. I could find it in dtd format at the folllowing location but not xsds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[xml-resources][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/xml-resources" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54251" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19665" RevisionGUID="3df24cdb-84d0-4e57-88c5-9cb2e3599d4d" CreationDate="2018-06-21T09:41:32.617" UserId="21189" Text="US patents xsds" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54252" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19665" RevisionGUID="3df24cdb-84d0-4e57-88c5-9cb2e3599d4d" CreationDate="2018-06-21T09:41:32.617" UserId="21189" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19666" RevisionGUID="56cfa0d5-e498-4583-aeff-8da20723f052" CreationDate="2018-06-21T10:37:01.123" UserId="21188" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/brp1E.png&#xD;&#xA; I just look up the term harmonized in TM class what does it stand for?&#xD;&#xA; I have included the images in which the term &quot;harmonised&quot;, &quot;harm&quot;, &quot;nice&quot;, &quot;idle&quot; and &quot;msg&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;please help me to define it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54254" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19666" RevisionGUID="56cfa0d5-e498-4583-aeff-8da20723f052" CreationDate="2018-06-21T10:37:01.123" UserId="21188" Text="TM class for goods and registration" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54255" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19666" RevisionGUID="56cfa0d5-e498-4583-aeff-8da20723f052" CreationDate="2018-06-21T10:37:01.123" UserId="21188" Text="&lt;trademark&gt;&lt;classification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19664" RevisionGUID="ec122582-9aed-4ba9-8ac8-acfa8b9ceae3" CreationDate="2018-06-21T13:52:59.480" UserId="17003" Comment="fixed misspelling" Text="I am here to find out the what exactly step take in order to invalidate a patent. I went through many of the articles but I got confused , is it ok to cite the family  patent  in invalidation if the inventor is same but the assignee is different?  what should we actually look in patent in order to invalidate a patent/&#xD;&#xA;  please answer this question  in brief/..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54258" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19545" RevisionGUID="6a90e8bd-34ef-4e8c-aa64-4234cb6d5d26" CreationDate="2018-06-21T13:57:38.993" UserId="17737" Comment="tags edited" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54259" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19545" RevisionGUID="6a90e8bd-34ef-4e8c-aa64-4234cb6d5d26" CreationDate="2018-06-21T13:57:38.993" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 18033, 1 edit id of 2075" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54260" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13774" RevisionGUID="a6aa69f1-1498-4f61-8460-0ea4a5b05aa6" CreationDate="2018-06-21T13:57:50.603" UserId="21170" Comment="Reformulated to make it more well defined and answer-able" Text="Please describe why the examiner chose to allow this application in light of the prior art of record" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54261" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13774" RevisionGUID="a6aa69f1-1498-4f61-8460-0ea4a5b05aa6" CreationDate="2018-06-21T13:57:50.603" Comment="Proposed by 21170 approved by 18033, 1 edit id of 2076" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19667" RevisionGUID="b29b612f-741f-48d9-8904-ed1581b24cfe" CreationDate="2018-06-21T15:35:42.270" UserId="21190" Text="If I was filing a provisional patent for an invention that works with an existing product, what is the most elegant way to refer to that other product in my provisional patent text?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if I had invented an innovative case for an iphone, would I be wise to mention &quot;iPhone&quot; in the application?  Lets pretend the invention is probably not useful for other brands of smartphone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand no one will read my provisional anyway, but Id like the language to be compatible with what would appear in a real patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for any advice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54263" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19667" RevisionGUID="b29b612f-741f-48d9-8904-ed1581b24cfe" CreationDate="2018-06-21T15:35:42.270" UserId="21190" Text="Referencing existing consumer product in provisional patent application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54264" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19667" RevisionGUID="b29b612f-741f-48d9-8904-ed1581b24cfe" CreationDate="2018-06-21T15:35:42.270" UserId="21190" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;existing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19668" RevisionGUID="ef80e128-de2c-40b5-8372-22164a0b3e3b" CreationDate="2018-06-21T16:19:23.563" UserId="3968" Text="I used to use a sequential diagram for a process flow between multiple components, but have never seen it in patent documents. Is it not allowed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below is just an example of sequential diagram&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Wb0wK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54266" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19668" RevisionGUID="ef80e128-de2c-40b5-8372-22164a0b3e3b" CreationDate="2018-06-21T16:19:23.563" UserId="3968" Text="Does USPTO accept a sequential diagram?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54267" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19668" RevisionGUID="ef80e128-de2c-40b5-8372-22164a0b3e3b" CreationDate="2018-06-21T16:19:23.563" UserId="3968" Text="&lt;drawing&gt;&lt;diagrams&gt;&lt;sequential&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54268" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="61de324b-4d62-44ef-bc43-29a6b4298f23" CreationDate="2018-06-22T05:06:23.443" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19669" RevisionGUID="7a74f5c7-e86d-427c-a9bb-fc646f10e151" CreationDate="2018-06-22T18:48:20.960" UserId="18501" Text="Good afternoon all,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have had my search results back from the my patent application.   The initial results show four pieces of prior art cited by the examiner.  I had not included any citations myself and tried to incorporate by reference in my application so as to avoid any admissions. I attempted a tour de force of what may be considered prior art in the field and why it fails to work.   The references given back indicate a lack of novelty with my patent via prior art found by the examiner.   Three of the cited submissions are relatively easily dealt with I believe with a narrowing of my claims by falling back on dependant claims I had anticipated using in the light of such references, furthermore they I do not believe they are enabled or usable efficiently to be used in the art I am targeting albeit they could be re-tasked causing a number of issues easily identified by my &quot;tour de force&quot; in the background of my application.   However one piece of prior art was sold via a private forum 10 years ago that attempts to provide a tool which addresses the art and main problem I sought to fix, however it fails in its design to provide it. Essentially none of the embodiments of my disclosure would be able to be designed to be identical to the prior art because the specification in the patent already submitted is designed to narrow with the dependant claims and based on a number of formulas that ensure it is fit for purpose and actually works.  The author of the prior art also by their own admission describes it's failings in a discussion after the image (not included or I suspect seen by the examiner) in a conversation thread much like you'd see here on StackExchange.  In the light of these admissions and no in depth description of their invention:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a piece of prior art referenced by an examiner attempts to solve part of a problem I have also identified is the onus now placed on myself to respond to the Patent examiner telling them how it fails to be fully enabled in the light of my application or does my invention now lack novelty.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the prior art has one or more characteristic that causes it to fail at fixing a problem then surely it cannot in it's essence be considered prior art? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the embodiment of the cited prior art is a photograph that appears to encapsulate a lot of my claims but fails at fully solving the problem by the then inventors own admission does it count?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. Problem: The device must be able to be independently and stably mounted on any substantially vertically flat surface to allow the user to freely carry out their task without supporting said device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior Art cited: Photograph of prior art&#xD;&#xA;Inventors own admission on thread: &quot;Used on a level piece of glass and they stay on their own.. They are a bit heavy to one side and will bump off rather easily if you don't take care. If you were to place them on an uneven surface you may have trouble getting them to stay.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My design specifically eliminates this previous issue from a piece of prior art I was unaware even existed (A few were sold in a niche forum topic)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore my patent also outlines use of the device in conjunction with other equipment used in the art which the device does not state is possible.  No reference of its suitability for use with this other equipment is mentioned, in fact I would even argue that given its instability and the nature of the prior art, the examiner can not for certain say it would even if the inventor of the previous prior art does.   The inventor of the prior art clearly states he took the photograph mounted on glass but makes no mention of any other surface type apart from uneven ones.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I argue that given this admission there is no proof that his invention (apart from gravity) wouldn't fail on a different surface (even though the surface material wouldn't matter really, being substantially even and flat does).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I scuppered or can I counter it based on the specifications outlined in my patent and the narrowing of dependant claims or will I face the non-obvious objection no matter what I try since someone has attempted to address the problem albeit failed? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was going to start selling them on Monday via my newly formed limited company with a registered trademarked brand, nothing stopping that train but this could have a knock on effect to the validity/novelty of my registered designs.  On the one hand I'd argue that the design corpus of my registered designs niche is broadened by inclusion of the prior art by the patent examiners citations if not countered, thus allowing the registered designs to avoid invalidation entirely, whereas if the prior art is successfully combated by my response/observations as to their citations then the registrations are a moot point. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realise it's almost impossible to give a strong opinion without seeing the patent itself and the claims, suffice to say although I didn't realise this device existed I have ensured the specification is narrow enough to perhaps fall back on formulaic dependant claims that ensure the devices ability to solve the problem. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way we've gone too far to turn back now Jim!&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Any opinions gentlemen?   &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54270" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19669" RevisionGUID="7a74f5c7-e86d-427c-a9bb-fc646f10e151" CreationDate="2018-06-22T18:48:20.960" UserId="18501" Text="Patent search results - Prior art - Obviousness" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54271" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19669" RevisionGUID="7a74f5c7-e86d-427c-a9bb-fc646f10e151" CreationDate="2018-06-22T18:48:20.960" UserId="18501" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;patent-search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19669" RevisionGUID="bd7b6f9d-9b04-4731-86ac-41a8c13eaf73" CreationDate="2018-06-22T21:17:57.470" UserId="1" Comment="Gender inclusion" Text="Good afternoon all,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have had my search results back from the my patent application.   The initial results show four pieces of prior art cited by the examiner.  I had not included any citations myself and tried to incorporate by reference in my application so as to avoid any admissions. I attempted a tour de force of what may be considered prior art in the field and why it fails to work.   The references given back indicate a lack of novelty with my patent via prior art found by the examiner.   Three of the cited submissions are relatively easily dealt with I believe with a narrowing of my claims by falling back on dependant claims I had anticipated using in the light of such references, furthermore they I do not believe they are enabled or usable efficiently to be used in the art I am targeting albeit they could be re-tasked causing a number of issues easily identified by my &quot;tour de force&quot; in the background of my application.   However one piece of prior art was sold via a private forum 10 years ago that attempts to provide a tool which addresses the art and main problem I sought to fix, however it fails in its design to provide it. Essentially none of the embodiments of my disclosure would be able to be designed to be identical to the prior art because the specification in the patent already submitted is designed to narrow with the dependant claims and based on a number of formulas that ensure it is fit for purpose and actually works.  The author of the prior art also by their own admission describes it's failings in a discussion after the image (not included or I suspect seen by the examiner) in a conversation thread much like you'd see here on StackExchange.  In the light of these admissions and no in depth description of their invention:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a piece of prior art referenced by an examiner attempts to solve part of a problem I have also identified is the onus now placed on myself to respond to the Patent examiner telling them how it fails to be fully enabled in the light of my application or does my invention now lack novelty.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the prior art has one or more characteristic that causes it to fail at fixing a problem then surely it cannot in it's essence be considered prior art? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the embodiment of the cited prior art is a photograph that appears to encapsulate a lot of my claims but fails at fully solving the problem by the then inventors own admission does it count?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. Problem: The device must be able to be independently and stably mounted on any substantially vertically flat surface to allow the user to freely carry out their task without supporting said device&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior Art cited: Photograph of prior art&#xD;&#xA;Inventors own admission on thread: &quot;Used on a level piece of glass and they stay on their own.. They are a bit heavy to one side and will bump off rather easily if you don't take care. If you were to place them on an uneven surface you may have trouble getting them to stay.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My design specifically eliminates this previous issue from a piece of prior art I was unaware even existed (A few were sold in a niche forum topic)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore my patent also outlines use of the device in conjunction with other equipment used in the art which the device does not state is possible.  No reference of its suitability for use with this other equipment is mentioned, in fact I would even argue that given its instability and the nature of the prior art, the examiner can not for certain say it would even if the inventor of the previous prior art does.   The inventor of the prior art clearly states he took the photograph mounted on glass but makes no mention of any other surface type apart from uneven ones.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I argue that given this admission there is no proof that his invention (apart from gravity) wouldn't fail on a different surface (even though the surface material wouldn't matter really, being substantially even and flat does).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I scuppered or can I counter it based on the specifications outlined in my patent and the narrowing of dependant claims or will I face the non-obvious objection no matter what I try since someone has attempted to address the problem albeit failed? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was going to start selling them on Monday via my newly formed limited company with a registered trademarked brand, nothing stopping that train but this could have a knock on effect to the validity/novelty of my registered designs.  On the one hand I'd argue that the design corpus of my registered designs niche is broadened by inclusion of the prior art by the patent examiners citations if not countered, thus allowing the registered designs to avoid invalidation entirely, whereas if the prior art is successfully combated by my response/observations as to their citations then the registrations are a moot point. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realise it's almost impossible to give a strong opinion without seeing the patent itself and the claims, suffice to say although I didn't realise this device existed I have ensured the specification is narrow enough to perhaps fall back on formulaic dependant claims that ensure the devices ability to solve the problem. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way we've gone too far to turn back now, Jim!&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Any opinions, folks?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19634" RevisionGUID="1652f385-3c1b-47c9-94d3-c72ef2a95a31" CreationDate="2018-06-23T00:36:12.837" UserId="21170" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="For reference, this application was abandoned on 09/18/2017:&#xD;&#xA;https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=US.201313953728.A&amp;lng=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19670" RevisionGUID="277b378a-7e31-4bb6-b86d-26adf3d00e49" CreationDate="2018-06-23T06:10:22.587" UserId="20788" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a final draft of ST.96 XML Schema](http://www.wipo.int/cws/en/taskforce/xml4ip/st96/cws2/st96-annex-iii.html)&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps, there is everything that you want.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54283" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18328" RevisionGUID="e9a21cf1-cbb9-474e-84e6-43f1179993cb" CreationDate="2018-06-23T22:10:50.463" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54284" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="c3a48db1-0004-467c-8d32-3c1a0bed2405" CreationDate="2018-06-24T01:10:50.463" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54285" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18155" RevisionGUID="ebe24378-e609-4182-a00f-3ea4fee340be" CreationDate="2018-06-24T19:17:19.833" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54286" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18828" RevisionGUID="1c538c1d-0f3f-4824-8bf2-143728e6cb3c" CreationDate="2018-06-24T23:17:51.530" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19674" RevisionGUID="ad12d590-b66c-4fa0-8095-b0e9b1b2e6d1" CreationDate="2018-06-25T01:53:33.437" UserId="21172" Text="In a claim, is it okay to use something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ... node A connects to node B, optionally encrypted, such as via SSL or TLS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know I can add a dependent claim instead, but is there any advantage of doing so?  It seems petty to create such simple dependent claims, and could result in a very high number of claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a way, isn't this akin to saying &quot;One or more Xes...&quot;, since that defines options (of one X, 2 Xes, etc.)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54292" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19674" RevisionGUID="ad12d590-b66c-4fa0-8095-b0e9b1b2e6d1" CreationDate="2018-06-25T01:53:33.437" UserId="21172" Text="Okay to use &quot;optionally&quot; in a claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54293" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19674" RevisionGUID="ad12d590-b66c-4fa0-8095-b0e9b1b2e6d1" CreationDate="2018-06-25T01:53:33.437" UserId="21172" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;&lt;dependent-claim&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54297" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="6aefc216-6004-4cbd-a2ff-9e2fd29f9f3e" CreationDate="2018-06-25T19:18:09.940" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54298" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17273" RevisionGUID="901e3295-44bb-4b8a-b9df-ce2b2452aa5f" CreationDate="2018-06-26T01:18:01.133" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54299" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="19668" RevisionGUID="234d51c8-f2fd-4c73-a5f6-4d95522d2fda" CreationDate="2018-06-26T14:51:32.210" UserId="3968" Comment="45" />
  <row Id="54304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19676" RevisionGUID="93a832d3-f356-4e29-ae65-ce150ba6d420" CreationDate="2018-06-26T19:57:26.417" UserId="16696" Text="Just describe it fully and accurately.  If limited to iPhone, I might mention not only the device, but the iOS operating system.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main thing with the provisional is don't leave anything out.  It's only an official document in reference to a subsequent nonprovisional application, and you can remove anything problematic for the nonprovisional. (i.e. you won't be penalized for including too much in the provisional, but only for leaving things out in terms of priority of potential claims.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19677" RevisionGUID="14a697cc-73e9-4a5f-97cf-7549a876f63f" CreationDate="2018-06-26T20:07:39.003" UserId="16696" Text="The first step would be to sue the patent holder.  Once the patent has been granted, it's a matter for the courts.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have any examples of defensive suits launched prior to release of an infringing product, but it may occur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Than main thing is that intellectual property litigation is considered ruinously expensive for all but the largest companies.  The cases drag on for years and typically cost millions of dollars, with no certainty regarding outcome. (This is the reason &quot;patent trolling&quot; was so successful--most targets chose settlement, regarding it as the surest, most cost-effective solution.)  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19678" RevisionGUID="b113d413-c787-4b05-8f19-3ad86c12f655" CreationDate="2018-06-26T22:56:17.647" UserId="21204" Text="Thomson Reuters have been awarded a [patent for a &quot;System and method for citation processing, presentation and transport and for validating references&quot;][1] that, in my eyes, looks very much like what [BibTeX][2] has been doing since 1985. If that were the case, my understanding is that BibTeX would constitute [prior art][3] and render the Patent invalid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm making these observations as a layperson with no background in law whatsoever. So perhaps my observation is wrong/incomplete or my conclusion is wrong/inaccurate (and I understand that only a court can give a legally binding answer to that)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is surely much to be said about the matter, so to formulate a clear question that can actually be answered, I'm looking at this from the perspective of a company that wants to sell a software using placeholders for citation processing in the manner that BibTeX or Endnote do (disclaimer: I do not own or work for such a company). The question, then, is: **would it be legal to sell this software in the USA?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that this question may still be somewhat too broad since the answer obviously depends very much on what the software will actually do and how that compares to (a) the patent and (b) BibTeX. So, I'm offering the following two alternative specifications, in case this helps to give useful answers: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) assume that the software uses the BibTeX system to process citations,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) assume that although the software does not use the exact BibTeX system but its own way of constructing and parsing placeholders. However, the principle is still the same in that the software parses the manuscript for placeholders which are formatted according to predefined rules and which will trigger a database lookup to match corresponding title in order to then replace the placeholder with a reference to the title which is formatted according to predefined rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120072422&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BibTeX&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54307" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19678" RevisionGUID="b113d413-c787-4b05-8f19-3ad86c12f655" CreationDate="2018-06-26T22:56:17.647" UserId="21204" Text="Does patent US20120072422A1 make it illegal for other companies to sell reference managing software that parses documents for placeholders?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54308" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19678" RevisionGUID="b113d413-c787-4b05-8f19-3ad86c12f655" CreationDate="2018-06-26T22:56:17.647" UserId="21204" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;opensource&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19679" RevisionGUID="239cfdcc-dd60-4ae6-bb06-ca4b89d90020" CreationDate="2018-06-27T01:26:18.500" UserId="17003" Text="The document you linked to is a patent application. The subsequent patent is [US8676780B2][1]. Claims on patents are often narrower than the associated application. You seem fixated on the title of the patent. Patent titles are often fairly broad and generic. In order to know what this patent legally covers, one must review its claims. Here is the first claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A computer-based method for processing one or more citations within a document, the method comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  identifying in an electronic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; document an unformatted citation; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  parsing the identified unformatted&#xD;&#xA;&gt; citation and determining one or more citation terms; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  querying one or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more citation libraries to find possible matching citations, each&#xD;&#xA;&gt; possible matching citation comprising at least a portion of the one or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more citation terms; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  presenting for selecting a set of possible&#xD;&#xA;&gt; matching citations; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  inserting a formatted citation based on a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selected one of the set of possible matching citations into the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This claim seems specific to parsing an unformatted citation within another document. I'm not too familiar with BibTex, but I don't think it automatically parses unformatted citations. Rather I think it allows manipulation of citations already put into a specific format. You state in option b) &quot;However, the principle is still the same in that the software parses the manuscript for placeholders which are *formatted according to predefined rules*&quot;. I think the patent is about processing where the citations are not *formatted according to predefined rules*. This would keep the user from having to manually entering citations into the database. As long as your software's process doesn't use each and every element of claim 1 (and claim 11), then your software should be clear of infringing this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing to consider, but this patent was issued before the [Alice decision][2]. This Supreme Court decision has had broad impact on software related patents. Personally I find the claims to be perhaps a bit &quot;abstract&quot; in how it teaches a method for identifying and processing the unformatted citation. However, I am not a lawyer so I'm unqualified to comment on the current validity of this patent. As always, I suggest consulting with an actual patent lawyer in matters related to freedom to operate rather than relying on internet Q&amp;A sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8676780B2/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54310" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17720" RevisionGUID="82bf6303-87c4-4059-af21-b95b6d87a604" CreationDate="2018-06-27T03:23:26.343" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54311" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="9ea4c6cd-6901-4747-bfef-1d737ce56b80" CreationDate="2018-06-27T04:23:31.920" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19680" RevisionGUID="d1242161-9262-43e8-85a7-385af2485e30" CreationDate="2018-06-27T05:24:16.890" UserId="18544" Text="I agree [Eric Shain][1]. In fact, this kind of diagrams are quite popular en communication protocol related patents, where interactions between sender and receiver have a sequential order. For example, figures 3, 4 &amp; 5 in Amazon patent [US6675196][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/users/17003/eric-shain&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6675196B1/en?oq=US6675196" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19680" RevisionGUID="52e5c244-76cd-433a-99a7-6ec0d430c816" CreationDate="2018-06-27T05:32:22.070" UserId="18544" Comment="added 214 characters in body" Text="I agree [Eric Shain][1]. In fact, this kind of diagrams are quite popular en communication protocol related patents, where interactions between sender and receiver have a sequential order. For example, figures 3, 4 &amp; 5 in Amazon patent [US6675196][2]; figure 2 in patent [US7716404B2][3]; or figure 2 in patent application [US2004/0100945 A1][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/users/17003/eric-shain&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6675196B1/en?oq=US6675196&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7716404B2/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://encrypted.google.com/patents/US20040100945?cl=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19680" RevisionGUID="10d530f7-a2b8-4e67-996d-10249840b2f7" CreationDate="2018-06-27T05:37:49.737" UserId="18544" Comment="added more examples" Text="I agree [Eric Shain][1]. In fact, this kind of diagrams are quite popular en communication protocol related patents, where interactions between sender and receiver have a sequential order. For example, figures 3, 4 &amp; 5 in Amazon patent [US6675196][2]; figure 2 in ATEN patent [US7716404B2][3]; or figure 2 in patent application [US2004/0100945 A1][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, you can even find directed graphs with multiple paths to show the flow of communication, as figures 2, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b in Hughes Aircraft Company patent [US5485464][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/users/17003/eric-shain&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6675196B1/en?oq=US6675196&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7716404B2/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://encrypted.google.com/patents/US20040100945?cl=en&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5485464" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19681" RevisionGUID="595905fd-a2cd-4c9c-b39f-a3170abfbf90" CreationDate="2018-06-27T16:09:20.160" UserId="19913" Text="I would expect that a **drawing** that conforms to [USPTO drawing requirements][1] (black and white comes to mind). A search of patents.google.com would produce the examples provided by user=David. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/nonprovisional-utility-patent#heading-24" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19681" RevisionGUID="4efa95fb-6a14-4f8d-a243-c7915d0a47f9" CreationDate="2018-06-27T16:15:13.827" UserId="19913" Comment="added 485 characters in body" Text="I would expect that a **drawing** that conforms to [USPTO drawing requirements][1] (black and white comes to mind, exceptions for color is accepted only under documented conditions). A search of patents.google.com would produce the examples provided by user=David. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you suspect that something is prohibited, searching the relevant USPTO requirements (in this case drawings) is the 'do it yourself' method of determining eligibility.  One has to be careful using precedence in the sense that the rules are changing: in theory changes in rules will be documented in the updated requirements.  This response is not to discourage one from answering the question.  It is intended to generalize the process and approach solving this class of problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/nonprovisional-utility-patent#heading-24" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54317" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17881" RevisionGUID="bcf99048-46c6-4348-8328-f219d4fa56de" CreationDate="2018-06-27T16:23:46.950" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54318" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="a9f12825-6272-4cfd-ac28-97e68e166ef3" CreationDate="2018-06-27T22:23:47.027" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54319" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18540" RevisionGUID="d001b0ca-cc4c-4a88-8ed4-77a44efe06d0" CreationDate="2018-06-28T01:23:56.237" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54320" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18600" RevisionGUID="ddc2ddae-dc4b-42fc-bbbe-6a26ef3fac0d" CreationDate="2018-06-28T03:23:51.377" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54321" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="c40b4fb0-120b-47c9-924b-7ec2d7ba1d94" CreationDate="2018-06-28T09:24:01.300" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54322" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="4388daa6-9429-4fe1-9202-0f7774c5f8e0" CreationDate="2018-06-28T10:24:18.427" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19682" RevisionGUID="721d308a-14a2-4466-90d7-3e5843ced6f8" CreationDate="2018-06-28T19:32:35.200" UserId="19913" Text="I am motivated to understand the abstract idea because I need to understand what (if any) of my claims may be labelled with &quot;abstract idea&quot; and how to word my claims to minimize the probability of such a label.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my quest to understand the &quot;abstract idea&quot;, within the context of USPTO examinations, I found the USPTO guidance: &quot;[Identifying Abstract Ideas][1]&quot;.  I assume that the guidance is a list of cases with claims labeled &quot;abstract ideas&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The invention does have a physical electronic embodiment, however, because software, data-collection, electronic measurement and algorithm processing are involved, I think the claims need to be carefully worded so as to avoid the label?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I look at the USPTO guidance, I am beginning to wonder if my invention falls into the category should I avoid wording found in that subsection.  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group)&#xD;&#xA;* Parsing and comparing data (Berkheimer)&#xD;&#xA;* Measuring delivery of real-time information for commercial&#xD;&#xA;purposes (Two-Way Media ‘686 patent)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;should be avoided / used sparingly so as to minimize the likelihood of a claim being labeled &quot;abstract idea&quot;?   Perhaps this a context sensitive or conditional 'profanity'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-qrs.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54324" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19682" RevisionGUID="721d308a-14a2-4466-90d7-3e5843ced6f8" CreationDate="2018-06-28T19:32:35.200" UserId="19913" Text="&quot;Abstract Idea&quot; Profanity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54325" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19682" RevisionGUID="721d308a-14a2-4466-90d7-3e5843ced6f8" CreationDate="2018-06-28T19:32:35.200" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;profanity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19682" RevisionGUID="9b2b215f-e042-4372-89cb-c1c19d711c2a" CreationDate="2018-06-28T19:46:38.190" UserId="19913" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="I am motivated to understand the [abstract idea][1] because I need to understand what (if any) of my claims may be labelled with &quot;abstract idea&quot; and how to word my claims to minimize the probability of such a label.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my quest to understand the &quot;abstract idea&quot;, within the context of USPTO examinations, I found the USPTO guidance: &quot;[Identifying Abstract Ideas][2]&quot;.  I assume that the guidance is a list of cases with claims labeled &quot;abstract ideas&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The invention does have a physical electronic embodiment, however, because software, data-collection, electronic measurement and algorithm processing are involved, I think the claims need to be carefully worded so as to avoid the label?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I look at the USPTO guidance, I am beginning to wonder if my invention falls into the category should I avoid wording found in that subsection.  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group)&#xD;&#xA;* Parsing and comparing data (Berkheimer)&#xD;&#xA;* Measuring delivery of real-time information for commercial&#xD;&#xA;purposes (Two-Way Media ‘686 patent)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;should be avoided / used sparingly so as to minimize the likelihood of a claim being labeled &quot;abstract idea&quot;?   Perhaps this a context sensitive or conditional 'profanity'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-qrs.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54327" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16606" RevisionGUID="4aec8b84-7982-476d-9da6-5b457af2efdf" CreationDate="2018-06-29T07:30:51.820" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54328" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18181" RevisionGUID="e035f219-7b04-4b24-8efa-8dd23fcad591" CreationDate="2018-06-29T08:30:51.620" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54329" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="bafd6581-71d9-4e46-89fe-089c96a9bbfb" CreationDate="2018-06-29T09:30:51.817" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54330" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="eda58909-e257-481f-9df0-de92d3bde81f" CreationDate="2018-06-29T10:30:51.710" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54331" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16569" RevisionGUID="99ebda1b-0089-4b21-8063-c3dde3b400e1" CreationDate="2018-06-29T17:30:57.020" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54332" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="eb3d4ee7-293c-4bc5-906f-d42fe3a6321b" CreationDate="2018-06-29T18:30:56.920" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54333" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="0f88fb57-6754-4f30-9701-65c4bd22cfb4" CreationDate="2018-06-29T19:31:02.220" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19683" RevisionGUID="6211c248-b9d5-400b-9359-9e773248ee17" CreationDate="2018-06-30T02:24:41.643" UserId="15503" Text="**Is it okay to use &quot;optionally&quot; in a claim?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, for two reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of an independent claim is to define the scope of the protection that you seek. Including an optional feature does not serve this aim (since you intend for it not to be a limitation on the scope), and so should not be included.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, it could unintentionally be an implicit limitation anyway. In your case, you are providing that the connection is optionally encrypted. This could be construed as meaning that encryption of the connection must be possible (else it wouldn't be an option). It therefore potentially excludes a situation in which a connection could not be encrypted for whatever reason. This is almost certainly not what you intended, but you are needlessly running a risk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are right in that there is an analogy to &quot;one or more Xs&quot;. This requires one X, and arguably also requires that plural Xs are possible. In most cases, drafters would be better served by just saying &quot;an X&quot;, since that avoids a potential implicit limitation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of a dependent claim is to include features which provide a further distinction from the prior art, but are not essential to the broadest conception of the invention. In other words, every feature in the dependent claims is an optional feature. It is not petty: it is why dependent claims exist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54336" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19110" RevisionGUID="6d6f2dd4-fa6e-40f7-901a-6ad7abe4398f" CreationDate="2018-06-30T02:30:57.620" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54337" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18185" RevisionGUID="7d641c0a-808e-4162-a9a5-9474207a637d" CreationDate="2018-06-30T03:30:59.577" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54338" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16450" RevisionGUID="43d65e45-0fea-4beb-af3a-e82ab6ac596a" CreationDate="2018-06-30T04:30:58.180" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54339" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16771" RevisionGUID="f204ee82-b0bc-4045-9767-54bdf41164be" CreationDate="2018-06-30T05:30:58.767" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54340" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="dc16b799-78c2-4e32-84d8-6bdce596c63b" CreationDate="2018-06-30T06:30:59.010" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19684" RevisionGUID="2d70ffc8-d507-4c4d-a4c1-81515c1a8dcf" CreationDate="2018-06-30T09:07:36.293" UserId="18033" Text="Obviousness is not a subjective thing. **Without prove** of it's obviousness **nothing is obvious**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If an invention is new, meaning there are differences to a single piece of closest prior art, the entitiy alleging obviousness needs to find prove that the differentiating element was known and known or suspected to be combinable with the piece of prior art. Thats needs to be proven. It cannot be proven without a document or (really) common knowledge. But common knowledge in this case would be &quot;a car can have 4 wheels&quot;, not &quot;I can use algorithm x to do y&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And therefore, nothing is obvious unless the prior art teaches all of it's limitations in as few documents as possible (in most cases 2) from at least neighbouring fields.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that doesn't answer your question, does it? That's because that is the part about combining references, but the references are combined and/or read by a person skilled in the art. And wouldn't that person skilled in the art know a little more than &quot;a car has 4 wheels&quot;? Maybe which algorithm to use to achieve thing y? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes! But! As I said, obviousness needs to be proven. You need to **prove** that the person skilled in the art would know that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you find a **standard** textbook teaching the missing limitation, the invention was obvious for the person skilled in the art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is the answer to your question. Anything that can be found in standard literature for the field is obvious. But that needs to be proven. And proving that would require a reference (even though some standard textbook or something similar), which would actually be &quot;missed prior art&quot;. Therefore I stand by my answer: &quot;**Nothing** is obvious without prior art teaching it.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54342" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="20a5b1da-25a7-4a58-98ff-a4e355754b71" CreationDate="2018-06-30T14:31:23.807" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54343" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="8856fd8a-b11d-448d-afa3-0214cf74a2da" CreationDate="2018-06-30T15:31:36.563" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54344" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14883" RevisionGUID="438e7f9c-c995-4399-80ec-4d29960f7b21" CreationDate="2018-06-30T19:33:21.473" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54346" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17909" RevisionGUID="07893cea-9348-40fd-a9e1-f1a08495dd8a" CreationDate="2018-07-01T13:34:15.777" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54347" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="5ec8262b-82a0-4cef-94df-b0f7a17d2805" CreationDate="2018-07-01T23:34:47.953" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19685" RevisionGUID="4dc47509-7a66-485d-a2b0-dc04d2fa6006" CreationDate="2018-07-02T01:03:52.163" UserId="21209" Text="Patent laws are dependent on the jurisdictions in question. Your question does not explicitly state about which region (country) you are bothered about ? Whether do you want to know if this kind of an idea is patentable in America, Europe or Japan, etc. ? So taking a hypothetical case, the USPTO is quite liberal when compared to many other patent offices (which are more stringent about what qualifies for a patent). Your idea is essentially a business method, and hence it will be patentable in the USA. At the same time other stringent offices like EPO and IPO will not give you patents for such ideas because their patent laws explicitly state that abstract business methods are not patentable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19686" RevisionGUID="fb55bfef-8d8b-41aa-a649-6944be19d89c" CreationDate="2018-07-02T01:21:08.210" UserId="21210" Text="[DEPATISnet][1] is the best option. It is a completely free database and belongs to German Patent Office. I have worked on the database for over three years and found that the result quality is as competitive as an expensive paid database like [Thomson Innovation][2]. There are a lot of comments which recommend other less powerful databases like [Espacenet][3] , [Google Patents][4] , etc. But in my experience, these databases do not have [proximity operators][5] like *&quot;Word A and Word B separated by a maximum of three words in between&quot;*, which help you quickly narrow down the focus of your search to idea based on the context rather than the old-fashioned methods like pure *&quot;AND, OR, NOT operators&quot;*, which do not give you any intelligent results but rather throw a cumbersome number of results which are very time consuming to screen and hence have poor efficiency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://depatisnet.dpma.de/DepatisNet/depatisnet?action=experte&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://clarivate.com/products/derwent-innovation/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://depatisnet.dpma.de/prod/en/hilfe/recherchemodi/experten-recherche/index.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19687" RevisionGUID="b0c6caa0-a00c-43ee-9198-17b7cc81e0c1" CreationDate="2018-07-02T21:46:54.847" UserId="20718" Text="Diagrams, illustrations, photos and graphs are all allowed in a patent application. They are referred to as drawings under [35 U.S.C 113][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note from the U.S.C clause above that the purpose of any drawing is only to facilitate the understanding of the subject matter that one is trying to patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Within the context of an utility patent, only the Claims are protected under the U.S. Patent Act.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Therefore, if the said diagram illustrates the method/process that one is trying to patent, the sequential steps of the diagram must be incorporated in the Claims themselves.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FiG.2 of [US20120287823A1][2] shows a similar diagram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/113&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120287823A1/en?oq=US20120287823A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19688" RevisionGUID="e25f755a-d936-4717-a407-16a67588e416" CreationDate="2018-07-02T22:04:45.647" UserId="20718" Text="The [Quick Reference Sheet][1] that you linked is one of the most informative guide we have from USPTO in helping us(who are not lawyers) to identify abstract ideas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that while the term &quot;abstract idea&quot; falls under judicial exception under [U.S. Patent Law][2], &quot;the courts have [declined][3] to define abstract ideas. Instead, they have often identified abstract ideas by referring to&#xD;&#xA;earlier precedent...&quot;, hence the Quick Reference Sheet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize, the question of whether a concept is an &quot;abstract idea&quot; is a legal determination that can only be made in court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-qrs.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html#ch2100_d29a1b_13a9e_2dc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54352" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18522" RevisionGUID="2c39c596-d231-4e4f-91ce-bc573071b473" CreationDate="2018-07-02T23:38:05.157" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54353" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17769" RevisionGUID="3376f4ed-2b5d-45c6-8e36-40fec4cdb4bc" CreationDate="2018-07-03T03:38:05.940" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54354" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="2224b39a-ff71-4f82-8a47-b1f96cec946b" CreationDate="2018-07-03T13:38:15.497" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54356" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19229" RevisionGUID="72407f87-f599-45be-bebb-8a42b2322b88" CreationDate="2018-07-04T03:47:04.643" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54357" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19051" RevisionGUID="2bfc115f-0c14-4fbd-b625-c2f185ed2b62" CreationDate="2018-07-04T05:49:02.103" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54358" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="74d92af7-aa83-4fa1-a29b-4a735c57afd4" CreationDate="2018-07-04T06:49:29.197" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54359" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18941" RevisionGUID="6b4a81c3-8faa-4365-bcdf-19ae79cf7201" CreationDate="2018-07-04T08:49:29.443" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54360" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="b9c23c56-9477-4443-bab0-b715e1d3a42f" CreationDate="2018-07-04T09:49:30.007" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54361" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="19668" RevisionGUID="3ea2c19d-3b5a-404d-8670-d69cc9727212" CreationDate="2018-07-04T16:50:07.920" UserId="-1" Comment="45" />
  <row Id="54362" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15983" RevisionGUID="23d3860e-4d1c-4b77-ba7a-bfa92ab621be" CreationDate="2018-07-04T16:50:07.920" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54363" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19242" RevisionGUID="d5f6dd59-6ef7-4c74-b5b1-ae090a4abeac" CreationDate="2018-07-04T20:50:06.163" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54364" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19227" RevisionGUID="8f4cb450-a419-4db7-ba2f-780138ff97bc" CreationDate="2018-07-04T21:50:07.020" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54365" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="435581a0-3fb9-42a4-935e-0fcee88abd64" CreationDate="2018-07-04T22:50:07.913" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54367" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18799" RevisionGUID="0bd4d0c2-dcb9-46a5-983f-76baa79ff27a" CreationDate="2018-07-05T17:51:51.153" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19689" RevisionGUID="8f877558-a507-41e8-a30f-a95ce114b2e3" CreationDate="2018-07-05T18:55:39.930" UserId="21217" Text="I had an idea that I thought did not exist but turns out it does exist and in fact I found many items for sale online (the material is different but the final purpose is the same). In that case I will not be going after a patent, but can I still go ahead and try to sell my item? How do I know if someone will sue me for selling the item? Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54369" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19689" RevisionGUID="8f877558-a507-41e8-a30f-a95ce114b2e3" CreationDate="2018-07-05T18:55:39.930" UserId="21217" Text="How do I know if I can sell an item that is already in the market? Not sure if it has a patent or not" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54370" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19689" RevisionGUID="8f877558-a507-41e8-a30f-a95ce114b2e3" CreationDate="2018-07-05T18:55:39.930" UserId="21217" Text="&lt;usa&gt;&lt;question&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54371" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17587" RevisionGUID="e12f0974-3d42-4835-b870-6ca70c502eaa" CreationDate="2018-07-05T20:52:11.980" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54372" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18211" RevisionGUID="8f7ecf97-571a-40d0-a41a-da7c26b35cc5" CreationDate="2018-07-05T22:51:58.843" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54373" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18821" RevisionGUID="e8fffdb3-ad09-4d5e-8ea7-2d6420842119" CreationDate="2018-07-05T23:51:58.253" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3190" RevisionGUID="dc21463e-411b-4adb-babf-a4ce7f9a35cb" CreationDate="2018-07-06T07:13:14.397" UserId="18618" Comment="updated to reflect the present tense" Text="In a direct answer to the question, absolutely yes (the title is worded opposite to the question so the answer to the tile is no), up until March 16th of 2013 when the provisions of the AIA kick in. The old/current law says you can't get a patent if it was patented or published anywhere in the world. Or if it was known or used by others **in this country**  - [35 USC sec 102(a)][1]. That all changes with the AIA so that the location of the known or used is worldwide. I think it was originally USA specific due to the difficulty of proving or disproving that something was known or used out of the country. A publication is in black and white.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That does not mean one can steal an idea you learn on a foreign trip or apply for a patent when you know you are not the first and true inventor, inventors sign an oath to that effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2132.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54375" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3190" RevisionGUID="dc21463e-411b-4adb-babf-a4ce7f9a35cb" CreationDate="2018-07-06T07:13:14.397" Comment="Proposed by 18618 approved by -1 edit id of 2077" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3190" RevisionGUID="7cc92252-b712-4d07-860a-37a257d6472d" CreationDate="2018-07-06T07:13:14.397" UserId="18033" Comment="updated to reflect the present tense" Text="In a direct answer to the question, absolutely yes (the title is worded opposite to the question so the answer to the tile is no), up until March 16th of 2013 when the provisions of the AIA kicked in. The old law said you couldn't get a patent if it was patented or published anywhere in the world. Or if it was known or used by others **in this country**  - [35 USC sec 102(a)][1]. That all changed with the AIA so that the location of the known or used is worldwide. I think it was originally USA specific due to the difficulty of proving or disproving that something was known or used out of the country. A publication is in black and white.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That does not mean one can steal an idea you learn on a foreign trip or apply for a patent when you know you are not the first and true inventor, inventors sign an oath to that effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2132.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54377" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19379" RevisionGUID="2c948134-2650-44f3-8728-9dcd7d92efb8" CreationDate="2018-07-06T16:17:11.757" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19690" RevisionGUID="10d63344-780d-4fe6-a444-875711b08f87" CreationDate="2018-07-06T16:37:11.713" UserId="17003" Text="This is a challenge everyone deals with. At the very least, you should perform a patent search. This takes some experience and some businesses farm this out to a patent law firm. If you want to take a crack at this, you can use [Google Patents][1] or even better (in my opinion) [The Lens][2]. There are other free patent search sites, but those ones are pretty good. Patents are specific for a jurisdiction so you could limit the scope to just the countries you are interested in. Start broad with search terms. This means fewer specifics. Be aware that you need to actually comprehend the claims to know what a patent is covering. Patent titles are often very general. You may want to search the patents assigned to the firm you know sells the product you are worried about. This doesn't guarantee finding a patent since it is possible the firm licensed the patent from someone else. Once you find a patent that seams relevant, look at the cited patents to find more potentially relevant patents. Remember patents expire so if you can find a patent more than 20 years older than it's filing date that is a good thing for you. Ultimately, determining freedom to operate is a legal opinion and having a good patent lawyer is recommended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54379" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19531" RevisionGUID="929b8632-e05f-4743-ab7a-cf8268a746e6" CreationDate="2018-07-06T17:17:12.253" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19691" RevisionGUID="77d36714-4145-4dbe-9ca8-dc88f64bef58" CreationDate="2018-07-06T19:51:11.220" UserId="3076" Text="If the independent claim/s are obvious, they are the ones that need defending or narrowing before you get to the dependent claims. References cited as prior art can be attacked as not being enabled but (at least in the U.S.) granted U.S. patents are given a strong resumption of enablement. Also, even if a reference is not enabled across its whole scope, we still say &quot;it is good for what it teaches&quot;. Parts of various references can legitimately be combined to show your claims are obvious. There are a few ways to show an obviousness rejection is improper. One, in the U.S., is to show that, in the process of modifying the base prior art (using the other references) into your claimed structure, the theory of operation of the base reference is subverted to the point that it is no longer functional for its original purpose. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54381" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="3d54ca50-974f-4716-a31e-b35b37553d28" CreationDate="2018-07-06T22:17:11.780" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54383" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="2ef4278f-7e98-42aa-956a-4787edeae170" CreationDate="2018-07-07T09:17:17.450" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54384" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="1f79ac14-056b-4552-a0d8-8b8c527c1ce5" CreationDate="2018-07-07T13:17:28.227" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19692" RevisionGUID="1da92e47-19fa-47a1-9a4d-8991d1ebd2d1" CreationDate="2018-07-07T14:52:32.173" UserId="20718" Text="If I may summarize the timeline:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*02 April 2017 - US Provisional(Not published)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;01 April 2018 - US Non-Provisional, converted from US Provisional (Not published) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;29 April 2018 - Australian Provisional (Not published)&lt;br/&gt;*&#xD;&#xA;24 May 2018 - Day you asked the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you file a PCT claiming the priority date of the Australian Provisional?  &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**If you have not made any public disclosure, the answer is yes.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicable rule here: &lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Article 4.C(4) of the Paris Convention&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dictates that the 12-month window for filing a PCT application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; commences on the filing date of the earliest application in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; family.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, you cannot file a PCT application based on the priority of your US Provisional because the 12-month window has passed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you can still file a PCT application based on the priority of your Australian Provisional since you are still within the 12-month window.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that you will need to abandon your US Non-Provisional to prevent the novelty of your subject matter in your PCT Application from being negated by the US Non-Provisional when it publishes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This link provides more information: https://www.smithhopen.com/PCT_filing_deadlines_and_priority_dates.aspx&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19692" RevisionGUID="c8cd1198-22ef-43cb-b598-06b7a2f9747c" CreationDate="2018-07-07T19:45:42.970" UserId="20718" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="If I may summarize the timeline:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*02 April 2017 - US Provisional(Not published)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;01 April 2018 - US Non-Provisional, converted from US Provisional (Not published) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;29 April 2018 - Australian Provisional (Not published)&lt;br/&gt;*&#xD;&#xA;24 May 2018 - Day you asked the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you file a PCT claiming the priority date of the Australian Provisional?  &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**If you have not made any public disclosure, the answer is yes.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicable rule here: &lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Article 4.C(4) of the Paris Convention&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dictates that the 12-month window for filing a PCT application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; commences on the filing date of the earliest application in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; family.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, you cannot file a PCT application based on the priority of your US Provisional because the 12-month window has passed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you can still file a PCT application based on the priority of your Australian Provisional since you are still within the 12-month window.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that you will need to withdraw your US Non-Provisional to prevent the novelty of your subject matter in your PCT Application from being negated by the US Non-Provisional when it publishes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This link provides more information: https://www.smithhopen.com/PCT_filing_deadlines_and_priority_dates.aspx&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19693" RevisionGUID="0d1f1fa9-60c0-4e74-a560-1b99df02c24d" CreationDate="2018-07-07T23:06:12.563" UserId="3789" Text="How can I retrieve the meta-information of all patents filed by a given assignee?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am mostly interested in tile, inventor list, and year of filing, for patents filed to the USPTO. The meta-information should be in some machine-readable format (i.e., querying Google Patents like https://patents.google.com/?assignee=Adobe+Systems+Inc&amp;oq=assignee:(Adobe+Systems+Inc) isn't helpful for my use case as the output isn't machine-friendly)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54388" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19693" RevisionGUID="0d1f1fa9-60c0-4e74-a560-1b99df02c24d" CreationDate="2018-07-07T23:06:12.563" UserId="3789" Text="How can I retrieve the meta-information of all patents filed to the USPTO by a given assignee?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54389" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19693" RevisionGUID="0d1f1fa9-60c0-4e74-a560-1b99df02c24d" CreationDate="2018-07-07T23:06:12.563" UserId="3789" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;databases&gt;&lt;api&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19693" RevisionGUID="3c0acc83-d148-4271-a473-dae54c73e699" CreationDate="2018-07-08T04:16:12.660" UserId="3789" Comment="Corrected Spelling" Text="How can I retrieve the meta-information of all patents filed by a given assignee?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am mostly interested in title, inventor list, and year of filing, for patents filed to the USPTO. The meta-information should be in some machine-readable format (i.e., querying Google Patents like https://patents.google.com/?assignee=Adobe+Systems+Inc&amp;oq=assignee:(Adobe+Systems+Inc) isn't helpful for my use case as the output isn't machine-friendly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have crossposted the question at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://qr.ae/TUpdhd" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54391" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19694" RevisionGUID="32dda32f-e119-4304-b828-ab4bbaf6c9ba" CreationDate="2018-07-08T10:19:37.527" UserId="21220" Text="Assume that I created a software that accidentally infringes on 5 software patents, and then I sold this software for a number of years and made $10,000 in profit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the holders of these 5 patents later sue me and each patent holder demand that I pay $10,000 in damages, and so I have to pay a total of $50,000 in damages?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54392" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19694" RevisionGUID="32dda32f-e119-4304-b828-ab4bbaf6c9ba" CreationDate="2018-07-08T10:19:37.527" UserId="21220" Text="Am I just being paranoid about software patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54393" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19694" RevisionGUID="32dda32f-e119-4304-b828-ab4bbaf6c9ba" CreationDate="2018-07-08T10:19:37.527" UserId="21220" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;usa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19695" RevisionGUID="912dfc07-8af0-4b1b-9da9-1db7c0c22977" CreationDate="2018-07-08T14:06:45.130" UserId="21220" Text="Assume that I created a free software that accidentally infringes on one or more software patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the holders of these patents sue me for damages, even though I did not make any money from the free software?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54395" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19695" RevisionGUID="912dfc07-8af0-4b1b-9da9-1db7c0c22977" CreationDate="2018-07-08T14:06:45.130" UserId="21220" Text="Can the developer of a free software be sued for damages because of an accidental patent infringement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54396" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19695" RevisionGUID="912dfc07-8af0-4b1b-9da9-1db7c0c22977" CreationDate="2018-07-08T14:06:45.130" UserId="21220" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;usa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19696" RevisionGUID="56c4dc30-2639-4775-960b-a15cd7232a21" CreationDate="2018-07-08T15:28:59.477" UserId="18033" Text="Yes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent holder may sue for lost profits and/or reasonable royalties. [Wikipedia sums it up well][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Under 35 U.S.C. § 284, a patent owner is entitled to &quot;damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty.&quot;[9] Lost profits that result from infringement of their patent are also compensable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_infringement_under_United_States_law" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54398" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18513" RevisionGUID="37d07247-b543-454d-a9f6-c7800f416c91" CreationDate="2018-07-08T18:31:29.973" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19697" RevisionGUID="e5bf69e2-8145-46c5-bc04-b4cbd71b706c" CreationDate="2018-07-08T19:56:14.003" UserId="3789" Text="You can use the [Google Patents Public Datasets](https://cloud.google.com/blog/big-data/2017/10/google-patents-public-datasets-connecting-public-paid-and-private-patent-data) ([mirror](https://web.archive.org/web/20180708195714/https://cloud.google.com/blog/big-data/2017/10/google-patents-public-datasets-connecting-public-paid-and-private-patent-data)), which can be accessed through Google BigQuery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [this query](https://bigquery.cloud.google.com/savedquery/931482164662:3bac9e5fe26649fdb600fd123da0be53):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #legacySQL&#xD;&#xA;    SELECT publication_number, assignee_harmonized.name, filing_date, country_code	&#xD;&#xA;    FROM [patents-public-data.patents.publications]&#xD;&#xA;    -- WHERE UPPER(assignee_harmonized.name) LIKE 'ADOBE%'&#xD;&#xA;    WHERE UPPER(assignee_harmonized.name) = 'ADOBE SYSTEMS INC'&#xD;&#xA;    ORDER BY filing_date DESC &#xD;&#xA;    LIMIT 20000;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;returns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schema description: https://bigquery.cloud.google.com/table/patents-public-data:patents.publications?tab=schema:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MUrh9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PaVa2.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19697" RevisionGUID="75522e7c-04e1-400f-837e-f1dfef509dba" CreationDate="2018-07-08T20:02:45.807" UserId="3789" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="You can use the [Google Patents Public Datasets](https://cloud.google.com/blog/big-data/2017/10/google-patents-public-datasets-connecting-public-paid-and-private-patent-data) ([mirror](https://web.archive.org/web/20180708195714/https://cloud.google.com/blog/big-data/2017/10/google-patents-public-datasets-connecting-public-paid-and-private-patent-data)), which can be accessed through Google BigQuery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [this query](https://bigquery.cloud.google.com/savedquery/931482164662:3bac9e5fe26649fdb600fd123da0be53) (its execution is free of charge):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #legacySQL&#xD;&#xA;    SELECT publication_number, assignee_harmonized.name, filing_date, country_code	&#xD;&#xA;    FROM [patents-public-data.patents.publications]&#xD;&#xA;    -- WHERE UPPER(assignee_harmonized.name) LIKE 'ADOBE%'&#xD;&#xA;    WHERE UPPER(assignee_harmonized.name) = 'ADOBE SYSTEMS INC'&#xD;&#xA;    ORDER BY filing_date DESC &#xD;&#xA;    LIMIT 20000;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;returns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schema description: https://bigquery.cloud.google.com/table/patents-public-data:patents.publications?tab=schema:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MUrh9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PaVa2.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19697" RevisionGUID="25d97696-83df-4481-a02f-6bb7e32adf00" CreationDate="2018-07-08T20:19:12.383" UserId="3789" Comment="added 506 characters in body" Text="You can use the [Google Patents Public Datasets](https://cloud.google.com/blog/big-data/2017/10/google-patents-public-datasets-connecting-public-paid-and-private-patent-data) ([mirror](https://web.archive.org/web/20180708195714/https://cloud.google.com/blog/big-data/2017/10/google-patents-public-datasets-connecting-public-paid-and-private-patent-data)), which can be accessed through Google BigQuery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [this query](https://bigquery.cloud.google.com/savedquery/931482164662:3bac9e5fe26649fdb600fd123da0be53) (its execution is free of charge):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #legacySQL&#xD;&#xA;    SELECT publication_number, assignee_harmonized.name, filing_date, country_code	&#xD;&#xA;    FROM [patents-public-data.patents.publications]&#xD;&#xA;    -- WHERE UPPER(assignee_harmonized.name) LIKE 'ADOBE%'&#xD;&#xA;    WHERE UPPER(assignee_harmonized.name) = 'ADOBE SYSTEMS INC'&#xD;&#xA;    ORDER BY filing_date DESC &#xD;&#xA;    LIMIT 20000;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;returns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To retrieve the inventor names, you can run:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #legacySQL&#xD;&#xA;    SELECT publication_number, inventor_harmonized.name, filing_date&#xD;&#xA;    FROM [patents-public-data.patents.publications] &#xD;&#xA;    WHERE publication_number IN (&#xD;&#xA;      SELECT publication_number FROM [patents-public-data.patents.publications] &#xD;&#xA;      -- WHERE UPPER(assignee_harmonized.name) LIKE 'ADOBE%'&#xD;&#xA;      WHERE UPPER(assignee_harmonized.name) = 'ADOBE SYSTEMS INC'&#xD;&#xA;    )&#xD;&#xA;    AND country_code = 'US'&#xD;&#xA;    ORDER BY filing_date DESC;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schema description: https://bigquery.cloud.google.com/table/patents-public-data:patents.publications?tab=schema:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MUrh9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PaVa2.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19697" RevisionGUID="e9cdd916-508d-42ab-bcb4-0f2e5208748b" CreationDate="2018-07-08T20:24:24.647" UserId="3789" Comment="added 506 characters in body" Text="You can use the [Google Patents Public Datasets](https://cloud.google.com/blog/big-data/2017/10/google-patents-public-datasets-connecting-public-paid-and-private-patent-data) ([mirror](https://web.archive.org/web/20180708195714/https://cloud.google.com/blog/big-data/2017/10/google-patents-public-datasets-connecting-public-paid-and-private-patent-data)), which can be accessed through Google BigQuery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [this query](https://bigquery.cloud.google.com/savedquery/931482164662:3bac9e5fe26649fdb600fd123da0be53) (its execution is free of charge):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #legacySQL&#xD;&#xA;    SELECT publication_number, assignee_harmonized.name, filing_date, country_code	&#xD;&#xA;    FROM [patents-public-data.patents.publications]&#xD;&#xA;    -- WHERE UPPER(assignee_harmonized.name) LIKE 'ADOBE%'&#xD;&#xA;    WHERE UPPER(assignee_harmonized.name) = 'ADOBE SYSTEMS INC'&#xD;&#xA;    ORDER BY filing_date DESC &#xD;&#xA;    LIMIT 20000;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;returns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To retrieve the inventor names, you can run:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    #legacySQL&#xD;&#xA;    SELECT publication_number, inventor_harmonized.name, filing_date&#xD;&#xA;    FROM [patents-public-data.patents.publications] &#xD;&#xA;    WHERE publication_number IN (&#xD;&#xA;      SELECT publication_number FROM [patents-public-data.patents.publications] &#xD;&#xA;      -- WHERE UPPER(assignee_harmonized.name) LIKE 'ADOBE%'&#xD;&#xA;      WHERE UPPER(assignee_harmonized.name) = 'ADOBE SYSTEMS INC'&#xD;&#xA;    )&#xD;&#xA;    AND country_code = 'US'&#xD;&#xA;    ORDER BY filing_date DESC;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schema description: https://bigquery.cloud.google.com/table/patents-public-data:patents.publications?tab=schema:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have used the [legacy SQL](https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/docs/reference/legacy-sql), but the preferred query syntax for BigQuery is standard SQL. See  [Migrating to Standard SQL](https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/docs/reference/standard-sql/migrating-from-legacy-sql#comparison_of_legacy_and_standard_sql) if you want to convert the queries to Standard SQL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MUrh9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PaVa2.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54403" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19270" RevisionGUID="4386aa7a-c38f-49d7-80e4-75cc8b6e84a3" CreationDate="2018-07-08T23:31:35.050" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19696" RevisionGUID="812e73f3-26e1-4b7a-bad0-a1ca0aa9a962" CreationDate="2018-07-09T12:41:18.933" UserId="18033" Comment="added 202 characters in body" Text="Yes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent holder may sue for lost profits and/or reasonable royalties. [Wikipedia sums it up well][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Under 35 U.S.C. § 284, a patent owner is entitled to &quot;damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty.&quot;[9] Lost profits that result from infringement of their patent are also compensable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which by the way does not necessarily say that &quot;normal&quot; damages would not be awarded, but I'll leave that open because it's hard to predict anyways and the question is already answered with the above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_infringement_under_United_States_law" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54405" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17041" RevisionGUID="2e32c1a0-40fb-472e-947a-0bde1e9f6339" CreationDate="2018-07-09T17:34:08.690" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19698" RevisionGUID="e0e66bba-a133-44cc-8f90-bd0433e54cc3" CreationDate="2018-07-09T18:03:57.540" UserId="18544" Text="Wikipedia has a list that enumerates [inventors with 200 or more utility patents][1]. Nobody doubts they are the top prolific inventors in the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some companies, like IBM, recognize their brightest employees when they surpass the 100 patent threshold (like the &quot;100th Invention Plateau Award&quot; in IBM). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, such quantity of patents per inventor is extremely rare in some developed countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in Spain, only 25 people had more than 100 patents 3 years ago, and a 75% of them are inventors from other countries that have extended their patents to all Europe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some private LinkedIn groups, like [Prolific Inventors Group][3], have stablished a 25 US granted patent criteria to join its community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, the term &quot;prolific inventor&quot; is widely used by people with a significant lower number of granted patents. For example, a simple search in LinkedIn reveals lots of professional profiles that use this label in its title, even when they only have 5 or less listed patents (some examples: [P. Pharkya][4], [R.Scott][5], [M.D.Grissom][6],...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On other hand, some of the Edison patents (and other eminent past prolific inventors) would not have been granted with actual criteria of novelty and inventive step. &#xD;&#xA;The patent system has changed a lot in the US and Europe over time. Its evolution tends towards an increasingly strict examination in novelty, while there are more and more possible references that undermine the requirement of inventive step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know, when a person is considered a **prolific inventor**. Is there a common criteria or a number of granted patents that can be **used as an standard** to distiguish a **prolific inventor** from other kinds of inventors?&#xD;&#xA;Does it vary with country or century?&#xD;&#xA;Design patents are also considered?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prolific_inventors&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RX4lQ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/3718887/profile&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.linkedin.com/in/priti-pharkya-326ba4/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rennscott/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.linkedin.com/in/inventorgrissom/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54407" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19698" RevisionGUID="e0e66bba-a133-44cc-8f90-bd0433e54cc3" CreationDate="2018-07-09T18:03:57.540" UserId="18544" Text="How many granted patents does a person have to be considered a prolific inventor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54408" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19698" RevisionGUID="e0e66bba-a133-44cc-8f90-bd0433e54cc3" CreationDate="2018-07-09T18:03:57.540" UserId="18544" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;prolific&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54409" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19698" RevisionGUID="2fc49b87-a575-4863-99eb-21e00e81dfdc" CreationDate="2018-07-09T18:09:07.963" UserId="18544" Comment="edited title" Text="How many patents does a person get granted to be considered a prolific inventor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54410" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12865" RevisionGUID="9c99803f-8f50-4e34-bda2-4d93f1b1a4f2" CreationDate="2018-07-09T18:34:09.010" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54411" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18787" RevisionGUID="65408b23-6df6-4032-8ed4-ebe1d0067b82" CreationDate="2018-07-09T19:34:09.230" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19699" RevisionGUID="9da5b9a3-db54-4aa0-8572-c27a4900e820" CreationDate="2018-07-09T21:35:22.390" UserId="19913" Text="I am trying to determine whether I should include this section in a Non Provisional Application (NPA).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I read the 'Background of the Invention' it seems to provide the history of the technology and where the invention fits into the timeline.  The patent is 22 years old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. How does including the prior art in the NPA help application process?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand it is critical that one identifies all the prior before applying because  the prior defines the scope of what can NOT be patented.  That being said, I am should I be concerned about citing prior art?  I seem to remember advice indicating not to cite prior art, but to be very aware of any and all existing prior art to avoid 102 Novelty 103 Obviousness rejections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2.  What is the purpose of this section?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.  Is 'Background of the Invention' obsolete? or is it required?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54413" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19699" RevisionGUID="9da5b9a3-db54-4aa0-8572-c27a4900e820" CreationDate="2018-07-09T21:35:22.390" UserId="19913" Text="'Background of the Invention'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54414" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19699" RevisionGUID="9da5b9a3-db54-4aa0-8572-c27a4900e820" CreationDate="2018-07-09T21:35:22.390" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;background&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19699" RevisionGUID="217f226b-0bba-457a-843b-a3e1082b8f28" CreationDate="2018-07-09T21:47:42.770" UserId="19913" Comment="possible answer for Question 2" Text="I am trying to determine whether I should include this section in a Non Provisional Application (NPA).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I read the 'Background of the Invention' it seems to provide the history of the technology and where the invention fits into the timeline.  The patent is 22 years old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. How does including the prior art in the NPA help application process?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand it is critical that one identifies all the prior before applying because  the prior defines the scope of what can NOT be patented.  That being said, I am should I be concerned about citing prior art?  I seem to remember advice indicating not to cite prior art, but to be very aware of any and all existing prior art to avoid 102 Novelty 103 Obviousness rejections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2.  [What is the purpose of this section?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.  Is 'Background of the Invention' obsolete? or is it required?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/09/12/beware-background-pitfalls-when-drafting-a-patent-application/id=61650/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19700" RevisionGUID="03940e0b-77bf-4e46-8565-9230bbc7a0ea" CreationDate="2018-07-09T22:10:35.850" UserId="21223" Text="If my patent is published in U.K. how much time do I have to file the same patent in other countries? Why would it be a race to file in other countries anyway?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54417" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19700" RevisionGUID="03940e0b-77bf-4e46-8565-9230bbc7a0ea" CreationDate="2018-07-09T22:10:35.850" UserId="21223" Text="to patent world wide or is one country good enough?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54418" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19700" RevisionGUID="03940e0b-77bf-4e46-8565-9230bbc7a0ea" CreationDate="2018-07-09T22:10:35.850" UserId="21223" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;timelimits&gt;&lt;against-myself&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19701" RevisionGUID="74a31ce4-e36c-4eb1-9668-cbb618cad978" CreationDate="2018-07-09T23:51:48.747" UserId="17003" Text="It is an interesting question. I'm pretty sure there isn't an acknowledged international standard. Wikipedia states they used 200 patents to reduce the number to a convenient size.  The same Wikipedia article references [a paper that suggests 15 patents][1] identifies a &quot;prolific inventor&quot;. This is based on the idea that the average number of patents per inventor is around three and five times that is sufficiently more productive to be considered &quot;prolific&quot;. I like this definition as it means I am considered a prolific inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also the challenge of actually counting inventions. I, for instance, have [40 issued US patents][2], but have [88 separate issued patent documents world wide][3]. Those patents outside the US are, for the most part, simply international equivalents of a US patent and not really different inventions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another consideration is the importance of the patents. A person might have several patents in a family of which most are minor refinements of the core invention. Another inventor may only have a single invention but it might be exceptionally important technologically or commercially. Wilber Wright has only 5 US patents, but they were good ones. I know of a professor who has his name listed on almost all the patents generated by his research group. He may be responsibly for only a single claim on a particular patent (if that).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to attempt to answer your questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a common criteria or a number of granted patents that can be used as an standard to distiguish a prolific inventor from other kinds of inventors?  **- Not to my knowledge outside of the paper cited.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it vary with country or century? **- I don't see why it should although the cited paper does break out statistics for several countries**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Design patents are also considered? **- Not by me in any case. Design patents are not inventive in the same way as utility patents are.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, I don't think it really matters. If an inventor with 5 patents want's to consider themselves &quot;prolific&quot; than, so long as they aren't being misleading with respect to the number (say all the patents are foreign equivalents) I don't see the harm. People say all kinds of nice things about themselves in their CVs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1625743&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/search?j=US&amp;types=Granted%20Patent&amp;l=en&amp;st=true&amp;jo=true&amp;q=inventor%3A%22shain%20eric%22%7E2&amp;p=0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.lens.org/lens/search?types=Granted%20Patent&amp;l=en&amp;st=true&amp;jo=true&amp;q=inventor%3A%22shain%20eric%22%7E2&amp;p=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54420" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19694" RevisionGUID="7725fc49-9531-41d4-a018-2051ad954c4e" CreationDate="2018-07-09T23:52:31.723" UserId="3789" Comment="Improved title" Text="Can I be sued for damages for patent infringement that are more than my actual profit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54421" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19694" RevisionGUID="7725fc49-9531-41d4-a018-2051ad954c4e" CreationDate="2018-07-09T23:52:31.723" Comment="Proposed by 3789 approved by 18033, 17003 edit id of 2079" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54422" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6420" RevisionGUID="40c24a29-476a-4b09-b56b-02fed1077416" CreationDate="2018-07-09T23:53:08.447" UserId="3789" Comment="Improved Formatting" Text="Canadian and intl patent application-in-process beat me to it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54423" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6420" RevisionGUID="40c24a29-476a-4b09-b56b-02fed1077416" CreationDate="2018-07-09T23:53:08.447" Comment="Proposed by 3789 approved by 18033, 17003 edit id of 2078" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54424" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19698" RevisionGUID="9590be8a-acb5-4e74-ac28-83a0974db993" CreationDate="2018-07-10T04:58:02.447" UserId="18544" Comment="edited title" Text="How many granted patents are required to be considered a prolific inventor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19702" RevisionGUID="8d6ce92e-c8fd-4bdd-b925-6a3410d052d3" CreationDate="2018-07-10T05:20:40.877" UserId="18544" Text="One of the Amazon leadership principles is &quot;[invent and simplify][1]&quot;, so I suppose Amazon encourages their employees to be creative and to fill new patent applications. &#xD;&#xA;I have heard a rumour about *puzzle pieces* and I would like to know more about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How did that original way of awarding employees begin?&#xD;&#xA;What do the puzzle pieces look like? Are they unique pieces that fit among them? In that case, how many pieces do you need to complete the puzzle?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://jesusgilhernandez.com/2014/11/18/amazon-3rd-principle-invent-and-simplify/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54426" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19702" RevisionGUID="8d6ce92e-c8fd-4bdd-b925-6a3410d052d3" CreationDate="2018-07-10T05:20:40.877" UserId="18544" Text="Does Amazon have a corporate reward policy for employee patent inventors?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54427" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19702" RevisionGUID="8d6ce92e-c8fd-4bdd-b925-6a3410d052d3" CreationDate="2018-07-10T05:20:40.877" UserId="18544" Text="&lt;amazon&gt;&lt;award&gt;&lt;inventive-culture&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54428" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19700" RevisionGUID="e4b60f70-2263-4869-961f-d5716c91c4b7" CreationDate="2018-07-10T09:30:30.633" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;timelimits&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19703" RevisionGUID="013415c0-d5ab-481e-b727-004aedd421e9" CreationDate="2018-07-10T14:21:34.727" UserId="14403" Text="**How much time do I have to file the same patent in other countries?** You have exactly one year from the date of first filing (provisional or non-provisional) for exercising option for filing in other countries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can file at Receiving Office (RO) of WIPO (co-located at patent office of your country) within this period of one year and get additional eighteen months i.e. total two and half  years (30 months) from the date of first filing for filing in other countries (entering national phase).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you intend to file in limited number of countries, than it is better to file directly in those countries within the said permissible time limit of one year. This will save some money. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on experience, it is suggested, first assess your affordability and act accordingly.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why would it be a race ?**&#xD;&#xA;If your intention is why one should file in different countries than the answer is patent rights are limited to geographical limits of granting country. One is expected to assess interests and select countries to file application to have best protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your intention is why the time limit than answer is all PCT (Patent Convention Treaty) member countries follow this rule of filing within one year without exception because this was formulated by consensus of the member countries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19703" RevisionGUID="87437cf4-a981-4432-9d02-67fcf569f3ec" CreationDate="2018-07-10T14:31:06.003" UserId="14403" Comment="improve the answer" Text="**How much time do I have to file the same patent in other countries?** You have exactly one year from the date of first filing (provisional or non-provisional) for exercising option for filing in other countries. (Called Paris Convention Route). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can file at Receiving Office (RO) of WIPO (co-located at patent office of your country) within this period of one year and get additional eighteen months i.e. total two and half  years (30 months) from the date of first filing for filing in other countries (entering national phase). (Called PCT Route).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you intend to file in limited number of countries, than it is better to file directly in those countries within the said permissible time limit of one year. This will save some money. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on experience, it is suggested, first assess your affordability and act accordingly.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why would it be a race ?**&#xD;&#xA;If your intention is why one should file in different countries than the answer is patent rights are limited to geographical limits of granting country. One is expected to assess interests and select countries to file application to have best protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your intention is why the time limit than answer is all PCT (Patent Convention Treaty) member countries follow this rule of filing within one year without exception because this was formulated by consensus of the member countries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19701" RevisionGUID="f6d63e12-c99b-43cc-be7b-5470f2cbde8f" CreationDate="2018-07-10T15:50:23.693" UserId="17003" Comment="edited body" Text="It is an interesting question. I'm pretty sure there isn't an acknowledged international standard. Wikipedia states they used 200 patents to reduce the number to a convenient size.  The same Wikipedia article references [a paper that suggests 15 patents][1] identifies a &quot;prolific inventor&quot;. This is based on the idea that the average number of patents per inventor is around three and five times that is sufficiently more productive to be considered &quot;prolific&quot;. I like this definition as it means I am considered a prolific inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also the challenge of actually counting inventions. I, for instance, have [40 issued US patents][2], but have [88 separate issued patent documents world wide][3]. Those patents outside the US are, for the most part, simply international equivalents of a US patent and not really different inventions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another consideration is the importance of the patents. A person might have several patents in a family of which most are minor refinements of the core invention. Another inventor may only have a single invention but it might be exceptionally important technologically or commercially. Wilber Wright has only 5 US patents, but they were good ones. I know of a professor who has his name listed on almost all the patents generated by his research group. He may be responsible for only a single claim on a particular patent (if that).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to attempt to answer your questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a common criteria or a number of granted patents that can be used as an standard to distiguish a prolific inventor from other kinds of inventors?  **- Not to my knowledge outside of the paper cited.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it vary with country or century? **- I don't see why it should although the cited paper does break out statistics for several countries**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Design patents are also considered? **- Not by me in any case. Design patents are not inventive in the same way as utility patents are.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, I don't think it really matters. If an inventor with 5 patents want's to consider themselves &quot;prolific&quot; than, so long as they aren't being misleading with respect to the number (say all the patents are foreign equivalents) I don't see the harm. People say all kinds of nice things about themselves in their CVs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1625743&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/search?j=US&amp;types=Granted%20Patent&amp;l=en&amp;st=true&amp;jo=true&amp;q=inventor%3A%22shain%20eric%22%7E2&amp;p=0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.lens.org/lens/search?types=Granted%20Patent&amp;l=en&amp;st=true&amp;jo=true&amp;q=inventor%3A%22shain%20eric%22%7E2&amp;p=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19704" RevisionGUID="875f7ad7-8a2a-4fd3-ad9a-8d107cdf4146" CreationDate="2018-07-10T17:24:47.540" UserId="21226" Text="I filed a US patent using EFS-Unregistered on June 1st, 2018 with request not to publish. I filed the related international ePCT on June 4th, 2018. I understood that I would need to rescind the request not to publish on my US filing so I filed form sb0036 &quot;Rescission of Previous Nonpublication Request&quot; on June 16th, 2018 through USPS first class mail. I wanted to use a tracked mail from USPS but the sb0036 form specifically instructed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage as first class mail in an envelope addressed to: Mail Stop PG Pub, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, or facsimile transmitted to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on the date shown below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the 45 day for rescission and notice is almost up (deadline will be July 18th, 2018), and I haven't heard back from USPTO yet. I used first class mail so I don't have a receipt or any way to show that the USPTO has received my mail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What shall I do? Will USPTO mail me a response or just silently process it? I filed as unregistered. Is there any way to check if the request not to file is rescinded?&#xD;&#xA; - Or shall I fax the form again to USPTO with a new date? But use what fax number? The quoted instruction above mentioned fax but didn't give a number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54433" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19704" RevisionGUID="875f7ad7-8a2a-4fd3-ad9a-8d107cdf4146" CreationDate="2018-07-10T17:24:47.540" UserId="21226" Text="Am I getting a response for Rescission of Previous Nonpublication Request?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54434" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19704" RevisionGUID="875f7ad7-8a2a-4fd3-ad9a-8d107cdf4146" CreationDate="2018-07-10T17:24:47.540" UserId="21226" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;process&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19705" RevisionGUID="2d64f5be-18b1-4da7-abed-956182633669" CreationDate="2018-07-11T04:19:29.067" UserId="3076" Text="Yes,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The damages relate to the loss the patent owner sustained and have nothing to do with how much you made. As in another Q/A, you could give away the product for free and still be liable for damages. Infringing does not require intent so accidentally infringing is infringing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19705" RevisionGUID="eb5f0d5c-83cd-44d3-ad2b-ce3591f86cfc" CreationDate="2018-07-11T13:18:05.503" UserId="18033" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="Yes,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The damages relate to the loss the patent owner sustained and have nothing to do with how much you made. As in [another Q/A][1], you could give away the product for free and still be liable for damages. Infringing does not require intent so accidentally infringing is infringing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/19696/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19706" RevisionGUID="4291c33f-cc43-4a2b-9928-b4f54a88874f" CreationDate="2018-07-11T17:08:18.633" UserId="21220" Text="Is there a statute of limitation on software patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is a statute of limitation, when does the statute of limitation period goes into effect, is it after the release of the software that infringes on the patent, or is it after the patent holder knew that the patent has been infringed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54438" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19706" RevisionGUID="4291c33f-cc43-4a2b-9928-b4f54a88874f" CreationDate="2018-07-11T17:08:18.633" UserId="21220" Text="Is there a statute of limitation on software patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54439" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19706" RevisionGUID="4291c33f-cc43-4a2b-9928-b4f54a88874f" CreationDate="2018-07-11T17:08:18.633" UserId="21220" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;usa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19699" RevisionGUID="f8cbaa1e-bfb3-493a-a27f-2b976c02e1b2" CreationDate="2018-07-11T18:08:18.027" UserId="19913" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="I am trying to determine whether I should include this section in a Non Provisional Application (NPA).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I read the 'Background of the Invention' it seems to provide the history of the technology and where the invention fits into the timeline.  The patent is 22 years old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. How does including the prior art in the NPA help application process?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand it is critical that one identifies all the prior before applying because  the prior defines the scope of what can NOT be patented.  That being said, I am should I be concerned about citing prior art?  I seem to remember advice indicating not to cite prior art ([&quot;Don’t Describe the Prior Art&quot;][1]) , but to be very aware of any and all existing prior art to avoid 102 Novelty 103 Obviousness rejections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2.  [What is the purpose of this section?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.  Is 'Background of the Invention' obsolete? or is it required?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/09/12/beware-background-pitfalls-when-drafting-a-patent-application/id=61650/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19707" RevisionGUID="4003d189-f743-4730-a449-c01d54063b3a" CreationDate="2018-07-11T19:28:41.733" UserId="21226" Text="Thanks for all the comments. Answering my own question. I first called the number of the Pre-Grant Publication Division at (703)605-4283 according to the SB/36 form, but that number turned out already invalidated. I then called the Application Assistance Unit (AAU) at 571-272-4000. After waiting for more than one hour, I finally reached to someone and they helped me to check that they had already received and scanned the SB/36 form, about a week after I mailed it out. So I shouldn't need to do anything more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lesson learned:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- For time-sensitive matters, fax is better than mails because USPTO usually wouldn't be able to get back to you before your deadline, leaving you worried.&#xD;&#xA;- In order to check any time-sensitive matter on a filing of an unregistered eFiler, calling the AAU seems to be the only method. You are recommended to register and get a customer numebr/PKI ASAP and associate your previous filings with your customer number." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54442" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="3a737ee7-b96f-43bb-b47d-fe4951fc79bf" CreationDate="2018-07-11T19:46:52.953" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19708" RevisionGUID="6c82f0b8-c9cd-4207-ba19-2843c96cc94e" CreationDate="2018-07-11T22:32:35.917" UserId="3076" Text="This answer relates to US infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not exactly.  One limitation on recovering damages goes the other way in time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 35 U.S. Code § 286 - Time limitation on damages US Code Notes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA; Except as otherwise provided by law, no&#xD;&#xA;&gt; recovery shall be had for any infringement committed more than six&#xD;&#xA;&gt; years prior to the filing of the complaint or counterclaim for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; infringement in the action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have been infringing for 10 years, only the most recent 6 years counts for damages. In addition, there is a doctrine of equitable estoppel. It is a defense in a patent infringement suit where the patent owner has previously notified you and made noises about stoping you and then goes silent for a long time. It requires a showing of (1) misleading statements or conduct; (2) action in reliance; and (3) resulting prejudice. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54444" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="fa7b54f0-d00d-4c5e-aebb-2f00963ca458" CreationDate="2018-07-12T03:47:59.860" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54445" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18844" RevisionGUID="71aa4954-f38c-46e1-9863-161b56713256" CreationDate="2018-07-12T06:51:05.307" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54446" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19538" RevisionGUID="fb9faca7-c9f6-4e09-9c86-cdd65dd51344" CreationDate="2018-07-12T16:51:13.187" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19709" RevisionGUID="6daa14fd-061c-40e5-b76d-a12a4c451744" CreationDate="2018-07-12T21:04:09.557" UserId="21229" Text="The answer to the original question is Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In our experience, the entry in the Transaction History, &quot;Reasons for Allowance&quot; is strongly suggestive that the Examiner's supervisor has approved the allowance.  I am guessing that the actual document may have been prepared and recorded but is not in the IFR prior to the Notice of Allowance is posted, but that's just speculation and not what the question was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examiner's amendments are relevant here because they provide a time reference...  Our experience is that the &quot;Reasons for Allowance&quot; entry follows an Examiner's amendment for allowance by 1 to 4 days, typically 2, but the timing depends significantly on approval by the supervisor.  These rarely appear within a few hours of our acceptance of the amendment, which suggests more than the Examiner's activity is involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible that allowance may be deferred pending quality control, but there is enough consistency here to suggest that a Notice of Allowance will usually follow.  I describe this to clients as &quot;an informal indication of allowance&quot; (with a c&amp;p of the top of the Transaction history and a reference to the &quot;Reasons for Allowance&quot; entry).   With these, we expect a formal Notice of Allowance in 2 days to 4 weeks, perhaps varying depending on the cannabis examination backlog at the Denver office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I am now wondering is if the entry &quot;Examiner's Amendment Communication&quot; can also be treated as an informal indication of allowance.   I am watching one of these now to see if a &quot;Reasons for Allowance&quot; entry in the Transaction History precedes the Notice of Allowance by a few days.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19710" RevisionGUID="a2a26291-eb9e-4c1d-a965-1df110e1efe3" CreationDate="2018-07-12T23:03:12.637" UserId="21230" Text="A U.S. Patent that was applied for in 2014 is still shown as Pending (not granted). In 2016 I see a record of the European patent as &quot;non-entry in European phase&quot; code 122. There is also a record with code 121 that precedes the non-entry record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Does &quot;non-entry&quot; mean the patent was declined in that region?&#xD;&#xA;2. Is there a implication about the possible future status of the U.S. patent give that non-entry?&#xD;&#xA;3. If the patent was approved (it's been 4 years), are there strong monetary reasons to not actually get the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks,&#xD;&#xA;Daniel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54449" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19710" RevisionGUID="a2a26291-eb9e-4c1d-a965-1df110e1efe3" CreationDate="2018-07-12T23:03:12.637" UserId="21230" Text="Meaning and implications of &quot;non-entry into the European phase&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54450" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19710" RevisionGUID="a2a26291-eb9e-4c1d-a965-1df110e1efe3" CreationDate="2018-07-12T23:03:12.637" UserId="21230" Text="&lt;european&gt;&lt;non-entry&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19711" RevisionGUID="350036f1-daa7-44ff-a749-456841e68325" CreationDate="2018-07-13T05:07:27.850" UserId="14403" Text="1. 'non entry' means the applicant did not file with EPO for national phase stage after wipo (PCT) stage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2. This has no implication on patent application with USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Patent prosecution in USPTO sometimes take much more than your expected four years. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After approval i.e. notice of allowance and fees due, if the applicant does not pay fees due in time allowed than the application is not issued (not granted) and also after a patent is issued if maintenance fee (if due) is not paid than the patent is treated as abandoned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19686" RevisionGUID="43623937-3bd9-4a89-8cad-5e08a37d6da6" CreationDate="2018-07-13T05:22:58.107" UserId="14403" Comment="improve readability and breaking into short sentences in place of long sentences keeping the meaning same" Text="[DEPATISnet][1] is the best option. It is a completely free database and belongs to German Patent Office. I have worked on the database for over three years and found that the result quality is as competitive as an expensive paid database like [Thomson Innovation][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Databases like [Espacenet][3] , [Google Patents][4] , etc. do not have [proximity operators][5] like *&quot;Word A and Word B separated by a maximum of three words in between&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[proximity operators][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i. help you quickly narrow down the focus of your search to idea based on the context rather than the old-fashioned methods like pure *&quot;AND, OR, NOT operators&quot;*,&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;ii. the later methos do not give you any intelligent results but rather throw a cumbersome number of results which are very time consuming to screen and hence have poor efficiency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://depatisnet.dpma.de/DepatisNet/depatisnet?action=experte&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://clarivate.com/products/derwent-innovation/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://depatisnet.dpma.de/prod/en/hilfe/recherchemodi/experten-recherche/index.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54453" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="d3d2ebd0-dfa9-4944-b8ed-df5b4045f34a" CreationDate="2018-07-13T14:00:23.010" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19712" RevisionGUID="feaafc1c-90a7-415c-9b6f-fe59772c0f3e" CreationDate="2018-07-13T16:57:12.883" UserId="21220" Text="I was reading the [JPEG Wikipedia article][1], and found this quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The patent expired in December 2007, but Princeton has sued large&#xD;&#xA;&gt; numbers of companies for &quot;past infringement&quot; of this patent. (Under&#xD;&#xA;&gt; U.S. patent laws, a patent owner can sue for &quot;past infringement&quot; up to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; six years before the filing of a lawsuit, so Princeton could&#xD;&#xA;&gt; theoretically have continued suing companies until December 2013.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this quote basically says that you cannot sue for software patent infringement after 6 years from the patent expiration date, even if the patent infringement happened while the patent was still not expired?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG#Patent_issues" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54455" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19712" RevisionGUID="feaafc1c-90a7-415c-9b6f-fe59772c0f3e" CreationDate="2018-07-13T16:57:12.883" UserId="21220" Text="Can you sue for software patent infringement after 6 years from the patent expiration date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54456" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19712" RevisionGUID="feaafc1c-90a7-415c-9b6f-fe59772c0f3e" CreationDate="2018-07-13T16:57:12.883" UserId="21220" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;usa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19713" RevisionGUID="17b024ba-0252-480c-b8d5-48f1c7bcdf1e" CreationDate="2018-07-14T16:07:16.467" UserId="21234" Text="Our original product in 2014 had patent pending, however, for various reasons we had to abandon the patent/product.&#xD;&#xA;We have now invented a similiar product with various differences and we have renamed the product. Can we apply for a patent for this product as there notable differences?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54459" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19713" RevisionGUID="17b024ba-0252-480c-b8d5-48f1c7bcdf1e" CreationDate="2018-07-14T16:07:16.467" UserId="21234" Text="Product similiar to Abandened Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54460" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19713" RevisionGUID="17b024ba-0252-480c-b8d5-48f1c7bcdf1e" CreationDate="2018-07-14T16:07:16.467" UserId="21234" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19714" RevisionGUID="71e35b28-76e5-4fe1-972c-098d9a5243b2" CreationDate="2018-07-14T17:01:00.833" UserId="21235" Text="A 102(g) Rejection requires that the invention be reduced to practice. However, 102(a) says that if an invention is &quot;known or used in this country&quot; it can't be patented. So wouldn't a reduce to practice invention trigger the used by other clause in 102(a)? Is an Ex Parte 102(g) Rejection only when the office misses prior art and someone tells them to double check?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(My question is for PRE-AIA)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54462" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19714" RevisionGUID="71e35b28-76e5-4fe1-972c-098d9a5243b2" CreationDate="2018-07-14T17:01:00.833" UserId="21235" Text="Why is an Ex Parte 102(g) Rejection necessary? If an invention has been reduced to practice wouldn't the patent be preclude by 102(a)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54463" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19714" RevisionGUID="71e35b28-76e5-4fe1-972c-098d9a5243b2" CreationDate="2018-07-14T17:01:00.833" UserId="21235" Text="&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;interference&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19715" RevisionGUID="b22c430a-89dd-4d49-b756-1c349306c3e0" CreationDate="2018-07-14T19:02:17.580" UserId="3076" Text="Pre-AIA, when it was &quot;first to invent&quot;, there needed to be a scheme to figure out who won that contest. It was essentially, first to conceive as long as the first conceiver proceeded diligently from conception to reduction to practice. Person A might reduce to practice (which can be accomplished by filing an enabling application) first, but lose to person B who filed later, but who conceived earlier. But if person B conceived before A and could prove diligent effort towards reduction to practice from a date before A's conception, B would be the first to invent. B not working on it during a one week vacation might knock out person B's chances." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19716" RevisionGUID="6a9ed33a-c625-4e60-b2f5-4dc80b0d0d56" CreationDate="2018-07-14T19:10:11.297" UserId="3076" Text="Yes, as long as the new invention is novel and not obvious from whatever came before you file. Assuming your first application was published, or you otherwise triggered it to be in the public, that first invention is prior art to your current invention. The new version needs to not be obvious in light of the old version + other prior art.&#xD;&#xA;Of course, others may have done things after - or before 2014 -that make your new invention not novel or obvious. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unrelated to patentablity of the new invention, if a consumer/user/purchaser would not see significant value in the new version over the old version, someone could make the old version and potentially compete with you very successfully." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54466" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="e47790db-113c-4836-82f6-ed542babd589" CreationDate="2018-07-15T02:20:18.033" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54467" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16615" RevisionGUID="cb59acee-cbe0-439b-98a7-259562fae035" CreationDate="2018-07-15T04:20:18.690" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54468" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16336" RevisionGUID="607fde98-f8c0-4e31-9279-c87a1a8869b8" CreationDate="2018-07-15T05:20:18.207" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54469" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13334" RevisionGUID="7fa5ff0c-5c4c-46b0-94e8-21cf302735ae" CreationDate="2018-07-15T06:20:18.330" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54470" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6648" RevisionGUID="9fbef6c9-283a-4810-8486-3d63e1a195c1" CreationDate="2018-07-15T07:20:18.200" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54471" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19114" RevisionGUID="f6fdee13-d012-4c5f-a6ff-d996201e65d2" CreationDate="2018-07-15T08:20:18.160" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54472" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="0edc9e0f-b3ff-4f31-b6dc-6751f1a3acda" CreationDate="2018-07-15T09:20:19.923" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19717" RevisionGUID="bf5a0c34-860c-482f-91d9-685b7608034c" CreationDate="2018-07-15T19:33:40.657" UserId="20503" Text="If an invention has already reached market, can the technology be patented by the inventor(s)?  Is there a threshold of time post-hoc or just not possible?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54474" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19717" RevisionGUID="bf5a0c34-860c-482f-91d9-685b7608034c" CreationDate="2018-07-15T19:33:40.657" UserId="20503" Text="Can someone patent an invention post-hoc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54475" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19717" RevisionGUID="bf5a0c34-860c-482f-91d9-685b7608034c" CreationDate="2018-07-15T19:33:40.657" UserId="20503" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;date-of-invention&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54476" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19296" RevisionGUID="6c785b3f-cea9-44b1-ac3b-a959edb67d56" CreationDate="2018-07-15T22:24:51.983" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54477" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12961" RevisionGUID="b5ca91a7-28cd-44ee-8ad1-5311728f59c5" CreationDate="2018-07-16T00:24:53.177" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54478" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17307" RevisionGUID="781a7190-92c7-42b2-a8bb-8b9d2eb008ab" CreationDate="2018-07-16T01:24:51.953" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54479" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16506" RevisionGUID="faebbfc2-7e19-4733-842e-124e8806aeeb" CreationDate="2018-07-16T02:24:51.940" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54480" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17472" RevisionGUID="900487fc-8002-4a94-9f0e-2f48bc45455e" CreationDate="2018-07-16T03:24:53.620" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19718" RevisionGUID="18c50d76-b164-4d11-bebe-615c934969c8" CreationDate="2018-07-16T21:04:22.427" UserId="3076" Text="In the U.S. there is a one year &quot;grace period&quot; to file from the date of first public exposure. In most other jurisdictions there is no such concept. In the U.S. there are several events that can trigger the start that year and it can be complex to determine when/if it was triggered, but being available on the open market is clearly one of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19719" RevisionGUID="c1e75ae9-3823-4cbb-b2b1-394e99ffc3ee" CreationDate="2018-07-16T21:11:21.393" UserId="3076" Text="You can be liable for damages for infringing a patent while it was in force even if the suit commences after the patent has expired. Since damages are only for the most recent six years of infringement, once the patent has been expired for six year there is no point in suing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19720" RevisionGUID="47e34408-5093-4487-b934-cf7118fda17f" CreationDate="2018-07-16T21:29:52.810" UserId="19913" Text="A test and measurement system records data.   Would it be better to indicate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A test and measurement system that forwards data to a data store .  (not a 'database'). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR is it 'good enough' to state:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A test and measurement system that save data in a networked database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am concerned that the latter is too specific and a 'work-around' renders the claim weak / ineffective.  I think that it is best to use broad terms in the claims and use more specific language to describe the system elsewhere (enablement).  If this is incorrect or nuanced, I would like to understand why." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54484" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19720" RevisionGUID="47e34408-5093-4487-b934-cf7118fda17f" CreationDate="2018-07-16T21:29:52.810" UserId="19913" Text="Claims wording: too narrow and subject to workaround?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54485" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19720" RevisionGUID="47e34408-5093-4487-b934-cf7118fda17f" CreationDate="2018-07-16T21:29:52.810" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19721" RevisionGUID="0dc2d376-b07a-4473-b7a3-844ee04637ec" CreationDate="2018-07-16T21:40:43.663" UserId="3076" Text="That looks like a preamble to a claim. A claim would be &#xD;&#xA;&quot;A test and measurement system that saves data in a networked database comprising:&#xD;&#xA;[then list the components and specifically how they fit together].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, if it is a method claim -&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A test and measurement system that saves data in a networked database comprising the steps of&#xD;&#xA;[doing this, doing that, doing something else]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19715" RevisionGUID="d5a9f7e2-a0c1-4052-bd79-528c2924f6d5" CreationDate="2018-07-17T00:16:47.717" UserId="3076" Comment="addressed another aspect of the question" Text="Pre-AIA, when it was &quot;first to invent&quot;, there needed to be a scheme to figure out who won that contest. It was essentially, first to conceive as long as the first conceiver proceeded diligently from conception to reduction to practice. Person A might reduce to practice (which can be accomplished by filing an enabling application) first, but lose to person B who filed later, but who conceived earlier. But if person B conceived before A and could prove diligent effort towards reduction to practice from a date before A's conception, B would be the first to invent. B not working on it during a one week vacation might knock out person B's chances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, someone actually reducing it to practice would not make it prior art leading to a 102(a) rejection for someone else as long as the invention was kept confidential and not offered for sale." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19720" RevisionGUID="4a7782e9-2fab-4ef5-8e8a-a56b0b84b190" CreationDate="2018-07-17T03:36:04.570" UserId="19913" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="A test and measurement system records data.   Would it be better to indicate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A test and measurement system that forwards data to a data store .  (not a 'database'). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR is it 'good enough' to state:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A test and measurement system that saves data in a networked database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am concerned that the latter is too specific and a 'work-around' renders the claim weak / ineffective.  I think that it is best to use broad terms in the claims and use more specific language to describe the system elsewhere (enablement).  If this is incorrect or nuanced, I would like to understand why." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54494" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18261" RevisionGUID="c1af3dbb-d2e4-41ba-bf45-8ce672a7ade6" CreationDate="2018-07-17T04:26:13.273" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19723" RevisionGUID="dfec3bf9-765a-4ef2-a1ee-c41a263391bd" CreationDate="2018-07-17T06:27:48.980" UserId="18033" Text="When reading that I have four question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What's the difference between test and measurement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do you need to do both always?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whats's a networked database?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why can't it save data elsewhere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have perfect answers to all of those, you might be fine. If not, think again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A claim is not about wording - okay, sure it is, but - it's about the **content** of the words. It doesn't matter if you describe your system with this word or that word or those words, what matters is having the facts straight. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which are **the completly necessary elements to distinguish your invention from the prior art**, how are they defined (specifics go into the description, but it should be understandable from the claims)  and how do they work together?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54496" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17844" RevisionGUID="3b1359b0-b004-433c-991a-0175c0bb9a8f" CreationDate="2018-07-17T10:26:13.447" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19720" RevisionGUID="e39603e8-c997-47ae-a10e-0444dd0f266c" CreationDate="2018-07-17T14:58:15.913" UserId="19913" Comment="Clarifying the concern / issue" Text="A test and measurement system records data.   Would it be better to indicate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A test and measurement system that forwards data to a data store .  (not a 'database'). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR is it 'good enough' to state:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A test and measurement system that saves data in a networked database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am concerned that the latter is too specific and a competitor could implement \ design  a 'work-around' a narrow claim.  I think that it is best to use broad terms in the claims and use more specific language to describe the system elsewhere (enablement).  If this is incorrect or nuanced, I would like to understand why." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19726" RevisionGUID="f4a1eab2-2108-42eb-b53e-0dee07053b0c" CreationDate="2018-07-17T19:24:06.837" UserId="5044" Text="As per the title, I wondered specifically which patents IBM has alleged Groupon has infringed upon, in its $167 million case: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ibm-groupon-lawsuit/ibm-seeks-167-million-from-groupon-in-dispute-over-early-internet-patents-idUSKBN1K62VA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54505" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19726" RevisionGUID="f4a1eab2-2108-42eb-b53e-0dee07053b0c" CreationDate="2018-07-17T19:24:06.837" UserId="5044" Text="What patents are IBM claiming Groupon infringed upon?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54506" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19726" RevisionGUID="f4a1eab2-2108-42eb-b53e-0dee07053b0c" CreationDate="2018-07-17T19:24:06.837" UserId="5044" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54507" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18971" RevisionGUID="07fb3552-8678-414f-80b1-ad8c20edce29" CreationDate="2018-07-17T21:30:01.067" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19727" RevisionGUID="3b8b4b64-3375-42c4-a277-82f60d98eeb5" CreationDate="2018-07-18T00:15:59.997" UserId="21241" Text="I have a customer who wants to file US application. The situation is,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. He has a PCT application in pending.&#xD;&#xA;2. He has a Foreign application (Korea) within one year filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He wants to file Continuation in Part US application with above two applications. I figured out there is a way, which is called bypass application, filing a nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) claiming priority to the PCT application instead of entering national stage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is how to fill out Domestic benefit and Foreign priority section in ADS in this case. I filled out the sections as below but please let me know if this is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Domestic benefit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Continuity type:continuation in part of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Priority Application Number: PCT number&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Foreign priority&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Application number:Foreign application number &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance for your answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54510" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19727" RevisionGUID="3b8b4b64-3375-42c4-a277-82f60d98eeb5" CreationDate="2018-07-18T00:15:59.997" UserId="21241" Text="How to fill out ADS domestic benefit and foreign priority section for bypass application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54511" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19727" RevisionGUID="3b8b4b64-3375-42c4-a277-82f60d98eeb5" CreationDate="2018-07-18T00:15:59.997" UserId="21241" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;bypass&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54512" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18712" RevisionGUID="79660db7-b74a-4b60-acfc-2300d8fc5873" CreationDate="2018-07-18T00:30:01.340" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54513" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="009c6f2e-5ed7-44ee-8a43-4b14b12b35e5" CreationDate="2018-07-19T03:35:08.493" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54514" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17865" RevisionGUID="ae60fcb0-176f-4246-bcee-1fdc72e8ea0b" CreationDate="2018-07-19T06:35:01.117" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19728" RevisionGUID="5a8e7a17-14a2-4c0a-bbc1-cea2cfefa66a" CreationDate="2018-07-19T16:21:36.937" UserId="17003" Text="According to [this article][1], the patents allegedly infringed upon are: US5,796,967, US5,961,601, US7,072,849 and US7,631,346.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.smallcapnetwork.com/Did-Groupon-GRPN-Actually-Infringe-on-an-International-Business-Machines-IBM-Patent/s/via/1789/article/view/p/mid/3/id/756/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54516" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19655" RevisionGUID="0d693776-b783-48c5-b99e-a2f259078066" CreationDate="2018-07-19T16:35:16.027" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19729" RevisionGUID="108cb123-eb74-4cb0-8db9-6ce2f6d07c0c" CreationDate="2018-07-19T21:51:51.070" UserId="21149" Text="I have filed non provisional, regular utility patents applications. I will be also filing continuation applications. Can I add or amend claims after the content is made public? Such as in a crowd funding campaign?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54518" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19729" RevisionGUID="108cb123-eb74-4cb0-8db9-6ce2f6d07c0c" CreationDate="2018-07-19T21:51:51.070" UserId="21149" Text="Can claims be ammended after patent contents become public?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54519" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19729" RevisionGUID="108cb123-eb74-4cb0-8db9-6ce2f6d07c0c" CreationDate="2018-07-19T21:51:51.070" UserId="21149" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claim-amendment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19730" RevisionGUID="d5e01667-6ef5-43df-bc93-d2d615da98cc" CreationDate="2018-07-19T22:40:12.390" UserId="3076" Text="You can amend and add claims in the application and can file continuation and divisional applications from it with new claims. However, any added or amended claims need to be fully supported in the original application's disclosure. &quot;No new matter&quot;, after the filing data, is a strict rule. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19728" RevisionGUID="622e3296-53cf-4dc7-8e85-43bf96ee1a15" CreationDate="2018-07-19T23:14:14.970" UserId="17003" Comment="Added links to patents for convenience" Text="According to [this article][1], the patents allegedly infringed upon are: [US5,796,967][2], [US5,961,601][3], [US7,072,849][4] and [US7,631,346][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.smallcapnetwork.com/Did-Groupon-GRPN-Actually-Infringe-on-an-International-Business-Machines-IBM-Patent/s/via/1789/article/view/p/mid/3/id/756/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5796967A/en?oq=US5%2C796%2C967&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5961601A/en?oq=US5%2C961%2C601&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7072849B1/en?oq=US7%2C072%2C849&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7631346B2/en?oq=US7%2C631%2C346" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54522" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="538e0d54-2767-449c-a6f5-47424405a876" CreationDate="2018-07-20T01:35:08.777" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19731" RevisionGUID="044d3b1f-502a-45c4-8f96-4bcee8d339c8" CreationDate="2018-07-20T13:51:18.520" UserId="21124" Text="1) It doesn't, if you describe your invention effectively and claim it well, it should be given to an expert at the USPTO that knows a significant amount of background. If you have prior art, cite it in an IDS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) To provide context of the invention. Typically there are too many pitfalls and little benefits and so it no longer serves its purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Yes it is obsolete, yes it is required. Per 608.01(a): (b) The specification should include the following sections in order:.... (7) Background of the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most patents I see these days have a background section that is pretty bland and stale. Here's the background section of the [newest Apple application][1] on google: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [0004] Electronic devices are becoming increasingly popular in a range&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of applications. Mobile phones, tablet computers, home entertainment&#xD;&#xA;&gt; systems, and the like are just some of the electronic devices users&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interact with regularly.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [0005] In addition, various electronically controllable devices, such&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as thermostats, lighting devices, household appliances, etc. are also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; becoming more popular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/DK201870293A1/en?assignee=Apple%20Inc&amp;sort=new" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19732" RevisionGUID="999a66f0-63da-47ba-ac05-56f206e9fe33" CreationDate="2018-07-20T17:46:10.270" UserId="21245" Text="If I wanna patent my idea.. but there currently already have an app of it in a different state for which it's present, could I use and patent my idea that's similar to the existing one without getting sued?? Example: Uber and Lyft but in a state that doesn't provide those services (not technically Uber and Lyft)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54527" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19732" RevisionGUID="999a66f0-63da-47ba-ac05-56f206e9fe33" CreationDate="2018-07-20T17:46:10.270" UserId="21245" Text="Can I patent and create an existing service with a different name, in a different state?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54528" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19732" RevisionGUID="999a66f0-63da-47ba-ac05-56f206e9fe33" CreationDate="2018-07-20T17:46:10.270" UserId="21245" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19733" RevisionGUID="7d68362f-fd69-43ec-9dc6-71fb06860e1d" CreationDate="2018-07-20T19:10:50.787" UserId="17003" Text="I'm assuming what you mean by states are states within the United States. Patents have jurisdiction in a specific country not specific states. A US patent covers all of the United States. Even if there is no patent in your country for an existing product, the fact that it exists in public anywhere else means it constitutes prior art and would preclude it from being patented. Now if an app is sold in one state and there is no existing patent on it, you should be able to make your own version of that app without worrying about patent infringement. It wouldn't matter what state you are in. However, apps are also protected with copyright so you would have to avoid copyright infringement too. Copyright is off topic for this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54530" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19729" RevisionGUID="917081ef-0ac9-4b9d-aec3-ec6c0f8f4fd2" CreationDate="2018-07-20T19:11:37.233" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed a spelling error" Text="Can claims be amended after patent contents become public?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19718" RevisionGUID="cc06ee69-fd96-4ee4-b3d5-ed8216d00ecb" CreationDate="2018-07-20T22:42:15.130" UserId="3076" Comment="added info re ROW" Text="In the U.S. there is a one year &quot;grace period&quot; to file from the date of first public exposure. In most other jurisdictions there is no such concept. In the U.S. there are several events that can trigger the start that year and it can be complex to determine when/if it was triggered, but being available on the open market is clearly one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most of the world there is zero grace period.  Public exposure can make it impossible to obtain patents in many other countries so that it is usually important to file before a public exposure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19734" RevisionGUID="25ed78e1-5a3c-42aa-a151-cd31df8ffa00" CreationDate="2018-07-21T01:09:21.490" UserId="18501" Text="Thank you for all your advice as always.   As it turns out the commercial/industrial application of my invention solved in the specification and enabled in the background has given me a strong defence I believe against the cited prior art.  This is due to legislation that forces my invention to be &quot;CE&quot; marked in order to be &quot;commercial&quot; which disables the prior art from anything other than appearance.   Given that there is no way the people who created the prior art could be reasonably thought of able to accomplish CE accreditation given their embodiments (by their own admissions in some cases) then I should be able to reject obviousness/equivalence. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54533" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="4598b6d9-8a34-4a39-bea2-20e634f40e24" CreationDate="2018-07-21T06:38:43.310" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54534" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="be012b8d-5c4a-4af2-ba4a-8256e2a63514" CreationDate="2018-07-22T05:38:47.887" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19735" RevisionGUID="63b1ccba-c74c-4440-9a7d-c506c8782ed0" CreationDate="2018-07-22T09:46:35.563" UserId="21248" Text="I have one idea that could improve web interfaces and functionality of web sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where and how could I patent that idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54536" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19735" RevisionGUID="63b1ccba-c74c-4440-9a7d-c506c8782ed0" CreationDate="2018-07-22T09:46:35.563" UserId="21248" Text="Where and how can I patent a web improvement or idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54537" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19735" RevisionGUID="63b1ccba-c74c-4440-9a7d-c506c8782ed0" CreationDate="2018-07-22T09:46:35.563" UserId="21248" Text="&lt;web&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19736" RevisionGUID="807f9c01-2f50-4f18-a433-09fbf722a485" CreationDate="2018-07-23T01:57:13.683" UserId="14403" Text="In short, Patent for a method or a product is issued by patent office of a country for that country. You have to prepare documents and drawings to describe your invention and claims in a particular format and should be filed along with designated forms and fees of the patent office to the patent office electronically or in person.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The following can be your guidelines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i. Never disclose your invention to any person or organization without non-disclosure agreement and to public in any form of communication, demonstration or exhibition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ii. If you are employee or with any university, institution and organisation, your employer or institution may be your assignee and take responsibility of getting patent for your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iii. If  (ii) is not applicable or you have no objection in writing from them, than if you can afford, engage a legal professional or firm for assessing patentability and if advised to process your patent application proceed. It is always advisable but costly proposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iii. If you can not afford cost of attorney, and your country allows filing as pro se inventor i.e. by inventor himself/herself without engaging a patent attorney or agent, take pain to study patent applications in the field at uspto, epo and google on line. Manuals of patent office of your country will also be helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iv. Lots of 'how to file patent in ----- (country name)' will enlighten you. Spare some time for browsing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19738" RevisionGUID="1a6fdc8f-42ea-40a2-97c8-48de3daf2931" CreationDate="2018-07-23T14:00:27.567" UserId="17003" Text="I'm afraid there is no way we can provide a useful opinion on patentability of your idea. First, the ability to obtain software related patents varies by jurisdiction. Second, without a detailed knowledge of your idea we can't judge whether there it is obvious, abstract or whether there is prior art. **You can't provide this information publicly** without jeopardizing your potential patentability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bottom line is that you should consider obtaining the advice of a patent attorney, ideally one with experience in software related patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54545" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18328" RevisionGUID="f97b5a95-dadf-480d-b3cd-a62a895c751b" CreationDate="2018-07-23T22:49:11.043" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54546" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="0f7422db-030f-4835-b6a6-7cc10fc31bff" CreationDate="2018-07-24T01:50:14.560" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19738" RevisionGUID="c55ae8d8-9894-436b-9753-59120b4ca368" CreationDate="2018-07-24T12:07:51.407" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I'm afraid there is no way we can provide a useful opinion on patentability of your idea. First, the ability to obtain software related patents varies by jurisdiction. Second, without a detailed knowledge of your idea we can't judge whether or not it is obvious, abstract or whether there is prior art. **You can't provide this information publicly** without jeopardizing your potential patentability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bottom line is that you should consider obtaining the advice of a patent attorney, ideally one with experience in software related patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19740" RevisionGUID="4ce0bded-ea19-4d32-9420-ff0b75a3729a" CreationDate="2018-07-24T13:03:07.730" UserId="21253" Text="Square and similar big payment processors having physical devices already using such techniques for years. These guys found something existing and try to patent it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See:&#xD;&#xA;https://squareup.com/help/us/en/article/5069-accept-tips-with-the-square-app&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reference to the patent: [WO2017144926A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2017144926A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54554" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19740" RevisionGUID="4ce0bded-ea19-4d32-9420-ff0b75a3729a" CreationDate="2018-07-24T13:03:07.730" UserId="21253" Text="Can a common software slider input be patented if its specific function is appended in the patent request?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54555" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19740" RevisionGUID="4ce0bded-ea19-4d32-9420-ff0b75a3729a" CreationDate="2018-07-24T13:03:07.730" UserId="21253" Text="&lt;wo2017144926a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54556" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="19740" RevisionGUID="f3668c86-4dcd-4023-a2b4-b7fb3ac8c588" CreationDate="2018-07-24T13:10:42.817" UserId="21253" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:21253,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jim Nelson&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="54557" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="19740" RevisionGUID="5f32d010-753f-4bbf-a30b-1a109352c060" CreationDate="2018-07-24T13:12:46.533" UserId="21253" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:21253,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jim Nelson&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="54558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19741" RevisionGUID="d6e53eb9-af1c-4104-961e-3807faf1e5ff" CreationDate="2018-07-24T14:59:00.410" UserId="5546" Text="Does Priceline, Hotwire and other similar bid systems compare - esp. for Hotels? Offers are based upon location and the system shows offers nearby. I have used it to make last minute hotel bookings on last minute business travel relying on their system to find best price and nearest location. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19742" RevisionGUID="84657ab7-642d-40bf-b8e0-b0ded2fdda64" CreationDate="2018-07-24T15:30:03.800" UserId="21254" Text="Is the 21+3 blackjack side bet patent expired. It is a variation of three card poker using the players first two cards and the dealers up card" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54560" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19742" RevisionGUID="84657ab7-642d-40bf-b8e0-b0ded2fdda64" CreationDate="2018-07-24T15:30:03.800" UserId="21254" Text="is the 21+3 blackjack side wager patent still active for Galaxy gaming" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54561" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19742" RevisionGUID="84657ab7-642d-40bf-b8e0-b0ded2fdda64" CreationDate="2018-07-24T15:30:03.800" UserId="21254" Text="&lt;expired&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19745" RevisionGUID="22472eeb-b15a-4179-a241-1290e270754e" CreationDate="2018-07-24T18:02:28.783" UserId="13884" Text="My thinking in general is that it better to claim the physical article, thing, device or hardware as such. In an infringement case once you have proved infringement of a claim or claims you can attach or seize the infringing article, thing device or piece of hardware. This is very effective and you really hurt the infringer if you grab his stuff. A method claim or claims on the other hand in general you have to prove that the infringer is actually in fact using your method. This can be troublesome in some cases. Further it can be in that a potential infringer only supplies the means for an end user to infringe your method claim. In such a case you have to rely on contributory infringement to stop the potential infringer. Proving contributory infringement can be difficult in some cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19746" RevisionGUID="8975f262-3d6a-43dd-9be5-b9cd7963c961" CreationDate="2018-07-24T21:53:08.837" UserId="21256" Text="Let's say an Inventor is trying to patent a drinking cup/mug.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In July 2018, the Inventor files a Provisional Patent Application, with a claim for &quot;a cylindrical drinking vessel storing consumable liquid&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In June 2019 the Inventor files a Regular Patent Application, with a claim for &quot;a vessel, regardless of shape or size, for storing and/or consuming liquid&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Minus the fact a &quot;drinking vessel&quot;, cup, or mug is not patentable subject matter in 2018, would the patent office deny the July 2018 filing date because the claims were broader in the regular than the provisional, or would it say it was supported by the disclosure and thus able to grant the earlier filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both claims are supported by the disclosure both in the provisional and the regular (e.g. The June 2019 claim is supported by the July 2018 claim)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The focus is on the specificity of the claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54567" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19746" RevisionGUID="8975f262-3d6a-43dd-9be5-b9cd7963c961" CreationDate="2018-07-24T21:53:08.837" UserId="21256" Text="U.S. Patent Law: Filing a Regular Application with broader claims than the provisional - will the USPTO deny the earlier filing date" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54568" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19746" RevisionGUID="8975f262-3d6a-43dd-9be5-b9cd7963c961" CreationDate="2018-07-24T21:53:08.837" UserId="21256" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54569" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18155" RevisionGUID="12d21c40-7a94-4a13-bfc1-f2784d00a38f" CreationDate="2018-07-24T22:01:32.193" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19746" RevisionGUID="75ba9c72-4236-45bf-8470-7e92874140fc" CreationDate="2018-07-24T22:04:13.467" UserId="21256" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Let's say an Inventor is trying to patent a drinking cup/mug.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In July 2018, the Inventor files a Provisional Patent Application, with a claim for &quot;a cylindrical drinking vessel storing consumable liquid&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In June 2019 the Inventor files a Regular Patent Application, with a claim for &quot;a vessel, regardless of shape or size, for storing and/or consuming liquid&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Minus the fact a &quot;drinking vessel&quot;, cup, or mug is not patentable subject matter in 2018, would the patent office deny the July 2018 filing date because the claims were broader in the regular than the provisional, or would it say it was supported by the disclosure and thus able to grant the earlier filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both claims are supported by the disclosure both in the provisional and the regular (e.g. The June 2019 claim is supported by the July 2018 disclosure)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The focus is on the specificity of the claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54571" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19746" RevisionGUID="75ba9c72-4236-45bf-8470-7e92874140fc" CreationDate="2018-07-24T22:04:13.467" UserId="21256" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="U.S. Patent Law: Filing a Regular Application with broader claims than the provisional - will the USPTO deny the earlier filing date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19747" RevisionGUID="80133e97-1aeb-479c-b7b0-d151dca4793f" CreationDate="2018-07-25T00:15:47.533" UserId="3076" Text="All that matters is that the provisional application fully support the claims you end up trying to get allowed. The provisional and its filing date only come into play when you get a rejection based on a publication, etc. that is dated between your two dates. That is when you show the examiner that the claim is supported in the provisional and get that reference removed as prior art to you application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19747" RevisionGUID="58248e1c-3828-448d-b285-2ff4e81a1573" CreationDate="2018-07-25T00:35:48.700" UserId="3076" Comment="added 174 characters in body" Text="All that matters is that the provisional application fully support the claims you end up trying to get allowed. The provisional and its filing date only come into play when you get a rejection based on a publication, etc. that is dated between your two dates. That is when you show the examiner that the claim is supported in the provisional and get that reference removed as prior art to you application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While a provisional application can have claims, they are not required. If they are present there is no need to conform the claims of the non-provisional to those claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19749" RevisionGUID="8728208a-8bc5-4f2a-9c39-7cdfec9f781c" CreationDate="2018-07-25T18:36:53.123" UserId="17003" Text="There are a surprising number of patents related to [poker side bets][1]. Based on my Googling, I'm guessing the patent you are referring to is [US6012719A][2]. It has a priority date of 7-22-1994 and was issued on 1-11-2000. Patents filed before June 8, 1995 expire either 20 years from their priority date or 17 years from their issue date which ever is later. As you can see from the Google Patent's page is listed as &quot;Expired - Lifetime&quot;. Assuming this patent is the one you are asking about, it has expired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/?q=poker&amp;q=side&amp;q=bet&amp;oq=poker%20side%20bet&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6012719A/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19750" RevisionGUID="92ec2921-c127-409b-8d73-cd73d967b4a1" CreationDate="2018-07-25T18:45:50.237" UserId="17003" Text="The document you cited is only a patent application. It may or may not ever become a patent. Even if it does get granted, it is very likely the claims will become narrowed. That said, the first claim (and only independent claim) is quite lengthly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Device for the implementation of cash-free payment, with the possibility of interactive tip input, which contains a server unit (3)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that may be connected to a financial service provider's (1) accounting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unit (la) via an information transmission channel (2), where the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; server unit (3) has a data traffic gate (3a) connected to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information transmission channel (2), a signal receipt input (3b) and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; display output (3c), a payment card reader part-unit (3d), data input&#xD;&#xA;&gt; part-unit (3e) and display (3f), the display output (3c) of the server&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unit (3) is connected to the display (3f), and the signal receipt&#xD;&#xA;&gt; input (3b) of the server unit (3) is connected to the payment card&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reader part-unit (3d) and the data input part-unit (3e), characterised&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by that the server unit (3) is coupled with a free data input unit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (10), the free data input unit (10) having at least two selecting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; part-units (11) separated by a gap (T) and suitable for displaying&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different signals (1 la, 1 lb), a selection-sensing member (13)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; associated with the selecting part-unit (11) and a data transmission&#xD;&#xA;&gt; part unit (14) connected to the selection-sensing member (13), and the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data transmission part unit (14) is connected to the signal receipt&#xD;&#xA;&gt; input (3b) of the server unit (3), where the selecting part-unit (11)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; has a screen (12), serving to display the given signals (11a, l ib),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with display zones (12a, 12b) separated by a gap (T) from each other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that are clearly associated with each of the given signals (11a, l&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ib), where the screen (12) with the display zones (12a, 12b) has an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interactive data input touch screen at least in the vicinity of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; display zones (12a, 12b) with a sensing surface (12c) suitable for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; changing at least one physical attribute of the display zones (12a,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12b), and the selection-sensing member (13) has selection transmission&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lines (13a, 13b) in signal- transmission connection with the sensing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; surface (12c) of the individual display zones (12a, 12b).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to infringe on this claim you would have to implement each and every step listed within it. As claims go this one is very complex and thus amenable to being circumvented. There are specific references to hardware so I don't see where your concern it that is it is patenting a &quot;common software slider&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54581" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="a7576b5e-7a74-4ca7-afde-f76eede831b7" CreationDate="2018-07-25T20:00:00.457" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19751" RevisionGUID="842850ab-5a15-4305-97af-2881c4bd743d" CreationDate="2018-07-25T20:18:20.270" UserId="18618" Text="The answer is found in MPEP 2128 [R-08.2017].  In summary, yes your web-page counts as a printed publication if any &quot;interested person&quot; could have accessed your content without a confidentiality agreement. One common example of printed publication similar to your situation is a thesis published in a university library where no one has read the thesis but any one may do so without an agreement of confidentiality. The prior art date is the date it was released to the public. The obscureness of the location is not relevant. If it was posted privately and released for public viewing later then the date it was released to the public is the prior art date. If the content is not time-stamped then the USPTO may contact the web host to verify the date of publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MPEP 2128 [R-08.2017]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Printed Publications:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;I. A reference is proven to be a “printed publication” “upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Electronic Publications:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;II. A. An electronic publication, including an online database or Internet publication (e.g. discussion group, forum, digital video, and social media post), is considered to be a “printed publication” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b) provided the publication was accessible to persons concerned with the art to which the document relates. See In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 227, 210 USPQ 790, 795 (CCPA 1981) (“Accordingly, whether information is printed, handwritten, or on microfilm or a magnetic disc or tape, etc., the one who wishes to characterize the information, in whatever form it may be, as a ‘printed publication’ ... should produce sufficient proof of its dissemination or that it has otherwise been available and accessible to persons concerned with the art to which the document relates and thus most likely to avail themselves of its contents.’”)... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Date of Availability for electronic publications:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;II B. Prior art disclosures on the Internet or on an online database are considered to be publicly available as of the date the item was publicly posted. Absent evidence of the date that the disclosure was publicly posted, if the publication itself does not include a publication date (or retrieval date), it cannot be relied upon as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b). However, it may be relied upon to provide evidence regarding the state of the art. Examiners may ask the Scientific and Technical Information Center to find the earliest date of publication or posting. See MPEP § 901.06(a), subsection IV.G.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;III. EXAMINER NEED NOT PROVE ANYONE ACTUALLY LOOKED AT THE DOCUMENT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;One need not prove someone actually looked at a publication when that publication is accessible to the public through a library or patent office. &#xD;&#xA;If any &quot;interested party&quot; could have accessed your content on the web without agreeing to confidentiality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19752" RevisionGUID="e0e4bdee-7d2b-4857-8ace-011be69ebe62" CreationDate="2018-07-25T20:32:27.607" UserId="18618" Text="Patent pending means that either a provisional patent has been filed or a non-provisional has been filed and has not been finally rejected, abandoned, or issued.  Provisional patents are only valid for one year and do not get published. Assuming there is no national security restrictions, all non-provisional US patent applications are published after 18 months or sooner if examined/issued before hand [MPEP 1120 R-07.2015].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching for the company in a patent search such as Google patents or the USPTO database is simple, but failure to find the company does not mean there is no patent.  Just because they offer a patent pending product, does not mean they own the patent.  It may be owned by a third party which means you have to do a patent search for the item itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no published application or patent after several years then it means that the application was a provisional application and no non-provisional was filed nor was the provisional application converted to a non-provisional; or the company lied." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19753" RevisionGUID="15bc95e4-9d6b-42d8-9457-33cd3520c193" CreationDate="2018-07-25T22:09:40.417" UserId="21261" Text="I Googled &quot;tmclass harmonised&quot; and selected [this link][1] which contains the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Harmonised Database contains more than 70 000 terms from which our users can select the goods and services for which they seek protection in their trade mark applications. This database is used in the European Union Intellectual Property Office's (EUIPO) online trade mark application forms, the Five-step form and the Advanced form, and is made up of terms that have already been accepted by all national intellectual property offices in the European Union (EU).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears to mean that the folks at the various EU country trademarks have come to agreement on the use of 70,000 trademarks and are in harmony with their usage and ownership. The items with check marks have been harmonised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/harmonised-database" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54585" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17273" RevisionGUID="4cf113fa-ade3-4c46-ba1d-584bf92c9f71" CreationDate="2018-07-26T02:00:23.450" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19753" RevisionGUID="eba17646-400f-4a63-857a-074cbf50c25e" CreationDate="2018-07-26T06:54:27.300" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body" Text="I Googled &quot;tmclass harmonised&quot; and selected [this link][1] which contains the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Harmonised Database contains more than 70 000 terms from which our users can select the goods and services for which they seek protection in their trade mark applications. This database is used in the European Union Intellectual Property Office's (EUIPO) online trade mark application forms, the Five-step form and the Advanced form, and is made up of terms that have already been accepted by all national intellectual property offices in the European Union (EU).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears to mean that the folks at the various EU country trademark-offices have come to agreement on the use of 70,000 terms and are in harmony with their usage. The items with check marks have been harmonised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/harmonised-database" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19754" RevisionGUID="3e097166-0943-42fb-93b9-a584fd834b19" CreationDate="2018-07-26T08:36:45.560" UserId="1721" Text="Patents [US9607415][1] and [US9613446][2]  which I invented and do not understand, appear identical. What is the relationship between these? Are they legally distinct, with one a continuation? Did the lawyers split one application into two patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9607415B2/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9613446B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54588" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19754" RevisionGUID="3e097166-0943-42fb-93b9-a584fd834b19" CreationDate="2018-07-26T08:36:45.560" UserId="1721" Text="What is the relationship between my two apparently identical patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54589" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19754" RevisionGUID="3e097166-0943-42fb-93b9-a584fd834b19" CreationDate="2018-07-26T08:36:45.560" UserId="1721" Text="&lt;continuation&gt;&lt;continuation-in-part&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19755" RevisionGUID="02199062-03b6-404c-91ca-adc3534fd1c1" CreationDate="2018-07-26T09:20:51.200" UserId="18033" Text="The second one (US9613446) is a continuation of the first one. IF you look at the claims, the second one claims a method and a computer program product while the first one claims a computer, so they have complementary scope of protection. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe the attorneys were not sure about claiming the software parts and the computer in a single patent. (Or any other strategic reason)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19754" RevisionGUID="431e84f3-c927-4297-b092-1610611ff13e" CreationDate="2018-07-26T10:48:29.737" UserId="1721" Comment="edited body" Text="Patents [US9607415][1] and [US9613446][2], which I invented and do not understand, appear identical. What is the relationship between these? Are they legally distinct, with one a continuation? Did the lawyers split one application into two patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9607415B2/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9613446B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19756" RevisionGUID="6b33510a-783c-4a5a-8bfc-946e3c4b2d0a" CreationDate="2018-07-26T13:52:17.863" UserId="19913" Text="QUESTIONS&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA; 1. What is the nuanced meaning of &quot;CLAIMED INVENTION AS A WHOLE&quot;?  &#xD;&#xA; 2. Put another way: Why not just write CLAIMED INVENTION?  &#xD;&#xA; 3. What is the alternative, &quot;claimed as a ???&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PASSAGE&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the CLAIMED INVENTION AS A WHOLE would have been obvious BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54594" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19756" RevisionGUID="6b33510a-783c-4a5a-8bfc-946e3c4b2d0a" CreationDate="2018-07-26T13:52:17.863" UserId="19913" Text="Claimed Invention &quot;As a Whole&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54595" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19756" RevisionGUID="6b33510a-783c-4a5a-8bfc-946e3c4b2d0a" CreationDate="2018-07-26T13:52:17.863" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;non-obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19757" RevisionGUID="a625ac27-a9e3-46ce-8d2f-196ed7d9ba17" CreationDate="2018-07-26T13:58:26.967" UserId="18033" Text="It just means that any single small non-obvious aspect makes the &quot;whole&quot; invention non-obvious. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or the other way around, for obviousness, the combination of **all** elements needs to be obvious, not only some, or some combinations, or one half and the other half but not combining those halfs, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's only a stilistic element to underline the importance of proving obviousness for the whole thing. It means the same as &quot;the claimed invention&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19758" RevisionGUID="9161d8c6-f7df-41d1-b74f-d680eabf591d" CreationDate="2018-07-26T15:11:17.710" UserId="21266" Text="There are some strong hints here: http://www.foundpersuasive.com/inherency.aspx#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example traversal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Amended Claim 1 of the instant invention teaches (inter alia) sneakers having a light sensor, a motion sensor, a solar power module, at least one rechargable battery, and a control device to activate lights under user-selected conditions. Smith '375 does not teach _______________. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The office may have misconstrued Smith's discussion of gyroscopic tilt sensors. Smith teaches these sensors for the purpose of ____________, not for the purpose of activating lights under user-selected conditions. Because Smith does not teach all of the aforementioned features of the instant invention, Smith cannot support the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We respectfully request withdrawal of this rejection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19756" RevisionGUID="987a3b7b-aa50-4410-860b-a2bc278ada70" CreationDate="2018-07-26T18:12:59.737" UserId="19913" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="QUESTIONS&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA; 1. What is the nuanced meaning of &quot;CLAIMED INVENTION AS A WHOLE&quot;?  &#xD;&#xA; 2. Put another way: Why not just write CLAIMED INVENTION?  &#xD;&#xA; 3. What is the alternative, &quot;claimed as a ???&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;USPTO PASSAGE&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the CLAIMED INVENTION AS A WHOLE would have been obvious BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19759" RevisionGUID="f7153793-057e-4d26-a9c7-dbbc9e62a067" CreationDate="2018-07-26T19:07:58.903" UserId="3076" Text="“As a whole” means the whole claim needs to be considered rather than looking at it piecemeal or neglecting an element. A claim to something with an A a B and a C can’t be analysed as if it only claimed an A and a C." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19759" RevisionGUID="58b7ed07-a887-418a-8ef2-27a4ca8d2ec7" CreationDate="2018-07-26T20:40:30.963" UserId="3076" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="As DonQuiKong said  - “as a whole” means the whole claim needs to be considered rather than looking at it piecemeal or neglecting an element. A claim to something with an A a B and a C can’t be analysed as if it only claimed an A and a C. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19750" RevisionGUID="f5b9f784-5d00-4c6e-b9bf-c8bc431409ee" CreationDate="2018-07-26T22:33:16.250" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The document you cited is only a patent application. It may or may not ever become a patent. Even if it does get granted, it is very likely the claims will become narrowed. That said, the first claim (and only independent claim) is quite lengthy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Device for the implementation of cash-free payment, with the possibility of interactive tip input, which contains a server unit (3)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that may be connected to a financial service provider's (1) accounting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unit (la) via an information transmission channel (2), where the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; server unit (3) has a data traffic gate (3a) connected to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information transmission channel (2), a signal receipt input (3b) and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; display output (3c), a payment card reader part-unit (3d), data input&#xD;&#xA;&gt; part-unit (3e) and display (3f), the display output (3c) of the server&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unit (3) is connected to the display (3f), and the signal receipt&#xD;&#xA;&gt; input (3b) of the server unit (3) is connected to the payment card&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reader part-unit (3d) and the data input part-unit (3e), characterised&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by that the server unit (3) is coupled with a free data input unit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (10), the free data input unit (10) having at least two selecting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; part-units (11) separated by a gap (T) and suitable for displaying&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different signals (1 la, 1 lb), a selection-sensing member (13)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; associated with the selecting part-unit (11) and a data transmission&#xD;&#xA;&gt; part unit (14) connected to the selection-sensing member (13), and the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; data transmission part unit (14) is connected to the signal receipt&#xD;&#xA;&gt; input (3b) of the server unit (3), where the selecting part-unit (11)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; has a screen (12), serving to display the given signals (11a, l ib),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with display zones (12a, 12b) separated by a gap (T) from each other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that are clearly associated with each of the given signals (11a, l&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ib), where the screen (12) with the display zones (12a, 12b) has an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interactive data input touch screen at least in the vicinity of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; display zones (12a, 12b) with a sensing surface (12c) suitable for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; changing at least one physical attribute of the display zones (12a,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12b), and the selection-sensing member (13) has selection transmission&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lines (13a, 13b) in signal- transmission connection with the sensing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; surface (12c) of the individual display zones (12a, 12b).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to infringe on this claim you would have to implement each and every step listed within it. As claims go this one is very complex and thus amenable to being circumvented. There are specific references to hardware so I don't see where your concern it that is it is patenting a &quot;common software slider&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54602" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17720" RevisionGUID="958771b3-8445-4241-b7f3-5770597e76b7" CreationDate="2018-07-27T04:02:06.897" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54603" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="9c7ef501-17b8-432e-900f-2bd5b15cbd74" CreationDate="2018-07-27T05:00:41.363" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17421" RevisionGUID="440ddcf0-223d-4856-b3b6-0c3b45763bbe" CreationDate="2018-07-27T11:27:33.080" UserId="8074" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="Check the [unpatent.co][1] website. It's a platform for crowdfunding of campaigns against malicious patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also check [Unified Patents][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://unpatent.co&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.unifiedpatents.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19760" RevisionGUID="eac75699-3ba0-407c-8b63-a27925c5cf77" CreationDate="2018-07-27T13:36:38.370" UserId="14403" Text="As per wipo.int/pct/guide/en/gdvol2/annexes/us.pdf pages 14-15 (US 39 and 40) your understanding seems correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since comments are not of permanent nature, I have opted to put my previous comment as an Answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54606" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17881" RevisionGUID="3bcaaf62-6c65-4a3c-9c00-d039baca72ea" CreationDate="2018-07-27T17:00:24.040" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54607" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="7769e97f-eb88-49c6-abc8-69470fe8d59e" CreationDate="2018-07-27T23:01:26.530" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54608" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18540" RevisionGUID="f06770a4-d2a2-42a9-a4c1-e03ef1fbfd36" CreationDate="2018-07-28T02:00:44.567" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54609" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18600" RevisionGUID="60665b0c-42bc-44ae-a98f-34525c035581" CreationDate="2018-07-28T04:00:50.780" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19761" RevisionGUID="7f9be281-ea78-4ade-8f70-88b455f2522e" CreationDate="2018-07-28T04:56:17.130" UserId="15666" Text="How do I apply for the patient process mentioned in the below question's answer? Can someone guide me on how to do this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/19353/is-there-a-cheaper-patent-for-low-income-applicants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that I am asking for much. I believe this will help many people." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54611" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19761" RevisionGUID="7f9be281-ea78-4ade-8f70-88b455f2522e" CreationDate="2018-07-28T04:56:17.130" UserId="15666" Text="Step by step walk through for a United States low income patient" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54612" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19761" RevisionGUID="7f9be281-ea78-4ade-8f70-88b455f2522e" CreationDate="2018-07-28T04:56:17.130" UserId="15666" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54616" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="e345afbf-3fde-4af6-8811-b3a202614f61" CreationDate="2018-07-28T10:00:50.733" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54617" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="f17b9465-d37f-4987-bd6e-27aaf3e1599b" CreationDate="2018-07-28T11:01:19.167" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19763" RevisionGUID="b6e4dca1-ec08-463a-8d06-97d6dd50363a" CreationDate="2018-07-28T14:04:45.907" UserId="21152" Text="I am drafting a Provisional Application. I have two drawings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Figure 1 : (1.01,1.03)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Figure 8 : (8.01,8.03) as part numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the detailed description of Fig 1, can I take the reference of 8.01? I read several patents, so far I see, in the detailed description of Fig 8, they may refer to Figure 1 parts, but now reverse. I know that as per guidelines one has to use the same number for a part across the literature. Please share your thoughts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, I can take a separate paragraph for if I want to explain Figure 1 and Figure 8 collectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you please share suggestions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54619" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19763" RevisionGUID="b6e4dca1-ec08-463a-8d06-97d6dd50363a" CreationDate="2018-07-28T14:04:45.907" UserId="21152" Text="Can I use forward numerical referencing in Detailed Description?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54620" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19763" RevisionGUID="b6e4dca1-ec08-463a-8d06-97d6dd50363a" CreationDate="2018-07-28T14:04:45.907" UserId="21152" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19761" RevisionGUID="a1d8d03e-e219-4d54-9e6b-3db36cbd372f" CreationDate="2018-07-28T14:43:35.707" UserId="15666" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="How do I apply for the patent process mentioned in the below question's answer? Can someone guide me on how to do this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/19353/is-there-a-cheaper-patent-for-low-income-applicants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that I am asking for much. I believe this will help many people." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19764" RevisionGUID="63d2e704-a5c9-4fa9-a8f3-4f3416c7810d" CreationDate="2018-07-28T19:17:01.287" UserId="19913" Text="As an **engineer**, I am seeking to understand the nuanced meaning of &quot;Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of Claims&quot;.  Is there a generally accepted thought process that one arrives at to arrive at BRIoCs?  Concrete \ simple examples are always appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to the diagram above, is it correct to assume that only a single BRIoC is examined by the flow-chart and NOT ANY of the individual claim?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pHNRY.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54626" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19764" RevisionGUID="63d2e704-a5c9-4fa9-a8f3-4f3416c7810d" CreationDate="2018-07-28T19:17:01.287" UserId="19913" Text="Mayo 2-step test \ Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of Claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54627" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19764" RevisionGUID="63d2e704-a5c9-4fa9-a8f3-4f3416c7810d" CreationDate="2018-07-28T19:17:01.287" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;mayo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54628" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19761" RevisionGUID="ed5f124d-fea6-4b5a-8026-943fd22b0394" CreationDate="2018-07-29T01:08:03.187" UserId="15666" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19765" RevisionGUID="0907ba2a-33ec-4c46-94be-e7e9bbb4fc62" CreationDate="2018-07-29T02:18:53.780" UserId="14403" Text="A. **Meaning** : In the simplest of terms - **Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of Claims** means, to interpret what the claim(s), in other words the invention is directed and related to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B. **Example** : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i. One can obtain some US patent nos or application nos at random from google patents or other sources and look for them in Public Pair https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair file wrapper. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ii. Look for non-final or final rejection communication of office. A few might have faced 35 USC 101 rejection. The first paragraph invariably reads 'the claims are directed to ......' . That is the broadest reasonable interpretation (by the examiner and applicant may differ from him). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iii. Hence, no generally accepted thought process as such but procedural guideline is there. May refer https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2111.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C. **Flowchart** : BRIoC encompasses all claims interpreted in the light of specification and plain meanings of the words of the claims and determines what the claims are directed to. If disclosure and claims are directed to different &#xD;&#xA;inventions (i.e. claims not cohesively related) than those are to be in separate applications (if not done by applicant, examiner will direct for division).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;D. **Individual Claims** : These are for scope of protection and for consideration under steps 1, 2A and 2B of Mayo test flow chart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54630" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16606" RevisionGUID="5832e271-7887-48c8-bf74-5960b785098f" CreationDate="2018-07-29T08:00:51.493" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54631" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="a7afa311-9d2d-41ca-9a36-02f29b42c9a7" CreationDate="2018-07-29T10:01:51.333" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54632" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="e6eeac23-406f-42b9-adab-d56c6ec9bc31" CreationDate="2018-07-29T11:00:51.423" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19766" RevisionGUID="8ae4fd7b-855c-4c4e-8f66-70039a7abc4c" CreationDate="2018-07-29T13:07:47.997" UserId="18033" Text="Yes. You can describe it in whatever way you want. You can start with numeral 17000 in fig. 17, afterwards describe numeral 42 in fig. 3 and it really doesn't matter. Just make sure it's understandable for the examiner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54634" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="baafaf8d-421b-4820-8c60-3f904c2344cd" CreationDate="2018-07-29T19:00:41.073" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54635" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="ec053443-3cb8-497d-b76c-d4f5351e825b" CreationDate="2018-07-29T20:00:56.100" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19759" RevisionGUID="b7c27578-1013-40d7-b10f-1ca11c6a5737" CreationDate="2018-07-29T23:02:51.973" UserId="3076" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="As DonQuiKong said  - “as a whole” means the whole claim needs to be considered rather than looking at it piecemeal or neglecting an element. A claim to something with an A a B and a C can’t be analysed as if it only claimed an A and a C. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does not mean &quot;all of the claims&quot;. Each separate claim is judged for obviousness on its own." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19767" RevisionGUID="24f1fd2f-d593-413f-a9da-f348809d886e" CreationDate="2018-07-29T23:15:44.603" UserId="3076" Text="The nuanced meaning of broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim is that the examiner will often have a much broader interpretation than the applicant intended. That broader interpretation will allow prior art to show that the claim is obvious. My best examples - One limitation I put on a particular structure was that it was &quot;collapsible&quot;. The examiner found something similar that was not collapsible and rejected the claim as not novel. When I interviewed her, she said &quot;everything is collapsable if you hit it hard enough&quot; - BRI.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I amended to say &quot;*nondestructively* collapsible.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your second question regarding all of the claims as a unit - No, the interpretation of each claim depends on the wording of the specific claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19768" RevisionGUID="c5c49492-a6c0-4e23-95e8-61c51bca82ec" CreationDate="2018-07-29T23:25:25.407" UserId="3076" Text="The USPTO has a reduced fee schedule for what it calls micro entities. The primary way of qualifying is based on income. Most fees are cut in half from the fees for &quot;small entities&quot;. They also sponsor a [pro bono  program][1] that might match you with a local patent attorney who could work with you at no charge. They do not take everyone who applies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/using-legal-services/pro-bono/pro-bono-program-independent-inventors-and" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19768" RevisionGUID="69e50436-051a-4ba7-8ff7-0a9adb6755d2" CreationDate="2018-07-29T23:32:11.643" UserId="3076" Comment="added 378 characters in body" Text="If you are including the steps of writing the patent then, as Eric Shain posted, the answer is at least book-length. The book Patent it Yourself is a good start.  If you are asking just about the mechanics of filing, that is a shorter answer. If that is the question, I would suggest that you edit your question or submit another question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking the question more broadly - the USPTO has a reduced fee schedule for what it calls micro entities. The primary way of qualifying is based on income. Most fees are cut in half from the fees for &quot;small entities&quot;. They also sponsor a [pro bono  program][1] that might match you with a local patent attorney who could work with you at no charge. They do not take everyone who applies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/using-legal-services/pro-bono/pro-bono-program-independent-inventors-and" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54640" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19110" RevisionGUID="a9cc8e8e-69ff-49a2-a6d0-d8a80473d923" CreationDate="2018-07-30T03:02:59.997" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54641" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18185" RevisionGUID="6502cbb1-b264-47b1-be68-a498040a2b86" CreationDate="2018-07-30T04:04:54.850" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54642" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16450" RevisionGUID="9c5800e5-8a68-46e8-9a8b-dbaa7447da8b" CreationDate="2018-07-30T05:01:35.580" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54643" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16771" RevisionGUID="8a4d0548-6fc4-422f-a0ae-e5ce916447d7" CreationDate="2018-07-30T06:00:58.567" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54644" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="2a60d915-5109-4f77-9282-b379a6a908a4" CreationDate="2018-07-30T07:02:09.327" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54645" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="cb3158c0-0b73-4589-ad13-195530260a11" CreationDate="2018-07-30T15:01:36.840" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54646" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="dc0d8f48-0136-4968-b74d-e00fa8a755dc" CreationDate="2018-07-30T16:01:55.870" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54647" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14883" RevisionGUID="36f7f5b4-377c-41c2-813e-f93704f1fcfe" CreationDate="2018-07-30T20:00:38.647" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19769" RevisionGUID="97f71d25-2c7a-4692-9c8f-6dca0a52c1ae" CreationDate="2018-07-30T20:10:26.713" UserId="19232" Text="If the 12 month window for PCT application is missed and the patent has no new material since priority date, is there no way to apply for foreign patents? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I misunderstood the timing guidelines and thought I had more time for this. Provisional filed April 2017, nonprovisional filed July 2017 and issued July 2018. So now it's too late to follow the PCT process, as I now understand. Is that correct?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54649" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19769" RevisionGUID="97f71d25-2c7a-4692-9c8f-6dca0a52c1ae" CreationDate="2018-07-30T20:10:26.713" UserId="19232" Text="If the 12 month window for PCT application is missed, is all opportunity lost for foreign patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54650" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19769" RevisionGUID="97f71d25-2c7a-4692-9c8f-6dca0a52c1ae" CreationDate="2018-07-30T20:10:26.713" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;usa&gt;&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19770" RevisionGUID="b4376eb8-146f-4b65-8ce7-6d1d3f01c4f6" CreationDate="2018-07-31T06:16:44.957" UserId="18033" Text="It's correct that you cannot file a PCT application based on your US application anymore. However, reading for example art. 54 of the European Patent Convention&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1)&#xD;&#xA;An invention shall be considered to be new if it does not form part of the state of the art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2)&#xD;&#xA;The state of the art shall be held to comprise everything **made available to the public** by means of a written or oral description, by use, or in any other way, before the date of filing of the European patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(3)&#xD;&#xA;**Additionally**, the content of **European patent applications** as filed, the dates of filing of which are prior to the date referred to in paragraph 2 and which were published on or after that date, shall be considered as comprised in the state of the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**IF** there are no publications of your invention till today and your US application hasn't published early, there is, as far as I know, nothing impeding you from filing a European patent application and your US application will **not** be prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm not sure when your non. provisional will be / has been published because it issued. Might be soon?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing, european patent applications require a patent attorney for foreign applicants for basically every action apart from filing, so you'll need an attorney anyways and might as well ask them then." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19771" RevisionGUID="d30a4629-be76-464d-8892-b8add996dcdf" CreationDate="2018-07-31T09:07:07.017" UserId="18033" Text="I'm having trouble locating the pdf for what seems to be a GB Design which google patents indicates exist. Espacenet can't find it, Designview can't find it, there's no text/images in google patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Im probably using the wrong tools, but does anybody know which database to use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example would be [GB201301573D0][1], though the one I'm looking for doesn't have any family members, so going through them is not an option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/GB201301573D0/en?oq=GB201301573D0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54653" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19771" RevisionGUID="d30a4629-be76-464d-8892-b8add996dcdf" CreationDate="2018-07-31T09:07:07.017" UserId="18033" Text="Finding GB Designs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54654" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19771" RevisionGUID="d30a4629-be76-464d-8892-b8add996dcdf" CreationDate="2018-07-31T09:07:07.017" UserId="18033" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54655" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17909" RevisionGUID="0ec0495a-2d83-4444-aa20-77df9156849b" CreationDate="2018-07-31T14:02:03.150" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54656" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="2fd57a00-33ac-4369-ae80-b7fa272ea4c3" CreationDate="2018-08-01T00:00:40.700" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54657" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6476" RevisionGUID="f8e64c06-1a27-485d-9f3f-934437dd659e" CreationDate="2018-08-01T02:01:01.910" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19772" RevisionGUID="5271860b-47bf-4b25-885e-382cd2538edc" CreationDate="2018-08-01T02:48:20.547" UserId="14403" Text="If the number starts with GB  than can be  found https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum also. But can not be found anywhere if ending with D0 as clarified in this link https://wiki.piug.org/display/PIUG/GB+patents+with+D0+kind+code . This seems to solve the riddle you are facing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19772" RevisionGUID="309df57a-5b4a-4f92-af32-481614113e43" CreationDate="2018-08-01T07:59:12.177" UserId="18033" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="If the number starts with GB  than can be  found https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum also. But can not be found anywhere if ending with D0 as clarified in this link https://wiki.piug.org/display/PIUG/GB+patents+with+D0+kind+code. (Because D0 identifies that an GB application was filed, but the application is not (yet) published). This seems to solve the riddle you are facing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19773" RevisionGUID="bbf84898-ea34-476c-849e-9f74a34033bb" CreationDate="2018-08-01T12:18:59.313" UserId="18076" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2015002635A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015002635A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it ok to write a word like ''substantially'' in claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54661" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19773" RevisionGUID="bbf84898-ea34-476c-849e-9f74a34033bb" CreationDate="2018-08-01T12:18:59.313" UserId="18076" Text="claims darfting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54662" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19773" RevisionGUID="bbf84898-ea34-476c-849e-9f74a34033bb" CreationDate="2018-08-01T12:18:59.313" UserId="18076" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;drafting&gt;&lt;wo2015002635a1&gt;&lt;words&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54663" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19773" RevisionGUID="7d756897-f7b8-4bea-a3eb-f33f1b0de5b0" CreationDate="2018-08-01T13:49:13.873" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed spelling " Text="claims drafting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54664" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19773" RevisionGUID="044acbc3-f530-4788-b49b-41e8657560c1" CreationDate="2018-08-01T14:17:15.577" UserId="18033" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;drafting&gt;&lt;wo2015002635a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19774" RevisionGUID="7aff63ef-0e7f-4842-9288-1e236e1e9edf" CreationDate="2018-08-01T17:32:07.467" UserId="21285" Text="Would someone be able to help me to know if this patent from taiwan registered in US apply in europe: US D765,756 S ?&#xD;&#xA;What mean the S at the end ?&#xD;&#xA;I'm in importing process for products from china and I discovered the patent. Im quite worried. Lost in patent world, I ask for some help. &#xD;&#xA;I hope Donquikong will see my post :) I read your other posts you learnt me a lot :D&#xD;&#xA;Regards" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54666" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19774" RevisionGUID="7aff63ef-0e7f-4842-9288-1e236e1e9edf" CreationDate="2018-08-01T17:32:07.467" UserId="21285" Text="Lost in patent: looking for confirmation a patent is not covering europe, any help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54667" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19774" RevisionGUID="7aff63ef-0e7f-4842-9288-1e236e1e9edf" CreationDate="2018-08-01T17:32:07.467" UserId="21285" Text="&lt;patent-infringment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19775" RevisionGUID="ab307fb0-2b93-4045-b1dd-2dd5b666effc" CreationDate="2018-08-01T19:53:50.303" UserId="17003" Text="The cited document is a US design patent and is only in effect in the US. I couldn’t find an equivalent design patent for the EU but it doesn’t mean there might not be other relevant IP. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54669" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18522" RevisionGUID="11f0516f-b020-4ca4-99c5-8551266d7b6a" CreationDate="2018-08-02T00:00:43.610" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54671" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17769" RevisionGUID="8512d9d8-b01d-4716-a84d-f4420cf8f12d" CreationDate="2018-08-02T04:00:02.323" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19776" RevisionGUID="18990b4b-b4c6-441c-9582-a311c60b0e04" CreationDate="2018-08-02T09:54:20.400" UserId="18033" Text="The [kind code][1] at the end &quot;S&quot; simply means it's a design patent. Just like the &quot;D&quot; at the beginning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one has a taiwanese priority which I can't locate, but neither [espacenet][2] nor [google patents][3] list any family members, so there are probably none. Which means that this design patent isonly valid in the US, but as it's relatively young, there could be older ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/support-centers/electronic-business-center/kind-codes-included-uspto-patent&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?CC=US&amp;NR=D765756S&amp;KC=S&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=3&amp;date=20160906&amp;DB=&amp;locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD765756S1/en?oq=US%20D765%2C756%20S" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54673" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="b3a17c61-5f8d-4921-93c8-30ea565f4403" CreationDate="2018-08-02T14:01:50.320" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19777" RevisionGUID="a049537d-d098-45aa-951a-7b42f7867c15" CreationDate="2018-08-02T15:56:42.827" UserId="21287" Text="Using a web browser, I can manually get the citations of a given patent using lengs.org as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Visit: https://www.lens.org/lens/search?q=US7723099B2&amp;preview=true&#xD;&#xA;2. Click &quot;Cited Works&quot;&#xD;&#xA;For each publication, get the title and DOI.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does lens.org have an API to do so programmatically?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the [PatSeq Bulk Download API][1] give access to this data?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any other idea to achieve the same objective?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://support.lens.org/patseq-bulkdownload-apidoc/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54675" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19777" RevisionGUID="a049537d-d098-45aa-951a-7b42f7867c15" CreationDate="2018-08-02T15:56:42.827" UserId="21287" Text="Get the citations of a given patent programmatically from lens.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54676" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19777" RevisionGUID="a049537d-d098-45aa-951a-7b42f7867c15" CreationDate="2018-08-02T15:56:42.827" UserId="21287" Text="&lt;citation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19778" RevisionGUID="acf97e41-b55b-470c-b8e8-888f7963f407" CreationDate="2018-08-02T17:16:54.577" UserId="21288" Text="I am looking at getting a patent but am having to go through a third party, which is a college to save money since I am a college student. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering, if I give half of the patent to the school and I have the other half what are the damages they could potentially do with their half of the patent if they decide to sell it or something else? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they get half of the patent can they sell their portion to a larger cooperation and if they do would they be able to license it for their own manufacturing purposes? Or would another company have to have the full rights to the patent in order to use it? Also, if they have half of the patent, could they restrict you from doing manufacturing for your product with the other half if the other half decides to sell it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, would they be able to use the other half of the patent to own half of your business by legal rights? Such as use their patent to get capital or a percentage from your company, if you are the one doing all the work with the business?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54678" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19778" RevisionGUID="acf97e41-b55b-470c-b8e8-888f7963f407" CreationDate="2018-08-02T17:16:54.577" UserId="21288" Text="Giving away half of your patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54679" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19778" RevisionGUID="acf97e41-b55b-470c-b8e8-888f7963f407" CreationDate="2018-08-02T17:16:54.577" UserId="21288" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19779" RevisionGUID="8c9be3e1-a6ce-44cb-9c75-a7ac04f9ef2b" CreationDate="2018-08-02T18:39:54.187" UserId="18618" Text="&gt;If they get half of the patent can they sell their portion to a larger cooperation and if they do would they be able to license it for their own manufacturing purposes? Or would another company have to have the full rights to the patent in order to use it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, Yes, and No, as co-owners to a patent **without an agreement** the default is either party can license, sell and manufacture the patent without restriction and without consent of the other parties.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Also, if they have half of the patent, could they restrict you from doing manufacturing for your product with the other half if the other half decides to sell it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No as a co-owners to a patent **without an agreement** you may license, sell and manufacture the patent without restriction and without consent of the other parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Also, would they be able to use the other half of the patent to own half of your business by legal rights? Such as use their patent to get capital or a percentage from your company, if you are the one doing all the work with the business?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Co-owners **without an agreement** must share in the accounting so for every dollar **in profit** they receive a share proportional to ownership (50% for 2 owners; 33.33% for 3; etc...) of it must go to you unless there is an agreement stating otherwise. They would only be entitled to profits derived from the patent, not ownership of the business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19780" RevisionGUID="3bd532bd-665c-44e9-b2a9-2c29b29b0b4b" CreationDate="2018-08-02T18:54:08.373" UserId="18618" Text="In general words like &quot;*substantially*&quot; or &quot;*approximately*&quot; [should be avoided][1] in claims. That does not mean that the claims will be invalid automatically but it is an invitation for scrutiny.  As long a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand what substantially meant, it is acceptable. [MPEP 2173.02][2] provides the criteria for determining if a claim in definite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you are worried about protecting similar embodiments in an invention, the doctrine of equivalents (expalined below) should suffice and the word *substantially* is not necessary in the claims.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Doctrine of Equivalents is a test for infringement that if the product &quot;*performs substantially the same task in substantially the same way to arrive at the same result*&quot;. See: [Graver Tank &amp; Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605 (1950)][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/01/30/patent-drafting-relative-terminology-can-be-dangerous/id=65455/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2173.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graver_Tank_%26_Manufacturing_Co._v._Linde_Air_Products_Co." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19782" RevisionGUID="9d777396-275c-426b-9da2-1bffb4e1eb1e" CreationDate="2018-08-03T03:35:55.420" UserId="21290" Text="As we know, a patent grants a monopoly for some period. I've been reviewing patent applications. It appears that typically **only one** patent examiner reads the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is borderline insane to me; a patent grants so much power and there is a single, potentially unqualified patent examiner reviewing the application. **My question: how do we know that the patent examiner knows anything about the field that the patent is in?** For example, a highly technical field may require very specialized knowledge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54684" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19782" RevisionGUID="9d777396-275c-426b-9da2-1bffb4e1eb1e" CreationDate="2018-08-03T03:35:55.420" UserId="21290" Text="How are patent examiners qualified to examine patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54685" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19782" RevisionGUID="9d777396-275c-426b-9da2-1bffb4e1eb1e" CreationDate="2018-08-03T03:35:55.420" UserId="21290" Text="&lt;examination&gt;&lt;examiner&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54686" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19229" RevisionGUID="eb23de5a-ff90-4996-ab6c-f09b4e4fe428" CreationDate="2018-08-03T04:03:03.753" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54690" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19051" RevisionGUID="d943bb4d-dcff-4b90-a422-c9931b09a33c" CreationDate="2018-08-03T06:01:04.957" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54693" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="149a2dae-a2fe-4ded-8666-f2543acd4424" CreationDate="2018-08-03T07:00:50.150" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54694" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18941" RevisionGUID="7584cd8d-cd44-4b99-be67-d2b083a5dfba" CreationDate="2018-08-03T09:00:40.713" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19784" RevisionGUID="2379c5e1-3bd5-4d3b-b603-86f2268ab66b" CreationDate="2018-08-03T14:41:21.377" UserId="17003" Text="I'm pretty sure you can do this with the EPO site although I've never do it myself. Try [this page][1] for more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.epo.org/searching-for-patents/data/linked-open-data.html#tab-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19782" RevisionGUID="801e0e55-66d2-40a2-a078-0684c9001ea0" CreationDate="2018-08-03T15:11:02.933" UserId="1" Comment="Directing the post in a more constructive direction" Text="As we know, a patent grants a monopoly for some period. I've been reviewing patent applications. It appears that typically **only one** patent examiner reads the application. It seems problematic that there is a single, potentially unqualified patent examiner reviewing my application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question: How does the patent office assign examiners? How do we know that the patent examiner knows anything about the field that the patent is in? For example, a highly technical field may require very specialized knowledge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54697" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19782" RevisionGUID="801e0e55-66d2-40a2-a078-0684c9001ea0" CreationDate="2018-08-03T15:11:02.933" UserId="1" Comment="Directing the post in a more constructive direction" Text="How do patent offices assure examiners are qualified to examine a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19785" RevisionGUID="501b706c-4344-44fd-8b8e-f91de2e18eae" CreationDate="2018-08-03T16:55:56.850" UserId="21294" Text="My father the inventor was &quot;legally&quot; removed from his invention with a contract he signed stating that there was to be a board created . It was a rotating board that had my father start out as president then vice president followed by secretary and lastly treasurer where he was voted out/removed&#xD;&#xA;Since trying to reach Harvey Jasper I am no longer seeing everything I saw on the internet regarding the renaming and subsequent sale to Ford motor co" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54699" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19785" RevisionGUID="501b706c-4344-44fd-8b8e-f91de2e18eae" CreationDate="2018-08-03T16:55:56.850" UserId="21294" Text="I would to know who owns us4106454a" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54700" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19785" RevisionGUID="501b706c-4344-44fd-8b8e-f91de2e18eae" CreationDate="2018-08-03T16:55:56.850" UserId="21294" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19786" RevisionGUID="a664629b-16ed-4ce1-aaf6-b79f95fda52a" CreationDate="2018-08-03T17:28:56.533" UserId="18033" Text="That patent has expired many years ago. It does not have any value anymore, so nobody owns it anymore either.&#xA;&#xA;Precisely, the patent was granted 15th of August 1978 and expired 17 years later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19787" RevisionGUID="75908e98-0c85-47f8-9f05-06525ae975c7" CreationDate="2018-08-03T18:33:30.283" UserId="19913" Text="What is the process to decide if the tangible invention is a machine, device or apparatus?  Any line of thought and supporting examples is appreciated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A singular \ monolithic invention may fit any of the three.  I usually think of a machine or device as monolithic item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, if the invention is an array of multiple computers to measure phenomena (a system of discrete computers), is the better label for the invention:  a measurement **apparatus**?   If there is another label that is not mention and is more appropriate would be of interest.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54703" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19787" RevisionGUID="75908e98-0c85-47f8-9f05-06525ae975c7" CreationDate="2018-08-03T18:33:30.283" UserId="19913" Text="Machine, device or apparatus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54704" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19787" RevisionGUID="75908e98-0c85-47f8-9f05-06525ae975c7" CreationDate="2018-08-03T18:33:30.283" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;invention&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54705" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19242" RevisionGUID="a3faf944-c2a0-4940-91da-0174fbc5af81" CreationDate="2018-08-03T21:02:02.827" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54706" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19227" RevisionGUID="f3e26dc1-579e-4b10-9410-7dd44baeb102" CreationDate="2018-08-03T22:00:23.287" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54707" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="658aa9eb-4962-4578-986c-9e22fab4319c" CreationDate="2018-08-03T23:01:14.327" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19788" RevisionGUID="2e6c5910-6dbd-4cfa-833f-a1492033f7bb" CreationDate="2018-08-04T03:11:12.407" UserId="3076" Text="Words like &quot;substantially&quot; and &quot;about&quot; are heavily used in U.S. claims. A quick search of the USPTO's patent search database shows that close to 11% of all patents assigned to Apple, Inc., at issue, have &quot;substantially&quot; in a claim.  That includes 4 of the 31 utility patents issued to them July 31, 2018.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, those words can come back to bite you, as can every single word in a claim. This is particularly true of claims written by someone inexperienced in the seeming illogical and often-changing art of claim drafting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that many such words are effectively banned from claims in some countries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19789" RevisionGUID="796b1c03-308d-49dd-bf16-1d26d016e09b" CreationDate="2018-08-04T03:30:58.067" UserId="3076" Text="I would use &quot;system&quot;. The law (35 USC 101) lists the statuary categories as *&quot;processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.&quot;* Something with active parts would be a machine; a hammer or a baseball would be an item that was manufactured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll see that either &quot;apparatus&quot; or &quot;device&quot; is on that list.  It doesn't really matter what you call your thing as long as you do not mix specifying the structure of a thing and a step in a process in the same claim.  For example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;A system with a CPU and a memory [taking the step of] turning itself off&#xD;&#xA;&gt; upon reaching a predetermined temperature&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It mixes things with actions and would be rejected as not sticking to one statutory class." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19790" RevisionGUID="101a0946-6205-4e88-9662-3fb0338888e4" CreationDate="2018-08-04T03:51:28.383" UserId="3076" Text="They are all required to have at least a B.S in a science or engineering field but are not necessarily assigned to their specific expertise. Much of the subject matter education is on the job. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the examining corp is organized into Technology Centers. One of them is 2400 that covers &quot;Computer networking, Multiplex communication, Cryptography/Security, Video distribution, Video recording, and Video Compression&quot;. TC's are further broken down into Art Groups of about a dozen people with a specific narrower focus.  For a couple of years, an examiner can't sign-off on anything themselves. A Primary examiner needs to look over their work and sign the actual paperwork sent back to the applicant. Each examiner has a supervisor (called a SPE) with whom you can get into an interview with along with your assigned examiner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not found the degree of technical expertise making the difference between an efficient, effective examiner and a not-as-good, examiner. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19789" RevisionGUID="7654eac9-7c91-469d-b29a-3171f0645b2d" CreationDate="2018-08-04T03:56:38.057" UserId="3076" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I would use &quot;system&quot;. The law (35 USC 101) lists the statuary categories as *&quot;processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.&quot;* Something with active parts would be a machine; a hammer or a baseball would be an item that was manufactured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll see that either &quot;apparatus&quot; or &quot;device&quot; is on that list.  It doesn't really matter what you call your thing as long as you do not mix specifying the structure of a thing and a step in a process in the same claim.  For example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;A system comprising a CPU and a memory [taking the step of] turning itself off&#xD;&#xA;&gt; upon reaching a predetermined temperature&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It mixes things with actions and would be rejected as not sticking to one statutory class." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54715" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17587" RevisionGUID="9c5974a1-b2ae-4bc6-8cf3-c754b6849497" CreationDate="2018-08-04T21:00:46.763" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54716" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18211" RevisionGUID="767b9d01-b97a-4a1e-88a9-abb6de002093" CreationDate="2018-08-04T23:00:14.977" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54717" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18821" RevisionGUID="b936cb88-33be-4116-addb-cfe53c756115" CreationDate="2018-08-05T00:02:05.070" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19792" RevisionGUID="110322bf-8a60-4d39-8281-58603f1449f2" CreationDate="2018-08-05T15:38:44.220" UserId="19913" Text="The invention of interest is a system comprised of methods and a collection of tangible measurement device &amp; electronic data collection systems.  [I was advised to avoid mixing:][1] the structure specification of the invention and a step in a process **in the same claim**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a specific guidance from the USPTO or USC-10? or is the guidance that one learns through experience \ best practice?  I pose this question because if it is the former, then I would like to read the guidance so that my claims will conform to USPTO or other authoritative expectations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/19789/19913" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54725" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19792" RevisionGUID="110322bf-8a60-4d39-8281-58603f1449f2" CreationDate="2018-08-05T15:38:44.220" UserId="19913" Text="Systems and methods claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54726" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19792" RevisionGUID="110322bf-8a60-4d39-8281-58603f1449f2" CreationDate="2018-08-05T15:38:44.220" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54727" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19689" RevisionGUID="40e11835-9645-425f-9d59-5fcf7b01dfc0" CreationDate="2018-08-05T17:02:26.643" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54728" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19531" RevisionGUID="a7dcc578-0b05-44e5-bd09-0c0e1a0475df" CreationDate="2018-08-05T18:00:44.923" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19793" RevisionGUID="6bf1b5d4-e6c6-40f3-95cc-05643e171362" CreationDate="2018-08-05T18:19:03.057" UserId="18618" Text="For the sake of simplicity, I will limit the scope to utility patents. In what scenarios would it be advantageous for an entity to convert a provisional utility application to a non-provisional utility application rather than file a new non-provisional application seeking priority of the provisional?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can only think of three scenarios.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.) A new best method has been developed since the provisional was filed and an entity would like to not disclose that method in a new application.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2.) Legislation (patent, tax, etc...) gives advantages for holders of patents filed in a certa in period that the provsional falls into but a non-provisional does not.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3.) Avoid the filing fee for a new patent application by converting the old one after 364  or fewer days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these seem like a bit of a stretch and I'm not certain the first reason is even valid." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54730" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19793" RevisionGUID="6bf1b5d4-e6c6-40f3-95cc-05643e171362" CreationDate="2018-08-05T18:19:03.057" UserId="18618" Text="When would an entity decide to convert a provisional application to a non-provisional application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54731" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19793" RevisionGUID="6bf1b5d4-e6c6-40f3-95cc-05643e171362" CreationDate="2018-08-05T18:19:03.057" UserId="18618" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;non-provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54732" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19379" RevisionGUID="40e353f7-9a12-4e79-94a2-ef31ed15f10f" CreationDate="2018-08-05T19:01:41.860" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54733" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="8a51615d-1694-4e08-85b4-90297370eb2f" CreationDate="2018-08-05T23:00:38.410" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18048" RevisionGUID="c216f216-adc6-4266-89c4-2455ada0ecd5" CreationDate="2018-08-06T01:22:39.510" UserId="17003" Comment="edited body" Text="Patent US3516422 likely expired in 1987. Anyone can practice exactly what is disclosed in that patent. However, there is no guarantee there aren't other more recent patents that also may relate to a product. As you found there is a patent application US20160206031. This is an application, not yet a patent. It may or may not ever become a patent and even if it does, the claims may be changed or narrowed from what is in the application. In this case US3516422 is considered prior art to US20160206031. There is very likely to be other prior art too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I can see, US20160206031 is different from US3516422. In the case of the US3516422 there is a substrate glued to the eyelid to which a magnetic false eyelash is the attached through magnetic attraction. With US20160206031 there are two separate magnetic false eyelashes placed on either side of the users natural eyelash. The magnetic force keeps the two magnetic lashes clamped to the natural lash.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I deduced from your comments from your closed question that you had a similar product and received a request to stop selling your product from the owners of US20160206031. You should consult with a patent attorney as first, US20160206031 is not an issued patent and may never become one and second it is possible that your product doesn't actually infringe on that application. A patent attorney is best able to provide guidance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regards to your second question, the application was filed on July 16th, 2015 and has a priority date of January 19th, 2015 so any publication after that (and I believe up to a year before) won't invalidate the patentability. If you can find a publication before January 19th of 2015 it may be grounds for invalidation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please understand that I am not an attorney, so please don't construe my answer as legal advice. Definitely consult with a patent attorney for that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13990" RevisionGUID="0e0a988a-def9-4721-a897-475528ff0951" CreationDate="2018-08-06T01:30:38.590" UserId="18618" Comment="Gramatical smoothing" Text="I found a product I would like to sell and improve upon later. Their website says it's patent pending, but they have claimed patent pending for several years. How do I find out if they did apply for a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54736" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13990" RevisionGUID="0e0a988a-def9-4721-a897-475528ff0951" CreationDate="2018-08-06T01:30:38.590" Comment="Proposed by 18618 approved by 18033, 17003 edit id of 2080" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54737" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="c7d2b867-bcda-4238-8dff-588ffb860c6c" CreationDate="2018-08-06T10:01:52.870" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54738" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="0bd479ca-3679-409c-abeb-fe27b38fa0df" CreationDate="2018-08-06T14:02:28.677" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19774" RevisionGUID="ed56fcc5-747d-4cfc-bdcc-6daa5999642b" CreationDate="2018-08-06T15:05:49.383" UserId="11834" Comment="clarified title, restructured the body, removed fluff" Text="I'm in the importing process for products from China and I discovered patent **US D765,756 S**. It's a patent from Taiwan, registered in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does US D765,756 S apply in Europe? What does S at the end mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54740" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19774" RevisionGUID="ed56fcc5-747d-4cfc-bdcc-6daa5999642b" CreationDate="2018-08-06T15:05:49.383" UserId="11834" Comment="clarified title, restructured the body, removed fluff" Text="Is a US patent (US D765,756 S) covering Europe?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54741" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19774" RevisionGUID="ed56fcc5-747d-4cfc-bdcc-6daa5999642b" CreationDate="2018-08-06T15:05:49.383" Comment="Proposed by 11834 approved by 17003, 21285 edit id of 2081" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54742" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19582" RevisionGUID="a44aac53-eb2d-4de4-bda3-43a59fdfeebb" CreationDate="2018-08-06T20:01:54.337" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19793" RevisionGUID="628a8dc0-e6dc-4b31-9764-39e6d7429587" CreationDate="2018-08-06T21:46:02.463" UserId="18618" Comment="edited body" Text="For the sake of simplicity, I will limit the scope to utility patents. In what scenarios would it be advantageous for an entity to convert a provisional utility application to a non-provisional utility application rather than file a new non-provisional application seeking priority of the provisional?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can only think of three scenarios.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1.) A new best method has been developed since the provisional was filed and an entity would like to not disclose that method in a new application.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  2.) Legislation (patent, tax, etc...) gives advantages for holders of patents filed in a certain period that the provisional falls into but a non-provisional does not.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  3.) Avoid the filing fee for a new patent application by converting the old one after 364  or fewer days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these seem like a bit of a stretch and I'm not certain the first reason is even valid." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19794" RevisionGUID="4be1fa83-91ad-4347-acdb-2641d234860e" CreationDate="2018-08-07T03:42:12.290" UserId="14403" Text="May read https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html for guidance. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems interpretation of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i.first sentence of 2106 - I &quot;the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories&quot; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ii. of 2106.03 - II last paragraph first line &quot;If a claim is clearly not within one of the four categories (Step 1: NO), then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 must be made indicating that the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter.&quot; leads to practice of not mixing the cited two in your question '**in the same claim**'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, **system and method** can be claimed in **two separate independent claims** in the same application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19785" RevisionGUID="b72a55de-2597-4a14-a8d1-4ddf89d18a1e" CreationDate="2018-08-07T03:50:18.110" UserId="18618" Comment="syntax and added word." Text="My father the inventor was &quot;legally&quot; removed from his invention with a contract he signed stating that there was to be a board created. It was a rotating board that had my father start out as president then vice president followed by secretary and lastly treasurer where he was voted out/removed.&#xD;&#xA;Since trying to reach Harvey Jasper I am no longer seeing everything I saw on the internet regarding the renaming and subsequent sale to Ford Motor Co." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54746" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19785" RevisionGUID="b72a55de-2597-4a14-a8d1-4ddf89d18a1e" CreationDate="2018-08-07T03:50:18.110" UserId="18618" Comment="syntax and added word." Text="I would like to know who owns us4106454a" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54747" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19785" RevisionGUID="b72a55de-2597-4a14-a8d1-4ddf89d18a1e" CreationDate="2018-08-07T03:50:18.110" Comment="Proposed by 18618 approved by -1 edit id of 2083" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19785" RevisionGUID="5f816c22-0295-4b08-9924-d12af183c580" CreationDate="2018-08-07T03:50:18.110" UserId="14403" Comment="syntax and added word." Text="My father the inventor was &quot;legally&quot; removed from his invention with a contract he signed stating that there was to be a board created. It was a rotating board that had my father start out as president then vice president followed by secretary and lastly treasurer where he was voted out/removed. Trying to reach Harvey Jasper I am no longer seeing everything I saw on the internet regarding the renaming and subsequent sale to Ford Motor Co." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54749" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18513" RevisionGUID="a748c0c2-b750-4140-956b-628d6f0d16a5" CreationDate="2018-08-07T19:01:46.153" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19790" RevisionGUID="a0c7afc8-ecfd-4a7a-a303-057d5d4b32d4" CreationDate="2018-08-07T20:10:39.270" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="They are all required to have at least a B.S in a science or engineering field but are not necessarily assigned to their specific expertise. Much of the subject matter education is on the job. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the examining corp is organized into Technology Centers. One of them is 2400 that covers &quot;Computer networking, Multiplex communication, Cryptography/Security, Video distribution, Video recording, and Video Compression&quot;. TC's are further broken down into Art Groups of about a dozen people with a specific narrower focus.  For a couple of years, an examiner can't sign-off on anything themselves. A Primary examiner needs to look over their work and sign the actual paperwork sent back to the applicant. Each examiner has a supervisor (called a SPE) with whom you can get into an interview with along with your assigned examiner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not found the degree of technical expertise making the difference between an efficient, effective examiner and a not-as-good examiner. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19795" RevisionGUID="40a0a2de-dfa5-4193-af4f-0552d93c94a8" CreationDate="2018-08-07T20:16:04.143" UserId="3076" Text="A granted patent is a bundle of rights. Those rights can be owned but after the patent expires (+ 6 months) the rights do not exist, no one can be the owner of non-existent rights. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, from the face of the patent, your relative may have never had any personal ownership of the granted patent. He is listed as the inventor but the other three people were listed as assignees at the time of issue. That means that, at the time of issue, they were listed as the owners. There may very well have been later assignments to a company in which your relative was an officer. However, from the face of the granted patented, he did not appear to have any ownership rights at all on the day of the grant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19796" RevisionGUID="dcd120bf-e47d-40fa-9451-9411a61fc04e" CreationDate="2018-08-08T02:19:59.937" UserId="21303" Text="I want to learn by looking at some examples of design patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a public repository of the history of a design patent application process as there are for trademarks?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54753" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19796" RevisionGUID="dcd120bf-e47d-40fa-9451-9411a61fc04e" CreationDate="2018-08-08T02:19:59.937" UserId="21303" Text="How to search for examples of design patent applications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54754" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19796" RevisionGUID="dcd120bf-e47d-40fa-9451-9411a61fc04e" CreationDate="2018-08-08T02:19:59.937" UserId="21303" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19797" RevisionGUID="5e92f528-1bb6-443f-b947-77583bcbaf3f" CreationDate="2018-08-08T04:56:47.267" UserId="3076" Text="Yes - Like all types of patents, all of the back-and-forth between the applicant and the USPTO are available to the public. They can be found in [Public Pair][1]. You will need to enter either the application number or the patent number. The site is fussy about the format of the number.  For the patent number of design patents use the &quot;D&quot; (but not the &quot;US&quot;) and be sure to set the radio button to &quot;Patent Number&quot;. The tab &quot;Image File Wrapper&quot; has a chronological record of all paper sent between the applicant and office. You will notice that the format required for a design patent application doesn't much look like the format of an issued design patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10663" RevisionGUID="ba824f97-2585-4204-9161-753ba511beb7" CreationDate="2018-08-08T12:04:28.750" UserId="18618" Comment="added application in question" Text="Don't the turbofan wheels oultined in [US20140191565A1][1] already exist from the 1980's, if not before then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I do a simple image Google search for &quot;turbofan wheels&quot; I get examples of wheels and hubcaps that show that these have existed for a long time before this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20140191565/un" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54763" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10663" RevisionGUID="ba824f97-2585-4204-9161-753ba511beb7" CreationDate="2018-08-08T12:04:28.750" Comment="Proposed by 18618 approved by 17003, 18033 edit id of 2085" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19792" RevisionGUID="a087e6c7-7370-4865-ae92-571cd6d79b36" CreationDate="2018-08-08T12:04:59.783" UserId="18618" Comment="USC title 10 is the armed forces." Text="The invention of interest is a system comprised of methods and a collection of tangible measurement device &amp; electronic data collection systems.  [I was advised to avoid mixing:][1] the structure specification of the invention and a step in a process **in the same claim**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a specific guidance from the USPTO or in 35 USC? or is the guidance that one learns through experience/best practice?  I pose this question because if it is the former, then I would like to read the guidance so that my claims will conform to USPTO or other authoritative expectations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/19789/19913" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54765" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19792" RevisionGUID="a087e6c7-7370-4865-ae92-571cd6d79b36" CreationDate="2018-08-08T12:04:59.783" Comment="Proposed by 18618 approved by 17003, 18033 edit id of 2084" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19776" RevisionGUID="f6e8b841-9342-4932-90cf-fad2f627bd10" CreationDate="2018-08-08T12:05:13.803" UserId="11834" Comment="copyediting" Text="The [kind code][1] at the end &quot;S&quot; simply means it's a design patent. Just like the &quot;D&quot; at the beginning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one has a Taiwanese priority which I can't locate, but neither [Espacenet][2] nor [Google Patents][3] list any family members, so there are probably none. Which means that this design patent is only valid in the US, but as it's relatively young, there could be older ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/support-centers/electronic-business-center/kind-codes-included-uspto-patent&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?CC=US&amp;NR=D765756S&amp;KC=S&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=3&amp;date=20160906&amp;DB=&amp;locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD765756S1/en?oq=US%20D765%2C756%20S" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54767" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19776" RevisionGUID="f6e8b841-9342-4932-90cf-fad2f627bd10" CreationDate="2018-08-08T12:05:13.803" Comment="Proposed by 11834 approved by 17003, 18033 edit id of 2082" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19800" RevisionGUID="3f0456b1-1012-4dfc-9213-f3f710ef5e96" CreationDate="2018-08-08T13:59:29.583" UserId="21305" Text="I have been designing a device and acompanying software and recently found an extremely broad utility patent that has a claim that is very similar and covers the some of the general functionality of this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. If the original artwork has a claim on a sensor that&#xD;&#xA;    reads data and relays it to a computer, would a the use of multiple&#xD;&#xA;    similar sensors and accompanying software be considered new / novel&#xD;&#xA;    enough to be patent-able in itself or would it fall under the&#xD;&#xA;    original patent?&#xD;&#xA; 2. If the original claim explicitly states a sensor that has an&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;internal power source,&quot; would using an &quot;external power source&quot; be a&#xD;&#xA;    difference that would allow a work around?&#xD;&#xA; 3. If the dependent claims outline specific operation that is not&#xD;&#xA;    repeated in my design, does the independent claim still cover it or&#xD;&#xA;    do all of the dependent claims have to be met? For example if a dependent claim states an audible alert, but this provides visual information is that a difference that could be worked around?&#xD;&#xA; 4. Finally I think the strongest part of my design is in the software.&#xD;&#xA;    If the software applications I am attempting are not outlined in this&#xD;&#xA;    patent, is it possible that the software could be novel enough to warrant it's own utility patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54769" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19800" RevisionGUID="3f0456b1-1012-4dfc-9213-f3f710ef5e96" CreationDate="2018-08-08T13:59:29.583" UserId="21305" Text="Design Around Existing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54770" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19800" RevisionGUID="3f0456b1-1012-4dfc-9213-f3f710ef5e96" CreationDate="2018-08-08T13:59:29.583" UserId="21305" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19801" RevisionGUID="f92eda3a-d6ee-4f8c-9570-7b6999a5d3f0" CreationDate="2018-08-08T15:34:42.297" UserId="17003" Text="You are correct that wheels that attempt to pump air either toward or more likely away from the brakes have been around for a while. The fourth generation Corvette from 1985 had such wheels. &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;By GPS 56 from New Zealand - 1985 Corvette, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=38623202&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US20140191565A1 is only an application. It may or may not ever become a patent. Indeed, checking in the US Public Pair, I found that it's current status is &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot; as of 10-14-2014. The patent received a non-final rejection on 04-03-2014. Non-final rejections are pretty common so the prior art cited by the examiner must have been strong enough to convince the applicant to abandon the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to point out that just because there are examples of similar products doesn't necessarily mean new inventions aren't possible. Many times the patent would be for a refinement on an existing product. The patent therefore would only cover the refinement and not the existing products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gV49O.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19802" RevisionGUID="9d4c3b1f-8e43-417c-a6bd-0998a81dfe8e" CreationDate="2018-08-08T17:02:58.270" UserId="18033" Text="You will probably not like the answer to your questions, but most of them are answered with “maybe“.&#xA;&#xA;1: If the original claim contains one sensor, in most cases more than one sensor will still infringe, because if you have many, you also have one. That wouldn't be the case if the claim said “exactly one sensor“, but that's very improbable. &#xA;&#xA;More than one sensor could be novel/inventive, but only if there is a good reason a person skilled in the art would have considered more sensors or they had an effect the one sensor hasn't for example. &#xA;&#xA;There are other possibilities for inventiveness, but it's hard to guess without exact details. Which you  cannot publish here because they'd be prior art for your application then. &#xA;&#xA;Important to note is, your invention can be novel and inventive and still infringe the other claim. &#xA;&#xA;2: That might be a way around, but it's not answereable generally, only for specific cases. Equivalents can be covered by the claims, but specific limitations like that one often have a reason in the prior art which would exclude equivalents. &#xA;&#xA;3: Infringing any claim is enough, you don't need to infringe the dependent claims to infringe the patent.&#xA;&#xA;4: Yes, that's very possible. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54776" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17041" RevisionGUID="2fadf318-eb82-429b-bbec-c85c9e19683b" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:03:24.560" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54777" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12865" RevisionGUID="1af983dc-922b-4135-b911-f5bab49ec344" CreationDate="2018-08-08T19:02:41.970" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54778" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18787" RevisionGUID="45b888a6-1cee-4653-9d74-39f6a5fd01d3" CreationDate="2018-08-08T20:00:56.753" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19802" RevisionGUID="c9c555b4-9575-4c90-bac2-5e3fde08f8c9" CreationDate="2018-08-09T04:50:20.920" UserId="18033" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="You will probably not like the answer to your questions, but most of them are answered with “maybe“.&#xA;&#xA;1: If the original claim contains one sensor, in most cases more than one sensor will still infringe, because if you have many, you also have one. That wouldn't be the case if the claim said “exactly one sensor“, but that's very improbable. &#xA;&#xA;More than one sensor could be novel/inventive, but only if there is a good reason a person skilled in the art wouldn't have considered more sensors or they had an effect the one sensor hasn't for example. &#xA;&#xA;There are other possibilities for inventiveness, but it's hard to guess without exact details. Which you  cannot publish here because they'd be prior art for your application then. &#xA;&#xA;Important to note is, your invention can be novel and inventive and still infringe the other claim. &#xA;&#xA;2: That might be a way around, but it's not answereable generally, only for specific cases. Equivalents can be covered by the claims, but specific limitations like that one often have a reason in the prior art which would exclude equivalents. &#xA;&#xA;3: Infringing any claim is enough, you don't need to infringe the dependent claims to infringe the patent.&#xA;&#xA;4: Yes, that's very possible. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19803" RevisionGUID="c3b21513-d4db-45ff-890c-6a3c9c5aa63b" CreationDate="2018-08-09T11:10:08.913" UserId="15489" Text="If a pro-se inventor, qualifying for small-entity status, licenses a patent application to an undiscounted entity such as a large corporation, does that mean that only that patent application (plus any continuations) become due for undiscounted fees (i.e. full issue and maintenance fees)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or does every patent the pro-se inventor files from that point on also now attract full undiscounted fees?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or in other words, is the loss of small-entity status linked to the person or just the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54781" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19803" RevisionGUID="c3b21513-d4db-45ff-890c-6a3c9c5aa63b" CreationDate="2018-08-09T11:10:08.913" UserId="15489" Text="Is entity status determined per patent family?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54782" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19803" RevisionGUID="c3b21513-d4db-45ff-890c-6a3c9c5aa63b" CreationDate="2018-08-09T11:10:08.913" UserId="15489" Text="&lt;fees&gt;&lt;status&gt;&lt;small-entity&gt;&lt;undiscounted-entity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19805" RevisionGUID="007c8611-3840-4880-ab7c-cad96cc66e2f" CreationDate="2018-08-09T14:09:27.593" UserId="21308" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20100094767][1]&#xD;&#xA;This is a generic idea that could be easily considered by anyone with a modicum of BI knowledge and AI acumen. Are we SERIOUSLY considering granting a patent to a generic idea such as this? If so, I've got about 10K ideas floating around in my head that we should patent immediately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20100094767" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54787" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19805" RevisionGUID="007c8611-3840-4880-ab7c-cad96cc66e2f" CreationDate="2018-08-09T14:09:27.593" UserId="21308" Text="Validity of Patenting a Generic Idea" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54788" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19805" RevisionGUID="007c8611-3840-4880-ab7c-cad96cc66e2f" CreationDate="2018-08-09T14:09:27.593" UserId="21308" Text="&lt;general&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19805" RevisionGUID="76fa638e-dfe6-4067-ac46-bcabbabf2c52" CreationDate="2018-08-09T15:00:52.107" UserId="1" Comment="edited to be more construtive" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20100094767][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a generic idea that could be easily considered by anyone with a modicum of BI knowledge and AI acumen. Could this patent possibly be granted? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20100094767" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54791" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19805" RevisionGUID="76fa638e-dfe6-4067-ac46-bcabbabf2c52" CreationDate="2018-08-09T15:00:52.107" UserId="1" Comment="edited to be more construtive" Text="Is &quot;Modeling Users for Fraud Detection&quot; too generic for a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54792" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19082" RevisionGUID="144d9f52-c42b-4098-8743-3f11b68b98a0" CreationDate="2018-08-09T19:17:10.990" UserId="169" Comment="Added specifying tag" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;third-party-observation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54793" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19082" RevisionGUID="144d9f52-c42b-4098-8743-3f11b68b98a0" CreationDate="2018-08-09T19:17:10.990" Comment="Proposed by 169 approved by 18033, 14417 edit id of 2065" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19646" RevisionGUID="42d2777f-1c28-420d-8634-084d53d0fdab" CreationDate="2018-08-09T22:15:14.613" UserId="5769" Comment="fixed typo" Text="You're right that a dependent claim is necessarily narrower than its associated independent claim.  Nonetheless, there are benefits to dependent claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If the independent claim is not allowed, its narrower dependent claims may still survive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Different claims are presumed to have different scope (*doctrine of claims differentiation*).  Therefore, &quot;fruit&quot; in an independent claim will be presumed to have broader scope than just apples or bananas when &quot;an apple or banana as said fruit&quot; is specifically stated in a dependent claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19806" RevisionGUID="cedc9321-6d3c-4347-82cb-579a64cc19d7" CreationDate="2018-08-09T22:36:08.653" UserId="17003" Text="The document you cite is a patent application, not a patent. Applications are frequently rejected. Claims in applications are almost always much broader than what is eventually granted. I will agree that the first claim of the application is almost comically vague and broad. If you go to the [US Public Pair][1], select &quot;Publication Number&quot; and enter 20100094767, you can see the entire application history. This application has, after 9 years of prosecution, been allowed, but the claims look nothing like the application's. Unfortunately the PDF of the allowed claims is an image file so I can't easily quote it here, but take my word it is quite long and specific. Click on the &quot;Image File Wrapper&quot; tab and you can find it. Claim 1 is over two and a half pages long. Long complicated claims are actually weak and narrow. In order to infringe on a claim you only need to implement each and every aspect of that claim. Skip even one step and you avoid infringement. The other independent claims are similarly long and complicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't bother to read the application so I can't comment on the value or novelty of the invention. I encourage you to read the documents found in the image file wrapper. You can see each of the three non-final rejections, the three final rejections, and each version of the updated claims to try to address the rejections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19807" RevisionGUID="51e28704-2da3-4987-a983-23b70a3c9bd3" CreationDate="2018-08-10T00:31:35.537" UserId="14403" Text="i. Yes. Only the assigned application assigned to ineligible entity forfeits eligibility for discount.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ii. If pro se inventor's income is affected by the assignment transaction in a manner that gross income crosses three times median house hold income of preceding year than only following applications (also if the application is the  sixth application with USPTO i.e. beyond previous 4 + current 1 which are eligible for micro entity status fee exemption) are not eligible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iii. Small entity status is linked to the &quot;**person**&quot; i.e. the owner and available only to pro se inventor on income basis and institutes of higher education and employees of higher education and guided by 35 USC 123   (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2012-title35/USCODE-2012-title35-partII-chap11-sec123) and 37 CFR 1.27  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19807" RevisionGUID="959c5ea8-07d2-4d13-a364-4302484ace20" CreationDate="2018-08-10T00:57:48.610" UserId="14403" Comment="improve the answer" Text="i. Yes. Only the assigned application assigned to ineligible entity forfeits eligibility for discount.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ii. If pro se inventor's income is affected by the assignment transaction in a manner that gross income crosses three times median house hold income of preceding year than only following applications (also if the application is the  sixth application with USPTO i.e. beyond previous 4 + current 1 which are eligible for micro entity status fee exemption) are not eligible. Issue fee and maintenance fee of other applications and granted patents may also be affected on the basis of income.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iii. Small entity status is linked to the &quot;**person**&quot; i.e. the owner and available only to pro se inventor on income basis and institutes of higher education and employees of higher education and guided by 35 USC 123   (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2012-title35/USCODE-2012-title35-partII-chap11-sec123) and 37 CFR 1.27  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19808" RevisionGUID="bc6ef4f0-08b9-4ce8-8234-e9c7078ff71c" CreationDate="2018-08-10T04:20:53.097" UserId="18618" Text="The answer was subtle but I found it at [smart up legal][1]. The main reason an entity would elect to convert a provisional application to a non-provisional application is in the case where a public disclosure of the invention occurred prior to the filing of the provisional application and at least one year and one day have lapsed since the disclosure but not since the provisional was filed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a disclosure more than one year in the past the invention owners would lose the right to file a new patent application. Thus from that point to one year after filing the provisional application the only means by which an entity could prosecute a patent is to convert the original provisional application to a non-provisional application under procedures in 37 C.F.R 153(c)(2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.smartuplegal.com/learn-center/how-do-i-convert-my-provisional-patent-application-into-a-non-provisional-application/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19809" RevisionGUID="1aa22a6b-b6ff-4fa1-84ad-10915b8dbe0e" CreationDate="2018-08-10T11:30:45.777" UserId="21310" Text="the invention concerned comprises three components, and one of them is an elastomer which does not contain a functional group (4).&#xD;&#xA;I used this term &quot;an elastomer which does not contain a functional group (4)&quot; in claims as well, but now I'm a little bit confused because in Examples, it's basically a past tense and I'm not sure if I should change the tense of (4) (to &quot;did&quot; not) or not. I want to keep the term as it is because it is one element that the invention comprises, but should I change the tense? Or should I change the term (like, elastomer containing no functional group)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you so much for your help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54800" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19809" RevisionGUID="1aa22a6b-b6ff-4fa1-84ad-10915b8dbe0e" CreationDate="2018-08-10T11:30:45.777" UserId="21310" Text="The tense in Examples in a patent application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54801" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19809" RevisionGUID="1aa22a6b-b6ff-4fa1-84ad-10915b8dbe0e" CreationDate="2018-08-10T11:30:45.777" UserId="21310" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;examples&gt;&lt;tense&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19806" RevisionGUID="9d20240b-a2f9-4d86-8719-3d4e9c2b4b3e" CreationDate="2018-08-10T16:35:42.743" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="The document you cite is a patent application, not a patent. Applications are frequently rejected. Claims in applications are almost always much broader than what is eventually granted. I will agree that the first claim of the application is almost comically vague and broad. If you go to the [US Public Pair][1], select &quot;Publication Number&quot; and enter 20100094767, you can see the entire application history. This application has, after 9 years of prosecution, been allowed, but the claims look nothing like the application's. Unfortunately the PDF of the allowed claims is an image file so I can't easily quote it here, but take my word it is quite long and specific. Click on the &quot;Image File Wrapper&quot; tab and you can find it. Claim 1 is over two and a half pages long. Long complicated claims are actually weak and narrow. In order to infringe on a claim you need to implement each and every aspect of that claim. Skip even one step and you avoid infringement. The other independent claims are similarly long and complicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't bother to read the application so I can't comment on the value or novelty of the invention. I encourage you to read the documents found in the image file wrapper. You can see each of the three non-final rejections, the three final rejections, and each version of the updated claims to try to address the rejections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19811" RevisionGUID="b7459e0e-dede-4d4f-9f69-b46c1a520f73" CreationDate="2018-08-10T22:12:16.393" UserId="21314" Text="I am planning to make one online gallery mobile application. In my mobile application I have to upload videos/Images/Voice Record message into cloud and showing in my User Interface. But is there any patents already available in uploading videos/Images/voice recorder? But many social media or other mobile application are using those features, So If I use these features, Will I get any trouble in future? And also is it possible to patent those features?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54807" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19811" RevisionGUID="b7459e0e-dede-4d4f-9f69-b46c1a520f73" CreationDate="2018-08-10T22:12:16.393" UserId="21314" Text="Patent for Videos/Images/Voice recorder?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54808" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19811" RevisionGUID="b7459e0e-dede-4d4f-9f69-b46c1a520f73" CreationDate="2018-08-10T22:12:16.393" UserId="21314" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;intellectual-property&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54810" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19811" RevisionGUID="419f4671-6367-4d9a-9cc0-130f8b1dec90" CreationDate="2018-08-11T00:29:54.147" UserId="1" Comment="Redircted the quesiotn . Nobody can do this search for you." Text="How to I search for patents related to for videos/images/voice recorder?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19807" RevisionGUID="3b927249-0b14-475c-ba85-007bc17c6660" CreationDate="2018-08-11T02:29:35.100" UserId="14403" Comment="edited body" Text="i. Yes. Only the assigned application assigned to ineligible entity forfeits eligibility for discount.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ii. If pro se inventor's income is affected by the assignment transaction in a manner that gross income crosses three times median house hold income of preceding year than only following applications (also if the application is the  sixth application with USPTO i.e. beyond previous 4 + current 1 which are eligible for micro entity status fee exemption) are not eligible. Issue fee and maintenance fee of other applications and granted patents may also be affected on the basis of income.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iii. micro entity status is linked to the &quot;**person**&quot; i.e. the owner and available only to pro se inventor on income basis and institutes of higher education and employees of higher education and guided by 35 USC 123   (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2012-title35/USCODE-2012-title35-partII-chap11-sec123) and 37 CFR 1.27  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19807" RevisionGUID="cd171660-4ef0-410d-abfe-4f015b35d3cd" CreationDate="2018-08-11T03:21:33.683" UserId="14403" Comment="improve the answer" Text="i. Yes. Only the assigned application assigned to ineligible entity forfeits eligibility for discount.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ii. If pro se inventor's (micro entity) income is affected by the assignment transaction in a manner that gross income crosses three times median house hold income of preceding year than only following applications (also if the application is the  sixth application with USPTO i.e. beyond previous 4 + current 1 which are eligible for micro entity status fee exemption) are not eligible. Issue fee and maintenance fee of other applications and granted patents may also be affected on the basis of income.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iii. micro entity status is linked to the &quot;**person**&quot; i.e. the owner and available only to pro se inventor on income basis and institutes of higher education and employees of higher education and guided by 35 USC 123   (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2012-title35/USCODE-2012-title35-partII-chap11-sec123) and 37 CFR 1.27 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Small entity status**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i. Assessment of status is status of owner(s) of patent right and is linked to a particular application and not to any other application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ii. For pro se inventor (person), assignment to non-small entity affects only that particular application and not any other application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iii. Please read https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.27 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iv. Also can take advice from Inventors Assistance Center, USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;Toll-Free: 800-786-9199, Local: 571-272-1000, TTY: 800-877-8339  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54814" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="76cdde1f-ae7c-43b6-a2e9-045eff0b31be" CreationDate="2018-08-11T04:02:03.620" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54815" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18844" RevisionGUID="0b54f481-8825-4862-908d-63b2b8f07326" CreationDate="2018-08-11T07:01:33.667" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54816" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19811" RevisionGUID="ea248b67-e234-47d7-9ba2-2635171cb36d" CreationDate="2018-08-11T10:07:53.973" UserId="18618" Comment="added prior art request tag" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;intellectual-property&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54817" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19811" RevisionGUID="ea248b67-e234-47d7-9ba2-2635171cb36d" CreationDate="2018-08-11T10:07:53.973" Comment="Proposed by 18618 approved by 21314 edit id of 2086" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54818" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19538" RevisionGUID="68c60fce-525a-4c20-9de6-ddfa813226ad" CreationDate="2018-08-11T17:01:32.397" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19649" RevisionGUID="9053e457-7a4e-4830-9d0e-edf5604d3776" CreationDate="2018-08-11T17:18:14.443" UserId="18033" Comment="added 2 characters in body; added 1 character in body; added 1 character in body" Text="This is a great qestion! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dependent claims are such a prominent thing and they don't give you anything in regards to claim scope. (Apart from interpretation maybe, but a well written description could get you there too.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But let's look a little closer. (I'll be citing the epo manual because I know it better, but it's pretty close to the US thing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Drafting the patent:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traditionally, the description will be drafted as to enable the claims. It's very hard to write a description without dependent claims. Sure, you could remove them afterwards, but I'll get to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dependent claims are something you have in front of you - in the form of a claim - so you can make sure it's clear and precise and consistent. During prosecution, it is always harder to enter something from the description, because the description is in, in lack of a better word, description format and you might run into an ([intermediate][1]) [generalisation][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, writing good dependent claims which may become independent later is the basis for a strong patent. in this stage, it's only about having thought them through, you could now throw them away theoretically. Which leads to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prosecution:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims will be searched by the examiner (as long as they relate to one invention). If you have no dependent claims, it's at the examiners discretion to search all those tiny bits and pieces from the description (spoiler: they won't). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trying to include limitations from the description can then lead you to [unsearched matter][3], which at the EPO means you have to file a divisional or not include it, because they won't examine (and therefore grant) anything not searched. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, the above as to generalisations and in general missing support for the new claims applies, but that could be remedied by a well drafted description as I said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So let's say you got through prosecution, why not remove all dependent claims now and not pay [claim fees][4]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Litigation:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or rather, invalidation. Funny enough, what I said for the phases above still holds, let's say your independent claim is invalidated. You now want to add a limitation from the description. But oh, it wasn't searched, is a generalisation or not clear? Too bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there's another point. Litigation goes: &quot;opponent files an invalidity suit/opposition/... - responses - oral proceedings&quot;. Somewhere along those, you will have to add auxiliary requests with new independent claims which you can then go through with your opponent in the oral proceedings. Your opponent needs to be prepared for all your dependent claims and the axuliary requests in the oral proceedings. Not for you entering stuff from the description. So the proceedings will be a lot longer if you keep adding stuff from the description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it might even brake your neck in the end, because Art 84. (EPC), also called &quot;clarity (and brevity)&quot; is not a reason for opposition (at the EPO). If you got your dependent claims through the examination, they are presumed clear! If however you enter limitations from the description, your opponent may argue missing clarity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, you'll have to believe me on this one, examiners almost don't care for clarity. Many many many granted claims would be found unclear after thorough dissection by your opposing attorney. But they may not argue that for the existing claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, did I say that was it? Well there's more. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Interpretation in invalidity and litigation:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say the examiner granted your claims. Some of the dependent claims (and the independent one too then) would be non novel over the prior art which the examiner examined *in a special, but possible, interpretation*. The EPO grants the examiner a presumption of having done his work well, so in most cases, your claims will be interpreted to not contain that interpretation. So they aren't invalid and you can actually use them. Technically, the independent claim would be enough, but maybe that one fell against a new prior art document and etc. In the end, the dependent claims allow many arguments as to what is part of your claims and what not, most of them good for you as the arguments against you could almost all be made from the description anyways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only case where you might get a problem is if you include a dependent claim with an embodiment which could have been interpreted to be outside of the independent claim and is not novel. Then your opponent can argue that anything in the dependent claims is definitly part of the independent claims. That argument is harder if the description doesn't clearly state it is part of the independent claim. But again, in that case you would also not be able to include that limitation into your independent claim if you had it only in the description because that would be unclear. So this one is an error in the drafting of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/h_v_3_2_1.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/f_iv_6_2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/h_ii_6_2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/a_iii_9.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54823" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="b5475622-3dab-4344-ae1c-ece146acb426" CreationDate="2018-08-12T14:01:17.693" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54825" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19793" RevisionGUID="5121f21c-8226-43e8-b7b5-0612641d4d01" CreationDate="2018-08-13T03:27:46.140" UserId="18618" Comment="edited body" Text="For the sake of simplicity, I will limit the scope to utility patents. In what scenarios would it be advantageous for an entity to convert a provisional utility application to a non-provisional utility application rather than file a new non-provisional application seeking priority of the provisional?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can only think of three scenarios:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. A new best method has been developed since the provisional was filed and an entity would like to not disclose that method in a new application.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Legislation (patent, tax, etc...) gives advantages for holders of patents filed in a certain period that the provisional falls into but a non-provisional does not.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Avoid the filing fee for a new patent application by converting the old one after 364  or fewer days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these seem like a bit of a stretch and I'm not certain the first reason is even valid." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19813" RevisionGUID="8169a585-711a-42a9-892b-c8e8d126affe" CreationDate="2018-08-13T17:12:57.563" UserId="21314" Text="There are so many social networking apps available in AppStore and PlayStore. Almost all the modules and features are same in all those apps (like feedpage, photos/videos upload, chatting, etc). So If I am going to create a similar social network mobile application, Will I face any issue related patent or copyright problems?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54828" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19813" RevisionGUID="8169a585-711a-42a9-892b-c8e8d126affe" CreationDate="2018-08-13T17:12:57.563" UserId="21314" Text="Mobile application Social network module patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54829" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19813" RevisionGUID="8169a585-711a-42a9-892b-c8e8d126affe" CreationDate="2018-08-13T17:12:57.563" UserId="21314" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;prior&gt;&lt;app&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54830" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19813" RevisionGUID="5ecfbd01-fd0d-4ff7-b548-eb60474f957a" CreationDate="2018-08-13T17:23:07.933" UserId="21314" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;prior&gt;&lt;app&gt;&lt;social-networking&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19813" RevisionGUID="5ecfbd01-fd0d-4ff7-b548-eb60474f957a" CreationDate="2018-08-13T17:23:07.933" UserId="21314" Comment="edited tags" Text="There are so many social networking apps available in AppStore and PlayStore. Almost all the modules and features are same in all those apps (like feedpage, photos/videos upload, chatting, etc). So If I create a similar social network mobile application, Will I face any issue related patent or copyright problems?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19814" RevisionGUID="fd16c639-e431-4dfb-8f29-de649ea05f0e" CreationDate="2018-08-13T22:59:20.847" UserId="17003" Text="**Will I face any issue related patent or copyright problems?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very hard to say. Almost certainly you should be prepared to do a patent search. Developing within, say Xcode, using the built in functionality ought to be pretty safe, but there are a lot of patents out there. The fact that multiple apps have similar features is no guarantee of freedom to operate since one app might have licensed technology from the other (or a third party). As for copyright, that is off topic on this site but I would hesitate to just copy another app screen for screen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please understand that I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. My own opinion is that it is rather foolish to rely on internet forums and Q&amp;A sites for advice when running a business." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54833" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="ea3a3a1d-1191-4a1d-8c0b-412917e84558" CreationDate="2018-08-14T03:00:01.100" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54834" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16615" RevisionGUID="59f7c396-124a-4eb4-8955-8e14f2a7e36b" CreationDate="2018-08-14T05:00:37.870" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54835" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16336" RevisionGUID="bd486a94-8908-417c-8c30-469f10e3b7d1" CreationDate="2018-08-14T06:00:42.253" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54836" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13334" RevisionGUID="cc1976d7-ec71-468e-bd30-a7affb664c10" CreationDate="2018-08-14T07:01:45.957" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54837" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19114" RevisionGUID="19426427-61d4-467c-80a8-4da30f25a89a" CreationDate="2018-08-14T09:02:18.510" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54838" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="2de18970-f4ed-4f7f-aacd-175e17b722cd" CreationDate="2018-08-14T10:02:14.167" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19815" RevisionGUID="f4f4bb69-0196-4f55-9b80-e531bc3f956a" CreationDate="2018-08-14T22:50:54.870" UserId="3076" Text="I do not do chemical patents but have seen &quot;substantially free of XYZ&quot;, and &quot;not containing XYZ&quot;).You would not use &quot;did not&quot; in a claim ever. If &quot;did&quot; was used in the specification it would imply an actual experiment. It is important to distinguish between actual experiments/data and speculation about what would happen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54840" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19296" RevisionGUID="012631cf-fe0c-4b99-b103-7f7fdbf717e1" CreationDate="2018-08-14T23:00:25.293" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54841" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12961" RevisionGUID="200f016d-2bcb-4073-a392-dbb6fd54dd3d" CreationDate="2018-08-15T01:00:51.203" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54842" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17307" RevisionGUID="e223fe35-23ca-45db-b40d-4b761c714583" CreationDate="2018-08-15T02:02:10.970" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54843" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16506" RevisionGUID="045d620f-4b8c-4e2f-9b03-36b930646b06" CreationDate="2018-08-15T03:00:30.287" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54844" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17472" RevisionGUID="f18bb328-5256-49e0-bdad-eea4884049c1" CreationDate="2018-08-15T04:04:34.077" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19816" RevisionGUID="b5def232-07a6-4397-b92d-720c0251d996" CreationDate="2018-08-15T04:28:51.417" UserId="21321" Text="I am so confused in a question and need your kind help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I filed a PCT case  on 2018/1/1 and claims priority to an US non-provisional (US1), which was filed on 2017/1/1.  Then, if US national phase of the PCT (WO-US) enters and grants, when will it expire? 2038/1/1?  If so, doesn't I get additional 1 year besides the normail 20 years ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54846" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19816" RevisionGUID="b5def232-07a6-4397-b92d-720c0251d996" CreationDate="2018-08-15T04:28:51.417" UserId="21321" Text="Patent term for PCT claiming priority to US non-provisional" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54847" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19816" RevisionGUID="b5def232-07a6-4397-b92d-720c0251d996" CreationDate="2018-08-15T04:28:51.417" UserId="21321" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;expiration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19817" RevisionGUID="d74848ec-444a-45e8-82bd-a25af2b17abc" CreationDate="2018-08-15T04:54:39.170" UserId="3076" Text="There is no extra year in this case. The relevant law is -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 35 U.S.C. 154  	Contents and term of patent; provisional rights.&#xD;&#xA;(a) IN GENERAL.—&#xD;&#xA;*****&#xD;&#xA;(2) TERM.—Subject to the payment of fees under this title, such grant shall be for a term beginning on the date on which the patent issues and ending 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, **if the application contains a specific reference to an earlier filed application or applications under section 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) from the date on which the earliest such application was filed.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an exception if the earliest application is a provisional. Then it could expire 21 years from the provisional fining date, assuming the non-provisional or pct was filed on the last day of the term of the provisional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19816" RevisionGUID="5661ebb8-5116-4fcf-b96a-81a4712304dc" CreationDate="2018-08-15T07:21:04.720" UserId="21321" Comment="edited body" Text="I am so confused in a question and need your kind help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I filed a PCT case  on 2018/1/1 claiming priority to an US non-provisional (US1), which was filed on 2017/1/1.  Then, if the US national phase of the PCT (WO-US) enters and grants, when will it expire? 2038/1/1?  If so, don't I get additional 1 year besides the normail 20 years ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19818" RevisionGUID="d58be922-a478-4d3c-aaab-58e73a2d5b70" CreationDate="2018-08-15T22:25:36.363" UserId="21324" Text="Is there any bulk data source where we can extract the &quot;Family ID&quot; for each patent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;Family ID&quot; data is shown in the search app from USPTO (http://patft.uspto.gov).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked into USPTO Bulk data but cound not find it there (https://bulkdata.uspto.gov/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent Grant Full Text Data (No Images) (JAN 1976 - PRESENT)&#xD;&#xA;Contains the full text of each patent grant issued weekly (Tuesdays) from January 1, 1976 to present (excludes images/drawings). Subset of the Patent Grant Full Text Data with Embedded TIFF Images.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Patent Family ID Number- The USPTO has recently begun assigning a patent family id number to correlate related documents under a unique Family ID number. Members of the family include published patent applications, US patents, and foreign references, as well as other documents. The information has been added retroactively to the PatFT database, so it is available back to 1970.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;src: http://ptrca.org/newsletters/2016/comfort" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54852" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19818" RevisionGUID="d58be922-a478-4d3c-aaab-58e73a2d5b70" CreationDate="2018-08-15T22:25:36.363" UserId="21324" Text="Extracting USPTO Family Id for Patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54853" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19818" RevisionGUID="d58be922-a478-4d3c-aaab-58e73a2d5b70" CreationDate="2018-08-15T22:25:36.363" UserId="21324" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;bulk-download&gt;&lt;family&gt;&lt;family-id&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54854" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18261" RevisionGUID="f864cfa5-faea-429e-831d-7a524674f8d7" CreationDate="2018-08-16T05:01:33.820" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54855" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17844" RevisionGUID="46494657-0372-4dc8-a376-c6d62ce05012" CreationDate="2018-08-16T11:01:50.413" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54856" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19270" RevisionGUID="faaa389e-2662-45eb-832d-7267259f5024" CreationDate="2018-08-16T13:02:04.513" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19819" RevisionGUID="84f91509-a0bd-445b-a1d8-78c1b97b02da" CreationDate="2018-08-16T20:48:18.900" UserId="3076" Text="Searching is an art and a science and the Ask Patents format is not suitable for a complete tutorial. I can get you started. [Google patents][1] is the easiest patent search engine to use for a beginner. It also has the option of searching in google scholar. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I crudely typed - &quot;social network&quot; upload video audio image chat - in the search box. It brings up a list of granted patents and patent applications from a variety of countries. To narrow it to just actually granted patents, scroll down and see a selection on the left where you can chose STATUS and set it to GRANT. One [example][2] I is see is US8572493B2 Mobile device messaging application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It involves the elements you mention but its claims are very specific. Very broadly speaking, you can get a patent for a particular combination of features that have a particular relationship to each other, like this person did. To look for other similar things, scroll down to see that google provides hyperlinks to patents this document may have referred to, to patents that might have referred to this patent, and now also to things google's algorithm thinks are similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following these links can give you a reasonable view of the patent status of the field. Remember that only granted patents can keep you from building something but everything is relevant in keeping you from patenting your inventions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8572493B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54858" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18971" RevisionGUID="3de55c06-6569-4022-94db-6c121e76fb14" CreationDate="2018-08-16T22:00:00.073" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54859" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18712" RevisionGUID="cf1fe772-e7f7-4fd9-95ba-d0defa5b9d9f" CreationDate="2018-08-17T01:02:14.940" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19821" RevisionGUID="bf580373-55ea-4afc-b175-80b5167da896" CreationDate="2018-08-17T11:51:41.573" UserId="21328" Text="I'm a programmer, and got a  warning letter for patent infringement from a competitor's product company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My product is an Internet filter, and the relevant part - probably - is censoring negative words from parts of a web page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand programming but not in large and vague formulations, so I find it difficult to be sure of the intention of the patent, but according to my reading it seems to be a patent for the ability to identify related elements as part of the negative identification.&#xD;&#xA;The patent:&#xD;&#xA;https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2012098539&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Question:&#xD;&#xA;It seems ridiculous to me to patent this mechanism (why should so complicate detect and determine relatd part in the DOM?!), Am I wrong? Is this legally acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;Could it be that before the patent was patented, no one had done the so banal thing?&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to call such an idea, which is entirely a regular solution of a computer problem, an **original** idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54862" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19821" RevisionGUID="bf580373-55ea-4afc-b175-80b5167da896" CreationDate="2018-08-17T11:51:41.573" UserId="21328" Text="Patent for detect relation between html elements" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54863" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19821" RevisionGUID="bf580373-55ea-4afc-b175-80b5167da896" CreationDate="2018-08-17T11:51:41.573" UserId="21328" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;algorihm&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19821" RevisionGUID="3bb76fe3-79ba-426f-9f80-3f1432a7db5f" CreationDate="2018-08-17T12:08:12.410" UserId="21328" Comment="added 483 characters in body" Text="I'm a programmer, and got a  warning letter for patent infringement from a competitor's product company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My product is an Internet filter, and the relevant part - probably - is censoring negative words from parts of a web page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand programming but not in large and vague formulations, so I find it difficult to be sure of the intention of the patent, but according to my reading it seems to be a patent for the ability to identify related elements as part of the negative identification.&#xD;&#xA;The patent:&#xD;&#xA;https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2012098539&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Question:&#xD;&#xA;It seems ridiculous to me to patent this mechanism (why should so complicate detect and determine relatd part in the DOM?!), Am I wrong? Is this legally acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;Could it be that before the patent was patented, no one had done the so banal thing?&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to call such an idea, which is entirely a regular solution of a computer problem, an **original** idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;=====&#xD;&#xA;I took from the patent the &quot;problem&quot;, the desired result,&#xD;&#xA;The claim is based entirely on the fact that my product reaches the same result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![The page with the problematic text][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![Source Code][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;[![The **Algorithm**][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6lJs5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/STykF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XexTk.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pe7gT.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54865" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19821" RevisionGUID="fcebcb38-9032-462c-a027-200faac0231c" CreationDate="2018-08-17T12:19:11.753" UserId="21328" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;algorihm&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19821" RevisionGUID="de67dbf9-c9a6-4851-86e3-008fdcd719df" CreationDate="2018-08-17T13:01:44.350" UserId="21328" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="I'm a programmer, and got a  warning letter for patent infringement from a competitor's product company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My product is an Internet filter, and the relevant part - probably - is censoring negative words from parts of a web page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand programming but not in large and vague formulations, so I find it difficult to be sure of the intention of the patent, but according to my reading it seems to be a patent for the ability to identify related elements as part of the negative identification.&#xD;&#xA;The patent:&#xD;&#xA;https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2012098539&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Question:&#xD;&#xA;It seems ridiculous to me to patent this mechanism (why should so complicate detect and determine relatd part in the DOM?!), Am I wrong? Is this legally acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;Could it be that before the patent was patented, no one had done the so banal thing?&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to call such an idea, which is entirely a regular solution of a computer problem, an **original** idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;=====&#xD;&#xA;I took from the patent the &quot;problem&quot;, the desired result, and the &quot;Algorithm&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NOTE: The claim is based entirely on the fact that my product reaches the same result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![The page with the problematic text][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![Source Code][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;[![The **Algorithm**][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6lJs5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/STykF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XexTk.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pe7gT.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19822" RevisionGUID="faff1cfe-c51c-421b-95bf-59d03baafcad" CreationDate="2018-08-17T13:06:44.770" UserId="15489" Text="I've found an allowed continuation to a parent patent application, in which the continuation contains a single claim that appears to be one long concatenation of the original 20 claims of the parent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why would a corporation file such a continuation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54868" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19822" RevisionGUID="faff1cfe-c51c-421b-95bf-59d03baafcad" CreationDate="2018-08-17T13:06:44.770" UserId="15489" Text="Why would a corporation file a continuation that consists of one large claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54869" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19822" RevisionGUID="faff1cfe-c51c-421b-95bf-59d03baafcad" CreationDate="2018-08-17T13:06:44.770" UserId="15489" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;continuation&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19823" RevisionGUID="7f57e1f7-63cf-4ce9-8e92-b077f44d2f0b" CreationDate="2018-08-17T14:18:19.897" UserId="19913" Text="In days of yore, mechanical inventions had physical embodiments and patent infringements were visible to the eye.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fast forward to the age of information where methods and devices to solve problems with computers and information, where infringement is not readily visible.   For example, the infringement upon a hypothetical method-claim, that is developed for a 3-letter government, agency probably does not have infringement detection 'visibility': think of it like a target having a radar cross section or radar signature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, if a claim does not have infringement detection 'visibility', does the claim ultimately contribute to the value of the patent?  Are there any best practices \ strategies regarding the subject matter to improve visibility? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54871" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19823" RevisionGUID="7f57e1f7-63cf-4ce9-8e92-b077f44d2f0b" CreationDate="2018-08-17T14:18:19.897" UserId="19913" Text="Claim value and detectability of infringement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54872" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19823" RevisionGUID="7f57e1f7-63cf-4ce9-8e92-b077f44d2f0b" CreationDate="2018-08-17T14:18:19.897" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19824" RevisionGUID="4b7d9cd1-a73a-429f-88b3-8ca67303a1e3" CreationDate="2018-08-17T14:22:26.700" UserId="17003" Text="The document you linked to is not a patent, it is a patent application. Since claims are usually changed and narrowed during the prosecution of a patent application it is hard to know whether you will infringe on the subsequent patent is or when it is issued. You can't enforce applications, only patents. However, I did find a US patent associated with this application family: [US9529896B2][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to infringe on a patent, you must implement each and every step of at least one claim. Here is the first claim of US9529896B2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for on-line filtering of undesired content from a presentation built from a source code and for displaying the filtered&#xD;&#xA;&gt; presentation to a user comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a) identifying a plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; structures and a plurality of substructures of at least one structure&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of said plurality of structures in the source code; said at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; structure having a beginning marked by a first marker and an end&#xD;&#xA;&gt; marked by a second marker; each substructure of said plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; substructure having a respective beginning marker and wherein each&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said respective beginning marker is located between said first marker&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and said second marker and wherein each of said plurality&#xD;&#xA;&gt; substructures beginning with said respective beginning marker ends&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with a respective end marker; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  b) detecting the undesired content in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said plurality of substructures; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  c) determining at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; substructure dominated by said undesired content; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  d) disabling said at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least one substructure according to said determining; said disabling&#xD;&#xA;&gt; resulting in a a sanitized structure, without the undesired content;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  e) removing said sanitized structure from said presentation when said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sanitized structure does not correspond to said structure such that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; displaying said sanitized structure in the presentation would make the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user aware of said disabling and arouse a curiosity of the user of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said presentation towards a said undesired content; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  f) sending said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; source code including an outcome of said disabling and said removing;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to an output device for rebuilding and display to the user; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  g) performing a first action when a combination of a first word and a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; second word is detected between said respective beginning marker and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said respective end marker of a single substructure of said plurality&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of substructures: and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  h) performing a second action different from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said first action and when first word is in said single substructure&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and said second word is not in said single structure and said second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; word is in another substructure of said plurality of substructures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, this is a very long and detailed claim. Long claims are actually considered narrower than short ones since you only need to avoid a single step to keep from infringing on it. For instance if a claim has steps a, b, c and d and you only implement a, b and d, you should avoid infringement. However if you implement a, b, c, d and e (new stuff), you will infringe. The other independent claim is claim 7 which is also quite long. You know your process better than I do so compare what you are doing to these two claims and see if you are avoiding at least one step in each.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you received a warning letter, **I think you absolutely need to consult with a patent attorney**. The attorney can provide an assessment of freedom to operate of your implementation and how to respond to the patent holder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9529896B2/en?oq=WO2012098539" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19822" RevisionGUID="841f0531-fbfc-4dd5-84ca-b653bc813861" CreationDate="2018-08-17T15:30:59.320" UserId="15489" Comment="Added links to patents giving an example" Text="I've found an allowed continuation to a parent patent application, in which the continuation contains a single claim that appears to be one long concatenation of the original 20 claims of the parent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why would a corporation file such a continuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://tinyurl.com/ycmfmwt7 is the continuation and https://tinyurl.com/y75qmmpx is the parent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19822" RevisionGUID="338b3f30-32da-4cc6-9104-2578271b2e43" CreationDate="2018-08-17T19:25:29.913" UserId="1" Comment="Please do not use link shorteners which hide the desitination site" Text="I've found an allowed continuation to a parent patent application, in which the continuation contains a single claim that appears to be one long concatenation of the original 20 claims of the parent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why would a corporation file such a continuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a link to the continuation: [US Patent Application 20180227119 (continuation)](http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220180227119%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20180227119&amp;RS=DN/20180227119)  &#xD;&#xA;And here is a link to the patent: [US Patent Application 20180227119 (patent)](http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=2&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=15429121%2F&amp;OS=15429121/&amp;RS=15429121/) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19825" RevisionGUID="6edef5b8-01ce-43d9-9bc5-7470761d7205" CreationDate="2018-08-18T03:06:57.533" UserId="21331" Text="I believe the OP’s question was directed more to whether his invention would pass muster under the Alice/Mayo framework, and not so much about novelty/non-obviousness.  Of course, without actually seeing a claim, one cannot make a determination as to whether the claim recites “an abstract idea without significantly more”. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, Bluetooth is a registered trademark/tradename, and so a claim reciting that term may be indefinite under 112b.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54878" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="b94975fc-94ec-421a-a40c-12dd357b55a9" CreationDate="2018-08-18T04:01:37.270" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54879" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17865" RevisionGUID="679555d6-04a3-4174-a722-a16175597107" CreationDate="2018-08-18T07:00:53.003" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54888" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="3833" RevisionGUID="026b4021-7bd9-497d-b51a-30c6a8cc26d2" CreationDate="2018-08-18T12:03:10.097" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="54889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19821" RevisionGUID="3d1e0cf2-bb5b-48ab-9c5a-d0978ae95757" CreationDate="2018-08-18T18:53:49.167" UserId="21328" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body" Text="I'm a programmer, and got a  warning letter for patent infringement from a competitor's product company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My product is an Internet filter, and the relevant part - probably - is censoring negative words from parts of a web page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand programming but not in large and vague formulations, so I find it difficult to be sure of the intention of the patent, but according to my reading it seems to be a patent for the ability to identify related elements as part of the negative identification.&#xD;&#xA;The patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2012098539A2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Question:&#xD;&#xA;It seems ridiculous to me to patent this mechanism (why should so complicate detect and determine relatd part in the DOM?!), Am I wrong? Is this legally acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;Could it be that before the patent was patented, no one had done the so banal thing?&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to call such an idea, which is entirely a regular solution of a computer problem, an **original** idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;=====&#xD;&#xA;I took from the patent the &quot;problem&quot;, the desired result, and the &quot;Algorithm&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NOTE: The claim is based entirely on the fact that my product reaches the same result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![The page with the problematic text][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![Source Code][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;[![The **Algorithm**][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6lJs5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/STykF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XexTk.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pe7gT.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19828" RevisionGUID="9c1efc0a-86b2-45f6-81c7-d112d1594a13" CreationDate="2018-08-18T19:15:24.160" UserId="19913" Text="An invention has no circuits or mechanical engineering drawings, there are however maps of how to deploy sensors and maps to for sequential data flow &amp; processing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any reason not to use Power Point to create drawings?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any examples of reasons not to use Power Point are appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54891" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19828" RevisionGUID="9c1efc0a-86b2-45f6-81c7-d112d1594a13" CreationDate="2018-08-18T19:15:24.160" UserId="19913" Text="Is there any reason not to use Powerpoint for Application Drawings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54892" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19828" RevisionGUID="9c1efc0a-86b2-45f6-81c7-d112d1594a13" CreationDate="2018-08-18T19:15:24.160" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;patent-drawings&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54893" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="fa7b972b-e9ae-4375-9f16-3602c0e4a8d2" CreationDate="2018-08-19T02:01:23.297" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19829" RevisionGUID="1ca971b9-80eb-49e0-8fe8-4e13199dd864" CreationDate="2018-08-19T12:10:24.100" UserId="18033" Text="No. There is no reason not to use Power Point. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19830" RevisionGUID="b6d05264-7644-4ae8-8086-a213c44017b9" CreationDate="2018-08-19T15:01:08.203" UserId="17003" Text="Of course you may use Powerpoint, but there are some decent reasons not to. First and foremost, Powerpoint simply isn't that good for drawing graphics (in my humble opinion), especially if you are doing diagrams like flowcharts. Visio is designed for this sort of thing as is the open source [Dia][1]. With diagramming software, the lines that link blocks stay linked to their assigned nodes which makes editing and adjusting the position of blocks easy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do use Powerpoint, you need to make sure you are avoiding many of the features it provides (often by default) like color, drop shadows, 3D text, etc. You want a plain black line on white background illustration. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dia-installer.de" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19829" RevisionGUID="531d1d08-0164-4b85-86e9-f2c6a94be0a5" CreationDate="2018-08-19T15:04:04.630" UserId="18033" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="No. There is no legal reason not to use Power Point. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19831" RevisionGUID="e8d396ef-0e01-4ea4-90cb-9df238400f5e" CreationDate="2018-08-19T15:07:57.527" UserId="17003" Text="I'm not a lawyer so this answer is based on observation. It is true that in many cases with software the patent holder can't see the logic of an implementation without access to the source code. That said, if you provide software that accomplishes the same task as the patent describes you may simply be sued anyway. Then, you would be required to demonstrate you don't infringe. That may seem to be easy, but litigation is expensive and many people would opt to just pay a license fee. There is an example of this from this [Ask Patents question][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/19821/patent-for-detect-relation-between-html-elements" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19832" RevisionGUID="37fbffa0-5d7c-4a63-840c-c74e694b99db" CreationDate="2018-08-19T15:20:58.900" UserId="21334" Text="Patent A was filed formally, March-13-2010, published Nov-2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent B was filed provisional, March-14-2010, then formal-filed Mar-2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patents covered some similar areas, but Patent B spec was much more complete, covering the areas of Patent A and much more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might have been a straight forward case, but there's a couple of twists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Patent A was abandoned after years of failing to overcome office actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Patent B issued on the basis of simpler broad claims&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In continuations Patent B ultimately succeeded with claims that overlap, but failed to issue, in Patent A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the publication date of A was after B was filed, how does that matter in this case ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could the owners of Patent B (successfully) pursue the owners of Patent A, for example in infringement actions B vs A ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could Patent A be used to invalidate Patent B e.g. in IPR ? in litigation of B vs C ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can Patent B cite Patent A as prior art ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many interesting questions - am sure there's more twists haven't thought of ... point out the best ones ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54899" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19832" RevisionGUID="37fbffa0-5d7c-4a63-840c-c74e694b99db" CreationDate="2018-08-19T15:20:58.900" UserId="21334" Text="Can an abandoned patent affect an issued one ? There's a twist" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54900" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19832" RevisionGUID="37fbffa0-5d7c-4a63-840c-c74e694b99db" CreationDate="2018-08-19T15:20:58.900" UserId="21334" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;continuation&gt;&lt;date&gt;&lt;ipr&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54901" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19732" RevisionGUID="2f378ba7-4aab-4424-939a-5ed1b522cd3d" CreationDate="2018-08-19T20:00:33.437" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19831" RevisionGUID="d079d6b9-c6e2-4a57-9fc9-ef21b08759c3" CreationDate="2018-08-19T23:04:02.980" UserId="17003" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="I'm not a lawyer so this answer is based on observation. It is true that in many cases with software the patent holder can't see the logic of an implementation without access to the source code. That said, if you provide software that accomplishes the same task as the patent describes you may simply be sued anyway. Then, they would be required to demonstrate you infringe. If your algorithm is different, that may seem to be easy, but litigation is expensive and many people would opt to just pay a license fee. There is an example of this from this [Ask Patents question][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/19821/patent-for-detect-relation-between-html-elements" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54904" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="9f54d6bf-273a-4dd1-9b6c-67857b2a5c21" CreationDate="2018-08-20T07:00:45.863" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19814" RevisionGUID="a8b5f9f1-7466-4290-8ff0-e8046f327b7e" CreationDate="2018-08-20T13:40:41.463" UserId="17003" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="**Will I face any issue related patent or copyright problems?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very hard to say. Almost certainly you should be prepared to do a patent search. Developing within, say Xcode, using the built in functionality ought to be pretty safe from a look and feel perspective. However the underlying logic might run afoul of a patent. There are a lot of patents out there. The fact that multiple apps have similar features is no guarantee of freedom to operate since one app might have licensed technology from the other (or a third party). As for copyright, that is off topic on this site but I would hesitate to just copy another app screen for screen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please understand that I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. My own opinion is that it is rather foolish to rely on internet forums and Q&amp;A sites for advice when running a business." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19833" RevisionGUID="fac1034a-8d73-41af-884c-d29646ab0f98" CreationDate="2018-08-20T21:13:24.773" UserId="19913" Text="I have used Google Docs to collaborate with distance partners to develop materials that are not confidential \ sensitive.  The ability to quickly modify and discuss changes in real-time is terrific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a legal team (west coat / east coast / telecommuters) is drafting a NPA (Non Provisional Patent Application), with a PPA already submitted to the USPTO.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the risk if the PPA on Google Docs was viewed by an unauthorized viewer?**&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Ideally, one would have Sharepoint or similar in-house and external contributors could VPN in.  Email is clunky \ outdated for collaboration and is not secure unless the extraordinary step of encryption is applied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any lesson-learned or best-practices are always appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54908" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19833" RevisionGUID="fac1034a-8d73-41af-884c-d29646ab0f98" CreationDate="2018-08-20T21:13:24.773" UserId="19913" Text="Google Docs as Collaboration Platform" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54909" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19833" RevisionGUID="fac1034a-8d73-41af-884c-d29646ab0f98" CreationDate="2018-08-20T21:13:24.773" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;non-provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19834" RevisionGUID="55598003-aa22-4fc4-ab11-8d4f181414af" CreationDate="2018-08-21T00:05:40.550" UserId="21149" Text="I previously asked this question: I have filed non provisional, regular utility patents applications. I will be also filing continuation applications.&#xD;&#xA;Can I add or amend claims after the content is made public? Such as in a crowd funding campaign?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I received answers for this question, I'm asking for responses to this new part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that new material can be added in the continuations, and that the new material will have the continuations filing date, not the original application's filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;New part of question: Can I... &#xD;&#xA;1. ...file a Provisional Patent for the new material... &#xD;&#xA;2. ...go public with all the info contained in the various filings... &#xD;&#xA;3. ...then later file the continuations, based on the new material in the Provisional?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would do this because, I believe,...&#xD;&#xA;1. ... it would allow me to protect my added information...&#xD;&#xA;2. ...while going public to raise funding...&#xD;&#xA;3. ...giving me more time to come up with the fees needed for the continuation filings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that the provisional would not alter the time limits for the continuation filings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54911" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19834" RevisionGUID="55598003-aa22-4fc4-ab11-8d4f181414af" CreationDate="2018-08-21T00:05:40.550" UserId="21149" Text="After filing Regular patent applications, can I file a Provisional, which would be the basis of Continuation filings after I go public?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54912" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19834" RevisionGUID="55598003-aa22-4fc4-ab11-8d4f181414af" CreationDate="2018-08-21T00:05:40.550" UserId="21149" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;continuation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54913" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="e141e577-ee0b-4430-85b3-2a04711b78b0" CreationDate="2018-08-21T06:01:51.413" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19835" RevisionGUID="1f90f5ca-5e81-47db-a5a0-2ec06f1d8584" CreationDate="2018-08-21T11:01:00.983" UserId="21337" Text="There is no restriction/permission by the patent office for the use of any software. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are some guidelines related to formatting of drawings that need to be follow, for eg. page margin, page size, sheet number etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use any software to make drawings as long as the guidelines are complied and **drawings are clear to understand**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19836" RevisionGUID="c24b808a-ab8c-4e30-aef0-2e141ab1a76f" CreationDate="2018-08-21T13:19:29.973" UserId="21303" Text="I want to protect the intellectual property of a design for a certificate (diploma) that is non-trivial and distinctive. Most of the distinctiveness of the design comes from the position of the different elements such as the title, a certificate id and a seal. All of these elements are variable. For example, the title can be any word, the id can be any number, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought the Design Patent was the way forward, but after creating the drawing, I realized that most of the elements are dashed, as I am not claiming that particular element but the position in the document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you know if a document layout can be protected by a design patent (community design, etc), or do you have examples of design patents granted on document layouts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54916" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19836" RevisionGUID="c24b808a-ab8c-4e30-aef0-2e141ab1a76f" CreationDate="2018-08-21T13:19:29.973" UserId="21303" Text="How to protect the intellectual property of a document layout?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54917" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19836" RevisionGUID="c24b808a-ab8c-4e30-aef0-2e141ab1a76f" CreationDate="2018-08-21T13:19:29.973" UserId="21303" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19837" RevisionGUID="0109ebce-01c6-4e93-86c8-0a504a377799" CreationDate="2018-08-21T13:32:14.527" UserId="21303" Text="Just be careful how you share the document. For example, avoid sharing by link, as the URL can get stored in the history of a shared browser, and invite the people one by one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also you may &quot;harden&quot; the security of your Google Account by enabling 2 factor authentication." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19838" RevisionGUID="17d6b308-4dca-4928-b663-570513384280" CreationDate="2018-08-21T14:52:38.790" UserId="19913" Text="A USPTO Provisional Application (PPA) has been submitted and a NPA is to be drafted.  That being said,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What needs to be done \ avoided to maintain eligibility to file a European Application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What is the &quot;Gap&quot; between a NPA and a European Application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In and ideal world, the NPA filed in the US would be enough to file in EU.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54920" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19838" RevisionGUID="17d6b308-4dca-4928-b663-570513384280" CreationDate="2018-08-21T14:52:38.790" UserId="19913" Text="USPTO Non Provisional Application and European Filing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54921" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19838" RevisionGUID="17d6b308-4dca-4928-b663-570513384280" CreationDate="2018-08-21T14:52:38.790" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;european&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19839" RevisionGUID="1771d36d-2cbc-41d2-b1d2-9517ac55440f" CreationDate="2018-08-21T17:21:52.520" UserId="18033" Text="If priority is to be claimed it needs to be claimed within one year of the first filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Excerpt from art. 87 EPC:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a right of priority during a period of twelve months from the date of filing of the first application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first filing is the **provisional**. It is **not** the non provisional. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no way around that, if you file a non provisional 1 year after the provisional, you cannot claim priority to any of those later in Europe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, why would it be different in an ideal world? Europeans have 1 year, why should Americans have 2?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19839" RevisionGUID="0c19eaee-68e5-49be-b07c-2d1a167279cd" CreationDate="2018-08-21T18:09:56.797" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 115 characters in body" Text="If priority is to be claimed it needs to be claimed within one year of the first filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Excerpt from art. 87 EPC:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a right of priority during a period of twelve months from the date of filing of the first application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first filing is the **provisional**. It is **not** the non provisional. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no way around that, if you file a non provisional 1 year after the provisional, you cannot claim priority to any of those later in Europe.&#xD;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19840" RevisionGUID="908d8c5f-838b-4c1e-be57-045ef8949d7b" CreationDate="2018-08-21T22:16:58.587" UserId="3076" Text="While there are international treaties regarding patent systems, the laws and procedures of the USPTO and the EPO are not the same. However, many EPO filings from US applicants are just a reformating of their U.S. applications. In general, the EPO is more strict, particularly on claiming combinations and permutations of feature and the charge for excess claims is more severe in the EPO. That is offset by the use of a type of claiming allowed but heavily discouraged in the the U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If an applicant thinks of a U.S. provisional application as something that can be less detailed than a &quot;real&quot; application, the chance that it would be a good EPO application is significantly reduced." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19841" RevisionGUID="09e87e5e-6d23-4f03-a49e-a90880a1e81d" CreationDate="2018-08-21T22:25:51.857" UserId="3076" Text="Yes - you can file a provisional with the new material and then later file a continuation-in-part that claims priority to the parent and also claims the benefit of the provisional. This assumes the parent is still pending and it is within a year of the new provisional. If done correctly, the new material in the continuation-in-part gets the benefit of the provisional filing date. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19842" RevisionGUID="dd33610f-81a2-4144-a9ec-69bdd0a7d369" CreationDate="2018-08-22T16:58:11.243" UserId="19913" Text="Assuming attorney client privilege has been established, what concerns are there if patent drafting communications are sent via g-mail (discussions, patent drafts, trade secrets, patent claims , patent descriptions etc.)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any attempts to clarify / sharpen the question are appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54928" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19842" RevisionGUID="dd33610f-81a2-4144-a9ec-69bdd0a7d369" CreationDate="2018-08-22T16:58:11.243" UserId="19913" Text="Emailing Patent Drafts to Attorney" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54929" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19842" RevisionGUID="dd33610f-81a2-4144-a9ec-69bdd0a7d369" CreationDate="2018-08-22T16:58:11.243" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;privacy&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54930" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18328" RevisionGUID="6494f1a6-5b42-4b2e-a78e-2b22c252789a" CreationDate="2018-08-22T23:00:39.013" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54931" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="604bba52-5bb6-400f-91c5-6cd4881a17e3" CreationDate="2018-08-23T02:01:36.757" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19843" RevisionGUID="d1e5362e-1fbc-48fe-a8a1-dec9c41339c0" CreationDate="2018-08-23T14:08:38.047" UserId="21341" Text="Mostly, patents assume normal gravity condition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine a device which would not work upfront in low or absent gravity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would a modified device but working for same purpose and all other considered physical principles not changed, so modification has been done just to support changed gravity condition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this worth of a new patent or is there still a dependency (because of same general idea) or even infringement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54933" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19843" RevisionGUID="d1e5362e-1fbc-48fe-a8a1-dec9c41339c0" CreationDate="2018-08-23T14:08:38.047" UserId="21341" Text="Meaning of Earth gravity for patents based or related to it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54934" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19843" RevisionGUID="d1e5362e-1fbc-48fe-a8a1-dec9c41339c0" CreationDate="2018-08-23T14:08:38.047" UserId="21341" Text="&lt;change&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54935" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="4c01f26b-a484-4219-8eb0-f8729bc4ae45" CreationDate="2018-08-23T15:01:03.733" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19844" RevisionGUID="98ca1437-8968-480c-9418-0e22e826972f" CreationDate="2018-08-23T16:06:41.433" UserId="21342" Text="I wonder if anyone can enlighten me on something I have never understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Supposing that I include computer source code in a patent application. Let us suppose that the source code remains unchanged without modification by the patent attorney or the patent office.   Who owns the copyright in the source code disclosed in the patent when it is issued? There was a time when a US patent was a work of the USPTO and, I believe, a UK patent was a work of Her Majesty's Stationery office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More precisely, suppose that my patent is a European patent that is validated in various countries having varying approaches to copyright and then lapses or expires.  Now, do I enjoy rights under copyright only in certain countries,  in all those countries subscribing to the EPC by virtue of my initial filing or possibly throughout the whole world by virtue of the Berne convention?  Or possibly nowhere - it seems that disclosure in a patent is treated differently to disclosure in other works.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Difficult question.  Thanks for any replies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54937" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19844" RevisionGUID="98ca1437-8968-480c-9418-0e22e826972f" CreationDate="2018-08-23T16:06:41.433" UserId="21342" Text="Who owns copyright to computer code disclosed in a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54938" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19844" RevisionGUID="98ca1437-8968-480c-9418-0e22e826972f" CreationDate="2018-08-23T16:06:41.433" UserId="21342" Text="&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;source&gt;&lt;code&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54939" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="19836" RevisionGUID="0866ba84-d4ea-4709-9fdf-d4c8b7036590" CreationDate="2018-08-23T16:06:45.973" UserId="21303" Comment="46" />
  <row Id="54940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19841" RevisionGUID="7cdc4198-4ec0-4c56-9d95-22f079339e3d" CreationDate="2018-08-23T21:24:35.430" UserId="3076" Comment="added 476 characters in body" Text="Yes - you can file a provisional with the new material and then later file a continuation-in-part that claims priority to the parent and also claims the benefit of the provisional. This assumes the parent is still pending and it is within a year of the new provisional. If done correctly, the new material in the continuation-in-part gets the benefit of the provisional filing date. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does only work in the U.S. because (to my knowledge) only the U.S. has the concept of a continuation-in-part and very few other locations have provisional applications. However, the continuation-in-part may not be as valuable as it might appear. If all of the claims in the application depend upon the new matter in the specification for support, then it could just as well have been a brand new non-provisional application getting the benefit of the new provisional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54941" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18155" RevisionGUID="0a2eacde-ba0c-413c-b368-d10560aba0fa" CreationDate="2018-08-23T23:00:40.083" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19845" RevisionGUID="b98f0fc6-f676-4334-ae98-2a0bf292fc98" CreationDate="2018-08-24T14:45:57.867" UserId="21343" Text="In January of this year I shared an image of an invention via a certain social network. I would now like to file a provisional patent to buy me some time while I see if the invention is economically viable. Should I:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Sneakily delete all social media posts so prior art will not be available.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Bite the bullet and file a non-provisional patent application that will not be valid elsewhere (like the EU) because of stricter rules on prior art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify, I posted 5-6 images over the course of several months. One image, from January, shows the invention actually being used, whereas the rest show the *results* of the invention in use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I get that option 1 would not be *legally* advisable, but considering the limited reach of my social network presence (i.e. image hasn't been shared elsewhere) I'm looking for practical advice on whether or not this would work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54943" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19845" RevisionGUID="b98f0fc6-f676-4334-ae98-2a0bf292fc98" CreationDate="2018-08-24T14:45:57.867" UserId="21343" Text="Advice for Prior Art Shared via Social Media" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54944" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19845" RevisionGUID="b98f0fc6-f676-4334-ae98-2a0bf292fc98" CreationDate="2018-08-24T14:45:57.867" UserId="21343" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19846" RevisionGUID="bcf1d2f7-e913-434e-84f1-74055047d524" CreationDate="2018-08-24T17:23:53.883" UserId="19329" Text="Before the American Inventor's Protection Act of 1999, were inventors allowed to request publication of their patent applications before the grant date? If so, did many choose to do so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following [USPTO document][1] says in 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(1)(A) (page 31 of the .pdf) that &quot;At the request of the applicant, an application may be published earlier than the end of such 18-month period.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to know if applicants were able to request publication of their application before the AIPA was enacted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolidated_laws.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54946" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19846" RevisionGUID="bcf1d2f7-e913-434e-84f1-74055047d524" CreationDate="2018-08-24T17:23:53.883" UserId="19329" Text="Before the American Inventor's Protection Act of 1999, were inventors allowed to request pre-grant publication?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54947" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19846" RevisionGUID="bcf1d2f7-e913-434e-84f1-74055047d524" CreationDate="2018-08-24T17:23:53.883" UserId="19329" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;usa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19847" RevisionGUID="603ead78-92ce-44ed-b374-a9f4dcf52a61" CreationDate="2018-08-24T17:33:50.580" UserId="18618" Text="All inventions must be new, useful and non-obvious to be patented.  I suppose new can be assumed, and useful would be likely met. The major factor that would matter in this case is obviousness to a person having ordinary skill in the art per 35 U.S.C. 103.  If it is easily and accurately predictable such as using a spring with a different spring constant then you will likely be denied.  If there are unexpected results that require experimentation to resolve a useful answer such as containing particulates in zero gravity, then you are more likely to be granted a patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19848" RevisionGUID="4d7f8850-3bbc-4e9b-8aae-dde9d6a1f7e7" CreationDate="2018-08-24T17:47:42.600" UserId="18618" Text="You can file a non-provisional or provisional application until one year after the date of your social media disclosure. If you file the provisional you can [convert it to a non-provisional][1] within one year or file a new non-provisional within one year of filing. What you should do between these I can't say. You cannot do option 1 since that you would fail to make a disclosure you are obligate to disclose under 37 CFR 1.56.  Failing to do this is considered *inequitable conduct* and could result in [rejection or invalidation\* of your application][2] by the USPTO per MPEP 2016, or be an affirmative defense to infringement in a lawsuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\*an invalidated patent is where the patent is otherwise patentable but because of inequitable conduct has been rendered unenforcable.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/19793/18618&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2016.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54950" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="76287afb-d0d8-46b5-9c82-7696658b02ff" CreationDate="2018-08-24T20:01:08.403" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19849" RevisionGUID="a6c8922d-a7b9-42ae-bbc7-e12094927bb0" CreationDate="2018-08-25T02:52:31.433" UserId="21346" Text="I am from Qatar and planning to file a patent application at national level, then a month later to file a PCT application for the same patent. I was told that the national level approval will take around 12-18 months. So after I get the national level approval, I will start filing patents in other countries. How is that sounds? I am planning to do this to save money in case the patent was rejected in the national level. &#xD;&#xA;And should PCT application wording/format should be exactly as the field national application? because after I file the national patent request, I will have some more time and freedom to develop the format/wording of the PCT application, of curse by keeping the main things (invention) without change. Thank you in advance for your assitance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54953" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19849" RevisionGUID="a6c8922d-a7b9-42ae-bbc7-e12094927bb0" CreationDate="2018-08-25T02:52:31.433" UserId="21346" Text="Is PCT application content/format should be exactly as the field national application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54954" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19849" RevisionGUID="a6c8922d-a7b9-42ae-bbc7-e12094927bb0" CreationDate="2018-08-25T02:52:31.433" UserId="21346" Text="&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19850" RevisionGUID="6e751066-dacc-4143-a284-74bd455c86c4" CreationDate="2018-08-25T05:47:12.713" UserId="14403" Text="Yes, a document layout can be protected by a design patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can refer these patents: USD57233 and USD42128&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/USD57233?oq=certificate+design&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/USD42128?oq=certificate+design&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems there is no scope for variable in design patents. Any change in any part will mean a new design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am of opinion that the following can also be useful for you and may inspire to consider for utility patent. US20090055722A1 (abandoned)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US20090055722?oq=certificate+design&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and US7209889 (Granted to Henry /whitfield)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19851" RevisionGUID="4dc3dc69-ca60-47ae-a700-99add4ad0143" CreationDate="2018-08-25T11:02:02.820" UserId="14403" Text="As regards time schedule please refer answer here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/19700/to-patent-world-wide-or-is-one-country-good-enough/19703#19703.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for **&quot;in case the patent was rejected in the national level&quot;**, I would like to point out that WIPO does not approve or reject any patent application; it simply determines patentability of a PCT application and if required changes of claims can be made to make the application patentable at PCT level. Entering national level is solely at the discretion of the applicant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Wordings&quot;** in specification can be changed without changing the substance. The claims can be changed but must be supported by your disclosure in specification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best of luck." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19850" RevisionGUID="a53cd15a-8552-4bc0-880f-c8a2edf03f04" CreationDate="2018-08-25T15:40:01.427" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to patent" Text="Yes, a document layout can be protected by a design patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can refer these patents: USD57233 and USD42128&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/USD57233?oq=certificate+design&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/USD42128?oq=certificate+design&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems there is no scope for variable in design patents. Any change in any part will mean a new design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am of opinion that the following can also be useful for you and may inspire to consider for utility patent. US20090055722A1 (abandoned)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US20090055722?oq=certificate+design&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and [US7209889][1] (Granted to Henry /whitfield)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7209889B1/en?oq=US7209889" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19852" RevisionGUID="6065224a-ffa3-448d-a4f1-9c2a715abd6a" CreationDate="2018-08-26T02:13:54.343" UserId="21350" Text="So i'm quite new to this and i've been trying to find something about this subject, but most of the questions people are asking are if they can patent their game, and i'd like to know what games i can make without getting in patent related trouble with someone. So, let's say that i wanted to make a game like chess and release it on Android (And there are a lot of those). Can i just make it? Does it make any difference if the game is &quot;Buy-To-Play&quot; or &quot;Adds supported&quot; or even free? Basing on amount of chess games, there's nothing like that, so what happens when i want to change some rules in chess, like how figures move, board size, and if those &quot;changes&quot; can be patented, is there a good way to find if &quot;my idea&quot; isn't already patented somewhere?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54960" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19852" RevisionGUID="6065224a-ffa3-448d-a4f1-9c2a715abd6a" CreationDate="2018-08-26T02:13:54.343" UserId="21350" Text="Online Game Patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54961" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19852" RevisionGUID="6065224a-ffa3-448d-a4f1-9c2a715abd6a" CreationDate="2018-08-26T02:13:54.343" UserId="21350" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;video-games&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54962" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17720" RevisionGUID="9ba33542-1ae6-47c7-8b29-aea0edb54059" CreationDate="2018-08-26T05:00:27.277" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54963" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="d53d8bb0-7403-40f6-a879-af77bd0b4401" CreationDate="2018-08-26T06:01:14.130" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54964" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19727" RevisionGUID="17c147cc-6fbc-45c9-86d5-1390e0ba99b4" CreationDate="2018-08-26T14:01:28.320" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54965" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17881" RevisionGUID="ee74b681-66fa-49ef-a550-acfca821508d" CreationDate="2018-08-26T17:00:25.273" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54966" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="3ebe346b-7c2a-48ee-a603-e7923fe5bfc8" CreationDate="2018-08-27T00:01:19.743" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19850" RevisionGUID="1e2d2899-6241-40ff-ae99-e13ef8b15f18" CreationDate="2018-08-27T01:10:16.097" UserId="14403" Comment="improve the answer" Text="Yes, a document layout can be protected by a design patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can refer these patents: [USD57233][1] and [USD42128][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, since you talk about variables (of information and of relative position of elements), I presume implementation is feasible if the design is IT based. Design patent can be valid for a particular design and there is no scope for varying positions of elements and changing information. Doing so will usher in an altogether new design which will not be protected by IP right conferred to a particular design. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am of opinion that [US20090055722A1][3] (abandoned)and [US7209889][4] (Granted to Henry Whitfield) can also be useful for you and may inspire you to consider going for utility patent too. These patent applications teach about variable information and are related to certificate design implemented on IT. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD57233?oq=certificate+design&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD42128?oq=certificate+design&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20090055722?oq=certificate+design&#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7209889B1/en?oq=US7209889" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54968" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18540" RevisionGUID="d5524ad7-cda4-4eb4-a0aa-667054efc2cd" CreationDate="2018-08-27T03:00:02.243" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54969" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18600" RevisionGUID="7718bd97-b198-43df-89f1-8ab3a2a7a120" CreationDate="2018-08-27T05:01:04.293" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54970" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="7171a33a-8ac8-48df-b9db-83b9dc49124f" CreationDate="2018-08-27T10:01:29.183" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54971" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="d499ac8a-87cb-4875-9b2d-dc445604f79c" CreationDate="2018-08-27T12:00:42.167" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19853" RevisionGUID="de0678fe-421e-4417-808c-7cf9752ca1c0" CreationDate="2018-08-27T20:16:15.243" UserId="3076" Text="For the U.S. - In the U.S. in 1988 the US patent rules had an addition saying that a patent application could include a copyright notice but, if so, needed the following disclaimer of those rights &quot;A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material which is subject to (copyright) protection. The (copyright) owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but otherwise reserves all (copyright) rights whatsoever.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19854" RevisionGUID="63be184c-431e-4adf-b4ac-57a126a8b3ca" CreationDate="2018-08-28T07:31:06.377" UserId="14403" Text=" My query is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i. Approximate time taken by USPTO to issue patent after payment of issue fee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ii. For **already due** first maintenance fee (already six years elapsed since priority date), how much time is allowed after grant of patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54974" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19854" RevisionGUID="63be184c-431e-4adf-b4ac-57a126a8b3ca" CreationDate="2018-08-28T07:31:06.377" UserId="14403" Text="Approximate Time for USPTO actions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54975" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19854" RevisionGUID="63be184c-431e-4adf-b4ac-57a126a8b3ca" CreationDate="2018-08-28T07:31:06.377" UserId="14403" Text="&lt;grant&gt;&lt;time&gt;&lt;maintenance-fee&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54976" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16606" RevisionGUID="0acddc94-2701-4bf8-b743-645f347857de" CreationDate="2018-08-28T09:01:19.173" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54977" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="89544900-0e1b-44a6-b325-7668901e0718" CreationDate="2018-08-28T11:01:20.443" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54978" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="0055697f-d6de-44ab-a1fb-ef3aa3358c4b" CreationDate="2018-08-28T12:01:08.007" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54979" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="8490ab97-15d8-4fcf-926c-15d85eb12fff" CreationDate="2018-08-28T19:01:34.677" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19855" RevisionGUID="718b3400-019d-4a04-a0d8-8d6b04783c52" CreationDate="2018-08-28T19:38:45.603" UserId="21358" Text="I hold a current Utlity Patent on a children’s product with 8 years left before expiring. How do you go about selling? Thanks Lisa " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54981" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19855" RevisionGUID="718b3400-019d-4a04-a0d8-8d6b04783c52" CreationDate="2018-08-28T19:38:45.603" UserId="21358" Text="Is it possible to sell a patent that already has been in production?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54982" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19855" RevisionGUID="718b3400-019d-4a04-a0d8-8d6b04783c52" CreationDate="2018-08-28T19:38:45.603" UserId="21358" Text="&lt;sellpatent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19856" RevisionGUID="d5c925e0-255c-4ded-a28f-eccbdc1873e8" CreationDate="2018-08-28T20:17:06.363" UserId="3076" Text="It takes about 6 weeks from payment of issue fee until the patent issues. IF you wait to the last minute to pat the issue fee, the patent will probably issue in fewer weeks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not understand your second question. In the U.S. there are no maintenance fees due until after the patent is granted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54984" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="c8459832-7401-408d-ba8c-ebc53cf937f7" CreationDate="2018-08-28T21:00:53.560" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19854" RevisionGUID="93419e56-a81d-430c-9fd1-d64cce1f4c8e" CreationDate="2018-08-29T00:12:36.430" UserId="14403" Comment="For making the question non-ambiguous " Text=" My query is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i. Approximate time taken by USPTO to issue patent after payment of issue fee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ii. For payment of first maintenance fee, 3.5 years period is counted from date of grant or from priority date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iii. If counted from priority date, then for application for which prosecution time taken is more than 3.5 years from date of priority (say 6 years), what is the time limit (normally allowed) for payment of first maintenance fee after grant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54986" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18185" RevisionGUID="27bf6501-041b-4b53-a15a-c1d56ff7df35" CreationDate="2018-08-29T05:01:06.277" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54987" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16450" RevisionGUID="7fee5707-d867-47c4-8ba6-add17c2632ba" CreationDate="2018-08-29T06:01:39.163" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54988" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16771" RevisionGUID="f127ffe7-2e5b-4c0d-ac9a-d17da1cd9f27" CreationDate="2018-08-29T07:00:53.940" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54989" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="f1f26c84-34b3-482b-aa3c-31b45e6cad61" CreationDate="2018-08-29T08:00:52.903" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54991" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="488057c3-c416-46cb-8cac-3a99dac31e8b" CreationDate="2018-08-29T16:01:02.340" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54992" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="28eef8b9-40f7-4b91-9baa-d0559e5aa963" CreationDate="2018-08-29T17:01:37.350" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19858" RevisionGUID="c680703d-e77d-435d-a4a4-be47de600009" CreationDate="2018-08-29T18:23:46.857" UserId="16696" Text="Game patents is an area I've done a fair bit of research on.  This should be taken as an informal answer--I've spoken to many patent attorneys on this subject, but I myself am not an attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My sense is that most of the current game patents involve technical implementations (devices and software) as opposed to game mechanics (rules of a given game or set of games.)  Many regions do not recognize game mechanics as patent eligible.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2013 there was a US ruling known as &quot;[Alice][1]&quot; which cast doubt on the continued US patent eligibility of pure methods, such as game mechanics.  Most game mechanics patents I've found come from before this ruling.  (&quot;[Inverse Chess][2]&quot; as an example.) That said, I have seen a few patents subsequent to Alice that seems to involve pure method or game mechanics.  (Without patents, games have no intellectual property protection--IP associated with copyright and trademark do not constitute games, merely artistic and commercial elements applied to game mechanics.)  There is also [a long history of precedent in the US in regard to the eligibility of game mechanics][3].   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@GeorgeWhite's advice in his comment is highly reliable.  Having done extensive searches myself, I don't think you need to be concerned, but it's always good to undertake due diligence.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having had some involvement in the abstract game community recently, my sense is that very few designers pursue patents (the utility patent application process can be expensive with no guarantee of a grant.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another consideration is that any novel game mechanic or set of mechanics that are in the [public domain][4] are rendered no longer patent eligible.  (Certain regions, such as the US have grace periods for the inventor, but the inventor has to file, at minimum, a provisional patent application and identify their product as patent pending.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a liability standpoint, in the extremely rare event that you do unintentionally infringe on a granted patent, simply removing the infringing Intellectual Property once you have been notified should be sufficient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8302969?oq=chess&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord%27s_Game&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19859" RevisionGUID="c09c301b-8bf3-44d8-889d-deda89dff13a" CreationDate="2018-08-29T19:04:42.060" UserId="16696" Text="This is currently a grey area.  The uncertainty began with the [2013 Alice ruling][1], and is still being worked out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After Alice, at a high-level, the knee-jerk reaction was that game mechanics and software would no longer be patent eligible.  Since that ruling, which is problematic in that what constitutes &quot;abstract&quot; is not well defined, there has been some significant walk-back.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently there is a trend to tie software and game mechanics into databases because of a software grant involving databases.  *(This is merely a strategy for dealing with the review board, and doesn't get to the root of the issue.)* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I can get more technical, and provide some examples, if requested, but I've covered this subject in depth in other answers.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best legal advice I ever got in this regard is that the only certainty in patent law is uncertainty (continual chaos) regarding the guidelines. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US has a long history of precedent regarding the eligibility of novel game mechanics, and there seem to have been post-Alice grants that constitute pure methods.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking from experience, a major consideration in whether to pursue a game is cost/benefit. Utility patent applications can be expensive with no guarantee of a grant. The current &quot;grey area&quot; status for game mechanics significantly increases that risk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19860" RevisionGUID="3826b529-703a-4756-9f73-097c06f38247" CreationDate="2018-08-29T19:20:56.860" UserId="16696" Text="India does not recognize game patents.  *(This is coming from my patent attorney, who specializes in games.)*  If requested, I can try to dig up the India guidelines." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54996" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14883" RevisionGUID="f320665d-27e1-4ea8-82ff-70398c2bedef" CreationDate="2018-08-29T20:00:39.817" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="54997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19861" RevisionGUID="89d77138-cb89-447d-8629-21cf404087c1" CreationDate="2018-08-29T20:15:30.113" UserId="16696" Text="I was recently looking at [this answer involving game patents][1], and it occurred to me that I'm unsure of what constitutes a technical field in regard to patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the 20th century, analysis of games led to the formalization of [Game Theory][2], and subsequently [Combinatorial Game Theory][3], rooted in mathematics, and relating to technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What constitutes a technical field in patent law? Is it wholly dependent on the concept of [technical effect](http://www.ipglossary.com/glossary/technical-effect/#.W4b9Us5KiUk)?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the language from Alice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself or improve any other technology or technical field.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not unreasonable to regard novel games as improving the technical field, because games and analysis of games have demonstrated utility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/14462/16696&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory#Computer_science_and_logic&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_game_theory#See_also" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54998" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19861" RevisionGUID="89d77138-cb89-447d-8629-21cf404087c1" CreationDate="2018-08-29T20:15:30.113" UserId="16696" Text="What constitutes a technical field?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="54999" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19861" RevisionGUID="89d77138-cb89-447d-8629-21cf404087c1" CreationDate="2018-08-29T20:15:30.113" UserId="16696" Text="&lt;terminology&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19862" RevisionGUID="57dad1ee-d60c-4421-a267-4688ff92aff6" CreationDate="2018-08-29T22:02:55.757" UserId="21364" Text="Provided the dependency is clear, it is permissible for a dependent claim in an application to dependent on a subsequent claim during examination. In such cases, claims are to be renumbered by Examiner's amendment upon allowance. [MPEP 608.01(n)(F)][1] explicitly states so:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112  and 37 CFR 1.75(c), a claim in dependent form must refer only to a claim or claims previously set forth. The following procedures are to be followed by examiners when faced with claims which refer to numerically succeeding claims:&#xD;&#xA;If any series of dependent claims contains a claim with an improper reference to a numerically following claim which cannot be understood, the claim referring to a following claim should normally be objected to and not treated on the merits.&#xD;&#xA;***However, in situations where a claim refers to a numerically following claim and the dependency is clear, both as presented and as it will be renumbered at issue, all claims should be examined on the merits and no objection as to form need be made. In such cases, an examiner’s amendment should be prepared if the order of the claims is changed.***&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/current#/current/d0e45256.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19863" RevisionGUID="561a12bc-e83e-4958-936f-5408e58400ad" CreationDate="2018-08-30T08:32:50.847" UserId="21367" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2014053910A3][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014053910A3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55002" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19863" RevisionGUID="561a12bc-e83e-4958-936f-5408e58400ad" CreationDate="2018-08-30T08:32:50.847" UserId="21367" Text="What is the duration and expiry date of the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55003" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19863" RevisionGUID="561a12bc-e83e-4958-936f-5408e58400ad" CreationDate="2018-08-30T08:32:50.847" UserId="21367" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55004" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17909" RevisionGUID="ce879a22-150c-430f-a537-b538f2138abb" CreationDate="2018-08-30T15:01:11.803" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19864" RevisionGUID="39ea5d69-0b0d-4226-8358-4e37095987e9" CreationDate="2018-08-30T16:14:07.977" UserId="21368" Text="This application seeks to patent a method which has been previously published in a PhD thesis in: https://www.theses.fr/2014PA066593&#xD;&#xA;[pre-grant][prior-art-request]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20180063506" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55006" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19864" RevisionGUID="39ea5d69-0b0d-4226-8358-4e37095987e9" CreationDate="2018-08-30T16:14:07.977" UserId="21368" Text="METHOD FOR THE 3D RECONSTRUCTION OF A SCENE US20180063506 - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55007" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19864" RevisionGUID="39ea5d69-0b0d-4226-8358-4e37095987e9" CreationDate="2018-08-30T16:14:07.977" UserId="21368" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19856" RevisionGUID="163fd66d-f6a9-4a1d-bc8e-557d137c1806" CreationDate="2018-08-30T19:37:21.210" UserId="3076" Comment="added 136 characters in body" Text="It takes about 6 weeks from payment of issue fee until the patent issues. IF you wait to the last minute to pat the issue fee, the patent will probably issue in fewer weeks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the U.S. there are no maintenance fees due until after the patent is granted. All of the maintenance fees are then **keyed off the grant date**. The priority date is irrelevant. They are due at the 3 1/2, 7 1/2 and 11 1/2 year points, from the grant date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19864" RevisionGUID="e8f57521-15d0-439a-841a-e4bc2dae9035" CreationDate="2018-08-30T19:41:06.690" UserId="3076" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="[US 20180063506][1] This application seeks to patent a method which has been previously published in a PhD thesis in: https://www.theses.fr/2014PA066593&#xD;&#xA;[pre-grant][prior-art-request]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180063506A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19865" RevisionGUID="8f48e4ac-22ec-45f3-b96b-42c27b395788" CreationDate="2018-08-30T19:52:40.870" UserId="3076" Text="&quot;Technical Field&quot; is not a defined term in patent law in the U.S. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before Alice, &quot;technical&quot; was not any part of the analysis in determining patentably. In Europe and many other places &quot;having a technical effect&quot; is an important requirement in the law, but not in the U.S., although the Supreme Court now frequently rules as if it was. You mention that games have utility and utility is the core or 35 USC 101, however something abstract can have utility but abstract things can not be patented. A technical effect in a game might be a technique for updating a graphic element more quickly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55011" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="2a59fbc3-09c0-476b-bda1-4cbc8857a81a" CreationDate="2018-08-31T00:01:11.260" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55012" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6476" RevisionGUID="de9a4421-e523-4989-94db-ceaf009e13ba" CreationDate="2018-08-31T03:01:58.710" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19866" RevisionGUID="be0f7cab-b088-4ccf-9a76-7519731a78a7" CreationDate="2018-08-31T05:04:41.683" UserId="14403" Text="Corresponding application (priority) was first filed in US. Application No. 14/432,431 : [USPTO][1]. The application was subsequently abandoned. However there were multiple provisional applications for the same invention by the same applicant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[WO2014053910A3][2] was corresponding PCT application filed for [14/432,431][1]. It seems it entered National Phase in [China][3] only. China Application No. 	 [201380063286][4] seems to be pending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is [WO2012135600][5] granted in [US][6] and pending in [China][7] claiming priority to other provisional applications at USPTO. As per WIPO patentscope it entered [Thailand][8] also. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This list may not be exhaustive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://211.157.104.77:8080/sipo_EN/search/quickSearch.do?method=search&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2014053910A2/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://211.157.104.77:8080/sipo_EN/search/detail.do?method=view&amp;parm=16b414c21a2f19d11b2c18401bcd1a5f183a19361acb1be11a781c5804f92c231f4e218a22572195236c20482755275723ca24be2221222525702494250d26c0274025822c3f29092a7c29a02d6d2d6f28fa2ed62bd12c892f482c34330947932f5c2c0a2ac731b9333c316c366534e7318235ee337934f1360837f03747371b371a34e231bf38f13b04390c3e0d3f6f39ea3dc63c573d6d3e683e4c26d918c33ffe3c523c273e354334405c47c545774302408e4423458947e84698462746af46ce46da436f47554bcc49784a2d&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[5]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2012135600&amp;recNum=21&amp;maxRec=38&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=Pub+Date+Desc&amp;queryString=2012%2F135600&amp;tab=PCTBiblio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[6]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20140157455&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[7]: http://211.157.104.77:8080/sipo_EN/search/detail.do?method=view&amp;parm=16b414c21a2f19d11b2c18401bcd1a5f183a19261acb1be11a781c4806f92e231f5221ba22572195236c20482755275723ca24be2221222525702494250d26c0274025822c3f29092a7c29a02d6d2d6f28fa2ed62bd12c892f482c34330947932f5c2c0a2ac731b9333c316c366534e7318235ee337934f1360837f03747371b371a34e231bf38f13b04390c3e0d3f6f39ea3dc63c573d6d3e683e4c26d918c33ffe3c523c273e354334405c47c545774302408e44234595478846bc462d46ae46c846ba436f47554bcc49784a2d&#xD;&#xA;[8]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2012135600&amp;recNum=21&amp;tab=NationalPhase&amp;maxRec=38&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=Pub+Date+Desc&amp;queryString=2012%2F135600" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55014" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19866" RevisionGUID="ee24dcba-6640-4779-ba47-b135dfca2764" CreationDate="2018-08-31T05:29:44.570" UserId="14403" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="Corresponding application (priority) was first filed in US. Application No. 14/432,431 : [USPTO][1]. The application was subsequently abandoned. However there were multiple provisional applications for the same invention by the same applicant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[WO2014053910A3][2] was corresponding PCT application filed for [14/432,431][1]. It seems it entered National Phase in [China][3] only. China Application No. 	 [201380063286][4] seems to be pending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is [WO2012135600][5] **granted in [US][6] on 05.15.2018 with priority date 03.30.2011 and likely to expire after 03.29.2031**.  National phase entry pending in [China][7] and also entered in [Thailand][8] (as per WIPO) . These claim priority to other provisional applications at USPTO.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This list may not be exhaustive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://211.157.104.77:8080/sipo_EN/search/quickSearch.do?method=search&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2014053910A2/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://211.157.104.77:8080/sipo_EN/search/detail.do?method=view&amp;parm=16b414c21a2f19d11b2c18401bcd1a5f183a19361acb1be11a781c5804f92c231f4e218a22572195236c20482755275723ca24be2221222525702494250d26c0274025822c3f29092a7c29a02d6d2d6f28fa2ed62bd12c892f482c34330947932f5c2c0a2ac731b9333c316c366534e7318235ee337934f1360837f03747371b371a34e231bf38f13b04390c3e0d3f6f39ea3dc63c573d6d3e683e4c26d918c33ffe3c523c273e354334405c47c545774302408e4423458947e84698462746af46ce46da436f47554bcc49784a2d&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[5]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2012135600&amp;recNum=21&amp;maxRec=38&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=Pub+Date+Desc&amp;queryString=2012%2F135600&amp;tab=PCTBiblio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[6]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20140157455&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[7]: http://211.157.104.77:8080/sipo_EN/search/detail.do?method=view&amp;parm=16b414c21a2f19d11b2c18401bcd1a5f183a19261acb1be11a781c4806f92e231f5221ba22572195236c20482755275723ca24be2221222525702494250d26c0274025822c3f29092a7c29a02d6d2d6f28fa2ed62bd12c892f482c34330947932f5c2c0a2ac731b9333c316c366534e7318235ee337934f1360837f03747371b371a34e231bf38f13b04390c3e0d3f6f39ea3dc63c573d6d3e683e4c26d918c33ffe3c523c273e354334405c47c545774302408e44234595478846bc462d46ae46c846ba436f47554bcc49784a2d&#xD;&#xA;[8]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2012135600&amp;recNum=21&amp;tab=NationalPhase&amp;maxRec=38&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=Pub+Date+Desc&amp;queryString=2012%2F135600" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19867" RevisionGUID="ae6d0881-c580-4311-b7d6-3c82c7a50430" CreationDate="2018-08-31T07:18:47.747" UserId="19327" Text="I would like to sell a product that uses a device that is currently under patent. If I buy the device from the company and screw it onto my product, (which does something unrelated), can I sell it? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55016" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19867" RevisionGUID="ae6d0881-c580-4311-b7d6-3c82c7a50430" CreationDate="2018-08-31T07:18:47.747" UserId="19327" Text="Can I sell a product that uses patented components?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55017" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19867" RevisionGUID="ae6d0881-c580-4311-b7d6-3c82c7a50430" CreationDate="2018-08-31T07:18:47.747" UserId="19327" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;sell&gt;&lt;business&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55018" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="19868" RevisionGUID="c5307ba8-6a1e-43ce-a3b5-3632df35c6d4" CreationDate="2018-08-31T11:01:25.430" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/376/im-writing-a-provisional-patent-application-for-my-app-and-i-have-a-couple-of" />
  <row Id="55019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19868" RevisionGUID="070d8e24-6dee-45f7-8710-7baa77d7a7ea" CreationDate="2018-08-29T18:40:02.460" UserId="21363" Text="I'm writing a provisional patent application for my app, but I'm confused. I've heard companies like Tinder or Facebook filing individual patents for features/technologies that they developed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my first question is - is it recommended to file multiple patent applications for each individual novel feature I developed; or if I end up filing 1 provisional application for my overall app, then would each novel feature be protected, as well as my overall concept for the app? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if I file a patent for my app which has already existing features from other apps, but also has new inventions/technologies that I developed therefore they qualify as novel, then is it still possible that my whole application would be rejected because of the non novel features? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, can I file multiple provisionals, 1 for my app and 1 for each feature at the same time, and if so then does that even make sense to do? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And my final question is - if I have a feature that uses calculations provided by another company's technology and displays them in a novel way, then does that automatically disqualifies that feature as non novel, even if the functionality of the feature itself is unique? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you so much for the help! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55020" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19868" RevisionGUID="070d8e24-6dee-45f7-8710-7baa77d7a7ea" CreationDate="2018-08-29T18:40:02.460" UserId="21363" Text="I'm writing a provisional patent application for my app, and I have a couple of questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55021" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19868" RevisionGUID="070d8e24-6dee-45f7-8710-7baa77d7a7ea" CreationDate="2018-08-29T18:40:02.460" UserId="21363" Text="&lt;untagged&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19869" RevisionGUID="cacd0691-dec8-4164-a2a4-daea1f3ec979" CreationDate="2018-08-31T14:34:46.437" UserId="17003" Text="Let me preface this by saying I am not a lawyer, but I am an inventor with several patents including algorithm based patents. As always, **I highly recommend you work with an actual patent attorney**. This is especially true with software related patents. A incompetently drafted and prosecuted patent may provide little or no actual protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is it recommended to file multiple patent applications for each&#xD;&#xA;&gt; individual novel feature I developed; or if I end up filing 1&#xD;&#xA;&gt; provisional application for my overall app, then would each novel&#xD;&#xA;&gt; feature be protected, as well as my overall concept for the app?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please understand that the filing of a provisional patent application does not provide any patent protection by itself. All it does is potentially provide an earlier priority date. You will still need to file non-provisional patent applications and have them grant to get patent protection. It may be adequate to file a single provisional covering every potentially novel idea in your app, but I'd expect that you will need to file several non-provisionals as the USPTO generally only wants one invention per patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if I file a patent for my app which has already existing features from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other apps, but also has new inventions/technologies that I developed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; therefore they qualify as novel, then is it still possible that my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whole application would be rejected because of the non novel features?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can file for patent protection for an extension of a pre-existing feature or invention. The extension must qualify for a patent. However, this new feature patent only grants you the ability to keep someone else from using the feature. It doesn't guarantee that you have freedom to operate. This means if the existing feature is patented, you need to obtain a license to use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can I file multiple provisionals, 1 for my app and 1 for each feature&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at the same time, and if so then does that even make sense to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You absolutely can, but whether it makes sense or not is really a question for a patent attorney or agent. It depends on the specifics of your invention and you can't disclose that publicly before filing. Thus, there is no way for people answering questions on this site to provide an authoritative answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if I have a feature that uses calculations provided by another&#xD;&#xA;&gt; company's technology and displays them in a novel way, then does that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; automatically disqualifies that feature as non novel, even if the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; functionality of the feature itself is unique?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I already answered, you may be able to get a patent on the new feature if it is novel, useful and non-obvious. This doesn't mean you can use the feature if you you can't get a license to use the other companies technology." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19870" RevisionGUID="ead26c78-6b3d-479c-b06b-078f1ba27ffb" CreationDate="2018-08-31T15:13:38.763" UserId="17003" Text="I think this is mainly up to the terms of sale for the device that is patented. It is reasonable for a company to restrict their product from being used in an unintended way because they may face an increased liability. Your best bet is to simply contact the company and see if they will allow you to use their product as you desire." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55024" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="19836" RevisionGUID="37d72c4b-5483-4c06-aac2-aa07d17a055c" CreationDate="2018-08-31T18:02:25.023" UserId="-1" Comment="46" />
  <row Id="55025" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18522" RevisionGUID="51f69c60-fba9-4792-b638-429f99a77122" CreationDate="2018-09-01T00:04:29.387" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55026" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17769" RevisionGUID="c244c158-1a33-4a8d-a2a1-faa1b70973fd" CreationDate="2018-09-01T04:04:18.250" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="148" RevisionGUID="30413b86-165d-43ea-81aa-ac2f3218fffd" CreationDate="2018-09-01T10:28:48.660" UserId="17737" Comment="typos corrected" Text="The **basic requirements** for an invention to be patentable as an invention patent are &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- novelty &#xD;&#xA;- inventive step&#xD;&#xA;- industrial applicability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Novelty* means that the same invention has not been published (or presented as a patent application) anywhere before the date of the application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Inventive step* is fulfilled if the invention does not follow obviously from the known prior art for a person skilled in the art (i.e. somebody usually asked to solve the respective problem).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lack of *industrial applicability* is used against inventions like perpetuum mobiles as they are not d'accord with known laws of physics and therefore not usable in industry (because they are impossible to build/use). It's sometimes called usability too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The formal requirements can be looked up on the webpages of the patent office for the country the patent is applied for in. In the US this would be the USPTO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Follow this link for a formal description: &#xD;&#xA;https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2104.html&#xD;&#xA;Or consult wikipedia: &#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentability&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Types of patents&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;There are different types of intellectual property rights that are sometimes called three types of patents, though formally that's not correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There invention patents, utility models (not in all countries) and design patents. Please relate to the relevant tags or google for more information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55028" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="148" RevisionGUID="30413b86-165d-43ea-81aa-ac2f3218fffd" CreationDate="2018-09-01T10:28:48.660" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 18033 edit id of 2088" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55029" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="370eb27e-3ccf-4d96-a5b0-3acec21b3c8f" CreationDate="2018-09-01T15:01:13.590" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55030" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19778" RevisionGUID="2f4adabb-96a5-4825-9b18-ac1227f9e4d5" CreationDate="2018-09-01T19:01:02.113" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19866" RevisionGUID="502d83c6-a180-4f42-a02b-036ae498ae5c" CreationDate="2018-09-02T01:45:48.163" UserId="14403" Comment="link to granted patent" Text="Corresponding application (priority) was first filed in US. Application No. 14/432,431 : [USPTO][1]. The application was subsequently abandoned. However there were multiple provisional applications for the same invention by the same applicant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[WO2014053910A3][2] was corresponding PCT application filed for [14/432,431][1]. It seems it entered National Phase in [China][3] only. China Application No. 	 [201380063286][4] seems to be pending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is [WO2012135600][5] **granted in [US][6] on 05.15.2018 with priority date 03.30.2011 and likely to expire after 03.29.2031**.  National phase entry pending in [China][7] and also entered in [Thailand][8] (as per WIPO) . These claim priority to other provisional applications at USPTO.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This list may not be exhaustive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://211.157.104.77:8080/sipo_EN/search/quickSearch.do?method=search&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2014053910A2/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://211.157.104.77:8080/sipo_EN/search/detail.do?method=view&amp;parm=16b414c21a2f19d11b2c18401bcd1a5f183a19361acb1be11a781c5804f92c231f4e218a22572195236c20482755275723ca24be2221222525702494250d26c0274025822c3f29092a7c29a02d6d2d6f28fa2ed62bd12c892f482c34330947932f5c2c0a2ac731b9333c316c366534e7318235ee337934f1360837f03747371b371a34e231bf38f13b04390c3e0d3f6f39ea3dc63c573d6d3e683e4c26d918c33ffe3c523c273e354334405c47c545774302408e4423458947e84698462746af46ce46da436f47554bcc49784a2d&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[5]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2012135600&amp;recNum=21&amp;maxRec=38&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=Pub+Date+Desc&amp;queryString=2012%2F135600&amp;tab=PCTBiblio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[6]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9970022B2/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[7]: http://211.157.104.77:8080/sipo_EN/search/detail.do?method=view&amp;parm=16b414c21a2f19d11b2c18401bcd1a5f183a19261acb1be11a781c4806f92e231f5221ba22572195236c20482755275723ca24be2221222525702494250d26c0274025822c3f29092a7c29a02d6d2d6f28fa2ed62bd12c892f482c34330947932f5c2c0a2ac731b9333c316c366534e7318235ee337934f1360837f03747371b371a34e231bf38f13b04390c3e0d3f6f39ea3dc63c573d6d3e683e4c26d918c33ffe3c523c273e354334405c47c545774302408e44234595478846bc462d46ae46c846ba436f47554bcc49784a2d&#xD;&#xA;[8]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2012135600&amp;recNum=21&amp;tab=NationalPhase&amp;maxRec=38&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=Pub+Date+Desc&amp;queryString=2012%2F135600" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19866" RevisionGUID="5dde2d3f-75be-4a11-a5b5-da1e9bb59e63" CreationDate="2018-09-02T02:05:22.847" UserId="17003" Comment="added 16 characters in body; added 3 characters in body" Text="Corresponding application (priority) was first filed in US. Application No. 14/432,431 : [USPTO][1]. The application was subsequently abandoned. However there were multiple provisional applications for the same invention by the same applicant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[WO2014053910A3][2] was corresponding PCT application filed for [14/432,431][1]. It seems it entered National Phase in [China][3] only. China Application No. 	 [201380063286][4] seems to be pending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is [WO2012135600][5] **granted in the US as [US9970022B2][6] on 05.15.2018 with priority date 03.30.2011 and likely to expire after 03.29.2031**.  National phase entry pending in [China][7] and also entered in [Thailand][8] (as per WIPO) . These claim priority to other provisional applications at USPTO.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This list may not be exhaustive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://211.157.104.77:8080/sipo_EN/search/quickSearch.do?method=search&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2014053910A2/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://211.157.104.77:8080/sipo_EN/search/detail.do?method=view&amp;parm=16b414c21a2f19d11b2c18401bcd1a5f183a19361acb1be11a781c5804f92c231f4e218a22572195236c20482755275723ca24be2221222525702494250d26c0274025822c3f29092a7c29a02d6d2d6f28fa2ed62bd12c892f482c34330947932f5c2c0a2ac731b9333c316c366534e7318235ee337934f1360837f03747371b371a34e231bf38f13b04390c3e0d3f6f39ea3dc63c573d6d3e683e4c26d918c33ffe3c523c273e354334405c47c545774302408e4423458947e84698462746af46ce46da436f47554bcc49784a2d&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[5]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2012135600&amp;recNum=21&amp;maxRec=38&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=Pub+Date+Desc&amp;queryString=2012%2F135600&amp;tab=PCTBiblio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[6]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9970022B2/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[7]: http://211.157.104.77:8080/sipo_EN/search/detail.do?method=view&amp;parm=16b414c21a2f19d11b2c18401bcd1a5f183a19261acb1be11a781c4806f92e231f5221ba22572195236c20482755275723ca24be2221222525702494250d26c0274025822c3f29092a7c29a02d6d2d6f28fa2ed62bd12c892f482c34330947932f5c2c0a2ac731b9333c316c366534e7318235ee337934f1360837f03747371b371a34e231bf38f13b04390c3e0d3f6f39ea3dc63c573d6d3e683e4c26d918c33ffe3c523c273e354334405c47c545774302408e44234595478846bc462d46ae46c846ba436f47554bcc49784a2d&#xD;&#xA;[8]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2012135600&amp;recNum=21&amp;tab=NationalPhase&amp;maxRec=38&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=Pub+Date+Desc&amp;queryString=2012%2F135600" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55033" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19229" RevisionGUID="90529373-9d67-4cc0-9d32-5b0a92a87808" CreationDate="2018-09-02T04:06:02.987" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55034" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19051" RevisionGUID="3a13daf7-d409-45b4-966e-1d677fbcb30e" CreationDate="2018-09-02T06:01:44.027" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55035" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="8c983d1a-1c54-4063-ba6b-611e651d0c37" CreationDate="2018-09-02T07:00:58.583" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55037" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18941" RevisionGUID="326abd3a-321f-4706-af5c-8ef37d68822b" CreationDate="2018-09-02T15:01:27.937" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19784" RevisionGUID="c9878522-bdcc-409a-9c21-c9f1e87abae1" CreationDate="2018-09-02T18:18:14.493" UserId="17003" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I'm pretty sure you can do this with the EPO site although I've never done it myself. Try [this page][1] for more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.epo.org/searching-for-patents/data/linked-open-data.html#tab-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55039" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19242" RevisionGUID="b4794291-5f0a-49df-8315-07b0bf9732fd" CreationDate="2018-09-02T22:00:14.083" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55040" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="e7b47ce6-bee7-422e-8634-9c7bb55ced60" CreationDate="2018-09-02T23:02:05.753" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55041" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19227" RevisionGUID="06ec7a54-0ce5-45aa-b600-1e840537c37e" CreationDate="2018-09-03T00:02:38.423" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55042" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17587" RevisionGUID="873abf1a-80af-43ed-ab3e-d95c305feaf2" CreationDate="2018-09-03T21:01:16.323" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55043" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18211" RevisionGUID="f8c0440c-fd08-4e79-a01a-d2ea28348e4c" CreationDate="2018-09-03T23:00:57.067" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55044" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18821" RevisionGUID="7171b896-b6e1-4884-bbac-c81aa740e0d3" CreationDate="2018-09-04T01:01:29.687" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55045" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19689" RevisionGUID="f51e2630-a820-47b8-92e1-66186a15f73e" CreationDate="2018-09-04T17:07:20.340" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55046" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19379" RevisionGUID="536d375b-84ed-4e88-b07b-567c80626867" CreationDate="2018-09-04T19:02:45.790" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55047" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19531" RevisionGUID="07bb241d-c27a-466f-bc33-21e2695071d4" CreationDate="2018-09-04T20:01:21.717" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55048" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="047a250b-42c0-48d0-98a6-6fba55f20cd9" CreationDate="2018-09-04T23:00:51.497" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19872" RevisionGUID="666b121d-22e3-46ad-bbcc-46db7bbc77dc" CreationDate="2018-09-05T04:27:05.790" UserId="21376" Text="How to find total patent family for a given topic per year? Please provide answer with example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55052" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19872" RevisionGUID="666b121d-22e3-46ad-bbcc-46db7bbc77dc" CreationDate="2018-09-05T04:27:05.790" UserId="21376" Text="How to make patent family graph?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55053" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19872" RevisionGUID="666b121d-22e3-46ad-bbcc-46db7bbc77dc" CreationDate="2018-09-05T04:27:05.790" UserId="21376" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55055" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="fca57fda-fa08-4c68-8888-8dec691fdbed" CreationDate="2018-09-05T11:01:09.463" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19874" RevisionGUID="f3eb472f-3c9a-49e9-8a82-be47f3bc3431" CreationDate="2018-09-05T12:58:06.287" UserId="21378" Text="I'm trying to do a project that requires the following data points from Google Patents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The number of searches Google Patents has per day for the past ~10 years.&#xD;&#xA;2. A list of searches on Google Patents has per day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that this data may be hard to get, but if anyone could direct me to any resources, that would be helpful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55057" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19874" RevisionGUID="f3eb472f-3c9a-49e9-8a82-be47f3bc3431" CreationDate="2018-09-05T12:58:06.287" UserId="21378" Text="Google Patents search information" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55058" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19874" RevisionGUID="f3eb472f-3c9a-49e9-8a82-be47f3bc3431" CreationDate="2018-09-05T12:58:06.287" UserId="21378" Text="&lt;google-patents&gt;&lt;google&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55059" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19875" RevisionGUID="15c7095b-9fc8-44e2-8ff3-7563d33ba6fb" CreationDate="2018-09-05T14:06:37.600" UserId="21379" Text="In reference to the patent: US9247339&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent appears to have been granted without proper due-diligence having been undertaken to review the prior art. For well over 50 years now every conceivable arrangement comprising of a plurality of essentially identical drivers mounted together on a common baffle have been marketed by numerous companies. In fact, A plurality of speaker drivers configured in the form of a line array was first proposed and published by acoustical pioneer Harry Olson.[5] in 1957. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since that time some of the biggest names in audio have employed the exact same concept. One well-known example for home use would be the Bose 901 direct/reflecting loudspeaker that employed 8 identical drivers mounted to a rearward-facing baffle (away from the listener) and a 9th driver of the same type mounted to a forward-facing baffle (towards the listener). Furthermore, Bose marketed a reverse-configuration model for use in Public Address applications wherein the enclosure was rotated 180 degrees such that the 8-driver array was facing forward and the 9th (now rearward facing) driver being eliminated altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moving forward in time, a number of companies have marketed large-format line arrays for use in large venues or outdoor festivals. In fact, several manufacturers have even developed spreadsheets or custom programs for users to design their own arrays. Examples include L-Acoustics SOUNDVISION,[14] Adamson Shooter,[15] Electro-Voice LAPS (Line Array Prediction Software),[16] D&amp;B Audiotechnik ArrayCalc, and JBL Vertec Line Array Calculator.[17] Renkus Heinz, etc. Then finally, the number of products targeted for home use in the high-end audio market that employ the exact same concepts and principles are in numbers so high as to be almost without measure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all of the above examples, the same underlying principles apply as those claimed be the inventor in this patent. Basically, at low frequencies the output of the individual drivers sum to yield a greater total sound pressure level  at any point distant from the array, along with an increase in total acoustic power output as commonly quantified in Acoustical Watts. Then as the operational frequency is increased, being of low mass the individual drivers are free to operate independently so as to reproduce these higher frequencies without the mass-limited attenuation that a single driver of the same total cone area as that of the sum of the individual drivers would otherwise suffer from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A fairly comprehensive review of the matter can be found by searching &quot;line array&quot; at Wikipedia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As can easily bee seen in the above link, the methods and practices claimed in this patent are clearly Public Domain and have been so for many decades. In light of these facts it appears that the patent is essentially &quot;bogus&quot; and without even the slightest merit, such that it would never stand if challenged in Patent Court. That said, we repeat our original question: Would the US Patent Office please explain how this patent could possibly be granted in the face of a preponderance of Public Domain Prior Art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you,&#xD;&#xA;Robert Smith,&#xD;&#xA;President - TDSS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://www.mytdss.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55060" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19875" RevisionGUID="15c7095b-9fc8-44e2-8ff3-7563d33ba6fb" CreationDate="2018-09-05T14:06:37.600" UserId="21379" Text="How Could This Patent Possibly be Granted in the Face of Public Domain Prior Art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55061" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19875" RevisionGUID="15c7095b-9fc8-44e2-8ff3-7563d33ba6fb" CreationDate="2018-09-05T14:06:37.600" UserId="21379" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55064" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="a27c0ae9-49c3-4cd6-aedd-b5b513cb58cb" CreationDate="2018-09-05T15:01:00.443" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55065" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19875" RevisionGUID="83f540ac-9add-4de1-817f-0e620bd6cb35" CreationDate="2018-09-05T15:58:33.633" UserId="1" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19875" RevisionGUID="83f540ac-9add-4de1-817f-0e620bd6cb35" CreationDate="2018-09-05T15:58:33.633" UserId="1" Comment="edited tags" Text="In reference to the patent: US9247339&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent appears to have been granted without proper due-diligence having been undertaken to review the prior art. For well over 50 years now every conceivable arrangement comprising of a plurality of essentially identical drivers mounted together on a common baffle have been marketed by numerous companies. In fact, A plurality of speaker drivers configured in the form of a line array was first proposed and published by acoustical pioneer Harry Olson.[5] in 1957. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since that time some of the biggest names in audio have employed the exact same concept. One well-known example for home use would be the Bose 901 direct/reflecting loudspeaker that employed 8 identical drivers mounted to a rearward-facing baffle (away from the listener) and a 9th driver of the same type mounted to a forward-facing baffle (towards the listener). Furthermore, Bose marketed a reverse-configuration model for use in Public Address applications wherein the enclosure was rotated 180 degrees such that the 8-driver array was facing forward and the 9th (now rearward facing) driver being eliminated altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moving forward in time, a number of companies have marketed large-format line arrays for use in large venues or outdoor festivals. In fact, several manufacturers have even developed spreadsheets or custom programs for users to design their own arrays. Examples include L-Acoustics SOUNDVISION,[14] Adamson Shooter,[15] Electro-Voice LAPS (Line Array Prediction Software),[16] D&amp;B Audiotechnik ArrayCalc, and JBL Vertec Line Array Calculator.[17] Renkus Heinz, etc. Then finally, the number of products targeted for home use in the high-end audio market that employ the exact same concepts and principles are in numbers so high as to be almost without measure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all of the above examples, the same underlying principles apply as those claimed be the inventor in this patent. Basically, at low frequencies the output of the individual drivers sum to yield a greater total sound pressure level  at any point distant from the array, along with an increase in total acoustic power output as commonly quantified in Acoustical Watts. Then as the operational frequency is increased, being of low mass the individual drivers are free to operate independently so as to reproduce these higher frequencies without the mass-limited attenuation that a single driver of the same total cone area as that of the sum of the individual drivers would otherwise suffer from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A fairly comprehensive review of the matter can be found by searching &quot;line array&quot; at Wikipedia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As can easily bee seen in the above link, the methods and practices claimed in this patent are clearly Public Domain and have been so for many decades. In light of these facts it appears that the patent is essentially &quot;bogus&quot; and without even the slightest merit, such that it would never stand if challenged in Patent Court. That said, we repeat our original question: Would the US Patent Office please explain how this patent could possibly be granted in the face of a preponderance of Public Domain Prior Art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19877" RevisionGUID="a11a00d1-7f65-4f63-88cc-ae661ba03489" CreationDate="2018-09-05T19:04:17.467" UserId="21380" Text="My idea has recently been granted a patent in the US. I am based in the UK. Can I still develop and market the product in my local territory? I assume the US patent holders could apply and be granted a patent in the UK and then insist I stop selling the product (or offer a license agreement). But until then I am free to continue with the development?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55072" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19877" RevisionGUID="a11a00d1-7f65-4f63-88cc-ae661ba03489" CreationDate="2018-09-05T19:04:17.467" UserId="21380" Text="Can I develop a product in the UK that has a US only patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55073" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19877" RevisionGUID="a11a00d1-7f65-4f63-88cc-ae661ba03489" CreationDate="2018-09-05T19:04:17.467" UserId="21380" Text="&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55074" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19582" RevisionGUID="b6458199-7393-499c-bfa0-f117bc9a66da" CreationDate="2018-09-05T21:00:30.913" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19875" RevisionGUID="ef25d690-115b-4fc2-b0e7-ea01ef029a8c" CreationDate="2018-09-05T21:37:36.117" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to patent" Text="In reference to the patent: [US9247339][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent appears to have been granted without proper due-diligence having been undertaken to review the prior art. For well over 50 years now every conceivable arrangement comprising of a plurality of essentially identical drivers mounted together on a common baffle have been marketed by numerous companies. In fact, A plurality of speaker drivers configured in the form of a line array was first proposed and published by acoustical pioneer Harry Olson.[5] in 1957. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since that time some of the biggest names in audio have employed the exact same concept. One well-known example for home use would be the Bose 901 direct/reflecting loudspeaker that employed 8 identical drivers mounted to a rearward-facing baffle (away from the listener) and a 9th driver of the same type mounted to a forward-facing baffle (towards the listener). Furthermore, Bose marketed a reverse-configuration model for use in Public Address applications wherein the enclosure was rotated 180 degrees such that the 8-driver array was facing forward and the 9th (now rearward facing) driver being eliminated altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moving forward in time, a number of companies have marketed large-format line arrays for use in large venues or outdoor festivals. In fact, several manufacturers have even developed spreadsheets or custom programs for users to design their own arrays. Examples include L-Acoustics SOUNDVISION,[14] Adamson Shooter,[15] Electro-Voice LAPS (Line Array Prediction Software),[16] D&amp;B Audiotechnik ArrayCalc, and JBL Vertec Line Array Calculator.[17] Renkus Heinz, etc. Then finally, the number of products targeted for home use in the high-end audio market that employ the exact same concepts and principles are in numbers so high as to be almost without measure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all of the above examples, the same underlying principles apply as those claimed be the inventor in this patent. Basically, at low frequencies the output of the individual drivers sum to yield a greater total sound pressure level  at any point distant from the array, along with an increase in total acoustic power output as commonly quantified in Acoustical Watts. Then as the operational frequency is increased, being of low mass the individual drivers are free to operate independently so as to reproduce these higher frequencies without the mass-limited attenuation that a single driver of the same total cone area as that of the sum of the individual drivers would otherwise suffer from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A fairly comprehensive review of the matter can be found by searching &quot;line array&quot; at Wikipedia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As can easily bee seen in the above link, the methods and practices claimed in this patent are clearly Public Domain and have been so for many decades. In light of these facts it appears that the patent is essentially &quot;bogus&quot; and without even the slightest merit, such that it would never stand if challenged in Patent Court. That said, we repeat our original question: Would the US Patent Office please explain how this patent could possibly be granted in the face of a preponderance of Public Domain Prior Art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9247339B2/en?oq=US9247339" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19878" RevisionGUID="78a58a68-9853-4bc4-be32-066661250b5b" CreationDate="2018-09-05T22:34:01.813" UserId="17003" Text="As always, what a patent protects is described in the claims. In this case the first claim is as follows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A speaker comprising: a transducer configured to reproduce a sound generated by a moving and sound-generating portion of a musical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; instrument, the transducer comprising a moving element, wherein the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; moving element is limited in mass to approximate the mass of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; moving and sound-generating portion of the musical instrument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, this claim has nothing to do with arrays of speaker elements. It is trying to protect the idea of using a transducer with moving mass approximating the mass of the sound generating portion of a musical instrument. The body of the patent claims that in conventional speakers the moving mass of the transducers is more like 10 times the mass of the sound-generation portion of a musical instrument (such as a string). I don't know if that is true, and I'm not sure how they know a priori what instrument is being played in the music.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other independent claims are claim 11:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 11. A transducer for use in a loudspeaker, the transducer being intended for use in reproducing sound frequencies over a selected&#xD;&#xA;&gt; frequency range, the transducer comprising: a moving element, wherein&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the moving element is limited in mass to approximate the mass of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; moving and sound-generating portion of a musical instrument having a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fundamental frequency within the selected frequency range.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and claim 16:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 16. A speaker comprising: an array of transducers, each of the transducers comprising a moving element, wherein the moving element of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; each transducer is limited in mass to approximate the mass of a moving&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and sound-generating portion of a musical instrument that each&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transducer is intended and adapted to reproduce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 11 is similar to 1 in that it is about the transducer mass and claim 16 mentions using an array of transducers where the transducers have low mass approximating the mass sound-generating portion of a musical instrument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you see, the patent isn't trying to claim any and all arrangements of speaker driver elements, but is really about their claimed &quot;low-mass&quot; transducers. Of course there have been low mass transducers in the past. I'm thinking of electrostatic transducers in particular. How they differentiate with respect to those I don't know. I will agree I find the patent questionable, but it got granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Google searching leads me to believe that TektonDesign is the patent holder. Here is their [homepage][1]. Their speakers look pretty conventional but they are claiming a &quot;patented design&quot;. My guess is the patent is more for marketing purposes than an effort to force other companies to pay royalties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.tektondesign.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19879" RevisionGUID="2f189e6c-9ecc-4291-a335-9170cec0d777" CreationDate="2018-09-05T23:10:10.703" UserId="17003" Text="I'm not sure what exactly you are looking for, but I would recommend you look at [The Lens][1]. The Lens provides some automatic charting of results, and you can easily limit the searches by date, CPC classifications, and other criteria. Depending on what you are searching for, you get a range of chart options.You can also export the search results for analysis using other programs. Here is an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pyZff.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19880" RevisionGUID="cda7a690-ecd7-4ce8-8533-5f6332c27242" CreationDate="2018-09-06T14:52:54.720" UserId="21342" Text="Thank you for your answers.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not really an answer but to conclude on this point, the patent is a European patent which is no longer in force.  It appears that someone may be creating a derivative work based on the source code disclosed there.  My belief is that publication of the European patent application created Copyright (more particularly, in France, authors rights) and that any derivative work would infringe those rights.  Now up to the alleged infringer to demonstrate that copyright doesn't exist.  Quite complicated!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19881" RevisionGUID="c57254cb-bff5-4002-b1d9-ed7c9106716f" CreationDate="2018-09-06T18:52:51.703" UserId="21382" Text="I want to state that the clasping system in my invention can be used in any size of enclosure.  Specifically, I have doubts between using the words: &quot;may&quot; or &quot;is&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;enclosure may be realized in any of a continuous range of sizes large enough to comprise a void no smaller in size and shape than said first fastener part and said device...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;enclosure is/may be inconstantly/variably sized...&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55080" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19881" RevisionGUID="c57254cb-bff5-4002-b1d9-ed7c9106716f" CreationDate="2018-09-06T18:52:51.703" UserId="21382" Text="How to write claim language for a clasp designed for a variably sized enclosure?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55081" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19881" RevisionGUID="c57254cb-bff5-4002-b1d9-ed7c9106716f" CreationDate="2018-09-06T18:52:51.703" UserId="21382" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;&lt;sizes&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55082" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18513" RevisionGUID="917727db-c9e3-469e-ba0f-d94c4022b992" CreationDate="2018-09-06T19:02:00.970" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19882" RevisionGUID="27224dee-9d8c-4664-b639-5c117cb38b8a" CreationDate="2018-09-07T14:26:32.270" UserId="21385" Text="I know that the role of dependent claims has been thoroughly explained in another [post][1] in this forum. However, I wanted to clarify something, to see if I am getting this right:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A dependent claim must always narrow down the scope of the associated independent claim. Hence, if someone infringes on a dependent claim, he will surely be infringing on the respective independent claim (it's like saying, if B is a subset of A, and x belongs to B, then it also belongs to A). Therefore, when a court is deciding whether someone is infringing on a patent, wouldn't it be redundant to check the dependent claims? Shouldn't one just examine the broader, independent claims? (I am relatively new to patent law, so I have actually no clue how patent courts decide...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If dependent claims are mathematically redundant for a court ruling about infringement on a granted patent (I don't know if this is true), then do the dependent claims play a role only during the application process?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/13299/what-is-the-role-of-dependent-claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55084" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19882" RevisionGUID="27224dee-9d8c-4664-b639-5c117cb38b8a" CreationDate="2018-09-07T14:26:32.270" UserId="21385" Text="Set-theoretic view of dependent vs. independent claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55085" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19882" RevisionGUID="27224dee-9d8c-4664-b639-5c117cb38b8a" CreationDate="2018-09-07T14:26:32.270" UserId="21385" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;dependent-claim&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55086" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10663" RevisionGUID="e0e5824e-0bc7-4c77-9bb7-e686b54822f1" CreationDate="2018-09-07T16:01:40.233" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19801" RevisionGUID="ff7bd4c4-4a79-411b-87a0-c770ff781a03" CreationDate="2018-09-07T16:39:29.510" UserId="17003" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="You are correct that wheels that attempt to pump air either toward or more likely away from the brakes have been around for a while. The fourth generation Corvette from 1985 had such wheels. &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;By GPS 56 from New Zealand - 1985 Corvette, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=38623202&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US20140191565A1 is only an application. It may or may not ever become a patent. Indeed, checking in the US Public Pair, I found that it's current status is &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot; as of 10-14-2014. The application received a non-final rejection on 04-03-2014. Non-final rejections are pretty common so the prior art cited by the examiner must have been strong enough to convince the applicant to abandon the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to point out that just because there are examples of similar products doesn't necessarily mean new inventions aren't possible. Many times the patent would be for a refinement on an existing product. The patent therefore would only cover the refinement and not the existing products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gV49O.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55088" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17041" RevisionGUID="c189456e-1edc-4d2d-b49f-838725b846ac" CreationDate="2018-09-07T19:01:10.673" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55089" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12865" RevisionGUID="9c4f6edc-cde2-46a7-932a-ab776e8512e3" CreationDate="2018-09-07T20:01:02.760" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55090" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18787" RevisionGUID="69ace37c-697a-4220-9c55-3bd446d5555a" CreationDate="2018-09-07T21:00:00.170" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19884" RevisionGUID="72dd2d0a-9219-4306-847a-76a0b5957f00" CreationDate="2018-09-08T08:04:05.520" UserId="18033" Text="&gt;A  dependent claim must always narrow down the scope of the associated independent claim. &#xA;&#xA;Yes. That can even be used to determine the scope of the independent claim by analyzing how the dependent claim narrows it.&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Hence, if someone infringes on a dependent claim, he will surely be infringing on the respective independent claim (it's like saying, if B is a subset of A, and x belongs to B, then it also belongs to A). Therefore, when a court is deciding whether someone is infringing on a patent, wouldn't it be redundant to check the dependent claims? Shouldn't one just examine the broader, independent claims?&#xA;&#xA;Yes, but. A (popular) defence in patent infringement suits is trying to prove the claims invalid. Therefore, if someone infringes your patent, you'll sue them for every claim they infringe. If they can't prove any of your claims invalid, the dependent claims are redundant. If however it turns out the broad independent claim was invalid, maybe a dependent claim holds. &#xA;&#xA;The dependent claims are therefore fallback positions. They enter the game when the broader claims fall.&#xA;&#xA;&gt;If dependent claims are mathematically redundant for a court ruling about infringement on a granted patent (I don't know if this is true), then do the dependent claims play a role only during the application process?&#xA;&#xA;Not only as noted above. It's basically the same role during the application process because they are still fallback positions in case the broader claims are invalid.&#xA;&#xA;Further information on dependent claims can be found in [this answer][1].&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/19649/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19885" RevisionGUID="aff97a81-0de7-4263-98ac-1436de913017" CreationDate="2018-09-08T08:12:29.463" UserId="18033" Text="If you say “is“ it could be interpreted as &#xA;&#xA;&gt;The device is **always** like that.&#xA;&#xA;Therefore, unless that's what you want to say, go with “may“ because it makes sure it is understood that this is no mandatory feature.&#xA;&#xA;And additionally, make sure to give examples of preferred sizes like &#xA;&#xA;&gt; it may be bigger than said first fastener part, preferably twice as big, more preferably 5 times as big but preferably at the highest 15 times as big, more preferably only 10 times .... etc.&#xA;&#xA;Rule of thumb: always include at least 3 preferred examples in any given range. You never know what you'll need. (Focussing on the de facto preferred embodiment of course).&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19886" RevisionGUID="5a1c3e36-fe75-40ac-9754-fe09f0077baa" CreationDate="2018-09-08T08:21:52.433" UserId="18033" Text="If there are no other patents, you can do anything you want with the product as long as you don't produce in or export to the US.&#xA;&#xA;There might be laws against unfair competition in the UK preventing some types of copying, but patent law is territorial to where the patent is valid.&#xA;&#xA;The published US patent/application is prior art to any UK applications that are filed now, so if they haven't yet applied for a UK patent, for example by claiming priority to the US patent, they can't do that anymore." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19888" RevisionGUID="fbe3f646-9d1a-470a-b8fc-9092433b2451" CreationDate="2018-09-09T16:37:35.520" UserId="14403" Text="João Carneiro (of the mentioned thesis) along with Ryad Benosman (his thesis Guide) and Sio-Hoï Ieng (one of the thesis reviewers) filed WO2013083848A1 mentioned in the thesis page20 (pdf en page no. 29). It enetered National Phase and was granted in [these countries][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ryad Benosman and Sio-Hoï Ieng are co-inventors besides Shi BERTRAM for application of this question. Specification admits the invention to be improvement of prevailing art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Para 0011] The present invention aims to improve the situation. and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [0012] To this end, the present invention proposes a method, especially&#xD;&#xA;&gt; suited to asynchronous sensors to reconstruct scenes observed in 3D.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course there are new equations and new technical terms added as compared to first mentioned application. Claims are also very professionally drafted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Interestingly, the [very patent application][1] and the thesis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mentioned in question, with which both Ryad Benosman and Sio-Hoï Ieng&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are associated with, do not find mention in their [application][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2013083848&amp;recNum=&amp;tab=NationalPhase&amp;maxRec=1000&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=&amp;queryString=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180063506A1&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55106" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="f8048391-9ae1-4f2c-af4e-037183fe3496" CreationDate="2018-09-10T04:03:16.687" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19889" RevisionGUID="95b94ea3-7db2-4aca-af57-72ce6c71e402" CreationDate="2018-09-10T23:05:14.843" UserId="3076" Text="If size is irrelevant to the functioning and use of the enclosure in its broadest sense, the broadest claim can and should be silent on size. The broadest claim should only pin down the aspects of the invention that make it novel and non-obvious. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are no &quot;mays&quot; in a claim and, conversely, &quot;is&quot; in the specification can be dangerous. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19891" RevisionGUID="6d9dbfc9-0bf7-4c12-a341-3facbea5bea8" CreationDate="2018-09-11T00:05:37.077" UserId="3076" Text="They did it to get one narrow patent issued early while continuing to fight for a broader patent.  The continuation application (15/851,879) was filed with the narrowest claim and filed with an optional costly process that provides accelerated examination. IBM got a notice of allowance on the continuation but the parent (15/429,121) application is still pending.  To follow the details on a pending patent application use the USPTO's Public PAIR. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19892" RevisionGUID="dfcc54e8-0fe7-4b19-8f64-6a2e3e3ae1b1" CreationDate="2018-09-11T00:47:47.803" UserId="3076" Text="Unless there is some agreement with the supplier to the contrary (say a shrink-wrap license), you bought the device it and can whatever you like with it and not worry about patents the supplier has on the device itself. It is called &quot;patent exhaustion&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Wikipedia - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The exhaustion doctrine, also referred to as the first sale doctrine, is a U.S. common law patent doctrine that limits the extent to which patent holders can control an individual article of a patented product after a so-called authorized sale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in doing so you may be infringing on patents other than patents the vendor has on the device itself. The vendor may have methods of use patents, someone other than the vender may have claims that read on the device itself, or the combination you are creating might infringe on a patent owned by someone completely unrelated to the vendor of the device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19886" RevisionGUID="bb72802f-e7e0-4990-998c-4ae7040409af" CreationDate="2018-09-11T03:16:06.267" UserId="18033" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="If there are no other patents, you can do anything you want with the product as long as you don't produce in or export to the US.&#xA;&#xA;There might be laws against unfair competition in the UK preventing some types of copying, but patent law is territorial to where the patent is valid.&#xA;&#xA;The published US patent/application is prior art to any UK applications that are filed now, so if they haven't yet applied for a UK or EP patent, for example by claiming priority to the US patent, they can't do that anymore." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19893" RevisionGUID="ad95c9d7-5c03-4481-932f-815bb6966971" CreationDate="2018-09-11T12:01:19.467" UserId="19232" Text="For an independent inventor with only one patent family, what are the pros and cons of creating a corporate entity, such as an LLC or S-Corp, and assigning issued patents to it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55114" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19893" RevisionGUID="ad95c9d7-5c03-4481-932f-815bb6966971" CreationDate="2018-09-11T12:01:19.467" UserId="19232" Text="Pros &amp; Cons of assignment to a corporate entity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55115" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19893" RevisionGUID="ad95c9d7-5c03-4481-932f-815bb6966971" CreationDate="2018-09-11T12:01:19.467" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;assignment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55116" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="f29cf89c-a74a-4781-b8e9-0170903b0a74" CreationDate="2018-09-11T14:01:55.103" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19894" RevisionGUID="ab421b29-9c8b-4435-8e24-d4c52996f46c" CreationDate="2018-09-11T16:26:51.140" UserId="18033" Text="From a patent law point of view? &#xA;&#xA;None.&#xA;&#xA;It doesn't matter for prosecution or litigation if you are a legal or natural person.&#xA;&#xA;From a financial point of view?&#xA;&#xA;There might be fee related benefits for natural persons (micro entity), that might not apply for a corporation in some places (US).&#xA;&#xA;Also, there might be ways to optimize taxes on the costs or possible license income, but that's a question for a finance site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19895" RevisionGUID="7d5d2020-f5d7-40f7-ac76-f5a4d4fc9216" CreationDate="2018-09-11T17:46:43.677" UserId="15489" Text="I recently received a final rejection, called the examiner, received guidance for what amendments I should submit to receive an allowance, made them and filed an AFCP request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The response is that there are new issues that have arisen that prevent allowance, and the reason given in a PTOL-303 response from the examiner is &quot;PTOL-2323&quot;. Other than that there is no information.&#xD;&#xA;What is this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55119" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19895" RevisionGUID="7d5d2020-f5d7-40f7-ac76-f5a4d4fc9216" CreationDate="2018-09-11T17:46:43.677" UserId="15489" Text="What is a PTOL-2323?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55120" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19895" RevisionGUID="7d5d2020-f5d7-40f7-ac76-f5a4d4fc9216" CreationDate="2018-09-11T17:46:43.677" UserId="15489" Text="&lt;rejection&gt;&lt;final&gt;&lt;afcp&gt;&lt;ptol-2323&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19896" RevisionGUID="2ed54e33-1349-4af2-9653-45fc599ab2e8" CreationDate="2018-09-11T19:37:12.153" UserId="18033" Text="So, pto 2323 seems to be the form a examiner uses to respond to an afcp request.&#xA;&#xA;See https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/after-final-consideration-pilot-20&#xA;&#xA;Apparently, the examiner wanted to reference that form, but it didn't make it's way to you. Check PAIR to see if it's there, if not, call and ask." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19897" RevisionGUID="0eb55521-5e89-474e-8b77-cb01cb4cfb74" CreationDate="2018-09-12T02:37:16.680" UserId="15666" Text="You invented, build, and a product (like a Personal Cooling Unit a devise you wear over your close to keep cool). You have records and receipts of your sales, published pictures, online catalogs, and designs of it open sourced . Can someone put a patent on it and stop you from selling your product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55123" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19897" RevisionGUID="0eb55521-5e89-474e-8b77-cb01cb4cfb74" CreationDate="2018-09-12T02:37:16.680" UserId="15666" Text="Can a patent make you stop selling your product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55124" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19897" RevisionGUID="0eb55521-5e89-474e-8b77-cb01cb4cfb74" CreationDate="2018-09-12T02:37:16.680" UserId="15666" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;utility&gt;&lt;protection&gt;&lt;first-to-file&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19898" RevisionGUID="faa7d3fe-11b5-4cd6-8a3a-b911f1b50d32" CreationDate="2018-09-12T03:28:33.613" UserId="14403" Text="IMO PTOL-303 referred to is Advisory Action you might have received after final rejection and before filing AFCP. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After AFCP, examiner has responded in prescribed form &quot;PTOL-2323&quot;, and has referred to the previous PTOL-303 indicating that none of the reason(s) for final rejection has been set aside and AFCP has further added issues (normally refers to requirement of further search due to amended claims - ([s714- Ammendments/III][1])) to the already existing issues. The examiner would not consider any new issue at that stage of prosecution. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you may opt for RCE or RCE and/or appeal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s714.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19899" RevisionGUID="0208baf9-8465-410b-92e9-153518ddb561" CreationDate="2018-09-12T22:48:15.123" UserId="3500" Text="Simply put, yes.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A little more precisely, there may be existing patents that the product infringes.  Either the product as a whole (a personal cooling unit) or parts of the product (like the straps or the cooling mechanism or the power supply) or the way you make the product (for example, a patent on some particular way of assembling the device).  The owner of the relevant patent could file a lawsuit and seek to prevent you from selling the product, seek damages from you, or both.  Even if no such patent has yet issued, it's possible that someone has applied for a patent already and it will eventually issue.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55127" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="b61af333-459b-4c18-b973-0b1e5cf5faed" CreationDate="2018-09-13T03:00:31.263" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55128" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16615" RevisionGUID="f20b5ce4-014a-4d57-a76a-58dba76f96cf" CreationDate="2018-09-13T06:00:01.263" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55129" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16336" RevisionGUID="725a0b9e-ea6c-46f3-a457-26d7f460cb86" CreationDate="2018-09-13T07:00:15.497" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55130" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13334" RevisionGUID="4d2f761a-1eac-44ba-9bb1-f693882aaab5" CreationDate="2018-09-13T08:00:28.163" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55131" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19114" RevisionGUID="dce41cfd-2db6-4335-85f8-ee9c080711e7" CreationDate="2018-09-13T10:01:23.377" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55132" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="0ccd218f-5807-42ff-9451-2c496dd5347f" CreationDate="2018-09-13T11:00:03.467" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55133" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19809" RevisionGUID="87c53dc6-2829-471d-9a25-134005c36655" CreationDate="2018-09-13T23:01:16.037" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55134" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19296" RevisionGUID="c16b8c6c-5d28-4d81-89ad-7ce1a559b4e4" CreationDate="2018-09-14T00:00:55.143" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55135" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12961" RevisionGUID="3729632e-5b4b-41af-92d3-3479f6ccf75e" CreationDate="2018-09-14T01:01:06.743" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55136" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17307" RevisionGUID="7b4f7475-a411-4da0-88ce-fa7b47e697e4" CreationDate="2018-09-14T03:00:14.373" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55137" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17472" RevisionGUID="87983a2f-5c40-447e-96dd-764b6f6c4bcf" CreationDate="2018-09-14T05:01:01.900" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19866" RevisionGUID="235c99d9-e704-4d03-811c-a091b01f2238" CreationDate="2018-09-14T08:40:17.923" UserId="14403" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="Corresponding application (priority) was first filed in US. Application No. 14/432,431 : [USPTO][1]. The application was subsequently abandoned. However there were multiple provisional applications for the same invention by the same applicant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[WO2014053910A3][2] was corresponding PCT application filed for [14/432,431][1]. It seems it entered National Phase in [China][3] only. China Application No. 	 [201380063286][4] seems to be pending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is [WO2012135600][5] **granted in the US as [US9970022B2][6] on 05.15.2018 with priority date 03.30.2011 and likely to expire after 10.09.2033(after adding adjustment period of 922 days) if maintenance fees are paid duly**.  National phase entry pending in [China][7] and also entered in [Thailand][8] (as per WIPO) . These claim priority to other provisional applications at USPTO.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This list may not be exhaustive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://211.157.104.77:8080/sipo_EN/search/quickSearch.do?method=search&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2014053910A2/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://211.157.104.77:8080/sipo_EN/search/detail.do?method=view&amp;parm=16b414c21a2f19d11b2c18401bcd1a5f183a19361acb1be11a781c5804f92c231f4e218a22572195236c20482755275723ca24be2221222525702494250d26c0274025822c3f29092a7c29a02d6d2d6f28fa2ed62bd12c892f482c34330947932f5c2c0a2ac731b9333c316c366534e7318235ee337934f1360837f03747371b371a34e231bf38f13b04390c3e0d3f6f39ea3dc63c573d6d3e683e4c26d918c33ffe3c523c273e354334405c47c545774302408e4423458947e84698462746af46ce46da436f47554bcc49784a2d&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[5]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2012135600&amp;recNum=21&amp;maxRec=38&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=Pub+Date+Desc&amp;queryString=2012%2F135600&amp;tab=PCTBiblio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[6]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9970022B2/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[7]: http://211.157.104.77:8080/sipo_EN/search/detail.do?method=view&amp;parm=16b414c21a2f19d11b2c18401bcd1a5f183a19261acb1be11a781c4806f92e231f5221ba22572195236c20482755275723ca24be2221222525702494250d26c0274025822c3f29092a7c29a02d6d2d6f28fa2ed62bd12c892f482c34330947932f5c2c0a2ac731b9333c316c366534e7318235ee337934f1360837f03747371b371a34e231bf38f13b04390c3e0d3f6f39ea3dc63c573d6d3e683e4c26d918c33ffe3c523c273e354334405c47c545774302408e44234595478846bc462d46ae46c846ba436f47554bcc49784a2d&#xD;&#xA;[8]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2012135600&amp;recNum=21&amp;tab=NationalPhase&amp;maxRec=38&amp;office=&amp;prevFilter=&amp;sortOption=Pub+Date+Desc&amp;queryString=2012%2F135600" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19889" RevisionGUID="fce2b445-07ae-4d6b-8198-6c9117560d21" CreationDate="2018-09-14T17:18:16.163" UserId="3076" Comment="removed confusing and erroneous sentance" Text="If size is irrelevant to the functioning and use of the enclosure in its broadest sense, the broadest claim can and should be silent on size. The broadest claim should only pin down the aspects of the invention that make it novel and non-obvious. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19900" RevisionGUID="2aaa4ac2-a02f-4fa3-b192-9ba7ab6fd74f" CreationDate="2018-09-14T17:25:56.403" UserId="3076" Text="Yes, if their application pre-dated your public disclosure. Another possibility is the person's product came after yours but the examiner does not find your device or anything else like it. A patent might be granted. In your defense, if sued for infringement, you would have your documentation that the information was public before the other person's filing date. You win in the end but it might be expensive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19901" RevisionGUID="35f1248c-7626-4984-aef1-d660beaaad6e" CreationDate="2018-09-14T17:31:20.607" UserId="3076" Text="**If there are co-inventors, patent law is relevant to the question**. Under U.S. patent law co-inventors have equal and separate rights to the invention. Either can make, sell, use, offer for sale, or import it, absent any agreement between them. Also, either could license anyone else with no need to coordinate or share proceeds with the other. Assigning the patent to a company is one way to avoid this problem. Another would be via a contract between or among the inventors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55143" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18261" RevisionGUID="75f99cec-17f0-4973-9d24-33efbfcdc8ba" CreationDate="2018-09-15T06:00:07.677" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55144" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17844" RevisionGUID="60c899e2-a96c-4785-9d95-37e6b3255a49" CreationDate="2018-09-15T12:01:02.360" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19902" RevisionGUID="ea952f34-954c-49d6-98e6-1fd6666c0e6d" CreationDate="2018-09-15T16:34:49.053" UserId="21400" Text="I have developed a grain drying/storage system, which I started documenting in 2008. I have shown this system, in general, to individual manufacturers and organizations without monetary compensation but never publicly put it out on the internet. Did this ruin my opportunity to patent pend?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55146" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19902" RevisionGUID="ea952f34-954c-49d6-98e6-1fd6666c0e6d" CreationDate="2018-09-15T16:34:49.053" UserId="21400" Text="If I freely described, in words and pictures, to individual companies(not &quot;publicly&quot;) could I patent pens it, if no prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55147" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19902" RevisionGUID="ea952f34-954c-49d6-98e6-1fd6666c0e6d" CreationDate="2018-09-15T16:34:49.053" UserId="21400" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;public-disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19903" RevisionGUID="677fd3ec-1ff2-4192-96a8-efbf10b0f23e" CreationDate="2018-09-15T20:35:18.893" UserId="21401" Text="My grandfather had 5 patents related to bottle design. They have since expired. What happens to those patents?  Is there anyway I can renew them, purchase them, something. I know nothing about patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Darrell E. Briner&#xD;&#xA;Casket Handling Apparatus &#xD;&#xA;Bottle&#xD;&#xA;Flask&#xD;&#xA;Whiskey Flask&#xD;&#xA;Jar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He worked for Anchor Hocking, Indiana Glass and a few other glass companies in the country. He lived in Winchester, Indiana." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55149" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19903" RevisionGUID="677fd3ec-1ff2-4192-96a8-efbf10b0f23e" CreationDate="2018-09-15T20:35:18.893" UserId="21401" Text="Old family patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55150" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19903" RevisionGUID="677fd3ec-1ff2-4192-96a8-efbf10b0f23e" CreationDate="2018-09-15T20:35:18.893" UserId="21401" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;patentownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55151" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18971" RevisionGUID="acce3ebd-f2c0-4f28-a06a-c2d1f3e8909b" CreationDate="2018-09-15T22:00:37.477" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19904" RevisionGUID="6a6029d7-1583-458e-9185-b7584bf86bae" CreationDate="2018-09-15T22:30:43.860" UserId="18033" Text="The deal with patents is that you trade exclusivity for a certain amount of time (20 yrs) versus the publication of your invention. &#xA;&#xA;After the patent expires, the invention becomes free for anyone. &#xA;&#xA;Therefore, there is no way to renew the patents. They have lapsed and now are only of sentimental value." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19905" RevisionGUID="dc93a69a-8d54-4ee4-86c6-e7bea8308559" CreationDate="2018-09-15T22:43:56.580" UserId="17003" Text="DonQuiKong’s answer is correct. In addition, I’d like to point out that all of the patents were assigned to companies which means that although your grandfather was listed as an inventor, he didn’t “own” the patents. &#xA;&#xA;One thing you can do is to download pdf’s from patents.google.com. I know some inventors frame the patent cover page. If you want to get fancy, there are companies that make nice patent plaques (for a price). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55154" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18712" RevisionGUID="e263e0b8-d860-4e22-801a-41710f82433d" CreationDate="2018-09-16T02:01:19.617" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19904" RevisionGUID="590f45ed-5777-4311-b16d-fe1921505926" CreationDate="2018-09-16T07:43:51.523" UserId="18033" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="The deal with patents is that you trade exclusivity for a certain amount of time (20 yrs from filing now, 17yrs from grant then) versus the publication of your invention. &#xA;&#xA;After the patent expires, the invention becomes free for anyone. &#xA;&#xA;Therefore, there is no way to renew the patents. They have lapsed and now are only of sentimental value." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55156" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="435187f7-e60f-4212-a562-223cd8f12fea" CreationDate="2018-09-17T05:00:06.760" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55157" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17865" RevisionGUID="c67fe2a8-c39d-4693-b103-342299f72611" CreationDate="2018-09-17T08:00:17.580" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19906" RevisionGUID="66ea0b0c-2365-4d94-ac28-eacb23ebfef4" CreationDate="2018-09-17T15:29:35.973" UserId="5996" Text="The [USPTO has designed a new &quot;patent grant cover&quot;](https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-unveils-new-patent-cover-design-south-southwest-sxsw) in 2018:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The patent grant cover represents the physical document issued to inventors upon the granting of a U.S. patent. The 225-plus year history of the patent cover has seen fewer than a dozen basic designs since President George Washington granted the first patent in 1790. Previous designs featured calligraphy, elaborate engravings, and high-quality typesetting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The patent office has only redesigned the document twice in the last hundred years, and the current design is more than 30 years old. A team of in-house USPTO graphic designers created the new patent cover design. After several iterations, Commissioner for Patents Drew Hirshfeld made the final selection. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a surprise to me -- I am an inventor on a number of issued U.S. patents and I have never received such a document. (There is a cottage industry of companies from which you can purchase plaques displaying an issued patent, but these aren't any sort of official document.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who gets them? Do they get sent to the assignee?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55159" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19906" RevisionGUID="66ea0b0c-2365-4d94-ac28-eacb23ebfef4" CreationDate="2018-09-17T15:29:35.973" UserId="5996" Text="Who gets a &quot;patent grant cover&quot; from the USPTO?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55160" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19906" RevisionGUID="66ea0b0c-2365-4d94-ac28-eacb23ebfef4" CreationDate="2018-09-17T15:29:35.973" UserId="5996" Text="&lt;usa&gt;&lt;documents&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19907" RevisionGUID="c785cf2c-a786-43d8-b91e-8e4bfef80763" CreationDate="2018-09-17T20:10:34.467" UserId="21405" Text="Sign up for a Computer Aided Design (CAD) class at your local community college. With a .edu email you'll have access to the full suite of Fusion360 tools for free. You'll also learn a lot about the basics of design, if you don't already know them. You'll also meet a number of very smart people from a broad spectrum of society. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55162" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="19908" RevisionGUID="adeca2de-9c3a-4085-8191-18f7c64ee1dd" CreationDate="2018-09-17T20:44:37.647" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/31732/is-it-possible-to-get-a-local-patent-for-an-invention-that-is-improved-but-match" />
  <row Id="55163" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="19909" RevisionGUID="584337d1-0e38-4ef5-88ba-8fe0bb3729a7" CreationDate="2018-09-17T20:44:37.647" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/31732/is-it-possible-to-get-a-local-patent-for-an-invention-that-is-improved-but-match/31733#31733" />
  <row Id="55164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19909" RevisionGUID="f2aa3c10-0b7f-4980-8ab0-3918efe01972" CreationDate="2018-09-14T14:01:22.580" UserId="15954" Text="You have actually asked about two different topics: patentability and patent infringement. The two have much less to do with each other than many laypeople believe. It is possible for something to both be patentable and to infringe other parents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding patentability, if the improvements you've made are novel and not obvious in light of the prior art (which includes these patents you've mentioned, as well as any other publications and any actual products being sold or publicly used in the world), that makes those improvements patentable in most jurisdictions throughout the world. In that case, you wouldn't be limited to North Africa—you could possibly also obtain patents in the US, Europe, etc. If the improvements are already known, or if they are obvious in light of what's already known, then you cannot get a patent on them anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding infringement, patent provide local rights. You have started that you do not care about US patent law because you are not American. However, your residency does not have any bearing on infringement. If you make, use, sell, or import a product in the US, and that product is claimed by a US patent, you have infringed the patent and will be liable for damages. Even if your product had improvements, it can still be covered by the previous patents, as long as it includes every element of at least one of the patent's claims. (The same goes in the European jurisdictions in which the EP patent is registered.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you plan to keep your business entirely within countries in which there is no patent that covers the product, then you will not infringe any patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19908" RevisionGUID="9810fda3-a67c-4f20-bc60-d6f6327bf95d" CreationDate="2018-09-14T09:51:07.050" UserId="21408" UserDisplayName="Hamza Nechi" Text="I'm not American, so the US patent law is not relevant to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing I'm stuck with is the **patentability** of my inventionـwhether my invention can apply for a patent or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically what I did was that I reverse-engineered a product existing abroad, with a registered patent in Europe and the US, **improved it** by making some sort of **modification to the core of how it functions**, which **gives users better options and ease of use.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other improvements I put are secondary, giving the entire product a different design that, in a big part of it, is **not relevant to the claims** of the existing invention abroad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This product has a valid patent registered in the **US** as well as in **Europe**. **I live in north Africa, and I intend to register my product that is improved in my country.** Literally there are no local patent attorneys I can ask. I'm still wondering if my product is eligible for a patent or not, or at least if I have a chance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Need someone who know about **patent infringement** to help me with this, and I'm ready to give more details if needed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55166" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19908" RevisionGUID="9810fda3-a67c-4f20-bc60-d6f6327bf95d" CreationDate="2018-09-14T09:51:07.050" UserId="21408" UserDisplayName="Hamza Nechi" Text="Is it possible to get a local patent for an invention that is improved but matches some of the claims of a valid patent existing abroad?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55167" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19908" RevisionGUID="9810fda3-a67c-4f20-bc60-d6f6327bf95d" CreationDate="2018-09-14T09:51:07.050" UserId="21408" UserDisplayName="Hamza Nechi" Text="&lt;intellectual-property&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55168" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="4dbc1a7e-91dd-420e-af89-29e3d5f1f90f" CreationDate="2018-09-18T03:00:57.650" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55169" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19732" RevisionGUID="acf546f0-ab50-4704-9ef8-6510276da036" CreationDate="2018-09-18T20:00:50.353" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55170" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19823" RevisionGUID="853ff460-8c28-48c1-9b16-af92dba52ac3" CreationDate="2018-09-19T00:00:07.387" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55171" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19813" RevisionGUID="7e3dd8e5-efdb-4210-98a5-80328718ef39" CreationDate="2018-09-19T14:00:28.230" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55172" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="2b1bf28b-10eb-4fad-adae-a1270f5bd3b0" CreationDate="2018-09-20T07:00:41.103" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19910" RevisionGUID="faf033c8-6ec7-450f-8371-8c99c4bfd5c2" CreationDate="2018-09-20T13:09:21.913" UserId="21385" Text="I know that my question has been addressed in a couple of posts on this forum (see for example [this question][1]), however I want to delve a little further. There are patents which contain clear scientific errors in their description part (e.g. violating well-known physical laws or making unrealistic assumptions). Some forum members say that, if the main independent claim is broad enough, the patent can still stand. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it make sense to file an appeal against it on scientific grounds, while it is still under examination (i.e. it has not been granted yet)? As far as I know, legal procedures during this stage are much cheaper than after the grant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/16774/scientifically-invalid-patents&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55174" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19910" RevisionGUID="faf033c8-6ec7-450f-8371-8c99c4bfd5c2" CreationDate="2018-09-20T13:09:21.913" UserId="21385" Text="Do scientific errors in patent description affect its validity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55175" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19910" RevisionGUID="faf033c8-6ec7-450f-8371-8c99c4bfd5c2" CreationDate="2018-09-20T13:09:21.913" UserId="21385" Text="&lt;validity&gt;&lt;description&gt;&lt;appeal&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19910" RevisionGUID="1a0e8c10-444f-4f9b-a6a8-5da420265626" CreationDate="2018-09-20T13:51:10.630" UserId="21385" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I know that my question has been addressed in a couple of posts on this forum (see for example [this question][1]), however I want to delve a little deeper. There are patents which contain clear scientific errors in their description part (e.g. violating well-known physical laws or making unrealistic assumptions). Some forum members say that, if the main independent claim is broad enough, the patent can still stand. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it make sense to file an appeal against it on scientific grounds, while it is still under examination (i.e. it has not been granted yet)? As far as I know, legal procedures during this stage are much cheaper than after the grant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/16774/scientifically-invalid-patents&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19911" RevisionGUID="fe54e316-67f0-48bb-9fcc-844eab019d6f" CreationDate="2018-09-20T16:57:10.857" UserId="18033" Text="**Is a patent or patent application with a clear error valid?**&#xA;&#xA;It depends. If a person skilled in the art is able to put to practice the claimed invention, it is enabled. If not, it is not valid. &#xA;&#xA;The person skilled in the art will use their knowledge about science etc. to try to overcome any errors if possible. &#xA;&#xA;Only the invention in the claims has to be enabled, not other stuff in the description.&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Would it make sense to file an appeal against it on scientific grounds, while it is still under examination (i.e. it has not been granted yet)? As far as I know, legal procedures during this stage are much cheaper than after the grant.&#xA;&#xA;Well, yes. It's called a “third party observation“ and not really an appeal, but yes, it's cheaper and easier. It's basically sending some comments to the examiner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19912" RevisionGUID="de21b3c5-9feb-4e35-b9f4-f84c0c10e4bd" CreationDate="2018-09-21T06:13:25.417" UserId="21414" Text="this is my first question here. :-) I hope it's been answered before; and I'm assuming there are many, many people in my same situation that would like to know the same thing(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To explain myself, I'd like to put forth a fictitious scenario that simulates my *actual* scenario. (I can't explain my actual scenario because, of course, somebody with smarts and money will potentially take my idea and patent it!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So please bear with me as I hypothesize:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say that I have an idea to create a large building (with stuff in it) that defies gravity, hovers over the ocean, sucks salt out of the ocean, turns the salt into unicorn eggs, puts those eggs on barges, and sends the barges to buyers all over the world. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*How would I patent this?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Obviously this is fictitious, but that's kind of the spot I'm in currently.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first reason to want to patent this entire &quot;thing&quot; is to protect myself while I gather investors and smart people to help me bring the idea to reality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Is a patent even the right way to go at this point?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To complicate matters, many of the parts of this idea will indeed be novel; but some will be regular business practices (using an ERP, for example). Some original software and hardware will need to be created and will therefore be &quot;novel&quot;; but there will also be off-the-shelf sw/hw used. Some sw/hw will be sourced from other vendors and used in the &quot;novel&quot; parts of the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, of course, I haven't, in fact, &quot;invented&quot; anything at this point. (I have no doubt that everything that needs to be invented *can* be invented; but nothing has been physically invented yet.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Any ideas how I should proceed?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally; if I were to submit the paragraph above (where I describe the floating building that makes unicorn eggs), hand sketch some drawings of what I think the building may look like, what the eggs may look like, what the &quot;hover&quot; system may look like, would that be good enough to get a patent? And if so, what would the patent be issued *for*? The building? The eggs? The entire concept?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My apologies; I've rewritten this post about 4 times trying to figure out what my question actually is. I'm just going to stop typing now, and hope that some of you understand where I'm coming from and have some suggestions. :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for any help you can give me! This concept has been percolating for 14 years, and I'm itching to get moving on it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55179" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19912" RevisionGUID="de21b3c5-9feb-4e35-b9f4-f84c0c10e4bd" CreationDate="2018-09-21T06:13:25.417" UserId="21414" Text="How broad can / should a patent application be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55180" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19912" RevisionGUID="de21b3c5-9feb-4e35-b9f4-f84c0c10e4bd" CreationDate="2018-09-21T06:13:25.417" UserId="21414" Text="&lt;concepts&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19913" RevisionGUID="fee9d75a-60af-4a37-99da-3aaadde0ae57" CreationDate="2018-09-21T07:30:40.973" UserId="14403" Text="**The best suggestion is to hire patent attorney or agent for prior art search and drafting your patent application. Rest all advice and suggestions will be as hypothetical as your building.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, since you have sought suggestion here, I think you may find these few lines useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i.   First check prior art. It helps to avoid infringing protected areas of knowledge and rights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ii. Sum up **how's**. That is how you will build the 'building' and how the building will perform all intended works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iii. **If you can link all how's** rationally, my suggestion is go for provisional filing. This gives you one year time to refine your idea and give physical form to your idea which you can put in your follow up non-provisional application. Of course, even idea alone can be patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now coming to specifics of your question;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To complicate matters, many of the parts of this idea will indeed be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; novel; *****. Some original software and hardware will need to be created&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and will therefore be &quot;novel&quot;; but there will also be off-the-shelf&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sw/hw used. Some sw/hw will be sourced from other vendors and used in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the &quot;novel&quot; parts of the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your claims, off the self elements (hw/sw) should not be named, rather to be mentioned for their functions in the scheme of things. Only novel elements (hw/sw) should be mentioned and must be supported in descriptive part of your application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but some will be regular business practices (using an ERP, for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Business practice and methods can not be patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hand sketch some drawings of what I think the building may look like,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; what the eggs may look like, what the &quot;hover&quot; system may look like,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would that be good enough to get a patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Look** is in the domain of **Design Patent**. I presume you are looking for utility patent and for that drawing is pictorial representation to depict structure, function and functional relationship of elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;D.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; what would the patent be issued for? The building? The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; eggs? The entire concept?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If all them are part of a whole idea all can be part of your patent claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19913" RevisionGUID="4362b650-d978-4824-8afe-e106c5324d4d" CreationDate="2018-09-21T07:37:17.813" UserId="14403" Comment="typos and improvement" Text="**The best suggestion is to hire patent attorney or agent for prior art search and drafting your patent application. Rest all advice and suggestions will be as hypothetical as your building.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, since you have sought suggestion here, I think you may find these few lines useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i.   First check prior art. It helps to avoid infringing protected areas of knowledge and rights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ii. Sum up **how's**. That is how you will build the 'building' and how the building will perform all intended works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iii. **If you can link all how's** rationally, my suggestion is go for provisional filing. This gives you one year time to refine your idea and give physical form to your idea which you can put in your follow up non-provisional application. Of course, even idea alone can be patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now coming to specifics of your question;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To complicate matters, many of the parts of this idea will indeed be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; novel; *****. Some original software and hardware will need to be created&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and will therefore be &quot;novel&quot;; but there will also be off-the-shelf&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sw/hw used. Some sw/hw will be sourced from other vendors and used in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the &quot;novel&quot; parts of the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your claims, off the self elements (hw/sw) should not be named, rather to be mentioned for their functions in the scheme of things. Only novel elements (hw/sw) should be mentioned and must be supported in descriptive part of your application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but some will be regular business practices (using an ERP, for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Business practice and methods can not be patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hand sketch some drawings of what I think the building may look like,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; what the eggs may look like, what the &quot;hover&quot; system may look like,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would that be good enough to get a patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Look** is in the domain of **Design Patent**. I presume you are looking for utility patent and for that drawing is pictorial representation to depict structure, function and functional relationship of elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;D.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; what would the patent be issued for? The building? The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; eggs? The entire concept?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If all of them are part of a whole idea all can be part of your patent claims. You can put each of them in separate applications if the functions are not inter dependent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19914" RevisionGUID="a67f75bb-52ca-4a3f-baed-af398c6c105c" CreationDate="2018-09-21T21:14:57.610" UserId="21420" Text="What would be the right way to construct claim multi-component system that has their own construct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say I claim meat production system (or actually ecosystem).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A meat production system, comprising;&#xD;&#xA;    - a farm;&#xD;&#xA;	- a slaughterhouse; and&#xD;&#xA;	- a foodmart.&#xD;&#xA;	- means for moving farm animals to slaughterhouse and meat from slaughterhouse to foodmart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. A farm device, comprising;&#xD;&#xA;	- plurality of types of farm animals;&#xD;&#xA;	- roads in and out of said farm; and&#xD;&#xA;	- a truck.&#xD;&#xA;	- said truck transports selected farm animals using road out of the said farm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. A slaughterhouse device, comprising;&#xD;&#xA;	- a living animal storage:&#xD;&#xA;	- a slaughter room; and&#xD;&#xA;	- a finished goods storage.&#xD;&#xA;	- received animals are stored in said living animal storage, animals are slaughtered in said slaughter room and the finish products are stored in the said goods storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. A foodmart device, comprising;&#xD;&#xA;	- a reception cold storage;&#xD;&#xA;	- a parking lot;&#xD;&#xA;	- plurality of customer facing cold storage units; and..&#xD;&#xA;	- ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Means claim...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would the above construct work where I have the high-level first and then I claim the separate &quot;devices&quot; (in my case) as own claims or should I follow weird notation of...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A meat production system, compromising;&#xD;&#xA;	- a farm device, comprising;&#xD;&#xA;		- said truck transports selected farm animals using road out of the said farm.	&#xD;&#xA;		- a slaughterhouse; and&#xD;&#xA;		- a foodmart.&#xD;&#xA;		- means for moving farm animals to slaughterhouse and meat from slaughterhouse to foodmart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	- a slaughterhouse device, comprising;&#xD;&#xA;		- a living animal storage:&#xD;&#xA;		- a slaughter room; and&#xD;&#xA;		- a finished goods storage.&#xD;&#xA;		- received animals are stored in said living animal storage, animals are slaughtered in said slaughter room and the finish products are stored in the said goods storage.&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;	- ... you get the picture&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Means claims...	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've had real troubles finding examples of this as typically people only claim the one element to capture the whole system under means claim. Can I refer the other independent claims through their title? I guess it could be avoidable but being able to do so would make things possibly more clear.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55184" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19914" RevisionGUID="a67f75bb-52ca-4a3f-baed-af398c6c105c" CreationDate="2018-09-21T21:14:57.610" UserId="21420" Text="Constructing multi-part system claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55185" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19914" RevisionGUID="a67f75bb-52ca-4a3f-baed-af398c6c105c" CreationDate="2018-09-21T21:14:57.610" UserId="21420" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19915" RevisionGUID="5832b771-12f8-4013-aa40-c42e0dbbb788" CreationDate="2018-09-21T21:31:19.750" UserId="3076" Text="If the first outside presentation was more than a year ago and you didn't at least say - &quot;this is my confidential information, please keep it to yourselves&quot;, it would most likely be considered, in the words of 35 USC 102, &quot;available to the public&quot;  and therefore not patentable in the U.S. As a generalization, most places in the world do not have a grace period but also have different rules about what constitutes a breaking a novelty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19916" RevisionGUID="16aa2b9f-e232-427e-9f12-23927ef95d16" CreationDate="2018-09-21T22:25:38.030" UserId="3076" Text="The term &quot;system&quot; fits your hypothetical example better than &quot;device”, so I will use that term. Patent claims technically do allow a sort-of inclusion-by-reference. You might say the device of claim 1 operationally coupled to the device of claim 2. The big but is that claim 1 and claim 2 are not just &quot;defining&quot; a subcomponent; they are stating that each subcomponent, itself, is patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a system made up of subsystems you need to first think about which things are actually novel and obvious. If the whole system is non-obvious due to an unusual combination of subsystems and how the subsystems interwork then you might, in order to have the broadest system claim, have an overall systems claim that has few details recited regarding each subsystem as needed for clarity and to assure novelty and non-obviousness. You might add details to the subsystems in dependent claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Separately, you may have innovations in one or more of the subsystems. If so, it might make sense to have another independent (stand alone) claim for each of those subsystems. Some of your subsystems may be ordinary, and therefore not represent a novel invention, and therefore not merit an independent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your first example, where you just name each subcomponent, the high level claim is only patentable if novelty resides in the combination, regardless of the details of the named subcomponents. And the subcomponent claims are only valid claims if each of the subcomponents, on its own, is novel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If details of the subsystems are needed to archive novelty, the second example where the major components are defined in-line is required. However, in the broadest claim there is no need to narrow each subcomponent any more than is required for clarity and overall patentability. Some subcomponents might be very tightly defined and others just a word (a tractor). More detail can be added in dependent claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have, and claim, six or seven inventions, you will very likely get a restriction requirement that asks you to pick one for the current examination. With multiple independent inventions you want to think about which are the most important, the hardest to get around and the easiest to detect infringement of from the outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19917" RevisionGUID="1314aa26-cdc4-4941-84ca-9661358103bb" CreationDate="2018-09-21T22:32:13.817" UserId="3076" Text="Yes, they get sent to the assignee.  It is just a card stock cover stapled to the same patent you can print out online. It does have a cool ribbon glued to it and is sometimes called the &quot;ribboned copy&quot;. These things used to be like a deed and were kept in corporate safes but are now a relic without any power. Some countries have done away with them while others (China) still have elaborate colored and ribboned covers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19918" RevisionGUID="9137685b-ee45-4e9e-8719-d05a72158de6" CreationDate="2018-09-21T23:00:15.857" UserId="3076" Text="I would focus on the one or two aspects that seems to most valuable. If the gravity defying technology was applicable more broadly I would file on that. A hovering building would be one embodiment; a hovering vehicle might be another. The key would be to describe how to make and use the invention in a way that enabled one of ordinary skill in the art to make it and use it. If you do not have the mechanism optimized yet, that is ok. Just teach the best way you know how to do it now. The fact that some subcomponents (bricks, power supplies, etc.) are off-the-shelf doesn't impact patentability and can make enablement more straightforward. &quot;. . . strap a thousand Shark vacuum cleaners together. . . &quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you know how to make unicorn eggs where the salt gets into a hopper other than by sucking it up from the base of a hovering building? Id so, that is a separate invention. And last, even though they can be used separately, is there something non-obvious of about how great the hovering building and the unicorn egg producing  work together? That would be third invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55190" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18328" RevisionGUID="502c352a-7cd4-476d-8bb4-9fad8821d3b9" CreationDate="2018-09-21T23:01:37.050" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19918" RevisionGUID="75dd99be-ae23-4042-a252-162a9ea9aa00" CreationDate="2018-09-21T23:30:20.977" UserId="3076" Comment="added 184 characters in body; added 14 characters in body" Text="I would focus on the one or two aspects that seems to most valuable. If the gravity defying technology was applicable more broadly I would file on that. A hovering building would be one embodiment; a hovering vehicle might be another. The key would be to describe how to make and use the invention in a way that enabled one of ordinary skill in the art to make it and use it. If you do not have the mechanism optimized yet, that is ok. Just teach the best way you know how to do it now. The fact that some subcomponents (bricks, power supplies, etc.) are off-the-shelf doesn't impact patentability and can make enablement more straightforward. &quot;. . . strap a thousand Shark vacuum cleaners together. . . &quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you know how to make unicorn eggs where the salt gets into a hopper other than by sucking it up from the base of a hovering building? If so, that is a separate invention. And last, even though they can be used separately (I'm assuming), is there something non-obvious of about how great the hovering building and the unicorn egg producing work together? That would be third invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Regarding &quot;means&quot;** - That word has a very specific meaning in U.S. patent law and should not be used in a claim without fully understand it and its effect on claim construction." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19916" RevisionGUID="3616061d-9976-4583-b499-1e7faf2fdf01" CreationDate="2018-09-21T23:36:13.593" UserId="3076" Comment="added 257 characters in body" Text="The term &quot;system&quot; fits your hypothetical example better than &quot;device”, so I will use that term. Patent claims technically do allow a sort-of inclusion-by-reference. You might say the device of claim 1 operationally coupled to the device of claim 2. The big but is that claim 1 and claim 2 are not just &quot;defining&quot; a subcomponent; they are stating that each subcomponent, itself, is patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a system made up of subsystems you need to first think about which things are actually novel and obvious. If the whole system is non-obvious due to an unusual combination of subsystems and how the subsystems interwork then you might, in order to have the broadest system claim, have an overall systems claim that has few details recited regarding each subsystem as needed for clarity and to assure novelty and non-obviousness. You might add details to the subsystems in dependent claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Separately, you may have innovations in one or more of the subsystems. If so, it might make sense to have another independent (stand alone) claim for each of those subsystems. Some of your subsystems may be ordinary, and therefore not represent a novel invention, and therefore not merit an independent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your first example, where you just name each subcomponent, the high level claim is only patentable if novelty resides in the combination, regardless of the details of the named subcomponents. And the subcomponent claims are only valid claims if each of the subcomponents, on its own, is novel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If details of the subsystems are needed to archive novelty, the second example where the major components are defined in-line is required. However, in the broadest claim there is no need to narrow each subcomponent any more than is required for clarity and overall patentability. Some subcomponents might be very tightly defined and others just a word (a tractor). More detail can be added in dependent claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have, and claim, six or seven inventions, you will very likely get a restriction requirement that asks you to pick one for the current examination. With multiple independent inventions you want to think about which are the most important, the hardest to get around and the easiest to detect infringement of from the outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know what you think a &quot;means claim&quot; is, but means is a magic word with a very specific meaning in U.S. patent law is is now used very sparingly. Its use presumptively triggers a specific paragraph in the law regarding the construction of the claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19918" RevisionGUID="33c357d4-8932-4545-b454-ba518f90fd6c" CreationDate="2018-09-21T23:37:57.410" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 182 characters in body" Text="I would focus on the one or two aspects that seems to most valuable. If the gravity defying technology was applicable more broadly I would file on that. A hovering building would be one embodiment; a hovering vehicle might be another. The key would be to describe how to make and use the invention in a way that enabled one of ordinary skill in the art to make it and use it. If you do not have the mechanism optimized yet, that is ok. Just teach the best way you know how to do it now. The fact that some subcomponents (bricks, power supplies, etc.) are off-the-shelf doesn't impact patentability and can make enablement more straightforward. &quot;. . . strap a thousand Shark vacuum cleaners together. . . &quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you know how to make unicorn eggs where the salt gets into a hopper other than by sucking it up from the base of a hovering building? If so, that is a separate invention. And last, even though they can be used separately (I'm assuming), is there something non-obvious of about how great the hovering building and the unicorn egg producing work together? That would be third invention.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55195" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="74e6b435-b420-4566-8046-6dd824432422" CreationDate="2018-09-22T03:02:36.327" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55208" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="3c01197a-b383-4ba4-b649-c281616a853e" CreationDate="2018-09-22T16:01:40.823" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19923" RevisionGUID="1bb4facf-7757-460d-ae29-c73771fc1b1f" CreationDate="2018-09-22T19:33:31.323" UserId="3076" Text="Related to this is the concept that the inventor does not need to know, correctly, why something works. If a combination of A and B is great at taking rust off a rusty screw driver and the inventor has no idea, or an erroneous idea, about the chemical mechanism, it is still patentable. [Diamond Rubber vs Consolidated Rubber][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nor does it detract from its merit that it is the result of experiment and not the instant and perfect product of inventive power. A patentee may be baldly empirical, seeing nothing beyond his experiments and the result; yet if he has added a new and valuable article to the world's utilities, he is entitled to the rank and protection of an inventor. And how can it take from his merit that he may not know all of the forces which he has brought into operation? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/220/428.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55210" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18155" RevisionGUID="036e9e51-b617-4af2-a4c6-99365dbb5906" CreationDate="2018-09-23T00:02:00.733" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19924" RevisionGUID="709e4ded-d51b-435f-afa5-d32d13bc6c61" CreationDate="2018-09-23T02:16:34.800" UserId="21426" Text="EP2676544A1 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Trying to find out what the status is of this patent " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55212" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19924" RevisionGUID="709e4ded-d51b-435f-afa5-d32d13bc6c61" CreationDate="2018-09-23T02:16:34.800" UserId="21426" Text="I want to know the status of this patent EP2676544A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55213" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19924" RevisionGUID="709e4ded-d51b-435f-afa5-d32d13bc6c61" CreationDate="2018-09-23T02:16:34.800" UserId="21426" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19925" RevisionGUID="f59a0373-d531-4426-aa48-68384fdad130" CreationDate="2018-09-23T15:08:19.780" UserId="17003" Text="The cited document is an application, not a patent. I'm not an expert on European patents, but I checked the status of this application on [Espacenet][1] and it looks like it has been withdrawn. This is consistent with the status as reported with [Google Patents][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=EP&amp;NR=2676544A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=3&amp;date=20131225&amp;DB=&amp;locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2676544A1/en?oq=EP2676544A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55221" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="69ed430a-4431-4001-a5a5-2b41ed7f03cc" CreationDate="2018-09-23T21:01:37.927" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55222" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19849" RevisionGUID="9105c268-4f51-4139-8ec9-e8bfb313b94c" CreationDate="2018-09-24T12:01:30.397" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19926" RevisionGUID="ac301849-2f04-4636-8792-a88138b246db" CreationDate="2018-09-24T14:39:20.980" UserId="21342" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I confirm the previous answer. You can see the whole file history here: https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP12004692&amp;lng=en&amp;tab=doclist&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19927" RevisionGUID="e8c65cc9-225e-407c-bc66-3f644fcf4fd1" CreationDate="2018-09-24T22:17:45.990" UserId="21432" Text="Assume a startup was spinned-off from a university and took a license of a patent assigned to the university, and the university claimed royalties for the patent licence. Assume, the inventors then create a new improved patent (improved design of the initial patent) which is assigned solely to the startup.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the startup withdraw the need for the initial patent since it now has an improved patent at hand, and will the university (licensor) have any rights for royalties?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also, if a startup gets sold-out before beginning to have a revenue stream, will the licensor take any share from the profit generated by the sell-out?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55225" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19927" RevisionGUID="e8c65cc9-225e-407c-bc66-3f644fcf4fd1" CreationDate="2018-09-24T22:17:45.990" UserId="21432" Text="Can a startup circumvent royalties by creating a new patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55226" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19927" RevisionGUID="e8c65cc9-225e-407c-bc66-3f644fcf4fd1" CreationDate="2018-09-24T22:17:45.990" UserId="21432" Text="&lt;license&gt;&lt;start-ups&gt;&lt;royalties&gt;&lt;spin-off&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19928" RevisionGUID="a0ddc06d-1e3e-4118-ac9c-9475d9fd260b" CreationDate="2018-09-24T22:37:20.640" UserId="3076" Text="Getting a patent, itself, does not have anything to do with your potential infringement of some other patent. Having a patent gives you the right to try to stop others from violating **your** patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could try to invent a completely different solution to the problem. To not infringe, it needs to avoid including the all the claimed structures or all the claim steps in a claim of the licensed patent. And also avoid infringing anybody else's patent. If you invent another way to solve the problem and stop using the licensed way to solve the problem, you can probably stop paying royalties. I say probably because you agreement with the licensor may have a requirement to exploit their technology and payments or penalties for not commercializing their technology. It could also be that you license includes a license to &quot;know-how&quot; on top of a patent license.  The know-how license might apply to whatever you do as an alternate to the licensed patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Completely separate is the topic of you getting a patent on your new invention in order to stop people copying you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer to the last part of the question might be found in your contract with the University." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19928" RevisionGUID="74415fa6-3054-4313-a832-fba254b543ca" CreationDate="2018-09-24T22:47:38.387" UserId="3076" Comment="added 407 characters in body" Text="Getting a patent, itself, does not have anything to do with your potential infringement of some other patent. Having a patent gives you the right to try to stop others from violating **your** patent; it does not magically dissolve anyone else’s patent rights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a good chance that what you are thinking of an &quot;improved version&quot; will infringe on the patent for the old version unless you make a concerted effort, with advice from counsel, to design-around its claims. Some technology agreements stipulate that you will not undertake such an effort. Alternately, you could try to invent a completely different solution to the problem. To not infringe, it needs to avoid including all the claimed structures or all the claim steps in a claim of the licensed patent. Also, avoid infringing anybody else's patent. If you invent another way to solve the problem and stop using the licensed way to solve the problem, you can probably stop paying royalties. I say probably because you agreement with the licensor may have a requirement to exploit their technology and payments or penalties for not commercializing their technology. It could also be that you license includes a license to &quot;know-how&quot; or trade secrets on top of a patent license.  A know-how and/or trade secret license might apply to whatever you end up doing as an alternate to the licensed patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Completely separate is the topic of you getting a patent on your new invention in order to stop people copying you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer to the last part of the question might be found in your contract with the University.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19928" RevisionGUID="18d0b5ed-dfb1-4b72-b99d-ba7cdf0446ad" CreationDate="2018-09-25T02:06:24.527" UserId="3076" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="Getting a patent, itself, does not have anything to do with your potential infringement of some other patent. Having a patent gives you the right to try to stop others from violating **your** patent; it does not magically dissolve anyone else’s patent rights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a good chance that what you are thinking of as an &quot;improved version&quot; will infringe on the patent for the old version unless you make a concerted effort, with advice from counsel, to design-around its claims. Some technology agreements stipulate that you will not undertake such an effort. Alternately, you could try to invent a completely different solution to the problem. To not infringe, it needs to avoid including all the claimed structures or all the claim steps in any of the claim of the licensed patent. Also, to be in the clear, it needs avoid infringing anybody else's patent. If you invent another way to solve the problem and stop using the licensed way to solve the problem, you can probably stop paying royalties. I say probably because you agreement with the licensor may have a requirement to exploit their technology and payments or penalties for not commercializing their technology. It could also be that you license includes a license to &quot;know-how&quot; or trade secrets on top of a patent license.  A know-how and/or trade secret license might apply to whatever you end up doing as an alternate to the licensed patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Completely separate is the topic of you getting a patent on your new invention in order to stop people copying you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer to the last part of the question might be found in your contract with the University.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55231" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17720" RevisionGUID="f8a75b87-567f-481c-9676-5643dcfc60bc" CreationDate="2018-09-25T05:01:33.400" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55232" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="b04e37de-adcb-4c9c-b68f-3cce32a568a8" CreationDate="2018-09-25T07:01:06.337" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19930" RevisionGUID="f415fd9c-93de-403b-8e29-b3546ccf4068" CreationDate="2018-09-25T07:53:44.410" UserId="21385" Text="I think my question to follow has been in part answered in [this post][1], but I wanted to formulate it in the context of my situation, just to be sure:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose that I formulate a patent application with an independent claim A (which I think is novel) and a dependent claim B that provides a specific additional feature to A. Does B has to be previously unknown? What if method B has been proposed in other patents (either in the description or in  claims)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/16759/is-novelty-in-every-dependent-claim-a-necessity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55234" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19930" RevisionGUID="f415fd9c-93de-403b-8e29-b3546ccf4068" CreationDate="2018-09-25T07:53:44.410" UserId="21385" Text="Novelty requirements for dependent claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55235" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19930" RevisionGUID="f415fd9c-93de-403b-8e29-b3546ccf4068" CreationDate="2018-09-25T07:53:44.410" UserId="21385" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;dependent-claim&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55240" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19727" RevisionGUID="64347479-8f1f-4429-baf5-dba3502404fa" CreationDate="2018-09-25T15:00:23.393" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19932" RevisionGUID="17b1af31-8be6-414e-b654-40cc9ae816c1" CreationDate="2018-09-25T17:32:35.610" UserId="21420" Text="This is deeper-dive to earlier question https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/19914/constructing-multi-part-system-claims&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take another example effectively describing easy imagine weather station system for home where there are multiple (or at least one) small weather-stations placed into owners yard and then those &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole title could be something like... A method and system for home weather monitor system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A home weather monitor system, comprising;&#xD;&#xA;- a. at least one weather stations comprising computing unit, rain sensor, wind-sensor, temperature sensor, air barometer sensor, ... (let's say that the selected sensors and methods how they are used are novel)&#xD;&#xA;- b. a gateway;&#xD;&#xA;- c. a server computer system; (methods would actually be implemented in the server by using inputs from the multiple weather stations)&#xD;&#xA;- d. at least one application;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;wherein said weather station interfaces said gateway connecting said weather station to Internet enabling the connection to said server computer system serving least one said applications over internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A home weather monitor system of claim 1, wherein said wind-sensor comprises a rotor, superconductor bearing (let's say this is one of the novel thingies).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Would this be the right way to start building the claim when there is actually nothing novel at the top level of the system claim but more “aggregated” construct would do so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. How does one in general process two layers definitions. In this case, the high-level system is layer 1, weather station internal composition is layer 2 and dependent claim on wind-sensor is layer 3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Does it really matter if the whole top level system is claimed in the claims as long as actually claimed stuff can be understood by the judge and the overall functionality is part of the description? By leaving the top level out, there is risk that the person might not be able to figure out the system construct and what happens where just from the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've looked ton of patents through and I feel that they all avoid three layer structures and typically seem to claim only the weather station part as system or device claim and then adding method claim to capture how the whole high-level system solves the issue. Of course, it would be great to be able to claim only the top level claim but eg. the described hierarchy and system partitioning is very common for all IoT devices so in many cases that's not possible but one needs to dig a bit deeper to find novelty.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55242" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19932" RevisionGUID="17b1af31-8be6-414e-b654-40cc9ae816c1" CreationDate="2018-09-25T17:32:35.610" UserId="21420" Text="Claims for aggregated system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55243" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19932" RevisionGUID="17b1af31-8be6-414e-b654-40cc9ae816c1" CreationDate="2018-09-25T17:32:35.610" UserId="21420" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19933" RevisionGUID="8aa633a0-ab6d-42b4-b0f2-0e8b85362561" CreationDate="2018-09-25T18:44:05.127" UserId="3076" Text="The claims do not need to explain, they need to define. The specification explains. The job of a claim is to to define something that is novel. If the higher level, absent details of cool subsystems, is not novel, then a high level systems claim without those details would not define anything novel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the way the weather station works is novel, then claim that, in isolation. No one will be able to make the larger system without the novel weather station and many other different high level systems will be inherently protected by the protection of that needed ingredient. Every subcomponent (and actually every word) in a claim is a point of attack for a copier. Could a system be implemented without a gateway? If so, then someone can duplicate your system, including the special part, if they omit the gateway. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your claim is special part + optional boring part, anyone can leave out the boring part and make the special part. This is why you do not see overall system claims. Also, to go after an infringer, you need to identify a single party providing (or controlling the provision of) all of the elements or performing all the steps. If the subcomponents of your home weather monitoring system are made by four different vendors and is only put together by the homeowner, the homeowner is the only infringer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A widget comprising:&#xD;&#xA;an A&#xD;&#xA;a B and &#xD;&#xA;a C operationally coupled, forming a boat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a generic A and B and C are individually old and and it is known to put an A and a B and a C together to make a boat, the that widget is not patentable and therefore should not be a claim. If you have a novel way to couple a generic A, B and C, then the high level system can be patentable. But do not throw a generic, optional D into the claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you have a special way to make a B and imagine how useful it would be as a component in a larger widget. If B is novel, claim B. Then any high level system with a B in it is inherently impossible for anyone else to make, because they can't make a B without your OK." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19934" RevisionGUID="40194a4b-fc24-4d0d-99fc-cbc88cddfc93" CreationDate="2018-09-25T18:46:52.047" UserId="3076" Text="If A is unknown, then a B that is A plus a regular thing &quot;delta&quot; is inherently unknown. So, a claim  that says, &quot;the thing of claim 1 where the bottom is red&quot; is inherently novel if claim 1 is novel even though making the bottom red is not very interesting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19933" RevisionGUID="9b232a04-06e8-464d-9b49-3f8b79ac1bad" CreationDate="2018-09-25T19:14:14.467" UserId="3076" Comment="added 401 characters in body" Text="The claims do not need to explain, they need to define. The specification explains. The job of a claim is to to define something that is novel. If the higher level, absent details of cool subsystems, is not novel, then a high level systems claim without those details would not define anything novel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the way the weather station works is novel, then claim that, in isolation. No one will be able to make the larger system without the novel weather station and many other different high level systems will be inherently protected by the protection of that needed ingredient. Every subcomponent (and actually every word) in a claim is a point of attack for a copier. Could a system be implemented without a gateway? If so, then someone can duplicate your system, including the special part, if they omit the gateway. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your claim is special part + optional boring part, anyone can leave out the boring part and make the special part. This is why you do not see overall system claims. Also, to go after an infringer, you need to identify a single party providing (or controlling the provision of) all of the elements or performing all the steps. If the subcomponents of your home weather monitoring system are made by four different vendors and is only put together by the homeowner, the homeowner is the only infringer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A widget comprising:&#xD;&#xA;an A&#xD;&#xA;a B and &#xD;&#xA;a C operationally coupled, forming a boat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a generic A and B and C are individually old and and it is known to put an A and a B and a C together to make a boat, the that widget is not patentable and therefore should not be a claim. If you have a novel way to couple a generic A, B and C, then the high level system can be patentable. But do not throw a generic, optional D into the claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe you have a novel way to interconnect a generic A, B and C and you have a novel B. Then claim 1. is to a general A, B and C and the special way the work together. Good. But if you then say, claim 2 is a thing of claim 1 where is the B is special in the following way, also good. But you have not protected the special B itself. That would take a new independent  claim focused on the special B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might have a special way to make a B and imagine how useful it would be as a component in a larger widget. If B is novel, claim B. Then any high level system with a B in it is inherently impossible for anyone else to make, because they can't make a B without your OK." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55247" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="24cfb489-0a8b-4763-81c6-4d7026bac5c6" CreationDate="2018-09-26T00:02:07.400" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55248" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18540" RevisionGUID="be58f537-26f9-49d0-8b41-9cfccd482bc2" CreationDate="2018-09-26T03:00:09.863" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55249" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18600" RevisionGUID="44efd191-b2ed-4401-87c7-213452e6d50c" CreationDate="2018-09-26T05:01:22.827" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55250" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="ea9b323c-cc45-4961-a6ec-5c8a7edc673b" CreationDate="2018-09-26T11:01:39.200" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19935" RevisionGUID="bf9ecf35-8d5c-4ad1-a252-ac263257dabf" CreationDate="2018-09-26T18:55:22.983" UserId="18618" Text="&gt;What happens when a TD is taken to a patent which itself is a continuation of a patent family that now has been sold?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Per **35 USC 154 (c).1**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*The term of a patent that is in force on or that results from an application filed before the date that is 6 months after the date of the enactment of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act shall be the greater of the 20-year term as provided in subsection (a), or 17 years from grant, subject to any terminal disclaimers.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and per **MPEP 2701 (I)**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*A patent granted on a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application that was filed on or after June 8, 1995, **will have a term which ends twenty years from the filing date of earliest application for which a benefit is claimed** under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) regardless of whether the application for which a benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) was filed prior to June 8, 1995.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A non-provisional patent application which is a continuation of a continuation (a child application) will have a term of twenty years from the filing date of the first filed application that priority is claimed (the parent application). Thus the terminal disclaimer would be for a term 20 years from the filing date of the parent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Only the latest member of the family is cited in the TD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will not affect anything since the latest member would have the same term as the parent application and thus the term would be the same as if you had cited the parent application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19936" RevisionGUID="80fea2f2-7d9d-4849-b406-1c4006c2d670" CreationDate="2018-09-26T19:10:51.877" UserId="18618" Text="[35  U.S.C. 102][1] has the rules on public disclosures and are discussed in [MPEP 2152][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;35 U.S.C. 102 (a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is disclosure you are worried about then as long as the email is intended to be confidential and there is assurance from the email provider (Google) that it will be kept confidential then there is no public disclosure. Even if there is a phase in the terms of service that google or its computers may read your emails sent (say for add targeting), as long as they too are bound to confidentiality in the terms of service, then a public disclosure has not occurred.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would need to read the terms of service of your gmail account to have a definite answer. Probably better to encrypt your email or use an email service that doesn't scan emails for ad targeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_11e72_307&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2152.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19937" RevisionGUID="d61d14dd-bcbb-47df-ac7c-b511f281053b" CreationDate="2018-09-26T20:36:21.760" UserId="18618" Text="It explains at the bottom of the form. (see example) &#xD;&#xA;&gt;NOTE: This form must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33. See 37 CFR 1.4 for signature requirements and certifications. Submit multiple forms if more than one signature is required, see below*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is for the the USPTO to make sure that it has as many forms as were intended to be sent such as in facsimile (fax) transmission of documents. If the connection interrupts, the USPTO may not receive all of the forms needed to proceed. Putting the number of forms at the bottom allows them to verify that nothing has been left off or that forms are mixed with another stack of forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally you would also include a [certificate of mailing][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: [REQUEST FOR ORAL HEARING BEFORE&#xD;&#xA;THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0092.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/aia0032.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55255" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19877" RevisionGUID="4d68de5a-8196-4a2f-9d68-443b17f3f4f3" CreationDate="2018-09-27T00:59:53.843" UserId="18618" Comment="added tag for infringement" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55256" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19877" RevisionGUID="4d68de5a-8196-4a2f-9d68-443b17f3f4f3" CreationDate="2018-09-27T00:59:53.843" Comment="Proposed by 18618 approved by 18033, -1 edit id of 2089" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19877" RevisionGUID="251350a1-b502-4e40-a527-be15757c5ebb" CreationDate="2018-09-27T00:59:53.843" UserId="14403" Comment="added tag for infringement" Text="My idea has recently been granted a patent in the US. I am based in the UK. Can I still develop and market the product in my local territory? I assume the US patent holders could apply and be granted a patent in the UK and then insist I stop selling the product (or offer a license agreement). But until then am I free to continue with the development?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55258" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19842" RevisionGUID="80ad127e-2679-4d12-955e-835fec5c258c" CreationDate="2018-09-27T04:51:16.857" UserId="18618" Comment="added [tag:disclosure]" Text="&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;privacy&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55259" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19842" RevisionGUID="80ad127e-2679-4d12-955e-835fec5c258c" CreationDate="2018-09-27T04:51:16.857" Comment="Proposed by 18618 approved by 18033, 3076 edit id of 2091" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55260" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19868" RevisionGUID="78b63417-f4ba-4cbe-bb54-0a7f0fa7c1d3" CreationDate="2018-09-27T07:21:43.577" UserId="17737" Comment="tags edited" Text="&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55261" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19868" RevisionGUID="78b63417-f4ba-4cbe-bb54-0a7f0fa7c1d3" CreationDate="2018-09-27T07:21:43.577" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 18033, 3076 edit id of 2090" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55262" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16606" RevisionGUID="8bea8694-7a91-4602-8d51-40d4338c1ec7" CreationDate="2018-09-27T09:01:33.303" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55263" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="f0044ac3-2377-4819-9e8d-c5c09c71aa9b" CreationDate="2018-09-27T12:01:39.933" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55265" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="dcdf389a-2ab9-4930-8a4b-ee545ea3f7cf" CreationDate="2018-09-27T19:02:11.197" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55266" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16450" RevisionGUID="1aa12419-6d2f-4777-9203-18f94f446fb7" CreationDate="2018-09-28T06:01:40.877" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55267" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18185" RevisionGUID="9df573da-6b84-4a9b-bf7a-9f555d0119d3" CreationDate="2018-09-28T07:01:12.703" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55268" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="ca3179c0-88f9-4d60-867f-cf9db81c9d36" CreationDate="2018-09-28T08:01:14.407" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55269" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="f89d46d6-3134-490f-a535-6948bfa56b97" CreationDate="2018-09-28T17:00:08.000" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55270" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="ccc4e45f-6312-46e0-9169-3f6b268750a7" CreationDate="2018-09-28T18:00:31.433" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55271" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14883" RevisionGUID="2ab9708a-0d3c-4f24-a05c-cc818da558f8" CreationDate="2018-09-28T20:00:48.977" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55274" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19861" RevisionGUID="bd05eb16-6956-4fc4-9af3-7e793afe9f5b" CreationDate="2018-09-29T20:00:53.940" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55275" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="85411d17-8d83-4801-96fb-55802daf2b11" CreationDate="2018-09-30T00:01:16.130" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55276" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6476" RevisionGUID="d4b78e1a-2254-494c-af4c-bebeefad9385" CreationDate="2018-09-30T03:02:00.613" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55280" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18522" RevisionGUID="26df3703-6bba-4160-a1e5-4bc30b55c09b" CreationDate="2018-10-01T01:01:06.863" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55281" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17769" RevisionGUID="582b9b9b-fee8-4dd9-bca9-87e263120985" CreationDate="2018-10-01T04:04:20.783" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19940" RevisionGUID="2707b3c3-1414-4795-8b00-2b7291b60ffe" CreationDate="2018-10-01T08:07:47.833" UserId="21447" Text="From the images depicted in a design patent, from what I know about the design patents, I can clearly see that designs are different, as well as the materials. Am I right? Can I defend the claim that our design is significantly different from that in the design patent? Or am I wrong here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link to my product&#xD;&#xA;https://www.amazon.com/Expandable-Garden-Hose-Expanding-Lightweight/dp/B07DMYS8T5 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link to the Design Patent PDF&#xD;&#xA;https://www.dropbox.com/s/nb2vo38b3ves3dv/USD722681.pdf?dl=0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance for the answers :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55283" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19940" RevisionGUID="2707b3c3-1414-4795-8b00-2b7291b60ffe" CreationDate="2018-10-01T08:07:47.833" UserId="21447" Text="Hello dear community, I am a third party seller on Amazon, and I received an infringement complaint stating my product infringes on a design patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55284" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19940" RevisionGUID="2707b3c3-1414-4795-8b00-2b7291b60ffe" CreationDate="2018-10-01T08:07:47.833" UserId="21447" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;design&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19940" RevisionGUID="44498956-0a4d-4759-8242-3ac613a17d1f" CreationDate="2018-10-01T14:55:31.520" UserId="17003" Comment="Improved link to patent" Text="From the images depicted in a design patent, from what I know about the design patents, I can clearly see that designs are different, as well as the materials. Am I right? Can I defend the claim that our design is significantly different from that in the design patent? Or am I wrong here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link to my product&#xD;&#xA;https://www.amazon.com/Expandable-Garden-Hose-Expanding-Lightweight/dp/B07DMYS8T5 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link to the Design Patent [USD722681S1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance for the answers :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD722681S1/en?oq=usd722681" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55295" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="c3650026-a98f-4fcc-925f-f02e6aca5a71" CreationDate="2018-10-01T15:01:59.000" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19943" RevisionGUID="99967c3a-a627-46aa-adfa-9e2a899ec85c" CreationDate="2018-10-01T15:06:55.233" UserId="17003" Text="Design patents cover the ornamental design of functional objects. [This page][1] describes what a design patent is and compares them to utility patents. What is covered is described in the patents drawings. In those drawings parts of the device shown with dashed lines are not covered. In any case, **you need to discuss this with a patent attorney**. Whether or not your product avoids any patent is a legal opinion. You can't rely on internet Q&amp;A sites for those. My own impression (and I am not a lawyer) is that this design patent is relevant to your product. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1502.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55297" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19778" RevisionGUID="b5a751de-5de2-46f7-bb96-cd177f625ff6" CreationDate="2018-10-01T20:00:54.913" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19944" RevisionGUID="9a4b9495-4d23-4b47-a0b5-0d07722aff3c" CreationDate="2018-10-01T22:44:51.633" UserId="21451" Text="Can a text omission from a provisional application be considered as a new subject matter when submitted for amendment during the chapter 2 of the PCT application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55299" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19944" RevisionGUID="9a4b9495-4d23-4b47-a0b5-0d07722aff3c" CreationDate="2018-10-01T22:44:51.633" UserId="21451" Text="Can text from a provisional application be added to a PCT application after the PCT application has been filed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55300" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19944" RevisionGUID="9a4b9495-4d23-4b47-a0b5-0d07722aff3c" CreationDate="2018-10-01T22:44:51.633" UserId="21451" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55301" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19229" RevisionGUID="cc2e52a1-a111-446f-952c-5cfc25c2698f" CreationDate="2018-10-02T05:00:36.697" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55302" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19051" RevisionGUID="859b6bea-3b34-431f-bc37-826887b276f1" CreationDate="2018-10-02T07:01:25.027" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19945" RevisionGUID="e5cb5000-c665-4c23-a36a-de48a855fbef" CreationDate="2018-10-02T12:36:43.263" UserId="21453" Text="[Omniture has a patent][1] to its credit that deals obtaining link-related information using link-tracking servers. This is identical to the way that ClickMeter operates. When I search Google Patents, it is apparent that ClickMeter itself has no patents of its own. I would like to know how this is possible, given that Omniture was bought by Adobe, which now offers its own analytics solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7502994B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55304" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19945" RevisionGUID="e5cb5000-c665-4c23-a36a-de48a855fbef" CreationDate="2018-10-02T12:36:43.263" UserId="21453" Text="How does ClickMeter operate without infringing on Omniture's patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55305" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19945" RevisionGUID="e5cb5000-c665-4c23-a36a-de48a855fbef" CreationDate="2018-10-02T12:36:43.263" UserId="21453" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19946" RevisionGUID="5a554a34-f856-40d9-8ffc-618cff3763a8" CreationDate="2018-10-02T14:14:09.017" UserId="17003" Text="What is protected by a patent is defined by its claims. Long and complicated claims are considered &quot;narrower&quot; than short claims because you need to implement each and every step of a claim to infringe on it. If you look at the cited patent, there are two independent claims (1 and 9). I'll quote them here. First claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of capturing link-tracking information from a network user, the method comprising the steps of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  requesting a Web page&#xD;&#xA;&gt; content from a content provider server via a data network;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   receiving a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tracking enabled Web page via the data network, wherein the tracking&#xD;&#xA;&gt; enabled Web page contains a link tracking code that initializes an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; initial function which creates an array of links contained in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; received tracking enabled Web page, at least a first and a second of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the links in the array of links associated with a same uniform&#xD;&#xA;&gt; resource locator (URL) in the received tracking enabled Web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  determining a domain name of the received tracking enabled Web page;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  receiving a selection of the first link in the array of links;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  determining a domain name of the selected first link;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  comparing the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; domain name of the received tracking enabled Web page to the domain&#xD;&#xA;&gt; name of the selected first link to determine if they are the same; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  sending a link tracking request and the array of links to a link&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tracking server via the data network, wherein the link tracking&#xD;&#xA;&gt; request corresponds to the selected first link; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  indicating an exit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; link in the link tracking request if the domain name of the received&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tracking enabled Web page and the domain name of the selected first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; link are not the same; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and sending a Web page content request to a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; content provider server, wherein the Web page content request&#xD;&#xA;&gt; corresponds to the selected first link.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And claim 9:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9. A method of capturing link-tracking information from a network user, the method comprising the steps of: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  requesting a Web page&#xD;&#xA;&gt; content from a content provider server via a data network; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  receiving a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tracking enabled Web page via the data network; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  parsing the tracking&#xD;&#xA;&gt; enabled Web page to identify a link tracking code; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  identifying an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; initial function based on the link tracking code; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  creating an array of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; links contained in the received tracking enabled Web page using the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; initial function; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  obtaining a uniform resource locator (URL) for the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; received tracking enabled Web page; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  extracting a domain name for the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tracking enabled Web page from the URL; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  receiving a selection of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; link in the array of links; obtaining a URL for the selected link;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  extracting a domain name from the URL for the selected link; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  sending a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; link tracking request and the array of links to a link tracking server&#xD;&#xA;&gt; via the data network, wherein the link tracking request corresponds to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the selected link; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  sending a Web page content request to a content&#xD;&#xA;&gt; provider server, wherein the Web page content request corresponds to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the selected link; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  comparing the file name corresponding to the domain&#xD;&#xA;&gt; name for the tracking enabled Web page with the file name&#xD;&#xA;&gt; corresponding to the domain name for the selected link; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  indicating&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an exit link in the link tracking request if the file name&#xD;&#xA;&gt; corresponding to the domain name for the selected link is not the same&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as the file name corresponding to the domain name for the tracking&#xD;&#xA;&gt; enabled Web page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see there are many steps in each claim. One only needs to avoid a single step to avoid infringement. I have no specific knowledge of how ClickMeter's software works so I can't describe how they circumvent US7502994 or any other relevant patents. However the narrowness of its claims suggests it is possible to do so. In addition, the patent is owned by Adobe Systems which is a huge company. I'm quite sure they are capable of enforcing their patent rights if they believe it is being infringed upon. It is even possible that ClickMeter has taken a license to this or other patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19654" RevisionGUID="94a11374-6306-4291-9990-4157abf7cf88" CreationDate="2018-10-02T14:20:08.337" UserId="18618" Comment="replaced TD" Text="What happens when a terminal disclaimer is taken to a patent which itself is a continuation of a patent family that now has been sold? Only the latest member of the family is cited in the terminal disclaimer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55308" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19654" RevisionGUID="94a11374-6306-4291-9990-4157abf7cf88" CreationDate="2018-10-02T14:20:08.337" Comment="Proposed by 18618 approved by 18033, 17003 edit id of 2092" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19473" RevisionGUID="05c7e598-e2b2-4d5d-b9b8-76190e3eadfa" CreationDate="2018-10-02T14:20:20.383" UserId="18618" Comment="formatted, removed thanks" Text="I've got a really basic question.  On most, if not all fillable forms for the USTPO, there is a field that reads&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Total of ____ forms are submitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I be entering here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55310" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19473" RevisionGUID="05c7e598-e2b2-4d5d-b9b8-76190e3eadfa" CreationDate="2018-10-02T14:20:20.383" Comment="Proposed by 18618 approved by 18033, 17003 edit id of 2093" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55311" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18941" RevisionGUID="6aba403a-fae7-4218-aade-98a3fef0a405" CreationDate="2018-10-02T19:03:22.087" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55312" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19242" RevisionGUID="9db03255-a78b-4543-901d-a4559497a9dd" CreationDate="2018-10-02T22:00:35.810" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55313" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="038ce55e-a605-4bf8-b38b-279488b414f5" CreationDate="2018-10-03T00:01:22.323" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55314" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19227" RevisionGUID="efd43161-2a12-4b5d-b891-0827aa7770e2" CreationDate="2018-10-03T01:00:43.403" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19948" RevisionGUID="ff8673e7-2004-4ec8-96fc-bf73f33b54c9" CreationDate="2018-10-03T18:49:38.297" UserId="21458" Text="I built a mobile application reverse auction where for 60 seconds the price of an item falls and multiple users have the chance to enter to buy this item. The first person to enter wins the item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially I was under the impression that you couldn't patent a reverse auction because it has been around of hundreds of years but I found a company that claimed to have patented a reverse auction that is the same as mine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the patent I found, I would love to know if my product would infringe on their patent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2017069639A1/en?assignee=websoft+limited&amp;oq=websoft+limited" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55317" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19948" RevisionGUID="ff8673e7-2004-4ec8-96fc-bf73f33b54c9" CreationDate="2018-10-03T18:49:38.297" UserId="21458" Text="Did this company patent a type of auction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55318" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19948" RevisionGUID="ff8673e7-2004-4ec8-96fc-bf73f33b54c9" CreationDate="2018-10-03T18:49:38.297" UserId="21458" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55319" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17587" RevisionGUID="a24a1ef0-d8d8-4175-8e0c-a2a088837983" CreationDate="2018-10-03T22:00:14.637" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55320" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18211" RevisionGUID="f4858c8f-1a9b-4d94-b32e-813ab8c132bb" CreationDate="2018-10-04T00:00:39.010" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55321" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18821" RevisionGUID="5a630164-042e-493f-9c44-4b992248e21f" CreationDate="2018-10-04T02:00:28.743" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19949" RevisionGUID="a4ac2b03-5dca-4c33-bb79-f0c872a1395c" CreationDate="2018-10-04T03:48:31.640" UserId="3076" Text="The document you refer to is the publication of a patent application, not a granted patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19949" RevisionGUID="99dc2a07-dc24-4dc6-9ccf-5e05df1cc473" CreationDate="2018-10-04T07:48:23.267" UserId="18033" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="The document you refer to is the publication of a PCT patent application, not a granted patent.&#xA;&#xA;Check for example [this answer][1] for more information on what that means.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/17149/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55324" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19689" RevisionGUID="4fac913e-d05a-47b4-9b13-8a4cb18afa10" CreationDate="2018-10-04T18:00:22.170" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55325" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19379" RevisionGUID="942785fb-4e1f-4b2f-add2-6f0789d94631" CreationDate="2018-10-04T20:00:14.050" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55326" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19531" RevisionGUID="77de0f4b-a0a5-435c-aca1-7ce68d431457" CreationDate="2018-10-04T21:00:38.887" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19949" RevisionGUID="b9cb509e-e8ec-4110-9f82-1fc4b996b2e3" CreationDate="2018-10-04T22:39:48.563" UserId="3076" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="Yes, it does claim a computer-based method for conducting and auction. The document you refer to is the publication of a PCT patent application, not a granted patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check for example [this answer][1] for more information on what that means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/17149/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19950" RevisionGUID="d72cbf01-e26b-4765-8570-1c54f249fca1" CreationDate="2018-10-04T22:50:43.160" UserId="17003" Text="As pointed out by George White, this is an application, not a patent. It may or may not ever get granted and even if it does get granted, it is likely the claims may be changed. That said, upon a cursory review, it doesn't look like the auction itself is being claimed, rather a specific implementation of a computer system to conduct the auction. Here is the first claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of conducting a reverse auction for an audience of subscriber users, the subscriber users each having a user device&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adapted for communication with and control by a remote auction server&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adapted to host the reverse auction, the method comprising :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  storing,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on the server, a list of subscriber users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  storing, on the server,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reverse auction data comprising :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  an item subject to the reverse&#xD;&#xA;&gt; auction, an initial cost of the item subject to the reverse auction, a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; time when the reverse auction is due to commence;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  generating, on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; server, a clock signal adapted to provide a time synchronisation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; signal;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  determining one or more live users from the list of subscriber&#xD;&#xA;&gt; users, creating a live user list of determined live users, then&#xD;&#xA;&gt; controlling the user device of each user on the live user list to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; display the reverse auction data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  synchronising the user device of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; each live user with the server clock;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  commencing the reverse auction&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at the time the reverse auction is due to commence;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  detecting a user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from the live user list has selected a first location on an interface&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of their user device corresponding to a button graphic, storing a list&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of participant users on the server as a subset of the live users, then&#xD;&#xA;&gt; notifying each participant user that they are eligible to participate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the reverse auction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  controlling the user device of each live user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to display a countdown time on the interface of each user device,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; synchronised with the server clock and associated with a time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; remaining in the reverse auction process;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  controlling the user device&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of each live user to display the cost of the item on the interface of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; each user device and decreasing the cost of the item based on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; countdown time;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  controlling the user device of each live user to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; display a target graphic on the interface of each user device of at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least each participant user and shown at a second location of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interface;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  detecting a dragging motion from the first location of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interface of a user device of a participant user to a second location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and determining the dragging motion has reached the second location,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; determining the clock time the dragging motion reached the second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; location then, ending the reverse auction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not an expert in this field and I am not a lawyer, but the claim is specific to implementing a server and clock signals to provide synchronization so I don't think this is a general business methods type of patent. I gather that computerized reverse auctions have existed for 20 years or more so I doubt it is particularly general. Indeed, it is quite a long claim with a lot of steps. Since you would need to implement each and every step to infringe on this claim, it strikes me as pretty narrow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19950" RevisionGUID="e8d07237-8be4-4eca-8079-e1505e327641" CreationDate="2018-10-04T22:55:59.433" UserId="17003" Comment="added link to prior art." Text="As pointed out by George White, this is an application, not a patent. It may or may not ever get granted and even if it does get granted, it is likely the claims may be changed. That said, upon a cursory review, it doesn't look like the auction itself is being claimed, rather a specific implementation of a computer system to conduct the auction. Here is the first claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of conducting a reverse auction for an audience of subscriber users, the subscriber users each having a user device&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adapted for communication with and control by a remote auction server&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adapted to host the reverse auction, the method comprising :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  storing,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on the server, a list of subscriber users;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  storing, on the server,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reverse auction data comprising :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  an item subject to the reverse&#xD;&#xA;&gt; auction, an initial cost of the item subject to the reverse auction, a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; time when the reverse auction is due to commence;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  generating, on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; server, a clock signal adapted to provide a time synchronisation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; signal;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  determining one or more live users from the list of subscriber&#xD;&#xA;&gt; users, creating a live user list of determined live users, then&#xD;&#xA;&gt; controlling the user device of each user on the live user list to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; display the reverse auction data;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  synchronising the user device of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; each live user with the server clock;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  commencing the reverse auction&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at the time the reverse auction is due to commence;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  detecting a user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from the live user list has selected a first location on an interface&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of their user device corresponding to a button graphic, storing a list&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of participant users on the server as a subset of the live users, then&#xD;&#xA;&gt; notifying each participant user that they are eligible to participate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the reverse auction;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  controlling the user device of each live user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to display a countdown time on the interface of each user device,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; synchronised with the server clock and associated with a time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; remaining in the reverse auction process;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  controlling the user device&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of each live user to display the cost of the item on the interface of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; each user device and decreasing the cost of the item based on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; countdown time;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  controlling the user device of each live user to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; display a target graphic on the interface of each user device of at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least each participant user and shown at a second location of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interface;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  detecting a dragging motion from the first location of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interface of a user device of a participant user to a second location;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and determining the dragging motion has reached the second location,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; determining the clock time the dragging motion reached the second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; location then, ending the reverse auction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not an expert in this field and I am not a lawyer, but the claim is specific to implementing a server and clock signals to provide synchronization so I don't think this is a general business methods type of patent. I gather that computerized reverse auctions have existed for 20 years or more so I doubt it is particularly general. Indeed, it is quite a long claim with a lot of steps. Since you would need to implement each and every step to infringe on this claim, it strikes me as pretty narrow. Since you are trying to determine if your software potentially infringes on this application, you should probably review the [cited prior art][1] also.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2017069639A1/en?oq=WO2017069639A1#patentCitations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55330" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="169f952b-bf80-4792-8d1a-79000efcf0b2" CreationDate="2018-10-05T00:01:26.593" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55331" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="94339bce-0581-4d35-ad13-19e2065586b2" CreationDate="2018-10-05T12:00:40.333" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19951" RevisionGUID="f0e471dc-0830-48e7-a8b3-82f14c1496e1" CreationDate="2018-10-05T15:13:41.277" UserId="21462" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2017151684A1][1] (Patent 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that it follows the same process as described by patent [US5854056A][2] (Patent 2) from 1997 and titled *Fungal cell wall production and utilization as a raw resource for textiles* by William J. A. Dschida&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2017151684A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5854056A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only difference is a tricky use of the language by [patent 1][1], instead of using the definition hyphae as [patent 2][2] for branching filaments of fungal cells in liquid media, [patent 1][1] calls them planktonic cells. The downstream process is also exactly the same; inoculation of this liquid culture into fresh growth media and incubating it undisturbed to form a biomat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only difference is that [patent 1][1] applies to edible fungal biomats and [patent 2][2] to textile applications once the biomat is dried and cured." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55333" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19951" RevisionGUID="f0e471dc-0830-48e7-a8b3-82f14c1496e1" CreationDate="2018-10-05T15:13:41.277" UserId="21462" Text="Isn't this patent following the same process as US5854056A?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55334" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19951" RevisionGUID="f0e471dc-0830-48e7-a8b3-82f14c1496e1" CreationDate="2018-10-05T15:13:41.277" UserId="21462" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;wo2017151684a1&gt;&lt;us5854056a&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19951" RevisionGUID="40422830-4496-4e3a-8561-d9ad2ad89d73" CreationDate="2018-10-05T15:19:48.067" UserId="21462" Comment="grammar correction" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2017151684A1][1] (Patent 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that it follows the same process as described by patent [US5854056A][2] (Patent 2) from 1997 and titled *Fungal cell wall production and utilization as a raw resource for textiles* by William J. A. Dschida&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2017151684A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5854056A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only difference is a tricky use of the language by [patent 1][1], instead of using the definition hyphae as [patent 2][2] for branching filaments of fungal cells in liquid media, [patent 1][1] calls them planktonic cells. The downstream process is exactly the same; inoculation of this liquid culture into fresh growth media and incubating it undisturbed to form a biomat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only difference is that [patent 1][1] applies to edible fungal biomats and [patent 2][2] to textile applications once the biomat is dried and cured." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55336" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19951" RevisionGUID="40422830-4496-4e3a-8561-d9ad2ad89d73" CreationDate="2018-10-05T15:19:48.067" UserId="21462" Comment="grammar correction" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;us5854056a&gt;&lt;wo2017151684a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55337" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="a9182b8a-3054-44b8-81ad-12c07490f8aa" CreationDate="2018-10-05T16:00:04.947" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55338" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19582" RevisionGUID="576f1890-3060-430a-9335-2e5fefde1c6a" CreationDate="2018-10-05T21:00:31.400" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19952" RevisionGUID="f4657933-ed76-4638-bbfd-5198f1f7868a" CreationDate="2018-10-05T23:28:49.973" UserId="3076" Text="Under the Paris Convention you can only claim priority to the first filed application. The exception to this is if the first application is abandoned without being published and was never used in a priority claim, then the second application **in that same country** can be used for priority. Article 4 is very clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Article 4 C (4) A subsequent application concerning the same subject&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as a previous first application within the meaning of paragraph (2),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; above, filed in the same country of the Union. shall be considered as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the first application, of which the filing date shall be the starting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; point of the period of priority, if, at the time of filing the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; subsequent application, the said previous application has been&#xD;&#xA;&gt; withdrawn, abandoned, or refused, without having been laid open to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; public inspection and without leaving any rights outstanding, and if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it has not yet served as a basis for claiming a right of priority. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; previous application may not thereafter serve as a basis for claiming&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a right of priority." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55340" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19872" RevisionGUID="6bdbf1d1-e2cc-4271-8f67-98b19cd818ca" CreationDate="2018-10-06T00:01:14.293" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55341" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19952" RevisionGUID="06cbd07b-3422-4781-b345-94e870de4ee6" CreationDate="2018-10-06T00:04:02.060" UserId="3076" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="No. Under the Paris Convention you can only claim priority to the first filed application. The exception to this is if the first application is abandoned without being published and was never used in a priority claim, then the second application **in that same country** can be used for priority. Article 4 is very clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Article 4 C (4) A subsequent application concerning the same subject&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as a previous first application within the meaning of paragraph (2),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; above, filed in the same country of the Union. shall be considered as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the first application, of which the filing date shall be the starting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; point of the period of priority, if, at the time of filing the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; subsequent application, the said previous application has been&#xD;&#xA;&gt; withdrawn, abandoned, or refused, without having been laid open to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; public inspection and without leaving any rights outstanding, and if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it has not yet served as a basis for claiming a right of priority. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; previous application may not thereafter serve as a basis for claiming&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a right of priority." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55342" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18513" RevisionGUID="f8792141-2abf-458a-9335-a335893ebfa4" CreationDate="2018-10-06T20:00:08.783" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19953" RevisionGUID="1a0bb668-f28b-4e93-ae26-7c32ca5e8e8a" CreationDate="2018-10-06T23:03:13.523" UserId="17003" Text="First thing to understand is that WO2017151684A1 is only a patent application. It is not a patent. It may or may not get granted and even if it does get granted it is likely that the claims will be amended. That said, my cursory review of the application suggests that US5854056A is indeed prior art and should be considered by the European patent authorities. WO2017151684A1 [doesn't cite it][1] but one hopes the examiner will find it. I believe there are ways to provide relevant prior art to patent authorities, but I'm not clear on the steps so I'll leave that up to other answers. One thing to consider, is that US5854056A has expired so while it may preclude WO2017151684A1 from being granted, the invention as described can be used by anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2017151684A1#patentCitations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19953" RevisionGUID="0664d637-05b0-4651-98c1-cc6c797b5499" CreationDate="2018-10-06T23:19:27.920" UserId="17003" Comment="added 443 characters in body" Text="First thing to understand is that WO2017151684A1 is only a patent application. It is not a patent. It may or may not get granted and even if it does get granted it is likely that the claims will be amended. That said, my cursory review of the application suggests that US5854056A is indeed prior art and should be considered by the European patent authorities. WO2017151684A1 [doesn't cite it][1] but one hopes the examiner will find it. I believe the process for making WIPO aware of prior art is called a &quot;Third Party Observation&quot; the particulars are described in [this WIPO page][2]. According to that page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Third party observations may be submitted at any time after the date&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of publication of the international application and before the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; expiration of 28 months from the priority date, provided that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application is not withdrawn or considered withdrawn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The priority date for the application is 2016-03-01 so it might be too late.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing to consider, is that US5854056A has expired so while it may preclude WO2017151684A1 from being granted, the invention as described can be used by anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2017151684A1#patentCitations&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/faqs/third_party_observations.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19953" RevisionGUID="faa2555c-6a99-4217-a285-2bde15716060" CreationDate="2018-10-07T18:01:11.823" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="First thing to understand is that WO2017151684A1 is only a patent application. It is not a patent. It may or may not get granted and even if it does get granted it is likely that the claims will be amended. That said, my cursory review of the application suggests that US5854056A is indeed prior art and should be considered by the European patent authorities. WO2017151684A1 [doesn't cite it][1] but one hopes the examiner will find it. I believe the process for making WIPO aware of prior art is called a &quot;Third Party Observation&quot;. The particulars are described in [this WIPO page][2]. According to that page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Third party observations may be submitted at any time after the date&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of publication of the international application and before the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; expiration of 28 months from the priority date, provided that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application is not withdrawn or considered withdrawn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The priority date for the application is 2016-03-01 so it might be too late.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing to consider, is that US5854056A has expired so while it may preclude WO2017151684A1 from being granted, the invention as described can be used by anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2017151684A1#patentCitations&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/faqs/third_party_observations.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55350" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17041" RevisionGUID="c2bb3501-9931-4d11-b57c-0becd73c4876" CreationDate="2018-10-07T20:00:19.457" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55351" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18787" RevisionGUID="097d3c6a-fe12-436c-a499-3a4124c337df" CreationDate="2018-10-07T21:00:10.770" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55352" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12865" RevisionGUID="26b8b869-df9e-4dbe-ac24-b830c8c80da1" CreationDate="2018-10-07T22:00:02.700" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19955" RevisionGUID="1c3f35bc-1f11-4373-9edd-4a38778aa024" CreationDate="2018-10-08T12:51:03.163" UserId="21342" Text="I had a quick look at this and don't know many details but I imagine you received a complaint letter from the holder of the design patent.  If it was from his attorney, preferably an attorney should reply.  I can't imagine it was a summons before court.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In each case, the approaches is the same.  You say you are a third party vendor - a quick look at the webpage at the link you provided shows this.  You are not however the true infringer.  The infringer is the producer (who is perhaps located in a country where IP rights are not always well respected) of this fine looking object which you were, perhaps, selling ( it is marked something like not currently available ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, it is difficult to imagine that you are the only person in the world selling this object.  It is quite possible you have received a standard letter from, I imagine, the holder of the design patent which he sends each time he sees something he thinks might be infringing his rights, and he may have been doing this for years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason he sent a complaint to you (assuming it came from him) is that your offer of sale is extremely visible and it is easy for him to keep a lookout for anything he thinks is infringing his rights.  But what he is really looking for is the identification of the producer, who is the infringer and from whom he could possibly obtain damages.  Your webpage is just the ripple on the surface which might allow him to catch the big fish.  Perhaps you know who the producer is.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the owner of the rights could (or should) want to know from you is how many of these you have sold (if none, that would be ideal), how many you possibly have in stock and, importantly, who is your supplier.  He would also want you to give an assurance that you have taken down the webpage that shows the offending object,  that you have stopped selling, or offering for sale the object and with an undertaking you will never start selling it again. This should not be too much of a loss to you.  After receiving a well written letter (which should be drafted by an attorney but which could be sent by you - the earlier advice to seek legal advice from an attorney holds 100%) he could well leave you alone and attack your supplier who would then ask to be held harmless by the actual producer.  The latter is the infringer, and it is up to him to argue how his product differs from that of the holder of the design patent or that the design patent is invalid.  Don't do his job for him ! and don't be tempted to reply with arguments which could not be beneficial to you.  If you try to negate infringement, he won't let you off the hook, and things could get more complicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know the facts here but these are the general principles and I hope some of the above is relevant to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19957" RevisionGUID="fe74c70a-395e-4408-a2f3-94c924f74ee1" CreationDate="2018-10-08T21:58:30.930" UserId="3076" Text="Not as a matter of right. It is universal that no &quot;new matter&quot; can be added to an application after the filing date. Various jurisdictions take that prohibition more strictly or less strictly. The PCT process leads to entering the national stage in one or more countries. It is those countries, individually, who will decide what is or is not &quot;new matter&quot; or &quot;going beyond&quot;. Technically, you can amend the PCT description however you like as it transitions into each country. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Article 28&#xD;&#xA;Amendment of the Claims, the Description, and the Drawings, Before Designated Offices&#xD;&#xA;(1)  The applicant shall be given the opportunity to amend the claims, the description, and the drawings, before each designated Office within the prescribed time limit. No designated Office shall grant a patent, or refuse the grant of a patent, before such time limit has expired except with the express consent of the applicant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2)  The amendments shall not go beyond the disclosure in the international application as filed unless the national law of the designated State permits them to go beyond the said disclosure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, most countries are very sensitive to any added text or drawings, other than translations, so the rule of thumb is that you do not attempt to change the description after filing. However, you can make changes in the description of a PCT application to correct an obvious error. To qualify, it must be obvious that it is an error and it must be obvious how to correct it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A special case - in the U.S. one can include a previous patent document by reference. That is not the case in most other places. If you stated in the origin al filing that the provisional was included by reference, then you could amend-in text and drawings from the provisional in a US national stage application that flows from the PCT. That is probably not the case you are worried about. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19955" RevisionGUID="3e86b40d-4538-4e12-b6fb-b2775ea6ebb0" CreationDate="2018-10-09T14:59:24.423" UserId="21342" Comment="New information added" Text="If I can add something to my quick answer. I just looked at the design patent invoked. It seems this gentleman only has rights in the US and nowhere else. I clicked on:&#xD;&#xA;Darts-IP&#xD;&#xA;OVERVIEW OF PATENT CASES FOR THE FAMILY OF USD722681(S1)&#xD;&#xA;and saw there was one case in the US (which I'm not signed up to look at), but, for obvious reasons nowhere else. What the implications are I cannot say, but he could only sue for infringement on the territory of the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rest of my answer unchanged:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had a quick look at this and don't know many details but I imagine you received a complaint letter from the holder of the design patent.  If it was from his attorney, preferably an attorney should reply.  I can't imagine it was a summons before court.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In each case, the approaches is the same.  You say you are a third party vendor - a quick look at the webpage at the link you provided shows this.  You are not however the true infringer.  The infringer is the producer (who is perhaps located in a country where IP rights are not always well respected) of this fine looking object which you were, perhaps, selling ( it is marked something like not currently available ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, it is difficult to imagine that you are the only person in the world selling this object.  It is quite possible you have received a standard letter from, I imagine, the holder of the design patent which he sends each time he sees something he thinks might be infringing his rights, and he may have been doing this for years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason he sent a complaint to you (assuming it came from him) is that your offer of sale is extremely visible and it is easy for him to keep a lookout for anything he thinks is infringing his rights.  But what he is really looking for is the identification of the producer, who is the infringer and from whom he could possibly obtain damages.  Your webpage is just the ripple on the surface which might allow him to catch the big fish.  Perhaps you know who the producer is.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the owner of the rights could (or should) want to know from you is how many of these you have sold (if none, that would be ideal), how many you possibly have in stock and, importantly, who is your supplier.  He would also want you to give an assurance that you have taken down the webpage that shows the offending object,  that you have stopped selling, or offering for sale the object and with an undertaking you will never start selling it again. This should not be too much of a loss to you.  After receiving a well written letter (which should be drafted by an attorney but which could be sent by you - the earlier advice to seek legal advice from an attorney holds 100%) he could well leave you alone and attack your supplier who would then ask to be held harmless by the actual producer.  The latter is the infringer, and it is up to him to argue how his product differs from that of the holder of the design patent or that the design patent is invalid.  Don't do his job for him ! and don't be tempted to reply with arguments which could not be beneficial to you.  If you try to negate infringement, he won't let you off the hook, and things could get more complicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know the facts here but these are the general principles and I hope some of the above is relevant to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3859" RevisionGUID="c23125b5-1d3a-4db5-bbac-aee4a61de382" CreationDate="2018-10-09T19:48:32.103" UserId="1" Comment="Removed questions about the underlying technology or production of products covered by these patents which are outside the scope of this site. " Text="Perpetual energy, to my understanding, is not allowed to be patented - so why this one? It seems to claim a motor that requires no electricity to run. Instead, it uses a magnet formation to create a faux force [US4151431][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55364" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="3859" RevisionGUID="a6ddd8ea-fde4-4904-a505-bf074ad26579" CreationDate="2018-10-09T19:49:39.270" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="55367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19959" RevisionGUID="37da769f-4e22-48df-847e-f37e6657bf4e" CreationDate="2018-10-09T20:09:22.950" UserId="15489" Text="In an amendment to the claims, you can mark them (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference between Withdrawn and Cancelled, both in use and implication?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55368" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19959" RevisionGUID="37da769f-4e22-48df-847e-f37e6657bf4e" CreationDate="2018-10-09T20:09:22.950" UserId="15489" Text="What is the difference between a withdrawn claim and a cancelled claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55369" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19959" RevisionGUID="37da769f-4e22-48df-847e-f37e6657bf4e" CreationDate="2018-10-09T20:09:22.950" UserId="15489" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claim-amendment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19960" RevisionGUID="b28775d6-d961-46e3-b433-3a6df328bc18" CreationDate="2018-10-10T00:15:26.823" UserId="3076" Text="The implication with withdrawn is that you may seek to re-introduce it later while canceled is cancelled. However, at most points in the process you can enter amendments and an amendment could add a new claim with the exact wording of a previously canceled claim. However, you do not automatically have the right to enter new claims at the end of prosecution. At the point when all (active) claims are allowed, prosecution is done. Amending in a new claim would not be looked at vert favorably, but asking for a withdrawn claim to be considered might fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By far the most substantive ($$) difference is in excess claims calculation. If you file 20 claims, incurring no excess claim fees, and then cancel them all and amend-in 20 new ones you still have no excess claim fees. If, instead, you withdraw them and amend-in 20 new claims you have a total of 40 claims and will pay fees. After you make that filing you will be stuck paying the excess claim fees even if you cancel them the next day." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19960" RevisionGUID="31379715-8010-4a1d-968e-4a2c10f0356a" CreationDate="2018-10-10T04:04:26.970" UserId="3076" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="The implication with withdrawn is that you may seek to re-introduce it later while canceled is cancelled. However, at most points in the process you can enter amendments and an amendment could add a new claim with the exact wording of a previously canceled claim so canceled doesn't mean the wording can't come back. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, you do not automatically have the right to enter new claims at the end of prosecution. At the point when all (active) claims are allowed, prosecution is done. Amending in a new claim would not be looked at vert favorably, but asking for a withdrawn claim to be considered might fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By far the most substantive ($$) difference is in excess claims calculation. If you file 20 claims, incurring no excess claim fees, and then cancel them all and amend-in 20 new ones you still have no excess claim fees. If, instead, you withdraw them and amend-in 20 new claims you have a total of 40 claims and will pay fees. After you make that filing you will be stuck paying the excess claim fees even if you cancel them the next day." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55372" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="daf67f9a-6802-4cb0-8285-f20822dece45" CreationDate="2018-10-10T05:00:27.997" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19961" RevisionGUID="c98dbddd-7cf1-48d9-88fd-43f94d972f66" CreationDate="2018-10-10T09:53:32.847" UserId="21477" Text="Yes, for part A.  No one is required to check for the use of patent or check on the methods they employ, if they unknowingly do it and there is no patent protection for a manufactured product or a patent protection for a method they employ in a place where no protection has ever been.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unclear question, for part B.  If the patent covers the use of the intellectual property being employed under the specifics at hand and the patent is infringed by another, then it is enforceable in a court of competent jurisdiction and is therefore considered &quot;in force,&quot; otherwise the answer is no definitely not.  &#xD;&#xA;---continued on below-----&#xD;&#xA;Whether the party in question who is infringing by some action the intellectual property rights of another is a &quot;regigistered US Company&quot; is immaterial to the real question of infringement as long as the &quot;other party&quot; is a real entity defined by law to be within the jurisdiction of the court of competency who renders the decision and may announce a judgement for which the &quot;other party&quot;  can legally respond.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-straymoment " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19960" RevisionGUID="407752c7-419e-4596-98d0-29dbfa31c1c1" CreationDate="2018-10-10T13:17:37.170" UserId="18618" Comment="typo" Text="The implication with withdrawn is that you may seek to re-introduce it later while canceled is cancelled. However, at most points in the process you can enter amendments and an amendment could add a new claim with the exact wording of a previously canceled claim so canceled doesn't mean the wording can't come back. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, you do not automatically have the right to enter new claims at the end of prosecution. At the point when all (active) claims are allowed, prosecution is done. Amending in a new claim would not be looked at very favorably, but asking for a withdrawn claim to be considered might fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By far the most substantive ($$) difference is in excess claims calculation. If you file 20 claims, incurring no excess claim fees, and then cancel them all and amend-in 20 new ones you still have no excess claim fees. If, instead, you withdraw them and amend-in 20 new claims you have a total of 40 claims and will pay fees. After you make that filing you will be stuck paying the excess claim fees even if you cancel them the next day." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19963" RevisionGUID="e19c5e1e-6a20-413b-a39c-944057e3beda" CreationDate="2018-10-11T13:17:32.970" UserId="21481" Text="I would like to be able to patent the design for an apparatus I made, I don't care about royalties I just want to spread the idea in a citable way that can't be patented by someone else for profit.&#xD;&#xA;Is there an easier way to do this than a regular patent? &#xD;&#xA;I live in Europe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd appreciate any advice, thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55382" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19963" RevisionGUID="e19c5e1e-6a20-413b-a39c-944057e3beda" CreationDate="2018-10-11T13:17:32.970" UserId="21481" Text="Open source patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55383" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19963" RevisionGUID="e19c5e1e-6a20-413b-a39c-944057e3beda" CreationDate="2018-10-11T13:17:32.970" UserId="21481" Text="&lt;open-release&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19964" RevisionGUID="08c90305-c1f1-4aa3-a5b2-e852c24f0604" CreationDate="2018-10-11T14:20:57.803" UserId="21483" Text="I am trying to look into the patent mentioned on this Art Deco: [Original années 1930 Betel motor car-art deco metal][1]. Ebay has sold many  in past bearing the same Patent number.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As can be seen the Patent number is 75086. I searched on [USPTO][2], [ESPACENET][3]  but could not locate any relevant Patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it a  design patent? Where can I get relvant details of this patent ?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ebay.fr/itm/202370752874?ViewItem=&amp;item=202370752874&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=75086&amp;idkey=NONE&amp;homeurl=http%3A%252F%252Fpatft.uspto.gov%252Fnetahtml%252FPTO%252Fpatimg.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?ST=singleline&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;submitted=true&amp;DB=&amp;query=75086&amp;Submit=Search&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2BB19.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55385" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19964" RevisionGUID="08c90305-c1f1-4aa3-a5b2-e852c24f0604" CreationDate="2018-10-11T14:20:57.803" UserId="21483" Text="Unable to get this patent ( number 75086) detail" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55386" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19964" RevisionGUID="08c90305-c1f1-4aa3-a5b2-e852c24f0604" CreationDate="2018-10-11T14:20:57.803" UserId="21483" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55387" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="ddd98892-19c1-4e73-bc5e-a11edffea41c" CreationDate="2018-10-11T15:00:08.700" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55388" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="19963" RevisionGUID="aa7a50c6-1fd9-4dd6-b00d-fa3d79fb346f" CreationDate="2018-10-11T15:50:21.970" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[4582],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="55389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19960" RevisionGUID="54d13de5-a5bf-43f7-a1f9-392f8355b60d" CreationDate="2018-10-11T22:14:06.073" UserId="3076" Comment="added 555 characters in body" Text="The implication with withdrawn is that you may seek to re-introduce it later while canceled is cancelled. However, at most points in the process you can enter amendments and an amendment could add a new claim with the exact wording of a previously canceled claim so canceled doesn't mean the wording can't come back. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, you do not automatically have the right to enter new claims at the end of prosecution. At the point when all (active) claims are allowed, prosecution is done. Amending in a new claim would not be looked at very favorably, but asking for a withdrawn claim to be considered might fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often some of the original claims are to a device and some are to a method of using (or making) that device.  You might have a claim to a genus (independent) and also claims  (dependent) to several species of an invention. You might be required to limit the number of species that will be searched. I would withdraw the claims to species that aren't going to be searched. If you do not get the genus claim, you might get one or  more of the species claims. If you do get the genus claim, you should be able to &quot;un-withdraw&quot; the other dependend claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By far the most substantive ($$) difference is in excess claims calculation. If you file 20 claims, incurring no excess claim fees, and then cancel them all and amend-in 20 new ones you still have no excess claim fees. If, instead, you withdraw them and amend-in 20 new claims you have a total of 40 claims and will pay fees. After you make that filing you will be stuck paying the excess claim fees even if you cancel them the next day." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13989" RevisionGUID="f03e7b3e-11d7-42c2-8d2c-7c6bcd8eb772" CreationDate="2018-10-12T01:19:23.893" UserId="3076" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="Since 2014 Supreme Court decision it became very difficult to patent a web application. But that doesn't prevent anybody from applying for patent. Because patent prosecution could take years. During that time, the applicant can claim &quot;patent pending&quot; status and potentially scare off anybody who is using the idea as there is no way to know for sure if the patent will be granted.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55391" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19965" RevisionGUID="0227b2ff-0850-4f05-940e-896389e1e88e" CreationDate="2018-10-12T05:29:46.820" UserId="21485" Text="My question refers to a search I performed regarding the ownership of the motto, &quot;WHEN YOU'RE HERE, YOU'RE FAMILY&quot; that was at least at one time the motto of Olive Garden restaurants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The part that I'm confused with is that according to several segments of The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon and [a BuzzFeed article][1], the rights to the aforementioned trademark were transferred to Jimmy Fallon sometime in 2013. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as the below image shows, the rights still belong to &quot;Darden Corporation&quot; which is the parent company of Olive Garden.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, in a recent segment (Oct 2018) of The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon, he transfers the rights of the trademark to Post Malone. Refer to [this YouTube video][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess my second question is, how does one determine the legal ownership of a trademark if the USPTO search doesn't return updated information?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.buzzfeed.com/theprincessmo/olive-garden-officially-gives-jimmy-fallon-its-slo-amb4&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OXFtw.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_uSZcXMV7s&amp;t=392" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55392" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19965" RevisionGUID="0227b2ff-0850-4f05-940e-896389e1e88e" CreationDate="2018-10-12T05:29:46.820" UserId="21485" Text="Is the trademark search feature on USPTO.gov (http://tmsearch.uspto.gov) accurate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55393" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19965" RevisionGUID="0227b2ff-0850-4f05-940e-896389e1e88e" CreationDate="2018-10-12T05:29:46.820" UserId="21485" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;search&gt;&lt;trademark&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19966" RevisionGUID="2f701ab5-7ae6-429c-97f9-7bcdd3f422b9" CreationDate="2018-10-12T09:50:08.553" UserId="18033" Text="&gt;How does one determine the legal ownership of a trademark?&#xA;&#xA;Same as with patents. You don't.&#xA;&#xA;There is no obligation to register a change in ownership with the uspto (or epo,...). &#xA;&#xA;You can ask the owner and if someone attacks you with a patent/trademark at least in court you might be able to gather evidence in discovery to judge if the other side actually owns the patent/trademark. But other than that, you can't know.&#xA;&#xA;Which is “okay“ because you're supposed to not infringe no matter who it belongs to and licenses can't just go away without the licencee knowing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55395" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="e1ffcf1b-3ec3-4147-971a-cdc8fe140535" CreationDate="2018-10-13T04:01:07.563" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19967" RevisionGUID="c181c9ba-beca-4304-8772-3681c5a28fe2" CreationDate="2018-10-13T05:34:57.957" UserId="3076" Text="With small exceptions, infringing a U.S. patent requires infringement within the US. An infringement could include making, selling, offering for sale, using and importing. Anyone can make a US patented item outside of the US and sell it outside the US without infringing the US patent. It doesn't matter one way or the other that a company is registered, headquartered, or traded in the US. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55397" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16615" RevisionGUID="d7852613-0e76-4ae2-b04a-ad3017e1d3fc" CreationDate="2018-10-13T06:00:34.420" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55398" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16336" RevisionGUID="6c7cdfbe-9819-400b-8b22-2ecd80703513" CreationDate="2018-10-13T07:00:30.770" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55399" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13334" RevisionGUID="a534db69-dad7-4a28-9476-4ed38cf4dbca" CreationDate="2018-10-13T09:00:13.250" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55400" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="b65346d8-172c-4830-84f2-2c21bbeb1c7b" CreationDate="2018-10-13T11:00:24.197" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55401" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19114" RevisionGUID="ce96b9d2-2c5e-4d2e-887e-2b0c78848a3c" CreationDate="2018-10-13T12:00:34.467" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19968" RevisionGUID="4eb8885f-affd-469c-8a55-7a8a6064aaef" CreationDate="2018-10-13T15:02:52.673" UserId="21487" Text="&quot;Quick Fix&quot; isn't new at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Various editors have had this for a long time for a variety of languages (XML and otherwise). The oldest reference I found in 5 minutes of Googling was some documentation about how to implement Quick Fix for your programming language in Eclipse IDE (2009; https://wiki.eclipse.org/FAQ_How_do_I_implement_Quick_Fixes_for_my_own_language%3F).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eclipse has been doing all of the above for ages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Detect an error: check&#xD;&#xA; 2. Display the location and the error: check&#xD;&#xA; 3. Compute possible remedies: check&#xD;&#xA; 4. Display information about the error: check&#xD;&#xA; 5. Displaying possible remedies: check&#xD;&#xA; 6. Having the user select a remedy: check&#xD;&#xA; 7. Actually fix the error: check (Eclipse offers a lot more options than just replacing the error with a fix, though)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The information about the error must contain the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. A link to the location of the error: check&#xD;&#xA; 2. A link to the definition on the corresponding schema: not necessarily available in Eclipse. Depends on the implementation of the QuickFixer.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Links to information in the W3C specification: For Java, this is usually a link to the relevant JavaDoc or whatever the equivalent of that is in the language being edited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between the functionality that has been patented and the long existing prior art seems to be providing links to XML Schema and W3C standards. Since existing Quick Fix functionality already provides for links to documentation, I cannot understand how this could in any way be described as &quot;new&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though this isn't patenting &quot;Auto Correct&quot; in general, it is narrowing a long existing functionality (instead of for various languages, it's just XML now) and calling that new. My common sense tells me this patent is completely invalid. Common sense, however, rarely factors in to patent lawsuits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Altova is suing Oxygen XML over this specific patent, for example. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19968" RevisionGUID="f2662acf-b545-4397-9344-e40cb60f7473" CreationDate="2018-10-13T15:08:41.713" UserId="21487" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="&quot;Quick Fix&quot; isn't new at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Various editors have had this for a long time for a variety of languages (XML and otherwise). The oldest reference I found in 5 minutes of Googling was some documentation about how to implement Quick Fix for your programming language in Eclipse IDE (2009; https://wiki.eclipse.org/FAQ_How_do_I_implement_Quick_Fixes_for_my_own_language%3F).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eclipse has been doing all of the above for ages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Detect an error: check&#xD;&#xA; 2. Display the location and the error: check&#xD;&#xA; 3. Compute possible remedies: check&#xD;&#xA; 4. Display information about the error: check&#xD;&#xA; 5. Displaying possible remedies: check&#xD;&#xA; 6. Having the user select a remedy: check&#xD;&#xA; 7. Actually fix the error: check (Eclipse offers a lot more options than just replacing the error with a fix, though)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The information about the error must contain the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. A link to the location of the error: check&#xD;&#xA; 2. A link to the definition on the corresponding schema: not necessarily available in Eclipse. Depends on the implementation of the QuickFixer.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Links to information in the W3C specification: For Java, this is usually a link to the relevant JavaDoc or whatever the equivalent of that is in the language being edited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between the functionality that has been patented and the long existing prior art seems to be providing links to XML Schema and W3C standards. Since existing Quick Fix functionality already provides for links to documentation, I cannot understand how this could in any way be described as &quot;new&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though this isn't patenting &quot;Auto Correct&quot; in general, it is narrowing a long existing functionality (instead of for various languages, it's just XML now) and calling that new. My common sense tells me this patent is trivial. The functionality itself is not, but this patent was filed long after many IDEs had already been offering Quick Fix functionality for years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Altova is suing Oxygen XML over this specific patent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19968" RevisionGUID="91f9014c-6efa-4195-86df-9da07c0690b7" CreationDate="2018-10-13T15:25:11.487" UserId="21487" Comment="added 185 characters in body" Text="&quot;Quick Fix&quot; isn't new at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Various editors have had this for a long time for a variety of languages (XML and otherwise). The oldest reference I found in 5 minutes of Googling was some documentation about how to implement Quick Fix for your programming language in Eclipse IDE (2009; https://wiki.eclipse.org/FAQ_How_do_I_implement_Quick_Fixes_for_my_own_language%3F).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eclipse has been doing all of the above for ages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Detect an error: check&#xD;&#xA; 2. Display the location and the error: check&#xD;&#xA; 3. Compute possible remedies: check&#xD;&#xA; 4. Display information about the error: check&#xD;&#xA; 5. Displaying possible remedies: check&#xD;&#xA; 6. Having the user select a remedy: check&#xD;&#xA; 7. Actually fix the error: check (Eclipse offers a lot more options than just replacing the error with a fix, though)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The information about the error must contain the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. A link to the location of the error: check&#xD;&#xA; 2. A link to the definition on the corresponding schema: not necessarily available in Eclipse. Depends on the implementation of the QuickFixer.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Links to information in the W3C specification: For Java, this is usually a link to the relevant JavaDoc or whatever the equivalent of that is in the language being edited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between the functionality that has been patented and the long existing prior art seems to be providing links to XML Schema and W3C standards. Since existing Quick Fix functionality already provides for links to documentation, I cannot understand how this could in any way be described as &quot;new&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though this isn't patenting &quot;Auto Correct&quot; in general, it is narrowing a long existing functionality (instead of for various languages, it's just XML now) and calling that new. My common sense tells me this patent is trivial. The functionality itself is not, but this patent was filed long after many IDEs had already been offering Quick Fix functionality for years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[edit]&#xD;&#xA;After searching around a little more, I found the patent [7657832 - Correcting validation errors in structured documents](https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/7657832) as a pretty clear example of prior art from 2003.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55405" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19809" RevisionGUID="fe1d85d3-ebda-4c56-a00f-1562e4ff5b81" CreationDate="2018-10-14T00:00:12.140" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55406" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19296" RevisionGUID="2a58ae3d-1ad7-4885-8c57-eacdb01b7602" CreationDate="2018-10-14T01:00:05.260" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55407" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12961" RevisionGUID="ea375057-9f21-42cf-9e4b-8d7436fdeb9d" CreationDate="2018-10-14T02:00:11.923" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55408" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17307" RevisionGUID="2935b3a7-d5c6-4e31-8596-a70a5f050922" CreationDate="2018-10-14T03:00:22.590" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55409" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17472" RevisionGUID="182c323f-f9f3-484d-be8f-6053d0e4ba4f" CreationDate="2018-10-14T06:00:22.027" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55410" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19863" RevisionGUID="4766a406-1276-42a1-af73-a637e4b1fedf" CreationDate="2018-10-14T09:00:11.690" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19969" RevisionGUID="f3cc4a12-658d-4081-a834-c5692b955fd4" CreationDate="2018-10-14T16:05:45.927" UserId="15489" Text="I have an allowed patent application and am working on a continuation. There is material in the specification that I _think_ supports a further development of the original invention, so I'm drafting claims, but I wonder: if there is a genuine new invention which is encapsulated and described in the claims, but the examiner doesn't think the original specification provides enough support for the idea, what happens?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55412" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19969" RevisionGUID="f3cc4a12-658d-4081-a834-c5692b955fd4" CreationDate="2018-10-14T16:05:45.927" UserId="15489" Text="What happens if there is not enough support in the specification for a continuation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55413" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19969" RevisionGUID="f3cc4a12-658d-4081-a834-c5692b955fd4" CreationDate="2018-10-14T16:05:45.927" UserId="15489" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;continuation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55414" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19881" RevisionGUID="9e78b690-abe1-46d0-8596-207811a9ff50" CreationDate="2018-10-14T18:00:24.007" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19970" RevisionGUID="64a322fd-0b08-48d4-a8b6-73632bbbfe5b" CreationDate="2018-10-15T04:34:09.717" UserId="3076" Text="You will get a lack of enablement or lack of written description rejection under 35 USC 112. At that point you can argue or amend the claims or abandon the application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55416" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18261" RevisionGUID="930a2ce8-8f14-45e1-9a63-de364a7398ca" CreationDate="2018-10-15T06:00:21.737" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55417" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17844" RevisionGUID="368221e7-723e-488d-995a-818484b56423" CreationDate="2018-10-15T13:00:16.520" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55418" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18971" RevisionGUID="fa00aa15-266d-4d7c-9640-4ab47afb8af2" CreationDate="2018-10-15T23:00:02.120" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19971" RevisionGUID="98d9daf2-b03b-4394-9da5-69f553f584ef" CreationDate="2018-10-16T08:11:22.513" UserId="18849" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2018177447A1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2018177447A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did the applicant apply for patent in USA Patent? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55420" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19971" RevisionGUID="98d9daf2-b03b-4394-9da5-69f553f584ef" CreationDate="2018-10-16T08:11:22.513" UserId="18849" Text="USA Patent Office" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55421" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19971" RevisionGUID="98d9daf2-b03b-4394-9da5-69f553f584ef" CreationDate="2018-10-16T08:11:22.513" UserId="18849" Text="&lt;wo2018177447a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19972" RevisionGUID="f61daf3d-e9b5-4e11-81ec-1b8cea178ef6" CreationDate="2018-10-16T14:50:04.230" UserId="17003" Text="The cited document is an application, not a patent. It may or may not ever get granted. That said, I followed the link to Espacenet and clicked on the [INPADOC patent family link][1]. There does not seem to be a USA equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?CC=WO&amp;NR=2018177447A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=20181004&amp;DB=&amp;locale=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55423" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="b4c3896d-0b60-4a89-be2c-52bc5ea87476" CreationDate="2018-10-17T05:00:11.903" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55424" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17865" RevisionGUID="6df79ca6-7d26-4aeb-976d-68853f88d9da" CreationDate="2018-10-17T08:00:47.053" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19973" RevisionGUID="61004b41-7102-4cc5-9a86-cbe3e67de696" CreationDate="2018-10-17T16:29:05.833" UserId="21496" Text="I have a business plan for selling apparel over the Internet, with unique features that distinguish this idea from other sites.before to  patent this idea in the wipo , i can tell about particularity with the investor or its mistake.&#xD;&#xA;thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55426" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19973" RevisionGUID="61004b41-7102-4cc5-9a86-cbe3e67de696" CreationDate="2018-10-17T16:29:05.833" UserId="21496" Text="can i tell about Ideas details before patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55427" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19973" RevisionGUID="61004b41-7102-4cc5-9a86-cbe3e67de696" CreationDate="2018-10-17T16:29:05.833" UserId="21496" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55428" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19973" RevisionGUID="3dba7087-e85d-413f-b7d2-7561034ed93c" CreationDate="2018-10-17T18:37:56.577" UserId="1" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;public-disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19974" RevisionGUID="d06eb451-7312-4bac-8b79-12d155a23ccd" CreationDate="2018-10-17T23:42:05.263" UserId="17003" Text="You must avoid public disclosure of your idea before filing a patent application. The usual method of doing this when talking to potential investors is a confidentiality agreement. Have a confidentiality agreement drafted and have both parties sign before disclosure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19975" RevisionGUID="2e0ff451-6cd8-4d01-ae60-b9b617373a74" CreationDate="2018-10-18T01:40:24.513" UserId="14403" Text="The application has US as designated state. Priority date for the application is 31.03.2017. Hence, probability of this application entering US in National Phase after completion of two years from priority date as 371 application still persists even though it has not entered US as yet.	&#xD;&#xA;May check [WIPO][1] for National Phase status.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2018177447&amp;redirectedID=true" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55431" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="a9ea5c1c-f332-4dce-9743-f6b00cc3c2d2" CreationDate="2018-10-18T03:01:25.387" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55433" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19823" RevisionGUID="970f3723-adea-41c7-a9c5-364bdeae5e70" CreationDate="2018-10-19T00:00:57.803" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55434" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19813" RevisionGUID="8e8e80e6-d0b4-4bd6-b7e9-dcccb29f7916" CreationDate="2018-10-19T15:00:23.357" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55436" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="87f939ff-de8d-42d2-8624-0e47da02c2d0" CreationDate="2018-10-20T08:00:50.830" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19977" RevisionGUID="d9b133b4-4615-46ba-99ec-53c88aba12e9" CreationDate="2018-10-20T12:11:38.053" UserId="21503" Text="When having multiple figures of the same device from different point of view (from left side, front side etc.), should we use the same numbers for the same parts, or number them again? And should we describe them again when describing new image?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55438" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19977" RevisionGUID="d9b133b4-4615-46ba-99ec-53c88aba12e9" CreationDate="2018-10-20T12:11:38.053" UserId="21503" Text="multiple figures of the same device - should parts be described again?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55439" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19977" RevisionGUID="d9b133b4-4615-46ba-99ec-53c88aba12e9" CreationDate="2018-10-20T12:11:38.053" UserId="21503" Text="&lt;patent-figures&gt;&lt;number&gt;&lt;numbering&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55440" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19902" RevisionGUID="2d3bf155-c1ac-440e-ade9-0efea608a908" CreationDate="2018-10-21T22:00:46.793" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19978" RevisionGUID="de6efa3e-ba9a-46dc-a7d8-f4bc57133fb6" CreationDate="2018-10-21T22:09:24.277" UserId="3076" Text="You need to use the same number for the same part in all drawings that show and number that part. Furthermore, the parts should be named. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All springs, for example, would **not** have the same number. Different springs probably have different characteristics and roles so they would get different numbers. In addressing each figure you might say, &quot;FIG. 2 shows an exploded view of the apparatus of FIG. 1 and shows more clearly that the main spring 10 is connected to the left peg 11.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19915" RevisionGUID="3bb39320-0834-4a19-9333-4fad769912bc" CreationDate="2018-10-21T22:33:35.883" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="If the first outside presentation was more than a year ago and you didn't at least say - &quot;this is my confidential information, please keep it to yourselves&quot;, it would most likely be considered, in the words of 35 USC 102, &quot;available to the public&quot;  and therefore not patentable in the U.S. As a generalization, most places in the world do not have a grace period but also have different rules about what constitutes a breaking of novelty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55443" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18328" RevisionGUID="b66e91e8-9295-4aee-82d4-e43e7791a6a4" CreationDate="2018-10-22T00:00:46.690" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55444" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="107d5fda-fd80-4709-9485-bd9313a925e8" CreationDate="2018-10-22T04:00:48.143" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55446" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="a72eab7c-82d1-4eb1-98f6-fbcde4f04657" CreationDate="2018-10-22T17:01:29.083" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19979" RevisionGUID="4b5e305d-feb5-48ab-aac3-b23e00ba2e1f" CreationDate="2018-10-22T22:16:09.060" UserId="21507" Text="Along with this questions. What difference does it make if you reference an independent claim directly or indirectly though another dependent claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55448" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19979" RevisionGUID="4b5e305d-feb5-48ab-aac3-b23e00ba2e1f" CreationDate="2018-10-22T22:16:09.060" UserId="21507" Text="Should a dependent claim only referrence another dependent claim if it depends on it's new subject matter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55449" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19979" RevisionGUID="4b5e305d-feb5-48ab-aac3-b23e00ba2e1f" CreationDate="2018-10-22T22:16:09.060" UserId="21507" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;independent&gt;&lt;reference&gt;&lt;dependent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19979" RevisionGUID="2c5290b1-96a6-4881-ad5a-39651d165a96" CreationDate="2018-10-22T22:34:17.640" UserId="21507" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Along with this question. What difference does it make if you reference an independent claim directly or indirectly though another dependent claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19979" RevisionGUID="3fdfa72b-da41-43dc-a621-472939cc921e" CreationDate="2018-10-22T22:53:41.667" UserId="21507" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="Along with this question.  What difference does it make if you reference an independent claim directly or indirectly though another dependent claim?  Is it ever necessary to state &quot;as claimed in any one of the preceding claims&quot; or &quot;as claimed in either one of claims 1 or 2, etc&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks,&#xD;&#xA;Helmuth" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19979" RevisionGUID="feb2d7ca-4cbd-43a1-b9c1-170690d4db7e" CreationDate="2018-10-22T23:22:16.867" UserId="21507" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Along with this question.  What difference does it make if you reference an independent claim directly or indirectly through another dependent claim?  Is it ever necessary to state &quot;as claimed in any one of the preceding claims&quot; or &quot;as claimed in either one of claims 1 or 2, etc.&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks,&#xD;&#xA;Helmuth" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55453" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18155" RevisionGUID="7f47a293-f1ab-4874-b772-0d48d05fa560" CreationDate="2018-10-23T01:00:29.413" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19980" RevisionGUID="7d3c6372-935c-4c60-b71f-5958f7f37932" CreationDate="2018-10-23T04:42:39.573" UserId="3076" Text="A dependent claim references either an independent claim or a previous dependent claim. Note, in the U.S. multiply dependent claims &quot;&quot;as claimed in a**ny one of the preceding claims**&quot; or &quot;as claimed in **either one of claims 1 or 2**, etc.&quot; is strongly discouraged. The opposite is true in the EPO and many other places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A dependent claim inherits all of the limitations in the independent claim at its base **and** any and all of the dependent claims in its path back to that independent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If claim 1 says &quot;an apparatus comprising A&quot;&#xD;&#xA;and claim 2 says&quot; the apparatus of claim 1 further comprising a B&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming claim 3 is going to be about including a C. If you say claim 3 is &quot;The apparatus of claim 1 further comprising a C&quot;, then something with an A and a C will infringe claim 3 whether or not it has a B. If, instead claim 3 is &quot;The apparatus of claim 2 further comprising a C&quot;, then to infringe claim 3 an item will need to have an A, a B, and a C. It just depends what you are trying to achieve with the claim.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19980" RevisionGUID="67cf3bac-d73f-4dc4-bfb4-7acc869fb2a4" CreationDate="2018-10-23T04:50:57.860" UserId="3076" Comment="edited body" Text="A dependent claim references either an independent claim or a previous dependent claim. Note, in the U.S. multiply dependent claims &quot;&quot;as claimed in **any one of the preceding claims**&quot; or &quot;as claimed in **either one of claims 1 or 2**, etc.&quot; is strongly discouraged. The opposite is true in the EPO and many other places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A dependent claim inherits all of the limitations in the independent claim at its base **and** any and all of the dependent claims in its path back to that independent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If claim 1 says &quot;an apparatus comprising A&quot;&#xD;&#xA;and claim 2 says&quot; the apparatus of claim 1 further comprising a B&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume claim 3 is going to be about including a C. If you say claim 3 is &quot;The apparatus of claim 1 further comprising a C&quot;, then something with an A and a C will infringe claim 3 whether or not it has a B. If, instead, claim 3 is &quot;The apparatus of claim 2 further comprising a C&quot;, then to infringe claim 3 an item will need to have an A, a B, and a C. It just depends what you are trying to achieve with the claim. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19981" RevisionGUID="343870c7-263e-4ce7-a371-060dbdad8aed" CreationDate="2018-10-23T05:32:01.003" UserId="21508" Text="Can you still get your patent granted when they issued an advisory action? I'm curious as to what comes next. I've amended claims in the first office action and the final office action. The examiner has been late to respond but I responded on time within what they allow. Now I'm curious why I just got this advisory action! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55457" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19981" RevisionGUID="343870c7-263e-4ce7-a371-060dbdad8aed" CreationDate="2018-10-23T05:32:01.003" UserId="21508" Text="Advisory action/utility patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55458" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19981" RevisionGUID="343870c7-263e-4ce7-a371-060dbdad8aed" CreationDate="2018-10-23T05:32:01.003" UserId="21508" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19982" RevisionGUID="992c3b3b-27c8-4c52-a044-0f6d7f12bf03" CreationDate="2018-10-23T17:38:26.123" UserId="3076" Text="An Advisory Action is to explain to you why your after-final amendment or argument or affidavit did not put your application into a state of allowance. You can appeal, try to get an interview with the examiner, file a continuation application or let it go abandoned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19983" RevisionGUID="aa22044f-bdc5-4d5a-a1a1-2cdefe2f4be9" CreationDate="2018-10-23T18:58:35.650" UserDisplayName="user21511" Text="I have an idea in my head and I know how it will work. I can write about it in detail along with diagrams. But the problem is I don't know how to code. Can I file a patent for it with this much detail or do I need a programmer to write some sort prototype code for the app ? &#xD;&#xA;Thanks in Advance.&#xD;&#xA;Pratiek." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55461" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19983" RevisionGUID="aa22044f-bdc5-4d5a-a1a1-2cdefe2f4be9" CreationDate="2018-10-23T18:58:35.650" UserDisplayName="user21511" Text="Is coding knowledge required to file a patent for an app?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55462" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19983" RevisionGUID="aa22044f-bdc5-4d5a-a1a1-2cdefe2f4be9" CreationDate="2018-10-23T18:58:35.650" UserDisplayName="user21511" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;code&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19984" RevisionGUID="ce764234-6377-49ce-954f-c68a0ecddf70" CreationDate="2018-10-23T20:36:31.263" UserId="3076" Text="&quot;Do not know how to make it&quot; is a fatal statement in a patent application. You need to explain how to make and use the invention. However, patents involving software or other methods generally have flowcharts. If you can explain it in words that describe the actions specified by a set of flowcharts, then you can explain it. The flowcharts need to be such that a programmer could implement it without making any other invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55464" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="a7b8eeb2-e747-4de3-b636-6726cc30ab29" CreationDate="2018-10-23T22:00:48.123" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55465" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19849" RevisionGUID="ff939137-a8b7-46bb-9919-c2cd7b773916" CreationDate="2018-10-24T13:00:54.890" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19985" RevisionGUID="58b30b25-9664-4b97-b22e-46da601ddadf" CreationDate="2018-10-24T21:27:09.023" UserId="3076" Text="The content can be the same. There may be different formatting rules between your country's requirements and the requirements of the PCT. Your country may very well have adopted the PCT format requirements. In the US, there are small differences - page number locations that are allowed that are not allowed in a PCT application, for example. The PCT is also more strict on the format of drawings than the U.S. You say you might wait for good news on the national application before filing elsewhere. That makes sense if you are talking about entering the national stage via the PCT application. You will have at least 30 months to do that after the date of your first (local) filing. If you want to apply to locations that are not part of the PCT (Argentina and Taiwan for example) that would need to be done within a year of that first filing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55467" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17720" RevisionGUID="df63249e-ff4b-433c-8bb3-5d0af1a0922c" CreationDate="2018-10-25T06:00:41.447" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55468" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="77ae6f41-74e4-4d13-89ba-d720f977f67b" CreationDate="2018-10-25T08:00:27.317" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55469" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19727" RevisionGUID="b0b196e6-673f-4d76-bcb5-f9794ba2cece" CreationDate="2018-10-25T15:00:37.830" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55470" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="eaf8fa43-57ea-46f6-a009-d78495bb72e8" CreationDate="2018-10-26T01:00:05.097" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55471" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18540" RevisionGUID="dd02ffe4-0b61-44ab-b498-30ffcf5cbb38" CreationDate="2018-10-26T03:01:48.070" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55472" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18600" RevisionGUID="d0c45305-b458-4ba9-9597-97911225c4b4" CreationDate="2018-10-26T06:00:02.550" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55476" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="97d4901c-5be9-4b60-a25d-161c1241caed" CreationDate="2018-10-26T12:01:01.693" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18541" RevisionGUID="7659d15c-aec3-4897-b071-b83dd2d6d6e2" CreationDate="2018-10-26T14:04:06.403" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="US6910697 is still active and will continue to be until December 15th of 2020. It really doesn't matter if you think you thought of this idea first, someone else procured the patent before you did. When this patent does expire, you can not just get your own patent for the same idea. The whole idea behind patents is that in exchange for teaching the world how to use your invention, you get a limited term of exclusivity. **After the patent expires, anyone can utilize the technology**. You may be able to get a patent on an improvement to the technology in this patent. However, you need to be aware that there may be other patents that are relevant. One good way to start looking into this is the [patent citations][1] link and the [referenced by][2] link of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6910697#backward-citations&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6910697#forward-citations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19760" RevisionGUID="30e129e0-2470-4452-90d5-a55041bc1055" CreationDate="2018-10-26T21:37:19.033" UserId="17003" Comment="Embedding a link would improve this answer... so I did!" Text="As per [wipo.int/pct/guide/en/gdvol2/annexes/us.pdf][1] pages 14-15 (US 39 and 40) your understanding seems correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since comments are not of permanent nature, I have opted to put my previous comment as an Answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/pct/guide/en/gdvol2/annexes/us.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55479" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19877" RevisionGUID="c95a710d-13d5-4c22-8663-2ff207466f84" CreationDate="2018-10-27T01:00:49.817" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55480" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16606" RevisionGUID="b2855fb3-e86a-4c5a-8111-2829fa47c1bc" CreationDate="2018-10-27T10:00:02.193" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55481" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="38d1e8c9-6bbd-48ed-95c4-c89217811080" CreationDate="2018-10-27T13:00:30.577" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55482" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="44bbb6aa-a0f3-4662-8058-436811588358" CreationDate="2018-10-27T20:00:37.677" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55483" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16450" RevisionGUID="4367fb33-baac-47c7-af80-a0ab6a3ca0a1" CreationDate="2018-10-28T07:00:44.610" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55484" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18185" RevisionGUID="e98d0dc1-0da2-451b-967e-cb2bfa92607a" CreationDate="2018-10-28T08:00:03.140" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55485" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="7f915351-1180-4522-af97-9a70b4c0a9f0" CreationDate="2018-10-28T09:00:56.607" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55486" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="3403f03a-1ca8-4587-8acb-04a7e4cf47fc" CreationDate="2018-10-28T17:00:56.327" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55487" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="d8d7a41b-c88a-4106-ba00-a418e3bde913" CreationDate="2018-10-28T19:00:40.230" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55488" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14883" RevisionGUID="105ec9a1-e9f8-41bf-8a27-0d4ba7baf334" CreationDate="2018-10-28T21:00:41.497" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55490" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19861" RevisionGUID="a6e11413-bf1e-49bf-988f-7b19c0111018" CreationDate="2018-10-29T20:01:02.837" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55491" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="2111151f-533c-417a-8354-76f8e2f419b7" CreationDate="2018-10-30T01:00:43.677" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55492" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6476" RevisionGUID="d659baeb-0377-4603-b6c5-878d24414f6f" CreationDate="2018-10-30T04:00:45.730" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19987" RevisionGUID="172f4601-9fb1-4933-bdf0-86627a31e001" CreationDate="2018-10-30T06:53:18.263" UserId="21524" Text="You didn't write which country you are living in. I cannot tell you about the situation in the United States but only about the situation in Germany which seems to be similar in many countries of the European Union.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here some software-based method can only be patented if the method solves a &quot;technical&quot; problem. This means that the method provides a new solution for a problem in the field of engineering (while software development itself does not count as &quot;engineering&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you invent a software that is capable to prevent overheating of a CPU, the function principle of this software may be patentable (in Germany) because it solves a &quot;technical&quot; problem: The problem that electronic components may be destroyed by overheating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example for non-patentable software is cited in the [German Wikipedia][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The software in an expensive medical device in a hospital is doing some calculations; based on these calculations it can predict if buying a second device makes sense for the hospital or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A court decided that this patent is void because this invention does not solve a problem in the field of engineering but a problem in the field of economics. The problem solved is: It is difficult to calculate if investing money makes sense or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However (in Germany) you can only patent inventions that solve a problem in the field of engineering; you cannot patent inventions solving other kinds of problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former owner of the patent of course had payed the patent fees before; this money was lost!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not being an expert I doubt that your invention solves a problem in the field of engineering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softwarepatent#Deutschland" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6482" RevisionGUID="d8c97a35-2320-4b74-a78e-4c9c2edbb8fa" CreationDate="2018-10-31T01:30:59.000" UserId="3076" Comment="edited to factor in my comment." Text="There are several characteristics that a patent office will look at to determine whether the invention is patentable. These are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Novelty&#xD;&#xA; 2. Inventive Step/Non-Obviousness&#xD;&#xA; 3. Industrial Applicability/Utility&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should also have a patentable subject matter. &#xD;&#xA;You can search your innovation in the existing patent ([Google Patent Search][1] or http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/index.html/) list. If there is no existing patent, published application, or other published document predating your application, then yes it is patentable. But it must pass all predefined test to get patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55495" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17769" RevisionGUID="e104e155-ca09-4849-93cf-d4efaefc52f3" CreationDate="2018-10-31T05:00:35.010" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55496" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="47f67a73-a750-4838-bd14-ee851c450fce" CreationDate="2018-10-31T16:00:34.890" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55497" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19778" RevisionGUID="d3ca995a-b2b3-416b-8b0c-c28c1d54051a" CreationDate="2018-10-31T21:00:48.993" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55498" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19229" RevisionGUID="95dac8ee-c818-4546-bf27-2069a399878a" CreationDate="2018-11-01T06:00:45.957" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55499" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19051" RevisionGUID="52ee10c2-4a63-4162-8642-8ec4d0705de9" CreationDate="2018-11-01T08:00:25.647" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55500" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19654" RevisionGUID="39a0cfb9-7dd4-497f-aa50-7a786a3b0f6f" CreationDate="2018-11-01T15:00:48.190" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55501" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19473" RevisionGUID="9c7fe79d-5c3d-405e-bb90-a1359d38392d" CreationDate="2018-11-01T16:00:42.183" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55502" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18941" RevisionGUID="3e041490-1940-4fa0-b624-5549f1e74f4d" CreationDate="2018-11-01T20:00:37.697" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55503" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19242" RevisionGUID="1df1eede-eec0-4d6a-9fc9-2b4ee0c4be5f" CreationDate="2018-11-01T23:00:41.833" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55504" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="ca087f4e-0069-44b7-a6d3-16f71699ae73" CreationDate="2018-11-02T01:00:16.283" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55505" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19227" RevisionGUID="9b33f92b-3ee6-433c-a68d-d683604f1035" CreationDate="2018-11-02T02:00:28.510" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19988" RevisionGUID="6db71668-df7a-40cc-ac8a-fb95168a3cc5" CreationDate="2018-11-02T14:37:17.087" UserId="21534" Text="Please forgive me for a round-about answer. As a professional in this field i hear this question a lot. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a most basic level, you cannot get a patent on an idea. You get a patent which covers certain implementations of the idea. This sounds like a quibble, but in the US, for example, if you did somehow manage to cover all possible implementations of an idea, the patent can be found invalid for that reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moving one level up, &quot;can one get a patent on a method implemented using a  computer?&quot; The answer is sometimes yes and sometimes no and depending on the country. The USPTO is quite confused and the issue is evolving. This link is a list of analysed examples posted by the USPTO, some considered eligible and some not: [https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-bus-meth-exs-dec2016.pdf][1]. There is lots more where that comes from, like [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moving another level up - one job of a patent professional is to figure out how to get you a patent in spite of the obstacles placed by the law and the prior art. So answer is usually &quot;yes&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, i think what you really meant to ask is: &quot;Can i get a useful patent?&quot; or even &quot;useful IP protection&quot;. This is a very fact specific question and involves a multiprong analysis, including: (a) how and where IP protection would help your business and (b) what IP protection is possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The JPO (Japan) has a different and somewhat clearer [take][3] on the matter, see especially page 7, section (2). But the issues remains very country dependent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-bus-meth-exs-dec2016.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.jpo.go.jp/tetuzuki_e/t_tokkyo_e/files_guidelines_e/03_0100_e.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55507" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17587" RevisionGUID="3ca6118d-bb38-41c7-8759-18fb5e8ba1ae" CreationDate="2018-11-02T22:00:39.053" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55508" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18211" RevisionGUID="d71542d1-0142-4444-9c23-5bb2f33fad0a" CreationDate="2018-11-03T01:00:28.840" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55509" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18821" RevisionGUID="29ab9f21-4fd2-41d7-8a22-747eda64b9f9" CreationDate="2018-11-03T02:00:35.143" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19988" RevisionGUID="b003dcd4-7a81-411b-8afc-3c9bda5de26e" CreationDate="2018-11-03T16:57:01.567" UserId="21534" Comment="adding more about idea vs. implementation" Text="Please forgive me for a round-about answer. As a professional in this field i hear this question a lot. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a most basic level, you cannot get a patent on an idea. You get a patent which covers certain implementations of the idea. This sounds like a quibble, but in the US, for example, if you did somehow manage to cover all possible implementations of an idea, the patent can be found invalid for that reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moving one level up, &quot;can one get a patent on a method implemented using a  computer?&quot; The answer is sometimes yes and sometimes no and depending on the country. The USPTO is quite confused and the issue is evolving. This link is a list of analysed examples posted by the USPTO, some considered eligible and some not: [https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-bus-meth-exs-dec2016.pdf][1]. There is lots more where that comes from, like [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moving another level up - one job of a patent professional is to figure out how to get you a patent in spite of the obstacles placed by the law and the prior art. So answer is usually &quot;yes&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, i think what you really meant to ask is: &quot;Can i get a useful patent?&quot; or even &quot;useful IP protection&quot;. This is a very fact specific question and involves a multiprong analysis, including: (a) how and where IP protection would help your business and (b) what IP protection is possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The JPO (Japan) has a different and somewhat clearer [take][3] on the matter, see especially page 7, section (2). But the issues remains very country dependent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per the comment(s), a bit about difference between idea and implementation. This issue is at the heart of the &quot;abstract idea&quot; problem in the US, regarding software related inventions. Personally, i find that it is a continuum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you read the [law][4], you get a patent on a process or a machine, etc., not on the idea of one. When drafting a patent application you want to claim as abstractly as you can get away with. why? Well, I call this the central dilemma of patents: **The application gives away the idea and the patent protects only some implementations thereof**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at it this way - if somebody copies your idea (whatever that means) but provides a different implementation, do you think your patent should have covered it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: you file a patent on a method of filtering out customers by age and somebody else filters by shoe size or height (a reasonably good proxy for child/adult distinction), is it the same idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when drafting a patent application you would ideally want to identify the abstract ideas behind the implementation, and then try to cover all commercially valuable implementations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why does all this matter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) If you ask a patent attorney to file a patent for your implementation, he will. Possibly to your detriment.&#xD;&#xA;(2) If you want to protect your idea, you need to identify it, understand its ramifications and protect the implementation(s) of that.&#xD;&#xA;(3) You have to assume you will not figure out all the implementations or ramifications of your idea&#xD;&#xA;(4) Chances are, you do not really understand your idea in all its glory, so it will not be perfectly protected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note re computer related inventions: if you describe and claim &quot;f=a+b&quot;, it possibly will not cover &quot;f=b+a&quot;, even though they are mathematically equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Final note (i hope). A patent is a like a cookbook. Somebody reading it should be able to follow the recipe and get the result. But the law **intends** that the same somebody be inspired by the cookbook and only gives you protection for the particular recipes **actually** described in the cookbook. In patent terms, protection is **only** for recipes or families of recipes as described and some amount of equivalents and recipes with additional ingredients, but not for other recipes that were inspired by reading the cookbook but use different ingredients.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-bus-meth-exs-dec2016.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.jpo.go.jp/tetuzuki_e/t_tokkyo_e/files_guidelines_e/03_0100_e.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/101" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55511" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19689" RevisionGUID="5cb3f291-f29b-4384-934a-8a2bcd7c387a" CreationDate="2018-11-03T18:00:35.593" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19989" RevisionGUID="1a12bbe6-2463-4889-be7a-2b96551384dd" CreationDate="2018-11-03T18:06:10.563" UserId="21534" Text="The QPIDS is not a &quot;requirement&quot;, it is a way of avoiding filing a petition to withdraw from issue and then file an RCE, because the **duty** of disclosure is still in force, as noted. &#xD;&#xA;Such a petition requires that you [identify a defect][1] in the application. Who wants to do that? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea behind the QPIDS is that you have art you want the Examiner to consider (so that you have clean hands) but you do not feel affects the patentability. Filing an RCE would be a waste. Instead, you tell Examiner to look at the art and agree ahead of time that examination can be restarted if Examiner wants to. if not reopened, you have filed the art and have &quot;clean hands&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize, the USPTO is making it easy for you to fulfill your duty after payment of issue fee. But note [question 9][2]. Sometimes QPIDS is not available and if you want the IDS considered and your duty fulfilled, you do it the hard way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer the question about impracticality, it is possible to file a QPIDS even one day before issue, but that requires (really) special handling. and you always have a choice of filing a continuation on the day before issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer the legal warfare comment. Filing art by a third party against a competitor just before issue is usually not a good idea. RCE fees are very low compared to IPR and litigation fees, so the competitor is not being bled by the third party. On the other hand, during patent prosecution, the third party is not part of the discussion, allowing the competitor to convince the Examiner that the art is not relevant or fix the patent on the cheap. Now that the art was considered by the Examiner, there will be a presumption that the art is overcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1308.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/qpids_faq.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19990" RevisionGUID="5824299c-65a4-454d-84cf-4bbb25b33113" CreationDate="2018-11-03T20:08:33.673" UserId="21534" Text="Not during chapter 2, but there appears to be something of an oops clause in [article 20][1] (see 20.6 (b)), shortly after filing. Though rule 20.8 taketh away...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The EPO seems to have a similar [oops clause][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/rules/r20.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/h_iv_2_2_2.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19991" RevisionGUID="9694539d-bf23-4e5f-9b06-68455151aa5c" CreationDate="2018-11-03T20:19:45.633" UserId="21534" Text="A useful resource for [grace periods][1]. Of course, you will need a local attorney for each country to figure out if you fit the requirements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/scp/en/national_laws/grace_period.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55515" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19379" RevisionGUID="1bbbad92-c4e1-4fcd-a069-6051a04d65ca" CreationDate="2018-11-03T21:00:25.607" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19992" RevisionGUID="c9507ae7-4bff-485f-b160-a0220910521e" CreationDate="2018-11-03T21:36:16.180" UserId="21534" Text="I think, **very**. As noted in the other answer, there is (probably) no legal requirement for claims. However, the whole purpose of the provisional filing is to give you a date for the *invention*. If you do not write the claims, chances are you will not actually set out the invention, but only one or a few *specific* implementations. This can get tricky. A particular issue being that what *you* consider to be non-essential limitations will be considered to be part of the invention as set out. This is especially a problem in the EPO (and probably more-so in China, which is very literal-minded about support for language in the claims being found in the application as filed), but can also happen in the USA, where they are generally more flexible. The problem is directly caused by the application not clearly setting out what is non-essential.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Example**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You invented the [1-2-3-4 cake][1]. you write a disclosure stating:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1 cup (240 mL) butter&#xD;&#xA; - 1 cup milk&#xD;&#xA; - 1 teaspoon vanilla extract&#xD;&#xA; - 2 cups sugar&#xD;&#xA; - 3 cups flour&#xD;&#xA; - 3 teaspoons baking powder&#xD;&#xA; - 3 pinches salt&#xD;&#xA; - 4 eggs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you file non-provisional, you realize that milk could be replaced by orange juice. That was not described, so you figure you can get away with a claim that says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1 cup (240 mL) butter&#xD;&#xA; - 1 cup **liquid**&#xD;&#xA; - 1 teaspoon vanilla extract&#xD;&#xA; - 2 cups sugar&#xD;&#xA; - 3 cups flour&#xD;&#xA; - 3 teaspoons baking powder&#xD;&#xA; - 3 pinches salt&#xD;&#xA; - 4 eggs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry, no support.&#xD;&#xA;So you say, lets try leaving out the milk altogether. No can do - a cake cannot be made without liquid. Some type of liquid really is an essential element and many patent offices will insist on finding it in the claim. Now you wish the disclosure had said &quot;a liquid such as milk&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, you decide that vanilla is really optional, so you write a claim leaving it out. Again, if the disclosure did not say vanilla is optional, leaving vanilla out is not supported by the priority application. You will need to (and probably fail) to prove that somebody reading your disclosure would understand that vanilla is not part of the invention as conceived and described in the provisional application. Now you wish the disclosure had said &quot;an optional flavoring such as vanilla&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And forget about changing the ratios between the ingredients (like cutting away some fat). Again, there is no support for that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All this could be avoided had you tried to figure out the metes and bounds of the invention you want to protect. Once you do that, drafting reasonable claims (even if formally improper) is a piece of cake. Of course, you would also want to update your disclosure to support your new understanding of what you *invented* (as opposed to what you *implemented*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, the above cannot be cured, due to publication before the non-provisional filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule to remember is &quot;a disclosure sufficient to invalidate is not always sufficient to (usefully) patent&quot;. In this case, if you published your recipe, replacing the milk or leaving out the vanilla is probably an obvious variant. But they are not described, not is the invention set out as not including them. So the same disclosure which is not sufficient to obtain a patent on OJ-based cake, is sufficient to prevent you (or anybody else) from getting one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This usually manifests as a one-two combination of writing an article, filing it as-is as a provisional application and then publishing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see also [patently-o][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook:1-2-3-4_Cake&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2005/09/including_claim.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55517" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19531" RevisionGUID="488cba68-cdae-4514-ad81-785e2af98096" CreationDate="2018-11-03T22:00:33.000" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55518" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="9dff7f81-8ede-4d04-9fad-ab97d028a577" CreationDate="2018-11-04T01:00:32.470" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19992" RevisionGUID="9844db78-8054-4f4a-b044-59b2d93ceded" CreationDate="2018-11-04T07:57:27.947" UserId="21534" Comment="Clarification that i was not recommending for lay people to first draft claims. not clear to me that most professionals should either..." Text="I think, **very**. As noted in the other answer, there is (probably) no legal requirement for claims. However, the whole purpose of the provisional filing is to give you a date for the *invention*. If you do not write the claims, chances are you will not actually set out the invention, but only one or a few *specific* implementations. This can get tricky. A particular issue being that what *you* consider to be non-essential limitations will be considered to be part of the invention as set out. This is especially a problem in the EPO (and probably more-so in China, which is very literal-minded about support for language in the claims being found in the application as filed), but can also happen in the USA, where they are generally more flexible. The problem is directly caused by the application not clearly setting out what is non-essential.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Example**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You invented the [1-2-3-4 cake][1]. you write a disclosure stating:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1 cup (240 mL) butter&#xD;&#xA; - 1 cup milk&#xD;&#xA; - 1 teaspoon vanilla extract&#xD;&#xA; - 2 cups sugar&#xD;&#xA; - 3 cups flour&#xD;&#xA; - 3 teaspoons baking powder&#xD;&#xA; - 3 pinches salt&#xD;&#xA; - 4 eggs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you file non-provisional, you realize that milk could be replaced by orange juice. That was not described, so you figure you can get away with a claim that says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1 cup (240 mL) butter&#xD;&#xA; - 1 cup **liquid**&#xD;&#xA; - 1 teaspoon vanilla extract&#xD;&#xA; - 2 cups sugar&#xD;&#xA; - 3 cups flour&#xD;&#xA; - 3 teaspoons baking powder&#xD;&#xA; - 3 pinches salt&#xD;&#xA; - 4 eggs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry, no support.&#xD;&#xA;So you say, lets try leaving out the milk altogether. No can do - a cake cannot be made without liquid. Some type of liquid really is an essential element and many patent offices will insist on finding it in the claim. Now you wish the disclosure had said &quot;a liquid such as milk&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, you decide that vanilla is really optional, so you write a claim leaving it out. Again, if the disclosure did not say vanilla is optional, leaving vanilla out is not supported by the priority application. You will need to (and probably fail) to prove that somebody reading your disclosure would understand that vanilla is not part of the invention as conceived and described in the provisional application. Now you wish the disclosure had said &quot;an optional flavoring such as vanilla&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And forget about changing the ratios between the ingredients (like cutting away some fat). Again, there is no support for that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All this could be avoided had you tried to figure out the metes and bounds of the invention you want to protect. Once you do that, drafting reasonable claims (even if formally improper) is a piece of cake. Of course, you would also want to update your disclosure to support your new understanding of what you *invented* (as opposed to what you *implemented*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**clarification**: I do not mean to suggest that you start by drafting claims. That is *very* difficult. Instead, after you draft what you think is your disclosure, put in the hard work of figuring out your invention. Then you can draft some claims, and then you need to fix your disclosure so it reflects your understanding of the invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A useful tip**: Once you have the disclosure written and try to figure out a claim/inventive concept, you can now compare the &quot;claim&quot; to the written disclosure and consider if perhaps your disclosure is too narrow or if your claim is too narrow. I find it much easier to consider the breadth of a claim when both the claim and the disclosure are in writing and can be compared.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, the above issues with the provisional filing cannot be cured, due to publication before the non-provisional filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule to remember is &quot;a disclosure sufficient to invalidate is not always sufficient to (usefully) patent&quot;. In this case, if you published your recipe, replacing the milk or leaving out the vanilla is probably an obvious variant. But they are not described, not is the invention set out as not including them. So the same disclosure which is not sufficient to obtain a patent on OJ-based cake, is sufficient to prevent you (or anybody else) from getting one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This usually manifests as a one-two combination of writing an article, filing it as-is as a provisional application and then publishing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see also [patently-o][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook:1-2-3-4_Cake&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2005/09/including_claim.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55520" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="2154a7af-1fb7-43b0-9faf-57d2b8296dd8" CreationDate="2018-11-04T12:00:44.833" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19988" RevisionGUID="e19c1bd0-e6da-4d09-acdf-b7be52b8721d" CreationDate="2018-11-04T12:21:45.057" UserId="81" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="Please forgive me for a round-about answer. As a professional in this field I hear this question a lot. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a most basic level, you cannot get a patent on an idea. You get a patent which covers certain implementations of the idea. This sounds like a quibble, but in the US, for example, if you did somehow manage to cover all possible implementations of an idea, the patent can be found invalid for that reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moving one level up, &quot;Can one get a patent on a method implemented using a computer?&quot; The answer is sometimes yes and sometimes no and depending on the country. The USPTO is quite confused and the issue is evolving. This link is a list of analysed examples posted by the USPTO, some considered eligible and some not: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-bus-meth-exs-dec2016.pdf][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is lots more where that comes from, like [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moving another level up - one job of a patent professional is to figure out how to get you a patent in spite of the obstacles placed by the law and the prior art. So the answer is usually, &quot;You.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think what you really meant to ask is: &quot;Can I get a useful patent?&quot; or even, &quot;useful IP protection.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a very fact-specific question and involves a multiprong analysis, including: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) how and where IP protection would help your business, and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) what IP protection is possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The JPO (Japan) has a different and somewhat clearer [take][3] on the matter, see especially page 7, section (2). But the issues remains very country dependent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per the comment(s), a bit about the difference between idea and implementation. This issue is at the heart of the &quot;abstract idea&quot; problem in the US, regarding software related inventions. Personally, I find that it is a continuum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you read the [law][4], you get a patent on a process or a machine, etc., not on the idea of one. When drafting a patent application you want to claim as abstractly as you can get away with. Why? Well, I call this the central dilemma of patents: **The application gives away the idea and the patent protects only some implementations thereof**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at it this way - if somebody copies your idea (whatever that means) but provides a different implementation, do you think your patent should have covered it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: you file a patent on a method of filtering out customers by age and somebody else filters by shoe size or height (a reasonably good proxy for child/adult distinction), is it the same idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when drafting a patent application you would ideally want to identify the abstract ideas behind the implementation, and then try to cover all commercially valuable implementations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why does all this matter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) If you ask a patent attorney to file a patent for your implementation, he will. Possibly to your detriment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) If you want to protect your idea, you need to identify it, understand its ramifications and protect the implementation(s) of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) You have to assume you will not figure out all the implementations or ramifications of your idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(4) Chances are, you do not really understand your idea in all its glory, so it will not be perfectly protected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note re computer related inventions: if you describe and claim &quot;f=a+b&quot;, it possibly will not cover &quot;f=b+a&quot;, even though they are mathematically equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Final note (I hope). A patent is a like a cookbook. Somebody reading it should be able to follow the recipe and get the result. But the law **intends** that the same somebody be inspired by the cookbook and only gives you protection for the particular recipes **actually** described in the cookbook. In patent terms, protection is **only** for recipes or families of recipes as described and some amount of equivalents and recipes with additional ingredients, but not for other recipes that were inspired by reading the cookbook but use different ingredients.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-bus-meth-exs-dec2016.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.jpo.go.jp/tetuzuki_e/t_tokkyo_e/files_guidelines_e/03_0100_e.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/101" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19988" RevisionGUID="dc1c1698-f426-4693-b3aa-ae31c5e8e4d6" CreationDate="2018-11-04T15:59:42.907" UserId="21534" Comment="a typo. you-&gt;yes" Text="Please forgive me for a round-about answer. As a professional in this field I hear this question a lot. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a most basic level, you cannot get a patent on an idea. You get a patent which covers certain implementations of the idea. This sounds like a quibble, but in the US, for example, if you did somehow manage to cover all possible implementations of an idea, the patent can be found invalid for that reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moving one level up, &quot;Can one get a patent on a method implemented using a computer?&quot; The answer is sometimes yes and sometimes no and depending on the country. The USPTO is quite confused and the issue is evolving. This link is a list of analysed examples posted by the USPTO, some considered eligible and some not: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-bus-meth-exs-dec2016.pdf][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is lots more where that comes from, like [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moving another level up - one job of a patent professional is to figure out how to get you a patent in spite of the obstacles placed by the law and the prior art. So the answer is usually, &quot;Yes.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think what you really meant to ask is: &quot;Can I get a useful patent?&quot; or even, &quot;useful IP protection.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a very fact-specific question and involves a multiprong analysis, including: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) how and where IP protection would help your business, and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) what IP protection is possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The JPO (Japan) has a different and somewhat clearer [take][3] on the matter, see especially page 7, section (2). But the issues remains very country dependent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per the comment(s), a bit about the difference between idea and implementation. This issue is at the heart of the &quot;abstract idea&quot; problem in the US, regarding software related inventions. Personally, I find that it is a continuum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you read the [law][4], you get a patent on a process or a machine, etc., not on the idea of one. When drafting a patent application you want to claim as abstractly as you can get away with. Why? Well, I call this the central dilemma of patents: **The application gives away the idea and the patent protects only some implementations thereof**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at it this way - if somebody copies your idea (whatever that means) but provides a different implementation, do you think your patent should have covered it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: you file a patent on a method of filtering out customers by age and somebody else filters by shoe size or height (a reasonably good proxy for child/adult distinction), is it the same idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when drafting a patent application you would ideally want to identify the abstract ideas behind the implementation, and then try to cover all commercially valuable implementations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why does all this matter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) If you ask a patent attorney to file a patent for your implementation, he will. Possibly to your detriment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) If you want to protect your idea, you need to identify it, understand its ramifications and protect the implementation(s) of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) You have to assume you will not figure out all the implementations or ramifications of your idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(4) Chances are, you do not really understand your idea in all its glory, so it will not be perfectly protected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note re computer related inventions: if you describe and claim &quot;f=a+b&quot;, it possibly will not cover &quot;f=b+a&quot;, even though they are mathematically equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Final note (I hope). A patent is a like a cookbook. Somebody reading it should be able to follow the recipe and get the result. But the law **intends** that the same somebody be inspired by the cookbook and only gives you protection for the particular recipes **actually** described in the cookbook. In patent terms, protection is **only** for recipes or families of recipes as described and some amount of equivalents and recipes with additional ingredients, but not for other recipes that were inspired by reading the cookbook but use different ingredients.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-bus-meth-exs-dec2016.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.jpo.go.jp/tetuzuki_e/t_tokkyo_e/files_guidelines_e/03_0100_e.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/101" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55523" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="7ad0ea16-b40d-4c43-b6de-c67a3ba40c9c" CreationDate="2018-11-04T16:00:38.223" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55529" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19872" RevisionGUID="9414e1d5-a5b0-42f4-9873-41b11333f5a3" CreationDate="2018-11-05T01:00:34.650" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19988" RevisionGUID="f5a87cf7-9550-4b15-865a-07cd3b5da056" CreationDate="2018-11-05T07:11:55.740" UserId="21534" Comment="rearranged, added bold headings, reworded some parts. hopefully better..." Text="**This answer relates to two issues. First, &quot;is an idea patentable&quot; and second, &quot;what is an idea&quot;**. Let's start with unpacking the first issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can you get a patent on an idea?**&#xD;&#xA;On a most basic level, you cannot get a patent on an idea. You get a patent which covers certain implementations of the idea. This sounds like a quibble, but in the US, for example, if you did somehow manage to cover all possible implementations of an idea, the patent can be found invalid for that reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moving one level up, **Can I get a patent on a method implemented using a computer?** The answer is **sometimes** yes and sometimes no and depending on the country and the technology. The USPTO is quite confused and the issue is evolving. This [link][1] is a list of analyzed examples posted by the USPTO, some considered eligible and some not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is lots more where that comes from, like [here][2]. But the answer is **often**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *JPO* (Japan) is clear that one **[might][3]** get protection for business and game related ideas, see especially page 7, section (2). The test is does the invention involve &quot;creation of a technical idea utilizing the laws of nature&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The *EPO* (Europe) has a special trick where the business problem being solved is [ignored][4], leading many inventions to being trivial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can I get a patent on my new system?** One job of a patent professional is to figure out how to get you a patent in spite of the obstacles placed by the law and the prior art. So the answer is usually, **Yes**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the practical level one should ask: **Can I get a useful patent (to help my business goals)?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a very fact-specific question and involves a multiprong analysis, including at least: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) How and where IP protection would help your business – so you should understand your business and your competitors, and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) What IP protection is possible - taking into account prior art, law, inventions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Idea vs. implementation**&#xD;&#xA;This issue is at the heart of the &quot;abstract idea&quot; problem in the US, regarding software related inventions. Personally, I find that it is a continuum, as you add more detail, you go from a vision, to an abstract idea, to a general implementation, to a very specific and complete implementation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you read the [law][5], you get a patent on a process or a machine, etc., not on the idea of one. When drafting a patent application you want to claim as abstractly as you can get away with but describe in far more detail. One way of thinking about this is: If somebody copies your idea but provides a different implementation, do you think your patent should have covered it? This is a significant dilemma in patents: **The patent gives away the idea and the patent protects only some implementations thereof**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent is like a cookbook. Somebody reading it should be able to follow the recipe and get the result. But the law **intends** that the same somebody be inspired by the cookbook and only gives you protection for the particular recipes **actually** described in the cookbook. In patent terms, protection is **only** for recipes or families of recipes as described and some amount of equivalents and recipes with additional ingredients, but not for other recipes that were **inspired** by reading the cookbook but use different ingredients. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Example 1*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you describe and claim &quot;f=a+b&quot;, the patent possibly will not cover &quot;f=b+a&quot;, even though they are mathematically equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Example 2*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You file a patent on a method of filtering out customers by age and somebody else filters by shoe size or height (a reasonably good proxy for child/adult distinction), is it the same idea? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Take home**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) If you ask a patent attorney to file a patent for your implementation, he will. Possibly, to your detriment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) If you want to protect your idea, you need to identify it and in particular the abstract ideas behind the implementation, understand its (business) ramifications and protect all useful implementation(s), not just your own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) You have to assume you will not figure out all the implementations or ramifications of your idea before you file. In fact, really understanding your idea can take years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-bus-meth-exs-dec2016.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.jpo.go.jp/tetuzuki_e/t_tokkyo_e/files_guidelines_e/03_0100_e.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_vii_5_4_2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/101" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19994" RevisionGUID="40360f3a-58d8-436c-aecb-44c953d36c85" CreationDate="2018-11-05T13:11:32.307" UserId="21534" Text="**It depends**. If the categories are medical, then you would definitely get a separate patent for what is termed *second medical use* in [some countries][1]. For example, if you discover today that aspirin prevents hangnail, you could get a patent for that, even though aspirin is known. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even in non-medical cases you could probably obtain multiple patents on a  same formulation for different uses, with claims to different methods of use.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;It is worth exploring why you would want more than one *patent*. Even if for patentability reasons you decide to file a single *application*, having separate patents can help you in licensing, providing (in the USA) that the claims of one granted patent are not obvious in view of the others. Buyers usually prefer to buy a patent outright rather than license. Another issue is that when you draft a patent for each field of use, it allows you to focus on the opportunities in each such field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Example*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say you discover a blue pigment, and it can be used for ink, as a catalyst for catalytic converters in cars and as a preservative in shampoo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can file a basic application for the formula and three more applications, one for each use. When granted, license out the original application per field of use and sell each patent to a user with deep pockets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may want to protect more than the formula. Even if the formula is identical for the uses, when actually used, the product may not be. For example, different uses may indicate a different carrier for the formula and each such combination could be patentable as well. Since the formula is probably not used in a vacuum but as part of some configuration, there may be IP in how using the formula requires/takes advantage of changes in the configuration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_vi_7_1.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55532" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16108" RevisionGUID="c5cc087d-fc8f-46aa-bab3-6f9ff4c576bc" CreationDate="2018-11-05T15:29:36.747" UserId="17077" Comment="fixed a problem with fair use for experimental use" Text="'software as a service' may not be patent-able but rather copyright protected. You have stumbled upon a gray area of the law when it comes to algorithms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately the many of the patented algorithms are old and therefore expired.  Any new patents referencing this prior art may be weak and not defensible although these big players do have deep pockets for litigation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You risk being sued if you use any of them commercially.  A longstanding common-law exception called &quot;the experimental use exception&quot; allowed for de minimis use of a patented invention when the purpose is experimental. Over the last 20 years though the courts have all but eliminated this exception. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c3027940-950f-49fd-a49e-8672fea1b667&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/07/22/a-strategy-for-protecting-software-claims-from-invalidation-under-the-algorithm-requirement/id=59586/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;hope this helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19995" RevisionGUID="f76b2048-315c-464d-b395-a59598704839" CreationDate="2018-11-05T16:27:12.043" UserId="21534" Text="**The question is: Can my friend legally sell his product and get a patent, or does the fact that someone else owns a patent for a product that does the same thing stop him from doing so?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are really two questions here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Can friend sell the product?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Can friend get a patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer #1, we need to see if the product infringes any of the *claims* in a granted patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer #2, we need to see if the friend invented anything that is novel and obvious over existing publications (e.g., the *disclosure* of the patent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Example**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Company invented a car. Friend invented roll-down windows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**#1** Can friend sell cars with roll-down windows? **No**. That would infringe the car patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**#2** Can friend get a patent on roll-down windows? **Yes**. Clearly a non-obvious feature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Better but more complex example**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Company invented car with a diesel engine. Friend invented gasoline engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*case 1:* Company claimed a car with internal combustion engine. Then friend may obtain  a patent, but cannot sell cars, as a gasoline engine is covered by the claim scope of &quot;internal combustion&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*case 2:* Company claimed only diesel engine or only car with diesel engine. Then friend can not only get a patent, he can also sell cars with gasoline engines. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The actual outcome will depend on additional legal considerations, such as doctrine of equivalents and the state of the prior art.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19996" RevisionGUID="7fea3692-1074-4f48-aead-1eea895028c1" CreationDate="2018-11-05T17:17:05.893" UserId="21534" Text="**It is based on a principle that was developed in the 1960's**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is good news. This probably means that any really broad patents *on the principle and basic applications thereof* have long since expired. But you say you found recent broad patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One possibility is that these seemingly broad patents are not as broad as they seem (or are invalid). It is the patent attorney's job to make patent claims seem scary. Looks like it worked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility is that the focus of your analysis is incorrect. Taking your example, since thermometers are known since the 1960's, any recent broad patent to N sensors would/should be patentable only if there is some particular effect of having N sensors, such as noise reduction (or a particular structure). Are you using these novel things? Do you need to, in order to make actual use of the original principle? How did people manage before? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the patents could well be invalid. You have 50+ years of prior art and publications *in this field* that could be useful. Most small businesses, however, will not go forward even if they believe that a patent is invalid, due to risk of legal costs. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19997" RevisionGUID="78b58db5-3691-4631-a84a-977d250d6bb2" CreationDate="2018-11-05T18:16:35.503" UserId="21534" Text="**an extremely broad utility patent that has a claim that is very similar**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you did not say is if this patent is available for licensing. The fact that your product is already covered by a broad patent can be good news, if you obtain an exclusive license to the patent. Often investors are forced to invest in a company which only has patent application(s), so the scope of protection is unclear, reducing the company value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, on the other hand, you can obtain an exclusive license to this patent, you leapfrog ahead and now have **proven** broad patent protection, which can add significant value to the company. Such a patent owner, if not in direct competition with you, can also have technology or business know how they can sell you giving you further value and reducing your risk moving forward." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19998" RevisionGUID="6d603d91-ffa7-4df7-be6d-43b7925047e6" CreationDate="2018-11-05T18:35:57.007" UserId="21534" Text="**I don't have enough money (not even nearly enough) to file a patent**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This point seems to come up in many questions. While patent applications *seem* expensive, they are often only a *small* part of the cost of doing business or starting a company. Even in the software fields, the opportunity cost of starting your own company probably dwarfs the cost of hiring a patent agent to do the work for you. If you do not have money for a patent agent, let alone just official fees, how will you have money to market, to chase investors, etc.? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the flip side, having a professionally written patent application and representation by an agent known to be competent+ gives you additional value when talking to investors, probably in considerable excess to the cost of hiring that agent in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if you have a great idea, sit down and figure out your business plan and its true cost and the value of a professional vs. amateur filing. Once you figure out if and how you have enough money for the overall plan, I suspect that in 90+% of the cases, going professional will win.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, if you have no money and are worried about approaching investors without any coverage, by all means file something on your own. Many jurisdictions offer cheap options, like the USPTO provisional applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19999" RevisionGUID="6423ebf3-0714-413c-a41c-bcb66c9be528" CreationDate="2018-11-05T20:23:38.517" UserId="21540" Text="What are the remedies of inequitable conduct in patents? If a pharmaceutical company got a patent for a fraudulent information, and let's say it is disclosed after 10 years in the market, would they have to give back all their revenue for the 10 years? whats the appropriate law - unjust enrichment? antitrust?&#xD;&#xA;Is there any place around the world that a company has to return all their revenue if they mislead the patent office?&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55538" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19999" RevisionGUID="6423ebf3-0714-413c-a41c-bcb66c9be528" CreationDate="2018-11-05T20:23:38.517" UserId="21540" Text="Inequitable Conduct" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55539" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19999" RevisionGUID="6423ebf3-0714-413c-a41c-bcb66c9be528" CreationDate="2018-11-05T20:23:38.517" UserId="21540" Text="&lt;inequitable-conduct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20000" RevisionGUID="a30e8148-6506-4f4f-8b5b-078cd8c85565" CreationDate="2018-11-05T20:48:22.713" UserId="21534" Text="The Examiner works and is paid for their time. When you get to **Final** the Examiner is only budgeted to put very little attention into what you have to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I consider **Final** to mean &quot;time to put another token in the game machine, but you have a last ditch attempt &quot;. So, **Advisory action** means you failed and need to put in another token if you want the Examiner to do any real work. **RCE** is such a token.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the USPTO has an [after final pilot program][1], whereby the Examiner is allocated time to consider what you have to say in more detail than they would in an advisory. It often works and includes an interview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/after-final-consideration-pilot-20" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20001" RevisionGUID="f34e8f57-68b8-4c1a-81e9-66b1a9e204f6" CreationDate="2018-11-05T21:45:19.343" UserId="21534" Text="re **how much do you have to screw up your application**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some ways that work even in the relatively liberal USPTO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Add incorrect hard requirements**, like using the words &quot;must&quot; or&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;require&quot;. When your later claim will not have these features, this&#xD;&#xA;    is clearly new matter. &quot;Objects&quot; and &quot;problems solved&quot; fall in this category.&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Add unneeded implied requirements**. For example, describe only a single way of doing things (nothing is left optional and no alternatives). When you try to claim a different way, or leave out elements, it may be considered new matter.&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Admissions**. Admit things about prior art, such as what is obvious or&#xD;&#xA;    known (even if it legally isn't).&#xD;&#xA; 4. **Omissions**. Leaving out details that are essential for somebody to&#xD;&#xA;    follow your disclosure, often because you want to &quot;hide&quot; the&#xD;&#xA;    invention or because you like saying &quot;etc.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 5. **Fuzziness**. Use terms that are ill-defined and especially if the definition of the invention rests on them. For example, &quot;low power&quot;. There is where those &quot;values&quot; in the question come in.&#xD;&#xA; 6. **Lack of generalizations**. Usually you will want to claim something&#xD;&#xA;    more general than your specific examples. The USPTO will sometimes allow it.&#xD;&#xA;    Other patent offices will usually not.&#xD;&#xA; 7. **False equivalence**. For example, saying or implying that A and B are equivalents, when they are not and in fact, B is patentable and valuable and A is not. Often found in the form of laundry lists of items.&#xD;&#xA; 8. **Throw-away ideas**. While not affecting the priority of the&#xD;&#xA;    non-provisional, when you *later* want to file a new patent to one of&#xD;&#xA;    these ideas, the publication of the non-provisional will be used&#xD;&#xA;    against you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Don't do them!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Outside the USA, the patent offices are often very literally minded and if the claim does not have literal word for word support in the priority document, you can lose the priority." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20002" RevisionGUID="202c6678-6138-466d-ab67-dceef6236f6d" CreationDate="2018-11-06T16:54:55.333" UserId="17077" Text="It appears that the patent application was granted.  You may want to read the claims carefully to see if the claims that you were worried about were allowed by the examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your use of different colors for each letter and the claimed use of color gradients for each letter may only be an obvious use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US9026907B2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9026907B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55543" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17041" RevisionGUID="2cc4e251-cae5-46ee-bd58-3c7d4c43fbff" CreationDate="2018-11-06T20:00:28.203" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20003" RevisionGUID="0f293497-f212-43a1-be9d-269b226e6f39" CreationDate="2018-11-06T21:20:07.210" UserId="21534" Text="re **But I'm not sure what I would add**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first thing I would do is make sure that the claims (at least in form of dependent claims) provide support and enabling for this &quot;encapsulated idea&quot;. That way, if the examiner feels that you do not have support in the original specification, you *do* have such support in the claims themselves. You can then rename the &quot;continuation&quot; a &quot;continuation in part&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have had this happen to me - I filed a continuation with new claims, the Examiner said I **did not** deserve the priority, but he **issued** the case anyway. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is the risk that the new idea be considered obvious (but not described). The idea behind a CIP is that the independent claim is clearly supported by the earlier specification; this reduces the risk, but does not make it go away. Clearly supported = uses literal language from the original filing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, if the idea is &quot;encapsulated&quot; this suggests to me that the idea and its useful implementations are not well described in the original application, so that is what I would add in a CIP. During examination, I suspect some claims will get the earlier date, some will get a new date and some might be indeed obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said all the above, I am generally against CIPs, as, usually they are filed more than one year after publication of the earlier application, which allows the earlier application to be used for obviousness. So if you have a new idea, start with a new filing and if the idea is described, use a plain continuation. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20004" RevisionGUID="60c4fcb4-0d9b-4fdb-9bb4-70e51884ac1a" CreationDate="2018-11-06T23:40:19.970" UserId="3076" Text="The very short answer is YES - almost every invention can be viewed as the combination of two or more previously known things. Attaching an eraser to the end of a pencil didn't change the operation of either device. If one combined a radio made water proof for use in the bathroom with a bubble blower that blew bubbles according an audio signal from the radio, you might have something novel and non-obvious." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20005" RevisionGUID="a354f273-abf9-4c85-95f5-13aae5cf7f8e" CreationDate="2018-11-07T06:51:13.713" UserId="21534" Text="I assume you mean a difference of years, not days or weeks, but some countries now allow you to miss the 1 year priority date. Details in this [Q/A][1], which discusses a two months grace period some countries give.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/18445/is-12-month-paris-convention-priority-claim-deadline-extendable" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20006" RevisionGUID="8fca20b6-13d0-403c-92ac-5e2d4374048c" CreationDate="2018-11-07T07:21:33.520" UserId="21534" Text="I think the word &quot;related&quot; is the key here. A divisional application [generally cannot get][1] an obviousness-type double patenting rejection over its parent/child/sibling. So you will not need a &quot;terminal disclaimer&quot;. This means that you will have an easier time selling each patent to a different buyer. Also, if one patent gets a term adjustment, it will stick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another issue. If you file all the claims in one application, the Examiner may decide that it is, after all, one invention. you could save some money. This is not always good, because if they are not the same invention, the Examination process may be confused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to **Would this trigger a provisional double-patenting objection?**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What causes the trigger is the claims, not the title or the abstract. In order to give such a  rejection the Examiner needs to show that the claims in one case are obvious over the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you choose option 2, instead of &quot;for which the claims are **effectively** in the first&quot;, i suggest writing the claims and putting them in narrative form in the original application as filed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I assume the issue is only USA. Other countries have other issues. For example, China and India limit the length of chain of divisional applications allowed. Canada is very strict about overlap between claim sets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s804.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20007" RevisionGUID="b337e40a-05a0-4d9b-a516-4e3cb06cc388" CreationDate="2018-11-07T16:34:23.453" UserId="14403" Text="&gt; What are the remedies of inequitable conduct in patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;May Refer https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/18822/forgotten-prior-art-ids&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also refer https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/13520/can-i-patent-a-product-that-has-already-failed/13547#13547 and many such questions asked in this Q&amp;A site and also [Therasense][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would they have to give back all their revenue for the 10 years?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is legal suit of infringement by a patent owner ( of a patent of which material was probably not disclosed) and sued successfully, than relief towards monetary loss will be decided by court. Inequitable conduct suits are solely aimed at preventing patent holder from enforcing patent[2].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whats the appropriate law - unjust enrichment? antitrust?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Broadly speaking, it's matter of fraud and all countries having rule of law caters to 'acts of fraud'. One such law is enumerated in above references. Excerpt of  declaration form of [USPTO] [1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there any place around the world that a company has to return all&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their revenue if they mislead the patent office?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mostly monetary compensation is decided based on loss caused (by presumptive calculation set forth in law) due to act of infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/V9lCq.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/therasense-raising-the-bar-for-inequitable-conduct.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55549" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18787" RevisionGUID="75dbfc95-d91f-48df-83ba-a5fb36e27599" CreationDate="2018-11-07T22:02:50.803" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20008" RevisionGUID="05644e4c-77f7-491d-ae7b-d8364f4dab38" CreationDate="2018-11-08T12:46:17.433" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55552" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20008" RevisionGUID="05644e4c-77f7-491d-ae7b-d8364f4dab38" CreationDate="2018-11-08T12:46:17.433" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20009" RevisionGUID="5c88b745-818f-4313-b1bd-dbb241792a04" CreationDate="2018-11-08T12:46:17.433" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55554" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20009" RevisionGUID="5c88b745-818f-4313-b1bd-dbb241792a04" CreationDate="2018-11-08T12:46:17.433" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20010" RevisionGUID="0cb64111-6411-48ba-a4d3-1582f5dac27d" CreationDate="2018-11-09T01:49:50.767" UserId="14403" Text="This question is related to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/19906/who-gets-a-patent-grant-cover-from-the-uspto&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the &quot;ribboned copy&quot; get sent to overseas inventor/assignee (at recorded overseas address) by USPTO if such person gets a 'patent grant' for a patent application persued pro se at USPTO ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55556" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20010" RevisionGUID="0cb64111-6411-48ba-a4d3-1582f5dac27d" CreationDate="2018-11-09T01:49:50.767" UserId="14403" Text="Recordation of Patent Grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55557" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20010" RevisionGUID="0cb64111-6411-48ba-a4d3-1582f5dac27d" CreationDate="2018-11-09T01:49:50.767" UserId="14403" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;documents&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55558" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="05d79136-3d9d-4aff-a915-6356e5f8efd3" CreationDate="2018-11-09T05:00:50.377" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20011" RevisionGUID="f9bdb9e1-e56c-4498-b4ce-eba1b4f1adf9" CreationDate="2018-11-09T09:49:10.480" UserId="21549" Text="I have done something in a company, which has not been patented. Can I file a patent for the idea in another company?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55560" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20011" RevisionGUID="f9bdb9e1-e56c-4498-b4ce-eba1b4f1adf9" CreationDate="2018-11-09T09:49:10.480" UserId="21549" Text="Patent on work done in another Company" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55561" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20011" RevisionGUID="f9bdb9e1-e56c-4498-b4ce-eba1b4f1adf9" CreationDate="2018-11-09T09:49:10.480" UserId="21549" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20012" RevisionGUID="b0af971f-816c-4332-9ca9-db1826204a42" CreationDate="2018-11-09T16:22:35.747" UserId="17003" Text="**Can I file a patent for the idea in another company?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most probably not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose it has to do with your employment agreement, but the answer is almost certainly **no you can't file for a patent on an idea generated during previous employment**. For most people, your work product is owned by the company who is paying you. This has been true for me during my entire professional career both as a full time employee and as a consultant. When a company files a patent, the inventor is listed as such, but the assignee is the company who will own the patent (should it be granted). A company can decide to obtain a patent or not, but the decision not to doesn't change the fact that they control the idea and can decide to keep it trade secret or even publish the idea to keep others from patenting it. Indeed, just telling your new company about the idea might open you up a lawsuit if the idea is considered confidential information by your old employer. Please not that I am note a lawyer and this is not legal advice. Also, the law may differ based on where you are employed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20012" RevisionGUID="6800297e-a49e-4a7f-9779-d2838d46ac8a" CreationDate="2018-11-09T19:06:49.460" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="**Can I file a patent for the idea in another company?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most probably not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose it has to do with your employment agreement, but the answer is almost certainly **no you can't file for a patent on an idea generated during previous employment**. For most people, your work product is owned by the company who is paying you. This has been true for me during my entire professional career both as a full time employee and as a consultant. When a company files a patent, the inventor is listed as such, but the assignee is the company who will own the patent (should it be granted). A company can decide to obtain a patent or not, but the decision not to doesn't change the fact that they control the idea and can decide to keep it trade secret or even publish the idea to keep others from patenting it. Indeed, just telling your new company about the idea might open you up a lawsuit if the idea is considered confidential information by your old employer. Please note that I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. Also, the law may differ based on where you are employed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20013" RevisionGUID="d62a5ff6-4e26-4145-876a-bfaf6a6a75ef" CreationDate="2018-11-09T21:39:27.500" UserId="21551" Text=" If two existing products manufactured in USA, with a US brand, that are unrelated and assembled (assembled requiring some machining and hardware) and utilized for a completely different application other than their original purpose,be constructed and introduced to market without infringement? If so, suppose those same two products were manufactured in China? Is there any way to possibly obtain a waiver from the US manufacturer since it will not compete plus the manufacturer will gain the benefit of higher sales volume?                  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55565" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20013" RevisionGUID="d62a5ff6-4e26-4145-876a-bfaf6a6a75ef" CreationDate="2018-11-09T21:39:27.500" UserId="21551" Text="Utilizing existing already manufactured products" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55566" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20013" RevisionGUID="d62a5ff6-4e26-4145-876a-bfaf6a6a75ef" CreationDate="2018-11-09T21:39:27.500" UserId="21551" Text="&lt;prior&gt;&lt;license&gt;&lt;art&gt;&lt;requesting&gt;&lt;validation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20013" RevisionGUID="c57952af-4a40-4f6d-8036-3fa9a65adee4" CreationDate="2018-11-09T22:00:12.210" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 146 characters in body; edited tags" Text=" If two existing products manufactured in USA, with a US brand, that are unrelated and assembled (assembled requiring some machining and hardware) and utilized for a completely different application other than their original purpose,be constructed and introduced to market without infringement? If so, suppose those same two products were manufactured in China? Does that change anything?         " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55568" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="20013" RevisionGUID="c57952af-4a40-4f6d-8036-3fa9a65adee4" CreationDate="2018-11-09T22:00:12.210" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 146 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55569" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="20013" RevisionGUID="43d887f4-36ec-439c-819a-113864e47117" CreationDate="2018-11-09T23:15:14.670" UserId="18033" Comment="Rollback to [d62a5ff6-4e26-4145-876a-bfaf6a6a75ef]" Text=" If two existing products manufactured in USA, with a US brand, that are unrelated and assembled (assembled requiring some machining and hardware) and utilized for a completely different application other than their original purpose,be constructed and introduced to market without infringement? If so, suppose those same two products were manufactured in China? Is there any way to possibly obtain a waiver from the US manufacturer since it will not compete plus the manufacturer will gain the benefit of higher sales volume?                  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55570" PostHistoryTypeId="9" PostId="20013" RevisionGUID="43d887f4-36ec-439c-819a-113864e47117" CreationDate="2018-11-09T23:15:14.670" UserId="18033" Comment="Rollback to [d62a5ff6-4e26-4145-876a-bfaf6a6a75ef]" Text="&lt;prior&gt;&lt;license&gt;&lt;art&gt;&lt;requesting&gt;&lt;validation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55572" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="2bb56831-a9dd-4a5b-a18d-062b70acfdfd" CreationDate="2018-11-11T02:03:00.627" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55573" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19965" RevisionGUID="ffbf9734-106b-485e-a9aa-950b94fefa59" CreationDate="2018-11-11T10:01:25.253" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20014" RevisionGUID="5b7e7fd5-1375-427c-bfb8-ebc77dfb1926" CreationDate="2018-11-12T01:36:48.203" UserId="17003" Text="If you are actually buying the products from the manufacturer that owns the IP, I doubt you have an issue with infringement. That said, it is quite possible that the manufacturer would not allow the use of their product for an unintended purpose. This might be quite reasonable if, for example, there were a risk of injuring someone. You best bet, is to simply ask the manufacturers whether they are willing to sell to you. Since your product entails additional sales they very well might be willing to work with you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because the manufacturer is US based doesn't mean they don't also have patents in other countries so manufacturing their products in other countries does risk infringing on patents. To know if this is an issue really requires a legal opinion which you can't get from posting abstract questions on the internet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20015" RevisionGUID="9832fb99-49cc-48b9-bef8-6f0e2955d519" CreationDate="2018-11-12T01:58:06.247" UserId="21554" Text="Regardless whether patent law requires a working device, the technical objection above was focused on the two incoming waves themselves. Quite correct that they would never modulate each other [superposition].&#xD;&#xA;But the patent never claims that the two input EM frequencies modulate one another. Instead, the inference is that the nonlinearities or change in refractive index, in the mass of the target are where the waves are crudely &quot;mixed&quot; and small heterodyne products are formed. My question would be 'How close must the &quot;receiver&quot; be to the target [the brain] to pick up these ultra-weak heterodyne signals coming from the brain?' Also, how much weaker would the &quot;modulations&quot; be, that the brain allegedly impresses on the heterodyne products?  All sounds pretty unlikely until you do some reading about MRI technology, as was pointed out. Who 'da thunk that you could send RF pulses into living tissue within a magnetic field, turn the pulse off, and receive the gyroscopic recoil of the atoms as a very weak RF signal that could be amplified and reassembled into a detailed image of the brain? Science Fiction!  And yet both of these technologies deal with signals much larger in magnitude than the passive magnetic fields that SQUID detectors have to deal with. And we know that SQUIDs work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55576" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="56ad8d63-93dc-41c7-b9f7-3cbd70949632" CreationDate="2018-11-12T04:04:40.893" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55577" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13512" RevisionGUID="968afe39-9134-4926-b34b-c8f7ff5b0642" CreationDate="2018-11-12T06:00:50.547" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55578" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16615" RevisionGUID="98aa65aa-06e5-4670-b648-762280986382" CreationDate="2018-11-12T07:01:20.233" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20016" RevisionGUID="6776d676-9ddf-49b9-a4a5-dc90db5016fb" CreationDate="2018-11-12T07:30:31.310" UserId="15489" Text="I have an application for an invention, let's call it invention X.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner has issued a non-final office action with a 101 rejection, the argument of which is basically, &quot;The claims are directed to an abstract idea, X.&quot; followed by &quot;The underlying idea is merely (the purpose of X)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I argue that the examiner has failed to make a prima facie case against the application (and that a final action is precluded), and if I do so, is the examiner likely to be annoyed by this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55580" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20016" RevisionGUID="6776d676-9ddf-49b9-a4a5-dc90db5016fb" CreationDate="2018-11-12T07:30:31.310" UserId="15489" Text="How to tactfully rebut a 101 rejection" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55581" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20016" RevisionGUID="6776d676-9ddf-49b9-a4a5-dc90db5016fb" CreationDate="2018-11-12T07:30:31.310" UserId="15489" Text="&lt;101&gt;&lt;prima-facie&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55582" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16336" RevisionGUID="aa23ca8d-de22-4e44-bf9b-7c3b15ae6149" CreationDate="2018-11-12T08:02:30.497" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55583" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13334" RevisionGUID="bba006c1-3157-4df4-bf1b-6be3c854a536" CreationDate="2018-11-12T09:01:20.263" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55584" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="a0e1030b-4f73-4bb6-b4de-979b3a04bdb8" CreationDate="2018-11-12T11:01:10.190" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55585" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19114" RevisionGUID="1310b6e2-3cc1-4656-867b-dba6eaa97aee" CreationDate="2018-11-12T12:01:45.350" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20014" RevisionGUID="6f625615-4271-4752-910a-262e65fc18e1" CreationDate="2018-11-12T22:48:57.993" UserId="17003" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="If you are actually buying the products from the manufacturer that owns the IP, I doubt you have an issue with infringement. That said, it is quite possible that the manufacturer would not allow the use of their product for an unintended purpose. This might be quite reasonable if, for example, there were a risk of injuring someone it would expose them to potential liability. You best bet, is to simply ask the manufacturers whether they are willing to sell to you. Since your product entails additional sales they very well might be willing to work with you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because the manufacturer is US based doesn't mean they don't also have patents in other countries so manufacturing their products in other countries does risk infringing on patents. To know if this is an issue really requires a legal opinion which you can't get from posting abstract questions on the internet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55587" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19809" RevisionGUID="f17cb53c-abeb-405d-ba1b-98195ef55e6f" CreationDate="2018-11-13T00:01:30.223" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55588" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19296" RevisionGUID="ef0ae8d9-2310-4920-b0b9-2b2949371cce" CreationDate="2018-11-13T01:01:50.333" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55589" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17307" RevisionGUID="63726db9-b7ee-44e1-ac35-5ba89c0fc96f" CreationDate="2018-11-13T03:02:05.290" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55590" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17472" RevisionGUID="dfc5b7c0-8b3e-4001-a5e5-3770f1ced0d9" CreationDate="2018-11-13T06:01:50.303" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55591" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19863" RevisionGUID="4a858c55-9623-4580-8922-5d852672f8eb" CreationDate="2018-11-13T09:03:05.603" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55592" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19881" RevisionGUID="ad80afcc-f1fb-4298-8c1f-3cb602dccf02" CreationDate="2018-11-13T18:03:40.727" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20017" RevisionGUID="1b9c5eca-0c6b-4421-bf7a-9b363a7b694f" CreationDate="2018-11-13T20:20:16.960" UserId="3076" Text="You say that it is a &quot;**non**-final&quot; action but are asking if you can say that a &quot;final action is precluded&quot;, so, no those specific words do not fit the situation. As stated in a comment, you should look at the current guidance the office provides to examiners regarding abstractness By those guidelines, an examiner does not need to do much to make a prima facie case. After saying that it is drawn to an abstract idea they need to say that they see that it also does not have &quot;something more&quot; than the abstract idea. Responding successfully to a 101 abstractness rejection is one of the hardest things to do in patent prosecution today. One hint is that &quot;doing something old with a computer&quot; is out but &quot;making a technically better computer&quot;, even in software, is in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20018" RevisionGUID="3a06c281-9c64-4ca6-a8fe-3ba15e378766" CreationDate="2018-11-13T20:28:15.140" UserId="3076" Text="The novel combination of two items can conceivably infringe a patent belonging to a third party with no relationship to the manufacturer(s) of the two items. Generally, a seller of a product has no control of the weird use you put it do unless there is some license involved (like software) or if the product is leased. If the products are lawfully sold in the U.S. it does not matter where they were made. If a &quot;waiver&quot; does come into the picture, it would technically be a license. If there is a very low likelihood what you are doing will take bread out of someone else's mouth, many entrepreneurs would proceed and address these issues if and when they were successful enough to be noticed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55595" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18261" RevisionGUID="0ba263ec-54e4-4ceb-8a43-f9ca45a8494c" CreationDate="2018-11-14T06:02:50.547" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55596" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17844" RevisionGUID="0e7f5048-887a-442b-a84a-ca18d13efe21" CreationDate="2018-11-14T13:01:55.353" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55597" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18971" RevisionGUID="7ef24046-c972-4509-bce1-6fc7d1821cdc" CreationDate="2018-11-14T23:01:20.247" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20019" RevisionGUID="c11bbb0f-5891-4375-bc7f-89004d3daf1c" CreationDate="2018-11-15T01:07:01.457" UserId="21560" Text="I'm trying to understand &quot;claims&quot; and how they define an invention.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a strict unambiguous definition of &quot;claim&quot; and how multiple claims about the same invention together with the &quot;elements&quot; of each claim define it?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand it to violate a patent it is enough to violate any one of its claims. Right? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But a claim often contains multiple &quot;elements&quot; (no?). Then to violate a single claim does it mean you have to violate all  &quot;elements&quot; of the claim, or is it enough to violate just one element of it (or any other claim)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words are claims disjunctive, and claim-elements conjunctive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55599" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20019" RevisionGUID="c11bbb0f-5891-4375-bc7f-89004d3daf1c" CreationDate="2018-11-15T01:07:01.457" UserId="21560" Text="Are &quot;patent-claims&quot; and &quot;elements of a claim&quot; defined in the law?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55600" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20019" RevisionGUID="c11bbb0f-5891-4375-bc7f-89004d3daf1c" CreationDate="2018-11-15T01:07:01.457" UserId="21560" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20020" RevisionGUID="3de48b75-0d5d-430b-a117-7ba9001282e0" CreationDate="2018-11-15T14:49:39.683" UserId="17003" Text="**As I understand it to violate a patent it is enough to violate any one of its claims. Right?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Then to violate a single claim does it mean you have to violate all &quot;elements&quot; of the claim, or is it enough to violate just one element of it (or any other claim)?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To infringe on a claim, you must implement each and every element of that claim. If you manage to skip even one element then you should avoid infringement. If a claim has elements A, B, C and D and your implementation only implements A, B and D, then you should be fine. If, however, your implementation employs A, B, C, D and E (something else), then you probably do infringe even if E is novel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. Infringement is tricky and there is no substitute to a freedom to operate opinion from an actual attorney. Also, just because you avoid infringement of a specific patent doesn't mean there isn't some other patent that is also relevant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55602" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="f0181e40-c9a5-472d-a761-0a4adeeb79d5" CreationDate="2018-11-16T05:02:25.493" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55603" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17865" RevisionGUID="64f5bb89-52f3-42aa-890c-b4b66bb5deb1" CreationDate="2018-11-16T08:02:45.570" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20021" RevisionGUID="cafdf718-f6c5-4640-b718-084de36e24ae" CreationDate="2018-11-16T08:19:57.763" UserId="18033" Text="An &quot;element&quot; of a claim is not defined in the law. It's actually a kind of abstraction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But let's start at the beginning. A patent's protection is defined by the claims. Anything that falls under the scope of any claim infringes that claim. The scope of a claim is all that is described by that claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example might make this clearer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A device for moving around humans and/or goods, the device comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- at least two wheels&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- at least one motor,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;the motor beeing designed in such a way that it has at least the power of two horses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(disclaimer: the last part is somewhat unclear (it defines the problem, not the solution), don't write something like that into a patent claim in real life unless you know what you're doing)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The elements of the claim are &quot;at least two wheels&quot; and &quot;at least one motor&quot;. Would a bycicle without a motor infringe this claim? No, it doesn't fall under the wording of the claim as should be rather clear from just reading it. A bycicle is not &quot;a device&quot; as described. So for infringement, all elements need to be present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about &quot;the motor beeing designed in such a way that it has at least the power of two horses&quot;, is that an element of the claim? I'd say yes, though you might say it is just part of &quot;a motor&quot;. It doesn't really matter, because &quot;element&quot; is not defined. But whatever you call it, if the motor doesn't have the power of two horses or more, you do not infringe the claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And &quot;for moving around humans and/or goods&quot; is interpreted as &quot;the device must be able to do that, but not necessarily be used that way&quot;. The reason is that the claim describes a device and not a method and if moving around people or goods is something the device could do, it infringes the claim. A (strong) toy car might not infringe though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do other claims play into that? There are dependent and independent claims. Independent claims don't depend on other claims, so there is no connection, they are evaluated on their own. Dependent claims are something like claim 2: &quot;the device from claim 1 further including a passenger seat.&quot; So without a passenger seat you would still infringe claim 1, but not claim 2. It is read as if it were an independent claim with everything from claim 1 copied into it. [Why do we have dependent claims then, if anything that infringes the dependent claim would also infringe the independent claim?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be wary of optional elements though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A device for moving around humans and/or goods, the device comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- at least two, preferably exactly 4, wheels or a caterpillar drive&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- at least one motor,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;the motor beeing designed in such a way that it has at least the power of two horses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anything falling under claim 1 also falls under claim 3. Actually claim 3 is more like a combination of claims 1, 4 and 5. Aynthing infringing **any** of those infringes claim 3!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4: (strictly speaking this is dependent on 1 because it has a strictly smaller scope/ is completly encompassed by claim 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A device for moving around humans and/or goods, the device comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- exactly 4 wheels,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- at least one motor,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;the motor beeing designed in such a way that it has at least the power of two horses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A device for moving around humans and/or goods, the device comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- a caterpillar drive&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- at least one motor,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;the motor beeing designed in such a way that it has at least the power of two horses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/19649/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20022" RevisionGUID="9cc1103e-0840-4238-9fec-09849a981593" CreationDate="2018-11-16T18:02:51.887" UserId="21564" Text="I was brought on to a developing project to solve a key issue with implementing the idea. The solution was to develop a prediction model that I determined and built from scratch. This model was described in depth in the filed patent and I wrote those sections of the patent. I also built other aspects of the product design including developing a solution to the key idea behind the patent. My name was not listed as an inventor, should it have been?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55606" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20022" RevisionGUID="9cc1103e-0840-4238-9fec-09849a981593" CreationDate="2018-11-16T18:02:51.887" UserId="21564" Text="Am I an inventor if I created the prediction model the product relies on?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55607" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20022" RevisionGUID="9cc1103e-0840-4238-9fec-09849a981593" CreationDate="2018-11-16T18:02:51.887" UserId="21564" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20023" RevisionGUID="060cefc3-9b77-4bb3-9dbd-b1f09ad4f390" CreationDate="2018-11-16T23:50:58.027" UserId="17003" Text="I am not a lawyer, but I do have quite a few patents to my credit. My test is this: is there at least one claim where the novelty is based on your contribution. So look at the claims. Is one of them covering your prediction model or your solution? If so, you should be listed as an inventor. It's important to understand that an inventor is the one who comes up with the novel idea, not necessarily the one who does all the work. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55610" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19973" RevisionGUID="6a70fba7-37eb-4d62-813e-68ab929ab408" CreationDate="2018-11-17T00:01:55.227" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55611" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19971" RevisionGUID="d3abb2e7-8862-4031-b7d4-1d877666d3e5" CreationDate="2018-11-17T02:01:40.320" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55612" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="af1df5e2-1a0e-459d-8ecd-da32da78e097" CreationDate="2018-11-17T03:03:25.603" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20021" RevisionGUID="cdd5ba96-9481-4798-830c-994054270cc8" CreationDate="2018-11-17T11:18:53.110" UserId="18033" Comment="edited body" Text="An &quot;element&quot; of a claim is not defined in the law. It's actually a kind of abstraction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But let's start at the beginning. A patent's protection is defined by the claims. Anything that falls under the scope of any claim infringes that claim. The scope of a claim is all that is described by that claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example might make this clearer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A device for moving around humans and/or goods, the device comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- at least two wheels&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- at least one motor,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;the motor beeing designed in such a way that it has at least the power of two horses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(disclaimer: the last part is somewhat unclear (it defines the problem, not the solution), don't write something like that into a patent claim in real life unless you know what you're doing)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The elements of the claim are &quot;at least two wheels&quot; and &quot;at least one motor&quot;. Would a bycicle without a motor infringe this claim? No, it doesn't fall under the wording of the claim as should be rather clear from just reading it. A bycicle is not &quot;a device&quot; as described. So for infringement, all elements need to be present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about &quot;the motor beeing designed in such a way that it has at least the power of two horses&quot;, is that an element of the claim? I'd say yes, though you might say it is just part of &quot;a motor&quot;. It doesn't really matter, because &quot;element&quot; is not defined. But whatever you call it, if the motor doesn't have the power of two horses or more, you do not infringe the claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And &quot;for moving around humans and/or goods&quot; is interpreted as &quot;the device must be able to do that, but not necessarily be used that way&quot;. The reason is that the claim describes a device and not a method and if moving around people or goods is something the device could do, it infringes the claim. A (strong) toy car might not infringe though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do other claims play into that? There are dependent and independent claims. Independent claims don't depend on other claims, so there is no connection, they are evaluated on their own. Dependent claims are something like claim 2: &quot;the device from claim 1 further including a passenger seat.&quot; So without a passenger seat you would still infringe claim 1, but not claim 2. It is read as if it were an independent claim with everything from claim 1 copied into it. [Why do we have dependent claims then, if anything that infringes the dependent claim would also infringe the independent claim?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be wary of optional elements though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A device for moving around humans and/or goods, the device comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- at least two, preferably exactly 4, wheels or a caterpillar drive&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- at least one motor,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;the motor beeing designed in such a way that it has at least the power of two horses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anything falling under claim 1 also falls under claim 3. Actually claim 3 is more like a combination of claims 1, 4 and 5. Anything infringing **any** of those infringes claim 3!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4: (strictly speaking this is dependent on 1 because it has a strictly smaller scope/ is completly encompassed by claim 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A device for moving around humans and/or goods, the device comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- exactly 4 wheels,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- at least one motor,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;the motor beeing designed in such a way that it has at least the power of two horses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A device for moving around humans and/or goods, the device comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- a caterpillar drive&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- at least one motor,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;the motor beeing designed in such a way that it has at least the power of two horses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/19649/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20024" RevisionGUID="c8a9dcd8-6102-4136-a11f-8b66341632da" CreationDate="2018-11-17T16:10:26.990" UserId="21567" Text="I submitted a customer number request form per [this](https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/getting-started-new-users) page.  How long does it generally take for the USPTO to fulfill the request and email a customer number?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And after a customer number has been assigned, how long does it generally take to issue a digital certificate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for the help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55615" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20024" RevisionGUID="c8a9dcd8-6102-4136-a11f-8b66341632da" CreationDate="2018-11-17T16:10:26.990" UserId="21567" Text="USPTO Customer Number" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55616" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20024" RevisionGUID="c8a9dcd8-6102-4136-a11f-8b66341632da" CreationDate="2018-11-17T16:10:26.990" UserId="21567" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55617" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19823" RevisionGUID="6f90300e-9943-45de-b766-b95ef2ae777a" CreationDate="2018-11-18T00:03:05.717" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55618" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19813" RevisionGUID="30e4e2ab-1bab-4c7b-91cb-a8158a4f47ed" CreationDate="2018-11-18T15:02:45.533" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55619" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="31eeeda2-5cba-4941-b277-9f4f3ed5c132" CreationDate="2018-11-19T08:00:55.163" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20025" RevisionGUID="a0f09697-ef91-4612-ad4a-c3ccdb7b0799" CreationDate="2018-11-19T10:58:08.647" UserId="21534" Text="Please don’t consider the below legal advise. But I think there are three issues here:&#xA;&#xA;1. Is the damage caused by publication (of the patent) offset by the potential to obtain money by licensing/suing&#xA;&#xA;2. How should the claim be drafted&#xA;&#xA;3. How does one detect infringement in “hidden” cases.&#xA;&#xA;Re 1. I would ask if you are sure that only that three-letter entity will infringe. Otherwise, there may be more value in maintaining (and selling) as a trade secret. Such licensing could include provisions which require them to reveal the use of the idea. (Will they fulfill it?). How much do you expect to be paid?&#xA;&#xA;Re 2.  It is worth considering if the output has  a visible signature. For example, does the method have a particular form of output, including mistakes, or doe sit need a particular form of input or consumption of resources. It may then be possible to claim these more visible, but less idea-specific items. As an example from beer making (another process which may be kept secret), if you can find a signature of the process in the beer as some small amount of contaminant, then claim beer with with that contaminant.&#xA;&#xA;Re 3. How long will the infringement go on for? The patent can be in force for over 15 years and one can sue 6 years back. Is it reasonable to expect that in all that time there will be no whistle blowers or inadvertent admission or perhaps a worker who left the agency or perhaps a disgruntled employee (all ways of getting hidden information)?&#xA;&#xA;So, to be more specific about strategy. Which, of course, is very fact specific.&#xA;&#xA;(A) See if trade secret protection is an option&#xA;&#xA;(B) try to identify consequences, both upstream and downstream and see if you can claim these (should be done in any case)&#xA;&#xA;(C) If your s/w will not be modified by client, consider artificially generating such consequences.&#xA;&#xA;(D) Try to generate some contractual obligations to provide any type of information.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20026" RevisionGUID="40c2012e-05ec-4a7d-affb-0cebf5f0590c" CreationDate="2018-11-20T13:38:20.110" UserId="21576" Text="I invented a cosmetic tool to be used for the hands and filed a provisional patent. However, I missed the 12-month deadline to convert the patent pending to a non-provisional patent. Can I reapply for another provisional patent with the same product if I tweaked it a little and said it was a tool now designed for the feet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55622" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20026" RevisionGUID="40c2012e-05ec-4a7d-affb-0cebf5f0590c" CreationDate="2018-11-20T13:38:20.110" UserId="21576" Text="New or Different Use Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55623" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20026" RevisionGUID="40c2012e-05ec-4a7d-affb-0cebf5f0590c" CreationDate="2018-11-20T13:38:20.110" UserId="21576" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20027" RevisionGUID="1e3abbe4-eb5e-4473-8314-c1a97363ac93" CreationDate="2018-11-20T18:32:43.913" UserId="18033" Text="A provisional patent application is neither published nor examined. It has no rights outstanding (if it wasn't used as a priority for another application as it seems from your question). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it is never going to be published, it is not prior art to any other patent application. You can therefore submit the same thing again without worries that the old provisional might be a problem. You will be getting a new priority date though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55625" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19902" RevisionGUID="a127287c-b320-418a-b657-0e447ce9e230" CreationDate="2018-11-20T23:02:30.480" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19902" RevisionGUID="c6c50414-b727-40c0-ada1-fc68f238ba70" CreationDate="2018-11-20T23:59:46.643" UserId="17003" Comment="Removed &quot;pens&quot; and &quot;pend&quot; as not being correct usage." Text="I have developed a grain drying/storage system, which I started documenting in 2008. I have shown this system, in general, to individual manufacturers and organizations without monetary compensation but never publicly put it out on the internet. Did this ruin my opportunity to patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55627" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19902" RevisionGUID="c6c50414-b727-40c0-ada1-fc68f238ba70" CreationDate="2018-11-20T23:59:46.643" UserId="17003" Comment="Removed &quot;pens&quot; and &quot;pend&quot; as not being correct usage." Text="If I freely described, in words and pictures, to individual companies(not &quot;publicly&quot;) could I patent it, if no prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55628" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18328" RevisionGUID="3517f091-5336-4edd-8b50-250caa2c8570" CreationDate="2018-11-21T00:01:25.207" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55629" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="624c40fb-dde6-4322-9c6a-ff16651e85af" CreationDate="2018-11-21T17:02:30.440" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20029" RevisionGUID="7855bab3-f9fd-4285-9ea9-e9195643a766" CreationDate="2018-11-21T20:59:39.693" UserId="21585" Text="Context is US law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say a company develops some new drug with some new Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API). They also have two formulations containing said API which allows the drug to be delivered via different mechanisms (say orally and intravenously).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will they get a patent on just the API or can they secure two patents, one for each delivery mechanism + the API?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55634" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20029" RevisionGUID="7855bab3-f9fd-4285-9ea9-e9195643a766" CreationDate="2018-11-21T20:59:39.693" UserId="21585" Text="Can separate patents be awarded for different delivery mechanisms for the same drug?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55635" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20029" RevisionGUID="7855bab3-f9fd-4285-9ea9-e9195643a766" CreationDate="2018-11-21T20:59:39.693" UserId="21585" Text="&lt;united-states&gt;&lt;pharmaceutical&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20017" RevisionGUID="f5def0ec-9048-452f-bf5e-70062f32bebf" CreationDate="2018-11-21T22:32:35.473" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 283 characters in body" Text="An examiner does not need to do much to make a prima facie case. For a 101 rejection - after saying that it is drawn to an abstract idea they need to say that they see that it also does not have &quot;something more&quot; than the abstract idea. Responding successfully to a 101 abstractness rejection is one of the hardest things to do in patent prosecution today. One hint is that &quot;doing something old with a computer&quot; is out but &quot;making a technically better computer&quot;, even in software, is in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20030" RevisionGUID="686bafe4-311a-47f8-83d5-cc29f2e14b17" CreationDate="2018-11-21T22:38:00.710" UserId="3076" Text="Yes, if the structure and/or method of each is novel and non-obvious. Frequently a slow-release version is patented separately. Or they could be two distinct claims in a single granted patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20032" RevisionGUID="a71f7da8-d6e5-4a68-a8b0-bad066720771" CreationDate="2018-11-22T12:05:34.080" UserId="21385" Text="It happens often that patent claims have as broad a scope as they can get away with. However, I have heard that, if your invention can be in general described by an independent claim of a third-party patent, but is implemented using a specific technique that is not protected by that claim, then it can be patented. Is this true? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, if one implements such an invention with aforesaid non-protected method, but does not patent it, can one be sued because of infringing on the broader claim of the third-party patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, let's say that an imaginary patent claims a self-driving car with help of a set of camera sensors, and nothing more specific. If I invent a special algorithm for processing the images of the cameras in order to implement a self-driving car, am I infringing on that claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55642" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20032" RevisionGUID="a71f7da8-d6e5-4a68-a8b0-bad066720771" CreationDate="2018-11-22T12:05:34.080" UserId="21385" Text="Impact of claim scope on potential infringement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55643" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20032" RevisionGUID="a71f7da8-d6e5-4a68-a8b0-bad066720771" CreationDate="2018-11-22T12:05:34.080" UserId="21385" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;patentscope&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20033" RevisionGUID="98219bf7-7b0a-4d30-8560-6f69c250c3a7" CreationDate="2018-11-22T14:39:50.850" UserId="17003" Text="You can indeed get a patent for a novel refinement or improvement of an already patented idea. However, while gaining a patent means you can prevent someone from implementing the idea claimed in your patent, it doesn't mean that you somehow now circumvent existing patents. In your example, the fact that you invent a special algorithm for processing the images from the self-driving car's cameras doesn't keep you from infringing on the broader existing patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There can be value in patenting your refinement even if you don't have freedom-to-operate. The refinement may be of value to the original patent holder so you can potentially license it to them. It might be used as a bargaining chip to negotiate a licensing deal to allow use of the original patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20033" RevisionGUID="3e4a0e7a-1b2c-400f-af11-ecec0c59b5ed" CreationDate="2018-11-22T17:34:57.157" UserId="17003" Comment="added 185 characters in body" Text="You can indeed get a patent for a novel refinement or improvement of an already patented idea. However, while gaining a patent means you can prevent someone from implementing the idea claimed in your patent, it doesn't mean that you somehow now circumvent existing patents. In your example, the fact that you invent a special algorithm for processing the images from the self-driving car's cameras doesn't keep you from infringing on the broader existing patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There can be value in patenting your refinement even if you don't have freedom-to-operate. The refinement may be of value to the original patent holder so you can potentially license it to them. It might be used as a bargaining chip to negotiate a licensing deal to allow use of the original patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this question isn't hypothetical then I highly recommend you consult with an actual patent attorney on questions of freedom-to-operate and not rely on advice from internet sites." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20034" RevisionGUID="df526cfb-9aa5-4964-97d2-8e7c7303b218" CreationDate="2018-11-22T18:19:20.527" UserId="21593" Text="I have developed a technology that will keeps fruits in storage and transport from spoiling prematurely. The problem is global in nature which means that I have to be mindful of where my markets are and protect my IP accordingly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the sectors giving me problems from an IP perspective is trans-ocean shipping because the goods (and my technology) moves from one port to another. I am interested in how jurisdiction is determined and how/where I am exposed if I do not protect adequately.  I cannot sensibly patent every nation in the world and I am trying to be strategic about which nations I enter into at national phase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A potential scenario is this: a shipping container full of bananas is loaded in one nation, bound for another. My inventive device is onboard the shipping container and is owned by the ocean transport company. The invention operates the entire time the bananas are in the shipping container which includes it being loaded onto a ship at Nation A, traversing international waters, and then being off-loaded at Nation B and delivered to a distributor somewhere in Nation B. It is even possible that the container is transshipped from Nation B to Nation C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lets say the bananas were loaded in Ecuador and bound for Belgium and the ocean transport company is multinational and has offices on every continent. Should I just protect Belgium because the goods will be landed there or do I need to protect both Ecuador and Belgium? Does the boundary into international waters act like a reset button on jurisdiction or anything like that? Does the multinational reach of the ocean transport company factor into consideration? Should I have broad coverage through the EU to project against transshipments to surrounding nations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know just enough about IP to get myself in trouble but nowhere near enough to get myself out of it. I'm really hoping that you might help me understand this type of situation better so that I can plan accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55653" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20034" RevisionGUID="df526cfb-9aa5-4964-97d2-8e7c7303b218" CreationDate="2018-11-22T18:19:20.527" UserId="21593" Text="Trans-ocean shipping and patent jurisdiction" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55654" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20034" RevisionGUID="df526cfb-9aa5-4964-97d2-8e7c7303b218" CreationDate="2018-11-22T18:19:20.527" UserId="21593" Text="&lt;jurisdiction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20035" RevisionGUID="6302a084-8201-467c-a6e6-3b520fe2553e" CreationDate="2018-11-22T22:54:55.977" UserId="21534" Text="The following is a general overview and not legal advice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each country is different, but as a general rule **patents are geographical** and you sue in the country where you have a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More important, you usually sue for patent infringement where it is **easy to sue and collect damages**. So you could sue in Ecuador, Belgium or in Germany (assuming that is where the bananas end up). But only if you have a granted patent in the country where you want to sue. Below I will explain where you probably *should* sue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking the USA as an example, [35 USC 271][1] says (among other things): &quot;Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority **makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells** any patented invention, within the United States or **imports into** the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who enforces this law? Basically, the customs services is supposed to stop importation. Once an item is imported, most countries allow you to file a civil suit. There are some unique exceptions. For example, China has [special outbound custom activity][2] preventing export of items infringing IP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more law to consider, the [Paris convention][3], specifically article Article 5ter, which says that &quot;the use on board vessels of other countries of the Union of devices forming the subject of his patent in the body of the vessel, in the machinery, tackle, gear and **other accessories**, when such vessels **temporarily** or accidentally enter the waters of the said country, provided that such devices are used there exclusively for the needs of the vessel&quot;, with something similar for land vehicles and airplanes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, arguable, a device for maintaining the freshness of bananas, might not be infringing anywhere, as long as it is in transit (I am sure there is case law, but I have not looked it up and it is probably country-specific). Also, a company based in the USA does not infringe a US patent if activities only occur outside the USA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The European union is about to enact a [unified European patent system][4], simplifying your choices in Europe (single patent, single court).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back to your question. Usually, one files where there are large infringers, where suing is cheap, where market is large, where the courts are pro-patent, where your competitors are located, where there are weak infringers (who cannot fight back) or where you expect licensing revenues (this is not an exhaustive list). Most important, you should consider the cost of actually prosecuting the patent to grant in each country (figure **$5k** a year until grant and **$500** a year after grant, per country. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that international patent litigation is very expensive, so you should consider if it will pay to enforce. For example, a **$1M** (cheap!) patent lawsuit in a  country with a **$10M** a year infringement value and where courts are unfriendly (to patent holders, outsiders), is not a great investment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how likely are you to prevail in Ecuador? How much bigger is market in Germany than market in Belgium? Must infringers use the port in Belgium? Where is suing easier? where is device not &quot;in transit&quot; any more. On the balance it looks like Germany would be the place to file a patent, as device may not be in transit any more, and Germany is a large market and suing is easy. First, of course, I would check how your device is used in Germany and what law says about such use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are lucky, the technology causes a novel change in the bio/chemistry/structure of the fruit itself and then you may be able to patent this modified fruit and sue for infringement of a  patent on the modified fruit, rather than directly on the technology. The fruit is just sitting in the supermarket, not in transit and cannot &quot;hide&quot; from you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;p.s., method patents in the USA, for example, even if infringed *only* outside the US, can [sometimes][5] bar the importation of the result (fresh banana?) into the usa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.rouse.com/magazine/news/a-summary-of-the-china-customs-ip-protection-report/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=288514&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/unitary.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ocpatentlawyer.com/process-patent-blocks-importation-of-product/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55656" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="6a8f31d9-2716-4040-99ac-7b0a690b1f4c" CreationDate="2018-11-22T23:00:36.730" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20037" RevisionGUID="6d99feaf-f1d6-41f6-b3b7-8566dff14c45" CreationDate="2018-11-23T02:56:38.403" UserId="14403" Text="It seems the long question and the long answer as well are off beat. &#xD;&#xA;To me the relevant aspects are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q. What is the patent protected product ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     A. A storage device. (And not bananas or any other fruit it stores).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ii.  Q. Will its entry to another country as a fitted device of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vehicle can be considered as infringement of patent in that country ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     A. No.(The answer of 'tinlow' quotes some related international law). Because, in simplest of terms patent protection is for production and selling in a country in which patent is obtained. The vehicle or its fitments will not be considered indulging in these activities while carrying out normal shipment activities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; iii. Q. Countries of interest for the product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;       A. The legal aspect of patent protection is confined to patented product which is, in this case, a storage device. Since this device is to be used on ships, the inventor can concentrate on countries capable of building ships. And number of countries having ship building capability is limited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; iv.  Q. Will selling of banana and for that matter any fruit which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; were stored in your invented container can land you in patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; infringement suit ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       A. Unless you intend to manufacture and sell your storage device in that country you need not worry. Selling of bananas and fruits are related to trade (export-import licences) law and not patent law. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20038" RevisionGUID="eadfbe4c-2e72-4217-995d-3960226774ed" CreationDate="2018-11-23T17:39:46.400" UserId="21595" Text="I have idea for software, yet I don't know how to write software. Before getting someone to write software for me shall I get patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, I create what I need (my medical condition allows me to communicate better with pictures than with words) using MS WORD. This me takes 2 to 3 hours. If I can get software created, it would take maybe 10 to 15 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this software can help differently abled people who need alternate methods to communicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any guidance is most appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55662" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20038" RevisionGUID="eadfbe4c-2e72-4217-995d-3960226774ed" CreationDate="2018-11-23T17:39:46.400" UserId="21595" Text="Idea for Software - Should I file Patent first" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55663" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20038" RevisionGUID="eadfbe4c-2e72-4217-995d-3960226774ed" CreationDate="2018-11-23T17:39:46.400" UserId="21595" Text="&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55664" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="20038" RevisionGUID="6d26adc2-d51c-481d-b304-a114708ac085" CreationDate="2018-11-23T21:58:43.587" UserId="21595" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;utility-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55665" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19849" RevisionGUID="cc76b496-5f8d-44f4-8732-9d15cee684e7" CreationDate="2018-11-23T22:02:00.447" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20038" RevisionGUID="e8c22d45-6c61-495d-a0b7-09799b0bff60" CreationDate="2018-11-23T23:14:22.520" UserId="21595" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="I have idea for software, yet I don't know how to write software. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This software will be low-cost (large organizations) or free (individuals). Before getting someone to write software for me shall I get patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, I create what I need (my medical condition allows me to communicate better with pictures than with words) using MS WORD. This me takes 2 to 3 hours. If I can get software created, it would take maybe 10 to 15 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this software can help differently abled people who need alternate methods to communicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any guidance is most appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20039" RevisionGUID="f530c768-71f0-479b-9d61-81b8eaa40670" CreationDate="2018-11-23T23:30:43.950" UserId="17003" Text="Unfortunately there is no way for me to tell you if your idea is patentable. To do so would required disclosure of the idea and you can't do that publicly without losing the ability to patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I will say is that there certainly is the potential for a patenting an invention related to software. I would suggest working with a software developer to flesh out the idea in some prototype form. You can do this under a non-disclosure agreement which protects your ability to obtain a future patent. In order to get a patent, the invention needs to be enabled which means you have to describe how it works sufficient well for a person skilled in the field to reproduce it. Thus, vague concepts are unlikely to be patentable. Also, having a working prototype will help you in either obtaining venture capital or in obtaining licensing deals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please understand that I am not a patent attorney and I can't provide legal advice. I personally feel that there is no substitute for consulting with an actual attorney when pursuing a patent although there are certainly examples of people doing so on their own." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55668" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17720" RevisionGUID="45c6412f-35fd-480a-91fa-bca319f762fa" CreationDate="2018-11-24T06:00:47.157" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55669" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="ff879575-f251-4a7f-b48b-6a33abbb0485" CreationDate="2018-11-24T08:01:20.253" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20040" RevisionGUID="5cc8d371-2538-4bfe-aaff-6b175ffc8990" CreationDate="2018-11-24T14:47:46.630" UserId="21599" Text="Mpeg-2 patents have now expired in most countries at the beginning of 2018. However, at least Malaysia and Philippines still have active mpeg-2 patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So does anyone know when mpeg-2 patents expire in Malaysia and Philippines ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addition: I've written an mpeg-2 decoder and wondering when I can give it away free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55671" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20040" RevisionGUID="5cc8d371-2538-4bfe-aaff-6b175ffc8990" CreationDate="2018-11-24T14:47:46.630" UserId="21599" Text="Mpeg-2 patents in Malaysia and Philippines" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55672" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20040" RevisionGUID="5cc8d371-2538-4bfe-aaff-6b175ffc8990" CreationDate="2018-11-24T14:47:46.630" UserId="21599" Text="&lt;mpeg-2&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55673" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="74e70c64-abc9-424c-94e3-3c99b84374ad" CreationDate="2018-11-25T01:01:05.153" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55674" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18600" RevisionGUID="dfcefb20-9f79-48a7-9fb0-366f8df522df" CreationDate="2018-11-25T06:00:40.630" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55675" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="88ca7e2c-aeb7-45d0-ab00-b81b4322bc87" CreationDate="2018-11-25T13:02:25.443" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55676" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16606" RevisionGUID="bb5d1ceb-4b6f-48ce-97c9-e11b9842e620" CreationDate="2018-11-26T10:01:45.410" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20037" RevisionGUID="1e669c72-0d7d-450b-84b1-37ee8552ab62" CreationDate="2018-11-26T12:11:17.647" UserId="1" Comment="fixed markup" Text="It seems the long question and the long answer as well are off beat. &#xD;&#xA;To me the relevant aspects are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; i. Q. What is the patent protected product ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. A storage device. (And not bananas or any other fruit it stores).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ii.  Q. Will its entry to another country as a fitted device of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vehicle can be considered as infringement of patent in that country ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. No.(The answer of 'tinlow' quotes some related international law). Because, in simplest of terms patent protection is for production and selling in a country in which patent is obtained. The vehicle or its fitments will not be considered indulging in these activities while carrying out normal shipment activities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; iii. Q. Countries of interest for the product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;A. The legal aspect of patent protection is confined to patented product which is, in this case, a storage device. Since this device is to be used on ships, the inventor can concentrate on countries capable of building ships. And number of countries having ship building capability is limited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; iv.  Q. Will selling of banana and for that matter any fruit which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; were stored in your invented container can land you in patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; infringement suit ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. Unless you intend to manufacture and sell your storage device in that country you need not worry. Selling of bananas and fruits are related to trade (export-import licenses) law and not patent law. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20041" RevisionGUID="c9e81aaf-7849-4ead-8a5b-791fb94453b5" CreationDate="2018-11-26T12:26:18.897" UserId="8074" Text="I'm looking for easiest way to get textual information from public pair documents. All the patent prosecution documents it seams are in pdf-image format. Getting text from that requires OCR, which is tedious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any suggestions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55679" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20041" RevisionGUID="c9e81aaf-7849-4ead-8a5b-791fb94453b5" CreationDate="2018-11-26T12:26:18.897" UserId="8074" Text="Is there a way to get public pair documents in textual form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55680" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20041" RevisionGUID="c9e81aaf-7849-4ead-8a5b-791fb94453b5" CreationDate="2018-11-26T12:26:18.897" UserId="8074" Text="&lt;pair&gt;&lt;documents&gt;&lt;prosecution&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20042" RevisionGUID="48684f88-a870-429b-8017-4a0a40aabe60" CreationDate="2018-11-26T14:31:25.740" UserId="21603" Text="Say I have a photography app with some special features that are patentable. Actually, just say I have an &quot;app&quot;, not even specifying that it's photography. I don't want to show this to potential employers, but at the same time I want to protect its IP. I'm wondering what I can do without filing a patent. They typically have you list your prior inventions, but just stating &quot;Photography App&quot; or just &quot;Private application&quot; is not good enough apparently. I am not sure what needs to be done, yet at the same time not explain any details. Maybe a non-disclosure agreement or something of that sort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of the problem is, say I go an work at Flickr now. I wonder what happens to this patentability / protection. Now instead of Flickr (which is directly related), say I worked at StackExchange (which is software, but unrelated to photography). Say they then invent something that is similar to my app down the road. Wondering what this means." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55682" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20042" RevisionGUID="48684f88-a870-429b-8017-4a0a40aabe60" CreationDate="2018-11-26T14:31:25.740" UserId="21603" Text="Applying for a Job without a Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55683" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20042" RevisionGUID="48684f88-a870-429b-8017-4a0a40aabe60" CreationDate="2018-11-26T14:31:25.740" UserId="21603" Text="&lt;employer&gt;&lt;employee&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55684" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="6392edeb-17d1-4c05-87b3-e4b649a3b69d" CreationDate="2018-11-26T20:02:00.327" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20043" RevisionGUID="40d8f47c-8600-4c47-8dde-590faff0aa5e" CreationDate="2018-11-26T20:59:34.237" UserId="18033" Text="The documents are submitted by the applicants in writing or pdf. Getting text from them requires OCR, there's no way around that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55686" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="20041" RevisionGUID="e5acf1c7-21db-47e5-8e67-710f6c44a31d" CreationDate="2018-11-26T21:49:25.107" UserId="8074" Comment="edited title" Text="Is there a way to get public pair final/non-final rejection documents in textual form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20041" RevisionGUID="e5acf1c7-21db-47e5-8e67-710f6c44a31d" CreationDate="2018-11-26T21:49:25.107" UserId="8074" Comment="edited title" Text="I'm looking for easiest way to get textual information from public pair documents, examiner rejection documents to be specific. All the patent prosecution documents it seams are in pdf-image format. Getting text from that requires OCR, which is tedious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any suggestions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55688" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="20040" RevisionGUID="8e6d3843-879d-48bf-a342-06b03d79d124" CreationDate="2018-11-26T21:52:13.357" UserId="17737" Comment="tags edited" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;mpeg-2&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55689" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="20040" RevisionGUID="8e6d3843-879d-48bf-a342-06b03d79d124" CreationDate="2018-11-26T21:52:13.357" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 18033, 8074 edit id of 2096" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20044" RevisionGUID="f033eb7d-7a47-46c3-b489-de12d3935be4" CreationDate="2018-11-27T00:24:59.433" UserId="17003" Text="This is a vague question but I'll try to respond. If an employer is asking about your inventions, then I'd assume they mean things that are patented or have a patent applied for. You seem to think that some of your app's &quot;special features&quot; are patentable. This may or may not be true, but let's assume they are. In this case I'd really suggest you consider a provisional patent application. This gives you a one year period of protection. This allows you to show your ideas to employers without losing patentability. Alternatively, you could request a confidentiality agreement be signed with the potential employers. Even with that agreement, I'd suggest you followup with a written communication specifying your intellectual you disclosed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case I am not a lawyer. Even if I were one, I couldn't advise you on the actual patentability of your ideas since you can't publicly disclose them. I always advise to consult with an actual patent attorney in these cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20045" RevisionGUID="f1f68767-02f5-4bed-b0b2-d298d0a02582" CreationDate="2018-11-27T04:32:39.653" UserId="21604" Text="If the owner of cited prior art/patent sue me in the court against my patent after I was granted the patent, what is the chance he would win?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55692" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20045" RevisionGUID="f1f68767-02f5-4bed-b0b2-d298d0a02582" CreationDate="2018-11-27T04:32:39.653" UserId="21604" Text="Angry prior art owner" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55693" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20045" RevisionGUID="f1f68767-02f5-4bed-b0b2-d298d0a02582" CreationDate="2018-11-27T04:32:39.653" UserId="21604" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;cited&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55694" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16450" RevisionGUID="7087f49c-927f-4011-ae3d-5bb582df8a43" CreationDate="2018-11-27T07:01:05.177" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55695" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18185" RevisionGUID="58a6c738-5ef2-4e7f-9f19-e7f2b7e389fe" CreationDate="2018-11-27T09:03:15.713" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20046" RevisionGUID="7c8f2a33-c348-45c2-bb9a-9b5b4a8b21ad" CreationDate="2018-11-27T10:25:25.157" UserId="21606" Text="I have seen a **website** patent which is granted in US. My question is this patent valid only in US or other countries too? If I make a same website in Germany, then I am infringing their patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55697" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20046" RevisionGUID="7c8f2a33-c348-45c2-bb9a-9b5b4a8b21ad" CreationDate="2018-11-27T10:25:25.157" UserId="21606" Text="is this patent US 9401941 only valid in US? or other countries too?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55698" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20046" RevisionGUID="7c8f2a33-c348-45c2-bb9a-9b5b4a8b21ad" CreationDate="2018-11-27T10:25:25.157" UserId="21606" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20047" RevisionGUID="00945daf-cf9f-4ccd-8f06-f54fc0a88f9a" CreationDate="2018-11-27T11:23:35.710" UserId="21608" Text="If my invention has several innovative features, is it best to file separate patents for each feature, or for the device as a whole, or both?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55700" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20047" RevisionGUID="00945daf-cf9f-4ccd-8f06-f54fc0a88f9a" CreationDate="2018-11-27T11:23:35.710" UserId="21608" Text="File one patent or many patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55701" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20047" RevisionGUID="00945daf-cf9f-4ccd-8f06-f54fc0a88f9a" CreationDate="2018-11-27T11:23:35.710" UserId="21608" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;utility-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20048" RevisionGUID="d6f1fb65-65c5-4079-a90f-c7d11710d9da" CreationDate="2018-11-27T18:04:03.047" UserId="17003" Text="A US patent only protects an invention in the United States. I checked on [The Lens][1] and couldn't find any equivalent world patents in this patent's family. That said, there potentially could be an issue if your website were available to US users. I am not a lawyer so I would recommend you check with one before launching your website. Also, you should be aware there is always the potential for other relevant patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/088-603-513-734-815/family" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55703" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="7b9992a7-25e7-424e-8a0c-de4a8c0fa266" CreationDate="2018-11-27T20:03:15.683" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55704" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14883" RevisionGUID="26eee26f-1f95-4bff-89cb-b054b1f6c048" CreationDate="2018-11-27T21:00:46.343" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20045" RevisionGUID="2fff9430-b0da-4ac8-ad3f-c705ded31c25" CreationDate="2018-11-28T05:50:41.893" UserId="21604" Comment="added 418 characters in body" Text="If the owner of cited prior art/patent sue me in the court against my patent after I was granted the patent, what is the chance he would win?&#xD;&#xA;When I applied my patent, I did thorough research and cited many prior art/patents. After I was granted my patent, one owner of the &quot;cited prior patents&quot; contact with me saying that my patent infringes his one. Surely I think not, so I am wondering if he sue me on the court claiming that my patent infringes his, will he win? I did actually cite his one in my patent application and I was granted the patent. &#xD;&#xA;    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20049" RevisionGUID="089c4acb-66bb-46dd-ae60-69b902f67569" CreationDate="2018-11-28T06:21:18.977" UserId="18544" Text="A granted patent provides a &quot;negative&quot; priviledge, I mean, you can block others from manufacturing or commercializing the invention, but it does not ensure you can put your own product / service in the market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may be times when the product or service protected by your patent requires licensing other patents, because some specific parts of the manufacturing process or characteristics of the product have been previsuly protected by others. In those cases, third parties can block you unless you get such licence.&#xD;&#xA;Usually, this kind of conflict is solved by sharing licences.&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, the conflict appears when the product is in the market, not because of the patent itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think you mean that the other company wants to invalidate your patent. As the examination process is not perfect, sometimes important prior art is missed, and inventive step criterion is not fully applied. &#xD;&#xA;I only know the patent cancellation procedure in European countries, I suppouse that it is not so far away from the EEUU one. As far as I know, most of companies fight back by trying to cancel the patent of the initial suing company, it is a so common procedure that it has its own name in Spanish and other European languages. :-) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree Erin Shain and DonQuiKong, I imagine that you get that notification after you patent was published. So, if you post the IDs of both patents (prior art and yours) perhaps we could help you better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20050" RevisionGUID="629e9dee-ed37-4adb-88de-413dd32d9611" CreationDate="2018-11-28T06:24:33.390" UserId="21610" Text="For light bulb Edison's one patent was sufficient to prevent competitors from infringing his invention. But current day where knowledge is abundant and available at finger tips and due to the competition and case law created from numerous patent cases owning single patent would be risky. If Competitors are successful in circumventing the claim you are left with noting to defend. My suggestion is file a single patent application but before grant file a continuation application or divisional application which would support you to add additional claims upon evaluation of the competitor product.      " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20051" RevisionGUID="bc474038-2f30-40a1-8d20-9c767f039151" CreationDate="2018-11-28T06:36:46.863" UserId="21610" Text=" &quot;you should be aware there is always the potential for other relevant patents.&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;by MrEric Shain might be there might be other patents which might claim the process &#xD;&#xA;for example US 9026942 B2 is a family patent which was granted before this US 9401941 B2 similarly there might be patents from some other applicant which might have claimed the subject matter. It's suggested to meet patent attorneys before launch of the website in your country as they would be good resource.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20049" RevisionGUID="627aad50-80e1-4232-82f7-12047afc13fb" CreationDate="2018-11-28T15:17:08.443" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed a couple of misspellings." Text="A granted patent provides a &quot;negative&quot; priviledge, I mean, you can block others from manufacturing or commercializing the invention, but it does not ensure you can put your own product / service in the market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may be times when the product or service protected by your patent requires licensing other patents, because some specific parts of the manufacturing process or characteristics of the product have been previsuly protected by others. In those cases, third parties can block you unless you get such licence.&#xD;&#xA;Usually, this kind of conflict is solved by sharing licences.&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, the conflict appears when the product is in the market, not because of the patent itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think you mean that the other company wants to invalidate your patent. As the examination process is not perfect, sometimes important prior art is missed, and inventive step criterion is not fully applied. &#xD;&#xA;I only know the patent cancellation procedure in European countries, I suppose that it is not so far away from the EEUU one. As far as I know, most of companies fight back by trying to cancel the patent of the initial suing company, it is a so common procedure that it has its own name in Spanish and other European languages. :-) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree Eric Shain and DonQuiKong, I imagine that you get that notification after you patent was published. So, if you post the IDs of both patents (prior art and yours) perhaps we could help you better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55710" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19861" RevisionGUID="5d3588a1-ab17-43b6-b192-f787df9339b3" CreationDate="2018-11-28T20:01:40.270" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55711" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="b282ba14-65e7-4270-97aa-0b2f941f1c53" CreationDate="2018-11-29T02:02:45.563" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20052" RevisionGUID="5ec7619b-f561-4fff-ba22-e6acc2b41c0c" CreationDate="2018-11-29T12:16:37.147" UserId="15489" Text="If I invent something that solves a problem in a new area (an improvement to something that was only invented ten years ago), by using a technique and mechanism disclosed in old invention (something that is 50 years old, in fact), and that no one else has thought of applying to the new area, is this patentable, or will the examiner say &quot;It is obvious to apply the old invention to the new invention&quot; even though no one has done so in the last decade?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the examiner does take this line, are there any pursuasive arguments or former cases that could be drawn on to overcome such an objection?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55713" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20052" RevisionGUID="5ec7619b-f561-4fff-ba22-e6acc2b41c0c" CreationDate="2018-11-29T12:16:37.147" UserId="15489" Text="New use and area of application for old invention" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55714" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20052" RevisionGUID="5ec7619b-f561-4fff-ba22-e6acc2b41c0c" CreationDate="2018-11-29T12:16:37.147" UserId="15489" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20045" RevisionGUID="31cc45a3-2cec-472e-9aca-ee3cefcfcabf" CreationDate="2018-11-29T14:25:41.053" UserId="21604" Comment="deleted 107 characters in body; edited title" Text="My previous statement may not be clear. So I rewrite my question:&#xD;&#xA;I was granted my patent. I do have cited many prior art/patent in my patent application, one of the cited prior patent owner notified me that my patent infringes his one. Since the USPTO patent Examiers were supposedly reviewing all the prior patents that I cited in my application, and they granted me my patent, will I be safe if this prior patent owner sue me in the court?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55716" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="20045" RevisionGUID="31cc45a3-2cec-472e-9aca-ee3cefcfcabf" CreationDate="2018-11-29T14:25:41.053" UserId="21604" Comment="deleted 107 characters in body; edited title" Text="Cited prior art/patent owner notifies me that my granted patent infringes his patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20052" RevisionGUID="9f1a38e7-76fa-4859-ada2-17aaa96e26ca" CreationDate="2018-11-29T15:06:05.973" UserId="15489" Comment="Spelling error correction" Text="If I invent something that solves a problem in a new area (an improvement to something that was only invented ten years ago), by using a technique and mechanism disclosed in old invention (something that is 50 years old, in fact), and that no one else has thought of applying to the new area, is this patentable, or will the examiner say &quot;It is obvious to apply the old invention to the new invention&quot; even though no one has done so in the last decade?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the examiner does take this line, are there any persuasive arguments or former cases that could be drawn on to overcome such an objection?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20055" RevisionGUID="6c6cda04-442c-44e7-adf4-38d9db10ddc0" CreationDate="2018-11-29T16:12:07.640" UserId="17003" Text="&gt; If I invent something that solves a problem in a new area (an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; improvement to something that was only invented ten years ago), by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; using a technique and mechanism disclosed in old invention (something&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that is 50 years old, in fact), and that no one else has thought of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applying to the new area, **is this patentable**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finding new uses for existing technologies happens all the time and **is potentially patentable**. The original inventors of the laser would have had no idea of its use in flow cytometry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or will the examiner say &quot;It is obvious to apply the old invention to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the new invention&quot; even though no one has done so in the last decade?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes this is a definite possibility. I am not a lawyer so strategies to avoid an obviousness objection are beyond my skill set. That said, I think you are safer if the application of the existing technology in the new application comes from an unexpected benefit. So, for instance, applying a teflon coating to a new device in an effort to reduce friction is likely to be rejected as obvious. Applying teflon to to a new device to improve radio frequency transmission might be OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the examiner does take this line, are there any persuasive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; arguments or former cases that could be drawn on to overcome such an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; objection?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to leave the answer to this question to the actual lawyers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20049" RevisionGUID="7ffeffdf-9bea-4f1f-9de4-81a2f5d2fdea" CreationDate="2018-11-30T01:48:31.753" UserId="17003" Comment="Slight grammar edits." Text="A granted patent provides a &quot;negative&quot; priviledge, I mean, you can block others from manufacturing or commercializing the invention, but it does not ensure you can put your own product / service in the market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may be times when the product or service protected by your patent requires licensing other patents, because some specific parts of the manufacturing process or characteristics of the product have been previsuly protected by others. In those cases, third parties can block you unless you get such licence.&#xD;&#xA;Usually, this kind of conflict is solved by sharing licences.&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, the conflict appears when the product is in the market, not because of the patent itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think you mean that the other company wants to invalidate your patent. As the examination process is not perfect, sometimes important prior art is missed, and inventive step criterion is not fully applied. &#xD;&#xA;I only know the patent cancellation procedure in European countries, I suppose that it is not so far away from the EEUU one. As far as I know, most of companies fight back by trying to cancel the patent of the initial suing company, it is a so common procedure that it has its own name in Spanish and other European languages. :-) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Eric Shain and DonQuiKong, I imagine that you get that notification after you patent was published. So, if you post the patent numbers of both patents (prior art and yours) perhaps we could help you better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20058" RevisionGUID="36ca9db4-21a6-4d4d-8d9c-fce27ff865cb" CreationDate="2018-11-30T14:53:47.817" UserId="21124" Text="If your question is &quot;can I get a patent&quot; you would need to talk to a patent attorney. If you question is &quot;do I want a patent&quot; the answer depends on your motivation for getting a patent. If you hope to make a decent amount of money and fear competitors stealing your idea then trying to get a patent might be a good approach. If you have philanthropic objectives (you wish to help others and don't expect to make much money) a patent might be a waste of time and money." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55725" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="5739" RevisionGUID="1e6fa65f-f0c5-4bfe-9310-c3087c561052" CreationDate="2018-11-30T19:05:08.597" UserId="18033" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:18033,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DonQuiKong&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="55726" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19778" RevisionGUID="b6e71b6f-8c20-49b2-abf1-118bd1745859" CreationDate="2018-11-30T21:02:55.567" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55729" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19051" RevisionGUID="94328174-d02f-4b1d-99e2-161b700db597" CreationDate="2018-12-01T08:01:15.237" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20059" RevisionGUID="4559b92a-f2d4-4763-ac9d-f5a86b72ca67" CreationDate="2018-12-01T14:09:14.900" UserId="15491" Text="Is there a simpler way to download machine translated patent text from WIPO Patentscope, beside copy-paste text from WIPO window? &#xA;Is it possible to download/export bibliographical data + translated full patent text downloade all in one document?&#xA;Question relates only to use of the WIPO Translate tool. &#xA;Any hint is wellcome. Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55731" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20059" RevisionGUID="4559b92a-f2d4-4763-ac9d-f5a86b72ca67" CreationDate="2018-12-01T14:09:14.900" UserId="15491" Text="WIPO translate-Patentscope download" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55732" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20059" RevisionGUID="4559b92a-f2d4-4763-ac9d-f5a86b72ca67" CreationDate="2018-12-01T14:09:14.900" UserId="15491" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;patent-search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55733" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19654" RevisionGUID="d23bd4a4-aa72-4057-897e-c6ea43a520cf" CreationDate="2018-12-01T15:01:00.160" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55734" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18941" RevisionGUID="bace73aa-e0fb-4944-a9cd-8cfe57dbc8bc" CreationDate="2018-12-01T20:02:15.430" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20060" RevisionGUID="bfea1384-6c66-4115-a819-8989137b7cbe" CreationDate="2018-12-01T21:05:19.450" UserId="21622" Text="I am an aspiring inventor and in the best case scenario I will be developing smartphones but something that is a huge hurdle for me are the patents that other people hold. I mean one company patented a UI with rounded corner rectangles! Is there any way I can create mainstream devices that have patented parts without being sued?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the video that brought the problem to my attention -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0uv5jFaJFk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I really don't know what tags to add here so feel free to add, edit or remove tags is relevant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55736" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20060" RevisionGUID="bfea1384-6c66-4115-a819-8989137b7cbe" CreationDate="2018-12-01T21:05:19.450" UserId="21622" Text="How to deal with patents that others hold?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55737" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20060" RevisionGUID="bfea1384-6c66-4115-a819-8989137b7cbe" CreationDate="2018-12-01T21:05:19.450" UserId="21622" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55738" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="db5b86e1-bc30-4246-b180-59d50ef812e7" CreationDate="2018-12-02T01:00:55.337" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20061" RevisionGUID="55e591a8-880f-47ba-bd0c-32308eae6b18" CreationDate="2018-12-02T15:34:58.390" UserId="17003" Text="&gt; Is there any way I can create mainstream devices that have patented&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parts without being sued?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, you either avoid infringing on those patents by designing around the claims, or else you take a license from the patent holder. Those are really your only options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not to discourage you, but do you really expect to produce a competitive smartphone by yourself? Android or iPhones represent many thousands of man-years of effort. What I would suggest is more reasonable is to identify some aspect of a smartphone which can be improved upon and invent a solution to that. Obtain a patent and then either market the improvement (practical if it is an app) or else license the improvement to a cell phone manufacturer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55740" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17587" RevisionGUID="fb93a4f6-2152-4ce5-b6c0-4563e586a0c3" CreationDate="2018-12-02T22:00:50.123" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20062" RevisionGUID="8c6e97bd-1ca7-4c62-8969-07d889c06238" CreationDate="2018-12-03T00:27:04.297" UserId="21595" Text="I'm unsure if this question is same to my previous question, https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/20038/idea-for-software-should-i-file-patent-first&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have idea for Utility pattern. Already I create the output (2 to 3 hours in MS Word). And I envision how the software will greet the user, ask for inputs, user presses `Submit` and the output is produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does my patent have to describe the software implementation, or just a workflow of how to the software works (with pictures and drawings)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55742" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20062" RevisionGUID="8c6e97bd-1ca7-4c62-8969-07d889c06238" CreationDate="2018-12-03T00:27:04.297" UserId="21595" Text="Patent software workflow (yet to have implementation)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55743" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20062" RevisionGUID="8c6e97bd-1ca7-4c62-8969-07d889c06238" CreationDate="2018-12-03T00:27:04.297" UserId="21595" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;utility-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20062" RevisionGUID="6787dcbd-6bcd-4f9f-a47d-f72d36ac5222" CreationDate="2018-12-03T00:33:15.357" UserId="21595" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="I'm unsure if this question is same to my previous question, https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/20038/idea-for-software-should-i-file-patent-first&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have idea for Utility pattern. Already I create the output (2 to 3 hours in MS Word). And I envision how the software will greet the user, ask for inputs, user presses `Submit` and the output is produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does my patent have to describe the software implementation (the programming language, line-by-line code), or just a workflow of how to the software works (with pictures and drawings)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the answer is `YES` but I request your clarification.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20062" RevisionGUID="4521a479-52a1-4302-8dce-c91858cd80c8" CreationDate="2018-12-03T00:40:40.823" UserId="21595" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="I'm unsure if this question is same to my previous question, https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/20038/idea-for-software-should-i-file-patent-first&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have idea for Utility pattern. Already I create the output (2 to 3 hours in MS Word). And I envision how the software will greet the user, ask for inputs, user presses `Submit` and the output is produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does my patent have to describe the software implementation (the programming language, line-by-line code), or just a workflow of how to the software works (with pictures and drawings as in [this example][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the answer is `YES` but I request your clarification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://keynotopia.com/guides-ppt/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55746" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18211" RevisionGUID="9dfb37c4-877c-434a-8844-b814e6aeb647" CreationDate="2018-12-03T01:02:40.510" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20063" RevisionGUID="192dfd25-3bba-42d2-9c78-7866e6d4c6d4" CreationDate="2018-12-03T06:59:58.977" UserId="3076" Text="No, a patent application does not need to be detailed to the level of source code. Most patents involving software do have multiple sheets of flowcharts. The specification usually talks about each box in each flowchart and walks the reader through the process step by step. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use [google patents][1] with some keywords to bring up examples of patents involving software. This is an example of an [Amazon patent][2] with very little detail pictured and a [VISA patent][3] with many pages of system diagrams and flowcharts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7877299B2/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9953378B2/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55748" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19689" RevisionGUID="2d9d517f-c308-476a-9160-418d1acf2482" CreationDate="2018-12-03T18:01:45.213" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55749" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19379" RevisionGUID="c08ca22c-4848-40d4-8361-8b5b03d8bb5c" CreationDate="2018-12-03T21:01:40.287" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55750" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19531" RevisionGUID="088decf2-9ff3-4189-ae1d-d71d4c13645c" CreationDate="2018-12-03T22:02:55.600" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55751" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="cbd00c0b-e82e-4913-b789-cc5c68623497" CreationDate="2018-12-04T01:00:50.130" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20064" RevisionGUID="03442576-e431-41e8-bea3-b42efbdedacc" CreationDate="2018-12-04T04:29:46.130" UserId="21627" Text="I have a single invention that has many different applications. Do i need to file a separate non provisional patent for each different use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55753" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20064" RevisionGUID="03442576-e431-41e8-bea3-b42efbdedacc" CreationDate="2018-12-04T04:29:46.130" UserId="21627" Text="One Invention with many different applications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55754" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20064" RevisionGUID="03442576-e431-41e8-bea3-b42efbdedacc" CreationDate="2018-12-04T04:29:46.130" UserId="21627" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20065" RevisionGUID="376b3586-104d-4ebf-83bd-181cff07a548" CreationDate="2018-12-04T05:44:33.157" UserId="21610" Text="Have you filed a provisional application?? if not i suggest to file a provisional application to block the priority date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a provisional application has been filed already taking priority from that file a non provisional application and express request for examination. If patent examiner feels that the claims cover more than one application then the examiner would request you to elect the one specific group from multiple inventions, for remaining groups you can file continuation or divisional applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55756" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="20c4c12b-c107-4249-aef1-5f335bba2a05" CreationDate="2018-12-04T12:03:00.587" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55757" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="da4b8f65-fede-4e79-b24e-5c10bf34e94f" CreationDate="2018-12-04T17:02:05.297" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55758" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19872" RevisionGUID="ab095536-5b00-47ae-85ff-0d24a31d4f28" CreationDate="2018-12-05T01:01:25.253" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55760" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="1a129380-e663-4fda-bd1a-b028c7a75715" CreationDate="2018-12-05T16:01:20.247" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20067" RevisionGUID="a9c2fa70-3bc0-4e84-be1c-dc4f4a0f8cdf" CreationDate="2018-12-05T19:08:12.077" UserId="21534" Text="Good question. In brief I would say: **Need? No**.  **Should? Probably yes**. This leads naturally to the question &quot;**how many?**&quot;, which has no simple answer, as it depends on your plans and the perceived value you hope to obtain from each additional patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some reasons for filing one application (and possibly filing divisional applications or continuations as needed):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Control of costs - only prosecuting one patent application at a time is easier on the cash flow, even if at the end you will file divisional applications and cost could be the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Control of process - if you have several uses for an invention, it may take time to figure out what is the best use and what features of invention best serve that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Control of prosecution - makes it easier to control the scope you actually obtain in each eventually granted patent and reduces cross-talk between the prosecutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some reasons for filing multiple patent applications in parallel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It allows you to focus each patent application on a different use of the invention. Often there are subsidiary inventions that are different for each application and may need separate description. You should prepare this separate description in any case, but filing separate applications tends to help the inventor's focus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Licensing is easier if you have separate patents for each field of use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Avoids the risk that the eventual patent will be considered to limited to whatever particular use you focus on in your &quot;one&quot; patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Faster issuance of a licensable portfolio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to be clear - legally, you can put as many inventions and/or uses as you want in one patent. What counts in the end is the claims. If you have claims to more than one invention, you will usually be required to choose which one to prosecute first, but you will usually be able to file a divisional patent application to the other inventions at a later time (country dependent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note*: if you decide to go via the multiple-parallel route, you have some work to do on deciding which will be the patent with widest scope." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20068" RevisionGUID="c208bc39-cfd0-4a8f-9d87-a9fbe9f5327e" CreationDate="2018-12-06T13:30:43.353" UserId="21635" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Suppose an original piece of software contains an AI algorithm (that is NOT patented) that tries to optimise the solutions the software produces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of the box the software does not infringe any patents, but after learning from user input and goals it starts homing in on a behaviour which has been patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It 'learns' that the patented solution is a optimum solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would that be an infringement?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55763" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20068" RevisionGUID="c208bc39-cfd0-4a8f-9d87-a9fbe9f5327e" CreationDate="2018-12-06T13:30:43.353" UserId="21635" Text="Can an AI solution break a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55764" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20068" RevisionGUID="c208bc39-cfd0-4a8f-9d87-a9fbe9f5327e" CreationDate="2018-12-06T13:30:43.353" UserId="21635" Text="&lt;machine-learning&gt;&lt;ai&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20069" RevisionGUID="68694fef-242d-43f7-a87c-16c0c7058dcf" CreationDate="2018-12-06T16:21:43.810" UserId="1" Text="It doesn't matter. The US patent system is based on &quot;first to invent&quot;. It doesn't matter if other inventors find new ways to discover an identical solution later. It is still infringing on the original patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think about it, computers (and AI) are no more or less a tool of invention than a pencil and draft board. But there's nothing in intellectual properly law which absolves real people from infringing on prior inventions based on &quot;my robot came up with it&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55766" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19061" RevisionGUID="39ae4a1f-027a-4492-b924-c644758a8c87" CreationDate="2018-12-06T17:03:15.730" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20069" RevisionGUID="b2fdc78f-82cb-4a9b-955a-7ac7bae53634" CreationDate="2018-12-06T18:15:52.273" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="It doesn't matter. The US patent system is based on &quot;first to invent&quot;. It doesn't matter if other inventors find new ways to discover an identical solution later. It is still infringing on the original patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think about it, computers (and AI) are no more or less a tool of invention than a pencil and draft board. There is nothing in intellectual properly law which absolves real people from infringing on prior inventions based on &quot;my robot came up with it&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20069" RevisionGUID="2e1c7068-ab4e-48bb-b1e9-d4919b04d7b3" CreationDate="2018-12-06T18:23:30.653" UserId="1" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="It doesn't matter. The US patent system is based on &quot;first to invent&quot;, so it doesn't matter if other inventors find *new* ways to discover an *identical* solution later. It is still infringing on the original patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think about it, computers (and AI) are no more or less a tool of invention than a pencil and draft board. There is nothing in intellectual properly law which absolves real people from infringing on prior inventions based on &quot;my robot came up with it&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55769" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17041" RevisionGUID="b213a30e-4d44-4a21-8249-369100318636" CreationDate="2018-12-06T20:03:25.693" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20070" RevisionGUID="c406a458-7f83-4c2f-8545-1de3e8a17ce1" CreationDate="2018-12-06T22:03:47.857" UserId="21046" Text="I'm an engineer with a fair bit of business and strategy experience. I also read several books about patents, large parts of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), many patent documents, and worked with attorneys to co-author patent applications. That all is to say that I have some background with patents but I don't have formal Law School training. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recognize that an area I need to learn more about is patent litigation and valuation/strength estimation. I want to get better at estimating which parts of a patent will stand up to challenge, which may fold, and what common arguments are brought forth when one is dealing with a gray area or a matter of interpretation (as is so often the case). Also, I'd like to get a sense of how all that plays out differently across different geographies (e.g. US, Germany, Japan). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you recommend books, blogs, and other materials to help me study? I'm thinking that concrete examples akin to case studies used in Business Schools could be particularly helpful. Online courses could also be helpful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55771" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20070" RevisionGUID="c406a458-7f83-4c2f-8545-1de3e8a17ce1" CreationDate="2018-12-06T22:03:47.857" UserId="21046" Text="Materials for learning about patent litigation and valuation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55772" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20070" RevisionGUID="c406a458-7f83-4c2f-8545-1de3e8a17ce1" CreationDate="2018-12-06T22:03:47.857" UserId="21046" Text="&lt;litigation&gt;&lt;book&gt;&lt;blogs&gt;&lt;valuation&gt;&lt;learning&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55777" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19565" RevisionGUID="c068709a-ba13-4901-bbb7-6e948267fc83" CreationDate="2018-12-07T08:02:15.453" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55778" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18787" RevisionGUID="45217d22-fd8b-4f1d-bb2e-05a51f6f0489" CreationDate="2018-12-07T23:02:05.403" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20071" RevisionGUID="2243fb9d-85a3-497b-88b0-417f70f7de79" CreationDate="2018-12-07T23:04:37.107" UserId="21595" Text="Most likely, I will reference [MS Color Picker patent][1] in my patent application. My software will use this color selection feature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If my patent gets accepted, will MS (or anyone else whose patent I will reference) demand royalties. What about if my software idea is produced, marketed, and sold?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20140237429A1/en?q=color&amp;q=picker&amp;q=microsoft&amp;oq=color%20picker%20microsoft" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55780" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20071" RevisionGUID="2243fb9d-85a3-497b-88b0-417f70f7de79" CreationDate="2018-12-07T23:04:37.107" UserId="21595" Text="Outcome of referencing earlier patents in your patent application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55781" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20071" RevisionGUID="2243fb9d-85a3-497b-88b0-417f70f7de79" CreationDate="2018-12-07T23:04:37.107" UserId="21595" Text="&lt;microsoft&gt;&lt;citation&gt;&lt;utility-patent&gt;&lt;reference&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20072" RevisionGUID="906fa404-e907-48a6-8b71-5e58a3a477c5" CreationDate="2018-12-08T15:39:29.650" UserId="17003" Text="The document you linked is only an application. the associated US patent is [US9513771B2][1]. This patent is not assigned to Microsoft instead it is owned by WIXCOM Ltd. Whether or not you owe royalties has nothing to do with whether you reference a patent in your patent. It only has to do with whether your product actually implements the invention as claimed by an active patent within the jurisdiction of that patent. In this case, you need to read the claims of US9513771B2 carefully to see if you are implementing what is claimed. To infringe on a claim, you need to implement each and every step in at least one claim. Here is claim one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A system implementable on a computing device for handling color assignment within a complex document, the system comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interface to facilitate user modification of at least one first color&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to at least one second color within a previously chosen color scheme&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for a component of said document, said color scheme having a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; predetermined number X of principal colors and a predetermined number&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Y of associated subordinate colors per principal color;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a color&#xD;&#xA;&gt; handler to modify said color scheme to produce an updated color scheme&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to match a perceived brightness of said at least one second color&#xD;&#xA;&gt; throughout at least a portion of said updated color scheme; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a color&#xD;&#xA;&gt; processor to process and apply said updated color scheme at least to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said component; and an inheritance processor to implement said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; modifications according to at least one pre-defined inheritance&#xD;&#xA;&gt; relationship between said component and at least one other component;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  wherein said color handler comprises a brightness handler to calculate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said perceived brightness of said second color; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  wherein said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; brightness handler comprises a searcher to search through a perceived&#xD;&#xA;&gt; brightness graph to find the color parameters required to generate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said perceived brightness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see there is more to this than just the standard color picker. Color pickers used in Microsoft Windows (and on the Macintosh which is relevant prior art) go back far earlier than the 2012-08-06 priority date of this patent. My guess is if you are using the standard color picker provided in, for example, Visual Studio, you should be OK. You could ask Microsoft about the licensing terms of using the built in user interface components of their development software. **As always, I recommend that you consult with a patent attorney with respect to freedom-to-operate opinions**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9513771B2/en?oq=US9513771B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20073" RevisionGUID="cbe92c95-f843-4ef3-947a-b07fa68e7f59" CreationDate="2018-12-08T20:22:32.890" UserId="21149" Text="I've filed a utility patent application, with a number of claims that increased the original filing fee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to change that application, to reduce the number of claims, resulting in the reduction of the original filing fee?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55785" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20073" RevisionGUID="cbe92c95-f843-4ef3-947a-b07fa68e7f59" CreationDate="2018-12-08T20:22:32.890" UserId="21149" Text="Can I change a filed utility patent application to change the original filing fee?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55786" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20073" RevisionGUID="cbe92c95-f843-4ef3-947a-b07fa68e7f59" CreationDate="2018-12-08T20:22:32.890" UserId="21149" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;fees&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55787" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="b65bd30a-0690-4b6b-8582-994f5f1d3921" CreationDate="2018-12-09T05:02:35.557" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20074" RevisionGUID="d4c3a3c0-a6b8-43ba-b1e4-3bbb8b7659e1" CreationDate="2018-12-09T10:35:10.353" UserId="21636" Text="Does anyone know of something like a github for patents?&#xD;&#xA;somewhere where you can publish a granted or provisional patent and designate it as open source, enabling others to fork it or use it in their own open source inventions.&#xD;&#xA;the repository would become a large source of searchable prior art that people trying to patent other things in the future would not be able to protect, thus keeping the ideas open for society." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55789" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20074" RevisionGUID="d4c3a3c0-a6b8-43ba-b1e4-3bbb8b7659e1" CreationDate="2018-12-09T10:35:10.353" UserId="21636" Text="Github for Patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55790" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20074" RevisionGUID="d4c3a3c0-a6b8-43ba-b1e4-3bbb8b7659e1" CreationDate="2018-12-09T10:35:10.353" UserId="21636" Text="&lt;opensource&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20075" RevisionGUID="1d5fc21a-4f6c-44cc-bfd0-8efef1f73de6" CreationDate="2018-12-09T12:38:42.470" UserId="21534" Text="I am ignoring the potential for patent infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take the example given and see what can be protected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*taking the chassis of a name-brand automobile off its manufacturer's assembly line, **significantly modifying it** (in appearance &amp; function) to instead use it as the structural foundation/base frame for a large commercial **air conditioning unit** (of the size typically used on the roof of a large building)* (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, if you make a significant modification, that should be enough for patentability, especially as we may expect that this modification is totally unexpected for the original use. An example of this is if you add stiffness to reduce vibration, but in a way which would damage the handling of a car using that modified chassis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, it sounds like an air conditioning unit using that chassis is a novel and inventive product. An example of this is an a/c unit with wheel wells through which the piping passes, instead of their usual layout.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So at least there are two options for patentability:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. New component has a new feature not found or obvious in view of art&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. New system which uses this rather than another component.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can also envision that a method of using the component would be patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience, when you take a component and apply it to a new use, engineering considerations usually require significant changes, which are often patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55792" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20011" RevisionGUID="3105ed31-8907-4a3c-b7a4-a96b4f61430c" CreationDate="2018-12-09T20:02:35.553" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20076" RevisionGUID="696854a5-3cdb-4720-b79f-a2f4a300d936" CreationDate="2018-12-10T08:22:12.823" UserId="21610" Text="Statutory invention registrations (SIR) were used by applicants in past for publishing patent applications on which they no longer felt they could get patents. By publishing the patent applications, they helped ensure that the inventions were in the public domain and no one else could subsequently get a patent on them, as a SIR could be applied as prior art against other patent applications in the same manner as a patent. Such SIR are designated with H/H1 code followed by the number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Statutory invention registrations (SIR) are no longer available under US. law since the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) entered into force in 2013.Before the law has been passed in there was a provision under U.S.C. 157 where a statutory invention registration (SIR) was a publication of an invention by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) which was made at the request of the applicant (i.e. inventor(s) or assignee(s)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AS most patent applications filed in the US would been published after a statutory 18 months period after they were filed. These published patent applications serve a similar purpose to a statutory invention registration. Once an application is published, an inventor need only let their application go abandoned in order to give up their right to a patent and dedicate the invention to the public. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20077" RevisionGUID="eb8d53e8-7611-41bc-9201-1891fa67c775" CreationDate="2018-12-10T08:32:39.967" UserId="21610" Text="“Understanding Global patent litigations through landmark judgements – A litigation ready reckoner” by Dr. Alpesh Pathak is only book i am aware of my be this would be helpful for understanding the basics as it deals mostly with litigation's in perspective of pharmaceuticals. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20078" RevisionGUID="7d6ace03-6b78-4b4a-80fb-8dd870fff2db" CreationDate="2018-12-10T09:15:02.493" UserId="21534" Text="If you did not pay yet (no refund...): [yes][1] and also [here][2] (see section III (V))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patenttrademarkblog.com/excess-claims-fees-multiple-dependent-fees/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s607.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20078" RevisionGUID="f017bca5-0761-4fb6-a6cc-3549acb0b3da" CreationDate="2018-12-10T12:41:46.283" UserId="21534" Comment="added some quotes from links" Text="If you did not pay yet (no refund...): [yes][1] - a readable blog post which says: &quot;In a US national stage application filed with excess or multiple dependent claims, the USPTO will issue a Notice of Insufficiency which will provide the applicant with an opportunity to amend the claims to reduce or eliminate excess claims and multiple dependent claims&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also [here][2] - the MPEP, which says (see section III (V)): &quot;In situations in which a payment submitted for the fees due on filing in a nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) is insufficient and the applicant has not specified the fees to which the payment is to be applied, the Office will apply the payment in the following order until the payment is expended:...(8) the excess claims fee (37 CFR 1.16(h), (i), and (j))&quot;. Which means that some claims will not be paid for and will therefore not be searched/examined (you do not get to choose).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patenttrademarkblog.com/excess-claims-fees-multiple-dependent-fees/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s607.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20078" RevisionGUID="322c8399-e839-429d-b1ec-1c1d85718096" CreationDate="2018-12-10T12:47:36.833" UserId="18033" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="If you did not pay yet (no refund...): [yes][1] - a readable blog post which says: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;In a US national stage application filed with excess or multiple dependent claims, the USPTO will issue a Notice of Insufficiency which will provide the applicant with an opportunity to amend the claims to reduce or eliminate excess claims and multiple dependent claims&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also [here][2] - the MPEP, which says (see section III (V)): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;In situations in which a payment submitted for the fees due on filing in a nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) is insufficient and the applicant has not specified the fees to which the payment is to be applied, the Office will apply the payment in the following order until the payment is expended:...(8) the excess claims fee (37 CFR 1.16(h), (i), and (j))&quot;. Which means that some claims will not be paid for and will therefore not be searched/examined (you do not get to choose).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patenttrademarkblog.com/excess-claims-fees-multiple-dependent-fees/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s607.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20079" RevisionGUID="01cc2d21-6402-4700-a8ce-fccace7056b9" CreationDate="2018-12-10T18:02:22.883" UserId="17003" Text="An update to the other answers shows that the application US 20140196131 A1 was abandoned on 06-08-2016. Thus this application is not and will not become a US patent. I used the [US Public Pair site][1] to determine this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20080" RevisionGUID="44a09103-ef3c-42c7-88c6-c0701aa5483c" CreationDate="2018-12-10T21:44:10.823" UserId="21648" Text="Let's say I designed a machine that can fold any type of clothing and hypothetically, this mechanical solution does not exist anywhere else. If that same mechanism was also applicable in say the pastry machine market, &#xD;&#xA;would I still be able to protect the design of that mechanism even though its kind of serving a different function?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55800" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20080" RevisionGUID="44a09103-ef3c-42c7-88c6-c0701aa5483c" CreationDate="2018-12-10T21:44:10.823" UserId="21648" Text="Patenting/protecting the design of a mechanism within an assembly" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55801" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20080" RevisionGUID="44a09103-ef3c-42c7-88c6-c0701aa5483c" CreationDate="2018-12-10T21:44:10.823" UserId="21648" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20081" RevisionGUID="1e4371f2-2804-4409-a29a-de5069f287e3" CreationDate="2018-12-10T23:02:11.830" UserId="17003" Text="Let me preface this by saying I am not a patent attorney. I do however have a fair number of patents. Assuming the mechanism is truly novel, at the very least, you should be able to obtain two different patents, one for clothes and another for pastry. Whether you could get a patent on a generic &quot;folding mechanism&quot; is more of a question. If you could get such a claim then it is the best of all worlds since you keep someone from using your mechanism on applications outside the fields of clothes and foods. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However patent strategy is complex and really needs the consultation of a qualified patent attorney or agent. I think that trying to do it yourself based only on information coming from the internet is more than likely to result in either a rejected application or weak patent(s). Remember, even if one of the patent attorneys here can't answer authoritatively on your actual invention because you can't disclose that publicly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55803" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="20074" RevisionGUID="fe1e1348-1501-45bc-966a-e048e9043e09" CreationDate="2018-12-10T23:06:08.887" UserId="17003" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;defensive-publications&gt;&lt;opensource&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55804" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="e5ec206c-ada6-4d22-8541-fd99fcd9ce4c" CreationDate="2018-12-11T03:02:05.350" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55806" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="1dd1717d-f254-4997-ac54-c2114e16f056" CreationDate="2018-12-12T05:01:35.323" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55807" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13512" RevisionGUID="e9604222-f032-449b-a3e8-604692da806d" CreationDate="2018-12-12T06:02:00.417" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55808" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16615" RevisionGUID="7927fe0d-e4d0-4225-8aab-8920b56d8e0a" CreationDate="2018-12-12T08:01:00.223" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55809" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16336" RevisionGUID="d21c2ee5-5e59-48f3-8a5f-4d1f91d1c019" CreationDate="2018-12-12T09:00:36.220" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55810" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13334" RevisionGUID="afacd197-0688-4574-aa97-2f87c5e56b3c" CreationDate="2018-12-12T10:01:25.267" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55811" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="e23c6a0f-c038-495f-90e6-d8251ae7849f" CreationDate="2018-12-12T11:02:15.487" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55812" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19114" RevisionGUID="ad678f21-6a9b-4026-a3d2-d477125df837" CreationDate="2018-12-12T13:02:00.533" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20082" RevisionGUID="7b3088a3-887d-43fe-bd18-cd7a219014a8" CreationDate="2018-12-12T13:22:42.037" UserId="21534" Text="Yes. Japan (at least). see: https://aippi.org/download/commitees/175/GR175japan.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular where it says:  *For example, the following may be taken into account for the purpose of claim interpretation&#xD;&#xA;and may be subject to estoppel: the description of the prior art cited in the application&#xD;&#xA;of the disputed patent (Tokyo District Court decision, December 22, 1986); an&#xD;&#xA;allegation made during the prosecution of the original application in the case of a divisional&#xD;&#xA;application; **statements made in a corresponding foreign patent application**; statements&#xD;&#xA;made during negotiations for licensing; and statements made during actions for an&#xD;&#xA;injunction or actions for a declaratory judgement for no right to demand compensation for&#xD;&#xA;damages.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, however, no Examiner appreciates being told the opposite of what was told to another Examiner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20083" RevisionGUID="9847e729-f5fa-42e0-930e-f62a2b021868" CreationDate="2018-12-12T17:54:50.243" UserId="15489" Text="So far I've always responded to non-final rejections with an amendment and arguments/remarks, so I've filed &quot;Amendment/Req. Reconsideration-After Non-Final Reject&quot; together with &quot;Claims&quot; and &quot;Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made In An Amendment&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This time I am not supplying any amendments. What eFS drop-down options should I be selecting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55815" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20083" RevisionGUID="9847e729-f5fa-42e0-930e-f62a2b021868" CreationDate="2018-12-12T17:54:50.243" UserId="15489" Text="After a non-final rejection how can I respond with a traversal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55816" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20083" RevisionGUID="9847e729-f5fa-42e0-930e-f62a2b021868" CreationDate="2018-12-12T17:54:50.243" UserId="15489" Text="&lt;response&gt;&lt;non-final&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20084" RevisionGUID="40c3ca2e-46e8-435e-a7aa-7379e29b9b26" CreationDate="2018-12-12T18:05:00.497" UserId="21534" Text="Please look at [USPTO website][1] to see a list of examples of eligible software patents. The first example is a web app. So the answer to your first questions is *serious*.&#xA;&#xA;The answer to your second question is *yes+*. We would want to protect the process as a whole, subcomponents and also results and consequences, if possible. And also variants and other uses of your ideas...&#xA;&#xA;The answer to your third question* is not one you should deal with on your own. As a general rule, consider there are two types of enemy. &#xA;&#xA;1. The ones who only want money. We call this *the cost of doing business*. They only want money and like any parasite, want you to have enough “blood” to suck.&#xA;&#xA;2. Your competitors. They do not want you and will often try to close you down.&#xA;&#xA;*if what you meant is “how do i know if what i am doing is new”, then, as already suggested, you can search using many tools, including google patents.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-qrs-elig-cases.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55818" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19809" RevisionGUID="0ad67832-ec3e-4177-8d61-7c4f0fd8c344" CreationDate="2018-12-13T00:01:55.367" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55819" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19296" RevisionGUID="7fe1fa3d-10c4-4950-a0bb-10fa0380535a" CreationDate="2018-12-13T02:02:45.543" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55820" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17307" RevisionGUID="b52af39e-9575-48c4-a93d-ecaa01a60558" CreationDate="2018-12-13T03:02:05.487" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55821" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17472" RevisionGUID="43434694-7714-4eae-a83d-eac02da93fab" CreationDate="2018-12-13T07:01:10.207" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55822" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19863" RevisionGUID="c890ed87-82c2-405f-bcd5-7db3700f18a0" CreationDate="2018-12-13T10:00:55.157" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55823" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19881" RevisionGUID="33cd1c44-1bd2-408d-b735-db70ce9f1def" CreationDate="2018-12-13T19:01:55.370" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55824" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20013" RevisionGUID="ee62f4f4-fb89-4a64-a8b3-7953ee0d85f2" CreationDate="2018-12-13T21:03:05.633" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55825" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18261" RevisionGUID="4047f74b-82fc-4ac2-ada3-56432d7c2f35" CreationDate="2018-12-14T07:02:45.530" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55826" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17844" RevisionGUID="e96f7a65-c1b8-47b1-8e93-1f9b1a1f5032" CreationDate="2018-12-14T13:02:20.443" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20085" RevisionGUID="7ced2b5a-3ff2-4b90-a68b-2598ee70a77f" CreationDate="2018-12-14T15:50:48.400" UserId="18036" Text="Can a specific idea for art be protected or patented?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: I draw a funny cartoon of an employee falling asleep at a staff meeting. Then I add a phrase making the art even funnier (at least for me).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being a poster collector, I have not seen this poster anywhere else here. So I decide to print a poster of my art with the added phrase and sell it to a walmart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The poster sells a lot, so someone else copies my idea (employee falling asleep at a staff meeting) by creating a different cartoon and adding a different funny phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can something like this be avoided?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55828" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20085" RevisionGUID="7ced2b5a-3ff2-4b90-a68b-2598ee70a77f" CreationDate="2018-12-14T15:50:48.400" UserId="18036" Text="Can a specific idea for art be protected or patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55829" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20085" RevisionGUID="7ced2b5a-3ff2-4b90-a68b-2598ee70a77f" CreationDate="2018-12-14T15:50:48.400" UserId="18036" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;intellectual-property&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55830" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18971" RevisionGUID="af4a6429-9054-45b6-9412-987b3d94c9a7" CreationDate="2018-12-14T23:03:25.717" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20086" RevisionGUID="8ed41567-7155-4241-b222-9fdaf1e26a1b" CreationDate="2018-12-15T10:14:23.550" UserId="21654" Text="In a twist .. if you  used a technology to arrive at that funny twist, if that technology is not 'prior art' , if , in time, you got that technology patented, then you can avoid something like the above situation.&#xD;&#xA;Hint , perhaps &quot; System and Method to arrive at cartoons above a pre-determined humor quotient ':-) &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20088" RevisionGUID="b967dfc1-79ea-41fb-ab04-c6ea0f522c6c" CreationDate="2018-12-15T16:34:42.477" UserId="21639" Text="I am surely not having experience with patents but I want to know if there is any site or application that can assist me get patent registered in European market (and have all steps/prerequisites given in **checklist based to track my progress**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this question should not belong here, please write in comment to delete question or suggest correct place (if possible).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55835" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20088" RevisionGUID="b967dfc1-79ea-41fb-ab04-c6ea0f522c6c" CreationDate="2018-12-15T16:34:42.477" UserId="21639" Text="Checklist for registering patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55836" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20088" RevisionGUID="b967dfc1-79ea-41fb-ab04-c6ea0f522c6c" CreationDate="2018-12-15T16:34:42.477" UserId="21639" Text="&lt;new-patent&gt;&lt;patent-registration-steps&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20089" RevisionGUID="0262c55b-035c-4764-8f6f-a0fb16f7a975" CreationDate="2018-12-15T22:22:19.730" UserId="3076" Text="You might find a checklist to help you with submitting a properly formatted application with all required components (Description, Drawings, Claim, Abstract). You can also find guides to the phases the application goes through (filing, requesting substantive examination, rejection, arguments/amendments, acceptance, opposition period, granting and validating in one or more specific countries). However, drafting a quality application that will ultimately be accepted is a very specialized task. Prepare for a long period of self-education, use of a professional, or possibly ultimate frustration." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55838" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20050" RevisionGUID="83c8e94f-9597-4aaf-8b95-e0db307a0441" CreationDate="2018-12-16T01:50:25.407" UserId="14403" Comment="typos " Text="For light bulb Edison's one patent was sufficient to prevent competitors from infringing his invention. But current day where knowledge is abundant and available at finger tips and due to the competition and case law created from numerous patent cases owning single patent would be risky. If Competitors are successful in circumventing the claim you are left with nothing to defend. My suggestion is file a single patent application but before grant file a continuation application or divisional application which would support you to add additional claims upon evaluation of the competitor product.      " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55839" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="c5d0063f-6562-42aa-9bfd-7bca190b0555" CreationDate="2018-12-16T06:02:00.370" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55840" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17865" RevisionGUID="bf49affe-0d21-48aa-8116-e38a08c454b9" CreationDate="2018-12-16T09:02:55.603" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20090" RevisionGUID="0f6f2de5-72a1-4d39-909e-eadfd1692796" CreationDate="2018-12-16T19:54:18.887" UserId="84" Text="What patent attorney did james dyson use on his bagless vaccum patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55842" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20090" RevisionGUID="0f6f2de5-72a1-4d39-909e-eadfd1692796" CreationDate="2018-12-16T19:54:18.887" UserId="84" Text="What patent attorney did james dyson use on his bagless vaccum patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55843" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20090" RevisionGUID="0f6f2de5-72a1-4d39-909e-eadfd1692796" CreationDate="2018-12-16T19:54:18.887" UserId="84" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55844" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19973" RevisionGUID="08d810ac-7e2b-415a-83c5-1e6598ef483d" CreationDate="2018-12-17T00:03:10.673" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55845" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19971" RevisionGUID="fa2f320f-feeb-4029-a69d-2f4a57b20a10" CreationDate="2018-12-17T02:02:00.443" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20092" RevisionGUID="d074b581-84dc-4dba-bb83-2c8e9f2161a8" CreationDate="2018-12-17T04:10:10.203" UserId="17003" Text="US patents at least provide the attorney's name right on the front page. I found [US4593429A][1] which I think is the US version of the patent you are referring to. You can see from there that the &quot;Attorney, Agent or Firm&quot; is listed as Ian C. McLeod.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/141-306-660-645-862" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55851" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="14230" RevisionGUID="7aae4d96-6782-4759-851b-53726c446506" CreationDate="2018-12-17T06:28:30.500" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="55852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20094" RevisionGUID="d9f22dba-3811-4a1f-9111-26c58f350195" CreationDate="2018-12-17T07:41:45.160" UserId="18033" Text="There are a lot of ressources on the website of the European Patent Office (EPO). For example [this site about the basics of applying for a european patent][1] aims at beginners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note however art. [133 EPC][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2)&#xD;&#xA;Natural or legal persons not having their residence or principal place of business in a Contracting State shall be represented by a professional representative and act through him in all proceedings established by this Convention, other than in filing a European patent application; the Implementing Regulations may permit other exceptions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are no resident of a contracting state, you can only file the patent application and pay the relevant fees associated with the filing and need an attorney for everything else. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.epo.org/applying/basics.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar133.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20095" RevisionGUID="f0ca98f1-cc40-45dc-8190-270ab7041a70" CreationDate="2018-12-17T10:13:51.653" UserId="15489" Text="I have a provisional OTDP rejection that references an earlier application I made, explicitly references a third-party reference (no inventors in common with the application), and two other references that aren't referenced properly at that point in the office action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like the examiner copy-pasted a paragraph from a 103 rejection that turns up further down the office action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) is this valid? I was under the impression that OTDP rejections are supposed to be based on references to the inventor's previous work, not other material that's completely independently produced from the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) if I want to traverse do I therefore have to make the same argument twice, once in the OTDP section, and once in the 103 section?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55854" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20095" RevisionGUID="f0ca98f1-cc40-45dc-8190-270ab7041a70" CreationDate="2018-12-17T10:13:51.653" UserId="15489" Text="Overcoming obviousness-type double patenting rejection referencing third-party material" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55855" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20095" RevisionGUID="f0ca98f1-cc40-45dc-8190-270ab7041a70" CreationDate="2018-12-17T10:13:51.653" UserId="15489" Text="&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;obviousness&gt;&lt;double-patenting&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20096" RevisionGUID="28a05a00-f5e8-4759-813a-bd47a9f2f16d" CreationDate="2018-12-17T11:02:16.203" UserId="21660" Text="Let's say PERSON A has a patent idea for a new type of golf club... and in their patent application, they say the reason for the invention is that *golfers* need a better tool to do x,y, and z to help their *golf* game.  They are granted the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But let's say it turns out that this new golf club actually makes a really good cooking utensil as well... and ends up up being used for that purpose more than for the &quot;intended&quot; purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then PERSON B sees this and comes along and applies for a &quot;new&quot; patent for the exact same basic object, but claims that it is expected to be used as a cooking utensil and therefore doesn't infringe on the prior patent by person A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say then for the sake of argument that person B is granted the patent also.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then let's say PERSON C has a completely unrelated invention... but having learned from what happened with persons A and B... they decide not to claim any specific purpose for their invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess what I'm asking is... is it necessary to specify the expected domain of usage for an invention... or can one simply only say... &quot;it is an object with certain properties and behaviors.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55857" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20096" RevisionGUID="28a05a00-f5e8-4759-813a-bd47a9f2f16d" CreationDate="2018-12-17T11:02:16.203" UserId="21660" Text="Is it necessary to define the expected usage scenario for a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55858" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20096" RevisionGUID="28a05a00-f5e8-4759-813a-bd47a9f2f16d" CreationDate="2018-12-17T11:02:16.203" UserId="21660" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;validity&gt;&lt;requirements&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20097" RevisionGUID="71bffab2-08ab-47bb-89bc-0b446c7bbe28" CreationDate="2018-12-17T11:46:20.740" UserId="21660" Text="As long as an app is free does that mean that nobody can sue you for patent infringement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55860" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20097" RevisionGUID="71bffab2-08ab-47bb-89bc-0b446c7bbe28" CreationDate="2018-12-17T11:46:20.740" UserId="21660" Text="If a mobile app is free (donation only), does that indemnify against patent trolls?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55861" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20097" RevisionGUID="71bffab2-08ab-47bb-89bc-0b446c7bbe28" CreationDate="2018-12-17T11:46:20.740" UserId="21660" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;app&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20098" RevisionGUID="4f7eb84f-f152-4d36-9fd7-8e835a38a0eb" CreationDate="2018-12-17T12:30:35.523" UserId="21660" Text="When publishing mobile apps, both on Android and IOS, one has the choice of registering as an individual, or as a company -- presumably an LLC. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it legal to assert a patent against an individual who has no &quot;registered&quot; business entity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, is there any precedent whereby an individual has been sued by a patent troll? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55863" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20098" RevisionGUID="4f7eb84f-f152-4d36-9fd7-8e835a38a0eb" CreationDate="2018-12-17T12:30:35.523" UserId="21660" Text="Have patent trolls ever gone after an individual?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55864" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20098" RevisionGUID="4f7eb84f-f152-4d36-9fd7-8e835a38a0eb" CreationDate="2018-12-17T12:30:35.523" UserId="21660" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20090" RevisionGUID="eba560b6-7f0e-44e1-a3ba-fd3a91fd25f6" CreationDate="2018-12-17T14:45:59.160" UserId="81" Comment="edited body" Text="What patent attorney did James Dyson use on his bagless vacuum patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20099" RevisionGUID="cf49760b-d278-4fd0-ad82-6d0887a982e5" CreationDate="2018-12-17T15:13:31.397" UserId="17003" Text="**Is it legal to assert a patent against an individual who has no &quot;registered&quot; business entity?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm  not a lawyer, but I believe you are just as open to a infringement suit if you are an individual as a registered business. Indeed as an LLC you might be less of a target since that structure protects your family assets and makes you a less lucrative target.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If so, is there any precedent whereby an individual has been sued by a patent troll?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware of one, but it is a [well known tactic][1] of trolls to target small business users of &quot;infringing&quot; technology. The idea is that small businesses using the technology are more likely to settle for small amounts than fight a suit compared to suing the large manufacturers. [This page][2] makes the following statement supporting the likelihood of suits against individuals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unlike operating companies that use their patents to produce and sell&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their product, patent trolls often acquire patents cheaply from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bankrupt companies and do not use those patents in operations, but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rather charge licensing fees to other businesses **and individuals** that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; appear to infringe upon a patent that they own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/patent-trolls-target-small-businesses-with-lawsuit-threats-heres-how-one-startup-fought-back.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/071515/who-are-patent-trolls-how-do-they-work.asp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20100" RevisionGUID="6dd439df-6e83-4670-8e25-16891cd14e04" CreationDate="2018-12-17T20:38:17.533" UserId="3076" Text="No, patent infringement does not require making money on the infringing activity. It would probably affect the damages calculation, but giving away something that the inventor was selling might take away the inventor's market and cause a huge damage to the inventor even though the infringer didn't make any money." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20101" RevisionGUID="169dcf70-36f3-4c22-81b2-c6e88cf0a103" CreationDate="2018-12-17T20:49:40.820" UserId="3076" Text="A patent must cover something that is &quot;useful&quot; and the patent must disclose how to make and use the invention. However, if the claims all define the structure of an apparatus, that apparatus is what is covered. Use it to stir soup or to hit a golf ball; only the inventor can authorize one to make, sell, offer for sale, import or use the apparatus, even if the body of the patent shows a particular motivation or use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But not all claims are to the structure of a physical item. Some claims are to a process or method. The method might be a way to hit a golf ball with a regular golf club or it might be a method to hit a golf club with a novel golf club. Separately, there may be a claim to the structure of that novel golf club. When writing a patent application it can be desirable to have both an apparatus claim and a method claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20101" RevisionGUID="b942450f-3820-49b1-a199-d1013873ce45" CreationDate="2018-12-17T20:58:29.730" UserId="3076" Comment="added 691 characters in body" Text="A patent must cover something that is &quot;useful&quot; and the patent must disclose how to make and use the invention, usefully. However, if the claims all define the structure of an apparatus, that apparatus is what is covered. Use it to stir soup or to hit a golf ball; only the inventor can authorize one to make, sell, offer for sale, import or use the apparatus, even if the body of the patent and the preamble of the claim shows a particular motivation or use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But not all claims are to the structure of a physical item. Some claims are to a process or method. The method might be a way to hit a golf ball with a regular golf club or it might be a method to hit a golf club with a novel golf club. Separately, there may be a claim to the structure of that novel golf club. When writing a patent application it can be desirable to have both an apparatus claim and a method claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Person B can't patent the thing disclosed by person A (not because it is patented but because it has been disclosed). But person B can patent a method of using the thing disclosed/patented by person A. New uses of aspirin keep being found and patented. If person A does have a patent on the thing itself, person B can't make, offer for sale, sell, use, or import that thing without permission from person B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make and sell something, person C studies the claims of person A and person B and tries to cleverly work around the wording of those claims. To patent something, person C comes up with a novel, non-obvious way to do something useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55871" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="20097" RevisionGUID="36b1ac49-63ec-4fbe-a049-8056435f991b" CreationDate="2018-12-17T21:35:09.953" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[12972,19695],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:81,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Rory Alsop&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:18033,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DonQuiKong&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="55872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20102" RevisionGUID="358a37c2-15c1-478b-a805-f538cb5294f8" CreationDate="2018-12-17T22:24:53.007" UserId="21660" Text="If someone discloses/markets a genuinely new (patentable) idea without patenting it (allows 12-months to go by without filing a provisional), does that mean that noone else will ever be able to patent that idea (because by that point it would be public/prior art) ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the inventor would give up the right to prevent others from using the idea, but at the same time, they would be immune from being sued by anyone for infringement since their idea can no longer be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55873" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20102" RevisionGUID="358a37c2-15c1-478b-a805-f538cb5294f8" CreationDate="2018-12-17T22:24:53.007" UserId="21660" Text="Does disclosure of an invention forever bar anyone (except you) from patenting it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55874" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20102" RevisionGUID="358a37c2-15c1-478b-a805-f538cb5294f8" CreationDate="2018-12-17T22:24:53.007" UserId="21660" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20103" RevisionGUID="aff911fe-14a6-4fa4-a105-3fc500a58727" CreationDate="2018-12-17T23:02:46.760" UserId="3076" Text="Basically yes. However, it doesn't save the inventor from claims by third parties that a product made by the inventor infringes on that third party's patents. Someone else may have already invented and patented it or some aspect of it. You might invent a turbo lawn mower and publish the invention to put it in the public domain. That doesn't mean someone else doesn't have a patent on a basic lawn mower that your turbo version infringes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20104" RevisionGUID="ebebd648-8089-45bb-bf9b-3d10c3eb13bf" CreationDate="2018-12-17T23:53:00.273" UserId="21660" Text="I understand that patents are a &quot;negative right,&quot; but...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it a reasonable assumption that patents aren't granted if they infringe on prior patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any precedent where a product (that is a one-to-one implementation of its (valid) patent's blue prints) has been sued for infringement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55877" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20104" RevisionGUID="ebebd648-8089-45bb-bf9b-3d10c3eb13bf" CreationDate="2018-12-17T23:53:00.273" UserId="21660" Text="Can a patent be granted if the idea infringes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55878" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20104" RevisionGUID="ebebd648-8089-45bb-bf9b-3d10c3eb13bf" CreationDate="2018-12-17T23:53:00.273" UserId="21660" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20105" RevisionGUID="96484540-d574-4df2-ac49-c95dd3968d3b" CreationDate="2018-12-18T00:52:35.417" UserId="21660" Text="Lets say that someone creates an mobile app (Android/IOS) that is identical in function to a TI-85 calculator... in fact it is a perfect representation of it and identical in function and appearance of the interface (an &quot;emulation&quot;) -- the only difference being that the user is interacting with a flat touch screen instead of physical buttons... and that the logical computations are being made at the software-level rather than in pure hardware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this app be said to infringe on the Texas Instruments device?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming the answer is &quot;yes, of course.&quot; ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, lets say someone invents a new app that also looks and feels like a device from the 80s, but this &quot;device&quot; never existed in the 80s... and would certainly have been patentable then (and still would be now as a stand-alone discrete hardware device).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm reading a lot of advice that basically says software patents are pointless and a waste of time, but, considering the hypothetical app in the previous paragraph... Why should it be considered ridiculous to patent this invention on modern devices simply because the implementation is &quot;software?&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55880" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20105" RevisionGUID="96484540-d574-4df2-ac49-c95dd3968d3b" CreationDate="2018-12-18T00:52:35.417" UserId="21660" Text="Where is the line between hardware and software?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55881" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20105" RevisionGUID="96484540-d574-4df2-ac49-c95dd3968d3b" CreationDate="2018-12-18T00:52:35.417" UserId="21660" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20106" RevisionGUID="f1671fd5-ee17-4ef4-b137-1076e2d5f19b" CreationDate="2018-12-18T06:27:03.900" UserId="21663" Text="You may try using a patent database provided by Chinese vendoer named [incoPat][1].&#xD;&#xA;incoPat not only provides English interface but translates Chinese patents' biblio data and full-text into English. Chinese patents can be read and searched by English.&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, patent related data like Chinese patent litigation, assignment, licensing information are all translated into English which can be read and searched by English.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;Although this is a commerical database, you can apply for a free trial through the website to have a short term using the database freely to search and download the patents you need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.incopat.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jzEmT.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ES9X0.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BlFF4.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20107" RevisionGUID="d65275e1-6dd0-4fa9-a621-724a83729100" CreationDate="2018-12-18T07:06:25.957" UserId="21610" Text="**I understand that patents are a &quot;negative right,&quot; but...**&#xD;&#xA;Constitution doesnot see it as a negative right it is given to promote and encourage innovation. But in fact you may be right the patent may give negative rights in case if patent owner is using evergreening strategy i.e., patenting a mere addition of a feature to already existing invention and blocking others entry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is it a reasonable assumption that patents aren't granted if they infringe on prior patents?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;yes patent may be granted even if it infringe a prior patent that has a broad claim and such grant is supported by statue. The factors which would be generally considered are scope and content of prior patent, diffrences between the invention and prior art. other factors such as improvement over prior art or failure of prior art to disclose the feature claimed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there any precedent where a product (that is a one-to-one implementation of its (valid) patent's blue prints) has been sued for infringement?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This do occur in pharma as the prior patent claims a broad group of compounds in form of Marukush groups and next patents are narrowed to the actual compound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the success for plaintiff cannot be guaranteed in such cases the classical example for me is Merck vs Gileads case where merck lost the case due to  the unenforceability of two Merck patents covering a drug presently marketed as Sovaldi(r) to treat hepatitis C, sofosbuvir. and reversed a $200 million award.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where as the case is different  in case of shire vs Fresenius involving drug icatibant where plaintiff won the case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the success differs from case to case &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20108" RevisionGUID="114b9f93-f73f-49c1-b5db-2c2a3d234685" CreationDate="2018-12-18T08:16:14.787" UserId="21610" Text="**Can a specific idea for art be protected or patented?**&#xD;&#xA;Art cannot be patented it can only be protected by copy right&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Example: I draw a funny cartoon of an employee falling asleep at a staff meeting. Then I add a phrase making the art even funnier (at least for me).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the art and phrase can be protected under copyright. try to protect the equivalents of the terms in phrase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Being a poster collector, I have not seen this poster anywhere else here. So I decide to print a poster of my art with the added phrase and sell it to a walmart.&#xD;&#xA;The poster sells a lot, so someone else copies my idea (employee falling asleep at a staff meeting) by creating a different cartoon and adding a different funny phrase.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can something like this be avoided?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;copyright prevents infringers from making abstract or derivatives of your work but creating it from scratch is not considered as an infringment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20109" RevisionGUID="924f630c-fa9f-40a9-a09f-0036e049e738" CreationDate="2018-12-18T10:08:32.220" UserId="21610" Text="**Lets say that someone creates an mobile app (Android/IOS) that is identical in function to a TI-85 calculator... in fact it is a perfect representation of it and identical in function and appearance of the interface (an &quot;emulation&quot;) -- the only difference being that the user is interacting with a flat touch screen instead of physical buttons... and that the logical computations are being made at the software-level rather than in pure hardware.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you create a prefect representation of a device in a new touch interface (emulator) then the board would generally consider it as an alternate design for an existing device and patent would be rejected as obvious, as far as infringement is considered there are other factors comes into play if the emulator uses same algorithm that has been patented by TI 85 then you would be liable to infringement but if TI 85 has claimed only a device then you would be out of scope, infringement differs from case to case depending on the claims granted.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But, lets say someone invents a new app that also looks and feels like a device from the 80s, but this &quot;device&quot; never existed in the 80s... and would certainly have been patentable then (and still would be now as a stand-alone discrete hardware device).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the hypothetical device if never exited to date then it is novel and a patent could be granted based on its function or capability and alternatives that exists before the filing date. Now coming to the part about an app that looks like a device has to be generated through a software and any person knowing basics of graphics can design it , board has rejected many applications for software/Apps being just an abstract idea. The patenability of the app depends on what the app is doing and algorithm being used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have any such APP please consult an attorney in what way you could protect the app.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20110" RevisionGUID="0907c37a-d80f-4122-a319-16fd74fe2c05" CreationDate="2018-12-18T15:10:42.280" UserId="17003" Text="In addition to RishiM_IPR's excellent answer, I'd like to point out that any device from the 1980s would have had it's patents expire by now. Patents from that era expired 17 years from the issue date. Once a patent expires, anyone can use the invention claimed without fear of infringement. This is the point of patents. In exchange for a limited period of exclusivity, you then allow anyone to use the invention without license. **Thus you can't infringe on patents from the 1980s**. Copyright is a different issue altogether and off topic for this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20109" RevisionGUID="f8a29f4e-a731-45ad-97e4-937bf7f97fb1" CreationDate="2018-12-18T15:32:12.807" UserId="1" Comment="fix quote markup" Text="&gt; Lets say that someone creates an mobile app (Android/IOS) that is identical in function to a TI-85 calculator... in fact it is a perfect representation of it and identical in function and appearance of the interface (an &quot;emulation&quot;) -- the only difference being that the user is interacting with a flat touch screen instead of physical buttons... and that the logical computations are being made at the software-level rather than in pure hardware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you create a prefect representation of a device in a new touch interface (emulator) then the board would generally consider it as an alternate design for an existing device and patent would be rejected as obvious, as far as infringement is considered there are other factors comes into play if the emulator uses same algorithm that has been patented by TI 85 then you would be liable to infringement but if TI 85 has claimed only a device then you would be out of scope, infringement differs from case to case depending on the claims granted.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But, lets say someone invents a new app that also looks and feels like a device from the 80s, but this &quot;device&quot; never existed in the 80s... and would certainly have been patentable then (and still would be now as a stand-alone discrete hardware device).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the hypothetical device if never exited to date then it is novel and a patent could be granted based on its function or capability and alternatives that exists before the filing date. Now coming to the part about an app that looks like a device has to be generated through a software and any person knowing basics of graphics can design it , board has rejected many applications for software/Apps being just an abstract idea. The patenability of the app depends on what the app is doing and algorithm being used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have any such APP please consult an attorney in what way you could protect the app.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20111" RevisionGUID="f1c33fcc-1616-48c9-b9a9-83a55b5aedd4" CreationDate="2018-12-19T05:27:05.343" UserId="21664" Text="The patent expired after 15 years and I was not in a position to renew it.  I have now found several modifications and materials that were not available to me when I first patented the garment, can I get a provisional patent based on my first patent idea with the new modifications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55889" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20111" RevisionGUID="f1c33fcc-1616-48c9-b9a9-83a55b5aedd4" CreationDate="2018-12-19T05:27:05.343" UserId="21664" Text="I invented and patented a support garment for pregnancy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55890" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20111" RevisionGUID="f1c33fcc-1616-48c9-b9a9-83a55b5aedd4" CreationDate="2018-12-19T05:27:05.343" UserId="21664" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20112" RevisionGUID="878e3011-603a-46db-a51f-70bc731feb63" CreationDate="2018-12-19T06:30:14.047" UserId="21610" Text="Yes, you can always get a patent for modification of your invention as long has it improves the functionality of the invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For eg your old invention has A,B,C components and you have invented that A,B,D or addition of new component D to exiting A,B,C has superior function then the patent would be granted for the new component D but not for A,B,C. i.e., the patent would be granted for the improvement/modification which you have made, As long as the modification made is not obvious over prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;please consult a patent attorney as he would be in a better position to what extent the new improvement can be patented. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55892" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="e2a6ee38-7d93-41e4-acf1-75ddb1a3352e" CreationDate="2018-12-19T08:01:30.287" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20113" RevisionGUID="e3d823a6-1a32-4357-a509-d3799e8f5b5d" CreationDate="2018-12-19T10:52:52.120" UserId="21665" Text="I want to patent a patented invention in Korea dated on 2006 in US with my own name.&#xD;&#xA;Is It possible or not?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55894" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20113" RevisionGUID="e3d823a6-1a32-4357-a509-d3799e8f5b5d" CreationDate="2018-12-19T10:52:52.120" UserId="21665" Text="can I patent a patented invention in other countries before in The US now" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55895" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20113" RevisionGUID="e3d823a6-1a32-4357-a509-d3799e8f5b5d" CreationDate="2018-12-19T10:52:52.120" UserId="21665" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55896" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19823" RevisionGUID="bb4d4829-62ec-4d89-bb87-1ca8ff7f600b" CreationDate="2018-12-19T11:03:00.587" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20114" RevisionGUID="bb013182-3cb9-42e0-b438-a44db5b275de" CreationDate="2018-12-19T13:07:05.647" UserId="14403" Text="If you intend to patent the same thing in US or for that matter in any other country, the answer is a big 'NO'. Because, for a patent to be granted, an invention must be '**novel, non-obvious**' and should have '**industrial applicability**'. However, if you can find any '**improvement**' to the existing prior art, then you can pursue the matter with USPTO for patent for the improvement part.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20115" RevisionGUID="108a19ad-1a0a-458f-bfb3-da0a27e25cd6" CreationDate="2018-12-19T15:44:00.587" UserId="17003" Text="While RisheM_IPR's answer if fine, some hints in your question leads me to think there are other aspects to answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, there is no way to &quot;renew&quot; a patent. A patent has a fixed term and so long as you keep up with maintenance fees it stays in effect and then expires. Second, you mention the patent expired after 15 years. This suggests to me that the patent was a design patent and not a utility patent. Design patents have a term of 15 years while utility patents have a term of 20 years. Design patents are fundamentally different from utility patents. They cover the ornamental design of functional objects. Thus they aren't claiming functional features. You don't mention the patent number, but design patents in the US have a &quot;D&quot; in the patent number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, while you can file a provisional application, there is no such thing as a provisional patent. A provisional application gets you an early priority date and provides some protection while you draft and file a non-provisional patent application. The provisional application by itself never becomes a patent. Whether or not you can get a patent for the improvements to your design depend, as RishiM_IPR states, on whether the improvements are novel and non-obvious over prior art (which your design patent is part of). There is no way for us to assess this since we would need to know what your improvements are and you can't disclose them publicly. Thus consulting a patent professional is your best next step.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55899" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="20113" RevisionGUID="e85fffeb-261d-4f55-b026-018138065972" CreationDate="2018-12-19T15:48:55.803" UserId="17003" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20116" RevisionGUID="dc3e6081-2172-4d8b-bd19-c867492a8c68" CreationDate="2018-12-19T16:15:27.283" UserId="17003" Text="**Is it a reasonable assumption that patents aren't granted if they infringe on prior patents?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, you can definitely receive a patent for an improvement of an existing patented technology. This is extremely common. What you don't get is an avoidance of infringement on the existing patent. Thus, while you protect your improvement, you don't get freedom to operate and you would still need a license from the original patent holder. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there any precedent where a product (that is a one-to-one implementation of its (valid) patent's blue prints) has been sued for infringement?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming you mean if you obtain a patent for an improvement of an existing patented technology and implement the product as described in the improvement patent can you be sued from the original patent holder. As I said earlier your new patent doesn't do anything to avoid infringement of the original patent. I'm not a lawyer and can't point to exact precedents but I image there are multitudes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading between the lines, what I think you are asking about is called &quot;Freedom-to-Operate&quot;. Companies pay lawyers significant money to evaluate freedom-to-operate before launching products. You might find [this article][1] of interest. Please understand that I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. If you have any question at all about whether your product might be infringing on an existing patent you definitely need to consult with an attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2005/05/article_0006.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20117" RevisionGUID="db649482-8a6f-4a2b-bb76-5fe457e6d3c0" CreationDate="2018-12-19T18:47:41.037" UserId="21149" Text="I've filed non-provisional utility patent application with the USPTO. If it becomes considered abandoned by the USPTO for non payment of filing fees, will reviving the application maintain the original priority claimed? The non-provisional utility application uses a provisional as the claimed priority date.&#xD;&#xA;Upon revival of the application,do I retain the provisional's date as priority?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55902" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20117" RevisionGUID="db649482-8a6f-4a2b-bb76-5fe457e6d3c0" CreationDate="2018-12-19T18:47:41.037" UserId="21149" Text="If a patent is abandoned and later revived, does that affect the priority date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55903" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20117" RevisionGUID="db649482-8a6f-4a2b-bb76-5fe457e6d3c0" CreationDate="2018-12-19T18:47:41.037" UserId="21149" Text="&lt;priority&gt;&lt;abandonment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20008" RevisionGUID="b3dab5d1-83a6-46f6-94fd-e6e706990a2f" CreationDate="2018-12-19T20:19:21.407" UserId="3472" Comment="my own grammar error" Text="Patent attorneys, inventors and others who are involved in granting of or prosecution of a patent application must be open and forthcoming about facts when communicating with the U.S. Patent &amp; Trademark Office. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Inequitable conduct may lead to a judgment that the patent is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;unenforceable.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Federal Circuit in Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Co., 537 F.3d at 1357, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2008) held that a party&#xD;&#xA;&gt; alleging inequitable conduct must prove by clear and convincing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; evidence:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. someone made an affirmative misrepresentation of material fact, failed to disclose material information, or submitted false material&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2. intended to deceive the PTO.[[source]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.smithhopen.com/glossary_term/119/Inequitable-Conduct-Patents- &quot;Inequitable Conduct &amp;#40;Patents&amp;#41; via Intellectual Property Glossary of terms&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55905" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="20008" RevisionGUID="b3dab5d1-83a6-46f6-94fd-e6e706990a2f" CreationDate="2018-12-19T20:19:21.407" Comment="Proposed by 3472 approved by 18033, 17003 edit id of 2094" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20118" RevisionGUID="65cb706d-0023-4399-a271-2519e14fc120" CreationDate="2018-12-19T23:02:11.970" UserId="3076" Text="You keep all the priority dates. Upon reinstatement, everything is reinstated. It can have an effect on Patent Term Extension." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20119" RevisionGUID="2da139d7-727b-40b7-8605-ce223455d289" CreationDate="2018-12-19T23:56:30.723" UserId="21668" Text="Google Patents or Patent Lens, among others, offer the possibility of researching patents for free. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can fee-based patent research sites compete against these? What extra benefits do they have for users?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do commercial patent research sites do to beef up their gig? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55908" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20119" RevisionGUID="2da139d7-727b-40b7-8605-ce223455d289" CreationDate="2018-12-19T23:56:30.723" UserId="21668" Text="Free Patent research sites vs fee based ones" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55909" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20119" RevisionGUID="2da139d7-727b-40b7-8605-ce223455d289" CreationDate="2018-12-19T23:56:30.723" UserId="21668" Text="&lt;fees&gt;&lt;research&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20120" RevisionGUID="83b9eef4-cc99-43f0-afa1-9310203b56fa" CreationDate="2018-12-20T01:05:12.403" UserId="21667" Text="I'm looking into filing a provisional application for a patent, and I'm trying to determine whether or not I'm classified as a micro entity. [This website](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/small-entities-micro-entities-what-s-the-difference.html) says that one requirement of qualifying as a micro entity is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The majority of the patent filer’s employment income is from an Institution of Higher Learning, or the applicant has assigned, or is obliged to assign the patent to an Institution of Higher Learning. An Institution of Higher Learning is a public or nonprofit accredited institution that admits post-secondary students for programs of not less than two years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, when I looked at the [Certification of Micro Entity Status (Gross Income Basis)](https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/forms/sb0015a.pdf) form, I didn't find any mention of an institution of higher education. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Which source is correct, and can anyone provide me a with a comprehensive list of qualifications I must meet to be classified as a micro entity?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55911" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20120" RevisionGUID="83b9eef4-cc99-43f0-afa1-9310203b56fa" CreationDate="2018-12-20T01:05:12.403" UserId="21667" Text="How to qualify for micro entity status" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55912" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20120" RevisionGUID="83b9eef4-cc99-43f0-afa1-9310203b56fa" CreationDate="2018-12-20T01:05:12.403" UserId="21667" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;micro-entity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20121" RevisionGUID="35bb2f0b-15b9-4272-8435-52fc341f4407" CreationDate="2018-12-20T03:38:58.433" UserId="21610" Text="I have been using Totalpatent and Totalpatentone from LEXISNEXIS and STN from CAS all three are paid version. If your need is only for research, Google patent or Patent lens would do work. The paid versions offer an extra edge for professionals who always need to monitor the patent status or continuation applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The differences which I had observed between paid and free version are &#xD;&#xA;1. paid version provide whole and extended family under the same patent number.&#xD;&#xA;2. paid version support to create alerts for the search and all you need is to monitor for relevant patents.&#xD;&#xA;3. paid version provide patent information from around 107 countries where as free versions support hardly 20-30.&#xD;&#xA;4. version such as STN are used for prior art search, STN is very powerful search engine in my view because it can search for relevant information even from images/tables in patents. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20114" RevisionGUID="49e285a1-9fd5-4368-989d-d017cc9021ff" CreationDate="2018-12-20T05:59:54.410" UserId="14403" Comment="added 305 characters in body" Text="If you intend to patent the same thing in US or for that matter in any other country, the answer is a big 'NO'. Because, for a patent to be granted, an invention must be '**novel, non-obvious**' and should have '**industrial applicability**'. However, if you can find any '**improvement**' to the existing prior art, then you can pursue the matter with USPTO for patent for the improvement part; subject to absence of prior art (in terms of patent documents and non-patent literature) and judicial exception. As always said here in this site, patent prosecution is complex matter better handled by patent attorneys and here the endeavor is to provide some preliminary guidance and not legal opinion.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55915" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18328" RevisionGUID="ed798702-a7ea-497a-aa09-f81b084669ce" CreationDate="2018-12-21T00:02:55.693" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20122" RevisionGUID="eb755cfa-bc76-4adc-ae20-81d2f24ea881" CreationDate="2018-12-21T15:09:19.310" UserId="17003" Text="Let me preface this by saying I am not a lawyer. Looking at [this link][1] to the requirements for small and micro-entity status shows **two ways to qualify** for micro-entity status.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Micro entity:** There are two ways to qualify as a micro-entity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first way is under paragraph (a) of the new rule, requiring the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; following conditions that must be satisfied individually for each&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applicant, inventor, and joint inventor who: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; - has not been named as&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; an inventor on more than 4 prior patent applications (provisional&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; applications, patent applications filed in a foreign country, PCT&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; international applications for which the basic US national fee was not&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; paid, and applications that a party has assigned or is under an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obligation to assign as a result of previous employment do not count);&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - has gross income less than 3 times the median household income in&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; the U.S. for the preceding calendar year (for 2013 fees = $150,162, or&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; 3X$50,054, the 2012 median household income. For parties not paid in&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; US dollars, the average currency exchange rate during the previous&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; calendar year applies.); &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - has not assigned, licensed or otherwise&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; granted an interest in the invention to an entity who has gross income&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; more than the amount listed above (unless the entity relates to an&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; institution of higher education); and&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; - also meets the requirement for&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; small entity status.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The second way, under paragraph (d) of the new&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rule, is by having a relationship with a U.S. institution of higher&#xD;&#xA;&gt; education. The applicant’s employer, from which the applicant obtains&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the majority of the applicant’s income, must be an institution of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; higher education. Or, the application must be assigned, granted,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conveyed, or is under and obligation of contract or law to assign,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; grant, or convey, a license ownership interest in the particular&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application to the institution of higher education. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, I believe the linked form is just covering the gross income requirement of the first option for qualification. The linked website doesn't make clear that the there are two options. You need only qualify for one option or the other. Since I am not a lawyer, I would suggest reading the requirements carefully and if you feel you need additional clarification perhaps seek the advice of a qualified attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.whda.com/whda/assets/file/small%20and%20micro%20entity%20status%20requirements.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55917" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="38fb0ee2-2b8d-47be-9a0c-6d491ed69a30" CreationDate="2018-12-21T18:01:05.440" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20123" RevisionGUID="c36367b3-f636-47f1-ad2f-953966f4fc1d" CreationDate="2018-12-22T14:22:04.243" UserId="17003" Text="AD Adhikary's answer is correct and you would do well to accept it. However I feel the need to add my viewpoint. First and foremost. **You cannot patent anything anywhere if you are not the inventor. Period.** Trying to do so is essentially theft of intellectual property. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because the patent issued in Korea in 2006, it means no one, including the inventor, can obtain a patent for the same invention in the US since the Korean patent represents prior art. This means that if your intention is to market a product in the US, this patent won't keep you from doing so as long as it isn't manufactured in Korea. Be advised that other patents could potentially exist that also relate to your product and could require licensing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55919" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="d86272a9-23dd-47e7-a8e6-608e9f7bb204" CreationDate="2018-12-22T23:00:55.177" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55926" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19849" RevisionGUID="ea4ca789-8656-4e15-b8a1-8253453f4ac8" CreationDate="2018-12-23T23:01:05.393" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20125" RevisionGUID="f81fb384-0877-4d61-bf55-8b518d202785" CreationDate="2018-12-24T00:00:09.323" UserId="19913" Text="I am in the process of working with a team to author a NonProvisional Patent Application with the USPTO.  If I want to keep my options open for a EU Patent, what must I do / avoid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55928" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20125" RevisionGUID="f81fb384-0877-4d61-bf55-8b518d202785" CreationDate="2018-12-24T00:00:09.323" UserId="19913" Text="Securing EU patents from US perspective" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55929" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20125" RevisionGUID="f81fb384-0877-4d61-bf55-8b518d202785" CreationDate="2018-12-24T00:00:09.323" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;epo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20126" RevisionGUID="b0bd8229-5e14-456e-beac-6724fb80030a" CreationDate="2018-12-24T05:56:39.730" UserId="21610" Text="Have you filed a provisional application?? before, if not file a provisional application,  as a provisional application gives you an additional 12 months for you to file a Non provisional application and protects the priority date for your patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding keeping an options open for EU I would suggest you to file a PCT application as EU and US both are WIPO member's this gives you additional time of 30 months from the priorty date eg: If you had filed Provisonal application on say Dec 24, 2018  in USPTO and before Dec 24, 2019 you had filed Non provisinal application in with PCT you have a time till Jun 24, 2021 to decide to file in Europe or any other PCT participating countries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55932" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17720" RevisionGUID="0f8fbf44-2da0-4bb8-9334-bf50889e58e6" CreationDate="2018-12-24T06:02:10.547" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55933" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="c0b69f8a-21be-4f2e-85e2-d34142848869" CreationDate="2018-12-24T09:02:30.533" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20127" RevisionGUID="f992a965-d53d-40f6-9d6d-379bc2bf55fa" CreationDate="2018-12-24T15:35:55.227" UserId="21666" Text="My invention has A, B, C and D components and they are connected with each other with that order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somebody claims to have a new invention with an addition component Z with my invention:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Case 1:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the Z component is added between A and B, does his new invention, A, Z, B, C and D, infringe my invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Case 1b:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the Case 1, if Z improves (better results, easier for B,C,D components) the invention a lot, does this new invention infringe my invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Case 1c:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the Case 1, if Z doesn't improve the invention a lot, does this new invention infringe my invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Case 2:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the Z component is added before A or after D, does his new invention infringe my invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Merry Christmas!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55935" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20127" RevisionGUID="f992a965-d53d-40f6-9d6d-379bc2bf55fa" CreationDate="2018-12-24T15:35:55.227" UserId="21666" Text="how to judge if anyone infringes my invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55936" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20127" RevisionGUID="f992a965-d53d-40f6-9d6d-379bc2bf55fa" CreationDate="2018-12-24T15:35:55.227" UserId="21666" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20128" RevisionGUID="689fef47-95e4-4788-b459-97762180d08e" CreationDate="2018-12-24T17:24:30.770" UserId="17003" Text="I am not a lawyer, but here is my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Case 1:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the Z component is added between A and B, does his new invention,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A, Z, B, C and D, infringe my invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes a product with Z added to your patent's claim of A, B, C and D would infringe on your patent since it implements all aspect of at least one of your claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Case 1b:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For the Case 1, if Z improves (better results, easier for B,C,D&#xD;&#xA;&gt; components) the invention a lot, does this new invention infringe my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still infringes. Just because Z improves things doesn't change the fact that the product infringes if it implements every aspects of at least one of your claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Case 1c:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For the Case 1, if Z doesn't improve the invention a lot, does this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; new invention infringe my invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just like 1b, it still infringes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Case 2:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the Z component is added before A or after D, does his new&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention infringe my invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Order doesn't matter if the product implements each and every aspect of at least one claim in your patent. Still infringes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing to understand about patents that improve upon an existing patent is that while the improvement can be found to be worthy of a patent, that doesn't imply freedom to operate if an existing patent is infringed upon. If, however your patent's claim implements step A, B, C and D and another person figures out a way to make their product work using only steps A, B and D, then they don't infringe since they don't implement each and every aspect of your patent's claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me reiterate that I am not a lawyer and this is not a legal opinion. Even if I were, you shouldn't rely on internet Q&amp;A sites for legal decisions. As always, you should consult with a qualified attorney.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20125" RevisionGUID="80ff38c2-8e60-4bab-8d38-9dd642d8f19d" CreationDate="2018-12-24T21:04:08.387" UserId="19913" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="I am in the process of working with a team to author a NonProvisional Patent Application with the USPTO.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTION&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;If I want to keep my options open for a EU Patent, what must I do / avoid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20125" RevisionGUID="350c5f46-6a87-4a49-a450-f622c201bcc3" CreationDate="2018-12-24T21:23:28.280" UserId="19913" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I am in the process of working with a team to author a NonProvisional Patent Application with the USPTO.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTION&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;If I want to keep my options open for a `EU Patent`, what must I do / avoid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20126" RevisionGUID="ca18cff0-f43c-4073-9bae-8fa49859e762" CreationDate="2018-12-24T21:25:00.503" UserId="19913" Comment="link provide acronym clarification" Text="Have you filed a provisional application?? before, if not file a provisional application,  as a provisional application gives you an additional 12 months for you to file a Non provisional application and protects the priority date for your patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding keeping an options open for EU I would suggest you to file a [PCT application][1] as EU and US both are WIPO member's this gives you additional time of 30 months from the priorty date eg: If you had filed Provisonal application on say Dec 24, 2018  in USPTO and before Dec 24, 2019 you had filed Non provisinal application in with PCT you have a time till Jun 24, 2021 to decide to file in Europe or any other PCT participating countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.epo.org/applying/international.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20127" RevisionGUID="c526af06-bcea-476f-b185-ec5bfe0e1d7a" CreationDate="2018-12-24T21:28:07.760" UserId="1" Comment="Not a prior-art-request" Text="My invention has A, B, C and D components and they are connected with each other with that order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somebody claims to have a new invention with an addition component Z with my invention:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Case 1:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the Z component is added between A and B, does his new invention, A, Z, B, C and D, infringe my invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Case 1b:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the Case 1, if Z improves (better results, easier for B,C,D components) the invention a lot, does this new invention infringe my invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Case 1c:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the Case 1, if Z doesn't improve the invention a lot, does this new invention infringe my invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Case 2:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the Z component is added before A or after D, does his new invention infringe my invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55942" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="20127" RevisionGUID="c526af06-bcea-476f-b185-ec5bfe0e1d7a" CreationDate="2018-12-24T21:28:07.760" UserId="1" Comment="Not a prior-art-request" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55943" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="bd06fda7-0479-4d71-8078-440a1da3e95e" CreationDate="2018-12-25T01:01:15.257" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55944" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18600" RevisionGUID="cab7f076-a6af-4cba-a8e1-413aebcc1dc2" CreationDate="2018-12-25T06:02:55.547" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20129" RevisionGUID="5708a273-de68-4395-951c-2bc7e2fb87a6" CreationDate="2018-12-25T08:26:20.440" UserId="21610" Text="Infringement differs case by case, infringement of your invention depends on what are the claims you have been granted for your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eg: If your patent claim granted was &quot;an invention **comprising** A, B, C and D components and they are connected with each other with that order&quot; and addition of new component Z would infringe your be considered as an infringement. It is accepted by courts that term **comprising** is an open ended term and addition of unclaimed element would account to infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your claim granted was &quot;an invention **consisting** A, B, C and D components and they are connected with each other with that order&quot; and addition of new component Z would not be considered as an infringement. It is accepted by courts that term **consisting** is an closed ended term addition of new element or removal of an element would-not be considered as an infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above said example is a broad generalization how infringement would be evaluated and it differs from countries to countries.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In US courts the infringement of a claim would be evaluated after **[Markman hearing][1]**   &#xD;&#xA;during which federal judge construes the claim and the compare it against the invention of accused. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the above hypothetical infringement cases there are numerous factors which play role which could potentially influence the infringement Viz., doctrine of equivalents, claims surrendered during prosecution, alternatives that existed during the priority date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest you to consult an attorney as they would be in a better position to evaluate infringement.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markman_hearing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55946" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="f5fd79cd-b4b7-40ca-9e31-d7c498174303" CreationDate="2018-12-25T14:01:40.323" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20130" RevisionGUID="38634b5f-695b-4dc4-9e2b-21edbab9e3ac" CreationDate="2018-12-25T22:26:52.450" UserId="21534" Text="Right now, your options are open. But, if you publish the invention they may close, as unlike the USA, the EPO does not have a grace period for filing a patent application after publication.&#xA;&#xA;The Paris convention says that if you file in one treaty country, like the USA, you have 1 year from the earliest such filing to file in another treaty country (like the EPO  - european patent office). PCT is a way of extending the deadline.&#xA;&#xA;However, you need to make sure that what is in your document is suitable for european practice. In particular, the EPO expects literal support of the claims in the specification of the application, and will not allow you to cherry pick from the specification to create new claims if needed; this is called inadmissible “intermediate generalization”. The EPO is just as strict when it considers the priority (provisional) document. This means that if you do go the provisional route, you should probably make sure to have the claims you will later want in europe, already drafted or risk not getting the priority date. If your existing provisional is not up to snuff, file a new one with added material, suitable claims and any desired fall back positions and file PCT or EPO within 1 year of the *first* provisional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20131" RevisionGUID="786c2901-d64b-4d6e-9ab5-84c2fa6c1d08" CreationDate="2018-12-25T22:44:08.590" UserId="21534" Text="I think the question is too general.&#xA;For example, US5138783A is a patent on an idea of making art.&#xA;&#xA;Design patents, by definition cover ornamental designs.&#xA;&#xA;A cartoon would probably fall under the “printed matter” exception, but consider: what if what makes it funny is the shape of the text layout interacting with the shape of a character in the comic? That could be a design (depending on country).&#xA;&#xA;Computer icons are regularly protected by design patents. Many Apple icons share a common idea.&#xA;&#xA;Though, as i have written elsewhere, patents protect embodiments of an idea, not the idea itself, whether the idea is art related or technical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20129" RevisionGUID="72418c4e-6e9c-4dec-816f-9700ba05290e" CreationDate="2018-12-26T05:41:53.063" UserId="21610" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Infringement differs case by case, infringement of your invention depends on what are the claims you have been granted for your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eg: If your patent claim granted was &quot;an invention **comprising** A, B, C and D components and they are connected with each other with that order&quot; and addition of new component Z would infringe your be considered as an infringement. It is accepted by courts that term **comprising** is an open ended term and addition of unclaimed element would account to infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your claim granted was &quot;an invention **consisting** A, B, C and D components and they are connected with each other with that order&quot; and addition of new component Z would not be considered as an infringement. It is accepted by courts that term **consisting** is an closed ended term addition of new element or removal of an element would-not be considered as an infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above said example is a broad generalization how infringement would be evaluated and it differs from country to country.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In US courts the infringement of a claim would be evaluated after **[Markman hearing][1]**   &#xD;&#xA;during which federal judge construes the claim and the compare it against the invention of accused. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the above hypothetical infringement cases there are numerous factors which play role which could potentially influence the infringement Viz., doctrine of equivalents, claims surrendered during prosecution, alternatives that existed during the priority date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest you to consult an attorney as they would be in a better position to evaluate infringement.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markman_hearing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20130" RevisionGUID="0f29b47e-c9b6-4bf2-9c42-2e31fabf0adb" CreationDate="2018-12-26T09:56:09.443" UserId="21534" Comment="reworded to note that there can be a bit of grace" Text="Right now, your options are open. But, if you publish the invention they may close, as unlike the USA, the EPO has a very limited grace period for filing a patent application after publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Paris convention says that if you file in one treaty country, like the USA, you have 1 year from the earliest such filing to file in another treaty country (like the EPO  - european patent office). PCT is a way of extending the deadline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you need to make sure that what is in your document is suitable for european practice. In particular, the EPO expects literal support of the claims in the specification of the application, and will not allow you to cherry pick from the specification to create new claims if needed; this is called inadmissible “intermediate generalization”. The EPO is just as strict when it considers the priority (provisional) document. This means that if you do go the provisional route, you should probably make sure to have the claims you will later want in europe, already drafted or risk not getting the priority date. If your existing provisional is not up to snuff, file a new one with added material, suitable claims and any desired fall back positions and file PCT or EPO within 1 year of the *first* provisional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55951" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16606" RevisionGUID="11481ca5-50b0-4862-80cb-76c827aa92c8" CreationDate="2018-12-26T11:01:45.370" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20132" RevisionGUID="972ae18c-ed20-474f-88a4-34899e45f561" CreationDate="2018-12-26T14:48:20.457" UserId="21534" Text="Short version: **yes**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there is an important lesson here. When you file a patent for an apparatus, you put it &quot;out there&quot;. So if you did not describe a particular use well enough to draft a method claim on it, a competitor may be able to do so. And even though you invented the original apparatus, you will still need to pay the competitor a license fee if you want to practice the new use. So be sure to anticipate, describe (and maybe later claim) all such uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another issue relating to examination. Let's say (in the story above), person B did *not* know of patent A, he can be surprised during examination with this prior art. However, as he did a good job describing the method of use, may be able to get a patent on a method of use. Further, as when you re-purpose a structure for a new use you often need to make some changes, the act of thinking through and describing the usage scenario may help ensure that the patent does describe these changes (which may make it patentable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, i do consider the answer to the title question to be *yes*. It is not required by *law* but is very important for various *practical* considerations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20133" RevisionGUID="82fd1a00-725f-4d12-9903-f7974820d3dc" CreationDate="2018-12-26T16:22:12.647" UserId="21534" Text="I’ll start with a **statistical** answer. Each patent you file has a certain chance of being rejected, which can be a long drawn out process and you might give up. So if you file several patent applications in parallel, you are likelier to obtain at least one patent covering your system sooner. We often do this when we want to get a portfolio up fast - we file several patent applications, all with a request for expedited examination and hope to get 50% within a year.&#xA;&#xA;There are **practical** considerations (other than money), as well.  While you may have several innovative features, they may have many interdependencies. It may be difficult to capture these if you have separate patents. If you have a single specification and multiple claim sets, this means that a flaw in the specification can may the whole set of patents fall down.&#xA;&#xA;There are **scope** considerations as well. If the ideas are independently innovative, you might want separate filings so you can explore and highlight how the different inventions are independent and have a scope broader than just the product. &#xA;&#xA;There are **litigation** issues as well. Having multiple patents makes it more difficult for competitor to design around, more difficult for competitor to invalidate your patents and easier for you to choose the best patents/claims to sue on. Hopefully competitor will be so scared he will ask for a license. As a general rule, we assume that any give single patent will be invalidated or designed around.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Finally, putting budget aside, your **goal** is to obtain an granted independent claim for each of the innovative features **and** for the product as a whole **and** for various sub-combinations of features. I am assuming, by the way, that when you say “innovative” you actually mean “a patentable feature which is critical for my competition’s success” , since we file patents on what blocks competition, not (merely) on what is innovative. Note a competitor will *often* not copy your product as a whole but rather incorporate one or more of its features.&#xA;&#xA;Of course, budget (and cash flow) **cannot** be put aside and the overarching question should be: what kind of protection can I both afford and answers my business needs.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20133" RevisionGUID="d780226d-a24e-49c0-9bba-4fdbba7ee644" CreationDate="2018-12-26T16:27:16.643" UserId="21534" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I’ll start with a **statistical** answer. Each patent you file has a certain chance of being rejected, which can be a long drawn out process and you might give up. So if you file several patent applications in parallel, you are likelier to obtain at least one patent covering your system sooner. We often do this when we want to get a portfolio up fast - we file several patent applications, all with a request for expedited examination and hope to get 50% within a year.&#xA;&#xA;There are **practical** considerations (other than money), as well.  While you may have several innovative features, they may have many interdependencies. It may be difficult to capture these if you have separate patents. If you have a single specification and multiple claim sets, this means that a flaw in the specification can make the whole set of patents fall down.&#xA;&#xA;There are **scope** considerations as well. If the ideas are independently innovative, you might want separate filings so you can explore and highlight how the different inventions are independent and have a scope broader than just the product. &#xA;&#xA;There are **litigation** issues as well. Having multiple patents makes it more difficult for competitor to design around, more difficult for competitor to invalidate your patents and easier for you to choose the best patents/claims to sue on. Hopefully competitor will be so scared he will ask for a license. As a general rule, we assume that any give single patent will be invalidated or designed around.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Finally, putting budget aside, your **goal** is to obtain an granted independent claim for each of the innovative features **and** for the product as a whole **and** for various sub-combinations of features. I am assuming, by the way, that when you say “innovative” you actually mean “a patentable feature which is critical for my competition’s success” , since we file patents on what blocks competition, not (merely) on what is innovative. Note a competitor will *often* not copy your product as a whole but rather incorporate one or more of its features.&#xA;&#xA;Of course, budget (and cash flow) **cannot** be put aside and the overarching question should be: what kind of protection can I both afford and answers my business needs.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20134" RevisionGUID="be61bd3f-eb70-45f9-81b1-274ece3da25a" CreationDate="2018-12-26T17:40:06.060" UserId="21681" Text="![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Z6fyr.jpg) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the value of this.. I can only find drawings of it and it says it was never produced but I have one" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55956" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20134" RevisionGUID="be61bd3f-eb70-45f9-81b1-274ece3da25a" CreationDate="2018-12-26T17:40:06.060" UserId="21681" Text="Patent US640598A" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55957" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20134" RevisionGUID="be61bd3f-eb70-45f9-81b1-274ece3da25a" CreationDate="2018-12-26T17:40:06.060" UserId="21681" Text="&lt;tools&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55958" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="efe92c02-6aeb-49a4-84c9-56005b1b47bb" CreationDate="2018-12-26T21:02:05.527" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20135" RevisionGUID="87665133-16f8-4886-8d06-fdacd6aa9ab8" CreationDate="2018-12-27T02:49:13.323" UserId="21610" Text="The picture shows only half of the Tool, the patent  [US 640,598][1] describes the invention was a tool useful in the building of wire fences, as well as the other specific uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/3d/1f/63/f27df8d785aca6/US640598.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55960" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16450" RevisionGUID="6a464c9e-2dde-4f3d-8229-9786dccf9a3a" CreationDate="2018-12-27T07:01:15.223" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55961" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18185" RevisionGUID="01d6e85c-68b5-4951-9a48-a79f1f954347" CreationDate="2018-12-27T10:01:15.240" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55962" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="20134" RevisionGUID="bb093654-185b-4344-ad9f-fda783a3b142" CreationDate="2018-12-27T15:09:44.243" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="55963" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="20134" RevisionGUID="055ff43a-d9e2-4149-8246-d4cef7d79276" CreationDate="2018-12-27T15:10:09.337" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="55964" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="2ead6d88-5175-4dd5-8b6b-ba6a46491379" CreationDate="2018-12-27T21:02:15.470" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20136" RevisionGUID="d07606fd-db77-4929-a80c-781ff45b1c41" CreationDate="2018-12-28T20:29:58.847" UserId="17003" Text="[US640598A][1] Describes a combination tool particularly useful for fencing. This diagram is from the patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First claim is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A tool comprising a member having a head, the head provided with a longitudinally centrally arranged web and constituting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; clamping shoulders extending transversely of the web, a member having&#xD;&#xA;&gt; its inner end provided with parallel jaws receiving between them the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said web, and having a pivotal connection between the jaws and the web&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at a point intermediate its ends, the web having a cutter-opening, one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of said jaws having a cutter-opening adapted to cooperate therewith&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and the jaw at the opposite side of the web cut away to prevent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; engagement with the wire being cut, substantially as described.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The arms (a) would be useful for prying out nails and the cutting jays (F, H &amp; H) would be used for cutting wire. There are other features that provide additional utility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent would have expired roughly in 1917. As for value, the patent has no current residual value although it constitutes prior art. If you are asking about collectable value of your tool, that would be off topic for this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US640598A/en?oq=US640598A&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fSZMs.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20138" RevisionGUID="e709f5ad-184a-4b8a-8130-2c9812dca126" CreationDate="2018-12-28T23:57:34.770" UserId="21696" Text="Here's how to get a direct link to a PDF document given a patent number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent number is split into three sections: &#xD;&#xA;Group A, digits 0-2 (using an 8 digit number, often digit 0 will be a 0 for &lt;10m patent numbers)&#xD;&#xA;Group B, digits 3-5&#xD;&#xA;Group C, digits 6-7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So patent 9876543 will be grouped as A(098) B(765) C(43).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The URL is the following, with (A), (B), and (C) replaced by the groups described above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    http://pimg-fpiw.uspto.gov/fdd/(C)/(B)/(A)/0.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meaning the PDF for patent 98765432 is fetched at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    http://pimg-fpiw.uspto.gov/fdd/43/765/098/0.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55972" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="a934abce-4a3c-45f2-88d4-b33b3b777ef0" CreationDate="2018-12-29T03:03:15.627" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55973" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19813" RevisionGUID="a632ed3c-3081-4478-a49b-0605a23b7218" CreationDate="2018-12-30T14:03:20.747" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55974" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19778" RevisionGUID="242d93ae-7a20-477e-af35-8e3cb8c3b216" CreationDate="2018-12-30T22:02:50.580" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20138" RevisionGUID="08dc8ea1-a4ee-4cc9-981a-fca108dea74b" CreationDate="2018-12-30T23:20:24.343" UserId="21696" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Here's how to get a direct link to a PDF document given a patent number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent number is split into three sections: &#xD;&#xA;Group A, digits 0-2 (using an 8 digit number, often digit 0 will be a 0 for &lt;10m patent numbers)&#xD;&#xA;Group B, digits 3-5&#xD;&#xA;Group C, digits 6-7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So patent 9876543 will be grouped as A(098) B(765) C(43).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The URL is the following, with (A), (B), and (C) replaced by the groups described above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    http://pimg-fpiw.uspto.gov/fdd/(C)/(B)/(A)/0.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meaning the PDF for patent 9876543 is fetched at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    http://pimg-fpiw.uspto.gov/fdd/43/765/098/0.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55976" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19051" RevisionGUID="4b628de8-fdd5-459d-b4af-d5f6b80f5da2" CreationDate="2018-12-31T08:01:35.333" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55977" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18941" RevisionGUID="851ad392-076b-4fc0-943f-d2d8545daab1" CreationDate="2018-12-31T21:01:50.390" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5195" RevisionGUID="4f6e4b14-c8c4-4a06-8075-eb9040da301b" CreationDate="2019-01-01T10:26:27.910" UserId="17737" Comment="images fixed (inlining HTTP images doesn't work anymore)" Text="![Official USPTO Prior Art][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **Final Rejection** by the US Patent Office! The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** in this answer! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cover all the pieces of Claim 1, as well as some of the other claims. You might want to make sure to refer to the [amended version](https://s3.amazonaws.com/SplitwiseBlogJB/13436491.pdf), which I just linked to, and you can also find on &quot;Public Pair&quot; of the USPTO by searching this publication number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# CLAIM 1: #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bullets 1&amp;2: Establish at least a group of three users sharing a total balance in a group, with a list of transactions and payments, and have the list of transactions and total balance list be reactive to payment transactions added by group members. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk, Jan 2006: [TechCrunch](http://techcrunch.com/2006/01/20/billmonk-social-money/)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;SplitTheRent, June 2011: [New York Times](http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/a-new-tool-splittherent-com-for-roommates)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Conmigo, Sept 2011: [Lifehacker](http://lifehacker.com/5843961/conmigo-helps-you-split-your-expenses-with-your-roommates)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;PayDivvy, May 2011: [VentureBeat](http://venturebeat.com/2011/05/11/no-more-deadbeat-friends-paydivvy-launches-social-bill-service/)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and many others (SplitMyBill.ie, WeSplit.it, Wie Betaalt Wat, KittySplit, etc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Splitwise Screenshot from NYT](https://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/04/27/business/splittherentscreenshot/splittherentscreenshot-blog480.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bullets 4&amp;5: All of the previous software update total balances and react to payment transactions, but here are some clean examples in screenshot form:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, June 2011: [Splitwise Blog](http://blog.splitwise.com/2011/06/06/upcoming-redesign/)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Conmigo, Sept 2011: [Lifehacker](http://lifehacker.com/5843961/conmigo-helps-you-split-your-expenses-with-your-roommates)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![Conmingo](https://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18ixc8llklhzajpg/original.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bullet 6: Fund transfer was done by Billmonk/Obopay and PayDivvy prior to 2012.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk, Jan 2007: [TechCrunch](http://techcrunch.com/2007/01/30/minimerger-obopay-aquires-billmonk/) describes online settlement as the point of the acquisition.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk, Jan 2007: [Billmonk Blog showing online settlement](http://billmonk.wordpress.com/2007/01/30/billmonk-is-now-an-obopay-company-settle-up-online/)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;PayDivvy, May 2011: [VentureBeat](http://venturebeat.com/2011/05/11/no-more-deadbeat-friends-paydivvy-launches-social-bill-service/) Describes bank settlement.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![Billmonk / Obopay](https://billmonk.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/obopay_settleup.png?w=450) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bullet 3: Using a range of dates was used for recurring expenses in SplitMyBill.ie, and done in a couple ways at Splitwise prior to 2012.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;SplitMyBill.ie, Apr 2009: [Wayback Machine / SplitMyBill.ie Tour](http://web.archive.org/web/20090403110658/http://www.splitmybill.ie/tour.html)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, Mar 5th 2012: [Splitwise Blog](http://blog.splitwise.com/2012/03/05/the-new-monthly-summary-and-google-charts/). Splitwise uses a date range to sort balances into monthly totals within each group.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, Dec 2011: [Forbes](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbittner/2011/12/07/do-you-vacation-like-a-capitalist-or-a-socialist/) / [Splitwise Blog](http://blog.splitwise.com/2011/12/07/announcing-the-travel-calculator/). Splitwise publishes a calculator that uses a range of dates to tell how a given expense should be divided among which members of a group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![SplitMyBill.ie](https://i.stack.imgur.com/z2qmB.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Travel calculator link](https://i.stack.imgur.com/cM6Yc.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Other Claims#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the patent [as amended](https://s3.amazonaws.com/SplitwiseBlogJB/13436491.pdf)*, we should also look at Claims 2, 6, and 10. Claims 11-25 are basically variations on a theme, with the phrases &quot;computer software&quot; exchanged with &quot;method&quot; or &quot;system&quot; or the idea of &quot;additional users&quot; added to the other claims. The idea of an &quot;additional user&quot; (doing something as part of an invitation, does this mean?) being able to do things was a feature in BillMonk, SplitMyBill.ie, Splitwise, and others, and combining that with other features is probably fairly obvious to someone skilled in the art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## CLAIM 2: Individual Balances&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 2 brings in the idea of &quot;individual balances&quot;, as distinct from &quot;total balances,&quot; which could mean non-total balances as shown in Figure 4. But Billmonk pioneered the idea that you could track both individual and total balances within the group and reduce it to a total balance at the users discretion.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk, Aug 2007: [Billmonk Blog](http://billmonk.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/debt-shuffling/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Individual Debts](https://billmonk.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/before1.png?w=450)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##CLAIM 6-9&lt;br&gt;Claim 1 + &quot;inquiring from the additional user whether to add the additional payment transaction to the record&quot;, &quot;responsive to a user device&quot;, and &quot;electronic system of a financial account&quot;.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This was all done by PayDivvy. In the screenshot below, you can see the connections to real bank accounts, from a user device (a laptop), with a permission based system for new bills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PayDivvy, Sept 2011: [Finovate](http://www.finovate.com/spring11vid/paydivvy.html)/[ApartmentTherapy](http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/tech-to-help-keep-the-peace-wi-156378). See the &quot;Pay or Decline&quot; options in the screenshot. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![PayDivvy](http://i-cdn.apartmenttherapy.com/uimages/unplggd/092011_roomietechpeace3.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#CLAIM 10: &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 + &quot;settlement event is at least one of the following: an end date being reached, a user of the group requested settlement, and a total balance reaching a set amount.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User requesting settlement:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Wie Betaalt Wat, Aug 2010: [FrankWatching](http://www.frankwatching.com/gespot/wiebetaaltwat-nl-verreken-je-gezamenlijke-uitgaven/) (in Dutch)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, Oct 2011: [New York Times]()/[Splitise Blog](https://splitwise.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/screen-shot-2011-10-30-at-9-39-20-pm.png?w=640&amp;h=511) (based on months)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specific time:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;PayDivvy, Sept 2011: [Finovate](http://www.finovate.com/spring11vid/paydivvy.html) (due dates for each divvy)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Splitwise, Oct 2011: [Splitise Blog](https://splitwise.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/screen-shot-2011-10-30-at-9-39-20-pm.png?w=640&amp;h=511) Monthly balances with settlement alarms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Balance-based: May be the only claim in the patent that is not built in a pre-existing product, though someone may have described it in a press article or interview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Splitwise with reminders and dates](https://splitwise.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/screen-shot-2011-10-30-at-9-39-20-pm.png?w=640&amp;h=511)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# FIGURE 4&#xD;&#xA;Billmonk was the first to widely publicize the simplification of a set of &quot;X owes Y&quot; into its simplest form, but the feature is also in Splitwise, Billsup, and many other apps. Look at this image from the [Billmonk Blog](http://billmonk.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/debt-shuffling/) in August 2007 and compare it to the official Figure 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Billmonk](https://billmonk.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/debtsettlescreenshot.png?w=450)&#xD;&#xA;![Official Figure 4](http://i.stack.imgur.com/fx5dI.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uvXcn.png&#xD;&#xA;[8]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/208793068/US20130262294-A1-Form-892" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55979" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5195" RevisionGUID="4f6e4b14-c8c4-4a06-8075-eb9040da301b" CreationDate="2019-01-01T10:26:27.910" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 17003, 18033 edit id of 2098" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55982" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17587" RevisionGUID="ab00dbd2-2e1f-4ef4-aa2b-d139c8394db7" CreationDate="2019-01-01T22:01:40.347" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20140" RevisionGUID="535e0544-9bc8-495b-a5ba-55b69d765664" CreationDate="2019-01-02T19:21:46.420" UserId="21709" Text="This US Patent application is from the Korean patent KR101872823, granted to Korean University 2018-06-29. Patent title is 'Method for SRAM Yield Estimiation'.&#xD;&#xA;The same idea had been published by IBM in 2010, in a Spring book Chapter 5. &#xD;&#xA;Book title is 'Extreme Statistics in Nanoscale Memory Design'.  Chapter 5 title is 'Direct SRAM Operation Margins Computation with Random Skews of Device Characteristics'.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.springerlink.com/content/978-1-4419-6605-6/#section=775974&amp;page=5&amp;locus=85&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can this information be passed to USPTO, to avoid possible future exclusion of IBM prior art which had been standard practice in IBM &amp; partners for over 10 years. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55984" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20140" RevisionGUID="535e0544-9bc8-495b-a5ba-55b69d765664" CreationDate="2019-01-02T19:21:46.420" UserId="21709" Text="US20180247698A1 Patent Application is Crashing on Prior art - Springer Book chapter 5 published in 1910" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55985" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20140" RevisionGUID="535e0544-9bc8-495b-a5ba-55b69d765664" CreationDate="2019-01-02T19:21:46.420" UserId="21709" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55986" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19379" RevisionGUID="2bec3c67-a14f-49d1-8dad-7cbd4bc5ecf2" CreationDate="2019-01-02T22:02:10.430" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55987" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19531" RevisionGUID="1b502c80-59e3-4a69-a451-af4ccc950486" CreationDate="2019-01-02T23:01:20.253" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55988" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="b6480e23-f3e1-49f3-91ed-5f4a9560462f" CreationDate="2019-01-03T01:02:50.680" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20141" RevisionGUID="8f64bf7c-bdab-43b6-8440-d1ed4895925f" CreationDate="2019-01-03T02:46:09.490" UserId="21610" Text="**35 U.S.C. 122(e)** provides a mechanism for third parties to submit patents, published patent applications, or other printed publications of potential relevance to the examination of a patent application with a concise description of the asserted relevance of each document submitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under 35 U.S.C. 122(e), such submissions may be made before (1) the later of (i) 6 months after the date of publication or (ii) the date of a first Office action on the merits rejecting any claims, or (2) before the date of a notice of allowance, if earlier. Section 122(e) also provides for such fees as the Director may prescribe. This new provision was effective on September 16, 2012, and applies to any patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the patent Publication date was Aug 30, 2018 the third party observation could be submitted before Feb 28, 2019.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IF you wish to submit a Third party observation to [USPTO][1] please use the Hyper link. Please refer the [Quick reference Guide][2] how to submit the obeservations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://efs.uspto.gov/EFSWebUIUnregistered/EFSWebUnregistered?preSelTPS=TRUE&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Quick%20Start%20Guide%20Third%20Party%20Preissuance_06-03-2015.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20141" RevisionGUID="26f0f49d-a138-433e-b37d-a0bc2312c318" CreationDate="2019-01-03T02:54:10.930" UserId="21610" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="**35 U.S.C. 122(e)** provides a mechanism for third parties to submit patents, published patent applications, or other printed publications of potential relevance to the examination of a patent application with a concise description of the asserted relevance of each document submitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Under 35 U.S.C. 122(e)**, such submissions may be made before **(1)** the later of (i) 6 months after the date of publication or (ii) the date of a first Office action on the merits rejecting any claims, or **(2)** before the date of a notice of allowance, if earlier. Section 122(e) also provides for such fees as the Director may prescribe. This new provision was effective on September 16, 2012, and applies to any patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the patent Publication date was Aug 30, 2018 the third party observation could be submitted before Feb 29, 2019 under (1)(i) as there was no office action under (1)(ii), or you still have time till an issue of notice of allowance under (2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IF you wish to submit a Third party observation to [USPTO][1] please use the Hyper link. Please refer the [Quick reference Guide][2] how to submit the obeservations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://efs.uspto.gov/EFSWebUIUnregistered/EFSWebUnregistered?preSelTPS=TRUE&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Quick%20Start%20Guide%20Third%20Party%20Preissuance_06-03-2015.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20141" RevisionGUID="1e149f64-5777-45ba-82c4-bd56b83e18b6" CreationDate="2019-01-03T03:01:26.783" UserId="21610" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="**35 U.S.C. 122(e)** provides a mechanism for third parties to submit patents, published patent applications, or other printed publications of potential relevance to the examination of a patent application with a concise description of the asserted relevance of each document submitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Under 35 U.S.C. 122(e)**, such submissions may be made before **(1)** the later of (i) 6 months after the date of publication or (ii) the date of a first Office action on the merits rejecting any claims, or **(2)** before the date of a notice of allowance, if earlier. Section 122(e) also provides for such fees as the Director may prescribe. This new provision was effective on September 16, 2012, and applies to any patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the patent Publication date was Aug 30, 2018 the third party observation could be submitted before Feb 28, 2019 under (1)(i) as there was no office action under (1)(ii), or you still have time till an issue of notice of allowance under (2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IF you wish to submit a Third party observation to [USPTO][1] please use the Hyper link. Please refer the [Quick reference Guide][2] how to submit the obeservations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note :There might be a nominal fee for submitting observations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://efs.uspto.gov/EFSWebUIUnregistered/EFSWebUnregistered?preSelTPS=TRUE&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Quick%20Start%20Guide%20Third%20Party%20Preissuance_06-03-2015.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55992" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="089132dd-51be-47d6-b115-10a7e6b38554" CreationDate="2019-01-03T13:02:00.413" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55993" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="20140" RevisionGUID="60f11cd1-0ed0-4b85-a3e7-356a406764ff" CreationDate="2019-01-03T14:22:21.870" UserId="17003" Comment="edited title" Text="US20180247698A1 Patent Application is Crashing on Prior art - Springer Book chapter 5 published in 2010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20142" RevisionGUID="659c31a0-31ff-48a2-832b-e1ed899c188c" CreationDate="2019-01-03T15:52:55.483" UserId="19913" Text="From the inventor perspective that has an patenet attorney team developing a patent, I am trying to put together a plan comprising a list of deliverables (to be produce by patent attorneys), each with an estimated date. Although I have project management experience, I do not have patent application experience (first attempt at a patent).   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is there a good list of Non Provisional Patent Application artifacts / deliverables?   &#xD;&#xA; - How can I gauge progress with a looming deadline (April 2019)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found the [USPTO Patent Application Checklist][1], however, I think I should be focused on the claims and how they are progressing between now and the final draft?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjwzJaq69HfAhXrpVkKHVTZCFoQFjAAegQICxAC&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.uspto.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Finventors%2FChecklist_for_Filing_a_Nonprovisional_Utility.pdf&amp;usg=AOvVaw1JpOcOT1hWs-11yKuOGgKh" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55995" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20142" RevisionGUID="659c31a0-31ff-48a2-832b-e1ed899c188c" CreationDate="2019-01-03T15:52:55.483" UserId="19913" Text="Patent Application Development Artifacts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55996" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20142" RevisionGUID="659c31a0-31ff-48a2-832b-e1ed899c188c" CreationDate="2019-01-03T15:52:55.483" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;non-provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55997" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="89b8f4ef-bcfa-486b-9f3d-dd26872ae940" CreationDate="2019-01-03T17:02:50.570" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="55998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6518" RevisionGUID="964ae6e6-f639-4bf6-aed4-d652eb13f1dd" CreationDate="2019-01-04T01:43:35.150" UserId="17737" Comment="image fixed (inlining HTTP images doesn't work anymore); for more info, see https://gist.github.com/Glorfindel83/9d954d34385d2ac2597bbe864466259f" Text="Wow.  Fascinating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Tibetan artifact certainly counts as prior art.  There are many differences, however, between the claimed design and the artifact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Tibetan artifact](https://i.stack.imgur.com/UvLeN.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;![Design patent](https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/USD663234S1/USD0663234-20120710-D00000.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tips of the leaves in the patented design, for example, are squared off whereas the tips of the leaves in the Tibetan image are pointed.  The patented design has characters cut through the leaves.  The Tibetan image has raised designs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information on how to draft a strong design patent, see http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/07/30/strong-design-patents-the-power-of-the-broken-line/id=44215/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="55999" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6518" RevisionGUID="964ae6e6-f639-4bf6-aed4-d652eb13f1dd" CreationDate="2019-01-04T01:43:35.150" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 18033, 17003 edit id of 2099" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56000" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19872" RevisionGUID="8cae3ae7-6f97-4b95-a351-485013a1c921" CreationDate="2019-01-04T02:01:00.193" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20143" RevisionGUID="08202f23-814c-42d7-8521-110d12108043" CreationDate="2019-01-04T03:16:09.297" UserId="21719" Text="I have developed an easy to use way to detecting blockages in the Chinese acupuncture meridian systems. Can this set of protocols be patented? If so, how do I go about doing it. Your comments and advice are most appreciated. Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56002" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20143" RevisionGUID="08202f23-814c-42d7-8521-110d12108043" CreationDate="2019-01-04T03:16:09.297" UserId="21719" Text="Can a protocol for detection of acupuncture meridian blockage be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56003" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20143" RevisionGUID="08202f23-814c-42d7-8521-110d12108043" CreationDate="2019-01-04T03:16:09.297" UserId="21719" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;protocol&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20142" RevisionGUID="32b4f1d4-4f15-4ab6-a0ef-5ce0489fc6f3" CreationDate="2019-01-04T03:23:52.927" UserId="19913" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="From the inventor perspective that has an patenet attorney team developing a patent, I am trying to put together a plan comprising a list of deliverables (to be produce by patent attorneys), each with an estimated date. Although I have project management experience, I do not have patent application experience (first attempt at a patent).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Deliverables` are workproducts and artifacts produced by stakeholders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is there a good list of Non Provisional Patent Application artifacts / deliverables?   &#xD;&#xA; - How can I gauge progress with a looming deadline (April 2019)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found the [USPTO Patent Application Checklist][1], however, I think I should be focused on the claims and how they are progressing between now and the final draft?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjwzJaq69HfAhXrpVkKHVTZCFoQFjAAegQICxAC&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.uspto.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Finventors%2FChecklist_for_Filing_a_Nonprovisional_Utility.pdf&amp;usg=AOvVaw1JpOcOT1hWs-11yKuOGgKh" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20144" RevisionGUID="9b8616e8-c7b7-47ab-a74f-98ded91e81cb" CreationDate="2019-01-04T03:41:23.173" UserId="21610" Text="Method of treatment is patentable, as far as the protocol developed by you doesnot involve any natural laws and is supported by sufficient scientific evidence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For patenting your protocol all you need to do is generate experimental data comparing the conventional acupuncture meridian protocol (if an alternative exists) with the protocol designed by you and you need to prove that your protocol is superior to the existing protocol. If there was no alternative prior protocol available for comparison then the treatment out come can be shown as evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above example is very broad and numerous factors come into the picture when evaluating patentability. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consult a patent attorney as they could really guide you about patentability of your protocol.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** Method treatment is not patentable in countries such as India.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20145" RevisionGUID="39863c5c-dde2-4158-a9b0-9186ba2afae2" CreationDate="2019-01-04T04:07:22.040" UserId="21610" Text="I assume you are trying to develop an PMP tracker for your patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On First note let me say Patent Grant time line is a dynamic and varies (i.e., the goal date would change every time you receive a Non-final office action/ Amendment submitted) though the statutory target for grant of patent is three years from the receipt of Application, but most of the patents are not granted within the time line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as my experience with patent application please make sure that you don't keep delays from you end.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eg: An office action may give you 30 days or 3 months for you to file a response, keep the target time for your attorney to file the response within the time line, so that you dont pay additional fee in form of late fee and at the same time as there was no delay from your end the days lost in processing application may be extended under **35 USC 154**  if the patent is not granted within three years. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20146" RevisionGUID="0fbb2cd1-f3d1-48f1-bd2c-380f6e17fed3" CreationDate="2019-01-04T04:17:25.500" UserId="21666" Text="I am filing the [CERTIFICATION OF MICRO ENTITY STATUS][1] form. But I don't know where to get the Registration No., which is at the end of the form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/forms/sb0015a.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56008" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20146" RevisionGUID="0fbb2cd1-f3d1-48f1-bd2c-380f6e17fed3" CreationDate="2019-01-04T04:17:25.500" UserId="21666" Text="what is the registration no for the Certification of Micro Entity Status form" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56009" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20146" RevisionGUID="0fbb2cd1-f3d1-48f1-bd2c-380f6e17fed3" CreationDate="2019-01-04T04:17:25.500" UserId="21666" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;micro-entity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20145" RevisionGUID="0d0d4cb8-87f1-4415-af73-eecb9fcae4e9" CreationDate="2019-01-04T04:20:04.653" UserId="21610" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="I assume you are trying to develop an PMP tracker for your patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On First note let me say Patent Grant time line is a dynamic and varies (i.e., the goal date would change every time you receive a Non-final office action/ Amendment submitted) though the statutory target for grant of patent is three years from the receipt of Application, but most of the patents are not granted within the time line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as my experience with patent application please make sure that you don't keep delays from you end.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eg: An office action may give you 30 days or 3 months for you to file a response, keep the target time for your attorney to file the response within the time line, so that you dont pay additional fee in form of late fee and at the same time as there was no delay from your end the days lost in processing application may be extended under **35 USC 154**  if the patent is not granted within three years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take inputs from your patent attorney about the stages and their expected time line vs statutory timelines.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20147" RevisionGUID="f5437c08-5891-439c-b57a-61367edc2575" CreationDate="2019-01-04T04:31:33.663" UserId="21610" Text="Are you processing your application through a patent agent or you are processing your own application??&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For our company patent applications, the patent agent registration number is being filled in the form. I assume that column applies only when a patent agent is processing the application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The below is the description quoted from [USPTO][1]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The certification of micro entity status forms (Forms PTO/SB/15A and PTO/SB/15B) may only be signed by an authorized party as set forth in 37 CFR 1.33(b).  This means that the only parties who may sign a certification of micro entity status form are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A registered patent practitioner, meaning a registered attorney or agent who is either of record or acting in a representative capacity under 37 CFR 1.34;&#xD;&#xA;2. An inventor who is named as the sole inventor and identified as the applicant; or&#xD;&#xA;3. All of the joint inventors who are identified as the applicant.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If qualified for micro entity status, joint inventor applicants should sign separate copies of the relevant micro entity certification form(s).&#xD;&#xA;An officer of an assignee corporation or organization is not authorized to sign a certification of micro entity status form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/who-may-sign-forms-ptosb15a-and-15b" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20146" RevisionGUID="61ec1b2f-eeab-431c-95c9-22ffcc5f9e17" CreationDate="2019-01-04T04:39:24.877" UserId="21666" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="I am filing the [CERTIFICATION OF MICRO ENTITY STATUS][1] form. But I don't know where to get the Registration No., which is at the end of the form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/forms/sb0015a.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am doing it by myself for provisional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56013" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20145" RevisionGUID="d00a5be5-3559-4e69-9e76-990801070544" CreationDate="2019-01-04T15:25:35.950" UserId="21610" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I assume you are trying to develop an PMP tracker for your patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On First note let me say Patent Grant time line is a dynamic and varies (i.e., the goal date would change every time you receive a Non-final office action/ Amendment submitted) though the statutory target for grant of patent is three years from the receipt of Application, but most of the patents are not granted within the time line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as my experience with patent application please make sure that you don't cause delays from you end.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eg: An office action may give you 30 days or 3 months for you to file a response, keep the target time for your attorney to file the response within the time line, so that you dont pay additional fee in form of late fee and at the same time as there was no delay from your end the days lost in processing application may be extended under **35 USC 154**  if the patent is not granted within three years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take inputs from your patent attorney about the stages and their expected time line vs statutory timelines.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56014" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="5325f856-dc30-481c-8039-a12c606054a8" CreationDate="2019-01-04T17:03:20.713" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20148" RevisionGUID="be45acd4-47f9-4993-b2de-30e1befaeab8" CreationDate="2019-01-04T17:52:34.167" UserId="21667" Text="I electronically filed my provisional patent application on December 26, 2018. When can I expect to receive my provisional patent filing receipt from the USPTO in the mail? At what point can I began to use the term &quot;patent pending&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56016" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20148" RevisionGUID="be45acd4-47f9-4993-b2de-30e1befaeab8" CreationDate="2019-01-04T17:52:34.167" UserId="21667" Text="How long does it take to receive a provisional patent filing receipt?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56017" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20148" RevisionGUID="be45acd4-47f9-4993-b2de-30e1befaeab8" CreationDate="2019-01-04T17:52:34.167" UserId="21667" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20149" RevisionGUID="84d6aa56-51f6-44af-a9b2-66cc9341a656" CreationDate="2019-01-05T12:10:40.093" UserId="21722" Text="If there is a device -I know that it have never been existed before- that can be implemented by two different mechanisms, lets say one rotary and the other is a linear movement mechanism. And they are doing the same exact function with no differences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Questions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, do theses two mechanisms considered to be different devices and I have to protect them with two separate patent application in order to claim priority for both mechanisms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, if the device can be actuated mechanically-manual- or electrically, does the mechanical device considered to be a different invention than the electrical one? or they are the same and I have to mention in the patent application that the device can be actuated by two different actuation modes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56021" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20149" RevisionGUID="84d6aa56-51f6-44af-a9b2-66cc9341a656" CreationDate="2019-01-05T12:10:40.093" UserId="21722" Text="Invention Protection for a Device With Two Different Mechanisms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56022" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20149" RevisionGUID="84d6aa56-51f6-44af-a9b2-66cc9341a656" CreationDate="2019-01-05T12:10:40.093" UserId="21722" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;invention&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56023" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19061" RevisionGUID="63391bf4-5e26-4161-87e5-08971d5ee920" CreationDate="2019-01-05T18:00:55.153" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56024" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17041" RevisionGUID="a6c896fb-fcaa-46ef-8844-3902548b5cc1" CreationDate="2019-01-05T21:01:30.320" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20150" RevisionGUID="6f2ea531-f458-48b5-93e1-5b52ee485eb1" CreationDate="2019-01-06T05:19:20.223" UserId="14403" Text="For applications filed electronically, filing acknowledgement and fee receipt is generated immediately. Option for print out is given immediately. If you have missed it than you can get the same from from EFS-Web PAIR. As about the receipt being sent by USPS mail, US residents may be getting it, but overseas inventors don't (at least for an pro se inventor from India). If you are registered e-filer, you can give email option for notification and will get notification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more details may look here  https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s503.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20150" RevisionGUID="332c7d5d-5001-42c8-a06a-742025917854" CreationDate="2019-01-06T05:34:59.600" UserId="14403" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="For applications filed electronically, filing acknowledgement and fee receipt is generated immediately. Option for print out is given immediately. If you have missed it than you can get the same from from EFS-Web PAIR. As about the receipt being sent by USPS mail, US residents may be getting it, but overseas inventors don't (at least for an pro se inventor from India). If you are registered e-filer, you can give email option for notification and will get notification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more details may look [here][1]  and&#xD;&#xA;also this [link][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s503.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ebc/portal/efs/efs_web1_2.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56027" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19565" RevisionGUID="5404e5b0-c739-4978-aabc-e75e0fb78e23" CreationDate="2019-01-06T08:03:05.680" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20151" RevisionGUID="8a38268a-6d48-471f-92dd-99222e6925dd" CreationDate="2019-01-06T13:21:31.837" UserId="18691" Text="I wonder if the processes described in patents can be replicated in not-for-profit organisation, that is, organisations that by statutory contract do not aim to commercialise a &quot;copied&quot; version of what described in patents - and therefore cannot be sued for copyright infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question applies for USPTO, IEO, WIPO or any other country where it may concerns - that is, I m looking at which Countries may encourage adoption of novel industrial processes (described in patents) for maximising impact on society, opening up to diverse organisational models to carry innovation to society (not necessarily business entities).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can elaborate further if needed - essentially I want to point out the case where an entity may use patents to replicate innovation in industrial processes, without the primary scope of making profit out of &quot;unfair&quot; / illegal competition. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56029" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20151" RevisionGUID="8a38268a-6d48-471f-92dd-99222e6925dd" CreationDate="2019-01-06T13:21:31.837" UserId="18691" Text="Can industrial processes described in patents be replicated in Not-for-profit organisations without a license?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56030" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20151" RevisionGUID="8a38268a-6d48-471f-92dd-99222e6925dd" CreationDate="2019-01-06T13:21:31.837" UserId="18691" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;european&gt;&lt;wipo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20152" RevisionGUID="33c5f5ec-f931-4eb8-9583-39b4b3cf5590" CreationDate="2019-01-06T14:02:07.910" UserId="17003" Text="Let me preface by saying I am not a lawyer. Also I’m answering for the US and it’s possible that the answer varies by venue. As far as I know, there is **no exception for nonprofits**. After all, even if the nonprofit doesn’t make a profit, their use of patented technology represents lost sales for the patent holder. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20151" RevisionGUID="e02c92dd-fc4a-4339-9175-d93ccd6fea06" CreationDate="2019-01-06T16:58:43.647" UserId="18691" Comment="added 366 characters in body" Text="I wonder if the processes described in patents can be replicated in not-for-profit organisation, that is, organisations that by statutory contract do not aim to commercialise a &quot;copied&quot; version of what described in patents - and therefore cannot be sued for copyright infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question applies for USPTO, IEO, WIPO or any other country where it may concerns - that is, I m looking at which Countries may encourage adoption of novel industrial processes (described in patents) for maximising impact on society, opening up to diverse organisational models to carry innovation to society (not necessarily business entities).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can elaborate further if needed - essentially I want to point out the case where an entity may use patents to replicate innovation in industrial processes, without the primary scope of making profit out of &quot;unfair&quot; / illegal competition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Edited*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I called in not-for-profit entities as an not exhaustive example.&#xD;&#xA;I am looking to any type of organisation that could replicate patents content, at least for not-for-profit or internal use (e.g. as a cooperative or &quot;club&quot; where use is for members only ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My interest is in applied R&amp;D, rather than making profit and illegal competition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20154" RevisionGUID="cba6f02e-4096-4946-a500-dacd47a9b294" CreationDate="2019-01-06T18:43:43.630" UserId="3076" Text="Unlike copyright law, patent law has no concept of &quot;fair use&quot;. (Law does not need to be logical or consistent.) If anyone makes, uses, sells, offers to sell or imports something that falls under the claims of an issued patent, they are infringing. The burden is on the patent owner to prove that infringement occurred. If infringement is proven, the patent owner could ask the court for an injunction to force the infringer to stop. Since a Supreme Court decision a few years ago, an injunction is far from automatic and might not be issued in the case you are talking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides the possibility of forcing infringers to stop their activities, the patent owner can also ask for payment related to the damages suffered. In the case of someone infringing in way that does not make money or take away any money from the patent owner, it would be hard to establish significant damages. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20101" RevisionGUID="b553ceaa-4b09-43e1-a94a-bbda731d8436" CreationDate="2019-01-06T18:44:58.600" UserId="3076" Comment="fixes typo as per comment" Text="A patent must cover something that is &quot;useful&quot; and the patent must disclose how to make and use the invention, usefully. However, if the claims all define the structure of an apparatus, that apparatus is what is covered. Use it to stir soup or to hit a golf ball; only the inventor can authorize one to make, sell, offer for sale, import or use the apparatus, even if the body of the patent and the preamble of the claim shows a particular motivation or use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But not all claims are to the structure of a physical item. Some claims are to a process or method. The method might be a way to hit a golf ball with a regular golf club or it might be a method to hit a golf club with a novel golf club. Separately, there may be a claim to the structure of that novel golf club. When writing a patent application it can be desirable to have both an apparatus claim and a method claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Person B can't patent the thing disclosed by person A (not because it is patented but because it has been disclosed). But person B can patent a method of using the thing disclosed/patented by person A. New uses of aspirin keep being found and patented. If person A does have a patent on the thing itself, person B can't make, offer for sale, sell, use, or import that thing without permission from person A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make and sell something, person C studies the claims of person A and person B and tries to cleverly work around the wording of those claims. To patent something, person C comes up with a novel, non-obvious way to do something useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20155" RevisionGUID="a59d60f1-6bcc-4d58-b43b-12224bfe2d44" CreationDate="2019-01-06T23:06:34.330" UserId="21726" Text="PatentsView allows bulk download&#xD;&#xA;http://www.patentsview.org/web/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll need to write a regular expression to extract the Family ID from the XML file" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56037" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18787" RevisionGUID="fe79371f-1473-40cd-a30c-1037eb2408a8" CreationDate="2019-01-07T00:03:15.757" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56038" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20071" RevisionGUID="18d977fc-22b3-42ed-a087-feb234231389" CreationDate="2019-01-07T16:03:18.753" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20156" RevisionGUID="bc9ca4a2-314c-49e0-aa8e-abf723db88db" CreationDate="2019-01-07T21:07:28.393" UserId="21731" Text="In EFS Web look under the Pre-exam category and choose &quot;Applicant Response to Pre-Exam Formalities Notice&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20157" RevisionGUID="e195e14c-ea4b-4c93-a66a-1711fa887567" CreationDate="2019-01-08T01:30:49.650" UserId="21667" Text="The filing receipt in the mail on January 7. It was mailed on January 4, so it took approximately 8 days for the application to be processed, and 11 days to reach me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20154" RevisionGUID="9324aa3b-7ec3-4eae-976f-627ec250a13e" CreationDate="2019-01-08T03:16:58.140" UserId="3076" Comment="address issues from questioner" Text="Unlike copyright law, U.S. patent law has no concept of &quot;fair use&quot;. (Law does not need to be logical or consistent.) If anyone makes, uses, sells, offers to sell or imports something that falls under the claims of an issued patent, they are infringing. The burden is on the patent owner to prove that infringement occurred. If infringement is proven, the patent owner could ask the court for an injunction to force the infringer to stop. Since a Supreme Court decision a few years ago, an injunction is far from automatic and might not be issued in the case you are talking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides the possibility of forcing infringers to stop their activities, the patent owner can also ask for payment related to the damages suffered. In the case of someone infringing in way that does not make money or take away any money from the patent owner, it would be hard to establish significant damages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, it would be odd for a patent holder to spend much money on lawyers to try to stop a non-profit that is just playing with the patented technology.  I found an article [Accessing other people’s technology for non-profit research][1] that discusses this topic. It states that the only non-profit, non-commercial entity that anyone has taken to court is the U.S. government itself. Even though the government's goal was unrelated to making money, they still lost. The article states &quot;As a rule, the USA Federal Circuit court, or its predecessor court,&#xD;&#xA;only has found exemptions when use was for idle curiosity or purely&#xD;&#xA;philosophical pursuits&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Separately, there is a &quot;research exception&quot;, at least, in European law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/118622/2/1467-8489.00185.pdfhttps://" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20158" RevisionGUID="4395f216-230a-4150-801d-36b64506b9e8" CreationDate="2019-01-08T04:41:14.970" UserId="21732" Text="I'm reading through a patent and in the section titled &quot;Detailed Description of Preferred Embodiment&quot; there are several paragraphs that begin with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In a further preferred embodiment of the invention...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given this section of the patent should describe the &quot;preferred embodiment&quot; (singular) of the invention, what does this phrase mean? Is it used when the inventor wants to describe a variation of the preferred embodiment? Alternatively, does it refer to a completely seperate preferred embodiment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56043" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20158" RevisionGUID="4395f216-230a-4150-801d-36b64506b9e8" CreationDate="2019-01-08T04:41:14.970" UserId="21732" Text="What does &quot;in a further preferred embodiment&quot; refer to in a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56044" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20158" RevisionGUID="4395f216-230a-4150-801d-36b64506b9e8" CreationDate="2019-01-08T04:41:14.970" UserId="21732" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;embodiments&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20159" RevisionGUID="3bd764fc-d61e-4e0d-8cb4-eddffdb3a866" CreationDate="2019-01-08T07:21:20.483" UserId="18033" Text="It means “the following limitation is optional“.&#xA;&#xA;In Europe for example, if you describe an example with limitations a, b and c only, you cannot claim a and b without c. If however you say a, preferably plus b, more preferably c or c and b, it is clear that a can be combined with b and/or c.&#xA;&#xA;It is a (very important) formal thing. If you look for it, you will see that, in a well written application, almost every limitation is optional. Phrases like “it can be“, “optionally“, “preferably“, “may have“, etc. are used.&#xA;&#xA;Example: “The car has at least one wheel, in a preferred embodiment it has 4 of them, in a further preferred embodiment 2 of at least 2 wheels are driven.“ -&gt; The car can have 1 wheel that is not driven or 2 that are driven or 3 where none or two are driven, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20160" RevisionGUID="19d094c6-db3a-4b82-a41d-bfd908480129" CreationDate="2019-01-08T09:40:25.223" UserId="21610" Text="Is there any time line for revival of an abandoned patent application??&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware an application is considered abandoned in view of applicant’s failure to submit a proper reply to the Office action mailed on within the required period for reply. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is before what time a petition of revival can be filed? is there a deadline for submitting such petition such as six months or one year from abandonment. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56047" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20160" RevisionGUID="19d094c6-db3a-4b82-a41d-bfd908480129" CreationDate="2019-01-08T09:40:25.223" UserId="21610" Text="Timeline for revival of abandoned application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56048" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20160" RevisionGUID="19d094c6-db3a-4b82-a41d-bfd908480129" CreationDate="2019-01-08T09:40:25.223" UserId="21610" Text="&lt;abandonment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20160" RevisionGUID="8d7c2ed1-30fb-41a9-acc4-6cb070c8c055" CreationDate="2019-01-08T10:21:48.923" UserId="21610" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="Is there any time line for revival of an abandoned patent application??&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware an application is considered abandoned in view of applicant’s failure to submit a proper reply to the Office action mailed on within the required period for reply. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is before what time a petition of revival can be filed? is there a deadline for submitting such petition such as six months or one year from abandonment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If available please mention supporting USC code or MPEP section. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56050" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="d036d616-a94a-494e-b743-a3617b9f7f16" CreationDate="2019-01-08T13:02:00.453" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20161" RevisionGUID="aa144ed3-da98-42aa-807c-0e9f5b401c25" CreationDate="2019-01-08T22:46:08.537" UserId="3076" Text="There is not a strict limit (other than 20 years after the priority date) but the USPTO gives a petition to revive greater scrutiny after 1 year. Even if a petition to revive is granted by the Office, it is still subject to be brought up in court later in an attack in the validity of the resolution patent. See quote from the MPEP below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 37 CFR 1.137 Revival of abandoned application, or terminated or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; limited reexamination prosecution&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; D. Delay Until the Filing of a Grantable Petition&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Office does not generally question whether there has been an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; intentional or otherwise impermissible delay in filing an initial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137, when such petition is filed: (A)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; within 3 months of the date the applicant is first notified that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application is abandoned; and (B) within 1 year of the date of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abandonment of the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56052" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20070" RevisionGUID="729b09c1-2d88-44f5-b650-7e6a4a06672a" CreationDate="2019-01-09T09:01:10.250" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20162" RevisionGUID="9f1f3dcc-c2ee-462c-b9f1-99a1150e9bc0" CreationDate="2019-01-09T09:34:01.743" UserId="21610" Text="&gt; If there is a device -I know that it have never been existed before-&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that can be implemented by two different mechanisms, lets say one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rotary and the other is a linear movement mechanism. And they are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; doing the same exact function with no differences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the device never existed, the device is considered Novel and potentially could be patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; First, do theses two mechanisms considered to be different devices and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have to protect them with two separate patent application in order&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to claim priority for both mechanisms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as the device is one, the difference lies only with mechanism of operation it is an alternate embodiment of your device. If you wish to procure two different patents for the different mechanisms you can claim the priority from a single provisional application as long as all the alternate mechanisms are disclosed in the description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Secondly, if the device can be actuated mechanically-manual- or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electrically, does the mechanical device considered to be a different&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention than the electrical one? or they are the same and I have to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mention in the patent application that the device can be actuated by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; two different actuation modes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same above applies here as the actuation methods are different mode of operations and device is same it is considered as an alternate embodiment of your device. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above answer is based on the assumption you are patenting the device, if you wish to claim mechanism there would be other factors come into play. For potential patentability evaluation consult a near by patent attorney.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20163" RevisionGUID="2ea0c022-ca38-46c9-8cc7-82032017e89d" CreationDate="2019-01-09T19:18:08.363" UserId="1085" Text="The first thing to understand about patents, especially in &quot;greenfield&quot; areas - no previously existing products, devices, methods, etc. - is you want to make the patent as broad as possible, without being so overly broad that it's unpatentable. You've identified two methods? Good -- write claims which teach both of those methods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll notice I used the word &quot;teach&quot;, because that's what you're creating, a &quot;how to make or do one of these things&quot;. You want to teach as much as you can, with as much specificity as you can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, let's say you've invented &quot;A method and device for peeling potatoes using recycled disposable razor blades&quot;, and you can rotate the potato or you can linearly move the potato. How do you rotate it? How do you control the rotation? How many different ways of rotating a potato next to a recycled disposable razor blade can you think of?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you've done that -- rotating and linearly moving the potato -- think about rotating the blades or linearly moving the blades. What about other forms of recycled blades? What about utility knife blades? Disposable plastic forks?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On to your actual questions. Do you need to separate patents? No. Patents cost money to file and prosecute and as long as all you've disclosed is &quot;A method and device for peeling potatoes&quot; you're fine. Does it matter if the potato peeler can be operated both manual and electrically? Sort of -- if you're just cranking a crank on your potato peeler, it would be &quot;obvious&quot; that hand-power could be replaced with an electric motor, but you should still claim that the potato peeler can be operated with a hand crank or an electric motor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember that your goal is to teach someone as many different ways to create, operate, implement, embody, etc. the potato peeler. In the US Patent Office you get your first 20 &quot;claims&quot; for the same price. Use all 20.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best of luck -- patents are amazing things to have on your resume. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56055" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20074" RevisionGUID="2ee4207a-3bbd-4295-ac6a-8411c4bb345d" CreationDate="2019-01-10T00:02:50.630" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20165" RevisionGUID="c60e83aa-b676-4be0-b024-1c35a3aac8ed" CreationDate="2019-01-11T05:02:59.110" UserId="3076" Text="A design patent application can have more than one embodiment as long as they are visually related. One example I have seen is a soda bottle with a specific set of spiral lines. One embodiment had the lines going clock wise and another had them going counter clockwise. Another approach, if your hat is distinctive enough, is to show the decoration in dashed lines and state that the portion in dashed lines is not part of the claimed design. Then the specific decoration can be swapped out for an alternate one. You are patenting the hat with some decoration, not with any specific decoration. An example is [google's initial home page layout][1]  It has &quot;FROOGLE&quot; in dashed lines meaning that it was a placeholder for what ever the name might be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD528552" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20166" RevisionGUID="d74f443e-d859-4d24-902b-1f133b2744f6" CreationDate="2019-01-11T10:54:06.883" UserId="21745" Text="In the patent US7292151B2, many claims including independent claims have been cancelled during reexamination. However, patentability of corresponding dependent claims is still confirmed. In this case, how does the novelty of the invention stand? Do the dependent claims alone hold the same strength as the previous of version?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56064" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20166" RevisionGUID="d74f443e-d859-4d24-902b-1f133b2744f6" CreationDate="2019-01-11T10:54:06.883" UserId="21745" Text="What is the strength of the patent, if during re-examination all the independent claims get cancelled and only dependent claims are confirmed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56065" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20166" RevisionGUID="d74f443e-d859-4d24-902b-1f133b2744f6" CreationDate="2019-01-11T10:54:06.883" UserId="21745" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;office-action&gt;&lt;reexamination&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20167" RevisionGUID="b3297f8a-5a6b-45e7-acd2-3e9650929509" CreationDate="2019-01-11T17:40:53.513" UserId="21746" Text="In many countries, system claims are treated differently as compared to method claims. I wish to understand -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What is difference between system and method claims?&#xD;&#xA;2. Generally speaking, in what situations either of them are not allowed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56067" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20167" RevisionGUID="b3297f8a-5a6b-45e7-acd2-3e9650929509" CreationDate="2019-01-11T17:40:53.513" UserId="21746" Text="What is a difference between System Claims and Method Claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56068" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20167" RevisionGUID="b3297f8a-5a6b-45e7-acd2-3e9650929509" CreationDate="2019-01-11T17:40:53.513" UserId="21746" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20168" RevisionGUID="113a0690-6d66-420e-a235-1054715bc781" CreationDate="2019-01-12T07:39:59.110" UserId="3076" Text="Speaking specifically of U.S. law, a system is a physical thing, just like a device, a machine, an apparatus, a manufactured item or a composition of mater. A method, or process, is a series of steps or actions to achieve some end. A method might be performed by a person or it might performed by a machine/system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A system, inherently, is a complex &quot;machine&quot;. Therefor, when a system is activated, it generally carries out a series of steps. If your invention is a system you might have one or more system claims that describe the parts of the system had how they interrelate. It might describe a that part of the system (a transmitter) performs an action (transmitting a specific signal) under some condition - as a way of defining the structure of the machine.  A system claim reads on a system even if the system is not plugged in and in a box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A method claim tying to cover that same system would claim a series  of steps. Step 1 might be transmitt**ing** a particular signal. Notice the &quot;-ing&quot;. That indicates an action, not a thing. A transmitter configured to transmit a particular signal is a thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents cover making, using, selling, offering for sale an importing. As I said, a system claim covers the physical system whether or not it is use. In contrast, a method claim coving that same system is only infringed when the system is activated and actually carries out the claimed steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For simpler inventions, method claims might be a method of making a physical item or a method of using a physical thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One patent might have claims to a physical structure, claims to a method of using the system (by a person) and claims to the method of steps performed by the system itself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20169" RevisionGUID="f1ea776d-58fe-4e96-b659-13c7b73eeadc" CreationDate="2019-01-12T07:44:21.003" UserId="3076" Text="A claim that survived reexamination is stronger afterwards than it was before. By definition, a claim that was originally dependent is narrower than the original independent claim. After reexamination the former dependent claim would be re-written in independent form. In general, the patent would cover a narrow territory, but be somewhat strengthened in that narrowed scope." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20168" RevisionGUID="76ff3b52-ccc0-404e-9c98-0773ea08cd46" CreationDate="2019-01-12T18:18:43.310" UserId="3076" Comment="typos" Text="Speaking specifically of U.S. law, a system is a physical thing, just like a device, a machine, an apparatus, a manufactured item or a composition of mater. A method, or process, is a series of steps or actions to achieve some end. A method might be performed by a person or it might performed by a machine/system. A system, inherently, is a complex &quot;machine&quot;. Therefor, when a system is activated, it generally carries out a series of steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your invention is a system you might have one or more system claims that describe the parts of the system and how they interrelate. It might describe a part of the system (a transmitter) by stating that it performs an action (transmitting a specific signal) under some condition - as a way of defining the structure of the machine.  A system claim reads on a system even if the system is not plugged in and in a box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A method claim tying to cover that same system would claim a series  of steps. Step 1 might be transmitt**ing** a particular signal. Notice the &quot;-ing&quot;. That indicates an action, not a thing. A transmitter configured to transmit a particular signal is a thing whereas transmitting is an action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents cover making, using, selling, offering for sale an importing. As I said, a system claim covers the physical system whether or not it is use. In contrast, a method claim coving that same system is only infringed when the system is activated and actually carries out the claimed steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For simpler inventions, method claims might be a method of making a physical item or a method of using a physical thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A single patent might have claims to a physical structure, claims to a method of using the system (by a person) and claims to the method of steps performed by the system itself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20170" RevisionGUID="bb2f1d1c-184c-44a9-83b7-0822ab9176aa" CreationDate="2019-01-13T12:19:44.267" UserId="15489" Text="I am a UK citizen resident in Finland, and I have recently filed a utility patent application with the USPTO (one month ago, in fact).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I now file a PCT application with the UK Patent Office, given that I've already entered the national stage in the US?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or does the first national stage have to take place in a country of residence or nationality?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56074" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20170" RevisionGUID="bb2f1d1c-184c-44a9-83b7-0822ab9176aa" CreationDate="2019-01-13T12:19:44.267" UserId="15489" Text="Restrictions on PCT filing based on nationality and residence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56075" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20170" RevisionGUID="bb2f1d1c-184c-44a9-83b7-0822ab9176aa" CreationDate="2019-01-13T12:19:44.267" UserId="15489" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;national-stage&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20171" RevisionGUID="3bff4c5c-95e3-4850-9b1a-039a8806ed05" CreationDate="2019-01-14T09:37:22.700" UserId="8751" Text="PCT application can be filed within 12 months of filing the US patent application to claim priority from your US application. Entering national stage follows the PCT international phase (after a certain period), and refers to entering national phase in any one of the countries designated in the PCT application. For example, time limit for Indian national phase entry from a PCT application is 31 months from priority date. &#xD;&#xA;I am not sure what you mean by, &quot;I've already entered national stage in the US&quot;? It looks like you are yet to file a PCT application. Your US application is the first application (assuming there is no other prior filing) and I wouldn't refer to it as a national stage entry used in the context of PCT filings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your citizenship/resident location does not have a bearing on where you enter national stage first. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20169" RevisionGUID="ee855046-ad08-42e9-9b70-1fe033a84af9" CreationDate="2019-01-14T20:53:10.140" UserId="3076" Comment="typos" Text="A claim that survived reexamination is stronger afterwards than it was before. By definition, a claim that was originally dependent is narrower than the original independent claim. After reexamination the former dependent claim would be re-written in independent form. In general, the patent would cover a narrower territory, but be somewhat strengthened in that narrowed scope." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20172" RevisionGUID="af20a8d1-df8b-4801-a414-5adec8591100" CreationDate="2019-01-15T21:09:37.727" UserId="21757" Text="I was in the process of starting an online business then found a company already selling this same product in US. On their website it says they have a patent pending on it. How would this affect my business based in Canada? Does it prevent us from shipping to US clients? Or does it only refrain us from manufacturing the product on US soil?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Any information would be appreciated. Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56079" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20172" RevisionGUID="af20a8d1-df8b-4801-a414-5adec8591100" CreationDate="2019-01-15T21:09:37.727" UserId="21757" Text="Can I sell a product online (based out of Canada), if there is a patent on this same product in US?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56080" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20172" RevisionGUID="af20a8d1-df8b-4801-a414-5adec8591100" CreationDate="2019-01-15T21:09:37.727" UserId="21757" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20173" RevisionGUID="c3e9f79c-d6a0-4248-b8f8-ff369818c8ed" CreationDate="2019-01-15T21:30:08.000" UserId="17003" Text="I am not a lawyer, but here is my take on your question. A US patent would only protect the **manufacture or sale** of products in the US. However, many companies who file patent applications do so in multiple countries so you would have to also worry about whether a corresponding Canadian patent gets issued. Also, despite being located in Canada, a US patent would keep you from selling to US customers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because you know of a single pending patent doesn't mean there aren't other relevant patents issued in the US or elsewhere. I would strongly recommend you consult with a patent attorney before marketing your product and not rely on opinions found on the internet to protect you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20174" RevisionGUID="befd45ac-c63a-4e62-9c68-743ecc0fa6b4" CreationDate="2019-01-16T05:10:47.010" UserId="21610" Text="    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Does it prevent us from shipping to US clients? Or does it only&#xD;&#xA;&gt; refrain us from manufacturing the product on US soil?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes it is accounted as infringement under **35 USC 271** which is quoted below for you ready reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;35 U.S. Code § 271 - Infringement of patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.&#xD;&#xA;(b) Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.&#xD;&#xA;(c) **Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States** a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20173" RevisionGUID="de981947-e795-4040-8ac7-87c8209223dc" CreationDate="2019-01-16T13:55:08.373" UserId="17003" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I am not a lawyer, but here is my take on your question. A US patent would only protect the **manufacture or sale** of products in or to the US. However, many companies who file patent applications do so in multiple countries so you would have to also worry about whether a corresponding Canadian patent gets issued. Also, despite being located in Canada, a US patent would keep you from selling to US customers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because you know of a single pending patent doesn't mean there aren't other relevant patents issued in the US or elsewhere. I would strongly recommend you consult with a patent attorney before marketing your product and not rely on opinions found on the internet to protect you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20175" RevisionGUID="f1c0f635-d86e-4212-9257-b8f3ff545208" CreationDate="2019-01-16T14:42:18.060" UserId="21761" Text="We are trying to develop a new software product that requires an integrated email client. We found some old patents from Google regarding email systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US9819624B2/en&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US7818378B2/en&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US7912904B2&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050223057A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are trying to understand whether creating an email client similar to Gmail (with conversation threads and labels) will get us into trouble with Google later on. Yahoo Mail is a similar product to Gmail, for example. We are not sure to what extent having conversation threads in an email client is patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can we avoid a legal conflict with Google, considering that we want to create a better product, not worse ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56085" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20175" RevisionGUID="f1c0f635-d86e-4212-9257-b8f3ff545208" CreationDate="2019-01-16T14:42:18.060" UserId="21761" Text="Are Google patents preventing new email client products?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56086" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20175" RevisionGUID="f1c0f635-d86e-4212-9257-b8f3ff545208" CreationDate="2019-01-16T14:42:18.060" UserId="21761" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;google&gt;&lt;product&gt;&lt;email&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20173" RevisionGUID="6b29e3ee-e685-4ad1-a08e-b64b301d458e" CreationDate="2019-01-16T15:17:41.260" UserId="17003" Comment="Included link to Wikipedia definition." Text="I am not a lawyer, but here is my take on your question. [A patent provides, from a legal standpoint, the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the patented invention for the term of the patent][1]. Many companies who file patent applications do so in multiple countries so you would have to also worry about whether a corresponding Canadian patent gets issued. Despite being located in Canada, a US patent would keep you from selling to US customers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because you know of a single pending patent doesn't mean there aren't other relevant patents issued in the US or elsewhere. I would strongly recommend you consult with a patent attorney before marketing your product and not rely on opinions found on the internet to protect you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20176" RevisionGUID="8550c93f-82eb-4747-b7b9-87438f5792ec" CreationDate="2019-01-16T20:41:23.820" UserId="3076" Text="The standard answer is to engage an attorney to do a freedom to operate search and give you a written opinion. This presupposes that you know what you are building and how it works in some detail. The search would look for patents that are in force that have claims that look like they might cover what you are building. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you are in the early stages of development you might consider a &quot;design-around&quot; exercise. That involves identifying problematic patents, studying their claims (with professional help) and figuring out a way to accomplish the end you want without using the specific means to that end covered by the claims. One angle you might take is to look for things that came before - for example - the last google patent mentioned. Something listed in the google patent that came before the google patent is --&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; US5832502A	1996-07-02	1998-11-03	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Conversation index builder&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anything filed in 1996 will be long expired. Can you do what Microsoft did and not do what google has claimed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20176" RevisionGUID="2b86ef26-a9da-40d2-a451-115944bdb9d9" CreationDate="2019-01-16T21:44:15.347" UserId="3076" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="The standard answer is to engage an attorney to do a freedom to operate search and give you a written opinion. This presupposes that you know what you are building and how it works in some detail. The search would look for patents that are in force that have claims that look like they might cover what you are building. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you are in the early stages of development you might consider a &quot;design-around&quot; exercise. That involves identifying problematic patents, studying their claims (with professional help) and figuring out a way to accomplish the end you want without using the specific means to that end covered by the claims. One angle you might take is to look for things that came before - for example - the last google patent mentioned. Something listed in the google patent that came before the google patent is --&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; US5832502A	1996-07-02	1998-11-03	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Conversation index builder&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anything filed in 1996 will be long expired. Can you do what Microsoft did and not do what google has claimed? Of course this is just one of the several patents you located." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20174" RevisionGUID="8203e0db-3814-4b2e-965a-efa8e752a803" CreationDate="2019-01-17T02:43:08.517" UserId="21610" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Does it prevent us from shipping to US clients? Or does it only&#xD;&#xA;&gt; refrain us from manufacturing the product on US soil?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes it is accounted as infringement under **[35 USC 271][1]** which is quoted below for you ready reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;35 U.S. Code § 271 - Infringement of patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.&#xD;&#xA;(b) Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.&#xD;&#xA;(c) **Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States** a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20176" RevisionGUID="6fc44941-51bb-48c0-890f-56950b0e51ae" CreationDate="2019-01-17T07:06:35.320" UserId="3076" Comment="added 272 characters in body" Text="The standard answer is to engage an attorney to do a freedom to operate search and give you a written opinion. This presupposes that you know what you are building and how it works in some detail. The search would look for patents that are in force that have claims that look like they might cover what you are building. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you are in the early stages of development you might consider a &quot;design-around&quot; exercise. That involves identifying problematic patents, studying their claims (with professional help) and figuring out a way to accomplish the end you want without using the specific means to that end covered by the claims. One angle you might take is to look for things that came before - for example - the last google patent mentioned. Something listed in the google patent that came before the google patent is --&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; US5832502A	1996-07-02	1998-11-03	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Microsoft Corporation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Conversation index builder&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anything filed in 1996 will be long expired. Can you do what Microsoft did and not do what google has claimed? Of course this is just one of the several patents you located. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might do the same for other references listed on each of the google patents. It is a lot of work. One way to narrow it might be to decide that your biggest worry are patents on something core to your value added that are owned by your biggest competitors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20177" RevisionGUID="9448d604-d84b-4cee-9865-952f5281ba95" CreationDate="2019-01-17T09:06:50.893" UserId="21482" Text="I wonder what is the real effect of &quot;a combination there of&quot;. If I write &quot;a,b,c&quot; vs &quot;a,b,c, a combination thereof&quot;. I understand the logical difference. Is there a precedent in which usage in the phrase  was tested by court? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56093" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20177" RevisionGUID="9448d604-d84b-4cee-9865-952f5281ba95" CreationDate="2019-01-17T09:06:50.893" UserId="21482" Text="What is the real effect of &quot;a combination there of&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56094" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20177" RevisionGUID="9448d604-d84b-4cee-9865-952f5281ba95" CreationDate="2019-01-17T09:06:50.893" UserId="21482" Text="&lt;claim-construction&gt;&lt;court&gt;&lt;precedent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20178" RevisionGUID="d91c33e1-896a-488b-b1ed-8d4ec27fda2f" CreationDate="2019-01-17T09:50:27.407" UserId="21610" Text="The statutory patent language has been construed as mandating satisfaction of three separate and independent requirements referred to as the **written description requirement,** the **enablement requirement,** and the &quot;**best mode requirement**. An inventor, therefore, must both describe the claimed invention adequately and enable its reproduction and use,as well as set forth the best mode of carrying it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; what is the real effect of &quot;a combination there of&quot;. If I write&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;a,b,c&quot; vs &quot;a,b,c, a combination thereof&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As described above to satisfy the statutory requirement, the use of term **combination thereof** protects all the permutations and combinations possible and equivalents that are not disclosed by the inventor and would protect from invalidation due to failure to disclose.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there a precedent in which usage in the phrase was tested by court?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of any specific case, but i would try to explain you with the following example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eg: case 1: You describe your invention as **composition a,b,c, a combination thereof** and the patent claim granted was a composition **comprising a,b,c** if a person tries to practice your invention with addition of a new element d he is considered as infringing your invention, Though the component d is not disclosed in the patent as you have described as combinations thereof your patent is still valid on his invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;case 2: You describe your invention as **composition a,b,c** and the patent claim granted was a composition **comprising a,b,c** if a person tries to practice your invention with addition of a new element d he is considered as infringing your invention,the component d is not disclosed in the patent your patent may be valid but the alleged infringer has a ground under **written description requirement** for invalidating your patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above example is based on assumption, in actual scenario there are many other factors come in to role during litigation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20175" RevisionGUID="09dbbeb4-8123-4569-8f27-2779f85f7591" CreationDate="2019-01-17T15:46:39.323" UserId="17003" Comment="Changed link to issued patent" Text="We are trying to develop a new software product that requires an integrated email client. We found some old patents from Google regarding email systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US9819624B2/en&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US7818378B2/en&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US7912904B2&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US8150924B2/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are trying to understand whether creating an email client similar to Gmail (with conversation threads and labels) will get us into trouble with Google later on. Yahoo Mail is a similar product to Gmail, for example. We are not sure to what extent having conversation threads in an email client is patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can we avoid a legal conflict with Google, considering that we want to create a better product, not worse ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20179" RevisionGUID="33067aa8-a899-4eeb-9b4a-75ff25cb859c" CreationDate="2019-01-17T16:27:05.967" UserId="18033" Text="In addition to the other answers, [patent pending means the patent has not yet been granted][1]. That means, the patent does not *yet* preclude you from doing anything. It might do so in the future, either by you [beeing given notice of the pending patent (if it is subsequently granted)][2] or by getting granted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The links lead to old answers explaining the topics more in-depth)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/17115/18033&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/19331/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20180" RevisionGUID="2bb4cb03-9300-42a2-8be8-500f073564a0" CreationDate="2019-01-17T18:30:30.193" UserId="21763" Text="I've put in the wrong priority date (2018 instead of 2017) in the non-provisional patent application, while referring to a provisioning patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can this kind of errors be corrected? The patent is published already (not reviewed yet)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56099" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20180" RevisionGUID="2bb4cb03-9300-42a2-8be8-500f073564a0" CreationDate="2019-01-17T18:30:30.193" UserId="21763" Text="How to fix errors in patent application submission" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56100" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20180" RevisionGUID="2bb4cb03-9300-42a2-8be8-500f073564a0" CreationDate="2019-01-17T18:30:30.193" UserId="21763" Text="&lt;non-provisional&gt;&lt;corrected&gt;&lt;incorrect&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20181" RevisionGUID="33f0ef33-59b5-489b-93a5-d3c03da98e68" CreationDate="2019-01-17T18:58:35.243" UserId="14403" Text="The error can be corrected as per 37 CFR 1.76 section c(1). The same is quoted below. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (c) Correcting and updating an application data sheet. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;(1) Information in a previously submitted application data sheet,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inventor’s oath or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; declaration under § 1.63, § 1.64 or § 1.67, or otherwise of record,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; **may be corrected or updated until payment of the issue fee by a new&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; application data sheet** providing corrected or updated information,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; except that inventorship changes must comply with the requirements of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; § 1.48, foreign priority and domestic benefit information changes must&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; comply with §§ 1.55 and 1.78, and correspondence address changes are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; governed by § 1.33(a).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://www.bitlaw.com/source/37cfr/1_76.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20182" RevisionGUID="56bcb57a-d390-44f2-8cda-54120e886a95" CreationDate="2019-01-17T19:07:30.787" UserId="17003" Text="While a freedom to operate opinion from an attorney is best, you can do some of the work yourself. You made a good start identifying the specific Google patents. You need to read the claims to see what is protected by each of them. In order to infringe upon a patent, you need to implement each and every step in at least one claim. Long and complicated claims are easier to circumvent as you only need to avoid a single aspect. Focus on the independent claims first. Independent claims don't refer to other claims. Each patent will cite other patents as prior art. Look at the prior art especially for older patents where the priority date is more than 20 years ago. Those patents should have expired by now (sometimes there are short extensions if the patent took a long time to process). Anything described in an expired patent's claims should be available to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally I read patents by looking at the claims first and then reviewing the body of the patent if I need help understanding the claims. This way you can weed out irrelevant patents quickly. By doing this work first, you can then make an interaction with a patent attorney much more efficient and thus less expensive. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20183" RevisionGUID="abb2e3f0-34ed-4da2-980e-0dd12264ef46" CreationDate="2019-01-22T00:45:50.823" UserId="21769" Text="I have applied for a provisional patent on USPTO website. The USPTO people told me that it will take between 4-6 weeks untill they process my application, and in a meanwhile I cannot disclosure my invention in public.&#xD;&#xA;Does it make sense? Why should I wait 4-6 weeks? Isn't it supposed to be immediate on the day of the filing?&#xD;&#xA;So if I go public now, will it hurt my patent rights?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56104" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20183" RevisionGUID="abb2e3f0-34ed-4da2-980e-0dd12264ef46" CreationDate="2019-01-22T00:45:50.823" UserId="21769" Text="Waiting for my application to be processed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56105" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20183" RevisionGUID="abb2e3f0-34ed-4da2-980e-0dd12264ef46" CreationDate="2019-01-22T00:45:50.823" UserId="21769" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20184" RevisionGUID="74c1a2e0-4411-4776-a716-36b494747f4a" CreationDate="2019-01-22T23:03:56.937" UserId="3076" Text="Assuming you filed correctly, you will get end up with a filing date based on when you filed. If you filed electronically, it will be that date. If you filed by mail it will be the date it is received unless you used USPS Express Mail in a specific manner. In that case you will get the date of mailing. It does take time to get a filing receipt in the mail. That receipt does not provide any indication that you did anything more than follow the basic filing formal requirements. When you disclose is up to you, not to the USPO but what you disclose when can affect your rights. Even after you are sure your application is acknowledged, only the material contained in the application will be safe to disclose. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20184" RevisionGUID="a35344fd-d7f4-480b-9fe9-986342e81f01" CreationDate="2019-01-23T00:58:38.397" UserId="3076" Comment="typos" Text="Assuming you filed correctly, you will end up with a filing date based on when you filed. If you filed electronically, it will be that date. If you filed by mail it will be the date it is received unless you used USPS Express Mail in a specific manner. In that case you will get the date of mailing. It does take time to get a filing receipt in the mail. That receipt does not provide any indication that you did anything more than follow the basic formal filing requirements. When you disclose is up to you, not to the USPTO but what and when you disclose can affect your rights. Even after you are sure your application is acknowledged as filed by the USPTO, only the material contained in the application will be safe to disclose. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56111" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20085" RevisionGUID="6e6d9e2a-cf9e-4905-9590-05c67bf3c679" CreationDate="2019-01-24T23:02:30.490" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20186" RevisionGUID="607a94ce-6add-4317-85f0-3d4d0347c3cf" CreationDate="2019-01-25T00:36:26.687" UserId="21774" Text="If you want protection for each separate decorative item, you would need a separate design patent for each.  You can file numerous variations in a design patent if they are visually related.  For example, a design for a bottle that comes in 2, 3, and 4 liter sizes may have the same design in three different proportions.  These three designs can be filed in one application.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a design for a stylized sunflower and another for a stylized Rose, you would need one design patent application for the sunflower and one for the rose.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20188" RevisionGUID="594c4245-966f-4b23-9d16-f90332f15203" CreationDate="2019-01-25T01:57:03.263" UserId="21775" Text="I have a question to the grant patent front page.  &#xD;&#xA;For item (72), every inventor’s name follows a city name and brackets with a two-letter country code.&#xD;&#xA;Does the city and country indicate the place inventor lives and the country which the city belongs to?&#xD;&#xA;Or the city indicates the place inventor lives and the country indicates his/her nationality?&#xD;&#xA;In brief, I would like to know is the city and country indicating the infornation of the inventor or the applicant? Please kindly help with my question, thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, Mr. Toyota is a Japanese, employed by a China company. He is the inventor of an US patent and now lives in San Jose, California. The assignee of this US patent is the said China company which the headquarters is in Beijing.&#xD;&#xA;What will the item (72) show for this situation?&#xD;&#xA;Will it be (72) Inventors: Toyota, San Jose, CA(US) or (72) Inventors: Toyota, San Jose, CA(JP) or (72) Inventors: Toyota, Beijing(JP) or (72) Inventors: Toyota, Beijing(CN)?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56117" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20188" RevisionGUID="594c4245-966f-4b23-9d16-f90332f15203" CreationDate="2019-01-25T01:57:03.263" UserId="21775" Text="Grant patent's front page item (72) inventor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56118" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20188" RevisionGUID="594c4245-966f-4b23-9d16-f90332f15203" CreationDate="2019-01-25T01:57:03.263" UserId="21775" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20189" RevisionGUID="bbc21603-9fcc-49a4-b8a0-1b35773bf3d5" CreationDate="2019-01-25T04:51:11.377" UserId="21610" Text="&gt; For item (72), every inventor’s name follows a city name and brackets&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with a two-letter country code. Does the city and country indicate the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; place inventor lives and the country which the city belongs to? Or the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; city indicates the place inventor lives and the country indicates&#xD;&#xA;&gt; his/her nationality?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[INID code][1] 72 stands for inventor name .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [MPEP 602.08][2]   Inventor and Application Information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MPEP 602.08 (a)II.   INVENTOR’S RESIDENCE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each inventor’s place of residence, that is, the city and either state or foreign country, is required to be included in the oath or declaration in a nonprovisional application for compliance with 37 CFR 1.63  unless it is included in an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76 ). In the case of an inventor who is in one of the U.S. Armed Services, a statement to that effect is sufficient as to residence. For change of residence, see MPEP § 719.02(b). Each inventor’s residence must be included on the cover sheet for a provisional application unless it is included in an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76 ).&#xD;&#xA;If only a mailing address where the inventor customarily receives mail is provided, the Office will presume that the inventor’s residence is the city and either state or foreign country of the mailing address. If the inventor lives at a location which different from the inventor’s mailing address, the inventor’s residence (city and either state of foreign country) must be included in the inventor’s oath or declaration or an application data sheet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, Mr. Toyota is a Japanese, employed by a China company. He&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is the inventor of an US patent and now lives in San Jose, California.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The assignee of this US patent is the said China company which the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; headquarters is in Beijing. What will the item (72) show for this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; situation? Will it be (72) Inventors: Toyota, San Jose, CA(US) or (72)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Inventors: Toyota, San Jose, CA(JP) or (72) Inventors: Toyota,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Beijing(JP) or (72) Inventors: Toyota, Beijing(CN)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The country that appears in 72 according to me is the place of residence i.e., Toyota, San Jose, CA(US).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/standards/en/pdf/03-09-01.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/E9_R-11.2013#/E9_R-11.2013/ch600_d1ff66_1b601_dd.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20189" RevisionGUID="f0695905-cc02-4f05-bad6-e248e7c78ed8" CreationDate="2019-01-25T06:37:59.073" UserId="21610" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="&gt; For item (72), every inventor’s name follows a city name and brackets&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with a two-letter country code. Does the city and country indicate the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; place inventor lives and the country which the city belongs to? Or the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; city indicates the place inventor lives and the country indicates&#xD;&#xA;&gt; his/her nationality?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[INID code][1]Internationally agreed Numbers for the Identification of bibliographic data in patent, and 72 code stands for inventor name .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [MPEP 602.08][2]   Inventor and Application Information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MPEP 602.08 (a)II.   INVENTOR’S RESIDENCE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each inventor’s place of residence, that is, the city and either state or foreign country, is required to be included in the oath or declaration in a nonprovisional application for compliance with 37 CFR 1.63  unless it is included in an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76 ). In the case of an inventor who is in one of the U.S. Armed Services, a statement to that effect is sufficient as to residence. For change of residence, see MPEP § 719.02(b). Each inventor’s residence must be included on the cover sheet for a provisional application unless it is included in an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76 ).&#xD;&#xA;If only a mailing address where the inventor customarily receives mail is provided, the Office will presume that the inventor’s residence is the city and either state or foreign country of the mailing address. If the inventor lives at a location which different from the inventor’s mailing address, the inventor’s residence (city and either state of foreign country) must be included in the inventor’s oath or declaration or an application data sheet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, Mr. Toyota is a Japanese, employed by a China company. He&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is the inventor of an US patent and now lives in San Jose, California.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The assignee of this US patent is the said China company which the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; headquarters is in Beijing. What will the item (72) show for this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; situation? Will it be (72) Inventors: Toyota, San Jose, CA(US) or (72)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Inventors: Toyota, San Jose, CA(JP) or (72) Inventors: Toyota,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Beijing(JP) or (72) Inventors: Toyota, Beijing(CN)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The country that appears in (72) according to me is the place of residence i.e., Toyota, San Jose, CA(US)as it is the communication address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/standards/en/pdf/03-09-01.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/E9_R-11.2013#/E9_R-11.2013/ch600_d1ff66_1b601_dd.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56121" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20047" RevisionGUID="324d9ee5-6c4b-40ed-a716-755e4f9c922f" CreationDate="2019-01-25T17:01:16.003" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20190" RevisionGUID="63b3d97e-0a8a-4ce8-91c8-d182411701c9" CreationDate="2019-01-26T00:35:07.987" UserId="19913" Text="I am seeking to understand the advantage of &quot;[Expedited Review][1]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My cursory understanding [comprises this excerpt][2] is that somehow that novelty is conferred with 'little' or no rejection from the examiner?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If this is a method/software/utility patent, the patent application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can file for an expedited review (as we see with the '060 case on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pitch detection listed here) and at that point, the patent applicant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can claim (under penalties of perjury) that they conducted all prior&#xD;&#xA;&gt; art searches and can easily argue novel over prior art with little or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; no rejection from a patent examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If my understanding is not correct and somehow out of context, an explanation of why would be appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What other reasons (benefits conferred) would one seek an expedited review for a USPTO patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/accelerated-examination&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/5679/19913" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56126" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20190" RevisionGUID="63b3d97e-0a8a-4ce8-91c8-d182411701c9" CreationDate="2019-01-26T00:35:07.987" UserId="19913" Text="Reasons to request an &quot;Expedited Review&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56127" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20190" RevisionGUID="63b3d97e-0a8a-4ce8-91c8-d182411701c9" CreationDate="2019-01-26T00:35:07.987" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;expedited-review&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20191" RevisionGUID="d27da663-4c98-48b1-8c66-a3be32fea6aa" CreationDate="2019-01-26T02:11:30.543" UserId="3076" Text="This path is very little used. It requires that you document the search and document that you did the search the way they would theoretically do the search. There may not be anything exactly like your invention but there will surely be something close. As part of the package you need to essentially write the rejection they would write based on that reference and then a good response to that rejection. For all reference you find that are close. In its heyday search firms charged quite a bit to do this. Now you can get an expedited examination just by paying double the application fee. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The benefit is elimination of most of the year and a half queue time before an examiner picks it up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20181" RevisionGUID="aaba348b-53bf-4723-ac4a-e0a1774488bd" CreationDate="2019-01-26T02:13:34.527" UserId="14403" Comment="improve the answer" Text="Since this Q&amp;A site is basically meant for matter related to USPTO, unless specifically mentioned about other jurisdiction, it is safely assumed that question put here is related to USPTO. With this assumption the following answer is put forth. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The error can be corrected as per 37 CFR 1.76 section c(1). The same is quoted below. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (c) Correcting and updating an application data sheet. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;(1) Information in a previously submitted application data sheet,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inventor’s oath or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; declaration under § 1.63, § 1.64 or § 1.67, or otherwise of record,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; **may be corrected or updated until payment of the issue fee by a new&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; application data sheet** providing corrected or updated information,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; except that inventorship changes must comply with the requirements of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; § 1.48, foreign priority and domestic benefit information changes must&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; comply with §§ 1.55 and 1.78, and correspondence address changes are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; governed by § 1.33(a). [Ref Source][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Priority claim information is a part of ADS. ADS should be filed along with non provisional application. It can be filed later but within the time limit of four months from the filing date of non provisional or sixteen months from the application from which priority is claimed (§§1.78). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later filed ADS is as an amendment because ADS is generated automatically if it is not filed by the applicant at the time of placing application with USPTO and is populated with information from other sources. Any amendment, IMO, by applicant including amendment to  priority claim can be amended till issue notification or till abandonment. [May refer][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mostly, things like this are pointed out at the time of Notice of Allowance for compliance (again IMO, because of limited exposure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent prosecution is highly professional job. It is always advised here to take help of practicing attorney/agent for legal help. If you are pro se inventor (not taking help of patent attorney/agent). You may contact &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Inventors Assitance Centre, USPTO for help in this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; matter. (Toll free 800-786-9199, Hours:  Monday – Friday, 8:30 AM –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8:00 PM (ET), except federal holidays)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://www.bitlaw.com/source/37cfr/1_76.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]:https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Patent%20Quality%20Chat%20-FINAL%20for%20presentation.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20181" RevisionGUID="03701fd5-b419-4957-bf0c-44822b0a5439" CreationDate="2019-01-26T02:19:53.260" UserId="14403" Comment="improve the answer" Text="Since this Q&amp;A site is basically meant for matter related to USPTO, unless specifically mentioned about other jurisdiction, it is safely assumed that question put here is related to USPTO. With this assumption the following answer is put forth. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The error can be corrected as per 37 CFR 1.76 section c(1). The same is quoted below. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (c) Correcting and updating an application data sheet. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;(1) Information in a previously submitted application data sheet,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inventor’s oath or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; declaration under § 1.63, § 1.64 or § 1.67, or otherwise of record,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; **may be corrected or updated until payment of the issue fee by a new&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; application data sheet** providing corrected or updated information,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; except that inventorship changes must comply with the requirements of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; § 1.48, foreign priority and domestic benefit information changes must&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; comply with §§ 1.55 and 1.78, and correspondence address changes are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; governed by § 1.33(a). [Ref Source][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Priority claim information is a part of ADS. ADS should be filed along with non provisional application. It can be filed later but within the time limit of four months from the filing date of non provisional or sixteen months from the application from which priority is claimed (§§1.78). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later filed ADS is as an amendment because ADS is generated automatically if it is not filed by the applicant at the time of placing application with USPTO and is populated with information from other sources. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Except in case of the later filed ADS mentioned above, any amendment required and done later to first filing of ADS by applicant, **IMO,**  including amendment (**and not first time insertion which is subject to time limit as mentioned**) to  priority claim can be amended till issue notification or till abandonment. [May refer][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mostly, things like this are pointed out at the time of Notice of Allowance for compliance (again IMO, because of limited exposure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent prosecution is highly professional job. It is always advised here to take help of practicing attorney/agent for legal help. If you are pro se inventor (not taking help of patent attorney/agent). You may contact &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Inventors Assitance Centre, USPTO for help in this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; matter. (Toll free 800-786-9199, Hours:  Monday – Friday, 8:30 AM –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8:00 PM (ET), except federal holidays)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://www.bitlaw.com/source/37cfr/1_76.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]:https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Patent%20Quality%20Chat%20-FINAL%20for%20presentation.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20193" RevisionGUID="c7d98f75-faf3-4146-bbf1-8a15221063d1" CreationDate="2019-01-28T22:37:41.357" UserId="21784" Text="I am seeking to start patenting something, and have reached out to an organization that claims to be able to help with the patenting process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They want to do something they call a Formal Patent Search of Classification, and to charge me for it, before starting to work on the patent application itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is this Formal Patent Search of Classification? I haven't been able to find any information on it online. Does it differ from a preliminary patent search (as explained on the [CIPO website](https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/h_wr03652.html)) in any meaningful way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56136" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20193" RevisionGUID="c7d98f75-faf3-4146-bbf1-8a15221063d1" CreationDate="2019-01-28T22:37:41.357" UserId="21784" Text="What is a Formal Patent Search of Classification in Canadian patent law?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56137" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20193" RevisionGUID="c7d98f75-faf3-4146-bbf1-8a15221063d1" CreationDate="2019-01-28T22:37:41.357" UserId="21784" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;search&gt;&lt;canada&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20194" RevisionGUID="a6abe5ec-bec6-4f27-9b96-fdf22343a220" CreationDate="2019-01-29T02:32:37.213" UserId="21785" Text="I don't know how I can get the images for patent on Google Patent search.  I am using google's BigQuery but I don't see a table with the link to images.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56139" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20194" RevisionGUID="a6abe5ec-bec6-4f27-9b96-fdf22343a220" CreationDate="2019-01-29T02:32:37.213" UserId="21785" Text="How to fetch patent images from google BigQuery?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56140" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20194" RevisionGUID="a6abe5ec-bec6-4f27-9b96-fdf22343a220" CreationDate="2019-01-29T02:32:37.213" UserId="21785" Text="&lt;bigquery&gt;&lt;images&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20195" RevisionGUID="2bb26b7d-5946-40b8-813e-6f866cebcf23" CreationDate="2019-01-29T08:51:32.147" UserId="21610" Text="&gt; What is this Formal Patent Search of Classification? I haven't been&#xD;&#xA;&gt; able to find any information on it online. Does it differ from a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; preliminary patent search (as explained on the CIPO website) in any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; meaningful way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent classification is a system to categorize (code) documents, such as published patent applications, according to the technical features of their content. Patent classifications make it feasible to search quickly for documents about earlier disclosures similar to or related to the invention for which a patent is applied for, and to track technological trends in patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searches based on patent classifications can identify documents of different languages by using the codes (classes) of the system, rather than words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [International Patent Classification (IPC)][1] is agreed internationally. There are other additional patent classifications such as The United States Patent Classification (USPC) is fixed by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The Derwent classification system is fixed by an enterprise. The German Patent Classification (DPK) was fixed by the German Patent Office. European Patent Office (EPO) and USPTO launched a joint project to create the [Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC][2]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In simple term Patent applications are classified in classification schemes on the basis of their technical content. They are assigned classification symbols, for example 	**A43B1/0054** is code for Footwear provided with magnets, magnetic parts or magnetic substances. This makes it easier to manage and to search for patent applications in a given technical field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/en/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/classification?locale=en_EP" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20195" RevisionGUID="fd27f7fb-b20f-48f6-960b-d5e7e149ada9" CreationDate="2019-01-29T08:57:07.087" UserId="21610" Comment="added 409 characters in body" Text="&gt; What is this Formal Patent Search of Classification? I haven't been&#xD;&#xA;&gt; able to find any information on it online. Does it differ from a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; preliminary patent search (as explained on the CIPO website) in any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; meaningful way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent classification is a system to categorize (code) documents, such as published patent applications, according to the technical features of their content. Patent classifications make it feasible to search quickly for documents about earlier disclosures similar to or related to the invention for which a patent is applied for, and to track technological trends in patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searches based on patent classifications can identify documents of different languages by using the codes (classes) of the system, rather than words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [International Patent Classification (IPC)][1] is agreed internationally. There are other additional patent classifications such as The United States Patent Classification (USPC) is fixed by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The Derwent classification system is fixed by an enterprise. The German Patent Classification (DPK) was fixed by the German Patent Office. European Patent Office (EPO) and USPTO launched a joint project to create the [Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC][2]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In simple term Patent applications are classified in classification schemes on the basis of their technical content. They are assigned classification symbols.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The code as broadly classified as below which have classes, subclasses, sections&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;A HUMAN NECESSITIES&#xD;&#xA;B PERFORMING OPERATIONS; TRANSPORTING&#xD;&#xA;C CHEMISTRY; METALLURGY&#xD;&#xA;D TEXTILES; PAPER&#xD;&#xA;E FIXED CONSTRUCTIONS&#xD;&#xA;F MECHANICAL ENGINEERING; LIGHTING; HEATING; WEAPONS; BLASTING&#xD;&#xA;G PHYSICS&#xD;&#xA;H ELECTRICITY&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example 	**A43B1/0054** is code for Footwear provided with magnets, magnetic parts or magnetic substances. This makes it easier to manage and to search for patent applications in a given technical field. If your technology falls under mechanical the code would start with F followed by class and subclass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/en/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/classification?locale=en_EP" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20195" RevisionGUID="34408727-f1e6-4e48-bdcf-8ae5189ae7e0" CreationDate="2019-01-29T09:55:11.427" UserId="21610" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="&gt; What is this Formal Patent Search of Classification? I haven't been&#xD;&#xA;&gt; able to find any information on it online. Does it differ from a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; preliminary patent search (as explained on the CIPO website) in any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; meaningful way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent classification is a system to categorize (code) documents, such as published patent applications, according to the technical features of their content. Patent classifications make it feasible to search quickly for documents about earlier disclosures similar to or related to the invention for which a patent is applied for, and to track technological trends in patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searches based on patent classifications can identify documents of different languages by using the codes (classes) of the system, rather than words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [International Patent Classification (IPC)][1] is agreed internationally. There are other additional patent classifications such as The United States Patent Classification (USPC) is fixed by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The Derwent classification system is fixed by an enterprise. The German Patent Classification (DPK) was fixed by the German Patent Office. European Patent Office (EPO) and USPTO launched a joint project to create the [Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC][2]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In simple term Patent applications are classified in classification schemes on the basis of their technical content. They are assigned classification symbols.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The code as broadly classified as below which have classes, subclasses, sections&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**A** HUMAN NECESSITIES&#xD;&#xA;**B** PERFORMING OPERATIONS; TRANSPORTING&#xD;&#xA;**C** CHEMISTRY; METALLURGY&#xD;&#xA;**D** TEXTILES; PAPER&#xD;&#xA;**E** FIXED CONSTRUCTIONS&#xD;&#xA;**F** MECHANICAL ENGINEERING; LIGHTING; HEATING; WEAPONS; BLASTING&#xD;&#xA;**G** PHYSICS&#xD;&#xA;**H** ELECTRICITY&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example 	**A43B1/0054** is code for Footwear provided with magnets, magnetic parts or magnetic substances. This makes it easier to manage and to search for patent applications in a given technical field. If your technology falls under mechanical the code would start with **F** followed by class and subclass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/en/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/classification?locale=en_EP" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20198" RevisionGUID="2d8b04e1-b8f5-444d-a67e-d6448b48e82a" CreationDate="2019-01-29T17:49:09.087" UserId="21789" Text="I am related to the person who invented the first automobile odometer which was on the steering wheel. (No dashboards back then).&#xD;&#xA;Does this document have any value?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56153" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20198" RevisionGUID="2d8b04e1-b8f5-444d-a67e-d6448b48e82a" CreationDate="2019-01-29T17:49:09.087" UserId="21789" Text="Odometer original patent paperwork and drawings" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56154" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20198" RevisionGUID="2d8b04e1-b8f5-444d-a67e-d6448b48e82a" CreationDate="2019-01-29T17:49:09.087" UserId="21789" Text="&lt;value&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20199" RevisionGUID="caf0f422-cb70-4ab1-851e-dd628c2011b4" CreationDate="2019-01-29T18:02:22.403" UserId="17003" Text="You don't provide the patent number. If you did, we could give you a more specific answer. That said, odometers have been around a long time so I can safely infer that the patent you are referring to has expired. Patents expire after a limited term. In the old days it was 17 years from the grant date. Now it is usually 20 years from the filing date. In any case, once a patent expires, anyone can use the technology described by the patent. Thus there is no more licensing income likely available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have the original patent document itself, it is possible it has some historical value or perhaps value as a collectable, but that is well beyond the scope of this site so we can't help you with that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56160" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="20198" RevisionGUID="9d7ac090-9fae-4376-a1e5-1d57eab5b686" CreationDate="2019-01-29T19:18:02.580" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[10679],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="56162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20198" RevisionGUID="515c0341-841d-426f-8714-6ccda99afe08" CreationDate="2019-01-29T21:25:45.130" UserId="21789" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="I am related to the person who invented the first automobile odometer which was on the steering wheel. (No dashboards back then).&#xD;&#xA;Does this document have any value? Patent number 1914424 is in my possession and in mint condition along with the drawings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20202" RevisionGUID="f537965b-5e5e-4998-aa58-e2806599ae18" CreationDate="2019-01-29T22:04:53.393" UserId="21791" Text="I'm on the publicpair website and I can't find the publication number for a specific patent I'm researching; is there a place where the pub. number is located, or am I supposed to somehow derive it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56165" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20202" RevisionGUID="f537965b-5e5e-4998-aa58-e2806599ae18" CreationDate="2019-01-29T22:04:53.393" UserId="21791" Text="What is the publication number of a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56166" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20202" RevisionGUID="f537965b-5e5e-4998-aa58-e2806599ae18" CreationDate="2019-01-29T22:04:53.393" UserId="21791" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20203" RevisionGUID="e5174c9e-d9e0-4adb-9f23-71592353abb8" CreationDate="2019-01-30T00:33:04.387" UserId="3076" Text="In the application data tab it is the box labeled &quot;Earliest Publication Number in the right hand column. The format used for these numbers starts with the year of publication.[![screen shot of the record of a patent application in Public PAIR][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The publication number is US2002/181786A1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HIDGu.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20204" RevisionGUID="153d2d19-16fe-4af9-9b18-23aa24d3c875" CreationDate="2019-01-30T02:30:22.680" UserId="21610" Text="&gt; I'm on the publicpair website and I can't find the publication number&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for a specific patent I'm researching; is there a place where the pub.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; number is located, or am I supposed to somehow derive it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please check the year of application and grant of patent. USPTO started publishing patent application after 2001 if you are looking for patent that has been granted before that you may not find the publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the data provided by @George White, the publication number is also available in patent first page &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6Krj7.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20205" RevisionGUID="47790594-5cbb-408f-bed0-a73f729c8ef9" CreationDate="2019-01-30T03:35:12.240" UserId="21791" Text="What does it mean if both the &quot;Earliest Publication No:&quot; and &quot;Earliest Publication Date:&quot; entries in publicpair are blank (&quot;-&quot;)? As a follow-up, how would I go about finding the publication number for such a patent (I've tried Google and all and no tangible results pop up), if there is one even?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56170" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20205" RevisionGUID="47790594-5cbb-408f-bed0-a73f729c8ef9" CreationDate="2019-01-30T03:35:12.240" UserId="21791" Text="No publication number?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56171" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20205" RevisionGUID="47790594-5cbb-408f-bed0-a73f729c8ef9" CreationDate="2019-01-30T03:35:12.240" UserId="21791" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20204" RevisionGUID="1f94b5b3-9dfe-41b3-be2d-2159ea350e8c" CreationDate="2019-01-30T03:41:21.530" UserId="21610" Comment="added 236 characters in body" Text="&gt; I'm on the publicpair website and I can't find the publication number&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for a specific patent I'm researching; is there a place where the pub.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; number is located, or am I supposed to somehow derive it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please check the year of application and grant of patent. USPTO started publishing patent application after 2001 if you are looking for patent that has been granted before that you may not find the publication. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please also check for code **PG.NONPUB.RQ** in image file wrapper of public pair as an applicant can make an application under [35 USC 122][1] to keep publication confidential.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the data provided by @George White, the publication number is also available in patent first page &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/122&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6Krj7.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20206" RevisionGUID="59fcf8f1-2756-465a-bb5d-03e9475b1d03" CreationDate="2019-01-30T05:56:25.003" UserId="21794" Text="I want to Patent something in the USA,but i'm from Argentina.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could i Patent something in the USA if i'm not from the USA?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it be done Online sending digital documents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56174" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20206" RevisionGUID="59fcf8f1-2756-465a-bb5d-03e9475b1d03" CreationDate="2019-01-30T05:56:25.003" UserId="21794" Text="Could i Patent something in the USA, not being USA citizen?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56175" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20206" RevisionGUID="59fcf8f1-2756-465a-bb5d-03e9475b1d03" CreationDate="2019-01-30T05:56:25.003" UserId="21794" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;foreign&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20207" RevisionGUID="18e37925-b690-49cd-9c5c-c21f1ab584e9" CreationDate="2019-01-30T06:55:12.053" UserId="21610" Text="&gt; I want to Patent something in the USA,but i'm from Argentina.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Could i Patent something in the USA if i'm not from the USA?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes , You can patent you invention in USA. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have stated that you are from Argentina, Argentina is NON PCT country so you need to file directly through National phase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Could it be done Online sending digital documents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20208" RevisionGUID="d322c2c7-98c9-4437-aa7a-0043e759dfa6" CreationDate="2019-01-30T07:56:49.050" UserId="21732" Text="On page 210 of [*Patent It Yourself* (18th edition)][1], it explains that you can list the advantages of your invention in a narrative form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; g. Advantages&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Although it is optional, you may list the advantages of your invention&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in a narrative form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the [Best Practice Guide for Filing a Patent Application in Australia][2], it also mentions that the applicant can have a section for advantages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is an appropriate way of structuring the advantages section? I'm filing in Australia; however, I believe the advice on structure and content should be very similar to the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, I have an introductory sentence and then I have a paragraph for each feature and its advantages. Is something like this appropriate? How can I improve upon this structure?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Advantages of the above technical solutions are described below.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The present disclosure's XYZ feature does XYZ, which has an XYZ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; advantage.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The present disclosure's XYZ feature does XYZ, which has an XYZ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; advantage.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The present disclosure's XYZ feature does XYZ, which has an XYZ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; advantage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://amzn.to/2yypLgv&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/sites/g/files/net856/f/patent-filing-guide.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KX1Rc.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56178" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20208" RevisionGUID="d322c2c7-98c9-4437-aa7a-0043e759dfa6" CreationDate="2019-01-30T07:56:49.050" UserId="21732" Text="How should I structure the &quot;Advantages&quot; section of a patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56179" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20208" RevisionGUID="d322c2c7-98c9-4437-aa7a-0043e759dfa6" CreationDate="2019-01-30T07:56:49.050" UserId="21732" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;description&gt;&lt;advantages&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20207" RevisionGUID="882926d9-d052-47b6-8973-3fc82cb887f0" CreationDate="2019-01-30T10:29:27.777" UserId="21610" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt; I want to Patent something in the USA,but i'm from Argentina.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Could i Patent something in the USA if i'm not from the USA?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes , You can patent your invention in USA. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have stated that you are from Argentina, Argentina is NON PCT country so you need to file directly through National phase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Could it be done Online sending digital documents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of it i.e., procedure to be followed without PCT." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20209" RevisionGUID="313f574d-6172-48da-8d67-4e24ed2f33a5" CreationDate="2019-01-30T17:53:31.550" UserId="15407" Text="You're on the right track. Advantages can advantageously be used to link a specific structure to a specific result, which can help in lots of ways, particularly in &quot;means-plus-function&quot; claiming. They can also help satisfy &quot;Best-mode&quot; requirements.  For me, I like the advantages to sort of track the claim language, especially for dependant claims, to answer &quot;why&quot; the invention uses the elements described.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if a claim to a manipulable appendage for movably supporting a structure has a dependant claim set as to various materials that may be used, the advantages of the materials can be specified (without necessarily having to add whereby language to the claims):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The presently described movable support appendage may advantageously be formed of articulated hollow metal rods with relay actuated spring joints **for allowing precise electronic position control**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The presently described movable support appendage may advantageously be formed of solid formed carbon fiber sheets with carbon string tendons attached between various points on the sheet for controlling position **while being light weight, durable and resilient to perturbations of the structure such as vibrations while in use**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hth,&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20209" RevisionGUID="d1bb9408-1d05-4b8d-bbd5-d3f69bab2fc0" CreationDate="2019-01-30T18:08:21.620" UserId="15407" Comment="added 504 characters in body" Text="You're on the right track. Advantages can advantageously be used to link a specific structure to a specific result, which can help in lots of ways, particularly in &quot;means-plus-function&quot; claiming. They can also help satisfy &quot;Best-mode&quot; requirements.  For me, I like the advantages to sort of track the claim language, especially for dependant claims, to answer &quot;why&quot; the invention uses the elements described.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if a claim to a manipulable appendage for movably supporting a structure has a dependant claim set as to various materials that may be used, the advantages of the materials can be specified (without necessarily having to add whereby language to the claims):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The presently described movable support appendage may advantageously be formed of articulated hollow metal rods with relay actuated spring joints **for allowing precise electronic position control**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The presently described movable support appendage may advantageously be formed of solid formed carbon fiber sheets with carbon string tendons attached between various points on the sheet for controlling position **while being light weight, durable and resilient to perturbations of the structure such as vibrations while in use**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Advantages are also useful to distinguish over known prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike the Jones reference, the presently described movable support appendage may be frustoconical in shape with the wide end **advantageously fixed at the base for additional support to overcome the known stress failure point of the Jones apparatus** and the narrow end **advantageously formed to move within all three dimensions within the aperture for more precise results, unlike Jones' appendage which can only move in a line**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hth,&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20210" RevisionGUID="6bf56877-6c5c-4736-9348-105ee89e615b" CreationDate="2019-01-31T00:09:18.240" UserId="3076" Text="In the last several years there is a trend to almost eliminate any specific discussion of advantages or even objectives. Anything you say can be held against you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The wide end advantageously fixed at the base . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can be taken by a judge that any embodiment that does not have that property is, by definition, not your invention. So even if an infringer meets all of the limitations of one of your claims, but does not have this feature, a court could say it does not infringe. Another issue is that Jones might have a short mention of fixing a wide end at the base that you missed. Now you can be accused of hiding the ball by telling the examiner not to look at Jones. The place to differentiate the invention of your claims from cited prior art is in your response to a rejection that cites that art. Of course your specification needs tp include your current best mode. It has become common to not call out the best mode embodiment as the best mode. It must be present but it does not need to be flagged." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20210" RevisionGUID="bdb43f2d-e234-4468-9241-d0ebfbf85cd5" CreationDate="2019-01-31T00:14:38.060" UserId="3076" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="In the last several years in the U.S. there is a trend to almost eliminate any specific discussion of advantages or even objectives. Anything you say can be held against you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The wide end advantageously fixed at the base . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can be taken by a judge that any embodiment that does not have that property is, by definition, not your invention. So even if an infringer meets all of the limitations of one of your claims, but does not have this feature, a court could say it does not infringe. Another issue is that Jones might have a short mention of fixing a wide end at the base that you missed. Now you can be accused of hiding the ball by telling the examiner not to look at Jones. The place to differentiate the invention of your claims from cited prior art is in your response to a rejection that cites that art. Of course your specification needs tp include your current best mode. It has become common to not call out the best mode embodiment as the best mode. It must be present  (actually, the U.S. is almost the only place that requires best mode) but it does not need to be flagged.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20211" RevisionGUID="625f4731-28cd-4501-8590-79d3c3189cca" CreationDate="2019-01-31T00:19:15.367" UserId="3076" Text="Yes, by international treaty, all counties need to treat non-residents no different from anyone else in the world. The U.S. has a method to filing electronically via a web site [EFS Web][1]. Anyone in the world can file a national patent application in any other country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/about-efs-web" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20212" RevisionGUID="b948ca82-d88e-468f-8b39-b7bec1af33c5" CreationDate="2019-01-31T00:22:05.833" UserId="3076" Text="As mentioned in regard to your other question, publication is a relatively new phenomena and it can be avoided by election of the applicant in some circumstances." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20209" RevisionGUID="19e880ca-6cf2-47df-be07-a1c4a0a67b48" CreationDate="2019-01-31T01:56:39.470" UserId="15407" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="You're on the right track. Advantages can advantageously be used to link a specific structure to a specific result, which can help in lots of ways, particularly in &quot;means-plus-function&quot; claiming. They can also help satisfy &quot;Best-mode&quot; requirements.  For me, I like the advantages to sort of track the claim language, especially for dependant claims, to answer &quot;why&quot; the invention uses the elements described.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if a claim to a manipulable appendage for movably supporting a structure has a dependant claim set as to various materials that may be used, the advantages of the materials can be specified (without necessarily having to add whereby language to the claims):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The presently described movable support appendage may advantageously&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be formed of articulated hollow metal rods with relay actuated spring&#xD;&#xA;&gt; joints **for allowing precise electronic position control**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The presently described movable support appendage may advantageously&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be formed of solid formed carbon fiber sheets with carbon string&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tendons attached between various points on the sheet for controlling&#xD;&#xA;&gt; position **while being light weight, durable and resilient to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; perturbations of the structure such as vibrations while in use**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Advantages are also useful to distinguish over known prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unlike the Jones reference, the presently described movable support&#xD;&#xA;&gt; appendage may be frustoconical in shape with the wide end&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **advantageously fixed at the base for additional support to overcome the known stress failure point of the Jones apparatus** and the narrow&#xD;&#xA;&gt; end **advantageously formed to move within all three dimensions within&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the aperture for more precise results, unlike Jones' appendage which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can only move in a line**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hth,&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56188" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="20205" RevisionGUID="f3fdde3c-798d-423a-a411-404dbe7dea74" CreationDate="2019-01-31T02:24:33.483" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[20202],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:17003,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Eric Shain&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="56189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20199" RevisionGUID="5ebbcf96-18a5-4a0d-8f21-2cc0cacfdd0d" CreationDate="2019-01-31T17:36:08.170" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 44 characters in body" Text="Since you added the patent number I'm updating this answer. The patent [US1914424A] [1] was invented by Earl C Hendel and granted on September 3, 1932. It would have expired 17 years from that date. Once a patent expires, anyone can use the technology described by the patent. Thus there is no more licensing income likely available. I checked and this was Earl Hendel's only patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have the original patent document itself, it is possible it has some historical value or perhaps value as a collectable, but that is well beyond the scope of this site so we can't help you with that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US1914424A/en?oq=1914424" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20213" RevisionGUID="342fde21-6778-4cf2-83ba-58e872718f12" CreationDate="2019-01-31T22:45:04.527" UserId="21800" Text="An acquaintance is in the following situation... &#xA;&#xA;Sally is a PhD student. Her advisor would like her to patent her work in the medical field. She writes patent application. He adds another author to the patent who was not involved in developing the work. Advisor &quot;offers&quot; Sally `x`% of the profits although she developed all of the work and wrote the patent. She refuses to sign. Days go by and he lowers his offer to `x-1`%, and suggests that this will go even lower. He seems to be insinuating that he would file the patent without her.  &#xA;&#xA;Aside from the ethicality of the situation, what is legally supposed to happen if she does not agree to this split of the profits? Could the advisor, for instance, file the patent without her consent? Could she file the patent without his consent?&#xA;&#xA;It is unclear to me how such disputes should be resolved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56191" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20213" RevisionGUID="342fde21-6778-4cf2-83ba-58e872718f12" CreationDate="2019-01-31T22:45:04.527" UserId="21800" Text="Disagreement about royalty split before filing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56192" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20213" RevisionGUID="342fde21-6778-4cf2-83ba-58e872718f12" CreationDate="2019-01-31T22:45:04.527" UserId="21800" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20214" RevisionGUID="f013cc06-2a71-4dda-9b49-84601e44b0ac" CreationDate="2019-01-31T23:34:18.547" UserId="21799" Text="With apologies to the OP's narrow original question, given that questions involving distinct legal issues and non-US jurisdictions are being closed as duplicates, there are some points that I think need to be mentioned here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize: given the lack of clear legal authority on copyright claims over patent materials in most countries, any blanket assertions that such claims are or aren't valid should be treated skeptically.  So while the theoretical issues here are fun to talk about, anyone who needs to know their potential level of risk (as a defendant) or viability (as a plaintiff) should contact their friendly neighborhood IP attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I. This is a pretty hypothetical question**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question of whether there are enforceable copyrights in patent application materials is almost entirely theoretical. Copyright cases based on patent specifications are vanishingly rare, and in the US (and many other countries), binding legal authority on them appears to be nonexistent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(That said, speaking of things that should not be taken seriously: AFAIK nobody has really attempted to conduct a comprehensive search for this kind of patent-copyright litigation, and even in the US where records are comparatively accessible, trial-court cases that don't reach a final judgment can be very hard to find. So my assertion that they are &quot;vanishingly rare&quot; should also be taken with a healthy dose of salt. Some cases may be quietly settled, as happened for example in [at least one][1] of the [rash of suits][2] over &quot;prior art&quot; documents that were brought in the US in the early 2010s. The most that can really be said is that no such case appears to have ever proceeded as far as an appellate ruling.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, even statements by government bodies in this area often have to be taken with skepticism.  The USPTO, for example, [does not have][3] rulemaking authority over copyright law.  Thus, the [MPEP/CFR sections][4] sometimes cited with regard to copyright assertions -- even supposing that they are not, as they appear to be, based on pre-1990 US copyright law that required copyright to be expressly asserted -- would have little if any bearing on a copyright case in the US federal courts.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**II. There are a lot of different copyrights that could be involved**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The potential copyrights in a patent application may vary greatly. For example, the questions of the ownership and allowable scope of use would be very different with respect to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1) specific boilerplate paragraphs used by a law firm (as in the original &#xD;&#xA;    question here),  &#xD;&#xA; 2) a specification cooperatively drafted by a patent agent and&#xD;&#xA;    group of inventors for the specific purpose of submission and&#xD;&#xA;    publication to a patent office,  &#xD;&#xA; 3) drawings by a third-party professional illustrator that are used &#xD;&#xA;    in a patent application with the illustrator's consent, and  &#xD;&#xA; 4) third-party text or drawings incorporated in a patent application &#xD;&#xA;    or grant without the copyright owner's consent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at #1, notably, at least one knowledgeable US observer [has concluded][2], based on the unexpected difficulties that defendant law firms faced in defeating copyright claims based on prior art documents, &quot;[t]he use of copyrighted materials to fulfill legal obligations in governmental proceedings is most likely fair use, but it’s not the 'slam dunk' defense that many once thought it was.&quot;  Whether that would extend to something like one firm copying another firm's boilerplate is unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the example of drawings, the US doctrine of &quot;fair use&quot; and the apparent UK exception for &quot;disseminating information&quot; would excuse most patent-scraping operations even where the patents include copyrighted illustrations.  But even under those US and UK doctrines, it's far from clear that a company would be free to (for example) reuse suitable drawings from a competitor's patent application in its own proprietary materials, particularly if the company's purpose were merely to save on illustration costs rather than to provide any information about the competitor's application. And many countries do not provide the relatively generous copyright exceptions that the US and UK do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**III. There is a lot of variation between countries**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The legal principles that would apply to any such claim vary dramatically from one country to another. (Wikipedia provides a very limited [survey][5].) Given the lack of actual litigation in this area, it's impossible to know how significant those variations are.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, it seems that a copyright claim based on an asserted copyright in an EPO patent application might fare very differently in different EPO member states, e.g., &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Switzerland (where the Copyright Act [expressly excludes][6] &quot;patent&#xD;&#xA;   specifications and published patent applications&quot;),  &#xD;&#xA; - the UK (where&#xD;&#xA;   the law apparently provides a general &quot;disseminating information&quot;&#xD;&#xA;   [exception][7]), and  &#xD;&#xA; - Germany (where the DPMA construes the&#xD;&#xA;   [Copyright Act][8] (secs. 5, 62) to exempt republications of patent&#xD;&#xA;   documents, but only as long as the copier follows the Copyright Act's&#xD;&#xA;   stringent requirements, e.g. that the document not be modified).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/283736/Copyright/Can+a+Patent+Application+Violate+the+Copyright+Laws&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.trademarkandcopyrightlawblog.com/2014/03/copyright-claims-based-on-submission-of-prior-art-to-patent-office-finally-dismissed-were-they-the-weakest-infringement-claims-of-all-time/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1001.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html#ch600_d1ff6c_2aa9b_29e&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_on_the_content_of_patents_and_in_the_context_of_patent_prosecution&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19920251/index.html#a5&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140603113132/http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-other/c-other-faq/c-other-faq-type/c-other-faq-type-patspec.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_urhg/englisch_urhg.html#ap0028" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20213" RevisionGUID="58b6945f-3aeb-4310-90a2-1e6fe16dd205" CreationDate="2019-02-01T01:16:18.520" UserId="21800" Comment="added 392 characters in body" Text="An acquaintance is in the following situation... &#xA;&#xA;Sally is a PhD student. Her advisor would like her to patent her work in the medical field. She writes patent application. He adds another author to the patent who was not involved in developing the work. Advisor &quot;offers&quot; Sally `x`% of the profits although she developed all of the work and wrote the patent. She refuses to sign. Days go by and he lowers his offer to `x-1`%, and suggests that this will go even lower. He seems to be insinuating that he would file the patent without her.  &#xA;&#xA;Aside from the ethicality of the situation, what is legally supposed to happen if she does not agree to this split of the profits? Could the advisor, for instance, file the patent without her consent? Could she file the patent without his consent?&#xA;&#xA;It is unclear to me how such disputes should be resolved.&#xA;&#xA;Edit&#xA;&#xA;It was commented that this could depend on the employment contract. I understand that at a typical company, the company would probably own the whole thing. However, I think that this is unlikely for her. Please assume that the contract makes no such claims. For instance, how would such a dispute be resolved between two independent co-developers with no prior contract between them?&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20213" RevisionGUID="e4abc44b-7d34-4397-8ca4-6b6cfbad33a1" CreationDate="2019-02-01T02:00:14.467" UserId="21800" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="An acquaintance is in the following situation... &#xA;&#xA;Sally is a PhD student. Her advisor would like her to patent her work in the medical field. She writes patent application. He adds another author to the patent who was not involved in developing the work. Advisor &quot;offers&quot; Sally `x`% of the profits although she developed all of the work and wrote the patent. She refuses to sign. Days go by and he lowers his offer to `x-1`%, and suggests that this will go even lower. He seems to be insinuating that he would file the patent without her.  &#xA;&#xA;Aside from the ethicality of the situation, what is legally supposed to happen if she does not agree to this split of the profits? Could the advisor, for instance, file the patent without her consent? Could she file the patent without his consent?&#xA;&#xA;It is unclear to me how such disputes should be resolved.&#xA;&#xA;Edit&#xA;&#xA;It was commented that this could depend on the employment contract. I understand that at a typical company, the company would probably own the whole thing. However, I think that this is unlikely for her. Please assume that the contract makes no such claims. For instance, how would such a dispute be resolved between two independent co-developers with no prior contract between them?&#xA;&#xA;Edit &#xA;&#xA;Filing in US and Germany." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20215" RevisionGUID="2720af13-7443-4223-a7e7-511972e5d7a3" CreationDate="2019-02-01T02:29:10.010" UserId="21802" Text="I am writing a patent for a vice grip tool where I have designed a new release lever to open the lock but I want to include the original vice grip style release lever design in the claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am having trouble understanding the correct language to use to describe a two different types of lever arms so that an initial claim will allow the original lever arm and the new type. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a specific way to state this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56197" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20215" RevisionGUID="2720af13-7443-4223-a7e7-511972e5d7a3" CreationDate="2019-02-01T02:29:10.010" UserId="21802" Text="Claim language and use of &quot;means&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56198" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20215" RevisionGUID="2720af13-7443-4223-a7e7-511972e5d7a3" CreationDate="2019-02-01T02:29:10.010" UserId="21802" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20216" RevisionGUID="94cdd1d4-127c-40fd-972c-d800bb81718a" CreationDate="2019-02-01T02:48:14.913" UserId="21610" Text="&gt; I am writing a patent for a vice grip tool where I have designed a new&#xD;&#xA;&gt; release lever to open the lock but I want to include the original vice&#xD;&#xA;&gt; grip style release lever design in the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you include original design claim along with your invention, you are inviting an anticipation rejection on your own as it is available as state of the art. Instead try to get a broad claim for you invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20213" RevisionGUID="c29468fc-b5dc-494d-8804-bc57bcf9d0f1" CreationDate="2019-02-01T06:58:34.483" UserId="21800" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="An acquaintance is in the following situation... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bob is a PhD student. His advisor would like him to patent his work in the medical field. Bob writes patent application. Advisor adds another author to the patent who was not involved in developing the work. Advisor &quot;offers&quot; Bob `x`% of the profits although he developed all of the work and wrote the patent. Bob refuses to sign partly because the low share does not reflect his contribution to the work, and partly out of the ethicality of adding an unrelated author. Days go by and advisor lowers the offer to `x-1`%, and suggests that this will go even lower. Advisor seems to be insinuating that he would file the patent without Bob.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from the ethicality of the situation, what is legally supposed to happen if Bob does not agree to this split of the profits? Could the advisor, for instance, file the patent without Bob's consent? Could Bob file the patent without the advisor's consent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is unclear to me how such disputes should be resolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was commented that this could depend on the employment contract. I understand that at a typical company, the company would probably own all of the IP of the worker. However, I think that this is unlikely in Bob's case. Please assume that the working contract makes no such claims. Put another way... How would the aforementioned dispute be resolved between two independent co-developers with no prior contract between them? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Filing in US and Germany." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20213" RevisionGUID="e1f224f8-e35a-4e2a-8345-b849a6c423a0" CreationDate="2019-02-01T07:05:20.593" UserId="21800" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="An acquaintance is in the following situation... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bob is a PhD student. His advisor would like him to patent his work in the medical field. Bob writes patent application. Advisor adds another author to the patent who was not involved in developing the work. Advisor &quot;offers&quot; Bob `x`% of the profits (less than 20%) although he developed all of the work and wrote the patent. Bob refuses to sign partly because the low share does not reflect his contribution to the work, and partly out of the ethicality of adding an unrelated author. Days go by and advisor lowers the offer to `x-1`%, and suggests that this will go even lower. Advisor seems to be insinuating that he would file the patent without Bob.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from the ethicality of the situation, what is legally supposed to happen if Bob does not agree to this split of the profits? Could the advisor, for instance, file the patent without Bob's consent? Could Bob file the patent without the advisor's consent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is unclear to me how such disputes should be resolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was commented that this could depend on the employment contract. I understand that at a typical company, the company would probably own all of the IP of the worker. However, I think that this is unlikely in Bob's case since he is a PhD student. Anyway, I will follow up on that point...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, please assume that the working contract makes no such claims. Put another way... How would the aforementioned dispute be resolved between two independent co-developers with no prior contract between them? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Filing in US and Germany." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20213" RevisionGUID="5528f71e-a427-4fa7-8243-6edb66927816" CreationDate="2019-02-01T15:28:58.163" UserId="1" Comment="Trying to steer this towards issues of patent process and not contract negition. Integrated adendums into the body of the post" Text="An acquaintance is in the following situation&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bob is a PhD student. His advisor would like him to patent his work in the medical field. Bob writes patent application. Advisor adds another author to the patent who was not involved in developing the work. Advisor &quot;offers&quot; Bob `x`% of the profits (less than 20%) although he developed all of the work and wrote the patent. Bob refuses to sign partly because the low share does not reflect his contribution to the work, and partly out of the ethicality of adding an unrelated author. Days go by and advisor lowers the offer to `x-1`%, and suggests that this will go even lower. Advisor seems to be insinuating that he would file the patent without Bob.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this all depends on an employment contact, Bob is a PhD student so that probably does not apply; therefore, please assume that the working contract makes no such claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ethics aside, **what is legally supposed to happen** if Bob does not agree to this split of the profits? Could the advisor, for instance, legally file the patent without Bob's consent? Could Bob file the patent without the advisor's consent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is unclear to me how such disputes affect filing (or not).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: Filing is in US and Germany.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56203" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="20213" RevisionGUID="5528f71e-a427-4fa7-8243-6edb66927816" CreationDate="2019-02-01T15:28:58.163" UserId="1" Comment="Trying to steer this towards issues of patent process and not contract negition. Integrated adendums into the body of the post" Text="Legality of filing before there is an agreement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20217" RevisionGUID="cf1abce5-5247-488f-95a5-3117bb4a7607" CreationDate="2019-02-01T19:59:36.467" UserId="19913" Text="[Track one patent examination][1] expedites the examination process to 12 months.  The cost is high, even for a micro entity at $1K.  What is the advantage of a faster exam process from a business standpoint?  Are there any other benefits?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/usptos-prioritized-patent-examination-program" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56205" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20217" RevisionGUID="cf1abce5-5247-488f-95a5-3117bb4a7607" CreationDate="2019-02-01T19:59:36.467" UserId="19913" Text="What is the purpose / benefits of a track 1 USPTO examinination" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56206" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20217" RevisionGUID="cf1abce5-5247-488f-95a5-3117bb4a7607" CreationDate="2019-02-01T19:59:36.467" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;track1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20218" RevisionGUID="5e9e361b-7dc1-413e-9a4c-ac841ef76d46" CreationDate="2019-02-01T20:38:06.537" UserId="3076" Text="Inventorship is not like academic authorship. Only the true inventor or inventors can sign the declaration required in a U.S. patent application. If there is one true inventor, that person can file. If there is more than one inventors, they all need to sign a declaration that they collectively consider themselves the true inventors. If the inventors have assigned their rights to a company or other organization, that organization can file. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20219" RevisionGUID="538233c8-84dc-4b19-bb03-20a6ab846894" CreationDate="2019-02-01T20:48:25.447" UserId="19913" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (B) Cross-Reference to Related Applications: (See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Section 200.) If this patent is related to other patents, or based on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; earlier-filed US applications, it will be stated right after the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; title. This would include patents based on provisional applications,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or which are divisions, continuations or continuations-in-part of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other applications. If the earlier applications became patents before&#xD;&#xA;&gt; this patent issued, the patent numbers will usually be noted here.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sometimes foreign priority applications are listed here, but it is not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; required. This information may duplicate information on the first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source hyperlink:][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a Provisional Application is filed, is the Non Provisional Application a **continuation** of the Provisional?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would my invention's title be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Left handed smoke shifter.  **Continuation** of Provisional Application 62/11111111? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bpmlegal.com/howtopat4.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56209" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20219" RevisionGUID="538233c8-84dc-4b19-bb03-20a6ab846894" CreationDate="2019-02-01T20:48:25.447" UserId="19913" Text="Cross-Reference to Related Applicaitons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56210" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20219" RevisionGUID="538233c8-84dc-4b19-bb03-20a6ab846894" CreationDate="2019-02-01T20:48:25.447" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;title&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20217" RevisionGUID="0aa2d107-56be-4395-86e2-6c828b55047e" CreationDate="2019-02-01T21:18:20.050" UserId="19913" Comment="added 621 characters in body" Text="[Track one patent examination][1] expedites the examination process to 12 months.  The cost is high, even for a micro entity at $1K.  What is the advantage of a faster exam process from a business standpoint?  Are there any other benefits?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2017 Examinations][2]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As of May 2017, the average total pendency of US utility&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non-provisional patent applications is roughly 33 months. This average&#xD;&#xA;&gt; length of a non-provisional application is measured from the filing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; date of the non-provisional to ultimate disposition of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application, e.g., grant or abandonment, including Requests for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Continued Examination (RCE). Excluding RCE’s, the average pendency of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a utility non-provisional patent application to final disposal is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; approximately 25.7 months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What benefit is there to receiving a patent grant 12 months earlier than the norm?&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/usptos-prioritized-patent-examination-program&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.patenttrademarkblog.com/how-long-us-utility-patent-application-process/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56212" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="20217" RevisionGUID="0aa2d107-56be-4395-86e2-6c828b55047e" CreationDate="2019-02-01T21:18:20.050" UserId="19913" Comment="added 621 characters in body" Text="What is the purpose / benefits of a track 1 USPTO examinination?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20220" RevisionGUID="53632d01-ecbb-43f9-bea5-5cace49e8dec" CreationDate="2019-02-02T01:21:49.693" UserId="21610" Text="Yes, the non provisional application which refers to an earlier priority has to cross refer all earlier applications which it calims priority from." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20221" RevisionGUID="082ec3e5-3dce-4386-9e9c-3f0646808532" CreationDate="2019-02-02T21:20:19.713" UserId="3076" Text="It is not a continuation of the provisional. It &quot;claims the benefit of the provisional.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56217" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20143" RevisionGUID="820a9cf4-a2da-4cea-918d-a9c6d3a0d54f" CreationDate="2019-02-03T04:03:10.460" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20222" RevisionGUID="a252ad18-6b00-4472-bc56-8629f3daeb74" CreationDate="2019-02-03T04:05:11.493" UserId="21666" Text="I need to pay USPTO $100 because my Micro Entity Application was filled incorrectly. I plan to pay by check. From the website, I read the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Check or Money Order – make payable to &quot;Director of the USPTO.&quot; There is a $50 processing fee for any check returned to the USPTO unpaid*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not a regular check user. What does the &quot;any check returned to USPTO unpaid&quot; mean? how could that happen? If USPTO get the money, that extra $50 will not be charged. Am I right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I will mail back with my corrected Micro Entity Application. I hope I will only be charged with that $30 surcharge fee." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56219" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20222" RevisionGUID="a252ad18-6b00-4472-bc56-8629f3daeb74" CreationDate="2019-02-03T04:05:11.493" UserId="21666" Text="writing check to pay USPTO is good or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56220" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20222" RevisionGUID="a252ad18-6b00-4472-bc56-8629f3daeb74" CreationDate="2019-02-03T04:05:11.493" UserId="21666" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20144" RevisionGUID="5235b903-40de-4d3b-937a-79673be04373" CreationDate="2019-02-03T15:53:25.350" UserId="786" Comment="removed erroneous statement" Text="Method of treatment is patentable, as far as the protocol developed by you doesnot involve any natural laws and is supported by sufficient scientific evidence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For patenting your protocol all you need to do is generate experimental data comparing the conventional acupuncture meridian protocol (if an alternative exists) with the protocol designed by you.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there was no alternative prior protocol available for comparison then the treatment out come can be shown as evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above example is very broad and numerous factors come into the picture when evaluating patentability.  Please consult a patent attorney as they could really guide you about patentability of your protocol.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** Method treatment is not patentable in countries such as India.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56222" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20142" RevisionGUID="9b4ecb4f-4219-46d9-a123-c703c6b2fd7c" CreationDate="2019-02-03T16:01:20.230" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20223" RevisionGUID="8e17810d-a088-4be1-bad9-8b95414d6871" CreationDate="2019-02-04T04:14:53.877" UserId="3076" Text="If the check or money order is good then there should be no problem. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20224" RevisionGUID="53702b46-3550-44e5-8c93-e73b20c84781" CreationDate="2019-02-04T04:56:50.630" UserId="3076" Text="I would talk to your patent attorney. You establishing a set of deadlines or deliverables that might be outside their normal process might be off putting to them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20225" RevisionGUID="e73093a1-c7f2-4d00-bdce-aa1966b08083" CreationDate="2019-02-04T05:03:09.700" UserId="3076" Text="The sooner you have a granted patent (if that is the outcome) the sooner you have the added credibility that it might give for inventors, employees and others. To be clear, the primary effect of track I is to cut out the queue time before an examiner picks it up. If your initial claims are not going to be patentable, you will find that out faster, which can also be helpful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20226" RevisionGUID="db4a7d6f-2f43-4bc9-8370-49c6c8ad4c0c" CreationDate="2019-02-04T13:42:33.830" UserId="1186" Text="The status of an Indian  patent post-examination is &quot;Application in Amended stage&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do we understand from this status?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56227" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20226" RevisionGUID="db4a7d6f-2f43-4bc9-8370-49c6c8ad4c0c" CreationDate="2019-02-04T13:42:33.830" UserId="1186" Text="What do we mean by the status: Application in Amended stage" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56228" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20226" RevisionGUID="db4a7d6f-2f43-4bc9-8370-49c6c8ad4c0c" CreationDate="2019-02-04T13:42:33.830" UserId="1186" Text="&lt;india&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20227" RevisionGUID="1ac6e894-59bd-4c8c-b852-8d52589b2b39" CreationDate="2019-02-04T15:48:35.153" UserId="21610" Text="I assume you are asking a response in context of Indian patent office examination. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When an examination is made for a patent application the patent examiner issues FER citing the defects in application including claims,  to address all the deficiency identified in patent application by the examiner  the applicant needs amends patent claims through an amendment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indian patent office uses the phrase for  application under amendment during that phase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20227" RevisionGUID="9ccb2ec5-848f-49e2-ad95-a73e40c072db" CreationDate="2019-02-04T15:55:03.647" UserId="21610" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="I assume you are asking a response in context of Indian patent office examination, as this is mostly seen in IPO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When an examination is made for a patent application the patent examiner issues FER( first examination report) citing the defects in application including claims,  to address all the deficiency identified in patent application by the examiner  the applicant needs amends patent claims through an amendment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indian patent office uses the phrase for  application under amendment during that phase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20228" RevisionGUID="abd15913-a322-4c7c-ae1c-2a5e4497bcb2" CreationDate="2019-02-05T01:49:06.637" UserId="15660" Text="Back in 2017 I signed a patent contract with the company in which I used to work as one of the co-authors of an invention that was going to be patented in Europe. In this contract I was forced (otherwise I was going to be fired and I couldn't afford to lose my job at the moment) to renounce to any property over the invention. In turn the company compromised in the contract to recognize me as one of the author's of the patent. A while after I left that company, because my relationship with it wasn't the best . Today, they contacted me saying that I need to sign another document full of terms that I don't agree with, for them to be able to extend the original patent to United States. The difference is that this time they can't say they will fire me if I don't sign. So instead they are saying that my name won't appear as one of the co-authors in United States. Would this be possible? A patent with less authors in US than in Europe? Wouldn't they be breaking the first agreement they made to recognize me as a co-author?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56232" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20228" RevisionGUID="abd15913-a322-4c7c-ae1c-2a5e4497bcb2" CreationDate="2019-02-05T01:49:06.637" UserId="15660" Text="Can the same patent be extended to a new country without one of the original co-author" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56233" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20228" RevisionGUID="abd15913-a322-4c7c-ae1c-2a5e4497bcb2" CreationDate="2019-02-05T01:49:06.637" UserId="15660" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;legal-status&gt;&lt;authentication&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20231" RevisionGUID="35bf058c-fe52-404c-a035-222be4f15fea" CreationDate="2019-02-05T05:49:41.650" UserId="3076" Text="Especially in the U.S., correct inventorship is important. Co-inventors are not strictly analogous with co-authors. In the U.S., all true inventors must be listed. An inventor is someone who makes a conceptual contribution to something that is claims. The only legitimate reasons to remove an inventor would either be for then to decide that you were listed inventor for EPO purposes (where correct inventorship is not as critical) but never really qualified as an inventor under U.S. rules; or for the one or more claims in the EPO version you particularly contribute to be dropped from the U.S. application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the new (2012) AIA U.S. patent law, if the company has a signed papers from you agreeing to sign any and all required documents, they can do without your signature by swearing they tried to get you to sign and attaching copies of what you signed previously." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20224" RevisionGUID="f3d0480e-ff1e-4c21-a8f5-c1ff226a2dc4" CreationDate="2019-02-05T05:56:50.223" UserId="3076" Comment="added 408 characters in body" Text="I would talk to your patent attorney. You establishing a set of deadlines or deliverables that might be outside their normal process might be off putting to them. In the course of producing a patent application you should be shown a draft version before they finalize it so you can make sure they have the technical details right. You should also be brought into a discussion about why you want a patent. Just to have a patent; to prevent competitors copying specific aspects of your invention; to have a bargaining tool when you get in a fight with some other company? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20232" RevisionGUID="b2901dfb-10ba-47d6-936f-a257f883cac9" CreationDate="2019-02-05T14:59:15.670" UserId="21814" Text="While preparing a presentation about metadata, I stumbled upon the following patent:&#xD;&#xA;[Automatic extraction of metadata using a neural network][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no experience with patents, but the strategies for metadata creation presented in the patent seem very generic to me - not only because the imagery kind of says: &quot;We put text into a NN and it gives us the data&quot; (see the cover of the document) - but also because the interesting parts of the pseudo code are very abstract (see part 15 of the document).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How specific do these kinds of patents need/tend to be?&#xD;&#xA;How similar must my approach be so that it counts as &quot;the same invention&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6044375A" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56241" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20232" RevisionGUID="b2901dfb-10ba-47d6-936f-a257f883cac9" CreationDate="2019-02-05T14:59:15.670" UserId="21814" Text="How precise does a patent have to be when it is describing the usage of a neural network?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56242" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20232" RevisionGUID="b2901dfb-10ba-47d6-936f-a257f883cac9" CreationDate="2019-02-05T14:59:15.670" UserId="21814" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20231" RevisionGUID="28d9c4a0-579d-41c5-948e-7ffbae56f75f" CreationDate="2019-02-05T21:47:14.583" UserId="3076" Comment="edited body" Text="Especially in the U.S., correct inventorship is important. Co-inventors are not strictly analogous with co-authors. In the U.S., all true inventors must be listed. An inventor is someone who makes a conceptual contribution to something that is claims. The only legitimate reasons to remove an inventor would either be for them to decide that you were listed inventor for EPO purposes (where correct inventorship is not as critical) but never really qualified as an inventor under U.S. rules; or for the one or more claims in the EPO version you particularly contribute to be dropped from the U.S. application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the new (2012) AIA U.S. patent law, if the company has a signed papers from you agreeing to sign any and all required documents, they can do without your signature by swearing they tried to get you to sign and attaching copies of what you signed previously." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20233" RevisionGUID="629a50a2-8c78-4f2a-9791-71d00c3c2491" CreationDate="2019-02-05T21:47:53.167" UserId="17003" Text="I am not a lawyer, but I believe since the [Alice decision][1] in 2014, many applications of existing and well known algorithms are much less patentable. Thus, it is quite possible that this patent would not have been granted if filed since Alice. In any case, this patent's priority date is 4-30-1998 so it should be expired by now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As will most cases of software related patents, the specifics are very important and I doubt general guidance is of value. If you have a specific idea you want to patent, I would highly recommend consulting with a patent attorney well versed in the field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20234" RevisionGUID="7fd823e6-0967-46d0-9dca-8e998b6ae537" CreationDate="2019-02-05T22:01:13.507" UserId="3076" Text="There are two distinct parts of a patent, the specification and the claims. The claims are what nails down the scope of the protected invention. This claim 1 seems reasonably specific. To infringe the claim, each step a-e must be performed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of automatically extracting metadata from a document, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;**(a)** providing:&#xD;&#xA;a computer readable document including blocks comprised of words,&#xD;&#xA;an authority list, including common uses of a set of words, and&#xD;&#xA;a neural network trained to extract metadata from compounds;&#xD;&#xA;**(b)** locating authority information associated with the words by comparing the words with the authority list;&#xD;&#xA;**(c)** creating compounds, a first of the compounds describing a first of the blocks and including:&#xD;&#xA;first-block words,&#xD;&#xA;descriptive information associated with one of the first-block and the first block words, and&#xD;&#xA;authority information associated with one first-block word;&#xD;&#xA;**(d)** processing the compounds through the neural network to generate metadata guesses; and&#xD;&#xA;**(e)** deriving the metadata from the metadata guesses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20236" RevisionGUID="1c10a09f-09ff-499a-8fd0-8eb56d23e487" CreationDate="2019-02-06T21:34:38.267" UserId="21819" Text="I am ready to start searching for a grant or investor for developing my technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's two days I am looking for information, but really, I understand nothing from the articles online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was looking for a provisional patent. I am in EU. I have seen that provisional patents are granted by the US, and I don't understand whether I can apply for one of those since I am not a US citizen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somebody says that I can obtain the same protection by just simply filing an application to the EPO in EU. However, I cannot find information on how the system works, the cost of it, and when I should pay for it (upfront? Or after 1 year?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, I don't understand the costs for each method. I understand that the cost depends on the number of pages submitted, but an average cost would be great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone make a short overview to provide a concise way to understand how the famous &quot;patent pending&quot; can be obtained?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56252" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20236" RevisionGUID="1c10a09f-09ff-499a-8fd0-8eb56d23e487" CreationDate="2019-02-06T21:34:38.267" UserId="21819" Text="Patent pending - US and EU procedure and" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56253" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20236" RevisionGUID="1c10a09f-09ff-499a-8fd0-8eb56d23e487" CreationDate="2019-02-06T21:34:38.267" UserId="21819" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;european&gt;&lt;patent-pending&gt;&lt;epo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20237" RevisionGUID="1f8b599d-31e4-4086-82e2-703b50cd3c03" CreationDate="2019-02-07T02:46:50.123" UserId="21610" Text="&gt; I was looking for a provisional patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The provisional application is not &quot;published&quot; so you couldn't have found one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Provisional patent application is an application that establishes an early filing date, but does not mature into an issued patent unless the applicant files a regular non-provisional patent application within one year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To obtain the benefit of the &quot;provisional&quot; filing date, a non-provisional patent application must be filed, claiming benefit of the filing date of one or more specific provisional patent applications, prior to their expiration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The provisional application is to protect potential patent rights while attempting to obtain sponsors for further development (and for more expensive patent applications)and also prevent from objection raised by prior art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prior art** (AKA: state of the art) is constituted by all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality. If an invention has been described in the prior art or would have been obvious over what has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any prior-art published or disclosed during the one-year period between provisional filing date and Application of nonprovisional  application is not considered in evaluating the patentability of claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Somebody says that I can obtain the same protection by just simply&#xD;&#xA;&gt; filing an application to the EPO in EU. However, I cannot find&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information on how the system works, the cost of it, and when I should&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pay for it (upfront? Or after 1 year?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EPO doesnot have a statue for provisional patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can someone make a short overview to provide a concise way to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understand how the famous &quot;patent pending&quot; can be obtained?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Patent pending&quot;** expressions that can be used in relation to a product or process once a Non-provisonal patent application for the product or process has been filed.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20238" RevisionGUID="287ae6bb-95c4-4bd7-a5e5-dea117822a23" CreationDate="2019-02-07T10:03:09.963" UserId="21807" Text="In patent claims why the clause 'based on' is considered to have a broader scope as compared to the other clauses (e.g. using, depending, etc.)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56256" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20238" RevisionGUID="287ae6bb-95c4-4bd7-a5e5-dea117822a23" CreationDate="2019-02-07T10:03:09.963" UserId="21807" Text="Patent Claim Interpretation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56257" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20238" RevisionGUID="287ae6bb-95c4-4bd7-a5e5-dea117822a23" CreationDate="2019-02-07T10:03:09.963" UserId="21807" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;patent-infringment&gt;&lt;writing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20239" RevisionGUID="a4b25193-96d3-4a86-b4c6-f4744b54de4d" CreationDate="2019-02-07T11:17:37.110" UserId="21610" Text="The scope often differs from patent to patent, i would try to explain the difference using following example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In simple term the term **Based on** protects the underlying principle i.e., alternates that uses the same principle can be covered by this phrase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eg 1; A patent claims **an oil-based substance** the claim scope can cover a  lotion or a greasy or oily substance  as all are based on oil. This gives broad protection irrespective even your final product is an oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eg 2; Consider a patent claim **a product/ process using oily substance** then the claim scope is limited to only the claimed oily substance, the lotion or greasy substance may be still in scope under Doctrine of Equivalents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: In the example above the final out come would vary based on the patent disclosures, claims surrendered during prosecution, state of the art etc.,. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20240" RevisionGUID="f1eba028-41cb-4822-9a98-d0c177081f9f" CreationDate="2019-02-07T21:15:13.143" UserId="21660" Text="I am working on a checklist (or list or strategies to consider) for new developers residing in the US who are about to release their first app, but are worried about patent trolls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not to publish the app in the USA at all... that is the question for today:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a new Android/IOS app is released worldwide, but the USA is excluded from the distribution, and the developer resides in the USA, is the developer relatively immune to patent trolls in the USA?  Does this affect their vulnerability and if so, how?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56260" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20240" RevisionGUID="f1eba028-41cb-4822-9a98-d0c177081f9f" CreationDate="2019-02-07T21:15:13.143" UserId="21660" Text="US App Developer Patent Troll Avoidance Checklist -- To Release In The USA or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56261" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20240" RevisionGUID="f1eba028-41cb-4822-9a98-d0c177081f9f" CreationDate="2019-02-07T21:15:13.143" UserId="21660" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20097" RevisionGUID="ed4af427-4ec9-4f1d-a622-c3f86cc2f296" CreationDate="2019-02-07T21:40:40.667" UserId="21660" Comment="added 259 characters in body; edited title" Text="I am working on a checklist (or list or strategies to consider) for new developers residing in the US who are about to release their first app, but are worried about patent trolls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether to make the app free vs paid... that is the question for today:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as an app is free does that mean that nobody can sue you for patent infringement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56263" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="20097" RevisionGUID="ed4af427-4ec9-4f1d-a622-c3f86cc2f296" CreationDate="2019-02-07T21:40:40.667" UserId="21660" Comment="added 259 characters in body; edited title" Text="US App Developer Patent Troll Avoidance Checklist — If a mobile app is free (donation only), does that indemnify against patent trolls?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20240" RevisionGUID="1389eb1d-68ce-4cb1-be86-9904b8adb582" CreationDate="2019-02-07T21:49:47.107" UserId="21660" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="I am working on a checklist (or list or strategies to consider) for new individual developers residing in the US who are about to release their first app, but are worried about patent trolls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not to publish the app in the USA at all... that is the question for today:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a new Android/IOS app is released worldwide, but the USA is excluded from the distribution, and the developer resides in the USA, is the developer relatively immune to patent trolls in the USA?  Does this affect their vulnerability and if so, how?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56265" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20097" RevisionGUID="18ff22e3-8655-4d1c-8b83-063131bae063" CreationDate="2019-02-07T21:53:46.313" UserId="21660" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="I am working on a checklist (or list or strategies to consider) for new individual developers residing in the US who are about to release their first app, but are worried about patent trolls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether to make the app free vs paid... that is the question for today:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as an app is free does that mean that nobody can sue you for patent infringement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20241" RevisionGUID="0673b63f-16fc-41ff-9bbd-bd956d84687d" CreationDate="2019-02-07T22:21:26.727" UserId="21660" Text="I am working on a checklist (or list or strategies to consider) for new *individual* developers residing in the US who are about to release their first app, but are worried about patent trolls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether publish the app as an Individual -- &quot;SuperCalc by Earnest 'you wouldn't go so low as sue me, right?' Shmoe&quot; vs as a company (eg., LLC) -- &quot;SuperCalc by Come Sue My Impersonal Pants Off, Please, LCC&quot; ... that is the question for today:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there appears to be no precedent for a Patent Troll suing an individual developer (that has published as an individual/sole proprietor *under their personal name*), could it be argued that it is actually safer to do that than to form an LLC?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56267" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20241" RevisionGUID="0673b63f-16fc-41ff-9bbd-bd956d84687d" CreationDate="2019-02-07T22:21:26.727" UserId="21660" Text="US App Developer Patent Troll Avoidance Checklist — Publishing as individual vs as Company" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56268" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20241" RevisionGUID="0673b63f-16fc-41ff-9bbd-bd956d84687d" CreationDate="2019-02-07T22:21:26.727" UserId="21660" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20240" RevisionGUID="d41b9565-9c91-4b7b-a039-0fb922e99744" CreationDate="2019-02-07T22:23:04.123" UserId="1" Comment="deleted 300 characters in body" Text="If a US-based software developer distributes their application worldwide everywhere **except** the US, is the developer immune from infringement suites from patent trolls in the US?  Does this affect their vulnerability and if so, how?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20242" RevisionGUID="a25326a1-6663-4a2b-9a79-e838a4a82db6" CreationDate="2019-02-07T22:23:24.570" UserId="7403" Text="Are patent applications of pending patents publicly available? If so, can they be download somewhere?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56271" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20242" RevisionGUID="a25326a1-6663-4a2b-9a79-e838a4a82db6" CreationDate="2019-02-07T22:23:24.570" UserId="7403" Text="Are patent applications publicly available?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56272" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20242" RevisionGUID="a25326a1-6663-4a2b-9a79-e838a4a82db6" CreationDate="2019-02-07T22:23:24.570" UserId="7403" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;united-states&gt;&lt;bulk-download&gt;&lt;resources&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20243" RevisionGUID="917ed58e-3d8f-40be-9715-cb7309accf3a" CreationDate="2019-02-07T22:31:27.197" UserId="3076" Text="I think the answer is that it depends on the context. I have included three examples from three different patents. The first uses depending upon while the second uses based upon. I do not think the meaning would be changed if they were reversed. The third uses using. In the context, the other two terms would not make sense if placed into this claim. This is a rare case where is just English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the calculating comprises: calculating a first distance from the first location to a location of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a previous usage associated with the phone number; and calculating a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; second distance from the second location to the location of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; previous usage associated with the phone number, wherein the first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fraud score is **based upon** the first distance and the second fraud&#xD;&#xA;&gt; score is **based upon** the second distance&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The system of claim 1, wherein the occlusion mask device comprises a display configured to either occlude or pass light at each of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plurality of portions of the display, **depending upon** a pertinent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; command to occlude or pass light at each portion.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the information providing circuitry is operable to signal the information between a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; base station and the Mobility Management entity **using** a wired&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inter-face between the base station and the core of the wireless&#xD;&#xA;&gt; communication net-work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20244" RevisionGUID="057705b3-b6bb-4dcd-a3bc-a3c3afe1089e" CreationDate="2019-02-07T22:34:28.400" UserId="3076" Text="Yes, most are publicaly available from the USPTO and google patents. I believe google has a way of bulk access. Unless non-publication is selected by the applicant, they are published at 18 months after the earliest claimed priority document. Most other countries do not allow non-publication. The 18 month publication date is uniform internationally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56275" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="20240" RevisionGUID="137f5970-3d76-4c2a-be90-259070aaed0e" CreationDate="2019-02-07T22:49:40.353" UserId="21660" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;app&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56276" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="20241" RevisionGUID="45340548-cd69-499c-89d6-b7c3f8936a16" CreationDate="2019-02-07T22:49:57.410" UserId="21660" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;app&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20245" RevisionGUID="d7802945-6166-4be5-9af0-c301d0df05fe" CreationDate="2019-02-08T04:15:52.120" UserId="21826" Text="My former company has asked me to sign several patent assignments since I left the company but they only ever send me the final signature page. I didn't care about signing the ones I knew about when I left, but they have begun sending me new patents that partially overlap my old work. I don't even know what they encompass and they will not send me the patent itself because I work for a company that is something of a competitor.  They tell me this is standard practice and I am legally required to sign, but this seems very sketchy. Is this true? Can I be obligated to sign a patent assignment without knowing what is in it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56278" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20245" RevisionGUID="d7802945-6166-4be5-9af0-c301d0df05fe" CreationDate="2019-02-08T04:15:52.120" UserId="21826" Text="Sign patent assignment without reading it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56279" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20245" RevisionGUID="d7802945-6166-4be5-9af0-c301d0df05fe" CreationDate="2019-02-08T04:15:52.120" UserId="21826" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20246" RevisionGUID="2d869819-11e4-4425-8067-abb6cf7d679c" CreationDate="2019-02-08T06:06:23.137" UserId="3076" Text="You probably signed an employment agreement in which you agreed to sign the assignments (or state law has that effect). I think it is ridiculous not to send you the whole assignment agreement. You might try saying that you know you are obliged to sign assignments but how do you even know if you are signing an assignment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the AIA patent law of 2012 went into effect, the inventor's signature is a little less important. If the company has a blanket agreement from you to assign, they can file without you by establishing that you have that obligation but they couldn't find you or you otherwise will not sign. I'm a patent agent and this is really a question for an attorney so you might want to look up the provisions of the American Invents Act/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20247" RevisionGUID="03cf1503-ac98-4b81-9755-f09e07c5fe29" CreationDate="2019-02-08T09:42:16.247" UserId="21827" Text="Regardless of any other contract, it is illegal in any &quot;civilized&quot; country to be forced to sign a blank paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should talk to a lawyer, about the signatures which you provided already, and for the future ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;High stakes contracts are signed on all sheets, even on all pages, by all parties, just for the purpose to prove that reading of the content was possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bottom line: never sign anything which is not very clear to you - let alone (more or less) blank pages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20248" RevisionGUID="339c61ce-fc7c-46a6-9f10-2ef3478c0b41" CreationDate="2019-02-08T15:03:59.110" UserId="18033" Text="I think you're mixing correlation and causation here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there's no precedent for trolls suing individual developers then that's because most people create a company when their app becomes big.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think anyone will not sue you just because you are an individual instead of a company if they think you're infringing their patent and they can make good money by it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="385" RevisionGUID="4bd5a2a9-a59c-49ed-a409-358d9bef9a4d" CreationDate="2019-02-08T15:44:56.673" UserId="1085" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="First off, just because you think something is &quot;obviously&quot; covered by Prior Art doesn't mean that it really is.  It takes years of experience to understand how to read a list of claims and it is possible that the independent claim(s) is written in such a way that it is not covered by the existing art in the field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, you do have a duty to disclose any and all material that you think constitutes Prior Art.  It could well be that what you view as the Prior Art doesn't actually teach the methods or processes that are being disclosed.  Or it could be that what you came up with isn't being used as the Independent Claim -- dependent claims needn't be &quot;unique&quot;, they are simply additional variations on the Independent Claim.  If you read most of my software patents they have a laundry list of dependent claims about how and where the &quot;thing&quot; that is doing the Independent Claim can reside or be accessed.  My former employer pays for some huge number of applications to be filed annually and they all seem to include 20 claims, regardless of how pointless than last 4 or 5 are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll give you an example from my portfolio where &quot;Prior Art&quot; isn't really Prior Art --&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I applied for, and received, a patent on a Method and Process which makes use of bit masks in a manner which is virtually identical to another field of art which makes use of bit masks.  If you read the claims (ignoring the specific area of application), and you were familiar with that other field of art, you'd likely recognize what was being done, think that it was probably seriously broken, then question how I received a patent.  What was Novel wasn't the bit-shuffling, but the way in which that bit-shuffling was applied in a Non-Obvious way to a completely different field of art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, there are a lot of ways that Prior Art isn't.  If you dislike the software patent system, that's one thing.  But don't confuse a dislike of software patents for a bad software patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20246" RevisionGUID="5dce834a-d7ec-4040-b83e-328602b8b024" CreationDate="2019-02-09T20:48:03.890" UserId="3076" Comment="typos" Text="You probably signed an employment agreement in which you agreed to sign the assignments (or state law has that effect). I think it is ridiculous not to send you the whole assignment agreement. You might try saying that you know you are obliged to sign assignments but how do you even know if you are signing an assignment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the AIA patent law of 2012 went into effect, the inventor's signature is a little less important. If the company has a blanket agreement from you to assign, they can file without you by establishing that you have that obligation but they couldn't find you or you otherwise will not sign. I'm a patent agent and this is really a question for an attorney so you might want to look up the provisions of the American Invents Act." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20237" RevisionGUID="90f66140-a001-4c09-a035-21a739b8e528" CreationDate="2019-02-09T21:49:59.077" UserId="3076" Comment="removed the qualifier &quot;provisional&quot; to correct the last sentence" Text="&gt; I was looking for a provisional patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The provisional application is not &quot;published&quot; so you couldn't have found one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Provisional patent application is an application that establishes an early filing date, but does not mature into an issued patent unless the applicant files a regular non-provisional patent application within one year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To obtain the benefit of the &quot;provisional&quot; filing date, a non-provisional patent application must be filed, claiming benefit of the filing date of one or more specific provisional patent applications, prior to their expiration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The provisional application is to protect potential patent rights while attempting to obtain sponsors for further development (and for more expensive patent applications)and also prevent from objection raised by prior art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prior art** (AKA: state of the art) is constituted by all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality. If an invention has been described in the prior art or would have been obvious over what has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any prior-art published or disclosed during the one-year period between provisional filing date and Application of nonprovisional  application is not considered in evaluating the patentability of claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Somebody says that I can obtain the same protection by just simply&#xD;&#xA;&gt; filing an application to the EPO in EU. However, I cannot find&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information on how the system works, the cost of it, and when I should&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pay for it (upfront? Or after 1 year?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EPO doesnot have a statue for provisional patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can someone make a short overview to provide a concise way to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understand how the famous &quot;patent pending&quot; can be obtained?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Patent pending&quot;** expressions that can be used in relation to a product or process once a patent application for the product or process has been filed.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20250" RevisionGUID="8d8bfe43-c714-473b-8c97-93e607879a88" CreationDate="2019-02-10T12:05:00.810" UserId="21832" Text="I have a business idea which will take a year atleast to implement it. Just want to ask if a business idea is patentable or not (In India)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56290" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20250" RevisionGUID="8d8bfe43-c714-473b-8c97-93e607879a88" CreationDate="2019-02-10T12:05:00.810" UserId="21832" Text="Can a business idea be patented (in India)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56291" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20250" RevisionGUID="8d8bfe43-c714-473b-8c97-93e607879a88" CreationDate="2019-02-10T12:05:00.810" UserId="21832" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;india&gt;&lt;intellectualproperty-laws&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20251" RevisionGUID="12fcf040-bbd6-4792-b289-1c557ac1c51f" CreationDate="2019-02-10T19:50:49.593" UserId="21833" Text="I am a PhD student and recently found that a patent exists with significant overlap to my work. I.e. my situation is roughly similar to that described in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/108112/proving-that-the-phd-work-was-done-prior-to-someone-elses-patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;except that I unfortunately did not publish my findings before the concurrent patent was filed.&#xD;&#xA;I am not much worried about conflicts with my research - as far as I know, research and teaching are not affected by patent law. My worry is that the patent could block various applications. In typical patent manner it claims a very wide range of applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More than one year before the patent was filed I mentioned the idea in talks, but none of them was video recorded. It was also discussed in various personal communication. As far as I heard about patent law, this can already qualify as sufficient publication to prevent protection by a patent. The principle is shown in my talk slides and I routinely host my slides at a cloud hoster, so it may be possible to get an external confirmation that the slides existed in this form on the date of each talk respectively.&#xD;&#xA;One talk was at a conference. One talk was at my institute, but was open publicly in principle, without explicit public invitation though. Listeners were not required to file non-disclosure agreements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question: Can this be used to invalidate or weaken the patent? What would be the process to achieve this?&#xD;&#xA;Yes, I know I have to talk to a lawyer, but I would prefer to know as much as possible about the process and my options beforehand.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is just entering review phase; it is publicly observable for almost six months now. Is there a deadline to consider for taking action?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:&#xD;&#xA;This question is out-sourced from https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/124649/issues-with-a-patent-overlapping-my-work in the hope that it can stand here as on-topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56293" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20251" RevisionGUID="12fcf040-bbd6-4792-b289-1c557ac1c51f" CreationDate="2019-02-10T19:50:49.593" UserId="21833" Text="Can talks qualify as prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56294" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20251" RevisionGUID="12fcf040-bbd6-4792-b289-1c557ac1c51f" CreationDate="2019-02-10T19:50:49.593" UserId="21833" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20252" RevisionGUID="a87adedd-aa75-4ec1-a873-b1cd0d175edd" CreationDate="2019-02-10T21:48:34.000" UserId="3076" Text="Information presented at a conference by slides is a classic example on the edge of what qualifies as prior art, in the U.S. There are cases that have turned on whether or not paper handouts were made available. For a poster, how many days was the poster up at what kind of conference. You need a very sharp patent attorney to see if you can split hairs in your favor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20254" RevisionGUID="8732b714-3319-40f2-9e83-5f2986181de5" CreationDate="2019-02-10T22:33:19.263" UserId="18886" Text="You have to take its meaning within the context of the patent as a whole, which I have not done. But, based on the sentence it could mean that there is are many drone vehicles included in the one or more drone vehicles." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20255" RevisionGUID="301f4318-1e97-4888-92ff-788679511af1" CreationDate="2019-02-11T02:36:18.813" UserId="21610" Text="No, as per Indian patent act section 3(k) a mathematical or business methods or a computer program *per se* or algorithms are not patentable. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20256" RevisionGUID="2430ce24-baa4-4f75-ae72-794a0f22460b" CreationDate="2019-02-11T02:48:58.227" UserId="21610" Text="&gt; My question: Can this be used to invalidate or weaken the patent? What&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would be the process to achieve this? Yes, I know I have to talk to a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lawyer, but I would prefer to know as much as possible about the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; process and my options beforehand. The patent is just entering review&#xD;&#xA;&gt; phase; it is publicly observable for almost six months now. Is there a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; deadline to consider for taking action?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;yes, any thing that is made available to public before the critical date of filing can be used against invalidation of patent. In a recent [Jazz v. Amneal][1]CAFC decision court affirmed PTAB ruling of invalidation of jazz patents. The patents are related to tracking the distribution of controlled medicinal substances, in affirming the decision the court affirmed that, the FDA held  Advisory Committee (“AC”) meeting to address possible restrictions on the distribution of medicinal substance (xyrem) and, notice of the meeting which was published in the Federal Register, which included a hyperlink where materials from the meeting, including slides and transcripts of the meeting, were later posted. Importantly, the AC materials were available at the linked site prior to the critical date for each patent can be considered as prior art.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-1671.Opinion.7-13-2018.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20255" RevisionGUID="d00345bd-9972-499a-8cbf-236361fb38f1" CreationDate="2019-02-11T02:51:28.167" UserId="21610" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="No, as per Indian patent act, 1970 **section 3(k)** a mathematical or business methods or a computer program *per se* or algorithms are not patentable. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20255" RevisionGUID="172b7da0-56f9-415b-8108-f2f9ebaed720" CreationDate="2019-02-11T04:26:28.597" UserId="21610" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="No, as per Indian patent act, 1970. **section 3(k)** a mathematical or **business methods** or a computer program *per se* or algorithms are not patentable. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20257" RevisionGUID="3ed537f2-b5d3-4ad1-94e7-3e7151b522e3" CreationDate="2019-02-11T04:36:02.417" UserId="21610" Text="&gt; Is the patent term 20 years in India too?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, the patent term is 20 years from filing date of non-provisional or PCT application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Any differences in claims language or the breadth of claims allowed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No much difference can be expected as most of the claims in US and IN are same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are prophetic experiments allowed in place of actual experiments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you are trying to explain an alternate embodiment possible the prophetic experiments are allowed but for patenting a claim actual experimental date is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Are biotech patents allowed to patent the gene itself or merely a method that uses / synthesizes the gene?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, isolated genes are not patentable but the process of synthesis is patentable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20258" RevisionGUID="39ba1ba9-e3b8-4e7f-8e33-e8871e2d9805" CreationDate="2019-02-11T04:47:55.963" UserId="21610" Text="Inpass has now become obsolete, the current search could be performed at [IPO][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ipindiaservices.gov.in/publicsearch/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16382" RevisionGUID="ae204c56-cb9b-4b38-9a5f-362aaef003cc" CreationDate="2019-02-11T05:30:18.687" UserId="21610" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="Argentina is not part of the PCT and needs filling via national route. Does anyone know what are the basic steps and cost for filling there with a priority document written in English?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine that a translation and a local attorney are necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If available share a link for online filing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20259" RevisionGUID="dae5b21f-b12d-4062-ab5c-f4ba6cd4834b" CreationDate="2019-02-11T05:43:37.967" UserId="21610" Text="Yes, You are an infringer under the statue USC 271(f) even if you dont supply for US market the statue language is quoted for your reference &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be **supplied in or from the United States** all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention, where such components are uncombined in whole or in part, in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such components outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be **supplied in or from the United States** any component of a patented invention that is especially made or especially adapted for use in the invention and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, where such component is uncombined in whole or in part, knowing that such component is so made or adapted and intending that such component will be combined outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20260" RevisionGUID="574de7ce-64d0-4c2b-b17d-4ab08e7d1c19" CreationDate="2019-02-11T06:46:15.820" UserId="21610" Text="&gt; Does this mean: There could be many drone vehicles within each drone&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vehicle? When referring to one drone vehicle this could include many&#xD;&#xA;&gt; drone vehicles?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have gone through the specifications, in my opinion `one or more drone vehicles` described in the claim are with respect to the lead vehicle i.e., a single lead vehicle can communicate with single or multiple number of drones which it can send the coordinates of track location where repairs are to be done." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20261" RevisionGUID="7e13e9ff-43e1-4db1-9017-e8323c207b76" CreationDate="2019-02-11T14:54:57.467" UserId="17696" Text="I have a patent for a controllable-pitch propeller.  I have filed successfully in the US and the patent should issue shortly.  For various reasons, I did not file in foreign countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, if someone drove a ship or airplane made in Germany into the US with the technology onboard the vessel, could this be construed as IP infringement?  If so, who would be liable - the manufacturing company or the owner of the vessel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jordan" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56308" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20261" RevisionGUID="7e13e9ff-43e1-4db1-9017-e8323c207b76" CreationDate="2019-02-11T14:54:57.467" UserId="17696" Text="&quot;Importing&quot; into Patent-Issuing Country" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56309" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20261" RevisionGUID="7e13e9ff-43e1-4db1-9017-e8323c207b76" CreationDate="2019-02-11T14:54:57.467" UserId="17696" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56310" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20256" RevisionGUID="f34a9e5c-e137-4927-b0f7-5eb5b1d6d824" CreationDate="2019-02-11T17:07:38.727" UserId="21610" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="&gt; My question: Can this be used to invalidate or weaken the patent? What&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would be the process to achieve this? Yes, I know I have to talk to a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lawyer, but I would prefer to know as much as possible about the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; process and my options beforehand. The patent is just entering review&#xD;&#xA;&gt; phase; it is publicly observable for almost six months now. Is there a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; deadline to consider for taking action?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;yes, any thing that is made available to public before the critical date of filing can be used against invalidation of patent. In a recent [Jazz v. Amneal][1]CAFC decision court affirmed PTAB ruling of invalidation of jazz patents. The patents are related to tracking the distribution of controlled medicinal substances, in affirming the decision the court affirmed that, the FDA held  Advisory Committee (“AC”) meeting to address possible restrictions on the distribution of medicinal substance (xyrem) and, notice of the meeting which was published in the Federal Register, which included a hyperlink where materials from the meeting, including slides and transcripts of the meeting, were later posted. Importantly, the AC materials were available at the linked site prior to the critical date for each patent can be considered as prior art.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: if the patent is not yet granted you can file a third party observations with USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-1671.Opinion.7-13-2018.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20263" RevisionGUID="c5833580-251f-425a-b422-d8856a336a96" CreationDate="2019-02-12T05:10:28.630" UserId="21610" Text="&gt; My question is, if someone drove a ship or airplane made in Germany&#xD;&#xA;&gt; into the US with the technology onboard the vessel, could this be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; construed as IP infringement? If so, who would be liable - the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; manufacturing company or the owner of the vessel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, that would not account for an infringement as that is not accounted for and infringement. The aircraft or ship is in transit and is not **IMPORTED** so there is no infringement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If any aircraft or vessel is being imported (having the technology patented)**by an American entity** then its an act of infringement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The liability of importer or exporter for infringement depends on the terms of agreement made and attorney would be in a better position for identifying the parties. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20263" RevisionGUID="1252c983-af46-4448-a80f-3bc72c92b7c8" CreationDate="2019-02-12T06:48:03.023" UserId="21610" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="&gt; My question is, if someone drove a ship or airplane made in Germany&#xD;&#xA;&gt; into the US with the technology onboard the vessel, could this be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; construed as IP infringement? If so, who would be liable - the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; manufacturing company or the owner of the vessel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, that would not account for an infringement. The aircraft or ship is in transit and only would be in country  for temporary time, so it is not being **IMPORTED** and there is no infringement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If any aircraft or vessel is being imported **by an American entity** (having the technology patented) then its an act of infringement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The liability of importer or exporter for infringement depends on the terms of agreement made and attorney would be in a better position for identifying the parties. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20263" RevisionGUID="e01ac543-2622-4ae8-8842-f7fb3d992f17" CreationDate="2019-02-12T09:54:14.170" UserId="21610" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="&gt; My question is, if someone drove a ship or airplane made in Germany&#xD;&#xA;&gt; into the US with the technology onboard the vessel, could this be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; construed as IP infringement? If so, who would be liable - the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; manufacturing company or the owner of the vessel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, that would not account for an infringement. The aircraft or ship is in transit and only would be in country  for temporary time, so it is not being **IMPORTED** and there is no infringement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If any aircraft or vessel is being imported **by an American entity** (having the technology patented) then its an act of infringement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The liability of importer or exporter for infringement depends on the terms of agreement made and an attorney would be in a better position for identifying the parties. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20264" RevisionGUID="2038b3ba-2423-4e69-98bc-8f71bca3db0b" CreationDate="2019-02-12T15:50:35.367" UserId="17696" Text="I just spoke with an attorney.  It would not be considered importing but he said it would be considered &quot;use&quot; and as such could be deemed to be infringing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20265" RevisionGUID="f7705ff8-23bd-4e53-b320-48440cf89dca" CreationDate="2019-02-12T17:57:48.170" UserId="1067" Text="So, I came up with an idea, and after some research, I've identified someone doing it already and they own a patent.  My idea has some variances, but they are similar.  I'd like to avoid disclosing the exact idea, so I'll speak in generalities.  They are using sensors to measure sound and temperature to detect the occurrence of an event.  If I use sensors  to measure sound, temperature, and smell as a differentiator, am I able to patent this and use it without worrying about patent infringement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56321" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20265" RevisionGUID="f7705ff8-23bd-4e53-b320-48440cf89dca" CreationDate="2019-02-12T17:57:48.170" UserId="1067" Text="Adding onto an existing Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56322" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20265" RevisionGUID="f7705ff8-23bd-4e53-b320-48440cf89dca" CreationDate="2019-02-12T17:57:48.170" UserId="1067" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20267" RevisionGUID="0ba21f00-bd2b-461b-aa78-a76f55f2c2dc" CreationDate="2019-02-12T23:25:00.023" UserId="3076" Text="You getting a patent and you avoiding infringement are two *completely* different things. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People get a patent by having something that is conceptually different from what has already been done (or described in a published document) and not obvious in light of what has already been done or published. Getting a patent does not give you right to make something; it gives the right to try to stop somebody else from making something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To infringe a patent one needs to make, sell, import, etc. something that falls under the definition of a patent as expressed in its claims. A very short answer is if your invention does not need an element that is set out in a claim, you don't infringe. If you literally &quot;add-on&quot; an element to something that is patented, presumably your product has all of the elements of the patented item and therefor infringes. Sometimes an improved product can only be sold with a license from the patent owner of the original item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20268" RevisionGUID="8f452a35-281d-4fde-9cf8-ff5af696fbf3" CreationDate="2019-02-13T05:11:24.470" UserId="21838" Text="Since the reference AU2018900444A0 is published and assigned to Resmed, where can i fetch the PDF for the said reference. Your help will be appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56327" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20268" RevisionGUID="8f452a35-281d-4fde-9cf8-ff5af696fbf3" CreationDate="2019-02-13T05:11:24.470" UserId="21838" Text="where can i fetch the PDF for the reference AU2018900444A0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56328" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20268" RevisionGUID="8f452a35-281d-4fde-9cf8-ff5af696fbf3" CreationDate="2019-02-13T05:11:24.470" UserId="21838" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20269" RevisionGUID="64cbaf8c-9142-4e3d-b5a9-4be981749e10" CreationDate="2019-02-13T05:52:03.717" UserId="21610" Text="The patent is still in provisional stage, it is not yet published you can find the status from [here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/applicationDetails.do?applicationNo=2018900444#" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20269" RevisionGUID="ae7f8cb5-3743-4447-bb8b-61ce84011943" CreationDate="2019-02-13T05:59:47.250" UserId="21610" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="The patent is still in provisional stage, it is not yet published you can find the status from [here][1] the published document would also get updated at the same link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/applicationDetails.do?applicationNo=2018900444#" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56331" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="20255" RevisionGUID="085bdb06-8b28-4b83-bfa8-2867bb791dbf" CreationDate="2019-02-13T14:27:58.473" UserId="21610" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:21610,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;RishiM_IPR&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="56332" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="20255" RevisionGUID="06a06f4a-1c7e-42bc-84ff-13d888396f21" CreationDate="2019-02-13T14:49:15.543" UserId="21610" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:21610,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;RishiM_IPR&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="56333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20255" RevisionGUID="16de5abe-5fc1-44aa-9c52-eb1f18907f1e" CreationDate="2019-02-14T02:40:41.190" UserId="21610" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="No, as per [Indian patent act,][1] 1970. **section 3(k)** a mathematical or **business methods** or a computer program *per se* or algorithms are not patentable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipindia.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/IPOAct/1_31_1_patent-act-1970-11march2015.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20271" RevisionGUID="e89e9ff8-0174-4e3d-be52-7893213597b3" CreationDate="2019-02-14T19:21:59.737" UserId="21791" Text="I've seen many patent claim examples, and I've tried to write some myself, but each time it feels like I cannot adequately describe/articulate the invention to the level that is needed for the patent office, or that similar to the actual claim. How does one become &quot;good&quot; at this; is it just practice over and over? Also, I know law/writing is fluid, but any buzzwords or formulas that I could use in writing claims? Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56339" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20271" RevisionGUID="e89e9ff8-0174-4e3d-be52-7893213597b3" CreationDate="2019-02-14T19:21:59.737" UserId="21791" Text="How to develop intuition for writing claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56340" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20271" RevisionGUID="e89e9ff8-0174-4e3d-be52-7893213597b3" CreationDate="2019-02-14T19:21:59.737" UserId="21791" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20272" RevisionGUID="35ee9dad-5516-4351-a12f-fd9621b2d3b6" CreationDate="2019-02-14T20:53:53.173" UserId="18033" Text="Practice, sure. Someone correcting the claims would help though .. &#xA;&#xA;You could try the old european patent attorney exam questions pertaining to claim analysis and design. There are courses and such too.&#xA;&#xA;It's not exactly easy to learn on your own in my opinion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20273" RevisionGUID="18f7c1a3-6b45-41dc-9a9a-81b3eb0b2070" CreationDate="2019-02-14T20:58:53.373" UserId="18033" Text="In european patent law anything that left your sphere of control is considered public, whether it was distributed or not. In other words, if you can't control if it is published anymore, because someone else knows about it and doesn't have to keep it secret, it is considered published.*&#xA;&#xA;Therefore, for european patent law, your talks are considered prior art.&#xA;&#xA;However, you need to prove the content of those talks was close enough to the patent in question. &#xA;&#xA;*a few exceptions that don't apply here exist" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20251" RevisionGUID="c358fb8f-0b42-459b-b1ff-c19c22bb49eb" CreationDate="2019-02-14T22:40:15.237" UserId="21833" Comment="added 443 characters in body" Text="I am a PhD student and recently found that a patent exists with significant overlap to my work. I.e. my situation is roughly similar to that described in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/108112/proving-that-the-phd-work-was-done-prior-to-someone-elses-patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;except that I unfortunately did not publish my findings before the concurrent patent was filed.&#xD;&#xA;I am not much worried about conflicts with my research - as far as I know, research and teaching are not affected by patent law. My worry is that the patent could block various applications. In typical patent manner it claims a very wide range of applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More than one year before the patent was filed I mentioned the idea in talks, but none of them was video recorded. It was also discussed in various personal communication. As far as I heard about patent law, this can already qualify as sufficient publication to prevent protection by a patent. The principle is shown in my talk slides and I routinely host my slides at a cloud hoster, so it may be possible to get an external confirmation that the slides existed in this form on the date of each talk respectively.&#xD;&#xA;One talk was at a conference. One talk was at my institute, but was open publicly in principle, without explicit public invitation though. Listeners were not required to file non-disclosure agreements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question: Can this be used to invalidate or weaken the patent? What would be the process to achieve this?&#xD;&#xA;Yes, I know I have to talk to a lawyer, but I would prefer to know as much as possible about the process and my options beforehand.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is just entering review phase; it is publicly observable for almost six months now. Is there a deadline to consider for taking action?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:&#xD;&#xA;This question is out-sourced from https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/124649/issues-with-a-patent-overlapping-my-work in the hope that it can stand here as on-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to add an aspect to this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I run into (legal) issues if I simply cite my own talks? Citing a talk is less preferable in general, but it is possible. I have even seen personal communication cited in paper references. I could provocatively cite my talks, yielding a date prior to the patent. Probably the patent authors would not care, but at least it would be a statement. It could be the basic claim of prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20275" RevisionGUID="6fc368d4-40d7-4711-8e4a-1664349f6594" CreationDate="2019-02-15T07:41:38.650" UserId="21807" Text="Does every patent invalidity search is conducted to overcome the threat of infringement suits imposed by their competitors?&#xA;Can parties invalidate patents of their competitors without showing concerns related to infringement or product development for the similar technologies?&#xA;What can be other grounds/motivating factors (except to avoid infringement) for invalidity of patents !!!&#xA;What is the real need for invalidating a patent???" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56348" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20275" RevisionGUID="6fc368d4-40d7-4711-8e4a-1664349f6594" CreationDate="2019-02-15T07:41:38.650" UserId="21807" Text="[In]Validity of Patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56349" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20275" RevisionGUID="6fc368d4-40d7-4711-8e4a-1664349f6594" CreationDate="2019-02-15T07:41:38.650" UserId="21807" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-search&gt;&lt;intellectual-property&gt;&lt;intellectual-ventures&gt;&lt;intellectualproperty-laws&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20276" RevisionGUID="1b2fd321-b88d-4213-ab05-cc2abc30120b" CreationDate="2019-02-15T10:09:17.327" UserId="21610" Text="&gt; Does every patent invalidity search is conducted to overcome the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; threat of infringement suits imposed by their competitors?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of the invalidity search is to evaluate the validity and enforceability of a patent’s claims and reaffirm a protection from future litigation's. It is also done to protect future interests, suppose a company is in a process of developing a product or process which is promising a success but suddenly a patent appears for what is being developed to prevent such efforts to go in vein they do a this to evaluate to go ahead with the same or drop it.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can parties invalidate patents of their competitors without showing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; concerns related to infringement or product development for the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; similar technologies?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The invalidation of competitor patents differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and venue to venue. &#xD;&#xA;In PTAB Any party other than the patent owner may file a petition for IPR.&#xD;&#xA;but in district court you need to show real harm for bringing the invalidity suit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What can be other grounds/motivating factors (except to avoid&#xD;&#xA;&gt; infringement) for invalidity of patents !!! What is the real need for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invalidating a patent???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware of only one situation where I came across such incident which may be one other reason which i have quoted down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Kyle Bass][1] Coalition For Affordable Drugs (CFAD) in order to challenge pharmaceutical patents, he  claimed the motive was to encourage competition in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals and thus bring down prices. The patent challenges drew controversy from drug companies who criticized Bass for trying to profit from successful challenges that may pressure a company's revenue and shares. When drugs come off patent and can be sold by generic drug makers, their prices plummet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Bass" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20276" RevisionGUID="b63403ed-b305-47e7-abed-e19d72145f30" CreationDate="2019-02-15T16:55:28.527" UserId="21610" Comment="added 8 characters in body; added 39 characters in body" Text="&gt; Does every patent invalidity search is conducted to overcome the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; threat of infringement suits imposed by their competitors?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of the invalidity search is to evaluate the validity and enforceability of a patent’s claims and reaffirm a protection from future litigation's. It is also done to protect future interests, suppose a company is in a process of developing a product or process which is promising a success but suddenly a patent appears for what is being developed to prevent such efforts to go in vein they do analysis to take a call on to go ahead with the same or drop it.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can parties invalidate patents of their competitors without showing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; concerns related to infringement or product development for the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; similar technologies?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The invalidation of competitor patents differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and venue to venue. &#xD;&#xA;In PTAB Any party other than the patent owner may file a petition for IPR.&#xD;&#xA;but in district court you need to show real harm for bringing the invalidity suit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What can be other grounds/motivating factors (except to avoid&#xD;&#xA;&gt; infringement) for invalidity of patents !!! What is the real need for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invalidating a patent???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware of only one situation where I came across such incident which may be one other reason which i have quoted down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Kyle Bass][1] through Coalition For Affordable Drugs (CFAD) challenged pharmaceutical patents, he  claimed the motive was to encourage competition in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals and thus bring down prices. The patent challenges drew controversy from drug companies who criticized Bass for trying to profit from successful challenges that may pressure a company's revenue and shares. When drugs come off patent and can be sold by generic drug makers, their share prices plummet and could be brought for low price.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Bass" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20278" RevisionGUID="e4388e4b-de42-46d4-a8fd-ebc66ac63add" CreationDate="2019-02-15T21:55:29.257" UserId="21847" Text="If you have filed an application in other country，you should file application in Argentina in 12 months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You firstly need to translate the application into Spanish.&#xD;&#xA;Then, entrust a IP law firm in Argentina to handle the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a patent attorney in China, I handled cases for our client into Argentina. If you need I can recommend an attorney to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20279" RevisionGUID="91626707-95f3-4143-963a-2d2ae315ad5b" CreationDate="2019-02-16T02:32:15.380" UserId="3076" Text="One on-line resource is [Patent Drafting for Beginners: A prelude to patent claim drafting][1] at ipwatchdog. The &quot;bible&quot; of the mechanics of claim drafting is Faber on Mechanics of Patent Claim Drafting. It is about $500 on Amazon. You might find a version from a couple of years ago for sale somewhere. And Patent it Yourself would be a good start. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One exercise I did when I started was to try to write a claim for something simple that I was pretty sure was patented and then to look up the actual patent. My first try was on Apple's magnetic power cable/connector on Apple laptops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, European claim drafting is very very different from U.S. claim drafting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/10/29/patent-drafting-beginners-prelude-patent-claim-drafting/id=74332/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56357" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20177" RevisionGUID="db8c61ec-5eb6-4150-909f-799de62d3692" CreationDate="2019-02-16T10:02:55.593" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20280" RevisionGUID="3ea0f66a-3052-4cf6-b2e7-33e3c46e947c" CreationDate="2019-02-16T13:45:27.563" UserId="19913" Text="When faced with the question: Does this content belong in the Specification  or the Claim,  What is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The line of thinking?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Questions one should consider&#xD;&#xA; 3. Expectations of the USPTO examiner?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that one should consider when sorting content into either the specification or claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56359" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20280" RevisionGUID="3ea0f66a-3052-4cf6-b2e7-33e3c46e947c" CreationDate="2019-02-16T13:45:27.563" UserId="19913" Text="Rules of thumb for sorting content into Specification vs Claim" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56360" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20280" RevisionGUID="3ea0f66a-3052-4cf6-b2e7-33e3c46e947c" CreationDate="2019-02-16T13:45:27.563" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;claim-construction&gt;&lt;specification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20281" RevisionGUID="51a81b50-d2f1-47bb-953d-2aba6520d882" CreationDate="2019-02-16T18:30:12.287" UserId="21848" Text="My friend is the creator and vendor of a web content filtering software. His clients are ISPs who then offer this service to their customers. The software runs on his clients' site. Recently his clients received a very threatening &quot;cease and desist&quot; letter from another ISP operating in the same space claiming that he is using technology patented by them. The patent in question is [IL225819A](https://patents.google.com/patent/IL225819A), [US20130238638](https://patents.google.com/patent/US20130238638). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Understandably, this creates an extremely stressful situation for him, endangering his livelihood, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent seems totally ludicrous. It seems to be patenting a technique that any mediocre software developer would come up with after 2 minutes of thought. Additionally, it does not seem to be patenting something that isn't already widely done e.g. by ad-blockers. I am wondering what the validity is of such a patent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Understandably, this may be very dependent upon the country in which this is patented. However, for a general direction it will be enough to hear that e.g. in the USA this would not be a valid patent claim].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please advise!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56362" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20281" RevisionGUID="51a81b50-d2f1-47bb-953d-2aba6520d882" CreationDate="2019-02-16T18:30:12.287" UserId="21848" Text="Patentability of a specific method of web content filtering [US20130238638]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56363" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20281" RevisionGUID="51a81b50-d2f1-47bb-953d-2aba6520d882" CreationDate="2019-02-16T18:30:12.287" UserId="21848" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20281" RevisionGUID="c596a2f1-175c-42a0-a3ed-4ac09b330e08" CreationDate="2019-02-16T18:35:31.857" UserId="21848" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="My friend is the creator and vendor of a web content filtering software. His clients are ISPs who then offer this service to their customers. Recently his clients received a very threatening &quot;cease and desist&quot; letter from another ISP, operating in the same space, claiming that he is using technology patented by them. The patent in question is [IL225819A](https://patents.google.com/patent/IL225819A), [US20130238638](https://patents.google.com/patent/US20130238638). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Understandably, this creates an extremely stressful situation for him, endangering his livelihood, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After attempting to understand the long-winded and extremely vague language of the patent claim, this patent seems totally ludicrous. It seems to be patenting a technique that any mediocre software developer would come up with after 2 minutes of thought. Additionally, it does not seem to be patenting something that isn't already widely done e.g. by ad-blockers. I am wondering what the validity is of such a patent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Understandably, this may be very dependent upon the country in which this is patented. However, for a general direction it will be enough to hear that e.g. in the USA this would not be a valid patent claim].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please advise!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56365" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="20281" RevisionGUID="c596a2f1-175c-42a0-a3ed-4ac09b330e08" CreationDate="2019-02-16T18:35:31.857" UserId="21848" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="Patentability of a specific method of web content filtering" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20282" RevisionGUID="9f9eaaf4-3b6d-443b-963d-ac1d0e6ec52c" CreationDate="2019-02-16T18:41:46.623" UserId="3076" Text="The specification **explains** the invention with detail and with multiple embodiments and variations on those embodiments. It does not necessarily single out the novel aspects from the rest of the description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims **define** what you are claiming to be yours. The analogy used is of a prospector defining the boundaries of a mining claim. If somebody does something within the boundaries they are stepping on your rights, if they are outside the boundaries they are ok. The terms used in the claim need be understood in light of the specification. There is no new description content in a claim beyond the content of the specification. Everything in the claims must be supported in the specification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examiners expect that the claims will be written following formal claiming rules and will be useable to unambiguously determine if a specific item falls under its definition or not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Drafting a patent is a very specialized task. You will need much more than an answer here to do an adequate job of it. I suggest a close study of Patent it Yourself by Pressman as a start. Also, read and break down granted patents in your field." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20281" RevisionGUID="8e77f772-e6d4-42e7-861d-98a213b523e2" CreationDate="2019-02-16T18:54:42.343" UserId="21848" Comment="added 350 characters in body" Text="My friend is the creator and vendor of a web content filtering software. His clients are ISPs who then offer this service to their customers. Recently his clients received a very threatening &quot;cease and desist&quot; letter from another ISP, operating in the same space, claiming that he is using technology patented by them. The patent in question is [IL225819A](https://patents.google.com/patent/IL225819A), [US20130238638](https://patents.google.com/patent/US20130238638). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Understandably, this creates an extremely stressful situation for him, endangering his livelihood, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After attempting to understand the long-winded and extremely vague language of the patent claim, this patent seems totally ludicrous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, they claim to have invented the idea of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Identifying structures within a page (i.e. HTML tags)&#xD;&#xA;- Detecting unwanted content within those structures&#xD;&#xA;- Removing content based on how the unwanted content affects those structures. i.e. determine if just the offending words need to be removed or the entire HTML element.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to be patenting a technique that any mediocre software developer would come up with after 2 minutes of thought. Additionally, it does not seem to be patenting something that isn't already widely done e.g. by ad-blockers. I am wondering what the validity is of such a patent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone see the [&quot;Inventive step and non-obviousness&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness) of this technique?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please advise!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20281" RevisionGUID="153c8f55-e500-43a8-a33a-026c9f8814d7" CreationDate="2019-02-16T19:16:33.113" UserId="21848" Comment="deleted 66 characters in body" Text="My friend is the creator and vendor of a web content filtering software. His clients are ISPs who then offer this service to their customers. Recently his clients received a very threatening &quot;cease and desist&quot; letter from another ISP, operating in the same space, claiming that he is using technology patented by them. The patent in question is [IL225819A](https://patents.google.com/patent/IL225819A). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Understandably, this creates an extremely stressful situation for him, endangering his livelihood, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After attempting to understand the long-winded and extremely vague language of the patent claim, this patent seems totally ludicrous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, they claim to have invented the idea of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Identifying structures within a page (i.e. HTML tags)&#xD;&#xA;- Detecting unwanted content within those structures&#xD;&#xA;- Removing content based on how the unwanted content affects those structures. i.e. determine if just the offending words need to be removed or the entire HTML element.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to be patenting a technique that any mediocre software developer would come up with after 2 minutes of thought. Additionally, it does not seem to be patenting something that isn't already widely done e.g. by ad-blockers. I am wondering what the validity is of such a patent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone see the [&quot;Inventive step and non-obviousness&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness) of this technique?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please advise!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20281" RevisionGUID="916b2775-2074-46a5-9cdb-07cbbd5d5f27" CreationDate="2019-02-16T20:01:29.303" UserId="21848" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="My friend is the creator and vendor of a web content filtering software. His clients are ISPs who then offer this service to their customers. Recently his clients received a very threatening &quot;cease and desist&quot; letter from another ISP, operating in the same space, claiming that he is using technology patented by them. The patent in question is [IL225819A](https://patents.google.com/patent/IL225819A), [WO2012098539A2](https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2012098539A2/en). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Understandably, this creates an extremely stressful situation for him, endangering his livelihood, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After attempting to understand the long-winded and extremely vague language of the patent claim, this patent seems totally ludicrous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, they claim to have invented the idea of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Identifying structures within a page (i.e. HTML tags)&#xD;&#xA;- Detecting unwanted content within those structures&#xD;&#xA;- Removing content based on how the unwanted content affects those structures. i.e. determine if just the offending words need to be removed or the entire HTML element.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to be patenting a technique that any mediocre software developer would come up with after 2 minutes of thought. Additionally, it does not seem to be patenting something that isn't already widely done e.g. by ad-blockers. I am wondering what the validity is of such a patent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone see the [&quot;Inventive step and non-obviousness&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness) of this technique?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please advise!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56370" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="20281" RevisionGUID="0cc0cd20-6615-4f20-b520-10355d11643e" CreationDate="2019-02-16T20:13:29.953" UserId="21848" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20281" RevisionGUID="90aec620-4865-4195-b569-99012bdca8ce" CreationDate="2019-02-16T20:19:19.597" UserId="21848" Comment="deleted 71 characters in body; edited tags" Text="My friend is the creator and vendor of a web content filtering software. His clients are ISPs who then offer this service to their customers. Recently his clients received a very threatening &quot;cease and desist&quot; letter from another ISP, operating in the same space, claiming that he is using technology patented by them. The patent in question is [IL225819A](https://patents.google.com/patent/IL225819A). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Understandably, this creates an extremely stressful situation for him, endangering his livelihood, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After attempting to understand the long-winded and extremely vague language of the patent claim, this patent seems totally ludicrous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, they claim to have invented the idea of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Identifying structures within a page (i.e. HTML tags)&#xD;&#xA;- Detecting unwanted content within those structures&#xD;&#xA;- Removing content based on how the unwanted content affects those structures. i.e. determine if just the offending words need to be removed or the entire HTML element.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to be patenting a technique that any mediocre software developer would come up with after 2 minutes of thought. Additionally, it does not seem to be patenting something that isn't already widely done e.g. by ad-blockers. I am wondering what the validity is of such a patent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone see the [&quot;Inventive step and non-obviousness&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness) of this technique?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please advise!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56372" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="20281" RevisionGUID="90aec620-4865-4195-b569-99012bdca8ce" CreationDate="2019-02-16T20:19:19.597" UserId="21848" Comment="deleted 71 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20284" RevisionGUID="f8a7d83f-4ea4-4e5c-af5e-584f663e8afc" CreationDate="2019-02-17T05:47:42.570" UserId="21846" Text="Filing a patent application with USPTO, and the same day filing the same patent application internationally (PCT); does it entitle to a fast response? I've seen a case receiving the first Office Action from USPTO within 3 months, and it was not under the TrackOne program. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56377" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20284" RevisionGUID="f8a7d83f-4ea4-4e5c-af5e-584f663e8afc" CreationDate="2019-02-17T05:47:42.570" UserId="21846" Text="PCT International filing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56378" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20284" RevisionGUID="f8a7d83f-4ea4-4e5c-af5e-584f663e8afc" CreationDate="2019-02-17T05:47:42.570" UserId="21846" Text="&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20285" RevisionGUID="57bad4c4-4d46-41bb-ad39-96a45d8fe9bf" CreationDate="2019-02-17T20:37:50.927" UserId="21560" Text="Can patent drawings be described in the detailed description of the patent? Can the description refer to a drawing as a whole or only its elements by their reference number?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words should the description be independent of the drawings, basically describing the SAME elements as the drawings and nothing more?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the description can refer to a drawing, it is not only describing the same thing as the drawings but in fact also describing a description (the drawing) of the invention. Is such a description containing a reference to a drawing allowed?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56380" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20285" RevisionGUID="57bad4c4-4d46-41bb-ad39-96a45d8fe9bf" CreationDate="2019-02-17T20:37:50.927" UserId="21560" Text="Can patent description refer to drawings" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56381" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20285" RevisionGUID="57bad4c4-4d46-41bb-ad39-96a45d8fe9bf" CreationDate="2019-02-17T20:37:50.927" UserId="21560" Text="&lt;description&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20285" RevisionGUID="a2687ae9-b820-47fc-8949-a4ff75e9b943" CreationDate="2019-02-17T20:45:24.270" UserId="21560" Comment="added 414 characters in body" Text="Can patent drawings be described in the detailed description of the patent? Can the description refer to a drawing as a whole or only its elements by their reference number?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words should the description be independent of the drawings, basically describing the SAME elements as the drawings and nothing more?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the description can refer to a drawing, it is not only describing the same thing as the drawings but in fact also describing a description (the drawing) of the invention. Is such a description containing a reference to a drawing allowed?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make it more concrete, I have a system diagram showing parts of the invention. Then in further diagrams I show how those parts interact with each other. So the elements in those other diagrams should use the same reference numbers I assume because they are showing the same element. But now if in the verbal description I only use the reference numbers then it is hard to know which diagram I'm talking about. Whereas if I can say &quot;In diagram X the element 302 interacts with ...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess this could be solved by giving each line connecting elements of a diagram its own reference-number. But I haven't seen examples of such patent-drawings, but I have not seen very many examples at all. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20285" RevisionGUID="168bc292-3a3a-4b9c-bab5-4e45b331597c" CreationDate="2019-02-17T20:50:52.960" UserId="21560" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Can patent drawings be described in the detailed description of the patent? Can the description refer to a drawing as a whole or only its elements by their reference number?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words should the description be independent of the drawings, basically describing the SAME elements as the drawings and nothing more?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the description can refer to a drawing, it is not only describing the same thing as the drawings but in fact also describing a description (the drawing) of the invention. Is such a description containing a reference to a drawing allowed?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make it more concrete, I have a system diagram showing parts of the invention. Then in further diagrams I show how those parts interact with each other. The elements in those other diagrams should use the same reference numbers I assume because they are showing the same elements (again). But now if in the verbal description I only use the reference numbers then it is hard to know which diagram I'm talking about. Whereas if I can say &quot;In diagram X the element 302 interacts with ...&quot; that would be clearer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess this could be solved by giving each line connecting elements of a diagram its own reference-number. But I haven't seen examples of such patent-drawings, but I have not seen very many examples at all. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20286" RevisionGUID="fc64bed7-5a4d-4d88-a5f3-3c58bbe14be4" CreationDate="2019-02-17T20:53:47.277" UserId="3076" Text="Yes, the description does refer to the drawings. Besides numbering the reference items they should all be given unique names and you can use the names when describing the drawings. Including the reference number after the name does not need to be done every time the name is used. If you are talking about a particular interaction between two reference items you can say - &quot;Figure 3 shows the output of the modulator (3) connected to the input of the high frequency amplifier (4). Deciding what your drawings will show, coming up with good, unique, names and staying consistent with those names will go a long way to starting a good description." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20287" RevisionGUID="e0a4fa5d-3480-4e78-bf18-dc245aad7f86" CreationDate="2019-02-17T21:02:44.383" UserId="3076" Text="No. You have just stumbled on a lucky case or two. There is a way that a PCT application can help get a faster response on a U.S. application. If a non-provisional U.S. application and a PCT application are both filed at the 12 month point after a provisional they both get priority from, you can expect a search report from the ISA of the PCT six months later. That will be 18 months after the provisional filing. If it is positive, you can file to have the US case move faster by using a - free - Patent Prosecution Highway request. It is not as fast as track one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20288" RevisionGUID="73155a5c-979a-40c0-a6cb-8f31055f7725" CreationDate="2019-02-17T23:37:23.247" UserId="17003" Text="Like any patent, one has to study the claims to know what is protected by the patent. In the case of the linked Israeli patent, I can't read the patent so there is no way to comment on the claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to patentability in general, a patent needs to be novel, non-obvious and useful. Novel means no one has publicly described the invention in the past. Non-obvious means it isn't something someone skilled in the field would find straightforward to do. That said, one really has to study a patent's claims before deciding it is obvious. Many people read the abstract and decide that a patent is covering the world only to find that the claims are exceedingly narrow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did a search for patents by the two listed inventors and did find a US patent with the same title: [US9529896B2][1]. The first claim on this patent is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.  A method for on-line filtering of undesired content from a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; presentation built from a source code and for displaying the filtered&#xD;&#xA;&gt; presentation to a user comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a) identifying a plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; structures and a plurality of substructures of at least one structure&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of said plurality of structures in the source code; said at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; structure having a beginning marked by a first marker and an end&#xD;&#xA;&gt; marked by a second marker; each substructure of said plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; substructure having a respective beginning marker and wherein each&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said respective beginning marker is located between said first marker&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and said second marker and wherein each of said plurality&#xD;&#xA;&gt; substructures beginning with said respective beginning marker ends&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with a respective end marker; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  b) detecting the undesired content in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said plurality of substructures; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  c) determining at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; substructure dominated by said undesired content; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  d) disabling said at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least one substructure according to said determining; said disabling&#xD;&#xA;&gt; resulting in a a sanitized structure, without the undesired content;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  e) removing said sanitized structure from said presentation when said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sanitized structure does not correspond to said structure such that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; displaying said sanitized structure in the presentation would make the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; user aware of said disabling and arouse a curiosity of the user of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said presentation towards a said undesired content; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  f) sending said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; source code including an outcome of said disabling and said removing;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to an output device for rebuilding and display to the user; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  g) performing a first action when a combination of a first word and a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; second word is detected between said respective beginning marker and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said respective end marker of a single substructure of said plurality&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of substructures: and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  h) performing a second action different from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said first action and when first word is in said single substructure&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and said second word is not in said single structure and said second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; word is in another substructure of said plurality of substructures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now this claim as well as the other independent claim (7) is fairly long. Remember, to infringing a claim, you need to implement **each and every step** within a claim.&#xD;&#xA;At this point, you've received the &quot;cease and desist&quot; letter so you really shouldn't just decide to ignore it based on advice from the internet. After all, I don't know what you've implemented in your code, I'm not particularly skilled in this field and even if I were, I am not a lawyer. I sincerely suggest you consult with a patent attorney.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/188-341-734-575-350" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20281" RevisionGUID="9490f668-812d-404a-b5e9-e1eabf4d8e3c" CreationDate="2019-02-18T08:00:37.137" UserId="21848" Comment="added 409 characters in body" Text="My friend is the creator and vendor of a web content filtering software. His clients are ISPs who then offer this service to their customers. Recently his clients received a very threatening &quot;cease and desist&quot; letter from another ISP, operating in the same space, claiming that he is using technology patented by them. The patent in question is [IL225819A](https://patents.google.com/patent/IL225819A). [Eglish language patent details](http://www.ilpatsearch.justice.gov.il//UI/PatentsReqPdfFiles5/2011/12/225819/225819-101-ebd64316-0be2-4874-88b5-86e0bd00ff9e.pdf),  [Claims](http://www.ilpatsearch.justice.gov.il//UI/PatentsReqPdfFiles5/2011/12/225819/225819-102-9f7df1a7-377e-480b-969b-d9a717de1bde.pdf), [Sketches](http://www.ilpatsearch.justice.gov.il//UI/PatentsReqPdfFiles5/2011\12\225819/225819-103.pdf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Understandably, this creates an extremely stressful situation for him, endangering his livelihood, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After attempting to understand the long-winded and extremely vague language of the patent claim, this patent seems totally ludicrous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, they claim to have invented the idea of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Identifying structures within a page (i.e. HTML tags)&#xD;&#xA;- Detecting unwanted content within those structures&#xD;&#xA;- Removing content based on how the unwanted content affects those structures. i.e. determine if just the offending words need to be removed or the entire HTML element.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to be patenting a technique that any mediocre software developer would come up with after 2 minutes of thought. Additionally, it does not seem to be patenting something that isn't already widely done e.g. by ad-blockers. I am wondering what the validity is of such a patent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone see the [&quot;Inventive step and non-obviousness&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness) of this technique?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please advise!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20281" RevisionGUID="36f1d198-0a06-4c47-bbde-3cdd6082fb6c" CreationDate="2019-02-18T08:09:23.603" UserId="21848" Comment="added 409 characters in body" Text="My friend is the creator and vendor of a web content filtering software. His clients are ISPs who then offer this service to their customers. Recently his clients received a very threatening &quot;cease and desist&quot; letter from another ISP, operating in the same space, claiming that he is using technology patented by them. The patent in question is [IL225819A](https://patents.google.com/patent/IL225819A). [Eglish language patent details](http://www.ilpatsearch.justice.gov.il//UI/PatentsReqPdfFiles5/2011/12/225819/225819-101-ebd64316-0be2-4874-88b5-86e0bd00ff9e.pdf),  [Claims](http://www.ilpatsearch.justice.gov.il//UI/PatentsReqPdfFiles5/2011/12/225819/225819-102-9f7df1a7-377e-480b-969b-d9a717de1bde.pdf), [Sketches](http://www.ilpatsearch.justice.gov.il//UI/PatentsReqPdfFiles5/2011\12\225819/225819-103.pdf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Understandably, this creates an extremely stressful situation for him, endangering his livelihood, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After attempting to understand the long-winded and extremely vague language of the patent claim, this patent seems totally ludicrous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, they claim to have invented the idea of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Identifying structures within a page (i.e. HTML tags)&#xD;&#xA;- Detecting unwanted content within those structures&#xD;&#xA;- Removing content based on how the unwanted content affects those structures. i.e. determine if just the offending words need to be removed or the entire HTML element.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to be patenting a technique that any mediocre software developer would come up with after 2 minutes of thought. Additionally, it does not seem to be patenting something that isn't already widely done e.g. by ad-blockers. I am wondering what the validity is of such a patent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone see the [&quot;Inventive step and non-obviousness&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness) of this technique?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Naturally, I definitely will not act based solely on advice from the internet, I am however interested in opinions as to whether a software patent such as this is to be regarded as the actions of a patent troll and be fought against. Can anyone weigh in with examples of similarly simple software techniques that have nevertheless been upheld by courts (anywhere worldwide)? Is this patent relying upon the fact that nobody in the patent office seems to have much familiarity with web development? Or am I misunderstanding the world of software patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20281" RevisionGUID="1d9c2171-8c98-49c8-a81b-06e87441235d" CreationDate="2019-02-18T08:14:38.400" UserId="21848" Comment="added 409 characters in body" Text="My friend is the creator and vendor of a web content filtering software. His clients are ISPs who then offer this service to their customers. Recently his clients received a very threatening &quot;cease and desist&quot; letter from another ISP, operating in the same space, claiming that he is using technology patented by them. The patent in question is [IL225819A](https://patents.google.com/patent/IL225819A). [Eglish language patent details](http://www.ilpatsearch.justice.gov.il//UI/PatentsReqPdfFiles5/2011/12/225819/225819-101-ebd64316-0be2-4874-88b5-86e0bd00ff9e.pdf),  [Claims](http://www.ilpatsearch.justice.gov.il//UI/PatentsReqPdfFiles5/2011/12/225819/225819-102-9f7df1a7-377e-480b-969b-d9a717de1bde.pdf), [Sketches](http://www.ilpatsearch.justice.gov.il//UI/PatentsReqPdfFiles5/2011\12\225819/225819-103.pdf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Understandably, this creates an extremely stressful situation for him, endangering his livelihood, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After attempting to understand the long-winded and extremely vague language of the patent claim, this patent seems totally ludicrous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, they claim to have invented the idea of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Identifying structures within a page (i.e. HTML tags)&#xD;&#xA;- Detecting unwanted content within those structures&#xD;&#xA;- Removing content based on how the unwanted content affects those structures. i.e. determine if just the offending words need to be removed or the entire HTML element.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to be patenting a technique that any mediocre software developer would come up with after 2 minutes of thought. Additionally, it does not seem to be patenting something that isn't already widely done e.g. by ad-blockers. I am wondering what the validity is of such a patent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone see the [&quot;Inventive step and non-obviousness&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness) of this technique?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Naturally, I definitely will not act based solely on advice from the internet, I am however interested in opinions as to whether a software patent such as this is to be regarded as the actions of a patent troll and be fought against. Can anyone weigh in with examples of similarly *simple software techniques* that have nevertheless been upheld by courts (anywhere worldwide)? Is this patent relying upon the fact that *nobody in the patent office seems to have much familiarity with web development*? Or am I misunderstanding the world of software patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20281" RevisionGUID="9b6b3008-97d9-44f8-b200-1383a3aa1f97" CreationDate="2019-02-18T10:11:24.957" UserId="21610" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="My friend is the creator and vendor of a web content filtering software. His clients are ISPs who then offer this service to their customers. Recently his clients received a very threatening &quot;cease and desist&quot; letter from another ISP, operating in the same space, claiming that he is using technology patented by them. The patent in question is [IL225819A](https://patents.google.com/patent/IL225819A). [English language patent details](http://www.ilpatsearch.justice.gov.il//UI/PatentsReqPdfFiles5/2011/12/225819/225819-101-ebd64316-0be2-4874-88b5-86e0bd00ff9e.pdf),  [Claims](http://www.ilpatsearch.justice.gov.il//UI/PatentsReqPdfFiles5/2011/12/225819/225819-102-9f7df1a7-377e-480b-969b-d9a717de1bde.pdf), [Sketches](http://www.ilpatsearch.justice.gov.il//UI/PatentsReqPdfFiles5/2011\12\225819/225819-103.pdf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Understandably, this creates an extremely stressful situation for him, endangering his livelihood, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After attempting to understand the long-winded and extremely vague language of the patent claim, this patent seems totally ludicrous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, they claim to have invented the idea of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Identifying structures within a page (i.e. HTML tags)&#xD;&#xA;- Detecting unwanted content within those structures&#xD;&#xA;- Removing content based on how the unwanted content affects those structures. i.e. determine if just the offending words need to be removed or the entire HTML element.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to be patenting a technique that any mediocre software developer would come up with after 2 minutes of thought. Additionally, it does not seem to be patenting something that isn't already widely done e.g. by ad-blockers. I am wondering what the validity is of such a patent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone see the [&quot;Inventive step and non-obviousness&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness) of this technique?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Naturally, I definitely will not act based solely on advice from the internet, I am however interested in opinions as to whether a software patent such as this is to be regarded as the actions of a patent troll and be fought against. Can anyone weigh in with examples of similarly *simple software techniques* that have nevertheless been upheld by courts (anywhere worldwide)? Is this patent relying upon the fact that *nobody in the patent office seems to have much familiarity with web development*? Or am I misunderstanding the world of software patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20281" RevisionGUID="de932fd0-8dca-4e6c-bc60-9631ea2478a0" CreationDate="2019-02-18T16:43:05.057" UserId="21848" Comment="deleted 65 characters in body" Text="My friend is the creator and vendor of a web content filtering software. His clients are ISPs who then offer this service to their customers. Recently his clients received a very threatening &quot;cease and desist&quot; letter from another ISP, operating in the same space, claiming that he is using technology patented by them. The patent in question is [IL225819A](https://patents.google.com/patent/IL225819A). [English language patent details](http://www.ilpatsearch.justice.gov.il//UI/PatentsReqPdfFiles5/2011/12/225819/225819-101-ebd64316-0be2-4874-88b5-86e0bd00ff9e.pdf),  [Claims](http://www.ilpatsearch.justice.gov.il//UI/PatentsReqPdfFiles5/2011/12/225819/225819-102-9f7df1a7-377e-480b-969b-d9a717de1bde.pdf), [Sketches](http://www.ilpatsearch.justice.gov.il//UI/PatentsReqPdfFiles5/2011\12\225819/225819-103.pdf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Understandably, this creates an extremely stressful situation for him, endangering his livelihood, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To quote from the first claim:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1\. A method for on- line filtering a presentation comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a) identifying a structure in the presentation;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b) detecting an undesired content in said structure;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; c) determining a domination of said structure by said undesired content, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; d)  disabling a portion of said structure according to a result of said determining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to my understanding of the text, they seem to be patenting a technique that any mediocre software developer would come up with after 2 minutes of thought. Additionally, they seem to be patenting something that is already widely done e.g. by ad-blockers. I am wondering what the validity of such a patent claim is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone see the [&quot;Inventive step and non-obviousness&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness) of this technique?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Naturally, I definitely will not act based solely on advice from the internet, I am however interested in opinions as to whether a software patent such as this is to be regarded as the actions of a patent troll and be fought against. Can anyone weigh in with examples of similarly *simple software techniques* that have nevertheless been upheld by courts (anywhere worldwide)? Is this patent relying upon the fact that *nobody in the patent office seems to have much familiarity with web development*? Or am I misunderstanding the world of software patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56392" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="20281" RevisionGUID="de932fd0-8dca-4e6c-bc60-9631ea2478a0" CreationDate="2019-02-18T16:43:05.057" UserId="21848" Comment="deleted 65 characters in body" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56393" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20281" RevisionGUID="65ff6a0a-f454-4ddb-8cc3-f2d38498db7c" CreationDate="2019-02-18T17:18:35.970" UserId="21848" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="My friend is the creator and vendor of a web content filtering software. His clients are ISPs who then offer this service to their customers. Recently his clients received a very threatening &quot;cease and desist&quot; letter from another ISP, operating in the same space, claiming that he is using technology patented by them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Understandably, this creates an extremely stressful situation for him, endangering his livelihood, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent in question is [IL225819A](https://patents.google.com/patent/IL225819A). [English language patent details](http://www.ilpatsearch.justice.gov.il//UI/PatentsReqPdfFiles5/2011/12/225819/225819-101-ebd64316-0be2-4874-88b5-86e0bd00ff9e.pdf),  [Claims](http://www.ilpatsearch.justice.gov.il//UI/PatentsReqPdfFiles5/2011/12/225819/225819-102-9f7df1a7-377e-480b-969b-d9a717de1bde.pdf), [Sketches](http://www.ilpatsearch.justice.gov.il//UI/PatentsReqPdfFiles5/2011\12\225819/225819-103.pdf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To quote from the first claim:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1\. A method for on- line filtering a presentation comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a) identifying a structure in the presentation;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b) detecting an undesired content in said structure;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; c) determining a domination of said structure by said undesired content, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; d)  disabling a portion of said structure according to a result of said determining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to my understanding of the text, they seem to be patenting a technique that any mediocre software developer would come up with after 2 minutes of thought. Additionally, they seem to be patenting something that is already widely done e.g. by ad-blockers. I am wondering what the validity of such a patent claim is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone see the [&quot;Inventive step and non-obviousness&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness) of this technique?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Naturally, I definitely will not act based solely on advice from the internet, I am however interested in opinions as to whether a software patent such as this is to be regarded as the actions of a patent troll and be fought against. Can anyone weigh in with examples of similarly *simple software techniques* that have nevertheless been upheld by courts (anywhere worldwide)? Is this patent relying upon the fact that *nobody in the patent office seems to have much familiarity with web development*? Or am I misunderstanding the world of software patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20289" RevisionGUID="4a50575f-3373-4e3a-8a5e-cb245f8ce823" CreationDate="2019-02-18T23:27:47.980" UserId="21854" Text="I'm trying to reproduce this product: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160324283A1/en but I wondered if I could sell it outside the US since it has the WO patent... Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56395" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20289" RevisionGUID="4a50575f-3373-4e3a-8a5e-cb245f8ce823" CreationDate="2019-02-18T23:27:47.980" UserId="21854" Text="Can I sell this petented product outside the US?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56396" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20289" RevisionGUID="4a50575f-3373-4e3a-8a5e-cb245f8ce823" CreationDate="2019-02-18T23:27:47.980" UserId="21854" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;patent-infringment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20290" RevisionGUID="01c62222-a0f7-47ed-8574-55f186042a75" CreationDate="2019-02-19T00:53:28.393" UserId="3076" Text="That number is the publication number of a U.S. patent application. It is not a granted patent at this time. Looking in the USPTO database Public PAIR, I see that it got a &quot;final rejection&quot; recently. That doesn't mean final; just final until more money is paid to a Request for Continued Publication. From the same database, the PCT application (WO2016179586) is shown as getting priority from US provisional application 14/706,019 filed 05-07-2015. I do not see in Patentscope (WIPO) that any national stage was entered within the 30 or 31 month time frames so the U.S. might be the only place with something pending." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20290" RevisionGUID="05c4b318-e4a0-4d21-a674-dcd6ceb85635" CreationDate="2019-02-19T00:58:54.913" UserId="3076" Comment="added 394 characters in body" Text="That number is the publication number of a U.S. patent application. It is not a granted patent at this time. Looking in the USPTO database Public PAIR, I see that it got a &quot;final rejection&quot; recently. That doesn't mean final; just final until more money is paid to a Request for Continued Publication. From the same database, the PCT application (WO2016179586) is shown as getting priority from US provisional application 14/706,019 filed 05-07-2015. I do not see in Patentscope (WIPO) that any national stage was entered within the 30 or 31 month time frames so the U.S. might be the only place with something pending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent rights are territorial so if a U.S. patent was issued you would be prohibited from making, selling, offering for sale, using, or importing it into the US - only. What this way of looking at the situation misses is that there may be patents in any location that are already granted to this inventor of some other inventor that would constrain your actions in the respective locations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20291" RevisionGUID="c68e6694-4070-4fc3-aaf8-f9de50758099" CreationDate="2019-02-19T04:16:23.193" UserId="21610" Text="In addition to George White answer I would like to add that, if you are trying to reproduce the product in US and then export to other countries then also you would be liable as an infringer **if the patent gets granted** ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20292" RevisionGUID="82e26dc3-a17d-4509-9ace-9d3f04a497b0" CreationDate="2019-02-19T08:39:19.100" UserId="18033" Text="This answer is purely about inventive step in general:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take claim 1 from the question as an example: (please note: I didn't read the specification so this is purely based on the wording of the claim, it might not concur with the correct interpretation of the actual patent claim which needs to be interpreted in light of the specification!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. A method for on- line filtering a presentation comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a) identifying a structure in the presentation;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;b) detecting an undesired content in said structure;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;c) determining a domination of said structure by said undesired content, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;d) disabling a portion of said structure according to a result of said determining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, suppose you have as prior art the [html sanitization][1] you mentioned in a comment. According to my understanding, html sanitization does the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Identify bad html tags (e.g. `&lt;embed&gt;`) and their endings (e.g. `&lt;/embed&gt;`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - remove the tags and their content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what does that mean for claim 1 above? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We seem to fulfill a) by identifying a structure starting and ending with html tags. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also seem to fulfill d) by removing the structure completly because &quot;completly&quot; is also &quot;a portion&quot;. However, completly is only a small subset of &quot;a portion&quot;, so there might be an easy way of getting around some prior art like that by amending the claim to say &quot;a portion less than 100%&quot; or something like that. It might even be that it says &quot;a portion is less than 100% of the structure&quot; in the description, invalidating this prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But suppose we actually fulfill steps a) and d) completly. Then the prior art &quot;html sanitization&quot; is not destroying novelty because it does not teach all the elements from the claim (namely: b) and c) are missing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, inventive step. We need another document that allows the person skilled in the art to reach the invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll make one up. Suppose we have a publication about identifying ads in html code. It identifies html structs like `&lt;embed&gt; &lt;/embed&gt;`, searches the content for words like viagra (greetings to the spam detecting bots at SE ;)) and determines if the structure is mainly filled with said undesired content by, say, language analysis. it then determines that the structure is an ad. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reference teaches a), b) and c). It identifies a structure (html tags), detects an undesired content (&quot;viagra&quot;) and determines domination of the structure by said content (checks if the text in the structure relates mainly to viagra).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Combining the references the person skilled in the art could see the advantage of removing html tags with a greater precision by detecting if they contain ads. The person skilled in the art could then reach the invention by combining the two documents, meaning the claim is not inventive over the prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disclaimer: One could argue against that by saying that html sanitization and ad blocking don't serve the same goal because removing all possibly problematic structures if more secure than removing only some so the person skilled in the art wouldn't combine the references. That argument might or might not be enough to prove inventive step, but it would at least pose some danger to the argumentation. So this isn't a clear cut case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above used goes d'accord with pretty much all standard methods for determing (missing) inventive step in the US, Europe and many other places. You need two *comnbinable* documents teaching every single step in a method or every single limitation in a system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also use *basic knowledge* of a person skilled in the art (e.g. web developer), but you need to prove that knowledge. So if you have a textbook saying &quot;Identified ads should be removed from a html site for user convenience.&quot; (step d)) you might use that to say my made-up source (steps a) - c)) in combination with the knowledge of the person skilled in the art leads to the claimed method making it obvious / non inventive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML_sanitization" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20292" RevisionGUID="153c894c-857e-4e32-a789-78baebf35824" CreationDate="2019-02-19T14:00:44.040" UserId="18033" Comment="edited body" Text="This answer is purely about inventive step in general:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take claim 1 from the question as an example: (please note: I didn't read the specification so this is purely based on the wording of the claim, it might not concur with the correct interpretation of the actual patent claim which needs to be interpreted in light of the specification!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. A method for on- line filtering a presentation comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a) identifying a structure in the presentation;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;b) detecting an undesired content in said structure;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;c) determining a domination of said structure by said undesired content, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;d) disabling a portion of said structure according to a result of said determining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, suppose you have as prior art the [html sanitization][1] you mentioned in a comment. According to my understanding, html sanitization does the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Identify bad html tags (e.g. `&lt;embed&gt;`) and their endings (e.g. `&lt;/embed&gt;`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - remove the tags and their content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what does that mean for claim 1 above? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We seem to fulfill a) by identifying a structure starting and ending with html tags. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also seem to fulfill d) by removing the structure completly because &quot;completly&quot; is also &quot;a portion&quot;. However, completly is only a small subset of &quot;a portion&quot;, so there might be an easy way of getting around some prior art like that by amending the claim to say &quot;a portion less than 100%&quot; or something like that. It might even be that it says &quot;a portion is less than 100% of the structure&quot; in the description, invalidating this prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But suppose we actually fulfill steps a) and d) completly. Then the prior art &quot;html sanitization&quot; is not destroying novelty because it does not teach all the elements from the claim (namely: b) and c) are missing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, inventive step. We need another document that allows the person skilled in the art to reach the invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll make one up. Suppose we have a publication about identifying ads in html code. It identifies html structs like `&lt;embed&gt; &lt;/embed&gt;`, searches the content for words like viagra (greetings to the spam detecting bots at SE ;)) and determines if the structure is mainly filled with said undesired content by, say, language analysis. It then determines that the structure is an ad. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reference teaches a), b) and c). It identifies a structure (html tags), detects an undesired content (&quot;viagra&quot;) and determines domination of the structure by said content (checks if the text in the structure relates mainly to viagra).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Combining the references the person skilled in the art could see the advantage of removing html tags with a greater precision by detecting if they contain ads. The person skilled in the art could then reach the invention by combining the two documents, meaning the claim is not inventive over the prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disclaimer: One could argue against that by saying that html sanitization and ad blocking don't serve the same goal because removing all possibly problematic structures is more secure than removing only some so the person skilled in the art wouldn't combine the references. That argument might or might not be enough to prove inventive step, but it would at least pose some danger to the argumentation. So this isn't a clear cut case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above used goes d'accord with pretty much all standard methods for determing (missing) inventive step in the US, Europe and many other places. You need two *combinable* documents teaching every single step in a method or every single limitation in a system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also use *basic knowledge* of a person skilled in the art (e.g. web developer), but you need to prove that knowledge. So if you have a textbook saying &quot;Identified ads should be removed from a html site for user convenience.&quot; (step d)) you might use that to say my made-up source (steps a) - c)) in combination with the knowledge of the person skilled in the art leads to the claimed method making it obvious / non inventive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML_sanitization" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20293" RevisionGUID="bd2f1433-e16a-4095-bf89-8bb52456dcaf" CreationDate="2019-02-19T16:32:21.233" UserId="21856" Text="I'm filing nonprovisional utility patent and trying to fill out the Information Data Sheet with the related art.  It requires page numbers.  I've looked both on Google Patents and the USPTO's Full Text &amp; Image Database and I'm not finding page numbers.  Where should I be looking???" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56403" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20293" RevisionGUID="bd2f1433-e16a-4095-bf89-8bb52456dcaf" CreationDate="2019-02-19T16:32:21.233" UserId="21856" Text="Page Numbers on Existing Patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56404" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20293" RevisionGUID="bd2f1433-e16a-4095-bf89-8bb52456dcaf" CreationDate="2019-02-19T16:32:21.233" UserId="21856" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;patent-search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20294" RevisionGUID="911ab94f-1320-4a3b-8019-561cce391590" CreationDate="2019-02-19T17:48:06.767" UserId="21856" Text="An element in an independent claim reads:  a plurality of widgets&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since everything I've read says you MUST refer to &quot;said plurality of widgets&quot; or &quot;the plurality of widgets&quot;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if you may refer to &quot;said widgets&quot; without &quot;plurality of&quot; please correct me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you refer to ONE instance of the widget?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it &quot;said widget?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Is it &quot;each of said plurality of widgets?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Or something altogether?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56406" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20294" RevisionGUID="911ab94f-1320-4a3b-8019-561cce391590" CreationDate="2019-02-19T17:48:06.767" UserId="21856" Text="Language in claims for individual instance of a plurality" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56407" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20294" RevisionGUID="911ab94f-1320-4a3b-8019-561cce391590" CreationDate="2019-02-19T17:48:06.767" UserId="21856" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20296" RevisionGUID="f95f5502-01b3-4c44-b620-c8bbfd1e742c" CreationDate="2019-02-19T19:26:05.997" UserId="18033" Text="“at least one of said plurality of widgets“&#xA;&#xA;“At most one of ....“&#xA;&#xA;“exactly one of ...“&#xA;&#xA;“each of ...“&#xA;&#xA;“any of ... “&#xA;&#xA;Or whatever else conveys the same meaning. There is no patent English, just regular English which must be used with precision and a few terms that have become popular because there is only a limited number of ways of saying something.&#xA;&#xA;You could refer to “said widgets“ but I wouldn't because it's unclear if you mean some or all of them. And being unclear is in most cases a bad thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20297" RevisionGUID="f3cb4766-4238-42fa-9727-a7b4c3bb1c55" CreationDate="2019-02-19T20:29:11.073" UserId="18033" Text="You are supposed to mention relevant prior art. The page numbers field is to indicate relevant portions of the prior art. &#xA;&#xA;E.g. patent us123456789 A1 page 1, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13&#xA;&#xA;Paper abcdef pages 1 to 22.&#xA;&#xA;Don't over think it, you need to disclose what you know, not provide a full analysis of the prior art. &#xA;&#xA;Leave it blank if you don't know any specially relevant portions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20298" RevisionGUID="dca992ff-3b92-4fbd-b39c-710fc2c845cc" CreationDate="2019-02-19T21:42:06.827" UserId="3076" Text="There is not a hard requirement to include page numbers and current paranoid practice says to not include page numbers. It it turns out that something on a page that was not enumerated has something very relevant you can be accused of intentionally misleading the examiner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20276" RevisionGUID="af0b2f58-9f78-4c86-9568-2e9f16f4bb93" CreationDate="2019-02-20T05:02:36.747" UserId="21610" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="&gt; Does every patent invalidity search is conducted to overcome the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; threat of infringement suits imposed by their competitors?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of the invalidity search is to evaluate the validity and enforceability of a patent’s claims and reaffirm a protection from future litigation's. It is also done to protect future interests, suppose a company is in a process of developing a product or process which is promising a success but suddenly a patent appears for what is being developed to prevent such efforts to go in vein they do analysis to take a call on to go ahead with the same or drop it.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can parties invalidate patents of their competitors without showing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; concerns related to infringement or product development for the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; similar technologies?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The invalidation of competitor patents differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and venue to venue. &#xD;&#xA;In PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) Any party other than the patent owner may file a petition for IPR (Inter party Reviews).&#xD;&#xA;but in district court you need to show real harm for bringing the invalidity suit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What can be other grounds/motivating factors (except to avoid&#xD;&#xA;&gt; infringement) for invalidity of patents !!! What is the real need for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invalidating a patent???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware of only one situation where I came across such incident which may be one other reason which i have quoted down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Kyle Bass][1] through Coalition For Affordable Drugs (CFAD) challenged pharmaceutical patents, he  claimed the motive was to encourage competition in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals and thus bring down prices. The patent challenges drew controversy from drug companies who criticized Bass for trying to profit from successful challenges that may pressure a company's revenue and shares. When drugs come off patent and can be sold by generic drug makers, their share prices plummet and could be brought for low price.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Bass" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20009" RevisionGUID="5c132288-aa88-433f-94af-e158786bb9d9" CreationDate="2019-02-20T13:27:57.727" UserId="3472" Comment="my own grammar error" Text="Inequitable conduct is a defense against an infringement charge. If proven, the patent would destroyed. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56421" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="20009" RevisionGUID="5c132288-aa88-433f-94af-e158786bb9d9" CreationDate="2019-02-20T13:27:57.727" Comment="Proposed by 3472 approved by 18033, 14417 edit id of 2095" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20300" RevisionGUID="cb1dceb9-fb4c-4242-85c6-6129557c90a4" CreationDate="2019-02-22T16:26:09.697" UserId="21812" Text="&gt; Can parties invalidate patents of their competitors without showing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; concerns related to infringement or product development for the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; similar technologies?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to invalidate a patent, you can do so either through the Patent Trial and Appeal Board or through a federal district court. There are basically 3 options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Post Grant Review -- available up to 9 months after grant/issuance for § 282(b)(2) or (3) grounds;&#xD;&#xA; - Inter Partes Review -- for invalidity challenge under §§ 102 or 103 grounds;&#xD;&#xA; - Federal District Court -- file for &quot;declaratory judgment&quot; under more general approach but requires &quot;standing&quot; usually requiring a &quot;case or controversy&quot; between litigants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US patent system is governed under Federal law, so the rules and procedures should be the same regardless of state/jurisdiction/venue -- although in practice different Judges/courts/circuits do show certain leanings one way or another." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20300" RevisionGUID="85e11107-3ce9-452b-9f72-f49b9a4f7a2b" CreationDate="2019-02-22T16:32:44.230" UserId="21812" Comment="added 298 characters in body" Text="&gt; Can parties invalidate patents of their competitors without showing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; concerns related to infringement or product development for the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; similar technologies?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to invalidate a patent, you can do so either through the Patent Trial and Appeal Board or through a federal district court. There are basically 3 options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Post Grant Review -- available up to 9 months after grant/issuance for § 282(b)(2) or (3) grounds;&#xD;&#xA; - Inter Partes Review -- for invalidity challenge under §§ 102 or 103 grounds;&#xD;&#xA; - Federal District Court -- file for &quot;declaratory judgment&quot; under more general approach but requires &quot;standing&quot; usually requiring a &quot;case or controversy&quot; between litigants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally invalidity relates only to the patent and claims at issue. Other company's product development/technologies are irreverent unless they are directly related to grounds for invalidating the patent/claims at issue (e.g., they're prior art, invention wasn't &quot;invented&quot; by inventor, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US patent system is governed under Federal law, so the rules and procedures should be the same regardless of state/jurisdiction/venue -- although in practice different Judges/courts/circuits do show certain leanings one way or another." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56429" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18411" RevisionGUID="76a2c444-fd90-4cfc-ab0e-874c9111bf62" CreationDate="2019-02-24T01:01:25.443" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20165" RevisionGUID="9fb319f8-fb1c-4941-8c4f-8e930be5a384" CreationDate="2019-02-24T05:51:04.687" UserId="3076" Comment="typos" Text="A design patent application can have more than one embodiment as long as they are visually related. One example I have seen is a soda bottle with a specific set of spiral lines. One embodiment had the lines going clock wise and another had them going counter clockwise. Another approach, if your hat is distinctive enough, is to show the decoration in dashed lines and state that the portion in dashed lines is not part of the claimed design. Then the specific decoration can be swapped out for an alternate one. You are patenting the hat with some decoration, not with any specific decoration. An example is [google's initial home page layout][1]  It has &quot;FROOGLE&quot; in dashed lines meaning that it was a placeholder for whatever the name might be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD528552" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20301" RevisionGUID="4509da6d-2cbc-4af9-99e5-b03d7590c3ee" CreationDate="2019-02-24T17:56:38.467" UserId="21856" Text="So I'm including a foreign patent in my Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), and my resources tell me I need to include a copy of non-US patents.  How do I do that?  I plan to file via efs-web.  I tried from Google Patents downloading the PDF, but it was in German.  Am I making this harder than it needs to be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56432" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20301" RevisionGUID="4509da6d-2cbc-4af9-99e5-b03d7590c3ee" CreationDate="2019-02-24T17:56:38.467" UserId="21856" Text="Citing a Foreign Patent--How do include a copy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56433" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20301" RevisionGUID="4509da6d-2cbc-4af9-99e5-b03d7590c3ee" CreationDate="2019-02-24T17:56:38.467" UserId="21856" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20302" RevisionGUID="a10c6c98-a4d4-41e6-b876-4cb7a70a962a" CreationDate="2019-02-24T22:42:04.867" UserId="21791" Text="For example, in [this][1] patent, what does the 12 next to &quot;United States Patent&quot; mean, or the 10 next to &quot;Patent No.&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=06324558&amp;homeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526d%3DPALL%2526s1%3D6324558.PN.%2526OS%3D%2526RS%3D&amp;PageNum=&amp;Rtype=&amp;SectionNum=&amp;idkey=NONE&amp;Input=View%20first%20page" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56435" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20302" RevisionGUID="a10c6c98-a4d4-41e6-b876-4cb7a70a962a" CreationDate="2019-02-24T22:42:04.867" UserId="21791" Text="What do the numbers next to each section in a patent mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56436" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20302" RevisionGUID="a10c6c98-a4d4-41e6-b876-4cb7a70a962a" CreationDate="2019-02-24T22:42:04.867" UserId="21791" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20303" RevisionGUID="6dba910b-856e-4ff0-ac5c-a7ef67d3fed2" CreationDate="2019-02-25T04:54:42.220" UserId="21610" Text="[INID code][1] Internationally agreed Numbers for the Identification of bibliographic data in patent. 10 stands for Identification of the patent, SPC or patent document. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These number are standard in all participating countries, irrespective of language published you can identify the patent number using the code. see in the below example of Chinese patent the number next to 10 is patent Number.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;similarly you have assigned codes for identification of inventor, date of publication, priority date. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/standards/en/pdf/03-09-01.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HGxRj.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20303" RevisionGUID="5b44821d-72c6-4ac5-bab0-51ba6d1f577e" CreationDate="2019-02-25T06:52:13.390" UserId="21610" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="[INID code][1] Internationally agreed Numbers for the Identification of bibliographic data in patent. **12** stand for kind of document, **10** stands for Identification of the patent, SPC or patent document. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These number are standard in all participating countries, irrespective of language published you can identify the patent number using the code. see in the below example of Chinese patent the number next to 10 is patent Number.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;similarly you have assigned codes for identification of inventor, date of publication, priority date. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/standards/en/pdf/03-09-01.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HGxRj.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20304" RevisionGUID="ec17c02e-7e7b-4b10-b292-5e77a94a2610" CreationDate="2019-02-25T08:11:52.583" UserId="21807" Text="Is it possible to use Claim interpretation under 112 sixth paragraph only for patent invalidation without using 112 second paragraph?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56440" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20304" RevisionGUID="ec17c02e-7e7b-4b10-b292-5e77a94a2610" CreationDate="2019-02-25T08:11:52.583" UserId="21807" Text="Claim Interpretation 112" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56441" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20304" RevisionGUID="ec17c02e-7e7b-4b10-b292-5e77a94a2610" CreationDate="2019-02-25T08:11:52.583" UserId="21807" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;litigation&gt;&lt;utility-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20304" RevisionGUID="0c6ead63-b931-41ba-ac49-406eae90b606" CreationDate="2019-02-25T08:26:41.233" UserId="21610" Comment="Included links " Text="Is it possible to use Claim interpretation under 112 sixth paragraph ([35 USC 112][1] (f)) only for patent invalidation without using 112 second paragraph (35 USC 112 (b))?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc/112.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56443" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="20304" RevisionGUID="0c6ead63-b931-41ba-ac49-406eae90b606" CreationDate="2019-02-25T08:26:41.233" UserId="21610" Comment="Included links " Text="Claim Interpretation 35 USC 112" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20305" RevisionGUID="fe34e087-527f-45ce-bb0a-6f407a75850c" CreationDate="2019-02-25T10:31:06.423" UserId="21610" Text="My answer is a no as per MPEP the claims even MPF must also satisfy the requirement of disclosure i.e., 112(a). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[MPEP 2103.I.C][1]  which states &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Examiners should begin claim analysis by identifying and evaluating each claim limitation. For processes, the claim limitations will define steps or acts to be performed. For products, the claim limitations will define discrete physical structures or materials. Product claims are claims that are directed to either machines, manufactures or compositions of matter.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Examiners should then correlate each claim limitation to all portions of the disclosure that describe the claim limitation. This is to be done in all cases, regardless of whether the claimed invention is defined using means- (or step-) plus- function language. The correlation step will ensure that examiners correctly interpret each claim limitation in light of the specification&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/e8r9#/current/ch2100_d1b13f_18960_3c9.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20306" RevisionGUID="bfcd5282-f099-46fa-870b-5498821816e6" CreationDate="2019-02-25T17:07:48.577" UserId="21872" Text="I have 2 questions regarding algorithm &quot;tangibility&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me give an example. Suppose I had this great algorithm for music processing, and at the heart of the algorithm is this *special set of mathematical formulas* I put together for the purpose of superior music processing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, my understanding is that algorithms, including those based on math, are &quot;abstract ideas&quot; or something &quot;intangible&quot;, and cannot be patented UNLESS disclosed with details of a computational hardware implementation of said algorithms, at which point the entire system (the algorithm + its hardware implementation) becomes tangible, and thus patentable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question 1: Regarding the tangibility issue, does it mean that the patent office/courts/legal system need me to demonstrate that the algorithm can indeed be implemented by some 'physical' means? Can this really be the entire issue? Those guys are just too dumb to realize that algorithms are almost always implementable by some computing hardware? (be it a PC, the cloud, HPC, FPGA, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question 2: Ok, so suppose I went ahead and disclosed a &quot;tangible&quot; system made of both a (mathematical) algorithm and the hardware to implement it with, but since it's almost inconceivable to cover every possible hardware implementation of the same algorithm, my lawyer didn't properly cover the aspect of, say, an FPGA implementation of my algorithm. But, other than this little mishap, the patent was issued without any troubles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now consider the following situation: Someone created a &quot;system&quot; made of the CORE algorithm disclosed in my patent but they used an FPGA to implement it! Does this count as infringement? Yes/No?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56446" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20306" RevisionGUID="bfcd5282-f099-46fa-870b-5498821816e6" CreationDate="2019-02-25T17:07:48.577" UserId="21872" Text="infringing on a patented &quot;tangible&quot; algorithm?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56447" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20306" RevisionGUID="bfcd5282-f099-46fa-870b-5498821816e6" CreationDate="2019-02-25T17:07:48.577" UserId="21872" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20307" RevisionGUID="8def89c5-3557-4e01-9c4c-261f305d39de" CreationDate="2019-02-25T18:18:40.117" UserId="17003" Text="First off, I am not a lawyer. However, I am an inventor with a couple of algorithm based patents. This is a moving target and the rules may have changed since I obtained my patents. My understanding is the issue is not related to tangible vs. non-tangible, but abstract vs. specific. An algorithm by itself is abstract and not patentable. The use of an algorithm to perform a specific task may be patentable assuming the other aspects of an invention are met (utility, novelty and non-obviousness).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your second question, infringement is always about claims. Your patent has specific claims which protect the invention. If someone can avoid implementing each and every aspect of your claims then they can avoid infringement. This is exactly the same as for any other invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Things are complicated with software patents so I highly recommend you consult with an actual patent attorney well versed in the field rather than relying on internet Q&amp;A sites." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20308" RevisionGUID="af59d2f2-3ac7-4254-949b-6c37b1bee4c3" CreationDate="2019-02-26T04:02:31.893" UserId="21856" Text="I have several embodiments of similar devices that all do the same thing, but in slightly different ways.  Many of them use some of the same elements (pieces).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is this: as soon as I introduce one piece in the detailed description (&quot;a gear 110&quot;), does that &quot;introduction&quot; last for the whole rest of the specification (&quot;gear 110&quot;) OR when I write the description for another embodiment, do I introduce it again?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56450" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20308" RevisionGUID="af59d2f2-3ac7-4254-949b-6c37b1bee4c3" CreationDate="2019-02-26T04:02:31.893" UserId="21856" Text="How do introduction rules of an invention's elements apply when you have several embodiments?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56451" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20308" RevisionGUID="af59d2f2-3ac7-4254-949b-6c37b1bee4c3" CreationDate="2019-02-26T04:02:31.893" UserId="21856" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;specification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20309" RevisionGUID="7733dfc4-7b6f-44c4-9d79-241845c2d4dc" CreationDate="2019-02-26T09:14:42.193" UserId="21873" Text="I have come across a patent that was granted 9 months + 10 days ago, the patent is very obvious but it was somewhat restricted in its implementation. I have now seen that the inventor filed another patent based on this one, in which he broadens the original patent implementation. The new patent got a final rejection, but now the applicant initiated interview summary which means he is going to continue the patent application.&#xD;&#xA;I have a few question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Since the timeline is 9 months +10 days, PGR is out of the question? (for the original patent)&#xD;&#xA;2. Can I file a third party preissuance, if it got a &quot;final rejection&quot;? does the process of patent &quot;restarts&quot; in someway?&#xD;&#xA;3. Does anyone of my actions on the &quot;continued&quot; patent can affect in someway on the original patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you, and forgive my language as English is not my native language &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56453" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20309" RevisionGUID="7733dfc4-7b6f-44c4-9d79-241845c2d4dc" CreationDate="2019-02-26T09:14:42.193" UserId="21873" Text="Third party preissuance for a rejected application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56454" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20309" RevisionGUID="7733dfc4-7b6f-44c4-9d79-241845c2d4dc" CreationDate="2019-02-26T09:14:42.193" UserId="21873" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20310" RevisionGUID="43d958ec-da66-420c-8080-9e86c0d513f9" CreationDate="2019-02-26T09:21:08.063" UserId="21807" Text="Similar to CON and CIP application in US, is it allowed to file a continuation application with new subject matter in EPO ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56456" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20310" RevisionGUID="43d958ec-da66-420c-8080-9e86c0d513f9" CreationDate="2019-02-26T09:21:08.063" UserId="21807" Text="EPO Continuation Application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56457" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20310" RevisionGUID="43d958ec-da66-420c-8080-9e86c0d513f9" CreationDate="2019-02-26T09:21:08.063" UserId="21807" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20311" RevisionGUID="f6fb8be2-8711-469f-92bb-be07f2432cdc" CreationDate="2019-02-26T11:46:22.660" UserId="21875" Text="A PCT has been published, in its National Phase, in the US on 18 Oct 2018. I have formally challenged this through the proper channels and assume that it will fail to be granted (it is entirely based on a previous GB patent which has already been withdrawn).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is how long do you think it might take for the examiner to rule on it and quosh it completely ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56459" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20311" RevisionGUID="f6fb8be2-8711-469f-92bb-be07f2432cdc" CreationDate="2019-02-26T11:46:22.660" UserId="21875" Text="Challenging a patent application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56460" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20311" RevisionGUID="f6fb8be2-8711-469f-92bb-be07f2432cdc" CreationDate="2019-02-26T11:46:22.660" UserId="21875" Text="&lt;process&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20312" RevisionGUID="2cd12395-8eaa-4675-bdd5-b081ae53612b" CreationDate="2019-02-26T13:41:41.360" UserId="18033" Text="You don't introduce it again, unless you want to clutter your description with annoying repetitions. &#xA;&#xA;There are two main ways of doing this “right“ (and of course a bunch of variations). &#xA;&#xA;You can describe your invention as one example and describe the alternatives only per element. For example:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; a vehicle with a motor 1 and a windshield 2. In one embodiment the vehicle has 4 wheels 3. In another embodiment, the vehicle has two caterpillar tracks 5.&#xA;&#xA;Or you describe each example separately and just reference the old parts for example by saying something like:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; In this embodiment motor 1 and windshield 2 can be as described previously for the first embodiment.&#xA;&#xA;I prefer the first way. Just make sure to be consistent and clear. It's important to make it clear how things work, it doesn't matter so much how you do that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20313" RevisionGUID="746d5636-d540-4108-8af9-112c53d48848" CreationDate="2019-02-26T13:45:48.753" UserId="18033" Text="The epo doesn't know the concept of continuations. You can file a new application claiming priority within one year of the first filing and introduce new subject matter there. The new matter will have the new priority date and the old matter will have the old priority date.&#xA;&#xA;You can also file a divisional application, which is like a copy of the old application. You cannot introduce new matter, but claim different matter that was already present in the application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20314" RevisionGUID="ec261fd0-f0d6-4d45-bb30-dfb327eb387a" CreationDate="2019-02-26T15:18:55.867" UserId="21876" Text="I would like to know if the patent WO2011115992A3 can be considered as abandonned, quoting for australia country, as their is no answer from the creator to the international report since 7 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, this patent is too general, it prevents to make anything with 2 layers of bioplastic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best regards" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56464" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20314" RevisionGUID="ec261fd0-f0d6-4d45-bb30-dfb327eb387a" CreationDate="2019-02-26T15:18:55.867" UserId="21876" Text="WO2011115992A3 status?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56465" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20314" RevisionGUID="ec261fd0-f0d6-4d45-bb30-dfb327eb387a" CreationDate="2019-02-26T15:18:55.867" UserId="21876" Text="&lt;patentstatut&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20315" RevisionGUID="c9d76aca-2ade-4a89-a035-558c8e9463f0" CreationDate="2019-02-27T02:15:42.317" UserId="21877" Text="So we are a cash strapped startup with almost zero budget for a proper FTO. We have done a patent landscape analysis in order to get an idea of similar patents. To date, we can't find any similar patents in terms of method (to give some context from what we have seen in even the academic literature our method is almost completely novel/obscure and could open up a new field of research). We have decided to apply our technology to medical imaging, though the applications are far broader. We are in the process of writing up a provisional patent to get a filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What we have found are many similar use cases with different methods. Typically these methods are deep learning/machine learning focussed. My question is, is it possible for these companies to claim under a doctrine of equivalents if we are addressing the same issue in a completely different way? Given we are using different methods, and software patents are typically for methods my intuition and my brain are telling me we are in a good position from an FTO perspective - however without any money to pay for an FTO we are concerned about the situation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are any relatively inexpensive things we can do to de-risk things further then we could scrape together a small budget.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answers much appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56467" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20315" RevisionGUID="c9d76aca-2ade-4a89-a035-558c8e9463f0" CreationDate="2019-02-27T02:15:42.317" UserId="21877" Text="Same usecase, different method - is this infringement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56468" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20315" RevisionGUID="c9d76aca-2ade-4a89-a035-558c8e9463f0" CreationDate="2019-02-27T02:15:42.317" UserId="21877" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;freedom-to-operate&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20315" RevisionGUID="09473795-a2a7-438f-b3e4-063affe57a36" CreationDate="2019-02-27T02:43:57.327" UserId="21877" Comment="added 183 characters in body" Text="So we are a cash strapped startup with almost zero budget for a proper FTO. We have done a patent landscape analysis in order to get an idea of similar patents. To date, we can't find any similar patents in terms of method (to give some context from what we have seen in even the academic literature our method is almost completely novel/obscure and could open up a new field of research). We have decided to apply our technology to medical imaging, though the applications are far broader. We are in the process of writing up a provisional patent to get a filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What we have found are many similar use cases with different methods. Typically these methods are deep learning/machine learning focussed. My question is, is it possible for these companies to claim under a doctrine of equivalents if we are addressing the same issue in a completely different way? Given we are using different methods, and software patents are typically for methods my intuition and my brain are telling me we are in a good position from an FTO perspective - however without any money to pay for an FTO we are concerned about the situation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are any relatively inexpensive things we can do to de-risk things further then we could scrape together a small budget.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answers much appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: one more slightly related question. Could we opt to keep this as a trade secret and if that is the case, would we have to show any evidence that we do not use the same method?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20316" RevisionGUID="71fbf897-0e77-41c5-a606-ef921a9be4d4" CreationDate="2019-02-27T02:56:48.293" UserId="3076" Text="A method claim in an issued patent is structured as a series of steps or actions. An infringement analysis looks to see if your product takes each and every one of those steps - on a per claim basis. The doctrine of equivalents is not given much use/weight these days but if it was used in an infringement analysis it would be a comparison of one or more particular claimed steps and corresponding ones of your steps to see if they were equivalent. Is your step 2 equivalent to the claimed step 2, for example? It is not a broad comparison of achieving the same result. Patents do not cover results, they cover specific ways of getting a result." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20316" RevisionGUID="1cd7dad8-d8b4-441a-8b67-76a0a9a6399e" CreationDate="2019-02-27T03:03:50.567" UserId="3076" Comment="added 290 characters in body" Text="A method claim in an issued patent is structured as a series of steps or actions. An infringement analysis looks to see if your product takes each and every one of those steps - on a per claim basis. The doctrine of equivalents is not given much use/weight these days but if it was used in an infringement analysis it would be a comparison of one or more particular claimed steps and corresponding ones of your steps to see if they were equivalent. Is your step 2 equivalent to the claimed step 2, for example? It is not a broad comparison of achieving the same result. Patents do not cover results, they cover specific ways of getting a result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You getting a patent is unrelated to your product infringing or not infringing someone else's patent. There is no such thing as a provisional *patent*, only a provisional patent *application*. And the date you get is only as good as the content of the provisional application justifies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20317" RevisionGUID="cf88e051-0de6-4b16-9b1d-77b5848d4513" CreationDate="2019-02-27T04:07:44.580" UserId="21610" Text="&gt; My question is, is it possible for these companies to claim under a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; doctrine of equivalents if we are addressing the same issue in a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; completely different way? Given we are using different methods, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; software patents are typically for methods&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, they may claim your process under doctrine of equivalents if your process falls under their claim scope. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eg: If the patent claim granted was **a method of baking a cake** and patent disclosed  only disclosed using oven. You might develop a method of baking a cake using an alternative may be as burner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Scenario 1:** It might be considered infringement under doctrine of equivalents, if the plaintiff could prove that the alternative was not foreseeable during development of patent.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Scenario 2:** You might escape from infringement by proving proof that use of burner was already taught or used before the patent filing date and freely use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be a vague example which I have defined but, as you are performing FTO without an experienced IP professional please look into the available alternatives methods that are available prior to the patent as described in scenario 2 and try to use the same as it would foreclose the use of Doctrine of equivalents.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20318" RevisionGUID="5fd4dc07-875b-43b6-93b2-6598c4ece653" CreationDate="2019-02-27T04:19:11.970" UserId="21610" Text="&gt; Since the timeline is 9 months +10 days, PGR is out of the question?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (for the original patent)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You did't mention the country in your question. If it is US then there is still a chance to file IPR (Inter partes review) or choose a less expensive Exparte pathway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can I file a third party preissuance, if it got a &quot;final rejection&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; does the process of patent &quot;restarts&quot; in someway?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In US Under 35 U.S.C. 122(e), such submissions may be made before (1) the later of (i) 6 months after the date of publication or (ii) the date of a first Office action on the merits rejecting any claims, or (2) before the date of a notice of allowance, if earlier. Section 122(e) also provides for such fees as the Director may prescribe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Does anyone of my actions on the &quot;continued&quot; patent can affect in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; someway on the original patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20319" RevisionGUID="1aac4057-ee91-4ddd-98c2-c1bc86064faa" CreationDate="2019-02-27T11:18:46.947" UserId="21610" Text="In US the patent has been granted [US 9,186,868 B2][1] and is the only country where a national phase has been filed, there is no National Phase for the patent in Australia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9186868B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20320" RevisionGUID="f95a52af-6d5b-48ac-b9b5-f4768ec66ab2" CreationDate="2019-02-27T15:44:36.880" UserId="21874" Text="I was wondering whats considered a prior art when dealing with a continuing application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From reading online, once a continuing application is approved, it receives the allowance date of the original patent. So for example if the parent patent was approved in 2014, and In 2018 I am filing for a continuing patent and its also being approved, it will get the allowance date of 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about prior art that was created between 2014 and 2018, can they be considered against me? or the examiner treats this application as if it was filled in 2014? which doesn't make sense to me, but so is the fact that continuing application gets the parent patent issuance date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56476" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20320" RevisionGUID="f95a52af-6d5b-48ac-b9b5-f4768ec66ab2" CreationDate="2019-02-27T15:44:36.880" UserId="21874" Text="Prior art time relevance when filling continuing application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56477" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20320" RevisionGUID="f95a52af-6d5b-48ac-b9b5-f4768ec66ab2" CreationDate="2019-02-27T15:44:36.880" UserId="21874" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;continuation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20321" RevisionGUID="7b633c27-175e-4295-9952-9790576f201b" CreationDate="2019-02-27T16:20:22.960" UserId="21610" Text="Continuous application receive the priority date from first filed application but not the allowance date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; To receive the priority from first application you need to file continuous application before a patent gets granted, if you wish to file after the patent has granted then you would loose the opportunity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the question you have asked if a patent was granted in 2014 if you wish to file new application in 2018 it's not possible of you have not filed an application before a patent has been granted.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20321" RevisionGUID="ecd84754-c773-40fc-8780-d9491bb995ab" CreationDate="2019-02-27T16:27:25.600" UserId="21610" Comment="added 340 characters in body" Text="Continuous application receive the priority date from first filed application but not the allowance date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; To receive the priority from first application you need to file continuous application before a patent gets granted, if you wish to file after the patent has granted then you would loose the opportunity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the question you have asked if a patent was granted in 2014 if you wish to file new application in 2018 it's not possible of you have not filed an application before a patent has been granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the technology development between 2014_2018 it is not available for invalidate your patent as or would not satisfy the requirements of priority date. And most importantly you can't add new material to your patent and claim priority from prior application, the subject matter should be the same disclosed in first application.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20320" RevisionGUID="24a266bf-73d3-4c58-bd42-1cb3c76aa267" CreationDate="2019-02-27T16:29:36.090" UserId="21874" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="I was wondering whats considered a prior art when dealing with a continuing application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From reading online, once a continuing application is approved, it receives the allowance date of the original patent. So for example if the parent patent was filled in 2014 and approved in May 2018, and In January 2018 I am filing for a continuing patent and its also being approved, it will get the allowance date of 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about prior art that was created between 2014 and January 2018, can they be considered against me? or the examiner treats this application as if it was filled in 2014? which doesn't make sense to me, but so is the fact that continuing application gets the parent patent issuance date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20313" RevisionGUID="c7374010-6f4b-4332-a98c-90f06cabb959" CreationDate="2019-02-27T21:00:21.060" UserId="18033" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="The epo doesn't use the name continuation and the concepts are somewhat different. What you can do however:&#xA;&#xA;You can file a new application claiming priority within one year of the first filing and introduce new subject matter there. The new matter will have the new priority date and the old matter will have the old priority date.&#xA;&#xA;You can also file a divisional application, which is like a copy of the old application. You cannot introduce new matter, but claim different matter that was already present in the application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20322" RevisionGUID="5fdd8fd5-5c44-42cd-9c47-d2922130fe52" CreationDate="2019-02-28T12:52:28.990" UserId="21874" Text="Following a question that appeared here before, What are the ways to fight\counter a pending application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know you can file a third party preissuance, but what if it is past the date of eligible filling of a preissuance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Protest can only be filled before publication right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what does that leaves you with? &#xD;&#xA;can you contact the examiner yourself and tell about potential prior art?&#xD;&#xA;what other ways are there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56483" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20322" RevisionGUID="5fdd8fd5-5c44-42cd-9c47-d2922130fe52" CreationDate="2019-02-28T12:52:28.990" UserId="21874" Text="How to counter a pending application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56484" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20322" RevisionGUID="5fdd8fd5-5c44-42cd-9c47-d2922130fe52" CreationDate="2019-02-28T12:52:28.990" UserId="21874" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;patent-pending&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20323" RevisionGUID="e380f433-3638-4d19-a96a-2c4708d1422a" CreationDate="2019-02-28T23:01:11.230" UserId="3076" Text="It is not advisable to contact the examiner - From the MPEP - **1134 Third Party Inquiries and Correspondence in a Published Application**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Office considers inappropriate any third-party inquiry, or submission in an application that is not provided for in 37 CFR 1.290 or 37 CFR 1.291. Any submission filed by a third party in an application that does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.290 or 37 CFR 1.291 will not be entered into the application file and will be discarded.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Office personnel (including the Patent Examining Corps) are instructed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to: (1) not reply to or act upon any third-party inquiry or other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; submission in an application, except those in compliance with 37 CFR&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.290 or 37 CFR 1.291; and (2) decline to accept oral or telephone comments or submissions about applications from third parties. When&#xD;&#xA;&gt; refusing third-party telephone or oral discussions, examiners may call&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the party’s attention to the statutory prohibition on initiating&#xD;&#xA;&gt; protests, or 37 CFR 1.2 (all Office business should be transacted in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; writing), as appropriate. See Third Party Attempts to Protest or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Otherwise Oppose the Grant of a Published Application, 1269 Off. Gaz.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pat. Office 179 (April 22, 2003). The Office may also refer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; third-party inquiries, or submissions not provided for in 37 CFR 1.290&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or 37 CFR 1.291, by registered practitioners in applications to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Office of Enrollment and Discipline for appropriate action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing that you might consider is to send a copy of the art to the inventor or to the inventor's agent or attorney. IF they happen to read it and think it is relevant they will be bound to inform the examiner via an IDS form. If you were a registered patent practitioner, this would be of debatable ethics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is a corresponding PCT or foreign application you may be able to file a third-party observation on that application with that entity. This will cause the document to be brought to the attention of the applicant who should then file it on a IDS to the USPTO." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56487" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20202" RevisionGUID="17aade45-c706-4a76-9db9-10a41ecfedcb" CreationDate="2019-03-01T04:04:35.743" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20326" RevisionGUID="3dd969ad-c627-4f1b-8fff-dfb3fb63b470" CreationDate="2019-03-03T08:18:19.230" UserId="20514" Text="What is the current legal status of US patent application number 06/078,118? on Google patent it is &quot;expired&quot;, while on Public Paid it is &quot;patented case&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56493" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20326" RevisionGUID="3dd969ad-c627-4f1b-8fff-dfb3fb63b470" CreationDate="2019-03-03T08:18:19.230" UserId="20514" Text="Current status of US06/078,118" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56494" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20326" RevisionGUID="3dd969ad-c627-4f1b-8fff-dfb3fb63b470" CreationDate="2019-03-03T08:18:19.230" UserId="20514" Text="&lt;status&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20326" RevisionGUID="482af295-f8c2-4ae7-93f5-68ebf1945b2e" CreationDate="2019-03-03T15:46:14.097" UserId="14403" Comment="typos and improvement" Text="What is the current legal status of US patent application number 06/078,118? on Google patent it is &quot;expired&quot;, while on Public Pair it is &quot;patented case&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20328" RevisionGUID="54e51765-2b58-4bdb-b0cf-56a4e50f2aae" CreationDate="2019-03-04T14:52:11.170" UserId="17003" Text="US application 06/078,118, was granted as [US4378187A][1] on 01-26-1983. Since this is before 1995, the term of the patent would be 17 years from the grant date which results in an expiration date of 01-26-2000. As such, the patent has expired. I don't know of any provision that allows a patent to extend beyond its expiration date, especially one which should have expired so long ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not a lawyer and this is not a legal opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4378187A/en?oq=06%2F078%2C118&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6078118A/en?oq=us6%2C078%2C118" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20329" RevisionGUID="ff13f046-a1b9-4e67-ad35-afd911d1af20" CreationDate="2019-03-04T15:47:04.000" UserId="21895" Text="In 2011 my partner and I abandoned a patent application after publishing  because of spiraling costs, since then he has made another application with his new business partners in 2015 which is basically the same thing. Would I be correct saying that the first patent application is within the public domain and is free to be used by anybody including me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bill" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56500" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20329" RevisionGUID="ff13f046-a1b9-4e67-ad35-afd911d1af20" CreationDate="2019-03-04T15:47:04.000" UserId="21895" Text="Abandoned Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56501" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20329" RevisionGUID="ff13f046-a1b9-4e67-ad35-afd911d1af20" CreationDate="2019-03-04T15:47:04.000" UserId="21895" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;prior&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20330" RevisionGUID="d5f596ce-71ba-4a56-84a9-c2bcf118f611" CreationDate="2019-03-04T16:13:12.757" UserId="21610" Text="If the second patent is claiming priority from your first application, and if the patent gets grant then it would be an issue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the second application filed in 2015 doesn't claim priority from 2011 application then the part disclosed would be in public domain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But before going on with the use consider consulting and attorney to prevent legal issues in future from your old partner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20332" RevisionGUID="f1c28310-b193-4d52-80db-82bd59d72f32" CreationDate="2019-03-05T15:08:19.030" UserId="21897" Text="Does a dependent claim's status identifier change to &quot;Currently amended&quot; if amending only the independent claims from which it depends? The dependent claim is not amended.  Examiner is suggesting that I change the status identifier despite no changes to dependent claim (only related independent claim). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56505" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20332" RevisionGUID="f1c28310-b193-4d52-80db-82bd59d72f32" CreationDate="2019-03-05T15:08:19.030" UserId="21897" Text="Claim Status Identifiers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56506" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20332" RevisionGUID="f1c28310-b193-4d52-80db-82bd59d72f32" CreationDate="2019-03-05T15:08:19.030" UserId="21897" Text="&lt;status&gt;&lt;dependent-claim&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56507" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20143" RevisionGUID="1de52732-58e0-4dec-af0b-ca62d208f8de" CreationDate="2019-03-05T16:01:30.293" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20333" RevisionGUID="972c5a6e-4c8e-408f-835b-1458220a7d2c" CreationDate="2019-03-06T11:03:14.397" UserId="21807" Text="What is the significance of multi dependent claims in infringement analysis?&#xA;What are the advantages in claiming multi dependent claims over normal claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56509" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20333" RevisionGUID="972c5a6e-4c8e-408f-835b-1458220a7d2c" CreationDate="2019-03-06T11:03:14.397" UserId="21807" Text="Multi dependent claims (Uses and Advantages)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56510" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20333" RevisionGUID="972c5a6e-4c8e-408f-835b-1458220a7d2c" CreationDate="2019-03-06T11:03:14.397" UserId="21807" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;google-patents&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20334" RevisionGUID="73fc26ad-e883-4f49-ab20-908ad11ea023" CreationDate="2019-03-06T21:06:41.813" UserId="21807" Text="why in US a preemptive claim is patent ineligible and why the absence of complete preemption also does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56516" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20334" RevisionGUID="73fc26ad-e883-4f49-ab20-908ad11ea023" CreationDate="2019-03-06T21:06:41.813" UserId="21807" Text="Patent Claim Drafting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56517" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20334" RevisionGUID="73fc26ad-e883-4f49-ab20-908ad11ea023" CreationDate="2019-03-06T21:06:41.813" UserId="21807" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;patent-infringment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20335" RevisionGUID="43da61dd-835a-4352-bab9-e8defa42e7d1" CreationDate="2019-03-06T21:52:43.670" UserId="3076" Text="They provide a way to cover many combinations and permutations of elements in a relatively few numbered claims. The semantics are no different than exploding the claims to a huge number of non-multiply dependent claims. The U.S. thinks they are confusing and strongly discourages them via is fee system. The rest of the world sees them as using fewer words to achieve the same meaning and therefore simpler." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56520" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20142" RevisionGUID="788a2646-bc75-452c-a7fb-66ca7c9c027b" CreationDate="2019-03-07T06:00:55.360" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20336" RevisionGUID="95c5bc18-39bc-4edf-a524-b31c1c21be83" CreationDate="2019-03-07T06:33:54.350" UserId="21901" Text="[gSOAP][1], from around 2002, generates client and server library C/C++ code based on WSDL for web services. However, this is done statically, at development time, and not in the server itself. So, not entirely the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.cs.fsu.edu/~engelen/soap.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20337" RevisionGUID="bfc0f793-b2bd-474a-8f74-f2d8481b6860" CreationDate="2019-03-07T21:52:10.790" UserId="3076" Text="There is no &quot;expanding&quot; in a (straight) continuation application. If you think the second application will claim something that could not have been claimed in the parent application, then you should file it as a CIP. Claims in a CIP that are fully supported in the parent will be looked at regarding prior art as of the  date of the parent's filing date. Anything else will regard prior art using the second application's filing date. If you have already filed the &quot;continuation&quot; application you should change it to a CIP or amend out any new matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20338" RevisionGUID="324c89b4-84d5-4d17-b54d-31378e0d894e" CreationDate="2019-03-07T21:58:18.597" UserId="3076" Text="You are presumably talking about claims that preempt all uses of a law of nature. A law of nature is not patentable. A claim that preempted all possible uses of a law of nature is essentially an attempt to patent that law of nature. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56524" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20232" RevisionGUID="ef4f0c33-a480-4b81-9e9b-b8701786cc53" CreationDate="2019-03-07T22:02:25.497" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20339" RevisionGUID="7c7c1f28-ab8c-4ae0-b413-a5881f49ca40" CreationDate="2019-03-08T06:10:14.047" UserId="21807" Text="No need to change status identifiers if any of the independent or dependent claims is unchanged. Status identifiers are needed to be changed in case of amendments (strikethrough of text, insertion of text, or dependency change) only. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56527" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20238" RevisionGUID="bee5b385-303f-4d2c-91f9-ef7efa150bac" CreationDate="2019-03-09T23:01:50.360" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20340" RevisionGUID="1d5fea5b-d442-4547-9f6d-54f9afaed7bc" CreationDate="2019-03-10T02:28:34.730" UserId="21911" Text="I want to publish an invention so that it is available on youtube for collaborators, without patent pending status, albeit discreetly so that not many casual researchers will find it. Is it ok to title the video in spanish or german, is that of equivalent status in the US as prior art written in English? Can't i be doubted to have published the video on the given day but alledged to have changed the viewing rights to private when i contend that it has been available since the day of upload?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56529" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20340" RevisionGUID="1d5fea5b-d442-4547-9f6d-54f9afaed7bc" CreationDate="2019-03-10T02:28:34.730" UserId="21911" Text="prior art in a foreign non official languages?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56530" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20340" RevisionGUID="1d5fea5b-d442-4547-9f6d-54f9afaed7bc" CreationDate="2019-03-10T02:28:34.730" UserId="21911" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;usa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56531" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="20340" RevisionGUID="57603a31-b11d-4919-abc0-cf7514b33289" CreationDate="2019-03-10T02:37:02.947" UserId="21911" Comment="edited title" Text="prior art on YT in foreign non official languages counts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20341" RevisionGUID="44d2a754-a902-4366-b011-3a445d307322" CreationDate="2019-03-10T15:49:13.067" UserId="21912" Text="Does anyone know how to do a safe query of the : - USPTO Patent Application Full-Text and Image Database (AppFT) - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When queries to the database essentially go across the web either to your VPN host or youre client Browser on youre pc.  ????  previous to 2017 It WAS secured utilizing SSL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;quick search web address - http://appft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without inadvertantly revealing IP when narrowing down the search to final patent #'s and classifications ?  Many time one must get very specific to identify prior artwork or patent #'s   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is no longer hosted at USPTO using any type of SSL (https://) security,  It appears to be open text from the host end...  No amount of VPN protection from the client can secure the connection (end to end) either, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google patents does host all theyre patent database on SSL server,  But then again its google,  They probably already have the entirety of youre IP before you thought of it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Robert in ID. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56533" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20341" RevisionGUID="44d2a754-a902-4366-b011-3a445d307322" CreationDate="2019-03-10T15:49:13.067" UserId="21912" Text="USPTO patent search database no longer secure over web SSL https" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56534" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20341" RevisionGUID="44d2a754-a902-4366-b011-3a445d307322" CreationDate="2019-03-10T15:49:13.067" UserId="21912" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;search&gt;&lt;prior&gt;&lt;art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20340" RevisionGUID="cba8362f-277c-4a96-9f9b-0be83cbbb621" CreationDate="2019-03-10T19:24:41.933" UserId="21911" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="I want to publicize a new invention so that it is available on YT for collaborators and as proof that it is my work, through a discreet page so that not alot of casual researchers will find it. Is it OK to title the video in French, is that of equivalent status in the US as prior art written in English? Can't i be doubted to have published the video on the given day but alleged to have changed the viewing rights to private, when i contend that it has been available since the day of upload?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56536" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="20340" RevisionGUID="cba8362f-277c-4a96-9f9b-0be83cbbb621" CreationDate="2019-03-10T19:24:41.933" UserId="21911" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Prior art in French from YouTube is accepted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20342" RevisionGUID="8fddc89c-f7a0-478d-ad14-035af3dd618f" CreationDate="2019-03-11T04:11:32.583" UserId="3076" Text="You might try  [Espacenet][1],  [The Lens][2] or [PatentScope][3] - all are https&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20343" RevisionGUID="28e38634-3cae-47c5-bf51-2c0b1e1ea876" CreationDate="2019-03-11T14:07:59.817" UserId="21914" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I have developed a fault tolerant control method which I am trying to get patented. I have used scipy and numpy in the simulations which serves as a proof of concept. Would the fact that I've used open source software pose any problems?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: It's not any software or piece of code that I am trying to patent but a method. The open source stuff is used to demonstrate the application.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56539" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20343" RevisionGUID="28e38634-3cae-47c5-bf51-2c0b1e1ea876" CreationDate="2019-03-11T14:07:59.817" UserId="21914" Text="Open source software was used in an invention. What should one keep in mind while patenting it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56540" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20343" RevisionGUID="28e38634-3cae-47c5-bf51-2c0b1e1ea876" CreationDate="2019-03-11T14:07:59.817" UserId="21914" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;opensource&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20344" RevisionGUID="eddfebbb-e4bb-4b22-81d5-8b52427a0447" CreationDate="2019-03-11T18:38:34.997" UserId="18033" Text="As no proof of concept is required, it doesn't matter how you got one. Or if. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20345" RevisionGUID="d482fb51-823d-4c72-9c37-c2e76b7dee64" CreationDate="2019-03-11T19:04:52.520" UserId="21917" Text="If a patent examiner tries to force a restriction on 1 of 2 independent claims, and the applicant elects to tie them together as obviously connected, is it legal for the examiner to dismiss both if he allegedly finds that just one is unallowable?  And what is a &quot;traverse&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;From the Action: &quot;Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. ln either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56543" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20345" RevisionGUID="d482fb51-823d-4c72-9c37-c2e76b7dee64" CreationDate="2019-03-11T19:04:52.520" UserId="21917" Text="When can an examiner dismiss two independent claims if just one is allowable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56544" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20345" RevisionGUID="d482fb51-823d-4c72-9c37-c2e76b7dee64" CreationDate="2019-03-11T19:04:52.520" UserId="21917" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;restricted-claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56545" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20245" RevisionGUID="aeed181c-02bd-4fc1-a536-52d0d7f2303e" CreationDate="2019-03-11T21:01:20.267" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20346" RevisionGUID="87b45cac-8aef-4cf6-88c7-ca5dbbb26606" CreationDate="2019-03-12T22:12:28.917" UserId="3076" Text="It sounds like -  in a restriction requirement the examiner said two claims were so different they could not be examined as a single invention. You responded that they were not that different and should be examined as a single invention. He/she took that response as you admitting they were not patentably distinct. If they are not (by your admission) patentably distinct, then if one is not patentable, neither is the other. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this context a &quot;traverse&quot; is an argument you make to counter the examiner's restriction requirement analysis. If you said that both should be examined in the same case, you essentially made a traverse even though you may have not provided any actual argument. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not necessary to admit two claims are patently the same to traverse. You can argue that they are close enough to not be a burden on the examiner's time.&#xD;&#xA;The most likely outcome for a traverse is the examiner saying you were not persuasive and then just pursuing the claim you prefered in your response." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20347" RevisionGUID="6b5f88d9-9b0a-41ca-bc6d-a263491aa926" CreationDate="2019-03-13T01:30:26.060" UserId="13775" Text="It is important to remember that a patent does not give anybody the right to do what the patent covers. For example, if I had a patent on a more effective delivery system for MDMA or LSD, having a patent doesn't change the fact that those drugs are considered Schedule 1 and illegal under almost every circumstance -- meaning that my delivery system couldn't be used even though I had a patent on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While a patent doesn't give the patentee the right to practice the invention, it does give them the right to sue people to stop them from using the invention (or to recover financial damages).  The expiration of a patent simply means that the owner of that patent can no longer sue anybody for using the inventions claimed in the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those things together mean that the concept of &quot;public domain&quot; for a patent is quite limited. Taking the game &quot;monopoly&quot; as an example, the game was initially covered by a patent, by copyright, and by trademark law (though it does seem likely that recent Supreme Court decisions may have rendered that game not patentable today).  When the patent expired, the copyright and trademark in the game remained in place.  So while a company could sell a game with the same game-play mechanics that were claimed in the patent without fear of being sued for infringing the patent, that company could still be sued if they violate the copyright to the game or call it &quot;Monopoly&quot;, despite the trademark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bottom line is that the expiration of a patent simply means that the patent is no longer in play (subject to the revival issues discussed in other answers).  However, there are other intellectual property rights (copyright, trade secret, trademark, trade dress, state-level trademarks, rights of publicity, etc.) that can give rise to significant liability. The expiration of the patent will not impact those other rights. The mere expiration of a patent does not mean that anybody can freely practice everything in the patent until they are satisfied (preferably by a lawyer's opinion letter) that what they intend to do is (a) legal, and (b) does not violate any other IP rights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing about patents is that it is common for a single patent application to result in numerous patents. There is even a thing called a &quot;terminal disclaimer&quot; that is used when a second patent claims something not significant different than the first patent. Because patent maintenance fees are expensive, infrequently a patent owner will allow one patent to go expired for non-payment of fees, counting on other patents in the family to cover the same material.  You'll want to go to https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair and look up the expired patent. First, make sure it is really expired. Second, check the &quot;continuity&quot; tab and see if there are other patents still in force (or pending applications) in that patent family.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps most importantly, you need to seek proper legal advice.  A good IP lawyer should be able to walk you through it.  It is tough to answer this in the abstract, and the facts specific to what you want to do will be critical in having a lawyer give you the right answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56548" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18242" RevisionGUID="fd36e6eb-ffc8-4975-a717-ca32eeff1e8b" CreationDate="2019-03-13T07:03:00.663" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20348" RevisionGUID="72f90941-94e9-4cf3-9dfb-93f64255a778" CreationDate="2019-03-13T17:47:48.783" UserId="21924" Text="We have tried to patent a system few years ago, but we couldn't patent it because we had sold few systems more than 1 year before we tried to obtain the patent. Now we have modified the system in a way that it is much better improved. Can we patent the complete system with the improvement now? The system remains basically the same, but now we can apply it to other industrial processes for having improved the temperature that it supports.&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56550" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20348" RevisionGUID="72f90941-94e9-4cf3-9dfb-93f64255a778" CreationDate="2019-03-13T17:47:48.783" UserId="21924" Text="Patent for existing product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56551" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20348" RevisionGUID="72f90941-94e9-4cf3-9dfb-93f64255a778" CreationDate="2019-03-13T17:47:48.783" UserId="21924" Text="&lt;existent&gt;&lt;improved&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20349" RevisionGUID="5c4dc849-aa87-405e-9066-90a9e1492f14" CreationDate="2019-03-13T20:39:17.490" UserId="19280" Text="Traditionally 'plurality' in patent drafting practise has meant 'a number greater than 1'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you ask 'why not just say &quot;more than one&quot;', then I haven't a good answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a number of cases, colloquial verbal expressions have encountered official objection of some kind during the examination of patent applications, and when this has become a regular occurrence for a particular word or phrase, it has then fallen out of use in favor of whichever circumlocution became known as successful in getting around the objection of the type. This may be such a case.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20350" RevisionGUID="7f1fee18-5bc0-41b6-b95e-c3977f9f4643" CreationDate="2019-03-13T20:39:52.283" UserId="3076" Text="You might be able to. Many patents would be considered improvements on something that came earlier. If the newer system is structurally different and that difference is non-obvious from everything that preceded it, including your previous system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20351" RevisionGUID="0604feb1-c33c-49ba-abd9-6af401d9fcd4" CreationDate="2019-03-13T21:03:27.670" UserId="19280" Text="Yes, you might be able to maintain the position that the improvement is patentable, as something new and unobvious over the original version, and you might get a patent for it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But bear in mind that such a patent won't cover what was already in the prior art and free-to-use. Whether a patent claim is legally valid, and whether it is commercially valuable are two quite separate questions with potentially different answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One crucial question would be, does the improvement give the improved product a competitive edge, would the original in the hands of a competitor still amount to effective competition with the new version? If the market doesn't care which version it gets, a patent on the improvement might possibly not be worth having, patentable or not. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20352" RevisionGUID="184e74cd-b575-4171-8a3c-9cde7f3d517e" CreationDate="2019-03-13T21:15:49.110" UserId="19280" Text="The expression 'based on' looks vague and ambiguous to me. Its breadth, no matter what the cause, risks coming at a cost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I were procuring a patent I would prefer to avoid the expression and use clearer and more definite language. One does not have to lose generic character in the search for definiteness. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I were confronted with a third-party patent that uses this expression in its claims, I would have to look very carefully at the content and meaning of the whole document to see what on earth they meant by it. If as is likely there would be two or more competing possible meanings, then this could stimulate a variety of actions, including prior art search to see if one of the possible meanings is broad enough to leave the claims covering prior art, i.e. to render them invalid or at least of doubtful validity. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20353" RevisionGUID="f750edb5-3a7e-4f0f-95c4-225435bb2771" CreationDate="2019-03-14T01:58:40.280" UserId="19280" Text="There are at least two things you should look out for. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, will the performance of your invention, &#xD;&#xA;making, using or selling it, involve use, copying or &#xD;&#xA;distribution of the software? If so, you need to check &#xD;&#xA;your licensing status -- will your proposed commercial &#xD;&#xA;activities be outside the scope of any license that you &#xD;&#xA;need? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, your patent application (specification) must give &#xD;&#xA;an enabling disclosure of your invention. If you used the &#xD;&#xA;software for demonstrating or developing the invention &#xD;&#xA;in a way that must be disclosed in the specification, &#xD;&#xA;does/did that use violate any license terms under which &#xD;&#xA;the software was used?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Proof of concept' is generally almost irrelevant to &#xD;&#xA;a patent application and an invention. Your patent needs &#xD;&#xA;to describe, not merely a concept, but an actual &#xD;&#xA;invention, i.e. something new, unobvious and useful that &#xD;&#xA;can be made and used with effect by following the &#xD;&#xA;description in the specification. See 35 USC 112 and &#xD;&#xA;corresponding statutes in other jurisdictions. Generally &#xD;&#xA;speaking, concept and/or proof of concept might not &#xD;&#xA;necessarily amount to a performable invention, and &#xD;&#xA;in such a case the concept would not be enough. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20355" RevisionGUID="13aa45fe-1d25-4897-9179-de843926f6f3" CreationDate="2019-03-14T13:48:02.480" UserId="17696" Text="There seems to be a lot of controversy surrounding means-plus-function claims.  From what I can gather a means-plus-function claim gives coverage to any methodology of achieving the prescribed claim so long as &quot;the how&quot; is described somewhere in the claims/specification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas a method claim would seem to be a way to specify how to achieve the steps for some hypothetical process - that might possibly be covered by a means-plus-function claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is what is the difference between the two? Are my statements above correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56561" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20355" RevisionGUID="13aa45fe-1d25-4897-9179-de843926f6f3" CreationDate="2019-03-14T13:48:02.480" UserId="17696" Text="Method Claims vs. Means Plus Function" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56562" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20355" RevisionGUID="13aa45fe-1d25-4897-9179-de843926f6f3" CreationDate="2019-03-14T13:48:02.480" UserId="17696" Text="&lt;method&gt;&lt;means-plus-function&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20350" RevisionGUID="bada010b-61f4-45a0-9356-75a90e95a8bf" CreationDate="2019-03-15T03:18:11.353" UserId="3076" Comment="added 149 characters in body" Text="You might be able to. Many patents would be considered improvements on something that came earlier. If the newer system is structurally different and that difference is non-obvious from everything that preceded it, including your previous system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the details you can patent both the improvement and the entire improved system. Also, the new use - as a method - may be patentable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20350" RevisionGUID="669ea621-7a9e-4d04-a427-5627d50766c3" CreationDate="2019-03-15T03:30:39.983" UserId="3076" Comment="added detail responding to comments" Text="You might be able to. Many patents would be considered improvements on something that came earlier. If the newer system is structurally different and that difference is non-obvious from everything that preceded it, including your previous system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the details you can patent both the improvement and the entire improved system. Also, the new use - as a method - may be patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example, the original system was your own and wasn't patented. In a different case where the older system might have been patented by another a commercial issue comes up. It might be that the improvement is such that any system incorporating it might inherently infringe on an existing patent relating to the older system.  In that case anyone practising your patent would need a license to both your patent and the earlier patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20358" RevisionGUID="69ff7323-6f04-44d1-b2f1-6ace1933cf68" CreationDate="2019-03-18T12:57:28.097" UserId="17696" Text="I am a layman too. I found Hal Milton's book to be a great resource:&#xA;&#xA;A Blueprint Derived from Appellate Opinions for Building a Patent Application: Patent Preparation in Six Steps to Produce the Highest Skilled and Most Efficient Patent Attorneys https://www.amazon.com/dp/1512177016/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_Uv5JCb0YDCZQE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20359" RevisionGUID="c6994156-9ecc-4b3e-8fbb-0235f19b056a" CreationDate="2019-03-18T20:49:08.583" UserId="21937" Text="Could you please help me to get a copy for a copy of patent no. ZL94105912.X&#xD;&#xA;regards&#xD;&#xA;Essam hamed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56572" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20359" RevisionGUID="c6994156-9ecc-4b3e-8fbb-0235f19b056a" CreationDate="2019-03-18T20:49:08.583" UserId="21937" Text="Where I can get a copy of patent no. ZL94105912.X" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56573" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20359" RevisionGUID="c6994156-9ecc-4b3e-8fbb-0235f19b056a" CreationDate="2019-03-18T20:49:08.583" UserId="21937" Text="&lt;laser&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20360" RevisionGUID="7c63fa0d-e980-4d66-8767-5ddbb1d4e5eb" CreationDate="2019-03-18T21:01:58.420" UserId="3076" Text="Functional claiming and claiming a method are two different constructs. A primary division of claim types are claims that define a thing and claims that define action steps for accomplishing something. A thing might be an apparatus, a machine, a system, a composition of matter, etc. A method or process claim is a list of actions or steps. They might be steps to make something or to use something but they are not the thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Means-plus-function can be used to define a structural element of a thing. &quot;Means for fastening&quot; is a sort of a placeholder for a thing. It would be whatever is contained in the collection of fasteners  mentioned in the specification. It would not generally cover acts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Functional claiming can be used in method claims. Instead of &quot;means for&quot; you would use &quot;step for&quot;. An example would be &quot;step for mixing oil and water&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some inventions are inherently methods like a multi-step manner for getting rust off a metal tool; others are inherently a thing, like a composition of matter. Many inventions can be defined either in terms of a thing or a series of steps. A machine or system is a thing, but it also takes actions when when engaged. A claim for a machine would be infringed by a machine sitting on a shelf, in a box. A method claim to the operation of the same machine is infringed when the machine is plugged in, turned on, and operated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your invention lends itself to both thing claims and method claims, the choice is unrelated to any thoughts of functional claiming or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, functional claiming is an element-by-element issue. A claim could have five steps, three of which are spelled out in the claim and two of which could be functionally defined. One rule is that functional claiming can't be used for the only element of a single element claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56575" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="2060" RevisionGUID="fb75f3f5-8dc3-4493-9a58-b8b6202c4b4b" CreationDate="2019-03-18T21:13:22.637" UserId="18033" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:18033,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DonQuiKong&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="56576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20361" RevisionGUID="3c041e4c-3841-442a-998a-11a6e1379e83" CreationDate="2019-03-18T21:32:29.483" UserId="3076" Text="That number is for a patent in China. It is a format used in China for granted patents. In most western databases a differently formatted number starting with CN is used.  I found the patent [here][1] [![front page of patent][2]][2] Under its &quot;CN&quot; number it is CN1045724C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/89/0c/a4/2fcca701366bf9/CN1045724C.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BKGZ8.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20362" RevisionGUID="45506cdc-ac47-4a49-b62a-7def5657e84a" CreationDate="2019-03-19T11:46:02.160" UserId="15489" Text="I have a 103 rejection based on one prior patent and In Re Einstein (a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a previously patented device does not constitute invention).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the &quot;reversal of the essential working parts&quot; actually involves duplicating two parts, taking the mirror image of them, and then replacing or enhancing two existing parts with the duplicate mirror images.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't seem like a &quot;mere reversal&quot; to me. Mirroring, given that it leads to an unexpected result in particular seems different to a reversal, which as I understand it from the case law is basically swapping parts (e.g. male and female connectors).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I argue this with the Examiner?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56578" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20362" RevisionGUID="45506cdc-ac47-4a49-b62a-7def5657e84a" CreationDate="2019-03-19T11:46:02.160" UserId="15489" Text="How much &quot;mere reversal of parts&quot; can an Examiner validly claim constitutes a 103 rejection" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56579" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20362" RevisionGUID="45506cdc-ac47-4a49-b62a-7def5657e84a" CreationDate="2019-03-19T11:46:02.160" UserId="15489" Text="&lt;obviousness&gt;&lt;rejection&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20363" RevisionGUID="0b3be0e8-cc08-4a5a-9102-d8ded0a08801" CreationDate="2019-03-20T06:26:41.077" UserId="21610" Text="I would suggest you to refer Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) and is also related to use of **combination of old mechanical element** and this case laid the foundation for non-Obviousness requirement factors listed below for your reference&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.the scope and content of the prior art;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.the level of ordinary skill in the art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to above factors the case opened  “secondary considerations” factors which could serve as evidence of nonobviousness. They include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.commercial success;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.long felt but unsolved needs; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.failure of others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Citing this case argue that the above requirements are not satisfied by the prior art cited and there was no motivation in prior art to modify the invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20364" RevisionGUID="c135f56e-8538-4c98-b1ac-9c9c0b1f8382" CreationDate="2019-03-20T17:28:00.573" UserId="21941" Text="I am thinking of creating a commercial product using GAN neural networks. How can I find out if the work done so far by others on which I will build upon is not patent protected. I would not want to invest a lot of time building something which will get shutdown due to legal issues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56582" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20364" RevisionGUID="c135f56e-8538-4c98-b1ac-9c9c0b1f8382" CreationDate="2019-03-20T17:28:00.573" UserId="21941" Text="Commercial product using GANs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56583" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20364" RevisionGUID="c135f56e-8538-4c98-b1ac-9c9c0b1f8382" CreationDate="2019-03-20T17:28:00.573" UserId="21941" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;machine-learning&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20365" RevisionGUID="82691c70-3287-4527-93ce-f5c3926454ff" CreationDate="2019-03-20T22:18:27.130" UserId="3076" Text="This may apply in your case. One strong argument against a 103 rejection is that the change required to a prior art item makes the prior art item no longer suitable for its original intended purpose. If it breaks the fundamental principle of operation of the prior art it is hard to argue that the change is obvious. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18406" RevisionGUID="5a84fbe4-e2f5-4ccf-aab1-d839860d4c3f" CreationDate="2019-03-21T08:55:30.467" UserId="19787" Comment="Update - patent was rejected, Patent Pandas webpage" Text="Many of us put our ideas in github or articles, hoping they will be just used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as I have currently a tough lesson, if your idea turns out successful, you can count on patent vultures trying to monopolize it or its basic applications, variations, consequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How to protect from it - safely share your ideas? How to defend when protection has turned out insufficient?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory, making your idea public makes it &quot;prior art&quot; and should prevent patenting. In practice, from my experience USPTO examiner just checks US PATENTS for KEYWORDS, often with no understanding - making it extremely simple to smuggle something one has found on the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first big problem is finding out about such attempt - and it seems nearly impossible to find if they don't cite you, don't use some characteristic keywords?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have found it and it is not too late, you can submit e.g. third-party observation ([good tutorial for USPTO][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my situation there at least two ongoing attempts for basic application of my [ANS entropy coding][2]. One is in combination with the most basic statistical modelling (Markov): that probability of a symbol depends on the previous symbol. It was explicitly mentioned in my papers, there was much earlier implementation,  used in popular CRAM DNA compressor ([complaint by its author][3]) ... but still literally description of this DNA compressor was recently given second [Notice of Allowance by USPTO][4]. The [second attempt is by **Google**][5] trying to monopolize image/video compression application of ANS, even though I have originally suggested it them and helped them in this adaptation for three years through their public discussion forum ([my complaint][6]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are other options while defending your work from patent vultures?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**: With help of many like [Ars Techica][7] and [EFF][8], the Google patent was [rejected][9]. Nice page with stories and materials for people in such situation: [**Patent Pandas**][10].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://%20https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/105/i-want-to-make-a-difference-how-can-i-submit-prior-art-to-the-patent-office&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_numeral_systems&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB1502286.6/8c510575-b5bc-4852-80a4-d5adbf60a641/GB2538218-20170125-Third%20party%20observations.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=US.201615041228.A&amp;lng=en&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/google/google-accused-of-trying-to-patent-public-domain-technology/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://th.if.uj.edu.pl/~dudaj/protestGoogle.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://arstechnica.com/features/2018/06/inventor-says-google-is-patenting-work-he-put-in-the-public-domain/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/08/after-patent-office-rejection-it-time-google-abandon-its-attempt-patent-use-public&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP16819781&amp;lng=en&amp;tab=doclist&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://patentpandas.org/new-page/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20366" RevisionGUID="a88a6bc8-4998-41b0-9331-e58b9242dee4" CreationDate="2019-03-21T09:03:27.027" UserId="19787" Text="In theory no, in practice yes. Here is example of crowdfunding backer actually getting (!) USPTO patent on the project he backed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patentpandas.org/stories/crowdfunding-backer-patented-my-project" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20367" RevisionGUID="4e879fdc-999d-4c37-8b16-223db7c1f9ef" CreationDate="2019-03-21T11:35:23.267" UserId="21833" Text="I would like to get a better understanding on how infringement is determined in case of combined claims. Specifically I am confronted with a pending patent combining methods A and B in the following wording I abstracted out of the claims document:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A method for [goal], [hardware], the method comprising steps of [hardware operation], doing [subgoal1] by [method type], wherein [A] is used as [method type] for [subgoal1] that has property [a], doing [subgoal2], wherein [subgoal2] is done by [B], [subgoal3], output the result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The method for [goal] according to claim 1, characterized in that in the step of [subgoal1], [A] is used as [method type].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. A system for [goal], [hardware], [more detail of hardware], configured to [copy of wording of claim 1 from [hardware operation] to the end].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Important thing here is that neither A nor B is novel. Also the hardware setup is nothing special. The combination of A and B is IMO obvious but that may be debatable. Same for the application idea, i.e. to use it for [goal]. The only novel thing is the insight that B is workable on top of A at all due to property [a]. In any case, only the combination [goal], A and B can be patentable then I suspect...?&#xD;&#xA;There is prior work (?) in form of a master thesis, since years ago disclosed at arxiv, using A and C to achieve [goal], yes precisely the same [goal] as in claim 1. However, C is overly complex because it does not exploit property [a] specifically.&#xD;&#xA;I suspect the inventors are not aware of that document as they did not cite it.&#xD;&#xA;There is various further work using A and X to achieve [other type of goal, yet in the same application field], none of it cited by the patent. This makes me think that claim 2 is highly questionable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First question:&#xD;&#xA;Would &quot;A and C to achieve [goal]&quot; form prior art for claim 2?&#xD;&#xA;Am I right in thinking that it would not form prior art for claim 1 because C is replaced with B?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second question:&#xD;&#xA;I researched a method doing A and D, where D requires property &lt;a&gt;. If I ever decided to use this method beyond research and teaching, would that infringe claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it would likely infringe claim 2, which is why I am curious whether claim 2 could be invalidated due to prior art &quot;A and C to achieve [goal]&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third question:&#xD;&#xA;Would a method doing A and D infringe claim 2?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also researched a method [A2] that would also yield property [a]. Assuming that [A2] is sufficiently distinct from [A] such that it would not violate claim 2 on its own, would the approach &quot;A2 and D&quot; infringe claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;More provocatively, would &quot;A2 and B&quot; infringe claim 1?&#xD;&#xA;I.e., how protective is the hint on property [a] in claim 1, especially given that neither A nor the knowledge that it has property [a] is novel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fourth question:&#xD;&#xA;Claim 8 seems to do nothing else than protecting it as a system in addition to claim 1 which protects it as a method. How would this affect answers to my previous questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that a safe answer requires consulting a patent attorney and can easily cost thousands of euros. I aim to understand and confirm as much as possible by myself with the goal to either make the consultation as efficient as possible or to submit a third party objection on my own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If an answer requires further detail, what detail would be important? Basically I appreciate every hint, partial answer, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pending patent is filed in US and Europe. I am more interested in the Europe case if answers would much depend on this distinction. However also US-answers are welcome of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56588" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20367" RevisionGUID="4e879fdc-999d-4c37-8b16-223db7c1f9ef" CreationDate="2019-03-21T11:35:23.267" UserId="21833" Text="Regarding partial overlap with pending patent of combination of (non-novel) methods" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56589" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20367" RevisionGUID="4e879fdc-999d-4c37-8b16-223db7c1f9ef" CreationDate="2019-03-21T11:35:23.267" UserId="21833" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;combination&gt;&lt;multiple-parts&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20368" RevisionGUID="498d53dc-3e62-4c55-aefe-9d0665df0d46" CreationDate="2019-03-21T18:16:50.490" UserId="18033" Text="Claim 2 cannot be infringed if claim 1 is not infringed. Same for invalidation. Dependent claims incorporate all elements of the claims they depend on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's usual to have a system claim to be able to stop products before they are used which can sometimes be hard with a method claim. (Oversimplified: A method claim is not infringed until the method is actually practiced. // with a few exceptions)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20369" RevisionGUID="d8c1a416-2a97-43bc-afb1-8773a7365721" CreationDate="2019-03-21T20:50:46.327" UserId="3076" Text="**First question** - Can a reference with A and C keep a claim for A and B from being patented? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe - To be patentable a claim needs to be novel and non-obvious. Novelty is easy. If it is different from anything ever disclosed in a single embodiment of a system in a single document it is novel. A and B is novel over A and C. Obviousness is more complicated. Prior art that involved A and C does not create any problem with the novelty of A and B. A and B might be obvious if A and C has been done *in light of something that says B is a good substitute for C under the circumstances*. Note, claim 1 and 2 are very similar. The only difference is something that infringes 1 only also infringes 2 if A is done in a specific way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Second and third questions** - Can doing A and D infringe claim 1 or 2? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No - To infringe a method claim *all* of the steps in a claim must be performed. So, for example, if the claims require the actions A and B and you perform A and D (but not B), you would not literally infringe. Again The analysis is the same for all of the claims you list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fourth question** - As another person answered, a system claim is infringed by a system sitting in a box on a shelf. A method claim requires the system to be powered up and engaged in action. Covering both circumstances is prudent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56595" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18411" RevisionGUID="cf087857-677c-48ba-9180-7f75dce2a327" CreationDate="2019-03-26T06:01:16.533" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20371" RevisionGUID="0af01d86-0e58-4f0c-8a85-79f2a30c1b3a" CreationDate="2019-03-26T06:56:45.317" UserId="21945" Text="28. A percutaneous method of treating the heart of a patient in a manner&#xD;&#xA;designed to promote normal sinus rhythm, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;directing an ablation catheter including a distal end percutaneously into the&#xD;&#xA;vascular system including the left atrium of the heart of a patient, the distal end including an&#xD;&#xA;ablating tip portion operative to allow selective ablation of tissue,&#xD;&#xA;percutaneously directing a guiding device comprising a template wire, having&#xD;&#xA;a lengthwise axis along a proximal portion, into the vascular system and the left atrium of&#xD;&#xA;the heart of the patient, the guiding device including a template portion at a location distal to&#xD;&#xA;the proximal portion and extending laterally relative to the lengthwise axis;&#xD;&#xA;temporarily anchoring the guiding device on tissue proximate to the tissue to&#xD;&#xA;be ablated, and&#xD;&#xA;guiding the ablating tip portion along the template portion of the guiding&#xD;&#xA;device while ablating heart tissue within the left atrium along a pattern designed to promote&#xD;&#xA;normal sinus rhythm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;29. The method of claim 28, wherein the guiding device further comprises a&#xD;&#xA;positioning catheter operatively coupled with the ablation catheter and further coupled with&#xD;&#xA;the template wire, wherein guiding the ablating tip portion further comprises:&#xD;&#xA;moving the positioning catheter along the template portion of the template&#xD;&#xA;wire to assist with applying at least a portion of the pattern designed to promote normal&#xD;&#xA;sinus rhythm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;30. The method of claim 28, wherein temporarily anchoring the guiding device&#xD;&#xA;further comprises temporarily anchoring a distal tip portion of the template wire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;31. The method of claim 28, wherein the template wire is preformed with a three&#xD;&#xA;dimensional shape including a tissue anchoring portion and a template portion along which&#xD;&#xA;the ablation catheter is guided, and the channel further comprises a lumen extending&#xD;&#xA;lengthwise through the ablation catheter, and the method further comprises:&#xD;&#xA;extend ng the template wire from the lumen of the ablation catheter to&#xD;&#xA;transform the template wire from a straightened condition in the lumen of the ablation&#xD;&#xA;catheter to the three dimensional shape including the tissue anchoring portion and the&#xD;&#xA;template portion configured to guide the application of at least a portion of the pattern. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56597" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20371" RevisionGUID="0af01d86-0e58-4f0c-8a85-79f2a30c1b3a" CreationDate="2019-03-26T06:56:45.317" UserId="21945" Text="is there any 3(i) objection under patents act for the respective claim mentioned in body?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56598" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20371" RevisionGUID="0af01d86-0e58-4f0c-8a85-79f2a30c1b3a" CreationDate="2019-03-26T06:56:45.317" UserId="21945" Text="&lt;prosecution&gt;&lt;national-stage&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20372" RevisionGUID="bfc1d30d-7803-4245-9522-767d32b7ca41" CreationDate="2019-03-26T15:47:17.800" UserId="21610" Text="I assume that the question is regarding Indian patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, the above claim would result in a sec 3(i) rejection as that section wouldn't allow the claims related to diagnostic and therapeutic methods. As far as my experience with Indian patent office granted only claims for devices but not treatment/ diagnostic method." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20373" RevisionGUID="2f16b77b-ee35-4f00-93a6-cb50838a269f" CreationDate="2019-03-26T19:22:19.707" UserId="21946" Text="If an inventor chooses not to apply for patent, but instead to produce and sell a &quot;fad&quot; product, can the profits thereof be taken away by a subsequent non-inventor who applies for and receives a patent on that item? Or is the production and sale of the original item prevent its being patented at a later time by anyone?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56601" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20373" RevisionGUID="2f16b77b-ee35-4f00-93a6-cb50838a269f" CreationDate="2019-03-26T19:22:19.707" UserId="21946" Text="pre-patent liability" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56602" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20373" RevisionGUID="2f16b77b-ee35-4f00-93a6-cb50838a269f" CreationDate="2019-03-26T19:22:19.707" UserId="21946" Text="&lt;liability&gt;&lt;pre-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20374" RevisionGUID="21e159c8-8905-4990-b973-e384dc2fd063" CreationDate="2019-03-26T20:02:30.807" UserId="17003" Text="In order to receive a patent, the technology described has to be novel. Any product on the market at the time an application is submitted would constitute prior art and should preclude any one else obtaining at patent on it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20375" RevisionGUID="06ebe9ee-94c5-4236-aa4e-3c0453935f3e" CreationDate="2019-03-26T22:27:38.000" UserId="3076" Text="By saying &quot;non-inventor&quot;, I taking it that the person who applies for the patent has stolen the idea from looking at your shipped product. In that case, they should not get a patent since the product was in the public before the application was filed. On the other hand, if the applicant actually, *independently*, invented the item and filed before you unveiled your product then they might get a patent and could stop you from further shipments. There is a possibly that they could get royalties for your shipments as of the day their application published and you were notified." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20373" RevisionGUID="c4e8a270-b17c-426a-8f5a-8e1a5dc7e83d" CreationDate="2019-03-27T03:53:01.910" UserId="21946" Comment="added 624 characters in body" Text="If an inventor chooses not to apply for patent, but instead to produce and sell a &quot;fad&quot; product, can the profits thereof be taken away by a subsequent non-inventor who applies for and receives a patent on that item? Or is the production and sale of the original item prevent its being patented at a later time by anyone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before I produce and market the invention, I will make sure that it is not protected by an existing patent.  If it is, then obviously I will not proceed.  If it is not,  I will try to market it as quickly as possible and try to extract as much value before there are imitations. If I reveal my invention by applying for a patent, I know there will be similar devices in production shortly thereafter, and I cannot afford to get into litigation over it.  It took me 2 years to get my last patent and several 'inventors' have cited and modified my original design and have also received patents on their 'new' inventions. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20374" RevisionGUID="6e5a227d-3395-49ee-93c6-d57e803f6c95" CreationDate="2019-03-27T19:29:21.037" UserId="17003" Comment="added 363 characters in body" Text="In order to receive a patent, the technology described has to be novel. Any product on the market at the time an application is submitted would constitute prior art and should preclude any one else obtaining at patent on it. However, I will caution that a patent application typically takes 18 months to publish so it is possible someone applied for a patent without you knowing about it even if you did a thorough patent search. If that application were filed before your public disclosure of the product, then it is at least possible that the patent could issue and be used against you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56613" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20309" RevisionGUID="bb1fc715-58ba-4dd9-a235-42210371aab9" CreationDate="2019-03-29T05:00:50.310" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20378" RevisionGUID="b7edf0a4-51f9-4b28-bf82-c51bc5fc4a56" CreationDate="2019-03-29T13:55:19.740" UserId="21958" Text="You could use the INPADOC legal status code EP AC, e.g. in INPADOC on STN you would use EPAC/LSC to retrieve all divisional applications&#xD;&#xA;Christoph (PATON, InPharmation)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56618" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20322" RevisionGUID="5a434203-75c0-4067-b271-29f94b74511c" CreationDate="2019-03-30T23:01:13.253" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20379" RevisionGUID="02e615e4-c532-4276-8855-9d4076a1330c" CreationDate="2019-03-31T16:26:54.343" UserId="21961" Text=" I work for a company in UK. This company is a branch of an american company. We have developed a software that resolves technical problems in an innovative way for the processing payments industry. I know software is not (generally) patentable in UK. The question is: can we  file a patent for our software in US? The software has been developed in UK entirely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56620" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20379" RevisionGUID="02e615e4-c532-4276-8855-9d4076a1330c" CreationDate="2019-03-31T16:26:54.343" UserId="21961" Text="Is software developed in UK is patentable in US?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56621" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20379" RevisionGUID="02e615e4-c532-4276-8855-9d4076a1330c" CreationDate="2019-03-31T16:26:54.343" UserId="21961" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20380" RevisionGUID="829083dd-5643-4259-837e-8068b5283bc4" CreationDate="2019-03-31T22:16:10.287" UserId="17003" Text="Where an invention is created has no impact at all on the ability to be patented in the US. Nor does the nationality of the inventor or company.  That said, the software as an entity probably isn’t patentable. However, an algorithm in the software as used to solve a specific problem might be patentable. It’s complicated, and I would suggest you consult with an experienced patent attorney to determine if your technology is patentable. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20380" RevisionGUID="86a5bf44-ec5b-479d-9407-0f4c98d709eb" CreationDate="2019-04-01T03:26:17.257" UserId="3076" Comment="edited in a section of the Paris Convention for the protection of Intellectual Properties" Text="Where an invention is created has no impact at all on the ability to be patented in the US. Nor does the nationality of the inventor or company. Under the [Paris Convention][1], all (177) member countries must give people and companies from all other member countries the same substantial patent rights as they give their own nationals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ARTICLE 2, paragraph&#xD;&#xA;(l) Nationals of any country of the Union shall, as regards the&#xD;&#xA;protection of industrial property, enjoy in all the other countries of&#xD;&#xA;the Union the advantages that their respective laws now grant,&#xD;&#xA;or may hereafter grant, to nationals ; all without prejudice to the rights&#xD;&#xA;specially provided for by this Convention. Consequently, they&#xD;&#xA;shall have the same protection as the latter, and the same legal remedy&#xD;&#xA;against any infringement of their rights, provided that the conditions&#xD;&#xA;and formalities imposed upon nationals are complied with. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most places software based inventions are difficult to patent - sometimes impossible. It’s very complicated and a moving target at least in the US. I would suggest you consult with an experienced patent attorney/agent to determine the issues regarding the patentability of your invention in the US, the UK and elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/intproperty/611/wipo_pub_611.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20381" RevisionGUID="7e2b6a99-64de-4495-acef-ba7ad4469abe" CreationDate="2019-04-01T09:54:07.383" UserId="21963" Text="What are the various fields in patent XML file.&#xD;&#xA;For example: does 'detailed description' have a separate field?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56625" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20381" RevisionGUID="7e2b6a99-64de-4495-acef-ba7ad4469abe" CreationDate="2019-04-01T09:54:07.383" UserId="21963" Text="XML format of USPTO patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56626" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20381" RevisionGUID="7e2b6a99-64de-4495-acef-ba7ad4469abe" CreationDate="2019-04-01T09:54:07.383" UserId="21963" Text="&lt;format&gt;&lt;xml&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20382" RevisionGUID="998ce10e-ab46-4862-8579-44aaa43b0d97" CreationDate="2019-04-02T00:40:00.463" UserId="21560" Text="I'm thinking of using the following scheme for label-numbering the elements of patent drawings. Is there any reason it can't be used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each element has its &quot;home-drawing&quot; where it is presented with the best most detailed view of it. This &quot;home-figure&quot; is given the number N. In this home-drawing the element is given as label N.M where N is the number of the home-figure and N is an integer starting from 1 in each figure. So figure 1 might have elements 1.1, 1.2, 1.3  etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But some elements in a diagram &quot;refer&quot; to elements which are described in more detail in other drawings. Such a reference is given the same number as in its &quot;home drawing&quot; followed by one or more primes (') to indicate it is a reference and more detail about that element can be found by finding the element without the prime(s) in its label in some other diagram. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus every element across all drawings has a unique label-number but at the same time primed labels indicate that the same element is described with additional detail elsewhere, and is easy to find simply by looking up the figure that is the integer-part of the element.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this be an acceptable labeling scheme?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56628" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20382" RevisionGUID="998ce10e-ab46-4862-8579-44aaa43b0d97" CreationDate="2019-04-02T00:40:00.463" UserId="21560" Text="Patent drawing with decimal label numbers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56629" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20382" RevisionGUID="998ce10e-ab46-4862-8579-44aaa43b0d97" CreationDate="2019-04-02T00:40:00.463" UserId="21560" Text="&lt;label-numbers&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20382" RevisionGUID="af348ede-9046-4e8b-b5af-19f322d6ed83" CreationDate="2019-04-02T00:48:20.407" UserId="21560" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="I'm thinking of using the following scheme for label-numbering the elements of patent drawings. Is there any reason it can't be used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each element has its &quot;home-drawing&quot; where it is presented with the best most detailed view of it. This &quot;home-figure&quot; is given the number N. In this home-drawing the element is given as label N.M where N is the number of the figure and N is an integer starting from 1 in each figure. So figure 1 might have elements 1.1, 1.2, 1.3  etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But some elements in a diagram &quot;refer&quot; to elements which are described in more detail in other drawings. Such a reference is given the same number as in its &quot;home drawing&quot; followed by one or more primes (') to indicate it is a reference and more detail about that element can be found by finding the element without the prime(s) in its label in some other diagram. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus every element across all drawings has a unique label-number but at the same time primed labels indicate that the same element is described with additional detail elsewhere, and is easy to find simply by looking up the figure that is the integer-part of the element.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this be an acceptable labeling scheme?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20383" RevisionGUID="8cf216ef-0cde-4e25-b835-9dc556895115" CreationDate="2019-04-02T05:14:35.460" UserId="3076" Text="**No.** There are standards for drawings and the numbering of drawings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See MPEP - 37 CFR 1.84  Standards for drawings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (u) Numbering of views.&#xD;&#xA;(1) The different views must be numbered in **consecutive Arabic numerals**, starting with 1, independent of the numbering of the sheets and, if possible, in the order in which they appear on the drawing sheet(s). Partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter. View numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation “FIG.” Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation “FIG.” must not appear.&#xD;&#xA;(2) Numbers and letters identifying the views must be simple and clear and must not be used in association with brackets, circles, or inverted commas. The view numbers must be larger than the numbers used for reference characters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the [MPEP][1] for many, many more formatting rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if there were not rules for drawing numbering, it would be wise to put your inventiveness into your invention and not into non-standard notations that might seem easy to your but would be unexpected by the reader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20384" RevisionGUID="11b24f34-7f5d-4a4d-8b35-beb0cc93d9f8" CreationDate="2019-04-02T15:42:24.710" UserId="19913" Text="I am planning to file a non provisional application that is due this month 18-April.  I intend to try e-file the NPA on Friday the 12th so as to have some time incase something does not go favorably.  I am researching the [pitfalls of filing][1] and would seek any lesson-learned or a good pitfalls checklist I could review to better prepared filer.  Thanks in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&amp;channel=fs&amp;q=USPTO%20common%20%20pitfalls&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56633" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20384" RevisionGUID="11b24f34-7f5d-4a4d-8b35-beb0cc93d9f8" CreationDate="2019-04-02T15:42:24.710" UserId="19913" Text="Common Pitfalls of filing NPA submission at USPTO" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56634" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20384" RevisionGUID="11b24f34-7f5d-4a4d-8b35-beb0cc93d9f8" CreationDate="2019-04-02T15:42:24.710" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;non-provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20385" RevisionGUID="dc1ce677-7414-48dd-931d-548d67b32757" CreationDate="2019-04-02T16:51:35.963" UserId="19913" Text="Context&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;A utility provisional has been filed last year.  I intend to file a utility patent application: the USPTO indicates that once I have all my pdf files ready for submission to call the USPTO electronic business support to walk me through the [EFS submission process][1].  I am filing pro-se.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Goal&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;I would like to be prepared and have all required documentation and DECISIONS made before submission.  I expect a 'menu' of services which require decision making.   Is there a list of decision points that would prepare me by prompting me to think through what is needed / required?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/video/cbt/efswebtraining/index.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56636" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20385" RevisionGUID="dc1ce677-7414-48dd-931d-548d67b32757" CreationDate="2019-04-02T16:51:35.963" UserId="19913" Text="What are the decision points associated with filing a USPTO NPA?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56637" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20385" RevisionGUID="dc1ce677-7414-48dd-931d-548d67b32757" CreationDate="2019-04-02T16:51:35.963" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;pro-se&gt;&lt;non-provisional&gt;&lt;utility-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20386" RevisionGUID="113bd09f-d0c8-468c-bc9c-e147a1fd183a" CreationDate="2019-04-02T18:48:55.170" UserId="3076" Text="Some last minute things you might check are that -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you are filing a specification, claims and drawings. The first sentence of the application needs to **correctly** claim priority to previous applications and incorporate them by reference if that is desirable (that is *not* fixable after filing without refiling). Every item in a drawing that has a reference number in the drawing should have that reference number in the text of the specification. Make sure you do not duplicate reference numbers for different items. If you do not have a customer number yet, I recommend getting one so you can track your application on line." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20387" RevisionGUID="d86f2a77-345d-42a3-889b-988484e932b0" CreationDate="2019-04-02T19:06:23.220" UserId="3076" Text="The PDF files need to be 8.5&quot; by 11&quot; (or A4) and have names that are USPTO legal. If a PDF is somehow 8.25&quot; by 11&quot;, for example, EFS will complain. Embedded/not embedded fonts can be an issue. Print to PDF can eliminate this. You can download and fill out an ADS form in advance. I'm guessing that they are not going to help you fill it out line-by-line but will be set up help with uploading. If you have not already come across this, you might get comfortable with how the USPTO allows you to sign things with their &quot;/&quot; format. EFS Web is not very friendly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not required at the time of filing, but it might be a good idea to fill out an IDS form and filing it with the submission.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20387" RevisionGUID="9dc18c46-f882-475a-ba34-5efe4ddd7fea" CreationDate="2019-04-02T20:28:30.030" UserId="3076" Comment="added detail" Text="EFS-Web is *not* very user friendly. You probably already looked at the [USPTO's guide to EFS-Web][1]. I don't think the EBC Help Desk people - who are very patient and helpful, will be much help with actual decisions, more the mechanics of uploading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The PDF files need to be 8.5&quot; by 11&quot; (or A4) and have names that are [EFS-Web legal][2]. If a PDF is somehow 8.25&quot; by 11&quot;, for example, EFS will complain. Embedded/not embedded fonts can be an issue. Print to PDF can eliminate this. That can also help if you have mathematical symbols. Saving an MS Word document to PDF will not always reproduce math symbols correctly. It is possible that your drawing files will be too large. &#xD;&#xA;You should download and fill out an ADS form in advance. They will probably not be able to help you decide to file as a small entity or a micro entity. A PO box can be your *mailing address* but there is another line for the city of your residence. This needs to be the city of your residence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to decide who the inventors are and fill that out on the Declaration. It needs to be signed. If it is not signed it doesn't, bureaucratically, exist. If you have not already come across S-Signature, you might get comfortable with how the USPTO allows you to sign things with their &quot;/XXXXX YYYYY/&quot; format. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not required at the time of filing, but it might be a good idea to fill out an IDS form and file it with the submission.&#xD;&#xA;Place all of the files to be uploaded in a folder by themselves, again, with legal names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Very definitely, record the electronically generated application number** the system gives you at the end of a successful submission.. Without it you will have a hard time learning about its status later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do not already have a USPTO Customer Number, I would ask them to help you get one. Without it you can't follow the status of your application on-line. I like to file, at least, a couple of days before a deadline. Then, later that day or the next day, I can look in Private PAIR and see if what I thought I uploaded is really what is there. Anyone can get a Customer Number - without your application being associated with one, you can't see it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/efs-web-guidance-and-resources&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/files-be-submitted-naming-pdf-files" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20388" RevisionGUID="448dce61-356d-4853-ab4e-0b011d5e7af6" CreationDate="2019-04-02T21:33:16.753" UserId="19913" Text="[The USPTO's Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR)][1] is provided in two flavors: public vs. private (for 'registered' customers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What is the difference between the two? &#xD;&#xA; 2. Do they provide the same information? If not, what is the differnece?&#xD;&#xA; 3. What determines which system is appropriate for an inventor seeking to submit and monitor his / her patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/portal-applications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56643" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20388" RevisionGUID="448dce61-356d-4853-ab4e-0b011d5e7af6" CreationDate="2019-04-02T21:33:16.753" UserId="19913" Text="What is the difference between USPTO Private and Public Pairs System?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56644" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20388" RevisionGUID="448dce61-356d-4853-ab4e-0b011d5e7af6" CreationDate="2019-04-02T21:33:16.753" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;pair&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20389" RevisionGUID="5a919929-d977-4953-b539-387e67b01537" CreationDate="2019-04-02T22:27:58.907" UserId="3076" Text="At the point in time you can see an application in both systems, you see the same thing. Private PAIR allows you to see applications you have filed that are associated with your customer number. An inventor, or anyone, can get a [USPTO Customer Number][1]. When an application is published it is visible on Public PAIR, before that it is only visible to the applicant in Private PAIR using the credentials associated with their customer number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/support-centers/electronic-business-center/patent-electronic-business-cente-0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56651" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20326" RevisionGUID="0e5908b9-1cb1-4a31-97ce-e6545eaa1c94" CreationDate="2019-04-03T15:03:05.583" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20392" RevisionGUID="0ebd89db-b336-4745-a8d8-ff9722d765e9" CreationDate="2019-04-03T16:40:34.860" UserId="21971" Text="Brief context  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I'm in the early stages of product development, pre-prototype.&#xD;&#xA;   (Subtext: definitely no funds available for a legal opinion. I'll&#xD;&#xA;   cross that bridge when it becomes feasible; for now, I'm just looking&#xD;&#xA;   for a better understanding how prior art is generally interpreted in&#xD;&#xA;   cases like this one.)&#xD;&#xA; - Bad news: there is an unexpired US patent that covers my concept&#xD;&#xA;   (most claims are relevant and not easily designed around).&#xD;&#xA; - Good news (probably): I've found a few instances of prior art that&#xD;&#xA;   support strong arguments that the patent is invalid on grounds of not&#xD;&#xA;   being novel (my own non-lawyerly opinion of course). However, the&#xD;&#xA;   patent is not a carbon copy of the prior art so there's a bit of room&#xD;&#xA;   for interpretation.&#xD;&#xA; - The company does not appear to be practicing the patent anymore (nor&#xD;&#xA;   are there any other companies doing so), so I don't see a need to go&#xD;&#xA;   out of my way to invalidate it, but I'm doing a bit of homework now&#xD;&#xA;   in case at some point in the future, the patent holder makes a fuss.&#xD;&#xA; - (I recognize that to show invalidity you have to show &quot;that the&#xD;&#xA;   patent is invalid by clear and convincing evidence, a substantially&#xD;&#xA;   greater burden&quot; than proving infringement&#xD;&#xA;   https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5529&amp;context=journal_articles)&#xD;&#xA; - (I'll keep this post focused on an issue regarding one instance of&#xD;&#xA;   prior art; I'll make another post on a different issue regarding&#xD;&#xA;   another instance of prior art.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than citing the patent or prior art here, I'll lay out the key issue in general terms.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I've found a patent (from the 1910s, in case that's relevant), call&#xD;&#xA;   it Patent A. &#xD;&#xA; - Patent A's claims describe the apparatus in the unexpired patent,&#xD;&#xA;   call it Patent B. This is thanks to the broad wording of the claims&#xD;&#xA;   of Patent A, which do not specify the number of wheels on each axle.&#xD;&#xA; - Patent B describes an apparatus with one wheel on each axle.&#xD;&#xA; - The specification of Patent A, however, describes an apparatus with a&#xD;&#xA;   pair of wheels on each axle. This description makes reference to the&#xD;&#xA;   drawing which shows &quot;the preferred embodiment&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - Though A's specification does not explicitly refer to alternative&#xD;&#xA;   embodiments with different numbers of wheels, it does not in any way&#xD;&#xA;   state that the preferred embodiment is the only possible one.&#xD;&#xA; - (Note: Patent A is not cited in Patent B or its examination.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not clear to me how A's claims would most likely be interpreted.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to this article http://www.ipbrief.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/IPB_Nilforoush.pdf &quot;If the specification describes an embodiment as being its “best mode,” or only describes a single embodiment, the claim should not necessarily be limited to this embodiment, unless other factors suggest there is an implied disavowal of claim scope.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That sounds encouraging for a broad reading of Patent A; but the article discusses different approaches to interpreting claims: &quot;When a court emphasizes “interpreting the claims in view of the specification,” the result is a more liberal use of the specification. Under this approach, the court focuses more on the rule that the specification provides context for the claims, rather than the rule that limitations from the specification should not be read into the claims. ... When the emphasis is on avoiding “improperly reading limitations from the specification into the claims,” the court tries to rely strictly on the claims themselves while minimizing reliance on the written description or other evidence. This approach places more emphasis on the rule that the claims define the scope of the patent right and emphasizes giving claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, while placing less emphasis on the notion that the specification provides the context for the claims.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding to my uncertainty, the MPEP https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2111.html says that &quot;Patented claims are not given the broadest reasonable interpretation during court proceedings involving infringement and validity, and can be interpreted based on a fully developed prosecution record.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would Patent A likely be interpreted? My sense (and my hope) is that Patent A should be interpreted for everything it contains, including its broad claims, which describe an apparatus with an unspecified number of wheels per axle (not sure if there's a better word to use here, but you get the idea: it could be 1, 2, whatever wheels per axle).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I have the right reading here, or am I missing something? Would this be the most likely interpretation of Patent A (in a scenario where it became necessary to argue that Patent B is invalid)? Or are there additional considerations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56653" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20392" RevisionGUID="0ebd89db-b336-4745-a8d8-ff9722d765e9" CreationDate="2019-04-03T16:40:34.860" UserId="21971" Text="How to interpret prior art with broad claims and narrower specification in order to invalidate another patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56654" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20392" RevisionGUID="0ebd89db-b336-4745-a8d8-ff9722d765e9" CreationDate="2019-04-03T16:40:34.860" UserId="21971" Text="&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20393" RevisionGUID="74ca31b8-1f62-4fa9-90c0-11437c56a1ef" CreationDate="2019-04-03T17:25:21.780" UserId="21971" Text="Brief context  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I'm in the early stages of product development, pre-prototype.&#xD;&#xA;   (Subtext: definitely no funds available for a legal opinion. I'll&#xD;&#xA;   cross that bridge when it becomes feasible; for now, I'm just looking&#xD;&#xA;   for a better understanding how prior art is generally interpreted in&#xD;&#xA;   cases like this one.)&#xD;&#xA; - Bad news: there is an unexpired US patent that covers my concept&#xD;&#xA;   (most claims are relevant and not easily designed around).&#xD;&#xA; - Good news (probably): I've found a few instances of prior art that&#xD;&#xA;   anticipate the patent, invalidating the relevant claims (my own&#xD;&#xA;   non-lawyerly opinion of course). However, that depends on how the&#xD;&#xA;   prior art is interpreted, as the patent is not a carbon copy of the&#xD;&#xA;   prior art.&#xD;&#xA; - The company does not appear to be practicing the patent anymore (nor&#xD;&#xA;   are there any other companies doing so), so I don't see a need to go&#xD;&#xA;   out of my way to invalidate it, but I'm doing a bit of homework now&#xD;&#xA;   in case at some point in the future, the patent holder makes a fuss.&#xD;&#xA; - (I recognize that to show invalidity you have to show &quot;that the&#xD;&#xA;   patent is invalid by clear and convincing evidence, a substantially&#xD;&#xA;   greater burden&quot; than proving infringement&#xD;&#xA;   https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5529&amp;context=journal_articles)&#xD;&#xA; - (I'll keep this post focused on an issue regarding one instance of&#xD;&#xA;   prior art; I've made another post regarding a different issue&#xD;&#xA;   regarding another instance of prior art.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than citing the patent or prior art here, I'll lay out the key issue in general terms; for the sake of making the discussion a bit less abstract, I'll pretend here that the patent and the prior art refer to bicycles.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I've found a blog post (via a search on Google, i.e., the post is&#xD;&#xA;   publicly accessible) dated a couple of years before the patent's&#xD;&#xA;   priority date&#xD;&#xA; - (Note: the blog post is not cited in the patent or its examination.)&#xD;&#xA; - The blog post describes a bicycle that fits the description of the&#xD;&#xA;   bicycle described in the patent's claims, apart from minor&#xD;&#xA;   differences. (The most notable difference is that the bicycle in the&#xD;&#xA;   blog includes an additional element not described in the bicycle in&#xD;&#xA;   the patent—but the patent doesn't exclude the possibility that that&#xD;&#xA;   element could be included—e.g., its claims all use the structure &quot;a&#xD;&#xA;   bicycle comprising a, b, c...&quot; . Also, a person can still use the&#xD;&#xA;   bicycle with the additional element in the same way as the bicycle&#xD;&#xA;   without that element.)&#xD;&#xA; - The blog post, however, is quite brief. It includes an image which is&#xD;&#xA;   simply a cropped photograph of part of one bicycle pasted beside a&#xD;&#xA;   cropped photograph of part of another bicycle, together creating a&#xD;&#xA;   kind of chimeric bicycle, all done with clunky,&#xD;&#xA;   beginner-level photo editing. The very brief accompanying text&#xD;&#xA;   basically says &quot;bicycle type X and bicycle type Y are well-known, and&#xD;&#xA;   the usefulness of this part of X and this part of Y are well-known,&#xD;&#xA;   so why don't we see any XY bicycles that are made by simply taking&#xD;&#xA;   this part of X and mashing it up with this part of Y, like I&#xD;&#xA;   illustrated in this photo?&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - The description goes no further; there is no description of the&#xD;&#xA;   relevant parts of X and Y. However, I think a person of ordinary&#xD;&#xA;   skill would easily understand from the very brief text and the image&#xD;&#xA;   how to make the bicycle described in the blog post.&#xD;&#xA; - (In fact, I think even without the blog post giving the brief&#xD;&#xA;   description and illustration, the XY bicycle would be obvious to a&#xD;&#xA;   practitioner of ordinary skill, but my sense is that arguing for&#xD;&#xA;   obviousness would be a riskier path, and unnecessary anyway if there&#xD;&#xA;   is an argument that the blog discloses the XY vehicle.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The question is:** how explicit and detailed does this instance of non-patent prior art need to be in order to invalidate the patent?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to one section of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2152.html#ch2100_d20033_1da60_2e9), the prior art document must disclose every element of the claim &quot;explicitly or inherently&quot;, “arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim&quot;, and it must enable the person of ordinary skill to make the invention &quot;without undue experimentation.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reference from the MPEP seems encouraging: while the blog post doesn't explicitly list the various elements of X and Y, those elements are inherent in X and Y, I think.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another encouraging reference from another section of the manual (https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html#d0e215634) says that the amount of guidance needed to enable the invention is low in &quot;predictable arts&quot;, like bicycle inventions.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on my reading of those references from the manual, it seems that the blog post describing the bicycle, though it contains only a very brief description and a rudimentary illustration, would be sufficiently enabling.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I on the right track, or am I missing something crucial?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, not that I want to get too much deeper into this, but can anyone recommend any brief discussions of relevant cases (ideally, in a &quot;predictable art&quot;) where non-patent prior art that contained relatively brief description was considered sufficiently enabling to invalidate a patent claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56656" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20393" RevisionGUID="74ca31b8-1f62-4fa9-90c0-11437c56a1ef" CreationDate="2019-04-03T17:25:21.780" UserId="21971" Text="How detailed must a description in a non-patent instance of prior art be to invalidate claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56657" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20393" RevisionGUID="74ca31b8-1f62-4fa9-90c0-11437c56a1ef" CreationDate="2019-04-03T17:25:21.780" UserId="21971" Text="&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20394" RevisionGUID="b853069a-4dd6-416d-8095-97961eced85c" CreationDate="2019-04-03T18:53:07.590" UserId="17696" Text="If I want to add details to a patent submitted to the uspto in order to add detail to overcome fears of the need for undue experimentation, will a flow up with a continuation in part mitigate the risk of need for undue experimentation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56659" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20394" RevisionGUID="b853069a-4dd6-416d-8095-97961eced85c" CreationDate="2019-04-03T18:53:07.590" UserId="17696" Text="Continuation in part to overcome concerns of undue experimentation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56660" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20394" RevisionGUID="b853069a-4dd6-416d-8095-97961eced85c" CreationDate="2019-04-03T18:53:07.590" UserId="17696" Text="&lt;continuation-in-part&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20395" RevisionGUID="bcc9f754-59f4-40f6-b0b0-a10c7bd86899" CreationDate="2019-04-03T20:50:13.167" UserId="19913" Text="As I understand it, .pdf files are required for EFS USPTO submissions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the well-heeled lawfirms have Adobe Acrobat to produce .pdf files.  That being said, has anyone had success filing USPTO NPA applications with free pdf applications?  If so please state the name of the tool.  Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56662" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20395" RevisionGUID="bcc9f754-59f4-40f6-b0b0-a10c7bd86899" CreationDate="2019-04-03T20:50:13.167" UserId="19913" Text="pdf files for USPTO application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56663" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20395" RevisionGUID="bcc9f754-59f4-40f6-b0b0-a10c7bd86899" CreationDate="2019-04-03T20:50:13.167" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;pdf&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56664" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20329" RevisionGUID="b9b0f6b6-efd9-4744-ad0a-032c9035c5f4" CreationDate="2019-04-03T23:01:40.303" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20396" RevisionGUID="d9b01168-e9e2-4bc4-af9b-cbec09546b9a" CreationDate="2019-04-03T23:07:05.633" UserId="3076" Text="I have used CutePDF to &quot;print to PDF&quot; on a PC." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20397" RevisionGUID="642e9d7e-0020-4b54-9819-6c84a5eb04fa" CreationDate="2019-04-03T23:37:17.393" UserId="3076" Text="&gt; Bad news: there is an unexpired US patent that covers my concept (most&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims are relevant and not easily designed around).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may be more than that one patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I've found a few instances of prior art that support strong arguments&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that the patent is invalid on grounds of not being novel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Via Public PAIR you can look up the entire history of the back-and-forth between the applicant and the office if you haven't done that yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The company does not appear to be practicing the patent anymore&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course there is not any requirement to &quot;practice the patent&quot;. The fact that they do not make it and have not licensed it might make it a reasonable chance they would license it to you. If they are really getting nothing now, you might get it exclusively for a small royalty and an option to get it exclusively.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I recognize that to show invalidity you have to show &quot;that the patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is invalid by clear and convincing evidence, a substantially greater&#xD;&#xA;&gt; burden&quot; than proving infringement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article you cite is way, way out of date. Under the 2012 AIA law there is a way to invalidate patents by the PTAB via an IPR. It is much less expensive than a full out infringement trial but still expensive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is thanks to the broad wording of the claims of Patent A, which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; do not specify the number of wheels on each axle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the purposes of invaliding prior art, claims are not an issue at all. Prior art is looked at for what it &quot;teaches&quot;. Anything published, anywhere in the world, in any form, can be prior art. Not just older patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patented claims are not given the broadest reasonable interpretation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; during court proceedings involving infringement and validity, and can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be interpreted based on a fully developed prosecution record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;True, but unrelated to how patent A is looked at in terms of prior art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior art only anticipates (shows lack of novelty) a claim when a single implementation taught in the prior art has all of the elements in the claim. Obviousness is shown when a prior art base reverence has most/many of the elements of the claim and other prior art references convincing fill in the other elements and/or interconnection of elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20397" RevisionGUID="c07f6ee7-fd80-4b22-8264-69719ab8ff33" CreationDate="2019-04-04T01:41:39.603" UserId="3076" Comment="expanded to respond to comment." Text="&gt; Bad news: there is an unexpired US patent that covers my concept (most&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims are relevant and not easily designed around).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may be more than that one patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I've found a few instances of prior art that support strong arguments&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that the patent is invalid on grounds of not being novel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Via Public PAIR you can look up the entire history of the back-and-forth between the applicant and the office if you haven't done that yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The company does not appear to be practicing the patent anymore&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course there is not any requirement to &quot;practice the patent&quot;. The fact that they do not make it and have not licensed it might make it a reasonable chance they would license it to you. If they are really getting nothing now, you might get it exclusively for a small royalty and an option to get it exclusively.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I recognize that to show invalidity you have to show &quot;that the patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is invalid by clear and convincing evidence, a substantially greater&#xD;&#xA;&gt; burden&quot; than proving infringement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article you cite is way, way out of date. Under the 2012 AIA law there is a way to invalidate patents by the PTAB via an IPR. It is much less expensive than a full out infringement trial but still expensive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is thanks to the broad wording of the claims of Patent A, which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; do not specify the number of wheels on each axle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the purposes of invaliding prior art, claims are not an issue at all. Prior art is looked at for what it &quot;teaches&quot;. Anything published, anywhere in the world, in any form, can be prior art. Not just older patents. If the specification explains how to make something with four axles and how to make something with two axles and the claims claim something with a **plurality** of axles, the document, as a whole, does not teach how to make something with 17 axles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patented claims are not given the broadest reasonable interpretation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; during court proceedings involving infringement and validity, and can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be interpreted based on a fully developed prosecution record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;True, but unrelated to how patent A is looked at in terms of prior art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior art only anticipates (shows lack of novelty) a claim when a single implementation taught in the prior art has all of the elements in the claim. Obviousness is shown when a prior art base reverence has most/many of the elements of the claim and other prior art references convincing fill in the other elements and/or interconnection of elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20393" RevisionGUID="5d88ae56-2007-4ece-a3c9-ae74a34d480d" CreationDate="2019-04-04T05:05:00.557" UserId="21971" Comment="changed &quot;unexpired patent&quot; to &quot;active patent&quot;, 2nd bullet in intro" Text="Brief context  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I'm in the early stages of product development, pre-prototype.&#xD;&#xA;   (Subtext: definitely no funds available for a legal opinion. I'll&#xD;&#xA;   cross that bridge when it becomes feasible; for now, I'm just looking&#xD;&#xA;   for a better understanding how prior art is generally interpreted in&#xD;&#xA;   cases like this one.)&#xD;&#xA; - Bad news: there is an active US patent that covers my concept&#xD;&#xA;   (most claims are relevant and not easily designed around).&#xD;&#xA; - Good news (probably): I've found a few instances of prior art that&#xD;&#xA;   anticipate the patent, invalidating the relevant claims (my own&#xD;&#xA;   non-lawyerly opinion of course). However, that depends on how the&#xD;&#xA;   prior art is interpreted, as the patent is not a carbon copy of the&#xD;&#xA;   prior art.&#xD;&#xA; - The company does not appear to be practicing the patent anymore (nor&#xD;&#xA;   are there any other companies doing so), so I don't see a need to go&#xD;&#xA;   out of my way to invalidate it, but I'm doing a bit of homework now&#xD;&#xA;   in case at some point in the future, the patent holder makes a fuss.&#xD;&#xA; - (I recognize that to show invalidity you have to show &quot;that the&#xD;&#xA;   patent is invalid by clear and convincing evidence, a substantially&#xD;&#xA;   greater burden&quot; than proving infringement&#xD;&#xA;   https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5529&amp;context=journal_articles)&#xD;&#xA; - (I'll keep this post focused on an issue regarding one instance of&#xD;&#xA;   prior art; I've made another post regarding a different issue&#xD;&#xA;   regarding another instance of prior art.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than citing the patent or prior art here, I'll lay out the key issue in general terms; for the sake of making the discussion a bit less abstract, I'll pretend here that the patent and the prior art refer to bicycles.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I've found a blog post (via a search on Google, i.e., the post is&#xD;&#xA;   publicly accessible) dated a couple of years before the patent's&#xD;&#xA;   priority date&#xD;&#xA; - (Note: the blog post is not cited in the patent or its examination.)&#xD;&#xA; - The blog post describes a bicycle that fits the description of the&#xD;&#xA;   bicycle described in the patent's claims, apart from minor&#xD;&#xA;   differences. (The most notable difference is that the bicycle in the&#xD;&#xA;   blog includes an additional element not described in the bicycle in&#xD;&#xA;   the patent—but the patent doesn't exclude the possibility that that&#xD;&#xA;   element could be included—e.g., its claims all use the structure &quot;a&#xD;&#xA;   bicycle comprising a, b, c...&quot; . Also, a person can still use the&#xD;&#xA;   bicycle with the additional element in the same way as the bicycle&#xD;&#xA;   without that element.)&#xD;&#xA; - The blog post, however, is quite brief. It includes an image which is&#xD;&#xA;   simply a cropped photograph of part of one bicycle pasted beside a&#xD;&#xA;   cropped photograph of part of another bicycle, together creating a&#xD;&#xA;   kind of chimeric bicycle, all done with clunky,&#xD;&#xA;   beginner-level photo editing. The very brief accompanying text&#xD;&#xA;   basically says &quot;bicycle type X and bicycle type Y are well-known, and&#xD;&#xA;   the usefulness of this part of X and this part of Y are well-known,&#xD;&#xA;   so why don't we see any XY bicycles that are made by simply taking&#xD;&#xA;   this part of X and mashing it up with this part of Y, like I&#xD;&#xA;   illustrated in this photo?&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - The description goes no further; there is no description of the&#xD;&#xA;   relevant parts of X and Y. However, I think a person of ordinary&#xD;&#xA;   skill would easily understand from the very brief text and the image&#xD;&#xA;   how to make the bicycle described in the blog post.&#xD;&#xA; - (In fact, I think even without the blog post giving the brief&#xD;&#xA;   description and illustration, the XY bicycle would be obvious to a&#xD;&#xA;   practitioner of ordinary skill, but my sense is that arguing for&#xD;&#xA;   obviousness would be a riskier path, and unnecessary anyway if there&#xD;&#xA;   is an argument that the blog discloses the XY vehicle.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The question is:** how explicit and detailed does this instance of non-patent prior art need to be in order to invalidate the patent?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to one section of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2152.html#ch2100_d20033_1da60_2e9), the prior art document must disclose every element of the claim &quot;explicitly or inherently&quot;, “arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim&quot;, and it must enable the person of ordinary skill to make the invention &quot;without undue experimentation.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reference from the MPEP seems encouraging: while the blog post doesn't explicitly list the various elements of X and Y, those elements are inherent in X and Y, I think.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another encouraging reference from another section of the manual (https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html#d0e215634) says that the amount of guidance needed to enable the invention is low in &quot;predictable arts&quot;, like bicycle inventions.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on my reading of those references from the manual, it seems that the blog post describing the bicycle, though it contains only a very brief description and a rudimentary illustration, would be sufficiently enabling.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I on the right track, or am I missing something crucial?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, not that I want to get too much deeper into this, but can anyone recommend any brief discussions of relevant cases (ideally, in a &quot;predictable art&quot;) where non-patent prior art that contained relatively brief description was considered sufficiently enabling to invalidate a patent claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20398" RevisionGUID="c2da0b79-0360-4e80-983c-a8dde94b534b" CreationDate="2019-04-04T06:54:03.013" UserId="21610" Text="&gt; (Note: the blog post is not cited in the patent or its examination.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This gives the added advantage as the same has not been examined the page could be a potential Novelty destroyer for the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;how explicit and detailed does this instance of non-patent prior art need to be in order to invalidate the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The actual scenario would differ case by case. If the prior art describes the same invention from the blog apart from the minor improvements then, please look into the claims. Are the claims scope limited for the minor improvement because the minor improvements ? as such improvements are always patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for you question how detailed the prior art must disclose depends on An ordinary person skilled in the art (POSA), upon reading the blog could arrive at such invention under any of the two categories. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. can such improvement be anticipated based on that blog post (does the post describes the invention within the four corners of the page)&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is it obvious for a POSA to arrive at that invention upon combination of blog with some other document (Eg: The blog describes a cycle without suspension and there is Moped with suspension. To improve the comfort of the cycle ride combining the suspension of moped with cycle to improve would have been obvious as the same is achieved when used in cycle or moped)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In brief the prior alone (blog) alone or in combination with some other document could it be possible for a person skilled in the art to arrive at that invention is the factor that has to be considered in evaluating the prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20399" RevisionGUID="b821b9cd-9512-46d2-becd-22cda3ea49cf" CreationDate="2019-04-04T07:48:00.710" UserId="15489" Text="I have two granted patents - parent A and parent B, and each has a continuation: continuation A and continuation B. Parent B has a terminal disclaimer against parent A. Continuation A and and continuation B are both still pending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Continuation B has received a non-final office action consisting solely of a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the only rejection is a provisional one, why has the application not simply been allowed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the best response? File a terminal disclaimer and include a note in the response that finality of the next office action is precluded, or something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56671" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20399" RevisionGUID="b821b9cd-9512-46d2-becd-22cda3ea49cf" CreationDate="2019-04-04T07:48:00.710" UserId="15489" Text="How to handle a non-final action with only a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56672" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20399" RevisionGUID="b821b9cd-9512-46d2-becd-22cda3ea49cf" CreationDate="2019-04-04T07:48:00.710" UserId="15489" Text="&lt;office-action&gt;&lt;terminal-disclaimer&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20400" RevisionGUID="bfe39b2a-e512-47c9-8463-063b6724850f" CreationDate="2019-04-04T07:58:42.930" UserId="21610" Text="It is a practice of Patent office to give a provisional Non-statuary double patent rejection based on continuation of prior granted/ pending application, if the claims are not substantially different from those of the prior application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order for a reply to an Office Action that includes a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection to be considered responsive, “filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20399" RevisionGUID="4a44fa5b-d5c8-47aa-aa2e-2f0ad5f5dc7d" CreationDate="2019-04-04T13:43:35.357" UserId="15489" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="I have two granted patents - parent A and parent B, and each has a continuation: continuation A and continuation B. Parent B has a terminal disclaimer against parent A. Continuation A and and continuation B are both still pending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Continuation B has received a non-final office action consisting solely of a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection againts continuation B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the only rejection is a provisional one, why has the application not simply been allowed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the best response? File a terminal disclaimer and include a note in the response that finality of the next office action is precluded, or something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20399" RevisionGUID="c0b12409-dfdc-4460-8bdd-d16a423645b5" CreationDate="2019-04-04T17:50:38.187" UserId="15489" Comment="edited body" Text="I have two granted patents - parent A and parent B, and each has a continuation: continuation A and continuation B. Parent B has a terminal disclaimer against parent A. Continuation A and and continuation B are both still pending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Continuation B has received a non-final office action consisting solely of a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection againts continuation A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the only rejection is a provisional one, why has the application not simply been allowed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the best response? File a terminal disclaimer and include a note in the response that finality of the next office action is precluded, or something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20399" RevisionGUID="3c62017f-88ff-43a6-ba51-0bbdfec05b38" CreationDate="2019-04-04T19:42:08.993" UserId="15489" Comment="Spelling error" Text="I have two granted patents - parent A and parent B, and each has a continuation: continuation A and continuation B. Parent B has a terminal disclaimer against parent A. Continuation A and and continuation B are both still pending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Continuation B has received a non-final office action consisting solely of a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection against continuation A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the only rejection is a provisional one, why has the application not simply been allowed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the best response? File a terminal disclaimer and include a note in the response that finality of the next office action is precluded, or something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20401" RevisionGUID="005b9973-ac4d-4487-a734-697264b05a75" CreationDate="2019-04-04T22:59:28.970" UserId="21975" Text="on Google's support page for patent searches (see here: https://support.google.com/faqs/answer/7049588?hl=en) it says that: &quot;You can download up to the top 1000 results by clicking &quot;Download (CSV)&quot;. This may take a few seconds to generate. Fewer than 1000 results may be returned.&quot; I want to see more than 1,000 of the results. Is there anyway to do that -- perhaps using a different search engine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56678" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20401" RevisionGUID="005b9973-ac4d-4487-a734-697264b05a75" CreationDate="2019-04-04T22:59:28.970" UserId="21975" Text="Can I search for more than just the top 1000 results using Google's Patent Search Engine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56679" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20401" RevisionGUID="005b9973-ac4d-4487-a734-697264b05a75" CreationDate="2019-04-04T22:59:28.970" UserId="21975" Text="&lt;google&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20402" RevisionGUID="7f43eadd-89f8-4e76-aaba-02a5accf1469" CreationDate="2019-04-05T00:22:40.837" UserId="3076" Text="I would recommend [The Lens][1]. It allows download of either 1000 or 10,000 patents via their &quot;Collections&quot; feature. A found a [blog post that goes through it step-by-step][2]. They have two alternate formats to .cvs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.pauloldham.net/lens/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20403" RevisionGUID="17051f78-fc07-49d3-a01e-d71832d017d5" CreationDate="2019-04-05T02:45:32.003" UserId="19913" Text="The USPTO has a ['menu' of service][1]s that one can purchase.  If filing a utility patent,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Why and when is each mandatory service performed?  What are said mandatory services for a utility patent application?&#xD;&#xA; 2. When are said service fees due? At filing of the NPA?&#xD;&#xA; 3. If I do not understand the description of the line-item service (Reissue?), where is a good online resource to find clarification?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56682" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20403" RevisionGUID="17051f78-fc07-49d3-a01e-d71832d017d5" CreationDate="2019-04-05T02:45:32.003" UserId="19913" Text="USPTO Services: Patent Searches &amp; Patent Examinations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56683" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20403" RevisionGUID="17051f78-fc07-49d3-a01e-d71832d017d5" CreationDate="2019-04-05T02:45:32.003" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;fees&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20404" RevisionGUID="4c13a2ae-64c8-46f9-964d-39b281fb6518" CreationDate="2019-04-05T03:41:56.903" UserId="3076" Text="There is a [fee schedule][1] for the USPTO's services. There are fees to file a PPA and more expensive fees for an NPA. Generally, fees are lower for smaller entities. There is a micro-entity fee and a small entity fee for most fee items. There are fees related to appeals, to requesting an IPR, and to a reissue application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20403" RevisionGUID="e0fa1cde-5362-4915-8650-9b549dde899d" CreationDate="2019-04-05T13:15:18.347" UserId="19913" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="The USPTO has a ['menu' of service][1]s that one can purchase.  I suspect that a patent search and exam is required when a utility patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Why and when is each mandatory service performed?  What are said mandatory services for a utility patent application?&#xD;&#xA; 2. When are said service fees due? At filing of the NPA?&#xD;&#xA; 3. If I do not understand the description of the line-item service (Reissue?), where is a good online resource to find clarification?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20402" RevisionGUID="c9b7fa70-66da-4aa9-bdde-d1c13d09fc10" CreationDate="2019-04-05T16:50:13.770" UserId="3076" Comment="fixed typo" Text="I would recommend [The Lens][1]. It allows download of either 1000 or 10,000 patents via their &quot;Collections&quot; feature. A found a [blog post that goes through it step-by-step][2]. They have two alternate formats to .csv.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.pauloldham.net/lens/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56688" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20333" RevisionGUID="850b1cc3-4e83-4e9c-8062-6c2638d7c0b0" CreationDate="2019-04-05T22:01:40.270" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20404" RevisionGUID="2ad83955-fb8e-435d-8ab5-9d440925286e" CreationDate="2019-04-05T23:14:09.050" UserId="3076" Comment="added 434 characters in body" Text="There is a [fee schedule][1] for the USPTO's services. There are fees to file a PPA and more expensive fees for an NPA. Generally, fees are lower for smaller entities. There is a micro-entity fee and a small entity fee for most fee items. There are fees related to appeals, to requesting an IPR, and to a reissue application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally fees are due at filing although, depending upon the fee, they can be delayed for an additional surcharge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a process called reissue that allows the patent owner to declare that their granted patent is deficient in some way and get a re-examination, often involving amending the claims. You can't expand beyond the original disclosure and the defect can be &quot;I didn't claim as broadly as I could have claimed.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20406" RevisionGUID="62887b9e-cbc0-4f57-96c9-15487a863373" CreationDate="2019-04-06T02:55:04.117" UserId="21812" Text="I see sites like freepatentsonline has an online listing, but where do they get their listing from? Does the USPTO have a site with a listing of the 18 month publications?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the most recent 18 month publications are here:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.freepatentsonline.com/PD-07052018.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56694" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20406" RevisionGUID="62887b9e-cbc0-4f57-96c9-15487a863373" CreationDate="2019-04-06T02:55:04.117" UserId="21812" Text="Is there an actual listing (website, paper listing) of patent applications being published under the 18 month timeline?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56695" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20406" RevisionGUID="62887b9e-cbc0-4f57-96c9-15487a863373" CreationDate="2019-04-06T02:55:04.117" UserId="21812" Text="&lt;publication&gt;&lt;18-month&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20407" RevisionGUID="36b3b942-9091-4704-8bd8-fed3d746cea7" CreationDate="2019-04-06T08:09:22.787" UserId="21610" Text="The link below is official USPTO application publication site it's updated weekly on Thursday. To get the latest published applications of the week you need to input that Thursday date  in issue date section in YYYYMMDD format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://appft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20408" RevisionGUID="6fa728ee-2e89-4ae5-8d61-825ee9af7c40" CreationDate="2019-04-06T09:32:19.860" UserId="21911" Text="If I patent a method of fabrication, can someone else manufacture the product overseas and import it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56698" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20408" RevisionGUID="6fa728ee-2e89-4ae5-8d61-825ee9af7c40" CreationDate="2019-04-06T09:32:19.860" UserId="21911" Text="Method of fabrication patents, Is it okay to import from abroad?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56699" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20408" RevisionGUID="6fa728ee-2e89-4ae5-8d61-825ee9af7c40" CreationDate="2019-04-06T09:32:19.860" UserId="21911" Text="&lt;method&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20409" RevisionGUID="13762735-63ad-43af-8461-b6ee3c9116e7" CreationDate="2019-04-06T10:43:06.677" UserId="21610" Text="If you patent a method of fabrication, any product that is imported which would infringe your patent would comprise infringement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eg: If a patent was granted in US but not in Canada, a person using your patent in Canada is not liable to be infringing but, if the person exports the product to US / some one imports it to US then it would be infringing and could be held liable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56703" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="20408" RevisionGUID="4754adfc-9aa8-4931-8ddf-a3e260d1bbd8" CreationDate="2019-04-06T11:26:07.520" />
  <row Id="56704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20410" RevisionGUID="4da3c469-710a-4319-9e30-d11799358db1" CreationDate="2019-04-06T20:20:35.273" UserId="3076" Text="It is covered by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title 35. PATENTS Part III. PATENTS AND PROTECTION OF PATENT RIGHTS &#xD;&#xA;Chapter 28. INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS &#xD;&#xA;Section 271. Infringement of patent**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (g )Whoever without authority imports into the United States or offers to sell, sells, or uses within the United States a product which is made by a process patented in the United States shall be liable as an infringer, if the importation, offer to sell, sale, or use of the product occurs during the term of such process patent. In an action for infringement of a process patent, no remedy may be granted for infringement on account of the noncommercial use or retail sale of a product unless there is no adequate remedy under this title for infringement on account of the importation or other use, offer to sell, or sale of that product. A product which is made by a patented process will, for purposes of this title, not be considered to be so made after—&#xD;&#xA;(1) it is materially changed by subsequent processes; or&#xD;&#xA;(2) it becomes a trivial and nonessential component of another product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see there a couple of caveats." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20407" RevisionGUID="4c3d6ab0-2e98-447d-8874-ba2eaaf6178a" CreationDate="2019-04-07T16:37:14.727" UserId="21610" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="The link below is official USPTO application publication site it's updated weekly on Thursday. To get the latest published applications of the week you need to input that Thursday date  in publication date section in YYYYMMDD format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://appft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20411" RevisionGUID="b29b0600-e693-4d2b-9321-a4be8c36bbbb" CreationDate="2019-04-08T15:13:18.303" UserId="19913" Text=" * Why does the USPTO issue a 'Reference Number'  for inbound phone calls?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * How is the numbered used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56707" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20411" RevisionGUID="b29b0600-e693-4d2b-9321-a4be8c36bbbb" CreationDate="2019-04-08T15:13:18.303" UserId="19913" Text="Why does the USPTO issue a 'Reference Number' for inbound phone calls?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56708" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20411" RevisionGUID="b29b0600-e693-4d2b-9321-a4be8c36bbbb" CreationDate="2019-04-08T15:13:18.303" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20412" RevisionGUID="8f53e1a1-023a-4434-a151-4bff542082c6" CreationDate="2019-04-08T19:49:52.700" UserId="17696" Text="I spoke to a lawyer today and the answer was yes a CIP can resolve such issues.  Who knows how much that advice is worth.&#xA;&#xA;Thinking about it a bit more myself, this sort of makes sense since continuations and CIP's are typically used to overcome issues when examiners reject claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20413" RevisionGUID="beefd50a-c110-4598-94a0-eb39785c25e2" CreationDate="2019-04-08T20:39:12.013" UserId="3076" Text="Yes - Whether a CIP or a straight continuation, you can add the new material BUT in both cases you effectively *loose the original priority date*.  A way to have your cake and eat it too would be to pursue both applications. In that case  would file the CIP after the allowance on the parent - **but before the grant date**. Examiners do not usually reject for lack of enablement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With different claim wording you might be able to get both granted with a terminal disclaimer. I'm a patent agent, but not an attorney but an attorney might think you would then have one with better enablement and one with a better priority date. Issues of patent enforcement are outside my expertise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20417" RevisionGUID="b5018c75-38c7-4152-9bb5-3707e0a1cf7d" CreationDate="2019-04-09T12:35:58.917" UserId="19913" Text="When filing a USPTO utility patent, why does one file a Form sb008a and sb008b:  list of other patents and non patent literature (other than 'one is compelled to').  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;THOUGHTS&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;I understand one can not patent something that has been patented or published.  Although one could theoretically list thousands of citations, it does not prove that in itself does not prove that it has not been patented or published in the past.  &#xD;&#xA;QUESTION&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;In what way does said disclosure forms advance the patent application process?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56720" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20417" RevisionGUID="b5018c75-38c7-4152-9bb5-3707e0a1cf7d" CreationDate="2019-04-09T12:35:58.917" UserId="19913" Text="Information Disclosure Statement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56721" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20417" RevisionGUID="b5018c75-38c7-4152-9bb5-3707e0a1cf7d" CreationDate="2019-04-09T12:35:58.917" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20417" RevisionGUID="ceba0c13-2693-4928-a0d0-2b08bfe35739" CreationDate="2019-04-09T13:16:18.067" UserId="19913" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="When filing a USPTO utility patent, why does one file a Form sb008a and sb008b:  list of other patents and non patent literature (other than 'one is compelled to').  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;THOUGHTS&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;I understand one can not patent something that has been patented or published.  Although one could theoretically list thousands of citations, it does not prove that in itself does not prove that it has not been patented or published in the past.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel like I am giving the examiner the ammunition to shoot blast the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTION&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;In what way does said disclosure forms advance the patent application process?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20418" RevisionGUID="6ff6ecae-a785-4024-82a3-fd3e777854c3" CreationDate="2019-04-09T15:48:07.833" UserId="3076" Text="You are required to give the examiner any ammunition **you know of** that could help shoot your application down. That is what you are compelled to list. There is no requirement to do any searching; there a requirement to let the USPTO know about references and actions that tend to hurt your application that you are aware of. Until a court decision a few years, patents were routinely being torn up for the &quot;inequitable conduct&quot; of not listing something that was *potentially* relevant.  That situation is not as bad anymore but the common wisdom is that it is much better to list something that might be marginally relevant than to leave it off. When in doubt, disclose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examiners are organized the topics they examine day in and day out and will likely find things closer that the things you have found." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20419" RevisionGUID="e0105adb-08c3-4b73-9660-40948852e982" CreationDate="2019-04-09T16:25:12.080" UserId="15489" Text="Can a PCT application be filed on a granted USPTO patent with a priority date that is less than a year ago? And if so, do national stage patents that  issue from the PCT application get the same priority date as the granted USPTO patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56725" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20419" RevisionGUID="e0105adb-08c3-4b73-9660-40948852e982" CreationDate="2019-04-09T16:25:12.080" UserId="15489" Text="Can a PCT application be filed on a granted USPTO patent with a priority date that is less than a year ago?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56726" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20419" RevisionGUID="e0105adb-08c3-4b73-9660-40948852e982" CreationDate="2019-04-09T16:25:12.080" UserId="15489" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;priority-date&gt;&lt;grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20420" RevisionGUID="ea7fa5db-6733-4294-8017-7183ae009599" CreationDate="2019-04-09T16:28:41.060" UserId="15489" Text="A patent can be &quot;kept alive&quot; by filing a continuation before the patent issues, and then continuing to file continuations in the same manner in a chain of applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the same hold for filing continuation-in-parts, i.e., a) application is allowed, b) I file a continuation in part with an extended specification, c) application issues, d) at a later point after issuance I file a continuation on the continuation in part that only uses the specification of the parent patent, not the extended specification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56728" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20420" RevisionGUID="ea7fa5db-6733-4294-8017-7183ae009599" CreationDate="2019-04-09T16:28:41.060" UserId="15489" Text="Does a continuation-in-part keep a USPTO patent family alive in the same way as a continuation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56729" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20420" RevisionGUID="ea7fa5db-6733-4294-8017-7183ae009599" CreationDate="2019-04-09T16:28:41.060" UserId="15489" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;continuation&gt;&lt;continuation-in-part&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20422" RevisionGUID="c18a7d68-f159-4efd-a074-049277f6f2cc" CreationDate="2019-04-09T16:43:06.240" UserId="21610" Text="Yes, you can claim priority to a continuation-in-part patent application similar to a continuation application before a patent was granted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new matter added must not be patentability distinct as the claims would be evaluated on the patent specification. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20423" RevisionGUID="3b50cf7c-876a-4a66-a3f0-ed295c7a03ce" CreationDate="2019-04-09T20:00:23.627" UserId="3076" Text="**Yes** - As mentioned in a comment by OP @Keir Finlow Bates a US patent can issue very quickly. It could be a Track I or moved to the front of the queue due to age or ill health. **And Yes**, they get the same priority date as the US application. As @RishiM_IPR points out, priority comes from filing dates, not grant dates." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56735" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="20289" RevisionGUID="928f5447-a7f8-40b9-b7f0-ba77153bc2d7" CreationDate="2019-04-09T20:14:11.077" UserId="18033" Comment="edited title" Text="Can I sell this patented product outside the US?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20423" RevisionGUID="01e43b35-9664-4db0-b7b4-c92f1567a44d" CreationDate="2019-04-09T20:14:53.387" UserId="3076" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="**Yes** - The key issue is &quot;with a priority date that is less than a year ago&quot;. The date of the grant is a non-issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned in a comment by OP @Keir Finlow Bates a US patent can issue very quickly. It could be a Track I or moved to the front of the queue due to age or ill health. **And Yes**, they get the same priority date as the US application. As @RishiM_IPR points out, priority comes from filing dates, not grant dates." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20417" RevisionGUID="596f9a91-c611-4258-bee6-ccb6eb3874dd" CreationDate="2019-04-09T22:04:21.480" UserId="19913" Comment="edited body" Text="When filing a USPTO utility patent,  one files a Form sb008a and sb008b: a list of other patents and non patent literature.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;THOUGHTS&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;I understand one can not patent something that has been patented or published.  Although one could theoretically list thousands of citations, it does not prove that in itself does not prove that it has not been patented or published in the past.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel like I am giving the examiner the ammunition to shoot blast the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTION&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA; - In what way does said disclosure forms advance the patent application process?&#xD;&#xA; - Why is this required? (other than 'one is compelled to')" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20418" RevisionGUID="8ba8edf1-414f-4df5-b240-a156de6fec37" CreationDate="2019-04-10T00:11:52.550" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1023 characters in body" Text="It advances the application process by fulfilling an important requirement on the applicant. It could also help the examiner in formulating a good first office action. If the first office action is not on target the whole process is delayed and you may spend money later on an RCE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why does the law require it? Patent examination is considered a one party preceding. As such you need to tell all. In a normal U.S. court, there are two sides adversarially hammering out the truth (in theory). That is why in an adversarial proceeding one side may not need to tell all. You can tell your attorney you committed murder and they can't tell the judge. If you tell your patent attorney (or agent) that you got most of the ideas from someone else, they do need to tell the USPTO. That is because the other party is the public and they are absent. You are asking the government to let you prohibit the public from doing something and the public isn't in the process fighting you. Since it is one-sided, you need to disclose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are required to give the examiner any ammunition **you know of** that could help shoot your application down. That is what you are compelled to list. There is no requirement to do any searching; there a requirement to let the USPTO know about references and actions that tend to hurt your application that you are aware of. Until a court decision a few years, patents were routinely being torn up for the &quot;inequitable conduct&quot; of not listing something that was *potentially* relevant.  That situation is not as bad anymore but the common wisdom is that it is much better to list something that might be marginally relevant than to leave it off. When in doubt, disclose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examiners are organized the topics they examine day in and day out and will likely find things closer than the things you have found." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20424" RevisionGUID="1086b6f2-f0a2-419d-b598-a46db0af430e" CreationDate="2019-04-10T09:57:08.553" UserId="15489" Text="Can a continuation be sold separately from the parent patent if no terminal disclaimers are in place?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56740" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20424" RevisionGUID="1086b6f2-f0a2-419d-b598-a46db0af430e" CreationDate="2019-04-10T09:57:08.553" UserId="15489" Text="Can a continuation be sold separately from the parent patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56741" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20424" RevisionGUID="1086b6f2-f0a2-419d-b598-a46db0af430e" CreationDate="2019-04-10T09:57:08.553" UserId="15489" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;continuation&gt;&lt;terminal-disclaimer&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20418" RevisionGUID="911e1041-107d-439e-9aa3-b56bfad7cc43" CreationDate="2019-04-10T11:57:30.910" UserId="19913" Comment="happy to glad changes: hopefully improves readibility" Text="It advances the application process by fulfilling an important requirement on the applicant. It could also help the examiner in formulating a good first office action. If the first office action is not on target the whole process is delayed and you may spend money later on an RCE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why does the law require it? Patent examination is considered a one party preceding. As such you need to tell all. In a normal U.S. court, there are two sides adversarially hammering out the truth (in theory). That is why in an adversarial proceeding one side may not need to tell all. You can tell your attorney you committed murder and they can't tell the judge. If you tell your patent attorney (or agent) that you got most of the ideas from someone else, they do need to tell the USPTO. That is because the other party is the public and they are absent. You are asking the government to let you prohibit the public from doing something and the public isn't in the process fighting you. Since it is one-sided, you need to disclose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are required to give the examiner any ammunition **you know of** that could help shoot your application down. That is what you are compelled to list. There is no requirement to do any searching; there a requirement to let the USPTO know about references and actions that tend to hurt your application that you are aware of. Until a court decision a few years, patents were routinely being torn up for the &quot;inequitable conduct&quot; of not listing something that was *potentially* relevant.  That situation is not as bad anymore but the common wisdom is that it is much better to list something that might be marginally relevant than to leave it off. When in doubt, disclose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examiners are organized: the topics they examine day in and day out and will likely reveal prior-art closer to the subject matter than the you have found." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20426" RevisionGUID="21d86fd4-4548-43e3-aa60-d8a2453ddfd8" CreationDate="2019-04-10T17:59:43.973" UserId="3076" Text="**Yes, absolutely,** as long as there is not a terminal disclaimer that ties the applications together. A terminal disclaimer might be required during patent prosecution to avoid a rejection based on double-patenting. Under a terminal disclaimer common ownership of the covered patents is required. Both must be sold together with the requirement that they stay commonly owned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming no terminal disclaimer, there is no problem with selling or licensing the patents independently. An example of the strategic use of this might be the case of a core parent patent and several patents that issued from continuation or divisional applications where the other patents applied the core invention to different fields. Hypothetically a conceptually new type of saw blade (core patent) and child applications on a surgical tool, a tree trimmer and a potato peeler would make a good example. The patent owner could give exclusive licenses to four companies on the parent, blade, application and exclusive licenses each respectively for the surgical tool, tree trimmer and potato peeler. This is somewhat unrealistic since it only works if the parent had fully disclosed the three tools using the new blade. The sub-patents might be CIPs, a kind of continuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternative to an exclusive license is to actually sell a patent. This would be called an assignment. In my example the tree trimmer patent could be assigned rather than exclusively licensed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20426" RevisionGUID="f85ba875-caf6-43bd-a8b8-48d6af2fbe5d" CreationDate="2019-04-10T18:32:14.430" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="**Yes, absolutely,** as long as there is not a terminal disclaimer that ties the applications together. A terminal disclaimer might be required during patent prosecution to avoid a rejection based on double-patenting. Under a terminal disclaimer common ownership of the covered patents is required. Both must be sold together with the requirement that they stay commonly owned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming no terminal disclaimer, there is no problem with selling or licensing the patents independently. An example of the strategic use of this might be the case of a core parent patent and several patents that issued from continuation or divisional applications where the other patents applied the core invention to different fields. Hypothetically a conceptually new type of saw blade (core patent) and child applications on a surgical tool, a tree trimmer and a potato peeler would make a good example. The patent owner could give *non-exclusive* licenses to four companies on the parent application and exclusive licenses each respectively for the surgical tool, tree trimmer and potato peeler. This example only fits the question if the parent had fully disclosed the three tools using the new blade or if the &quot;sub-patents&quot; were CIPs, a kind of continuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternative to an exclusive license is to actually sell a patent. This would be called an assignment. In my example the tree trimmer patent could be assigned rather than exclusively licensed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20427" RevisionGUID="2add2e3b-888c-493f-b468-8af23015c813" CreationDate="2019-04-11T02:00:03.320" UserId="21999" Text="Wondering what an example of a &quot;good&quot; patent is in Software Development. Basically wondering:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. How long the good ones typically are (a range of sizes).&#xD;&#xA;2. How much scope one patent contains, or if they should be broken into smaller parts somehow.&#xD;&#xA;3. How much depth it should go into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For (3), I can imagine including unit tests or other actual snippets of code to clarify some aspects. Or perhaps it should be more like a research paper with a few diagrams and some initial experiments, and maybe some interfaces defined in code, maybe some algorithms need to be defined too, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For (2), if your patent was &quot;the internet&quot; or &quot;the first database&quot; or &quot;the first computer&quot;, those are broad topics, as opposed to &quot;a specific algorithm for sorting&quot;. In the case of the former, I'm wondering if there are any examples to take a look at where one &quot;invention&quot; was divided across multiple patents, to get a sense of how the limited the scope in each of them. Google cars might be a good example, where they have the whole car hardware part, the whole machine learning part, the whole camera part, etc. The machine learning part could be broken down into machine learning part A, and ML part B, part C, etc. Those could be broken down to specific algorithms, one patent for each. But that seems like too much, it could be in the thousands of patents in that case. Basically wondering at a high level how scope is managed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For (1), if there is a general length to the good ones. If they are typically longer or shorter, or if it doesn't matter and instead depends on the depth or something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally wondering about these 3 things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In looking through some initial patents on &quot;Software Web Application Google Patent&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Automated testing of web-based applications](https://patents.google.com/patent/EP3026565A1)&#xD;&#xA;- [System for determining web application vulnerabilities](https://patents.google.com/patent/US6584569B2/en)&#xD;&#xA;- [Method for server-side logging of client browser state through markup language](https://patents.google.com/patent/US8326922B2/en)&#xD;&#xA;- [Method and system of retrieving Ajax web page content](https://patents.google.com/patent/US8413044B2/en)&#xD;&#xA;- [LZW data compression algorithm](https://patents.google.com/patent/US7696906B2/en)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first glance it seems that 5-10 pages is around what these software patents are about, with heavy citations and not that much depth. Even complex &quot;topics&quot; like [satelite stuff](https://patents.google.com/patent/US8939409B2/en) is roughly the same too. I would have expected significantly more depth, but maybe this is all it takes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By &quot;good&quot; I mean that it will hold up under scrutiny, reads well, and is something to model after.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other things I found helpful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://www.upcounsel.com/software-patent-examples&#xD;&#xA;- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56753" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20427" RevisionGUID="2add2e3b-888c-493f-b468-8af23015c813" CreationDate="2019-04-11T02:00:03.320" UserId="21999" Text="Example of a good patent in Software Development" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56754" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20427" RevisionGUID="2add2e3b-888c-493f-b468-8af23015c813" CreationDate="2019-04-11T02:00:03.320" UserId="21999" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;intellectual-property&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56755" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="892d6639-b145-4f30-bf68-ffde2634d247" CreationDate="2019-04-11T05:02:25.477" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56756" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16615" RevisionGUID="e704d474-71c8-4c85-92fe-b9592480e87a" CreationDate="2019-04-11T08:03:35.817" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56757" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16336" RevisionGUID="f9d32313-9f65-4dfc-8a62-29610623c35c" CreationDate="2019-04-11T09:01:25.257" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56758" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13334" RevisionGUID="d4a6697d-0222-4a6d-8ccd-c0db89f7fb06" CreationDate="2019-04-11T10:01:25.287" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20417" RevisionGUID="325448f2-d937-49c8-9456-83cc829f8a1f" CreationDate="2019-04-11T13:05:12.940" UserId="19913" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="When filing a USPTO utility patent,  one files a Form sb008a and sb008b: a list of other patents and non patent literature.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;THOUGHTS&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;I understand one can not patent something that has been patented or published.  Although one could theoretically list thousands of citations, it does not prove that in itself does not prove that it has not been patented or published in the past.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel like I am giving the examiner the ammunition to shoot and blast the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTION&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA; - In what way does said disclosure forms advance the patent application process?&#xD;&#xA; - Why is this required? (other than 'one is compelled to')" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20428" RevisionGUID="8058a213-74d5-4e06-90b1-476920c228b6" CreationDate="2019-04-11T18:28:28.497" UserId="22004" Text="Some months ago I filed an application for a national patent (in an EU country). The examiner pointed out several amendments to be made, which I did after I discussed with him twice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually the application was rejected at the examination stage (i.e. before reaching the prior art search) on the grounds of exclusions from patentability. Afaik there is no way to appeal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would it be best for me to proceed? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant details: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rejection invoked the exclusion area of scientific theories and software. The material is actually neither, although it could be mistaken for them by someone not familiar with the field. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the pillars in the (attempted) patent is the application of machine learning methods, which the examiner sounded like he isn't quite familiar with. At one point during our discussions he exclaimed &quot;do you mean to tell me that you'll input data and you'll just get an answer?&quot;, which is exactly what machine learning is supposed to be about when handled properly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, this is not about improving a machine learning algorithm or about a trivial application; unfortunately you'll have to take my word for it for the time being, given the situation :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An acquaintance, an engineer who collaborates with patent attorneys, read the application and agreed that there is no ground for rejection. He added that it's the first time he hears about an application being rejected before the prior art search. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, I believe that the rejection is due to a combination of novelty, unfamiliarity of the examiner with the field, and rather abstract nature of the material (although its practical applications in industry were described in detail). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, during the examination period I contributed a poster to a conference, which included a description of the main concept used in the patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the moment I'm speaking with patent attorneys in order to find the best way forward, but I'd like to hear the opinion of people with similar experience or expertise... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56761" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20428" RevisionGUID="8058a213-74d5-4e06-90b1-476920c228b6" CreationDate="2019-04-11T18:28:28.497" UserId="22004" Text="Application rejected at examination stage" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56762" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20428" RevisionGUID="8058a213-74d5-4e06-90b1-476920c228b6" CreationDate="2019-04-11T18:28:28.497" UserId="22004" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;european&gt;&lt;rejection&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56763" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20345" RevisionGUID="eee49a6f-64a6-479d-a57c-8649c7b370d1" CreationDate="2019-04-11T23:00:45.083" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56764" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19809" RevisionGUID="0bfe0f8d-d871-4363-85b2-fb4196fdde80" CreationDate="2019-04-12T00:02:05.383" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56766" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17307" RevisionGUID="8b928371-f0e3-483d-bb03-a45de51ccdae" CreationDate="2019-04-12T04:05:51.107" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56767" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17472" RevisionGUID="e6625a7e-9e5e-4d2c-8d9c-da532ff2acdd" CreationDate="2019-04-12T07:03:20.713" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56768" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="20428" RevisionGUID="64500d93-97ed-4037-b232-67bcec70de63" CreationDate="2019-04-12T08:38:50.190" UserId="22004" Comment="edited title" Text="Application rejected at examination stage - How to proceed best?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56769" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19863" RevisionGUID="5728eb1e-8b65-4375-a388-72d809d2b177" CreationDate="2019-04-12T10:01:25.240" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20429" RevisionGUID="4b284e56-f00c-45d0-a20d-10406f264afa" CreationDate="2019-04-12T13:23:01.150" UserId="19913" Text="As an engineer, o me to ask the right questions because they are very busy with other projects.  My project is blessed with fine attorneys, however, it is up tI believe I have the experience with the mechanics (the how of .pdf .docx etc.) I anticipate needing assistance with ensuring:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What [documents do I need to file][1]?&#xD;&#xA;* Are said documents filled out correctly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are approaching the deadline to file, so we are making a 'final-push' to produce the best possible NPA submission.  My 'spider-sense' tells me that is that there are other questions that I should be other questions, however, this is my first patent attempt and I should consult the wisdom of the community (preferably those who have submitted patents successfully to the USPTO).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What other questions should I be asking the attorneys to enable the best possible outcome? The first two questions above are **NOT** questions that I seek to have answered in this thread, but examples of questions that should and have been asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vuEL5aaqK7RzU2SggWQeI71KOsZfgKKZ00aCLjipKug/edit#gid=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56771" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20429" RevisionGUID="4b284e56-f00c-45d0-a20d-10406f264afa" CreationDate="2019-04-12T13:23:01.150" UserId="19913" Text="USPTO Patent Utility Submission Assistance Questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56772" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20429" RevisionGUID="4b284e56-f00c-45d0-a20d-10406f264afa" CreationDate="2019-04-12T13:23:01.150" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;non-provisional&gt;&lt;utility-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20430" RevisionGUID="afd60bb1-ed20-46b1-8cc5-5f7aeb453ec7" CreationDate="2019-04-12T16:22:46.703" UserId="169" Text="Each country has its own patent rules. What is allowable in one country may not be allowable in another country. &#xD;&#xA;There may be number of reasons why it is rejected. For example in some countries, there is formality check (i.e. does the application corresponds to the formal requirements) before the prior art search. &#xD;&#xA;Best thing you can do is to consult with local patent attorney. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56774" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19881" RevisionGUID="b61fe8a0-ecd8-42c4-a1ba-7f9efc871a8f" CreationDate="2019-04-12T19:02:00.400" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56775" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18242" RevisionGUID="0c05d610-df8a-49d8-b003-51442037a1b9" CreationDate="2019-04-12T21:00:50.427" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20431" RevisionGUID="bdb33a08-dd6b-4bca-9fd2-ec5f9f8690de" CreationDate="2019-04-12T21:53:59.160" UserId="17003" Text="Since you have are working with &quot;fine attorneys&quot;, then they are responsible for ensuring the correct documents are filed and those documents are correctly filled out. It is frankly ridiculous for you to infer that qualified patent attorneys need help from the inventor with the mechanics of filing a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for what I think you should consider is the technical content of the patent. In particular you should assess whether the patent is sufficiently broad to cover all conceivable implementations of the invention. You can help this along by carefully reading the specification and claims and asking yourself whether you can think of ways of avoiding infringement. If you can, then you should try to broaden the scope to cover those alternative implementations. These alternatives need not be the ideal or preferred implementation or even function as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56777" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20238" RevisionGUID="340b558a-a0f6-4103-a7a9-12625b14b2b7" CreationDate="2019-04-12T22:01:30.257" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56778" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20013" RevisionGUID="ee92edd3-34a2-470e-b829-fdd939467f99" CreationDate="2019-04-12T23:03:40.747" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20429" RevisionGUID="c18c6202-e683-4cba-9aaa-d3953a530ff9" CreationDate="2019-04-13T02:21:50.537" UserId="19913" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="As an engineer, I need to ask the right questions of counsel because they are very busy with other projects.  My project is blessed with fine attorneys, however, it is up to me to submit the application to the USPTO.  Although I have the experience with the mechanics the how of .pdf .docx,  I anticipate needing assistance with qualitative matters such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What [documents do I need to file][1]?&#xD;&#xA;* Are said documents filled out correctly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are approaching the deadline to file, so we are making a 'final-push' to produce the best possible NPA submission.  My 'spider-sense' tells me that is that there are other questions that I should be other questions, however, this is my first patent attempt and I should consult the wisdom of the community (preferably those who have submitted patents successfully to the USPTO).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What other questions should I be asking the attorneys to enable the best possible outcome? The first two questions above are **NOT** questions that I seek to have answered in this thread, but examples of questions that should and have been asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vuEL5aaqK7RzU2SggWQeI71KOsZfgKKZ00aCLjipKug/edit#gid=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56780" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18406" RevisionGUID="259436f3-25ab-403e-87ae-01d9a4c2747b" CreationDate="2019-04-13T21:21:48.793" UserId="17737" Comment="broken link fixed" Text="Many of us put our ideas in github or articles, hoping they will be just used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as I have currently a tough lesson, if your idea turns out successful, you can count on patent vultures trying to monopolize it or its basic applications, variations, consequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How to protect from it - safely share your ideas? How to defend when protection has turned out insufficient?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory, making your idea public makes it &quot;prior art&quot; and should prevent patenting. In practice, from my experience USPTO examiner just checks US PATENTS for KEYWORDS, often with no understanding - making it extremely simple to smuggle something one has found on the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first big problem is finding out about such attempt - and it seems nearly impossible to find if they don't cite you, don't use some characteristic keywords?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have found it and it is not too late, you can submit e.g. third-party observation ([good tutorial for USPTO][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my situation there at least two ongoing attempts for basic application of my [ANS entropy coding][2]. One is in combination with the most basic statistical modelling (Markov): that probability of a symbol depends on the previous symbol. It was explicitly mentioned in my papers, there was much earlier implementation,  used in popular CRAM DNA compressor ([complaint by its author][3]) ... but still literally description of this DNA compressor was recently given second [Notice of Allowance by USPTO][4]. The [second attempt is by **Google**][5] trying to monopolize image/video compression application of ANS, even though I have originally suggested it them and helped them in this adaptation for three years through their public discussion forum ([my complaint][6]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are other options while defending your work from patent vultures?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**: With help of many like [Ars Techica][7] and [EFF][8], the Google patent was [rejected][9]. Nice page with stories and materials for people in such situation: [**Patent Pandas**][10].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/105/i-want-to-make-a-difference-how-can-i-submit-prior-art-to-the-patent-office&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_numeral_systems&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB1502286.6/8c510575-b5bc-4852-80a4-d5adbf60a641/GB2538218-20170125-Third%20party%20observations.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=US.201615041228.A&amp;lng=en&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/google/google-accused-of-trying-to-patent-public-domain-technology/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://th.if.uj.edu.pl/~dudaj/protestGoogle.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://arstechnica.com/features/2018/06/inventor-says-google-is-patenting-work-he-put-in-the-public-domain/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/08/after-patent-office-rejection-it-time-google-abandon-its-attempt-patent-use-public&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP16819781&amp;lng=en&amp;tab=doclist&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://patentpandas.org/new-page/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56781" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18406" RevisionGUID="259436f3-25ab-403e-87ae-01d9a4c2747b" CreationDate="2019-04-13T21:21:48.793" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 18033, 19787 edit id of 2102" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56782" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18971" RevisionGUID="3e11d3c0-c16e-42ac-9b7c-851428ceb325" CreationDate="2019-04-14T00:02:55.573" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20431" RevisionGUID="af5b004a-1c8c-48eb-ab86-8ac1c5d699f9" CreationDate="2019-04-15T02:40:55.130" UserId="17003" Comment="added 168 characters in body" Text="Since you have are working with &quot;fine attorneys&quot;, then they are responsible for ensuring the correct documents are filed and those documents are correctly filled out. It is frankly ridiculous for you to infer that qualified patent attorneys need help from the inventor with the mechanics of filing a patent. As your edits indicate you are responsible for the filing, I’ll have to defer to others on the mechanics of filing as I’ve always worked with attorneys on my patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for what I think you should consider is the technical content of the patent. In particular you should assess whether the patent is sufficiently broad to cover all conceivable implementations of the invention. You can help this along by carefully reading the specification and claims and asking yourself whether you can think of ways of avoiding infringement. If you can, then you should try to broaden the scope to cover those alternative implementations. These alternatives need not be the ideal or preferred implementation or even function as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56784" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="6f647fa8-a2d7-49eb-82f7-920a0843266c" CreationDate="2019-04-15T07:02:30.497" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20432" RevisionGUID="b949044a-eeff-4ba0-a520-8c6d324b1eba" CreationDate="2019-04-15T14:17:05.950" UserId="22012" Text="I am currently looking into launching a product, and did some patent research. There is a patent for an idea similar to mine (enough for my idea to infringe some of the claims), but the company doesn't seem to be selling any product that uses the patent. I feel like I heard somewhere that a company has to prove that they are using a patent for it to be valid in court and that they have to prove that the violation is hurting them financially or otherwise. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be a simple question, but this is my first time working with patents. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56786" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20432" RevisionGUID="b949044a-eeff-4ba0-a520-8c6d324b1eba" CreationDate="2019-04-15T14:17:05.950" UserId="22012" Text="Can a company sue for patent infringement if they aren't actively using the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56787" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20432" RevisionGUID="b949044a-eeff-4ba0-a520-8c6d324b1eba" CreationDate="2019-04-15T14:17:05.950" UserId="22012" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20434" RevisionGUID="e1661924-3176-4519-8533-a1e3a412f90d" CreationDate="2019-04-15T19:32:07.723" UserId="17003" Text="Yes, a patent owner can sue even if they aren't currently commercializing their patent. What you heard &quot;somewhere&quot; is wrong. However, don't be too quick to assume you are infringing on a patent. To infringe, you must implement **each and every step of a claim**. Also, patents are territorial so a US patent doesn't cover Canada, for instance. Also, patents expire so you have to determine if the patent is still active and all maintenance fees are up to date. If you can provide the patent number of the patent you are concerned with, we can help you determine if it is still active. Freedom to operate opinions are best provided by qualified patent attorneys." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17501" RevisionGUID="baa29160-853e-4829-a01f-559d8a8deb89" CreationDate="2019-04-15T19:36:44.193" UserId="17003" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="The cited patent is a design patent. I'd guess if you want to just mount a spherical mirror on an L bracket on a motorcycle it wouldn't infringe this patent. In any case this patent is quite old and should be expired. This is not to say there isn't some other patent you would have to deal with. If you do a Google search on &quot;small spherical mirrors&quot; or &quot;small convex mirrors&quot;, you'll find many sources. If you want to work with the manufacturer associated with the cited design patent, there is nothing stopping you from contacting them, although they may or may not agree to do business with you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12387" RevisionGUID="bf367e27-eb98-45c1-96c4-2c26f935825c" CreationDate="2019-04-15T20:10:51.773" UserId="3076" Comment="identify poster as linking to his own blog post" Text="The first step is to determine whether your idea is actually &quot;patented&quot; as you assume.  Make sure that the patent you are referring to is an issued patent (as opposed to a published application) and that if it is issued, that it's still enforceable. Also, the scope of patent protection is determined by the claims of an issued patent, not what is in the drawings and/or specification, so you need to look to the claims to determine whether your idea might actually be covered by this patent.  I would suggest you talk with a patent attorney before making any determinations regarding patentability and/or potential infringement of your idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For more info on determining whether an idea is patentable check out my blog post: [Are Ideas Patentable? Is Your Idea Patentable?][1]) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your second question, patents may relate to a given technology (e.g., 3D printing), but the patent coverage is typically more narrow that it initially seems based on the specification and drawings (again, the patent claims define the true scope of protection).  In short, all these 3D printer patents that you refer to protect their own discrete aspects of of a given technology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentsdemystified.com/?p=129" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16023" RevisionGUID="04dbf364-0a54-4a21-a43d-1feac67d4a23" CreationDate="2019-04-15T20:16:49.943" UserId="3076" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="*Patents Demystified* is indeed a great book for startups, entrepreneurs and inventors and was written specifically for this audience. In addition to teaching the secrets of how successful businesses get patents, it also helps save companies money where possible and points out where spending money is necessary. In fact, I require all my clients to have a copy of *Patents Demystified* when I am working with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to being used as a guide to the patent process that patent attorneys give to their clients, *Patents Demystified* is also used in top universities including [Harvard][1], [Stanford][2] and [M.I.T.][3] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Poster is the author of Patents Demystified&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/908483635?page=frame&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhollisclassic.harvard.edu%2FF%2F%3Ffunc%3Dfind-b%26find_code%3Dkon%26request%3Docn908483635%26checksum%3D4e60ddce4eacecefd2adbda0afea503a&amp;title=Harvard%20Law%20School%20Library&amp;linktype=opac&amp;detail=HVL%3AHarvard%20Law%20School%20Library%3ALaw%20Library&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/11503380&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://library.mit.edu/item/002451797" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56793" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="20428" RevisionGUID="427af222-4dbd-486a-8d1a-2e0223e12cf6" CreationDate="2019-04-15T22:50:49.613" UserId="22004" Comment="47" />
  <row Id="56794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20434" RevisionGUID="9239bec0-20ea-43b4-8eb0-41ffa491f1be" CreationDate="2019-04-15T23:49:41.847" UserId="17003" Comment="added 342 characters in body" Text="Yes, a patent owner can sue even if they aren't currently commercializing their patent. What you heard &quot;somewhere&quot; is wrong. However, don't be too quick to assume you are infringing on a patent. To infringe, you must implement **each and every step of a claim**. It is often possible to design around patents with careful engineering. Also, patents are territorial so a US patent doesn't cover Canada, for instance. Patents expire so you have to determine if the patent is still active and all maintenance fees are up to date. If you can provide the patent number of the patent you are concerned with, we can help you determine if it is still active. Freedom to operate opinions are best provided by qualified patent attorneys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you determine the patent is still in force and impossible to circumvent, the next logical step is to inquire about licensing the patent. This can be an advantage to you in that if you obtain an exclusive license it potentially keeps competitors out of the market." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56795" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19973" RevisionGUID="9c96e266-2599-41c8-bfbd-4cfbadfc0e36" CreationDate="2019-04-16T01:02:05.707" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20435" RevisionGUID="fd3f2805-792e-4dca-a751-e969cf4d4e41" CreationDate="2019-04-16T12:43:24.007" UserId="21610" Text="In addition to @Eric Shain answer I would like to add point about damages awarded. In case a patent owner is marketing the product then the damage award would include the royalty and  lost profits  of the patent owner of infringement is proven. In the case no product is involved then the damage award would include only reasonable royalty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20436" RevisionGUID="dc243ee2-d1a6-457d-8b02-3dd097524745" CreationDate="2019-04-16T13:40:04.810" UserId="11615" Text="If I have already received a first office action in the USPTO, will filing a petition to make special (e.g., based on age) speed up subsequent actions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56798" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20436" RevisionGUID="dc243ee2-d1a6-457d-8b02-3dd097524745" CreationDate="2019-04-16T13:40:04.810" UserId="11615" Text="Petition to make special" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56799" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20436" RevisionGUID="dc243ee2-d1a6-457d-8b02-3dd097524745" CreationDate="2019-04-16T13:40:04.810" UserId="11615" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20438" RevisionGUID="f9ef4f96-2c94-4f7d-ae9f-8265e9c7761d" CreationDate="2019-04-16T18:28:24.437" UserId="3076" Text="Most of the benefit of an application to make special comes from reduced queue time to be initially picked up by the examiner. You are past that point, but there are requirements for quick action at other points in the process as well and, since there is no fee, I would recommend applying for this program." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56806" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20434" RevisionGUID="d2f37165-4928-4665-902c-d8c86b629900" CreationDate="2019-04-16T21:34:10.150" UserId="17003" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="Yes, a patent owner can sue even if they aren't currently commercializing their patent. What you heard &quot;somewhere&quot; is wrong, at least in the US and I believe most other countries. However, don't be too quick to assume you are infringing on a patent. To infringe, you must implement **each and every step of a claim**. It is often possible to design around patents with careful engineering. Also, patents are territorial so a US patent doesn't cover Canada, for instance. Patents expire so you have to determine if the patent is still active and all maintenance fees are up to date. If you can provide the patent number of the patent you are concerned with, we can help you determine if it is still active. Freedom to operate opinions are best provided by qualified patent attorneys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you determine the patent is still in force and impossible to circumvent, the next logical step is to inquire about licensing the patent. This can be an advantage to you in that if you obtain an exclusive license it potentially keeps competitors out of the market." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20435" RevisionGUID="606cc14c-751c-4975-b800-49194b57c3b2" CreationDate="2019-04-17T03:21:14.323" UserId="21610" Comment="edited body" Text="In addition to @Eric Shain answer I would like to add point about damages awarded. In case a patent owner is marketing the product then the damage award would include the royalty and  lost profits  of the patent owner if infringement is proven. In the case no product is involved then the damage award would include only reasonable royalty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20439" RevisionGUID="bc7f1e42-cc99-43d9-9903-e021dfb5b0ec" CreationDate="2019-04-17T19:17:13.397" UserId="22017" Text="In 102(a) it says that if you published the material before he invented it, then his patent is invalid. This is also problematic, because it involves determining when he came up with the invention. However, if he didn't really invent it, he'll have a hard time coming up with proof that he invented it before the publication came out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56809" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20439" RevisionGUID="bc7f1e42-cc99-43d9-9903-e021dfb5b0ec" CreationDate="2019-04-17T19:17:13.397" UserId="22017" Text="Are conference papers, proceedings or journal articles published 6-7 years prior to his patent considered as published material invalidating patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56810" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20439" RevisionGUID="bc7f1e42-cc99-43d9-9903-e021dfb5b0ec" CreationDate="2019-04-17T19:17:13.397" UserId="22017" Text="&lt;invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56813" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="12348" RevisionGUID="ffef2c91-4fbb-4532-86ad-429392e60e8c" CreationDate="2019-04-17T20:18:24.760" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="56815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20440" RevisionGUID="0fad5047-9e6e-45b4-a10c-173cab432648" CreationDate="2019-04-17T22:47:05.743" UserId="3076" Text="Yes, materials published many years before a filing priority date would be considered useable as prior art. The U.S. has a quasi-grace period of a year for things published by the inventor him/herself, but for the time frames you are taking it wouldn't matter if the publications were by the inventor or by others. If the application is  in a particular early stage of examination, any third party (you) can submit material to the examiner using a [third party submission process][1] created by the AIA. There is no or very little fee associated with this.&#xD;&#xA;If a patent has issued, the information could be used in an [IPR preceding][2] (also from the AIA) to try to get the patent invalidated. IPR is much less expensive than an actual courtroom action but still in the $100,000's of dollars - mostly for attorney fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/third-party-preissuance-submissions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/appealing-patent-decisions/trials/inter-partes-review" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20440" RevisionGUID="fa45289f-209e-4201-9c24-cd96b4ca0cab" CreationDate="2019-04-17T22:57:37.827" UserId="3076" Comment="added 475 characters in body" Text="Yes, materials published many years before a filing priority date would be considered useable as prior art. The U.S. has a quasi-grace period of a year for things published by the inventor him/herself, but for the time frames you are taking about it wouldn't matter if the publications were by the inventor or by others. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since March 16 2013 the US is now a first to file country. It is no longer relevant when the inventor invented - only when he filed. For application filed before that date, something published before filing would be sited as prior art by the examiner and it would be up to the inventor to &quot;swear behind&quot; the purported prior art publication dates and otherwise establish that the actual invention occurred before the publications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the application is in a particular early stage of examination, any third party (you) can submit material to the examiner using a [third party submission process][1] created by the AIA. There is no or very little fee associated with this.&#xD;&#xA;If a patent has issued, the information could be used in an [IPR preceding][2] (also from the AIA) to try to get the patent invalidated. IPR is much less expensive than an actual courtroom action but still in the $100,000's of dollars - mostly for attorney fees. The USPTO fees start at $15,000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/third-party-preissuance-submissions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/appealing-patent-decisions/trials/inter-partes-review" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56817" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="a9486baf-5ba5-4580-8f66-f0ac1a38246a" CreationDate="2019-04-18T08:02:30.453" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20441" RevisionGUID="a34ca7ab-42d9-49c9-8d8d-7bafb3de5f49" CreationDate="2019-04-18T11:07:26.440" UserId="21827" Text="**Broader background**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a private person, I do not own any company / business. I just realized recently I have some ideas worth patenting (worth = my own evaluation, hopefully objective). I will not be able to create products based on them, but they can be used by current businesses quite easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Specific background**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I know that registering patents can be very expensive;&#xD;&#xA;- I read some articles that some company (ies) do not do research about prior conflicting patents, leaving the job to the patents office;&#xD;&#xA;- I would not mind to have my patents cancelled in case prior patents exist on the same subject;&#xD;&#xA;- I would not mind paying &quot;symbolic&quot; fees, but I certainly do not afford paying tens of thousands of dollars for each patent, in each country;&#xD;&#xA;- I know that different countries have different laws;&#xD;&#xA;- I only have generic information about what is involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to register patents &quot;cheaply&quot;? How cheap? What would be the procedure (overview)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I do not need the most extensive answer, just some (minimal) guidance. I did not find a similar question here when I searched.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56819" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20441" RevisionGUID="a34ca7ab-42d9-49c9-8d8d-7bafb3de5f49" CreationDate="2019-04-18T11:07:26.440" UserId="21827" Text="Register patents for &quot;cheap&quot; as a private person?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56820" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20441" RevisionGUID="a34ca7ab-42d9-49c9-8d8d-7bafb3de5f49" CreationDate="2019-04-18T11:07:26.440" UserId="21827" Text="&lt;register&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56821" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19823" RevisionGUID="5506f8b2-1721-43f5-8356-561dfefa1133" CreationDate="2019-04-18T12:02:35.543" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20442" RevisionGUID="98f5a752-1601-440c-978d-a665bef6a46d" CreationDate="2019-04-18T16:34:58.303" UserId="3076" Text="First, except in a very few countries, patents are not &quot;registered&quot; they are &quot;prosecuted&quot;. That means work and skill on the part of the person doing the prosecution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can file your own patent applications. In the U.S. the fees for a micro entity are very low. However, for the applications to have any chance of becoming issued patents you would need to commit yourself to an extensive study of patent law and patent office procedures. To file in most other countries you need to either be a citizen of that country or file through an attorney pr agent allowed to do so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can, alternatively, put your ideas into the public domain and therefore keep others from patenting the inventions. It is also possible to get a company who is interested in your idea to pay for and handle the patenting as part of a license deal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20442" RevisionGUID="b569333c-7159-4da4-8194-4f94e759e943" CreationDate="2019-04-18T21:35:18.250" UserId="3076" Comment="added 584 characters in body" Text="First, except in a very few countries, patents are not &quot;registered&quot; they are &quot;prosecuted&quot;. That means work and skill on the part of the person doing the prosecution. One could write up a description of an invention, add something like claims and file it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best written patent application has a very very high likelihood of an initial rejection. It will be in writing and will not be easy to understand. Without understanding the rejection, it will be very hard to overcome it. If all objections and rejections are not overcome, no patent will issue. By the way objections and rejections are different things - this is the tip of the iceberg of what you will encounter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can file your own patent applications. In the U.S. the fees for a micro entity are very low. However, for the applications to have any chance of becoming issued patents you would need to commit yourself to an extensive study of patent law and patent office procedures. To file in most other countries you need to either be a citizen of that country or file through an attorney pr agent allowed to do so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can, alternatively, put your ideas into the public domain and therefore keep others from patenting the inventions. It is also possible to get a company who is interested in your idea to pay for and handle the patenting as part of a license deal. There is a book called [One Simple Idea][1] whose thesis is that an inventor can make money by negotiating a license deal with a manufacturer prior to a serious application for a patent. You might try that route.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.inventright.com/one-simple-idea" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20443" RevisionGUID="9babf746-94f9-44b6-be9e-bda1cd6d3668" CreationDate="2019-04-19T02:52:29.510" UserId="22020" Text="Let's say you wanted to file for a patent and wanted to allow anyone who uses the patent for personal, hobbyist, and non-commercial use and defining non-commercial to mean that manufacture to sales direct without permission from the patent holder is not permissible. From what I understand, there doesn't seem to be a way to have a gratis method of allowing this without an agreed license between the patent holder and everyone wanting to use the patent. It seems like the most you could do would be an artificial statement that &quot;guarantees&quot; that the patent holder will not sue anyone who uses under these terms, but is this binding?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case I didn't make this clear, I'm just trying to see if there is a way to allow people to use a patent a certain way without them needing to contact the patent holder or them having to worry about being sued because of technicalities regarding infringing on patent rights.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56825" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20443" RevisionGUID="9babf746-94f9-44b6-be9e-bda1cd6d3668" CreationDate="2019-04-19T02:52:29.510" UserId="22020" Text="Possible to make a patent with limited protection with license-like terms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56826" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20443" RevisionGUID="9babf746-94f9-44b6-be9e-bda1cd6d3668" CreationDate="2019-04-19T02:52:29.510" UserId="22020" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;sue&gt;&lt;limited&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20445" RevisionGUID="674460a6-af0a-4fa1-8743-f63b14dcbd67" CreationDate="2019-04-19T07:42:52.540" UserId="21812" Text="Of course there's a way to pledge certain of your rights in the patent to other parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that how you pledge your rights to other parties is completely separate from obtaining the patent, patent quality, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at how other companies have pledge certain rights to the patents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IBM: IBM Statement of Non-Assertion of Named Patents Against OSS &#xD;&#xA;https://www.ibm.com/ibm/licensing/patents/pledgedpatents.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tesla: Patent Pledge&#xD;&#xA;https://www.tesla.com/about/legal (scroll down to &quot;Patent Pledge&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20445" RevisionGUID="53aa28a6-f11c-4c9b-88e3-80ae377110fe" CreationDate="2019-04-19T07:51:08.903" UserId="21812" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Of course there's a way to pledge certain of your rights in the patent to other parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that how you pledge your rights to other parties is completely separate from obtaining the patent, patent quality, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at how other companies have pledged certain rights to the patents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IBM: IBM Statement of Non-Assertion of Named Patents Against OSS &#xD;&#xA;https://www.ibm.com/ibm/licensing/patents/pledgedpatents.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tesla: Patent Pledge&#xD;&#xA;https://www.tesla.com/about/legal (scroll down to &quot;Patent Pledge&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56831" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20362" RevisionGUID="71c1db01-d17c-4319-9f9d-8b7df0a73032" CreationDate="2019-04-19T23:02:15.473" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20446" RevisionGUID="e02adea3-b5b2-47d5-a811-097a546f93eb" CreationDate="2019-04-20T00:36:45.057" UserId="21812" Text="Respond with a citation to Ex Parte Brunson (Appeal 2009-012413 in U.S. application serial no. 11/387,179), which stands for the proposition that a per se rule (in this case &quot;reversal of the essential working parts&quot; is obvious) cannot substitute for a fact-specific analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ex Parte Brunson, the Board reversed an Examiner's rejection of claims where the Examiner merely relied on the general rule of the &quot;reversal of parts&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [w]hen determining whether a claim is obvious, an Examiner must make&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “a searching comparison of the claimed invention - including all its&#xD;&#xA;&gt; limitations - with the teachings of the prior art.”  In re Ochiai, 71&#xD;&#xA;&gt; F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1995).  Reliance on per se rules of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obviousness that eliminate the need for fact-specific analysis of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims and prior art is legally incorrect.  Id.  “Rejections on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational&#xD;&#xA;&gt; underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”  In re&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417-18 (2007).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Examiner in your case is also making the impermissible inference of obviousness based on this same per se rule. A proper rejection under 103 needs a fact-specific analysis as directed by Ex Parte Brunson.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to be on the safe side, I would also traverse an implicit &quot;official notice&quot; by the Examiner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56835" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18328" RevisionGUID="f83df3ac-188b-488b-be43-3fff3e563eeb" CreationDate="2019-04-20T01:01:25.263" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20447" RevisionGUID="3deff778-5440-4f3a-8b81-02fbd92d3e9c" CreationDate="2019-04-20T01:11:50.853" UserId="21812" Text="I'll take a stab at answering this despite the vague language in your question, and the laws coming from an anonymous EU jurisdiction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The EU under the patent articles does in fact forbid software programs, &quot;The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions ... [including] ... programs for computers.&quot; Art. 52(2) EPC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't indicate how you're claiming the subject matter or the scope of your patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suggested route for your rejection would be either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - amend the claims so that they are not &quot;programs for computers&quot; per se, but rather are directed to an apparatus or a &quot;computer-implemented method&quot; OR&#xD;&#xA; - IF your application does not provide support for an apparatus or computer-implemented method, you should file a new application including such material that claims priority to the parent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;An acquaintance, an engineer who collaborates with patent attorneys,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; read the application and agreed that there is no ground for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rejection.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry but these statements always amuse me. Your acquaintance isn't a patent attorney/agent, much less one familiar with the local rules of the jurisdiction. His assurance that there's no ground for rejection is as useful as the answer from an 8-ball." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56838" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="bda98ded-ab9f-433f-9c61-d423693522c6" CreationDate="2019-04-20T19:02:45.757" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56841" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="4d6dc07d-2b8d-476b-9e0b-cf2753f4c70f" CreationDate="2019-04-21T23:02:25.470" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20448" RevisionGUID="61c0960a-471f-43d8-95e0-bd110934a7d0" CreationDate="2019-04-22T14:10:49.747" UserId="22026" Text="To clarify one point: there is no such thing as &quot;filing a patent.&quot;  One applies for a patent by filing a patent application.  A patent issues from the application if and only if it meets legal requirements including novelty and non-obviousness in view of the prior art (which includes subject matter in the relevant field that was publicly known prior to the filing of the application).  The application proceeds through &quot;prosecution&quot; during which a technically knowledgeable examiner reviews the application and the prior art, informs the applicant of reasons why the application's claims (sentences that specifically delineate the scope of the invention for which the applicant seeks patent protection) may or may not issue, and the applicant's representative files responses to persuade the examiner on patentability and/or revise the claims. As the other answers point out, applications are examined individually in each jurisdiction.  The European Patent Office issues patents that are valid and enforceable in certain countries in Europe, so one need not go through each of France, Spain, Italy etc. individually to get patent protection there, but generally one needs to proceed in each jurisdiction in order to get protection in that jurisdiction.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20449" RevisionGUID="0b8cc599-b3cf-4630-a807-00a6b18f3691" CreationDate="2019-04-22T18:03:56.787" UserId="22004" Text="In other words, can it count as prior art that will result in rejecting a patent application submitted after the notarization? Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56845" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20449" RevisionGUID="0b8cc599-b3cf-4630-a807-00a6b18f3691" CreationDate="2019-04-22T18:03:56.787" UserId="22004" Text="Does notarizing the document of a description invalidate any future attempt to patent it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56846" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20449" RevisionGUID="0b8cc599-b3cf-4630-a807-00a6b18f3691" CreationDate="2019-04-22T18:03:56.787" UserId="22004" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;rejection&gt;&lt;grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20450" RevisionGUID="0121bcba-8141-47ed-9ea8-4a0daab3e0a9" CreationDate="2019-04-22T20:26:28.163" UserId="22027" Text=" For example, if apple get a patent on an idea, and I already had that idea and didn't get a patent for it, and I went ahead and open a company that makes a product based on my idea, can apple sue me for intellectual property infringement? Even if I didn't steal their product secret, but I used my idea to make a product similar to apple's." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56848" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20450" RevisionGUID="0121bcba-8141-47ed-9ea8-4a0daab3e0a9" CreationDate="2019-04-22T20:26:28.163" UserId="22027" Text="Can a company with a patent sue me for a product I didn't steal from them" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56849" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20450" RevisionGUID="0121bcba-8141-47ed-9ea8-4a0daab3e0a9" CreationDate="2019-04-22T20:26:28.163" UserId="22027" Text="&lt;idea&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20451" RevisionGUID="e67abe8f-b2d9-4bbb-9b3d-2ac74a93bc89" CreationDate="2019-04-22T20:30:25.223" UserId="17003" Text="**I am not a lawyer, so my answer is quite possibly wrong.** That said, I have had documents notarized and in every case, the notary was only verifying that I willingly signed the document and know what I'm signing. The notary didn't even read the document. The following quote is from [this site][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A notary public is a public official appointed by a state government&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to help deter fraud. Notary publics witness the signing of important&#xD;&#xA;&gt; documents and verify the identity of the signer(s), their willingness&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to sign the documents, and their awareness of the contents of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; document or transaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the document itself wasn't made public, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the mere act of getting a document notarized does not constitute public disclosure and would not invalidate a subsequent attempt to patent the idea described in the document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, I could be wrong so I hope an actual lawyer answers the question. In any case, if this is of real importance to you, I would suggest that getting legal advice from Q&amp;A sites like this is not sufficient and you should consult with an actual attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.notarize.com/knowledge-center/what-does-it-mean-to-have-a-document-notarized-with-a-notary-public-signature" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20452" RevisionGUID="db92ed0d-8e74-4067-865a-35b42c025953" CreationDate="2019-04-22T20:38:05.793" UserId="17003" Text="If, in your example, Apple filed for the patent before you commercialized your idea then yes you can be sued for infringement. It doesn't matter if you thought of the idea independently or even before the patent filing. If, however, you commercialized or even publicly disclosed your invention prior to Apple's patent application date, then it would constitute prior art and could invalidate the Apple patent. You could still be sued, but would likely win in court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should point out that infringement means implementing each and every step of at least one claim in a patent. People often over estimate how broad patents are. Long claims are actually considered narrower than short ones. As always, I suggest consulting with an actual patent attorney in matters of freedom to operate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20453" RevisionGUID="cd30496d-e8b9-4574-8302-d4370ca25cef" CreationDate="2019-04-22T21:20:10.797" UserId="3076" Text="**No**, notarization is a way to show that your signature is your signature. It has nothing to do with public disclosure. To prevent others from patenting the same idea, from a practical point of view, you would need to make your disclosure in a way that an examiner would find it during a search." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56853" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19849" RevisionGUID="7e267670-dd60-4722-8bd5-8d83f1526f44" CreationDate="2019-04-22T23:01:25.260" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56854" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17720" RevisionGUID="330b2354-55d5-42c4-9105-30ea3809fe43" CreationDate="2019-04-23T07:01:15.400" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20447" RevisionGUID="42d3b0ce-d988-49f3-9051-9232b1c35e64" CreationDate="2019-04-23T08:09:58.400" UserId="21812" Comment="added 695 characters in body" Text="I'll take a stab at answering this despite the vague language in your question, and the laws coming from an anonymous EU jurisdiction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The EU under the patent articles does in fact forbid software programs, &quot;The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions ... [including] ... programs for computers.&quot; Art. 52(2) EPC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't indicate how you're claiming the subject matter or the scope of your patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suggested route for your rejection would be either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - amend the claims so that they are not &quot;programs for computers&quot; per se, but rather are directed to an apparatus or a &quot;computer-implemented method&quot; OR&#xD;&#xA; - IF your application does not provide support for an apparatus or computer-implemented method, you should file a new application including such material that claims priority to the parent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;An acquaintance, an engineer who collaborates with patent attorneys,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; read the application and agreed that there is no ground for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rejection.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry but these statements always amuse me. Your acquaintance isn't a patent attorney/agent, much less one familiar with the local rules of the jurisdiction. His assurance that there's no ground for rejection is as useful as the answer from an 8-ball.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**edit:** Want to add some additional context for **machine learning** (and AI) type patent applications. The recent Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office (November 2018 edition) included a section on AI and machine learning. (See Section 3.3.1 Artificial intelligence and machine learning)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Key quote: Artificial intelligence and machine learning are based on computational models and algorithms... [s]uch computational models and algorithms are *per se* of an abstract mathematical nature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, you need a &quot;**technical application**&quot; or &quot;**technical implementation**&quot;, otherwise your AI/machine learning application will be rejected under Art. 52(2) EPC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://tinyurl.com/y27baax9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56860" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="9550b8d3-6155-4ea3-a815-f73bb3f16e6e" CreationDate="2019-04-23T10:01:05.177" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20447" RevisionGUID="a23f48d4-a05e-4858-8f53-95758082303d" CreationDate="2019-04-23T10:27:22.260" UserId="21812" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="I'll take a stab at answering this despite the vague language in your question, and the laws coming from an anonymous EU jurisdiction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The EU under the patent articles does in fact forbid software programs, &quot;The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions ... [including] ... programs for computers.&quot; Art. 52(2) EPC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't indicate how you're claiming the subject matter or the scope of your patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suggested route for your rejection would be either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - amend the claims so that they are not &quot;programs for computers&quot; per se, but rather are directed to an apparatus or a &quot;computer-implemented method&quot; OR&#xD;&#xA; - IF your application does not provide support for an apparatus or computer-implemented method, you should file a new application including such material that claims priority to the parent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;An acquaintance, an engineer who collaborates with patent attorneys,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; read the application and agreed that there is no ground for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rejection.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry but these statements always amuse me. Your acquaintance isn't a patent attorney/agent, much less one familiar with the local rules of the jurisdiction. His assurance that there's no ground for rejection is as useful as the answer from an 8-ball.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**edit:** Want to add some additional context for **machine learning** (and AI) type patent applications. The recent Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office (November 2018 edition) included a section on AI and machine learning. (See Section 3.3.1 Artificial intelligence and machine learning)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Key quote: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Artificial intelligence and machine learning are based on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computational models and algorithms... [s]uch computational models and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; algorithms are *per se* of an abstract mathematical nature...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, your machine learning application will be rejected under Art. 52(2) EPC, **unless** you have some &quot;**technical application**&quot; or &quot;**technical implementation**&quot; of the machine learning methods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://tinyurl.com/y27baax9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20456" RevisionGUID="4d224755-d6a2-4131-93d7-625f3fa0f628" CreationDate="2019-04-23T12:31:03.307" UserId="19232" Text="In claims, is there any distinction between the phrases &quot;one or more of&quot; and &quot;at least one of&quot;? If &quot;a plurality of&quot; has already been used in the Claim 1 initial statement (e.g., &quot;at least one of a plurality of&quot;), in combination with one of those first phrases, can the &quot;plurality&quot; phrase be dropped in subsequent claims? (Let's assume in this case that there's a specific reason why &quot;plurality&quot; needs to be mentioned. In other words, the field of possible options from which &quot;one&quot; needs to apply is in fact, necessarily, a plurality.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56864" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20456" RevisionGUID="4d224755-d6a2-4131-93d7-625f3fa0f628" CreationDate="2019-04-23T12:31:03.307" UserId="19232" Text="Distinction between phrases &quot;one or more&quot; and &quot;at least one&quot; and need to include phrase &quot;a plurality of&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56865" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20456" RevisionGUID="4d224755-d6a2-4131-93d7-625f3fa0f628" CreationDate="2019-04-23T12:31:03.307" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20457" RevisionGUID="7d8f585a-23c8-46ff-9af3-f790a19ca51f" CreationDate="2019-04-23T18:43:42.030" UserId="21046" Text="**Overview:**&#xD;&#xA;I have several related inventions in a slowly emerging industry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Goal of minimizing upfront cost:**&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to preserve an early priority date while minimizing/delaying upfront cost as long as possible. Later (in a year or two) I will care less about cost and more about growing the portfolio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Proposed action:**&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the strategy is to file one comprehensive PCT application this summer (based on several provisionals from past months), pursue this single PCT application into the national phases; and later derive several divisionals from it with separate sets of claims, each covering one specific application of the invention (which are all covered by the original specifications). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** &#xD;&#xA;When is the latest time for a PCT application to branch out into divisionals? How far into the PCT national phase? Are there different factors to be considered for different countries (I care about US, Europe, Canada, Japan, China)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PS: Why even have the divisionals?**&#xD;&#xA;Technically, the scope of the invention could be covered by the one large PCT application with a long list of claims -- but the rationale for branching out later is that a larger portfolio with multiple granted patents will be harder to attack and look more valuable to potential buyers/investors. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;PCT application: when is the last chance to file divisional applications? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56867" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20457" RevisionGUID="7d8f585a-23c8-46ff-9af3-f790a19ca51f" CreationDate="2019-04-23T18:43:42.030" UserId="21046" Text="PCT application: when is the last chance to file divisional applications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56868" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20457" RevisionGUID="7d8f585a-23c8-46ff-9af3-f790a19ca51f" CreationDate="2019-04-23T18:43:42.030" UserId="21046" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;continuation&gt;&lt;divisional&gt;&lt;strategy&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20458" RevisionGUID="7c20da46-961b-4f84-8c2d-2ed3b9a3f0f1" CreationDate="2019-04-23T20:01:39.953" UserId="3076" Text="If you include claim language for each invention in the PCT application, the selected ISA (international Search Agency) will notice that you have claims to multiple inventions and ask you to pay more for them to search the ones beyond the first invention. You can do this, incurring large &quot;divisional&quot; related expenses, early in the process. Alternately you can have a single invention searched at the PCT stage and introduce divisionals at the National Stage only. That will put off the costs. Normally the deadline to file a divisional will be before the parent application issues. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56870" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="20428" RevisionGUID="abdc5866-3fbf-49a4-950d-569c5cd48bac" CreationDate="2019-04-24T02:03:05.680" UserId="-1" Comment="47" />
  <row Id="56871" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="4d4f69fc-284d-4da1-b62d-8bd834ac3254" CreationDate="2019-04-24T02:03:05.680" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20459" RevisionGUID="c98c963b-404e-4fa8-b1cb-d531e59e157d" CreationDate="2019-04-24T06:42:26.130" UserId="21610" Text="If possible please try to use the term comprising and wherein as it appears to clearly define the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;please see the below claim of [US 8,895,612][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A method of treating a disease, disorder, or condition characterized by iron deficiency or dysfunctional iron metabolism resulting in reduced bioavailability of dietary iron, **comprising**&#xD;&#xA;administering to a subject in need thereof an iron carbohydrate complex in a single dosage unit of at least about 0.6 grams of elemental iron;&#xD;&#xA;**wherein**&#xD;&#xA;the iron carbohydrate complex is selected from the group consisting of an iron carboxymaltose complex, an iron mannitol complex, an iron polyisomaltose complex, an iron polymaltose complex, an iron sorbitol complex, and an iron polyglucose sorbitol carboxymethyl ether complex.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The term **comprising** is an open ended term like “including”, “containing”, “characterized by” **which do not exclude any additional unrecited elements**. (may be used in place of plurality of)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The term **whereas** in the claim allows the selection of group of elements. (may be used in place of one or moreof) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8895612" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20459" RevisionGUID="c23e7560-e7be-465c-9870-cf4811c5d5b0" CreationDate="2019-04-24T06:57:28.167" UserId="21610" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="If possible please try to use the term **comprising** and **wherein** as it appears to clearly define the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;please see the below claim of [US 8,895,612][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A method of treating a disease, disorder, or condition characterized&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by iron deficiency or dysfunctional iron metabolism resulting in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reduced bioavailability of dietary iron, **comprising** administering&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to a subject in need thereof an iron carbohydrate complex in a single&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dosage unit of at least about 0.6 grams of elemental iron;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **wherein** the iron carbohydrate complex is selected from the group consisting of an iron carboxymaltose complex, an iron mannitol&#xD;&#xA;&gt; complex, an iron polyisomaltose complex, an iron polymaltose complex,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an iron sorbitol complex, and an iron polyglucose sorbitol&#xD;&#xA;&gt; carboxymethyl ether complex.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The term **comprising** is an open ended term like “including”, “containing”, “characterized by” **which do not exclude any additional unrecited elements**. (may be used in place of plurality of)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The term **whereas** in the claim allows the selection of group of elements. (may be used in place of one or moreof) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8895612" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56874" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18600" RevisionGUID="538ecea9-bffd-4c29-9c21-9e252b5918ae" CreationDate="2019-04-24T07:02:35.533" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20456" RevisionGUID="db8d3963-0834-4171-8988-caa7507d7b47" CreationDate="2019-04-24T13:35:02.383" UserId="19232" Comment="added 875 characters in body" Text="In claims, is there any distinction between the phrases &quot;one or more of&quot; and &quot;at least one of&quot;? If &quot;a plurality of&quot; has already been used in the Claim 1 initial statement (e.g., &quot;at least one of a plurality of&quot;), in combination with one of those first phrases, can the &quot;plurality&quot; phrase be dropped in subsequent claims? (Let's assume in this case that there's a specific reason why &quot;plurality&quot; needs to be mentioned. In other words, the field of possible options from which &quot;one&quot; needs to apply is in fact, necessarily, a plurality.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Added:** To hopefully better clarify the question, consider this part of a claim: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    displaying in the graphical user interface *at least one of a plurality* of source content...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then in a later clause, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ...displaying *the at least one* source content as a selectable entity...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The questions are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. In the first case of &quot;at least one&quot; and the second case &quot;the at least one,&quot; would substituting &quot;one or more&quot; make any logical difference, or otherwise be preferable for clarity?&#xD;&#xA; 2. The phrase &quot;a source content&quot; has been introduced in the first part, along with the use of &quot;a plurality of.&quot; In every subsequent mention of the phrase such as in the second part, should &quot;a plurality of&quot; be repeated? (example, revised version of 2nd part):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ...displaying *the at least one of a plurality of* source content as a selectable entity...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56885" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="ca1545e8-d8a3-42b4-bd3b-50fde5c0efe6" CreationDate="2019-04-24T15:02:45.530" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20457" RevisionGUID="dce16280-3f25-4101-bc55-8908bc492d9b" CreationDate="2019-04-24T21:16:40.063" UserId="21046" Comment="deleted 82 characters in body" Text="**Overview:**&#xD;&#xA;I have several related inventions in a slowly emerging industry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Goal of minimizing upfront cost:**&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to preserve an early priority date while minimizing/delaying upfront cost as long as possible. Later (in a year or two) I will care less about cost and more about growing the portfolio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Proposed action:**&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the strategy is to file one comprehensive PCT application this summer (based on several provisionals from past months), pursue this single PCT application into the national phases; and later derive several divisionals from it with separate sets of claims, each covering one specific application of the invention (which are all covered by the original specifications). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** &#xD;&#xA;When is the latest time for a PCT application to branch out into divisionals? How far into the PCT national phase? Are there different factors to be considered for different countries (I care about US, Europe, Canada, Japan, China)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PS: Why even have the divisionals?**&#xD;&#xA;Technically, the scope of the invention could be covered by the one large PCT application with a long list of claims -- but the rationale for branching out later is that a larger portfolio with multiple granted patents will be harder to attack and look more valuable to potential buyers/investors. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20462" RevisionGUID="2d34e4b3-48ae-48c3-8a68-b7be356d06b3" CreationDate="2019-04-24T21:23:43.907" UserId="3076" Text="Claims 1 and 2 allow for divided infringement. Claims 3 and 4 put all the actions  on the &quot;customer&quot; (he/she has all the gerunds) and are not susceptible to being accomplished in a divided manner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20453" RevisionGUID="c981897b-433e-45e5-8c98-c99e9f2b94d1" CreationDate="2019-04-24T22:43:57.360" UserId="3076" Comment="added 472 characters in body" Text="**No**, notarization is a way to show that your signature is your signature. It has nothing to do with public disclosure. To prevent others from patenting the same idea, from a practical point of view, you would need to make your disclosure in a way that an examiner would find it during a search. From a broader point of view, the submission you mentioned in a later comment must actually make the document &quot;published&quot; as of some date as the word published  word is understood by patent statutes and the history of patent cases. It will need to be publicly available and also be indexed by subject matter in some way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can edit your own question and should probably do so to add the fact that the intension is to submit, in some fashion, after the notarization. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20462" RevisionGUID="fb36aac4-7017-47b3-be11-0b3a2ba18996" CreationDate="2019-04-24T23:07:41.650" UserId="3076" Comment="added 237 characters in body" Text="Claims 1 and 2 allow for divided infringement. Claims 3 and 4 put all the actions  on the &quot;customer&quot; (he/she has all the gerunds) and are not susceptible to being accomplished in a divided manner. If one is very worried about divided infringement, claim 4 is more clearly in the clear. In claim 3 the fact that the painter has caused an item to be painted in brought in inferentially. That should make it not an element of the claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19545" RevisionGUID="82c69d6e-9af9-4fb3-8f13-ba8dd7a7fa36" CreationDate="2019-04-25T05:23:29.193" UserId="21084" Comment="added 336 characters in body" Text="One of our clients received a complaint regarding the use of a interactive map. In this case Google maps with a markers overlay showing store locations. The patent https://data.epo.org/gpi/EP2336970B1-Interactive-electronically-presented-map seems to have a very broad definition of map interaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We did a rough investigative lookup for cases regarding this patent or mentions of this patent and it's implications on interactive maps on websites but without conclusive results. We expected more impact and discussions as a lot of websites use visualization of data using a map-tile provider combined with a data-layer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are wondering if anyone has come in contact with this patent before or is aware of any legal issues regarding this specific patent as it possibly has implications on a lot of our clients.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For extra information this is the document defining this patent: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=EP&amp;NR=2336970B1&amp;KC=B1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=20160427&amp;DB=&amp;locale=en_EP#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ps. original question posted here https://stackoverflow.com/questions/50351100/patent-2336970-interactive-electronically-presented-map&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2019/04/25**&#xD;&#xA;Somehow after a while they stopped harassing our client. We got to the point in which Google was, behind the screens, assisting us with proof of prior use etc but we never had to play this card. So for who gets into the same situation. Hang on, resist. They probably know they do not really have a solid case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56891" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16606" RevisionGUID="80f24095-e2d3-4a47-b8ee-38b8b0290f84" CreationDate="2019-04-25T12:01:30.290" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20463" RevisionGUID="bb109e43-8226-49c4-9702-69fec1c0413a" CreationDate="2019-04-25T12:54:42.460" UserId="22037" Text="Just as an example, imagine I found that specific scalp massage technique prevents baldness and have done a study that proves it scientifically, can this be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56893" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20463" RevisionGUID="bb109e43-8226-49c4-9702-69fec1c0413a" CreationDate="2019-04-25T12:54:42.460" UserId="22037" Text="Can therapeutic method that doesn't involve drugs be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56894" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20463" RevisionGUID="bb109e43-8226-49c4-9702-69fec1c0413a" CreationDate="2019-04-25T12:54:42.460" UserId="22037" Text="&lt;medicine&gt;&lt;health&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20464" RevisionGUID="458aefce-a5fb-4237-943b-72fb9c44f63e" CreationDate="2019-04-25T13:31:53.973" UserId="21610" Text="Yes, Therapeutic methods are patentable as long as there is no prior art disclosure of such  method and has supported scientific data. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therapeutic methods are patentable only in few jurisdictions, US patent system allow therapeutic method claims but Indian and Swiss jurisdictions don't allow please check does your jurisdiction allows such patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56896" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20371" RevisionGUID="e089c2fb-a949-4716-b283-b0687e3dcd18" CreationDate="2019-04-25T16:00:40.093" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56897" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="20463" RevisionGUID="d00332fe-ec83-4673-bf70-cacd6715b039" CreationDate="2019-04-25T17:39:04.257" UserId="22037" Comment="edited title" Text="Can cosmetic method that doesn't involve drugs be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56898" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="4baf5a09-535b-4cd9-bdb2-150526a6f2b2" CreationDate="2019-04-25T22:01:55.483" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56899" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16450" RevisionGUID="64723fe4-e4a2-4127-ba6b-149f3ebe4ea2" CreationDate="2019-04-26T07:01:25.397" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56903" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="caa49862-8e7a-4698-a8e7-77a41ae31254" CreationDate="2019-04-26T22:00:45.120" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16817" RevisionGUID="1a9a484f-d8b5-4174-b1bc-d641db61adf7" CreationDate="2019-04-27T04:10:06.120" UserId="3076" Comment="added &quot;dead date&quot; date from CIPO web site" Text="Citing the candian patent office website as reached through the google patents link on &quot;dead&quot; applications:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The date that an abandoned application could normally no longer be reinstated.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dead Application	2009-09-21&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the owner is in a coma and can therefore reinstate the right after waking up (I don't know if this is possible in Canada), the patent is most probably &quot;dead&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20465" RevisionGUID="09e9893d-e4e9-4790-b6ba-6cd34ada924e" CreationDate="2019-04-27T18:15:24.457" UserId="22044" Text="Can an Appendix to an insurance policy be patented as a novel invention?  I have filed a PCT application that came back with the search report indicating that every claim considered Novel, Inventive STep, and Industrial Application all marked YES, however, I do not include a machine in this method, so I am concerned that although the invention overcomes a problem for mid-level to larger businesses in by improving the overall insurability of a project, some rules may consider it an abstract idea?  Any ideas to overcome the machine test for a business method patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56907" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20465" RevisionGUID="09e9893d-e4e9-4790-b6ba-6cd34ada924e" CreationDate="2019-04-27T18:15:24.457" UserId="22044" Text="Can an Appendix to an insurance policy be patented as a novel invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56908" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20465" RevisionGUID="09e9893d-e4e9-4790-b6ba-6cd34ada924e" CreationDate="2019-04-27T18:15:24.457" UserId="22044" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;business-methods&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56909" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="777a072d-f7da-4494-ba12-91a8b75e547c" CreationDate="2019-04-28T03:04:15.863" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20466" RevisionGUID="8aa182f8-e45c-4cd4-861e-83e82c2074bd" CreationDate="2019-04-28T18:19:42.650" UserId="19232" Text="Would examiners accept a Claim 1 statement ending like this? :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...in order to execute transmission to, or connection therewith, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; method comprising&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the issue is whether or not the claim must state *just one* of those options, &quot;transmission to&quot; OR &quot;connection therewith&quot; – assuming (as my specs arguably suggest) that the interface described can specify either one. [Note, this is in context of an attempted Continuation, trying to get broader claims.]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56911" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20466" RevisionGUID="8aa182f8-e45c-4cd4-861e-83e82c2074bd" CreationDate="2019-04-28T18:19:42.650" UserId="19232" Text="combining two possible goals or outcomes in an initial claims statement (see stated example)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56912" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20466" RevisionGUID="8aa182f8-e45c-4cd4-861e-83e82c2074bd" CreationDate="2019-04-28T18:19:42.650" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20467" RevisionGUID="f597db49-1472-4754-9e6e-92f3c7c0eed8" CreationDate="2019-04-29T01:08:37.013" UserId="3076" Text="The words before &quot;comprising&quot; are the preamble. A preamble can be very uninformative in a claim for a thing (apparatus, device, machine, composition of matter, etc). &quot;A device for opening cans comprising, x, y, z in some particular way&quot; will be rejected if the examiner finds something comprised of x, y and z in that particular way that is not a can opener and couldn't practically open any existing can. This is because &quot;intended use&quot; is not a limitation for things defined by their structure. If you invent a new rake you do not want an infringer to get away with making the same thing and calling it a back scratcher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the preamble does have an important role in a method claim. The steps that make up the limitation are steps to achieve a goal an by the last step, the preamble's state goal is achieved. Unless very carefully crafted to cover an unusual case, it would be confusing to have two alternate outcomes in a single claim.  Of course, you can can have more that one claim. You might want a claim of connecting and a separate claim of transmitting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding those specific actions, I would mention that they are really two different things. A beacon might transmit without ever making a connection. In some systems connecting might be a prerequisite to transmitting and you might want a claim that is infringed by the connecting whether or not any subsequent transmitting takes place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20467" RevisionGUID="ebf87de5-48c4-48d1-a8f5-43c126b9c709" CreationDate="2019-04-29T01:48:19.063" UserId="3076" Comment="typos" Text="The words before &quot;comprising&quot; are the preamble. A preamble can be very *un*informative in a claim for a thing (apparatus, device, machine, composition of matter, etc). &quot;A device for opening cans comprising, x, y, z in some particular way&quot; will be rejected if the examiner finds something comprised of x, y and z in that particular way that is not a can opener and couldn't practically open any existing can. This is because &quot;intended use&quot; is not a limitation for things defined by their structure. If you invent a new rake you do not want an infringer to get away with making the same thing and calling it a back scratcher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the preamble does have an important role in a method claim. The steps that make up the limitation are steps to achieve a goal such that, by the last step, the preamble's stated goal is achieved. Unless very carefully crafted to cover an unusual case, it would be confusing to have two alternate outcomes in a single claim.  Of course, you can can have more than one claim. You might want a claim of connecting and a separate claim of transmitting. In fact connecting and transmitting might be different things that take different sets of steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A beacon might transmit without ever making a connection. In some systems connecting might be a prerequisite to transmitting and you might want a claim that is infringed by the connecting whether or not any subsequent transmitting takes place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56915" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="20466" RevisionGUID="3329cd18-1050-4f29-a703-0317ecda4da9" CreationDate="2019-04-29T01:52:44.377" UserId="3076" Comment="edited title" Text="Combining two possible goals or outcomes in an initial claims statement (see stated example)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20468" RevisionGUID="59ebf34f-c869-444e-844a-c77ff90480a4" CreationDate="2019-04-29T03:36:07.580" UserId="19232" Text="In claims for a computer-implemented invention, what is the practical advantage of repeating similar claims under &quot;**a method**,&quot; &quot;**a system**,&quot; and &quot;**a non-transitory computer usable medium**&quot; categories? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i.e., Is there any precedent for losing an opportunity to claim infringement due to not having the claims for all these categories? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If questioning justification for the cost of a potentially large number of claims, would it make sense to focus on just one or two of these categories?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56917" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20468" RevisionGUID="59ebf34f-c869-444e-844a-c77ff90480a4" CreationDate="2019-04-29T03:36:07.580" UserId="19232" Text="What is the practical value of repeating similar claims in slightly different contexts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56918" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20468" RevisionGUID="59ebf34f-c869-444e-844a-c77ff90480a4" CreationDate="2019-04-29T03:36:07.580" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claims-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20469" RevisionGUID="d668ed16-190f-47e8-9d65-33a979b680f8" CreationDate="2019-04-29T09:20:12.573" UserId="22046" Text="After non-payment of a Patent Issue Fee (being due three months after receipt of the USPTO Notice of Allowance) there is the option to file a Petition to Accept Late Payment of Issue Fee when non-payment was unintentional (37 CFR 1.137(a).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a time limit in which the Petition to Accept Late Payment of Issue Fee needs to be filed ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The situation is similar to non-payment of maintenance fees. To my understanding (but this is not my question), here is a 24 months time limit after end of grace period for filing a petition to revive the patent when non-payment was unintentional.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56920" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20469" RevisionGUID="d668ed16-190f-47e8-9d65-33a979b680f8" CreationDate="2019-04-29T09:20:12.573" UserId="22046" Text="Is there a time limit for filing a Petition to Accept Late Payment of US Patent Issue Fee (37 CFR 1.137(a)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56921" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20469" RevisionGUID="d668ed16-190f-47e8-9d65-33a979b680f8" CreationDate="2019-04-29T09:20:12.573" UserId="22046" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;fee&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56922" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19813" RevisionGUID="8a60cf52-a47e-477f-9110-e1519c0c94c0" CreationDate="2019-04-29T15:02:40.737" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20470" RevisionGUID="032a6bfc-1729-433f-9cf4-be3631b16dd1" CreationDate="2019-04-29T19:24:08.500" UserId="22049" Text="I have several patent applications which were abandoned by my employer for a some reason. I wanted to explore the possibilities of reviving these applications. How can I know if they are revivable or not, and the stage they are in?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just an example: US20160091609A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56924" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20470" RevisionGUID="032a6bfc-1729-433f-9cf4-be3631b16dd1" CreationDate="2019-04-29T19:24:08.500" UserId="22049" Text="Abandoned Patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56925" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20470" RevisionGUID="032a6bfc-1729-433f-9cf4-be3631b16dd1" CreationDate="2019-04-29T19:24:08.500" UserId="22049" Text="&lt;abandoned-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20471" RevisionGUID="2afdcad0-5339-495b-ae82-2dc5b5f080bb" CreationDate="2019-04-29T20:58:40.750" UserId="17003" Text="I don't know the answer to whether it is possible to revive an abandoned application, but for US patent applications, you can learn about the state of the prosecution using the [US Public Pair site][1]. In the case of the example application, get past the CAPTCHA, select &quot;Publication Number&quot; and enter &quot;20160091609&quot; (without the quotes). If you click on the &quot;Transaction History&quot; tab you can see the entire state of affairs. The &quot;Image File Wrapper&quot; tab provides the actual communications with the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20472" RevisionGUID="19d4b316-22c9-45a6-a0f4-b24759a54cc6" CreationDate="2019-04-29T21:16:13.497" UserId="3076" Text="As @Eric Shain mentioned in a comment, you would need to become the applicant by getting assignments of the applications from the company back to you. The specific application [US 20160091609][1] you mentioned was prosecuted very seriously by the assignee (Track I, RCE, etc.) so it might not be easy to get a patent even if it was revived.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To revive a patent application, it must have been *unintentionally* abandoned. At the bureaucratic USPTO level they will likely take the your word for that as long as there was not an explicit abandonment (explicit abandonments are very rare) by the assignee. However, if you got a patent and ever tried to assert it the defendant would get discovery and very likely find emails where people at the university discussed letting the applications go. If you try to get the university to assign it to you, will they mention in an email to you &quot;we decided to let it go because . . . &quot;?  If revived under a false statement of unintentionally it will likely be invalidated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ps://patents.google.com/patent/US20160091609A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20473" RevisionGUID="8a5b6255-c513-4aea-9fd6-1ea83d644fdf" CreationDate="2019-04-29T21:27:42.303" UserId="3076" Text="It can make sense to focus on one or two types of claims. Each type of claim gives you the chance to go after a different category of infringer. A distributor or importer of a system may never take it out of the box and turn it on. They would not be liable for direct infringement of a method claim because they never performed the method. Think about who infringes a claim type. induces infringement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without the full panoply of claim types you are not completely boxed in. You can cast a bigger net by suing over contributory infringement and/or inducing infringement as well as direct infringement. This might snare players where you do not really have the right claim type. Best is to be able to go after a deep pockets infringer who's infringement is very visible, for direct infringement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56929" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19778" RevisionGUID="8bca0e4a-1514-48a5-b648-266c5cf33028" CreationDate="2019-04-29T23:00:48.067" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19779" RevisionGUID="cc24ae14-b964-4988-9ede-cbe8f5874f4d" CreationDate="2019-04-29T23:41:48.200" UserId="3076" Comment="fix at least one error" Text="&gt;If they get half of the patent can they sell their portion to a larger cooperation and if they do would they be able to license it for their own manufacturing purposes? Or would another company have to have the full rights to the patent in order to use it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, Yes, and No, as co-owners to a patent **without an agreement** the default is either party can license, sell and manufacture the patent without restriction and without consent of the other parties.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Also, if they have half of the patent, could they restrict you from doing manufacturing for your product with the other half if the other half decides to sell it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No as a co-owners to a patent **without an agreement** you may license, sell and manufacture the patent without restriction and without consent of the other parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Also, would they be able to use the other half of the patent to own half of your business by legal rights? Such as use their patent to get capital or a percentage from your company, if you are the one doing all the work with the business?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Co-*inventors* **without an agreement** have no duty to account to each other for license or product revenues&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56931" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20473" RevisionGUID="049c4241-d03a-4cd2-9cc1-30acfec1e95f" CreationDate="2019-04-30T03:08:15.867" UserId="3076" Comment="added 532 characters in body" Text="It can make sense to focus on one or two types of claims. Each type of claim gives you the chance to go after a different category of infringer. A distributor or importer of a system may never take it out of the box and turn it on. They would not be liable for direct infringement of a method claim because they never performed the method. Think about who infringes a claim type. induces infringement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without the full panoply of claim types you are not completely boxed in. You can cast a bigger net by suing over contributory infringement and/or inducing infringement as well as direct infringement. This might snare players where you do not really have the right claim type. Best is to be able to go after a deep pockets infringer who's infringement is very visible, for direct infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the number of total claims - you only get three independent claims for &quot;free&quot;. Each type of claim needs to be an independent claim. It is advisable to have more than one independent claim per type. If the applicant is a micro entity the cost for excess claims is not very high. $115 for each independent claim beyond 3 and $25 for each claim over the total of 20. It is possible that an examiner will restrict your application to only system claims or only method claims. If the restriction - that would get expensive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19973" RevisionGUID="9aedaa7a-2322-4797-ab53-79631de73133" CreationDate="2019-04-30T03:09:34.983" UserId="17737" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="I have a business plan for selling apparel over the Internet, with unique features that distinguish this idea from other sites. Before patenting this idea in the WIPO, can I tell about particularities with the investor, or is that a mistake?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56933" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19973" RevisionGUID="9aedaa7a-2322-4797-ab53-79631de73133" CreationDate="2019-04-30T03:09:34.983" UserId="17737" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="Can I tell about idea details before posting a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56934" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19973" RevisionGUID="9aedaa7a-2322-4797-ab53-79631de73133" CreationDate="2019-04-30T03:09:34.983" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 18033, 18618 edit id of 2103" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12994" RevisionGUID="6f58f2ef-6848-454d-be66-ebe22d150588" CreationDate="2019-04-30T03:09:42.260" UserId="17737" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="Is it possible to get a patent for a new Web Browser 'Button'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have knowledge about patents and I don't know if this new thing really fits to this thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically I was thinking for example about the standard 'Refresh Button' that every browser has.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My vision is to integrate in every browser a new 'Button' and make it a standard just like the 'Refresh button'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This new 'Button' that I'm talking has a very specific and unique function .. very useful for internet users .. just conceptualize it as a new button near the refresh button that could be very useful for billions of internet users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this new thing patentable? How can I get the rights for this? Or at least a license or something that have to do with the rights?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that I can make an extension to let people using this.. but I want to go more far than a simple browser extension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can somebody help me or suggest me where to look or am I in a wrong direction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56936" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12994" RevisionGUID="6f58f2ef-6848-454d-be66-ebe22d150588" CreationDate="2019-04-30T03:09:42.260" UserId="17737" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="Is it possible to get a patent for a new Web Browser 'Button'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56937" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12994" RevisionGUID="6f58f2ef-6848-454d-be66-ebe22d150588" CreationDate="2019-04-30T03:09:42.260" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 18033, 18618 edit id of 2101" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20474" RevisionGUID="19366e84-bce1-4f71-97b5-7142c6d725e0" CreationDate="2019-04-30T07:57:32.523" UserId="22051" Text="&gt; Dialogflow is a Google-owned developer of human–computer interaction&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technologies based on natural language conversations. The company is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; best known for creating the Assistant, a virtual buddy for Android,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; iOS, and Windows Phone smartphones that performs tasks and answers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; users' question in a natural language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I have an idea and created a Dialogflow Assistant/Bot used for&#xD;&#xA;   user-software interaction.  &#xD;&#xA; - The Bot is not for general public usage.&#xD;&#xA; - The Bot can be used by Software Managers/Engineers/Architects from different projects in the Information technology industry. &#xD;&#xA; - For each project, a new/specific Bot has to be created using my idea.&#xD;&#xA; - This Bot is currently in testing/alpha stage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My knowledge of patents is very limited. Any help is appreciated,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - First of all, can I patent something like this? &#xD;&#xA; - If yes, can I patent the Bot/Assistant which I create?&#xD;&#xA; - Or, can I patent the Idea(Business Logic) used in the Bot/Assistant which does a specific job when used?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56940" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20474" RevisionGUID="19366e84-bce1-4f71-97b5-7142c6d725e0" CreationDate="2019-04-30T07:57:32.523" UserId="22051" Text="Can you patent an DialogFlow Bot?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56941" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20474" RevisionGUID="19366e84-bce1-4f71-97b5-7142c6d725e0" CreationDate="2019-04-30T07:57:32.523" UserId="22051" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;utility-model&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56942" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19051" RevisionGUID="5a7f4ad1-378a-437e-8cf9-962512c76da3" CreationDate="2019-04-30T09:02:20.510" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20475" RevisionGUID="f00b9d0e-4047-4097-821f-0026b2270c04" CreationDate="2019-04-30T10:50:07.767" UserId="22052" Text="I have developed a website with a friend of mine, and the site is working. But it is not currently not in a form which is presentable to the public, which will take us a little bit longer to do. We both believe that the idea we have come up with is probably worth trying to get a patent for. I was just wondering if we need to have some kind of evidence that we are the first people to have developed our idea, in the form of a video or something similar, or if for example the code we have stored on bitbucket would be an appropriate way of demonstrating this in future, if needs arise? In other words, is it when the idea is presented to the public first which allows you to patent, or just proof that you developed the idea first? Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56944" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20475" RevisionGUID="f00b9d0e-4047-4097-821f-0026b2270c04" CreationDate="2019-04-30T10:50:07.767" UserId="22052" Text="For patent do you have to make your discovery public?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56945" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20475" RevisionGUID="f00b9d0e-4047-4097-821f-0026b2270c04" CreationDate="2019-04-30T10:50:07.767" UserId="22052" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20476" RevisionGUID="59f7a2ac-6c89-4a13-8635-931f84a6b3dd" CreationDate="2019-04-30T16:46:16.730" UserId="3076" Text="&gt; For patent do you have to make your discovery public?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer to your headline question is yes. The central societal trade off in the patent system is you teach us all about your invention and we (the government) give you a possibility of a time limited monopoly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, the body of your question is not actually that question. The U.S., like most of the rest of the world, is a &quot;first-to-file&quot; country. One just files an application and you get that date as a priority date. If you know of anything that preceded you which tends to show that you might not be first or that might be combined with other information to argue that your invention is obvious, you will need to let the USPTO know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The information you are talking about can still be useful if someone later claims that you did not invent but specifically took the idea from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the invention is already visible to the public you will need to file soon, the U.S. has a modified one-year grace period to file following public exposure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20474" RevisionGUID="a3ed2e94-dffb-4cbe-bd7a-99570c9d4288" CreationDate="2019-04-30T18:03:31.343" UserId="22051" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt; Dialogflow is a Google-owned developer of human–computer interaction&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technologies based on natural language conversations. The company is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; best known for creating the Assistant, a virtual buddy for Android,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; iOS, and Windows Phone smartphones that performs tasks and answers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; users' question in a natural language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I have an idea and created a Dialogflow Assistant/Bot used for&#xD;&#xA;   user-software interaction.  &#xD;&#xA; - The Bot is not for general public usage.&#xD;&#xA; - The Bot can be used by Software Managers/Engineers/Architects from different projects in the Information technology industry. &#xD;&#xA; - For each project, a new/specific Bot has to be created using my idea.&#xD;&#xA; - This Bot is currently in testing/alpha stage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My knowledge of patents is very limited. Any help is appreciated,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - First of all, can I patent something like this? &#xD;&#xA; - If yes, can I patent the Bot/Assistant which I create?&#xD;&#xA; - Or, can I patent the Idea(Business Logic) used in the Bot/Assistant which does a specific job when used??&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20477" RevisionGUID="50917430-e88d-4cbd-a97a-42ff3e095e4f" CreationDate="2019-04-30T22:54:37.047" UserId="17003" Text="Before I attempt to answer let me state that I am not a lawyer, but I do have several algorithm based patents. The bottom line is that it is complicated and you can't get a definitive answer from a Q&amp;A site such as this because you can't tell us what you are actually trying to do. That said, algorithm based patents do exist but they can be hard to acquire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Algorithms by themselves are probably not patentable because they would be considered &quot;abstract&quot;. The application of an algorithm to solving a specific problem might be patentable, but it still needs to meet the normal requirements of a patent which is novelty, non-obviousness and utility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bottom line is you really need to consult with a patent attorney or agent to determine the patentability of your idea. Indeed, you should find one who is experienced with software patents in particular. Even though it is theoretically possible to draft and file a patent application without an attorney or agent, it is extremely hard to do so successfully especially with software related patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56949" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17587" RevisionGUID="9f708f4a-9ac2-4b04-bea3-9546c51c53c5" CreationDate="2019-05-01T22:02:50.590" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20478" RevisionGUID="171c860d-f82d-4796-86f0-cad1a8593192" CreationDate="2019-05-02T14:29:50.420" UserId="17003" Text="This is a [design patent][1]. I'm not an expert, but it basically covers the ornamental design and not the functionality. As long as your display doesn't &quot;look&quot; like this, you should be okay. That said, you really should consult with an actual patent attorney with regards to freedom to operate questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56951" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20384" RevisionGUID="b6d843dc-3312-4297-84a0-2222f5e0b96f" CreationDate="2019-05-02T19:05:41.080" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56952" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19379" RevisionGUID="8da06c3a-8f9e-49a2-a7a2-7e013957d273" CreationDate="2019-05-02T23:02:15.437" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56953" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19531" RevisionGUID="b43d9931-ac67-4695-b77e-7fb9f9c0f79c" CreationDate="2019-05-03T00:01:16.527" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56954" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="dbbd776c-eac5-4440-81b9-397953ce5d3d" CreationDate="2019-05-03T02:01:35.507" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20479" RevisionGUID="cc0b7143-e274-4ea6-837e-a881b4fac6a7" CreationDate="2019-05-03T05:27:34.227" UserId="3076" Text="The last three things that google patents shows in its [summary information for this application][1] are -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2016-10-07&#xD;&#xA;Assigned to ONE TWO COSMETICS, LLC&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2019-01-28 First worldwide family litigation filed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2019-05-02 Application status is Abandoned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160206031A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56956" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="29bd8b3b-a24c-4f1d-b258-f9ef5d09af04" CreationDate="2019-05-03T13:03:46.000" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56957" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="290080f4-613c-4721-8c26-f54d7793ef55" CreationDate="2019-05-03T17:03:36.000" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56959" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20392" RevisionGUID="1a976cd7-2eae-4cc6-9489-d4b47ff765ef" CreationDate="2019-05-04T02:03:05.623" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56960" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19872" RevisionGUID="ab06ed5f-2834-4637-9699-98145ac50dd3" CreationDate="2019-05-04T03:03:00.477" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19617" RevisionGUID="e4705aea-dfd8-4b1e-a67c-58e4963b45fa" CreationDate="2019-05-04T14:28:27.860" UserId="21124" Comment="added 732 characters in body" Text="Yes, examiners just try to do their best. Some practitioners deliberately obfuscate the field of their invention in hopes to get an Examiner that will be more friendly (inexperienced) to the technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT to address the concerns of questioner:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because the standard is a Person (singular) Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (singular), the USPTO chooses the primary art field and can only combine the techniques that are within reach to a person in that field. Granted there is wide breath of what would be in reach of that person but this is not always the case. For example, if there's some advanced technique known to the top chefs of Lebanese cuisine that could be useful to an astrophysicist designing a new telescope, there is a strong case that combining those two fields is outside the scope of a person having ordinary skill in the art. In other words, the examiner only must act as an expert in the primary technology." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56962" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="354389c0-fe61-43de-91de-a497c9eae249" CreationDate="2019-05-04T18:01:40.363" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56963" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20399" RevisionGUID="1e8cd716-0029-40ed-ab16-c31f823ec75d" CreationDate="2019-05-04T20:01:01.600" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20480" RevisionGUID="e16da2a8-4747-4173-862a-2115f80d60df" CreationDate="2019-05-05T00:00:05.933" UserId="14403" Text="**Is there a time limit in which the Petition to Accept Late Payment of Issue Fee needs to be filed ?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No, there is not, in the sense that, no one has jurisdiction to extend&#xD;&#xA;&gt; time limit beyond the three months period given in notice of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; allowance; only 37 CFR 1.137 relief is available. Reference [1], which states &quot;The Director has no authority to extend the time for paying the issue fee. Intentional failure to pay the issue fee within the 3 months permitted by 35 U.S.C. 151 does not amount to unintentional delay in making payment.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**....there is the option to file a Petition to Accept Late Payment of Issue Fee when non-payment was unintentional (37 CFR 1.137(a).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Non payment of issue fee automatically places an application as 'abandoned'. Revival procedure is same for all instances leading to abandonment including the instant under consideration here. The last paragraph of this [3] gives an interesting reading and gives an insight into the process. There are more available with google search. By the way, 37 USC 1.137 has been amended to exclude 'unavoidable'delay and only 'unintentional' delay is eligible for consideration.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Also [2] is very educative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1306.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]:https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/13893/what-happens-if-i-dont-pay-the-issue-fee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3]:https://books.google.co.in/books?id=hQ3t7kCVUVMC&amp;pg=PT958&amp;lpg=PT958&amp;dq=37cfr+137&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Q9_fo7MCEi&amp;sig=ACfU3U3DpyYHFBPwn_oni1ESTIDZEDRsjA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjgmpuagIPiAhUT73MBHar2CXwQ6AEwEXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=37cfr%20137&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56968" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19061" RevisionGUID="1f09550c-51e2-4e55-ae32-f475b42f10ba" CreationDate="2019-05-05T18:01:30.270" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56969" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17041" RevisionGUID="e923e3d5-b7ec-4e9d-9945-7cf75af7bf41" CreationDate="2019-05-05T21:02:45.560" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56970" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19565" RevisionGUID="9122dd38-04c9-4105-b7bf-1a1d3399b4b7" CreationDate="2019-05-06T08:03:30.720" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20243" RevisionGUID="9cb5dea7-a1b8-4519-a3f0-18b371dc69a6" CreationDate="2019-05-06T18:07:33.343" UserId="3076" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="I think the answer is that it depends on the context. I have included three examples from three different patents. The first uses depending upon while the second uses based upon. I do not think the meaning would be changed if they were reversed. The third uses using. In the context, the other two terms would not make sense if placed into this claim. This is a rare case where it is just English - not &quot;patentese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the calculating comprises: calculating a first distance from the first location to a location of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a previous usage associated with the phone number; and calculating a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; second distance from the second location to the location of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; previous usage associated with the phone number, wherein the first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fraud score is **based upon** the first distance and the second fraud&#xD;&#xA;&gt; score is **based upon** the second distance&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The system of claim 1, wherein the occlusion mask device comprises a display configured to either occlude or pass light at each of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plurality of portions of the display, **depending upon** a pertinent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; command to occlude or pass light at each portion.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the information providing circuitry is operable to signal the information between a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; base station and the Mobility Management entity **using** a wired&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inter-face between the base station and the core of the wireless&#xD;&#xA;&gt; communication net-work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="56981" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18787" RevisionGUID="81ccb02b-dcfc-4698-ac53-e687c8823a59" CreationDate="2019-05-07T01:01:30.297" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56987" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20071" RevisionGUID="a2b4710f-b27e-43f8-ab7c-862452881ab0" CreationDate="2019-05-07T17:02:30.800" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56991" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="b2c2227d-8df5-44fa-888b-95ea303d3701" CreationDate="2019-05-08T13:03:10.620" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="56999" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20074" RevisionGUID="57b2ea41-65c3-4c3f-b9fa-0666b1851994" CreationDate="2019-05-10T01:02:20.557" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20487" RevisionGUID="126efda4-5cb2-474f-8bae-74feba35dcf5" CreationDate="2019-05-11T20:31:37.690" UserId="17003" Text="I believe this question is a duplicate of [this][1] question. But since it hasn't been flagged, I'll list the best options found in that answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://ip.com/&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.defensivepublications.org/&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.researchdisclosure.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/18719/best-places-to-record-ideas-as-prior-art-to-avoid-later-patents-uk-us" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20488" RevisionGUID="3d5326f0-2ad7-47d0-b46a-e90f5044ec9d" CreationDate="2019-05-13T02:28:34.663" UserId="19232" Text="The question is in context of a response attempting to overcome the examiner's cited prior art in a rejection. If stating that the prior art in question doesn't exactly address the point being used for rejection, is there a distinction between saying &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;the xxxx art does not **teach**...&quot;* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;the xxxx art does not **teach or disclose**...&quot;* ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57010" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20488" RevisionGUID="3d5326f0-2ad7-47d0-b46a-e90f5044ec9d" CreationDate="2019-05-13T02:28:34.663" UserId="19232" Text="Use of phrase &quot;teach or disclose&quot; in OA responses" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57011" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20488" RevisionGUID="3d5326f0-2ad7-47d0-b46a-e90f5044ec9d" CreationDate="2019-05-13T02:28:34.663" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;rejection&gt;&lt;oa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20489" RevisionGUID="89028cfd-254a-4d79-9f57-58f56853e73d" CreationDate="2019-05-15T14:00:51.250" UserId="21149" Text="I've filed a utility patent application, nearly 17 months ago. At that time also filed PCT application, then withdrew the PCT application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to file a request not to publish the USPTO utility patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57013" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20489" RevisionGUID="89028cfd-254a-4d79-9f57-58f56853e73d" CreationDate="2019-05-15T14:00:51.250" UserId="21149" Text="Can I file a 'non-publication request' well after patent filing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57014" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20489" RevisionGUID="89028cfd-254a-4d79-9f57-58f56853e73d" CreationDate="2019-05-15T14:00:51.250" UserId="21149" Text="&lt;non-publication&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57015" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="279c45fe-3900-4db0-a3c2-df96060a75b0" CreationDate="2019-05-15T20:02:55.580" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20490" RevisionGUID="c0744e5a-f3d2-4977-a344-ce85c05028a3" CreationDate="2019-05-15T22:38:15.017" UserId="22004" Text="Allow me to ask four variants of this question in order to try and make clear what the point is. I will also answer each of them according to my current understanding, which I seek to find out if is right or not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose that I obtain a timestamp (through a public agency, a notary etc.) for the document describing an invention, and then I do not reveal it publicly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(i) If at a later time I apply for a patent, will this action affect the application's fate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My current guess: No, since it wasn't revealed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(ii) If at a later time someone else either applies for a patent or uses something quite similar to the invention, can I use this action to protect against it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess: No, because there's no prior art established. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now suppose that I obtain a timestamp for the document describing an invention, and then I deposit it at an appropriate depository. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(iii) If at a later time I apply for a patent, will this action affect the application's fate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My current guess: Yes, negatively, since it was revealed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(iv) If at a later time someone else either applies for a patent or uses something quite similar to the invention, can I use this action to protect against it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess: Ehm, no clue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for any clarification that you can give on these points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note: This question is a hopefully improved version of [this one][1]; I believe that it is not a duplicate, since I have understood more in the meantime and added relevant detail.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/20449/does-notarizing-the-document-of-a-description-invalidate-any-future-attempt-to-p" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57017" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20490" RevisionGUID="c0744e5a-f3d2-4977-a344-ce85c05028a3" CreationDate="2019-05-15T22:38:15.017" UserId="22004" Text="Does obtaining a timestamp for a description affect future attempts to patent it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57018" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20490" RevisionGUID="c0744e5a-f3d2-4977-a344-ce85c05028a3" CreationDate="2019-05-15T22:38:15.017" UserId="22004" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;rejection&gt;&lt;grant&gt;&lt;time-stamp&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20491" RevisionGUID="a5098e18-bcd0-4738-bb93-dcf60892c9c4" CreationDate="2019-05-15T23:28:04.260" UserId="17003" Text="Prior to 1995, it was normal practice to get potentially patentable ideas witnessed, signed and dated. This was what we did at my job. This was because in the US the USPTO used to have a first to invent system for determining inventorship. However, since 1995, the USPTO went to a first to file system (aligning with most other countries). Thus, having a verifiable date on some document describing an invention doesn't impact who will get a patent. The patent will go to the first person who files an application. So to answer your specific questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (i) If at a later time I apply for a patent, will this action affect&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the application's fate?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; No, since it wasn't publicly disclosed.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (ii) If at a later time someone else either applies for a patent or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; uses something quite similar to the invention, can I use this action&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to protect against it?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; No, because with no public disclosure, there's no prior art established.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now suppose that I obtain a timestamp for the document describing an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention, and then I deposit it at an appropriate depository.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (iii) If at a later time I apply for a patent, will this action affect&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the application's fate?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Assuming the depository is public you won't be able to patent. You do, however have a 12 month grace period in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (iv) If at a later time someone else either applies for a patent or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; uses something quite similar to the invention, can I use this action&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to protect against it?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Assuming the idea was publicly disclosed, it should keep the other patent from getting issued or at least provide some protection should you get sued for infringement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20492" RevisionGUID="ebacf19d-1987-48e3-a40f-60335af7147c" CreationDate="2019-05-16T00:44:06.140" UserId="22084" Text="I want to patent a methodology for computing an important value, which is often reported by companies. My methodology gives a much better estimate of this value. The patent application attornies asked me how could you tell whether the methodology is infringed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I answer this question? Is this a requirement in the provisional application and what are they looking for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57021" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20492" RevisionGUID="ebacf19d-1987-48e3-a40f-60335af7147c" CreationDate="2019-05-16T00:44:06.140" UserId="22084" Text="How to know if someone infringes your patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57022" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20492" RevisionGUID="ebacf19d-1987-48e3-a40f-60335af7147c" CreationDate="2019-05-16T00:44:06.140" UserId="22084" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20491" RevisionGUID="20926b27-13ad-417c-8051-bdd0b113cbc5" CreationDate="2019-05-16T00:50:22.777" UserId="17003" Comment="added 194 characters in body" Text="Prior to 1995, it was normal practice to get potentially patentable ideas witnessed, signed and dated. This was what we did at my job. This was because in the US the USPTO used to have a first to invent system for determining inventorship. However, since 1995, the USPTO went to a first to file system (aligning with most other countries). Thus, having a verifiable date on some document describing an invention doesn't impact who will get a patent. The patent will go to the first person who files an application. So to answer your specific questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suppose that I obtain a timestamp (through a public agency, a notary etc.) for the document describing an invention, and then I do not reveal it publicly.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (i) If at a later time I apply for a patent, will this action affect&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the application's fate?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *No, since it wasn't publicly disclosed.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (ii) If at a later time someone else either applies for a patent or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; uses something quite similar to the invention, can I use this action&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to protect against it?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *No, because with no public disclosure, there's no prior art established.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now suppose that I obtain a timestamp for the document describing an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention, and then I deposit it at an appropriate depository.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (iii) If at a later time I apply for a patent, will this action affect&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the application's fate?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Assuming the depository is public you won't be able to patent. You do, however have a 12 month grace period after disclosure in the US.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (iv) If at a later time someone else either applies for a patent or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; uses something quite similar to the invention, can I use this action&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to protect against it?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Assuming the idea was publicly disclosed, it should keep the other patent from getting issued or at least provide some protection should you get sued for infringement. If you know of an application, [there are provisions][1] for challenging it.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please remember that I am not a lawyer and this should not be considered legal advice. There is no substitute for consulting with an actual patent attorney or agent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patenttrademarkblog.com/challenge-oppose-pending-patent-application/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20493" RevisionGUID="47ad0006-3275-4c4e-a1fe-ad03b38f2bc8" CreationDate="2019-05-16T09:19:19.393" UserId="21610" Text="the basic difference between the both lies between content of prior art&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eg. you have developed a product consisting of &#xD;&#xA; 1. aaa&#xD;&#xA; 2. bbb&#xD;&#xA; 3. ccc&#xD;&#xA; 4. ddd&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Scenario 1:** In the above example the prior art has aaa, bbb, ccc but not ddd then &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the prior art XXXX doesn't teach or disclose the use of ddd&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Scenario 2**: In the above example the prior art has of aaa, bbb, ccc and ddd,But in the prior art the compound is used for a different purpose than that of your intention.( eg: in prior art the compound ddd is disclosed  as lubricant but in your invention you are using it as a solvent)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the prior art XXXX doesn't teach the use of ddd as an solvent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20494" RevisionGUID="ef31a810-221a-4001-95ea-f0bd75d9786f" CreationDate="2019-05-16T09:22:46.633" UserId="21610" Text="No, as per [this page][1] The non publication request, if filed, must be filed with the filing of the patent application.  If the non publication request is not filed with the patent application, then the patent application will publish in due course.  If you wish to maintain the secrecy of your patent application until it matures into a patent, the only other option is to abandon the first original patent application and refile provided that this is still an option.  Another downside for abandoning and refiling is that intervening prior art could be cited against your patent application during examination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ocpatentlawyer.com/request-for-non-publication-of-a-patent-application/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20449" RevisionGUID="301603f8-2abf-4aa1-be64-7fb1f2a0fe56" CreationDate="2019-05-16T10:28:40.687" UserId="22004" Comment="Link to a more relevant updated question." Text="In other words, can it count as prior art that will result in rejecting a patent application submitted after the notarization? Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Edit: Due to my poor knowledge of English terminology, this question was actually about timestamping, not notarizing. I've now posted a more relevant and researched question [here][1]. But I think that this one also has some merit thanks to the answers below.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/20490/does-obtaining-a-timestamp-for-a-description-affect-future-attempts-to-patent-it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20495" RevisionGUID="072bb697-f6b6-4ba3-978d-baee3c2c68ba" CreationDate="2019-05-16T11:06:31.347" UserId="21610" Text="I assume you are trying to patent an algorithm because math formulas are not [patentable][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; how could you tell whether the methodology is infringed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look for competing products in the market and try to analyse their algorithim then compare it with that of yours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/11831/can-you-patent-a-math-formula" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20496" RevisionGUID="1e9256ff-1c03-4605-a643-a2f1114db06b" CreationDate="2019-05-16T16:16:16.537" UserId="3500" Text="They may be looking for information that can help them improve the claims.  If you can tell them how you might detect use of your invention, then they can try and claim some of those markers, or at least disclose them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;a new and useful way of making widgets&quot; may or may not be easy to detect.  But if can determine that someone is using your new and useful way because doing so makes the widget shinier than traditionally made widgets, because it reduces production time, because it leads to consumption of fewer resources, or because it causes the widgets to come off the assembly line in unusual orientations, then they can add some or all of those elements to the claim or disclose them in the patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might not have thought of any of those things as being part of your invention, but there can be value in having some claims or disclosures that mention these things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They may also be making the point that unless you have a way of detecting infringement, you might want to think hard about spending the money on the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are just guesses.  What you should really do is ask you attorneys." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57030" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="20497" RevisionGUID="adda0a53-ffaf-4a07-9e99-99f72a0ee130" CreationDate="2019-05-16T21:21:13.563" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/41037/can-i-make-an-app-that-looks-like-snapchat" />
  <row Id="57031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20497" RevisionGUID="a0d3d7c7-2545-45fb-a91a-92a4ed590953" CreationDate="2019-05-14T20:09:48.273" UserDisplayName="NewAppDeveloping" Text="I want to make an app that has transitions between screens like snapchat. (Three buttons at the bottom of the screen that are always there). Is that legal? The app will not be like snapchat in anyway except for those buttons. (different icons)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see these two patents but I am not sure if they are describing the buttons specifically or if those transitions are patentable&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.justia.com/patent/D768674&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.justia.com/patent/D766967" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57032" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20497" RevisionGUID="a0d3d7c7-2545-45fb-a91a-92a4ed590953" CreationDate="2019-05-14T20:09:48.273" UserDisplayName="NewAppDeveloping" Text="Can I make an App that looks like snapchat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57033" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20497" RevisionGUID="a0d3d7c7-2545-45fb-a91a-92a4ed590953" CreationDate="2019-05-14T20:09:48.273" UserDisplayName="NewAppDeveloping" Text="&lt;untagged&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20498" RevisionGUID="ea9b5141-b914-4d6e-aeba-676dcea1f722" CreationDate="2019-05-14T20:24:18.970" UserDisplayName="Putvi" Text="A patent describes an invention, as in a new creation and not just the way something looks, usually. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can have three buttons on the bottom of the screen, but you can't steal the whole of Snapchat. You can read more about their patents and what they cover here: https://techcrunch.com/2014/06/22/facebook-slingshot-snapchat-patents/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57035" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="20498" RevisionGUID="2f6f6451-93be-4e33-b176-64797fde0b8a" CreationDate="2019-05-16T21:21:13.563" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/41037/can-i-make-an-app-that-looks-like-snapchat/41038#41038" />
  <row Id="57036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20499" RevisionGUID="d25e6233-79b0-4558-92bd-3497325a6702" CreationDate="2019-05-17T01:29:07.520" UserId="17003" Text="You've linked two design patents. [Design patents][1] cover the ornamental design of functional items. You need to look at the figures in the design patents listed. Google Patents is good for this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[D768674][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[D766967][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When looking at the figures, the dashed lines are not covered by the patent, only the solid lines. As long as your user interface doesn't look like the figures, you should be okay. You might want to search more widely as there may be other relevant patents. For instance here is [all the granted US patents assigned to Snapchat][4]. There are both design and utility patents listed. As always, I recommend consulting with an actual patent attorney in regards to freedom-to-operate opinions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD768674S1/en?oq=D768674&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD766967S1/en?oq=D766967&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.google.com/?assignee=Snapchat%20Inc&amp;country=US&amp;status=GRANT" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20500" RevisionGUID="0874be7e-8a72-420d-8ea4-994d89c9723e" CreationDate="2019-05-17T01:35:44.840" UserId="17003" Text="This can be very difficult. For instance, if the calculated value is of use internally to the infringing company, you may have no way to find out that they are using your algorithm. If you wish to sell the results of the calculation, it might be preferable to keep the algorithm as a trade secret although this opens the door to reverse engineering. Otherwise, if you can demonstrate that with the same input parameters the potentially infringing company gets exactly the same result as your patented algorithm you could sue them and hope to prove to a jury the likelihood of infringement. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know whether there is a process for auditing the potentially infringing company during the law suit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20501" RevisionGUID="1aa202cc-2de2-48f3-b460-fccabaaa480a" CreationDate="2019-05-18T04:57:39.997" UserId="22087" Text="The key dates of filings of a patent are mentioned below: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;16 June 2017 US Patent filing date&#xD;&#xA;12 April 2018 Notice of Allowance by USPTO&#xD;&#xA;16 June 2018 Australia patent filing date&#xD;&#xA;18 June 2018 UK patent filing date&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is about the definition of a 12 months. Does 12 months from 16 June 2017 mean priority can be claimed till 15th June 2018 or 16th June 2018?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do the above dates mean that UK one is a separate filing and AUS one is not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57040" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20501" RevisionGUID="1aa202cc-2de2-48f3-b460-fccabaaa480a" CreationDate="2019-05-18T04:57:39.997" UserId="22087" Text="Priority date of US patent for filing in other countries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57041" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20501" RevisionGUID="1aa202cc-2de2-48f3-b460-fccabaaa480a" CreationDate="2019-05-18T04:57:39.997" UserId="22087" Text="&lt;priority&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20502" RevisionGUID="020e0e3f-b73a-4ad0-b1cd-881971b11a87" CreationDate="2019-05-18T16:19:54.360" UserId="18033" Text="Does 12 months from 16 June 2017 mean priority can be claimed till 15th June 2018 or 16th June 2018?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;18th June 2018. Exactly 1 year, latest on the day having the same date 1 year later extending to the next working day. And 16th and 17th were weekend days. (It's like that in all jurisdictions afaik, but I can't promise). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check the priority, it is marked on the cover page. A priority has to be explicitly claimed so the date alone doesn't tell you anything. Claiming priority later than 12 months can be possible in some jurisdictions if the date was missed on accident for example. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20504" RevisionGUID="19ee5e5b-bdcb-433a-891b-aa49b1b93951" CreationDate="2019-05-18T20:36:13.440" UserId="21046" Text="I am a co-inventor together with a fellow engineer. Some time ago, we filed a provisional for our invention and close to 12 month later, in coordination with the co-inventor, I filed a PCT application where we are both listed as co-inventors (let's call this PCT1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I later noticed that my co-inventor's business partner had also filed a PCT application for this invention but listing only my friend as the sole inventor (let's call this PCT2). PCT2 was filed one day after PCT1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no disagreement among us that we are both inventors and both conceptually contributed to the invention. PCT2 describes much of my work and even uses some graphs that I had created as part of the figures. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am concerned now that both applications (i.e. also the legitimate PCT1 application) get rejected on grounds of double patenting. What can I do? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I mount an inequitable conduct claim and invalidate PCT2 without affecting PCT1?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57047" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20504" RevisionGUID="19ee5e5b-bdcb-433a-891b-aa49b1b93951" CreationDate="2019-05-18T20:36:13.440" UserId="21046" Text="Co-inventor filed same invention again as sole inventor -- Double patenting? Inequitable conduct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57048" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20504" RevisionGUID="19ee5e5b-bdcb-433a-891b-aa49b1b93951" CreationDate="2019-05-18T20:36:13.440" UserId="21046" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;inequitable-conduct&gt;&lt;double-patenting&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57050" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18971" RevisionGUID="11cf38e4-3704-4ed4-91f4-0a9f8f40531a" CreationDate="2019-05-19T08:02:40.527" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20505" RevisionGUID="fd199217-b7fb-4f1a-9237-fd7dcec2f7fe" CreationDate="2019-05-20T05:38:46.637" UserId="21610" Text="Double patenting results when the right to exclude granted by a first patent is unjustly extended by the grant of a later issued patent or patents.The doctrine of double patenting has been created to prevent the unjustified extension of patent exclusivity beyond the term of a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following criteria are considered for the  issue of double patenting, two or more patents or applications must have **at least one common inventor**, common applicant, and/or be commonly assigned/owned or non-commonly assigned/owned but subject to a joint research agreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the doctrine of double patenting seeks to avoid unjustly extending patent rights, the **focus of any double patenting analysis necessarily is on the claims** in the multiple patents or patent applications involved in the analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the criteria of atleast one common inventor is satisfied in your case you can expect a provisional statutory double patenting rejection if the second filed application is directed to the same invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If any the claims of PCT2 has your concept or your contribution you have to be named as a joint inventor, if so you could file an Inequitable conduct representation at USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The court has held that “[c]onception is the touchstone of inventorship,” each joint inventor must contribute to the conception of the invention. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Lab., Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1227-28 (Fed. Cir.1994). There is no requirement that the conception be of equal magnitude though. Indeed, it is not necessary for each inventor to contribute conception to all of the patent claims filed in order to be joint inventor. It is enough for one to contribute conception to a single claim in order to be considered a joint inventor. See SmithKline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Lab. Corp., 859 F.2d 878, 888 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Thus, if one contributes to the conception of something – indeed anything – that winds up being claimed in a patent application they are joint inventors (or co-inventors as they are sometimes referred to).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[This][1] article in IPwatchdog in conclusion described the following&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1.An inventor is someone who came up with the idea for the invention?&#xD;&#xA;2.An inventor is someone who diligently works on making the invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer to question 1 is, yes, if and only if the person who came up with the idea contributed conception. The idea in and of itself is not enough. After all, having an idea that it would be wonderful to travel back in time does not make one an inventor of a time machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer to question 2 is, yes, if and only if the person who diligently worked on making the invention (i.e., reducing the invention to practice) actually contributed conception to at least one of the patent claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kindly check your contribution in the PCT2 claims before making any representations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please take an attorney opinion as they would be in a better position in identifying the best way out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/03/09/inventorship-joint-inventors-co-inventors/id=94592/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20506" RevisionGUID="597e26ba-771a-4569-b9a0-78f040973f84" CreationDate="2019-05-21T01:56:44.067" UserId="22088" Text="What is the gripe that the current US administration has with the Chinese patent system?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If an inventor files (and obtains) a patent from the USPTO, but never applies for a patent in China, does a Chinese manufacturer (not) have the right to clone the product in China?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there is no reciprocity in this regards? Is a patent sought &amp; obtained in China (not) automatically protected in the US?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57056" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20506" RevisionGUID="597e26ba-771a-4569-b9a0-78f040973f84" CreationDate="2019-05-21T01:56:44.067" UserId="22088" Text="Is there (no) reciprocity in protection between the US and China?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57057" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20506" RevisionGUID="597e26ba-771a-4569-b9a0-78f040973f84" CreationDate="2019-05-21T01:56:44.067" UserId="22088" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;us&gt;&lt;china&gt;&lt;sipo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20507" RevisionGUID="404748c8-8600-4bba-900f-9493dc1949e3" CreationDate="2019-05-21T03:15:56.970" UserId="21610" Text="As patents are granted by national or regional patent offices, the patents are therefore only useful for protecting an invention in the country in which that patent is granted. In other words, patent is territorial in nature it doesn't provide global rights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is the gripe that the current US administration has with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Chinese patent system?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;China has been continuously placed in priority watch list since 2006, the reason for  that reflects in the [special 301][1] report is that china need for fundamental structural changes to strengthen IP protection and enforcement, including as to trade secret theft, online piracy and counterfeiting, the high volume manufacture and export of counterfeit goods, and impediments to pharmaceutical innovation. The concern expressed by US administration is such counterfeit goods making its way into US through various online sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If an inventor files (and obtains) a patent from the USPTO, but never&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applies for a patent in China, does a Chinese manufacturer (not) have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the right to clone the product in China?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The product is patented in US but there in no patent filed in China then, the chinese manufacturer can clone the product.But, he cannot to export the product to US as there is patent protection. He could sell such product in china or any other country where there is no patent protection for that product. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there is no reciprocity in this regards? Is a patent sought &amp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtained in China (not) automatically protected in the US?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2019_Special_301_Report.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57059" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20508" RevisionGUID="1ac95b40-34b8-4bf3-a179-62b5e41b2c5e" CreationDate="2019-05-21T04:02:30.433" UserId="22092" Text="If &quot;first to file&quot; is the only thing that matters, then it doesn't matter even if the product already exists. Say a patent troll picks a popular product already in use by millions of people. They see some ideas core to its functionality have never been patented, so they patent them. Then, they sue the original creators of the app for infringement. Now the original creators of the app have to pay the patent troll for infringing on the idea even though the patent troll derived their idea from the app in the first place. This seems extremely unfair, but it seems like exactly what's implied by the &quot;first to file&quot; law. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57060" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20508" RevisionGUID="1ac95b40-34b8-4bf3-a179-62b5e41b2c5e" CreationDate="2019-05-21T04:02:30.433" UserId="22092" Text="Under &quot;first to file&quot; law, doesn't that mean someone can patent-troll any currently existing product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57061" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20508" RevisionGUID="1ac95b40-34b8-4bf3-a179-62b5e41b2c5e" CreationDate="2019-05-21T04:02:30.433" UserId="22092" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20506" RevisionGUID="a68dd573-6b6b-4d9a-9aaf-b54d6ab9c432" CreationDate="2019-05-21T08:55:11.570" UserId="22088" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="What is the gripe that the current US administration has with the Chinese patent system?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If an inventor files (and obtains) a patent from the USPTO, but never applies for a patent in China, does a Chinese manufacturer (not) have the right to clone the product in China?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there no reciprocity in this regards? Is a patent sought &amp; obtained in China (not) automatically protected in the US?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20509" RevisionGUID="442f7fed-78cb-4c13-ad3e-63d38111e37d" CreationDate="2019-05-21T08:57:36.920" UserId="18033" Text="It's not. An invention, to be patentable, needs to be new an non obvious over all the known prior art, including products on the market or known otherwise to a part of the general public. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First to file merely means that you if you invent something **and keep it secret** and somebody else patents it, you do not have a right to a patent anymore. See for example [this question][1] for more info.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before that, when it was first to invent, people would notarize ideas and store them away just to destroy future patents of others. A patent should instead be a reward for sharing ideas, so that behaviour was not helfpful. (*Short, opinionated version of the events*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/20490/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19320" RevisionGUID="6bdc9beb-5301-4917-a9e4-2d380ba45885" CreationDate="2019-05-22T05:46:49.063" UserId="17737" Comment="broken link fixed" Text="[As I understand it, claims can be][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **rejected**: the ***substance*** is unallowable under 35 U.S.C. [101][2], [102][3], [103][4] and/or [112][5].&#xD;&#xA;* **objected**: the ***form*** of the claim is improper [37 CFR 75 grouping requirement][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. How many chances, and under what guise, does one get to resubmit the corrected claim?&#xD;&#xA;2. Can I perform Q&amp;A with the USPTO examiner via phone to clarify the issue?&#xD;&#xA;3. Is there a standard example of rejection / objection that is used to teach newbies? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any lessons-learned or avoidable landmines are appreciated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/04/02/patent-process-rejections-vs-objections/id=67761/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/101&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/103&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/112&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=46c20d7450ae0f89d9e35d18afaec4c4&amp;mc=true&amp;node=se37.1.1_175&amp;rgn=div8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57069" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19320" RevisionGUID="6bdc9beb-5301-4917-a9e4-2d380ba45885" CreationDate="2019-05-22T05:46:49.063" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 18033, 21610 edit id of 2104" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20513" RevisionGUID="b6eeaca3-155c-4748-ac49-d541e6edd609" CreationDate="2019-05-24T01:01:42.600" UserId="3076" Text="I agree with the answer from @Eric Shain. I would add one nuance. At least in the U.S. there is a [derivation proceeding][1] that allows one to challenge an earlier filed application of another on the grounds that they stole it from you. In that case any evidence of when you invented could be material. To win you not only need to show you invented it prior to the other person filing but that they got the invention from you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/appealing-patent-decisions/trials/derivation-proceeding" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20509" RevisionGUID="54c50f04-7223-4fa0-9ddd-db867a768308" CreationDate="2019-05-24T16:53:26.223" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="It's not. An invention, to be patentable, needs to be new an non obvious over all the known prior art, including products on the market or known otherwise to a part of the general public. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First to file merely means that if you invent something **and keep it secret** and somebody else patents it, you do not have a right to a patent anymore. See for example [this question][1] for more info.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before that, when it was first to invent, people would notarize ideas and store them away just to destroy future patents of others. A patent should instead be a reward for sharing ideas, so that behaviour was not helfpful. (*Short, opinionated version of the events*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/20490/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57084" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20085" RevisionGUID="f91f09a3-1df9-4827-a4d3-c8997a883f8b" CreationDate="2019-05-25T00:04:05.407" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57086" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10577" RevisionGUID="c5073bff-144f-4648-8ff4-005caf8f7992" CreationDate="2019-05-25T03:07:15.280" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57087" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10094" RevisionGUID="9b192e40-5b8b-456c-b7eb-85de0abad9fa" CreationDate="2019-05-25T04:09:06.030" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57088" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12936" RevisionGUID="870a7ee3-e8b9-431f-8c0e-79f87294719f" CreationDate="2019-05-25T06:01:30.177" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57089" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12003" RevisionGUID="4ef10ee8-5ece-42e9-bcac-c8fea7bf1b56" CreationDate="2019-05-25T07:01:02.060" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57090" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13760" RevisionGUID="a01b4c23-7851-4c6b-b08e-743e86b7d13f" CreationDate="2019-05-25T08:04:10.573" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57091" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12478" RevisionGUID="328bee02-3ff0-4bfe-8034-2e0dd3187b49" CreationDate="2019-05-25T09:02:55.393" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57092" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10043" RevisionGUID="1627d4ff-d8fd-476b-9e84-c2eaa87e57d8" CreationDate="2019-05-25T10:01:10.090" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57093" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7746" RevisionGUID="66372b03-44b7-4bf5-af54-e9baa2087e3f" CreationDate="2019-05-25T11:03:40.467" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57094" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18629" RevisionGUID="a8269c7d-858e-40a2-9eaa-ed9ade11546c" CreationDate="2019-05-25T12:01:36.993" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57095" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14861" RevisionGUID="b74ca764-c313-4306-a8ee-cb4fa0c4af6e" CreationDate="2019-05-25T13:01:40.190" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57096" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19108" RevisionGUID="5cae81b6-ca66-4f71-bfd8-c3c1cef5c834" CreationDate="2019-05-25T14:02:25.290" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57097" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12934" RevisionGUID="60d9e011-95ef-43a4-8e24-b0433eaaed48" CreationDate="2019-05-25T15:01:45.690" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57098" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13123" RevisionGUID="eb6c9c99-a44e-48ff-b10a-0e184351ad63" CreationDate="2019-05-25T16:03:15.407" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57099" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16237" RevisionGUID="b675a040-644f-4bf0-bbc5-ec4bec7e5202" CreationDate="2019-05-25T17:02:05.240" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57100" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12055" RevisionGUID="a485a4b4-303c-4b3a-bcb6-1eaf59d9d04b" CreationDate="2019-05-25T18:03:55.500" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57101" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18416" RevisionGUID="b6c4eff3-724c-4cc7-9552-793d612db9ef" CreationDate="2019-05-25T19:02:10.383" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57102" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12452" RevisionGUID="031dcca2-1b6e-4dd6-8ab6-a00e8e464ca3" CreationDate="2019-05-25T20:04:10.570" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20515" RevisionGUID="56c7e42f-e7ed-473a-8967-dc1552c7e7e6" CreationDate="2019-05-25T20:08:23.730" UserId="7517" Text="I am trying to do research on what can be done by unregistered people.&#xD;&#xA;While it is clear they cannot represent in a patent court. &#xD;&#xA;But to what extant can they help someone one write patents?&#xD;&#xA;or help others to file?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57104" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20515" RevisionGUID="56c7e42f-e7ed-473a-8967-dc1552c7e7e6" CreationDate="2019-05-25T20:08:23.730" UserId="7517" Text="Unregistered Patent Agents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57105" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20515" RevisionGUID="56c7e42f-e7ed-473a-8967-dc1552c7e7e6" CreationDate="2019-05-25T20:08:23.730" UserId="7517" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;patent-agent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57106" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16304" RevisionGUID="f69d74df-4782-4d79-bd8c-1f66f9aecdc4" CreationDate="2019-05-25T21:02:45.287" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20516" RevisionGUID="3200d312-66b0-4387-8ed8-bac7edf0c9ce" CreationDate="2019-05-26T13:35:13.780" UserId="22111" Text="If I'm not mistaken, becoming registered eFiler (Pro Se) involves 3 steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Creating USPTO account at https://my.uspto.gov&#xD;&#xA;2. Filling and sending Request for Customer Number - form PTO/SB/125A&#xD;&#xA;3. Filling and sending Patent Electronic System Verification Form - PTO‐2042a&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is any of these steps associated with any fees, or is this completely free?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one eventually becomes registered eFiler, but then finds out that&#xD;&#xA;his invention is not patentable, so he actually never fills any application,&#xD;&#xA;does that have any consequences?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57108" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20516" RevisionGUID="3200d312-66b0-4387-8ed8-bac7edf0c9ce" CreationDate="2019-05-26T13:35:13.780" UserId="22111" Text="Is becoming registered eFiler associated with any fees?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57109" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20516" RevisionGUID="3200d312-66b0-4387-8ed8-bac7edf0c9ce" CreationDate="2019-05-26T13:35:13.780" UserId="22111" Text="&lt;fees&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20517" RevisionGUID="182f352d-6611-4143-8d64-083cf569de12" CreationDate="2019-05-27T02:47:50.053" UserId="14403" Text="**Is any of these steps associated with any fees**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, none whatsoever as of now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**... actually never fills any application, does that have any consequences**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again the answer is 'NO'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one does not use one's account and does not change password regularly then USPTO account gets locked. Access to private PAIR also gets locked after a certain time period. Both are of course retrievable.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57111" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="edbc71c7-73ed-4d6b-ad33-57712f09a177" CreationDate="2019-05-27T05:03:05.347" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20518" RevisionGUID="b6de1eba-5c53-4050-805c-5dad5873d7f0" CreationDate="2019-05-27T14:04:54.643" UserId="22004" Text="Is it possible to protect a method which is otherwise patentable but which has so far been developed only in broad lines? In other words it is novel and applicable, but not fully teach-able yet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a fictional example suppose that an engineer comes across an unusual way to increase the efficiency of a cooling cycle in the lab of his small enterprise. He is not entirely sure of the engineering reasoning, but in dozens of trials he measures a significant increase in efficiency four times out of five. As we speak he has formed a solid idea of how to modify the cycle in order to improve it, but he is not able to describe a sequence of steps that would reproduce the process every time. Still, it's obvious that the main ingredient in the increase of efficiency is his novel approach. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this example would it be possible to patent, or otherwise protect, the new way of modifying the cycle? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57113" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20518" RevisionGUID="b6de1eba-5c53-4050-805c-5dad5873d7f0" CreationDate="2019-05-27T14:04:54.643" UserId="22004" Text="Can a patentable but not fully developed method be protected?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57114" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20518" RevisionGUID="b6de1eba-5c53-4050-805c-5dad5873d7f0" CreationDate="2019-05-27T14:04:54.643" UserId="22004" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;description&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20519" RevisionGUID="97fb1398-b6da-4694-8018-b3889dac05fa" CreationDate="2019-05-27T14:27:51.033" UserId="19232" Text="Two icons in different parts of an interface are intended to be recognized as representing the same thing at some level, yet are also distinguished by other visual cues (size, location within interface, some graphic details) as having differences of purpose. To describe them in claims as a comparison, is there a better phrase than 'substantially similar'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57116" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20519" RevisionGUID="97fb1398-b6da-4694-8018-b3889dac05fa" CreationDate="2019-05-27T14:27:51.033" UserId="19232" Text="Use of 'substantially similar' or other phrases describing elements to be similar but not identical" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57117" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20519" RevisionGUID="97fb1398-b6da-4694-8018-b3889dac05fa" CreationDate="2019-05-27T14:27:51.033" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;claims-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20520" RevisionGUID="d82dfe09-a220-4195-a0b0-9d3e5041d289" CreationDate="2019-05-27T23:46:28.020" UserId="17003" Text="I'm not a lawyer, but I do have a fair number of patents. In my experience there is no burden to prove an invention actually works. Thus if you have an invention and it isn't fully developed, you can still apply for and receive a patent assuming it still meets the requirements of patentability. You do need to disclose the best embodiment in the application. If, as the invention is further developed, significant improvements are discovered, you should consider filing additional additional patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20521" RevisionGUID="5d3e7d07-1746-4c10-b8d9-dbe0f8641e58" CreationDate="2019-05-28T01:52:54.463" UserId="14403" Text="The followings are not to be construed as legal advice or opinion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the **two icons** differ by look ('**visual cues**'), location ('**in different parts of an interface**') and purpose (**a thing at 'different level'**, assuming your 'some' is not the typos error for 'same'), then I believe they are neither same, nor 'substantially same'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One suggestion is to treat those two icons as different and claim construction (example) can be as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a first icon to represent (say A) at (location) wherein the first icon&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (mention all characteristics)...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a second icon to represent (the A) at (location) wherein the second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; icon (mention all characteristics) ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again I repeat the golden rule, &quot;go to a professional (patent agent or attorney)&quot; for reliable and best advice.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20523" RevisionGUID="e9db001d-e878-4f31-9503-3bc66c4bd9d5" CreationDate="2019-05-28T11:17:14.103" UserId="22113" Text="I've got serious technology, something that can change way we handle stuff today. Problem is, that I don't have the money to fill in international patent. How should I proceed? I want humans to use technology I posses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't want to be poor for the rest of my life. If I release really good technology for free, and ask for some donations to make a living, will I get more than $20 dollars a year?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57124" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20523" RevisionGUID="e9db001d-e878-4f31-9503-3bc66c4bd9d5" CreationDate="2019-05-28T11:17:14.103" UserId="22113" Text="Way to release technology with license, without necessity to pay money" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57125" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20523" RevisionGUID="e9db001d-e878-4f31-9503-3bc66c4bd9d5" CreationDate="2019-05-28T11:17:14.103" UserId="22113" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20525" RevisionGUID="98bc4b9f-c04b-4470-a8df-5bd00aa5baac" CreationDate="2019-05-28T13:47:48.380" UserId="17003" Text="Licensing questions are off topic, but I'll take a crack at answering as best as I can. What I generally see from the start-up companies I work with is that they first file a provisional patent application in the US. This can be done with minimal cost and legal resources. Having filed a provisional application, the start-up then approaches funding sources like venture capitalists or angel investors to discuss raising money to pursue development of the technology. These discussions are best done with a confidentiality agreement in place. You don't really need a lawyer for these as you can find templates on the internet. Search under &quot;confidentiality agreement template&quot; or &quot;non-disclosure agreement template&quot;. If you haven't filed an application, then a CDA or NDA is an absolute requirement before any discussions. Assuming you are successful at raising money, you can then fund the acquisition of patents necessary to out-license your technology." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20526" RevisionGUID="8aa47a32-ff51-4dc9-99c3-ba6a430c14be" CreationDate="2019-05-28T15:00:11.477" UserId="22117" Text="I am looking to add a product to my online business but want to make sure I am not infringing any patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EP1552050 - SUPPORT DEVICE FOR FABRIC ITEMS SUCH AS CURTAINS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Status:	The application is deemed to be withdrawn&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this mean that the patent has been annulled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57133" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20526" RevisionGUID="8aa47a32-ff51-4dc9-99c3-ba6a430c14be" CreationDate="2019-05-28T15:00:11.477" UserId="22117" Text="Is this patent still valid? Application deemed to be withdrawn" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57134" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20526" RevisionGUID="8aa47a32-ff51-4dc9-99c3-ba6a430c14be" CreationDate="2019-05-28T15:00:11.477" UserId="22117" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;withdrawn&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20527" RevisionGUID="95c3c665-ee24-40fe-b21b-f187ea7e8a84" CreationDate="2019-05-28T16:29:17.900" UserId="17003" Text="I'm not an expert at this, but according to [Espacenet][1], the status was &quot;APPLICATION DEEMED TO BE WITHDRAWN&quot; as of 2010/07/07. I believe this means the application never became a patent and thus doesn't need to be annulled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this application does not seem to be an issue, I caution that this doesn't mean that there aren't other patents that might be. For instance [FR2845583 (B1)][2] looks like it might have issued in France, but looks like it has lapsed. Also there may be prior art to these patents which are relevant. As always, I suggest it is most prudent to have a professional freedom to operate analysis done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=EP&amp;NR=1552050A2&amp;KC=A2&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=3&amp;date=20050713&amp;DB=&amp;locale=en_EP&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=FR&amp;NR=2845583B1&amp;KC=B1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=5&amp;date=20050701&amp;DB=&amp;locale=en_EP" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20528" RevisionGUID="d02a3905-602e-4926-a60e-39a5e02f66f1" CreationDate="2019-05-28T19:28:11.957" UserId="3076" Text="There is no such thing an an unregistered patent agent. Being registered is what makes you a patent agent. Registered patent agents can represent one before the USPTO and provide legal advice that is narrowly related to that representation. That means a patent agent can give a patentability opinion, for example. Patent agents can write patent applications, file them and prosecute them. That includes appearing before the appeals board. Patent agents can also handle the court-like process of IPRs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only a licensed attorney can represent you in an article III court (a real court). It is noteworthy that a licensed attorney who can represent you in a patent dispute can not represent you before the USPTO unless they have separately become a registered practitioner - like a patent agent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone who is not an attorney and not a registered patent agent could do a patent search and provide patent strategy. They could provide education about the patent system. There are people who help others write patent applications and help with the mechanics of filing. I think they run the risk of practicing law without a license." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20528" RevisionGUID="e8a4bcad-fb84-4966-9173-746ff929b988" CreationDate="2019-05-29T05:39:52.907" UserId="3076" Comment="added 473 characters in body" Text="There is no such thing an an unregistered patent agent. Being registered is what makes you a patent agent. Registered patent agents can represent one before the USPTO and provide legal advice that is narrowly related to that representation. That means a patent agent can give a patentability opinion, for example. Patent agents can write patent applications, file them and prosecute them. That includes appearing before the appeals board. Patent agents can also handle the court-like process of IPRs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only a licensed attorney can represent you in an article III court (a real court). It is noteworthy that a licensed attorney who can represent you in a patent dispute can not represent you before the USPTO unless they have separately become a registered practitioner - like a patent agent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone who is not an attorney and not a registered patent agent could do a patent search and provide patent strategy. They could provide education about the patent system. There are people who help others write patent applications and help with the mechanics of filing. I think they run the risk of practicing law without a license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In response to a comment - Article III of the U.S. Constitution is the part of the document that creates the Judicial branch of the federal government. Patent infringement litigation occurs in the that branch. The PTAB within the USPTO constitutes administrative law courts within the executive branch. They can rule on getting a patent as well as invalidating patents under the 2012 AIA law. Their decisions can generally be appealed to the regular article III system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20529" RevisionGUID="c2799882-7c64-403d-8199-9fa62df82340" CreationDate="2019-05-29T07:32:20.773" UserId="22119" Text="I've been reading a decision from 93' - throughout the decision the court refers to the one claim as &quot;count&quot;. is there a difference or are these interchangeable?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57139" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20529" RevisionGUID="c2799882-7c64-403d-8199-9fa62df82340" CreationDate="2019-05-29T07:32:20.773" UserId="22119" Text="difference between count and claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57140" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20529" RevisionGUID="c2799882-7c64-403d-8199-9fa62df82340" CreationDate="2019-05-29T07:32:20.773" UserId="22119" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57141" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="20529" RevisionGUID="be686120-d836-4c34-a370-4801620d75ec" CreationDate="2019-05-29T11:59:28.773" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="57142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20528" RevisionGUID="15ac3ef0-e4cb-4ad1-b961-9db518c1398f" CreationDate="2019-05-29T21:04:42.487" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="There is no such thing an an unregistered patent agent. Being registered is what makes you a patent agent. Registered patent agents can represent one before the USPTO and provide legal advice that is narrowly related to that representation. That means a patent agent can give a patentability opinion, for example. Patent agents can write patent applications, file them and prosecute them. That includes appearing before the appeals board. Patent agents can also handle the court-like process of IPRs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only a licensed attorney can represent you in an article III court (a real court). It is noteworthy that a licensed attorney who can represent you in a patent dispute can not represent you before the USPTO unless they have separately become a registered practitioner - like a patent agent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone who is not an attorney and not a registered patent agent could do a patent search and provide patent strategy. They could provide education about the patent system. There are people who help others write patent applications and help with the mechanics of filing. I think they run the risk of practicing law without a license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In response to a comment - Article III of the U.S. Constitution is the part of the document that creates the Judicial branch of the federal government. Patent infringement litigation occurs in that branch. The PTAB within the USPTO constitutes administrative law courts within the executive branch. They can rule on getting a patent as well as invalidating patents under the 2012 AIA law. Their decisions can generally be appealed to the regular article III system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20530" RevisionGUID="6ddcc1ae-9957-4c38-ab7f-8352ba54ab40" CreationDate="2019-05-30T03:52:57.113" UserId="3076" Text="The short answer is that the &quot;kind codes&quot;  that state with &quot;A&quot; are applications and those with a &quot;B&quot; are granted. That is a simplification and doesn't help you determine if the patent is expired or invalidated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57144" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19973" RevisionGUID="48d20220-1827-49e4-930a-37fe24581c81" CreationDate="2019-05-30T04:08:45.893" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16817" RevisionGUID="4c27b53e-bbd7-47e9-a4aa-6b979a1230f0" CreationDate="2019-05-30T09:07:42.893" UserId="18033" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="Citing the canadian patent office website as reached through the google patents link on &quot;dead&quot; applications:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The date that an abandoned application could normally no longer be reinstated.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dead Application	2009-09-21&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the owner is in a coma and can therefore reinstate the right after waking up (I don't know if this is possible in Canada), the patent application is most probably &quot;dead&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20531" RevisionGUID="24759b28-16dc-4ece-a4ec-640767a8ee39" CreationDate="2019-05-30T22:29:28.243" UserId="22123" Text="TotalPatent One - https://www.totalpatentone.com/search&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.lexisnexisip.com/tp1/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comprehensive Content&#xD;&#xA;The world’s largest and deepest collection of patent data from around the globe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speed &amp; Efficiency&#xD;&#xA;A faster, more efficient user experience and no waiting for pages to load.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Intuitive &amp; Easy to Use&#xD;&#xA;A simplified user interface enables you to easily find the patent search results you need." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20533" RevisionGUID="4fe98520-4bad-470d-b27f-6a2fa3783159" CreationDate="2019-05-31T20:03:25.850" UserId="21046" Text="I would like to include a figure from a scientific paper which illustrates some background for my invention. I can cite the source and I can make it clear that I'm using it for illustration and discussion purposes only. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that a strong case for &quot;fair use&quot; or do I need to be concerned about violating the original author's copyright?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57150" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20533" RevisionGUID="4fe98520-4bad-470d-b27f-6a2fa3783159" CreationDate="2019-05-31T20:03:25.850" UserId="21046" Text="Patent application: can the citation of a figure from another author be considered fair use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57151" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20533" RevisionGUID="4fe98520-4bad-470d-b27f-6a2fa3783159" CreationDate="2019-05-31T20:03:25.850" UserId="21046" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;patent-figures&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57152" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="20533" RevisionGUID="05a63a0e-3b3c-4526-b45f-f59223494ed0" CreationDate="2019-06-01T01:38:23.597" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="57153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20534" RevisionGUID="7fc98be3-8896-4c8a-839b-cc123b1417ac" CreationDate="2019-06-01T02:00:19.433" UserId="22129" Text="Went to get DraftSight for free and they no longer offer it free as of the 2019 version. The older versions will cease to run after 12/31/19. As of now it is paid after 30 day free trial. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57154" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19051" RevisionGUID="2cc58251-757c-4507-96ca-40ce57f30af3" CreationDate="2019-06-01T15:02:50.290" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20535" RevisionGUID="3c34f8a3-1f2f-4f70-811e-45d49840d1f4" CreationDate="2019-06-01T18:27:09.790" UserId="17003" Text="This is an older question, but I'm hoping I can provide a better answer. The cited document US20140047767 is an application and not a patent. Applications may never become patents and if they do, claims are often much broader than the resulting patents. In this case, a US patent was granted as [US8839742B2][1]. What is covered by a patent is described by the claims. Here is the first claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.  An aquaponics system comprising;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a tank for housing at least one aquatic animal species; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a plant growing apparatus for housing one or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more plant species growing in an aqueous environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and a biofilter&#xD;&#xA;&gt; module for receiving a waste stream comprising solid waste and water&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from the tank, the biofilter module comprising;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a solids removal means; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a biological waste digestion unit for digesting solids from the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solids removal means to produce plant nutrients, which biological&#xD;&#xA;&gt; waste digestion unit comprises a biological species that at least&#xD;&#xA;&gt; partially digests solid waste from said solids removal means to plant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nutrients, and further wherein the biological digestion unit comprises&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a plurality of trays which are able to be rotated such that the trays&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are actively receiving solids from solids removal means when in a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving position and not receiving solids from the solids removal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means in a non-receiving position; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  wherein each tray may be opened&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and closed with a control means such that the solids can be delivered&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the trays when in the receiving positions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  whereby in use, said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plant nutrients are transferred to the plant growing apparatus and at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least a portion of the water is returned to the tank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To infringe on a patent, you must implement **each and every step** of at least one claim. So in this case, for instance if you can avoid the biological digestion unit comprising a plurality of trays which are rotated, you most likely avoid infringing on claim one (and every other claim since in this case they are dependent on claim one).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please be advised that reading an interpreting claims is best done by a patent attorney. Also, just because you might avoid infringing on this patent doesn't mean there aren't other patents that are relevant and need to be avoided. A proper freedom-to-operate opinion from a patent lawyer is the best way to go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8839742B2/en?oq=US8839742B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20535" RevisionGUID="d1fc13be-f796-477d-8b77-b60b70995d13" CreationDate="2019-06-01T18:34:08.560" UserId="17003" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="This is an older question, but I'm hoping I can provide a better answer. The cited document [US20140047767][1] is an application and not a patent. Applications may never become patents and if they do, claims are often much broader than the resulting patents. In this case, a US patent was granted as [US8839742B2][2]. What is covered by a patent is described by the claims. Here is the first claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.  An aquaponics system comprising;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a tank for housing at least one aquatic animal species; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a plant growing apparatus for housing one or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more plant species growing in an aqueous environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and a biofilter&#xD;&#xA;&gt; module for receiving a waste stream comprising solid waste and water&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from the tank, the biofilter module comprising;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a solids removal means; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a biological waste digestion unit for digesting solids from the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solids removal means to produce plant nutrients, which biological&#xD;&#xA;&gt; waste digestion unit comprises a biological species that at least&#xD;&#xA;&gt; partially digests solid waste from said solids removal means to plant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nutrients, and further wherein the biological digestion unit comprises&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a plurality of trays which are able to be rotated such that the trays&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are actively receiving solids from solids removal means when in a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving position and not receiving solids from the solids removal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means in a non-receiving position; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  wherein each tray may be opened&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and closed with a control means such that the solids can be delivered&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the trays when in the receiving positions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  whereby in use, said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plant nutrients are transferred to the plant growing apparatus and at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least a portion of the water is returned to the tank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To infringe on a patent, you must implement **each and every step** of at least one claim. So in this case, for instance if you can avoid the biological digestion unit comprising a plurality of trays which are rotated, you most likely avoid infringing on claim one (and every other claim since in this case they are dependent on claim one).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please be advised that reading an interpreting claims is best done by a patent attorney. Also, just because you might avoid infringing on this patent doesn't mean there aren't other patents that are relevant and need to be avoided. A proper freedom-to-operate opinion from a patent lawyer is the best way to go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20140047767A1/en?oq=us20140047767&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8839742B2/en?oq=US8839742B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57157" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="54db93d5-bfd7-439d-930a-692c15ea2dda" CreationDate="2019-06-02T06:01:35.230" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20536" RevisionGUID="0364c903-55b0-4996-a9fe-4c020b1d4fe6" CreationDate="2019-06-03T15:52:54.257" UserId="22134" Text="The US Department of Labor website has a pretty clear statement on the public-domain status of patent text and images: https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/copyright&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents&#xD;&#xA;A patent provides its owner the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling his/her invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States for a limited time. As part of the terms of granting the patent to the inventor, patents are published into the public domain. However, the fact that a patent's description is in the public domain (and could appear on this website) does not give others permission to manufacture or use the invention during the life of the patent without permission from the inventor. Information on patents may be acquired from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office at https://www.uspto.gov." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20537" RevisionGUID="907d5c90-8a0c-4797-aa82-dab4eca66e34" CreationDate="2019-06-03T21:59:46.030" UserId="22135" Text="Anyone can write a patent application and the inventor can submit it to the USPTO themselves. If the inventor wants to have legal representation, they need to hire a patent law attorney or a patent agent; either one will be registered with the USPTO. Anyone can write a patent application for either the attorney or the agent, and then the attorney or agent will review it and file it under their registration number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many patent law firms employ a number of patent law attorneys, patent agents, and technical specialists. Attorneys typically have a scientific degree such as a MSc in engineering or biotechnology, as well as a law degree. Patent agents typically have a PhD, for example in physics or biology. Technical Specialists typically have a PhD, for example in physics or biology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In many firms the actual patent can be written by either one of the 3 (attorney, agent or tech specialist), however usually if the tech specialist wrote the patent, the agent or attorney will review it before filing, because it's their registration number (and legal responsibility) that allows filing of the application. This review can amount to a very quick skimming of the text, if the tech specialist has been writing patent applications flawlessly for a few years. In fact, a tech specialist with a few years of experience will typically write much better patent applications than a freshly registered patent attorney, especially if the subject is very technical. The reason is that the tech specialists usually have a much deeper understanding of the technical side of a patent, since they typically have a PhD while the patent attorney will probably have an MSc. Once the tech specialist (or patent agent) writes a few patents (usually taking advice and correction from an experience patent attorney), they will have a strong command of the legal requirements of writing a patent, hence they will do a better job of an unexperienced patent attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, if the subject of the patent application is relatively complex, scientifically, a tech specialist or a patent agent (either one with a PhD) will very often write a better application than most patent attorneys. I should also add that many tech specialists (but not all) are really patent agents in training, in the sense that they are preparing to take the patent bar and become registered agents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often a patent application is based on a published peer-review paper describing an engineering invention. In these cases, the text written by the inventors forms the basis of the application. The attorney, agent or tech specialists goes over this text, modifying and adding as necessary, to prepare the final draft of the application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20528" RevisionGUID="47dbd1a0-2f83-418c-87b0-cc1da726eac4" CreationDate="2019-06-04T05:56:40.230" UserId="3076" Comment="added ref. to Colorado case" Text="There is no such thing an an unregistered patent agent. Being registered is what makes you a patent agent. Registered patent agents can represent one before the USPTO and provide legal advice that is narrowly related to that representation. That means a patent agent can give a patentability opinion, for example. Patent agents can write patent applications, file them and prosecute them. That includes appearing before the appeals board. Patent agents can also handle the court-like process of IPRs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only a licensed attorney can represent you in an article III court (a real court). It is noteworthy that a licensed attorney who can represent you in a patent dispute can not represent you before the USPTO unless they have separately become a registered practitioner - like a patent agent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone who is not an attorney and not a registered patent agent could do a patent search and provide patent strategy. They could provide education about the patent system. There are people who help others write patent applications and help with the mechanics of filing. I think they run the risk of practicing law without a license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a recent [case][1] the Colorado Supreme Court shut down a company that held it self out as &quot;patent experts&quot;. The primary issue was that, while they did use registered practitioners to do the work, the company was run by someone who was neither an attorney or a registered agent and the company did not allow direct communication between the (qualified) people doing the work and the clients. This aspect of the case was a more general legal ethics/ULP issue. In most states a law firm must be headed by a lawyer. However, on top of that they found a case where the CEO himself finished a project by drafting claims for a client.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In response to a comment - Article III of the U.S. Constitution is the part of the document that creates the Judicial branch of the federal government. Patent infringement litigation occurs in that branch. The PTAB within the USPTO constitutes administrative law courts within the executive branch. They can rule on getting a patent as well as invalidating patents under the 2012 AIA law. Their decisions can generally be appealed to the regular article III system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ipethicslaw.com/colorado-supreme-court-shuts-down-sham-expert-patent-law-firm/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20528" RevisionGUID="78ca075a-7700-4dfb-9aaf-15f7c5fd04a3" CreationDate="2019-06-04T07:13:36.490" UserId="3076" Comment="added mention of Sperry v. Florida, 373 U.S. 379, 383, 83 S.Ct. 1322, 1325, 10 L.Ed.2d 42$ (1963)." Text="There is no such thing an an unregistered patent agent. Being registered is what makes you a patent agent. Registered patent agents can represent one before the USPTO and provide legal advice that is narrowly related to that representation. That means a patent agent can give a patentability opinion, for example. Patent agents can write patent applications, file them and prosecute them. That includes appearing before the appeals board. Patent agents can also handle the court-like process of IPRs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only a licensed attorney can represent you in an article III court (a real court). It is noteworthy that a licensed attorney who can represent you in a patent dispute can not represent you before the USPTO unless they have separately become a registered practitioner - like a patent agent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone who is not an attorney and not a registered patent agent could do a patent search and provide patent strategy. They could provide education about the patent system. There are people who help others write patent applications and help with the mechanics of filing. I think they run the risk of practicing law without a license. Drafting claims for others is the practice of law since it requires the exercise of legal discretion as to what the proposed patent will cover. When the SCOTUS decided that patent agents could practice law without a state license (Sperry v. Florida 1963) in their very narrow area of law, they were agreeing with Florida that drafting patent applications and dealing with the USPTO to try to achieve an allowance was, in fact, the practice of law. And that drafting applications was one of the most difficult legal document to draft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a recent [case][1] the Colorado Supreme Court shut down a company that held it self out as &quot;patent experts&quot;. The primary issue was that, while they did use registered practitioners to do the work, the company was run by someone who was neither an attorney or a registered agent and the company did not allow direct communication between the (qualified) people doing the work and the clients. This aspect of the case was a more general legal ethics/ULP issue. In most states a law firm must be headed by a lawyer. However, on top of that they found a case where the CEO himself finished a project by drafting claims for a client.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In response to a comment - Article III of the U.S. Constitution is the part of the document that creates the Judicial branch of the federal government. Patent infringement litigation occurs in that branch. The PTAB within the USPTO constitutes administrative law courts within the executive branch. They can rule on getting a patent as well as invalidating patents under the 2012 AIA law. Their decisions can generally be appealed to the regular article III system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ipethicslaw.com/colorado-supreme-court-shuts-down-sham-expert-patent-law-firm/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20539" RevisionGUID="66d8e362-bd3c-41ab-a024-77389fafffd6" CreationDate="2019-06-05T17:44:47.573" UserId="22139" Text="So there is a process **x** that is well known and has an expired patent. The original patent does not specify what materials exactly can this process be used on.&#xD;&#xA;Basically,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(whatever) -&gt; **x** -&gt; (anything else)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an active patent (US123) for the transformation of materials (1) into (2) that specifies a process that looks like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) -&gt; a -&gt; **x** -&gt; b -&gt; c -&gt; (2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a first instance where **x** is used on (1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUESTION: Can you register a patent that describes a process like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) -&gt; **x** -&gt; y -&gt; z -&gt; (2),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while US123 is still active?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry for the somewhat confusing language, I tried to make this as broad as possible so that this question can be referred to by other people" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57172" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20539" RevisionGUID="66d8e362-bd3c-41ab-a024-77389fafffd6" CreationDate="2019-06-05T17:44:47.573" UserId="22139" Text="Does complex process patent protect all of its compontent processes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57173" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20539" RevisionGUID="66d8e362-bd3c-41ab-a024-77389fafffd6" CreationDate="2019-06-05T17:44:47.573" UserId="22139" Text="&lt;modification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20540" RevisionGUID="25e69274-725c-4729-82e3-29bd849b7a8d" CreationDate="2019-06-06T01:10:37.520" UserId="17003" Text="The simple answer is that a patent protects what its claims specify. You have to carefully read and understand the claims.  To infringe, you must implement each and every step of at least one claim. Parsing claims can be tricky, so it is best to consult with a patent attorney. Since you are asking about an issued patent, you could identify it in your question and we might be able to help interpret its claims. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20541" RevisionGUID="668757a9-f25e-450b-b1be-3c5dabded8c7" CreationDate="2019-06-06T03:26:26.523" UserId="21610" Text="&gt; QUESTION: Can you register a patent that describes a process like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) -&gt; x -&gt; y -&gt; z -&gt; (2),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while US123 is still active?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, The active or expiry status of the prior patent doesn't impact the the grant of your patent claims though, it affects the practice of you invention if your process infringe any one of claims of prior patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your question can the process be patented? Yes, the new process developed by you is patented as long as it is not obvious or anticipated by the prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20542" RevisionGUID="7392c6e8-bdbb-4a1b-85bf-8c1da0215c1b" CreationDate="2019-06-06T11:02:05.510" UserId="21807" Text="How patent Examiners either memorize or manage themselves while citing all the relevant case laws and sections of MPEP during issuance of an Office Action?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57177" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20542" RevisionGUID="7392c6e8-bdbb-4a1b-85bf-8c1da0215c1b" CreationDate="2019-06-06T11:02:05.510" UserId="21807" Text="MPEP and Case Laws" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57178" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20542" RevisionGUID="7392c6e8-bdbb-4a1b-85bf-8c1da0215c1b" CreationDate="2019-06-06T11:02:05.510" UserId="21807" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;utility-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20541" RevisionGUID="0902a6c7-0cb5-4eea-a64c-30060104c339" CreationDate="2019-06-06T11:02:17.137" UserId="21610" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="&gt; QUESTION: Can you register a patent that describes a process like this:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) -&gt; x -&gt; y -&gt; z -&gt; (2),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; while US123 is still active?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, The active or expiry status of the prior patent doesn't impact the the grant of your patent claims though, it affects the practice of you invention if your process infringe any one of claims of prior patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your question can the process be patented? Yes, the new process developed by you could be patented as long as it is not obvious or anticipated by the prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20543" RevisionGUID="6496bff0-5ef7-4876-acdd-cea101585582" CreationDate="2019-06-06T21:10:26.717" UserId="3076" Text="Besides copying and pasting, they work in modest sized art units and often further specialize within an art unit. If you see laser printer power supplies all day every day you probably get pretty good at that area of technology. Also, they do not cite case law widely. If it isn't in the MPEP or some written USPTO guidelines, they do not cite it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20544" RevisionGUID="f16ee935-6558-427e-8c53-8bee0568e160" CreationDate="2019-06-08T04:50:33.233" UserId="22148" Text="Patents in the US last 20 years. Apparently this is a relatively common period for much of the world as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How was this period chosen?&#xD;&#xA;Did the US pick a period first and the rest of the world followed suit?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do all of the original reasons for choosing that period still apply?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was this chosen at the same time/era as the original length of copyright and were these periods previously or originally linked?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57183" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20544" RevisionGUID="f16ee935-6558-427e-8c53-8bee0568e160" CreationDate="2019-06-08T04:50:33.233" UserId="22148" Text="How was the period for patent protection chosen?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57184" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20544" RevisionGUID="f16ee935-6558-427e-8c53-8bee0568e160" CreationDate="2019-06-08T04:50:33.233" UserId="22148" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;patent-laws&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20545" RevisionGUID="4915fb4b-e1d8-4c5c-ba95-d1864db3f4ac" CreationDate="2019-06-09T16:17:59.330" UserId="17003" Text="I can't provide historical context for the reason 20 years is the term for utility patents, but I can say that it didn't originate in the US. Up until June 8, 1995 the term for US patent was 17 years from the grant date. In an effort to align with the system from most other countries, the US adopted the 20 years from application date standard. Since it commonly takes about 3 years to prosecute a patent, the effective length of term is about the same. Indeed, if the patent prosecution takes an especially long time, a patent term extension may be allowed. Wikipedia has an [article][1] which provides some information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20546" RevisionGUID="b1cb7a47-bdb5-45a5-8dd4-b26f8c881149" CreationDate="2019-06-10T04:14:27.880" UserId="21610" Text="Patents were systematically granted in Venice as of 1450, where they issued a decree by which new and inventive devices had to be communicated to the Republic in order to obtain legal protection against potential infringers. The period of protection was 10 years. These were mostly in the field of glass making. As Venetians emigrated, they sought similar patent protection in their new homes. This led to the diffusion of patent systems to other countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Statute of Monopolies (1624) and the British Statute of Anne (1710) full title &quot;An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned&quot;, was the first copyright statute and are seen as the origins of patent law and copyright respectively and firmly establishing the concept of intellectual property. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different nations adopted to intellectual properties protection law gradually. USA adopted The Patent and Copyright Clause of the United States Constitution as early as 1787 and passed the legislation in 1790 titled &quot;An Act to promote the progress of useful Arts.” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, under the 1790 Patent Act the term could not exceed 14 years. but in 1836, Congress passed the Patent Act, which amended the statute to provide a term that could last for 21 years by providing for a 7 year extension from and after the expiration of the first term, which was modified in 1861, to 17 years from grant or twenty years from filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 1994 as US signed URAA (Uruguay Round Agreements Act) the patent term was amended to  twenty years from the filing date of the earliest of such application.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20547" RevisionGUID="5cd26fb6-9a6d-46f5-9121-1bb3fccf6dcc" CreationDate="2019-06-10T18:59:02.353" UserId="22154" Text="I wish to produce a replacement control board which is designed to fit directly in to a patented handheld machine control pendant. The new circuit board will replace a membrane switch control board with a toggle switch control board and will drop right in to the existing patented control pendant. &#xD;&#xA;The new board will interface with existing enclosure and wiring harness of the original control to produce a similar but slightly different output. The difference in the output created has no dollar value as it is basically just and old way of doing things.&#xD;&#xA;Is this allowed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57188" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20547" RevisionGUID="5cd26fb6-9a6d-46f5-9121-1bb3fccf6dcc" CreationDate="2019-06-10T18:59:02.353" UserId="22154" Text="Is it permissable to manufacture a replacment part that fits in a patented product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57189" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20547" RevisionGUID="5cd26fb6-9a6d-46f5-9121-1bb3fccf6dcc" CreationDate="2019-06-10T18:59:02.353" UserId="22154" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20548" RevisionGUID="62b9e75e-bb36-4e3f-a46b-a302861a36bf" CreationDate="2019-06-11T10:00:00.220" UserId="21610" Text="As you have not provided the target country I assume, your intention is to supply replacement part of an patented invention in USA and the statue that controls the evaluation of infringement in this scenario is 35 USC 271 (c) which is quoted for your ready reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;35 USC 271 (c)Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States a **component of a patented machine**, manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, **shall be liable as a contributory infringer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference in the output created has no dollar value as it is basically just and old way of doing things. Is this allowed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The difference in the output created has no dollar value as it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; basically just and old way of doing things. Is this allowed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, Based on the information provided i.e.,  `The new circuit board will replace a membrane switch control board with a toggle switch control board and will drop right in to the existing patented control pendant` would be infringing the patent as long as the switch control is claimed in any valid claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please read all the claims of the patent and compare it to the proposed device, consult an attorney as they would be in a better position to provide opinion.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20548" RevisionGUID="3f27bc4e-a3b2-4a6e-b00d-daa1b1e6acbe" CreationDate="2019-06-11T23:41:36.603" UserId="14403" Comment="typos " Text="As you have not provided the target country I assume, your intention is to supply replacement part of an patented invention in USA and the statute that controls the evaluation of infringement in this scenario is 35 USC 271 (c) which is quoted for your ready reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;35 USC 271 (c)Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States a **component of a patented machine**, manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, **shall be liable as a contributory infringer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The difference in the output created has no dollar value as it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; basically just and old way of doing things. Is this allowed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, Based on the information provided i.e.,  `The new circuit board will replace a membrane switch control board with a toggle switch control board and will drop right in to the existing patented control pendant` would be infringing the patent as long as the switch control is claimed in any valid claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please read all the claims of the patent and compare it to the proposed device, consult an attorney as they would be in a better position to provide opinion.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20549" RevisionGUID="909878bd-c423-46de-a609-050ae58e9d2b" CreationDate="2019-06-12T06:43:10.027" UserId="21812" Text="You have a lot of interesting questions, and the subject of patent term length is actually very important to the tech industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest the paper **[An Empirical Study of the Twenty-Year Patent Term][1]** by Mark Lemley (he's a huge scholar in the field of patent law). The paper itself will answer many of your questions; if not, you will most likely find the answers in one of many citations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book **[Privilege and Property][2]** also provides some interesting context for the early patent rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2127292&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.openedition.org/obp/1062?lang=en#ftn3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20552" RevisionGUID="f69bca99-34e1-4e26-b878-3725734c76a2" CreationDate="2019-06-15T14:50:25.403" UserId="22086" Text="&gt; Is this a requirement in the provisional application and what are they looking for?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, it isn't a requirement for a _provisional application_, since that merely requires that inventor disclose the [specification][1] of the invention with all key elements. However, any specification you disclose should also consider how you will gather evidence to prove an infringement of a claim. This comes into play with drafting your claims--but if you don't have enough material in the specification you can't really cite it in your claims later.  You can't introduce new material in citing claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to maintain the additional year of protection afforded by filing a _provisional patent_ claims you draft thereafter may not stray from any elements not filed within the original provisional patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Note: The [patent claims][1] are the language that fully defines the narrow subject matter inventor(s) claim they have invented. If the patent is granted, these claims are what is used in a court of law to identify what exactly is infringed or not._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_claim&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s601.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57198" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20177" RevisionGUID="9e3c8268-0e8b-4903-8b26-f7d17acdda8a" CreationDate="2019-06-16T10:03:45.413" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20553" RevisionGUID="0dbe9ad4-4b18-47e9-9313-a0cbd504d50c" CreationDate="2019-06-16T13:22:13.063" UserId="21812" Text="First, the phrases are incomplete because they're missing the conjunction word &quot;and&quot; or &quot;or&quot;. The effect should be a rejection by the Examiner under section 112 for being indefinite. To appreciate the importance of the conjunctions, see *Superguide Corp v. DirecTV Enterprises, 358 F.3d 870 (2004)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your question, the relevant legal concept is called &quot;surplusage canon&quot;, that there should not be needless terms in a legal document. So if you include &quot;combination thereof&quot;, this term needs to have some meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could cause issues in your application/patent if there are instances of **both** phrases `a, b, [or] c`, and `a, b, c, [or] a combination thereof`. It's possible that the phrase a, b, [c] (without &quot;combination&quot;) would be interpreted to EXCLUDE the possibility of the combinations, because otherwise the term &quot;combination&quot; would be meaningless (against the surplusage canon).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you google for &quot;surplusage&quot; with &quot;federal circuit&quot;, you should find case law applying the principle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20553" RevisionGUID="7b42ab26-0def-42b8-b195-9ab3052810cf" CreationDate="2019-06-16T13:45:42.403" UserId="21812" Comment="added 231 characters in body" Text="First, the phrases are incomplete because they're missing the conjunction word &quot;and&quot; or &quot;or&quot;. The effect should be a rejection by the Examiner under section 112 for being indefinite. To appreciate the importance of the conjunctions, see *Superguide Corp v. DirecTV Enterprises, 358 F.3d 870 (2004)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the term &quot;combination thereof&quot; itself, it's a very common English term that is not likely to confuse anyone. A court interpreting this term would most likely give it the &quot;plain and ordinary meaning&quot; as is standard in claim interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most relevant legal concept is likely &quot;surplusage canon&quot;, that there should not be needless terms in a legal document. So if you include &quot;combination thereof&quot;, this term needs to have some meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could cause issues in your application/patent if there are instances of **both** phrases `a, b, [or] c`, and `a, b, c, [or] a combination thereof`. It's possible that the phrase a, b, [c] (without &quot;combination&quot;) would be interpreted to EXCLUDE the possibility of the combinations, because otherwise the term &quot;combination&quot; would be meaningless (against the surplusage canon).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you google for &quot;surplusage&quot; with &quot;federal circuit&quot;, you should find case law applying the principle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20553" RevisionGUID="466fe7b8-cf38-46b2-b79f-54040388c6af" CreationDate="2019-06-16T20:16:06.167" UserId="21812" Comment="added 344 characters in body" Text="First, the phrases are incomplete because they're missing the conjunction word &quot;and&quot; or &quot;or&quot;. The effect should be a rejection by the Examiner under section 112 for being indefinite. To appreciate the importance of the conjunctions, see *Superguide Corp v. DirecTV Enterprises, 358 F.3d 870 (2004)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the term &quot;combination thereof&quot; itself, it's a very common English term that is not likely to confuse anyone. A court interpreting this term would most likely give it the &quot;plain and ordinary meaning&quot; as is standard in claim interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most relevant legal concept is likely &quot;surplusage canon&quot;, that there should not be needless terms in a legal document. So if you include &quot;combination thereof&quot;, this term needs to have some meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could cause issues in your application/patent if there are instances of **both** phrases `a, b, [or] c`, and `a, b, c, [or] a combination thereof`. It's possible that the phrase a, b, [or], c (without &quot;combination&quot;) would be interpreted to EXCLUDE the possibility of the combinations, because otherwise the term &quot;combination&quot; would be meaningless (against the surplusage canon).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you google for &quot;surplusage&quot; with &quot;federal circuit&quot;, you should find case law applying the principle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional note: Looks like &quot;claim construction surplusage&quot; gives better google results. For one example CAFC decision including application of the surplusage rule, see *Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc.*, 247 F.3d 1316, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (rejecting a proposed construction that would render a phrase as “mere surplusage”)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20553" RevisionGUID="ac67d2f3-8aab-4886-b445-077df1569c00" CreationDate="2019-06-16T20:21:55.347" UserId="21812" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="First, the phrases are incomplete because they're missing the conjunction word &quot;and&quot; or &quot;or&quot;. The effect should be a rejection by the Examiner under section 112 for being indefinite. To appreciate the importance of the conjunctions, see *Superguide Corp v. DirecTV Enterprises, 358 F.3d 870 (2004)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the term &quot;combination thereof&quot; itself, it's a very common English term that is not likely to confuse anyone. A court interpreting this term would most likely give it the &quot;plain and ordinary meaning&quot; as is standard in claim interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most relevant legal concept is likely &quot;surplusage canon&quot;, that there should not be needless terms in a legal document. So if you include &quot;combination thereof&quot;, this term needs to have some meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could cause issues in your application/patent if there are instances of **both** phrases `a, b, [or] c`, and `a, b, c, [or] a combination thereof`. It's possible that the phrase a, b, [or] c (without &quot;combination&quot;) would be interpreted to EXCLUDE the possibility of the combinations, because otherwise the term &quot;combination&quot; would be meaningless (against the surplusage canon).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you google for &quot;surplusage&quot; with &quot;federal circuit&quot;, you should find case law applying the principle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional note: Looks like &quot;claim construction surplusage&quot; gives better google results. For one example CAFC decision including application of the surplusage rule, see *Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc.*, 247 F.3d 1316, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (rejecting a proposed construction that would render a phrase as “mere surplusage”)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20177" RevisionGUID="fd98dc32-1cea-4f8a-a551-c3874f466f60" CreationDate="2019-06-17T09:26:48.473" UserId="21482" Comment="added 620 characters in body" Text="I wonder what is the real effect of &quot;a combination there of&quot;. If I write &quot;a,b,c&quot; vs &quot;a,b,c, a combination thereof&quot;. I understand the logical difference. Is there a precedent in which usage in the phrase  was tested by court? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;Based on the answers:&#xD;&#xA;Let's take the argument &quot;It's possible that the phrase a, b, [or] c (without &quot;combination&quot;) would be interpreted to EXCLUDE the possibility of the combinations&quot;. I agree. If my claim exclude combinations and someone uses my patent with &quot;a&quot; and &quot;b&quot;. In that case he or she use it with &quot;a&quot; so they infringe my patent. So what do I gain by using &quot;combination there of&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Maybe if the combination of &quot;a&quot; and &quot;b&quot; is new than someone can claim that there is nothing in the prior art to suggest &quot;a&quot; and &quot;b&quot;. In that case I can block future usage in &quot;a&quot; and &quot;b&quot; by using &quot;a combination thereof&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20554" RevisionGUID="4e54d41b-ee43-43ee-b65b-0d81c0be5edd" CreationDate="2019-06-17T11:37:36.410" UserId="22165" Text="The short answer is no, not without having them sign a non-disclosure agreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There has been written a great article on this topic here: https://ocpatentlawyer.com/protect-idea-before-pitching-investor-licensee-buyer/ by James Yang, Patent Attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, from my experience, it can be hard to make a potential investor sign any agreement before disclosing some details about your idea/invention. It goes back to trusting the potential investor and whether you believe that they could describe your idea in great detail to others. You can limit the possibility of them sharing this, by ensuring that your meeting is not recorded in any way and that no pictures are taken nor images shared with the investor that he/she may pass on to others or make available openly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, you have to ensure that no publicly available information describing your idea is available by any means - and thereby, you have to eliminate potential threats to this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20556" RevisionGUID="a3c22e29-2b8a-4493-bb8e-6b4367e8fccb" CreationDate="2019-06-17T13:23:58.920" UserId="8800" Text="Presently I have:&#xD;&#xA;COVER SHEET&#xD;&#xA;ABSTRACT&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;CLAIMS &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's missing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57209" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20556" RevisionGUID="a3c22e29-2b8a-4493-bb8e-6b4367e8fccb" CreationDate="2019-06-17T13:23:58.920" UserId="8800" Text="which documents need to be in a USPTO provisional utility patent for a software system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57210" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20556" RevisionGUID="a3c22e29-2b8a-4493-bb8e-6b4367e8fccb" CreationDate="2019-06-17T13:23:58.920" UserId="8800" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;utility-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20553" RevisionGUID="f335039c-7c3f-47b6-b13c-43f7c7eede90" CreationDate="2019-06-17T15:41:53.643" UserId="21812" Comment="added 591 characters in body" Text="First, the phrases are incomplete because they're missing the conjunction word &quot;and&quot; or &quot;or&quot;. The effect should be a rejection by the Examiner under section 112 for being indefinite. To appreciate the importance of the conjunctions, see *Superguide Corp v. DirecTV Enterprises, 358 F.3d 870 (2004)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the term &quot;combination thereof&quot; itself, it's a very common English term that is not likely to confuse anyone. A court interpreting this term would most likely give it the &quot;plain and ordinary meaning&quot; as is standard in claim interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most relevant legal concept is likely &quot;surplusage canon&quot;, that there should not be needless terms in a legal document. So if you include &quot;combination thereof&quot;, this term needs to have some meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could cause issues in your application/patent if there are instances of **both** phrases `a, b, [or] c`, and `a, b, c, [or] a combination thereof`. It's possible that the phrase a, b, [or] c (without &quot;combination&quot;) would be interpreted to EXCLUDE the possibility of the combinations, because otherwise the term &quot;combination&quot; would be meaningless (against the surplusage canon).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you google for &quot;surplusage&quot; with &quot;federal circuit&quot;, you should find case law applying the principle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional note: Looks like &quot;claim construction surplusage&quot; gives better google results. For one example CAFC decision including application of the surplusage rule, see *Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc.*, 247 F.3d 1316, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (rejecting a proposed construction that would render a phrase as “mere surplusage”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional note (to address revised question): Your question appears to ask which situations would claiming the combination itself be useful. The most likely cases should be in chemical/pharmaceutical patents where mixtures of chemicals are important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at *Abbott Labs. v. Baxter Pharm. Prods., Inc.*, 334 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (holding that if a Markush claim recites “a member selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C,” the claim is presumed to permit the member to be one and only one of A, B, or C, and to exclude mixtures or combinations of A, B, and C)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57216" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20501" RevisionGUID="54350eda-4251-4691-b9d2-afe95bb4a2c7" CreationDate="2019-06-17T17:03:50.463" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14614" RevisionGUID="df3f47fe-809f-4358-8bb3-751576affa41" CreationDate="2019-06-17T19:28:36.047" UserId="22004" Comment="Grammar fixes and tag." Text="In reference to the patent: [US3228773][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3228773&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a common practice so if it is patented does this mean that no one else can use this process? That's absurd." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57218" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14614" RevisionGUID="df3f47fe-809f-4358-8bb3-751576affa41" CreationDate="2019-06-17T19:28:36.047" UserId="22004" Comment="Grammar fixes and tag." Text="Are Patents Given to Common Practices?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57219" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14614" RevisionGUID="df3f47fe-809f-4358-8bb3-751576affa41" CreationDate="2019-06-17T19:28:36.047" UserId="22004" Comment="Grammar fixes and tag." Text="&lt;method&gt;&lt;broad-patent&gt;&lt;consumer-food&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57220" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14614" RevisionGUID="df3f47fe-809f-4358-8bb3-751576affa41" CreationDate="2019-06-17T19:28:36.047" Comment="Proposed by 22004 approved by 17003, 18033 edit id of 2107" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20558" RevisionGUID="a33e1ff5-db17-4142-9f7d-1bf07c31fc90" CreationDate="2019-06-17T19:29:06.077" UserId="22163" Text="I have a question regarding dependent claim combinations and the infringement of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lets say I have these claims:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. A + B&#xD;&#xA; 2. Claim 1 + C&#xD;&#xA; 3. Claim 1 + D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone has an apparatus A + B + C + D, would they be infringing implicitly on claims 2 and 3 or is this not the case? What are the conditions for this kind of infringement (must the combination be trivial in order to infringe)? If not, what are strategies to restructure the claims such that the combinations of the dependent claims are part of the claimed invention, without necessarily having many dependent claims with repeated content?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Really appreciate any advice you can give me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57222" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20558" RevisionGUID="a33e1ff5-db17-4142-9f7d-1bf07c31fc90" CreationDate="2019-06-17T19:29:06.077" UserId="22163" Text="Combination of Dependent Claims Infringement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57223" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20558" RevisionGUID="a33e1ff5-db17-4142-9f7d-1bf07c31fc90" CreationDate="2019-06-17T19:29:06.077" UserId="22163" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;utility&gt;&lt;dependent-claim&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20559" RevisionGUID="6a5bdcd4-75dd-4555-a610-2039308c2cc5" CreationDate="2019-06-17T20:08:56.470" UserId="18033" Text="For infringing a claim, all elements of a claim need to be infringed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A claim a + b can either be “at least and b“ (typically) or “exactly a and b“ (for example exactly 40% sparkling water and 60% apple juice, very rare).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example, at least claim 1 must be “at least a and b“ because else a+b+c would not be a dependent claim as dependent claims are always more narrow and something infringing a dependent claim always infringes the independent claim too. If claim 1 were “exactly a and b“, claims 2 and 3 wouldn't fall into it and that cannot be. I suppose the other claims then follow the same logic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a+b+c+d infringes all of “at least a and b“, “at least a and b and c“ and “at least a and b and d“. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20560" RevisionGUID="68958be0-b180-4189-a954-80af01b32ea5" CreationDate="2019-06-18T00:57:07.167" UserId="21812" Text="You can typically find the patent lawyer's background on LinkedIn. Most patent lawyers will include their education background including whether they have an engineering degree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are right to be cautious of lawyers' backgrounds because sitting for the patent bar requires only a technical degree and not necessarily a particular engineering specialty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20560" RevisionGUID="9e616e23-77be-4246-97ee-da1d415d92bc" CreationDate="2019-06-18T01:04:52.757" UserId="21812" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="You can typically find the patent lawyer's background on LinkedIn. Most patent lawyers will include their education background including whether they have an engineering degree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are right to be cautious of lawyers' backgrounds because sitting for the patent bar requires only a science/technical degree and not necessarily a particular engineering specialty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20560" RevisionGUID="415f67b2-0dad-4568-a775-b97ace2c1644" CreationDate="2019-06-18T01:20:52.527" UserId="21812" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="You can typically find the patent lawyer's background on LinkedIn. Most patent lawyers will include their education background including whether they have an engineering degree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are right to be cautious of lawyers' backgrounds because sitting for the patent bar requires only certain science/technical degrees and not necessarily a particular engineering specialty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20561" RevisionGUID="4866ee84-34e9-4f12-adf3-b1d8d900599f" CreationDate="2019-06-18T03:33:52.133" UserId="3076" Text="All patent lawyers have an engineering or scientific educational background - it is required. Getting someone with a degree and some experience as a ME is very doable. On the other hand &quot;a simple mechanical device&quot; is something a high % of patent practitioners are well qualified to do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="4f355f2f-9ba5-4508-993d-184e33eb3443" CreationDate="2019-06-18T14:33:18.393" UserId="22004" Comment="Fixed grammar." Text="In reference to the patent: [US20160206031][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20160206031&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just wanted to know if, given this patent, other companies are allowed to sell magnetic eyelashes? Does the patent cover the addition of *any kind* of magnet to the lash (whereby no other company could sell magnetic lashes)? Or is this patent only for a specific magnet on the lashes, so that other companies can sell magnetic lashes as long as they don't copy this specific magnet? &#xD;&#xA;many thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57230" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="4f355f2f-9ba5-4508-993d-184e33eb3443" CreationDate="2019-06-18T14:33:18.393" UserId="22004" Comment="Fixed grammar." Text="Does this patent refer to adding any kind of magnet to eyelashes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57231" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="4f355f2f-9ba5-4508-993d-184e33eb3443" CreationDate="2019-06-18T14:33:18.393" Comment="Proposed by 22004 approved by 18033, 17003 edit id of 2106" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57232" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16343" RevisionGUID="f07bd75e-45f9-46eb-8213-1a2edfefc9d3" CreationDate="2019-06-18T14:33:35.710" UserId="21812" Comment="Formatted title wording" Text="How to find a patent lawyer with an engineering background?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57233" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16343" RevisionGUID="f07bd75e-45f9-46eb-8213-1a2edfefc9d3" CreationDate="2019-06-18T14:33:35.710" Comment="Proposed by 21812 approved by 18033, 17003 edit id of 2108" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57234" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="20497" RevisionGUID="540f38bc-8cb2-4c9c-85ca-40d70be1ea61" CreationDate="2019-06-18T14:33:53.537" UserId="17737" Comment="tags edited" Text="&lt;app&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57235" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="20497" RevisionGUID="540f38bc-8cb2-4c9c-85ca-40d70be1ea61" CreationDate="2019-06-18T14:33:53.537" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 18033, 17003 edit id of 2105" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20561" RevisionGUID="90c45f21-0f8f-4655-844f-055c7ca7c6d1" CreationDate="2019-06-18T17:05:35.770" UserId="3076" Comment="added NAPP directory link" Text="All patent lawyers have an engineering or scientific educational background - it is required. Getting someone with a degree and some experience as a ME is very doable. On the other hand &quot;a simple mechanical device&quot; is something a high % of patent practitioners are well qualified to do. There is an association (National Association of Patent Practitioners) of patent attorneys and patent agents who all focus on patent prosecution rather than litigation. Most are in solo or small firms. Their member [directory][1] allows searching by technical areas and zip code. (I am a member who has stopped taking on new clients.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.napp.org/directory-link#/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20562" RevisionGUID="03bd497f-e49c-45b5-bdab-ab66a720bd71" CreationDate="2019-06-18T18:40:34.953" UserId="11947" Text="My patent application was rejected and I decided not to respond to the office action so the case will go abandoned and all potential patent rights will be lost.&#xD;&#xA;My patent lawyer who represented me has a power of attorney and all the paperwork. I have digital copies. &#xD;&#xA;Here is the question:in case I want to resurrect the patent or give the idea to somebody else is it enough just to give power of attorney to another lawyer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57238" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20562" RevisionGUID="03bd497f-e49c-45b5-bdab-ab66a720bd71" CreationDate="2019-06-18T18:40:34.953" UserId="11947" Text="I decided not respond to the office action and abandon application. What to do next?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57239" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20562" RevisionGUID="03bd497f-e49c-45b5-bdab-ab66a720bd71" CreationDate="2019-06-18T18:40:34.953" UserId="11947" Text="&lt;rejection&gt;&lt;lawyers&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20563" RevisionGUID="6adca6fc-6e3c-411d-8ac5-883af56150c9" CreationDate="2019-06-19T02:45:32.487" UserId="21812" Text="There are two separate questions raised in your situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1) In your case, can you resurrect (revive) an abandoned patent application [just by giving power of attorney to another lawyer]?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally you cannot revive an intentionally abandoned patent application. You do state that you &quot;decided not to respond&quot; and to let to application go abandoned. Typically this is considered &quot;intentional&quot;. The Federal Circuit, however, has allowed for revival due to &quot;mistakes of fact&quot; despite a patentee seemingly deliberately abandoning a patent. *Network Signatures v. State Farm* (Fed. Cir. 2013).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a different patent attorney takes over prosecution and seeks to revive the application for &quot;unintentional&quot; abandonment, they have a responsibility to investigate the circumstances of the abandonment. Otherwise, the lack of investigation could be considered inequitable conduct. *3D Medical Imaging Systems v. Visage Imaging*, 228 F.Supp.3d 1331 (N.D. Georgia, 2017).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2) In your case, can you &quot;give the idea&quot; to somebody just by giving power of attorney to another lawyer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If &quot;give the idea&quot; means to assign/transfer the patent application to another party, then no that is not enough. Power of attorney just gives a person ***power to prosecute*** your application. It's different than assigning/transferring ***ownership*** of the application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57241" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20563" RevisionGUID="1f47f0cf-088a-4517-8fd1-61b3b3cb719e" CreationDate="2019-06-19T02:56:41.493" UserId="21812" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="There are two separate questions raised in your scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1) In your case, can you resurrect (revive) an abandoned patent application [just by giving power of attorney to another lawyer]?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally you cannot revive an intentionally abandoned patent application. You do state that you &quot;decided not to respond&quot; and to let to application go abandoned. Typically this is considered &quot;intentional&quot;. The Federal Circuit, however, has allowed for revival due to &quot;mistakes of fact&quot; despite a patentee seemingly deliberately abandoning a patent. *Network Signatures v. State Farm* (Fed. Cir. 2013).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a different patent attorney takes over prosecution and seeks to revive the application for &quot;unintentional&quot; abandonment, they have a responsibility to investigate the circumstances of the abandonment. Otherwise, the lack of investigation could be considered inequitable conduct. *3D Medical Imaging Systems v. Visage Imaging*, 228 F.Supp.3d 1331 (N.D. Georgia, 2017).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2) In your case, can you &quot;give the idea&quot; to somebody just by giving power of attorney to another lawyer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If &quot;give the idea&quot; means to assign/transfer the patent application to another party, then no that is not enough. Power of attorney just gives a person ***power to prosecute*** your application. It's different than assigning/transferring ***ownership*** of the application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20564" RevisionGUID="d5b2fbd2-5eb1-4751-871e-c9c31904f80d" CreationDate="2019-06-19T14:28:32.333" UserId="22169" Text="I'm doing some patent processing and was wondering if there's a master database somewhere (Bloomberg, D&amp;B?) which uniquely identifies companies that I could map patent owners/assignees into.  The company names in the filings aren't always consistent, or may change name while keeping the same legal entity.  I'd prefer not to generate my own name/alias lookup if something already exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd prefer something from public data sources, as it seems D&amp;B has private identifiers.  I'm looking into EDGAR, but I'm not sure that's comprehensive enough since it's based on voluntary SEC filings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57243" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20564" RevisionGUID="d5b2fbd2-5eb1-4751-871e-c9c31904f80d" CreationDate="2019-06-19T14:28:32.333" UserId="22169" Text="Is there a comprehensive business listing with unique identifiers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57244" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20564" RevisionGUID="d5b2fbd2-5eb1-4751-871e-c9c31904f80d" CreationDate="2019-06-19T14:28:32.333" UserId="22169" Text="&lt;business&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20565" RevisionGUID="525ff09c-631a-45a4-9960-16c735351d79" CreationDate="2019-06-19T18:33:33.850" UserId="22170" Text="I am rying to determine if the patent US8459282 is still active or if it has been abandoned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57246" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20565" RevisionGUID="525ff09c-631a-45a4-9960-16c735351d79" CreationDate="2019-06-19T18:33:33.850" UserId="22170" Text="What is the status of patent 8459282" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57247" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20565" RevisionGUID="525ff09c-631a-45a4-9960-16c735351d79" CreationDate="2019-06-19T18:33:33.850" UserId="22170" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57248" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="20529" RevisionGUID="19c99e27-fa6b-4023-bdce-eb53d5f44660" CreationDate="2019-06-19T18:43:37.510" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="57249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20565" RevisionGUID="4ad9273d-b11a-472d-952b-ded6893cb29b" CreationDate="2019-06-19T19:20:20.607" UserId="17003" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="I am trying to determine if the patent [US8459282][1] is still active or if it has been abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8459282B2/en?oq=US8459282" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20566" RevisionGUID="83cc24b6-2d2b-4b02-b4cc-de495b71dbd7" CreationDate="2019-06-19T19:27:16.047" UserId="17003" Text="The best way to determine if a US patent's status is the [US Public Pair][1]. In this case go to the US Public Pair site, get past the CAPTCHA, select &quot;Patent Number&quot; and enter &quot;8459282&quot; (without quotes). The current status is &quot;Patented Case&quot; which means the **patent is active**. You can check on the status of the patents fees which are up to date. The filing date was 09-12-2011 and the patent should expire 20 years from this date as there are no patent term adjustments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20566" RevisionGUID="41a2a2ca-8f86-469c-8b9f-e95544785613" CreationDate="2019-06-19T19:33:13.563" UserId="17003" Comment="added 309 characters in body" Text="The most reliable way to determine if a US patent's status is the [US Public Pair][1]. In this case go to the US Public Pair site, get past the CAPTCHA, select &quot;Patent Number&quot; and enter &quot;8459282&quot; (without quotes). The current status is &quot;Patented Case&quot; which means the **patent is active**. You can check on the status of the patents fees which are up to date. The patent claims priority from an earlier application dated 12-21-2008 and the patent should expire 20 years from this date as there are no patent term adjustments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An easier but not as official way to check on the status of a patent is just looking it up on patents.google.com. If you do this for [US8459282][2] you'll get much the same information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8459282B2/en?oq=US8459282" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20567" RevisionGUID="36e3b9be-03f5-49f2-bc21-8e28679f8722" CreationDate="2019-06-19T20:45:34.957" UserId="3076" Text="**No** - the short answer is that you can't truthfully say that it was unintentional. If you do (untruthfully) say that it was unintentional the USPTO will most likely revive it but if you, or whomever owns it, ever needs to enforce it, this abandonment/revival will be a weakness that the other side will pounce on. Another answer mentions Network Signatures v. State Farm (Fed. Cir. 2013) to show that you might avoid getting the patent torn up. That case was about a missed maintenance fee, not an application abandoned during prosecution and the question was centered on whether or not the new attorney had committed inequitable conduct. I would not count on getting the win that Network Signatures got." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20567" RevisionGUID="741a4849-83c5-4ee4-a9d8-cfb3f2b1fc46" CreationDate="2019-06-19T23:09:24.113" UserId="3076" Comment="added answer to explicit question and a link to the case" Text="**Answering an implied question No it can't be reliably revived** - the short answer is that you can't truthfully say that it was unintentional. If you do (untruthfully) say that it was unintentional the USPTO will most likely revive it and may overcome the office action and get an issued patent. But if you, or whomever owns it, ever needs to enforce it, this abandonment/revival will be a weakness that the other side will pounce on to attack the validity of the patent. &#xD;&#xA;Another answer mentions [Network Signatures v. State Farm (Fed. Cir. 2013)][1] to show that you might avoid getting the patent torn up during litigation. That case was about a missed maintenance fee, not an application abandoned during prosecution and the question was centered on whether or not the new attorney had committed inequitable conduct. I would not count on getting the win that Network Signatures got.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To your explicit question** - To give the application to someone else you need to assign it to them. Then they can sign a POA with a practitioner to represent them. Could be the same or a different attorney/agent than you used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://Network%20Signatures%20v.%20State%20Farm%20(Fed.%20Cir.%202013)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20568" RevisionGUID="e453f874-8bb5-4771-b309-54a22bbaf43c" CreationDate="2019-06-20T00:18:33.550" UserId="21812" Text="Claim = what you see in a patent. There's a listing of claims at the end of a patent document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Count = each cause of action in a lawsuit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you infringe a patent claim, then that's &quot;one count&quot; of patent infringement (one cause of action). You can infringe one, some, or all claims in a patent. So you can have one count or any number up to and including the number of claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20568" RevisionGUID="2c7eb56a-7181-47a1-91d2-40b95217e8ae" CreationDate="2019-06-20T00:25:23.863" UserId="21812" Comment="added 159 characters in body" Text="Claim = what you see in a patent. There's a listing of claims at the end of a patent document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Count = each cause of action in a lawsuit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you infringe a patent claim, then that's &quot;one count&quot; of patent infringement (one cause of action). You can infringe one, some, or all claims in a patent. So you can have one count or any number up to and including the number of claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also have other causes of action (like you also broke a contract with the other party) that could increase the count, but this is the basic answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20569" RevisionGUID="dc3e3048-d308-4406-b141-7ff507043303" CreationDate="2019-06-22T01:47:30.903" UserId="6121" Text="I have plenty of dependent claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanna rearrange claims if the main claim rejected by examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, Claim 4 and 5 depends on claim 3. Claim 3 and 2 depends on the main claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Claim 1&#xD;&#xA;      Claim 2&#xD;&#xA;      Claim 3&#xD;&#xA;        Claim 4&#xD;&#xA;        Claim 5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I rearrange like this later?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Claim 1 + Claim 2 (merged to make it novel)&#xD;&#xA;      Claim 3&#xD;&#xA;        Claim 4&#xD;&#xA;        Claim 5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57257" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20569" RevisionGUID="dc3e3048-d308-4406-b141-7ff507043303" CreationDate="2019-06-22T01:47:30.903" UserId="6121" Text="Can one rearrange a claim when examined by the examiner?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57258" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20569" RevisionGUID="dc3e3048-d308-4406-b141-7ff507043303" CreationDate="2019-06-22T01:47:30.903" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20570" RevisionGUID="51c6327a-cb28-4fa6-80ba-42def3163ac1" CreationDate="2019-06-22T15:36:48.887" UserId="18521" Text="Professional websites are a good start. In addition to LinkedIn (as Chris mentions) and the NAPP (as George White mentions), you can find a lot of similar information on the bio page of a law firm website. These sorts of professional sites will usually tell you about the individual's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - years of experience&#xD;&#xA; - technical degree and level of education&#xD;&#xA; - practitioner status (patent agent vs. patent attorney)&#xD;&#xA; - advertised area of expertise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is other information you seek. Once you're in contact with someone, your best route is to ask them these questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Can you send me a few granted patents and/or published patent applications that represent your work with mechanical devices?&#xD;&#xA; - Can you send me representative patent drawings? Do you perform this work in-house or do you contract it out? (A lot of people will have the drawings done by an outside specialist who they contract.)&#xD;&#xA; - What fraction of your patent drafting work is done with mechanical devices?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you go with a large firm, it might also be worth asking how much of the work will be performed by the partner vs. the less experienced associate. (There's a tradeoff here--you don't necessarily want the partner doing all of the work because his/her time is far more expensive than an associate's time.) However, if you ask a big firm for a representative patent as a sample of their work, you might not get a patent that was produced by the same person who will be doing your work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually, in the patent world, there's a divide between (a) pharmaceutical/ biotech and (b) software/ mechanical/ electrical. Mechanical devices are typically viewed as the easiest patents to write. This is for good reason: they are simpler and typically more straightforward. This is all by way of saying that you should have some initial suspicion toward a pharma/biotech patent attorney who offers to write/prosecute your application, but you don't really need to hold this suspicion toward a software/electrical patent attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not uncommon for a company or inventor to use an attorney who is not local. To keep costs some many companies will use a seasoned patent attorney/agent who used to work at a big firm but now practices solo and lives in a cheaper part of the country. All other things being equal, a patent agent will usually be less expensive than a patent attorney, and a solo practitioner will be less expensive than a large firm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------&#xD;&#xA;*(I am no expert, and this response is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney or legal expert to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Laws can differ dramatically from country to country, state to state, and technology field to technology field.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20571" RevisionGUID="3959c0d9-7964-4f4b-9da2-c9705925c175" CreationDate="2019-06-23T14:45:35.597" UserId="18521" Text="There are other good answers, but they focus on some special cases which almost certainly don't apply to you. So, I wanted to clarify a couple of things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**No one--including the inventor, their friend, the attorneys on file, an assignee, etc.--can revive an abandoned patent application.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; If you allow the application to become abandoned, then the patent rights you wish to transfer to your friend no longer exist.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your application's status will irrevocably change from &quot;pending&quot; to &quot;abandoned&quot; if 6 months pass and the USPTO hasn't received a valid reply to the Office Action from the inventor/attorney on record. (This 6 months is often divided up; the USPTO typically give you a shortened period of 2-3 months to reply, and then allows you to make use of the full 6-month period if you pay a late fee.) After 6 months, there are no more extensions, and the patent application's status will forever change from &quot;pending&quot; to &quot;abandoned.&quot; At that point, *no one* can revive the patent application (including your friend). All patent rights become forfeited and the invention enters the public domain. Abandoned patent applications can't be resurrected, and no one will ever have patent rights in the US for the specific invention your application described. In general, US laws were created on the principle that intellectual property relinquished to the public domain cannot be reclaimed by any individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not you transfer your patent rights to your friend is inconsequential to the question of irrevocable abandonment. No one can revive the patent once it becomes abandoned. The only way to give away your patent rights is to do so while the application is still pending (before it goes abandoned). Then, your friend must respond to the Office Action within the original 6-month timeline. Transferring the patent rights does not endow extra time to the new owner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to clarify, ideas can't be patented or given away. Here's what you can give away to your friend: your future rights to patent(s) issuing from the pending application. To do this, you have to assign the application to them (which requires filing a form with the USPTO) and their power of attorney must be named (in another USPTO form). At this point, they will have the ability to reply to the outstanding Office Action within the 6-month timeframe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;There are some rare scenarios where an abandoned patent application can be revived, but they don't seem to apply to your situation. The MPEP/patent rules state that a patent application can only be revived if the application was abandoned unintentionally. You can read about this special case [here](https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/newsletter/inventors-eye/unintentional-abandonment). If you abandon the application knowingly and then lie to the USPTO, then any patent issuing from the revived application will be invalid and struck down if challenged legally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;*I am no expert, and this response is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney or legal expert to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Laws can differ dramatically from country to country, state to state, and technology field to technology field.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20572" RevisionGUID="8adbba36-7481-4184-80a5-0cd7396bbadb" CreationDate="2019-06-24T05:08:49.933" UserId="21610" Text="Yes,  you can rearrange such claims as the modification would be including new limitations in claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20573" RevisionGUID="b1b91fdf-2986-4f18-892b-b77cf41c786f" CreationDate="2019-06-24T16:19:29.753" UserId="6121" Text="Let's say, you file a provisional application in Jan 2018 but you have not filed the non-provisional within one year i.e. Before Jan 2019 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another person filed a non-provisional patent of the same invention on Feb 2019 and the patent get granted in Dec 2020.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you allowed to sell the invention since you can produce certified copy of the provisional application in court to prove that you invented the system before person B?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57263" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20573" RevisionGUID="b1b91fdf-2986-4f18-892b-b77cf41c786f" CreationDate="2019-06-24T16:19:29.753" UserId="6121" Text="Can you protect yourself from patent infringement if you can show evidence that you come up with the idea first?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57264" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20573" RevisionGUID="b1b91fdf-2986-4f18-892b-b77cf41c786f" CreationDate="2019-06-24T16:19:29.753" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20574" RevisionGUID="7dd847cf-0d1a-4c49-8b75-d0c068e7d4f1" CreationDate="2019-06-24T21:22:26.967" UserId="18033" Text="Your change to the claims introduces a new combination of elements by combining the elements of claim 2 and claim 3. That is allowed if the specification makes clear that the elements of call claim 2 and claim 3 can be combined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US multiple dependencies in claims (such as “the apparatus from any preceding claim + x) aren't allowed (technically they are allowed, but there is a hefty fee). Therefore the requirement above is often a mere formality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the EU however, you may have multiple dependencies. Therefore, if claim 3 depends on claim 1 and not claim 1 or claim 2, the specification needs to make clear that the elements of claim 2 and claim 3 are optional and can be combined. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if claim 2 is claim 1 + b and claim 3 is claim 1 + c, the specification might say “the invention can have b and/or c“. In that case, your rearrangement is fine. However, if the specification says, “the invention can have b or c“, then introducing claims saying “invention + b“ (claims 1 + 2) and optionally + c (claim 3) might be introducing the new combination of b AND c and might not be allowed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20575" RevisionGUID="c8f3dfa7-d702-487c-9002-bab780a9f2f7" CreationDate="2019-06-25T02:35:37.993" UserId="3076" Text=" **Not in general**. Under the law in effect on those dates, the U.S. (as is the rest of the world) under a first-to-file system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you published your invention prior to the priority date of the issued patent you could attack the validity of the patent as not novel or obvious in light of your work. Importantly, if you made and sold the item before the priority date, that it is also prior art. The law says prior art includes -&quot;or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a narrow provision [§ 273. Defense to infringement][1] based on prior commercial use in the law that could possibly apply. If you used your invention to make a product that you sold but the process or machine used in manufacturing itself was not &quot;available to the public&quot; then, if you meet specific criteria you can keep making the product where you have been making it in the quantities you have been making it in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/273" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20574" RevisionGUID="447d03e7-d5fd-4aec-b750-f2384cfe06ee" CreationDate="2019-06-25T04:06:32.693" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="Your change to the claims introduces a new combination of elements by combining the elements of claim 2 and claim 3. That is allowed if the specification makes clear that the elements of claim 2 and claim 3 can be combined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US multiple dependencies in claims (such as “the apparatus from any preceding claim + x) aren't allowed (technically they are allowed, but there is a hefty fee). Therefore the requirement above is often a mere formality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the EU however, you may have multiple dependencies. Therefore, if claim 3 depends on claim 1 and not claim 1 or claim 2, the specification needs to make clear that the elements of claim 2 and claim 3 are optional and can be combined. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if claim 2 is claim 1 + b and claim 3 is claim 1 + c, the specification might say “the invention can have b and/or c“. In that case, your rearrangement is fine. However, if the specification says, “the invention can have b or c“, then introducing claims saying “invention + b“ (claims 1 + 2) and optionally + c (claim 3) might be introducing the new combination of b AND c and might not be allowed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20577" RevisionGUID="4dc3206d-70f8-40cf-862b-32421cfad5d2" CreationDate="2019-06-26T05:44:53.033" UserId="21807" Text="What is the rationale behind writing the term inventions, species, or groups, while raising a restriction requirement.&#xA;How these three nomenclatures (invention, group, and species) are different and what is the basis for using these three by the Examiners?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57273" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20577" RevisionGUID="4dc3206d-70f8-40cf-862b-32421cfad5d2" CreationDate="2019-06-26T05:44:53.033" UserId="21807" Text="Restriction Requirement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57274" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20577" RevisionGUID="4dc3206d-70f8-40cf-862b-32421cfad5d2" CreationDate="2019-06-26T05:44:53.033" UserId="21807" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;patent-search&gt;&lt;google-patents&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20578" RevisionGUID="f4abff4b-4ba4-4eaf-a165-79858dda3a32" CreationDate="2019-06-26T07:24:45.187" UserId="22185" Text="I am asking for [this][1] patent. It should be 2023, right ? Or am I missing something ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7792728B2/en?q=G06Q40%2F06&amp;q=patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57276" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20578" RevisionGUID="f4abff4b-4ba4-4eaf-a165-79858dda3a32" CreationDate="2019-06-26T07:24:45.187" UserId="22185" Text="Why this patent has more than 20 years between priorty and adjusted expiration date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57277" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20578" RevisionGUID="f4abff4b-4ba4-4eaf-a165-79858dda3a32" CreationDate="2019-06-26T07:24:45.187" UserId="22185" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;priority-date&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20579" RevisionGUID="e650ae31-fa7b-4c0b-a944-358c0a7b38d3" CreationDate="2019-06-26T14:36:37.147" UserId="6121" Text="An existing patent uses step A, B, C in the independent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My invention inserts a non-obvious step X before step C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my invention looks like this. A, B, X, C&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the existing patent owner sue me for that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57280" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20579" RevisionGUID="e650ae31-fa7b-4c0b-a944-358c0a7b38d3" CreationDate="2019-06-26T14:36:37.147" UserId="6121" Text="Does an intermediate step considered as patent infringement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57281" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20579" RevisionGUID="e650ae31-fa7b-4c0b-a944-358c0a7b38d3" CreationDate="2019-06-26T14:36:37.147" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20580" RevisionGUID="11c97a2a-cbb9-4782-a0f5-6c5d8a4740f3" CreationDate="2019-06-26T14:58:13.067" UserId="21610" Text="US patent system has a provision under USC 154 which awards days equal to amount of days that patent application has spent in the prosecution at USPTO after the statutory limit of three years. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent has a PTA of 1854  under USC 154 (b). Which is to be added to the actual expiry. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20581" RevisionGUID="2a01e8e9-641d-4f11-8a55-b464f3d876de" CreationDate="2019-06-26T15:07:07.140" UserId="22186" Text="I intend to file a Provisional Patent Application for the system and methods in my software and would like to then turn it into a non-provisional patent later on. This is my first time ever applying for a patent, so I have a plethora of questions regarding the drawing portion of the application because I want to ensure that my patent application is adequate enough if needed to hold itself in court. I would like to make all the drawings by myself. If you could please provide any general advice or reference to any helpful sources that would be greatly appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Here is what I'm trying to get answered:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I include in the drawings?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are screenshots of my software acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I include in my flowcharts? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How specific should the flowcharts be? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If needed, can I change my drawings when applying for the non-provisional patent?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57284" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20581" RevisionGUID="2a01e8e9-641d-4f11-8a55-b464f3d876de" CreationDate="2019-06-26T15:07:07.140" UserId="22186" Text="Patent drawlings for software" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57285" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20581" RevisionGUID="2a01e8e9-641d-4f11-8a55-b464f3d876de" CreationDate="2019-06-26T15:07:07.140" UserId="22186" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-drawings&gt;&lt;advice&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57286" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="20579" RevisionGUID="0ded4237-6bfa-49bf-a463-16d22e91aa22" CreationDate="2019-06-26T15:16:13.587" UserId="21610" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20582" RevisionGUID="ff3efa03-5783-45d0-b03e-93e5b92c7af7" CreationDate="2019-06-26T16:13:32.297" UserId="22187" Text="1. yes. they can sue you, uet everyone can sue you, the question is do they have a case, or even more precisely, what are the risk or odds your'e exposed to. &#xD;&#xA;2. Technically if the method is a comprising method claim (as opposed to consisting)  you unlawfully exploit the invention by performing ABC additional steps are not relevant. &#xD;&#xA;3. The essential question to be asked is are you using the invention of the patent or maybe you create a whole new concept. If it is completely different method, based on another idea that merely share some elements than you maybe not using the invention protected by the patent. If you are just adding to it, improving it, or otherwise use the same idea. than you are not allowed to use your method. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20583" RevisionGUID="bf51d2ee-f21f-442f-bc5b-8af4b0e9334f" CreationDate="2019-06-26T16:14:32.900" UserId="17003" Text="&gt; Can the existing patent owner sue me for that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a word, yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is a patent which has a claim specifying the steps A, B and C and your product implements steps A, B and C you infringe. Adding a step X doesn't change that. Now, if X is novel and non-obvious, you might be able to obtain a patent on your improvement, but that doesn't change the infringement. You would have to obtain a license from the owner of the infringed upon patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not a lawyer and this should not be considered legal advice. As I always recommend, you should consult with an actual patent attorney when determining freedom to operate questions. Relying on internet opinions on hypotheticals is risky. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20584" RevisionGUID="9084f184-56af-41ee-923b-3542c2fbf992" CreationDate="2019-06-26T16:38:07.023" UserId="17003" Text="I'm not a patent lawyer and don't have much experience with provisional patent applications, but I do have quite a few patents some of which are software related. I'm going to try to answer your questions, but don't consider this legal advice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What should I include in the drawings?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should include whatever is necessary to describe your invention. This might be drawings, charts, text or even equations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Are screenshots of my software acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have patents which include screenshots so I'm sure it is OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What should I include in my flowcharts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flowcharts, should you include them should help describe the invention. It is up to you to decide what they include.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How specific should the flowcharts be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specific enough to help describe the invention. I'd avoid being so specific that it only shows a single implementation as that might limit your ability to gain a broad enough patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If needed, can I change my drawings when applying for the non-provisional patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The non-provisional application can be a completely different document. That said, if you want to use the filing date of the provisional application, then the provisional has to describe the patent sufficiently. If you add a new aspect of the invention in the non-provisional application, I believe you might potentially lose the earlier date. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You really should consult with an attorney about this. Obtaining patents is a complex process and software related patents even more so. It is very important not to just patent your specific implementation as that will likely leave a lot of room for someone to circumvent your patent. You need to consider as many ways as you can to achieve the same result, even if they don't seem quite as good as your particular implementation. Drafting applications and especially claims which achieve sufficiently broad protection is a skill which few, if any, lay people have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20584" RevisionGUID="8e6a5606-93ff-4930-8ffb-bb4c81314dba" CreationDate="2019-06-26T17:56:02.453" UserId="17003" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I'm not a patent lawyer and don't have much experience with provisional patent applications, but I do have quite a few patents some of which are software related. I'm going to try to answer your questions, but don't consider this legal advice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What should I include in the drawings?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should include whatever is necessary to describe your invention. This might be drawings, charts, text or even equations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Are screenshots of my software acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have patents which include screenshots so I'm sure it is OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What should I include in my flowcharts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flowcharts, should you include them should help describe the invention. It is up to you to decide what they include.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How specific should the flowcharts be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specific enough to help describe the invention. I'd avoid being so specific that it only shows a single implementation as that might limit your ability to gain a broad enough patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If needed, can I change my drawings when applying for the non-provisional patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The non-provisional application can be a completely different document. That said, if you want to use the filing date of the provisional application, then the provisional has to describe the invention sufficiently. If you add a new aspect of the invention in the non-provisional application, I believe you might potentially lose the earlier date. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You really should consult with an attorney about this. Obtaining patents is a complex process and software related patents even more so. It is very important not to just patent your specific implementation as that will likely leave a lot of room for someone to circumvent your patent. You need to consider as many ways as you can to achieve the same result, even if they don't seem quite as good as your particular implementation. Drafting applications and especially claims which achieve sufficiently broad protection is a skill which few, if any, lay people have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20585" RevisionGUID="482b4493-0e50-43b0-a599-3a0cd6fca5b3" CreationDate="2019-06-26T23:11:04.560" UserId="22190" Text="The patent document says that the patent was assigned to some company. But USPTO's patent assignment database shows that there is no such assignment. &#xD;&#xA;My theory is that the applicant/owner didn't report the assignment to USPTO, but inlcluded the information in the patent application. What do you think?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57292" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20585" RevisionGUID="482b4493-0e50-43b0-a599-3a0cd6fca5b3" CreationDate="2019-06-26T23:11:04.560" UserId="22190" Text="Patent document and Patent assignment database dont match" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57293" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20585" RevisionGUID="482b4493-0e50-43b0-a599-3a0cd6fca5b3" CreationDate="2019-06-26T23:11:04.560" UserId="22190" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;assignment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20586" RevisionGUID="b02b2932-8139-4380-b468-14ffde3e4915" CreationDate="2019-06-27T06:15:16.993" UserId="21610" Text="Technically speaking when a claim term includes the comprising term then any new step included in the method would infringe the patent, But recently in [Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2019)][1] Federal circuit affirmed the District court claim construction &quot;washing&quot; and &quot;eluting&quot; steps of the method claimed in the '878 patent (specifically, subparts (f) and (g)) as being separate steps that required the washing step to be performed before the eluting step.  Again, under this construction Amgen conceded it could not prevail on infringement because Sandoz performed these steps concurrently with step (e) (regarding application of the refolding solution), and the panel credited Sandoz's argument that the claim &quot;**logically requires a series of step**s,&quot; citing (as did Sandoz) Mformation Technologies, Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd., 764 F.3d 1392, 1398–1400 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (&quot;a process claim is properly limited to a certain order of steps 'when the claim language, as a matter of logic or grammar, requires that the steps be performed in the order written, or the specification directly or implicitly requires' an order of steps&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In view of the above judgments in order to evaluate infringement of a method claim it is essential to understand what is actually claimed i.e., does the patent claim a method of steps ABC or does the patent claim a method of steps A followed by B followed by C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.patentdocs.org/2019/05/amgen-inc-v-sandoz-inc-fed-cir-2019.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20587" RevisionGUID="91e44274-30fd-467e-be9c-415102c00386" CreationDate="2019-06-27T06:40:26.473" UserId="21610" Text="Most of the jurisdiction adopt one invention one patent system to improve the prosecution of the patent application and **must relate to a single general inventive concept**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How these three nomenclatures (invention, group, and species) are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different and what is the basis for using these three by the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Examiners?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Eg: There is pharma patent application which contains &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Formulation&#xD;&#xA; 2. Dosage, &#xD;&#xA; 3. Method of treatment etc.,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;these are all different inventions and don't satisfy relate to a **single general inventive concept** a restriction requirement of which invention to be examined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in the above example when election of 1.Formulation patent  there are two groups in the same&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Formulation composition&#xD;&#xA; 2. Method of manufacture&#xD;&#xA;both are different and **not relate to a single general inventive concept** this would invite a restriction for the group of the same invention which is to be examined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in the above scenario when a election is made for 1.formulation composition which consists of mixture of sugars, solvents, buffers etc., then the restriction would be asked for the species as sugars can be reducing/ non reducing , solvents can be aqueous/Non-Aqueous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such restriction are given as long as examiner is satisfied that the **claims relate to a single general inventive concept.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20588" RevisionGUID="95433057-b96b-4b80-b9d8-8788fb2e9b13" CreationDate="2019-06-27T09:33:51.967" UserId="21342" Text="I wonder if anyone can answer this. What the US examiner says appears at first sight ambiguous, but there is perhaps a clue in the reference to 35 U.S.C. 121 (which I looked at).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct&#xD;&#xA;species: Species A and Species B”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For each species, there are several sub-species, say 1 and 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She goes on to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Note: One subspecies must be chosen for each species for a full election. As a nonlimiting example, a full election would be: Species A, subspecies 1; Species B, subspecies 2.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This note suggests to me that we can elect both species, A and B, with one sub-species for each, for prosecution.&#xD;&#xA;However, she goes on to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“The species are independent or distinct because the different species have&#xD;&#xA;mutually exclusive characteristics for each identified species as indicated above. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable.” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which suggests to me that we have to elect one species, A or B, with one sub-species for the elected species, for prosecution.&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;My question is, must we elect one species only or can we elect both (each with one sub-species), and as a subsidiary question: what is a full election?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for any help you can give me. &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57298" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20588" RevisionGUID="95433057-b96b-4b80-b9d8-8788fb2e9b13" CreationDate="2019-06-27T09:33:51.967" UserId="21342" Text="Election of species for prosecution" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57299" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20588" RevisionGUID="95433057-b96b-4b80-b9d8-8788fb2e9b13" CreationDate="2019-06-27T09:33:51.967" UserId="21342" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;prosecution&gt;&lt;restriction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20589" RevisionGUID="ad3d941b-0c4e-4a31-8e16-6b4f9aadbc2b" CreationDate="2019-06-27T13:10:35.247" UserId="17696" Text="You can't have coverage for two &quot;inventions&quot; in one patent. It gets around the fee structure the patent offices operate under.  It sounds like they are trying to force you to create a divisional application.  I would do a Google search of divisional patents to find strategies to get around this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20590" RevisionGUID="6a72e97e-7d95-4961-b597-c82b36d00f69" CreationDate="2019-06-27T17:01:47.587" UserId="22086" Text="Common practices performed by individuals / technicians in a field &quot;[having ordinary skill in the art][ordinary_skill]&quot; are NOT patentable--because these things are obvious and not-novel.  The [criteria] for patenting are that the invention MUST be at least:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. novel &#xD;&#xA; 2. non-obvious&#xD;&#xA; 3. useful&#xD;&#xA; 4. of an appropriate patentable subject matter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specific claims written by the inventor(s) must be defended against thorough examination. The examiner is paid / tasked with finding faults in the patent application so it can be &quot;disallowed&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order for the patent to be eventually &quot;granted&quot; to the inventor(s) the examiner must have examined the specification and claims and be unable to find serious fault that would prevent &quot;allowance&quot; of the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said the inventor can use _any language_ in their patent specification they desire so long as the _invention_ they claim ([patent claims][patent_claims]) at least meets all of the above criteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ordinary_skill]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_having_ordinary_skill_in_the_art &#xD;&#xA;[criteria]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentability&#xD;&#xA;[patent_claims]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_claim" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57302" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20526" RevisionGUID="7708dcdc-c9fd-4405-9fb6-054cd9da3f8c" CreationDate="2019-06-27T17:02:45.577" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20591" RevisionGUID="6bd7af4f-1352-4db1-bd18-d1f024980ab0" CreationDate="2019-06-27T17:04:43.237" UserId="17003" Text="As RishiM_IPR states, if the patent prosecution takes over three years, there can be patent term adjustments. To verify this, go to the [US Public Pair][1] site, select &quot;Patent Number&quot; and enter &quot;7792728&quot; (without quotes). Once it loads you'll see a tab labeled &quot;Patent Term Adjustments&quot;. For this patent, there were &quot;Non-Overlapping USPTO Delays&quot; of 1890 days of which 36 days were considered &quot;Applicant Delays&quot; which don't get adjusted for. The result is 1854 &quot;Total PTA Adjustments&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20593" RevisionGUID="7d593ee6-02c3-472b-a7c3-0a49ed976fab" CreationDate="2019-06-27T20:44:28.870" UserId="3076" Text="There is no requirement to record assignments with USPTO. The assignee information on the face of the patent is taken directly from the form the applicant sends back with the issue fee payment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20594" RevisionGUID="3d9c02eb-cdf6-40a3-8498-bad8f27b0b68" CreationDate="2019-06-27T22:40:19.253" UserId="22086" Text="This may be a problem. Inventors are required when filing to make an [Oath or Declaration][OOD]. If the OoD is incorrect it could result in an invalidation of the application. If you _both_ participated on the invention but only one person is listed then the OoD would be imperfect and may be thrown out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 37 CFR 1.41 Applicant for patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (a) An application must include, or be amended to include, the name of the  inventor for any invention claimed in the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (b) The inventorship of a nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; (a) is the inventor or joint inventors set forth in the application data sheet in accordance with § 1.76 filed before or concurrently with the inventor's oath or declaration. If an application data sheet is not filed before or concurrently with the inventor's oath or declaration, the inventorship is the inventor or joint inventors set forth in the inventor's oath or declaration, except as provided for in §§ 1.53(d)(4) and 1.63(d). Once an application data sheet or the inventor's oath or declaration is filed in a nonprovisional application, any correction of inventorship must be pursuant to § 1.48. If neither an application data sheet nor the inventor's oath or declaration is filed during the pendency of a nonprovisional application, the inventorship is the inventor or joint inventors set forth in the application papers filed pursuant to § 1.53(b),  unless the applicant files a paper, including the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i), supplying the name or names of the inventor or joint inventors. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[OOD]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s602.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20595" RevisionGUID="726088d3-b5a7-4559-86bd-19771f620cf3" CreationDate="2019-06-28T05:26:44.963" UserId="22194" Text="The patent US7405443 has been reexamined but the corresponding office action is missing from the file wrapper as well as global dossier. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57309" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20595" RevisionGUID="726088d3-b5a7-4559-86bd-19771f620cf3" CreationDate="2019-06-28T05:26:44.963" UserId="22194" Text="How can we extract the prosecution history for the reexamination?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57310" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20595" RevisionGUID="726088d3-b5a7-4559-86bd-19771f620cf3" CreationDate="2019-06-28T05:26:44.963" UserId="22194" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;office-action&gt;&lt;prosecution&gt;&lt;reexamination&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20596" RevisionGUID="52501904-0d99-4206-894e-513bc9c3f8d7" CreationDate="2019-06-28T13:48:30.620" UserId="21610" Text="Please look for the prosecution history of the reexamination under the application number  	90/011,079 it's has the data." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57315" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12934" RevisionGUID="b365b758-0831-4b2d-b5f3-a85df293417c" CreationDate="2019-06-29T04:05:20.620" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57316" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20202" RevisionGUID="c253e1e9-6584-451b-92d3-d492e4e84cf5" CreationDate="2019-06-29T05:00:45.540" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57317" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="8f55ba88-eb42-4758-8698-181ea98223b2" CreationDate="2019-06-29T10:02:50.447" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20597" RevisionGUID="db5be1d1-fce1-496c-88b3-f4ce10402800" CreationDate="2019-06-30T00:32:51.867" UserId="6121" Text="My PCT application has more than 100 claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanna have the strongest protection possible in some countries whereas in others I need some limited protection. [I don't want to waste too much money in claims]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, Can I able to remove some claims while applying to USPTO using a PCT application? Or it has to be amended later, after filing the USPTO application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57319" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20597" RevisionGUID="db5be1d1-fce1-496c-88b3-f4ce10402800" CreationDate="2019-06-30T00:32:51.867" UserId="6121" Text="Can one change claims when applying a national stage application using a PCT application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57320" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20597" RevisionGUID="db5be1d1-fce1-496c-88b3-f4ce10402800" CreationDate="2019-06-30T00:32:51.867" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20598" RevisionGUID="b36b87f9-9e44-4736-a600-c023c1438ec9" CreationDate="2019-06-30T02:43:09.463" UserId="14403" Text="Yes, the claims can be amended anytime before first office action. Also, One can reduce number of claims to reduce cost while demand for excess fee payment is pending.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ref [1] 1893.01 (e) Commencement and Entry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ref [2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1893.html&#xD;&#xA;[2]:https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/e8r9#/e8r9/d0e86256.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20599" RevisionGUID="363fae85-b6cf-4d21-b3c8-3e20d46fa1da" CreationDate="2019-06-30T22:45:33.627" UserId="22202" Text="Patents are a good source of accurate, or scientific information. They also have information about the inventor.  Are the patents in the public domain?  Can I reproduce them on my website?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57323" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20599" RevisionGUID="363fae85-b6cf-4d21-b3c8-3e20d46fa1da" CreationDate="2019-06-30T22:45:33.627" UserId="22202" Text="Are US patents protected by copyright or can I reproduce them on my website?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57324" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20599" RevisionGUID="363fae85-b6cf-4d21-b3c8-3e20d46fa1da" CreationDate="2019-06-30T22:45:33.627" UserId="22202" Text="&lt;public-domain&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20600" RevisionGUID="cd4a81c6-d535-4c6f-ab59-977c7dcf6e0c" CreationDate="2019-07-01T03:06:09.070" UserId="6121" Text="To quote [this page][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The IB will do its best to publish the international application as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; soon as possible after receipt of the request for early publication,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; provided that any necessary fees have been paid.  Note, however, that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; publication will not be immediate, as the IB will, for operational&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reasons, need some time to prepare your application for publication. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, if the abstract has not yet been translated, the PCT&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Translation Division would need time to do this.  The IB will&#xD;&#xA;&gt; acknowledge receipt of your request for early publication, and will&#xD;&#xA;&gt; notify you of the new scheduled publication date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone provide me an estimate for the &quot;need some time&quot; part?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also how much does it cost to request early publication in PCT?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/newslett/practical_advice/pa_102016.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57326" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20600" RevisionGUID="cd4a81c6-d535-4c6f-ab59-977c7dcf6e0c" CreationDate="2019-07-01T03:06:09.070" UserId="6121" Text="How long it would take for PCT to publish the application if I request early publication?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57327" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20600" RevisionGUID="cd4a81c6-d535-4c6f-ab59-977c7dcf6e0c" CreationDate="2019-07-01T03:06:09.070" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;early-publication&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57328" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="20599" RevisionGUID="9b550267-627f-4eaf-8005-e1e7763b1987" CreationDate="2019-07-01T03:31:46.433" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[44],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:21610,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;RishiM_IPR&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="57329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20601" RevisionGUID="4901302b-247e-4354-84ac-fe39618b7848" CreationDate="2019-07-01T09:15:34.930" UserId="6121" Text="Just got a detailed reply from PCT via email. Quite honestly, I didn't expect such a detailed mail from PCT. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope someone will find this info useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to submit an online request to the IB to publish an international application before the expiration of 18 months from the priority date, select the Action ‘Request for early publication.’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Open the application in your Workbench after signing in to ePCT with strong authentication methods.  Go to the ACTIONS section and click the small triangle to open the section and select the action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The system will warn you if technical preparations for international publication are too close to completion, or indeed are already complete, and it is therefore no longer possible to request earlier publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that, if the IB has not yet received the ISR or the Declaration under Article 17.2(a), information is displayed as to the payment of the special publication fee of 200 Swiss francs. Note that it is not yet possible to pay this special publication fee online in ePCT and a separate invoice will be issued by the IB. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before submitting it is compulsory to sign the Action by selecting a signature option. You can either submit immediately or save a draft of the Action to be submitted later. After submitting, the rendered documents are displayed in the Documents section making up the Record as held by the IB.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, in case of a request for early publication, the application is published between, 6 and 10 weeks after the request and payment made&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Tc84X.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mE3Ut.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/81J0H.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/V2WVa.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/36pH9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/a4LT4.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20602" RevisionGUID="a7a3e175-4a0d-4042-9ef8-f8d635c7dfa1" CreationDate="2019-07-01T13:00:43.727" UserId="22185" Text="When it comes to licensing or selling a patent it is important to know its estimated value. My question is how someone can find appropriate method/methods for patent valuation ? I know there is many approaches but it seemed very complicated. Is there a way to know as an indivudual to learn his/her patents values ? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57331" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20602" RevisionGUID="a7a3e175-4a0d-4042-9ef8-f8d635c7dfa1" CreationDate="2019-07-01T13:00:43.727" UserId="22185" Text="Valuation of Patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57332" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20602" RevisionGUID="a7a3e175-4a0d-4042-9ef8-f8d635c7dfa1" CreationDate="2019-07-01T13:00:43.727" UserId="22185" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;valuation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20603" RevisionGUID="cfbd87e6-d684-4f06-9e18-174744207210" CreationDate="2019-07-01T13:13:19.510" UserId="17003" Text="A patent, like anything else that is to be sold is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. A patent on a drug that sells a billion dollars of product a year is worth a lot. A patent on a slight improvement on a niche product might have little value. You have to analyze the economic value of the product stream enabled by the patent to understand its value. I don’t know of any simple method for doing this. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57334" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="20581" RevisionGUID="19a4d84d-0ccf-40a6-b47f-1e0fb30e9b58" CreationDate="2019-07-02T01:31:34.207" UserId="17003" Comment="edited title" Text="Patent drawings for software" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20604" RevisionGUID="f11b9b33-2d0d-4bb5-a616-23a9310ad07f" CreationDate="2019-07-02T02:40:02.333" UserId="17764" Text="Received a Obviousness rejection on design application from USPTO. The prior arts are quite close to our design, **except a pattern on the bottom view**. However, the pattern on the bottom view is in broken line and no claimed originally. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the question,&#xD;&#xA;**can I rectify  the broken-line pattern to solid line and reclaim it in reply to the obviousness rejection**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57336" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20604" RevisionGUID="f11b9b33-2d0d-4bb5-a616-23a9310ad07f" CreationDate="2019-07-02T02:40:02.333" UserId="17764" Text="Can I reclaim the broken line features in Design application drawings during prosecution?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57337" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20604" RevisionGUID="f11b9b33-2d0d-4bb5-a616-23a9310ad07f" CreationDate="2019-07-02T02:40:02.333" UserId="17764" Text="&lt;design&gt;&lt;obviousness&gt;&lt;patent-drawings&gt;&lt;prosecution&gt;&lt;amendment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20605" RevisionGUID="a68956e3-ae62-4ba6-9512-38b132487889" CreationDate="2019-07-02T06:05:20.270" UserId="17764" Text="The MPEP provides an example where removal of three-dimensional surface treatment, such as beading, grooves, or ribs, would not be permitted, but that “an amendment that changes the scope of a design by either reducing certain portions of the drawing to broken lines or converting broken line structure to solid lines is not a change in configuration.” Thus, the examination policy changes appear to be in direct contradiction to the Patent Office’s previously published examination guidelines." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20606" RevisionGUID="469d8fe8-8563-4497-8194-3d9c4c07f6ca" CreationDate="2019-07-02T06:21:22.687" UserId="22206" Text="Please let me know where I can find recent claims of patent application CN204293650U." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57340" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20606" RevisionGUID="469d8fe8-8563-4497-8194-3d9c4c07f6ca" CreationDate="2019-07-02T06:21:22.687" UserId="22206" Text="Where to find recent claims of CN204293650U" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57341" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20606" RevisionGUID="469d8fe8-8563-4497-8194-3d9c4c07f6ca" CreationDate="2019-07-02T06:21:22.687" UserId="22206" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;china&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20596" RevisionGUID="571f708a-2cc2-4027-bfa4-16792c79842b" CreationDate="2019-07-02T08:20:26.217" UserId="21610" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="When there is a reexamination the prosecution would be done under a new application, Please look for the prosecution history of the reexamination under the application number  90/011,079 it's has the prosecution history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20607" RevisionGUID="0085193e-751d-44bb-a008-2857c75349a8" CreationDate="2019-07-02T08:31:14.203" UserId="21610" Text="The patent information about any Chinese patent is available at [SIPOpublicsearch][1]&#xD;&#xA;to perform the search you need to register with the site then it allows you to search for patent information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found the following information most of which is in Chinese  [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.pss-system.gov.cn/sipopublicsearch/inportal/i18n.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fCYvE.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20607" RevisionGUID="87a7c2d6-917f-4315-8c02-edfc186a8534" CreationDate="2019-07-02T08:36:50.233" UserId="21610" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The patent information about any Chinese patent is available at [SIPOpublicsearch][1]&#xD;&#xA;to perform the search you need to register with the site then it allows you to search for patent information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found the following information most of which is in Chinese [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.pss-system.gov.cn/sipopublicsearch/inportal/i18n.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QN8Uu.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20608" RevisionGUID="f08d9b31-aad7-4b38-bfd4-31d8cf174262" CreationDate="2019-07-02T09:38:08.233" UserId="22207" Text="If a US micro-entity Utility patent was granted in 2014, when is the next renewal date and what is the fee?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57346" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20608" RevisionGUID="f08d9b31-aad7-4b38-bfd4-31d8cf174262" CreationDate="2019-07-02T09:38:08.233" UserId="22207" Text="What are the renewal dates and fees for a micro-entity utility patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57347" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20608" RevisionGUID="f08d9b31-aad7-4b38-bfd4-31d8cf174262" CreationDate="2019-07-02T09:38:08.233" UserId="22207" Text="&lt;fees&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20609" RevisionGUID="f3c08f88-f37c-44ca-ade2-e8eb447d5dc7" CreationDate="2019-07-02T21:53:10.767" UserId="3076" Text="Very easy to look up [post-grant fee table at USPTO][1] Please figure it out from this information. Note that Entity Status can change both during prosecution and **after** grant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patent Maintenance Fees&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fee Code	37 CFR 1551/2551/3551	1.20(e)	For maintaining an original or any reissue&#xD;&#xA;   patent, due at 3.5 years	&#xD;&#xA;                                    &lt;pre&gt; Fee             1,600.00&lt;/pre&gt;	&lt;pre&gt;Small Entity Fee   800.00&lt;/pre&gt;	&lt;pre&gt;Micro Entity Fee   400.00&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Fee Code	37 CFR 1552/2552/3552	1.20(f)	For maintaining an original or any reissue&#xD;&#xA;   patent, due at 7.5 years	&#xD;&#xA;                                      		&#xD;&#xA; &lt;pre&gt; Fee             3,600.00&lt;/pre&gt;	&lt;pre&gt;Small Entity Fee 1,800.00&lt;/pre&gt;	&lt;pre&gt;Micro Entity Fee   900.00&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule#Patent%20Post%20Allowance%20Fee" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57349" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20143" RevisionGUID="3ee08658-6b56-4ac9-9bd0-82cc0adff38c" CreationDate="2019-07-03T16:02:10.217" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20611" RevisionGUID="dbbaa8fc-21ef-4b59-b05d-2f742528c98f" CreationDate="2019-07-03T23:41:14.380" UserId="3076" Text="Yes, it could possibly be patentable in the U.S. Although the cause and effect of the science behind acupuncture may be very unclear and the role of &quot;blockage of meridians&quot; may be highly questionable, an application can be written in a way that avoids those issues by sticking to an objective procedure. If your procedure involves &quot;thinking good thoughts&quot; on the part of the patient or the practitioner, you are out of luck. You do not need to show superior results. Keep in mind that in the U.S. there is limited ability to enforce a method of treatment against a medical professional. See 35 USC §287(c)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20611" RevisionGUID="5b73a08f-3f74-4214-9966-f1ed01c0da68" CreationDate="2019-07-04T00:10:07.620" UserId="3076" Comment="added 270 characters in body" Text="Yes, it could possibly be patentable in the U.S. Although the cause and effect of the science behind acupuncture may be very unclear and the role of &quot;blockage of meridians&quot; may be highly questionable, an application can be written in a way that avoids those issues by sticking to an objective procedure. If your procedure involves &quot;thinking good thoughts&quot; on the part of the patient or the practitioner, you are out of luck. You do not need to show superior results. An example patent is [Meridian point-probing device and curative effect-determining device][1]  Another is Electrical stimulus allergy treatment method Keep in mind that in the U.S. there is limited ability to enforce a method of treatment against a medical professional. See [35 USC §287(c)][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6821255B2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/287" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20590" RevisionGUID="bf0a5b76-f629-4429-87dd-a1509316f60a" CreationDate="2019-07-04T01:19:08.097" UserId="22086" Comment="clarification based on feedbackwhere one might misinterpret that they would not need." Text="Common practices performed by individuals / technicians in a field &quot;[having ordinary skill in the art][ordinary_skill]&quot; are NOT patentable--because these things are obvious and not-novel.  The [criteria] for patenting are that the invention MUST be at least:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. novel &#xD;&#xA; 2. non-obvious&#xD;&#xA; 3. useful&#xD;&#xA; 4. of an appropriate patentable subject matter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specific claims written by the inventor(s) must be defended against thorough examination. The examiner is paid / tasked with finding faults in the patent application so it can be &quot;disallowed&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order for the patent to be eventually &quot;granted&quot; to the inventor(s) the examiner must have examined the specification and claims and be unable to find serious fault that would prevent &quot;allowance&quot; of the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said the inventor can use _any language_ in their patent specification they desire so long as the _invention_ they claim ([patent claims][patent_claims]) at least meets all of the above criteria (and naturally the other baseline criteria for having a fully complete specification) [edited].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ordinary_skill]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_having_ordinary_skill_in_the_art &#xD;&#xA;[criteria]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentability&#xD;&#xA;[patent_claims]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_claim" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20612" RevisionGUID="f5869f20-055d-442c-8bfd-4e1983091e91" CreationDate="2019-07-04T14:01:18.673" UserId="17696" Text="You can spend 10's of thousands of dollars having management consulting firms try to generate models of the patent's values under various assumptions.  Since the life of a patent (in the US) is 20 years, they will try to generate assumed revenue streams over those 20 years and then discount them to present day dollars (if you can earn interest on today's dollars received in the future, then the inverse must be true and dollars you might receive in the future, in terms of their worth today, must be discounted in a similar manner).  The assumed revenue streams would probably be based on changes in market share and supply/demand curves.  The problem with the approach is that it is one assumption built on top of another.  A court of law might entertain these valuations but how much weight a prospect licensee must on them is another question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My answer to this question has been to find a sales guy (who takes a 10% commission) and pits potential licensees against one another.  My assumption is that I would do better, notwithstanding that commission, with a sales guy than on my own.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, a patent is valued by what someone is willing to pay for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20609" RevisionGUID="4f8a1085-5dbf-4882-b53d-c87cb9c6fa01" CreationDate="2019-07-04T23:06:03.363" UserId="3076" Comment="added 312 characters in body" Text="Very easy to look up [post-grant fee table at USPTO][1] Please figure it out from this information. Note that Entity Status can change both during prosecution and **after** grant. You may or may not qualify as a micro-entity at the time the fee is due. Note, what the rest of the world calls a renewal fee, the U.S. calls a maintenance fee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patent Maintenance Fees&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fee Code	37 CFR 1551/2551/3551	1.20(e)	For maintaining an original or any reissue&#xD;&#xA;   patent, due at 3.5 years	&#xD;&#xA;                                    &lt;pre&gt; Fee             1,600.00&lt;/pre&gt;	&lt;pre&gt;Small Entity Fee   800.00&lt;/pre&gt;	&lt;pre&gt;Micro Entity Fee   400.00&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Fee Code	37 CFR 1552/2552/3552	1.20(f)	For maintaining an original or any reissue&#xD;&#xA;   patent, due at 7.5 years	&#xD;&#xA;                                      		&#xD;&#xA; &lt;pre&gt; Fee             3,600.00&lt;/pre&gt;	&lt;pre&gt;Small Entity Fee 1,800.00&lt;/pre&gt;	&lt;pre&gt;Micro Entity Fee   900.00&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To pay fees and get exact dates for fees for a specific patent see the [maintenance fee portal][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule#Patent%20Post%20Allowance%20Fee&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://fees.uspto.gov/MaintenanceFees/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20613" RevisionGUID="4b6e5a60-db2f-46b3-a9c3-287f98b744b8" CreationDate="2019-07-05T05:27:32.390" UserId="22211" Text="There are 3 inventors in this patent application. And, this application is pending now (i.e., It is not patented.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our client wishes to rearrange the order of the inventors because one of the inventors wants to be a First Inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, please kindly let me know the procedure and any necessary documents for doing that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for your help in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Judy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57358" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20613" RevisionGUID="4b6e5a60-db2f-46b3-a9c3-287f98b744b8" CreationDate="2019-07-05T05:27:32.390" UserId="22211" Text="How to change the order of inventors? (The patent application is pending now.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57359" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20613" RevisionGUID="4b6e5a60-db2f-46b3-a9c3-287f98b744b8" CreationDate="2019-07-05T05:27:32.390" UserId="22211" Text="&lt;inventor&gt;&lt;pending&gt;&lt;order&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57360" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20142" RevisionGUID="013d4a46-57e0-44f8-90fe-53cd22837e00" CreationDate="2019-07-05T06:02:55.423" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20614" RevisionGUID="e1238b20-7605-4b75-8b46-968b2c11a432" CreationDate="2019-07-05T17:31:53.380" UserId="3076" Text="Filing an updated Application Data Sheet should accomplish this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20614" RevisionGUID="39059c88-874b-4a7f-a1bf-0735404f8467" CreationDate="2019-07-05T18:29:50.257" UserId="3076" Comment="added 348 characters in body" Text="Filing an updated Application Data Sheet should accomplish this. There is also a form called [Request for Correction in a Patent Application Relating to Inventorship or an Inventor Name, or Order of Names, Other than in a Reissue Application (37 CFR 1.48)][1]. You might file this along with the new ADS to be sure your intent is clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/aia0040.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20614" RevisionGUID="530cbf30-bac7-4de4-a712-e9d6081d0ff8" CreationDate="2019-07-05T21:52:57.030" UserId="3076" Comment="added caution regarding non-proper representation before the USPTO patent side." Text="Filing an updated Application Data Sheet should accomplish this. There is also a form called [Request for Correction in a Patent Application Relating to Inventorship or an Inventor Name, or Order of Names, Other than in a Reissue Application (37 CFR 1.48)][1]. You might file this along with the new ADS to be sure your intent is clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mention &quot;your client&quot;. You may not know it but only a USPTO registered practitioner (a patent attorney or patent agent) can represent others before the patent office. The inventors themselves can chose one among them to represent the group but, other than that, a registered person is required. If your client is a non-inventor applicant they can't sign submissions to the patent office. Submitting something not properly signed is like not submitting anything at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are a state licensed attorney but not a USPTO registered patent practitioner you **can** represent people before the trademark side, but **not** the patent side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/aia0040.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57364" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20232" RevisionGUID="319203f0-ac1d-4043-9085-bc76caba8467" CreationDate="2019-07-05T23:02:55.470" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20615" RevisionGUID="ffc8d5ca-c6c8-46c2-a7f0-80543660beba" CreationDate="2019-07-06T02:00:12.083" UserId="6121" Text="I already published my paper. [After filing provisional application]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A big company seems like copied my work from my paper and they are about to release their product in few months. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I believe they copied my work is because of the following reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The technology I improved is a decade old technology. &#xD;&#xA; 2. Almost 6 novel aspects are from my paper &#xD;&#xA; 3. There is a prior art that was published 5 years back which would invalidate my independent claim if I hadn't noticed. But all the dependent claims would have been safe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This big company exactly doing what the prior art says, but also going for my inventive steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a cutting edge work in tech. Without my step, the system would become a flawed system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I raised my concern to this big company CEO, he forwarded my concern to his lawyer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To quote some of his lawyer words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We cannot evaluate that claim because your patent application does not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; appear in public searches of the United States Patent Office database,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; possibly because the Patent Office has yet to publish it.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Additionally, any proposed claims in the patent application may change&#xD;&#xA;&gt; during prosecution at the Patent Office or could be rejected&#xD;&#xA;&gt; altogether, so there is no way to know what subject matter in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application may be patentable, if any at all. As a result, we cannot&#xD;&#xA;&gt; evaluate your allegations at present, nor can any product or service&#xD;&#xA;&gt; infringe unissued claims&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They didn't innovate anything on this matter. Not even a single step. But they are gonna release the product in the same year I published my work. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The publication of my patent might take at least few months even if I go for early publication. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since my work is already published, will there be any downside if I show my claims to that lawyer before my patent application publication? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57366" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20615" RevisionGUID="ffc8d5ca-c6c8-46c2-a7f0-80543660beba" CreationDate="2019-07-06T02:00:12.083" UserId="6121" Text="Will there be any downside if I show my patent claims to my infringer before publication?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57367" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20615" RevisionGUID="ffc8d5ca-c6c8-46c2-a7f0-80543660beba" CreationDate="2019-07-06T02:00:12.083" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;public-disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20615" RevisionGUID="57c750db-2c5a-4863-8214-56bd69d8948a" CreationDate="2019-07-06T03:12:05.503" UserId="6121" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="I already published my paper. [After filing provisional application]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A big company seems like copied my work from my paper and they are about to release their product in few months. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I believe they copied my work is because of the following reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The technology I improved is a decade old technology. &#xD;&#xA; 2. Almost 6 novel aspects are from my paper &#xD;&#xA; 3. There is a prior art that was published 5 years back which would invalidate my independent claim if I hadn't noticed. But all the dependent claims would have been safe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This big company exactly doing what the prior art says, but also going for my inventive steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a cutting edge work in tech. Without my step, the system would become a flawed system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I raised my concern to this big company CEO, he forwarded my concern to his lawyer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To quote some of his lawyer words after going through my paper&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We cannot evaluate that claim because your patent application does not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; appear in public searches of the United States Patent Office database,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; possibly because the Patent Office has yet to publish it.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Additionally, any proposed claims in the patent application may change&#xD;&#xA;&gt; during prosecution at the Patent Office or could be rejected&#xD;&#xA;&gt; altogether, so there is no way to know what subject matter in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application may be patentable, if any at all. As a result, we cannot&#xD;&#xA;&gt; evaluate your allegations at present, nor can any product or service&#xD;&#xA;&gt; infringe unissued claims&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The lawyer sounds like he knows they are infringing my work. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They didn't innovate anything on this matter. Not even a single step. But they are gonna release the product in the same year I published my work. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The publication of my patent application might take at least few months even if I go for early publication. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I already disclosed my paper to them, will there be any downside if I show my claims to that lawyer before my patent application publication? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20616" RevisionGUID="1f59218f-0e6b-4e2c-b774-832f0e6f9c84" CreationDate="2019-07-06T19:08:59.743" UserId="3076" Text="The letter from the lawyer is very logical and doesn't at all hint that they believe they are infringing anything. It just says that they can't evaluate your assertion that they are infringing since your application is not visible to the public and that whatever claims you might have in that application have not been granted. Of course, only a granted claim can actually be infringed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They may have very well developed similar innovation to yours on their own and may even have filed their own patent applications. You need an attorney." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20619" RevisionGUID="177d4240-3860-422a-b5f1-dc94adef06fc" CreationDate="2019-07-09T03:51:45.823" UserId="22222" Text="Good day,&#xD;&#xA;I wish to be able to access an up-to-date list ( place, book, website, document etc. ) of all patents that have not expired." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57379" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20619" RevisionGUID="177d4240-3860-422a-b5f1-dc94adef06fc" CreationDate="2019-07-09T03:51:45.823" UserId="22222" Text="Complete list of patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57380" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20619" RevisionGUID="177d4240-3860-422a-b5f1-dc94adef06fc" CreationDate="2019-07-09T03:51:45.823" UserId="22222" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20620" RevisionGUID="da87ca4f-c020-4df0-acee-1fe39cf01607" CreationDate="2019-07-09T06:16:45.313" UserId="6121" Text="I have two independent claims and they have multiple dependent claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a third independent claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can this third independent claim refer to independent claim 1 and 2?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Independent claim 1&#xD;&#xA;        Dependent claim 1 of Independent claim 1&#xD;&#xA;        Dependent claim 2 of Independent claim 1&#xD;&#xA;        Dependent claim n of Independent claim 1&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Independent claim 2&#xD;&#xA;        Dependent claim 1 of Independent claim 2&#xD;&#xA;        Dependent claim 2 of Independent claim 2&#xD;&#xA;        Dependent claim n of Independent claim 2&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Independent claim 3&#xD;&#xA;        Some functionality of claim 3&#xD;&#xA;        Wherein Some functionality of claim 3, contains functionality of Independent claim 1 and Independent claim 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57382" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20620" RevisionGUID="da87ca4f-c020-4df0-acee-1fe39cf01607" CreationDate="2019-07-09T06:16:45.313" UserId="6121" Text="Can an independent claim depends on other independent claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57383" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20620" RevisionGUID="da87ca4f-c020-4df0-acee-1fe39cf01607" CreationDate="2019-07-09T06:16:45.313" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20621" RevisionGUID="828e1b9b-651c-45cc-8355-9ffd5cb212bc" CreationDate="2019-07-09T14:45:17.620" UserId="22086" Text="You probably know this, but for other's education these are called &quot;multiple dependent claims&quot;.  How they are used depends greatly on the national office where you are applying for your patent.  In certain national offices this is okay.  In others it isn't. Each one has their own rules governing how claims need to be drafted, which elements to include / exclude, etc. therefore you should likely find counsel that is aware of the individual office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO offers guidelines for PCT applications [here at 6.4](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e366588) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US there are a few guidelines you may reference. You will again need to check with counsel to check with current rules such as [here at 7.45](https://bitlaw.com/source/mpep/608_01_n.html) it provides examples of acceptable and unacceptable claims for the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **A.Acceptable Multiple Dependent Claim Wording**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 5. A gadget according to claims 3 or 4, further comprising ---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 5. A gadget as in any one of the preceding claims, in which ---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 5. A gadget as in any one of claims 1, 2, and 3, in which ---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 3. A gadget as in either claim 1 or claim 2, further comprising ---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 4. A gadget as in claim 2 or 3, further comprising ---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 16. A gadget as in claims 1, 7, 12, or 15, further comprising ---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 5. A gadget as in any of the preceding claims, in which ---&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Claim 8. A gadget as in one of claims 4-7, in which ---&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 5. A gadget as in any preceding claim, in which ---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 10. A gadget as in any of claims 1-3 or 7-9, in which ---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 11. A gadget as in any one of claims 1, 2, or 7-10 inclusive, in which ---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **B.Unacceptable Multiple Dependent Claim Wording**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; _1.Claim Does Not Refer Back in the Alternative Only_&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 5. A gadget according to claim 3 and 4, further comprising ---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 9. A gadget according to claims 1-3, in which ---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 9. A gadget as in claims 1 or 2 and 7 or 8, which ---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 6. A gadget as in the preceding claims in which ---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 6. A gadget as in claims 1, 2, 3, 4 and/or 5, in which ---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 10. A gadget as in claims 1-3 or 7-9, in which ---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; _2.Claim Does Not Refer to a Preceding Claim_&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 3. A gadget as in any of the following claims, in which ---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 5. A gadget as in either claim 6 or claim 8, in which ---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; _3.Reference to Two Sets of Claims to Different Features_&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 9. A gadget as in claim 1 or 4 made by the process of claims 5, 6, 7, or 8, in which ---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; _4.Reference Back to Another Multiple Dependent Claim_&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 8. A gadget as in claim 5 (claim 5 is a multiple dependent claim) or claim 7, in which --- " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20622" RevisionGUID="ed05c883-a0ac-47b6-b799-1a6ffbb9f074" CreationDate="2019-07-09T15:06:33.253" UserId="22086" Text="You aren't going to find exactly what you're looking for most likely; however, you can get approximately what you want by using [Google Patents](https://patents.google.com/).  You will of course need to understand a few things like the nations you're looking at and the basic patent rules that govern those nations to get to your approximate answer. Here's something to get you started:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will need to look at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - status = granted  &#xD;&#xA; - priority date &lt;= (term of grant depending on the&#xD;&#xA;   nationality, which varies by country)   &#xD;&#xA; - exclude the patents that&#xD;&#xA;   have been abandoned (a lot get abandoned)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What remains should be close to what you are looking for. This likely isn't a 100% complete list, but it will get you 95% there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other options are you can search the individual databases of the patent organizations (example: [USPTO](https://www.uspto.gov/), [EPO](https://www.epo.org/index.html), etc.) They should be able to provide you with more detailed info on the current status of individual patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is purely for academic purposes--just for aggregating numbers, you might use a throw-away keyword like &quot;the&quot; (which virtually every patent will contain).  If you want a dump of the results of these databases, you might try asking them nicely. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20623" RevisionGUID="a305c11e-05ae-403b-8f53-0cf8f5f0c367" CreationDate="2019-07-10T06:37:34.783" UserId="3076" Text="*This is a copy of the answer I posted to the same question on law.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thousands of patents are granted every week. On July 2, 2019 the number was 8,034. Of course there are many patent offices around the world also issuing patents. There are many databases for searching patents including [USPTO patent search][1], [google patents][2], [Espacenet][3], [The LENs][4] and [PatentScope][5]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately there is not an easy way to search for patents that are not yet expired. Patents generally expire 20 years from the effective application filing. There are 4,452,128 issued U.S. patents with application dates after July 1999. However some of them had days of term adjustment added to the 20 years and many more expired due to non-payment of maintenance fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/index.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.lens.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20040" RevisionGUID="8f70a708-6779-4261-8db4-82c50f1c5dff" CreationDate="2019-07-10T07:38:53.657" UserId="21599" Comment="deleted 281 characters in body; edited tags" Text="...........................................&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57388" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="20040" RevisionGUID="8f70a708-6779-4261-8db4-82c50f1c5dff" CreationDate="2019-07-10T07:38:53.657" UserId="21599" Comment="deleted 281 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;testing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57389" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="20040" RevisionGUID="8f70a708-6779-4261-8db4-82c50f1c5dff" CreationDate="2019-07-10T07:38:53.657" UserId="21599" Comment="deleted 281 characters in body; edited tags" Text="testing testing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20040" RevisionGUID="e24b8c32-f3d1-4ed7-84a6-dc4a3970d667" CreationDate="2019-07-10T07:40:13.233" UserId="17737" Comment="don't vandalize your posts, please - restored to previous version" Text="Mpeg-2 patents have now expired in most countries at the beginning of 2018. However, at least Malaysia and Philippines still have active mpeg-2 patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So does anyone know when mpeg-2 patents expire in Malaysia and Philippines ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addition: I've written an mpeg-2 decoder and wondering when I can give it away free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57391" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="20040" RevisionGUID="e24b8c32-f3d1-4ed7-84a6-dc4a3970d667" CreationDate="2019-07-10T07:40:13.233" UserId="17737" Comment="don't vandalize your posts, please - restored to previous version" Text="Mpeg-2 patents in Malaysia and Philippines" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57392" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="20040" RevisionGUID="e24b8c32-f3d1-4ed7-84a6-dc4a3970d667" CreationDate="2019-07-10T07:40:13.233" UserId="17737" Comment="don't vandalize your posts, please - restored to previous version" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;mpeg-2&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57393" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="20040" RevisionGUID="e24b8c32-f3d1-4ed7-84a6-dc4a3970d667" CreationDate="2019-07-10T07:40:13.233" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 21599 edit id of 2109" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20040" RevisionGUID="cd2e568a-6ca6-4310-a2f6-4725ff0b1e58" CreationDate="2019-07-10T07:41:11.547" UserId="21599" Comment="deleted 276 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="..............................................&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57395" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="20040" RevisionGUID="cd2e568a-6ca6-4310-a2f6-4725ff0b1e58" CreationDate="2019-07-10T07:41:11.547" UserId="21599" Comment="deleted 276 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="testing testing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57396" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="20040" RevisionGUID="cd2e568a-6ca6-4310-a2f6-4725ff0b1e58" CreationDate="2019-07-10T07:41:11.547" UserId="21599" Comment="deleted 276 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;testing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57397" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="20040" RevisionGUID="84730807-6db5-41fa-8536-e0649f8e7326" CreationDate="2019-07-10T17:03:30.260" UserId="18033" Comment="Rollback to [8e6d3843-879d-48bf-a342-06b03d79d124]" Text="Mpeg-2 patents have now expired in most countries at the beginning of 2018. However, at least Malaysia and Philippines still have active mpeg-2 patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So does anyone know when mpeg-2 patents expire in Malaysia and Philippines ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addition: I've written an mpeg-2 decoder and wondering when I can give it away free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57398" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="20040" RevisionGUID="84730807-6db5-41fa-8536-e0649f8e7326" CreationDate="2019-07-10T17:03:30.260" UserId="18033" Comment="Rollback to [8e6d3843-879d-48bf-a342-06b03d79d124]" Text="Mpeg-2 patents in Malaysia and Philippines" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57399" PostHistoryTypeId="9" PostId="20040" RevisionGUID="84730807-6db5-41fa-8536-e0649f8e7326" CreationDate="2019-07-10T17:03:30.260" UserId="18033" Comment="Rollback to [8e6d3843-879d-48bf-a342-06b03d79d124]" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;mpeg-2&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20624" RevisionGUID="ba6e2637-d325-451d-aa32-9bf724647183" CreationDate="2019-07-11T01:51:43.333" UserId="3076" Text="The wilikeppa page for MPEG-2 contains the statement about Malaysia and the Philipines. The footnote for the sentence - which is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As of April 1 2019, only Malaysia and the Philippines still have active patents covering MPEG-2. Patents in the rest of the world have expired, with the last US patent expiring February 23, 2018.[30] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;reverences a document &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;MPEG-2 Attachment 1&quot; (PDF). MPEG LA. Archived (PDF) from the original on 29 May 2019. Retrieved 29 May 2019.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a link to that reference below. It seems to be a list of MPEG-2 patents by patent owner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.mpegla.com/wp-content/uploads/m2-att1.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20624" RevisionGUID="74ea3b51-bed9-4e04-b36b-51f1cd57d0f0" CreationDate="2019-07-11T01:57:20.487" UserId="3076" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="The wikipedia page for MPEG-2 contains a statement about Malaysia and the Philippines. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; As of April 1 2019, only Malaysia and the Philippines still have active patents covering MPEG-2. Patents in the rest of the world have expired, with the last US patent expiring February 23, 2018.[30] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that is the basis for the question. The footnote [30] for the sentence&#xD;&#xA;references a document - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;MPEG-2 Attachment 1&quot; (PDF). MPEG LA. Archived (PDF) from the original on 29 May 2019. Retrieved 29 May 2019.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a link to that reference below. It seems to be a list of MPEG-2 patents by patent owner. The first page lists patent numbers in the two countries you asked about. Assuming this is authoritative, you could look up those patents and get an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.mpegla.com/wp-content/uploads/m2-att1.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20624" RevisionGUID="4de4df65-e5d5-44b4-bb1d-9c6e4b8cdc3d" CreationDate="2019-07-11T02:34:14.040" UserId="3076" Comment="added 281 characters in body" Text="The wikipedia page for MPEG-2 contains a statement about Malaysia and the Philippines. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; As of April 1 2019, only Malaysia and the Philippines still have active patents covering MPEG-2. Patents in the rest of the world have expired, with the last US patent expiring February 23, 2018.[30] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that is the basis for the question. The footnote [30] for the sentence&#xD;&#xA;references a document - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;MPEG-2 Attachment 1&quot; (PDF). MPEG LA. Archived (PDF) from the original on 29 May 2019. Retrieved 29 May 2019.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a link to that reference below. It seems to be a list of MPEG-2 patents by patent owner. The first page lists patent numbers in the two countries you asked about. Assuming this is authoritative, you could look up those patents and get an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; July 1, 2019 MPEG-2 Attachment 1 Page 1 of 24&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - GE Technology Development, Inc. MY 118172-A - Expires September 30,&#xD;&#xA;   2019 MY 1289941 MY 141626-A PH 1-1993-47458 - Expires July 17, 2019&#xD;&#xA; - Sony Corporation MY 118444&#xD;&#xA; - Thomson Licensing MY 118734-A PH    1-1995-50216&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.mpegla.com/wp-content/uploads/m2-att1.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20626" RevisionGUID="2acd93d1-75ee-428b-b64f-ef1092bd6fe3" CreationDate="2019-07-12T07:24:47.340" UserId="6121" Text="I still can't able to understand how priority date works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say I filed a provisional patent in Jan 2019. That specification contains nearly 95% of the real invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Jun 2019, I filed one more provisional patent, it adds another 3% of the invention. We are at 98% now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I file a non-provisional in Dec 2019 and it contains, all 100% of the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now when claiming priority, I would obviously go for the Jan 2019 date. But what happens to the 3% content disclosed in Jun 2019 and 2% content disclosed in Dec 2019. Just to be clear, these 5% of the content will be claimed in claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do they all have Jan 2019 date as priority? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57409" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20626" RevisionGUID="2acd93d1-75ee-428b-b64f-ef1092bd6fe3" CreationDate="2019-07-12T07:24:47.340" UserId="6121" Text="How exactly patent priority date works when multiple priority dates claimed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57410" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20626" RevisionGUID="2acd93d1-75ee-428b-b64f-ef1092bd6fe3" CreationDate="2019-07-12T07:24:47.340" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;priority&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20627" RevisionGUID="64e948b9-0ec4-4cc9-ae2e-a87aace31fb5" CreationDate="2019-07-12T17:44:17.593" UserId="3076" Text="In the first sentence of the non-provisional you claim priority to both of the provisionals. During the prosection of the application and any divisionals or continuations you will have specific claims that will, most probably, meet with rejections based on &quot;prior art&quot; cited by the examiner. The examiner initially views anything prior to your **non-provisional** filing date as legitimate prior art. Say one of the references was dated after one of your provisionals. This is when it becomes relevant that you filed the provisional at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will be your job to show, in your response to the rejection, that the relevant information/teaching that was contained in the cited reference was sufficiently covered in your provisional. If so, the cited reference is excluded as a  prior art. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20628" RevisionGUID="f921763d-d59f-4dde-838e-163aea26b84e" CreationDate="2019-07-13T16:12:21.790" UserId="6121" Text="My claims looks like this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    A system for X comprising:&#xD;&#xA;          Step 1&#xD;&#xA;          Step 2&#xD;&#xA;          Step 3&#xD;&#xA;          Step 4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone infringing my invention by reordering the steps?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    A system for X comprising:&#xD;&#xA;          Step 1&#xD;&#xA;          Step 3&#xD;&#xA;          Step 2&#xD;&#xA;          Step 4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57413" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20628" RevisionGUID="f921763d-d59f-4dde-838e-163aea26b84e" CreationDate="2019-07-13T16:12:21.790" UserId="6121" Text="Can someone infringe my invention by reordering the steps?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57414" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20628" RevisionGUID="f921763d-d59f-4dde-838e-163aea26b84e" CreationDate="2019-07-13T16:12:21.790" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20629" RevisionGUID="73070c16-d370-424d-bd90-d258622e5806" CreationDate="2019-07-13T18:14:05.203" UserId="18033" Text="It depends if your claims cover only the exact order or any order. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A method of doing steps 1 and 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Covers doing steps 1 and 2 in any order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A method of doing steps 1 and 2 subsequently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doesn't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20627" RevisionGUID="ef6dd3b5-860e-498e-b844-960243de58c3" CreationDate="2019-07-13T20:11:01.947" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="In the first sentence of the non-provisional you claim priority to both of the provisionals. During the prosecution of the application and any divisionals or continuations you will have specific claims that will, most probably, meet with rejections based on &quot;prior art&quot; cited by the examiner. The examiner initially views anything prior to your **non-provisional** filing date as legitimate prior art. Say one of the references was dated after one of your provisionals. This is when it becomes relevant that you filed the provisional at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will be your job to show, in your response to the rejection, that the relevant information/teaching that was contained in the cited reference was sufficiently covered in your provisional. If so, the cited reference is excluded as a  prior art. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20630" RevisionGUID="4cd9ee73-22c4-4762-862e-09ddf83a0720" CreationDate="2019-07-13T22:14:02.720" UserId="22237" Text="Can I change the patent name on my non provisional patent that is claiming the date from the associated provisional application if the new name is no longer the same as the name I used on the provisional?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57418" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20630" RevisionGUID="4cd9ee73-22c4-4762-862e-09ddf83a0720" CreationDate="2019-07-13T22:14:02.720" UserId="22237" Text="changing patent name on non provisional patent [that is claiming date from provisional application]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57419" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20630" RevisionGUID="4cd9ee73-22c4-4762-862e-09ddf83a0720" CreationDate="2019-07-13T22:14:02.720" UserId="22237" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;non-provisional&gt;&lt;name&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20631" RevisionGUID="a921b82b-3500-4466-8df2-8d3f24c723bf" CreationDate="2019-07-14T12:53:39.250" UserId="6121" Text="I found a prior art which contains the base part of my invention. It's a granted patent published 5 years back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My patent claims will be narrow to avoid rejection.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can this patent owner, apply for re-examination and claim the unclaimed parts after seeing my invention? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57421" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20631" RevisionGUID="a921b82b-3500-4466-8df2-8d3f24c723bf" CreationDate="2019-07-14T12:53:39.250" UserId="6121" Text="Can a patent owner add more claims by requesting re-examination?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57422" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20631" RevisionGUID="a921b82b-3500-4466-8df2-8d3f24c723bf" CreationDate="2019-07-14T12:53:39.250" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;reexamination&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20633" RevisionGUID="bf8140ef-a850-4059-8b9b-91ba98df0532" CreationDate="2019-07-14T16:07:43.983" UserId="22238" Text="I am a co-inventor in a filled patent. I want to properly mark this in my CV. As far as I can understand the concept correctly, first of all, since I am one of number of inventors I am a &quot;co-inventor&quot;. Does that also makes me a &quot;patent owner&quot;? Also should I write the date it is filled AND the date it is granted/issued (is granted or issued the correct term)? I need to add the number of the patent when it is issued/granted right? Also the country, which in my case is France? Searched the Internet for a correct template but there got confused. Thanks for the clarification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57426" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20633" RevisionGUID="bf8140ef-a850-4059-8b9b-91ba98df0532" CreationDate="2019-07-14T16:07:43.983" UserId="22238" Text="What is the best way to add co-inventor item in your CV" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57427" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20633" RevisionGUID="bf8140ef-a850-4059-8b9b-91ba98df0532" CreationDate="2019-07-14T16:07:43.983" UserId="22238" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;granted&gt;&lt;curriculum&gt;&lt;cv&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20634" RevisionGUID="520b6498-a343-4e22-970e-c02f9952085b" CreationDate="2019-07-14T21:39:54.047" UserId="17003" Text="I have listed patents that I'm an inventor of on my CV. Unlike academic publications, I don't think there is specific format you need to follow. You don't need to state you are a co-inventor, just state you are listed as an inventor. List the patent number. If the patent hasn't issued, but an application has published, you can list the publication number. This makes it possible for the person reading the patent to look up the patent or application. If they bother to do this, they will see the other inventors and the application date. I list just the patent number and title on my CV. There is nothing keeping your from listing the co-inventors too, but since space on a CV is often tight, it isn't necessary. I suppose if the application hasn't published you might list a date, but I haven't. It is very common for the same invention to be filed for a patent in multiple countries. You could list each separately, but I only list one in the patent family (generally the US patent). For me this is in the interest of saving space. An example of what my CV looks like is the following.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; U.S. Patents Granted (World and European equivalents not listed.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    9,222,886: Quantitating high titer samples by digital PCR  &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    8,409,528: Apparatus and Method for Handling Fluids for Analysis  &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;       ...etc...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being an inventor and a patent owner are two different things. I have many patents I'm listed as an inventor on, but I'm the owner of none of them. In every case, the company that employed me is the owner (assignee) of the patent. This is the normal situation for patents that come about as a result of working for a commercial company." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20635" RevisionGUID="045bedbc-9d71-4e37-9706-21aa08336061" CreationDate="2019-07-14T21:53:31.177" UserId="17003" Text="I'm not a lawyer, and the facts of any particular case are determined by its specifics. Thus, you won't get a definitive answer here since you can't disclose your invention. That said, I have a few comments on your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your invention is something new, then it isn't mentioned in the previous patent. They can't just add new claims that aren't supported by the body of the patent. Thus, I think it highly unlikely that the owners of the granted patent could somehow get their patent re-examined (or file a continuation) and extended after seeing your invention. You product (and patent if you obtained one) in this case would be prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I should point out is that if the previous patent contains the basics of your invention and you are merely improving upon it, it is very possible that you could receive a patent for your improvement, but not be able to sell the product it since it might still infringe on the previous patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said, you can't post the specifics of your invention before filing so there is no way to answer your question definitively. Thus, the only prudent action would be for you to actually consult with a patent attorney who could guide you to no only patentability of your idea, but also whether you will have freedom to operate. Again, I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20635" RevisionGUID="559c0ae0-9517-49e2-8615-c19a9e76835a" CreationDate="2019-07-15T01:04:36.793" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I'm not a lawyer, and the facts of any particular case are determined by its specifics. Thus, you won't get a definitive answer here since you can't disclose your invention. That said, I have a few comments on your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your invention is something new, then it isn't mentioned in the previous patent. They can't just add new claims that aren't supported by the body of the patent. Thus, I think it highly unlikely that the owners of the granted patent could somehow get their patent re-examined (or file a continuation) and extended after seeing your invention. You product (and patent if you obtained one) in this case would be prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I should point out is that if the previous patent contains the basics of your invention and you are merely improving upon it, it is very possible that you could receive a patent for your improvement, but not be able to sell the product it since it might still infringe on the previous patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said, you can't post the specifics of your invention before filing so there is no way to answer your question definitively. Thus, the only prudent action would be for you to actually consult with a patent attorney who could guide you to not only patentability of your idea, but also whether you will have freedom to operate. Again, I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20636" RevisionGUID="24829007-c1b7-48e1-87a4-74c5b6b396d4" CreationDate="2019-07-15T05:38:55.690" UserId="1085" Text="The first thing to do is understand what the terms mean. It is okay to call yourself a &quot;co-inventor&quot; on a patent application, just be sure you call a patent application an &quot;application&quot;. You also need to understand that a patent application does not mean a patent will ever issue. It can take a few successful patents before you understand if you're likely to be successful or not, but the good news is that so few people ever have applications submitted that just getting that far looks good on your CV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't have to list the owner on your CV. A patent demonstrates technical prowess and is your intellectual accomplishment. It may be obvious from the filing date who is the owner (&quot;assignee&quot;), but again -- this is your intellectual accomplishment, you do not have to list the employer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The format I use is to have a section which typically has a heading like &quot;Relevant Patents&quot; or &quot;Relevant Patents and Applications&quot;. I have a lot. I pick and choose which ones I put on my CV. I didn't look up the portfolio of the other respondent, but I've also use that format when I had fewer -- &quot;Patents Granted&quot;. The other respondent may just be listing a few of theirs as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this sounds like &quot;it depends on how many patents you have and what else you can put on your CV&quot;, that would be correct. When I only had 2 or 3 patents, I merged my patents with publications. Then I had more patents and publications and made separate sections. Then I had a ton of patents, some publications and conference presentations I hated, and I became selective. You will want to look at how much different kinds of material you have. Three sections for &quot;Patents&quot;, &quot;Publications&quot; and &quot;Conference Presentations&quot;, where each section has one entry looks really sad on a CV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I interview someone who lists &quot;Patents&quot;, I make sure the patents were actually issued, and I read the patent or application. Make sure you provide enough information -- title of the patent application, application or patent number, country where filed or issued. Your interviewer will likely want to see what it is you and your co-inventors came up with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best of luck with the patent application!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20637" RevisionGUID="770ba536-b684-400a-9c9f-891bf086c405" CreationDate="2019-07-15T05:55:15.133" UserId="1085" Text="So long as the new title meets the requirements for patent titles, there should be no problem. Keep in mind that suggested changes to the title may be made to you, so it is already possible that the title will change after your non-provisional has been reviewed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The title -- name -- of the invention isn't the invention, it is a clear and concise description of what the invention is or does. The &quot;old&quot; and &quot;new&quot; titles should both be kinda close because the non-provisional must make claims related to what was claimed in the provisional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20637" RevisionGUID="af62462c-ae96-47f3-bd0b-f9640d6ed978" CreationDate="2019-07-15T14:38:19.357" UserId="1085" Comment="Eric was kind enough to correct my imprecision." Text="So long as the new title meets the requirements for patent titles, there should be no problem. Keep in mind that suggested changes to the title may be made to you, so it is already possible that the title will change after your non-provisional has been reviewed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The title -- name -- of the invention isn't the invention, it is a clear and concise description of what the invention is or does. The &quot;old&quot; and &quot;new&quot; titles should both be kinda close because the non-provisional must make claims related to what was described in the provisional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20633" RevisionGUID="88fdc912-ce9a-4a0d-a415-073a482a9838" CreationDate="2019-07-15T21:07:50.203" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed minor misspelling" Text="I am a co-inventor in a filed patent. I want to properly mark this in my CV. As far as I can understand the concept correctly, first of all, since I am one of number of inventors I am a &quot;co-inventor&quot;. Does that also makes me a &quot;patent owner&quot;? Also should I write the date it is filled AND the date it is granted/issued (is granted or issued the correct term)? I need to add the number of the patent when it is issued/granted right? Also the country, which in my case is France? Searched the Internet for a correct template but there got confused. Thanks for the clarification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20642" RevisionGUID="db8ab3c9-d0f4-442f-bc84-f03147d2f84c" CreationDate="2019-07-16T16:29:02.383" UserId="22243" Text="As in the title, if an examiner rejects claims 1 and 2, with claim 2 being dependent on claim 1, would amending only claim 1 be fully responsive to the office action?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1: A Z comprising of Y | Rejected for being anticipated Z comprised of Y.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 2: A Z according to claim 1, further comprising X | Rejected for being anticipated Z comprised of Y and X.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would amending claim 1 to read: &quot;A Z comprising of Y and W&quot; be sufficient to respond to the office action?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57448" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20642" RevisionGUID="db8ab3c9-d0f4-442f-bc84-f03147d2f84c" CreationDate="2019-07-16T16:29:02.383" UserId="22243" Text="Is amending an independent claim in an amendment fully responsive to dependent claim rejections?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57449" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20642" RevisionGUID="db8ab3c9-d0f4-442f-bc84-f03147d2f84c" CreationDate="2019-07-16T16:29:02.383" UserId="22243" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20643" RevisionGUID="9fcfd76f-3a0e-4882-b9bf-d847bef6e6fc" CreationDate="2019-07-16T17:02:39.307" UserId="18033" Text="Yes, claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 meaning it contains all limitations of claim 1 and was therefore also amended by W." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20633" RevisionGUID="bd659037-2745-436c-b3d2-7d0812abe051" CreationDate="2019-07-17T08:05:51.677" UserId="22238" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I am a co-inventor in a filed patent. I want to properly mark this in my CV. As far as I can understand the concept correctly, first of all, since I am one of number of inventors I am a &quot;co-inventor&quot;. Does that also makes me a &quot;patent owner&quot;? Also should I write the date it is filed AND the date it is granted/issued (is granted or issued the correct term)? I need to add the number of the patent when it is issued/granted right? Also the country, which in my case is France? Searched the Internet for a correct template but there got confused. Thanks for the clarification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57452" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19973" RevisionGUID="8f5de7a0-99f8-46c4-970d-cd5c6a1373f1" CreationDate="2019-07-17T12:01:16.110" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20644" RevisionGUID="ee795712-aed0-4065-8ef2-42d96b213e76" CreationDate="2019-07-17T21:58:57.350" UserId="4013" Text="I am getting the error &quot;The attached PDF file is not a PDF file. Please remove file, create PDF and reattach.&quot; for the SB0016 - provisional patent PDF form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I downloaded the file from their own server here: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0016.pdf and then saved it to my mac - filled it out using the default mac osx program preview and get this error when uploading their file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am uploading to their 'unregistered' website here: https://efs.uspto.gov/EFSWebUIUnregistered/EFSWebUnregistered?ActionString=go&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I get this error when uploading a completely blank and unedited version of their own PDF, and I get this error when I try to edit their PDF before uploading it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;does anyone know how to deal with this?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57455" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20644" RevisionGUID="ee795712-aed0-4065-8ef2-42d96b213e76" CreationDate="2019-07-17T21:58:57.350" UserId="4013" Text="&quot;The attached PDF file is not a PDF file. Please remove file, create PDF and reattach.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57456" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20644" RevisionGUID="ee795712-aed0-4065-8ef2-42d96b213e76" CreationDate="2019-07-17T21:58:57.350" UserId="4013" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;pdf&gt;&lt;sb0016&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20645" RevisionGUID="b520bee3-e796-4011-adae-0c5970786af1" CreationDate="2019-07-18T07:08:30.080" UserId="15192" Text="[This article states:][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The estimated cost for a small business entity to file for a patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and maintain the patent with the associated fees for the long term can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; range from $220,000 to $440,000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this realistic, and if so, what does this estimate include?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.upcounsel.com/patent-maintenance-fees" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57458" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20645" RevisionGUID="b520bee3-e796-4011-adae-0c5970786af1" CreationDate="2019-07-18T07:08:30.080" UserId="15192" Text="Cost of filing and maintaining a US patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57459" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20645" RevisionGUID="b520bee3-e796-4011-adae-0c5970786af1" CreationDate="2019-07-18T07:08:30.080" UserId="15192" Text="&lt;united-states&gt;&lt;cost&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20646" RevisionGUID="81aedf88-1667-4778-bfcb-7a2520d470e4" CreationDate="2019-07-18T08:30:34.720" UserId="6121" Text="Can an independent claim can have only one non-obvious inventive step?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;         Obvious step&#xD;&#xA;         Inventive step&#xD;&#xA;         Obvious step&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can it be like this to make it broad?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    A system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;         Inventive step&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57461" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20646" RevisionGUID="81aedf88-1667-4778-bfcb-7a2520d470e4" CreationDate="2019-07-18T08:30:34.720" UserId="6121" Text="What is the minimum inventive steps required in an independent claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57462" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20646" RevisionGUID="81aedf88-1667-4778-bfcb-7a2520d470e4" CreationDate="2019-07-18T08:30:34.720" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57463" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="20646" RevisionGUID="2ef0a068-02a5-4587-bdba-b5497bc9fe77" CreationDate="2019-07-18T09:03:53.710" UserId="6121" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the minimum number of step required in an independent claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20647" RevisionGUID="55600d1a-d431-4eb7-806d-341d5f0e64d3" CreationDate="2019-07-18T11:06:58.347" UserId="22249" Text="Can an exiting inventor get a design patent to protect their design if there is already an issued Utility Patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, do you cite the Utility Patent in the Design Patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you,&#xD;&#xA;EZ&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57465" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20647" RevisionGUID="55600d1a-d431-4eb7-806d-341d5f0e64d3" CreationDate="2019-07-18T11:06:58.347" UserId="22249" Text="Design Patent for existing Utility Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57466" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20647" RevisionGUID="55600d1a-d431-4eb7-806d-341d5f0e64d3" CreationDate="2019-07-18T11:06:58.347" UserId="22249" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57467" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="6440d144-ef42-4362-a15d-13355d6813cb" CreationDate="2019-07-18T15:00:06.973" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20647" RevisionGUID="8329cb7b-23cb-49d0-8895-64e5e1aca5e2" CreationDate="2019-07-18T17:33:23.030" UserId="22249" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Can an existing inventor get a design patent to protect their design if there is already an issued Utility Patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US Based patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, do you cite the Utility Patent in the Design Patent application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you,&#xD;&#xA;EZ&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20648" RevisionGUID="24d99153-a1a9-409e-9069-46d143ca6187" CreationDate="2019-07-18T17:52:48.717" UserId="21812" Text="In the context that the upcounsel article was written -- for the lifetime fees of ONE patent filing in (presumably) ONE jurisdiction -- the stated fees are **ABSOLUTELY NOT** realistic. Even the low end of $220,000 would be insanely expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happened was that the author of this upcounsel article went online and found a reference that stated &quot;$220,000 to $440,000&quot; for patent work without understanding the context of the information -- i.e., that these costs are for filing in the **USA and 9 other countries**. That's a lot of jurisdictions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[See the original reference that][1] suggested $220,000 to $440,000 to file and maintain patents in 10 countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would estimate that $20k to $35k total is a more reasonable estimate for the USA. If you multiple this by 10 (and add extra fees due to foreign jurisdiction), you'll actually get back to around the original figure. But again, this is for 10 countries.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ipstrategy.com/2014/07/14/best-practice-processes-for-patent-maintenance-fee-payment-decisions/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20648" RevisionGUID="c7a41e79-00a8-4860-8d91-c664aa3e67ba" CreationDate="2019-07-18T18:00:41.567" UserId="21812" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="In the context that the upcounsel article was written -- for the all-in cost of filing and maintaining ONE patent filing in (presumably) ONE jurisdiction -- the stated fees are **ABSOLUTELY NOT** realistic. Even the low end of $220,000 would be insanely expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happened was that the author of this upcounsel article went online and found a reference that stated &quot;$220,000 to $440,000&quot; for patent work without understanding the context of the information -- i.e., that these costs are for filing in the **USA and 9 other countries**. That's a lot of jurisdictions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[See the original reference that][1] suggested $220,000 to $440,000 to file and maintain patents in 10 countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would estimate that $20k to $35k total is a more reasonable estimate for the USA (all attorney's fees, USPTO fees). If you multiple this by 10 (and add extra costs due to foreign jurisdiction), you'll actually get back to around the original figure. But again, this is for 10 countries.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ipstrategy.com/2014/07/14/best-practice-processes-for-patent-maintenance-fee-payment-decisions/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20648" RevisionGUID="ac97ac2d-1f24-480f-9d5c-fbeeef80f825" CreationDate="2019-07-18T18:09:42.940" UserId="21812" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="In the context that the upcounsel article was written -- for the all-in cost of filing and maintaining ONE patent filing in (presumably) ONE jurisdiction -- the stated fees are **ABSOLUTELY NOT** realistic. Even the low end of $220,000 would be insanely expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happened was that the author of this upcounsel article went online and found a reference that stated &quot;$220,000 to $440,000&quot; for patent work without understanding the context of the information -- i.e., that these costs are for filing in the **USA and 9 other countries**. That's a lot of jurisdictions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[See the original reference that][1] suggested $220,000 to $440,000 to file and maintain patents in 10 countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would estimate that $20k to $35k total is a more reasonable estimate for small entity filing in the USA (all attorney's fees, USPTO fees). If you multiply this by 10 (and add extra costs due to foreign jurisdictions), you'll actually get back to around the original figure. But again, this is for 10 countries.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ipstrategy.com/2014/07/14/best-practice-processes-for-patent-maintenance-fee-payment-decisions/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20650" RevisionGUID="ce84b8ac-9585-4210-a4fa-b0f91361d08a" CreationDate="2019-07-18T19:35:45.237" UserId="3076" Text="You can theoretically get a design patent on something that also has a utility patent with a big if. I is if the design was **not** disclosed in the utility patent application and has not yet (or within the &quot;grace&quot; period) been otherwise disclosed. A fundament requirement of any and all patent applications is that they be for something new. If the shape you want to protect is seen in a patent that issued &quot;some time ago&quot;, then the design is no longer new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the specific shape is not seen in the patent or the published application or **anywhere else** (within the grace period and the definition of prior art) then you are free to apply for a design patent  - that will have no actual relationship with the utility patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other issues between utility and design patents for the same product that are interesting but do not apply to your case if either (a) it is open and shut that your design has long ago been exposed or (b) open and shut that the design is actually new." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20648" RevisionGUID="9435f32f-282f-48c2-ba08-c6c6d4748312" CreationDate="2019-07-18T21:32:49.510" UserId="21812" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="In the context that the upcounsel article was written -- for the all-in cost of filing one application and then paying off maintenance fees to expiration for ONE patent in (presumably) ONE jurisdiction -- the stated fees are **ABSOLUTELY NOT** realistic. Even the low end of $220,000 would be insanely expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happened was that the author of this upcounsel article went online and found a reference that stated &quot;$220,000 to $440,000&quot; for patent work without understanding the context of the information that these costs are for filing in the **USA and 9 other countries**. That's a lot of jurisdictions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[See the original reference that][1] suggested $220,000 to $440,000 to file and maintain patents in 10 countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would estimate that $20k to $35k total is a more reasonable estimate for all-in cost for a small entity filing in the USA (all attorney's fees, USPTO fees to expiration). If you multiply this by 10 (and add extra costs due to foreign jurisdictions), you'll actually get back to around the original figure. But again, this is for 10 countries.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ipstrategy.com/2014/07/14/best-practice-processes-for-patent-maintenance-fee-payment-decisions/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20648" RevisionGUID="d8357f5b-a1fe-4c8b-962f-8e859b9af6fa" CreationDate="2019-07-18T21:43:50.377" UserId="21812" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="In the context that the upcounsel article was written -- for the all-in cost of filing, prosecuting one application and then paying off maintenance fees to expiration for ONE patent in (presumably) ONE jurisdiction -- the stated fees are **ABSOLUTELY NOT** realistic. Even the low end of $220,000 would be insanely expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happened was that the author of this upcounsel article went online and found a reference that stated &quot;$220,000 to $440,000&quot; for patent work without understanding the context of the information that these costs are for filing in the **USA and 9 other countries**. That's a lot of jurisdictions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[See the original reference that][1] suggested $220,000 to $440,000 to file and maintain patents in 10 countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would estimate that $20k to $35k total is a more reasonable estimate for all-in cost for a small entity filing in the USA (all attorney's fees, USPTO fees to expiration). If you multiply this by 10 (and add extra costs due to foreign jurisdictions), you'll actually get back to around the original figure. But again, this is for 10 countries.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ipstrategy.com/2014/07/14/best-practice-processes-for-patent-maintenance-fee-payment-decisions/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20651" RevisionGUID="00b0b4fc-46d8-46bb-a6db-0c781562da67" CreationDate="2019-07-18T22:03:19.660" UserId="3076" Text="Technically yes, as long as it is not a functionally defined step. A functionally defined step is covered in section 112(f) and explained [here][1] in the MPEP. In a functionally defined element the actions of the step are not in the claim by the result is in the step. Section 112(f) says that this is ok (with multiple steps) and it covers the actions mentioned in the specification that the specification says result in the result of the claim. Below is the explanation of the problem with a single means claim. (&quot;step&quot; is the wording in a functional method claim rather than &quot;means&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; V. SINGLE MEANS CLAIMS&#xD;&#xA;A single means claim is a claim that recites a means-plus-function limitation as the only limitation of a claim. 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by its terms is limited to “an element in a claim for a combination.” Therefore, single means claims that do not recite a combination cannot invoke section 112(f) or pre-AIA section 112, sixth paragraph. As such, they are not limited to the structure, material or act disclosed in the specification that performs the claimed function. Thus, a single means limitation that is properly construed will cover all means of performing the claimed function. The long-recognized problem with a single means claim is that it covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated result, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 218 USPQ 195 (Fed. Cir. 1983). A claim of such breadth reads on subject matter that is not enabled by the specification, and therefore, should be rejected under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph. See also MPEP § 2164.08(a).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2181.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20651" RevisionGUID="3a4c4c65-cf29-4f66-a286-3d33496a483d" CreationDate="2019-07-18T22:26:51.570" UserId="3076" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="Technically yes, a claim with one step can work - as long as it is not a functionally defined step. A functionally defined step is covered in section 112(f) and explained [here][1] in the MPEP. In a functionally defined element the actions of the step are not in the claim by the result is in the step. Section 112(f) says that this is ok (with multiple steps) and it covers the actions mentioned in the specification that the specification says result in the result of the claim. Below is the explanation of the problem with a single means claim. (&quot;step&quot; is the wording in a functional method claim rather than &quot;means&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; V. SINGLE MEANS CLAIMS&#xD;&#xA;A single means claim is a claim that recites a means-plus-function limitation as the only limitation of a claim. 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by its terms is limited to “an element in a claim for a combination.” Therefore, single means claims that do not recite a combination cannot invoke section 112(f) or pre-AIA section 112, sixth paragraph. As such, they are not limited to the structure, material or act disclosed in the specification that performs the claimed function. Thus, a single means limitation that is properly construed will cover all means of performing the claimed function. The long-recognized problem with a single means claim is that it covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated result, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 218 USPQ 195 (Fed. Cir. 1983). A claim of such breadth reads on subject matter that is not enabled by the specification, and therefore, should be rejected under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph. See also MPEP § 2164.08(a).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2181.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20651" RevisionGUID="e4e3f33d-4af5-4ac4-b23a-d22f190dec3d" CreationDate="2019-07-18T22:32:57.587" UserId="3076" Comment="fix typo and better wording" Text="Technically yes, a claim with one step can work - as long as it is not a functionally defined step. A functionally defined step is covered in section 112(f) and explained [here][1] in the MPEP. In a functionally defined element the actions of the step are not in the claim. Rather, the result is stated in the step. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Section 112(f) says that this is ok (with multiple steps) and it covers the actions mentioned in the specification that the specification says produce the result of the claim. Below is the explanation of the problem with a single means claim. (&quot;step&quot; is the wording in a functional method claim rather than &quot;means&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; V. SINGLE MEANS CLAIMS&#xD;&#xA;A single means claim is a claim that recites a means-plus-function limitation as the only limitation of a claim. 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by its terms is limited to “an element in a claim for a combination.” Therefore, single means claims that do not recite a combination cannot invoke section 112(f) or pre-AIA section 112, sixth paragraph. As such, they are not limited to the structure, material or act disclosed in the specification that performs the claimed function. Thus, a single means limitation that is properly construed will cover all means of performing the claimed function. The long-recognized problem with a single means claim is that it covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated result, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 218 USPQ 195 (Fed. Cir. 1983). A claim of such breadth reads on subject matter that is not enabled by the specification, and therefore, should be rejected under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph. See also MPEP § 2164.08(a).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2181.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20650" RevisionGUID="a090eebc-b3de-4606-a4f0-ad07fadfdd22" CreationDate="2019-07-18T23:06:38.920" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed minor misspelling" Text="You can theoretically get a design patent on something that also has a utility patent with a big if. It is if the design was **not** disclosed in the utility patent application and has not yet (or within the &quot;grace&quot; period) been otherwise disclosed. A fundamental requirement of any and all patent applications is that they be for something new. If the shape you want to protect is seen in a patent that issued &quot;some time ago&quot;, then the design is no longer new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the specific shape is not seen in the patent or the published application or **anywhere else** (within the grace period and the definition of prior art) then you are free to apply for a design patent  - that will have no actual relationship with the utility patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other issues between utility and design patents for the same product that are interesting but do not apply to your case if either (a) it is open and shut that your design has long ago been exposed or (b) open and shut that the design is actually new." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57480" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="16008" RevisionGUID="55a32663-32c6-47e6-b0cb-aa5b3db1966c" CreationDate="2019-07-19T00:45:21.407" UserId="6121" Comment="48" />
  <row Id="57481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20650" RevisionGUID="1ee84626-5cf2-46fb-979a-f662ef0d2842" CreationDate="2019-07-19T01:01:33.590" UserId="3076" Comment="covered case of need to cite on IDS" Text="You can theoretically get a design patent on something that also has a utility patent with a big if. It is if the design was **not** disclosed in the utility patent application and has not yet (or within the &quot;grace&quot; period) been otherwise disclosed. A fundamental requirement of any and all patent applications is that they be for something new. If the shape you want to protect is seen in a patent that issued &quot;some time ago&quot;, then the design is no longer new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the specific shape is not seen in the patent or the published application or **anywhere else** (within the grace period and the definition of prior art) then you are free to apply for a design patent  - that will have no actual relationship with the utility patent. *So there is no relevance to the utility patent and no reason to think about claiming priority to it.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other issues between utility and design patents for the same product that are interesting but do not apply to your case if either (a) it is open and shut that your design has long ago been exposed or (b) open and shut that the design is actually new. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDITED &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One other case is that the patent application has a drawing that might be viewed as making your full design non-novel or obvious. Again, assuming the design has not otherwise been made public, you cite the patent on an Information Disclosure Statement form in order to fulfill the requirement to make the examiner aware of anything that might put your application in a bad light." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20650" RevisionGUID="ae092448-edfd-4d0e-a33b-df2868f58c5c" CreationDate="2019-07-19T01:25:44.303" UserId="3076" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="You can theoretically get a design patent on something that also has a utility patent with a big if. It is if the design was **not** disclosed in the utility patent application and has not yet (or within the &quot;grace&quot; period) been otherwise disclosed. A fundamental requirement of any and all patent applications is that they be for something new. If the shape you want to protect is seen in a patent that issued &quot;some time ago&quot;, then the design is no longer new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the specific shape is not seen in the patent or the published application or **anywhere else** (within the grace period and the definition of prior art) then you are free to apply for a design patent  - that will have no actual relationship with the utility patent. *So there is no relevance to the utility patent and no reason to think about claiming priority to it.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other issues between utility and design patents for the same product that are interesting but do not apply to your case if either (a) it is open and shut that your design has long ago been exposed or (b) open and shut that the design is actually new. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDITED &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One other case is that the patent application has a drawing that might be viewed as making your full design non-novel or obvious. Again, assuming the design has not otherwise been made public, you cite the patent on an Information Disclosure Statement form filed with your design patent application in order to fulfill the requirement to make the examiner aware of anything that might put your application in a bad light." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16008" RevisionGUID="fa8e039c-6691-4977-bc4a-90e1915a5506" CreationDate="2019-07-19T04:51:59.570" UserId="3076" Comment="removed the awkward &quot;muddy the legal waters&quot; that was not part of the OP's question" Text="I have a claim similar to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the display of claim 1 wherein the image displayed is modified by at least one of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   1. the image is brightened by increasing the voltage,&#xD;&#xA;  2. the image is brightened by switching to the second polarization,&#xD;&#xA;  3. the image is darkened by reducing the voltage or &#xD;&#xA;  4. the image is darkened by switching to the first polarization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I understand correctly, this &quot;at least one of a, b, or c&quot; structure means it could be a, b, c, ab, ac, bc, or abc (i.e. any combination of a, b and c).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The process should be able to do any combination of 1 and 2 or any combination of 3 and 4 (choosing to do 1 or 2 ways to brighten an image  at the same time or 1 or 2 ways to darken it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact is, at different times you would want to do different things (e.g., in bright daylight you are more likely to want to brighten  and at night you might be more likely to darken).  So the clause was intended to list ways we brighten or darken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**THE QUESTION:** Could an examiner or potential infringer claim that since one of the combinations couldn't work AT THE SAME TIME (in this &quot;any combination of&quot; structure), like 1 and 3, that the claim was invalid because one of the combinations wouldn't work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the answer is &quot;yes&quot;, what's a better approach without paying for a plethora of dependent claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20653" RevisionGUID="81c2e066-728a-495d-abeb-395af904474f" CreationDate="2019-07-19T04:53:36.343" UserId="3076" Text="I think the basic structure you present will work the way you want it to work. In the actual wording of your claim be careful to not mix actions and structures in one claim. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20654" RevisionGUID="9ba87702-3365-48e0-855e-ca88edd7e919" CreationDate="2019-07-20T00:49:59.597" UserId="6121" Text="&#xD;&#xA;    A system, comprises at least one of:&#xD;&#xA;            A&#xD;&#xA;            B&#xD;&#xA;            C&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B becomes invalid after patent get granted and someone proves that in court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Does this make the entire claim invalid or only the B item? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Can A, B and C claim priority to different dates?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57488" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20654" RevisionGUID="9ba87702-3365-48e0-855e-ca88edd7e919" CreationDate="2019-07-20T00:49:59.597" UserId="6121" Text="What happen to a &quot;at least one of&quot; claim when one of the item found to be invalid due to a prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57489" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20654" RevisionGUID="9ba87702-3365-48e0-855e-ca88edd7e919" CreationDate="2019-07-20T00:49:59.597" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57490" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="16008" RevisionGUID="6d0cd7df-eba2-4e8d-92ed-cdf9242d85ba" CreationDate="2019-07-20T01:09:06.790" UserId="6121" Comment="48" />
  <row Id="57491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20655" RevisionGUID="623dd383-0b02-485a-b183-5429c92299bb" CreationDate="2019-07-20T04:54:42.813" UserId="3076" Text="The whole claim will be invalid. You could potentially file for a reexamination and add a claim to just A and C. That is one reason to spend the money on more dependent claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20656" RevisionGUID="091600a1-d5d4-4d4c-b4f3-c4f0091e0224" CreationDate="2019-07-20T09:28:20.090" UserId="22256" Text="i hqve one i found in the woods qround my house where there user to be other houses long qgo... mqde qpril 1936...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20656" RevisionGUID="78157f45-a2c9-43e9-86c4-6ebe88352b6e" CreationDate="2019-07-20T13:19:36.250" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed minor misspellings" Text="I have one I found in the woods around my house where there user to be other houses long ago... made April 1936...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20655" RevisionGUID="edcd3408-d3aa-44b2-8c4b-1522aeff643f" CreationDate="2019-07-20T18:11:27.850" UserId="3076" Comment="added 438 characters in body" Text="The whole claim will be invalid. You could potentially file for a reexamination and add a claim to just A and C. That is one reason to spend the money on more dependent claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you, instead of the &quot;at least one&quot; structure, had separate dependent claims for each element and had multiple priority documents that the application claimed the benefit of, then the individual claims could have different effective priority dates. The effective priority date on a per claim basis is something you would argue for during prosecution when a claim was rejected or would be argued during litigation or before the PTAB." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20659" RevisionGUID="6ba277c8-6379-4651-9295-16a0940ffc5b" CreationDate="2019-07-20T20:48:25.300" UserId="1085" Text="(This is obviously for the benefit of future readers who are wondering how to find ancient products with patent numbers imprinted on them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read the application and I would suggest that you find a sheet metal fabricator in your area and have one fabricated for you. I suspect that some of the smaller parts, other than the strainer itself, can either be salvaged from your existing strainer or readily fabricated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the key advantages of the patent system is that an application must &quot;teach&quot; someone ordinarily skilled in the art how to make the thing. Some of the actual fabrication methods may have changed over the past 80 years, but I believe an ordinarily skilled sheet metal fabricator could easily construct this object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turning now to the present invention, I suspect it stopped being relevant when the garbage disposal come into use. One possible motivation for this particular device was the ability to capture a larger amount of material. The inventor could have devised a device which solved the problems he identified within the application, but instead he devised an improved device which allowed not only operation in any orientation within the drain, but which obviously allowed a larger amount of material to be removed when the strainer itself was lifted out of the drain pipe. Unless you have a reason to retain that particular device, I'd suggest you follow the trail of innovation -- which is why we have the patent system: to foster innovation in the arts and sciences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20660" RevisionGUID="a5ffddbc-bd05-46f0-afe5-223941050824" CreationDate="2019-07-20T21:49:24.487" UserId="1085" Text="Eric's answer is generally correct, except that you used a term in your question and I want to respond to that particular term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent applications, by their very nature, are not &quot;secret&quot;. If Apple had filed an application, there would be nothing &quot;secret&quot;, except during the period of time between when the application is filed and when it is published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a side note, an &quot;idea&quot; isn't patentable. What is patentable is a specific embodiment of that idea. &quot;Ideas&quot; are often the easy part, the hard part is devising a solution to whatever problem the &quot;idea&quot; is attempting to solve. I was once a part of a patent team which authored several dozen applications all of which solved the same problem, based on a single &quot;idea&quot;. So, if your &quot;idea&quot; has multiple implementations, all of which meet the basic patentability tests, your implementation of the &quot;idea&quot; would be patentable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20661" RevisionGUID="a75f5a48-2ea5-4d87-81ce-d32cc75837d3" CreationDate="2019-07-21T16:46:01.753" UserId="6121" Text="My patent specification has around 20 chapters and each chapter has multiple drawings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My drawings are numbered like this. FIG. 1A, FIG. 1B, FIG. 2A etc. i.e. If Chapter 2 has only 2 drawings, then the drawings will have numbers like FIG. 2A and FIG. 2B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I number each unique feature like 202, 204 etc. This kind of numbering works fine when you don't have more than 50 unique features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My chapter 6 has around 20 drawings and more than 50 unique features. So I would like to name the feature numbers like `6A02`, `6A04` etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this accepted or I have to follow some standard for diagram numbers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57504" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20661" RevisionGUID="a75f5a48-2ea5-4d87-81ce-d32cc75837d3" CreationDate="2019-07-21T16:46:01.753" UserId="6121" Text="Can a patent drawing have numbers like 6A02, 6A04 etc?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57505" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20661" RevisionGUID="a75f5a48-2ea5-4d87-81ce-d32cc75837d3" CreationDate="2019-07-21T16:46:01.753" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;specification&gt;&lt;drawing&gt;&lt;patent-drawings&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20661" RevisionGUID="949c4c5b-05d0-4c5d-af25-53615025118f" CreationDate="2019-07-21T18:03:39.747" UserId="6121" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="My patent specification has around 20 chapters and each chapter has multiple drawings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My drawings are numbered like this. FIG. 1A, FIG. 1B, FIG. 2A etc. i.e. If Chapter 2 has only 2 drawings, then the drawings will have numbers like FIG. 2A and FIG. 2B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I have numbered each unique feature like 202, 204 etc. This kind of numbering works fine when you don't have more than 50 unique features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My chapter 6 has around 20 drawings and more than 50 unique features. So I would like to name the feature numbers like `6A02`, `6A04` etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this accepted or I have to follow some standard for diagram numbers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20662" RevisionGUID="74794dca-47c5-4d8e-bba1-11e12be457a9" CreationDate="2019-07-21T20:28:27.627" UserId="3076" Text="The MPEP says reference characters are preferably numerical. Patent applications do not usually have &quot;chapters&quot; and there is no need to invent a convention like that. As mentioned, even numbers let you add a number later without worrying about re-numbering but renumbering would not be needed anyway. There is no requirement that says a reference 500 can't appear on a figure full of references in the 200's. If you have a &quot;2nd embodiment&quot; and want to have all of the reference designators remind the reader of that, feel free to start with 2000 rather than 200." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20662" RevisionGUID="06c05e4d-ab65-452f-897f-790a14098a9f" CreationDate="2019-07-21T21:28:21.413" UserId="3076" Comment="added link and mention that drawings need to be in order" Text="The MPEP says reference characters are preferably numerical. Patent applications do not usually have &quot;chapters&quot; and there is no need to invent a convention like that. As mentioned, even numbers let you add a number later without worrying about re-numbering but renumbering would not be needed anyway. T*hat is not true of drawings - they need to be in order.* There is no requirement that says a reference 500 can't appear on a figure full of references in the 200's. If you have a &quot;2nd embodiment&quot; and want to have all of the reference designators remind the reader of that, feel free to start with 2000 rather than 200. [MPEP on drawings][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1606.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20663" RevisionGUID="6ff32f41-61de-4de6-95a4-89406353bca7" CreationDate="2019-07-21T21:58:31.600" UserId="19232" Text="In a Continuation in Part application, and referring only to those claims from the original application where they, and the specifications they refer to, are remaining unchanged – is there any need to include them in the CIP application? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57510" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20663" RevisionGUID="6ff32f41-61de-4de6-95a4-89406353bca7" CreationDate="2019-07-21T21:58:31.600" UserId="19232" Text="Repeating claims in a CIP that are identical to those in the parent application or granted parent patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57511" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20663" RevisionGUID="6ff32f41-61de-4de6-95a4-89406353bca7" CreationDate="2019-07-21T21:58:31.600" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;claim-construction&gt;&lt;continuation-in-part&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20664" RevisionGUID="f355b34a-ce71-4e17-978d-de737e6c4ea3" CreationDate="2019-07-21T23:28:01.523" UserId="3076" Text="You include the claims you haven't yet claimed and want to claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you didn't care about making claims that are fully supported in the parent, you would not file a CIP, but rather a &quot;new&quot; application with no connection to the previous application. A CIP is not magic, anything not supported in the parent is treated as if the application was not any kind of continuation. Some practitioners recommend never filing a CIP. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One case for a CIP is that you want to both file claims that are fully supported in the parent and also want to file claims on something that would be considered &quot;new matter&quot; relative to the parent, and you do not want to file two separate applications. Another case is when you are not sure if something will be fully supported by the parent but want to preserve the argument either way. Add more support in the spec. of the CIP and you are a slam dunk that the claim is supported as of the day the CIP was filed and a hope that, if needed, a court might be convinced that it deserves the priority date of the parent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20664" RevisionGUID="19d9c806-e91d-4c4b-b3a6-45d92e67040c" CreationDate="2019-07-21T23:42:56.743" UserId="3076" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="You include the claims you haven't yet claimed and want to claim. You *can't* have the same claim word-for-word in more than one patent. It would be double patenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you didn't care about making claims that are fully supported in the parent, you would not file a CIP, but rather a &quot;new&quot; application with no connection to the previous application. A CIP is not magic, anything not supported in the parent is treated as if the application was not any kind of continuation. Some practitioners recommend never filing a CIP. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One case for a CIP is that you want to both file claims that are fully supported in the parent and also want to file claims on something that would be considered &quot;new matter&quot; relative to the parent, and you do not want to file two separate applications. Another case is when you are not sure if something will be fully supported by the parent but want to preserve the argument either way. Add more support in the spec. of the CIP and you are a slam dunk that the claim is supported as of the day the CIP was filed and a hope that, if needed, a court might be convinced that it deserves the priority date of the parent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20653" RevisionGUID="ac3da20f-8d25-4aa3-a2ba-260c776d9750" CreationDate="2019-07-21T23:56:31.377" UserId="3076" Comment="explained the series of comments and the distinction between steps and structure" Text="I think the basic structure you present will work the way you want it to work. In the actual wording of your claim be careful to not mix actions and structures in one claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was an extended series of comments to this answer based on two different understandings of what you are trying to claim. As pointed out originally, you can't mix steps and structural elements in a single claim and your wording was imprecise enough to blur the distinction. If you intend to be reciting steps it would not be logical/allowed to have &quot;at least one of the following steps - turning the light off, turning the light on&quot; since the state after that would not be clear. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are talking about structural features, you *can* say &quot;structured such that at least one of - the window can be latched into an open position and the window can be latched into a closed position.&quot; Of course, it can't be latched open and closed at the same time, but if you are defining what a structure is capable of, it might be capable of one or the other or both states." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57515" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20664" RevisionGUID="04296224-72b1-478b-82f4-a360f7a2255a" CreationDate="2019-07-22T01:07:36.753" UserId="3076" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="You include the claims you haven't yet claimed and want to claim. You *can't* have the same claim word-for-word in more than one patent. It would be double patenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you didn't care about making claims that are fully supported in the parent, you would not file a CIP, but rather a &quot;new&quot; application with no connection to the previous application. A CIP is not magic, anything not supported in the parent is treated as if the application was not any kind of continuation. Some practitioners recommend never filing a CIP. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One case for a CIP is that you want to both file claims that are fully supported in the parent and also want to file claims on something that would be considered &quot;new matter&quot; relative to the parent, and you do not want to file two separate applications. Another case is when you are not sure if something will be deemed fully supported by the parent but want to preserve the argument either way. Add more support in the spec. of the CIP and you are a slam dunk that the claim is supported as of the day the CIP was filed and a hope that, if needed, a court might be convinced that it deserves the priority date of the parent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20665" RevisionGUID="4b8e4b33-b897-4535-9c82-cd9f54544750" CreationDate="2019-07-22T09:45:18.827" UserId="22261" Text="US patent claiming Compound A or its salt (X salt included in laundry list) published after another US application filed as compound A's X salt and gets grant. They do not share common priority and inventors except applicant. Later patent can be challenged or can earlier patent be prior art for later patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57517" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20665" RevisionGUID="4b8e4b33-b897-4535-9c82-cd9f54544750" CreationDate="2019-07-22T09:45:18.827" UserId="22261" Text="Filed earlier, published later" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57518" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20665" RevisionGUID="4b8e4b33-b897-4535-9c82-cd9f54544750" CreationDate="2019-07-22T09:45:18.827" UserId="22261" Text="&lt;prior&gt;&lt;art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20666" RevisionGUID="ea15e7ba-bd9f-4c40-bb4e-d211c59f6668" CreationDate="2019-07-22T13:48:57.473" UserId="17003" Text="It is all about the filing dates. If application A is filed first then application A may be considered prior art for application B even if application B is filed before application A publishes. It doesn't matter whether or not application B was developed independently of patent A. This is true even if the application A never gets granted as a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20664" RevisionGUID="a25834ad-9914-4b0f-9983-5075ed4b7e83" CreationDate="2019-07-22T17:58:34.050" UserId="3076" Comment="added 501 characters in body" Text="You include the claims you haven't yet claimed and want to claim. You *can't* have the same claim word-for-word in more than one patent. It would be double patenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you didn't care about making claims that are fully supported in the parent, you would not file a CIP, but rather a &quot;new&quot; application with no connection to the previous application. A CIP is not magic, anything not supported in the parent is treated as if the application was not any kind of continuation. Some practitioners recommend never filing a CIP. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One case for a CIP is that you want to both file claims that are fully supported in the parent and also want to file claims on something that would be considered &quot;new matter&quot; relative to the parent, and you do not want to file two separate applications. Another case is when you are not sure if something will be deemed fully supported by the parent but want to preserve the argument either way. Add more support in the spec. of the CIP and you are a slam dunk that the claim is supported as of the day the CIP was filed and a hope that, if needed, a court might be convinced that it deserves the priority date of the parent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a CIP you can have, for example, a claim 1 that is entirely supported by the specification on the parent, and different independent claim 4 that is *not* supported by the parent. It would also be possible that an independent claim 1 is fully supported by the parent, but a dependent claim 2 needs the added material of the CIP. Of course, if an independent claim 4 requires the new material (and therefor the new date), any claim dependent on 4 would likewise need to new material/date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20664" RevisionGUID="e03287b6-3e4f-451f-ac07-2e5094898137" CreationDate="2019-07-22T19:40:24.333" UserId="3076" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="You include the claims you haven't yet claimed and want to claim. You *can't* have the same claim word-for-word in more than one patent. It would be double patenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you didn't care about making claims that are fully supported in the parent, you would not file a CIP, but rather a &quot;new&quot; application with no connection to the previous application. A CIP is not magic, anything not supported in the parent is treated as if the application was not any kind of continuation. Some practitioners recommend never filing a CIP. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One case for a CIP is that you want to both file claims that are fully supported in the parent and also want to file claims on something that would be considered &quot;new matter&quot; relative to the parent, and you do not want to file two separate applications. Another case is when you are not sure if something will be deemed fully supported by the parent but want to preserve the argument either way. Add more support in the spec. of the CIP and you are a slam dunk that the claim is supported as of the day the CIP was filed and a hope that, if needed, a court might be convinced that it deserves the priority date of the parent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a CIP you can have, for example, a claim 1 that is entirely supported by the specification of the parent, and a different independent claim 4 that is *not* supported by the parent. It would also be possible that an independent claim 1 is fully supported by the parent, but a dependent claim 2 needs the added material of the CIP. Of course, if an independent claim 4 requires the new material (and therefor the new date), any claim dependent on 4 would likewise need the new material/date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20667" RevisionGUID="c979335a-09fc-4efe-bafb-ef8f39d7faf5" CreationDate="2019-07-22T20:40:08.097" UserId="22262" Text="I recently submitted a provisional patent application but I realized that I accidentally checked a box &quot;Application Data Sheet&quot; on the cover sheet even though I did not include it on my submissions. Will this create any delays or require me to send a new coversheet with a fee?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57523" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20667" RevisionGUID="c979335a-09fc-4efe-bafb-ef8f39d7faf5" CreationDate="2019-07-22T20:40:08.097" UserId="22262" Text="Provisional Patent Application Cover Sheet Error" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57524" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20667" RevisionGUID="c979335a-09fc-4efe-bafb-ef8f39d7faf5" CreationDate="2019-07-22T20:40:08.097" UserId="22262" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20668" RevisionGUID="b76dcc47-1d9a-4a42-b9b8-92f4c38d3979" CreationDate="2019-07-22T23:46:36.010" UserId="3076" Text="You do not need to refile but you should probably file the ADS that you indicated was originally included. There should not be any fee for this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20669" RevisionGUID="0f3ed68b-af08-4f57-b957-42fee8c82ea1" CreationDate="2019-07-23T09:47:36.203" UserId="6121" Text="I have an omnibus specification and I want to split it into multiple patents at a later point. I'm little afraid that accidentally I'll double patent my work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I just need some clarification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have Patent A, B, C. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent A is the main patent. It contains step X and Y.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent B is a derivative patent that relies on Patent A functionality. The steps will look like W, X, Y, Z&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent C also a derivative patent that relies on Patent A functionality. The steps will look like U, X, Y, Z&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since B and C claims contains Patent A claims, does this considered as double-patenting?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57527" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20669" RevisionGUID="0f3ed68b-af08-4f57-b957-42fee8c82ea1" CreationDate="2019-07-23T09:47:36.203" UserId="6121" Text="When exactly patents fall under double-patenting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57528" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20669" RevisionGUID="0f3ed68b-af08-4f57-b957-42fee8c82ea1" CreationDate="2019-07-23T09:47:36.203" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;double-patenting&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20670" RevisionGUID="aaf5a84a-ad67-44b8-a834-6424cc5c862d" CreationDate="2019-07-23T17:23:53.073" UserId="3076" Text="In your example, you say &quot;patents B and C *contain* patent A's claims&quot;. That is not the case in your example. They build upon the information taught in patent A. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue will be whether the claims in B and C are obvious variants from the teachings embodied in the claims of patent A. We can't tell that from &quot;W, X, Y, Z&quot;. If adding step W at the start and adding Z to the end of the steps is not an obvious variant of X, Y there is no double patenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If an examiner asserts that there is a non-statutory double patenting issue, you can argue, amend, or sign a terminal disclaimer. In a terminal disclaimer you get the multiple patents but agree that when one expires they all expire and that they will always be commonly owned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20672" RevisionGUID="f2ab7ba5-7e4c-4fb8-8c21-bf89280ccb7f" CreationDate="2019-07-23T22:22:44.747" UserId="20989" Text="Once the USPTO initiates an Ex-parté re-exam on a patent and the claims are being reviewed. What is the enforceability of the claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would the patent owner dare sue for infringement damages when their patent claims are in question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would happen if the patent emerges with a complete set of narrower claims that absolve the infringer? Would the patent owner be liable for lawyer fees incurred?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57532" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20672" RevisionGUID="f2ab7ba5-7e4c-4fb8-8c21-bf89280ccb7f" CreationDate="2019-07-23T22:22:44.747" UserId="20989" Text="What is the enforceability of claims if a patent is entered into and under going an Ex-Parté Re-Exam?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57533" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20672" RevisionGUID="f2ab7ba5-7e4c-4fb8-8c21-bf89280ccb7f" CreationDate="2019-07-23T22:22:44.747" UserId="20989" Text="&lt;re-exam&gt;&lt;ex-parte&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57534" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18411" RevisionGUID="11063c80-ab8d-44b8-99f5-b3630e6bccd8" CreationDate="2019-07-24T06:01:40.167" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20673" RevisionGUID="d3e8fb9d-e6bb-437f-8a96-9607ed157c97" CreationDate="2019-07-24T15:37:20.533" UserId="22272" Text="I wonder if i can import and sell a product which is patented in another country (China) but sell it in my own land (Netherlands). There are no registrations from it in european lands. I have searched in Google patents, WIPO, uspto.gov . And i can see there are lots of chinese manufacturers selling it and exporting it to other countries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57536" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20673" RevisionGUID="d3e8fb9d-e6bb-437f-8a96-9607ed157c97" CreationDate="2019-07-24T15:37:20.533" UserId="22272" Text="Can i import and sell a product in my country, that is patented and also manufactured from china?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57537" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20673" RevisionGUID="d3e8fb9d-e6bb-437f-8a96-9607ed157c97" CreationDate="2019-07-24T15:37:20.533" UserId="22272" Text="&lt;research&gt;&lt;country&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20674" RevisionGUID="a37197d2-363a-4042-9c1f-f3462cbea1e1" CreationDate="2019-07-24T21:00:35.083" UserId="22274" Text="Question - if the PCT filing date is the first filed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I am filing in other PCT countries and I have 30 months from the priority date -I understand that. But If I want to claim priority to the PCT and file in Argentina or Tawain I only have 12-months to file??&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confused" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20675" RevisionGUID="d9845bbc-6ecd-42a5-8e8a-b540f412c4f5" CreationDate="2019-07-24T22:59:21.237" UserId="22275" Text="i am in process of writing a PPA by myself. to write the detailed description,online resources suggested to look into similar patents to have an idea how to write it. i did find a patent which is very similar to my idea (the major difference is actually one sentence in the independent claim along with how some parts work, this however is a separate discussion). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to write the detailed description, is it ok to use similar sentence structure and how the invention is explained. the description will diverge when the differences will come. can this be a problem for the Non provisional patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57543" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20675" RevisionGUID="d9845bbc-6ecd-42a5-8e8a-b540f412c4f5" CreationDate="2019-07-24T22:59:21.237" UserId="22275" Text="provisional patent description similar to another patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57544" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20675" RevisionGUID="d9845bbc-6ecd-42a5-8e8a-b540f412c4f5" CreationDate="2019-07-24T22:59:21.237" UserId="22275" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;detailed-description&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20676" RevisionGUID="14669e9c-7c5c-494e-b3b5-5a99cb1d830d" CreationDate="2019-07-25T04:52:01.990" UserId="22276" Text="I was frustrated for hours with this question until I found this video.   See the video at 4:19.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8sskI5OzOw" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20679" RevisionGUID="caf1e249-d8c3-4f60-8472-9c6e22531d16" CreationDate="2019-07-25T22:29:59.407" UserId="22086" Text="I'm not offering legal advice in your particular case. In general I find it useful for whomever will be reviewing / writing the final version of the description to have a very clear idea of the invention and how it differs from the &quot;prior art&quot; (the predecessor inventions in an area). This helps both the drafter, counsel, and inventor arise at a clear understanding of what the invention is and isn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To start, it is perfectly acceptable to use a similar application as a general template, even down to sentence structure, so long as one clearly distinguishes the differences of the new invention. This isn't a problem at all (especially with a very early draft). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is concern because one isn't going going to know the background and history of the particular application used as a template. (For example, was the predecessor invention granted? Did it have difficulties with the examiner? Was it drafted carefully enough that it actually is a good template? These are things one won't know.) Furthermore one won't know the weaknesses of a particular application, therefore it is always good advice to seek the guidance of a professional familiar with the art and knowledgeable about the various legal land-mines that lurk in an application so that they can potentially be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another concern may be that the predecessor disclosed or anticipated some feature you relied on, or an examiner isn't able to distinguish the relevant differences between the old / new applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The worst case scenario is that one would complete a description, submit it to the patent office only to discover they included or left out something that hindered their case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are multiple concerns, but if carefully navigated with professional help, it's probably not a bad way to start." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20680" RevisionGUID="91557bc9-7f04-4b7b-af33-da559cc41101" CreationDate="2019-07-25T22:44:49.227" UserId="22086" Text="This is definitely an area where you are going to need to seek professional legal counsel. There are many issues here which will need careful navigation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the invention there may be pending patents which could undermine your business case. Imagine investing large sums of money into a product only to discover that a patent was newly issued in your country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, as China (or other countries) become hubs for manufacturing activity you find out that the primary supplier of this already patented product is purchased by a Chinese company which relocates all operation to their home country, leaving you unable to obtain the product from an alternate supplier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bottom line. You probably need to find your own counsel if you are seriously considering it.  Relying on the work of others, without even knowing the decisions that went into that work, is probably not a wise choice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20681" RevisionGUID="370b6b59-a640-45b0-96c6-b479027de149" CreationDate="2019-07-26T19:12:04.323" UserId="22280" Text="An institutional entity filed a patent application that most likely can't be granted, because it is unworkable. It's tangential to their primary subject, and probably is a placeholder until refined. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few months later an individual (me) filed a much more complex application, significantly different, but with a certain overall similarity. It's workable. In effect, the institution threw together (a) a process with (b) a vehicle for providing it, without recognizing devastating constraints. I use the same process, but with a different vehicle(s), which are in effect the real invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was not aware of the institution's application when I submitted. My application drew a very difficult examiner. He has the lowest approval rate in his unit. After first rejection, I compiled a scientific, technical, and legal response. 2 weeks after examiner received this, I requested an interview. Next day he called me. Said he'd already made a final rejection decision, did I want to talk then or at appointment time? I said appointment time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His final rejection is not posted in the PAIR database, which claims to have a 24 hour delay only. So either he rejected it the same day he called me, after getting my interview application, or he actually hasn't rejected yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given this examiner's approach, I expect I will have to appeal. Since he and I interview in one week, what information is best to obtain? Should I record it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For perspective, over 3 years his unit avg's 155 approvals per examiner. He's approved 8. He's also examined the fewest, 68 compared to average 290. His approval rate: 12%. Unit average: 48%. He works 1/4 of others, approves 1/4 of others. But he's not new. Something's not right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57554" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20681" RevisionGUID="370b6b59-a640-45b0-96c6-b479027de149" CreationDate="2019-07-26T19:12:04.323" UserId="22280" Text="Very Difficult Low Productivity Examiner with Questionable Approach - What Options for Applicant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57555" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20681" RevisionGUID="370b6b59-a640-45b0-96c6-b479027de149" CreationDate="2019-07-26T19:12:04.323" UserId="22280" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;pre-grant&gt;&lt;examiner&gt;&lt;patent-agent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20682" RevisionGUID="395e33f9-5718-46db-8661-62151a45882c" CreationDate="2019-07-26T22:30:56.117" UserId="22282" Text="Hi `Ask Patents` community,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently came across a software product in my industry that I thought was interesting. I decided to look into how their software works and ended up discovering their US Patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a data science blog where I post about topics I'm currently learning and I thought working through their algorithm as a post would be fun. The blog post would step through their algorithm explaining the math and then I would reproduce it in code using an open-source programming language. As I get closer to bringing this post to fruition I am unsure of the legal side of this (as well as the ethical). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the main question is: Is it illegal to reproduce a patented algorithm and share that to the public via a blog?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57557" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20682" RevisionGUID="395e33f9-5718-46db-8661-62151a45882c" CreationDate="2019-07-26T22:30:56.117" UserId="22282" Text="Blog post explaining a patented algorithm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57558" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20682" RevisionGUID="395e33f9-5718-46db-8661-62151a45882c" CreationDate="2019-07-26T22:30:56.117" UserId="22282" Text="&lt;us&gt;&lt;algorithms&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20683" RevisionGUID="6c6a568d-aabb-4c5b-818f-a56f9b7f6dfa" CreationDate="2019-07-27T01:01:22.707" UserId="22283" Text="to establish my credentials, I am a [patent lawyer][1] and am trained as a [patent attorney][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your question you need to look at whether you are simply describing how the patent functions or whether you are actually infringing the patent itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You said you want to reproduce it in code - would that infringe a single independent claim of the patent? If so you are very likely infringing the exclusive rights granted to the patentee. However, some jurisdictions have research exemptions - in some jurisidictions, it is a defence to conduct research - however, you may be doing the research publically and that might mean you cannot rely on the exception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the copyright issue, you would have to look at the law that applies. I am from Australia and we have a review/criticism exception to Copyright infringement. But it is qualified and not all jurisdictions have that exception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://eaglegate.com.au&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://eaglegate.com.au/practice-areas/patents/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20684" RevisionGUID="e751c29a-ceac-4037-a48c-f99d74cdf495" CreationDate="2019-07-27T01:11:12.777" UserId="22283" Text="For credentials, I am a [patent lawyer][1] and am trained as a [patent attorney][2]. But this is not legal advice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would not do it due to strategy. In Australia at least, each claim has its own priority date. If you have added new claims in the complete application then they will have a different priority date than those based on the provisional patent application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may become important later in time if someone applies to invalidate your patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just share the filed complete application - not the provisional application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://eaglegate.com.au&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://eaglegate.com.au/practice-areas/patents/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57562" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20309" RevisionGUID="a078f621-c5a0-458a-9f0a-5cb5fc14d569" CreationDate="2019-07-27T05:02:15.370" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57563" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20588" RevisionGUID="5e2a50ca-9899-4819-9ce9-1cb71e937c91" CreationDate="2019-07-27T14:00:55.127" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20685" RevisionGUID="858e2006-cf06-4193-a15a-cde69f0f4bdd" CreationDate="2019-07-27T16:43:51.217" UserId="3076" Text="A patent allows its owner to control making, selling, offering for sale, importing and **using**. You are not doing the first four things but you may be &quot;using&quot; the invention. The law also covers &quot;indirect&quot; infringement. There are cases where party A does not directly infringe but where they have run into problems for encouraging infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) covers situations where one actively induces the infringement of a patent by encouraging, aiding, or otherwise causing another person or entity to infringe a patent. A potential inducer must actually be aware of the patent and intend for their actions to result in a third party infringing that patent. From Wikipedia -" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20686" RevisionGUID="7a3f4887-8728-40c8-b602-5d5ae6f142ff" CreationDate="2019-07-27T18:01:06.583" UserId="22285" Text="Provide a credit or acknowledgement in the reproduction wouldn't that also work and i thought if the reproduction has any type of &quot;gains&quot; that is where it becomes a liability and dangerously complicated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57566" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20585" RevisionGUID="9435f94b-a833-4467-91fe-e936b5face58" CreationDate="2019-07-27T21:03:20.437" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20687" RevisionGUID="4068d44e-51e4-4c80-981f-ba7fed8dd432" CreationDate="2019-07-28T00:59:20.303" UserId="22283" Text="In Australia, the test of prior art includes common general knowledge and one or more pieces of prior art. We can't normally combine pieces of prior art unless it is logical to do so - referred to as incorrect mosaicing. However, if a patent mentions prior art, then it would be logical to read the documents as one document. Therefore all the pieces of prior art can be combined to use them in an invalidity claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, citing prior art is a very bad idea. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20688" RevisionGUID="4f35ce23-9be6-4e02-be3f-b77c1cf97c7a" CreationDate="2019-07-28T01:40:12.140" UserId="19232" Text="In a CIP application that is essentially an improvement on one's own prior art: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Should specifications review and summarize what the parent patent (or application) does (maybe state that patent's number), then describe how the new specs are different?  &#xD;&#xA; - Or just do the specs as if it's a new application, given that the reference to the parent(s) would be in the &quot;Related Applications&quot; section ending with the  &quot;...incorporated herein by reference in its entirety&quot; statement?&#xD;&#xA; - Or maybe it doesn't matter whether or not such a summary is included?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57569" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20688" RevisionGUID="4f35ce23-9be6-4e02-be3f-b77c1cf97c7a" CreationDate="2019-07-28T01:40:12.140" UserId="19232" Text="Describing your own prior art in specs for a CIP" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57570" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20688" RevisionGUID="4f35ce23-9be6-4e02-be3f-b77c1cf97c7a" CreationDate="2019-07-28T01:40:12.140" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;specification&gt;&lt;continuation-in-part&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20689" RevisionGUID="da3ce714-eaee-4595-a6af-3a1f963698c4" CreationDate="2019-07-28T03:41:08.090" UserId="22283" Text="In my country we can ask for a senior patent examiner to review the matter. I have previously used that as a technique to have the examiner have a realistic viewpoint. Also we have an appeals process whereby we can appeal a decision of the Commissioner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I was you I would hire a patent attorney (or whatever they are called in your country) and have the attorney attend the interview. You need to send a strong message that if yours is not accepted for grant that you are going to take the matter further and that their work will be looked at with a critical eye. That is normally enough to make the examiner take a fair look at it and make sure they are doing everything by the book - because they don't want the criticism later. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20690" RevisionGUID="f50a7310-1379-4840-9678-094b17fbe44b" CreationDate="2019-07-28T03:44:06.300" UserId="22283" Text="You definitely need to take legal advice on this issue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was a Chinese trade mark case that showed that manufacture in China - but only for export from China- was not trade mark infringement in China. Thus the manufacture could continue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to find out if there is a similar patent case that can help you in the same way. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13488" RevisionGUID="e55d00d1-70f7-45b8-b23e-b94f5542fc95" CreationDate="2019-07-29T01:38:44.747" UserId="22283" Comment="Adding other jurisdiction issues" Text="It is not a patent - it is an Application that was filed with US PTO and has now been abandoned. Being abandoned means the invention, if any, disclosed in the application is essentially in public domain and becomes prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Status:	Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Go to USTPO Public PAIR at http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and use the number you provided as the publication Number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if it had been a patent - it is not enforceable in Australia, since it would have been granted in US. Whereas given that it is a not a patent - the disclosure in this Application can be treated as prior art for Aptent Application filed in Australia. I hope that answers your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However if the application was filed and granted in Australia (and is still valid) then yes it is enforceable. Is it valid? Who knows. Just because a home application is abandoned in that jurisdiction - it does not mean that any other applications which derive priority are not enforceable in their own jurisdictions. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57577" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13488" RevisionGUID="e55d00d1-70f7-45b8-b23e-b94f5542fc95" CreationDate="2019-07-29T01:38:44.747" Comment="Proposed by 22283 approved by 18033, -1 edit id of 2111" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57578" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13488" RevisionGUID="64a77722-a031-48d6-bda8-a3b931a57e8a" CreationDate="2019-07-29T01:38:44.747" UserId="17003" Comment="Adding other jurisdiction issues" Text="It is not a patent - it is an Application that was filed with US PTO and has now been abandoned. Being abandoned means the invention, if any, disclosed in the application is essentially in public domain and becomes prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Status:	Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Go to USTPO Public PAIR at http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and use the number you provided as the publication Number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if it had been a patent - it is not enforceable in Australia, since it would have been granted in US. Whereas given that it is a not a patent - the disclosure in this Application can be treated as prior art for Aptent Application filed in Australia. I hope that answers your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However if an equivalent application was filed and granted in Australia (and is still valid) then yes that patent would be enforceable. Is it valid? Who knows. Just because a home application is abandoned in that jurisdiction - it does not mean that any other applications which derive priority are not enforceable in their own jurisdictions. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20693" RevisionGUID="fe023c44-f0a2-453a-a006-a5b59907c2bd" CreationDate="2019-07-30T01:19:04.970" UserId="4013" Text="doing 'file &gt; export as pdf' worked for me (but not 'save as pdf' for some reason)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20694" RevisionGUID="05130e44-e090-48e8-9720-d52985faeb03" CreationDate="2019-07-30T04:15:45.037" UserId="22294" Text="I'll be applying to the undergraduate programs of several US universities this upcoming fall. A chief component of the college application is the extracurricular activities portfolio, of which inventing occupies a large part of for me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To date, I have 4 inventions in varying stages of development, none of which I have disclosed publicly. I intend to research and develop my projects through college and with enough funding, I hope to eventually take them into the world once I get a little older. For now though, I would like to make them (currently all are prototypes) a part of my college applications. However, I do not want to compromise the security of my inventions. I do not have provisional patent applications submitted for any of the inventions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I risk my chances of ever patenting these products by disclosing them in my college application? Would this qualify as prior art? I'm not worried about an admissions officer taking the ideas, I just fear the risks I am not aware of. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A popular thing for STEM applicants now is to include a portfolio of projects for admissions officers to review. I could do so on a private website or file that only the admissions officers with the link could see. Is this advisable or would this also be prior art? To clarify, a portfolio is an external component that I can attach to the application, but is not the official application itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess my question boils down to, are there any consequences of listing (and maybe briefly detailing in a sentence) my unpatented inventions in a college application?&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57587" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20694" RevisionGUID="05130e44-e090-48e8-9720-d52985faeb03" CreationDate="2019-07-30T04:15:45.037" UserId="22294" Text="Risks in mentioning unpainted inventions in a college application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57588" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20694" RevisionGUID="05130e44-e090-48e8-9720-d52985faeb03" CreationDate="2019-07-30T04:15:45.037" UserId="22294" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;college&gt;&lt;patent-portfolio&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57589" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="20694" RevisionGUID="3cbc7d11-5ea7-403c-89bc-bb05bdedbb47" CreationDate="2019-07-30T04:21:53.957" UserId="22294" Comment="fixed title" Text="Risks in mentioning unpatented inventions in a college application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20695" RevisionGUID="eb60bc62-49cf-4ba4-8e7e-60dd73a347ba" CreationDate="2019-07-30T08:28:42.153" UserId="22295" Text="I was presented with a possible invention the way the person presented the product there were many problems. I went away and came up with a design that would work for  his requirement. At no time did he pay for my design work or time. He has know filed for patent under his own name as the designer. Can this happen as I have proof that I designed the product. &#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57591" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20695" RevisionGUID="eb60bc62-49cf-4ba4-8e7e-60dd73a347ba" CreationDate="2019-07-30T08:28:42.153" UserId="22295" Text="Mr David evans Jones" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57592" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20695" RevisionGUID="eb60bc62-49cf-4ba4-8e7e-60dd73a347ba" CreationDate="2019-07-30T08:28:42.153" UserId="22295" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20696" RevisionGUID="af990dd4-98af-452d-8c54-ceb2aebe1a34" CreationDate="2019-07-30T08:43:45.897" UserId="22238" Text="Which is the de facto and most recognizable patent DB in the world? Is it [WIPO's database][1] (the search engine and the interface seem limited) or [Google Patents][2] or maybe anything else? What is the difference between these and do they cover every country in Europe and also the States?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57594" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20696" RevisionGUID="af990dd4-98af-452d-8c54-ceb2aebe1a34" CreationDate="2019-07-30T08:43:45.897" UserId="22238" Text="Which is the best place to search for a filed/issued patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57595" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20696" RevisionGUID="af990dd4-98af-452d-8c54-ceb2aebe1a34" CreationDate="2019-07-30T08:43:45.897" UserId="22238" Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;patent-search&gt;&lt;databases&gt;&lt;google-patents&gt;&lt;wipo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20697" RevisionGUID="f2c2093e-ad73-40a0-816f-225d888b83c8" CreationDate="2019-07-30T09:22:00.057" UserId="22284" Text="I made a video on how to download patents in bulk from google patents https://youtu.be/iltplMR_hOA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20698" RevisionGUID="3515b258-104c-4991-a7a6-5dbdcc4dfd15" CreationDate="2019-07-30T11:55:24.710" UserId="1085" Text="It's possible that he is the legal inventor, depending on the nature of the &quot;problems&quot; which you encountered. It is also possible that he isn't, and that you're the legal inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue is going to be whether or not his &quot;requirements&quot; met the legal definition for an invention and didn't require any additional inventive steps. If the solution to these problems were &quot;obvious to one skilled in the art&quot;, then your solutions weren't inventive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been on both sides of this very issue. In the first instance, one of my earliest granted patents would have required that an engineer with ordinary skill select an appropriate set of components to implement what was disclosed. Nothing &quot;inventive&quot; would have been required, but any physical implementation would have involved tradeoffs. In the second instance, I was implementing a granted patent issued to a co-worker. I had questions about the patent, so I went upstairs and sat down with the inventor. Once I had a better understanding, I went off and implemented what was disclosed. In both of those cases it is possible someone who is unfamiliar with patent law might conclude the inventors weren't actually the inventors, but in both instances the patents were issued to the correct people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible, however, that what this other person &quot;designed&quot; was just an abstract idea and additional inventive steps were needed to overcome problems with the initial &quot;design&quot;. You'd need to describe what you did in more detail here (which is a bad idea -- you could put the patent at risk), or contact an attorney who can help you understand if you should legally be the inventor. A more productive path might be getting that person to list you as a co-inventor and recognize whatever contributions you made -- it's possible you are both inventors in the legal sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20699" RevisionGUID="771d03c7-28a2-4241-82ad-a491f5f35fa3" CreationDate="2019-07-30T13:42:40.690" UserId="17003" Text="Personally, I find problems with Google Patents not finding all the relevant patents when I search. It is, however handy for finding an individual patent quickly. I prefer [The Lens][1] which I find more full featured, especially if you register (free). Ultimately, if you want detailed file histories, there is no substitute for individual country databases like the [US Public Pair][2] for the the US. I find [Espacenet][3] useful for European patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/?locale=en_EP" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20695" RevisionGUID="bbe3f9fd-f46a-4101-a3b1-271f591f2f58" CreationDate="2019-07-30T13:44:19.273" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed minor misspelling" Text="I was presented with a possible invention the way the person presented the product there were many problems. I went away and came up with a design that would work for  his requirement. At no time did he pay for my design work or time. He has now filed for patent under his own name as the designer. Can this happen as I have proof that I designed the product. &#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20695" RevisionGUID="2da609dd-572f-4e6d-98a7-dad133d14a43" CreationDate="2019-07-30T13:50:26.277" UserId="1" Comment="fixed title to describe the question" Text="I was presented with a possible invention the way the person presented the product there were many problems. I went away and came up with a design that would work for his requirement. At no time did he pay for my design work or time. He has now filed for a patent under his own name as the designer. Can this happen as I have proof that I designed the product? &#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57601" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="20695" RevisionGUID="2da609dd-572f-4e6d-98a7-dad133d14a43" CreationDate="2019-07-30T13:50:26.277" UserId="1" Comment="fixed title to describe the question" Text="Can someone patent their product with a solution I designed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20700" RevisionGUID="acd5452d-5b3a-4362-8213-f5a044e7c9fd" CreationDate="2019-07-30T18:49:22.280" UserId="1085" Text="It’s hard to understand the exact nature of your question because a “project” isn’t an “invention”. Also, you don’t have to disclose the “novelty” of an idea or project to express your interests or abilities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let’s say that your invention is a folding paper mutilating spindle, which allows paper to be folded, spindled and mutilated all in a single step. You could describe it as a “paper destroying device useful in securely preparing paper for 3rd party recycling”. If you needed to, you could also explain that your invention “allows the paper processed by my invention to be used in recycling because it doesn’t chop it up into tiny bits.” So, you can disclose projects within describing the inventive steps, which are the key to a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To your next question, do NOT file a provisional unless you have a path to filing a regular patent application. A provisional patent starts the clock ticking and without the means of paying the regular application fees — search, preparation, filing - you lose out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20701" RevisionGUID="733bd6e8-b66b-4f60-bfe5-abb040c51d4f" CreationDate="2019-07-31T10:35:27.713" UserId="6121" Text="I have two USPTO Provisional Applications. I'm about to file a USPTO non-provisional by claiming priority to those two Provisionals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also planning to file a PCT application. The specification, abstract and drawings are the same. But I have more than 100 claims in my PCT application. But only 20 claims in USPTO non-provisional to defer the costs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I have to mention my non-provisional while filing PCT application? i.e. Do I have to claim priority to my newly filed USPTO non-provisional too in PCT?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: I'm not a US national. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57604" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20701" RevisionGUID="733bd6e8-b66b-4f60-bfe5-abb040c51d4f" CreationDate="2019-07-31T10:35:27.713" UserId="6121" Text="What is the proper way to file both USPTO and PCT application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57605" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20701" RevisionGUID="733bd6e8-b66b-4f60-bfe5-abb040c51d4f" CreationDate="2019-07-31T10:35:27.713" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;non-provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20702" RevisionGUID="2947faad-3a36-4b46-bfa3-56c589095700" CreationDate="2019-07-31T14:16:30.723" UserId="17003" Text="To respond to you specific questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do I risk my chances of ever patenting these products by disclosing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; them in my college application? Would this qualify as prior art? I'm&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not worried about an admissions officer taking the ideas, I just fear&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the risks I am not aware of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You must avoid public disclosure. I'm assuming that a college application is considered confidential and would not be publicly disclosed. If so, it would not be prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A popular thing for STEM applicants now is to include a portfolio of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; projects for admissions officers to review. I could do so on a private&#xD;&#xA;&gt; website or file that only the admissions officers with the link could&#xD;&#xA;&gt; see. Is this advisable or would this also be prior art? To clarify, a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; portfolio is an external component that I can attach to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application, but is not the official application itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally wouldn't want to disclose the details of an invention in any way that could potentially become public without the signing of a confidentiality agreement (CDA). I don't see college admissions officers signing one of these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As @Julie in Austin suggests, the best approach is to keep the actual specifics of the invention strictly confidential. I'd recommend describing the general area of application and status of your efforts, but not the details. It is highly unlikely that college admissions staff are capable of assessing the technical merits of your inventions anyways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The comment by @George White is important. The world has pretty much all gone to a first to file system. You take a real risk by not filing applications of having someone file before you. If this happens, you lose out even if you actually invented first. Once you are a student, you may want to talk with your college/universities intellectual property department. They may be able to help you with patent applications. Even if you have to share ownership of the patent, this can be a better deal than losing control of an invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20703" RevisionGUID="6a93ab3e-8295-4e13-98fd-f895198b1967" CreationDate="2019-07-31T15:17:06.703" UserId="21149" Text="I have already filed non-provisional utility patent applications. I need to add more information prior to the USPTO publishing one of them. Basically, I'm going to copy the existing application, and add a good bit of specification and drawings. I'm doing this because I've found new uses for and created better explanations of my inventions.&#xD;&#xA;1. Do I file just a provisional, or a regular utility application?&#xD;&#xA;2. Do I file some form with said application, noting that it is an addition to or expansion of existing applications?&#xD;&#xA;3. Do I file the expanded version with some kind of phrasing such as, &quot;This application is an addendum/expansion/addition to patent application #XXXXXX&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;4. Or is further filing simply treated by the USPTO a whole entire different application? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57608" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20703" RevisionGUID="6a93ab3e-8295-4e13-98fd-f895198b1967" CreationDate="2019-07-31T15:17:06.703" UserId="21149" Text="Filing to expand on already filed utility patent, how do I go about this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57609" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20703" RevisionGUID="6a93ab3e-8295-4e13-98fd-f895198b1967" CreationDate="2019-07-31T15:17:06.703" UserId="21149" Text="&lt;process&gt;&lt;continuation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20705" RevisionGUID="38c16184-ff57-4b40-83aa-d7efdbdca25d" CreationDate="2019-08-01T01:53:41.347" UserId="3076" Text="There are no &quot;addendum&quot; to a patent application. You have a couple of options. One is to file a provisional and later file a non-provisional that could be a CIP to the currect application (also getting priority from the non-provisional) or could just be a new non-provisional. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57616" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20604" RevisionGUID="378ba3bc-f576-4eb0-a52d-d96525e969b5" CreationDate="2019-08-01T07:00:04.300" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57617" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20595" RevisionGUID="ca38db30-e22a-4167-8905-39f384b46c05" CreationDate="2019-08-01T09:02:55.427" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57618" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20326" RevisionGUID="209f9290-8775-4351-a876-5ed64f53e817" CreationDate="2019-08-01T16:00:50.070" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20681" RevisionGUID="c99470d6-d447-49f7-a14e-77129bc9adc3" CreationDate="2019-08-01T17:21:30.010" UserId="22280" Comment="up-to-date" Text="An institutional entity filed a patent application that most likely can't be granted, because it is unworkable. It's tangential to their primary subject, and probably is a placeholder until refined. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few months later an individual (me) filed a much more complex application, significantly different, but with a certain overall similarity. It's workable. In effect, the institution threw together (a) a process with (b) a vehicle for providing it, without recognizing devastating constraints. I use the same process, but with a different vehicle(s), which are in effect the real invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was not aware of the institution's application when I submitted. My application drew a very difficult examiner. He has the lowest approval rate in his unit. After first rejection, I compiled a scientific, technical, and legal response. 2 weeks after examiner received this, I requested an interview. Next day 8am he called me, asked if I wanted to talk then or at appointment time? I said appointment time, in one week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given this examiner's approach, I expect I will have to appeal. Since he and I interview in one week, what information is best to obtain? Should I record it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For perspective, over 3 years his unit avg's 155 approvals per examiner. He's approved 8. He's also examined the fewest, 68 compared to average 290. His approval rate: 12%. Unit average: 48%. He works 1/4 of others, approves 1/4 of others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I reviewed nine art units that are around the examiner's. 129 examiners in them. The examiner of my patent has the lowest approval rating of all 129. Each art unit has a supervisor. My examiner's supervisor has the lowest of any. Perhaps it's ideological." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57620" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20329" RevisionGUID="9ce57675-21c9-411f-b29b-252ff6dd1de4" CreationDate="2019-08-01T23:03:00.413" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20707" RevisionGUID="7077375f-8c54-4e8c-b7a6-49df23742c04" CreationDate="2019-08-02T03:56:53.140" UserId="3076" Text="This may be too late for the interview you have scheduled. You can have the examiner's manager present at the interview. I have found this to be very helpful. It can make sense to try to learn enough about the patent system to attempt to prosecute your own patent and hope for an ideal examiner/examination. This has not been your experience and you really do need help from a professional. Not only would your patent attorney or patent agent &quot;attend&quot; the interview, they would lead the interview and very possibly ask you to not participate in the interview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be that you have patentable subject matter disclosed in your application but the submitted claims are not well drafted and the rejection of the current claim wording is warranted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking on the positive side, a &quot;final&quot; rejection is only final until you pay more fees to file an RCE and get another go-around, frequently with amended claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57623" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20143" RevisionGUID="d0a543b4-4202-4329-a33c-7d3c5c63c4c8" CreationDate="2019-08-03T01:01:15.137" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20708" RevisionGUID="11cbb689-24e9-421e-bd76-7ff82726d417" CreationDate="2019-08-03T14:52:42.800" UserId="22308" Text="I have a patent that describes an action that contain a use of digital photograph. There is a company is coping my patent except for the fact she uses live video instead of photos. I can easily prove that video is a sequence of photos because technically video is like many photos..&#xD;&#xA;but the question is-&#xD;&#xA;from legal point of view- can I say that video is like many photos? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57625" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20708" RevisionGUID="11cbb689-24e9-421e-bd76-7ff82726d417" CreationDate="2019-08-03T14:52:42.800" UserId="22308" Text="does the Legal terminology &quot;digital photograph&quot; refer to the Legal terminology &quot;video&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57626" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20708" RevisionGUID="11cbb689-24e9-421e-bd76-7ff82726d417" CreationDate="2019-08-03T14:52:42.800" UserId="22308" Text="&lt;video&gt;&lt;digital&gt;&lt;photo&gt;&lt;live&gt;&lt;sequence&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20711" RevisionGUID="46212901-d93d-4a82-b910-2f6a8e63ccac" CreationDate="2019-08-03T20:57:00.677" UserId="22311" Text="I am curious about this [patent][1] having an active application with WIPO, but expired with the [US][2]. Although I believe this patent is non-novel and infringes upon previous patents, is this patent enforceable in the US? Reading through other posts, apparently this is merely an application with WIPO, but it hasn't been granted yet (and it appears well past the 12 months mentioned). If it was granted, would the WIPO expiration be 2022-07-16 or 2023-07-16?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for the clarification!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2004006658A1/en?oq=WO2004006658A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20080127373A1/en?oq=WO2004006658A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57632" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20711" RevisionGUID="46212901-d93d-4a82-b910-2f6a8e63ccac" CreationDate="2019-08-03T20:57:00.677" UserId="22311" Text="US expired but active WIPO application enforceable in US?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57633" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20711" RevisionGUID="46212901-d93d-4a82-b910-2f6a8e63ccac" CreationDate="2019-08-03T20:57:00.677" UserId="22311" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;expiration&gt;&lt;wipo&gt;&lt;enforcement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57634" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20333" RevisionGUID="23e12bd4-577e-4ae6-9bd8-0da03a681b9d" CreationDate="2019-08-03T23:02:30.370" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20712" RevisionGUID="a8f355f7-e3c8-4fdb-8002-4da66e00f247" CreationDate="2019-08-04T04:47:18.950" UserId="3076" Text="The WIPO does not grant patents, it only serves a mechanism for applications to be filed. As a comment says, only a granted, non-expired U.S. patent is enforceable in the U.S. The U.S. case is an *abandoned* application, not *expired*. Abandoned patents can be revived but it would be very unlikely at this late date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The WIPO PCT application is no longer &quot;active&quot;. Any local extensions of a PCT application into something that could ever issue anywhere would have needed  to enter the national stage long ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A comment on the wording in the question - patents (or patent applications) do not *infringe* other patents, products or actual actions are what can infringe a patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20712" RevisionGUID="610f816d-6fdd-487f-9e4c-e4cd7e26ffb8" CreationDate="2019-08-04T04:57:28.490" UserId="3076" Comment="added 299 characters in body" Text="The WIPO does not grant patents, it only serves a mechanism for applications to be filed. As a comment says, only a granted, non-expired U.S. patent is enforceable in the U.S. The U.S. case is an *abandoned* application, not *expired*. Abandoned patents can be revived but it would be very unlikely at this late date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The WIPO PCT application is no longer &quot;active&quot;. Any local extensions of a PCT application into something that could ever issue anywhere would have needed  to enter the national stage long ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like it was granted in AU&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;2003248072&#xD;&#xA;: Method of constructing caffeineless coffee plant by genetic recombination&#xD;&#xA;Bibliographic data &#xD;&#xA;Specification/e-Register&#xD;&#xA;Lifecycle details&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Blockquot&#xD;&#xA;&gt; e&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Granting date 	2008-05-22 	Granted published date 	2008-06-05&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A comment on the wording in the question - patents (or patent applications) do not *infringe* other patents, products or actual actions are what can infringe a patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20714" RevisionGUID="ea688124-94ce-4b2f-bc51-f6a806f1aed0" CreationDate="2019-08-05T14:08:10.727" UserId="22318" Text="I created an object but never got around to patent it.  I mailed the drawings and all my design ideas to myself to protect the right of later patenting it. I still have that mailing unopened in my safe.  I was shopping recently and I found my idea/object for sale.  Do I have any rights to this object now?  What is my legal recourse?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57644" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20714" RevisionGUID="ea688124-94ce-4b2f-bc51-f6a806f1aed0" CreationDate="2019-08-05T14:08:10.727" UserId="22318" Text="I created an object that I never patented but someone else did I don't know" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57645" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20714" RevisionGUID="ea688124-94ce-4b2f-bc51-f6a806f1aed0" CreationDate="2019-08-05T14:08:10.727" UserId="22318" Text="&lt;law&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;process&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20715" RevisionGUID="c4a78fcd-6b61-4e29-b0b6-e29275a84c3f" CreationDate="2019-08-05T15:10:23.930" UserId="22086" Text="There are a couple of things to understand here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A patent is kind of an exchange between the public and the inventor. The basic legal theory is the inventor agrees to share their very special knowledge with the public (as soon as possible) in exchange for a the public granting a limited 20-year exclusive right to use, market, and sell products and services incorporating that very special knowledge. This is only granted to the first inventor to file/share their work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Sadly, one can't &quot;protect the right of later patenting it&quot;. Patents are quite literally a &quot;race to the office&quot;. A famous case of inventing the telephone became a case about who got to the office first, and why, [first-to-file their invention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_Gray_and_Alexander_Bell_telephone_controversy). Unlike Copyright, which applies generally to works whether or not one has filed the official paperwork or not, patents generally have to be legally filed in order to be considered valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Patents are specific to their [legal claims](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_claim).  Only by examining the *specific* disclosure of the work and its *specific* legal claims would one know for sure whether the idea one had and the product produced are identical. If not one might still be able to patent something. Looking at basic [infringement analysis](https://www.upcounsel.com/patent-infringement) would probably help someone answer most of those questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. One must have a patent before one can claim an infringement.  If one doesn't have one, then they don't get to claim a legal remedy. Ideas aren't legal property.  Inventions become legal property ONLY after they are filed (unless they are trade secrets, which aren't shared with anybody outside of an agreement of confidentiality).  Presently, US patents, and most patents throughout the world, work on a [first to file](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leahy-Smith_America_Invents_Act#First_to_file_and_grace_period) basis, meaning the first person to file gets the legal claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20715" RevisionGUID="ecb920b0-c75a-4c1b-a46a-d1d9d6fd7662" CreationDate="2019-08-05T15:38:53.967" UserId="22086" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="There are a couple of things to understand here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A patent is kind of an exchange between the public and the inventor. The basic legal theory is the inventor agrees to share their very special knowledge with the public (as soon as possible) in exchange for a the public granting a limited 20-year exclusive right to use, market, and sell products and services incorporating that very special knowledge. This is only granted to the first inventor to file/share their work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Sadly, one can't &quot;protect the right of later patenting it&quot;. Patents are quite literally a &quot;race to the office&quot;. A famous case of inventing the telephone became a case about who got to the office first, and why, [first-to-file their invention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_Gray_and_Alexander_Bell_telephone_controversy). Unlike Copyright, which applies generally to works whether or not one has filed the official paperwork or not, patents generally have to be legally filed in order to be considered valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Patents are specific to their [legal claims](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_claim).  Only by examining the *specific* disclosure of the work and its *specific* legal claims would one know for sure whether the idea one had and the product produced are identical. If not one might still be able to patent something. Looking at basic [infringement analysis](https://www.upcounsel.com/patent-infringement) would probably help someone answer most of those questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. One must have a patent before one can claim an infringement.  If one doesn't have one, then they don't get to claim a legal remedy. Ideas aren't legal property.  Inventions become legal property ONLY after they are filed (unless they are trade secrets, which aren't shared with anybody outside of an agreement of confidentiality).  Presently, US patents, and most patents throughout the world, work on a [first to file](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leahy-Smith_America_Invents_Act#First_to_file_and_grace_period) basis, meaning the first person to file gets the legal claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[amended]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do I have any rights to this object now? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is my legal recourse?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably none." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20716" RevisionGUID="395f8f76-7db5-487d-8c53-bcbaae33be8f" CreationDate="2019-08-05T22:59:34.027" UserId="3076" Text="**No and none. And mailing something to yourself was never worth anything.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the previous U.S. patent law (anything filed before that portion of the AIA took effect in March 16, 2013), one could win a dispute with someone who filed earlier than you filed by showing you conceived of the invention before the other person and diligently went about reducing it to practice. This was called an inference proceeding. Many things could be used as evidence, but an &quot;unopened&quot; envelope you mailed to yourself was treated exactly as an unsubstantiated assertion by the inventor, meaning it was of no evidentiary value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course you never filed anything so, even under the old patent rules, you had no priority to fight over. We are now a first-to-file country but due to the strange 1 year grace period of the AIA you could also think of it as first to publish, as long as you filed within a year and didn't go beyond the publication. You didn't file or publish or even effectively establish a date of conception." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20717" RevisionGUID="99ad8cff-32d3-4df4-8fe6-5efd3015093c" CreationDate="2019-08-06T18:39:07.233" UserId="6121" Text="I do understand the transitional phrase &quot;comprising&quot; is a broad one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    A method comprising Step 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above method is infringed as long as step 1 is executed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how do I protect when an equivalent step is executed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example SSL was popular in the 90s. But today SSL deprecated in favour of TLS. If my claim covers only SSL, then the patent can be infringed in time. So how do I cover future technologies?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The method of Claim 1, wherein the encryption mechanism comprises SSL&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, I want to use words like &quot;e.g. SSL&quot; in claims. Is that acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The method of Claim 1, wherein the encryption mechanism comprises one or more known encryption technologies. e.g. SSL  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57650" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20717" RevisionGUID="99ad8cff-32d3-4df4-8fe6-5efd3015093c" CreationDate="2019-08-06T18:39:07.233" UserId="6121" Text="What is the proper &quot;Transitional phrase&quot; that covers future technologies?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57651" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20717" RevisionGUID="99ad8cff-32d3-4df4-8fe6-5efd3015093c" CreationDate="2019-08-06T18:39:07.233" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57652" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="20717" RevisionGUID="5da6e0a2-faaf-43a1-a6f1-9429dad0ebce" CreationDate="2019-08-06T19:48:53.380" UserId="6121" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the proper way to cover alternative methods in claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20718" RevisionGUID="cc48621c-23eb-4e3a-a275-87420eab048d" CreationDate="2019-08-06T20:14:42.320" UserId="22086" Text="This is the part where you definitely need to speak with an attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're working on a US patent the principal ones [cited by the USPTO](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2111.html#d0e200824) are:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2111.03 Transitional Phrases [R-08.2017]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The transitional phrases “comprising”, “consisting essentially of” and “consisting of” define the scope of a claim with respect to what unrecited additional components or steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim. The determination of what is or is not excluded by a transitional phrase must be made on a case-by-case basis in light of the facts of each case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to use `&quot;having:&quot;` which refers back to the specification. I'm not really sure how that one works--as I've not fully read-up on the case law involved in the use of that phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said. I'm not sure legal theory would support someone trying to claim future technologies not yet invented if you can't describe them. Further, I doubt it would be doable merely using a transitional phrase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In many venues the essential purpose of the claims is to cite matter _that has already been invented and disclosed_ and identifies those parts which the inventor claims deserve special legal protection. If it hasn't been invented yet, and can't be described yet, then it isn't technically part of the &quot;prior art&quot; and isn't even part of the &quot;disclosed specification&quot;. Consequently I'm not sure it can be successfully claimed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this may be one of the purposes the USPTO has for [continuing patent applications](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application)--to address changes in ongoing work, or changes in technology for which the original specification might apply." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20718" RevisionGUID="a7f8c56f-8f3a-4c21-8739-6cb7e7e0aef6" CreationDate="2019-08-06T20:26:52.887" UserId="22086" Comment="Updated to reflect change in title" Text="This is the part where you definitely need to speak with an attorney. This depends entirely on the method you're trying to claim and its possible alternatives.  There's not really a way to answer this -- and it shouldn't EVER be done in a public forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related to transitional phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're working on a US patent the principal ones [cited by the USPTO](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2111.html#d0e200824) are:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2111.03 Transitional Phrases [R-08.2017]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The transitional phrases “comprising”, “consisting essentially of” and “consisting of” define the scope of a claim with respect to what unrecited additional components or steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim. The determination of what is or is not excluded by a transitional phrase must be made on a case-by-case basis in light of the facts of each case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to use `&quot;having:&quot;` which refers back to the specification. I'm not really sure how that one works--as I've not fully read-up on the case law involved in the use of that phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said. I'm not sure legal theory would support someone trying to claim future technologies not yet invented if you can't describe them. Further, I doubt it would be doable merely using a transitional phrase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In many venues the essential purpose of the claims is to cite matter _that has already been invented and disclosed_ and identifies those parts which the inventor claims deserve special legal protection. If it hasn't been invented yet, and can't be described yet, then it isn't technically part of the &quot;prior art&quot; and isn't even part of the &quot;disclosed specification&quot;. Consequently I'm not sure it can be successfully claimed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this may be one of the purposes the USPTO has for [continuing patent applications](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application)--to address changes in ongoing work, or changes in technology for which the original specification might apply." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20718" RevisionGUID="aa57bd43-1e1b-429f-9b1e-840dc2db317c" CreationDate="2019-08-06T22:00:26.470" UserId="22086" Comment="grammar" Text="This is the part where you definitely need to speak with an attorney. This depends entirely on the method you're trying to claim and its possible alternatives.  There's not really a way to answer this -- and it shouldn't EVER be done in a public forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related to transitional phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're working on a US patent the principal ones [cited by the USPTO](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2111.html#d0e200824) are:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2111.03 Transitional Phrases [R-08.2017]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The transitional phrases “comprising”, “consisting essentially of” and “consisting of” define the scope of a claim with respect to what unrecited additional components or steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim. The determination of what is or is not excluded by a transitional phrase must be made on a case-by-case basis in light of the facts of each case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to use `&quot;having:&quot;` which refers back to the specification. I'm not really sure how that one works--as I've not fully read-up on the case law involved in the use of that phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said. I'm not sure legal theory would support someone trying to claim future technologies not yet invented if you can't describe them. Further, I doubt it would be doable merely using a transitional phrase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In many venues the essential purpose of the claims is to cite matter _that has already been invented and disclosed_ and identify those parts which the inventor claims deserve special legal protection. If it hasn't been invented yet, and can't be described yet, then it isn't technically part of the &quot;prior art&quot; and isn't even part of the &quot;disclosed specification&quot;. Consequently I'm not sure it can be successfully claimed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this may be one of the purposes the USPTO has for [continuing patent applications](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application)--to address changes in ongoing work, or changes in technology for which the original specification might apply." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20681" RevisionGUID="c309343e-bb5f-4bac-8f3c-11db0177cd9e" CreationDate="2019-08-07T00:01:29.603" UserId="22280" Comment="After interview results" Text="An institutional entity filed a patent application that most likely can't be granted, because it is unworkable. It's tangential to their primary subject, and probably is a placeholder until refined. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few months later an individual (me) filed a much more complex application, significantly different, but with a certain overall similarity. It's workable. In effect, the institution threw together (a) a process with (b) a vehicle for providing it, without recognizing devastating constraints. I use the same process, but with a different vehicle(s), which are in effect the real invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was not aware of the institution's application when I submitted. My application drew a very difficult examiner. He has the lowest approval rate in his unit. After first rejection, I compiled a scientific, technical, and legal response. 2 weeks after examiner received this, I requested an interview. Next day 8am he called me, asked if I wanted to talk then or at appointment time? I said appointment time, in one week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given this examiner's approach, I expect I will have to appeal. Since he and I interview in one week, what information is best to obtain? Should I record it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For perspective, over 3 years his unit avg's 155 approvals per examiner. He's approved 8. He's also examined the fewest, 68 compared to average 290. His approval rate: 12%. Unit average: 48%. He works 1/4 of others, approves 1/4 of others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I reviewed nine art units that are around the examiner's. 129 examiners in them. The examiner of my patent has the lowest approval rating of all 129. Each art unit has a supervisor. My examiner's supervisor has the lowest of any. Perhaps it's ideological.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE POST INTERVIEW.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for the input, Eric, Nicole, George. I will obtain more legal advice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the interview, both initial and final rejections concerned 112b claim language and 102 prior art. I made significant claim language changes, but did not limit claim breadth because 102 criticisms were weak. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a dog (DVM oriented) device. Examiner's prior art remains mostly human medicine. I'm confident this ultimately will not fly, because conditions for use dominate product structure (vastly different risks and use criteria.) One prior art dog device is raised, a sloppy application that is easily shown inoperable. Regarding 112, I anticipate more success with an appeal than with examiner, based on statistical data (recall the examiner allows 12%.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner would not discuss 102 issues. Only wanted me to understand that claim language remained indefinite. But he advised me to take a narrowed scope dependent claim and incorporate it in the first independent claim. I requested he discuss prior art issues (per the agenda I filed.) He would not until the claim language was clear (it's not unclear now, only &quot;indefinate&quot;.) Then he'd &quot;see the application with new eyes.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner's summary posted on PAIR. 1 sentence: some dependent claims may be allowed given new language. 2 sentences: applicant needs a lawyer. Both the examiner and supervisor listed at the bottom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interview concluded after the examiner advised me to file a continuation. In words he told me to &quot;just fix&quot; the claim language, though there's no sign he'll accept most of them due to 112. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I can appeal immediately.&#xD;&#xA;2. I can file an RCE and &quot;fix&quot; claim language without narrowing scope.&#xD;&#xA;3. I can do #2 but narrow scope.&#xD;&#xA;4. Along with any of these, I file a 3rd party objection to the dog oriented prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's not my request here. I need to understand the examiner. Here's possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. He's ideological, doesn't like patents. I didn't pick that up.&#xD;&#xA;2. He's in an animal-related art unit, and maybe thinks that's a backwater. Doesn't think anything there is worthy. Could be.&#xD;&#xA;3. He's relatively new, under the wing of a supervisor who also has an abysmally low rate of allowance. That's why I didn't request the super join the meeting. Likeliest situation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is #3, he would likely be impressionable. Assuming other examiners in the art unit also started under this supervisor, none of them has a low rate. But this examiner didn't seem meek or mild.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4 years (the time my examiner has been in the unit) is a long time to have training wheels (he has 1/4 the usual load.) What does that mean?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57660" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="20681" RevisionGUID="c309343e-bb5f-4bac-8f3c-11db0177cd9e" CreationDate="2019-08-07T00:01:29.603" UserId="22280" Comment="After interview results" Text="Very Difficult Low Productivity Examiner with Questionable Approach - What Options for Applicant? UPDATE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20707" RevisionGUID="4a1b1a70-2013-492b-9063-0753f714fc08" CreationDate="2019-08-07T02:59:32.090" UserId="3076" Comment="added 670 characters in body" Text="This may be too late for the interview you have scheduled. You can have the examiner's manager present at the interview. I have found this to be very helpful. It can make sense to try to learn enough about the patent system to attempt to prosecute your own patent and hope for an ideal examiner/examination. This has not been your experience and you really do need help from a professional. Not only would your patent attorney or patent agent &quot;attend&quot; the interview, they would lead the interview and very possibly ask you to not participate in the interview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be that you have patentable subject matter disclosed in your application but the submitted claims are not well drafted and the rejection of the current claim wording is warranted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking on the positive side, a &quot;final&quot; rejection is only final until you pay more fees to file an RCE and get another go-around, frequently with amended claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could be that the claim language is really indefinite and you are putting too much focus on the examiner statistics. There is no way to get rid of the examiner. If you were a very experienced practitioner with a long history with the art unit you could contact the TC director. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is hard to imagine that with a limited exposure to the USPTO you can read the tea leaves of the examiner's disposition in a way that is particularity helpful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RCE with narrowed claims they will allow and before it issues file a continuation applications that you prosecute with professional help. Get a bird in the hand and still go after a better one in the bush." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20721" RevisionGUID="9b94b1ef-98c1-479c-8733-c1c6736de208" CreationDate="2019-08-07T06:07:21.813" UserId="3076" Text="If the particular method of encryption is not relevant and encryption in general is well known, then a step that says - &quot;encrypting the password&quot; covers encrypting the password, for example, and is independent of the specifics of the encryption." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20697" RevisionGUID="c759df7b-1066-4e8d-8acb-a6ca303a5e33" CreationDate="2019-08-07T06:27:13.437" UserId="22284" Comment="added 1227 characters in body" Text="I made a video on how to download patents in bulk from google patents https://youtu.be/iltplMR_hOA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the video above I go through how to use firefox and chrome in order to download google patents in bulk. You will be able to do the process without writing a single line of code. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Configuring Firefox to open the links in the same tab with add-ons or extensions **New Tab Override**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, we will use an **Open Multiple URLs** firefox addon to open multiple URLs at once.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are done firefox close it now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Open Chrome and add an extension **Instant Data Scraper**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now go to patents.google.com and search for your keyword and change number of results from 10 to 100. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now click on Instant Data Scrapper and it will copy all the links at once from the result section. Now the extension will ask you to locate the next button on the page do it. Once you have located the next button it will copy all the links from the pages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now Instant Data Scrapper will give you an option to download the links in the csv. Download it and locate the pdf links coloum. Copy all the links. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Go to firefox and use open multiple URLs and paste the links in there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the pdf links are opened all the pdf will start to download automatically in the firefox. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone faces any problem watch the video. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20722" RevisionGUID="ad91618a-f0b7-4647-b981-0f7d04bdc266" CreationDate="2019-08-07T07:54:50.447" UserId="962" Text="I'm using a [so-called cantenna (antenna made of a used can)][1] as an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose there's no evidence that anyone has tried a cantenna but antennas of similar design, just made of other materials, are well known. That &quot;similar design&quot; is also not protected by patents at this moment. Then at some point I discover that prefabricated used cans and other similar used packaging materials can be used to easily craft an antenna (reproduce the well known design) and it's usable as an antenna (practical). So basically the invention formula is &quot;an antenna produced from used packaging materials by transforming them in such and such ways&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This method is cool for crafting an improvised device for fun or when you need such device for some lab research ASAP. However this way of manufacturing is not appealing for commercial applications - if one decided to make money on producing antennas he would likely use stock materials, not used package.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can an improvised device made of used packaging materials (such as cantenna)be patented?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantenna" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57667" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20722" RevisionGUID="ad91618a-f0b7-4647-b981-0f7d04bdc266" CreationDate="2019-08-07T07:54:50.447" UserId="962" Text="Can an improvised device made of used packaging be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57668" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20722" RevisionGUID="ad91618a-f0b7-4647-b981-0f7d04bdc266" CreationDate="2019-08-07T07:54:50.447" UserId="962" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;&lt;design&gt;&lt;inventive-step&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20723" RevisionGUID="a82d9aad-9cb7-4415-a9ec-961e61219d90" CreationDate="2019-08-07T13:46:59.320" UserId="22326" Text="I have 16 years of prior art that would fully invalidate an Apple patent granted in 2019. The Apple patent has two claims (effectively the same claim repeated twice). It has no preferred embodiment. I have had a working and well-publicized application since 2003. (I have a prior art to claims comparison.) From the point of view of remuneration or compensation, how should I proceed? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57670" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20723" RevisionGUID="a82d9aad-9cb7-4415-a9ec-961e61219d90" CreationDate="2019-08-07T13:46:59.320" UserId="22326" Text="Asserting prior art to invalidate patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57671" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20723" RevisionGUID="a82d9aad-9cb7-4415-a9ec-961e61219d90" CreationDate="2019-08-07T13:46:59.320" UserId="22326" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57672" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="20723" RevisionGUID="dee5679f-2b2d-432f-865b-5a4520b228cc" CreationDate="2019-08-07T14:05:39.587" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="57673" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="20723" RevisionGUID="8163dec4-4c1f-4ac4-a80f-e33ebf98f7df" CreationDate="2019-08-07T14:08:03.767" UserId="1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="57680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20683" RevisionGUID="13b308d5-f44c-4707-88c6-4867aa8136f8" CreationDate="2019-08-07T14:37:36.360" UserId="1" Comment="removed unnecessarily promotional links. You are free to include this information in your about-me profile, but does not belong in the body of posts." Text="You need to look at whether you are simply describing how the patent functions or whether you are actually infringing the patent itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You said you want to reproduce it in code - would that infringe a single independent claim of the patent? If so you are very likely infringing the exclusive rights granted to the patentee. However, some jurisdictions have research exemptions - in some jurisidictions, it is a defence to conduct research - however, you may be doing the research publically and that might mean you cannot rely on the exception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the copyright issue, you would have to look at the law that applies. I am from Australia and we have a review/criticism exception to Copyright infringement. But it is qualified and not all jurisdictions have that exception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://eaglegate.com.au&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://eaglegate.com.au/practice-areas/patents/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20724" RevisionGUID="03f041e0-9f16-4976-a5b2-c72883ada538" CreationDate="2019-08-07T14:43:26.713" UserId="17003" Text="To obtain a patent, an invention needs to be useful, novel and non-obvious to a person skilled in the technical area. To me, your description doesn't meet the non-obviousness requirement since you are reproducing a well known design. Likewise repurposing used materials isn't by itself novel. That said, there is nothing I can think of that precludes obtaining a patent just because you are repurposing used materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More to the point, if there is no financial incentive, then I find it hard to understand why you would want to invest the time and money to obtain a patent. It might be better to just publish on the internet your clever idea and gain some fame, if not fortune, that way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20723" RevisionGUID="cbe16e9a-f22b-425d-a0f2-1f010c93c8bb" CreationDate="2019-08-07T15:49:05.543" UserId="22326" Comment="edited body" Text="I have 16 years of prior art that would fully invalidate an Apple patent granted in 2019. The Apple patent has two claims (effectively the same claim repeated twice). It has no preferred embodiment. I have had a working and well-publicized application since 2003. (I have a prior-art-to-claims comparison.) From the point of view of remuneration or compensation, how should I proceed? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20725" RevisionGUID="b9d65e0c-9ac2-45ee-89dd-45ce27f86d4f" CreationDate="2019-08-07T18:35:22.470" UserId="22327" Text="I worked for the patent office for a little while in a TC that does some software and non transitory medium patent applications. I would take a look at the MPEP (Manual of Patent Examining Procedure) on the USPTO website if you haven't already. I doubt they would overturn a granted patent or even review it except for very peculiar circumstances.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;If you are looking for compensation, a lawsuit would be your only recourse if you already have a patent on the technology to want to try and invalidate their patent. But if you don't have a patent on it why would it matter to you? The recourse for the patent office's mistakes is the court system. But lawsuits are expensive and it wouldn't affect you much unless it encroaches your own patent portfolio. If Microsoft wants to take it to court and invalidate the apple patent that is their decision.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20726" RevisionGUID="58c69358-64b2-4d3d-903e-bece2d945525" CreationDate="2019-08-07T18:44:00.483" UserId="22327" Text="@patently is mostly correct! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent office is first to file, however there have been changes to the law which change the legal practices of the patent office. This is especially important as the patent office takes a long time to get to things. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first to file ammendment came about from the AIA ( America Invents Act) in Sept 2011, which made a number of changes in patent prosecution from the pre-AIA days. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most important to you would be the first to file. Pre-AIA, the patent office did first to file but if co-pending applications were for the same invention, the application would be granted to first to invent with the proper paperwork. That is why engineers were taught to document all aspects of the R&amp;D process as it could make or break a patent case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the patent pre-dates the AIA it could be considered using the directives from the period of which it was filed. Therefore you might have recourse. But if it was even a day after you are f**ked.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20727" RevisionGUID="df74f451-df01-4163-8137-726dfe8743c8" CreationDate="2019-08-07T18:56:34.897" UserId="22328" Text="I'm unclear on what does patent US D781711S claim &amp; specifically in which region. I've talked with some mates that have studied patent law &amp; they seem as puzzled as me. Anyone care to help? ✌️&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57687" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20727" RevisionGUID="df74f451-df01-4163-8137-726dfe8743c8" CreationDate="2019-08-07T18:56:34.897" UserId="22328" Text="Is this patent US only?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57688" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20727" RevisionGUID="df74f451-df01-4163-8137-726dfe8743c8" CreationDate="2019-08-07T18:56:34.897" UserId="22328" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20728" RevisionGUID="32d6b0a3-d8c0-4e97-8e61-f7e2ad2cd6be" CreationDate="2019-08-07T19:10:21.897" UserId="22327" Text="I don't have enough rep to comment but it looks like a pretty normal design patent done pro se. design patents are a lot simpler than what people would normally consider a patent to be. They claim the design itself, so what the bottle looks like. If you want more info on design patents check this out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: Former patent examiner" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20725" RevisionGUID="c602238e-257e-484f-b8b6-22d6e1a0dcd0" CreationDate="2019-08-07T21:03:46.647" UserId="18033" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I worked for the patent office for a little while in a TC that does some software and non transitory medium patent applications. I would take a look at the MPEP (Manual of Patent Examining Procedure) on the USPTO website if you haven't already. I doubt they would overturn a granted patent or even review it except for very peculiar circumstances.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;If you are looking for compensation, a lawsuit would be your only recourse if you already have a patent on the technology to want to try and invalidate their patent. But if you don't have a patent on it why would it matter to you? The recourse for the patent office's mistakes is the court system. But lawsuits are expensive and it wouldn't affect you much unless it encroaches your own patent portfolio. If Microsoft wants to take it to court and invalidate the apple patent that is their decision.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20723" RevisionGUID="f831dae1-96ea-40ae-9cbe-6be9b76383e0" CreationDate="2019-08-07T22:45:32.063" UserId="17003" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="I have 16 years of prior art that would fully invalidate an [Apple patent][1] granted in 2019. The Apple patent has two claims (effectively the same claim repeated twice). It has no preferred embodiment. I have had a working and well-publicized application since 2003. (I have a prior-art-to-claims comparison.) From the point of view of remuneration or compensation, how should I proceed? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10331311B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20729" RevisionGUID="b368c604-4443-4ad3-9d76-cfa6b9ae7923" CreationDate="2019-08-07T22:59:12.643" UserId="3076" Text="This is a U.S. patent and. like all U.S. patents, is only enforceable in the U.S. It allows the owner to try to stop others from making, selling, offering for sale, importing and using. There has some cross border enforcement for components of patented items an uses at sea but the bottom line is that patents are fundamentally territorial.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20730" RevisionGUID="2e4b1a52-83b4-4e0d-b8f6-bc330859548a" CreationDate="2019-08-08T07:46:14.967" UserId="22329" Text="Whether you have to claim priority in the PCT application from the US non-provisional depends on two factors:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Does the US non-provisional disclose subject-matter not contained in the two US provisional applications? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Will the US non-provisional be filed before the PCT application (i.e. will it have an earlier filing date)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the answer to the first is NO, then you do not need to claim priority from the US non provisional because all the subject-matter benefits from the filing date of one of the two US provisionals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the answer to the first is YES, then it depends on the answer to the second: if the answer to the second is YES, then you should claim priority from the US non-provisional too because the newly disclosed subject-matter can benefit from that earlier filing date; if the answer to the second is NO, then you cannot claim priority from it because it does not have an earlier filing date than your PCT application, which is a requirement for claiming priority." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20727" RevisionGUID="06183778-3f31-4f10-84ac-d3207dfc4d60" CreationDate="2019-08-08T13:39:51.490" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to patent" Text="I'm unclear on what does patent [US D781711S][1] claim &amp; specifically in which region. I've talked with some mates that have studied patent law &amp; they seem as puzzled as me. Anyone care to help? ✌️&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD781711S1/en?oq=us%20D781711S" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20728" RevisionGUID="f43bd47a-0a73-4c65-8048-eaf10f80b9be" CreationDate="2019-08-08T13:53:56.647" UserId="22327" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="It looks like a pretty normal design patent. design patents are a lot simpler than what people would normally consider a patent to be. They claim the design itself, so what the bottle looks like. If you want more info on design patents check this out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: Former patent examiner&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: My bad, I did a very cursory glance at the listed patent. I didn't examine design patents during my tenure at USPTO. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20725" RevisionGUID="ecb79a2c-e13e-4206-bf53-981398ad0b30" CreationDate="2019-08-08T14:04:00.723" UserId="22327" Comment="added 332 characters in body" Text="I worked for the patent office for a little while in a TC that does some software and non transitory medium patent applications. I would take a look at the MPEP (Manual of Patent Examining Procedure) on the USPTO website if you haven't already. I doubt they would overturn a granted patent or even review it except for very peculiar circumstances.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;If you are looking for compensation, a lawsuit would be your only recourse if you already have a patent on the technology to want to try and invalidate their patent. But if you don't have a patent on it why would it matter to you? The recourse for the patent office's mistakes is the court system. But lawsuits are expensive and it wouldn't affect you much unless it encroaches your own patent portfolio. If Microsoft wants to take it to court and invalidate the apple patent that is their decision.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: As @George White states there is an *Inter Partes review* which may be what you are looking for. But again, everything costs money at the patent office and if you don't have skin in the game it may not be worth it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/appealing-patent-decisions/trials/inter-partes-review" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20729" RevisionGUID="25749369-5140-4e30-859b-1426a5d723c3" CreationDate="2019-08-08T17:54:57.483" UserId="3076" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="This is a U.S. patent and. like all U.S. patents, is only enforceable in the U.S. It allows the owner to try to stop others from making, selling, offering for sale, importing and using. There has been some cross border enforcement for components of patented items and uses at sea but the bottom line is that patents are fundamentally territorial.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20731" RevisionGUID="caa94631-9e61-4eb2-a01c-38a8cb375abb" CreationDate="2019-08-09T00:21:37.570" UserId="3076" Text="Note - If you are not in the U.S. you need to file the PCT application either with the IB in Geneva or with your local patent office, not with the USPTO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically regarding the 100 claims in the PCT application. You might want to do something to keep the 80 that are not in the U.S. application from being considered &quot;new matter&quot; if you ever wanted to amend the U.S. application to include some of them in the future. Or use them in a continuation or a divisional. If the PCT application is filed first you can &quot;incorporate it by reference&quot; in the U.S. application. Another thing that has been done is to re-write the 80 claims in a form that makes them not claims. &quot;Aspects of the invention include . . . &quot; followed by numbered &quot;aspects&quot; that look a lot like claim but are not claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you can enter the U.S. National Stage or file a bypass U.S. application based on the PCT at some point in the future if content from the PCT is needed in a U.S. application. Or just have a future divisional claim priority to both the U.S. parent and to the PCT." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57699" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="e28d1bee-e00c-4680-baff-1a6ad47b2125" CreationDate="2019-08-09T06:00:55.113" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57700" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16615" RevisionGUID="8e2d00b9-cd0a-4842-bd22-73e54b2b22e9" CreationDate="2019-08-09T09:01:00.313" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57701" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16336" RevisionGUID="f8f44599-891e-4ee5-8200-e121cc35064c" CreationDate="2019-08-09T10:00:34.123" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57702" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13334" RevisionGUID="c4fea490-299b-4438-9e13-b05f8362f5a2" CreationDate="2019-08-09T11:01:45.193" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20732" RevisionGUID="cc63787f-8672-485d-851c-79f86f46381a" CreationDate="2019-08-09T16:55:20.807" UserId="22334" Text="Just to clarify this question about priority dates from a European patent application perspective. Each and every claim of a European patent application has one *or more* effective dates (yes, a single claim may have more than one effective date).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, say P1 is the filing date of the first provisional application, P2 the filing date of the second provisional application, and P3 the filing date of a European patent application or an international application. The effective date of each claim will be determined, as pointed out by George White (much) earlier, by the subject-matter claimed and whether said subject-matter is completely disclosed (either explicitly or implicitly) in one or both priority applications, or only in the EP/PCT application. If the claimed subject-matter is disclosed in both priority applications, then the claim has the earliest date as effective date, i.e. P1. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the multiple effective dates in a single claim, that may occur when an OR clause is present in the claim, which results in two different embodiments. There are two situations in which this usually occurs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - An airplane comprising: A, B, C, and two or three engines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By way of example, if the first provisional application disclosed an airplane with A, B, C and two engines, then that embodiment has P1 as effective date; if no provisional application disclosed an airplane with A, B, C and three engines, then that embodiment has P3 as effective date. This, in essence, means that prior art documents with publication date up to (but not including) P3 can be cited against the latter embodiment, but if the publication date is later than P1, then it cannot be cited against the former embodiment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second situation is like this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. An airplane comprising A.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The airplane of claim 1, further comprising B.&#xD;&#xA; 3. The airplane of any one of claims 1-2, further comprising C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 3 effectively claims two different embodiments because the dependency has an implicit OR clause: (i) with A+B+C [depending upon claim 2, in turn depending upon claim 1], and (ii) with A+C [depending upon claim 1]. Now, if the second provisional application disclosed an airplane with A+B+C, then (i) has P2 as effective date, and if the first provisional application disclosed an airplane with A+C, then (ii) has P1 as effective date -but of course, if embodiment (i) was disclosed in the first provisional application, then the entire claim has P1 as effective date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following the above example, you could have, for instance, claim 1 with P3 as effective date, claim 2 with P1 as effective date, and claim 3 with P1 and P2 as effective dates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, at the EPO (i.e. under the European Patent Convention) it is not enough that features A, B and C are disclosed in, say, the first provisional application, but these features must be disclosed as being part of a same embodiment (i.e. it is directly and unambiguously derivable for the skilled person that an embodiment of an airplane with A+B+C is disclosed in said document). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57704" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20345" RevisionGUID="73e36ecb-22e4-4261-a328-b23a2fad4d36" CreationDate="2019-08-09T23:01:10.113" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57705" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19809" RevisionGUID="c59fe950-7520-403c-97a0-9b8a938131f5" CreationDate="2019-08-10T00:02:20.260" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57706" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20040" RevisionGUID="a52d7058-d302-497e-bb7c-264079fcd6b5" CreationDate="2019-08-10T03:03:00.370" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57707" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17307" RevisionGUID="b94c6b0f-9848-4485-a861-004d6642a471" CreationDate="2019-08-10T05:00:50.507" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20733" RevisionGUID="bc1f691a-6926-422d-825a-d01e25d53016" CreationDate="2019-08-10T07:07:32.667" UserId="6121" Text="PCT application claims can be amended one time via [Article 19 and 34][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my understanding, one can amend claims in the national phase. So what is the point of having limitation in PCT?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In US, one can file non-provisional with one claim and add more claims later. But PCT application seem like it has a time limit for claim amendments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any consequences that I need to aware of, if I don't amend claims properly before the PCT deadline?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/faqs/amendments_19_and_34.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57709" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20733" RevisionGUID="bc1f691a-6926-422d-825a-d01e25d53016" CreationDate="2019-08-10T07:07:32.667" UserId="6121" Text="If claims can be amended later in the national phase what is the point of having limitation in PCT?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57710" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20733" RevisionGUID="bc1f691a-6926-422d-825a-d01e25d53016" CreationDate="2019-08-10T07:07:32.667" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57711" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17472" RevisionGUID="a1cfe9b3-81f4-436e-bad9-792fd87b1623" CreationDate="2019-08-10T08:03:05.353" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57712" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="20733" RevisionGUID="68363670-6ec8-433f-bff1-fdcc53967200" CreationDate="2019-08-10T10:00:43.800" UserId="6121" Comment="edited title" Text="Is there any consequences if I don't amend claims properly before the PCT deadline?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57713" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19863" RevisionGUID="e5bde776-4bfb-4e2c-bf60-d7ee8df0dc4c" CreationDate="2019-08-10T11:02:50.427" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57714" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19881" RevisionGUID="2e0cda55-35f1-477c-a3c0-d49da8a8e178" CreationDate="2019-08-10T19:02:15.363" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57715" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18242" RevisionGUID="e66ff0b5-1425-46aa-8170-f7ffbc53c861" CreationDate="2019-08-10T21:01:40.170" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57716" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20013" RevisionGUID="f05d373a-8cb1-480b-a273-db57c5e1e506" CreationDate="2019-08-11T00:03:00.427" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20734" RevisionGUID="21c4d0de-ed93-42ac-9405-c25f00f7e19d" CreationDate="2019-08-11T10:39:29.187" UserId="22334" Text="The reason why you may want amend your claims pursuant to Art. 19 PCT is to better define your claimed scope for the purpose of provisional protection conferred by the PCT application (in those national states where provisional protection exists, e.g. many European countries. )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These amended claims will be published together with the international application, and they are the ones taken into account for provisional protection. If no claim amendments are filed under Art. 19 PCT, then the original claims of the international application are the ones taken into account for provisional protection. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually one files such amendments when she/he is aware of a third party that may potentially fall within a better defined claimed scope. It is quite uncommon to see an international application published with such claim amendments because the independent claims typically have a broad scope and most embodiments disclosed in the application fall therein. However, it may happen that an aspect of the invention was not claimed in the PCT, or the WO-ISA reveals a clarity problem that makes unclear what is actually claimed, then you may want to file the claim amendments to fix the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that the national patent law of each country may set out requirements for the provisional protection to be effective, normally that a translation of the claims into the official language of the country is filed with the national patent office of the country or sent to the third party potentially falling within the claimed scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim amendments pursuant to Art. 34 PCT may only be filed when International Preliminary Examination is requested so that the claims as amended are examined in Chapter II. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you point out, you may amend the claims when entering into a national or regional phase, so it is not necessary to amend the claims under Art. 19 or Art. 34 PCT." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20734" RevisionGUID="825b3566-4044-40df-868b-ba3b03106b80" CreationDate="2019-08-11T10:45:35.147" UserId="22334" Comment="added 301 characters in body" Text="The reason why you may want amend your claims pursuant to Art. 19 PCT is to better define your claimed scope for the purpose of provisional protection conferred by the PCT application (in those national states where provisional protection exists, e.g. many European countries. )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These amended claims will be published together with the international application, and they are the ones taken into account for provisional protection. If no claim amendments are filed under Art. 19 PCT, then the original claims of the international application are the ones taken into account for provisional protection. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually one files such amendments when she/he is aware of a third party that may potentially fall within a better defined claimed scope. It is quite uncommon to see an international application published with such claim amendments because the independent claims typically have a broad scope and most embodiments disclosed in the application fall therein. However, it may happen that an aspect of the invention was not claimed in the PCT, or the WO-ISA reveals a clarity problem that makes unclear what is actually claimed, then you may want to file the claim amendments to fix the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that the national patent law of each country may set out requirements for the provisional protection to be effective, normally that a translation of the claims into the official language of the country is filed with the national patent office of the country or sent to the third party potentially falling within the claimed scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim amendments pursuant to Art. 34 PCT may only be filed when International Preliminary Examination is requested so that the claims as amended are examined in Chapter II. This, in turn, may lead to a positive IPRP if the ISR was negative, i.e. you get a positive opinion on the patentability of the claimed subject-matter owing to the claim amendments and, optionally, the remarks in favor of the patentability of the claimed subject-matter you put forward in Chapter II.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you point out, you may amend the claims when entering into a national or regional phase, so it is not necessary to amend the claims under Art. 19 or Art. 34 PCT. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20735" RevisionGUID="386a0b6e-efc6-44fb-8705-1f4e791836c6" CreationDate="2019-08-11T18:03:03.320" UserId="21507" Text="After filing a utility patent a simpler version of the invention came to mind, as a separate product.  The simpler version is covered in the first claim only since the dependent claims define the original version.  The simpler version requires a curtain shape to function and is also ornamental.  My questions is: Should I file a design patent on the simpler version for it's individual protection, and should I use the title of the original utility patent or do I (or can I) make the title more descriptive of the simpler version which is different?  Also, the single design claim would be different. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57720" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20735" RevisionGUID="386a0b6e-efc6-44fb-8705-1f4e791836c6" CreationDate="2019-08-11T18:03:03.320" UserId="21507" Text="Should I file a design patent on a different version of a utility patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57721" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20735" RevisionGUID="386a0b6e-efc6-44fb-8705-1f4e791836c6" CreationDate="2019-08-11T18:03:03.320" UserId="21507" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;utility-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20735" RevisionGUID="4e3e75f3-679c-4028-b9a7-ff7ff0fac2f8" CreationDate="2019-08-11T22:25:15.033" UserId="21507" Comment="added 34 characters in body; edited title" Text="After filing a utility patent a simpler embodiment of the invention came to mind as a separate product.  The simpler embodiment is covered in the first claim only since the dependent claims define the original preferred embodiment.  The simpler embodiment requires a curtain shape (form) to function and is also ornamental.  My questions is: Should I file a design patent on the simpler embodiment for it's individual protection, and should I use the title of the original utility patent or do I (or can I) make the title more descriptive of the simpler embodiment which is different?  Also, the single design claim would be different. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57723" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="20735" RevisionGUID="4e3e75f3-679c-4028-b9a7-ff7ff0fac2f8" CreationDate="2019-08-11T22:25:15.033" UserId="21507" Comment="added 34 characters in body; edited title" Text="Should I file a design patent on a different embodiment of a utility patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20736" RevisionGUID="749c9d43-04d7-43e2-a4e1-c5b7dc92353e" CreationDate="2019-08-11T22:51:54.450" UserId="3076" Text="Design patents cover the ornamental aspects of an object. If a shape has functional properties it can't be covered by a design patent. This is a complex area where judges  try to separate the ornamental from the functional if you end up in court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the broadest claim in the utility application covers the new embodiment you might leave it at that. However you might be vulnerable to a court challenge one day based on lack of written description if you go after someone who uses the simpler approach." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20737" RevisionGUID="fb52d442-515b-4fc1-b41b-3998baadbf38" CreationDate="2019-08-11T23:22:02.250" UserId="22086" Text="You have 2 questions. As usual, you should always seek out counsel for your particular case. No general answer here can replace real personalized counsel. That said, you can find a lot of information online that will answer these questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Should I file a design patent on the simpler embodiment for it's individual protection... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer of *&quot;Should I file a design patent&quot;* is entirely subjective based on your individual needs. Only you and counsel can answer this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  should I use the title of the original utility patent or do I (or can I) make the title more descriptive of the simpler embodiment which is different?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is probably also subjective based on what you want to do.  It won't affect the quality of the patent. The USPTO treats the applications as separate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [USPTO has provided a guide for these things that might help you answer some of your own questions](https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/design-patent-application-guide).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Difference Between Design and Utility Patents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In general terms, a &quot;utility patent&quot; protects the way an article is used and works (35 U.S.C. 101), while a &quot;design patent&quot; protects the way an article looks (35 U.S.C. 171). **Both design and utility patents may be obtained on an article if invention resides both in its utility and ornamental appearance. While utility and design patents afford legally separate protection, the utility and ornamentality of an article are not easily separable. Articles of manufacture may possess both functional and ornamental characteristics.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like you *can do both*-- whether you should or not requires more Q&amp;A you should probably discuss with counsel.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20738" RevisionGUID="be7dd5cf-2b0c-482d-80f6-a3a81b520259" CreationDate="2019-08-12T03:59:53.680" UserId="6121" Text="From my understanding, when we use the phrase like &quot;at least one of A, B, C and D&quot;, it means `AD, BD, CD, ABD, BCD` etc. i.e. D is mandatory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;at least one of A, B, C or D&quot; means any single item or any combination&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My concern here is, what is the proper way, when there is only two item. Can I use any one of the method? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean which one is correct? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;at least one of A and B&quot; &#xD;&#xA;    &quot;at least one of A or B&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57727" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20738" RevisionGUID="be7dd5cf-2b0c-482d-80f6-a3a81b520259" CreationDate="2019-08-12T03:59:53.680" UserId="6121" Text="Should I use &quot;and&quot; or &quot;or&quot; for &quot;at least one of&quot; structure when only two items involved?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57728" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20738" RevisionGUID="be7dd5cf-2b0c-482d-80f6-a3a81b520259" CreationDate="2019-08-12T03:59:53.680" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20739" RevisionGUID="8c4d42b5-014a-4704-ab5c-8ef257c0792c" CreationDate="2019-08-12T09:19:15.970" UserId="22337" Text="What can we do if a manufacturer in China copied our US patented product and constantly sell their copies to US buyers through international E commerce platform? &#xD;&#xA;This Chinese company does not have a physical presence in the US. All transactions are captured through their website,payment method being used is PayPal, and they ship directly to buyers in the US via international EMS.&#xD;&#xA;As I understand, Patents are territorial rights. But do we have the legal right to go against them in this case? Since their copies are now flowing into the US market without the business entity sets foot in the US." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57730" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20739" RevisionGUID="8c4d42b5-014a-4704-ab5c-8ef257c0792c" CreationDate="2019-08-12T09:19:15.970" UserId="22337" Text="What can we do if a manufacturer in China copy our US patented product and sell them directly to US end user through E commerce" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57731" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20739" RevisionGUID="8c4d42b5-014a-4704-ab5c-8ef257c0792c" CreationDate="2019-08-12T09:19:15.970" UserId="22337" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;china&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20740" RevisionGUID="d630498a-6270-4faf-8d1d-2e2455f0a832" CreationDate="2019-08-12T12:48:58.283" UserId="14403" Text="**From my understanding, when we use the phrase like &quot;at least one of A, B, C and D&quot;, it means AD, BD, CD, ABD, BCD etc. i.e. D is mandatory**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO, it simply means any combination in which (at least) any one of A,B,C,D is present and 'D is mandatory' is not implied. For example, when we say 'at least any one of Doe1, Doe2, Doe3 and Doe4 should do it' does not imply Doe4 must be one of the doers. Any one of them or any group formed by including two or more of them can do the job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now coming to the 'question' proper.&#xD;&#xA;It depends on functionality of A and B in the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**i. &quot;at least one of A and B&quot;** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will indicate either of these two is required to perform the intended function. Also, combination is not excluded. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ii. &quot;at least one of A or B&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will indicate either of these two is required to perform the intended function and combination of these two is excluded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, selection of phrase will depend on what your elements do and what combination is required. Again, when one of two is to be selected, then 'best embodiment' dictum will dictate the selection and one has to elect which one gives 'the best embodiment'. If both are identical in importance and performance then it is different matter.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20741" RevisionGUID="ccfc2dcb-9f9d-40ec-8b88-247f97df8b61" CreationDate="2019-08-12T13:15:08.497" UserId="14403" Text="This may be useful to have your answer.[1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The easiest way out, in the light of 35 USC Section 271(a), is holding importer responsible for infringement. [2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1101&amp;context=dltr&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20743" RevisionGUID="1edbc787-73b6-4461-bf2c-5707c2279532" CreationDate="2019-08-13T02:58:09.147" UserId="6121" Text="I have a process that performs the same steps as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However my &quot;wherein&quot; part is completely unique. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will it be considered as a valid independent claim? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57737" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20743" RevisionGUID="1edbc787-73b6-4461-bf2c-5707c2279532" CreationDate="2019-08-13T02:58:09.147" UserId="6121" Text="Can an inventive step included in the &quot;wherein&quot; clause?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57738" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20743" RevisionGUID="1edbc787-73b6-4461-bf2c-5707c2279532" CreationDate="2019-08-13T02:58:09.147" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20744" RevisionGUID="dae30048-1614-4c26-bcf0-21e696645cc3" CreationDate="2019-08-13T05:02:22.773" UserId="3076" Text="**Yes**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A wherein clause can definitely contain a limiting element in a claim. In contrast, a therefore clause that explains the result of previous steps would not contain a limiting element.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FYI, In the US patent system we do not think in terms of *inventive step*. The claim *as a whole* is what either defines something as novel and non-obvious or does not. The rest of the world, in contrast, does think of claims as the old part and the inventive step. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20747" RevisionGUID="e1a9e1d2-c508-4faa-af65-e3cb57595141" CreationDate="2019-08-13T20:49:50.160" UserId="1085" Text="You have a contradiction in your description of this &quot;new&quot; embodiment. An &quot;ornamental&quot; feature **CANNOT** be functional. It might be pretty, and it might be pretty in a really cool way, but if it is required to be shaped some way in order to function, it is not &quot;ornament&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's suppose for a moment that you've created the (working!) Perpetual Motion Energy Machine and you discover that by creating a flywheel with a diameter equal to the length of the shaft, and painted with a Teflon-containing paint, that the device magically does stuff. That diameter isn't &quot;ornamental&quot;, it's required for the device to function. Likewise, the Teflon paint isn't ornamental. But if you put some kind of &quot;hypnotic spiral&quot; in the paint ... so people don't realize the device doesn't work ... THAT is purely ornamental." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20748" RevisionGUID="b14ae3eb-f74c-4961-85fe-e8358611f780" CreationDate="2019-08-14T23:39:44.163" UserId="3076" Text="Explaining the new applications relationship to a previous  application of yours is much more likely to hurt than help. It would be cited in the first sentence of the application as &quot;The current application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application XYZ, dated XYZ.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note - the term &quot;prior art is very loaded. *Prior Art == something they can use against a given application*. Best to remove it from your vocabulary. There are ome things do not qualify as prior are unless you admit they are prior art, then they do qualify as prior art. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57751" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20642" RevisionGUID="9574baae-3ffa-4ad7-9cbb-77dd2ceb8914" CreationDate="2019-08-15T18:03:10.400" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20750" RevisionGUID="482301c6-993f-48be-8540-6abc3b6c5db8" CreationDate="2019-08-16T00:38:46.667" UserId="3076" Text="Wikipeadia says that google patents covers the following but I would not assume that the coverage is 100% complete in any dimension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO),&#xD;&#xA;    European Patent Office (EPO),&#xD;&#xA;    China's National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA),&#xD;&#xA;    Japan Patent Office (JPO),&#xD;&#xA;    Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO),&#xD;&#xA;    World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO),&#xD;&#xA;    Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (DPMA),&#xD;&#xA;    Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO),&#xD;&#xA;    Russia, UK, France, Spain, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands.[1]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20751" RevisionGUID="54d7e3ab-4557-44cc-9fcc-eb5a826b79ac" CreationDate="2019-08-16T02:19:03.450" UserId="22348" Text="I have an idea for a medical device that has been called &quot;phenomenal&quot; , &quot;solid idea&quot; etc...from medical professional friends of mine. Now I don't want companies in China to copy my idea...!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Problem is though...I have no funds, so can't hire copyrights lawyers, and besides, I read that you can't really effectively copyright something quickly with patents etc...even if I HAD the money? And I want to launch soon.&#xD;&#xA;The item is a physical device. So is there a way I can do something for free to offer myself &quot;some&quot; protection?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe take pictures, and publish it on the internet, with proof it was published, with a date on it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How about mailing myself the blueprints? Mail myself the device, and not open the package?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any recommendations on this type of situation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57755" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20751" RevisionGUID="54d7e3ab-4557-44cc-9fcc-eb5a826b79ac" CreationDate="2019-08-16T02:19:03.450" UserId="22348" Text="How to protect my idea/prototype at little or no cost?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57756" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20751" RevisionGUID="54d7e3ab-4557-44cc-9fcc-eb5a826b79ac" CreationDate="2019-08-16T02:19:03.450" UserId="22348" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20752" RevisionGUID="c7f3afd3-0425-42d8-8399-9663fff0d824" CreationDate="2019-08-16T02:37:39.683" UserId="3076" Text="The idea of mailing it to yourself and not opening the package has **absolutely** no value. There are many resources on the internet and in libraries that you can learn the basics of intellectual property from - particularly the difference in copyrights, trademarks and patents. There are two kinds of &quot;protection&quot; one, is protection from someone else patenting it and them keeping you from making and selling your product. To do that you can publish information about your product on the internet. There are some sites that are specifically used to disclose inventions. This can prevent others from getting a patent, but it will also prevent you from getting a patent anywhere in the world except the U.S. and it will prevent that at the end of a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To stop someone else from making, selling, importing, etc. your invention in/into the U.S. you do need an issued patent. You might look into filing a U.S. provisional application. You can do it yourself but it is unlikely to have much value unless you put a lot of study into it. I recommend the book Patent it Yourself by Pressman.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57758" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20752" RevisionGUID="4254b9da-c1c7-4b16-8acd-60ca5dad4135" CreationDate="2019-08-16T04:22:24.633" UserId="3076" Comment="added 484 characters in body" Text="The idea of mailing it to yourself and not opening the package has **absolutely** no value and never has. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many resources on the internet and in libraries that you can learn the basics of intellectual property from - particularly the difference in copyrights, trademarks and patents. There are two kinds of &quot;protection&quot; one, is protection from someone else patenting it and them keeping you from making and selling your product. To do that you can publish information about your product on the internet. There is discussion of that [here][1] and also in previous Ask Patent q and a's. There are some sites that are specifically used to disclose inventions. This can prevent others from getting a patent, but it will also prevent you from getting a patent anywhere in the world except the U.S. and it will prevent that at the end of one year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To stop someone else from making, selling, importing, etc. your invention in/into the U.S. you do need an issued patent. You might look into filing a U.S. provisional application. You can do it yourself but it is unlikely to have much value unless you put a lot of study into it. I recommend the book Patent it Yourself by Pressman.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding money to protect your idea - it will take money to put it into production and it will take money to properly market it. You may need a partner with funds and a business background and when you have that you might chose to put some of the money into protecting your IP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.innovation.pitt.edu/resource/intellectual-property/ip-facts-public-disclosure/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57759" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="e4235893-c7a3-444b-a7a7-9d811a944fe4" CreationDate="2019-08-16T09:00:40.130" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57760" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19823" RevisionGUID="c67c8e22-20e0-492d-ad0c-d64cca041153" CreationDate="2019-08-16T12:02:45.313" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20753" RevisionGUID="1726f682-980d-411e-acfe-cd2b223db1f5" CreationDate="2019-08-16T12:26:24.903" UserId="22334" Text="If you are concerned about third parties manufacturing your device and/or using your device **in China**, then you need to protect your invention by means of a Chinese utility model and/or a Chinese patent. Both the utility model and the patent may protect the invention so that you can forbid others in China from manufacturing, selling and using devices falling within the scope of your utility model and/or patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The differences between the utility model and the patent are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The protection of the utility model expires sooner: the lifespan is 10 years vs. the 20 years of the patent. &#xD;&#xA;- The utility model is published way sooner than the patent: it takes few weeks or months to get published vs. the 18 months it takes the patent to get published (unless you request early publication, which I am not sure it is possible in China).&#xD;&#xA;- A Chinese utility model is way cheaper than a Chinese patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you publish your invention somewhere, should a third party apply for a Chinese patent or utility model there is a risk that the CNIPO (Chinese Patent Office) will not find your disclosure and, thus, the patent may be granted. A Chinese patent or utility model *would not allow you* to import into China, manufacture, use and/or sell your device in China. Currently, the Chinese patent law regards a public prior use occurring anywhere in the world as prior art, therefore if you build the device and publicly use it or you give it to somebody, that would be prior art; obviously, it is unlikely that the Chinese Patent Office gets wind of it, so a Chinese patent could be granted to the third party anyway (in the event that no other prior art affects the novelty/inventiveness of the invention), but in theory you could get such patent revoked if you are able to prove that you disclosed the device at a certain date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no grace period in China, therefore if you disclose your invention before applying for a patent or utility model, your own disclosure would take away the novelty of your invention, thus you would not get the patent granted if the CNIPO finds your disclosure (which is quite likely since the first search the examiners carry out is disclosures from the inventor/applicant). Some (and not that many) countries have grace periods if some requirements are met, so a disclosure by the inventor may not prevent her/him from getting a patent granted filed later on (up to a certain date from the original disclosure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a Chinese utility model could be a good idea because it gets published soon in Chinese language. Even though the Chinese examiners do not limit the prior art searches to any geographical location, they tend to cite Chinese documents during the prosecution of Chinese patent applications because when they filter using keywords they do that in Chinese rather than in English, then the likelihood of stumbling upon a Chinese document rather than an English document (say a US patent application) is greater because the machine translation of the keywords into other languages is not that &quot;perfect&quot;. It could occur that you have a published document in English and a Chinese patent is granted to a third party, you would have to initiate a reexamination/nullity process in China to get that patent revoked, which is costly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In China you are allowed to request both a utility model and a patent, and unless this has changed recently (I do not think so but I am not sure), you should do so by filing both on the same date, either as a direct national filing, or claiming priority from a previous patent application via Paris Convention (not through PCT route). If you do not file them on the same date, the application filed later will not be novel over the earlier filed one, even if you claim priority from said earlier application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To keep costs to a minimum, you would have to directly contact a Chinese IP law firm that can assist you in the filing and prosecution of the patent application and/or utility model rather than doing it through an IP law firm from another country since quite probably that would increase the overall cost (it would depend on the rates of the Chinese patent attorneys hired by you and by the IP law firm from another country).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that patent protection is a matter of national law, therefore in countries in which there is no national patent granted in principle the device may be used and produced. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20752" RevisionGUID="fdf4d9e1-5a48-401c-b783-76a80a5ac310" CreationDate="2019-08-16T15:37:49.680" UserId="3076" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The idea of mailing it to yourself and not opening the package has **absolutely** no value and never has. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many resources on the internet and in libraries that you can learn the basics of intellectual property from - particularly the difference in copyrights, trademarks and patents. There are two kinds of &quot;protection&quot; one, is protection from someone else patenting it and them keeping you from making and selling your product. To do that you can publish information about your product on the internet. There is discussion of that [here][1] and also in previous Ask Patent q and a's. There are some sites that are specifically used to disclose inventions. This can prevent others from getting a patent, **but it will also prevent you from getting a patent** anywhere in the world except the U.S. and it will prevent that at the end of one year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To stop someone else from making, selling, importing, etc. your invention in/into the U.S. you do need an issued patent. You might look into filing a U.S. provisional application. You can do it yourself but it is unlikely to have much value unless you put a lot of study into it. I recommend the book Patent it Yourself by Pressman.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding money to protect your idea - it will take money to put it into production and it will take money to properly market it. You may need a partner with funds and a business background and when you have that you might chose to put some of the money into protecting your IP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.innovation.pitt.edu/resource/intellectual-property/ip-facts-public-disclosure/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20754" RevisionGUID="209afd1d-4b5a-46ef-b6f3-b2df2aa8d42c" CreationDate="2019-08-17T10:39:42.073" UserId="6121" Text="Let's say, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I filed a USPTO provisional in Jan 2019. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I filed a USPTO non-provisional in Jun 2019 by claiming priority to the provisional. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll file a PCT application in Dec 2019 by claiming priority to the provisional. But this PCT application contains &quot;new matter&quot;. The PCT application is valid till Jun 2021. [i.e. 30 months from the provisional]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now my question is, Am I allowed to include the &quot;new matter&quot; in the USPTO non-provisional via some amendments? How does one can claim priority when the amendment submitted 1 month before the PCT application expiry date? i.e. May 2021&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57765" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20754" RevisionGUID="209afd1d-4b5a-46ef-b6f3-b2df2aa8d42c" CreationDate="2019-08-17T10:39:42.073" UserId="6121" Text="Can one claim priority from a PCT application after filing non-provisional?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57766" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20754" RevisionGUID="209afd1d-4b5a-46ef-b6f3-b2df2aa8d42c" CreationDate="2019-08-17T10:39:42.073" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;non-provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20755" RevisionGUID="cdec1a1e-2f04-4326-a0d8-2c5dbcdf57b3" CreationDate="2019-08-17T12:58:10.207" UserId="18033" Text="No, there is absolutely no way to include anything new in any patent application anywhere, no matter what the reason is, once the application has been filed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your best option is to nationalize the PCT application in the US. You could claim priority to the PCT application, too, but in Europe that would be only valid for the new matter introduced there. I don't know if there is some trick with continuations in part or something like that in the US to have the non-prov. rmeoved from beeing prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20756" RevisionGUID="c6b11567-c88f-4942-abdb-b01f1fd2f4f4" CreationDate="2019-08-17T13:39:55.593" UserId="17003" Text="I do work with startup companies. One way they handle this sort of thing is to keep the invention secret while attempting to obtain funding. To do this, you have to execute confidentiality agreements with potential investors. If the investors agree to back the invention, then you can use part of that funding to file for patent protection. The reality is that without sufficient funding, you will never be able to effectively market a product. The cost of patenting is only part of that necessary funding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As George White states, there is no way to keep others from patenting an invention while keeping it secret. If someone else gets the same idea, they can file for a patent. If their application is filed before yours, they win and you lose. If you publish your invention publicly, it becomes prior art and should keep anyone from patenting it (including yourself). There are some nuances in that some countries have grace periods, but generally that is how things work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20757" RevisionGUID="65ad4fef-8e7f-45c7-9c7e-c8785f934ddb" CreationDate="2019-08-17T14:18:43.603" UserId="22334" Text="You can know for sure that not only the Chinese patents and patent applications coming from the PCT Route are included in Google Patents because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The [Chinese document coverage][1] in Google Patents includes patent documents from 1985 and 1990.&#xD;&#xA;- China became a [PCT Contracting State][2] in January 1994.&#xD;&#xA;- Only international applications with a filing date on or after China became a PCT CS can enter into the Chinese national phase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Espacenet database][3] publishes the most recent Chinese patent documents earlier than Google Patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/coverage/CN&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/pct_contracting_states.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.epo.org/searching-for-patents/technical/patent-additions.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20758" RevisionGUID="8266dad7-32ae-452f-b944-9403c9c328ca" CreationDate="2019-08-17T16:36:50.187" UserId="22351" Text="How do you separate the sections of nested method claims to avoid misinterpretation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1. A method for doing something the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;     making square widget comprising: &#xD;&#xA;       petting the widget to make it square;&#xD;&#xA;       kicking the widget to make it submissive;&#xD;&#xA;     hardening the made square widget.}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me this is unclear if the step of &quot;hardening&quot; is a substep of of &quot;making&quot; or if it is an independent step on its own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions:&#xD;&#xA;1. Is the claim clear enough as it is?&#xD;&#xA;2. Or should I use double semicolon after &quot;submissive;;&quot; to separate the last sub-step from the next step?&#xD;&#xA;3. Is there yet another way to separate the steps?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57771" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20758" RevisionGUID="8266dad7-32ae-452f-b944-9403c9c328ca" CreationDate="2019-08-17T16:36:50.187" UserId="22351" Text="Nested Claim Construction (US patent practice)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57772" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20758" RevisionGUID="8266dad7-32ae-452f-b944-9403c9c328ca" CreationDate="2019-08-17T16:36:50.187" UserId="22351" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57773" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20758" RevisionGUID="cba35f6c-db20-4a4c-af70-9fe2afd0058c" CreationDate="2019-08-17T17:02:40.067" UserId="22351" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="How do you separate the sections of nested method claims to avoid misinterpretation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Claim 1. A method for doing something the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;     making square widget comprising: &#xD;&#xA;       petting the widget to make it square;&#xD;&#xA;       kicking the widget to make it submissive;&#xD;&#xA;     hardening the made square widget.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me this is unclear if the step of &quot;hardening&quot; is a substep of &quot;making&quot; or if it's an independent step on its own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is the claim clear enough as it is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Or should I use double semicolon after &quot;submissive;;&quot; to separate the last sub-step from the next step?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Is there yet another way to separate the steps?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20759" RevisionGUID="4d8c5f6e-e3e8-44a7-857f-2919ea3f356a" CreationDate="2019-08-17T17:19:32.763" UserId="22334" Text="Re 1. Please note that clarity is quite subjective, therefore some examiners would object to the clarity of a claimed whereas some others would not. You may find some [guidelines][1] about clarity here and there, or manuals handed to examiners, but beyond subject-matter that is objectively unclear, pretty much you cannot say for sure whether the examiner assigned to your case will find the claims clear or not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the only feature that I see as being potentially unclear is &quot;kicking the widget to make it submissive;&quot;, because unlike the very last feature you are not referring to the made square widget or the petted widget. Perhaps you do not want to refer to the petted widget because you are limiting the claimed scope by implicitly defining the order of the steps, which is fair. You may add and &quot;and&quot;, i.e. &quot;petting the widget to make it square; **and** kicking the widget to make it submissive;&quot;. For me, that would be clear. It also helps if you indent each feature based on the relevant comprising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way you drafted those steps, the hardening step is an independent step because you are clearly referring to thr made square widget, thus it cannot be part of the making square widget step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re 2. You should not use double semicolon. Use &quot;and&quot; before the last feature of each comprising. You would also include &quot;and&quot; after &quot;submissive;&quot; because then you claim the last feature of the first comprising. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re 3. Sometimes I have used a step by structure without receiving any clarity objections in the US, e.g. making square widget at least by both petting the widget to make it square, and kicking the widget to make it submissive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/E8r8#/E8r8/d0e217598.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20760" RevisionGUID="08280687-2841-48ab-ac0a-63a16931207b" CreationDate="2019-08-17T17:21:27.743" UserId="3076" Text="You can use a numbered (actually lettered) outline form and repetition of wording for clarity. Claim 1. A method for doing something the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA; (a) making square widget comprising: &#xD;&#xA;      (i)   petting the widget to make it square;&#xD;&#xA;      (ii) kicking the widget to make it submissive;&#xD;&#xA; (b) hardening the made square widget.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another approach is&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1. A method for doing something the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA; making square widget&#xD;&#xA; hardening the made square widget,&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; where making a square widget comprises: &#xD;&#xA;    petting the widget to make it square;&#xD;&#xA;    kicking the widget to make it submissive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57776" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20759" RevisionGUID="15f60e19-5609-4e48-8f5f-7fcc8cdafeee" CreationDate="2019-08-17T17:57:14.177" UserId="22334" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Re 1. Please note that clarity is quite subjective, therefore some examiners would object to the clarity of a claimed whereas some others would not. You may find some [guidelines][1] about clarity here and there, or manuals handed to examiners, but beyond subject-matter that is objectively unclear, pretty much you cannot say for sure whether the examiner assigned to your case will find the claims clear or not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the only feature that I see as being potentially unclear is &quot;kicking the widget to make it submissive;&quot;, because unlike the very last feature you are not referring to the made square widget or the petted widget. Perhaps you do not want to refer to &quot;the petted widget&quot; because you would be limiting the claimed scope by implicitly defining the order of the steps; it is fair not do so. You may add and &quot;and&quot;, i.e. &quot;petting the widget to make it square; **and** kicking the widget to make it submissive;&quot;. For me, that would be clear. It also helps if you indent each feature based on the relevant comprising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way you drafted those steps, the hardening step is an independent step because you are clearly referring to thr made square widget, thus it cannot be part of the making square widget step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re 2. You should not use double semicolon. Use &quot;and&quot; before the last feature of each comprising. You would also include &quot;and&quot; after &quot;submissive;&quot; because then you claim the last feature of the first comprising. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re 3. Sometimes I have used a step by structure without receiving any clarity objections in the US, e.g. making square widget at least by both petting the widget to make it square, and kicking the widget to make it submissive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/E8r8#/E8r8/d0e217598.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20761" RevisionGUID="22c84f25-15d2-4512-b2a4-ed9dafedc87b" CreationDate="2019-08-17T18:22:09.257" UserId="22352" Text="Is a payment due on this patent? 7878576. If so, how do I pay?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57778" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20761" RevisionGUID="22c84f25-15d2-4512-b2a4-ed9dafedc87b" CreationDate="2019-08-17T18:22:09.257" UserId="22352" Text="Is my patent expiring because of no payment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57779" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20761" RevisionGUID="22c84f25-15d2-4512-b2a4-ed9dafedc87b" CreationDate="2019-08-17T18:22:09.257" UserId="22352" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20762" RevisionGUID="e6c3326d-0450-4b6c-ad6b-9f76daf6ccf3" CreationDate="2019-08-17T18:33:06.450" UserId="22351" Text="1. Is this a common practice to amend a claim by striking through the entire text of the claim and introducing completely new text, instead canceling the claim and introducing a new claim. I mean no word of the original claim remains in the amended claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. When claims are cancelled, for example claims 2-4 in a patent application with 7 claims, does the patent after being issued also contain the same numbering as during prosecution and the claims have numbers 1,5,6,7 and there are no claims numbered 2,3,4?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57781" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20762" RevisionGUID="e6c3326d-0450-4b6c-ad6b-9f76daf6ccf3" CreationDate="2019-08-17T18:33:06.450" UserId="22351" Text="Is this a common practice to amend a claim by striking through every word in the original claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57782" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20762" RevisionGUID="e6c3326d-0450-4b6c-ad6b-9f76daf6ccf3" CreationDate="2019-08-17T18:33:06.450" UserId="22351" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claims-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20763" RevisionGUID="4d2324c9-c11f-42c2-a227-8090cf49ec6b" CreationDate="2019-08-17T23:02:21.180" UserId="3076" Text="It is **not at all** common practice to cross out all of the words and replace them with other words. Just cancel the claim and add a new one at the end, using the next number. In the U.S. the original claim numbering is maintained until after allowance. As part of the process of preparation for issuing a granted patent the claims are renumbered." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20764" RevisionGUID="c87cb9e2-0c8c-42b3-a8d9-abd043e130d6" CreationDate="2019-08-17T23:08:55.237" UserId="3076" Text="It seems to be is expired - you may need to petition to revive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;AIRFLOW DEFLECTOR ASSEMBLY&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent #7878576&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Application # 12460959&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Filing Date 07/27/2009 Issue Date 02/01/2011&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Payment Window Status Window 7.5 Year&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Status Closed&#xD;&#xA;Fees Unpaid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see https://fees.uspto.gov/MaintenanceFees" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57785" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18328" RevisionGUID="1178d899-50f4-4608-8448-c2d434e623af" CreationDate="2019-08-18T01:03:00.383" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57786" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20647" RevisionGUID="0e8c2c1b-c209-43c7-989f-e1013a2de9fa" CreationDate="2019-08-18T02:02:50.357" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20766" RevisionGUID="854e0468-60f5-46fa-9d53-768073d76d25" CreationDate="2019-08-18T17:32:33.980" UserId="19232" Text="I have a fast-approaching deadline to make payment on an NOA application (a CON on original granted patent), in order to get it granted. I also want to keep open the chance to extend the family by filing a CIP, which is well underway. But I may not have it truly ready on time to file, just before making that payment on the NOA patent. If I file what I have, then later revise any or all parts of the application, what are the consequences? Are there additional fees involved, and how much time may be allowed for such revision submissions? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57792" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20766" RevisionGUID="854e0468-60f5-46fa-9d53-768073d76d25" CreationDate="2019-08-18T17:32:33.980" UserId="19232" Text="Revision of an application after submission, when responding to a deadline to maintain family continuity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57793" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20766" RevisionGUID="854e0468-60f5-46fa-9d53-768073d76d25" CreationDate="2019-08-18T17:32:33.980" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;filing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20767" RevisionGUID="836afe1d-6c03-46ef-861a-33b959f1bdd4" CreationDate="2019-08-18T19:28:39.267" UserId="3076" Text="Under the AIA there is a provision to file an, essentially, no-content continuation. Use the File by Reference option on the ADS form. You need to follow up with specification, drawings and claims later but you will have filed the continuation on time if it is before the parent issues as a patent. See https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/important-information-completing-application-data-sheet-ads" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57795" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="d6cde2f5-cbab-482b-9dde-5e863ed3aef5" CreationDate="2019-08-18T20:00:31.237" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20768" RevisionGUID="9e376c8a-f32b-47e5-bab9-6c49721383c8" CreationDate="2019-08-19T03:33:33.543" UserId="6121" Text="I have a claim like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    1. A method for ....., the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;            providing X for a user;&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;    2. The method of claim 1, wherein the user was instructed to do X&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claim 2 contains the word &quot;was&quot;. Is the claim 2 valid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: The word &quot;was&quot; makes more sense than &quot;is&quot; in my situation. That's why I'm asking this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57797" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20768" RevisionGUID="9e376c8a-f32b-47e5-bab9-6c49721383c8" CreationDate="2019-08-19T03:33:33.543" UserId="6121" Text="Can a claim &quot;wherein&quot; clause contain past tense?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57798" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20768" RevisionGUID="9e376c8a-f32b-47e5-bab9-6c49721383c8" CreationDate="2019-08-19T03:33:33.543" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20769" RevisionGUID="630570ec-6d13-408a-8138-ea5d720f5219" CreationDate="2019-08-19T04:35:40.253" UserId="22351" Text="Is the claim 2 mixing method and machine and if it is how would you rewrite it to avoid it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    1. A method for doing things comprising: step 1; step 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    2. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one step of the method&#xD;&#xA;       is performed with an assistance of an online computer system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57800" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20769" RevisionGUID="630570ec-6d13-408a-8138-ea5d720f5219" CreationDate="2019-08-19T04:35:40.253" UserId="22351" Text="How to separate method from machine in a claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57801" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20769" RevisionGUID="630570ec-6d13-408a-8138-ea5d720f5219" CreationDate="2019-08-19T04:35:40.253" UserId="22351" Text="&lt;claims-construction&gt;&lt;clams&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20770" RevisionGUID="ae33db37-6c79-41e1-b125-e037a8d9bebb" CreationDate="2019-08-19T05:48:58.873" UserId="22351" Text="The claim 2 has a list of means that apply to &quot;the object&quot; but it may be misconstrued that the last element in the list is not &quot;intercepting&quot; but rather &quot;intercepting the object&quot; in which case the other means would not apply to anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A method for decelerating an object, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;limiting a speed and/or position of the object;&#xD;&#xA;enabling deceleration controls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:&#xD;&#xA;	enforcing a speed limit resulting from the limiting, wherein the enforcing comprises at least one of: breaking, capturing, &quot;intercepting&quot; the object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Can this claim be written in a better format?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Perhaps a semicolon after the &quot;intercepting&quot; would be a good separator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57803" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20770" RevisionGUID="ae33db37-6c79-41e1-b125-e037a8d9bebb" CreationDate="2019-08-19T05:48:58.873" UserId="22351" Text="How to delimit the last element in a list of means?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57804" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20770" RevisionGUID="ae33db37-6c79-41e1-b125-e037a8d9bebb" CreationDate="2019-08-19T05:48:58.873" UserId="22351" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claims-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20771" RevisionGUID="6564895e-18b3-48d2-94b7-1d6e56e25ed1" CreationDate="2019-08-19T08:30:44.920" UserId="22334" Text="I have seen it from time to time, I personally do not like it because I do not know how that would be interpreted in case of litigation, but there are granted patents with past tenses in the claims, so apparently it should be OK. My preference is to draft that as a further normal step of the method, e.g. 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising instructing the user to do X prior to the providing step. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in your proposal you are not really limiting to a sequence of the steps (when was the user instructed?) even if it would be common sense that the instruction is given prior to the provision of X." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20772" RevisionGUID="85c11c56-757f-4251-9027-370fed3a4007" CreationDate="2019-08-19T08:40:56.603" UserId="22334" Text="No, you are not mixing different categories if that is what you mean. A step of a method may be carried out by a device, machine, etc., and that limits the scope of the claim, which refers to a method not a machine. You could even draft a claim depending upon claim 2 in which you are claiming a method but you further limit the online computer system, for example it comprises a multi-core processing unit. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20773" RevisionGUID="49a7da24-b6b6-4092-a9d1-668be0d1498c" CreationDate="2019-08-19T12:33:12.787" UserId="22356" Text="My question is not technical and possibly some people here will think it's not an appropriate question. But I thought that this community is possibly the only place where it has a chance of being answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember seeing on TechCrunch (or alike) some years ago about a startup that had a service where you could organize and upload your sketches and notes to document and protect your ideas while you were still developing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't remember the service in detail, but I think the idea was that you could use those drawings and notes in case of a dispute; and also, they could use your sketches and notes to fill up a patent or other IPs when it was time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to search online for a similar service, but didn't find any - only regular consulting websites, but not a tool like the one I was searching.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone remember about that startup? Are they still in business? Or do you know about any similar service?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57808" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20773" RevisionGUID="49a7da24-b6b6-4092-a9d1-668be0d1498c" CreationDate="2019-08-19T12:33:12.787" UserId="22356" Text="Any startup service that streamlines the patent process?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57809" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20773" RevisionGUID="49a7da24-b6b6-4092-a9d1-668be0d1498c" CreationDate="2019-08-19T12:33:12.787" UserId="22356" Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;start-ups&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20774" RevisionGUID="9743490a-3d57-44fe-b500-8c5086c1a7dc" CreationDate="2019-08-19T20:25:43.863" UserId="3076" Text="The service you describe, if it existed, would not afford any protection prior to actually filing for a patent. Something like that might be a virtual &quot;inventors notebook&quot; for keep records of your inventive progress but the value of keeping records of your progress in inventing now have very very little value. Before the AIA patent law change, it was possible for someone who filed for an invention after another person did so to try to proof they actually invented first. Now we are a first-to-file system, like the rest of the world. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Getting information about your invention that are then used as a starting point in drafting a proper application is what patent attorneys and patent agent are licensed to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LegalZoom has a service that fills out a U.S. provisional application for you. It involves uploading drawings and answering questions. Some people get the impression that they add to your content in some way but they do not. Your input, verbatim, is turned into an application. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20775" RevisionGUID="94fb3931-4f25-4ccf-ad52-f97e0ab8483a" CreationDate="2019-08-19T20:32:02.180" UserId="3076" Text="The way you have written claim 1 &quot;enabling deceleration controls&quot; reads like a second step. In claim 2 it is unclear as to if &quot;intercepting&quot; the object&quot; is one of the ways of enforcing or is a second step. If it one of items in a list of ways of enforcing, then you need an &quot;or&quot;. If it is a separate, second step, you need &quot;; and&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20776" RevisionGUID="48791c58-9b39-4b7d-a7ad-bfec8df3d568" CreationDate="2019-08-19T21:39:59.720" UserId="22359" Text="I have recently come up with a very interesting concept in engineering that I would also like to share with peers. However, I am relatively fearful that someone may hear the idea and make it or patent it before I can. Thus, I would like to find a way to legally mark the idea as my own and make certain that no one can copy the concept and profit off of the copy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way the device works is relatively simple. The method of operation I would like to have labelled as mine would be relatively general (&quot;chlorine gas is run through liquid x to produce y, which is taken to the magnetic gun&quot;, &quot;water is used to make the metal behave like a conductor for when y is introduced&quot;). I would like to lay claim. to this concept if possible. It has never been done before, thus, there is no worry about it being in public domain. I would just like it under my name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The device design is far too expensive for me to build at the moment on any scale. I am afraid that if someone with money gets wind of how it works on a basic level, they could create it for themselves, especially if they are in the particular industry that I am focusing on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I am very low on money at the moment and could maybe only pay $200 to undergo whatever would be needed to claim the idea as my own. What options are available to me? How should I proceed? Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57813" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20776" RevisionGUID="48791c58-9b39-4b7d-a7ad-bfec8df3d568" CreationDate="2019-08-19T21:39:59.720" UserId="22359" Text="Way to Claim a theoretical model of how a device works for under $200" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57814" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20776" RevisionGUID="48791c58-9b39-4b7d-a7ad-bfec8df3d568" CreationDate="2019-08-19T21:39:59.720" UserId="22359" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;intellectual-property&gt;&lt;start-ups&gt;&lt;intellectualproperty-laws&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20777" RevisionGUID="f19f641b-f01e-46df-80a1-4cdc35e4ceb4" CreationDate="2019-08-19T22:16:16.640" UserId="6121" Text="A week back, I got a [very good answer][1] regarding PCT provisional protection. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a related question. Is it necessary for a national application to claim priority to the PCT application to get the provisional protection?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's just say, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I filed a US provisional in Jan 2019.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I filed a US non-provisional in Feb 2019 by claiming priority to the US provisional. This US non-provisional has only 1 claim.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I filed a PCT application in Jun 2019 by claiming priority to US provisional and non-provisional, but this one has 100 claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since PCT application is not the parent of US non-provisional, does it gets the provisional protection available under PCT? i.e. For all 100 claims instead of 1 claim?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/20734/6121" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57816" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20777" RevisionGUID="f19f641b-f01e-46df-80a1-4cdc35e4ceb4" CreationDate="2019-08-19T22:16:16.640" UserId="6121" Text="Is it necessary for a national application to claim priority to the PCT application to get the provisional protection?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57817" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20777" RevisionGUID="f19f641b-f01e-46df-80a1-4cdc35e4ceb4" CreationDate="2019-08-19T22:16:16.640" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;patent-pending&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20778" RevisionGUID="22fd1cfe-dc23-4154-a318-854d4dab5b06" CreationDate="2019-08-19T23:02:45.497" UserId="3076" Text="**You can keep the idea/concept/invention confidential until you have enough money to file a patent**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People with no previous background who write and file their own patents do not often end up with the protection they desired but it is possible for you to make a serious study of patent law and patent office procedures. I recommend David Pressman's Patent It Yourself. It is not an easy path but the book + filing fees for as a An alternative is to find a business partner/investor. I also recommend posting at patents.stackexchange.com for fewer uninformed comments regarding patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also - the USPTO has regional [pro bono programs][1]. If you qualify, you can get free help from a patent attorney. You need to pay the USPTO fees and the criteria includes your likely commercial success.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(This is a copy of my answer to the same question posted on law.stackexchange.com)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/using-legal-services/pro-bono/patent-pro-bono-program" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20779" RevisionGUID="a51d6e5d-5fbf-430d-8a06-b4d2b6367b82" CreationDate="2019-08-19T23:15:29.470" UserId="3076" Text="The U.S., the EPO and other locations offer provisional rights related to the publication of patent applications. The rights vary, but the idea is that you can potentially recover royalties from others who make, sell, use, etc. in a way that infringe the claims you *eventually* get in an issued patent, the royalties essentially back-dated to the time of your publication.. Usually there is also some requirement that you have put them on notice. There is definitely the requirement that the issued claims are very close to the published claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the answer you got before, a primary issue were rights under the EPO. If the U.S. application has no relationship to the PCT application, the provisional rights in question would relate to the single claim filed in the U.S. There might be time to amend the U.S. application to include other claims in time for that amended version to be what is published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the bigger picture, I  would focus on the rights you hope to get under actual issued patents. For example, I would priorities getting valuable claims allowed over preserving the wording of the published claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57820" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="c6be4039-53bc-4efc-a270-842dd4d28f4c" CreationDate="2019-08-20T00:03:10.527" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20780" RevisionGUID="279a110c-6b61-433f-b60d-586b2bc04fe5" CreationDate="2019-08-20T07:29:50.537" UserId="22334" Text="In your example, you cannot claim priority from the PCT in your US non-provisional because the PCT does not predate the US non-provisional. The only way you would be able to claim priority from the PCT is by filing a subsequent US non-provisional within the applicable priority year. Accordingly, if the subject-matter of all the claims of the PCT was disclosed in the PCT for the first time, you could claim priority during the 12-month period after the filing date of the PCT; if, however, the subject-matter of at least one claim of the PCT was disclosed in the US provisional and/or US non-provisional, you would have to claim priority from the PCT during the 12-month period after the filing date of the US provisional or US non-provisional (it depends on which of the two disclosed the subject-matter for the first time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the national law of some States may grant provisional protection when a patent application is published, sometimes if certain requirements are met. The provisional protection is based upon the claims as published. Therefore, even if you were to file a new US non-provisional claiming priority from the PCT, you would have to include the 100 claims in that US non-provisional; this means that it is irrelevant what is claimed in the PCT, it is the claims of the US non-provisional the ones that matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, fortunately the PCT allows, by way of [Art. 29][1], that an international application grants provisional protection: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;(1)  As far as the protection of any rights of the applicant in a designated State is concerned, the effects, in that State, of the international publication of an international application shall, subject to the provisions of paragraphs (2) to (4), be the same as those which the national law of the designated State provides for the compulsory national publication of unexamined national applications as such.&quot;* Be sure to read the rest of the Article too just so you have the whole picture regarding provisional protection. Therefore, as aforementioned, since provisional protection is a matter of national law, the provisional protection of a PCT may exist in some designated states if they so allow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US, international applications also confer provisional protection pursuant to [35 USC 154 (d)][2]: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Provisional Rights.—&#xD;&#xA;(1)In general.—In addition to other rights provided by this section, a patent shall include the right to obtain a reasonable royalty from any person who, during the period beginning on the date of publication of the application for such patent under section 122(b), or in the case of **an international application** filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) designating the United States under Article 21(2)(a) of such treaty or an international design application filed under the treaty defined in section 381(a)(1) designating the United States under Article 5 of such treaty, the date of publication of the application, and ending on the date the patent is issued&quot;*. Be sure to read the whole part (d) of 35 USC 154 as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that your PCT will get you the provisional protection in the US, as long as the PCT designates the US (which it does unless you explicitly withdraw the designation), is published in English (or you provide a translation into English) and give proper notice to the party that could be infringing the scope claimed in the PCT. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/a29.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20780" RevisionGUID="09f5db90-a2d6-4442-96d0-7f11bda107cc" CreationDate="2019-08-20T07:37:52.653" UserId="22334" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="In your example, you cannot claim priority from the PCT in your US non-provisional because the PCT does not predate the US non-provisional. The only way you would be able to claim priority from the PCT is by filing a subsequent US non-provisional within the applicable priority year. Accordingly, if the subject-matter of all the claims of the PCT was disclosed in the PCT for the first time, you could claim priority during the 12-month period after the filing date of the PCT; if, however, the subject-matter of at least one claim of the PCT was disclosed in the US provisional and/or US non-provisional, you would have to claim priority from the PCT during the 12-month period after the filing date of the US provisional or US non-provisional (it depends on which of the two disclosed the subject-matter for the first time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the national law of some States may grant provisional protection when a patent application is published, sometimes if certain requirements are met. The provisional protection is based upon the claims as published. Therefore, even if you were to file a new US non-provisional claiming priority from the PCT, you would have to include the 100 claims in that US non-provisional; this means that it is irrelevant what is claimed in the PCT, it is the claims of the US non-provisional the ones that matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, fortunately the PCT allows, by way of [Art. 29][1], that an international application grants provisional protection: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;(1)  As far as the protection of any rights of the applicant in a designated State is concerned, the effects, in that State, of the international publication of an international application shall, subject to the provisions of paragraphs (2) to (4), be the same as those which the national law of the designated State provides for the compulsory national publication of unexamined national applications as such.&quot;* Be sure to read the rest of the Article too just so you have the whole picture regarding provisional protection. Therefore, as aforementioned, since provisional protection is a matter of national law, the provisional protection of a PCT may exist in some designated states if they so allow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to my understanding (kindly note that I am not a US patent attorney), in the US, international applications also confer provisional protection pursuant to [35 USC 154 (d)][2]: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Provisional Rights.—&#xD;&#xA;(1)In general.—In addition to other rights provided by this section, a patent shall include the right to obtain a reasonable royalty from any person who, during the period beginning on the date of publication of the application for such patent under section 122(b), or in the case of **an international application** filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) designating the United States under Article 21(2)(a) of such treaty or an international design application filed under the treaty defined in section 381(a)(1) designating the United States under Article 5 of such treaty, the date of publication of the application, and ending on the date the patent is issued&quot;*. Be sure to read the whole part (d) of 35 USC 154 as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would mean that your PCT will get you the provisional protection in the US, as long as the PCT designates the US (which it does unless you explicitly withdraw the designation), is published in English (or you provide a translation into English) and give proper notice to the party that could be infringing the scope claimed in the PCT. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/a29.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20781" RevisionGUID="42577f77-e711-432d-ad68-27076f25c5bc" CreationDate="2019-08-20T17:51:25.370" UserId="22351" Text="I would like to use the term &quot;non pliable&quot; in the claim preamble which does not appear in the specification. However the term &quot;pliable&quot; does appear in the specification but is not specifically defined. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    1. A method for converting a non pliable widget into a pliable widget, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;       compressing the widget;&#xD;&#xA;       heating the widget;&#xD;&#xA;       applying a force to the widget.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. How a term not present in the specification is interpreted when used in a preamble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Can a claim be deemed indefinite because of use of a term not in a preamble which is not present in specification?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Howe likely it is that such claim will be invalidated in court during a potential patent challenge?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Or perhaps I should write it like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could potentially write it like this but then the preamble will be less descriptive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    1. A method for converting a widget into a pliable widget, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57824" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20781" RevisionGUID="42577f77-e711-432d-ad68-27076f25c5bc" CreationDate="2019-08-20T17:51:25.370" UserId="22351" Text="Can claim preamble contain terms not present in specification?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57825" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20781" RevisionGUID="42577f77-e711-432d-ad68-27076f25c5bc" CreationDate="2019-08-20T17:51:25.370" UserId="22351" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claims-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20781" RevisionGUID="2bc61c5f-15e0-40a1-83cf-c2ba56bbcfd6" CreationDate="2019-08-20T17:58:03.020" UserId="22351" Comment="deleted 221 characters in body" Text="I would like to use the term &quot;non pliable&quot; in the claim preamble which does not appear in the specification. However the term &quot;pliable&quot; does appear in the specification but is not specifically defined. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    1. A method for converting a non pliable widget into a pliable widget, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;       compressing the widget;&#xD;&#xA;       heating the widget;&#xD;&#xA;       applying a force to the widget.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. How a term not present in the specification is interpreted when used in a preamble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Do the claim's steps define the meaning of the terms &quot;non pliable&quot; and &quot;pliable&quot; in the preamble? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Can a claim be deemed indefinite because of use of a term not in a preamble which is not present in specification?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Howe likely it is that such claim will be invalidated in court during a potential patent challenge?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20782" RevisionGUID="8b1549d9-1f61-460c-844b-85e5b7e06ef5" CreationDate="2019-08-20T18:42:51.507" UserId="3076" Text="It is best not to use terms in a claim that are not present in the specification however it will not necessarily be objected to as indefinite. I assume, in your example, that the specification does explain how a non-pliable widget is made into a pliable widget. If you also explain why one would want a pliable widget and what you can do with a pliable widget that you can't do with a non-pliable widget, then you have provided an operative definition of pliable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preambles are treated inconsistently in U.S. patent law. The shorthand is that they are not considered when it would benefit you but they are used when it hurts you. During examination an examiner will often say that the preamble is not taken as a limitation. During litigation, if someone is doing your same steps but can argue that they are not fulfilling your preamble, they might get away from infringing on your steps. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20783" RevisionGUID="e76c0c1c-5962-4407-a559-5dddd4f4c2c1" CreationDate="2019-08-20T19:05:38.867" UserId="22351" Text="If during response to an office action I cancel a claim and then introduce a new claim in its place then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Do I have to pay a fee for the new claim or is it covered under a previously paid fees, assuming the total number of pending claims is the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Do I have to fill again the fee worksheet form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57829" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20783" RevisionGUID="e76c0c1c-5962-4407-a559-5dddd4f4c2c1" CreationDate="2019-08-20T19:05:38.867" UserId="22351" Text="How fees are calculated for new claims that replace cancelled claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57830" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20783" RevisionGUID="e76c0c1c-5962-4407-a559-5dddd4f4c2c1" CreationDate="2019-08-20T19:05:38.867" UserId="22351" Text="&lt;fees&gt;&lt;prosecution&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20784" RevisionGUID="6b16215d-73cc-4afd-94fa-7c21dfa51a9a" CreationDate="2019-08-20T19:19:02.227" UserId="17003" Text="Simply stated, there is no way to protect your idea other than keeping it a secret. Even then, if someone else discovers the invention independently, they can file for a patent and if they do so before you and it gets granted, they will own the invention. You can file a provisional patent application for a low cost which will give you a year to raise funds to draft and file a non-provisional application. Even then, you need to know what to put in the provisional application to assure you get the benefit of its filing date. Some people file a provisional application and use that time to raise money to fund the filing of non-provisional patent applications along with development of the invention. To disclose the invention to potential investors requires you have a signed confidentiality agreement. These are usually simple one page affairs and you can find examples using Google." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20785" RevisionGUID="364eacf7-af85-4764-b47d-53997cca8cd7" CreationDate="2019-08-20T20:44:05.260" UserId="3076" Text="There is a key distinction made between withdrawn claims and canceled claims. A canceled claim subtracts from your total, a withdrawn claim does not. I know of someone - a patent attorney - who withdrew 20 claims, added twenty claims and then got a notice of fees due on having 40 total claims on file. It is unfix-able by any action after the amendment was submitted. Even if you immediately cancel the withdrawn claims you still owe on the 40 that were once on file. He *tried* to pass the bill to his client. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57833" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17720" RevisionGUID="897a247e-df1f-4202-b249-3a5a49872c50" CreationDate="2019-08-21T07:01:25.457" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20786" RevisionGUID="cfff903c-77d6-4c08-abe6-c5dec41f55d5" CreationDate="2019-08-21T10:09:11.827" UserId="22363" Text="I followed my patent application after 3 years and found that it is abandoned. The abandonment report mentioned that patent has been abandoned because &quot;No reply has been received&quot;. The final claim report says that out of 21 claims 4 non-elected, 9 rejected, and 8 objected. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The assignee is my previous employer and after receiving Index of Claims they didn't reply, which caused the abandonment of patent.&lt;br/&gt; Legally speaking, is it possible to revoke/revive the abandoned patent with the current employer as a new assignee?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt; Is there any difference between rejected and abandoned patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57835" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20786" RevisionGUID="cfff903c-77d6-4c08-abe6-c5dec41f55d5" CreationDate="2019-08-21T10:09:11.827" UserId="22363" Text="Non-Elected, Rejected and Objected claims, and reviving the abandoned patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57836" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20786" RevisionGUID="cfff903c-77d6-4c08-abe6-c5dec41f55d5" CreationDate="2019-08-21T10:09:11.827" UserId="22363" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;abandoned-patent&gt;&lt;assignee&gt;&lt;revive&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57840" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="4f14e690-1cd3-4182-b32c-28e427af3c2e" CreationDate="2019-08-21T11:01:05.080" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20780" RevisionGUID="6f475916-7919-413d-9759-693e317dda5e" CreationDate="2019-08-21T17:23:28.817" UserId="22334" Comment="Added that the US national phase must be entered from the PCT and the resulting patent application must be granted. Also, PCT must be submitted to the USPTO if not filed with the USPTO." Text="In your example, you cannot claim priority from the PCT in your US non-provisional because the PCT does not predate the US non-provisional. The only way you would be able to claim priority from the PCT is by filing a subsequent US non-provisional within the applicable priority year. Accordingly, if the subject-matter of all the claims of the PCT was disclosed in the PCT for the first time, you could claim priority during the 12-month period after the filing date of the PCT; if, however, the subject-matter of at least one claim of the PCT was disclosed in the US provisional and/or US non-provisional, you would have to claim priority from the PCT during the 12-month period after the filing date of the US provisional or US non-provisional (it depends on which of the two disclosed the subject-matter for the first time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the national law of some States may grant provisional protection when a patent application is published, sometimes if certain requirements are met. The provisional protection is based upon the claims as published. Therefore, even if you were to file a new US non-provisional claiming priority from the PCT, you would have to include the 100 claims in that US non-provisional; this means that it is irrelevant what is claimed in the PCT, it is the claims of the US non-provisional the ones that matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, fortunately the PCT allows, by way of [Art. 29][1], that an international application grants provisional protection: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;(1)  As far as the protection of any rights of the applicant in a designated State is concerned, the effects, in that State, of the international publication of an international application shall, subject to the provisions of paragraphs (2) to (4), be the same as those which the national law of the designated State provides for the compulsory national publication of unexamined national applications as such.&quot;* Be sure to read the rest of the Article too just so you have the whole picture regarding provisional protection. Therefore, as aforementioned, since provisional protection is a matter of national law, the provisional protection of a PCT may exist in some designated states if they so allow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to my understanding (kindly note that I am not a US patent attorney), in the US, international applications also confer provisional protection pursuant to [35 USC 154 (d)][2]: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Provisional Rights.—&#xD;&#xA;(1)In general.—In addition to other rights provided by this section, a patent shall include the right to obtain a reasonable royalty from any person who, during the period beginning on the date of publication of the application for such patent under section 122(b), or in the case of **an international application** filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) designating the United States under Article 21(2)(a) of such treaty or an international design application filed under the treaty defined in section 381(a)(1) designating the United States under Article 5 of such treaty, the date of publication of the application, and ending on the date the patent is issued&quot;*. Be sure to read the whole part (d) of 35 USC 154 as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would mean that your PCT will get you the provisional protection in the US, as long as the PCT designates the US (which it does unless you explicitly withdraw the designation), is published in English (or you provide a translation into English) and the publication of the international application (or the translation into English thereof) is submitted to the USPTO if the PCT was not filed with the USPTO. Also, you must give proper notice to the party that could be infringing the scope claimed in the PCT, and a US patent originating from the PCT (i.e. the US national phase is entered) is granted later on with identical or similar claim scope. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/a29.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57849" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20667" RevisionGUID="48f0a02f-bfa3-4552-af05-6011aad1413b" CreationDate="2019-08-22T00:02:10.227" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57853" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="c5c6203a-7f88-4dbb-a2a0-2ba40d87d7af" CreationDate="2019-08-22T03:03:20.367" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57854" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18600" RevisionGUID="012903e4-8376-4e08-b21a-78070a2d2751" CreationDate="2019-08-22T08:03:15.377" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20790" RevisionGUID="5519ecbe-8c2b-454c-9da4-e8c92248d02a" CreationDate="2019-08-22T21:55:43.227" UserId="22351" Text="Is this claim valid or is this an example of alternative claiming of one or more species.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     2. A method of claim 1 further comprising: &#xD;&#xA;        enforcing at least one of: application rights, application properties, &#xD;&#xA;        wherein the enforcing is performed by at least one of: a computer, &#xD;&#xA;        a mechanical device. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57858" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20790" RevisionGUID="5519ecbe-8c2b-454c-9da4-e8c92248d02a" CreationDate="2019-08-22T21:55:43.227" UserId="22351" Text="Is a claim containing two alternatives valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57859" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20790" RevisionGUID="5519ecbe-8c2b-454c-9da4-e8c92248d02a" CreationDate="2019-08-22T21:55:43.227" UserId="22351" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claims-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20791" RevisionGUID="73f37465-26eb-4ce7-b8b7-55a5b1d3aedd" CreationDate="2019-08-23T14:17:07.960" UserId="22334" Text="The number of alternatives and the way the claim is drafted does not really matter, and it should not depend on the examiner whether a restriction requirement is issued. The alternatives should be assessed from a technical standpoint, and restriction requirement should be issued when [the following occurs][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*There are two criteria for a proper requirement for restriction between patentably distinct inventions:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(A) The inventions must be independent (see MPEP § 802.01, § 806.06, § 808.01) or distinct as claimed (see MPEP § 806.05 - § 806.05(j)); and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(B) There would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required (see MPEP § 803.02, § 808, and § 808.02).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning (B):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For purposes of the initial requirement, a serious burden on the examiner may be prima facie shown by appropriate explanation of separate classification, or separate status in the art, or a different field of search as defined in MPEP § 808.02*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By way of example, you may claim 10 different alloys in one claim (or more claims) and not be forced to select a species if the alloys do not relate to different inventions and there is no serious burden on the examiner for examining the invention with each alloy, but be forced to restrict to one of two species if you claim two different features in two claims (or in one claim as in your example) that relate to different inventions or the examination of both different embodiments require searches in different classifications, for example. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you and your patent agent (if any) know your invention, you are the only ones able to determine whether the alternatives would fall in any of the two cases above. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s803.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57861" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20371" RevisionGUID="3d4b0667-1b4c-44e1-bcb0-9314d54a7065" CreationDate="2019-08-23T16:00:50.097" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57862" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="46ffb125-6c5f-4748-a49c-1aafec0bd0b6" CreationDate="2019-08-23T22:02:15.270" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20781" RevisionGUID="0e53bc04-671d-4937-ba68-7ba78a46ae3e" CreationDate="2019-08-24T11:38:32.263" UserId="22351" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="I would like to use the term &quot;non pliable&quot; in the claim preamble which does not appear in the specification. However the term &quot;pliable&quot; does appear in the specification but is not specifically defined. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    1. A method for converting a non pliable widget into a pliable widget, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;       compressing the widget;&#xD;&#xA;       heating the widget;&#xD;&#xA;       applying a force to the widget.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. How a term not present in the specification is interpreted when used in a preamble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Do the claim's steps define the meaning of the terms &quot;non pliable&quot; and &quot;pliable&quot; in the preamble? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Can a claim be deemed indefinite because of use of a term in a preamble which is not present in specification?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Howe likely it is that such claim will be invalidated in court during a potential patent challenge?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20792" RevisionGUID="7c2ca2a1-fda7-4842-846c-17af6da2ce93" CreationDate="2019-08-24T12:43:18.313" UserId="22378" Text="can you patent an algorithm (math ) like it happened with PAGE RANK algorithm ??&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;isn't supposed that math is free for everyone ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57865" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20792" RevisionGUID="7c2ca2a1-fda7-4842-846c-17af6da2ce93" CreationDate="2019-08-24T12:43:18.313" UserId="22378" Text="can a math formula or math algorithm be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57866" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20792" RevisionGUID="7c2ca2a1-fda7-4842-846c-17af6da2ce93" CreationDate="2019-08-24T12:43:18.313" UserId="22378" Text="&lt;math&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20794" RevisionGUID="8a273319-f4f4-4ec4-a995-1d28a0f67bb0" CreationDate="2019-08-24T16:07:03.277" UserId="17003" Text="You can't patent a mathematical algorithm by itself. It would be deemed &quot;abstract&quot;. What you might be able to do is patent the use of an algorithm as applied to a specific task. I have a couple of patents of this sort. The usual requirements apply. The invention must be novel, non-obvious and useful. What is considered novel and non-obvious with regards to algorithm based patents has evolved over time so what might have past muster in the 1990s might not currently. Also, what is patentable may vary by country." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20797" RevisionGUID="43f4a049-ced9-4fd8-bf95-9b3fcb4bcc04" CreationDate="2019-08-26T19:04:30.230" UserId="19232" Text="I am trying to decide if adding a lot of extra claims is worthwhile; in this case it would add about 15 more over just using the Markush group, due to repeating in context of 3 different independents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently there are arguments about &quot;closed-ness&quot; regarding how a Markush group is introduced, *e.g.* &quot;...consisting of&quot; or &quot;...selected from the group consisting of&quot; or maybe &quot;...which may include&quot;. Assume for now that one of the latter two would be used, as they are less closed. Assume the group as currently written claims a method having 6 components a) thru f), followed by a final component&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; g) combinations of any elements comprising those set forth in (a)-(f),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inclusive;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this be stronger, or in general be a better strategy, if all of a) through f) are rewritten as dependents? Or is using less-restrictive language for introducing the group sufficient to cover future issues that may come up – such as finding that another option outside the a) thru f) group can also apply?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57874" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20797" RevisionGUID="43f4a049-ced9-4fd8-bf95-9b3fcb4bcc04" CreationDate="2019-08-26T19:04:30.230" UserId="19232" Text="Is a Markush Group claim less strong than its components written as separate dependent claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57875" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20797" RevisionGUID="43f4a049-ced9-4fd8-bf95-9b3fcb4bcc04" CreationDate="2019-08-26T19:04:30.230" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20798" RevisionGUID="a393b647-fb05-4b98-97d6-540b486be461" CreationDate="2019-08-26T21:21:48.480" UserId="3076" Text="Written as a long group, the claim will be invalidated by finding something in the prior art with anything on the list (and otherwise satisfying the claims). Written individually, only the single claim with that item will be invalidated and the rest will still be enforceable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4613" RevisionGUID="0ef4f2bd-aa27-48b3-9799-42710ca39ac9" CreationDate="2019-08-27T01:13:59.030" UserId="17003" Comment="Added an update to the application status." Text="There's very good discussion here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100315/0058408555.shtml - one of the comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Jim Vitek says on his LinkedIn profile that he is one of the named&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inventors. Yet there's nothing on the PTO search site - I'm a patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; practitioner, and I looked. Assuming a provisional was filed in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; January 2008, and an application filed in January 2009, then under the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 18-month rule, this application should be published in a few months,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; after which we'll be able to see what exactly was claimed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you might need to search for the USPTO Patent # so you can know the updates on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE: Found it: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2001054478A2 and http://www.google.com/patents/US20030065565 you can ask for an update via:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/WO2001054478A2 and&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/US20030065565&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE 2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For [US20030065565][1] the US Public Pair lists the application as abandoned as of 09-17-2007. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20030065565" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57884" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20384" RevisionGUID="498862f9-112e-4463-b097-b7a464e96adc" CreationDate="2019-08-30T20:03:30.477" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57885" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19379" RevisionGUID="bca4f4a2-1068-4838-af20-a90214f5c09b" CreationDate="2019-08-31T00:02:50.270" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57886" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20703" RevisionGUID="92f9eeed-4c14-4dbe-b547-3f646bf6a23f" CreationDate="2019-08-31T02:00:40.050" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20705" RevisionGUID="bd92ab7d-8838-49f1-94a8-5a05f5bb3b1d" CreationDate="2019-08-31T04:09:56.633" UserId="3076" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="There are no &quot;addendum&quot; to a patent application. You have a couple of options. One is to file a provisional and later file a non-provisional that could be a CIP (Continuation in Part) to the current application, also getting priority from the non-provisional, or could just be a new non-provisional. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20801" RevisionGUID="ce8c5e57-346d-4ba3-beef-5377e251f568" CreationDate="2019-08-31T09:02:45.317" UserId="22404" Text="i got twice rejects from the patent office . now after second ammendment sent i got . &#xD;&#xA;Docketed New Case - Ready for Examination&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;now ? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57889" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20801" RevisionGUID="ce8c5e57-346d-4ba3-beef-5377e251f568" CreationDate="2019-08-31T09:02:45.317" UserId="22404" Text="Docketed New Case - Ready for Examination 3 time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57890" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20801" RevisionGUID="ce8c5e57-346d-4ba3-beef-5377e251f568" CreationDate="2019-08-31T09:02:45.317" UserId="22404" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57891" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="c7bb9fab-1841-45ab-8a90-1fbe2cbf7b52" CreationDate="2019-08-31T14:02:50.350" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20801" RevisionGUID="1ccb28b5-d6ff-4cf5-9d49-24772489aae8" CreationDate="2019-08-31T14:06:36.943" UserId="17003" Comment="I fixed some of your grammar, spelling and punctuation. I still think the question is unclear. Could you make the question more specific?" Text="I was twice rejected from the patent office. Now after a second amendment, I received: &quot;Docketed New Case - Ready for Examination&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What now? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20802" RevisionGUID="f3280904-e8e8-491e-b955-977d159a68d3" CreationDate="2019-08-31T19:10:07.733" UserId="3076" Text="After two rejections, you most likely did need to file an RCE (Request for Continued Examination)to keep the examination of the application proceeding. If you filed an RCE the bureaucracy dockets this to the examiner as a &quot;new case&quot; even though it isn't actually a new case. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57897" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19872" RevisionGUID="6b891b0f-bf5c-428c-9f90-109daa0a5d88" CreationDate="2019-09-01T04:04:10.413" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57898" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="448a8e83-5ba3-4592-b0aa-752ae88a20f9" CreationDate="2019-09-01T19:01:00.580" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57899" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20399" RevisionGUID="d3a7feb4-8f99-4fef-ae98-c0caead51e7d" CreationDate="2019-09-01T20:01:13.530" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20803" RevisionGUID="256057cc-551b-4f79-b904-ac9d36434e7e" CreationDate="2019-09-02T07:34:18.863" UserId="15305" Text="When entering into a national phase in the US, how should claim X in the following example be amended?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Claim 1: “A system for watering grass wherein (…)”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Claim X:  “A golf course comprising an installation of the system described in claim 1.”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57901" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20803" RevisionGUID="256057cc-551b-4f79-b904-ac9d36434e7e" CreationDate="2019-09-02T07:34:18.863" UserId="15305" Text="How to fix a dependent claim that is not of the same genus as the independent claim" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57902" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20803" RevisionGUID="256057cc-551b-4f79-b904-ac9d36434e7e" CreationDate="2019-09-02T07:34:18.863" UserId="15305" Text="&lt;usa&gt;&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20804" RevisionGUID="3add828d-7055-4580-8248-bf5eb96c2019" CreationDate="2019-09-02T19:11:13.660" UserId="6121" Text="Let's say,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I filed my Provisional in Jan 2019.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disclosed my work to the public in Mar 2019.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An infringer copied my disclosed work and released a product in Jun 2019.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll file a non-provisional in Dec 2019. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I have to disclose the infringement in the IDS form? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57904" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20804" RevisionGUID="3add828d-7055-4580-8248-bf5eb96c2019" CreationDate="2019-09-02T19:11:13.660" UserId="6121" Text="Do I have to disclose the infringement in the Information Disclosure Statement form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57905" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20804" RevisionGUID="3add828d-7055-4580-8248-bf5eb96c2019" CreationDate="2019-09-02T19:11:13.660" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;public-disclosure&gt;&lt;ids&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20804" RevisionGUID="b4f98eee-29a8-491d-98f0-40d928648e7c" CreationDate="2019-09-02T19:16:18.100" UserId="6121" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="Let's say,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I filed my Provisional in Jan 2019.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disclosed my work to the public in Mar 2019.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An infringer copied my disclosed work and released a product in Jun 2019.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll file a non-provisional in Dec 2019. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since Dec 2019 will be my filing date, I believe the infringed product will be treated as a prior art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So do I have to disclose the infringement in the IDS form? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20805" RevisionGUID="0696daf5-b417-46e3-9e5f-92a2ef1301f5" CreationDate="2019-09-02T19:59:50.803" UserId="3076" Text="If you file the non-provisional within the 1 year time after the provisional, then anything well described in the provisonal gets the date of the provisional. If the &quot;infringing&quot; product is based entirely on the content of the provisional it does not strictly need to go on the IDS since it would not technically be prior art. However, it might be a good idea to include it and deal with it sooner in the process rather than later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, nothing infringes anything until a patent is issued." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20806" RevisionGUID="222c7a3e-5398-4600-9e36-31c9dafe638f" CreationDate="2019-09-03T06:56:40.243" UserId="14403" Text="What follows here under should not be construed as legal opinion or advice. Without knowing the details, it is difficult to give any substantially strong opinion/suggestion. If your application is in PCT stage and has been published by WIPO, you could have given reference link for the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, USPTO allows three independent claims without any extra charges, provided of course there is integrity of invention. Else, the examiner will direct you for division of application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. For structuring Claim X as an independent claim there is no need to mention system of Claim 1. It can be written as&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    **A system for watering grass in a golf course comprising ......**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  By doing so, you will be opting for a claim narrower than claim 1. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Maintaining broadness of claim, the application of 'the system in claim 1' to golf course can be made a dependent claim as under&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;     **The system of claim 1. wherein the system can be used (at least) to water a golf course .......**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; By using the term 'at least' you will be able to keep your claim a broad one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57909" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19565" RevisionGUID="d0dae481-58af-4774-92a2-3cc99e337f0c" CreationDate="2019-09-03T09:02:15.257" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20807" RevisionGUID="7089eb21-5378-47b1-b43d-7dfcffb8a863" CreationDate="2019-09-03T10:02:36.350" UserId="22398" Text="A simple one, but slightly confused: in the [form][1], the 3rd row titled: &quot;For&quot;: I am assuming this is supposed to be the title of the invention, and NOT the purpose of filing the petition. Please correct me if I'm wrong!&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!!!&#xD;&#xA;ps: where can I find sample already filled USPTO forms (without having to go on an exploration of PAIR)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0022.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57911" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20807" RevisionGUID="7089eb21-5378-47b1-b43d-7dfcffb8a863" CreationDate="2019-09-03T10:02:36.350" UserId="22398" Text="help with filling up form: Petition for Extension of Time 37 CFR 1.136(a)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57912" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20807" RevisionGUID="7089eb21-5378-47b1-b43d-7dfcffb8a863" CreationDate="2019-09-03T10:02:36.350" UserId="22398" Text="&lt;forms&gt;&lt;extension&gt;&lt;filling&gt;&lt;1.136a&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20808" RevisionGUID="9254165a-af2f-4d16-9b69-bb9231967fe1" CreationDate="2019-09-03T10:50:22.823" UserId="22398" Text=" 1. Use of a term as a preamble when it is *not present* in the&#xD;&#xA;    Description: a higher chance of an indefiniteness rejection. That&#xD;&#xA;    is, can be used against you.&#xD;&#xA; 2. If the claim's steps actually define the term you use in the preamble, lesser chance of an indefiniteness rejection.&#xD;&#xA; 3. The term can be used in the preamble even if not present in the Speci as filed (that is, there is no such requirement as far as I know). Also, you can make an Amendment to&#xD;&#xA;    the Description (to add/define the preamble term you want to add)&#xD;&#xA;    without adding new matter- depends on the way you draft the&#xD;&#xA;    amendment.&#xD;&#xA; 4. This is a tricky one: varies from case to case.&#xD;&#xA;    There are several case laws. See, for example:&#xD;&#xA;[Patently-O 1][1]&#xD;&#xA;[Patently-O 2][2]&#xD;&#xA;[Patently-O 3][3]&#xD;&#xA;[IPWatchDog 1][4]&#xD;&#xA;[IPWatchDog 2][5] (although I wouldn't take the last one as a hard and fast rule)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lack of a preamble: if prior art in the same field is not found, art from another field can still be used for a Novelty (102) rejection. Generally, if a preamble is present in a claim, and prior art from the same field as the Application is not found against the claim, an Obviousness Rejection (103) would be easier to apply than a 102.&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want to use a preamble, you could consider slipping the limitation &quot;wherein the *blah* is used *for converting a pliable widget into a widget that is not pliable*&quot; into the end of the claim, which will usually be given more weight (and therefore closer prior art being applied), with a reduced chance of an indefiniteness rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2017/08/breathing-preambles-ambiguity.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/02/construing-independent-dependent.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/04/eligibility-preamble-federal.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/09/14/12486/id=12486/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/12/10/patent-drafting-anatomy-patent-claim/id=75575/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20809" RevisionGUID="392e81e7-6353-4878-97f4-0086b7ffe3d8" CreationDate="2019-09-03T11:38:52.250" UserId="22398" Text="&gt; My question is: if I file a provisional patent application in the USA, what's stopping someone from scooping it up and going international before I'm able to file a PCT? If so, in the first 12 months should I avoid doing international business? Or, should I skip the US patent altogether, knowing our market is international?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A prov is not a traditional patent Application, it is meant to file a disclosure and lock in a priority date. The provisional application is not published unless you claim priority from the provisional. If you do claim priority, the provisional application becomes open to public inspection (but will not have a publication number like patent applications and issued patents have), and all applications claiming priority from this provisional application are published 18 months after the filing date (that is, the priority date) of the provisional.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Filing a PCT is NOT an &quot;upgrade&quot;. It is filing of an Application, albeit one where a patent is not granted, and cannot be enforced. To get a patent following a PCT application, you then have to enter National Phase in each country you want a patent/protection in, which has to be done within 30 months from the priority date for most countries, 24 for a handful.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A PCT (or a patent application in any country) has to be filed within 12 months of the priority date (filing of provisional), beyond which you lose the right to that priority date. That is, your filing date becomes the priority date of the PCT or any other patent application if you miss the opportunity to file within the 12 month window after filing the provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20810" RevisionGUID="87386922-4bcb-4b3f-b6a6-32f9650dd4ef" CreationDate="2019-09-03T19:51:42.177" UserId="19913" Text="A key questions form a [seminar][1] is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What are the necessary steps for obtaining a Notice of Allowance at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the European Patent Office (EPO)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does the notice grant?&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/morningside-ip-september-12-2019/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57916" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20810" RevisionGUID="87386922-4bcb-4b3f-b6a6-32f9650dd4ef" CreationDate="2019-09-03T19:51:42.177" UserId="19913" Text="What is Notice of Allowance at the European Patent Office (EPO)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57917" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20810" RevisionGUID="87386922-4bcb-4b3f-b6a6-32f9650dd4ef" CreationDate="2019-09-03T19:51:42.177" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;epo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20811" RevisionGUID="94f0b472-cdc4-4742-aaf9-1b07b2e8c2d3" CreationDate="2019-09-03T21:18:04.433" UserId="3076" Text="In the US it is required that dependent claims be in the same statutory class as the independent claim it depends from. The classes are *process, machine, manufacture, and composition of matter.* The important distinction is between &quot;process&quot; and the rest. Methods vs tangible things. They may also care about the distinction between composition or matter and the other objects - I'm not sure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case you have a watering system (a thing) and a golf course (a thing) so there should be no problem with statutory classes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20812" RevisionGUID="27813da0-c429-4bc4-a44b-c30c96e65645" CreationDate="2019-09-03T21:33:49.077" UserId="3076" Text="I &quot;petitioned&quot; for extensions of time many many times in my practice as a patent agent and never filled out this form. A transmittal letter (with the substantive submital  that is coming in late) that says you are paying for the time extension + actual payment is all that is needed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20812" RevisionGUID="b8e56ebc-4ee0-4b10-a880-e8fd16b7f7ee" CreationDate="2019-09-03T23:43:29.740" UserId="3076" Comment="added 149 characters in body" Text="I &quot;petitioned&quot; for extensions of time many many times in my practice as a patent agent and never filled out this form. A transmittal letter (with the substantive submittal  that is coming in late) that says you are paying for the time extension + actual payment is all that is needed. I put petitioned in quotes because this is barely a petition. It is automatically granted and does not go through the bureaucratic channels for petitions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to know that you ask for the time extension when you send in whatever was late AND send in the payment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a more direct answer to the question - it isn't very clear what is expected in that location on the form. I'd put the title of the invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57921" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18787" RevisionGUID="1c482a04-9948-4de6-9f6e-4ec676095c1a" CreationDate="2019-09-04T01:01:35.187" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20813" RevisionGUID="5645df0f-3029-4b2b-9197-932014a53d56" CreationDate="2019-09-04T10:34:15.133" UserId="22418" Text="if my invention includes various solutions to solving the same problem such that all solutions are independent of each other, how should I claim such an invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57923" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20813" RevisionGUID="5645df0f-3029-4b2b-9197-932014a53d56" CreationDate="2019-09-04T10:34:15.133" UserId="22418" Text="Claiming various solutions to solving the same problem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57924" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20813" RevisionGUID="5645df0f-3029-4b2b-9197-932014a53d56" CreationDate="2019-09-04T10:34:15.133" UserId="22418" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;drafting&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16116" RevisionGUID="82d7839e-b5d7-4c03-b49c-55db854d86f7" CreationDate="2019-09-04T13:46:39.740" UserId="17077" Comment="cleaned up" Text="Technology can be licenced from expired patents but it is rare.  Usually in the form of trade secrets that have been held back from the patented material, eg: Source code of a patented algorithm.  It also simply may mean the these other brands have used the technology of an expired patent which is totally legal and even encouraged by the technology broadcast function of the world patent system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/dgo/speeches/dg_who_wipo_wto_med_11.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be careful that there is not new patents issued that would prevent your freedom to operate or practice the invention commercially.  Check the other brands to see if they have patents or pending patents. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20814" RevisionGUID="ba3f8fc6-f423-4c7d-aecf-1fdb51a9bcc0" CreationDate="2019-09-04T17:54:48.490" UserId="3076" Text="These do sound like separate inventions. Patents are given for specific solutions, not to results. Three solutions to the same problem that are technically independent are not a single invention just because they address the same problem. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20814" RevisionGUID="5d9aad24-12b4-4d41-9b14-90db101b45cc" CreationDate="2019-09-04T18:05:54.800" UserId="3076" Comment="edited to respond to comment" Text="These do sound like separate inventions. Patents are given for specific solutions, not to results. Three solutions to the same problem that are technically independent are not a single invention just because they address the same problem. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have already filed a provisional application that discloses more than one invention it is not a problem. Many non-provisionals can get priority from a single provisional and also a single non-provisional can get the benefit of more than one provisional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20815" RevisionGUID="5bfe5db2-778f-43d2-add8-8c7b56c55bfe" CreationDate="2019-09-05T14:05:45.417" UserId="22420" Text="I have a provisional patent regarding an electronic device (with outline of software black boxes as software alone cannot be patented in India). It is about to expire in sometime (12 month period).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initial plan was to file non-provisional patent within 12 months. However, due to change in circumstances, we have decided to drop the patent (as I may/may not be physically present in India for sometime).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the question is regarding what could be done regarding this patent if second inventor and I have to retain the inventorship. (We are ready to forego the rights of inventorship as many organisations including [AST][1] do not consider Indian patents. We tried to sell during this 12 month period and have already disclosed this provisional patent online and offline.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I checked [Indian Patent Act of 1970][2]. In that, according to section 9, subsection 1, abandoned provisional patents are never published. The priority date is lost after 12 months if non-provisional patent is not filed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What could be done regarding this patent if second inventor and I have to retain the inventorship for 20 years or the stipulated period (even if we forego the rights)? We are ready to publish it as a whitepaper in some reputed patent journal or so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help will be greatly appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ast.com/faq/#collapse3&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ipindia.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/IPOAct/1_31_1_patent-act-1970-11march2015.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57929" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20815" RevisionGUID="5bfe5db2-778f-43d2-add8-8c7b56c55bfe" CreationDate="2019-09-05T14:05:45.417" UserId="22420" Text="Retaining inventorship of abandoned provisional patent of India (even if rights are foregone)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57930" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20815" RevisionGUID="5bfe5db2-778f-43d2-add8-8c7b56c55bfe" CreationDate="2019-09-05T14:05:45.417" UserId="22420" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;india&gt;&lt;abandoned-patent&gt;&lt;commercial-use&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20816" RevisionGUID="72c89a82-5b53-4321-af7b-59f33578cd8e" CreationDate="2019-09-05T16:54:52.403" UserId="22334" Text="As to what is a Notice of Allowance at the EPO, it is the communication under [R.71(3) EPC](https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/r71.html) whereby the Examining Division informs the applicant that the application meets the requirements of the European Patent Convention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The communication encloses what is called the druckexemplar, which will be the text and drawings of the European patent if accepted by the applicant. Said druckexemplar includes the documents of the patent application as they were modified during prosecution of the application, and may include modifications proposed by the Examining Division. The Examining Division may modify the description, the figures and the claims so that the application fully complies with the European Patent Convention. By filing the translation of the claims into the two other official languages of the EPC (English, French and German), and paying the corresponding fees, the applicant accepts the druckexemplar (including any modifications made by the Examining Division). Accepting the druckexemplar is the sole responsibility of the applicant, therefore any problems that may be present in the description and/or claims (the modifications made by the Examining Division may cause such problems) may eventually result in the revocation of the European Patent later on in Opposition proceedings, so one should review the druckexemplar very carefully before accepting it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20817" RevisionGUID="8c6ffd58-cfa1-4520-9327-9afc84850be8" CreationDate="2019-09-05T17:16:31.893" UserId="22334" Text="In the US, the basic fee for a non-provisional patent application allows you to have 3 independent claims, and further independent claims can be included by paying additional fees. You can claim each solution as an independent claim, but the Examiner may force you to restrict the application to one or some of these solutions and move the other one or ones to different non-provisionals as divisional applications. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning European patent applications usually you may only have one independent claim of each category (methods and products), but [R.43(2)(c) EPC](https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/r43.html) allows you to have more than one independent claim per category for *&quot;alternative solutions to a particular problem, where it is inappropriate to cover these alternatives by a single claim.&quot;* It is inappropriate to cover several alternatives in one single claim when the claimed subject-matter becomes unclear or not concise due to e.g. OR clauses that hinder the comprehension of the claim. **However**, this provision can only be used when the alternatives relate to a same inventive concept, otherwise there is no unity of invention and, as mentioned before with reference to the US application, you will be forced to restrict the application to one or some of the alternatives and move the others to one or more divisional applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20818" RevisionGUID="633de68c-17cb-47c6-bc9b-18b52fc4cb4f" CreationDate="2019-09-06T11:09:42.900" UserId="21610" Text="Yes, software as such is not patentable in India according to the section 3(k) which states&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *a mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms;* cannot be patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are instances where patents has been granted in India after Delhi high court had adjudicated in TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON Vs. INTEX TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) LIMITED, I.A. No. 6735/2014 in CS(OS) No.1045/20 2014 and has ***held that any invention which has a technical contribution or has a technical effect is patentable, overriding various objections under sections 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended) including objections under “algorithms” and “a computer programme per se” prongs of section 3(k).***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;please consult an experienced patent attorney who are familiar with such matters they may help you in processing patent for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Initial plan was to file non-provisional patent within 12 months.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, due to change in circumstances, we have decided to drop the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent (as I may/may not be physically present in India for sometime).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your presence in India does not matter as you can give power of attorney to patent attorney and the process would int  impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We are ready to forego the rights of inventorship as many&#xD;&#xA;&gt; organisations including AST do not consider Indian patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though Indian patents are not considered you can claim priority to the an Indian patent application and file same patent in other countries using [PCT][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Cooperation_Treaty" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20819" RevisionGUID="491d07a2-e6a7-45b2-acfd-74bb10fe6689" CreationDate="2019-09-06T13:42:47.960" UserId="14403" Text="**- to retain the inventorship** - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has two aspects. Your claim to be an inventor (moral right) and ownership right to an invention. From your discourse, it appears you are more and probably only interested in the first part.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In simplest and briefest of terms, you are not recognized as an inventor for a particular patent application if it is not published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In context of Indian Patent Office, you have to submit your complete specification/ convert your provisional application to complete specification. No additional fees required if there is no addition to pages and claims. For early publication you have to submit form 09 and fees, which IMO is useless as it is due for publication free of cost on completion of 18 months from priority date and I suppose, you are in no hurry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Name of inventor entered on a patent application remains forever** from date of publication of application but patent right is enforceable for twenty years (+adjustment period) from the date of grant of patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, only to have your name as inventor on a published patent application, take another step without any additional cost and then you have enough time (48 months from priority date to apply for examination and another five to six years for process of examination to start) to think and decide what to do with your application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope, by that time you will be in a position to take advice from a patent attorney which is highly desirable and always advised here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Especially since you have **'already disclosed this provisional patent online and offline'** (supposedly without 'non-disclosure agreement'), you have shut all other possible ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;May refer [[1]] for bird's eye view of time line and [[2]] for fees and form Nos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **&quot;publish it as a whitepaper in some reputed patent journal or so&quot;.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent applications are published in journals of respective patent offices after due process e.g. as described above. There is no such thing as white paper in patent process. Research papers are published in various journals of respective fields after peer review. Both domains (patent and non-patent) of course refer to one another as prior art in patent parlance and reference paper in non-patent publications.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://www.invntree.com/blogs/indian-patenting-process-timeline&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]:http://www.ipindia.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/IPOFormUpload/1_11_1/Fees.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20819" RevisionGUID="93084ffc-a423-4dc8-9205-9537943cb074" CreationDate="2019-09-06T13:48:04.603" UserId="14403" Comment="added 122 characters in body" Text="**- to retain the inventorship** - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has two aspects. Your claim to be an inventor (moral right) and ownership right to an invention. From your discourse, it appears you are more and probably only interested in the first part.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In simplest and briefest of terms, you are not recognized as an inventor for a particular patent application if it is not published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In context of Indian Patent Office, you have to submit your complete specification/ convert your provisional application to complete specification. No additional fees required if there is no addition to pages and claims and you are doing this all by yourself (permitted by Indian Patent Office for individual applicants i.e. natural persons). For early publication you have to submit form 09 and fees, which IMO is useless as it is due for publication free of cost on completion of 18 months from priority date and I suppose, you are in no hurry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Name of inventor entered on a patent application remains forever** from date of publication of application but patent right is enforceable for twenty years (+adjustment period) from the date of grant of patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, only to have your name as inventor on a published patent application, take another step without any additional cost and then you have enough time (48 months from priority date to apply for examination and another five to six years for process of examination to start) to think and decide what to do with your application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope, by that time you will be in a position to take advice from a patent attorney which is highly desirable and always advised here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Especially since you have **'already disclosed this provisional patent online and offline'** (supposedly without 'non-disclosure agreement'), you have shut all other possible ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;May refer [[1]] for bird's eye view of time line and [[2]] for fees and form Nos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **&quot;publish it as a whitepaper in some reputed patent journal or so&quot;.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent applications are published in journals of respective patent offices after due process e.g. as described above. There is no such thing as white paper in patent process. Research papers are published in various journals of respective fields after peer review. Both domains (patent and non-patent) of course refer to one another as prior art in patent parlance and reference paper in non-patent publications.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://www.invntree.com/blogs/indian-patenting-process-timeline&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]:http://www.ipindia.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/IPOFormUpload/1_11_1/Fees.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20820" RevisionGUID="c4d16ae5-a3a9-48f1-968a-eb0b6e8c7d56" CreationDate="2019-09-06T15:49:07.160" UserId="19232" Text="An individual whom I paid for advice in preparation of my latest application, a CIP, has asked if I would include his name as a co-inventor. He says it is a request, not an expectation, and it's not highly important to him. (The individual is neither an attorney nor a registered patent agent, but has considerable experience with patents and has his name on several.) I am the primary inventor and applicant, and paying all application costs. I qualify for Micro-Entity status and will file as such. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two issues I need to understand better before making this decision: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. In a recent phone conversation with an examiner at USPTO (who clarified that he does not deal specifically with fee-related issues) tells me that, from his reading, all listed inventors must meet the Micro Entity status income guideline. The individual I refer to does not. (income over the limit) Even though there is no clear verification in the beginning, could this cause me trouble later, and therefore best not to do it? &#xD;&#xA;2. Even with me as the first-named inventor and applicant, is there ever any sense in which additional listed inventors could ever claim any ownwership interest in a patent, if granted and ultimately monetized – despite there being no formal written contract addressing this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57937" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20820" RevisionGUID="c4d16ae5-a3a9-48f1-968a-eb0b6e8c7d56" CreationDate="2019-09-06T15:49:07.160" UserId="19232" Text="Micro Entity Filing Status and ownership issues when there is more than one inventor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57938" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20820" RevisionGUID="c4d16ae5-a3a9-48f1-968a-eb0b6e8c7d56" CreationDate="2019-09-06T15:49:07.160" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;micro-entity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20820" RevisionGUID="8ac37ce1-a983-49ab-99e4-f7405e1c5b89" CreationDate="2019-09-06T16:18:10.593" UserId="19232" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="An individual whom I paid for advice in preparation of my latest application, a CIP, has asked if I would include his name as a co-inventor. He did contribute an idea but without full development of it. He says it is a request, not an expectation, and it's not highly important to him. (The individual is neither an attorney nor a registered patent agent, but has considerable experience with patents and has his name on several.) I am the primary inventor and applicant, and paying all application costs. I qualify for Micro-Entity status and will file as such. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two issues I need to understand better before making this decision: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. In a recent phone conversation with an examiner at USPTO (who clarified that he does not deal specifically with fee-related issues) tells me that, from his reading, all listed inventors must meet the Micro Entity status income guideline. The individual I refer to does not. (income over the limit) Even though there is no clear verification in the beginning, could this cause me trouble later, and therefore best not to do it? &#xD;&#xA;2. Even with me as the first-named inventor and applicant, is there ever any sense in which additional listed inventors could ever claim any ownwership interest in a patent, if granted and ultimately monetized – despite there being no formal written contract addressing this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57940" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="20820" RevisionGUID="f65736bc-b5b2-4bfe-ba32-dd61643abcc1" CreationDate="2019-09-06T16:18:57.973" UserId="19232" Comment="Rollback to [c4d16ae5-a3a9-48f1-968a-eb0b6e8c7d56]" Text="An individual whom I paid for advice in preparation of my latest application, a CIP, has asked if I would include his name as a co-inventor. He says it is a request, not an expectation, and it's not highly important to him. (The individual is neither an attorney nor a registered patent agent, but has considerable experience with patents and has his name on several.) I am the primary inventor and applicant, and paying all application costs. I qualify for Micro-Entity status and will file as such. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two issues I need to understand better before making this decision: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. In a recent phone conversation with an examiner at USPTO (who clarified that he does not deal specifically with fee-related issues) tells me that, from his reading, all listed inventors must meet the Micro Entity status income guideline. The individual I refer to does not. (income over the limit) Even though there is no clear verification in the beginning, could this cause me trouble later, and therefore best not to do it? &#xD;&#xA;2. Even with me as the first-named inventor and applicant, is there ever any sense in which additional listed inventors could ever claim any ownwership interest in a patent, if granted and ultimately monetized – despite there being no formal written contract addressing this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20821" RevisionGUID="537ab8ea-c041-4495-8ea3-9af066372398" CreationDate="2019-09-06T19:15:53.080" UserId="3076" Text="**Do not put this person's name on the patent as an inventor!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, they are breaking the rules by providing advice to you about your filing. It is practicing law without a license. Next, the examiner is correct that all inventors need to qualify as micro entity applicants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; GROSS INCOME LIMIT ON APPLICANTS AND INVENTORS – Neither the applicant nor the inventor **nor a joint inventor**, in the calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the applicable fee is being paid, had a gross income, as defined in section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 61(a)), exceeding the “Maximum Qualifying Gross Income” reported on the USPTO Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/micro_entity.jsp which is equal to three times the median household income for that preceding calendar year, as most recently reported by the Bureau of the Census. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you fraudulently claim micro entity it could put your rights in jeopardy. Most important - Absent an agreement between the &quot;inventors&quot;, each inventor has a undivided ownership to the patent rights without any requirement to compensate the other inventors. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reason they may be asking to be an inventor is that, as an inventor, they would not be breaking the rules to help you file. This person is unqualified, breaking the rules and potently putting your rights in jeopardy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20821" RevisionGUID="163b283a-d1ae-4460-9752-3364de95e386" CreationDate="2019-09-06T19:24:42.120" UserId="3076" Comment="added 444 characters in body" Text="**Do not put this person's name on the patent as an inventor!** And please do not treat their advice as gospel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, they are breaking the rules by providing advice to you about your filing. It is practicing law without a license. Next, the examiner is correct that all inventors need to qualify as micro entity applicants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; GROSS INCOME LIMIT ON APPLICANTS AND INVENTORS – Neither the applicant nor the inventor **nor a joint inventor**, in the calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the applicable fee is being paid, had a gross income, as defined in section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 61(a)), exceeding the “Maximum Qualifying Gross Income” reported on the USPTO Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/micro_entity.jsp which is equal to three times the median household income for that preceding calendar year, as most recently reported by the Bureau of the Census. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you fraudulently claim micro entity it could put your rights in jeopardy. Most important - Absent an agreement between the &quot;inventors&quot;, each inventor has a undivided ownership to the patent rights without any requirement to compensate the other inventors. &quot;First named inventor&quot; has no rights any different from any other inventor. The order listed has no legal significance. You would know this if your advisor was actually knowledgeable, ethical  and legitimate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reason they may be asking to be an inventor is that, as an inventor, they would not be breaking the rules to help you file. Only people who have made a conceptual contribution to something is a claim are legitimate inventors. In the recent past, patents were torn up for incorrect deceptive inventorship. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This person is unqualified, breaking the rules and very likely putting your rights in jeopardy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20822" RevisionGUID="d01f94b8-cb83-4f1f-97aa-7ed27257d763" CreationDate="2019-09-07T04:34:14.247" UserId="22398" Text="Is this filing in the US, EPO or some other place?  &#xD;&#xA;**Background:**  &#xD;&#xA;Practice varies from place to place, but can be broadly bunched together under USPTO (Restriction) and PCT (Lack of Unity). In a majority of cases, it will end up with the same decision by all the patent office, but in some, it will not. I have seen several cases where the USPTO does requires the Applicant to divide the application into multiple applications (Restriction) (not directed to &quot;different species&quot;), but other jurisdictions have uniformly required such division. There are some other peculiarities too: the USPTO often doesn't like Apparatus and Method claims in the same application, but the PCT generally allows it (and in fact most applications have separate method and apparatus independent claims in the same application).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if my invention includes various *solutions* to solving the *same problem* such that all *solutions are independent of each other*, how should I claim such an invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you are drafting your claims so that the prior art or the problem to be solved is the first part of the claims, and the solution is the second part (the *wherein* part): If the *wherein* parts are different, then they are generally directed to different inventions. However, this is not a black and white rule in the USPTO: if they fall in the same narrow classification mark, and there is no additional search burden, then all the inventions (solutions) can be in the same application. This is assuming that identification of the problem in itself is not the invention- the problem is known in the art, while the solutions you're providing are new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20822" RevisionGUID="bd36c00a-eeaa-4b30-8ac2-a883f2946922" CreationDate="2019-09-07T05:18:27.013" UserId="22398" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="Is this filing in the US, EPO or some other place?  &#xD;&#xA;**Background:**  &#xD;&#xA;Practice varies from place to place, but can be broadly bunched together under USPTO (Restriction) and PCT (Lack of Unity). In a majority of cases, it will end up with the same decision by all the patent office, but in some, it will not. I have seen several cases where the USPTO required the Applicant to divide the application into multiple applications (Restriction- not directed to the &quot;same species&quot;), but other jurisdictions have not required such division. There are some other peculiarities too: the USPTO often doesn't like Apparatus and Method claims in the same application, but the PCT generally allows it (and in fact most applications have separate method and apparatus independent claims in the same application).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if my invention includes various *solutions* to solving the *same problem* such that all *solutions are independent of each other*, how should I claim such an invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you are drafting your claims so that the prior art or the problem to be solved is the first part of the claims, and the solution is the second part (the *wherein* part): If the *wherein* parts are different, then they are generally directed to different inventions. However, this is not a black and white rule in the USPTO: if they fall in the same narrow classification mark, and there is no additional search burden, then all the inventions (solutions) can be in the same application. This is assuming that identification of the problem in itself is not the invention- the problem is known in the art, while the solutions you're providing are new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57945" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20723" RevisionGUID="5a9f4b7b-cbd5-4b95-9274-7abcafebca8e" CreationDate="2019-09-07T15:00:50.117" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20823" RevisionGUID="84f781fd-907a-4ee1-95b2-6caeb78bdf16" CreationDate="2019-09-09T04:21:06.103" UserId="14403" Text="Law will accept the technical relationship between photographs and video. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for patent grant requirement is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**35 U.S.C. 101   Inventions patentable**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; manufacture, or composition of matter, or any **new and useful&#xD;&#xA;&gt; improvement** thereof may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conditions and requirements of this title.&#xD;&#xA; [[1]] (After considerations under 35 USC 102 and 103 also).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO, the point here is she is using **&quot;live video instead of photos**&quot; which, for patent purpose, can be considered as **new and useful improvement** if not out and out **&quot;novel&quot;**  and hence a suitable candidate for grant of patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's where a good patent attorney is helpful who can not only dig into what you have invented but also take care of fall outs of your invention which should be plugged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2104.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20824" RevisionGUID="0bd69263-8fe0-4e47-ad31-c3d08d1f1cea" CreationDate="2019-09-09T09:29:07.467" UserId="22430" Text="The patent expiry usually varies by a day or two among the EU countries. For eg. SPC of EP0914118 will expire on different days in France, UK and Germany &amp; Spain? Why is there such a difference when the filing date is the same? &#xD;&#xA;A similar observation has been recorded for other patents expiring a day earlier in the UK where there is no associated SPC. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57948" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20824" RevisionGUID="0bd69263-8fe0-4e47-ad31-c3d08d1f1cea" CreationDate="2019-09-09T09:29:07.467" UserId="22430" Text="Why does the expiry of a patent and/or SPC varies in european countries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57949" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20824" RevisionGUID="0bd69263-8fe0-4e47-ad31-c3d08d1f1cea" CreationDate="2019-09-09T09:29:07.467" UserId="22430" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;european&gt;&lt;expiry&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20825" RevisionGUID="5c6f02c5-2cad-4104-a3f5-4effcf38c462" CreationDate="2019-09-09T11:19:43.700" UserId="22334" Text="Different countries count the life of a patent differently, and sometimes a patent expires in one country one or few days earlier than in other countries. This depends on the national patent law of each country, which may establish that a patent expires at the exact same date as the filing date plus 20 years, or the day before the exact same date as the filing date plus 20 years. So even if the filing date is common, the expiring date is not. Besides, I do not know how it works exactly, but there are some countries that also take into account whether the application was filed in a non-working day (e.g. a Sunday) for computing the expiration date of patents; pharmaceutical companies know this very well and take advantage of these things in order to maximize the protection of their compounds, because one or few more days of protection may result in large sums of money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since SPCs become effective right after the expiration of the patent, different patent expiration dates result in different SPC expiration dates. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20823" RevisionGUID="627f1ee5-e8dc-4b1f-bbea-9200d14fd129" CreationDate="2019-09-09T14:08:38.590" UserId="14403" Comment="improve the answer" Text="They are not legal terms per se. Even though law will accept the technical relationship between photograph and video, yet should concede that they are different because they are considered so in relevant technology field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In patent prosecution, it may be considered whether claims based on video will be obvious to a person skilled in the art in the light of photograph based claims and description supporting the photograph based claims. This consideration may not have initiation at all when 'live video' based claims are taken into consideration. Because, very clearly, the same was not obvious to Nona (even possible application to video was also non-obvious to her) herself nor to anyone else (assuming absence of prior art).&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For patent grant requirement is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**35 U.S.C. 101   Inventions patentable**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; manufacture, or composition of matter, or any **new and useful&#xD;&#xA;&gt; improvement** thereof may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conditions and requirements of this title.&#xD;&#xA; [[1]] (After considerations under 35 USC 102 and 103 also).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO, the point here is she is using **&quot;live video instead of photos**&quot; which, for patent purpose, can be considered as **new and useful improvement** if not out and out **&quot;novel&quot;**  and hence a suitable candidate for grant of patent and infringement prosecution/suit may not stand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's where a good patent attorney is helpful who can not only dig into what you have invented but also take care of fall outs of your invention which should be plugged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Disclaimer** : It is just personal opinion and not legal opinion or advice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2104.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20826" RevisionGUID="080c4e4b-b804-4eb8-9340-ade28b3e746c" CreationDate="2019-09-10T03:44:54.713" UserId="22433" Text="When a continuation patent is approved, will the parent patent still hold the rights to sue others if a product infringe the parent application and not the continuation patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57953" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20826" RevisionGUID="080c4e4b-b804-4eb8-9340-ade28b3e746c" CreationDate="2019-09-10T03:44:54.713" UserId="22433" Text="Continuation Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57954" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20826" RevisionGUID="080c4e4b-b804-4eb8-9340-ade28b3e746c" CreationDate="2019-09-10T03:44:54.713" UserId="22433" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;continuation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20827" RevisionGUID="9b22f0c6-add4-47f8-a9f9-d64ae091e9a9" CreationDate="2019-09-10T03:54:17.863" UserId="3076" Text="**Yes**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are two separate patents, each with their own claims. As an example of their independence, the owner can, unless a terminal disclaimer was signed, sell the patents to two different entities. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20828" RevisionGUID="766c7307-68b0-46e5-9898-8209750caa0b" CreationDate="2019-09-11T06:52:14.717" UserId="5727" Text="I need to hear some of your strategies adopted to deal with a common situation as described in the title of this thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As we know, an invention has multiple elements each providing its own function or mechanism to achieve the function intended to be achieved by the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, a box can be transported along a rail . There are many types of rail. To avoid design around, I have to recite all the types of rails into the claims. Generally, what is your strategy to deal with this situation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its like saying how to recite into claims multiple embodiments for an element of your invention to prevent others from designing around your patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another illustration of my question is :&#xD;&#xA;if your invention has an element called a button, and numerous button mechanisms are prior art that your invention can use to achieve the intended results. What strategy can be used to handle this situation? Lets assume you do not want to invent a new button. Consider the  following equation : A + B = C (invention) where B is the element ( the button ).  A + B1 = C; A + B2 = C which means different types of button can do the trick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But B, B1 , B2 are all prior art in their own rights. So, my supplemental question is is  it correct to say that as long as C is a novelty,qualifying as an invention, the use of prior art for element B, B1 or B2 is not an infringement to the patents of the element B,B1 or B2? In this case , patent protection for prior art B,B1 or B2 can already have expired or disclosed to the public.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for reading.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57957" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20828" RevisionGUID="766c7307-68b0-46e5-9898-8209750caa0b" CreationDate="2019-09-11T06:52:14.717" UserId="5727" Text="Reciting claims for elements whose function can be achieved by multiple different mechanisms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57958" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20828" RevisionGUID="766c7307-68b0-46e5-9898-8209750caa0b" CreationDate="2019-09-11T06:52:14.717" UserId="5727" Text="&lt;embodiments&gt;&lt;claims-construction&gt;&lt;multiple&gt;&lt;elements&gt;&lt;reciting&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20830" RevisionGUID="fb9f31c8-89ca-4018-8bae-76c49d4840ec" CreationDate="2019-09-11T14:08:36.710" UserId="22334" Text="First of all you should consider whether the technical feature you are referring to is necessary for the definition of your invention, maybe you can claim your invention without any such feature. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the event that it should be part of the claimed subject-matter, you should try defining it in a generic way so that all the alternatives are encompassed. For this, you need to identify how the feature relates to the remaining features and the overall invention. Following your example, a button by itself is completely meaningless, so you need to know what is the purpose of the button within the invention that makes it relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you have to answer to that question, one way of defining the feature in a generic way is by referring to the function that the technical feature provides and associate it with other feature that does something based on that function. For instance, say you have that feature A is a door, feature B is a button, and feature C is a control device. You do not want to limit yourself to a type of button (because it can be a mechanical button, a tactile sensor, a proximity detector, etc.), and what the button does is commanding the control device to open the door. Then you can claim a door system comprising a door and a control device, the control device being configured to open the door upon reception of an input signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way would be to define the feature for which there are so many options in a generic way, for example a means + function defining, or a function + device. In this case, you have to make sure you have some examples for said means or device in the description, otherwise the claim may be objected to under 35 USC 112 because it may not be clear what kind of means are those claimed. In this cases you would claim 'means for inputting a signal to the controller', 'user input means', 'user input device', etc. which would encompass any such means as long as it is clear what kind of means they are (the description is very important in this regard). If you simply define 'attaching means', but means are described in your specification, it cannot be determined whether a person could be holding two things together is encompassed by the claim, or glue is encompassed by the claim, or screws are encompassed by the claim, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that the patent law of some countries do not accept definition of features by way of its function, therefore in these most probably you would have to limit your claim to the examples described, e.g. a button selected from: a proximity detector, a tactile sensor, etc. In some cases these countries only forbid the means + function definition, thus the feature + 'configured/adapted/programmed to' definition is acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning your second question (in the last paragraph), unless I am not understanding it properly, you are mixing up two different things: patentability and infringement. You mention that C is novel and qualifies as an invention. Well, if it is novel, it still has to be inventive (or non-obvious) with respect to the prior art to qualify as an invention. You can get a patent for C if you meet the novelty and non-obviousness requirements, but you cannot lawfully practice your invention if there are active patents protecting B, B1, B2 because you would infringe this patent (or these patents). The patentee of B, B1, B2 may forbid you from using, selling, manufacturing, importing C as long as part thereof falls within the scope of the patent, so you would need a license from the patentee in order to practice your invention, or have a C without B, B1, B2 (and equivalents thereof that may be determined based on the Doctrine of Equivalents). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20827" RevisionGUID="c8d53901-8d15-4838-8aa2-4f8853aa8b78" CreationDate="2019-09-11T19:21:13.340" UserId="3076" Comment="edited to respond to comment" Text="**Yes**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are two separate patents, each with their own claims. As an example of their independence, the owner can, unless a terminal disclaimer was signed, sell the patents to two different entities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims must be patently distinct but one patent might have claims to a method of making something and another patent might be to the thing itself. Also two patents might have claims that attempt to cover essentially the same thing but with a different approach to defining the thing.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the claims are too close by one criteria (its complicated) they may be declared double patenting under a judicially invented doctrine. In that case both patents can be issued as long as the owner promises to always keep them commonly owned and co-terminus by signing a terminal disclaimer. If they are too close in a different way it is double patenting by statue and the second one would not be allowed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57972" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20739" RevisionGUID="cf9f4e0c-4ab3-4119-9111-8933fce2d71f" CreationDate="2019-09-11T22:02:15.373" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20830" RevisionGUID="cec9c3d6-e964-4a8b-ba80-7ba4f23b773e" CreationDate="2019-09-12T07:13:46.050" UserId="22334" Comment="Added reference to US guidelines." Text="First of all you should consider whether the technical feature you are referring to is necessary for the definition of your invention, maybe you can claim your invention without any such feature. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the event that it should be part of the claimed subject-matter, you should try defining it in a generic way so that all the alternatives are encompassed. For this, you need to identify how the feature relates to the remaining features and the overall invention. Following your example, a button by itself is completely meaningless, so you need to know what is the purpose of the button within the invention that makes it relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you have to answer to that question, one way of defining the feature in a generic way is by referring to the function that the technical feature provides and associate it with other feature that does something based on that function. For instance, say you have that feature A is a door, feature B is a button, and feature C is a control device. You do not want to limit yourself to a type of button (because it can be a mechanical button, a tactile sensor, a proximity detector, etc.), and what the button does is commanding the control device to open the door. Then you can claim a door system comprising a door and a control device, the control device being configured to open the door upon reception of an input signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way would be to define the feature for which there are so many options in a generic way, for example a means + function defining, or a function + device. In this case, you have to make sure you have some examples for said means or device in the description, otherwise the claim may be objected to under 35 USC 112 because it may not be clear what kind of means are those claimed. In this cases you would claim 'means for inputting a signal to the controller', 'user input means', 'user input device', etc. which would encompass any such means as long as it is clear what kind of means they are (the description is very important in this regard). If you simply define 'attaching means', but means are described in your specification, it cannot be determined whether a person could be holding two things together is encompassed by the claim, or glue is encompassed by the claim, or screws are encompassed by the claim, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning functional definitions, [these US examination guidelines][1] are very useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that the patent law of some countries do not accept definition of features by way of its function, therefore in these most probably you would have to limit your claim to the examples described, e.g. a button selected from: a proximity detector, a tactile sensor, etc. In some cases these countries only forbid the means + function definition, thus the feature + 'configured/adapted/programmed to' definition is acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning your second question (in the last paragraph), unless I am not understanding it properly, you are mixing up two different things: patentability and infringement. You mention that C is novel and qualifies as an invention. Well, if it is novel, it still has to be inventive (or non-obvious) with respect to the prior art to qualify as an invention. You can get a patent for C if you meet the novelty and non-obviousness requirements, but you cannot lawfully practice your invention if there are active patents protecting B, B1, B2 because you would infringe this patent (or these patents). The patentee of B, B1, B2 may forbid you from using, selling, manufacturing, importing C as long as part thereof falls within the scope of the patent, so you would need a license from the patentee in order to practice your invention, or have a C without B, B1, B2 (and equivalents thereof that may be determined based on the Doctrine of Equivalents). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/supp_112_exr_training_exs.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57978" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="f2a22638-bf46-45b8-a26f-d1840c99bf85" CreationDate="2019-09-12T21:01:10.310" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20833" RevisionGUID="1d686fe4-89b0-41eb-9c9a-187fabb25227" CreationDate="2019-09-13T10:28:56.700" UserId="16007" Text="Suppose a non-provisional Patent Application-A has requested on day-0 (filing date) a non-disclosure till grant date.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now during the examination process for Patent-A a  different patent application-B is filed by an unrelated inventor. Does the examiner working on this new application have access to the Application-A during his prior art search? Would disclosures in Application-A be treated as prior art for Application-B? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17136/keep-application-secret" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57981" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20833" RevisionGUID="1d686fe4-89b0-41eb-9c9a-187fabb25227" CreationDate="2019-09-13T10:28:56.700" UserId="16007" Text="Is a non-disclosed patent application treated as prior art for a subsequent patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57982" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20833" RevisionGUID="1d686fe4-89b0-41eb-9c9a-187fabb25227" CreationDate="2019-09-13T10:28:56.700" UserId="16007" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;examination&gt;&lt;non-publication&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20834" RevisionGUID="467f4db1-4bf8-44ce-891f-cbfccbd0738b" CreationDate="2019-09-13T15:22:44.917" UserId="3076" Text="Until an application is published it is *not* prior art. It is not accessible by an examiner but even it was it would not be usedas of filing date as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, once it is published it can be prior art with the date of its filing. In the U.S., this means that it can be used to show another application is obvious as of the date of its filing even though no one could have seen it. In Europe, this type of prior art is good for showing lack of novelty as of filing date but can't be used to show lack of inventive step (EPO analog of obviousness) until the date of publication. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20834" RevisionGUID="65010903-1d05-425a-956e-ffe0ba0811c6" CreationDate="2019-09-13T20:27:33.657" UserId="3076" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Until an application is published it is *not* prior art. It is not accessible by an examiner but even it was it could not be used as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, once it is published it can be prior art *with the priority date of its filing*. In the U.S., this means that it can be used to show another application is obvious as of the date of its filing even though no one could have seen it then. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Europe, this type of prior art is good for showing lack of novelty as of filing date but can't be used to show lack of inventive step (EPO analog of obviousness) until the date of publication." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20835" RevisionGUID="dd9471a5-36f7-4fc6-a03d-8bf2a71930f0" CreationDate="2019-09-14T02:56:33.427" UserId="22445" Text="patent #1894556 have been cleaning a favorite aunt's residence after her death. we found this tag off...is it worth anything? Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57986" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20835" RevisionGUID="dd9471a5-36f7-4fc6-a03d-8bf2a71930f0" CreationDate="2019-09-14T02:56:33.427" UserId="22445" Text="no idea what you want..I asking if patent #1894556 is worth anything" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57987" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20835" RevisionGUID="dd9471a5-36f7-4fc6-a03d-8bf2a71930f0" CreationDate="2019-09-14T02:56:33.427" UserId="22445" Text="&lt;1894556&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20837" RevisionGUID="69d673a5-b080-49a0-88f1-85a88b75bace" CreationDate="2019-09-14T20:04:41.367" UserId="3076" Text="A patent by that number expired in about 1950. Of course there are no longer any patent right remaining. If you have the original ribboned patent grant document it could have some (presumably small) value to collectors. If you have a patented cap remover from 1932 that might also have some value to collectors. Either would be off-topic here.&#xD;&#xA;[![image from google patents][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zKpF8.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57993" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="20835" RevisionGUID="af168345-57b0-4c41-b17a-e2f2ca15add1" CreationDate="2019-09-15T00:27:02.587" UserId="1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[10679],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:18033,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DonQuiKong&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:17003,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Eric Shain&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="57994" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18971" RevisionGUID="db235923-0a26-480c-b74b-e42dce00c0e4" CreationDate="2019-09-16T09:02:15.457" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="57995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20838" RevisionGUID="0eda90ac-8ba6-4441-9957-353e7775b36b" CreationDate="2019-09-17T22:06:52.777" UserId="22451" Text="For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1: A system comprising X, Y, Z. &lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 2: The system of claim 1, wherein the X is connected to a W. &lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 3: The system of claim 1, wherein the W is P connected to U. &lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the claim 3, i introduced &quot;w&quot; with the definite article. Even though the parent claim (claim 1) does not mention &quot;w&quot;, a sister claim (claim 2) already mentioned &quot;w&quot; so antecedent basis is already established. Is it correct? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57996" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20838" RevisionGUID="0eda90ac-8ba6-4441-9957-353e7775b36b" CreationDate="2019-09-17T22:06:52.777" UserId="22451" Text="Question about proper antecedent basis: is it necessary to establish new antecedent basis in every dependent claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57997" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20838" RevisionGUID="0eda90ac-8ba6-4441-9957-353e7775b36b" CreationDate="2019-09-17T22:06:52.777" UserId="22451" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20839" RevisionGUID="5995f55d-b2c4-4f2c-898d-3d18f3f13d8d" CreationDate="2019-09-17T22:56:22.637" UserId="3076" Text="**Yes**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can imagine a dependent claim as being re-written as concatenated at the end of the independent claim. If there is &quot;an X&quot; in the independent claim the dependent claim should use &quot;the X&quot;. If the dependent claim has &quot;an X&quot;, it could be ambiguously seen as introducing a second X." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="57999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20839" RevisionGUID="2ae229ef-4520-4780-93c7-40e3e8e7063e" CreationDate="2019-09-17T23:26:52.803" UserId="3076" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="**Yes** to the body of the question, **No** to the title of the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can imagine a dependent claim as being re-written as concatenated at the end of the independent claim. If there is &quot;an X&quot; in the independent claim the dependent claim should use &quot;the X&quot;. If the dependent claim has &quot;an X&quot;, it could be ambiguously seen as introducing a second X." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20839" RevisionGUID="c2ab60e0-b41a-4acb-86e5-11a91124316b" CreationDate="2019-09-18T15:24:22.337" UserId="3076" Comment="added 165 characters in body" Text="**Yes** to the body of the question, **No** to the title of the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can imagine a dependent claim as being re-written as concatenated at the end of the independent claim. If there is &quot;an X&quot; in the independent claim the dependent claim should use &quot;the X&quot;. If the dependent claim has &quot;an X&quot;, it could be ambiguously seen as introducing a second X.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since claim 3 depends on claim 1, it does need to introduce W as &quot;a W&quot;. The fact that claim 2 introduces W is irrelevant to claim 3 even though 2 comes before 3." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58001" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20770" RevisionGUID="3c24ac62-6c9a-4b51-bfc2-c2eee1413d38" CreationDate="2019-09-18T21:01:50.293" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20840" RevisionGUID="d08a7f23-fed8-4120-aff4-734214cb1900" CreationDate="2019-09-19T10:32:14.397" UserId="18033" Text="&gt;The method of claim 1, further comprising: enforcing a speed limit resulting from the limiting, wherein the enforcing comprises at least one of: breaking the object, capturing the object, intercepting the object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's also unclear where the speed limit comes from. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The deceleration controls are not related to anything in the claims , even though they seem to be technically. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The method is not technical according to European practice because I could perform the complete method without any technical means." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58008" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20085" RevisionGUID="f2cafc23-f506-4bda-b335-0a8e3384b728" CreationDate="2019-09-22T01:01:45.223" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58009" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10094" RevisionGUID="522900b5-5382-4029-ab88-0dcb94f8e246" CreationDate="2019-09-22T05:01:00.183" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58010" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13760" RevisionGUID="fc788659-4499-43bd-a887-a6c5b90e329d" CreationDate="2019-09-22T09:02:20.470" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58011" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10043" RevisionGUID="e47025a1-e9d3-46c8-bd45-cf4297267ab2" CreationDate="2019-09-22T10:01:25.203" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58012" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12478" RevisionGUID="bfad1bd4-69d2-42e1-bbff-7dea07ec94c4" CreationDate="2019-09-22T11:02:20.450" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58013" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18629" RevisionGUID="6a63669f-d2b1-48c0-b918-6b1a024db7ab" CreationDate="2019-09-22T12:02:30.320" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58014" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14861" RevisionGUID="07416c4e-60a6-483b-b952-ca5278e82747" CreationDate="2019-09-22T14:01:30.170" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58015" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13123" RevisionGUID="b655a5f6-707b-485b-a2e2-3aa01f8c09a7" CreationDate="2019-09-22T17:01:45.480" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58016" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12055" RevisionGUID="bdaabac4-af3f-4a7f-8534-daa7a3520dae" CreationDate="2019-09-22T19:01:35.340" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58017" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12452" RevisionGUID="79a7d877-2353-4931-9f2c-6c45d4cca554" CreationDate="2019-09-22T21:01:10.297" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58018" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16304" RevisionGUID="ec97c9f7-7386-4177-aab8-85868dc6ee64" CreationDate="2019-09-22T22:00:40.203" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20842" RevisionGUID="baebca64-89e2-4073-8901-38319a2efc9c" CreationDate="2019-09-23T14:07:56.967" UserId="17003" Text="As noted by user4545, the linked document is a patent application, not a patent. You can check for the status on the [US Public Pair][1] site. In this case select &quot;Publication Number&quot; and enter &quot;20140234791&quot;. The status of this application is &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot; as of 06-10-2016. Looking at the transaction history, there were a series of rejections so I'm guessing the applicant figured out a patent wasn't going to be awarded and gave up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer you specific question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; People have been making candles from recycled bottles for years. Is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; putting a lid on the candle really different enough to warrant a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Evidently putting a lid on a candle **is not enough** to warrant a patent, at least in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58020" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16961" RevisionGUID="99494a9b-d3a9-4bc9-bf94-71eb9ac4aef8" CreationDate="2019-09-23T14:14:35.720" UserId="17003" Comment="added 392 characters in body" Text="This is only an application and may never be granted. Claim 1 is especially unlikely given prior art. In this case, [Wikipedia][1] provides some prior art and a couple of useful links. including [Onvio][2] and [Shimpo][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the [US Public Pair][4] site, this application's status is: &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot; as of 03-12-2015.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicant received a non-final rejection in 08-10-2014. I'm assuming the cited grounds for rejection were sufficient to convince the applicant to give up pursing a US patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycloidal_drive&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.onviollc.com/products/cycloidal-speed-reducers.asp&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://web.archive.org/web/20081219120507/http://www.ohiobelting.com/shimpo2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58021" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="20843" RevisionGUID="7862828f-5e23-4aa7-a895-b631c5d82408" CreationDate="2019-09-23T20:59:40.887" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/44951/is-value-at-risk-methodology-patented" />
  <row Id="58022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20843" RevisionGUID="259be051-877f-498b-be8f-5a5857fecb98" CreationDate="2019-09-23T12:18:30.907" UserDisplayName="user27748" Text="If a software provides calculation of [value-at-risk][1] based on some text book methods (say the one described by [John C. Hull][2]), does the publisher of the software become liable to any claims for violation of intellectual property?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A simple google search reveals - https://patents.google.com/patent/US7356504B2/en but I cannot make any inference to answer my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Limiting the jurisdiction to US for now; there are many other jurisdictions where software patents would be invalid.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_at_risk&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Hull" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58023" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20843" RevisionGUID="259be051-877f-498b-be8f-5a5857fecb98" CreationDate="2019-09-23T12:18:30.907" UserDisplayName="user27748" Text="Is value-at-risk methodology patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58024" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20843" RevisionGUID="259be051-877f-498b-be8f-5a5857fecb98" CreationDate="2019-09-23T12:18:30.907" UserDisplayName="user27748" Text="&lt;united-states&gt;&lt;intellectual-property&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20844" RevisionGUID="60a4aa9a-00ce-4b85-8cb6-b3c3a7e43810" CreationDate="2019-09-24T00:15:22.557" UserId="3076" Text="There are many many patents with the term &quot;value-at-risk&quot; in the tile or body. The oldest one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [System and method for determination of incremental value at risk for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; securities … EP US JP AU CA US5819237A Mark B. Garman Financial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Engineering Associates, Inc. filed 1996-02-13 ][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most recent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [US10277525B2][2] Method and apparatus for disaggregated overlays via application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; services profiles Abstract Example embodiments of the present&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention relate to a method, a system, and a computer program product&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for creating a dynamically composed compute node. The method includes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving an application characteristic and generating an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; infrastructure allocation request according to the application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; characteristic. The infrastructure allocation request then may be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forwarded to a management system associated with a disaggregated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we do not know the &quot;text book&quot; method you are talking about we can't compare your plans to the many issued patents in the U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5819237A/en?q=%22value%20at%20risk%22&amp;country=US&amp;status=GRANT&amp;sort=old&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10277525B2/en?q=%22value%20at%20risk%22&amp;country=US&amp;status=GRANT&amp;sort=new" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20844" RevisionGUID="efce4a32-41b4-4783-8d8f-d81912ae50cf" CreationDate="2019-09-24T00:33:35.500" UserId="3076" Comment="added 378 characters in body" Text="There are many many patents with the term &quot;value-at-risk&quot; in the tile or body. From google patents  - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The oldest one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; System and method for determination of incremental value at risk for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; securities … EP US JP AU CA [US5819237A][1] Mark B. Garman Financial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Engineering Associates, Inc. filed 1996-02-13&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most recent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [US10277525B2][2] Method and apparatus for disaggregated overlays via application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; services profiles Abstract Example embodiments of the present&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention relate to a method, a system, and a computer program product&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for creating a dynamically composed compute node. The method includes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving an application characteristic and generating an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; infrastructure allocation request according to the application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; characteristic. The infrastructure allocation request then may be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forwarded to a management system associated with a disaggregated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What google patents sees as the most relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  System and method for determining value at risk of a financial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; portfolio US [US6085175A][3] Leon G. Gugel Axiom Software&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Laboratories, Inc. Priority 1998-07-02 • Filed 1998-07-02 • Granted&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2000-07-04 • Published 2000-07-04&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we do not know the text book method you are talking about we can't compare your plans to the many issued patents in the U.S. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5819237A/en?q=%22value%20at%20risk%22&amp;country=US&amp;status=GRANT&amp;sort=old&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10277525B2/en?q=%22value%20at%20risk%22&amp;country=US&amp;status=GRANT&amp;sort=new&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/?q=%22value%20at%20risk%22&amp;country=US&amp;status=GRANT" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20844" RevisionGUID="448f663f-fa03-4f9a-b1f9-23eec8e0c5d1" CreationDate="2019-09-24T15:50:24.193" UserId="3076" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="There are many many patents with the term &quot;value-at-risk&quot; in the tile or body. From google patents  - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The oldest one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; System and method for determination of incremental value at risk for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; securities … EP US JP AU CA [US5819237A][1] Mark B. Garman Financial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Engineering Associates, Inc. filed 1996-02-13&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most recent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [US10277525B2][2] Method and apparatus for disaggregated overlays via application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; services profiles Abstract Example embodiments of the present&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention relate to a method, a system, and a computer program product&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for creating a dynamically composed compute node. The method includes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving an application characteristic and generating an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; infrastructure allocation request according to the application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; characteristic. The infrastructure allocation request then may be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forwarded to a management system associated with a disaggregated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What google patents sees as the most relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  System and method for determining value at risk of a financial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; portfolio US [US6085175A][3] Leon G. Gugel Axiom Software&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Laboratories, Inc. Priority 1998-07-02 • Filed 1998-07-02 • Granted&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2000-07-04 • Published 2000-07-04&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we do not know the text book method you are talking about we can't compare your plans to the many issued patents in the U.S. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5819237A/en?q=%22value%20at%20risk%22&amp;country=US&amp;status=GRANT&amp;sort=old&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10277525B2/en?q=%22value%20at%20risk%22&amp;country=US&amp;status=GRANT&amp;sort=new&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6085175A/en?q=%22value+at+risk%22&amp;country=US&amp;status=GRANT" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58029" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20371" RevisionGUID="1eccb1b1-4734-4332-8108-6124e549acda" CreationDate="2019-09-25T04:05:30.593" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58034" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19051" RevisionGUID="5565a944-0762-409b-ac81-d96a479c004d" CreationDate="2019-09-29T16:00:40.393" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20846" RevisionGUID="f176d50c-4b0a-4fdd-8fe1-37d475c7a561" CreationDate="2019-09-29T17:51:56.833" UserId="22485" Text="Were these patents ever granted or not? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one shows three publications after application but no note of being granted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2009046346A2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure how there was no grant or denial after publication. But I'm not sure of the definition of publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one shows publication, assignment to a company, and then abandonment, but it also is noted as pending in US as of 2016:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US20070041954A1/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks,&#xD;&#xA;Michael&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58036" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20846" RevisionGUID="f176d50c-4b0a-4fdd-8fe1-37d475c7a561" CreationDate="2019-09-29T17:51:56.833" UserId="22485" Text="are these patents granted or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58037" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20846" RevisionGUID="f176d50c-4b0a-4fdd-8fe1-37d475c7a561" CreationDate="2019-09-29T17:51:56.833" UserId="22485" Text="&lt;granted&gt;&lt;publication&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20847" RevisionGUID="23b52ae7-1fee-432d-8390-f257a074cfd9" CreationDate="2019-09-29T19:36:16.200" UserId="3076" Text="I see one US patent - [US9,433,646][1] - that was granted based on the set of applications related to the publication US20070041954A1. A series of applications were filed that all derived priority from provisional application 60/699,579 filed 07-14-2005. This is the history - (from Public PAIR)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;11/486,635 filed on 07-13-2006 which is Abandoned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12/955,755 filed on 11-29-2010 which is Abandoned&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**13/688,864 filed on 11-29-2012 which is Patented as 9,433,646** &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;15/228,849 filed on 08-04-2016 which is Abandoned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PCT/US06/27305 filed on 07-12-2006 which is Published&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publication is not the same as patenting. The last entry is an international patent application. I see in Patentscope that it entered the national stage in Germany but was later withdrawn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;International application publication WO2009046346A2 is by the same inventors but is from a different, later, original filing. It comes from US provisional application 60/977,607 filed 10-04-2007. It does not seem to have entered the national stage anywhere according to PatentScope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9433646B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58039" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20703" RevisionGUID="a0226a6c-2567-41d0-80d7-7f172dc6986f" CreationDate="2019-09-30T05:01:45.217" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20851" RevisionGUID="69c2b826-4c42-428d-b351-f46316dc6e76" CreationDate="2019-10-04T03:59:44.930" UserId="22496" Text="Almost a year ago I worked at a small tech startup. While there I participated in the development of a way to extract data from OSI headers for networking applications in FPGAs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have since left that startup and now work at a different company, where I intended to use some of the ideas that I used at the startup for solving similar problems, but in a completely different domain (my old and new companies do not in any way compete). I have taken no source code with me. I only want to reuse some of these techniques that I used previously. I have in fact reimplemented much of this idea at my new company and am in the process of using it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unbeknownst to me in the year I have been away, my old company has apparently filed documentation to patent this idea. This morning my old boss contacted me an requested that I sign some documentation for the filing process. If I don't sign, my boss is likely going to be suspicious of why I am not willing to sign this patent, and why I would leave money on the table that he is offering. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent document is so broadly worded as to make me feel that I cannot extract data from OSI headers in an FPGA in any way such that I could not be accused of infringing on this patent. Personally I think patenting this is ridiculous. How can this possibly be so unique as to warrant a patent? But I'm not a lawyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I am curious what the community might say about this. Do I just discard the work I have done at my new company?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58053" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20851" RevisionGUID="69c2b826-4c42-428d-b351-f46316dc6e76" CreationDate="2019-10-04T03:59:44.930" UserId="22496" Text="patent situation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58054" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20851" RevisionGUID="69c2b826-4c42-428d-b351-f46316dc6e76" CreationDate="2019-10-04T03:59:44.930" UserId="22496" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58055" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="a7abeea4-2a0e-4aef-bcc5-745c62217e1b" CreationDate="2019-10-04T14:02:40.350" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20852" RevisionGUID="bcf4ea45-cf1e-43b0-960a-21f7d20b14b1" CreationDate="2019-10-04T14:47:35.650" UserId="22334" Text="I think there are two different issues relating to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the filing of the patent application and as pointed out by @DonQuiKong, this does not mean that they will get a patent granted. The patent application is subject to examination and the invention must be novel and non-obvious to be patented. Depending on both the state of the art and the interests of the company, the scope of protection conferred by an eventual patent will be broader or narrower. In fact multiple patents may arise from a single patent application, so one has to monitor how the patent application(s) are prosecuted (this is public information after 18 months) to see if it is likely that the may get patents for the invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if you have been contacted by the company and you are to sign some documents, probably that means that you are considered by them as an inventor of said procedure. You own patents rights for that patent application, and in the US the company does not have the rights to the patent application unless the inventors assign them to the company, and I guess that is what they are actually trying to do by requesting you to sign the documents. If you do not sign the documents, it becomes problematic for the company to get the rights to the patent application. That would be a reason why they are offering you a sum of money as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then the second issue is whether you are able to use part or the totality of the procedure in a new company. If they get the patent granted, then they can enforce their rights and stop you from using that procedure as long as the procedure you are using is protected by the patent. You mention that you are reusing some techniques, so that may result in a new procedure not falling within the scope of protection conferred by the patent. But another important point is whether you signed some contract in the former company stating that you were not to use, during a certain period of time or while working for a different company, knowledge you gained while working for that former company. In that case, irrespective of the fate of the patent application, you may not be using certain techniques you developed back then. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20853" RevisionGUID="ee9cd4cd-b456-4eed-b7d2-da1a9875cad4" CreationDate="2019-10-04T16:58:42.953" UserId="3076" Text="Most likely you signed an agreement when you joined your old company that assigns all relevant inventions you made while at the company to the company. That agreement also most likely included an agreement to cooperate with the filing of any applications. Now they are asking you to follow through on that agreement and sign a patent application.  After the AIA law went into effect, it is pretty easy for the company to file an application without your signature after they try to contact you to get you to sign but it is a little better for them to get the inventors' signatures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The description in the specification of the patent may sound broad, but what counts is the wording of the claims. The claims they are filing may be broader than the claims they eventually get, if they get a patent at all. The claims may be for a very specific application of the technique you developed or it might be very broad.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your new employer would not appreciate you developing a product that is later found to infringe and it could be as long as three years from now when a patent issues. This is a difficult situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20854" RevisionGUID="f44c5aa5-35ee-48ab-89bb-40a79ff4f5f0" CreationDate="2019-10-04T20:05:10.047" UserId="22503" Text="I live in Canada and came up with a product idea for the archery industry and through my research I came across a United States Patent that is very similar to what I had made (prototype).I was also unable to find the patented product on the market anywhere and are still looking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question 1a.   Can I apply for a patent in Canada for this similar product that has a patent in the United States if my version has a significant improvement ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question 1b.   Can I apply for a patent in the United States for the improvement on the already patented product?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question 3.      Can I manufacture and sell my own version (or exact version) of the patented product in Canada if it is only protected in the United States?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question 4.       What could potentially happen (financially) if I were to sell my improved version in the United States without a patent on the improvement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58059" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20854" RevisionGUID="f44c5aa5-35ee-48ab-89bb-40a79ff4f5f0" CreationDate="2019-10-04T20:05:10.047" UserId="22503" Text="Can I get a patent on a product that is already patented in another country by making an significant improvement to the already patented product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58060" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20854" RevisionGUID="f44c5aa5-35ee-48ab-89bb-40a79ff4f5f0" CreationDate="2019-10-04T20:05:10.047" UserId="22503" Text="&lt;canada&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20855" RevisionGUID="9809ccfc-2725-4249-897f-a6f89b7ee82e" CreationDate="2019-10-04T20:21:33.323" UserId="3076" Text="1a - Patent improved version in Canada ? Yes if the improvement is novel (never done before anywhere) and has an inventive step = meaning the improvement is not considered obvious in light of everything that has ever been on in the field or an analogous field. &quot;Significant&quot; isn't really a patent law concept. It might be a small improvement with a small benefit but still be novel and  inventive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1b - Patent improved version in U.S.? Yes, approximately the same as above in relation to Canada. But, that doesn't mean you can make or sell it in the U.S. If your improved version still falls under the wording of the U.S. patent claim, it still infringes. This seems to be very hard for many people to understand. Your patent is not a right for you to make the invention, it is a right to try to stop others from making your invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Make it in Canada? Yes, as long as there is not a counterpart patent in Canada or some other Canadian patent you have not yet found. If you make and sell and import only into places with no patent you are OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The patent owner can initiate a patent infringement proceeding either in court or with the ITC to stop you and your product. It could cost you money.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20853" RevisionGUID="f4583afa-e5d8-4b9c-8e5d-8a1b01a055a8" CreationDate="2019-10-04T22:07:01.123" UserId="3076" Comment="adding input from a comment" Text="Most likely you signed an agreement when you joined your old company that assigns all relevant inventions you made while at the company to the company. That agreement also most likely included an agreement to cooperate with the filing of any applications. Now they are asking you to follow through on that agreement and sign a patent application.  After the AIA law went into effect, it is pretty easy for the company to file an application without your signature after they try to contact you to get you to sign but it is a little better for them to get the inventors' signatures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The description in the specification of the patent may sound broad, but what counts is the wording of the claims. The claims they are filing may be broader than the claims they eventually get, if they get a patent at all. The claims may be for a very specific application of the technique you developed or it might be very broad.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your new employer would not appreciate you developing a product that is later found to infringe and it could be as long as three years from now when a patent issues. This is a difficult situation. You might consider bringing this up in a very general way with attorneys at the new company. Or you could stay as far away from using the technology as possible at least until a patent issues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20855" RevisionGUID="60fec50b-0127-4952-b1e9-cf4b3239dcf4" CreationDate="2019-10-05T16:12:29.103" UserId="3076" Comment="fix to respond to very helpful comment" Text="1a - Patent improved version in Canada ? Yes if the improvement is novel (never done before anywhere) and has an inventive step = meaning the improvement is not considered obvious in light of everything that has ever been on in the field or an analogous field. &quot;Significant&quot; isn't really a patent law concept. It might be a small improvement with a small benefit but still be novel and  inventive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1b - Patent improved version in U.S.? Yes, approximately the same as above in relation to Canada. But, that doesn't mean you can make or sell it in the U.S. If your improved version still falls under the wording of the U.S. patent claim, it still infringes. This seems to be very hard for many people to understand. Your patent is not a right for you to make the invention, it is a right to try to stop others from making your invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Make it in Canada? Yes, as long as there is not a counterpart patent in Canada or some other Canadian patent you have not yet found. If you make and sell and import only into places with no patent you are OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. You do not need a patent to sell something. **IF** your improved version infringes the US patent the patent owner can initiate a patent infringement proceeding either in court or with the ITC to stop you and your product whether or not you have a patent of your own. An improved version might infringe the patent of the original or it might not. Very simplified, if you add something to the original, it probably still infringes. If you subtract something or solve the same problem a different way then it probably doesn't infringe. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20853" RevisionGUID="0f11770c-0ca1-4523-919a-d12d668aa3f6" CreationDate="2019-10-05T19:11:20.610" UserId="3076" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="Most likely you signed an agreement when you joined your old company that assigns all relevant inventions you made while at the company to the company. That agreement also most likely included an agreement to cooperate with the filing of any applications. Now they are asking you to follow through on that agreement and sign a patent application and possibly an assignment agreement.  After the AIA law went into effect, it is pretty easy for the company to file an application without your signature after they try to contact you to get you to sign but it is a little better for them to get the inventors' signatures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The description in the specification of the patent may sound broad, but what counts is the wording of the claims. The claims they are filing may be broader than the claims they eventually get, if they get a patent at all. The claims may be for a very specific application of the technique you developed or it might be very broad.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your new employer would not appreciate you developing a product that is later found to infringe and it could be as long as three years from now when a patent issues. This is a difficult situation. You might consider bringing this up in a very general way with attorneys at the new company. Or you could stay as far away from using the technology as possible at least until a patent issues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20855" RevisionGUID="2c083c68-1be0-44c4-ba2b-d2f29084a5dc" CreationDate="2019-10-05T20:26:39.813" UserId="3076" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="1a - Patent improved version in Canada ? Yes if the improvement is novel (never done before anywhere) and has an inventive step = meaning the improvement is not considered obvious in light of everything that has ever been on in the field or an analogous field. &quot;Significant&quot; isn't really a patent law concept. It might be a small improvement with a small benefit but still be novel and  inventive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1b - Patent improved version in U.S.? Yes, approximately the same as above in relation to Canada. But, that doesn't mean you can make or sell it in the U.S. If your improved version still falls under the wording of the U.S. patent claim, it still infringes. This seems to be very hard for many people to understand. Your patent is not a right for you to make the invention, it is a right to try to stop others from making your invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Make it in Canada? Yes, as long as there is not a counterpart patent in Canada or some other Canadian patent you have not yet found. If you make and sell and import only into places with no patent you are OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. (Edited due to correcting comment) You do not need a patent to sell something. **IF** your improved version infringes the US patent the patent owner can initiate a patent infringement proceeding either in court or with the ITC to stop you and your product whether or not you have a patent of your own. An improved version might infringe the patent of the original or it might not. *Very* simplified, if you add something to the original, it probably still infringes. If you subtract something or solve the same problem a different way then it probably doesn't infringe. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20857" RevisionGUID="3a8d0c82-18ae-427a-9798-9840aaa9bb4c" CreationDate="2019-10-07T15:47:15.440" UserId="22509" Text="When it comes to UIs, many different UI toolkits exist such as Qt, GTK, Motif, and UIKit. So I would be surprised if it turned out that common features of UIKit  which appear on many platforms as well were patented by Apple. But I have to ask: Are these basic classes covered by patents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* UINavigationController = horizontal layout of UI screens&#xD;&#xA;* UIScrollView = scroll UI elements within a touch-sensitive zone&#xD;&#xA;* UITableView = vertical list of items with touch response&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are equivalents of these on many systmes, including Linux and Windows and Android. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58071" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20857" RevisionGUID="3a8d0c82-18ae-427a-9798-9840aaa9bb4c" CreationDate="2019-10-07T15:47:15.440" UserId="22509" Text="Does Apple have patents on basic UIKit classes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58072" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20857" RevisionGUID="3a8d0c82-18ae-427a-9798-9840aaa9bb4c" CreationDate="2019-10-07T15:47:15.440" UserId="22509" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;apple&gt;&lt;user-interface&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20858" RevisionGUID="2c3220fb-b3bd-4b5e-b48a-443db4732d62" CreationDate="2019-10-07T20:00:01.053" UserId="3076" Text="Patent searching is a time consuming art. To get started, a google patent search finds the top several results (by relevance) the search string was (user interface) assignee:apple country:US after:priority:20000101 status:GRANT is gets about 9,000 hits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Graphical user interface and methods of use thereof in a multimedia&#xD;&#xA;&gt; player US US7166791B2 Jeffrey L. Robbin Apple Computer, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Combined menu-list control element in a graphical user interface WO EP&#xD;&#xA;&gt; US AU US6734882B1 Thomas W. Becker Apple Computer, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Method and apparatus for user customized shading of a graphical user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interface WO EP US AU HK US7184056B2 Sarah Brody Apple Computer, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; System and method of producing user interface information messages WO&#xD;&#xA;&gt; US AU US7024626B2 Steve Ko Apple Computer, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Graphical user interface(GUI), a synthesiser and a computer system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; including a … US US7222310B2 Chris Adam Apple Computer, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; User interface for phone call routing among devices WO EP US CN&#xD;&#xA;&gt; US10178234B2 Patrick L. Coffman Apple, Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Automatic, dynamic user interface configuration US US7620894B1 Jessica&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Kahn Apple Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20859" RevisionGUID="131b9f2d-d7b4-4755-b1c3-82b79ed23949" CreationDate="2019-10-07T22:14:12.360" UserId="22511" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;George gave you a good answer, but just to further clarify the technical part, the patent isn't on using or calculating ESF's, it's on an algorithm I came up with for calculating whole sets of ESF's quickly. Using this specific algorithm instead of the more obvious method reduced the computational complexity of CPHD tracker updates from n^3 to n^2 in the number of new detections. The method was not obvious and had eluded a team of scientists who needed a way to speed up those updates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the odd word choices are legal-document-speak, and the patent attorneys warned me not to &quot;correct&quot; any of that.  They also explained to me the concerns that George explained above.  This was my first patent application, and it was an odd experience.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20860" RevisionGUID="7089217d-b000-4d1b-869e-011f7051a5d7" CreationDate="2019-10-08T07:53:36.023" UserId="19961" Text="I have been thinking of submitting a utility model in USA however i want to know what is the difference between utility model and utility patent and if the USPTO has utility model?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58077" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20860" RevisionGUID="7089217d-b000-4d1b-869e-011f7051a5d7" CreationDate="2019-10-08T07:53:36.023" UserId="19961" Text="THE utility patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58078" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20860" RevisionGUID="7089217d-b000-4d1b-869e-011f7051a5d7" CreationDate="2019-10-08T07:53:36.023" UserId="19961" Text="&lt;utility-model&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20861" RevisionGUID="43c9705b-eb49-4ac8-ac92-c3f6703c2d8b" CreationDate="2019-10-08T16:17:58.647" UserId="3076" Text="**No**, there is no concept of a Utility Model in the U.S. patent system. Other places, Germany, China and Japan, for example, have utility model or petty patents that can have a lower bar for patentablity, a shorter term and often a lower assumption of validity, than normal innovation patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Utility Models are also usually confined to certain areas of technology." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20861" RevisionGUID="1e67732a-232d-4a19-88e2-7710f54cafd6" CreationDate="2019-10-08T16:55:58.727" UserId="3076" Comment="added 301 characters in body" Text="**No**, there is no concept of a Utility Model in the U.S. patent system. Many, many other places, Germany, China and Japan, for example, have utility model or petty patents that can have a lower bar for patentablity, a shorter term and often a lower assumption of validity than normal innovation patents. Unlike other places, the U.S. does have Design Patents for the protection of the ornamental aspects of a manufactured product. They have a shorter term that U.S. Utility Patents but are not really analogous to a petty patent since they cover the &quot;look&quot;, rather the functioning or structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Utility Models are also usually confined to certain areas of technology." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20861" RevisionGUID="f7a6ac0f-c14a-43b5-a68f-f64097e752c8" CreationDate="2019-10-09T15:44:31.450" UserId="3076" Comment="reposnding to comment" Text="**No**, there is no concept of a Utility Model in the U.S. patent system. Many, many other places, Germany, China and Japan, for example, have utility model or petty patents that can have a lower bar for patentablity, a shorter term and often a lower assumption of validity than normal innovation patents. Unlike other places, the U.S. *does* have Design Patents for the protection of the ornamental aspects of a manufactured product. They have a shorter term than U.S. Utility Patents but are not really analogous to a petty patent since they cover the &quot;look&quot;, rather the functioning or structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Utility Models are also usually confined to certain areas of technology - typically devices and excluding processes and systems." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20862" RevisionGUID="bd62bd2c-590b-4683-a633-26e03b8b2e96" CreationDate="2019-10-10T13:30:28.967" UserId="6121" Text="My USPTO non-provisional application is not published yet. It contains 1 independent claim and 19 dependant claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to remove some dependent claims and then add some new claims. The updated version would look like 2 independent claims and 18 dependent claims.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any fee I have to pay for making such amendments? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58083" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20862" RevisionGUID="bd62bd2c-590b-4683-a633-26e03b8b2e96" CreationDate="2019-10-10T13:30:28.967" UserId="6121" Text="Is there any fee for amending claims before the publication in USPTO?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58084" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20862" RevisionGUID="bd62bd2c-590b-4683-a633-26e03b8b2e96" CreationDate="2019-10-10T13:30:28.967" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;claim-amendment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20863" RevisionGUID="56356a61-d08b-4225-895c-9d95810b6639" CreationDate="2019-10-10T19:24:55.213" UserId="3076" Text="No, there is no fee for filing a claim amendment. The only fees that might pertain to this are excess claim fees. In your scenario you end up at the 20 maximum claims and below the 3 independent claims. You an amend before publication and/or after publication." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20723" RevisionGUID="1f505990-4bbf-4eac-8d1d-6b7b2830f43d" CreationDate="2019-10-13T17:23:04.247" UserId="22326" Comment="deleted 77 characters in body" Text="I have 16 years of prior art that would fully invalidate a patent granted in 2019. The patent has two claims (effectively the same claim repeated twice). It has no preferred embodiment. I have had a working and well-publicized application since 2003. (I have a prior-art-to-claims comparison.) From the point of view of remuneration or compensation, how should I proceed? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20864" RevisionGUID="2105fcfb-adaa-485a-8b3a-b4f37b9e6266" CreationDate="2019-10-14T09:49:03.417" UserId="22526" Text="In reference to the [patent application 20190295733][1]. I might be wrong, but as far as I know a working Plasma Compression Fusion Device wasn't made yet, although it is possible theoretically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, this is a patent application, and not a patent. However, I've looked up &quot;inventor:(Salvatore Pais)&quot; through the google patents and found things like [this][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Piezoelectricity-induced Room Temperature Superconductor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, I'm not an expert, but the [Wikipedia says][3] room-temperature superconductors reports have not been confirmed yet:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since the discovery of high-temperature superconductors, several materials have been reported to be room-temperature superconductors, although none of these reports has been confirmed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So presumably Salvatore Pais has patents on technologies, which he has no working prototypes of. Is it normal for the US patent law (I have zero knowledge of it), or is it the particular inventor's thing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2019/0295733.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190058105A1/en&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room-temperature_superconductor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58091" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20864" RevisionGUID="2105fcfb-adaa-485a-8b3a-b4f37b9e6266" CreationDate="2019-10-14T09:49:03.417" UserId="22526" Text="Is it normal in US to patent a device which does not exist yet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58092" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20864" RevisionGUID="2105fcfb-adaa-485a-8b3a-b4f37b9e6266" CreationDate="2019-10-14T09:49:03.417" UserId="22526" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;united-states&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20864" RevisionGUID="f2e7778b-0c6c-4966-8f87-882595785f01" CreationDate="2019-10-14T13:58:53.613" UserId="22526" Comment="deleted 35 characters in body" Text="In reference to the [patent application 20190295733][1]. I might be wrong, but as far as I know a working Plasma Compression Fusion Device wasn't made yet, although it is possible theoretically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I've looked up &quot;inventor:(Salvatore Pais)&quot; through the google patents and found things like [this][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Piezoelectricity-induced Room Temperature Superconductor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, I'm not an expert, but the [Wikipedia says][3] room-temperature superconductors reports have not been confirmed yet:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since the discovery of high-temperature superconductors, several materials have been reported to be room-temperature superconductors, although none of these reports has been confirmed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is also a patent application, and not a patent. Is it okay to apply for a patent without a working prototype? Is it normal for the US patent law (I have zero knowledge of it), or is it the particular inventor's thing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2019/0295733.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190058105A1/en&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room-temperature_superconductor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20865" RevisionGUID="420755f5-5d9b-47d0-9b1f-80add4684974" CreationDate="2019-10-14T14:13:33.667" UserId="17003" Text="You've discovered the dirty laundry of the patent system. There is no burden to prove your invention actually works. Some people might argue this isn't a problem since no one would want to infringe on a technology that doesn't function. However where this breaks down is when the patent gets an overly broad claim. So to answer your question, I'm not sure if it is considered &quot;normal&quot; to file applications on unproven inventions, but it isn't at all uncommon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, one has to dial back the concern a bit with applications. It is very common to start with overly broad claim language in applications only to have things tightened up considerably in the actual patent (assuming a patent is even issued). I'm not sufficiently skilled in these fields to assess the quality of the cited applications. The room temperature conductivity one seems questionable to me as I'm not sure what the point is of achieving superconductivity in a wire by exciting the wire with a low electrical efficiency piezo mechanism." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20866" RevisionGUID="41c0e5ea-297b-48aa-9870-5fb1a8056abe" CreationDate="2019-10-14T20:42:18.067" UserId="22503" Text="How do I confirm if an United States patent has been filed through the PCT ? Is there a number(cover page) on a granted patent that shows all the countries that the invention are protected in as well ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58096" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20866" RevisionGUID="41c0e5ea-297b-48aa-9870-5fb1a8056abe" CreationDate="2019-10-14T20:42:18.067" UserId="22503" Text="Patents that have been filed through the PCT" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58097" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20866" RevisionGUID="41c0e5ea-297b-48aa-9870-5fb1a8056abe" CreationDate="2019-10-14T20:42:18.067" UserId="22503" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;number&gt;&lt;publication&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20867" RevisionGUID="9a584e66-8ab8-4e09-960e-65db2bf33251" CreationDate="2019-10-14T21:28:34.750" UserId="3076" Text="&gt; Is there [something] on a granted patent that shows all the countries&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that the invention are protected in?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. Each location/regional body handles its own patent prosecutions. Also the publication of a patent is like publication of a book in that events that occur after its publication are not reflected in its contents. There are databases that can help you. For a PCT application you could look in WIPO's [PatentScope][1] for the PCT application. It will have a tab called National Phase.&#xD;&#xA;[![screen shot of PCT application record][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At that page you should see a list of the places, if any, that the PCT application entered the national stage. This may not actually include everything because corresponding  patent applications can derive from the PCT application without actually being a national stage of it. For example Argentina is not part of the PCT system and the U.S. has something called a by-pass application. Things can go from a PCT to a regional body like the EPO and then to actual countries in an additional step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking it up in google patents or The Lens can be a quick way to possibly learn about patents in multiple locations.&#xD;&#xA;[![national stage list][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wipo.int/patentscope/en/?&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SroJp.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DohuZ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20867" RevisionGUID="abf6a790-6706-4169-b9e6-dbf3e4e8d604" CreationDate="2019-10-14T21:36:01.773" UserId="3076" Comment="added 331 characters in body" Text="&gt; How do I confirm if an United States patent has been filed through the PCT &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A US patent that started as a PCT application and then entered the US system can be detected by looking on the front page for item (21) Appl. No. If the originating application was a PCT application you will see PCT in the application number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there [something] on a granted patent that shows all the countries&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that the invention are protected in?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. Each location/regional body handles its own patent prosecutions. Also the publication of a patent is like publication of a book in that events that occur after its publication are not reflected in its contents. There are databases that can help you. For a PCT application you could look in WIPO's [PatentScope][1] for the PCT application. It will have a tab called National Phase.&#xD;&#xA;[![screen shot of PCT application record][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At that page you should see a list of the places, if any, that the PCT application entered the national stage. This may not actually include everything because corresponding  patent applications can derive from the PCT application without actually being a national stage of it. For example Argentina is not part of the PCT system and the U.S. has something called a by-pass application. Things can go from a PCT to a regional body like the EPO and then to actual countries in an additional step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking it up in google patents or The Lens can be a quick way to possibly learn about patents in multiple locations.&#xD;&#xA;[![national stage list][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wipo.int/patentscope/en/?&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SroJp.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DohuZ.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20867" RevisionGUID="1cb1c9b0-c70d-4623-9621-e4668acf793f" CreationDate="2019-10-14T21:53:01.280" UserId="3076" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="&gt; How do I confirm if an United States patent has been filed through the PCT &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A US patent that started as a PCT application and then entered the US system can be detected by looking on the front page for item (21) Appl. No. If the originating application was a PCT application you will see PCT in the application number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there [something] on a granted patent that shows all the countries&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that the invention are protected in?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. Each location/regional body handles its own patent prosecutions. Also, keep in mind that the publication of a patent is like publication of a book in that events that occur after its publication are not reflected in its contents. There are databases that can help you. For a PCT application you could look in WIPO's [PatentScope][1] for the PCT application. It will have a tab called National Phase.&#xD;&#xA;[![screen shot of PCT application record][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At that page you should see a list of the places, if any, that the PCT application entered the national stage. This may not actually include everything because there can be corresponding  patent applications to the the PCT application without actually being a national stage of it. For example Argentina is not part of the PCT system and the U.S. has something called a by-pass application. Things can go from a PCT to a regional body like the EPO and then to actual countries in an additional step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking it up in google patents or The Lens can be a quick way to possibly learn about patents in multiple locations.&#xD;&#xA;[![national stage list][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wipo.int/patentscope/en/?&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SroJp.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DohuZ.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20867" RevisionGUID="25e01234-7b2a-4aa4-9ef9-b76d950341a4" CreationDate="2019-10-14T22:32:51.050" UserId="3076" Comment="added 243 characters in body" Text="&gt; How do I confirm if an United States patent has been filed through the PCT &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A US patent that started as a PCT application and then entered the US system can be detected by looking on the front page for item (21) Appl. No. If the originating application was a PCT application you will see PCT in the application number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there [something] on a granted patent that shows all the countries&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that the invention are protected in?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. Each location/regional body handles its own patent prosecutions. Also, keep in mind that the publication of a patent is like publication of a book in that events that occur after its publication are not reflected in its contents. There are databases that can help you. For a PCT application you could look in WIPO's [PatentScope][1] for the PCT application. It will have a tab called National Phase.&#xD;&#xA;[![screen shot of PCT application record][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At that page you should see a list of the places, if any, that the PCT application entered the national stage. This may not actually include everything because there can be corresponding  patent applications to the the PCT application without actually being a national stage of it. For example Argentina is not part of the PCT system and the U.S. has something called a by-pass application. Things can go from a PCT to a regional body like the EPO and then to actual countries in an additional step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, a patent application can be filed in multiple locations *without* the PCT process. This is done under the [Paris Convention][3], a much older international agreement now managed by WIPO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking it up in google patents or The Lens can be a quick way to possibly learn about patents in multiple locations.&#xD;&#xA;[![national stage list][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wipo.int/patentscope/en/?&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SroJp.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/paris/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DohuZ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20867" RevisionGUID="380075a7-9173-4e17-82f9-6d6abe868970" CreationDate="2019-10-15T04:42:02.737" UserId="3076" Comment="added ref. to INPADOC" Text="&gt; How do I confirm if an United States patent has been filed through the PCT &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A US patent that started as a PCT application and then entered the US system can be detected by looking on the front page for item (21) Appl. No. If the originating application was a PCT application you will see PCT in the application number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there [something] on a granted patent that shows all the countries&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that the invention are protected in?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDITED&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not definitively. The EPO has something called [INPADOC][1] that lists members of a patent family from around the world. It will not necessarily list patents from smaller locations.  I just looked up a patent family (with 20+ applications) that I am working on and was surprised to see that it picked up most of not all members of the patent family including one in Taiwan, which, according to WIPO, does not even exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each country/regional body handles its own patent examination, granting and publishing. Also, keep in mind that the publication of a patent is like publication of a book in that events that occur after its publication are not reflected in its contents. There are databases that can help you. For a PCT application you could look in WIPO's [PatentScope][2] for the PCT application. It will have a tab called National Phase.&#xD;&#xA;[![screen shot of PCT application record][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At that page you should see a list of the places, if any, that the PCT application entered the national stage. This may not actually include everything because there can be corresponding  patent applications to the the PCT application without actually being a national stage of it. For example Argentina is not part of the PCT system and the U.S. has something called a by-pass application. Things can go from a PCT to a regional body like the EPO and then to actual countries in an additional step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, a patent application can be filed in multiple locations *without* the PCT process. This is done under the [Paris Convention][4], a much older international agreement now managed by WIPO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking it up in google patents or The Lens can be a quick way to possibly learn about patents in multiple locations.&#xD;&#xA;[![national stage list][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.epo.org/searching-for-patents/helpful-resources/first-time-here/patent-families/inpadoc.htmlEach%20location/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.wipo.int/patentscope/en/?&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SroJp.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/paris/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DohuZ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20867" RevisionGUID="a74e1dda-2b2e-485d-825a-261cee9f8517" CreationDate="2019-10-15T04:59:19.730" UserId="3076" Comment="added ref. to INPADOC and explanation of its use" Text="&gt; How do I confirm if an United States patent has been filed through the PCT &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A US patent that started as a PCT application and then entered the US system can be detected by looking on the front page for item (21) Appl. No. If the originating application was a PCT application you will see PCT in the application number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there [something] on a granted patent that shows all the countries&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that the invention are protected in?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDITED&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Not definitively.** But the EPO has something called [INPADOC][1] that lists members of a patent family from around the world. It will not necessarily list patents from smaller locations.  I just looked up a patent family (with 20+ applications) that I am working on and was surprised to see that it picked up most of not all members of the patent family including one in Taiwan, which, according to WIPO/UN, does not even exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To use INPADOC first look the patent you know about up in the EPOs [Espacenet][2]. In the example below see the INPADOC patent family box on the left. &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next image is of an INPADOC result page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**VIA PCT National Stage**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each country/regional body handles its own patent examination, granting and publishing. Also, keep in mind that the publication of a patent is like publication of a book in that events that occur after its publication are not reflected in its contents. There are databases that can help you. For a PCT application you could look in WIPO's [PatentScope][5] for the PCT application. It will have a tab called National Phase.&#xD;&#xA;[![screen shot of PCT application record][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At that page you should see a list of the places, if any, that the PCT application entered the national stage. This may not actually include everything because there can be corresponding  patent applications to the the PCT application without actually being a national stage of it. For example Argentina is not part of the PCT system and the U.S. has something called a by-pass application. Things can go from a PCT to a regional body like the EPO and then to actual countries in an additional step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, a patent application can be filed in multiple locations *without* the PCT process. This is done under the [Paris Convention][7], a much older international agreement now managed by WIPO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![national stage list][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking it up in google patents or The Lens can be a quick way to possibly learn about patents in multiple locations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.epo.org/searching-for-patents/helpful-resources/first-time-here/patent-families/inpadoc.htmlEach%20location/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Mm9G5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/B5oSo.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.wipo.int/patentscope/en/?&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SroJp.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/paris/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DohuZ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58104" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20501" RevisionGUID="83d8a49f-3199-47f1-954f-08b97be9d13a" CreationDate="2019-10-15T18:01:15.240" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20859" RevisionGUID="e48c2a28-2ece-4caa-8a54-bcf3b320c34a" CreationDate="2019-10-16T00:15:39.370" UserId="22511" Comment="clarifying" Text="&#xD;&#xA;George gave you a good answer, but just to further clarify the technical part, the patent isn't on using or calculating ESF's, it's for application in a CPHD multi-target tracker of an algorithm I invented for calculating whole sets of ESF's quickly. Using this specific algorithm instead of the more obvious method reduced the computational complexity of CPHD tracker updates from n^3 to n^2 in the number of new detections. The method was not obvious and had eluded a team of scientists who needed a way to speed up those updates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the odd word choices are legal-document-speak, and the patent attorneys warned me not to &quot;correct&quot; any of that.  They also explained to me the concerns that George explained above.  This was my first patent application, and it was an odd experience.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58107" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20770" RevisionGUID="65749a22-5e73-4d69-a795-6eb8b1c74a36" CreationDate="2019-10-19T11:03:00.487" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20869" RevisionGUID="dbad1af1-e075-43da-aa6a-7d8cd56b2c97" CreationDate="2019-10-22T14:22:53.930" UserId="22544" Text="if a person sends a summary of an invention to an invention fair for primary registration before patenting the invention, this will be considered as a subject of public disclosure?&#xD;&#xA; If it is so, it will be considered as prior science or it is patentable yet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58114" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20869" RevisionGUID="dbad1af1-e075-43da-aa6a-7d8cd56b2c97" CreationDate="2019-10-22T14:22:53.930" UserId="22544" Text="Is registering for an invention fair considered as public disclosure?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58115" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20869" RevisionGUID="dbad1af1-e075-43da-aa6a-7d8cd56b2c97" CreationDate="2019-10-22T14:22:53.930" UserId="22544" Text="&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;public&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20870" RevisionGUID="6777dbe6-372a-428b-85ee-a3b026e06ed6" CreationDate="2019-10-22T20:08:28.663" UserId="22545" Text="Does a system claim which state tangible items, for example &quot;processor configured to&quot; help satisfy the &quot;practical application&quot; aspect of the new guidelines which were released in January 2019?  I am also looking for any definitions in MPEP which define a method claim as well as a system claim.  According to the MPEP, are they really different or merely a different flavor?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58117" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20870" RevisionGUID="6777dbe6-372a-428b-85ee-a3b026e06ed6" CreationDate="2019-10-22T20:08:28.663" UserId="22545" Text="Claims - Tangible difference between system claims and method claims - 101 thoughts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58118" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20870" RevisionGUID="6777dbe6-372a-428b-85ee-a3b026e06ed6" CreationDate="2019-10-22T20:08:28.663" UserId="22545" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claims-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20869" RevisionGUID="f0fce05e-cf9c-4b20-a5c1-20eb7f4d54cc" CreationDate="2019-10-23T07:36:57.423" UserId="22544" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="if a person sends a summary of an invention to an invention fair for primary registration before patenting the invention, this will be considered as a subject of public disclosure?&#xD;&#xA; If it is so, it will be considered as prior science or it is patentable yet (For PCT or US patent)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58120" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12055" RevisionGUID="54ba91ba-0c7c-4efb-9a52-321e0d6d4bba" CreationDate="2019-10-23T15:02:15.300" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58121" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13123" RevisionGUID="f3b62ed8-a4cf-4995-83ae-ff130952b1c5" CreationDate="2019-10-23T16:01:30.287" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20871" RevisionGUID="11443353-8740-4f8a-886f-1443e8b7d854" CreationDate="2019-10-23T16:05:39.890" UserId="22334" Text="The PCT does not have any &quot;grace period&quot;, it leaves that to each Contracting State and the national patent law thereof. If the International Searching Authority finds a disclosure made by the inventor prior to the international filing date, it will add a note either in the Search Report itself or in the Written Opinion. Once you enter national/regional phases, the corresponding national/regional patent offices will use that disclosure against the patentability of your invention if there is no grace period under the corresponding patent law. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have a summary of national/regional grace periods in this [document][1] of the WIPO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know what that registration you mention entails, and whether it qualifies as public disclosure or not, but I am pretty sure that in Europe it would be prior art that can be cited against your invention. At the EPO you have [Art. 55 EPC][2] (most Contracting States of the EPC have something similar in their national patent laws) concerning &quot;non-prejudicial disclosures&quot;. According to that Article, an invention **displayed** by the inventors &quot;*at an official, or officially recognised, international exhibition falling within the terms of the Convention on international exhibitions*&quot; can be a &quot;non-prejudicial disclosure&quot; if it occurred not earlier than 6 months before the *filing date* of the European patent application. There are at least two important things to note here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There are very few exhibitions that are accepted for non-prejudicial disclosures. In other words, almost every exhibition is **not** an exhibition that qualifies for such non-prejudicial disclosures.&#xD;&#xA;- The Article mentions that the invention is displayed, so **only** the displaying of the invention at the exhibition can be made non-prejudicial. The registration that you mention is not the same as displaying the invention, thus it does not qualify as a non-prejudicial disclosure (having an NDA in place, as @Eric Shain indicates, may reduce the likelihood that said registration will become prior art).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a sidenote, in order to make the exhibition of the invention non-prejudicial, there are many steps that need be taken. There is paperwork that needs to be requested from the organization that makes the exhibition, said paperwork must be issued in a particular time period, and then it must be filed with the EPO. Missing the timeline in any of the steps that need be taken causes the exhibition to be prior art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know much about these legal aspects in the US, so that part will have to be answered by somebody else.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/scp/en/national_laws/grace_period.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar55.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20872" RevisionGUID="8565988b-df91-4ab4-b878-98eddab86f92" CreationDate="2019-10-23T17:12:11.923" UserId="14403" Text="In 2nd prong test of Step 2A of &quot;2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance&quot;, &quot;practical application&quot; is to be 'evaluated on the claim as a whole'(note 24 page') [1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The term 'additional element' requirement in this context connotes 'claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception, (same note)[1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, it may be construed that mere mention of a tangible item is not enough. What is required is integration of 'judicial exception' to a 'practical application'(e.g. note 26 page 20 of [1]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, your &quot;processor configured to&quot; is 'aimed to' usher any improvement in any practical application (e.g. improvement in field of computer technology, computer performance etc (note 25) [1]) than (if 102, 103 and 112 do not stand on your way) perhaps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As regards &quot;definitions in MPEP&quot; for definition of &quot;method claim as well as a system claim&quot;, I too looked for the same for years but could not locate one. However, these two documents may be useful for you. Patent claim Formats and Types of Claims from WIPO [2] and also this one from USPTO [3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site also is rich with highly educative content on this subject e.g [4]. Please search tab related to question to find them out.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-28282.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/aspac/en/wipo_ip_phl_16/wipo_ip_phl_16_t5.pdf&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Website%20PDF%20-%20Invention%20Con%202017%20Claim%20Drafting%20Workshop%20-%20OPLA.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/20167/what-is-a-difference-between-system-claims-and-method-claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20874" RevisionGUID="9db8e30a-1a81-46b4-a1f8-c2334b3e5486" CreationDate="2019-10-24T02:04:04.767" UserId="3076" Text="In the U.S. something becomes prior art under 35 USC section 102 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the  public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; . .&#xD;&#xA;&gt; .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sending in the registration would not likely be considered a publication but if/when is printed in a guide to the fair it would be a printed publication - even if only online. Would it be considered available to the public? That is a good question for the patent bar exam so I do not recommend counting on it not being &quot;know to the public&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course it depends on the level of detail you put in the disclosure. If you only explain the result or purpose and do not describe the structure that achieves that result you have not disclosed the invention. The U.S. does have an odd 1 year grace period. As another answer mentions you can file a provisional patent application with the USPTO. One idea is to file the exact same thing you use for the fair registration as the text of the provisional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20875" RevisionGUID="8a4ded00-5bd4-436d-8382-53030e99ae19" CreationDate="2019-10-24T02:08:00.577" UserId="3076" Text="35 USC 101 says -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful **process**, **machine**, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A **method** is a process and a **system** is a machine. They are clearly in two different statutory categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20876" RevisionGUID="82684ef0-fc93-4307-b5d4-9f7a162bf901" CreationDate="2019-10-24T09:20:28.270" UserId="21034" Text="•	In general, priority date is the date of filing of the first patent application (*either provisional or non-provisional*). Paris Convention, an international patent treaty, allows the owner of U.S. patent application to file patent applications in other countries (*which are Paris Convention member countries*) within one year from the U.S. filing date. The U.S. filing date serves/acts as the priority date for the foreign patent applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20875" RevisionGUID="4644a32d-af12-452b-b4cb-1ec5b0487c50" CreationDate="2019-10-25T02:31:26.027" UserId="3076" Comment="added MPEP reference" Text="35 USC 101 says -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful **process**, **machine**, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A **method** is a process and a **system** is a machine. They are clearly in two different statutory categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you mix things (system, for example) and steps (methods) in a single claim it will be ruled as indefinite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From MPEP&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I.    PRODUCT AND PROCESS IN THE SAME CLAIM&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35&#xD;&#xA;&gt; U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to &quot;[a] system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; individual callers digitally enter data&quot; was determined to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. Katz, 639&#xD;&#xA;&gt; F.3d at 1318 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that recited &quot;an input means&quot; and required a user to use the input&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear &quot;whether&#xD;&#xA;&gt; infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; actually uses the input means.&quot;); Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pat. App. &amp; Inter. 1990) (claim directed to an automatic transmission&#xD;&#xA;&gt; workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58135" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20526" RevisionGUID="9bdbec5c-8823-4b9e-aa7e-9992406a232f" CreationDate="2019-10-25T18:01:35.167" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20877" RevisionGUID="b49b088d-afe7-4ff7-9c54-4dd3ad137074" CreationDate="2019-10-25T21:28:20.363" UserId="22559" Text="I came across a product that I want to sell but when I found its patent through Google Patents, it says that the patent was cancelled in 2015 because of no annual fee payment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now my concern is; can the patent owner revive the patent by paying the fee? If yes then how long will it take him to do so because the anticipated expiration of patent is two years from now (2021-11-11).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if I start to sell this product, would I be safe?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S: The product is patented in Japan only and I would be selling in the U.S but I believe the patent owner cna file patent in U.S as well?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please guide on this matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58137" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20877" RevisionGUID="b49b088d-afe7-4ff7-9c54-4dd3ad137074" CreationDate="2019-10-25T21:28:20.363" UserId="22559" Text="Is it safe to sell a patented product that is expired due to fee and the anticipated expiration of the patent is in 2 years from now" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58138" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20877" RevisionGUID="b49b088d-afe7-4ff7-9c54-4dd3ad137074" CreationDate="2019-10-25T21:28:20.363" UserId="22559" Text="&lt;expired-patent&gt;&lt;revive-patent&gt;&lt;maintenance-fee&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20877" RevisionGUID="cc2d586c-46c0-4f8e-85e1-a92bd4f57cad" CreationDate="2019-10-25T21:59:04.743" UserId="1" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="I came across a product that I want to sell but when I found its patent through Google Patents, it says that the patent was canceled in 2015 because of no annual fee payment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now my concern is; can the patent owner revive the patent by paying the fee? If yes then how long will it take him to do so because the anticipated expiration of patent is two years from now (2021-11-11).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if I start to sell this product, could the product come under patent protection again retroactively?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S: The product is patented in Japan only and I would be selling in the U.S but I believe the patent owner can file patent in the U.S. as well?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20878" RevisionGUID="5539bbe8-676d-4f5e-89d5-58a9e6392320" CreationDate="2019-10-26T14:15:41.063" UserId="17003" Text="It would be best if you were to list the actual patent number so we could check your interpretation. That said, if it is a Japanese patent and there is no US equivalent then it should not impact your ability to market a product in the US assuming you aren't manufacturing in Japan. It doesn't matter whether the Japanese patent has expired or not as patents are country specific. The patent owner cannot now file for a US patent on the same invention since the Japanese patent represents prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the specific Japanese patent shouldn't be a problem, it doesn't mean there aren't other patents which are. While you can and should do more patent searching on the specific technologies being employed, it might be a good idea to employ an actual patent attorney or agent to perform a &quot;freedom-to-operate&quot; assessment. At the very minimum, I would search under the inventor's name for US patents. Just to be clear, I am not an attorney and this answer isn't legal advice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58141" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12934" RevisionGUID="ea660153-24ce-4477-9694-d9255e66598c" CreationDate="2019-10-27T04:05:55.620" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58142" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20202" RevisionGUID="8a8d7d4e-d822-4f20-a610-d81114ddd2b1" CreationDate="2019-10-27T05:02:10.253" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58143" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="419f5e65-7b2d-4b4a-b0b6-8550e6c03655" CreationDate="2019-10-27T11:00:35.260" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20879" RevisionGUID="18d94f5d-8e94-4ac0-92a4-839346fdb875" CreationDate="2019-10-29T14:56:38.363" UserId="6121" Text="It seems like USPTO allows different embodiments for novelty/anticipation rejections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I wanna know how the embodiment will be interpreted. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;A provisional patent is filed by &quot;inventor A&quot; in 2010.&#xD;&#xA;A non-provisional patent is filed by the same &quot;inventor A&quot; in 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both Patent has the same embodiment and it offers &quot;meaning A&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An internet standard (RFC) defined in 2015 offers more solutions to the same problem. Because of the words found in the RFC, the embodiment can also be interpreted as &quot;meaning B&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the examiner use &quot;provisional patent&quot; as a reference for novelty, which date he will use for establishing the novelty interpretation? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2010 or 2015?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58146" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20879" RevisionGUID="18d94f5d-8e94-4ac0-92a4-839346fdb875" CreationDate="2019-10-29T14:56:38.363" UserId="6121" Text="What date the examiner will use when interpreting an embodiment for novelty?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58147" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20879" RevisionGUID="18d94f5d-8e94-4ac0-92a4-839346fdb875" CreationDate="2019-10-29T14:56:38.363" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20880" RevisionGUID="bc654dce-abeb-4be8-b90e-6b9c464330b8" CreationDate="2019-10-29T15:44:25.297" UserId="18033" Text="In Europe, a limitation in a granted patent that is later found not to have been disclosed in the original application leads to the revocation of the respective claim(s) (art. 123 (2) and (3) EPC).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the legal consequence of the same situation in the US?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 after changes during examination: A car with 4 wheels. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The description is silent about any wheels, the examiner still grants the patent due to an error (or whatever). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will the patent die or is there any remedy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58149" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20880" RevisionGUID="bc654dce-abeb-4be8-b90e-6b9c464330b8" CreationDate="2019-10-29T15:44:25.297" UserId="18033" Text="What happens if non-disclosed subject matter is granted in the US?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58150" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20880" RevisionGUID="bc654dce-abeb-4be8-b90e-6b9c464330b8" CreationDate="2019-10-29T15:44:25.297" UserId="18033" Text="&lt;usa&gt;&lt;disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20881" RevisionGUID="a9737ac5-f74d-4779-9eb8-ef0fb21344cf" CreationDate="2019-10-29T20:21:07.363" UserId="3076" Text="First, there are no &quot;provisional patents&quot;, only provisional patent *applications*. Any application of any kind filed in 2010 or in 2011 that  specifically referenced an RFC by number could not be interpreted as disclosing something that was only in a 2015 version of that RFC. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If instead of referencing an RFC explicitly, a concept like &quot;domain policy list&quot; was used in a specification it would be interpreted, initially, as its plain meaning to one skilled in the art on the day that application was filed unless the context of the specification indicated a different definition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20882" RevisionGUID="2a9bb4ea-bb38-4183-96f5-2c8562e3b927" CreationDate="2019-10-29T20:28:50.933" UserId="3076" Text="The patent owner can request a re-examination any time during the life of the patent to narrow claims and, with the AIA, anyone can request an Inter Partes Review to challenge the validity of a patent. That is a relatively expensive process. These are not specific to the grounds of a claim going beyond the disclosure but can be used to remedy/attack claims for many reasons of defect/validity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20875" RevisionGUID="c5b2ce2c-771f-47af-b756-db10034eca02" CreationDate="2019-10-29T23:38:49.410" UserId="3076" Comment="added 600 characters in body" Text="35 USC 101 says -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful **process**, **machine**, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A **method** is a process and a **system** is a machine. They are clearly in two different statutory categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you mix things (system, for example) and steps (methods) in a single claim it will be ruled as indefinite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From MPEP&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I.    PRODUCT AND PROCESS IN THE SAME CLAIM&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35&#xD;&#xA;&gt; U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to &quot;[a] system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; individual callers digitally enter data&quot; was determined to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. Katz, 639&#xD;&#xA;&gt; F.3d at 1318 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that recited &quot;an input means&quot; and required a user to use the input&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear &quot;whether&#xD;&#xA;&gt; infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; actually uses the input means.&quot;); Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pat. App. &amp; Inter. 1990) (claim directed to an automatic transmission&#xD;&#xA;&gt; workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MORE EDITING&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A way claim wording can cross the line into including both steps and a claim for a system is that system claims can be written as a system that is defined by its behavior. That can be a legitimate way to define a system. But defining the behavior is usually done as steps. &quot;A system configured to execute . . . &quot; is frequently seen in a claim preamble. Even though a definition of what looks like a method follows, this is *not* a method claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this type of claim is attempted and not worded correctly it can be ambiguous as to whether a thing or a method is being claimed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20883" RevisionGUID="3806cfc2-2663-466d-a284-561d85c1fd64" CreationDate="2019-10-30T05:06:35.140" UserId="3076" Text="Just to add to the part of answer about someone you tell about your idea filing before you do - in the U.S. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is the case that since the AIA the U.S. is a first-to-file country. Maybe more accurately, it is a first *inventor*-to-file country. Besides potentially suing that entity, the AIA did put in place a derivation proceeding process. It is a board proceeding that allows a later filer to contest an earlier filer, solely and specifically for having gotten the idea from the later filer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20884" RevisionGUID="54608905-a057-433e-b6e1-baadd4bfbb62" CreationDate="2019-10-30T05:12:48.460" UserId="21034" Text="• Yes, the product which is an improvement of already patented product can be patented. However, This is subject to the fact that the improved product patent application must satisfy the patentability criteria (*i.e. it must be novel, industrially useful and non-obvious*) to get it granted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20885" RevisionGUID="3171a9e2-a4f4-4e89-bd54-99594b352cd3" CreationDate="2019-10-30T07:26:06.403" UserId="22571" Text="I was just wondering with what tools would it be possible to filter patent results for a particular topic(Or is there a way I could just search through the claims in each patent to confirm novelty). just performed a search on google patents and got about 40,000+ related results" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58157" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20885" RevisionGUID="3171a9e2-a4f4-4e89-bd54-99594b352cd3" CreationDate="2019-10-30T07:26:06.403" UserId="22571" Text="Is there a way to filter enormous Patent results?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58158" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20885" RevisionGUID="3171a9e2-a4f4-4e89-bd54-99594b352cd3" CreationDate="2019-10-30T07:26:06.403" UserId="22571" Text="&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58159" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="20885" RevisionGUID="2aa0697c-65ed-4da1-9a2d-256a1dd93365" CreationDate="2019-10-30T07:35:57.380" UserId="22571" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;patent-search&gt;&lt;google-patents&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20886" RevisionGUID="6b4c8d4e-33f4-473c-a07f-ff847067a62b" CreationDate="2019-10-30T08:44:33.393" UserId="22571" Text="Say I am yet to patent the mechanism of my invention and I demonstrate it at a tech summit or conference to likely investors without revealing the mechanism or any internal details of it, would the invention be considered prior art upon filing for a patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58161" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20886" RevisionGUID="6b4c8d4e-33f4-473c-a07f-ff847067a62b" CreationDate="2019-10-30T08:44:33.393" UserId="22571" Text="Would the demonstration of an invention be considered public disclosure" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58162" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20886" RevisionGUID="6b4c8d4e-33f4-473c-a07f-ff847067a62b" CreationDate="2019-10-30T08:44:33.393" UserId="22571" Text="&lt;public-disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20887" RevisionGUID="d19b7fc1-76b3-43f7-87a5-480364bd221f" CreationDate="2019-10-30T15:48:48.370" UserId="22334" Text="You can either use keywords for filtering, or something better, use the patent classifications systems put in place by different patent offices. Based on the technical details of the invention, the patent examiners classify each patent application according to a hierarchical classification system; each examiner may assign one or more classification codes to each patent document. You can filter by patent classifications in Google Patents, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most common patent classification system is the [IPC][1], then you also have the [USPC][2] (only used in US patent documents as far as I know) and [CPC][3] (this one is based on IPC, but has more codes, thereby making possible to classify the patent documents with more detail). In each of these links you can search for the technical details of your interest, copy the corresponding code, and use it in a patent database (e.g. Google Patents) so that only patent documents with that code or codes are retrieved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/en/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/selectnumwithtitle.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/classification?locale=en_EP" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20888" RevisionGUID="23726479-247f-487e-8115-88dffab0fff9" CreationDate="2019-10-30T19:25:08.800" UserId="3076" Text="Google patents offers many ways to narrow a search. You might start with [google patents advanced][1]. It also has an &quot;about&quot; section. You can limit a search by country, status, just look in title, etc. Below is an excerpt from that information. Although google patents is usually used in a more simple way it does have Boolean capabilities and even now supports proximity testing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides google patent, there are many other search possibilities, including [The Lens][2] Espacenet, PatentScope and Free Patents Online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mention specifically searching in claims regarding novelty. Claims are not usually the focus of a novelty search.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Go to Advanced Search (boolean entry isn't available on the homepage)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Enter your query in a &quot;Search Term&quot; box on the left&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Boolean syntax (USPTO or EPO format): For more complicated searches,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; full boolean logic is supported. The default operator is AND with left&#xD;&#xA;&gt; associativity. Note: this means safety OR seat belt is searched as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (safety OR seat) AND belt. Each word automatically includes plurals&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and close synonyms, and CPCs can also be used without a special&#xD;&#xA;&gt; syntax, like (safety belt) OR B60R22/00. Adjacent words that are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; implicitly ANDed together, such as (safety belt), are treated as a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; phrase when generating synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Proximity: You can use proximity operators to boost the score of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; documents if they contain expressions near each other. Note: proximity&#xD;&#xA;&gt; operators only change ranking, not retrieval. NEAR, NEARx, NEAR/x, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; /xw means matches are a maximum of x words away, in any order. WITH&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means 20 words away, any order, and SAME means 200 words away, any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; order. AJD, AJDx, ADJ/x, or +xw are the same as NEAR, but matches must&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be in the same order.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Example: (safety ADJ/5 belt) NEAR/10 (baby OR child) SAME vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Searching in title, abstract, claims, CPC: You can search inside a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; specific field using field names. Use TI=(safety belt) to search in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the title, AB= for the abstract and CL= for the claims. For CPCs,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CPC=B60R22 will match documents with exactly this CPC, CPC=B60R22/low&#xD;&#xA;&gt; matches documents with this CPC or a child classification of this CPC.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CPCs can also be used without a field prefix (see Searching by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; keywords and classifications above).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wildcards, truncation: Although we automatically generate plurals, you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can instead specify wildcard patterns of words to search. Wildcards&#xD;&#xA;&gt; only work on single words. The top 25 most common matches will be ORed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; together. Note: wildcards only work on English words. The wildcards&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are ? (zero or one character), * or $ (zero or more characters), $x&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (zero to x characters), and # (exactly one character). You can include&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more than one wildcard symbol per word. Examples: *saccharide? and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hydroxy*phenyl*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/advanced&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20889" RevisionGUID="821f3532-941d-49d7-822d-da75ec5273d0" CreationDate="2019-10-30T20:07:57.407" UserId="17003" Text="This is tricky. If your demonstration doesn't disclose any information about how the invention actually works then you might be okay. The important point is to avoid disclosing anything that might end up in a patent claim. That said, I'd be really reticent to do such a demonstration without first filing a provisional application or obtaining a non-disclosure agreement amongst the attendees. Be advised that I am not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20890" RevisionGUID="1909a83a-c10c-4caf-8be8-99796d8bcd04" CreationDate="2019-10-30T21:00:52.093" UserId="3076" Text="It is very tricky, depends on the details, and has likely changed after the AIA law changed the law wording. Most of the court cases relate to the pre-AIA law wording. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the kind of thing they put, with more details, on the patent bar exam. There are experimental use exceptions that can help you and commercial exploitation situations that can hurt you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the MPEP section on [Public Use][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One Case&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Even If the Invention Is Hidden, Inventor Who Puts Machine or Article Embodying the Invention in Public View Is Barred from Obtaining a Patent as the Invention Is in Public Use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the inventor or someone connected to the inventor puts the invention on display or sells it, there is a &quot;public use&quot; within the meaning of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) even though by its very nature an invention is completely hidden from view as part of a larger machine or article, if the invention is otherwise used in its natural and intended way and the larger machine or article is accessible to the public. In re Blaisdell, 242 F.2d 779, 783, 113 USPQ 289, 292 (CCPA 1957); Hall v. Macneale, 107 U.S. 90, 96-97 (1882); Ex parte Kuklo, 25 USPQ2d 1387, 1390 (Bd. Pat. App. &amp; Inter. 1992) (Display of equipment including the structural features of the claimed invention to visitors of laboratory is public use even though public did not see inner workings of device. The person to whom the invention is publicly disclosed need not understand the significance and technical complexities of the invention.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/2133_03_a.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20890" RevisionGUID="98a3460a-7c56-4366-8d35-d990125c3f1e" CreationDate="2019-10-30T23:17:51.133" UserId="3076" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="It is very tricky, depends on the details, and has likely changed after the AIA law changed the law wording. Most of the court cases relate to the pre-AIA law wording. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the kind of thing they put, with more details, on the patent bar exam. There are experimental use exceptions that can help you and commercial exploitation situations that can hurt you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the MPEP section on [Public Use][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**One Specific (pre-AIA) Case**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Even If the Invention Is Hidden, Inventor Who Puts Machine or Article Embodying the Invention in Public View Is Barred from Obtaining a Patent as the Invention Is in Public Use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the inventor or someone connected to the inventor puts the invention on display or sells it, there is a &quot;public use&quot; within the meaning of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) even though by its very nature an invention is completely hidden from view as part of a larger machine or article, if the invention is otherwise used in its natural and intended way and the larger machine or article is accessible to the public. In re Blaisdell, 242 F.2d 779, 783, 113 USPQ 289, 292 (CCPA 1957); Hall v. Macneale, 107 U.S. 90, 96-97 (1882); Ex parte Kuklo, 25 USPQ2d 1387, 1390 (Bd. Pat. App. &amp; Inter. 1992) (Display of equipment including the structural features of the claimed invention to visitors of laboratory is public use even though public did not see inner workings of device. The person to whom the invention is publicly disclosed need not understand the significance and technical complexities of the invention.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/2133_03_a.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20891" RevisionGUID="7fb71084-367b-4a28-abc3-5ade6c1ea756" CreationDate="2019-10-31T21:49:24.903" UserId="22574" Text="Does this mean patent is expired and I can manufacture the apparatus? can former patent owner renew it and how would it affect my production?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2014-04-08   Anticipated expiration&#xD;&#xA;2019-10-31   Application status is Expired - Fee Related&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this patent valid worldwide or it has to apply for each and every country?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58169" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20891" RevisionGUID="7fb71084-367b-4a28-abc3-5ade6c1ea756" CreationDate="2019-10-31T21:49:24.903" UserId="22574" Text="Can fee related expired patent be renewed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58170" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20891" RevisionGUID="7fb71084-367b-4a28-abc3-5ade6c1ea756" CreationDate="2019-10-31T21:49:24.903" UserId="22574" Text="&lt;expired-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58175" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20142" RevisionGUID="1b47d473-b5e4-4ac1-9cec-e0b9528a57b8" CreationDate="2019-11-02T07:02:25.330" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20893" RevisionGUID="c96410ae-fb26-4f05-ae91-af606ac3bdab" CreationDate="2019-11-02T23:12:58.420" UserId="22559" Text="If there is a patent for a product that has 16 claims and I sell a similar product and my product falls under 15 claims of the patented product but not the 16th claim then is it sellable? Or would I still get patent infringement notice?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58177" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20893" RevisionGUID="c96410ae-fb26-4f05-ae91-af606ac3bdab" CreationDate="2019-11-02T23:12:58.420" UserId="22559" Text="If a product doesnt meet one claim of a patent, would it get patent infringement notice?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58178" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20893" RevisionGUID="c96410ae-fb26-4f05-ae91-af606ac3bdab" CreationDate="2019-11-02T23:12:58.420" UserId="22559" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;patent-infringment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58179" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20232" RevisionGUID="9a842b44-a7f1-4cdc-bdac-9074d9ead2f6" CreationDate="2019-11-03T00:02:30.297" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20894" RevisionGUID="ce8d3555-5f36-4c15-8faf-3ec9f49b7aa7" CreationDate="2019-11-03T00:06:51.230" UserId="3076" Text="Each claim is taken on its own. If your product meets everything laid out in *any single claim* then your product infringes that claim, and therefore infringes the patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may have have heard that you need to have all elements of a claim to infringe - that is correct, all elements of any claim, not all claims.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20894" RevisionGUID="c920963f-9651-46f7-8c73-906507a34d72" CreationDate="2019-11-03T00:34:50.450" UserId="3076" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="Each claim is taken on its own. If your product meets everything laid out in *any single claim* then your product infringes that claim, and therefore infringes the patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may have have heard that you need to have all elements of a claim to infringe - that is correct, all elements of any claim, not all claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You and your product may or may not attract the attention of the patent owner.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20886" RevisionGUID="5b8476b3-72ea-4da3-8927-c8b170b4fc60" CreationDate="2019-11-03T21:00:46.647" UserId="22571" Comment="mechanism instead of invention " Text="Say I am yet to patent the mechanism of my invention and I demonstrate it at a tech summit or conference to likely investors without revealing the mechanism or any internal details of it, would the mechanism be considered prior art upon filing for a patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **UPDATE:** The invention as a whole is what the investors are only aware of, the mechanism is what I want to patent with enough funding or crowd sourcing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20898" RevisionGUID="b185ec05-12eb-45cc-b81c-627432c07089" CreationDate="2019-11-05T00:41:00.380" UserId="18769" Text="Assume you have a system or method claim like the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A system/method comprising A, B and C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it valid to equate two or more elements in a dependent claim like so?:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The system/method of claim 1, wherein B is C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or must one use additional independent claims to cover these embodiments?:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. A system/method comprising A and B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I would like to do so is to cover the case where one element can serve two functions.  Asking with regard to USPTO, but EPO replies also welcome.  Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58193" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20898" RevisionGUID="b185ec05-12eb-45cc-b81c-627432c07089" CreationDate="2019-11-05T00:41:00.380" UserId="18769" Text="Equating claim elements in dependent claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58194" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20898" RevisionGUID="b185ec05-12eb-45cc-b81c-627432c07089" CreationDate="2019-11-05T00:41:00.380" UserId="18769" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;epo&gt;&lt;dependent-claim&gt;&lt;elements&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20899" RevisionGUID="747b32e3-072e-4043-b9ee-ac6ab0aea3b2" CreationDate="2019-11-05T03:29:31.917" UserId="14403" Text="***With regard to USPTO***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A system/method comprising A, B and C.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a system A, B, C etc are elements (parts of a system) wherein the system is capable of performing **one or more than one function(s)**. And a method will have step i using  A, step ii using B etc to perform **one** function.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**one element can serve two functions.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Giving separate names to an element as it performs different function in one application is not possible. Because it will create ambiguity in relating elements of claims to description.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**In a system,** an element may perform a myriad function.  What is important is, are the functions related as well as of one field. If so, than the functions can be on one application as one independent claim. If functions are not related but of same field, than independent claims for different functions may be acceptable. And if functions as well as fields are different than separate applications will be required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For method, one independent claim for one function should be placed. Because, same steps can not yield different outcome. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Albeit, a function can have separate uses and can be enumerated in dependent claims.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20900" RevisionGUID="63195a66-cd9d-464b-90bb-e4de8805212f" CreationDate="2019-11-05T04:18:46.063" UserId="3076" Text="I can image a case like this - claim 1. A system with an A and a transmitter module and a receiver module. Claim 2, the system of claim 1 where the transmitter module and the receiver module are comprised in a transceiver module where a common antenna is used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20901" RevisionGUID="c7664068-4199-4f3d-9dac-b1eb52fa3bb1" CreationDate="2019-11-05T10:00:45.993" UserId="22571" Text="Is it possible to omit miscellanous or detailed mechanisms which directly depend on the main mechanism of an invention  from a patent. e.g. say `A` is the main mechanism for an invention, `B` mechanism makes `A` more efficient but is dependent on `A`(useless without `A`), Is it possible to withold `B` as a trade secret(knowing that `A` would still work) and still get a valid patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I ask because most patents I have read seem not truthful to some point or rather omissive I am aware the criteria for a successful publication is a full disclosure that can be validated by an expert in the field I ask also because non economic entities(e.g. the military) could secretly infringe on a patent without the inventor since they can reproduce the patented mechanism. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58198" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20901" RevisionGUID="c7664068-4199-4f3d-9dac-b1eb52fa3bb1" CreationDate="2019-11-05T10:00:45.993" UserId="22571" Text="Is it possible for patents to have trade secrets?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58199" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20901" RevisionGUID="c7664068-4199-4f3d-9dac-b1eb52fa3bb1" CreationDate="2019-11-05T10:00:45.993" UserId="22571" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;litigation&gt;&lt;trade-secret&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20901" RevisionGUID="ebd866b0-cab3-449c-bed7-021fe13b10f9" CreationDate="2019-11-05T10:35:34.943" UserId="22571" Comment="added 228 characters in body" Text="Is it possible to omit miscellanous or detailed mechanisms which directly depend on the main mechanism of an invention  from a patent. e.g. say `A` is the main mechanism for an invention, `B` mechanism makes `A` extremely  efficient but is dependent on `A`(useless without `A`), Is it possible to withold `B` as a trade secret(knowing that `A` would still work) and still get a valid patent. A possible reason for wanting to do this is&#xD;&#xA; so that non commercial or secret infringements aren't possible without additional knowledge provided by the patent holder via agreements or settlements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I ask because most patents I have gone through seem not truthful to some point, omissive or even complex to interpret. I am aware the criteria for a successful publication is a full disclosure that can be validated by an expert in the field, I ask also because non economic entities(e.g. the military) could secretly infringe on a patent without the inventor since they can reproduce the patented mechanism for non commercial purposes. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20898" RevisionGUID="50e76324-22ea-4a93-802f-97b0a1314b2a" CreationDate="2019-11-05T13:23:43.837" UserId="18769" Comment="added 511 characters in body" Text="Assume you have a system or method claim like the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A system/method comprising A, B and C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it valid to equate two or more elements in a dependent claim like so?:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The system/method of claim 1, wherein B is C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or must one use additional independent claims to cover these embodiments?:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. A system/method comprising A and B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I would like to do so is to cover the case where one element can serve two functions.  Asking with regard to USPTO, but EPO replies also welcome.  Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: To provide more clarification on the situation I'm imagining, consider a handheld radio with a body (comprised of electronics/speakers), an antenna, and a handle.  Then what I am asking is, if the antenna serves as the handle (e.g. a loop antenna, even though that may not be advisable as a design choice), is there a way a dependent claim could consolidate those latter two elements into one: &quot;wherein the antenna is the handle&quot;?  The point is that two functions are served by the same element." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20902" RevisionGUID="5398a681-bf72-4301-82eb-1093c30f2fb1" CreationDate="2019-11-05T15:07:37.383" UserId="17003" Text="Using your example, supposing A in patentable by itself, I would try to patent A without the addition of B. It is generally a good idea to obtain the broadest possible patent coverage. This comes from having the fewest possible elements in the claims. The issue with this is that B is not protected by patent. If someone can reverse engineer it, they can implement B. However if B is only useful as an improvement to A, they wouldn't be able to use it since A is protected by a patent. Typically trade secrets are associated with internal processes like the formula for Coke or a manufacturing technique. A search algorithm might be held trade secret since it resides on company servers and would be difficult to reverse engineer. If B is a mechanism and is sold as a device, it would be difficult to protect it as trade secret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should consider patenting A and B separately. I'm not sure I fully comprehend the concern with the military secretly sealing your technology. I think they are far more likely to want to buy it from you than spend the time and effort to manufacture it for themselves. But then again, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Be advised, I am not a lawyer and this answer is not legal advice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20900" RevisionGUID="41815fa2-aee6-4689-bcfa-b1718a906787" CreationDate="2019-11-05T16:22:59.303" UserId="3076" Comment="added 305 characters in body" Text="I can image a case like this - claim 1. A system with an A and a transmitter module and a receiver module. Claim 2, the system of claim 1 where the transmitter module and the receiver module are comprised in a transceiver module where a common antenna is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example &quot;wherein the antenna is the handle&quot; is fine. I wouldn't think of it as two things in the same element, but of a further limitation of the two elements by defining some characteristics. Not really different from &quot;where the handle is comprised of wood and the antenna is a loop antenna.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20903" RevisionGUID="a3bbc70f-3500-4fa9-bc68-451a5fdf41fe" CreationDate="2019-11-05T16:37:26.813" UserId="3076" Text="In the U.S. you need to include the &quot;best mode&quot; embodiment of your invention. You might be able to narrowly claim A such that a disclosure sufficient to enable A, alone, does not need to mention B as part of a best mode for A. If you had not yet developed B you could patent A and then develop a trade-secret B that made A more efficient. Since you already have developed B you may need to disclose it as part of the best mode requirement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might note that the AIA law took some of the teeth out of the best mode requirement. No longer can your patent be torn up for lack of best mode, but ethically, a registered practitioner should not assist you in filing an application missing its best mode.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Separately, patents are often hard to read and complex. The requirement, in the U.S. is not that they could be &quot;validated by an expert in the field&quot; but that someone of ordinary skill in the field could implement the invention without undue experimentation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your comment about military use doesn't make any sense to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20901" RevisionGUID="7ef028e5-3989-4c4a-8063-45a185db6023" CreationDate="2019-11-05T18:03:53.827" UserId="22571" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="Is it possible to omit miscellanous or detailed mechanisms which directly depend on the main mechanism of an invention  from a patent. e.g. say `A` is the main mechanism for an invention, `B` mechanism makes `A` extremely  efficient but is dependent on `A`(useless without `A`), Is it possible to withold `B` as a trade secret(knowing that `A` would still work) and still get a valid patent. A possible reason for wanting to do this is&#xD;&#xA; so that non commercial or secret infringements aren't possible without additional knowledge provided by the patent holder via agreements or settlements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I ask because most patents I have gone through seem not truthful to some point, omissive or even complex to interpret. I am aware the criteria for a successful publication is a full disclosure that can be validated by an expert in the field, I ask also because of non corporate  entities e.g. the military  infringing on a patent without the awareness of the inventor and the general public if the invention is deemed weaponizable since from the patent they can reproduce the patented mechanism for non commercial purposes in a classified manner. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20901" RevisionGUID="11817060-9164-4c00-9ec9-8378b0dfcdc1" CreationDate="2019-11-05T18:09:06.977" UserId="22571" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="Is it possible to omit miscellanous or detailed mechanisms which directly depend on the main mechanism of an invention  from a patent. e.g. say `A` is the main mechanism for an invention, `B` mechanism makes `A` extremely  efficient but is dependent on `A`(useless without `A`), Is it possible to withold `B` as a trade secret(knowing that `A` would still work) and still get a valid patent. A possible reason for wanting to do this is&#xD;&#xA; so that non commercial or secret infringements aren't possible without additional knowledge provided by the patent holder via agreements or settlements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I ask because most patents I have gone through seem not truthful to some point, omissive or even complex to interpret. I am aware the criteria for a successful publication is a full disclosure that can be validated by an expert in the field, I ask also because of non corporate  entities e.g. the military  infringing on a patent without the awareness of the inventor and the general public(say the invention is deemed weaponizable) since from the patent they can reproduce the mechanism for non commercial purposes in a classified manner. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20904" RevisionGUID="d62b5f2e-e172-4337-8838-bad67ba6cd87" CreationDate="2019-11-05T18:22:21.957" UserId="22334" Text="Concerning the European patent practice, most probably you would receive an objection on the grounds of lack of clarity because there is an inconsistency between the scope of the independent claim and the scope of the dependent claim. In the scope of the independent claim you have a system/method with three features/steps, whereas in the scope of the dependent claim you have a system/method with two features/steps. With reference to your example, according to the independent claim the system comprises a handle and an antenna, so two different elements and nothing suggests that the handle is the antenna, then according to the dependent claim the system only comprises one element.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe you could draft the independent claim differently so that you can have the dependent claim you mention, otherwise you would need another independent claim, such as your option 3 (but only in some cases you are allowed to have two independent claims of the same category in a same European patent application).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20900" RevisionGUID="ff915224-006e-4489-901e-afc1238a8e61" CreationDate="2019-11-05T19:22:34.017" UserId="3076" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I can imagine a case like this - claim 1. A system with an A and a transmitter module and a receiver module. Claim 2, the system of claim 1 where the transmitter module and the receiver module are comprised in a transceiver module where a common antenna is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example &quot;wherein the antenna is the handle&quot; is fine. I wouldn't think of it as two things in the same element, but of a further limitation of the two elements by defining some characteristics. Not really different from &quot;where the handle is comprised of wood and the antenna is a loop antenna.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20903" RevisionGUID="4be54da0-a380-45e3-a042-478728e61fda" CreationDate="2019-11-05T20:32:11.143" UserId="3076" Comment="added 397 characters in body" Text="In the U.S. you need to include the &quot;best mode&quot; embodiment of your invention. You might be able to narrowly claim A such that a disclosure sufficient to enable A, alone, does not need to mention B as part of a best mode for A. If you had not yet developed B you could patent A and then develop a trade-secret B that made A more efficient. Since you already have developed B you may need to disclose it as part of the best mode requirement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might note that the AIA law took some of the teeth out of the best mode requirement. No longer can your patent be torn up for lack of best mode, but ethically, a registered practitioner should not assist you in filing an application missing its best mode.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Separately, patents are often hard to read and complex. The requirement, in the U.S. is not that they could be &quot;validated by an expert in the field&quot; but that someone of ordinary skill in the field could implement the invention without undue experimentation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't hold back information (that you know at the time of filing) needed to make the invention in order to handicap an infringer. It would be hiding the ball. That is the essence of the reason patents are given. You tell the public all about it and then the government give you a way to protect its use for a limited time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An invention you can claim in a way that the claimed elements tend to be externally visible would be easier to enforce." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20905" RevisionGUID="2a07e75b-52ad-427c-a87e-e40ef88156a0" CreationDate="2019-11-06T01:51:47.703" UserId="22586" Text="So this patent US9459044B1, the title suggests it is about both method and apparatus, and I see there are much content on the drawings and description of the device. However in the claim section, I only find claims on the method, does it mean that design of the device is not covered by this patent ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the claim 17, &quot;A freeze drying method comprising: closed-cell insulation having an R value of at least 17 adhering in contact with...&quot; this sentence reads more like a device design instead of any step in a freeze drying method ?  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58211" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20905" RevisionGUID="2a07e75b-52ad-427c-a87e-e40ef88156a0" CreationDate="2019-11-06T01:51:47.703" UserId="22586" Text="Inconsistency between patent title and claims, US9459044B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58212" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20905" RevisionGUID="2a07e75b-52ad-427c-a87e-e40ef88156a0" CreationDate="2019-11-06T01:51:47.703" UserId="22586" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20906" RevisionGUID="133da4e1-6fbb-4025-8780-022f04ca054f" CreationDate="2019-11-06T03:28:18.213" UserId="3076" Text="Steps in a method claim often describe the physical things the steps are performed with or on. Patent applications are often written covering both apparatus’s and methods of making or using the apparatus. This is reflected in titles. In a specific patent issued from an application (there might be many) has a set of claims that may have a commonality. Say all methods. In the US we generally do not go back and amend the title and abstract etc. to reflect the claims that are granted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58214" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="20905" RevisionGUID="bb39f425-d59e-4219-a388-6e757763b6a1" CreationDate="2019-11-06T03:29:02.160" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20905" RevisionGUID="3fe41c79-21e8-43d5-a5b2-7cb02f464fd8" CreationDate="2019-11-06T05:30:04.340" UserId="3076" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="So this patent [US9459044B1][1], the title suggests it is about both method and apparatus, and I see there are much content on the drawings and description of the device. However in the claim section, I only find claims on the method, does it mean that design of the device is not covered by this patent ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the claim 17, &quot;A freeze drying method comprising: closed-cell insulation having an R value of at least 17 adhering in contact with...&quot; this sentence reads more like a device design instead of any step in a freeze drying method ?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9459044?oq=US9459044" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20907" RevisionGUID="d3f96902-a047-41fc-961d-5d473f3569d2" CreationDate="2019-11-06T06:35:23.577" UserId="21034" Text="•	If an US patent has been filed through the PCT, it can be confirmed from the bibliographic details / front page of the US patent which includes the fields like PCT filed, PCT No., 371 Date, 102(e) Date, PCT Pub. No., and/or PCT Pub. Date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	No, such details are not available on the US granted patent. It can be viewed on WIPO IP portal @ [https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf][1] by entering the corresponding PCT number. Upon clicking the retrieved result, all the related details of PCT number can be obtained, wherein the National phase tab includes the details of all country filing details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20908" RevisionGUID="a8ebaad1-976b-4f2f-8e78-7f7539b6b8bc" CreationDate="2019-11-06T10:38:30.633" UserId="18769" Text="From finnegan.com/files/Upload/FCN_Aug10_5.html: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Court noted that “[w]here a claim lists elements separately, ‘the clear implication of the claim language’ is that those elements are ‘distinct component[s]’ of the patented invention.” Id. at 10 (second alteration in original) (quoting Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also some further context in this case that may have led to the Federal Circuit citing this (e.g. one of the claimed elements was &quot;connected to&quot; the other one), but the statement by itself is clear.  Therefore, one should use two independent claims in such cases where one system element or method step can be &quot;overloaded&quot; to perform more than one function." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58218" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20857" RevisionGUID="03bcb8e9-1aa0-40ed-bfd4-c24744b9b443" CreationDate="2019-11-06T20:02:00.280" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20902" RevisionGUID="c63602e4-2e33-47d3-8072-652304790150" CreationDate="2019-11-06T23:09:06.900" UserId="17003" Comment="Several edits based on feedback in the comment." Text="Based on feedback, i'm editing my answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are obligated to disclose your invention's best embodiment in the patent application. Thus if A isn't really sufficient without B I'm guessing you absolutely need to disclose both in your patent application. If however A is quite a reasonable invention by itself, and B is an independent invention (even if it relies on A). You might be able to split them into separate patents. You really should discuss this with a patent attorney as it depends on the specifics of your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is generally a good idea to obtain the broadest possible patent coverage. This comes from having the fewest possible elements in the claims. Even if you file one patent which includes both A and B, try to have some claims only on A to get the broadest patent coverage. The issue with leaving B out of the patent entirely is then it is then not protected by patent. If someone can reverse engineer it, they can implement B. Typically trade secrets are associated with internal processes like the formula for Coke or a manufacturing technique. A search algorithm might be held trade secret since it resides on company servers and would be difficult to reverse engineer. If B is a mechanism and is sold as a device, it would be open to reverse engineering and would be difficult to protect as trade secret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure I fully comprehend the concern with the military secretly sealing your technology. I think they are far more likely to want to buy it from you than spend the time and effort to manufacture it for themselves. But then again, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Be advised, I am not a lawyer and this answer is not legal advice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20909" RevisionGUID="d84ed669-9c0c-4915-ac9d-1d835c4e9b71" CreationDate="2019-11-07T18:29:38.413" UserId="22592" Text="Careful here.  See Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., U.S., No. 17-1229 (Jan 22, 2019).  Even under NDA if the demo was an offer for sale, you can be bared.  You have a one year grace period, but the other suggestion to file the provisional before the demo is the best idea.  A demo to investors is not an offer for sale as this amounts to selling the rights to the patent, but if any of the documents used in the demo leak out, then they would be prior art.  Go for the provisional first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18850" RevisionGUID="aa0a0ed4-a464-4677-82b7-99c1490be3c3" CreationDate="2019-11-08T11:57:30.013" UserId="20407" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Let's say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Company A releases a software with a specific algorithm in January 2016. There are **many proofs that the design of the software has been made before January 2016**: customers have bought it in January 2016, press articles in January 2016 and after, many social media posts in January 2016. There are proofs of existence of the product in January 2016 from at least 100 different sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Company A hasn't made any patent at all&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Company B releases a similar product today and registers a patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Can Company B say *&quot;Dear Company A, you're not allowed to use this technology anymore because we have a patent for it&quot;*, even if there are proofs of anteriority for Company A?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Can Company B sue Company A?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20910" RevisionGUID="31e74509-bb65-4fad-a4c4-b16a776f60a8" CreationDate="2019-11-10T12:15:58.303" UserId="15489" Text="The Examiner has objected to three of the claims in a patent application I have filed, due to the presence of the phrase &quot;none or more&quot; and requires it to be corrected to &quot;one or more&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claim is of the form &quot;The method of claim 1, wherein A comprises B and none or more of: C, D, E, and/or F.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems fine to me. Am I wrong here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58223" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20910" RevisionGUID="31e74509-bb65-4fad-a4c4-b16a776f60a8" CreationDate="2019-11-10T12:15:58.303" UserId="15489" Text="Is the phrase &quot;none or more&quot; acceptable in a USPTO patent claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58224" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20910" RevisionGUID="31e74509-bb65-4fad-a4c4-b16a776f60a8" CreationDate="2019-11-10T12:15:58.303" UserId="15489" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20911" RevisionGUID="9630b89d-989a-44ed-8b0b-649d868e9c23" CreationDate="2019-11-10T17:10:04.590" UserId="17003" Text="I hesitate to answer since I'm not a lawyer, but why don't you just have two dependent claims? Something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein A comprises B.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 3: The method of claim 2 further comprising one or more of: C, D, E, and F." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20911" RevisionGUID="6390a086-39e5-4868-8bed-e8130bbd87cc" CreationDate="2019-11-10T17:19:32.350" UserId="17003" Comment="added 473 characters in body" Text="I hesitate to answer since I'm not a lawyer, but why don't you just have two dependent claims? Something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein A comprises B.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claim 3: The method of claim 2 further comprising one or more of: C, D, E, and F.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I did a [search on Google Patents][1] for issued US patents with &quot;none or more than&quot; and found over 5000 hits. [US8108617B2][2], for instance, has the phrase in several of its claims. If you really want to use that phrase, there seems to be precedent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/?q=%22none%20or%20more%20of%22&amp;country=US&amp;status=GRANT&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8108617B2/en?q=%22none%20or%20more%20of%22&amp;country=US&amp;status=GRANT" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58227" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="20910" RevisionGUID="4a1d0905-bd26-4afa-a2ff-d5a6d57c83aa" CreationDate="2019-11-10T20:17:34.420" />
  <row Id="58229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20912" RevisionGUID="e672ed53-54b2-4e52-9158-7b8a280e5867" CreationDate="2019-11-11T06:45:38.917" UserId="22597" Text="Can I file a provisional patent on a patented product that I have changed so it works better but still keeps the same components of orginal idea? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58230" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20912" RevisionGUID="e672ed53-54b2-4e52-9158-7b8a280e5867" CreationDate="2019-11-11T06:45:38.917" UserId="22597" Text="Provisional patent on a patented product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58231" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20912" RevisionGUID="e672ed53-54b2-4e52-9158-7b8a280e5867" CreationDate="2019-11-11T06:45:38.917" UserId="22597" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20913" RevisionGUID="2109c6e0-7a41-46b0-8db9-ab494227aaf4" CreationDate="2019-11-11T14:46:37.367" UserId="3076" Text="Most patents are for improvements to something that already exists. The new version of your product needs to be truly new and not obvious in light of everything that has ever been done anywhere. You might ask yourself if the new version still falls under the existing patent.   I am presuming you are not the patent owner. Getting a patent yourself does not get you out from under the problem of infringing the existing patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might be able to sell a patent on the new version to the people with the existing product or you would need a license from them if the new product infringes the old patent and you want to make it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20914" RevisionGUID="0f0d9178-6701-4ff5-9f75-8b68add82a66" CreationDate="2019-11-11T14:53:54.113" UserId="22601" Text="If a new product infringes upon a patent, but is never sold (only rented out), can the patent owner sue?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58234" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20914" RevisionGUID="0f0d9178-6701-4ff5-9f75-8b68add82a66" CreationDate="2019-11-11T14:53:54.113" UserId="22601" Text="Can patent owner sue if a product is made, but never sold (only rented out)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58235" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20914" RevisionGUID="0f0d9178-6701-4ff5-9f75-8b68add82a66" CreationDate="2019-11-11T14:53:54.113" UserId="22601" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20915" RevisionGUID="ce6ea8bb-358d-431b-8268-709748474277" CreationDate="2019-11-11T16:34:36.073" UserId="17003" Text="I am not a lawyer so this answer isn't based on direct legal knowledge. That said, I would be very surprised if the patent owner couldn't successfully sue anyone using the patented technology whether or not it is sold or rented. There is a [research exemption][1], but that has nothing to do with renting vs. selling a patented technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_exemption" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20915" RevisionGUID="8a9d7689-caaf-4a5b-9236-018e0d32762e" CreationDate="2019-11-11T16:39:55.907" UserId="17003" Comment="added 141 characters in body" Text="I am not a lawyer so this answer isn't based on direct legal knowledge. That said, I would be very surprised if the patent owner couldn't successfully sue anyone using the patented technology whether or not it is sold or rented. There is a [research exemption][1], but that has nothing to do with renting vs. selling a patented technology. So to be explicit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a new product infringes upon a patent, but is never sold (only&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rented out), can the patent owner sue?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Yes**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_exemption" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20916" RevisionGUID="a130b06a-65d7-492d-b4b8-93f4854b6ad8" CreationDate="2019-11-11T17:57:18.283" UserId="22602" Text="I am an attorney (though this is not my specialty). But yes, you can be sued for patent infringement if you are renting the product out. The key is that you are earning money (or better said, depriving the patent owner of making money). It helps to think of it like, &quot;am I possibly taking money out of their pocket? If yes, it's probably patent infringement.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Eric Shain mentioned, there is generally an exception for development/testing (which isn't taking any money away from the patent owner), versus selling, renting, giving away, etc. - all of those are going to take money out of the owner's pocket (theoretically - you can always argue that they wouldn't have gotten this business anyway, but that's a hard argument to win)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20917" RevisionGUID="5b6c8509-01b4-4b61-b59c-93b39fea0d2a" CreationDate="2019-11-12T17:08:07.440" UserId="22605" Text="This is the patent for Profadol:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/DE1303096B&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, when i redirect to espace I do not get a matching hit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58240" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20917" RevisionGUID="5b6c8509-01b4-4b61-b59c-93b39fea0d2a" CreationDate="2019-11-12T17:08:07.440" UserId="22605" Text="Profadol DE1303096 (B) wrong patent supplied" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58241" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20917" RevisionGUID="5b6c8509-01b4-4b61-b59c-93b39fea0d2a" CreationDate="2019-11-12T17:08:07.440" UserId="22605" Text="&lt;profadol&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20918" RevisionGUID="c0c61b7d-0ae9-4e5d-b3ad-871a07dcf410" CreationDate="2019-11-13T02:54:40.757" UserId="22607" Text="I would avoid, as it implies the feature is not included. You will likely have the examiner questioning the validity of the claim before he/she finishes reading the rest of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20919" RevisionGUID="ae21e61e-6d20-4221-8363-13485df1bb27" CreationDate="2019-11-13T20:04:29.803" UserId="22608" Text="Over time I have developed a process and system for performing a core task in my field. The system is genuinely revolutionary, reducing the time required to perform the work by a factor of between five and ten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have only used the process and the tools that implement it for my own personal use, and it has matured to the point that I would like to commercialize it. In doing a prior art search, I found a US patent issued in 2015 for an essentially identical concept, issued to a dominant company in the space, but as far as I can find, it has never been developed into a commercial product. From interviews I've done with others in the field who would be prospective customers, it's clear that a commercial product based on the concept would have serious commercial potential.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand it, my options are one or more of the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. produce and sell the tool in a country not covered by the patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. approach the company and propose a licensing agreement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. improve upon the claims covered by their patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. find some innovation not covered by their claims&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Am I correct that those are my options?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Are there any other options I may not be aware of?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58245" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20919" RevisionGUID="ae21e61e-6d20-4221-8363-13485df1bb27" CreationDate="2019-11-13T20:04:29.803" UserId="22608" Text="Options for commercializing a concept already covered by patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58246" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20919" RevisionGUID="ae21e61e-6d20-4221-8363-13485df1bb27" CreationDate="2019-11-13T20:04:29.803" UserId="22608" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;international&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20920" RevisionGUID="94e6c180-5a68-4259-821a-2511a3bcce48" CreationDate="2019-11-13T20:38:00.277" UserId="17003" Text="It would be best if you could provide the actual patent number. Many people confuse patent applications from actual patents. Applications may or may not get issued, and the claims are almost always narrowed in an issued patent from its application. Also, if we know the patent number, we can help identify equivalent foreign patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to answer your questions one at a time:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. produce and sell the tool in a country not covered by the patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is certainly an option, but you should be advised that companies often patent the same invention in multiple countries, so you need to look for those. Of course this option limits your potential market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. approach the company and propose a licensing agreement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is typically the best option if you want to avoid getting sued. You will of course reduce your profitability by the licensing terms. There is every possibility that the patent owner may decline to license the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. improve upon the claims covered by their patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although you may be able to get a patent on an improvement to an existing patent, this doesn't, by itself, get around infringing on the original patent. If you implement every step of even a single claim of an existing patent, you infringe on it. An improvement patent can sometimes be used to improve your licensing terms by virtue of a cross license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. find some innovation not covered by their claims&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can avoid infringement then that is great and you avoid paying licensing fees. You can potentially patent the innovation. You always have to be aware that there is potential for other patents that cover the &quot;other innovation&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Am I correct that those are my options?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Are there any other options I may not be aware of?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you covered the options pretty well. Perhaps the only other option would be to find some basis upon which to invalidate the existing patent. This, I believe, is not a simple process for existing patents, but if the document is actually an application and you can identify some relevant prior art, this might be an option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please be advised that I am not a patent lawyer and this is not legal advice. The best course of action is probably to consult with an actual patent attorney to evaluate whether your idea actually infringes this or other patents. These are called &quot;freedom to operate opinions&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20920" RevisionGUID="47566002-d33e-44f7-b09b-8ad2bb7d7b26" CreationDate="2019-11-13T20:46:31.727" UserId="17003" Comment="added 548 characters in body" Text="It would be best if you could provide the actual patent number. Many people confuse patent applications from actual patents. Applications may or may not get issued, and the claims are almost always narrowed in an issued patent from its application. Also, if we know the patent number, we can help identify equivalent foreign patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to answer your questions one at a time:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. produce and sell the tool in a country not covered by the patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is certainly an option, but you should be advised that companies often patent the same invention in multiple countries, so you need to look for those. Of course this option limits your potential market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. approach the company and propose a licensing agreement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is typically the best option if you want to avoid getting sued. You will of course reduce your profitability by the licensing terms. There is every possibility that the patent owner may decline to license the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. improve upon the claims covered by their patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although you may be able to get a patent on an improvement to an existing patent, this doesn't, by itself, get around infringing on the original patent. If you implement every step of even a single claim of an existing patent, you infringe on it. An improvement patent can sometimes be used to improve your licensing terms by virtue of a cross license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. find some innovation not covered by their claims&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can avoid infringement then that is great and you avoid paying licensing fees. You can potentially patent the innovation. You always have to be aware that there is potential for other patents that cover the &quot;other innovation&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Am I correct that those are my options?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Are there any other options I may not be aware of?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you covered the options pretty well. Perhaps the only other option would be to find some basis upon which to invalidate the existing patent. This, I believe, is not a simple process for existing patents, but if the document is actually an application and you can identify some relevant prior art, this might be an option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please be advised that I am not a patent lawyer and this is not legal advice. The best course of action is probably to consult with an actual patent attorney to evaluate whether your idea actually infringes this or other patents. These are called &quot;freedom to operate opinions&quot;. Many people misinterpret the breadth of specific patents because the title and body of the patent can sound quite general. However, the claims specify what is covered. For instance a claim might state you have a process implementing steps A, B, C and D. If you can implement your process with steps A, B, C but not D, you don't infringe. If you can implement your process with steps A, B, C and E where E and D are not equivalent, you still probably avoid infringement. Consulting with a patent attorney is the best way to evaluate claim language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58250" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="c0398a9a-1b02-4496-84d9-cf6663ea4ad9" CreationDate="2019-11-15T15:03:10.497" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20921" RevisionGUID="34936b62-9c21-45ea-968a-202e4f0319a6" CreationDate="2019-11-17T01:34:48.307" UserId="22617" Text="We figured the claims aren't well written in the first patent and with experience with the same patent drafter we want to file a patent again of the same invention within the year time frame of the publication date of the first one. Are we allowed to do this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58252" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20921" RevisionGUID="34936b62-9c21-45ea-968a-202e4f0319a6" CreationDate="2019-11-17T01:34:48.307" UserId="22617" Text="If patent filed within a year of publication date of another abandoned patent by same inventor will it be prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58253" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20921" RevisionGUID="34936b62-9c21-45ea-968a-202e4f0319a6" CreationDate="2019-11-17T01:34:48.307" UserId="22617" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;abandoned-patent&gt;&lt;publication&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20922" RevisionGUID="2c6deaaa-d015-4e06-9fed-de6cd0a0d32c" CreationDate="2019-11-17T03:18:24.933" UserId="13775" Text="There is no need to abandon the US patent. You should ask your lawyer or patent agent about how to amend the claims.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20923" RevisionGUID="02cef6cc-5247-403c-9e4f-defd033e7707" CreationDate="2019-11-17T03:25:56.457" UserId="13775" Text="There is another option. You can try to find a way to implement your solution without infringing at least one element of each claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example, if the claim is &quot;Add chemicals A, B, and C together in approximately equal quantities to generate compound D&quot;, and you find you can generate compound D by adding 20% A, 20% B and 60% C, you're likely ok (ask your lawyer first). Similarly, if you can generate compound D by adding chemicals A, Y and Z, you're likely ok.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are complicating factors (doctrine of equivalents comes to mind), but the normal rule is that you don't infringe a patent unless you infringe each element of at least one claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, even if you find a non-infringing workaround you need to be careful that there isn't another patent that covers your workaround (or if their specification describes your workaround and they have a pending continuation, they could later file claims that cover your workaround).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bottom line is if you're thinking of starting a business implementing your invention, you need to get a lawyer who knows patent law to advise you as to whether your workaround does the trick." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20924" RevisionGUID="57d4876e-b7cd-4730-82bf-f52711bbb3b9" CreationDate="2019-11-17T03:34:48.643" UserId="13775" Text="My concern would be that a court would find there is no patentable weight to &quot;none or more&quot;.  If you have a group of options (i.e. &quot;the system of claim 1, wherein one or more of A, B, C or D is present&quot;), it is easier to infringe (since you have four options), but it is also much easier to invalidate (because if there is prior art for A, B, C OR D, you have an invalid claim).  By adding &quot;none&quot;, even if A, B, C and D are all novel and not obvious, your claim doesn't require any of them, so if the independent claim is invalid, the dependent claim has no patentable weight that would provide a basis for validity.  Basically, your dependent claim with &quot;none&quot; as an option can be interpreted as &quot;you can do exactly what claim 1 says, or you can add A, B, C or D&quot;.  Of course, your dependent claim is slightly different because it requires a new element (B), but everything after that doesn't help you as much as it should.  The suggestion of breaking it out into two dependent claims was a good one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A method for doing A.&#xD;&#xA;2. The method of claim 1, wherein A comprises B.&#xD;&#xA;3. The method of claim 3, wherein A further comprises one or more of: C, D, E, and/or F&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To see why the &quot;none&quot; option doesn't help, here is what that would look like if you wrote it as its own independent claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The method of claim 2, wherein nothing further is added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is literally no patentable weight to claim 4.  It rises and falls with claim 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20925" RevisionGUID="fd488eff-4198-4f4c-97ea-183739a0c1aa" CreationDate="2019-11-17T03:36:35.520" UserId="13775" Text="If you're in the USA and the question is &quot;if I do X, can person A sue&quot;, the answer is always &quot;yes&quot;.  But in this case, it would be a legitimate answer. You can infringe a patent all by yourself, sitting at home, without ever leaving the house or selling the product.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20926" RevisionGUID="70f8ea7d-7b54-492c-9a58-4b06aff27a58" CreationDate="2019-11-17T04:09:29.317" UserId="13775" Text="It is possible to file a patent application AND retain the ability to treat it as a trade secret. When you file, you need to file a non-publication request. There are downsides in terms of foreign patent filings in doing so, but it also means that the patent application is never published, and remains secret, until the patent actually issues.  Patents take years to issue, so by the time you get a notice of allowance, you can evaluate the market and decide whether to retain it as a trade secret or go ahead and allow the patent to publish.  Once it is published, of course, it is a matter of public record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another variation is to keep a portion of a product or service as a trade secret. For example, you may have invented a way of changing the operation of an MRI machine to generate information that can be processed in a novel manner to return a higher resolution image.  You could file for a patent on the physical changes to the MRI machine without filing for a patent on your data processing method (which, in the US, would be expensive to get and at constant risk of invalidation since it involves software and algorithms).  You could then have anybody who uses your patented MRI machine send the data to your facility where you process it according to your trade secret method and return the results.  The trick to such a hybrid patent/trade secret combination is that there are really two freestanding inventions that happen to work together. That way while you are required to disclose the best mode for building the machine, you're not required to disclose the best mode for data processing. You'd need some strong legal advice, though, because it is threading the needle to pull it off." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20927" RevisionGUID="7827ebda-3c4b-40c6-80f6-c792a1bac63f" CreationDate="2019-11-17T04:31:17.050" UserId="13775" Text="The Supreme Court just agreed to hear the Google v. Oracle case that examines copyright protection for APIs. It is likely that the case will impact UIKit Classes as well. Sorry to be the bearer of uncertain news, but you need to watch out for copyright issues in addition to patent issues, at least until the Supreme Court hands down its decision." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20928" RevisionGUID="bbd7cff6-0efc-4b3d-af53-a7dd714d1ba8" CreationDate="2019-11-17T04:41:04.713" UserId="13775" Text="Your question seems to conflate utility patents with design patents.  An issued design patent starts with a &quot;D&quot;, as in D123,456.  That covers only ornamental design. A utility patent covers function. Because you're asking about a utility patent, the ornamental design cannot be protected by that patent.  Of course, there may be a design patent out there, or you may be referencing a functional design (like the design of a circuit).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of &quot;continuation practice&quot;, it is possible to claim one group of things in a first filing, and then claim a second group of things in a second filing based on the original patent filing.  So for example, I might file for a patent on the car. In my first application, I might seek to claim only the muffler. In the second application (which is a continuation of the first), I might seek to claim the internal combustion engine, etc.  As long as the original patent application enabled a person of ordinary skill in the art to build it, it can be claimed in a timely-filed continuation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frequently, the inventor and patent lawyer aren't sure which claims will issue when they file the patent application. They write the title and abstract so that they generally describe the entire device and most of the possible claims. After a lot of back and forth with the examiner, a set of claims is allowed that quite often no longer matches the title or abstract. There is nothing inherently improper in doing that in the US, though best practices would be to seek to amend the title to better match the claims. Perhaps more importantly, the uninformed part of the anti-patent lobby often looks to the title and abstract to describe a patent. So an abstract that reads &quot;A method for vehicular propulsion is described herein&quot; may be combined with claims that cover only regenerative braking, but because many people don't understand that the claims -- and not the abstract -- describe what is protected by the issued patent, they think that the patent covers all methods for vehicular propulsion. They then get bent out of shape over the idea that another low quality patent has issued covering technology that is 100 years old.  For that reason alone, it is important to the inventor community that abstracts accurately describe the invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20929" RevisionGUID="38078670-ca75-4235-bfa1-af8b68d0b6f1" CreationDate="2019-11-17T04:45:35.987" UserId="13775" Text="Google used to have trouble calculating the expiration date where there is a patent term extension. I hope they fixed that, but in case they haven't, if you are really concerned about this patent, you should calculate the expiration date yourself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Substantively, even an expired patent can be asserted for infringement that took place during the time the patent was live (going back 6 years). So if you did infringe, there &quot;mere&quot; expiration of the patent doesn't get you fully off the hook. Similarly, an expired patent can sometimes be brought back into force, as described at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2590.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20930" RevisionGUID="0e59928a-6b3f-48d5-bb1a-7c30ab58313c" CreationDate="2019-11-17T19:35:06.623" UserId="17003" Text="Since you didn't state the patent number, we can't check the official status in the US Public Pair. What I can do is answer your second question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is this patent valid worldwide or it has to apply for each and every&#xD;&#xA;&gt; country?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents are territorial. A US patent applies only in the US. To get patent protection in any other country requires a patent in that country." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58263" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="97ac2c70-6201-4dad-8ae3-790fbadece2f" CreationDate="2019-11-18T03:03:05.383" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20931" RevisionGUID="8b531798-3ab9-4ff2-877f-5815f4828dda" CreationDate="2019-11-19T16:26:47.983" UserId="22611" Text="Why is it many newer patents, such as in US10421637, A cranking mechanism, the independent claim 1 is almost entirely repeated in claim 8, except for a small change? I do not find this in older patents. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58265" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20931" RevisionGUID="8b531798-3ab9-4ff2-877f-5815f4828dda" CreationDate="2019-11-19T16:26:47.983" UserId="22611" Text="Why are independent claim sometimes repeated with a small wording change in a later claim in newer patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58266" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20931" RevisionGUID="8b531798-3ab9-4ff2-877f-5815f4828dda" CreationDate="2019-11-19T16:26:47.983" UserId="22611" Text="&lt;claim-construction&gt;&lt;utility&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20931" RevisionGUID="56aefe69-ccfe-42dd-9fca-ca8667bc5e55" CreationDate="2019-11-19T20:52:24.313" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to patent" Text="Why is it many newer patents, such as in [US10421637][1], A cranking mechanism, the independent claim 1 is almost entirely repeated in claim 8, except for a small change? I do not find this in older patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10421637B1/en?oq=US10421637" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20932" RevisionGUID="a8949e9e-c311-4d66-9026-71cb68978eb9" CreationDate="2019-11-19T21:02:03.347" UserId="17003" Text="I'm not a lawyer but I've worked with several on my patents. There is a lot of art in drafting claims and I don't think this is a particularly new phenomenon. Claim 1 and 8 are not identical. In particular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From claim 1: &quot;...a clutch is retained on said crank shaft, said clutch includes a drive gear;...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From claim 8: &quot;...a clutch is retained on said crank shaft between said one way bearing and said tightening device, said clutch includes a drive gear;...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I often see this pattern of having slightly narrower versions of independent claims. There must be legal reason. Perhaps a patent attorney or agent will comment on that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20933" RevisionGUID="301bbd46-eb3e-4ab2-882e-375735b8eae0" CreationDate="2019-11-19T23:57:44.757" UserId="3076" Text="I often write claims that might cover essentially the same thing but in different language. It is some protection from a court that might misconstrue some word or wording in one of the claims. Depending on how old the patents you are comparing this with, they might be from a time when “ a portion of “ included a whole of, when “one or more” was never interpreted as excluding the case of one and when “and” never meant “or” (A patent agent). We now need defensive claiming. This is an answer regarding U.S. practice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20932" RevisionGUID="ba04b8c0-88ec-46d6-933b-08276d332964" CreationDate="2019-11-20T00:10:05.160" UserId="17003" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I'm not a lawyer but I've worked with several on my patents. There is a lot of art in drafting claims and I don't think this is a particularly new phenomenon. Claim 1 and 8 are not identical. In particular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From claim 1: &quot;...a clutch is retained on said crank shaft, said clutch includes a drive gear;...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From claim 8: &quot;...a clutch is retained on said crank shaft between said one way bearing and said tightening device, said clutch includes a drive gear;...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I often see this pattern of having slightly narrower versions of independent claims. There must be a legal reason. Perhaps a patent attorney or agent will comment on that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20934" RevisionGUID="bf152e29-0d48-427e-9d7c-91da8f68fe61" CreationDate="2019-11-20T05:51:33.613" UserId="21034" Text="Yes obviously. If an inventor or an invention owner demonstrates his invention to public anywhere in an exhibition or expo, it is considered as a public disclosure but in order to obtain a patent for his invention the inventor has to file the patent application within a period of one year from the date of demonstration of his invention to public or else it will be considered as a prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58272" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18411" RevisionGUID="c6f27104-4e33-43b7-91ad-81df37897e9d" CreationDate="2019-11-21T07:02:15.303" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20936" RevisionGUID="b39ed8e6-579c-4d4d-bc21-465c3b8abbc4" CreationDate="2019-11-21T14:03:42.660" UserId="22630" Text="First option: If the first application is alive, you just amend it. No need to file another application.&#xD;&#xA;Second option: Even if the first application has already been abandoned, you can still rely on the so-called &quot;priority right&quot;. (see http://www.patenttrademarkblog.com/priority-date/)  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20937" RevisionGUID="52ca6a38-9e85-4548-b465-599bd4d8dd93" CreationDate="2019-11-21T14:06:50.710" UserId="22630" Text="And the simple answer to your question is &quot;Yes&quot;. The abandoned application destroys your later application regardless of being filed within a year or by the same inventor. (Grace period cannot help in such an occasion) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20938" RevisionGUID="7c757b12-4445-40c1-b5a3-e40787ca1d05" CreationDate="2019-11-21T14:13:16.250" UserId="22630" Text="Possibility one: the applicant wants as many patents as possible for an invention with the aim of gaining bargaining power in negotiating cross-license or a patent pool. As you may know, the number of patents a party has is one of the critical factors to determine how much money s/he can get from the license negotiation or a patent pool. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibility two: The applicant may want to avoid the &quot;double patenting&quot; rejection but at the same time want to keep the application alive (pending) by repeating divisional applications in order to amend the claim according to the market condition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20939" RevisionGUID="1c9645bc-cc36-4915-b0fa-4c2cd97031da" CreationDate="2019-11-22T11:53:48.830" UserId="21034" Text="USPTO allows for correction of patents, even after the grant of a patent. The following ways are provided by USPTO in order to correct a granted patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  •	The patentee may disclaim one or more claims of his or her patent by filing in the Office a disclaimer as provided by the statute (35 U.S.C. 253).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  •	When the patent is defective in certain respects, the law provides that the patentee may apply for a reissue patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  •	Any person may file a request for reexamination of a patent, along with the required fee.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20940" RevisionGUID="cc6ec63f-dbd8-4f19-87bc-eb19486b0ad5" CreationDate="2019-11-23T01:25:35.447" UserId="22633" Text="I applied for a patent on a product/tool that I created and was actually using in the construction industry. One of my employees decided to quit and take the file and took and disappear. I recently learned that the said product was on the market and being sold. I let it go so many years ago, but seeing it on a store shelf is not acceptable!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58281" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20940" RevisionGUID="cc6ec63f-dbd8-4f19-87bc-eb19486b0ad5" CreationDate="2019-11-23T01:25:35.447" UserId="22633" Text="Stolen Patent and product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58282" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20940" RevisionGUID="cc6ec63f-dbd8-4f19-87bc-eb19486b0ad5" CreationDate="2019-11-23T01:25:35.447" UserId="22633" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58283" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20501" RevisionGUID="3abfb046-6a05-4e2e-902b-18d1547e52f6" CreationDate="2019-11-23T10:02:40.380" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20933" RevisionGUID="ec9aec0f-2050-4656-b4d2-5e6fc4886cb1" CreationDate="2019-11-24T00:38:18.703" UserId="3076" Comment="Added mention of Festo" Text="I often write claims that might cover essentially the same thing but in different language. It is some protection from a court that might misconstrue some word or wording in one of the claims. Depending on how old the patents you are comparing this with, they might be from a time when “ a portion of “ included a whole of, when “one or more” was never interpreted as excluding the case of one and when “and” never meant “or” (I’m a patent agent). We now need defensive claiming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another speculation relates to the series of “Festo”  cases. The importance of this has faded but this series of cases said that the breadth of interpretations of a claim was significant reduced if that claim was ever amended. Adding a slightly different claim rather than amending a claim might have made sense.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an answer regarding U.S. practice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58286" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20309" RevisionGUID="2e010717-490f-4600-b42d-ef0be676be29" CreationDate="2019-11-24T06:01:55.223" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58287" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20588" RevisionGUID="5e591f3e-cb2b-443b-a485-cbe9e68c8849" CreationDate="2019-11-24T14:02:55.513" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58288" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20585" RevisionGUID="9d1cbe52-1f51-4a7c-827d-985518ce0c77" CreationDate="2019-11-24T22:02:25.467" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20942" RevisionGUID="98cf2a2c-1db7-472e-8b6a-aae275fdd8d6" CreationDate="2019-11-25T17:45:02.443" UserId="17003" Text="Since the question is vague as to particulars (such as the application number), I'll try to answer generally. A patent application by itself provides no legal protection from someone implementing the invention. Only if the application gets granted as a patent do you gain protection. If you abandon the application and it publishes, it does provide some protection from someone else patenting the invention as it represents prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your former employee actually stole company documents then there may be a legal case, but not for patent infringement. In any case, you should consult with an actual attorney. I am not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20943" RevisionGUID="ef7b8b01-9fc0-4db5-85db-90e463b46430" CreationDate="2019-11-25T21:07:16.433" UserId="22641" Text="I'd like to point out I have zero experience with patents. I am a student engineer who is looking to develop a product. A company has already filed a patent for a very similar product. In claim 1 there is a list of instruments/mechanisms which the product relies on. My product would share alot of these but not all (the core functionality is the same). As for the other claims, some are in common, others not. I wanted to know if this made it impossible for me to commercialize my product or not? Thanks in advance for the help!! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58291" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20943" RevisionGUID="ef7b8b01-9fc0-4db5-85db-90e463b46430" CreationDate="2019-11-25T21:07:16.433" UserId="22641" Text="can claims of another patent overlap with product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58292" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20943" RevisionGUID="ef7b8b01-9fc0-4db5-85db-90e463b46430" CreationDate="2019-11-25T21:07:16.433" UserId="22641" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20944" RevisionGUID="2c88dc47-20c5-4e55-9671-14b0dd3059f2" CreationDate="2019-11-25T22:31:24.143" UserId="3076" Text="If you want to be able to commercialize your product and be free of patent infringement your product needs to not fall under any of the claims of the patent you found (or any other that might be similar that you have not found yet. Falling under a *single* claim means your product infringes so each claim must be analyzed against your product. The good news is that to infringe a claim, your product must have *every* element of that claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a claim is to a mechanism with an A, a B and a C but yours accomplishes a similar result or purpose with an A and a C but has no B, then you do *not* infringe. However, adding a D to their A, B and C does not take you out of infringement because you still do have an A, B and C.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If A, B and C were a wheel, a spring, and a ball bearing, the claim would not just list those elements, it would define their interconnection and relationship. You too could have a wheel, a spring, and a ball bearing but have them arranged in a very different functional manner. In that case you do *not* have all of the elements of the claim even though the &quot;parts&quot; are the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To find other patents that may be relevant you can follow reference to and from this patent both backward and forward in time. This is very easy with google patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20944" RevisionGUID="42ce25d2-dcf6-4949-89b4-9e3e5fc423f9" CreationDate="2019-11-25T23:44:40.003" UserId="3076" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="If you want to be able to commercialize your product and be free of patent infringement your product needs to not fall under any of the claims of the patent you found (or any other that might be similar that you have not found yet). Falling under a *single* claim means your product infringes, so each claim must be analyzed against your product. The good news is that to infringe a claim, your product must have *every* element of that claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a claim is to a mechanism with an A, a B and a C but yours accomplishes a similar result or purpose with an A and a C but has no B, then you do *not* infringe. However, adding a D to their A, B and C does not take you out of infringement because you still do have an A, B and C.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If A, B and C were a wheel, a spring, and a ball bearing, the claim would not just list those elements, it would define their interconnection and relationship. You too could have a wheel, a spring, and a ball bearing but have them arranged in a very different functional manner. In that case you do *not* have all of the elements of the claim even though the &quot;parts&quot; are the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To find other patents that may be relevant you can follow references to and from this patent both backward and forward in time. This is very easy with google patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20945" RevisionGUID="c93f7a31-e1cd-451f-b4e5-ec1c124ef4c6" CreationDate="2019-11-26T07:19:32.340" UserId="21034" Text="Interpretation is not related to Novelty analysis. An invention is considered novel if the claimed features in the invention are not known from the prior art i.e the invention must be new. With respect to the date, the date at which you are filing the provisional patent application is considered as the ‘*priority date*’ 	" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20946" RevisionGUID="019713d1-437d-42ab-b440-60933e7cf885" CreationDate="2019-11-26T08:28:50.730" UserId="22280" Text="Follow up. I filed an AFPC 2.0 in response to final rejection by examiner. He was supposed to answer within 45 days. At day 40 I contacted him, he had forgotten. Set up phone appointment in 2 weeks, just did it. 5 min. prior to appointment he uploaded to PAIR a statement that the AFPC was too complicated for him to pursue (in the 3 hours allowed.) This would only be true if he had to search a lot for new reasons to reject. Nothing was advanced by our conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides having lowest approval rate of any examiner in his unit, I collected rates for examiners in the 8 units around his, 129 examiners total. He ranked 129th. During conversation he recommended I file RCE. I trust data. He will not approve, and wishes to delay. So I will file a pre-appeal brief.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do have one question, though I suspect answer. Can I mention the examiner's approval rate in brief?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20681" RevisionGUID="19505209-1920-446f-aa56-bc20c7c0d0b4" CreationDate="2019-11-26T08:36:52.013" UserId="22280" Comment="deleted 629 characters in body" Text="An institutional entity filed a patent application. It's tangential to their primary subject, and probably is a placeholder until refined. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few months later an individual (me) filed a significantly different idea, but solving a similar problem. In effect, the institution threw together a solution that has certain complexities and is simple in other ways. My application is simple where theirs is complex, and complex where it's simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My application has 3 independent claims each proposing a structural solution to a suite of problems. Each structure is completely different from the institutional patent. They solve problems not raised by the other patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My application drew a very difficult examiner. He has the lowest approval rate in his unit. After first rejection, I compiled a scientific, technical, and legal response. 2 weeks after examiner received this, I requested an interview. Next day 8am he called me, asked if I wanted to talk then or at appointment time? I said appointment time, in one week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given this examiner's approach, I expect I will have to appeal. Since he and I interview in one week, what information is best to obtain? Should I record it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For perspective, over 3 years his unit avg's 155 approvals per examiner. He's approved 8. He's also examined the fewest, 68 compared to average 290. His approval rate: 12%. Unit average: 48%. He works 1/4 of others, approves 1/4 of others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I reviewed nine art units that are around the examiner's. 129 examiners in them. The examiner of my patent has the lowest approval rating of all 129. Each art unit has a supervisor. My examiner's supervisor has the lowest of any. Perhaps it's ideological.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE POST INTERVIEW.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for the input, Eric, Nicole, George. I will obtain more legal advice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the interview, both initial and final rejections concerned 112b claim language and 102 prior art. I made significant claim language changes, but did not limit claim breadth because 102 criticisms were weak. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a dog (DVM oriented) device. Examiner's prior art remains mostly human medicine. I'm confident this ultimately will not fly, because conditions for use dominate product structure (vastly different risks and use criteria.) Regarding 112, I anticipate more success with an appeal than with examiner, based on statistical data (recall the examiner allows 12%.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner would not discuss 102 issues. Only wanted me to understand that claim language remained indefinite. But he advised me to take a narrowed scope dependent claim and incorporate it in the first independent claim. I requested he discuss prior art issues (per the agenda I filed.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interview concluded after the examiner advised me to file a continuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I can appeal immediately.&#xD;&#xA;2. I can file an RCE and &quot;fix&quot; claim language without narrowing scope.&#xD;&#xA;3. I can do #2 but narrow scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's not my request here. I need to understand the examiner. Here's possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. He's ideological, doesn't like patents. I didn't pick that up.&#xD;&#xA;2. He's in an animal-related art unit, and maybe thinks that's a backwater. Doesn't think anything there is worthy. Could be.&#xD;&#xA;3. He's relatively new, under the wing of a supervisor who also has an abysmally low rate of allowance. That's why I didn't request the super join the meeting. Likeliest situation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is #3, he would likely be impressionable. Assuming other examiners in the art unit also started under this supervisor, none of them has a low rate. But this examiner didn't seem meek or mild.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4 years (the time my examiner has been in the unit) is a long time to have training wheels (he has 1/4 the usual load.) What does that mean?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20947" RevisionGUID="55d1a6ec-a030-4f0f-8950-638efb690f71" CreationDate="2019-11-26T15:13:51.873" UserId="22644" Text="I run a small business that designs algorithms and systems for dealing with geospatial data and then implements these with open-source software. These activities are not part of the core business. I want to defensively publish articles describing some of these ideas and implementations that could be subject to patent, so they are protected in perpetuity for the open source community. Is there any update to this post:&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/83/how-to-make-an-invention-un-patentable-easily&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking for a way to defensively publish without shelling out 300 or 400 bucks for a commercial service. If I can't find something existing, I'll consider rolling my own journal that could be used by myself and other open source fans in the geospatial professions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not an IP or patent expert, so I appreciate any advice or suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Landon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58299" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20947" RevisionGUID="55d1a6ec-a030-4f0f-8950-638efb690f71" CreationDate="2019-11-26T15:13:51.873" UserId="22644" Text="Any Update On Defensive Publishing To Avoid Patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58300" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20947" RevisionGUID="55d1a6ec-a030-4f0f-8950-638efb690f71" CreationDate="2019-11-26T15:13:51.873" UserId="22644" Text="&lt;defensive&gt;&lt;publishing&gt;&lt;geospatial&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20948" RevisionGUID="f3b80ad8-418b-4065-ae79-c7217173edab" CreationDate="2019-11-26T18:04:41.250" UserId="22351" Text="The following claim was rejected by the USPTO examiner for two reasons: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. For mixing a product and a method.&#xD;&#xA;2. The examiner also stated that the preamble says that this is an independent claim which cannot rely on another claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    A computer program product, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;	    a non-transitory computer readable medium &#xD;&#xA;    having stored thereon a computer executable instruction(s) to perform the steps of the method of &#xD;&#xA;    claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Does anyone know an issued US patent or US case law that allows this structure?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. For me this is clearly a dependent claim so how to convince the examiner about it?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58302" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20948" RevisionGUID="f3b80ad8-418b-4065-ae79-c7217173edab" CreationDate="2019-11-26T18:04:41.250" UserId="22351" Text="Computer readable medium claim rejected by USPTO examiner" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58303" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20948" RevisionGUID="f3b80ad8-418b-4065-ae79-c7217173edab" CreationDate="2019-11-26T18:04:41.250" UserId="22351" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claims-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20949" RevisionGUID="eacaba55-dcb9-4684-8490-4ba72e3e15dd" CreationDate="2019-11-26T18:10:09.243" UserId="17003" Text="Evidently there is a new website called [Prior Art Archive][1] created by MIT and Cisco. From the site's &quot;About&quot; page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Low quality patents waste money. US companies spend millions of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dollars year after year in litigation expenses defending against&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patents that shouldn’t have been issued. The patent examination&#xD;&#xA;&gt; process should stop patents from being issued on old or obvious&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technology. Unfortunately, just because technology is old doesn’t mean&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it is easy for a patent examiner to find. Particularly in the computer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; field, much prior art is in the form of old manuals, documentation,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; web sites, etc. that have, until now, not been readily searchable.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Cisco have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; collaborated to create this first free and open archiving platform for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the entire IT industry.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Simply put: fewer bad patents will be issued if we as industry give&#xD;&#xA;&gt; USPTO examiners the tools they need to find old technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to create an account to submit but it is free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.priorartarchive.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20949" RevisionGUID="4e26b009-1f06-442a-92e4-00b1f98821a7" CreationDate="2019-11-26T18:15:49.277" UserId="17003" Comment="added 128 characters in body" Text="Evidently there is a new website called [Prior Art Archive][1] created by MIT and Cisco. From the site's &quot;About&quot; page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Low quality patents waste money. US companies spend millions of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dollars year after year in litigation expenses defending against&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patents that shouldn’t have been issued. The patent examination&#xD;&#xA;&gt; process should stop patents from being issued on old or obvious&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technology. Unfortunately, just because technology is old doesn’t mean&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it is easy for a patent examiner to find. Particularly in the computer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; field, much prior art is in the form of old manuals, documentation,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; web sites, etc. that have, until now, not been readily searchable.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Cisco have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; collaborated to create this first free and open archiving platform for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the entire IT industry.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Simply put: fewer bad patents will be issued if we as industry give&#xD;&#xA;&gt; USPTO examiners the tools they need to find old technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to create an account to submit but it is free. The about suggests it is only for IT related prior art. I'm not sure what happens if you submit for not IT related prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.priorartarchive.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20838" RevisionGUID="503c0d99-ea3c-47e8-9249-2c53179cc422" CreationDate="2019-11-26T18:32:04.027" UserId="22452" Comment="I want to make sure people know I'm asking about &quot;w&quot; and not &quot;x.&quot;" Text="I'm asking about &quot;W&quot; and not &quot;X&quot; here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1: A system comprising X, Y, Z. &lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 2: The system of claim 1, wherein the X is connected to a W. &lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 3: The system of claim 1, wherein the W is P connected to U. &lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In claim 3, I introduced &quot;w&quot; with the definite article. Even though the parent claim (claim 1) does not mention &quot;w&quot;, a sister claim (claim 2) already mentioned &quot;w&quot; so antecedent basis is already established. Is it correct? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58307" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="20838" RevisionGUID="503c0d99-ea3c-47e8-9249-2c53179cc422" CreationDate="2019-11-26T18:32:04.027" Comment="Proposed by 22452 approved by 18033, 17003 edit id of 2113" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20950" RevisionGUID="04d7069e-ab14-4270-b49e-eb902bd9689a" CreationDate="2019-11-26T21:33:59.133" UserId="22646" Text="Yes, I do. Check out Claim 10 of [US10067111B2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is an independent System claim referring to a method claim&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And not only that, but the examiner proposed the amendment. Check out  the response to the 3rd Office Action in the file wrapper. End of claim 10&#xD;&#xA;&quot;a microprocessor programmed to sequence the system to perform continuous measurements within each measurement cycle&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner proposed:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;a microprocessor programmed to sequence the system to perform continuous measurements according to the method of claim 1&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But check out [this blog post][2] on case law why method/device hybrid claims may be indefinite. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10067111B2/en?oq=14722370&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.nutter.com/ip-law-bulletin/when-are-methoddevice-hybrid-claims-indefinite" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20949" RevisionGUID="cce7a63f-e695-4e9f-974e-b1f39f9e9120" CreationDate="2019-11-26T22:05:01.583" UserId="17003" Comment="edited body" Text="Evidently there is a new website called [Prior Art Archive][1] created by MIT and Cisco. From the site's &quot;About&quot; page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Low quality patents waste money. US companies spend millions of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dollars year after year in litigation expenses defending against&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patents that shouldn’t have been issued. The patent examination&#xD;&#xA;&gt; process should stop patents from being issued on old or obvious&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technology. Unfortunately, just because technology is old doesn’t mean&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it is easy for a patent examiner to find. Particularly in the computer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; field, much prior art is in the form of old manuals, documentation,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; web sites, etc. that have, until now, not been readily searchable.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Cisco have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; collaborated to create this first free and open archiving platform for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the entire IT industry.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Simply put: fewer bad patents will be issued if we as industry give&#xD;&#xA;&gt; USPTO examiners the tools they need to find old technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to create an account to submit but it is free. The about suggests it is only for IT related prior art. I'm not sure what happens if you submit for non IT related prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.priorartarchive.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20951" RevisionGUID="e15e65e7-1ca1-477f-9c79-960cfbcac0b3" CreationDate="2019-11-26T22:49:41.420" UserId="22351" Text="The following claim was rejected by the USPTO examiner for mixing system and method:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    An online computer system comprising a &#xD;&#xA;    processor configured to perform the steps of &#xD;&#xA;    the method of claim 16.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand the method steps, when spelled out within a system claim, are allowed under US patent law as per  Oasis Research v. AT&amp;T Corp, 2012 U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question:&#xD;&#xA;Why then a method steps couldn't be included in a system claim by a reference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58311" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20951" RevisionGUID="e15e65e7-1ca1-477f-9c79-960cfbcac0b3" CreationDate="2019-11-26T22:49:41.420" UserId="22351" Text="System claim with method steps included by reference" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58312" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20951" RevisionGUID="e15e65e7-1ca1-477f-9c79-960cfbcac0b3" CreationDate="2019-11-26T22:49:41.420" UserId="22351" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claims-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20952" RevisionGUID="40afdec7-f181-41ad-8730-4a46484c4bf5" CreationDate="2019-11-27T00:35:53.133" UserId="3076" Text="You need to study the office action but my suspicion is that the examiner is taking the position that a claim that references another claim is, by definition, a dependent claim. The examiner is then taking the position that a dependent claim must necessarily be of the same statuary class as the claim it depends from since, by common definition, it is a narrower version of that claim. In your case the claim is to a machine, and the claim it depends upon is a claim to a process, so rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The MPEP  - in an odd place - says the examiner is wrong - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The fact that the independent and dependent claims are in different statutory classes does not, in itself, render the latter improper. Thus, if claim 1 recites a specific product, a claim for the method of making the product of claim 1 in a particular manner would be a proper dependent claim since it could not be infringed without infringing claim 1. Similarly, if claim 1 recites a method of making a product, a claim for a product made by the method of claim 1 could be a proper dependent claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ ][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By a careful reading of the MPEP above we see that a narrowing of the depended upon claim is only taken to mean that anything that infringes the dependent claim necessarily infringes the depended upon claim. Your case is not in the examples but the analogy is clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT, it is not worth arguing with the examiner, just paste in the steps of claims 16 and pay for an additional independent claim if you are over the three &quot;free&quot; ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/608_01_n.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20952" RevisionGUID="36159201-bee2-46ab-96a1-780a4b94a364" CreationDate="2019-11-27T01:15:52.740" UserId="3076" Comment="added ref to MPEP" Text="You need to study the office action but my suspicion is that the examiner is taking the position that a claim that references another claim is, by definition, a dependent claim. The examiner is then taking the position that a dependent claim must necessarily be of the same statuary class as the claim it depends from since, by common definition, it is a narrower version of that claim. In your case the claim is to a machine, and the claim it depends upon is a claim to a process, so rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The MPEP  - in a very odd place - says the examiner is wrong - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The fact that the independent and dependent claims are in different statutory classes does not, in itself, render the latter improper. Thus, if claim 1 recites a specific product, a claim for the method of making the product of claim 1 in a particular manner would be a proper dependent claim since it could not be infringed without infringing claim 1. Similarly, if claim 1 recites a method of making a product, a claim for a product made by the method of claim 1 could be a proper dependent claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[MPEP 608.01(n)&#xD;&#xA;Dependent Claims -  way down in the discussion of fee calculation ][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By a careful reading of the MPEP above we see that a narrowing of the depended upon claim is only taken to mean that anything that infringes the dependent claim necessarily infringes the depended upon claim. Your case is not in the examples but the analogy is clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT, it is not worth arguing with the examiner, just paste in the steps of claims 16 and pay for an additional independent claim if you are over the three &quot;free&quot; ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/608_01_n.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20953" RevisionGUID="e27fe75e-a19c-4cd8-979f-7b2375d87f2b" CreationDate="2019-11-27T09:28:49.990" UserId="21034" Text="Every patent / patent application is followed by a kind code (E.g. A, B, U) which denotes the status of patent / patent application whether it is granted or under examination process. The status can be checked using national patent office database of all countries or in WIPO IP Portal. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20949" RevisionGUID="5b3378c2-c9d2-44d7-bf76-440372843323" CreationDate="2019-11-27T18:23:56.093" UserId="17003" Comment="added 518 characters in body" Text="Evidently there is a new website called [Prior Art Archive][1] created by MIT and Cisco. From the site's &quot;About&quot; page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Low quality patents waste money. US companies spend millions of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dollars year after year in litigation expenses defending against&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patents that shouldn’t have been issued. The patent examination&#xD;&#xA;&gt; process should stop patents from being issued on old or obvious&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technology. Unfortunately, just because technology is old doesn’t mean&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it is easy for a patent examiner to find. Particularly in the computer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; field, much prior art is in the form of old manuals, documentation,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; web sites, etc. that have, until now, not been readily searchable.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Cisco have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; collaborated to create this first free and open archiving platform for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the entire IT industry.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Simply put: fewer bad patents will be issued if we as industry give&#xD;&#xA;&gt; USPTO examiners the tools they need to find old technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to create an account to submit but it is free. The about suggests it is only for IT related prior art. I'm not sure what happens if you submit for non IT related prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I sent an email to priorartarchive@media.mit.edu with the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can the Prior Art Archive be used to submit prior art not related to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information technology? If not, is there any way the site can be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; expanded to include other fields?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I received the following response:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hello Eric, the goal is to include other fields, though we started&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there. A critical mass in a category helps make it more useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I receive any further information, I'll add it to the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.priorartarchive.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20950" RevisionGUID="31faeb5b-6f37-4677-b556-e4c4ac1465ab" CreationDate="2019-11-28T02:43:21.613" UserId="3076" Comment="fixed ref to claim with ref. to process steps" Text="Yes, I do. Check out Claim 10 of [US10067111B2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is an independent System claim referring to a method claim&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And not only that, but the examiner proposed the amendment. Check out  the response to the 3rd Office Action in the file wrapper. End of **claim 12** -&#xD;&#xA;&quot;a microprocessor programmed to sequence the system to perform continuous measurements within each measurement cycle&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examiner proposed:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;a microprocessor programmed to sequence the system to perform continuous measurements according to the method of claim 1&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But check out [this blog post][2] on case law why method/device hybrid claims may be indefinite. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10067111B2/en?oq=14722370&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.nutter.com/ip-law-bulletin/when-are-methoddevice-hybrid-claims-indefinite" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20955" RevisionGUID="17baf103-2a4e-4c20-91cd-5d8559895b54" CreationDate="2019-11-28T19:54:59.950" UserId="22351" Text="After some digging I found two reference in issued patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    · U.S. Patent 10,492,242, Wegmann, et al., Claim 20&#xD;&#xA;    · U.S. Patent 10,492,208, Petersson, et al., Claim 12&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of these patents claim computer readable medium and include a method of another claim by a reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20955" RevisionGUID="aaece998-e52c-4868-a7c0-f0d2f0b55449" CreationDate="2019-11-28T20:17:55.473" UserId="22351" Comment="added 404 characters in body" Text="After some digging I found two references in issued patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    · U.S. Patent 10,492,242, Wegmann, et al., Claim 20&#xD;&#xA;    · U.S. Patent 10,492,208, Petersson, et al., Claim 12&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of these patents claim computer readable medium and include a method of another claim by a reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say those are Williamson style claims and they are pretty clear when an infringement occurs and they don't mix product and method but rather define a product which has a specific function.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the claims are clearly dependent as they include all the elements of another claim by a reference and the word &quot;comprising&quot; by itself does not define whether the claim is dependent or independent. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20956" RevisionGUID="2ee65561-2bcd-467a-9177-7ebe303fb122" CreationDate="2019-11-29T03:57:12.430" UserId="22652" Text="I came up with an idea for which a device has already been patented which has some of these really broad claims. My design would be very different from the design in the patent, but at the end they both perform the same activity. Also note that the above claim is a  dependent claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58322" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20956" RevisionGUID="2ee65561-2bcd-467a-9177-7ebe303fb122" CreationDate="2019-11-29T03:57:12.430" UserId="22652" Text="Can a really broad claim like 'the top is made of plastic' cause an infringement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58323" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20956" RevisionGUID="2ee65561-2bcd-467a-9177-7ebe303fb122" CreationDate="2019-11-29T03:57:12.430" UserId="22652" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;functionality&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20957" RevisionGUID="36b5ad38-5ffd-4378-9d54-903f2037144e" CreationDate="2019-11-29T04:24:12.050" UserId="17003" Text="Read each claim. If you avoid even one step in a claim, then you don’t infringe on that claim. If this is true for all the claims then you don’t infringe on the patent. This said, it is a really good idea to get an actual patent attorney to give you a freedom to operate opinion. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20957" RevisionGUID="51f1e371-f97f-480c-989d-d3cdf21bdec8" CreationDate="2019-11-29T04:58:15.450" UserId="17003" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="Read each claim. If you avoid even one step in a claim, then you don’t infringe on that claim. If this is true for all the claims then you don’t infringe on the patent. I’m sure there is no claim which is just “The top is made of plastic”. That must be just a part of a longer claim.  This said, it is a really good idea to get an actual patent attorney to give you a freedom to operate opinion. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58326" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20604" RevisionGUID="507ee7e7-26c4-4af6-b03c-83b9b4a47464" CreationDate="2019-11-29T07:01:40.217" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20958" RevisionGUID="f844dddc-dbea-44ae-850d-290a4b835060" CreationDate="2019-11-29T08:06:46.537" UserId="22654" Text=" I have read tech patents available on Google. I wonder how patents can be avoided to be reinvented or understood so neatly and specifically given a patent file is usually tens of pages written very strictly. Everyday thousands of tech patents are filed and approved with millions already there, so how can somebody comprehend those and avoid reinventing an already invented claim? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58328" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20958" RevisionGUID="f844dddc-dbea-44ae-850d-290a4b835060" CreationDate="2019-11-29T08:06:46.537" UserId="22654" Text="How patents are avoided to be reinvented or understood comprehensively?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58329" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20958" RevisionGUID="f844dddc-dbea-44ae-850d-290a4b835060" CreationDate="2019-11-29T08:06:46.537" UserId="22654" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;description&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20959" RevisionGUID="bd5f497f-9e7e-4e44-a341-3642e9ef72ed" CreationDate="2019-11-29T09:31:50.453" UserId="21034" Text="No, it is not advisable. If the patent is expired due to the payment of fee, the patent holder can restore the patent by paying surcharge in addition to maintenance fee.&#xD;&#xA;Patent protection is a territorial right and therefore it is effective only within the territory of a country. Hence if there is a patent for an invention in one country and same invention does not have a patent in another country, you can sell the product in the country where there is no patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to sell the product in same country where the patent is filed, you can buy and renew the patent which is expired due to fee payment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58331" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20595" RevisionGUID="bbd7781f-855e-4232-9857-d966ada98c50" CreationDate="2019-11-29T10:02:55.523" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58332" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="20958" RevisionGUID="1827fcc8-393e-4e31-9afa-f61184a41a09" CreationDate="2019-11-29T11:27:36.797" UserId="22654" Comment="edited title" Text="How patents are avoided to be reinvented and how we can understand them comprehensively?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20958" RevisionGUID="1827fcc8-393e-4e31-9afa-f61184a41a09" CreationDate="2019-11-29T11:27:36.797" UserId="22654" Comment="edited title" Text=" I have read tech patents available on Google. I wonder how patents can be avoided to be reinvented or understood so neatly and specifically given a patent file is usually tens of pages written very strictly. Everyday thousands of tech patents are filed and approved with millions already there, so how can somebody comprehend those and avoid reinventing an already invented claim?  Please reply thoroughly!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20957" RevisionGUID="ba5302f0-89f7-40b3-89c8-7c906a744e39" CreationDate="2019-11-29T15:14:09.543" UserId="17003" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="Read each claim. If you avoid even one step in a claim, then you don’t infringe on that claim. If this is true for all the claims then you don’t infringe on the patent. I’m sure there is no claim which is just “The top is made of plastic”. That must be just a part of a longer claim or a dependent claim.  This said, it is a really good idea to get an actual patent attorney to give you a freedom to operate opinion. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20960" RevisionGUID="bbded9d3-09ee-4ba0-ade7-fd34e049731b" CreationDate="2019-11-29T15:52:37.027" UserId="17003" Text="The short answer is you perform a patent search. You are absolutely correct to suggest this is a substantial undertaking. I am not a professional patent searcher, but I've done my fair share. You can certainly start with Google Patents, but I've found [The Lens][1] to have some useful additional features. My process is generally to try different search terms to narrow the number of hits to a manageable number and briefly read the patents focussing primarily on the initial independent claims. If I find a relevant patent, I then look at the cited patents. Iterate as necessary. I usually start with US patents to reduce the numbers a bit but you will eventually have to search internationally. Professional searchers also use patent classification codes. If you find a number of relevant patents then look for common classification codes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20961" RevisionGUID="d5d9befa-21f2-405c-946b-d7ebf4f14496" CreationDate="2019-11-29T18:11:23.437" UserId="22656" Text="My team and I (UK based) are working with Graphene-based materials and have recently come up with an idea that we want to patent. However, we have not yet developed this idea into a functioning prototype. Is it possible to apply for a patent now, or do we first have to produce a prototype?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58337" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20961" RevisionGUID="d5d9befa-21f2-405c-946b-d7ebf4f14496" CreationDate="2019-11-29T18:11:23.437" UserId="22656" Text="Can you patent an idea that has not yet been produced" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58338" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20961" RevisionGUID="d5d9befa-21f2-405c-946b-d7ebf4f14496" CreationDate="2019-11-29T18:11:23.437" UserId="22656" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20962" RevisionGUID="7331234f-1930-46c8-9e14-c10d6e7abe15" CreationDate="2019-11-29T19:45:08.357" UserId="22646" Text="MPEP 1504.04 discusses converting originally disclosed broken lines to solid lines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;an amendment that changes the scope of a design by either converting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; originally-disclosed solid line structure to broken lines or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *converting originally-disclosed broken line structure to solid lines*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would not introduce new matter because such amendment would not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; introduce subject matter that was not originally disclosed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; MPEP 1504.04(B) 6th paragraph. Emphasis added&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20963" RevisionGUID="3ce51779-7357-47f6-a832-3796871abd87" CreationDate="2019-11-29T20:08:11.547" UserId="22334" Text="First of all, ideas cannot be patented, inventions can; an invention must solve a technical problem. Concerning your question, you can file a patent application regardless of any existing prototype; this does not usually apply when the invention relates to biological inventions though. Coming back to your question once again, you need to disclose the invention in a manner sufficient so that the person having ordinary skill of the technical field of the invention can reproduce it without undue burden, so as long as you are able to provide such description you are good to go. That said, without any prototyping prior to the drafting of the patent application you may overlook technical details or try to patent non-working embodiments of the invention, so it is a good idea to do some prototyping first. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58341" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20963" RevisionGUID="1b7206ff-9ea6-40be-9ef6-b7ab9464b54a" CreationDate="2019-11-29T21:28:32.810" UserId="22334" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="First of all, ideas cannot be patented, inventions can; an invention must solve a technical problem. Concerning your question, you can file a patent application regardless of any existing prototype; this does not usually apply when the invention relates to biological inventions though. Coming back to your question once again, you need to disclose the invention in a manner sufficient so that the person having ordinary skill in the technical field of the invention can reproduce it without undue burden, so as long as you are able to provide such description you are good to go. That said, without any prototyping prior to the drafting of the patent application you may overlook technical details or attempt to patent non-working embodiments of the invention, so it is a good idea to do some prototyping first. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58342" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20329" RevisionGUID="344c26fc-155a-4f5d-8414-138f13b14ae0" CreationDate="2019-11-30T00:03:15.433" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20964" RevisionGUID="adfe7aa3-309a-4d80-b435-8c50d3834ea0" CreationDate="2019-11-30T06:41:04.647" UserId="3076" Text="If you are overwhelmed by the vast number of patents, there is not much of a cure. On the other hand if you have a specific invention you have made and want to find out if it is patentable, you can do a patentablity search - another answer from Eric Shain outlines how you could go about it. I have experienced a phenomena of dead-on prior art existing but not being found by the inventor or anyone else who wishes that the prior art didn't exist or who assumes it doesn't exist. It is hard to find something you are wishing/assuming you don't find. To address this and other difficulties of searching there are search professionals with fairly reasonable fees  -if you have an exact target invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have used National Patent Services nationalpatentservices.com. They and other patent searching companies employ people who spend their whole day at the public search room at the USPTO office in Alexandria VA using the same system USPTO examiners use. They generally are organized, like patent examiners, by technology. It might cost a few hundred dollars for a search - but you need to have a specific and succinct definition of what you are searching. Another option is Quick Patents quickpatents.com - they quote $399 for a patentablity search on their website and I have heard they do a good job. About 8 years ago I and Kevin Prince, the owner, were fellow board members of an inventor's club." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20963" RevisionGUID="441a1a3b-b40f-4c7e-ad15-0d2f53ac8c27" CreationDate="2019-11-30T12:17:48.600" UserId="22334" Comment="Added that in US patent law there is no requirement for solving a technical problem" Text="First of all, ideas cannot be patented, inventions can;  other than in US patent law, it is necessary that an invention solves a technical problem. Concerning your question, you can file a patent application regardless of any existing prototype; this does not usually apply when the invention relates to biological inventions though. Coming back to your question once again, you need to disclose the invention in a manner sufficient so that the person having ordinary skill in the technical field of the invention can reproduce it without undue burden, so as long as you are able to provide such description you are good to go. That said, without any prototyping prior to the drafting of the patent application you may overlook technical details or attempt to patent non-working embodiments of the invention, so it is a good idea to do some prototyping first. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20878" RevisionGUID="8cb409c4-2796-4f6f-a868-2f9b29a4f846" CreationDate="2019-11-30T16:41:04.517" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1947 characters in body" Text="It would be best if you were to list the actual patent number so we could check your interpretation. That said, if it is a Japanese patent and there is no US equivalent then it should not impact your ability to market a product in the US assuming you aren't manufacturing in Japan. It doesn't matter whether the Japanese patent has expired or not as patents are country specific. The patent owner cannot now file for a US patent on the same invention since the Japanese patent represents prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the specific Japanese patent shouldn't be a problem, it doesn't mean there aren't other patents which are. While you can and should do more patent searching on the specific technologies being employed, it might be a good idea to employ an actual patent attorney or agent to perform a &quot;freedom-to-operate&quot; assessment. At the very minimum, I would search under the inventor's name for US patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cited document [JP3174302U][1] is a Japanese utility model, not a patent. With regard to fees, the following quote comes from the [Japan Patent Office][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **(i) for patents**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A patent right can be maintained by paying patent fees on an annual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; basis, starting with the fees for the fourth year. However, if the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent fee for a certain year is not paid within the deadline, a late&#xD;&#xA;&gt; payment equivalent to double the patent fees can be made if the late&#xD;&#xA;&gt; payment is paid within six months after the original deadline to pay&#xD;&#xA;&gt; has expired. If the late payment fee equivalent to double the patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fees is not paid within the within six-month period mentioned here,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the patent right will be deemed to have expired as of the original&#xD;&#xA;&gt; expiration date.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Furthermore, when you, the patent-right holder, have a justifiable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reason for not paying within the six-month grace period, i.e. where&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Patent Office finds that your failure to comply with the time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; limit occurred in spite of due care required by the circumstances&#xD;&#xA;&gt; having been taken, your patent right can be restored. **In other words,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you can pay the patent fee and the patent surcharge within two months&#xD;&#xA;&gt; after the date on which the justifiable reason ceased to exist, as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; long as this is done within one year after the six-month grace period&#xD;&#xA;&gt; expired.** In doing so, you are required to submit also a document&#xD;&#xA;&gt; called Statement of Reasons for Restoration indicating the justifiable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reason.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **(ii) for utility models**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The answer given for patents applies to utility models also.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Epacenet][3], the non-payment of fee happened on 2015/02/22. Since it is well past 1 year and six months, I don't think it is possible anymore to restore the status of the utility model. Just to be clear, I am not an attorney and this answer isn't legal advice.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/JP3174302U/en?oq=JP3174302U&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.jpo.go.jp/e/faq/yokuaru/fees.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=JP&amp;NR=3174302U&amp;KC=U&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=20120315&amp;DB=&amp;locale=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58347" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20143" RevisionGUID="14897a31-e87c-412f-8212-c0d07652210f" CreationDate="2019-12-01T01:02:25.440" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20966" RevisionGUID="14be559f-520c-49e6-80fe-e266da1efdf2" CreationDate="2019-12-01T15:13:03.527" UserId="22611" Text="a tool, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;an X, having an X 1 edge, an X 2 edge, an X first face, an X-second face, an X distal end, an X proximal end attachable to a handle; and&#xD;&#xA;a Z guide marking on the X first face that is relative to a line parallel to the X 1 edge. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The legal writings speak so much of the semicolons it makes me afraid of commas. &#xD;&#xA;What is the effect of using commas in this example?  It seemed appropriate for commas because it was a description of X as opposed to separate elements. How does that change the limits of the claim? Would semicolons instead be better or wrong? &#xD;&#xA;Note, I did use a semicolon before the and. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, If I left out the X 2 edge from this list using commas, does that mean there is no X 2 edge, or can I still describe an X 2 edge in the specification? &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Are there any other issues with the claim? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58349" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20966" RevisionGUID="14be559f-520c-49e6-80fe-e266da1efdf2" CreationDate="2019-12-01T15:13:03.527" UserId="22611" Text="What is the meaning commas in a claim? Do commas limit the list?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58350" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20966" RevisionGUID="14be559f-520c-49e6-80fe-e266da1efdf2" CreationDate="2019-12-01T15:13:03.527" UserId="22611" Text="&lt;claim-construction&gt;&lt;utility-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20967" RevisionGUID="01e48fdb-5428-4b58-a3eb-d0d2baf0bd5a" CreationDate="2019-12-01T21:25:00.740" UserId="3076" Text="&gt; a tool, comprising: an X, having an X 1 edge, an X 2 edge, an X first face, an X-second face, an X distal end, an X proximal end attachable to a handle; and a Z guide marking on the X first face that is relative to a line parallel to the X 1 edge. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The semicolon is not separating a second element. The tool only has one element, an X. Every thing else is defining what an X is. Therefore I would change the semicolon to a comma. A more important issue with the claim is that, in my opinion, it may be indefinite since we do not know what &quot;relative to&quot; means. It is aligned with, just above, just below, to the left, to the right, etc. of the a line parallel to the X1 edge? Unless it is an actual printed line, &quot;parallel to the X1 edge&quot; is equivalent and clearer. If the X1 edge is not straight, then &quot;a line parallel to&quot; it is indefinite, it is is straight, the &quot;line&quot; construct is not needed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20967" RevisionGUID="a0d01db8-8b71-483b-a7bf-f1622d79b806" CreationDate="2019-12-01T23:35:10.140" UserId="3076" Comment="added 249 characters in body" Text="&gt; a tool, comprising: an X, having an X 1 edge, an X 2 edge, an X first face, an X-second face, an X distal end, an X proximal end attachable to a handle; and a Z guide marking on the X first face that is relative to a line parallel to the X 1 edge. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The semicolon is not separating a second element. The tool only has one element, an X. Every thing else is defining what an X is. Therefore I would change the semicolon to a comma. A more important issue with the claim is that, in my opinion, it may be indefinite since we do not know what &quot;relative to&quot; means. It is aligned with, just above, just below, to the left, to the right, etc. of the a line parallel to the X1 edge? Unless it is an actual printed line, &quot;parallel to the X1 edge&quot; is equivalent and clearer. If the X1 edge is not straight, then &quot;a line parallel to&quot; it is indefinite, it is is straight, the &quot;line&quot; construct is not needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Separately, whatever the Z-guide is, your claim requires it - that means that if someone made a tool that otherwise fit your claim but did not have that mark, it would not infringe. It might be a good idea to look up printed matter in Wikipedia." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20967" RevisionGUID="ae19c35e-8bd8-454e-89a2-a0046824fbbd" CreationDate="2019-12-02T06:01:08.910" UserId="3076" Comment="answered second question" Text="&gt; a tool, comprising: an X, having an X 1 edge, an X 2 edge, an X first face, an X-second face, an X distal end, an X proximal end attachable to a handle; and a Z guide marking on the X first face that is relative to a line parallel to the X 1 edge. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The semicolon is not separating a second element. The tool only has one element, an X. Every thing else is defining what an X is. Therefore I would change the semicolon to a comma. A more important issue with the claim is that, in my opinion, it may be indefinite since we do not know what &quot;relative to&quot; means. It is aligned with, just above, just below, to the left, to the right, etc. of the a line parallel to the X1 edge? Unless it is an actual printed line, &quot;parallel to the X1 edge&quot; is equivalent and clearer. If the X1 edge is not straight, then &quot;a line parallel to&quot; it is indefinite, it is is straight, the &quot;line&quot; construct is not needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Separately, whatever the Z-guide is, your claim requires it - that means that if someone made a tool that otherwise fit your claim but did not have that mark, it would not infringe. It might be a good idea to look up printed matter in Wikipedia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the secind question, leaving something out of a claim does not mean it might not be present, it means it doesn't need to be present in order to infringe. If this is your broadest claim only include things you need to achieve patentablity. Other things can be added in dependent claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume this claim goes on to define what the various edges and faces are and how they relate to each other, otherwise it is very indefinite." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20968" RevisionGUID="bf3de28b-b209-466c-bd99-514448b57cf3" CreationDate="2019-12-02T11:49:12.020" UserId="22611" Text="If in the first independent claim I say &quot;an X comprising at least one guide **mark** on the first side&quot; &#xD;&#xA;can I then say in a following dependent claim &quot;the guide **marks** are also on the second side&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;Does the &quot;mark&quot; becoming &quot;marks&quot; screw up the antecedent flow, or is it okay to jump to a plural spelling of the word.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58355" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20968" RevisionGUID="bf3de28b-b209-466c-bd99-514448b57cf3" CreationDate="2019-12-02T11:49:12.020" UserId="22611" Text="Is a singular word spelling a different word than a plural spelling, therefore screwing up antecedent flow?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58356" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20968" RevisionGUID="bf3de28b-b209-466c-bd99-514448b57cf3" CreationDate="2019-12-02T11:49:12.020" UserId="22611" Text="&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20970" RevisionGUID="9242b38c-b3b5-4885-aa63-b612f55b674a" CreationDate="2019-12-02T17:32:16.397" UserId="22646" Text="Yes, 'marks' lack antecedent basis. You have positively declared one mark, with the possibility of more marks*. Your dependent claim must introduce additional marks if you want to switch to the plural. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How you go about it is up to you and the rest of the claim language. One possibility is 'at least a first guide mark' in the independent claim, with a dependent declaring 'at least a second guide mark on the second side'&#xD;&#xA;If you're declaring the location of all the guide marks, you can follow Eric Shain's comment, and say 'the one or more guide marks are on the second side'. But you may be limited in describing how one mark relates to another mark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* As a side note, while many practitioners prefer the 'one or more' (or 'at least one') the courts have said that 'a'/'an' does not mean only single element (as long as the claim is open-ended (i.e. a the preamble says 'comprising'). So if you have 'a guide mark' and an competitor has two guide marks, they infringe on your claim. See *Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., No. 07-1262 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 15, 2008)* described in more detail at https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b7cca4cf-1482-4df3-9ba1-5d8e9770e923" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20955" RevisionGUID="a502fcba-86f3-4241-85df-e50ba85cfc0d" CreationDate="2019-12-04T03:37:03.047" UserId="22351" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="After some digging I found two references in issued patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    · U.S. Patent 10,492,242, Wegmann, et al., Claim 20&#xD;&#xA;    · U.S. Patent 10,492,208, Petersson, et al., Claim 12&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of these patents claim computer readable medium and include a method of another claim by a reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say those are Williamson style claims and they are pretty clear when an infringement occurs and they don't mix product and method but rather define a product which has a specific function.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the claims are clearly dependent as they include all the elements of another claim by a reference and the word &quot;comprising&quot; by itself does not define whether the claim is dependent or independent. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20973" RevisionGUID="720fd996-5ddf-446b-a027-ad0f67955215" CreationDate="2019-12-04T05:46:23.590" UserId="22662" Text="In the US and EP, if an unnecessary inventor who has not contributed to the invention at all is listed as one of the inventors, can it be invalidated, challenged, or restricted exercise?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, all but the unnecessary inventors are true inventors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, let me know if I can prove that the unnecessary inventor was deliberately listed, will the answer change?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58374" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20973" RevisionGUID="720fd996-5ddf-446b-a027-ad0f67955215" CreationDate="2019-12-04T05:46:23.590" UserId="22662" Text="When an unnecessary inventor is listed in EP &amp; US patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58375" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20973" RevisionGUID="720fd996-5ddf-446b-a027-ad0f67955215" CreationDate="2019-12-04T05:46:23.590" UserId="22662" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;inventor&gt;&lt;enforcement&gt;&lt;validation&gt;&lt;oppsition&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20974" RevisionGUID="9ea1f014-4716-4238-8f16-b229badee24f" CreationDate="2019-12-04T08:40:19.993" UserId="8751" Text="Some international e-commerce platforms have an Intellectual property platform for registering complaints. For example, see Alibaba's Aliprotect (I think now called IPP). One can register infringement complaints (for any form of IP) against an allegedly infringing product being sold on their platform. However, I suspect that trademarks and copyright may be easier for the platform to evaluate as compared to patent infringement cases - given the nature of complexity in evaluating patent infringement. &#xD;&#xA;https://ipp.alibabagroup.com/complaint/onlineForm/online.htm &#xD;&#xA;https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2018/si/article_0006.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20976" RevisionGUID="db065ac8-8f96-41d7-a02f-3c057bb0739f" CreationDate="2019-12-04T15:34:26.927" UserId="6121" Text="I have a PCT application that has around 250 claims. It's an omnibus application that covers multiple inventions. Listed all claims just for provisional protection. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I go for national/regional stage, say EPO for example, do I have to file the EPO application using my PCT application as exactly filed? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean do I have to pay fees for all 250 claims when entering EPO?  Or I can add/remove claims before entering national/regional stage?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58381" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20976" RevisionGUID="db065ac8-8f96-41d7-a02f-3c057bb0739f" CreationDate="2019-12-04T15:34:26.927" UserId="6121" Text="Is national/regional stage filing requires PCT application as filed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58382" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20976" RevisionGUID="db065ac8-8f96-41d7-a02f-3c057bb0739f" CreationDate="2019-12-04T15:34:26.927" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20977" RevisionGUID="2b561ff7-976e-4a64-9d66-1e8fd8311e11" CreationDate="2019-12-04T15:37:15.867" UserId="6121" Text="If I amend my claims after normal publication (18 months), I believe my application will get republished again with amended claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How long that process would take?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58384" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20977" RevisionGUID="2b561ff7-976e-4a64-9d66-1e8fd8311e11" CreationDate="2019-12-04T15:37:15.867" UserId="6121" Text="How long it would take for a USPTO application to get republished?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58385" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20977" RevisionGUID="2b561ff7-976e-4a64-9d66-1e8fd8311e11" CreationDate="2019-12-04T15:37:15.867" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;claim-amendment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20978" RevisionGUID="fa967db3-7ce7-4c18-bf77-c80698ef77e1" CreationDate="2019-12-04T15:53:42.917" UserId="3076" Text="No - you can amend the claims as you enter the EPO and other places. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20979" RevisionGUID="43fe8424-284b-452b-b15a-411fafd2d4fc" CreationDate="2019-12-04T17:33:02.300" UserId="22664" Text="Non provisional patent applications are published 18 months from the effective filing date - You may request to publish earlier than that. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20980" RevisionGUID="c9a16ca5-169b-482a-8ace-fe1b0a10ec84" CreationDate="2019-12-04T18:55:22.947" UserId="22646" Text="Your application will NOT be republished. The amended claims will be added to the applications file history (called the 'Image File Wrapper' in both Public PAIR and Private PAIR), almost always the same day as they are received. The amended claims are view-able as submitted, and are not incorporated into the body of the application in any way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Patent Office will also publish the application with all of the amendments in its final form once the application issues into a Granted Patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you would really like to republish an application before Issuance, according to [MPEP 1130(I)][1] the Patent Office will republish amended applications if you request it along with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The amended application&#xD;&#xA; 2. A publication fee of $300&#xD;&#xA; 3. A processing fee (between $70 and $140)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1130.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20981" RevisionGUID="a707dc29-2d9a-404d-8315-5874ecc50618" CreationDate="2019-12-04T19:56:53.510" UserId="22334" Text="Not in Europe. Inventors have the right to be mentioned in the applications and patents, but it does not get any further than that. In fact it is possible to correct a deficient designation of inventors (some provisions apply), and I would say that said correction is possible even after the patent has been granted but I am not entirely sure. Something else is that the applicant/patentee is not entitled to the grant of a European patent, that may affect the validity of the patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20982" RevisionGUID="aa5d7ebd-8c9b-468c-beaa-dc0eed6fb42d" CreationDate="2019-12-04T20:42:51.933" UserId="15489" Text="I have an application that is now on its fifth rejection. In some cases, I have made amendments in light of the prior art, and in all cases, I have presented rebuttals for arguments raised by the examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two main earlier patents presented as the core for the 103 rejections, but all but the first rejection subsequently rely on new patents or applications that are introduced for the first time in each rejection. Each rejection also starts with the phrase &quot;The applicant's arguments have been fully considered ... but are moot in view of the following new ground of rejection.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result, I am now up to seven items in the prior art list (but in any one rejection only the core two and one new item are used).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a point at which you can say, &quot;You've had X shots - now you're out of bullets&quot; or can this process go on forever? Or in other words, when can you argue that there are so many different 103 rejections with so many different prior art materials that surely the invention is not obvious?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any other advice on how to end this (other than abandonment)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58391" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20982" RevisionGUID="aa5d7ebd-8c9b-468c-beaa-dc0eed6fb42d" CreationDate="2019-12-04T20:42:51.933" UserId="15489" Text="Repeated rejections with new prior art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58392" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20982" RevisionGUID="aa5d7ebd-8c9b-468c-beaa-dc0eed6fb42d" CreationDate="2019-12-04T20:42:51.933" UserId="15489" Text="&lt;obviousness&gt;&lt;rejection&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20983" RevisionGUID="6b255f2b-a16f-4d0e-a402-84bf760684e9" CreationDate="2019-12-04T21:47:18.033" UserId="3076" Text="There is something called &quot;compact prosecution&quot; that encourages examiners to reject on all grounds in the first office action rather than come up with new references as the case proceeds. However, if some element mentioned in the specification is not initially in a claim then a reference that shows that element as old clearly does not belong in a rejection. If you keep amending to add new limitation to a claim, the examiner needs to keep searching to see if that new limitation is novel or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prosecuting a patent application can often be frustrating and is not always successful. As an alternative I recommend not trying to do it yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20984" RevisionGUID="b1fee700-b447-48f8-a1b2-bb2cf889ce01" CreationDate="2019-12-04T21:58:07.667" UserId="3076" Text="Inventorship is important in the U.S. Anyone who makes a conceptual contribution that ends up in a claim is a proper inventor.  It is not always easy to decide who is an inventor. One of the reasons inventorship is important is that, absent assignments, each inventor has an undivided, separate right to the invention with no need to coordinate or split money with the others. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also important becasue the validity of the patent can be attacked for incorrect inventorship. Until the AIA law went into effect, patents could be invalidated for incorrect inventorship because to correct inventorship required sworn statements under penalty of perjury from various people that the error in naming inventors was  made &quot;without deceptive intent&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the AIA, that requirement is gone so the list of inventors can be fixed, even in the middle of an infringement lawsuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20984" RevisionGUID="58259005-beee-45ae-8ff3-d2b9feadb410" CreationDate="2019-12-05T00:49:02.163" UserId="3076" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="It is not clear what you mean by an &quot;unnecessary inventor&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Inventorship is important in the U.S. Anyone who makes a conceptual contribution that ends up in a claim is a proper inventor.  It is not always easy to decide who is an inventor. One of the reasons inventorship is important is that, absent assignments, each inventor has an undivided, separate right to the invention with no need to coordinate or split money with the others. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also important becasue the validity of the patent can be attacked for incorrect inventorship. Until the AIA law went into effect, patents could be invalidated for incorrect inventorship because to correct inventorship required sworn statements under penalty of perjury from various people that the error in naming inventors was  made &quot;without deceptive intent&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the AIA, that requirement is gone so the list of inventors can be fixed, even in the middle of an infringement lawsuit without worrying about perjury.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20985" RevisionGUID="d4b11fb5-7ed8-452b-9fa6-6e34430f149f" CreationDate="2019-12-06T11:55:03.227" UserId="22668" Text="A theorethical patent situation: &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Claims include: &#xD;&#xA;1. A machine comprising device type A and device type B arranged to achieve X.&#xD;&#xA;2. A machine according to claim 1 in which device type A is an M.&#xD;&#xA;3. A machine according to claim 1 in which device type A is an N.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The device types A and B are known, the combination is not. Implementations of A as M, N and O are alredy known. In the patent description we describe embodiments of A as M, N and O. O is not included in the claims. O is feasible, but probably not a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is whether I understand the implications correctly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Clearly there is not, independently, protection for implementing A as O.&#xD;&#xA;2) An implementation of a machine to achieve X using O and B would be an infringement of claim 1, because O is a device type A.&#xD;&#xA;3) Someone else cannot patent the implementation with O; it is now known. (In the unlikely event the inventor wants to use it.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) What is the advantage of the dependent claims of A as an M or N? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58397" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20985" RevisionGUID="d4b11fb5-7ed8-452b-9fa6-6e34430f149f" CreationDate="2019-12-06T11:55:03.227" UserId="22668" Text="Legal implications of description vs claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58398" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20985" RevisionGUID="d4b11fb5-7ed8-452b-9fa6-6e34430f149f" CreationDate="2019-12-06T11:55:03.227" UserId="22668" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;description&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6334" RevisionGUID="9c387f4c-4da9-4d34-a41e-f5b0c086f390" CreationDate="2019-12-06T15:03:56.387" UserId="8189" Comment="added 159 characters in body" Text="Without having a clear idea of what kind of product, and what kind of design/format/shape we're talking about, I think it depends on two things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether there is a way of protection that is applicable for your case;&#xD;&#xA;That may be patents, but also something like protection of a brand, or a design (as in a logo).  &#xD;&#xA;A tape could be a single sided sticky tape with a specific kind of chemical or physical glue, but also a digital recording tape for a kind of data backup recorder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, you need to find out whether the change you make from the common existing product is relevant enough for the kind of protection to apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After clarifying this, there is a lot more to do of course; Like deciding in which countries you want to protect it, and doing the above again for each country (or possibly larger area, eg. EU).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20986" RevisionGUID="718e1b56-a297-46a6-b765-8cb5ed0e28f9" CreationDate="2019-12-06T16:32:41.440" UserId="3076" Text="Dependent  claims serve a few purposes. One is as a fallback in case the broader independent claim is rejected during prosecution or more importantly during enforcement. Another is a concern that the broader claim might be hard to grasp but the dependent claim hits you over the head in a case that is likely to occur. There is also something called claim differentiation. It holds that since dependent claims necessarily narrow the claim they depend upon some meaning broader than what is spelled out in the dependent is implied. In your example we know that A doesn’t need to be an M or else the dependent claim would be superfluous." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20987" RevisionGUID="03207f31-4f48-4ba0-acb6-baf5cc14ade5" CreationDate="2019-12-06T16:38:29.763" UserId="3076" Text="The shape can be the subject of a design patent. Unless there was a significant similarity in the designs it might be 50 design patent applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20987" RevisionGUID="0d23b339-e7fe-4882-a1d9-ce9d3da20dfe" CreationDate="2019-12-06T16:59:58.143" UserId="3076" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="The shape can be the subject of a design patent. Unless there was a significant similarity in the designs it might be 50 design patent applications. Size is not relevant except of course the width in relation to any edge design is part of the design." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20986" RevisionGUID="58715dfc-e3c1-4822-9624-947760764169" CreationDate="2019-12-06T17:02:17.047" UserId="3076" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="Dependent  claims serve a few purposes. One is as a fallback in case the broader independent claim is rejected during prosecution or more importantly during enforcement. Another is a concern that the broader claim might be hard to grasp but the dependent claim hits you over the head in a case that is likely to occur. There is also something called claim differentiation. It holds that since dependent claims necessarily narrow the claim they depend upon some meaning broader than what is spelled out in the dependent is implied. In your example we know that A doesn’t need to be an M or else the dependent claim would be superfluous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A as any type of A (O for example) is protected by the independent claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20986" RevisionGUID="04aa824b-55bc-414c-9208-8805acc501f0" CreationDate="2019-12-06T17:08:54.840" UserId="3076" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="Dependent  claims serve a few purposes. One is as a fallback in case the broader independent claim is rejected during prosecution or more importantly during enforcement. Another is a concern that the broader claim might be hard to grasp but the dependent claim hits you over the head in a case that is likely to occur. There is also something called claim differentiation. It holds that since dependent claims necessarily narrow the claim they depend upon some meaning broader than what is spelled out in the dependent is implied. In your example we know that A doesn’t need to be an M or else the dependent claim would be superfluous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A, as any type of A (O for example) is protected by the independent claim. And your inclusion of A as O in the description means no one should be able to patent the special case of A as an O. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not part of your question but “to achieve X” might not fly as is. Claims to devices typically define the structure of the device, not what the structure achieves. A subtly different “the coupling such that the action X occurs when A is turned” or something that makes it clear that the “archiving X” is part of a structural definition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20986" RevisionGUID="46fe8057-f613-4205-985a-c1132e300c36" CreationDate="2019-12-06T17:19:29.310" UserId="3076" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="Dependent  claims serve a few purposes. One is as a fallback in case the broader independent claim is rejected during prosecution or more importantly during enforcement. Another is a concern that the broader claim might be hard to grasp but the dependent claim hits you over the head in a case that is likely to occur. There is also something called claim differentiation. It holds that since dependent claims necessarily narrow the claim they depend upon some meaning broader than what is spelled out in the dependent is implied. In your example we know that A doesn’t need to be an M or else the dependent claim would be superfluous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A, as any type of A (O for example) is protected by the independent claim. And your inclusion of A as O in the description means no one should be able to patent the special case of A as an O. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not part of your question but “to achieve X” might not fly as is. Claims to devices typically define the structure of the device, not what the structure achieves. A subtly different “the coupling such that the action X occurs when A is turned” or something that makes it clear that the “archiving X” is part of a structural definition. “so configured such that X is achieved” also is a functional way to define a structure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20988" RevisionGUID="0f78e0c8-2907-4859-920c-39e822cdbdc5" CreationDate="2019-12-07T00:06:04.777" UserId="22670" Text="I'm trying to fill out the electronic verification form to get an EFS account. https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Patent%20Electronic%20System%20Form.pdf &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the very end of the doc, it says MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: what does that mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58407" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20988" RevisionGUID="0f78e0c8-2907-4859-920c-39e822cdbdc5" CreationDate="2019-12-07T00:06:04.777" UserId="22670" Text="What is meant by MY COMMISSION EXPIRES?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58408" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20988" RevisionGUID="0f78e0c8-2907-4859-920c-39e822cdbdc5" CreationDate="2019-12-07T00:06:04.777" UserId="22670" Text="&lt;forms&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20989" RevisionGUID="fc58cc70-9e61-4800-bbb7-cf251a87bb21" CreationDate="2019-12-07T01:32:37.463" UserId="3076" Text="The bottom portion is for a notary public to stamp, certifying that the signature belongs to who it purports to belong to. They are the ones with a commission that will expire at some point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58410" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="172f269c-59b5-4ab1-bab9-4246597f304c" CreationDate="2019-12-07T06:02:30.340" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58411" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16336" RevisionGUID="808968aa-fef3-44c8-90e1-5a50a684faaa" CreationDate="2019-12-07T10:02:35.457" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20990" RevisionGUID="94c62210-df0c-489a-8ccf-035ac4b5d279" CreationDate="2019-12-07T13:17:09.887" UserId="6121" Text="I understand &quot;novel&quot; means all features of the claim are described in a single document. However, I don't understand the meaning of &quot;feature&quot; here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have 5 wherein clauses in my claim. Each and every wherein clause when considered as a whole feature, not found in the prior art. But, If partial match applied then it exists in the document. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, one of my wherein clause needs a list of items for purpose X. Whereas prior art teaches a list of items for purpose Y.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's just say, I have the following claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;          list of items;&#xD;&#xA;          purpose X;&#xD;&#xA;          purpose Y;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Wherein list of items is required for purpose X;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does that mean, my invention lacks novelty here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: I understand the claim lacks &quot;non-obviousness&quot;. But my concern here is &quot;novelty&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58413" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20990" RevisionGUID="94c62210-df0c-489a-8ccf-035ac4b5d279" CreationDate="2019-12-07T13:17:09.887" UserId="6121" Text="How exactly novelty works?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58414" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20990" RevisionGUID="94c62210-df0c-489a-8ccf-035ac4b5d279" CreationDate="2019-12-07T13:17:09.887" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20991" RevisionGUID="1737aebe-69d2-4ba4-a98e-175a7f62080d" CreationDate="2019-12-07T13:36:59.570" UserId="22611" Text="In a utility patent, are there particular good practice rules regarding depicting an invention being used on a workpiece? Should or can the lines of the workpiece be heavier, lighter, solid, broken, or whatever is most clear? Should showing the invention in action on a workpiece be avoid for any reason, or perhaps held to just a few figures? I believe it adds significantly to the clarity, yet most tool patents I have seen do not show a workpiece; is there a reason?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58416" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20991" RevisionGUID="1737aebe-69d2-4ba4-a98e-175a7f62080d" CreationDate="2019-12-07T13:36:59.570" UserId="22611" Text="Drawings &amp; workpiece: What is good practice for showing or not showing an invention in use on a workpiece in a utility patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58417" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20991" RevisionGUID="1737aebe-69d2-4ba4-a98e-175a7f62080d" CreationDate="2019-12-07T13:36:59.570" UserId="22611" Text="&lt;patent-drawings&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20992" RevisionGUID="a093dc15-e95e-4154-8b6e-7f2b703b2195" CreationDate="2019-12-07T18:42:45.143" UserId="22334" Text="I have trouble understanding your example. What is &quot;list of items&quot; and what is &quot;purpose *&quot;? In a method you usually define a set of steps, and perhaps some additional features that are not steps. Not sure what you mean by partial match either. I will try to answer your question anyway, but I may update my answer if you clarify these parts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If &quot;purpose X&quot; is nothing else than a consequence of the &quot;list of items&quot;, then it does not matter that the prior art reference is silent regarding &quot;purpose X&quot;, it discloses the &quot;list of items&quot; and &quot;purpose X&quot; is inherently there. Should this be the situation you are presenting, then yes, you claimed invention lacks novelty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, your question concerns novelty, and you stated this: *&quot;I understand &quot;novel&quot; means all features of the claim are described in a single document.&quot;* I do not know the particularities of the US patent system, but at least in other patent systems your statement is not true. Something is novel if all the claimed features are not described in a single **embodiment** of a prior art reference. Even though I say that I do not know the details about this in the US patent system, I have overcome novelty objections with that remark, but I am not sure if I fooled the examiner or if that is actually correct in the US system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About that, a silly example: I can disclose (in a same patent application) a first aspect of the invention relating to a motorbike comprising a battery for starting an electrical engine, and a second aspect of the invention relating to a car comprising an electrical engine. I did not say anything in the application that the battery could be used in the car as well. Now you claim in your application a car comprising an electrical engine and a battery for starting an electrical engine. Is your car novel over my disclosure? Yes, it is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mentioned *&quot;a single document&quot;*, but your invention may also be not novel over two documents. Another example: I have a subsequent patent application where I disclose just one aspect of the invention that relates to a car comprising a spoiler in the back shaped such that it provides increased downforce for better grip. Somewhere in the description I state, the car comprises a diesel engine, or can be a car as in patent application US2010****** (which is the one from my previous example). Now you claim a car comprising an electrical engine and the same spoiler of my application. Is your car novel over my second patent application? No, it is not, my second patent application discloses such car even if it does not read &quot;electrical engine&quot; anywhere in the document itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20993" RevisionGUID="fb0209b7-a0fc-4240-b7dd-e13bb6733281" CreationDate="2019-12-07T18:53:54.500" UserId="22334" Text="I guess you can find a wide range of opinions about this matter. My opinion is that you should provide as many drawings as necessary to at least properly describe the main embodiments you may claim at some point. The text description is very important for support and sufficiency/enablement, but sometimes it is quite complex to capture the gist of the invention or particular details using text alone; or you forget to describe some features because they seem obvious to you but are shown in the drawings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At some point you may have to rely on the drawings to amend the claims in some way, so you better have a good set of drawings to be able to extract features from them. Some patent offices are very picky when it comes to amending the claims using the figures as support, so one should spend some time thinking which details should be shown in the drawings in case you need those later on. In this sense, showing the invention both in isolated manner and during operation may be a good idea for this reason, maybe the features you have to extract from the drawings become apparent only while the device is in use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the type of lines, that very much depends upon the invention. You do not have to stick to the requirements of design patents, and you should just worry about having drawings that are clear and understandable for the skilled person. So in some cases you will provide 2D drawings, 3D drawings, diagrammatical, non-diagrammatical, block diagrams, flowcharts, etc. it really depends on the type of invention and how it works." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20990" RevisionGUID="dc9764a8-2dee-4ebe-8f5d-f331917d207c" CreationDate="2019-12-07T20:38:52.653" UserId="6121" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body" Text="I understand &quot;novel&quot; means all features of the claim are described in a single document. However, I don't understand the meaning of &quot;feature&quot; here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have 5 wherein clauses in my claim. Each and every wherein clause when considered as a whole feature, not found in the prior art. But, If partial match applied then it exists in the document. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, one of my wherein clause needs a list of names for purpose X. Whereas prior art teaches a list of names for purpose Y.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's just say, I have the following claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;          receiving a list of names from a user;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Wherein the list of names is needed for purpose X;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does that mean, my invention lacks novelty here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: I understand the claim lacks &quot;non-obviousness&quot;. But my concern here is &quot;novelty&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20992" RevisionGUID="ad118a95-955a-40d7-8bba-17a8b0c74205" CreationDate="2019-12-07T22:22:27.260" UserId="22334" Comment="Updated answer and removed comment about novelty wrt USPTO " Text="I have trouble understanding your example. What is &quot;list of items&quot; and what is &quot;purpose *&quot;? In a method you usually define a set of steps, and perhaps some additional features that are not steps. Not sure what you mean by partial match either. I will try to answer your question anyway, but I may update my answer if you clarify these parts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If &quot;purpose X&quot; is nothing else than a consequence of the &quot;list of items&quot;, then it does not matter that the prior art reference is silent regarding &quot;purpose X&quot;, it discloses the &quot;list of items&quot; and &quot;purpose X&quot; is inherently there. Should this be the situation you are presenting, then yes, your claimed invention lacks novelty. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you were to draft &quot;purpose X&quot; as a step in your claim, and that one is not explicitly or implicitly disclosed in the prior art reference, and it neither occurs as a consequence of the other features which are disclosed in said reference, then the claim is novel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, your question concerns novelty, and you stated this: *&quot;I understand &quot;novel&quot; means all features of the claim are described in a single document.&quot;* That statement is not correct. Something is novel if all the claimed features are not described in a single **embodiment** of a prior art reference. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About that, a silly example: I can disclose (in a same patent application) a first aspect of the invention relating to a motorbike comprising a battery for starting an electrical engine, and a second aspect of the invention relating to a car comprising an electrical engine. I did not say anything in the application that the battery could be used in the car as well. Now you claim in your application a car comprising an electrical engine and a battery for starting an electrical engine. Is your car novel over my disclosure? Yes, it is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mentioned *&quot;a single document&quot;*, but your invention may also be not novel over two documents. Another example: I have a subsequent patent application where I disclose just one aspect of the invention that relates to a car comprising a spoiler in the back shaped such that it provides increased downforce for better grip. Somewhere in the description I state, the car comprises a diesel engine, or can be a car as in patent application US2010****** (which is the one from my previous example). Now you claim a car comprising an electrical engine and the same spoiler of my application. Is your car novel over my second patent application? No, it is not, my second patent application discloses such car even if it does not read &quot;electrical engine&quot; anywhere in the document itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58422" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20345" RevisionGUID="8ec655be-fbfc-4a51-b441-85854013419d" CreationDate="2019-12-07T23:01:40.210" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20990" RevisionGUID="b146e444-bdf9-4962-a9fc-afd81f735907" CreationDate="2019-12-07T23:22:31.560" UserId="6121" Comment="added 514 characters in body" Text="I understand &quot;novel&quot; means all features of the claim are described in a single document. However, I don't understand the meaning of &quot;feature&quot; here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have 5 wherein clauses in my claim. Each and every wherein clause when considered as a whole feature, not found in the prior art. But, If partial match applied then it exists in the document. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me give you an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A prior art contains two embodiments. One embodiment talks about&#xD;&#xA;&gt; likes.  Another embodiment talks about bookmarks. Both deals with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; URLs. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now the first embodiment says something like this. &quot;When a like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; request is received, the liked URL will be compared against a list of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; blacklisted URLs provided by user. If the URL exists, then Like will&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not be added.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The second embodiment deal with something similar, but for bookmarks.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However it doesn't mention explicitly or inherently about user&#xD;&#xA;&gt; provided blacklisted URLs.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now my claim deals with a functionality like this. &quot;When a bookmark&#xD;&#xA;&gt; request is received, the bookmarked URL will be compared against a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; list of blacklisted URLs provided by user. If the URL exists, then&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bookmark will bot be added. &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does that mean, my invention lacks novelty here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: I understand the claim lacks &quot;non-obviousness&quot;. But my concern here is &quot;novelty&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58424" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19809" RevisionGUID="b36e1768-af10-455a-9bb1-6bfd4225c9fd" CreationDate="2019-12-08T00:03:15.497" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20994" RevisionGUID="5ca9ca8e-b570-412f-8faf-0872edbff93e" CreationDate="2019-12-08T03:31:15.163" UserId="19232" Text="I have a first OA on a CIP wherein the examiner has rejected claims identical to ones allowed in a related CON (actually granted now), which had a different examiner. (The rejections are not stated to be double-patenting issues.) Should I point out the prior allowance, or should I ignore it and just do the best I can to answer to the rejections?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58426" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20994" RevisionGUID="5ca9ca8e-b570-412f-8faf-0872edbff93e" CreationDate="2019-12-08T03:31:15.163" UserId="19232" Text="Strategies for OA rejections on CIP when same claims allowed by different examiner for a preceding CON" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58427" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20994" RevisionGUID="5ca9ca8e-b570-412f-8faf-0872edbff93e" CreationDate="2019-12-08T03:31:15.163" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;examiner&gt;&lt;rejection&gt;&lt;oa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58428" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20040" RevisionGUID="e1a8b479-ad47-4035-b7f6-d446b65933e6" CreationDate="2019-12-08T04:03:45.537" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58429" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17307" RevisionGUID="8b8b0f92-ef5c-4aa4-9083-bbcc5c4def94" CreationDate="2019-12-08T05:01:35.203" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58430" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17472" RevisionGUID="aa4a6a2c-6831-45c0-bbad-d21ded69b7d8" CreationDate="2019-12-08T09:01:40.200" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58431" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19863" RevisionGUID="3b494ad1-dcce-4239-bc55-a8cc6d2237d9" CreationDate="2019-12-08T12:02:25.233" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20995" RevisionGUID="dfda0532-2a64-48c9-916f-8f1cc6f9d6ad" CreationDate="2019-12-08T15:37:11.183" UserId="22611" Text="Independent claim: comprising: an X attachable to a Y. Does this establish an antecedent existence of Y to where the dependent claim should now say &quot;the Y&quot; or does the dependent claim need to first say &quot;further comprising a Y&quot; to make Y exist as a part of the invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58433" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20995" RevisionGUID="dfda0532-2a64-48c9-916f-8f1cc6f9d6ad" CreationDate="2019-12-08T15:37:11.183" UserId="22611" Text="In independent claim does &quot;attachable to a Y&quot; establish existence for antecedent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58434" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20995" RevisionGUID="dfda0532-2a64-48c9-916f-8f1cc6f9d6ad" CreationDate="2019-12-08T15:37:11.183" UserId="22611" Text="&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58435" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19881" RevisionGUID="be48aef5-630f-4db2-8afe-2379912c0510" CreationDate="2019-12-08T20:01:10.173" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58436" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18242" RevisionGUID="078a46c2-ca36-43b5-bb08-bb7a5bd3062b" CreationDate="2019-12-08T21:02:05.320" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58437" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20013" RevisionGUID="7d689567-d651-4abb-ac61-25e2103b28e1" CreationDate="2019-12-09T01:02:40.373" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20996" RevisionGUID="5d8779b4-17ca-4187-accd-ee32ec2e545a" CreationDate="2019-12-09T02:14:55.660" UserId="19232" Text="First, an explanation of the overall context is needed: A CIP has been filed by a sole inventor (me). After filing, it was decided that another individual probably should have been credited as a co-inventor, due to contribution of an idea that later was incorporated into specs and claims. The inclusion of that co-inventorship has not yet been done, but the 1st OA has been received. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims based on the other person's contributed idea have been challenged as reading on prior art. It is not yet clear if that can be overcome. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If those claims are ultimately dropped, there will still be references to that concept in the CIP's specs – it just won't be part of any claim. In this scenario, is the question of post-application inclusion of the other person as an inventor now moot?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58439" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20996" RevisionGUID="5d8779b4-17ca-4187-accd-ee32ec2e545a" CreationDate="2019-12-09T02:14:55.660" UserId="19232" Text="Co-inventorship when claims based on the contributing inventor's concepts are dropped during prosecution" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58440" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20996" RevisionGUID="5d8779b4-17ca-4187-accd-ee32ec2e545a" CreationDate="2019-12-09T02:14:55.660" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;continuation-in-part&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20997" RevisionGUID="2edd3d35-f159-487a-80cd-d5980ca73290" CreationDate="2019-12-09T04:39:40.137" UserId="3076" Text="It isn’t moot - it would be positively improper to add them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20998" RevisionGUID="2c17a4df-42ff-4aef-93dd-a22177f220a6" CreationDate="2019-12-09T12:44:33.763" UserId="6121" Text="Let's say my patent has 5 independent method claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can all these claims have the same preamble?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. `A method for doing X, the method comprising:` " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58443" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20998" RevisionGUID="2c17a4df-42ff-4aef-93dd-a22177f220a6" CreationDate="2019-12-09T12:44:33.763" UserId="6121" Text="Can the preamble be same for all independent claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58444" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20998" RevisionGUID="2c17a4df-42ff-4aef-93dd-a22177f220a6" CreationDate="2019-12-09T12:44:33.763" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20999" RevisionGUID="f0bcf93c-4f8d-4ece-bad2-729f54996bbc" CreationDate="2019-12-09T15:40:08.817" UserId="3076" Text="There is nothing wrong with being boring in writing claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21000" RevisionGUID="2f548788-d697-4bf5-8887-5e36d0986997" CreationDate="2019-12-09T18:24:20.913" UserId="6121" Text="At the moment I'm manually entering the application number and reading the contents of image file wrapper in USPTO public pair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a website where all USPTO application's image file wrapper content is indexed. So I can perform a full text search?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm more interested in office actions and applicant arguments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58447" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21000" RevisionGUID="2f548788-d697-4bf5-8887-5e36d0986997" CreationDate="2019-12-09T18:24:20.913" UserId="6121" Text="Is there a way to do full text search in uspto image file wrapper?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58448" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21000" RevisionGUID="2f548788-d697-4bf5-8887-5e36d0986997" CreationDate="2019-12-09T18:24:20.913" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20997" RevisionGUID="0d80618e-0ab9-448c-8ffc-5f67cf277509" CreationDate="2019-12-09T19:30:01.537" UserId="3076" Comment="added 279 characters in body" Text="It isn’t moot - it would be positively improper to add them. In the U.S. an inventor is someone who makes a conceptual contribution to something in a claim. Someone might be an inventor in a divisional but not the parent application, for example, if the they contributed conceptually to something claimed in the divisional, not the parent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21001" RevisionGUID="a437109d-8125-4ac9-a6f8-a1fb9b056417" CreationDate="2019-12-09T21:29:29.950" UserId="22351" Text="After discussion with the supervisor here is the final answer in this specific case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Supervisor agreed with the examiner that the claim should be rejected but for a different reason. Supervisor stated that the system claim structured like this is not a dependent claim because the system could be infringed without performing the steps of the method.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So structuring a system to perform the method is not equal to performing the method.&#xD;&#xA;An interesting nuance which may help other people to understand and avoid this kind of rejection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20014" RevisionGUID="ef8c261e-25bd-422e-b4cb-06e1abc39d7c" CreationDate="2019-12-09T21:48:14.480" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="If you are actually buying the products from the manufacturer that owns the IP, I doubt you have an issue with infringement. That said, it is quite possible that the manufacturer would not allow the use of their product for an unintended purpose. This might be quite reasonable if, for example, there were a risk of injuring someone it would expose them to potential liability. Your best bet, is to simply ask the manufacturers whether they are willing to sell to you. Since your product entails additional sales they very well might be willing to work with you. Such arrangements are advantageous since you might be able to obtain volume discounts and can avoid paying for and discarding packaging. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because the manufacturer is US based doesn't mean they don't also have patents in other countries so manufacturing their products in other countries does risk infringing on patents. To know if this is an issue really requires a legal opinion which you can't get from posting abstract questions on the internet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21004" RevisionGUID="1ab686e4-9da7-4129-8e87-2564b41ceb14" CreationDate="2019-12-11T15:18:03.567" UserId="22646" Text="To Part 1: Yes it is acceptable to add an ordered list as long as the claim is written clearly, and the claim follows the rules for claim writing (so no ‘a. b. c.’ that would add periods within the claim and is a no-no). It is fairly common to present ordered lists in method claims, and [MPEP 2173.05(h)][1] states that for Markush groups “Alternative expressions are permitted if they present no uncertainty or ambiguity with respect to the question of scope or clarity of the claims”. That would be your support for adding an ordered list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To Part 2: Yes, ‘combinations thereof’ or ‘mixtures thereof’ should be both in the Markush Group claim as well as described in the specification if you want the claim to expressly cover combinations. If the specification doesn’t disclose or teach towards combinations, the claim cannot be construed to include combinations after the fact, as the Federal Circuit Court found in Abbott Labs. v. Baxter Pharm. Prods., Inc., 334 F.3d 1274, 1280-81 (Fed. Cir. 2003). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, if the spec does include discuss combinations or mixtures then a Markush group claim without the expressly written ‘combinations thereof’ can be construed as including combinations – BUT best practices would be to include it expressly in the claim before an infringement lawsuit goes to court. The relevant case law is Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp., Nos. 2015-1420, -1477 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 4, 2016) at 21.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2173.html#d0e218467" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21005" RevisionGUID="2de63fd7-c616-4d64-bbd2-f37384501f26" CreationDate="2019-12-11T15:40:34.777" UserId="22685" Text="Suppose I own a patent that has not expired.  How do I legally and reliably transfer it to the public domain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58462" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21005" RevisionGUID="2de63fd7-c616-4d64-bbd2-f37384501f26" CreationDate="2019-12-11T15:40:34.777" UserId="22685" Text="How to release an existing patent into the public domain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58463" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21005" RevisionGUID="2de63fd7-c616-4d64-bbd2-f37384501f26" CreationDate="2019-12-11T15:40:34.777" UserId="22685" Text="&lt;public-domain&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21006" RevisionGUID="416eaf17-6f09-40a6-a96f-712cf0028ecf" CreationDate="2019-12-11T19:21:47.380" UserId="17003" Text="I really know nothing about this. However after a bit of searching I did find the concept of &quot;Patentleft&quot; which seems to be an open source license for patents. [Here is the Wikipedia page][1] which is unfortunately brief.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentleft" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21006" RevisionGUID="6cc65e64-428d-459a-b2be-671a3cb40644" CreationDate="2019-12-11T19:28:51.290" UserId="17003" Comment="added 260 characters in body" Text="I really know nothing about this. However after a bit of searching I did find the concept of &quot;Patentleft&quot; which seems to be an open source license for patents. [Here is the Wikipedia page][1] which is unfortunately brief. I also found the [Open Invention Network][2] which seems to be targeting patents related to Linux specifically. Lastly, [this paper][3] seems particularly relevant but is too long to summarize here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentleft&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.openinventionnetwork.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6701788/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21007" RevisionGUID="8c5b68ac-3b3f-464c-843f-b6db841304a1" CreationDate="2019-12-11T19:36:07.290" UserId="18033" Text="You dont pay the fees and let it lapse or explicitly abandon it. Why would you pay for a *right to forbid others from using your invention* if that's not what you want to do? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="824" RevisionGUID="56afcd34-31c6-4611-8a46-ca91d4b689be" CreationDate="2019-12-11T19:40:05.020" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed link to Research Disclosure" Text="Research Disclosure have been offering this kind of defensive publication service for a long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Research Disclosure is included in the PCT minimum documentation list, the major patent authorities are required to search the archive when examining patent applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a paid service but if you're looking to create an effective block against future patents it's a good solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 min intro to defensive publication strategy :: [vimeo.com/questel/defensivepublication][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;website :: [researchdisclosure.com][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://vimeo.com/questel/defensivepublication&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.researchdisclosure.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21008" RevisionGUID="08e4687a-fd26-45ab-a4a9-a6165d25a4ca" CreationDate="2019-12-11T20:30:06.340" UserId="6121" Text="My speciation contains terms like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The term &quot;Service&quot; means ....&#xD;&#xA;    The term &quot;Service Administrator&quot; means ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have already filed my application. At the moment I'm amending my claims. I think I can't make changes to my specification. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I word claim like `a service by a service administrator`, the term &quot;a service&quot; appear twice. So it's kind of confusing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanna add hyphens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the claim would read like this. `a service by a service-administrator`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will there be any problem if I use the term that's inconsistent with my specification?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58470" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21008" RevisionGUID="08e4687a-fd26-45ab-a4a9-a6165d25a4ca" CreationDate="2019-12-11T20:30:06.340" UserId="6121" Text="Can one use inconsistent terms in the claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58471" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21008" RevisionGUID="08e4687a-fd26-45ab-a4a9-a6165d25a4ca" CreationDate="2019-12-11T20:30:06.340" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21014" RevisionGUID="cd629154-c8ae-4407-ba73-dd8db5438cab" CreationDate="2019-12-12T06:38:17.637" UserId="22334" Text="I do not see any problem in &quot;a service is a service administrator&quot;. If you feel like then referring to &quot;the service administrator&quot; is confusing due to the term &quot;service&quot;, then say &quot;the administrator&quot;. Unless the examiner is very picky, it is understood that &quot;the administrator&quot; refers to the defined &quot;service administrator&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could use hyphens as well, but if possible I like to stick to the words of the description as they are because you never know who is going to interpret the claim words such that they do not necessarily refer to the words of the description without hyphen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21015" RevisionGUID="acc98336-5795-479c-8994-23312da5fc13" CreationDate="2019-12-13T04:04:00.813" UserId="22688" Text="I have seen several patent applications where the application is listed as expired but below that there is an adjusted expiration date. Can someone please explain what this means? Here is an example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Application US11/223,705 events &#xD;&#xA;2004-09-15&#xD;&#xA;Priority to US61107004P&#xD;&#xA;2005-09-09&#xD;&#xA;Application filed by Allan Westersten&#xD;&#xA;2005-09-09&#xD;&#xA;Priority to US11/223,705&#xD;&#xA;2008-09-18&#xD;&#xA;Publication of US20080224704A1&#xD;&#xA;2010-04-20&#xD;&#xA;Application granted&#xD;&#xA;2010-04-20&#xD;&#xA;Publication of US7701204B2&#xD;&#xA;2012-07-27&#xD;&#xA;Assigned to DIENCO, INC.&#xD;&#xA;2019-12-12&#xD;&#xA;Application status is Expired - Fee Related&#xD;&#xA;2028-03-15&#xD;&#xA;Adjusted expiration&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58480" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21015" RevisionGUID="acc98336-5795-479c-8994-23312da5fc13" CreationDate="2019-12-13T04:04:00.813" UserId="22688" Text="Patent listed as expired followed by an expiration date" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58481" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21015" RevisionGUID="acc98336-5795-479c-8994-23312da5fc13" CreationDate="2019-12-13T04:04:00.813" UserId="22688" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21016" RevisionGUID="02b08505-a88f-4a3c-aee1-66e7a21abb92" CreationDate="2019-12-13T19:50:01.923" UserId="22646" Text="The short answer is that it is expired for failure to pay a maintenance fee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The long answer is that Google makes a estimated expiration (their Adjusted expiration) when an application grants to a Patent. This patent grant issued in 2010 (and that's when the Adjusted expiration would have been auto-generated) but then the Applicant did not pay the 7.5 year maintenance fee in 2019. So it became abandoned, and Google updated it as '&#xD;&#xA;Application status is Expired - Fee Related' apparently without removing the Adjusted expiration. In fairness, if the Applicant unintentionally failed to pay the maintenance fee, they can revive the application (with the inevitable fee) according to 37 CFR 1.378 and explained in [MPEP 2590][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check the status of this patent's maintenance fees on the USPTO's [website][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2590.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://fees.uspto.gov/MaintenanceFees/fees/details?applicationNumber=11223705&amp;patentNumber=7701204" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58485" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="2e9b5742-7086-4b03-bc05-d1c298064706" CreationDate="2019-12-14T09:02:15.400" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58486" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19823" RevisionGUID="6c8ca2a0-b644-42aa-839f-7efbaa09d819" CreationDate="2019-12-14T13:02:05.347" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21017" RevisionGUID="ab62b828-c28a-46ce-953a-ab8dbdcf64dd" CreationDate="2019-12-14T14:01:46.700" UserDisplayName="user22691" Text="I want to learn how to write pharmaceutical combination drug (API) patents and the format for them. Are there any good references also to learn how to evaluate the quality of a patent? whether it's good or bad? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58488" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21017" RevisionGUID="ab62b828-c28a-46ce-953a-ab8dbdcf64dd" CreationDate="2019-12-14T14:01:46.700" UserDisplayName="user22691" Text="References for making patents for pharmaceutical drugs in the U.S" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58489" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21017" RevisionGUID="ab62b828-c28a-46ce-953a-ab8dbdcf64dd" CreationDate="2019-12-14T14:01:46.700" UserDisplayName="user22691" Text="&lt;united-states&gt;&lt;pharmaceutical&gt;&lt;api&gt;&lt;combination&gt;&lt;drugpatent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21019" RevisionGUID="0941ffbb-91bf-468c-a8a7-dc8731821019" CreationDate="2019-12-14T19:04:04.803" UserId="3076" Text="It is possible to file paperwork with the patent office to disclaim all or some claims of a patent. I do not think there is a form for this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21019" RevisionGUID="7c06a484-f2e6-496d-b7b4-a9e5ff92f294" CreationDate="2019-12-14T19:14:06.340" UserId="3076" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="It is possible to file paperwork with the patent office to disclaim all or some claims of a patent. I do not think there is a form for this. IBM famously disclaimed 9/639,254 A method for scheduling the use of bathrooms on an airplane." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21019" RevisionGUID="bdfe81a8-1457-45b4-91eb-572631e67e53" CreationDate="2019-12-14T19:31:03.173" UserId="3076" Comment="added 149 characters in body" Text="It is possible to file paperwork with the patent office to disclaim all or some claims of a patent. I do not think there is a form for this. IBM famously disclaimed US6329919B1 System and method for providing reservations for restroom use. I would link to a copy of the disclaimer they filed but the application is old enough that the image file wrapper is not on line in PUBLIC PAIR." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21020" RevisionGUID="643f8f2b-264c-4454-892d-7bcaf4b770d8" CreationDate="2019-12-14T23:41:03.687" UserId="6121" Text="I have a situation where I need to protect the &quot;value&quot; which can be used in multiple steps. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The value may be same for all steps, but sometimes it can different. I want to protect the value especially when it is same for all steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The value provided by the step will be compared with a list of values we have in our system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    wherein the value of step 1 matches at least one of the values of the system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would that cover all steps when the value is same? Or I would lose the case when my potential infringer argue like &quot;No, we are using the value of step X&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58498" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21020" RevisionGUID="643f8f2b-264c-4454-892d-7bcaf4b770d8" CreationDate="2019-12-14T23:41:03.687" UserId="6121" Text="How to protect the value rather than functionality?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58499" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21020" RevisionGUID="643f8f2b-264c-4454-892d-7bcaf4b770d8" CreationDate="2019-12-14T23:41:03.687" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21021" RevisionGUID="be1efee9-778a-427b-a04f-c9070dda1f5f" CreationDate="2019-12-15T08:23:59.160" UserId="22334" Text="If all the steps are defined such that you refer to **the** value, then yes, it is the same for all the steps. The value itself would be different in one or more steps if one step is something like &quot;updating the value such that the value is zero&quot;, but then probably you would have clarity problems if the sequence of the steps cannot be determined from the matter claimed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way of not limiting the claim to **the** value is have both options in the steps, e.g. &quot;searching on the Internet with the first value or a second value as a keyword&quot; (the first value = the value). Another way would be introducing different values in all the steps (first, second, third...), then add a dependent claim that says &quot;wherein the first, second and third values are the same&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20955" RevisionGUID="78d08572-a883-4809-b881-5a8747e4d0a8" CreationDate="2019-12-15T20:30:09.440" UserId="22351" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="After some digging I found two references in issued patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    · U.S. Patent 10,492,242, Wegmann, et al., Claim 20&#xD;&#xA;    · U.S. Patent 10,492,208, Petersson, et al., Claim 12&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of these patents claim computer readable medium and include a method of another claim by a reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say those are Williamson style claims and they are pretty clear when an infringement occurs and they don't mix product and method but rather define a product which has a specific function.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, USPTO rejects these kinds of claims as they are not constructed in proper dependent form. This is because having stored instruction of a method claim does not equal performing the method claim thus this is not proper dependent form. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21022" RevisionGUID="176473e2-879e-43b5-9f61-f23ee7fe33de" CreationDate="2019-12-16T00:29:56.460" UserId="20021" Text="You may want to check out ANDA Litigation at [https://www.amazon.com/ANDA-Litigation-Strategies-Pharmaceutical-Litigators/dp/1634254589][1]&#xD;&#xA;Yes, the book is expensive, but it's also exhaustive. It talks a lot about the requirements for patenting pharmaceutical combination drugs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for evaluating the quality of a patent, there's two ways 1) prosecute and litigate a ton of patents to develop the necessary expertise or 2) look for patents which have been successful in asserting patent infringement and avoiding invalidation. They're high quality :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://amzn.to/2RWXX2i" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58504" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18328" RevisionGUID="e4040c41-cabd-4583-b72c-c8e3e32c8ba0" CreationDate="2019-12-16T02:01:35.253" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58505" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20647" RevisionGUID="2399fd05-6416-4b60-8f45-ac713a9f2e39" CreationDate="2019-12-16T03:03:50.593" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58507" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="204bc808-d5b4-42b7-b1fa-83cec78a0144" CreationDate="2019-12-16T20:01:30.210" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21023" RevisionGUID="a8c08900-23fa-4edc-b338-9b7751137aaf" CreationDate="2019-12-17T00:52:19.250" UserId="8071" Text="I believe the Paris Convention would allow me to file a patent application in country B within a year of filing the same application in country A.  But does that year begin with the actual filing date or the effective filing date of the application in country A?  Suppose a file a provisional in the US on December 31 2019, then a non-provisional that claims the benefit of the provisional on December 31 2020, then a continuation-in-part of the non-provisional on December 31 2023, while the non-provisional is still pending.  Can I file in Germany before the end of 2020, 2021 or 2024?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58509" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21023" RevisionGUID="a8c08900-23fa-4edc-b338-9b7751137aaf" CreationDate="2019-12-17T00:52:19.250" UserId="8071" Text="Does the priority period of the Paris Convention start with the actual or the effective filing date of a patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58510" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21023" RevisionGUID="a8c08900-23fa-4edc-b338-9b7751137aaf" CreationDate="2019-12-17T00:52:19.250" UserId="8071" Text="&lt;paris-convention&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21024" RevisionGUID="df8660e2-90df-4653-893e-32b4bc432b3d" CreationDate="2019-12-17T02:09:29.650" UserId="3076" Text="In article 4 C the [Paris Convention][1] says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) These periods shall start from the date of filing of the first application; the day of filing shall not be included in the period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is the first filing of an application on the subject matter. There are circumstances where a second application can be used if the first filed is withdrawn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/text/288514" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21025" RevisionGUID="3865a737-c1e4-46b3-add1-e9eb33be0d3f" CreationDate="2019-12-17T12:30:10.497" UserId="22696" Text="Thumbtack seems to have patented their business model (link to patent is below). Is it possible to patent a general business idea like this? Is it not possible to build a similar business in the US?&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Thumbtack patent][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9471683B2/en?assignee=Thumbtack%2C%20Inc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58513" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21025" RevisionGUID="3865a737-c1e4-46b3-add1-e9eb33be0d3f" CreationDate="2019-12-17T12:30:10.497" UserId="22696" Text="A question about a patent of Thumbtack" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58514" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21025" RevisionGUID="3865a737-c1e4-46b3-add1-e9eb33be0d3f" CreationDate="2019-12-17T12:30:10.497" UserId="22696" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21026" RevisionGUID="2dfa9cfe-2995-4a41-9495-1dd12fb207b0" CreationDate="2019-12-17T15:16:34.553" UserId="17003" Text="What a patent protects is defined by its claims. To infringe on a claim, you must implement each and every step in the claim. Thus, short claims are typically considered broad and long claims are considered narrow since it is easier to avoid some aspect. There are two independent claims in the cited patent. They are both very long. Here is claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A machine-readable storage medium that provides instructions that, if executed by a processor, will cause said processor to perform&#xD;&#xA;&gt; operations for a trusted localized peer-to-peer services marketplace,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the operations comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  receiving a search query from a potential&#xD;&#xA;&gt; service buyer, the search query including a plurality of parameters;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  parsing the search query to identify the plurality of parameters, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plurality of parameters at least including a category of service&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wanted and a location where the service wanted is desired; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  searching&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an available services database based on the plurality of parameters of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the search query, wherein the available services database is populated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with available services provided by a plurality of service sellers,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein each one of the service sellers has a service seller profile&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for the trusted localized peer-to-peer services marketplace that is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; associated with at least the following:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     that service seller offers, contact information for that service&#xD;&#xA;&gt; seller,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a location of the service seller, &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and a location where the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; service offered by the service seller is provided,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   and a set of one or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more reviews submitted by one or more other service buyers;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  transmitting one or more notifications to one or more service sellers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that offer a service that matches at least the category of service&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wanted and the location where the service wanted is desired based on a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; result of the searching of the available services database; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  communicating, to the potential service buyer, information regarding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one or more service sellers that match at least the category of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; service wanted and the location where the service wanted is desired&#xD;&#xA;&gt; based on a result of the searching of the available services database,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein the communicated information includes, for each of the one or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more services sellers that match at least the category of service&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wanted and the location where the service wanted is desired, at least&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the following:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  the description of the service that service seller&#xD;&#xA;&gt; offers, &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  contact information for that service seller, the location of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the service seller,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   the location where the service offered by the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; service seller is provided,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   and a rating of that service seller that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is based on the set of reviews submitted by the one or more other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; service buyers including a total number of reviews of that service&#xD;&#xA;&gt; seller, a number of negative reviews of that service seller, a number&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of neutral reviews of that service seller, and a number of positive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reviews of that service seller; wherein negative reviews are given a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; score less than neutral reviews, wherein neutral reviews are given a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; score less than positive reviews, wherein a first portion of the set&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of reviews that are made earlier in time as compared to a second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; portion of the set of reviews is weighed less heavily in the rating of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that service seller,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   wherein the first portion of the set of reviews&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is given a value at least based on,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a sum of, the score given for the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; number of negative reviews of the first portion of the set of reviews,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the score given for the number of neutral reviews of the first portion&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the set of reviews, and the score given for the number of positive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reviews of the first portion of the set of reviews, and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  that sum divided by the number of reviews of the first portion of the set of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reviews, &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  wherein the second portion of the set of reviews is given a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; value at least based on,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   a sum of, the score given for the number of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; negative reviews of the second portion of the set of reviews, the score given for the number of neutral reviews of the second portion of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the set of reviews, and the score given for the number of positive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reviews of the second portion of the set of reviews, &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  that sum divided&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by the number of reviews of the second portion of the set of reviews,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  wherein the rating of that service seller incorporates the value&#xD;&#xA;&gt; given to the first portion of the set of reviews and the value given&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the second portion of the set of reviews.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Excuse the formatting as it doesn't allow all the indents necessary. Claim 8 is similarly long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is possibly the longest and most complicated claim I have ever read. You could, for instance, implement a different score ranking system than what is described and potentially avoid infringement. Please be advised that I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21026" RevisionGUID="254c1ab0-42b3-4e48-9804-91c094908a2a" CreationDate="2019-12-17T18:26:07.573" UserId="17003" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="Ideas aren't patentable. Specific implementations may be. What a patent protects is defined by its claims. To infringe on a claim, you must implement each and every step in the claim. Thus, short claims are typically considered broad and long claims are considered narrow since it is easier to avoid some aspect. There are two independent claims in the cited patent. They are both very long. Here is claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A machine-readable storage medium that provides instructions that, if executed by a processor, will cause said processor to perform&#xD;&#xA;&gt; operations for a trusted localized peer-to-peer services marketplace,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the operations comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  receiving a search query from a potential&#xD;&#xA;&gt; service buyer, the search query including a plurality of parameters;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  parsing the search query to identify the plurality of parameters, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plurality of parameters at least including a category of service&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wanted and a location where the service wanted is desired; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  searching&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an available services database based on the plurality of parameters of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the search query, wherein the available services database is populated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with available services provided by a plurality of service sellers,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein each one of the service sellers has a service seller profile&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for the trusted localized peer-to-peer services marketplace that is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; associated with at least the following:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     that service seller offers, contact information for that service&#xD;&#xA;&gt; seller,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a location of the service seller, &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  and a location where the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; service offered by the service seller is provided,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   and a set of one or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more reviews submitted by one or more other service buyers;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  transmitting one or more notifications to one or more service sellers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that offer a service that matches at least the category of service&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wanted and the location where the service wanted is desired based on a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; result of the searching of the available services database; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  communicating, to the potential service buyer, information regarding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one or more service sellers that match at least the category of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; service wanted and the location where the service wanted is desired&#xD;&#xA;&gt; based on a result of the searching of the available services database,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein the communicated information includes, for each of the one or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more services sellers that match at least the category of service&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wanted and the location where the service wanted is desired, at least&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the following:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  the description of the service that service seller&#xD;&#xA;&gt; offers, &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  contact information for that service seller, the location of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the service seller,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   the location where the service offered by the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; service seller is provided,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   and a rating of that service seller that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is based on the set of reviews submitted by the one or more other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; service buyers including a total number of reviews of that service&#xD;&#xA;&gt; seller, a number of negative reviews of that service seller, a number&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of neutral reviews of that service seller, and a number of positive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reviews of that service seller; wherein negative reviews are given a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; score less than neutral reviews, wherein neutral reviews are given a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; score less than positive reviews, wherein a first portion of the set&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of reviews that are made earlier in time as compared to a second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; portion of the set of reviews is weighed less heavily in the rating of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that service seller,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   wherein the first portion of the set of reviews&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is given a value at least based on,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a sum of, the score given for the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; number of negative reviews of the first portion of the set of reviews,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the score given for the number of neutral reviews of the first portion&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the set of reviews, and the score given for the number of positive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reviews of the first portion of the set of reviews, and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  that sum divided by the number of reviews of the first portion of the set of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reviews, &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  wherein the second portion of the set of reviews is given a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; value at least based on,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   a sum of, the score given for the number of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; negative reviews of the second portion of the set of reviews, the score given for the number of neutral reviews of the second portion of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the set of reviews, and the score given for the number of positive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reviews of the second portion of the set of reviews, &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  that sum divided&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by the number of reviews of the second portion of the set of reviews,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  wherein the rating of that service seller incorporates the value&#xD;&#xA;&gt; given to the first portion of the set of reviews and the value given&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the second portion of the set of reviews.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Excuse the formatting as it doesn't allow all the indents necessary. Claim 8 is similarly long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is possibly the longest and most complicated claim I have ever read. You could, for instance, implement a different score ranking system than what is described and potentially avoid infringement. Please be advised that I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58521" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="cdc91b94-cc8f-45c8-81c7-2fecbe4a92f8" CreationDate="2019-12-18T01:02:20.363" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21028" RevisionGUID="92268d9f-f433-40e8-bb9d-abcdbe713e15" CreationDate="2019-12-18T04:13:27.670" UserId="21034" Text="The lifetime of design patent is 14 years (for designs which were filed before May 13, 2015) / 15 years (for designs which were filed on or after May 13, 2015) from the date of grant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58523" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21028" RevisionGUID="92268d9f-f433-40e8-bb9d-abcdbe713e15" CreationDate="2019-12-18T04:13:27.670" UserId="21034" Text="Can design patent be renewed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58524" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21028" RevisionGUID="92268d9f-f433-40e8-bb9d-abcdbe713e15" CreationDate="2019-12-18T04:13:27.670" UserId="21034" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21029" RevisionGUID="4336211b-8cfa-4d76-a2e2-f8322820e277" CreationDate="2019-12-18T04:13:27.670" UserId="21034" Text="The lifetime of design patent is 14 years (for designs which were filed before May 13, 2015) / 15 years (for designs which were filed on or after May 13, 2015) from the date of grant.&#xD;&#xA;It doesn’t have any maintenance fee during their lifetime and expires once the design rights term completed. unfortunately, design patents cannot be renewed. Once a design patent expires due to the expiration of the 15-year patent term, a design patent holder cannot to renew the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a design and patent on that expired design patent, try to come up with a new design that’s similar, yet different enough to convince the patent office to grant you a design patent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21030" RevisionGUID="8afabca1-a752-4136-99c0-1c6a8a29a5e6" CreationDate="2019-12-18T15:32:46.703" UserId="22699" Text="Can I cite Wikipedia as a reference in an IDS?&#xD;&#xA;For example,&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ducks&quot;, Wikipedia, &#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck, Retrieved from Internet 12/18/2019&#xD;&#xA;And attach a print out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58527" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21030" RevisionGUID="8afabca1-a752-4136-99c0-1c6a8a29a5e6" CreationDate="2019-12-18T15:32:46.703" UserId="22699" Text="Can I cite Wikipedia as a reference in an IDS?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58528" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21030" RevisionGUID="8afabca1-a752-4136-99c0-1c6a8a29a5e6" CreationDate="2019-12-18T15:32:46.703" UserId="22699" Text="&lt;ids&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58529" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17720" RevisionGUID="bf672674-ea5b-4bad-ae90-6e42d682ed13" CreationDate="2019-12-19T07:02:00.517" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58530" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="7fa91d9c-93ee-47c8-a46f-a55a07b4eb7b" CreationDate="2019-12-19T12:02:40.400" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58531" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20667" RevisionGUID="bd9afb25-82ee-4c73-9dec-e7fa8103a4f6" CreationDate="2019-12-20T01:01:40.277" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21031" RevisionGUID="5c840e3d-f9c4-40a5-b979-3fb2500bb393" CreationDate="2019-12-20T02:51:40.177" UserId="22700" Text="Sorry to disturb you, I am an Amazon seller and have infringed your appearance patent D698,996 S&#xD;&#xA;You are the owner of this patent. Can you license it for my Amazon store? I need a power of attorney for this appearance patent D698,996 S. Can you help me? I am willing to pay you, please contact me in time if you see the information, thank you very much.&#xD;&#xA;wish you a happy lifeMy email: baorenzong@gmail.com&#xD;&#xA;bao" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58533" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21031" RevisionGUID="5c840e3d-f9c4-40a5-b979-3fb2500bb393" CreationDate="2019-12-20T02:51:40.177" UserId="22700" Text="Patent D698,996 S" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58534" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21031" RevisionGUID="5c840e3d-f9c4-40a5-b979-3fb2500bb393" CreationDate="2019-12-20T02:51:40.177" UserId="22700" Text="&lt;baorenzong&gt;&lt;gmail.com&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21032" RevisionGUID="b938b267-93cb-48c2-b5f0-57153133a0da" CreationDate="2019-12-20T03:31:43.350" UserId="3076" Text="You can list a Wikipedia entry in an IDS. While there is not a requirement to do any searching for references, we are required to list the relevant things we find. The issue with citing Wikipedia is that the date on the reference will be around the date of the filing. References are used against an application based on the publication date of the reference. The original information displayed in the Wikipedia page all came from some earlier references. To accurately convey an earlier version of the information you have found would require you to look up the references at the end of the entry and, if appropriate, cite those." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58536" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="f20c4518-6c31-48f5-8aa5-b972a0d3ac98" CreationDate="2019-12-20T04:05:55.657" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21033" RevisionGUID="80170c39-d7e3-414e-be37-85a6974bf238" CreationDate="2019-12-20T15:02:53.787" UserId="17003" Text="This site is not the inventor of the cited design patent. The inventor on design patent [D698,996][1] is Noam Krasniansky of Los Angeles, CA. If you have been contacted regarding patent infringement then you should respond to that communication as it will likely represent the patent holder. Otherwise you should try to search for a Noam Krasniansky of Los Angeles, CA though other means such as Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD698996S1/en?oq=D698%2C996" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21034" RevisionGUID="5d5ddeba-2f5b-47f6-9588-f8bab3a1d20c" CreationDate="2019-12-21T06:22:21.560" UserId="22702" Text="While trying to submit my (personally-made) patent documents on EFS-Web I ran into an issue. I'm assuming that I should upload the pdf document of the provisional patent application in the &quot;Attach Documents&quot; section of EFS-Web, but then it asks for two areas to narrow down the type of file I'm submitting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Application Part&quot; and &quot;Application Data Sheet&quot; are listed above the two drop-down boxes. I think the correct selection would be &quot;General Transmittal&quot; for the &quot;Application Part&quot; and &quot;Transmittal of New Application&quot; for &quot;Application Data Sheet&quot; but I'm not entirely sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two drop-down boxes are shown here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and here is the &quot;Application Data Sheet&quot; drop-down box after &quot;General Transmittal&quot; is selected for &quot;Application Part&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone let me know what these choices really mean and then which of these applies to the file I'm submitting? I'm not a lawyer so I'm sorry if this all comes across as I have no idea what I'm doing (mostly because I don't).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again I want to find a place to actually upload the file that contains my entire provisional patent application, with figures and descriptions and whatnot. Not a form or something else, just the main file.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pR1Fy.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IA33m.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bReFM.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZK9bR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58539" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21034" RevisionGUID="5d5ddeba-2f5b-47f6-9588-f8bab3a1d20c" CreationDate="2019-12-21T06:22:21.560" UserId="22702" Text="Which &quot;Application Part&quot; and &quot;Application Data Sheet&quot; do I use for the provisional patent document?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58540" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21034" RevisionGUID="5d5ddeba-2f5b-47f6-9588-f8bab3a1d20c" CreationDate="2019-12-21T06:22:21.560" UserId="22702" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58541" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="47999502-32e6-4091-a9a8-e9f74d6f5b2f" CreationDate="2019-12-21T23:02:30.360" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58542" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20880" RevisionGUID="5a3c08fe-c0e6-48b2-af7d-92e5566b7ec1" CreationDate="2019-12-22T12:02:10.353" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58543" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="19057" RevisionGUID="53952a07-4f28-45e6-955b-b5eaf6b062cb" CreationDate="2019-12-22T20:42:46.540" UserId="20637" Comment="Rollback to [92c4dc54-34fb-4062-a50c-b5f74a5c9f6a] - Edit approval overridden by post owner or moderator" Text="What is the expiration date of this patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58544" PostHistoryTypeId="9" PostId="19057" RevisionGUID="53952a07-4f28-45e6-955b-b5eaf6b062cb" CreationDate="2019-12-22T20:42:46.540" UserId="20637" Comment="Rollback to [92c4dc54-34fb-4062-a50c-b5f74a5c9f6a] - Edit approval overridden by post owner or moderator" Text="&lt;us9474214&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58545" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="21031" RevisionGUID="09644671-0ccf-4a04-bbaf-8c8c903ca91a" CreationDate="2019-12-23T03:14:08.560" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:18033,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DonQuiKong&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="58546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21035" RevisionGUID="c00dbf44-f7d2-40ad-bf6e-39a6f1ebb58d" CreationDate="2019-12-23T16:33:09.397" UserId="22705" Text="I am looking at purchasing a house, that has a grove of trees that are patented, growing on the property. Am I able to sell the fruit since I will own the property on which it is growing? Also, it looks like the patent was official in 2002. Does that mean I can sell the fruit sometime in 2022, since patents expire after 20 years?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you,&#xD;&#xA;G" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58547" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21035" RevisionGUID="c00dbf44-f7d2-40ad-bf6e-39a6f1ebb58d" CreationDate="2019-12-23T16:33:09.397" UserId="22705" Text="If I buy property where patented fruit is already growing, can I sell the fruit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58548" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21035" RevisionGUID="c00dbf44-f7d2-40ad-bf6e-39a6f1ebb58d" CreationDate="2019-12-23T16:33:09.397" UserId="22705" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21036" RevisionGUID="cd87bc34-a17a-4e5c-99a8-72e00775d9e0" CreationDate="2019-12-23T21:59:39.143" UserId="22351" Text="Consider the following case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A nice examiner files final rejection but allows a post rejection interview and during the interview suggests how to amend claims for allowance and also suggests to file after final response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. How to file after final response and in what format?&#xD;&#xA;2. What can be included in after final?&#xD;&#xA;3. Do you know any examples (patent numbers) of patents with after final prosecution.&#xD;&#xA;4. Are there any special pitfalls of after final prosecution(except those that already apply to normal patent prosecution)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58550" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21036" RevisionGUID="cd87bc34-a17a-4e5c-99a8-72e00775d9e0" CreationDate="2019-12-23T21:59:39.143" UserId="22351" Text="How to file After Final response and what can be included in it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58551" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21036" RevisionGUID="cd87bc34-a17a-4e5c-99a8-72e00775d9e0" CreationDate="2019-12-23T21:59:39.143" UserId="22351" Text="&lt;prosecution&gt;&lt;final&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21037" RevisionGUID="731ae4a5-0b5e-42dc-b95e-1e2d2f8df99d" CreationDate="2019-12-24T14:55:33.227" UserId="14403" Text="**&quot;suggests how to amend claims for allowance&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If examiner suggested any specific amendment(s) to your claim(s) to put your claims in condition of allowance and has asked you to send response to final rejection then you should be a relieved man, you are almost through. If that &quot;how to&quot; was just academic, then all the niceties were of 'Null' utility to you.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1. How to file after final response and in what format?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Format and method for filing response to final office action from USPTO is same as the format for response and method for filing response followed by you for filing response to non-final office action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only this time you ought to mention (i) it is a response to final office action, (ii) provide summary of interview with examiner, (iii) mention if you are following examiner's suggestions for claim amendment to put claims in condition of allowance and (iv) restrict your amendments to examiner's suggestion and/or limitations laid down by 37 CFR 1.116(b) [Ref-1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the absence of specific suggestion for amendment to claims to put them in condition of allowance and amendments not conforming to limits of 37 CFR 1.116(b) mentioned above, I think, RCE is the option to go for with your amendments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2. What can be included in after final?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Excerpt from MPEP 714.13 : [Ref-2]    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Except where an amendment merely cancels claims, adopts examiner&#xD;&#xA;&gt; suggestions, removes issues for appeal, or in some other way requires&#xD;&#xA;&gt; only a cursory review by the examiner, compliance with the requirement&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of a showing under 37 CFR 1.116(b)(3)  is expected in all amendments&#xD;&#xA;&gt; after final rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3. Do you know any examples (patent numbers) of patents with after final prosecution?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would rather suggest a method. Go to PublicPair [Ref-3]. Enter any application number pre or post to your application number. Look at 'Image file wrapper'. Most likely you will hit desired result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**4. Are there any special pitfalls of after final prosecution(except those that already apply to normal patent prosecution)?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See answer to 2 above. Bonus expected is 'examiner deciding to enter your amendment of claims for catering to appeal issues without allowing  your claims' which may introduce new matter for new search and new objections during RCE or such future prosecution actions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Kindly take note** : Please don't consider it as legal advice. If your purse permits, it is always advisable to take legal advice from qualified professional. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ref-1]:https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/e8r9#/e8r9/d0e322826.html&#xD;&#xA;[Ref-2]:https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/e8r9#/e8r9/d0e88092.html&#xD;&#xA;[Ref-3]:https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21038" RevisionGUID="d5815d21-542d-4c6f-b30b-c2465cea5f72" CreationDate="2019-12-24T20:26:06.830" UserId="17003" Text="I don't actually know whether you can legally sell your fruit. I'm not a lawyer. This might be better posted on the Law SE site. The question might be whether when original plants were purchased they came with a license to sell the fruit. That said, I'll try to address whether the patent is still enforceable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't list the actual patent number so we must speculate. Plant patents, like utility patents, last **20 years from the filing date**. Depending on when the patent was filed, which will be earlier than the grant date, the patent on your trees may have already expired. I searched on [The Lens][1] which allows specifying just plant patent as the document type. [Here is the results][2] for a search of &quot;apple&quot; within plant patents filed between Jan 1, 1998 and Dec 31, 2002. Selecting the first plant patent listed shows [US 11519 P][3], &quot;Apple Tree Named 'jm7'&quot;. It was filed on Mar. 19, 1998 and granted Sep. 26, 2000. Since there are no patent term extensions this patent expired on March 19, 2018.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you know what specific plant patent is involved, I would search it out and try to figure out when the patent expires. I'm assuming that you are in the US as patents are specific to the country the product would be grown or sold in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/search?dates=%2Bpub_date:19980101-20021231&amp;types=Plant%20patent&amp;l=en&amp;st=true&amp;q=apple&amp;preview=true&amp;p=0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/129-019-178-836-226/fulltext" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21039" RevisionGUID="45d509c0-8ba0-40b7-98a8-90373259f62c" CreationDate="2019-12-25T05:42:43.070" UserId="22351" Text="After reading the comment of George White I found that the AFTER FINAL CONSIDERATION PILOT PROGRAM 2.0  gives the applicant additional flexibility beyond the limitations stated in the CFR 1.116(b) and these include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  The amendment places the application in condition for allowance by canceling claims or complying with formal requirement(s) in response to objection(s) made in the final office action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  The amendment places the application in condition for allowance by rewriting objected-to claims in independent form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  The amendment places the application in condition for allowance by incorporating limitations from objected-to claims into independent claims, if the new claim can be determined to be allowable with only a limited amount of further consideration or search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  The amendment can be determined to place the application in condition for allowance with only a limited amount of further search or consideration, even if new claims are added without cancelling a corresponding number of finally rejected claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.  The amendment can be determined to place the application in condition for allowance by adding new limitation(s) which require only a limited amount of further consideration or search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.  The response comprises a perfected 37 CFR 1.131 or 37 CFR 1.132 affidavit or declaration (i.e. a new declaration which corrects formal defects noted in a prior affidavit or declaration) which can be determined to place the application in condition for allowance with only a limited amount of further search or consideration." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21039" RevisionGUID="53ba8c55-132d-4655-9532-32b1344623f3" CreationDate="2019-12-25T05:51:26.633" UserId="22351" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="After reading the comment of George White I found that the AFTER FINAL CONSIDERATION PILOT PROGRAM 2.0  gives the applicant additional flexibility beyond the limitations stated in the CFR 1.116(b) and these include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  The amendment places the application in condition for allowance by canceling claims or complying with formal requirement(s) in response to objection(s) made in the final office action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  The amendment places the application in condition for allowance by rewriting objected-to claims in independent form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  The amendment places the application in condition for allowance by incorporating limitations from objected-to claims into independent claims, if the new claim can be determined to be allowable with only a limited amount of further consideration or search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  The amendment can be determined to place the application in condition for allowance with only a limited amount of further search or consideration, even if new claims are added without cancelling a corresponding number of finally rejected claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.  The amendment can be determined to place the application in condition for allowance by adding new limitation(s) which require only a limited amount of further consideration or search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.  The response comprises a perfected 37 CFR 1.131 or 37 CFR 1.132 affidavit or declaration (i.e. a new declaration which corrects formal defects noted in a prior affidavit or declaration) which can be determined to place the application in condition for allowance with only a limited amount of further search or consideration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The AFCP 2.0 has been extended through September 30, 2020.&#xD;&#xA;https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/after-final-consideration-pilot-20" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21040" RevisionGUID="721f62bf-a9a1-42c6-99c1-e380ac1e088d" CreationDate="2019-12-25T14:33:44.687" UserId="6121" Text="MPEP [says][1],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rejected or objected to, any evidence submitted to traverse the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rejection or objection on a basis not otherwise provided for must be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by way of an oath or declaration under this section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not received the first office action yet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I submit &quot;objective evidence&quot; now, do I have to file any Affidavit or Declaration?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s716.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58557" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21040" RevisionGUID="721f62bf-a9a1-42c6-99c1-e380ac1e088d" CreationDate="2019-12-25T14:33:44.687" UserId="6121" Text="I would like to submit &quot;objective evidence&quot; to the USPTO. Do I have to file any Affidavit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58558" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21040" RevisionGUID="721f62bf-a9a1-42c6-99c1-e380ac1e088d" CreationDate="2019-12-25T14:33:44.687" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21041" RevisionGUID="c1a68341-ae22-43e4-8c07-e6a2bed6311c" CreationDate="2019-12-26T11:13:25.400" UserId="962" Text="Suppose I'm granted a patent a month from now and it lasts for 20 years. This means that the patent bureau (such as USPTO) will have created a record which stores the patent claims and also the information about who the inventor is and who holds the protection rights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those 20 years pass and the patent no longer guarantees protection. What happens to the records in the patent bureau (such as USPTO)? Are they expected to be stored forever or are they discarded after some time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or suppose the maintenance fees are not paid (because the patent looks useless) and so  protection is stopped earlier than in 20 years. What happens to the records?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How long are patent records stored and under which conditions they may be destroyed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58560" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21041" RevisionGUID="c1a68341-ae22-43e4-8c07-e6a2bed6311c" CreationDate="2019-12-26T11:13:25.400" UserId="962" Text="How long are patent records stored by patent bureau?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58561" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21041" RevisionGUID="c1a68341-ae22-43e4-8c07-e6a2bed6311c" CreationDate="2019-12-26T11:13:25.400" UserId="962" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21042" RevisionGUID="879d21e0-bb91-4463-8291-e64fa081c7de" CreationDate="2019-12-26T19:10:44.800" UserId="22712" Text="I have a new type of mechanical device that doubles the output of all previous models. Do i post the machine as one all encompassing patent or break it down into a half dozen new ideas that take existing features and reconfigure them and also adding new ideas not on any currently available product? One patent for entire machine or many separate patents for each significant re configuration or new additional change?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58563" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21042" RevisionGUID="879d21e0-bb91-4463-8291-e64fa081c7de" CreationDate="2019-12-26T19:10:44.800" UserId="22712" Text="what needs to be patented in a new type of mechanical devise?How many different or only one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58564" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21042" RevisionGUID="879d21e0-bb91-4463-8291-e64fa081c7de" CreationDate="2019-12-26T19:10:44.800" UserId="22712" Text="&lt;invention&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21043" RevisionGUID="c0a1edcc-11eb-43f5-9225-5b1031f4ad6b" CreationDate="2019-12-26T23:21:23.890" UserId="3076" Text="They have images of patents stored back to the early 1800's - I do not think you need to worry about them being deleted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21044" RevisionGUID="a75cbb91-b555-4876-8dbb-5b87de28aec7" CreationDate="2019-12-26T23:33:19.040" UserId="3076" Text="The answer is specific to your actual case. You can file one or multiple patent applications; you can file one comprehensive application that covers all of the above and them file divisional applications to claim various aspects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I advise people to have a good novelty search performed  and to also get a reasonable understanding of the competition and the market. You want to cover something (either the whole or a critical sub-component) that is both new *and* particularly valuable to the end user-benefit.  Something that if left out or done another way would result in a clearly inferior overall product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also a big plus that it is something that is visible/detectable without a decomposition of the end product. That makes it easier to tell if you are being infringed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21045" RevisionGUID="f5399df9-5154-4010-9a14-f0d49aa55563" CreationDate="2019-12-27T07:19:20.733" UserId="3076" Text="The way rejections and objections are usually addressed is point by point according to the actual rejection or objection. The evidence you need to submit really does depend on the details of the office action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you have the rejection you will be in a better position to tailor your affidavit. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21046" RevisionGUID="841f5c60-5178-4f8f-81b4-9fc07acaab98" CreationDate="2019-12-27T07:49:09.737" UserId="6121" Text="A claim reads like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    An apparatus for feeding humans, the apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    item A;&#xD;&#xA;    item B;&#xD;&#xA;    item C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another claim reads like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    An apparatus for feeding aliens, the apparatus comprising:&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    item A;&#xD;&#xA;    item B;&#xD;&#xA;    item C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both claims have the same items, but only the &quot;subject&quot; differs in the preamble. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is preamble offers any limitation OR only offers some description about the invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58569" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21046" RevisionGUID="841f5c60-5178-4f8f-81b4-9fc07acaab98" CreationDate="2019-12-27T07:49:09.737" UserId="6121" Text="What is the role of preamble in patent claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58570" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21046" RevisionGUID="841f5c60-5178-4f8f-81b4-9fc07acaab98" CreationDate="2019-12-27T07:49:09.737" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58571" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12934" RevisionGUID="2790a0e1-1372-4a91-93b9-83ea418abce9" CreationDate="2019-12-27T10:02:30.373" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19057" RevisionGUID="26e49acc-4e66-44ed-90a7-4e16146f8638" CreationDate="2019-12-27T12:46:43.797" UserId="17737" Comment="tags edited" Text="What is the expiration date of patent [US9474214][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US9474214" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58573" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19057" RevisionGUID="26e49acc-4e66-44ed-90a7-4e16146f8638" CreationDate="2019-12-27T12:46:43.797" UserId="17737" Comment="tags edited" Text="What is the expiration date of patent US9474214?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58574" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19057" RevisionGUID="26e49acc-4e66-44ed-90a7-4e16146f8638" CreationDate="2019-12-27T12:46:43.797" UserId="17737" Comment="tags edited" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58575" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19057" RevisionGUID="26e49acc-4e66-44ed-90a7-4e16146f8638" CreationDate="2019-12-27T12:46:43.797" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 17003, 18033 edit id of 2116" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21047" RevisionGUID="619c1e28-d1ee-4f18-8392-1bb741cd835b" CreationDate="2019-12-27T15:02:59.687" UserId="17003" Text="One thing that is important is whether there is one invention or several. In theory there should only be one invention per patent (although there can be several implementations). It's expensive to get a patent so there is an incentive to file as few as possible, but this isn't always possible as patent examiners may force you to split an application if they believe there are two inventions involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent strategy is complicated and very dependent on the specific case involved. Maximizing patent coverage while minimizing cost is hard and may depend on legal precedent. I highly recommend you consult with a patent lawyer regarding patent strategy and for the actual drafting and prosecution of the patent(s)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21048" RevisionGUID="6f19dfaa-d4ed-4492-ab61-6143a8ce57a5" CreationDate="2019-12-28T07:13:26.600" UserId="22714" Text="I purchased a rechargeable clip on fan. This model is available from various re sellers but i want to find the manufacturer. I am hoping the patent number will get me to them. The number on the fan is ZL 2007 3 0024190.5.I cannot find any information on online, i have tried google patent search,cnpat plus others and nothing works. Your help would be much appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58578" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21048" RevisionGUID="6f19dfaa-d4ed-4492-ab61-6143a8ce57a5" CreationDate="2019-12-28T07:13:26.600" UserId="22714" Text="finding patent ZL 2007 3 0024190.5 portable fan" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58579" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21048" RevisionGUID="6f19dfaa-d4ed-4492-ab61-6143a8ce57a5" CreationDate="2019-12-28T07:13:26.600" UserId="22714" Text="&lt;patent-search&gt;&lt;china&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21049" RevisionGUID="89f21bc0-6fb7-4c6a-904a-1735620c33c0" CreationDate="2019-12-28T08:04:42.187" UserId="22334" Text="In the US, [it depends on the case](https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/e8r9#/e8r9/d0e200689.html). In Europe, the preamble limits [more](https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/f_iv_4_13_3.htm) or [less](https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/f_iv_4_13_1.htm) depending on what is claimed: most of the times methods are limited by the preamble (please check out explanation in the &quot;more&quot; link), whereas devices/systems are limited such that they must be suitable for the stated purpose (please check out explanation in the &quot;less&quot; link). The scope of the two examples you have provided is the same if aliens are fed like humans are fed, but if they are fed differently, then the scopes may be different. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21051" RevisionGUID="f98b3cfa-f841-4f19-ae76-9614f2297665" CreationDate="2019-12-28T13:57:47.760" UserId="6121" Text="It seems like patent claims requires the keyword &quot;; and&quot; before the last limitation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what is considered as last limitation here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    cutting ... ;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    copying ... ;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    pasting ... ;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    wherein cutting ...  .  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I understood correctly wherein clause also limit the claim. So where should I place the **; and** keyword here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which one is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    cutting ... ;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    copying ... ; and&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    pasting ... ;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    wherein cutting ...  . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    A method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    cutting ... ;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    copying ... ;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    pasting ... ; and&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    wherein cutting ...  . " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58586" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21051" RevisionGUID="f98b3cfa-f841-4f19-ae76-9614f2297665" CreationDate="2019-12-28T13:57:47.760" UserId="6121" Text="Where to place the &quot;; and&quot; in the last limitation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58587" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21051" RevisionGUID="f98b3cfa-f841-4f19-ae76-9614f2297665" CreationDate="2019-12-28T13:57:47.760" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58588" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="21051" RevisionGUID="c4e8e7ca-b7e5-4c3d-9550-3e89f5d02d79" CreationDate="2019-12-28T14:27:10.197" UserId="6121" Comment="edited title" Text="Where to place the &quot;; and&quot; in the limitation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58589" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20384" RevisionGUID="393ce76e-df7e-431a-9ca1-9101663fe055" CreationDate="2019-12-28T21:00:34.130" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58590" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19379" RevisionGUID="1f622ea1-e3b4-42e2-b951-0c5406c17b78" CreationDate="2019-12-29T01:01:25.207" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21052" RevisionGUID="fcea3abb-3e0b-4b99-bb64-36a073fb0d50" CreationDate="2019-12-29T08:37:58.447" UserId="22334" Text="The use of semicolons and &quot;and&quot; is not actually required as far as I know, but it is customary to use them. You will find thousands of patents without them, using commas instead or periods (this one is wrong but examiners may not even object to such claims anyway), with no &quot;and&quot; either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there is no guide teaching how to use the &quot;and&quot;, but what seems to be good practice is using &quot;and&quot; right before the last element of a same list. This means that your first example uses &quot;and&quot; appropriately (because you are listing a series of steps). Should you have further wherein statements, you would use &quot;and&quot; before introducing the last one as well (i.e. in addition to the &quot;and&quot; for the step list). Likewise, you would use &quot;and&quot; in any other list you have defined in your claim, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- copying a drawing with a pencil, the pencil comprising: a first end comprising graphite; and a second end comprising an eraser; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- pasting [...] " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21053" RevisionGUID="d486ead6-fe01-45bb-80bc-ef321e1c5009" CreationDate="2019-12-29T09:19:53.967" UserId="6121" Text="If I understand correctly USPTO is a &quot;relative novelty&quot; office. There is a grace period of 1 year. Whereas EPO is an &quot;absolute novelty&quot; office. Anything disclosed before filing will be used against you.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me explain with some scenarios. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;USPTO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I file a provisional in Jan 1, 2020.&#xD;&#xA; - I publicly disclose my ideas in Mar 1, 2020 by publishing a paper.&#xD;&#xA; - I file a non-provisional by claim priority to the provisional on Jun 1, 2020.&#xD;&#xA; - USPTO publishes my application early in Sep 1, 2020 due to early publication request.&#xD;&#xA; - I file a continuation-in-part application which discloses some new content on Jan 1, 2021.&#xD;&#xA; - I file another continuation-in-part application which discloses some new content on Apr 1, 2021.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I understood correctly, the Mar 1, 2020 paper can be used as prior-art against my second CIP application. But not the first CIP due to the 1 year grace period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How exactly continuation-in-part works in EPO since it's an &quot;absolute novelty&quot; office? Does that mean, it will be really hard to make minor tweaks once your idea is publicly disclosed? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any way one can go for continuation-in-part in EPO with the help of PCT?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58594" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21053" RevisionGUID="d486ead6-fe01-45bb-80bc-ef321e1c5009" CreationDate="2019-12-29T09:19:53.967" UserId="6121" Text="When exactly your own disclosures will be used as prior art against you?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58595" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21053" RevisionGUID="d486ead6-fe01-45bb-80bc-ef321e1c5009" CreationDate="2019-12-29T09:19:53.967" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;public-disclosure&gt;&lt;continuation-in-part&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21053" RevisionGUID="0ac839ee-1b8b-4b93-ab6f-bda028ae0b2d" CreationDate="2019-12-29T09:27:41.927" UserId="6121" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="If I understand correctly USPTO is a &quot;relative novelty&quot; office. There is a grace period of 1 year. Whereas EPO is an &quot;absolute novelty&quot; office. Anything disclosed before filing will be used against you.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me explain with some scenarios. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;USPTO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I file a provisional in Jan 1, 2020.&#xD;&#xA; - I publicly disclose my ideas in Mar 1, 2020 by publishing a paper.&#xD;&#xA; - I file a non-provisional by claiming priority to the provisional on Jun 1, 2020.&#xD;&#xA; - USPTO publishes my application in Sep 1, 2020 due to early publication request.&#xD;&#xA; - I file a continuation-in-part application which discloses some new content on Feb 1, 2021.&#xD;&#xA; - I file another continuation-in-part application which discloses some new content on Apr 1, 2021.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I understood correctly, the Mar 1, 2020 paper can be used as prior-art against my second CIP application. But not the first CIP due to the 1 year grace period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How exactly continuation-in-part works in EPO since it's an &quot;absolute novelty&quot; office? Does that mean, it will be really hard to make minor tweaks once your idea is publicly disclosed? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any way one can go for continuation-in-part in EPO with the help of PCT?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21054" RevisionGUID="b2868188-4ec1-4aaf-8cdc-cd9846d614d7" CreationDate="2019-12-29T11:07:55.683" UserId="22334" Text="There are no continuations in part at the EPO. At the EPO you only have patent applications, and divisionals of patent applications. Divisionals have the same disclosure of the parent application or a more reduced disclosure, therefore they can be used to claim different embodiments that were initially disclosed, you cannot add any new matter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your disclosures will be used against your claimed invention, therefore the minor tweaks must be inventive over the prior art (including your disclosures) in order to get a European patent granted in the situation you describe. In fact, according to the particulars of your example, if the provisional, the paper and the US patent application all disclose A+B+C, and you file a European patent application the day after the US patent application has become public, the European patent application disclosing A+B+C and A+B+C+D, then A+B+C would be entitled to the priority date but not A+B+C+D, so if A+B+C+D is obvious in light of A+B+C (known from the prior art due to the US patent application), you would not be able to protect it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21055" RevisionGUID="4622dafa-82ff-4b7d-a66d-d534f64a09ce" CreationDate="2019-12-29T19:00:30.447" UserId="6121" Text="    wherein string A at least in part match with string B&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the phrase &quot;at least in part&quot; here valid when both string A and String B has the exact same value? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also is that phrase bi-directional? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58599" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21055" RevisionGUID="4622dafa-82ff-4b7d-a66d-d534f64a09ce" CreationDate="2019-12-29T19:00:30.447" UserId="6121" Text="Does the phrase &quot;at least in part&quot; cover &quot;exact match&quot; too?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58600" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21055" RevisionGUID="4622dafa-82ff-4b7d-a66d-d534f64a09ce" CreationDate="2019-12-29T19:00:30.447" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21056" RevisionGUID="876c386f-3edd-48dd-bf1a-209e949ca6da" CreationDate="2019-12-29T21:11:48.990" UserId="22718" Text="I am translating a PCT application. Claim 1 recites a device.  Claim 2 depending from claim 1 recites a first device and a second device by defining the device in claim 1 as a first device. Below is my literal translation of claim 2.  Is this   style acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The system according to claim 1, wherein the device is defined as a first device, the system further comprising a second device connected to the first device, wherein ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58602" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21056" RevisionGUID="876c386f-3edd-48dd-bf1a-209e949ca6da" CreationDate="2019-12-29T21:11:48.990" UserId="22718" Text="Can &quot;wherein&quot; be used before &quot;comprising&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58603" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21056" RevisionGUID="876c386f-3edd-48dd-bf1a-209e949ca6da" CreationDate="2019-12-29T21:11:48.990" UserId="22718" Text="&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21057" RevisionGUID="ecf8691f-50be-4bda-9f49-824114f20391" CreationDate="2019-12-29T23:41:22.827" UserId="3076" Text="You might get an idea about this from an analogous [case][1] involving &quot;a portion&quot; of the backing of a baby changing table. It was ruled that &quot;a portion&quot; did not include &quot;the whole and the alleged infringer won. Now we write &quot;at least a portion&quot; in our claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ipmvs.com/filewrapper-old/partially-does-not-include-totally-judgment-of-noninfringement-affirmed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21058" RevisionGUID="d612c074-c7a4-4322-a71b-2582e9599ffa" CreationDate="2019-12-30T09:08:26.970" UserId="22334" Text="Yes, you can have &quot;wherein&quot; before &quot;comprising&quot;. What you wrote looks OK to me. I personally do not like the term &quot;defined&quot;, thus I draft that feature &quot;wherein the device is a first device&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21057" RevisionGUID="b4bea3d9-bd6d-4ba1-9466-4e47c44334cc" CreationDate="2019-12-30T22:47:04.933" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="You might get an idea about this from an analogous [case][1] involving &quot;a portion&quot; of the backing of a baby changing table. It was ruled that &quot;a portion&quot; did not include &quot;the whole&quot; and the alleged infringer won. Now we write &quot;at least a portion&quot; in our claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ipmvs.com/filewrapper-old/partially-does-not-include-totally-judgment-of-noninfringement-affirmed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21059" RevisionGUID="4c79d147-0f3c-427a-b1cf-a694a7305232" CreationDate="2019-12-30T22:53:24.210" UserId="3076" Text="In the U.S. having details in a preamble is usually not a good idea. During prosecution an examiner is likely to not credit the preamble as actually proving a limitation that helps you with patentablity. However, during an infringement proceeding a preamble might be given strong weight by a judge or jury." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58614" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18787" RevisionGUID="7c6a46af-69ed-44c1-8e52-c7e66be04eb2" CreationDate="2020-01-02T01:03:00.447" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21063" RevisionGUID="c109dfee-7b66-4a06-9642-d631b065ba8d" CreationDate="2020-01-03T19:18:29.687" UserId="22728" Text=" My algorithm uses the modified version of existing algorithm (architectural modification) and I have combined it with existing mathematical law. so can a patent restrict others form using such combination of modified algorithm with a Mathematical law?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58631" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21063" RevisionGUID="c109dfee-7b66-4a06-9642-d631b065ba8d" CreationDate="2020-01-03T19:18:29.687" UserId="22728" Text="I want to know if I can patent such algorithm?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58632" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21063" RevisionGUID="c109dfee-7b66-4a06-9642-d631b065ba8d" CreationDate="2020-01-03T19:18:29.687" UserId="22728" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;algorithms&gt;&lt;patenting-an-algorithm&gt;&lt;math&gt;&lt;mathematical-algorithm&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21064" RevisionGUID="70159e66-b5a0-43a9-ac12-759d1d3738bc" CreationDate="2020-01-03T20:59:40.253" UserId="3076" Text="It is possible but it would need to be applied to some useful end. Using the terms algorithm and mathematical law in the text of a patent application would liking get it rejected out of hand unless phrased very carefully." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21065" RevisionGUID="d44910c4-aa8e-4b00-a5fb-22530060a7a9" CreationDate="2020-01-03T22:06:34.190" UserId="17003" Text="I agree with George White. I have several algorithm based patents. In all cases, they patent the application of a novel algorithm to solving a very specific problem (analysis of real time PCR results). I've been told (I'm not a lawyer myself) that an algorithm, by itself, would be considered &quot;abstract&quot; and thus unpatentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you decide on a specific application of your algorithm for the patent, it still needs to be novel and non-obvious to someone skilled in the art. Since you are modifying an existing algorithm and combining it with another existing mathematical law, the question the examiner might pose is whether the modification and combination is something someone skilled in the art might think of and is thus obvious. It might take a skilled patent attorney to draft and prosecute a patent against such a challenge. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58635" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20973" RevisionGUID="0a38294c-6e84-4274-b478-8d387c5beabf" CreationDate="2020-01-04T01:02:00.223" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21066" RevisionGUID="63ffb63e-61c1-444e-8f89-12343d52823a" CreationDate="2020-01-04T04:29:48.107" UserId="21034" Text="A patent has a preamble in its specification. The preamble is an introductory phrase to introduce the subject matter of the claims, defines a work concept or states of purpose or use of the invention. The preamble does not define the scope of invention rather it is an introduction to body of that claim which serves the function.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The preambles can be of any length; however, shorter preambles are mostly preferred. The preamble is similar to the preambles of the claims, but can vary as needed. In one example, a preamble such as, i) ‘an apparatus comprising’ can be considered overly broad or ii) composition of matter that describe a new material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically, claims of patent specification contain three major components which are i) a preamble, ii) a transition term and iii) a body.  The preamble should not embrace unnecessary limitations; if a constraint is needed for the claim, it should be included in the body of the claim, using ‘whereby’ or wherein clause. Further, it is important that the preamble should match the invention described in the patent specification. If the specification describes ‘a chain’, then the claim should not specify ‘a bracelet’; similarly, if the invention can be used in headphone or watch, the claim should not specify just ‘headphone’ or ‘watch’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good strategy for drafting a preamble is to include preamble terms that make the claim scope seems rational, however it can be drafted that these limitations may not construe to narrow the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21067" RevisionGUID="e2a39ca4-e2b1-4712-bffc-e54c41a9e86c" CreationDate="2020-01-04T04:43:17.693" UserId="21034" Text="1.Trade Secrets&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Protections for confidential information such as formula, method, device, machine, compilation of facts or any information that is confidential and gives a business an advantage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Period of protection:&#xD;&#xA;As long as information remains confidential and functions as a trade secret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;Coca‑Cola formula; special method for assembling a patented invention&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Copyright&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Protections for literary and artistic works such as books, photos, music, recordings, fine art, graphics, videos, film, architecture, computer programs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Period of Protection:&#xD;&#xA;Life of the author plus 70 years for works created by a single author.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other works such as works made for hire, 120 years from date of creation or 95 years from first publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;Roy Orbison’s Greatest Hits (music recording, compact disc artwork and video)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58638" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21067" RevisionGUID="e2a39ca4-e2b1-4712-bffc-e54c41a9e86c" CreationDate="2020-01-04T04:43:17.693" UserId="21034" Text="Can you copyright a trade secret?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58639" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21067" RevisionGUID="e2a39ca4-e2b1-4712-bffc-e54c41a9e86c" CreationDate="2020-01-04T04:43:17.693" UserId="21034" Text="&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;trade-secret&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21068" RevisionGUID="1294d90c-7953-437f-9f25-00e1ca47fd3b" CreationDate="2020-01-04T05:57:36.947" UserId="3076" Text="Using the formula for Coke as an example, you could write down a detailed recipe that would be copyrighted as long as it was more than just a bare list. And you could keep the recipe secret. The added value of the copyright would not be very much. If someone reverse engineered the formula they would write it down in their own words that would not be not be the same as what you had copyrighted. Even if they accidentally wrote it down in the exact same words, it would not be a copyright violation sine it was not copied. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also to bring a copyright suit you would need to register it which involves sending a copy to the U.S. Copyright Office - not conducive to keeping it a trade secret." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21069" RevisionGUID="295609e5-9165-48c6-9d4b-33230de60cff" CreationDate="2020-01-04T14:42:25.327" UserId="22611" Text="The invention is a tool that has a least one of feature Y on a first location. &#xD;&#xA;Then in preferred embodiments have feature Y in a second location and also different possible configurations and numbers of Y on the tool.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;My question is how do I introduce Y correctly and still have it make sense with the dependent wording? I find many articles I read say you must `preferably` use &quot;a&quot; or &quot;an&quot; to introduce an element. What is the best most clear way to make an examiner happy?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Example 1:&#xD;&#xA;Independent claim: Tool, comprising: X with a first location and a second location; and *at least one* Y on the first location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dependent claim: The tool defined in claim 1, wherein at least one said Y is also located on the second location.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Example 2:&#xD;&#xA;Independent claim: Tool, comprising: X with a first location, and a second location; and *`a`* Y on the first location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dependent claim: The tool defined in claim 1, wherein at least one said Y is also located on the second location.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58642" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21069" RevisionGUID="295609e5-9165-48c6-9d4b-33230de60cff" CreationDate="2020-01-04T14:42:25.327" UserId="22611" Text="Does &quot;at least one Y&quot; properly introduce an Y if used for for the first time as well as &quot;a&quot; or &quot;an&quot; does?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58643" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21069" RevisionGUID="295609e5-9165-48c6-9d4b-33230de60cff" CreationDate="2020-01-04T14:42:25.327" UserId="22611" Text="&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21069" RevisionGUID="f335d20d-29c4-4a1a-a081-e3973774792d" CreationDate="2020-01-04T14:53:44.467" UserId="22611" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="The invention is a tool that has a least one of feature Y on a first location. &#xD;&#xA;Then in preferred embodiments have feature Y in a second location and also different possible configurations and numbers of Y on the tool.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;My question is how do I introduce Y correctly and still have it make sense with the dependent wording? I find many articles I read say you must `preferably` use &quot;a&quot; or &quot;an&quot; to introduce an element. What is the best most clear way to make an examiner happy?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Example 1:&#xD;&#xA;Independent claim: Tool, comprising: X with a first location and a second location; and *at least one* Y on the first location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dependent claim: The tool defined in claim 1, wherein at least one said Y is also located on the second location.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Example 2:&#xD;&#xA;Independent claim: Tool, comprising: X with a first location, and a second location; and *`a`* Y on the first location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dependent claim: The tool defined in claim 1, wherein at least one said Y is also located on the second location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example 3: Or should I say: at least one of `a` Y? That way there is the proverbial `a`, or does that even matter or help? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58645" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="21067" RevisionGUID="ffeb06fa-313d-403f-95b5-98b60ffe09af" CreationDate="2020-01-04T16:29:00.140" UserId="1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="58646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21070" RevisionGUID="d22a1753-5ec3-4f36-9e36-b39534d62a84" CreationDate="2020-01-04T17:35:45.870" UserId="3076" Text="Assuming each of the two locations can only have a single location, you do not want to say there is at least one Y in location one. Example 2 is better. Also, the independent claim does not need to set the stage for the dependent claim by reciting a second location. It could be seen as narrowing claim. Looking at an an infringer that had one Y at some location a jury might say &quot;I do not see that it has any such thing as a 'second location' so it doesn't have all elements.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without the second Y somewhere, 'second location' as a placeholder in the independent claim is not needed and potentially harmful. Just bring in the second location in the dependent claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21071" RevisionGUID="092d9b02-c7dd-45ec-88f5-eff2025ba154" CreationDate="2020-01-05T19:45:43.890" UserId="6121" Text="I would like understand how a patent application get examined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say, I have 1 independent claim and 99 level 1 dependent claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does that mean, the examiner search for prior art for all 99 dependent claims when the independent claim seem obvious?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or he will pause somewhere in the middle and then send the first office action?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58648" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21071" RevisionGUID="092d9b02-c7dd-45ec-88f5-eff2025ba154" CreationDate="2020-01-05T19:45:43.890" UserId="6121" Text="How patent claims are examined by an examiner?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58649" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21071" RevisionGUID="092d9b02-c7dd-45ec-88f5-eff2025ba154" CreationDate="2020-01-05T19:45:43.890" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;examination&gt;&lt;examiner&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21072" RevisionGUID="69bb1848-f06d-4c8c-b6d1-9a27a6d470c2" CreationDate="2020-01-05T21:11:19.517" UserId="3076" Text="Any claim that is not either objected to or rejected is inherently accepted so they all need to be dealt with in the first office action. The independent claim might be non-novel or obvious but any of the dependent claims might add enough limitations to achieve patentablity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I strongly advise to not have that many claims. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21072" RevisionGUID="46059955-8431-4097-b8ca-a5566092a78d" CreationDate="2020-01-05T21:16:46.603" UserId="3076" Comment="added 472 characters in body" Text="Any claim that is not either objected to or rejected is inherently accepted so they all need to be dealt with in the first office action. The independent claim might be non-novel or obvious but any of the dependent claims might add enough limitations to achieve patentablity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I strongly advise to not have that many claims. It might be annoying to the examiner who doesn't get any extra time to do the work. One idea is to include claim-like wording in the specification as &quot;aspects of the invention&quot;, not using the word claim. Then you will not have a problem if you want to amend them in or use them in a continuation or divisional. In the U.S. it would be a good idea to use the three independent claims in order to get at the invention from three points of view or in three statutory classes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21074" RevisionGUID="2d5025e8-6b23-47e8-a3ce-2fb77d403711" CreationDate="2020-01-07T07:10:43.503" UserId="22735" Text="Longtime Amazon employee here: I don't recall when Amazon started awarding puzzle pieces, but it was sometime before 2008.  Audible (an Amazon company) has a writeup of the practice: http://stn.audible.com/patents/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, the pieces are transparent Lucite, about 4&quot; square and 1&quot; thick, with tabs &amp; slots that fit with other identical pieces.  A Google image search for &quot;amazon patent puzzle pieces&quot; will give you a good idea.  They award colorless pieces for submitting a patent, with generic &quot;Congratulations on inventing something&quot; wording.  You get a blue piece with your name &amp; patent number when the USPTO awards the patent, many years later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's it, no direct monetary award.  So why do Amazon employees even bother?  Two main reasons: 1) The process makes it extremely effortless for people to file for a patent: First, the inventors submit their idea in a very short description.  Someone in the IP department reviews it for alignment with the business goals of Amazon, prior art &amp; related work, etc.  If they decide to move forward, the inventors will send the patent lawyers whatever documentation they have on the idea, and then have a meeting to talk it through.  Maybe two, depending on the complexity.  The lawyers will then draft the patent application, and send it out for review &amp; feedback.  Another meeting to go through any feedback, and once the application is final, they'll submit it.  In the end, for the employee it's a tiny incremental amount of effort on top of the work they've already put into developing &amp; building the idea in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 2nd reason people do it is that it is a natural side-effect of the &quot;invent &amp; simplify&quot; culture.  There is a large breadth of teams at Amazon, each trying to solve deep problems within their domain.  This creates no end to the number of interesting problems requiring workable, but creative solutions.  The kind of people who enjoy doing this kind of work find it naturally rewarding, and they're also recognized for it in performance reviews &amp; promotions, which then leads to higher compensation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58659" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20013" RevisionGUID="dc4d5724-9ea0-4d88-bcc7-b4a37a9318b1" CreationDate="2020-01-08T22:03:25.507" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21076" RevisionGUID="b9478d8b-cdfa-45e5-b0cd-be0499d2076a" CreationDate="2020-01-10T04:12:11.077" UserId="22746" Text="Hi if I am submitting two patents for two different claims but for the same invention can sections such as background, summary, drawings, detailed description, terminology, and remarks be similar or even the same?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58666" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21076" RevisionGUID="b9478d8b-cdfa-45e5-b0cd-be0499d2076a" CreationDate="2020-01-10T04:12:11.077" UserId="22746" Text="If I am submitting two different provisional patents for two different claims on the same invention can some sections be the same or similar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58667" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21076" RevisionGUID="b9478d8b-cdfa-45e5-b0cd-be0499d2076a" CreationDate="2020-01-10T04:12:11.077" UserId="22746" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21077" RevisionGUID="fb4d86e3-bf0d-42ef-a9ac-a979150100e3" CreationDate="2020-01-10T15:20:30.497" UserId="6121" Text="I have an omnibus PCT application. It contains multiple inventions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EPO charges 14 EUR for each page in excess of 30 pages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have used large font and line height in my PCT application for better readability. The PCT application comes around 300 pages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I understand this correctly, I have to pay excess fees for 270 pages. Which is 3780 EUR. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since my PCT application contains around 10 inventive concepts, I may have to pay 37800 EUR for specification alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way, I can reduce these costs?   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58669" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21077" RevisionGUID="fb4d86e3-bf0d-42ef-a9ac-a979150100e3" CreationDate="2020-01-10T15:20:30.497" UserId="6121" Text="Can I remove some part of the specification and drawings when entering the EPO?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58670" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21077" RevisionGUID="fb4d86e3-bf0d-42ef-a9ac-a979150100e3" CreationDate="2020-01-10T15:20:30.497" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;epo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21078" RevisionGUID="7d47a962-4598-46f5-8812-e54fa9ffc9e7" CreationDate="2020-01-10T15:38:15.423" UserId="22746" Text="Hey y'all I called the inventor's assistance center and they told me this and wanted to share incase it helps anyone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should file one provisional and then when filing the non-provisional do two separate claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21079" RevisionGUID="78852276-883b-4b80-ab8c-6d9e82acb138" CreationDate="2020-01-10T18:25:35.947" UserId="3076" Text="And the direct answer to your question is yes, if you have some reason to file two provisionals. Lets say you file one and then decide you have another aspect of the system that you think is patentable. Feel free to copy whatever is relevant from the first one you filed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, there is no such thing as a provisional *patent*, only a provisional patent *application*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21080" RevisionGUID="57b47099-d5a8-46a0-8289-631491c11e8b" CreationDate="2020-01-10T19:10:27.713" UserId="3076" Text="Worse, whomever the ISA is will only search one inventive concept. To get all ten searched you will pay (if the EPO is your ISA) $1950 per each inventive concept. And at the regional stage in the EPO, any claims not to a single inventive concept will be discarded and only a set of claims with &quot;unity of invention&quot; will be examined. You might want to learn about unity of invention as views by the EPO. Then you can chose the subject matter you will pursue. Now you know what to keep and what to remove in editing the specification and drawings. You need to be careful in that editing becasue the EPO looks at amendments to the specification carefully for not introducing new matter. They are very literal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are divisionals in the EPO so you can go back and get a second, third, etc. inventive concept examined. It will get very very expensive. With all the costs in front of you it might save money and vastly improve outcomes to engage a practitioner with EPO experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21081" RevisionGUID="7ccd9a08-6d84-48e7-ab60-c369441f29a6" CreationDate="2020-01-10T21:52:30.447" UserId="22334" Text="George White's answer is very accurate. I will add few things to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can amend your specification and claims upon entering the European phase so that the page fee is reduced, but as pointed out by George White you should be careful with your amendments, Art. 123(2) EPC kills many applications and patents. You can also file divisionals with amended description so that the page fee is not so expensive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One option you have is enter into the European phase with the complete text and claim the most important inventions right away (there is also the claim fee for claims in excess of 15, so be careful). The EPO will search the first invention and invite you to pay search fees for each further invention claimed. You can pay for the searches you want (but do not claim them if you are not willing to pay for the search at this point in time) so that you get a written opinion for each searched invention and then decide which one to examine in that application and whether any one of the others is to be moved to examined in divisionals (right away or later on). In this way you know before filing some divisionals what is the EPO's preliminary opinion on the patentability of said inventions, maybe you will decide not to file those divisionals if the prior art is very strong. If you were to file any one of those divisionals, you have to pay the search fee again, but it will be reimbursed after some months because you already paid for the search, otherwise the fee will not be reimbursed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like in the US, divisionals can be filed as long as one prior application is pending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your description is structured such that you described the different inventions in the form of different aspects of the invention, then removing the part related to inventions not claimed should be more or less straightforward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may want to read the last chapter of EPO's [Euro-PCT Guide](https://www.epo.org/applying/international/guide-for-applicants.html) that explains the European regional phase in a very understandable manner. It includes references to the applicable articles, rules and guidelines for examination (a very thorough explanation of all aspects related to European patent prosecution).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, bear in mind that if you are not a natural or legal person resident in a Contracting State of the European Patent Convention, you will have to be represented by a European patent attorney for EPO's proceedings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. The page fee of EP applications is for each page in excess of 35, it is in PCT where it is 30." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58675" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="21081" RevisionGUID="c92b94b0-1b58-4715-b07a-5323cf50e40f" CreationDate="2020-01-10T21:52:30.447" UserId="22334" />
  <row Id="58676" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="3123a925-abfd-460f-90fc-48ff5c2e67c4" CreationDate="2020-01-10T22:01:30.207" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58677" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="21077" RevisionGUID="8f326b6b-84a7-4bb8-b0a0-fc148392bc28" CreationDate="2020-01-10T23:26:13.230" />
  <row Id="58678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21082" RevisionGUID="7d48314c-d5d3-4e33-8961-25ed93ac4e23" CreationDate="2020-01-11T03:48:24.417" UserId="21149" Text="I was watching a 2014 episode of 'Shark Tank', Season 6, Episode 3.  A woman pitching 'HeartPUP', a pet carrier, said that while in law school, one of her professors said, &quot;Patent laws are changing next month, if you put this on the internet now, you'll have a common law patent...&quot; And then she was interrupted. Was this something legitimate? Is there such a thing as a 'common law patent'? I can't find anything online that refers to it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58679" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21082" RevisionGUID="7d48314c-d5d3-4e33-8961-25ed93ac4e23" CreationDate="2020-01-11T03:48:24.417" UserId="21149" Text="Is there such a thing as a 'common law patent'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58680" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21082" RevisionGUID="7d48314c-d5d3-4e33-8961-25ed93ac4e23" CreationDate="2020-01-11T03:48:24.417" UserId="21149" Text="&lt;public-disclosure&gt;&lt;patenting&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21083" RevisionGUID="8334044d-ee9d-4129-945a-001ea49f052c" CreationDate="2020-01-11T04:23:45.280" UserId="3076" Text="**NO**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may be common law trademarks, but patents are a grant of a time-limited monopoly from a government. A fairly radical U.S. patent law (in my opinion) was signed in 2012 with various aspects going into effect over the next 18 months or so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the new law one can publish the details of an invention and then get a year to actually file. If followed up on within the year the publication would be part of a first-to-file system providing protection - if and when a patent issued. Of course the day it was published on the internet all possiblity of any patents outside the U.S. would be gone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21083" RevisionGUID="05c1e57c-5ee8-4115-a45f-f7e096ba581a" CreationDate="2020-01-11T05:06:14.017" UserId="3076" Comment="added 231 characters in body" Text="**No**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may be common law trademarks, but patents are a grant of a time-limited monopoly from a government. A fairly radical U.S. patent law (in my opinion) was signed in 2012 with various aspects going into effect over the next 18 months or so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the new law one can publish the details of an invention and then get a year to actually file. If followed up on within the year, the publication would effectively be part of a first-to-file system providing protection - if and when a patent issued. Under the old law someone else could establish that they invented it first regardless of your publication. Under the new law, if they file the day after your publication they would be denied as being old - period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course the day it was published on the internet all possibility of any patents outside the U.S. would be gone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21084" RevisionGUID="8e0d8959-a5b2-43c2-a134-3b923b2e6701" CreationDate="2020-01-11T13:14:37.817" UserId="22749" Text="Go is an [open-source][1] programming language that makes it easy to build simple, reliable, and efficient software. And Golang is Go Language. If someone builds software using Golang and registers it as Patent, then it is said as Golang Patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://holi-2020.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21085" RevisionGUID="54742756-bfa3-4914-a2d6-4b7607efe0a3" CreationDate="2020-01-11T13:38:49.527" UserId="15489" Text="I managed to mess up and filed a terminal disclaimer shortly after the Examiner had already responded with a final office action. The Examiner made it clear in their response that the claims were allowable, and that all issues had been addressed except the non-statutory double patenting issue that the terminal disclaimer was meant to obviate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So technically the patent is now in a condition for allowance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFCAP 2.0 doesn't apply, because I would need to amend a claim (and they're all fine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I have to file an RCE purely because of this, or is there some other (cheaper) way to get the patent granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58685" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21085" RevisionGUID="54742756-bfa3-4914-a2d6-4b7607efe0a3" CreationDate="2020-01-11T13:38:49.527" UserId="15489" Text="Terminal disclaimer filed after final office action" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58686" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21085" RevisionGUID="54742756-bfa3-4914-a2d6-4b7607efe0a3" CreationDate="2020-01-11T13:38:49.527" UserId="15489" Text="&lt;examination&gt;&lt;terminal-disclaimer&gt;&lt;allowability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21086" RevisionGUID="958285a4-adfa-4c4d-b3de-83f743a68f96" CreationDate="2020-01-11T15:32:21.370" UserId="14403" Text="There is provision for withdrawal of 'recorded terminal disclosure. May refer MPEP 1490 ([Ref-1]) para VII &amp; VII.A under 37 CFR 1.182 ([Ref-2]). Application fee is USD400 ([Ref-3]) under section (f). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RCE will not nullify 'terminal disclaimer'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ref-1]:https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/E8r8#/E8r8/d0e146976.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ref-2]:https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/E8r8#/E8r8/d0e324988.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ref-3]:https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/E8r8#/E8r8/d0e315199.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21088" RevisionGUID="c73ef8b9-d0f4-4f4d-adcc-352760dde901" CreationDate="2020-01-11T17:58:48.280" UserId="6121" Text="I just Googled the definition for the word `system`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google says,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interconnecting network; a complex whole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the phrase &quot;A system comprising&quot; refers to multiple computers. Not just one computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of my claim involves 3 different parties (user, admin etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claim goes like this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    A system comprising one or more processors configured to:&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Receive, ...&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Store, ...&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Execute, ...&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    ....&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that a valid system claim when multiple parties involved?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or do I have to mention explicitly like `one or more computers configured to`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58692" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21088" RevisionGUID="c73ef8b9-d0f4-4f4d-adcc-352760dde901" CreationDate="2020-01-11T17:58:48.280" UserId="6121" Text="How does &quot;A system comprising&quot; claim works when multiple parties involved?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58693" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21088" RevisionGUID="c73ef8b9-d0f4-4f4d-adcc-352760dde901" CreationDate="2020-01-11T17:58:48.280" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21089" RevisionGUID="d64d1b78-122b-47f1-9f74-ee80e882acf6" CreationDate="2020-01-11T19:11:43.963" UserId="22334" Text="You may have clarity problems if the examiner does not know what kind of system is that. If it is just one computer, you would have to claim a device/apparatus, if it is more than one computer you would have to claim a system comprising the computers. A system with one or more computers is not really OK because one computer does not qualify as a system if nothing else is present. In my opinion, parties do not have any relevance in this matter, but rather the computing devices they use are the important factors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, if two or more of the parties are to do something on different computing devices, you should consider the possibility of no direct infringement of the complete system (or method) occurring in the same country. You would have to rely on indirect infringement to enforce eventual patents, which is never preferred." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21090" RevisionGUID="92c3f7fe-599e-426f-9fe6-ed60c205cd70" CreationDate="2020-01-11T19:22:31.683" UserId="3076" Text="A single computer could be a system in that it has many interconnected parts working together - CPU, memory, storage, I/O. In the U.S. I do not think a preamble of &quot;one or more computers comprising a computer system&quot; would have a problem with an examiner. Part of the reason for that is U.S. examination does not put much weight on the preamble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As @the Europeist says divided infringement is a big issue. You do not want a claim that is performed by multiple independent entities. If the receiving, storing, executing are action done by the system you are ok. A claim where the actions are by a user, you do not want more than one user's actions to be a positive limitation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21090" RevisionGUID="3cb9ed80-7625-4a02-9159-36982fe9a25c" CreationDate="2020-01-12T00:04:55.480" UserId="3076" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="A single computer could be a system in that it has many interconnected parts working together - CPU, memory, storage, I/O. In the U.S. Particularly if the specification is explicit that some systems can consist of a single computer. I do not think a preamble of &quot;one or more computers comprising a computer system&quot; would have a problem with an examiner. Part of the reason for that is U.S. examination does not put much weight on the preamble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As @the Europeist says divided infringement is a big issue. You do not want a claim that is performed by multiple independent entities. If the receiving, storing, executing are action done by the system you are ok. A claim where the actions are by a user, you do not want more than one user's actions to be a positive limitation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21091" RevisionGUID="a5b71cd2-134c-4d73-a314-ed26d1921714" CreationDate="2020-01-12T00:08:08.163" UserId="3076" Text="In the license for the GO software Google grants a licenses to the patents that *Google owns* regarding the GO software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;exerpt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; here such license applies only to those patent&#xD;&#xA; claims, both currently owned or controlled by Google and acquired in the future, licensable by Google that are necessarily infringed by this implementation of Go. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21092" RevisionGUID="f84fb5e5-7718-415c-9e0c-ca2f1f23d6e3" CreationDate="2020-01-12T01:16:53.597" UserId="22751" Text="There was some issue with my provisional patent filing and the time given by USPTO to respond has lapsed. So, could I refile the patent as a NEW provisional patent filing under the SAME title 3 months later? I plan to edit the write-up too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't plan to ask for a time-extension." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58699" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21092" RevisionGUID="f84fb5e5-7718-415c-9e0c-ca2f1f23d6e3" CreationDate="2020-01-12T01:16:53.597" UserId="22751" Text="Can I refile my own provisional patent that has lapsed due to delay in responding to USPTO?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58700" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21092" RevisionGUID="f84fb5e5-7718-415c-9e0c-ca2f1f23d6e3" CreationDate="2020-01-12T01:16:53.597" UserId="22751" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;refiling&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21093" RevisionGUID="60815adb-b169-4c66-acbc-4e31447d8ade" CreationDate="2020-01-12T05:50:51.797" UserId="3076" Text="Yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would an entirely new application regardless that the content was the same. It will get no advantage (or disadvantage) from the first filing. If no one else did anything in the field that anticipates or makes obvious your invention, you are in the same place you were with the initial filing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you desire international filings under the Paris Convention you have a year from the first filing on the subject matter to file everywhere else. If, as in your case, the first filing died without leaving any rights and was not published, the second filing is treated as the first filing for Paris Convention purposes as long as it in the same country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that you understand the problem with the original  filing and will remedy that in the next filing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21094" RevisionGUID="eaa1e637-fed2-4430-b724-9c0050b9ae05" CreationDate="2020-01-12T05:53:59.660" UserId="22752" Text="If Pakistan is non-signatory to PCT, then how can it be of importance to disclose to PCT about the application submitted in Pakistan. &#xD;&#xA;Now take this as; if there is any clause in PCT that require disclosure of any application submitted before in any country &quot;INCLUDING NON-SIGNATORY TO PCT&quot;, then it can be of any value. Otherwise, if it only requires information about prior application in PCT signatory countries then the Pakistani applicant has already done by referring to US patent application...&#xD;&#xA;According to international law, PCT 'jurisdiction' only constitute the countries which agrees to terms and conditions of PCT, and if PCT does not provide protection to non-PCT states then it has no right to know about any application submitted in these countries...       " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21076" RevisionGUID="dd410cf7-a25e-4f00-a11c-438b77df9ab3" CreationDate="2020-01-12T13:54:00.480" UserId="22746" Comment="added 22 characters in body; edited title" Text="Hi if I am submitting two provisional patent applications for two different claims but for the same invention can sections such as background, summary, drawings, detailed description, terminology, and remarks be similar or even the same?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58704" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="21076" RevisionGUID="dd410cf7-a25e-4f00-a11c-438b77df9ab3" CreationDate="2020-01-12T13:54:00.480" UserId="22746" Comment="added 22 characters in body; edited title" Text="If I am submitting two different provisionals for two different claims on the same invention can some sections be the same or similar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21078" RevisionGUID="1afde3ba-c3fe-4f5f-bf05-93fc82e9e83f" CreationDate="2020-01-12T13:56:39.180" UserId="22746" Comment="deleted 64 characters in body" Text="Hi I called the inventor's assistance center regarding my question above, and they suggested that I file one provisional and then when filing the non-provisional do two separate claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21095" RevisionGUID="65515074-3a1a-488a-99b7-1399e433077d" CreationDate="2020-01-12T20:40:05.563" UserId="6121" Text="Jan 2020 - A non-provisional application filed.  This is the GRANDPARENT application. It contains around 5 inventive concepts. The patent claimed the inventive concept 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jan 2021 - A continuation application filed. This is the PARENT application. It claimed the inventive concept 2. [The specification of this application only contains description and drawing for concept 2.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jun 2021 - The GRANDPARENT application get granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dec 2021 - Can I file more continuation using the disclosure found in GRANDPARENT application? i.e. For concept 3, 4 and 5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or I can file continuation only for disclosure found in Jan 2021 PARENT application?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58707" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21095" RevisionGUID="65515074-3a1a-488a-99b7-1399e433077d" CreationDate="2020-01-12T20:40:05.563" UserId="6121" Text="Can I file a continuation application using the disclosure of a granted grantparent application while the parent is pending?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58708" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21095" RevisionGUID="65515074-3a1a-488a-99b7-1399e433077d" CreationDate="2020-01-12T20:40:05.563" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;continuation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21096" RevisionGUID="0df856e6-1779-46ce-9c9d-e9ca1c79874c" CreationDate="2020-01-12T20:56:07.493" UserId="3076" Text="The PCT application is not entitled to priority from the U.S. application and the publication of the U.S. application is novelty destroying prior art to the PCT application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\According to [Article 8 of the PCT Treaty][1], the priority that a PCT application may get from a previous application is governed by the Paris Convention. The Paris Convention says that priority may only be from the first filed patent application on the subject matter. Pakistan is under the Paris convention and it was the first filed application. The U.S. was not the first filed application so the priority claim is invalid. The PCT was filed after the one year anniversary of the Pakistani application so no priority claim to it can work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/a8.html#_8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21097" RevisionGUID="798ad5dc-a2f2-4c10-b439-1aaaacd933ac" CreationDate="2020-01-12T21:01:47.263" UserId="3076" Text="Yes - You can make the new application a continuation of the &quot;grandparent&quot; as odd as that might seem. The first sentence needs to very carefully written to state that it is a continuation of the grandparent and that this is proper because of the co-pending of the current continuation of the grandparent.  The new application is a sister to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes calling the original application &quot;grandparent&quot; erroneous. We do not use that term anyway even if there are true multi-generations of applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21098" RevisionGUID="19ae33c2-9a9b-4199-873a-3bbc301ef708" CreationDate="2020-01-13T00:30:42.507" UserId="22755" Text="If you have a vending machine that distributes beverages on the left side and cooks and distributes pizza on the other. Could this be patent? even though vending machines have already been patented distributing separate products" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58712" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21098" RevisionGUID="19ae33c2-9a9b-4199-873a-3bbc301ef708" CreationDate="2020-01-13T00:30:42.507" UserId="22755" Text="Addition To Patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58713" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21098" RevisionGUID="19ae33c2-9a9b-4199-873a-3bbc301ef708" CreationDate="2020-01-13T00:30:42.507" UserId="22755" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21099" RevisionGUID="272288eb-3ca3-4065-9f7a-62feddba35c3" CreationDate="2020-01-13T03:42:25.367" UserId="3076" Text="There was a famous case regarding putting an eraser at the end of a pencil. It was granted a patent by the USPTO but disallowed by the Supreme Court in the 1800's. The eraser didn't do anything different becasue it was attached to a pencil and the pencil didn't do anything different becasue it was attached to an eraser. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do not use the term synergy in patent law but you need some functional interaction between the two old things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; And I would guess a search of google patents would turn [one up][1] that was already patented or applied for. This patent US7762181B2 *Customised nutritional food and beverage dispensing system* is more than your one sentence idea. What is patented is one, fairly general, way that such a machine might work. If you have a different, not obvious, idea as to how such a machine might work you might have a patentable invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7762181B2/en?oq=vending%20machine%20cook%20pizza%20beverage%5C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21100" RevisionGUID="828e8725-f773-495b-9440-402231f6fb8f" CreationDate="2020-01-13T04:54:33.383" UserId="22757" Text="I received the First Office Action from my patent attorney but I do not want to use him anymore, how can I deal with USPTO directly and what should I do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58716" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21100" RevisionGUID="828e8725-f773-495b-9440-402231f6fb8f" CreationDate="2020-01-13T04:54:33.383" UserId="22757" Text="Dealing directly with USPTO" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58717" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21100" RevisionGUID="828e8725-f773-495b-9440-402231f6fb8f" CreationDate="2020-01-13T04:54:33.383" UserId="22757" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21101" RevisionGUID="220c99e5-f4f8-408f-bf87-f22017452e2d" CreationDate="2020-01-13T05:17:44.110" UserId="22758" Text="I have pondered this for years as a patent attorney and  actually hold a patent for an embodiment using actual technology of a fantasy in a Star Trek episode.  I hold the position that a fantasy is non-enabling and thus not patentable but bringing life to a fantasy is patentable subject matter.  The ultimate example of this is an antigravity machine, something that is currently not achievable (and I have always been taught that a claim to such would actually require a demonstration at the PTO because it that far beyond the realm of possibility) but if one were to actually create a way to make such a machine that bring life to a fantasy is subject to the potential rewards of a patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21102" RevisionGUID="1427661a-3fe6-47b9-bec8-163ce36bac5d" CreationDate="2020-01-13T16:21:15.307" UserId="3076" Text="&gt; how can I deal with USPTO directly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can have your attorney file paperwork to withdraw as the attorney or record - then its all you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; what should I do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would recommend finding another registered practitioner - this is very hard to do yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58721" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="21005" RevisionGUID="f281dd52-99a8-4409-9b37-0e6c0f9aa5b5" CreationDate="2020-01-13T20:02:05.260" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21102" RevisionGUID="1d635c0c-52f5-469b-a25c-3c5f5457b190" CreationDate="2020-01-14T00:19:42.923" UserId="3076" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="&gt; how can I deal with USPTO directly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can have your attorney file paperwork to withdraw as the attorney or record - then its all you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; what should I do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would recommend finding another registered practitioner - this is very hard to do yourself unless the office action allowed multiple important claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21103" RevisionGUID="47b568e7-ed32-4979-810d-ba07e6ed507e" CreationDate="2020-01-14T03:26:44.613" UserId="21610" Text="The patent you are referring related to Chinese design patents and are not readily searchable through text you can find the details at http://epub.cnipa.gov.cn/gjcx.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21104" RevisionGUID="60423ad6-5147-4a82-8abf-983cf935b5bc" CreationDate="2020-01-14T04:09:35.747" UserId="22759" Text="Assume in a response to examiner's restriction requirement, an applicant elected Claim 1 and withdrew Claim 2 without traverse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then in the following non-final office action, what should the applicant handle the &quot;withdrawn&quot; Claim 2? In response to the non-final office action, what should the preamble of Claim 2? &quot;(Withdrawn) Claim 2&quot; or &quot;(Canceled) Claim 2&quot;? Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58725" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21104" RevisionGUID="60423ad6-5147-4a82-8abf-983cf935b5bc" CreationDate="2020-01-14T04:09:35.747" UserId="22759" Text="In non-final office action, how to handle previously withdrawn claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58726" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21104" RevisionGUID="60423ad6-5147-4a82-8abf-983cf935b5bc" CreationDate="2020-01-14T04:09:35.747" UserId="22759" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;office-action&gt;&lt;prosecution&gt;&lt;response&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21105" RevisionGUID="206f1b66-6213-4dde-b607-b96b0d818444" CreationDate="2020-01-14T05:11:08.867" UserId="3076" Text="Do you want to leave it withdrawn or do you wish to cancel it? Those are two different states and you can chose to leave it withdrawn (easier to bring back after allowance if that is relevant) or cancel it (if you are not going to pursue in in this application why not keep things cleaner and get rid of it)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21105" RevisionGUID="293aa584-9660-45e5-8f3d-1a608661795a" CreationDate="2020-01-14T05:32:30.187" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Do you want to leave it withdrawn or do you wish to cancel it? Those are two different states and you can chose to leave it withdrawn (easier to bring back after allowance if that is relevant) or cancel it (if you are not going to pursue in this application why not keep things cleaner and get rid of it)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21106" RevisionGUID="be075d47-ab50-4857-8f77-03d055395e3e" CreationDate="2020-01-14T06:42:06.653" UserId="22754" Text="I've been intrigued by the recent [Sonos v. Google patent infringement lawsuit](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/technology/sonos-sues-google.html) ([full complaint text](https://www.scribd.com/document/442035843/Sonos-v-Google)). I built a similar system with a few friends for a school project in the beginning of 2002, well before the earliest priority date of the five patents in question, 2003-07-28. I'm curious if you all think it might count as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The five patents named in the suit are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [US8588949](https://patents.google.com/patent/US8588949B2/en), _Method and apparatus for adjusting volume levels in a multi-zone system_&#xD;&#xA;* [US9195258](https://patents.google.com/patent/US9195258B2/en), _System and method for synchronizing operations among a plurality of independently clocked digital data processing devices_&#xD;&#xA;* [US9219959](https://patents.google.com/patent/US9219959B2/en), _Multi-channel pairing in a media system_&#xD;&#xA;* [US10209953](https://patents.google.com/patent/US10209953B2/en), _Playback device_&#xD;&#xA;* [US10439896](https://patents.google.com/patent/US10439896B2/en), _Playback device connection_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two I'm curious about are [US9195258](https://patents.google.com/patent/US9195258B2/en) (priority date 2003-07-28), for running a task on one device at a timestamp from another device by incorporating the difference between the two devices' clocks, and [US10209953](https://patents.google.com/patent/US10209953B2/en), for applying that timestamp delta technique to many devices together. (I think.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our project was similar to Sonos: it synchronized MP3 player apps on desktop computers over a local network to play the same song at the same time. The key document is https://snarfed.org/synchronizing_mp3_playback, originally published 2002-12-29. In its _Solution_ section, it describes a similar technique for running a task at a specific time across devices with different clocks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Seriously, though, there’s only one trick to p4sync, and that is how it uses NTP. One host acts as the p4sync server. The other p4sync clients synchronize their system clocks to the server’s clock, using SNTP. When the server starts playing a song, it records the time, to the millisecond. The clients then retrieve that timestamp, calculate the difference between current time from that timestamp, and seek forward that far into the song.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is subtly different from Sonos's patents in that it measures the difference between the clocks in order to synchronize them first, _before_ running a task, as opposed to leaving their clocks out of sync and using the difference to determine the appropriate starting time...but that's a somewhat minor nuance, and the application of synchronizing music playback across devices seems to be the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you all think? Could this project count as prior art? Thanks in advance!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(We actually developed this technique in April 2002, but I didn't publish it until December. I did publish two other documents from the project in April, https://snarfed.org/p4proposal on 2002-04-09 and https://snarfed.org/p4protocol on 2002-04-06, but neither describes the music player synching or timestamp/clock management in nearly as much detail.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58730" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21106" RevisionGUID="be075d47-ab50-4857-8f77-03d055395e3e" CreationDate="2020-01-14T06:42:06.653" UserId="22754" Text="Is this prior art for two Sonos patents named in Sonos v. Google?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58731" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21106" RevisionGUID="be075d47-ab50-4857-8f77-03d055395e3e" CreationDate="2020-01-14T06:42:06.653" UserId="22754" Text="&lt;google&gt;&lt;sonos&gt;&lt;us9195258&gt;&lt;us10209953&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21107" RevisionGUID="7a3aa8ec-a1bb-4057-99fa-148010730323" CreationDate="2020-01-14T08:47:32.247" UserId="22761" Text="the right patent number is ZL200730024196.9 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58733" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18971" RevisionGUID="a8a54101-5733-485b-b3ba-485af4f614ee" CreationDate="2020-01-14T10:01:30.380" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21108" RevisionGUID="d3e22aef-f2a0-4846-bbee-812656824173" CreationDate="2020-01-15T07:21:14.127" UserId="22764" Text="Basically I want to know if once I submit the micro patent form, is my invention protected if I start selling it to companies? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58735" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21108" RevisionGUID="d3e22aef-f2a0-4846-bbee-812656824173" CreationDate="2020-01-15T07:21:14.127" UserId="22764" Text="Once I submit patent forms can I start selling my invention and it be protected?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58736" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21108" RevisionGUID="d3e22aef-f2a0-4846-bbee-812656824173" CreationDate="2020-01-15T07:21:14.127" UserId="22764" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21109" RevisionGUID="dfedcce3-1f02-4311-b87b-1c1b0bbb5f68" CreationDate="2020-01-15T18:59:14.837" UserId="3076" Text="The only &quot;micro form&quot; I know of with the USPTO is the form/checkbox to claim micro-entity status to get reduced fees. I assume you are talking about the filing of an application. Once you file an application, either provisional or non-provisional, you can disclose your invention and not break novelty. For the U.S. you have a quasi grace period of a year so you could have chosen to disclose a year before filing. It is not generally recommended and any disclosure before filing will keep you from ever getting any protection other than in the U.S. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be that your application is not detailed enough or has some other problem such that selling your product effectively discloses something you would like to have patented but is not covered in the application you filed. In that case you might need to file again and reley on the grace period - US only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any real protection only comes after a patent is issued. Up until then people could gamble that you will not get a patent and start copying your product. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21110" RevisionGUID="51f5b9e5-e07f-44ae-9fac-adc6962659e0" CreationDate="2020-01-15T19:08:39.337" UserId="3076" Text="In 2014 Tesla issued an announcement [&quot;All Our Patent Are Belong To You&quot;][1]. A [question][2] was posted recently on law.stackexchage.com regarding this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question, that may or may not be on-topic here, is what kind of infringement defense would &quot;I am infringing a Tesla patent but they put out an announcement that said anyone could&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the &quot;pledge&quot; is conditioned on the infringer being in good faith.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.tesla.com/BLOG/ALL-OUR-PATENT-ARE-BELONG-YOU&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/48159/why-would-a-company-choose-to-make-a-pledge-or-covenant-not-to-sue-instead-o" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58739" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21110" RevisionGUID="51f5b9e5-e07f-44ae-9fac-adc6962659e0" CreationDate="2020-01-15T19:08:39.337" UserId="3076" Text="Legal effect of Tesla pledge &quot;All Our Patent Are Belong To You&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58740" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21110" RevisionGUID="51f5b9e5-e07f-44ae-9fac-adc6962659e0" CreationDate="2020-01-15T19:08:39.337" UserId="3076" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21111" RevisionGUID="8ffbb3a9-1093-4950-a3bf-0929725c6d41" CreationDate="2020-01-15T20:31:58.220" UserId="22334" Text="From a legal standpoint, should Tesla decide to enforce their patents, I imagine the lawsuits would be dismissed at some point (perhaps in trial) because of the announcement you refer to. Users and companies believe that they are allowed to practice the patented inventions, so any lawsuit filed by Tesla would be in bad faith in my opinion. Good faith and bad faith are of great importance in patent infringement cases all over Europe, I am not sure whether that also happens in the US." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21109" RevisionGUID="87069744-bf8c-46e5-b0a1-83dec24262cb" CreationDate="2020-01-16T23:21:51.933" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed typo. " Text="The only &quot;micro form&quot; I know of with the USPTO is the form/checkbox to claim micro-entity status to get reduced fees. I assume you are talking about the filing of an application. Once you file an application, either provisional or non-provisional, you can disclose your invention and not break novelty. For the U.S. you have a quasi grace period of a year so you could have chosen to disclose a year before filing. It is not generally recommended and any disclosure before filing will keep you from ever getting any protection other than in the U.S. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be that your application is not detailed enough or has some other problem such that selling your product effectively discloses something you would like to have patented but is not covered in the application you filed. In that case you might need to file again and rely on the grace period - US only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any real protection only comes after a patent is issued. Up until then people could gamble that you will not get a patent and start copying your product. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21114" RevisionGUID="d095a3de-97c1-4856-9018-99943047bc2e" CreationDate="2020-01-17T16:27:02.497" UserId="22770" Text="Yes, EP filed 30 Nov 2016 CAN claim the priority of PP1 filed 1 Jan 2016. See Notice from the President of the EPO dated 26 January 1996, Official Journal of the EPO 1996, 81). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21115" RevisionGUID="f1dc371a-a621-4156-95cf-fe38ee78ce61" CreationDate="2020-01-18T00:20:34.483" UserId="22672" Text="This is my first post in 'Ask Patent', so pardon me if the question turned out to be very stupid. I am a PhD student working in nuclear medicine. Recently I had started working on a project. But soon I found that a group had done that work and it was patented. So I need to abandon that specific project. Now I am planning to work on the same problem - but the experimental setup will be different. In detail, the original idea they had patented will remain the same in my present detector system. Still, the implementation and optimization process will be different due to different geometry and different detector material used. Now, my question is - &quot;Can there be any legal issue in a publication? Or do I have to buy the patent to work on the project mentioned above?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58749" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21115" RevisionGUID="f1dc371a-a621-4156-95cf-fe38ee78ce61" CreationDate="2020-01-18T00:20:34.483" UserId="22672" Text="Can a patented idea be implemented in a different experimental set up without buying the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58750" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21115" RevisionGUID="f1dc371a-a621-4156-95cf-fe38ee78ce61" CreationDate="2020-01-18T00:20:34.483" UserId="22672" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21116" RevisionGUID="61fb4e31-0b2b-4dea-a7ac-2f5531f6c4bd" CreationDate="2020-01-18T02:34:28.723" UserId="22611" Text="In the independent claim I say &quot;at least one X.&quot; From then on in the claim I say &quot;the at least one X&quot; as I think I'm supposed to do. Do I have to also call it &quot;the at least one X&quot; in the summary? Or can I just say &quot;at least one X&quot; in the summary like a normal person might say? I don't want to risk confusion? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58752" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21116" RevisionGUID="61fb4e31-0b2b-4dea-a7ac-2f5531f6c4bd" CreationDate="2020-01-18T02:34:28.723" UserId="22611" Text="If I say &quot;the at least one&quot; in the Claim, do I have to call it that in the Summary also?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58753" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21116" RevisionGUID="61fb4e31-0b2b-4dea-a7ac-2f5531f6c4bd" CreationDate="2020-01-18T02:34:28.723" UserId="22611" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;specification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21117" RevisionGUID="3002591b-1add-41e5-a0be-15140736f361" CreationDate="2020-01-18T04:01:07.187" UserId="17003" Text="Many people think patents protect much more than they actually do based on reading the body of the patent. What you need to focus on is the claims of the patent. To infringe on a patent you must implement each and every step specified in at least one claim. So if a claim states steps A, B, C and D and your implementation uses only A, B and C then you don't infringe because you don't implement D. However, if your implementation has steps A, B, C, D and E you would infringe because you implement the steps as specified in the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, you should look at the other patents listed as cited by the examiner because it is possible there are other patents that are also relevant to your research." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21118" RevisionGUID="0d0ebb5d-0d19-4719-8abc-bd98b5624fa1" CreationDate="2020-01-18T06:22:31.647" UserId="3076" Text="I write a summary - if at all - like a normal person." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21119" RevisionGUID="3b76ef82-1a93-465b-9bf6-5982c56c3408" CreationDate="2020-01-18T09:41:54.387" UserId="22772" Text="I was doing some research concerning implementing an energy meter for in house  use when I ran across the 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First I ran across [US9588147B2][1](February 2015), which patents the concept of using a high pass filter to block DC as part of the required integrater circuit when using a Rogowski coil to sense current. In my mind, this would be obvious to anyone in the field with the use cases outlined.  So I went looking even more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next I ran across [US7548054][2](March 2006) which also has the high pass filter for blocking DC at it's core.  Now I'm thinking, why would that other patent been granted?  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I kept looking and that is when I ran into German patent application [DE10320293A1][3](June 2003), which also covers blocking DC.  It was not granted, but would act as prior art I believe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell none of these cite each other or mention the others.&#xD;&#xA;If nothing else, both of the US patents should have at minimum cited the German application(and then gave it up as being prior art).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I stopped looking after the German application.&#xD;&#xA;None of these should have been granted to begin with.  The problems that DC can cause an integrator are well known and have been for a LONG time.  &#xD;&#xA;As an example, [Drift Free Intergrators][4], dating from 1998, deals with the same kind of problem.  An while it is dealing with inputs from geophones(earthquake data),their correction concepts would still apply to other areas where intergrators are used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, I did have an advantage for my research with Google, but the last one granted would also have had it available.  I'm not sure when Google patents came on line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: I do not understand how the US patents were granted in light of the failed German application, let alone other sources dealing with this exact problem.  Nor do I see how the examiner of 2015 application failed to find the 2006 patent.  A search using the primary key words finds it just fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you,   &#xD;&#xA;GB Clark aka AE7OO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9588147B2/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7548054&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/DE10320293A1/un&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Henri_Gavin/publication/234851012_Drift-free_integrators/links/5518a3bb0cf29ab36bc50b0b.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58757" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21119" RevisionGUID="3b76ef82-1a93-465b-9bf6-5982c56c3408" CreationDate="2020-01-18T09:41:54.387" UserId="22772" Text="How are patents like US7548054B2 and US9588147B2 granted in light of DE2003120293" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58758" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21119" RevisionGUID="3b76ef82-1a93-465b-9bf6-5982c56c3408" CreationDate="2020-01-18T09:41:54.387" UserId="22772" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21119" RevisionGUID="98d1f445-6f98-4c23-9f39-e4f9da530378" CreationDate="2020-01-18T13:01:56.580" UserId="22772" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="I was doing some research concerning implementing an energy meter for in house  use when I ran across what seems to me to be fishy patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First I ran across [US9588147B2][1](February 2015), which patents the concept of using a high pass filter to block DC as part of the required integrater circuit when using a Rogowski coil to sense current. In my mind, this would be obvious to anyone in the field with the use cases outlined.  So I went looking even more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next I ran across [US7548054][2](March 2006) which also has the high pass filter for blocking DC at it's core.  Now I'm thinking, why would that other patent been granted?  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I kept looking and that is when I ran into German patent application [DE10320293A1][3](June 2003), which also covers blocking DC.  It was not granted, but would act as prior art I believe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell none of these cite each other or mention the others.&#xD;&#xA;If nothing else, both of the US patents should have at minimum cited the German application(and then gave it up as being prior art).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I stopped looking after the German application.&#xD;&#xA;None of these should have been granted to begin with.  The problems that DC can cause an integrator are well known and have been for a LONG time.  &#xD;&#xA;As an example, [Drift Free Intergrators][4], dating from 1998, deals with the same kind of problem.  An while it is dealing with inputs from geophones(earthquake data),their correction concepts would still apply to other areas where intergrators are used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, I did have an advantage for my research with Google, but the last one granted would also have had it available.  I'm not sure when Google patents came on line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: I do not understand how the US patents were granted in light of the failed German application, let alone other sources dealing with this exact problem.  Nor do I see how the examiner of 2015 application failed to find the 2006 patent.  A search using the primary key words finds it just fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you,   &#xD;&#xA;GB Clark aka AE7OO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9588147B2/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7548054&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/DE10320293A1/un&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Henri_Gavin/publication/234851012_Drift-free_integrators/links/5518a3bb0cf29ab36bc50b0b.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21121" RevisionGUID="bdba1a71-d91b-4511-a9eb-f14f295ff101" CreationDate="2020-01-18T16:16:00.207" UserId="22334" Text="I am not familiar with this technology, but in my opinion your summaries about the two US patents are not accurate, or are so simple that obviously one would conclude that the patents could not have been granted. Patents are granted when the claims are directed to a technical product or process (not a concept as you put it, concepts cannot be patented) that is both novel and inventive. I have not reviewed in detail the US patents, but the claims (the independent claims too, not just the dependent claims) define several features that are not disclosed in the German patent application, which moreover seems to solve a technical problem different than those solved by the US patents. So at least the claims are novel over the German application, and about obviousness I cannot say much because I do not know much about this technology as I mentioned earlier, but if they are not obvious then the patents have been correctly granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why the documents were not cited during prosecution of the different patents could be either because the examiner did not find them, or because they were not relevant for the patentability of the claimed invention; if each document deals with a technical problem of its own or the circuits are considerably different, it would make sense not to cite the documents. In any case, time is limited and searching strategies are not always perfect, thus the examiner may have not found the relevant documents, or found them but ignore their relevance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, concerning the first of the two patents you refer to, you said &quot;when using a Rogowski coil&quot;, which is odd because the independent claims do not even define a Rogowski coil." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21119" RevisionGUID="c6ea53f7-65e3-49cd-8390-04c3c10758c1" CreationDate="2020-01-19T03:58:22.117" UserId="22772" Comment="added 1581 characters in body" Text="I was doing some research concerning implementing an energy meter for in house  use when I ran across what seems to me to be fishy patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First I ran across [US9588147B2][1](February 2015), which patents the concept of using a high pass filter to block DC as part of the required integrater circuit when using a Rogowski coil to sense current. In my mind, this would be obvious to anyone in the field with the use cases outlined.  So I went looking even more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next I ran across [US7548054][2](March 2006) which also has the high pass filter for blocking DC at it's core.  Now I'm thinking, why would that other patent been granted?  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I kept looking and that is when I ran into German patent application [DE10320293A1][3](June 2003), which also covers blocking DC.  It was not granted, but would act as prior art I believe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell none of these cite each other or mention the others.&#xD;&#xA;If nothing else, both of the US patents should have at minimum cited the German application(and then gave it up as being prior art).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I stopped looking after the German application.&#xD;&#xA;None of these should have been granted to begin with.  The problems that DC can cause an integrator are well known and have been for a LONG time.  &#xD;&#xA;As an example, [Drift Free Intergrators][4], dating from 1998, deals with the same kind of problem.  An while it is dealing with inputs from geophones(earthquake data),their correction concepts would still apply to other areas where intergrators are used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, I did have an advantage for my research with Google, but the last one granted would also have had it available.  I'm not sure when Google patents came on line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: I do not understand how the US patents were granted in light of the failed German application, let alone other sources dealing with this exact problem.  Nor do I see how the examiner of 2015 application failed to find the 2006 patent.  A search using the primary key words finds it just fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;Yes, I did read the claims, as a matter of fact I read all of the patents, plus I browsed both some of their citations and those that cited them.&#xD;&#xA;Note, the only time you would need an intergrator in an energy measurement circuit is if your using a Rogowski coil to measure current.   Left on their own, sooner or later a integrator will saturate to one of the power rails, due to the accumulation of DC on the cap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 054B2 patent's claim one is for an integrator for a Rogowski coil with filters.  In claim two they make sure the current filter is a high pass.&#xD;&#xA;The 147B2's claim one is for an integrator followed by a high pass filter.  In their second claim, they tie it to a Rogowski coil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While 147B2 is fairly clear they are using a high pass filter to block DC, the 054B2 patent does not come out and say it until section 8.&#xD;&#xA;In both cases the primary purpose is to keep the DC levels from creating an error in the output.&#xD;&#xA;In the German application, claim one is a current measuring circuit using a Rogowski coil(which means an integrator) with a high pass filter before and after, which removes the DC levels as a source of error.&#xD;&#xA;Note, an integrator normally does not contain a HP filter, you have to reset it  in some way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in essence, all three of them want to remove the DC bias levels of the integrator that is required when you are using a Rowokski coil to measure current.  Something that is not clearly said is that you'll need to correct the current phase(because those filters will mess with it) ensure proper measurements.&#xD;&#xA;In the 147B2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you,   &#xD;&#xA;GB Clark aka AE7OO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9588147B2/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7548054&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/DE10320293A1/un&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Henri_Gavin/publication/234851012_Drift-free_integrators/links/5518a3bb0cf29ab36bc50b0b.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21122" RevisionGUID="637a8d24-4e71-40a8-b1ff-6395a33db003" CreationDate="2020-01-19T07:20:28.417" UserId="22777" Text="Before you go disclosing your invention, you better plan on having about $30, 000 to push the application through and if you don't have that + 3 years worth of living expense money someone can make sure you don't have a job." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21123" RevisionGUID="dceb2a49-1702-48b9-9b0c-ebf2a1a1652f" CreationDate="2020-01-19T12:42:46.713" UserId="22778" Text="I would like to hire someone for building an android (an maybe later windows/ios) but in order to get an estimate they need to know what exactly needs to be done - obviously. Now I'm afraid that upon sharing the idea, it will be stolen and someone else will build the app.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this require a patent first?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How should I proceed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58770" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21123" RevisionGUID="dceb2a49-1702-48b9-9b0c-ebf2a1a1652f" CreationDate="2020-01-19T12:42:46.713" UserId="22778" Text="How to get an estimate for a application without revealing the idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58771" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21123" RevisionGUID="dceb2a49-1702-48b9-9b0c-ebf2a1a1652f" CreationDate="2020-01-19T12:42:46.713" UserId="22778" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;android&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21124" RevisionGUID="ff7668c0-076e-4a92-b453-ebb71399a58d" CreationDate="2020-01-19T16:08:03.717" UserId="17003" Text="The standard approach is to execute a non-disclosure agreement with the potential consultant(s). I have many times requested quotations from consultants on projects containing proprietary technology and have never had an issue with the ideas being stolen. Assuming the non-disclosure agreement was executed (perhaps as part of the request for quotation) the consultant would risk a lawsuit if they tried to steal your idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are in the US, you could file a provisional patent application, but you do need to know what you are doing to make it useful and consulting with a patent attorney or agent is recommended. Also, not all aspects of intellectual property with regards to computer applications are covered by patents. There are also potential copyright and trademark issues so consulting with a lawyer is a really good idea. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21125" RevisionGUID="723f8c4e-20df-4f2a-a3c6-673eeccbbe3d" CreationDate="2020-01-19T16:36:24.393" UserId="22779" Text="According to Google Patents, someone has filled a patent application for the US an WO and it may be granted in the medium term. I am from Chile and have evidence for prior art that destroys novelty, in particular I have applied to a business incubator describing the idea in detail and was selected for developling my idea with the incobator before the patent application was published. How do I object to either of them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found many questions regarding prior art requets but they seem to be too specific to the particular patent subject, so there seem to be no proper question for the general issue. It would be great to know the procedures, format and places where the request should be made." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58774" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21125" RevisionGUID="723f8c4e-20df-4f2a-a3c6-673eeccbbe3d" CreationDate="2020-01-19T16:36:24.393" UserId="22779" Text="How to make a prior art request for a granted patent or patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58775" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21125" RevisionGUID="723f8c4e-20df-4f2a-a3c6-673eeccbbe3d" CreationDate="2020-01-19T16:36:24.393" UserId="22779" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21126" RevisionGUID="3f463649-c895-4b6c-87b9-6050689ead64" CreationDate="2020-01-19T18:06:38.613" UserId="22334" Text="You can submit [third party observations][1] in respect of an international application, i.e. PCT, until month 28 from the priority date of the application. Filing the observations has no cost, they can be anonymous, and you do not require a patent attorney. In the link I provide you have a guide explaining the procedure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US there is also the possibility of submitting prior art in respect of a US patent application, but there are some requirements that I am not familiar with. The applicant is obliged to file with the USPTO any prior art evidence known to him/her, so if you file third party observations in the PCT and the observations are forwarded to the applicant, if the prior art is really relevant for the patentability of the invention, then the applicant will have to provide the USPTO with that prior art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/faqs/third_party_observations.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58777" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="21123" RevisionGUID="f3f3d012-6473-46e0-a321-7547894f1b75" CreationDate="2020-01-19T20:49:35.190" />
  <row Id="58778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21127" RevisionGUID="aac8f967-8382-4fdf-88bd-1c9d62fdca76" CreationDate="2020-01-19T22:27:31.417" UserId="3076" Text="From the USPTO site -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 35 U.S.C.122(e) provides a mechanism for third parties to submit patents, published patent applications, or other printed publications of potential relevance to the examination of a patent application with a concise description of the asserted relevance of each document submitted.Under 35 U.S.C.122(e), such submissions must be made (1) before the later of (i) 6 months after the date the application is first published by the Office,or (ii) the date of a first Office action on the merits rejecting any claim, and (2) before the date a notice of allowance is given or mailed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be done anomalously. More info is at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/QSG_Third_Party_Preissuance.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the time has passed for this type of submission but counterpart applications are pending in other countries, they may have a third party observation period that is still open. If you submit to one of those the information will be forwarded to the applicant and they will be obligated, if the information is relevant, to submit it to the USPTO themselves." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58779" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20085" RevisionGUID="17c8aa32-688c-44fb-b4e6-a43dfb050159" CreationDate="2020-01-20T01:02:45.350" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58780" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10094" RevisionGUID="d43a5705-6a57-41dc-b3b3-6cc66f038a16" CreationDate="2020-01-20T05:01:45.153" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21128" RevisionGUID="c5749c48-ea81-434d-b5b0-fd05577e0641" CreationDate="2020-01-20T05:49:23.013" UserId="21034" Text="It’s quite natural that inventors have doubt that if I give idea to someone what will happen to my idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58782" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21128" RevisionGUID="c5749c48-ea81-434d-b5b0-fd05577e0641" CreationDate="2020-01-20T05:49:23.013" UserId="21034" Text="How can I protect a product idea before seeking help with research and development?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58783" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21128" RevisionGUID="c5749c48-ea81-434d-b5b0-fd05577e0641" CreationDate="2020-01-20T05:49:23.013" UserId="21034" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21129" RevisionGUID="4688496b-a044-470e-bc3e-48163557669a" CreationDate="2020-01-20T05:49:23.013" UserId="21034" Text="However, the vision and development of the invention is accomplished with the help of others. Sooner or later, the inventors need to collaborate with a manufacturer or distributor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Creative ways to actively protect your idea before applying for a research and development.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Few use these legal logic's to protect your product idea&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i)	**Non-disclosure agreement (NDA):**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An NDA can be a mutual agreement between two parties not to share information with third parties or can be one-way . This agreement is preferred as it doesn't have an expiration date.&#xD;&#xA;It is a legal agreement between you and another party not to disclose idea you have shared for a specific purpose. It can be done in two methods as follow:&#xD;&#xA;One-way &#xD;&#xA;It is one-way NDA i.e. when only one business is sharing information and the other agrees to keep it confidential.&#xD;&#xA;Two-way &#xD;&#xA;It is two-way NDA (also called a mutual NDA) i.e. when both businesses are sharing confidential information with each other and want to be sure that neither will disclose their trade secrets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ii)	**Non-compete agreement:**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;A non-compete agreement is a contract between two parties in which one agrees not to enter into competition with another during or after development of product. This contract prevents the entity / individual who belongs to the product development, from starting a business which would compete or threaten within an established radius.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21123" RevisionGUID="619f0849-fe53-470a-af71-111bc155055d" CreationDate="2020-01-20T07:25:08.337" UserId="22778" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="I would like to hire someone for building an android (an maybe later windows/ios) application but in order to get an estimate they need to know what exactly needs to be done - obviously. Now I'm afraid that upon sharing the idea, it will be stolen and someone else will build the app.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this require a patent first?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How should I proceed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58792" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13760" RevisionGUID="7ce91839-fc3d-4257-abfd-850042e9a0af" CreationDate="2020-01-20T10:00:50.117" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21132" RevisionGUID="e11eff2b-6101-4101-b793-23b796fcfbeb" CreationDate="2020-01-20T20:31:46.720" UserId="22779" Text="There is an application for US and WO and I have prior art for it before the date of its priority date, but I do not know if it will be considered prior art as I suspect there should be time restrictions for it to apply. Which are these?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58794" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21132" RevisionGUID="e11eff2b-6101-4101-b793-23b796fcfbeb" CreationDate="2020-01-20T20:31:46.720" UserId="22779" Text="How much time before should a prior art have happened before its patent application for it to be accepted as prior art request material?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58795" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21132" RevisionGUID="e11eff2b-6101-4101-b793-23b796fcfbeb" CreationDate="2020-01-20T20:31:46.720" UserId="22779" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21133" RevisionGUID="04c56328-d68f-4892-b0d2-c46b5a03b01f" CreationDate="2020-01-20T21:00:48.113" UserId="17003" Text="This is an old question, but to answer the original question, yes I do believe the cited quote is prior art to the issued patent and should probably have kept the patent from being granted. It is unfortunate, but patent examiners mostly look at the patent literature for prior art. Something published 140 years before the filing date may very well not get seen by an examiner as it is unlikely to be indexed in databases or searchable on the web." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58797" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12452" RevisionGUID="09453742-a813-4a72-8fdc-fab178bf929e" CreationDate="2020-01-20T21:01:50.233" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21129" RevisionGUID="326fc83d-7468-4727-a938-39088de3bd9d" CreationDate="2020-01-20T21:14:59.893" UserId="17003" Comment="Made the text somewhat more readable." Text="The vision and development of the invention is accomplished with the help of others. Sooner or later, the inventors need to collaborate with a manufacturer or distributor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Creative ways to actively protect your idea before applying for a research and development.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Few use these legal logic's to protect your product idea&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i)	**Non-disclosure agreement (NDA):**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An NDA can be a mutual agreement between two parties not to share information with third parties or can be one-way . This agreement is preferred as it doesn't have an expiration date.&#xD;&#xA;It is a legal agreement between you and another party not to disclose idea you have shared for a specific purpose. It can be done in two methods as follow:&#xD;&#xA;One-way &#xD;&#xA;It is one-way NDA i.e. when only one business is sharing information and the other agrees to keep it confidential.&#xD;&#xA;Two-way &#xD;&#xA;It is two-way NDA (also called a mutual NDA) i.e. when both businesses are sharing confidential information with each other and want to be sure that neither will disclose their trade secrets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ii)	**Non-compete agreement:**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;A non-compete agreement is a contract between two parties in which one agrees not to enter into competition with another during or after development of product. This contract prevents the entity / individual who belongs to the product development, from starting a business which would compete or threaten within an established radius.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21134" RevisionGUID="a3ed8aac-f9fa-4c5c-9484-d0412f0038cc" CreationDate="2020-01-21T00:03:42.493" UserId="22611" Text="Nothing I have seen sounds right for my little invention, so I wonder what I'm missing. The invention needs at least one X somewhere on at least the first side of Y for the minimum invention to work. In the preferred embodiments, one or more additional X at particular locations and/or slope directions on Y adds value and narrows the claim. So the dependent claims need to say: at least one X on the second side of Y.  at least one X proximal to the distal end of Y.  at least one X proximal to the proximal end of Y.  at least one X to slope left.  at least one X to slope right. What is a good way to say this? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58800" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21134" RevisionGUID="a3ed8aac-f9fa-4c5c-9484-d0412f0038cc" CreationDate="2020-01-21T00:03:42.493" UserId="22611" Text="The singular and plural has been a major issue for me as a pro se first-timer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58801" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21134" RevisionGUID="a3ed8aac-f9fa-4c5c-9484-d0412f0038cc" CreationDate="2020-01-21T00:03:42.493" UserId="22611" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claims-construction&gt;&lt;dependent-claim&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21135" RevisionGUID="720c0d00-24d4-48d3-b5a5-854969d5aee1" CreationDate="2020-01-21T04:42:09.937" UserId="3076" Text="It is prior art if the event that disclosed it (or the equivalent of disclosing it under the law) was the day before. Except in the U.S. if the inventors/applicants were the ones who made the disclosure; then there is a complicated 1 year grace period. To be prior art in establishing obviousness it also needs to be in an analogous art or otherwise pertinent to the problem being solved. There is also &quot;admitted prior art&quot; which is something, not by the inventors, that the inventors say is prior art even if it would not otherwise qualify. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't say the words &quot;prior art&quot; loosely or in a patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Europe there is a difference between prior art used to break novelty and prior art used in an analysis of inventive step (like obviousness). An earlier filing, even if not yet published, breaks novelty. But to be used in an inventive step it wust actually be public the day before the filing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21136" RevisionGUID="bb334cde-75ea-4ea5-a24a-dd918ef6f428" CreationDate="2020-01-21T14:14:02.423" UserId="22792" Text="I filed a first provisional and a non-provisional claiming priority to the first provisional less than a year later. Now I've made substantial improvements and would like to protect it before the non-provisional is published in a few weeks. Can I file a second provisional and later file a CIP claiming priority to the parent non-provisional and the second provisional? And if so, what is the boilerplate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58804" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21136" RevisionGUID="bb334cde-75ea-4ea5-a24a-dd918ef6f428" CreationDate="2020-01-21T14:14:02.423" UserId="22792" Text="Can a CIP claim priority to a provisional application filed after the parent non-provisional?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58805" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21136" RevisionGUID="bb334cde-75ea-4ea5-a24a-dd918ef6f428" CreationDate="2020-01-21T14:14:02.423" UserId="22792" Text="&lt;priority&gt;&lt;non-provisional&gt;&lt;continuation-in-part&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21137" RevisionGUID="05fdcb55-ac60-437f-9ac4-08910e3c178f" CreationDate="2020-01-21T20:46:04.400" UserId="3076" Text="**Yes**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;This application is a continuation-in-part of co-pending application ZZ/YYYYY filed on ZZ/Z/ZZZZ and claims the benefit of provisional application XX/YYYYY filed on XX/X/XXXX.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20108" RevisionGUID="9be51b71-6cb0-4fdb-9f1e-ef4ab9c16ae7" CreationDate="2020-01-21T21:59:41.957" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed minor misspellings and cases." Text="**Can a specific idea for art be protected or patented?**&#xD;&#xA;Art cannot be patented it can only be protected by copyright&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Example: I draw a funny cartoon of an employee falling asleep at a staff meeting. Then I add a phrase making the art even funnier (at least for me).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The art and phrase can be protected under copyright. Try to protect the equivalents of the terms in phrase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Being a poster collector, I have not seen this poster anywhere else here. So I decide to print a poster of my art with the added phrase and sell it to a walmart.&#xD;&#xA;The poster sells a lot, so someone else copies my idea (employee falling asleep at a staff meeting) by creating a different cartoon and adding a different funny phrase.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can something like this be avoided?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Copyright prevents infringers from making abstract or derivatives of your work but creating it from scratch is not considered as an infringement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21138" RevisionGUID="08c42809-b7b9-417c-a446-4485f5218a47" CreationDate="2020-01-22T01:06:02.507" UserId="22611" Text="In drawings for a utility patent application, if you have a measurement index pattern repeated on two sides of a tool. Each side is shown in the drawings. Should each index set have a different number though they are a repeated pattern? I guessing yes. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58809" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21138" RevisionGUID="08c42809-b7b9-417c-a446-4485f5218a47" CreationDate="2020-01-22T01:06:02.507" UserId="22611" Text="In drawings, should a repeated pattern but on two different sides of a device have different numbers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58810" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21138" RevisionGUID="08c42809-b7b9-417c-a446-4485f5218a47" CreationDate="2020-01-22T01:06:02.507" UserId="22611" Text="&lt;patent-drawings&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21139" RevisionGUID="5ef9484c-1b1a-4220-b330-11245e87d2c7" CreationDate="2020-01-22T01:48:35.193" UserId="3076" Text="As I  think you know, the same thing keeps the same number regardless of the view. I think your question is about something that is an identical feature in a different location. Lets say it is a set of identical screws. All screws will have the same number." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21139" RevisionGUID="aee27237-a278-4c97-a6ad-15f5ba738263" CreationDate="2020-01-22T03:21:18.713" UserId="3076" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="As I  think you know, the same thing keeps the same number regardless of the view. I think your question is about something that is an identical feature in a different location. Lets say it is a set of identical screws. All screws will have the same number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes similar items are labeled with a prime mark as in 100 and 100'. They are technically different references but give the flavor of being very similar/related.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21140" RevisionGUID="780ad303-9dd0-4b93-b513-fad4fc0b451f" CreationDate="2020-01-22T14:01:59.373" UserId="22794" Text="Correct me if I’m wrong but after reviewing latest claim changes in [global dossier]( http://globaldossier.uspto.gov/#/result/publication/US/20160226868/1 ) of the  [US20160226868  patent application ](https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160226868A1 )&#xD;&#xA;it seems that applicant submitted patent application claiming [NIST Electronic Authentication Guideline publish in 2013](https://www.nist.gov/publications/electronic-authentication-guideline-3?pub_id=914476) ([pdf](https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-63-2)) guidelines as their invention,&#xD;&#xA;moreover the claim changes indicate adaptation to conform to the latest version of the [guidelines (now Digital Identity Guidelines)](https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-3/) ([GitHub](https://github.com/usnistgov/800-63-3))  (note claim elements: an electronic mail (e-mail) message, a mobile application push notification, and a web push notification).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below are corresponding claim elements from latest submitted claim 4 against citations from the 2003 NIST guideline. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**4. (Currently Amended) An integrated interactive messaging system comprising:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. iii, v]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The recommendation covers remote authentication of users (such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; employees, contractors, or private individuals) interacting with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; government IT systems over open networks. E-authentication presents a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technical challenge when this process involves the remote&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authentication of people over an open network, for the purpose of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electronic government and commerce. This recommendation provides&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technical guidelines to agencies to allow an individual to remotely&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authenticate his or her identity to a Federal IT system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**an interactive messaging server comprising one or more computers and configured to communicate an interactive push message to a client device used by a user; and**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 44]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, a Claimant attempts to log into a website and receives a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; text message on his or her cellular phone, PDA, pager, or land line&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (pre-registered with the CSP during the registration phase) with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; random authenticator to be presented as a part of the electronic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authentication protocol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 67]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The challenge and session key are securely transmitted to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Verifier. The Verifier in turn sends only the challenge to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claimant, and the Claimant applies the challenge to the long-term&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shared secret to generate the session key. Both Claimant and Verifier&#xD;&#xA;&gt; now share a session key, which can be used for authentication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see 4. E-Authentication Model&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a biometric engine, executed on a computer, to verify the user via one or more biometrics captured at the client device; and**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 35]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For physical transactions, the Applicant shall identify&#xD;&#xA;&gt; himself/herself in person by either using a secret as described above,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or by biometric verification (comparing a captured biometric sample to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a reference biometric sample that was enrolled during a prior&#xD;&#xA;&gt; encounter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 40]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Obtain and verify a copy of a biometric recorded when the original&#xD;&#xA;&gt; credential was issued. An example of such a biometric is the signed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; biometric data object on a PIV card, however if the biometric&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reference is not available from the Level 4 token, it may be obtained&#xD;&#xA;&gt; elsewhere, as long as its authenticity is assured; Compare a fresh&#xD;&#xA;&gt; biometric sample obtained in person from the Applicant to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reference biometric retained from the original Level 4 credentials and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; determine that they match, and; wherein the interactive push message&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is a push message and comprises a request for biometric capture and is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selected from the group consisting of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 43]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The second factor of authentication may be achieved through some kind&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of integral entry pad, an integral biometric (e.g., fingerprint)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reader or a direct computer interface (e.g., USB port).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 44]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, a Claimant attempts to log into a website and receives a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; text message on his or her cellular phone, PDA, pager, or land line&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (pre-registered with the CSP during the registration phase) with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; random authenticator to be presented as a part of the electronic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authentication protocol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a short message service (SMS) message,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a multimedia messaging service (MMS) message,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 44]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, a Claimant attempts to log into a website and receives a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; text message on his or her cellular phone, PDA, pager, or land line&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (pre-registered with the CSP during the registration phase) with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; random authenticator to be presented as a part of the electronic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authentication protocol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**an electronic mail (e-mail) message,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Push message via “email” was not part of original patent application. Email was identified as an example of personal information, not a messaging platform.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a mobile application push notification, and**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Could not find “mobile application push notification” as part of original patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a web push notification;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Could not find “web push notification” as part of original patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**the biometric engine is configured to communicate with a service provider and the interactive message messaging server using an out-of-band network distinct from a primary network connecting the client device and the service provider;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Recognition of more types of tokens, including pre-registered&#xD;&#xA;&gt; knowledge token, lookup secret token, out-of-band token, as well as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; some terminology changes for more conventional token types;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 15]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Trust Anchor &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A public or symmetric key that is trusted because it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; directly built into hardware or software, or securely provisioned via&#xD;&#xA;&gt; out-of-band means, rather than because it is vouched for by another&#xD;&#xA;&gt; trusted entity (e.g. in a public key certificate).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 44]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, a Claimant attempts to log into a website and receives a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; text message on his or her cellular phone, PDA, pager, or land line&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (pre-registered with the CSP during the registration phase) with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; random authenticator to be presented as a part of the electronic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authentication protocol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**the biometric engine is configured to receive, over the out-of-band network,&#xD;&#xA;a request from the service provider for verification of a user;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 15]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Trust Anchor &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A public or symmetric key that is trusted because it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; directly built into hardware or software, or securely provisioned via&#xD;&#xA;&gt; out-of-band means, rather than because it is vouched for by another&#xD;&#xA;&gt; trusted entity (e.g. in a public key certificate).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 44]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; • Out of Band Token – A physical token that is uniquely addressable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and can receive a Verifier-selected secret for one-time use. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; device is possessed and controlled by the Claimant and supports&#xD;&#xA;&gt; private communication20 over a channel that is separate from the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; primary channel for e-authentication. The token authenticator is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; received secret and is presented to the Verifier using the primary&#xD;&#xA;&gt; channel for e-authentication. For example, a Claimant attempts to log&#xD;&#xA;&gt; into a website and receives a text message on his or her cellular&#xD;&#xA;&gt; phone, PDA, pager, or land line (pre-registered with the CSP during&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the registration phase) with a random authenticator to be presented as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a part of the electronic authentication protocol. Out of Band Tokens&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are something you have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**the biometric engine is configured to communicate with the interactive messaging server to request one or more biometric probes from the user;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*This is implied by general.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**the one or more biometric probes are generated at the client device&#xD;&#xA;using biometric information collected from the user by the client&#xD;&#xA;device;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Camera equipped mobile devices were already popular at the time of patent applications. Thus obvious to one skilled in art.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 45]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The second factor of authentication may be achieved through some kind&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of integral entry pad, an integral biometric (e.g., fingerprint)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reader or a direct computer interface (e.g., USB port).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 44]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, a Claimant attempts to log into a website and receives a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; text message on his or her cellular phone, PDA, pager, or land line&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (pre-registered with the CSP during the registration phase) with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; random authenticator to be presented as a part of the electronic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authentication protocol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**the biometric engine is configured to receive the biometric probes over the out-of-band network;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Not explained how response biometric probe is sent back via e.g. Text Messaging service.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**the biometric engine is configured to compare the biometric probes with biometric templates stored in a database; and**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 40]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Obtain and verify a copy of a biometric recorded when the original&#xD;&#xA;&gt; credential was issued. An example of such a biometric is the signed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; biometric data object on a PIV card, however if the biometric&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reference is not available from the Level 4 token, it may be obtained&#xD;&#xA;&gt; elsewhere, as long as its authenticity is assured; Compare a fresh&#xD;&#xA;&gt; biometric sample obtained in person from the Applicant to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reference biometric retained from the original Level 4 credentials and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; determine that they match, and;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**the biometric engine is configured to provide a response to the service provider representing the possibility that the biometric probe and the biometric template are from the same user.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; E-authentication begins with registration. The usual sequence for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; registration proceeds as follows. An Applicant applies to a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Registration Authority (RA) to become a Subscriber of a Credential&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Service Provider (CSP). If approved, the Subscriber is issued a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; credential by the CSP which binds a token to an identifier (and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; possibly one or more attributes that the RA has verified).  ... When a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claimant successfully demonstrates possession and control of a token&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to a Verifier through an authentication protocol, the Verifier can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verify that the Claimant is the Subscriber named in the corresponding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; credential. The Verifier passes on an assertion about the identity of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Subscriber to the Relying Party (RP). That assertion includes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identity information about a Subscriber, such as the Subscriber name,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an identifier assigned at registration, or other Subscriber attributes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that were verified in the registration process (subject to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; policies of the CSP and the needs of the application). Where the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Verifier is also the RP, the assertion may be implicit. The RP can use&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the authenticated information provided by the Verifier to make access&#xD;&#xA;&gt; control or authorization decisions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Also see 4. E-Authentication Model*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**5. (Original) The system of claim 4, wherein the response to the service provider comprises a biometric fusion score.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Either match/no match or fusion score has no real difference, in  any case the result from biometric matcher at some point has to be converted into match/no match form.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58814" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21140" RevisionGUID="780ad303-9dd0-4b93-b513-fad4fc0b451f" CreationDate="2020-01-22T14:01:59.373" UserId="22794" Text="Patent claiming NIST Electronic Authentication Guideline" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58815" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21140" RevisionGUID="780ad303-9dd0-4b93-b513-fad4fc0b451f" CreationDate="2020-01-22T14:01:59.373" UserId="22794" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;security&gt;&lt;bio-metric&gt;&lt;us20160226868&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21140" RevisionGUID="40186cd2-284c-4fc1-9cfa-17fc73401ec3" CreationDate="2020-01-22T14:21:50.960" UserId="22794" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="Correct me if I’m wrong but after reviewing latest claim changes in [global dossier]( http://globaldossier.uspto.gov/#/result/publication/US/20160226868/1 ) of the  [US20160226868  patent application ](https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160226868A1 )&#xD;&#xA;it seems that applicant submitted patent application claiming [NIST Electronic Authentication Guideline publish in 2013](https://www.nist.gov/publications/electronic-authentication-guideline-3?pub_id=914476) ([pdf](https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-63-2)) guidelines as their invention,&#xD;&#xA;moreover the claim changes indicate adaptation to conform to the latest version of the [guidelines (now Digital Identity Guidelines)](https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-3/) ([GitHub](https://github.com/usnistgov/800-63-3))  (note claim elements: an electronic mail (e-mail) message, a mobile application push notification, and a web push notification).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also is it possible to submit this review to the USPTO?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below are corresponding claim elements from latest submitted claim 4 against citations from the 2003 NIST guideline. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**4. (Currently Amended) An integrated interactive messaging system comprising:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. iii, v]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The recommendation covers remote authentication of users (such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; employees, contractors, or private individuals) interacting with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; government IT systems over open networks. E-authentication presents a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technical challenge when this process involves the remote&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authentication of people over an open network, for the purpose of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electronic government and commerce. This recommendation provides&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technical guidelines to agencies to allow an individual to remotely&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authenticate his or her identity to a Federal IT system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**an interactive messaging server comprising one or more computers and configured to communicate an interactive push message to a client device used by a user; and**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 44]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, a Claimant attempts to log into a website and receives a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; text message on his or her cellular phone, PDA, pager, or land line&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (pre-registered with the CSP during the registration phase) with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; random authenticator to be presented as a part of the electronic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authentication protocol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 67]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The challenge and session key are securely transmitted to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Verifier. The Verifier in turn sends only the challenge to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claimant, and the Claimant applies the challenge to the long-term&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shared secret to generate the session key. Both Claimant and Verifier&#xD;&#xA;&gt; now share a session key, which can be used for authentication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see 4. E-Authentication Model&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a biometric engine, executed on a computer, to verify the user via one or more biometrics captured at the client device; and**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 35]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For physical transactions, the Applicant shall identify&#xD;&#xA;&gt; himself/herself in person by either using a secret as described above,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or by biometric verification (comparing a captured biometric sample to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a reference biometric sample that was enrolled during a prior&#xD;&#xA;&gt; encounter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 40]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Obtain and verify a copy of a biometric recorded when the original&#xD;&#xA;&gt; credential was issued. An example of such a biometric is the signed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; biometric data object on a PIV card, however if the biometric&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reference is not available from the Level 4 token, it may be obtained&#xD;&#xA;&gt; elsewhere, as long as its authenticity is assured; Compare a fresh&#xD;&#xA;&gt; biometric sample obtained in person from the Applicant to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reference biometric retained from the original Level 4 credentials and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; determine that they match, and; wherein the interactive push message&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is a push message and comprises a request for biometric capture and is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selected from the group consisting of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 43]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The second factor of authentication may be achieved through some kind&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of integral entry pad, an integral biometric (e.g., fingerprint)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reader or a direct computer interface (e.g., USB port).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 44]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, a Claimant attempts to log into a website and receives a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; text message on his or her cellular phone, PDA, pager, or land line&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (pre-registered with the CSP during the registration phase) with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; random authenticator to be presented as a part of the electronic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authentication protocol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a short message service (SMS) message,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a multimedia messaging service (MMS) message,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 44]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, a Claimant attempts to log into a website and receives a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; text message on his or her cellular phone, PDA, pager, or land line&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (pre-registered with the CSP during the registration phase) with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; random authenticator to be presented as a part of the electronic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authentication protocol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**an electronic mail (e-mail) message,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Push message via “email” was not part of original patent application. Email was identified as an example of personal information, not a messaging platform.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a mobile application push notification, and**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Could not find “mobile application push notification” as part of original patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a web push notification;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Could not find “web push notification” as part of original patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**the biometric engine is configured to communicate with a service provider and the interactive message messaging server using an out-of-band network distinct from a primary network connecting the client device and the service provider;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Recognition of more types of tokens, including pre-registered&#xD;&#xA;&gt; knowledge token, lookup secret token, out-of-band token, as well as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; some terminology changes for more conventional token types;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 15]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Trust Anchor &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A public or symmetric key that is trusted because it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; directly built into hardware or software, or securely provisioned via&#xD;&#xA;&gt; out-of-band means, rather than because it is vouched for by another&#xD;&#xA;&gt; trusted entity (e.g. in a public key certificate).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 44]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, a Claimant attempts to log into a website and receives a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; text message on his or her cellular phone, PDA, pager, or land line&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (pre-registered with the CSP during the registration phase) with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; random authenticator to be presented as a part of the electronic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authentication protocol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**the biometric engine is configured to receive, over the out-of-band network,&#xD;&#xA;a request from the service provider for verification of a user;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 15]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Trust Anchor &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A public or symmetric key that is trusted because it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; directly built into hardware or software, or securely provisioned via&#xD;&#xA;&gt; out-of-band means, rather than because it is vouched for by another&#xD;&#xA;&gt; trusted entity (e.g. in a public key certificate).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 44]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; • Out of Band Token – A physical token that is uniquely addressable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and can receive a Verifier-selected secret for one-time use. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; device is possessed and controlled by the Claimant and supports&#xD;&#xA;&gt; private communication20 over a channel that is separate from the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; primary channel for e-authentication. The token authenticator is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; received secret and is presented to the Verifier using the primary&#xD;&#xA;&gt; channel for e-authentication. For example, a Claimant attempts to log&#xD;&#xA;&gt; into a website and receives a text message on his or her cellular&#xD;&#xA;&gt; phone, PDA, pager, or land line (pre-registered with the CSP during&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the registration phase) with a random authenticator to be presented as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a part of the electronic authentication protocol. Out of Band Tokens&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are something you have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**the biometric engine is configured to communicate with the interactive messaging server to request one or more biometric probes from the user;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*This is implied by general.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**the one or more biometric probes are generated at the client device&#xD;&#xA;using biometric information collected from the user by the client&#xD;&#xA;device;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Camera equipped mobile devices were already popular at the time of patent applications. Thus obvious to one skilled in art.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 45]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The second factor of authentication may be achieved through some kind&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of integral entry pad, an integral biometric (e.g., fingerprint)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reader or a direct computer interface (e.g., USB port).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 44]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, a Claimant attempts to log into a website and receives a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; text message on his or her cellular phone, PDA, pager, or land line&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (pre-registered with the CSP during the registration phase) with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; random authenticator to be presented as a part of the electronic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authentication protocol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**the biometric engine is configured to receive the biometric probes over the out-of-band network;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Not explained how response biometric probe is sent back via e.g. Text Messaging service.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**the biometric engine is configured to compare the biometric probes with biometric templates stored in a database; and**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 40]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Obtain and verify a copy of a biometric recorded when the original&#xD;&#xA;&gt; credential was issued. An example of such a biometric is the signed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; biometric data object on a PIV card, however if the biometric&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reference is not available from the Level 4 token, it may be obtained&#xD;&#xA;&gt; elsewhere, as long as its authenticity is assured; Compare a fresh&#xD;&#xA;&gt; biometric sample obtained in person from the Applicant to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reference biometric retained from the original Level 4 credentials and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; determine that they match, and;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**the biometric engine is configured to provide a response to the service provider representing the possibility that the biometric probe and the biometric template are from the same user.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; E-authentication begins with registration. The usual sequence for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; registration proceeds as follows. An Applicant applies to a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Registration Authority (RA) to become a Subscriber of a Credential&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Service Provider (CSP). If approved, the Subscriber is issued a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; credential by the CSP which binds a token to an identifier (and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; possibly one or more attributes that the RA has verified).  ... When a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claimant successfully demonstrates possession and control of a token&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to a Verifier through an authentication protocol, the Verifier can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verify that the Claimant is the Subscriber named in the corresponding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; credential. The Verifier passes on an assertion about the identity of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Subscriber to the Relying Party (RP). That assertion includes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identity information about a Subscriber, such as the Subscriber name,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an identifier assigned at registration, or other Subscriber attributes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that were verified in the registration process (subject to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; policies of the CSP and the needs of the application). Where the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Verifier is also the RP, the assertion may be implicit. The RP can use&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the authenticated information provided by the Verifier to make access&#xD;&#xA;&gt; control or authorization decisions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Also see 4. E-Authentication Model*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**5. (Original) The system of claim 4, wherein the response to the service provider comprises a biometric fusion score.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Either match/no match or fusion score has no real difference, in  any case the result from biometric matcher at some point has to be converted into match/no match form.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58817" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21140" RevisionGUID="895cb41b-a9b6-4b8c-ac16-15723ce81841" CreationDate="2020-01-22T14:28:21.323" UserId="22794" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="Correct me if I’m wrong but after reviewing latest claim changes in [global dossier]( http://globaldossier.uspto.gov/#/result/publication/US/20160226868/1 ) of the  [US20160226868  patent application ](https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160226868A1 )&#xD;&#xA;it seems that applicant submitted patent application claiming [NIST Electronic Authentication Guideline publish in 2013](https://www.nist.gov/publications/electronic-authentication-guideline-3?pub_id=914476) ([pdf](https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-63-2)) guidelines as their invention,&#xD;&#xA;moreover the claim changes indicate adaptation to conform to the latest version of the [guidelines (now Digital Identity Guidelines)](https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-3/) ([GitHub](https://github.com/usnistgov/800-63-3))  (note claim elements: an electronic mail (e-mail) message, a mobile application push notification, and a web push notification).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also is it possible to submit this review to the USPTO?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below are corresponding claim elements from latest submitted claim 4 against citations from the [2013 NIST guideline](https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-63-2). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**4. (Currently Amended) An integrated interactive messaging system comprising:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. iii, v]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The recommendation covers remote authentication of users (such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; employees, contractors, or private individuals) interacting with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; government IT systems over open networks. E-authentication presents a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technical challenge when this process involves the remote&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authentication of people over an open network, for the purpose of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electronic government and commerce. This recommendation provides&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technical guidelines to agencies to allow an individual to remotely&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authenticate his or her identity to a Federal IT system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**an interactive messaging server comprising one or more computers and configured to communicate an interactive push message to a client device used by a user; and**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 44]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, a Claimant attempts to log into a website and receives a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; text message on his or her cellular phone, PDA, pager, or land line&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (pre-registered with the CSP during the registration phase) with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; random authenticator to be presented as a part of the electronic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authentication protocol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 67]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The challenge and session key are securely transmitted to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Verifier. The Verifier in turn sends only the challenge to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claimant, and the Claimant applies the challenge to the long-term&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shared secret to generate the session key. Both Claimant and Verifier&#xD;&#xA;&gt; now share a session key, which can be used for authentication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see 4. E-Authentication Model&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a biometric engine, executed on a computer, to verify the user via one or more biometrics captured at the client device; and**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 35]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For physical transactions, the Applicant shall identify&#xD;&#xA;&gt; himself/herself in person by either using a secret as described above,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or by biometric verification (comparing a captured biometric sample to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a reference biometric sample that was enrolled during a prior&#xD;&#xA;&gt; encounter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 40]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Obtain and verify a copy of a biometric recorded when the original&#xD;&#xA;&gt; credential was issued. An example of such a biometric is the signed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; biometric data object on a PIV card, however if the biometric&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reference is not available from the Level 4 token, it may be obtained&#xD;&#xA;&gt; elsewhere, as long as its authenticity is assured; Compare a fresh&#xD;&#xA;&gt; biometric sample obtained in person from the Applicant to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reference biometric retained from the original Level 4 credentials and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; determine that they match, and; wherein the interactive push message&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is a push message and comprises a request for biometric capture and is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selected from the group consisting of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 43]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The second factor of authentication may be achieved through some kind&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of integral entry pad, an integral biometric (e.g., fingerprint)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reader or a direct computer interface (e.g., USB port).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 44]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, a Claimant attempts to log into a website and receives a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; text message on his or her cellular phone, PDA, pager, or land line&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (pre-registered with the CSP during the registration phase) with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; random authenticator to be presented as a part of the electronic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authentication protocol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a short message service (SMS) message,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a multimedia messaging service (MMS) message,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 44]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, a Claimant attempts to log into a website and receives a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; text message on his or her cellular phone, PDA, pager, or land line&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (pre-registered with the CSP during the registration phase) with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; random authenticator to be presented as a part of the electronic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authentication protocol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**an electronic mail (e-mail) message,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Push message via “email” was not part of original patent application. Email was identified as an example of personal information, not a messaging platform.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a mobile application push notification, and**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Could not find “mobile application push notification” as part of original patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a web push notification;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Could not find “web push notification” as part of original patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**the biometric engine is configured to communicate with a service provider and the interactive message messaging server using an out-of-band network distinct from a primary network connecting the client device and the service provider;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Recognition of more types of tokens, including pre-registered&#xD;&#xA;&gt; knowledge token, lookup secret token, out-of-band token, as well as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; some terminology changes for more conventional token types;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 15]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Trust Anchor &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A public or symmetric key that is trusted because it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; directly built into hardware or software, or securely provisioned via&#xD;&#xA;&gt; out-of-band means, rather than because it is vouched for by another&#xD;&#xA;&gt; trusted entity (e.g. in a public key certificate).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 44]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, a Claimant attempts to log into a website and receives a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; text message on his or her cellular phone, PDA, pager, or land line&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (pre-registered with the CSP during the registration phase) with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; random authenticator to be presented as a part of the electronic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authentication protocol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**the biometric engine is configured to receive, over the out-of-band network,&#xD;&#xA;a request from the service provider for verification of a user;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 15]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Trust Anchor &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A public or symmetric key that is trusted because it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; directly built into hardware or software, or securely provisioned via&#xD;&#xA;&gt; out-of-band means, rather than because it is vouched for by another&#xD;&#xA;&gt; trusted entity (e.g. in a public key certificate).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 44]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; • Out of Band Token – A physical token that is uniquely addressable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and can receive a Verifier-selected secret for one-time use. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; device is possessed and controlled by the Claimant and supports&#xD;&#xA;&gt; private communication20 over a channel that is separate from the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; primary channel for e-authentication. The token authenticator is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; received secret and is presented to the Verifier using the primary&#xD;&#xA;&gt; channel for e-authentication. For example, a Claimant attempts to log&#xD;&#xA;&gt; into a website and receives a text message on his or her cellular&#xD;&#xA;&gt; phone, PDA, pager, or land line (pre-registered with the CSP during&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the registration phase) with a random authenticator to be presented as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a part of the electronic authentication protocol. Out of Band Tokens&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are something you have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**the biometric engine is configured to communicate with the interactive messaging server to request one or more biometric probes from the user;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*This is implied by general.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**the one or more biometric probes are generated at the client device&#xD;&#xA;using biometric information collected from the user by the client&#xD;&#xA;device;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Camera equipped mobile devices were already popular at the time of patent applications. Thus obvious to one skilled in art.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 45]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The second factor of authentication may be achieved through some kind&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of integral entry pad, an integral biometric (e.g., fingerprint)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reader or a direct computer interface (e.g., USB port).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 44]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, a Claimant attempts to log into a website and receives a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; text message on his or her cellular phone, PDA, pager, or land line&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (pre-registered with the CSP during the registration phase) with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; random authenticator to be presented as a part of the electronic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authentication protocol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**the biometric engine is configured to receive the biometric probes over the out-of-band network;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Not explained how response biometric probe is sent back via e.g. Text Messaging service.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**the biometric engine is configured to compare the biometric probes with biometric templates stored in a database; and**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 40]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Obtain and verify a copy of a biometric recorded when the original&#xD;&#xA;&gt; credential was issued. An example of such a biometric is the signed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; biometric data object on a PIV card, however if the biometric&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reference is not available from the Level 4 token, it may be obtained&#xD;&#xA;&gt; elsewhere, as long as its authenticity is assured; Compare a fresh&#xD;&#xA;&gt; biometric sample obtained in person from the Applicant to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reference biometric retained from the original Level 4 credentials and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; determine that they match, and;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**the biometric engine is configured to provide a response to the service provider representing the possibility that the biometric probe and the biometric template are from the same user.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; E-authentication begins with registration. The usual sequence for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; registration proceeds as follows. An Applicant applies to a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Registration Authority (RA) to become a Subscriber of a Credential&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Service Provider (CSP). If approved, the Subscriber is issued a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; credential by the CSP which binds a token to an identifier (and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; possibly one or more attributes that the RA has verified).  ... When a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claimant successfully demonstrates possession and control of a token&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to a Verifier through an authentication protocol, the Verifier can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verify that the Claimant is the Subscriber named in the corresponding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; credential. The Verifier passes on an assertion about the identity of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Subscriber to the Relying Party (RP). That assertion includes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identity information about a Subscriber, such as the Subscriber name,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an identifier assigned at registration, or other Subscriber attributes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that were verified in the registration process (subject to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; policies of the CSP and the needs of the application). Where the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Verifier is also the RP, the assertion may be implicit. The RP can use&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the authenticated information provided by the Verifier to make access&#xD;&#xA;&gt; control or authorization decisions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Also see 4. E-Authentication Model*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**5. (Original) The system of claim 4, wherein the response to the service provider comprises a biometric fusion score.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Either match/no match or fusion score has no real difference, in  any case the result from biometric matcher at some point has to be converted into match/no match form.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58818" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="21140" RevisionGUID="481cc0b9-5062-4647-9ffe-d034d14b3a96" CreationDate="2020-01-22T14:35:08.787" UserId="22794" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;security&gt;&lt;bio-metric&gt;&lt;us20160226868&gt;&lt;wo2016114937a1&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21140" RevisionGUID="e5ca229b-95ee-4b3a-aec3-dbafbcb2265e" CreationDate="2020-01-22T14:41:21.167" UserId="22794" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="Correct me if I’m wrong but after reviewing latest claim changes in [global dossier]( http://globaldossier.uspto.gov/#/result/publication/US/20160226868/1 ) of the  [US20160226868  patent application ](https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160226868A1 )&#xD;&#xA;it seems that applicant submitted patent application claiming [NIST Electronic Authentication Guideline publish in 2013](https://www.nist.gov/publications/electronic-authentication-guideline-3?pub_id=914476) ([pdf](https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-63-2)) guidelines as their invention,&#xD;&#xA;moreover the claim changes indicate adaptation to conform to the latest version of the [guidelines (now Digital Identity Guidelines)](https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-3/) ([GitHub](https://github.com/usnistgov/800-63-3))  (note claim elements: an electronic mail (e-mail) message, a mobile application push notification, and a web push notification).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also is it possible to submit this review to the USPTO?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below are corresponding claim elements from latest submitted claim 4 against citations from the [2013 NIST guideline](https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-63-2). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**4. (Currently Amended) An integrated interactive messaging system comprising:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. iii]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The recommendation covers remote authentication of users (such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; employees, contractors, or private individuals) interacting with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; government IT systems over open networks. E-authentication presents a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technical challenge when this process involves the remote&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authentication of people over an open network, for the purpose of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electronic government and commerce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. v]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This recommendation provides&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technical guidelines to agencies to allow an individual to remotely&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authenticate his or her identity to a Federal IT system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**an interactive messaging server comprising one or more computers and configured to communicate an interactive push message to a client device used by a user; and**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 44]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, a Claimant attempts to log into a website and receives a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; text message on his or her cellular phone, PDA, pager, or land line&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (pre-registered with the CSP during the registration phase) with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; random authenticator to be presented as a part of the electronic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authentication protocol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 67]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The challenge and session key are securely transmitted to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Verifier. The Verifier in turn sends only the challenge to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claimant, and the Claimant applies the challenge to the long-term&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shared secret to generate the session key. Both Claimant and Verifier&#xD;&#xA;&gt; now share a session key, which can be used for authentication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see 4. E-Authentication Model&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a biometric engine, executed on a computer, to verify the user via one or more biometrics captured at the client device; and**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 35]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For physical transactions, the Applicant shall identify&#xD;&#xA;&gt; himself/herself in person by either using a secret as described above,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or by biometric verification (comparing a captured biometric sample to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a reference biometric sample that was enrolled during a prior&#xD;&#xA;&gt; encounter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 40]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Obtain and verify a copy of a biometric recorded when the original&#xD;&#xA;&gt; credential was issued. An example of such a biometric is the signed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; biometric data object on a PIV card, however if the biometric&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reference is not available from the Level 4 token, it may be obtained&#xD;&#xA;&gt; elsewhere, as long as its authenticity is assured; Compare a fresh&#xD;&#xA;&gt; biometric sample obtained in person from the Applicant to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reference biometric retained from the original Level 4 credentials and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; determine that they match, and; wherein the interactive push message&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is a push message and comprises a request for biometric capture and is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selected from the group consisting of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 43]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The second factor of authentication may be achieved through some kind&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of integral entry pad, an integral biometric (e.g., fingerprint)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reader or a direct computer interface (e.g., USB port).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 44]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, a Claimant attempts to log into a website and receives a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; text message on his or her cellular phone, PDA, pager, or land line&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (pre-registered with the CSP during the registration phase) with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; random authenticator to be presented as a part of the electronic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authentication protocol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a short message service (SMS) message,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a multimedia messaging service (MMS) message,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 44]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, a Claimant attempts to log into a website and receives a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; text message on his or her cellular phone, PDA, pager, or land line&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (pre-registered with the CSP during the registration phase) with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; random authenticator to be presented as a part of the electronic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authentication protocol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**an electronic mail (e-mail) message,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Push message via “email” was not part of original patent application. Email was identified as an example of personal information, not a messaging platform.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a mobile application push notification, and**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Could not find “mobile application push notification” as part of original patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a web push notification;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Could not find “web push notification” as part of original patent application.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**the biometric engine is configured to communicate with a service provider and the interactive message messaging server using an out-of-band network distinct from a primary network connecting the client device and the service provider;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Recognition of more types of tokens, including pre-registered&#xD;&#xA;&gt; knowledge token, lookup secret token, out-of-band token, as well as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; some terminology changes for more conventional token types;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 15]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Trust Anchor &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A public or symmetric key that is trusted because it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; directly built into hardware or software, or securely provisioned via&#xD;&#xA;&gt; out-of-band means, rather than because it is vouched for by another&#xD;&#xA;&gt; trusted entity (e.g. in a public key certificate).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 44]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, a Claimant attempts to log into a website and receives a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; text message on his or her cellular phone, PDA, pager, or land line&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (pre-registered with the CSP during the registration phase) with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; random authenticator to be presented as a part of the electronic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authentication protocol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**the biometric engine is configured to receive, over the out-of-band network,&#xD;&#xA;a request from the service provider for verification of a user;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 15]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Trust Anchor &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A public or symmetric key that is trusted because it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; directly built into hardware or software, or securely provisioned via&#xD;&#xA;&gt; out-of-band means, rather than because it is vouched for by another&#xD;&#xA;&gt; trusted entity (e.g. in a public key certificate).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 44]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; • Out of Band Token – A physical token that is uniquely addressable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and can receive a Verifier-selected secret for one-time use. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; device is possessed and controlled by the Claimant and supports&#xD;&#xA;&gt; private communication20 over a channel that is separate from the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; primary channel for e-authentication. The token authenticator is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; received secret and is presented to the Verifier using the primary&#xD;&#xA;&gt; channel for e-authentication. For example, a Claimant attempts to log&#xD;&#xA;&gt; into a website and receives a text message on his or her cellular&#xD;&#xA;&gt; phone, PDA, pager, or land line (pre-registered with the CSP during&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the registration phase) with a random authenticator to be presented as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a part of the electronic authentication protocol. Out of Band Tokens&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are something you have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**the biometric engine is configured to communicate with the interactive messaging server to request one or more biometric probes from the user;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*This is implied.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**the one or more biometric probes are generated at the client device&#xD;&#xA;using biometric information collected from the user by the client&#xD;&#xA;device;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Camera equipped mobile devices were already popular at the time of patent applications. Thus obvious to one skilled in art.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 45]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The second factor of authentication may be achieved through some kind&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of integral entry pad, an integral biometric (e.g., fingerprint)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reader or a direct computer interface (e.g., USB port).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 44]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, a Claimant attempts to log into a website and receives a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; text message on his or her cellular phone, PDA, pager, or land line&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (pre-registered with the CSP during the registration phase) with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; random authenticator to be presented as a part of the electronic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; authentication protocol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**the biometric engine is configured to receive the biometric probes over the out-of-band network;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Not explained how response biometric probe is sent back via e.g. Text Messaging service.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**the biometric engine is configured to compare the biometric probes with biometric templates stored in a database; and**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 40]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Obtain and verify a copy of a biometric recorded when the original&#xD;&#xA;&gt; credential was issued. An example of such a biometric is the signed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; biometric data object on a PIV card, however if the biometric&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reference is not available from the Level 4 token, it may be obtained&#xD;&#xA;&gt; elsewhere, as long as its authenticity is assured; Compare a fresh&#xD;&#xA;&gt; biometric sample obtained in person from the Applicant to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reference biometric retained from the original Level 4 credentials and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; determine that they match, and;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**the biometric engine is configured to provide a response to the service provider representing the possibility that the biometric probe and the biometric template are from the same user.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; E-authentication begins with registration. The usual sequence for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; registration proceeds as follows. An Applicant applies to a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Registration Authority (RA) to become a Subscriber of a Credential&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Service Provider (CSP). If approved, the Subscriber is issued a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; credential by the CSP which binds a token to an identifier (and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; possibly one or more attributes that the RA has verified).  ... When a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claimant successfully demonstrates possession and control of a token&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to a Verifier through an authentication protocol, the Verifier can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verify that the Claimant is the Subscriber named in the corresponding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; credential. The Verifier passes on an assertion about the identity of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Subscriber to the Relying Party (RP). That assertion includes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identity information about a Subscriber, such as the Subscriber name,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an identifier assigned at registration, or other Subscriber attributes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that were verified in the registration process (subject to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; policies of the CSP and the needs of the application). Where the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Verifier is also the RP, the assertion may be implicit. The RP can use&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the authenticated information provided by the Verifier to make access&#xD;&#xA;&gt; control or authorization decisions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Also see 4. E-Authentication Model*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**5. (Original) The system of claim 4, wherein the response to the service provider comprises a biometric fusion score.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Either match/no match or fusion score has no real difference, in  any case the result from biometric matcher at some point has to be converted into match/no match form.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21141" RevisionGUID="9925009b-5c0e-4f04-b838-8a49c9ec35af" CreationDate="2020-01-22T15:17:47.443" UserId="17003" Text="US20160226868A1 is a patent application, not a patent. I may or may not ever get granted as a patent and even if it does, it is highly likely the claims will change from what is in the application. In any case a claim needs to be taken in its entirety. The claim doesn't restrict others from using the individual steps. For claims with multiple steps, each and every step needs to be implemented in order to infringe on a claim. It is even possible for each step to have prior art yet the claim may be acceptable if the combination of steps is novel and non-obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wither regards to this application, I've not researched the documentation or prior art and I'm not an expert in this field. So I'm not making any assessment as to the validity of the invention. You can find an updated status by checking on the [US Public Pair][1] site. When there type &quot;20160226868&quot; into the search field and select &quot;Publication Number&quot;. Under the Transaction History tab you'll find that it received a rejection in May 2nd of 2019 and updated claims were filed on October 23rd, 2019. They are substantially changed.an An allowance was issued on January 15th, 2020.  In the Image File Wrapper tab you can read filed documents. The  most recent haven't been uploaded yet. It is very interesting to read the documents as you can see what the examiner was objecting to in the rejections and how the applicant responded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21141" RevisionGUID="d5137f97-ec9f-4a86-b56d-8126aa417ff4" CreationDate="2020-01-22T18:06:29.187" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="US20160226868A1 is a patent application, not a patent. I may or may not ever get granted as a patent and even if it does, it is highly likely the claims will change from what is in the application. In any case a claim needs to be taken in its entirety. The claim doesn't restrict others from using the individual steps. For claims with multiple steps, each and every step needs to be implemented in order to infringe on a claim. It is even possible for each step to have prior art yet the claim may be acceptable if the combination of steps is novel and non-obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wither regards to this application, I've not researched the documentation or prior art and I'm not an expert in this field. So I'm not making any assessment as to the validity of the invention. You can find an updated status by checking on the [US Public Pair][1] site. When there type &quot;20160226868&quot; into the search field and select &quot;Publication Number&quot;. Under the Transaction History tab you'll find that it received a rejection in May 2nd of 2019 and updated claims were filed on October 23rd, 2019. They are substantially changed. An allowance was issued on January 15th, 2020.  In the Image File Wrapper tab you can read filed documents. The  most recent haven't been uploaded yet. It is very interesting to read the documents as you can see what the examiner was objecting to in the rejections and how the applicant responded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58823" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20371" RevisionGUID="bef3c608-8295-466e-9c03-e7bc3b0666c2" CreationDate="2020-01-23T04:06:20.800" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58824" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="21140" RevisionGUID="439606f7-451a-4608-bb99-74b036ae144c" CreationDate="2020-01-23T07:15:02.850" UserId="22794" Comment="edited title" Text="Patent application claiming NIST Electronic Authentication Guideline" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21142" RevisionGUID="968737bb-62c5-4e97-82db-5b9e8b1101ac" CreationDate="2020-01-23T11:27:52.217" UserId="19913" Text="A utility patent application was written and filed in April 2019 with the USPTO.  The inventor seeks additional patent rights in ES, DE, FR, UK &amp; NL. The [EPO website][1] indicates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     A European patent application consists of:&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        a request for grant&#xD;&#xA;        a description of the invention&#xD;&#xA;        claims&#xD;&#xA;        drawings (if any)&#xD;&#xA;        an abstract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Does the Non-Provisional Patent Application (submitted to the USPTO) satisfy the European application elements described above?**  Naturally, the request for grant form would not be included in the NPA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.epo.org/applying/basics.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58826" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21142" RevisionGUID="968737bb-62c5-4e97-82db-5b9e8b1101ac" CreationDate="2020-01-23T11:27:52.217" UserId="19913" Text="EPO patent application requirements" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58827" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21142" RevisionGUID="968737bb-62c5-4e97-82db-5b9e8b1101ac" CreationDate="2020-01-23T11:27:52.217" UserId="19913" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;epo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21143" RevisionGUID="36872a5d-48c2-445f-931a-fc2688bc1b6e" CreationDate="2020-01-23T15:58:30.713" UserId="3076" Text="The U.S. application should have all of those elements but the U.S. application is not an EPO application. The content can be the same or different but a counterpart EPO application will be a new application filed with the EPO that claims priority to the U.S. application under the Paris Convention. This only works if the utility application is the first filed application on the subject matter. If it was proceeded by a provisional application you can only use that for priority. If it was filed over a year ago you will not get any priority. Unless the information has been kept secret all this time you need priority or you can’t go any further. Also, to be a pro se applicant in the EPO you need to be from an EPO country." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21144" RevisionGUID="c8af25f3-2890-4c2a-97f7-ea527c39e461" CreationDate="2020-01-23T17:05:47.783" UserId="22334" Text="You could draft it like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Device comprising: at least one X, the at least one X comprising a first X at location A. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one X further comprises a second X at location B. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one X further comprises a second X at location C." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21142" RevisionGUID="e3511874-56fd-4c1c-a001-966c351855da" CreationDate="2020-01-23T17:11:57.840" UserId="19913" Comment="added 182 characters in body" Text="A utility patent application was written and filed in April 2019 with the USPTO.  The inventor seeks additional patent rights in ES, DE, FR, UK &amp; NL. The [EPO website][1] indicates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     A European patent application consists of:&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        a request for grant&#xD;&#xA;        a description of the invention&#xD;&#xA;        claims&#xD;&#xA;        drawings (if any)&#xD;&#xA;        an abstract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Does the Non-Provisional Patent Application (submitted to the USPTO) satisfy the European application elements described above?**  Naturally, the request for grant form would not be included in the NPA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Updates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Invention has not been sold / disclosed&#xD;&#xA; - Inventor's dual EU-US citizen is unclear because of evolving immigration law&#xD;&#xA; - Provisional Application was filed exactly one year before NPA&#xD;&#xA; - NPA was filed USPTO pro-se&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.epo.org/applying/basics.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21143" RevisionGUID="af5b4c3b-101b-491c-bce8-1ff4b77ffc02" CreationDate="2020-01-23T18:54:27.007" UserId="3076" Comment="added 287 characters in body" Text="The U.S. application should have all of those elements but the U.S. application is not an EPO application. The content can be the same or different but a counterpart EPO application will be a new application filed with the EPO that claims priority to the U.S. application under the Paris Convention. This only works if the utility application is the first filed application on the subject matter. Since it was proceeded by a provisional application you can only use the provisional  for priority. Since it was filed over a year ago you can not get any priority from anything. Unless the information has been kept secret all this time  you can’t go any further. If the application has not published and you have not disclosed the invention and no one else has disclosed or filed in the meantime, then you do not need priority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your deadline to file everywhere  and get priority was the same deadline under which you filed the NPA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note - to be a pro se applicant in the EPO you need to be from an EPO country." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21143" RevisionGUID="e904bdf1-a085-4184-a221-6ae69b6cae82" CreationDate="2020-01-23T20:34:24.060" UserId="3076" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="The U.S. application should have all of those elements but the U.S. application is not an EPO application. The content can be the same or different but a counterpart EPO application will be a new application filed with the EPO that claims priority to the U.S. application under the Paris Convention. This only works if the utility application is the first filed application on the subject matter. Since it was proceeded by a provisional application you can only use the provisional  for priority. Since the provisional was filed over a year ago you can not get any priority from anything. Unless the information has been kept secret all this time you can’t go any further. Your deadline to file everywhere and get priority was the same deadline under which you filed the NPA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the application has not published and you have not disclosed the invention and no one else has disclosed or filed in the meantime, then you do not need priority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note - to be a pro se applicant in the EPO you need to be from an EPO country." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21143" RevisionGUID="7668904d-3ae7-4bc6-87a4-739823cd5086" CreationDate="2020-01-24T05:25:56.660" UserId="3076" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="The U.S. application should have all of those elements but the U.S. application is not an EPO application. The content can be the same or different but a counterpart EPO application will be a new application filed with the EPO that claims priority to the U.S. application under the Paris Convention. This only works if the utility application is the first filed application on the subject matter. Since it was proceeded by a provisional application you can only use the provisional  for priority. Since the provisional was filed over a year ago you can not get any priority from anything. Unless the information has been kept secret all this time you can’t go any further. Your deadline to file everywhere and get priority was the same deadline under which you filed the NPA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the application has not published and you have not disclosed the invention and no one else has disclosed or filed in the meantime, then you do not need priority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note - to be a pro se applicant in the EPO you need to be from an EPO country.  I'm not sure about the citizen/legal resident details but if you do not qualify in an EPO country you must have an EPO agent or attorney do the filing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21143" RevisionGUID="68ca78af-1934-440b-82d9-c5a739973989" CreationDate="2020-01-24T16:32:32.633" UserId="3076" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="The U.S. application should have all of those elements but the U.S. application is not an EPO application. The content can be the same or different but a counterpart EPO application will be a new application filed with the EPO that claims priority to the U.S. application under the Paris Convention. This only works if the utility application is the first filed application on the subject matter. Since it was proceeded by a provisional application you can only use the provisional  for priority. Since the provisional was filed over a year ago you can not get any priority from anything. Unless the information has been kept secret all this time you can’t go any further. Your deadline to file everywhere and get priority was the same deadline under which you filed the NPA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the application has not published and you have not disclosed the invention and no one else has disclosed or filed in the meantime, then you do not need priority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note - to be a pro se applicant in the EPO you need to be from an EPO country.  I'm not sure about the citizen/legal resident details but if you do not qualify in an EPO country you must have an EPO agent or attorney do everything besides the initial filing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21146" RevisionGUID="ddd6605e-f066-43a7-8f1c-46364c272d5c" CreationDate="2020-01-25T22:28:54.623" UserId="15489" Text="For anyone else who finds themselves in this situation, the following fixed it for me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. file the terminal disclaimer and pay the fee&#xD;&#xA;2. submit an A.NE &quot;Response after final action&quot; documenting your oversight and confirming that you have now filed the terminal disclaimer&#xD;&#xA;3. call the examiner, point out that you have done steps 1 and 2, and apologize&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All this can be done at no cost (other than the terminal disclaimer, which you would have had to pay for anyway).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within a couple of days, you should have a &quot;Reasons for allowance&quot; notification in the transaction history.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58839" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="21041" RevisionGUID="8e1e3fcd-53ea-4468-87ff-6560ab56033f" CreationDate="2020-01-26T00:01:30.177" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21148" RevisionGUID="bf490955-a855-4b42-9b31-a6ea5cce1e63" CreationDate="2020-01-26T20:48:24.393" UserId="22611" Text="Why would we say further comprising a second X, as opposed to saying further comprising an additional X? Then what if there can be a second, third, fourth, fifth, etc.?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58844" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21148" RevisionGUID="bf490955-a855-4b42-9b31-a6ea5cce1e63" CreationDate="2020-01-26T20:48:24.393" UserId="22611" Text="additional X&quot; instead of first X and second?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58845" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21148" RevisionGUID="bf490955-a855-4b42-9b31-a6ea5cce1e63" CreationDate="2020-01-26T20:48:24.393" UserId="22611" Text="&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21149" RevisionGUID="3f739efc-6641-419f-92c7-daa83bf2bdb9" CreationDate="2020-01-26T22:07:18.510" UserId="22611" Text="Examples I have seen seem to follow the &quot;at least one X&quot; language with a first X, second X type language. However, My X is an indicium delineating an angle, such as 45° or 15°, with a special stated relationship to the device.  I have tried to portray that &quot;at least one X&quot; can be anywhere on a larger particular part of the device in the independent claim. Then in the dependent claim, at least one X in one area within the larger area of the device and/or at least one X in another area on the device and/or at least one X in still another area of the device, then (within any of the locations), one or more facing toward the front of the device and/or one or more Xs facing toward the back of the device, and then (within any of the locations and either way they or it are facing) at least one X with this specific value, and/or at least one X with another specific value.  So far, the at least one indicium, followed by a first, second, third indicium, makes it look like a long list of confusion and more limiting than I like or leaving out more possibilities than I like. If say at least one X in the independent claim can I then say further comprising a plurality of X in following dependent claims? Nothing I have found sounds right. Probably not answerable, alas.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58847" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21149" RevisionGUID="3f739efc-6641-419f-92c7-daa83bf2bdb9" CreationDate="2020-01-26T22:07:18.510" UserId="22611" Text="at least one there, some perhaps here within there, this way and that way" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58848" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21149" RevisionGUID="3f739efc-6641-419f-92c7-daa83bf2bdb9" CreationDate="2020-01-26T22:07:18.510" UserId="22611" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58849" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19051" RevisionGUID="fcde6d02-b2d7-4357-9883-cbc47403cab8" CreationDate="2020-01-27T16:01:35.157" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21150" RevisionGUID="6a467517-b292-490e-b818-a9f7f6f00e26" CreationDate="2020-01-27T22:43:03.143" UserId="22807" Text="My grandfather had a company called &quot;Schmid Game Company&quot;. He created a game called &quot;Stock Market&quot; which he copyrighted in 1959.  During this process he obtained two copies of the original Dec. 31, 1935 Monopoly game patent.  They are both stamped with the attorneys stamp &quot;HOWARD L. FISCHER&quot; Patent Attorney Engineer, 911 Foshay Tower MINNEAPOLIS 2, MINNESOTA. They also have handwritten on them the patent number and &quot;Darrow&quot;.  My grandfather passed away quite a long time ago.  My father passed away about 5 years ago and I found these in a box from his house. Any idea what the value of these would be and who might be interested in them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58851" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21150" RevisionGUID="6a467517-b292-490e-b818-a9f7f6f00e26" CreationDate="2020-01-27T22:43:03.143" UserId="22807" Text="Copy of original monopoly game patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58852" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21150" RevisionGUID="6a467517-b292-490e-b818-a9f7f6f00e26" CreationDate="2020-01-27T22:43:03.143" UserId="22807" Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21152" RevisionGUID="195c4b80-9653-4a98-9fe3-005db7148822" CreationDate="2020-01-28T18:00:49.547" UserId="22812" Text="Input: I invented a play toy. that has different set of balls. each set has same color of balls. color of balls of one set is different from color of ball of another set. Kindly correct and suggest me appropriate claim frame. Here is an example of my independent claim &quot;A play toy comprising a plurality of ball sets, wherein each of the plurality of ball sets comprising a plurality of ball members, a plurality of ball members of a ball set of the plurality of ball sets has same color value but is of different color value from the color value of a plurality of ball members of another ball set of the plurality of ball sets;&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58855" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21152" RevisionGUID="195c4b80-9653-4a98-9fe3-005db7148822" CreationDate="2020-01-28T18:00:49.547" UserId="22812" Text="how to frame independent claim for comparing two components of a system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58856" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21152" RevisionGUID="195c4b80-9653-4a98-9fe3-005db7148822" CreationDate="2020-01-28T18:00:49.547" UserId="22812" Text="&lt;claim-construction&gt;&lt;independent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21152" RevisionGUID="54e90a14-3185-45dc-8a9e-d755c161762e" CreationDate="2020-01-28T18:40:54.357" UserId="22812" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="(Its a sample) Input: A play toy. that has different set of balls. each set has same color of balls. color of balls of one set is different from color of ball of another set. Kindly correct and suggest me appropriate claim frame. Here is an example of my independent claim &quot;A play toy comprising a plurality of ball sets, wherein each of the plurality of ball sets comprising a plurality of ball members, a plurality of ball members of a ball set of the plurality of ball sets has same color value but is of different color value from the color value of a plurality of ball members of another ball set of the plurality of ball sets;&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21152" RevisionGUID="a6a883e2-b0b0-4338-83dd-bd408ef871b0" CreationDate="2020-01-29T11:44:12.863" UserId="22812" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="(Its a sample) Input: A play toy. that has different set of balls. each set has same color of balls. color of balls of one set is different from color of ball of another set. Kindly correct and suggest me appropriate claim frame. Here I framed an independent claim &quot;A play toy comprising a plurality of ball sets, wherein each of the plurality of ball sets comprising a plurality of ball members, a plurality of ball members of a ball set of the plurality of ball sets has same color value but is of different color value from the color value of a plurality of ball members of another ball set of the plurality of ball sets;&quot;please correct me" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21153" RevisionGUID="97721ef0-953f-4976-8d24-4fa7384a9a81" CreationDate="2020-01-29T19:03:39.023" UserId="21046" Text="I'm used to being able to look up referenced provisionals in the Public Pair database by clicking on the link over their application number under the &quot;Continuity Data&quot; tab. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I've come across one case in which the provisional that was referenced in a published non-provisional (already published for over one year) does not have a link associated with it. Also, searching for the referenced application number directly does not find anything. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible that the applicant referenced a provisional that does not actually exist, or that did not get filed properly? Another possibility would maybe be a typo in reproducing the number in the non-provisional application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, does that mean that the non-provisional will not have the benefit of said provisional?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58860" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21153" RevisionGUID="97721ef0-953f-4976-8d24-4fa7384a9a81" CreationDate="2020-01-29T19:03:39.023" UserId="21046" Text="No link to referenced provisonal in Public Pair database: Does the provisional not exist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58861" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21153" RevisionGUID="97721ef0-953f-4976-8d24-4fa7384a9a81" CreationDate="2020-01-29T19:03:39.023" UserId="21046" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;publication&gt;&lt;public-pair&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21154" RevisionGUID="8380afee-2448-4a2b-bb54-3d261fbe7960" CreationDate="2020-01-29T20:22:54.440" UserId="22334" Text="Looks good to me. As long as it is clear what you mean, you should do fine. And clarity is quite subjective, so depending on the examiner your claim may be clear or not. A proposal in case it may be of help:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A play toy comprising a plurality of ball sets, wherein each ball set of the plurality of ball sets comprises a plurality of ball members having a same color value and the color value being different from the color value of the ball members of remaining ball sets of the plurality of ball sets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21155" RevisionGUID="51235d82-d501-4a1b-9f16-beb4457cd5de" CreationDate="2020-01-30T00:33:17.633" UserId="3076" Text="You can look up the provisional application by its application number in [Public PAIR][1] and verify that it exists. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21155" RevisionGUID="3a6de514-af7f-41e4-a127-f07c5d3a6eb1" CreationDate="2020-01-30T06:28:36.053" UserId="3076" Comment="added 559 characters in body" Text="You can look up the provisional application by its application number in [Public PAIR][1] and verify that it exists. Since that also doesn't find it according to your comment It might be a typo in the non-provisional. If the application gets a rejection based on a reference published before the non-provisional was filed and the applicant wants to disqualify the reference, they will need to *try* to straighten it out. There is a deadline to perfect a priority claim, I think it is 16 months from the date of the provisional or 4 months from the filing of the non-provisional. If that has past the applicant might still end up with the benefit if it was something like a typo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58873" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="318d3822-89a4-4b2e-963c-b90d8fd20abe" CreationDate="2020-02-01T15:03:15.500" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21157" RevisionGUID="a57d42f5-1e1e-4864-bfa7-c31ecced19cc" CreationDate="2020-02-01T18:57:58.293" UserId="22825" Text="Although it may sound unlikely, I believe I discovered a chemical. I am highly inexperienced in chemistry and law and now seeking assistance. If I am correct in my discovery, this chemical has potential of being very valuable. That being said, I would like to protect every aspect of the chemical and it's potential. Since I am inexperienced in chemistry, I will need the assistance of a chemist to help identify the new chemical before I can patent it, but I do not want that chemist to steal or use the chemical other than identifying it.. I could give the chemist a sample of the chemical to try identifying it and there shouldn't be any more information given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is an NDA the best choice of protection?&#xD;&#xA;Should I consult a lawyer?&#xD;&#xA;Any advice is accepted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58875" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21157" RevisionGUID="a57d42f5-1e1e-4864-bfa7-c31ecced19cc" CreationDate="2020-02-01T18:57:58.293" UserId="22825" Text="What would be the best course of action to patent a newly discovered chemical?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58876" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21157" RevisionGUID="a57d42f5-1e1e-4864-bfa7-c31ecced19cc" CreationDate="2020-02-01T18:57:58.293" UserId="22825" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21158" RevisionGUID="63f8a21a-2753-4b31-aeef-18c2e66e6916" CreationDate="2020-02-01T23:00:37.093" UserId="3076" Text="You need a chemist and a registered patent practitioner *specifically experienced in patenting chemicals.* It is a world or its own within patent law. Use an NDA with chemists you interview; it is not needed with patent attorneys or agents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21159" RevisionGUID="efe1da6e-1869-4aa8-ab14-fd306dc16be0" CreationDate="2020-02-02T09:27:40.743" UserId="15489" Text="The answer is that it is the same selection- &quot;Amendment/Req. Reconsideration-After Non-Final Reject&quot; and  &quot;Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made In An Amendment&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second choice can read as &quot;Applicant arguments. Or Applicant remarks made in an amendment.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21160" RevisionGUID="5ca57402-620e-496b-bee6-0e1c7f0684e0" CreationDate="2020-02-02T17:26:39.343" UserId="22827" Text="This patent is claiming the exact same thing as the common 4x4 locking hub. Furthermore, it is also a mechanical system widely used in motorized vehicle gearboxes. Why are there no references to that in the prior art?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58880" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21160" RevisionGUID="5ca57402-620e-496b-bee6-0e1c7f0684e0" CreationDate="2020-02-02T17:26:39.343" UserId="22827" Text="Patent US20200023261A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58881" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21160" RevisionGUID="5ca57402-620e-496b-bee6-0e1c7f0684e0" CreationDate="2020-02-02T17:26:39.343" UserId="22827" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21160" RevisionGUID="2cf87eca-312a-4b55-ab53-c41abfa7c95a" CreationDate="2020-02-02T17:44:17.733" UserId="3076" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="This patent [US 20200002361][1] is claiming the exact same thing as the common 4x4 locking hub. Furthermore, it is also a mechanical system widely used in motorized vehicle gearboxes. Why are there no references to that in the prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://US20200023261" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21161" RevisionGUID="ac14d0e0-63e3-46a8-97bd-cbe6f4ca4088" CreationDate="2020-02-02T18:01:19.673" UserId="3076" Text="This is a publication of a patent *application*, not an issued patent. It has not yet (as of 2/2/2020) been examined by the USPTO. A form (IDS) filed by the applicants lists many references of prior art that they are bringing to the attention of the examiner. You can see what those references are by looking this case up in USPTO's [Public PAIR][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The invention protected by a patent is specified by its claims. They often change during the prosecution of the application as the examiner cites references that might show the initial claims to be not novel or obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A pole for pole dancing might be claimed in a way that makes for a novel, non-obvious invention even though it contains a mechanism that is already known. Almost all inventions build upon existing technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21162" RevisionGUID="e1dfa1ac-d2a5-45c5-93ff-aa993680762b" CreationDate="2020-02-03T03:43:16.247" UserId="22833" Text="A  person files patent after they have disclosed info to public, and sold the item. But lie to patent attorneys. Also let previous patent pending on same invention expire. Can they be turned in for fraud?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58885" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21162" RevisionGUID="e1dfa1ac-d2a5-45c5-93ff-aa993680762b" CreationDate="2020-02-03T03:43:16.247" UserId="22833" Text="What if someone files a fraudulent patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58886" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21162" RevisionGUID="e1dfa1ac-d2a5-45c5-93ff-aa993680762b" CreationDate="2020-02-03T03:43:16.247" UserId="22833" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21163" RevisionGUID="4e9e0e61-d5fb-4ba2-9744-a37975ddc02c" CreationDate="2020-02-03T05:18:16.180" UserId="3076" Text="Disclosure/sales by the applicant before the patent application was filed would be prior art. In the U.S. there is a quasi grace period of a year so the timing of the applicant selling a product embodying the claimed invention is relevant. An earlier application that went abandoned without being published might or might not be a factor in the validity of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are procedures with the USPTO that can be used by third parties to invalidate patents by presenting documents that show there is relevant prior art. It would cost you tens of thousands of dollars at a minimum. In an infringement case the defendant can allege &quot;fraud on the patent office&quot; as a defense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the patent was fraudulently obtained and was used as part of increasing the value of a company in a potential investor's eyes that might be actual fraud but that is not within my expertise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21163" RevisionGUID="e92bf3df-789d-422e-a707-586f1d18c524" CreationDate="2020-02-03T20:40:15.373" UserId="3076" Comment="added 351 characters in body" Text="Disclosure/sales by the applicant before the patent application was filed would be prior art. In the U.S. there is a quasi grace period of a year so the timing of the applicant selling a product embodying the claimed invention is relevant. An earlier application that went abandoned without being published might or might not be a factor in the validity of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a patent is not yet granted there are ways to attempt to counter it at the USPTO. The AIA law introduced a new procedure called preissuance submission provision. During a period of the examination process a third party can, anonymously and for free, present documents that the examiner is required to take into consideration,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If already issued, there are procedures with the USPTO that can be used by third parties to invalidate patents by presenting documents that show there is relevant prior art. It would cost you tens of thousands of dollars at a minimum. In an infringement case the defendant can allege &quot;fraud on the patent office&quot; as a defense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the patent was fraudulently obtained and was used as part of increasing the value of a company in a potential investor's eyes that might be actual fraud but that is not within my expertise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21165" RevisionGUID="fe5adb70-3a23-4b06-83be-0baa72bccbb2" CreationDate="2020-02-04T11:12:05.657" UserId="21610" Text="From my familiarity with chemical art the first step after discovering a new chemical is to register the compound and get a CAS number assigned by American chemical society they maintain world wide data base of the compounds if the compound had already been disclosed to CAS the CAS number would be provided for you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the compound has been discovered i.e., isolated from existing plants or organism then the patent would not be granted for the chemical isolated. As tested by courts and available case law the mere isolation of naturally occurring chemical would not grant patent rights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In isolation of chemicals naturally occurring the process of isolation, purification or analytical methods can be patented. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will need the assistance of a chemist to help identify the new&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chemical before I can patent it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the compound has not been identify, what are your claims going to be? identify the chemical first and search for the disclosure of compound with databases.Use an NDA with a chemist to identify the compound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21166" RevisionGUID="3ddcf3de-0918-4f90-ad79-b3b8ab21bddf" CreationDate="2020-02-06T08:28:19.250" UserId="22841" Text="Chinese researchers have applied for a patent on experimental drug from Gilead Sciences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.thestreet.com/investing/gilead-falls-post-earnings-but-china-wants-to-patent-its-coronavirus-drug&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is related to this news, How can a patent be applied by someone who did not invent it in the first place?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58892" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21166" RevisionGUID="3ddcf3de-0918-4f90-ad79-b3b8ab21bddf" CreationDate="2020-02-06T08:28:19.250" UserId="22841" Text="How can Chinese researchers apply for a patent for a drug that Gilead invented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58893" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21166" RevisionGUID="3ddcf3de-0918-4f90-ad79-b3b8ab21bddf" CreationDate="2020-02-06T08:28:19.250" UserId="22841" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21167" RevisionGUID="98468f78-4916-4e22-8e79-67732112bcb4" CreationDate="2020-02-06T20:41:42.603" UserId="3076" Text="If two parties invent something at about the same time they might both file a patent application. It frequently happens that a new problem arises and more that one group come up with the same solution.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21168" RevisionGUID="0bfb8c0c-8fe0-45e2-ae48-50fc52efd009" CreationDate="2020-02-07T05:23:39.743" UserId="17003" Text="One can apply for a patent on a new use for an existing drug. You still might need a license to produce the drug so the original patent owner may well encourage such activity. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21169" RevisionGUID="a86f7a88-d5ef-4873-b21b-ff72c5ba410a" CreationDate="2020-02-07T06:55:34.553" UserId="21610" Text="&gt; My question is related to this news, How can a patent be applied by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; someone who did not invent it in the first place?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree @Eric Shain had answered most of your question. I would like to add the background of the case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As China is suffering from an epidemic out break of Coronavirus (2019-nCov) the doctors are struggling to determine what is the best cocktail of drugs to be given to treat infection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Gilead drug had been designed to flight another virus i.e., Ebola virus but it had not shown the promise in fighting Ebola. Ebola being a same family Gilead approached Chinese regulatory authority to test the product in small group of patients, and it showed promise when combined with other drug used to treat pneumonia. Here Gilead only provided the drug the combination was invented by Wuhan labs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chinese government want to protect it interests in the drug and prevent from being exploited for the drug they filed the patent. ( For your information china doesn't grant patents for method of treatment it just want to protect the interests in the drug so the remedy is available for all)  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21170" RevisionGUID="9f70abd4-a6d5-44a7-9911-3be40a5f8986" CreationDate="2020-02-07T09:36:26.510" UserId="21610" Text="I had been trying to search for patents on proteins using amino acid sequence or nucleoside sequence for presence of patents but i am unable to find the relevant patents for the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help me how could i perform search in USPTO or any other relevant databases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58898" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21170" RevisionGUID="9f70abd4-a6d5-44a7-9911-3be40a5f8986" CreationDate="2020-02-07T09:36:26.510" UserId="21610" Text="How to perform search for protein or nucleotide search in uspto" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58899" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21170" RevisionGUID="9f70abd4-a6d5-44a7-9911-3be40a5f8986" CreationDate="2020-02-07T09:36:26.510" UserId="21610" Text="&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58903" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="21172" RevisionGUID="e0b4ed9c-14c9-4ef5-bada-96350710145c" CreationDate="2020-02-07T23:13:32.470" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/48877/how-can-i-learn-about-the-famous-patent-cases-at-uspto" />
  <row Id="58904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21172" RevisionGUID="5da9af45-e0f2-4078-829f-2a86692dba11" CreationDate="2020-02-07T19:27:25.130" UserDisplayName="Jeena Alfredo" Text="I need information about the famous cases in 2019 at USPTO about the patent cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58905" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21172" RevisionGUID="5da9af45-e0f2-4078-829f-2a86692dba11" CreationDate="2020-02-07T19:27:25.130" UserDisplayName="Jeena Alfredo" Text="How can I learn about the famous patent cases at USPTO?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58906" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21172" RevisionGUID="5da9af45-e0f2-4078-829f-2a86692dba11" CreationDate="2020-02-07T19:27:25.130" UserDisplayName="Jeena Alfredo" Text="&lt;intellectual-property&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58907" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="21173" RevisionGUID="20d5577e-9f7d-41ce-9c1c-324d69ac8412" CreationDate="2020-02-07T23:13:32.470" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/48877/how-can-i-learn-about-the-famous-patent-cases-at-uspto/48879#48879" />
  <row Id="58908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21173" RevisionGUID="a009f719-77eb-4dc6-a82f-df7b51fa8992" CreationDate="2020-02-07T20:39:58.767" UserId="3076" Text="The two most popular sites that cover current affairs in patents - patentlyo and ipwatch." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21173" RevisionGUID="d52bbac9-9828-4e7f-86b6-5453ab4a3a3d" CreationDate="2020-02-08T00:39:54.340" UserId="3076" Comment="added 320 characters in body" Text="See the two most popular sites that cover current affairs in patents - [patentlyo][1] and [ipwatchdog][2]. A law firm has a blog [Federal Circuit IP Blog][3]  that covers the Federal Circuit, the court that handles all patent case appeals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentlyo.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/blogs/federal-circuit-ip/index.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21175" RevisionGUID="0bb0bf70-869a-438b-bbe6-fe2d787d587f" CreationDate="2020-02-09T09:08:44.027" UserId="22852" Text=" My patent transaction history is below. What does PG-Pub issue notification means? Does it mean my patent is approved and it is visible to public?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fRL41.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58914" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21175" RevisionGUID="0bb0bf70-869a-438b-bbe6-fe2d787d587f" CreationDate="2020-02-09T09:08:44.027" UserId="22852" Text="What is PG pub issue notifcation means?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58915" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21175" RevisionGUID="0bb0bf70-869a-438b-bbe6-fe2d787d587f" CreationDate="2020-02-09T09:08:44.027" UserId="22852" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21176" RevisionGUID="c1bc162e-9e96-4d7e-9a0e-bb024b80f72a" CreationDate="2020-02-09T16:20:48.193" UserId="22853" Text="I have finished a new method (implemented as an algorithm/software) which exploring data inputs obtains a sequence of steps, appliable for different industrial processes, that reduces drastically material and human resources as well as energy and time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example. This method gives the optimal commands for managing an arm-robot to arrange 7 tones of different size stones in 10 pallets of 1 cubic metre in 60 minutes instead of the current process that needs 3 arm-robots (and others) for performing the same task in 30 pallets and in more than 300 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that for different processes and inputs (a different set of stones) it will produce a different sequence of commands, so it is generating new industrial processes for each new task.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that software that implements industrial processes are patentable in US and EU but as I´ve exposed it is not an industrial process but an algorithm to generate some industrial processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this case of software patentable as a unique-global software for industrial processes or each case must be patented apart?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58917" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21176" RevisionGUID="c1bc162e-9e96-4d7e-9a0e-bb024b80f72a" CreationDate="2020-02-09T16:20:48.193" UserId="22853" Text="Is it possible to patent a new general method of optimizing some industrial processes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58918" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21176" RevisionGUID="c1bc162e-9e96-4d7e-9a0e-bb024b80f72a" CreationDate="2020-02-09T16:20:48.193" UserId="22853" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;process&gt;&lt;algorithms&gt;&lt;data-processing-software&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21177" RevisionGUID="828849cf-e06c-4aa8-b759-a1cb73df5afd" CreationDate="2020-02-09T17:57:13.403" UserId="22334" Text="My answer refers to European patent practice. Most probably you will not be able to get a patent granted for the method/algorithm if you do not refer it to a particular industrial application. Without claiming the different steps of the industrial procedure, the steps of your method/algorithm will be considered a mathematical method or a computer program as such (depending on how it the claims are drafted), both of which are not regarded as inventions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An algorithm is in fact patentable when it provides a technical effect, which can also be seen as solving a technical problem. It is true that your algorithm enables you to solve a technical problem whereby fewer resources/time/etc. are necessary, but as long as you do not set out the actual industrial process in the claim the algorithm is just an algorithm, not a solution to a technical problem. The second alternative you mention is, in my opinion, the one that applies in your situation: you have to patent the different cases. Before filing for a patent, it would be wise to study the different scenarios that your technology may address and have them all included in the same patent application or file different patent applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21178" RevisionGUID="8d045124-2820-48c8-ac78-2549f061a49f" CreationDate="2020-02-09T20:53:11.117" UserId="3076" Text="In U.S. law it used to be that a programed computer was seen as a machine (patentable) and as a different machine than an unprogramed or differently programed machine.  Now, unfortunately it is often seen as a computer &quot;just doing what computers do&quot;. Yes this is ridiculous. A good practitioner can couch your invention in terms that make it tangible. Maybe they do show a hardwired version as an example embodiment but have some claims that are more general. The system is illogical but there is often a way through it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21178" RevisionGUID="4254e818-9383-4f1b-8a7e-7ddaabbeccaa" CreationDate="2020-02-09T21:02:35.503" UserId="3076" Comment="added 844 characters in body" Text="Some things in the field you describe are patentable and some are not. Unfortunately, above novelty and non-obviousness, the current huge hurdle is abstractness. The law on this in the U.S. has changed in the last few years in the direction of making it much easier to shoot down something as abstract. The broader range of processes you intend to cover the more likely that will trip you up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It takes a very skilled patent attorney or agent to draft a specification and claims to avoid the abstractness black hole. All USPTO registered practitioners (and those in other locations) need to have at least an undergraduate scientific or engineering background, unlike generic attorneys. I have met several PhD patent attorneys. You can find a practitioner who is expert in your field who has successfully prosecuted other's patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In U.S. law it used to be that a programed computer was seen as a machine (patentable) and as a different machine than an unprogramed or differently programed machine.  Now, unfortunately it is often seen as a computer &quot;just doing what computers do&quot;. Yes this is ridiculous. A good practitioner can couch your invention in terms that make it tangible. Maybe they do show a hardwired version as an example embodiment but have some claims that are more general. The system is illogical but there is often a way through it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21178" RevisionGUID="52cbe9bf-a897-4b74-a93f-ef498fa2e1ae" CreationDate="2020-02-09T22:49:11.697" UserId="3076" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="A U.S. answer. Some things in the field you describe are patentable in the U.S. and some are not. Unfortunately, above novelty and non-obviousness, the current huge hurdle is abstractness. The law on this in the U.S. has changed in the last few years in the direction of making it much easier to shoot down something as abstract. The broader range of processes you intend to cover the more likely that will trip you up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It takes a very skilled patent attorney or agent to draft a specification and claims to avoid the abstractness black hole. All USPTO registered practitioners (and those in other locations) need to have at least an undergraduate scientific or engineering background, unlike generic attorneys. I have met several PhD patent attorneys. You can find a practitioner who is expert in your field who has successfully prosecuted other's patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In U.S. law it used to be that a programed computer was seen as a machine (patentable) and as a different machine than an unprogramed or differently programed machine.  Now, unfortunately it is often seen as a computer &quot;just doing what computers do&quot;. Yes this is ridiculous. A good practitioner can couch your invention in terms that make it tangible. Maybe they do show a hardwired version as an example embodiment but have some claims that are more general. The system is illogical but there is often a way through it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21179" RevisionGUID="ea5de8b2-efd7-440b-a908-a3357b8194a0" CreationDate="2020-02-09T23:22:37.820" UserId="3076" Text="**No and Yes**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not an indication that it is approved but it is an indication that the application is about to be published for the public to see. Note that a few actions below you see that a non-final rejection was mailed. There are a few steps after a rejection before you get a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The information you posted is from one of the tabs in Public PAIR that gives a sometimes cryptic note of actions on your case, not all of which are of any substance. Another nearby tab will bring up the file history and you can see the entire detailed back-and-forth between you and the office, including your rejection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21180" RevisionGUID="08d0ae9b-dd81-4372-afed-33b23bbe13ad" CreationDate="2020-02-11T00:05:27.503" UserId="17003" Text="I can't vouch for its effectiveness since I've never used it, but [The Lens][1] has [patent sequence search facility][2]. [This page][3] is specifically for searching sequences. I do use The Lens for regular patent searching and think it works well and generally better than Google Patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/bio&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.lens.org/lens/bio/patseqfinder" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58925" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="21092" RevisionGUID="5f29110a-2ed9-4059-8945-fe2012d2ba1a" CreationDate="2020-02-11T06:02:50.377" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21181" RevisionGUID="5e92edd9-3e73-4892-86e8-9080f43be9b8" CreationDate="2020-02-12T10:05:08.537" UserId="17198" Text="A certain patent claims a priority date (just under one year prior to the application date) and I would like to find the element providing this priority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The priority number points towards France (FR index in EPO priority number) but at the time of application, France did not offer a system similar to Provisional Patent Application if I'm not mistaken (only since 2019) so I guess it must be something else than a PPA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm not sure how to search for the element providing priority, when I use the priority number in searches it points to the said patent (by finding the priority number it claims).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a little lost I guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58927" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21181" RevisionGUID="5e92edd9-3e73-4892-86e8-9080f43be9b8" CreationDate="2020-02-12T10:05:08.537" UserId="17198" Text="Find the element providing a priority date" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58928" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21181" RevisionGUID="5e92edd9-3e73-4892-86e8-9080f43be9b8" CreationDate="2020-02-12T10:05:08.537" UserId="17198" Text="&lt;priority&gt;&lt;ppa&gt;&lt;france&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21182" RevisionGUID="8d199271-0f6a-4fa4-88b3-8c88a9231312" CreationDate="2020-02-12T13:11:28.013" UserId="17198" Text="When a patent was filed by a **company that no longer exists**, what is the best way to find out its current owner?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my case the company that filed the patent at the time first merged with a second company. The resulting company then sold some of its assets (most of them corresponding to the initial company) to multiple other companies. So it's very hard to guess who owns the specific patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*When looking at the patent history I can't find any information on any owner change, and I'm not actually sure this information is available anyway.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58930" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21182" RevisionGUID="8d199271-0f6a-4fa4-88b3-8c88a9231312" CreationDate="2020-02-12T13:11:28.013" UserId="17198" Text="Know the owner of a patent when initial filing company no longer exists" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58931" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21182" RevisionGUID="8d199271-0f6a-4fa4-88b3-8c88a9231312" CreationDate="2020-02-12T13:11:28.013" UserId="17198" Text="&lt;owner&gt;&lt;merger&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21183" RevisionGUID="2e28480b-7458-4bac-b9af-902330e79cf6" CreationDate="2020-02-12T19:19:46.550" UserId="22861" Text="You can access recorded assignments via [this link](https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html#/patent/search). If no assignment is recorded, and you still want to find the owner, you can reach out to the attorney of record. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21184" RevisionGUID="230bc0c6-34e0-4c26-a921-05be1e6aa54a" CreationDate="2020-02-12T21:07:06.560" UserId="3076" Text="Priority, internationally, is under the Paris Convention. It has nothing to do with the idea of a provisional application, although a US provisional can as as a priority document under Paris. The number will be the application number of a French patent application. I would look it up in Espacenet at https://worldwide.espacenet.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58934" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="21104" RevisionGUID="a4253388-001b-456a-b59a-468461137469" CreationDate="2020-02-13T06:01:25.143" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58935" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="21048" RevisionGUID="53f5fa27-6d95-4a10-9bf0-720ea7dd3d79" CreationDate="2020-02-13T09:02:25.343" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21186" RevisionGUID="ca6bec39-f3d1-4193-baa0-f7f244572fe8" CreationDate="2020-02-15T04:24:20.213" UserId="22868" Text="I was wondering, how is a patent linked to the owning people who reside outside US? It cannot be only assigned by name of course. There might be thousands of people by the same name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it linked to, for instance, the passport ID of the person? Of course it can also change later by changing the passport, or maybe to national ID number of the person in their homeland? Which I don't think also.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean if I register a US patent, how can the law recognize me as the credible person among the other people with the same name as me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58940" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21186" RevisionGUID="ca6bec39-f3d1-4193-baa0-f7f244572fe8" CreationDate="2020-02-15T04:24:20.213" UserId="22868" Text="How is a US patent linked to the non-us person's identity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58941" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21186" RevisionGUID="ca6bec39-f3d1-4193-baa0-f7f244572fe8" CreationDate="2020-02-15T04:24:20.213" UserId="22868" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;intellectual-property&gt;&lt;us&gt;&lt;register&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21187" RevisionGUID="50fd22cf-709c-463e-a532-99df76341f60" CreationDate="2020-02-15T04:43:24.090" UserId="3076" Text="Regardless of location of the inventor the persons name and city of residence are all that is listed in the form. Same form for everybody. By international treaty every patent office needs to treat inventors and applicants identically regardless of nationality. Might be different if the invention relates to atom bombs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58943" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21187" RevisionGUID="7845ac69-a330-4d10-838e-a3ef334a6d72" CreationDate="2020-02-15T05:44:55.340" UserId="3076" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="Regardless of location of the inventor the person’s name and city of residence are all that is listed in the form. Same form for everybody. By international treaty every patent office needs to treat inventors and applicants identically regardless of nationality. Might be different if the invention relates to atom bombs.&#xD;&#xA;There is an issue about accessing unpublished applications from outside the US if the invention was made in the US, independent of the nationality of the Inventot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21188" RevisionGUID="d3c57b53-fd57-4767-bdb9-b4b36eb124a1" CreationDate="2020-02-15T09:52:07.673" UserId="18033" Text="Funny question. But you're paying fees and all, if it really came down to someone else with the same name trying to steal your patent, I do think you'd be able to prove that it's yours by following the money. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, name and adress. However, as long as nobody complains, the patent office won't extensively check for fraud. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you sue someone from the patent and theres reasonable doud it's even yours, you'd have the burden of prove.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically, the answer is: it's not linked to you perfectly, but I have never heard of problems with that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21187" RevisionGUID="7c3bc4c6-be57-41c2-9ee3-08d192026965" CreationDate="2020-02-15T13:26:40.200" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Regardless of location of the inventor the person’s name and city of residence are all that is listed in the form. Same form for everybody. By international treaty every patent office needs to treat inventors and applicants identically regardless of nationality. Might be different if the invention relates to atom bombs.&#xD;&#xA;There is an issue about accessing unpublished applications from outside the US if the invention was made in the US, independent of the nationality of the Inventor. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58946" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21188" RevisionGUID="09c9cd39-fb7d-4313-a19e-ce809bb08f28" CreationDate="2020-02-15T13:26:59.310" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body; added 2 characters in body" Text="Funny question. But you're paying fees and all, if it really came down to someone else with the same name trying to steal your patent, I do think you'd be able to prove that it's yours by following the money. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, name and adress. However, as long as nobody complains, the patent office won't extensively check for fraud. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you sue someone from the patent and there is reasonable doubt it's even yours, you'd have the burden of prove.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically, the answer is: it's not linked to you perfectly, but I have never heard of problems with that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58947" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20770" RevisionGUID="c63148c4-39d0-4413-a302-6a4aac72d5c4" CreationDate="2020-02-16T12:02:50.467" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21189" RevisionGUID="88b1dd12-c9f6-4ac6-b8f7-7b409a876b1d" CreationDate="2020-02-17T01:27:50.470" UserId="19232" Text="**Does the wording** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ...by, inclusively, either of &#xD;&#xA;       [option 1 description]&#xD;&#xA;       [option 2 description]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(– and conceivably, extendable to any number of additional elements, with a change of &quot;either of&quot; to &quot;any of&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**serve the same purpose, with adequate clarity, as** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ...selected from the group consisting of: &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;           a) [option 1 description]&#xD;&#xA;           b) [option 2 description]&#xD;&#xA;           c) combinations of any elements comprising those set forth in &#xD;&#xA;              (a)-(b),  inclusive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(– and conceivably, extendable to any number of additional elements with corresponding lettered ordering)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58949" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21189" RevisionGUID="88b1dd12-c9f6-4ac6-b8f7-7b409a876b1d" CreationDate="2020-02-17T01:27:50.470" UserId="19232" Text="Alternative forms of non-exclusive options: “by, inclusively, either of ...”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58950" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21189" RevisionGUID="88b1dd12-c9f6-4ac6-b8f7-7b409a876b1d" CreationDate="2020-02-17T01:27:50.470" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21189" RevisionGUID="c50158cc-f6e2-417b-97b6-3250b09acf4f" CreationDate="2020-02-17T01:36:44.930" UserId="19232" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="**Does the wording** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ...by, inclusively, either of &#xD;&#xA;       [option 1 description]; or&#xD;&#xA;       [option 2 description]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(– and conceivably, extendable to any number of additional elements, with a change of &quot;either of&quot; to &quot;any of&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**serve the same purpose, with adequate clarity, as** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ...selected from the group consisting of: &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;           a) [option 1 description];&#xD;&#xA;           b) [option 2 description];&#xD;&#xA;           c) combinations of any elements comprising those set forth in &#xD;&#xA;              (a)-(b),  inclusive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(– and conceivably, extendable to any number of additional elements with corresponding lettered ordering)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21189" RevisionGUID="fda7733c-76d0-415b-8d54-de24f394efb6" CreationDate="2020-02-17T03:20:06.183" UserId="19232" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="**Does the wording** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ...(accomplishing something) by, inclusively, either of &#xD;&#xA;       [option 1 description]; or&#xD;&#xA;       [option 2 description]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(– and conceivably, extendable to any number of additional elements, with a change of &quot;either of&quot; to &quot;any of&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**serve the same purpose, with adequate clarity, as** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ...(accomplishing something by a means) selected from the group consisting of: &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;           a) [option 1 description];&#xD;&#xA;           b) [option 2 description];&#xD;&#xA;           c) combinations of any elements comprising those set forth in &#xD;&#xA;              (a)-(b),  inclusive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(– and conceivably, extendable to any number of additional elements with corresponding lettered ordering)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21191" RevisionGUID="5bf244eb-00e9-412a-b45e-317285f9a0be" CreationDate="2020-02-17T18:53:51.000" UserId="3076" Text="Either could work and either could be screwed up. From &quot;accomplishing&quot; I get that you are specifying actions or steps in a method claim but from &quot;combinations of any elements comprising those set forth in (a)-(b)&quot; it looks like we are talking about a thing, not an action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;As set forth&quot; seems odd and &quot;inclusive&quot; is used to indicate the endpoints of a range are part of the claimed range as in &quot;cobalt and mixtures thereof and x, y, and z range from 0 to 8, inclusive); an aluminum transition metal&quot;. If (a) through (b) are individual actions or things it doesn't make sense to say inclusive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21192" RevisionGUID="339a9ea5-b680-4932-b891-33d91f4baace" CreationDate="2020-02-18T22:32:23.420" UserId="22873" Text="1. You could also consider recording your invention notes in a cloud storage format (e.g. Google Drive,  verses the way it was 1980- sept 11th 2001&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In the past one kept a hand written notebook with numbered pages and your drew a line under the disclosures you made specifications, what the objectives were of the invention, and the Drawings, which you number yourself. The Patent office should reinstate the Disclosure documents program and the Google Drive docs could be submitted online. I would support if elected 2020 the reinstatement of both the Disclosure documents program and the Sir Program, which would allow small entity inventors to have their provisional patents published in the Patent Gazette for a small fee. The grounds are simply that Google and the other corporations are not going to go to court to defend your rights and also the case In re: Thomas Steed, Sourav Bhattacharya, Sandeep Seshadrijois, No. 2014-1458, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17248 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 1, 2015) (Before Newman, Clevenger, and Dyk, J.) (Opinion for the court, Newman, J. rejected swearing behind a Reference by Affidavit or Declaration as insufficient evidence to show or prove the dates of invention. As noted above the Current Patent law is a first to file first to invent system. There is therefore given the quality of the applicant in this case and the fact he had difficulty of finding anyone to sign his notebook a need to protect the inventor and the innovative ownership rights. Generally, it takes an existing partnership in business Rosco vs Mirror- Lite, and the infringer Rosco lost on appeal, but the the two firms made a partnership to remain in business. Under this patent laws an invention must be reduced to practice by a subcontractor that invalidates a pending Patent Application and any continuations in part that are aimed to cover the inability to enforce existing patent rights on the articles of manufacture or later changes. In additions The Xerox corporation lost a case in 2001 -2012 because the toner cartridges they patented were manufactured in another state. Therefore, if a customer with the competing patent application say Mirror Lite in business wanted to make a profit  they cannot deduct wages and so they would buy a manufactured plastics from Ohio( a mirror product ) and assemble the goods they sold in Michigan under a pending patent application(s). In all likely hood they would never disclose the fact to the court in Delaware, if they were never asked by Rosco. Corporations may limit the liability of the owners but when there is never any minutes recorded about the knowledge of the invention the continuation in part is then a result of the Disclosure Documents that the inventor had filed with the Patent Office, which did not result in a patent by abandonment. ROSCO ran a pretty good scam they just had a prototype plastic acrylic mirror dome made out of clear translucent plexiglas form a another plastics co and kept a copy of their fax transmission and call records on their telephone. This shows the reduction to practice of something. If you take that as an example a fixed radius verses a variable radius indicated given the balance sheets of Micro- Lite's Plastic subcontractor which was learned from the testimony given by both firms and you can see the delay in the filing of the Elliptical Patent in 2.5 years was due to the filing of the disclosure documents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. This strategy also makes it easier to add geographically distant collaborators if you find people you want to partner with, and makes it easier for them to access the history in case questions come up while you're unreachable (on vacation, etc.). Well this means the inventors has no protection to trust Google at all unless he holds back his written disclosures and stores only his data with a few notes to reference his written notes. That is the better strategy as the access logs in the above case are not a receipt and the inventor was not paid by a firm to do the work of inventing so unless your parents founded the family business you are out of luck. And even then there would not be any minutes called or board meetings to allow you a cause of action. The lawyers will break you if they can that get a check form mom and dad and Justice Department is the only entity that can prosecute if they the invention was used in production and never registered with your state as a trade secret and you lost your job for your invention to make thing better for the customer and improve the balance sheets that you were expected to paid from by a grant of stock in the firm. So I hope you can learn from this. Money has to be paid and you have to keep receipts but a meeting with Patent Lawyer does not count. So you need to buy something as a material fo the invention during your reduction to practice. When you are storing searches and notions for innovations on Google Drive there are thousands of inventions you may have that can later be reduced to practice but you do not own the space you are parking that information so without changes you are helping Google to help themselves to the inventions.  So it would be difficult for the patent office to deny the invention nor explain the logic of a first to file first to invent system of Patent Law given the rise of these perfect keepers of the inventive conceptions or searches. Bit coin is a good example it keeps a perfect record of activity. A new system reinstating the disclosure documents would better protect the nations economy and domestic and foreign policies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21192" RevisionGUID="8076f782-ad73-4c97-8b64-b568b4e3e264" CreationDate="2020-02-18T22:52:30.323" UserId="22873" Comment="added 876 characters in body" Text="1. You could also consider recording your invention notes in a cloud storage format (e.g. Google Drive,  verses the way it was 1980- sept 11th 2001&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In the past one kept a hand written notebook with numbered pages and your drew a line under the disclosures you made specifications, what the objectives were of the invention, and the Drawings, which you number yourself. The Patent office should reinstate the Disclosure documents program and the Google Drive docs could be submitted online. I would support if elected 2020 the reinstatement of both the Disclosure documents program and the Sir Program, which would allow small entity inventors to have their provisional patents published in the Patent Gazette for a small fee. The grounds are simply that Google and the other corporations are not going to go to court to defend your rights and also the case In re: Thomas Steed, Sourav Bhattacharya, Sandeep Seshadrijois, No. 2014-1458, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17248 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 1, 2015) (Before Newman, Clevenger, and Dyk, J.) (Opinion for the court, Newman, J. rejected swearing behind a Reference by Affidavit or Declaration as insufficient evidence to show or prove the dates of invention. As noted above the Current Patent law is a first to file first to invent system. There is therefore given the quality of the applicant in this case and the fact he had difficulty of finding anyone to sign his notebook a need to protect the inventor and the innovative ownership rights. Generally, it takes an existing partnership in business Rosco vs Mirror- Lite, and the infringer Rosco lost on appeal, but the the two firms made a partnership to remain in business. Under Today's No Law patent laws an invention must be reduced to practice by a subcontractor that invalidates a pending Patent Application and any continuations in part that are aimed to cover the inability to enforce existing patent rights on the articles of manufacture or later changes. In additions The Xerox corporation lost a case in 2001 -2012 because the toner cartridges they patented were manufactured in another state. Therefore, if a customer with the competing patent application say Mirror Lite in business wanted to make a profit  they cannot deduct wages and so they would buy a manufactured plastics from Ohio( a mirror product ) and assemble the goods they sold in Michigan under a pending patent application(s). In all likely hood they would never disclose the fact to the court in Delaware, if they were never asked by Rosco. Corporations may limit the liability of the owners but when there is never any minutes recorded about the knowledge of the invention the continuation in part is then a result of the Disclosure Documents that the inventor had filed with the Patent Office, which did not result in a patent by abandonment. ROSCO ran a pretty good plan they just had a prototype plastic acrylic mirror dome made out of clear translucent plexiglas from a another plastics co and kept a copy of their fax transmission and call records on their telephone. This shows the reduction to practice of something. If you take that as an example a the matter of a fixed radius verses a variable radius indicated the truth after selecting on annual sales of $13.7 million US dollars for Valley TM reported by Dunn and Bradstreet Hoovers Reports given the rise in wages 3 fold and the increase in output form CNC equipment to cut the Plastic Blanks that are thermoformed not injection molded. This was learned from the testimony given by both firms and you can see the delay in the filing of the Elliptical Patent in 2.5 years was due to the filing of the disclosure documents of the owners son with his mother as a witness and both signatures on the drawing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. This strategy also makes it easier to add geographically distant collaborators if you find people you want to partner with, and makes it easier for them to access the history in case questions come up while you're unreachable (on vacation, etc.). Well this means the inventors has no protection to trust Google at all unless he holds back his written disclosures and stores only his data with a few notes to reference his written notes. That is the better strategy as the access logs in the above case are not a receipt and the inventor was not paid by a firm to do the work of inventing so unless your parents founded the family business you are out of luck. And even then there would not be any minutes called or board meetings to allow you a cause of action. Your parents lawyers will break you if they can because you do not write the checks to them. Moreover, if and only if one had an opportunity to record that debt as an instrument to a land title deed can an action of cause be shown as just. At that point 20 years has to pass to overcome the statute of uses and your inventive rights would have to be tied too the estate of ones grandparent(S) that had land and a going business and a interest in the inventive property to prevent a state court from controlling the matter in dispute as a civil matter. Then the Justice Department can intervene as it is not a civil matter and if and only if  the invention was used in production and never registered with your state as a trade secret can they prosecute. If you lost your job for your invention to make thing better for the customer and improve the balance sheets that you were expected to paid from by a grant of stock in the firm which is what people would expect.&#xD;&#xA;So I hope you can learn from this. Money has to be paid and you have to keep receipts but a meeting with Patent Lawyer does not count. So you need to buy something as a material fo the invention during your reduction to practice. When you are storing searches and notions for innovations on Google Drive there are thousands of inventions you may have that can later be reduced to practice but you do not own the space you are parking that information so without changes you are helping Google to help themselves to the inventions.  So it would be difficult for the patent office to deny the invention nor explain the logic of a first to file first to invent system of Patent Law given the rise of these perfect keepers of the inventive conceptions or searches. Bit coin is a good example it keeps a perfect record of activity. A new system reinstating the disclosure documents would better protect the nations economy and domestic and foreign policies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21192" RevisionGUID="6f9f7398-4119-4e16-a8ac-a3ac7f0bce0e" CreationDate="2020-02-18T23:07:25.110" UserId="22873" Comment="added 876 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;You could also consider recording your invention notes in a cloud storage format (e.g. Google Drive, verses the way it was 1980- sept 11th 2001&#xD;&#xA;In the past one kept a handwritten notebook with numbered pages and you're drew a line under the disclosures you made specifications, what the objectives were of the invention, and the Drawings, which you number yourself. The Patent office should reinstate the Disclosure documents program and the Google Drive docs could be submitted online. I would support if elected 2020 the reinstatement of both the Disclosure documents program and the Sir Program, which would allow small entity inventors to have their provisional patents published in the Patent Gazette for a small fee. The grounds are simply that Google and the other corporations are not going to go to court to defend your rights and also the case In re: Thomas Steed, Sourav Bhattacharya, Sandeep Seshadrijois, No. 2014-1458, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17248 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 1, 2015) (Before Newman, Clevenger, and Dyk, J.) (Opinion for the court, Newman, J. rejected swearing behind a Reference by Affidavit or Declaration as insufficient evidence to show or prove the dates of invention. As noted above the Current Patent law is a first to file first to invent system. There is therefore given the quality of the applicant in this case and the fact he had difficulty of finding anyone to sign his notebook a need to protect the inventor and the innovative ownership rights. Generally, it takes an existing partnership in business Rosco vs Mirror- Lite, and the infringer Rosco lost on appeal, but the the two firms made a partnership to remain in business. Under Today's No Law patent laws an invention must be reduced to practice by a subcontractor that invalidates a pending Patent Application and any continuations in part that are aimed to cover the inability to enforce existing patent rights on the articles of manufacture or later changes. In additions The Xerox corporation lost a case in 2001 -2012 because the toner cartridges they patented were manufactured in another state. Therefore, if a customer with the competing patent application says Mirror Lite in business wanted to make a profit they cannot deduct wages and so they would buy manufactured plastics from Ohio( a mirror product ) and assemble the goods they sold in Michigan under a pending patent application(s). In all likelihood they would never disclose the fact to the court in Delaware, if they were never asked by Rosco. Corporations may limit the liability of the owners but when there is never any minutes recorded about the knowledge of the invention the continuation in part is then a result of the Disclosure Documents that the inventor had filed with the Patent Office, which did not result in a patent by abandonment. ROSCO ran a pretty good plan. They just had a prototype plastic acrylic mirror dome made out of clear translucent plexiglas from another plastics co and kept a copy of their fax transmission and call records on their telephone. This shows the reduction to practice of something. If you take that as an example a the matter of a fixed radius versus a variable radius indicated the truth after selecting on annual sales of $13.7 million US dollars for Valley TM reported by Dunn and Bradstreet Hoovers Reports given the rise in wages 3 fold and the increase in output form CNC equipment to cut the Plastic Blanks that are thermoformed not injection molded. This was learned from the testimony given by both firms and you can see the delay in the filing of the Elliptical Patent in 2.5 years was due to the filing of the disclosure documents of the owners son with his mother as a witness and both signatures on the drawing. &#xD;&#xA;This strategy also makes it easier to add geographically distant collaborators if you find people you want to partner with, and makes it easier for them to access the history in case questions come up while you're unreachable (on vacation, etc.). Well this means the inventors have no protection to trust Google at all unless he holds back his written disclosures and stores only his data with a few notes to reference his written notes. That is the better strategy as the access logs in the above case are not a receipt and the inventor was not paid by a firm to do the work of inventing so unless your parents founded the family business you are out of luck. And even then there would not be any minutes called or board meetings to allow you a cause of action. Your parents lawyers will break you if they can because you do not write the checks to them. Moreover, if and only if one had an opportunity to record that debt as an instrument to a land title deed can an action of cause be shown as just. At that point 20 years has to pass to overcome the statute of uses and your inventive rights would have to be tied too the estate of one's grandparent(S) that had land and a going business and a interest in the inventive property to prevent a state court from controlling the matter in dispute as a civil matter. Then the Justice Department can intervene as it is not a civil matter and if and only if the invention was used in production and never registered with your state as a trade secret can they prosecute. If you lost your job for your invention to make things better for the customer and improve the balance sheets that you were expected to pay from by a grant of stock in the firm which is what people would expect. So I hope you can learn from this. Money has to be paid and you have to keep receipts but a meeting with Patent Lawyer does not count. So you need to buy something as a material of the invention during your reduction to practice. When you are storing searches and notions for innovations on Google Drive there are thousands of inventions you may have that can later be reduced to practice but you do not own the space you are parking that information so without changes you are helping Google to help themselves to the inventions. So it would be difficult for the patent office to deny the invention nor explain the logic of a first to file first to invent system of Patent Law given the rise of these perfect keepers of the inventive conceptions or searches. Bitcoin is a good example. It keeps a perfect record of activity. A new system reinstating the disclosure documents would better protect the nation's economy and domestic and foreign policies.&#xD;&#xA;In addition be aware the internet is tool of political correctness. It is not about truth or giving credit due so to help you document your work. California drives the internet's world of innovative ideas and the invention process itself. I authorities will flag what you write  and have your comments erased. Between you and me you can get a patent on just about anything if you can pay for it! However, even if you ran for President of the United States that year say in 2020 your comments just get erased. I do intend too change this as it deeply distressing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Robert C. Thompson" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21193" RevisionGUID="1b8b55fc-704b-4788-bd33-13ef79f37b98" CreationDate="2020-02-19T01:49:51.610" UserId="22874" Text="Following our PCT application process, as we enter the National Phase next month, we have been approached by a large potential investor. In reviewing potential investment, the investor has asked to receive our current PCT application as it stands. Is it “safe” to send it to them in their process of reviewing the status of our company/merits of our app? Or could they take our PCT specifications and go on a “first to file” campaign because they have more resources? Or does our confirmed PCT documentation and National Phase process next month give us any lead time advantage/protection against them as we already have the PCT application done? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58963" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21193" RevisionGUID="1b8b55fc-704b-4788-bd33-13ef79f37b98" CreationDate="2020-02-19T01:49:51.610" UserId="22874" Text="Is it safe to share our published PCT Application with an Investor before entering the National Phase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58964" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21193" RevisionGUID="1b8b55fc-704b-4788-bd33-13ef79f37b98" CreationDate="2020-02-19T01:49:51.610" UserId="22874" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21194" RevisionGUID="aba8085f-d353-4fc5-b8df-356fce519965" CreationDate="2020-02-19T02:56:21.090" UserId="14403" Text="Sharing &quot;PCT application as it stands&quot; should be ok.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you have already filed your specification with WIPO you have priority from date of first filing with patent office of your country or from filing date with WIPO for all 'National Phase' countries. So, first filing is not an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only thing, patent begets patents. If any idea strikes them to better your idea then possibility is, they can try for some uncovered areas or for improvement. Of course, you have recourse to continuation, division and revision of claims. &#xD;&#xA;If assigning is your object, than don't worry much. Assignor will take care of things that follow. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21195" RevisionGUID="2ccca2f9-21ac-4bc8-9375-0a51e4d29342" CreationDate="2020-02-19T05:24:09.337" UserId="3076" Text="If you are at the 30 month national stage deadline you are obviously past the 18 month point where it was published for all to see. The content is available for anyone to read. Unless they do  it know the name of an inventor or of the applicant they must be fairly naive about patents to have not looked it up on their own." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21196" RevisionGUID="299f89c5-b845-45b1-8b1f-bd7ddbf4f937" CreationDate="2020-02-19T12:12:30.070" UserId="19807" Text="In hindsight - patentability is irrelevant. If you have skills that outshine your peers, especially if those skills produce results that can be easily plagiarized - keep the inner workings to yourself and obfuscate where possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If sharing is unavoidable, choose the form you share very carefully... is they can steal it, they will. Your peers are not your friends..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21195" RevisionGUID="c494571f-c759-4eac-97c8-5873a75d9e17" CreationDate="2020-02-19T17:00:29.137" UserId="3076" Comment="Added the word not " Text="If you are at the 30 month national stage deadline you are obviously past the 18 month point where it was published for all to see. The content is available for anyone to read. Unless they do not know the name of an inventor or of the applicant they must be fairly naive about patents to have not looked it up on their own." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58969" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13760" RevisionGUID="c8039a4c-da32-4503-b143-5397f858ef2d" CreationDate="2020-02-19T21:01:55.373" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58970" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="21128" RevisionGUID="d4bf892c-68f2-4595-aba3-287bc845bd0b" CreationDate="2020-02-19T22:01:45.157" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21197" RevisionGUID="95ec0247-42d3-4abc-9589-8fd879c38a10" CreationDate="2020-02-19T23:53:18.303" UserId="3076" Text="The old impetus for documenting your progress was for two reasons a) to prove a date of conception to use as evidence in an interference proceeding where you and another inventor were going through examination at about the same time and b) to “swear behind” a prior art reference in the case where a reference is cited against you. It was possible to make the reference go away by showing you conceived of and reduced it to practice before the date of the reference. The AIA law with first to file took away both possibilities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A current reason to document your invention progress would be to use as evidence in a Derivation proceeding. This is used to show that someone who filed first actually stole the invention from you, who filed later. To win you need to establish that you invented it and that they learned of it from your work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bound, page numbered and witnessed  notebook coupled with the testimony of the witness is solid evidence. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58972" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13123" RevisionGUID="9595b225-503f-4c17-ae96-2f2c16bcf6ee" CreationDate="2020-02-20T16:03:10.407" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58973" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12055" RevisionGUID="bc6c5f0f-b488-4d3b-868a-8ecaa401d4ad" CreationDate="2020-02-20T17:02:25.297" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58974" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20085" RevisionGUID="829d7118-f9b4-477e-a8db-346401213155" CreationDate="2020-02-20T22:00:12.597" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21198" RevisionGUID="c5176b5f-e2bd-4451-b76a-468d5e547891" CreationDate="2020-02-21T04:33:20.177" UserId="22879" Text="I am wondering if I can patent in the US a handmade toy that I saw in Brazil. It is not patented in Brazil I believe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do however, have a few improvements on the original design, but the rough idea is the same. Could I file for a provisional patent and be able to sell the idea to companies in the US, or the fact that the rough idea is the same prohibits me from trying to go for the provisional patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58976" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21198" RevisionGUID="c5176b5f-e2bd-4451-b76a-468d5e547891" CreationDate="2020-02-21T04:33:20.177" UserId="22879" Text="Can I patent in the US a handmade toy that is made in Brazil?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58977" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21198" RevisionGUID="c5176b5f-e2bd-4451-b76a-468d5e547891" CreationDate="2020-02-21T04:33:20.177" UserId="22879" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;foreign&gt;&lt;country&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21199" RevisionGUID="ccbc88b2-60d0-4927-b333-bc2e6a64238f" CreationDate="2020-02-21T06:31:24.257" UserId="3076" Text="One can only patent things they personally invent. The invention status of the original in Brazil is not relevant. Your modifications need to be novel and not obvious, the same criteria as any invention. You will need to make the patent office aware if the original item and anything else you know that would tend to hurt your case when filing a nonprovisional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21201" RevisionGUID="51991db8-03a1-4870-9526-2d973e5c88aa" CreationDate="2020-02-22T17:28:15.333" UserId="17696" Text="Claims narrowed during examination to avoid prior art and other patent-ability issues are not entitled to the doctrine of equivalents in the United States.  However, the USPTO has recently been rolling out their pro-se program in which they assist pro-se applicants to varying degrees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first patent I wrote myself has published; the examination process for it was very formal in which the examiner issued rejections and allowances with helpful commentary suggesting how to overcome any given issue.  My most recent pro-se application, however, did not undergo this formal process; instead, the examiner rewrote various claims without issuing any sort of rejections and sent the reworked patent to me for my acceptance/rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to wonder what impact this will have on the doctrine of equivalents.  It probably will require judicial interpretation but I wonder if anyone had strong opinions or a definitive answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58984" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21201" RevisionGUID="51991db8-03a1-4870-9526-2d973e5c88aa" CreationDate="2020-02-22T17:28:15.333" UserId="17696" Text="Doctrine of Equivalents in Light of USPTO Pro Se Program" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58985" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21201" RevisionGUID="51991db8-03a1-4870-9526-2d973e5c88aa" CreationDate="2020-02-22T17:28:15.333" UserId="17696" Text="&lt;pro-se&gt;&lt;doctrine-of-equivalents&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58986" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20526" RevisionGUID="7aa82b94-e548-4341-89e6-49d89aaa4cb7" CreationDate="2020-02-22T18:02:10.267" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21202" RevisionGUID="dfa331c4-0436-4b75-a614-d4a87a953e04" CreationDate="2020-02-22T21:03:25.060" UserId="3076" Text="There is almost no application of the doctrine if equivalents any more so there is nothing valuable too lose, in current practice.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amendments the examiner drafted will be viewed as your amendments if entered. A warning - examiners are trained to find holes in claims, not to draft them. And particularly Otto draft them to the applicant’s benefit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21202" RevisionGUID="86bad300-87d7-43a9-8a86-731684d95527" CreationDate="2020-02-22T21:23:36.020" UserId="3076" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="There is almost no application of the doctrine if equivalents any more so there is nothing valuable too lose, in current practice.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;See&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“ The doctrine of equivalents applies only in exceptional cases and is not “simply the second prong of every infringement charge, regularly available to extend protection beyond the scope of the claims.” Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. IPS Grp., Inc., 914 F.3d 1347, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[T]he doctrine of equivalents cannot be used to effectively read out a claim limitation . . . because the public has a right to rely on the language of patent claims.” )“&#xD;&#xA;The amendments the examiner drafted will be viewed as your amendments if entered. A warning - examiners are trained to find holes in claims, not to draft them. And particularly not to draft them to the applicant’s benefit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21202" RevisionGUID="18a3b2d5-f53c-4632-b355-0db334924283" CreationDate="2020-02-22T21:30:14.693" UserId="3076" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="There is almost no application of the doctrine if equivalents any more so there is nothing valuable too lose, in current practice.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;See https://patentlyo.com/patent/2019/05/doctrine-equivalents-exceptional.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“ The doctrine of equivalents applies only in exceptional cases and is not “simply the second prong of every infringement charge, regularly available to extend protection beyond the scope of the claims.” Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. IPS Grp., Inc., 914 F.3d 1347, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[T]he doctrine of equivalents cannot be used to effectively read out a claim limitation . . . because the public has a right to rely on the language of patent claims.” )“&#xD;&#xA;The amendments the examiner drafted will be viewed as your amendments if entered. A warning - examiners are trained to find holes in claims, not to draft them. And particularly not to draft them to the applicant’s benefit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21202" RevisionGUID="b9953940-186a-4085-bd36-321283b16910" CreationDate="2020-02-22T22:08:40.243" UserId="3076" Comment="edited body" Text="There is almost no application of the doctrine of equivalents any more so there is nothing valuable too lose, in current practice.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;See https://patentlyo.com/patent/2019/05/doctrine-equivalents-exceptional.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“ The doctrine of equivalents applies only in exceptional cases and is not “simply the second prong of every infringement charge, regularly available to extend protection beyond the scope of the claims.” Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. IPS Grp., Inc., 914 F.3d 1347, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[T]he doctrine of equivalents cannot be used to effectively read out a claim limitation . . . because the public has a right to rely on the language of patent claims.” )“&#xD;&#xA;The amendments the examiner drafted will be viewed as your amendments if entered. A warning - examiners are trained to find holes in claims, not to draft them. And particularly not to draft them to the applicant’s benefit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21203" RevisionGUID="982af3c9-833d-4898-84af-9b45a17cdd90" CreationDate="2020-02-23T03:00:49.223" UserId="22792" Text="As a practical matter, is it better to use to same docket number with electronic filings for CIPs of a parent application, or different ones?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58992" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21203" RevisionGUID="982af3c9-833d-4898-84af-9b45a17cdd90" CreationDate="2020-02-23T03:00:49.223" UserId="22792" Text="Docket numbers of CIPs with electronic filing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58993" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21203" RevisionGUID="982af3c9-833d-4898-84af-9b45a17cdd90" CreationDate="2020-02-23T03:00:49.223" UserId="22792" Text="&lt;continuation-in-part&gt;&lt;docket&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21204" RevisionGUID="a916c747-6648-490b-9101-89452eed3a69" CreationDate="2020-02-23T17:52:04.993" UserId="3076" Text="A docket  number is just a way for someone who files many many applications to refer to them in their own database.  some practitioners might use the number if the parent with “-CIP” appended." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21204" RevisionGUID="c3dab0b0-54ee-4690-af24-991284129e93" CreationDate="2020-02-23T22:36:17.813" UserId="3076" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="A docket  number is just a way for someone who files many many applications to refer to them in their own database.  Some practitioners might use the number if the parent with “-CIP” appended. A docket number might be a meaningless serialized number or might have the applicant’s last name or company name - or anything else or just be blank." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="58996" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20202" RevisionGUID="6d535bb8-089d-469f-93ad-aa7aaf492511" CreationDate="2020-02-24T06:02:30.397" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58997" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="550c8b8a-8075-4953-bac7-aebe41cbe8d6" CreationDate="2020-02-24T11:01:30.193" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="58999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21206" RevisionGUID="bcfcca64-d9b2-40af-8a79-ecaed1727943" CreationDate="2020-02-24T11:03:54.927" UserId="22888" Text="Anyone performed data scraping on USPTO? &#xD;&#xA;someone has a tool/code that can be used to extract data from USPTO and have it as SQL DB? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59000" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21206" RevisionGUID="bcfcca64-d9b2-40af-8a79-ecaed1727943" CreationDate="2020-02-24T11:03:54.927" UserId="22888" Text="Data Scraping on USPTO" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59001" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21206" RevisionGUID="bcfcca64-d9b2-40af-8a79-ecaed1727943" CreationDate="2020-02-24T11:03:54.927" UserId="22888" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;databases&gt;&lt;data-processing-database&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21207" RevisionGUID="fa47ef96-bd06-43ea-9bda-023d7a139270" CreationDate="2020-02-24T12:47:23.457" UserId="22883" Text="This (random) patent on Google says it was cited by 67 other patents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US8954418B2/en?oq=%228%2c954%2c418%22#citedBy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...Same patent on USPTO says it was cited by just 49.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=8,954,418.PN.&amp;OS=PN/8,954,418&amp;RS=PN/8,954,418&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that &quot;Cited by Examiner&quot; patents appear in both.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...So what's the difference? Why would Google show more citations than the Patent Office itself?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59003" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21207" RevisionGUID="fa47ef96-bd06-43ea-9bda-023d7a139270" CreationDate="2020-02-24T12:47:23.457" UserId="22883" Text="Why are USPTO and Google Patent Search citation numbers so different?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59004" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21207" RevisionGUID="fa47ef96-bd06-43ea-9bda-023d7a139270" CreationDate="2020-02-24T12:47:23.457" UserId="22883" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;google&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21208" RevisionGUID="02bd9e63-79ad-44c7-9c6a-42dcd18f2e5d" CreationDate="2020-02-24T15:18:46.453" UserId="22889" Text="What countries can you file a provisional patent application in?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59006" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21208" RevisionGUID="02bd9e63-79ad-44c7-9c6a-42dcd18f2e5d" CreationDate="2020-02-24T15:18:46.453" UserId="22889" Text="In which countries can you file a provisional patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59007" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21208" RevisionGUID="02bd9e63-79ad-44c7-9c6a-42dcd18f2e5d" CreationDate="2020-02-24T15:18:46.453" UserId="22889" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21209" RevisionGUID="6aabfaf3-e5ad-4eff-9846-edf642409937" CreationDate="2020-02-24T15:53:38.943" UserId="22334" Text="The issue I have with your question is what you mean by &quot;provisional patent application&quot;. Not many countries have the figure of &quot;provisional&quot; patent application (I can only think of the US and Portugal), but many countries have some kind of application or a regular patent application that is cheap and create a priority right, which I imagine is what you may be interested in.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many European countries and the EPO accept the payment of filing/search/examination fees after filing your (regular) patent application. If you do not pay the fees, the (regular) patent application will become abandoned and will not get published, but from day 1 you have a priority right. Therefore, you can file the  patent application, not pay any fees, and claim priority from that patent application during the priority year. You will also find several countries with petty patents or utility models which have low fees and create a priority right as well; usually, this type of patents/models get published after soon after filing (typically between 1 and 6 months), so if you want to create prior art quickly, this would be a good option." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21210" RevisionGUID="d7ce3cb9-eb3e-4de7-a16b-61c8482c2052" CreationDate="2020-02-24T22:52:40.837" UserId="3076" Text="One feature of the US provisional is that it does not set the date from which the 20 year life is calculated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21211" RevisionGUID="f8f4f526-e0f8-46d4-a879-b901eab4e1d3" CreationDate="2020-02-25T01:12:42.400" UserId="22891" Text="My company has encouraged me to patent a recent discovery. Is it recommendable to disclose contextual details in the abstract or not? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say the discovery found was inspired in the specific product my company is designing, but the principle holds for some other applications beyond this specific product. To ground the discussion, this is a self-driving vehicles related discovery, but it could apply also to drones or virtual reality devices. Which of the following two descriptions is more desirable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* How to use X and Y sensor to derive magnitude Z.&#xD;&#xA;* How to use X and Y sensor from a self-driving vehicle to derive magnitude Z using these algorithms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, should I try to make the description as generic as possible or clearly relate it to the product we are building, even if this  reduces the IP area this discovery could be comprehending?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59011" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21211" RevisionGUID="f8f4f526-e0f8-46d4-a879-b901eab4e1d3" CreationDate="2020-02-25T01:12:42.400" UserId="22891" Text="Patent abstract: should I aim for generality or concretion?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59012" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21211" RevisionGUID="f8f4f526-e0f8-46d4-a879-b901eab4e1d3" CreationDate="2020-02-25T01:12:42.400" UserId="22891" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;abstract&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6535" RevisionGUID="d497736c-baf9-4e74-ad7c-7be97451a6fb" CreationDate="2020-02-26T01:47:19.880" UserId="8558" Comment="Inventor not cited in granted patent" Text="Someone invented the power failure protection of an application, as well of the software flow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent was filed without even mention to this inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I spoke with one attorney. He said, the patent is not good and will not stand in court. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I spoke with someone at the USPTO and said that the published information is fully the responsibility of the person who files it. They said, I wish I could give you better news and tell you there's something we can do. I replied, do not worry, I was asking for facts and you gave me facts so thank you so much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it then open source application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59017" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6535" RevisionGUID="d497736c-baf9-4e74-ad7c-7be97451a6fb" CreationDate="2020-02-26T01:47:19.880" UserId="8558" Comment="Inventor not cited in granted patent" Text="Inventor not included" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59018" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6535" RevisionGUID="d497736c-baf9-4e74-ad7c-7be97451a6fb" CreationDate="2020-02-26T01:47:19.880" UserId="8558" Comment="Inventor not cited in granted patent" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21212" RevisionGUID="3e43d0e6-107a-47fc-966f-94326e60940e" CreationDate="2020-02-26T02:25:19.387" UserId="22896" Text="These guys proposed droupout in 1992.  The differences are that Clay and Séquin dropped only units not inputs, and that they did not normalize the learned weights after completing training.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Fault Tolerance Training Improves Generalization and Robustness&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Reed D. Clay and Carlo H. Séquin&#xD;&#xA;[Proceedings 1992] IJCNN International Joint Conference on Neural Networks&#xD;&#xA;Date of Conference: 7-11 June 1992&#xD;&#xA;Conference Location: Baltimore, MD, USA&#xD;&#xA;Date Added to IEEE Xplore: 06 August 2002&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abstract here: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/287094&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This looks like strong evidence.  The authors disabled units, and showed that an application of the method was improving generalization performance of the neural network." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21213" RevisionGUID="f224b639-36bb-4077-a3e4-cdd07e7cd62a" CreationDate="2020-02-26T06:59:57.253" UserId="3076" Text="Under the AIA law of 2012 wrong inventorship can be corrected  without regard to deceptive intent. No longer a reason to tear up a patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21214" RevisionGUID="1d0c3ed8-7aec-4fce-bb4b-822d2c623cdc" CreationDate="2020-02-26T15:07:43.843" UserId="17003" Text="I writing this as an inventor who worked for a large company rather than a patent attorney. I've worked with several patent lawyers to draft and file patent applications. In general, the process is to describe to your lawyer everything you can about the invention. Many companies have a disclosure form to start this process. Fill it out as completely as you can, but don't worry too much about the wording. You will get to know your lawyer very well as the application is drafted. It is important that you describe all the applications of the invention you can think of as this will guide the attorney to obtaining the broadest coverage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21215" RevisionGUID="8f19feef-f80c-457c-a108-a0d64987fe22" CreationDate="2020-02-26T16:45:43.137" UserId="21610" Text="Google patent capture all the parents i.e., US and Non US ( WO,EP,AU ETC.,) Where as USPTO capture only the US data the difference is due to the fact there are other Non US parents present in the Google patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21215" RevisionGUID="1b063f9e-4ce6-4fd1-9f0e-355d10a0bd60" CreationDate="2020-02-27T05:03:58.863" UserId="21610" Comment="spelling mistake" Text="Google patent capture all the patents i.e., US and Non US ( WO,EP,AU ETC.,) Where as USPTO capture only the US data the difference is due to the fact there are other Non US parents present in the Google patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21203" RevisionGUID="d897bb2c-c189-4a28-a11d-ec79805ecd53" CreationDate="2020-02-27T08:16:56.610" UserId="21610" Comment="spelling mistake" Text="As a practical matter, is it better to use the same docket number with electronic filings for CIPs of a parent application, or different ones?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21216" RevisionGUID="ce79cc92-4812-4d6b-8385-1788f653d249" CreationDate="2020-02-27T11:47:19.310" UserId="22888" Text="I need to know if there is a tool that can tell if a patent returned to a prodcut or a service or software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;Jumana" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59027" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21216" RevisionGUID="ce79cc92-4812-4d6b-8385-1788f653d249" CreationDate="2020-02-27T11:47:19.310" UserId="22888" Text="Patents and Products" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59028" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21216" RevisionGUID="ce79cc92-4812-4d6b-8385-1788f653d249" CreationDate="2020-02-27T11:47:19.310" UserId="22888" Text="&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;product&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21217" RevisionGUID="37530b7e-2915-48c7-a0f6-95767f4239f6" CreationDate="2020-02-27T14:57:40.573" UserId="22854" Text="Is there a difference in patentability, scope, or protection from infringement between the two cases of claims below?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;case 1&#xD;&#xA;I claim:&#xD;&#xA;1 A piece;&#xD;&#xA;  a hole in said piece.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;case 2&#xD;&#xA;I claim:&#xD;&#xA;1 A piece.&#xD;&#xA;  The piece of claim 1 with a hole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59030" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21217" RevisionGUID="37530b7e-2915-48c7-a0f6-95767f4239f6" CreationDate="2020-02-27T14:57:40.573" UserId="22854" Text="Difference between an independent claim and a dependent claim for same thing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59031" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21217" RevisionGUID="37530b7e-2915-48c7-a0f6-95767f4239f6" CreationDate="2020-02-27T14:57:40.573" UserId="22854" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21218" RevisionGUID="3fa7d03f-63dd-466f-ba5f-8eac248798c1" CreationDate="2020-02-28T01:20:23.273" UserId="3076" Text="The @the Europeist comment is correct - Google is showing references from patent publications. Technically they are not really citations until they appear printed in a patent. It looks like Google is going into PAIR or the Global Dossier to the file wrapper and getting information from the IDS forms filed in the applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21219" RevisionGUID="c148cadf-9914-43f8-ad0b-28eb6260e48c" CreationDate="2020-02-28T06:18:37.103" UserId="14509" Text="Given the following scenario:&#xD;&#xA;A patent issued to me is a prior art to patent filed by another company – I have the priority date. I can easily invalidate their patent but it does not mean that uses of their “patent” are infringing on my patent – since the claims are not worded in such way, since the examiner forced incorporation of dependent claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I filed continuations/CIPs based on the previous specifications (prior art to the other company “patent”) I can now file a continuation to my past patents, and based on the “old” specification, will include claims that will make uses of their “patent” infringing on that claim – my patents.&#xD;&#xA;Will this work?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59034" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21219" RevisionGUID="c148cadf-9914-43f8-ad0b-28eb6260e48c" CreationDate="2020-02-28T06:18:37.103" UserId="14509" Text="Filing a continuation to result infringement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59035" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21219" RevisionGUID="c148cadf-9914-43f8-ad0b-28eb6260e48c" CreationDate="2020-02-28T06:18:37.103" UserId="14509" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21220" RevisionGUID="845d58b2-b71b-47e5-b9a1-f5e2fbff9b88" CreationDate="2020-02-28T17:50:52.193" UserId="22904" Text="thanks for reading this post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I listed a product online to sell.  But my competitor claimed that I infringed his design patent.  I looked at the patent and it looks exactly like the product I am selling.  So I removed my listing as I do not want to infringe anyone's right. None of my product is sold. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a question occurred when I did some research.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My competitor has been selling the product for years before he filed and issued the patent.  I read somewhere that a product that has been disclosed to public (in my case, selling on Amazon) for more than a year cannot be patented - statutory bar date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If what I read was correct, how could he have gotten the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the patent examiner did not catch this and issued the patent by mistake, is there any way to revoke the patent and allow everyone to use the design?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The product design in question is a common design that many sellers are currently selling on Amazon and I am puzzled as to why the other folks can sell the same design when my product is claimed against.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some facts:&#xD;&#xA;Competitor Patent issued :  Feb 25, 2020&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Competitor Patent filed : July 24, 2018&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Competitor Selling the Product : Since 2016&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Listing Created:  Jan 27, 2020 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance for your advice. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59037" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21220" RevisionGUID="845d58b2-b71b-47e5-b9a1-f5e2fbff9b88" CreationDate="2020-02-28T17:50:52.193" UserId="22904" Text="Design Patent of a product that has been sold in the market for years" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59038" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21220" RevisionGUID="845d58b2-b71b-47e5-b9a1-f5e2fbff9b88" CreationDate="2020-02-28T17:50:52.193" UserId="22904" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21221" RevisionGUID="ba6d34d3-a590-4bea-8722-753b53da3fa3" CreationDate="2020-02-28T18:01:05.473" UserId="3076" Text="Yes - but focus on their product not necessarily their claims. If you have a live application type can either amend claims or file a continuation and craft claims that are both supported by your original application and read clearly on their product. It is products that infringe, not claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21220" RevisionGUID="9df668b5-2a00-4118-b0e3-8f3b8b175fb7" CreationDate="2020-02-28T18:58:26.360" UserId="22904" Comment="added 385 characters in body" Text="thanks for reading this post. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I listed a product online to sell.  But my competitor claimed that I infringed his design patent.  I looked at the patent and it looks exactly like the product I am selling.  So I removed my listing as I do not want to infringe anyone's right. None of my product is sold. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a question occurred when I did some research.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My competitor has been selling the product for years before he filed and issued the patent.  I read somewhere that a product that has been disclosed to public (in my case, selling on Amazon) for more than a year cannot be patented - statutory bar date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If what I read was correct, how could he have gotten the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the patent examiner did not catch this and issued the patent by mistake, is there any way to revoke the patent and allow everyone to use the design?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The product design in question is a common design that many sellers are currently selling on Amazon and I am puzzled as to why the other folks can sell the same design when my product is claimed against.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some facts:&#xD;&#xA;Competitor Patent issued :  Feb 25, 2020&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Competitor Patent filed : July 24, 2018&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Competitor Selling the Product : Since 2016&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Listing Created:  Jan 27, 2020 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pattent #:  [D876.127S][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance for your advice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&amp;docid=D0876127&amp;IDKey=1BB1F6E8BBD0%0D%0A&amp;HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DPALL%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsrchnum.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526s1%3DD876127.PN.%2526OS%3DPN%2FD876127%2526RS%3DPN%2FD876127" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59045" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20142" RevisionGUID="7a6936d2-41c7-423d-953e-05dba15b73d3" CreationDate="2020-03-01T07:02:30.310" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="59046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21125" RevisionGUID="64981345-0ba3-48d5-9159-30722d32eb9e" CreationDate="2020-03-01T12:58:41.810" UserId="22779" Comment="edited body" Text="According to Google Patents, someone has filled a patent application for the US an WO and it may be granted in the medium term. I am from Chile and have evidence for prior art that destroys novelty, in particular I have applied to a business incubator describing the idea in detail and was selected for developling my idea with the incubator before the patent application was published. How do I object to either of them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found many questions regarding prior art requets but they seem to be too specific to the particular patent subject, so there seem to be no proper question for the general issue. It would be great to know the procedures, format and places where the request should be made." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59047" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20232" RevisionGUID="7f07c631-68fb-4107-a0a8-9a4c93658fda" CreationDate="2020-03-02T01:00:55.063" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="59057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21226" RevisionGUID="1c8f71ae-c444-4153-9269-419b5229be97" CreationDate="2020-03-08T23:51:30.143" UserId="21046" Text="As a co-inventor, can I be involved in correspondence with the patent office (USPTO and others)? For instance, can I file for some claim amendments? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not, can the other co-inventor who is also the applicant confer such rights to me? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59058" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21226" RevisionGUID="1c8f71ae-c444-4153-9269-419b5229be97" CreationDate="2020-03-08T23:51:30.143" UserId="21046" Text="Can a co-inventor (not the applicant) correspond with the patent office?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59059" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21226" RevisionGUID="1c8f71ae-c444-4153-9269-419b5229be97" CreationDate="2020-03-08T23:51:30.143" UserId="21046" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;applicant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21227" RevisionGUID="30e8633d-cb37-4bc9-ba28-28b08e3feb92" CreationDate="2020-03-09T03:35:10.937" UserId="3076" Text="The patent office will only communicate with one party. In this case it would be the attorney/agent with the power of attorney. In the case of multiple inventors they can designate one if them to speak for all. I’m sure you can see the reason they need to only deal with a single party." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21228" RevisionGUID="32a711b0-e9eb-4ec8-89f0-d80eb03412b6" CreationDate="2020-03-10T11:40:18.703" UserId="8558" Text="This is an old question, but here is a general answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on location, there are several _Patent and Trademark Resource Centers (PTRC)_ across the U. S.. I remember the Sunnyvale Public Library used to be a PTRC. They had computers with direct access to the USPTO databases. Searching for prior art was something I could do very quickly. I came out with a list of 30 related and not-so-related patents in 90 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find more about the centers in [this USPTO link][1], including [PTRC locations][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/support-centers/patent-and-trademark-resource-centers-ptrcs&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/support-centers/patent-and-trademark-resource-centers-ptrc/ptrc-locations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21230" RevisionGUID="23c028d1-3334-413d-88e8-fc56da85856a" CreationDate="2020-03-12T06:25:31.787" UserId="22936" Text="I decided to file a utility patent application myself without an attorney after watching hours of boring youtube videos about the patent and patent process (I don't know how you guys stay awake). I filed a US utility patent using EFS-Web myself online and it was smooth. I got a letter from USPTO after a few weeks saying that I -- accidentally -- omitted the description of a single image under the `Description of Drawings`.  I was asked to submit the description for it.  No issue in that regard but my question is that do I resubmit the whole application with the correction, or a sheet of paper with updated `Description of Drawings` section of the application, or just a single paragraph with the description of that single image?  Thanks in advance.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59067" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21230" RevisionGUID="23c028d1-3334-413d-88e8-fc56da85856a" CreationDate="2020-03-12T06:25:31.787" UserId="22936" Text="USPTO part re-submission" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59068" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21230" RevisionGUID="23c028d1-3334-413d-88e8-fc56da85856a" CreationDate="2020-03-12T06:25:31.787" UserId="22936" Text="&lt;patent-drawings&gt;&lt;written-description&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21231" RevisionGUID="330248fa-2d5a-40c1-ab7e-aa25012a4a8b" CreationDate="2020-03-12T13:40:47.083" UserId="22938" Text="I have a question How to compare Patent data like if we compare the patent data of the 2000 to 2016 it will show us how much technology has been used in these years. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Compare 1**&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/039827827/publication/US2008249942A1?q=US2008249942A1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Compare 2**&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/039827827/publication/US2008249942A1?q=US8892471B2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above patent data belong to the same Family." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59070" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21231" RevisionGUID="330248fa-2d5a-40c1-ab7e-aa25012a4a8b" CreationDate="2020-03-12T13:40:47.083" UserId="22938" Text="How to Compare 2 Patent data" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59071" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21231" RevisionGUID="330248fa-2d5a-40c1-ab7e-aa25012a4a8b" CreationDate="2020-03-12T13:40:47.083" UserId="22938" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;espacenet&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21232" RevisionGUID="85faa900-ab2d-4249-bd5b-a2660e0e08d3" CreationDate="2020-03-12T15:33:12.737" UserId="22939" Text="I'm working on a startup, and I believe I've found an infringeing patent about removing text from shareable content using OCR and machine learning. This patent is US10410016 and my prior art is at https://benjaminhowarth.com/archive/2019/03/11/introducing-trash-panda-a-tool-for-masking-text-from-screenshots" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59073" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21232" RevisionGUID="85faa900-ab2d-4249-bd5b-a2660e0e08d3" CreationDate="2020-03-12T15:33:12.737" UserId="22939" Text="Prior art on US10410016" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59074" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21232" RevisionGUID="85faa900-ab2d-4249-bd5b-a2660e0e08d3" CreationDate="2020-03-12T15:33:12.737" UserId="22939" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21232" RevisionGUID="1b42729e-a9f5-45fc-836f-ec9c9a7629c9" CreationDate="2020-03-12T15:50:31.503" UserId="22939" Comment="Added links to claims filed via USPTO" Text="I'm working on a startup, and I believe I've found two infringeing patents about removing text from shareable content using OCR and machine learning. These patents are [US2020012817][1] &amp; [US2020042837][2] and my prior art is at https://benjaminhowarth.com/archive/2019/03/11/introducing-trash-panda-a-tool-for-masking-text-from-screenshots&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=en.worldwide.espacenet.com&amp;II=5&amp;ND=3&amp;adjacent=true&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;FT=D&amp;date=20200109&amp;CC=US&amp;NR=2020012817A1&amp;KC=A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=en.worldwide.espacenet.com&amp;II=2&amp;ND=3&amp;adjacent=true&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;FT=D&amp;date=20200206&amp;CC=US&amp;NR=2020042837A1&amp;KC=A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59076" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="21232" RevisionGUID="1b42729e-a9f5-45fc-836f-ec9c9a7629c9" CreationDate="2020-03-12T15:50:31.503" UserId="22939" Comment="Added links to claims filed via USPTO" Text="Prior art on US2020012817 &amp; US2020042837" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21232" RevisionGUID="08f775cb-b052-4263-b324-b53cf436d2e2" CreationDate="2020-03-12T16:00:48.330" UserId="22939" Comment="Typo, added extra Github link" Text="I'm working on a startup, and I believe I've found two infringing patents about removing text from shareable content using OCR and machine learning. These patents are [US2020012817][1] &amp; [US2020042837][2] and my prior art is at https://benjaminhowarth.com/archive/2019/03/11/introducing-trash-panda-a-tool-for-masking-text-from-screenshots and at https://github.com/benjaminhowarth1/Trash-PaNDA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=en.worldwide.espacenet.com&amp;II=5&amp;ND=3&amp;adjacent=true&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;FT=D&amp;date=20200109&amp;CC=US&amp;NR=2020012817A1&amp;KC=A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=en.worldwide.espacenet.com&amp;II=2&amp;ND=3&amp;adjacent=true&amp;locale=en_EP&amp;FT=D&amp;date=20200206&amp;CC=US&amp;NR=2020042837A1&amp;KC=A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21233" RevisionGUID="4701b267-8fe1-4937-82b8-8fac8ef827e9" CreationDate="2020-03-12T21:32:13.717" UserId="3076" Text="Here is an excerpt from [USPTO example][1]. The cross-outs didn't come over in my cut and paste so do look at the link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Amendments to the Specification: Please replace paragraph [0021] with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the following amended paragraph: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [0021] In the construction of the bucket of this invention, various&#xD;&#xA;&gt; materials have been selected [[and]] which offer a number of diverse&#xD;&#xA;&gt; properties [[ , ]] and allow for varied functions of the article.  For&#xD;&#xA;&gt; caustic solutions, the bucket can be made of a durable polymer plastic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; material.  Where an aesthetic appeal is desired, the bucket can be any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [[of]] one of many attractive colors.  The following listing list of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; properties serves to define possible uses for the buckets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/formatrevamdtprac.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21234" RevisionGUID="36a1616b-978c-4b8a-af15-92040bcc91de" CreationDate="2020-03-12T22:41:14.967" UserId="3076" Text="I see the date on your article as 11.03.2019. If the date is in the form month.date.year, it was after both applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application that US2020012817 was filed August 8 2019, so before November 3rd 2019. The other application was filed in 2018, so your article was not prior to it either." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21236" RevisionGUID="791b8053-9356-40ee-9101-2f0deea929d6" CreationDate="2020-03-13T16:53:20.037" UserId="17003" Text="It’s important to focus on the claims to determine if your technique would infringe in these applications. Looking at the first claim of the earlier submission:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; processors effectuate operations comprising: receiving, with one or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more processors, a screen capture event from an operating system of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first client computing device of a first user, the screen capture&#xD;&#xA;&gt; event including, or being associated with, a bitmap image of at least&#xD;&#xA;&gt; part of a display of the first computing device; causing, with one or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more processors, optical character recognition (OCRing) of text in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bitmap image and obtaining, as a result of the OCRing, an OCR record&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with text appearing in the bitmap image and indicating locations of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; characters of the text in the image with coordinates of pixels in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bitmap image, the text comprising a plurality of n-grams; scoring,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with one or more processors, each of the n-grams based on whether the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; respective n-grams match any of a plurality of patterns; classifying,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with one or more processors, each of the n-grams based on the scoring&#xD;&#xA;&gt; into two or more categories, the two or more categories including a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; category for confidential information; for each of the n-grams&#xD;&#xA;&gt; classified in the category for confidential information, with one or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more processors, obfuscating the respective n-gram in the bitmap image&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to form a modified version of the bitmap image with operations&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comprising: determining, based on the OCR record, coordinates of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pixels in the bitmap image corresponding to the respective n-gram; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; modifying, with one or more processors, pixel values in the bitmap&#xD;&#xA;&gt; image of pixels at the determined coordinates in response to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; determining the coordinates of pixels in the bitmap image&#xD;&#xA;&gt; corresponding to the respective n-gram; storing, with one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; processors, the modified version of the bitmap image at a remote&#xD;&#xA;&gt; server system; providing, with one or more processors, from the remote&#xD;&#xA;&gt; server system, to the first user computing device, a uniform resource&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identifier at which the modified bitmap image is accessible;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving, at the remote server system, from a second user computing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; device, a request for the bitmap image at the URI; and sending, from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the remote server system, to the second user computing device, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; modified version of the bitmap image.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming &quot;URI&quot; really should be &quot;URL&quot;. In any case, the claim's novelty seems to hang on the term &quot;n-grams&quot;. This isn't my field and I didn't read the rest of the application so I don't know what an &quot;n-gram&quot; is beyond what is described in Wikipedia. Based on that article it would seem pretty obvious to apply them to this task. To infringe on a patent you need to implement **each and every step** in at least one claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, one possibility is that your technique doesn't employ n-grams as described by the application. Another is that the use of n-grams is either well know in similar applications prior to the submission date or else the use of n-grams to solve this problem is obvious to someone skilled in this field. You are in a better position to assess this than I am. Based on my very minimal search, it seems that the use of n-grams in OCR is well known and probably has a lot of prior art. For instance a quick search on Google Scholar provided [this paper from 2002][1] and [this paper from 1997][2]. If so, I'm not sure that just blacking out the results of OCR constitutes a novel idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that the claims will likely narrow before (and if) an actual patent is granted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1008389&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.21.3248&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21236" RevisionGUID="5337b3fb-7d7b-4ab4-8511-6d5bbaa74b1e" CreationDate="2020-03-13T17:02:12.133" UserId="17003" Comment="added 174 characters in body" Text="It’s important to focus on the claims to determine if your technique would infringe in these applications. Looking at the first claim of the earlier submission:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; processors effectuate operations comprising: receiving, with one or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more processors, a screen capture event from an operating system of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first client computing device of a first user, the screen capture&#xD;&#xA;&gt; event including, or being associated with, a bitmap image of at least&#xD;&#xA;&gt; part of a display of the first computing device; causing, with one or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more processors, optical character recognition (OCRing) of text in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bitmap image and obtaining, as a result of the OCRing, an OCR record&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with text appearing in the bitmap image and indicating locations of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; characters of the text in the image with coordinates of pixels in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bitmap image, the text comprising a plurality of n-grams; scoring,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with one or more processors, each of the n-grams based on whether the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; respective n-grams match any of a plurality of patterns; classifying,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with one or more processors, each of the n-grams based on the scoring&#xD;&#xA;&gt; into two or more categories, the two or more categories including a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; category for confidential information; for each of the n-grams&#xD;&#xA;&gt; classified in the category for confidential information, with one or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more processors, obfuscating the respective n-gram in the bitmap image&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to form a modified version of the bitmap image with operations&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comprising: determining, based on the OCR record, coordinates of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pixels in the bitmap image corresponding to the respective n-gram; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; modifying, with one or more processors, pixel values in the bitmap&#xD;&#xA;&gt; image of pixels at the determined coordinates in response to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; determining the coordinates of pixels in the bitmap image&#xD;&#xA;&gt; corresponding to the respective n-gram; storing, with one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; processors, the modified version of the bitmap image at a remote&#xD;&#xA;&gt; server system; providing, with one or more processors, from the remote&#xD;&#xA;&gt; server system, to the first user computing device, a uniform resource&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identifier at which the modified bitmap image is accessible;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving, at the remote server system, from a second user computing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; device, a request for the bitmap image at the URI; and sending, from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the remote server system, to the second user computing device, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; modified version of the bitmap image.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming &quot;URI&quot; really should be &quot;URL&quot;. In any case, the claim's novelty seems to hang on the term &quot;n-grams&quot;. This isn't my field and I didn't read the rest of the application so I don't know what an &quot;n-gram&quot; is beyond what is described in Wikipedia. Based on that article it would seem pretty obvious to apply them to this task. To infringe on a patent you need to implement **each and every step** in at least one claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, one possibility is that your technique doesn't employ n-grams as described by the application. Another is that the use of n-grams is either well know in similar applications prior to the submission date or else the use of n-grams to solve this problem is obvious to someone skilled in this field. You are in a better position to assess this than I am. Based on my very minimal search, it seems that the use of n-grams in OCR is well known and probably has a lot of prior art. For instance a quick search on Google Scholar provided [this paper from 2002][1] and [this paper from 1997][2]. If so, I'm not sure that just blacking out the results of OCR constitutes a novel idea. Also, I see from your Github link that you are utilizing Microsoft's Computer Vision API. If that code predates the application's filing date it also constitutes prior art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that the claims will likely narrow before (and if) an actual patent is granted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1008389&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.21.3248&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21237" RevisionGUID="7898b04a-c740-4549-a80e-141371a899e7" CreationDate="2020-03-14T14:11:47.973" UserId="17003" Text="The only thing that changes between an application and the resulting patent is the claims.  No new matter is allowed to be added to an application after submission. I suppose there might be the ability to correct misspellings or grammer, but not content. In the case of the linked documents, the application is identical but if you click on the &quot;Family&quot; tab you can link to the issued patent [US8892471B2][1]. If you check the claims, you will see that there are changes from the application. This is normal as applications usually attempt to cover the broadest scope possible and patent examiners reject overly broad claims and negotiate to narrower ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/039827827/publication/US8892471B2?q=US8892471B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59088" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="5c6c7c85-2304-4a6e-9675-76665c4413dc" CreationDate="2020-03-14T16:03:20.490" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="59089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21228" RevisionGUID="a185a1df-9fe7-4d0a-be85-4739c10bca37" CreationDate="2020-03-15T18:17:53.910" UserId="8558" Comment="added 760 characters in body" Text="This is an old question, but here is a general answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on location, there are several _Patent and Trademark Resource Centers (PTRC)_ across the U. S.. I remember the Sunnyvale Public Library used to be a PTRC. They had computers with direct access to the USPTO databases. Searching for prior art was something I could do very quickly. I came out with a list of 30 related and not-so-related patents in 90 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find more about the centers in [this USPTO link][1], including [PTRC locations][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also recommend looking into School research papers. Research Gate is one of the sites. I've seen the scholars are somewhat divorced from the patent system and they barely mention one or the other. The references are always either scholar in papers or patents in patents. A great source for prior art are school papers. I have to admit that the computers at the PTRC were ready to go and the GUI easy to use. I bet you can do the same via a [USPTO search][4] but I can't confirm if the format is the same. There you can find both patents and filled applications. Consider [WIPO - Search International and National Patent Collections][3]3 to find international patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/support-centers/patent-and-trademark-resource-centers-ptrcs&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/support-centers/patent-and-trademark-resource-centers-ptrc/ptrc-locations&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patft.uspto.gov" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59092" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="21186" RevisionGUID="e381c984-6143-4a83-ba32-6cf269d94a8c" CreationDate="2020-03-16T14:02:05.187" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="59093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21228" RevisionGUID="e1852a68-b1d2-46cf-b037-65bbb8398fa5" CreationDate="2020-03-16T16:50:24.400" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to Research Gate." Text="This is an old question, but here is a general answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on location, there are several _Patent and Trademark Resource Centers (PTRC)_ across the U. S.. I remember the Sunnyvale Public Library used to be a PTRC. They had computers with direct access to the USPTO databases. Searching for prior art was something I could do very quickly. I came out with a list of 30 related and not-so-related patents in 90 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find more about the centers in [this USPTO link][1], including [PTRC locations][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also recommend looking into School research papers. [Research Gate][3] is one of the sites. I've seen the scholars are somewhat divorced from the patent system and they barely mention one or the other. The references are always either scholar in papers or patents in patents. A great source for prior art are school papers. I have to admit that the computers at the PTRC were ready to go and the GUI easy to use. I bet you can do the same via a [USPTO search][4] but I can't confirm if the format is the same. There you can find both patents and filled applications. Consider [WIPO - Search International and National Patent Collections][5]3 to find international patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/support-centers/patent-and-trademark-resource-centers-ptrcs&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/support-centers/patent-and-trademark-resource-centers-ptrc/ptrc-locations&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.researchgate.net/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patft.uspto.gov&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21238" RevisionGUID="4029f739-0509-4343-92d2-5f8dd33cfdbf" CreationDate="2020-03-16T17:01:00.047" UserId="22945" Text="have an interesting question..Does a granted patent mean it is scientifically correct or the US patent office has validated its scientific validity? I saw a patent GRANTED by USPTO that was totally BS and this lead to me questioning my understanding of patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Food for thought: See US Patents no. 6,896,907 &amp; 6,410,059" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59095" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21238" RevisionGUID="4029f739-0509-4343-92d2-5f8dd33cfdbf" CreationDate="2020-03-16T17:01:00.047" UserId="22945" Text="Does a granted patent mean it is scientifically correct or the US patent office has validated its scientific validity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59096" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21238" RevisionGUID="4029f739-0509-4343-92d2-5f8dd33cfdbf" CreationDate="2020-03-16T17:01:00.047" UserId="22945" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;validity&gt;&lt;scientific&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21238" RevisionGUID="06772cc9-6780-4b21-83ed-f566b49a1a17" CreationDate="2020-03-16T17:08:53.120" UserId="22945" Comment="added 71 characters in body; edited title" Text="have an interesting question..Does a granted patent mean it is scientifically correct or that the US patent office has validated its scientific accuracy? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I saw a patent GRANTED by USPTO that made no sense and this lead to me questioning my understanding of patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Food for thought: See US Patents no. 6,896,907 &amp; 6,410,059&#xD;&#xA;(No offence intended here...asking just for my understanding)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59098" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="21238" RevisionGUID="06772cc9-6780-4b21-83ed-f566b49a1a17" CreationDate="2020-03-16T17:08:53.120" UserId="22945" Comment="added 71 characters in body; edited title" Text="Does a granted patent mean it is scientifically correct or that the US patent office has validated its scientific accuracy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21239" RevisionGUID="f998957f-d85e-4f58-a216-306b8fc5f3da" CreationDate="2020-03-16T17:43:01.820" UserId="3076" Text="**NO**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are correct to question your understanding of patents if you thought it was a government stamp of approval. The patent office does *not* do its own research and testing on patents. Unless something is claimed to be a perpetual motion machine the scientific feasibility is not questioned. Patents are examined for novelty and obviousness. There is a utility requirement but that means utility of the face of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent is not a government blessing that something works, although fear of that misunderstanding is probably why perpetual motion is not patentable without scientific demonstration (impossible of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent is something one can use to try to stop others from making or doing something, not a license to do anything. If something is impossible, I suppose it doesn't matter that a patent keeps people from making it, selling it, offering it for sale, using it or importing it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21239" RevisionGUID="7c598fac-668d-4cf6-b712-99d60f54e2bb" CreationDate="2020-03-16T18:29:58.097" UserId="3076" Comment="added 407 characters in body" Text="**NO**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are correct to question your understanding of patents if you thought it was a government stamp of approval. The patent office does *not* do its own research and testing on patents. Unless something is claimed to be a perpetual motion machine the scientific feasibility is not questioned. Patents are examined for novelty and obviousness. There is a utility requirement but that means utility of the face of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent is not a government blessing that something works, although fear of that misunderstanding is probably why perpetual motion is not patentable without scientific demonstration (impossible of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent is something one can use to try to stop others from making or doing something, not a license to do anything. If something is impossible, I suppose it doesn't matter that a patent keeps people from making it, selling it, offering it for sale, using it or importing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One downside of an impossible patent is that a granted patent is assumed to be &quot;enabled&quot; by its specification. That means that a subsequent application with more modest claims can be deemed as not novel in light of the impossible patent. At that point the new applicant needs to somehow overcome the presumption that the impossible patent is workable. You can attack that by affidavits from experts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21238" RevisionGUID="1f5d2330-5c53-4116-b7da-0e8e52e73ec4" CreationDate="2020-03-17T00:49:21.793" UserId="17003" Comment="Added links to patents" Text="have an interesting question..Does a granted patent mean it is scientifically correct or that the US patent office has validated its scientific accuracy? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I saw a patent GRANTED by USPTO that made no sense and this lead to me questioning my understanding of patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Food for thought: See US Patents no. [6,896,907][1] &amp; [6,410,059][2]&#xD;&#xA;(No offence intended here...asking just for my understanding)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6896907B2/en?oq=6%2C896%2C907&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6410059B1/en?oq=6%2C410%2C059" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59102" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="85d82efb-8cd6-4b98-a741-1c87c4d92f32" CreationDate="2020-03-17T04:03:05.350" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="59103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21228" RevisionGUID="69f8da72-e742-414d-9a66-24c884c152f7" CreationDate="2020-03-17T20:04:10.987" UserId="8558" Comment="Reformatted. Added Science Direct as a reference." Text="This is an old question, but here is a general answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on location, there are several _Patent and Trademark Resource Centers (PTRC)_ across the U. S.. I remember the Sunnyvale Public Library used to be a PTRC. They had computers with direct access to the USPTO databases. Searching for prior art was something I could do very quickly. I came out with a list of 30 related and not-so-related patents in 90 minutes. You can find more about the centers in [this USPTO link][1], including [PTRC locations][2]. The computers at the PTRC were ready to go and the GUI easy to use. I bet you can do the same via a [USPTO search][4] but I can't confirm if the format is the same. There you can find both patents and filled applications. Consider [WIPO - Search International and National Patent Collections][5] to find international patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen the scholars are somewhat divorced from the patent system and they barely mention one or the other. The references are always either scholar in papers or patents in patents.  Therefore, I also recommend looking into School research papers. You can find quite a bit of information on the &quot;linked in of research&quot; [Research Gate][3]. A great source for prior art are school papers. [Science Direct][5] has scientific publications. Finally, there is [Google Scholar][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/support-centers/patent-and-trademark-resource-centers-ptrcs&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/support-centers/patent-and-trademark-resource-centers-ptrc/ptrc-locations&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.researchgate.net/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://patft.uspto.gov&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.sciencedirect.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://scholar.google.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59104" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="21189" RevisionGUID="e64f074e-5730-4dd8-a332-1b06aa2302dd" CreationDate="2020-03-18T19:02:35.320" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="59105" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14705" RevisionGUID="bc543154-9423-470e-a1e6-85f7ce7eed37" CreationDate="2020-03-18T21:08:25.983" UserId="22948" Comment="Correct title grammar." Text="What is the difference between Application number, Publication number and Patent number?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59106" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14705" RevisionGUID="bc543154-9423-470e-a1e6-85f7ce7eed37" CreationDate="2020-03-18T21:08:25.983" Comment="Proposed by 22948 approved by 18033, 17003 edit id of 2118" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59107" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18411" RevisionGUID="848aced7-b7d5-4ba9-89d4-7e53250dfc27" CreationDate="2020-03-20T08:02:05.223" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="59108" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20501" RevisionGUID="a78389df-d8fa-4f71-a288-23fb53bbc083" CreationDate="2020-03-22T11:02:30.370" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="59109" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20309" RevisionGUID="9e56c41c-9bd5-4e7a-9579-d24b1160b12c" CreationDate="2020-03-23T07:01:20.147" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="59110" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20588" RevisionGUID="243a817f-c19f-4ca0-b2cd-bd579fd02724" CreationDate="2020-03-23T15:01:30.337" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="59111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21240" RevisionGUID="b5a49a00-6bf9-4381-8d70-fe2048f4280c" CreationDate="2020-03-23T18:13:58.537" UserId="22960" Text="I want to manufacture natural / ecological dishwashing detergent. There is a patented dishwashing detergent on the market with the same active ingredient, but the rest of the formula / other ingredients are different. The active ingredient is natural herbal extract. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I manufacture product like this? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent is pretty broad, specifying various natural ingredients and their various combinations, and their use in different cleaning products, including dishwashing detergens, and also the ratios of ingredients specified is extremely broad (i.e. 0.01 % to 40% w/w for each ingredient), but doesn't include my ingredients. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be manufacturing and selling the product in Europe. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59112" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21240" RevisionGUID="b5a49a00-6bf9-4381-8d70-fe2048f4280c" CreationDate="2020-03-23T18:13:58.537" UserId="22960" Text="Can I use the same active ingredient as patented product, when rest of the formula is different?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59113" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21240" RevisionGUID="b5a49a00-6bf9-4381-8d70-fe2048f4280c" CreationDate="2020-03-23T18:13:58.537" UserId="22960" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;european&gt;&lt;validity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21241" RevisionGUID="6b01a0ff-2729-4b51-8b20-f40d8b032fab" CreationDate="2020-03-23T19:20:13.557" UserId="22958" Text="Not sure if this is too simple a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a PDF-format file downloaded from the official site of the paper's authors. This file describes a technique that I want to use in my commercial software. Is there a simple, foolproof way to tell whether the technique has been patented (by the authors of the paper)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Things I've tried:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* E-mailed some of the authors. But I didn't get a response&#xD;&#xA;* Searched patents.google.com (for the paper title, then for one of the author's names) but patents.google.com doesn't guarantee it contains all existing patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59115" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21241" RevisionGUID="6b01a0ff-2729-4b51-8b20-f40d8b032fab" CreationDate="2020-03-23T19:20:13.557" UserId="22958" Text="How do I tell whether a paper, published online, is patented" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59116" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21241" RevisionGUID="6b01a0ff-2729-4b51-8b20-f40d8b032fab" CreationDate="2020-03-23T19:20:13.557" UserId="22958" Text="&lt;search&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21242" RevisionGUID="b1c28f4e-9fc4-4736-8974-0b4a3b30bcd3" CreationDate="2020-03-23T19:40:37.413" UserId="17003" Text="To avoid infringement, you need to implement each and every element in any single claim. Thus if a claim has elements A, B, C and D and your product only implements A, B and C, then you don't infringe on that claim since you don't use D. However if your product uses A, B, C, D and E, you do infringe as you implement each and every element of the claim. Simply adding an additional ingredient doesn't avoid infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to focus on the claims. The body of patents often seem as though they are covering a vast amount of ground, but only the claims specify what is protected. Long complicated claims with many elements are actually narrower than short claims with few elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, you must make sure you are looking at an actual patent and not just a patent application. Patent applications often have overly broad claims written. The patent examiner will usually reject overly broad claims and the inventor's attorney will edit them narrower as needed to get a claim accepted. Also, not all applications get granted as patents and patents expire or become abandoned. So just because you find a patent doesn't necessarily mean it is a roadblock." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21244" RevisionGUID="af875a6d-c2a9-4477-8c5b-2b4c8985215c" CreationDate="2020-03-23T21:55:33.603" UserId="3076" Text="As mentioned in a comment, patent applications are not published until 18 months after initial filing.  If it is a U.S. only filing it is possible that non-publication was requested and no publication will occur until and unless a patent issues. If the authors are not all in the U.S. there is a greater likelihood of one or more applications filed somewhere else. As suggested in a comment, search by each author separately - authorship and inventorship are two very different things. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course something that you do might infringe a patent by someone else entirely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59120" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20585" RevisionGUID="45cd3545-729d-40fb-ac23-6545cc51e3cb" CreationDate="2020-03-23T23:01:40.207" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="59122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21245" RevisionGUID="6abf9f52-070e-4113-98d9-a0702e45cd2c" CreationDate="2020-03-24T23:09:48.420" UserId="17204" Text="I would like to file a patent application that is jointly owned by two companies. Can both companies be applicants? Will both company names appear on patent publications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59123" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21245" RevisionGUID="6abf9f52-070e-4113-98d9-a0702e45cd2c" CreationDate="2020-03-24T23:09:48.420" UserId="17204" Text="Can I file a patent application with two applicant corporations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59124" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21245" RevisionGUID="6abf9f52-070e-4113-98d9-a0702e45cd2c" CreationDate="2020-03-24T23:09:48.420" UserId="17204" Text="&lt;multiple&gt;&lt;applicant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21246" RevisionGUID="0ff5a107-9ffd-4581-83d2-6542fe132a9a" CreationDate="2020-03-25T17:10:42.243" UserId="22964" Text="If an applicant knowingly withholds prior art information from an IDS, are there ways the patent can be invalidated after grant (other than through litigation)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59126" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21246" RevisionGUID="0ff5a107-9ffd-4581-83d2-6542fe132a9a" CreationDate="2020-03-25T17:10:42.243" UserId="22964" Text="Can inequitable conduct lead to patent invalidation before litigation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59127" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21246" RevisionGUID="0ff5a107-9ffd-4581-83d2-6542fe132a9a" CreationDate="2020-03-25T17:10:42.243" UserId="22964" Text="&lt;invalidation&gt;&lt;ids&gt;&lt;inequitable-conduct&gt;&lt;invalidate&gt;&lt;patent-invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21248" RevisionGUID="883111b0-2667-4318-b3f0-cca604d2f88a" CreationDate="2020-03-25T19:45:00.717" UserId="22965" Text="Can I reuse a product for a different purpose?&#xD;&#xA;Do I need the authorization from the product’s maker for a new and different purpose?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59130" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="21248" RevisionGUID="883111b0-2667-4318-b3f0-cca604d2f88a" CreationDate="2020-03-25T19:45:00.717" UserId="22965" Text="Reuse of a product for a different purpose" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59131" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="21248" RevisionGUID="883111b0-2667-4318-b3f0-cca604d2f88a" CreationDate="2020-03-25T19:45:00.717" UserId="22965" Text="&lt;business-methods&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="59135" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20595" RevisionGUID="2d38fadb-c4a1-499d-9b9d-35a28be2765e" CreationDate="2020-03-28T11:01:55.270" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60136" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20329" RevisionGUID="c2c2b14f-8a7d-451d-ac6e-85eb3609a751" CreationDate="2020-03-29T01:01:20.303" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22250" RevisionGUID="4a709cd1-63e9-474d-828c-4d2ac079dcb6" CreationDate="2020-03-29T01:22:59.080" UserId="3076" Text="Since it was published 4 years before the time the new application was filed and then abandoned with no patent related to the application issued or continuation filed, the information in the published application is usable a prior art against the 2015 application. With the same topic and a common inventor the examiner would be very likely to cite it against the new application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Separately, is it &quot;free to be used by anybody&quot;?  Not necessarily. A third party might have a patent on the exact same, or overlapping, material from an application filed before your 2011 application," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22251" RevisionGUID="b8e655bb-bf35-4e38-8fbc-0650549f71fa" CreationDate="2020-03-29T11:36:52.220" UserId="15192" Text="[KU Center for Technology Commercialization][1] writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note: the time window between an inventor’s public disclosure and patent application filing date allows others to publish similar work or work that builds off your own work. These intervening publications may prevent or hinder patentability of your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why would others' publications **after** your own public disclosure prevent patentability?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ctc.ku.edu/faculty/protect-your-ideas/protecting-intellectual-property/public-disclosure" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60139" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22251" RevisionGUID="b8e655bb-bf35-4e38-8fbc-0650549f71fa" CreationDate="2020-03-29T11:36:52.220" UserId="15192" Text="How do others' publications during the grace period hinder patentability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60140" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22251" RevisionGUID="b8e655bb-bf35-4e38-8fbc-0650549f71fa" CreationDate="2020-03-29T11:36:52.220" UserId="15192" Text="&lt;public-disclosure&gt;&lt;defensive-publications&gt;&lt;united-states&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22252" RevisionGUID="2d9de099-29b1-41f7-96d4-c6dc8bb6130e" CreationDate="2020-03-29T23:20:41.003" UserId="3076" Text="As interpreted by the USPTO the only thing that can't be used against you due to the &quot;grace&quot; period is pretty much exactly what you published. If your application has new material not present in the publication, that subject matter might be shown to not be novel or to be obvious in light of others' work based on your publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, others can build upon your work to create their own, separate inventions. It may be that their invention can't be practiced without infringing rights that you end up with but they can potentially patent their extensions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60142" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20143" RevisionGUID="79a9d94d-0e66-47eb-be36-f90dea3151e1" CreationDate="2020-03-30T02:01:25.130" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22253" RevisionGUID="97935807-9f01-42e7-9372-0ac16448b86b" CreationDate="2020-03-30T12:39:49.790" UserId="22550" Text="- the Windows Media Video 7 video coding format is [also known as WMV1][1].&#xD;&#xA;- WMV 7 &quot;publicly exists&quot; since [1999][2] [\[1\]][3]&#xD;&#xA;- [in most jurisdictions, patents seems to be valid 20 years][4]&#xD;&#xA;- software patent where they are valid [still have usually the same time validity][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Media_Video#Versions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Media_Video#Video_compression_formats&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.computerhope.com/history/1999.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60144" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22253" RevisionGUID="97935807-9f01-42e7-9372-0ac16448b86b" CreationDate="2020-03-30T12:39:49.790" UserId="22550" Text="Have Windows Media Video 7 (WMV1) patents expired?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60145" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22253" RevisionGUID="97935807-9f01-42e7-9372-0ac16448b86b" CreationDate="2020-03-30T12:39:49.790" UserId="22550" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;format&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22253" RevisionGUID="bc521750-8ded-4a0e-8d69-17b0a22ccaf2" CreationDate="2020-04-01T16:04:46.167" UserId="22550" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="- the Windows Media Video 7 video coding format is [also known as WMV1][1].&#xD;&#xA;- WMV 7 &quot;publicly exists&quot; since [1999][2] [\[1\]][3]&#xD;&#xA;- [in most jurisdictions, patents seems to be valid 20 years][4]&#xD;&#xA;- software patent where they are valid [still have usually the same time validity][5] (I check that in case there was something different about them)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Media_Video#Versions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Media_Video#Video_compression_formats&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.computerhope.com/history/1999.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22254" RevisionGUID="bc38da3f-c9bf-473b-8f79-2fb00d098908" CreationDate="2020-04-01T23:32:19.927" UserId="23990" Text="I would like to reopen my patent that was closed due to nonpayment of maintenance fees.  Should I refile?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60148" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22254" RevisionGUID="bc38da3f-c9bf-473b-8f79-2fb00d098908" CreationDate="2020-04-01T23:32:19.927" UserId="23990" Text="I have a closed patent due to nonpayment of maintenance fees" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60149" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22254" RevisionGUID="bc38da3f-c9bf-473b-8f79-2fb00d098908" CreationDate="2020-04-01T23:32:19.927" UserId="23990" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;refile&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22255" RevisionGUID="c6e9283b-f693-4099-9842-a2c56b4fd1b7" CreationDate="2020-04-02T02:07:44.020" UserId="3076" Text="No, do not refile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it is not &quot;closed&quot; it is expired. There is a way to ask the USPTO to excuse the late payment and put the patent back into effect. It requires a petition any payment of the fees - and fast action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the [MPEP][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a) The Director may accept the payment of any maintenance fee due on a patent after expiration of the patent if, upon petition, the delay in payment of the maintenance fee is shown to the satisfaction of the Director to have been unintentional. If the Director accepts payment of the maintenance fee upon petition, the patent shall be considered as not having expired, but will be subject to the conditions set forth in 35 U.S.C. 41(c)(2). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2590.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22256" RevisionGUID="91b86890-bb34-49f3-bb30-df5edd9fb183" CreationDate="2020-04-02T07:17:31.563" UserId="19479" Text="Yes, It is possible for both the firms to be applicant for a single invention. They will be considered as joint applicants. I work as a patent agent in India. You may contact me if you need more help. (www.sarweshwarintellectual.in) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22256" RevisionGUID="72b29332-ab14-46c5-abb3-44626e38e58e" CreationDate="2020-04-02T08:00:01.830" UserId="8601" Comment="Remove spammy solicitation" Text="Yes, It is possible for both the firms to be applicant for a single invention. They will be considered as joint applicants." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60153" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="22256" RevisionGUID="72b29332-ab14-46c5-abb3-44626e38e58e" CreationDate="2020-04-02T08:00:01.830" Comment="Proposed by 8601 approved by 19479 edit id of 2119" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22256" RevisionGUID="35a509d0-903b-433f-b090-1ddc3e3559e3" CreationDate="2020-04-02T08:41:17.713" UserId="19479" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="Yes, It is possible for both the firms to be the applicant for a single invention. They will be considered as joint applicants. Name of both applicants will reflect in the patent if granted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22257" RevisionGUID="578c3615-6b5a-4eed-a726-e202589ae5d1" CreationDate="2020-04-02T09:59:54.693" UserId="23991" Text="I found a patent that has a claim that when read out of context could arguably describe my invention. Their claim requires an external device to provide a notification whereas my device recognizes the event itself. Other than that the claim could be stretched to describe my invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when you read the description of the other invention they are definitely describing a different, but similar, system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other patent was a refused Japanese patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given what I have said does it sound like I have to worry about the claim?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60156" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22257" RevisionGUID="578c3615-6b5a-4eed-a726-e202589ae5d1" CreationDate="2020-04-02T09:59:54.693" UserId="23991" Text="Can a claim be considered prior art if when taken out of context it describes your invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60157" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22257" RevisionGUID="578c3615-6b5a-4eed-a726-e202589ae5d1" CreationDate="2020-04-02T09:59:54.693" UserId="23991" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22257" RevisionGUID="c4bae1fd-295a-445c-8b6f-112d7d5daa3c" CreationDate="2020-04-02T10:05:57.127" UserId="23991" Comment="edited body" Text="I found a patent that has a claim that when read out of context could arguably describe my invention. Their claim requires an external device to provide a notification whereas my device recognizes the event itself. Other than that the claim could be stretched to describe my invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when you read the description of the their invention they are definitely describing a different, but similar, system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other patent was a refused Japanese patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given what I have said does it sound like I have to worry about the claim?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22258" RevisionGUID="8a4d574e-86f4-4aa5-8b6c-8789917ff165" CreationDate="2020-04-02T18:43:32.233" UserId="3076" Text="It isn't the wording of a claim that would be the clearest expression of the meaning of a reference. The wording of a claim is most relevant to determining if something infringed. In your case the claim never appeared in a granted patent so that is moot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To show that you invention is not novel, it (as claimed in your application) needs to be found described in an enabled manner in a reference document that qualifies as prior art. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22260" RevisionGUID="7e413a5c-14a3-4a09-9c1f-eaea63abd260" CreationDate="2020-04-04T19:26:36.360" UserId="24000" Text="My invention is a replacement part for an existing device, that results in novel functionality. My patent will claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Existing device (A) + my novel component (B) = A novel apparatus (c) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will a patent for this apparatus protect me from people copying the part (B), and the entire apparatus (C)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(FYI the patent on A has expired a long time ago, so there is no issue of needing to obtain a license for it)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60162" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22260" RevisionGUID="7e413a5c-14a3-4a09-9c1f-eaea63abd260" CreationDate="2020-04-04T19:26:36.360" UserId="24000" Text="Does patent for an apparatus cover the individual sub-components as well?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60163" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22260" RevisionGUID="7e413a5c-14a3-4a09-9c1f-eaea63abd260" CreationDate="2020-04-04T19:26:36.360" UserId="24000" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;improvement&gt;&lt;apparatus&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22261" RevisionGUID="9229971f-cebd-48d4-94ee-c211fa3654e4" CreationDate="2020-04-04T19:58:59.940" UserId="3076" Text="It depends on your claims that end up being granted. You can file an application with both claims to the component and to claims to the modified whole system. It may be that your component is a particularly shaped cam and it makes the whole device unique. But the cam itself, sitting on a shelf, out of context, might *not* be new. If you have a claim to the shape of the cam then any previous cam of that shape for whatever purpose would show your cam not to be new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the part may cause a behavior of the whole machine to be a certain way. If you claim - for example - a windshield wiper with intermittent operation then there may be an existing system that does not use your part but has intermittent operation. That claim would not be to a novel system. Each claim is looked at for novelty and non-obviousness on its own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may also be that the examiner sees this as an application for two different inventions and requires you to chose one to pursue in the application. The other could be pursued in a divisional application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60165" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="eeca2c8f-8eee-4394-9d2a-55186721e3c9" CreationDate="2020-04-05T07:01:40.323" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60166" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16336" RevisionGUID="db01302c-2249-4d3e-9d53-00748835cdb6" CreationDate="2020-04-05T11:01:10.217" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22262" RevisionGUID="668a3daa-e7ef-4f06-bfa1-f1a1e4dc88e1" CreationDate="2020-04-05T16:47:31.047" UserId="24003" Text="There is a product I want to create, but noticed there is a patent for it. However the first claim is compromised of 5 components. I am wondering if it's possible to be granted a patent that takes away one or two of those components so I would claim just 3 out of the 5, basically simplifying the list of components or would I only be granted a patent for having a different component instead of taking one away?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60168" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22262" RevisionGUID="668a3daa-e7ef-4f06-bfa1-f1a1e4dc88e1" CreationDate="2020-04-05T16:47:31.047" UserId="24003" Text="Applying for a patent that is similar to a granted patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60169" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22262" RevisionGUID="668a3daa-e7ef-4f06-bfa1-f1a1e4dc88e1" CreationDate="2020-04-05T16:47:31.047" UserId="24003" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22263" RevisionGUID="555c66c8-53da-476a-9f69-1d9ef77157e8" CreationDate="2020-04-05T22:56:34.520" UserId="17204" Text="I did find an example of [a patent application publication that lists two applicants][1]. When applying for a patent, multiple applicants can be listed on the Application Data Sheet. Those applicants will be listed on the publication of the application and on the publication of any patent granted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://pat2pdf.org/patents/pat20160231745.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60171" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20345" RevisionGUID="ab85aff7-067a-487d-89d4-cf4a323d1dd5" CreationDate="2020-04-05T23:02:00.237" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60172" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20040" RevisionGUID="d15df208-72b5-4190-8ec7-ac42b9e943b5" CreationDate="2020-04-06T04:04:20.657" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60173" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17307" RevisionGUID="21c71afa-f6b9-4e4d-8b4c-2962eca47600" CreationDate="2020-04-06T06:01:40.373" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60174" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17472" RevisionGUID="0503277f-73e3-474a-8ede-b2bf942aff32" CreationDate="2020-04-06T09:02:40.443" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60175" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19863" RevisionGUID="5b007c7b-c911-4440-86f1-b551c7629dc8" CreationDate="2020-04-06T13:02:35.500" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22264" RevisionGUID="e25f84d9-629f-4d0c-bec1-608c3e40f96b" CreationDate="2020-04-06T19:09:52.147" UserId="17003" Text="There are two different aspects of dealing with the existing patent. First is infringement. You infringe on a claim if you implement each and every aspect of the claim. Thus if a claim has steps 1 through 5 and you only implement steps 1, 2 and 4, then you don't infringe on that claim. You need to avoid each and every claim separately to avoid infringing on a patent. Be advised that just avoiding infringement of the patent you identified isn't enough. You need to determine if other related patents exist. A good first step is to look at the prior art cited by the patent and art that cite the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second aspect is whether your implementation is separately patentable. To be patentable your implementation needs to fulfill all the requirements of patentability which are it needs to be novel, non-obvious and useful. Novel means new. If there is some earlier patent or publication that describes your product then you won't be able to obtain a patent. Non-obvious means someone skilled in the field would not find it an obvious thing to do. In other words there needs to be an inventive step. Useful is usually not an issue. I often see poorly written patents where the claims are too specific and have more steps described than necessary. These are often written by inventors who didn't hire patent attorneys to draft and prosecute the patent. The claims may be narrow, but the body of the patent may describe what you want to implement and thus represents prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60177" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18242" RevisionGUID="63959e31-d5f6-4eab-933d-79fdb5d3b927" CreationDate="2020-04-06T22:00:40.100" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22266" RevisionGUID="aa689320-ecc4-4a92-b7d3-4ef5100c7ba1" CreationDate="2020-04-07T02:23:09.123" UserId="21925" Text="When viewing technology patents, I notice that they list a number of &quot;claims&quot;, and the structure of these &quot;claims&quot; takes various forms. Relating to this, my questions are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Does the scope of the patent pertain to what is described in each *individual* claim, or does the patent only apply to the technology described when considering *all* of the claims *in combination*? &#xD;&#xA;2. When a claim outlines *steps*, does that mean that the technology in *each* of those *individual* steps is patented, or does it mean that the technology outlined/described by each of the steps *in totality* is patented?&#xD;&#xA;3. When a patent claim outlines/describes a *system* consisting of *multiple parts*, are *each* of those *individual* parts under the scope of the patent, or is it only the *entire* system considered *in totality* that is considered to be under the scope of the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would greatly appreciate it if people would please take the time to clarify these points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60182" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22266" RevisionGUID="aa689320-ecc4-4a92-b7d3-4ef5100c7ba1" CreationDate="2020-04-07T02:23:09.123" UserId="21925" Text="Characterization and scope of &quot;claims&quot; in technology patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60183" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22266" RevisionGUID="aa689320-ecc4-4a92-b7d3-4ef5100c7ba1" CreationDate="2020-04-07T02:23:09.123" UserId="21925" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;technology&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22267" RevisionGUID="8f7054e4-c282-4c3e-b72a-d3a845b78db9" CreationDate="2020-04-07T03:25:52.487" UserId="3076" Text="This is very basic patent information that is duplicated in many previous questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Each claim stands alone as something that defines a device, system or method that would constitute infringement. A product might infringe one or more claims of a patent. Infringing one claim is infringing the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. To infringe a claim a product must contain all of the elements of that claim. In a method claim that would mean performing all of the steps. In a system claim it would require possess all elements with those elements related to each other as defined in the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. A claim can be written to encompass a whole system; other claims can be written to sub-components of that system. However to be granted, each claim must define something patentable - that is, something useful, novel and non-obvious." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22266" RevisionGUID="b1bed445-d044-48d2-9f45-0df9596d9177" CreationDate="2020-04-07T03:26:46.170" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="When viewing technology patents, I notice that they list a number of claims, and the structure of these claims takes various forms. Relating to this, my questions are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Does the scope of the patent pertain to what is described in each *individual* claim, or does the patent only apply to the technology described when considering *all* of the claims *in combination*? &#xD;&#xA;2. When a claim outlines *steps*, does that mean that the technology in *each* of those *individual* steps is patented, or does it mean that the technology outlined/described by each of the steps *in totality* is patented?&#xD;&#xA;3. When a patent claim outlines/describes a *system* consisting of *multiple parts*, are *each* of those *individual* parts under the scope of the patent, or is it only the *entire* system considered *in totality* that is considered to be under the scope of the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would greatly appreciate it if people would please take the time to clarify these points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60186" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="22266" RevisionGUID="b1bed445-d044-48d2-9f45-0df9596d9177" CreationDate="2020-04-07T03:26:46.170" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="Characterization and scope of claims in technology patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22267" RevisionGUID="a749b266-7f44-451e-a1b3-d12528e52fef" CreationDate="2020-04-07T03:32:28.617" UserId="3076" Comment="added 367 characters in body" Text="This is very basic patent information that is duplicated in many previous answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Each claim stands alone as something that defines a device, system or method that would constitute infringement. A product might infringe one or more claims of a patent. Infringing one claim is infringing the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. To infringe a claim a product must contain all of the elements of that claim. In a method claim that would mean performing all of the steps. In a system claim it would require possess all elements with those elements related to each other as defined in the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. A claim can be written to encompass a whole system; other claims can be written to sub-components of that system. However to be granted, each claim must define something patentable - that is, something useful, novel and non-obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Technology&quot; patents are mentioned in the question. That is not a specific category in U.S. patent law. We have three kinds of patents - *Utility* (a normal patent with one or more claims to something with utility) *Design* (With a single claim to the ornamental characteristics of a product) and *Plant* (covers new plants created from non-reproductive cells of the plant).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22268" RevisionGUID="62ffc7cc-eacd-4424-b28c-1d74b7d2018a" CreationDate="2020-04-07T06:53:21.433" UserId="21925" Text="I recently [asked][1] some questions relating to the scope of claims in utility (specifically, technology) patents. The user &quot;George White&quot; then [answered][2] the following in response to question 2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. To infringe a claim a product must contain all of the elements of that claim. In a method claim that would mean performing all of the steps. In a system claim it would require possess all elements with those elements related to each other as defined in the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm presuming this means that, for example, by creating a system (or method) that satisfies every aspect, except one, of a system (or method) outlined in a claim, then that new system/method is outside the scope of the patent claim (that is, it does not infringe upon the patent claim)? If this presumption is correct, then is there a requirement as to how &quot;different&quot; the aforementioned single different aspect must be? I know that the idea of a step being &quot;inventive&quot; or &quot;non-obvious&quot; exists in patent law; must this single different aspect also satisfy the requirement of being &quot;non-obvious&quot; or &quot;inventive&quot;? Or is it simply enough that the aspect/step be strictly different from that presented in the patent, even though it might not be &quot;inventive&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would greatly appreciate it if people would please take the time to clarify this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/22266/21925&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/22267/21925" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60189" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22268" RevisionGUID="62ffc7cc-eacd-4424-b28c-1d74b7d2018a" CreationDate="2020-04-07T06:53:21.433" UserId="21925" Text="Changing aspect/step of system/method of patent claim to avoid infringing upon patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60190" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22268" RevisionGUID="62ffc7cc-eacd-4424-b28c-1d74b7d2018a" CreationDate="2020-04-07T06:53:21.433" UserId="21925" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;technology&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60191" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="22266" RevisionGUID="b899f1b6-08f0-4781-880b-606b8e25bbc5" CreationDate="2020-04-07T06:53:41.440" UserId="21925" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;technology&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22268" RevisionGUID="a89d41c0-832b-49b0-af4b-6639b36d80e3" CreationDate="2020-04-07T07:03:37.243" UserId="21925" Comment="added 481 characters in body" Text="I recently [asked][1] some questions relating to the scope of claims in utility (specifically, technology) patents. The user &quot;George White&quot; then [answered][2] the following in response to question 2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. To infringe a claim a product must contain all of the elements of that claim. In a method claim that would mean performing all of the steps. In a system claim it would require possess all elements with those elements related to each other as defined in the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm presuming this means that, for example, by creating a system (or method) that satisfies every aspect, except one, of a system (or method) outlined in a claim, then that new system/method is outside the scope of the patent claim (that is, it does not infringe upon the patent claim)? If this presumption is correct, then is there a requirement as to how &quot;different&quot; the aforementioned single different aspect must be? I know that the idea of a step being &quot;inventive&quot; or &quot;non-obvious&quot; exists in patent law; must this single different aspect also satisfy the requirement of being &quot;non-obvious&quot; or &quot;inventive&quot;? Or is it simply enough that the aspect/step be strictly different from that presented in the patent, even though it might not be &quot;inventive&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a random example, imagine that a technology/device patent claim for generating some image provides a method consisting of 5 steps. The first step is that the light used in generating said image must have a power of around 8100 to 8500 (just random, unitless numbers). Let's say I then wish to manufacture a device that satisfies the other 4 steps of the method, but instead of using light of around 8100 to 8500 energy to generate the image, my device uses light of around 9000 energy. Am I infringing the patent/claim here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would greatly appreciate it if people would please take the time to clarify this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/22266/21925&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/22267/21925" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22268" RevisionGUID="c965b9e1-e44f-4bb3-a255-6f7691bc9906" CreationDate="2020-04-07T07:10:12.650" UserId="21925" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="I recently [asked][1] some questions relating to the scope of claims in utility (specifically, technology) patents. The user &quot;George White&quot; then [answered][2] the following in response to question 2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. To infringe a claim a product must contain all of the elements of that claim. In a method claim that would mean performing all of the steps. In a system claim it would require possess all elements with those elements related to each other as defined in the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm presuming this means that, for example, by creating a system (or method) that satisfies every aspect, except one, of a system (or method) outlined in a claim, then that new system/method is outside the scope of the patent claim (that is, it does not infringe upon the patent claim)? If this presumption is correct, then is there a requirement as to how &quot;different&quot; the aforementioned single different aspect must be? I know that the idea of a step being &quot;inventive&quot; or &quot;non-obvious&quot; exists in patent law; must this single different aspect also satisfy the requirement of being &quot;non-obvious&quot; or &quot;inventive&quot;? Or is it simply enough that the aspect/step be strictly different from that presented in the patent, even though it might not be &quot;inventive&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a random example, imagine that a technology/device patent claim for generating some image provides a method consisting of 5 steps. The first step is that the light used in generating said image must have a power of around 8100 to 8500 (just random, unitless numbers). Let's say I then wish to manufacture a device that satisfies the other 4 steps of the method, but instead of using light of around 8100 to 8500 energy to generate the image, my device uses light of around 9000 energy. Am I infringing the patent/claim in this case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would greatly appreciate it if people would please take the time to clarify this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/22266/21925&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/22267/21925" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22268" RevisionGUID="d3dc5546-0bf0-4e09-960b-0eb34b8c385b" CreationDate="2020-04-07T08:15:42.193" UserId="21925" Comment="added 443 characters in body" Text="I recently [asked][1] some questions relating to the scope of claims in utility (specifically, technology) patents. The user &quot;George White&quot; then [answered][2] the following in response to question 2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. To infringe a claim a product must contain all of the elements of that claim. In a method claim that would mean performing all of the steps. In a system claim it would require possess all elements with those elements related to each other as defined in the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm presuming this means that, for example, by creating a system (or method) that satisfies every aspect, except one, of a system (or method) outlined in a claim, then that new system/method is outside the scope of the patent claim (that is, it does not infringe upon the patent claim)? If this presumption is correct, then is there a requirement as to how &quot;different&quot; the aforementioned single different aspect must be? I know that the idea of a step being &quot;inventive&quot; or &quot;non-obvious&quot; exists in patent law; must this single different aspect also satisfy the requirement of being &quot;non-obvious&quot; or &quot;inventive&quot;? Or is it simply enough that the aspect/step be strictly different from that presented in the patent, even though it might not be &quot;inventive&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a random example, imagine that a technology/device patent claim for generating some image provides a method consisting of 5 steps. The first step is that the light used in generating said image must have a power of around 8100 to 8500 (just random, unitless numbers). Let's say I then wish to manufacture a device that satisfies the other 4 steps of the method, but instead of using light of around 8100 to 8500 energy to generate the image, my device uses light of around 9000 energy. Am I infringing the patent/claim in this case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I think the aforementioned example suggests another interesting question: Assuming that the modified invention does *not* infringe the patent, then does that mean that it is itself patentable? I can't see how this would be true, since the modified invention does not include a &quot;non-obvious&quot; step; so, in such a case, even though it doesn't infringe upon the patent, it at the same time does not satisfy the requirements to be patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would greatly appreciate it if people would please take the time to clarify this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/22266/21925&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/22267/21925" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22269" RevisionGUID="14befca2-7881-471a-9352-bd9a14f0aaae" CreationDate="2020-04-07T13:53:16.820" UserId="17003" Text="Similar questions abound on this site. For the first question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For a random example, imagine that a technology/device patent claim&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for generating some image provides a method consisting of 5 steps. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first step is that the light used in generating said image must have a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; power of around 8100 to 8500 (just random, unitless numbers). Let's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; say I then wish to manufacture a device that satisfies the other 4&#xD;&#xA;&gt; steps of the method, but instead of using light of around 8100 to 8500&#xD;&#xA;&gt; energy to generate the image, my device uses light of around 9000&#xD;&#xA;&gt; energy. Am I infringing the patent/claim in this case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is rare for a patent to limit an aspect of a claim to a range narrower than necessary. It happens, but usually only with patents filed and prosecuted by inventors rather than patent attorneys. Based on the description in your question, you would not infringe on that claim. However, this does not mean you don't infringe on some patent's claim. It is possible that there is another patent that claims a wider power level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Assuming that the modified invention does not infringe the patent,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; then does that mean that it is itself patentable? I can't see how this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would be true, since the modified invention does not include a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;non-obvious&quot; step; so, in such a case, even though it doesn't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; infringe upon the patent, it at the same time does not satisfy the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; requirements to be patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Non-infringement does not in any way assure patentability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22270" RevisionGUID="f3534a84-5fd6-45ba-bb90-add88fd3fa8e" CreationDate="2020-04-07T19:57:07.350" UserId="3076" Text="Answering one aspect of the question - the step or element left out of a product to avoid infringe a claims does not need to be a novel step. Claims are novel and non-obvious as a whole and leaving out any positively claimed element avoids literal infringement.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a claim format (Jepson or two-part) often used in the rest of the world but rarely used in the the U.S. where the &quot;old part&quot; is specifically admitted to be old and the &quot;new part&quot; is set out distinct from the admitted old part." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22271" RevisionGUID="23a173b8-f24c-4a09-a206-3501849160df" CreationDate="2020-04-07T20:01:57.363" UserId="24007" Text="My ex business partner patented a product in 2004 and failed to pay the maintenance fee's. I had an exclusive licensing rights on the product. Since then i have made several changes to it to make it more diverse and safe. Can i patent the product?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60198" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22271" RevisionGUID="23a173b8-f24c-4a09-a206-3501849160df" CreationDate="2020-04-07T20:01:57.363" UserId="24007" Text="Can I patent a product that another person had a patent on but failed to pay the maintenance fees?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60199" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22271" RevisionGUID="23a173b8-f24c-4a09-a206-3501849160df" CreationDate="2020-04-07T20:01:57.363" UserId="24007" Text="&lt;maintenance&gt;&lt;redesigned&gt;&lt;safety&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22272" RevisionGUID="f0229fb2-eee6-453f-8d2a-1c14b0e41934" CreationDate="2020-04-08T13:10:14.720" UserId="24011" Text="Last year I joined a project started by a friend. He was working for some years on an electrical device and I helped him in many aspects. Recently, the &quot;project&quot; became a &quot;sellable product&quot;. Everything was developed with no big money investments, but spare time and dedication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that the product has been presented to *many* people, with some very good feedbacks, we are facing the fact that we never issued a patent for it. For many reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- My friend actually had a time in which he considered this possibility, in early years when I was not part of the project. After speaking with a consultant, the idea was not considered to be innovative enough for a patent. But it worth saying that, first, in my opinion the consultant made a rough analysis and it would have been better to spend more time in this &quot;research&quot;. Secondary, my contribution added some values/features that may have changed this initial evaluation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Money: we estimated the cost of having a consultant + issuing a patent in our country, then also in Europe or worldwide. We could have considered it as a big investment, but we both didn't have the possibility to afford it in easy way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Time: we have also received &quot;discouraging opinions&quot; about the efforts needed to issue a patent, in terms of time. We preferred to focus on the development of the technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the last 2 points, It seems to me that issuing a patent is something that can be managed by real companies, rather than individual developers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of today, we still don't actually know if we developed an &quot;idea that worth a patent&quot;, but it is now public and the first beta testers like it. We are planning to establish a legal company in few months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm worried if we missed a big opportunity by not having issued a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be the risks for us in the short and long term? Let's pretend this is actually an innovative thing, is our &quot;business&quot; already in danger for some reasons? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60201" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22272" RevisionGUID="f0229fb2-eee6-453f-8d2a-1c14b0e41934" CreationDate="2020-04-08T13:10:14.720" UserId="24011" Text="We didn't patent a possible innovation before the release. What are the risks?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60202" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22272" RevisionGUID="f0229fb2-eee6-453f-8d2a-1c14b0e41934" CreationDate="2020-04-08T13:10:14.720" UserId="24011" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;idea&gt;&lt;electronics&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22272" RevisionGUID="b2cd7f7e-61ee-437b-9857-a297231a1075" CreationDate="2020-04-08T13:24:33.930" UserId="24011" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Last year I joined a project started by a friend. He was working for some years on an electrical device and I helped him in many aspects. Recently, the &quot;project&quot; became a &quot;sellable product&quot;. Everything was developed with no big money investments, but spare time and dedication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that the product has been presented to *many* people, with some very good feedbacks, we are facing the fact that we never issued a patent for it. For many reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- My friend actually had a time in which he considered this possibility, in early years when I was not part of the project. After speaking with a consultant, the idea was not considered to be innovative enough for a patent. But it worth saying that, first, in my opinion the consultant made a rough analysis and it would have been better to spend more time in this &quot;research&quot;. Secondary, my contribution added some values/features that may have changed this initial evaluation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Money: we estimated the cost of having a consultant + issuing a patent in our country, then also in Europe or worldwide. We could have considered it as a big investment, but we both didn't have the possibility to afford it in easy way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Time: we have also received &quot;discouraging opinions&quot; about the efforts needed to issue a patent, in terms of time. We preferred to focus on the development of the technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the last 2 points, It seems to me that issuing a patent is something that can be managed by real companies, rather than individual developers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of today, we still don't actually know if we developed a &quot;technology that worth a patent&quot;, but it is now public and the first beta testers like it. We are planning to establish a legal company in few months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm worried if we missed a big opportunity by not having issued a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be the risks for us in the short and long term? Let's pretend this is actually an innovative thing, is our &quot;business&quot; already in danger for some reasons? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22272" RevisionGUID="75b0c63f-9313-4478-8cac-353715721383" CreationDate="2020-04-08T13:29:40.793" UserId="24011" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Last year I joined a project started by a friend. He was working for some years on an electrical device and I helped him in many aspects. Recently, the &quot;project&quot; became a &quot;sellable product&quot;. Everything was developed with no big money investments, but spare time and dedication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that the product has been presented to *many* people, with some very good feedbacks, we are facing the fact that we never issued a patent for it. For many reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- My friend actually had a time in which he considered this possibility, in early years when I was not part of the project. After speaking with a consultant, the idea was not considered to be innovative enough for a patent. But it worth saying that, first, in my opinion the consultant made a rough analysis and it would have been better to spend more time in this &quot;research&quot;. Secondary, my contribution added some values/features that may have changed this initial evaluation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Money: we estimated the cost of having a consultant + issuing a patent in our country, then also in Europe or worldwide. We could have considered it as a big investment, but we both didn't have the possibility to afford it in easy way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Time: we have also received &quot;discouraging opinions&quot; about the efforts needed to issue a patent, in terms of time. We preferred to focus on the development of the technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of today, we still don't actually know if we developed a &quot;technology that worth a patent&quot;, but it is now public and the first beta testers like it. We are planning to establish a legal company in few months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm worried if we missed a big opportunity by not having issued a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be the risks for us in the short and long term? Let's pretend this is actually an innovative thing, is our &quot;business&quot; already in danger for some reasons? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22272" RevisionGUID="92e1e1a2-ea42-44ee-8099-2d67419b7683" CreationDate="2020-04-08T14:05:52.517" UserId="24011" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="Last year I joined a project started by a friend. He was working for some years on an electrical device and I helped him in many aspects. Recently, the &quot;project&quot; became a &quot;sellable product&quot;. Everything was developed with no big money investments, but spare time and dedication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that the product has been presented to *many* people, with some very good feedbacks, we are facing the fact that we never issued a patent for it. For many reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- My friend actually had a time in which he considered this possibility, in early years when I was not part of the project. After speaking with a consultant, the idea was not considered to be innovative enough for a patent. But it worth saying that, first, in my opinion the consultant made a rough analysis and it would have been better to spend more time in this &quot;research&quot;. Secondary, my contribution added some values/features that may have changed this initial evaluation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Money: we estimated the cost of having a consultant + issuing a patent in our country, then also in Europe or worldwide. We could have considered it as a big investment, but we both didn't have the possibility to afford it in easy way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Time: we have also received &quot;discouraging opinions&quot; about the efforts needed to issue a patent, in terms of time. We preferred to focus on the development of the technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of today, we still don't actually know if we developed a &quot;technology that worth a patent&quot;, but it is now public and the first beta testers like it. We are planning to establish a legal company in few months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm worried if we missed a big opportunity by not having issued a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be the risks for us in the short and long term? Let's pretend this is actually an innovative thing, is our &quot;business&quot; already in danger for some reasons? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, is it possible to patent our solution now that is public?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22272" RevisionGUID="2978b64a-5b23-4994-a04f-51a61702c3c3" CreationDate="2020-04-08T15:08:19.497" UserId="24011" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="Last year I joined a project started by a friend. He was working for some years on an electrical device and I helped him in many aspects. Recently, the &quot;project&quot; became a &quot;sellable product&quot;. Everything was developed with no big money investments, but spare time and dedication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that the product has been presented to *many* people, with some very good feedbacks, we are facing the fact that we never issued a patent for it. For many reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- My friend actually had a time in which he considered this possibility, in early years when I was not part of the project. After speaking with a consultant, the idea was not considered to be innovative enough for a patent. But it worth saying that, first, in my opinion the consultant made a rough analysis and it would have been better to spend more time in this &quot;research&quot;. Secondary, my contribution added some values/features that may have changed this initial evaluation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Money: we estimated the cost of having a consultant + issuing a patent in our country, then also in Europe or worldwide. We could have considered it as a big investment, but we both didn't have the possibility to afford it in easy way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Time: we have also received &quot;discouraging opinions&quot; about the efforts needed to issue a patent, in terms of time. Since we used our free time, we preferred to focus on the development of the technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of today, we still don't actually know if we developed a &quot;technology that worth a patent&quot;, but it is now public and the first beta testers find it useful. We are planning to establish a legal company in few months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm worried if we missed a big opportunity by not having issued a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be the risks for us in the short and long term? Let's pretend this is really an innovative thing, is our &quot;business&quot; already in danger for some reasons? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, is it possible to patent our solution now that is public?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22273" RevisionGUID="9dd9db0d-ac7f-4053-9322-878f7ee4f28f" CreationDate="2020-04-08T17:52:07.437" UserId="18033" Text="A US patent is still possible until one year after the first publication. Not many other countries offer this though - and with different time frames.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To the risk, well, if your product is easily copyable, it might be copied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other stuff, yes, patents aren't cheap and can be discouraging and there is no promise that your application will be granted. On the other hand, sometimes they do protect your business. Think of it like an insurance. You hope you don't need it, but if you, you better have it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22275" RevisionGUID="a521a0a9-ea95-4513-a605-90c3c83f200a" CreationDate="2020-04-08T19:04:00.533" UserId="3076" Text="Your reasons for not filing are understandable but have no bearing on patentbility. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You say that it has been exposed to many people. As another answer mentioned, for a U.S. patent there is a (limited) 1 year grace period from the first publication. The grace period is also started by a public exposure, demonstration, sale, and offer for sale. Public exposure can be triggered by telling one person without any understanding of confidentially. If all of the beta testers were told to keep the information confidential then your year would not yet have started. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22276" RevisionGUID="1b616a03-1c72-4118-99e1-e8cf5715c29f" CreationDate="2020-04-08T19:08:20.340" UserId="3076" Text="The expiration of the original patent has zero bearing on the patentablity of your improvements. If your improvements are novel and non-obvious considering every that has been previously, including the patent disclosure, you might get a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the old patent is not in force, it would not be an impediment to selling your improved version although other patents might be." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22277" RevisionGUID="3b5693d5-9326-4939-a61f-ed5fc8f286da" CreationDate="2020-04-08T19:28:09.987" UserDisplayName="user24012" Text="Consider the Zuse computer patent submission Z23624, available from http://zuse.zib.de/pdfs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The title on http://zuse.zib.de/pdfs is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patentanmeldung Z23624 &quot;Rechenmaschine&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you look into the PDF, the title is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patentanmeldung Z23624 (Z1)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a footnote&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ZuP 005/012. Version 1, Abbildungen fehlen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is there a difference?  What's the actual title?  And what does &quot;ZuP 005/012, Version 1&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60216" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22277" RevisionGUID="3b5693d5-9326-4939-a61f-ed5fc8f286da" CreationDate="2020-04-08T19:28:09.987" UserDisplayName="user24012" Text="Proper title of Zuse computer patent submission Z23624" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60217" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22277" RevisionGUID="3b5693d5-9326-4939-a61f-ed5fc8f286da" CreationDate="2020-04-08T19:28:09.987" UserDisplayName="user24012" Text="&lt;history&gt;&lt;computer&gt;&lt;germany&gt;&lt;german&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22276" RevisionGUID="d9a8bf9e-3dc6-4917-9cbb-67b39c102ec8" CreationDate="2020-04-08T19:44:53.340" UserId="3076" Comment="added 133 characters in body" Text="Patents are applied for the benefit of the true inventor or the inventor's assignee. If you didn't invent it you can't patent it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The expiration of the original patent has zero bearing on the patentablity of your improvements. If your improvements are novel and non-obvious considering every that has been previously, including the patent disclosure, you might get a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the old patent is not in force, it would not be an impediment to selling your improved version although other patents might be." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60219" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="22277" RevisionGUID="a166ac4b-b9c0-4764-9612-9ceb201a6847" CreationDate="2020-04-08T21:40:59.420" UserDisplayName="user24012" Comment="edited title" Text="Proper title of Zuse patent submission Z23624" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22277" RevisionGUID="a166ac4b-b9c0-4764-9612-9ceb201a6847" CreationDate="2020-04-08T21:40:59.420" UserDisplayName="user24012" Comment="edited title" Text="Consider the Zuse computer patent submission Z23624, available from the [Konrad Zuse Internet Archive](http://zuse.zib.de/pdfs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The title of the ZIA ID 0177 in http://zuse.zib.de/pdfs is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patentanmeldung Z23624 &quot;Rechenmaschine&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you look into the PDF, the title is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patentanmeldung Z23624 (Z1)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a footnote&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ZuP 005/012. Version 1, Abbildungen fehlen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is there a difference?  What's the actual title?  And what does &quot;ZuP 005/012, Version 1&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22276" RevisionGUID="7f1251d3-0f47-4580-99ab-ae4c2138bf76" CreationDate="2020-04-08T22:41:43.987" UserId="3076" Comment="added 195 characters in body" Text="**No**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents are applied for the benefit of the true inventor or the inventor's assignee. If you didn't invent it you can't patent it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The expiration of the original patent has zero bearing on the patentablity of your improvements. If your improvements are novel and non-obvious considering every that has been previously, including the patent disclosure, you might get a patent. This is based on the disclosure in the published application/patent regardless of its status as an in-force patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, assuming a product based on the improved version infringes the claims of the original, the original would not be an impediment to selling your new version since the old patent is not in force.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22278" RevisionGUID="55d1fb46-f40e-4b7e-a278-e7eca7fab36f" CreationDate="2020-04-09T12:14:43.307" UserId="24015" Text="Time stamp gives you a minimum protection :&#xD;&#xA;For moral rights, it is a proof that you invented first. &#xD;&#xA;For commercial rights, as it is mentioned above a patent is the only guarantee for owning rights on the invitation. Still, in most countries, a time stamp or a local patent request allows you to prove in front of a judge that you own/share rights on the invention in that country. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22279" RevisionGUID="bd1d10d3-7dc1-46e0-924d-6de145389e1b" CreationDate="2020-04-09T13:16:42.133" UserId="17003" Text="I have no special knowledge in this, but can use Google to translate German to English. &quot;Patentanmeldung&quot; means patent application and &quot;Rechenmaschine&quot; means mechanical calculator. It seems obvious to me that &quot;Patentanmeldung Z23624 (Z1)&quot; is simply the patent application number and that the actual application title is &quot;Rechenmaschine&quot;. As for &quot;Abbildungen fehlen&quot;, that means illustrations are missing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22281" RevisionGUID="adee836c-5590-4e79-9730-98625b3c25a6" CreationDate="2020-04-10T14:41:56.353" UserId="22533" Text="I believe Adobe Flex (Macromedia) generated AS3 (ECMAScript) for it's AIR platform, which ran on any and all mobile operating systems." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22267" RevisionGUID="54d703ce-4361-4d7c-9b52-092d1dec1283" CreationDate="2020-04-11T18:07:58.600" UserId="3076" Comment="added 385 characters in body" Text="This is very basic patent information that is duplicated in many previous answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Each claim stands alone as something that defines a device, system or method that would constitute infringement. A product might infringe one or more claims of a patent. Infringing one claim is infringing the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. To infringe a claim a product must contain all of the elements of that claim. In a method claim that would mean performing all of the steps. In a system claim it would require possess all elements with those elements related to each other as defined in the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. A claim can be written to encompass a whole system; other claims can be written to sub-components of that system. However to be granted, each claim must define something patentable - that is, something useful, novel and non-obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Technology&quot; patents are mentioned in the question. That is not a specific category in U.S. patent law. We have three kinds of patents - *Utility* (a normal patent with one or more claims to something with utility) *Design* (With a single claim to the ornamental characteristics of a product) and *Plant* (covers new plants created from non-reproductive cells of the plant).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re: &quot;technology patent&quot; - the answer is the same for all utility patents whether or not you would view them as involving technology. By the way, in much of the world a patent must be a technological solution to a technological problem. That is not true in the U.S. - we can patent a novel device for amusement that spins around, or a physically novel game piece/board, for example &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60229" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="21230" RevisionGUID="9c4a02c1-76bf-4ed3-808f-f3426cb7df2a" CreationDate="2020-04-11T22:01:10.340" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22282" RevisionGUID="3edc175f-a54a-43c7-9e26-282ebf26307b" CreationDate="2020-04-12T06:11:51.033" UserId="24018" Text="I'm a newbie in patent research. I'm presently given a task to find a prior-art on some documents, to be candid, I don't know. Could experts here help suggest A GET STARTED approach? It could be done docs or anything. Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60231" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22282" RevisionGUID="3edc175f-a54a-43c7-9e26-282ebf26307b" CreationDate="2020-04-12T06:11:51.033" UserId="24018" Text="Guides for a newbie patent researcher" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60232" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22282" RevisionGUID="3edc175f-a54a-43c7-9e26-282ebf26307b" CreationDate="2020-04-12T06:11:51.033" UserId="24018" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;prior-art-request&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60233" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="9c2e087f-11ce-4b70-9f59-136292ea719a" CreationDate="2020-04-12T10:00:50.310" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60234" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19823" RevisionGUID="a6c548c5-7030-465b-a2b1-4be32c7adc12" CreationDate="2020-04-12T13:04:05.620" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60235" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="21232" RevisionGUID="5bd0e5d1-1f74-4d84-be6e-8a3d5e4f927a" CreationDate="2020-04-12T18:02:05.270" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60236" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20647" RevisionGUID="514506f7-6058-4252-b307-f3825602825f" CreationDate="2020-04-14T04:03:10.347" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60237" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="22282" RevisionGUID="6ea0e864-231d-4262-ae81-3baba3fb013f" CreationDate="2020-04-14T09:09:17.230" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[10431],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3076,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George White&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="60238" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="fbdc4ad2-519c-4a02-ae08-3bfa888640d5" CreationDate="2020-04-14T21:02:30.367" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60239" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19163" RevisionGUID="923bb87a-8a9c-4d8a-9efe-c9f7b39eff3e" CreationDate="2020-04-15T16:36:20.070" UserId="24020" Comment="Corrected grammar in question title" Text="How do entrepreneurs determine if their idea is not infringing any patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60240" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19163" RevisionGUID="923bb87a-8a9c-4d8a-9efe-c9f7b39eff3e" CreationDate="2020-04-15T16:36:20.070" Comment="Proposed by 24020 approved by 18033, 17003 edit id of 2120" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60241" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20341" RevisionGUID="e0cc3e4c-3e02-42cf-bf63-21f7e7dc7ebb" CreationDate="2020-04-15T16:36:37.700" UserId="11791" Comment="Much needed cleanup, added tag" Text="Does anyone know how to do a safe query of the: USPTO Patent Application Full-Text and Image Database (AppFT)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When queries to the database essentially go across the web either to your VPN host or your client browser on your PC.  Previous to 2017, it WAS secured utilizing SSL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quick search web address - http://appft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without inadvertently revealing IP when narrowing down the search to final patent #'s and classifications ?  Many time one must get very specific to identify prior artwork or patent #'s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is no longer hosted at USPTO using any type of SSL (https://) security, it appears to be open text from the host end.  No amount of VPN protection from the client can secure the connection (end to end) either. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google patents does host all their patent database on SSL server,  But then again its google,  They probably already have the entirety of your IP before you thought of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60242" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="20341" RevisionGUID="e0cc3e4c-3e02-42cf-bf63-21f7e7dc7ebb" CreationDate="2020-04-15T16:36:37.700" UserId="11791" Comment="Much needed cleanup, added tag" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;search&gt;&lt;prior&gt;&lt;art&gt;&lt;security&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60243" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="20341" RevisionGUID="e0cc3e4c-3e02-42cf-bf63-21f7e7dc7ebb" CreationDate="2020-04-15T16:36:37.700" Comment="Proposed by 11791 approved by 18033, 17003 edit id of 2121" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60244" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="10d6c2d8-7213-42cf-8d9e-81006071026a" CreationDate="2020-04-16T02:01:05.173" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60248" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12028" RevisionGUID="48915ad6-a36d-439a-ab82-77f64f3f9c11" CreationDate="2020-04-16T21:01:45.223" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60249" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17720" RevisionGUID="b22d1664-a553-4e7a-b236-4f53e30770f2" CreationDate="2020-04-17T08:00:11.320" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60250" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="b2f0a677-d2d8-46e9-a9d6-ab6418bd7a37" CreationDate="2020-04-17T13:00:00.183" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60251" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20667" RevisionGUID="5c5c366d-dbc2-4c0f-b561-f2f7ec41a6de" CreationDate="2020-04-18T01:03:30.333" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60252" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="f6e1357e-6094-4046-8fc2-eecfb76c1660" CreationDate="2020-04-18T04:05:55.860" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22284" RevisionGUID="9defc3e7-b8eb-4631-b063-7dbb1abbecb2" CreationDate="2020-04-18T11:30:05.743" UserId="24037" Text="During my PhD, I designed an algorithm that has been patented. For this patent, I share part of the intellectual property with my old University. After publication of the patent, we have also produced a scientific paper that has been published on a research journal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this situation, my understanding is that the method cannot be used for commercial applications but can be used for the purpose of academic research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions is, can I still share the code online to allow other researcher / interested people to try the technique for themeselves? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe I should add a disclaimer saying that it can't be used for commercial applications if you are not authorized. For example, that seems to be the case for the SIFT implementation in OpenCV. Note that both the paper and the patent already give more than enough information on how to reproduce the algorithm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60254" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22284" RevisionGUID="9defc3e7-b8eb-4631-b063-7dbb1abbecb2" CreationDate="2020-04-18T11:30:05.743" UserId="24037" Text="Can I share the code forn algorithm I patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60255" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22284" RevisionGUID="9defc3e7-b8eb-4631-b063-7dbb1abbecb2" CreationDate="2020-04-18T11:30:05.743" UserId="24037" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60256" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="22284" RevisionGUID="b7c5561e-72b0-4fd1-b6c4-2b8836f77fdb" CreationDate="2020-04-18T13:44:25.440" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed minor misspelling" Text="Can I share the code for an algorithm I patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22285" RevisionGUID="230ab53a-caee-4b3f-8011-c29e219f2c55" CreationDate="2020-04-18T13:52:34.517" UserId="17003" Text="My understanding is that the [research exemption][1] is narrow and primarily aimed at generic drug development. Just because the algorithm might be used by an academic institution doesn't mean it avoids infringement. After all, the institution avoids purchasing the patented software which means a potential loss of income for the patent holder. That said, the owner of the patent decides whether or not to pursue infringement. You could work out an agreement with your university to allow purely academic usage and make that publically known.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please understand that I am not a lawyer so this isn't legal advice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_exemption" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22285" RevisionGUID="56dc0ef3-56fa-4b2c-9834-a8533ed89dcd" CreationDate="2020-04-18T15:19:02.697" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="My understanding is that the [research exemption][1] is narrow and primarily aimed at generic drug development. Just because the algorithm might be used by an academic institution doesn't mean it avoids infringement. After all, the institution avoids purchasing the patented software which means a potential loss of income for the patent holder. That said, the owner of the patent decides whether or not to pursue infringement. You could work out an agreement with your university to allow purely academic usage and make that publicly known.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please understand that I am not a lawyer so this isn't legal advice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_exemption" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22286" RevisionGUID="ac920907-2762-4d4f-86b8-27cce4d13702" CreationDate="2020-04-19T20:05:53.453" UserId="24040" Text="What is the best way to file a US patent Provisional or non-provisional or PCT?&#xD;&#xA;We have developed novel materials and examined thier utilization in the real application as well as have all evidence. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60260" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22286" RevisionGUID="ac920907-2762-4d4f-86b8-27cce4d13702" CreationDate="2020-04-19T20:05:53.453" UserId="24040" Text="Wat is the best way to file patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60261" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22286" RevisionGUID="ac920907-2762-4d4f-86b8-27cce4d13702" CreationDate="2020-04-19T20:05:53.453" UserId="24040" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;filling&gt;&lt;non-provesional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60262" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="69e060ee-7522-4cac-9e14-d4b8fdd73dad" CreationDate="2020-04-19T23:04:20.440" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60263" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="22286" RevisionGUID="e54412d9-f559-42f9-a628-aad09e0aad12" CreationDate="2020-04-20T02:51:15.383" UserId="17003" Comment="edited title; edited body" Text="What is the best way to file patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22286" RevisionGUID="e54412d9-f559-42f9-a628-aad09e0aad12" CreationDate="2020-04-20T02:51:15.383" UserId="17003" Comment="edited title; edited body" Text="What is the best way to file a US patent Provisional or non-provisional or PCT?&#xD;&#xA;We have developed novel materials and examined their utilization in the real application as well as have all evidence. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60265" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20880" RevisionGUID="efab98ff-bb67-4840-adad-415dbd7ca368" CreationDate="2020-04-20T12:07:30.860" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22287" RevisionGUID="6dc06958-079e-4a17-b13b-14664cf78f06" CreationDate="2020-04-21T10:07:07.587" UserId="21925" Text="I have been following a (U.S.) patent for a particular type of technology. The patent application for this technology specifies that it was published in 2017, with a related patent by the same inventors published in 2015. This technology is based on research conducted and published by the inventors. Both patents were awarded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When researching the aforementioned technology, I noticed a patent that was published in 2018, by different inventors, for a subcomponent of the technology. It could, possibly, be considered that this new patent (by the new inventors) does not *explicitly* and *completely* specify this subcomponent in the same way as in the researchers' patent, but it *effectively* does. This subcomponent was not the main focus of the patents by the researchers, but it was, as I said, a *subcomponent* of the device, and, as such, it is specified in the description (both in textual and graphical (for instance, as a module in a flowchart) form) and claims. Being included in the description and claims, the subcomponent is heavily implied to be a certain way (in a utility sense -- not to be confused with a design sense), even if this is not stated *explicitly* and *completely*. First of all, the **context** (use case for the technology, etc.) of the patent is precisely within the same area/scope as the aforementioned patent (and this is so in the patent *claims* themselves -- not just the description). Secondly, the **type of surface on which the technology is specified to act**, and the **body on which it is specified to act**, is identical to that of the researchers' patent, and is specified as part of the claims themselves. Lastly, the **mechanism of action** (radiation), and **the device/technology that is responsible for this mechanism of action** is identical to that of the researchers' patent. The only differences seem the be the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *How the inventors use the technology*; specifically, the authors are just measuring some different property/signal of the body in question, using (effectively) the same technology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The *explicit description* of the subcomponent. To expand on this point, since I think it is essential to understand what I mean when I keep saying &quot;effectively&quot; and &quot;completely&quot;, in addition to what I have already described above, the new inventors describe the subcomponent apparatus to be an *integrated* device -- which is already implied by the researchers' patent -- and to consist of various processing/communication modules and capabilities -- which is also implied by the researchers' patent, in the sense that the *entire* device, which includes this subcomponent, would include these modules and capabilities -- they would not necessarily be exclusive to this subcomponent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regards to 1., my understanding is that patents are on the *technology itself*, rather than on how it is used (or, in this case, what it is used to measure), right? So it seems to me that this would be invalid. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regards to 2., if we ignore how the technology is used, these are just blatantly obvious ideas that, it would seem to me, a reasonable person would deduce as having been obviously implied by the researchers' in their patent. In fact, this just seems like a game where the new inventors have (1) extracted a subcomponent of the larger device, (2) changed precisely what signal is being measured, and (3) added some of the processing/communication modules that would have already existed in the larger device, effectively making the subcomponent its own &quot;standalone&quot; device (although, it is technically already a &quot;standalone&quot; device, from an engineering standpoint, as an embedded system that is part of a larger system/device).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I've said, this is only a subcomponent of the technology that the researchers' patented, so, if my understanding of patent law is correct, it is not *itself* patented. However, my point is that *it is **(effectively) described***, in this form, in the researchers' patent itself, and so, it seems to me, that it also *cannot reasonably be patented*, no? Especially considering the fact that, based on everything I've described, it seems that the new inventors did not do anything novel/inventive here? But the U.S. Patent Office *did* issue them the patent, which seems ridiculous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I've purposely waited till the end to include this, since it is legally irrelevant and I didn't want it to affect the judgement of those answering, but, upon seeing the (foreign) names of the inventors and Googling their corporation in question and seeing the website, it seems clear that this is a &quot;patent troll&quot;. Based on the similarities I've described, it seems very likely that these trolls saw the patents of the researchers and then decided to do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on my following of the researchers' work, I was planning to use the technology in precisely the way that the new inventors have patented it (and I assumed that this would be fine, since, as I said, it is a subcomponent that, although described in the patent, was not itself patented, and therefore it is not patentable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what do you all think? Is this patent likely to be invalidated in a legal battle, as I highly suspect? If so, then I will ignore it and continue with my startup work till the time comes (and I'm better financially positioned to attack it). At this stage, before it escalates to a legal battle, can the USPO be appealed to review and invalidate it? I would greatly appreciate it if people would please advise me (disclaimer: not as formal legal advice, obviously) on this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60267" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22287" RevisionGUID="6dc06958-079e-4a17-b13b-14664cf78f06" CreationDate="2020-04-21T10:07:07.587" UserId="21925" Text="Non-novel/non-inventive patent of subcomponent of device that was already previously patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60268" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22287" RevisionGUID="6dc06958-079e-4a17-b13b-14664cf78f06" CreationDate="2020-04-21T10:07:07.587" UserId="21925" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;utility-patent&gt;&lt;troll&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22287" RevisionGUID="21753c1a-e47d-446e-b149-27ade7c8bc66" CreationDate="2020-04-21T10:13:31.273" UserId="21925" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I have been following a (U.S.) patent for a particular type of technology. The patent application for this technology specifies that it was published in 2017, with a related patent by the same inventors published in 2015. This technology is based on research conducted and published by the inventors. Both patents were awarded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When researching the aforementioned technology, I noticed a patent that was published in 2018, by different inventors, for a subcomponent of the technology. It could, possibly, be considered that this new patent (by the new inventors) does not *explicitly* and *completely* specify this subcomponent in the same way as in the researchers' patent, but it *effectively* does. This subcomponent was not the main focus of the patents by the researchers, but it was, as I said, a *subcomponent* of the device, and, as such, it is specified in the description (both in textual and graphical (for instance, as a module in a flowchart) form) and claims. Being included in the description and claims, the subcomponent is heavily implied to be a certain way (in a utility sense -- not to be confused with a design sense), even if this is not stated *explicitly* and *completely*. First of all, the **context** (use case for the technology, etc.) of the patent is precisely within the same area/scope as the aforementioned patent (and this is so in the patent *claims* themselves -- not just the description). Secondly, the **type of surface on which the technology is specified to act**, and the **body on which it is specified to act**, is identical to that of the researchers' patent, and is specified as part of the claims themselves. Lastly, the **mechanism of action** (radiation), and **the device/technology that is responsible for this mechanism of action** is identical to that of the researchers' patent. The only differences seem the be the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *How the inventors use the technology*; specifically, the new inventors are just measuring some different property/signal of the body in question, using (effectively) the same technology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The *explicit description* of the subcomponent. To expand on this point, since I think it is essential to understand what I mean when I keep saying &quot;effectively&quot; and &quot;completely&quot;, in addition to what I have already described above, the new inventors describe the subcomponent apparatus to be an *integrated* device -- which is already implied by the researchers' patent -- and to consist of various processing/communication modules and capabilities -- which is also implied by the researchers' patent, in the sense that the *entire* device, which includes this subcomponent, would include these modules and capabilities -- they would not necessarily be exclusive to this subcomponent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regards to 1., my understanding is that patents are on the *technology itself*, rather than on how it is used (or, in this case, what it is used to measure), right? So it seems to me that this would be invalid. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regards to 2., if we ignore how the technology is used, these are just blatantly obvious ideas that, it would seem to me, a reasonable person would deduce as having been obviously implied by the researchers' in their patent. In fact, this just seems like a game where the new inventors have (1) extracted a subcomponent of the larger device, (2) changed precisely what signal is being measured, and (3) added some of the processing/communication modules that would have already existed in the larger device, effectively making the subcomponent its own &quot;standalone&quot; device (although, it is technically already a &quot;standalone&quot; device, from an engineering standpoint, as an embedded system that is part of a larger system/device).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I've said, this is only a subcomponent of the technology that the researchers' patented, so, if my understanding of patent law is correct, it is not *itself* patented. However, my point is that *it is **(effectively) described***, in this form, in the researchers' patent itself, and so, it seems to me, that it also *cannot reasonably be patented*, no? Especially considering the fact that, based on everything I've described, it seems that the new inventors did not do anything novel/inventive here? But the U.S. Patent Office *did* issue them the patent, which seems ridiculous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I've purposely waited till the end to include this, since it is legally irrelevant and I didn't want it to affect the judgement of those answering, but, upon seeing the (foreign) names of the inventors and Googling their corporation in question and seeing the website, it seems clear that this is a &quot;patent troll&quot;. Based on the similarities I've described, it seems very likely that these trolls saw the patents of the researchers and then decided to do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on my following of the researchers' work, I was planning to use the technology in precisely the way that the new inventors have patented it (and I assumed that this would be fine, since, as I said, it is a subcomponent that, although described in the patent, was not itself patented, and therefore it is not patentable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what do you all think? Is this patent likely to be invalidated in a legal battle, as I highly suspect? If so, then I will ignore it and continue with my startup work till the time comes (and I'm better financially positioned to attack it). At this stage, before it escalates to a legal battle, can the USPO be appealed to review and invalidate it? I would greatly appreciate it if people would please advise me (disclaimer: not as formal legal advice, obviously) on this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22287" RevisionGUID="64b01f64-11b4-41df-b95d-dab6e673278f" CreationDate="2020-04-21T10:21:36.067" UserId="21925" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="I have been following a (U.S.) patent for a particular type of technology. The patent application for this technology specifies that it was published in 2017, with a related patent by the same inventors published in 2015. This technology is based on research conducted and published by the inventors. Both patents were awarded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When researching the aforementioned technology, I noticed a patent that was published in 2018, by different inventors, for a subcomponent of the technology. It could, possibly, be considered that this new patent (by the new inventors) does not *explicitly* and *completely* specify this subcomponent in the same way as in the researchers' patent, but it *effectively* does. This subcomponent was not the main focus of the patents by the researchers, but it was, as I said, a *subcomponent* of the device, and, as such, it is specified in the description (both in textual and graphical (for instance, as a module in a flowchart) form) and mentioned in the claims. **(To be clear, since it is a subcomponent and not the focus of the patent, the claims do not focus on the subcomponent itself in such a way as to patent the subcomponent; rather, the claims focus on the device itself, thereby mentioning the subcomponent in the context of that larger system. However, the device description (that is, all the information before the claims in the patent), does include much more information about the subcomponent.)** Being included in the description and claims, the subcomponent is heavily implied to be a certain way (in a utility sense -- not to be confused with a design sense), even if this is not stated *explicitly* and *completely*. First of all, the **context** (use case for the technology, etc.) of the patent is precisely within the same area/scope as the aforementioned patent (and this is so in the patent *claims* themselves -- not just the description). Secondly, the **type of surface on which the technology is specified to act**, and the **body on which it is specified to act**, is identical to that of the researchers' patent, and is specified as part of the claims themselves. Lastly, the **mechanism of action** (radiation), and **the device/technology that is responsible for this mechanism of action** is identical to that of the researchers' patent. The only differences seem the be the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *How the inventors use the technology*; specifically, the new inventors are just measuring some different property/signal of the body in question, using (effectively) the same technology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The *explicit description* of the subcomponent. To expand on this point, since I think it is essential to understand what I mean when I keep saying &quot;effectively&quot; and &quot;completely&quot;, in addition to what I have already described above, the new inventors describe the subcomponent apparatus to be an *integrated* device -- which is already implied by the researchers' patent -- and to consist of various processing/communication modules and capabilities -- which is also implied by the researchers' patent, in the sense that the *entire* device, which includes this subcomponent, would include these modules and capabilities -- they would not necessarily be exclusive to this subcomponent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regards to 1., my understanding is that patents are on the *technology itself*, rather than on how it is used (or, in this case, what it is used to measure), right? So it seems to me that this would be invalid. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regards to 2., if we ignore how the technology is used, these are just blatantly obvious ideas that, it would seem to me, a reasonable person would deduce as having been obviously implied by the researchers' in their patent. In fact, this just seems like a game where the new inventors have (1) extracted a subcomponent of the larger device, (2) changed precisely what signal is being measured, and (3) added some of the processing/communication modules that would have already existed in the larger device, effectively making the subcomponent its own &quot;standalone&quot; device (although, it is technically already a &quot;standalone&quot; device, from an engineering standpoint, as an embedded system that is part of a larger system/device).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I've said, this is only a subcomponent of the technology that the researchers' patented, so, if my understanding of patent law is correct, it is not *itself* patented. However, my point is that *it is **(effectively) described***, in this form, in the researchers' patent itself, and so, it seems to me, that it also *cannot reasonably be patented*, no? Especially considering the fact that, based on everything I've described, it seems that the new inventors did not do anything novel/inventive here? But the U.S. Patent Office *did* issue them the patent, which seems ridiculous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I've purposely waited till the end to include this, since it is legally irrelevant and I didn't want it to affect the judgement of those answering, but, upon seeing the (foreign) names of the inventors and Googling their corporation in question and seeing the website, it seems clear that this is a &quot;patent troll&quot;. Based on the similarities I've described, it seems very likely that these trolls saw the patents of the researchers and then decided to do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on my following of the researchers' work, I was planning to use the technology in precisely the way that the new inventors have patented it (and I assumed that this would be fine, since, as I said, it is a subcomponent that, although described in the patent, was not itself patented, and therefore it is not patentable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what do you all think? Is this patent likely to be invalidated in a legal battle, as I highly suspect? If so, then I will ignore it and continue with my startup work till the time comes (and I'm better financially positioned to attack it). At this stage, before it escalates to a legal battle, can the USPO be appealed to review and invalidate it? I would greatly appreciate it if people would please advise me (not as formal legal advice, obviously) on this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22287" RevisionGUID="4a5f5277-5ce2-43f2-808e-50f37bc00c42" CreationDate="2020-04-21T10:31:15.750" UserId="21925" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I have been following a (U.S.) patent for a particular type of technology. The patent application for this technology specifies that it was published in 2017, with a related patent by the same inventors published in 2015. This technology is based on research conducted and published by the inventors. Both patents were awarded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When researching the aforementioned technology, I noticed a patent that was published in 2018, by different inventors, for a subcomponent of the technology. It could, possibly, be considered that this new patent (by the new inventors) does not *explicitly* and *completely* specify this subcomponent in the same way as in the researchers' patent, but it *effectively* does. This subcomponent was not the main focus of the patents by the researchers, but it was, as I said, a *subcomponent* of the device, and, as such, it is specified in the description (both in textual and graphical (for instance, as a module in a flowchart) form) and mentioned in the claims. **(To be clear, since it is a subcomponent and not the focus of the patent, the claims do not focus on the subcomponent itself in such a way as to patent the subcomponent; rather, the claims focus on the device itself, thereby mentioning the subcomponent in the context of that larger system. However, the device description (that is, all the information before the claims in the patent), does include much more information about the subcomponent.)** Being included in the description and claims, the subcomponent is heavily implied to be a certain way (in a utility sense -- not to be confused with a design sense), even if this is not stated *explicitly* and *completely*. First of all, the **context** (use case for the technology, etc.) of the patent is precisely within the same area/scope as the aforementioned patent (and this is so in the patent *claims* themselves -- not just the description). Secondly, the **type of surface on which the technology is specified to act**, and the **body on which it is specified to act**, is identical to that of the researchers' patent, and is specified as part of the claims themselves. Lastly, the **mechanism of action** (radiation), and **the device/technology that is responsible for this mechanism of action** is identical to that of the researchers' patent. The only differences seem the be the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *How the inventors use the technology*; specifically, the new inventors are just measuring some different property/signal of the body in question, using (effectively) the same technology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The *explicit description* of the subcomponent. To expand on this point, since I think it is essential to understand what I mean when I keep saying &quot;effectively&quot; and &quot;completely&quot;, in addition to what I have already described above, the new inventors describe the subcomponent apparatus to be an *integrated* device -- which is already implied by the researchers' patent -- and to consist of various processing/communication modules and capabilities -- which is also implied by the researchers' patent, in the sense that the *entire* device, which includes this subcomponent, would include these modules and capabilities -- they would not necessarily be exclusive to this subcomponent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regards to 1., my understanding is that patents are on the *technology itself*, rather than on how it is used (or, in this case, what it is used to measure), right? So it seems to me that this would be invalid. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regards to 2., if we ignore how the technology is used, these are just blatantly obvious ideas that, it would seem to me, a reasonable person would deduce as having been obviously implied by the researchers' in their patents. In fact, this just seems like a game where the new inventors have (1) extracted a subcomponent of the larger device, (2) changed precisely what signal is being measured by said subcomponent, and (3) added some of the processing/communication modules that would have already existed in the larger device, effectively making the subcomponent its own &quot;standalone&quot; device (although, it is technically already a &quot;standalone&quot; device, from an engineering standpoint, as an embedded system that is part of a larger system/device).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I've said, this is only a subcomponent of the technology that the researchers' patented, so, if my understanding of patent law is correct, it is not *itself* patented. However, my point is that *it is **(effectively) described***, in this form, in the researchers' patent itself, and so, it seems to me that it also *cannot reasonably be patented*, no? Especially considering the fact that, based on everything I've described, it seems that the new inventors did not do anything novel/inventive here? But the U.S. Patent Office *did* issue them the patent, which seems ridiculous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I've purposely waited till the end to include this, since it is legally irrelevant, and I didn't want it to affect the judgement of those answering, but, upon seeing the (foreign) names of the inventors and Googling their corporation in question and seeing the website, it seems clear that this is a &quot;patent troll&quot;. Based on the similarities I've described, it seems very likely that these trolls saw the patents of the researchers and then decided to do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on my following of the researchers' work, I was planning to use the technology in precisely the way that the new inventors have patented it (and I assumed that this would be fine, since, as I said, it is a subcomponent that, although described in the patent, was not itself patented, and therefore it is not patentable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what do you all think? Is this patent likely to be invalidated in a legal battle, as I highly suspect? If so, then I will ignore it and continue with my startup work till the time comes (and I'm better financially positioned to attack it). At this stage, before it escalates to a legal battle, can the USPO be appealed to review and invalidate it? I would greatly appreciate it if people would please advise me (not as formal legal advice, obviously) on this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22287" RevisionGUID="eaf0757e-23e8-4ec6-91a5-12072c3f371f" CreationDate="2020-04-21T10:36:49.747" UserId="21925" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="I have been following a (U.S.) patent for a particular type of technology. The patent application for this technology specifies that it was published in 2017, with a related patent by the same inventors published in 2015. This technology is based on research conducted and published by the inventors. Both patents were awarded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When researching the aforementioned technology, I noticed a patent that was published in 2018, by different inventors, for a subcomponent of the technology. It could, possibly, be considered that this new patent (by the new inventors) does not *explicitly* and *completely* specify this subcomponent in the same way as in the researchers' patent, but it *effectively* does. This subcomponent was not the main focus of the patents by the researchers, but it was, as I said, a *subcomponent* of the device, and, as such, it is specified in the description (both in textual and graphical (for instance, as a module in a flowchart) form) and mentioned in the claims. **(To be clear, since it is a subcomponent and not the focus of the patent, the claims do not focus on the subcomponent itself in such a way as to patent the subcomponent; rather, the claims focus on the device itself, thereby mentioning the subcomponent in the context of that larger system. However, the device description (that is, all the information before the claims in the patent), does include much more information about the subcomponent.)** Being included in the description and claims, the subcomponent is heavily implied to be a certain way (in a utility sense -- not to be confused with a design sense), even if this is not stated *explicitly* and *completely*. First of all, the **context** (use case for the technology, etc.) of the patent is precisely within the same area/scope as the aforementioned patent (and this is so in the patent *claims* themselves -- not just the description). Secondly, the **type of surface on which the technology is specified to act**, and the **body on which it is specified to act**, is identical to that of the researchers' patent, and is specified as part of the claims themselves. Lastly, the **mechanism of action** (radiation), and **the device/technology that is responsible for this mechanism of action** is identical to that of the researchers' patent. The only differences seem the be the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *How the inventors use the technology*; specifically, the new inventors are just measuring some different property/signal of the body in question, using (effectively) the same technology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The *explicit description* of the subcomponent. To expand on this point, since I think it is essential to understand what I mean when I keep saying &quot;effectively&quot; and &quot;completely&quot;, in addition to what I have already described above, the new inventors describe the subcomponent apparatus to be an *integrated* device -- which is already implied by the researchers' patent -- and to consist of various processing/communication modules and capabilities -- which is also implied by the researchers' patent, in the sense that the *entire* device, which includes this subcomponent, would include these modules and capabilities -- they would not necessarily be exclusive to this subcomponent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regards to 1., my understanding is that patents are on the *technology itself*, rather than on how it is used (or, in this case, what it is used to measure), right? So it seems to me that this would be invalid. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regards to 2., if we ignore how the technology is used, these are just blatantly obvious ideas that, it would seem to me, a reasonable person would deduce as having been obviously implied by the researchers' in their patents. In fact, this just seems like a game where the new inventors have (1) extracted a subcomponent of the larger device, (2) changed precisely what signal is being measured by said subcomponent, and (3) added some of the processing/communication modules that would have already existed in the larger device, effectively making the subcomponent its own &quot;standalone&quot; device (although, it is technically already a &quot;standalone&quot; device, from an engineering standpoint, as an embedded system that is part of a larger system/device).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I've said, this is only a subcomponent of the technology that the researchers' patented, so, if my understanding of patent law is correct, it is not *itself* patented. However, my point is that *it is **(effectively) described***, in this form, in the researchers' patent itself, and so, it seems to me that it also *cannot reasonably be patented*, no? Especially considering the fact that, based on everything I've described, it seems that the new inventors did not do anything novel/inventive here? But the U.S. Patent Office *did* issue them the patent, which seems ridiculous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I've purposely waited till the end to include this, since it is legally irrelevant, and I didn't want it to affect the judgement of those answering, but, upon seeing the (foreign) names of the inventors and Googling their corporation in question and seeing the website, it seems clear that this is a &quot;patent troll&quot;. Based on the similarities I've described, it seems very likely that these trolls saw the patents of the researchers and then decided to do this, as opposed to having invented this independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on my following of the researchers' work, I was planning to use the technology in precisely the way that the new inventors have patented it (and I presumed that this would be fine, since, as I said, it is a subcomponent that, although described in the patent, was not itself patented, and therefore it is not patentable, right?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what do you all think? Is this patent likely to be invalidated in a legal battle, as I suspect? If so, then I will ignore it and continue with my startup work till the time comes (and I'm better financially positioned to attack it). At this stage, before it escalates to a legal battle, can the USPTO be appealed to review and invalidate it? I would greatly appreciate it if people would please advise me (not as formal legal advice, obviously) on this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22287" RevisionGUID="b873f394-0df8-40be-8def-0ffda15ea1cb" CreationDate="2020-04-21T11:02:26.537" UserId="21925" Comment="added 260 characters in body" Text="I have been following a (U.S.) patent for a particular type of technology. The patent application for this technology specifies that it was published in 2017, with a related patent by the same inventors published in 2015. This technology is based on research conducted and published by the inventors. Both patents were awarded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When researching the aforementioned technology, I noticed a patent that was published in 2018, by different inventors, for a subcomponent of the technology. It could, possibly, be considered that this new patent (by the new inventors) does not *explicitly* and *completely* specify this subcomponent in the same way as in the researchers' patent, but it *effectively* does. This subcomponent was not the main focus of the patents by the researchers, but it was, as I said, a *subcomponent* of the device, and, as such, it is specified in the description (both in textual and graphical (for instance, as a module in a flowchart) form) and mentioned in the claims. **(To be clear, since it is a subcomponent and not the focus of the patent, the claims do not focus on the subcomponent itself in such a way as to patent the subcomponent; rather, the claims focus on the device itself, thereby mentioning the subcomponent in the context of that larger system. However, the device description (that is, all the information before the claims in the patent), does include much more information about the subcomponent.)** Being included in the description and claims, the subcomponent is heavily implied to be a certain way (in a utility sense -- not to be confused with a design sense), even if this is not stated *explicitly* and *completely*. First of all, the **context** (use case for the technology, etc.) of the patent is precisely within the same area/scope as the aforementioned patent (and this is so in the patent *claims* themselves -- not just the description). Secondly, the **type of surface on which the technology is specified to act**, and the **body on which it is specified to act**, is identical to that of the researchers' patent, and is specified as part of the claims themselves. Lastly, the **mechanism of action** (radiation), and **the device/technology that is responsible for this mechanism of action** is identical to that of the researchers' patent. The only differences seem the be the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *How the inventors use the technology*; specifically, the new inventors are just measuring some different property/signal of the body in question, using (effectively) the same technology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The *explicit description* of the subcomponent. To expand on this point, since I think it is essential to understand what I mean when I keep saying &quot;effectively&quot; and &quot;completely&quot;, in addition to what I have already described above, the new inventors describe the subcomponent apparatus to be an *integrated* device -- which is already implied by the researchers' patent -- and to consist of various processing/communication modules and capabilities -- which is also implied by the researchers' patent, in the sense that the *entire* device, which includes this subcomponent, would include these modules and capabilities -- they would not necessarily be exclusive to this subcomponent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regards to 1., my understanding is that patents are on the *technology itself*, rather than on how it is used (or, in this case, what it is used to measure), right? So it seems to me that this would be invalid. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regards to 2., if we ignore how the technology is used, these are just blatantly obvious ideas that, it would seem to me, a reasonable person would deduce as having been obviously implied by the researchers' in their patents. In fact, this just seems like a game where the new inventors have (1) extracted a subcomponent of the larger device, (2) changed precisely what signal is being measured by said subcomponent, and (3) added some of the processing/communication modules that would have already existed in the larger device, effectively making the subcomponent its own &quot;standalone&quot; device (although, it is technically already a &quot;standalone&quot; device, from an engineering standpoint, as an embedded system that is part of a larger system/device).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I've said, this is only a subcomponent of the technology that the researchers' patented, so, if my understanding of patent law is correct, it is not *itself* patented. However, my point is that *it is **(effectively) described***, in this form, in the researchers' patent itself, and so, it seems to me that it also *cannot reasonably be patented*, no? Especially considering the fact that, based on everything I've described, it seems that the new inventors did not do anything novel/inventive here? But the U.S. Patent Office *did* issue them the patent, which seems ridiculous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I've purposely waited till the end to include this, since it is legally irrelevant, and I didn't want it to affect the judgement of those answering, but, upon seeing the (foreign) names of the inventors and Googling their corporation in question and seeing the website, it seems clear that this is a &quot;patent troll&quot;. Based on the similarities I've described, it seems very likely that these trolls saw the patents of the researchers and then decided to do this, as opposed to having invented this independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on my following of the researchers' work, I was planning to use the technology in precisely the way that the new inventors have patented it (and I presumed that this would be fine, since, as I said, it is a subcomponent that, although described in the patent, was not itself patented, and therefore it is not patentable, right?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what do you all think? Is this patent likely to be invalidated in a legal battle, as I suspect? If so, then I will ignore it and continue with my startup work till the time comes (and I'm better financially positioned to attack it). At this stage, before it escalates to a legal battle, can the USPTO be appealed to review and invalidate it? I would greatly appreciate it if people would please advise me (not as formal legal advice, obviously) on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Another possibility is that I could also contact the (very well-known) institution that the researchers' work for and try to convince them to pursue it, but it's possible that they decline to do so, so I'm more-so concerned about my personal options." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22287" RevisionGUID="91b95bb4-0454-4574-b53d-c3e5c27a3f93" CreationDate="2020-04-21T12:16:39.437" UserId="21925" Comment="added 1095 characters in body" Text="I have been following a (U.S.) patent for a particular type of technology. The patent application for this technology specifies that it was published in 2017, with a related patent by the same inventors published in 2015. This technology is based on research conducted and published by the inventors. Both patents were awarded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When researching the aforementioned technology, I noticed a patent that was published in 2018, by different inventors, for a subcomponent of the technology. It could, possibly, be considered that this new patent (by the new inventors) does not *explicitly* and *completely* specify this subcomponent in the same way as in the researchers' patent, but it *effectively* does. This subcomponent was not the main focus of the patents by the researchers, but it was, as I said, a *subcomponent* of the device, and, as such, it is specified in the description (both in textual and graphical (for instance, as a module in a flowchart) form) and mentioned in the claims. **(To be clear, since it is a subcomponent and not the focus of the patent, the claims do not focus on the subcomponent itself in such a way as to patent the subcomponent; rather, the claims focus on the device itself, thereby mentioning the subcomponent in the context of that larger system. However, the device description (that is, all the information before the claims in the patent), does include much more information about the subcomponent.)** Being included in the description and claims, the subcomponent is heavily implied to be a certain way (in a utility sense -- not to be confused with a design sense), even if this is not stated *explicitly* and *completely*. First of all, the **context** (use case for the technology, etc.) of the patent is precisely within the same area/scope as the aforementioned patent (and this is so in the patent *claims* themselves -- not just the description). Secondly, the **type of surface on which the technology is specified to act**, and the **body on which it is specified to act**, is identical to that of the researchers' patent, and is specified as part of the claims themselves. Lastly, the **mechanism of action** (radiation), and **the device/technology that is responsible for this mechanism of action** is identical to that of the researchers' patent. The only differences seem the be the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *How the inventors use the technology*; specifically, the new inventors are just measuring some different property/signal of the body in question, using (effectively) the same technology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The *explicit description* of the subcomponent. To expand on this point, since I think it is essential to understand what I mean when I keep saying &quot;effectively&quot; and &quot;completely&quot;, in addition to what I have already described above, the new inventors describe the subcomponent apparatus to be an *integrated* device -- which is already implied by the researchers' patent -- and to consist of various processing/communication modules and capabilities -- which is also implied by the researchers' patent, in the sense that the *entire* device, which includes this subcomponent, would include these modules and capabilities -- they would not necessarily be exclusive to this subcomponent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regards to 1., my understanding is that patents are on the *technology itself*, rather than on how it is used (or, in this case, what it is used to measure), right? So it seems to me that this would be invalid. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regards to 2., if we ignore how the technology is used, these are just blatantly obvious ideas that, it would seem to me, a reasonable person would deduce as having been obviously implied by the researchers' in their patents. In fact, this just seems like a game where the new inventors have (1) extracted a subcomponent of the larger device, (2) changed precisely what signal is being measured by said subcomponent, and (3) added some of the processing/communication modules that would have already existed in the larger device, effectively making the subcomponent its own &quot;standalone&quot; device (although, it is technically already a &quot;standalone&quot; device, from an engineering standpoint, as an embedded system that is part of a larger system/device).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I've said, this is only a subcomponent of the technology that the researchers' patented, so, if my understanding of patent law is correct, it is not *itself* patented. However, my point is that *it is **(effectively) described***, in this form, in the researchers' patent itself, and so, it seems to me that it also *cannot reasonably be patented*, no? Especially considering the fact that, based on everything I've described, it seems that the new inventors did not do anything novel/inventive here? But the U.S. Patent Office *did* issue them the patent, which seems ridiculous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I've purposely waited till the end to include this, since it is legally irrelevant, and I didn't want it to affect the judgement of those answering, but, upon seeing the (foreign) names of the inventors and Googling their corporation in question and seeing the website, it seems clear that this is a &quot;patent troll&quot;. Based on the similarities I've described, it seems very likely that these trolls saw the patents of the researchers and then decided to do this, as opposed to having invented this independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on my following of the researchers' work, I was planning to use the technology in precisely the way that the new inventors have patented it (and I presumed that this would be fine, since, as I said, it is a subcomponent that, although described in the patent, was not itself patented, and therefore it is not patentable, right?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what do you all think? Is this patent likely to be invalidated in a legal battle, as I suspect? If so, then I will ignore it and continue with my startup work till the time comes (and I'm better financially positioned to attack it). At this stage, before it escalates to a legal battle, can the USPTO be appealed to review and invalidate it? I would greatly appreciate it if people would please advise me (not as formal legal advice, obviously) on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Another possibility is that I could also contact the (very well-known) institution that the researchers' work for and try to convince them to pursue it, but it's possible that they decline to do so, so I'm more-so concerned about my personal options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT2: I want to emphasize the following: **The subcomponent in question has already existed as a device on its own (that is, it is itself a device) for many years, so the subcomponent itself cannot be patented.** Furthermore, there are research papers that were published years ago on the same uses for such a device (but, as I said, my understanding is that a patent is not based on use case, but on the technology itself, so this doesn't matter). So, thinking about this further, it really does seem that the only difference is that the new inventors have have added a &quot;data processing&quot; module and a &quot;communication&quot; module to have a, what they call, &quot;integrated&quot; device, and that's it; that is the only part of the claim that differentiates this subcomponent/device from a typical version of the device (the typical version might be connected to a computer for data processing, for instance). So how can this be patentable? I don't see how adding a &quot;data processing&quot; and &quot;control&quot; module, and calling it an &quot;integrated device&quot; is novel and/or inventive? This is obvious stuff. Surely this is challengeable with the USPTO? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22287" RevisionGUID="0663c244-cc12-4842-b903-4007d247efea" CreationDate="2020-04-21T12:46:39.313" UserId="21925" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I have been following a (U.S.) patent for a particular type of technology. The patent application for this technology specifies that it was published in 2017, with a related patent by the same inventors published in 2015. This technology is based on research conducted and published by the inventors. Both patents were awarded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When researching the aforementioned technology, I noticed a patent that was published in 2018, by different inventors, for a subcomponent of the technology. It could, possibly, be considered that this new patent (by the new inventors) does not *explicitly* and *completely* specify this subcomponent in the same way as in the researchers' patent, but it *effectively* does. This subcomponent was not the main focus of the patents by the researchers, but it was, as I said, a *subcomponent* of the device, and, as such, it is specified in the description (both in textual and graphical (for instance, as a module in a flowchart) form) and mentioned in the claims. **(To be clear, since it is a subcomponent and not the focus of the patent, the claims do not focus on the subcomponent itself in such a way as to patent the subcomponent; rather, the claims focus on the device itself, thereby mentioning the subcomponent in the context of that larger system. However, the device description (that is, all the information before the claims in the patent), does include much more information about the subcomponent.)** Being included in the description and claims, the subcomponent is heavily implied to be a certain way (in a utility sense -- not to be confused with a design sense), even if this is not stated *explicitly* and *completely*. First of all, the **context** (use case for the technology, etc.) of the patent is precisely within the same area/scope as the aforementioned patent (and this is so in the patent *claims* themselves -- not just the description). Secondly, the **type of surface on which the technology is specified to act**, and the **body on which it is specified to act**, is identical to that of the researchers' patent, and is specified as part of the claims themselves. Lastly, the **mechanism of action** (radiation), and **the device/technology that is responsible for this mechanism of action** is identical to that of the researchers' patent. The only differences seem the be the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *How the inventors use the technology*; specifically, the new inventors are just measuring some different property/signal of the body in question, using (effectively) the same technology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The *explicit description* of the subcomponent. To expand on this point, since I think it is essential to understand what I mean when I keep saying &quot;effectively&quot; and &quot;completely&quot;, in addition to what I have already described above, the new inventors describe the subcomponent apparatus to be an *integrated* device -- which is already implied by the researchers' patent -- and to consist of various processing/communication modules and capabilities -- which is also implied by the researchers' patent, in the sense that the *entire* device, which includes this subcomponent, would include these modules and capabilities -- they would not necessarily be exclusive to this subcomponent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regards to 1., my understanding is that patents are on the *technology itself*, rather than on how it is used (or, in this case, what it is used to measure), right? So it seems to me that this would be invalid. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regards to 2., if we ignore how the technology is used, these are just blatantly obvious ideas that, it would seem to me, a reasonable person would deduce as having been obviously implied by the researchers' in their patents. In fact, this just seems like a game where the new inventors have (1) extracted a subcomponent of the larger device, (2) changed precisely what signal is being measured by said subcomponent, and (3) added some of the processing/communication modules that would have already existed in the larger device, effectively making the subcomponent its own &quot;standalone&quot; device (although, it is technically already a &quot;standalone&quot; device, from an engineering standpoint, as an embedded system that is part of a larger system/device).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I've said, this is only a subcomponent of the technology that the researchers' patented, so, if my understanding of patent law is correct, it is not *itself* patented. However, my point is that *it is **(effectively) described***, in this form, in the researchers' patent itself, and so, it seems to me that it also *cannot reasonably be patented*, no? Especially considering the fact that, based on everything I've described, it seems that the new inventors did not do anything novel/inventive here? But the U.S. Patent Office *did* issue them the patent, which seems ridiculous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I've purposely waited till the end to include this, since it is legally irrelevant, and I didn't want it to affect the judgement of those answering, but, upon seeing the (foreign) names of the inventors and Googling their corporation in question and seeing the website, it seems clear that this is a &quot;patent troll&quot;. Based on the similarities I've described, it seems very likely that these trolls saw the patents of the researchers and then decided to do this, as opposed to having invented this independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on my following of the researchers' work, I was planning to use the technology in precisely the way that the new inventors have patented it (and I presumed that this would be fine, since, as I said, it is a subcomponent that, although described in the patent, was not itself patented, and therefore it is not patentable, right?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what do you all think? Is this patent likely to be invalidated in a legal battle, as I suspect? If so, then I will ignore it and continue with my startup work till the time comes (and I'm better financially positioned to attack it). At this stage, before it escalates to a legal battle, can the USPTO be appealed to review and invalidate it? I would greatly appreciate it if people would please advise me (not as formal legal advice, obviously) on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Another possibility is that I could also contact the (very well-known) institution that the researchers' work for and try to convince them to pursue it, but it's possible that they decline to do so, so I'm more-so concerned about my personal options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT 2: I want to emphasize the following: **The subcomponent in question has already existed as a device on its own (that is, it is itself a device) for many years, so the subcomponent itself cannot be patented.** Furthermore, there are research papers that were published years ago on the same uses for such a device (but, as I said, my understanding is that a patent is not based on use case, but on the technology itself, so this doesn't matter). So, thinking about this further, it really does seem that the only difference is that the new inventors have added a &quot;data processing module&quot; and a &quot;communication module&quot; to have a, what they call, &quot;integrated device&quot;, and that's it; that is the only part of the claim that differentiates this subcomponent/device from a typical version of the device (the typical version might be connected to a computer for data processing, for instance). So how can this be patentable? I don't see how adding a &quot;data processing&quot; and &quot;communication&quot; module, and calling it an &quot;integrated device&quot; is novel and/or inventive? This is obvious stuff. Surely this is challengeable with the USPTO? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22288" RevisionGUID="a288d5b1-b916-45e0-a391-6bdbde872ece" CreationDate="2020-04-21T20:46:39.720" UserId="3076" Text="I see that the patent US 10561392B2 claims &quot; . . . a miniaturized rectangular **prism** having at its bottom side two slots for passing two scanning laser beams and two visible light beams to two targeted skin surfaces on an area of a human . . &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If none of the references you are concerned about mention &quot;prism&quot;, that may be a short version of the answer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22288" RevisionGUID="3f8c627a-0c4e-49f2-b7c7-8f94a70a44e7" CreationDate="2020-04-21T22:04:48.780" UserId="3076" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="I see that the patent [US 10561392B2][1] claims &quot; . . . a miniaturized rectangular **prism** having at its bottom side two slots for passing two scanning laser beams and two visible light beams to two targeted skin surfaces on an area of a human . . &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If none of the references you are concerned about mention &quot;prism&quot;, that may be a short version of the answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10561392B2/en?oq=US%202018%2F0192898" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22288" RevisionGUID="d645a98d-658c-4dc9-bdfd-f073b89f8f58" CreationDate="2020-04-21T23:33:04.887" UserId="3076" Comment="added screen shot and explantion" Text="I see that the patent [US 10561392B2][1] claims &quot; . . . a miniaturized rectangular **prism** having at its bottom side two slots for passing two scanning laser beams and two visible light beams to two targeted skin surfaces on an area of a human . . &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If none of the references you are concerned about mention &quot;prism&quot;, that may be a short version of the answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was a question in a comment about publications vs issued patents. As another comment says a granted patent has a sequential number now in the 10 millions and a type code with a &quot;B&quot; in it. Publications have a two-part number, a year/sequential number for publications that year and a type with an &quot;A&quot; in it. On google patent, at this time, you can get from the page for a publication to the resulting patent (if any) by a hyperlink in the short form listing of the application's history. I'm including a partial screenshot with the publication in question as an example.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10561392B2/en?oq=US%202018%2F0192898&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ns6Gy.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22289" RevisionGUID="250e7c06-1c85-4172-b6a7-086bd558ec96" CreationDate="2020-04-22T17:14:45.197" UserId="3076" Text="Engage a patent attorney or patent agent who is familiar with the general technology area to help you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22289" RevisionGUID="4c3b2095-040f-4c38-9b88-b7d4db9ef72b" CreationDate="2020-04-22T19:21:15.807" UserId="3076" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="Engage a patent attorney or patent agent to help you who is familiar with the general technology area and has good references." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22290" RevisionGUID="400ed7a4-5924-4531-b142-f5346fb80ae2" CreationDate="2020-04-23T05:52:46.103" UserId="24047" Text="I am in trouble with US reissue patent RE43748 E1 (based upon US 6787544 B2). The status in PAIR is &quot;Patented Case&quot;, it is Continuation-in-part of application No. PCT/JP99/04429, filed on Aug. 18, 1999. No PTA/PTE.&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can see the application should be &quot;dead&quot; since August 18, 2019. So [Google Patents][1]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/USRE43748&#xD;&#xA;2019-08-18 Anticipated  Expiration,&#xD;&#xA;Status: Expired - Lifetime&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fees: Window 11.5 Year, Status Closed, Fees Paid, Last Day to Pay 09/07/2016.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the application still alive or dead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best regards from Karlsruhe, Germany&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Juergen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60282" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22290" RevisionGUID="400ed7a4-5924-4531-b142-f5346fb80ae2" CreationDate="2020-04-23T05:52:46.103" UserId="24047" Text="Is US RE43748 still alive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60283" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22290" RevisionGUID="400ed7a4-5924-4531-b142-f5346fb80ae2" CreationDate="2020-04-23T05:52:46.103" UserId="24047" Text="&lt;status&gt;&lt;reissue&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22291" RevisionGUID="090e1621-8819-4e0b-bfae-b1be68cc82a5" CreationDate="2020-04-23T14:04:11.707" UserId="17003" Text="First off, if you are being threatened with a legal action, you really need to consult with a lawyer. That said, I looked up RE43748 on the [US Public Pair site][1]. Select &quot;Patent&quot; and enter RE43748. It claims priority from 	PCT/JP99/04429 which has a filing date of 08-18-1999. There were no patent term adjustments so the patent should have expired by now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you were selling or manufacturing a product in the United States before 08-18-2019, you might have infringed the patent. A US patent is not enforceable in any other country. In any case, I am not a lawyer so this isn't legal advice. As I said, if you are being threatened with a lawsuit, you really need to consult with an attorney and not rely on internet Q&amp;A sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22292" RevisionGUID="1d7479bd-41d0-49bb-9d34-d04a933bb2b3" CreationDate="2020-04-24T01:08:59.313" UserId="21925" Text="I was searching patents.google, and I encountered this patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems a bit ambiguous, so I just wanted to seek clarification: Does this mean that the patent has indeed expired (fee related), or that it *was* expired (fee related), and &quot;revived&quot; with an adjusted expiration of 2024?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would greatly appreciate it if people would please clarify this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Je3kU.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60286" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22292" RevisionGUID="1d7479bd-41d0-49bb-9d34-d04a933bb2b3" CreationDate="2020-04-24T01:08:59.313" UserId="21925" Text="Does this mean that the patent has expired, or has it been &quot;un-expired&quot; and now has an adjusted expiration?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60287" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22292" RevisionGUID="1d7479bd-41d0-49bb-9d34-d04a933bb2b3" CreationDate="2020-04-24T01:08:59.313" UserId="21925" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22292" RevisionGUID="9bbc8c2f-18a8-4864-8999-c21b62dd322b" CreationDate="2020-04-24T01:18:07.247" UserId="21925" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="I was searching patents.google, and I encountered this patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found this ambiguous, so I just wanted to seek clarification: Does this mean that the patent has indeed expired (fee related), or that it *was* expired (fee related), and &quot;revived&quot; with an adjusted expiration of 2024?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would greatly appreciate it if people would please clarify this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Je3kU.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22293" RevisionGUID="871c27a7-e302-40ac-935a-8fe8e43c0dd2" CreationDate="2020-04-24T02:18:47.020" UserId="3076" Text="To get to the bottom of almost any issue with a U.S. patent go to [Public PAIR][1]. The site is fussy about the format of the application number or publication number you enter. I see the expiration due to fee nonpayment but I do *not* see any petition to revive so I would guess that the info panel at google patents is garbled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Transaction History&#xD;&#xA;Date 	Transaction Description&#xD;&#xA;11-14-2014 	Expire Patent&#xD;&#xA;01-02-2004 	Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed&#xD;&#xA;10-17-2006 	Recordation of Patent Grant Mailed&#xD;&#xA;09-27-2006 	Issue Notification Mailed&#xD;&#xA;10-17-2006 	Patent Issue Date Used in PTA Calculation&#xD;&#xA;09-20-2006 	Dispatch to FDC&#xD;&#xA;09-20-2006 	Application Is Considered Ready for Issue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22293" RevisionGUID="e5217fba-da91-495f-89c5-0a94f47a0145" CreationDate="2020-04-24T02:27:30.680" UserId="3076" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="To get to the bottom of almost any issue with a U.S. patent go to [Public PAIR][1]. The site is fussy about the format of the application number or publication number you enter. I see the expiration due to fee nonpayment but I do *not* see any petition to revive so I would guess that the info panel at google patents is garbled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Transaction History&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Date 	Transaction Description&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;11-14-2014 	Expire Patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;01-02-2004 	Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10-17-2006 	Recordation of Patent Grant Mailed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;09-27-2006 	Issue Notification Mailed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10-17-2006 	Patent Issue Date Used in PTA Calculation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;09-20-2006 	Dispatch to FDC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;09-20-2006 	Application Is Considered Ready for Issue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22290" RevisionGUID="a557a253-4c08-4933-af22-992b1e412216" CreationDate="2020-04-24T05:03:20.393" UserId="24047" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="I have a question concerning US reissue patent RE43748 E1 (based upon US 6787544 B2). The status in PAIR is &quot;Patented Case&quot;, it is Continuation-in-part of application No. PCT/JP99/04429, filed on Aug. 18, 1999. No PTA/PTE.&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can see the application should be expired since August 18, 2019. So [Google Patents][1]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/USRE43748&#xD;&#xA;2019-08-18 Anticipated  Expiration,&#xD;&#xA;Status: Expired - Lifetime&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fees: Window 11.5 Year, Status Closed, Fees Paid, Last Day to Pay 09/07/2016.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the application still alive or expired?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best regards from Karlsruhe, Germany&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Juergen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22294" RevisionGUID="0a2ede81-d76a-4eaa-9835-ef8b18515831" CreationDate="2020-04-24T21:14:46.300" UserId="22759" Text="Assume Patent A was filed on Dec. 1, 2002 in the USA, which claims its foreign priority date Jan. 1, 2002. The priority application was filed on Jan. 1, 2002 in Spain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume Patent B was filed on Oct. 1, 2002, and its priority date Oct. 1, 2002.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: Does Patent A filed in the USA serve as pre-AIA 102(a) prior art or pre-AIA 102(e)(2) prior art? Why? Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60293" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22294" RevisionGUID="0a2ede81-d76a-4eaa-9835-ef8b18515831" CreationDate="2020-04-24T21:14:46.300" UserId="22759" Text="Is it pre-AIA 102(a) or pre-AIA 102(e)(2)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60294" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22294" RevisionGUID="0a2ede81-d76a-4eaa-9835-ef8b18515831" CreationDate="2020-04-24T21:14:46.300" UserId="22759" Text="&lt;priority&gt;&lt;pre-aia&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22296" RevisionGUID="a815b636-ee61-41fc-b216-affcf85bc7bc" CreationDate="2020-04-25T03:23:08.067" UserId="3076" Text="I would not be prior art under pre-AIA 102(a) because it was not filed in the U.S., or published anywhere or patented in a foreign country before B. Unless it somehow had an early publication rather than the standard 18 months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 102(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country *(no)*, or patented (*no)* or described in a printed publication *(no/maybe)* in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not prior art under pre-AIA 102(e) unless the Spanish filing was actually a PCT filing (and it designated the U.S.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 102(e) the invention was described in — (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b)(*no)*, by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States *(no)* before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language. *(was it a PCT application?)* " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22296" RevisionGUID="f28d64a9-e19d-4526-b59e-c4a312cac6bd" CreationDate="2020-04-25T03:28:28.830" UserId="3076" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="I would not be prior art under pre-AIA 102(a) because it was not filed in the U.S., or published anywhere or patented in a foreign country before B. Unless it somehow had an early publication rather than the standard 18 months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 102(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country *(no)*, or patented (*no)* or described in a printed publication *(no/maybe)* in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not prior art under pre-AIA 102(e) unless the Spanish filing was actually a PCT filing (and it designated the U.S.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 102(e) the invention was described in — (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b)(*no)*, by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States *(no)* before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language. *(was it a PCT application that was eventually published in English?)* " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60299" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12934" RevisionGUID="3986b864-9d68-422f-ba3f-51b8d3855726" CreationDate="2020-04-25T10:04:40.517" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60308" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19379" RevisionGUID="94110b4a-79bc-4036-9006-78e2588c6719" CreationDate="2020-04-27T01:04:40.523" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22296" RevisionGUID="c39f2c8d-a5fc-4a31-9a29-a9db0c41f230" CreationDate="2020-04-27T02:20:35.477" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="It would not be prior art under pre-AIA 102(a) because it was not filed in the U.S., or published anywhere or patented in a foreign country before B. Unless it somehow had an early publication rather than the standard 18 months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 102(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country *(no)*, or patented (*no)* or described in a printed publication *(no/maybe)* in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not prior art under pre-AIA 102(e) unless the Spanish filing was actually a PCT filing (and it designated the U.S.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 102(e) the invention was described in — (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b)(*no)*, by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States *(no)* before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language. *(was it a PCT application that was eventually published in English?)* " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22299" RevisionGUID="55e7eccd-46be-4e0e-bdca-69191c29753c" CreationDate="2020-04-27T16:40:51.953" UserId="24060" Text="The company I work for might fold in the next couple months... So I'm searching for other opportunities in preparation for that possibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've submitted multiple invention disclosures to patent attorneys internally, but the process takes a while and they have not been filed yet (and truthfully may not be filed before the company folds).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I completely out of luck with being able to have on my resume that I've submitted invention disclosures along with any kind of meaningful description that might communicate the quality of the invention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I'm not out of luck, what is the correct way to format something like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for any comments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60311" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22299" RevisionGUID="55e7eccd-46be-4e0e-bdca-69191c29753c" CreationDate="2020-04-27T16:40:51.953" UserId="24060" Text="Can you include anything describing invention disclosures on your resume that have not been filed yet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60312" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22299" RevisionGUID="55e7eccd-46be-4e0e-bdca-69191c29753c" CreationDate="2020-04-27T16:40:51.953" UserId="24060" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22300" RevisionGUID="59fc685f-1219-4c6b-8e28-cf2dd4a57c97" CreationDate="2020-04-27T19:52:40.393" UserId="17003" Text="You can certainly mention in a resume that you submitted multiple invention disclosures. However, I would avoid mentioning anything related to what the invention is or does. Part of this is legal in that public disclosure before filing could negatively impact the ability to obtain a patent. Beyond that, you most likely have a duty not to disclose private company information. You really do want to keep on good terms with your current company regardless of your long term plans. If you end up leaving and they continue to pursue the patents, you'll be able to take credit for your contributions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60316" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22251" RevisionGUID="f36b504f-b6e1-4e26-a96f-c024946a0fc0" CreationDate="2020-04-29T00:04:05.403" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22301" RevisionGUID="e5b9b265-b386-4c01-bbcf-d655907d0064" CreationDate="2020-04-30T08:32:18.680" UserId="24065" Text="When searching if there was a patent covering this product:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.frownies.com/collections/facial-patches/products/facial-patches-forehead-between-eyes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... which is basically a piece of tape to put on your face, I found this patent:&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/US20090234382A1/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, the patent describes, in addition to just the simple idea of a patch, something more complicated than the actual product. The real product is just a patch while the patent also describes a patch that can have cosmetic additives added. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I cut a piece of medical tape to a similar shape (a triangle), could this be considered an infringement of this patent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, can the combination of a simple shape with an existing material ever be considered a patent infringement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the purpose (keeping the skin in place) part of the invention/patent? Is there a difference in a piece of tape for your face vs a piece of tape for industrial use, in the context of deciding weather patent infringement occurred?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60318" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22301" RevisionGUID="e5b9b265-b386-4c01-bbcf-d655907d0064" CreationDate="2020-04-30T08:32:18.680" UserId="24065" Text="Is it possible for a ridiculously simple invention to infringe an existing patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60319" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22301" RevisionGUID="e5b9b265-b386-4c01-bbcf-d655907d0064" CreationDate="2020-04-30T08:32:18.680" UserId="24065" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22302" RevisionGUID="aa274c98-6854-4b14-80d4-0cabc59f5237" CreationDate="2020-04-30T13:55:52.523" UserId="17003" Text="The document you cited was a patent application, not a granted patent. The subsequent patent is [US9414970B2][1]. It is important to look at an actual patent instead of it's application because the claims in a patent are often narrower than the corresponding application. Patent coverage is defined by its claims. Reading the bulk of a patent can sometimes give the impression that it broadly covers a technology where the actual claim language might be fairly narrow. Here is the first claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of noninvasively reducing facial wrinkles formed in facial skin, comprising the steps of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  providing a skin patch comprising a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; membrane and having a skin contacting surface, the skin contacting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; surface comprising a film of silicone-containing material to which an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; additive has been added to said silicone-containing material prior to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cross-linking of the silicone-containing material, said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; silicone-containing material having the additive impregnated therein&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and after cross-linking of the silicone-containing material to said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; membrane,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   wherein said additive is a therapeutic active ingredient,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  wherein said skin patch skin contacting surface comprises a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cross-linked composition of said silicone-containing material and said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; therapeutic active ingredient on said membrane, said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; silicone-containing material being cross-linked to said membrane,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  applying the skin contacting surface of the skin patch over and into&#xD;&#xA;&gt; contact with facial wrinkles, and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  maintaining the skin patch in place&#xD;&#xA;&gt; over and in contact with the facial wrinkles for an effective amount&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of time to tighten the skin at and around the facial wrinkles, thereby&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reducing the facial wrinkles in said skin, by contacting the skin with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said skin patch silicone material film and delivering a treatment of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said active ingredient contained in said patch to said skin by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; contacting the skin with the already cross-linked together surface of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; silicone-containing material and membrane containing said active&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ingredient to deliver said active ingredient from said film;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; additive being useful for wrinkle reduction and/or other clinical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; indications; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  the additive being peptides, vitamin compounds,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; antioxidants, growth factors, glycolic or alphahydroxy acids, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; combinations thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, this claim is fairly long and involved. In order to infringe on a patent, you need to infringe on at least one claim. **To infringe on a claim, you need to implement each and every aspect of the claim**. Thus if a claim details steps A, B, C and D and you only implement steps A, B and D, you don't infringe. This claim has a lot of steps in it. For instance it specifies a silicone containing material with a &quot;therapeutic active ingredient&quot;. If you use a non-silicone adhesive you free from this claim. Similarly the additive must be one or more of the following: &quot;peptides, vitamin compounds, antioxidants, growth factors, glycolic or alphahydroxy acids&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar analysis must be done with each of the claims in the patent. Note that a claim that refers to another claim is a dependent claim and is only infringed if the cited claim is also infringed. Thus it is usually best to focus on the independent claims first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To try to address your specific questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If I cut a piece of medical tape to a similar shape (a triangle),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; could this be considered an infringement of this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In other words, can the combination of a simple shape with an existing material ever be considered a patent infringement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't believe so since the medical tape wouldn't incorporate a therapeutic active ingredient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is the purpose (keeping the skin in place) part of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention/patent? Is there a difference in a piece of tape for your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; face vs a piece of tape for industrial use, in the context of deciding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whether patent infringement occurred?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, the patent's coverage is defined by its claims. Every independent claim refers to skin, in particular facial skin. If you have a product using tape for something other than reducing wrinkles in skin, I suspect it is clear of this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please be advised that I am not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice. I always recommend consulting with an actual patent attorney when determining freedom to operate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9414970B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22303" RevisionGUID="12d5f3ef-eb24-4844-b153-587070b2ebf9" CreationDate="2020-04-30T14:25:57.010" UserId="6045" Text="There are two questions to answer with respect to infringement.  The first question of claim construction asks what is covered by the granted claims in the patent or patents in question.  Claims in a granted patent must be identified, and each claim limitation must be interpreted for what it teaches.  Second, elements (or process steps) of the alleged infringing product must be identified that are the same or equivalent to all of the claim limitations.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A simplified version of a product that lacks some distinguishing limitations of the claim, would not infringe on the patent claims.  However, an infringing item need not be exactly identical to what was disclosed by the inventor.  Substitution of one element for an element recognized as equivalent is not enough to distinguish a product from a patent claim.  Furthermore, insubstiantial differences do not distinguish a product from a patent claim.  (For further information see this essay at Justia: https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/patents/infringement/ )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With respect to this question, the document cited is a patent application.  The attorney proposed some independent claims, but those were not granted a patent.   For the patent that directly issued from this application, see https://patents.google.com/patent/US9414970B2/en.  Several other patent applications and patents in this family, the beginning of which can be seen at Google patents under the heading &quot;Related Applications&quot;. &#xD;&#xA; (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9414970B2/en#relatedApplications).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to determine whether your proposed bandage/plaster/patch infringes a patent, one would identify potential patent claims, identify all of the important elements of those claims, and determine whether or not the proposed bandage/plaster/patch has all of those elements, or substantially equivalent elements.  Making such a determination is beyond the scope of this essay, but I hope this gives you enough information to work in a productive direction.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22304" RevisionGUID="99173b5e-caae-4f42-a87f-fe1b38521451" CreationDate="2020-04-30T14:40:38.980" UserId="24067" Text="Saw this post on intelproplaw.com and was curious if anyone on here had any additional insight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hypo: applicant prosecutes a claim set to allowance following a restriction requirement.  Non-elected claims remain in the listing, with the &quot;withdrawn&quot; status notifier, up until allowability is favorably indicated, at which point the applicant authorizes examiner-amendment cancellation of the withdrawn claims.  Only elected claims were ever examined, prosecuted, and allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The notice of allowance contains a notification that the restriction requirement &quot;is moot and therefore is canceled.&quot;  As such, &quot;the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable.&quot;  In other words, the examiner believes he can inflict a double patenting rejection on a divisional directed to the restricted, non-elected, withdrawn, and ultimately canceled subject matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the examiner do that? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60323" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22304" RevisionGUID="99173b5e-caae-4f42-a87f-fe1b38521451" CreationDate="2020-04-30T14:40:38.980" UserId="24067" Text="Does 35 u.s.c. 121 (safe harbor) still stand if examiner withdraws restriction requirement before issuing the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60324" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22304" RevisionGUID="99173b5e-caae-4f42-a87f-fe1b38521451" CreationDate="2020-04-30T14:40:38.980" UserId="24067" Text="&lt;restriction&gt;&lt;safe&gt;&lt;harbor&gt;&lt;121&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22305" RevisionGUID="aa943278-0497-4122-ac6a-f3bc298d910e" CreationDate="2020-04-30T17:56:09.710" UserId="15489" Text="I've seen patent applications with eight or ten co-inventors. Is there an upper limit to the number of inventors you can list, or, theoretically speaking, if a hundred or ten thousand people were involved, could they all be listed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60326" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22305" RevisionGUID="aa943278-0497-4122-ac6a-f3bc298d910e" CreationDate="2020-04-30T17:56:09.710" UserId="15489" Text="Is there a limit to the number of individuals that can be named on a patent application as inventors?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60327" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22305" RevisionGUID="aa943278-0497-4122-ac6a-f3bc298d910e" CreationDate="2020-04-30T17:56:09.710" UserId="15489" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;inventor&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22306" RevisionGUID="a5af423f-146c-464b-a459-3cb16a390e7d" CreationDate="2020-04-30T19:57:15.447" UserId="24069" Text="I want to file an Non provisional application to USPTO. We are two inventors and we want to name our organisation as applicant. I read the following on USPTO site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Applicant Information – for applications filed on/after September 16, 2012, **if a juristic entity (e.g., corporation, association) is identified as an applicant, then the ADS must be signed by a patent practitioner**. See MPEP 605.01 for who can be named as the applicant: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s605.html#ch600_d1ff6a_29cdf_36f&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't understand what it does mean. If we want to file and name our organization as applicant in our case, who is defined as patent practitioner? Should we hire an attorney to do that? or I can be the patent practitioner?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advanced.&#xD;&#xA;Best regards" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60329" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22306" RevisionGUID="a5af423f-146c-464b-a459-3cb16a390e7d" CreationDate="2020-04-30T19:57:15.447" UserId="24069" Text="Who is the patent practitioner?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60330" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22306" RevisionGUID="a5af423f-146c-464b-a459-3cb16a390e7d" CreationDate="2020-04-30T19:57:15.447" UserId="24069" Text="&lt;non-provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22307" RevisionGUID="04a34266-fd98-4e5f-90b9-1e2003f3b8ce" CreationDate="2020-04-30T20:00:39.467" UserId="526" Text="No limit and in fact you are to list every inventor. However, the definition of an &quot;inventor&quot; often imposes a natural limit. That is, an inventor must contribute to the conception of an idea reflected in the claims. Thus, it generally follows that the number of persons contributing to conceiving an invention does not reach hundreds or thousands. More details on those requirements is in [MPEP 2137.01][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/e8r9#/current/d0e206713.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22309" RevisionGUID="6c156885-8a90-4e82-8592-2296080b5ed4" CreationDate="2020-04-30T21:52:32.160" UserId="3076" Text="A patent practitioner is someone who is registered with the USPTO as allowed to practice before the office on behalf of others. Unless you have passed the patent bar exam, etc. you are not a patent practitioner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading the bold text carefully you will see it applies to a &quot;juristic entity&quot;. That means, as it says, that the applicant is a corporation. Patent applications can either be written and filed by a registered patent practitioner or by one of the inventors. In the case that the applicant is a corporation, the application *must* be filed by a registered practitioner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you hire a patent attorney or agent you can't have the applicant be your company - however either of you can be the applicant and later assign it to the company. That can be at the same time you file. Until the AIA law only inventors could be applicants, with a company often being an assignee." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60335" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18787" RevisionGUID="a4909272-2d73-4b53-98ed-eb84a4d64cda" CreationDate="2020-05-01T01:07:55.830" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22310" RevisionGUID="71464fa0-a4ab-41a5-bc00-d86748e03f0a" CreationDate="2020-05-01T02:18:19.767" UserId="3076" Text="I see a few articles about the safe harbor recently being narrowed by PTAB and Fed Circuit cases but no mention of this issue. The wording of 35 USC 121 includes -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  patent issuing on an application with respect to which a requirement for *restriction under this section has been made*, or on an application filed as a result of such a requirement, shall not be used as a reference either in the Patent and Trademark Office or in the courts against a divisional application &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;For which a restriction has been made&quot; seems clear. An issue you do not mention is any arguments you may have made in attempting to traverse the restriction. If you argued that the restriction is unwarranted becasue the two inventions are not patently distinct, then I think your own admission kills your 121 safe harbor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the examiner is canceling the restriction as moot, not retracting it due to deciding it was wrongly issued. There was a restriction and nothing changed the logic behind it. In your question, 121 protection is washed away by a gratuitous comment by the examiner - I do not think that would hold.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;One strategy you might use is to counter this in a response to the notice of allowance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22311" RevisionGUID="e97dcd15-4912-4b7a-998b-fe121c9eaf83" CreationDate="2020-05-01T18:31:28.697" UserId="24072" Text="&quot;Genetically Modified Cannabis Sativa Plants And Modified Cannabinoid Compounds For Treatment Of Substance Addiction And Other Disorders&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is absurdly general.&#xD;&#xA;It would be the same like patenting an &quot;antibiotic&quot; agent for the purpose of killing bacteria, without pointing out a specific and **NOVEL** mechanism. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can you patent a gene? it is naturally made!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60339" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22311" RevisionGUID="e97dcd15-4912-4b7a-998b-fe121c9eaf83" CreationDate="2020-05-01T18:31:28.697" UserId="24072" Text="How can this be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60340" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22311" RevisionGUID="e97dcd15-4912-4b7a-998b-fe121c9eaf83" CreationDate="2020-05-01T18:31:28.697" UserId="24072" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22312" RevisionGUID="d19b1390-9410-4dab-a172-81625b27727b" CreationDate="2020-05-01T18:54:26.037" UserId="3076" Text="This US20200061138A1 is currently an application, not a granted patent.  If you are judging the breadth of a patent application or patent by its title you are making a big mistake. Patent breath is determined by the claims that are usually narrowed during prosecution. The first claim in the application starts -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  . . . **genetically modifying** the Cannabis sativa plant with a genetic modification, wherein the genetic modification induces the Cannabis sativa plant to overexpress a gene controlling the expression of a . . . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genetically modifying something of natural origin is not the same as something of natural origin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60343" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22257" RevisionGUID="07900c5a-613f-4ae5-beba-889928fb6a85" CreationDate="2020-05-02T19:04:20.423" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22312" RevisionGUID="82222ae0-5001-4b08-b4b7-21176a4092ca" CreationDate="2020-05-02T19:53:40.447" UserId="3076" Comment="added 534 characters in body" Text="This US20200061138A1 is currently an application, not a granted patent.  If you are judging the breadth of a patent application or patent by its title you are making a big mistake. Patent breath is determined by the claims that are usually narrowed during prosecution. The first claim in the application starts -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  . . . **genetically modifying** the Cannabis sativa plant with a genetic modification, wherein the genetic modification induces the Cannabis sativa plant to overexpress a gene controlling the expression of a . . . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genetically modifying something of natural origin is not the same as something of natural origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Completely separately there is something called a [plant patent][1]. It applies to plants that have been created by grafting, for example, not by direct genetic manipulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&amp;sxsrf=ALeKk01j-0K1xgIkRfgScYOsxk1CS6Nk0Q%3A1588449172112&amp;ei=lM-tXs27Bsjz-gTnh5PADQ&amp;q=plant%20patent&amp;oq=plant%20patent&amp;gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQARgAMgQIIxAnMgcIABAUEIcCMgQIABBDMgQIABBDMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAOgQIABBHUK8hWK8hYMkyaABwAngAgAHxAYgB8QGSAQMyLTGYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6&amp;sclient=psy-ab" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22313" RevisionGUID="d99431c0-cf8e-48ab-abb0-1b8ff57dcf23" CreationDate="2020-05-02T21:35:46.023" UserId="6045" Text="This question appears to be about patent application US20200061138A1.  Within US patent law, there are two relevant questions.  First, the question of whether the US patent system allows this type of thing to be patented, also called patent-eligible subject matter.  Second, whether the claims are directed to something new and not obvious, also called an inventive step.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US20200061138A1 has two main claims.  Claim 1 is directed to a method for increasing cannabinoids in a genetically modified Cannabis sativa, performed by over-expressing certain enzymes in the plant.  Claim 10 is directed to a chemical compound, most commonly known as CBD or cannabidiol.  I will discuss the patentability of the genetically modified plant separately from the chemical compound.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plants in general, and genetically modified plants in particular, are patent-eligible subject matter.  See the USPTO's manual chapter 2105  (https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2105.html).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moving on, claim 10 is directed to the chemical 2-((1R,5R)-3-methyl-5-(prop-1-en-2-yl)cyclopent-2-en-1-yl)-5-pentyl benzene-1,3-diol (paragraph 0030).  This is also known as cannabidiol, CBD, and under the trade name Epidiolex.  Chemical compounds are patent eligible subject matter.  Claim 10 is directed to a chemical compound that is well known (cannabidiol, CBD, Epidiolex).  Accordingly, it is not new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, claims 14, 15, 19 and 20 are directed to broad methods of administering mixtures containing CBD for treating broad classes of disease.  The USPTO has issued at least one patent (US9474726B2) for using CBD to treat a different disease (epilepsy; this was approved by the FDA under the trade name Epidiolex).  These methods to treat disease are also patent-eligible.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As regards whether or not the claimed subject matter is new and not obvious, we can wait to see what the USPTO after review.  The Applicant did cite previously known methods for genetically modifying plants (paragraphs 0025, see also paragraphs 0026-0029).  Furthermore, the Applicant provided a motivation to increase these enzymes in Cannabis, in order to have higher concentrations of the active cannabinoids (paragraph 0012).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60346" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20973" RevisionGUID="8f72fb79-c203-46db-ad25-cfb18ab5d2e2" CreationDate="2020-05-03T02:02:25.283" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60347" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22253" RevisionGUID="126cacfd-02e4-4be8-835f-5967f9ef7aa9" CreationDate="2020-05-03T23:07:55.850" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22314" RevisionGUID="024492cf-c2fc-481a-8751-03fca5efe6a1" CreationDate="2020-05-04T07:27:16.890" UserId="22532" Text="I made an application last year in my country, exact date is 10th April. I missed last date for PCT. In my country, some of time limits are extending because of Coronavirus situation. Has WIPO a similar procudure? Do i have a chance to still apply PCT? It is very important to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best regards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60349" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22314" RevisionGUID="024492cf-c2fc-481a-8751-03fca5efe6a1" CreationDate="2020-05-04T07:27:16.890" UserId="22532" Text="Corona and Priority Rights" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60350" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22314" RevisionGUID="024492cf-c2fc-481a-8751-03fca5efe6a1" CreationDate="2020-05-04T07:27:16.890" UserId="22532" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;corona&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22315" RevisionGUID="54a3edd2-6fb7-4e59-8d41-2911c651afa0" CreationDate="2020-05-04T10:44:34.147" UserId="6045" Text="The WIPO has not announced any modifications to deadlines for filing under the PCT.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;WIPO announced, &quot;processing of applications filed via WIPO’s Global IP Services has not been affected by the Covid-19 outbreak&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2020/article_0004.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a list of modified deadlines and other responses of IP offices around the world: &#xD;&#xA;https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/brand-management/ip-offices-implement-measures-in-wake-of-coronavirus-crisis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps!  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22317" RevisionGUID="67007296-8f3d-47a0-94da-9e7cea306918" CreationDate="2020-05-04T17:45:59.800" UserId="3076" Text="It may be the case that the WIPO has not announced any changes. However that does not actually answer the question. There is something called [restoration of priority][1] that you might use. It is not COVID specific but it does allow for missed deadlines in some cases. What really matters is how the countries you actually want to go into treat restoration of priority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/restoration.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22318" RevisionGUID="0b20a8eb-e0a1-41db-bacc-1d2a4c27442b" CreationDate="2020-05-04T20:46:13.427" UserId="24081" Text="US66309967A  and US3462767 flush valve patents.  My father Harold F Larson &amp; Robert L Schultz designed a few patents.  They sold the rights I would like to know who?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60355" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22318" RevisionGUID="0b20a8eb-e0a1-41db-bacc-1d2a4c27442b" CreationDate="2020-05-04T20:46:13.427" UserId="24081" Text="US66309967A and US3462767 flush valve" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60356" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22318" RevisionGUID="0b20a8eb-e0a1-41db-bacc-1d2a4c27442b" CreationDate="2020-05-04T20:46:13.427" UserId="24081" Text="&lt;owner&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22320" RevisionGUID="0d98e409-5efd-495f-8dea-08e75d1b965a" CreationDate="2020-05-04T22:11:05.017" UserId="17003" Text="I found [four patents][1] with Harold F Larson listed as an inventor. Two are for flush valves: [US3341863A][2] and [US3462767A][3]. US66309967A has too many digits to be a patent and doesn't show up in a search. Looking at the text of US3462767A I see: &quot;N. Dak. 58421 Filed Aug. 24, 1967, Ser. No. 663,099&quot; so I believe that is maybe an application number and US66309967A is just a typo in Google Patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried looking in the [US Public Pair][4] and the [USPTO Global Dossier][5] and found nothing at all. My guess is the patents are just too old. My understanding is that licensing deals done post grant are not often registered with the USPTO so I don't think there is any way to figure out who the patents were licensed to beyond what you might be able to find through a Google search. Understand that the patents expired many years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Harold%20F%20Larson&amp;dups=language&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US3341863A/en?oq=US3341863A&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US3462767A/en?oq=US3462767A&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://globaldossier.uspto.gov/#/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60359" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22320" RevisionGUID="0c9b2b06-e0a7-47ff-983a-8fabbf6ed819" CreationDate="2020-05-05T16:10:52.890" UserId="17003" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="I found [four patents][1] with Harold F Larson listed as an inventor. Two are for flush valves: [US3341863A][2] and [US3462767A][3]. US66309967A has too many digits to be a patent and doesn't show up in a search. Looking at the text of US3462767A I see: &quot;N. Dak. 58421 Filed Aug. 24, 1967, Ser. No. 663,099&quot; so I believe that is maybe an application number and US66309967A is just a typo in Google Patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried looking in the [US Public Pair][4] and the [USPTO Global Dossier][5] and found nothing at all. Based on comments by George White, my guess is the patents are just too old. You may be able to get the patents file wrappers from the the USPTO for a fee. My understanding is that licensing deals done post grant are not often registered with the USPTO so I don't think there is any way to figure out who the patents were licensed to beyond what you might be able to find through a Google search. Understand that the patents expired many years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Harold%20F%20Larson&amp;dups=language&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US3341863A/en?oq=US3341863A&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US3462767A/en?oq=US3462767A&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://globaldossier.uspto.gov/#/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22322" RevisionGUID="9812387e-7624-4d96-83e4-e2214dc94b0e" CreationDate="2020-05-07T08:02:59.343" UserId="24082" Text="I am filing a patent overseas in China. My U.S. Attorney need me to sign a power of attonery to the attonerys in China. The language in the contract states: pursuant of the relevant provisions of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China, I , citizen entity of the USA hereby authorize Prominence CENFO Intellectual Property Agency Limited to appoint its patent attorney to apply on my behalf for utility patent registration for the invention entitled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whose international application nimber is and handle all related matters concerning about the patent right in progress of designated office or selected office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My concern the language is to board and &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60364" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22322" RevisionGUID="9812387e-7624-4d96-83e4-e2214dc94b0e" CreationDate="2020-05-07T08:02:59.343" UserId="24082" Text="Patent overseas" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60365" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22322" RevisionGUID="9812387e-7624-4d96-83e4-e2214dc94b0e" CreationDate="2020-05-07T08:02:59.343" UserId="24082" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;foreign&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22322" RevisionGUID="3caa61b4-ed58-466a-af2b-8de227975d52" CreationDate="2020-05-07T18:02:28.643" UserId="24082" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="I am filing a patent overseas in China. My U.S. Attorney need me to sign a power of attonery to the attonerys in China. The language in the contract states: pursuant of the relevant provisions of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China, I , citizen entity of the USA hereby authorize Prominence CENFO Intellectual Property Agency Limited to appoint its patent attorney to apply on my behalf for utility patent registration for the invention entitled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whose international application nimber is and handle all related matters concerning about the patent right in progress of designated office or selected office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My concern the language is to board.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22322" RevisionGUID="c1c26e31-8626-48f8-a168-6eff60d99437" CreationDate="2020-05-07T20:39:15.333" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed minor misspelling" Text="I am filing a patent overseas in China. My U.S. Attorney need me to sign a power of attonery to the attonerys in China. The language in the contract states: pursuant of the relevant provisions of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China, I , citizen entity of the USA hereby authorize Prominence CENFO Intellectual Property Agency Limited to appoint its patent attorney to apply on my behalf for utility patent registration for the invention entitled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whose international application number is and handle all related matters concerning about the patent right in progress of designated office or selected office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My concern the language is too broad.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60372" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20013" RevisionGUID="e08f6e4d-e320-4706-b44f-23e3a6b42e5c" CreationDate="2020-05-07T22:07:00.697" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22325" RevisionGUID="20448b98-4c48-466a-bde6-0bb74bfd9a06" CreationDate="2020-05-08T03:23:33.487" UserId="22020" Text="I understand that the AIA considers prior art (among other states of publication/use not relevant here) anything that is greater than 12 months from the date of inventor's disclosure. I understand that works disclosed within that 12 month period by the inventor isn't considered prior art as well as publications which derived from the inventors disclosure. But, from what I read (and may need clarifying on), is if that 3rd party creates that same invention/element(s) of that invention independently in the grace period before the inventor files for a patent, the 3rd party would be able to challenge the inventor's patent with a request for re-examination via submission of the 3rd party's evidence. However, I read here (https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/06/10/patentability-novelty-requirement-102/id=84321/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Under the U.S. first to file system it is true that the inventor will&#xD;&#xA;&gt; still have a personal grace-period to remove their own disclosures.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This personal grace-period says that the inventor’s own disclosures,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or the disclosures of others who have derived from the inventor, are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not capable of being used as prior art as long as they occurred within&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12 months of the filing date of a patent application. **However, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; this is a very big however, disclosures of third-parties who&#xD;&#xA;&gt; independently came up with the invention information themselves will&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be used against the inventor unless the disclosure is of the same&#xD;&#xA;&gt; subject matter.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this bold part mean that an independent 3rd party who releases a printed publication which is of the same subject matter of the inventor's disclosure after the inventor's disclosure and before the inventor's filing mean that the independent third party will be unable to effectively file their work as prior work or would they be able to file certain elements of it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify, I'm assuming subject matter means the contents of the elements of the independent 3rd party matches the contents of the inventor's disclosure/patent in a definitive way. Also, the 3rd party mentioned throughout this question has no intention to file a patent and wants to keep a patent from being enforceable. When I refer to disclosures I'm referring to the USPTO definition of &quot;printed publication(s)&quot;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason why I find this confusing is that the law described here looks like it's putting the burden on the patent holders to file before anyone else but screwing anyone who doesn't see the inventor's disclosure. I feel it should be fair game (i.e. spontaneous disclosures of the same thing by an independent body that can be enforced/protected) up until the inventor files. Any accurate clarification would be helpful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60376" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22325" RevisionGUID="20448b98-4c48-466a-bde6-0bb74bfd9a06" CreationDate="2020-05-08T03:23:33.487" UserId="22020" Text="Can independant 3rd party disclosures created during grace period after inventor disclosure be used against inventors after the grace period?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60377" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22325" RevisionGUID="20448b98-4c48-466a-bde6-0bb74bfd9a06" CreationDate="2020-05-08T03:23:33.487" UserId="22020" Text="&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;grace&gt;&lt;printed&gt;&lt;period&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22326" RevisionGUID="8fbb046e-bd43-4f16-aaff-0e80ee250358" CreationDate="2020-05-08T08:37:52.640" UserId="24089" Text="I'll try to clarify.  Under the AIA first to file system, the effective filing date of the pending application is important for figuring out what is in the prior art.  The law (35 USC 102) is now set up such that it broadly defines the class of prior art and then carves out specific exceptions that can be used to disqualify references (publications or patent applications).  https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2152.html &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The class of prior art is essentially any references that were published or filed, for patent applications, prior to your earliest filing date.  Thus, the first question is &quot;was the reference in question available to the public or filed prior to my earliest filing date?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, then you look at the exceptions in 35 USC 102(b) to see if you can still DQ the reference. Within one exception (102b1) is where the remnants of the 12 mo grace period can be found. If the reference falls within one of the specific exceptions, it is not prior art against your patent.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you filed a patent application on March 1, 2020.  Hypo A is that Bob published an article on January 1, 2019. Bob's article falls into the broad group of prior art that can be used to reject your application. There is nothing you can do to disqualify bc it has been public for more than 1 year prior to your filing date.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hypo B is that Bob's article publishes January 1, 2020, two months prior.  It still classifies as prior art, but now the exceptions of 35 USC 102(b)(1) are applicable to potentially DQ.  If Bob obtained the content of the article from you or if you have an earlier public disclosure in November 2019 of the subject matter that predates Bob's article, that would knock out Bob's article as prior art that can be used against you.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I don't fully understand the Bold statement.  Based on the law, a public disclosure of an independent inventor within 1 year before your filing date is like Hypo B above, it could be DQ'd by an earlier grace period disclosure by the inventor.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60379" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="22325" RevisionGUID="ef27d4b2-87b4-4363-a2f2-3895f9a02216" CreationDate="2020-05-08T14:45:49.643" UserId="6045" Comment="Spelling of &quot;independent&quot; and cleaned up tags (prior-art, grace-period)" Text="Can independent 3rd party disclosures created during grace period after inventor disclosure be used against inventors after the grace period?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60380" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="22325" RevisionGUID="ef27d4b2-87b4-4363-a2f2-3895f9a02216" CreationDate="2020-05-08T14:45:49.643" UserId="6045" Comment="Spelling of &quot;independent&quot; and cleaned up tags (prior-art, grace-period)" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;grace-period&gt;&lt;printed&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60381" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="22325" RevisionGUID="ef27d4b2-87b4-4363-a2f2-3895f9a02216" CreationDate="2020-05-08T14:45:49.643" Comment="Proposed by 6045 approved by 22020 edit id of 2122" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22327" RevisionGUID="04b8acf3-f112-407b-a868-686a69a64f6b" CreationDate="2020-05-08T17:20:33.380" UserId="3076" Text="As interpreted by the USPTO the provisions for a grace period in the AIA protects the content of the inventor's publications (during the 12 month period) from being used against them on a very literal basis. Anything from a third party other than almost the exact wording of the inventors publication can be used as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding simultaneous invention, before the AIA inventors could use the interference procedure to argue who had first conceived of the invention and whether or not that person had diligently - on a day-by-day basis  - had proceeded to reduce to practice. Was the one who lost &quot;screwed&quot; by not knowing that the other person had already conceived of it? No, they just came in second or could not substantiate the day they maintained they conceived of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under AIA one inventor can preempt other inventors by filing first, or under the watered-down grace period can preempt by publishing first, **but** they only nail down exactly what they published. That is not written into the law but rather into the USPTO regulations putting the law into effect.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22327" RevisionGUID="51b768f2-eaa3-44ec-9a8a-e41c74bb6b9f" CreationDate="2020-05-08T17:49:46.360" UserId="3076" Comment="added 171 characters in body" Text="An answer to the question in your title is at https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/22251/how-do-others-publications-during-the-grace-period-hinder-patentability&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As interpreted by the USPTO the provisions for a grace period in the AIA protects the content of the inventor's publications (during the 12 month period) from being used against them on a very literal basis. Anything from a third party other than almost the exact wording of the inventors publication can be used as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding simultaneous invention, before the AIA inventors could use the interference procedure to argue who had first conceived of the invention and whether or not that person had diligently - on a day-by-day basis  - had proceeded to reduce to practice. Was the one who lost &quot;screwed&quot; by not knowing that the other person had already conceived of it? No, they just came in second or could not substantiate the day they maintained they conceived of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under AIA one inventor can preempt other inventors by filing first, or under the watered-down grace period can preempt by publishing first, **but** they only nail down exactly what they published. That is not written into the law but rather into the USPTO regulations putting the law into effect.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22327" RevisionGUID="756736ae-5632-4151-bc3d-ebeeacf035bd" CreationDate="2020-05-08T19:46:43.253" UserId="3076" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="An answer to the question in your title is at https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/22251/how-do-others-publications-during-the-grace-period-hinder-patentability&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As interpreted by the USPTO the provisions for a grace period in the AIA protects the content of the inventor's publications (during the 12 month period) from being used against them on a very literal basis. Anything from a third party other than almost the exact wording of the inventors publication can be used as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding simultaneous invention, before the AIA inventors could use the interference procedure to argue who had first conceived of the invention and whether or not that person had diligently - on a day-by-day basis  - proceeded to reduce the conception to practice. Was the one who lost &quot;screwed&quot; by not knowing that the other person had already conceived of it? No, they just came in second or could not substantiate the day they maintained they conceived of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under AIA one inventor can preempt other inventors by filing first, or under the watered-down grace period can preempt by publishing first, **but** they only nail down exactly what they published. That is not written into the law but rather into the USPTO regulations putting the law into effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22328" RevisionGUID="cf103f92-a516-47f3-8488-9f298e72922e" CreationDate="2020-05-08T23:11:04.087" UserId="24091" Text="Is is possible for any to commercialize my published research paper once it is published in a renowned journal, I haven't applied for the patent? I know that once you are published, the knowledge becomes public and anyone can have the access of the information. I also know public knowledge can't be patented. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no protection, then why researcher publish their work in these journal and also why these publications hold on to these researcher's research and get paid but not the researchers?    &#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60386" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22328" RevisionGUID="cf103f92-a516-47f3-8488-9f298e72922e" CreationDate="2020-05-08T23:11:04.087" UserId="24091" Text="Commercializing a published research paper without the permission of author?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60387" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22328" RevisionGUID="cf103f92-a516-47f3-8488-9f298e72922e" CreationDate="2020-05-08T23:11:04.087" UserId="24091" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;research&gt;&lt;publication&gt;&lt;papers&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22329" RevisionGUID="f44676f1-58e6-4284-ac13-8f1d452778ec" CreationDate="2020-05-08T23:23:12.893" UserId="17003" Text="In the US, there is a one year grace period for inventors to file a patent application after public disclosure. Such disclosure does prevent you from obtaining patent protection in most other countries. That said, how do you know that other researchers have published without filing for patent protection? Patent applications typically take 18 months to publish after filing. A new technology published in a journal may easily have a patent application filed without your knowledge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22329" RevisionGUID="a1382d7a-93a7-42f9-98de-959ca20f9289" CreationDate="2020-05-09T14:07:31.057" UserId="17003" Comment="added 809 characters in body" Text="In the US, there is a one year grace period for inventors to file a patent application after public disclosure. Such disclosure does prevent you from obtaining patent protection in most other countries. That said, how do you know that other researchers have published without filing for patent protection? Patent applications typically take 18 months to publish after filing. A new technology published in a journal may easily have a patent application filed without your knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To address questions in your comments, once the grace period passes, you have no control over your technology so you can't sue others for commercial use. Unlike patents, there is no requirement for an academic publication to fully enable a new technology so you might protect some aspects of your ideas. However you won't make many friends trying to do so. As the expert in your technology, you are in the best position to pursue and patent important improvements. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Academics publish for many reasons other than commercial reward. Career growth in academics is based substantially on quality and quantity of the author's publications. Publications, especially in well respected journals increases the researcher's profile within their field which may lead to collaborations and further career progress." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22330" RevisionGUID="aa305395-0b27-4eae-947c-5389eab42be0" CreationDate="2020-05-09T18:05:48.387" UserId="20503" Text="Here is a python project that scrapes the USPTO raw data files and parses them into CSV files, MySQL, and PostgreSQL databases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://github.com/rippledj/uspto " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60393" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22327" RevisionGUID="8313b584-e029-4349-be25-9379007a18bf" CreationDate="2020-05-09T18:20:02.290" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1666 characters in body" Text="An answer to the question in your title is at https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/22251/how-do-others-publications-during-the-grace-period-hinder-patentability&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As interpreted by the USPTO the provisions for a grace period in the AIA protects the content of the inventor's publications (during the 12 month period) from being used against them on a very literal basis. Anything from a third party other than almost the exact wording of the inventors publication can be used as prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A real one year grace period was an important feature of pre-AIA U.S. law, as was the principle that the first to invent should be the one who could get a patent. The AIA moved us towards the rest of the world. The rest of the world is very strictly first-to-file with no concept that someone who invented first but filed second should have priority. Logically, with a first to file system any publication by anyone kills everyone's ability to file so the rest of the world has a strict novelty requirement.  Any disclosure before filing kills the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding simultaneous invention, before the AIA inventors could use the interference procedure to argue who had first conceived of the invention and whether or not that person had diligently - on a day-by-day basis  - proceeded to reduce the conception to practice. Was the one who lost &quot;screwed&quot; by not knowing that the other person had already conceived of it? No, they just came in second or could not substantiate the day they maintained they conceived of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under AIA one inventor can preempt other inventors by filing first, or under the watered-down grace period can preempt by publishing first, **but** they only nail down exactly what they published. That is not written into the law but rather into the USPTO regulations putting the law into effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Response to a comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A real one year grace period was an important feature of pre-AIA U.S. law, as was the principle that the first to invent should be the one who could get a patent. The AIA moved us towards the rest of the world. The rest of the world is very strictly first-to-file with no concept that someone who invented first but filed second should have priority. Logically, with a first to file system any publication by anyone kills everyone's ability to file so the rest of the world has a strict novelty requirement.  The assumption is that if you filed first you are the inventor with no mechanism to prove it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any disclosure by anyone before filing kills an application. If you publish on Monday then 1000 people could file on Tuesday. With no mechanism to determine who invented first, or was an inventor at all, the situation would be untenable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, part of the compromise in the AIA was to keep some sort of grace period. If *you* publish, we do not hold that against *you*. Someone else's publication can be held against you to the extent is goes beyond what you published." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60394" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="db6db2f4-aed2-49e7-92f1-4aa0fbaf60c6" CreationDate="2020-05-09T23:03:35.507" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22331" RevisionGUID="4b562c0e-5464-4e82-88d7-666c679c999e" CreationDate="2020-05-10T14:19:20.707" UserId="6045" Text="IP Watchdog recently [ran a story][1] about recent developments in obtaining bulk file wrapper data from the USPTO.  It also describes the efforts of various companies in &quot;scraping&quot; data from USPTO databases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some file wrapper data is available for bulk download from [Patent Examination Data System][2].  This contains complete file wrapper data, for those applications open to public inspection, from 1981 to the present (updated daily).  The data prior to 1981 are incomplete.  The downloads are in JSON and XML file formats, which can be imported into a database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO also provides some large data sets as [&quot;Research Data Sets&quot;.][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/04/29/patent-office-improves-open-data-access-file-wrappers/id=121137/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ped.uspto.gov/peds/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/ip-policy/economic-research/research-datasets" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60396" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="21005" RevisionGUID="35165110-b6fc-4720-a581-5673152405e5" CreationDate="2020-05-12T20:04:40.413" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22332" RevisionGUID="cacb4889-57f3-4def-9a4a-4bf83edf8e0b" CreationDate="2020-05-12T21:04:20.630" UserId="3076" Text="The patent owner writes, and properly signs, a letter disclaiming all of the claims and files it in the case with the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See MPEP section 1490 Disclaimers [R-08.2017]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;35 U.S.C. 253   Disclaimer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever a claim &#xD;&#xA;of a patent is invalid the remaining &#xD;&#xA;claims shall not thereby be rendered invalid. A patentee, whether of the whole or any sectional interest therein, may, on payment of the fee required by law, make disclaimer of any complete claim, stating therein the extent of his interest in such patent. Such disclaimer shall be in writing and recorded in the Patent and Trademark Office, and it shall thereafter be considered as part of the original patent to the extent of the interest possessed by the disclaimant and by those claiming under him.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) ADDITIONAL DISCLAIMER OR DEDICATION.—In the manner set forth in subsection (a), any patentee or applicant may disclaim or dedicate to the public the entire term, or any terminal part of the term, of the patent granted or to be granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22332" RevisionGUID="f52e82ef-6e0f-42c1-ad24-2909458c4720" CreationDate="2020-05-13T04:38:25.343" UserId="3076" Comment="added mention of EPO process" Text="The patent owner writes, and properly signs, a letter disclaiming all of the claims and files it in the case with the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**See [MPEP section 1490][1] Disclaimers [R-08.2017]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;35 U.S.C. 253   Disclaimer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever a claim &#xD;&#xA;of a patent is invalid the remaining &#xD;&#xA;claims shall not thereby be rendered invalid. A patentee, whether of the whole or any sectional interest therein, may, on payment of the fee required by law, make disclaimer of any complete claim, stating therein the extent of his interest in such patent. Such disclaimer shall be in writing and recorded in the Patent and Trademark Office, and it shall thereafter be considered as part of the original patent to the extent of the interest possessed by the disclaimant and by those claiming under him.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) ADDITIONAL DISCLAIMER OR DEDICATION.—In the manner set forth in subsection (a), any patentee or applicant may disclaim or dedicate to the public the entire term, or any terminal part of the term, of the patent granted or to be granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [EPO also has a process][2] for this although they also indicate that one could follow procedures in any or all locations where it has been validated according to whatever process a country might have. Revoking or surrendering with the EPO kills it everywhere. NOTE - this is not called &quot;disclaiming&quot; at the EPO, that term is used for what is also termed &quot;negative claiming&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **1.2.5 Revocation of the patent in the event that the patent proprietor no longer wishes the patent to be maintained as granted**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the patent proprietor states that he no longer approves the text in which the patent was granted and does not submit an amended text, the patent must be revoked pursuant to Art. 101 (see T 203/14 and T 2405/12). This also applies when the patent proprietor requests the patent to be revoked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a patent proprietor unambiguously declares to the EPO the surrender (or abandonment or renunciation) of the patent, this is interpreted as equivalent to a request that the patent be revoked (see T 237/86). If the request of the patent proprietor is not unambiguous, he is given the opportunity to request that the patent be revoked or to declare that he no longer approves of the patent being maintained as granted. This results in the patent being revoked&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1490.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/d_viii_1_2_5.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60399" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18971" RevisionGUID="66b9a901-67a5-44be-919e-bffbbd4d9552" CreationDate="2020-05-13T10:02:45.283" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22333" RevisionGUID="16dff8f8-3b6e-46b4-aae3-9371d0f8c929" CreationDate="2020-05-14T20:55:00.300" UserId="6045" Text="Do you remember **cordless landline phones**?  Specifically, do you recall or know of any technology for **selectively forwarding phone calls to particular cordless landline headsets**, based on the phone number of the caller?  How about technology for **selectively blocking calls from particular callers**?  The prior technology must have been known or used before **December 4, 2000**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;United Patents, a group of patent owners and technology companies, has announced **[a reward for prior art related to US Patent 6,970,706][1]**. This overbroad patent has been involved in litigation against nine mobile phone companies.  I post a summary here to provide notification of the contest, and to encourage further discussion of these claims.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Hierarchical call control with selective broadcast audio messaging system**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: Prioritizing callers in a cordless landline telephone system.  The telephone system maintains a database with phone number and respective priority, and forwards incoming calls to zero, one, or more than one handsets based on the caller's priority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US6970706][2] &#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee** (*of public record*): VALYRIAN IP LLC and Siemens Information and Communication Products LLC &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior art **predating December 4, 2020**&#xD;&#xA;- **Patroll Contest end date**: May 31, 2020 (10:30 PM Central European Summer Time)&#xD;&#xA;- **Previously considered**: during examination, the USPTO considered [patents][3] and [non-patent documents][4].  For the purpose of the Patroll Contest, those documents (and other members of the same patent families) are not of interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claims 1 through 3 are the focus of this request.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element listed below (*copied from published claims*):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for providing a hierarchical call control paradigm in a cordless phone system, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a base station operable in a broadcast mode and a standard mode; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a plurality of mobile units communicatively coupled to the base station;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a directory server coupled to the base station;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a phone number database included in or coupled to the directory server arranged to store any number of phone numbers,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a caller identification database coupled to the phone number database arranged to store a caller identifier uniquely associated with a phone number corresponding to a received phone call; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a priority level data base coupled to the caller identification data base arranged to provide a priority level for the caller identifier, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;wherein when the phone call is received, the directory server &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;	identifies a phone number of the received call, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identifies a caller based upon a retrieved caller identifier associated with the identified phone number, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; retrieves a priority level for the identified caller, and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forwards the call to a specific mobile unit based upon the priority level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 2** requires the addition of all of these elements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. A system as recited in claim 1, wherein the priority level is selected from a group comprising: a lowest priority (DO NOT DISTURB), an intermediate priority, and a highest priority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 3** requires the addition of all of these elements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. A system as recited in claim 2, wherein when the priority level is the lowest priority, then the incoming call is not forwarded to any of the plurality of mobile units.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In English, claim 1 requires:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A base station capable of forwarding phone calls to multiple mobile phone handsets,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. A database that stores phone numbers and associated priority levels for each phone number&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. When an incoming call is received from a phone number, the priority level associated with the phone number is retrieved from the database&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Based on the priority level, the base station forwards the call to zero, one, or more than one mobile phone handset(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 2 and 3 clarify that the base station has a mode in which phone calls from a particular phone number are not forwarded to any of the mobile phone handsets because they are assigned a low priority in the database.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art includes a description of similar systems (including base station, handsets, *and a database*) that merely does not forward calls from a particular phone number to the mobile phone handsets.  They important feature might be called &quot;caller block&quot;, &quot;always voicemail&quot;, &quot;known telemarketer&quot; or similar.  Alternatively, selectively forwarding calls to one or more than one mobile phone would also be useful.  The prior art must have a priority date earlier than December 4, 2000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patroll.unifiedpatents.com/contests/sycCx8X5AD5R864Hw&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6970706B2/en?oq=US6970706&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6970706B2#patentCitations&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6970706B2#nplCitations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60401" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22333" RevisionGUID="16dff8f8-3b6e-46b4-aae3-9371d0f8c929" CreationDate="2020-05-14T20:55:00.300" UserId="6045" Text="Cordless phone systems US Patent 6,970,706 - PRIOR ART REQUEST" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60402" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22333" RevisionGUID="16dff8f8-3b6e-46b4-aae3-9371d0f8c929" CreationDate="2020-05-14T20:55:00.300" UserId="6045" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;mobile&gt;&lt;call-center&gt;&lt;us6970706&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22333" RevisionGUID="2ff2999a-1422-4f65-a4d0-2b690e994d06" CreationDate="2020-05-15T02:26:34.230" UserId="3076" Comment="fixed date of publication or priority from 2020 to 2000 in one place. And removed the word &quot;overbroad&quot; as an unestablished  gratitus pejorative." Text="Do you remember **cordless landline phones**?  Specifically, do you recall or know of any technology for **selectively forwarding phone calls to particular cordless landline headsets**, based on the phone number of the caller?  How about technology for **selectively blocking calls from particular callers**?  The prior technology must have been known or used before **December 4, 2000**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;United Patents, a group of patent owners and technology companies, has announced **[a reward for prior art related to US Patent 6,970,706][1]**. This patent has been involved in litigation against nine mobile phone companies.  I post a summary here to provide notification of the contest, and to encourage further discussion of these claims.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Hierarchical call control with selective broadcast audio messaging system**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: Prioritizing callers in a cordless landline telephone system.  The telephone system maintains a database with phone number and respective priority, and forwards incoming calls to zero, one, or more than one handsets based on the caller's priority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US6970706][2] &#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee** (*of public record*): VALYRIAN IP LLC and Siemens Information and Communication Products LLC &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior art **predating December 4, 2000**&#xD;&#xA;- **Patroll Contest end date**: May 31, 2020 (10:30 PM Central European Summer Time)&#xD;&#xA;- **Previously considered**: during examination, the USPTO considered [patents][3] and [non-patent documents][4].  For the purpose of the Patroll Contest, those documents (and other members of the same patent families) are not of interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claims 1 through 3 are the focus of this request.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element listed below (*copied from published claims*):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for providing a hierarchical call control paradigm in a cordless phone system, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a base station operable in a broadcast mode and a standard mode; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a plurality of mobile units communicatively coupled to the base station;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a directory server coupled to the base station;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a phone number database included in or coupled to the directory server arranged to store any number of phone numbers,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a caller identification database coupled to the phone number database arranged to store a caller identifier uniquely associated with a phone number corresponding to a received phone call; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a priority level data base coupled to the caller identification data base arranged to provide a priority level for the caller identifier, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;wherein when the phone call is received, the directory server &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;	identifies a phone number of the received call, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identifies a caller based upon a retrieved caller identifier associated with the identified phone number, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; retrieves a priority level for the identified caller, and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forwards the call to a specific mobile unit based upon the priority level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 2** requires the addition of all of these elements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. A system as recited in claim 1, wherein the priority level is selected from a group comprising: a lowest priority (DO NOT DISTURB), an intermediate priority, and a highest priority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 3** requires the addition of all of these elements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. A system as recited in claim 2, wherein when the priority level is the lowest priority, then the incoming call is not forwarded to any of the plurality of mobile units.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In English, claim 1 requires:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A base station capable of forwarding phone calls to multiple mobile phone handsets,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. A database that stores phone numbers and associated priority levels for each phone number&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. When an incoming call is received from a phone number, the priority level associated with the phone number is retrieved from the database&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Based on the priority level, the base station forwards the call to zero, one, or more than one mobile phone handset(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 2 and 3 clarify that the base station has a mode in which phone calls from a particular phone number are not forwarded to any of the mobile phone handsets because they are assigned a low priority in the database.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art includes a description of similar systems (including base station, handsets, *and a database*) that merely does not forward calls from a particular phone number to the mobile phone handsets.  They important feature might be called &quot;caller block&quot;, &quot;always voicemail&quot;, &quot;known telemarketer&quot; or similar.  Alternatively, selectively forwarding calls to one or more than one mobile phone would also be useful.  The prior art must have a publication or U.S. priority date earlier than December 4, 2000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patroll.unifiedpatents.com/contests/sycCx8X5AD5R864Hw&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6970706B2/en?oq=US6970706&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6970706B2#patentCitations&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6970706B2#nplCitations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22333" RevisionGUID="d6226f6d-b91a-44b4-9085-f6aa4a3ba4c8" CreationDate="2020-05-15T02:44:55.430" UserId="3076" Comment="repalced &quot;headset&quot; with &quot;handset&quot;, as per the spec. of the ref. patent" Text="Do you remember **cordless landline phones**?  Specifically, do you recall or know of any technology for **selectively forwarding phone calls to particular cordless landline handsets**, based on the phone number of the caller?  How about technology for **selectively blocking calls from particular callers**?  The prior technology must have been known or used before **December 4, 2000**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;United Patents, a group of patent owners and technology companies, has announced **[a reward for prior art related to US Patent 6,970,706][1]**. This patent has been involved in litigation against nine mobile phone companies.  I post a summary here to provide notification of the contest, and to encourage further discussion of these claims.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TITLE: Hierarchical call control with selective broadcast audio messaging system**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: Prioritizing callers in a cordless landline telephone system.  The telephone system maintains a database with phone number and respective priority, and forwards incoming calls to zero, one, or more than one handsets based on the caller's priority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US6970706][2] &#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee** (*of public record*): VALYRIAN IP LLC and Siemens Information and Communication Products LLC &#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior art **predating December 4, 2000**&#xD;&#xA;- **Patroll Contest end date**: May 31, 2020 (10:30 PM Central European Summer Time)&#xD;&#xA;- **Previously considered**: during examination, the USPTO considered [patents][3] and [non-patent documents][4].  For the purpose of the Patroll Contest, those documents (and other members of the same patent families) are not of interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claims 1 through 3 are the focus of this request.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element listed below (*copied from published claims*):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A system for providing a hierarchical call control paradigm in a cordless phone system, comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a base station operable in a broadcast mode and a standard mode; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a plurality of mobile units communicatively coupled to the base station;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a directory server coupled to the base station;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a phone number database included in or coupled to the directory server arranged to store any number of phone numbers,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a caller identification database coupled to the phone number database arranged to store a caller identifier uniquely associated with a phone number corresponding to a received phone call; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a priority level data base coupled to the caller identification data base arranged to provide a priority level for the caller identifier, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;wherein when the phone call is received, the directory server &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;	identifies a phone number of the received call, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identifies a caller based upon a retrieved caller identifier associated with the identified phone number, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; retrieves a priority level for the identified caller, and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forwards the call to a specific mobile unit based upon the priority level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 2** requires the addition of all of these elements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. A system as recited in claim 1, wherein the priority level is selected from a group comprising: a lowest priority (DO NOT DISTURB), an intermediate priority, and a highest priority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 3** requires the addition of all of these elements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. A system as recited in claim 2, wherein when the priority level is the lowest priority, then the incoming call is not forwarded to any of the plurality of mobile units.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In English, claim 1 requires:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A base station capable of forwarding phone calls to multiple mobile phone handsets,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. A database that stores phone numbers and associated priority levels for each phone number&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. When an incoming call is received from a phone number, the priority level associated with the phone number is retrieved from the database&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Based on the priority level, the base station forwards the call to zero, one, or more than one mobile phone handset(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claims 2 and 3 clarify that the base station has a mode in which phone calls from a particular phone number are not forwarded to any of the mobile phone handsets because they are assigned a low priority in the database.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good prior art includes a description of similar systems (including base station, handsets, *and a database*) that merely does not forward calls from a particular phone number to the mobile phone handsets.  They important feature might be called &quot;caller block&quot;, &quot;always voicemail&quot;, &quot;known telemarketer&quot; or similar.  Alternatively, selectively forwarding calls to one or more than one mobile phone would also be useful.  The prior art must have a publication or U.S. priority date earlier than December 4, 2000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patroll.unifiedpatents.com/contests/sycCx8X5AD5R864Hw&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6970706B2/en?oq=US6970706&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6970706B2#patentCitations&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6970706B2#nplCitations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60405" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18515" RevisionGUID="98ebdc2c-0415-4830-b0ed-b003c3ead555" CreationDate="2020-05-15T13:31:55.583" UserId="6045" Comment="add tags regarding the cited patent and the general technical category of the claims" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;&lt;programming-tools&gt;&lt;us9501456&gt;&lt;intelligent-editors&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60406" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18515" RevisionGUID="98ebdc2c-0415-4830-b0ed-b003c3ead555" CreationDate="2020-05-15T13:31:55.583" Comment="Proposed by 6045 approved by 19884 edit id of 2123" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22334" RevisionGUID="ae2dec81-8c8c-4f67-8a94-059f97e842e8" CreationDate="2020-05-17T01:46:59.023" UserId="24107" Text="I'm very interested in improving upon a patented software method (A) which, in it's turn, is an improvement over a relatively old existing method (B).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally, my understanding was that the old method (B) would fall as prior art, and thus, the patent application (A) be rejected. However, there was adequate disclosure and the original paper is referenced to in the patent grant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to 35 USC 101-103, 112, improvements to processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter, are patentable but only if they are new and useful, and non-obvious (among other requirements like adequate disclosure etc.) [reference](https://law.stackexchange.com/a/2307/31521)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As most legal concepts, these all seem very abstract to me, and I couldn't find any trusted source that could give me an adequate answer of what constitutes _new and useful_ or _non-obvious_ improvements. Or at least examples of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, what should be taken into account for something to be considered _new and useful, and non-obvious_?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, in order to not infringe the patent, should the new method not violate all claims, or is it an infringement to violate anyone claim? I ask this because there's a series of chained claims in the referred document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A-Patent](http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=10599485)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A-Paper](http://justinlevandoski.org/papers/mwcas.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[B-Paper](https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/srg/netos/papers/2002-casn.pdf)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60408" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22334" RevisionGUID="ae2dec81-8c8c-4f67-8a94-059f97e842e8" CreationDate="2020-05-17T01:46:59.023" UserId="24107" Text="Is it an infringement to extend patented work?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60409" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22334" RevisionGUID="ae2dec81-8c8c-4f67-8a94-059f97e842e8" CreationDate="2020-05-17T01:46:59.023" UserId="24107" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;post-grant&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22336" RevisionGUID="ae0265a6-a8ce-4234-92ca-6b7682fc7cc4" CreationDate="2020-05-17T04:29:17.560" UserId="21610" Text="For your work to be considered new it shouldn't be disclosed in any prior art publications. As far as usefull it must considerably improve or achieve what prior art failed to, in simple terms the improvement must not be for asthetic puropose. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your work to be non-obvoius it must have not been known from gerneral knowledge available to a POSA(PERSON SKILLED IN THE ART) i.e., a person who had experience in that pertinent field and could derived such improvement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22337" RevisionGUID="aabbfca9-cf56-4956-9a33-5a84a41ae211" CreationDate="2020-05-17T05:16:20.777" UserId="3076" Text="The claims of previous work are not particularly relevant to a patentablity analysis. Something in a journal article of an unclaimed part of a patent or a published patent application might be relevant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you say it must be useful, novel and not obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Useful - is easy unless the invention is claimed in a way that it can be accused of being abstract - like many software claims. Drafting a software claim that passes &quot;abstract&quot; muster is now difficult. Abstract = not useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Novel - For a claim to be novel no single prior art document must have an enabled description of something with **all** of the elements in your claim. You can add something relatively trivial to a prior art teaching to achieve novelty. That doesn't end up doing you any good if a potential infringer of your claim can just leave out your added element with minimal loss of performance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Non-obviousness - the hard criteria. Would a hypothetical someone of ordinary skill in the art who knew everything ever published or otherwise publicly disclosed ever, anywhere, that was relevant to the problem come up with your system by combining aspects of past systems without undue experimentation. Books have been written on the subject and  it is, as most things in patent law, a moving target." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22337" RevisionGUID="be533b0a-13df-464b-9342-308bf9c17146" CreationDate="2020-05-17T05:22:16.680" UserId="3076" Comment="added 576 characters in body" Text="The question of the title is very different from the question in the body.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Title question**&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Is it an infringement to extend patented work?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you make, sell, offer for sale, use or import anything that meets the details of one claim of an in-force patent, you have infringed the patent whether or not you have added something that was not in the claim. They claim something with an A,B and C but you make something with an A, B, C and D you infringe since you do have the A,B and C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Body question**&#xD;&#xA;*Criteria for you to get a patent on an improvement*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims of previous work are not particularly relevant to a patentablity analysis. Something in a journal article of an unclaimed part of a patent or a published patent application might be relevant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you say it must be useful, novel and not obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Useful* - is easy unless the invention is claimed in a way that it can be accused of being abstract - like many software claims. Drafting a software claim that passes &quot;abstract&quot; muster is now difficult. Abstract = not useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Novel* - For a claim to be novel no single prior art document must have an enabled description of something with **all** of the elements in your claim. You can add something relatively trivial to a prior art teaching to achieve novelty. That doesn't end up doing you any good if a potential infringer of your claim can just leave out your added element with minimal loss of performance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Non-obvious* - the hard criteria. Would a hypothetical someone of ordinary skill in the art who knew everything ever published or otherwise publicly disclosed ever, anywhere, that was relevant to the problem come up with your system by combining aspects of past systems without undue experimentation. Books have been written on the subject and  it is, as most things in patent law, a moving target." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60417" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="22334" RevisionGUID="770bf402-b907-48d3-b0b7-258ccd733ab6" CreationDate="2020-05-17T18:16:36.687" UserId="24107" Comment="edited title" Text="What's the criteria for you to get a patent on an improvement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22337" RevisionGUID="cfe25244-527a-4d56-8814-9fb1fd9df535" CreationDate="2020-05-17T19:15:05.450" UserId="3076" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="*Criteria for you to get a patent on an improvement*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims of previous work are not particularly relevant to a patentablity analysis. Something in a journal article of an unclaimed part of a patent or a published patent application might be relevant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you say it must be useful, novel and not obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Useful* - is easy unless the invention is claimed in a way that it can be accused of being abstract - like many software claims. Drafting a software claim that passes &quot;abstract&quot; muster is now difficult. Abstract = not useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Novel* - For a claim to be novel no single prior art document must have an enabled description of something with **all** of the elements in your claim. You can add something relatively trivial to a prior art teaching to achieve novelty. That doesn't end up doing you any good if a potential infringer of your claim can just leave out your added element with minimal loss of performance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Non-obvious* - the hard criteria. Would a hypothetical someone of ordinary skill in the art who knew everything ever published or otherwise publicly disclosed ever, anywhere, that was relevant to the problem come up with your system by combining aspects of past systems without undue experimentation. Books have been written on the subject and  it is, as most things in patent law, a moving target.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Questioning an existing patent*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The AIA law created a lower-cost way to try to get an existing patent invalidated. However, &quot;lower&quot; means lower than a multi-million dollar patent law suit. The new IPR process is still a small number of hundreds of thousands of dollars. There is also, under the AIA, a free process for submitting references (3rd party pre-issuance submission) to the USPTO that the examiner is required to take into consideration. There is a window during the proceedings were this is in effect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22337" RevisionGUID="a0784c7d-cdcc-427f-8644-09eaf3a35b1d" CreationDate="2020-05-17T20:45:04.847" UserId="3076" Comment="added info about improvements" Text="*Criteria for you to get a patent on an improvement*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost everything can be seen as an improvement on something from the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims of previous work are not particularly relevant to a patentablity analysis. Something in a journal article of an unclaimed part of a patent or a published patent application might be relevant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you say it must be useful, novel and not obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Useful* - is easy unless the invention is claimed in a way that it can be accused of being abstract - like many software claims. Drafting a software claim that passes &quot;abstract&quot; muster is now difficult. Abstract = not useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Novel* - For a claim to be novel no single prior art document must have an enabled description of something with **all** of the elements in your claim. You can add something relatively trivial to a prior art teaching to achieve novelty. That doesn't end up doing you any good if a potential infringer of your claim can just leave out your added element with minimal loss of performance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Non-obvious* - the hard criteria. Would a hypothetical someone of ordinary skill in the art who knew everything ever published or otherwise publicly disclosed ever, anywhere, that was relevant to the problem come up with your system by combining aspects of past systems without undue experimentation. Books have been written on the subject and  it is, as most things in patent law, a moving target.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Questioning an existing patent*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The AIA law created a lower-cost way to try to get an existing patent invalidated. However, &quot;lower&quot; means lower than a multi-million dollar patent law suit. The new IPR process is still a small number of hundreds of thousands of dollars. There is also, under the AIA, a free process for submitting references (3rd party pre-issuance submission) to the USPTO that the examiner is required to take into consideration. There is a window during the proceedings were this is in effect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22338" RevisionGUID="b193075b-a6c8-45f9-af54-6a81b493b10b" CreationDate="2020-05-18T18:52:51.703" UserId="17003" Text="Although George White's answer is excellent, I wanted to explicitly answer your last question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also, in order to not infringe the patent, should the new method not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; violate all claims, or is it an infringement to violate any one claim?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To infringe on an existing patent, it is only required that you infringe on a single claim. Please understand that with improvement patents, it is very common that the new patent can not be used without a license to the original patent. For instance let's say patent A has a method with steps A, B, and C. The new patent B has a method with the same steps A, B and C but when adding step D provides an unexpected improvement in performance. The new patent B has real value, but can't be practiced without infringing on patent A." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22337" RevisionGUID="db65808f-251b-4044-89cb-ea1d4d73e13f" CreationDate="2020-05-18T19:00:30.557" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="*Criteria for you to get a patent on an improvement*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost everything can be seen as an improvement on something from the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claims of previous work are not particularly relevant to a patentablity analysis. Something in a journal article of an unclaimed part of a patent or a published patent application might be relevant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you say it must be useful, novel and not obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Useful* - is easy unless the invention is claimed in a way that it can be accused of being abstract - like many software claims. Drafting a software claim that passes &quot;abstract&quot; muster is now difficult. Abstract = not useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Novel* - For a claim to be novel no single prior art document must have an enabled description of something with **all** of the elements in your claim. You can add something relatively trivial to a prior art teaching to achieve novelty. That doesn't end up doing you any good if a potential infringer of your claim can just leave out your added element with minimal loss of performance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Non-obvious* - the hard criteria. Would a hypothetical someone of ordinary skill in the art who knew everything ever published or otherwise publicly disclosed ever, anywhere, that was relevant to the problem come up with your system by combining aspects of past systems without undue experimentation. Books have been written on the subject and  it is, as most things in patent law, a moving target.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Questioning an existing patent*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The AIA law created a lower-cost way to try to get an existing patent invalidated. However, &quot;lower&quot; means lower than a multi-million dollar patent law suit. The new IPR process is still a small number of hundreds of thousands of dollars. There is also, under the AIA, a free process for submitting references (3rd party pre-issuance submission) to the USPTO that the examiner is required to take into consideration. There is a window during the proceedings where this is in effect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22338" RevisionGUID="063571b4-d9da-445d-b9f2-21006fef8fdf" CreationDate="2020-05-18T19:47:27.007" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Although George White's answer is excellent, I wanted to explicitly answer your last question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also, in order to not infringe the patent, should the new method not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; violate all claims, or is it an infringement to violate any one claim?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To infringe on an existing patent, it is only required that you infringe on a single claim. Please understand that with improvement patents, it is very common that the new patent can not be used without a license to the original patent. For instance let's say patent A has a method with steps 1, 2, and 3. The new patent B has a method with the same steps 1, 2, and 3 but when adding step 4 provides an unexpected improvement in performance. The new patent B has real value, but can't be practiced without infringing on patent A." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60425" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12452" RevisionGUID="f1e57213-80de-4d9b-a869-89cdfaeed681" CreationDate="2020-05-19T21:06:20.610" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22339" RevisionGUID="4ffdd483-fed1-45d1-952f-e8cdf2d00edc" CreationDate="2020-05-20T06:30:25.300" UserId="21925" Text="[This][1] answer claims that the average time to obtain a patent from the USPTO in 2015 was around 32 months. If a patent is pending for significantly longer than this period (say, 5 - 6 years from the filing date), then is this indication that the patent application, as written initially, was very far from being valid? In other words, is it likely the case that the patent, as initially written, requires a large amount of changes in order to be valid, and so there is a large amount of correspondence between the USPTO examiners and the inventors for changes, leading to the longer time? Especially if the organization that the patent was filed under has a large amount of financial resources and experience filing patents, since I presume that this would mean that it is unlikely that the reason for the longer time is some trivial legal technicality/issue, and more-so a fundamental issue with the patent claims themselves?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would greatly appreciate it if people would please take the time to clarify this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/12168/21925" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60427" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22339" RevisionGUID="4ffdd483-fed1-45d1-952f-e8cdf2d00edc" CreationDate="2020-05-20T06:30:25.300" UserId="21925" Text="Reasons behind extraordinarily long waiting times since patent filing date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60428" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22339" RevisionGUID="4ffdd483-fed1-45d1-952f-e8cdf2d00edc" CreationDate="2020-05-20T06:30:25.300" UserId="21925" Text="&lt;validity&gt;&lt;filing-date&gt;&lt;timeline&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22340" RevisionGUID="6098769e-0015-4dff-8e42-4a964ac23ab3" CreationDate="2020-05-20T18:44:23.123" UserId="3076" Text="There is no one reason. I do not see it as a measure of the quality of the patent application. If 32 months is average there will be cases that are faster and those that are longer. Some Technology Centers and art units (the groups that examiners are broken into by subject matter) have bigger backlogs than others. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO published pendency data by Technology Center.&#xD;&#xA;[This][1] came up quickly in a search but is for 2009. See that Semiconducters were 29.7 months while Networks was 47.7 months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tech Center 2800 - Semiconductor, Electrical, Optical Systems &amp; Components total pendency average	29.7 months&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tech Center 2400 - Network, Multiplexing, Cable &amp; Security 	total pendency average 	47.7 months&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can look up specific applications in [USPTO Public PAIR][2] and see all of the back and forth between the applicant and the office to try to judge the reasons for yourself. Of course anything that goes to an appeal will take quite a while. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/statistics/patent-pendency-statistics-fy09&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22340" RevisionGUID="ec79d4cf-560f-4842-a2de-19d037caccf5" CreationDate="2020-05-20T19:34:52.420" UserId="3076" Comment="added 171 characters in body" Text="There is no one reason. I do not see it as a measure of the quality of the patent application. If 32 months is average there will be cases that are faster and those that are longer. Some Technology Centers and art units (the groups that examiners are broken into by subject matter) have bigger backlogs than others. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO published pendency data by Technology Center.&#xD;&#xA;[This][1] came up quickly in a search but is for 2009. See that Semiconductors were 29.7 months while Networks was 47.7 months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tech Center 2800 - Semiconductor, Electrical, Optical Systems &amp; Components total pendency average	29.7 months&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tech Center 2400 - Network, Multiplexing, Cable &amp; Security 	total pendency average 	47.7 months&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can look up specific applications in [USPTO Public PAIR][2] and see all of the back and forth between the applicant and the office to try to judge the reasons for yourself. Of course anything that goes to an appeal will take quite a while. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What changes during the prosecution of a patent application is not primarily the body of the appliation - no new matter can be added after filing but just the claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/statistics/patent-pendency-statistics-fy09&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22343" RevisionGUID="5c7c0ecf-1928-446d-b1c8-ba559631709a" CreationDate="2020-05-21T23:48:27.900" UserDisplayName="user24121" Text="In the movie &quot;Flash of Genius,&quot; which covered the law suit involving intermittent automobile windshield wipers, it seemed that the individual parts (wipers, control box, electrical components) were already available, but what was done with the wipers was not done previously.  In the rulings for the claimant engineer (he was finally awarded something like $18m from Ford and $30m from Chrysler), what met the requirement for being: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Beyond prior art?&#xD;&#xA; 2. More than an obvious extension of knowledge possessed by the ordinary person skilled in that discipline?&#xD;&#xA; 3. More than an extension of known engineering techniques?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For beyond prior art, is it enough to show that prior art didn't exist?  Wouldn't that be difficult in terms of proprietary (non-public) trade secrets held by claimants?  A defendant auto company could build a similar device or control box &quot;over the weekend,&quot; and over the &gt;10-year case, multiple designs could actually have been manufactured.  (that's what actually happened, since the claimant was a contractor to Ford, and he noticed &quot;his&quot; intermittent wipers appeared on a newly manufactured car).   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why were intermittent wipers considered more than an obvious extension of knowledge of an ordinary engineer in automobile manufacturing?  I think introducing intermittency control for wipers is an obvious extension of knowledge by an automobile engineer, but maybe it was not obvious because it was not thought of by another engineer.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, how could intermittent wipers be considered to be more than an &quot;extension&quot; of known engineering techniques?  Maybe it was enough to show that the technique for intermittent design was not a known technique.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something leads me to believe that there was an element of &quot;first to file&quot; in this suit, but that didn't exist by USPTO in the 60's/70's.  In the first answer to this [OP][1], it is stated that an examiner only needs to argue that an ordinary person in the field could eventually come up with the invention using individual components.  Given this, and given the fact that automobile manufacturers would eventually develop and manufacture intermittent wipers, why was the ruling for the claimant?  (I don't know if it was patent infringement and/or damages related to lost financial opportunities).     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/34351/patent-law-what-is-the-litmus-test-for-inventive-step-non-obvious" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60440" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22343" RevisionGUID="5c7c0ecf-1928-446d-b1c8-ba559631709a" CreationDate="2020-05-21T23:48:27.900" UserDisplayName="user24121" Text="&quot;Flash of Genius&quot; Intermittent Windshield Wipers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60441" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22343" RevisionGUID="5c7c0ecf-1928-446d-b1c8-ba559631709a" CreationDate="2020-05-21T23:48:27.900" UserDisplayName="user24121" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22343" RevisionGUID="98c07f4d-fe58-44ac-915c-6162528e9727" CreationDate="2020-05-22T03:15:59.433" UserDisplayName="user24121" Comment="deleted 1785 characters in body" Text="In the movie &quot;Flash of Genius,&quot; which covered the long 1960-70's law suit involving intermittent automobile windshield wipers, it seemed that the individual parts (wipers, control box, electrical components) were already available, but what was done with the wipers was not done previously.  In the rulings for the claimant engineer (he was finally awarded something like $18m from Ford and $30m from Chrysler), what met the requirement for being: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Beyond prior art?&#xD;&#xA; 2. More than an obvious extension of knowledge possessed by the ordinary person skilled in that discipline?&#xD;&#xA; 3. More than an extension of known engineering techniques?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22344" RevisionGUID="4d3f1f77-2dd8-46ff-82dd-c9c819fb473d" CreationDate="2020-05-22T04:14:25.557" UserId="3076" Text="Almost everything is made of a combination of known things and, as @EricShain said in a comment what is obvious now might not have been obvious then. More importantly that the number of years that has past is the fact that we know about intermittent wipers. Humans have a tremendous hindsight bias. Once you know something, it seems obvious. It is very hard to put your mind into a state before you knew something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is why, until a few years ago, we had the TSM rule for judging obviousness. Teaching Suggestion Motivation. To find something as obvious the examiner needed to cite a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify or combine the prior art teachings to achieve the claimed invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60444" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20371" RevisionGUID="97d5ed90-cf8f-4c94-a527-3bfce7fbf73f" CreationDate="2020-05-22T05:07:05.620" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22346" RevisionGUID="94c693af-37aa-4c2a-bca2-8e2ecb7b1700" CreationDate="2020-05-22T17:11:46.397" UserId="24124" Text="Suppose we have an EU or US patent with 3 claims. The examiner rejects one of the indipendent claims because of prior art.&#xD;&#xA;Ist it still possible to process with the patent application by giving up the indipendent claim that got rejected and only releasing the patent with the other 2 claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60449" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22346" RevisionGUID="94c693af-37aa-4c2a-bca2-8e2ecb7b1700" CreationDate="2020-05-22T17:11:46.397" UserId="24124" Text="Is it possible to proceed with patent application when prior art is found for 1, but not all, of the indipendent claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60450" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22346" RevisionGUID="94c693af-37aa-4c2a-bca2-8e2ecb7b1700" CreationDate="2020-05-22T17:11:46.397" UserId="24124" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;european&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22347" RevisionGUID="edd1be13-f35b-4ce0-a8f8-45b13362af88" CreationDate="2020-05-22T18:34:33.397" UserId="3076" Text="Absolutely, patent prosecution is a process. One may amend claim wording to narrow and avoid cited prior art, cancel some claims, or cancel all claims are submit a new set of claims. One may also argue that the cited reference is not valid prior art based on its date or not being in an analogous art, or not teaching all elements of the claim in question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22344" RevisionGUID="78730149-eff9-4bf8-afb2-461176639eee" CreationDate="2020-05-24T21:25:02.107" UserId="3076" Comment="added info on Bilski due to comment" Text="Almost everything is made of a combination of known things and, as @EricShain said in a comment what is obvious now might not have been obvious then. More importantly that the number of years that has past is the fact that we know about intermittent wipers. Humans have a tremendous hindsight bias. Once you know something, it seems obvious. It is very hard to put your mind into a state before you knew something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is why, until a few years ago, we had the TSM rule for judging obviousness. Teaching Suggestion Motivation. To find something as obvious the examiner needed to cite a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify or combine the prior art teachings to achieve the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Bilski v. Kappos (2010) case said that TSM is an ok guideline but no longer required to make a good case of obviousness. It makes obviousness arguments harder. The examiner, however, is still not allowed to say &quot;seems obvious to me&quot;. They must find a set of previous work that collectively have all of the elements of the rejected claim *and* make a reasonable argument that someone would be motivated to combine each of then to get to the claim as a whole. It is the arguments that someone would quickly jump to combining them that got easier for the examiner due to Bilski." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60472" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="21041" RevisionGUID="4cd317d9-77e1-412a-aec9-9619eabcc09b" CreationDate="2020-05-25T00:03:35.360" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22352" RevisionGUID="7a7e36b9-0762-41e9-8006-50ab38ab2a05" CreationDate="2020-05-25T11:33:25.073" UserId="21567" Text="Good morning -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a pending non-provisional U.S. patent application.  First office action is estimated in 5-6 months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to file a preliminary amendment to add new claims.  37 CFR 1.115 states that preliminary amendments may be disapproved in certain cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it common for preliminary amendments to be disapproved?  Could this happen even if my first office action is half a year away?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60474" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22352" RevisionGUID="7a7e36b9-0762-41e9-8006-50ab38ab2a05" CreationDate="2020-05-25T11:33:25.073" UserId="21567" Text="Is my preliminary amendment likely to be disapproved?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60475" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22352" RevisionGUID="7a7e36b9-0762-41e9-8006-50ab38ab2a05" CreationDate="2020-05-25T11:33:25.073" UserId="21567" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;claim-amendment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22353" RevisionGUID="73b8cc9b-ffcb-4059-9f0a-d551c842101f" CreationDate="2020-05-25T16:41:18.377" UserId="24136" Text="I understand that a claim like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;```A compound as claimed in claim 1 for use as a medicine.```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is a &quot;use&quot; claim (compound used as medicine) as further explained [here](https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/f_iv_4_16.htm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I ask myself, is a claim like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;```A coating prepared from the composition according to any one of claims 1-22.```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; also a &quot;use&quot; claim (composition used as coating), or is it a &quot;product&quot; claim because it claims a coating consisting of the composition.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60477" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22353" RevisionGUID="73b8cc9b-ffcb-4059-9f0a-d551c842101f" CreationDate="2020-05-25T16:41:18.377" UserId="24136" Text="How to distinguish &quot;use&quot; claims from &quot;product&quot; claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60478" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22353" RevisionGUID="73b8cc9b-ffcb-4059-9f0a-d551c842101f" CreationDate="2020-05-25T16:41:18.377" UserId="24136" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22354" RevisionGUID="098bf9f3-5235-4713-92ea-1ac45a197c0c" CreationDate="2020-05-25T22:27:32.810" UserId="3076" Text="The link pointed to in the question does not cover the case the question thinks it covers. The example in the question is not a &quot;use&quot; claim even though that word appears.  As pointed out in the WIPO site &quot;*the use* of substance X as an insecticide&quot; is taken to be a method claim - a way of using. That is the claim is to a series of steps. In the question we have &quot;a compound for use as a medicine&quot; - that is a claim to a compound and the &quot;for use as&quot; tells us what one might do with it but that does not change the fact that the claim is to &quot;a compound&quot;  - a thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents for doing a specific thing with a compound are method or process claims - &quot; (a) calculate a dose of the compound and (b) administer a dose to a patient with X disorder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second example is clearly a claim to a thing, not a use. &quot;A coating&quot; is a thing. The rest of the sentence tells us how the coating is made. A claim - &quot;A method of making a coating (a) get compound X, (b) crush it into a powder (c) dissolve it in oil . . . &quot; is a method to make a coating. Another claim might be a method of applying a coating." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22355" RevisionGUID="ea0ba0e7-a14c-40d5-abe0-22e266603b94" CreationDate="2020-05-25T23:16:07.320" UserId="3076" Text="It is very unlikely to be disallowed unless the examiner has already picked up the case and started searching. In that case, they would continue and generate an office action responsive to the claims-as-filed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22355" RevisionGUID="080f556c-fdef-43f0-8c4a-1a524329d7ca" CreationDate="2020-05-26T02:32:45.303" UserId="3076" Comment="added ref to CFR" Text="It is very unlikely to be disallowed unless the examiner has already picked up the case and started searching. In that case, they would continue and generate an office action responsive to the claims-as-filed. Just like it says in [37 CFR 1.115][1] 2 (i).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.115" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22356" RevisionGUID="ca087706-ff48-498b-be59-d87f2dad8563" CreationDate="2020-05-26T09:23:02.617" UserId="24124" Text="I am wondering whether legally a single patent with Claim A and Claim B allows the same legal protection for the content presented in Claim A and Claim B as two single patents containing in Patent 1 claim A and patent 2 Claim B?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60483" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22356" RevisionGUID="ca087706-ff48-498b-be59-d87f2dad8563" CreationDate="2020-05-26T09:23:02.617" UserId="24124" Text="Do 2 patents with single claim have the same legal protection as 1 patent with 2 indipendent claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60484" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22356" RevisionGUID="ca087706-ff48-498b-be59-d87f2dad8563" CreationDate="2020-05-26T09:23:02.617" UserId="24124" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;&lt;protection&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22357" RevisionGUID="5265dae0-e4a5-4280-a818-c78766fcd7d0" CreationDate="2020-05-26T12:30:24.280" UserId="6045" Text="This answer is with respect to US law and practice at the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If claims A and B are obvious variations of one another, they should be part of the same patent.  When such claims are submitted in separate patent applications, the later-filed application should be rejected on the basis of [double patenting][1].  Double patenting is the idea that the same invention, or obvious variations, should not be patented twice, because the patent term should not be extended by the filing of sequential patents and because the ownership of the same invention by two different entities would cause undue conflicts. &#xD;&#xA;The Applicant can respond by filing a [terminal disclaimer][2] in both applications.  A terminal disclaimer is a statement by the patent owner to disclaim any time period of the second patent that extends beyond the expiration of the first patent.  Also, the patents A and B must maintain common ownership. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent owner pays maintenance fees on both patents subject to a terminal disclaimer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If claim A and claim B are in separate patents and are not subject to a terminal disclaimer, then on the face one assumes that they are separate and distinct inventions.  They would provide different coverage for the different inventions.  If they are found to be obvious variants, then the earlier-filed claims can invalidate (make obvious) the later-filed claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s804.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s804.html#d0e101356" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60486" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19051" RevisionGUID="606524db-57a8-4783-b511-764d4a015747" CreationDate="2020-05-26T16:06:40.693" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22358" RevisionGUID="81403b18-8ebe-496c-8ae0-fa3c10cbcb32" CreationDate="2020-05-26T22:46:19.800" UserId="3076" Text="There are multiple ways to end up with two patents with claims that cover related subject matter. One is by filing two applications and the other is by having a continuation or divisional from a single parent or some more complicated filing relationship using more than one continuation or divisional. In the case of two application they might or might not be filed on the same day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If filed as two applications there might or might not be an issue of double patenting depending on the exact subject covered claimed. The infringing product might infringe two claims neither of which is oblivious in light of the other. This might be the case with two claims in one patent or in the case of two patents with one claims each. As mentioned in another answer there may be an issue of double patenting that was not caught by the examiner - if so a terminal disclaimer may be filed to obviate that issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two cases have the same legal effect on the face of it. It is possible that scrutiny of the history of a patent prosecution may turn up some irregularity that can get a patent torn up. Two patents from two applications that have no formal relationship to each other might present a more difficulty target for invalidation. If the infringer was to use a USPTO process (IPR) to try to invalidate a patent it will cost more to try to invalidate two patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22358" RevisionGUID="63d95cd4-ef91-4178-bc45-3d510804c048" CreationDate="2020-05-26T23:35:02.803" UserId="3076" Comment="added 541 characters in body" Text="There are multiple ways to end up with two patents with claims that cover related subject matter. One is by filing two applications and the other is by having a continuation or divisional from a single parent or some more complicated filing relationship using more than one continuation or divisional. In the case of two applicatiosn they might or might not be filed on the same day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If filed as two applications there might or might not be an issue of double patenting depending on the exact subject covered claimed. The infringing product might infringe two claims neither of which is oblivious in light of the other.  This might be the case with two claims in one patent or in the case of two patents with one claims each. As mentioned in another answer there may be an issue of double patenting that was not caught by the examiner - if so a terminal disclaimer may be filed to obviate that issue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If two claims in an original parent application are related but the examiner makes a restriction requirement (the claims are in different classes and it would be a burden to search both, for example) and the applicant does not traverse, then one claim can be pursued in the parent and the other claim can be refiled in a divisional. By the safe harbor (U.S.C. § 121) the claim in the divisional is by definition not subject to a double patenting problem. You end up with two patents of one claim each with zero double patenting issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two cases have the same legal effect on the face of it. It is possible that scrutiny of the history of a patent prosecution may turn up some irregularity that can get a patent torn up. Two patents from two applications that have no formal relationship to each other might present a more difficulty target for invalidation. If the infringer was to use a USPTO process (IPR) to try to invalidate a patent it will cost more to try to invalidate two patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22358" RevisionGUID="13380bc5-3f54-45cd-a63e-52599a9b23e5" CreationDate="2020-05-27T01:03:33.873" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="There are multiple ways to end up with two patents with claims that cover related subject matter. One is by filing two applications and the other is by having a continuation or divisional from a single parent or some more complicated filing relationship using more than one continuation or divisional. In the case of two applications they might or might not be filed on the same day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If filed as two applications there might or might not be an issue of double patenting depending on the exact subject claimed. The infringing product might infringe two claims neither of which is obvious in light of the other.  This might be the case with two claims in one patent or in the case of two patents with one claims each. As mentioned in another answer there may be an issue of double patenting that was not caught by the examiner - if so a terminal disclaimer may be filed to obviate that issue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If two claims in an original parent application are related but the examiner makes a restriction requirement (the claims are in different classes and it would be a burden to search both, for example) and the applicant does not traverse, then one claim can be pursued in the parent and the other claim can be refiled in a divisional. By the safe harbor (U.S.C. § 121) the claim in the divisional is by definition not subject to a double patenting problem. You end up with two patents of one claim each with zero double patenting issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two cases have the same legal effect on the face of it. It is possible that scrutiny of the history of a patent prosecution may turn up some irregularity that can get a patent torn up. Two patents from two applications that have no formal relationship to each other might present a more difficulty target for invalidation. If the infringer was to use a USPTO process (IPR) to try to invalidate a patent it will cost more to try to invalidate two patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60490" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22294" RevisionGUID="dc26c7cb-0825-48f2-8ed1-7db8f21c5279" CreationDate="2020-05-27T03:02:05.327" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60492" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22299" RevisionGUID="86ab74e3-3f44-4ef8-9899-d2ddd8a82a13" CreationDate="2020-05-27T20:04:50.470" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22360" RevisionGUID="9d16c510-16ce-44e1-8385-4b817becf057" CreationDate="2020-05-29T17:34:58.973" UserId="24124" Text="Do you know a US / EU search engine where you can type in a patent attorney name and then find all patents and customers who he/she released patents with?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60494" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22360" RevisionGUID="9d16c510-16ce-44e1-8385-4b817becf057" CreationDate="2020-05-29T17:34:58.973" UserId="24124" Text="Search engine to find all prior patents of patent attorney" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60495" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22360" RevisionGUID="9d16c510-16ce-44e1-8385-4b817becf057" CreationDate="2020-05-29T17:34:58.973" UserId="24124" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;search&gt;&lt;epo&gt;&lt;attorney&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22361" RevisionGUID="fff3a0e5-dbf0-4061-99fb-4befb58df148" CreationDate="2020-05-29T23:54:13.103" UserId="3076" Text="For the U.S. you can go to its [patent search page][1] and search for Legal Representative (LREP). I tried it with my first name last name, got 0 hits; first name middle initial last name, got 0 hits. Then I tried LREP/(&quot;George&quot; AND &quot;White&quot;) which would hit if anyone had my first name anywhere in their name AND also had my last name anywhere in their name. I got 50 hits and saw the name format used - last name; first name - maybe middle initial. Using that LREP/(&quot;White; George&quot;) I got the same 50 hits, as it happens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A big caveat is many firms put the firm name on the issue fee payment form rather than the specific practitioner's name.  I just looked up a mentor of mine who must have several hundred patents granted and it comes up zero. The information is not secret, the actual filings in every case ( individually available at [Public PAIR][2]) must be signed by an actual person who also puts down their registration number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&amp;r=0&amp;f=S&amp;l=50&amp;d=PTXT&amp;RS=LREP%2F%28%22George%22%20AND%20%22White%22%29&amp;Refine=Refine%20Search&amp;Query=LREP%2F%28%22White%3B%20George%22%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22302" RevisionGUID="a95223e7-5462-4ae5-93c5-1b4f0173ca05" CreationDate="2020-05-30T01:26:58.667" UserId="17003" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The document you cited was a patent application, not a granted patent. The subsequent patent is [US9414970B2][1]. It is important to look at an actual patent instead of it's application because the claims in a patent are often narrower than the corresponding application. Patent coverage is defined by its claims. Reading the bulk of a patent can sometimes give the impression that it broadly covers a technology where the actual claim language might be fairly narrow. Here is the first claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of noninvasively reducing facial wrinkles formed in facial skin, comprising the steps of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  providing a skin patch comprising a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; membrane and having a skin contacting surface, the skin contacting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; surface comprising a film of silicone-containing material to which an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; additive has been added to said silicone-containing material prior to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cross-linking of the silicone-containing material, said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; silicone-containing material having the additive impregnated therein&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and after cross-linking of the silicone-containing material to said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; membrane,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   wherein said additive is a therapeutic active ingredient,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  wherein said skin patch skin contacting surface comprises a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cross-linked composition of said silicone-containing material and said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; therapeutic active ingredient on said membrane, said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; silicone-containing material being cross-linked to said membrane,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  applying the skin contacting surface of the skin patch over and into&#xD;&#xA;&gt; contact with facial wrinkles, and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  maintaining the skin patch in place&#xD;&#xA;&gt; over and in contact with the facial wrinkles for an effective amount&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of time to tighten the skin at and around the facial wrinkles, thereby&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reducing the facial wrinkles in said skin, by contacting the skin with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said skin patch silicone material film and delivering a treatment of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; said active ingredient contained in said patch to said skin by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; contacting the skin with the already cross-linked together surface of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; silicone-containing material and membrane containing said active&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ingredient to deliver said active ingredient from said film;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; additive being useful for wrinkle reduction and/or other clinical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; indications; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  the additive being peptides, vitamin compounds,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; antioxidants, growth factors, glycolic or alphahydroxy acids, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; combinations thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, this claim is fairly long and involved. In order to infringe on a patent, you need to infringe on at least one claim. **To infringe on a claim, you need to implement each and every aspect of the claim**. Thus if a claim details steps A, B, C and D and you only implement steps A, B and D, you don't infringe. This claim has a lot of steps in it. For instance it specifies a silicone containing material with a &quot;therapeutic active ingredient&quot;. If you use a non-silicone adhesive you are free from this claim. Similarly the additive must be one or more of the following: &quot;peptides, vitamin compounds, antioxidants, growth factors, glycolic or alphahydroxy acids&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar analysis must be done with each of the claims in the patent. Note that a claim that refers to another claim is a dependent claim and is only infringed if the cited claim is also infringed. Thus it is usually best to focus on the independent claims first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To try to address your specific questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If I cut a piece of medical tape to a similar shape (a triangle),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; could this be considered an infringement of this patent?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In other words, can the combination of a simple shape with an existing material ever be considered a patent infringement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't believe so since the medical tape wouldn't incorporate a therapeutic active ingredient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is the purpose (keeping the skin in place) part of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention/patent? Is there a difference in a piece of tape for your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; face vs a piece of tape for industrial use, in the context of deciding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whether patent infringement occurred?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, the patent's coverage is defined by its claims. Every independent claim refers to skin, in particular facial skin. If you have a product using tape for something other than reducing wrinkles in skin, I suspect it is clear of this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please be advised that I am not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice. I always recommend consulting with an actual patent attorney when determining freedom to operate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9414970B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19154" RevisionGUID="b2cf2244-b340-4064-b9dc-8d7dce7a5854" CreationDate="2020-05-30T02:51:00.713" UserId="20503" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="Here are two links to GitHub projects that can be used to help download and parse USPTO data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://github.com/USPTO/PatentPublicData&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://github.com/USPTO/bulk-data-tools&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have also built a USPTO bulk data scraping and parsing software in Python3 =&gt; https://github.com/github.com/rippledj/uspto&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22362" RevisionGUID="0feadcd3-0607-456e-86d7-2058175af7d9" CreationDate="2020-05-30T17:49:33.087" UserId="3789" Text="The [U.S. Patent Statistics Chart&#xD;&#xA;Calendar Years 1963 - 2019](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/us_stat.htm) ([mirror](https://web.archive.org/web/20200530174604/https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/us_stat.htm))  distinguish Applications of &quot;U.S. Origin&quot; from Applications of &quot;Foreign Origin&quot;.	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What counts as patents of &quot;Foreign Origin&quot; in the USPTO statistics?  For example, if for a given patent 1 assignee is located outside the United States and 1 assignee is located in the United States, does that count as a patent of &quot;Foreign Origin&quot; or a patent of &quot;U.S.  Origin&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60500" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22362" RevisionGUID="0feadcd3-0607-456e-86d7-2058175af7d9" CreationDate="2020-05-30T17:49:33.087" UserId="3789" Text="What counts as patents of &quot;Foreign Origin&quot; in the USPTO statistics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60501" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22362" RevisionGUID="0feadcd3-0607-456e-86d7-2058175af7d9" CreationDate="2020-05-30T17:49:33.087" UserId="3789" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;statistics&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60502" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22304" RevisionGUID="9a8b866d-83dd-4841-87e5-693e9a2aaf2f" CreationDate="2020-05-31T03:02:20.297" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60503" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="a8b5d4c0-0437-4106-bf84-1ed22e8a1b81" CreationDate="2020-05-31T15:09:10.953" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22363" RevisionGUID="fa1e6b75-a720-419e-8575-fa177ebcc5c6" CreationDate="2020-06-04T07:54:01.453" UserId="6045" Text="From [Frequently Asked Questions About Patent Statistics][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;the PTMT Patent Technology Monitoring Team] and USPTO Annual Fiscal Year Reports use the residence of the first-named inventor to determine the origin of a patent&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also the [list of reports][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The totals are broken down by origin (patent origin is determined by the residence of the first-named inventor), either U.S. or foreign.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/faq.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/reports.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22363" RevisionGUID="d034f510-4218-42d5-882a-7bc2b9a71b18" CreationDate="2020-06-04T07:59:32.407" UserId="6045" Comment="Added a remark about assignees, attempting to distinguish the patent owner from the inventors" Text="From [Frequently Asked Questions About Patent Statistics][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;the PTMT Patent Technology Monitoring Team] and USPTO Annual Fiscal Year Reports use the residence of the first-named inventor to determine the origin of a patent&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also the [list of reports][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The totals are broken down by origin (patent origin is determined by the residence of the first-named inventor), either U.S. or foreign.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ownership of the patent (assignee(s)) is not used to determine origin of the patents in these reports.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/faq.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/reports.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22364" RevisionGUID="2e212808-19ef-4f80-99f2-f8ba85be5f03" CreationDate="2020-06-04T16:55:41.430" UserId="24163" Text="I am currently trying to create a lawn mowing robot which also uses Object Detection. Does the following patent prohibit me from doing this?&#xD;&#xA;http://www.freepatentsonline.com/9563204.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60507" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22364" RevisionGUID="2e212808-19ef-4f80-99f2-f8ba85be5f03" CreationDate="2020-06-04T16:55:41.430" UserId="24163" Text="Is it possible for me to develop a lawnmowing technology incorporating Object Avoidance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60508" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22364" RevisionGUID="2e212808-19ef-4f80-99f2-f8ba85be5f03" CreationDate="2020-06-04T16:55:41.430" UserId="24163" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22365" RevisionGUID="abafa3d4-e28a-46ab-8a08-a4992479b6f4" CreationDate="2020-06-04T22:38:37.877" UserId="3076" Text="The claims seem pretty broad but patents do not cover a result, rather a particular manner of achieving a result. You might study this patent, and many others in the same field and see a good way to address the problem that does not fall under anyone's claims. You can start by looking at earlier patents cited in this patent and subsequent patents that cite this patent as well as doing a more comprehensive search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You not only need to avoid patents specific to automated lawnmowers but patents that might be broader. The particular way you might combine radar and lidar data (to make up an example), might be patented outside the application area you are interested in. An extreme example is that there are patents are tire tread patterns." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22365" RevisionGUID="9bf9a272-81c8-4d74-b94e-4a4e59eac32c" CreationDate="2020-06-05T01:18:30.737" UserId="3076" Comment="added 241 characters in body" Text="The claims seem pretty broad but patents do not cover a result, rather a particular manner of achieving a result. You might study this patent, and many others in the same field and see a good way to address the problem that does not fall under anyone's claims. You can start by looking at earlier patents cited in this patent and subsequent patents that cite this patent as well as doing a more comprehensive search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another search element could be to look at other patent by the same inventor. Put inventor:(Mikael Willgert) into google patents to see a few titles that seem relevant like - Boundary definition system for a robotic vehicle - US9497901B2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You not only need to avoid patents specific to automated lawnmowers but patents that might be broader. The particular way you might combine radar and lidar data (to make up an example), might be patented outside the application area you are interested in. An extreme example is that there are patents are tire tread patterns." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60511" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="22356" RevisionGUID="9d8ad9da-f0d4-4808-8ee1-24058d3c706e" CreationDate="2020-06-05T21:18:02.043" UserId="6045" Comment="If claims A and B could be part of the same patent, but are submitted as two patents, they should be subject to a terminal disclaimer (claiming an obvious variant).  If they are submitted in the same patent application, but are distinct inventions, they should be restricted." Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;&lt;terminal-disclaimer&gt;&lt;protection&gt;&lt;restriction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60512" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="22356" RevisionGUID="9d8ad9da-f0d4-4808-8ee1-24058d3c706e" CreationDate="2020-06-05T21:18:02.043" Comment="Proposed by 6045 approved by 18033, 17003 edit id of 2124" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60514" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="22356" RevisionGUID="80d170ef-1dab-46b6-a899-7197515950ac" CreationDate="2020-06-06T22:23:02.300" UserId="3076" Comment="edited title" Text="Do 2 patents with single claim have the same legal protection as 1 patent with 2 independent claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22366" RevisionGUID="cfd6df15-4758-4508-98e9-01c9ef6b7c2d" CreationDate="2020-06-07T21:41:33.997" UserId="24170" Text="Is it true that there's no advantage in filing patents to each major patent office rather than filing it through the PCT system? PCT applications is used as a figure for innovation, but it seems that there are companies that forgo using the PCT system to apply for patents in Europe, Japan and the U.S. Are there advantages in doing so, or no advantage in filing patents in each patent office individually?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60516" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22366" RevisionGUID="cfd6df15-4758-4508-98e9-01c9ef6b7c2d" CreationDate="2020-06-07T21:41:33.997" UserId="24170" Text="Is it true that there's no advantage in filing patents to each major patent office rather than filing it through the PCT system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60517" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22366" RevisionGUID="cfd6df15-4758-4508-98e9-01c9ef6b7c2d" CreationDate="2020-06-07T21:41:33.997" UserId="24170" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22367" RevisionGUID="603df78b-cf4a-46f0-b762-83742fc1b23e" CreationDate="2020-06-08T00:48:39.267" UserId="3076" Text="The patents, once granted, are equally valid and enforceable in each country regardless of the path taken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There can be a cost saving if the applicant knows early in the process where they need to file and it is a small number of places. Each country's charges are typically a little less via the PCT but you have the PCT cost itself as &quot;overhead&quot;. It is often estimated that for only two places, direct (under the Paris Convention) would be less expensive. You can look up the filing fees and calculate it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have some control over the costs. When you file a PCT application you chose an ISA (International Search Authority) to do a search. The cost of having the U.S. or the EPO as ISA can be significantly greater than Korea or Russia. The PCT process does not obviate actual substantive examination in each country under that country's criteria and system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can also get earlier allowances by filing directly. The PCT process lets you delay deciding where to actually file - that is a plus unless you know where you want to go. There are also regional entities like the EPO that allow one filing that can end up with multiple patents in any of the EPO countries. If you do not know where you want to go but definitely know it is only Europe, filing directly with the EPO buys you time, as the PCT does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course you can go to the EPO via a PCT filing. Unlike the PCT process, an allowance by the EPO gets you national patents with no further ado, other than paying money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another benefit of PCT filing if you are thinking of filing many places is you get an International Search Report before you actually start spending money in specific places. You might get an unpleasant surprise if the ISA digs up some killer prior art. You might decide to drop the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In about 1999 a top patent firm filed an application for my company. At that time the PCT was relatively new and they chose not to use it to avoid risk. That is in the distant past." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22368" RevisionGUID="6283acd1-23df-4157-b4af-287c281e346f" CreationDate="2020-06-08T10:55:34.870" UserId="24172" Text="My patent is pending and they advised it will be finally granted in October 2020. However, it was published last week. When should I expect the full text to appear in Google Patents and ESPACENET? Also, when do patents appear in Google after a PCT filling took place?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60520" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22368" RevisionGUID="6283acd1-23df-4157-b4af-287c281e346f" CreationDate="2020-06-08T10:55:34.870" UserId="24172" Text="My patent is pending and it was just published in the UK Ipsum, when it will appear in Google Patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60521" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22368" RevisionGUID="6283acd1-23df-4157-b4af-287c281e346f" CreationDate="2020-06-08T10:55:34.870" UserId="24172" Text="&lt;publication&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22369" RevisionGUID="171e4802-9e24-4cbf-9dfc-0caf3206e725" CreationDate="2020-06-08T15:26:56.463" UserId="17003" Text="Only Google can tell you, but I did an experiment. I searched on [patents.google.com][1] for the most recent publication of patent applications. The date of the search is June 8th, 2020 and the most recent publications listed was a Korean application for May 27th, 2020. Next most recent were Australian publications on May 14th, 2020. The most recent EP was May 13th, 2020. It looks like it might depend on the country when an update is done and it might take several weeks at least.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did a similar search on [The Lens][2] and the newest publications were for May 14th, 2020 and were primarily German.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/?after=publication:20200501&amp;status=APPLICATION&amp;type=PATENT&amp;sort=new&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/search?n=10&amp;q=&amp;dates=%2Bpub_date:20200501-20200608&amp;l=en&amp;st=true&amp;preview=true&amp;p=0&amp;s=pub_date&amp;d=-" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22370" RevisionGUID="8447d545-a054-457c-864e-8df36dbd4fa0" CreationDate="2020-06-09T02:48:50.950" UserId="23991" Text="I'm a guy in a garage inventor. This is my first time trying to get a patent. I've got a provisional patent and I've done a fairly extensive patent search and I've done some research on how to to fill out a non-provisional patent application properly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My invention is fairly simple. My main method claim would be like two or three steps. There are existing devices that perform the same function as my invention but they're more complicated. My invention is actually dumber and easier. So I'm worried about getting an obvious rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there anything I can do when drafting my patent application to argue that my invention is non-obvious or does that have to be inferred from the claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60524" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22370" RevisionGUID="8447d545-a054-457c-864e-8df36dbd4fa0" CreationDate="2020-06-09T02:48:50.950" UserId="23991" Text="Where in your patent application can you make an argument that you're invention is non-obvious?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60525" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22370" RevisionGUID="8447d545-a054-457c-864e-8df36dbd4fa0" CreationDate="2020-06-09T02:48:50.950" UserId="23991" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22371" RevisionGUID="380dd0e0-e47e-4b34-998b-f78ed579a7a5" CreationDate="2020-06-09T10:30:34.867" UserId="24174" Text="My previous company has sold on its patents and I am being asked, the the acquirer, to sign a document stating that will will support new patent filings, including timely provision of data which I no longer have access to, given that I left the company. The contract form the acquirer puts my inputs at 1 dollar!!!!. What is the normal practice here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60527" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22371" RevisionGUID="380dd0e0-e47e-4b34-998b-f78ed579a7a5" CreationDate="2020-06-09T10:30:34.867" UserId="24174" Text="If my previous company sells its patents am I obliged to assist the acquirer with new patent filings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60528" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22371" RevisionGUID="380dd0e0-e47e-4b34-998b-f78ed579a7a5" CreationDate="2020-06-09T10:30:34.867" UserId="24174" Text="&lt;new-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22372" RevisionGUID="73eced82-b985-4b20-b3b4-aa10e78ef1d6" CreationDate="2020-06-09T13:22:17.317" UserId="18033" Text="You can, extensively, if you want, mention any prior art in the introduction, say what drawbacks there are and how your product is better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or you reply to the rejection when and if you get it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22373" RevisionGUID="27dc810d-823d-48b3-b6e7-3b4c3860e471" CreationDate="2020-06-09T14:14:07.790" UserId="17003" Text="I suppose it is possible the employment agreement you had with your former employer had some commitment that extended beyond your tenure. You should know of this or else demand the new company provides evidence or such commitment. It is not, in my experience, the norm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming there aren't contractual requirements, then you would be fully within your rights to decline to help. What I might suggest, is that you should put forward the option of support the new filings at a contracted rate of $XXX per hour. XXX should be a number no less than $100/hr. I personally wouldn't do it for less than $150/hr and if it is a large company significantly more. In any case you need them to respect the value of your time and the only way to do this is to charge an hourly rate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The $1 is a quaint custom that I used to experience early in my career. When I signed the documents before filing a patent, the company lawyers would give me a crisp new $1 bill as &quot;compensation&quot;. I don't think it really matters because as time went on, the $1 bills became less crisp and stopped being provided at all. In any case, you aren't an employee so such customs are silly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I am not a lawyer so this isn't legal advice. If you get threatened by the new company, you may need to consult with one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22373" RevisionGUID="2306a7e7-280a-489d-94c9-d4563fd8a17b" CreationDate="2020-06-09T14:43:51.070" UserId="17003" Comment="added 3 characters in body; added 5 characters in body" Text="I suppose it is possible the employment agreement you had with your former employer had some commitment that extended beyond your tenure. You should know of this or else demand the new company provides evidence or such commitment. It is not, in my experience, the norm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming there aren't contractual requirements, then you would be fully within your rights to decline to help. What I might suggest, is that you should put forward the option of supporting the new filings at a contracted rate of $XXX per hour. XXX should be a number no less than $100/hr. I personally wouldn't do it for less than $150/hr and if it is a large company significantly more. In any case you need them to respect the value of your time and the only way to do this is to charge an hourly rate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The $1 is a quaint custom that I used to experience early in my career. When I signed the documents before filing a patent, the company lawyers would give me a crisp new $1 bill as &quot;compensation&quot;. I don't think it really matters because as time went on, the $1 bills became less crisp and stopped being provided at all. In any case, you aren't an employee so such customs are silly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to be clear, I am not a lawyer so this isn't legal advice. If you get threatened by the new company, you may need to consult with one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22374" RevisionGUID="69091635-bf94-4294-8718-9ba8747c8367" CreationDate="2020-06-09T19:07:56.180" UserId="3076" Text="The time to argue non-obviousness is *after* you get an obviousness rejection. The rejection will cite specific prior art and provide logic as to why they should be combined. You need to attack the argument presented by the examiner, not &quot;obviousness&quot; in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent appliation describes the invention and how to make and use it. You can mention advantages over previous solutions but do it carefully. Disparaging an aspect of the prior art can lead to narrowing the interpretation of your claims, if granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22375" RevisionGUID="ca67c631-13ec-42d4-920a-f4b937b92081" CreationDate="2020-06-10T01:42:18.727" UserId="3076" Text="No&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way some of or all claims can be invalidated outside of a patent infringement case in a real (Article 3) court is via an [IPR][1] before the USPTO. The grounds in an IPR are limited to the issues of novelty and obviousness as shown by written published documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even in litigation the standards for inequitable conduct were raised considerably a few years ago. It now requires a &quot;but for&quot; situation. That means an analysis that *but for* the excluded prior art, the patent would not have been granted.  And it requires a second prong - showing that it was done with an intent to deceive. Before that a patent could be torn up - in litigation - for an &quot;innocent&quot; omission of an item of prior art that would not have affected the case anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, if the ommited prior art is killer enough to be &quot;but for&quot; art, then the excluded prior art (if a written published document) might be used in a successful IPR. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/appealing-patent-decisions/trials/inter-partes-review" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22376" RevisionGUID="5caefb25-7cb9-4d06-a4c9-912ef2785da8" CreationDate="2020-06-10T09:50:46.360" UserId="6045" Text="The last paragraph of the Background section should broadly describe the challenges found in the prior art that are addressed by the inventor.  The first few paragraphs of the Detailed Description should concisely explain how the inventor solved those challenges.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Background should explain the problem to be solved, and state that the prior methods were complicated, cumbersome, difficult, or whatever is true.  (See MPEP [608.01(c)][1] &quot;Where applicable, the problems involved in the prior art or other information disclosed which are solved by the applicant’s invention should be indicated. See also MPEP §608.01(a), § 608.01(p) and § 707.05(b).&quot;)  Successful Applicants rarely describe extensive detail about prior art in the Background.  A simple statement of the business area and challenges is enough.  Background statements generally avoid too much insight into how the inventor solved these challenges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Detailed Description should then show the reader how, through insight and experimentation, the inventor solved the problems described in the Background.  The Detailed Description can include the questions asked by the inventor that allowed the realization of a solution to the problems facing others.  If the invention specifically does not do certain steps, the Detailed Description should list each of the steps that the inventor realized were unnecessary.  Any new steps or modifications used to avoid the unnecessary steps should be listed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As George and Eric have noted, arguments about non-obviousness can be made in response to the Examiner's rejection (if any). The Application need not list all possibly related prior art.  It's notoriously difficult to know what the Examiner will choose for making a rejection.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the Application should include details that will support arguments of non-obviousness.  If the novelty of the invention is that is does not include certain features, the Detailed Description should specifically state the commonplace features that the invention does not include.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A feature in a claim that explains what is not done or not included is called a negative limitation.  Negative limitations should be supported by explicit description in the disclosure as originally filed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this helps. A patent agent or attorney could help answer questions related to your specific situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/e8r9#/e8r9/d0e44561.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14549" RevisionGUID="725e2a31-fab9-4835-9ed8-81112e2c456b" CreationDate="2020-06-11T07:07:15.383" UserId="14308" Comment="Clarity for easier to read" Text="I was wondering why lawsuits are not raising the subject matter eligibility under Section 101?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For e.g. at the recent news:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.law360.com/articles/643635/abbott-wins-another-round-in-20-year-protein-patent-fight. &#xD;&#xA;Here, why can't the losing party raise the issue of patent eligibility?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22379" RevisionGUID="42801a70-8375-4816-9ed3-5cd0a4db0ecd" CreationDate="2020-06-11T12:18:14.933" UserId="24179" Text="This is merely a hypothetical scenario but, I've been reading [this article]( https://www.managingip.com/article/b1kbpfgpxm7h5f/greece-inventions-made-by-greeks-abroad) with regards to patents made by Greek nationals, which states that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In cases where they are working in scientific research that may result in&#xD;&#xA; patent applications, *there is an absolute obligation that such patent applications be filed first in Greece.* According to legislation dating back to 1963 (law 4325/63) all patent&#xD;&#xA; applications by Greek nationals need to be first filed in Greece in order to&#xD;&#xA; receive a check to determine whether they are relevant to national security.&#xD;&#xA; Accordingly, the restrictions apply to all inventions, having no priority&#xD;&#xA; application filed in Greece, where the inventor or applicant is a Greek&#xD;&#xA; citizen, regardless of whether he or she is resident in Greece.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering, how enforcable is a condition like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could EPO check with the Greek patent office (OBI) that I've already filed for patent there? Is there any case in which the EPO has denied a patent application because it wasn't filed in the country of the applicant first?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the article it is also stated that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Breach of the obligation to first file in Greece is considered a criminal offence, which could result to imprisonment of the inventor or applicant disclosing the invention abroad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an official source / document that describes the reprocussions? Anyone knows of a case in which this happened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60543" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22379" RevisionGUID="42801a70-8375-4816-9ed3-5cd0a4db0ecd" CreationDate="2020-06-11T12:18:14.933" UserId="24179" Text="Nationals to file for patent in their countries first" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60544" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22379" RevisionGUID="42801a70-8375-4816-9ed3-5cd0a4db0ecd" CreationDate="2020-06-11T12:18:14.933" UserId="24179" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;greece&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22380" RevisionGUID="8dedfb3c-579b-4367-8a6a-7888ae4c1f3c" CreationDate="2020-06-11T18:18:52.283" UserId="3076" Text="Many countries have a rule about filing locally first, not necessarily with criminal penalties. Greece is free to make up rules for its residents but that does not constrain the EPO. If a Greek broke the rule and filed first with the EPO Greece could presumably jail them while the EPO granted them a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The U.S. requires applicants with inventions made in the U.S. to obtain a foreign filing license before filing outside the U.S. Normally this is done automatically when anything is filed with the USPTO. Six months after filing with the USPTO (either a national application or a PCT with the U.S. as RO) you either implicitly have a foreign filing incense or have been told your appliation us under a secrecy order. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If an applicant with an invention developed in the U.S. desires to file first in the UK, EPO or PCT directly with the IB in Geneva (for example) they can explicitly request a foreign fling license from the USPTO without actually filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22380" RevisionGUID="5e75e8ab-c64c-4483-b9df-c7e56ccac86b" CreationDate="2020-06-11T18:26:47.500" UserId="3076" Comment="added 567 characters in body" Text="Many countries have a rule about filing locally first, not necessarily with criminal penalties. Greece is free to make up rules for its residents but that does not constrain the EPO. If a Greek broke the rule and filed first with the EPO Greece could presumably jail them while the EPO granted them a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The U.S. requires applicants with inventions made in the U.S. to obtain a foreign filing license before filing outside the U.S. Normally this is done automatically when anything is filed with the USPTO. Six months after filing with the USPTO (either a national application or a PCT with the U.S. as RO) you either implicitly have a foreign filing incense or have been told your appliation us under a secrecy order. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If an applicant with an invention developed in the U.S. desires to file first in the UK, EPO or PCT directly with the IB in Geneva (for example) they can explicitly request a foreign fling license from the USPTO without actually filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike the case mentioned regarding Greek nationals, the U.S. rule is not related to the nationality of the inventor but to the location the invention took place. A U.S. national who happened to invent while in Canada would not be required to get a foreign filing license since such a license is essentially an export license. An invention made in Canada started out as outside the U.S. so there is not issue of &quot;exporting&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Greek who invented in the U.S. would presumably get a foreign filing license from the USPTO so that they could first file in Greece.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22380" RevisionGUID="ee669af0-6cee-4cf6-af04-b2f3cf6500d9" CreationDate="2020-06-11T19:47:14.350" UserId="3076" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="Many countries have a rule about filing locally first, not necessarily with criminal penalties. Greece is free to make up rules for its residents but that does not constrain the EPO. If a Greek broke the rule and filed first with the EPO Greece could presumably jail them while the EPO granted them a patent. The EPO does not enforce Greece's rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The U.S. requires applicants with inventions made in the U.S. to obtain a foreign filing license before filing outside the U.S. Normally this is done automatically when anything is filed with the USPTO. Six months after filing with the USPTO (either a national application or a PCT with the U.S. as RO) you either implicitly have a foreign filing license or have been told your application is under a [secrecy order][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If an applicant with an invention developed in the U.S. desires to file first in the UK, EPO or PCT directly with the IB in Geneva (for example) they can explicitly request a foreign fling license from the USPTO without actually filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike the case mentioned regarding Greek nationals, the U.S. rule is not related to the nationality of the inventor but to the location the invention took place. A U.S. national who happened to invent while in Canada would not be required to get a foreign filing license since such a license is essentially an export license. An invention made in Canada started out as outside the U.S. so there is not issue of &quot;exporting&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Greek who invented in the U.S. would presumably get a foreign filing license from the USPTO so that they could first file in Greece.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s120.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22380" RevisionGUID="dd3196d9-524f-4c4e-a0e4-5654c647381a" CreationDate="2020-06-11T21:46:10.603" UserId="3076" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="Many countries have a rule about filing locally first, not necessarily with criminal penalties. Greece is free to make up rules for its citizens but that does not constrain the EPO. If a Greek broke the rule and filed first with the EPO, Greece could presumably jail them while the EPO granted them a patent. The EPO does not enforce Greece's rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The U.S. requires applicants with inventions made in the U.S. to obtain a foreign filing license before filing outside the U.S. Normally this is done automatically when anything is filed with the USPTO. Six months after filing with the USPTO (either a national application or a PCT with the U.S. as RO) you either implicitly have a foreign filing license or have been told your application is under a [secrecy order][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If an applicant with an invention developed in the U.S. desires to file first in the UK, EPO or PCT directly with the IB in Geneva (for example) they can explicitly request a foreign fling license from the USPTO without actually filing. That can be by sending in a draft of an application or could be done with only an abstract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike the case mentioned regarding Greek nationals, the U.S. rule is not related to the nationality of the inventor but to the location the invention took place. A U.S. national who happened to invent while in Canada would not be required to get a foreign filing license since such a license is essentially an export license. An invention made in Canada started out as outside the U.S. so there is not issue of &quot;exporting&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Greek who invented in the U.S. would presumably get a foreign filing license from the USPTO so that they could first file in Greece.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s120.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60550" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="21104" RevisionGUID="ffd7023f-8823-4780-ac4d-597e8b39e3f8" CreationDate="2020-06-12T06:06:45.817" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60551" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="21048" RevisionGUID="34e2ec88-0de3-4350-8deb-6b836647b608" CreationDate="2020-06-12T09:03:05.280" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22381" RevisionGUID="764d2272-703b-4042-8962-4067359b183f" CreationDate="2020-06-13T01:17:48.127" UserId="23991" Text="My method claim is what my invention actually does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But my device claim is the thing that I actually want to sell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I reference the method claim in my device claim? Something like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An embodiment of the method in claim 1 further comprising...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60553" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22381" RevisionGUID="764d2272-703b-4042-8962-4067359b183f" CreationDate="2020-06-13T01:17:48.127" UserId="23991" Text="How do you reference a method claim from a device claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60554" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22381" RevisionGUID="764d2272-703b-4042-8962-4067359b183f" CreationDate="2020-06-13T01:17:48.127" UserId="23991" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22382" RevisionGUID="9e09ea81-f41b-4585-9b68-d8d5f89e176c" CreationDate="2020-06-13T02:24:44.097" UserId="3076" Text="**Very unlikely unless the steps call out specific structures**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are claims regarding software that are in the form &quot;a machine-readable non-transitory medium containing instructions that would cause a computer, if executed, to perform the method of claim X&quot;. This is an example of specifying a thing in terms of defined steps. It works because we know what a generic computer is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it said *a robot that when activated caries out the steps of claim X&quot; it would probably be rejected as indefinite because it doesn't pin down the structure of the robot. Of course your method claim would make anyone who used the robot an infringer  - and anyone who made a robot for the intended purpose of performing the method a contributory infringer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a lot of detail about the device in the claim &quot;a machine driven by a cam that selectively moves rods in a horizontal plane, such that when activated holes are punched in a card following the method of claim X&quot; could work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, have a second independent claim directed to the device you plan to sell that defines the device in terms of its structure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22383" RevisionGUID="a825d4fd-3e64-4ccc-a973-4f79336f6d01" CreationDate="2020-06-13T02:35:40.837" UserId="6121" Text="Let's just say, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I filed a Provisional Application in Jan 2019. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I filed a non-provisional in Dec 2019 by claiming priority to the Provisional, properly. But I missed some content in non-provisional that are available in the Provisional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) Can I bring the missed Provisional content to non-provisional by filing amendments? If yes, Is there any deadline? Is there any additional fees I have to pay in USPTO?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) If I file a continuation with the missed content, will that be considered as continuation or continuation-in-part (CIP)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60557" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22383" RevisionGUID="a825d4fd-3e64-4ccc-a973-4f79336f6d01" CreationDate="2020-06-13T02:35:40.837" UserId="6121" Text="Can I bring the content from parent provisional application to a continuation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60558" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22383" RevisionGUID="a825d4fd-3e64-4ccc-a973-4f79336f6d01" CreationDate="2020-06-13T02:35:40.837" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;continuation&gt;&lt;continuation-in-part&gt;&lt;amendment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22384" RevisionGUID="578dc697-3993-4364-a540-4395cc791caa" CreationDate="2020-06-13T05:22:21.877" UserId="3076" Text="Since the provisional was incorporated by reference, you can amend in any material from it that you like. And a continuation that only has material from the provisional + the parent will not need to be a CIP. Make sure to also properly claim the benefit of the provisional in the continuation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22385" RevisionGUID="77009e48-4ad8-41ef-ad69-507c79980799" CreationDate="2020-06-13T14:21:59.380" UserId="24183" Text="Masterfilter Ltd is the company that owns this patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent no is PN 829158 GB I believe payments were suspended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has the application been abandoned, or is it still pending." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60563" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22385" RevisionGUID="77009e48-4ad8-41ef-ad69-507c79980799" CreationDate="2020-06-13T14:21:59.380" UserId="24183" Text="Is a patent I am checking in force or abandoned" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60564" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22385" RevisionGUID="77009e48-4ad8-41ef-ad69-507c79980799" CreationDate="2020-06-13T14:21:59.380" UserId="24183" Text="&lt;product&gt;&lt;protection&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22386" RevisionGUID="6756d965-4344-4752-bfa9-abee447f5754" CreationDate="2020-06-13T22:47:44.327" UserId="23991" Text="A method of cleaning a swimming pools comprising;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a pool vacuum with a laser range finder attached;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aiming the laser range for finder...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it okay to use &quot;Having&quot; to introduce an element like that or do I have to use &quot;a&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60566" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22386" RevisionGUID="6756d965-4344-4752-bfa9-abee447f5754" CreationDate="2020-06-13T22:47:44.327" UserId="23991" Text="Can you use having as a gerund in a method claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60567" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22386" RevisionGUID="6756d965-4344-4752-bfa9-abee447f5754" CreationDate="2020-06-13T22:47:44.327" UserId="23991" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22387" RevisionGUID="4f9d6bf4-c701-46a2-99ab-1bb5a900be6a" CreationDate="2020-06-13T23:12:01.697" UserId="3076" Text="Unclear if you intend this to be a recited step or just setting the stage for the actual steps of the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to make each step clear. Often &quot;providing&quot; is used in a step as in &quot;providing a pool vacuum . . . &quot;. That makes it a step. But can be a problem. To successfully allege infringement of a method claim all steps must be performed by a single infringing entity (or another entity directly controlled by the infringer). If the infringer just walks into the pool area and stumbles across the &quot;provided&quot; item maybe they did not do the providing and therefor did not execute that step. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Using a pool vacuum with a laser range finder attached&quot; might not be interpreted has a step but might just set the stage for the actual steps. Better - &quot;. . . *with* a pool vacuum having a laser range finder attached, aiming the laser . . . &quot;, would be more clear that no step was being recited until we got to aiming.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since pool vacuums generally do not have lasers attached you might need to provide some structure information like &quot;where the laser is fixed to the . . .&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22388" RevisionGUID="e0bb04cc-a4dd-44f5-a4a5-5e38809f63b3" CreationDate="2020-06-13T23:19:35.927" UserId="24184" Text="I discovered that my idea with i plans to develop and profit from, is being used internally in a company. I was wondering since they aren't profiting directly from the idea do i have any legal leg room here. From my simple observation on how it work it violate my claims as its very specific problem. So the violations is clear. I guess SOMEHOW they ran into this issue and to continue operation came up with and idea that infringe mine. Just want to know what my options are here. They are much bigger then me there operation income is around 25-35 million so fighting them will be difficult. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60570" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22388" RevisionGUID="e0bb04cc-a4dd-44f5-a4a5-5e38809f63b3" CreationDate="2020-06-13T23:19:35.927" UserId="24184" Text="A company is using my idea internally!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60571" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22388" RevisionGUID="e0bb04cc-a4dd-44f5-a4a5-5e38809f63b3" CreationDate="2020-06-13T23:19:35.927" UserId="24184" Text="&lt;patent-infringment&gt;&lt;infringment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22386" RevisionGUID="5420157d-214e-4963-840a-5776a070ca4e" CreationDate="2020-06-14T00:33:59.657" UserId="23991" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="A method of cleaning a swimming pools comprising;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a pool vacuum with a laser range finder attached;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aiming the laser range finder...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it okay to use &quot;Having&quot; to introduce an element like that or do I have to use &quot;a&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22389" RevisionGUID="e0edbcd0-d2e9-4b94-b8be-100eca1ac176" CreationDate="2020-06-14T16:25:56.370" UserId="24186" Text="On the German Patent offece web site it states this patent has lapsed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[German Patent Office link][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But are they refering only to the local DE and EP versions or is the WO verison lapsed too ?&#xD;&#xA;How do I find out ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Expacnet only seems to cocer the EP version which shows it as lapsed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Logikman&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://register.dpma.de/DPMAregister/pat/register?lang=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60574" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22389" RevisionGUID="e0edbcd0-d2e9-4b94-b8be-100eca1ac176" CreationDate="2020-06-14T16:25:56.370" UserId="24186" Text="Has WO publication number: 2003023175 lapsed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60575" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22389" RevisionGUID="e0edbcd0-d2e9-4b94-b8be-100eca1ac176" CreationDate="2020-06-14T16:25:56.370" UserId="24186" Text="&lt;lapsed&gt;&lt;wpo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22390" RevisionGUID="30b595bc-b5af-4764-a792-550b3a6e4aad" CreationDate="2020-06-15T08:41:42.010" UserId="24186" Text="Espacent shows this patent was filed in 1957 (the priority date) so it has in fact expired. Granted patent are only valid for 20 years from the original filing date. (in this case that was in the USA 12/02/1957) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After publication the disclosed product/prodcution method can be used as a basis for a new patent by adding a new inventive step that improves some deficiency in the original patent.The added inventive step has to be novel and must not be obvious. At filing stage the patent is given an &quot;A&quot; suffix and when granted a &quot;B&quot; suffix&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case there is only an spec &quot;A&quot; (i.e.: GB829158A) patent shown. This normally indicates that it was never granted in the first place but fell during the search examination procedure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may find this link helpfull&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[how to read a patent specification][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Logikman&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22391" RevisionGUID="62600838-2d5a-466b-ac82-db2cf3dc4b96" CreationDate="2020-06-15T09:00:05.337" UserId="24186" Text="Is your patent only filed in the USA?&#xD;&#xA;Has it actually been granted or is going through the search and examination phase ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be aware that you have to prove they did not use your idea before your filing date. You have to porovde that they used your idea after it was pubished. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How long has your patent been granted. If your patent is relatvely new when was it filed as they could file observations that could destroy your patent (depending how new it is and how far into the patent process you are if your patent is still in the search and examination phase).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you say &quot; I guess SOMEHOW they ran into this issue and to continue operation came up with and idea that infringe mine&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That could be perceived as grounds for saying your idea was &quot;obvious to someone skilled in the art&quot; i.e: it is a problem that only has an one obvious solution ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you know when they started using your idea and can you substantiate this. It could end up a your word against their corporate lawyers' and that could be expensive and lengthy. I have seen these things drag on for up to 6 years and there is only one winner and that is not the patentee or the infringer !! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Logikman" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60578" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20770" RevisionGUID="52e34235-5eff-492f-bde6-fdad1cd32fcc" CreationDate="2020-06-15T12:06:55.767" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22392" RevisionGUID="15bcd660-7ce0-437b-a204-8798e0d6fdbd" CreationDate="2020-06-16T17:38:44.810" UserId="24194" Text="I can't make sense of all the instructions I've found or they just don't work for me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a workaround that actually works!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just screengrab (I used my iPad) each page of your PDF (or any type of document, actually), and then use Acrobat or PDF Filler or any app that will merge photos into a PDF document. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems wonky but actually works! No font errors!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that helps!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60582" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17232" RevisionGUID="881eb411-f6ba-4ca7-bdfb-2e5dd8f93103" CreationDate="2020-06-16T19:30:08.330" UserId="14308" Comment="Typo correction in subject, to improve quality of discussion. " Text="How important are claims in provisional patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60583" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17232" RevisionGUID="881eb411-f6ba-4ca7-bdfb-2e5dd8f93103" CreationDate="2020-06-16T19:30:08.330" Comment="Proposed by 14308 approved by 17003, -1 edit id of 2125" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17232" RevisionGUID="47affb68-415d-49ab-940b-e84d4e1f34ab" CreationDate="2020-06-16T19:30:08.330" UserId="1698" Comment="Typo correction in subject, to improve quality of discussion. Added correction in question wording." Text="Is it important to mention the claims in a provisional patent and how will the claims affect the non-provisional patent if I decided to convert it within a year? I have read that you cannot mention the claims in the non-prov patent if you did not write them in the provisional patent. Is that true? I want to write them but they are not easy to write and I am afraid that writing them wrong would hurt my chances on the invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12080" RevisionGUID="572c298c-a6b0-418f-bc38-4c07fb507f2c" CreationDate="2020-06-16T19:32:19.353" UserId="14308" Comment="Fixed grammar, polished, easier to read" Text="Patent professional can be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Patent Agent&#xD;&#xA; 2. Attorney&#xD;&#xA; 3. Paralegal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of Attorney and member of BAR, a person need not to go for confidentiality NDA agreement, as per law they are bound by the law and ethics to keep information confidential unless you ask them. [US attorney]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of inventor, if dealing directly with Agent or Paralegal (non-law firm), he is right to ask for confidentiality NDA agreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general for law firm confidentiality NDA agreement are not required. they will include agent and paralegals but employee secrecy agreement will be in place to safeguard inventors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any event, you can ask for confidentiatliy agreement if you want to be perfectly sure about it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60586" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12080" RevisionGUID="572c298c-a6b0-418f-bc38-4c07fb507f2c" CreationDate="2020-06-16T19:32:19.353" Comment="Proposed by 14308 approved by 17003, 1698 edit id of 2127" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60587" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="20843" RevisionGUID="3ba1cc09-5190-4b37-8396-ebba7c7ebc68" CreationDate="2020-06-16T19:32:40.493" UserId="18834" Comment="Added tag.  " Text="&lt;intellectual-property&gt;&lt;united-states&gt;&lt;finance&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60588" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="20843" RevisionGUID="3ba1cc09-5190-4b37-8396-ebba7c7ebc68" CreationDate="2020-06-16T19:32:40.493" Comment="Proposed by 18834 approved by 17003, 1698 edit id of 2114" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14421" RevisionGUID="327c905c-aa9b-412f-a0ca-eba28b2aef68" CreationDate="2020-06-16T19:33:59.980" UserId="14308" Comment="Typo, clarity" Text="You should use the date of the A1 or A2 publication for the earliest publication date of the subject-matter (of the application).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you want to know about the granted patent please clarify.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A1 is a publication of the application with search report (SR).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A2 is the publication without SR.&#xD;&#xA;There will be always only one or the other. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An A3 is published later in case of an A2 as soon as the search has been carried out. See here for more details on the so called kind codes:&#xD;&#xA;https://register.epo.org/helphttps://register.epo.org/help?lng=en&amp;topic=kindcodes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;18 months after an application is published by the EPO according to Article 93(1)(a) EPC:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The European Patent Office shall publish the European patent application as soon as possible  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a) after the expiry of a period of eighteen months from the date of filing or, if priority has been claimed, from the date of priority&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, if not requested earlier.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60590" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14421" RevisionGUID="327c905c-aa9b-412f-a0ca-eba28b2aef68" CreationDate="2020-06-16T19:33:59.980" Comment="Proposed by 14308 approved by 17003, -1 edit id of 2129" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14421" RevisionGUID="13bdf0a7-9417-4600-99c7-4455043a8c79" CreationDate="2020-06-16T19:33:59.980" UserId="1698" Comment="Typo, clarity" Text="You should use the date of the A1 or A2 publication for the earliest publication date of the subject-matter (of the application).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you want to know about the granted patent please clarify.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A1 is a publication of the application with search report (SR).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A2 is the publication without SR.&#xD;&#xA;There will be always only one or the other. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An A3 is published later in case of an A2 as soon as the search has been carried out. See here for more details on the so called kind codes:&#xD;&#xA;https://register.epo.org/helphttps://register.epo.org/help?lng=en&amp;topic=kindcodes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;18 months after the filing date, an application is published by the EPO according to Article 93(1)(a) EPC:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The European Patent Office shall publish the European patent application as soon as possible  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a) after the expiry of a period of eighteen months from the date of filing or, if priority has been claimed, from the date of priority&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, if not requested earlier.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17884" RevisionGUID="e4095ff6-7106-484d-a90d-616523ef3664" CreationDate="2020-06-16T19:34:16.927" UserId="14308" Comment="Fixed grammar" Text="I was in the same situation and wrote and submitted utility patent application myself. Unfortunately after &quot;Alice&quot; US supreme court decision virtually any algorithm could be qualified as&quot;abstract idea&quot;, which happened in my case. With lawyer's help I rewrote the application to increase the chances and now waiting for a response from the USPTO. I requested the application unpublished so if it doesn't go through I can keep a trade secret. Good luck to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60593" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17884" RevisionGUID="e4095ff6-7106-484d-a90d-616523ef3664" CreationDate="2020-06-16T19:34:16.927" Comment="Proposed by 14308 approved by 17003, 1698 edit id of 2126" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22393" RevisionGUID="2c6f97e9-f341-4beb-abbb-706da60d9154" CreationDate="2020-06-17T01:46:10.417" UserId="24195" Text="Consider the research and development cost of a machine. Let's say in 2013, a prototype was manufactured. Then in 2014, a patent application was filed. On that same year, validation continued. Significant developments occurred until 2018. On 2019, the research was declared complete and a success.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the useful life begin on 2013 when the prototype was made, or on 2014 when the patent was filed, or on 2019 when the machine was perfected?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60595" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22393" RevisionGUID="2c6f97e9-f341-4beb-abbb-706da60d9154" CreationDate="2020-06-17T01:46:10.417" UserId="24195" Text="In the valuation of an intangible asset, when does the useful life begin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60596" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22393" RevisionGUID="2c6f97e9-f341-4beb-abbb-706da60d9154" CreationDate="2020-06-17T01:46:10.417" UserId="24195" Text="&lt;valuation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13101" RevisionGUID="fa676ebb-f36a-4a79-a5ae-d82f913b277d" CreationDate="2020-06-17T06:34:56.417" UserId="14308" Comment="Grammar, typo fixed" Text="Always the first one. The follow-ups are for some administrative and/or legal backlogs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60598" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13101" RevisionGUID="fa676ebb-f36a-4a79-a5ae-d82f913b277d" CreationDate="2020-06-17T06:34:56.417" Comment="Proposed by 14308 approved by 17003, 18033 edit id of 2128" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22389" RevisionGUID="60abce77-afc1-42b8-8e6b-5db39eee093a" CreationDate="2020-06-17T12:17:31.890" UserId="17003" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="On the German Patent offece web site it states this patent has lapsed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[German Patent Office link][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But are they refering only to the local DE and EP versions or is the WO verison lapsed too ?&#xD;&#xA;How do I find out ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Espacenet only seems to concern the EP version which shows it as lapsed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Logikman&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://register.dpma.de/DPMAregister/pat/register?lang=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5335" RevisionGUID="d8186f29-b84d-4a1c-ba35-820533e80128" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="[US patent #6098065][1] is the first in the series of patents used in [Rockstar's legal action against Google and Android device manufacturers][2]. It is for an &quot;Associative search engine&quot; and contains just one claim:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A method of searching for desired information within a data network, comprising the steps of:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 1. receiving, from a user, a search request including a search argument corresponding to the desired information;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 2. searching, based upon the received search argument and user profile data, a database of information to generate a search result;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 3. and providing the search results to the user&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; wherein searching the database includes&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - correlating, as a function of a fuzzy logic algorithm, the received search argument and user profile data to particular information in the database, and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - providing the particular information as the search results.&#xA;&#xA;----&#xA;&#xA;Off the cuff, the key here would appear to be the &quot;fuzzy logic algorithm&quot;, as the rest of the claim certainly was used prior to February 13, 1997 (including various bits of prior art mentioned in the abstract, like Yahoo).&#xA;&#xA;I am interested in collecting relevant definitions of &quot;fuzzy logic algorithm&quot; and any prior art for the same. It is unclear to me if [stemming][3] or synonym matching would qualify as &quot;fuzzy logic algorithms&quot; or not, and if they do, whether there is documented evidence of such techniques being used in database searching prior to February 13, 1997. I would assume that simple wildcards (e.g., SQL `LIKE` operator) would probably not qualify.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6098065?dq=6,098,065&#xA;  [2]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/patent-war-goes-nuclear-microsoft-apple-owned-rockstar-sues-google/&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stemming" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="612" RevisionGUID="50acfa3a-7e5b-46b9-bb47-01c56c340b52" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Google published this patent application on on September 30th, 2010. But YouTube (owned by Google) announced the ability to link to timestamps in videos in October, 2008 &amp;mdash; [Link To The Best Parts In Your Videos](http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2008/10/link-to-best-parts-in-your-videos.html).&#xA;&#xA;Wouldn't that invalidate their patent on that basis?&#xA;&#xA;Reference: [USPTO.GOV: 35 U.S.C. 102   Conditions for patentability &amp;hellip;](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2133.html#d0e203781)&#xA;&gt;A person shall be entitled to a patent unless &amp;mdash;  &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country **or in public use** or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="628" RevisionGUID="ab678276-ca1c-4d3c-8ac4-124b5c5f95f0" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="[US Patent #7,353,199](http://www.google.com/patents/US7353199) is about a system for creating a web site where the user gets &quot;restricted&quot; access (less that full functionality) during a trial period, but &quot;full&quot; access once the user registers (e.g., pays) for the web site the user created through the system.  Claim 1 is representative.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A method for moderating external access to an electronic document authoring, development and distribution system comprising the steps of:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * identifying a third party requesting access to said electronic document authoring, development and distribution system;&#xA;&gt; * permitting restricted access to said third party to selected functions of said electronic document authoring, development and distribution system; and,&#xA;&gt; * eliminating all access restrictions to said selected functions in said electronic document authoring, development and distribution system which were imposed in said permitting step when said third party registers as a registered user of said electronic document authoring, development and distribution system.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="630" RevisionGUID="fc0fc2de-383e-4293-9cde-ebce8e0c8a4a" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I've been looking for prior art for a Samsung patent application KR 10-2011-0029154, published as [US 2012/0254255](http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&amp;r=11&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=(20121004.PD.%20AND%20Samsung.AS.)&amp;p=1&amp;OS=PD/20121004%20AND%20AN/Samsung&amp;RS=(PD/20121004%20AND%20AN/Samsung)), priority date 2011-03-31.&#xA;&#xA;Just 2 hits off the first 10 for a google search on &quot;automatic diary&quot; (I tried to post more but I'm new here):&#xA;&#xA; * http://replaymyday.info/&#xA; * http://lifehacker.com/5935658/how-to-automatically-archive-your-life-with-ifttt-and-evernote&#xA;&#xA;Reading the text posted, all I see that is new is the language building process, which not only seems quite vague, but also easy to boil down to a simple algorithm (they half do in the patent itself).   Can we get some others to comment on why this isn;t just another software patent that shoudl not be approved?  I'm sure we can find a ton a prior art if we try to shoot this one down, automatic diaries are not even remotely new, and this, even internationally, was just filed on March 2011... &#xA;&#xA;Here is the text of claim 1:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1\. An apparatus configured to summarize daily life information of a user, the apparatus comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * an information collection unit configured to collect log information comprising the daily life information from at least one electronic device;&#xA;&gt; * an analysis unit configured to analyze the log information collected from the information collection unit and decide at least one topic representing the daily life information;&#xA;&gt; * a story generator configured to generate at least one sentence representing the daily life information using the at least one topic decided by the analysis unit;&#xA;&gt; * and a display unit configured to display the at least one sentence generated by the story generator.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="672" RevisionGUID="7e0b5d3d-c894-4343-83b7-fbab3c55c07c" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="[Square][1]'s credit card reader technology is [patented][2]. Here's a claim from patent US7810729 for illustration:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1\.  A card reader device for reading a card having data stored on a magnetic stripe incorporated into the card the device comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * a read head for passing a magnetic stripe of a card by to read data stored on a magnetic stripe and for producing a signal indicative of data stored on a magnetic stripe;&#xA;&gt; * a signal setting device for setting an amplitude of the signal indicative of data stored on a magnetic stripe; and&#xA;&gt; * an output jack adapted to be inserted into a microphone input associated with a cell phone for providing the signal indicative of data stored on a magnetic stripe to a cell phone.&#xA;&#xA;In spite of that more and more companies have been using Square's audio jack technology (Payfirma, Payd, Payleven).&#xA;&#xA;Would it be legal to purchase Square credit card readers off of eBay or AT&amp;T and develop my own mobile applications using its technology? This is assuming I sell these applications as a SaaS or off the app store.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://squareup.com/&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=VFzXAAAAEBAJ&amp;dq=7810729" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="699" RevisionGUID="6f3cc9fd-8a23-4b2b-8d8d-21664af0c6cc" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="[US patent 8,086,604](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PALL&amp;RefSrch=yes&amp;Query=PN/8086604) is the one Apple used to temporarily get sales of Samsung's Galaxy Nexus blocked.  It covers using a single UI to search multiple data sources, including both local and remote ones.  Here is the first claim:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1\. A method for locating information in a network using a computer, comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * receiving by the computer an inputted information descriptor from a user-input device;&#xA;&gt; * providing said information descriptor received from the user-input device to a plurality of heuristic modules, wherein:&#xA;&gt;     * each heuristic module corresponds to a respective area of search and employs a different, predetermined heuristic algorithm corresponding to said respective area to search the area for information that corresponds to the received information descriptor, and the search areas include storage media accessible by the computer;&#xA;&gt;     * searching by the heuristic modules, based on the received information descriptor, the respective areas of search using the predetermined heuristic algorithms corresponding to each respective area of search;&#xA;&gt;     * providing at least one candidate item of information located by the heuristic modules as a result of said searching;&#xA;&gt;     * and displaying by the computer a representation of said candidate item of information on a display device.&#xA;&#xA;It's a continuation of another patent application filed on Jan. 5, 2000.  There must be tons of prior art from before that.  One very obvious piece is Apple's own [Sherlock][1], first released as part of [Mac OS 8.5][2] on Oct. 17, 1998.  What else is there?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_%28software%29&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_8#Mac_OS_8.5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="714" RevisionGUID="6a28565b-db03-432d-87b1-593cf0610cd4" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Does any one know any prior art for the [US6025327](http://www.google.com/patents/US6025327), disclosing hydrolyzed chicken sternal cartilage derived collagen type II, or method for preparing collagen type II from chicken sternal cartilage?&#xA;&#xA;Here are the first claims of the patent:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1\. Chicken sternal cartilage-derived material comprising hydrolyzed collagen type II, said hydrolyzed collagen type II having an average molecular weight of between about 1,500 and 2,500 daltons.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 2\. A method for treating an individual with a connective tissue disorder, comprising orally administering to said individual an effective daily amount of chicken sternal cailage-derived material comprising hydrolyzed collagen type II having an average molecular weight of between about 1,500 and 2,500 daltons.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="738" RevisionGUID="b00f9881-91fe-4c6d-983a-8f2f8de247cb" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="This is the first I've heard of this [patent for linked lists and traversals][1] filed in 2002.&#xA;Note that the claim is not a patent on a linked list itself [(discussion on Hacker News)][2], but apparently on a doubly linked list, or a secondary traversal pointer.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A computerized list that may be traversed in at least two sequences comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * a plurality of items that are contained in said computerized list; and&#xA;&gt; * a primary pointer and an auxiliary pointer for each of said items of said computerized list such that each of said items has an associated primary pointer and an associated auxiliary pointer,  &#xA;&gt;   said primary pointer functioning as a primary linked list to direct a computer program to a first following item and defining a first sequence to traverse said computerized list,  &#xA;&gt;   said auxiliary pointer functioning as an auxiliary linked list to direct said computer program to a second following item and defining a second sequence to traverse said computerized list. &#xA;&#xA;Can we collate some verifiable prior art for this patent?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PALL&amp;RefSrch=yes&amp;Query=PN/7028023&#xA;  [2]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2873951" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="743" RevisionGUID="aba9e4b2-79dc-4c54-86c5-5f4877c3621d" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Looking for prior art for Apple's search algorithm patent. &#xA;&#xA;In January 2000, Apple filed its original patent application to a heuristic search approach that uses a variety of algorithms that depend upon the area being searched.  The application also suggests that some of the searches will be done on the local computer while others will be over the network.  Although developed much later, Apple has claimed that this invention is embodied by its iPhone Siri application.   Apple has also sued Samsung for infringing one of the resulting patents. The courts have rejected that claim, but Apple still has a continuation application pending in the case. (Published as [US Pub. No. 2012-0166477][1])&#xA;&#xA;The new application claims: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; A computerized method, comprising &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; receiving at least a partial search query;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; storing the at least partial search query on a non-transitory computer readable medium; &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; searching a first plurality of files for matches with the at least partial search query, wherein the first plurality of files is located across an internet connection coupled to the non-transitory computer readable medium; &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; searching a second plurality of files for matches with the at least partial search query, wherein the second plurality of files is only available via local access from  a computer that includes the non-transitory computer readable medium; and &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; receiving a notification of at least one search result; &#xA;&#xA;The USPTO has identified two relevant references: Patent Nos. [6,185,567][2] and [6,070,158][3], but I suspect that others are available.  Prior art must be submitted to the USPTO before December 28, 2012. [Directions for Sending Prior Art to USPTO][4]&#xA;&#xA;Note: This application is related to Apple's Patent No. 8,086,604 discussed in a [different AskPatents question][5].&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=303204&amp;OS=303204&amp;RS=303204&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6185567&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6070158?pg=PA5&amp;dq=6,070,158&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=1NV-UKWsC8iLywG9wIHIAQ&amp;ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA&#xA;  [4]: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120916162139282&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/699/prior-art-for-apples-unified-search-patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="609" RevisionGUID="a5eb9241-edd0-4dba-84a7-d00699ae87d3" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="If I discuss or seek advice from others on portions of a patent on public sites such as SO, does that invalidate the patent?&#xA;&#xA;For example, lets say I have an idea in mind of a software patent  which consists of `X`, `Y`, and `Z`? I know that step `Y` can be done, but just don't know exactly how would be the best approach.  Say for example that step `Y` requires a sorting algorithm (perhaps this is not the best example, but should clarify what I am thinking of),  and I post on SO a very detailed description of things I need sorted, and asked for advice.  A detailed solution is posted along with the a description of how it works and why it would be the best approach.&#xA;&#xA;I am not posting the entire patent but just a step in the overall process.&#xA;&#xA;To protect my self I would think that filing a provisional would be best so that I have time to fill in the details. But if someone else actually solved `X` for me, does that effect my patent? &#xA;&#xA;Or, taking this a bit further, suppose I post three different questions, one for each of the three steps? Basically, I have gotten others to do the work for me. But I am still putting the steps together.  Would this invalidate the patent?&#xA;&#xA;## References:&#xA;* https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/372/can-software-be-patented-after-being-made-public&#xA;* https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/282/should-i-patent-my-idea-before-posting-it-on-the-internet?rq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="744" RevisionGUID="bd436bde-caac-4e3f-add2-ac5ad1b2716d" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="How does the patent application [US 2011/0037768 “System for Emulating Graphics Operations”](http://www.google.com/patents/US20110037768) filed by Apple (filing date Oct 15, 2010) differ from Microsoft's DirectX/DirectDraw HEL (Hardware Emulation Layer) which has been around for a couple of decades? Issued patent [US8040353][1].&#xA;&#xA;Here are the first few claims:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1\. A method of creating an image, the method comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * receiving a request to render a polygon having a plurality of pixels, the polygon represented by a programmable graphics processing unit (GPU) fragment program, the programmable GPU program comprising a plurality of programmable GPU fragment programs;&#xA;&gt; * converting the programmable GPU program to a central processing unit (CPU) program;&#xA;&gt; * unrolling a loop in the CPU program such that the unrolled loop will process N of the plurality of pixels;&#xA;&gt; * executing, by a CPU, the unrolled loop a variable number of times; and&#xA;&gt; * rendering the N pixels in groups of L pixels, by executing, by the CPU, the unrolled loop L/N times.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 2\. The method of claim 1 wherein the act of rendering comprises performing texture lookups for each group of L pixels before rendering any of the L pixels.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 3\. The method of claim 1 further comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * dividing the polygon into sections;&#xA;&gt; * selecting a first section for rendering; and&#xA;&gt; * selecting a first scan line in the first section for rendering.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US8040353" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="770" RevisionGUID="c381f9fd-2660-4cbd-b6a0-dbe117e08511" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="How does patent application [US20100325182][1] affect dropcards.com and similar websites that allow users to send in their media and artwork then furnish the users with unique cards? Users hand out the cards and the recipients enter the code for a (usually) audio file.&#xA;It seems that this patent would preclude this type of business.&#xA;Am I missing something here?&#xA;I want to do something similar, but I want to be sure that I would not be infringing on this patent.&#xA;&#xA;The root claims of the patent are:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1\.  A method comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * using a computer for downloading an item of multimedia which includes a code associated therewith, said code being separate from said item of multimedia, and said code being usable by a user separate from a playing of the multimedia; and&#xA;&gt; * using the computer for entering said code on a website to obtain content on the website.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 15\. A method comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * using a computer for hosting a website that controls obtaining items of multimedia and allows selling said items of multimedia;&#xA;&gt; * using the computer for obtaining plural codes which are usable on the website, each code being usable on the website to automatically obtain content on the website detecting a request for download of a first multimedia item;&#xA;&gt; * first controlling a download by a first user of the first multimedia item along with a first code from said plural codes, said first code associated with said first multimedia item;&#xA;&gt; * preventing said first code from being downloaded again after said first controlling;&#xA;&gt; * second controlling a download by a second user of the first multimedia item along with a second code from said plural codes, said second code associated with said first multimedia item; and&#xA;&gt; * preventing said second code from being downloaded again after said first controlling.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 27\. A method comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * using a computer for downloading an item of multimedia which includes a bonus item associated therewith, said bonus item being separate from said item of multimedia, and said bonus item being usable by a user separate from a playing of the multimedia; and&#xA;&gt; * obtaining said bonus item separately from obtaining said item of multimedia.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20100325182" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="772" RevisionGUID="07e5d7bc-b395-4dbf-b9c1-4acc12888bfc" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I'm looking for prior art for [US patent application 2011/0054890](http://www.google.com/patents/US20110054890) filed 2009/08/25.&#xA;&#xA;That would be a mobile phone (or portable device) that is capable of detecting the direction and type of sounds with the ability to display the results. I've found some art for gun shot detection, but nothing as general as this where the sounds, according to the specification, can include: laughing, crying, traffic, etc.&#xA;&#xA;The representative independent claim and the salient refinements are:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1\. An apparatus comprising: at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * identify at least one audio type based on a signal representative of sound;&#xA;&gt; * determine the direction of any of said identified audio types; and&#xA;&gt; * provide feed-back to a user of the identified audio types and the direction of said audio types.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 2\. An apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising at least one audio input, wherein said signal representative of sound is received via said at least one audio input.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 3\. An apparatus according to claim 2, wherein said at least one audio input port is at least one microphone.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 5\. An apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a motion sensor, and said processor uses an output from said motion sensor to determine the direction of the at least one audio type.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 6\. An apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a digital compass, and said processor uses an output from said digital compass to determine the direction of the at least one audio type.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="780" RevisionGUID="bf15706d-e7fe-4ee9-b17b-5df927e664a5" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="My app features functionality to see where your friends are, pretty much like Foursquare and Facebook do, but the scope and reason why are quite different. In fact, it would be check in / and check out and whatever you can do with it. Actually, I'd like not to say too much. &#xA;&#xA;Facebook was awarded [US Patent 7,809,805](http://www.google.com/patents/us7809805) in 2010 for: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; A method of sharing locations of users participating in a social&#xA;&gt; networking service at a geographic location, the method executed by a&#xA;&gt; computer system and comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * receiving location information and&#xA;&gt; status information from a mobile device of a first user of the social&#xA;&gt; networking service, the location information representing a geographic&#xA;&gt; location of the first user, the status information manually provided&#xA;&gt; by the first user on an input module of the mobile device;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * associating&#xA;&gt; the location information with the status information of the first user&#xA;&gt; in a database; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * sending the status information and the location&#xA;&gt; information of the first user to a second user for display.&#xA;&#xA;Does this mean that I cannot use any Geolocation API for check-in? How painful!  &#xA;&#xA;I have an alternative, which would be to check in into bars by visiting the profile of the bar (in the database), and a switch to mark a status as &quot;present&quot; (physically). It's lame, but there seems to be no alternative (?). Would this be allowed then? -&gt; In a certain way this also tells something about being in a physical location, but without using GeoLocation. And could I perhaps use Nearby places API if I make the functionality entirely separate from the check-in functional wise (very lame for the user but it's being with the back against the wall).  &#xA;&#xA;Another way I had in mind was to get bar owners to paste qr codes of their own bars on windows or make stamps on beer cards. This is actually too crazy for the short term. &#xA;&#xA;Have you got any advice for me?&#xA;Many thanks for your quick reply. &#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="781" RevisionGUID="72a70c93-b041-47b8-9f6d-a433336fbba9" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="There seem to be a ton of patents that are relevant, and could be combined to predict Apple's patent following at least one of the factors laid out in [MPEP 2143][1].&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;**This patent: &quot;Information management system&quot; [US5634051][2] Issue date: May 27, 1997**&#xA;&#xA;The first claim seems that it could be paired with prior referenced patents to suggest the approach Apple employed:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; An information storage, searching and retrieval system for large domain archived data of various types comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; means for storing a large domain of data contained in multiple source records, at least some of the source records being comprised of individual documents of multiple document types;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; means for searching at least a substantial portion of such data based on a search query to identify documents of multiple types responsive to the query; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; means for categorizing documents responsive to the query based on document type, including &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; means for generating a summary of the number of documents responsive to the query which fall within various predetermined categories of document types.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;**Additionally, although this patent deals with coordinates the drawings describe a very similar invention to Apple's patent: &#xA;&quot;Information search and retrieval with geographical coordinates&quot; [US5893093][3] Issue date: Apr 6, 1999**&#xA;&#xA;Claim 1 reads:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; An information search and retrieval process using geographical coordinates, which process comprises:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; building an index of coordinates for a plurality of text based references, resources or sites, each having a set of said coordinates;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; accepting a user inquiry containing a text reference;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; converting said text reference specified in said user inquiry to a set of coordinates;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; searching against said index of coordinates based on the converted coordinates of said user inquiry reference; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; returning all information retrieved from said searching in a text based format.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;**The list continues: &#xA;&quot;Information retrieval system&quot; [US5978803][4] Issue date: Nov 2, 1999**&#xA;&#xA;Claim 1:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; An information retrieval system, comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; a plurality of retrieval servers for performing retrieval processing; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; a retrieval management server for managing operation of said plurality of retrieval servers;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; wherein said retrieval management server divides a text base of a retrieval object and relating information regarding the text base into a number of parts based on a size of the text base and loads of the respective retrieval servers and selectively allocates the divided parts of the text base and the relating information corresponding to the divided parts in sets to some or all of said plurality of retrieval servers; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; said plurality of retrieval servers perform information retrieval for the divided parts of the text base allocated by said retrieval management server parallelly to and independently of each other.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;**And, one more:&#xA;&quot;System for storage and retrieval of diverse types of information obtained from different media sources which include video, audio, and text transcripts&quot; [US5729741][5] Issue date: Mar 17, 1998**&#xA;&#xA;Claim 1 reads as follows:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A method of processing information contained in different types of media, comprising the steps of:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; (a) processing each and every of said different types of media by storing in memory a first, index storage file, which contains a text description of the contents of information contained in said any medium, and an identification of said first, index storage file; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; (b) for each respective medium processed in step (a), analyzing the contents of information of said respective medium, regardless of the type of the subject matter of said contents of information, for the presence of text, and generating a second, text file, that contains all text found in said medium and storing said second, text file in memory in association with said first, index storage file; and &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; wherein said respective medium comprises a video recording medium containing video and voice information signals associated with a video recorded activity, and a further medium containing a separate transcription of said voice information, and &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; wherein step (b) comprises processing said voice information signals through an automated voice recognition-to-text conversion mechanism, so as to generate a voice-converted text file, and processing said further medium containing said separate transcription of said voice information to generate a transcribed voice text file, and correlating successive words of said voice-converted text file and successive words of said transcribed voice text file to associate contents of said transcribed voice text file with said video information.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2143.html&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5634051&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5893093&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5978803&#xA;  [5]: http://www.google.com/patents/US5729741" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="784" RevisionGUID="3703a84a-7745-4aac-999a-f03c9a18851f" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Generally, 20 years from filing date for a utility patent or plant patents, and 14 years from date of grant for design patents.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Generally, the term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment of maintenance fees. U.S. patent grants are effective only within the United States, U.S. territories, and U.S. possessions. Under certain circumstances, patent term extensions or adjustments may be available.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; source: [General Information Concerning Patents][1]&#xA;&#xA;More specifically, as a starting point you could look in [MPEP 2701][2] which covers patent terms. There are probably tons of additional places to look in the MPEP.&#xA;&#xA;You can also check out [35 U.S.C. Section 154][3].&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerning_patents.jsp#heading-2&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2701.html&#xA;  [3]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="785" RevisionGUID="5e0d03a3-526a-4710-94fa-8ee2939ee831" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Patent application [US 2011/0107630](http://www.google.com/patents/us20110107630) claims a type of flip book greeting cards. Here is claim 1:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1\. A greeting card comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * a multi-panel greeting card body;&#xA;&gt; * a flip book panel operatively engaged with the multi-panel greeting card body such that a first portion of the flip book panel is fixedly attached to at least One panel of the greeting card and a second portion of the flip book panel is able to move linearly relative to at least one panel of the greeting card body&#xA;&gt; * the flip book panel having a plurality of sub-panels separated by fold lines,&#xA;&gt; * the plurality of sub-panels arranged in a sequential stacked configuration, a first sub-panel containing an animation printed thereon and each consecutive sub-panel in the sequence containing a slight variation in the animation of the previous sub-panel in the sequence,&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; wherein linear movement of the second portion of the flip book causes iteration of the plurality of sequentially stacked sub-panels creating the illusion of incremental movement of the animation printed thereon.&#xA;&#xA;It is anticipated by a commonly known craft format known as waterfall flip cards, or waterfall flip-book cards.&#xA;Waterfall flip cards also use basically the same strip spine with multiple indented fold lines corresponding to the number of cards to be animated as in waterfall photo albums made of heat indented and die-cut vinyl. &#xA;&#xA;So what is novel about the application? Also, how do you notify the patent office that there is prior art?   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60617" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="840" RevisionGUID="2edc6640-f6c4-43f0-a7d6-ff1b1d4a4dfd" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I am surprised to see the claims made in [US patent 6544042](http://www.google.com/patents/US6544042). There are multiple open-source LMS and proprietory apps that help administer online tests. Can the claims in this learning express claims co-exist with what is readily available?&#xA;&#xA;The patent's priority date is April 14, 2000 (from a provisional application).&#xA;&#xA;Here are claims 1 and 2 for illustration. Note that other claims introduce significant variation.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1\. A system comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * a server, the server:&#xA;&gt; * receiving, from a client, a request to take an on-line practice test for a desired standardized test;&#xA;&gt; * providing a client, via a remote connection, with the on-line practice test;&#xA;&gt; * receiving, from the client, a set of answers for the on-line practice test;&#xA;&gt; * calculating a score for the client on the practice test;&#xA;&gt; * recommending an appropriate study aid to the client based upon the score;&#xA;&gt; * receiving, from the client, a request to purchase the recommended study aid; and&#xA;&gt; * selling the recommended study aid to the client.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 2\. The system as recited in claim 1 wherein the server:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * generates a first set of test questions relating to a first skill or content area, and storing said first set of test questions in a database;&#xA;&gt; * associates, in the database, a first study aid product with said first set of test questions, said first study aid product being related to said first skill or content area;&#xA;&gt; * generates a second set of test questions relating to a second skill or content area, and storing said second set of test questions in the database;&#xA;&gt; * associates, in the database, a second study aid product with said second set of test questions, said second study aid product being related to said second skill or content area;&#xA;&gt; * assembles a practice test, the practice test including at least a portion of one of the first and second sets of question, the practice test being stored in the database; and&#xA;&gt; * associates, in the database, a cut-off score for the practice test.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1890" RevisionGUID="000abcd8-3463-4296-9b1e-743dc213fff1" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="[TQP are currently suing more large companies for using RC4 and SSL/TLS][1], but the way the patent was awarded confuses me. &#xA;&#xA;From the Cipherlawgroup article linked to:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; The application for the ’730 patent was filed on April 23, 1992, and&#xA;&gt; claimed priority as a continuation-in-part to an earlier application&#xA;&gt; filed on Oct. 6, 1989.  The ’730 patent was originally issued with&#xA;&gt; only two claims:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for transmitting data comprising a sequence of blocks in encrypted form over a communication link from a transmitter to a receiver &#xA;&gt; 2. The method as set forth in claim 1 further including the step of altering said predetermined number of blocks each time said new key value in said first and said second sequences is produced.&#xA;&#xA;Now, since that 1989 wording, TQP have been allowed to add features to the patent and expand it through **continuation** and the 1992 additions appear to be the core of the lawsuit.&#xA;&#xA;So if one was searching for prior art, would it need to be found before 1989 or 1992? What is the date of validity of this patent?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cipherlawgroup.com/blog/tqp-sues-another-round-of-companies-on-cryptography-patent/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="751" RevisionGUID="f2a34200-729f-48ec-bb70-4b7ef5ab8125" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Is there anything in the claim that is not in a query made to a distributed database where some of the database is accessed over a network and some of it is on disks attached to the local machine? For example, the textbook, *Principles of distributed database systems*, by M. Tamer Özsu, Patrick Valduriez, second edition published 1999 discusses not just distributed databases but discusses implementations over the world wide web.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; NEW TO THIS EDITION&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; The relationship of distributed DBMSs with the new networking technologies is discussed.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; The query processing/optimization chapters now focus on techniques employed in commercial systems and include new algorithms such as randomized search strategies.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Full chapters are devoted to parallel DBMSs and distributed object DBMSs.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;  Current issues are discussed in a new chapter, including sections on data warehousing, world wide web and databases, push-based technologies, and mobile DBMSs.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="598" RevisionGUID="2e173766-c6be-4ff8-a73e-4621db8f384e" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I came across [this patent](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=7,945,544.PN.&amp;OS=PN/7,945,544&amp;RS=PN/7,945,544) titled “Similarity-based access control of data in a data processing system” (priority date: 1995-04-11).&#xA;&#xA;Abstract:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Similarity of data items is determined by analyzing corresponding&#xA;&gt; segments of the data items. A function is applied to each segment of a&#xA;&gt; data item and the output of that function is compared to the output of&#xA;&gt; the same function applied to a corresponding segment of another data&#xA;&gt; item. A function may be applied to the output of the functions. The&#xA;&gt; functions may be hash or message digest functions.&#xA;&#xA;The way I understand the legalese, it appears to patent comparing the output of a hash function to determine if the inputs are equal. This is an extremely trivial operation and is utilized in most websites today. &#xA;&#xA;Most websites and other password-security applications will use a one-way hash function on the saved password. This is so that the password can not be retrieved in case of a hack. I'm sure that this was round before the world wide web even though. I'm pretty sure that some UNIX-like operating systems used one-way hashing for passwords. &#xA;&#xA;So is there any prior art for this, or am I misinterpreting the patent?&#xA;&#xA;Here's the text of claim 1:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method, the method comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * (A) for a first data item comprising a first plurality of parts,&#xA;&gt;     * (a1) applying a first function to each part of said first plurality of parts to obtain a corresponding part value for each part of said first plurality of parts, wherein each part of said first plurality of parts comprises a corresponding sequence of bits, and wherein the part value for each particular part of said first plurality of parts is based, at least in part, on the corresponding bits in the particular part, and wherein two identical parts will have the same part value as determined using said first function, wherein said first function comprises a first hash function; and&#xA;&gt;     * (a2) obtaining a first value for the first data item, said first value obtained by applying a second function to the part values of said first plurality of parts of said first data item, said second function comprising a second hash function;&#xA;&gt; * (B) for a second data item comprising a second plurality of parts,&#xA;&gt;     * (b1) applying said first function to each part of said second plurality of parts to obtain a corresponding part value for each part of said second plurality of parts, wherein each part of said second plurality of parts consists of a corresponding sequence of bits, and wherein the part value for each particular part of said second plurality of parts is based, at least in part, on the corresponding bits in the particular part of the second plurality of parts; and&#xA;&gt;     * (b2) obtaining a second value for the second data item by applying said second function to the part values of said second plurality of parts of said second data item; and&#xA;&gt; * (C) ascertaining whether or not said first data item corresponds to said second data item based, at least in part, on said first value and said second value.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="567" RevisionGUID="6f9c1491-4ba5-4b03-ae60-8766c4274a63" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="The wording of the patent law is actually kind of tricky in this area. Patentability is covered by section 35 USC 102, which says (in part): &#xA;&#xA;&gt; A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; (a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or&#xA;&#xA;So, if you were in the US at the time, *or* (you can show that) somebody in the US knew of your invention at the time, then it counts as prior art. Assuming, however, that you were in the UK at the time, and you didn't reveal it directly to somebody in the US, *then* it would have to have been described in a printed publication to qualify as prior art.&#xA;&#xA;I'm not sure it's ever been tested in court, but given the wording of the law, if you even visited the US at any time between the time of invention, and Apple's inventing it, that could qualify your invention as invalidating prior art (i.e., it was known to you, and you were &quot;in this country&quot;).&#xA;&#xA;Edit: I should probably add: I'm not sure entirely sure whether the patent you're talking about is really a utility patent or a design patent. The wording above is (at least primarily) about utility patents -- I'm a lot less certain about design patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="548" RevisionGUID="b4bcb345-773b-4840-b07f-275a6516c223" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON USER INTERFACE** - This patent from [RIM][6] claims the idea of... doubletap spacebar to insert periods and capitalize! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;[US Patent No. 6,396,482][1] - Hand-held electronic device with a keyboard optimized for use with the thumbs&#xA;&#xA;Looking for prior art related to **claim 16**:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A method of inputting characters into a mobile device having a keyboard and a display, the keyboard including a plurality of character keys and a space bar, the method comprising the steps of:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;- (A) inputting a first set of characters into the mobile device using the keyboard, wherein the first set of characters comprise a first sentence; &#xA;&gt;- (B) selecting the space bar of the keyboard twice in succession and (1) displaying a period symbol (.) after the first sentence, and (2) instructing the mobile device to capitalize the next character input using the keyboard; and &#xA;&gt;- (C) inputting a second set of characters into the mobile device using the keyboard, wherein the second set of characters comprise a second sentence, and wherein the first character in the second set of characters is automatically capitalized by the mobile device.&#xA;&#xA;Note the patent has a filing date of **Jun 25, 1999**, so any relevant art must have been published before this date. This patent has been assigned to RIM.&#xA;&#xA;Basically, this claim is directed to the familiar feature on modern smartphones of double tapping the spacebar at the end of a sentence to automatically insert a period. Additionally, the next character typed will be automatically capitalized.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xA;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;----------&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents?id=dmYLAAAAEBAJ&amp;zoom=4&amp;pg=PA1#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xA;  [6]: http://www.qualcomm.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="39" RevisionGUID="a94d1df4-9a55-4f62-a899-8cd22ea602bd" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="If it is a United States patent see if your company's patent attorney(s) will file a &quot;Correction of Inventorship&quot; pursuant to CFR 37 Section 1.48 which reads in relevant part to your situation:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; § 1.48 Correction of inventorship in a patent application, other than a reissue application, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 116.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; (a) Nonprovisional application after oath/declaration filed. If the inventive entity is set forth in error in an executed § 1.63 oath or declaration in a nonprovisional application, and such error arose without any deceptive intention on the part of the person named as an inventor in error or on the part of the person who through error was not named as an inventor, the inventorship of the nonprovisional application may be amended to name only the actual inventor or inventors. Amendment of the inventorship requires:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(1) A request to correct the inventorship that sets forth the desired inventorship change;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(2) A statement from each person being added as an inventor and from each person being deleted as an inventor that the error in inventorship occurred without deceptive intention on his or her part;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(3) An oath or declaration by the actual inventor or inventors as required by § 1.63 or as permitted by §§ 1.42, 1.43 or § 1.47;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(4) The processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i); and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(5) If an assignment has been executed by any of the original named inventors, the written consent of the assignee (see § 3.73(b) of this chapter)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="137" RevisionGUID="12b1a536-6e2e-424c-897c-6e9fa2c1c2a9" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="[Patent application #20120226962](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20120226962.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20070198578&amp;RS=DN/20120222429) makes the claim:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;A computer implemented method for storing data in memory, the method comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * receiving write data to be written into a memory that is logically divided into a plurality of regions, the plurality of regions including a first region and a second region, the first region and the second region implemented by the same memory technology, and the memory subject to degradation as a result of write operations;&#xA;&gt; * classifying the write data as dynamic data or static data;&#xA;&gt; * in response to classifying the write data as dynamic data performing: encoding the write data using a first type of encoding;&#xA;&gt; * and storing the write data encoded using the first type of encoding in the first region of the memory;&#xA;&gt; * and in response to classifying the write data as static data performing: encoding the write data using a second type of encoding; and storing the write data encoded using the second type of encoding in the second region of the memory. &#xA;&#xA;Isn't this what has been done in the industry and has support in operating systems for several years now? My translation of the above is similar to the description in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear_leveling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60625" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="141" RevisionGUID="428801b9-28bf-4afe-bc9f-3092039ccef7" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="## TL;DR&#xA;&#xA;Given a patent application describing a calculation using a maximum likelihood approach, and a piece of prior art that has the same goal but uses Monte Carlo simulation, is this sufficient to challenge non-obviousness?&#xA;&#xA;## The documents&#xA;&#xA;I'm looking at patent application 20120226640, [Behavior and information model to yield more accurate probability of successful outcome](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220120226640%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20120226640&amp;RS=DN/20120226640) (a more readable PDF version can be downloaded [from FreshPatents](http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20120906ptan20120226640.php)).&#xA;&#xA;This is really a business method patent, so whether this would actually hold in light of Bilski etc. may be questionable, but I'm not focusing on this issue.&#xA;&#xA;However, the described method very strongly reminded me of [Evidence based scheduling](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/10/26.html) (EBS). This description from 2007 by Joel Spolsky, while being &quot;just a blog post&quot;, has been [extensively circulated and studied](http://www.google.com/search?q=evidence+based+scheduling), so my impression is that it passes the test for being valid prior art.&#xA;&#xA;## Summaries&#xA;Here are my (obviously non-authorative) summaries of the patent application and of EBS.&#xA;&#xA;*The patent application*&#xA;&#xA;This is about salespeople giving an estimate of how probable it is that a particular deal they're pursuing will eventually be closed (&quot;have a successful outcome&quot;, in the words of the application).&#xA;&#xA;The salesperson gives their estimate (the &quot;user-reported probability&quot;), and based on this (and previous knowledge), the computer gives a better estimate that's more realistic, based on previous estimates and eventual outcomes.&#xA;&#xA;The application calls this the &quot;user-believed probability&quot; under the assumption that the report may be skewed (consciously or sub-conciously) by the salesperson, and the computer-estimated value more closely reflects the salesperson's actual feeling of how probable a successful deal really is.&#xA;&#xA;*Evidence based scheduling*&#xA;&#xA;This is about software developers giving an estimate of how long it takes to complete a certain feature. Based on this estimate and knowledge about the quality of the developer's previous estimates (compared to the corresponding eventual completion times), EBS gives a better estimate that's more realistic (in fact, it even more detailedly gives a distribution of how probabable it is that the feature will be complete by any given date).&#xA;&#xA;## My obviousness argument&#xA;&#xA;The main difference between the two is the statistical method that is utilized to improve the estimate. The patent application mathematically calculates its result using a maximum likelihood approach, while EBS uses a Monte Carlo simulation. Monte Carlo essentially is a method to *estimate* a maximum likelihood (it actually does more than that, but I'll leave it at this).&#xA;&#xA;Now, here's my question: **If the difference between the two comes down to the statistical method used to obtain the result, does this pass the obviousness test?** Quoting from the [FAQ](https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art) (which in turn quotes Wikipedia),&#xA;&#xA;&gt; One of the main requirements of patentability is that the invention being patented is not obvious, meaning that a “person having ordinary skill in the art” would not know how to solve the problem at which the invention is directed by using exactly the same mechanism.&#xA;&#xA;In this case, a &quot;person having ordinary skill in the art&quot; would probably a statistician. And interchanging two different well-known methods for getting similar results looks like a fairly obvious thing to do for a statistician.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;## The claim&#xA;&#xA;I'm just focusing on claim 1 of the patent application. All other claims either explicitly or at least more or less implicitly depend on 1.&#xA;&#xA;Full-bold blockquotes are from the claim; if you read only those, you have the full claim.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **A method comprising: receiving, by a processor, a report indicating a user-reported probability of a successful outcome;**&#xA;&#xA;This corresponds to a computer receiving a software developer's estimate for a given task. Note that &quot;the feature is completed by day X&quot; is a &quot;successful outcome&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **estimating, by the processor, a behavior and information model based on the report,**&#xA;&#xA;The &quot;behavior and information model&quot; is described in a little more detail below; the &quot;processor&quot; in EBS is obviously just the computer that does the calculations.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **the behavior and information model including a behavior model component having a bias parameter and a consistency parameter,**&#xA;&#xA;In EBS, these parameters are actually there, but they are somewhat combined in a single parameter: the developer's velocity history vector. The [description](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/10/26.html) (in section 2) does in fact use the term &quot;consistent&quot;:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; This *common estimator* has very consistent velocities, but they’re below 1.0. For example, {0.6, 0.5, 0.6, 0.6, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.6} &#xA;&#xA;(emphasis in original). Compared to the so-called *bad estimator*, where the velocities are &quot;all over the map&quot;, having the values close to each other is a sign of consistency. The bias paramter isn't explicitly called out in EBS, but it is hinted at:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Most estimators get the scale wrong but the relative estimates right.&#xA;&#xA;The &quot;scale&quot; in this case is precisely the bias parameter; it's pretty much an average velocity.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **the behavior and information model including an information model component having a first user-believed probability of a successful outcome and a second user-believed probability of a successful outcome,**&#xA;&#xA;This is extremely broad in claim 1, which doesn't actually give any details about those values. It gets a bit more specific in subsequent claims, but for the purposes of claim 1, it's just &quot;we have these two values&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;And since we established the &quot;user-believed probability&quot; to correspond to the estimated shipping date, these are in fact there in EBS. Not only two such values, but one for each round of the Monte Carlo simulation.&#xA;&#xA;Since I'm going for obviousness via substituting statistical methods, it may be irrelevant that EBS has more than two, but it should be noted that the claim says &quot;having&quot;, not &quot;consisting of&quot;, so it's not even excluding the possibility of more than two.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **where estimating the behavior and information model based on the report comprises employing a maximum likelihood technique that determines the bias parameter, the consistency parameter, the first user-believed probability of winning, and the second user-believed probability of winning that maximize a likelihood;**&#xA;&#xA;Here's the difference: EBS uses a Monte Carlo approach in which those values are more implicitly present on the way to yielding estimated shipping dates (or rather, their probabilites), while the patent application uses a maximum likelihood to explicitly calculate those parameters in order to eventually use them for yielding a result.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **and, using, by the processor, the behavior and information model to yield a model-determined probability of a successful outcome that more accurately reflects a probability of a successful outcome than the user-reported probability of a successful outcome does.**&#xA;&#xA;In EBS, this corresponds to the computer using the developer's velocity history to yield shipping date estimates that more accuratly reflect the probabilities than the developer's estimate does.&#xA;&#xA;## Once again, my question&#xA;&#xA;Can the different statistical-mathematical approach be considered an obvious step for a &quot;person having ordinary skill in the art&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="193" RevisionGUID="f49d6815-3074-4ca3-b165-540525903713" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="[Patent Application #20120016857][1] appears to be for Search Engine Optimisation (SEO). Here is its claim 1:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;  A computer-readable medium comprising computer-readable instructions for providing search engine optimization analysis, wherein execution of said computer-readable instructions by one or more processors causes said one or more processors to carry out steps comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * obtaining a starting uniform resource locator identifying a network location for a starting web resource;&#xA;&gt; * analyzing said starting uniform resource locator, wherein said analyzing comprises obtaining a text-based portion of said starting web resource comprising data and metadata, processing said data and said metadata to determine a plurality of potential target terms, and performing a relevancy test of said text-based portion of said starting web resource based on said plurality of potential target terms;&#xA;&gt; * determining any referred uniform resource locators in said text-based portion of said starting web resource, wherein said referred uniform resource locators each identify a referred web resource sharing a domain with said starting web resource;&#xA;&gt; * recursively analyzing said referred uniform resource locators, said recursive analysis comprising obtaining an additional text-based portion of a referred web resource; processing additional data and additional metadata in said additional text-based portion of said referred web resource to determine additional potential target terms for each referred web resource, and performing an additional relevancy test of said additional text-based portion of each referred web resource based on said additional potential target terms for each referred web resource;&#xA;&gt; * analyzing a link index of a network comprising said starting uniform resource locator to determine web resources linking to said web resources associated with said starting uniform resource locator and said referred uniform resource locators;&#xA;&gt; * calculating an internal search engine optimization score based on said analysis and said recursive analysis;&#xA;&gt; * calculating an external search engine optimization score based on said link index;&#xA;&gt; * providing a graphical report comprising a visualization of statistical information related to search engine optimization; and&#xA;&gt; * providing a domain visualization map comprising a graphical network representation of said statistical information for said starting uniform resource locator and said referred uniform resource locators.&#xA;&#xA;I have been doing SEO for a few mom and pop stores and recently someone pointed me to this patent. Once you start reading the patent, it becomes clear that the patent could be for a search engine, rather than the optimisation, but the title suggests otherwise.&#xA;&#xA;Is there prior art for SEO?&#xA;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120016857" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="197" RevisionGUID="8449f6df-9f2f-47d7-902b-3b99cf2c8e70" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Microsoft's [application][1] aims to patent:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Methods and systems for style and/or layout caching of Web content are&#xA;&gt; usable to build reusable style caching trees and cacheable layout&#xA;&gt; calculations. Such style caching trees may be used to avoid&#xA;&gt; recalculating style content of Web pages for document object model&#xA;&gt; (DOM) elements that have not changed. Additionally, the cacheable&#xA;&gt; layout calculations may be used to avoid recalculating the layout&#xA;&gt; content of Web pages that are subsequently accessed.&#xA;&#xA;Claim 1 is:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method comprising: performed by one or more processors executing computer-readable instructions:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * receiving a Web page file;&#xA;&gt; * parsing the Web page file to create a document object model (DOM) tree comprising DOM tree nodes;&#xA;&gt; * constructing a style caching tree comprising structure information of the DOM tree;&#xA;&gt; * storing the style caching tree in a memory;&#xA;&gt; * constructing a render tree comprising render objects based at least in part on the structure information of the DOM tree;&#xA;&gt; * performing a layout calculation for render objects;&#xA;&gt; * and storing the layout calculation results in the memory.&#xA;&#xA;Can prior art be demonstrated from the WebKit and Gecko source trees from several years ago?&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=20120110437.PGNR." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="221" RevisionGUID="562a36b6-f2de-4d70-ba27-aae9e201d425" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Microsoft filed [US20120227028 Graphical programming object population user interface autogeneration](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=20120227028.PGNR.), which describes the automatic generation of GUIs to instantiate objects. I vaguely recall seeing a implementation of this concept in Java somewhere. Are there any other examples of prior art, or is my memory just bad? Here is the claim 1:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A computer-readable non-transitory storage medium configured with data and with instructions that when executed by at least one processor causes the processor(s) to perform a process for utilizing an instance of an object type in a graphical programming environment, the instance having at least one field defined by the object type, each field of the instance having a name and capable of being assigned a value, the process comprising the steps of:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * receiving a selection that identifies the instance of the object type;&#xA;&gt; * automatically determining what fields are defined for the object type instance;&#xA;&gt; * automatically generating an instance data population user interface in the graphical programming environment;&#xA;&gt; * and displaying at least the following in the user interface:&#xA;&gt;    * the name of each field that is defined for the object type instance,&#xA;&gt;    * and a currently assigned value for each field that currently has an assigned value. &#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60629" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="ea7b083d-f8a9-4223-b034-f8b14b16d006" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Many people in the commercial vehicle industry use a &quot;twin&quot; air drying arrangement.&#xA;&#xA;[Patent #us8118911](http://www.google.com/patents/US8118911?dq=US8118911&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=62hbULzbEamujALb04HoCQ&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA), originally filed Nov. 10, 2006, and was granted on Feb 21, 2012, seems ridiculous to me.&#xA;&#xA;For example, here is a twin dryer manufactured by the SKF corporation:&#xA;[H.C. Dual Turbo-2000](http://www.skf.com/binary/12-64719/457805.pdf)&#xA;&#xA;Would this dryer constitute prior art?&#xA;&#xA;Here is claim 1 of the patent:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A device attaching a pair of desiccant cartridges such that air flows to the pair of desiccant cartridges in parallel, the device comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * an inner chamber; a first fluid flow passage for communicating air to the inner chamber;&#xA;&gt; * a pair of extensions, each of the pair of extensions adapted for mounting one of the pair of desiccant cartridges;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; wherein each extension is spaced at a substantially equal distance from the inner chamber; and a second and a third fluid flow passage, each fluidly connecting the inner chamber with each of the pair of threaded extensions, compressed air flowing in substantially the same direction at substantially the same time through each of the second and third fluid passages in substantially equal amounts.&#xA;&#xA;More possible prior arts with an original filing date before 2006:&#xA;&#xA;[Patent #US3717974](http://www.google.com/patents/US3717974?pg=PA1&amp;dq=US+3717974&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=d3xgUPHTKKS-igKF1YCICg&amp;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA)&#xA;&#xA;[Patent #US5871564](http://www.google.com/patents/US5871564?dq=US5871564&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=gHtgUPwvw5uJAsylgbgG&amp;sqi=2&amp;pjf=1&amp;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA)&#xA;&#xA;[Patent #US4802899](http://www.google.com/patents/US4802899?pg=PA1&amp;dq=4802899&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=yHtgUNGoI8SLiALv7oHQCg&amp;ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=4802899&amp;f=false)&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="280" RevisionGUID="a5833691-2fb0-43b0-9bcd-f26b18377337" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="While looking through old newsgroups I was able to find this possible prior art:&#xA;&#xA;----------------------------&#xA;TwisterGame on Network  &#xA;by Masaki FUJIHATA, Nobuya Suzuki  &#xA;Keio University, Faculty of Environmental Information  &#xA;April-1994&#xA;&#xA;Aim and condition:&#xA;&#xA;1:  Experimentation for connecting 2 different places by an electrical&#xA;network, using telephone line with modem.&#xA;&#xA;2:  A collaboratation in one virtual place where participant will arise&#xA;through the network.  They are remotely connected from their own place.&#xA;Each participant will share same experience in this virtual place.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;3:  To examine and construct the rule based framework for sharing an experience. &#xA;&#xA;----------------------------&#xA;&#xA;There was also a presentation at &quot;Networked Reality 1994&quot;. Quote from a [PDF of the event](http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a292366.pdf):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Session 3, was titled Networked Reality Systems and featured three presentations...a networked virtual space implementation of the Twister parlor game, by Fujihata and Suzuki of Keio University.  &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; The networked reality implementation of the Twister game consists of having human operators manipulate, via joysticks, tripedal clones of themselves in a virtual space equipped with a virtual Twister mat.  The system was demonstrated on 18 February, 1994 by linking the site of IMAGINA '94 (Monte Carlo, France) with Keio University in Yokohama.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; ...Twister game presentations had associated demonstration systems available during session breaks.&#xA;&#xA;Problem is that this is probably just peer to peer (modem), not enough detail to tell whether a server is involved.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="311" RevisionGUID="663fc972-effc-4552-b5f7-b5ee664dec64" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I am looking for some details about a [Patent Application #20120222005][1] submitted by Terracotta Inc. around Off-Heap (Direct Memory) data stores. Here are some of its claims:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 7\. A method of managing memory of a computer system including at least one processor, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium tangibly storing data, and a software application executable by the at least one processor and programmed to make use of the data, the method comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * dynamically allocating and directly managing an off-heap direct memory data storage area, using a memory manager, such that the off-heap direct memory data storage area is perceivable by the software application as being a part of local application tier memory and manageable, after initial allocation, independent of any memory managers of the computer system and any memory managers of an operating system running on the computer system, wherein the off-heap direct memory data storage area is scalable up to a size of the computer system's memory, upon direction from the memory manager, to accommodate terabytes-worth of data so that that data stored in the off-heap direct memory data storage area is transparently providable to the software application from the off-heap memory within microseconds and without having to repeatedly access that data from the non-transitory computer readable storage medium. &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 8\. The method of claim 7, wherein the method operates in connection with a Java-based environment, and further comprises:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * (a) attempting to allocate Java byte buffers in chunks of a preconfigured maximum size in response to a request for off-heap direct memory data storage at a predetermined maximum size;&#xA;&gt; * (b) repeating said attempts to allocate byte buffers until the off-heap direct memory data storage area is created at the predetermined size, or until an attempt fails, whichever comes first;&#xA;&gt; * (c) when an attempt to allocate byte buffers fails, reducing the preconfigured maximum size and repeating (a)-(b);&#xA;&gt; * (d) receiving a request for a region of the off-heap direct memory data storage area, the region having an associated size;&#xA;&gt; * (e) finding, via a page source, an unused slice of the off-heap direct memory data storage area;&#xA;&gt; * (f) returning a page indicative of the unused slice, the page being a wrapped byte buffer that includes a reference to the slice where data is to be stored and a reference to an allocator object that created the slice;&#xA;&gt; * (g) continuing to return pages until the off-heap direct memory data storage area is exhausted;&#xA;&gt; * (h) managing the returned pages from the off-heap direct memory data storage area as a single coherent logical address space storing data keys and values, with a single page in the off-heap direct memory data storage area storing a hash table with metadata information linking data keys to values; and&#xA;&gt; * (i) expanding and contracting the hash table in response to further entries being added thereto and removed therefrom, respectively, by rehashing into a new page.&#xA;&#xA;In the Big Data movement, the off-heap memory management solutions for Java platforms are going to become an increasing interest. I would like to find out more about the impact of such a patent in a zone that seems to have an expanding, but not competitive enough market yet.&#xA;&#xA;More precisely, I would like to know if anyone can shed some light on the following questions:&#xA;&#xA;1. To what extent is this patent consistent with the USTPO's requirements of &quot;non-abstract ideas&quot; and if it's possible for this concept to become a patent? The idea of managing off-heap data stores seems to me way too generic and I believe anyone could admit that the purpose of the JVM's off-heap capabilities are to be used as data stores.&#xA;2. Assuming this patent will be issued (is still in an application form), what is the impact on commercial products built on similar technologies and on the customers purchasing these products?&#xA;3. What would be the impact/relevance of such a patent be in the open source community? Considering that the idea is based largely on public/free components available in the Java platform, anyone can implement similar capabilities with very little obvious relation to the patent and with their own design.&#xA;&#xA;[1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=354892&amp;OS=354892&amp;RS=354892" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="341" RevisionGUID="7c73273a-e0ec-493a-bcec-7dde695ed1b2" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="First, the law (35 U.S.C. 284):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Upon finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; When the damages are not found by a jury, the court shall assess them. In either event the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed. Increased damages under this paragraph shall not apply to provisional rights under section 154 (d) of this title.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; The court may receive expert testimony as an aid to the determination of damages or of what royalty would be reasonable under the circumstances.&#xA;&#xA;In practical terms, &quot;damages adequate to compensate for the infringement&quot; are lost sales; that is, but for the infringement, how much money would the plaintiff have made?  As you can imagine, this can get very bogged down in numbers, but some factors can include: how many sales the infringer had, whether the plaintiff could have produced enough product to capture those sales himself, whether the infringement affected the price the plaintiff could charge for his own product, whether the patented features have a significant effect on the market position of the product, whether other reasons unrelated to infringement limited the commercial success of the plaintiff, etc.&#xA;&#xA;The alternative, a &quot;reasonable royalty,&quot; is also a bit of divination, but it can be based on what I feel are less speculative factors, such as: what are common licensing royalties paid in the industry; how much of the product is based on the patented technology; how well would the product perform without the patented technology?  This is also the more useful damage calculation for non-practicing entities (i.e., &quot;patent trolls&quot;), as their lost profits are, by definition, zero.&#xA;&#xA;Then the willfulness factor is examined.  That is, if you *knew* or *should have known* that you were infringing a patent, damages can be 3x." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="357" RevisionGUID="114a162e-6535-4035-b434-d8aea10d4526" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="There are three main provision of the laws that might cause you problem and they all involve exporting to the US or encouraging others to do so. The primary statute on point is 35 U.S.C. 271(a)-(c).&#xA;&#xA;&gt; (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without&#xA;&gt; authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented&#xA;&gt; invention, within the United States or imports into the United States&#xA;&gt; any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor,&#xA;&gt; infringes the patent. &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; (b) Whoever actively induces infringement of a&#xA;&gt; patent shall be liable as an infringer. &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; (c) Whoever ... imports into the United States a&#xA;&gt; component of a patented machine ... for use in practicing a&#xA;&gt; patented process, constituting a material part of the invention,&#xA;&gt; knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use&#xA;&gt; in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or&#xA;&gt; commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use,&#xA;&gt; shall be liable as a contributory infringer.&#xA;&#xA;Thus, if you import an infringing product into the US or induce someone to import the infringing product into the US, then you can be held fully liable as an infringer.  Even if you are selling through a third party distributor, you likely be seen as inducing the importation depending upon the facts.  &#xA;&#xA;There is nothing illegal about selling to US customers when they are in the UK so long as that sale is not part of an import scheme. &#xA;&#xA;Now, there are some procedural issues that a patentee would need to overcome: (1) can a court get jurisdiction over you as a non-US entity; and (2) can they collect money damages since you are in the UK. These are big questions. If the case is brought in the US International Trade Commission (USITC) rather than in court then the court automatically claims jurisdiction based upon the imported products. The nice thing (for you) about USITC cases is that USITC never awards money damages (only awards exclusion orders to block further imports).  If you lost a money judgment in court, the patentee could seize your US assets.  There is no particular treaty between the US and UK on enforcing foreign money judgments. However, it is usually relatively simple for a US judgment winner to go to the UK and collect the money. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="394" RevisionGUID="9ee2b4a9-7ef8-452d-b419-271b24d26aca" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Some of Apple's patents, I am pretty sure are based on Prior art some of these include:&#xA;&#xA;Patent [US 7844915][1]. Here is its claim 1:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A machine implemented method for scrolling on a touch-sensitive display of a device comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * receiving a user input, the user input is one or more input points applied to the touch-sensitive display that is integrated with the device;&#xA;&gt; * creating an event object in response to the user input;&#xA;&gt; * determining whether the event object invokes a scroll or gesture operation by distinguishing between a single input point applied to the touch-sensitive display that is interpreted as the scroll operation and two or more input points applied to the touch-sensitive display that are interpreted as the gesture operation;&#xA;&gt; * issuing at least one scroll or gesture call based on invoking the scroll or gesture operation;&#xA;&gt; * responding to at least one scroll call, if issued, by scrolling a window having a view associated with the event object based on an amount of a scroll with the scroll stopped at a predetermined position in relation to the user input;&#xA;&gt; * and responding to at least one gesture call, if issued, by scaling the view associated with the event object based on receiving the two or more input points in the form of the user input.&#xA;&#xA;Patent [US7864163][2]. Here is its claim 1:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A computer-implemented method, comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * at a portable electronic device with a touch screen display;&#xA;&gt; * displaying at least a portion of a web page on the touch screen display, wherein the web page comprises a plurality of boxes of content;&#xA;&gt; * detecting a first finger tap gesture at a location on the displayed portion of the web page;&#xA;&gt; * determining a first box in the plurality of boxes at the location of the first finger tap gesture;&#xA;&gt; * and enlarging and translating the web page so as to substantially center the first box on the touch screen display, wherein enlarging comprises expanding the first box so that the width of the first box is substantially the same as the width of the touch screen display;&#xA;&gt; * resizing text in the enlarged first box to meet or exceed a predetermined minimum text size on the touch screen display;&#xA;&gt; * while the first box is enlarged, detecting a second finger tap gesture on a second box other than the first box;&#xA;&gt; * and in response to detecting the second finger tap gesture, translating the web page so as to substantially center the second box on the touch screen display. &#xA;&#xA;The first includes gestures like pinch-to-zoom which have been in use long before Apple's patent was filed. I believe the first implementation of a pinch gesture on a touch sensitive screen was in the late 1980s, if this is the case it could invalidate the patents as Apple were not the inventors of the technology.&#xA;&#xA;The second is based around a tap-to-zoom technology, which means taping a portion of a screen to zoom in or out again this has been in use long before Apple filed this patent in my opinion.&#xA;&#xA;There are in my opinion many other patents filed by Apple based on prior art, but these are the ones I have found so far.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PALL&amp;RefSrch=yes&amp;Query=PN/7844915&#xA;  [2]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PALL&amp;RefSrch=yes&amp;Query=PN/7864163" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="409" RevisionGUID="4b376711-2907-4cea-adaa-1def8a520156" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Yes, Apple's patents here are undeniably based on prior art.  I'll try to answer your question best by providing details for your points, and then follow up with links to the authoritative sources.  Hope this helps!  :-)&#xA;&#xA;### Prior Art as an invention&#xA;Touch screens are approximately 40 years old, first built by IBM.  The first publicly available touchscreen was produced by 'Control Data' in 1972.  Multi-touch was first implemented in 1982 by the University of Toronto's Input Research Group.  It was an optical imaging system, rather than the capacitance based systems most commonly used today.  The same group developed a multi-touch tablet that used capacitance in 1985.  All multi-touch screens today have roots to this development, 27 years prior.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;### Prior Art as a patent&#xA;The earliest I found was US4476463, filed in 1981, issued in 1984.  Claim 21 in the patent calls to a second detection (i.e. multi-touch).&#xA;&#xA;### Prior art as published&#xA;In 1983, two Bell Labs employees authored and published a paper on multi-touch screen user interfaces. &#xA;&#xA;### Prior art as published&#xA;Gestures date back to at least 1991, in Pierre Wellner's published paper titled &quot;Digital Desk&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;### Prior art as published&#xA;Multi-touch computer pads were used throughout the television show Star Trek: The Next Generation, which ran from 1987 to 1994.  Additionally, the technologies were described in detail in the book &quot;The Star Trek Encyclopedia&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;### Prior art as published&#xA;Apple bought the company 'FingerWorks' in 2005, which produced touchscreens.  One of the newly acquired employees was Wayne Westerman, who had ironically written his PhD thesis on multi-touch screens in 1999.&#xA;&#xA;### Links to authoritative sources&#xA;http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=800045.801573  &#xA;http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/iphone2.htm  &#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8lCetZ_57g  &#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch  &#xA;http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html  &#xA;http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~westerma/main.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="449" RevisionGUID="45dfea8b-d74a-4aca-bf5b-196ce257e3c4" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I'll note now that this answer is not Sci-Fi specific, but does originate from a fictional, created, medium.&#xA;&#xA;According to [an article on Cracked](http://www.cracked.com/article_19021_5-amazing-things-invented-by-donald-duck-seriously.html), a Donald Duck comic prevented a patent being granted in at least one region. #3 of the above link.&#xA;&#xA;The summarized version:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; In 1964, a freighter capsized off the coast of Kuwait. [...] So Danish inventor Karl Kroyer designed a ship-raising technique that involved filling the vessel with small, buoyant balls injected through a tube. The combined buoyancy of which would float the ship to the surface. It took 27 million balls, but it worked. [...]&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Well, Kroyer understandably wanted to patent his idea. He applied to the German, U.K. and Dutch patent offices, and while the first two countries said sure, the Dutch office stopped him cold. They said he was stealing. [From Donald Duck.](http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2006/10/19/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-73/)&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; It's the exact same system, and while no one is accusing Kroyer of stealing the idea, the Dutch Patent Office considered the comic book &quot;prior art,&quot; thus preventing any new patents on the method." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="454" RevisionGUID="23171286-683e-4d62-ac05-1dc0d5a13a1f" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="[Patent application #20040201595][1], filed April 11, 2003, describes a screen that rotates based on orientation. Here is its claim 1:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A method for orienting a display image, said method comprising the steps of:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * sensing at least one characteristic of an object;&#xA;&gt; * determining an orientation of said object from at least one of said at least one sensed characteristic;&#xA;&gt; * and orienting said display image relative to said determined orientation of said object.&#xA;&#xA;I can not believe there is not prior art for this. I'm interested if anyone has used a device that could put the screen in either layout or portrait based on how the device was held prior to 2003?&#xA;&#xA;[1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20040201595" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="bc7945eb-91ab-4b78-8828-48aa3f2c0984" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="&#xA;DataTern has Patent No. [5,937,402](http://www.google.com/patents/US5937402) on using objects to access a relational database. The patent was issued in 1999, and obviously people were using objects to access databases since the 80's.&#xA;Basically, any software written in the past 15 years that access a database is likely violating this patent. This is true for Microsoft technologies, Java, SAP, etc. Here is its claim 1:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1\. A method for enabling an object oriented user application to access a relational database having one or more physical tables segmented into rows and columns, comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * defining a logical table comprising a subset of columns from at least one of the one or more physical tables;&#xA;&gt; * designating one column of the logical table as a logical primary key column;&#xA;&gt; * forming a normalized relational schema object representing the logical table;&#xA;&gt; * generating, responsive to the normalized relational schema object, one or more object classes associated with the normalized relational schema object; and&#xA;&gt; * employing an object of an object class including the one or more object classes associated with the normalized relational schema object and a respective corresponding logical primary key value to access data in the at least one of the physical tables in the relational database.&#xA;&#xA;I am looking for prior art that shows programmers used objects to access databases long before 1999." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="749c6e8c-d367-456a-8680-8803320d1dc1" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="[Patent #US20100186588| &quot;PREPARATION OF FUNCTIONALIZED ZEOLITIC FRAMEWORKS&quot;](http://www.google.com/patents/US20100186588), filed Jul 16, 2008, is for the preparation of functionalized zeolitic frameworks. Here is its claim 1:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1\. A zeolitic framework, comprising the general structure:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; a plurality of the structure M-L-M, wherein M comprises a transition metal and L is a linking moiety, wherein the framework is selected from the group consisting of:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; (a) M-L-M, wherein L comprises structure III; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; (b) M-L-M, wherein at least one L is structure III and at least one other L is structure I, II or a combination thereof:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; wherein A can be either C or N, wherein R5-R8 are present when A1 and A4 comprise C, wherein R1, R4 or R9 comprise a non-sterically hindering group that does not interfere with M, wherein R2, R3, R5, R8, R10, R11, R12 are each individually an alkyl, halo-cyano-nitro-, wherein when the linking moiety comprises structure III, R10, R11 and R12 are each individually electron withdrawing groups, and wherein one of R6 and R7 comprise an electron withdrawing group.&#xA;&#xA;I saw the earlier article [The Silica-Like Extended Polymorphism of Cobalt(II) Imidazolate Three-Dimensional Frameworks: X-ray Single-Crystal Structures and Magnetic Properties][1]. Is it prior art for this patent?&#xA;&#xA;[1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/chem.200304957/abstract;jsessionid=D27264CCB3D4BAD7A3F12CF22DF45E3B.d03t01" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="502" RevisionGUID="aeede619-342b-44bb-98c3-4cd6110a2abe" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="To be fair, I think [this][1] is a ridiculously better software patent than any of the other ones I've seen, but I bet there is prior art for it.&#xA;&#xA;The first claim:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1\. A method for correcting semantic errors in code in an integrated development environment, said method comprising the steps of:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * inputting, using a code editor, code being developed in an integrated development environment;&#xA;&gt; * identifying, in a syntax tree constructed for said code inputted, one or more nodes containing semantic errors pertaining to use of a third-party library;&#xA;&gt; * displaying one or more suggestions for correcting said semantic errors identified for a node in said syntax tree containing said semantic errors, wherein said one or more suggestions include one or more executable code snippets associated with one or more collaboration records located for a chosen node from the syntax tree;&#xA;&gt; * selecting at least one executable code snippet from said one or more executable code snippets displayed for correcting said semantic errors identified for said chosen node, wherein said at least one executable code snippet comprises a primary executable code snippet and a secondary executable code snippet;&#xA;&gt; * executing, by a computer, the primary executable code snippet;&#xA;&gt; * and in response to the primary executable code snippet failing to correct said semantic errors identified for said node chosen, automatically executing the secondary executable code snippet. &#xA;&#xA;My non-legalese summary:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Finding semantic code errors in a syntax tree, picking up two likely corrections based on a body of previous code, and compiling and executing the snippets to see if they correct the semantic error.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20120240101" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="517" RevisionGUID="3e72f99f-879a-4735-8629-a3cb7233ee28" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="There are several patents out there like this:&#xA;you buy a beer, on this bottle is an individual code, you can use this code on the campaign website to win a price or get a voucher e.g for an online shop.&#xA;&#xA;AOL (America Online) did this since 1992, you all know these CD-Roms, right? ;)&#xA;The already did it with 3.5inch disks, you have a code and depending on the code you get a certain amount of free online hours. Let's call it rebate ;)&#xA;&#xA;Is this prior art for a patent like this one?&#xA;&#xA;[US 2004/0172327](http://www.google.com/patents/US20040172327) ([PCT/DE02/02565](http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2003009190&amp;recNum=1&amp;docAn=DE2002002565&amp;queryString=ALLNUM:%28PCT/DE02/02565%29&amp;maxRec=1), priority date 2001-07-17): Method for providing reductions on products and/or services&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1\. Method for granting rebates on products and/or services, characterized in that&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * an information carrier is made accessible to a customer at the purchase of a product and/or in connection with receiving services, which carrier contains information about the amount of a rebate issued to him/her for the purchase of the product or for receiving the service, in coded form, and/or about the product or the service,&#xA;&gt; * that the information of the information carrier is fed into a telecommunication device and transmitted to a central administration unit by way of a telecommunication network, by means of the telecommunication device,&#xA;&gt; * that the customer automatically receives credit for the value of the rebate on the product or the service, in the administration unit, for telecommunication services or other data technology services, free of charge to the customer, which the customer can make use of immediately and/or with a time delay, by means of telecommunication devices, by way of technical facilities made available by the central administration unit, whereupon the rebate that was granted expires.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1895" RevisionGUID="123de1db-efab-4475-b4d3-ede2f27d3704" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Patent damages may be limited in a variety of ways. [35 U.S.C. § 286](http://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc-after-america-invents-act/286.html) provides for a “running” period limiting recovery of damages to no more than six years before commencement of a cause of action for infringement.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 35 U.S.C. § 286 **Time limitation on damages** &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Except as otherwise provided by law, no recovery shall be had for any infringement committed more than six years prior to the filing of the complaint or counterclaim for infringement in the action.&#xA;&#xA;This is not a time limit on bringing the infringement suit; it is a time limit on recovering damages. The public policy idea behind this limitation is to discourage patent holders from sitting on their rights while damages accrue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1917" RevisionGUID="1af84f3f-31a7-40e6-bdc1-a8ac210644d2" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="# Background: #&#xA;US Patent [7,853,881][1] **Multi-user on-line real-time virtual social networks based upon communities of interest for entertainment, information or e-commerce purposes**&#xA;&#xA;Earlier this year a company called &quot;Real Time Social Inventions LLC&quot; filed suit in Delaware against Yammer, Salesforce, Facebook and five other defendants.  Facebook requested a reexamination of the '881 patent with the USPTO.  The Delaware case was stayed pending the disposition of the reexamination, which is ongoing now.&#xA;&#xA;If additional prior art were found it could be considered now, during the reexamination process, and could be submitted by a third party.&#xA;&#xA;# The Request   &#xA;Prior art **from 2006 or earlier** which might be relevant to any claim of the patent.&#xA;&#xA;# Why?&#xA;A Reexamination is a process whereby a third party (or inventor) can have a patent reexamined by a patent examiner to verify that the subject matter it claims is patentable. When a patent is placed in Reexamination in the USPTO during litigation in the US district court it very often results in a motion by the defendant to stay pending litigation. District Judges will often issue an order to stay pending litigation while the USPTO completes the reexamination process on the patents in the case (as the judge did in this case).  Plaintiffs generally dislike this because it slows down litigation and drives up their cost.  In addition it is potentially a catastrophic result for the plaintiff's case if the patent is determined to be invalid by the USPTO.&#xA;&#xA;# The Case&#xA;**Real Time Social Inventions LLC v. Facebook Inc.**  &#xA;[1-12-cv-00185][2] Filed **2/14/12** (Happy Valentine's Day?)  &#xA;District of Delaware (Wilmington)&#xA;&#xA;**Patent(s):** [7,853,881][3] by Hoyle  &#xA;**Title:** Multi-user on-line real-time virtual social networks based upon communities of interest for entertainment, information or e-commerce purposes    &#xA;**Abstract:**&#xA;&#xA;&gt; &quot;In a multi-user online real-time network in which users access content associated with a plurality of social networks related by common communities of interest, an interactor client application is embedded in content pages accessed by a user, and the user is provided a list of other users and the content pages in the related social networks that they are accessing. The inteactor client application cooperates with an interactor server application on a network server to enable a user to view the content being accessed by multiple selected ones of the other users, and to interact with the other users online and in real time. &quot;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The invention affords methods and systems that enable a user to find out particular information, content or products of interest by interacting with any of the members of a social network that share the same interest, or that are connected to the user through a known set of the social network members, or because of the activity they are engaged in, or content they are viewing at a given time.&quot;  &#xA;&#xA;**Issue Date:** Dec 14, 2010   &#xA;**Priority Date:** US2006836273P / Aug 8, 2006 /  &#xA;&#xA;## Independent Claims ##&#xA;&gt; **Claim 1.** 1. A method of interacting in real-time with online users accessible through a computer network, comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;- **accessing** by a first user a first real-time social network comprising a community of members having a specific predetermined common interest, the first real-time social network being within an interactor zone that includes one or a logical collection of related real-time social networks, the first user accessing the first real-time social network using an interactor client application that allows the first user to communicate in real-time with other online users who are members of said first or another one of said real-time social networks;&#xA;&gt;- **displaying** in real-time to the first user identities of other users who are online at the time and who are members of the first or another one of said real-time social networks within said interactor zone and who choose to be identifiable; and&#xA;&gt;- **enabling** using the interactor client application real-time interaction by the first user with said selected ones of said other online users.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; **Claim 17.** A method of real-time online interacting with users logged on to social networks in a computer network, the social networks being part of an interactor zone that includes one or a logical collection of related real-time social networks, comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;- **accessing** by a first user a first real-time social network in said interactor zone using an interactor client application that allows the first user to communicate in real-time with other online users who are members of said first or another one of said real-time social networks;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;- **displaying** in real-time to the first user a list of other users who are online at the time and are accessing social networks within said interactor zone which meet predetermined criteria established by the first user, said displaying comprising displaying content pages being accessed by said other users who choose to be identifiable;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;- **selecting** by the first user for interaction selected ones of said other users based upon the content of the content pages; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;- **enabling** real-time interaction by said client application between said first user and said selected ones of said other users.&#xA;&#xA;**Disclosure/disclaimer**  I have no financial relationship with either defendants or plaintiff in this case.  I have not read the patent except to copy and paste the claim and abstract above. I **am** curious about whether AskPatents can be used to find prior art for patents in recently-filed litigation.&#xA;   &#xA;*Please answer with any references to possible prior art OR interpretation of claims of the '881 patent*&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7853881&#xA;  [2]: http://bit.ly/S6nr4f&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7853881" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1922" RevisionGUID="a5572dc3-7e61-4fcb-9c8e-93dd80116f75" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="[US20120253817][1] Mobile speech attendant access, filed Apr 4, 2011&#xA;&#xA;Claim 1 has to do with a mobile device using speech recognition on a remote server to place a phone call and is well known. Claim 2 has to do with &quot;connecting the call to the mobile communication device and the call to the telephone number as an incoming call to the mobile communication device using the telephony server.&quot; It's claim 2 that I'm having difficulty with.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1\. A method for connecting to a telephone extension listed in a remote telephone directory, comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * recording an audio token on a mobile communication device, wherein the audio token is associated with a telephone number included in the remote telephone directory;&#xA;&gt; * transmitting the audio token from the mobile communication device to a server over a digital channel;&#xA;&gt; * matching the audio token received at the server over the digital channel with a telephone number in the remote telephone directory that is associated with the audio token using a speech recognition program; and&#xA;&gt; * connecting the mobile communication device with a telephone line associated with the telephone number.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 2\. The method of claim 1, wherein connecting the mobile communication device further comprises:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * calling the mobile communication device and the telephone number using a telephony server; and&#xA;&gt; * connecting the call to the mobile communication device and the call to the telephone number as an incoming call to the mobile communication device using the telephony server.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120253817" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1991" RevisionGUID="77e0c4d2-8f4a-4afa-9831-3eb7c1d5f82a" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="In reading the [Whitserv v Computer Packages][1] case and [blog entry from Patently-O,][2] I’m having problems in seeing how patent [6,981,007][3] is valid. I noticed that there is [another question][4] regarding this patent but the claim wording always confuses me. I tried to put Claim 1 into non-patent language to say this: &#xA;&#xA;Users access service over the Internet from client computers to create Internet- based data such as documents which are stored on servers.&#xA;User downloads and backs up data off internet based app&#xA;&#xA;This patent claims continuity from 1999. Is there prior art that pre-dates this?&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1: A system for onsite backup of internet-based data comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * a central computer;&#xA;&gt; * a client computer;&#xA;&gt; * a communications link between said central computer and the Internet;&#xA;&gt; * a communications link between said client computer and the Internet;&#xA;&gt; * at least one database containing a plurality of data records accessible by said central computer, each data record containing a client identification number;&#xA;&gt; * software executing on said central computer for receiving a data backup request from said client computer;&#xA;&gt; * software executing on said central computer for transmitting said data backup to said client computer for onsite backup of internet-based data on said client computer.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patentlyo.com/files/11-1206-1261.pdf&#xA;  [2]: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/08/whitserve-v-computer-packages.html&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/us6981007&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/808/prior-art-for-onsite-backup-for-internet-based-data-processing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4761" RevisionGUID="2da5c203-1b4a-4eca-88d8-8c678fca897f" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="[US 2010030834][1]&#xA;--&#xA;&#xA;Title:  &quot;Performing A Binary Coded Decimal (BCD) Calculation&quot;&#xA;&#xA;Note that according to [Public PAIR][2] the patent was allowed by USPTO on July 19, 2013. Under the AIA it is not be possible to submit prior art under the pre-grant process used by Ask Patents. Prior art which is found below can be easily submitted anytime after grant under [37 C.F.R. 1.501 Citation of prior art in patent files][3] however it will not be looked at by the USPTO unless something else happens. If you want something considered by the USPTO rather than just put in the file, you could submit an ex-parte reexamination request. For a business method patent or for a patent from an application filed after March 15, 2013 one can a petition for a [post-grant review][4] during a 9 month window or after that can petition for  an [interpartes review][5] (These could be done by a company or an individual but all the options are expensive and the PGR and IPR are quasi-litigation proceedings before the board.) &#xA;&#xA;![enter image description here][6]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;It is very important to look at the [**Claims**][7] of the Patent rather than Abstract or the Title.&#xA;&#xA;Moreover, the claims which were allowed **are substantially narrower** than the claims listed on the [Google Patent page][8] for this application.&#xA;&#xA;Here is the allowed Claim 1:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; (Currently Amended) A method of performing a binary-coded decimal (BCD) addition, comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving, in a process, first and second values on which the BCD addition is to be performed;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 2. Adding the first value to sequence of constant digits to produce a modified first value;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 3. Adding the modified first value and the second value to produce a sum having BCD digits;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 4. Determining which of the BCD digits of the sum is not associated with a carry, wherein the determining comprises performing an operation on the modified first value, the second value, and the sum, and using a result of the operation to identify which of the BCD digits of the sum is not associated with a carry;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 5. Storing a carry resulting from the adding of the modified first value and the second value in a flag register of the processor, where the carry stored in the flag register is a value to be transferred to a next most significant BCD digit; &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 6. Using the carry stored in the flag register to compute a result of the BCD addition; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 7. Subtracting corresponding constant digits from BCD digits of the result of the BCD addition for those BCD digits of the result that are not associated with a carry as identified by the determining.&#xA;&#xA;You can see this on [Public Pair][9].  I recommend you search by the Publication Number &quot;US 20100030834 A1&quot; not by the Application Number.  You'll want to look at the [&quot;Image File Wrapper&quot;][10] section of the record:&#xA;&#xA;![enter image description here][11]&#xA;![enter image description here][12]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://google.com/patents/us20100030834&#xA;  [2]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2202.html&#xA;  [4]: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/faqs_post_grant_review.jsp&#xA;  [5]: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/faqs_inter_partes_review.jsp&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/z3MnB.png&#xA;  [7]: http://www.danshapiro.com/blog/2010/09/how-to-read-a-patent-in-60-second/&#xA;  [8]: http://google.com/patents/us20100030834&#xA;  [9]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xA;  [10]: http://www.ehow.com/about_6192310_patent-file-wrapper_.html&#xA;  [11]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/1JBPG.png&#xA;  [12]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/RXvf6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4778" RevisionGUID="4926f40e-d11f-495b-a17a-c2652829a368" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I have in my possession a copy of *Computer Power and Human Reason* by Joseph Weizenbaum, first published in **1976** although my copy is from a 1993 reprint of a 1984 edition - the edition apparently only adding a fresh preface.  ISBN 0-14-017911-9.&#xA;&#xA;On page 194 he introduces as &quot;current research&quot; (presumably for the mid-1970s) a &quot;hand-eye machine&quot; (ie. a simple robot) built by MIT's AI Lab.  This was evidently capable of recognising (and then manipulating) objects with simple geometric shapes, such as boxes and pyramids, and determining their colour.  That, by itself, takes care of Step 1.&#xA;&#xA;Step 2 is also covered because the robot maintains a database of information about the objects it recognises, including their location and the manipulations the robot has done on them.  The following quotes from pp. 194-5 illustrate this:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; It can be questioned about the current configurations of blocks on the table, about the events that have gone on during the discussion, and to a limited extent about its reasoning.  It can be told simple facts which are added to its store of knowledge for use in later reasoning.&#xA;&#xA;...&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **Human:** Find a block which is taller than the one you are holding and put it into the box.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; **Robot:** By &quot;it,&quot; I assume you mean the block which is taller than the one I am holding.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; **H:** OK.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; **R:** (The hand sets down the block it is holding and picks up a taller one.)&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; **H:** What does the box contain?&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; **R:** The blue pyramid and the blue box.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; **H:** What is the pyramid supported by?&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; **R:** The box.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; **H:** Why did you clear off [the red] cube?&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; **R:** To put it on a large green cube.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; **H:** Why did you do that?&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; **R:** To stack up the red cube, a large red block, and a large green cube.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; **H:** Why did you do that?&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; **R:** Because you asked me to.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4811" RevisionGUID="73cc43be-5405-4af2-9416-26c99f37bc58" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="From Oct 2000, the **Grass Weed Identification Key** on the Virginia Tech website appears to partially match the claims in the patent.&#xA;&#xA;Current site: http://www.ppws.vt.edu/weedindex.htm and &lt;br&gt;&#xA;http://web2.ento.vt.edu/servlet/wid?table=grasses &lt;br&gt;&#xA;Earliest copy in Internet archive (Oct 2000):&lt;br&gt;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20001029190649/http://whizlab.isis.vt.edu/servlet/wid?table=grasses&#xA;&#xA;The site consists of an interactive questionnaire, with descriptive text and color images such as is described in US7363309, for identifying grass weeds. It is not possible to verify every screen in the Oct 2000 site in the internet archive, as servlet-generated pages have not been archived. However the launch page, and its description of the system, linked to above has not changed between Oct 2000 and today.&#xA;&#xA;At each stage of the identification process, only options are presented which are relevant given the options selected on previous screens. Again, this matches the claims in US7363309. For example, if in response to &quot;What type of root system does your weed sample have?&quot; we select:&#xA;&#xA;* &quot;a fibrous root system&quot;, the invention asks &quot;At maturity, approximately how wide are the leaf blades on your weed sample?&quot;.&#xA;* &quot;tubers&quot;, the invention asks &quot;Does your weed sample have a ligule&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;This Oct 2000 invention therefore anticipates and invalidates these parts of the claims in US7363309:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; displaying to the user a series of selectable attributes which vary among natural items in the collection of natural items, each attribute having one or more data types in which a plurality of values for the attribute are stored in the data storage, the values for the series of selectable attributes being in a plurality of the following data types stored in the storage for presentation to the user in a search conducted by the user:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; (a) descriptive text, ...&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; (c) color images of natural items in the collection of natural items, &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; search means associated with the microprocessor for enabling and prompting the user, on the display screen, to perform a step-by-step elimination search to identify a natural item observed in the field by selecting one of said attributes, ...  and continuing the stepwise elimination search to further reduce the number of possible natural items in the natural items of the collection, the search means progressively eliminating non-matches from a list of possible natural items in the natural items of the collection,... &#xA;&#xA;The addition of extra multimedia types in the US7363309 patent are obvious to me, as a person ordinarily skilled in the art. The same applies to encasing the system in a mobile terminal.&#xA;&#xA;It would be interesting to find out if Virgina Tech have access logs from 2003 and earlier which show access from early mobile web devices." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4859" RevisionGUID="2402437f-dd20-4238-a28f-a76cbd0fdf86" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text=" **QUESTION - Have you seen anything that was published before Apr 13, 2011 that discusses digitally signing of barcodes ? (as opposed to signing documents, images etc)**&#xA;&#xA;**TITLE:** Authentic barcodes using digital signatures &#xA;&#xA;**Publication Number:** [PCT/US2012/032964][3]&#xA;&#xA;**Assignee**: Verisign, Inc.&#xA;&#xA;**Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art predating Apr 13, 2011&#xA;&#xA;**Open for Challenge at USPTO**: N/A&#xA;&#xA;A computer-implemented method of verifying the authenticity of a barcode&#xA;&#xA; - Inputting graphical data representing a barcode pattern into memory&#xA; - Translating the graphical data into barcode information according to a standard for translating a particular type of barcode pattern into barcode information&#xA; - Extracting a message and a digital signature from the barcode information&#xA; - and determining whether the message is authentic by determining whether the digital signature matches the message &#xA;&#xA;In English this means:&#xA;&#xA;**Creating the barcode**:  Signing some text with a private key, then generating a signature of this text, combining both the signature and text and encoding as a barcode. The text may also identify the author/keypair... (so the public key can be known if the validation must support multiple authors/issuers)&#xA;&#xA;**Validation**: Scanning a barcode, converting it into a message. Extracting the signature and text and using the associated public key to verify the signature.&#xA;&#xA;  This link shows the signing/creation process http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US20120308003A1/US20120308003A1-20121206-D00004.png  &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;2D barcodes, (QR Codes, PDF417, Aztec etc) can encode a lot of text... so can support a digital signature, and therefore the industry standards techniques for signing, encryption and so on can be used. &#xA;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to Apr 13, 2011.&#xA;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already...  &#xA;&#xA;[IATA][2] have published standards for bar coded boarding passes... their Resolution 792 document mentions&#xA;*&quot;The Bar Code format also permits an airline to include its own proprietary data, and a digital signature alongside the required Bar Code information&quot;*&#xA;&#xA;Would this count as prior art to this application?  Are there earlier and/or better examples?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/82Nip.png&#xA;  [2]: http://www.iata.org/&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2012142061A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4860" RevisionGUID="dea8bfb1-b9b0-4567-91c3-6151d6893163" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="![Official USPTO Prior Art][1]&#xA;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! The rejection was **based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community** in this answer! &#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Published in July 2006, patent **US 7072913 B2: &quot;Method, system and computer program for executing hot migrate operation using migration plug-ins&quot;** covers some of the claims in the present filing.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US7072913 &lt;br&gt;&#xA;Selected claims:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; *1. A method for executing a hot migrate operation from a first version of a service using a first data model, to a second version of the service using a second data model that is modified with respect to the first data model, the service comprising a client application, a data manager and a data repository, said method comprising the steps of: &lt;br&gt;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; installing at least one second version client application;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; *4. A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the incremental roll-over process is terminated when all data are migrated to the second version data repository, and thereafter the first migration plug-in is replaced by a null stub.&#xA;&#xA;The accompanying text also states:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; ...the present invention is equally applicable to down-migrate a service (e.g., switching from N version to N−1 version). Such situation may arise for example when a new version appears to be not yet stable and a return to the previous version is required.&#xA;&#xA;This appears to overlap substantially with claims 5 and 6 in the present filing:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;*5. receiving at least one updated application comprising a dummy application such that when the application is invoked the data structures of the previous application are manipulated;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;*6. modifying the functionality of the application;&#xA;&#xA; &#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uvXcn.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4862" RevisionGUID="adf3a000-ecc9-4ddd-89d9-32faa644c8ad" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="From June 2003, the **Microsoft Updater Application Block for .NET** allowed self-updating programs to be written. The framework included post-processors, specifically for the purpose of running transformations against the updated program's data after the updating.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20030701151934/http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnbda/html/updater.asp&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Would you like to develop &quot;self-updating&quot; applications? If so, the Updater Application Block for .NET is for you.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; The Updater Application Block is a .NET component that you can use to detect, validate, and download application updates deployed in a central location. By using the Updater Application Block, you can keep desktop applications up to date with little or no user intervention. You can also extend the Updater Application Block to use custom classes for downloading and validating files, **performing post-deployment configuration tasks,** and controlling the update process.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;...&#xA;&gt;**A post-processor is a class that performs any post-deployment configuration tasks that your updated application might require** (such as editing registry values, creating message queues, and so on).&#xA;&#xA;Steps 3 to 5 in &quot;Updating applications with the Updater Application Block&quot; appear to anticipate and invalidate all claims in the current filing:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; *3. The application updater periodically initiates the update process. When this happens, the application updater uses the specified downloader to copy the manifest file for each application specified in the application configuration file to the client. If updates are available, the downloader copies the updated files to a temporary directory on the client.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; *4. The application updater loads the specified validator and validates the downloaded files. If the files are valid, they are copied to the appropriate application folder and the configuration file for the application launcher is updated to reflect the new version.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; *5. If a post-processor was specified in the manifest, the application updater loads and executes it. &#xA;&#xA;Apart from the trivial modification in the present filing of being specifically used to downgrade or delete an application, this Microsoft invention appears to completely invalidate the present patent application.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4866" RevisionGUID="e5a47de8-64ef-404b-bfa5-8a058605950a" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="From way back in August 1999, **the 1on1mail.com service** offered self-destructing email. According to a report by Australia's ABC News at the time:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s47331.htm&#xA;&#xA;&gt; ...Global Markets Research, a London-based company, has given its 1on1mail service an added security feature called **autoshredder, which allows the user to set the e-mail to delete itself from the recipient's computer a specified amount of time after being opened.** &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;...&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;To make sure the messages arrive safely, the company has designed the 1on1mail package as a secure network within the wider network of the Internet--a &quot;client-based application&quot;. This ensures that the route is always secure, says technical director Steven James.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;And to guarantee that the messages self-destruct as planned, the package also prevents recipients from performing certain actions that would undermine security. &quot;You can't just cut and paste out of it, that would be pointless,&quot; says James. &#xA;&#xA;The 1999 invention was also covered by:&#xA;&#xA;* Wired news: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1999/08/21452&#xA;* BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/430084.stm&#xA;&#xA;The 1999 invention therefore directly anticipates and invalidates paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 of claim 31 of the present filing.&#xA;&#xA;The statement by Stephen James that &quot;You can't just cut and paste out of it&quot; also invalidates claim 35 of the present filing (&quot;35. The method of claim 32 wherein the prohibited operation comprises copying contents of the self-destructing electronic mail message into a memory and pasting the contents of the self-destructing electronic message from the memory into a new document.&quot;)&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4869" RevisionGUID="932dfd30-499c-4fdf-8d7a-0012969dcfa1" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="![Official USPTO Prior Art][1]&#xA;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! The rejection was **based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community** in this answer! &#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;This functionality was part of the Java ME specification (http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=37). When an application was updated or replaced, the data associated could be manipulated or destroyed. In this case, a MIDlet is the term used for the mobile application.&#xA;&#xA;From http://docs.oracle.com/javame/config/cldc/ref-impl/midp1.0/jsr037/index.html &#xA; &#xA;    Published : 19 Sep, 2000&#xA;&#xA;&gt; When a MIDlet suite is removed from a platform all the record stores&#xA;&gt; associated with its MIDlets will also be removed. These APIs only&#xA;&gt; allow the manipulation of the MIDlet suite's own record stores, and&#xA;&gt; does not provide any mechanism for record sharing between MIDlets in&#xA;&gt; different MIDlet suites. MIDlets within a MIDlet suite can access each&#xA;&gt; other's record stores directly.&#xA;&#xA;A set of slides by Tommy Egeberg from 2006, for his MsC thesis, makes explicit the relevance of the midlet upgrade mechanism to the current patent filing:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;http://www.hig.no/content/download/5150/83760/file/Storage%20of%20sensitive%20data%20in%20a%20Java%20enabled%20cell%20phone.ppt&#xA;&#xA;Egeberg teaches the concept of a &quot;Stealing Midlet&quot; which he describes as:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; *Upgrade a previously installed MIDlet&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; *The RMS will not be erased&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; *Read the stored information&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;*Identical values in the JAD file&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;*Can be used to inject Trojan code&#xA;&#xA;The Stealing Midlet is therefore identical to the concept of the &quot;dummy app&quot; in the present patent filing: it is a dummy application which overwrites the currently installed app for the sole purpose of accessing and/or manipulating that app's stored data.&#xA;&#xA;Egeberg's 2006 invention of a stealing midlet therefore appears to anticipate and invalidate the present filing's claims regarding a dummy app.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uvXcn.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4935" RevisionGUID="f9159959-91af-4378-99d4-dcc5afe24ebe" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON Q&amp;A SERVICES** - This application from Nuance Communications, Inc. seeks to patent looking up a corpus of previously asked questions in a Q&amp;A service like Stack Exchange! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent application before it becomes a patent.&#xA;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Dec 6, 2011** that discusses:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A method for operating a frequently asked questions (FAQ)-based system, the method comprising: training a classifier based on questions stored in the FAQ-based system, each question corresponding to at least one answer; and applying the classifier to a query to return an answer.&#xA;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question -- one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;TITLE: **METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR OPERATING A FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)-BASED SYSTEM**&#xA;&#xA;**Summary**:  searches a user generated query in a classifier trained to search a database of questions in a set of FAQs&#xA;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [20130144890][1]&#xA;- **Assignee**: Nuance Communications, Inc.&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Dec 6, 2011&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 06, 2013&#xA;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A method for operating a frequently asked questions (FAQ)-based system, the method comprising: &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 1. training a classifier based on questions stored in the FAQ-based system, each question corresponding to at least one answer; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 2. applying the classifier to a query to return an answer.&#xA;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to Dec 6, 2011.&#xA;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ](https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art).*&#xA;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art](https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request) on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130144890" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4947" RevisionGUID="4361a4f4-b400-47d5-ac8b-1e0771958113" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Ken Perlin wrote a blog post today: [Pinched again!][1] in which he gives prior art for the &quot;pinch to zoom gesture&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; So now it seems that Apple did not, in 2005, invent the “pinch to zoom” gesture that Myron Krueger had already implemented in 1983.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; According to a recent US Patent and Trademark Office ruling, in fact it was Bran Ferren and Danny Hillis who in 2005 invented the pinch to zoom gesture that Mr. Krueger created thirty years ago.&#xA;&#xA;Which invalidates patents 7724242 and 7844915.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://blog.kenperlin.com/?p=13095" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4948" RevisionGUID="6305b1af-a55b-4d86-906a-58d5cf935ed1" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON INVENTORY SYSTEMS** - This application from Wendi Wheaton seeks to patent an inventory system that manages food based on its expiry dates! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent application before it becomes a patent.&#xA;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Nov 14, 2011** that discusses:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A food inventory system comprising: a microprocessor connected to a data storage device; means for entry and removal of food items or recipes; means for display; assigning a food item a weighted value correlated with the time until food spoilage for said food item; categorizing each food item entered as refrigerator, freezer, or pantry.&#xA;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question -- one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;TITLE: **Method and Device for Expiration Date Weighted Food Inventory System and Meal Planner**&#xA;&#xA;**Summary**: manages data on current food supply taking into consideration its expiry dates and provides recommendations for shopping for new food and consuming existing food&#xA;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130138656][1]&#xA;- **Assignee**: Wendi Wheaton&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** Nov 14, 2011&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Nov 30, 2013&#xA;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A food inventory system comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 1. a microprocessor connected to a data storage device;&#xA;&gt; 2. means for entry and removal of food items or recipes;&#xA;&gt; 3. means for display;&#xA;&gt; 4. assigning a food item a weighted value correlated with the time until food spoilage for said food item;&#xA;&gt; 5. categorizing each food item entered as refrigerator, freezer, or pantry. &#xA;&#xA;In English this means:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; managing supply of food taking into account food expiration date&#xA;&#xA;This looks like a generic inventory system, just for food. Expiration dates are very common with chemicals, food, fuel, other supplies.&#xA;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to Dec 6, 2011.&#xA;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ](https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art).*&#xA;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art](https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request) on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130138656" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4972" RevisionGUID="bee5c27f-af90-4f41-a3af-566ff44c8714" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="One possibility is Googles Auto Suggest feature.&#xA;&#xA;If you think of the Google Search Box as the place where a user asks a question (&quot;What are you searching for&quot;?)   &#xA;and the set of searchs that people type into the Google Search Box as the set of Frequently Asked Questions....&#xA;&#xA;With Google Suggest, as you are typing your question it comes back with a list of possible suggestions....  To come up with that list Google applies its own algorithm to pick the list of suggestions it offers from its list of frequently asked questions&#xA;&#xA;Its a bit 'meta' as Google is in the search business... but I think it describes the process...&#xA;&#xA;Heres a blog from 2008 http://googleblog.blogspot.ie/2008/08/at-loss-for-words.html&#xA;&#xA;and from https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/106230&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **How autocomplete works**&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; - Where the predictions come from&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; As you type, autocomplete predicts and displays queries to choose from. The search queries that you see as part of autocomplete are a reflection of the search activity of all web users and the content of web pages indexed by Google. If you're signed in to your Google Account and have Web History enabled, you might also see search queries from relevant searches that you've done in the past. In addition, Google+ profiles can sometimes appear in autocomplete when you search for a person's name. Apart from the Google+ profiles that may appear, all of the predicted queries that are shown in the drop-down list have been typed previously by Google users or appear on the web.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; For certain queries, Google will show separate predictions for just the last few words. Below the word that you're typing in the search box, you'll see a smaller drop-down list containing predictions based only on the last words of your query. While each prediction shown in the drop-down list has been typed before by Google users or appears on the web, the combination of your primary text along with the completion may be unique.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - Does Google monitor the autocomplete results?&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Autocomplete predictions are algorithmically determined based on a number of factors (including popularity of search terms) without any human intervention. Just like the web, the search queries presented may include silly or strange or surprising terms and phrases. While we always strive to reflect the diversity of content on the web (some good, some objectionable), we also apply a narrow set of removal policies for pornography, violence, hate speech, and terms that are frequently used to find content that infringes copyrights.&#xA;&#xA;So from this Google keeps a set of FAQ's... and its clearly adaptive/being trained by new questions being asked and its used to deliver answers...." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4991" RevisionGUID="a985aa68-9aa4-4d3a-a3ed-451c32988b91" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="When I arrived in Finland in early 2006, the local trains in the Helsinki area already did this routinely, in the form of automatic announcements when approaching stations.  The Metro line restricts itself to reading out the name of the approaching station, while the mainline commuter trains also announce interchange information when approaching certain junction stations.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **Announcement example, approximate translation:**&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Next is Pasila.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Express trains to Tampere and Kouvola, and local trains to Lahti and Riihimäki, leave from Platforms 3 and 4.  Local trains to Tikkurila and Kerava leave from Platform 2.&#xA;&#xA;Two of the stations (Ilmala and Pasila) are sufficiently close together that the announcement point for Pasila for trains *not* stopping at Ilmala is roughly alongside Ilmala - but trains that *do* stop at Ilmala *also* start to play the Pasila announcement while pulling into Ilmala platform.  This is strong evidence that the announcements are triggered at a specific distance from each station, rather than incorporating additional data such as the speed of the train.  As a workaround, the Pasila announcement for stopping trains has a long period of silence at the beginning, so that the announcement is less confusing.&#xA;&#xA;Let's cover the claim step by step:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; a computer determining that a device of a person is within a predetermined distance of a location, based on data received from the device;&#xA;&#xA;Check, based on the above evidence.  I believe it is done using a combination of GPS and wheel-rotation data, but that is not essential.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; the computer identifying the at least one of the person and the device, based on the received data;&#xA;&#xA;The &quot;device&quot; is the moving train that the computer is fitted to, so it is implicitly identified.  Additionally, the computer has been told by the traincrew in advance which stopping pattern the train is due to execute.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; the computer associating the at least one of the person and the device with the location;&#xA;&#xA;Check.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; the computer generating a message based on the association; and&#xA;&#xA;A recorded announcement is selected...&#xA;&#xA;&gt; the computer communicating the message to the person.&#xA;&#xA;...and played back over the internal PA system for the benefit of passengers.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5138" RevisionGUID="e3d83081-e1ef-47d4-a0ed-72f7d08aa41d" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="![enter image description here][7]&#xA;   &#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An **initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.**&#xA;&#xA;Some of the grounds for rejection (can be seen in Public PAIR) are based on public disclosure by the applicant themselves in [2008][2] and [2009][3].&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;[Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON monitoring user behavior and offering products for sale** - This application seeks to patent the idea of...offering products to users on a computer based on user behavior! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xA;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 8/30/2010** that discusses:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; - monitoring user behavior, determining brand preference of a user and offering products for sale to user based on brand preference&#xA;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;As far as I can tell, starting in 1999 our company did exactly what this Patent Application's Independent Claims are trying to get exclusive rights to. We neither considered it novel nor original at the time. I believe at least several other companies did the same before us, and that dozens of other companies were also doing this within a year or two after. I have watched numerous folks come up with (and implement) what appears to me to be the exact same idea in the decade since. If issued, it appears that this patent could be used to block an extremely common practice. I am not currently doing what this patent is claiming, but may very well want to do so again in the future. How should one go about preventing an applicant from receiving an exclusive right over an idea which appears to be identical to one you had implemented over a decade before, and may very well wish to implement again?&#xA;&#xA;**Publication Number**: [US 20130173402 A1][1]&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Application Number: US 13/298,523&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Prior Art Date: **Seeking Prior Art predating 8/30/2010**&#xA;&#xA;Google Patents link: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130173402&#xA;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A method for facilitating electronic commerce via a computer network, the method comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 1. monitoring a user's interactions with an on-line content provider;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying a first brand of interest to the user, wherein the identified first brand of interest is based at least in part upon the user's interactions with the on-line content provider;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining whether merchandise associated with the identified first brand is available for sale/purchase; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 4. presenting to the user, via an electronic display and in response to identifying available merchandise associated with the identified first brand, at least one opportunity for the user to purchase at least a portion of the identified available items of merchandise associated with the identified first brand.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;In English this means:&#xA;&#xA;A method for facilitating electronic commerce:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1. monitoring a user's interactions with an on-line content provider;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 2. identifying brand of interest to the user based upon the user's interactions with the on-line content provider;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 3. determining whether merchandise associated with the identified brand is available for sale/purchase; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 4. offering the user an opportunity to purchase the identified items of merchandise associated with the identified brand.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130173402&#xA;  [2]: http://www.prweb.com/releases/tunipop/launch/prweb1162224.htm&#xA;  [3]: http://web.archive.org/web/20080615000000*/http://tunipop.com&#xA;  [7]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5171" RevisionGUID="74788686-8840-4906-a343-bf71ec41ded6" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="&quot;Towards the Use of Word Stems and Sufﬁxes for Statistical Machine Translation&quot; (2004) discusses this technique.&#xA;&#xA;2 &quot;Determining that the words are 'out-of-vocabulary'&quot; seems trivial, but they reference this:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; the system is able to produce correct or approximatively correct translations even if the full form has not been seen in the training corpus&#xA;&#xA;3 &quot;Determining that the words contain word stems&quot; seems covered by:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;We introduce two types of transformations to the verbs...&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;The full form of the&#xA;verb is replaced with its base form&#xA;&#xA;also,&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Therefore we reduce the words of this language [Serbian] into stems. We split the word into stem and suffix and then drop the suffix." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5179" RevisionGUID="663e681c-7b79-4286-bde3-d5da25c34a3f" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I think I just earned myself some extra credit. &#xA;&#xA;&gt;Publication number US8489994 B2&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Publication type   Grant&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Application number US 10/580,800&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;PCT number PCT/AU2004/001673&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Publication date   16 Jul 2013&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Filing date    29 Nov 2004&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Priority date  27 Nov 2003&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Inventors  Christine Satchell&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Original Assignee  Smart Internet Technology Crc Pty Ltd.&#xA;&#xA;FIELD OF THE INVENTION&#xA;&#xA;The present invention relates generally to systems and methods for communicating. More specifically, the present invention has particular—but by no means exclusive—application to communicating via mobile communication devices such as a mobile telephone.&#xA;&#xA;BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION&#xA;&#xA;Whilst today's mobile telephone networks have undoubtedly enhanced our ability to communicate with each other, there are several aspects of their functionality that could be improved in order to further enhance our ability to efficiently communicate with each other. One aspect that could be improved is the ability for a user of a mobile telephone to readily determine what another mobile telephone user is doing without having to communicate directly (for instance, speak) with the user of the mobile telephone. For example, it would be advantageous if the user of a mobile telephone could program the telephone network (or their mobile telephone) to provide information that informs parties calling the mobile telephone that the user thereof is currently in a meeting without having to communicate directly with the user. &#xA;&#xA;EXTRA CREDIT PART&#xA;&#xA;Claim 18 - &#xA;&#xA;A system for providing communication between mobile communication devices, the system comprising:a receiver configured to receive from a first communication device data indicative of a first status and a second status of a user of the first communication device, the first status being different from the second status.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5195" RevisionGUID="9e1679a5-3ae9-4e19-b463-bc9db9aba7b6" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="![Official USPTO Prior Art][1]&#xA;&#xA;This Patent Application received a **Final Rejection** by the US Patent Office! The rejection was **[based in part on prior art found by Ask Patents community][8]** in this answer! &#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;I cover all the pieces of Claim 1, as well as some of the other claims. You might want to make sure to refer to the [amended version](https://s3.amazonaws.com/SplitwiseBlogJB/13436491.pdf), which I just linked to, and you can also find on &quot;Public Pair&quot; of the USPTO by searching this publication number.&#xA;&#xA;# CLAIM 1: #&#xA;&#xA;### Bullets 1&amp;2: Establish at least a group of three users sharing a total balance in a group, with a list of transactions and payments, and have the list of transactions and total balance list be reactive to payment transactions added by group members. &lt;br&gt;&#xA;Billmonk, Jan 2006: [TechCrunch](http://techcrunch.com/2006/01/20/billmonk-social-money/)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;SplitTheRent, June 2011: [New York Times](http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/a-new-tool-splittherent-com-for-roommates)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Conmigo, Sept 2011: [Lifehacker](http://lifehacker.com/5843961/conmigo-helps-you-split-your-expenses-with-your-roommates)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;PayDivvy, May 2011: [VentureBeat](http://venturebeat.com/2011/05/11/no-more-deadbeat-friends-paydivvy-launches-social-bill-service/)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&#xA;and many others (SplitMyBill.ie, WeSplit.it, Wie Betaalt Wat, KittySplit, etc)&#xA;&#xA;![Splitwise Screenshot from NYT](https://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/04/27/business/splittherentscreenshot/splittherentscreenshot-blog480.jpg)&#xA;&#xA;### Bullets 4&amp;5: All of the previous software update total balances and react to payment transactions, but here are some clean examples in screenshot form:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Splitwise, June 2011: [Splitwise Blog](http://blog.splitwise.com/2011/06/06/upcoming-redesign/)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Conmigo, Sept 2011: [Lifehacker](http://lifehacker.com/5843961/conmigo-helps-you-split-your-expenses-with-your-roommates)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;![Conmingo](https://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18ixc8llklhzajpg/original.jpg)&#xA;&#xA;### Bullet 6: Fund transfer was done by Billmonk/Obopay and PayDivvy prior to 2012.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Billmonk, Jan 2007: [TechCrunch](http://techcrunch.com/2007/01/30/minimerger-obopay-aquires-billmonk/) describes online settlement as the point of the acquisition.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Billmonk, Jan 2007: [Billmonk Blog showing online settlement](http://billmonk.wordpress.com/2007/01/30/billmonk-is-now-an-obopay-company-settle-up-online/)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;PayDivvy, May 2011: [VentureBeat](http://venturebeat.com/2011/05/11/no-more-deadbeat-friends-paydivvy-launches-social-bill-service/) Describes bank settlement.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;![Billmonk / Obopay](https://billmonk.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/obopay_settleup.png?w=450) &#xA;&#xA;### Bullet 3: Using a range of dates was used for recurring expenses in SplitMyBill.ie, and done in a couple ways at Splitwise prior to 2012.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;SplitMyBill.ie, Apr 2009: [Wayback Machine / SplitMyBill.ie Tour](http://web.archive.org/web/20090403110658/http://www.splitmybill.ie/tour.html)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Splitwise, Mar 5th 2012: [Splitwise Blog](http://blog.splitwise.com/2012/03/05/the-new-monthly-summary-and-google-charts/). Splitwise uses a date range to sort balances into monthly totals within each group.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Splitwise, Dec 2011: [Forbes](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbittner/2011/12/07/do-you-vacation-like-a-capitalist-or-a-socialist/) / [Splitwise Blog](http://blog.splitwise.com/2011/12/07/announcing-the-travel-calculator/). Splitwise publishes a calculator that uses a range of dates to tell how a given expense should be divided among which members of a group.&#xA;&#xA;![SplitMyBill.ie](https://i.stack.imgur.com/z2qmB.jpg)&#xA;&#xA;![Travel calculator link](https://i.stack.imgur.com/cM6Yc.jpg)&#xA;&#xA;# Other Claims #&#xA;&#xA;Looking at the patent [as amended](https://s3.amazonaws.com/SplitwiseBlogJB/13436491.pdf)*, we should also look at Claims 2, 6, and 10. Claims 11-25 are basically variations on a theme, with the phrases &quot;computer software&quot; exchanged with &quot;method&quot; or &quot;system&quot; or the idea of &quot;additional users&quot; added to the other claims. The idea of an &quot;additional user&quot; (doing something as part of an invitation, does this mean?) being able to do things was a feature in BillMonk, SplitMyBill.ie, Splitwise, and others, and combining that with other features is probably fairly obvious to someone skilled in the art.&#xA;&#xA;## CLAIM 2: Individual Balances&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Claim 2 brings in the idea of &quot;individual balances&quot;, as distinct from &quot;total balances,&quot; which could mean non-total balances as shown in Figure 4. But Billmonk pioneered the idea that you could track both individual and total balances within the group and reduce it to a total balance at the users discretion.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Billmonk, Aug 2007: [Billmonk Blog](http://billmonk.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/debt-shuffling/)&#xA;&#xA;![Individual Debts](https://billmonk.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/before1.png?w=450)&#xA;&#xA;## CLAIM 6-9&lt;br&gt;Claim 1 + &quot;inquiring from the additional user whether to add the additional payment transaction to the record&quot;, &quot;responsive to a user device&quot;, and &quot;electronic system of a financial account&quot;.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;This was all done by PayDivvy. In the screenshot below, you can see the connections to real bank accounts, from a user device (a laptop), with a permission based system for new bills.&#xA;&#xA;PayDivvy, Sept 2011: [Finovate](http://www.finovate.com/spring11vid/paydivvy.html)/[ApartmentTherapy](http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/tech-to-help-keep-the-peace-wi-156378). See the &quot;Pay or Decline&quot; options in the screenshot. &#xA;&#xA;![PayDivvy](http://i-cdn.apartmenttherapy.com/uimages/unplggd/092011_roomietechpeace3.jpg)&#xA;&#xA;# CLAIM 10: &lt;br&gt;&#xA;&#xA;Claim 1 + &quot;settlement event is at least one of the following: an end date being reached, a user of the group requested settlement, and a total balance reaching a set amount.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;User requesting settlement:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Wie Betaalt Wat, Aug 2010: [FrankWatching](http://www.frankwatching.com/gespot/wiebetaaltwat-nl-verreken-je-gezamenlijke-uitgaven/) (in Dutch)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Splitwise, Oct 2011: [New York Times]()/[Splitise Blog](https://splitwise.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/screen-shot-2011-10-30-at-9-39-20-pm.png?w=640&amp;h=511) (based on months)&#xA;&#xA;Specific time:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;PayDivvy, Sept 2011: [Finovate](http://www.finovate.com/spring11vid/paydivvy.html) (due dates for each divvy)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Splitwise, Oct 2011: [Splitise Blog](https://splitwise.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/screen-shot-2011-10-30-at-9-39-20-pm.png?w=640&amp;h=511) Monthly balances with settlement alarms&#xA;&#xA;Balance-based: May be the only claim in the patent that is not built in a pre-existing product, though someone may have described it in a press article or interview.&#xA;&#xA;![Splitwise with reminders and dates](https://splitwise.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/screen-shot-2011-10-30-at-9-39-20-pm.png?w=640&amp;h=511)&#xA;&#xA;# FIGURE 4&#xA;Billmonk was the first to widely publicize the simplification of a set of &quot;X owes Y&quot; into its simplest form, but the feature is also in Splitwise, Billsup, and many other apps. Look at this image from the [Billmonk Blog](http://billmonk.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/debt-shuffling/) in August 2007 and compare it to the official Figure 4.&#xA;&#xA;![Billmonk](https://billmonk.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/debtsettlescreenshot.png?w=450)&#xA;![Official Figure 4](http://i.stack.imgur.com/fx5dI.png)&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;[1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/uvXcn.png&#xA;[8]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/208793068/US20130262294-A1-Form-892" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5198" RevisionGUID="6f6b947e-ad5e-4749-b122-3f17d5a479d2" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON a remotely updatable database with a user interface** - This issued patent from 1998 is being used by a troll [Data Distribution Technologies LLC][1] to sue a variety of real estate companies and software companies! 10 minutes of your time can help invalidate overbroad US patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xA;&#xA;Seeking prior art for:&#xA;&#xA;- **Patent Number**: [US 6,529,908][2]&#xA;- **Assignee**: Netspan Corporation&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 5/28/1998&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][7]&#xA;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 5/28/1998** that discusses:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; - Web-updated database with record distribution by email&#xA;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xA;&#xA;**Claim 100** requires **each and every component** below:&#xA;&gt; A remotely updatable database system comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; a) a central server and at least one subscriber system, said central server including:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - i) a user interface for communicating with said at least one subscriber system to receive user input from a user at said at least one subscriber system;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - ii) a database of information records;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - iii) a database manager in communication with said user interface, for controlling said database such that each information record is associated with at least one user, and for amending said information records in response to user input received at said user interface from said at least one subscriber system; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - iv) a message server in communication with said database manager for serving a message including at least one record received from said database manager to said at least one user associated with said information record.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; b) said subscriber system including:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - i) a message receiver for receiving a message from said message server, said message including at least one file from said database;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - ii) transfer memory for storing said at least one file;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - iii) an output device for presenting information to a user; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - iv) a processor circuit in communication with said message receiver, said transfer memory and said output device, and processor memory programmed with processor-readable codes for directing said processor to direct said output device to present to the user a list of files stored in said local memory, the files included in said list having at least one predefined characteristic; and to direct said output device to present to the user at least some of the contents of at least one file having said at least one predefined characteristic.&#xA;&#xA;[1]: http://www.datadistributiontech.com/&#xA;[2]: http://www.google.com/patents/us6529908&#xA;[7]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US6529908&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5266" RevisionGUID="123836a0-93fc-4355-a493-4f4df3356265" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="[US2006081742][1] is a Patent application.  The best way to find information about a US patent application or an issued US patent is on Google Patents.  The second best way is through the [Public PAIR][6] system of the USPTO.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;US2006081742 was rejected by the USPTO in 2007 and subsequently abandoned. The inventor was Guadalupe Garcia and he used an IP service called [Lumen IP][7], which is located in Palo Alto, California and is frequently used by nearby Stanford University:&#xA;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xA;&#xA;The patent was subsequently assigned to:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Worldwide Safety, Inc&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 648 46th Street&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Sacramento, CA 95819&#xA;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xA;&#xA;Worldwide Safety, Inc. does not appear to have a website.  The address appears to be a home address. The best way to reach the inventor is probably through [Lumen IP][7], which may still have contact information and an email address for the inventor. The second best way is to look through the [other patent applications Guadalupe Garcia has filed at the USPTO][4]  It appears the inventor may now live in Santa Monica, California.&#xA;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20060081742&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/phsQW.png&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/R79Tb.png&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&amp;tbm=pts&amp;hl=en&amp;q=ininventor:%22Guadalupe+Garcia%22&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/eYXZd.png&#xA;  [6]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3972/1767&#xA;  [7]: http://lumen.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4753" RevisionGUID="54f3ddc4-7f8b-466c-a502-6a3b85ee8d7c" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="From way back in 1996, **European patent EP1049320: &quot;Initiating a link between computers based on the decoding of an address steganographically embedded in an audio object&quot;**, appears a complete match for the claims in the current application:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1049320.html&#xA;&#xA;Claims 1, 2, 11 and 14 of EP1049320 are particularly relevant:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; *1. A method of initiating access from a first computer (1004) to a second computer (1002) via a data communications medium, which method is characterized by: at the first computer (1004), decoding steganographically embedded address information from audio data (1006), **said data representing sampled audio information rather than ancillary information such as header data**; and initiating a link to the second computer (1002) using the address information decoded from the audio data.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; *2. A method according to Claim 1 wherein the address information comprises a URL address. &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; *11. A method according to Claim 10 further comprising including in the audio data object (1006) a human-perceptible indicium (1012) for indicating the presence of the steganographically encoded address information in the object (1006). &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; *14. A method according to any one of Claims 10 to 13 in which the data object (1006) further includes an icon presentable to a user in audio or visual form, the icon being indicative of the presence of steganographically encoded address information. &#xA;&#xA;Unlike patents US20110194730, US 20030110516 A1, and US 6411725, this patent specifically refers to embedding a &quot;hyperlink&quot; in the audio object (rather than a &quot;watermark&quot;), and refers to that hyperlink being in the form of a URL. It also specifically refers to making the hyperlink inaudible (via steganography).&#xA;&#xA;This would appear to completely anticipate and invalidate these claims by Apple in this patent application:&#xA;&#xA;* claims 1.2 and 1.3&#xA;* the additional claim of &quot;encoding the hyperlink so that it is inaudible&quot;.&#xA;* the additional claim of &quot;encoding the hyperlink so that it is audible&quot; (via EP1049320 claim 11, &quot;including in the audio data object (1006) a human-perceptible indicium...&quot;)&#xA;* the additional claim of where the metadata &quot;contains information about the audio stream&quot; (since EP1049320 claim 14 proposes including an icon in the audio stream whose purpose is to provide information about the stream -- i.e. that it contains a link).&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5279" RevisionGUID="35c6b292-f6bc-4311-9737-102309e698b4" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON automatic keyword extraction** - 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patents in the future.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xA;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 7/2/2009** that discusses using word co-occurrence scores to find key phrases?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;I am looking for prior art on [US 8,131,735][1] Rapid automatic keyword extraction for information retrieval and analysis&#xA;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US8131735 B2][1]&#xA;- **Assignee**: Battelle Memorial Institute&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 7/2/2009&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][2]&#xA;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;  A computer-implemented method of extracting keywords from an individual document, the method comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 1. Parsing an individual document by delimiters and stop words to identify candidate keywords;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 2. Determining co-occurrences of words within the candidate keywords;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 3. Calculating word scores for each word within the candidate keywords based on a function of co-occurrence degree, co-occurrence frequency, or both;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 4. Calculating a keyword score for each candidate keyword based on a function of word scores for words within the candidate keyword; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 5. Selecting a portion of the candidate keywords to extract as keywords based, at least in part, on the candidate keywords with highest keyword scores.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;----------&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;The notion of using word co-occurrence scores to find key phrases has been documented.  (It seems like every information retrieval system ever built is prior art.)&#xA;&#xA;For example, in this paper: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.174.8359&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf&#xA;&#xA;We find the following quote: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; Various phrase-finding and indexing methods have been proposed in the past and&#xA;&gt; generally, retrieval performance conclusions on the use of phrases as indexing units&#xA;&gt; were inconsistent. Salton &amp; McGill [23] suggested generating statistical phrases based&#xA;&gt; on word co-occurrence and then incorporating them into document representation as&#xA;&gt; additional index terms.&#xA;&#xA;The Salton &amp; McGill reference is from this book, published in 1983: http://books.google.ca/books/about/Introduction_to_modern_information_retri.html?id=7f5TAAAAMAAJ&amp;redir_esc=y&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;[1]: https://www.google.ca/patents/US8131735&#xA;[2]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US8131735" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4749" RevisionGUID="15fc6ea8-3360-4a50-874d-95f393db06a3" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="**Moving messages between Outlook folders based on external events generated by the UPS shipper program** was described on 31st March 2007 by anonymous contributor &quot;Tech43&quot; to the Thunderbird planning wiki:&#xA;&#xA;* https://wiki.mozilla.org/Talk:Thunderbird:2.0_Product_Planning#Establish_a_standard_COM.2FOLE_interface_for_automation_from_external_programs. &lt;br&gt;&#xA;* Diff: https://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=Talk%3AThunderbird%3A2.0_Product_Planning&amp;diff=53594&amp;oldid=52078&#xA;&#xA;&gt;  For example, message sorting into folders based on business rules, and **triggered by external events, like shipping system updates.** This external approach also seems to limit the impact that individual application changes have to system operation.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;  Example of what I do now: Outlook launches an external Windows app (order manager) with every new message (via Rules Wizard). The external order manager app uses msoutl9.olb type library imported as components into Borland C++. This app opens the inbox and reads the new messages, looking for order confirmations sent from a website. The order confirmations are XML attachments and are processed into a MySQL database. The emails are sorted into folders based on order number, for easy retrieval later if needed. The UPS shipper program exports data into the same MySQL database. **The order manager program scans the shipping tables for tracking numbers as orders come in,** or when an operator tells it to update. Once the orders are in shipment status the order manager generates email messages in the outlook drafts folder and then sends them. This has the added benefit of archiving both inbound and outbound emails for each order within the outlook folders. &#xA;&#xA;In other words, the purpose of this invention (a Windows app which communicated with Outlook via Outlook COM components) was to generate emails to customers telling them their order had dispatched, once UPS had assigned a tracking number to the shipment. The invention took two inputs:&#xA;&#xA;a) Email order confirmations from the website which customers order through.&#xA;&#xA;b) Tracking numbers from the UPS shipper program (presumably UPS WorldShip).&#xA;&#xA;So input b) was an external event sent to the Outlook email client from the UPS shipper program [covering claim 1.1 of the patent]. The event was mediated through the MySQL tables which were accessed by both the UPS shipper program and the invention. The event caused the dispatch of a &quot;Your order has shipped&quot; email to the customer, which was then archived in the same folder as the incoming order confirmation email. [covering claim 1.2 of the patent]. &#xA;&#xA;This invention therefore appears to invalidate both claims of the patent.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4709" RevisionGUID="a350e915-ac71-49d3-b280-ceadb1fe0b12" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I believe that the [`imake` tool](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imake) used for over a decade to build X11 did this with Makefiles.&#xA;&#xA;There is an [old O’Reilly book](http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9781565922266.do) about `imake` that would substantiate this in more detail, but the [`imake` FAQ](http://www.snake.net/software/imake-stuff/imake-faq.html) from **1997** says right at the top:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **What is imake? How does it work?**&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; imake is a Makefile-generator that is intended to make it easier to develop software portably for multiple systems. … Machine-dependencies are specified explicitly in a set of configuration files. Instead of writing a Makefile, you write an Imakefile, which is a machine-independent description of what targets you want to build. This way your description file doesn't need to change when you build your software on different systems. imake reads the Imakefile and combines the specifications in it with the proper machine dependencies from the configuration files to write a Makefile tailored for a specific system. &#xA;&#xA;After applying the dictionary&#xA;&#xA;* build system configuration file = Makefile&#xA;* unified build system configuration file = Imakefile&#xA;&#xA;this seems to be exactly the claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3590" RevisionGUID="1b995d88-c7a1-4606-b7ff-1e589d6b15d9" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Python's axiom library allows migrations between different schema versions and will allow multiple different schemas to co-exist prior to upgrade. &#xA;&#xA;http://divmod.readthedocs.org/en/latest/products/axiom/axiom-why-axiom.html&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Future-Proof&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Axiom applications can keep running while they’re being upgraded from one schema to another (with a partial dataset available). Upgrades are handled automatically, and the code for upgrading can be kept separate from your application code. You can even write upgraders which involve complex relationships between multiple rows." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3591" RevisionGUID="06f75927-2ec2-4def-a42d-2fa117031113" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="![enter image description here][9]&#xA;   &#xA;This Patent Application received a **non-final rejection** by the US Patent Office! An **initial rejection is part of the typical course of a patent application.**&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Thanks to the **YOU**, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) to block more overly-broad patent applications.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;![Johnson &amp; Johnson logo][3]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;**WHY IT MATTERS** - This application attempts to patent the method of applying **cold** analgesics, that are **cold by virtue of being stored in a cold place**, to a sore muscle. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;**TITLE: Method and Composition for Treating Pain**&#xA;&#xA;- **App Number**: [13/235947][1]  &#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20130072575 A1][2]&#xA;- **Assignee**: Johnson &amp; Johnson, Inc.&#xA;- **Prior Art Cutoff Date**: Prior Art **predating** Sept 19, 2011&#xA;- **Availability for Challenge:** Open Until at least Sept 21, 2013&#xA;&#xA;**Summary**: This application relates to the method of treating pain by applying any **cold** analgesic. The main independent claim, if allowed, would cover the method of treating pain in a person by applying a cooled, unspecified analgesic to the region of pain. It requires the substance to have been placed in a cold place.&#xA;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method of treating pain by topical application of an analgesic composition to the skin of a patient comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;     - placing an analgesic composition in an environment with a temperature of less than 10° Centigrade,&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;     - keeping said analgesic composition in said environment for a period of time sufficient to reduce the temperature of said composition&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;     - removing said composition from said environment, and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;     - applying said composition topically to the region of pain.&#xA;&#xA;----------&#xA;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 09/19/2011** that discusses (1) cooling an analgesic; (2) applying the cooled analgesic to region of pain; (3) cooled analgesics in gel, soft solid, liquid, cream, ointment or aerosol form (taken from claim 5)&#xA;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;*For details about what makes good prior art, please see our [FAQ][4]. Once you have submitted prior art, check back soon to see if the [Ask Patents][7] community has chosen your prior art to be submitted to the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office.*&#xA;&#xA;*If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][8] if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.*&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Thanks for participating!&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130072575&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130072575&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/XQQ1qm.jpg&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xA;  [5]: https://www.eff.org/&#xA;  [6]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic&#xA;  [7]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xA;  [8]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/about&#xA;  [9]: http://i.imgur.com/7KV3uEI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3744" RevisionGUID="02ebb66a-b120-4ace-8635-a9c270b3ac7b" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="## Issued US Patents Assigned to Oracle (and top 14 subsidiaries): ##&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;           Assignee                   Estimated Issued US Patents&#xA;    1.     Sun Microsystems                                 7,467&#xA;    2.     Oracle                                           4,207&#xA;    3.     Storage Technologies Corp                          740&#xA;    4.     BEA Systems                                        433&#xA;    5.     Siebel Systems                                     258&#xA;    6.     Hyperion Solutions                                  28&#xA;    7.     Pillar Data Systems                                 24&#xA;    8.     Art Technology Group                                18&#xA;    9.     Endeca Technologies                                 14&#xA;    10.    Agile Software Corp                                 12&#xA;    11.    Peoplesoft                                          11&#xA;    12.    Imation Corp                                        11&#xA;    13.    RightNow Tech                                       10&#xA;    14.    Storage Technology Corp                             10&#xA;    15.    SealedMedia                                          7&#xA;&#xA;    &#xA;&#xA;Limiting to Publication date from 1994-2013.&#xA;&#xA;As George White suggests in another answer, this list excludes: patents licensed to Oracle, patents held in holding companies controlled by Oracle but not obviously affiliated with Oracle and patents purchased by Oracle where assignment was not registered with the USPTO." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3802" RevisionGUID="3454bbb8-3246-4c18-9198-4292f358f597" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="You can find the patent status and validity on the [USPTO Public Pair site][1]. Enter the patent number (without the US, or B2). The &quot;Patent Term Adjustments&quot; tab shows the applicable dates, in this case:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Filing or 371(c) Date:     08-11-2004&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Issue Date of Patent:  06-06-2006&#xA;&#xA;and also&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Total PTA Adjustments:     162&#xA;&#xA;As this is an &quot;old&quot; application, it falls under the old rules which gave back days for USPTO caused delays (in some cases).&#xA;&#xA;So 20 years +162 days from 08/11/2004 is my best guess. Basically a decade more to go, give or take some years, not in the immediate future.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3837" RevisionGUID="45c115cf-aa10-46fc-ad86-0d5573facd72" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Seeking Prior Art on Nokia patent [US6504873][3]&#xA;--&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;**Priority Date**:  Seeking Prior Art from before **Jun 13, 1997**&#xA;&#xA;Analysis of a Nokia patent ([US6504873][3]) which they claim WebM infringes upon.&#xA;&#xA;Groklaw did [some analysis][1] that reduced their 64 patents worldwide down to a dozen US patents. [This][2] post (in the comments of the Groklaw post) lays out the independent claims of each patent.&#xA;&#xA;# 1 A method of filtering a received digital video picture #&#xA;&#xA;## TL;DR Upscaling filter that averages pixels on the edge of adjacent video sub-blocks based on activity in screen. ##&#xA;&#xA;&gt; in which said digital video picture comprises video blocks, each video block comprising a certain amount of individual video pixels each video pixel having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, and in which video picture a first video block and a second video block located adjacent to the first video block define a boundary therebetween, the method comprising the steps of:&#xA;&#xA;Frames of the video are subdivided into a grid and given a number. &#xA;&#xA;&gt;selecting a first video pixel from the first video block in such a way that the first video pixel is located at the boundary in the first video block to obtain a first boundary video pixel selecting a second video pixel from the second video block in such a way that the second video pixel is located at the boundary in the second video block to obtain a second boundary video pixel,&#xA;&#xA;Pixels in different sub-squares are adjacent &quot;boundary&quot; pixels. If the boundary is 0 then those pixels would be at -1,1&#xA;&#xA;&gt;selecting a first reference video pixel in the first video block and a second reference video pixel in the second video block, the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being other than the first boundary video pixel and the second boundary video pixel and the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being placed closer to a central portion of each of said video blocks than the respective boundary video pixel, in such a way that the reference video pixels and the boundary video pixels are situated on a straight line, the straight line being transverse to the boundary, drawn from the first reference video pixel to the second reference video pixel, wherein the first and the second boundary video pixels are located between the first and the second reference video pixels on the straight line,&#xA;&#xA;Select neighbor pixels (-2,2).&#xA;&#xA;&gt;defining a linear equation, using the numerical values of the reference video pixels, the linear equation giving as a solution a numerical reference value to each boundary video pixel on said straight line&#xA;&#xA;Figure out an equation that will take the neighbor pixels and produce the boundary pixels.&#xA;&#xA;&gt;filtering at least one boundary video pixel by adjusting the numerical value of the at least one boundary video pixel towards the reference value of the at least one boundary video pixel.&#xA;&#xA;Averaging the boundary pixels using above equation.&#xA;&#xA;&quot;of the at least one&quot; makes this a nonsensical statement but software patents are nonsensical anyway, right?&#xA;&#xA;# 10 A terminal device for filtering a received digital video picture, #&#xA;&#xA;One sentence: A device that implements the filter in claim 1.&#xA;&#xA;&gt;  which said digital video picture comprises video blocks, each video block comprises a certain amount of individual video pixels, each video pixel having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, in which video picture a first video block and a second video block located adjacent the first video block define a boundary therebetween, and the terminal device comprising:&#xA;&#xA;A device which filters video. Frames of the video are subdivided into a grid and given a number. Pixels in different sub-squares are adjacent &quot;boundary&quot; pixels. If the boundary is 0 then those pixels would be at -1,1&#xA;&#xA;&gt; means for selecting a first video pixel from the first video block in such a way that the first video pixel is located at the boundary in the first video block to obtain a first boundary video pixel,&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; means for selecting a second video pixel from the second video block in such a way that the second video pixel is located at the boundary in the second video block to obtain a second boundary video pixel,&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; means for selecting a first reference video pixel in the first video block and a second reference video pixel in the second video block, the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being other than the first boundary video pixel and the second boundary video pixel and the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being placed closer to a central portion of each of said video blocks than the respective boundary video pixel, in such a way that the reference video pixels and the boundary video pixels are situated on a straight line, the straight line being transverse to the boundary, drawn from the first reference video pixel to the second reference video pixel, wherein the first and the second boundary video pixels are located between the first and the second reference video pixels on the straight line,&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; means for defining a linear equation using the numerical values of the reference video pixels, the linear equation giving as a solution a numerical reference value to each boundary video pixel on said straight line, and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; means for filtering at least one boundary video pixel by adjusting the numerical value of the at least one boundary video pixel towards the reference value of the at least one boundary video pixel.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; &gt; 11 A terminal device according to the claim 10, wherein the receiver terminal comprises receiving means for receiving the video picture via a mobile communication network.&#xA;&#xA;A *mobile* device that implements the filter in claim 1.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &gt; 12 A filtering method according to claim 10, wherein the reference value of each boundary video pixel is computed as a function of the location of the boundary video pixel on the straight line.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;# 13. A method of filtering a received video picture, in which #&#xA;&#xA;The filter in claim 1 is used based on the activity in the pixels.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; a digital video picture is received, the video picture comprising video blocks, each video block comprising a certain amount of individual video pixels, each video pixel having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, and in which video picture a first video block and a second video block located adjacent the first video block define a boundary therebetween,&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; a first video pixel from the first video block and a second video pixel from a second video block are selected in such a way that they are adjacent each other on the opposite sides of the boundary, and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; the first video pixel and the second video pixel are filtered, wherein&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; a first reference video pixel is selected in the first video block and a second reference video pixel is selected in the second video block in such a way that the first reference pixel, the first video pixel, the second video pixel and the second reference pixel are situated on a straight line, perpendicular to the boundary, drawn from the first reference video pixel to the second reference video pixel,&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; a linear equation is defined, the linear equation giving as a solution a numerical reference value to each pixel on said straight line as a function of the location of the pixel on said straight line, and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; the filtering is performed by adjusting the numerical value of the first video pixel towards its reference value, and by adjusting the numerical value of the second video pixel towards its reference value, and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; further wherein a decision on whether the filtering method is used or not and for which video pixels the filtering is used is done on basis of activity inside the first video block, activity inside the second video block and activity at the boundary between the first video block and the second video block, and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; wherein, the decision is based on the following equation IF activityINactivityEDGEMQUANT  AND activityINTHRESHOLDIN TRUE &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;  in which&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; activityIN is the variance inside the video block one and the video block two,&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; activityEDGE is the variance over the edge between the adjacent video block one and video block two, and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; THRESHOLDIN is a Threshold value, and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; MQUANT is a quantizer value.&#xA;&#xA;# 14 A method of filtering a received digital video picture #&#xA;&#xA;Applying the filter from claim one but towards more central pixels.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; in which said digital video picture is coded into video blocks, each video block comprising a certain amount of individual video pixels, each of said video pixels having a numerical value defining a property of the video pixel and having a certain location in the video picture, and in which video picture, a first video block is located adjacent to a second video block to define a boundary therebetween, the method comprising the steps of:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; selecting a first reference video pixel in the first video block and a second reference video pixel in the second video block, the first reference video pixel and the second reference video pixel being displaced away from said boundary towards a central portion of each of said video blocks, said reference video pixels defining a straight line of video pixels transverse to said boundary, between said first reference video pixel and said second reference video pixel, wherein said straight line includes at least a first and a second adjustment video pixel located between the first and the second reference video pixels and said boundary;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; defining a linear equation representing a video pixel value reference ine transverse to said boundary, said linear equation defined relative to the change in pixel values from said first reference pixel in said first video block to said second reference pixel in said second video block;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; adjusting the numerical value of said at least first and second adjustment video pixels towards said pixel value reference line according to the position of said at least first and second adjustment video pixels from said boundary&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130324162902177&#xA;  [2]: http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&amp;sid=20130324162902177&amp;title=Listing%20Independent%20Claims%20per%20Patent&amp;type=article&amp;order=&amp;hideanonymous=0&amp;pid=1037020#c1038325&#xA;  [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6504873" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3895" RevisionGUID="b6e6d7f9-3541-48ca-84d0-4368ecc9d2ed" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Some of these might help.&#xA;&#xA;* Just saw [this](http://ibiblio.org/pjones/blog/the-story-behind-the-hypertext-91-demo-page-and-unc-and-me/): &#xA;&#xA;  &gt; I created my own page and added a link to an FTP site in Denmark that hosted a sound collection among other things. I wanted to see if the NeXT and Tim’s WWW browser would be able to pass the sound to a player. I think it did, but I really can’t remember if it did. &#xA;* Patent for &quot;A credit card size portable system comprises a bubble memory for storage serially of digital data, especially of sound analogue signal which has been digitally encoded&quot;: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=4667088&#xA;* First Internet audiocast:&#xA;http://www.isi.edu/div7/publication_files/rs-92-293.pdf&#xA;* Audio Highway Personal Audio Player from '96:&#xA;http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2023689_2023681_2023609,00.html&#xA;http://www.deseretnews.com/article/536358/UTAH-FIRM-HUGS-SPOTLIGHT-AT-LV-ELECTRONICS-SHOW.html&#xA;* MBone info: http://www.webstart.com/jed/papers/HRM/references/mbone-av.html&#xA;* From 1994: Aerosmith received national press coverage in July when it claimed to have created the first single to be available exclusively on line. But a service called the Internet Underground Music Archive had already made some 75 songs available only on the Internet:&#xA;http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/22/arts/rolling-stones-live-on-internet-both-a-big-deal-and-a-little-deal.html&#xA;* And from early October, 1996: the first &quot;virtual&quot; Mechanics of Materials class at the University of Missouri-Rolla had its audio and class notes broadcast over the Internet from the Basic Engineering Lecture Hall:&#xA;http://technologyinterface.nmsu.edu/winter97/multimedia/mm-htm1.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4087" RevisionGUID="71bd0c7d-6b64-4229-9ce6-a4e858187b2d" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text=" **HELP SAVE MESH NETWORKING** — This application from Schlage seeks to patent a secure gateway between a mesh network and an IP network, and a lock device connected through the mesh network. Because mesh networks often use protocols that don’t work well with IP clients, it’s important to have a secure bridge that allows web browsers and other traditional IP clients to use mesh network based systems. &#xA;&#xA;Help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.... [HERE!][3]&#xA;&#xA;**QUESTION:** Have you seen anything that was published before **May 27, 2008** that discusses:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1.    A **gateway** device for transmitting signals between an IP network and a radio frequency mesh network that uses a **secure data connection** to communicate with the IP network; OR&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 2.    A gateway device that meets all of the criteria above where the gateway is configured to **enroll a lock device** in the mesh network; OR&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 3.    A method for **synchronizing** the gateway device described above with **a lock device.** &#xA;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xA;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT ---** &#xA;&#xA;  A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND that was published BEFORE **December 31, 2007.** &#xA;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO uses a **secure socket layer protocol** to implement the secure data connection.&#xA;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND where the gateway is configured to enroll an **additional device that is not a lock** in the mesh network.&#xA;&#xA;A reference to anything that meets all of the criteria above AND ALSO where the logic and memory unit **translates** between the mesh and IP network.&#xA;&#xA;**TITLE: MESH NETWORK SECURITY SYSTEM GATEWAY AND METHOD**&#xA;&#xA;**Summary:** [Translated from Legalish into English] A secure data connection gateway between an IP or computer network and a radio-frequency mesh network, with a power supply, that could allow for web browsers and other traditional IP client software to control or use a mesh network. Separately, the applicant is claiming a method of enrolling a lock device in the mesh network and synchronizing it with the gateway.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;•   **Publication Number:** &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US20130014219&quot;&gt;US 20130014219 A1&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&#xA;•   **Assignee:** Schlage&#xA; &#xA;•   **Prior Art Date:** May 27, 2008&#xA;&#xA;•   **Open for Challenge at USPTO: open through at least *July 10, 2013***&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element below:&#xA;&#xA;A gateway for transmitting signals between a computer network and a radio-frequency mesh network, comprising:&#xA;&#xA;1.  A housing;&#xA;&#xA;2.  A radio-frequency transceiver for communicating with the radio-frequency mesh network;&#xA;&#xA;3.  An Internet Protocol transceiver, operatively coupled to the radio frequency transceiver, for communicating with the computer network;&#xA;&#xA;4.  A power supply; and&#xA;&#xA;5.  A logic and memory unit configured to communicate with the computer network using a secure data connection.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; In plain English this could mean:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; A gateway device with:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 1.    A housing; &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 2.    A radio frequency transceiver and IP transceiver in communication with each other&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 3.    A power supply; AND&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 4.    Any logic and memory device that can communicate with the IP or computer network through a secure data connection.&#xA;&#xA;**Claim 9** requires each and every step below:&#xA;&#xA;A gateway for transmitting signals between a computer network and a radio-frequency mesh network, comprising:&#xA;&#xA;1.  A housing;&#xA;&#xA;2.  A radio-frequency transceiver for communicating with the radio-frequency mesh network;&#xA;&#xA;3.  An Internet Protocol transceiver, operatively coupled to the radio-frequency transceiver, for communicating with the computer network;&#xA;&#xA;4.  A power supply; and&#xA;&#xA;5.  A logic and memory unit configured to enroll devices into the radio-frequency mesh network, at least one of the devices being a radio-frequency mesh network lock.&#xA;&#xA;In plain English this could mean:&#xA;&#xA;A gateway device with:&#xA;&#xA;1.  A housing; &#xA;&#xA;2.  A radio frequency transceiver and IP transceiver in communication with each other&#xA;&#xA;3.  A power supply; AND&#xA;&#xA;4.  Any logic and memory device that can add nodes to the mesh network, where at least one of those nodes is a lock device.&#xA;&#xA;**Claim 14** requires each and every step below:&#xA;&#xA;A method of synchronizing a radio-frequency mesh network lock device with a mesh network gateway, comprising:&#xA;&#xA;1.  Positioning the gateway adjacent to the lock device;&#xA;&#xA;2.  Initiating synchronization procedures on the lock device;&#xA;&#xA;3.  Initiating synchronization procedures on the gateway;&#xA;&#xA;4.  Exchanging identifying information between the gateway and the lock device;&#xA;&#xA;5.  Indicating that synchronization is successfully completed at the gateway;&#xA;&#xA;6.  Increasing radio signal power of a lock device transceiver associated with the lock device; and&#xA;&#xA;7.  Adding the lock device to a list stored in the gateway of devices that make-up the radio-frequency mesh network.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; In plain English this could mean:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; A process where the lock an the gateway are synchronized by:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 1.    Placing the lock and gateway next to each other; &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 2.    Entering a security code into the lock device (or otherwise initiating a synchronization procedure);&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 3.    Pressing a button on the gateway (or otherwise initiating a synchronization procedure);&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 4.    Transmitting the security code (or other identifying information) between the gateway and the lock;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 5.    Increasing the amount of power going to the lock’s transceiver; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 6.    Enrolling the lock device in the network. &#xA;&#xA; ![enter image description here][1]![enter image description here][2]&#xA;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;What is good prior art? Please see our &lt;a href=&quot;https://patents.stackexchange.com/help/prior-art&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post prior art you know about][3] on other questionable US patent applications.&lt;/i&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/6WC9e.png&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Q01fI.png&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant?sort=active&amp;pagesize=25" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4104" RevisionGUID="16f6a8fc-2a73-40e0-ba0e-2c8e1b0a5b39" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="This 1994 news report by the UK's Independent newspaper describes &lt;b&gt;exhibits by Compton's New Media and Prodigy at the 1994 CES Show&lt;/b&gt; which match some or all of the patent claims well before the patent date: &lt;br&gt;&#xA;&#xA;http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/indybest/gadgets-tech/computers-hollywood-joins-the-interactive-revolution-steve-homer-reports-from-chicago-on-the-future-of-home-entertainment-1410888.html &lt;br&gt;&#xA;&#xA;Compton's New Media:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&gt;Compton's New Media recently announced it was working with Intel on a device that would allow users to access CD-roms over a cable television system. The initial offering will allow users to access 150 titles at normal CD-rom speeds. This means that after purchasing a simple device which links the cable television outlet to the back of your computer, you would be able to nip into the study and play a CD-rom game and then, if little Hannah wanted to know when Mozart was born, you could just nip into an encyclopedia disc and find out. Cookery, language and many other types of disc could be stored on the system.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Another development on display could even develop into a video service for the personal computer. A company called Sigma Designs has come up with a card you can put inside your computer that will allow television-like pictures to be read from CD-rom discs. Store a couple of movies on Compton's service and you have videos-on-demand for your computer. However, that is only available if you have a cable operator delivering the service.&#xA;&#xA;Prodigy:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&gt;But another US company, Prodigy, is offering an information service available to any computer user in the US with a telephone line and a modem. Using a modem you can get access to the latest news and various other services. It is extremely easy to use.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;At the end of last year Prodigy introduced pictures on the service. At the Consumer Electronics Show, it launched a new facility. &lt;i&gt;You can now dial in and listen to news reports. At present the service is basic and you have to download a file and then play it back. However, it was still quite impressive to be at the show and listen to a breathless commentator announce that Stefan Edberg had just been knocked out of Wimbledon.&lt;/i&gt;&#xA;&#xA;In particular, the Prodigy system:&#xA;&#xA;* Enabled download of episodic audio files from a central server by a remote client&#xA;* Presumably had descriptions accompanying the audio files&#xA;* It was not internet-based so would not have had URLs&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4192" RevisionGUID="2e165ecf-5d84-4e98-a3ab-268c219ae318" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="**To create a prior-art-request**, [any user can follow the prior art request format][4] and ask the AskPatents community for help finding prior art on a US Patent Application on [AskPatents][3].&#xA;&#xA;* [**Current Prior Art Requests on AskPatents**][3]&#xA;&#xA;* [**How to Submit a Prior Art Request**][4]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;As revised by the **America Invents Act** (AIA), [35 U.S.C. § 122(e)][1] expands the opportunity for third-party pre-issuance submissions in US patent cases. Anyone is permitted to submit published documents ('printed publications') that are relevant to the examination of a pending application along with a concise explanation of the importance of the documents submitted. &#xA;&#xA;The AIA provides the general standards for preissuance submissions of patents, published patent applications, or other printed publications in patent applications.&#xA;&#xA;Preissuance submissions may be filed by any member of the public, including private persons and corporate entities such as [AskPatents][3].  The only limitation is that the third party may not be the applicant or any individual who has a duty to disclose information with respect to the application under [37 C.F.R. § 1.56][2].&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Requirements - [submissions may be done anonymously and electronically][5], but must include:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 1. A list identifying the items being submitted; &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 2. a concise description of the relevance of each item listed;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 3. a legible copy of each non-U.S. patent document listed;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 4. an English language translation of any non-English language item listed;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 5. a statement by the party making the submission that the submission complies with the statute and the rule; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 6. the required fee ($0 if fewer than three-documents submitted).&#xA;&#xA;If the Examiner raises a rejection in view of the submitted document, only the applicant, not the third party, can respond.&#xA;&#xA;The good news is that [AskPatents][3] was created specifically to facilitate the submission of pre-issuance submissions to the USPTO.  Any interested user on AskPatents can create a [prior-art-request][3] on a US Patent Application.  Other users submit proposed prior art. After a suitable period to solicit exemplary prior art, the best prior art is vetted by volunteer lawyers and submitted to the USPTO by the AskPatents community.&#xA;&#xA;[1]: http://usptopost-grant.com/35-usc-%C2%A7-122/&#xA;[2]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.56&#xA;[3]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xA;[4]: https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/q/47/1767&#xA;[5]: http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/independent/eye/201210/inventorseye_advice.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4214" RevisionGUID="80567940-17e5-4077-8edf-fcd77f2fc05a" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I'm not sure if this would be exact prior art, but [Foursquare][1] as described on [Wikipedia][2] (emphasis added):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Foursquare is a **location-based social networking website** for mobile devices, such as smartphones. Users &quot;check in&quot; at venues using a mobile website, text messaging or a device-specific application by selecting from a list of venues the application locates nearby. **Location is based on GPS hardware in the mobile device or network location** provided by the application. Each check-in awards the user points and sometimes &quot;badges&quot;.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;The service was **created in 2009** by Dennis Crowley and Naveen Selvadurai. Crowley had **previously founded the similar project Dodgeball** as his graduate thesis project in the Interactive Telecommunications Program (ITP) at New York University. **Google bought Dodgeball in 2005** and shut it down in 2009, replacing it with Google Latitude. Dodgeball user interactions were based on SMS technology, rather than an application.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Foursquare is the **second iteration of the same idea**, that people can use mobile devices to interact with their environment. As of April 2012, the company reported it had 20 million registered users. The company was expected to pass 750 million check-ins before the end of June 2011, with an average of about 3 million check-ins per day. **Male and female users are equally represented** and also 50 percent of users are outside the US.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.foursquare.com/&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foursquare" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4301" RevisionGUID="d7f75001-df20-4352-9d87-bbbd953e0993" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON LOCATING DATA ON A COMPUTER** - This application seeks to patent the idea of... locating data for applications on a computer! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xA;&#xA;I am not sure whether &quot;locating for application-specific data&quot; can be patentable. This sounds like inventing a wheel. &#xA;&#xA;- Patent:  **[US 20130166517 A1][1]**&#xA;- **Title**: **Systems and methods for locating application specific data**&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** December 12, 2012&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Dec 27, 2013&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Claim 1.&#xA;&gt;  A system for locating for application-specific data comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - at least one data storage device, having unidentified data stored therein;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - at least one processor operatively coupled to the at least one data storage device, the at least one processor configured to:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; (i) access unidentified data from at least one data storage device;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; (ii) examine the unidentified data to detect at least one application-specific data pattern associated with at least one application;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; (iii) for each detected application-specific data pattern, execute an application-specific validation process to determine whether the unidentified data includes valid data associated with a corresponding application; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; (iv) if it is determined that the unidentified data includes valid data associated with the corresponding application, then recover the valid data.&#xA;&#xA;----------&#xA;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xA;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20130166517&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4320" RevisionGUID="a4fb20ff-4849-44e3-b8b5-acdde1915f46" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON CUSTOMIZING A WEBSITE** - This issued patent seeks to patent the idea of... building a user profile by watching user behavior on a website! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents. [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on Twitter to help.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;**Patent:** [U.S. Patent No. 6,330,592](http://www.google.com/patents/US6330592)&#xA;&#xA;**Question:** Have you seen anything published **before Dec. 5, 1998** that discusses: &#xA;&#xA;1. Tracking visitor interests according to what content they access&#xA;2. Categorizing dynamically-generated content according to categories of interests&#xA;3. Caching dynamically-generated content and serving cached versions to subsequent users who exhibit those interests.&#xA;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xA;&#xA;# Claim 1&#xA;Claim 1 is representative and claims &quot;A method of customizing a web site, said method comprising&quot;:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1. labeling content of the web site;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 2. when at least one visitor accesses the content of a web site, registering the labeled accessed content in a personalized data file;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 3. storing the data file for the at least one visitor;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 4. generating at least one pre-customized display for a first visitor;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 5. caching the at least one pre-customized displays on the server computer;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 6. displaying the at least one pre-customized display to the first visitor;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 7. analyzing the data file of a second visitor and associating the second visitor with the at least one pre-customized display, wherein analyzing is performed after generating; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 8. displaying the at least one pre-customized display to the second visitor, wherein the at least one pre-customized display is not regenerated before displaying the at least one pre-customized display to the second visitor.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;**SPECIAL NOTE:** &quot;**Pre-customized display**&quot; means **pre-associated with some category or other means of tracking visitor interests**. The rest is all **fairly close to plain English**.&#xA;&#xA;# Claim 11&#xA;Claim 11 is probably the broadest; and so the easiest to find prior art for. It claims &quot;A computer readable memory that can direct a web site server computer to function in a specified manner, comprising&quot;:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1. visitor files stored in said computer memory of said web site server computer;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 2. pre-customized web content items stored in said computer memory of said web site server computer; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 3. executable instructions stored in said computer memory of said web site server computer, said executable instructions including&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;    a. instructions to access an existing visitor file for a visitor;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;    b. instructions to review data in existing visitor file to determine visitor preferences; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;    c. instructions, based on said visitor preferences, to provide pre-customized files to visitor.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;**SPECIAL NOTE** Term that need clarification:&#xA;&#xA;- **visitor file**: A file on the server that tracks visitor preferences and interests.&#xA;- **web content item**: The spec has defined this very broadly, encompassing &quot;Any item that can be accessed and viewed by a visitor, such as an entire web page, a component of a web page, an insertion into a web page or a graphic link.  Web Content Items can be defined through a markup language, including, but not limited to, HTML.&quot;&#xA;- **pre-customized**: means the same thing it did in Claim 1.&#xA;&#xA;# Ideally, prior art will embody each of the limitations (list items) for one of the claims above.&#xA;&#xA;----------&#xA;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xA;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xA;&#xA; [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xA; [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4349" RevisionGUID="6d562b46-98d1-478f-86ca-f89d8363f4ba" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="The OpenGL Programming Guide, 5th edition (published in 2006), describes use of &quot;fog&quot; in great detail between pages 261 and 271. It begins:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Computer images sometimes seem unrealistically sharp and well defined. Antialiasing makes an object appear more realistic by smoothing its edges. Additionally, you can make an entire image appear more natural by adding *fog*, which makes objects fade into the distance...&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; When fog is enabled, objects that are farther from the viewpoint begin to fade into the fog color." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4390" RevisionGUID="7051544e-ad3a-46bf-b956-61529090f1fc" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON DATABASE VISUALIZATION** - This issued patent seeks to patent the idea of... detecting the user’s reading speed and controlling an electronic display! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xA;&#xA;Patent: **[US7089266][1]**&#xA;&#xA;Title: **Computer systems and methods for the query and visualization of multidimensional databases**&#xA;&#xA;I'd be interested in prior art for this patent - seems absurdly broad to me.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before June, 2003** that discusses:&#xA;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A method for producing graphics comprising::&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 1. determining a hierarchical structure of a first database;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 2. constructing a visual table, comprised of a plurality of panes, by providing a specification that is in a language based on the hierarchical structure of the first database;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 3. querying the first database to retrieve a set of tuples in accordance with said specification;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 4. associating a subset of said set of tuples with a pane in said plurality of panes; and.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 5. encoding a tuple in said subset of tuples in said pane as a graphical mark.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7089266" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4463" RevisionGUID="0deb9ae0-c494-4c82-be0a-aeb3cb6bca57" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I'd like to offer the combination of two British sources as prior art, if that is helpful.&#xA;&#xA;First is the &quot;Reader's Digest Family Health Guide&quot;, first edition, published London **1972**, p.566 (part of the First Aid Emergencies section):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **Burns and scalds - What to do**&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 1: Relieve the pain and minimise the possibility of shock by holding the burnt area in cool, slowly running water.&#xA;&#xA;This is accompanied by a clear illustration captioned &quot;Hold a burn under running cold water.&quot;  A very clear and concise description, in plain language (rather than the medical jargon of &quot;topically&quot; and &quot;analgesic&quot;), of the essence of the method described in the patent.&#xA;&#xA;One detail remains - what temperature is typical for tap water in Britain?  Mains water spends a lot of time underground, so we can assume that it adopts roughly the same temperature as the surrounding earth.&#xA;&#xA;A quick Google gives me this: &quot;[...the ground temperature shows seasonal fluctuations to depths of about 15 m where the temperature is approximately equal to the mean annual air temperature(8 - 11° C in the UK).][1]&quot;  Therefore, at least some of the time, tap water used for first-aid will have been chilled by earth **below 10°C** before use.&#xA;&#xA;Another page in the same book, p.209 which is part of the glossary, has a short paragraph under the entry for Analgesic:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Apart from drugs, there are simple treatments that can have an analgesic effect.  A hot-water bottle, an electric blanket or a warm bath is useful for relieving muscular aches.  **An ice bag or cold compress** may relieve the discomfort of a bruise or sprain.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bgs.ac.uk/reference/gshp/gshp_report.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4569" RevisionGUID="94d5c31f-ddb8-4a62-9850-64e6c595e2a7" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;**TITLE**: Personalized headphone virtualization&#xA;&#xA;**Summary:** A method for a listener to experience the sound of virtual loudspeakers over headphones.&#xA;&#xA;**Publication Number:** [US7936887][1]&#xA;&#xA;**Priority Date:** Sep 1, 2004&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;What is claimed in the patent is:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; An audio system for personalized virtualization of a set of&#xA;&gt; loudspeakers in a pair of headphones, the system comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 1. an audio input interface for receiving a loudspeaker input signal;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 2. a speaker output interface for driving each of a set of loudspeakers with an audio signal;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 3. a headphone output interface for driving a pair of headphones with an audio signal; &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 4. a microphone input interface for receiving response signals from one or more microphones positionable near each ear of a listener;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 5. a head tracking system for detecting an orientation of a listener's head;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 6. an excitation signal generator coupled to the speaker output interface, wherein when the audio system is in a personalized measurement mode, the excitation signal generator is configured to provide excitation signals to the speaker output interface for driving one or more of the loudspeakers to generate audio responses at a location near each of a listener's ears; &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 7. a measurement module coupled to the microphone input interface to receive signals from the microphone input interface for the audio responses, the measurement module configured to generate personalized response functions for the audio responses for a plurality of head orientations, and associate each personalized response function with a&#xA;&gt; particular loudspeaker, a particular ear, and a particular head orientation of the listener; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 8. a virtualizer coupled to the headphone output interface, wherein when the audio system is in a normal mode, the virtualizer is configured to transform the loudspeaker input signal using a set of response functions that is based on one or more sets of the plurality of personalized response functions, and provide the transformed loudspeaker input signal to the headphone output interface.&#xA;&#xA;Here are some sample prior art: &#xA;&#xA;http://old.iem.at/Members/noisternig/science/msc&#xA;&#xA;http://interface.cipic.ucdavis.edu/sound/research.html&#xA;&#xA;http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/publications/rendering-localized-spatial-audio-virtual-auditory-space-0&#xA;&#xA;Can you help find more?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;----------&#xA;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xA;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;----------&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US7936887&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4584" RevisionGUID="dbf7ba03-4da7-44dc-a66e-1e0910e378ca" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Comparing hashes is the basis of the standard UNIX password authentication system.  This was not included in the very first versions of UNIX, but it is described in detail in [a paper][1] dated **April 3, 1978**, and must therefore have been implemented prior to that date.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; The UNIX system was first implemented with a password file that&#xA;&gt; contained the actual passwords of all the users, and for that reason&#xA;&gt; the password file had to be heavily protected against being either&#xA;&gt; read or written. Although historically, this had been the technique&#xA;&gt; used for remote-access systems, it was completely unsatisfactory for&#xA;&gt; several reasons.&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; [...]&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; The obvious solution is to arrange that the passwords not appear in the system &#xA;&gt; at all, and it is not difficult to decide that this can be done by&#xA;&gt; encrypting each user’s password, putting only the encrypted form in&#xA;&gt; the password file, and throwing away his original password (the one&#xA;&gt; that he typed in). When the user later tries to log in to the system,&#xA;&gt; the password that he types is encrypted and compared with the&#xA;&gt; encrypted version in the password file. If the two match, his login&#xA;&gt; attempt is accepted. Such a scheme was first described in [3,&#xA;&gt; p.91ff.]. It also seemed advisable to devise a system in which neither&#xA;&gt; the password file nor the password program itself needed to be&#xA;&gt; protected against being read by anyone.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; All that was needed to&#xA;&gt; implement these ideas was to find a means of encryption that was very&#xA;&gt; difficult to invert, even when the encryption program is available.&#xA;&gt; Most of the standard encryption methods used (in the past) for&#xA;&gt; encryption of messages are rather easy to invert. A convenient and&#xA;&gt; rather good encryption program happened to exist on the system at the&#xA;&gt; time; it simulated the M-209 cipher machine [4] used by the U.S. Army&#xA;&gt; during World War II. It turned out that the M-209 program was usable,&#xA;&gt; but with a given key, the ciphers produced by this program are trivial&#xA;&gt; to invert. It is a much more difficult matter to find out the key&#xA;&gt; given the cleartext input and the enciphered output of the program.&#xA;&gt; Therefore, the password was used not as the text to be encrypted but&#xA;&gt; as the key, and a constant was encrypted using this key. The encrypted&#xA;&gt; result was entered into the password file.&#xA;&#xA;In modern cryptographic parlance, this describes a *trapdoor function*, better known as a **hash**.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/passwd.ps" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4603" RevisionGUID="6c213f2a-eef6-427d-80b9-1a4a44826e34" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I believe that good prior art for the real-time translation of instant messages with push notification is:&#xA;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/US20030125927&#xA;&#xA; - **Title:** Method and system for translating instant messages&#xA; - **Publication Number:** US 20030125927 A1&#xA; - **Assignee:** Microsoft Corporation&#xA; - **Filing Date: Dec 28, 2001**&#xA; - **Publication Date:** Jul 3, 2003&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1. A method for **translating instant messages** exchanged between two or more devices over a network by one or more users that communicate in **different languages**&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Claim 13. A system for providing **real-time** communication over a network between two or more devices to support **multiple languages**&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;The issue would seem to be the **push notification** part. The earlier patent is quite broad and almost certainly encompasses a translation bot and/or push notification:&#xA;&#xA;For example:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; [0029] Referring again to FIG. 4, the content translation module 154&#xA;&gt; is shown as being at a network address xxx.yyy.zzz, and located at a&#xA;&gt; location separate from that of the source device 142 and destination&#xA;&gt; device 144. However, the invention is not limited to this&#xA;&gt; configuration. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the&#xA;&gt; content translation module 154 may be located within the same network&#xA;&gt; as the source or destination device, such as within an intranet or&#xA;&gt; network cluster having the same domain in or network location as the&#xA;&gt; source and destination devices. FIG. 3 provides only one example of a&#xA;&gt; network configuration suitable for practicing the invention. *Any&#xA;&gt; network configuration that allows for the operation of the content&#xA;&gt; translation module 154 is within the scope of the invention*.&#xA;&gt; Furthermore, any means by which messages can be translated&#xA;&gt; dynamically—interactively during the session—and without extra effort&#xA;&gt; on the part of the user, is within the scope of the invention.&#xA;&#xA;I would argue that push notification means that a message is sent to the receiver without an initiating request from the receiver. The original patent covers this exactly. The message originates from the sender and is sent to the receiver without any request from the receiver, whether via a &quot;Dll&quot; or &quot;server farm or network cluster configuration&quot; or any other intermediate means." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4707" RevisionGUID="db51d70e-0508-4a5f-8552-bad497c06d08" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text=" **AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON SOFTWARE BUILD SYSTEMS**&#xA;&#xA;SAP is trying to patent... Makefiles and other build systems that combine a platform-independent configuration file with platform-specific templates to create platform-specific build systems. 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before Jan, 2012** that discusses:&#xA;&#xA;Creating a platform-specific Makefile by combining a platform-independent Makefile and a platform-specific template Makefile?&#xA;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. Only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xA;&#xA;**TITLE: Unified Software Build System**&#xA;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20130198717 A1][2]&#xA;- **Assignee**: SAP&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** January 2012&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through Feb 1, 2014&#xA;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below::&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 1. Receiving the unified build system configuration file in a computer system, the unified build system configuration file comprising at least one platform-independent build system configuration&#xA;&gt; 2. Generating, using the computer system, at least one platform-specific build system configuration from the at least one platform-independent build system configuration&#xA;&gt; 3. Selecting at least one template for the unified build system configuration file, the template selected from among templates corresponding to each of multiple platforms&#xA;&gt; 4. Generating the one or more build system build files for at least one of the multiple platforms using the platform-specific build system configuration and the selected template; and&#xA;&gt; 5. Providing the generated one or more build system build files in response to the unified build system configuration file.&#xA;&#xA;This is already pretty much in English.&#xA;&#xA;-----&#xA;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][4].*&#xA;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][5] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xA;&#xA;[2]: http://google.com/patents/US20130198717&#xA; [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4748" RevisionGUID="fb33ca1c-81e5-499e-b3d8-3388e31467a7" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Patent Application: [US 20030110516 A1][1]&#xA;--&#xA;&#xA;Publication Date:   **Jun 12, 2003**&#xA;&#xA;Title: **System and method for embedding data in broadcast**&#xA;&#xA;Assignee: **Sony Corporation**&#xA;&#xA;Abstract:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A system and method for conveying information **pertaining to broadcast content** such that the system is robust and stripping or blocking data is rendered relatively difficult.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; A broadcast component encodes the content with a **digital watermark** or embeds an icon or other visibly or **audibly transparent object** (e.g., audio jingle) in the content.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; A TV or radio that has a microprocessor **decodes the content** to retrieve the watermark or analyzes the image/jingle to **determine an ID**.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Using the ID a database is accessed to **retrieve information pertaining to broadcast content**.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Alternatively, the watermark may represent the actual data itself. The information can include, e.g., **Web site hyperlinks**, and/or UPC codes, and/or advertising data. &#xA;&#xA;Any claim elements missing from this one?&#xA;&#xA;[1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20030110516" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13218" RevisionGUID="a75602ab-42aa-46e7-8557-68166bb8d0ef" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Personal communications do not qualify as Prior Art, as they are not publicly accessible.&#xA;&#xA;However, the Form 19-2 that you signed is proof of inventorship at a particular time. If you additionally have proof of the e-mail correspondence, then you may have a case against the cited inventors and original assignee of the patent, under MPEP Chapter 0600.&#xA;&#xA;The following rules might be of interest to you, as they might be represent viable options for pursuing legal action.&#xA;&#xA;MPEP Section 602 Oaths and Declarations [R-11.2013], [602.01(b) Inventor’s Oath or Declaration in Application Filed Before September 16, 2012][1]:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **35 U.S.C. 115  (pre-AIA) Oath of applicant.**&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; The applicant shall make oath that *he believes himself to be the&#xA;&gt; original and first inventor* of the process, machine, manufacture, or&#xA;&gt; composition of matter, or improvement thereof, for which he solicits a&#xA;&gt; patent; and shall state of what country he is a citizen.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; **37 C.F.R. 1.68   Declaration in lieu of oath.**&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; Any document to be filed in the Patent and Trademark Office and which&#xA;&gt; is required by any law, rule, or other regulation to be under oath may&#xA;&gt; be subscribed to by a written declaration. Such declaration may be&#xA;&gt; used in lieu of the oath otherwise required, if, and only if, the&#xA;&gt; declarant is on the same document, warned that willful false&#xA;&gt; statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or&#xA;&gt; both ([18 U.S.C. 1001][2]) and may jeopardize the validity of the&#xA;&gt; application or any patent issuing thereon. The declarant must set&#xA;&gt; forth in the body of the declaration that all statements made of the&#xA;&gt; declarant's own knowledge are true and that all statements made on&#xA;&gt; information and belief are believed to be true.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; **35 U.S.C. 25 Declaration in lieu of oath.**&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; (b) Whenever such written declaration is used, the document must warn the declarant that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both ([18 U.S.C. 1001][3]).&#xA;&#xA;In an [answer to an related question][4], non-confidential disclosures start a one year clock for filing. I'm not familiar with that section of the MPEP. Perhaps someone else could offer an explanation of that rule.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s602.html#ch600_d1ffbe_2a437_2a7&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307411&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307411&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3770/14417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6302" RevisionGUID="48471f5a-9284-4645-b6a6-8cf17ff6cf9e" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="If I wanted to produce sticky fore-arm straps that wrap around the fore-arms for competitors to use in the worlds-strongest-man competition to get a better grip when they pick up big circular stones (think wrapping duct tape around fore arms). The tape-like wraps would be rubber on the outside to give a better grip so the rocks do not slide away from their forearms when they pick them up. We can assume something like this does not exist.&#xA;&#xA;1. For an invention like this, do I need a design patent, utility patent, or both?&#xA;&#xA;   I would not be creating any new materials. It would be essentially sticky rubber tape - the big differentiator would be the shape of the tape and where it would be placed on the forearm - think uniquely shaped duct-tape-like stickers that are meant to be placed on specific locations of the forearm.&#xA;&#xA;2. If I need a design patent - how many different design patents should I file to make sure no one can produce something similar to my idea? i.e. different design patents with different shapes and sizes of the forearm grips? Or how do I make sure no one can produce something similar?&#xA;&#xA;3. If I create a design template do I need to list the exact material of the sticky rubber? Do I need to list exactly what the sticky material that sticks to the forearm is?&#xA;&#xA;4. Should I do a drawing or take pictures of something like this when filing for the patent?&#xA;&#xA;This is my getting started post and I have absolutely no experience with patents, so feel free to give any other advice to a question I am not asking.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6273" RevisionGUID="85faae1c-c8d7-47ec-abdc-e0e0f4c2b7c1" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="This is just location based advertising (LBA), and people have been doing it and debating the ethics of it for years. There are gobs of papers discussing the idea, many from the 2007 time frame.&#xA;&#xA;Patent application [US20020046084](https://www.google.com/patents/US20020046084?dq=US20020046084&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=fa0rU_jbCO6T0gGbjYGQCA&amp;ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA) - *Remotely configurable multimedia entertainment and information system with location based advertising* filed in 1999 describes these features with several other ideas:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;[0108] Location Based Advertising Business Method&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;[0109] Using the computer controlled multimedia entertainment and information system 10 described above or some other suitable network, a method for transmission of location based advertising is provided. Although the following description refers to multimedia entertainment and information system 10 and multimedia device 20, the location based advertising methods described in this application could apply to any communications system or any wireless communication device, including without limitation, pagers, cellular phones, two-way radios, PDAs, laptops, etc. The key aspect of this method is trading location based consumer preference or behavior profile information on various products or services for a number of advertisements transmitted to the system 10. Such a method is based upon advertisement selection criteria, user location information, and proximity of users and vendors.&#xA;&#xA;and here's a bit about using transaction history to target ads:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; [0149] (...) The system optimises advertising by including other purchase history, and helps build the demographics, or the spending habits of this person. The method of delivery of an ad may be a short textual message. Other data protocols can be used, such as voice ads." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6065" RevisionGUID="33a667f2-e2dc-4069-8aa5-8e0f7c1d2bd0" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Title: **Scalable, live transcoding with support for adaptive streaming and failover**&#xA;&#xA;Assignee: **Google**&#xA;&#xA;Publication Number: [US20130272374][1]&#xA;&#xA;Search for Prior art using: [Google Prior Art Finder][2]&#xA;&#xA;It seems like there is prior art for the basic idea, which more or less amounts to:&#xA;&#xA;1. Find a keyframe and/or scene change within a given timestamp range, and split at this point.&#xA;&#xA;2. Encode all N chunks in parallel with slightly overlapping bits, and at different qualities.&#xA;&#xA;3. Recombine these chunks (either concat, or via HLS or DASH).&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Claim 1. A system, comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - A memory that stores computer executable components;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - A processor that executes the following computer executable components stored in the memory:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - A segment identification component that identifies segment boundaries within an interval of input streams for a plurality of transcoding pipelines;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - A transcoding component that transcodes the input streams of the plurality of transcoding pipelines; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - A segmentation component that segments the input streams into equivalent chunks based on the segment boundaries identified, wherein the input streams include different transcode qualities.&#xA;&#xA;Anyone even slightly familiar with digital video could think of this, and I have indeed implemented something like this myself (perhaps I can submit prior art?).&#xA;&#xA;There are also things like:&#xA;&#xA;http://omion.dyndns.org/x264farm/x264farm.html&#xA;&#xA;which long predate this.&#xA;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xA;&#xA;Looking for specific Prior Art references below **predating 4/11/12** which can be provided to the USPTO through Ask Patents.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/us20130272374&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20130272374#c=0&amp;d1&amp;d2=04%2F11%2F2012&amp;t=1failover.1input%20streams.1pipelines.0support.0support%20for%20adaptive.0parallel%20pipelines.0adaptive%20streaming.0transcoding.0main%20stream.0segments.&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/UIVuR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5749" RevisionGUID="516a7e6a-16b8-4f9d-acba-9ecb15b34235" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="***(The point of this post is to prove obviousness and lack of novelty in the '060 Patent)***&#xA;&#xA;# [WikiPedia: Nyquist Frequency][1] #&#xA;&#xA;&gt; The Nyquist frequency, named after electronic engineer Harry Nyquist, is ½ of the sampling rate of a discrete signal processing system. It is sometimes known as the folding frequency of a sampling system.&#xA;&#xA;# [Nyquist Frequency Aliasing][2] #&#xA;&#xA;This describes common Nyquist anti-aliasing (filtering) which is also includes bandpass.&#xA;&#xA;&gt;**In a typical application of sampling, one first chooses the highest frequency to be preserved and recreated, based on the expected content (voice, music, etc.) and desired fidelity. Then one inserts an anti-aliasing filter ahead of the sampler. Its job is to attenuate the frequencies above that limit.** Finally, based on the characteristics of the filter, one chooses a sample-rate (and corresponding Nyquist frequency) that will provide an acceptably small amount of aliasing.&#xA;&#xA;Also read:&#xA;&#xA; - [Aliasing][3]&#xA; - [Filter banks][4]&#xA; - [Signal Processing][5]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_frequency&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_frequency#Aliasing&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing#Bandpass_signals&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bank&#xA;  [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_processing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5748" RevisionGUID="36fceb4a-b029-4ecd-9685-1b2200aa10fe" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="# [WO2009014735][1] #&#xA;&#xA;## System, method and apparatus for secure multiparty located based services ##&#xA;&#xA; - Publication date:    Jan 29, 2009&#xA; - Filing date:      Jul 23, 2008&#xA; - Priority date:   **Jul 23, 2007**&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;This is a good example, it discusses &quot;distributing shares&quot; and such, which could be considered a prize?&#xA;&#xA;## Abstract ##&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A computer system implements a method to provide secure multiparty location based services. A user input is received from a user device of a user. The user input contains user location information. Based on the location information, a model is retrieved. The model is a constraint satisfaction problem defined by a set of variables and mapping functions. The set of variables and mapping functions are into multiple shares. Each share is distributed to one of agents in finding a solution to the constraint satisfaction problem. Once a solution is computed, a demographic profile is predicted based on the solution. The solution does not contain the user location information.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;## Claim 1 ##&#xA;&gt;A method, comprising: receiving a user input from a user device of a user, wherein the user input contains user location information; &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - constructing and retrieving a model based on the user location information, wherein the model is a constraint satisfaction problem defined by a set of variables and mapping functions; &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - dividing the set of variables and mapping functions into a plurality of shares; distributing the plurality of shares to a plurality of agents, wherein each of the plurality of agents participates in finding a solution to the constraint satisfaction problem; &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - predicting a demographic profile based on the solution, wherein the solution does not contain the user location information.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;This is not 100% but it proves the method and system may lack novel and is obvious. I am sure you can find code examples or online tutorials published in the field of application and server development.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2009014735A2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5703" RevisionGUID="382fe672-52ce-44da-b13c-3e66e9191c4a" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="# Non Cited Prior Art #&#xA;&#xA;# [PITCH DETECTION USING THE SHORT—TERM PHASE SPECTRUM][1] #&#xA;## F.J. CHARPENTIER (Tokyo, 1986) ##&#xA;&#xA;http://www.ee.columbia.edu/~dpwe/papers/Charp86-pitchphase.pdf&#xA;&#xA;## Abstract ##&#xA;&gt;A new frequency domain method for determining the fundamental frequency of speech is presented in this paper. This method uses the information contained in short-term phase spectrum whereas the previous methods were limited to the amplitude spectrum. The short-term spectrum is computed by DFT and is interpreted as the output of a bank of band-pass filters. Harmonic components are detected by searching for sets of three continuos filters having the same instantaneous frequency. The frequency of a detected harmonic is given by the instantaneous frequency itself. A conventional harmonic numbering algorithm is used to confer the set of detected harmonics to a value of the fundamental frequency. Preliminary results show the validity of the method.&#xA;&#xA;This document goes into detail about detecting a frequency and automatically band-passing the signal to eliminate other harmonics. It was discusses it being used in a pitch detection application and eliminating other noise and computation below a threshold.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xA;&#xA;To further clarify, bandpass a frequency detected, and when applicable, reduce the onboard computation by only computing frequencies above a threshold. &#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ee.columbia.edu/~dpwe/papers/Charp86-pitchphase.pdf&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/h7bBw.png&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ZFkrU.png&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ICfT3.jpg&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/lktL5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5692" RevisionGUID="73461250-35a4-4c6c-90d7-31182eee907b" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I find pitch refinement an interesting topic. &#xA;&#xA;# [WO1999059138A2 (May 11, 1998)][1] #&#xA;# [Refinement of pitch detection][1] #&#xA;&#xA;# Abstract #&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Successive pitch periods/frequencies are accurately determined in an audio equivalent signal. Using a suitable conventional pitch detection technique, an initial value of the pitch frequency/period is determined for so-called pitch detection segments of the audio equivalent signal. Based on the determined initial value, a refined value of the pitch frequency/period is determined. To this end, the signal is divided into a sequence of pitch refinement segments. Each pitch refinement segment is associated with at least one of the pitch detection segments. The pitch refinement segments are filtered to extract a frequency component with a frequency substantially corresponding to an initially determined pitch frequency of an associated pitch detection segment. The successive pitch periods/frequencies are determined in the filtered signal&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;# Description #&#xA;&#xA;&gt;....&#xA;&gt;In step 130, each pitch refinement segment is filtered to extract the fundamental frequency component (also referred to as the first harmonic) of that segment. The filtering may, for instance, be performed by using a band-pass filter around the first harmonic. It will be appreciated that if the first harmonic is not present in the signal (e.g. the signal is supplied via a telephone line and the lowest frequencies have been lost) a first higher harmonic which is present may be extracted and used to accurately detect this representation of the pitch. For many applications it is sufficient if one of the harmonics, preferably one of the lower harmonics, is accurately detected. It is not always required that the actually lowest harmonic is detected. Preferably, the filtering is performed by convolution of the input signal with a sine/cosine pair as will be described in more detail below.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;I read **each pitch refinement segment** ('138) as **subsequent signal** ('060)&#xA;&#xA;&gt;In step 140, a concatenation occurs of the filtered pitch refinement segments. The filtered pitch detection segments are concatenated by locating each segment at the original time instant and adding the segments together (the segments may overlap). The concatenation results in obtained a filtered signal. In step 150, an accurate value for the pitch period/frequency is determined from the filtered signal. In principle, the pitch period can be determined as the time interval between maximum and/or minimum amplitudes of the filtered signal. **Advantageously, the pitch period is determined based on successive zero crossings of the filtered signal, since it is easier to determine the zero crossings.** Normally, the filtered signal is formed by digital samples, sampled at, for instance, 8 or 16 Khz. Preferably, the accuracy of determining the moments at which a desired amplitude (e.g. the maximum amplitude or the zero-crossing) occurs in the signal is increased by interpolation. Any conventional interpolation technique may be used (such as a parabolic interpolation for determining the moment of maximum amplitude or a linear interpolation for determining the moment of zero crossing). In this way accuracy well above the sampling rate can be achieved.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;(Extract from above:)&#xA;&gt;the pitch period is determined based on successive zero crossings of the filtered signal&#xA;&#xA;To determine Zero Crossings, you need to have a predetermined threshold. For it to be successive, it would have been required to exceed a predetermined threshold.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;In summary, if this method is employed on a microphone, guitar, keyboard, amplifier, and human voice, detects a pitch/fundamental/harmonics and applies a bandpass filter around them for suppressing further action it would infringe. This could include spectral analysis, visualizers, frequency readouts and any derivative thereof.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO1999059138A2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5689" RevisionGUID="263c0f75-c71c-4de3-aac9-ad9ee2ad6d21" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="# Non-Cited Prior Art #&#xA;&#xA;## [US 3812432 A (Priority Jan 5, 1973)][1] ##&#xA;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US3812432&#xA;&#xA;## Tone detector ##&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;## Description (Abstracted) ##&#xA;&#xA;&gt; More specifically, a tone detector, in accordance with the invention, **includes a threshold detector** for generating a substantially constant amplitude pulsating signal representative of intervals between prescribed levels of the instantaneous amplitude of an applied signal, for example, positive and negative peak amplitudes. **No pulsating signal is generated during intervals in which the amplitude of the applied signal is below the prescribed level.** The presence of frequency components of interest in the applied signal is determined by supplying the pulsating signal to appropriate filters. The peak value of the output from each filter is detected and compared with a predetermined reference signal to determine, in accordance with the invention, whether the particular filter output represents the fundamental frequency of the applied signal.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;An additional aspect of the instant invention is concerned with **eliminating possible detection errors caused by noise signals**. Such errors are substantially eliminated, in accordance with the invention, **by inhibiting the operation of the threshold detector until the is disabled until the average amplitude of the applied signal exceeds a predetermined value.**&#xA;&#xA; - FIG. 1 depicts a tone detector circuit illustrating the invention;&#xA; - FIG. 2 shows in greater detail a threshold detector which may be utilized in the tone detector of FIG. 1;&#xA; - FIG. 3 illustrates details of an average detector which may be employed in the circuit of FIG. 1;&#xA; - FIG. 4 depicts details of a frequency component detector which may be used in the tone detector of FIG. 1; and&#xA;&#xA; - FIGS. 5A, 5B and 5C each show a sequence of waveforms useful in describing operational modes of the tone detector of FIG. 1.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;## Claim 1 ##&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A tone detector circuit which comprises:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; **means responsive to an applied signal for generating a pulsating signal having a substantially constant amplitude and being representative of intervals between prescribed amplitude levels of said applied signal, said pulsating signal generating means being selectively disabled in response to a predetermined signal being supplied thereto;**&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; means in circuit relationship with said pulsating signal generating means and being **responsive to at least one predetermined frequency component** of said pulsating signal for generating a pulse signal representative of intervals when the **amplitude of said at least one frequency component exceeds a predetermined reference level**;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; **means for detecting a predetermined amplitude characteristic of said applied signal**; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; means in circuit relationship with said amplitude detecting means and said pulsating signal generating means and being responsive to the output from said amplitude detecting means for generating a signal **to disable said pulsating signal generating means during intervals when the output from said amplitude detecting means is below a predetermined level**.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;**Suppressing below a predetermined threshold is the same as displaying above a predetermined threshold**&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;## Claim 2 ##&#xA;&gt;A tone detector as defined in claim 1 wherein said amplitude detecting means includes means for generating a signal representative of the average amplitude of said applied signal.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;## Claim 3 ##&#xA;&gt;A tone detector as defined in claim 1 wherein said pulsating signal generating means includes a threshold detector for generating a pulsating signal having a substantially constant amplitude and being representative of intervals between prescribed values of the instantaneous amplitude of said applied signal.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;## Claim 4 ##&#xA;&gt;A tone detector as defined in claim 3 wherein said pulse signal generating means includes filter means in circuit relationship with said threshold detector for passing only said at least one frequency component of said pulsating signal and level detector means in circuit with said filter means for generating said pulse signal during intervals in which the amplitude of said at least one frequency component exceeds a predetermined level.&#xA;&#xA;## Claim 5 ##&#xA;&gt;A tone detector as defined in claim 4 wherein said level detector means includes peak detector means in circuit with said filter means for generating a unipolarity signal having an amplitude proportional to the peak amplitude value of said at least one frequency component output from said filter means and comparator means having first and second inputs and an output, a reference signal source being connected in circuit with said first input, said peak detector means being connected in circuit with said second input and said comparator means being responsive to a reference signal and to said unipolarity signal for generating said pulse signal at said comparator means output during intervals in which the amplitude of said unipolarity signal exceeds the amplitude of said reference signal.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;In summary, 3812432 is a method of detecting tone above a predetermined threshold, limited by filter means to identify the tone.  '060 Claim 13 and quite possibly Claim 1 invalid.  By displaying the output of any calculations, equated to digits represented by frequencies, this is effectively the same as '060 in my opinion.&#xA;&#xA;![3812432 Figure of Filter and Threshold Detector][2]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US3812432&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/q4Jht.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5682" RevisionGUID="399592d0-b86f-4cdc-802c-5a7623e6a2d9" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="# Quiznos Store Locator #&#xA;&#xA;Locates a store with selectable map modes. Common across thousands of websites, in-app maps, and more. Excludes (method of suppressing) outside map data based on the person's location (search criteria) which can be geo-targeted through javascript.&#xA;&#xA;http://www.quiznos.com/storeLocator.html&#xA;&#xA;![Quiznos Store Locator][1]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/TJ5DM.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5681" RevisionGUID="45f59850-dcad-4672-89cb-1be12ca09e3e" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I would like to introduce as Prior Art:&#xA;&#xA;# [Google Maps][1] #&#xA;&#xA;http://maps.google.com&#xA;&#xA;![Google Maps][2]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://maps.google.com&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/8bCti.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5679" RevisionGUID="d060cde6-e94b-4f49-a1c6-3a29a3235562" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="# In Application [US20110190581][1] #&#xA;&#xA;The abstract sounds like your smartphone app idea.  Claim 1 does also:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1. **A method used by a server in a communication network**, the communication network also **having a plurality of sensor devices** and a support computer, each of the plurality of sensor devices capturing sensor data via a vaginal channel of a female reproductive system, the method comprising:&#xA;establishing communication with the plurality of sensor devices;&#xA;receiving the sensor data captured by at least one of the plurality of sensor devices via the vaginal channel of the female reproductive system;&#xA;generating display data based on the sensor data received; and&#xA;delivering the display data to the support computer.&#xA;&#xA;It's important to understand for claim 1 that you'd need to have a **a plurality (more than one) sensor** inserted into the vagina which communicates to a server/computer which is your smartphone in this case.  This patent specifically discusses smartphone as a the desired readout device.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;**(Edit: Added Claim 7 to answer)**&#xA;&#xA;## Claim 7 ##&#xA;&#xA;&gt;A method used by a server in a communication network to make a related data selection from a plurality of data, **the communication network comprising a medical sensor device that captures sensor data** via a vaginal channel of a female reproductive system, the method comprising:&#xA;establishing communication with the medical sensor device;&#xA;receiving the sensor data captured by the medical sensor device; and&#xA;selecting the related data from the plurality of data, the selection being based at least in part on the sensor data received.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;In claim 7, it only discusses a single sensor device receiving a plurality of data.  Beware.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;The best thing for you would be to utilize a Patent Attorney and or this AskPatents website as it seems to have the ability to prevent a patent application from becoming a patent (the main goal here).   If this is a method/software/utility patent, the patent application can file for an expedited review (as we see with the '060 case on pitch detection listed here) and at that point, the patent applicant can claim (under penalties of perjury) that they conducted all prior art searches and can easily argue novel over prior art with little or no rejection from a patent examiner.&#xA;&#xA;Despite the &quot;smartphone&quot; term used in the description, a smartphone is indeed a small computer.  If you can find any prior art that A) uses a vaginal sensor and B) communicates the data to a computer for monitoring the temperature then you should be able to prevent the patent from being granted, moving you out of harms way.&#xA;&#xA;Remember Claim 1 is in an independent claim for a METHOD.  This means that it is not bound to an embodiment, regardless of the Abstract, Description, and such. If you can find anything to invalidate that claim, that is not listed as Prior Art, then you have helped yourself as well.&#xA;&#xA;Last, beware that you can and most likely will be served with a demand letter followed by a lawsuit just by merely entering into the same market with a similar concept.  Even if your product does not infringe, it still does not matter when being sued.  All the patentee has to claim is that you infringed on their patent. They are not required to act in good faith and tell you how you infringed, or what you owe. Patents can be asserted in bad faith to destroy competition, hence monopolizing.  The estimated cost to defending a patent infringement case is $2.6 million US.  &#xA;&#xA;Good luck!&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110190581" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5673" RevisionGUID="5f62f0e8-6b44-43d8-ab5f-3c69ef1b8b0e" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="MOTU has been shipping their [CueMix FXsoftware][1] with their mixer units for quite some time. &#xA;&#xA;![MOTU Tuner Plugin][2]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&gt;# [Instrument tuner (Published: 2010-10-14 15:51:06 )][3] #&#xA;&gt;Just open the Tuner window, play a note, and use the large graphic display to get in tune with an accuracy of one 10th of a cent (one 1,000th of a semi-tone). Being in tune has never been easier.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;The Tuner displays the detected note by frequency (in Hertz), note name and octave, with an adjustable reference frequency for A4 between 400 and 480 Hz.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;The large meter gives you a clear indication of how high or low you are from the detected pitch.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Large red arrows direct you up or down as needed to zero in on the correct pitch.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;You can even tune phase-coherent stereo signals.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;The CueMix FX Tuner is as advanced and accurate as any dedicated hardware tuner out there.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;There is also an FFT Plugin:&#xA;&#xA;![FFT Plugin][4]&#xA;&#xA;&gt;# FFT Display ##&#xA;&gt; CueMix FX provides an optional real-time FFT display super-imposed on top of the graphic EQ curve so you can see as well as hear the effect of your equalization adjustments.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;This software ships with [MOTU Audio Interfaces][5] which all have Noise Gates, Bandpass filters, and more built right into the plugins and physical input boards.&#xA;&#xA;http://www.motu.com/products/cuemix-fx/tuner-analysis.html&#xA;&#xA;http://www.motu.com/products/cuemix-fx/new-in-cuemix&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.motu.com/products/cuemix-fx/tuner-analysis.html&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/5pkDm.jpg&#xA;  [3]: http://www.motu.com/newsitems/download-your-free-tuner-now&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/EYXvt.gif&#xA;  [5]: http://www.motu.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="cdabcfe5-5577-4377-b990-ad6b846da274" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text=" Apple [recently filed for an &quot;Interactive Map&quot; patent][1] that in every way resembles a collection of technologies and methods known as &quot;Geographic Information Systems&quot; (GIS). 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Claim 1 in particular has been in active use by the GIS community for over 40 years:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A method for **displaying a map on a computing device**, comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - Storing information to be displayed on the map in a memory of the&#xA;&gt; computing device, the stored information comprising a plurality of&#xA;&gt; different layers of information, wherein each layer contains a&#xA;&gt; respective type of information;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - Displaying a map on a display of the computing device, the map comprising&#xA;&gt; a plurality of the layers of information superimposed upon one another;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - In response to a user selection of a display mode corresponding to a topic of interest, displaying at least one layer containing information that is associated with the selected mode; and &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - Enhancing the value of at least one display parameter for map features of each displayed layer that are associated with the selected mode, relative to a default value for&#xA;&gt; the display parameter.&#xA;&#xA;Likely innovators/publishers(manuals...)/patentees in this vein include [Esri][2], [Pitney Bowes][3] and [Google][4]. &#xA;&#xA;Please help find prior art from **June 5th 2012 or earlier**.&#xA;&#xA;Prior art can be any publication (webpage, user manual, paper, book, youtube video, patent pre-grant publication) or patent. **It is helpful to establish a date when the prior art was available to the public and a solid reference which can be cited by the USPTO**.  A citable reference can often be found in a contemporaneous publication about the technology in magazine, blog, or scientific article.  Another place to look is [The Wayback Machine](https://archive.org/).&#xA;&#xA;Let's help inform the USPTO!&#xA;&#xA;- Publication Number: **[US 20130339891 A1][5]**&#xA;- Priority Date: Seeking prior art predating **Jun 5, 2012**&#xA;- Assignee: Apple, Inc.&#xA;&#xA;![Interactive Map US20130339891][6]&#xA;----------&#xA;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][7].*&#xA;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][8] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&amp;r=2&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=%28715/771.CCLS.%20AND%2020131219.PD.%29&amp;OS=ccl/715/771%20and%20pd/12/19/2013&amp;RS=%28CCL/715/771%20AND%20PD/20131219%29&#xA;  [2]: http://www.esri.com/&#xA;  [3]: http://www.mapinfo.com/&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/maps/about/&#xA;  [5]: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&amp;r=2&amp;p=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;d=PG01&amp;S1=%28715/771.CCLS.%20AND%2020131219.PD.%29&amp;OS=ccl/715/771%20and%20pd/12/19/2013&amp;RS=%28CCL/715/771%20AND%20PD/20131219%29&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/pkgiB.png&#xA;  [7]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xA;  [8]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5647" RevisionGUID="fbb29b6f-35bc-42e0-ae55-0248a48a8c25" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="# Can You Patent Human Auditory Senses? #&#xA;&#xA;I believe they just patented basic human auditory senses.  The Claims in '060 discuss selecting frequencies above a predetermined threshold, and suppressing the rest. Likewise, Claim 1 discusses bandpass filtering around a target frequency. This is exactly what the natural auditory senses of the human ear and brain do.&#xA;&#xA;## [Auditory Masking - Wikipedia][1] ##&#xA;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking&#xA;&#xA;&gt;  &quot;Off frequency listening is when a listener chooses a filter just lower than the signal frequency to improve their auditory performance. This “off frequency” filter reduces the level of the masker more than the signal at the output level of the filter, which means they can hear the signal more clearly hence causing an improvement of auditory performance.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;Am I to assume that anyone recognizing a pitch would be infringing? &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5626" RevisionGUID="90c3b7bb-3cdb-4397-b9d6-efde7a778ef5" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I am curious to how this is NOVEL or even UNOBVIOUS.  I am a recording engineer and I use common software such as Pro Tools, Logic Pro and others.  Virtually all Digital Audio Workstations and recording software comes equipped with BandPass, Tuners, and Noise Gates.  An end user could easily stumble and infringe upon this patent easily.&#xA;&#xA;Allow me to demonstrate:&#xA;&#xA;## Claim 13 Infringement ##&#xA;&gt; 1. Open Logic Pro (or even more distributed Garage Band) with Live or Recorded Samples&#xA;&gt; 2. Select a Noise Gate on a Channel Strip&#xA;&gt; 3. Add the Tuner Plugin under Metering &gt; Tuner &gt; Tuner&#xA;&#xA;**You have now infringed upon Claim 13 of '060 Patent.**&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Also note if you use a recording interface that uses BandPass Filters or Noise Gates, and you simply activate the Tuner plugin on a channel strip, you have effectively infringed on this brand new patent.&#xA;&#xA;![Claim 13 Infringement][1]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;## Claim 1 Example: ##&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1. Open Logic Pro (or even more distributed Garage Band) with Live or Recorded Samples&#xA;&gt; 2. Select a Noise Gate on a Channel Strip&#xA;&gt; 3. Add a BandPass Filter: Audio Units &gt; Bandpass Filter (Adjust to range of a drum or instrument) after you determine the pitch the tuner is displaying, adjust it to that range.  To enable / disable this &quot;mode&quot; just bypass the bandpass filter.&#xA;&gt; 3. Add the Tuner Plugin under Metering &gt; Tuner &gt; Tuner&#xA;&#xA;![Claim 1 Infringement: BandPass Filter and a Tuner][2]&#xA; &#xA;&#xA;This is a very ingredient oriented piece of software. I attribute this patent to pulling out bread, ham, cheese and and assembling it and patenting that method. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/9qjXi.png&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/9vzQf.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5615" RevisionGUID="1e1ea168-6d07-4d15-a23e-a917e2a724f9" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Considering the **substantial new question of patentability** with prior art that was found in such a short time (5 days so far), one would be curious to how the patent was approved.&#xA;&#xA;Information from [USPTO Public Pair System][1]&#xA;&#xA;To obtain this patent information, go to the search, select Patent, and enter: 8502060 in the search box.&#xA;&#xA;It will display the Application Data and audit trail (Transaction History).&#xA;&#xA;![USPTO Public Pair Application Data][2]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;This is the Transaction History, I particularly note no rejections to the claims, and a rapid approval process.&#xA;&#xA;![Transaction History Part 1][3]&#xA;&#xA;![Transaction History Part 2][4]&#xA;&#xA;Next, under Image Wrapper File (public information) you see on 2/15/2013 when the application was filed, it had a **Statement of Preexamination Search** where the applicant cites a prior application and claims that all of the pre examination searches for prior art was completed. &#xA;&#xA;![Image File Wrapper][5]&#xA;&#xA;# Document ID 13768799 - Statement of Preexamination Search by Applicant #&#xA;&#xA;![Statement of Preexamination Search][6]&#xA;&#xA;Other supporting documents in the Image File Wrapper, especially this one, include an OATH or Declaration provided by the applicant which allows the applicant to be punished under 18 U.S.C. 1001.&#xA;&#xA;This oath was provided on 2/15/2013 along with all of the other required documents and barrage of paperwork to the patent examiner.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; I hereby acknowledge that any willful false statement made in this declaration is punishable under [18 U.S.C. 1001][7] by fine or imprisonment of not more than (5) years, or both.&#xA;&#xA;![Oath Document File ID: 13768799][8]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Later the applicant eludes to Rob Toulson's patent in their prior art submission claiming that Toulson's patent as prior art is invalid, which is false.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;On 2/15/2013 when the application was submitted, another document titled:&#xA;&#xA;# Accelerated Examination Support Document #&#xA;&#xA;Submitted by the applicant, 3 prior art examples noted as &quot;Closest Related Match&quot; begin on page 5.  &#xA;&#xA;![Accelerated Examination Support Document][9]&#xA;&#xA;Particularly of concern is relation to Toulson's patent on Page 9 - 12 where the applicant states Rob Toulson's patent and methods are not taught. Page 12 in regards to Claim 13 are particularly concerning.&#xA;&#xA;![Toulson's Patent Claims Dispute][10] &#xA;&#xA;# The point here is this was an accelerated patent and the examiner relied on the applicant's prior-art search, oath, and good word.  This is alarming. #&#xA;&#xA;# Take a closer look at this rapid process. 02/15/2013 Filed, 05/28/2013 Approval #&#xA;&#xA;Can anyone elude to ever seeing a patent fly through the system this fast? [The USPTO Expedited Examination Program][11] http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/accelerated/index.jsp&#xA;&#xA;&gt; The USPTO has established procedures under which the examination of a patent application may be accelerated. Under one of these procedures, the USPTO will advance an application out of turn for examination if the applicant files a grantable petition to make special under the accelerated examination program. The USPTO is similarly revising the procedures for other petitions to make special, except those based on applicant’s health or age or the PPH pilot program. Other petitions to make special (i.e., based on: manufacture, infringement, environmental quality, energy, recombinant DNA, superconductivity materials, HIV/AIDS and cancer, countering terrorism, and biotechnology applications filed by small entities  MPEP § 708.02 ) will be processed using the revised procedure for accelerated examination. Thus, petitions to make special, except those based on applicant’s health, age, or the  PPH pilot program , will be required to comply with the requirements for petitions to make special under the accelerated examination program as set forth in this notice.&#xA;&#xA;Next, you have the &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;# 02-15-2013     PET.SPRE.ACX    Petition for 12-month Accelerated Exam #&#xA;(Petition to make Special)  yet this petition clearly states in item 1:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;the claims must be directed to a *single invention*&#xA;&#xA;Since Claim 1 and Claim 13 are method claims that are not bound to an embodiment, are they directed towards a **single invention**&#xA;&#xA;![Petition for 12-month Accelerated Exam][12]&#xA;&#xA;# PET.DEC.TC - Petition decision routed to the Technology Center to act on the decision or continue prosecution #&#xA;&#xA;Filed on 3/18/2013 and the patent buzzes along nicely through the system without anyone rejecting claims.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;![Petition][13]&#xA;&#xA;On 5/28/2013 the Patent Examiner publishes his brief prior art search. And rubber stamps it Approved the same day.&#xA;&#xA;![Patent Examiner Prior Art Search][14]&#xA;&#xA;# Confused? Where can I buy this kind of expedited processing? #&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/57h9k.png&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/CmMEP.png&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/XXkMy.png&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/7bnyp.png&#xA;  [6]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/EuH9y.png&#xA;  [7]: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/pdf/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap47-sec1001.pdf&#xA;  [8]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/2R729.png&#xA;  [9]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/KnX1D.png&#xA;  [10]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/d8P97.png&#xA;  [11]: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/accelerated/index.jsp&#xA;  [12]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/FnuEZ.png&#xA;  [13]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ypNbZ.png&#xA;  [14]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/pY9Zd.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5611" RevisionGUID="4e86de43-b2ff-4ff1-a9bb-d44fbfd607e1" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="# Non-Cited Prior Art #&#xA;&#xA;# [US4823667][1] (Priority Date: Jun 22, 1987) #&#xA;## Title: Guitar controlled electronic musical instrument ##&#xA;&#xA;# Claim 1 - Predetermined Threshold #&#xA;&gt;...&#xA;&gt;a threshold detect unit whereby an on-signal is generated if said envelope of said string waveshape signal is greater than or equal to a prespecified threshold signal amplitude and whereby an off-signal is generated if said on-signal has been generated and said envelope of said string waveshape signal is less than said prespecified threshold signal amplitude,&#xA;&gt; ...&#xA;&#xA;The point of this is Claim 13 of '060 is invalid.&#xA;&#xA;## '060 Claim 13 ##&#xA;&gt; 13: A method for pitch detection, comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Providing one or more power spectrum frequency samples;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Selecting a frequency in a frequency band having a largest power spectrum magnitude from the one or more power spectrum frequency samples, the frequency band having an upper frequency limit and a lower frequency&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4823667" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5609" RevisionGUID="7a1fcebe-4efd-49d3-a0d0-d5d200b0e7b9" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="# Non-Cited Prior Art #&#xA;## [US6140568][1] (Priority Date: Nov 6, 1997) ##&#xA;&#xA;This is a great example.&#xA;&#xA;## Title: System and method for automatically detecting a set of fundamental frequencies simultaneously present in an audio signal ##&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **ABSTRACT**&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; A system and method for **automatically detecting and identifying a plurality of frequencies** simultaneously present in an audio signal, as well as the duration, **amplitude**, and phase of those frequencies, **then filtering out harmonic components to determine which frequencies are fundamentals**. The system includes a **computer readable** medium of instruction code that decomposes the signal into its component sine waves by computing and comparing correlations between the input signal and sine waves at various phase and amplitude combinations. The system also employs several optimization and error correction routines.&#xA;&#xA;## Claims ##&#xA;&#xA;## Claim 1 ##&#xA;&gt; A method of identifying **one or more fundamental frequencies** simultaneously present in a complex signal, comprising the steps of:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;receiving the complex signal;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;decomposing the signal into sine wave components to determine all frequencies present in the signal;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;**setting and obtaining parameters used to detect fundamental frequencies**; &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; and&#xA;**filtering out harmonic frequencies to determine the fundamental frequencies actually present in the signal**.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;## Claim 2 ##&#xA;&gt;The method of claim 1, wherein the step of receiving the complex signal includes dividing the signal into a series of sample windows which contain sample amplitudes.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;## Claim 3 ##&#xA;&gt;The method of claim 2, further comprising an **optimization step of ignoring sample windows in which the sample amplitudes do not meet a predetermined threshold.**&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;## Claim 4 ##&#xA;&gt;The method of claim 2, wherein the step of decomposing includes obtaining best correlation scores by comparing reference frequencies to the complex signal, and comparing said best correlation scores to determine which reference frequencies are in the complex signal.&#xA;&#xA;## Claim 5 ##&#xA;&gt;The method of claim 4, wherein the step of decomposing is carried out by comparing amplitudes resulting in the best correlation score at each reference frequency to amplitudes resulting in best correlation scores at adjacent reference frequencies to locate amplitude peaks.&#xA;&#xA;## Claim 6 ##&#xA;&gt;The method of claim 4, wherein the step of decomposing includes the step of scaling the amplitudes of the detected frequencies according to said frequencies.&#xA;&#xA;## Claim 7 ##&#xA;&gt;The method of claim 4, wherein the step of obtaining the best correlation scores comprises shifting the amplitude and phase of the reference frequencies until an amplitude/phase combination yielding the best correlation score out of all correlation scores for said combinations of each reference frequency is found.&#xA;&#xA;## Claim 8 ##&#xA;&gt;The method of claim 4, **further comprising the step of attenuating frequencies lower than current reference frequencies** before correlation scores are obtained.&#xA;&#xA;## Claim 9 ##&#xA;&gt;The method of claim 8, wherein said attenuation step comprises:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;**a high-pass filter having a cutoff frequency set to the current reference frequency; and**&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;**a low-pass filter having a cutoff frequency set to one half of the current reference frequency**.&#xA;&#xA;(High/Low Pass == BandPass)&#xA;&#xA;## Claim 10 ##&#xA;&gt;The method of claim 7, further comprising an optimization step of ignoring amplitude/phase combinations which yield correlation scores that are worse than previously obtained correlation scores.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Claim 9 of US6140568 Proves that Claim 1 of '060 is not novel. Bandpass filtering around a target frequency is not novel, has been done, and this is prior art.&#xA;&#xA;Claim 3 of US6140568 Proves that Claim 13 of '060 is not novel. This claims to select frequencies from above a predetermined threshold.&#xA;&#xA;I feel that other claims in this patent as well would invalidate several claims within the '060 patent.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6140568" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60708" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5604" RevisionGUID="4c59e820-dfbd-4576-929c-ec7cc0d2eb39" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Checking some dates here from the original post, **I find this to be very concerning:**&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Asserted Patent in lawsuit: [US8502060][1]&#xA;also filed as application [US20130139672][2]&#xA;&#xA;Original Application: [US20130145921][3]:&#xA;&#xA; - Filing Date: Nov 30, 2011&#xA; - Publication Date: June 13, 2013&#xA;&#xA;&gt; This application is specifically for a handheld tuner via the claims, yet still has the methods in it.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;**An app comes on the market called [iDrumTune][4] on 4/20/2012 - the creator cited as prior art in '060 Patent**&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;**An app comes on the market called iDrumTech on February 8th, 2013** and **one week** later the '921 application is revised and stripped of any novel information, filed as '060 (a continuation) and gets granted? Seems fishy!&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;![iDrumTech App (Named in lawsuit) Release date on itunes][5]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;# Continuation Of US20130145921 Filed As [US8502060][6] #&#xA;&#xA; - Filing Date: Feb 15, 2013&#xA; - Publication Date: Aug 6, 2013&#xA;&#xA;&gt; All CLAIMS for a tuner device are now obscured by a Method?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;So in summary to the above, an original application US20130145921 was filed on Nov 30,2011 claiming an actual tuner device in the claims. It wasn't published until Jun 13, 2013? Two apps are released, one is built on prior art (iDrumTune / Rob Toulson) released 4/20/2012, and another released 2/8/2013.  Patent filed, overbroad claims on 2/15/2013 and published 5/2013, granted 8/2013. &#xA;&#xA;# WHAT HAPPENED? Expedited Processing. Applicant claims novel over prior art, the patent office doesn't dispute, rubber stamps, law suits filed. #&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;There's a great article I read recently called [This simple change could fix the patent system—but it’ll never happen.][7] by James Bessen on slate.com:&#xA;&#xA;## Problem No. 2: Gotcha lawsuits ##&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Continued patents are much more likely to be litigated than are other patents—not only because they result in low-quality patents, but also because they permit a particularly nasty legal tactic: A patent applicant with a continued application can rewrite the claim language so that the patent covers technology that is developed after the patent is filed. In the worst cases, so-called “submarine patents” are kept hidden from the public as they mark time in the Patent Office. Innovative companies come along and develop new technology only to find themselves surprised one day with a patent infringement lawsuit, a lawsuit based on a patent application that was rewritten to cover the defendant’s own innovations.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8502060&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130139672&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130145921&#xA;  [4]: http://idrumtune.com&#xA;  [5]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/SNC3A.png&#xA;  [6]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8502060&#xA;  [7]: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/12/the_simple_fix_that_could_heal_the_patent_system.2.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5600" RevisionGUID="6b5ed625-84d0-44a9-8eb7-9b641ba0c6b0" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="My understanding of guitar tuners from [Zen-on Justina Quartz Guitar Tuners][1] and many other tuners utilize a filter means when you select which guitar string you are tuning to.  This is a chromatic tuner, but it still use frequencies to translate to musical notes which I believe the 060 patent being asserted uses the same methods.&#xA;&#xA;![Zen-on Justina Quartz Guitar Tuners][2]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;There's a lot to be said on the [WikiPedia Page for Guitar Tuners][3] - Especially about Peterson Strobosoft Tuners which have been patented by [US6580024][4]&#xA;&#xA;In Peterson's patent US6580024, they discuss in the Figures description the following, which even they admit is blatantly obvious:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Concurrently, computing engine 22 analyzes the conditioned and digitized input signal or waveform to detect a unique phase or portion of the fundamental period segments of said signal or waveform, typically a portion corresponding to the original fundamental period peaks of the input signal or waveform. There are many methods and algorithms current in the art which implement this function, the details of which are understood by those of skill in the art and are not a subject of this invention. Upon detection of said phase or portion of each fundamental period segment, or upon detection of a selected number of said phases, computing engine 22 sends commands to visual display 25 to make visible one or a plurality of image objects or patterns at positions determined by the most recently calculated displacement value.&#xA;&#xA;Peterson's tuners use a method of frequency translation into musical objects, as well as **musical notes** which the 060 Patent claims to have invented.  Adjusting the input level (Peak Detection) is not novel, nor is using a standard [Noise Gate, or Gate][5]&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A noise gate or gate is an electronic device or software that is used to control the volume of an audio signal. Gating is the use of a gate. Comparable to a compressor, which attenuate signals above a threshold, noise gates attenuate signals that register below the threshold.[1] **However, noise gates attenuate signals by a fixed amount, known as the range. In its most simple form, a noise gate allows a signal to pass through only when it is above a set threshold: the gate is 'open'. If the signal falls below the threshold no signal is allowed to pass (or the signal is substantially attenuated): the gate is 'closed'.[2]** A noise gate is used when the level of the 'signal' is above the level of the 'noise'. The threshold is set above the level of the 'noise' and so when there is no 'signal' the gate is closed. A noise gate does not remove noise from the signal. When the gate is open both the signal and the noise will pass through. Gates typically feature 'attack', 'release', and 'hold' settings and may feature a 'look-ahead' function.&#xA;&#xA;I'm curious to how employing a Noise Gate on a signal is novel per Claim 1 of the 060 Patent:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 13: A method for pitch detection, comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;    Providing one or more power spectrum frequency samples;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;    Selecting a frequency in a frequency band having a largest power spectrum magnitude from the one or more power spectrum frequency samples, the frequency band having an upper frequency limit and a lower frequency &#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.harmonycentral.com/t5/Effects/Crybaby-From-Hell-Vintage-tuner-Danelectro-and-DOD-EQ/td-p/25548609&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/g1w9d.jpg&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_tuner&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6580024&#xA;  [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_gate&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reexamination&#xA;  [7]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/AFPDx.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5589" RevisionGUID="db8fef69-af1a-490d-b93c-08ee4a67bcb9" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="# Non-Cited Prior Art ##&#xA;# [4,608,993][2] #&#xA;## Priority Date: Jul 31, 1984 ##&#xA;&#xA;After looking at this, it is my personal belief that there is a very strong possibility that every claim of the ['060][1] Patent can be invalidated by an attorney. The easiest to invalidate is Claim 13. US Patent [4,608,993][2] is directed to a blood flow measurement device and method. On the face of it, how does a medical device relate to the '060 Patent? The '993 Patent states in the Abstract,&#xA;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The systems employ electronic techniques for providing accurate tracking of portions of the frequency spectra of Doppler shift signals to determine peak and means velocity and acceleration.” &#xA;&#xA;The basic element of the system of the ‘993 patent determines a peak ultrasonic acoustic signal of a power spectra within a band and correlates this to a peak velocity. The system filters out the sound of unwanted sources, such as the heart, and detects the peak volume within a set band. The ['993][3] Patent utilizes frequency detection or in other words pitch detection by initialization a filtering means and determines a peak value of a power spectra found by using a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT).&#xA;&#xA;I am very confident that I can find references that could be used by an attorney to invalidate ALL of the claims of the '060 Patent, not just the independent claims. &#xA;&#xA;To further clarify, Doppler, or Doppler Effect is essentially sound or light waves.&#xA;&#xA;&gt;[Doppler effect][4]&#xA;n.&#xA;A change in the observed frequency of a wave, as of sound or light, occurring when the source and observer are in motion relative to each other, with the frequency increasing when the source and observer approach each other and decreasing when they move apart. The motion of the source causes a real shift in frequency of the wave, while the motion of the observer produces only an apparent shift in frequency. Also called Doppler shift.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8502060?dq=8502060&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4608993&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/US4608993&#xA;  [4]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Doppler+effect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5580" RevisionGUID="ce56b5d2-cf02-4c8e-8e48-3e52e2215082" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Here's a really cool web example of this very topic: http://fivefilters.org/term-extraction/&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&gt; What is Term Extraction?&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Term Extraction from FiveFilters.org is a free software project to help you  extract terms (e.g. for use as tags) through a web service. Given some text it will return a list of terms with (hopefully) the most relevant first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5579" RevisionGUID="021ae2c5-4b00-43ce-8109-2c3489d9cf58" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="# Cited Prior Art - Useful for Reexamination #&#xA;&#xA;# US Patent Application: [US20100212475][1] #&#xA;# [Dr Rob Toulson][2], Priority Date July 13, 2007 ##&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;This patent is being explored and compared here, for the possibility of reexamination.  &#xA;&#xA;&gt; [MPEP 2216][3] says &quot;The legal standard for ordering ex parte reexamination, as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 303(a), requires a substantial new question of patentability. The substantial new question of patentability may be based on art previously considered by the Office if the reference is presented in a new light or a different way that escaped review during earlier examination.&quot; &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Since there is **substantial new question of patentability** already outlined on this site, this is a breakdown of Dr Rob Toulson's work.  [Toulson states that he abandoned the patent][4] due to too much prior art.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;## [US20100212475][5] (2007) Abstract ##&#xA;&#xA;&gt;A device for tuning a percussion instrument or training a voice has a processor which is adapted to receive an electronic signal corresponding to an acoustic impulse produced by the percussion instrument or voice. The processor is further adapted to analyse the signal to generate one or more characteristics of the signal. The device also has a display connected to the processor which displays the generated characteristics. The one or more characteristics include any one or any combination of a time-domain characteristic of the signal, a plurality of fundamental and/or harmonic frequencies of the signal, and a frequency spectrum of the signal.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;## [us8502060][6] (2011) Abstract ##&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Provided are systems and methods for resonance tuning. A signal is received in response to a resonance of a structure. A frequency or musical note related to an overtone is determined from the signal. The frequency or musical note related to the overtone is selected as a filter mode reference frequency or musical note. A display of frequencies or musical notes from a subsequent signal that deviate from the filter mode reference frequency or musical note by a predetermined threshold is suppressed.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;I find it difficult to distinguish a difference. Toulson states:&#xA;&gt;A device for tuning a percussion instrument or training a voice has a processor which is adapted to receive an electronic signal corresponding to an acoustic impulse produced by the percussion instrument or voice. &#xA;&#xA;And&#xA;&#xA;&gt; The processor is further adapted to analyse the signal to generate one or more characteristics of the signal. &#xA;&#xA;This could also be an over broad way of describing it, yet simple research into Toulson's work which was highly publicized in the audio field, journals, and even live presentations near Boston, MA (where the '060 patentee resides) would clearly indicate that Toulson used Peak Selection, Bandpass Filtering, and more exactly as later patented, produced, sold, and asserted on one app.  Toulson is also the creator of [iDrumTune app][7] which has been out since 4/20/2012. A simple look at the '060 revision dates and you'll see that even his idea was later covered in this patent by the methods.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;![Percussionalyzer - Software Demonstrated worldwide, US and near Boston, MA][8]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Dr Rob Toulson wrote a blog post on his thoughts in [Nov, 2013][9]. A few quotes:&#xA;&#xA;# [From Quantitative Drum Tuning Blog Post - Nov, 2013][10] #&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Wow - the world of drum tuning has changed very rapidly this year, but for me it's been a long time coming. Back in 2005 I started a research project to analyse drums with the intention of scientifically quantifying what was in and out of tune. To do this I wrote a piece of software which I called Percussionizer and started to demonstrate this software internationally in 2008. Percussionizer could do many novel and advanced things for analysing and tuning drums - it could record and display a drum hit and tell you the fundamental and most prominent overtone frequencies. It would tell you which musical pitch the drums were tuned to. It allowed you to set a target frequency which would bandpass filter a window around that target, removing noise and allowing the user to home in on their preferred sound. It had a mode for equalising or clearing the drumhead, which allowed you to take a number of bandpass filtered readings from around the edge of the drum and showed you the results.&#xA;&#xA;He later states in this blog post:&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&gt; I first demonstrated Percussionizer internationally at The Art of Record Production conference in Lowell (near Boston, Massachusetts) in 2008 and my article was published subsequently in their Journal in 2009 - &quot;The perception and importance of drum tuning in live performance and music production&quot;. In 2009 I then showcased the Percussionizer software at the world's largest Audio Engineering Society Conference in New York. Here I gave a 90 minute tutorial to a huge audience of people interested in drum tuning and percussion acoustics (see here). During the tutorial I discussed the importance of drum tuning, described the fundamental vibration science and demonstrated the Percussionizer software in its entirety. It was a fantastic event and the audience were excited to see my novel approach to tuning and analysis. This tutorial was audio recorded and can be purchased from the AES website here. I also published my tutorial slides on my own website here. At the end of the tutorial I explained that my next step was to develop an iPhone app, which would bring this software to a mass marketplace. More recently I've presented my drum and drum tuning research in the UK in 2010 &quot;Fine tuning percussion – a new educational approach&quot; and in the highest regarded acoustics journal in the world, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America &quot;Analysis and manipulation of the modal ratios of cylindrical drums&quot;. A number of my publications have been in collaboration with Dr Phill Richardson, of Cambridge University, who's PhD I supervised in exactly this field of quantitative drum tuning - he's an international expert in all this too!&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Prior to demonstrating my software I applied for a worldwide patent on the new drum tuning approach - method, software and apparatus. The patent was first applied for in 2007 and went fully public in 2010. Here, you can read my patent - Tuning or Training Device - which covers all the aspects of the Percussionizer software and hardware design. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Toulson released his iDrumTune App on 4/20/2012  pre-dating the iDrumTech App (2/8/2013) and pre-dating the revisions of the '060 patent on 2/15/2013.&#xA;&#xA;![iDrumTune App - First Released 04/20/2012][11]&#xA;&#xA;## How Was This Prior Art Allowed? ##&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US20100212475&#xA;  [2]: http://www.quantitativedrumtuning.blogspot.co.uk/&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2216.html&#xA;  [4]: http://www.quantitativedrumtuning.blogspot.co.uk/&#xA;  [5]: http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US20100212475&#xA;  [6]: http://www.google.com/patents/us8502060&#xA;  [7]: http://idrumtune.com&#xA;  [8]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/mkhWc.jpg&#xA;  [9]: http://www.quantitativedrumtuning.blogspot.co.uk/&#xA;  [10]: http://www.quantitativedrumtuning.blogspot.co.uk/&#xA;  [11]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/bUYd8.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5537" RevisionGUID="f30f260a-3bfa-4183-8e8e-35a9c2463b74" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="In 2010 an iPhone app launched that I think might be prior art.&#xA;&#xA;http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/02/future-checkin/&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Future Checkin is an app that **allows you to check-in to your favorite Foursquare venues automatically when you're near them**. You don't have to do a thing besides simply have your phone on you and this app will check you in while running in the background with iOS 4.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Here's how it works: you sign in to the app with your Foursquare account, and it shows you a list of Foursquare venues nearby. Or you can search for your favorite venues. From this list, you choose the ones to mark as “Favorites.” You can also scan your recent check-in history and select venues from here to add to your Favorites. This Favorites list is key - these are the venues **you will be automatically checked-in to when you get close enough to them (within 300 meters)**.&#xA;&#xA;Item-by-item:&#xA;&gt; Receiving visit record information and unique identifier of a consumer from the consumer's mobile device;&#xA;&#xA;The app sends the checkin along with user id and credentials to the server&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Retrieving consumer profile associated with the unique identifier from a server&#xA;&#xA;The app retrieves the user details from the server (probably including checkin history).&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Updating the retrieved consumer profile based on the received visit record information; and&#xA;&gt; Storing the updated consumer profile.&#xA;&#xA;The app auto-posts the checkin to the server and I think also stores checkin history on the device.&#xA;&#xA;This app is no longer offered in the app store but there are numerous date-stamped reviews and even videos of it online: https://www.google.com/?q=future+checkin&#xA;&#xA;I feel like foursquqre itself might qualify as prior art but since that didn't come up yet I assume it doesn't..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5448" RevisionGUID="50d32db6-8558-4171-bff0-b37481ace872" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Most of the applications you are referring to are &quot;PPH&quot;, Patent Prosecution Highway, cases. There are multiple ways to &quot;get on the highway&quot; but *not* every country lets an application get on the PPH based on positive action from any other country. The US has PPH in place with many countries. The idea is &quot;work sharing&quot; between patent offices but to assure quality by doing everything over again but from a better starting place. The statistics the USPTO keeps shows PPH applications &#xA;have fewer office actions and a much higher allowance rate. However they claim that quality does not suffer because they do an independent search, on top of what has already been done. See two slides from a 2012 USPTO presentation:&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;For the PCT PPH the allowance rate is about double the average allowance rate and the average number of actions also drops. It takes one action to say &quot;yes&quot; so 1.6 actions means only .6 hear an initial no.&#xA;On the other hand the next slide shows that the US examiners are doing something.&#xA;&#xA;A huge point is that this is not just for foreign applicants. If a US applicant files in the US and a PCT, they may get a positive prelim examination report from the PCT while the US case is still in the queue. They can petition the US to accelerate the corresponding US application under PPH.&#xA;&#xA;I have had two applications that had all claims allowed right out of the box -it is a shock. They included a PPH case and a &quot;regular&quot; case. In both instances I was concerned, wondering if I had received a thorough examination and also wondering if I had left something on the table.&#xA;&#xA;Regarding reexamination - reexamination proceedings are all done by a separate group from the initial examiner.&#xA;&#xA;I recommend applicants take yes for an answer and put the patent in their pocket - and seriously consider filing a continuation application that is not accelerated as a safeguard.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/39gm7.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6325" RevisionGUID="c828bcc3-80b0-400c-b9cc-fcb1ebab4bb5" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="In the following reference;&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Crocker, P., &amp; Walters, M. (2011). Enable location-aware event&#xA;&gt; processing with WebSphere business events. IBM Business Process&#xA;&gt; Management Journal, January 20, 2011 (Issue 3.1), Retrieved from&#xA;&gt; http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/websphere/bpmjournal/1101_crocker/1101_crocker.html&#xA;&#xA;Example 3 is very similar to the claim; Transaction history is used to identify previous purchases at a current retail location (supplied by the mobile device) and an offer is made via the mobile device.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; The scenario is triggered by a person moving near a retail&#xA;&gt; location--in this example, a coffee shop. The system identifies that&#xA;&gt; the person has made previous purchase at this location and, therefore,&#xA;&gt; has in the past been interested in what they have to sell, such as&#xA;&gt; coffee. If records show that they haven’t made any purchases in the&#xA;&gt; past month then they are issued an offer to encourage them to return&#xA;&gt; to the store. &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; **Figure 3. Location-based marketing scenario**&#xA;&#xA;![Figure 3. Location-based marketing scenario][1]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/zkvT6.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6328" RevisionGUID="8133d4e1-c8d2-4c43-8242-61917d7054e6" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON streaming media through a session initiation protocol** - This application from [Intellectual Ventures][1] seeks to patent the idea of...Sending a first session initiation protocol (SIP) message from a first device to a second device, receiving a second SIP message from the second device at the first device, sending a third SIP message from the first device to the second device, and receiving the requested media stream from the second device at the first device.! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xA;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/30/2002** that discusses:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; - Streaming media based on streaming parameters&#xA;&#xA;If so, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question. We welcome multiple answers from the same individual.&#xA;&#xA;**EXTRA CREDIT** - The streaming parameters may include range, scale, speed, **a length of the requested media stream**, etc.&#xA;&#xA;**TITLE: Session initiation Protocol for media streaming**&#xA;&#xA;**Summary**:  [Translated from Legalese into English] Sending a **first session initiation protocol (SIP) message** from a **first device** to a **second device**, a **first header field** of the **first SIP message** includes a **first indicator** indicating a request for a **media stream** and a source of the requested **media stream**, receiving a **second SIP message** from the **second device** at the **first device**, a **second header field** of the **second SIP message** includes a **second indicator** indicating acceptance of the request for the **media stream**, sending a **third SIP message** from the **first device** to the **second device**, a **third header field** of the **third SIP message** includes a **third indicator** indicating that the **second device** initiate streaming of the requested **media stream**, and receiving the requested **media stream** from the **second device** at the **first device**.&#xA;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20140059238 A1][2]&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 14/069,817&#xA;- **Assignee**: Intellectual Ventures&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/30/2002&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO:** Open through 8/26/2014&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][3]&#xA;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 1. sending a first session invitation protocol (SIP) message from a first device to a second device, wherein a first header field of the first SIP message includes a first indicator indicating a request for a media stream and a source of the requested media stream;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 2. receiving a second SIP message from the second device at the first device, wherein a second header field of the second SIP message includes a second indicator indicating acceptance of the request for the media stream;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 3. sending a third SIP message from the first device to the second device, wherein a third header field of the third SIP message includes a third indicator indicating that the second device initiate streaming of the requested media stream; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 4. receiving the requested media stream from the second device at the first device.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;In English this means:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 1a. Sending a first session initiation protocol (SIP) message from a first device to a second device,&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 1b. A first header field of the first SIP message includes a first indicator indicating a request for a media stream and a source of the requested media stream;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 2a. Receiving a second SIP message from the second device at the first device, &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 2b. A second header field of the second SIP message includes a second indicator indicating acceptance of the request for the media stream;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 3a. Sending a third SIP message from the first device to the second device, &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 3b. A third header field of the third SIP message includes a third indicator indicating that the second device initiate streaming of the requested media stream; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 4. Receiving the requested media stream from the second device at the first device.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 12/30/2002&#xA;&#xA;You're probably aware of ten pieces of art that meet this criteria already... separately, the applicant is claiming Receiving a third SIP message at the first device from the second device, wherein the third SIP message includes streaming parameters for the requested media stream&#xA;&#xA;----------&#xA;**&quot;Streaming Media through a session initiation protocol messages&quot; from the Applicant**&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xA;&#xA;----------&#xA;&#xA;*What is good prior art? Please see our [FAQ][5].*&#xA;&#xA;*Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art][6] on other questionable US Patent Applications.*&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;----------&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.intellectualventures.com/&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140059238&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20140059238#c=0&amp;d1=12%2F30%2F2002&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/lFNge.png&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art&#xA;  [6]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request+pre-grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9847" RevisionGUID="485f2565-27e3-46b9-89b0-ade69d0cf442" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="[&quot;Locale&quot; by Two Forty Four AM][1] is a software that allows the user to set up actions in response to events, where one of the built in &quot;event plugins&quot; is GPS location (also available is a cell-tower location). &#xA;&#xA;Event handlers can include a lot of things, for example:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; ...automatically enable your lockpattern. For example, disable your unlock pattern at home... [November 15, 2011][2]&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; ...enable and disable the lock pattern... [January 16, 2011][3] ([also here][4])&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; ... Home (Location): Wifi on, Ringer volume 100%, Password lockscreen off... [April 25, 2011][5]&#xA;&#xA;[&quot;Tasker&quot;][6] is another such application, which has this capability built in, as described in the article &quot;[Disable Keyguard When At Home][7]&quot; (January 14, 2012). The Task change log describes &quot;action Keyguard Pattern&quot; as early as [11/05/2010 (v0.26b)][8]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.twofortyfouram.com/&#xA;  [2]: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.willemstoker.ScreenLocker&amp;hl=en&#xA;  [3]: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.jmcountryman.localelockscreen&amp;hl=en&#xA;  [4]: http://www.jmcountryman.com/projects/locale-lockscreen-plugin/&#xA;  [5]: http://noswap.com/blog/locale&#xA;  [6]: http://tasker.dinglisch.net/&#xA;  [7]: http://tasker.wikidot.com/disable-keyguard-when-at-home&#xA;  [8]: http://tasker.dinglisch.net/changes/prereleasechanges.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9902" RevisionGUID="76a14eac-6682-4bc9-89d2-70e59ff3877a" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="This appears very similar in concept to a display in a windowless craft, superimposing various instrumentation over top of a video of the outside.&#xA;&#xA;It is also similar to a heads-up display (HUD) whereby instrumentation is optically superimposed onto a real view, via partial reflection. The reflected instrumentation itself may be produced by an electronic display, but not necessarily so; it could be mechanical instrumentation that glows via fluorescence, or through some form of lighting.&#xA;&#xA;**The basic concept here is to merge two views together so that a human operator can efficiently divide his or her attention between two information streams without head or eye movement, resulting in increased safety.**&#xA;&#xA;The idea for applying this to texting and walking may be neat, but it is not an invention; it is an application of an existing idea.&#xA;&#xA;If heads-up displays constitute prior art for text-and-walk applications, then it is decades old prior art.&#xA;&#xA;Indeed, I call to your attention [US1871877](http://www.google.com/patents/US1871877) from **1929**: *&quot;Apparatus for correlating spaced points of observation&quot;*.&#xA;&#xA;Excerpts:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; &quot;... This invention relates to an apparatus for correlating spaced and separate points of observation utilized in the control of a moving object, to the end that such control may be made more eflicient with a diminution in fatigue in the eye of the observer. &quot;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; &quot;... Accordingly, the present invention provides means for projecting the index or symbol appearing in the secondary control field into the normal control field where it may be readily observed at all times.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13054" RevisionGUID="f5187be8-36e2-45e6-9daa-2dcd736d395f" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="## [US20030173072A1](http://google.com/patents/US20030173072A1) (application)&#xA;&#xA;* **Title:** Forming openings in a hydrocarbon containing formation using magnetic tracking&#xA;* **Publication Date:** Sep 18, 2003&#xA;* **Claims:** 8,958" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13023" RevisionGUID="a43592af-5604-44e5-aa55-fe28271231b9" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="In this mobile payment patent: http://www.google.com/patents/US8639619, the last 2 steps of claim 1 are:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; providing the token and the payment amount to the payment-processing entity, via the communication module, to cause completion of a transaction between the user and the merchant,&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; wherein providing the code or token alone does not enable completion of the transaction.&#xA;&#xA;Why does the first step say &quot;providing the token...to cause completion of a transaction&quot; and the second step say &quot;providing the code or token alone does not enable completion of the transaction&quot;?&#xA;&#xA;Having trouble understanding why the last part of claim 1 is there at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12914" RevisionGUID="cb549229-8e07-43aa-9c84-02c74dbf1376" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="&gt; I want to be reassured that the patent will be used in &quot;good faith&quot; (they won't become a patent troll) or they won't sue competition just because they want to create a monopoly in the market.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Is what I'm looking for reasonable?&#xA;&#xA;Not really.&#xA;&#xA;First of all, use of a patent in &quot;good faith&quot; is an extremely subjective guideline. How will &quot;good faith&quot; be determined? Or are you asking for veto rights whenever the company intends to enforce the patent?&#xA;&#xA;Secondly, a patent holder is *supposed* to be able to maintain a monopoly (of limited scope and duration) as a reward for innovating. Part of the negotiation process of getting an infringer to pay a reasonable royalty, without going to court over it, is threatening to obtain an injunction in court. If an infringer knows the a patent holder won't ask for more than a reasonable royalty in court anyways, the infringer might be much more inclined to spin things out with a costly court case.&#xA;&#xA;Essentially, you're trying to referee a boxing match with the mantra &quot;no punching&quot;. That'll work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12782" RevisionGUID="6dff8da5-2454-49c4-aab7-9e14fd7e4163" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="&gt; I have written software 10 years ago [...]&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; It wasnt patented, but is there any retrospective claim I can make?&#xA;&#xA;Sorry, but, no, there is no legal claim you can make (at least under U.S. patent law). Only a patent can exclude others from making and using the invention. And you can only file for a patent within one year of the first public disclosure of the invention.&#xA;&#xA;If they stole your actual code (not just the concept), you may have some recourse under copyright law, but that doesn't sound like the situation you are in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60723" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12773" RevisionGUID="4a5d4324-c4c3-4f4b-978e-3762deeb312a" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="&gt; I used this patent as a reference in my thesis report but now it is having different content.&#xA;&#xA;Unlikely. Maybe you didn't scroll down enough? It says, for example:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Assuming that the life line has a 170-pixel length and a 36° slope, the head line has a 150-pixel length and a 1.820° slope, and the heart line has a 160-pixel length, the control section 110 obtains such data at step 1300 and proceeds to display the following results of palm reading on the display section 160:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; [Health] bla bla bla&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; [Intellect] bla bla bla&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; [Character] bla bla bla&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; [Love] bla bla bla&#xA;&#xA;Er, good luck with your report ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12718" RevisionGUID="d590dd9c-68b9-467b-ab63-f312770cb573" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="In reference to the patent: [US5824100][1]&#xA;What is the expiration date for this patent?  Thank you.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US5824100" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60725" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12569" RevisionGUID="877c8e6f-d5c1-47f5-a39f-d7aa6e7ca946" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="In reference to the patent application: [US20080195499](http://www.google.com/patents/US20080195499)&#xA;&#xA;We found a patent that seems to cover sending and receiving funds via Bitcoin.&#xA;&#xA;I'm curious of how this might affect Bitcoin and existing companies that use it. Namely,&#xA;&#xA;* Is this patent directly related to Bitcoin?&#xA;* And if not, could Bitcoin qualify as prior art to this? I know Satoshi published his code in 2008 and this application was filed in 2005.&#xA;&#xA;I'd also like to know, if not to either of those, whether the approval of this application could lead to existing companies having to change their ways.&#xA;&#xA;The abstract reads,&#xA;&#xA;&gt;A system for peer-to-peer commerce includes electronic wallets 14 for storing electronic token files 12. The electronic tokens can be passed from wallet to wallet without oversight of a third party. At any time, the owner of a token can verify the validity of a token for a fee, but such verification is not needed to conduct commerce. The electronic tokens include a field which can be used to restrict tokens to a specific purpose or to prevent use on specific goods and services.&#xA;&#xA;And the first claim,&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A method of performing commerce over a network comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; at a first processing device: &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;receiving electronic token files having a specified value at a first processing device;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;sending an appropriate set of electronic token files over the network to a second processing device in return for a desired good or service;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; at a second processing device:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;receiving the set of electronic token files from the first processing device over the network; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;optionally verifying the authenticity of one or more of the set of electronic token files.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12437" RevisionGUID="e98f6bfc-f88f-4872-b1b8-3b244f5b3c81" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Such cloud based activities can be an act of infringement under&#xA;&#xA;**35 U.S. Code § 271 - Infringement of patent**&#xA;&#xA;&gt; (g) Whoever without authority **imports into the United States** or offers&#xA;&gt; to sell, sells, or uses within the United States a product **which is&#xA;&gt; made by a process patented in the United States** shall be liable as an&#xA;&gt; infringer, if the importation, offer to sell, sale, or use of the&#xA;&gt; product occurs during the term of such process patent. In an action&#xA;&gt; for infringement of a process patent, no remedy may be granted for&#xA;&gt; infringement on account of the noncommercial use or retail sale of a&#xA;&gt; product unless there is no adequate remedy under this title for&#xA;&gt; infringement on account of the importation or other use, offer to&#xA;&gt; sell, or sale of that product. A product which is made by a patented&#xA;&gt; process will, for purposes of this title, not be considered to be so&#xA;&gt; made after— &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(1) it is materially changed by subsequent processes; or&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; (2) it becomes a trivial and nonessential component of another&#xA;&gt; product." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12424" RevisionGUID="df1e2731-0fcc-44d6-92b8-4ac809b419e5" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="According European Patent convention expiry of European patent if it is not withdrawn, abandoned, revoked or lapsed is 20 year from filing date; it can be extended by contracting state;&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Article 63[ 53 ] Term of the European patent&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; Art. 2&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; (1) The term of the European patent shall be **20 years from the date of&#xA;&gt; filing of the application.**  &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(2) Nothing in the preceding paragraph&#xA;&gt; shall limit the right of a Contracting State to extend the term of a&#xA;&gt; European patent, or to grant corresponding protection which follows&#xA;&gt; immediately on expiry of the term of the patent, under the same&#xA;&gt; conditions as those applying to national patents:&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;European patent status can be quickly seen at EPO register. through direct link given on Google Patents (see below image); or by using search page [European Patent Register][1]&#xA;&#xA;Form example query application was withdrawn hence not active.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://register.epo.org/regviewer&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Lk8Tr.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12423" RevisionGUID="4d25ba55-fe7c-48f2-88cc-30623950a308" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="This is the patent that Planet Labs, Inc. holds for a constellation of satellites:&#xA;&#xA;[US20140027576][1]&#xA;&#xA;It only contains a single independent claim:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A system for use in spatial imaging of planetary bodies through a&#xA;&gt; series of steps comprising;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; a) implementation into space a network of,&#xA;&gt; ranging from a singular to plural, constellation of orbital elements;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; b) enabling said constellation of orbital elements, through an&#xA;&gt; algorithmic calculated means, to jointly achieve a desired revisit&#xA;&gt; rate and spatial coverage;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; c) controlling said constellation through a&#xA;&gt; remote transmission means;&#xA;&#xA;The question is, if that claim doesn't cover any constellation of satellites that are imaging the earth? Would that mean, that the patent covers nothing but prior art?&#xA;&#xA;The patent even states:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; The largest Earth-observation satellite constellation as of July 2013&#xA;&gt; contained 6 satellites (Disaster Monitoring Constellation).&#xA;&#xA; - These satellites constitute a constellation, that images the eart&#xA; - They are certainly controlled by some algorithm&#xA; - They may revisit spots of the earths surface&#xA;&#xA;Does this mean, that this constellation may also be covered by the patent?&#xA;&#xA;All of the Disaster Monitoring Constellation satellites were launched prior to the patent date of the aforementioned patent.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20140027576" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12409" RevisionGUID="34df499a-29ae-4c28-9b57-022f7bbafa5d" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="As a self-appointed Unix guru ;-)  and in accordance with StackExchange's roots, I ended up using command-line tools like &quot;pdftk&quot; and &quot;perl&quot; to solve this problem.&#xA;&#xA;On an Apple Mac:&#xA;&#xA; 1. install &quot;[pdftk][1]&quot; command-line tool (directly or via [MacPorts][2])&#xA; 2. &lt;strike&gt;install perl&lt;/strike&gt;&#xA; 3. copy this script into a text file and run it with a path to the Image File Wrapper PDF as argument.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;#  &#xA;    #!/usr/bin/perl&#xA;    # Splits a PDF file according to its bookmarks (aka. table of contents) into&#xA;    # several smaller files. Uses &quot;pdftk&quot;.&#xA;    # V1.0&#xA;    # Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted.&#xA;    # This software is provided &quot;as is&quot; and any express or implied warranties, including, &#xA;    # but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a &#xA;    # particular purpose are disclaimed. In no event shall the copyright holder or &#xA;    # contributors be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, exemplary, or&#xA;    # consequential damages arising in any way out of the use of this software.&#xA;    &#xA;    use strict;&#xA;    use warnings;&#xA;    $0 =~ s(^.*/)();&#xA;    &#xA;    sub usage {&#xA;      print &quot;usage: $0 [-n] &lt;filewrapper.pdf&gt;\n&quot;;&#xA;      print &quot;  -n    dry run\n&quot;;&#xA;      exit(0);&#xA;    }&#xA;    &#xA;    sub get_bookmarks { # ($filename, \%bookmarks, \$number_of_pages)&#xA;      my $filename = shift;&#xA;      my $ref_bookmarks = shift;&#xA;      my $ref_max = shift;&#xA;    &#xA;      open(PIPE, &quot;-|&quot;, &quot;pdftk&quot;, $filename, &quot;dump_data&quot;) || return 1;&#xA;      chomp(my @lines = &lt;PIPE&gt;);&#xA;      close(PIPE);&#xA;      return 2 if ($?);&#xA;      &#xA;      #NumberOfPages: 163&#xA;      #BookmarkBegin&#xA;      #BookmarkTitle: 2012-10-09 Non-Final Rejection&#xA;      #BookmarkLevel: 1&#xA;      #BookmarkPageNumber: 1&#xA;      #BookmarkBegin&#xA;      #BookmarkTitle: 2012-10-09 List of references cited by examiner&#xA;      #BookmarkLevel: 1&#xA;      #BookmarkPageNumber: 20&#xA;      &#xA;      %$ref_bookmarks = ();&#xA;      my $page = &quot;&quot;;&#xA;      my $title = &quot;&quot;;&#xA;      $$ref_max = 0;&#xA;      foreach my $line (@lines) {&#xA;        my @fields = split(/:\s+/, $line, 2);&#xA;        if ($fields[0] eq &quot;BookmarkBegin&quot;) {&#xA;          $page = $title = &quot;&quot;;&#xA;        } elsif ($fields[0] eq &quot;BookmarkTitle&quot;) {&#xA;          $title = $fields[1];&#xA;        } elsif ($fields[0] eq &quot;BookmarkPageNumber&quot;) {&#xA;          $page = $fields[1];&#xA;        } elsif ($fields[0] eq &quot;NumberOfPages&quot;) {&#xA;          $$ref_max = $fields[1];&#xA;        }&#xA;        if ($page ne &quot;&quot; &amp;&amp; $page &gt; 0 &amp;&amp; $title ne &quot;&quot;) {&#xA;          $$ref_bookmarks{ $page } = $title;&#xA;          $page = $title = &quot;&quot;;&#xA;        }&#xA;      }&#xA;    }&#xA;    &#xA;    my $dry_run = 0;&#xA;    if ($ARGV[0] eq &quot;-n&quot;) {&#xA;      $dry_run = 1;&#xA;      shift(@ARGV);&#xA;    }&#xA;    &#xA;    if (@ARGV != 1) {&#xA;      print &quot;Error: check commandline!\n&quot;;&#xA;      usage();&#xA;    }&#xA;    &#xA;    my $filename = $ARGV[0];&#xA;    if (! -r $filename) {&#xA;      die (&quot;Error: Could not open '$filename'.\n&quot;);&#xA;    }&#xA;    &#xA;    my %bookmarks = ();&#xA;    my $max = 0;&#xA;    &#xA;    my $error = get_bookmarks($filename, \%bookmarks, \$max);&#xA;    if ($error) {&#xA;      die(&quot;Error: Could not run 'pdftk'.\n&quot;) if ($error == 1);&#xA;      die(&quot;Error: pdftk reported an error. Aborting.\n&quot;);&#xA;    }&#xA;    &#xA;    print &quot;Processing &quot; . $max . &quot; pages...\n&quot;;&#xA;    &#xA;    my @pages_sorted = sort {$b &lt;=&gt; $a} keys %bookmarks; # reverse sort&#xA;    &#xA;    if (@pages_sorted == 0) {&#xA;      print &quot;No table of contents found.\n&quot;;&#xA;      exit(0);&#xA;    }&#xA;    &#xA;    my $begin = &quot;&quot;;&#xA;    my $end = &quot;end&quot;;&#xA;    $error = 0;&#xA;    my @new_files = ();&#xA;    for (my $i = 0; $i &lt; @pages_sorted; $i++) {&#xA;      $begin = $pages_sorted[$i];&#xA;      my($date, $new_filename) = split (/\s+/, $bookmarks{ $begin }, 2);&#xA;      # sanitize filename&#xA;      # add characters which your filesystem dislikes into [ ] brackets&#xA;      $new_filename =~ s([/;\\])(_)g;&#xA;      $new_filename =  $date . &quot; &quot; . sprintf(&quot;%03d&quot;, $i + 1) . &quot; &quot; . $new_filename . &quot;.pdf&quot;;&#xA;      push(@new_files, $new_filename);&#xA;      my @cmd = ( &quot;pdftk&quot;, $filename, &quot;cat&quot;, $begin . &quot;-&quot; . $end, &quot;output&quot;, $new_filename );&#xA;      $end = $begin - 1;&#xA;      if ($dry_run) {&#xA;        print join(&quot; &quot;, @cmd) . &quot;\n&quot;;&#xA;      } else {&#xA;        print $bookmarks{ $begin } . &quot;\n&quot;;&#xA;        system @cmd;&#xA;        if ($?) {&#xA;          $error++;&#xA;        } else {&#xA;        }&#xA;      }&#xA;    }&#xA;    &#xA;    if ($error) {&#xA;      die(&quot;Errors occurred during processing of $error file(s).\n&quot;);&#xA;    } elsif (! $dry_run) {&#xA;      print &quot;Checking for completeness...&quot;;&#xA;      my $page_count = 0;&#xA;      foreach my $pdf (@new_files) {&#xA;        my $c = 0;&#xA;        get_bookmarks($pdf, {} , \$c );&#xA;        $page_count += $c;&#xA;      }&#xA;      if ($page_count == $max) {&#xA;        print &quot;No errors.\nCreated &quot; . @pages_sorted . &quot; PDF files containing a total of $page_count pages.\n&quot;;&#xA;      } else {&#xA;        print &quot;\n&quot;;&#xA;        print &quot;Error: All documents have been extracted but the total number of pages\n&quot;;&#xA;        print &quot;       in all extracted documents is $page_count and does not match the number\n&quot;;&#xA;        print &quot;       of $max pages in the source document '$filename'.\n&quot;;&#xA;      }&#xA;    }&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.pdflabs.com/tools/pdftk-server/&#xA;  [2]: https://www.macports.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12393" RevisionGUID="40fe276d-629f-4f3c-af67-faffe5a52612" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Google OCR sometimes have problems, You are right actual patent has same spelling. Any ways 'Ask Patent' is not direct link to Google. you can use '**Send Feedback**' of Google patents to report this error.&#xA;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xA;&#xA;However To correct inventor name in patent, you can see MPEP 602.01(c)(2)   Correcting or Updating Inventor Name 37 CFR 1.48(f) – Request Filed On or After September 16, 2012 [R-11.2013]&#xA;&#xA;&gt; (f) Correcting or updating the name of an inventor: Any request to&#xA;&gt; **correct or update the name of the inventor** or a joint inventor, or the&#xA;&gt; order of the names of joint inventors, in a nonprovisional application&#xA;&gt; must include: (1) An application data sheet in accordance with §1.76&#xA;&gt; that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name in the desired&#xA;&gt; order; and (2) The processing fee set forth in §1.17(i).&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&gt;................. and allows an applicant to adjust the order of the names of joint inventors (e.g., to control the order of names on a printed patent). 37 CFR 1.48(f) specifically provides that any request to correct or update the name of the inventor or a joint inventor, or the order of the names of joint inventors, in a nonprovisional application must include: (1) an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name in the desired order; and (2) the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i). The request should also identify the desired inventor name change.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;for more information please visit [MPEP][2]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/itDSj.gif&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s602.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5411" RevisionGUID="df68fbe2-fa46-4791-aa67-f2896a323bab" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON run-level encoding for video** - This application from [Cisco][6] seeks to patent work that was previously published as open-source software! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xA;&#xA;I believe there is good prior art for [this patent][3]. Now the applicant is trying to [patent the same idea in the US][5]! &#xA;&#xA;[Quantized transform coefficients representing pixel values in a Video][5]&#xA;&#xA;Controversy is explained in full here:&#xA;&#xA;- [Wikipedia Article][1]&#xA;&#xA;- [x264.nl][2]&#xA;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/30/2008** that discusses: Run-level coders for video&#xA;&#xA;&gt; [From x264.nl][2]: A run-level coder is a function that takes an array of values and calculates the distances between nonzero values (runs) in the array, as well as the indices of the nonzero values (levels). This is necessary for practically any video format that makes use of run-level compression (H.264, MPEG-2, Theora, etc). Here's one of x264's unoptimized run-level coders.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; This function is run often enough that high performance is very important. Naively, there is no obvious way to make use of SIMD in such an algorithm, so some trickery has to be used to write a fast assembly function for it. Near the end of 2008, I added optimized assembly implementations of two run-length coders (for block decimation and CAVLC) to x264.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; So why the deja vu? Because this patent application was an exact, step-by-step description of the algorithm I came up with for decimate_score (and later coeff_level_run) in x264 in 2008!&#xA;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20100166076 A1][5]&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/649,764&#xA;- **Assignee**: Tandberg Telecom (now Cisco)&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/30/2008&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][4]&#xA;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A method for calculating run and level representations of quantized transform coefficients representing pixel values included in a block of a video picture, the method comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 1. Packing, at a video processing apparatus, each quantized transform coefficients in a value interval [Max, Min] by setting all quantized transform coefficients greater than Max equal to Max, and all quantized transform coefficients less than Min equal to Min;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 2. Reordering, at the video processing apparatus, the quantized transform coefficients according to a predefined order depending on respective positions in the block resulting in an array C of reordered quantized transform coefficients;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 3. Masking, at the video processing apparatus, C by generating an array M containing ones in positions corresponding to positions of C having non-zero values, and zeros in positions corresponding to positions of C having zero values;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generating, at the video processing apparatus, for each position containing a one in M, a run and a level representation by setting the level value equal to an occurring value in a corresponding position of C; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 5. Setting, at the video processing apparatus, for each position containing a one in M, the run value equal to the number of proceeding positions relative to a current position in M since a previous occurrence of one in M.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X264#Tandberg_controversy&#xA;[2]: http://x264.nl/developers/Dark_Shikari/tandberg.html&#xA;[3]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2010077148A1&#xA;[4]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20100166076&#xA;[5]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20100166076&#xA;[6]: http://www.cisco.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12310" RevisionGUID="2e2b93c7-9093-4f07-8713-40603ccceb33" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2013115797A1][1]&#xA;&#xA;This patent from Hewlett-Packard relates to automatically running a set of tests against a &quot;plurality of code changes&quot; to determine &quot;the failed code change&quot; by:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; &quot;removing at least one of the plurality of code changes from the subset each time the subset fails the set of tests&quot;&#xA;&#xA;The &quot;management tool&quot; claim reads like the use of a Continuous Integration tool, e.g. CruiseControl available since 2001.&#xA;&#xA;The &quot;decision engine&quot; claim reads like the use of **`git bisect run`**, available since at least 2007, possibly earlier.&#xA;&#xA;The earliest article I can find on the web about the use of `git-bisect`'s `run` feature is &quot;[An introduction to the git bisect feature][2]&quot; by [Nicolas Trangez][3], published in August 2007, an excerpt of which is:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; No[w] the magic can start:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; $ git-bisect run ./testcase.sh&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; running ./testcase.sh&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; d6514e8d9fe55827fe78d650548d948a4647fc50 is first bad commit&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; bisect run success&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Exactly, like it should, it figured out commit 16 [...] broke our application.&#xA;&#xA;In 2009, Atlassian's Justus Pendleton [blogged about][4] using `git bisect run`.&#xA;&#xA;Since [early 2010][5] Mozilla have provided the open source [mozregression][6] tool, used as a regression range finder for their nightly builds.&#xA;&#xA;Does anyone have examples of `git bisect run` (or similar) used in an automated manner, perhaps as part of a continuous integration/delivery tool, prior to 2012?&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013115797A1&#xA;  [2]: http://blog.eikke.com/index.php/ikke/2007/08/09/an_introduction_to_the_git_bisect_featur.html&#xA;  [3]: https://stackoverflow.com/users/1285443/nicolas-trangez&#xA;  [4]: http://blogs.atlassian.com/2009/01/git_bisect/&#xA;  [5]: https://github.com/mozilla/mozregression/commit/d50509b36cb6ba45d7c54917f528bdf482d2c5e6&#xA;  [6]: http://mozilla.github.io/mozregression/&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12272" RevisionGUID="610c3603-ac64-49e6-b227-617f5b048f29" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Google has nothing to do with the order of inventor, they host just display and index tools. it displays the exact order as listed in USPTO granted patent. Most likely your attorney/agent has listed name in alphabetical order.&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xA;&#xA;Now to second obvious question you can see MPEP 602.01(c)(2)   Correcting or Updating Inventor Name 37 CFR 1.48(f) – Request Filed On or After September 16, 2012 [R-11.2013]&#xA;&#xA;&gt; (f) Correcting or updating the name of an inventor: Any request to&#xA;&gt; correct or update the name of the inventor or a joint inventor, or the&#xA;&gt; **order of the names of joint inventors**, in a nonprovisional application&#xA;&gt; must include: (1) An application data sheet in accordance with §1.76&#xA;&gt; that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name in the desired&#xA;&gt; order; and (2) The processing fee set forth in §1.17(i).&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&gt;................. and allows an applicant to adjust the order of the names of joint inventors (e.g., to control the order of names on a printed patent). 37 CFR 1.48(f) specifically provides that any request to correct or update the name of the inventor or a joint inventor, or the order of the names of joint inventors, in a nonprovisional application must include: (1) an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name in the desired order; and (2) the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i). The request should also identify the desired inventor name change.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;for more information please visit [MPEP][2]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/j7lep.png&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s602.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12031" RevisionGUID="60ffed51-0093-439f-8e41-72d1f7af58ec" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="This application from Samsung seeks to patent a method for using one type of wireless connection, such as Bluetooth, to setup a second wireless connection such as Wi-Fi Direct.  10 minutes of your time can help narrow this US patent application before it becomes a patent.&#xA;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 2013-Apr-16** that describes:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; - using one wireless protocol to setup a second wireless connection&#xA;&gt; - using Bluetooth to setup a Wi-Fi Direct connection&#xA;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question — one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual.&#xA;&#xA;**Title**: Communication control method and electronic device implementing the same&#xA;&#xA;**Summary**: A method for communicating with an electronic device. The method includes  establishing a communication channel between two devices and sending data through that channel in order to establish a second communication channel. This could include, for example, using Bluetooth to setup a Wi-Fi direct connection for transmitting image data from a smartphone to a tv.&#xA;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20140308898](http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20140308898&amp;OS=20140308898&amp;RS=20140308898) (**NOTE**: Not available on Google Patent as of 2015-Jan-28)&#xA;- **App Number**: 14/254,860&#xA;- **Assignee**: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 2013-Apr-16&#xA;- **Open for Challenge at USPTO**: Open through ~2015-Apr-16. &#xA;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A communication control method comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 1. establishing, at a source device, a preliminary channel via a first communications module;&#xA;&gt; 2. communicating data for establishing a communication channel through the preliminary channel, the communication channel being established via a second communication module; and&#xA;&gt; 3. establishing the communication channel via the second communication channel. &#xA;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 2013-Apr-16.&#xA;&#xA;What is good prior art? Please see the [FAQ](https://patents.stackexchange.com/faq#prior-art).&#xA;&#xA;Want to help? Please vote or comment on submissions below. We welcome you to [post your own request for prior art](https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request) on other questionable US Patent Applications.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Prior art cited by applicants:&#xA;KR 10-2008-0071379&#xA;KR 10-2013-009088" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11925" RevisionGUID="10f75469-b316-4c03-942e-fa35461efd5e" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="The link provided by the OP leads to the *application* (kind code **A2**), not the granted patent. The granted patent (kind code **B1**) is available at:&#xA;&#xA;http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&amp;date=20051207&amp;DB=&amp;&amp;CC=EP&amp;NR=1148681B1&amp;KC=B1&amp;ND=1&amp;locale=en_EP&#xA;&#xA;(Select &quot;6/17 Claims&quot; in the drop-down list next to &quot;Page&quot; near the top.)&#xA;&#xA;and at:&#xA;&#xA;http://www.google.com/patents/EP1148681B1?cl=en&amp;hl=en&#xA;&#xA;The independent claim as granted therefore is:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A method of transferring resource related information from a first mobile wireless communication terminal (1a) to a second mobile wireless communication terminal (1b, 1c), said first and second terminals operating in a wireless communication network (50), wherein at least the first terminal is a client of a server (20) connected to an external network and also to the wireless communication network which includes the first and second terminals, comprising the steps of:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; connecting the first terminal to the external network to contact a resource;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; the first terminal negotiating a communication connection between the first and second terminals; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; subsequently transferring information relating to the resource to the second terminal over the communication connection.&#xA;&#xA;Contrary to popular myths, there is **no general provision in the EPC which &quot;prohibits software patents&quot;**. The granted claim specifies two wireless mobile communication terminals, a wireless communication network, etc., which clearly confer fundamental technical character to the claim. However, the assessment of inventive step is impacted if claim features related to a computer program are present (i.e., in general the hurdle gets higher).&#xA;&#xA;For further reading see:&#xA;&#xA;http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_ii_3_6.htm&#xA;&#xA;and in particular:&#xA;&#xA;http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_vii_5_4.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10865" RevisionGUID="8105e38d-36f3-4e6b-a009-fb5ca9637df4" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="The payment part is described in this MIT article on M-PESA as a way to pay for taxi fares from a mobile phone.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; ... e‐float transfers are often used to pay directly for goods and&#xA;&gt; services, from electricity bills to taxi‐cab fares ...&#xA;&#xA;http://www.mit.edu/~tavneet/M-PESA.pdf&#xA;&#xA;Avego in 2008 released a similar system. It's now called Carma.&#xA;&#xA;http://mashable.com/2008/09/08/avego/&#xA;&#xA;Location, Navigation, Planning a Route, Identifying Persons or Objects, Location Sensitive Billing, and Advertising are covered in this paper from 2006:&#xA;&#xA;http://sourceforge.net/projects/jump-pilot/files/w_other_freegis_documents/articles/lbs_lecturenotes_steinigeretal2006.pdf/download&#xA;&#xA;Pull services, such as ordering a taxi are described in a 2001 paper bt Virrantus et al.:&#xA;&gt;&quot; Pull services deliver information directly requested from the user. ... a further separation can be done into **functional services, like ordering a taxi or an ambulance by just pressing a button on the device**, or information services, like the search for a close Chinese restaurant (Virrantaus et al. 2001). &quot;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Virrantaus, K., Markkula, J., Garmash, A., Terziyan, Y.V., 2001. Developing GIS-Supported LocationBased&#xA;Services. In: Proc. of WGIS’2001 – First International Workshop on Web Geographical Information&#xA;Systems., Kyoto, Japan. , 423–432.&#xA;&#xA;More info on Location Based Services can be found here:&#xA;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Location-based_service" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10558" RevisionGUID="c7311378-ab91-4275-b5a9-7c7a69650405" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="The real standard for obviousness--and anything, really--is in the claims.&#xA;&#xA;The main claim in this patent, claim 1, reads as follows:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;  A method for establishing a credit account comprising: &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;receiving initial information from a consumer sufficient to permit a trusted third party to establish said consumer as a subscriber of said trusted third party's services;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; establishing said consumer as a subscriber of said trusted third party, wherein the number for accessing a communication device of said subscriber is retained on one or more hardware devices by said trusted third party;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; said subscriber requesting a credit account from an account provider;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; said account provider contacting a credit bureau and requesting said subscriber's credit file;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; said credit bureau providing said account provider with said subscriber's credit file containing contact information for said trusted third party and identifying information for said subscriber;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; said account provider requesting authorization from said trusted third party to open said subscriber's account;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; said trusted third party contacting said subscriber on said subscriber's communication device;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; said subscriber providing said trusted third party with confirmation that said subscriber desires said account provider to be provided access to said credit file; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; said trusted third party authorizing said account provider to proceed in opening said account on behalf of said subscriber.&#xA;&#xA;Phew, that was a mouthful. As you can notice, this is a little more specific than its abstract may suggest. It's difficult to know with complete certainty what any *one* patent is meant to represent, but here it sounds like it's a form of two-factor authentication where a user's cell phone (or equivalent) is used to provide security for a user opening a credit account. It sounds like it would be useful for a service like [LifeLock](http://www.lifelock.com/) or a bank interested in avoiding fraudulent accounts being opened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10534" RevisionGUID="13015b09-8984-4896-bdc1-3e1a818205e7" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I am making a website code that will display popup when user tries to leave website. Javascript code is used for that. A solution how to detect mouse leave window was published 5 years ago inside Stackoverflow ([link to solution][1]). The solution doesn't mention to show popup, it is just how to detect user leaving the site.&#xA;&#xA;What worries me is Bounce Exchange company has a patent to display popup when user leaves window.&#xA;&gt;Use action in the form of movement of a tracking device on a webpage, represented by cursor gestures on the webpage, is used to detect it a user intends to leave the webpage. Upon detection of an intent to leave the webpage, an advertisement may be displayed to a use.&#xA;&#xA;[Patent url][2]&#xA;&#xA;Do you think I can use the solution mentioned inside Stackoverflow for displaying popup? The solution also uses cursor gestures to track exit intend. But it doesn't say anything about displaying popup. So that worries me because Bounce Exchange claims to have a patent of using similar solution to display popup.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/923299/how-can-i-detect-when-the-mouse-leaves-the-window&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/patents/US20140222502" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10329" RevisionGUID="cefabd3b-33b7-45bf-b4bb-cdec7a9c7aeb" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Quoting from http://www.bitlaw.com/patent/requirements.html&#xA;&#xA;&gt;If an invention is not exactly the same as prior products or processes (which are referred to as the &quot;prior art&quot;), then it is considered novel. However, in order for an invention to be patentable, it must not only be novel, but it must also be a nonobvious improvement over the prior art. This determination is made by deciding whether the invention sought to be patented would have been obvious &quot;to one of ordinary skill in the art.&quot; In other words, the invention is compared to the prior art and a determination is made whether the differences in the new invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the type of technology used in the invention.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;As can be imagined, the determination of whether a particular change or improvement is &quot;obvious&quot; is one of the most difficult determinations in patent law. In order to make such a determination, an examiner in the patent office will normally review previous patents to find those patents which are closest to the invention in which a patent is sought. If all the features of the invention can be found in a single patent, the examiner will reject the patent as lacking novelty (that is, it is exactly the same as what was previously known and therefore is not new). If no patent contains all of the features, the examiner will attempt to combine two or more prior patents, and attempt to find all of the features in a combination of those prior patents. If the examiner is successful in finding such a combination, the examiner will generally reject the invention as an obvious combination of items known in the prior art. However, there must be some reason to combine the two references, and often a rejection based on such a combination can be overcome.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Some changes to known products which would not normally be patentable are:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - the substitution of one material for another, or&#xA;&gt; - changes in size.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10262" RevisionGUID="c593872c-2497-46bb-a934-c156b8b0a022" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="### The law&#xA;&#xA;This decision was about section 101 of the patent law, which reads:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.&#xA;&#xA;### Interpretation&#xA;&#xA;The courts have read this is excluding completely abstract ideas, such as mathematical formulas:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; The Court has long held that §101, which defines the subject matter eligible for patent protection, contains an implicit exception for ‘ “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.’ ”&#xA;&#xA;The prime example for years has been Einstein's discovery of the equation E=mc&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. Clearly this was new and useful, but even though various processes, machines, compositions of matter (etc.) have *stemmed* from it, it's not any of those in itself.&#xA;&#xA;One final point about interpretation: the courts are required to treat each section of the law as defining unique requirements, so they *can't* (for example) treat §101 as just re-stating the same requirements as §102, 103 and/or 112. The court *can't* just analyze the case based upon §102, 103 and 112. If there's any way to do so at all, they *have* to interpret the law in a way that gives real meaning to §101 (and more generally, to every section of every law they deal with).&#xA;&#xA;### Previous rules/rulings&#xA;&#xA;To deal with the question of whether something should be excluded for this reason, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit *had* devised a &quot;specific machine or transformation of matter&quot; test, that said for something to qualify as patentable, something had to be related to either a specific machine, or to some transformation of matter (e.g., a chemical process to produce a new compound). On that basis, they had ruled that a patent in a previous case was not allowed, because it described only a business method (for hedging in a market) without describing it as being carried out by any particular machine (or involving any transformation of matter).&#xA;&#xA;That case was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the rule the CAFC had formulated was a useful *indicator* of whether something could be patented, but that it could *not* be used as an absolute or final determination. In the end, however, they agreed that the patent in question should not be allowed.&#xA;&#xA;### Current Case&#xA;&#xA;The current case is *somewhat* similar. The patent describes a way of using a third party escrow service (or similar) to facilitate a transaction between businesses. &#xA;&#xA;The CAFC concluded that the patent wasn't valid--but there was a great deal of divergence in the decision. The ruling has (if memory serves--it's been a while since I read it) something like 4 or 5 separate opinions given, and while the majority did agree that the patent should be found invalid, that was nearly the only point on which even that many agreed. Some of the dissenting opinions were that some of the claims should be rejected, and others accepted. Chief Judge Rader opined that all the claims should be accepted (and included a bit of reminiscing about &quot;when in doubt, read the statute&quot;. &#xA;&#xA;Predictably, the case was then appealed to the Supreme Court. They (again) agreed with the decision the CAFC had reached: that the patent should not be allowed.&#xA;&#xA;### Rationale for the Decision&#xA;&#xA;The Supreme Court devised a &quot;framework&quot; within which to determine what should or shouldn't be allowed under §101:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; In applying the §101 exception, this Court must distinguish patents that claim the “ ‘buildin[g] block[s]’ ” of human ingenuity, which are ineligible for patent protection, from those that integrate the building blocks into something more, thereby qualifying for patent protection. [citations elided]&#xA;&#xA;Then they formulated two steps to carry out to make the determination:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Using this framework, the Court must first determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. If so, the Court then asks whether the claim’s elements, considered both individually and “as an ordered combination,” “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. [citation elided]&#xA;&#xA;So, they concluded that in this case, the claim itself was directed to using an escrow to facilitate a transaction, and that about all that was added (and all that directed it to something like a machine, such as the statute cites) was basically: &quot;and do that on a computer.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;So, at least as stated by the SCOTUS, the conclusion was basically that taking something that wasn't patent-eligible otherwise, and saying: &quot;and do that on a computer&quot; shouldn't qualify as making it patent eligible.&#xA;&#xA;### Summary&#xA;&#xA;In the end, I'd say it changes very little at all. The &quot;bright line&quot; rules the CAFC had attempted to formulate had already been been thrown out, leaving a fair amount of uncertainty about what really is or isn't patentable. This decision leaves quite a bit of uncertainty in the area--but it doesn't really seem to make it a whole lot more or less certain than it already had been." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10251" RevisionGUID="be27d72c-fc1b-43b6-96ab-ead6ba0ec49f" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Multiple claims are made in this patent application that could be summarized as follows&#xA;&#xA; 1. Show travel routes between two or more events on a map with a display&#xA; 2. Optimize a schedule based on the most efficient route between two or more events/appointments, displaying the result on map&#xA; 3. Using the start/end time of an event, determine the best route between two or more events/appointments producing a schedule&#xA; 4. Show points of interest on a map, enriched based on their source (for instance, a restaurant shown on the map from Zagat's restaurant guides would be enriched with Zagat's reviews). These points of interest can be added to your schedule and optimized like other events.&#xA;&#xA;None of these things are groundbreaking, and I think there should be plenty of examples of prior art out there to present to the examiner. Prior art needs to be from before Feb 4, 2011.&#xA;&#xA;[Google Patent Page for US20120203457 A1][1]&#xA;&#xA;**Systems and methods for visualizing events together with points of interest on a map and routes there between**&#xA;&#xA; - **Publication number**:  US20120203457 A1&#xA;&#xA; - **Publication type**:    Application&#xA;&#xA; - **Application number**:  US 13/366,964&#xA;&#xA; - **Publication date**:    Aug 9, 2012&#xA;&#xA; - **Filing date**: Feb 6, 2012&#xA;&#xA; - **Priority date**:   Feb 4, 2011&#xA;&#xA; - **Inventors**:   Richard P. CASEY, Sandipsinh G. Ghummad&#xA;&#xA; - **Original Assignee**:   The Casey Group&#xA;&#xA;**ABSTRACT:** &#xA;&#xA;&gt; This disclosure relates to providing systems and methods for&#xA;&gt; visualizing events together with points of interest on a map and&#xA;&gt; routes there between. The disclosure includes a data processing&#xA;&gt; apparatus having a display and a processor, where the processor is&#xA;&gt; configured to run a module stored in memory. The module is configured&#xA;&gt; to obtain event information associated with a plurality of events, to&#xA;&gt; obtain a schedule of the plurality of events, to obtain travel routes&#xA;&gt; between at least two consecutive events of the schedule, and to&#xA;&gt; instruct the display to display the travel routes between the at least&#xA;&gt; two consecutive events of the schedule on a map. The module can be&#xA;&gt; further configured to obtain location information on a plurality of&#xA;&gt; points of interest (POIs), to obtain tag information associated with&#xA;&gt; the plurality of POIs from at least one directory.&#xA;&#xA;**Claim 1**&#xA;&#xA;&gt; a processor, in communication with the one or more interfaces, and&#xA;&gt; configured to run a module stored in memory that is configured to&#xA;&gt; obtain event information associated with a plurality of events,&#xA;&gt; wherein the event information includes a start time for one of the&#xA;&gt; plurality of events, to obtain travel routes between at least two&#xA;&gt; consecutive events, and to instruct the display to display the travel&#xA;&gt; routes between the at least two consecutive events on a map.&#xA;&#xA;**Claim 11**&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A method comprising: receiving event information associated with a&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; plurality of events;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; receiving event information associated with a plurality of events;&#xA;&gt; obtaining a schedule of the plurality of events, wherein the schedule&#xA;&gt; is based on the event information associated with the plurality of&#xA;&gt; events; &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; obtaining travel routes between at least two consecutive&#xA;&gt; events; &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; and displaying the travel routes on a map.&#xA;&#xA;**Claim 15**&#xA;&#xA;&gt; An apparatus comprising: one or more interfaces configured to provide&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; communication with a computing device; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; a processor, in communication with the one or more interfaces, and&#xA;&gt; configured to run a module stored in memory that is configured to&#xA;&gt; receive a schedule request from the computing device, the schedule&#xA;&gt; request including event information associated with a plurality of&#xA;&gt; events, the event information including a start time and an end time&#xA;&gt; for a schedule of the plurality of events, to obtain distance&#xA;&gt; information between at least one pair of the plurality of events, to&#xA;&gt; determine the schedule of the plurality of events based on the&#xA;&gt; distance information, and the start time and the end time for the&#xA;&gt; schedule, and to provide a schedule response to the computing device,&#xA;&gt; the schedule response including the schedule of the plurality of&#xA;&gt; events.&#xA;&#xA;**Claim 21**&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A data processing apparatus comprising: &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; a display; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; a processor configured to run a module stored in memory that is&#xA;&gt; configured to obtain location information of a first point of interest&#xA;&gt; (POI), to obtain tag information associated with the first POI from a&#xA;&gt; directory, to instruct the display to display the first POI on a map,&#xA;&gt; and to instruct the display to display a portion of the tag&#xA;&gt; information associated with the first POI, wherein the portion of the&#xA;&gt; tag information is determined based on the directory.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120203457?dq=casey%20group&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=tCQbVOKQEYqtyASn54CADw&amp;ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10214" RevisionGUID="8e8bcf7a-34b1-4b6f-a93b-22834e7eb563" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="The Lambda-the-Ultimate discussion yielded a couple new answers.&#xA;One is about Mezzo/ATS, and there are various others which might be relevant.&#xA;&#xA;The other one says that this patent is a copy of work done in prior art in BitC:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; As far as I can tell, this work is a direct transcription of explanations I made to people at Microsoft about BitC immutability. The particular approach to immutability that they have applied to patent has been discussed multiple times on the BitC programming language list, not as something that we had any doubts or difficulties with, but as something that we took for granted as obviously doable. We even discussed the escape analysis necessary to ensure constructor safety.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; This is the second case of a patent application by someone on the Midori group since my departure that appears to be directly based on my own work and/or my discussions at Microsoft regarding my prior work and the prior work of others. I do know that Duffy has done a bunch of work on resolving some issues in C# that preclude proper implementation of readonly, but he is not the inventor of either the notion of transitive immutability in a programming language nor of immutability permitting construction. Both were discussed on the BitC list prior to my arrival at Microsoft, including a much more general form of immutable initialization relying on confinement. I discussed this work with Duffy while I was at Microsoft. Heck, I've done a Ph.D. dissertation and two formal verification efforts on this topic; it's hardly new.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Given this, I think there is a problem insofar as the patent fails to credit an inventor at Microsoft (me), but more to the point, the patent application fails to cite prior art about which they knew: BitC, EROS, and KeyKOS. Given the prior work, I would have refused to support this filing on the basis of prior art.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Many people at Microsoft hold the view that outsiders can't do anything interesting. They are, in my experience, appallingly unaware of prior art in the field, and sincerely believe that they have invented many things that have existed for some time.&#xA;&#xA;Source: http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/5028#comment-82141&#xA;&#xA;As far as I can guess, Duffy must be the first inventor in the patent, &quot;Duffy, John J. (Seattle, WA, US)&quot;. This makes the statement much more important." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10124" RevisionGUID="89d0c671-b57b-447f-8e5f-b59841921dc4" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="The [D programming language](http://dlang.org/) has scope classes, shown [here](http://dlang.org/class.html) in the &quot;Scope Classes&quot; section. (quoted for convenience)&#xA;&#xA;&gt; ### Scope Classes&#xA;&gt;A scope class is a class with the scope attribute, as in:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;     scope class Foo { ... }&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;The scope characteristic is inherited, so if any classes derived from a scope class are also scope.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;An scope class reference can only appear as a function local variable. It must be declared as being scope:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;     scope class Foo { ... }&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;     void func() {&#xA;&gt;       Foo f;    // error, reference to scope class must be scope&#xA;&gt;       scope Foo g = new Foo(); // correct&#xA;&gt;     }&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;When an scope class reference goes out of scope, the destructor (if any) for it is automatically called. This holds true even if the scope was exited via a thrown exception. &#xA;&#xA;Oldest history I can find quickly for this is in [the earliest commit of the Dlang.org website on Github](https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/blob/4542ef3a1def67d4bc16cd959ccb7a93baac813a/class.d#L802,L829), dated 9 March 2008&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;Additionally, the [Rust programming language](http://www.rust-lang.org/) has explicit lifetimes for pointer variables." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10055" RevisionGUID="824c9c2a-8b62-4272-a8e7-101fda79627a" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I am considering filing a Provisional Patent Application (PPA) on my own.&#xA;&#xA;1. If PPAs are never examined, is it correct to assume that I get a &quot;patent pending&quot; on whatever (since it is not published at the time of filing) immediately after I submit the pdf files and pay the fee?&#xA;&#xA;2. Suppose that I file at T=0, I disclose at T=+3 days, and I file for a non-provisional at T=+10 months, and somehow the PTO decides that the original PPA isn't valid enough to serve as a prior date, can I simply file another PPA or a new non-provisional immediately, given that I am still within one year of the disclosure, and that others haven't filed a similar application from T+3 days to t+10 months,&#xA;&#xA;I am asking this after reading the following two paragraphs, from USPTO and Wikipdia:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Beware that an applicant who publicly discloses his or her invention (e.g., publishes, uses, sells, or otherwise makes available to the public) during the 12 month provisional application pendency period may lose more than the benefit of the provisional application filing date if the 12 month provisional application pendency period expires before a corresponding nonprovisional application is filed. **Such an applicant may also lose the right to ever patent the invention. See 35 U.S.C. §§102(a)(1) and (b)(1)**.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; If a non-provisional application is not expected to be filed within one year, and the patent is not otherwise barred by law, another provisional application may also be filed at any time and start another one-year period (but this does not work in all cases).[10] However, the original priority date of any expired provisional applications will be forfeited.&#xA;&#xA;The rationale behind this question is somewhat a fail safe measure. That is, in the scenario that a PPA is invalidated, can I simply, within a few days, file a new application, thereby continuing to protect the invention even the initial PPA is wasted?&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12274" RevisionGUID="e8641ab8-7e2a-48ed-b631-1a21c8b1c847" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="*This question is really hard to answer as it is, without knowing what your invention is, and what the other patent is about. But, after drafting this in comments, I've come to the conclusion that we might be able to lend at least a bit of insight to help you.*&#xA;&#xA;*I think the best way for us to be able to help you, if this answer isn't sufficient, would be if you could post a new question with the patent number you're looking at. We'd then be able to give you an interpretation of its claims, to give you a more solid idea of what it actually covers.*&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&#xA;Now, in thinking about the differences between something produced at macro- versus micro-scale, it's worth noting a couple fundamental aspects of the patenting system.&#xA;&#xA;# Claims are key.&#xA;&#xA;You wrote,&#xA;&#xA;&gt;As a result the application of the preexisting patent on the cm scale would make most of their embodiments and claims unfeasible.&#xA;&#xA;If you clearly understand the claims of the previous patent or application, and they are solely dependent on the original scale of the invention, you can pretty well stop reading right now, and you should be fine.&#xA;&#xA;A patent is only as good as its claims, so if they're for something other than what you're going for, it's pretty well irrelevant.&#xA;&#xA;# You can't patent an idea.&#xA;&#xA;**Section TL;DR:** If the implementations differ enough between varied scales, you're *probably* alright, depending on the patent's text.&#xA;&#xA;You can only patent an invention, or in other words, an implementation.&#xA;&#xA;To extend your example, I can't patent &quot;a way of holding water,&quot; but I might be able to patent &quot;a water-tight cylinder with one closed end.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;The difference here is fairly subtle, but you can imagine it more in a more serious case, of, for instance, a (looking at the thing in front of me), keyboard backlight. If I wanted to get a patent on my keyboard's backlight, hypothetically of course, I couldn't file an application claiming &quot;a means to illuminating the keys on a keyboard.&quot; Rather, I'd have to claim something like &quot;using a light source, from an LED or other form of illumination, mounted underneath individual keys on a keyboard.&quot; Neither of these are perfect examples, but they illustrate my point.&#xA;&#xA;An invention needs utility to be patented, and to have utility, it needs an implementation. On top of that, patents need to be enabling, and to enable someone, you need something to enable them to do.&#xA;&#xA;Now, that speaks to your situation, and exactly what you mentioned.&#xA;&#xA;In your second paragraph, you talk about the differences in *implementations* between a bigger and smaller cup. Because the implementations differ, it's conceivable that the oppositely-sized version might not fall under the same patent.&#xA;&#xA;Back to my point, though, you might still have some options. Consider your own example of a large cup being comprised of a collection of smaller ones. *That* might be patentable, in its own right. Because the implementation is novel and has utility, it could theoretically be patented.&#xA;&#xA;# Patents give a negative right.&#xA;&#xA;**Section TL;DR:** If your implementation at a larger scale has improvements or special aspects to it, you might be able to patent those, even if the other patent still applies.&#xA;&#xA;Looking at your situation from another angle, it's good to think about what specifically patents *do* for the assignee.&#xA;&#xA;A patent doesn't give you the right to perform your invention, it gives you the right to stop others from doing it. That's called a &quot;negative right.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;What does that mean? Let's look at another example.&#xA;&#xA;Say I hold a patent on a chair: &quot;four legs and a seat.&quot; You come along, then, and you invent a way of making that a bit more comfortable. You file for a patent on &quot;putting a pillow on top of a chair.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;Now things get interesting. You can't perform your invention without infringing on mine, and I can't put pillows on my chairs without infringing on yours. That's often when &quot;cross-licensing&quot; deals come up, but that's out of the scope of this question.&#xA;&#xA;Speaking from *this* approach, the fact that someone may hold a patent on the oppositely-sized version of your invention may not hinder your own patenting.&#xA;&#xA;Looking back at your example of compiling a large cup from many smaller ones, you might be able to get a patent on that, even in light of the previous patent on a cylinder with a closed end. If you did that, you wouldn't be able to start creating those cups, but you might gain some leverage in licensing deals to be able to.&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&#xA;Ultimately, as I've said a few times now, it really just comes down to the claims of the previous patent. It could go either way. If the patent claims something as broad as &quot;a water-tight cylinder with one closed end,&quot; that doesn't depend on size, so you might be blocked without licensing. If the patent claims something more specific to the implementation at some given scale, then you might be alright.&#xA;&#xA;In situations like this, the best solution is often to speak with a patent professional, disclose your invention and the other patent you found, and get a professional opinion on what your best course of action might be.&#xA;&#xA;In addition to, or *perhaps* even instead of, that, I really would suggest, if you're comfortable with it, posting a new question that provides the patent number and asks for help understanding it. Patents are notoriously difficult to write, and can be difficult to fully comprehend in reading as well. So if you aren't completely certain you understand it, I'd definitely leverage our community here to help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13213" RevisionGUID="622107c3-ca80-4457-bf93-9ce54e799470" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="The document you are referring to is a Canadian patent application, which has different rules than the US patent system, so it is somewhat unclear in which context you are asking the question. This answer will be in the context of the US patent system.&#xA;&#xA;In order to get the full story on the inventive step, you need to follow the related documents. The claims in patent applications are often narrowed and revised significantly (through a series of Office Actions) prior to being issued in a grant.&#xA;&#xA;The claims in this application are written broadly in this case, and serve as prior art in that space, to prevent similar applications from being filed in the space. The independent claim in that application states only:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Use of a combination of cannabinoids in the manufacture of a&#xA;&gt; medicament for use in the treatment of cancer.&#xA;&#xA;where, as specified in the abstract, the cannabinoids include but are not limited to tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD).&#xA;&#xA;There is currently only one grant ([US 8,632,825][1]) based on that patent application. The sole independent claim is:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A method for treating glioblastoma multiforme in a human in need&#xA;&gt; thereof consisting essentially of administering to said human&#xA;&gt; therapeutically effective amounts of cannabidiol (CBD) and&#xA;&gt; tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in combination as pure cannabinoids wherein&#xA;&gt; the cannabinoids are in a ratio of from 1:1 to 1:20 (THC:CBD).&#xA;&#xA;In order to get this patent granted, the inventors needed to narrow their claims to include the specific compounds ([tetrahydrocannabinol][2] and [cannabidiol][3]) within a defined ratio (between 1:1 and 1:2), as well as the specific disease that is being treated ([glioblastoma multiforme][4]). &#xA;&#xA;The independent claim is generically &quot;a [method of administering] [discrete compounds] within [defined ratio] to treat [specific disease] in [target species]&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;There is prior art noted for each of the compounds listed in the independent claim:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; [EP1177790][5] (Guzman *et al.*) describes the treatment of cerebral tumours by the administration of a natural or synthetic cannabinoid, specifically THC.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; The applicant's earlier patent [EP1802274][6] describes the use of the&#xA;&gt; cannabinoid CBD to impede the progress of cancer cells migrating from&#xA;&gt; their primary tumour location to a secondary site.&#xA;&#xA;Now you can see a more complete story developing. Here we see two European patent grants including two enforceable in Germany ([DE60020111 D1][7] and [DE60020111 T2][8]) from the same inventors (Guzman *et al.*), comprising therapeutic methods involving the individual compounds.&#xA;&#xA;The assignee for these patents, [GW Pharma Limited][9] is based in the United Kingdom but also operates in the United States. Of particular note is that the previous patents involving the single compounds were applied for but never granted in the United States ([US 20080262099][10] and [US 20120225136][11]). If you examine the priority dates (2004) and the publication dates (2012) you could come to the conclusion that there was a great deal of difficulty pursuing such broad claims in the United States patent system.&#xA;&#xA;Therefore, in order to gain some amount of patent coverage in the United States, the company applied for a patent using a combination of the two compounds.&#xA;&#xA;The product that is being covered by this patent is *Sativex*:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; GW’s lead product, Sativex, is an oral spray which consists of a&#xA;&gt; formulated extract of the cannabis sativa plant that contains the&#xA;&gt; principal cannabinoids delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, and&#xA;&gt; cannabidiol, or CBD, as well as other minor cannabinoids and other&#xA;&gt; active non-cannabinoid plant components. In order to achieve a fully&#xA;&gt; standardized formulation of these complex extracts, GW employs a range&#xA;&gt; of advanced analytical technologies to demonstrate batch-to-batch&#xA;&gt; uniformity. As a result of these technologies, GW is able to&#xA;&gt; standardize the formulation across the extracts as a whole, not simply&#xA;&gt; by reference to their key active components.&#xA;&#xA;As noted on their own web site, these compounds do not naturally exist in plants in a uniform ratio necessary for medical applications. By limiting the compounds to a defined set and also limiting to a defined, measurable ratio, this necessitates extracting the compounds out from the plant, performing some purification, and validating the concentrations of each compound on a batch-by-batch basis. This is a different method than the traditional approach. Combining this with a specific medical application, you have a step that is considered inventive within the US patent system.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8632825&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrocannabinol&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabidiol&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glioblastoma_multiforme&#xA;  [5]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP1177790B1&#xA;  [6]: https://www.google.com/patents/EP1802274B1&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.com/patents/DE60020111D1&#xA;  [8]: https://www.google.com/patents/DE60020111T2&#xA;  [9]: http://www.gwpharm.com/FAQ.aspx&#xA;  [10]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20080262099&#xA;  [11]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120225136" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18064" RevisionGUID="24f9040d-141f-4620-88f3-aa606b1c4db5" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I will limit myself to the English-speaking jurisdictions, which happen to have adopted UK patents acts from various points in time, and which are therefore very similar.&#xA;&#xA;I would assume that Germany and China have equivalent provisions, though I do not provide any evidence to this.&#xA;&#xA;**Australia**&#xA;&#xA;You could not use &quot;patent pending&quot; in Australia on the basis of a US provisional.&#xA;&#xA;[The Patents Act 1990 (AU) s 178](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/pa1990109/s178.html) provides:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;(2) A person must not falsely represent that an article sold by him or her is patented in Australia, or is the subject of an application for a patent in Australia.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(3) Without limiting subsection (2): …&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(b)  a person is to be taken to represent that an article is the subject of an application for a patent in Australia if the words &quot;patent applied for&quot; or &quot;patent pending&quot;, or any other word or words implying that an application for a patent for the article has been made in Australia, are stamped, engraved or impressed on, or otherwise applied to, the article. &#xA;&#xA;**Singapore**&#xA;&#xA;You could not use &quot;patent pending&quot; in Singapore on the basis of a US provisional.&#xA;&#xA;[The Patents Act (Cap 221, 2005 Rev Ed) (SG) s 100](http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;ident=a8c2c9a1-e41f-4ecb-9a8a-bc6d7aada95e;page=0;query=DocId%3A2e82e574-7304-4657-b7c4-54e289938d1d%20Depth%3A0%20Status%3Ainforce;rec=0#pr100-he-.) provides:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;(1)  If a person represents that a patent has been applied for in respect of any article disposed of for value by him and —&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(a) no such application has been made; …&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;he shall, subject to this section, be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.&#xA;&#xA;**Hong Kong**&#xA;&#xA;You could not use &quot;patent pending&quot; in Hong Kong on the basis of a US provisional.&#xA;&#xA;[The Patents Ordinance, Cap 514 (HK) s 143](https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap514/s143) provides:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;(1) Subject to this section, a person who represents that a patent has been applied for in respect of any article disposed of for value by him when in fact—&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(a) no such application for a patent has been made; …&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine at level 3.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person who for value disposes of an article having stamped, engraved or impressed on it or otherwise applied to it the words “patent applied for” or “patent pending” or “已申請專利” or “專利申請待決”, or anything expressing or implying that an application has been made for a patent in respect of the article, shall be taken to represent that an application for such a patent has been made." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16450" RevisionGUID="2938ccc5-c692-406e-b7a5-d6857f0fd9a8" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20160034139][1]&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20160034139&#xA;&#xA;The patents link has no diagrams and hence it is very difficult to understand what this patent is all about. Can someone please explain?&#xA;&#xA;The first claim reads:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A method for organizing options in an interface, comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; receiving data representing a type of domain object;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; predicting, using a processor, one or more generic predicted events based at least in part on the type of domain object, wherein the one or more generic predicted events are predicted using a generic predictor;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; receiving data representing an actual next event; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; updating the generic predictor based on the actual next event." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16220" RevisionGUID="bac7d8a0-e528-434c-a1ff-d012ef5bebe6" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I've come across this patent for Mobile Media Servers, and to me it seems incredibly broad and obvious, even back in 2009. For my own benefit and for others, I'm trying to find prior art that gives strong reason to believe this patent is invalid.&#xA;&#xA;If you've ever seen anything like this before, please submit evidence of prior art as an answer to this question -- one piece of prior art per answer. We welcome multiple answers from a single individual.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;TITLE: **MOBILE MEDIA SERVER**&#xA;&#xA;**Summary**: Mobile media server hosts and clients utilized for ubiquitous sharing of media content. A mobile phone can act as a host and stream content to clients over IP sourced from a wide variety of locations, from the host camera to network locations.&#xA;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US20110138018 A1][1]&#xA;- **Assignee**: QUALCOMM Incorporated&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 4th Dec 2009&#xA;- No longer open for challenge at USPTO (from what I can see)&#xA;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A method of serving media from a media server, comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 1. establishing a logical link with a client utilizing an Internet Protocol interface;&#xA;&gt; 2. initiating, over the logical link, a streaming session with the client;&#xA;&gt; 3. retrieving media content from a media source; and&#xA;&gt; 4. serving the media content to the client over the logical link.: &#xA;&#xA;What blows my mind is that as broad as the title &quot;Mobile Media Server&quot; sounds, the claims are even broader as they don't mention mobile - it's simply claiming about media servers.&#xA;&#xA;In English this means:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1. the server connects to clients via an Internet Protocol&#xA;&gt; 2. the server streams data to the client&#xA;&gt; 3. the server can retrieve that media from somewhere&#xA;&gt; 4. the data that the server streams is media&#xA;&#xA;Good prior art would be evidence of a system that did each and every one of these steps prior to 4th Dec 2009.&#xA;&#xA;[![Patent Diagram][2]][2]&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110138018&#xA;  [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/2VQuO.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16214" RevisionGUID="3d7847e4-5d59-4aeb-983d-73fdc2e096f5" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="You probably shouldn't do this. Even if you filed it in another person's name, you would still be the inventor (who must also satisfy the application filing limit).&#xA;&#xA;37 CFR 1.29(a) requires (emphasis added):&#xA;&gt;(a) To establish micro entity status under this paragraph, the applicant must certify that: ...&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(2) Neither the applicant nor **the inventor** nor a joint inventor has been named as the inventor or a joint inventor on more than four previously filed patent applications, other than applications filed in another country, provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(b), or international applications for which the basic national fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a) was not paid; &#xA;&#xA;[MPEP § 509.04(a)](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s509.html) provides a bit of extra discussion:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;All such applications naming the inventor or a joint inventor are counted toward the application filing limit, whether the applications were filed before, on, or after March 19, 2013. Further, it does not matter whether the previously filed applications are pending, patented, or abandoned; they are still included when counting to determine whether the application filing limit has been reached. &#xA;&#xA;It therefore seems quite clear that you would not satisfy the requirements for claiming micro entity status.&#xA;&#xA;The consequences of claiming the wrong entity status can be dire. There are a number of examples in the past relating to wrongly claimed small entity status, where the patents were consequently unenforceable. I would assume the outcome would be no different for wrongly claiming micro entity status." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14541" RevisionGUID="6f7c24c8-195d-4c51-9d78-6f3dbb468fe1" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I will speak to Europe, as I believe the answer is entirely clear there. The US is arguably slightly more murky.&#xA;&#xA;I'm afraid I have to disagree with the conclusions of the accepted answer, which, in my opinion, is entirely wrong and risks misleading further readers. Unfortunately my answer is probably too late to be useful for the OP, but hopefully it will be useful for posterity.&#xA;&#xA;**Nothing** you mentioned in your question would be patentable in Europe. It is not even in a grey area. Your financial structure would either be excluded subject matter (if claimed as a method in general) or lack an inventive step (if claimed as a method performed on a computer).&#xA;&#xA;**Excluded subject matter**&#xA;&#xA;EPC art 52 provides:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;(1) European patents shall be granted for any inventions, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are susceptible of industrial application. &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;&#xA;&#xA;Your ETF structure is **solely** a method for doing business, and therefore is excluded subject matter.&#xA;&#xA;**Inventive step**&#xA;&#xA;EPC art 52 is applied narrowly. If there is any non-excluded feature in a claim (such as the method being performed on a computer), then the claim as a whole is not excluded subject matter. So if your claims were a computer arranged to administer your ETF, then you would pass the low hurdle of EPC art 52.&#xA;&#xA;However, your invention would then lack an inventive step.&#xA;&#xA;EPC art 56 provides:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; An invention shall be considered as involving an inventive step if, having regard to the state of the art, it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art.&#xA;&#xA;Your ETF scheme may be non-obvious, and therefore may at first glance appear to meet this requirement. However, under European practice, non-technical features are ignored for assessing inventive step.&#xA;&#xA;All of your ETF structure is non-technical, as it does not solve a **technical** problem. Instead, it solves a business problem (how to make more money, I guess), which lies solely in the realm of business. Because of this, it does not matter how non-obvious the ETF structure is.&#xA;&#xA;The only technical feature that would be relevant to inventive step would be a general purpose computer. This is notoriously obvious. The claim would therefore lack an inventive step." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14540" RevisionGUID="e62d6d60-fe86-4146-b0f5-e1fc289c380b" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="This involves two separate questions. Of course, the short answer to both is to discuss this with a patent attorney. But in any case…&#xA;&#xA;**How can I protest this patent?**&#xA;&#xA;This is still a patent application. It is not yet a patent which can be enforced, and may never become one. Only time will tell.&#xA;&#xA;If you have published the details of your system before the priority date of this application (which is 8 October 2012), this may be prior art which could prevent this application being granted. This can be provided to the examiner as third party observations. The examiner will then consider using your publication in the examination procedure. There are some intricacies in this, which are detailed in [MPEP § 1134](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1134.html).&#xA;&#xA;**How can I protect myself from being sued by the applicant for infringement?**&#xA;&#xA;If the application is granted (and therefore could be enforced), you may be able to rely on the prior user defence.&#xA;&#xA;[35 USC § 273](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/273) provides:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A person shall be entitled to a defense under section 282(b) with respect to subject matter consisting of a process, or consisting of a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter used in a manufacturing or other commercial process, that would otherwise infringe a claimed invention being asserted against the person if—&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; (1) such person, acting in good faith, commercially used the subject matter in the United States, either in connection with an internal commercial use or an actual arm’s length sale or other arm’s length commercial transfer of a useful end result of such commercial use; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; (2) such commercial use occurred at least 1 year before the earlier of either—&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;(A) the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;(B) the date on which the claimed invention was disclosed to the public in a manner that qualified for the exception from prior art under section 102(b).&#xA;&#xA;Basically, if you used the invention in the US commercially, and that use happened 1 year before the effective filing date of the patent application (which is 8 October 2012), you have a defence to infringement.&#xA;&#xA;To prepare for this, you should get together proof that you used the system several years ago.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14516" RevisionGUID="ec017d7b-52b4-49e0-ab9d-84cc13e8c4f5" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="There should be no problem. &#xA;&#xA;Let's set out a timeline:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;**1 Sep 2014**: US provisional (&quot;US1&quot;) is filed.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;**15 Oct 2014**: Public disclosure of material in the US provisional filing.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;**31 Aug 2015**: French Convention application (&quot;FR1&quot;) claiming priority to US1 is filed.&#xA;&#xA;US1 is filed before the disclosure. The disclosure is therefore not relevant for the novelty of US1.&#xA;&#xA;FR1 is filed after the disclosure. Without any priority claims, FR1 would not be novel.&#xA;&#xA;However, FR1 validly claims priority to US1. This means that the novelty of FR1 is assessed at the date of filing of US1. This is before the disclosure, so the disclosure does not deprive FR1 of novelty.&#xA;&#xA;This answer would be the same for any two countries which are members of the Paris Convention (which is basically every country). There is nothing unique to the US and France here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14458" RevisionGUID="940824d0-8ba9-48ea-abf7-6997effae69c" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I am not sure what your process looks like. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;**Possibility 1 - A theory / presentation of information:**&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;There needs to be some technical part for an invention to be patented. &#xA;See for example Article 52 EPC for Europe:&#xA;&gt; (1) European patents shall be granted for any inventions, in all fields of **technology**, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are susceptible of industrial application. &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(b) aesthetic creations;  null&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers; &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(d) presentations of information&#xA;&#xA;It could be something including parts of (a) and (d).&#xA;&#xA;Furthermore you can patent something in that direction, but you need at least some technical part. See Article 52 (3):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; (3) Paragraph 2 shall exclude the patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to therein **only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such.**&#xA;&#xA;And that is where you may be right (although I don't know if I understood the experimental data right), if you add something,  e. g. a device using that theory etc. it could be fine. &#xA;&#xA;That leads us to &#xA;&#xA;**Possibility 2 - A technical process that you did not test yet:**&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;The granting of patents does not involve a check if the invention works. For some fields like biotech you may have to provide even material, but unless it's really obvious (like the Perpetuum Mobile) examiners and patent offices will not object if there is no test data provided. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;The invention however needs to be possible to be carried out by what is provided / disclosed in the description of the application:&#xA;&#xA;The best way to practice the invention in the patent application e. g. needs to be provided according to the US patent law (35 US Code section 112). This is requested so an inventor cannot keep some essential or advantageous aspect a secret and still get a patent.&#xA;&#xA;In Europe the EPC asks for at least one way of practicing the invention as defined in Article 83 EPC:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Article 83 Disclosure of the invention&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;The European patent application shall disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60755" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14457" RevisionGUID="505a2de7-7c03-4b83-ab3a-7a7ae868dad7" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="No, bacteria as such can't be patented.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;It is true that this application (you mention the appl. no.) is now patented e. g. in Europe and the patent specification will be published there under the publication no.: EP2763685 B1&#xA;&#xA;The last action was:20.01.2016 ANNOUNCEMENT OF INTENTION TO GRANT&#xA;&#xA;You find the text proposed for grant here:&#xA;https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP12775538&amp;lng=en&amp;tab=doclist&#xA;&#xA;The patent will however cover only products with the bacteria and methods using it or for producing the products. **The bacteria as such** are not claimed. &#xA;&#xA;Pure discoveries are not seen as inventions and are therefore not patentable subject-matter, bacteria will be seen as a discovery. E. g. in Europe regulated by Article 52 (2)(a):&#xA;&gt; &quot;(2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1: &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; (a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods&quot;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/ar52.html&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;However this is valid only for the mentioned things, like discoveries, **as such**. See therefore Article 52 (3):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; &quot;(3) **Paragraph 2 shall exclude the patentability** of the subject-matter or activities referred to therein **only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such**&quot;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;For more details for other countries or regions and their patent law see here:&#xA;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentable_subject_matter&#xA;&#xA;Another related question can be found here:&#xA;&#xA;https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/13381/can-you-patent-an-existing-bacteria-without-any-modifications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14443" RevisionGUID="4de4d4ad-0d88-4769-85bf-f5c5f1ae9fca" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="In the US, the key question would be whether the general concept (or &quot;genus&quot;) is sufficiently described by the examples (or &quot;species&quot;). [MPEP § 2163](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2163.html) is comprehensive, and summarises the current law on this point well. The key passage is:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice (see i)(A), above), reduction to drawings (see i)(B), above), or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see i)(C), above).&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;…&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;The issue is whether a person skilled in the art would understand the applicant to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed.&#xA;&#xA;So if you claim the broader concept (the genus), you should be fine providing you could successfully argue that the inventors invented the general concept to begin with, despite the description only including examples.&#xA;&#xA;In Europe, this consideration would be basically the same (at least for sufficiency/support). However, there is a further European-specific consideration. If your specification as filed only contains a series of examples (without mentioning a generalised concept to link them), then you would never be able to cast a claim that covered the general concept. This would be an intermediate generalisation, which is impermissible. This only arises when amending the claims however, since the claims as originally filed are inherently based on the application as originally filed.&#xA;&#xA;**So what is the patent drafter to do?**&#xA;&#xA;You are required by US law to show that the inventors were in possession of the general concept. This could quite convincingly be done by explicitly describing the general concept, then providing some examples. For example, &#xA;&#xA;&gt; A may be on any flat surface (such as A or B). In this case, A is on B.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; A may be on any flat surface. In one embodiment, A is on B. In another embodiment, A is on C.&#xA;&#xA;I think the difference between these is negligible, and purely a matter of style.&#xA;&#xA;Either approach clearly provides a written description of the general concept, and therefore shows that the inventors were in possession of the general concept. In addition, it provides a basis for broadening amendments in Europe.&#xA;&#xA;A blanket statement, such as &quot;these are some alternative embodiments but not an exhaustive list&quot; may help. However, it is relatively weak, and I would suggest that you should never plan to rely on general statements like this if you can be more specific." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60757" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14421" RevisionGUID="ae6a767d-171c-4070-8ab4-9fdcd52762d3" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="You should use the date of the A1 or A2 publication for the earliest publication date of the subject-matter (of the application).&#xA;&#xA;(If you want to know about the granted patent please clarify.)&#xA;&#xA;A1 is a publication of the application with search report (SR).&#xA;&#xA;A2 is the publication without SR.&#xA;There will be always only one or the other. &#xA;&#xA;An A3 is published later in case of an A2 as soon as the search has been carried out. See here for more details on the so called kind codes:&#xA;https://register.epo.org/helphttps://register.epo.org/help?lng=en&amp;topic=kindcodes&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;18 months after the filing date, an application is published by the EPO according to Article 93(1)(a) EPC:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The European Patent Office shall publish the European patent application as soon as possible  &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(a) after the expiry of a period of eighteen months from the date of filing or, if priority has been claimed, from the date of priority&quot;&#xA;&#xA;, if not requested earlier.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60758" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14273" RevisionGUID="20e10630-850b-4f60-8e33-12062bad7abf" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="All of your claims seem correct.&#xA;&#xA;However, there is a more concise way to include all the claims (for jurisdictions which do not have additional fees for multiple claim dependencies).&#xA;&#xA;This is based on the idea that &quot;further&quot; is unnecessary in your claims 3 to 5. I could not find any Court decision which has considered this point. However, as a point of construction, it seems that including &quot;further&quot; either has no meaning, or is an additional limitation. That is, omitting &quot;further&quot; should lead to a claim which is no narrower than your current one.&#xA;&#xA;In other words, you could quite validly have:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;3. (..), as in claim 1, wherein the logic block comprises a first logic circuit.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;4. (..), as in claim 3, wherein the logic block comprises a second logic circuit.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;5. (..), as in claim 4, wherein the logic block comprises a third logic circuit.&#xA;&#xA;Based on this, you could combine claims 3–5 with claims 6–8. This would arrive at:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;3. (..), as in claim 1, wherein the logic block comprises a first logic circuit.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;4. (..), as in claim 1 **or 3**, wherein the logic block comprises a second logic circuit.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;5. (..), as in claim 1, **3 or 4**, wherein the logic block comprises a third logic circuit.&#xA;&#xA;This reduces the number of claims (if that is beneficial) and provides a basis for the combination of features (where needed, such as in Europe)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14089" RevisionGUID="8593cd15-0185-456e-94bd-b734c3e8b930" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Quoted directly from [MPEP 2111.04 &quot;ADAPTED TO,&quot; &quot;ADAPTED FOR,&quot; &quot;WHEREIN,&quot; AND &quot;WHEREBY&quot; CLAUSES [R-08.2012]](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2111.html):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; (A) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses;  &#xA;&gt; (B) “wherein” clauses; and  &#xA;&gt; (C) “whereby” clauses.  &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., *Griffin v. Bertina*, 283 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a “wherein” clause limited a process claim where the clause gave “meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps”). In *Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp.*, 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.” Id. However, the court noted (quoting *Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc.*, 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)) that a “‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’” *Id.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60760" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16467" RevisionGUID="5f991093-246a-4f3d-b16f-09718733303a" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="**Can I put the problem in the background?**&#xA;&#xA;Yes. It's quite common for the problem to come out naturally in the discussion of the prior art. This reflects the conventional British (and thus Australian) drafting style. In my view, if you ignored IP Australia's suggestion in this case, you would be simply following the path tread by many attorneys who also do so.&#xA;&#xA;To be honest though, I can't see it makes any difference where you have the heading &quot;summary&quot;. The text probably wouldn't change in either case. For example:&#xA;&gt;BACKGROUND&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Existing motor vehicles provide a seat on which passengers can sit during operation of the device.&#xA;&#xA;So here, we have given a brief discussion of the prior art (as you see it). Anything you place here is effectively admitted as being prior art, so you should be mindful not to explain too much.&#xA;&#xA;&gt;SUMMARY (first possible placement)&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;In existing motor vehicles, during collisions, passengers would tend to be propelled from the seat through the windscreen, which many passengers find undesirable, along with leading to likely damage of the windscreen. There is therefore a need for a means which ameliorates this, or at least provides the public with a useful choice.&#xA;&#xA;Here, the prior art (&quot;existing motor vehicles&quot;) has a problem (passenger propulsion during collisions), which the present application looks to address. The solution is then set out, along with comments as to the benefits of the solution. For example:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;SUMMARY (second possible placement)&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;In a first aspect, there is disclosed a seat comprising a belt.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;On collision, the belt restrains the passenger, reducing the change of propulsion of the passenger during collision.&#xA;&#xA;Here, the &quot;first aspect&quot; mirrors the first independent claim, and you've explained how the subject matter of claim 1 addresses the problem you identified above.&#xA;&#xA;**Why do this at all?**&#xA;&#xA;By way of background, the format that IP Australia provides on this was agreed by the IP5 (that is, USPTO, EPO, SIPO, KIPO and JPO) to align the structure of patents across the offices. In principle, by following this, no office would have an objection.&#xA;&#xA;Despite the USPTO being part of the IP5, this approach is kind of anathema to US-style drafting, as Aldo noted. If your only key market is the US, it might be sensible to jettison this approach. It really depends what your plans are.&#xA;&#xA;By following this approach, you are essentially setting out your argument for an inventive step (though without explicitly arguing why it's non-obvious). This allows you to frame arguments during prosecution better, and improves your chance of a smooth prosecution. In contrast, if you don't include this, there is a risk that the examiner will see your improvement as being an obvious design variation of existing systems with no advantageous effects, and therefore lacking an inventive step.&#xA;&#xA;In Australia, you have a bit of freedom with subsequent arguments if this happens.  However, in stricter jurisdictions (notably the EPO), this kind of problem–solution–effect statement is extremely helpful. Without it, you're generally very limited in what you can argue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13979" RevisionGUID="2fea5b50-2fb0-43e2-9ddb-a40d5d967f28" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="In reference to the patent: [US8775248][1]&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US8775248&#xA;&#xA;At the bottom of this page there are two Legal Events. What do they mean in this context?&#xA;&#xA;At the time of writing, the legal events are as follows:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; ### Mar 27, 2013 -- Assignment &#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; Owner name: EXPONENTIAL INTERACTIVE, INC., CALIFORNIA&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:SALDANHA, ALEXANDER;BERMAN, RON;VUMMARAO, KESHORE;SIGNING DATES FROM 20130312 TO 20130313;REEL/FRAME:030099/0179 &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; ### Mar 12, 2014 -- Assignment&#xA;&gt; Owner name: ABAKUS, INC., CALIFORNIA&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:EXPONENTIAL INTERACTIVE INC.;REEL/FRAME:032420/0386&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Effective date: 20131213 &#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13956" RevisionGUID="0223cc50-747c-4c60-9898-42a7e37b6525" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="In reference to the patent: [US226542][1]&#xA;&#xA;The title of this patent is &quot;TEEBITOEY&quot; and I've found 62 other US patents that refer to this term, but I can't find a definition for it. What does this mean?&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US226542" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13886" RevisionGUID="77274d30-23cc-460d-b087-22b4def1cbd9" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="**DISCLAIMER: This is not legal advice, and is not to be relied upon for legal decisions. I am not attorney. Read the relevent laws yourself and consult with an attorney.**&#xA;&#xA;Classification&#xA;===&#xA;The classification noted on a patent application is only a suggestion to the USPTO made in good faith (i.e. you could get in trouble for intentionally trying to mislead/etc) - it is not necessarily the final classification: see the [ADS Instructions Document][1] (ADS form is [the same for PPA and non-provisional][2]):&#xA;&gt;Enter a suggested classification for the application. Optional.&#xA;&#xA;The requirements for claiming benefit of the filing date of a PPA are described in the MPEP [here][3] and the requirements for a provisional application are [here][4] - classification isn't mentioned. That doesn't mean it couldn't be buried somewhere else. However, knowing that the purpose of the PPA is to fully disclose the invention that will be filed for non-provisionally, it seems like the classification of the PPA is less important.&#xA;&#xA;Finally, sometimes multiple patent applications can claim benefit to the same PPA (or previous non-provisional application). I know of no requirement that they be the same classification, which would seem strange as it is easily conceivable that the same disclosure could give rise to applications in different classifications. Indeed, most patents are cross-classified in multiple classes and subclasses. I am sure that if one cared to look, they could find examples of applications that claimed benefit to applications in a different classification. Furthermore, the many 'interestingly classified' issued patents and [applications][5] are somewhat of a laughing stock in the patent community.&#xA;&#xA;That being said, if you could amend the ADS to update the suggested classification (don't remember rules for that off-hand), one would think it would probably be better and *may* help avoid accusations of inequitable conduct during later infringement lititgation.&#xA;&#xA;Inventorship&#xA;===&#xA;See [MPEP 602][6] (37 CFR 1.41(c)):&#xA;&gt;  Once a cover sheet as prescribed by § 1.51(c)(1) is filed in a provisional application, any correction of inventorship must be pursuant to § 1.48.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; An application must include, or be amended to include, the name of the inventor for any invention claimed in the application (the inventorship).&#xA;&#xA;That being said, sometimes you can have the situation where a provisional application has one set of inventors, and a non-provisional application is only partially reliant on the provisional - and so may have a different set of inventors. If this is not the case, though, the provisional application's inventors may need to be corrected.&#xA;&#xA;Residence&#xA;---&#xA;MPEP 602 again:&#xA;&gt;Each inventor’s residence must be included on the cover sheet for a provisional application unless it is included in an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76).&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;If only a mailing address where the inventor customarily receives mail is provided, the Office will presume that the inventor’s residence is the city and either state or foreign country of the mailing address. If the inventor lives at a location which different from the inventor’s mailing address, the inventor’s residence (city and either state or foreign country) must be included in the inventor’s oath or declaration or an application data sheet. &#xA;&#xA;Again, you may need to update the ADS...So...&#xA;&#xA;Updating the ADS:&#xA;===&#xA;[MPEP 601][7] (37 CFR 1.76(c)):&#xA;&gt;Information in a previously submitted application data sheet, inventor's oath or declaration under § 1.63, § 1.64 or § 1.67, or otherwise of record, may be corrected or updated until payment of the issue fee by a new application data sheet providing corrected or updated information, except that inventorship changes must comply with the requirements of § 1.48, foreign priority and domestic benefit information changes must comply with §§ 1.55 and 1.78, and correspondence address changes are governed by § 1.33(a). &#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;Hope this helps!&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;ved=0CB4QFjAAahUKEwjRl9XzvvjIAhVP62MKHbXSBUc&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uspto.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Febc%2Fportal%2Fefs%2Fads_form_inst.doc&amp;usg=AFQjCNGfblNlzDnKuog-lcDT_sDCdBcvgQ&amp;sig2=HCUY8Ewp652F2nwP07UN3Q&amp;cad=rja&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s601.html&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s211.html&#xA;  [4]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s201.html#ch200_d1ff6d_23490_24a&#xA;  [5]: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/03/11/when-uspto-classifies-an-application-incorrectly/id=48457/&#xA;  [6]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s602.html&#xA;  [7]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s601.html#ch600_d1ff5e_1ae97_96" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="4fde180e-c9ea-4246-b2c3-0e24d4d760be" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="In reference to the patent: [US 2008/0255822 A1][1]&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20080255822&#xA;&#xA;Does this patent mean that no-one can do another architecture coverage driven test generator for ARM cores?&#xA;&#xA;This patent is quite generic and I believe that it covers all possible test generators based on architecture features.&#xA;&#xA;If I want to make a automatic architecture Coverage driven random test generator for ARM architecture do I have conflict with that patent?&#xA;&#xA;Google Patents lists the first claim as,&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A method for automatically creating compliance test suites for a processor, comprising the steps of: &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; constructing a generic model set for a plurality of implementations of a processor architecture, said generic model set comprising one or more parametric models being adapted to a model-based test generator, wherein said processor architecture permits selection among multiple options for said implementations, and said implementations each exhibit a respective alternative behavior corresponding to selected ones of said options;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; based on said generic model set, establishing specific model sets to correspond to said respective alternative behavior of said implementations by setting respective values of parameters for said parametric models;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; producing test specifications using said parametric models and said values;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; submitting said test specifications to said test generator; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; generating respective architectural compliance test suites for said implementations with said test generator using said test specifications, wherein said test generator is cooperative with said parametric models using said values to predict expected outcomes in an execution of said respective architectural compliance test suites by said implementations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13629" RevisionGUID="4941241c-a86f-4f4a-ad2f-23ad54c17e81" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="In reference to the patent: [PCT/GB2014/051152][6] [WO 2014/170646 A1][1] granted and pending patents: GB1307148.5, GB1500104.3 and GB1500105.0 to What3Words Limited:&#xA;&#xA;Here is the screenshot from the video I had published on [YouTube on 10th of April 2013][2] that showed 5 words for Mt. Everest's location:&#xA;[![Video screenshot showing 5 words for a geo co-ordinate][3]][3]&#xA;&#xA;Additionally here is crowd funding campaign page on [IndieGogo started on 11th of April 2013][8] &#xA;&#xA;Also here is the UK-IPO patent application record's screenshot **filed by What3Words just 9 days after my video**:&#xA;[![UK IPO patent filing screenshot with application date][4]][4]&#xA;&#xA;Another record is available from [archive.org][5].&#xA;&#xA;The only effective difference is that What3Words uses three words while my system would take up around 5 words - but mine is more simpler and thus more effective as it uses words from a much smaller set of only 1024 very common and unambiguous words.&#xA;&#xA;How do I get these patents invalidated?&#xA;&#xA;I tried submitting a `third party observation` but was unable to since the `priority date` is past 28 months limit.&#xA;&#xA;**Update I**: I submitted my documents under the `third party observation` to the UK IPO office via email as per [Submitting observations concerning the patentability of an invention][7]. I then received an auto generated email acknowledging the receipt.  &#xA;&#xA;**Update II**: Sadly, the patent was granted as [US9883333B2][9] on 2018-01-30&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014170646A1&#xA;  [2]: http://youtu.be/LfGeIWCeeKU?t=321&#xA;  [3]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Ny9Fv.jpg&#xA;  [4]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/RJmMx.jpg&#xA;  [5]: http://web.archive.org/web/*/wcodes.org&#xA;  [6]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO14/170646&#xA;  [7]: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/submitting-observations-concerning-the-patentability-of-an-invention&#xA;  [8]: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/wcode-encode-with-words/x/2245741#/story&#xA;  [9]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9883333B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13535" RevisionGUID="d9d06ea8-fcb0-40ec-ad06-8e28838a0e7c" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Claims are interpreted in their broadest possible sense in light of the specification. The patent classes are there to aid search and retrieval, and to document the Field of Search. See [MPEP Section 2111][1] for a description of how claims are interpreted:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) determines the scope of claims&#xA;&gt; in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language,&#xA;&gt; but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction “in&#xA;&gt; light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of&#xA;&gt; ordinary skill in the art.” In re *Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.*, 367&#xA;&gt; F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the&#xA;&gt; rules of the PTO require that application claims must “conform to the&#xA;&gt; invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the&#xA;&gt; terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or&#xA;&gt; antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms&#xA;&gt; in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description.”&#xA;&gt; [37 CFR 1.75(d)(1)][2].&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; [2173.05(p)][3] Claim Directed to Product-By-Process or Product and Process&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; There are many situations where claims are permissively&#xA;&gt; drafted to include a reference to more than one statutory class of&#xA;&gt; invention.&#xA;&#xA;As a thought experiment, consider that (1) existing classes are always based on earlier inventions, and (2) new inventions must be novel. Therefore, no single patent class can ever be 100% reliable as a means of interpreting novel claims.&#xA;&#xA;There are many classification schemes, and the US classification is just one of many National Classifications. There are also international classification schemes: IPC, ECLA, and now CPC. The US classification system is being discontinued, and there is not necessarily a one-to-one match between any of these schemes. The classifications are also updated periodically. It is a bit of a mess, but at least it is a controlled mess.&#xA;&#xA;I'd also like to highlight some counterpoints to your interpretation of General Patent as a patent troll based on the articles you provided as references:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; ...the principal exception—General Patent Corporation, which has&#xA;&gt; a long history of supplying enforcement services to small- and&#xA;&gt; medium-sized inventors, with a substantial portion of the royalties&#xA;&gt; provided to the inventor...&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; ...General Patent Corporation, a company that provides IP enforcement&#xA;&gt; and licensing services with the aim “to help inventors, scientists and&#xA;&gt; authors realize the fruits of their creative genius”...&#xA;&#xA;The above activities do not fall within the currently accepted definition of a [Patent Troll][4], specifically the following qualities:&#xA;&#xA;- patent holding company (PHC)&#xA;- patent assertion entity (PAE)&#xA;- non-practicing entity (NPE)&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2111.html&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e320269&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2173.html#d0e218855&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="ca51e6bd-4c62-4ad2-8172-0aa74652b878" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I'm specifically interested in [US 6873940][1] patent. The company that currently owns the patent is a company called [Kamatani Cloud][2] which is subsidiary of [General Patent][3] which some argue ([1][4], [2][5], [3][6], [4][7]) is a patent troll company. I'd like to know how classification narrows the patent interpretation and possible infringement for companies that provide cloud services like [keylemon][8], [betafaceapi][9], [rekognition][10] or similar cloud service companies that provide speaker identification, face detection or content classification in images, audio or video files etc.&#xA;The patent is classified as U.S. [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13]. In fact the [class 709 scope][12] has following clause: &quot;This class is limited to digital data processing systems and functions for **transferring unspecified data** or instruction information and the processing thereof by digital data processing systems.&quot; In every case that I checked with said and similar cloud services all of them process specific data - images, audio files, video files...&#xA;&#xA;More over said patent inventor during patent prosecution process after non-final rejection [argued][14] (2004-09-20 Applicant Arguments Remarks Made in an Amendment) that non-novelty based on prior art cited by examiner is not applicable because: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; With the stand-alone measurement data input and processing system&#xA;&gt; described in Alexander, there is no need to detect whether the&#xA;&gt; measurement data can be measured by the digital oscilloscope&#xA;&#xA;and&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Since the ECUs associated with client computer device monitor the&#xA;&gt; various vehicle components, there is no need to detect at Chou’s&#xA;&gt; diagnostic server 201 whether the measurement data can be measured.&#xA;&#xA;That is because inventor is arguing that when the data that is being processed is specific and there is no need to detect if server is capable of &quot;*measuring*&quot;/processing the data then the prior art is not applicable, consequently same logic should apply on evaluating if a, for instance, cloud service is infringing said patent. If one sends photos to process in the cloud and specifically indicates that photos are sent by specifying destination url like http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizeface and for audio files it would be http://somecloudservice.com/api/recognizevoice then no &quot;*detecting whether the measurement data are capable of being measured*&quot; is needed. And because the patent in every independent claim requires server capability of detecting if data can be &quot;*measured*&quot; and notifying client if such capability exists then the patent shouldn't apply for cloud services as mentioned previously.&#xA;&#xA;Regarding using the arguments provided by applicant during patent prosecution for claim interpretation please see [C. Claim Interpretation.][15], [wiki][16] and following:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; In Markman, the Federal Circuit held that a court should consider a&#xA;&gt; patent’s prosecution history if it is in evidence, and explained that&#xA;&gt; the prosecution history “is of primary significance in understanding&#xA;&gt; the claims.” [52 F.3d at 980][17], aff’d, 64 U.S.L.W. 4263.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; In Standard Oil&#xA;&gt; Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., [774 F.2d 448][18] (Fed. Cir. 1985), the&#xA;&gt; Federal Circuit stated that:  [T]he prosecution history (sometimes&#xA;&gt; called “file wrapper and contents’’) of the patent consists of the&#xA;&gt; entire record of proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office. This&#xA;&gt; includes all express representations made by or on behalf of the&#xA;&gt; applicant to the examiner to induce a patent grant, or, as here, to&#xA;&gt; reissue a patent. Such representations include amendments to the&#xA;&gt; claims and arguments made to convince the examiner that the claimed&#xA;&gt; invention meets the statutory requirements of novelty, utility, and&#xA;&gt; nonobviousness. Thus, the prosecution history (or file wrapper) limits&#xA;&gt; the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that&#xA;&gt; may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to&#xA;&gt; obtain claim allowance. &#xA;&gt; [774 F.2d at 452][19] (emphasis added).&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; In order to&#xA;&gt; obtain allowance of the claims of the ‘712 patent, arguments were made&#xA;&gt; on behalf of the applicant to the Examiner during prosecution that&#xA;&gt; served both to explain the claims in a clear manner and to disavow any&#xA;&gt; other interpretation.&#xA;&#xA;Source - [Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-376, p. 47][20], [here][21] or [here][18].&#xA;&#xA;Moreover all independent patent claims except claim 32 clearly indicate that system performs modulation/demodulation, which is &quot;[the process of varying one or more properties of a periodic waveform, called the carrier signal][22]&quot; on a basic level. That is claims that use modulation/demodulation terminology automatically limit the possible claim interpretation to that where system in question performs electric or other signal modulation/demodulation in a manner consistent with the claims and [term definition][22].&#xA;&#xA;The claim 32 regardless of not being limited by modulation/demodulation terms has a clear indication of measuring instrument being a physical device: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; Claim 32: &lt;...&gt; one of measurement instruments **connected to the server computer** &lt;...&gt;&#xA;&#xA;In modern systems purpose built physical devices for processing data that are connected to the computer are rarely used if at all. It is an outdated system scheme. All processing nowadays is performed using software which is run by computer (NOT connected to it). One can analyze the patent and see that all explanations and examples use the physical device as a **measuring instrument** (see Fig. 3, Description) thus narrowing ability to apply this patent to cloud services.&#xA;&#xA;Yet another aspect ow why cloud computing is not related to this patent is the use of &quot;Web site&quot; in patent claim 32&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A measurement service method for connecting a server computer and a client computer through a **Web site** on the Internet (...) wherein applications for measurement services are accepted on the **Web site** (...)&#xA;&#xA;From patent prosecution document [Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment (09/20/2004)][23] p.13 new paragraph&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Nor is there any disclosure in the Rogers Patent of providing such an&#xA;&gt; **intermediate Web site** for accepting&#xA;&gt; applications for measurement services. Applicant respectfully submits&#xA;&gt; that the Rogers passages (col. 9, lines 10-65) referenced by the&#xA;&gt; Examiner at page 3 of the Office Action do not teach or disclose an&#xA;&gt; **intermediate Web site**. In particular, these passages refer to the&#xA;&gt; operation of the system shown in Figure 4 of the Rogers Patent, which&#xA;&gt; depicts a data input controller 200 “which is similar to a Web&#xA;&gt; browser” (col. 9, lines 15-17) and a networked controller 220 “which&#xA;&gt; is similar to a Web server” (col. 9, lines 17-18), but these passages&#xA;&gt; nowhere describe, suggest or even hint of inserting an intermediate&#xA;&gt; Web site between the data input controller 200 and the networked&#xA;&gt; controller 220 to service applications for measurement Services&#xA;&#xA;can be seen that applicant defends novelty of the combination of original claims 36 and 39 (final claim 32, see [final claim index][24]) by underlining the difference between applicants claimed invention and and prior art patent ([Rogers][25]) being direct communication between client and server in Rogers and via **Web site** as in claimed invention. Contrary to using &quot;intermediate Web site&quot; cloud services using combination of [REST/RESTful][26] (HTTP) and for instance [JSON][27] as data format (which is currently a norm in tech world) are communicating directly to the server. One could also look at definitions of the following words: [web site][28], [web page][29], [hypertext][30] to understand the term **Web site** and it's difference in view of the patent from modern cloud services.&#xA;&#xA;# So to put it briefly: #&#xA;&#xA;**a)** is class scope in U.S. patent class [709][12] regarding &quot;unspecified data&quot; is applicable to cloud services where it is a normal practice to deal with specific data. How combinations of two patent classes [702/189][11]; [709][12]/[217][13] work? Both must apply or only first or second when interpreting claims?&#xA;&#xA;**b)** during [US6873940][1] [patent application][14] inventor argued that known systems that receive known data and process it are different from patented system in that previous systems did not need to detect if received data is &quot;measurable&quot;. Is this a strong argument protecting cloud services like those mentioned previously from said patent? Having in mind that there is no need to detect if data is &quot;measurable&quot; in case of image processing requests are directed to URL for processing images and in case of voice processing requests are directed to URL for processing voice. And some cloud services support just images for processing only faces or only classifying image contents...&#xA;&#xA;**c)** All independent patent claims except for Claim 32 clearly indicate that system performs [modulation][22]/[demodulation][31]. Here modulation is &quot;[the process of varying one or more properties of a periodic waveform, called the carrier signal][22]&quot; thus limiting signal processing interpretation in claims by definition of said terms.&#xA;&#xA;**d)** Wording in claims and explanation in patent description limit possible interpretations of a &quot;measurement instrument&quot; to be a physical device, especially in [Claim 32][1].&#xA;&#xA;**e)** Is it even conceivable to interpret **intermediate Web site** as in [Claim 32][1] as somehow being part of [REST (HTTP) + JSON][32] cloud service?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6873940&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kamatanicloud.com/about&#xA;  [3]: http://www.generalpatent.com/&#xA;  [4]: http://scienceprogress.org/2009/01/patent-trolls-erode-patent-system/&#xA;  [5]: http://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-biggest-patent-trolls&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ipdigit.eu/2011/10/what-to-think-of-patent-trolls-the-return/&#xA;  [7]: http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/27/law-would-force-patent-trolls-to-pay-for-failed-lawsuits-against-innovators/&#xA;  [8]: http://www.keylemon.com&#xA;  [9]: http://www.betafaceapi.com&#xA;  [10]: https://rekognition.com&#xA;  [11]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc702/defs702.htm#C702S189000&#xA;  [12]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm&#xA;  [13]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc709/defs709.htm#C709S217000&#xA;  [14]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xA;  [15]: http://www.intellectual.com/infringement.htm&#xA;  [16]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markman_v._Westview_Instruments,_Inc.&#xA;  [17]: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10285146068541901213&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr#p980&#xA;  [18]: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/774/774.F2d.448.84-1552.84-1519.html#p25&#xA;  [19]: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16011019387871241659&amp;q=774%20F.2d%20448&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2006#p452&#xA;  [20]: http://bit.ly/1PYCjjA&#xA;  [21]: http://www.usitc.gov/publications/337/pub3003.pdf&#xA;  [22]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulation&#xA;  [23]: http://globaldossier.uspto.gov/svc/doccontent/US/97962302.A/9-6-US%20%20099796230GP1%20/6/PDF&#xA;  [24]: http://globaldossier.uspto.gov/svc/doccontent/US/97962302.A/8-1-US%20%20099796230IP1%20/1/PDF&#xA;  [25]: http://www.google.com/patents/US6560516&#xA;  [26]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representational_state_transfer&#xA;  [27]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON&#xA;  [28]: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/website&#xA;  [29]: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/web_page&#xA;  [30]: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hypertext&#xA;  [31]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demodulation&#xA;  [32]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representational_state_transfer#Uniform_interface" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13473" RevisionGUID="39703984-31e2-4171-8dc1-0ab149f1cb45" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="The term of a design patent is 14 years measured from the date of grant.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; [1502.01   Distinction Between Design and Utility Patents \[R-11.2013\]][1]&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; The term of a utility patent on an application filed&#xA;&gt; on or after June 8, 1995 is 20 years measured from the U.S. filing&#xA;&gt; date; or if the application contains a specific reference to an&#xA;&gt; earlier application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c), 20 years from&#xA;&gt; the earliest effective U.S. filing date, while *the term of a design&#xA;&gt; patent is 14 years measured from the date of grant* (see 35 U.S.C. 173).&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; [1505 Allowance and Term of Design Patent \[R-08.2012\]][2]&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; [35 U.S. Code § 173][3] - Term of design patent&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Patents for designs shall be granted for the term of fourteen years from the date of grant.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; [35 U.S. Code § 289][4] - Additional remedy for infringement of design&#xA;&gt; patent&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; Whomever **during the term of a patent for a design**, without license of&#xA;&gt; the owner, (1) applies the patented design, or any colorable imitation&#xA;&gt; thereof, to any article of manufacture for the purpose of sale, or (2)&#xA;&gt; sells or exposes for sale any article of manufacture to which such&#xA;&gt; design or colorable imitation has been applied shall be liable to the&#xA;&gt; owner to the extent of his total profit&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1502.html&#xA;  [2]: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1505.html&#xA;  [3]: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title35/html/USCODE-2011-title35-partII-chap16-sec173.htm&#xA;  [4]: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title35/html/USCODE-2011-title35-partIII-chap29-sec289.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="c02a00d0-e397-4a1a-9013-0f8212e3f5e2" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="This question might be too detailed for this site, but I will give it a shot...&#xA;&#xA;This question relates to divided infringement and when a method claim will have multiple actors.  &#xA;&#xA;Consider the following claims:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method comprising: a customer sending an unpainted item to a painter, the painter painting the item, and the painter sending the painted item to the customer.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 2. A method comprising: a customer sending an unpainted item to a painter, wherein the painter paints the item and sends it to the customer.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 3. A method comprising: a customer sending an unpainted item to a painter, and the customer receiving the item from the painter, wherein the received item was painted.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 4. A method comprising: a customer sending an unpainted item to a painter, and the customer receiving a painted item from the painter.&#xA;&#xA;Claim 1 is clearly divided infringement because there are two different actors performing explicit steps.&#xA;&#xA;Claim 2 is pretty much the same thing, but the actions of the painter have been put into a &quot;wherein&quot; clause.  It seems that this should also be divided infringement but I haven't found a case addressing this.  Is there any law addressing this?&#xA;&#xA;Claim 3 is trickier.  Now the wherein clause describes the item but that description requires that someone performed an action on the item.  If the painter painted the item, is this divided infringement?&#xA;&#xA;Claim 4 seems to have virtually identical meaning to claim 3, but I would say that claim 4 is not divided infringement even if the painter had painted the item. &#xA;&#xA;How does one draw the line for divided infringement for the above claims?&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13310" RevisionGUID="83378f63-5981-4cfe-bb61-33646b135427" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Let's bring an example (note I am naive in writing or understanding claims):&#xA;&#xA; &gt; Independent claim 1: It is an awesome equipment to detect X,&#xA; &gt;&#xA; &gt; dependent claim 2: the equipment of claim 1 detects X using a fork.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Could they reject it because an equipment to detect X already exists (no matter if they use spoon in their dependent claims)?&#xA;&#xA;For example if I write it as:&#xA;&#xA;&#xA; &gt; Independent claim 1: It is an awesome equipment to detect X using a fork&#xA;&#xA;Then could it be accepted because there is &quot;fork&quot; in independent claim while the independent claim of the others was general?!&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13309" RevisionGUID="0e1059b3-794d-4650-911c-952a98ece791" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text=" &#xA;Let's bring an example :&#xA;&#xA; &gt; Independent claim 1: It is an awesome equipment to detect X,&#xA; &gt;&#xA; &gt; dependent claim 2: the equipment of claim 1 detects X using a fork.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;If it was granted, would it mean that no one can file a patent to detect X because I already did? even if he uses spoon to detect X?&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13299" RevisionGUID="1cbebec6-cd4d-4277-ace1-ca788c0b80db" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I am very new to filing patents,&#xA;&#xA;  - What is the role of dependent claims?&#xA;  - Couldn't I just have one claim with any details required? What is the difference in haveing one, two, or ten claims?&#xA;  - When I should know that I need to break an independent claim to some dependent claims?&#xA;  &#xA;  &#xA;-------&#xA;&#xA;Let's bring an example:&#xA;&#xA;&#xA; &gt; Independent claim 1: It is an awesome equipment to detect X using a fork&#xA;&#xA;Versus.&#xA;&#xA; &gt; Independent claim 1: It is an awesome equipment to detect X,&#xA; &gt;&#xA; &gt; dependent claim 2: the equipment of claim 1 detects X using a fork.&#xA;&#xA;How could I know that I'd better mention &quot;fork&quot; in a dependent claim.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60773" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17937" RevisionGUID="ad708cf5-4ed6-433e-bc74-11e891d88def" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="**Method**&#xA;&#xA;A method is the simplest: it simply comprises a series of steps. There is no obligation for any hardware to be included at all, though in most cases there will be some mention of the method being performed on a computer or the like.&#xA;&#xA;But a simple example of a method would be:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;1\. A method, comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;receiving a message;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;performing a calculation in response to the message; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;sending a response based on the calculation.&#xA;&#xA;**System**&#xA;&#xA;A system has some more nuance to it. It is generally seen as an error to include method steps directly in a system, since a system comprises physical things, not intangible steps. One common approach is to nominalise the steps as components:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;2A. A system, comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a receiver adapted to receive a message;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a processor adapted to perform a calculation in response to the message; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a sender adapted to send a response based on the calculation.&#xA;&#xA;Historically, these would be &quot;receiving means&quot;, &quot;processing means&quot;, and &quot;sending means&quot;. However, such &quot;means plus function&quot; terminology is now held in the US to be limited to precisely the options provided in the description. It is therefore seen as generally a risky approach to explicitly say &quot;means&quot;; hence, the &quot;receiver&quot; above.&#xA;&#xA;But using this approach is not risk-free as well. One day, in principle, such terms might well be seen as &quot;means plus function&quot; too, despite not including the word &quot;means&quot;. Unfortunately, there is no real alternative to get a system claim with its broadest scope without any real system features that avoids such a risk.&#xA;&#xA;If you don't mind narrower, an alternative way is to use a pseudo-method claim:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;2B. A system comprising a processor and a memory, the memory comprising instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the system to:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;receive a message;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;perform a calculation in response to the message; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;send a response based on the calculation.&#xA;&#xA;This requires software (as instructions), so would almost certainly exclude pure hardware implementations from its scope.&#xA;&#xA;**Computer program products**&#xA;&#xA;A relatively rare European form of claim is a computer program product. This would typically be of the form:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;3A. A computer program product, comprising instructions which when executed by a computer, cause the computer to:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;receive a message;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;perform a calculation in response to the message; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;send a response based on the calculation.&#xA;&#xA;The US equivalent is the Beauregard claim, which is directed to a computer readable medium:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;3B. A non-transient computer-readable medium containing instructions for causing a computer to:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;receive a message;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;perform a calculation in response to the message; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;send a response based on the calculation.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13972" RevisionGUID="822eb156-f46f-445b-bc0e-502d47d78277" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="In reference to the patent: [WO2003023674A1][1]&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2003023674A1&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;The mobile application that I am working on uses QR codes to store personal credit card information, and I'd like to know whether this would make me unable to continue my work on my start-up business without being sued.&#xA;&#xA;The first claim is as follows:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; What is claimed is:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 1. A system for credit card payment using barcode and mobile phone device comprising: a mobile phone device storing a barcode data required for a credit card payment (in it), and including a display part for display of said barcode data thereon; a barcode reader device reading the barcode displayed on the display part of said mobile phone device; and a credit card validation device, being connected to said barcode reader device, fetching the credit card payment information data from the barcode which is read by said barcode reader device, transmits said information to a credit card VAN server, and then, receives a credit card payment authentication signal from said credit card VAN server.&#xA;&#xA;What does this mean in laymen's terms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16680" RevisionGUID="6cfd746a-15d9-4bdf-826f-6436f6880dd7" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="What you are describing is essentially the difference between two philosophies of patent claiming: an Anglo-Saxon one and a Germanic one.&#xA;&#xA;More formally, there are two styles of claims: &#xA;&#xA; 1. one-part form (the usual form in the US and UK-derived jurisdictions); and &#xA; 2. two-part form (the usual form in Europe).&#xA;&#xA;**Two-part form**&#xA;&#xA;Two-part form (also called German-style claiming or a Jepson claim) is where the known portion of the claim is separated from the novel portion by a particular phrase.&#xA;&#xA;This is particularly wide-spread in Europe, where it is mandatory. That is, [EPC r 43(1)](https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/r43.html) provides that claims shall contain:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;(a) a statement indicating the designation of the subject-matter of the invention and those technical features which are necessary for the definition of the claimed subject-matter but which, in combination, form part of the prior art; &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(b) a characterising portion, beginning with the expression &quot;characterised in that&quot; or &quot;characterised by&quot; and specifying the technical features for which, in combination with the features stated under sub-paragraph (a), protection is sought.&#xA;&#xA;The magic words are &quot;dadurch gekennzeichnet&quot; or &quot;gekennzeichnet durch&quot; in German and &quot;caractérisé en&quot; or &quot;caractérisé par&quot; in French.&#xA;&#xA;So an example two-part form claim would be:&#xA;&gt;A system comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a known first widget; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a known second widget;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;characterised in that:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;the second widget is placed on the first widget in a novel way.&#xA;&#xA;In the US, [37 CFR 1.75(e)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.75) actually mandates two-part form, using the phrase &quot;wherein the improvement comprises&quot;. However, as a practical matter, everybody ignores this rule.&#xA;&#xA;**One-part form**&#xA;&#xA;Any claim that is not in two-part form is in one-part form. In a one-part form claim, the novel features are intermixed with the known features.&#xA;&#xA;So an example one-part form claim would be:&#xA;&gt;A system comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a known first widget; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a known second widget placed on the first widget in a novel way.&#xA;&#xA;**Advantages of two-part form**&#xA;&#xA;The idea behind two-part form is that it allows the reader to easily determine what the applicant thinks is novel. This can lead to the examination process being more targetted on the improvement, and therefore potentially higher quality.&#xA;&#xA;**Disadvantages of two-part form (or advantages of one-part form)**&#xA;&#xA;Some claims do not lend themselves to two-part form easily. This would be most notable in a method claim, if the novel bit is in the middle. Two-part form would lead to the method steps being presented out-of-order (or at least to some awkward circumlocution).&#xA;&#xA;But even where you could use two-part form: why would you want a reader to know what you think is novel? This just makes your competitor's job easier, for negligible personal benefit.&#xA;&#xA;This latter point is particularly striking in the US, where the preamble is treated as admitted prior art. If you get it wrong, there can be some pretty dire consequences. This is one of the key reasons why, despite the mandate in the rules, few US drafters would use a Jepson claim. In contrast, in Europe the preamble is not binding, and is just treated as a hint to the reader. If you get it wrong, the consequences are mild.&#xA;&#xA;You are perhaps seeing this effect in real life: while the earlier claims in two-part form are easy to understand, the later claims in one-part form require much more work, and even then are somewhat uncertain — surely exactly how you want your competitors to be.&#xA;&#xA;**Infringement**&#xA;&#xA;The format of the claim has no bearing on whether the claim is infringed. In either case, an infringer must perform all elements of the claim for it to be infringed, even those elements which are in the preamble of a two-part claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60776" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16595" RevisionGUID="6746f38f-0469-4623-9ff7-736b77d2d9ef" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Yes: in the US, intervening rights can be used for both novelty and non-obviousness rejections.&#xA;&#xA;**An example timeline**&#xA;&#xA;Let us talk of two applications: P1 and P2, having the following dates:&#xA;&#xA;1 Jan 2015: P1 filed at USPTO.&#xA;&#xA;1 Feb 2015: P2 filed at USPTO.&#xA;&#xA;1 Jul 2016: P1 published by USPTO.&#xA;&#xA;So in a European context, P1 would be novelty-only prior art for P2. But P1 is not full prior art, and therefore could not support an inventive step objection.&#xA;&#xA;**The law for prior art**&#xA;&#xA;The meaning of prior art is provided in [35 USC § 102(a)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102):&#xA;&#xA;&gt;A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.&#xA;&#xA;So § 102(a)(1) corresponds to conventional prior art (that is, published before the effective filing date). P1 was published after P2 was filed, and is therefore not § 102(a)(1) prior art.&#xA;&#xA;§ 102(a)(2) corresponds to (what the Europeans sometimes call) intervening rights (that is, filed before but published after the effective filing date). P1 was filed before P2. Once P1 publishes, and assuming P1 names a different inventor, P1 would be § 102(a)(2) prior art. As a practical matter, even before P1 publishes, the examiner may raise a provisional rejection.&#xA;&#xA;**The law for non-obviousness**&#xA;&#xA;The requirement for obviousness is provided by [35 USC § 103](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/103) (emphasis added):&#xA;&#xA;&gt;A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, **if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art** are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.&#xA;&#xA;Thus the non-obviousness requirement refers back to the prior art definition in § 102 with no further provisos. Accordingly anything which is prior art for § 102 can be used for an obviousness attack under § 103." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17433" RevisionGUID="df3daf1a-ec6d-49df-9b6e-d79d245ec646" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="In the UK, this wording derives the [Patents Act 1977 s 1(2)](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/37/section/1), which provides (emphasis added):&#xA;&#xA;&gt;It is hereby declared that the following (among other things) are not inventions for the purposes of this Act, that is to say, anything which consists of -&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(a) a discovery, scientific theory or mathematical method;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(b) a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or any other aesthetic creation whatsoever;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(c) a scheme, rule or method for performing a mental act, playing a game or **doing business, or a program for a computer**;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(d) the presentation of information;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;but the foregoing provision shall prevent anything from being treated as an invention for the purposes of this Act **only to the extent that a patent or application for a patent relates to that thing as such**.&#xA;&#xA;In this context, the &quot;as such&quot; exclusion means that there must be something more to the invention than just a business method or a computer program. This might be controlling a machine, or improving the operation of a computer, or any number of other things. But there must be something more. This is quite tidily stated by [MOPP s 1.35](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/manual-of-patent-practice-mopp/section-1-patentability):&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Therefore, a computer program that provides a technical contribution will not fall under the exclusion, as it is more than a computer program as such.&#xA;&#xA;In determining whether an invention is excluded, the UKIPO applies the *Aerotel* test:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;(1) Properly construe the claim;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(2) identify the actual contribution;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(3) ask whether it falls solely within the excluded subject matter;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(4) check whether the actual or alleged contribution is actually technical in nature.&#xA;&#xA;The *Aerotel* test thus focuses on whether the actual contribution is excluded, rather than the claimed subject matter as a whole. Thus merely embodying a business method in a physical device is not enough to avoid it being excluded subject matter, if the physical device is just commonplace window dressing (such as a processor and memory).&#xA;&#xA;Thus, that objection broadly means that the actual contribution falls solely into an excluded category with nothing further involved.&#xA;&#xA;**How to respond**&#xA;&#xA;In applying the *Aerotel* test, you will notice that the actual contribution must fall solely within the excluded subject matter. You may therefore want to characterise the actual contribution differently from the examiner. Or you may want to point to a facet of it that is not excluded.&#xA;&#xA;**An aside about that website**&#xA;&#xA;I would disagree with the editorialising of that website. Or more explicitly, [that page](http://en.swpat.org/wiki/As_such) is biased and uninformed twaddle. The words &quot;as such&quot; certainly reduce the scope of an exclusion, but do not render it meaningless. As you have noticed, the UKIPO readily object to excluded subject matter. And the EPO have no problem objecting to excluded subject matter (albeit sometimes through the mechanism of non-technical features not supporting an inventive step)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17733" RevisionGUID="7ae8b7f8-2f1d-4d5b-a6ac-01ae57353661" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="The requierements for a patent are &#xA;&#xA;- novelty&#xA;&#xA;- inventive step&#xA;(called non obviousness in the US)&#xA;&#xA;- usability.&#xA;&#xA;Novelty is anchored in 35 USC 102, which reads&#xA;&#xA;&gt;(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151 , or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b) , in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;[...]&#xA;&#xA;(Leaving out everything that follows because it treats special cases and isn't relevant here)&#xA;&#xA;Assuming the reason you know about the patent in South Korea is because the South Korean patent application has been published 35 USC 102 (a) (1) contains your answer -&gt; it will get denied if the prior art publication (the korean patent) is found by the examiner.&#xA;&#xA;If it hasn't been published the situation is a little more complex. (For a complete answer see [here][1]), in summary, if the patent application is ever published, it can be held against your US application. &#xA;&#xA;If you are named as an inventor on the korean application, the situation is even more complex, but I assume from your question that you are not, so I won't elaborate.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/17636/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17705" RevisionGUID="ae315c45-23ce-4434-baba-2f5e811dd685" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="First I should note that the ratio in *Alice*, while easy to state, is rather hard to apply. Many words have been shed trying to characterise precisely what *Alice*-style abstractness really is. But the reality is, unless high courts rule further on this, we're left with working it out as we go.&#xA;&#xA;Nevertheless, I'm feeling brave, so I'll give it a go. For simplicity, all my quotes are from the headnote (though I note that this is not part of the opinion proper).&#xA;&#xA;**The judgment**&#xA;&#xA;The holding of *Alice* is:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Because the claims are drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea, &#xA;they are not patent eligible under §101.&#xA;&#xA;This provides a concise statement. The claimed invention must not relate to an abstract idea.&#xA;&#xA;But &quot;abstract&quot; is not defined anywhere. Instead, the majority indirectly characterises it, with reference to *Mayo*. &#xA;&#xA;&gt;In applying the §101 exception, this Court must distinguish patents that claim the &quot;buildin[g] block[s]&quot; of human ingenuity, which are ineligible for patent protection, from those that integrate the building blocks into something more.&#xA;&#xA;This approach is somewhat formalised:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Using this framework, the Court must first determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. If so, the Court then asks whether the claim's elements, considered both individually and &quot;as an ordered combination,&quot; &quot;transform the nature of the claim&quot; into a patent-eligible application.&#xA;&#xA;The majority apply this approach to the subject patent:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;The claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept: the abstract idea of intermediated settlement.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Viewed as a whole, these method claims simply recite the concept of intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer. They do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. An instruction to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement using some unspecified, generic computer is not &quot;enough&quot; to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. &#xA;&#xA;**Should applications be phrased differently?**&#xA;&#xA;No. Or at least, not without something more:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;This Court has long &quot;warn[ed] . . . against&quot; interpreting §101 &quot;in ways that make patent eligibility 'depend simply on the draftsman's art.'&quot;&#xA;&#xA;And this seems right. The substance of the claim is what matters, not that it uses any magic words.&#xA;&#xA;**So, how does one approach this in practice?**&#xA;&#xA;It seems to me that you simply have to ask: what really is the point of the invention?&#xA;&#xA;If the point of the invention is a method of trading securities (which is embodied on a computer), it seems that that is a fundamentally abstract idea: you're not claiming anything technological, you're just claiming a fundamental building block of business.&#xA;&#xA;However, if your method is faster for computers to perform than prior art methods which have the same aim, then this is more than abstract. The point of your invention is no longer just business, but better technology. So while the overall concept may well still be abstract in general, at least some features improve the function of a computer such that the invention is transformed into a patent-eligible invention.&#xA;&#xA;**What inventions should be kept as trade secrets?**&#xA;&#xA;If your invention really doesn't do anything particularly technical, you should probably keep it a secret: it's likely to be abstract and patent-ineligible.&#xA;&#xA;**A digression on comparative patent law**&#xA;&#xA;Though there is no mention, even implicitly, of a desire to align the US with the European approach, it seems to me that there are some clear parallels between *Alice* requirement for non-abstractness and the European requirement for a technical effect. That is, for an invention to be patentable in Europe, the novel features must have some technical effect: the effect of the invention cannot solely be non-technical, such as a better business method, and the technical effect cannot solely be from well-known features like a general purpose computer.&#xA;&#xA;This seems to me to generally be saying the same thing as the US approach, but with different words. But as far as I know, there have been no formal studies into the similarity between the two approaches, so this is nothing more than idle speculation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60780" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17689" RevisionGUID="4dd64469-326d-4832-ab6d-2410749c372c" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="## What to comply with ##&#xA;&#xA;There are two reasons for the description of the invention in anything else than claims:&#xA;&#xA; &#xA;&#xA; - enablement requirement&#xA; - written description requirement&#xA;&#xA;Enablement means&#xA;&gt;The enablement requirement refers to the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph that the specification describe how to make and how to use the invention. The invention that one skilled in the art must be enabled to make and use is that defined by the claim(s) of the particular application or patent.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;The purpose of the requirement that the specification describe the invention in such terms that one skilled in the art can make and use the claimed invention is to ensure that the invention is communicated to the interested public in a meaningful way. &#xA;&#xA;([MPEP][1])&#xA;&#xA;It is not the same as the written description requirement.&#xA;&#xA;&gt;The enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, is separate and distinct from the written description requirement. Vas-Cath,Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116-17 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“the purpose of the ‘written description’ requirement is broader than to merely explain how to ‘make and use’”). See also MPEP § 2161. Therefore, the fact that an additional limitation to a claim may lack descriptive support in the disclosure as originally filed does not necessarily mean that the limitation is also not enabled.&#xA;&#xA;(same MPEP section)&#xA;&#xA;For enablement:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;2164.01   Test of Enablement [R-08.2012]&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Any analysis of whether a particular claim is supported by the disclosure in an application requires a determination of whether that disclosure, when filed, contained sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claims as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the claimed invention. The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Minerals Separation Ltd. v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916) which postured the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? That standard is still the one to be applied. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Accordingly, even though the statute does not use the term “undue experimentation,” it has been interpreted to require that the claimed invention be enabled so that any person skilled in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation. In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d at 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See also United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785, 8 USPQ2d 1217, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1988) **(“The test of enablement is whether one reasonably skilled in the art could make or use the invention from the disclosures in the patent coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation.”)**.&#xA;&#xA;(Still quoting the MPEP section on enablement, emphasis added)&#xA;&#xA;So you need to include every important part of B into A to have a basis for the claims and enable them. The basis for the claims should be that every claim is literally listed and explained in the description, everything else, while theoretically possible, gets you into trouble in practice. Claims and patents are regularly invalidated because someone added something to a claim which was only between the lines or they deemed &quot;clear from context&quot;. For enabling, references and prior art can be used too.&#xA;&#xA;## How to do that ##&#xA;If what is needed for the claims of A is in B, B has to be part of the prior art or part of the description of A. For what is part of the prior art see [this answer][2]. If B gets abandoned and not published, it won't be prior art for A, so I'd strongly advise against not making it part of A's description *because it will be prior art*, even if that might work. Additionally, I don't know the case law, but having to use the prior art from only one other application to enable might be *undue experimentation*.&#xA;&#xA;So we are left with either adding every important aspect of B into A, e.g. by copying it into it, or **incorporation by reference**.&#xA;## Incorporation by reference: ##&#xA;&#xA;Based on [37 CFR 1.57: Incorporation by reference][3]:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;(d) “Essential material” may be incorporated by reference, but only by way of an incorporation by reference to a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication, which patent or patent application publication does not itself incorporate such essential material by reference. “Essential material” is material that is necessary to:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;    (1) Provide a written description of the claimed invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) ;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;    (2) Describe the claimed invention in terms that particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) ; or&#xA;&gt;&#xA; &gt;   (3) Describe the structure, material, or acts that correspond to a claimed means or step for performing a specified function as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(f) .&#xA;&#xA;So an incorporation by reference only cannot be done as B is not published nor granted. Which leaves us with 37 CFR 1.57 (a) and (b) - claim priority.&#xA;&#xA;If you can validly claim priority of B, you can incorporate it by reference. It won't give you an earlier filing date for the claims if they aren't based on only B, but it can allow you the incorporation by reference. Please note that I'm not citing 37 CFR 1.57 (a) and (b) which have quite some requirements to be fulfilled. Also you would have to fulfill all requirements to validly claim priority.&#xA;&#xA;If you do not want to do that, the only way left is to copy every important part into the description. Which I would advise you do anyways because it gives you more possibilites to amend your claims in case they aren't granted on the first try if you incorporate it not only by copying but also logically.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/17636/18033&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#ar_d22415_18920_3a0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17665" RevisionGUID="567a5358-d670-4852-84dc-81afe9ae737d" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="If this application was filed **after March 16th 2013** then the AIA patent law applies. &#xA;&#xA;That would be 37 USC 102&#xA;&#xA;&gt;(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;    (1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;    (2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151 , or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b) , in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.&#xA;&#xA;As you can see, if the invention was not known to the public in any way, the fact that you knew about it does not help you (unless it was stolen from you). You do not get some kind of exclusion or license just for having invented it first.&#xA;&#xA;However, if the application was filed pre AIA, the law was different.&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102   Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;    (a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.&#xA;&#xA;Pre AIA the US was a &quot;first to invent&quot; country, so you having invented it first could get you the patent granted and theirs rejected.&#xA;&#xA;See https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2132.html for more information pre AIA." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17636" RevisionGUID="f76f26a6-d726-4669-9333-4b624113e854" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="*Due to the application beeing pre AIA, I had to revise my previous answer*&#xA;&#xA;Lets start with two of the three conditions for patentability - novelty and non-obviousness (the third is usefulness). Prior art for both is **the same** (see [mpep 2141.01][1]) ! This is based in:&#xA;&#xA;(Post AIA, so for your question the next section is not relevant, however I find it very important as it is the current state of the law).&#xA;&#xA;**35 U.S. Code § 101 - Inventions patentable:**&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Whoever invents or discovers any **new** and **useful** process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.&#xA;&#xA;Emphasis added.&#xA;&#xA;Novelty:&#xA;&#xA;**35 U.S. Code § 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty**&#xA;&#xA;&gt;(a)Novelty; Prior Art.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—&#xA;(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or&#xA;(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.&#xA;&#xA;35 USC 102 (b) and (c) describe excemptions, I won't cite them, but please read them.&#xA;&#xA;&gt;(d)Patents and Published Applications Effective as Prior Art.—For purposes of determining whether a patent or application for patent is prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2), such patent or application shall be considered to have been effectively filed, with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or application—&#xA;(1) if paragraph (2) does not apply, as of the actual filing date of the patent or the application for patent; or&#xA;(2) if the patent or application for patent is entitled to claim a right of priority under section 119, 365(a), 365(b), 386(a), or 386(b), or to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date under section 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), based upon 1 or more prior filed applications for patent, as of the filing date of the earliest such application that describes the subject matter.&#xA;&#xA;So for novelty, anything published before the effective filing date is prior art and patent applications filed before or based on a priority document filed before the effective filing date (of the patent application assessed for novelty) if published later. This is called the first to file principle. **But** this only applies for AIA patent applications (after March 16th 2013). I'll get to pre AIA later. &#xA;&#xA;Note that there is no &quot;in this country&quot; or &quot;in english&quot; post AIA!&#xA;&#xA;**Pre AIA (filed before March 16th 2013)**:&#xA;&#xA;The US was a first to invent country pre AIA, therefore there are some differences. Also, prior art for novelty had to be used/known &quot;in this country&quot; (the US) or published elsewhere. As we are talking about a published publication or a hidden earlier application, this doesn't matter.&#xA;&#xA;[MPEP][2]:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; *****&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;    (e) the invention was described in — (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;*****&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) allows the use of certain international application publications and U.S. patent application publications, and certain U.S. patents as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as of their respective U.S. filing dates, including certain international filing dates. The prior art date of a reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) may be the international filing date if the international filing date was on or after November 29, 2000, the international application designated the United States, and the international application was published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Article 21(2) in the English language.&#xA;&#xA;And&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) is explicitly limited to certain references “filed in the United States before the invention thereof by the applicant” (emphasis added). Foreign applications’ filing dates that are claimed (via 35 U.S.C. 119(a)–(d), (f) or 35 U.S.C. 365(a)) in applications, which have been published as U.S. or WIPO application publications or patented in the U.S., may not be used as pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) dates for prior art purposes.&#xA;&#xA;Which should answer your question. The reference date for the US assessment of novelty is the date in which a US application was filed or a PCT application was filed which included the US as designated country and was published in english under PCT article 21(2) (see MPEP section a little below the previous cited).&#xA;&#xA;If any of the applications had been published before the filing date of B - in any language - it would be prior art. If that was not the case, A is not prior art for B.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2141.html&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2135.html#d0e205339" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17620" RevisionGUID="6fe901c5-1b23-4e62-bcb7-d80ae5a5741c" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Pre AIA MPEP (Manual of Patent Examining Procedure) states:&#xA;https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2133.html&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Likewise, there may be a nonpublic, e.g., “secret,” sale or offer to sell an invention which nevertheless constitutes a statutory bar. Hobbs v.United States, 451 F.2d 849, 859-60, 171 USPQ 713, 720 (5th Cir. 1971).&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;In similar fashion, not all “public use” and “on sale” activities will necessarily occasion the identical result. Although both activities affect how an inventor may use an invention prior to the filing of a patent application, “non-commercial” pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) activity may not be viewed the same as similar “commercial” activity. See MPEP § 2133.03(a) and § 2133.03(e)(1). Likewise, “public use” activity by an applicant may not be considered in the same light as similar “public use” activity by one other than  an applicant. See MPEP § 2133.03(a) and § 2133.03(e)(7). Additionally, the concept of “experimental use” may have different significance in “commercial” and “non-commercial” environments. See MPEP § 2133.03(c) and § 2133.03(e) - § 2133.03(e)(6). &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;and:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;2.Even If the Invention Is Hidden, Inventor Who Puts Machine or Article Embodying the Invention in Public View Is Barred from Obtaining a Patent as the Invention Is in Public Use&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;When the inventor or someone connected to the inventor puts the invention on display or sells it, **there is a “public use” within the meaning of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) even though by its very nature an invention is completely hidden from view as part of a larger machine or article, if the invention is otherwise used in its natural and intended way and the larger machine or article is accessible to the public.** In re Blaisdell, 242 F.2d 779, 783, 113 USPQ 289, 292 (CCPA 1957); Hallv. Macneale, 107 U.S. 90, 96-97 (1882); Ex parteKuklo, 25 USPQ2d 1387, 1390 (Bd. Pat. App. &amp; Inter. 1992) (Display of equipment including the structural features of the claimed invention to visitors of laboratory is public use even though public did not see inner workings of device. The person to whom the invention is publicly disclosed need not understand the significance and technical complexities of the invention.). &#xA;&#xA;(Emphasis added.)&#xA;&#xA;There are some more information regarding commerciality etc. of the use, but I'm leaving that out because it wasn't part of your question.&#xA;&#xA;Under AIA (MPEP again):&#xA;https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2152.html#ch2100_d20033_1e416_252&#xA;&#xA;&gt;As discussed previously, public use under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is limited to those uses that are available to the public. The public use provision of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) thus has the same substantive scope, with respect to uses by either the inventor or a third party, as public uses under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) by unrelated third parties or others under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a).&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;As also discussed previously, once an examiner becomes aware that a claimed invention has been the subject of a potentially public use, the examiner should require the applicant to provide information showing that the use did not make the claimed process accessible to the public. &#xA;&#xA;So it's essentially the same if the invention was part of a publicly sold product like you asked. (Question1)&#xA;&#xA;As to question 2, as long as the invention hasn't been on sale or in public use, you should be fine. Determining exactly if the use was public use could prove difficult, for example, if a user can enter a query and get the result while the algorithm only runs on the server, that might be enough for public use. If however it is only used internally, that shouldn't be public use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17579" RevisionGUID="b61e25b5-7ff8-487a-8328-ca58fa6fa937" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I came across the patent [US9521164][1] from an [article][2] about the recent YouTube advertiser drama. I initially thought it was a bad April fools joke, but unless the author has trouble reading a calendar it seems to be legitimate.&#xA;&#xA;After taking a brief look at the patent in question I can't understand how it describes a new, non-obvious invention, or how it would help with anything at all.&#xA;&#xA;The main method described for finding the legitimacy of a website seems to be by comparing the &quot;line density&quot; with known illegitimate sites. The patent states it is:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A method for determining a legitimacy of a website comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; retrieving website content from a website;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; analyzing the website content by at least determining a line density of the website, wherein the line density of the website is determined by the relationship LD=s/l, where LD is the line density, s is the size of the website and l is the number of lines of code used to present the website, and determining a website score based at least partially on the analysis;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; determining that the website is illegitimate in response to said website score exceeding a threshold;&#xA;&#xA;I can't see how the &quot;line density&quot; (average line length in bytes) of a website would help with anything, let alone determine if a website is illegitimate.&#xA;&#xA;The rest of their patent seems to show retrieving data from a website and storing it in a database, something that every programmer and their dog has done at some stage:&#xA;&gt; a first computer connected to the Internet,&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; a data storage element interfaced with said first computer such that said first computer is operable to query said data storage element and operable to store and edit data stored in said data storage element, wherein the data storage element is further operable to store previously analyzed website information;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; a user interface operable to allow a user to interact with and control said first computer; &#xA;&#xA;Am I misunderstanding the patent? Is there some way in which this is original and/or would do something useful?&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9521164B1/en&#xA;  [2]: http://adage.com/article/digital/eric-feinberg-man-google-youtube-brand-safety-crisis/308435/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17552" RevisionGUID="d20cbfbb-fd29-428f-bfe6-09353a081fc8" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="So I will present one approach. But I should caution that this is not *the* approach, and others may quite reasonably differ.&#xA;&#xA;**If an inventive step solves several problems outlined in the background, should you list each problem as an &quot;object of the invention&quot; separately and if so, do you need to address each solution separately when writing the detailed description of the drawings/embodiments?**&#xA;&#xA;No. Indeed, there is a risk to listing any objects at all, as they are essentially a guarantee that your invention achieves the object.&#xA;&#xA;As an consequence of this, US-style drafting has conventionally moved away from including any discussion of benefits. But, in my view that swings the needle far too far in the opposite direction: including some limited commentary about benefits is useful to support non-obviousness/inventive step. &#xA;&#xA;One quite useful way to structure a discussion of the benefits can be found in traditional British-style drafting, which uses the summary section. In the summary section, there is a copy of each claim, along with some description about the benefits inherent to that claim.&#xA;&#xA;For example (and in unpolished terms):&#xA;&#xA;&gt;In a first aspect, there is provided a shower head comprising features A, B, and C. Such a shower head may be easier to use, … because. Additionally or alternatively, such a shower head provides better water-flow consistency, because ….&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;In some embodiments, the shower head comprises a connector D. This may allow for easier installation because ….&#xA;&#xA;Then in the detailed description, you focus solely on how the device works: there is no need to repeat the benefits, since they've already been set out.&#xA;&#xA;**But solving multiple problems raises a flag**&#xA;&#xA;That said, if your device solves multiple problems, then it may be an indication that you actually have multiple inventions which could each be claimed separately. That is, if the ease-of-use is due to feature B, and the improved consistency is due to feature C, and both are at least arguably novel and non-obvious, then you could well have a separate independent claim directed to each of these. This would broaden your protection.&#xA;&#xA;Of course, if the features cannot be so easily divided (since both solutions are dependent on having features B and C together), then a single independent claim may be quite reasonable.&#xA;&#xA;**Does the use of fuzzy terms such as &quot;ease of use&quot; require further definition as to how the &quot;use is easier&quot; within the detailed description of the embodiments? If so, should you breakdown the elements of &quot;ease of use&quot; as further objects before the description?**&#xA;&#xA;The standard you must meet is that the person having ordinary skill in the art (or, in reality, the examiner or another disinterested reader) would understand what you mean. There is no hard rule for this, and you must essentially use your intuition. If you believe the skilled person would understand &quot;ease of use&quot; in the manner you intend without any further explanation, then there is no need to explain. However, if you believe the skilled person might find it a bit unclear on its own, then explain a little what you mean. It may be that you can break it down into separate benefits (which does not hurt to include). In general, if you're unsure, more explanation is better, since you can't add it later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17539" RevisionGUID="9029b4aa-bdf7-4e97-8b87-6c2ea980a9c8" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="In reference to the patent: [US20050088024][1]&#xA;good afternoon,&#xA;&#xA;I am a student of the master course integrated in mechanical engineering at the University of Minho and I am completing my final project, which has as its theme the development and design of a vertical and ergonomic chair.&#xA;&#xA;From the research that I have been developing, it is necessary to place anti-sealing systems on the chair, so that the user does not slip during the change of position.&#xA;&#xA;This patent idealizes what I need for the backrest system. How can I use this kind of mechanism without copying this mechanism? What differences does it have to have in order not to infringe the patent law? As I verify other patents that are based on this patent, I would like to see how it works.&#xA;&#xA;Thank you,&#xA;&#xA;Leonel&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20050088024" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17525" RevisionGUID="02640ce4-5f7f-41b2-ac97-4072be9cf251" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Priority claims are governed by the [Paris Convention](http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/text.jsp?file_id=288514#P83_6610) art 4.&#xA;&#xA;Arts 4(C)(1)–(2) requires that priority can be claimed for twelve months from the date of filing the first application.&#xA;&#xA;Art 4(C)(4) provides that a subsequent application can only be used if the first filing &quot;has been withdrawn, abandoned, or refused, without having been laid open to public inspection and without leaving any rights outstanding, and if it has not yet served as a basis for claiming a right of priority&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;Thus given your example timeline:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;1 Jan 2010: US provisional&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;1 Jul 2010: US non-provisional (claiming the priority of US provisional)&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;1 Sep 2010: WO application (claiming the priority of US non-provisional)&#xA;&#xA;The WO application could validly claim priority from the US provisional (up until 1 Jan 2011, 12 months from the first filing). It could also claim priority from the US non-provisional (again, up until 1 Jan 2011, 12 months from the first filing). Since the WO was filed within this period, it has a valid priority claim.&#xA;&#xA;**The curious case of WO 1999/052812**&#xA;&#xA;You mentioned this case in your comment. The family timeframe of this appears to be:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;22 April 1997: Provisional US 60/044588 was filed.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;16 April 1998: Non-provisional US 09/061823 was filed (which is seemingly identical to the provisional).&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;12 April 1999: WO 1999/052812 is filed, claiming priority to US 09/061823.&#xA;&#xA;This appears to be a clear case of an invalid priority claim.&#xA;&#xA;The provisional could be used for priority only until 22 April 1998 (12 months from filing). Since the non-provisional has the same subject matter, and the provisional wasn't first abandoned, the non-provisional doesn't reset the clock. The WO filing therefore could only claim priority (to the provisional or the non-provisional) until 22 April 1998. Since it was filed in 1999, it is well beyond the priority period, and thus has an invalid priority claim.&#xA;&#xA;This doesn't seem to have been noted by the USPTO (acting as ISA on the WO) or the EPO (in the subsequent EP regional phase). I can only speculate why, but I presume it's simply because nobody noticed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17485" RevisionGUID="22a754a0-94b7-4ff7-96ff-9fd6d6d24a70" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I am reading [*Patent It Yourself* (18th edition)][1]. In this, page 210 explains about advantages:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;g. Advantages&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Although it is optional, you may list the advantages of&#xA;your invention in a narrative form. If you do so, make it&#xA;the first paragraph in your Detailed Description section.&#xA;Include this because it helps orient your readers to your&#xA;subject matter, and helps sell the invention to the&#xA;examiner or a judge who may rule on your patent. The&#xA;advantages may also help distinguish your invention&#xA;from a “judicial exception” that is not patentable.&#xA;For example, if your invention does any of the&#xA;following, explain in narrative form the shortcoming&#xA;of the prior art and the advantage of your invention:&#xA;improves another technology or technical field;&#xA;improves the functioning of the computer itself; or&#xA;includes a feature or function that is more than what&#xA;is well-&#xA;understood, routine, and conventional in the&#xA;field. However, it’s important not to use language&#xA;that a court may consider limiting; don’t use the&#xA;words “invention” or “objects”.&#xA;&#xA;The author says not to use words “invention” or “objects&quot;. But if I don’t use these words, how do I state the object of the current invention?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://amzn.to/2yypLgv" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60789" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16886" RevisionGUID="9fbaa739-6c7e-475c-988c-c2dc7a73bf78" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Theorems are excluded from patentability.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&gt;35 U.S.C. 101   Inventions patentable.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful **process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter**, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. &#xA;&#xA;Emphasis added." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17777" RevisionGUID="d8028212-2f1b-42d6-bad9-46c0f90fec79" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Not really.&#xA;&#xA;If you have two unrelated inventions, even if they might co-operate in a final functional product, you are likely to get a restriction requirement. If this occurs, and you cannot overcome it (which, in general, is pretty likely), you will need to elect one invention and file a divisional application for each non-elected invention. &#xA;&#xA;The circumstances in which a restriction requirement may be raised are set out in [MPEP § 803](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s803.html):&#xA;&#xA;&gt;There are two criteria for a proper requirement for restriction between patentably distinct inventions:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(A) The inventions must be independent (see MPEP § 802.01, § 806.06, § 808.01) or distinct as claimed (see MPEP § 806.05 - § 806.05(j)); and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(B) There would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required (see MPEP § 803.02, § 808, and § 808.02).&#xA;&#xA;A related, but different approach is used in most non-US jurisdictions. If there is no common inventive subject matter linking two independent claims, they lack unity of invention, and so are not allowable. This generally also results in a need to file a divisional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17334" RevisionGUID="a686924a-5125-4d21-a852-488501e53e02" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="So here we have a tidy distinction between description and claims.&#xA;&#xA;**Description**&#xA;&#xA;You must provide a description sufficiently detailed that the skilled person, reading your description, would understand how to put the invention into practice. You must also disclose the best way of doing it that you know. To this end, it is irrelevant whether the different parts are novel or not.&#xA;&#xA;In your case, it sounds like COM1 is an important part of the overall system (even if it's not novel, and even if it could be inefficiently substituted with pen and paper). It must therefore be disclosed in your description. However, it is not an aspect of your invention itself (since you didn't invent it).&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Figure X shows the system 10. input device 11 passes data to processing device 12. Processor 12 may comprise COM2. COM2 is configured to …&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;In some embodiments, input device 11 comprises COM1. An example of COM1 is shown in Figure Y. …&#xA;&#xA;**Claims**&#xA;&#xA;In your claims, you generally only include features which either (1) contribute towards novelty and non-obviousness; or (2) are essential to understand the invention in context.&#xA;&#xA;In your case, it sounds like COM2 is the novel/non-obvious bit, but it's essential that something provides an input. So you might have an independent claim:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;1. A system comprising: an input device, and COM2, wherein COM2 is in communication with the input device.&#xA;&#xA;If there is an argument that COM1 is a non-obvious choice (even if, in isolation, it is known), you might also include a dependent claim:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;2. The system of claim 1, wherein the input device comprises COM1.&#xA;&#xA;The benefits of this are that claim 1 covers the essential elements of the invention without any unnecessary limitations (thus getting you maximum protection). Claim 2 might be useful during prosecution.&#xA;&#xA;You would probably not have COM1 in your independent claim, as its only one embodiment (which is inessential, in the pen-and-paper case).&#xA;&#xA;**An aside about aspects**&#xA;&#xA;An aspect maps to an independent claim. That is, an aspect of your invention is a conception of your invention in its broadest sense. If a feature is not essential to this, it is not an aspect. It is an embodiment.&#xA;&#xA;But don't get hung up in terminology. You could very well get away without using &quot;embodiment&quot; or &quot;aspect&quot; at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17237" RevisionGUID="eb08cdbf-edf3-4141-ac88-b6a31dbf6b72" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="The answer to this turns on [35 USC § 102(a)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102), which reads:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.&#xA;&#xA;Section 102(a)(1) covers the typical scenario of a publication. When a patent application (or any document at all) is published, it becomes §102(a)(1) prior art as of its publication date. This section therefore does not apply to unpublished applications (whether provisional or non-provisional).&#xA;&#xA;Section 102(a)(2) relates more to double patenting. The three requirements are:&#xA;&#xA;- the claimed invention was described in an issued patent or an application published under §122; AND&#xA;- the patent or application names another inventor; AND&#xA;- the patent or application was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.&#xA;&#xA;An unpublished provisional fails at the first hurdle: it is neither an issued patent nor an published application. It therefore cannot be regarded as prior art until it is published.&#xA;&#xA;**How about dropped but published provisionals for patents with priority date between filing and publishing of said provisional?**&#xA;&#xA;A published provisional application is prior art under §102(a)(1) (like any published document), as of its date of publication. However, it is still not §102(a)(2) prior art.&#xA;&#xA;This is because a provisional application is never published under §122 (and therefore will never meet the first requirement above). This is clear from [§122(2)(A)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/122) which provides:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;An application shall not be published if that application is— ...&#xA;(iii) a provisional application filed under section 111(b)&#xA;&#xA;**What about non-provisionals?**&#xA;&#xA;Once they are published (and not before, per the first requirement above), non-provisionals are §102(a)(2) prior art. However, they are prior art as of the effective filing date (not the publication date).&#xA;&#xA;This has an interesting dynamic when paired with a provisional. A published non-provisional which claims the benefit of the provisional is §102(a)(2) prior art as of the date that the provisional was filed. This is because the effective filing date of the non-provisional is the provisional's filing date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17223" RevisionGUID="5323f200-22c4-461c-8c77-43be5a7898e9" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="All of the answers in here helpful yet hesitant to provide a tangible legal advice. Searching through the questions asked I have found this answer by @George White. The answer provides a detailed description on what to do with the patent claims to know exactly where you stand. Also, its an answer by a patent agent. So, I decided to quote this answer here for anyone who is having doubts just like me:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; If an independent method claim 1 has 6 steps, to infringe that claim one entity must perform all 6 steps. A different claim 2 depending from 1 essentially says &quot;do all those 6 steps plus these two (for example) more steps. To infringe 1 you must do the 6 steps. To infringe 2 you must do the eight steps. In both cases it is all steps of a particular claim. Anyone who infringes 2, is by definition also infringing 1. If you are doing all 8 steps you are obviously doing the 6 steps.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; To infringe a dependent claim one must do all of the steps in all the claims in the chain of claims it depends from as well as the steps specifically written in that dependent claim's text.&#xA;&#xA;Source: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5435/a-patent-with-both-apparatus-i-e-system-and-method&#xA;&#xA;Thanks @George White&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17219" RevisionGUID="95c02164-725a-4cb9-940d-e3376ab79e54" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Let's look at the first claim of this patent:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;1. A method performed by one or more processes executing on an electronic device, the method comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;receiving tactile input from a user of the electronic device, the tactile input comprising a pattern of tap events detected on a touch-sensitive surface of the electronic device;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;providing haptic and visual feedback, together at substantially the same time, to the user of the electronic device corresponding to the pattern of tap events entered during the receiving of the tactile input;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;associating a custom vibration pattern with the received tactile input;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;storing the custom vibration pattern for use by the electronic device; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;signaling a notification event or alert to the user of the electronic device by actuating haptic feedback corresponding to the stored custom vibration pattern.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;In short:&#xA;On a device the user enters a pattern of taps, the device gives haptic and visual feedback at the same time and a custom vibration pattern is associated with the input and used to vibrate this way for a specific notification.&#xA;&#xA;Example: You want your whatsapp messages to vibrate differently if your girlfriend messages you.&#xA;&#xA;Your case is actually interesting, as you might be infringing this claim when using your massager. The claim doesn't specify what kind of electronic device.&#xA;&#xA;I'll try an analysis, but please note, this is no legal advice - especially - I might be wrong.&#xA;&#xA;&gt;A method performed by one or more processes executing on an electronic device, the method comprising:&#xA;&#xA;Yes, a massager is an electronic device.&#xA;&#xA;&gt;receiving tactile input from a user of the electronic device, the tactile input comprising a pattern of tap events detected on a touch-sensitive surface of the electronic device;&#xA;&#xA;If you use a touchscreen ..., basically all input is a pattern.&#xA;&#xA;&gt;providing haptic and visual feedback, together at substantially the same time, to the user of the electronic device corresponding to the pattern of tap events entered during the receiving of the tactile input;&#xA;&#xA;THIS - probably aimed at showing the user what vibration pattern he is selecting the device provides immediat feedback, visually AND haptically.&#xA;If your massager does not provide immediate haptic feedback, it cannot infringe this claim.&#xA;&#xA;&gt;associating a custom vibration pattern with the received tactile input;&#xA;&#xA;depending on the definition of vibration in the patents describtion, you might have your massager not infringe by vibrating for example harder, though thats a long shot and relying on the description to get out of infringement is always dangerous.&#xA;&#xA;&gt;storing the custom vibration pattern for use by the electronic device; and&#xA;&#xA;Well..&#xA;&#xA;&gt;signaling a notification event or alert to the user of the electronic device by actuating haptic feedback corresponding to the stored custom vibration pattern.&#xA;&#xA;And THIS. The saved vibration pattern is used to signal the user of the device an notification event or an alert. I don't see where a massager would do this, unless you program that the user can enter a specific end sequenze to signal that the end of the massage is coming or something like this.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;So you see, careful analysis shows, you are probably not infirnging. There might be some path for arguing that the field of the patent differentiates substantially from what you do, but honestly, I don't know if that works. Anyways, I'd say you're safe. But please remember, this is just my opinion based on a short and shallow analysis.&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17183" RevisionGUID="4a99090c-ebd8-4fd7-b49e-dac9c141d833" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="At first blush, [US 9083821](https://patents.google.com/patent/US9083821B2/en) that you referred to seems to be a very good example of a software patent. I will therefore discuss a little about the patent and how it relates to the invention–implementation dichotomy. I've glossed over the precise details of the invention for simplicity's sake (since it doesn't really matter for illustrative purposes).&#xA;&#xA;**What is the difference between an invention and an implementation?**&#xA;&#xA;The difference is in the level of generality: an invention is a general solution to a general problem, whereas an implementation is a specific solution to a specific problem*.&#xA;&#xA;So in the case of US 9083821, the specific problem is that users with hearing impairment may not fully enjoy some music when it plays on their device. The specific solution (and how they might intend to put it into practice) is to adapt a music app to vibrate the device in response to the music. Apple could have patented this. However, by limiting themselves to their particular implementation, they would end up with a very narrow protection which would not cover (perhaps a baby monitor for people with hearing difficulty) which uses the same technology but involves a very different implementation.&#xA;&#xA;Thus the drafters would have considered what the general problem is, which is how to convey audio information to a user who cannot hear. The general solution (and the essence of their invention) is to receive an audio signal, convert part of it to haptic feedback, and present the feedback. This covers their specific implementation. But it also covers any other kind of implementation using the same invention. The result is a broad, powerful patent.&#xA;&#xA;**How is this reflected in US 9083821?**&#xA;&#xA;Primarily this can be seen by considering the scope of the claims. Claim 1 is:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;1\. A method performed by one or more processes executing on an electronic device, the method comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;receiving an audio signal comprising a range of audio frequencies including high frequencies and low frequencies;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;converting a first portion of the range of audio frequencies into haptic data representable as haptic feedback comprising at least one of a vibration based on a stored vibration pattern, temperature variation, or electric stimulus to a human user;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;shifting a second portion of the range of audio frequencies to a different range of audio frequencies, wherein the second portion corresponds to a range of audio frequencies that a user of the electronic device cannot hear, and the different range of audio frequencies corresponds to a range of audio frequencies that the user can hear; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;presenting the haptic data as haptic feedback so as to convey audible information.&#xA;&#xA;There is very little in this claim related to its actual implementation. The only mention of hardware is in the preamble (&quot;an electronic device&quot;). Moreover, there is no mention that it would be included in a music listening app or that it helps hard-of-hearing people. Instead the claim purely relates to the invention, which is fundamentally just an algorithm.&#xA;&#xA;Claims 15 and 29 do recite some general hardware, but still don't recite a particular implementation.&#xA;&#xA;**What about the description**&#xA;&#xA;The description is very closely tied to the claims. From reading through the description, you have no knowledge that this will be integrated into a setting for the iOS music app (I assume). While it would be permissible to include these details in the description, there is probably little advantage to doing so. If the general invention is known, the specific implementation will likely be obvious (so wouldn't be useful for amendments anyway). Alternatively, they may have just wanted to keep their competitors guessing.&#xA;&#xA;**What should a future drafter do?**&#xA;&#xA;Start with your specific problem and solution, which you will likely be familiar with (and which will hopefully be novel and non-obvious). Then consider what how you could your problem and your solution without losing the novelty/non-obviousness. For example, instead of vibrating a device, you might &quot;present haptic feedback&quot;. Instead of converting high tones, you might &quot;convert a first portion of the range of audio frequencies&quot;. And so on, until you're left with a broad conception of what your invention is.&#xA;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;* The terms &quot;problem&quot; and &quot;solution&quot; have a particular meaning in European patent practice, which I don't intend here. I am trying to use them in a more general sense.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17086" RevisionGUID="c063b2b8-3223-4444-b648-e8e38dff13f1" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="One would hope that your contract with them makes the ownership of IP clear. But putting that aside:&#xA;&#xA;**[Proprietary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proprietary)**&#xA;&gt;1:  one that possesses, owns, or holds exclusive right to something&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;2:  something that is used, produced, or marketed under exclusive legal right of the inventor or maker; specifically :  a drug (as a patent medicine ) that is protected by secrecy, patent, or copyright against free competition as to name, product, composition, or process of manufacture&#xA;&#xA;You might say that your design is proprietary, or that the products you have provided to them include proprietary designs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17070" RevisionGUID="b2cb362c-6f4d-4af6-8300-a88659ad0ad3" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I will just include the mandatory recommendation here to get a patent attorney. If your invention is worth protecting, it's worth protecting properly. Otherwise, you're just throwing money away at filing fees with little chance of getting something at the end.&#xA;&#xA;With that out of the way...&#xA;&#xA;US Non-Provisional&#xA;===&#xA;&#xA;**What must a US non-provisional application include?**&#xA;&#xA;In short, you must have a description, a claim, and a drawing at minimum.&#xA;&#xA;More formally, the requirements of an application are provided by 35 USC 111(a)(2):&#xA;&#xA;&gt;(A) a specification as prescribed by section 112;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(B) a drawing as prescribed by section 113; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(C) an oath or declaration as prescribed by section 115.&#xA;&#xA;The specification comprises (35 USC 112(a)–(b)):&#xA;&#xA;&gt;(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention…&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims…&#xA;&#xA;**Can claims be added later?**&#xA;&#xA;Yes.&#xA;&#xA;[MPEP § 506(I)(C)](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s506.html) provides:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Filing dates are accorded to nonprovisional applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) submitted without … at least one claim (for applications filed on or after December 13, 2013) …. In such cases, a notice is mailed by OPAP requiring the appropriate fees, claims (for applications filed on or after December 13, 2013) and for applications filed before September 16, 2012, the oath or declaration (which must include the names of all the inventors), accompanied by a surcharge (37 CFR 1.16(f)). &#xA;&#xA;You will have to provide the claims shortly after though.&#xA;&#xA;**If I sell publicly after filing only specifications, but before filing my claims amendments, will that affect what I can claim?**&#xA;&#xA;No. If you sell the application such that the applicant is assigned to another party, then the obligation to add claims passes to whoever the new applicant is.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;PCT application&#xA;===&#xA;&#xA;**What must a PCT application include?**&#xA;&#xA;PCT art 3(2) provides:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;An international application shall contain, as specified in this Treaty and the Regulations, a request, a description, one or more claims, one or more drawings (where required), and an abstract.&#xA;&#xA;**Can claims be added later?**&#xA;&#xA;Not really.&#xA;&#xA;PCT art 11(1) provides:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;The receiving Office shall accord as the international filing date the date of receipt of the international application, provided that that Office has found that, at the time of receipt:&#xA;…&#xA;(iii)…(e)  a part which on the face of it appears to be a claim or claims.&#xA;&#xA;The consequences are provided by PCT art 11(2):&#xA;&#xA;&gt;(a)  If the receiving Office finds that the international application did not, at the time of receipt, fulfill the requirements listed in paragraph (1), it shall, as provided in the Regulations, invite the applicant to file the required correction.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(b)  If the applicant complies with the invitation, as provided in the Regulations, the receiving Office shall accord as the international filing date **the date of receipt of the required correction**.&#xA;&#xA;Thus your PCT application will be dated as of whenever you supply claims. If this is later than 12 months from the earliest priority claim (your US provisional), you will be too late: your priority claim will be invalid.&#xA;&#xA;Commentary&#xA;===&#xA;Thus there is some scope for not including claims in the US non-provisional immediately. However, this is a really bad idea.&#xA;&#xA;When drafting your application, you should almost certainly start with your claims, and craft your description around the claims. This ensures that the description provides the necessary support for your claims.&#xA;&#xA;Doing it in the other direction is risky. You would have to hope that the description contains the terminology and the features in a suitable manner that they can be used to form supported claims. While the US is somewhat forgiving on this, other jurisdictions (notably Europe) are much more restrictive. I have seen far too many applicants make this mistake, and get left with good inventions that will never get a patent due to poor drafting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17063" RevisionGUID="b33a6931-5071-4003-b79f-ac860f2e220a" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="After quite some searching on this rather interesting question, frustratingly I could not find a particular reference for this in US law specifically, nor anything specifically regarding China. However, although it's not a very satisfactory, I could find some basis for this contention through the Paris Convention (which is implemented in US law).&#xA;&#xA;The principle behind claiming priority is set out at article 4(A)(1), which provides:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Any person who has duly filed an application for a patent, or for the registration of a utility model, or of an industrial design, or of a trademark, in one of the countries of the Union, or his successor in title, shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing in the other countries, a right of priority during the periods hereinafter fixed.&#xA;&#xA;This is silent as to whether priority may be claimed between the different types of IP.&#xA;&#xA;Article 4(E) addresses this, at least in part:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;(1) Where an industrial design is filed in a country by virtue of a right of priority based on the filing of a utility model, the period of priority shall be the same as that fixed for industrial designs.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(2) Furthermore, it is permissible to file a utility model in a country by virtue of a right of priority based on the filing of a patent application, and vice versa.&#xA;&#xA;Thus, art 4(E) makes clear that [utility model]→[design], [utility model]→[patent], and [patent]→[utility model] are permissible. One could reason, therefore, that all other categories (such as [patent]→[design]) are implicitly excluded.&#xA;&#xA;There is some logic to this. A patent application, in principle, should not really contain information about the aesthetic features of a product: a patent is concerned only with the functionality. Why then should a patent application be able to serve as priority for a design application?&#xA;&#xA;However that is all speculation. Hopefully someone else can provide a better answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17049" RevisionGUID="253c6573-9e61-4f12-b205-4db7f32e58b0" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="This does not have to do with the exhaustion doctrine (it allows reselling) or the equivalents doctrine (if A is equivalent to B and A is patented, basically B gets protected too).&#xA;&#xA;So the question as I get it is, do I infringe a patent if I sell a product directed at infringing patents?&#xA;&#xA;The answer is, yes, if that's it's only use.&#xA;&#xA;See for example here: https://www.law360.com/articles/429584/divided-infringement-of-system-claims-after-centillion&#xA;&#xA;(Centillion Data Systems LLC v. Qwest Communications International Inc., 631 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2010))&#xA;&#xA;&gt;The Court also found that &quot;[s]upplying the software for the customer to use is not the same as using the system.&quot;[6]&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;The Federal Circuit also noted that the only way the service provider could have been found to have &quot;used&quot; the system claims was if it was vicariously liable for the actions of its customers. The court explained, however, because it was entirely the decision of the customer to install and operate the software, the service provider could not be found vicariously liable for its customers’ actions.[7]&#xA;&#xA;The second part states that if you can be found vicariously liable for your customers infringements -&gt; if you sell something knowing it can only/will be used to infringe a patent, you are infringing. &#xA;&#xA;If however the possibility of infringement is only a side effect (for example you sell glasses, somebody uses the lenses in an infringing microscope), you are not held responsible, but your customer is.&#xA;&#xA;----&#xA;&#xA;Edit:&#xA;&#xA;I referenced the article only to cite the part I did as the court stated there that supplying something that *can* be used to infringe a patent is no infringment. (I didn't register there and could read the article, but its not working anymore, don't know what happened there).&#xA;&#xA;So yes, qwest products were found not to be infringing because of that, but the court says (and that is concludent with what I remembered when reading your question), that IF somebody directs a prdocut *only* or *primarily* at infringing or *should know* that it *will* be used for infringement, they may be held responsible too. &#xA;&#xA;I'll have another try at exactly understanding what you are asking and elaborating further in that direction:&#xA;&#xA;If a company A sells a product, let's say a sensor. And company B patented a system using sensors connected over special cables made out of *handwavium* and a unit registering all data. &#xA;&#xA;Customer C buys the system with some sensors and the unit from B and adds a Sensor from A. Then C can be found to infringe B's patent by using a non licensed sensor and therefore a not completly licensed system. &#xA;In reality B might be selling the system to be used with other sensors, basically giving away a license to use their base stations in arbitrary systems, but they don't have to. &#xA;&#xA;A however is only liable if for examplethey sell a sensor that can be accessed only this way, accessed only, so they knew that C would have to infringe B's patent in order to use A's sensor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17042" RevisionGUID="5b047a09-c10a-4a50-a4a9-561e1b69afdc" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="This patent has not been granted, it still is an application. That means it's claims = scope of protection can still change. It also means it might never get granted.&#xA;&#xA;To check if you would infringe the patent that might get granted is therefore not possible yet.&#xA;&#xA;From your description I cannot tell if you would infringe the claims as they are. For that you would have to compare the claims to your invention. If your invention falls under the exact wording of any claim you could potentially infringe the patent IF it gets granted and the claim remains.&#xA;&#xA;As of now there are two independent claims:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;A portable manifold assembly comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a manifold structure having a longitudinal axis;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a male quick connect coupled in fluid connection with the manifold structure, the male quick connect being adapted to couple the manifold structure to a source of compressed air;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a plurality of female quick connects coupled in fluid connection to the manifold structure; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a handle rotatably mounted on the manifold structure for rotation about the longitudinal axis of the manifold structure.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;And&#xA;&#xA;&gt;A portable manifold assembly comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a first manifold portion adapted to receive a supply of compressed air at a first pressure;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a second manifold portion;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a handle coupled to at least one of the first and second manifold portions;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a regulator configured to transmit compressed air from the first manifold portion to the second manifold portion at a second pressure that is less than or equal to the first pressure, the regulator including an adjustment knob for selectively adjusting a magnitude of the second pressure, the adjustment knob having a longitudinally extending adjustment knob axis;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;first and second female quick connects each having a connector body that is arranged about a longitudinally extending connector body axis, the first female quick connect being mounted on the first manifold portion and being configured to directly receive compressed air therefrom, the second female quick connect being mounted on the second manifold portion and being configured to directly receive compressed air therefrom;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;wherein the adjustment knob axis is disposed between and parallel to the longitudinally extending connector body axes of the connector bodies of the first and second female quick connects&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17013" RevisionGUID="56b31992-6943-4395-b19f-55e647ddfb14" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="**Is it possible to file amendments for the descriptions/drawings at the same time as entering US national phase?**&#xA;&#xA;Yes.&#xA;&#xA;Preliminary amendments can be filed when a PCT application enters the national phase in the US. This is apparent from [37 CFR 1.115](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e322734), which provides:&#xA;&gt;(a) A preliminary amendment is an amendment that is received in the Office (§ 1.6 ) on or before the mail date of the first Office action under § 1.104.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;…&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(b)…(3) A preliminary amendment will not be disapproved under (b)(2) of this section if it is filed no later than: …&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(iii) Three months from the date the national stage is entered as set forth in § 1.491 in an international application.&#xA;&#xA;The types of amendments are governed by [37 CFR 1.121](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323020).  In particular, 37 CFR 1.121(b) makes clear that the description can be amended and 37 CFR 1.121(d) makes clear that the drawings can be amended.&#xA;&#xA;There are limits on the amendments. Notably, 37 CFR 1.121(f) provides:&#xA;&gt;No amendment may introduce new matter into the disclosure of an application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16987" RevisionGUID="6ce95ff5-4596-42d9-8af3-5486c4d7e0ba" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="&gt;Suppose A company, say ABC makes a product - a shelf that detects the item taken from it, along with the person who did, using image processing. The same company makes a product that does checkout automatically from the above data. And a retailer UVW buys the two products and integrates into his shop.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Will company ABC be sued? Or will the retailer get sued?&#xA;&#xA;This has no yes or no answer. It depends on the patents claims. &#xA;&#xA;To stay with your example of the operating system. I'll formulate some claims like you may find them in a patent concerning this invention.&#xA;&#xA;1. An operating system.&#xA;&#xA;2. Speech recognition.&#xA;&#xA;3. Software taking input from speech and outputting access to an operatings service functions.&#xA;&#xA;4. A system comprising and operating system, speech recognition and software configured to access features of the operating system through the recognized speech.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;A good patent attorney will try going for all of those. Number 1 is, of course, not patentable anymore. Number 2 neither. But 3 and 4 might get through. &#xA;&#xA;In this case, anyone selling software that accesses the os functions by speech could get sued from claim 3 directly and from claim 4 the moment this software gets combined with an operating system And as the software does nothing else, it would be directed at infringing a patent and the seller/produces could get sued too.&#xA;&#xA;On the other hand, the claims might be something like&#xA;&#xA;5. The combination of an os with integrated speech recognition and direct access to features. &#xA;&#xA;No good patent attorney should make a mistake like that [citation needed].&#xA;This claim allows you to sell software accessing the os through speech, as you are not fulfilling all limitations of the claim.&#xA;&#xA;To come back to your example, it depends on the exact wording of the claims. Keep in mind that the person formulating those is trying to cover alternatives like the one you describe, so if you look closely, you will probably find that the software does literally infringe the patent. Sometimes claims will say something like &quot;software configured to do this or that&quot; in which case you dn't even have to do it, it just has to be a pssible function of the software.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&gt;If yes, what if two separate companies makes the above product - ABC makes the shelf and XYZ makes the checkout system. Would that be patent infringement?&#xA;&#xA;In most cases, yes. Who infringes depends on the wording. If the claim is to software configured to etc then XYZ will probalby infringe the patent. If the claim covers a system with shelf and software, if XYZ sells the software only for that use, that can get them sued too, if this is not the main function, the retailer is the one that can get sued as e combines two not infringing products into one infringing product.&#xA;&#xA;&gt;(Edit: I just checked status of Amazon Go Patent : Appl No : 13928345 - Final Rejection Mailed Appl No : 14495818 - Non Final Action Mailed )&#xA;&#xA;Sorry, this means nothing. As long as it hasn't been abandoned, they can still file an RCE (Request for continuued examination) or an appeal and go on with examination." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16966" RevisionGUID="6d2af29e-455b-456e-af1c-401bc675f1b1" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="**Does this preclude me from filing more than five applications (all at micro entity pricing) at the same time?**&#xA;&#xA;Almost certainly.&#xA;&#xA;The relevant rule is provide by 37 CFR 1.29(a), which requires (emphasis added):&#xA;&#xA;&gt;(a) To establish micro entity status under this paragraph, the applicant must certify that: ...&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(2) Neither the applicant nor the inventor nor a joint inventor has been named as the inventor or a joint inventor on more than four **previously filed patent applications**, other than applications filed in another country, provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(b), or international applications for which the basic national fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a) was not paid.&#xA;&#xA;As far as I know, the interpretation of &quot;previously filed patent applications&quot; has never been tested in a court. This is not surprising: the micro entity provisions seek to provide a low-cost filing alternative. Users of micro entity status are unlikely to want to pay for a case on the interpretation of this to go through litigation. I will therefore approach this from a practical point of view (with the proviso that I could be entirely wrong, if a case that turns on this point does go through the courts).&#xA;&#xA;You have mentioned filing five applications &quot;at the same time&quot;. While this might theoretically be possible, in practice the applications would always be filed sequentially. This would be indicated at least by the application number that is assigned on filing. Thus at least the sixth application would be filed with there being more than four (that is, five) previously filed patent applications. As such, the sixth application would not be entitled to the lower fees associated with micro entity status." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17332" RevisionGUID="b915c3a3-463a-43fd-85ed-08095b83bf0a" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="In this case, it is largely up to you. There is no &quot;right&quot; answer.&#xA;&#xA;Everything that follows is my favoured approach (which I am somewhat reluctant to post due to it being almost purely opinion). I should note that others may rightfully disagree.&#xA;&#xA;That said, it seems to me best practice to describe each method separately. That is, your description might be:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Figure 1 is a sequence diagram showing a method performed between a client and a server. At event 101, …&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Figure 2 shows a method performed at a client. At step 201, …&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Figure 3 shows a method performed at a server. At step 301, …&#xA;&#xA;For completeness, you would also tend to describe the hardware performing the methods.&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Figure 4 shows a system 40 comprising client 41 and server 42 … In some embodiments, system 40 may operate according to the method of Figure 1. …&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Figure 5 shows a client 41 in accordance with an aspect of the invention. … In some embodiments, client 41 may perform the method of Figure 2.…&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Figure 6 shows a server 42 in accordance with an aspect of the invention. … In some embodiments, server 42 may perform the method of Figure 3.…&#xA;&#xA;The key reasons for separating these out are clarity and basis. By making these painfully explicit, you are making the invention as clear as possible. Moreover, for jurisdictions which are touchy on basis (such as the EPO), you are providing a strong basis in the description for a claim directly solely to the method performed at the client etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60805" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20871" RevisionGUID="5eacacfa-0bda-4af1-b267-6d6116f62758" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="The PCT does not have any &quot;grace period&quot;, it leaves that to each Contracting State and the national patent law thereof. If the International Searching Authority finds a disclosure made by the inventor prior to the international filing date, it will add a note either in the Search Report itself or in the Written Opinion. Once you enter national/regional phases, the corresponding national/regional patent offices will use that disclosure against the patentability of your invention if there is no grace period under the corresponding patent law. &#xA;&#xA;You have a summary of national/regional grace periods in this [document][1] of the WIPO. &#xA;&#xA;I do not know what that registration you mention entails, and whether it qualifies as public disclosure or not, but I am pretty sure that in Europe it would be prior art that can be cited against your invention. At the EPO you have [Art. 55 EPC][2] (most Contracting States of the EPC have something similar in their national patent laws) concerning &quot;non-prejudicial disclosures&quot;. According to that Article, an invention **displayed** by the inventors &quot;*at an official, or officially recognised, international exhibition falling within the terms of the Convention on international exhibitions*&quot; can be a &quot;non-prejudicial disclosure&quot; if it occurred not earlier than 6 months before the *filing date* of the European patent application. There are at least two important things to note here: &#xA;&#xA;- There are very few exhibitions that are accepted for non-prejudicial disclosures. In other words, almost every exhibition is **not** an exhibition that qualifies for such non-prejudicial disclosures.&#xA;- The Article mentions that the invention is displayed, so **only** the displaying of the invention at the exhibition can be made non-prejudicial. The registration that you mention is not the same as displaying the invention, thus it does not qualify as a non-prejudicial disclosure (having an NDA in place, as @Eric Shain indicates, may reduce the likelihood that said registration will become prior art).&#xA;&#xA;As a sidenote, in order to make the exhibition of the invention non-prejudicial, there are many steps that need be taken. There is paperwork that needs to be requested from the organization that makes the exhibition, said paperwork must be issued in a particular time period, and then it must be filed with the EPO. Missing the timeline in any of the steps that need be taken causes the exhibition to be prior art. &#xA;&#xA;I do not know much about these legal aspects in the US, so that part will have to be answered by somebody else.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/scp/en/national_laws/grace_period.pdf&#xA;  [2]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar55.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60806" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19019" RevisionGUID="a97808e0-7043-4037-a8ba-cb6fdfcdf2f5" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="### My experience is that it's very unlikely&#xA;&#xA;It sounds like you're asking whether it's possible to win a patent when the invention takes existing technology and applies it to a new product. If I understand correctly, you're suggesting that there's no technical hurdle or obstacle involved in the new application. That is, if you described your idea to a reasonably skilled software developer, he/she could implement your idea without encountering any problems or hiccups.&#xA;&#xA;My personal experience with the scenario I've described is that a patent is not within reach. When patent examiners reject an application, they can draw on multiple different sources to arrive at your invention. So if the examiner finds any patent, article, etc. that suggests using the existing technology in your domain, then the examiner will probably use this to reject your application. Overcoming those rejections can be extremely difficult. I've even seen scenarios where an examiner even rejected an application on the basis of a very broad statement along the lines of &quot;this technology can be used in many other contexts.&quot; If the examiner thinks it would've been obvious for an ordinarily-skilled developer, technician, engineer, etc. to do what you've done, then your application will probably be rejected for being obvious or non-inventive.&#xA;&#xA;That said, there are scenarios where applying an existing technology to a new domain can result in a patentable invention. As one example, your application might really involve an inventive step if the literature/state of the art contains teachings that would *discourage* people from applying the software in the way you have. As another example, applying the software might result in several significant hurdles that your engineers had to overcome. Overcoming those obstacles can result in inventive solutions that rise to the level of a patent.&#xA;&#xA;-------------&#xA;*I am no expert, and this response is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney or legal expert to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Laws can differ dramatically from country to country, state to state, and technology field to technology field. And I might simply be wrong.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19007" RevisionGUID="bf4e44b3-24ee-4f72-b45b-5d919fd6719e" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Assume I have the number of a PCT application ([example][1]).&#xA;&#xA;How do I find the russian document? In the linked example it does say, however google doesn't link the russian version and entering the WO number into the [russian patent search field][2] doesn't yield any result. &#xA;&#xA;To summarise, I need the published russian-national-phase document of any given PCT application.&#xA;&#xA;&gt;13. Nov. 2012  ENP Entry into the national phase in:   &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Ref document number: 2012147905&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Country of ref document: RU&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Kind code of ref document: A&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2011128254A1?cl=nl&#xA;  [2]: https://www.eapo.org/en/ru.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60808" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18950" RevisionGUID="202f001d-e150-4900-88bf-568b9e781fab" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Consider the claim:&#xA;&gt;1\. A system comprising one of:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a first widget; or&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a second widget.&#xA;&#xA;This claim covers two completely different things: a first widget alone, or a second widget alone. It therefore is logically two claims written together:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;1A. A system comprising a first widget and not a second widget.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;1B. A system comprising a second widget and not a first widget.&#xA;&#xA;A claim lacks novelty if the prior art shows all the features of a claimed embodiment. As such, claim 1 would lack novelty if the prior art showed either a first widget (logical claim 1A) or a second widget (logical claim 1B).&#xA;&#xA;In principle, it could still be novel if the prior art discloses both the first widget and the second widget together, however.&#xA;&#xA;If the claim were amended to read:&#xA;&gt;2\. A system comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a first widget; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a second widget.&#xA;&#xA;Claim 2 would lack novelty if the prior art showed a first widget and a second widget together in the same system. It is therefore a different claim from claim 1, though not necessarily narrower.&#xA;&#xA;However, claim 2 may still may be obvious if the prior art discloses both separately. That comes down to the precise facts of course." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60809" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18938" RevisionGUID="9c304731-7c7b-4992-8ace-4734c8d0e496" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Consider the following scenario:&#xA;&#xA;Prov1 - Filed on 1 July 2016&#xA;&#xA;NP1 - Filed on 1 June 2017, claiming priority to Prov1&#xA;&#xA;NP2 - Filed on 1 July 2017, claiming priority to Prov1&#xA;&#xA;Once NP1 is published, it is prior art as of 1 July 2016 (the filing date of Prov1). So if a claim of NP2 does not have a valid priority claim to Prov1, it must be novel/non-obvious over NP1.&#xA;&#xA;However, [35 USC § 102(b)(2)(A)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102) provides:&#xA;&gt;**Disclosures appearing in applications and patents.**—A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if—&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor;&#xA;&#xA;That is, if an inventor of NP2 is also an inventor of NP1, then NP1 cannot be prior art.&#xA;&#xA;This is analysed at [MPEP § 2154(02)(a)](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2154.html#ch2100_d20034_13f89_241):&#xA;&gt;Thus, if the subject matter in a U.S. patent document upon which the rejection is based is by another who obtained the subject matter from the inventor or a joint inventor, the applicant may establish by way of an affidavit or declaration that a disclosure is not prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).&#xA;&#xA;So I do not believe there should be any harm caused by the situation you note." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60810" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18935" RevisionGUID="72070716-f6ca-415a-a8d3-06c21afe7899" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I apologize for the click bait title, but that's really my question. &#xA;&#xA;[35 USC § 102(a)(2)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102) provides:&#xA;&gt;A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.&#xA;&#xA;Claiming priority is valid if one inventor is the same (plus a few more things) according to the relevant paragraph.&#xA;&#xA;If the priority is not valid for any claim x because the claim is not sustained by the old description, this could mean a valid priority for the patent application **and** the priority document being prior art for the obviousness of claim x. &#xA;&#xA;Wouldn't that make claiming with a different inventor (and one that's the same) a mad gamble? &#xA;&#xA;Or to put it into practical terms, shouldn't an additional inventor for an application that's supposed to claim priority reiterate if their contribution was actually enough to merit inventorship because it might kill claim x, even if they only contributed to claim y?&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18891" RevisionGUID="38edb6b4-1f71-4392-9d47-3478327b3bb4" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="An independent claim will always encompass all of its dependent claims. That means that something infringing a dependent claim will always infringe the independent claim too. A dependent claim is just a narrow version of the independent claim.&#xA;&#xA;So let's imagine you would invalidate a dependent claim, e.g. a+b+c. Then your abc would still infringe the independent a+b claim. Because a+b means a+b+ anything (x). And that's the catch. Abc is prior art for ab+x and can invalidate the ab claim.&#xA;&#xA;It it's impossible to invalidate a claim that only specifies a broader claim without invalidating the broader claim. Dependent claims exist for a similar case. Because abd would invalidate ab, abc is used as a fallback position. &#xA;&#xA;There is one exception that's actually not an exception but could lead to confusion. If in the past abc was thought to be impossible without a and b and c you can invent ac. By the above logic that would mean that abc infringes your ac claim. But that's just a limitation of this simple example structure. Ac in this case is actually abc-b or only ac“. &#xA;&#xA;If you tried to make abc a dependent claim because it's more narrow than ac, that wouldnt work because abc-b+b doesn't make sense and neither does “only ac“ + b.&#xA;&#xA;To summarise, any protection that a dependent claim grants may not be broader than the protection the independent claim grants. And an example of prior art that falls into the protection of a claim is enough for invalidation, so by definition invalidating a dependent claim must invalidate the independent claim. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;-------&#xA;&#xA;&gt;&quot;a flexible structure with three specific, clearly differentiated areas of a different nature&quot;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;but I reduce it to 2 parts whilst keeping the like for like functionality, is this infringement?&#xA;&#xA;If the claim clearly states that the parts have to be present then no, **unless** you're running into equivalency. That's basically infringing by substituting a part of the claim without functional differences. But that's a different, very complex topic. I just mention it because shipping around the wording of a claim without shipping around the meaning will get you into problems with that.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18780" RevisionGUID="0cbf1c55-e2de-4f56-827d-59e25cce0fab" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="You may be able to patent a new use for an old thing, but you can't patent the thing itself unless it's somehow different from the old thing.  What you _may_ be able to do is patent the new _method_ _of_ _use_.  For your example, you might be successful in claiming:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A method of preventing a door from closing, comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; inserting a shoe horn between a bottom of the door and a floor, thereby wedging the door in a fixed position.&#xA;&#xA;(This is a crappy claim, and it may be invalid as a single-step method, but hopefully it communicates the idea.)&#xA;&#xA;A method-of-use claim is often inferior to an article-of-manufacture claim, because you would have to sue each end user who buys a shoe horn and uses it to wedge open a door...you'd probably prefer to sue the manufacturer of shoe horns, or go to a retailer and seize all the shoe horns off their shelves.  But if you really just have a new use for an old product, you probably don't have much choice.&#xA;&#xA;An important part of designing patent claims is to consider, &quot;who will make this device?&quot; or &quot;who will do the steps in this method?&quot;  That's the person who might infringe the patent, it's the person whom you might be able to sue, and from whom you might be able to collect damages or royalties.  If it's an individual end user, it's likely that the cost of suing them will exceed the money you could recover from them, so that sort of claim may not be worth the cost of prosecuting it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18774" RevisionGUID="bb874a1f-45fe-4c24-a653-0e3ca8c4b146" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="When you're looking at an issued patent (which you can recognize by the 9-digit patent number, 9,207,318 in this case, vs. the 11-digit publication number of a not-yet-granted patent application, _e.g._, US2012/0319893), you can figure out what it covers (and what you're not allowed to do) by reading the claims.&#xA;&#xA;As @EricShain says, it's often a highly-technical chore to construe the claims, and if you have money riding on the correct answer, you'll certainly want to hire competent counsel to advise you.  But most moderately-literate technical people can at least get an idea of what's going on by reading the claims themselves.  They're written in a weird, lawyerly jargon, but it's not like they're in Greek.  In your patent, claim 1 recites:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1. A computer-implemented method for generating a damage proxy map, comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; receiving first radar signals for an area prior to a damage event;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; obtaining, based on the first radar signals, a master coherence map for the area prior to the damage event;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; receiving second radar signals for the area spanning the damage event;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; obtaining, based on the second radar signals, a slave coherence map for the area including the damage event;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; registering the slave coherence map to the master coherence map;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; modifying pixel values of the slave coherence map using histogram matching, wherein a first histogram of the master coherence map exactly matches a second histogram of the slave coherence map;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; computing a coherence difference between the modified slave coherence map and the master coherence map to produce a damage proxy map; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; displaying the damage proxy map, wherein the coherence difference is displayed in a visually distinguishable manner.&#xA;&#xA;In other words, it's a list of things that a computer program does, where the end result is &quot;generating a damage proxy map.&quot;  (I don't know what a &quot;damage proxy map&quot; is; you'd have to read the rest of the patent to find out.)&#xA;&#xA;But, let's say you also wanted to generate a damage proxy map, or you already have a program that does that, and you want to know if it infringes this patent.&#xA;&#xA;To a first approximation, you can just go down the list of &quot;elements&quot; in the claim, and ask yourself: &quot;does my program do this?  Or does it do something else?&quot;&#xA;&#xA;In a method claim, it's not necessarily significant that you do things in a different order...the if the steps all happen, and if the claim doesn't explicitly say step 2 must happen after step 1, then the claim may cover a system where step 2 happens before step 1.&#xA;&#xA;If you're designing a new program to generate damage proxy maps, then you would want to look for other ways of doing it, so that if the owner of this patent shows up to hassle you, you can say &quot;Well, my program doesn't 'register the slave coherence map to the master coherence map'&quot; (element 5).&#xA;&#xA;Note that you usually can't just change the names of your variables or something; if you got into an infringement fight, both sides would be looking at your program and trying to figure out if there's _some_ way to match up the claim elements to the program.  If it's impossible to match up, then you ought to be able to avoid an infringement finding.  But if it's questionable, then the patent owner might be able to beat you in court, force you to stop using or selling your program, and even force you to pay them for infringing the patent.&#xA;&#xA;Again, this is a very technical, detailed area of law*, and you shouldn't rely on your own uneducated understanding of the claims if you'll have a lot of resources at risk in your operations.  But you don't have to hire a lawyer right out of the gate if you're just trying to figure out what's going on.&#xA;&#xA;\* Note that I am a lawyer, but I am not _your_ lawyer.  This is not legal advice.  I am not claiming to tell you what patent #9,207,318 covers; I am only attempting to explain the general steps one would take to begin figuring out the answer to that question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60814" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18651" RevisionGUID="2c1b11a3-13ac-4aae-a703-e3f625406bc9" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="According to the [US Public Pair][1], this patent's status is &quot;Patent Expired Due to NonPayment of Maintenance Fees Under 37 CFR 1.362&quot; as of 01-21-2008. While there might theoretically be a way to pay those fees and reinstate the patent, considering its been almost 10 years, I kind of doubt they will do so. According to the [USPTO][2], here are the rules for trying to reinstate an expired patent due to nonpayment of fees.&#xA;&#xA;&gt;**Reinstate an expired patent**&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;If a maintenance fee has not been paid in a timely manner and the owner of the patent wants to get the patent rights reinstated, a petition and proper fees are required.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; What are the petition requirements? &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;  Any petition to accept an&#xA;&gt; unintentionally delayed payment of a maintenance fee must include: &#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 1. the required maintenance fee set forth in § 1.20(e) through (g)&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 2. the petition fee as set forth in § 1.17(m)&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 3. a statement that the delay in payment of the maintenance fee was unintentional &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 4. be signed in compliance with § 1.33(b).&#xA;&#xA;I think it may be hard to justify over nine years of nonpayment as unintentional although I suppose they could try. I am not a lawyer so there may be more to this and I hope one of the patent attorneys that contribute will provide more information.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/maintain-your-patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60815" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19064" RevisionGUID="1dae0eee-11ca-4ddd-978f-20ef1b56f282" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="It's purely a stylistic difference, based on how the drafter thinks the claim would be most clearly described. Notably, there is no scope difference.&#xA;&#xA;The real benefit is to allow you to explain each element with proper antecedence.&#xA;&#xA;It's less obvious in your claims, but consider this example:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;A system comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a first device, configured to send a message to a second device using a cable;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;the second device; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;the cable.&#xA;&#xA;In this case, it feels wrong for the second device and the cable to be described before it is noted that they are part of the system. It is not unclear as such, but it feels wrong.&#xA;&#xA;This is avoided by:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;A system comprising a first device, a second device, and a cable, wherein:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;the first device is configured to send a message to the second device using the cable.&#xA;&#xA;This feels better, but contains no different features.&#xA;&#xA;**Two-part form**&#xA;&#xA;The EPO mandates that the novel part of the claim (the &quot;characterising portion&quot;) is separated from the known part of the claim (the &quot;preamble&quot;) by the phrase &quot;characterised by&quot; or &quot;characterised in that&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;Since most components per se are known, they should be in the preamble: it is how they are configured that is novel.&#xA;&#xA;Thus you might have:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A system comprising a first device, a second device, and a cable, characterised in that:&#xA;&gt;the first device is configured to send a message to the second device using the cable.&#xA;&#xA;Such two-part form is impossible if you don't list the components initially.&#xA;&#xA;The EPO's requirement for two-part form should not guide your drafting now though, as it's something that can be easily added later (and there are many much more important European requirements to be wary of). And indeed, you don't know what prior art the EPO will require you to use to characterise your claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18573" RevisionGUID="abebd03b-a158-4236-9ccf-2b8b706e7f78" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I'm having a hard time interpreting the claims found in [Ken Perlin's patent for simplex noise][1].  It seems that if I do not use the same method of hashing indicies that he used, I'm not violating claim 1.  Claim 2-&gt;6 on the other hand seems *very broad*, it seems the very idea of using simplexes at all in any procedural noise generation would violate the patent claim on 2 -&gt; 6, especially number 5:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;producing the images with texture that do not have visible grid artifacts with the computer by decomposing a hypercube into n! simplices, where each simplex corresponds to&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;an ordering of an edge traversal of the hypercube from its lowest vertex (0,0, . . . , 0) to its upper vertex (1,1 . . . , 1), where n is greater than or equal to 3 and is an integer; and&#xA;displaying the images on a display.&#xA;&#xA;Which to me reads, &quot;You can't use simplexes for any dimension above 2 when generating noise&quot;.   I'm not sure how [OpenSimplex Noise][2] gets away with this because despite using a different method of simplex generation, it is still actually using simplex decomposition and hypercubes. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US6867776&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSimplex_noise" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60817" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18465" RevisionGUID="01fbc135-086c-4f33-a9e8-1141aed97d4f" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="There is no such thing as a &quot;provisional patent&quot;, so it's not clear what you're asking about there. &#xA;&#xA;There is a provisional *application* for patent, which is not a patent of any kind; meaning it does not provide an enforceable property claim. A provisional patent application  (PPA) simply reserves the right to file a non-provisional application within a year, claiming filing priority of the PPA for the invention disclosed in the PPA. The PPA may (in theory) describe multiple designs and multiple inventions. However, a design patent cannot claim any benefit from a PPA -- only an application for a utility patent may do so.&#xA;&#xA;In a design patent, one may generally only claim one &quot;distinct invention&quot;, although &quot;multiple embodiments&quot; may be illustrated in the application, if they are &quot;basically the same&quot;. If the designs are found not to be obvious variations of each other, or &quot;do not constitute a single inventive concept&quot;, a restriction requirement may arise.&#xA;[MPEP § 1504.05][1]&#xA;&#xA;Some products may have both utility and design patents, not to mention trademarks and copyrights.  One example is a high-tech shoe having a utility patent on a functional adjustment device, design patents on the unique tread and logo ornamentation, trademark protection of the logo as indicator of source, and copyright of the artwork on the labels and packaging.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1504.html#d0e157283" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18442" RevisionGUID="e166c5f3-c553-4a4a-8468-09820d1829ad" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Yes. It's called induced infringement and selling a kit for someone to infringe a patent is exactly that.&#xA;&#xA;See https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/inducement_of_infringement&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Any person who actively induces infringement of a patent is liable as an infringer.  See 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Infringement by inducement is a form of secondary liability for patent infringement.  A person who does not commit direct infringement but asks or induces another to do so, or sells a product with advertising or instructions about an infringing use may be held liable for inducing infringement.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;That doesn't apply if your selling the parts just as such though just because they could be used to infringe a patent. It comes down to you advertising for putting them together or somehow else inducing the infringement. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18437" RevisionGUID="83049684-51ab-43af-994e-290a57c6b728" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I'm a big fan of [Patents Demystified][1] as a guide to patents for inventors and startups. Some folks here on Stack Exchange suggested it to me and it was just what I was looking for. Seems like the patent book that most people use.&#xA;&#xA;It has a great foundation of the basics and works up to intermediate and advanced patent strategies. Unlike most patent books I found, this one is really easy to understand and has specific actionable steps and strategies for protecting inventions and maximizing protection.&#xA;&#xA;It's primarily directed to the U.S. patent process, but also discusses how the foreign patent process works as well.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://amzn.to/2xv5YkE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18327" RevisionGUID="35bd292c-646e-4858-a22f-be99501d13f1" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="They certainly don't have to help you, but as far as I know they might. I heard that as an inventor without attorney calling an examiner ans asking nicely for some discussion can lead to good results. But it depends on the examiner and the interpersonal dynamics. My guess is that you could try asking what claim combinations the examiner thinks have a chance, arguing against what they said might be a lot harder. &#xA;&#xA;As to sources, there was an AMA (ask me anything) by a patent examiner on reddit:&#xA;&gt;In the past it wasn’t so much. Now it is becoming more and more common as we are supposed to help the attorney and work with them not against. If we have a question, or there needs to be an election or something like that, we can just give a call to help speed up the process.&#xA;&#xA;[Secondary source][1]&#xA;&#xA;Then, not exactly at the point of the question, but I'd like to add, don't worry too much, sometimes claims get rejected at the first try, then you make your case and you might even convince the examiner. There's [an interview with a former patent examiner][2] that raises a few good points:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;What advice do you have for applicants?&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&quot;When examiners have only maybe an hour to understand what your invention is, clarity is appreciated. There's definitely a balance to be struck. Drawings are helpful, especially in the United States, where you can sometimes rely on drawings to express claim language. From the outside, it's tempting to include as much as you can. Make sure you convey the idea to them reasonably quickly, though.&quot;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Are all claims rejected the first time around? If so, why?&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Yes, I almost always rejected claims the first time. There are a couple of reasons why. I was a younger examiner. We were almost never permitted to allow anything the first time around. The way that it was explained to me was, it's up to the patent office to establish the best case for why it's not patentable. The applicant then needs to put forth his or her best case as to why the office is wrong. It's a dialogue. Examiners assess the contrary evidence put forth in the applicant's response to the office action to make a decision.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;The examiner doesn't have a lot of time for your application. If you call them or if you respond to the office action, try to show how your invention is not obvious, amend your claims if necessary. It's a process, it goes back and forth.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.greyb.com/patent-examiner/&#xA;  [2]: https://www.inc.com/stephen-key/a-former-patent-examiner-pulls-back-the-curtain-at-the-uspto.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18316" RevisionGUID="629fef1b-b73e-4108-9272-6e34e4fc6f0f" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Headline:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;## JP Morgan Chase just got a patent on basic app communications&#xA;&#xA;The [article][1] alleges that &#xA;&#xA;&gt;A simple Google search would have found oodles of prior art.&#xA;&#xA;I'm sure JP Morgan should pursue any patents they can get as a matter of strategic defense, but with this patent in hand, they can probably cause any application developer a lot of trouble.&#xA;&#xA;Should this [patent][2] have been awarded? &#xA;&#xA;Here are the claims:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for a first mobile application and a second mobile application on a mobile device to share information, comprising: the first mobile application executed by a computer processor on a mobile device determining that the second mobile application is present on the mobile device; receiving, from a user, permission for the first mobile application to access data from the second mobile application; the first mobile application executed by the computer processor requesting data from the second mobile application; and the first mobile application receiving the requested data from the second mobile application. &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the first mobile application determines that the second mobile application is present on the mobile device by accessing a mobile device registry. &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 3. The method of claim 2, wherein the mobile device registry is on the mobile device. &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the first mobile application determines that the second mobile application is present on the mobile device by scanning the mobile device for applications. &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the permission is received by the first mobile application directly from the user. &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the permission is received at a website for a host of the mobile device. &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the permission is received at a website for a host of the first mobile application. &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the permission is received by the second mobile application directly from the user. &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 9. The method of claim 1, wherein the permission is based on the first mobile application and the second mobile application being grouped together on the mobile device. &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 10. The method of claim 1, wherein the first mobile application requests data from the second mobile application by providing the user's name and password. &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 11. The method of claim 1, further comprising: the first mobile application executed by the computer processor providing the received requested data to a third mobile application. &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 12. A method for a first mobile application and a second mobile application to share information, comprising: the first mobile application executed by a computer processor on a first mobile device determining that the second mobile application is present on a second mobile device; receiving, from a user, permission for the first mobile application to access data from the second mobile application; the first mobile application executed by the computer processor requesting data from the second mobile application by providing the second mobile application with a uniform resource locator; and the first mobile application receiving the requested data from the second mobile application via the uniform resource locator. &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 13. The method of claim 12, wherein the uniform resource locator is provided in a machine-readable code.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2017/09/jp-morgan-chase-just-got-a-patent-on-basic-app-communications/&#xA;  [2]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=9,747,468.PN.&amp;OS=PN/9,747,468&amp;RS=PN/9,747,468" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18231" RevisionGUID="e56a8f8c-7b35-46b1-96b7-e0a8a17f3ccf" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Copyrighted? Yes. Enforceable? Probably not. In the USA, the copyrighted nature of patents and applications for patents would, like anything else, initially depend upon when and how it was created and published. Prior to 1989 the publication was required to have a &quot;proper copyright notice&quot; or registration, but that is no longer the case. Works of US authors published prior to 1989 without copyright notice or the required registration automatically lost their copyrights to the public domain. Some older patents do, in fact, contain copyright notices, under 37 CFR 1.71(d) or 1.84(s).  &#xA;&#xA;Published works of foreign authors are subject to different rules, such as 17 USC 104A, restoring US copyright in certain works where their US publications failed to adhere to all US copyright formalities (notice, renewal).&#xA;&#xA;Some people are confused that &quot;patents&quot; are &quot;government publications&quot; and thus &quot;public domain&quot; for that reason. This is not true of publications for which the authors were not officers or employees of the US government.  17 USC 105. &#xA;&#xA;The US Copyright Office will, in fact, register claims for copyright in such things.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **717.3 Patents, Patent Applications, and Non-Patent Literature** &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; The U.S.&#xA;&gt; Copyright Office may register a claim to copyright in the written&#xA;&gt; description for an invention or the drawings or photographs set forth&#xA;&gt; in a patent or a patent application, provided that the work contains a&#xA;&gt; sufficient amount of original authorship. Likewise, the Office may&#xA;&gt; register a claim to copyright in articles, publications, or other&#xA;&gt; non-patent literature that may be submitted with a patent application.&#xA;&gt; However, the copyright in a patent, a patent application, or&#xA;&gt; non-patent literature does not extend to any “idea, procedure,&#xA;&gt; process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or&#xA;&gt; discovery” that may be disclosed in these works. 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).&#xA;[Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition, 2014, p.408.][1]&#xA;&#xA;Whether a federal court might limit the enforcement of such copyright would be a different question.  The applicant for a patent may have granted an implied license for the entire world to duplicate and distribute the work, not to mention that an issued patent may have similar status to a statute that defines the parameters of unlawful conduct, and strong public policies to encourage widespread dissemination. It may also be hard to find a use of a patent text or drawing that is not also &quot;fair use&quot;, under the overriding public policy concerns.&#xA;&#xA;Bottom line: it is axiomatic that &quot;a right without a remedy is not a right at all&quot;, meaning that if you cannot enforce it, such a right is meaningless.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/docs/compendium.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18223" RevisionGUID="15290cc3-f36c-4c22-9f6e-d577e665e3a0" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="&gt;(A) Prove the primary reference contains an “enabled disclosure;”&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(B) Explain the meaning of a term used in the primary reference; or&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;(C) Show that a characteristic not disclosed in the reference is inherent.&#xA;&#xA;Non of these apply to your example. The definition of novelty is - for practical purposes - that a single source had the invention before you did. Adding to that source by using another source defies that purpose. There needs to be prove that an invention was known with all characteristics claimed before the filing. Therefore the three exceptions only allow another document if it had auxiliary purposes. &#xA;&#xA;Proving enablement doesn't change the invention, it merely proves that the source is valid. Explaining a term doesn't change the reference, it just shows the reference actually says what the examiner says it does. The third is probably the most difficult. To validly use a second source against novelty the source would have to clearly state something like “all cars have wheels“ when “A + a car“ is used against “A + a car with wheels“ for example. “Some cars have wheels“ would probably not be enough as it doesn't prove wheels to be inherent to cars.&#xA;&#xA;However, for all practical purposes, the definition of obviousness during US examination is, in my experience, “combining two references leads to the core invention (use more references for not so important elements) even if they clearly don't fit together unless they explicitly state they can't be combined.“&#xA;&#xA;So a second source will in almost all cases impede non-obviousness. And what you described -the claim is only fully specified if source 2 is introduced- is a by the book definition of obviousness." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60824" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18180" RevisionGUID="8190d82d-87f2-4f10-8880-66392346f2b5" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="**What should you do in relation to this patent?**&#xA;&#xA;First, talk to a lawyer.&#xA;&#xA;Then, you should obtain a copy of the patent, and determine whether (1) the patent is still in force; and (2) whether your product infringes the claims of the patents. If the answer to both is yes, then you would be liable for damages if you used, import, manufactured or sold your product in the country of that patent.&#xA;&#xA;You mentioned [US 5972360](https://www.google.com/patents/US5972360). This appears to still be in force, and will be until 3 September 2018. The independent claims are:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;1\. A self-tanning product in the form of a towelette comprising a towel impregnated with a self-tanning composition.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;7\. A self-tanning product in the form of a towel impregnated with a self-tanning composition containing an effective amount of dihydroxyacetone and ethoxydiglycol and enclosed in a liquid-proof packet which can readily be opened for one step application to the body and/or face.&#xA;&#xA;If you make, sell, import, or use either of these in the US without a licence, you will be infringing the patent. Assuming the patent is valid, you might therefore be liable for damages for your acts.&#xA;&#xA;You could therefore look to obtain a licence, or just wait until 3 September 2018 when the patent expires.&#xA;&#xA;**Should I add the same patent number to my packaging?**&#xA;&#xA;Absolutely not. The patent number there is added to put others on notice that the products sold are covered by the patent, so that the patent owner can maximise their damages from infringement. It would be very much an own goal to put the patent number of your own packaging.&#xA;&#xA;**Why do different manufacturers mark their products with the same patent?**&#xA;&#xA;They probably subcontract the manufacturing to the patent owner, or are licensees of the patent owner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60825" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20810" RevisionGUID="4f715499-569e-4013-8205-59d315513f93" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="A key questions form a [seminar][1] is: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; What are the necessary steps for obtaining a Notice of Allowance at&#xA;&gt; the European Patent Office (EPO)?&#xA;&#xA;What does the notice grant?&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/morningside-ip-september-12-2019/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18486" RevisionGUID="5189a838-a855-4745-bc2b-7750afa13a7f" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I'm working on app not similar to Uber, but one that also facilitates peer-to-peer economic activity. However, I recently came across [a patent filed by Uber][1], entitled &#xA;&#xA;&gt; &quot;**Providing a summary or receipt for on-demand services through use of portable computing devices**&quot;&#xA;&#xA;Here is the abstract:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **ABSTRACT** &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;A method for providing a service summary or receipt on a&#xA;&gt; computing device is provided. One or more processors determine&#xA;&gt; information for a service rendered for a user. The information&#xA;&gt; includes a cost for the service, a type of service performed, and a&#xA;&gt; person who performed the service. A summary receipt panel is provided&#xA;&gt; on a display of the computing device and includes the information for&#xA;&gt; the service rendered. The one or more processors provide, on the&#xA;&gt; summary receipt panel, a map that identifies a location relevant to&#xA;&gt; the service rendered and a feedback feature that enables the user to&#xA;&gt; rate the service received.&#xA;&#xA;I'm baffled that this could even be patented at all. Regardless, how can I ensure that the receipts in my app do not infringe on this [ridiculous] patent? Is it enough to not use a map in the receipt, or to not include the feedback widget, etc?&#xA;&#xA;On a more general note, and the title of this question - **is it at all possible to avoid software patent infringement? ** By now it would seem everything you can think of is patented.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130132246" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19118" RevisionGUID="812a4e05-798d-42fc-8518-9bbc2d7d5015" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Official publication of RU2012147905 is [here][1], and its prosecution data may be seen [here][2].&#xA;The application was rendered withdrawn on 11.01.2016.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Data of any RU application may be found in the [Registers][3].&#xA;&#xA;P.S. Do not mix up RUPTO (Rospatent) with EAPO (Eurasian Patent Office); they are different patent organizations, and they have separate patent registers.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.fips.ru/Archive/PAT/2014FULL/2014.05.20/DOC/RUNWA/000/002/012/147/905/DOCUMENT.PDF&#xA;  [2]: http://www1.fips.ru/fips_servl/fips_servlet?DB=RUPAT&amp;DocNumber=2012147905&amp;TypeFile=html&#xA;  [3]: http://www1.fips.ru/wps/portal/Registers/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19087" RevisionGUID="6c7f42d3-1f8b-41b4-96bb-6a8d1180e0c8" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="&gt;What can the device do?&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;How is it useful?&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;How is it novel?&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;How do I build it?&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;What does it look like?&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;How do I use it?&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;What is the scope of the device?&#xA;&#xA;All of those should be explicitly or implicitly answered by the description/drawings. &#xA;&#xA;The claims only answer one question which would be something like&#xA;&#xA;&gt;What **invention** am I trying to protect?&#xA;&#xA;The subject matter of the claims must be novel and inventive by itself only looking into the description to understand what the words mean exactly. The question(s) why that is the case are answered by/in the description.&#xA;&#xA;------&#xA;&#xA;For the edit, please have a look at the relevant law or a commentary, there are definitions and examples as to what a description needs to provide. And a commentary with years of experience from judges/etc. is certainly more than an answer here could cover. (I don't have any English recommendations)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19175" RevisionGUID="59d1c22e-1994-44b3-91a3-1eff33783a69" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="This [patent][1] claims to have the source code attached in a microfiche appendix:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;  MICROFICHE APPENDIX&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;This application includes, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§1.77(c)(2), 1.96(b), a microfiche appendix consisting of four (4) sheets of microfiche containing 297 frames of a program listing embodying the present invention.&#xA;&#xA;Is this appendix publicly available?&#xA;&#xA;Can it be obtained for personal research purposes?&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6544098&#xA;&#xA;*EDIT: corrected the patent link.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20737" RevisionGUID="9d923240-25b5-4d07-bcfb-31628f447e6d" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="You have 2 questions. As usual, you should always seek out counsel for your particular case. No general answer here can replace real personalized counsel. That said, you can find a lot of information online that will answer these questions.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Should I file a design patent on the simpler embodiment for it's individual protection... &#xA;&#xA;The answer of *&quot;Should I file a design patent&quot;* is entirely subjective based on your individual needs. Only you and counsel can answer this. &#xA;&#xA;&gt;  should I use the title of the original utility patent or do I (or can I) make the title more descriptive of the simpler embodiment which is different?&#xA;&#xA;This is probably also subjective based on what you want to do.  It won't affect the quality of the patent. The USPTO treats the applications as separate.&#xA;&#xA;The [USPTO has provided a guide for these things that might help you answer some of your own questions](https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/design-patent-application-guide).&#xA;&#xA;&gt;The Difference Between Design and Utility Patents&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;In general terms, a &quot;utility patent&quot; protects the way an article is used and works (35 U.S.C. 101), while a &quot;design patent&quot; protects the way an article looks (35 U.S.C. 171). **Both design and utility patents may be obtained on an article if invention resides both in its utility and ornamental appearance. While utility and design patents afford legally separate protection, the utility and ornamentality of an article are not easily separable. Articles of manufacture may possess both functional and ornamental characteristics.**&#xA;&#xA;It looks like you *can do both*-- whether you should or not requires more Q&amp;A you should probably discuss with counsel.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20718" RevisionGUID="29e3237a-bb96-4792-b8c3-1b7cd68cec2c" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="This is the part where you definitely need to speak with an attorney. This depends entirely on the method you're trying to claim and its possible alternatives.  There's not really a way to answer this -- and it shouldn't EVER be done in a public forum.&#xA;&#xA;Related to transitional phrases:&#xA;&#xA;If you're working on a US patent the principal ones [cited by the USPTO](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2111.html#d0e200824) are:&#xA; &#xA;&gt; 2111.03 Transitional Phrases [R-08.2017]&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; The transitional phrases “comprising”, “consisting essentially of” and “consisting of” define the scope of a claim with respect to what unrecited additional components or steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim. The determination of what is or is not excluded by a transitional phrase must be made on a case-by-case basis in light of the facts of each case.&#xA;&#xA;It is possible to use `&quot;having:&quot;` which refers back to the specification. I'm not really sure how that one works--as I've not fully read-up on the case law involved in the use of that phrase.&#xA;&#xA;All that said. I'm not sure legal theory would support someone trying to claim future technologies not yet invented if you can't describe them. Further, I doubt it would be doable merely using a transitional phrase. &#xA;&#xA;In many venues the essential purpose of the claims is to cite matter _that has already been invented and disclosed_ and identify those parts which the inventor claims deserve special legal protection. If it hasn't been invented yet, and can't be described yet, then it isn't technically part of the &quot;prior art&quot; and isn't even part of the &quot;disclosed specification&quot;. Consequently I'm not sure it can be successfully claimed.&#xA;&#xA;I believe this may be one of the purposes the USPTO has for [continuing patent applications](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application)--to address changes in ongoing work, or changes in technology for which the original specification might apply." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20648" RevisionGUID="f8cc55ca-ea4e-4841-b888-388a297a27ef" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="In the context that the upcounsel article was written -- for the all-in cost of filing, prosecuting one application and then paying off maintenance fees to expiration for ONE patent in (presumably) ONE jurisdiction -- the stated fees are **ABSOLUTELY NOT** realistic. Even the low end of $220,000 would be insanely expensive.&#xA;&#xA;What happened was that the author of this upcounsel article went online and found a reference that stated &quot;$220,000 to $440,000&quot; for patent work without understanding the context of the information that these costs are for filing in the **USA and 9 other countries**. That's a lot of jurisdictions.&#xA;&#xA;[See the original reference that][1] suggested $220,000 to $440,000 to file and maintain patents in 10 countries.&#xA;&#xA;I would estimate that $20k to $35k total is a more reasonable estimate for all-in cost for a small entity filing in the USA (all attorney's fees, USPTO fees to expiration). If you multiply this by 10 (and add extra costs due to foreign jurisdictions), you'll actually get back to around the original figure. But again, this is for 10 countries.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://ipstrategy.com/2014/07/14/best-practice-processes-for-patent-maintenance-fee-payment-decisions/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20634" RevisionGUID="e8df2dc6-7e9b-44a1-818d-c74793bc92e0" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I have listed patents that I'm an inventor of on my CV. Unlike academic publications, I don't think there is specific format you need to follow. You don't need to state you are a co-inventor, just state you are listed as an inventor. List the patent number. If the patent hasn't issued, but an application has published, you can list the publication number. This makes it possible for the person reading the patent to look up the patent or application. If they bother to do this, they will see the other inventors and the application date. I list just the patent number and title on my CV. There is nothing keeping your from listing the co-inventors too, but since space on a CV is often tight, it isn't necessary. I suppose if the application hasn't published you might list a date, but I haven't. It is very common for the same invention to be filed for a patent in multiple countries. You could list each separately, but I only list one in the patent family (generally the US patent). For me this is in the interest of saving space. An example of what my CV looks like is the following.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; U.S. Patents Granted (World and European equivalents not listed.)&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;    9,222,886: Quantitating high titer samples by digital PCR  &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&gt;    8,409,528: Apparatus and Method for Handling Fluids for Analysis  &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&gt;       ...etc...&#xA;&#xA;Being an inventor and a patent owner are two different things. I have many patents I'm listed as an inventor on, but I'm the owner of none of them. In every case, the company that employed me is the owner (assignee) of the patent. This is the normal situation for patents that come about as a result of working for a commercial company." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20594" RevisionGUID="48d57744-c2a6-4e53-915c-c6693f003c87" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="This may be a problem. Inventors are required when filing to make an [Oath or Declaration][OOD]. If the OoD is incorrect it could result in an invalidation of the application. If you _both_ participated on the invention but only one person is listed then the OoD would be imperfect and may be thrown out.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 37 CFR 1.41 Applicant for patent.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;    (a) An application must include, or be amended to include, the name of the  inventor for any invention claimed in the application.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;    (b) The inventorship of a nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111&#xA;&gt;&gt; (a) is the inventor or joint inventors set forth in the application data sheet in accordance with § 1.76 filed before or concurrently with the inventor's oath or declaration. If an application data sheet is not filed before or concurrently with the inventor's oath or declaration, the inventorship is the inventor or joint inventors set forth in the inventor's oath or declaration, except as provided for in §§ 1.53(d)(4) and 1.63(d). Once an application data sheet or the inventor's oath or declaration is filed in a nonprovisional application, any correction of inventorship must be pursuant to § 1.48. If neither an application data sheet nor the inventor's oath or declaration is filed during the pendency of a nonprovisional application, the inventorship is the inventor or joint inventors set forth in the application papers filed pursuant to § 1.53(b),  unless the applicant files a paper, including the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i), supplying the name or names of the inventor or joint inventors. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;[OOD]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s602.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20590" RevisionGUID="e19f2f75-8f29-450c-a76d-370455973721" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Common practices performed by individuals / technicians in a field &quot;[having ordinary skill in the art][ordinary_skill]&quot; are NOT patentable--because these things are obvious and not-novel.  The [criteria] for patenting are that the invention MUST be at least:&#xA;&#xA; 1. novel &#xA; 2. non-obvious&#xA; 3. useful&#xA; 4. of an appropriate patentable subject matter&#xA;&#xA;The specific claims written by the inventor(s) must be defended against thorough examination. The examiner is paid / tasked with finding faults in the patent application so it can be &quot;disallowed&quot;. &#xA;&#xA;In order for the patent to be eventually &quot;granted&quot; to the inventor(s) the examiner must have examined the specification and claims and be unable to find serious fault that would prevent &quot;allowance&quot; of the claims.&#xA;&#xA;That said the inventor can use _any language_ in their patent specification they desire so long as the _invention_ they claim ([patent claims][patent_claims]) at least meets all of the above criteria (and naturally the other baseline criteria for having a fully complete specification) [edited].&#xA;&#xA;[ordinary_skill]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_having_ordinary_skill_in_the_art &#xA;&#xA;[criteria]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentability&#xA;[patent_claims]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_claim" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20292" RevisionGUID="8cfe5b39-4073-420b-a754-25dcd515a28a" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="This answer is purely about inventive step in general:&#xA;&#xA;Let's take claim 1 from the question as an example: (please note: I didn't read the specification so this is purely based on the wording of the claim, it might not concur with the correct interpretation of the actual patent claim which needs to be interpreted in light of the specification!)&#xA;&#xA;&gt;1. A method for on- line filtering a presentation comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a) identifying a structure in the presentation;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;b) detecting an undesired content in said structure;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;c) determining a domination of said structure by said undesired content, and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;d) disabling a portion of said structure according to a result of said determining.&#xA;&#xA;Now, suppose you have as prior art the [html sanitization][1] you mentioned in a comment. According to my understanding, html sanitization does the following:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; - Identify bad html tags (e.g. `&lt;embed&gt;`) and their endings (e.g. `&lt;/embed&gt;`).&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - remove the tags and their content.&#xA;&#xA;So, what does that mean for claim 1 above? &#xA;&#xA;We seem to fulfill a) by identifying a structure starting and ending with html tags. &#xA;&#xA;We also seem to fulfill d) by removing the structure completly because &quot;completly&quot; is also &quot;a portion&quot;. However, completly is only a small subset of &quot;a portion&quot;, so there might be an easy way of getting around some prior art like that by amending the claim to say &quot;a portion less than 100%&quot; or something like that. It might even be that it says &quot;a portion is less than 100% of the structure&quot; in the description, invalidating this prior art.&#xA;&#xA;But suppose we actually fulfill steps a) and d) completly. Then the prior art &quot;html sanitization&quot; is not destroying novelty because it does not teach all the elements from the claim (namely: b) and c) are missing).&#xA;&#xA;So, inventive step. We need another document that allows the person skilled in the art to reach the invention. &#xA;&#xA;I'll make one up. Suppose we have a publication about identifying ads in html code. It identifies html structs like `&lt;embed&gt; &lt;/embed&gt;`, searches the content for words like viagra (greetings to the spam detecting bots at SE ;)) and determines if the structure is mainly filled with said undesired content by, say, language analysis. It then determines that the structure is an ad. &#xA;&#xA;This reference teaches a), b) and c). It identifies a structure (html tags), detects an undesired content (&quot;viagra&quot;) and determines domination of the structure by said content (checks if the text in the structure relates mainly to viagra).&#xA;&#xA;Combining the references the person skilled in the art could see the advantage of removing html tags with a greater precision by detecting if they contain ads. The person skilled in the art could then reach the invention by combining the two documents, meaning the claim is not inventive over the prior art.&#xA;&#xA;Disclaimer: One could argue against that by saying that html sanitization and ad blocking don't serve the same goal because removing all possibly problematic structures is more secure than removing only some so the person skilled in the art wouldn't combine the references. That argument might or might not be enough to prove inventive step, but it would at least pose some danger to the argumentation. So this isn't a clear cut case.&#xA;&#xA;The above used goes d'accord with pretty much all standard methods for determing (missing) inventive step in the US, Europe and many other places. You need two *combinable* documents teaching every single step in a method or every single limitation in a system. &#xA;&#xA;You can also use *basic knowledge* of a person skilled in the art (e.g. web developer), but you need to prove that knowledge. So if you have a textbook saying &quot;Identified ads should be removed from a html site for user convenience.&quot; (step d)) you might use that to say my made-up source (steps a) - c)) in combination with the knowledge of the person skilled in the art leads to the claimed method making it obvious / non inventive.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML_sanitization" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20281" RevisionGUID="16f452f3-92d8-4069-9403-62bb46919b90" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="My friend is the creator and vendor of a web content filtering software. His clients are ISPs who then offer this service to their customers. Recently his clients received a very threatening &quot;cease and desist&quot; letter from another ISP, operating in the same space, claiming that he is using technology patented by them. &#xA;&#xA;Understandably, this creates an extremely stressful situation for him, endangering his livelihood, etc.&#xA;&#xA;The patent in question is [IL225819A](https://patents.google.com/patent/IL225819A). [English language patent details](http://www.ilpatsearch.justice.gov.il//UI/PatentsReqPdfFiles5/2011/12/225819/225819-101-ebd64316-0be2-4874-88b5-86e0bd00ff9e.pdf),  [Claims](http://www.ilpatsearch.justice.gov.il//UI/PatentsReqPdfFiles5/2011/12/225819/225819-102-9f7df1a7-377e-480b-969b-d9a717de1bde.pdf), [Sketches](http://www.ilpatsearch.justice.gov.il//UI/PatentsReqPdfFiles5/2011\12\225819/225819-103.pdf).&#xA;&#xA;To quote from the first claim:&#xA;&gt; 1\. A method for on- line filtering a presentation comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; a) identifying a structure in the presentation;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; b) detecting an undesired content in said structure;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; c) determining a domination of said structure by said undesired content, and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; d)  disabling a portion of said structure according to a result of said determining.&#xA;&#xA;According to my understanding of the text, they seem to be patenting a technique that any mediocre software developer would come up with after 2 minutes of thought. Additionally, they seem to be patenting something that is already widely done e.g. by ad-blockers. I am wondering what the validity of such a patent claim is.&#xA;&#xA;Does anyone see the [&quot;Inventive step and non-obviousness&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness) of this technique?&#xA;&#xA;**Edit:** Naturally, I definitely will not act based solely on advice from the internet, I am however interested in opinions as to whether a software patent such as this is to be regarded as the actions of a patent troll and be fought against. Can anyone weigh in with examples of similarly *simple software techniques* that have nevertheless been upheld by courts (anywhere worldwide)? Is this patent relying upon the fact that *nobody in the patent office seems to have much familiarity with web development*? Or am I misunderstanding the world of software patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60838" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20217" RevisionGUID="6c2d1216-d3fa-42b4-8513-12fa0a21e145" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="[Track one patent examination][1] expedites the examination process to 12 months.  The cost is high, even for a micro entity at $1K.  What is the advantage of a faster exam process from a business standpoint?  Are there any other benefits?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;[2017 Examinations][2]&#xA;&gt; As of May 2017, the average total pendency of US utility&#xA;&gt; non-provisional patent applications is roughly 33 months. This average&#xA;&gt; length of a non-provisional application is measured from the filing&#xA;&gt; date of the non-provisional to ultimate disposition of the&#xA;&gt; application, e.g., grant or abandonment, including Requests for&#xA;&gt; Continued Examination (RCE). Excluding RCE’s, the average pendency of&#xA;&gt; a utility non-provisional patent application to final disposal is&#xA;&gt; approximately 25.7 months.&#xA;&#xA;What benefit is there to receiving a patent grant 12 months earlier than the norm?&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/usptos-prioritized-patent-examination-program&#xA;  [2]: http://www.patenttrademarkblog.com/how-long-us-utility-patent-application-process/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19141" RevisionGUID="a37f17ce-6d5d-4722-9eb5-506ee05d4c3d" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="It's fine to not have surface shading, as long as your drawings are clear without it. That is, surface shading is just one technique that is used to completely and adequately show the nature of the design you are claiming.&#xA;&#xA;[MPEP § 1503.02(II)](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1503.html#d0e151275) specifically addresses this exactly question.&#xA;&#xA;&gt;While surface shading is not required under 37 CFR 1.152, it may be necessary in particular cases to shade the figures to show clearly the character and contour of all surfaces of any 3-dimensional aspects of the design. Surface shading is also necessary to distinguish between any open and solid areas of the article. However, surface shading should not be used on unclaimed subject matter, shown in broken lines, to avoid confusion as to the scope of the claim.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Lack of appropriate surface shading in the drawing as filed may render the design nonenabling and indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), (or for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs). Additionally, if the surface shape is not evident from the disclosure as filed, the addition of surface shading after filing may comprise new matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19906" RevisionGUID="f155a814-bbea-4b49-9adb-79e5dbeedd35" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="The [USPTO has designed a new &quot;patent grant cover&quot;](https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-unveils-new-patent-cover-design-south-southwest-sxsw) in 2018:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;The patent grant cover represents the physical document issued to inventors upon the granting of a U.S. patent. The 225-plus year history of the patent cover has seen fewer than a dozen basic designs since President George Washington granted the first patent in 1790. Previous designs featured calligraphy, elaborate engravings, and high-quality typesetting.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;The patent office has only redesigned the document twice in the last hundred years, and the current design is more than 30 years old. A team of in-house USPTO graphic designers created the new patent cover design. After several iterations, Commissioner for Patents Drew Hirshfeld made the final selection. &#xA;&#xA;This is a surprise to me -- I am an inventor on a number of issued U.S. patents and I have never received such a document. (There is a cottage industry of companies from which you can purchase plaques displaying an issued patent, but these aren't any sort of official document.)&#xA;&#xA;Who gets them? Do they get sent to the assignee?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20021" RevisionGUID="7b13e6b1-b96c-4e71-ace4-3adb24c6ef74" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="An &quot;element&quot; of a claim is not defined in the law. It's actually a kind of abstraction. &#xA;&#xA;But let's start at the beginning. A patent's protection is defined by the claims. Anything that falls under the scope of any claim infringes that claim. The scope of a claim is all that is described by that claim. &#xA;&#xA;An example might make this clearer.&#xA;&#xA;Claim 1:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;A device for moving around humans and/or goods, the device comprising&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;- at least two wheels&#xA;&gt;- at least one motor,&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;the motor beeing designed in such a way that it has at least the power of two horses. &#xA;&#xA;*(disclaimer: the last part is somewhat unclear (it defines the problem, not the solution), don't write something like that into a patent claim in real life unless you know what you're doing)*&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;The elements of the claim are &quot;at least two wheels&quot; and &quot;at least one motor&quot;. Would a bycicle without a motor infringe this claim? No, it doesn't fall under the wording of the claim as should be rather clear from just reading it. A bycicle is not &quot;a device&quot; as described. So for infringement, all elements need to be present.&#xA;&#xA;But what about &quot;the motor beeing designed in such a way that it has at least the power of two horses&quot;, is that an element of the claim? I'd say yes, though you might say it is just part of &quot;a motor&quot;. It doesn't really matter, because &quot;element&quot; is not defined. But whatever you call it, if the motor doesn't have the power of two horses or more, you do not infringe the claim. &#xA;&#xA;And &quot;for moving around humans and/or goods&quot; is interpreted as &quot;the device must be able to do that, but not necessarily be used that way&quot;. The reason is that the claim describes a device and not a method and if moving around people or goods is something the device could do, it infringes the claim. A (strong) toy car might not infringe though.&#xA;&#xA;How do other claims play into that? There are dependent and independent claims. Independent claims don't depend on other claims, so there is no connection, they are evaluated on their own. Dependent claims are something like claim 2: &quot;the device from claim 1 further including a passenger seat.&quot; So without a passenger seat you would still infringe claim 1, but not claim 2. It is read as if it were an independent claim with everything from claim 1 copied into it. [Why do we have dependent claims then, if anything that infringes the dependent claim would also infringe the independent claim?][1]&#xA;&#xA;Be wary of optional elements though:&#xA;&#xA;Claim 3:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;A device for moving around humans and/or goods, the device comprising&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;- at least two, preferably exactly 4, wheels or a caterpillar drive&#xA;&gt;- at least one motor,&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;the motor beeing designed in such a way that it has at least the power of two horses. &#xA;&#xA;Anything falling under claim 1 also falls under claim 3. Actually claim 3 is more like a combination of claims 1, 4 and 5. Anything infringing **any** of those infringes claim 3!&#xA;&#xA;4: (strictly speaking this is dependent on 1 because it has a strictly smaller scope/ is completly encompassed by claim 1)&#xA;&#xA;&gt;A device for moving around humans and/or goods, the device comprising&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;- exactly 4 wheels,&#xA;&gt;- at least one motor,&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;the motor beeing designed in such a way that it has at least the power of two horses. &#xA;&#xA;5:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;A device for moving around humans and/or goods, the device comprising&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;- a caterpillar drive&#xA;&gt;- at least one motor,&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;the motor beeing designed in such a way that it has at least the power of two horses. &#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/19649/18033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19723" RevisionGUID="eb828930-af4c-44b2-b7d5-c7dde3f8b678" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="When reading that I have four question:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; What's the difference between test and measurement?&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Do you need to do both always?&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Whats's a networked database?&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Why can't it save data elsewhere?&#xA;&#xA;If you have perfect answers to all of those, you might be fine. If not, think again.&#xA;&#xA;A claim is not about wording - okay, sure it is, but - it's about the **content** of the words. It doesn't matter if you describe your system with this word or that word or those words, what matters is having the facts straight. &#xA;&#xA;Which are **the completly necessary elements to distinguish your invention from the prior art**, how are they defined (specifics go into the description, but it should be understandable from the claims)  and how do they work together?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19599" RevisionGUID="e6ad5d7d-011a-49b0-90ef-c9a023a8ea3f" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Claim 1 is: &#xA;&#xA;&gt;A waterjet system, comprising:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a pump configured to pump fluid at a pressure between 2000psi and 8000psi;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;an electric motor configured to drive the pump;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a hopper configured to store abrasive;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a mixing chamber configured to mix abrasive from the hopper and the fluid from the pump to produce a slurry;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a cutting bed configured to receive a workpiece to be cut; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a cutting head, including an outlet nozzle, in downstream fluid communication from the mixing chamber, the cutting head configured to expel the slurry through the outlet nozzle as a high- velocity jet into the cutting bed.&#xA;&#xA;All of those need to be present if one is to infringe this claim. Likewise, all of those in that combination need to be known or obvious from the prior art to invalidate the claim.&#xA;&#xA;As a side note, this claim hasn't been granted as you are merely citing an application. It has not been examined. That means, I can file an application claiming &quot; Everything&quot; and it will be published just as this one. I won't get a patent on it though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19553" RevisionGUID="5b711252-9935-4c1b-8238-dfb1e666edf6" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="In support of Maca's answer, MPEP 2172 and 2174 elaborate on supported claims requiring essential elements.  E.g., from [MPEP 2174][1]:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; If the specification discloses that a particular feature or element is critical or essential to the practice of the invention, failure to recite or include that particular feature or element in the claims may provide a basis for a rejection based on the ground that those claims are not supported by an enabling disclosure. In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; In addition, if a claim is amended to include an invention that is not described in the application as filed, a rejection of that claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as being directed to subject matter that is not described in the specification as filed may be appropriate. In reSimon, 302 F.2d 737, 133 USPQ 524 (CCPA 1962). In Simon, which involved a reissue application containing claims to a reaction product of a composition, applicant presented claims to a reaction product of a composition comprising the subcombination A+B+C, whereas the original claims and description of the invention were directed to a composition comprising the combination A+B+C+D+E. **The court found no significant support for the argument that ingredients D+E were not essential to the claimed reaction product and concluded that claims directed to the reaction product of a subcombination A+B+C were not described (35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph) in the application as filed.**&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2174.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19548" RevisionGUID="e1aca344-294f-4771-b1f5-3f55a3c42b0b" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Although the following case does not address the specific question, it does shed some light on claim construction at the USPTO.&#xA;&#xA;In *In Re Abbott* (2012), as analyzed [here][1], the USPTO was of the mind that the applicant had not disavowed disparaged scope due to an improper interpretation of *Retractable Technologies*, and therefore rejected claims encompassing disparaged embodiments over 102/103 (e.g. instead of 112 over lack of support):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; The **specification stated that the disclosed sensor overcame** limitations in the prior art related to the bulk and size of prior art sensors, as well as the prior art’s **reliance on external wires and cables** connecting the various components that interfered with the daily life of the patient.  Specifically, the specification noted that existing sensor guides “are typically bulky and do not allow for freedom of movement.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; **The examiner held that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “electrochemical sensor” included wires and cables**, even though the specification criticized the external cables and wires of the prior art, and none of the embodiments in Abbott’s patents included external cables or wires connecting to the associated control unit.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; **The Board upheld the examiner during the USPTO appeal and held that**, in the absence of a more express limiting statement, **the broadest reasonable interpretation** in light of the specification of the term “electrochemical sensor” **includes wires and cables**.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Having construed the term to include wires, the rejection of the claims using prior art sensors having wires was, not surprisingly, upheld.  The real question remained: **was the claim construction reasonable?**&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Abbott filed requests for rehearing, arguing to no avail that the Board improperly relied on the specification’s statement that “sensors include cables or wires. ... **The Board maintained its reasoning that because nothing in Abbott’s patents explicitly disclaims sensors that include external cables or wires, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims should still include these features.**&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; ... the court [CAFC] emphasized that the specifications of Abbott’s patents “repeatedly, consistently, and exclusively” described sensors without wires, while simultaneously disparaging sensors with external cables or wires.  Overall, based upon the findings discussed above, **the Federal Circuit found the USPTO’s interpretation of “an electrochemical sensor” unreasonable.**&#xA;&#xA;After this guidance from the CAFC, it would be expected that the USPTO would interpret consistently disparaged embodiments to be excluded from broad claims.  However, this does not answer the question of whether a claim specifically referring to the disavowed embodiments would lack support.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.finnegan.com/files/Upload/Newsletters/Full_Disclosure/2012/October/FullDisclosure_Oct12_1.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19517" RevisionGUID="9d375e64-22d4-4185-88da-7d100cf21cf1" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="&gt;I have a provisional filed with USPTO on June 1, 2017, and I plan to follow it up by June 1, 2018 with a PCT application to claim the provisional's priority date.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;I feel reasonably confident to be able to put together specs and claims that are not half bad.&#xA;&#xA;At the EPO (and probably many other jurisdictions) the priority will probably not hold. Any changes introduced at first in the PCT application will have the new filing date then. Which basically also means, for jurisdictions other than the US, where a priority document doesn't need to basically literally support the following application, you don't have to care for the 1 year period because it doesn't benefit you.&#xA;&#xA;It would then be possible to now file only a US-non.prov. and file the PCT application within 6 months, before any of the US applications publishes, so that they are not prior art for most, if not all, other jurisdictions. &#xA;&#xA;Please be advised that this is **dangerous** and understand the implications completly before deciding! But if you wouldn't feel comfortable filing the exact text of the provisional as a PCT application, ignoring the one year priority might not do too much damage. &#xA;&#xA;This can only work if you have not published anything about your invention! Otherwise, that would be prior art.&#xA;&#xA;(If you file a PCT application now, however, you would have to withdraw it prior to filing another one without priority, because it would be prior art retrospectively if it publishes. You would then not have the priority not even in the US.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19448" RevisionGUID="bfc3e250-be3a-418a-8a3f-8ef992a41188" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="It is common practice when writing specifications to disclose a broad range of possible embodiments &quot;just to be safe&quot;, and without much thought to how such embodiments might be realized in practice.  However, is there a downside to doing this?  Without thinking through and verifying that all embodiments are enabled (e.g. all combinations and subcombinations of features disclosed), it seems possible that generic claims encompassing the disclosure would be invalid over enablement.  E.g. see [here][1]:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; The claim was broad enough to cover both mechanical and electronic sensors. The patent's specification, on the other hand, described mechanical sensors in detail, however, the electronic sensor was described in broad terms and illustrated in one conceptual figure. The Court of Appeals ruled that the claim was invalid on the grounds that the full scope of the claims covered electronic sensors as well as mechanical sensors, but the specification did not teach a person skilled in the art how to make and use the invention with an electronic sensor (i.e. the claim was not enabled).&#xA;&#xA;Note: This also could bring up the issue of operability/&quot;utility&quot; of embodiments within the claim scope (e.g. some combinations of disclosed features may result in a nonsense embodiment).&#xA;&#xA;----&#xA;&#xA;**Edit:** Here's an example to illustrate the question.  Assume you are disclosing a novel spring mechanism for a stapler.  In the description, you write:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; In some embodiments, the stapler may **comprise an anvil** to provide a counter-force with respect to the arm during a stapling operation.  In other embodiments, the stapler may **not comprise an anvil** to provide a counter-force with respect to the arm during a stapling operation, e.g. the counter-force may be provided by an external object such as a cork board.  In some embodiments, the stapler may be used for **office tasks** such as coupling paper.  In some embodiments, the stapler may be used in **surgical settings**, e.g. for coupling skin flaps.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 1. A stapler with [the novel spring mechanism].&#xA;&#xA;Therefore, based on the explicit description, the claim scope presumably comprises at least the following four embodiments:&#xA;&#xA; 1. With anvil for office tasks&#xA; 2. Without anvil for office tasks&#xA; 3. With anvil for surgical settings&#xA; 4. **Without anvil for surgical settings**&#xA;&#xA;But how would 4 be enabled?  It doesn't seem enabled to press a stapler without a bottom-part/anvil into flesh until a staple comes out.  That would not achieve the desired purpose, and let's assume it does not for the sake of argument here.  Therefore, is it implicit that the claim scope only includes embodiments which would be &quot;reasonable&quot; to a PHOSITA, thus excluding non-enabled embodiment 4 from the claim scope?&#xA;&#xA;If it were the case that embodiment 4 was not considered part of the claim scope, what if someone sold the no-anvil embodiment with a separate &quot;anvil plate&quot; that was to be manually held in place to achieve the desired result in surgical settings, though (again assuming for the sake of argument) not in a way that would infringe embodiment 3 under doctrine of equivalents (same way, function, and result). It seems like the patentee would point to the broad claim and the spec to say that the separate anvil plate embodiment clearly infringed what would be embodiment 4, even though as described above, embodiment 4 does not seem to be enabled on its own.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.legalnews.com/detroit/1079616" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19445" RevisionGUID="10feefb3-3bb5-43a0-b3f5-779d71185dbd" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Citing the relevant [section of the MPEP][1]:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;B. Between Copending Applications—Provisional Rejections&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;An examiner may become aware of two or more copending applications that were filed by the same inventive entity, a different inventive entities having a common inventor, a common applicant, and/or a common owner/assignee, or that claim an invention resulting from activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement as defined in 35 U.S.C. 102(c) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2) and (3), that would raise an issue of double patenting if one of the applications became a patent. Where this issue can be addressed without violating the confidential status of applications (35 U.S.C. 122), the courts have sanctioned the practice of making applicant aware of the potential double patenting problem if one of the applications became a patent by permitting the examiner to make a “provisional” rejection on the ground of double patenting. In re Mott, 539 F.2d 1291, 190 USPQ 536 (CCPA 1976); In re Wetterau, 356 F.2d 556, 148 USPQ 499 (CCPA 1966). The merits of such a provisional rejection can be addressed by both the applicant and the examiner without waiting for the first patent to issue.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;A provisional double patenting rejection should continue to be made by the examiner until the rejection has been obviated or is no longer applicable except as noted below.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;1. Provisional Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejections&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;A complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). **Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional.**&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, **such a filing should not be held in abeyance**. Only objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. Therefore, an application must not be allowed unless the required compliant terminal disclaimer(s) is/are filed and/or the withdrawal of the nonstatutory double patenting rejection(s) is made of record by the examiner. See MPEP § 804.02, subsection VI, for filing terminal disclaimers required to overcome nonstatutory double patenting rejections in applications filed on or after June 8, 1995.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;If two (or more) pending applications are filed, in each of which a rejection of one claimed invention over the other on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting (NDP) is proper, the provisional NDP rejection will be made in each application. Where there are three applications containing claims that conflict such that a provisional NDP rejection is made in each application based upon the other two, and it is necessary to file terminal disclaimers to overcome the rejections, it is not sufficient to file a terminal disclaimer in only one of the applications addressing the other two applications. Rather, an appropriate terminal disclaimer must be filed in at least two of the applications to require common ownership or enforcement for all three applications. A terminal disclaimer may be required in each of the three applications in certain situations (e.g., when all three applications have the same effective U.S. filing date). See subsections (a) and (b) below. &#xA;&#xA;And under 804.02&#xA;&#xA;&gt;**The filing of a terminal disclaimer to obviate a rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting is not an admission of the propriety of the rejection**. Quad Environmental Technologies Corp. v. Union Sanitary District, 946 F.2d 870, 20 USPQ2d 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In Quad Environmental Technologies, the court indicated that the “filing of a terminal disclaimer simply serves the statutory function of removing the rejection of double patenting, and raises neither a presumption nor estoppel on the merits of the rejection.” &#xA;&#xA;(emphasis added both times)&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;It seems that the rejection has to be adressed. A terminal disclaimer can be filed without it beeing an admission.&#xA;&#xA;The terminal disclaimer can then be withdrawn later acording to 804.02 MPEP (last paragraph)&#xA;&#xA;&gt;If a terminal disclaimer is filed in an application in which the claims are then canceled or otherwise shown to be patentably distinct from the reference claims, the terminal disclaimer may be withdrawn before issuance of the patent by filing a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 requesting withdrawal of the recorded terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer may not be withdrawn after issuance of the patent. See MPEP § 1490, subsection VII., for a complete discussion of withdrawal of a terminal disclaimer. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s804.html&#xA;  [2]: https://www.wnlaw.com/blog/non-statutory-double-patenting-rejections-terminal-disclaimers/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19233" RevisionGUID="779491db-d218-47d9-a89e-f8e4a4d45367" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="The few patents I have reviewed do not address the ['POSITA'][1] skill set.  For example, would it not be helpful / constructive to state that skill set should include:&#xA;&#xA;* Bachelors of Science Electrical Engineering&#xA;* Experience with mixed signal simulation&#xA;* C++ and Python Programming&#xA;* TCP / IP Networking&#xA;* Relational Database Design &#xA;&#xA;Why is  specifying the POSITA  skill set not practiced?&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_having_ordinary_skill_in_the_art" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19200" RevisionGUID="8dc40b16-ef12-4699-834f-09e1a3e18192" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="This is clearly the Japan version of https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3304/how-to-get-a-patent-or-patent-application-permalink-at-the-uspto-website, so I steal from there:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; I'd like to link to certain patents &lt;s&gt;or patent applications&lt;/s&gt; filed with the &lt;s&gt;USPTO&lt;/s&gt; JPO.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Is there a &lt;s&gt;simpler&lt;/s&gt; way to link to applications and granted patents at the &lt;s&gt;USPTO&lt;/s&gt; JPO?&#xA;&#xA;Thank you :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19848" RevisionGUID="fc1c017d-7e3c-4ce4-b28c-3d1e99d44c9a" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="You can file a non-provisional or provisional application until one year after the date of your social media disclosure. If you file the provisional you can [convert it to a non-provisional][1] within one year or file a new non-provisional within one year of filing. What you should do between these I can't say. You cannot do option 1 since that you would fail to make a disclosure you are obligate to disclose under 37 CFR 1.56.  Failing to do this is considered *inequitable conduct* and could result in [rejection or invalidation\* of your application][2] by the USPTO per MPEP 2016, or be an affirmative defense to infringement in a lawsuit.&#xA;&#xA;\*an invalidated patent is where the patent is otherwise patentable but because of inequitable conduct has been rendered unenforcable.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/q/19793/18618&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2016.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22333" RevisionGUID="f46560fc-f597-44cd-9da8-3114089bdbe5" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:26:29.483" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Do you remember **cordless landline phones**?  Specifically, do you recall or know of any technology for **selectively forwarding phone calls to particular cordless landline handsets**, based on the phone number of the caller?  How about technology for **selectively blocking calls from particular callers**?  The prior technology must have been known or used before **December 4, 2000**.&#xA;&#xA;United Patents, a group of patent owners and technology companies, has announced **[a reward for prior art related to US Patent 6,970,706][1]**. This patent has been involved in litigation against nine mobile phone companies.  I post a summary here to provide notification of the contest, and to encourage further discussion of these claims.  &#xA;&#xA;**TITLE: Hierarchical call control with selective broadcast audio messaging system**&#xA;&#xA;**Summary**: Prioritizing callers in a cordless landline telephone system.  The telephone system maintains a database with phone number and respective priority, and forwards incoming calls to zero, one, or more than one handsets based on the caller's priority.&#xA;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US6970706][2] &#xA;- **Assignee** (*of public record*): VALYRIAN IP LLC and Siemens Information and Communication Products LLC &#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior art **predating December 4, 2000**&#xA;- **Patroll Contest end date**: May 31, 2020 (10:30 PM Central European Summer Time)&#xA;- **Previously considered**: during examination, the USPTO considered [patents][3] and [non-patent documents][4].  For the purpose of the Patroll Contest, those documents (and other members of the same patent families) are not of interest.&#xA;&#xA;**Claims 1 through 3 are the focus of this request.**&#xA;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every element listed below (*copied from published claims*):&#xA;&gt;A system for providing a hierarchical call control paradigm in a cordless phone system, comprising: &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a base station operable in a broadcast mode and a standard mode; &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a plurality of mobile units communicatively coupled to the base station;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a directory server coupled to the base station;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a phone number database included in or coupled to the directory server arranged to store any number of phone numbers,&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a caller identification database coupled to the phone number database arranged to store a caller identifier uniquely associated with a phone number corresponding to a received phone call; and&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;a priority level data base coupled to the caller identification data base arranged to provide a priority level for the caller identifier, &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;wherein when the phone call is received, the directory server &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;   identifies a phone number of the received call, &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; identifies a caller based upon a retrieved caller identifier associated with the identified phone number, &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; retrieves a priority level for the identified caller, and &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; forwards the call to a specific mobile unit based upon the priority level.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;**Claim 2** requires the addition of all of these elements:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;2. A system as recited in claim 1, wherein the priority level is selected from a group comprising: a lowest priority (DO NOT DISTURB), an intermediate priority, and a highest priority.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;**Claim 3** requires the addition of all of these elements:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;3. A system as recited in claim 2, wherein when the priority level is the lowest priority, then the incoming call is not forwarded to any of the plurality of mobile units.&#xA;&#xA;**In English, claim 1 requires:**&#xA;&#xA;1. A base station capable of forwarding phone calls to multiple mobile phone handsets,&#xA;&#xA;2. A database that stores phone numbers and associated priority levels for each phone number&#xA;&#xA;3. When an incoming call is received from a phone number, the priority level associated with the phone number is retrieved from the database&#xA;&#xA;4. Based on the priority level, the base station forwards the call to zero, one, or more than one mobile phone handset(s).&#xA;&#xA;Claims 2 and 3 clarify that the base station has a mode in which phone calls from a particular phone number are not forwarded to any of the mobile phone handsets because they are assigned a low priority in the database.  &#xA;&#xA;Good prior art includes a description of similar systems (including base station, handsets, *and a database*) that merely does not forward calls from a particular phone number to the mobile phone handsets.  They important feature might be called &quot;caller block&quot;, &quot;always voicemail&quot;, &quot;known telemarketer&quot; or similar.  Alternatively, selectively forwarding calls to one or more than one mobile phone would also be useful.  The prior art must have a publication or U.S. priority date earlier than December 4, 2000.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://patroll.unifiedpatents.com/contests/sycCx8X5AD5R864Hw&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6970706B2/en?oq=US6970706&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6970706B2#patentCitations&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6970706B2#nplCitations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60853" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13760" RevisionGUID="7f0b4eb4-801d-4fba-8a05-57df442f06c7" CreationDate="2020-06-18T21:06:00.587" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22394" RevisionGUID="eceb47bd-8a01-42df-9e20-c369f2e12483" CreationDate="2020-06-18T21:42:36.453" UserId="23991" Text="I have a method of monitoring computers. In my independent claim I say `a network-connected device`. However in my dependent claim I specifically want to say that it is an application server. Is there a specific way to phrase that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will this work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The method of claim 1, further comprising the network-connected device of claim 1 be an application server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60855" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22394" RevisionGUID="eceb47bd-8a01-42df-9e20-c369f2e12483" CreationDate="2020-06-18T21:42:36.453" UserId="23991" Text="How to add more detail to an element in a dependent claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60856" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22394" RevisionGUID="eceb47bd-8a01-42df-9e20-c369f2e12483" CreationDate="2020-06-18T21:42:36.453" UserId="23991" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claims-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60857" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="21128" RevisionGUID="12068777-afd5-405d-91fa-db66683787a1" CreationDate="2020-06-18T22:03:35.490" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22395" RevisionGUID="d9d97c09-299a-43f2-8c21-95a8c0b33838" CreationDate="2020-06-19T00:41:21.617" UserId="3076" Text="That is a little confusing in that a claim is either to a method or to a thing. Of course methods can involve things and sometimes things can be characterized by steps they perform. Without the framework of the wording of your claim 1 it is not 100% clear that the dependent claim would be proper. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If claim 1 is a well formed method claim, the dependent claim could be &quot;The method of claim 1 where the network-connected device is an application server.&quot; This assumes the words &quot;network-connected device&quot; appear in claim 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many would use &quot;wherein&quot;, I prefer the simpler &quot;where&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22395" RevisionGUID="0d3f946f-49f3-45aa-b591-662c54fade33" CreationDate="2020-06-19T02:38:17.500" UserId="3076" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="That wording is a little confusing in that a claim is either to a method or to a thing. Of course methods can involve things and sometimes things can be characterized by steps they perform. Without the framework of the wording of your claim 1 it is not 100% clear that the dependent claim you suggest would be proper. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If claim 1 is a well formed method claim, the dependent claim could be &quot;The method of claim 1 where the network-connected device is an application server.&quot; This assumes the words &quot;network-connected device&quot; appear in claim 1 and claim is indeed a method claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many would use &quot;wherein&quot;, I prefer the simpler &quot;where&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22396" RevisionGUID="3b0e195a-1e08-4d82-8ea9-cc80f2d039cb" CreationDate="2020-06-19T07:49:30.690" UserId="24199" Text="Useful life begins with patent filing date since it can be beneficial for licensing agreement or selling the rights." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22395" RevisionGUID="904b7933-26eb-499b-b898-84e0a8f1cca7" CreationDate="2020-06-19T16:57:52.927" UserId="3076" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="That wording is a little confusing in that a claim is either to a method or to a thing. Of course methods can involve things and sometimes things can be characterized by steps they perform. Without the framework of the wording of your claim 1 it is not 100% clear that the dependent claim you suggest would be proper. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If claim 1 is a well formed method claim, the dependent claim could be &quot;The method of claim 1 where the network-connected device is an application server.&quot; This assumes the words &quot;network-connected device&quot; appear in claim 1 and claim is indeed a method claim. And that it is clear what application server means in the context of your application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many would use &quot;wherein&quot;, I prefer the simpler &quot;where&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60862" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13123" RevisionGUID="b6637059-a695-4dfa-9c03-8828d67b876a" CreationDate="2020-06-19T17:04:50.547" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60863" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12055" RevisionGUID="3d1acd18-3da0-46f8-a2c1-8069e6a0807e" CreationDate="2020-06-19T18:07:45.717" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60869" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20085" RevisionGUID="32005b48-041c-4819-8426-1ae0631b8663" CreationDate="2020-06-19T23:00:50.103" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22400" RevisionGUID="733e04c1-9ceb-4269-bb05-dac4c76fab02" CreationDate="2020-06-21T10:23:21.967" UserId="24211" Text="If these patents are still active, can they be used outside of country. For example, if I live in the USA, can I use a similar patent (cap pierced)? Or would I still face patent infringement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried looking everywhere to see where it says it's officially filed or if it was expired. I see dates and codes but I have trouble understanding what they mean, even after searching them up.  I just want to see if it would be safe and not worry about committing infringement.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would really appreciate if someone can clarify this for me! I'm scared of getting sued! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you so much!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60883" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22400" RevisionGUID="733e04c1-9ceb-4269-bb05-dac4c76fab02" CreationDate="2020-06-21T10:23:21.967" UserId="24211" Text="Are these patents still active? WO2010105586A1 and KR200297240Y1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60884" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22400" RevisionGUID="733e04c1-9ceb-4269-bb05-dac4c76fab02" CreationDate="2020-06-21T10:23:21.967" UserId="24211" Text="&lt;expired&gt;&lt;country&gt;&lt;active&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22373" RevisionGUID="b2e2c904-4a22-4fc8-ba7f-a0c07f0eeaab" CreationDate="2020-06-21T14:22:30.270" UserId="17003" Comment="edited body" Text="I suppose it is possible the employment agreement you had with your former employer had some commitment that extended beyond your tenure. You should know of this or else demand the new company provides evidence of such commitment. It is not, in my experience, the norm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming there aren't contractual requirements, then you would be fully within your rights to decline to help. What I might suggest, is that you should put forward the option of supporting the new filings at a contracted rate of $XXX per hour. XXX should be a number no less than $100/hr. I personally wouldn't do it for less than $150/hr and if it is a large company significantly more. In any case you need them to respect the value of your time and the only way to do this is to charge an hourly rate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The $1 is a quaint custom that I used to experience early in my career. When I signed the documents before filing a patent, the company lawyers would give me a crisp new $1 bill as &quot;compensation&quot;. I don't think it really matters because as time went on, the $1 bills became less crisp and stopped being provided at all. In any case, you aren't an employee so such customs are silly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to be clear, I am not a lawyer so this isn't legal advice. If you get threatened by the new company, you may need to consult with one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22404" RevisionGUID="45fc7161-e2f1-4861-96c5-31c127ac3428" CreationDate="2020-06-21T17:58:30.843" UserId="3076" Text="It looks like the Korean application never became a patent and the WO number is for the PCT application. PCT applications need to enter the national stage in one or more countries to actually become a patent. I do not see that this ever entered the U.S. national stage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents are territorial. Other than some odd cases, they only constrain actions within the country that issued the patent. There are some small exceptions like things at sea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However there may be patents other than this that cover what you plan to do. Just because there is not a corresponding U.S. patent there may be other patents by other inventors or the same inventor that could cause a problem. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60902" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20526" RevisionGUID="07cb9b76-3ffb-41e8-a496-6c2de35ed7db" CreationDate="2020-06-21T18:05:00.487" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22400" RevisionGUID="5c1f8a1e-8ad3-40ae-b5a2-166ebcd739a3" CreationDate="2020-06-22T01:17:58.690" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body" Text="If these patents are still active, can they be used outside of country. For example, if I live in the USA, can I use a similar patent (cap pierced)? Or would I still face patent infringement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried looking everywhere to see where it says it's officially filed or if it was expired. I see dates and codes but I have trouble understanding what they mean, even after searching them up.  I just want to see if it would be safe and not worry about committing infringement.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would really appreciate if someone can clarify this for me! I'm scared of getting sued! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22404" RevisionGUID="e36c3de0-9123-4404-ad6a-76192eeb1159" CreationDate="2020-06-22T01:22:10.947" UserId="3076" Comment="added 813 characters in body" Text="It looks like the Korean application never became a patent and the WO number is for the PCT application. PCT applications need to enter the national stage in one or more countries to actually become a patent. I do not see that this ever entered the U.S. national stage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents are territorial. Other than some odd cases, they only constrain actions within the country that issued the patent. There are some small exceptions like things at sea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However there may be patents other than this that cover what you plan to do. Just because there is not a corresponding U.S. patent there may be other patents by other inventors or the same inventor that could cause a problem. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to start looking is to look, on google patents for example, at previous work cited in the patent application at later work that google patents links to. These are things that the application cites. On google patents there is also a link to &quot;similar documents&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US5005218A * 1989-10-05 1991-04-09 Ganz Manufacturing Co., Inc. Garment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;GB2301017A * 1996-06-14 1996-11-27 Davinna Jennifer Bentley Securing garments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US6076194A * 1999-10-18 2000-06-20 Purkett; Varan C. &#xD;&#xA;Wearing apparel system with suspended indicia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DE20018811U1 * 2000-03-09 2001-07-26 Lasar Raimond Body &#xD;&#xA;jewelry arrangement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;GB2381183A * 2001-10-27 2003-04-30 Peter Lawton Jewellery for pierced navels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;WO2007142416A1 * 2006-06-05 2007-12-13 Seung Hoon Lee Headgear capable of being attached and separated ornaments&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19154" RevisionGUID="359ff0af-4616-4c6c-8e67-d79d224b803d" CreationDate="2020-06-22T03:38:57.720" UserId="20503" Comment="added 160 characters in body" Text="Here are two links to GitHub projects that can be used to help download and parse USPTO data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://github.com/USPTO/PatentPublicData&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://github.com/USPTO/bulk-data-tools&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have also built a USPTO bulk data scraping and parsing software in Python3 =&gt; https://github.com/github.com/rippledj/uspto&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you would like dedicated access to up-to-date USPTO data via remote database connection it is also available: https://www.ripplesoftware.ca/?page_id=249 &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22406" RevisionGUID="6342b62c-1ba6-4786-bdfb-d798b1868057" CreationDate="2020-06-23T01:59:28.203" UserId="20503" Text="Does anyone know where to find or have a pdf copy of the documentation for USPTO application XMLv4 and XMLv1 bulk data?  I can only find documentation for USPTO grants XMLv4, XMLv2 and APS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an link to what I have for grants, but would like the equivalent for applications:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grants APS Description - https://bulkdata.uspto.gov/data/patent/grant/redbook/fulltext/1976/PatentFullTextAPSDoc_GreenBook.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grants XMLv Description - https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/products/PatentGrantSGMLv19-Documentation.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grants XMLv4 Description - https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/products/PatentGrantXMLv42-Documentation.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60912" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22406" RevisionGUID="6342b62c-1ba6-4786-bdfb-d798b1868057" CreationDate="2020-06-23T01:59:28.203" UserId="20503" Text="Documentation for USPTO Bulk data Applications &quot;Red-book&quot; XMLv4 and XMLv1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60913" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22406" RevisionGUID="6342b62c-1ba6-4786-bdfb-d798b1868057" CreationDate="2020-06-23T01:59:28.203" UserId="20503" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;bulk-download&gt;&lt;xml&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60914" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20202" RevisionGUID="3dd61ced-7b18-4903-95e2-117c5225c7c8" CreationDate="2020-06-23T07:04:10.470" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60915" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="417c4fcb-ac4a-4489-918b-3c9760203ee7" CreationDate="2020-06-23T11:01:40.150" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16817" RevisionGUID="8768ba0c-16d6-4882-86ca-8122e532ff1d" CreationDate="2020-06-23T14:15:34.127" UserId="17737" Comment="link to source added" Text="Citing the [Canadian patent office website](https://www.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/help/content/help_administrative_status.html) as reached through the Google Patents link on &quot;dead&quot; applications:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The date that an abandoned application could normally no longer be reinstated.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dead Application	2009-09-21&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the owner is in a coma and can therefore reinstate the right after waking up (I don't know if this is possible in Canada), the patent application is most probably &quot;dead&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60922" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16817" RevisionGUID="8768ba0c-16d6-4882-86ca-8122e532ff1d" CreationDate="2020-06-23T14:15:34.127" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 17003, 18033 edit id of 2130" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60923" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22353" RevisionGUID="8af99654-4a94-4c93-9e31-c9b45002d585" CreationDate="2020-06-24T23:04:25.583" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22408" RevisionGUID="dbb6ce00-1501-4a72-ab4c-773e602f14ad" CreationDate="2020-06-25T09:09:06.097" UserId="22532" Text="I filled two application 3 month apart and the first application is published before the second one's application date. My first application is classifed as &quot;X&quot; in the search report of the second application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my country (Turkey), we have 12 month grace period for both patentebility criteria. However, patent office says applications doesn't consider as disclosure of patent owner/inventor. An officer i talked says that patent office did the disclosure, not the patent owner/inventor. The patent law just says &quot;disclousure of the owner/inventor in 12 months doesn't effect of patentebility&quot; and it doesn't specify type of the disclousure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I did little research, I found out applications are considered as disclosure in many country and also many of the offices doesn't specify type of the disclosure for grace period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks your helps already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best regards.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60925" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22408" RevisionGUID="dbb6ce00-1501-4a72-ab4c-773e602f14ad" CreationDate="2020-06-25T09:09:06.097" UserId="22532" Text="Is our own patent application, which is filed in grace period, consider as grace period disclousure?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60926" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22408" RevisionGUID="dbb6ce00-1501-4a72-ab4c-773e602f14ad" CreationDate="2020-06-25T09:09:06.097" UserId="22532" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;grace-period&gt;&lt;owner&gt;&lt;previous&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22411" RevisionGUID="9421b8e0-8666-4ab7-97d8-53173a75d45b" CreationDate="2020-06-25T22:11:16.320" UserId="3076" Text="From a [web site][1] of a practitioner of Turkish patent law the grace period starts when a disclosure is made by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a) By the inventor. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; b By an *authority* to which the patent application was filed and the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information was contained in [1] another application filed by the inventor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which application *should not have been disclosed* by the respective&#xD;&#xA;&gt; office or [2] . . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There other exceptions that do not fit your case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is the law, then a proper publication of your first application by the Turkish office does not start the grace period. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While that does seem illogical to me, you will not get anywhere arguing that it should not be the law or that other countries do it differntly. Is it too late for the second application to claim priority from the first application under Turkish practice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://iclg.com/practice-areas/patents-laws-and-regulations/turkey" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22411" RevisionGUID="29ad4dbe-dbf7-4a3c-b519-1d6d0b142e48" CreationDate="2020-06-25T22:19:05.720" UserId="3076" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="From a [web site][1] of a practitioner of Turkish patent law the grace period starts when a disclosure is made by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a) By the inventor. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; b By an *authority* to which the patent application was filed and the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information was contained in [1] another application filed by the inventor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which application *should not have been disclosed* by the respective&#xD;&#xA;&gt; office or [2] . . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There other exceptions that do not fit your case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is the law, then a *proper* publication of your first application by the Turkish office does not start the grace period. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While that does seem illogical to me, you will not get anywhere arguing that it should not be the law or that other countries do it differently. Is it too late for the second application to claim priority from the first application under Turkish practice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://iclg.com/practice-areas/patents-laws-and-regulations/turkey" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22412" RevisionGUID="484d11d4-7f63-4956-a5f4-91018014272a" CreationDate="2020-06-26T05:05:24.350" UserId="23991" Text="The closest I can find is the [Nonprovisional (Utility) Patent Application Filing Guide][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having a hard time converting that into an application. What I think would be easier is just a template where I can replace the current text with my own text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps they could offer them by type. For example mine would be a non-provisional utility patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have done a provisional patent and that was easier because it's not as strict so I was able to just Google a template. I've been listening to a podcast on how to fill out a non-provisional patent application. A couple times actually and I've taken notes. But I'm still at a loss. I can't even move 1mm forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On Google patents you can download the patent in PDF form. But those documents have a lot of intricacies to them. For example they might have a field with an underline that goes halfway across the page. They might put some things in the center and some things on the side. I don't see the information about how to do that formatting anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A template where I can just replace the existing text with my own would be super helpful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would also be nice if they made it more clear about how to fill out an application data sheet and what the rules are for using flow charts. But that's just extra. I can't even write the basic application because I don't know where to start aside from reading that entire document that I linked to and I don't even think that would help to be honest with you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/nonprovisional-utility-patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60939" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22412" RevisionGUID="484d11d4-7f63-4956-a5f4-91018014272a" CreationDate="2020-06-26T05:05:24.350" UserId="23991" Text="Does the USPTO publish example applications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60940" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22412" RevisionGUID="484d11d4-7f63-4956-a5f4-91018014272a" CreationDate="2020-06-26T05:05:24.350" UserId="23991" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;pro-se&gt;&lt;template&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22415" RevisionGUID="7cb2d874-3752-4878-b5a7-fb86c8282621" CreationDate="2020-06-26T22:00:16.130" UserId="3076" Text="The USPTO lets anyone with an internet connection look at every application filed in the last 30 years or so that was published and/or resulted in a patent. All back and forth between the supplicate and office are in the public domain once the document is published/granted. You find this in a USPTO database called [PUBLIC PAIR][1]. It has an unforgiving interface but if you correctly put in a patent number you will get to see the entire history of the proceedings including the application as filed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do a search for a recent patent in your field and look it up in PAIR. Under the Image File Wrapper tab is the PDFs of all of the documents exchanged. Near the bottom you will find the specification and the claims and the drawings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are serious you can then look up the first rejection. If you do this, imagine you got the rejection and needed to respond. I'm not saying it isn't doable but you will need to make understanding the patent system a very high priority hobby.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents are a form of a monopoly given by the government in return for a clear and complete disclosure of something new (as in never done or written about publicly anywhere, anytime, in any language). It must also be non obvious to a generic person of ordinary skill in the field who knows **everything** relevant **ever** published.  And the bounds of what you are claiming is yours needs to be clear so we can tell if someone is infringing it or just coming close. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of that leads to a long history of decisions about what words mean what, etc. A small guy can write and file and prosecute and get a patent granted but it is complicated and will take dedicated effort. The most recommended book is Patent it Yourself by David Pressman. I think it is now up to $39.The edition I have is 460+ pages. It includes a sample application for [this patent][2]. If it doesn't show flow charts there is a companion book on patent drawing that does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The section of the MPEP that covers paper size, etc. is under *37 CFR 1.52  Language, paper, writing, margins, compact disc specifications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The UPTO does have a [pro-bono program][3]. To be eligible there are income requirements, you need to file your own provisional and you need to go through an non-line class. The attorney is free but you need to pay the filing fees, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4783886A&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/using-legal-services/pro-bono/patent-pro-bono-program" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22415" RevisionGUID="f53628f1-ed57-4981-9529-5f5fc9f2289e" CreationDate="2020-06-26T23:40:22.797" UserId="3076" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="*Regarding examples* - The USPTO lets anyone with an internet connection look at every application filed in the last 30 years or so that was published and/or resulted in a patent. All back and forth between the supplicate and office are in the public domain once the document is published/granted. You find this in a USPTO database called [PUBLIC PAIR][1]. It has an unforgiving interface but if you correctly put in a patent number you will get to see the entire history of the proceedings including the application as filed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do a search for a recent patent in your field and look it up in PAIR. Under the Image File Wrapper tab is the PDFs of all of the documents exchanged. Near the bottom you will find the specification and the claims and the drawings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are serious you can then look up the first rejection. If you do this, imagine you got the rejection and needed to respond. I'm not saying it isn't doable but you will need to make understanding the patent system a very high priority hobby.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents are a form of a monopoly given by the government in return for a clear and complete disclosure of something new (as in never done or written about publicly anywhere, anytime, in any language). It must also be non obvious to a generic person of ordinary skill in the field who knows **everything** relevant **ever** published.  And the bounds of what you are claiming is yours needs to be clear so we can tell if someone is infringing it or just coming close. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of that leads to a long history of decisions about what words mean what, etc. A small guy can write and file and prosecute and get a patent granted but it is complicated and will take dedicated effort. The most recommended book is Patent it Yourself by David Pressman. I think it is now up to $39.The edition I have is 460+ pages. It includes a sample application for [this patent][2]. If it doesn't show flow charts there is a companion book on patent drawing that does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The section of the MPEP that covers paper size, etc. is under *37 CFR 1.52  Language, paper, writing, margins, compact disc specifications.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The UPTO does have a [pro-bono program][3]. To be eligible there are income requirements, you need to file your own provisional and you need to go through an on-line class. The attorney is free but you need to pay the filing fees, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4783886A&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/using-legal-services/pro-bono/patent-pro-bono-program" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60965" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20142" RevisionGUID="63a518a1-db0c-45bf-8137-f5f3beb0e9fc" CreationDate="2020-06-29T08:07:15.643" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22418" RevisionGUID="58e4da38-defa-4c6b-b42b-41ad55b1dd1a" CreationDate="2020-06-29T11:27:19.830" UserId="24250" Text="My product is covered by my Australian patent but another Australian company has copied it and are manufacturing it in Australia and selling it overseas to a country I have no patent rights, are they allowed to do this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60967" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22418" RevisionGUID="58e4da38-defa-4c6b-b42b-41ad55b1dd1a" CreationDate="2020-06-29T11:27:19.830" UserId="24250" Text="My Australian patent is being copied in Australia for sale overseas" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60968" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22418" RevisionGUID="58e4da38-defa-4c6b-b42b-41ad55b1dd1a" CreationDate="2020-06-29T11:27:19.830" UserId="24250" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60969" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20232" RevisionGUID="46cb6dd7-2e56-49cc-b82c-c199c9b73580" CreationDate="2020-06-30T01:07:30.870" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="60982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20142" RevisionGUID="ffced47b-02c9-48d7-bd1f-30470ba47057" CreationDate="2020-07-02T23:28:26.833" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="From the inventor perspective that has an patent attorney team developing a patent, I am trying to put together a plan comprising a list of deliverables (to be produce by patent attorneys), each with an estimated date. Although I have project management experience, I do not have patent application experience (first attempt at a patent).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Deliverables` are workproducts and artifacts produced by stakeholders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is there a good list of Non Provisional Patent Application artifacts / deliverables?   &#xD;&#xA; - How can I gauge progress with a looming deadline (April 2019)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found the [USPTO Patent Application Checklist][1], however, I think I should be focused on the claims and how they are progressing between now and the final draft?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjwzJaq69HfAhXrpVkKHVTZCFoQFjAAegQICxAC&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.uspto.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Finventors%2FChecklist_for_Filing_a_Nonprovisional_Utility.pdf&amp;usg=AOvVaw1JpOcOT1hWs-11yKuOGgKh" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22425" RevisionGUID="88baee2a-da24-4ea1-a309-d691a7754e74" CreationDate="2020-07-03T16:56:18.380" UserId="24263" Text="My firm has been patenting and applying for patents in the fields of AI, machine learning, deep learning, computer vision, NLP, and other related technologies -- mostly related to life sciences and healthcare. &#xD;&#xA;What we've found is that there are a lot of &quot;generic&quot; patents issues such as the one you describe. However, the USPTO is increasing its scrutiny, and the European Patent Office (EPO) has had a pretty high bar for such patents for years. &#xD;&#xA;In a nutshell, what we have found, to obtain patents on AI-enabled technologies, is to describe new pre-processing and post-processing steps, new combinations of data, new combinations of nets and algos, and all encompassed by claims to a &quot;system&quot;. By drafting patent applications this way, we have overcome the &quot;Alice&quot; rejections mentioned above, as well as the USPTO &quot;two-step&quot; analysis. &#xD;&#xA;This is all an oversimplification, of course, and each invention will be a unique circumstance. However, this is a pretty good guideline to what should be allowed as patentable subject matter. &#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22426" RevisionGUID="5cc7d6f7-66f7-48dc-80e2-25b04c828f0a" CreationDate="2020-07-03T21:11:44.550" UserId="24265" Text="Here I have a product that was patented by my competitor only in the United States. I had the idea of launching it in Europe. Based on some research, I was able to find out that I don't have the right to patent the product in Europe because of &quot;defensive publication&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But now I would like to know: if I start selling this unpatented product in Europe and after a few months the competitor files the patent in several European countries, can I still continue to sell it because I will also have my &quot;defensive publication&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60997" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22426" RevisionGUID="5cc7d6f7-66f7-48dc-80e2-25b04c828f0a" CreationDate="2020-07-03T21:11:44.550" UserId="24265" Text="Can I sell in Europe a product patented in the United States?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60998" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22426" RevisionGUID="5cc7d6f7-66f7-48dc-80e2-25b04c828f0a" CreationDate="2020-07-03T21:11:44.550" UserId="24265" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;country&gt;&lt;patented&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="60999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22427" RevisionGUID="afe3a69e-37f7-466f-8334-9ee0ebccabe7" CreationDate="2020-07-04T02:39:12.763" UserId="3076" Text="**Possibly Yes**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent rights are territorial. A U.S. patent gives the owner the right to (try to) control anyone else who would make, sell, offer for sale, import or use the claimed invention - *in the U.S*. Therefore, if the only patent is in the U.S. you can make it and sell it anywhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are caveats - the patent you are looking at may not be the only patent that would be infringed by making or selling the product. The same inventor or anyone else might have a patent in one or more European countries that would be infringed by making the thing the U.S. patents covers. Let's say the invention was a self driving electric lawn mower only patented in the U.S. but someone had patents on aspects of a generic electric lawn mower in Europe. In making the self driving mower you would be making an electric mower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Separately, the owner of the U.S. patent may have corresponding applications pending all over the world that were properly filed getting priority from the U.S. application or possibly a PCT application. If they are not issued, you can make and sell - until those hypothetical applications issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two reasons you can't get a patent in Europe or anywhere else are (1) you didn't actually invent it (2) since someone else has a published patent the information about the invention not new. Even if you had invented it independently, the fact that someone else has publicly sold it, or had an application/patent published, or had written a magazine article about it first makes it no longer new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I understand your question it seems that you think you made a defensive publication. If the information was already disclosed in someone else's patent nothing you published made a difference. Who publishes is irrelevant to the case that any publication/patenting by anyone makes it no longer new and therefore unpatentable anywhere in the world - other than the special case of countries with a grace period.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22427" RevisionGUID="1b52bd32-0282-4576-9b32-5bea6ed908f9" CreationDate="2020-07-04T03:07:51.413" UserId="3076" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="**Possibly Yes**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent rights are territorial. A U.S. patent gives the owner the right to (try to) control anyone else who would make, sell, offer for sale, import or use the claimed invention - *in the U.S*. Therefore, if the only patent is in the U.S. you can make it and sell it anywhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are caveats - the patent you are looking at may not be the only patent that would be infringed by making or selling the product. The same inventor or anyone else might have a patent in one or more European countries that would be infringed by making the thing the U.S. patents covers. Let's say the invention was a self driving electric lawn mower only patented in the U.S. but someone had patents on aspects of a generic electric lawn mower in Europe. In making the self driving electric mower you would be making an electric mower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Separately, the owner of the U.S. patent may have corresponding applications pending all over the world that were properly filed getting priority from the U.S. application or possibly a PCT application. If they are not issued yet, you can make and sell - until those hypothetical applications issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two reasons you can't get a patent in Europe or anywhere else are (1) you didn't actually invent it (2) since someone else has a published patent the information about the invention not new. Even if you had invented it independently, the fact that someone else has publicly sold it, or had an application/patent published, or had written a magazine article about it first makes it no longer new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I understand your question it seems that you think you made a defensive publication. If the information was already disclosed in someone else's patent nothing you published made a difference. Who publishes is irrelevant to the case that any publication/patenting by anyone makes it no longer new and therefore unpatentable anywhere in the world - other than the special case of countries with a grace period.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61003" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="20250" RevisionGUID="fad2aaee-c870-4ff8-9e20-9016e6e3eb96" CreationDate="2020-07-04T14:17:23.920" UserId="17737" Comment="tags edited" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;intellectual-property&gt;&lt;india&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61004" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="20250" RevisionGUID="fad2aaee-c870-4ff8-9e20-9016e6e3eb96" CreationDate="2020-07-04T14:17:23.920" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 17003, 18033 edit id of 2131" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61005" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="20776" RevisionGUID="638cfafd-d57d-49a5-bc2c-203bc507123c" CreationDate="2020-07-04T14:17:36.823" UserId="17737" Comment="tags edited (there's no reason to have a separate tag, especially not when it misses a hyphen)" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;intellectual-property&gt;&lt;start-ups&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61006" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="20776" RevisionGUID="638cfafd-d57d-49a5-bc2c-203bc507123c" CreationDate="2020-07-04T14:17:36.823" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 17003, 18033 edit id of 2133" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20275" RevisionGUID="e05f0ddf-00fe-4dcb-b31b-c3be860472d8" CreationDate="2020-07-04T14:17:44.510" UserId="17737" Comment="tags edited (there's no reason to have a separate tag, especially not when it misses a hyphen)" Text="Is every patent invalidity search conducted to overcome the threat of infringement suits imposed by their competitors?&#xD;&#xA;Can parties invalidate patents of their competitors without showing concerns related to infringement or product development for the similar technologies?&#xD;&#xA;What can be other grounds/motivating factors (except to avoid infringement) for invalidity of patents?&#xD;&#xA;What is the real need for invalidating a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61008" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="20275" RevisionGUID="e05f0ddf-00fe-4dcb-b31b-c3be860472d8" CreationDate="2020-07-04T14:17:44.510" UserId="17737" Comment="tags edited (there's no reason to have a separate tag, especially not when it misses a hyphen)" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-search&gt;&lt;intellectual-property&gt;&lt;intellectual-ventures&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61009" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="20275" RevisionGUID="e05f0ddf-00fe-4dcb-b31b-c3be860472d8" CreationDate="2020-07-04T14:17:44.510" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 17003, 18033 edit id of 2132" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22427" RevisionGUID="75581212-557c-4570-a112-2802e889286d" CreationDate="2020-07-04T21:33:19.107" UserId="3076" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="**Possibly Yes**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent rights are territorial. A U.S. patent gives the owner the right to (try to) control anyone else who would make, sell, offer for sale, import or use the claimed invention - *in the U.S*. Therefore, if the only patent is in the U.S. you can make it and sell it anywhere else without fear from any U.S. patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are caveats - the patent you are looking at may not be the only patent that would be infringed by making or selling the product. The same inventor or anyone else might have a patent in one or more European countries that would be infringed by making the thing the U.S. patents covers. Let's say the invention was a self driving electric lawn mower only patented in the U.S. but someone had patents on aspects of a generic electric lawn mower in Europe. In making the self driving electric mower you would be making an electric mower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Separately, the owner of the U.S. patent may have corresponding applications pending all over the world that were properly filed getting priority from the U.S. application or possibly a PCT application. If they are not issued yet, you can make and sell - until those hypothetical applications issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two reasons you can't get a patent in Europe or anywhere else are (1) you didn't actually invent it (2) since someone else has a published patent the information about the invention not new. Even if you had invented it independently, the fact that someone else has publicly sold it, or had an application/patent published, or had written a magazine article about it first makes it no longer new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I understand your question it seems that you think you made a defensive publication. If the information was already disclosed in someone else's patent nothing you published made a difference. Who publishes is irrelevant to the fact that any publication/patenting by anyone makes it no longer new and therefore unpatentable anywhere in the world - other than the special case of publication by the inventor in countries with a grace period.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22428" RevisionGUID="6e404d20-b34b-48aa-99ae-a8b37b63865b" CreationDate="2020-07-05T09:02:13.723" UserId="24270" Text="I have no idea about Australian law, but I think in the US you would be able to sue. I remember hearing in some podcast about a decision of a court that that selling kits for a patented technology to be sold out of the US was not allowed. I don't remember if they were able to get an injunction, but they were allowed damages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this is really a hard question and would depend on Australian law. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22429" RevisionGUID="aec96fd2-c990-4d11-b5bd-0bc60d698722" CreationDate="2020-07-05T11:21:48.260" UserId="15489" Text="An IDS can be filed without requiring a fee if done so a) within 3 months of filing the non-provisional application or b) before the first office action on the merits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a (first) non-final office action that is an election requirement. Does this qualify as an action on the merits, and do I therefore need to pay the fee if I submit an IDS before responding to the office action?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61013" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22429" RevisionGUID="aec96fd2-c990-4d11-b5bd-0bc60d698722" CreationDate="2020-07-05T11:21:48.260" UserId="15489" Text="Does an IDS filed after a non-final election requirement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61014" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22429" RevisionGUID="aec96fd2-c990-4d11-b5bd-0bc60d698722" CreationDate="2020-07-05T11:21:48.260" UserId="15489" Text="&lt;office-action&gt;&lt;ids&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61015" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="22429" RevisionGUID="b6cf4b24-fa9d-46e0-bc5c-6df618f840ec" CreationDate="2020-07-05T17:53:58.313" UserId="15489" Comment="edited title" Text="Does an IDS filed after a non-final election requirement require payment of a fee" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22431" RevisionGUID="64fde0b7-8430-4aef-84ea-76152bac524e" CreationDate="2020-07-05T23:20:46.430" UserId="3076" Text="**No,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a very quick search of the MPEP, found under &#xD;&#xA;**609 Information Disclosure Statement [R-10.2019]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Likewise, an information disclosure statement will be considered if it is filed later than three months after the application filing date but before the mailing date of a first Office action on the merits. An action on the merits means an action which treats the patentability of the claims in an application, as opposed to only formal or procedural requirements. An action on the merits would, for example, contain a rejection or indication of allowability of a claim or claims **rather than just a restriction requirement** " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22431" RevisionGUID="c16c8dfb-7e00-474b-ab22-f642710b502c" CreationDate="2020-07-06T01:12:53.220" UserId="3076" Comment="added 348 characters in body" Text="**No fee is required**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An action on the merits means an action related to patentablity. It excludes formalities like errors in payments or requests to have drawings improved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a very quick search of the [MPEP][1] (Manual of Patent Examining Procedure), found under &#xD;&#xA;**[609 Information Disclosure Statement \[R-10.2019\]][2]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Likewise, an information disclosure statement will be considered if it is filed later than three months after the application filing date but before the mailing date of a first Office action on the merits. An action on the merits means an action which treats the patentability of the claims in an application, as opposed to only formal or procedural requirements. An action on the merits would, for example, contain a rejection or indication of allowability of a claim or claims **rather than just a restriction requirement** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s609.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22433" RevisionGUID="f0390e01-ce82-4af5-bfbe-a657c253b562" CreationDate="2020-07-06T05:09:38.183" UserId="24275" Text="I'm not sure if these patents (WO2015191648A1 and US20190365145A1) are valid. Maybe someone can help me regarding following questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - According to WO2015191648A1, under legal events there is stated: &quot;Ep:&#xD;&#xA;   pct application non-entry in european phase&quot;. What does that mean? In&#xD;&#xA;   my opinion that it is only published but not yet granted. Can it still be granted in Europe as it is already some years old?&#xD;&#xA; - in the US Patent version US20190365145A1 it has been publicated on   &#xD;&#xA;   2019-DEC-05 (2019-12-05 Publication of US20190365145A1). As I&#xD;&#xA;   understand this patent is not yet granted, only published?&#xD;&#xA; - I found out, that especially the pump of the invention has already&#xD;&#xA;   been patented in 1991 EP0496939A1. So I don't really see why the&#xD;&#xA;   patent WO2015191648A1 can be done as the exactly same idea has&#xD;&#xA;   already been patented many years ago. &#xD;&#xA; - Is there a possibility to inform the patent-authorities about the&#xD;&#xA;   fact, that claim 1 until 5 is already covered in EP0496939A1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you and Best&#xD;&#xA;Marco&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61026" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22433" RevisionGUID="f0390e01-ce82-4af5-bfbe-a657c253b562" CreationDate="2020-07-06T05:09:38.183" UserId="24275" Text="Are patents WO2015191648A1 and US20190365145A1 valid? Another older patent covers claims 1 - 4. What to do in such a case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61027" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22433" RevisionGUID="f0390e01-ce82-4af5-bfbe-a657c253b562" CreationDate="2020-07-06T05:09:38.183" UserId="24275" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;legal-status&gt;&lt;patent-invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22433" RevisionGUID="3a9a43f5-9c88-4b2d-996f-5c5dfa609af6" CreationDate="2020-07-06T16:44:41.110" UserId="17003" Comment="Added links to patents" Text="I'm not sure if these patents ([WO2015191648A1][1] and [US20190365145A1][2]) are valid. Maybe someone can help me regarding following questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - According to WO2015191648A1, under legal events there is stated: &quot;Ep:&#xD;&#xA;   pct application non-entry in european phase&quot;. What does that mean? In&#xD;&#xA;   my opinion that it is only published but not yet granted. Can it still be granted in Europe as it is already some years old?&#xD;&#xA; - in the US Patent version US20190365145A1 it has been publicated on   &#xD;&#xA;   2019-DEC-05 (2019-12-05 Publication of US20190365145A1). As I&#xD;&#xA;   understand this patent is not yet granted, only published?&#xD;&#xA; - I found out, that especially the pump of the invention has already&#xD;&#xA;   been patented in 1991 [EP0496939A1][3]. So I don't really see why the&#xD;&#xA;   patent WO2015191648A1 can be done as the exactly same idea has&#xD;&#xA;   already been patented many years ago. &#xD;&#xA; - Is there a possibility to inform the patent-authorities about the&#xD;&#xA;   fact, that claim 1 until 5 is already covered in EP0496939A1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you and Best&#xD;&#xA;Marco&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2015191648A1/en?oq=WO2015191648A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190365145A1/en?oq=US20190365145A1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP0496939A1/en?oq=EP0496939A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22434" RevisionGUID="961497a0-9200-4bcc-b751-bcedde306c40" CreationDate="2020-07-06T17:21:07.300" UserId="17003" Text="First thing to point out, neither WO2015191648A1 nor US20190365145A1 are patents. Both are applications. Applications get reviewed by patent offices and only if they are deemed sufficiently new and novel issued as patents. Claims in applications are nearly always broader than the subsequent issued patent. I'm not a lawyer, but I'll take a crack at answering your specific questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to WO2015191648A1, under legal events there is stated: &quot;Ep:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pct application non-entry in european phase&quot;. What does that mean? In&#xD;&#xA;&gt; my opinion that it is only published but not yet granted. Can it still&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be granted in Europe as it is already some years old?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not exactly sure what this means, but it is specific only to Spain according to [Espacenet][1]. I'm assuming, but not sure that this means the application is designated to Spain, but is still an application and not an issued patent. If it is ever granted, then it will be a patent, no matter when it was applied for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the US Patent version US20190365145A1 it has been publicated on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2019-DEC-05 (2019-12-05 Publication of US20190365145A1). As I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understand this patent is not yet granted, only published?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is only an application, not a patent. I try not to refer to applications as patents. An application may never be granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I found out, that especially the pump of the invention has already&#xD;&#xA;&gt; been patented in 1991 EP0496939A1. So I don't really see why the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent WO2015191648A1 can be done as the exactly same idea has already&#xD;&#xA;&gt; been patented many years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because an element may be mentioned in a previous patent or other publication doesn't mean a patent can't be obtained. It just has to have some new and novel addition or improvement. Indeed patents can be granted for combinations of existing elements just so long as it isn't obvious to an expert in the field to combine them. I'd have to read and analyse the applications to tell if it has a novel element and I haven't done that. What I will say is the USPTO is usually pretty good at finding prior art within patent literature. By the way, the cited prior art is an application not a patent and it was withdrawn so it won't ever become a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there a possibility to inform the patent-authorities about the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fact, that claim 1 until 5 is already covered in EP0496939A1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are provisions to inform patent authorities about prior art. I doubt very much that they will fail to be aware of EP0496939A1 as it is in the patent literature. In any case, my quick review of EP0496939A1 would suggest it isn't enough to invalidate the cited applications. Let's look at claim one of US20190365145A1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. A device for creating infused beverages comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        a solvent flow management system having: a pump body with a pump bore defining a pump&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interior volume; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        a piston disposed within the pump interior volume and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in a fluidically sealed configuration with the pump bore; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        a pump&#xD;&#xA;&gt; drive system operably coupled to the piston to generate a piston&#xD;&#xA;&gt; translation path;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;       a solvent-flow conduit and in fluid communication&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with the pump interior volume and a brewing chamber; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;       an outlet for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; discharging an infused solution or receiving a flow of fluid; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;       a flow&#xD;&#xA;&gt; control valve interposed between and fluidly coupled to the outlet and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the brewing chamber, the flow control valve operably configured to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have a selectively open position and a selectively closed position to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; control the flow of fluid through the outlet, the pump drive system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; operably configured to selectively drive the piston along the piston&#xD;&#xA;&gt; translation path, when the flow control valve is in the selectively&#xD;&#xA;&gt; closed position, to induce a negative pressure and the flow of fluid&#xD;&#xA;&gt; through a solute housed in the brewing chamber, downstream and through&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the solvent-flow conduit, and into the pump interior volume.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, there is a lot of text here. A claim doesn't protect every bit of content in it separately, it only protects all of the elements together. Thus if a claim has steps A, B, C, and D, then you only infringe on the claim if your device performs each and every step altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, if you want to worry about an actual issued patent, you could look at [US10349774B2][2] by the same inventor. It is an issued US patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/054834221/publication/WO2015191648A1?q=pn%3DWO2015191648A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10349774B2/en?oq=us10%2C349%2C774" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22434" RevisionGUID="501aca30-17cf-4564-8694-f3bb34170636" CreationDate="2020-07-06T21:10:30.100" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 90 characters in body" Text="First thing to point out, neither WO2015191648A1 nor US20190365145A1 are patents. Both are applications. Applications get reviewed by patent offices and only if they are deemed sufficiently new and novel issued as patents. Claims in applications are nearly always broader than the subsequent issued patent. I'm not a lawyer, but I'll take a crack at answering your specific questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to WO2015191648A1, under legal events there is stated: &quot;Ep:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pct application non-entry in european phase&quot;. What does that mean? In&#xD;&#xA;&gt; my opinion that it is only published but not yet granted. Can it still&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be granted in Europe as it is already some years old?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not exactly sure what this means. I'm assuming, but not sure that this means the application is still an application and not an issued patent. If it is ever granted, then it will be a patent, no matter when it was applied for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the US Patent version US20190365145A1 it has been publicated on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2019-DEC-05 (2019-12-05 Publication of US20190365145A1). As I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understand this patent is not yet granted, only published?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is only an application, not a patent. I try not to refer to applications as patents. An application may never be granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I found out, that especially the pump of the invention has already&#xD;&#xA;&gt; been patented in 1991 EP0496939A1. So I don't really see why the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent WO2015191648A1 can be done as the exactly same idea has already&#xD;&#xA;&gt; been patented many years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because an element may be mentioned in a previous patent or other publication doesn't mean a patent can't be obtained. It just has to have some new and novel addition or improvement. Indeed patents can be granted for combinations of existing elements just so long as it isn't obvious to an expert in the field to combine them. I'd have to read and analyse the applications to tell if it has a novel element and I haven't done that. What I will say is the USPTO is usually pretty good at finding prior art within patent literature. By the way, the cited prior art is an application not a patent and it was withdrawn so it won't ever become a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there a possibility to inform the patent-authorities about the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fact, that claim 1 until 5 is already covered in EP0496939A1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are provisions to inform patent authorities about prior art. I doubt very much that they will fail to be aware of EP0496939A1 as it is in the patent literature. In any case, my quick review of EP0496939A1 would suggest it isn't enough to invalidate the cited applications. Let's look at claim one of US20190365145A1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. A device for creating infused beverages comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        a solvent flow management system having: a pump body with a pump bore defining a pump&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interior volume; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        a piston disposed within the pump interior volume and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in a fluidically sealed configuration with the pump bore; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        a pump&#xD;&#xA;&gt; drive system operably coupled to the piston to generate a piston&#xD;&#xA;&gt; translation path;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;       a solvent-flow conduit and in fluid communication&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with the pump interior volume and a brewing chamber; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;       an outlet for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; discharging an infused solution or receiving a flow of fluid; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;       a flow&#xD;&#xA;&gt; control valve interposed between and fluidly coupled to the outlet and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the brewing chamber, the flow control valve operably configured to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have a selectively open position and a selectively closed position to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; control the flow of fluid through the outlet, the pump drive system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; operably configured to selectively drive the piston along the piston&#xD;&#xA;&gt; translation path, when the flow control valve is in the selectively&#xD;&#xA;&gt; closed position, to induce a negative pressure and the flow of fluid&#xD;&#xA;&gt; through a solute housed in the brewing chamber, downstream and through&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the solvent-flow conduit, and into the pump interior volume.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, there is a lot of text here. A claim doesn't protect every bit of content in it separately, it only protects all of the elements together. Thus if a claim has steps A, B, C, and D, then you only infringe on the claim if your device performs each and every step altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, if you want to worry about an actual issued patent, you could look at [US10349774B2][2] by the same inventor. It is an issued US patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/054834221/publication/WO2015191648A1?q=pn%3DWO2015191648A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10349774B2/en?oq=us10%2C349%2C774" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22435" RevisionGUID="cd782172-68e3-4c04-8289-fc8b456a80c4" CreationDate="2020-07-06T22:07:08.997" UserId="24279" Text="If a patent lapses for failure to pay maintenance fees, can the owner still sue for infringement for the time period before the patent lapsed. In answering, consider when a patent expires after its lifetime ends, the owner **can** still sue for back damages up to six years before the expiration." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61034" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22435" RevisionGUID="cd782172-68e3-4c04-8289-fc8b456a80c4" CreationDate="2020-07-06T22:07:08.997" UserId="24279" Text="patent enforcement when patent lapses" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61035" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22435" RevisionGUID="cd782172-68e3-4c04-8289-fc8b456a80c4" CreationDate="2020-07-06T22:07:08.997" UserId="24279" Text="&lt;enforcement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61036" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22277" RevisionGUID="647f4fa8-336b-4edb-abe0-c58e0bbc6e22" CreationDate="2020-07-07T03:07:55.803" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22437" RevisionGUID="b05130a8-fb1f-4996-b7a7-4100ce203056" CreationDate="2020-07-07T17:56:43.027" UserId="14403" Text="Patent infringement suit can be instituted for in-force period of a patent i.e. for a period from date of issue to date of lapse or to date of end of lifetime. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[35 U.S. Code § 286] limits infringement claim period to most recent six years counted back from date of infringement claim and does not specifically mentions about end of lifetime cases. That is to say, this limitation should be equally applicable to lapsed patent cases too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First paragraph read with the second, leads us to a period when there is overlapping of 'patent in force period' and 'infringement claim limitation period'. Owner of patent can sue for infringement and have relief for said period for lapsed patent as well as for end of lifetime case.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**There is an interesting scenario related to maintenance fee and patent right.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For lapse of patent right due to non payment of maintenance fee cases, a grace period of six months is allowed after due date for payment of maintenance fee [35 U.S.C. § 41(b)(2)]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Issue 1. If maintenance fee is paid by expiry of grace period, 'patent in force period' is considered to have continued without break.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Issue 2. If maintenance fee is paid after grace period and the same is accepted, then if there is any instance of substantial activity for manufacture, sale, use, import in the intervening period by any third party, court may allow continuation of such activity by said third party even if patent right is restored. [35 U.S.C. § 41(c)(2)].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[35 U.S. Code § 286]:https://www.copperpodip.com/post/can-you-enforce-an-expired-patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[35 U.S.C. § 41(b)(2)]:https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2501.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[35 U.S.C. § 41(c)(2)]:https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2591.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61039" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22366" RevisionGUID="debfa92d-3d48-4f75-95bd-9b1f1bb1814e" CreationDate="2020-07-08T01:05:05.547" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22438" RevisionGUID="70125352-8fae-45f5-96c3-63ff49ad17ac" CreationDate="2020-07-08T05:01:43.583" UserId="3076" Text="Depending on the wording of the claim  as a whole it is possible but any claim with the specifics of weights and, correspondingly, a specific architecture of nodes would be easy to get around. As an example of language in a claim of an [issued patent][1] -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a trained generalized regression neural network trained using test reservoir data and test relative permeability values, with the trained generalized regression neural network for processing the actual reservoir data to determine a relative permeability prediction of an actual relative permeability in the hydrocarbon reservoir from the actual reservoir data; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is specific as to application and the source of the data but not to the gritty details of the neural network. One could imagine a dependent claim that nailed down the characteristics of an example network to greater and greater detail, including weights. It would not be the weights that gave patentablity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8510242" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22440" RevisionGUID="69ee0e87-d879-4bb7-b0f5-926055bbc4bf" CreationDate="2020-07-08T14:44:36.280" UserId="24288" Text="I want to file a international patent from Non PCT country.But my country is a member of Paris Convention. How can I file an international patent from my country?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61047" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22440" RevisionGUID="69ee0e87-d879-4bb7-b0f5-926055bbc4bf" CreationDate="2020-07-08T14:44:36.280" UserId="24288" Text="How can I file a PCT patent from Non PCT country?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61048" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22440" RevisionGUID="69ee0e87-d879-4bb7-b0f5-926055bbc4bf" CreationDate="2020-07-08T14:44:36.280" UserId="24288" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;filing&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;design&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22441" RevisionGUID="3f7f17e8-b85d-4721-9982-fb3337983a96" CreationDate="2020-07-08T17:30:55.630" UserId="3076" Text="A PCT application needs to have at least one applicant who is a resident of a PCT state. If you are not a resident of a PCT state you can file by having an &quot;applicant of convenience&quot; who is from a PCT country. What is often done is to have a second applicant who, for example, is the applicant as it relates to some very small state - Guinea-Bissau, Burkina Faso, Saint Kitts and Nevis, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That person would have the right to enter the national stage in the tiny country and claim patent rights. They would not be incorrectly portrayed as a co-inventor but essentially a very limited co-owner. It might sound devious but is not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22434" RevisionGUID="12a47542-94c4-4684-91ef-8ae58332b44e" CreationDate="2020-07-09T01:29:36.760" UserId="17003" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="First thing to point out, neither WO2015191648A1 nor US20190365145A1 are patents. Both are applications. Applications get reviewed by patent offices and only if they are deemed sufficiently new and novel issued as patents. Claims in applications are nearly always broader than the subsequent issued patent. I'm not a lawyer, but I'll take a crack at answering your specific questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to WO2015191648A1, under legal events there is stated: &quot;Ep:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pct application non-entry in european phase&quot;. What does that mean? In&#xD;&#xA;&gt; my opinion that it is only published but not yet granted. Can it still&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be granted in Europe as it is already some years old?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not exactly sure what this means. I'm assuming, but not sure that this means the application is still an application and not an issued patent. If it is ever granted, then it will be a patent, no matter when it was applied for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the US Patent version US20190365145A1 it has been publicated on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2019-DEC-05 (2019-12-05 Publication of US20190365145A1). As I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understand this patent is not yet granted, only published?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is only an application, not a patent. I try not to refer to applications as patents. An application may never be granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I found out, that especially the pump of the invention has already&#xD;&#xA;&gt; been patented in 1991 EP0496939A1. So I don't really see why the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent WO2015191648A1 can be done as the exactly same idea has already&#xD;&#xA;&gt; been patented many years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because an element may be mentioned in a previous patent or other publication doesn't mean a patent can't be obtained. It just has to have some new and novel addition or improvement. Indeed patents can be granted for combinations of existing elements just so long as it isn't obvious to an expert in the field to combine them. I'd have to read and analyse the applications to tell if it has a novel element and I haven't done that. What I will say is the USPTO is usually pretty good at finding prior art within patent literature. By the way, the cited prior art is an application not a patent and it was withdrawn so it won't ever become a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there a possibility to inform the patent-authorities about the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fact, that claim 1 until 5 is already covered in EP0496939A1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are provisions to inform patent authorities about prior art. I doubt very much that they will fail to be aware of EP0496939A1 as it is in the patent literature. In any case, my quick review of EP0496939A1 would suggest it isn't enough to invalidate the cited applications. Let's look at claim one of US20190365145A1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. A device for creating infused beverages comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        a solvent flow management system having:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;a pump body with a pump bore defining a pump&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interior volume; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;a piston disposed within the pump interior volume and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;       in a fluidically sealed configuration with the pump bore; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;a pump&#xD;&#xA;&gt; drive system operably coupled to the piston to generate a piston&#xD;&#xA;&gt; translation path;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;       a solvent-flow conduit and in fluid communication&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with the pump interior volume and a brewing chamber; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;       an outlet for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; discharging an infused solution or receiving a flow of fluid; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;       a flow&#xD;&#xA;&gt; control valve interposed between and fluidly coupled to the outlet and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the brewing chamber, the flow control valve operably configured to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have a selectively open position and a selectively closed position to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; control the flow of fluid through the outlet, the pump drive system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; operably configured to selectively drive the piston along the piston&#xD;&#xA;&gt; translation path, when the flow control valve is in the selectively&#xD;&#xA;&gt; closed position, to induce a negative pressure and the flow of fluid&#xD;&#xA;&gt; through a solute housed in the brewing chamber, downstream and through&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the solvent-flow conduit, and into the pump interior volume.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, there is a lot of text here. A claim doesn't protect every bit of content in it separately, it only protects all of the elements together. Thus if a claim has steps A, B, C, and D, then you only infringe on the claim if your device performs each and every step altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, if you want to worry about an actual issued patent, you could look at [US10349774B2][2] by the same inventor. It is an issued US patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/054834221/publication/WO2015191648A1?q=pn%3DWO2015191648A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10349774B2/en?oq=us10%2C349%2C774" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22441" RevisionGUID="49fa9a23-0db7-4f06-8448-c27cc182cfd1" CreationDate="2020-07-09T05:04:01.417" UserId="3076" Comment="added 226 characters in body" Text="*How can I file an international patent from my country?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could file under the Paris Convention directly in whatever countries you like. There is no requirement to use the PCT path.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the PCT, a PCT application needs to have at least one applicant who is a resident of a PCT state. If you are not a resident of a PCT state you can file by having an &quot;applicant of convenience&quot; who is from a PCT country. What is often done is to have a second applicant who, for example, is the applicant as it relates to some very small state - Guinea-Bissau, Burkina Faso, Saint Kitts and Nevis, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That person would have the right to enter the national stage in the tiny country and claim patent rights. They would not be incorrectly portrayed as a co-inventor but essentially a very geographically limited co-owner. It might sound devious but is not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22441" RevisionGUID="fe4fbe41-dbd3-4bfd-8d34-42d88d5db9a6" CreationDate="2020-07-09T17:01:15.120" UserId="3076" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="*How can I file an international patent from my country?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could file under the Paris Convention directly in whatever countries you like. There is no requirement to use the PCT path.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the PCT, a PCT application needs to have at least one applicant who is a resident of a PCT state. If you are not a resident of a PCT state you can file by having an &quot;applicant of convenience&quot; who is from a PCT country. What is often done is to have a second applicant who, for example, is the applicant as it relates to some very small state - Guinea-Bissau, Burkina Faso, Saint Kitts and Nevis, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can file directly with the International Bureau in Geneva.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That person would have the right to enter the national stage in the tiny country and claim patent rights. They would not be incorrectly portrayed as a co-inventor but essentially a very geographically limited co-owner. It might sound devious but is not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61063" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="21246" RevisionGUID="4ecb2b36-7019-4b8f-bfb4-f378dbc1c9b7" CreationDate="2020-07-10T02:07:15.650" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22445" RevisionGUID="63884e60-8b6f-4bd0-9bf7-efb0ea2a3b7b" CreationDate="2020-07-11T05:34:11.753" UserId="24302" Text="• Usually how long does it take to file and obtain patents?&#xA;&#xA;• What factors influence the chances of getting a patent successfully or getting the patent application rejected?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61071" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22445" RevisionGUID="63884e60-8b6f-4bd0-9bf7-efb0ea2a3b7b" CreationDate="2020-07-11T05:34:11.753" UserId="24302" Text="Patent Application and Rejection influencers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61072" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22445" RevisionGUID="63884e60-8b6f-4bd0-9bf7-efb0ea2a3b7b" CreationDate="2020-07-11T05:34:11.753" UserId="24302" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22446" RevisionGUID="c38fcfa2-ff43-42da-8568-80f03cbd073f" CreationDate="2020-07-11T16:37:46.063" UserId="17003" Text="I think this question is too vague to be fully answerable, but I'll add my two cents worth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; • Usually how long does it take to file and obtain patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My experience is about 3 to 5 years, but it is variable and can be longer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; • What factors influence the chances of getting a patent successfully&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or getting the patent application rejected?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My opinion is that the most important factor is the hiring of a competent patent attorney or agent with experience in the specific field of the invention. This far outweighs nearly any other factor. Even when successful, I've noticed that patents obtained without help of an attorney or agent tend to be weak and narrow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22447" RevisionGUID="cf0485bf-4b20-4d49-9347-0e09bbae2c14" CreationDate="2020-07-12T05:35:59.567" UserId="24302" Text="• How unique or vague can the intellectual property to be patented be?&#xA;&#xA;• Is it possible to patent improved versions of pre-existing patents that aren't necessarily owned by the patentee? If yes, are very minor changes with noticable impacts considerable improvisations? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61075" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22447" RevisionGUID="cf0485bf-4b20-4d49-9347-0e09bbae2c14" CreationDate="2020-07-12T05:35:59.567" UserId="24302" Text="Factors influencing patentability" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61076" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22447" RevisionGUID="cf0485bf-4b20-4d49-9347-0e09bbae2c14" CreationDate="2020-07-12T05:35:59.567" UserId="24302" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61077" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="7a164620-99ac-4e9c-ba32-fb1109c15c63" CreationDate="2020-07-12T16:03:30.200" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22447" RevisionGUID="d7b2b369-d2cd-40ce-b79e-41ea4ec811ac" CreationDate="2020-07-12T16:13:34.140" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="• How unique or vague can the intellectual property to be patented be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;• Is it possible to patent improved versions of pre-existing patents that aren't necessarily owned by the patentee? If yes, are very minor changes with noticeable impacts considerable inovations? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22448" RevisionGUID="dc47f53e-f400-4134-8827-d0513248b75f" CreationDate="2020-07-12T16:32:01.120" UserId="3076" Text="Answering the second part first - Almost all patents can be thought of as improvements on something that already existed.  One gets a patent for developing a new, useful and non-obvious invention regardless of ownership of any other earlier invention. You can get a patent on an improved razor blade without having any rights to make the underlying original razor blade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent owners can use a granted patent to try to stop others from making, selling, offering for sale, importing or using their invention but a patent does not give the patent owner any positive rights. That means having a patent only can prevent others from doing something - it does not have anything to do with allowing the patentee to actually make or sell the invention themselves. It may be that there are other patents that would be infringed by the patentee making their device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of degree of change from what already existed, it is not the size of the change it is the obviousness of the change. A small change can have a big and unpredicted effect and be the subject of a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first part of the question is really two questions. To get a patent the invention must be new. If &quot;unique&quot; means new, then it must be completely unique. No - it can't be vague. What mails down the scope of a patent is its claims. Claim wording must delineate the invention so that someone skilled in the art can know what is and what is not covered. A claim can be general/broad if the ideas behind the invention are pioneering. This is not usually the case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22449" RevisionGUID="2fb124f1-20b2-4c22-8143-7a20776f711d" CreationDate="2020-07-12T17:38:41.957" UserId="19232" Text="The most recent step of the examination process in question was to submit another response to the examiner, which at this point required an RCE and the associated fee. On the RCE form, under Miscellaneous, is the following option which I selected and completed as follows:  &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VI7Pn.png&#xD;&#xA;The reason for wanting to delay examination is that the patent family, including this open application, is now in a marketing effort by a broker. I wanted to keep this one open as long as possible, theoretically to enhance value for a potential buyer who may want to modify it further. However I did write my response such that I believed it had a good chance to overcome previous objections and rejections. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, to my surprise I just received NOA on this, and received it very quickly – as in, about one month after submission. The USPTO had totally ignored the request to “suspend action,” and proceeeded full-speed-ahead. In normal circumstances, of course such a quick NOA would be very good news. But in light of the marketing strategy, it means I'll need to open another application at my expense, in order to have a package that includes this option. (I do have a few months to do that, since the issue fee hasn't been paid yet.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course it would make no sense to ask them to withdraw the NOA. But is there anything that would make sense to (attempt) to pressure them to do, in light of the oversight error at their end? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[more experienced users here, please modify tags as appropriate]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61081" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22449" RevisionGUID="2fb124f1-20b2-4c22-8143-7a20776f711d" CreationDate="2020-07-12T17:38:41.957" UserId="19232" Text="Does the USPTO owe me any form of compensation if they failed to follow a requested “suspension of action” option, when now it's too late to fix?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61082" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22449" RevisionGUID="2fb124f1-20b2-4c22-8143-7a20776f711d" CreationDate="2020-07-12T17:38:41.957" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;reexamination&gt;&lt;recourse&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61083" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16421" RevisionGUID="b58bcf63-5723-49ad-8bbc-0eaa6d5f747c" CreationDate="2020-07-13T02:41:32.140" UserId="19232" Comment="edited title" Text="Where to describe the problem in my application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22452" RevisionGUID="03d594e7-0733-4b75-92b3-38437cfd34b5" CreationDate="2020-07-13T19:14:43.003" UserId="24316" Text="This is common patent language where a dependent claim further limits the claim(s) on which it is dependent (independent claim 1 in this case). Claim 1 states there are one or more drone vehicles. The dependent claim referred to states that the one or more drone vehicles are actually a plurality of drone vehicles. In other words, the number of drone vehicles has been limited to a plurality of drone vehicles, and no longer includes the case of there being only one drone vehicle. Here, &quot;includes&quot; simply makes for a smoother connection between &quot;one or more&quot; and &quot;a plurality of&quot; than &quot;is&quot; or &quot;are&quot; would. Patent language often invites over-analysis and the literal meaning can be mind-bending but the language is shaped by conventions and the actual meaning is probably quite simple. I pity the person who read the whole specification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22453" RevisionGUID="ed4f115d-61d8-40e9-aeb3-822fc92705dc" CreationDate="2020-07-13T20:10:19.953" UserId="3076" Text="**No**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relevant CRF says -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 37 CFR 1.103  Suspension of action by the Office.&#xD;&#xA;		&#xD;&#xA;(a) Suspension for cause. On request of the applicant, the **Office may grant** a suspension of action by the Office under this paragraph for good and sufficient cause. The Office will not suspend action if a reply by applicant to an Office action is outstanding. Any petition for suspension of action under this paragraph must specify a period of suspension not exceeding six months. Any petition for suspension of action under this paragraph must also include:&#xD;&#xA;		&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) A **showing of good and sufficient cause** for suspension of action; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) The **fee set forth in § 1.17(g)**, unless such cause is the fault of the Office. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;may&quot; seems to kill any idea that they *must* suspend and you haven't said if you complied with providing good cause or paying the fee." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22454" RevisionGUID="4baaf472-cd30-46cc-9062-543733f2270f" CreationDate="2020-07-13T20:15:58.230" UserId="20503" Text="With respect to a corporation or organization being named an inventor, in April 2020 the USPTO denied a patent being issued to a non human named inventor when an AI system was used as an inventor name on a patent application.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Last week, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; issued a decision refusing to vacate a Notice of Missing Parts in U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patent Application No.: 16/524,350&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “The USPTO reasoned that ‘conception—the touchstone of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inventorship—must be performed by a natural person.’”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Read the news story here -&gt; https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/07/13/artificial-intelligence-cant-patent-inventions/id=123226/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22453" RevisionGUID="70a1f047-5be9-412f-a053-59442f2ec9c0" CreationDate="2020-07-13T20:51:31.450" UserId="3076" Comment="added 212 characters in body" Text="**No**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relevant CRF says -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 37 CFR 1.103  Suspension of action by the Office.&#xD;&#xA;		&#xD;&#xA;(a) Suspension for cause. On request of the applicant, the **Office may grant** a suspension of action by the Office under this paragraph for good and sufficient cause. The Office will not suspend action if a reply by applicant to an Office action is outstanding. Any petition for suspension of action under this paragraph must specify a period of suspension not exceeding six months. Any petition for suspension of action under this paragraph must also include:&#xD;&#xA;		&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) A **showing of good and sufficient cause** for suspension of action; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) The **fee set forth in § 1.17(g)**, unless such cause is the fault of the Office. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;may&quot; seems to kill any idea that they *must* suspend and you haven't said if you complied with (1) providing good cause and (2) paying the fee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding a purchaser having freedom to improve the resulting patent, they would have the option for a broadening reexamination for two years, but I agree that a continuation on file would be better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22455" RevisionGUID="0944fe21-57c6-48b4-b87f-1b2262aa419a" CreationDate="2020-07-13T21:05:00.417" UserId="20503" Text="Short version: Are there or has there ever been a law suit against a patent inventor for a utility patent not fulfilling it's claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long version: If a small company or individual were to be granted a patent for something such as DNA sequence with claims that it could say cure a disease, and it was later found out that the claims could not be fulfilled by the description on the patent, could the inventor or assignee be litigated for damages caused by attempting to use the invention described in the patent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One inspiration for this question is the notion that patents can be marketing hype and some people may interpret the term &quot;patented&quot; as implying that the invention passed an FDA test." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61099" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22455" RevisionGUID="0944fe21-57c6-48b4-b87f-1b2262aa419a" CreationDate="2020-07-13T21:05:00.417" UserId="20503" Text="What legal responsibilities does a listed inventor have?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61100" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22455" RevisionGUID="0944fe21-57c6-48b4-b87f-1b2262aa419a" CreationDate="2020-07-13T21:05:00.417" UserId="20503" Text="&lt;inventor&gt;&lt;assignee&gt;&lt;liability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22456" RevisionGUID="b2a3582e-662b-4083-8a3a-d47ae6863e9b" CreationDate="2020-07-14T00:40:09.227" UserId="3076" Text="It would be the marketer/producer that would have any liability. A patent doesn't confer the positive rights do anything in particular to the owner of the patent. It only provides the negative right to try to stop someone else from practicing the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is well known that the USPTO does no research or experiment to determine is something works. Only something very, very impossible on its face - like perpetual motion - gets rejected as &quot;not useful&quot;. In fact you can get a patent on something that looks like an attempt at perpetual motion if you say the utility is that it is entertaining to watch it spin around for a long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specification of a patent can/must make assertions about the usefulness of the invention and &quot;patented&quot; as a marketing hype is often done, but as @EricShain points out, it is a *product* from some manufacturer/marketer that is hyped, not the invention itself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22456" RevisionGUID="6f79898d-8341-42f8-8e7a-b24b1f02505c" CreationDate="2020-07-14T02:07:48.970" UserId="3076" Comment="added 287 characters in body" Text="The inventors responsibility, as an inventor, is to truthfully sign the declaration regarding being a true inventor and fulfilling the duty of disclosure and candor to the USPTO during the prosecution of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be the marketer/producer that would have any liability for a shipping product based on the patent. A patent doesn't confer the positive rights do anything in particular to the owner of the patent. It only provides the negative right to try to stop someone else from practicing the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is well known that the USPTO does no research or experiment to determine is something works. Only something very, very impossible on its face - like perpetual motion - gets rejected as &quot;not useful&quot;. In fact you can get a patent on something that looks like an attempt at perpetual motion if you say the utility is that it is entertaining to watch it spin around for a long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specification of a patent can/must make assertions about the usefulness of the invention and &quot;patented&quot; as a marketing hype is often done, but as @EricShain points out, it is a *product* from some manufacturer/marketer that is hyped to consumers, not the idea of the invention itself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61103" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="21186" RevisionGUID="f7d55b12-93db-4406-a33e-f308f4a5a703" CreationDate="2020-07-14T14:03:15.297" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22457" RevisionGUID="3e0e9a9b-6499-4ad2-a98e-7eba0cb914f0" CreationDate="2020-07-14T16:36:50.267" UserId="24320" Text="I have planned to start an online eCommerce store in which we will be selling mostly electronic and grocery items. For our eCommerce website we want a trademark so that no one else can use our name. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I went to official site of IPO in Pakistan, I found that all goods and services are classified into classes and we need to register our trade mark under some appropriate class as mentioned [here][1]. Then I also found this [link][2] which gave me a clue that this classification is not only followed in Pakistan but they are universal and called **nice classification**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question here is under which class of good or services should I apply for registration of our e Commerce brand name? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no class that lists online stores categorically but Class 35 seems to be very appropriate for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per nice classification [document][2], class 35 includes: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Advertising&#xD;&#xA; 2. business management&#xD;&#xA; 3. business administration&#xD;&#xA; 4. office functions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and in the same document on page 25 I found this explanation if Class 35 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This Class includes, in particular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – the bringing together, for the benefit of others, of a variety of goods (excluding the transport&#xD;&#xA;thereof), enabling customers to conveniently view and purchase those goods; such services&#xD;&#xA;may be provided by retail stores, wholesale outlets, through mail order catalogues or by&#xD;&#xA;means of electronic media, for example, through web sites or television shopping&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Please guide me under which class of good or services should I apply for registration of our e Commerce brand name?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipo.gov.pk/classification_summary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ipo.gov.pk/system/files/Nice%20Classification_0.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61105" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22457" RevisionGUID="3e0e9a9b-6499-4ad2-a98e-7eba0cb914f0" CreationDate="2020-07-14T16:36:50.267" UserId="24320" Text="Under which class of good or services of nice classification should brand name of eCommerce store needs to be registered?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61106" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22457" RevisionGUID="3e0e9a9b-6499-4ad2-a98e-7eba0cb914f0" CreationDate="2020-07-14T16:36:50.267" UserId="24320" Text="&lt;intellectual-property&gt;&lt;trademark&gt;&lt;classification&gt;&lt;intellectualproperty-laws&gt;&lt;nice-classification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61107" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="31eb7bb7-0883-4a05-a7c0-1c51a8e435c6" CreationDate="2020-07-15T05:00:20.047" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61108" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22385" RevisionGUID="ac13d038-91dc-451e-8e72-20059d3307ae" CreationDate="2020-07-15T09:04:00.317" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61109" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22388" RevisionGUID="54658876-67c9-46fe-8e1c-9ebcb59dcaee" CreationDate="2020-07-15T10:01:40.127" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22458" RevisionGUID="bc94aa1a-9fae-4397-b21a-7c9838769650" CreationDate="2020-07-15T17:04:18.887" UserId="24331" Text="I'm a little unsure what to make of the situation I'm in and hoping someone here can help a bit. I've been working with a startup for the past 18 months to develop a product that we've now brought to market, but that isn't selling very well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was recently contacted by the CTO asking me to sign a form assigning a patent that he and I are the inventor of for the amount of $20. Based on the assignment form I have a vague idea of what the patent is covering but I had no involvement in the actual filing of the patent, just heard the occasional comment that they were applying for a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have a contract in place with the company, and the work I did for them was in exchange for an equity stake as well as a small monthly payment (~10% of my normal rates) to help cover costs of materials and equipment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall I'm wondering if I should agree to signing this as is, make amendments, or not agree all together.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61111" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22458" RevisionGUID="bc94aa1a-9fae-4397-b21a-7c9838769650" CreationDate="2020-07-15T17:04:18.887" UserId="24331" Text="Should I Assign My Patent for Free?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61112" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22458" RevisionGUID="bc94aa1a-9fae-4397-b21a-7c9838769650" CreationDate="2020-07-15T17:04:18.887" UserId="24331" Text="&lt;assignment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22459" RevisionGUID="f3e02b35-5508-43b5-bd8f-572fe4d8c166" CreationDate="2020-07-15T22:23:19.760" UserId="3076" Text="If you were an employee, even without an agreement, the work you did for the company as part of your job belongs to the company. As a contractor, depending on your state, it might be different.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;If you were compensated for your work and your contribution to the invention was part of that work, I think you have already been paid for your contribution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22459" RevisionGUID="1cfb4cc9-2f5d-42a5-91f6-9c67dedefc34" CreationDate="2020-07-16T02:23:17.723" UserId="3076" Comment="added 222 characters in body" Text="If you were an employee, even without an agreement, the work you did for the company as part of your job belongs to the company. As a contractor, depending on your state, it might be different.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;If you were compensated for your work and your contribution to the invention was part of that work, I think you have already been paid for your contribution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Separately, an application includes a declaration signed by the inventors, each swearing that they are a true inventor to what is claimed. To truthfully swear to that requires you to see and understand the application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22459" RevisionGUID="9c3154e8-4e5c-4863-8d85-240b860538ea" CreationDate="2020-07-16T03:15:24.433" UserId="3076" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="If you were an employee, even without an agreement, the work you did for the company as part of your job belongs to the company. As a contractor, depending on your state, it might be different.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that if you were compensated for your work and your conceptual contribution to the invention was part of that work, I think you have already been paid for your contribution to the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Separately, an application includes a declaration signed by the inventors, each swearing that they are a true inventor to what is claimed. To truthfully swear to that requires you to see and understand the application, which don't really need to do to assign it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61121" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="21189" RevisionGUID="d6ed7e73-bd4f-4900-a901-670c7ccd63c0" CreationDate="2020-07-16T19:07:30.940" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22464" RevisionGUID="67de8bc2-4cd0-4326-a26f-25c0e3542fee" CreationDate="2020-07-18T23:41:31.507" UserId="24349" Text="I am current graduate (international) student in a chemistry lab in USA which filed a provisional patent. I just discovered a few days ago that I am not the inventor on the patent although I solely made the product (compound) that we filed patent for. I am the first author on the publication and everyone acknowledges that I did that work. When I asked my professor about it he said we filed that patent long long ago and had no satisfactory answer that why I am not on the inventor list. How could he file a patent without making the product that he is claiming in the patent. I have all the data and experiment properly written in my log book. He included the names of two other students which have minor contribution on that work. &#xD;&#xA;I am finishing up my 3rd year but I have 2 more years to work with him. What options I have to get the corrections on the inventors names?&#xD;&#xA;Thanks! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61136" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22464" RevisionGUID="67de8bc2-4cd0-4326-a26f-25c0e3542fee" CreationDate="2020-07-18T23:41:31.507" UserId="24349" Text="My professor did not write my name in the inventor list although I am the lead author on the publication that claim the product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61137" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22464" RevisionGUID="67de8bc2-4cd0-4326-a26f-25c0e3542fee" CreationDate="2020-07-18T23:41:31.507" UserId="24349" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;inventor&gt;&lt;product&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22467" RevisionGUID="7c742e51-77fd-4b98-88c0-799480c2610a" CreationDate="2020-07-19T14:29:38.933" UserId="17003" Text="I can't determine whether or not you should be listed as an inventor based on your description of your activities. The criteria for inventorship is not at all based on how much effort and time you put into the project. The criteria is based on whether you were responsible for the inventive element that is captured in a claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give an example, let's assume a professor has an inspiration for a novel compound. He determines the synthesis steps and then asks one of his students to perform the experiment. The student spends weeks successfully synthesizing the new compound and weeks more characterizing the performance of the compound. In this scenario, the student would not be an inventor as he/she did not contribute an inventive step. However, let's say the student had to overcome a problem with the synthesis with a clever solution. If the clever synthesis fix ends up in a claim, the student should be named as an inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point I'm making, is the fact that you worked long and hard on the project isn't relevant to the determination of inventorship. Neither is being first author on a paper. If claims were drafted as part of the provisional application, I'd ask to review the application. If there is some inventive element for which you solely responsible then you should be listed as an inventor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22467" RevisionGUID="f6873e90-eb05-4630-b7f4-feb336c9c0e7" CreationDate="2020-07-19T18:48:34.337" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed wording per George White comment and added a bit at the end" Text="I can't determine whether or not you should be listed as an inventor based on your description of your activities. The criteria for inventorship is not at all based on how much effort and time you put into the project. The criteria is based on whether you were responsible for the inventive element that is captured in a claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give an example, let's assume a professor has an inspiration for a novel compound. He determines the synthesis steps and then asks one of his students to perform the experiment. The student spends weeks successfully synthesizing the new compound and weeks more characterizing the performance of the compound. In this scenario, the student would not be an inventor as he/she did not contribute an inventive step. However, let's say the student had to overcome a problem with the synthesis with a clever solution. If the clever synthesis fix ends up in a claim, the student should be named as an inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point I'm making, is the fact that you worked long and hard on the project isn't relevant to the determination of inventorship. Neither is being first author on a paper. If claims were drafted as part of the provisional application, I'd ask to review the application. If there is some inventive element for which you are responsible then you should be listed as an inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for you other question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How could he file a patent without making the product that he is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claiming in the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps surprisingly, there is no requirement to actually make a product or even prove that the invention works to pursue a patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61150" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20501" RevisionGUID="666ecd1f-2cb4-47c9-a92c-7c0034af7c78" CreationDate="2020-07-20T12:01:40.160" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61154" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20309" RevisionGUID="1b41c49d-928d-488c-a487-4a36e17dc897" CreationDate="2020-07-21T07:08:20.833" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61157" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20588" RevisionGUID="ccd14918-f832-4c70-9ad7-7a8ab2fbba66" CreationDate="2020-07-21T15:03:50.350" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22469" RevisionGUID="97298ef9-8276-4f96-bff9-fee84b38a5b3" CreationDate="2020-07-21T15:28:24.810" UserId="1794" Text="In Pharma, and as far as I know, if someone discovers that an already patented FDA drug (compound A) for context A can be repurposed to context B, then she can file a patent for the compound A in the context B. But I have the following questions; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) how different must context B from context A be? I mean if they are very similar then we can not talk about a &quot;new application&quot; and then I guess the new patent can not be granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) in the previous case, is there any metric to measure the difference between contexts A and B?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) if contexts A and B are very different, in the sense that are for instance very different diseases, but in their mechanism they share exactly the same protein target, can she file the new patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61159" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22469" RevisionGUID="97298ef9-8276-4f96-bff9-fee84b38a5b3" CreationDate="2020-07-21T15:28:24.810" UserId="1794" Text="When filing the patent about a repurposed compound, how different must the new application context be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61160" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22469" RevisionGUID="97298ef9-8276-4f96-bff9-fee84b38a5b3" CreationDate="2020-07-21T15:28:24.810" UserId="1794" Text="&lt;pharmaceutical&gt;&lt;drugpatent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22470" RevisionGUID="6dde7b6d-a340-41f0-8412-9da6eaf1b01c" CreationDate="2020-07-21T17:30:51.947" UserId="3076" Text="The criteria is non-obviousness.  That means that a hypothetical person or ordinary skill in the art who knew everything ever published that is relevant to the problem would find the new claim obvious having done merely ordinary experimentation. The way the examiner makes a case for obviousness is to find all of the elements of the claim in published references and argue that combining them to reach the proposed claim would be obvious to that hypothetical person. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was a time when to argue obviousness the examiner was required to show there must be a suggestion or teaching in the prior art to combine elements shown in the prior art in order to find a patent obvious. That is due to hind-sight bias that makes most things seem obvious after you know. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that no longer a requirement ( [KSR v Teleflex][1] ) it is easier to find something obvious. Now arguments as to obviousness might take these forms -&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;1.	Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;2.	Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;3.	Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;4.	Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;5.	&quot;Obvious to try&quot; – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;6.	Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;7.	Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Arguments against obviousness include that the problem was long viewed as important to be solved but had not been solved, that the results were surprising, that there was near universal teaching that it would not work, and that constituent elements had to be modified as to subvert their original purpose before being combined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSR_International_Co._v._Teleflex_Inc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22470" RevisionGUID="6ff84634-9f51-4a95-b695-b6af7a610eb5" CreationDate="2020-07-21T21:52:24.367" UserId="3076" Comment="edited body" Text="The criteria is non-obviousness.  That means that a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art who knew everything ever published that is relevant to the problem would find the new claim obvious having done merely ordinary experimentation. The way the examiner makes a case for obviousness is to find all of the elements of the claim in published references and argue that combining them to reach the proposed claim would be obvious to that hypothetical person. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was a time when to argue obviousness the examiner was required to show there must be a suggestion or teaching in the prior art to combine elements shown in the prior art in order to find a patent obvious. That is due to hind-sight bias that makes most things seem obvious after you know. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that no longer a requirement ( [KSR v Teleflex][1] ) it is easier to find something obvious. Now arguments as to obviousness might take these forms -&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;1.	Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;2.	Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;3.	Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;4.	Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;5.	&quot;Obvious to try&quot; – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;6.	Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;7.	Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Arguments against obviousness include that the problem was long viewed as important to be solved but had not been solved, that the results were surprising, that there was near universal teaching that it would not work, and that constituent elements had to be modified as to subvert their original purpose before being combined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSR_International_Co._v._Teleflex_Inc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22470" RevisionGUID="380a1c4d-efc7-46b7-a556-52086d6ee9af" CreationDate="2020-07-21T22:23:15.643" UserId="3076" Comment="added info re swiss claims" Text="First, being precise, the compound  - as a compound - once patented or published is no longer new and can't be patented &quot;in a new context&quot;. A new method involving its use could be patented. However, note that in many places (EPO) methods of treatment are not patentable at all and so-called [swiss type claims][1] are no longer allowed in most places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The criteria is non-obviousness.  That means that a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art who knew everything ever published that is relevant to the problem would find the new claim obvious having done merely ordinary experimentation. The way the examiner makes a case for obviousness is to find all of the elements of the claim in published references and argue that combining them to reach the proposed claim would be obvious to that hypothetical person. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was a time when to argue obviousness the examiner was required to show there must be a suggestion or teaching in the prior art to combine elements shown in the prior art in order to find a patent obvious. That is due to hind-sight bias that makes most things seem obvious after you know. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that no longer a requirement ( [KSR v Teleflex][2] ) it is easier to find something obvious. Now arguments as to obviousness might take these forms -&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;1.	Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;2.	Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;3.	Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;4.	Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;5.	&quot;Obvious to try&quot; – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;6.	Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;7.	Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Arguments against obviousness include that the problem was long viewed as important to be solved but had not been solved, that the results were surprising, that there was near universal teaching that it would not work, and that constituent elements had to be modified as to subvert their original purpose before being combined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.patentdocs.org/2019/07/news-from-abroad-swiss-type-patent-claims-in-australia-1.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSR_International_Co._v._Teleflex_Inc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61164" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20585" RevisionGUID="09e18bfd-1ea8-4cc4-9dc2-d09f48f8a4d9" CreationDate="2020-07-21T23:05:55.527" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22471" RevisionGUID="92c2a644-90bd-4b09-95fd-ce90908ef881" CreationDate="2020-07-22T13:46:33.527" UserId="20021" Text="I'm not sure you're going to find a simpler answer than George's that's also actionable. Patent law is always evolving, and the patentability of repurposed compounds will depend on the specifics of your situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your best bet would be to ask a patent attorney (don't post the specifics on a public forum -- you can destroy your ability to obtain a patent). If you're looking for more reading, check out [ANDA Litigation][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.americanbar.org/products/inv/book/392632497/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22472" RevisionGUID="ca46caae-c6bb-40be-b00f-aeca23a88cbd" CreationDate="2020-07-22T17:22:23.927" UserId="3076" Text="As I understand it, the EPO allows claims to a [second medical use of a known substance][1]. These claims are not the same as the formerly used &quot;Swiss-type claims&quot; that were drawn to the use and were therefore method claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example in the EPO rules is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Product X for use in the treatment of cancer*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a substance is previous known, what makes a bottle of it infringe a claim that has to do with an intended use? Sitting on a shelf it is the same substance that was long known. Would it be the labeling of the bottle?, the advertisements of its maker/bottler? I understand that methods of treatment are not patentable in the EPO (unlike in the U.S.). But this seems like form over substance since the intended use is not manifest until the unpatentable use is about to occur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To the thinking of a practitioner of U.S. patent law it is very illogical for a known substance to be patentable with no physical change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_vi_7_1.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61167" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22472" RevisionGUID="ca46caae-c6bb-40be-b00f-aeca23a88cbd" CreationDate="2020-07-22T17:22:23.927" UserId="3076" Text="How are patents to &quot;a second medical use&quot; enforced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61168" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22472" RevisionGUID="ca46caae-c6bb-40be-b00f-aeca23a88cbd" CreationDate="2020-07-22T17:22:23.927" UserId="3076" Text="&lt;epo&gt;&lt;pharmaceutical&gt;&lt;enforcement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22473" RevisionGUID="38e79f53-fcdf-48c5-8250-78478140bcc1" CreationDate="2020-07-23T14:36:22.903" UserId="22334" Text="European Patents may indeed protect products for a second medical use. The Guidelines explicitly state &quot;**known** products&quot; for second (or further) medical use. The patent is granted depending on whether the further medical use is inventive over the prior art, because obviously the product itself is not. The reason behind all this is that protection of second medical uses fosters investigation of new ways of treating diseases without having to invent a new compound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whoever invents a compound can protect the compound itself if it has some use and is inventive, but can also protect the compound &quot;for medical use&quot; without specifying which disease it cures, thereby having protection for all medical uses. Said claim will be allowable only if it is shown that the compound cures some disease, otherwise the applicant is not entitled to the protection for medical use, so another applicant could take the known compound and protect it &quot;for medical use&quot; should the latter applicant show that it cures a disease. Then, other medical uses of the compound that are deemed inventive can also be protected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the actual question, there are no uniform criteria between the Contracting States of the EPC when it comes to enforcement and infringement of second medical use claims. Several good explanations about these legal questions can be found in this [article][1] from Finnegan (I am in no way related to Finnegan) that summarizes the attempts of UK Courts to shed some light on the matter. One of the conclusions if not the main conclusion is as follows: &quot;*The Court recognised an obligation on a manufacturer to take active steps if it is to enter a market where it stands to benefit from the patentee’s patented invention. In order to avoid infringement, the manufacturer must show that it has taken all reasonable steps in its power to prevent its drug from being used in accordance with the patent*.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The labeling and advertisements of the company commercializing the product are very important in the enforcement of the European Patent as you suspected, George White. It would seem in light of the article that this is not enough though, and some additional steps are expected from the company to avoid infringement of a European Patent for a second medical use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/infringement-of-second-medical-use-claims-in-europe.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61170" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="4b84422c-1544-481a-a8e7-a0da614b3d54" CreationDate="2020-07-23T15:01:20.157" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22474" RevisionGUID="c20d1fe8-33fc-481b-8f0f-7aa2f7a0604a" CreationDate="2020-07-24T17:11:39.920" UserId="21610" Text="Yes, during evaluation of infringement of a medical use patents in US or Europe the courts consider only what is present in the PIL(PATENT INFORMATION LEAFLET). It would not look beyond lable, the basis is that the regulatory agencies had reviewed and approved the drug for the indication and any use out side the PIL would attract a flag from regulatory agencies ( eg: Purdue pharma promotion of opioids). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The product can be marked even though there is a patent for new medical use. Statue had proved FDA To approve a product that doesn't have all indications i.e., a product x for an indication Y can be marked, even when there is patent for indication Z. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many instances where FDA has authorised generics for one indication when the brand drug has more than one indication. The recent case I would suggest is the case of NORVASC ( PFIZER VS TEVA) this case gives you understanding of lable carving/ skinny lable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22475" RevisionGUID="84a10419-f6d1-4cf1-a076-3bd41f15912f" CreationDate="2020-07-25T18:51:33.223" UserId="24383" Text="I filed a US design patent, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;how long do I have to file a Utility Patent in the US? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How long do I have to file a design patent in the EU?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I am already selling the product can I file a EU patent? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61175" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22475" RevisionGUID="84a10419-f6d1-4cf1-a076-3bd41f15912f" CreationDate="2020-07-25T18:51:33.223" UserId="24383" Text="US design patent how long do I have to file a Utility Patent? OR design patent in the EU? Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61176" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22475" RevisionGUID="84a10419-f6d1-4cf1-a076-3bd41f15912f" CreationDate="2020-07-25T18:51:33.223" UserId="24383" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22476" RevisionGUID="ea0584f6-6977-4913-8938-e5ccde3a7ccd" CreationDate="2020-07-25T21:14:56.283" UserId="24384" Text="What happens if a granted patent is found to be unfeasible? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happens if the initial owner sold the patent or its rights and later the patent turns out to be unfeasible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware that it may depend on the country it has been granted in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61178" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22476" RevisionGUID="ea0584f6-6977-4913-8938-e5ccde3a7ccd" CreationDate="2020-07-25T21:14:56.283" UserId="24384" Text="Granted patent found to be unfeasible" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61179" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22476" RevisionGUID="ea0584f6-6977-4913-8938-e5ccde3a7ccd" CreationDate="2020-07-25T21:14:56.283" UserId="24384" Text="&lt;validity&gt;&lt;unfeasible&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22477" RevisionGUID="19c1de66-bbf2-4a5f-9b65-ab28646e3631" CreationDate="2020-07-25T22:22:19.043" UserId="17003" Text="&gt; What happens if a granted patent is found to be unfeasible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not a lawyer so I'm not an expert in this. However, what I believe happens is basically nothing. The patent grant continues to exist. This shouldn't be much of a problem since if it really doesn't work, no one would be building a infringing product. Now there is the potential that the patent owner might try and sue someone based on the patent, but if it can be proven that the patent doesn't work I'd doubt that it would hold up in court. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What happens if the initial owner sold the patent or its rights and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; later the patent turns out to be unfeasible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the entity who purchased the patent rights, they didn't get good value for their investment. It is their own fault for not performing an adequate due diligence. Business people make bad deals all the time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61182" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20595" RevisionGUID="6f0ab236-6723-420e-b649-ce3ed2ca8945" CreationDate="2020-07-26T11:08:05.897" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22480" RevisionGUID="c9eded47-ad23-4020-b0c8-4e1153dacaae" CreationDate="2020-07-26T16:48:32.340" UserId="24389" Text="Suppose that there is a product whoes patent has been approved and some other individual has made a product that works on the same principle(like gravitational force) but has a different product design(i.e getting the final output in different ways but by using same principle). I viewed some of the patent examples on the web and I every patent I noticed that they are writing that &quot;our product embodiments are not restricted to only the mechanism discussed in the description but can also use different mechanism to achieve the required output&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case the second person wants to apply for a patent for its product will his product be subjected to piration as the person with approved patent must have mentioned the above statement in his patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61189" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22480" RevisionGUID="c9eded47-ad23-4020-b0c8-4e1153dacaae" CreationDate="2020-07-26T16:48:32.340" UserId="24389" Text="Can I file a patent in the following scenario?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61190" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22480" RevisionGUID="c9eded47-ad23-4020-b0c8-4e1153dacaae" CreationDate="2020-07-26T16:48:32.340" UserId="24389" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22481" RevisionGUID="09d1151c-5f3a-4c0d-a51f-9cbbc5de019e" CreationDate="2020-07-26T19:03:31.340" UserId="3076" Text="No - those words or words like them are very unlikely to affect a judge or jury. An example -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the method and the weaving machine according to the invention presented in the claims are not restricted to the exemplary embodiments which have been illustrated and described, but rather may also encompass variants and combinations thereof which are within the scope of the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words like these do occur in a high percentage of patents but to get the breath the patentee imagines they need broad claims that are enabled across that breadth. That means that a &quot;variation or combination&quot; that would not be obvious to construct by someone of ordinary skill in the art who read the specification would not be within the scope of a claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two separate issues that you might have conflated (1) can you get a patent for a new variation (2) does your variation fall under one of the claims of someone else's patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22481" RevisionGUID="c6f32b1b-4918-464c-bcf9-af2771da30e2" CreationDate="2020-07-26T19:31:42.047" UserId="3076" Comment="added 593 characters in body" Text="For you to get a patent you need to have a concept that is new and not obvious in light of whatever else has already been done or published anywhere anytime. Words in someones else's patent like -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the method and the weaving machine according to the invention presented in the claims are not restricted to the exemplary embodiments which have been illustrated and described, but rather may also encompass variants and combinations thereof which are within the scope of the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;do not constitute any technical substance that, by itself, gets in the way of you getting a patent for a variation on something the application covers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two separate issues that you might have conflated (1) can you get a patent for a new variation (2) does your variation fall under one of the claims of someone else's patent. Your phase &quot;*wants to apply for a patent for its product will his product be subjected to piration as the person*&quot; shows this confusion of mixing up patentablity of your *concept* and your potential *product* infringing someone else's patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your invention is obvious in light of the technical information in a patent (or patent application or magazine article) then you can't get a patent.  A different criteria applies to the question of you infringing a patent by producing and selling your own invention. Does your invention fall under the scope of their claims? Assume your product uses a different mechanism to that shown in the patent but does fall within the scope of a claim. Now the question will be if the claim is enabled across its scope. That means could a person of ordinary skill in the art make your invention after having read the patent. The boilerplate words do not really help the inventor show infringement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22482" RevisionGUID="8b6d2b64-cc42-4a89-bee2-6acee004da91" CreationDate="2020-07-26T19:49:13.187" UserId="3076" Text="As mentioned in a comment, the design application may or may not disclose enough to be a factor in a utility patent at all. It is infrequent that a design application will show the information needed to qualify as &quot;enabled prior art&quot;. Assuming it does not it puts no limit on the time to file a utility application in the U.S., EPO or anywhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To your next item, the EU/EPO does not have design patents. There is something called [Community Design Registration][1] that is available. Under the Paris Convention you have 6 months from filing the design application in the U.S. to file an design everywhere else. This assumes you have not disclosed the design before the U.S. filing. If you have sold the item, for example, with in year before the U.S. filing, the U.S. grace period saves you there but for Europe and most other places you are sunk forever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last item &quot;If I am already selling the product can I file a EU patent?&#xD;&#xA;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, the EU requires strict novelty before filing. That is unless you filed (a utility application) elsewhere before you started shipping and it has been less than a year since that filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_design" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22483" RevisionGUID="de434a2c-28e2-4340-a4fe-4f4a435c4ec3" CreationDate="2020-07-26T22:25:25.540" UserId="24390" Text="Can a patent have 2 CPC classes to it? Is it strictly 1?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61195" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22483" RevisionGUID="de434a2c-28e2-4340-a4fe-4f4a435c4ec3" CreationDate="2020-07-26T22:25:25.540" UserId="24390" Text="Can a patent have 2 different CPC classes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61196" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22483" RevisionGUID="de434a2c-28e2-4340-a4fe-4f4a435c4ec3" CreationDate="2020-07-26T22:25:25.540" UserId="24390" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22484" RevisionGUID="d35c5d95-7909-4dd8-8d76-6fb69885b9ff" CreationDate="2020-07-26T23:00:02.223" UserId="3076" Text="Nothing for you to worry about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The classification systems exist for two reasons. It is how the examining corp is organized. Examiners become experts in one or more related classes. Your examiner will be in an &quot;art unit&quot; that examines things from one or more related classes. Although you have the *option* to suggest a class/subclass when applying, the primary class is actually chosen by a semi-automated process based on the text of claim 1. Your application is then steered to a particular art unit. For the sophisticated, there are strategic attempts to get it to one unit vs another unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also a way to search for patents. Before there were computers allowing text searching they need to be organized in some way.  We still use it in professional searching - it often finds things that a text search does not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22483" RevisionGUID="91798f95-1f92-4914-abf3-e50187b6f69f" CreationDate="2020-07-27T01:32:29.000" UserId="3076" Comment="added 259 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Can a patent have 2 CPC classes to it? Is it strictly 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: the CPC is the COOPERATIVE PATENT CLASSIFICATION system jointly developed by the USPTO and the EPO for putting patents into categories by the claimed subject matter. The traditional US classification is the U.S. Patent Classification System (USPC). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61199" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="22483" RevisionGUID="91798f95-1f92-4914-abf3-e50187b6f69f" CreationDate="2020-07-27T01:32:29.000" UserId="3076" Comment="added 259 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;classification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22481" RevisionGUID="268d5f09-d188-46c8-8315-596c5a5df2dc" CreationDate="2020-07-27T04:50:09.203" UserId="3076" Comment="added 863 characters in body" Text="A patent can't monopolize all uses of a law or force of nature nor can it monopolize a result. The famous case is [Morse][1]. Samuel Morse got claim wording that was extremely broad and a dispute went to the Supreme Court. The holding said -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Professor Morse has not discovered that the electric or galvanic current will always print at a distance, no matter what may be the form of the machinery or mechanical contrivances through which it passes.&quot; Morse did not enable others to do more than make the repeater system that he described. Other persons may discover and disclose to the public other ways to use electromagnetic force to transmit messages, and the other ways may be cheaper or work better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Many devices or methods can achieve the same result and be separately patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For you to get a patent you need to have a concept that is new and not obvious in light of whatever else has already been done or published anywhere anytime. Words in someones else's patent like -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the method and the weaving machine according to the invention presented in the claims are not restricted to the exemplary embodiments which have been illustrated and described, but rather may also encompass variants and combinations thereof which are within the scope of the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;do not constitute any technical substance that, by itself, gets in the way of you getting a patent for a variation on something the application covers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two separate issues that you might have conflated (1) can you get a patent for a new variation (2) does your variation fall under one of the claims of someone else's patent. Your phase &quot;*wants to apply for a patent for its product will his product be subjected to piration as the person*&quot; shows this confusion of mixing up patentablity of your *concept* and your potential *product* infringing someone else's patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your invention is obvious in light of the technical information in a patent (or patent application or magazine article) then you can't get a patent.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A different criteria applies to the question of you infringing a patent by producing and selling your own invention. Does your invention fall under the scope of their claims? Assume your product uses a different mechanism to that shown in the patent but does fall within the scope of a claim. Now the question will be if the claim is enabled across its scope. That means could a person of ordinary skill in the art make your invention after having read the patent. The boilerplate words do not really help the inventor show infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Reilly_v._Morse" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22485" RevisionGUID="af3c1282-eb5d-4f4c-bec5-7af90bd55c57" CreationDate="2020-07-27T14:03:59.500" UserId="17003" Text="What is covered in a patent is defined by the claims and only the claims. Many people read patents and greatly overestimate the broadness of coverage. Focus on the claims and understand that to infringe on a claim it is necessary to implement each and every element of that claim. Thus if a claim says something like: &quot;a method including steps A, B, C and D&quot;, if your product only uses steps A, B and C, you don't infringe. Long and involved claims are therefore narrower than short claims. Dependent claims which cite other claims include all the steps of the cited claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also understand that if you discover a patentable improvement to an existing invention, while you might obtain a patent for the improvement, this does not mean you avoid infringement of the existing patent. As an example the pneumatic tire is an invention. If during the term of that patent someone gets a patent for a radial ply pneumatic tire, a new patent might be obtained for the arrangement of the tire plys. However for the term of the original patent it would impact freedom to operate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22483" RevisionGUID="faaffbf7-f9e7-44d0-a4e1-f7811ab20974" CreationDate="2020-07-27T21:33:15.417" UserId="24390" Comment="added 280 characters in body" Text="Can a patent have 2 CPC classes to it? Is it strictly 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say the patent is classified in order for it to be given to a specific unit to study it, does the patent go only to one unit? To clarify, see patent classes as a tree with branches getting more detailed as you go deep. Does a patent get sorted into only ONE last branch?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: the CPC is the COOPERATIVE PATENT CLASSIFICATION system jointly developed by the USPTO and the EPO for putting patents into categories by the claimed subject matter. The traditional US classification is the U.S. Patent Classification System (USPC). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22484" RevisionGUID="dd2595a6-19c0-4000-ab6e-3e0449eb9022" CreationDate="2020-07-28T00:17:13.063" UserId="3076" Comment="added 717 characters in body" Text="Nothing for you to worry about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The classification systems exist for two reasons. It is how the examining corp is organized. Examiners become experts in one or more related classes. Your examiner will be in an &quot;art unit&quot; that examines things from one or more related classes. Although you have the *option* to suggest a class/subclass when applying, the primary class is actually chosen by a semi-automated process based on the text of claim 1. Your application is then steered to a particular art unit. For the sophisticated, there are strategic attempts to get it to one unit vs another unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also a way to search for patents. Before there were computers allowing text searching they need to be organized in some way.  We still use it in professional searching - it often finds things that a text search does not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The IPC (international classification system) is not as fine grained as either the US or CPC and is not particularly relevant to the examining process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the USPTO each appliation is assigned to an art unit within a technology center. Each art unit examines a handful of closely related class/subclases. The supervising examiner (SPE) of that art unit assigns a single specific examiner to the application. The classification is based on the claimed subject matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If some claims would be in a quite different class/subclass from the others the examiner will issue a restriction requirement and the applicant is forced to chose which set of claims will be examined in the course of this application.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61210" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20143" RevisionGUID="ef84921f-acc6-4d5f-b9c9-fe75d85f0439" CreationDate="2020-07-28T02:03:55.450" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61217" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="22469" RevisionGUID="88eed75b-4d7a-4fbd-ad33-b0b99fd0a641" CreationDate="2020-07-28T18:58:48.887" UserId="1794" Comment="49" />
  <row Id="61220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22488" RevisionGUID="b5541f3c-448d-4236-8399-862c1dbee59e" CreationDate="2020-07-28T19:27:58.963" UserId="24402" Text="We developed a device for improving the results on a piece of equipment we designed and built for another corporation. After delivery of the entire piece of equipment, they went and patented our idea but they had nothing to do with coming up with the idea nor developing it into a working design." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61221" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22488" RevisionGUID="b5541f3c-448d-4236-8399-862c1dbee59e" CreationDate="2020-07-28T19:27:58.963" UserId="24402" Text="Would it be considered appropriate for a large corporation to patent a design they had nothing to do with coming up?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61222" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22488" RevisionGUID="b5541f3c-448d-4236-8399-862c1dbee59e" CreationDate="2020-07-28T19:27:58.963" UserId="24402" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;invalidation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22489" RevisionGUID="bd435603-615e-4d40-99b4-cb6c91bff778" CreationDate="2020-07-28T20:53:39.477" UserId="3076" Text="That is not proper at all. One approach would be try to get them to assign the patent to your company along with a change in inventor to the actual inventor or inventors. Another would be to file your own patent application and as part of that process initial a derivation proceeding against them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22470" RevisionGUID="d4bd257c-2572-46ff-b34c-bbbc38d6d8df" CreationDate="2020-07-28T20:56:50.817" UserId="3076" Comment="added info about new thereputic use in EPO." Text="First, being precise, the compound  - as a compound - once patented or published is no longer new and can't be patented &quot;in a new context&quot; in the U.S., however it can be patented in Europe for new therapeutic use.. A new method involving its use could be patented, in the U.S. However, note that in many places (EPO) methods of treatment are not patentable at all and so-called [swiss type claims][1] are no longer allowed in most places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The criteria is non-obviousness.  That means that a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art who knew everything ever published that is relevant to the problem would find the new claim obvious having done merely ordinary experimentation. The way the examiner makes a case for obviousness is to find all of the elements of the claim in published references and argue that combining them to reach the proposed claim would be obvious to that hypothetical person. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was a time when to argue obviousness the examiner was required to show there must be a suggestion or teaching in the prior art to combine elements shown in the prior art in order to find a patent obvious. That is due to hind-sight bias that makes most things seem obvious after you know. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that no longer a requirement ( [KSR v Teleflex][2] ) it is easier to find something obvious. Now arguments as to obviousness might take these forms -&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;1.	Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;2.	Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;3.	Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;4.	Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;5.	&quot;Obvious to try&quot; – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;6.	Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;7.	Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Arguments against obviousness include that the problem was long viewed as important to be solved but had not been solved, that the results were surprising, that there was near universal teaching that it would not work, and that constituent elements had to be modified as to subvert their original purpose before being combined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.patentdocs.org/2019/07/news-from-abroad-swiss-type-patent-claims-in-australia-1.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSR_International_Co._v._Teleflex_Inc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22489" RevisionGUID="9be81f28-bb6c-4f76-9b5e-077d584f4bd0" CreationDate="2020-07-28T20:59:13.807" UserId="3076" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="That is not proper at all for someone who is not a true inventor to sign the paperwork for filing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One approach would be try to get them to assign the patent to your company along with a change in inventor to the actual inventor or inventors. Another would be to file your own patent application and as part of that process initial a derivation proceeding against them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22489" RevisionGUID="63134a8c-ea0e-4d0a-b26b-bec37166e7c8" CreationDate="2020-07-28T22:19:55.240" UserId="3076" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="That is not proper at all. Someone who is not a true inventor needed to sign the paperwork, declaring that they were a true inventor for filing. The form says fraudulent signing is punishable by fine or imprisonment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One approach would be try to get them to assign the patent to your company along with a change in inventor to the actual inventor or inventors. Another would be to file your own patent application and as part of that process initiate a derivation proceeding against them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22489" RevisionGUID="5574848a-151b-461b-9954-ee916aa88dbf" CreationDate="2020-07-29T01:27:51.557" UserId="3076" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="**NO**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is not proper at all. Someone who is not a true inventor needed to sign the paperwork, declaring that they were a true inventor for filing. The form says fraudulent signing is punishable by fine or imprisonment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One approach would be try to get them to assign the patent to your company along with a change in inventor to the actual inventor or inventors. Another would be to file your own patent application and as part of that process initiate a derivation proceeding against them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22489" RevisionGUID="225f5d7a-4427-4a6f-8e90-f385a1565c6e" CreationDate="2020-07-29T05:05:08.807" UserId="3076" Comment="added 495 characters in body" Text="**NO**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is not proper at all. Someone who is not a true inventor needed to sign the paperwork, declaring that they were a true inventor for filing. The form says fraudulent signing is punishable by fine or imprisonment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One approach would be try to get them to assign the patent to your company along with a change in inventor to the actual inventor or inventors. Another would be to file your own patent application and as part of that process initiate a derivation proceeding against them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you did get the patent owned by your company, as it should be, they would have the right to use the device they bought from you and depending on your agreements might have the right to build or have built other units. As Eric points out it is conceivable that your agreement with them requires you to assign your patent rights to them either exclusively or non-exclusively. That doesn't change the fact that the true inventors need to be involved in the filing and are the default owners." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22490" RevisionGUID="fb67f35c-a520-4b53-85c3-946711fe3c3b" CreationDate="2020-07-29T09:45:42.397" UserId="24404" Text="If in a worldwide patent application I wanted to create a significant number (e.g. a spouse’s birthday/ wedding anniversary) would I be able to request that number or are the numbers randomly generated. I.e. If I would like my patent number to be WO2020051598A1 would this be possible?). Thank you for your time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61230" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22490" RevisionGUID="fb67f35c-a520-4b53-85c3-946711fe3c3b" CreationDate="2020-07-29T09:45:42.397" UserId="24404" Text="How are worldwide patent application numbers generated?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61231" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22490" RevisionGUID="fb67f35c-a520-4b53-85c3-946711fe3c3b" CreationDate="2020-07-29T09:45:42.397" UserId="24404" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;number&gt;&lt;worldwide&gt;&lt;help&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22492" RevisionGUID="c2a37d95-29b5-4d76-b36f-b4c3ab85d68c" CreationDate="2020-07-29T17:39:50.500" UserId="3076" Text="It is sequential and there is no way to get a specific number." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22493" RevisionGUID="f9018f70-22b6-4ffa-9867-aa8453b2ac54" CreationDate="2020-07-29T20:43:19.257" UserId="3076" Text="The USPTO can not and does not do any research or experiments to determine if the subject of a patent application works. As long as the application is coherent and feasible on its face the examination focuses on the novelty and obviousness of the claimed invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perpetual motion is the best example of a topic where an examiner will generate a section 101 rejection as it not being &quot;useful&quot;. The applicant is free to contest it by demonstration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent owner who licenses an impossible patent to another party might or might not be engaged in some type of fraud. The buyer would normally not spend much on a patent unless they where convinced it worked." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22493" RevisionGUID="6638d1cb-b9a4-4ba6-ab82-18f9f746cf4c" CreationDate="2020-07-29T21:47:48.717" UserId="3076" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="I do not think the arrangement would be very much different than any other sale/transfer of personal property under state law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO can not and does not do any research or experiments to determine if the subject of a patent application works. As long as the application is coherent and feasible on its face the examination focuses on the novelty and obviousness of the claimed invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perpetual motion is the best example of a topic where an examiner will generate a section 101 rejection as it not being &quot;useful&quot;. The applicant is free to contest it by demonstration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent owner who licenses an impossible patent to another party might or might not be engaged in some type of fraud. The buyer would normally not spend much on a patent unless they where convinced it worked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22494" RevisionGUID="5ac232bb-416b-4459-85fd-8a2d7f205daa" CreationDate="2020-07-30T08:50:08.770" UserId="22334" Text="I believe George White's answer solves your question. Notwithstanding, please note that how patent documents are classified in terms of IPC/CPC classes is different in each patent office. At the EPO, the so-called Receiving Section attempts to establish what is the technical field of the invention so that a Search Division (actual examiners) draw up a search report. If the Receiving Section gets this wrong, the examiner that receives the file can move it to another unit. The Search Division then assigns the IPC/CPC classes based on the contents of the application, and yes, a same patent application can be classified in multiple IPC/CPC depending on what is disclosed in the application, not only what is claimed. The examiner is supposed to assign the most accurate subgroups, but sometimes it is not easy to establish which ones those are and they get classified at group level for example. You can find some more information about this process [here][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some patent offices still use IPC, so in some patent documents you will not find any USPC or CPC code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/b_v_4.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22495" RevisionGUID="f7159d6b-2c9a-41cf-8925-a99d6483165d" CreationDate="2020-07-30T09:46:05.803" UserId="24409" Text="I have created a fooseball table (table soccer) accessory / design improvement depending on the aspect of which I can legally pursue also variation of product installation or the incorporation of the design into future tables. It is a ball return that is either automated (not perfected in working model but can be easily fixed with simple time delayed power off circuit) or by pushing a button which is 100% tested and working with a 100% success rate in over a years worth of testing without variation to design. I want to patent the idea but was led to believe I would need permission from the original patent holder for the fooseball table before I can make and sell the add on that I created. Now I know if I wanted to create a table with this incorporated in the design I would definatly need consent from the patent holder but do I if its just a add on to already sold tables. And what category would I file under if it is possible to patent? I have searched the USPTO website and google patents with inconclusive results. It was really difficult to navigate with accurate results. Or there is no such patent yet. My design incorporates a air injected pipeing system that collects and reissues the ball back to the field using the existing goal and service ports only modifying the goal collection box and adding pvc and blower motor. I can make a link to a video if it would help. But I think I have already said to much to keep it a secret. Its the key of unique design that protects me though. If a patent is out of the question should I try to pitch my idea to a fooseball table manufacturer or would they be in the same sitiation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61242" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22495" RevisionGUID="f7159d6b-2c9a-41cf-8925-a99d6483165d" CreationDate="2020-07-30T09:46:05.803" UserId="24409" Text="Would I be infringing on a patent with a accessory for the patented design?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61243" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22495" RevisionGUID="f7159d6b-2c9a-41cf-8925-a99d6483165d" CreationDate="2020-07-30T09:46:05.803" UserId="24409" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-search&gt;&lt;classification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22496" RevisionGUID="a58b5568-4faa-465c-a199-28bb14150a55" CreationDate="2020-07-30T13:00:01.337" UserId="17003" Text="I can't give you specific legal advice because I'm not a lawyer and because I do not know the specifics of the situation. Just because someone has a product does not mean it is patented. Fooseball tables have been around for many, many years. Any original patents that might have existed are assuredly expired by now. This is one reason why there are so many different manufacturers of them. Thus, unless there is a specific patent you know exists you can't know what is protected by patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your new idea, it is a **very, very bad idea** to describe it here or anywhere else that is public. Whatever you publish is now prior art and can be used to prevent you from obtaining a patent. There is a grace period in the US, but it is still a **very bad idea**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only advice I can give is to consult with an actual patent attorney. They can determine if there are any active patents which prevent the sale of your invention. They can also help you file patents to protect your invention. If your idea is indeed patentable then I would advise filing a provisional patent application before discussing your idea with fooseball table manufacturers or investors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22497" RevisionGUID="0f84f4bb-fa69-44d9-9d45-2775639b36b8" CreationDate="2020-07-30T17:54:05.300" UserId="3076" Text="Your only need permission from someone else if they hold a patent that your device infringes upon. Merely being an accessory to something does not mean you need the permission of the maker of that something. However you would like to build a table that incorporates your device. Foosball is old enough that it is not too likely that there are patents covering the basic set up. I see only nine U.S. patents granted that have the word &quot;foosball&quot; in the abstract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a ball return that works better/different than existing ball returns (just my example) it is possible that there are patents on the existing devices that yours would infringe. It is also possible that the mechanism you have would infringe some patent completely unrelated to foosball.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You seem to think that you have not disclosed the key concept of your idea in asking this question  - I hope you are correct in that. Maybe more deadly, you have disclosed that you have been using it for over a year. Unless that use has been confidential or (for the U.S.) properly experimental, you may have lost all ability to get a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mentioned that you did not know what &quot;category&quot; to file under. There is no need for you do declare a category in order to file but to do a prior art search you will need to find other related things. Under&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 	A63F 7/06. 	Games simulating outdoor ball games,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a CPC class -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A63F 7/0672 	. . 	{with play figures fixed to a rotatable and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; longitudinally movable shaft}" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22497" RevisionGUID="033b7ee6-edd6-44c0-8716-1b1a14063ce5" CreationDate="2020-07-30T18:46:19.537" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Your only need permission from someone else if they hold a patent that your device infringes upon. Merely being an accessory to something does not mean you need the permission of the maker of that something. However you would like to build a table that incorporates your device. Foosball is old enough that it is not too likely that there are patents covering the basic set up. I see only nine U.S. patents granted that have the word &quot;foosball&quot; in the abstract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a ball return that works better/different than existing ball returns (just my example) it is possible that there are patents on the existing devices that yours would infringe. It is also possible that the mechanism you have would infringe some patent completely unrelated to foosball.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You seem to think that you have not disclosed the key concept of your idea in asking this question  - I hope you are correct in that. Maybe more deadly, you have disclosed that you have been using it for over a year. Unless that use has been confidential or (for the U.S.) properly experimental, you may have lost all ability to get a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mentioned that you did not know what &quot;category&quot; to file under. There is no need for you to declare a category in order to file, but to do a prior art search you will need to find other related things. Under&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 	A63F 7/06. 	Games simulating outdoor ball games,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a CPC class -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A63F 7/0672 	. . 	{with play figures fixed to a rotatable and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; longitudinally movable shaft}" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22496" RevisionGUID="af24454d-b482-4f83-899d-39a3e7afdf08" CreationDate="2020-07-30T18:47:51.483" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I can't give you specific legal advice because I'm not a lawyer and because I do not know the specifics of the situation. Just because someone has a product does not mean it is patented. Foosball tables have been around for many, many years. Any original patents that might have existed are assuredly expired by now. This is one reason why there are so many different manufacturers of them. Thus, unless there is a specific patent you know exists you can't know what is protected by patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your new idea, it is a **very, very bad idea** to describe it here or anywhere else that is public. Whatever you publish is now prior art and can be used to prevent you from obtaining a patent. There is a grace period in the US, but it is still a **very bad idea**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only advice I can give is to consult with an actual patent attorney. They can determine if there are any active patents which prevent the sale of your invention. They can also help you file patents to protect your invention. If your idea is indeed patentable then I would advise filing a provisional patent application before discussing your idea with foosball table manufacturers or investors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22489" RevisionGUID="7d6e2eeb-2e74-48b1-b3ec-06cfccc18161" CreationDate="2020-08-01T01:17:04.200" UserId="3076" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="**NO**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is not proper at all. In the U.S.someone who is not a true inventor needed to sign the paperwork declaring that they were a true inventor for the filing. The form says fraudulent signing is punishable by fine or imprisonment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One approach would be try to get them to assign the patent to your company along with a change in inventor to the actual inventor or inventors. Another would be to file your own patent application and as part of that process initiate a derivation proceeding against them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you did get the patent owned by your company, as it should be, they would have the right to use the device they bought from you and depending on your agreements might have the right to build or have built other units. As Eric points out it is conceivable that your agreement with them requires you to assign your patent rights to them either exclusively or non-exclusively. That doesn't change the fact that the true inventors need to be involved in the filing and are the default owners." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61256" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20142" RevisionGUID="80856aea-b4ca-436c-9e82-1ec309e37d5e" CreationDate="2020-08-02T00:01:15.153" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22499" RevisionGUID="3c9a62a1-67c7-4a59-8382-8ee93eaf3e25" CreationDate="2020-08-02T09:40:15.467" UserId="24426" Text="I missed some alternative embodiments of my invention which can be considered as well known for the skilled person. I filed few national applications claiming priority over the first one. A year after the first application, I filed a PCT claiming priority and this is now published. Few days before the publication of the PCT, I filed another application claiming all the alternative embodiments along with the original embodiment of my PCT. Is it possible and how can I protect all the alternative embodiments I have come up with at least in the US and EU?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61258" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22499" RevisionGUID="3c9a62a1-67c7-4a59-8382-8ee93eaf3e25" CreationDate="2020-08-02T09:40:15.467" UserId="24426" Text="How can I extend my protection to alternative embodiments?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61259" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22499" RevisionGUID="3c9a62a1-67c7-4a59-8382-8ee93eaf3e25" CreationDate="2020-08-02T09:40:15.467" UserId="24426" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22500" RevisionGUID="ae3aa876-fafe-4971-8465-b4ddc3d6d9b7" CreationDate="2020-08-02T14:48:38.057" UserId="22334" Text="Are these alternative embodiments in the later filing only, i.e. the one taking place just before the PCT being public, or are included in the description of the PCT as well? Should it be the former, in principle you should prosecute that later application as well, or have national/regional/PCT applications claim priority from it so that you can protect those embodiments in Europe and the US. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Europe the first PCT can only affect the patentability of those alternative embodiments if you enter into the European regional phase and are only relevant from a novelty standpoint, i.e. Art. 54(3) EPC prior art, so as long as the alternative embodiments are novel you are good to go. For the US, I am not entirely sure what will be the relevance of the PCT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the alternative embodiments are disclosed in the PCT, you can file divisional or continuation applications once you enter into the national/regional routes to claim those embodiments. In the US you can have multiple independent claims so maybe you can claim all the embodiments in a single patent application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61261" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20232" RevisionGUID="f64c3a55-c8ac-46ca-b62b-7e9bbd35dbf8" CreationDate="2020-08-02T17:01:35.157" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22501" RevisionGUID="9b4e7d42-1474-42dc-b30c-cb3a7a06293b" CreationDate="2020-08-03T02:35:51.203" UserId="3076" Text="In the U.S. you can take the first PCT into the national stage, or file as a &quot;bypass&quot; application, and make it a continuation-in-part, claiming priority to the second application. Then the specification can be whatever blend of the two applications you like as long as you do add not any new matter to what is contained in one or the  other application. Any claims fully supported by the original application should be treated according the earlier filing date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61263" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="26520c10-64da-4c06-b11e-668bdbe436a4" CreationDate="2020-08-03T07:03:15.287" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61264" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16336" RevisionGUID="26597658-bb17-47a6-841b-5fc63edb8d4e" CreationDate="2020-08-03T12:00:20.060" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61270" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20345" RevisionGUID="07922658-e756-457b-9a8a-401f1139034b" CreationDate="2020-08-03T23:03:00.257" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61271" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20040" RevisionGUID="b50bcc29-4fe5-4f04-8b01-8119ef44d00c" CreationDate="2020-08-04T04:07:20.590" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61272" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17307" RevisionGUID="271030a9-0a92-47a7-9a0e-72293b5ca50a" CreationDate="2020-08-04T06:03:15.330" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61273" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22418" RevisionGUID="2640b502-cddb-45c0-9221-d7e5e228de0d" CreationDate="2020-08-04T09:04:00.363" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61274" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17472" RevisionGUID="6d9a8d05-ec0a-4a75-abb8-651730c586e8" CreationDate="2020-08-04T10:06:10.580" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61275" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19863" RevisionGUID="1a9920c5-7dd3-482b-b936-330473d4d791" CreationDate="2020-08-04T14:02:30.363" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22504" RevisionGUID="273bbb52-2ee5-4773-921d-fc1705637598" CreationDate="2020-08-05T11:56:03.890" UserId="24443" Text="When is my next patent maintenance fee due on patent number 7833190 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61282" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22504" RevisionGUID="273bbb52-2ee5-4773-921d-fc1705637598" CreationDate="2020-08-05T11:56:03.890" UserId="24443" Text="When is my next patent maintenance fee due on patent 7833190" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61283" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22504" RevisionGUID="273bbb52-2ee5-4773-921d-fc1705637598" CreationDate="2020-08-05T11:56:03.890" UserId="24443" Text="&lt;maintenance-fee&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22505" RevisionGUID="9f67cccd-b1f7-46f2-9d71-5a1be36e8c6f" CreationDate="2020-08-05T14:35:21.137" UserId="17003" Text="You can find this out on the [US Public Pair site][1]. According to Pair, your next fee first day to pay date is 11/16/2021. The surcharge date is 05/17/2022 and your last day to pay date is 11/16/2022.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61285" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="22469" RevisionGUID="6ae4799d-4ca7-48aa-a586-231a5715eaa9" CreationDate="2020-08-05T20:03:00.267" UserId="-1" Comment="49" />
  <row Id="61286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22506" RevisionGUID="79c5f083-1446-4ae1-97a7-ddf3874c9d6f" CreationDate="2020-08-05T21:35:00.507" UserId="24444" Text="When a patent talks about a ‘preferred embodiment’ but goes onto to describe other particular details of a product am I right in thinking that none of those additional details are protected?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61287" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22506" RevisionGUID="79c5f083-1446-4ae1-97a7-ddf3874c9d6f" CreationDate="2020-08-05T21:35:00.507" UserId="24444" Text="‘Preferred embodiment’ containing salient details" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61288" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22506" RevisionGUID="79c5f083-1446-4ae1-97a7-ddf3874c9d6f" CreationDate="2020-08-05T21:35:00.507" UserId="24444" Text="&lt;embodiments&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22507" RevisionGUID="fac2cb63-8dd5-4652-8a93-5e86fa5b1f38" CreationDate="2020-08-05T22:59:12.520" UserId="17003" Text="What is protected is what is described in the claims. Nothing more, nothing less. While the rest of the patent describes the background, the invention and how it works, only what is in the claims matters with respect to what is protected. It is very important to make sure you are assessing the claims of an actual patent and not an application. Claims in applications are almost always broader than what ends up in the granted patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With respect to your question, in no way should you assume only the preferred embodiment is protected." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22509" RevisionGUID="6879c1e5-317f-4fe1-9e1c-a449ef0c6453" CreationDate="2020-08-06T11:10:23.587" UserId="24448" Text="Can I file for a patent when I only have the cAD  and not the real design ? And that too in Nigeria" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61294" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22509" RevisionGUID="6879c1e5-317f-4fe1-9e1c-a449ef0c6453" CreationDate="2020-08-06T11:10:23.587" UserId="24448" Text="Can I get a local patent for a design in nigeria" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61295" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22509" RevisionGUID="6879c1e5-317f-4fe1-9e1c-a449ef0c6453" CreationDate="2020-08-06T11:10:23.587" UserId="24448" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22507" RevisionGUID="d410d6cd-3d3a-4bc2-81e9-20d8796dbc8a" CreationDate="2020-08-06T14:10:51.057" UserId="17003" Comment="added 196 characters in body" Text="What is protected is what is described in the claims. Nothing more, nothing less. While the rest of the patent describes the background, the invention and how it works, only what is in the claims matters with respect to what is protected. It is very important to make sure you are assessing the claims of an actual patent and not an application. Claims in applications are almost always broader than what ends up in the granted patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With respect to your question, in no way should you assume only the preferred embodiment is protected. In my experience patent attorneys only describe embodiments they plan on protecting. They may not get all those protections based on how the claims work out, but they surely want to protect them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22509" RevisionGUID="991e5494-aac7-4401-ac23-b9da8e797d2f" CreationDate="2020-08-06T14:13:54.793" UserId="17003" Comment="Made more explicit and cleaned up some spellings." Text="Can I file for a patent when I only have the CAD rendering and not the real design? This is specific for Nigeria." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61305" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="22509" RevisionGUID="991e5494-aac7-4401-ac23-b9da8e797d2f" CreationDate="2020-08-06T14:13:54.793" UserId="17003" Comment="Made more explicit and cleaned up some spellings." Text="Can I get a local patent for a design in Nigeria" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22511" RevisionGUID="55be9f27-877b-4bf5-949b-e3c6e804fab5" CreationDate="2020-08-06T19:59:13.823" UserId="21925" Text="What is the difference between filing a patent as an individual (outside of a corporation or LLC), and filing a patent under your name as part of a corporation or LLC that you create for this sole purpose? What are the advantages/disadvantages? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something that I am particularly worried about is legal/liability/bankruptcy protections: If I file a patent solely under my name, and it is challenged in court (I am sued, etc.), then what are the risks to myself, compared to if I had created some &quot;shell&quot; C-corp or LLC, and then filed it under my name under such a legal entity? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do individual inventors (inventors who aren't necessarily filing patents under the company that they work for in their &quot;day job&quot;) deal with this?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would greatly appreciate it if people would please take the time to explain this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61307" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22511" RevisionGUID="55be9f27-877b-4bf5-949b-e3c6e804fab5" CreationDate="2020-08-06T19:59:13.823" UserId="21925" Text="What is the difference between filing a patent as an individual and filing a patent under a corporation or LLC?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61308" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22511" RevisionGUID="55be9f27-877b-4bf5-949b-e3c6e804fab5" CreationDate="2020-08-06T19:59:13.823" UserId="21925" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;independent-inventor&gt;&lt;liability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22512" RevisionGUID="e10e9173-3b42-4d8d-8a02-102e687cb0f8" CreationDate="2020-08-06T21:54:17.430" UserId="3076" Text="There is a big difference in the case of more than a single inventor. But it is not what you seem to be concerned about. Filing, prosecuting and obtaining a patent grant are not going to directly lead to liability for the inventor(s). Liability would come from actually making, selling, etc. an actual product that might be based on a patent. A patent doesn't infringe anyone else's patent, products do. A patent doesn't set someone's house on fire or blow up in their hands when used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starting with the basics, in the U.S. inventorship is key and the true inventors, as individuals are the initial default owners of the patent rights. Patent *applicants* can be the inventors or can be a person or organization authorized to apply by the inventors. T&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;he big issue with multiple inventors is that they each own the whole of the patent rights with no need to consult each other or account with each other over any money they make from the patent unless they have an agreement between them. If a company wanted to license the invention any of the inventors could sign a license agreement and could try to undercut each other. None could offer an exclusive license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the inventors form a corporation or LLC and they all assign their rights to the company then it is the company who solely can grant a license or undertake to make, sell, import, etc. How the ownership of the company is divided up between them is up to them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61310" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22512" RevisionGUID="6107ce2c-a9c2-4451-bf88-e5ec2b940304" CreationDate="2020-08-06T22:39:23.047" UserId="3076" Comment="added 806 characters in body" Text="There is a big difference in the case of more than a single inventor. But it is not what you seem to be concerned about. Filing, prosecuting and obtaining a patent grant are not going to directly lead to liability for the inventor(s). Liability would come from actually making, selling, etc. an actual product that might be based on a patent. A patent doesn't infringe anyone else's patent, products do. A patent doesn't set someone's house on fire or blow up in their hands when used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding it being challenged in court - there are two ways that can happen in the U.S. One is you accuse someone of in fringment and they call your bluff and preemptively sue you.  As an individual or as a company you would give some thought before threatening. The other is via an IPR which occurs at the patent office. You can chose not to participate and your patent might be invalidated. Again, merely trying to get a patent and getting it are not going to generate liability exposure, you can just walk away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starting with the basics, in the U.S. inventorship is key and the true inventors, as individuals, are the initial default owners of the patent rights. Patent *applicants* can be the inventors or can be a person or organization authorized to apply by the inventors. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big issue with multiple inventors is that they each own the whole of the patent rights with no need to consult each other or account with each other over any money they make from the patent unless they have an agreement between them. If a company wanted to license the invention, any of the inventors, separately, could offer to sign a license agreement and could try to undercut each other. None could offer an exclusive license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the inventors form a corporation or LLC and they all assign their rights to the company then it is the company who can pursure the patent and solely can grant a license or undertake to make, sell, import, etc. How the ownership of the company is divided up between them is up to them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the company later goes into business making the invention, then its ability to shield individuals from liability becomes relevant. It is the actions taken to exploit the invention, not the getting of the patent that is the issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61311" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22506" RevisionGUID="fb6e71ae-36ae-4452-ac3b-c6ccbd13d90c" CreationDate="2020-08-06T23:07:50.580" UserId="24444" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="When a patent talks about a ‘preferred embodiment’ but goes onto to describe other particular details of a product am I right in thinking that none of those additional details are protected?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent is EP1301412B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22506" RevisionGUID="edf25459-e3f9-4ecb-afe9-7436b1f14e23" CreationDate="2020-08-06T23:18:08.880" UserId="24444" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="When a patent talks about a ‘preferred embodiment’ but goes onto to describe other particular details of a product am I right in thinking that none of those additional details are protected?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent is [EP1301412B1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP1301412B1/en?oq=EP1301412B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22513" RevisionGUID="04c8c1ae-7cad-44eb-ad11-9e4a40b8b18c" CreationDate="2020-08-07T10:34:11.093" UserId="24069" Text="I got a response from USPTO about my application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The application is waiting to be assigned a examiner. The SPE has it right now and the SPE name is **** and the phone number is  (***)***-****.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions are, can I directly contact the spe? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will the spe examine my application or he will handle the examination process with the examiner?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the next step for me now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance&#xD;&#xA;Best regards&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61314" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22513" RevisionGUID="04c8c1ae-7cad-44eb-ad11-9e4a40b8b18c" CreationDate="2020-08-07T10:34:11.093" UserId="24069" Text="Contact the supervisory patent examiner (SPE)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61315" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22513" RevisionGUID="04c8c1ae-7cad-44eb-ad11-9e4a40b8b18c" CreationDate="2020-08-07T10:34:11.093" UserId="24069" Text="&lt;utility&gt;&lt;examination&gt;&lt;examiner&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22514" RevisionGUID="76adff32-7a05-4141-8a33-8d569a35f7ec" CreationDate="2020-08-07T15:17:10.990" UserId="24453" Text="A patent, [US2020233384A1][1], has been filed which applies reinforcement learning to increase power from a wind turbine. It's ancestor is a Japanese patent JP2019006968A·2019-01-18.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was filed in January 2019. I believe there is extensive prior art to the actual claims, which are very broad, in the academic literature. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://content.iospress.com/articles/integrated-computer-aided-engineering/ica531&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7081385&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7370922&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I bring this to the examiners attention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/071609937/publication/US2020233384A1?q=US2020233384A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61317" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22514" RevisionGUID="76adff32-7a05-4141-8a33-8d569a35f7ec" CreationDate="2020-08-07T15:17:10.990" UserId="24453" Text="Prior art for US2020233384A1 which applied reinforcement learning to wind turbines" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61318" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22514" RevisionGUID="76adff32-7a05-4141-8a33-8d569a35f7ec" CreationDate="2020-08-07T15:17:10.990" UserId="24453" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22515" RevisionGUID="49a42e65-18ab-44f8-91c9-390d5173524e" CreationDate="2020-08-07T15:43:46.060" UserId="3076" Text="From your question it looks like it has come off a queue and been assigned to an art unit. The SPE is the manager of the art unit and has the job to assign the examination to someone in that unit. There will be a queue to go through and then it will be assigned. Then it is in the queue of the specific examiner who will do the examination under the SPE's supervision." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22516" RevisionGUID="f689f01d-51b3-460d-85aa-545dd9e093ec" CreationDate="2020-08-07T15:44:20.790" UserId="14403" Text="Normally SPEs do not examine patent applications but are examined by PEs/AEs. PEs/AEs apprise, consult respective SPE and office action intimation are issued as suggested or advised by SPE. Your application in all likely hood is to be assigned to a PE as mentioned in the communication - **&quot;The application is waiting to be assigned a examiner.&quot;** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For time being, it will be prudent to wait till application is assigned to examiner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a birds eye view about patent examination and examiners may refer [Ref1] and [Ref2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ref1]: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ef96f684-f70e-4860-8bbd-84300761e3a6&#xD;&#xA;[Ref2]: https://www.uspto.gov/help/patent-help&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61321" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="22513" RevisionGUID="79df99cb-3c37-4fbc-bf89-ba14cb4430ff" CreationDate="2020-08-07T18:42:59.243" />
  <row Id="61322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22517" RevisionGUID="d062f724-07a0-44c4-92e1-3e7eeed24eab" CreationDate="2020-08-07T18:45:39.237" UserId="3076" Text="The USPTO has a  third-party issuance document submission process that was created by the AIA law. This was an important reason for Ask Patents to exist in its earlier days.  During a defined window anyone can submit documents that the examiner is obliged to consider. It can be done anonymously, if you like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The window starts when the application is published and ends -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A third-party preissuance submission statutorily must be made in a patent application before the earlier of:  (a) the date a notice of allowance under 35 U.S.C. 151 is given or mailed in the application; or (b) the later of (i) six months after the date on which the application is first published under 35 U.S.C. 122 by the Office, or (ii) the date of the first rejection under 35 U.S.C. 132 of any claim by the examiner during the examination of the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can look the application up in [USPTO Public PAIR][1] to see the current status and check for the events that close the window.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This link][2] takes you to the place to fill out the forms and upload your documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/third-party-preissuance-submissions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22517" RevisionGUID="c742afb6-024f-47e2-8071-1d655a3510f9" CreationDate="2020-08-07T20:00:24.240" UserId="3076" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="The USPTO has a  third-party issuance document submission process that was created by the AIA law. This was an important reason for Ask Patents to exist in its earlier days.  During a defined window anyone can submit documents that the examiner is obliged to consider. It can be done anonymously, if you like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The window starts when the application is published and ends -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A third-party preissuance submission statutorily must be made in a patent application before the earlier of:  (a) the date a notice of allowance under 35 U.S.C. 151 is given or mailed in the application; or (b) the later of (i) six months after the date on which the application is first published under 35 U.S.C. 122 by the Office, or (ii) the date of the first rejection under 35 U.S.C. 132 of any claim by the examiner during the examination of the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can look the application up in [USPTO Public PAIR][1] to see the current status and check for the events that close the window. *As of 7/7/2020 it has not yet been assigned to an examiner so you are well in the window.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This link][2] takes you to the place to fill out the forms and upload your documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/third-party-preissuance-submissions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22507" RevisionGUID="0eb02b55-1577-4be5-8b01-6f6c9f5f9e4b" CreationDate="2020-08-07T22:41:39.807" UserId="17003" Comment="added 326 characters in body" Text="What is protected is what is described in the claims. Nothing more, nothing less. While the rest of the patent describes the background, the invention and how it works, only what is in the claims matters with respect to what is protected. It is very important to make sure you are assessing the claims of an actual patent and not an application. Claims in applications are almost always broader than what ends up in the granted patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the linked patent, the invention is a tamper evident closure for a box. While the box and lid are described, it is the tamper evident closure itself that is the actual invention. The addition of the box and lid are necessary to describe how the invention works. Again, what is patented is limited to the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With respect to your question, in no way should you assume only the preferred embodiment is protected. In my experience patent attorneys only describe embodiments they plan on protecting. They may not get all those protections based on how the claims work out, but they surely want to protect them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22519" RevisionGUID="e009e2ef-5ce1-4f15-a2d6-34ff4467f9fc" CreationDate="2020-08-07T23:25:44.820" UserId="731" Text="Including a lot of implementation details would make the patent much more narrowly-focused.  Patents that are too narrow in focus have a number of practical problems.  Let's say you have a patent that includes a parts list (as you mentioned).  A year from now, some of those parts go end of life.  Can you swap them out for slightly different parts, or would you lose the protection of your patent?  Would your patent still cover you if you wanted to produce other lines of products that are minor variations of your invention (stronger motor, different temperature range, etc) where that involves parts list changes?  These sorts of changes happen all the time, but are small enough changes that they would be seen as &quot;obvious&quot; iterations of the original invention and thus not eligible for a new patent.  A patent that isn't broad enough to cover these sorts of variations doesn't have much practical value.  I've seen a number of patents where the time between patent submission and approval was long enough that multiple rounds of parts changes were required.  An overly-narrow patent would have literally been worthless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at it from the other direction, an overly-specific patent is much easier for a competitor to clone.  Keep the general idea the same but change enough of the specifics to pass as a separate product.  This greatly reduces the value of the patent and can be seen as incentivizing copying over research and innovation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't forget that a patent is supposed to document the innovative/original aspect of the invention.  Implementation details that aren't part of the innovative idea are left vague and generic.  This helps keep the description focused on the patentable aspect and abstracts away the non-patentable aspects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A parts list might not even be as useful as you think it is.  A patent can be valid for 15-20 years.  Once it expires, you'd be hard-pressed to locate any of the parts on that 20-year-old part list.  In a lot of industries the underlying technology behind those parts will be completely obsolete.  You'd have to do a lot of re-design and experimentation to make it work with currently-available parts, and at that point you're in the same boat as you are with our current system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note the word &quot;reasonable&quot; rather than numbers of dollars and months.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And this seems too high to me. Why does the patent office not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stipulate this to be, say, 1 week?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that definitions for &quot;reasonable&quot; and &quot;undue burden&quot; will vary a *lot* from one application domain to another.  The amount of time/money required to re-implement (say) a software algorithm is not really comparable to doing the same for a satellite-based sensor system.  The time and cost of deploying the latter are so high that testing even a *single* experimental design (not unreasonable) could cost more than years' worth of experimentation on the former (most likely unreasonable).  Software experiment/test cycles can be measured on the order of minutes, but it can take *years* for a custom gene sequence in a plant to express itself.  When you look at the incredibly broad range of things that can be covered by a patent, it's unlikely that you'd ever be able to come up with a concrete, universal &quot;undue burden&quot; threshold.  In the legal world, they prefer to evaluate things like that on a case-by-case basis instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This can be interpreted by the examiner to say that the inventor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shouldn't hold back the details. It's easy to disclose them, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not necessarily.  I've seen patents covering inventions where some of these &quot;details&quot; involve the use of trade secrets licensed from a third-party under NDA.  In that case, it was literally *impossible* to provide those details.  That third-party technology wasn't within the scope of the patent, so that part was &quot;black-boxed&quot; in the patent description and replaced with broad, general language.  If disclosing those details was required, then we'd be forced to either forgo patent protection on our invention or re-invent those third-party components from scratch.  That type of requirement would make it significantly more difficult for companies/inventors to collaborate with each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My question is: why does the patents office errs, in this grey area,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on the side of the inventor, rather than on the side of the public?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of patents is to encourage research, innovation, and risk taking.  They protect inventors against competitors.  Erring on the side of &quot;the public&quot; (which includes the inventor's competitors, actual and potential) reduces the value of the patent and reduces the incentive to create.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22507" RevisionGUID="ca5a27e4-38e6-4129-bbbe-b613006a6d5c" CreationDate="2020-08-08T02:33:51.500" UserId="17003" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="What is protected is what is described in the claims. Nothing more, nothing less. While the rest of the patent describes the background, the invention and how it works, only what is in the claims matters with respect to what is protected. It is very important to make sure you are assessing the claims of an actual patent and not an application. Claims in applications are almost always broader than what ends up in the granted patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the linked patent, the invention is a tamper evident closure for a box. While the box and lid are described and part of the device, it is the tamper evident closure itself that is the actual invention. The addition of the box and lid are necessary to describe how the invention works. Again, what is patented is limited to the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With respect to your question, in no way should you assume only the preferred embodiment is protected. In my experience patent attorneys only describe embodiments they plan on protecting. They may not get all those protections based on how the claims work out, but they surely want to protect them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22519" RevisionGUID="ab7f527d-50c7-4651-a12f-877f62050d38" CreationDate="2020-08-08T04:57:49.713" UserId="731" Comment="Reworked answer after actually reading the entire question" Text="&gt; Especially in light of the fact that the inventor, if enablement is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; taken into account, must be in full possession of the exact recipe for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at least one embodiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not necessarily.  An example of the invention can be &quot;prophetic&quot;, describing predicted results as opposed to something the inventor actually did. The case Gould v. Quigg was over a patent for something that had not been built at the time the patent was filed.  The court said &quot;the mere fact that something has not previously been done clearly is not, in itself, a sufficient basis for rejecting all applications purporting to disclose how to do it.&quot;  In cases like this, a lot of the sort of details that you're asking for may not yet exist.  Your invention can require an apparatus that an implementer cannot readily obtain, but the patent has to disclose enough details about that apparatus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note the word &quot;reasonable&quot; rather than numbers of dollars and months.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And this seems too high to me. Why does the patent office not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stipulate this to be, say, 1 week?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that definitions for &quot;reasonable&quot; and &quot;undue burden&quot; will vary a *lot* from one application domain to another.  The amount of time/money required to re-implement (say) a software algorithm is not really comparable to doing the same for a satellite-based sensor system.  The time and cost of deploying the latter are so high that testing even a *single* experimental design (not unreasonable) could cost more than years' worth of experimentation on the former (most likely unreasonable).  Software experiment/test cycles can be measured on the order of minutes, but it can take *years* for a custom gene sequence in a plant to express itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you look at the incredibly broad range of things that can be covered by a patent, it's unlikely that you'd ever be able to come up with a concrete, universal &quot;undue burden&quot; threshold.  In the legal world, they prefer to evaluate things like that on a case-by-case basis instead.  The statute itself is very broad, but there's a lot of legal precedent here that fills in the gaps and provides good examples to go by.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are good examples on the page you linked in the section &quot;Examples of Enablement Issues-Missing Information&quot;.  It talks about several examples that only included vague block diagrams without specific information about which block performs which function, or requirements to use obscure mathematical algorithms that aren't commonly known and aren't described in the disclosure.  In these cases, an implementer is more or less having to do original research in order to fill in the gaps and get a working embodiment (the same original research done by the inventor that was supposedly novel enough to be worth patenting).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example, something like motor or controller selection is unlikely to be seen as unreasonable since that's the sort of thing that engineers do all the time.  The parts used by the original inventor probably won't still be available by the time the patent expires, so you're most likely going to have to do this work anyway.  On the other hand if there's a specific requirement that the part must meet in order for the invention to work (i.e., the flux capacitor must be tuned to *exactly* 88 MPH), then that's the sort of critical detail that has to be included.  If you can use an electronic, pneumatic, or hydraulic actuator and everything still works the same, then there's no need for the extra detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Would it have any negative consequences? I can't think of any.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some inventions are inherently expensive or time-consuming, even if you have 100% of the information that exists.  Whatever hard threshold you want to set, there will *always* be inventions where the burden on the implementer is beyond that threshold and no amount of information disclosure would change that.  It's not particularly fair to proclaim these inventions unpatentable simply because they're complicated.  Evaluating the threshold based on the particular case at hand puts inventions of all sizes and complexity levels on a more even playing field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My question is: why does the patents office errs, in this grey area,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on the side of the inventor, rather than on the side of the public?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of patents is to encourage research, innovation, and risk taking.  They protect inventors against competitors.  Erring on the side of &quot;the public&quot; (which includes the inventor's competitors, actual and potential) reduces the value of the patent.  If you err on the side of the inventor, the public can always challenge it and overturn it.  If you err on the side of the public and require the inventor to overshare, that error is not reversible (the information was already made public and the inventor was harmed without remedy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22521" RevisionGUID="14e7d1ba-7fc5-40eb-9f46-2a8cd51f332d" CreationDate="2020-08-08T16:40:32.167" UserId="20047" Text="I wonder how or where to protect an app which will be released on google playstore and/or on iOS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Afaik any protections relate to single nations, so in principle I would have to hand in claims in each nation where I seek for protection.&#xD;&#xA;On the other, I guess, the legal site of Google Playstore and iOS is probably in Californa. Hence, would it be sufficient to hand in claims there to gain protection worldwide?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61336" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22521" RevisionGUID="14e7d1ba-7fc5-40eb-9f46-2a8cd51f332d" CreationDate="2020-08-08T16:40:32.167" UserId="20047" Text="Is it possible to protect an app (somehow)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61337" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22521" RevisionGUID="14e7d1ba-7fc5-40eb-9f46-2a8cd51f332d" CreationDate="2020-08-08T16:40:32.167" UserId="20047" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;app&gt;&lt;worldwide&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22522" RevisionGUID="8dfa06e5-3678-4636-8700-2222e028eeaf" CreationDate="2020-08-08T19:18:46.713" UserId="3076" Text="An app might be protected by copyright and/or by patent as well as trademark. This site focuses only on patents; you might get good information at law.stackexchange.com on copyrights and trademarks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents are territorial - they give the owner the right to try to stop anyone from making, selling, offering for sale, importing, or using the patented technology within the jurisdiction or the country granting the patent. Any patent is for something novel and non-obvious. Assuming that is met, apps are theoretically  patentable in the U.S, and Europe but may be hard to get unless you have a particularly skillful patent practitioner (attorney or agent) draft, file and prosecute the application for you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61339" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="21230" RevisionGUID="8354307b-6266-452c-a767-e7c188e5ec74" CreationDate="2020-08-09T22:08:30.860" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61341" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="44eaef11-9fa1-482d-ad41-1dad5d39de1e" CreationDate="2020-08-10T10:04:00.403" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61342" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19823" RevisionGUID="6e521036-c147-419a-a37d-272696b72817" CreationDate="2020-08-10T14:03:55.443" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61343" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="21232" RevisionGUID="10c25fb6-425c-4c1f-92b9-d5c61c4a6af2" CreationDate="2020-08-10T18:06:50.773" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22523" RevisionGUID="0bf08d8f-96ab-4017-91c2-29fa02526d81" CreationDate="2020-08-11T01:49:56.463" UserId="4279" Text="This sounds a lot like RPC and the DCOM marshaller." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22523" RevisionGUID="823c25a9-faba-45c6-a77a-3b8579e80e61" CreationDate="2020-08-12T15:57:12.250" UserId="4279" Comment="linkify terms, expand initialism" Text="This sounds a lot like [Remote procedure calls][1] (RPC) and the [DCOM][2] [marshaller][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_procedure_call&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_Component_Object_Model&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshalling_%28computer_science%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61363" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="45831937-eec7-40d5-b8bb-08940fb7f400" CreationDate="2020-08-12T22:03:25.360" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16090" RevisionGUID="418315f8-9847-4ae5-ba7b-83706c08c63c" CreationDate="2020-08-13T21:32:17.267" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to patent" Text="Can I produce and sell this patents product? It expired since it's in a patent from more than 50 years ago?  Pat. [US2892491][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US2892491A/en?oq=US%202892491" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61371" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="56b49fb4-dfad-430d-af73-fed88b5c8921" CreationDate="2020-08-14T02:04:35.460" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61372" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12028" RevisionGUID="c3ae2db4-b11d-4fba-aa17-b1174b3d87dd" CreationDate="2020-08-14T22:03:10.120" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61373" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17720" RevisionGUID="4c7c985c-8473-4295-8e9e-4db306c7ab8c" CreationDate="2020-08-15T08:00:15.060" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61374" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="ec8d3860-5149-4cca-9b4d-502a722896a9" CreationDate="2020-08-15T13:03:20.313" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61380" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="41e0a154-97af-4e62-a28f-6b4a2e4ced70" CreationDate="2020-08-16T05:06:20.660" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22529" RevisionGUID="21e670a1-4220-46c4-b089-2b6ae3b5ca12" CreationDate="2020-08-16T20:47:44.897" UserId="24493" Text="I have an idea for a product which has not been patented and is rather unique. However, my design would include a hook and loop fastener. Since Velcro's patent on this has expired, am I allowed to use a hook and loop fastener in my patent as long as I don't use any trademarks?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61383" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22529" RevisionGUID="21e670a1-4220-46c4-b089-2b6ae3b5ca12" CreationDate="2020-08-16T20:47:44.897" UserId="24493" Text="Using an expired patent as part of a new patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61384" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22529" RevisionGUID="21e670a1-4220-46c4-b089-2b6ae3b5ca12" CreationDate="2020-08-16T20:47:44.897" UserId="24493" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;expired-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22530" RevisionGUID="38ffe45c-15c6-4671-959e-bca3922c74c1" CreationDate="2020-08-16T22:16:52.047" UserId="17003" Text="It really doesn't matter whether or not the device you want to use in your invention is patented. Almost all patents build on other inventions. So long as your invention meets the requirements of being novel, useful and non-obvious you can potentially obtain a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question isn't of patentability, its of freedom to operate. If your idea is an improvement on an existing device with an active patent, you could get a patent, but need to license the existing patent to sell your product. With respect to Velcro, I seriously doubt they would keep you from using their product in your product whether or not the patent is expired. After all, they want to sell more Velcro. Now if you wanted to make your own equivalent to Velcro there might be an issue if their patent were still in force." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22531" RevisionGUID="1af4b1fa-8c0a-4cf6-a6ed-ef703014399d" CreationDate="2020-08-16T22:38:09.380" UserId="3076" Text="**Yes**, but the patent status of Velcro is completely irrelevant to *your* patent application. You may have a common confusion about patents. There is a big difference between a patent and a product you might decide to make, sell, import, etc. that is based on your inventive concept.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your patent can have sub-components that are patented. It can, if actually made, infringe other's patents. What matters in your patent application is that your invention, as claimed, is useful, new and not obvious. All three criteria are actually complex, nuanced, and fought over but nowhere in the criteria is that a product based on your patent can actually be made and sold without infringing someone else's patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you invented a riding lawn mower a few decades ago it might be new and non-obvious therefore deserving a patent. But you might not be able to sell it if it infringed one or more patents on mowers in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a plus for your idea that a sub-component you view as required is something with multiple sources since it is no longer patented. (I would advise thinking of other ways to implement it to avoid giving someone an easy design-around by using snaps or some other fastener. And someone else's trademark in a patent application is not a great idea since a brand name does not really describe/define a specific structure. Note that Loctite, Masonite and many other brands no longer just apply to their initial famous product.f)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22532" RevisionGUID="63b0ff1a-ff44-4080-b952-84f00fbac4bd" CreationDate="2020-08-17T02:35:04.640" UserId="24494" Text="Facebook bought Instagram when it wasn't patented. Facebook could have just created a copy of Instagram and launched It with their already existing millions of users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1- Why did Facebook pay 1 Billion dollars for a product that can be replicated without patent issues ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2- And Is It &quot;safe&quot; to launch a new website or an idea  without a patent and without the big companies just overtaking It ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61388" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22532" RevisionGUID="63b0ff1a-ff44-4080-b952-84f00fbac4bd" CreationDate="2020-08-17T02:35:04.640" UserId="24494" Text="Why Facebook didn't just copy Instagram which wasn't patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61389" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22532" RevisionGUID="63b0ff1a-ff44-4080-b952-84f00fbac4bd" CreationDate="2020-08-17T02:35:04.640" UserId="24494" Text="&lt;idea&gt;&lt;websites&gt;&lt;facebook&gt;&lt;safety&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61398" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="9d1c2141-1818-45bb-aa21-205455fe9553" CreationDate="2020-08-17T23:05:05.487" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61399" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20880" RevisionGUID="9bec6ca4-ee0b-4aad-8b8b-1cc3254f12a4" CreationDate="2020-08-18T13:03:50.580" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22536" RevisionGUID="cb11cafc-4de0-48f8-b222-d2c488d1e7f7" CreationDate="2020-08-19T11:12:13.150" UserId="21434" Text="I need the English translation of Belgian Patent BE629083.&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61406" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22536" RevisionGUID="cb11cafc-4de0-48f8-b222-d2c488d1e7f7" CreationDate="2020-08-19T11:12:13.150" UserId="21434" Text="English translation of Belgian Patent BE629083 needed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61407" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22536" RevisionGUID="cb11cafc-4de0-48f8-b222-d2c488d1e7f7" CreationDate="2020-08-19T11:12:13.150" UserId="21434" Text="&lt;expired&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22537" RevisionGUID="54b5284c-a44c-45b3-a192-eabb716c5e11" CreationDate="2020-08-19T14:28:05.320" UserId="17003" Text="Google Patents does its very best to automatically translate patents such as this. [Here is that page.][1]. Unfortunately the [original document][2] is a very poor scan of a poorly printed and very technical document with symbols. It is possible that with Google's translation and your reviewing the original you might be able get a grasp of its content. Otherwise, you may need to rely on a fluent French speaker to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/BE629083A/en?oq=BE629083&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/original-document?channel=espacenet_channel-17ec937a-e2a7-4c65-8aa0-fed9f152447e" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20882" RevisionGUID="bd88a65e-f128-49c5-85ab-b718322c108d" CreationDate="2020-08-19T21:28:38.057" UserId="3076" Comment="explained broadening re-exam" Text="The patent owner can request a re-examination any time during the life of the patent to narrow claims and, with the AIA, anyone can request an Inter Partes Review to challenge the validity of a patent. That is a relatively expensive process. These are not specific to the grounds of a claim going beyond the disclosure but can be used to remedy/attack claims for many reasons of defect/validity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under re-examination process in the U.S.(initialed by the patent owner) an issued patent can be broadened within two years of the initial grant. Assume the combination a + b + c + d was granted but the patent owner now thinks it should not have been granted due to inadequate support for c being part of the combination. A broadening re-examination could amend it to a + b + d. If there was already a claim to a + b + d the re-examination might not be needed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20882" RevisionGUID="c7c971bb-443b-4a88-9647-fc6d1a0c68d9" CreationDate="2020-08-19T21:48:42.767" UserId="3076" Comment="explained broadening re-exam and amendments at IPR" Text="The patent owner can request a re-examination any time during the life of the patent to narrow claims and, with the AIA, anyone can request an Inter Partes Review to challenge the validity of a patent. That is a relatively expensive process. These are not specific to the grounds of a claim going beyond the disclosure but can be used to remedy/attack claims for many reasons of defect/validity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under re-examination process in the U.S.(initialed by the patent owner) an issued patent can be broadened within two years of the initial grant. Assume the combination a + b + c + d was granted but the patent owner now thinks it should not have been granted due to inadequate support for c being part of the combination. A broadening re-examination could amend it to a + b + d. If there was already a claim to a + b + d the re-examination might not be needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of an IPR a patent owner has the right to make amendments to claim the board finds invalid. However, in practice this is a difficult process requiring the patent owner to prove that the amended claim would be valid. There are **no actual examiners** at the board or involved with the IPR process." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22537" RevisionGUID="8a0e43e3-d7de-4937-9bfb-2dbfaadfa895" CreationDate="2020-08-19T23:22:15.487" UserId="17003" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="Google Patents does its very best to automatically translate patents such as this. [Here is that page.][1]. Unfortunately the [original document][2] is a very poor scan of a poorly printed and very technical document with symbols. It is possible that with Google's translation and your reviewing the original you might be able get a grasp of its content. Otherwise, you may need to rely on a fluent French speaker to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/BE629083A/en?oq=BE629083&#xD;&#xA;  [2]:https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/000198698/publication/BE629083A?q=pn%3DBE629083Achannel=espacenet_channel-17ec937a-e2a7-4c65-8aa0-fed9f152447e" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22539" RevisionGUID="b0dcad3c-3911-4789-8aa5-8b3b6849dc48" CreationDate="2020-08-21T08:13:18.157" UserId="16490" Text="Suppose an accused product implements all but one of the *elements* in claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The invention claimed is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A storage system comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a platform containing a plurality of container stacks...;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **a handling device configured for pushing a plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; containers from a stack...**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the accused product is configured for pulling containers rather than pushing containers, will it mean that it fails to meet the second limitation and thus, no patent infringement took place (assuming the remaining claims depend on claim 1 by &quot;*The system of claim 1, ...*&quot;)? Will the accused product actually be regarded as novel if it pulls?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61418" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22539" RevisionGUID="b0dcad3c-3911-4789-8aa5-8b3b6849dc48" CreationDate="2020-08-21T08:13:18.157" UserId="16490" Text="Patent infringement if all but one element of a claim appear in the product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61419" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22539" RevisionGUID="b0dcad3c-3911-4789-8aa5-8b3b6849dc48" CreationDate="2020-08-21T08:13:18.157" UserId="16490" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22539" RevisionGUID="5759d696-b50f-44de-bb6e-cab367538bb9" CreationDate="2020-08-21T08:19:54.043" UserId="16490" Comment="added 378 characters in body" Text="Suppose an accused product implements all but one of the *elements* in claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The invention claimed is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A storage system comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a platform containing a plurality of container stacks...;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **a handling device configured for pushing a plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; containers from a stack...**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the accused product is configured for pulling containers rather than pushing containers, will it mean that it fails to meet the second limitation and thus, no patent infringement took place (assuming the remaining claims depend on claim 1 by &quot;*The system of claim 1, ...*&quot;)? Will the accused product actually be regarded as novel if it pulls?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, because the claim puts emphasis on the use of a 'platform', what if another accused product pushes containers but uses rails or tracks? Are rails or tracks regarded as a platform, as far as patents go?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; platform:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a flat raised area or structure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/platform&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose rails and tracks are perhaps not flat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61421" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="22539" RevisionGUID="5759d696-b50f-44de-bb6e-cab367538bb9" CreationDate="2020-08-21T08:19:54.043" UserId="16490" Comment="added 378 characters in body" Text="Patent infringement if all but one part of an element of a claim appear in the product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22539" RevisionGUID="260a06c3-9205-4ed9-8321-048aaf8f6f78" CreationDate="2020-08-21T09:09:22.460" UserId="16490" Comment="deleted 381 characters in body" Text="Suppose an accused product implements all but one of the *elements* in claim 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The invention claimed is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A storage system comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a platform containing a plurality of container stacks...;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **a handling device configured for pushing a plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; containers from a stack...**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the accused product is configured for pulling containers rather than pushing containers, will it mean that it fails to meet the second limitation and thus, no patent infringement took place (assuming the remaining claims depend on claim 1 by &quot;*The system of claim 1, ...*&quot;)? Will the accused product actually be regarded as novel if it pulls?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61423" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="22539" RevisionGUID="d877e9af-4e17-48ea-a7ab-aca93990380b" CreationDate="2020-08-21T10:15:47.360" UserId="16490" Comment="edited title" Text="Patent infringement: pushing vs pulling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22540" RevisionGUID="5fbd564f-9452-4930-984b-a1a6d90e9cf8" CreationDate="2020-08-21T13:42:01.250" UserId="17003" Text="Infringement occurs when someone implements **each and every aspect** of a claim. Thus if the product avoids one step then no infringement occurs. In the example provided if person pulls instead of pushes then there is no infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Will the accused product actually be regarded as novel if it pulls?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you didn't mean the term &quot;novel&quot;. Avoiding infringement doesn't imply novelty at all, it only means you're avoid infringing on the specific claim cited. Novel means new and inventive and potentially patentable. Pulling instead of pushing might or might not be inventive, but avoiding infringing a patent doesn't necessarily mean you are guaranteed to obtain your own patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22540" RevisionGUID="8d157ff6-5114-44ca-bf26-f7188d962539" CreationDate="2020-08-21T21:26:23.860" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="Infringement occurs when someone implements **each and every aspect** of a claim. Thus if the product avoids one step then no infringement occurs. In the example provided if person pulls instead of pushes then there is no infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Will the accused product actually be regarded as novel if it pulls?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you didn't mean the term &quot;novel&quot;. Avoiding infringement doesn't imply novelty at all, it only means you're avoid infringing on the specific claim cited. Novel means new and potentially patentable. Pulling instead of pushing might or might not be inventive, but avoiding infringing a patent doesn't necessarily mean you are guaranteed to obtain your own patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22542" RevisionGUID="fce05605-4926-40b4-b3df-21ed48fb383a" CreationDate="2020-08-22T05:51:20.503" UserId="24523" Text="As the title states, does google update their patents for applications that have been amended? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: I file a patent initially with X number of claims. It is published at the 18 month mark. Google picks it up and it is now discover-able via google patents. But then I amend the claims before examination. Will google update the claims? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61433" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22542" RevisionGUID="fce05605-4926-40b4-b3df-21ed48fb383a" CreationDate="2020-08-22T05:51:20.503" UserId="24523" Text="Does google update patents that have been amended?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61434" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22542" RevisionGUID="fce05605-4926-40b4-b3df-21ed48fb383a" CreationDate="2020-08-22T05:51:20.503" UserId="24523" Text="&lt;google&gt;&lt;claim-amendment&gt;&lt;publication&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22544" RevisionGUID="67b13d2a-886d-41c1-bdba-e948f72c031f" CreationDate="2020-08-22T07:07:23.753" UserId="3076" Text="**NO**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Patents and other sites that allow for searching patents show *publications*. Once published, a particular publication is a static things - like a book. Following the normal course, patent applications are published twice, once at the 18 month point and then, if granted, in the final allowed state. That is what you see on patent search sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, after initial publication the public can view all of the back-and-forth between the applicant and the examiner including rejections, arguments and amendments. You could piece together intermediate versions from that information. In the USPTO this is via the site PUBLIC PAIR. At the EPO it is the EP Register." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22544" RevisionGUID="4c9f2f81-e9e1-4621-8f59-13294f0b944f" CreationDate="2020-08-22T18:40:22.673" UserId="3076" Comment="added 133 characters in body" Text="**NO**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Patents and other sites that allow for searching patents show *publications*. Once published, a particular publication is a static things - like a book. Following the normal course, patent applications are published twice, once at the 18 month point and then, if granted, in the final allowed state. That is what you see on patent search sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, after initial publication the public can view all of the back-and-forth between the applicant and the examiner including rejections, arguments and amendments. You could piece together intermediate versions from that information. In the USPTO this is via the site [PUBLIC PAIR][1]. At the EPO it is the [EP Register][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.epo.org/searching-for-patents/legal/register.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61439" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="22542" RevisionGUID="a503159f-4b4a-4b67-bd4a-d476fa33c68b" CreationDate="2020-08-22T22:15:13.663" UserId="3076" Comment="clarified question title" Text="Does google patents update patent applixation publications that have been amended?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22542" RevisionGUID="a503159f-4b4a-4b67-bd4a-d476fa33c68b" CreationDate="2020-08-22T22:15:13.663" UserId="3076" Comment="clarified question title" Text="As the title states, does google patents update the patent information for applications that have been amended? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: I file a patent initially with X number of claims. It is published at the 18 month mark. Google patents picks it up and it is now discover-able via google patents. But then I amend the claims before examination. Will google update the claims? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22544" RevisionGUID="1729411a-865d-4466-8891-da32925aa9b5" CreationDate="2020-08-23T00:14:39.267" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="**NO**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Patents and other sites that allow for searching patents show *publications*. Once published, a particular publication is a static thing - like a book. Following the normal course, patent applications are published twice, once at the 18 month point and then, if granted, in the final allowed state. That is what you see on patent search sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, after initial publication the public can view all of the back-and-forth between the applicant and the examiner including rejections, arguments and amendments. You could piece together intermediate versions from that information. In the USPTO this is via the site [PUBLIC PAIR][1]. At the EPO it is the [EP Register][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.epo.org/searching-for-patents/legal/register.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61442" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="22542" RevisionGUID="3dc31436-9983-4a47-9d6b-a43fcc02ff72" CreationDate="2020-08-23T01:14:49.800" UserId="17003" Comment="edited title" Text="Does google patents update patent application publications that have been amended?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22545" RevisionGUID="fc593499-a863-4562-b4aa-02132ff24610" CreationDate="2020-08-23T11:28:25.563" UserId="24529" Text="I am writing a patent description for a patent application. It's a blockchain protocol. When writing it, I found it easier to describe each of the steps the protocol does using an exemplary scenario. To make it clear, let's suppose that in my description (this is only example of course) I wanted to convey this meaning:&#xD;&#xA;Nodes connected to the network send each other message A within a specified time T, then compute a hash of the message A and use it to select the block producer.&#xD;&#xA;Based on that I could claim something like that:&#xD;&#xA;A distributed transaction system in which transactions are organized in blocks, the system comprising:&#xD;&#xA;-.......&#xD;&#xA;-having the nodes connected to the network send each other message A within time T&#xD;&#xA;-having the nodes compute a hash of the message A&#xD;&#xA;-having the nodes use a hash of the message A to select block producer&#xD;&#xA;-......&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in my detailed description I use ONLY examples in the form of scenarios. So, the same part of the description that I wrote above in my &quot;version&quot; of description would read:&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate how nodes connected to the network will select a new block producer, let's use an example. Let's suppose that there are 3 nodes connected to the network: Alice, Bob and Carol. In order to select block producer Alice, Bob and Carol will send to each other a message consisting of A and each on them compute a hash of that message. Then they will us the hash to select block producer. Let's suppose that Alice's hash is equal to (in decimals) 44564457.... and Bob's 576657...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you see, the way I described all the elements of the invention in my patent application is by example, because this is how my mind works I guess. Now, using such a description (with examples using specific number and names of nodes, specific values and parameters that are exemplary) am I not limiting the possible claims that can be based on this way of describing to claims that claim e.g. only a system comprised of 3 nodes (as I used Alice, Bob and Carol as example) or only a system that uses such-and-such parameters, even though I always use words like &quot;let's suppose&quot;, &quot;for example&quot;, etc.? By using exemplary scenarios can I claim the method the examples illustrate in general (not limiting claims to specific number of nodes, names, values, parameters that I used as example) or only the version as specified in example (limited to only this specific number of nodes, names, values, etc.)?&#xD;&#xA;Because the description is very long, I don't want to rewrite it, without confirming that the way I wrote it is not the correct way. As a side note, I worked long and hard on this, I don't have funds for professional assistance, so I ask for specific answer from professional.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61444" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22545" RevisionGUID="fc593499-a863-4562-b4aa-02132ff24610" CreationDate="2020-08-23T11:28:25.563" UserId="24529" Text="Will describing by way of a specific example in detailed description of invention support claims that are not so specific?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61445" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22545" RevisionGUID="fc593499-a863-4562-b4aa-02132ff24610" CreationDate="2020-08-23T11:28:25.563" UserId="24529" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;description&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22546" RevisionGUID="8f195dbf-c2eb-46cb-88f8-a372c92981ad" CreationDate="2020-08-23T17:35:54.613" UserId="3076" Text="The description needs to make the invention clear. Being specific is normal and usually required. Claims are definitely more general. You are on the right track  in that regard but patent applications are very difficult to draft in a way that gets you the protection you desire." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22547" RevisionGUID="9e9c3c4a-1e16-4184-86d6-20d3b516aa1e" CreationDate="2020-08-24T14:10:45.990" UserId="24529" Text="I don't have access to patent attorney or professional patent drafter and I need to file an application. After that I plan to publish the invention and, if there will be some interest from any investor, seek to expand the protection by means of 12 months priority under Paris convention. I have a (presumably) good description and drawings but claims are really difficult to write.&#xD;&#xA;I am left with a choice to either write myself (being amateur):&#xD;&#xA;1. only omnibus claim and add more claims later (when and if there will be some investor interest)&#xD;&#xA;2. only one broadest claim and add more claims leter (when and if there will be investor interest)&#xD;&#xA;3. all the claims&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In option 1, I believe that omnibus claim may be rejected as not defining the invention and, thus, leaving the invention undefined and any applications in foreign countries claiming priority over the first application.&#xD;&#xA;In option 2, I might be able to use professional service for drafting new claims and add them later on in future applications claiming priority over the first one, but some offices (e.g. EPO) will not allow adding broader claims (or maybe even new claims that are not dependent claims?) even if they are supported by description.&#xD;&#xA;In option 3, I might get some or all claims wrong, because I am an amateur. If I'll get them wrong, the same problem as mentioned above will occur - the invention will be undefined and it will be impossible to use this application to claim priority and file subsequent application abroad.&#xD;&#xA;Which of these options is wisest in my situation and what are the benefits and pitfalls involved?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61448" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22547" RevisionGUID="9e9c3c4a-1e16-4184-86d6-20d3b516aa1e" CreationDate="2020-08-24T14:10:45.990" UserId="24529" Text="Without access to patent attorney, Is it better to write all claims myself or to write a single, broad claim and add them later on?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61449" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22547" RevisionGUID="9e9c3c4a-1e16-4184-86d6-20d3b516aa1e" CreationDate="2020-08-24T14:10:45.990" UserId="24529" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22548" RevisionGUID="6074d501-869a-4696-9390-f87637baed07" CreationDate="2020-08-24T19:43:53.383" UserId="3076" Text="One solution is to file your application as a provisional U.S. application without claims. This avoids an issue with any concern that claims are broadened from initial claims since there are no initial claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61451" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19379" RevisionGUID="ad8ed2fc-2855-4dcd-9ab8-89eeaee799e4" CreationDate="2020-08-25T01:06:35.673" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61457" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22475" RevisionGUID="810c657e-45c0-4726-8161-fd7021f03be7" CreationDate="2020-08-25T20:02:40.397" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22550" RevisionGUID="0b55938b-dd6c-49cb-a41f-23425360ca30" CreationDate="2020-08-26T06:35:51.250" UserId="24523" Text="Like the US, Australia has a 1 year period after public disclosure during which we can still obtain a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have filed in the US, and the patent was published at the 18 month mark. There were no public disclosures prior to this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I file for a patent in Australia? (I'm still within the 1 year time frame from the date of publication of the US patent application)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, I'm using Australia as an example. Broadly, I'm wondering if I still have the option to file individual patents in other countries that allow a 1 year time frame after public disclosures. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61459" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22550" RevisionGUID="0b55938b-dd6c-49cb-a41f-23425360ca30" CreationDate="2020-08-26T06:35:51.250" UserId="24523" Text="Is it possible to file for patents in Australia within 1 year of US patent publication?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61460" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22550" RevisionGUID="0b55938b-dd6c-49cb-a41f-23425360ca30" CreationDate="2020-08-26T06:35:51.250" UserId="24523" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;priority-date&gt;&lt;publication&gt;&lt;filing-date&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22551" RevisionGUID="72ec14bf-75a3-4f9f-b6f3-5f93f2dab528" CreationDate="2020-08-26T07:32:33.140" UserId="22334" Text="If you cannot get the assistance of a patent attorney, which you should if possible at least for drafting the claims for you or review the application before filing the same, then my suggestion would be to come up with all the embodiments that you can and have them included in the description. Then, try to come up with a claim set in which you have at least one independent claim per category (device and method) that encompasses most if not all the embodiments, and define the different embodiments in dependent claims. Accordingly, my advice is to proceed according to your option 3 because options 1 and 2 may give you problems in the long run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You want to have all the claims from the start because not all patent offices allow you to modify them whenever you feel like it. You mentioned the EPO, well that is one good example. In fact, if you were to file a European patent application at the beginning, it makes sense to have the claim set with all the claims because then you can benefit from the early Search Report drawn up by the EPO, in half a year or so, which not only cites the prior art that the EPO could find but also other possible objections. For instance you can be informed of a lack of clarity issue in the claims, or a lack of sufficiency of disclosure, or a lack of unity of invention. This opinion by the EPO is really valuable for improving the patent application if you were to file a final patent application by the end of the priority year, for example a PCT. This is specially important if you are to draft the application because you may not be aware of certain things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An omnibus claim will not be examined by most patent offices, and a broad claim will likely be found not novel or obvious. You do not get any valuable information on other possibly patentable embodiments, so you might end up spending money in the prosecution of one or more patent applications which relate to a non-patentable invention. If you were to add further claims during prosecution, some patent offices will not accept them if their scopes are not contained within the scope initially claimed; this can happen at the EPO for example, but also in China, in Brazil, etc. You can protect those embodiments in divisional or continuation applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, bear in mind that most of the investors are interested in inventions that can be protected in some way. If you were to show a patent application with negative search reports, or office actions that reject all the claims, and the expectations of getting a patent granted seem to be minimal, or it is possible to get a patent for embodiments that are not commercially feasible or are not really valuable for some reason, you will have a hard time to find investors interested in your invention. The same holds true when the claims do not protect the invention from the party in the value chain that you may want to enforce your rights against, or when not a single party infringes an entire claim (divided infringement).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22551" RevisionGUID="93571359-829a-41ae-bd38-dce328e80697" CreationDate="2020-08-26T14:27:52.140" UserId="22334" Comment="added 140 characters in body" Text="If you cannot get the assistance of a patent attorney, which you should if possible at least for drafting the claims for you or review the application before filing the same, then my suggestion would be to come up with all the embodiments that you can and have them included in the description (on a personal note, I draft patent applications like George White explained: I draft the claims first, and afterwards I draft the description). Then, try to come up with a claim set in which you have at least one independent claim per category (device and method) that encompasses most if not all the embodiments, and define the different embodiments in dependent claims. Accordingly, my advice is to proceed according to your option 3 because options 1 and 2 may give you problems in the long run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You want to have all the claims from the start because not all patent offices allow you to modify them whenever you feel like it. You mentioned the EPO, well that is one good example. In fact, if you were to file a European patent application at the beginning, it makes sense to have the claim set with all the claims because then you can benefit from the early Search Report drawn up by the EPO, in half a year or so, which not only cites the prior art that the EPO could find but also other possible objections. For instance you can be informed of a lack of clarity issue in the claims, or a lack of sufficiency of disclosure, or a lack of unity of invention. This opinion by the EPO is really valuable for improving the patent application if you were to file a final patent application by the end of the priority year, for example a PCT. This is specially important if you are to draft the application because you may not be aware of certain things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An omnibus claim will not be examined by most patent offices, and a broad claim will likely be found not novel or obvious. You do not get any valuable information on other possibly patentable embodiments, so you might end up spending money in the prosecution of one or more patent applications which relate to a non-patentable invention. If you were to add further claims during prosecution, some patent offices will not accept them if their scopes are not contained within the scope initially claimed; this can happen at the EPO for example, but also in China, in Brazil, etc. You can protect those embodiments in divisional or continuation applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, bear in mind that most of the investors are interested in inventions that can be protected in some way. If you were to show a patent application with negative search reports, or office actions that reject all the claims, and the expectations of getting a patent granted seem to be minimal, or it is possible to get a patent for embodiments that are not commercially feasible or are not really valuable for some reason, you will have a hard time to find investors interested in your invention. The same holds true when the claims do not protect the invention from the party in the value chain that you may want to enforce your rights against, or when not a single party infringes an entire claim (divided infringement)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22553" RevisionGUID="aee0532c-4980-44f2-b4f1-66ac0f4d2b3b" CreationDate="2020-08-26T16:30:43.920" UserId="24543" Text="Excellent question. As pointed out, this has been the subject of some interesting court cases in recent years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interplay with the regulation of medicines is important here. In most (perhaps all?) countries a compound cannot be sold as being for the treatment of a disease (i.e., as a medicine) without an appropriate [marketing authorization][MA] (MA) from the relevant regulator. The MA is for a particular condition or limited set of conditions. This allows you to put on the label (a.k.a., [the SmPC or patient information leaflet][SmPC]) what the compound is for, medicinally, and to talk about it as a medicine in your marketing materials, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you come to know that the compound can be used in a new medical use, then you can't just start selling it for that use. You'd have to have an appropriate MA to update the label to include the new condition, or the regulator would come down on you like a tonne of bricks. If you have the right MA and you advertise the compound as being for the new medical use, then it's pretty clear what your intentions are. The holder of a second medical use patent covering the new use would therefore be able to say that you were selling the compound for the use in their patent: you've pretty much been forced to admit it to avoid heat from the regulator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you'd still be free to sell the compound for the use in your original MA, i.e., for the treatment of the old condition. You just can't say it's for treatment of the new condition. You might even manufacture the same product with multiple different versions of the label for different territories, which might be as simple as a sticker that goes on the boxes/bottles that are shipped to a territory where the second medical use is patented. This process is called [skinny labeling][skinny] or label carve-out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, where this gets complicated is that although you might never say your product is for the new use, it's possible that doctors will prescribe your product for the new use anyway. This is called [off-label][offlabel] prescribing and is a routine thing doctors do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the position that some courts in Europe have reached is that the manufacturer has to do *something* to avoid off-label use in order to avoid infringement. Exactly what will depend on the territory. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted that the Finnegan article linked to in an earlier answer is a little out of date as the UK Supreme Court has since issued a decision on this topic (summary [here][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2018/11/14/pregabalin-the-ruling-of-the-uk-supreme-court/&#xD;&#xA;[MA]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing_authorisation&#xD;&#xA;[SmPC]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medication_package_insert&#xD;&#xA;[skinny]: https://www.biosimilardevelopment.com/doc/what-is-skinny-labeling-and-will-it-work-for-biosimilars-0001&#xD;&#xA;[offlabel]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-label_use" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22553" RevisionGUID="f20ac8fb-076e-4008-accd-239cd7a8835a" CreationDate="2020-08-27T08:35:21.310" UserId="24543" Comment="deleted 2818 characters in body" Text="They're enforced by the courts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rest of the answer deleted as off topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22553" RevisionGUID="1788097e-a419-4795-83dd-d5433d7c6dd0" CreationDate="2020-08-27T08:47:29.223" UserId="24543" Comment="trying to clarify that this is related to patents and to the question posed" Text="EDIT: Second medical use patents are enforced as products *for* a give use. So the alleged infringer must have intention the product is used in a certain way to be found liable. What follows is a possibly-off-topic-but-hopefully-useful discussion of how intention might be considered in a second medical use situation. Note that the original question specifically asked about labeling and marketing. So this might seem off topic but actually gets to the heart of what the question is about, even if that's not apparent at first glance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Excellent question. As pointed out, this has been the subject of some interesting court cases in recent years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interplay with the regulation of medicines is important here. In most (perhaps all?) countries a compound cannot be sold as being for the treatment of a disease (i.e., as a medicine) without an appropriate [marketing authorization][MA] (MA) from the relevant regulator. The MA is for a particular condition or limited set of conditions. This allows you to put on the label (a.k.a., [the SmPC or patient information leaflet][SmPC]) what the compound is for, medicinally, and to talk about it as a medicine in your marketing materials, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you come to know that the compound can be used in a new medical use, then you can't just start selling it for that use. You'd have to have an appropriate MA to update the label to include the new condition, or the regulator would come down on you like a tonne of bricks. If you have the right MA and you advertise the compound as being for the new medical use, then it's pretty clear what your intentions are. The holder of a second medical use patent covering the new use would therefore be able to say that you were selling the compound for the use in their patent: you've pretty much been forced to admit it to avoid heat from the regulator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you'd still be free to sell the compound for the use in your original MA, i.e., for the treatment of the old condition. You just can't say it's for treatment of the new condition. You might even manufacture the same product with multiple different versions of the label for different territories, which might be as simple as a sticker that goes on the boxes/bottles that are shipped to a territory where the second medical use is patented. This process is called [skinny labeling][skinny] or label carve-out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, where this gets complicated is that although you might never say your product is for the new use, it's possible that doctors will prescribe your product for the new use anyway. This is called [off-label][offlabel] prescribing and is a routine thing doctors do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the position that some courts in Europe have reached is that the manufacturer has to do *something* to avoid off-label use in order to avoid infringement. Exactly what will depend on the territory. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted that the Finnegan article linked to in an earlier answer is a little out of date as the UK Supreme Court has since issued a decision on this topic (summary [here][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2018/11/14/pregabalin-the-ruling-of-the-uk-supreme-court/&#xD;&#xA;[MA]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing_authorisation&#xD;&#xA;[SmPC]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medication_package_insert&#xD;&#xA;[skinny]: https://www.biosimilardevelopment.com/doc/what-is-skinny-labeling-and-will-it-work-for-biosimilars-0001&#xD;&#xA;[offlabel]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-label_use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22553" RevisionGUID="afeb66cb-f314-4c50-a996-ec468bb25753" CreationDate="2020-08-27T09:13:13.303" UserId="24543" Comment="added 240 characters in body" Text="EDIT: Second medical use patents are enforced as products *for* a give use. So the alleged infringer must have intention the product is used in a certain way to be found liable. What follows is a possibly-off-topic-but-hopefully-useful discussion of how intention might be considered in a second medical use situation. Note that the original question specifically asked about labeling and marketing. So this might seem off topic but actually gets to the heart of what the question is about, even if that's not apparent at first glance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Excellent question. As pointed out, this has been the subject of some interesting court cases in recent years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interplay with the regulation of medicines is important here. In most (perhaps all?) countries a compound cannot be sold as being for the treatment of a disease (i.e., as a medicine) without an appropriate [marketing authorization][MA] (MA) from the relevant regulator. The MA is for a particular condition or limited set of conditions. This allows you to put on the label (a.k.a., [the SmPC or patient information leaflet][SmPC]) what the compound is for, medicinally, and to talk about it as a medicine in your marketing materials, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you come to know that the compound can be used in a new medical use, then you can't just start selling it for that use. You'd have to have an appropriate MA to update the label to include the new condition, or the regulator would come down on you like a tonne of bricks. If you have the right MA and you advertise the compound as being for the new medical use, then it's pretty clear what your intentions are. The holder of a second medical use patent covering the new use would therefore be able to say that you were selling the compound for the use in their patent: you've pretty much been forced to admit it to avoid heat from the regulator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you'd still be free to sell the compound for the use in your original MA, i.e., for the treatment of the old condition. You just can't say it's for treatment of the new condition. You might even manufacture the same product with multiple different versions of the label for different territories, which might be as simple as a sticker that goes on the boxes/bottles that are shipped to a territory where the second medical use is patented. This process is called [skinny labeling][skinny] or label carve-out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, where this gets complicated is that although you might never say your product is for the new use, it's possible that doctors will prescribe your product for the new use anyway. This is called [off-label][offlabel] prescribing and is a routine thing doctors do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SECOND EDIT: What if the alleged infringer *knows* that its product is being used off-label. What if they tacitly encourage it? Are they liable now? This is a complex infringement question that has been reviewed by courts across Europe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the position that some courts in Europe have reached is that the manufacturer has to do *something* to avoid off-label use in order to avoid infringement. Exactly what will depend on the territory. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted that the Finnegan article linked to in an earlier answer is a little out of date as the UK Supreme Court has since issued a decision on this topic (summary [here][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2018/11/14/pregabalin-the-ruling-of-the-uk-supreme-court/&#xD;&#xA;[MA]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing_authorisation&#xD;&#xA;[SmPC]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medication_package_insert&#xD;&#xA;[skinny]: https://www.biosimilardevelopment.com/doc/what-is-skinny-labeling-and-will-it-work-for-biosimilars-0001&#xD;&#xA;[offlabel]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-label_use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61477" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20143" RevisionGUID="721a56bc-c5de-4f94-8cc3-6f34a662552a" CreationDate="2020-08-27T19:00:45.087" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22555" RevisionGUID="322cd3d9-10e7-4b8b-896e-36a9b4cd5262" CreationDate="2020-08-27T20:28:08.210" UserDisplayName="user24548" Text="After winning a competition, the content of my submission was posted publicly. This involved:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. General descriptions of features of the product (e.g.allows for&#xD;&#xA;    remote monitoring through an ai-camera).&#xD;&#xA;2. Mockup renders with annotated features (i.e. touchscreen)&#xD;&#xA;3. References to the possible technologies used in the idea (Artificial Intelligence)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know want to develop a prototype and patent in the:&#xD;&#xA;1) USA 2) UK 3) Europe and other countries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this disqualify such a product from being patented? I understand at some point down the line a patent lawyer is required, but I want to have some idea if this prevents patentability before attempting to continue with the project. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61479" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22555" RevisionGUID="322cd3d9-10e7-4b8b-896e-36a9b4cd5262" CreationDate="2020-08-27T20:28:08.210" UserDisplayName="user24548" Text="What extent of prior publication prevents patentability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61480" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22555" RevisionGUID="322cd3d9-10e7-4b8b-896e-36a9b4cd5262" CreationDate="2020-08-27T20:28:08.210" UserDisplayName="user24548" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;european&gt;&lt;uk&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22556" RevisionGUID="99e531f9-32ab-4428-80df-4f514953f320" CreationDate="2020-08-28T02:40:20.247" UserId="3076" Text="As Eric mentioned in a comment, the issue is degree of disclosure. It can be a subtle issue. In the case of a public demonstration (public = at least one person not under an agreement of confidentiality) the workings of a device need not be exposed in order for novelty to be broken - in the U.S. Outside the U.S. a demonstration that divulged no inner workings would not break novelty. A publication that explained a result but did not show how to achieve the result would not be novelty breaking. If you think that might be your situation you can file an application and provide the USPTO with all of the information about the publication. Dates, content and the details of &quot;publication&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are strange edge cases in the US. A thesis that has been shelved in a university library by subject has been published but if the only public copy is shelved by student's name it is not published. A printed journal is published the day is is received in the mail by someone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A slide show at a conference with no handouts is probably not published. A poster on a wall at a conference that is up for a day (no handouts) might or might not be published. In some of the world demonstrations at a handful of specific trade shows is not initially novelty breaking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, very important for the US, there is a, sort of, one year grace period after publication." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22557" RevisionGUID="f9c779ff-c853-4e6c-bff2-d6e5445dc2f0" CreationDate="2020-08-28T05:56:18.090" UserId="14403" Text="I think you are mistaken about basic premise of patent application prosecution timeline. Australia, like any other PCT member countries or Paris Convention member countries, adheres to one year time counting from the date an application was first presented to patent office of any member country (also known as priority date) and not to date of publication of application in member countries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Convention application must be submitted to patent office of country of interest within this time line of one year from priority date. This time line is also applicable for PCT application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If PCT route is adopted, than another 18 months period is available for entry into National Phase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For exceptions, please consult a patent attorney. But, IMO, 18 months plus period from priority date is too late for availing exceptions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22558" RevisionGUID="5e7cf6db-d17a-4518-8221-005046cc0167" CreationDate="2020-08-28T15:15:30.057" UserId="24554" Text="My patent was due for renewal Dec 2019, year 8.  Is there any way I can resurrect it? Thanks in anticipation. Pat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61484" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22558" RevisionGUID="5e7cf6db-d17a-4518-8221-005046cc0167" CreationDate="2020-08-28T15:15:30.057" UserId="24554" Text="Too late to renew my Patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61485" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22558" RevisionGUID="5e7cf6db-d17a-4518-8221-005046cc0167" CreationDate="2020-08-28T15:15:30.057" UserId="24554" Text="&lt;expired-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61491" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22490" RevisionGUID="a0ddc12a-b0e1-4b93-82e4-2a1276855d0c" CreationDate="2020-08-28T18:04:15.583" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22560" RevisionGUID="56f63961-f2c0-4386-b3b0-159667b52d63" CreationDate="2020-08-28T18:12:01.040" UserId="3076" Text="You can petition for acceptance of a late payment - from the [USPTO web site][1] -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A petition related to acceptance of delayed payment of a maintenance fee after expiration of the patent based on unintentional delay under 35 U.S.C. 41(c) and 37 CFR 1.378 (b) must be accompanied by:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a statement that the delay was unintentional;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; payment of the appropriate maintenance fee; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; payment of the petition fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.17,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/petitions/19-acceptance-delayed-payment-maintenance-fee-after-expiration" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22556" RevisionGUID="b6897039-0e68-4699-81ed-cd3ef20724d6" CreationDate="2020-08-28T18:28:08.110" UserId="3076" Comment="added 478 characters in body" Text="As Eric mentioned in a comment, the issue is degree of disclosure. It can be a subtle issue. In the case of a public demonstration (public = at least one person not under an agreement of confidentiality) the workings of a device need not be exposed in order for novelty to be broken - in the U.S. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is becasue the section 102 wording is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; publication, o**r in public use**, on sale, or otherwise available to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A US patent can be barred (after 1 year) by offer for sale, public use, and sales that do not disclose anything about the invention. Demonstrations are public use unless the experimental exception can be shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Outside the U.S. a demonstration that divulged no inner workings would not break novelty. A publication that explained a result but did not show how to achieve the result would not be novelty breaking. If you think that might be your situation you can file an application and provide the USPTO with all of the information about the publication. Dates, content and the details of &quot;publication&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are strange edge cases in the US. A thesis that has been shelved in a university library by subject has been published but if the only public copy is shelved by student's name it is not published. A printed journal is published the day is is received in the mail by someone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A slide show at a conference with no handouts is probably not published. A poster on a wall at a conference that is up for a day (no handouts) might or might not be published. In some of the world demonstrations at a handful of specific trade shows is not initially novelty breaking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, very important for the US, there is a, sort of, one year grace period after publication." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22556" RevisionGUID="7158ebba-9c08-4c24-9906-9f26988dc3bd" CreationDate="2020-08-29T00:17:35.770" UserId="3076" Comment="rearraged order to focus on actua question frst" Text="As Eric mentioned in a comment, the issue is degree of disclosure. It can be a subtle issue. A publication that explained a result but did not show how to achieve the result would not be novelty breaking. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think that might be your situation you can file an application and provide the USPTO with all of the information about the publication. Dates, content and the details of &quot;publication&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are strange edge cases in the US. A thesis that has been shelved in a university library by subject has been published but if the only public copy is shelved by student's name it is not published. A printed journal is published the day is is received in the mail by someone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another situation (not yours involves pubic demonstrations. In the case of a public demonstration (public = at least one person not under an agreement of confidentiality) the workings of a device need not be exposed in order for novelty to be broken - in the U.S. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is becasue the section 102 wording is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; publication, o**r in public use**, on sale, or otherwise available to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A US patent can be barred (after 1 year) by offer for sale, public use, and sales that do not disclose anything about the invention. Demonstrations are public use unless the experimental exception can be shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Outside the U.S. a demonstration that divulged no inner workings would not break novelty. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A slide show at a conference with no handouts is probably not published. A poster on a wall at a conference that is up for a day (no handouts) might or might not be published. In some of the world demonstrations at a handful of specific trade shows is not initially novelty breaking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, very important for the US, there is a, sort of, one year grace period after publication." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22561" RevisionGUID="cba6156c-86f0-49d1-8412-84fc9f629157" CreationDate="2020-08-29T15:50:41.823" UserId="24529" Text="If my patent application is rejected in country of original filing (e.g. this country doesn't recognize software patents or even computer-implemented patents) will I be able to claim priority to it in foreign filings under Paris convention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61496" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22561" RevisionGUID="cba6156c-86f0-49d1-8412-84fc9f629157" CreationDate="2020-08-29T15:50:41.823" UserId="24529" Text="If my patent application is rejected in country of original filing will I be able to claim priority to it in foreign filings under Paris convention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61497" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22561" RevisionGUID="cba6156c-86f0-49d1-8412-84fc9f629157" CreationDate="2020-08-29T15:50:41.823" UserId="24529" Text="&lt;priority&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22562" RevisionGUID="b1f350a6-8f15-4bac-9928-9522ae9a0559" CreationDate="2020-08-29T17:03:05.017" UserId="3076" Text="The Paris Convention has to do with the date of application not how the office deals with it. There is a 12 month limit to claiming a priority under Paris so by the time an application is rejected in the country of first filing it is probably too late for a second filing under Paris. If novelty hasn't been broken, you could still file in other places even without the priority benefit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61504" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22257" RevisionGUID="60dc6c84-69a7-4c21-880a-4918d56b70ae" CreationDate="2020-08-30T20:06:10.660" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20138" RevisionGUID="cb995660-1807-4b46-9036-a926aedd6fd3" CreationDate="2020-08-30T21:04:37.720" UserId="22942" Comment="added formula for a published patent application" Text="Here's how to get a direct link to a PDF document given a patent number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent number is split into three sections: &#xD;&#xA;Group A, digits 0-2 (using an 8 digit number, often digit 0 will be a 0 for &lt;10m patent numbers)&#xD;&#xA;Group B, digits 3-5&#xD;&#xA;Group C, digits 6-7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **patent** 9876543 will be grouped as A(098) B(765) C(43).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The URL is the following, with (A), (B), and (C) replaced by the groups described above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    https://pimg-fpiw.uspto.gov/fdd/(C)/(B)/(A)/0.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meaning the PDF for patent 9876543 is fetched at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    https://pimg-fpiw.uspto.gov/fdd/43/765/098/0.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Published patent application** 2017/0195016 a1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    A(2017) B(019) C(50) D(16)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    https://pimg-faiw.uspto.gov/fdd/(D)/(A)/(C)/(B)/0.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    https://pimg-faiw.uspto.gov/fdd/16/2017/50/019/0.pdf&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61506" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="20138" RevisionGUID="cb995660-1807-4b46-9036-a926aedd6fd3" CreationDate="2020-08-30T21:04:37.720" Comment="Proposed by 22942 approved by 17003, 8305 edit id of 2117" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61507" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20973" RevisionGUID="6b0e709c-bbc1-45a5-a6c7-c39c97c4df9a" CreationDate="2020-08-31T03:05:40.557" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22564" RevisionGUID="c85fab15-b722-4dbf-8a36-68902cf0b39c" CreationDate="2020-08-31T19:01:23.977" UserId="24568" Text="My previous employer (I quit ~3 years ago) had an IP law firm reach out to me to ask me to sign a &quot;COMPLETE ASSIGNMENT OF PATENT RIGHTS DEED&quot;.  The patent was eventually issued in the US, and the company is listed as the assignee and I am one of the assignors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their e-mail states that the company is pursuing a patent application in India and that the Indian Patent Office requires each inventor to assign their rights in the application to the company so that the company may pursue this application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Are they possibly using this as a reason to get me to sign it and maybe sell the patent?  I'd like to understand what it means if I do sign it.  If they did sell it, would I not get any royalties?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Do I have to sign this assignment?&#xD;&#xA;    - I realize that I *may* have agreed to assign my patent rights, I haven't actually looked at the text in the original contract&#xD;&#xA;    - What if they can't provide my signed initial employment contract?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61509" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22564" RevisionGUID="c85fab15-b722-4dbf-8a36-68902cf0b39c" CreationDate="2020-08-31T19:01:23.977" UserId="24568" Text="Former employer asking for assignment rights" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61510" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22564" RevisionGUID="c85fab15-b722-4dbf-8a36-68902cf0b39c" CreationDate="2020-08-31T19:01:23.977" UserId="24568" Text="&lt;assignment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22565" RevisionGUID="3b4d1112-07be-4340-9686-4c2354cbb705" CreationDate="2020-08-31T20:17:43.850" UserId="17003" Text="The standard employment arrangement (at least in the US) is that any intellectual property generated as a result of your employment is owned by the company. This is perfectly reasonable. They pay you to work and they own the results of the work. Regardless of this, there are customarily forms signed when applying for patents where the inventors assign rights to the company. It is possible your work agreement doesn't assign your work product to the company, but I've never see one outside of academia. Some companies provide incentives for patents. My former employer provided shares of stock to the inventors when patents issued. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your questions specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are they possibly using this as a reason to get me to sign it and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maybe sell the patent? I'd like to understand what it means if I do&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sign it. If they did sell it, would I not get any royalties?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most likely they are doing it because they need your signatures to file the application. Whether or not they sell the potential patent makes no difference to you as you don't own the invention. I'm not sure why you think you deserve royalties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do I have to sign this assignment?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - I realize that I may have agreed to assign my patent rights, I    haven't actually looked at the text in the original contract.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - What if they can't provide my signed initial employment contract?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is you can refuse if you want, but it won't really stop them from pursuing the patent application. For the rest, I can't offer an opinion as I'm not a lawyer. You could ask for compensation for your time. If it were me, I'd like to review the patent application if I'm an inventor to make sure it is accurate and not missing something important. I'd charge my usual consulting fee." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22564" RevisionGUID="1ebb5449-9a0e-42a7-864c-a282e7ff52cf" CreationDate="2020-08-31T20:27:56.863" UserId="24568" Comment="edited body" Text="My previous employer (I quit ~3 years ago) had an IP law firm reach out to me to ask me to sign a &quot;COMPLETE ASSIGNMENT OF PATENT RIGHTS DEED&quot;.  The patent was eventually issued in the US, and the company is listed as the assignee and I am one of the inventors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their e-mail states that the company is pursuing a patent application in India and that the Indian Patent Office requires each inventor to assign their rights in the application to the company so that the company may pursue this application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Are they possibly using this as a reason to get me to sign it and maybe sell the patent?  I'd like to understand what it means if I do sign it.  If they did sell it, would I not get any royalties?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Do I have to sign this assignment?&#xD;&#xA;    - I realize that I *may* have agreed to assign my patent rights, I haven't actually looked at the text in the original contract&#xD;&#xA;    - What if they can't provide my signed initial employment contract?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22566" RevisionGUID="0034f516-06bb-4403-836d-52fff37f1501" CreationDate="2020-09-01T05:06:13.057" UserId="20047" Text="Do I have to claim future applications of an intervention? Do I need an application at all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this [article][1] it is written: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Zwar wird in Patentanmeldungen üblicherweise nur eine Erfindung&#xD;&#xA;&gt; beschrieben, jedoch werden in den Patentansprüchen (englisch: claims),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; speziell wenn eine grundsätzliche Idee beansprucht werden soll, oft&#xD;&#xA;&gt; alle möglichen Implementierungen und (auch erst in Zukunft entdeckte)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Verwendungen der Idee beansprucht. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Although patent applications usually describe only one invention, claims, especially when a basic idea is to be claimed, often claim all&#xD;&#xA;&gt; possible implementations and (even future discovered) uses of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought only for medical applications like the use of drugs it is possible to claim an existing patent for a different application.&#xD;&#xA;But for a, let's assume some mechanical component or whatsoever, I have to foresee all possible applications? Otherwise it is free to use (for a specific non-claimed application) for everyone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentrecht_(Deutschland)#Einf%C3%BChrung" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61514" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22566" RevisionGUID="0034f516-06bb-4403-836d-52fff37f1501" CreationDate="2020-09-01T05:06:13.057" UserId="20047" Text="Should a patent claim (all) possible applications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61515" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22566" RevisionGUID="0034f516-06bb-4403-836d-52fff37f1501" CreationDate="2020-09-01T05:06:13.057" UserId="20047" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;germany&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22567" RevisionGUID="63a9ffc4-b8fa-4124-a513-5b29e15198a0" CreationDate="2020-09-01T12:55:12.810" UserId="24571" Text="I am a Natural Language Processing / Machine Learning person and I'm starting to explore the patent world. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there are huge repositories for patents, I was wondering if any other useful information could be extracted from there. Which patent-related question might be interesting for you? This can be anything from &quot;Is there any trend/new concept/new industry which is emerging?&quot; to &quot;Can I know the intended use of the invention automatically?&quot; to anything, really. Do you think something is lacking or is still not good enough?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking for any answer, no matter how simple or overcomplicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61517" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22567" RevisionGUID="63a9ffc4-b8fa-4124-a513-5b29e15198a0" CreationDate="2020-09-01T12:55:12.810" UserId="24571" Text="What information would you like to extract from patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61518" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22567" RevisionGUID="63a9ffc4-b8fa-4124-a513-5b29e15198a0" CreationDate="2020-09-01T12:55:12.810" UserId="24571" Text="&lt;general&gt;&lt;text-analysis&gt;&lt;meta-question&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22568" RevisionGUID="996241c6-0195-4472-826c-4f7b08ec620d" CreationDate="2020-09-01T12:56:33.527" UserId="17003" Text="I'm not a lawyer, but here is my take. A patent only protects what is in the claims. If you don't claim it, you don't own it. Thus, it is usually a good idea to attempt to claim useful permutations of the invention. This doesn't mean you will get every claim awarded, but you certainly won't get what you don't attempt to claim. Now the rest of the application needs to support the claims which is why some, if not most, patent attorneys draft the claims first when writing an application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But for a, let's assume some mechanical component or whatsoever, I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have to foresee all possible applications? Otherwise it is free to use&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (for a specific non-claimed application) for everyone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone finds a use for your invention that isn't protected by a claim, then yes it is free for them to use it. Not only that, they might even be able to get a patent on that new use and keep you from your own invention in the new way. Having a claim publish in an application, even if it doesn't get granted might help protect against this. This is one reason I always council inventors to work with a patent attorney or agent, especially with inventions that have potentially a wide range of uses. Patenting often is best pursued with strategic thinking which might mean several patents that complement each other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22569" RevisionGUID="f9a55a94-45d2-4dda-96fc-4fe9d614e17e" CreationDate="2020-09-01T13:12:43.100" UserId="17003" Text="Usually when I'm searching patents, it is because I'm looking for what is called &quot;prior art&quot;. In other words I have a technology in mind and I'm looking for patents or applications that are highly relevant. This is tricky to do with keyword searches because not everyone uses the same keywords. Indeed, sometimes patent lawyers intentionally use uncommon terms to describe the invention. There may be good legal reasons for this obfuscation, but it is annoying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My process is generally iterative where I search broadly, quickly scan the results and then use the most relevant identified documents to help target the search by doing things like searching for other patents/applications by the same inventors, classification codes, assignees, etc. I once used a software package called by [Invention Machine Goldfire][1] that purported to use AI to provide natural language &quot;semantic&quot; search for patents. Try as I might, I didn't find that aspect of the package very helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://invention-machine.com/factsheet_GoldfireInnovator.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22571" RevisionGUID="c0bfe22e-6978-436a-9a99-c5ff938ee9c2" CreationDate="2020-09-01T16:19:35.967" UserId="24573" Text="&gt; Are they possibly using this as a reason to get me to sign it and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maybe sell the patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually, when we do this it's because paperwork got misplaced in an acquisition or otherwise. The per-patent assignment (at least for us) is a second layer of protection, as our employment agreement requires the employee to assign all relevant IP rights to the company. This is a standard clause that is in most employment agreements for any reasonably large company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you mention below, you may, in fact, have an ongoing requirement from your employment contract to assign that patent to the company. It would depend on the specific wording of the employment agreement and on the jurisdiction as to whether and how it would be enforceable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'd like to understand what it means if I do sign it. If they did sell&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it, would I not get any royalties? Do I have to sign this assignment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're not going to be getting royalties. Unless you can resolve the ownership issue in your favor (unlikely) and want to spend a large amount of time and effort shopping the patent around to competitors, nobody's going to pay you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you have to sign the assignment? Depends on your employment contract. I guess the worst that could happen if you refused to sign is that you're in breach of that contract. Are they going to take you to court because of that? Probably not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They (the IP department) usually have alternative ways of resolving the issue (e.g. submitting the employment agreement instead of the assignment), if necessary. Practically, you're going to end up in the same place either way (they will own your stake in the patent), but not signing creates work and annoyance for their IP department. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I realize that I may have agreed to assign my patent rights, I haven't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; actually looked at the text in the original contract What if they&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can't provide my signed initial employment contract?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've heard of a small payment being tendered in exchange for the signature when the company didn't have a copy of the inventor's employment agreement. The company still most likely would've prevailed in court, but a few hundred dollars was worth it to clear the cloud on the title without having to get the litigation team involved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61527" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22499" RevisionGUID="db08940f-df9a-4f17-8f66-6901a7546870" CreationDate="2020-09-02T03:04:55.553" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22572" RevisionGUID="bf9d213c-9d85-4694-ab4d-4c5c6e1d4bc8" CreationDate="2020-09-03T12:39:34.830" UserId="24529" Text="If the IP office that received my first application as a rule do not conduct prior art search, how will I be able to attach prior art search results in foreign applications that claim priority to that first one (which in needed in some IP offices when an application claiming priority over foreign one is filed)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61529" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22572" RevisionGUID="bf9d213c-9d85-4694-ab4d-4c5c6e1d4bc8" CreationDate="2020-09-03T12:39:34.830" UserId="24529" Text="If the IP office receiving my first application do not conduct prior art search, how will I attach prior art search results in foreign application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61530" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22572" RevisionGUID="bf9d213c-9d85-4694-ab4d-4c5c6e1d4bc8" CreationDate="2020-09-03T12:39:34.830" UserId="24529" Text="&lt;priority&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22573" RevisionGUID="6661c87c-3581-45c3-a201-f245f8cc81d5" CreationDate="2020-09-03T13:10:23.120" UserId="24552" Text="Is there a way to find most important patents for any company for example: Apple or any other company?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On google patents, I can search for patents assigned to a particular company, is there a way to sort them using citations, which might reflect the importance of the patents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61532" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22573" RevisionGUID="6661c87c-3581-45c3-a201-f245f8cc81d5" CreationDate="2020-09-03T13:10:23.120" UserId="24552" Text="Finding most important patent of a company" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61533" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22573" RevisionGUID="6661c87c-3581-45c3-a201-f245f8cc81d5" CreationDate="2020-09-03T13:10:23.120" UserId="24552" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;google-patents&gt;&lt;citation&gt;&lt;important&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22574" RevisionGUID="83880d8a-8759-46de-8be9-4bc26d5f2541" CreationDate="2020-09-03T14:06:51.417" UserId="17003" Text="I like [The Lens][1] for patent searching. It has a lot more features than Google Patents and if you create an account, which is totally free, you get yet more features. You can search by patent owner and can sort by number of citations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WolIt.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22575" RevisionGUID="7c1614ec-cddc-4f6a-8abd-1689d60627a6" CreationDate="2020-09-03T15:03:18.490" UserId="24580" Text="After a patent is filed, the USPTO typically mails back the filing receipt before assigning the patent to an examiner. &#xD;&#xA;How long does it typically take to assign an examiner?&#xD;&#xA;When/how does the inventor first learn who the examiner is?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61536" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22575" RevisionGUID="7c1614ec-cddc-4f6a-8abd-1689d60627a6" CreationDate="2020-09-03T15:03:18.490" UserId="24580" Text="When does an inventor first learn who is her patent examiner?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61537" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22575" RevisionGUID="7c1614ec-cddc-4f6a-8abd-1689d60627a6" CreationDate="2020-09-03T15:03:18.490" UserId="24580" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;examiner&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22577" RevisionGUID="15302594-601c-4bd6-bd4a-fa6024828b93" CreationDate="2020-09-03T20:43:46.850" UserId="3076" Text="The comments have gotten confusing. First, something fundamental that often gets misunderstood. Your patent doesn't entitle you to do *anything* at all. Patent owners can only (attempt to) stop others from practicing the patent. Patents are a right to exclude, not to perform. There may be patents of others that would be infringed by practicing your patent or even laws that would be broken in the process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, there is a difference between a claim to a *thing*, a device for example, and a particular *method of use* of a thing. If you claim the device as a thing then any future system that contains that device will infringe your device claim regardless of the purpose/use of that future device. This is the case in all patent jurisdictions. If you patent a widget then no one can make, offer for sale, sell, import or use a widget without your OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A granted apparatus claim might be - &quot;I claim a device that has the following structure . . . &quot;.  That claim wording does not claim any specific method of using the device but the physical device itself. Anyone with a novel use of the device in the future might get a patent on that novel use. But, in using it, they need to physically have a device. That's how you get them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A different claim type is a method claim. &quot;I claim the method of (a) putting a widget under a board (b) balancing on the board . . . &quot; this does not protect making, selling, importing the widget or protect uses of a widget in general - only the specific use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you patent the thing and someone later patents a specific novel use for your thing they can't practice their patent without your OK becasue it involves a use of your thing. Neither can you practice their patent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22577" RevisionGUID="9c617928-6f2e-461a-a238-c06cc78edcfc" CreationDate="2020-09-03T21:05:17.100" UserId="3076" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The comments have gotten confusing. First, something fundamental that often gets misunderstood. Your patent doesn't entitle you to do *anything* at all. Patent owners can only (attempt to) stop others from practicing the patent. Patents are a right to exclude, not to perform. There may be patents of others that would be infringed by practicing your patent or even laws that would be broken in the process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, there is a difference between a claim to a *thing*, a device for example, and a particular *method of use* of a thing. If you claim the device as a thing then any future system that contains that device will infringe your device claim regardless of the purpose/use of that future device. This is the case in all patent jurisdictions. If you patent a widget then no one can make, offer for sale, sell, import or *use* a widget without your OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A granted apparatus claim might be - &quot;I claim a device that has the following structure . . . &quot;.  That claim wording does not claim any specific method of using the device but the physical device itself. Anyone with a novel use of the device in the future might get a patent on that novel use. But, in using it, they need to physically have a device. That's how you get them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A different claim type is a method claim. &quot;I claim the method of (a) putting a widget under a board (b) balancing on the board . . . &quot; this does not protect making, selling, importing the widget or protect uses of a widget in general - only the specific use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you patent the thing and someone later patents a specific novel use for your thing they can't practice their patent without your OK becasue it involves a use of your thing. Neither can you practice their patent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22577" RevisionGUID="617d4a71-295c-491c-8f26-c36d61f7938e" CreationDate="2020-09-03T23:54:55.983" UserId="3076" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="The comments have gotten confusing. First, something fundamental that often gets misunderstood. Your patent doesn't entitle you to do *anything* at all. Patent owners can only (attempt to) stop others from practicing the patent. Patents are a right to exclude, not to perform. There may be patents of others that would be infringed by practicing your patent or even laws that would be broken in the process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, there is a difference between a claim to a *thing*, a device for example, and a particular *method of use* of a thing. If you claim the device as a thing then any future system that contains that device will infringe your device claim regardless of the purpose/use of that future device. This is the case in all patent jurisdictions. If you patent a widget then no one can make, offer for sale, sell, import or *use* a widget without your OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A granted apparatus claim might be - &quot;I claim a device that has the following structure . . . &quot;.  That claim wording does not claim any specific method of using the device but the physical device itself. Anyone with a novel use of the device in the future might get a patent on that novel use. But, in using it, they need to physically have a device. That's how you get them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A different claim type is a method claim. &quot;I claim the method of (a) putting a widget under a board (b) balancing on the board . . . &quot; this does not protect making, selling, importing the widget or protect uses of a widget in general - only the specific use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you patent the thing and someone later patents a specific novel use for your thing they can't practice their patent without your OK if your patent is still in force becasue it involves a use of your thing. Neither can you practice their patent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61546" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22568" RevisionGUID="26a63946-43d5-47ac-9023-030103d71ea5" CreationDate="2020-09-04T00:58:44.927" UserId="17003" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="I'm not a lawyer, but here is my take. A patent only protects what is in the claims. If you don't claim it, you don't own it. Thus, it is usually a good idea to attempt to claim useful permutations of the invention. This doesn't mean you will get every claim awarded, but you certainly won't get what you don't attempt to claim. Now the rest of the application needs to support the claims which is why some, if not most, patent attorneys draft the claims first when writing an application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But for a, let's assume some mechanical component or whatsoever, I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have to foresee all possible applications? Otherwise it is free to use&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (for a specific non-claimed application) for everyone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone finds a use for your invention that isn't protected by a claim, then that application may be free for them to use. It would depend on whether you have a claim on just the device and not just applications of the device. They might even be able to get a patent on that new use and keep you from using your own invention in the new way. Having a claim publish in an application, even if it doesn't get granted might help protect against this. This is one reason I always council inventors to work with a patent attorney or agent, especially with inventions that have potentially a wide range of uses. Patenting often is best pursued with strategic thinking which might mean several patents that complement each other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22578" RevisionGUID="3f3f9a8c-d6f1-4ce8-ba78-7384a85345c9" CreationDate="2020-09-04T12:38:06.200" UserId="24529" Text="I've made drawings to my patent application, presenting exemplary embodiment of a distributed network of nodes. I have few questions:&#xD;&#xA;1. Must the system diagrams, illustrating nodes in distributed network, be presented as hollow, rectangular shapes? I made them as hollow, elliptic shapes, is it important?&#xD;&#xA;2. I didn't include any words or letters in those elliptic shapes, like &quot;Node 1&quot;, &quot;Node Alice&quot; or whatever. I left them completely hollow, because I feel that if everything is described in drawing's description, and the shapes themselves are referenced by numbers, there is no need to put anything in those shapes (they are clearly described as to what they are in the description itself). But I saw in other patent drawings that shapes are &quot;named&quot;, even in presence of reference numbers. Why is that? Is it necessary?&#xD;&#xA;3. In my drawings I always use an exemplary embodiment. For example, I'm presenting a network composed of 3 nodes only. And I use commonly used exemplary names for those nodes, like &quot;Alice&quot;, &quot;Bob&quot;, &quot;Carol&quot;. Is using names like those clearly &quot;only exemplary&quot; and won't cause problems (like someone saying that claimed invention uses precisely nodes named &quot;Alice&quot; or &quot;Bob&quot;, so to design around you will only need to change the names of node)? It might seem a stupid question, but I'm really not sure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61548" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22578" RevisionGUID="3f3f9a8c-d6f1-4ce8-ba78-7384a85345c9" CreationDate="2020-09-04T12:38:06.200" UserId="24529" Text="What are the rules for drawing a system diagram in patent drawings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61549" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22578" RevisionGUID="3f3f9a8c-d6f1-4ce8-ba78-7384a85345c9" CreationDate="2020-09-04T12:38:06.200" UserId="24529" Text="&lt;patent-drawings&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22579" RevisionGUID="3aed5996-a149-45aa-bed7-3d0eb0118e90" CreationDate="2020-09-04T13:19:04.360" UserId="24529" Text="I will publish patent application and I want to share my invention with others right after that. I want to see if there will be any interest from investors. Are there any dangers associated with such a disclosure (as the priority date is granted already)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61551" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22579" RevisionGUID="3aed5996-a149-45aa-bed7-3d0eb0118e90" CreationDate="2020-09-04T13:19:04.360" UserId="24529" Text="Is it a good idea to publish the white paper describing the technology right after filing patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61552" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22579" RevisionGUID="3aed5996-a149-45aa-bed7-3d0eb0118e90" CreationDate="2020-09-04T13:19:04.360" UserId="24529" Text="&lt;disclosure&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22580" RevisionGUID="af12867e-9c61-40b5-a1c5-67ff5d472ad8" CreationDate="2020-09-04T14:35:44.350" UserId="22334" Text="If you were to file another application claiming priority from the first patent application, and you were to further add new embodiments in that another application, then the publication of the white paper will be prior art against those new embodiments in countries/regions where you do not have a grace period. This means that claims directed to those new embodiments might not be novel or non-obvious over your white paper. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many factors that should be taken into account when deciding whether the publication is a good idea or a bad idea: the patent application itself, the technology of the invention, competitors, business model, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22581" RevisionGUID="8a87f081-ca0e-41a6-b6b5-8727fe5eadc4" CreationDate="2020-09-04T16:58:53.823" UserId="3076" Text="There are rules for drawings but none require a particular shape to depict a representation of part of a system. While block are often named there is no requirement to do so. In fact for international purposes it is recommended not to becasue drawings do not get translated, unlike text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And no one will get around a good claim by calling a subsystem &quot;Sam&quot; instead of &quot;Bob. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61555" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="22579" RevisionGUID="f234c331-d856-4916-afab-c667fbc700fd" CreationDate="2020-09-04T21:22:47.657" />
  <row Id="61556" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20013" RevisionGUID="002398de-7af4-4799-87a7-f986bde1ef1d" CreationDate="2020-09-04T23:04:30.380" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61557" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10142" RevisionGUID="cfe02872-2600-4454-81af-89e4b8d9e1a5" CreationDate="2020-09-05T03:03:35.420" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61558" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11975" RevisionGUID="cbf85a38-2ebf-4e33-b5dd-22c488474a3a" CreationDate="2020-09-05T04:05:45.443" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22568" RevisionGUID="f92163c8-bfd5-48e1-afa5-c124c469fe3d" CreationDate="2020-09-05T04:10:53.073" UserId="3076" Comment="clariied  that a device claim covers all uses of the device." Text="I'm not a lawyer, but here is my take. A patent only protects what is in the claims. If you don't claim it, you don't own it. Thus, it is usually a good idea to attempt to claim useful permutations of the invention. This doesn't mean you will get every claim awarded, but you certainly won't get what you don't attempt to claim. Now the rest of the application needs to support the claims which is why some, if not most, patent attorneys draft the claims first when writing an application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But for a, let's assume some mechanical component or whatsoever, I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have to foresee all possible applications? Otherwise it is free to use&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (for a specific non-claimed application) for everyone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone finds a use for your invention that isn't protected by a use/method claim *and you do not have a device claim*, then that application may be free for them to use. With a device claim all uses of the device would be protected.&#xD;&#xA;They might even be able to get a patent on that new use and keep you from using your own invention in the new way. Having a claim publish in an application, even if it doesn't get granted might help protect against this. This is one reason I always council inventors to work with a patent attorney or agent, especially with inventions that have potentially a wide range of uses. Patenting often is best pursued with strategic thinking which might mean several patents that complement each other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22582" RevisionGUID="8fddc446-a77c-4c47-a996-8c1002ff33c8" CreationDate="2020-09-05T12:11:18.073" UserId="24578" Text="Must the system diagrams, illustrating nodes in distributed network, be presented as hollow, rectangular shapes? I made them as hollow, elliptic shapes, is it important? - In utility patent application shape do not matter only function matters, if a function can be achieved in a particular shape then use that shape otherwise in the description you can write shape can by in any form like hallo or rectangle etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for your question2 - you should not include a description in drawings according to USPTO rules, you can refer to [USPTO rules /requirements on patent drawings][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for your question3 - the names of nodes will not limit your protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://invention-patent-drawings.com/patent-drawings-rules/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22582" RevisionGUID="fed32148-2682-469d-b2ca-145ef6faf98b" CreationDate="2020-09-05T15:18:45.390" UserId="17003" Comment="Added quoting" Text="&gt; Must the system diagrams, illustrating nodes in distributed network,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be presented as hollow, rectangular shapes? I made them as hollow,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; elliptic shapes, is it important? - In utility patent application&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shape do not matter only function matters, if a function can be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; achieved in a particular shape then use that shape otherwise in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; description you can write shape can by in any form like hallo or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rectangle etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your question 2 - you should not include a description in drawings according to USPTO rules, you can refer to [USPTO rules /requirements on patent drawings][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your question 3 - the names of nodes will not limit your protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://invention-patent-drawings.com/patent-drawings-rules/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22583" RevisionGUID="e7f2b654-a0fb-467c-b746-6d6a2243667b" CreationDate="2020-09-06T06:01:52.713" UserId="24578" Text="In utility patent if similar parts are there then you can label them once, it is sufficient." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22585" RevisionGUID="4e486557-c887-43d8-a1ce-9499cb8a3542" CreationDate="2020-09-06T06:26:51.277" UserId="24578" Text="The more complicated we make to understand drawings then there are high chances that even the examiner will get confused and issue an office action on it. The basic necessity of patent application is it should enable a person skilled in the art to understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using numbers than characters are preferable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22586" RevisionGUID="dd9c179d-b2da-4ffb-868e-9207c36e260a" CreationDate="2020-09-06T06:30:38.927" UserId="24578" Text="I have seen many office actions on design patent applications that we have worked over years, In most cases examiner will not allow reclaiming a portion of the design by converting broken line to solid line." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22587" RevisionGUID="6de133b1-683e-4435-8e59-e983fc331f2a" CreationDate="2020-09-06T06:34:02.800" UserId="24578" Text="As correctly pointed by Maca, surface shading is not required as long as drawings are clear without it. I have made hundreds of design patent drawings and several of them are without shading. It all depends on the design at hand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61577" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="24fdfde8-adfc-4422-bebe-5da8cac92960" CreationDate="2020-09-06T23:06:15.817" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22592" RevisionGUID="1d85232b-536f-462e-8f5b-dcbb5c5bbe67" CreationDate="2020-09-07T08:39:35.323" UserId="22797" Text="My question is very simple, I have an idea, I constructed the machine, it works. Now, the question is does it worth patenting it? I mean, the amount of money in order to patent is not little for me where I live (EU country). Moreover every year (for the next 20 years) I should pay an amount of money that increases in every year..! So, how can I find out if the market is going to buy the machine (the patent) I thought of??" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61583" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22592" RevisionGUID="1d85232b-536f-462e-8f5b-dcbb5c5bbe67" CreationDate="2020-09-07T08:39:35.323" UserId="22797" Text="How to find if my idea for a machine that I have created, worths patenting it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61584" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22592" RevisionGUID="1d85232b-536f-462e-8f5b-dcbb5c5bbe67" CreationDate="2020-09-07T08:39:35.323" UserId="22797" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22593" RevisionGUID="da4f5a2d-16d9-4406-9206-8bc9026f8c9e" CreationDate="2020-09-07T14:00:19.730" UserId="24529" Text="According to the patent law, &quot; applicant may use terms in a manner contrary to or inconsistent with one or more of their ordinary meanings if the written description clearly redefines the terms.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;This has to be done by expressing such intentions in the patent application and providing custom definitions with reasonable clarity and precision. One way of achieving this is to include all definitions in the patent application, and ensuring that such terms are used while drafting claims as well.&#xD;&#xA;If I want to use highly abstract terms, invented by and unused in the field that my application relates to, how exactly should I technically do it in my application? How should I include all definitions in the patent application and where? And if I will do that and I will use these terms in my claims, are there any restrictions or risks associated with that?&#xD;&#xA;Is the right to be my own lexicographer recognized internationally in patent laws or just in U.S.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61586" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22593" RevisionGUID="da4f5a2d-16d9-4406-9206-8bc9026f8c9e" CreationDate="2020-09-07T14:00:19.730" UserId="24529" Text="What are the rules regarding the applicant being his own lexicographer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61587" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22593" RevisionGUID="da4f5a2d-16d9-4406-9206-8bc9026f8c9e" CreationDate="2020-09-07T14:00:19.730" UserId="24529" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22594" RevisionGUID="f4c6f222-5f24-4202-a376-03b0cfcce931" CreationDate="2020-09-07T14:02:34.983" UserId="17003" Text="It is actually a very hard question. It is also probably off topic as it is really a business question rather than a patent question. Regardless, I'll give you a few thoughts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, your machine may or may not be patentable. Just because you don't see it in the market doesn't mean someone hasn't already patented it. It might not even be considered sufficiently inventive. You should try searching for similar technologies on [Google Patents][1] or [The Lens][2]. This takes some work and there are answers on this site related to doing patent searching.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have worked for startup companies. Valuation is maybe the biggest question. You have to predict sales, manufacturing and sales expenses, etc. to figure this out and there is no way we can help with this. A lot of inventors team up with business people with startup experience. You don't need a patent to do this, but you should have a non-disclosure agreement with whoever you show your machine to. If you get investors then you can use that money to pursue a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22595" RevisionGUID="819f2f89-bb8b-42b8-b869-7555ce316a15" CreationDate="2020-09-07T14:17:06.290" UserId="24578" Text="By law, patent applications need to include at least one patent drawing if the object or process is capable of being rendered in an illustration. However, it’s always worthwhile to try and include a patent drawing if at all possible, even if for a particular patent application it’s not strictly required. For example, if you’re claiming a method or process a drawing might not be technically required, but some kind of illustration – a flowchart or diagram perhaps – will strengthen the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though the rules may require only one drawing under normal circumstances, your patent application will be much stronger with more drawings. Drawings are not only helpful in getting your patent approved, they can be important if your patent is ever involved in a lawsuit. If an important detail was left out of the written description of the patent, drawings can still disclose what’s in the patent. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the primary appeals court for patent cases, often refers to drawings as part of their deliberations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22596" RevisionGUID="747c951c-1b4d-4dd9-b4dd-25a267970ca6" CreationDate="2020-09-07T14:21:31.000" UserId="24578" Text="For the purpose of submitting Invention to your organization, you can give hand drawings or any drawings that you have (photograph or CAD drawings etc) your patent department will do the necessary drawings according to USPTO rules." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22597" RevisionGUID="6c1f27af-cda9-4207-899f-767d3bb854a7" CreationDate="2020-09-07T14:28:19.430" UserId="24578" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SscBM.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please refer to https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule#:~:text=Patent%20Fees,-The%20fees%20subject&amp;text=The%20%24400%2F%24200%20non,in%20paper%20with%20the%20USPTO. Please note that this size and fees associated with size keep changing from time to time so check for the latest information. As on September 7th 2020 this information is valid" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22598" RevisionGUID="ae94139a-7e77-4c82-bc1d-fee2e369e448" CreationDate="2020-09-07T14:40:03.627" UserId="24578" Text="You can include definitions at the beginning of the patent application and use it subsequently. Dictionary words will always help in courts if you enforce your patent rights or if your patent validity is challenged.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22600" RevisionGUID="39dd0355-4ae4-44a7-b6bd-bc1a287f93dc" CreationDate="2020-09-07T17:08:16.160" UserId="3076" Text="Precise definitions are a risk. Real words have nuance and interpretation. If you have a concisely worded formal definition you have little leeway to argue later and can give an infringer a blueprint for designing around your claims. Something less than a formal definition might be a better approach." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22601" RevisionGUID="8f630576-0693-496e-9e98-43587e892830" CreationDate="2020-09-08T04:12:13.673" UserId="24603" Text="The definition of special terms belongs in your Written Description. Then your Claims (which aren’t required for a provisional patent by the way) will be interpreted in view of the definitions in the description, as long as those definitions are clear to a PHOSITA (“person having ordinary skill in the art”).&#xA;&#xA;If you litigate, there will be a claims construction phase. The only way I could imagine your custom definitions will not hold up is if they are contradictory or unclear, such that a PHOSITA would not understand them. &#xA;&#xA;This will suffice internationally. &#xA;&#xA;*Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but do IP expert witness work.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22601" RevisionGUID="dcb4990d-8774-4137-9a06-f25e74503b85" CreationDate="2020-09-08T06:02:48.177" UserId="24603" Comment="deleted 31 characters in body" Text="The definition of special terms belongs in your Written Description. Then your Claims (which aren’t required for a provisional patent by the way) will be interpreted in view of the definitions in the description, as long as those definitions are clear to a PHOSITA (“person having ordinary skill in the art”).&#xA;&#xA;If you litigate, there will be a claims construction phase. The only way I could imagine your custom definitions will not hold up is if they are contradictory or unclear, such that a PHOSITA would not understand them. &#xA;&#xA;This will suffice internationally. &#xA;&#xA;*Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22602" RevisionGUID="80278eb0-208e-4b4f-805d-64f19b8dc6d1" CreationDate="2020-09-08T14:05:59.277" UserId="24607" Text="I know some algorithms are patentable, but not sure what are the resctrictions and limitation for this.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is specific for a trading indicator, something like MACD, or RSI etc, is possible to patent those things?    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:   &#xD;&#xA;1) Calculate the average of the last N1 and N2 (customizable) prices&#xD;&#xA;2) Plot those averages together in the same chart&#xD;&#xA;3) Show a BUY signal when they cross&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is something like that patentable? and if yes, it makes sense to patent it or anybody can change a very small part to null the patent, for example &quot;add 0.01% to every average calculated in step 1&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, I want to protect the indicator from someone else selling it (or publishing it for free), not from someone who is using that in" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61602" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22602" RevisionGUID="80278eb0-208e-4b4f-805d-64f19b8dc6d1" CreationDate="2020-09-08T14:05:59.277" UserId="24607" Text="Is possible to patent a trading algorithm (indicator)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61603" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22602" RevisionGUID="80278eb0-208e-4b4f-805d-64f19b8dc6d1" CreationDate="2020-09-08T14:05:59.277" UserId="24607" Text="&lt;algorithms&gt;&lt;patenting-an-algorithm&gt;&lt;algorihm&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22603" RevisionGUID="b5d57bdd-991f-4ecc-928b-a032c497f784" CreationDate="2020-09-08T18:07:32.640" UserId="17003" Text="As George White stated with the same question on the Law SE site, it is very tricky to get an algorithm based patent. To get one with any real protection probably requires an accomplished patent attorney and would cost quite a bit. You'll have to file for each country you want protection in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you don't seem to be interested in monetizing the algorithm, I'd suggest just publishing it. This gains you a copyright. More importantly it keeps anyone else from attempting to patent the same algorithm. If you code up the algorithm and publish the code with an open source license, anyone could use it free of charge. There would be little incentive to purchase it which should keep people from trying to sell it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you would like to monetize the algorithm it might be better to try to keep it as a trade secret and sell it as a web service. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22604" RevisionGUID="0cc59794-569b-4dee-bd18-b04002f3665d" CreationDate="2020-09-08T18:12:23.073" UserId="3076" Text="It might be patentable but it would take very careful claiming to not be considered abstract.  As an integral part of the patenting process your application will be published. If a patent is granted one has the right to try to stop people from making, selling, offering for sale, importing or using the invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You say that you would allow people to perform the method without any restriction so I guess you could control someone making software that performed the method or offering a service that did it. Your idea might be to license the right to offer that service. If end users are allowed to do it for themselves that might not be very lucrative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22603" RevisionGUID="7b2c1275-1c62-42fb-bd73-fe8bb54abb01" CreationDate="2020-09-08T18:26:34.110" UserId="17003" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="As George White stated with the same question on the Law SE site, it is very tricky to get an algorithm based patent. To get one with any real protection probably requires an accomplished patent attorney and would cost quite a bit. You'll have to file for each country you want protection in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you don't seem to be interested in monetizing the algorithm, I'd suggest just publishing it. This gains you a copyright. More importantly it keeps anyone else from attempting to patent the same algorithm. If you code up the algorithm and publish the code with an open source license, anyone could use it free of charge. There would be little incentive to purchase it which should keep people from trying to sell it. Name the algorithm after yourself and perhaps you can become famous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you would like to monetize the algorithm it might be better to try to keep it as a trade secret and sell it as a web service. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22601" RevisionGUID="4b178af5-9325-4473-964c-78815493ff51" CreationDate="2020-09-08T19:00:24.780" UserId="24603" Comment="added 491 characters in body" Text="The definition of special terms belongs in your Written Description. Then your Claims (which aren’t required for a provisional patent by the way) will be interpreted in view of the definitions in the description, as long as those definitions are clear to a PHOSITA (“person having ordinary skill in the art”).&#xA;&#xA;If you litigate, there will be a claims construction phase. The only way I could imagine your custom definitions will not hold up is if they are contradictory or unclear, such that a PHOSITA would not understand them. &#xA;&#xA;This will suffice internationally.&#xA;&#xA;UPDATE: If you do define your own terms, or even if you use standard terms with some nuance, explicit definitions will be valuable to you in the event of infringement or invalidity litigation. You will save legal expense and increase the chance of a successful outcome in a Markman hearing (the courtroom proceeding that settles claim constructions). Explicit definitions will make it much harder for the opposing side to construe claim terms in a different way that may harm your position.&#xA;&#xA;*Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22606" RevisionGUID="e96219a4-98da-43fa-957b-db550735c559" CreationDate="2020-09-08T20:48:57.397" UserId="24603" Text="Some ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Every patent description contains a list of references to Related patents and other prior art. A complete survey of the relationships between patents and other prior art could produce a fascinating and useful interactive explorable map.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The claims themselves are composed in dense language, and at first blush appear to be ill suited to machine learning. But if you could parse and interpret the claims via references first to supporting language in the patent description and second to similar language in the Related patents, you might derive some machine understanding of the claims. This would be a big research project though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Qualifications such as &quot;means or step plus function&quot; limitations in a claim have specific significance in patent law. Just determining and presenting those qualifications would yield a valuable tool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Each patent's prosecution history contains important information, ranging from derivation from a provisional to correspondence with the examiner to inter partes reviews. A tool that lets you see the highlights of that history at a glance would be awesome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. A patent often relies on assumptions about prior art that have been disproven in the prosecution or litigation of other patents. Digging that up is time consuming and complicated; a dedicated tool could help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Federal court docket trackers like DocketNavigator and DrugPatentWatch let you explore events in patent litigation. But they don't provide insights. AI could help with that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61614" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="22602" RevisionGUID="052802cc-0610-40d4-9c90-b4c43726b180" CreationDate="2020-09-08T22:08:45.560" />
  <row Id="61615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22604" RevisionGUID="ba144660-bdac-462f-a256-1ae80351501c" CreationDate="2020-09-08T23:55:45.120" UserId="3076" Comment="added 638 characters in body" Text="It might be patentable but it would take very careful claiming to not be considered abstract.  As an integral part of the patenting process your application will be published. If a patent is granted one has the right to try to stop people from making, selling, offering for sale, importing or using the invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You say that you would allow people to perform the method without any restriction so I guess you could control someone making software that performed the method or offering a service that did it. Your idea might be to license the right to offer that service. If end users are allowed to do it for themselves that might not be very lucrative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see from a comment that it is not that you want to let people use it without restriction but you misunderstand patent law and think you can't control use. To the contrary - a patent gives you the right to control making, selling, offering for sale, importing **and using**. This is very important to inventions that are methods, like yours. Independent development does not give someone the right to practice a patent. (There is something like this for copyrights which might be confusing.) Of course if someone independently developed it before you did, and made it public then your patent would be subject to invalidation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22608" RevisionGUID="1c07347c-3bb6-4b16-bd8a-4a7c14b972df" CreationDate="2020-09-09T08:21:16.263" UserId="22334" Text="You cannot patent the process or the indicator in Europe. Neither one of those solves a technical problem, which is one of the requirements for an invention to be patentable, namely inventiveness or inventive step. Even with a highly skilled patent attorney any European patent office, including the European Patent Office, will not grant a patent because both the process and the indicator will be regarded as a method for doing business that lacks inventive step." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22609" RevisionGUID="b2bc3a1a-15ae-4473-a292-604ed86f96c8" CreationDate="2020-09-10T03:10:59.357" UserId="3076" Text="This is more modest than some of the other suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much of the patent search and examination process revolves around classes. For example new applications are assigned to examiners based on determining a class/subclass for the application. A former USPTO examiner explained that this is now done automatically based on the wording of claim 1. I think it might be useful to patent searchers to have a way to find a class from the text of a proposed claim. This can aid in searching by class.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could be approached using the published definitions of the classes or just by digesting a lot of claims and the class designation the applications were assigned to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61623" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18971" RevisionGUID="54345afc-be9e-4337-84f9-7249572e1ffc" CreationDate="2020-09-10T11:06:45.580" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61629" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18205" RevisionGUID="7af73c8c-87ff-4ac0-a735-35137730ebe2" CreationDate="2020-09-11T16:07:25.770" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22604" RevisionGUID="a565e4b4-c8e4-4b9a-890f-4b5a90fe6f7c" CreationDate="2020-09-11T20:10:04.010" UserId="3076" Comment="added 144 characters in body" Text="It might be patentable in the U.S. but it would take very careful claiming to not be considered abstract. Unlike much of the rest of the world, a patent does *not* need to be &quot;a technical solution to a technical problem&quot; in the U.S. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an integral part of the patenting process your application will be published. If a patent is granted one has the right to try to stop people from making, selling, offering for sale, importing or using the invention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You say that you would allow people to perform the method without any restriction so I guess you could control someone making software that performed the method or offering a service that did it. Your idea might be to license the right to offer that service. If end users are allowed to do it for themselves that might not be very lucrative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see from a comment that it is not that you want to let people use it without restriction but you misunderstand patent law and think you can't control use. To the contrary - a patent gives you the right to control making, selling, offering for sale, importing **and using**. This is very important to inventions that are methods, like yours. Independent development does not give someone the right to practice a patent. (There is something like this for copyrights which might be confusing.) Of course if someone independently developed it *before* you did, and made it public then your patent would be subject to invalidation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22611" RevisionGUID="6d6e5165-92d0-44b2-95e8-0431a96d55b8" CreationDate="2020-09-12T05:06:53.617" UserId="24623" Text="The US6967208 was filed in 17 Sep 2002, published in 22 Nov 2005. With 20 years from date of filing as an expiry date for a patent it would expire on 16 Sep 2022. However needed to know if there was an extension provided to this patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61632" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22611" RevisionGUID="6d6e5165-92d0-44b2-95e8-0431a96d55b8" CreationDate="2020-09-12T05:06:53.617" UserId="24623" Text="US 6967208 patent expiry details" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61633" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22611" RevisionGUID="6d6e5165-92d0-44b2-95e8-0431a96d55b8" CreationDate="2020-09-12T05:06:53.617" UserId="24623" Text="&lt;expiry&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22613" RevisionGUID="42b35d4c-ed5c-4cdb-9449-db9c97e11ee7" CreationDate="2020-09-12T14:49:41.573" UserId="17003" Text="You can check this by yourself on the [US Public Pair site][1]. Select &quot;Patent Number&quot; and enter 6967208. When the specific record is visible, click on the &quot;Patent Term Adjustments&quot; tab. When I do this I see &quot;Total PTA Adjustments:&quot; listed as 139 days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/u0VEd.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22614" RevisionGUID="5063b8af-d81b-474c-b11d-70078bacb95f" CreationDate="2020-09-12T17:18:12.650" UserId="3076" Text="One way to check this is on the face of the patent. Just above the application number. It says 139 days.[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EcoNt.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22616" RevisionGUID="9759a2ac-ab4f-4623-a757-82216e563375" CreationDate="2020-09-13T12:09:47.117" UserId="24578" Text="value is in the eye of the buyer, no one can give an answer which is either yes it is worth to patent or not it is not worth patent. worth is not only dependent on the idea alone, it also depends on what you do with the idea (patents it and make a business out of it, license it or wait for someone to approach you with funding), how market receives your idea etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is more of a business question than patent related so you take a decision." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22617" RevisionGUID="68c25b02-559b-4306-b47c-54669d8b1621" CreationDate="2020-09-13T15:51:14.773" UserId="24578" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qTtW6.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/USD829747S1/en?type=DESIGN&#xD;&#xA;above is one example of a design patent on GUI, you can also get protection on GUI using Desing patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22618" RevisionGUID="1d6afa95-0067-4a9a-af9e-0a949551aed8" CreationDate="2020-09-13T23:09:15.917" UserId="24603" Text="Others have mentioned design patents and copyright. Those are worth considering. Remember that your published work is automatically protected by copyright, but registering the copyright simplifies any litigation and in some circumstances may increase your damages.&#xA;&#xA;If you’re considering a patent, remember that the cost of actually obtaining the patent is a minuscule fraction of the amount to enforce that patent in litigation. You might spend 20K to get a patent and 2 million to prove infringement and defend an (almost) inevitable invalidity counter suit.&#xA;&#xA;Also be aware that foreign app developers may simply ignore your intellectual property protection and willfully infringe. And if you only get a US patent, they may legally infringe outside the US. In my experience, localized mobile apps may see 60-70% of their sales outside the US, so US, so you could lose significant sales that way.&#xA;&#xA;Another approach is to leverage your first mover advantage and build a strong brand around your new design. When people think of that design you want them to think of you first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22620" RevisionGUID="f36f1286-b0fd-43e5-924d-754e41ad1477" CreationDate="2020-09-14T13:13:30.020" UserId="24523" Text="As the title states. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you amend a non-provisional patent application to bring in information from referenced provisional patent applications?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: I have a figure in the provisional that was not included in the non-provisional application. But I referenced the non-provisional and claimed benefit of it. Can I later amend the non-provisional application to bring in that figure and/or other text information from that provisional app? (so as to support claims and/or amend to add new claims)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61647" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22620" RevisionGUID="f36f1286-b0fd-43e5-924d-754e41ad1477" CreationDate="2020-09-14T13:13:30.020" UserId="24523" Text="Can you amend a non-provisional patent application to bring in information from referenced provisional patent applications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61648" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22620" RevisionGUID="f36f1286-b0fd-43e5-924d-754e41ad1477" CreationDate="2020-09-14T13:13:30.020" UserId="24523" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;claim-amendment&gt;&lt;amend&gt;&lt;benefit&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22620" RevisionGUID="174adf0d-b49e-47e0-bef6-d6e2ad2fad12" CreationDate="2020-09-15T01:49:34.103" UserId="14403" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="As the title states. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you amend a non-provisional patent application to bring in information from referenced provisional patent applications?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: I have a figure in the provisional that was not included in the non-provisional application. But I referenced the provisional in my non-provisional and claimed benefit of it. Can I later amend the non-provisional application to bring in that figure and/or other text information from that provisional app? (so as to support claims and/or amend to add new claims)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22621" RevisionGUID="8f95a453-deea-4aa7-902b-e211a6dd57e1" CreationDate="2020-09-15T02:36:29.927" UserId="14403" Text="Amendment in drawing,specification and claims are allowed by USPTO to the extent that **&quot;No amendment may introduce new matter into the disclosure of an application&quot;**. [Ref][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As elucidated in your example, no new matter is likely to be introduced. Hence, amendments as envisaged by you may be attempted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Amendments are to  be carried out in compliance with [37 CFR 1.121][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actual implementation may be found to be tricky. Consulting an attorney is the best option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s714.html&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323020&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22616" RevisionGUID="26d2e1a2-8af1-4ec3-9546-736c8bd43906" CreationDate="2020-09-15T04:24:46.417" UserId="24578" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="value is in the eye of the buyer, no one can give an answer which is either yes it is worth patent or no it is not worth patent. worth is not only dependent on the idea alone, it also depends on what you do with the idea (patent it and make a business out of it, license it or wait for someone to approach you with funding), how the market receives your idea etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is more of a business question than patent related so you take a decision." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22622" RevisionGUID="8028ccee-466e-41b0-be7e-53986f8eb001" CreationDate="2020-09-15T09:07:11.570" UserId="24638" Text="I know this is quite a specialist subject but I thought there might be some pharma patent experts here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am trying to understand why when you apply for a patent for a particular therapeutic compound, patent applications tend to explicitly list many compounds (often produced by other companies) that the compound the subject matter of the application may be be combined with in the future. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, here is a patent application for anti-HIV antibodies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2020120689A/en?oq=JP2020120689A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In it they write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The antibody or fragment thereof disclosed herein can be combined with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one or more additional therapeutic agents in any dosage of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; antibody or fragment thereof (eg, 50 mg to 1000 mg of compound). Also,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the antibody or fragment thereof disclosed herein may be used at any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dosage of the antibody or fragment thereof (eg, about 0.1 mg to about&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 50 mg, or 50 mg to 4000 mg of compound per kg body weight of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; subject), It may be combined with one or more additional therapeutic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; agents.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In one embodiment, one or more of the antibodies or fragments thereof&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof disclosed herein (eg, 1,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2, 3, 1, 2 or 3, Or one to three) additional therapeutic agents and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pharmaceutical compositions containing them in combination with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, diluent or additive are provided.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In one embodiment, one or more (eg, one, two, three, one or two) of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the antibodies or fragments thereof or pharmaceutically acceptable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; salts thereof disclosed herein, Or one to three) additional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; therapeutic agents are provided&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They then go on to list almost every known HIV therapeutic that exists. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question**:&#xD;&#xA;1. Why do they need to list all the potential drugs that the compound (the subject of the patent application) may possibly be combined with to form a treatment? What would the risk be if they didn't do this? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61654" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22622" RevisionGUID="8028ccee-466e-41b0-be7e-53986f8eb001" CreationDate="2020-09-15T09:07:11.570" UserId="24638" Text="Why do pharmaceutical patents needs to list other drugs the patented drug could be combined with?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61655" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22622" RevisionGUID="8028ccee-466e-41b0-be7e-53986f8eb001" CreationDate="2020-09-15T09:07:11.570" UserId="24638" Text="&lt;medicine&gt;&lt;pharmaceutical&gt;&lt;drugpatent&gt;&lt;drug-ingredients&gt;&lt;biotechnology&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22624" RevisionGUID="bd890ec2-6af2-476d-9347-156416addd31" CreationDate="2020-09-15T17:34:49.287" UserId="20021" Text="Why exhaustively list combinations for a drug?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could be to prevent others from patenting these combinations, or to establish that they thought of these combinations first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Background:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be patentable, an invention must be **novel**, useful, and **not obvious** (sorry for yelling). By literally writing out the drugs that the compound can be used for, the inventors can prevent others from being able to argue that the combinations are novel or not obvious. Perhaps they have other patent filings in the works that claim these combinations, or maybe they just want to ensure that they have freedom to operate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22625" RevisionGUID="61415504-9783-4604-9252-dd7a544d6844" CreationDate="2020-09-15T19:13:16.693" UserId="3076" Text="Yes - the specific wording in the [MPEP at 608.01(p)][1]    Completeness of Specification is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Subject to the conditions and requirements of this paragraph, if all or a portion of the specification or drawing(s) is inadvertently omitted from an application, but the application contains a claim under § 1.55 for priority of a prior-filed foreign application, or a claim under § 1.78 for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional, nonprovisional, international application, or international design application, that was present on the filing date of the application, and the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawing(s) is completely contained in the prior-filed application, the claim under § 1.55 or 1.78 shall also be considered an incorporation by reference of the prior-filed application as to the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawing(s). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below this quote in the MPEP is more information on the required form of the amendment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/608_01_p.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22626" RevisionGUID="68ceb45e-bb87-4720-90f5-526ba2a591b2" CreationDate="2020-09-16T00:52:34.577" UserId="17003" Text="The description in the body of the application (often called the specification) should enable the claims. I looked at the corresponding claims in the [US application][1] as the Japanese claim is just &quot;1. The invention described herein.&quot;. I'm not very experienced with Japanese patents so I can comment on the claim, but in a US or European patent the claims need to be enabled by the rest of the patent. If you want to claim a combination of drugs then the specification needs to explain that. There are a lot of claims even after the first 29 were canceled. If you study them, then the construction of the rest of the application may be clearer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190211083A1/en?oq=US20190211083A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61667" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12452" RevisionGUID="2284ef91-2a3e-4440-acc6-0772589a534d" CreationDate="2020-09-16T22:06:40.673" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22629" RevisionGUID="32409b0e-b4dc-475b-adb6-f76c5dc99ca0" CreationDate="2020-09-17T15:01:26.030" UserId="24571" Text="For a research project, I need to download full-text (title, abstract, description, claims), date, and citations, for patents published in a given period (say from 2010 on) and in a given class. The text must be easy to use (i.e. no pdfs). I'm looking for something free for research.&#xD;&#xA;So far, I have found the [full texts published weekly by the USPTO](https://developer.uspto.gov/product/patent-grant-full-text-dataxml#product-files) and the [PatentsView](https://api.patentsview.org/doc.html) web search and API. However, in the first case data need to be downloaded manually for each week (I have not found a way to download multiple files at once) and in the second case I should be able to obtain the text and abstract, but not the claim and the description.&#xD;&#xA;Do you have any tool to recommend or a way to solve the problems with the ones above?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61674" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22629" RevisionGUID="32409b0e-b4dc-475b-adb6-f76c5dc99ca0" CreationDate="2020-09-17T15:01:26.030" UserId="24571" Text="Where to query and download patent full texts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61675" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22629" RevisionGUID="32409b0e-b4dc-475b-adb6-f76c5dc99ca0" CreationDate="2020-09-17T15:01:26.030" UserId="24571" Text="&lt;databases&gt;&lt;api&gt;&lt;download&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61676" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="22514" RevisionGUID="717136c3-f356-4c81-85d0-f1362e5df4aa" CreationDate="2020-09-17T15:03:30.827" UserId="24453" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;prior-art-request&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;us202023338&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22630" RevisionGUID="069e49a4-d1da-4607-8aa0-d3be2e64d6be" CreationDate="2020-09-17T15:08:31.830" UserId="24649" Text="What does &quot;Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase&quot; on google patents mean? The PCT patent application in question is from 2012 and the last status update is, that it has been published. The latest legal status update is, &quot;non entry in European phase&quot;. The corresponding US application was granted and is active. Does this mean that the Patent counts as withdrawn in Europe and is therefore not protected?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61678" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22630" RevisionGUID="069e49a4-d1da-4607-8aa0-d3be2e64d6be" CreationDate="2020-09-17T15:08:31.830" UserId="24649" Text="What does &quot;Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61679" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22630" RevisionGUID="069e49a4-d1da-4607-8aa0-d3be2e64d6be" CreationDate="2020-09-17T15:08:31.830" UserId="24649" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;epo&gt;&lt;non-entry&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22631" RevisionGUID="24064a8b-1b2f-4993-9829-dd45a18380ff" CreationDate="2020-09-17T15:30:28.880" UserId="17003" Text="I'm not sure it does exactly what you want, but I'd recommend looking at [The Lens][1]. It can definitely display full text in the browser window and has different download options. They are working on an API so you could ask them about that. The Lens is free and non-commercial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22630" RevisionGUID="b9e8b211-ba96-44c2-83c0-a27195a1c1a1" CreationDate="2020-09-17T16:16:16.217" UserId="24649" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="What does &quot;Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase&quot; on google patents mean? The PCT patent application in question is from 2012 and the last status update is, that it has been published. The latest legal status update is, &quot;non entry in European phase&quot;. The corresponding US application was granted and is active. Does this mean that the Patent counts as withdrawn in Europe and is therefore not protected?&#xD;&#xA;The application number is &quot;WO2012154368A1&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22632" RevisionGUID="ffc772e5-2afa-4bf9-b829-0904800f5ebd" CreationDate="2020-09-17T16:38:44.977" UserId="3076" Text="A PCT application is an application for a patent in 150+ jurisdictions. Theoretically you can chose which of those places your application covers at the time you file. That is called a designation. In actually, all member countries are designated by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However those applications end 30 or 31 months after the earliest claimed priority date if they are not specifically extended into a national stage (or regional stage). Entering the national stage requires formality and payments. The EPO notes when an application designates the EPO and it notes when the deadline to extend into the regional stage expires at the 31 month point. That is what &quot;Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase&quot; means." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22630" RevisionGUID="0e4861f3-ee30-4899-82f1-7a11da1b8f05" CreationDate="2020-09-17T18:42:11.170" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to application" Text="What does &quot;Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase&quot; on google patents mean? The PCT patent application in question is from 2012 and the last status update is, that it has been published. The latest legal status update is, &quot;non entry in European phase&quot;. The corresponding US application was granted and is active. Does this mean that the Patent counts as withdrawn in Europe and is therefore not protected?&#xD;&#xA;The application number is [WO2012154368A1][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2012154368A1/en?oq=WO2012154368A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22632" RevisionGUID="39852e1a-a661-434d-b665-d97a1357803c" CreationDate="2020-09-17T21:48:15.537" UserId="3076" Comment="added 874 characters in body" Text="A PCT application is an application for a patent in 150+ jurisdictions. Theoretically you can chose which of those places your application covers at the time you file. That is called a designation. In actually, all member countries are designated by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However those applications end 30 or 31 months after the earliest claimed priority date if they are not specifically extended into a national stage (or regional stage). Entering the national stage requires formality and payments. The EPO notes when an application designates the EPO and it notes when the deadline to extend into the regional stage expires at the 31 month point. That is what &quot;Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase&quot; means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a question in general, this note would not preclude coverage somewhere in Europe. It might have entered a national stage directly in one or more places. There might be another application with overlapping claims that was taken further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the specific case of the named patent the WIPO site shows no national or regional stages. The international preliminarily report finds none of the claims searched to have an inventive step. The Global Dossier (both reachable from the google patents site linked to in the question) tries to show the whole family of related applications. It shows two granted in the U.S. (US 10358461 and US 9550805)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of freedom to operate, there may way be other patents in Europe or elsewhere that cover the same or overlapping material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bumya.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22618" RevisionGUID="d2c59b21-6459-4f1a-9789-2a8f4fc1d265" CreationDate="2020-09-18T07:34:48.697" UserId="24603" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="Others have mentioned design patents and copyright. Those are worth considering. Remember that your published work is automatically protected by copyright, but registering the copyright simplifies any litigation and in some circumstances may increase your damages.&#xA;&#xA;If you’re considering a patent, remember that the cost of actually obtaining the patent is a minuscule fraction of the amount to enforce that patent in litigation. You might spend 20K to get a patent and 2 million to prove infringement and defend an (almost) inevitable invalidity counter suit.&#xA;&#xA;Also be aware that foreign app developers may simply ignore your intellectual property protection and willfully infringe. And if you only get a US patent, they may legally infringe outside the US. In my experience, localized mobile apps may see 60-70% of their sales outside the US, so if you patent US only, you could lose significant sales to legal foreign copycats.&#xA;&#xA;Another approach is to leverage your first mover advantage and build a strong brand around your new design. When people think of that design you want them to think of you first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22633" RevisionGUID="72d1b215-21bf-4e19-bc86-91238bc2a6be" CreationDate="2020-09-18T15:29:38.127" UserId="19481" Text="Reviewing 300+ issues of the *Official Gazette Of The United States Patent And Trademark Office*, from 2014 to present I noticed that only one issue —  Vol. 1454 No. 2, from September 11th, 2018  — lacks the section 'Notice of Expiration of Patents Due to Failure to Pay Maintenance Fee'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was there something special about this week or is it an inadvertent omission?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is an error, where and how would the notice be corrected?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't see it mentioned in the adjacent or near following issues.  But admittedly, I don't really know what to look for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61687" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22633" RevisionGUID="72d1b215-21bf-4e19-bc86-91238bc2a6be" CreationDate="2020-09-18T15:29:38.127" UserId="19481" Text="Why Aren't Patent Expirations Listed for USPTO Gazette Vol. 1454 No. 2?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61688" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22633" RevisionGUID="72d1b215-21bf-4e19-bc86-91238bc2a6be" CreationDate="2020-09-18T15:29:38.127" UserId="19481" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;expired-patent&gt;&lt;fees&gt;&lt;maintenance-fee&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22633" RevisionGUID="62036944-951b-4001-a8f1-66751e9277d4" CreationDate="2020-09-18T15:36:51.797" UserId="19481" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="Reviewing 300+ issues of the *Official Gazette Of The United States Patent And Trademark Office*, from 2014 to present I noticed that only one issue —  [Vol. 1454 No. 2, from September 11th, 2018][1]  — lacks the section 'Notice of Expiration of Patents Due to Failure to Pay Maintenance Fee'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was there something special about this week or is it an inadvertent omission?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is an error, where and how would the notice be corrected?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't see it mentioned in the adjacent or near following issues.  But admittedly, I don't really know what to look for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/2018/week37/TOC.htm#ref7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61690" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20880" RevisionGUID="89dad4f5-c0fb-4cfb-a9cb-46f01e4c6124" CreationDate="2020-09-18T22:07:40.713" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61691" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22536" RevisionGUID="7cc1b7db-c2bb-4b12-adc0-683cc08de336" CreationDate="2020-09-19T00:02:40.310" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61692" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20371" RevisionGUID="87d9b43c-df04-4443-8254-5f44fae2eac3" CreationDate="2020-09-19T06:02:05.217" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22630" RevisionGUID="688452a6-3fad-4eeb-8c02-79df89ca1bd5" CreationDate="2020-09-19T09:40:24.183" UserId="24649" Comment="deleted 128 characters in body" Text="What does &quot;Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase&quot; on google patents mean? The PCT patent application in question is from 2012 and the last status update is, that it has been published. The latest legal status update is, &quot;non entry in European phase&quot;. The corresponding US application was granted and is active. Does this mean that the Patent counts as withdrawn in Europe and is therefore not protected?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22617" RevisionGUID="516ff448-3f5b-4825-ae71-d4a8b399cc2c" CreationDate="2020-09-20T10:36:39.030" UserId="24578" Comment="added 815 characters in body" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/USD829747S1/en?type=DESIGN&#xD;&#xA;above is one example of a design patent on GUI, you can also get protection on GUI using Desing patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As suggested by Eric please see below&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are specific requirements for drawings for design patents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Required views: front, rear, right, left, top, bottom. It’s a good idea to include perspective views – they can make it easier to visualize the appearance and shape of the design.&#xD;&#xA;Shading: USPTO rules mandate shading in patent drawings to properly depict the contours of three-dimensional surfaces. There are specific rules for the shading – when to use lines versus stippling, it should look like the light is coming from the upper left, etc.&#xD;&#xA;Broken or dashed lines indicate design elements not included in the patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you can find more information at [Successful Patent Drawings for Design Patents][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qTtW6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://invention-patent-drawings.com/successful-patent-drawings-for-design-patents/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22635" RevisionGUID="63c99b1b-a13e-4b21-b41b-5082541b2b29" CreationDate="2020-09-21T04:51:18.410" UserId="24659" Text="The status of this patent is &quot;granted&quot; but I think that this patent document is just publication. if it is granted patent, please let me know where I can find the patent document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QqupR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61701" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22635" RevisionGUID="63c99b1b-a13e-4b21-b41b-5082541b2b29" CreationDate="2020-09-21T04:51:18.410" UserId="24659" Text="Is JPWO2011145301A1 patent granted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61702" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22635" RevisionGUID="63c99b1b-a13e-4b21-b41b-5082541b2b29" CreationDate="2020-09-21T04:51:18.410" UserId="24659" Text="&lt;publicationorgranted&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22504" RevisionGUID="c625e1f9-c483-4e1f-b5a3-f1a327cd8bc0" CreationDate="2020-09-21T10:47:11.763" UserId="19481" Comment="Edited for general applicability" Text="How can I lookup the next patent maintenance fee due on a patent? For example, I need to know when the fee is due for number 7833190.  Where do I look? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61704" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="22504" RevisionGUID="c625e1f9-c483-4e1f-b5a3-f1a327cd8bc0" CreationDate="2020-09-21T10:47:11.763" UserId="19481" Comment="Edited for general applicability" Text="When is my next patent maintenance fee due?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61705" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="22504" RevisionGUID="c625e1f9-c483-4e1f-b5a3-f1a327cd8bc0" CreationDate="2020-09-21T10:47:11.763" Comment="Proposed by 19481 approved by 18033, 22334 edit id of 2136" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19154" RevisionGUID="8b495fb0-20f0-4a26-bc00-7ecd6c577c07" CreationDate="2020-09-21T10:47:27.800" UserId="24553" Comment="Fixed faulty hyperlink" Text="Here are two links to GitHub projects that can be used to help download and parse USPTO data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://github.com/USPTO/PatentPublicData&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://github.com/USPTO/bulk-data-tools&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have also built a USPTO bulk data scraping and parsing software in Python3 =&gt; https://github.com/rippledj/uspto&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you would like dedicated access to up-to-date USPTO data via remote database connection it is also available: https://www.ripplesoftware.ca/?page_id=249 &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61707" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19154" RevisionGUID="8b495fb0-20f0-4a26-bc00-7ecd6c577c07" CreationDate="2020-09-21T10:47:27.800" Comment="Proposed by 24553 approved by 18033, 22334 edit id of 2135" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61708" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16518" RevisionGUID="edc306af-5755-42ba-9ff5-576a07fa99de" CreationDate="2020-09-21T10:47:48.373" UserId="17737" Comment="tags edited (there's no reason to have a separate tag, especially not when it misses a hyphen)" Text="&lt;intellectualproperty-laws&gt;&lt;invention-theft&gt;&lt;patent-laws&gt;&lt;misappropriation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61709" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16518" RevisionGUID="edc306af-5755-42ba-9ff5-576a07fa99de" CreationDate="2020-09-21T10:47:48.373" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 18033, 22334 edit id of 2134" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22637" RevisionGUID="26dad37a-f39a-4e60-b009-946e53e0e900" CreationDate="2020-09-21T17:33:26.200" UserId="3076" Text="Something to consider - Sometimes the person with the original idea is the inventor and people who take it forward from there are co inventors. Sometimes the people who take it from there are just doing normal, non-inventive work to implement the invention. Then they are not co-inventors. On the other hand sometimes the person with the original idea is not an inventor at all becasue they did not have a full picture of the invention that would lead to making it a reality. An explanation of this is [at IP watchdog][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another important issue are the granted claims. If one person has a big idea and explains it to a second person, it may that the second person gets a patent on claims to an important implementation detail of the big idea. The issue for the first person is did they make a conceptual contribution to what was actually claimed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/03/09/inventorship-joint-inventors-co-inventors/id=94592/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22638" RevisionGUID="d6e7b25d-7839-44f6-9b87-f153eaa4aa33" CreationDate="2020-09-21T21:22:45.427" UserId="22797" Text="Is it essential to include drawings/schematics in my patent? Is there any way to convert color images into blue/white drawing somehow?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61717" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22638" RevisionGUID="d6e7b25d-7839-44f6-9b87-f153eaa4aa33" CreationDate="2020-09-21T21:22:45.427" UserId="22797" Text="Are schematics essentially needed in a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61718" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22638" RevisionGUID="d6e7b25d-7839-44f6-9b87-f153eaa4aa33" CreationDate="2020-09-21T21:22:45.427" UserId="22797" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22639" RevisionGUID="0e85aa25-3500-40e5-9d7c-01a9717b9b8b" CreationDate="2020-09-21T23:54:18.113" UserId="3076" Text="A patent application needs whatever drawings are require to explain the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art and to prove that you &quot;possessed the invention&quot; at the time of filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most people will advise more detail rather than less, unless the detail obscures the understanding. If the circuit itself is the tricky part of the invention you definitely need it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless there is some good reasons otherwise, patent drawings are black and white line drawings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61720" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="21041" RevisionGUID="9f8b1d09-9c47-4de2-89e2-502ff607a014" CreationDate="2020-09-22T00:05:25.527" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22617" RevisionGUID="3c0ff31f-7093-49ad-ac77-c7c633dee730" CreationDate="2020-09-22T04:07:41.740" UserId="24578" Comment="added 325 characters in body" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://patents.google.com/patent/USD829747S1/en?type=DESIGN&#xD;&#xA;above is one example of a design patent on GUI, you can also get protection on GUI using Desing patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As suggested by Eric please see below&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are specific requirements for drawings for design patents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Required views: front, rear, right, left, top, bottom. It’s a good idea to include perspective views – they can make it easier to visualize the appearance and shape of the design.&#xD;&#xA;Shading: USPTO rules mandate shading in patent drawings to properly depict the contours of three-dimensional surfaces. There are specific rules for the shading – when to use lines versus stippling, it should look like the light is coming from the upper left, etc.&#xD;&#xA;Broken or dashed lines indicate design elements not included in the patent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The views, other information is related to design patents in general and not specific to GUI related design patents. For specific inputs please contact your patent attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you can find more information at [Successful Patent Drawings for Design Patents][2]&#xD;&#xA;Link provided is from a commercial company that is an expert in providing patent drawings (both Utility and Desing patent) and I work for this company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qTtW6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://invention-patent-drawings.com/successful-patent-drawings-for-design-patents/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22641" RevisionGUID="c577be98-2658-457f-9d20-ec9329a2d401" CreationDate="2020-09-23T00:10:52.947" UserId="24603" Text="I can’t be any more definitive than “It depends.” But it’s entirely possible that you can come out ahead. Talk to an IP attorney or two, to find out if you should have been listed as an (or the) Inventor. You may be able to have an initial conversation for free.&#xA;&#xA;It may matter whether you really were “in possession” of the invention, whether you can document that, and whether your documentation would have enabled a “person of ordinary skill in the art” to reduce it to practice. And all kinds of other more esoteric questions.&#xA;&#xA;If the case has merit and the patent owner has deep pockets you may be able to attract patent litigation financing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22642" RevisionGUID="9064a376-02ee-458d-81e2-b03c82f09cef" CreationDate="2020-09-23T00:26:05.103" UserId="24603" Text="Almost every engineer I’ve ever worked with has side projects.&#xA;&#xA;It’s above board and legitimate. But be paranoid. Assume your friendly reasonable manager will be replaced by a vicious snake.&#xA;&#xA;Don’t discuss your side projects with any anybody on company time or while standing on company property. Be very careful never to mention your side projects with your company’s email address, or to store anything on your work computer or corporate server. Don’t even add your company email and projects email accounts to the same mobile phone. Document your scrupulous separation of work and personal assets. Assume you are preparing evidence for discovery in litigation.&#xA;&#xA;Usually there’s no issue but I’ve seen an employer kill an employee’s mobile app because they were planning on being in the same general market (unbeknownst to the engineer). Just be careful.&#xA;&#xA;If your employer is Apple, maybe take up herding goats as a side project instead.&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22642" RevisionGUID="ffa8ef68-713d-438d-b6d8-04a232416c34" CreationDate="2020-09-23T01:15:42.187" UserId="24603" Comment="added 180 characters in body" Text="Almost every engineer I’ve ever worked with has side projects.&#xA;&#xA;It’s above board and legitimate. But be paranoid. Assume your friendly reasonable manager will be replaced by a vicious snake.&#xA;&#xA;Don’t discuss your side projects with anybody on company time or on company property. Be very careful never to mention your side projects with your company’s email address, or to store anything on your work computer or corporate server. Don’t even add your company email and projects email accounts to the same mobile phone. Document your scrupulous separation of work and personal assets. Assume you are preparing evidence for discovery in litigation.&#xA;&#xA;Don’t use any information that could remotely be construed as your company’s trade secrets. Don’t even base your feature set on marketing knowledge you have gained in the course of your employment.&#xA;&#xA;Usually there’s no issue but I’ve seen an employer kill an employee’s mobile app because they were planning on being in the same general market (unbeknownst to the engineer). Just be careful.&#xA;&#xA;If your employer is Apple, maybe take up herding goats as a side project instead.&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61735" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19051" RevisionGUID="bcf699d0-d9f6-4d2e-af8d-776075bb3f61" CreationDate="2020-09-23T17:00:50.130" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61736" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22294" RevisionGUID="64ef7f45-fd15-476a-a29c-705ebd2d6393" CreationDate="2020-09-24T04:07:15.727" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61742" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22299" RevisionGUID="fc85f9e0-e60f-4902-bb1a-2fb2c8ffd5b3" CreationDate="2020-09-24T21:04:55.460" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22645" RevisionGUID="8a5a69c2-e600-4859-a847-a6a7db5ac76b" CreationDate="2020-09-25T13:55:20.960" UserId="24127" Text="In a recent literature review, I have come across an ultra comprehensive patent ([US9583678B2][1]), which documents the entire production process of high-power light-emitting diodes (and thus captures a large chunk of a company's IP in a single document).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a scientific term (from meta-science or scientometrics) for these &quot;mega patents&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9583678B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61744" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22645" RevisionGUID="8a5a69c2-e600-4859-a847-a6a7db5ac76b" CreationDate="2020-09-25T13:55:20.960" UserId="24127" Text="Scientific Term for &quot;Mega Patents&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61745" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22645" RevisionGUID="8a5a69c2-e600-4859-a847-a6a7db5ac76b" CreationDate="2020-09-25T13:55:20.960" UserId="24127" Text="&lt;terminology&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22647" RevisionGUID="a43c1cad-04e8-4ea4-a143-85f125b057e1" CreationDate="2020-09-25T19:09:15.337" UserId="24149" Text="Information at the Japan Patent Office, and the Global Dossier, indicate that this Japanese patent application was withdrawn on March 21, 2013." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22648" RevisionGUID="ec2afc9c-9eb9-47c7-b169-30179cd9b6e3" CreationDate="2020-09-27T11:38:05.893" UserId="24695" Text="Can I get a patent for a chess game training method that involves a specific approach to the learning process? If possible what will be the cost?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best regards,&#xD;&#xA;Grigor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61752" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22648" RevisionGUID="ec2afc9c-9eb9-47c7-b169-30179cd9b6e3" CreationDate="2020-09-27T11:38:05.893" UserId="24695" Text="Chess training method" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61753" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22648" RevisionGUID="ec2afc9c-9eb9-47c7-b169-30179cd9b6e3" CreationDate="2020-09-27T11:38:05.893" UserId="24695" Text="&lt;method&gt;&lt;chess&gt;&lt;training&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22635" RevisionGUID="ba91c6c5-c706-40db-b99d-aabfb2819b0b" CreationDate="2020-09-27T17:06:43.180" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to patent." Text="The status of this [patent][1] is &quot;granted&quot; but I think that this patent document is just publication. if it is granted patent, please let me know where I can find the patent document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/JPWO2011145301A1/en?oq=jpwo2011145301a1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QqupR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22650" RevisionGUID="9b189432-5feb-43e6-b3b8-63d4050a88fa" CreationDate="2020-09-27T19:57:17.030" UserId="3076" Text="In much of the world (Europe is an example) a patent must be for a technical solution to a technical problem. A method of teaching chess might or might not be technical but it is not a technical problem so it would not be possible to get a patent for it in any such juristiction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the U.S. there is no such requirement. You might look at [US6120029A][1]  *Educational game for teaching chess through example*.  To be patentable your method will need to be something that can survive being labeled as &quot;abstract&quot; or more specifically a &quot;method of organizing human activity&quot;, neither of which has been defined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6120029A" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22650" RevisionGUID="d5673959-c490-4349-a973-a26382e3cf61" CreationDate="2020-09-27T22:39:48.380" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1011 characters in body" Text="In much of the world (Europe is an example) a patent must be for a technical solution to a technical problem. A method of teaching chess might or might not be technical but it is not a technical problem so it would not be possible to get a patent for it in any such juristiction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the U.S. there is no such requirement. You might look at [US6120029A][1]  *Educational game for teaching chess through example*.  To be patentable your method will need to be something that can survive being labeled as &quot;abstract&quot; or more specifically a &quot;method of organizing human activity&quot;, neither of which has been defined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An answer I posted to a question  https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/759/can-teaching-methods-be-patented in 2014 -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To directly answer part of your question - yes methods of teaching can be patented. I did a quick search in the class that covers educational devices (434) and had over 5000 hits of patents with the word &quot;method&quot; in at least one claim. Also searched for any patent with both method and teaching in the clam wording. About 1000 hits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Estimates for cost to get a U.S. patent might be $5k-$20k for searching, drafting and applying + $3k - $6 for prosecution assuming no need for an appeal to the board. If appeal to the board needed, add $4k-$10k. Using a registered patent agent vs a patent attorney might help you stay on the lower end of the ranges. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you dedicated yourself to learning patent law and patent office procedures over several months and did it as a pro se, the fees would add up to about $1,000 if you are a micro entity and about $2000 if a small entity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6120029A" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61762" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22304" RevisionGUID="8070640b-b715-4ce7-9eba-f9f00e272077" CreationDate="2020-09-28T04:02:10.323" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61763" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="6d4ab153-9989-4ae4-b90b-1a5392e3633c" CreationDate="2020-09-28T16:01:35.163" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22652" RevisionGUID="95bb01d0-a684-482b-9bdf-e5e4eecd1ccd" CreationDate="2020-09-29T09:42:32.070" UserId="22797" Text="Is a lawyer needed when writing the description of the script you will give to the patent's office, or you follow other examples, and write it on your own?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61766" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22652" RevisionGUID="95bb01d0-a684-482b-9bdf-e5e4eecd1ccd" CreationDate="2020-09-29T09:42:32.070" UserId="22797" Text="Do you contact a lawyer when writing the description for the patent or you write it by watching other examples?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61767" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22652" RevisionGUID="95bb01d0-a684-482b-9bdf-e5e4eecd1ccd" CreationDate="2020-09-29T09:42:32.070" UserId="22797" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22653" RevisionGUID="3ccb122d-edae-47cd-929b-3c0d6d503d74" CreationDate="2020-09-29T14:29:33.993" UserId="17003" Text="It isn't required to use a lawyer or agent to file a patent, but in my opinion you are almost always better off doing so. A patent is a legal document and has to be very carefully written to gain your invention effective protection. I am not a lawyer, but I am an inventor in almost 90 patents. I personally would never attempt to write and prosecute a patent on my own without a patent attorney or agent. There are weak patents and there are strong patents. A weak patent may gain you almost no protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do use an attorney, then you can reduce your expenses by doing a good job of communicating what the invention is and what prior art you are aware of. Writing a draft in a form similar to other patents and having good drawings is an excellent way of do this. Just don't be surprised if the attorney or agent completely rewrites the document." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22647" RevisionGUID="58a71a14-4542-437c-9c39-08283065bb60" CreationDate="2020-09-29T21:11:26.077" UserId="24149" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="Information at the Japan Patent Office (https://www.j-platpat.inpit.go.jp/h0000), and the Global Dossier (https://globaldossier.uspto.gov/#/result/application/JP/2012515738/125790), indicate that this Japanese patent application was withdrawn on March 21, 2013." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22655" RevisionGUID="1935583c-0d9b-4f39-8b79-e55ce2652061" CreationDate="2020-09-30T15:59:01.830" UserId="24663" Text="I am working on drafting a provisional patent application (PPA) for an algorithm (which is novel, non-obvious and useful) and the presentation of the result of running of the algorithm on some data. The presentation is also novel, non-obvious and useful. I am wondering if I should file separate PPAs for each or if I can file one PPA and later (within 12 months) file for two separate non-provisional patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case I am able to file two separate PPAs, for the PPA for the presentation part, since I need to enable it, do I need to disclose the algorithm or can I make the algorithm part generic saying something like &quot;an algorithm that returns a score based on consideration of, but not limited to, factors X, Y, and Z&quot; ?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61773" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22655" RevisionGUID="1935583c-0d9b-4f39-8b79-e55ce2652061" CreationDate="2020-09-30T15:59:01.830" UserId="24663" Text="Separate or single provisional patent application/s for an algorithm and presentation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61774" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22655" RevisionGUID="1935583c-0d9b-4f39-8b79-e55ce2652061" CreationDate="2020-09-30T15:59:01.830" UserId="24663" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;algorithms&gt;&lt;user-interface&gt;&lt;data-processing-interface&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22656" RevisionGUID="910bc2d5-97cb-483b-b93a-9c1278d53118" CreationDate="2020-09-30T21:18:40.717" UserId="20503" Text="USPTO patent grant bulk-data contains two fields number-of-figures and number-of-drawings.  Figures number is always higher or same. So, I guess that drawings is a sub-set of figures.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have looked on the [UPSTO information page][1], but there is no clear distinction between figures and drawings mentioned. In fact they seem to use the terms interchangeably in some places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I'm curios what is technical difference between figure and drawing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/e8r9#/e8r9/d0e47639.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61777" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22656" RevisionGUID="910bc2d5-97cb-483b-b93a-9c1278d53118" CreationDate="2020-09-30T21:18:40.717" UserId="20503" Text="What's the difference between figure and drawign in patent grant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61778" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22656" RevisionGUID="910bc2d5-97cb-483b-b93a-9c1278d53118" CreationDate="2020-09-30T21:18:40.717" UserId="20503" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;drawing&gt;&lt;patent-drawings&gt;&lt;patent-figures&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22657" RevisionGUID="592497cd-03e4-4a63-bf84-2742bdf8073a" CreationDate="2020-10-01T00:02:41.373" UserId="3076" Text="As @EricS mentioned, the word algorithm will trigger the word &quot;abstract&quot; which is hard to get around once it is invoked. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't really matter if it is one or two provisional applications since one or more non-provisionals can  get the benefit of one or more provisionals. No one-to-one correspondence needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only reason I can think of would be subject matter you might want to reserve the possibility to keep a trade secret. At the end of the year if no non-provisional is filed that refers back to a provisional, it never publishes and is not viewable by the public. Bear in might that whatever you do file a non=provisional on must be enabled - specifically the best mode you know of must be enabled. No hiding the ball." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22658" RevisionGUID="1eeb5af7-8ff2-4d0b-9658-c493fdc91cb8" CreationDate="2020-10-01T04:10:58.640" UserId="3076" Text="The figures are called figures. A label called &quot;drawings&quot; might be the number of drawing sheets, which would be less than or equal to the number of figures." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61781" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="22656" RevisionGUID="8e0adaf4-80d6-4471-a513-a4630fc2ded5" CreationDate="2020-10-01T14:08:36.640" UserId="17003" Comment="edited title" Text="What's the difference between figure and drawing in patent grant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22659" RevisionGUID="3cd0dc7a-a091-4cc3-9f93-a4eb21ae3ca0" CreationDate="2020-10-01T20:20:20.567" UserId="24149" Text="As previously mentioned, this is a challenging area for patentability and it is more important that you draft the application in sufficient detail to describe the practical application of the algorithm and the inventive concept of your invention so you can argue against a potential rejection under Section 101. It may not be in your best interest to file a skinny provisional application. You may want to take a look at some of the USPTO materials that address the patentability of computer-implemented inventions [https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility]. In particular, these examples may be helpful for identifying how the USPTO analyzes patent claims directed to certain computer-implemented inventions [https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/101_examples_37to42_20190107.pdf]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22660" RevisionGUID="efff126c-93d4-4ccf-ba18-26a532e3ab77" CreationDate="2020-10-01T21:38:32.443" UserId="22334" Text="Regarding the decision of filing one or two provisional applications, George White's answer is very on point. You should be aware though that presentations of information are not patentable in many countries, for example most if not all European countries. At the EPO, this is enshrined in [Art. 52(d) of the European Patent Convention](https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar52.html). When presentations of information are not claimed &quot;as such&quot;, then they may be patentable, but pretty much presentations of information are only inventive (i.e. non-obvious) when the following occurs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A feature defining a presentation of information produces a technical effect if it credibly assists the user in performing a technical task by means of a continued and/or guided human-machine interaction process (T 336/14 and T 1802/13). Such a technical effect is considered credibly achieved if the assistance to the user in performing the technical task is objectively, reliably and causally linked to the feature. This would not be the case if the alleged effect depends on subjective interests or preferences of the user.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above excerpt is from the following part of [EPO's Guidelines for Examination](https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines2018/e/g_ii_3_7.htm), which I strongly advise you to read should you want to protect the presentation of information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the algorithm itself, in line with ipesqnyu's answer, I suggest you to read the [EPO's Index for Computer-Implemented Inventions of the Guidelines for Examination](https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines2018/e/j.htm) should you be willing to protect it in Europe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22659" RevisionGUID="cbf5c1ea-812e-4dbd-b83d-ded10b0614f2" CreationDate="2020-10-02T00:51:51.913" UserId="3076" Comment="added links" Text="As previously mentioned, this is a challenging area for patentability and it is more important that you draft the application in sufficient detail to describe the practical application of the algorithm and the inventive concept of your invention so you can argue against a potential rejection under Section 101. It may not be in your best interest to file a skinny provisional application. You may want to take a look at some of the [USPTO materials that address the patentability of computer-implemented inventions][1]. In particular, these examples may be helpful for identifying how the USPTO analyzes patent claims directed to c[ertain computer-implemented inventions][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/101_examples_37to42_20190107.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61789" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22573" RevisionGUID="d51ae65c-0478-4f61-a574-5d4113aa7ebf" CreationDate="2020-10-03T15:07:45.810" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22663" RevisionGUID="bf01e9de-adf9-4e49-a205-1955a4ad15bd" CreationDate="2020-10-04T11:03:04.060" UserId="24655" Text="Quite awhile back I came up with an invention, or I read about it somewhere even longer ago and didn't come up with it myself. At any rate it's already in production in the form of a toy in Japan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After looking around a bit I can't find any patent covering this invention. Can I still patent it for my own commercial use? How about a Dutch patent, EU or worldwide? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm really asking is whether prior art by a company in some country also provides protection for them abroad. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say I do get a worldwide patent, could the Japanese company in question just ignore it and sell any product based on the invention in Japan alone, or even worldwide? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used Espacenet but I'm not very skilled in searching for patents. In addition to that the tool uses machine translation which isn't perfect yet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61796" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22663" RevisionGUID="bf01e9de-adf9-4e49-a205-1955a4ad15bd" CreationDate="2020-10-04T11:03:04.060" UserId="24655" Text="Patenting an invention already sold as a toy in Japan" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61797" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22663" RevisionGUID="bf01e9de-adf9-4e49-a205-1955a4ad15bd" CreationDate="2020-10-04T11:03:04.060" UserId="24655" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;worldwide&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22664" RevisionGUID="5e2502bb-9ab4-46cf-af5b-f6acc125fb51" CreationDate="2020-10-04T14:43:48.447" UserId="17003" Text="This is simple. **You can't patent something that already exists and is publicly known. You can't patent anything you didn't invent either.** The existence of a product in Japan is prior art for the rest of the world and would keep you or anyone else from obtaining a patent anywhere in the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, there are no world wide patents. Patents are issued country by country. A patent in a country protects an invention from someone else manufacturing, selling or using an invention in that specific country. Assuming there isn't a comparable patent in your country, you could use, manufacture or sell the same product in your country. If there really were no patents you could make and sell your product anywhere, but you couldn't prevent others from doing likewise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61805" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="22663" RevisionGUID="ce97e6d4-528d-46bd-a78b-71e04e54eb6b" CreationDate="2020-10-05T09:31:13.190" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[13591],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="61806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22666" RevisionGUID="43347a0c-e1ef-4eb1-b9e2-96c2c329ea73" CreationDate="2020-10-07T11:32:24.013" UserId="24592" Text="I want to patent four configurations with the same operating principles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I write four independent claims to describe the four systems, and four independent claims to describe the operation of the systems?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a very simplified example consider two refrigeration systems that all the components are the same but in one configuration a heat exchanger positioned before the condenser but in the other configuration a heat exchanger positioned before the evaporator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I describe the above system? Should I use two claims to describe the refrigeration systems?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61807" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22666" RevisionGUID="43347a0c-e1ef-4eb1-b9e2-96c2c329ea73" CreationDate="2020-10-07T11:32:24.013" UserId="24592" Text="How can I write the four configuration of a system in the claims of a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61808" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22666" RevisionGUID="43347a0c-e1ef-4eb1-b9e2-96c2c329ea73" CreationDate="2020-10-07T11:32:24.013" UserId="24592" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61809" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22666" RevisionGUID="2205a9b1-0f07-4452-825d-35b02e8abc81" CreationDate="2020-10-07T14:14:46.960" UserId="24592" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="I want to patent four configurations with the same operating principles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I write four independent claims to describe the four systems, and four independent claims to describe the operation method of the systems?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a very simplified example consider two refrigeration systems that all the components are the same but in one configuration a heat exchanger positioned before the condenser but in the other configuration a heat exchanger positioned before the evaporator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I describe the above system? Should I use two claims to describe the refrigeration systems?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22667" RevisionGUID="aa10d4c0-4e2e-4598-9fe8-90d654066c14" CreationDate="2020-10-07T16:42:19.727" UserId="22334" Text="You can draft an independent claim for each system, and an independent claim for each method, as you mentioned. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is that not every jurisdiction accepts more than one independent claim in a single application, or more than one independent claim per category in a single application; sometimes there are exceptions whereby you can include additional independent claims, but this is not applicable to all jurisdictions. Also, unity of invention objections could be raised against your multiple independent claims, thereby forcing you to pay additional fees and/or move some claims to another application. This depends on the criteria laid down by each jurisdiction for assessing when different claims or alternatives within a claim possess unity (you can have a lack of unity of invention in a single claim).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes there is no other way out than drafting an independent claim for each embodiment. But if there are features common to all embodiments that render the invention novel and non-obvious, perhaps you can have a single independent claim per category that encompasses the four embodiments, this way you can define each embodiment as a dependent claim. It could happen that the common features need to be defined functionally or in a more descriptive manner for them to encompass the embodiments, this in turn can lead to clarity issues or broad claims that are not novel or are obvious. You should assess how likely it is that you will run into such problems; the assessment may also be dependent upon the jurisdictions where you will seek protection and their claim requirements. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A broad independent claim encompassing all the embodiments, even if not novel or obvious, sometimes can be used as a strategy in the early stages of prosecution if, in turn, the patent office gets to examine the embodiments of the dependent claims. The examiner may be less reluctant to accept multiple independent claims if the embodiments are patentable, and with the previso that the patent laws of the jurisdiction allow you to have more than one independent claim in the application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A word of advice is that you also include the method claim(s) as you mentioned. It is rather frequent that a system is not patentable but the method is. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61817" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20476" RevisionGUID="676079e1-3ac5-47d8-9a71-60d3e069298d" CreationDate="2020-10-07T18:20:25.520" UserId="19481" Comment="Society or &quot;the people&quot; make the trade; the government is their agent" Text="&gt; For patent do you have to make your discovery public?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer to your headline question is yes. The central societal trade off in the patent system is you teach us all about your invention and we (i.e. society, via the government) give you a possibility of a time limited monopoly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, the body of your question is not actually that question. The U.S., like most of the rest of the world, is a &quot;first-to-file&quot; country. One just files an application and you get that date as a priority date. If you know of anything that preceded you which tends to show that you might not be first or that might be combined with other information to argue that your invention is obvious, you will need to let the USPTO know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The information you are talking about can still be useful if someone later claims that you did not invent but specifically took the idea from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the invention is already visible to the public you will need to file soon, the U.S. has a modified one-year grace period to file following public exposure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61818" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="20476" RevisionGUID="676079e1-3ac5-47d8-9a71-60d3e069298d" CreationDate="2020-10-07T18:20:25.520" Comment="Proposed by 19481 approved by 3076 edit id of 2137" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22670" RevisionGUID="76ba1eb2-e9f8-4b54-894c-27eda17ada39" CreationDate="2020-10-07T18:23:56.423" UserId="24751" Text="Does anyone have step by step instructions on how to use the PTAB API? Patentsview is easy since you can just download decisions (or the document that each line devoted to each case) into csv or dta format. The API instructions don't say anything about how you can see your data unless they are presuming you do something in Python.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to be able to bulk download PTAB decisions and the chart in the spreadsheet they show in the website which looks like an Excel file with each row having info on each PTAB proceeding. Once I put in dates I get a URL. What then happens next? Also I was informed by someone that this is limited to 500 at a time so do you have to keep on doing this or if you wanted to download the information for a few years? I want to see the PTAB spreadsheet and put it in CSV format to be able to use in R or Stata. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also want to be able to bulk download PTAB decisions and maybe certian types of documents. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61820" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22670" RevisionGUID="76ba1eb2-e9f8-4b54-894c-27eda17ada39" CreationDate="2020-10-07T18:23:56.423" UserId="24751" Text="How use PTAB API" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61821" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22670" RevisionGUID="76ba1eb2-e9f8-4b54-894c-27eda17ada39" CreationDate="2020-10-07T18:23:56.423" UserId="24751" Text="&lt;api&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22672" RevisionGUID="1bff473b-7465-42c4-bd45-7d3a3e3ec011" CreationDate="2020-10-08T14:45:30.663" UserId="24592" Text="I have three systems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. a system with one stage &#xD;&#xA; 2. two stages are used in the core of system 1 &#xD;&#xA; 3. three stages are used in the core of system 1 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I explain my base system with one stage in an independent claim and explain the additional stages of the base system in further dependent claims?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61825" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22672" RevisionGUID="1bff473b-7465-42c4-bd45-7d3a3e3ec011" CreationDate="2020-10-08T14:45:30.663" UserId="24592" Text="Can I add additional stages to my base system in a dependent claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61826" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22672" RevisionGUID="1bff473b-7465-42c4-bd45-7d3a3e3ec011" CreationDate="2020-10-08T14:45:30.663" UserId="24592" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22672" RevisionGUID="8d53b3c3-7c44-4a70-9fa5-43b5d9c4087c" CreationDate="2020-10-08T15:39:28.967" UserId="24592" Comment="added 169 characters in body" Text="I have three systems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. a system with one stage &#xD;&#xA; 2. two stages are used in the core of system 1 &#xD;&#xA; 3. three stages are used in the core of system 1 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I explain my base system with one stage in an independent claim and explain the additional stages of the base system in further dependent claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, starting the dependent claim as:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The method of claim 1 either has no stages or in the case of adding an additional stage, the method also comprising:&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22674" RevisionGUID="d3f24022-c25c-492f-b434-4390d8b28a7a" CreationDate="2020-10-08T18:58:01.127" UserId="3076" Text="In general yes, that is what dependent claims are used for. However, the base system in the independent claim will need, on its own, to be patentable. Also dependent claims add elements/constraints/specificity to the claim they depend from. If &quot;either has no stages&quot; means that claim 2 has something less than claim 1, that will not fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Separately, you may be mixing apparatus claims ideas with method claim ideas. If stages are physical things it is incomprehensible to say &quot;method of claim 1 either has no s [some physical thing&quot;. The &quot;*device* of method 1&quot; might not have a stage. But a method, itself, has steps, not physical things like stages. Of course those steps can be actions of or upon physical things. And some method claims may involve steps related to different physical things than other steps do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22674" RevisionGUID="d04a40b0-0559-4b06-93bc-96eed8f57240" CreationDate="2020-10-08T22:25:46.737" UserId="3076" Comment="added 704 characters in body" Text="In general yes, that is what dependent claims are used for. However, the base system in the independent claim will need, on its own, to be patentable. Also dependent claims add elements/constraints/specificity to the claim they depend from. If &quot;either has no stages&quot; means that claim 2 has something less than claim 1, that will not fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Separately, you may be mixing apparatus claims ideas with method claim ideas. If stages are physical things it is incomprehensible to say &quot;method of claim 1 either has no [some physical thing&quot;. The &quot;*device* of method 1&quot; might not have a stage. But a method, itself, has steps, not physical things like stages. Of course those steps can be actions of or upon physical things. And some method claims may involve steps related to different physical things than other steps do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about the difference between apparatus claims and method claims. Sometimes there are no patentable claims to the apparatus becasue it is old or obvious but the method by which they operate together is patentable.  If you get claims to a physical thing, the maker of it infringes. It is fringes just sitting on a self. To infringe a method claim one need to make it perform the method. In some cases it is only the end user who sets the method in motion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing to think about is divided infringement. So far the Supreme Court says to infringe a method claim a single entity (and possibly other entities *under the control* of the first entity) must perform *all* the steps in the claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22674" RevisionGUID="85176d0b-245f-4c0e-a6e2-e641ef75fc10" CreationDate="2020-10-10T05:05:03.127" UserId="3076" Comment="added info from my comments" Text="In general yes, that is what dependent claims are used for. However, the base system in the independent claim will need, on its own, to be patentable. Also dependent claims add elements/constraints/specificity to the claim they depend from. If &quot;either has no stages&quot; means that claim 2 has something less than claim 1, that will not fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Separately, you may be mixing apparatus claims ideas with method claim ideas. If stages are physical things it is incomprehensible to say &quot;method of claim 1 either has no [some physical thing&quot;. The &quot;*device* of method 1&quot; might not have a stage. But a method, itself, has steps, not physical things like stages. Of course those steps can be actions of or upon physical things. And some method claims may involve steps related to different physical things than other steps do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to not require configurations that would narrow your claims more than necessary - could be wording like &quot;after flowing thorough stage FGH, directing the flow through a pipeline of stages that include at least an ABC stage and an XYZ stage in any order.&quot; &quot;After flowing through stage FGH&quot; does not say &quot;directly after flowing through stage FGH&quot;. You can do it without indicating that there are no stages between or besides your named stages and not indicating a required order if no order is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another approach is to use a, b, c rather than first, second, third and state that no order is implied that is not specifically defined.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about the difference between apparatus claims and method claims. Sometimes there are no patentable claims to the apparatus becasue it is old or obvious but the method by which they operate together is patentable.  If you get claims to a physical thing, the maker of it infringes. It is fringes just sitting on a self. To infringe a method claim one need to make it perform the method. In some cases it is only the end user who sets the method in motion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing to think about is divided infringement. So far the Supreme Court says to infringe a method claim a single entity (and possibly other entities *under the control* of the first entity) must perform *all* the steps in the claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61837" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="21048" RevisionGUID="4fd0a09a-493a-4d7f-980d-de2a16a6ce06" CreationDate="2020-10-10T10:00:10.020" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="61843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22676" RevisionGUID="87ccb1c9-3dc2-43b7-8106-36e1f5e712ad" CreationDate="2020-10-10T16:24:26.150" UserId="24764" Text="In describing a multiple of an element in a claim, is it better to use &quot;at lease one&quot; or &quot;one or more&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61844" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22676" RevisionGUID="87ccb1c9-3dc2-43b7-8106-36e1f5e712ad" CreationDate="2020-10-10T16:24:26.150" UserId="24764" Text="I need clarification on how to describe more than one of something" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61845" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22676" RevisionGUID="87ccb1c9-3dc2-43b7-8106-36e1f5e712ad" CreationDate="2020-10-10T16:24:26.150" UserId="24764" Text="&lt;language&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22677" RevisionGUID="ebc239ee-191d-41b3-beb7-14ac1ce07c67" CreationDate="2020-10-10T18:56:06.603" UserId="3076" Text="They are very likely to be interpreted as interchangeable, but claim construction is  subtle, complex and ever changing. You should think about the other words and the ideas behind your claims besides these words. One point is that if you claim your invention comprises &quot;one widget&quot;, it covers version that have 100 widgets becasue it does have one. If you said it &quot;consists&quot; of one, then someone who has two is outside your claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it has been ruled that &quot;a widget&quot; means &quot;one or more widgets&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;At least one of&quot; has been an issue when it is in the form of &quot;at least one of A and B&quot;. A PTAB decisions says the plain meaning of this claim recitation is “at least one of A and at least one of B.”) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22678" RevisionGUID="fe0318d8-1888-4584-93c4-8667188a9aba" CreationDate="2020-10-10T20:02:56.907" UserId="20802" Text="The first office action was received about four months ago, and we submitted a response to the action just a couple of days ago. What is the maximum time until we hear back from the patent office (USPTO, in this case)? I am aware that applicants are provided a maximum of 6 months to provide a response to an office action. Does the same duration apply to the office as well?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61848" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22678" RevisionGUID="fe0318d8-1888-4584-93c4-8667188a9aba" CreationDate="2020-10-10T20:02:56.907" UserId="20802" Text="How long until the next office action (after a response has been submitted)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61849" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22678" RevisionGUID="fe0318d8-1888-4584-93c4-8667188a9aba" CreationDate="2020-10-10T20:02:56.907" UserId="20802" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;non-provisional&gt;&lt;timely-response&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22679" RevisionGUID="6a39bbc2-6bff-48a7-9afb-e849d3929fd4" CreationDate="2020-10-10T22:42:02.860" UserId="3076" Text="They do not have a hard limit by statute (like you do) but you can (possibly) get time added to the end of your patent term if they exceed 4 months. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under 35 U.S.C. 154  b 1 A they need to -&#xD;&#xA;(ii) respond to a reply under section 132, or to an appeal taken under section 134, within *4 months* after the date on which the reply was filed or the appeal was taken . . . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However the patent term extension calculation is complicated, and depends on timely actions by you. The USPTO interpretations of the formula for it have been challenged a couple of times and the USPTO lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22677" RevisionGUID="706799bd-012c-4362-b1a1-1e1b101ccb1b" CreationDate="2020-10-10T23:28:16.890" UserId="3076" Comment="added 310 characters in body" Text="They are very likely to be interpreted as interchangeable, but claim construction is  subtle, complex and ever changing. You should think about the other words and the ideas behind your claims besides these words. One point is that if you claim your invention comprises &quot;one widget&quot;, it covers version that have 100 widgets becasue it does have one. If you said it &quot;consists&quot; of one, then someone who has two is outside your claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it has been ruled that &quot;a widget&quot; means &quot;one or more widgets&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beware of &quot;each&quot; in this context. &quot;one or more widgets, *each of which* has an X&quot; has been taken to exclude as an infringement a system with some widgets that have and X that includes even one widget that does not have an X. Because it isn't true that each of the widgets does have an X.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;At least one of&quot; has been an issue when it is in the form of &quot;at least one of A and B&quot;. A PTAB decision Ex parte Jung, 2016 says the plain meaning of this claim recitation is “at least one of A and at least one of B.”) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22677" RevisionGUID="b2020113-ba9e-47df-9cae-424162e4a67e" CreationDate="2020-10-11T03:57:38.603" UserId="3076" Comment="added 282 characters in body" Text="They are very likely to be interpreted as interchangeable, but claim construction is  subtle, complex and ever changing. You should think about the other words and the ideas behind your claims besides these words. One point is that if you claim your invention comprises &quot;one widget&quot;, it covers version that have 100 widgets becasue it does have one. If you said it &quot;consists&quot; of one, then someone who has two is outside your claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it has been ruled that &quot;a widget&quot; means &quot;one or more widgets&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beware of &quot;each&quot; in this context. &quot;one or more widgets, *each of which* has an X&quot; has been taken to exclude as an infringement a system with some widgets that have and X that includes even one widget that does not have an X. Because it isn't true that each of the widgets does have an X. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;google &quot;a gantry at each treatment station&quot; ― &quot;a gantry at every treatment center in a system where there is a plurality or more than one treatment station.&quot;  Optivus Technology, Inc., et al. v. IonBeam Applications S.A., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30314 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 31, 2004).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;At least one of&quot; has been an issue when it is in the form of &quot;at least one of A and B&quot;. A PTAB decision Ex parte Jung, 2016 says the plain meaning of this claim recitation is “at least one of A and at least one of B.”) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22680" RevisionGUID="edff6ae4-d412-43ae-8a96-907a060b6910" CreationDate="2020-10-11T11:40:51.090" UserId="6121" Text="I filed a PCT application in 2019. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also filed a US patent application WITHOUT claiming priority from the PCT application in 2019.  I received &quot;Written Opinion of the International Search Authority&quot; in 2019. The examiner referenced few patent applications in the search report. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[37 CFR 1.97 (e) says][1],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (e) A statement under this section must state either:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) That each item of information contained in the information&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disclosure statement was first cited in any communication from a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application not more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; than three months prior to the filing of the information disclosure&#xD;&#xA;&gt; statement; or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) That no item of information contained in the information&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disclosure statement was cited in a communication from a foreign&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patent office in a counterpart foreign application, and, to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; knowledge of the person signing the certification after making&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reasonable inquiry, no item of information contained in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information disclosure statement was known to any individual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; designated in § 1.56(c) more than three months prior to the filing of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the information disclosure statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not received first office action for my US application. The status says &quot;Docketed New Case - Ready for Examination&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have few questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) It seems like I have to disclose &quot;counterpart foreign application&quot;. I believe my PCT application would fall under &quot;counterpart foreign application&quot; category. Is that correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Since I have not received the first office action, do I have to pay any fees if I disclose the references cited by ISA examiner? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Do I have to add any certification statement? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s609.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61854" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22680" RevisionGUID="edff6ae4-d412-43ae-8a96-907a060b6910" CreationDate="2020-10-11T11:40:51.090" UserId="6121" Text="Information Disclosure Statement for counterpart foreign application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61855" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22680" RevisionGUID="edff6ae4-d412-43ae-8a96-907a060b6910" CreationDate="2020-10-11T11:40:51.090" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;ids&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22681" RevisionGUID="f7aa210b-a03c-45e4-918b-182bf4b48320" CreationDate="2020-10-11T19:04:08.340" UserId="3076" Text="Since it is before the first [actions on the merit][1] there are no fees due of any certificate needed. You already may know that it is best practice to error on the side of disclosure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s609.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22682" RevisionGUID="e871f90d-1308-4951-a843-ef3de67839b3" CreationDate="2020-10-12T06:04:09.120" UserId="24768" Text="My client wants to file reissue application. The reason is that he wants to correct the formulas in the specification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, he noticed that he wants to change the order of the inventors when we file reissue application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you please let me know the procedures of doing that? and will there be any office fee for this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Al - " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61858" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22682" RevisionGUID="e871f90d-1308-4951-a843-ef3de67839b3" CreationDate="2020-10-12T06:04:09.120" UserId="24768" Text="Change the Order of The Inventor's when filing Reissue Application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61859" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22682" RevisionGUID="e871f90d-1308-4951-a843-ef3de67839b3" CreationDate="2020-10-12T06:04:09.120" UserId="24768" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22683" RevisionGUID="1454469f-059b-4385-8ae7-e4ad40a47459" CreationDate="2020-10-12T15:58:59.997" UserId="6121" Text="I would like to embed images in the &quot;Applicant Arguments/Remarks&quot; to explain myself clearly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Can I use images (preferably color) in &quot;Applicant Arguments/Remarks&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Is there any page limit for &quot;Applicant Arguments/Remarks&quot;? [I feel like there is some limit since examiner time will be utilised here]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Is there any fee or excess fee?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61863" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22683" RevisionGUID="1454469f-059b-4385-8ae7-e4ad40a47459" CreationDate="2020-10-12T15:58:59.997" UserId="6121" Text="Is there any page limit or fee for &quot;Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61864" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22683" RevisionGUID="1454469f-059b-4385-8ae7-e4ad40a47459" CreationDate="2020-10-12T15:58:59.997" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;prosecution&gt;&lt;amendment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22684" RevisionGUID="0280f8d4-7cf5-4a93-9413-af89639e805b" CreationDate="2020-10-12T16:18:18.017" UserId="3076" Text="You can use drawings and there is no page limit or excess page fee. Of course you need to understand that you are trying to convince and less might be more. It may be difficult to get color images through the system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20475" RevisionGUID="73794a98-598b-45ac-ad02-361a2c204616" CreationDate="2020-10-12T18:36:28.027" UserId="603" Comment="Copy edited (e.g. ref. &lt;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitbucket&gt;)." Text="I have developed a website with a friend of mine, and the site is working. But it is not currently not in a form which is presentable to the public, which will take us a little bit longer to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We both believe that the idea we have come up with is probably worth trying to get a patent for. I was just wondering if we need to have some kind of evidence that we are the first people to have developed our idea, in the form of a video or something similar, or if for example the code we have stored on [Bitbucket][1] would be an appropriate way of demonstrating this in future, if needs arise?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, is it when the idea is presented to the public first which allows you to patent, or just proof that you developed the idea first?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitbucket&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61869" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="20475" RevisionGUID="73794a98-598b-45ac-ad02-361a2c204616" CreationDate="2020-10-12T18:36:28.027" UserId="603" Comment="Copy edited (e.g. ref. &lt;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitbucket&gt;)." Text="Do you have to make your discovery public for a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61870" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="20475" RevisionGUID="73794a98-598b-45ac-ad02-361a2c204616" CreationDate="2020-10-12T18:36:28.027" Comment="Proposed by 603 approved by 18033, 17003 edit id of 2138" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="61874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22684" RevisionGUID="b5b21378-0b1b-495f-b6aa-78e7a24230b4" CreationDate="2020-10-12T23:59:39.047" UserId="3076" Comment="added 162 characters in body" Text="You can use drawings and there is no page limit or excess page fee. Of course you need to understand that you are trying to convince and less might be more. It may be difficult to get color images through the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may be able to get an interview over Webex or whatever the approved system the USPTO is currently using at which time you can hold up your color drawings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62881" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20770" RevisionGUID="cf0e88ab-a8aa-457e-877e-381fea51104f" CreationDate="2020-10-13T13:04:30.473" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="62882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22688" RevisionGUID="f6d6a0c1-930d-43e2-af05-45fb04f4a3cf" CreationDate="2020-10-14T16:12:44.700" UserId="24785" Text="I would like to understand the ethics of Patents. There is a product that is currently sold worldwide, with a patent in the US only. If I was to sell the same product (diff. logo) in the UK/EU, what are the ethical implications pls?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62883" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22688" RevisionGUID="f6d6a0c1-930d-43e2-af05-45fb04f4a3cf" CreationDate="2020-10-14T16:12:44.700" UserId="24785" Text="Global ethical implications of a US patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62884" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22688" RevisionGUID="f6d6a0c1-930d-43e2-af05-45fb04f4a3cf" CreationDate="2020-10-14T16:12:44.700" UserId="24785" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;european&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22690" RevisionGUID="6d637319-bafe-4c10-b6a7-3742e968d401" CreationDate="2020-10-14T17:02:41.767" UserId="3076" Text="Patents are territorial. A U.S. patent only gives its owner rights to try to exclude others from making, selling, offering for sale, importing and using the invention in the U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no patent in some other jurisdiction then anyone else might be able to make. sell, etc. in that location. I say might becasue there may be some other reason that the product might not be sold (regulations, a completely different patent possibly held by a different party, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents are about law, not morality. However, an important part of the theory of patent systems is that the inventor must disclose how to make and use the invention to the public. This promotes progress. In your case it promotes progress immediately everywhere the inventor does not get a patent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22690" RevisionGUID="18b1b7d6-6b44-4da3-bd94-dde2fb689a82" CreationDate="2020-10-14T18:53:49.113" UserId="3076" Comment="edited body" Text="Patents are territorial. A U.S. patent only gives its owner rights to try to exclude others from making, selling, offering for sale, importing and using the invention in the U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no patent in some other jurisdiction then anyone else might be able to make. sell, etc. in that location. I say might becasue there may be some other reason that the product could not be sold (regulations, a completely different patent possibly held by a different party, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents are about law, not morality. However, an important part of the theory of patent systems is that the inventor must disclose how to make and use the invention to the public. This promotes progress. In your case it promotes progress immediately everywhere the inventor does not get a patent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22690" RevisionGUID="2f66ebf1-c43b-4d81-9637-fa2734880ba6" CreationDate="2020-10-14T21:56:13.033" UserId="3076" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="Patents are territorial. A U.S. patent only gives its owner rights to try to exclude others from making, selling, offering for sale, importing and using the invention in the U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no patent in some other jurisdiction then anyone else might be able to make. sell, etc. in that location. I say might becasue there may be some other reason that the product could not be sold (regulations, a completely different patent possibly held by a different party, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents are about law, not morality. However, an important part of the theory of patent systems is that the inventor must disclose how to make and use the invention to the public. This promotes progress. In your case it promotes progress immediately everywhere the inventor does not get a patent. I would not worry about any ethical issue. You can worry about the inventor having an application pending in the UK or some other patent that you would also infringe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22691" RevisionGUID="0e981ad3-b43c-433a-b9d5-1e948dee36c1" CreationDate="2020-10-15T17:31:38.197" UserId="24791" Text="I am aware that I cannot disclose key information about the system/business model but I would only need to know if there is record of previous education systems being patented. It isn't just a software but an entire educational process, explained in detail." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62894" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22691" RevisionGUID="0e981ad3-b43c-433a-b9d5-1e948dee36c1" CreationDate="2020-10-15T17:31:38.197" UserId="24791" Text="I'm looking to patent a new SaaS Education System. Processes and structure are very different from the traditional system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62895" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22691" RevisionGUID="0e981ad3-b43c-433a-b9d5-1e948dee36c1" CreationDate="2020-10-15T17:31:38.197" UserId="24791" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;intellectual-property&gt;&lt;system&gt;&lt;business&gt;&lt;education&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22692" RevisionGUID="b0678918-00ea-4019-863c-445a292293e7" CreationDate="2020-10-15T18:46:27.733" UserId="3076" Text="There are certainly many patents that cover educational systems. A few that came up in a quick search:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Online educational system with multiple navigational modes &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [US8727781B2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vertically integrated mobile educational system US9324240B2&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Real time learning and self improvement educational system and method&#xD;&#xA;&gt; US8602793B1&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; On-line educational system having an electronic notebook feature&#xD;&#xA;&gt; US6965752B2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to do a better search if you are interested in moving forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8727781" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22692" RevisionGUID="df275530-c13b-446e-b619-af0ea8db62f6" CreationDate="2020-10-15T18:49:43.897" UserId="17003" Comment="Added additional links" Text="There are certainly many patents that cover educational systems. A few that came up in a quick search:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Online educational system with multiple navigational modes &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [US8727781B2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vertically integrated mobile educational system [US9324240B2][2]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Real time learning and self improvement educational system and method&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [US8602793B1][3]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; On-line educational system having an electronic notebook feature&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [US6965752B2][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to do a better search if you are interested in moving forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8727781&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9324240B2/en?oq=US9324240B2&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8602793B1/en?oq=US8602793B1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6965752B2/en?oq=US6965752B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22693" RevisionGUID="a37e12ba-5a7f-4b8b-bc3a-b95e9a66386e" CreationDate="2020-10-15T21:40:35.883" UserId="6121" Text="Let's just say I have an invention and I would like to have 60 patent claims to cover the invention properly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I file the application with 30 claims (3 independent and 27 dependent) and my patent is granted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, can I file a continuation for the remaining 30 claims (3 independent and 27 dependent)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like double patenting provision applicable here. That's why I'm asking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Wikipedia][1],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The United States has two types of double patenting rejections. One is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the &quot;same invention&quot; type double patenting rejection, based on 35&#xD;&#xA;&gt; U.S.C. § 101, which states in the singular that an inventor &quot;...may&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain a patent.&quot; The second rejection type precludes what is referred&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to as &quot;obviousness-type&quot; or &quot;nonstatutory&quot; double patenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_patenting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62899" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22693" RevisionGUID="a37e12ba-5a7f-4b8b-bc3a-b95e9a66386e" CreationDate="2020-10-15T21:40:35.883" UserId="6121" Text="Can I add more claims for the same invention after patent grant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62900" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22693" RevisionGUID="a37e12ba-5a7f-4b8b-bc3a-b95e9a66386e" CreationDate="2020-10-15T21:40:35.883" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;double-patenting&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22694" RevisionGUID="4f759514-bf90-46cf-bc85-d26edc6ea1ae" CreationDate="2020-10-15T22:37:33.833" UserId="3076" Text="**Yes**, but it depends upon the claims. If the claims in the continuation are different enough from the claims in the granted patent there might be no issue of double patenting at all. If the examiner asserts that you do have double patenting it will most likely be the judicially created &quot;obviousness&quot; type. You can argue that the examiner is wrong or you can overcome it with a terminal disclaimer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22694" RevisionGUID="ed3241a3-a97a-47b4-bedf-8359f399f411" CreationDate="2020-10-15T23:00:16.043" UserId="3076" Comment="added 460 characters in body" Text="**Yes**, but it depends upon the claims. If the claims in the continuation are different enough from the claims in the granted patent there might be no issue of double patenting at all. If the examiner asserts that you do have double patenting it will most likely be the judicially created &quot;obviousness&quot; type. You can argue that the examiner is wrong or you can overcome it with a terminal disclaimer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there was a restriction requirement that caused you to cancel a subset of the claims, your continuation can be labeled a &quot;divisional&quot; if it picks up those dropped claims. In this case there can be no double patenting due to a safe harbor caused by the examiner saying the were too different and issuing the restriction. To get this safe harbor you need to label it a divisional. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like everything in patent law, there are details that can trip you up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62903" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13760" RevisionGUID="ea939c8f-3c4c-44d8-9039-c606ed3c1739" CreationDate="2020-10-16T22:01:20.157" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="62904" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="21128" RevisionGUID="c65ffb5f-91e9-4525-991a-4a9e3cefb371" CreationDate="2020-10-16T23:01:35.283" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="62911" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22629" RevisionGUID="e62a73fe-8324-4184-bca7-b2d003853fce" CreationDate="2020-10-17T16:02:20.337" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="62912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22696" RevisionGUID="296f8f8f-e377-4694-8b51-f839d7cfe00c" CreationDate="2020-10-18T12:10:59.620" UserId="24805" Text="I have a question regarding a change of applicant filed with the USPTO. We have filed said assignment document in January 2019(!). This assignment document will be displayed in tab &quot;Assignments&quot; on Public Pair. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the first named applicant on tab &quot;Application Data&quot; still shows the former applicant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: when will the applicant on tab &quot;Application Data&quot; be updated to the current applicant? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or will this change never be displayd on this tab because the tab &quot;Application Data&quot; only provides historical information about how the application was originally filed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62913" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22696" RevisionGUID="296f8f8f-e377-4694-8b51-f839d7cfe00c" CreationDate="2020-10-18T12:10:59.620" UserId="24805" Text="Public Pair: change of applicant - when will the tab &quot;appication data&quot; be updated?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62914" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22696" RevisionGUID="296f8f8f-e377-4694-8b51-f839d7cfe00c" CreationDate="2020-10-18T12:10:59.620" UserId="24805" Text="&lt;assignment&gt;&lt;applicant&gt;&lt;public-pair&gt;&lt;update&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62915" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="22696" RevisionGUID="068ab4e9-5709-4d03-bfc7-051a52451078" CreationDate="2020-10-18T15:10:42.097" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed typo." Text="Public Pair: change of applicant - when will the tab &quot;application data&quot; be updated?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22698" RevisionGUID="951d3294-d98d-43e3-aaa9-e7f174af53ab" CreationDate="2020-10-18T21:52:45.407" UserId="3076" Text="Applicant and assignee are not the same thing. To change the applicant you will need to file a new ADS. See MPEP&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 325 Establishing Right of Assignee To Take Action in Application Filed On or After September 16, 2012 [R-10.2019]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An assignee who is not the original applicant must become the applicant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; under 37 CFR 1.46(a) in order to request or take action in a patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application. A request to change the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46(c)(2)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; must be filed and must be accompanied by an application data sheet&#xD;&#xA;&gt; under 37 CFR 1.76 specifying the applicant in the applicant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information section and comply with 37 CFR 3.71 and 37 CFR 3.73." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62922" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20526" RevisionGUID="a15c0aab-66a4-405a-8173-f8aa5b093ac8" CreationDate="2020-10-19T19:03:40.577" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="62923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22699" RevisionGUID="b2113252-d916-4f7a-a53f-f18e6a9cb17c" CreationDate="2020-10-20T10:18:23.190" UserId="6121" Text="I filed a PCT application in 2019.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I filed a US application without claiming priority from PCT application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My PCT application is not expired yet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In hindsight only I realised, some of the claims found in my PCT application looks very strong. I noticed a company violating my provisional rights found in that PCT application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I already filed the US application for the subject matter found in my PCT, I don't want to go for a continuation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way I can make USPTO amendment to claim priority from the PCT application? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that is possible, then I believe I also need to make corrections to ADS. Is that correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62924" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22699" RevisionGUID="b2113252-d916-4f7a-a53f-f18e6a9cb17c" CreationDate="2020-10-20T10:18:23.190" UserId="6121" Text="Delayed PCT Priority Claim to US Application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62925" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22699" RevisionGUID="b2113252-d916-4f7a-a53f-f18e6a9cb17c" CreationDate="2020-10-20T10:18:23.190" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;amendment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22700" RevisionGUID="59e2a442-6de9-4665-9e3b-a785c293e113" CreationDate="2020-10-20T19:31:57.423" UserId="24149" Text="You may be able to claim priority to the PCT application if it designated the United States. The USPTO has a [petitions webpage][1] that provides information concerning the petition you should file to claim priority to the PCT application. Bear in mind though that in the petition you must state that the delay in claiming priority was unintentional and you must pay a petition fee, which is $525.00 for micro entities, $1,050.00 for small entities, or $2,100.00 for all other entities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/petitions/13-unintentionally-delayed-domestic-benefit-claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22701" RevisionGUID="cb6a9861-ebc3-4d6c-ae3e-eb5e5c088ecf" CreationDate="2020-10-21T02:24:31.517" UserId="24816" Text="After watching one too many ghost-hunter type shows, I had an idea for a detection device. I've built and tested a prototype and am looking to patent. I do understand an actual device isn't necessary anymore but I wanted a proof of concept. &#xD;&#xA; My question is this -  I cannot determine if this category of device is even patentable. Does the Patent Office allow a submission of this type? Most, if not all, equipment used in that type of endeavor is designed for another use and just happens to be used for ghost hunting. Haven't had much success in trying to figure this out...&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62928" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22701" RevisionGUID="cb6a9861-ebc3-4d6c-ae3e-eb5e5c088ecf" CreationDate="2020-10-21T02:24:31.517" UserId="24816" Text="Are certain types of device not patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62929" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22701" RevisionGUID="cb6a9861-ebc3-4d6c-ae3e-eb5e5c088ecf" CreationDate="2020-10-21T02:24:31.517" UserId="24816" Text="&lt;device&gt;&lt;paranormal&gt;&lt;supernatural&gt;&lt;ghost&gt;&lt;equipment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62930" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20202" RevisionGUID="7e654cfd-85d2-4a6d-84de-f9b72dcd00fb" CreationDate="2020-10-21T07:06:30.627" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="62931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22702" RevisionGUID="83ddc760-c510-49b1-8060-8d37d910fafd" CreationDate="2020-10-21T13:51:06.737" UserId="17003" Text="I'm not a lawyer, but here is my take on your question. To qualify for a patent, an invention needs to be novel, non-obvious and useful. I think your main challenge will be the demonstration of usefulness. I and many other scientists and engineers don't believe ghosts exist. I'm not saying I know for sure, but I've never seen convincing evidence. If ghosts don't exist then there is no useful purpose of a ghost detection device. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did try a search go Google Patents. Unfortunately &quot;ghost detection&quot; is a common phrase for image and audio artifacts. I did find [US9517421B1][1] titled &quot;Device for fanciful detection of ghosts&quot; but this is described as a novelty toy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might want to read the [Wikipedia article on Ghost Hunting][2]. There is a section on &quot;Methods and equipment&quot;. If any of the things listed there are similar to what your device uses they may represent prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9517421B1/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_hunting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22703" RevisionGUID="c43dc1af-ee97-4059-9b85-c3d73e3c777b" CreationDate="2020-10-21T17:56:28.327" UserId="3076" Text="If the actual mechanism is novel and not obvious you can patent it as a novelty device or possibly as a detector of &quot;fields&quot;. An example is [US 9517421 Device for fanciful detection of ghosts][1] and [US4971592 Toy ghost detector device][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you say it can detect ghosts you will be rejected for lack of utility, like a perpetuate motion machine. Analogously, there are numerous &quot;novelty&quot; perpetual motion machines that have been patented in the U.S. It is fun to watch them spin or whatever they do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9517421B1/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4971592A/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22704" RevisionGUID="9650b13a-968b-43d5-a231-2f3efd3e13f2" CreationDate="2020-10-21T18:11:12.107" UserId="6121" Text="I'm working on a claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have limitation that looks something like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    wherein the animal is at least one of:&#xD;&#xA;         a cat;&#xD;&#xA;         a dog;&#xD;&#xA;         a lion found in a zoo;&#xD;&#xA;         a tiger found in said zoo; or&#xD;&#xA;         an elephant;&#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;Since I already used &quot;**a** zoo&quot;, i'm using &quot;**said** zoo&quot; to refer the same zoo. Is that correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or I have to use &quot;a tiger found in **a** zoo&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to be clear, I wanna refer to the **same** zoo where lion and tiger found. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62934" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22704" RevisionGUID="9650b13a-968b-43d5-a231-2f3efd3e13f2" CreationDate="2020-10-21T18:11:12.107" UserId="6121" Text="Antecedent basis in &quot;at least one of&quot; claim" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62935" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22704" RevisionGUID="9650b13a-968b-43d5-a231-2f3efd3e13f2" CreationDate="2020-10-21T18:11:12.107" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22705" RevisionGUID="f0e82e84-6987-4bfd-b91b-98c746134585" CreationDate="2020-10-21T18:44:08.773" UserId="22334" Text="With &quot;said&quot; or &quot;the&quot; it is clear you are referring to the same zoo. If you fear that may not be the case, then you can make it clearer by defining &quot;a first zoo&quot; and &quot;said first zoo&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Antecedent basis extends throughout the entire claim, so it does not matter whether you are inside a list or an if clause, with &quot;said&quot; and &quot;the&quot; you refer to the element introduced before in the claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22706" RevisionGUID="dd438ca2-e659-4181-8582-d68fc9248343" CreationDate="2020-10-21T20:52:20.847" UserId="3076" Text="Yes this a proper way to deal with antecedents. Said could be replaced by &quot;the&quot;.   This assumes that there is no mention of zoo elsewhere in the claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Separately, at least in the U.S., the &quot;*or* an elephant&quot; can be a problem. It may sound odd, but it needs to be &quot;*and* an elephant&quot;. Think of it this way - you are saying, &quot;here is a list of things that an animal can be, the list is - a horse, a cow *and* a pig&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would use commas, not semicolons." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22706" RevisionGUID="9ce60961-ab70-4bac-b946-46a83f522912" CreationDate="2020-10-21T21:01:14.437" UserId="3076" Comment="added 375 characters in body" Text="Yes this a proper way to deal with antecedents if you really want to only include tigers from the same zoo the lion was in. Note that a tiger in some zoo that did not contain a lion would not clearly be a member of your list. Is this the desired meaning?  If not, they are not the same zoo and you do not want an antecedent at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do intend the zoo to be the same zoo and some other zoo in mentioned elsewhere in the claim, then &quot;first zoo&quot;, &quot;second zoo&quot; will be needed. Said could be replaced by the.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Separately, at least in the U.S., the &quot;*or* an elephant&quot; can be a problem. It may sound odd, but it needs to be &quot;*and* an elephant&quot;. Think of it this way - you are saying, &quot;the list of what an animal can be is - a horse, a cow *and* a pig&quot;. There are three things on the list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would use commas, not semicolons." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22703" RevisionGUID="2703d155-2d14-45a0-b903-866eb8a36ed9" CreationDate="2020-10-21T22:02:34.147" UserId="3076" Comment="added 850 characters in body" Text="If the actual mechanism is novel and not obvious you can patent it as a novelty device or possibly as a detector of &quot;fields&quot;. An example is [US 9517421 Device for fanciful detection of ghosts][1] and [US4971592 Toy ghost detector device][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding [US9858041B2 Systems and methods employing unique device for generating random signals and metering and addressing, e.g., unusual deviations in said random signals][3] It includes a disclaimer -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Among other things, as described herein-below, it is noted that the various embodiments herein do not rely on the paranormal phenomena for legal utility under 35 U.S.C. 101, but that, by way of example, the mere possibility or theoretical potential or belief in a user thereof can also achieve very valuable uses and benefits, from education, to helping focus attention, to amusement, to reminders, and more, as the reader will appreciate based on this disclosure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent might be a good source to inspire verbiage about things that are phenomena not yet understood by science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you say it can detect ghosts you will be rejected for lack of utility, like a perpetuate motion machine. Analogously, there are numerous &quot;novelty&quot; perpetual motion machines that have been patented in the U.S. It is fun to watch them spin or whatever they do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9517421B1/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4971592A/en&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9858041B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22703" RevisionGUID="419b0ac2-0651-42fa-92cd-f587d17f9ac2" CreationDate="2020-10-21T22:25:57.287" UserId="3076" Comment="spelling" Text="If the actual mechanism is novel and not obvious you can patent it as a novelty device or possibly as a detector of &quot;fields&quot;. An example is [US 9517421 Device for fanciful detection of ghosts][1] and [US4971592 Toy ghost detector device][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding [US9858041B2 Systems and methods employing unique device for generating random signals and metering and addressing, e.g., unusual deviations in said random signals][3] It includes a disclaimer -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Among other things, as described herein-below, it is noted that the various embodiments herein do not rely on the paranormal phenomena for legal utility under 35 U.S.C. 101, but that, by way of example, the mere possibility or theoretical potential or belief in a user thereof can also achieve very valuable uses and benefits, from education, to helping focus attention, to amusement, to reminders, and more, as the reader will appreciate based on this disclosure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This patent might be a good source to inspire verbiage about things that are phenomena not yet understood by science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you say it can detect ghosts you will be rejected for lack of utility, like a perpetual motion machine. Analogously, there are numerous &quot;novelty&quot; perpetual motion machines that have been patented in the U.S. It is fun to watch them spin or whatever they do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9517421B1/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4971592A/en&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9858041B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22698" RevisionGUID="726e679c-c41b-4b79-92b5-ee0fda8eacb1" CreationDate="2020-10-21T22:28:29.423" UserId="3076" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="Applicant and assignee are not the same thing. To change the applicant you will need to file a &quot;request to take action&quot; from the new assignee and a new ADS. See MPEP&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 325 Establishing Right of Assignee To Take Action in Application Filed On or After September 16, 2012 [R-10.2019]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An assignee who is not the original applicant must become the applicant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; under 37 CFR 1.46(a) in order to request or take action in a patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application. A request to change the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46(c)(2)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; must be filed and must be accompanied by an application data sheet&#xD;&#xA;&gt; under 37 CFR 1.76 specifying the applicant in the applicant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information section and comply with 37 CFR 3.71 and 37 CFR 3.73." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22707" RevisionGUID="6cc3813a-f4bc-482c-8784-1d025572786c" CreationDate="2020-10-21T23:28:14.220" UserId="3076" Text="From your comments on other answers it looks like it was never published as an application. This can happen due to a [non-publication request][1]. If no foreign counterpart application will be filed an applicant can request non-publication. Also it could be an old patent as mentioned in another answer. [There were no publications before 2001][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also a *very* accelerated examination could result in a patent before the publication would have happened. I think that would result in no publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1122.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-will-begin-publishing-patent-applications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62943" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="22707" RevisionGUID="db851cb1-c7b3-4290-8d12-cbe44dcf075e" CreationDate="2020-10-21T23:30:08.170" UserId="3076" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3076,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George White&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="62947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22709" RevisionGUID="e7f0b5a4-8414-4765-b7b1-082c5579c8bb" CreationDate="2020-10-22T12:56:56.943" UserId="6121" Text="I have an independent claim like this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    1. An X comprising:&#xD;&#xA;       ...&#xD;&#xA;        wherein the animal is at least one of:&#xD;&#xA;             a cat,&#xD;&#xA;             a dog,&#xD;&#xA;             a lion not found in a brazilian zoo, and&#xD;&#xA;             a mouse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I completely ignored the brazilian zoo to narrow my claims over a prior art. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to focus on the limitations related to the brazilian zoo. Can I construct dependent claims like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    2. The X of Claim 1, wherein the animal is a lion found in the brazilian zoo, wherein the lion has 3 legs. &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    3. The X of Claim 1, wherein the animal is a lion found in the brazilian zoo, wherein the lion is blind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confused here because I already narrowed claim using the words &quot;**not found**&quot;. So can I use the dependent claim to make the claim broad? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62948" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22709" RevisionGUID="e7f0b5a4-8414-4765-b7b1-082c5579c8bb" CreationDate="2020-10-22T12:56:56.943" UserId="6121" Text="Broadening an independent claim using depending claims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62949" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22709" RevisionGUID="e7f0b5a4-8414-4765-b7b1-082c5579c8bb" CreationDate="2020-10-22T12:56:56.943" UserId="6121" Text="&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22710" RevisionGUID="80c3e6ba-bd68-45d5-a28a-3ba70c92e6b5" CreationDate="2020-10-22T18:33:20.647" UserId="3076" Text="**NO**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A dependent claim, by definition, is a narrowing of the claim from which it depends. The independent claim could just have &quot;a lion&quot; and a dependent claim could say, &quot;where the lion is found [or not found] in a Brazilian zoo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Separately, in your example, if &quot;not found in a brazilian zoo&quot; is needed to get around prior art, then a broadening of it would not get around the prior art. Also I do not understand the claim wording achieving ignoring of Brazilian zoos." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22711" RevisionGUID="559900d9-9ffd-4b1b-9bc6-158e57613366" CreationDate="2020-10-22T21:26:59.863" UserId="22334" Text="George White's response is correct. I just want to add a couple remarks. Some jurisdictions enforce the Doctrine of claim differentiation (the US and Germany at least), some others do too but in a lesser degree. Many examiners tend to skim the dependent claims to see if they spot something out of place once the independent claims are deemed to be allowable, this leads to two possible situations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Dependent claims not adding anything to the claim they depend upon. The claim scopes are exactly the same.&#xD;&#xA;- Dependent claims define a scope different than that of the claim they depend upon. In other words, the scope is not completely contained within the scope of the claim they depend upon, which is the case you mention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second scenario happens sometimes, either because the applicant overlooked the amendments to be made (the previous claims were amended during prosecution but their depending claims were not amended accordingly), or because the applicant intentionally attempts to get additional scope of protection (the claim uses wording to sort of undo the features of the previous claims and add new ones). In these situations, one never knows whether those claims are really enforceable and how they will be considered in a trial because a fair question is whether that claim was really examined by the patent office in the first place. Another fair question would be how on Earth one does not infringe the subject-matter of an independent claim but infringes that of a dependent claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess such dependent claims are not welcome by the patent offices, the thing is the examiners go pretty quick over these claims. Should the EPO see a dependent claim not falling within the scope of the former claim, the claim will get objected to on the grounds of lack of clarity, and if the claim simply does not anything to the claim it depends upon it should be objected to on the grounds of lack of conciseness, which is the same article (Art. 84 EPC). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22710" RevisionGUID="77923905-26aa-444d-9b48-3c997bea5882" CreationDate="2020-10-22T22:39:40.277" UserId="3076" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="**NO**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A dependent claim, by definition, is a narrowing of the claim from which it depends. The independent claim could just have &quot;a lion&quot; and a dependent claim could say, &quot;where the lion is found [or not found] in a Brazilian zoo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Separately, in your example, if &quot;not found in a brazilian zoo&quot; is needed to get around prior art, then a broadening of it would not get around the prior art. Also I do not understand the claim wording achieving the goal of ignoring of Brazilian zoos. Requiring the zoo *not* to be Brazilian is not ignoring them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62953" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12452" RevisionGUID="88d02d4d-b3af-42cf-a2fb-4bb02b5d83bc" CreationDate="2020-10-23T02:06:20.667" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="62960" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="22707" RevisionGUID="47849390-bb3f-4682-97eb-f127bda559ed" CreationDate="2020-10-24T17:41:03.007" UserId="3076" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3076,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George White&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="62967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22714" RevisionGUID="8cb38950-6f1d-4a54-9233-badbb47705d5" CreationDate="2020-10-26T17:41:04.137" UserId="24847" Text="Concerned with PPA “converting” to Non-Provisional&#xA;&#xA;I am in the process of drafting up a software Provisional Patent Application. I have an issue in that there are parts of the system that require cryptographic signing schemes that I understand from a high-mid level how they work but since crypto is something you want to be 1000% sure about I want to be able to recruit and hire a professional crypto guy to double check my work and perhaps to give advise on potential use variations to explore or to further help with my own prior-art search and adjustments. &#xA;&#xA;My plan is to file the PPA by myself, then go out and try to recruit someone to come on board to help, to avoid disclosure issues and to offer security against any of the candidates potentially swiping the invention. My main concern is my ignorance on how much leniency is given when allowing for changes between the PPA and the finalized Non-Provisional Filing such that the initial date of the PPA is extended to the Non-Provisional. I am assuming the crypto guy will be able to offer significant additions to the original invention, but I am reasonable confident that I understand the stuff well enough to be able to describe the final system in a broad enough sense such that the crypto guys additions will be along the lines of adding detail to existing aspects, and adding variations that I hadn’t originally thought of. I am intending on bringing in an actual patent attorney at this point of course to do a more rigorous prior art search and to make sure we DONT change it to the extent that it won’t be able to use the date of the PPA. &#xA;&#xA;Is this a terrible idea and I should just take the risk and bring someone on board to file before I file a PPA or should I be alright? &#xA;&#xA;Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62968" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22714" RevisionGUID="8cb38950-6f1d-4a54-9233-badbb47705d5" CreationDate="2020-10-26T17:41:04.137" UserId="24847" Text="How much can you change a PPA when converting into a Non-Provisional such that you will be able to keep the PPA date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62969" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22714" RevisionGUID="8cb38950-6f1d-4a54-9233-badbb47705d5" CreationDate="2020-10-26T17:41:04.137" UserId="24847" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22715" RevisionGUID="d2e2f866-9bb9-4b34-a1b5-19a20d52af42" CreationDate="2020-10-26T18:58:20.930" UserId="3076" Text="*As answered when this question was on LAW SE*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can make any change you like between a provisional application and a non-provisional application. It is just that claims in the non-provisional that are not sufficiently supported in the non-provisional will not get the benefit of the earlier filing date. This is a claim-by-claims issue. Some may end up with the earlier date and others with the later date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earlier date can be important but many not be as important as a solid non-provisional that says what it needs to say to support the best claims you can get allowed. If you keep your invention confidential between the date of the provisional and the non-provisional then the real benefit is knock out prior art that is published between those two dates. It is very possible that your pro-se written provisional ends up providing no actual benefit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other issues are that the crypto expert may become a co-inventor by making a conceptual contribution to something you end up claiming. You might want an assignment agreement as well as an NDA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Regarding crypto consultant*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone does not become a co-inventor by you offering that to them, they become a co-inventor by making a conceptual contribution to something that is claimed. Sharing in the money made from the patent and being a co-inventor are not the same thing. In one case a consultant might help a lot but not make a conceptual contribution to something you claim. Not an inventor but you can compensate them with 50% of the money you make if that is your agreement. In a different case a consultant makes the biggest contribution ever to the ultimate invention but has assigned their rights to you and gets paid by the hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there is not inventor vs co-inventor. All inventors are equal unless there is an agreement between them that says other wise. And, the default is, any inventor can license the invention to any third party with no accounting/payment to the other inventors.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22715" RevisionGUID="fc5fc3e4-3050-4b1b-8e25-9e3089363249" CreationDate="2020-10-26T19:13:51.527" UserId="3076" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="*As answered when this question was on LAW SE*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can make any change you like between a provisional application and a non-provisional application. It is just that claims in the non-provisional that are not sufficiently supported in the non-provisional will not get the benefit of the earlier filing date. This is a claim-by-claim issue. Some may end up with the earlier date and others with the later date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earlier date can be important but many not be as important as a solid non-provisional that says what it needs to say to support the best claims you can get allowed. If you keep your invention confidential between the date of the provisional and the non-provisional then the real benefit is knock out prior art that is published between those two dates. It is very possible that your pro-se written provisional ends up providing no actual benefit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other issues are that the crypto expert may become a co-inventor by making a conceptual contribution to something you end up claiming. You might want an assignment agreement as well as an NDA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Regarding crypto consultant*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone does not become a co-inventor by you offering that to them, they become a co-inventor by making a conceptual contribution to something that is claimed. Sharing in the money made from the patent and being a co-inventor are not the same thing. In one case a consultant might help a lot but *not* make a conceptual contribution to something you claim. Not an inventor but you can compensate them with 50% of the money you make if that is your agreement. In a different case a consultant makes the biggest contribution ever to the ultimate invention but has assigned their rights to you and gets paid by the hour under your agreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there is not inventor vs co-inventor. All inventors are equal unless there is an agreement between them that says otherwise. And, the default is, any inventor can license the invention to any third party with no accounting/payment to the other inventors.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62972" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="22716" RevisionGUID="18b79c34-ea29-4771-bdd5-e95786325555" CreationDate="2020-10-26T21:09:18.250" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/57468/how-much-can-you-change-a-ppa-when-converting-into-non-provisional-such-that-you" />
  <row Id="62973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22716" RevisionGUID="73bab4ba-7c35-4a4d-b2b6-b661c9b1a887" CreationDate="2020-10-26T12:51:36.777" UserId="24847" Text="Concerned with PPA “converting” to Non-Provisional&#xA;&#xA;I am in the process of drafting up a software Provisional Patent Application. I have an issue in that there are parts of the system that require cryptographic signing schemes that I understand from a high-mid level how they work but since crypto is something you want to be 1000% sure about I want to be able to recruit and hire a professional crypto guy to double check my work and perhaps to give advise on potential use variations to explore or to further help with my own prior-art search and adjustments. &#xA;&#xA;My plan is to file the PPA by myself, then go out and try to recruit someone to come on board to help, to avoid disclosure issues and to offer security against any of the candidates potentially swiping the invention. My main concern is my ignorance on how much leniency is given when allowing for changes between the PPA and the finalized Non-Provisional Filing such that the initial date of the PPA is extended to the Non-Provisional. I am assuming the crypto guy will be able to offer significant additions to the original invention, but I am reasonable confident that I understand the stuff well enough to be able to describe the final system in a broad enough sense such that the crypto guys additions will be along the lines of adding detail to existing aspects, and adding variations that I hadn’t originally thought of. I am intending on bringing in an actual patent attorney at this point of course to do a more rigorous prior art search and to make sure we DONT change it to the extent that it won’t be able to use the date of the PPA. &#xA;&#xA;Is this a terrible idea and I should just take the risk and bring someone on board to file before I file a PPA or should I be alright? &#xA;&#xA;Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62974" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22716" RevisionGUID="73bab4ba-7c35-4a4d-b2b6-b661c9b1a887" CreationDate="2020-10-26T12:51:36.777" UserId="24847" Text="How much can you change a PPA when converting into Non-Provisional such that you will be able to keep the PPA date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62975" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22716" RevisionGUID="73bab4ba-7c35-4a4d-b2b6-b661c9b1a887" CreationDate="2020-10-26T12:51:36.777" UserId="24847" Text="&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;business&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62976" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="22717" RevisionGUID="97ea6260-2f0a-4542-917b-3e69addf9bf1" CreationDate="2020-10-26T21:09:18.250" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/57468/how-much-can-you-change-a-ppa-when-converting-into-non-provisional-such-that-you/57480#57480" />
  <row Id="62977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22717" RevisionGUID="cbe97911-8c5f-4bef-99e3-e1c035c4943f" CreationDate="2020-10-26T17:49:22.803" UserId="3076" Text="You can make any change you like between a provisional application and a non-provisional application. It is just that claims in the non-provisional that are not sufficiently supported in the non-provisional will not get the benefit of the earlier filing date. This is a claim-by-claims issue. Some may end up with the earlier date and others with the later date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earlier date can be important but many not be as important as a solid non-provisional that says what it needs to say to support the best claims you can get allowed. If you keep your invention confidential between the date of the provisional and the non-provisional then the real benefit is knock out prior art that is published between those two dates. It is very possible that your pro-se written provisional ends up providing no actual benefit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other issues are that the crypto expert may become a co-inventor by making a conceptual contribution to something you end up claiming. You might want an assignment agreement as well as an NDA. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22717" RevisionGUID="cf5a7e54-c6fd-4873-9f4c-813fb4b9e1c8" CreationDate="2020-10-26T22:40:13.210" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1353 characters in body" Text="You can make any change you like between a provisional application and a non-provisional application. It is just that claims in the non-provisional that are not sufficiently supported in the non-provisional will not get the benefit of the earlier filing date. This is a claim-by-claims issue. Some may end up with the earlier date and others with the later date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not a matter of &quot;leniency&quot;. IF prior art is found by the examiner that is dated before your non-provisional filing date it will be used in a rejection. It is up to you to notice that it is after the provisional's date and then to try to knock out the reference as prior art based on pointing out the material in the provisional. It will need to be enabling adn contain at least as much information as the purported prior art reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earlier date can be important but many not be as important as a solid non-provisional that says what it needs to say to support the best claims you can get allowed. If you keep your invention confidential between the date of the provisional and the non-provisional then the real benefit is knock out prior art that is published between those two dates. It is very possible that your pro-se written provisional ends up providing no actual benefit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other issues are that the crypto expert may become a co-inventor by making a conceptual contribution to something you end up claiming. You might want an assignment agreement as well as an NDA. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone does not become a co-inventor by you offering that to them, they become a co-inventor by making a conceptual contribution to something that is claimed. Sharing in the money made from the patent and being a co-inventor are not the same thing. In one case a consultant might help a lot but *not* make a conceptual contribution to something you claim. Not an inventor but you can compensate them with 50% of the money you make if that is your agreement. In a different case a consultant makes the biggest contribution ever to the ultimate invention but has assigned their rights to you and gets paid by the hour under your agreement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there is not inventor vs co-inventor. All inventors are equal unless there is an agreement between them that says otherwise. And, the default is, any inventor can license the invention to any third party with no accounting/payment to the other inventors.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62979" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="22714" RevisionGUID="74d4ac91-a8dd-425b-b6c8-686bdf354c22" CreationDate="2020-10-27T13:29:53.237" UserId="17003" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[22716],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3076,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George White&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:18033,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DonQuiKong&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:17003,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Eric S&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="62980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22718" RevisionGUID="1a31338a-bd0e-48f8-8c12-ed845f5445f8" CreationDate="2020-10-27T16:58:25.517" UserId="24832" Text="I am considering a career change and I want to know what percentage of time is spent on writing vs other activities if you work as a patent prosecution lawyer? How do these time allotments change if you begin as a patent litigation lawyer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62981" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22718" RevisionGUID="1a31338a-bd0e-48f8-8c12-ed845f5445f8" CreationDate="2020-10-27T16:58:25.517" UserId="24832" Text="How much time does a patent lawyer spend on writing vs other activities?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62982" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22718" RevisionGUID="1a31338a-bd0e-48f8-8c12-ed845f5445f8" CreationDate="2020-10-27T16:58:25.517" UserId="24832" Text="&lt;lawyers&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22719" RevisionGUID="5fd5d7ef-9bfe-4029-9554-2d87546d51c9" CreationDate="2020-10-27T21:12:16.113" UserId="4914" Text="Suppose we have a previous application filed by Inventor A, less than a year ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now suppose we have a new application filed by Inventors A and B as joint inventors, but B works for A and his IP belongs to A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can we still use POA to B to allow B to prosecute the case? In other words, is B still a &quot;join inventor&quot; when he has not technical share and it is entirely assigned to A?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62984" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22719" RevisionGUID="5fd5d7ef-9bfe-4029-9554-2d87546d51c9" CreationDate="2020-10-27T21:12:16.113" UserId="4914" Text="Joint Inventor power of attorney when assigned fully to other inventor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62985" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22719" RevisionGUID="5fd5d7ef-9bfe-4029-9554-2d87546d51c9" CreationDate="2020-10-27T21:12:16.113" UserId="4914" Text="&lt;aia0081&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62986" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22719" RevisionGUID="0e78ecaf-2d8e-41ba-b624-965e09262f21" CreationDate="2020-10-27T23:14:01.990" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Suppose we have a previous application filed by Inventor A, less than a year ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now suppose we have a new application filed by Inventors A and B as joint inventors, but B works for A and his IP belongs to A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can we still use POA to B to allow B to prosecute the case? In other words, is B still a &quot;joint inventor&quot; when he has not technical share and it is entirely assigned to A?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22718" RevisionGUID="82f735f8-1939-4c04-8fb8-24e8189855d0" CreationDate="2020-10-27T23:16:38.957" UserId="24832" Comment="added 21 characters in body; edited title" Text="I am considering a career change and I want to know what percentage of time is spent on writing vs other activities if you work as a patent prosecution lawyer in the United States? How do these time allotments change if you begin as a patent litigation lawyer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62988" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="22718" RevisionGUID="82f735f8-1939-4c04-8fb8-24e8189855d0" CreationDate="2020-10-27T23:16:38.957" UserId="24832" Comment="added 21 characters in body; edited title" Text="How much time does a patent lawyer in the United States spend on writing vs other activities?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="62989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22720" RevisionGUID="446d7350-1144-4858-a97b-feef1c96fedf" CreationDate="2020-10-27T23:42:46.617" UserId="3076" Text="Inventorship and ownership are two different things. If A and B are both listed as inventors then they can chose one among them to represent all before the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*From 37 CFR 1.32.  Power of attorney.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b)  A power of attorney must:(1)  Be in writing;(2)  Name one or more representatives in compliance with (c) of this section;(3)  Give the representative power to act on behalf of the principal; and( 4)  Be signed by the applicant for patent (§ 1.41(b)) or the assignee of the entire interest of the applicant.(c)  A power of attorney may only name as representative:(1)  **One or more joint inventors** (§ 1.45);(2)  Those registered patent practitioners associated with a Customer Number;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63008" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="22725" RevisionGUID="2f971fce-b9dc-4f4c-a0e3-cc658fbb5255" CreationDate="2020-10-30T02:27:53.013" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/57583/is-it-safe-to-disclose-the-content-of-a-pending-patent" />
  <row Id="63009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22725" RevisionGUID="86261bf9-a7c8-4530-9086-56c5499c6859" CreationDate="2020-10-30T00:31:40.520" UserDisplayName="blu potatos" Text="If a patent has been filled and there is the need to disclose concepts illustrated in a pending patent without an NDA, is it safe to do?&#xD;&#xA; if the listener wants to patent it instead of the inventor this should be prevented as the patent pending status gives a priority date. So, what are the risks in divulgating?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63010" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22725" RevisionGUID="86261bf9-a7c8-4530-9086-56c5499c6859" CreationDate="2020-10-30T00:31:40.520" UserDisplayName="blu potatos" Text="Is it safe to disclose the content of a pending patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63011" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22725" RevisionGUID="86261bf9-a7c8-4530-9086-56c5499c6859" CreationDate="2020-10-30T00:31:40.520" UserDisplayName="blu potatos" Text="&lt;untagged&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63012" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="22726" RevisionGUID="2c4f6acb-d17f-4ea6-ba29-7552d4b63b35" CreationDate="2020-10-30T02:27:53.013" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/57583/is-it-safe-to-disclose-the-content-of-a-pending-patent/57584#57584" />
  <row Id="63013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22726" RevisionGUID="cdfa781f-ab19-494f-9d7d-5159454cc980" CreationDate="2020-10-30T01:21:53.773" UserId="3076" Text="If your pending patent application is well written and truly covers everything you need covered there is not much downside. A non-provisional application will be published by the USPTO at the 18 month point and it will all be public then. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if it is a provisional application written and filed by the inventors themselves you potentially have some downside. It is very likely the application does not properly cover the subject matter in a complete and enabling manner. When you go to a professional to work on a non-provisional they are very likely to re-write it completely and get more details from you and possibly spur you to come up with variations and alternative embodiments you will want covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you talk to people about your invention, if you go beyond the words and drawings in your provisional application, you have made that material public without publishing it. That type of disclosure is not protected by the 1 year sort-of grace period we have under the AIA and you will lose the right to include it in your non-provisional. If you have the recipient agree to keep it confidential you can avoid that problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However if you are disclosing to venture capitalists, who will not sign NDAs, you are better off than if you hadn't filed something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And note that, if you do not follow up with a non-provisional within one year, the filing date of a provisional application does not get you any priority *at all*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22730" RevisionGUID="2fbc7658-018e-4591-a9e4-274f1ef3ba51" CreationDate="2020-11-03T14:54:26.907" UserId="24903" Text="I am attempting to compare two technologies, one of which is claimed to be covered by a licensed patent. The company says that it does not disclose it's licensed patents.&#xA;&#xA;My understanding is that patents that apply to a specific device must at minimum be posted on the device. But does this not apply to licensed patents? Seems like a pretty big loophole. Is this common practice?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63030" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22730" RevisionGUID="2fbc7658-018e-4591-a9e4-274f1ef3ba51" CreationDate="2020-11-03T14:54:26.907" UserId="24903" Text="Does a company have to disclose licensed patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63031" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22730" RevisionGUID="2fbc7658-018e-4591-a9e4-274f1ef3ba51" CreationDate="2020-11-03T14:54:26.907" UserId="24903" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22731" RevisionGUID="bb1bcc05-ffd0-4e0a-9363-b9cab9d7b21e" CreationDate="2020-11-03T19:25:25.933" UserId="3076" Text="No,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no requirement for a company to make public what patents they have licensed or even what patents are assigned to them. Marking a product with a patent number is optional and provides some enhanced enforcement options to the benefit of the manufacturer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There has been discussion that the ownership of patents should be more transparent. The USPTO provides a recordation service where ownership changes can be recorded but it is not a requirement nor does doing it affect the rights of the owner. Of course to bring an infringement lawsuit one would need to establish ownership or exclusive licensing of the patent in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Licensing is more fluid and complicated than ownership. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63033" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="22730" RevisionGUID="9c985fc3-e2fe-463c-8f74-eeea09c942bb" CreationDate="2020-11-03T23:54:14.367" />
  <row Id="63034" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22277" RevisionGUID="e9c8f0b0-e5cb-442e-8be2-c9201ce277d1" CreationDate="2020-11-04T04:01:45.167" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63035" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22366" RevisionGUID="5a0dc43f-efd9-49b9-811c-7c41b833a565" CreationDate="2020-11-05T01:05:10.653" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22734" RevisionGUID="1e4ee948-7592-4e55-b055-7a5c4aa3b858" CreationDate="2020-11-08T03:06:13.367" UserId="24919" Text="Can I use scraps and parts of other products to build my own product?&#xD;&#xA;Like spools, pre welded metal, or bearings. &#xD;&#xA;New to all this, and I searched the threads, but I couldn't really find something like this. &#xD;&#xA;Thank you! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63048" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22734" RevisionGUID="1e4ee948-7592-4e55-b055-7a5c4aa3b858" CreationDate="2020-11-08T03:06:13.367" UserId="24919" Text="Can i use scraps of other products to use as raw material" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63049" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22734" RevisionGUID="1e4ee948-7592-4e55-b055-7a5c4aa3b858" CreationDate="2020-11-08T03:06:13.367" UserId="24919" Text="&lt;invention&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22735" RevisionGUID="45d241e2-ef4d-4a89-8fca-34c778fe0952" CreationDate="2020-11-08T15:23:07.850" UserId="17003" Text="Generally I'd imagine there is no particular reason from a patent standpoint why you couldn't make use of other products. In particular, I've seen artwork made from welding together scrap farm equipment and horse shoes. This doesn't mean that using scrap parts guarantees your product is immune from patent infringement. If someone has a patent on an invention and you make and sell a device using that invention, you may be sued for infringement regardless of the source of the parts. However, some companies sell parts which are covered by patents. Perhaps a special bearing for instance. They expect their customers to use those parts so you basically get permission or an implied license. It is possible that you might make use of a part in an inappropriate way that might endanger someone. Then, I suppose the original manufacturer might have good cause to try to keep you from using their parts, but that isn't strictly a patent issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bigger problem is that if you aren't making one-off items like art, it would be hard to get a reliable supply of raw materials. But this is an economic or engineering concern, not a patent issue so it would be off topic for this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63051" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="6786420e-7c10-424a-97a2-4f8bc557ef44" CreationDate="2020-11-09T17:04:40.553" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22737" RevisionGUID="20f07d48-80cc-4c0f-88e1-29d0b2d04120" CreationDate="2020-11-10T21:43:09.323" UserId="24149" Text="There is a concept in patent law called &quot;patent exhaustion.&quot; Under this defense, an authorized sale of a patented product, e.g. by the patentee or licensee, exhausts all of the patent owner's rights in the patented product. In this situation, if you purchased the patented product from an authorized seller, you would have the right to repair that patent-exhausted product. On the other hand, there is also a concept of &quot;reconstruction&quot; which prevents you from remaking the patented product, even with scrap parts, after the original patented product has been &quot;spent.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are making a totally different product, as others have commented, you could still be liable for infringement of any patents covering that different product. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on exactly what it is that you want to do, you may want to consult a patent attorney." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22738" RevisionGUID="450ef3c4-e30a-4345-9785-e538ef411c7d" CreationDate="2020-11-11T14:51:16.807" UserId="24937" Text="I am working at a company as a Data Scientist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am doing research in AI. Basically I am given instructions like: make a benchmark of these technologies. Instructions are not specific. It is me who does the research and then show the results. I know those are used to claim a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: should I be part of the patent? Anyway it is me who is doing the work. How should I proceed if it is the case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63059" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22738" RevisionGUID="450ef3c4-e30a-4345-9785-e538ef411c7d" CreationDate="2020-11-11T14:51:16.807" UserId="24937" Text="Does a patent belong to you if you do the research?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63060" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22738" RevisionGUID="450ef3c4-e30a-4345-9785-e538ef411c7d" CreationDate="2020-11-11T14:51:16.807" UserId="24937" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63061" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="21186" RevisionGUID="ee128dbf-f54a-4319-9ca1-6a6f02f94ccd" CreationDate="2020-11-11T15:05:00.550" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22739" RevisionGUID="11cba296-3ac9-4ca0-adb8-468626aa10e7" CreationDate="2020-11-11T16:21:10.623" UserId="17003" Text="You ask about ownership, but really there are two questions. Who is the patent's owner and who are the patent's inventors. Inventors are very often not the owners. When you work for a company, the normal situation is that the company owns the results of your labor and thus owns the patent. For instance a person working on an automobile assembly line doesn't own the car being assembled just because they did the work. The same for intellectual property. I am listed as an inventor on many patents, but I'm not the owner of any of them. Unless you have some odd provisions in your employment contract, you are almost assuredly not the patent's owner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inventorship is different. It depends on who had the actual idea of the invention. For instance say an engineer has a great idea for a new device. She asks a CAD designer to model the device and then has a machinist fabricate it. Lastly a technician spends many hours testing. In this case only the original engineer is the inventor despite the fact that the designer, machinist and technician spent much more time in its development. To be listed as an inventor you need to have contributed the inventive step to at least one claim in the patent. Now it may be that during your research you devised a new and novel technique that was captured the patent's claims. If so, you should be listed as one of the inventors. However just because you did the research demonstrating the invention works and those results were included in the patent doesn't make you an inventor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22739" RevisionGUID="c359bf16-97cc-456a-b182-e7fc8d4f6407" CreationDate="2020-11-11T19:00:17.637" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="You ask about ownership, but really there are two questions. Who is the patent's owner and who are the patent's inventors. Inventors are very often not the owners. When you work for a company, the normal situation is that the company owns the results of your labor and thus owns the patent. For instance a person working on an automobile assembly line doesn't own the car being assembled just because they did the work. The same for intellectual property. I am listed as an inventor on many patents, but I'm not the owner of any of them. Unless you have some odd provisions in your employment contract, you are almost assuredly not the patent's owner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inventorship is different. It depends on who had the actual idea of the invention. For instance say an engineer has a great idea for a new device. She asks a CAD designer to model the device and then has a machinist fabricate it. Lastly a technician spends many hours testing. In this case only the original engineer is the inventor despite the fact that the designer, machinist and technician spent much more time in its development. To be listed as an inventor you need to have made a conceptual contribution to something claimed in the patent. Now it may be that during your research you devised a new and novel technique that was captured the patent's claims. If so, you should be listed as one of the inventors. However just because you did the research demonstrating the invention works and those results were included in the patent doesn't make you an inventor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63064" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="f8ffb263-b4e0-4082-9f8f-a1c64046a912" CreationDate="2020-11-12T05:04:45.433" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63065" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22385" RevisionGUID="b982bb6a-615d-4229-a07d-6697987ea14d" CreationDate="2020-11-12T10:04:15.457" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63066" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22388" RevisionGUID="f9e215a3-524b-4750-a565-77cf579d60a5" CreationDate="2020-11-12T11:01:45.167" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22741" RevisionGUID="88e26121-6818-4520-b32a-c6a9ebf1ffe9" CreationDate="2020-11-13T09:18:17.340" UserId="24047" Text="To determine the earliest effective filing date of a US patent application: Can the filing date of an **abandoned** US patent application be the effective filing date? Example US 9,220,781 B2 (application no 14/799,211):&#xD;&#xA;[https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/#!/applications/14799211/continuity][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Filing or 371 (c) date&#xD;&#xA;07/14/2015&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;14/799,211 	is a Continuation of 	14/558,182 	12/1/2014 	Patented 	9,114,166&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;14/558,182 	is a Continuation of 	14/453,490 	8/5/2014 	Patented 	8,916,158&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;14/453,490 	is a Continuation of 	14/322,581 	7/1/2014 	Patented 	8,911,741&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;14/322,581 	is a Continuation of 	14/091,938 	11/26/2013 	Patented 	8,795,670&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;14/091,938 	is a Continuation of 	13/471,820 	5/14/2012 	Patented 	8,932,591&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;13/471,820 	is a Continuation of 	10/525,292 	10/26/2005 	-       	8,216,583&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10/525,292 	is a National Stage Entry of 	PCT/IB2003/004502 	8/14/2003 	- 	- 	-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PCT/IB2003/004502 	is a Continuation of 	10/222,140 	**8/15/2002** 	**Abandoned** 	-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Is 8/15/2002 of US patent application 10/222,140 the effective filing date?*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63073" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22741" RevisionGUID="88e26121-6818-4520-b32a-c6a9ebf1ffe9" CreationDate="2020-11-13T09:18:17.340" UserId="24047" Text="Filing Date of abandoned patent applications:effective filing date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63074" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22741" RevisionGUID="88e26121-6818-4520-b32a-c6a9ebf1ffe9" CreationDate="2020-11-13T09:18:17.340" UserId="24047" Text="&lt;filing-date&gt;&lt;effective-filing-date&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22742" RevisionGUID="32e85072-8553-4f29-a9b7-ca92490bf586" CreationDate="2020-11-13T17:09:15.330" UserId="3076" Text="As long as there is continuity of applications with overlapping pendency it doesn't matter the outcome of the applications doesn't matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63076" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="21189" RevisionGUID="b1312397-7e00-4b98-96d3-c83c3fc9380a" CreationDate="2020-11-13T20:04:35.597" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22742" RevisionGUID="8bc93a0a-67dd-451e-adc3-fe8b4092d630" CreationDate="2020-11-13T21:23:35.910" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body" Text="As long as there is continuity of applications with overlapping pendency the outcome of the applications doesn't matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22744" RevisionGUID="da72df52-dfc4-4de6-ab9a-5d8fe3a9cd96" CreationDate="2020-11-17T04:22:16.487" UserId="24955" Text="**Can I sell in Canada a product patented the United States?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I sell in Canada a product patented in the United States?  How can I know the united States Patent has registered an international license or not? I am interested in US patent 7,264,189, please help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63084" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22744" RevisionGUID="da72df52-dfc4-4de6-ab9a-5d8fe3a9cd96" CreationDate="2020-11-17T04:22:16.487" UserId="24955" Text="Can I sell in Canada a product patented United States?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63085" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22744" RevisionGUID="da72df52-dfc4-4de6-ab9a-5d8fe3a9cd96" CreationDate="2020-11-17T04:22:16.487" UserId="24955" Text="&lt;us&gt;&lt;canada&gt;&lt;sell&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22745" RevisionGUID="7443265d-3a0d-4381-9ae6-4cf618847104" CreationDate="2020-11-17T05:03:21.220" UserId="3076" Text="There is a corresponding Canadian application CA2444353A1 HAND-HELD FOOD PROCESSOR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents are territorial and no &quot;international license&quot; of the U.S. patent would be relevant in Canada. The application above is not not granted as a patent as of 11/16/2020." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63087" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20501" RevisionGUID="30f0debb-ce5a-4194-aa61-e4f9065bcebe" CreationDate="2020-11-17T12:08:05.913" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63088" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20309" RevisionGUID="74dd9fc3-c807-4ce9-9fad-0fe50be67dc1" CreationDate="2020-11-18T08:03:30.383" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22744" RevisionGUID="2dd9e8bf-2ea8-4502-98c0-06bf6e131341" CreationDate="2020-11-18T15:21:28.990" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to patent." Text="**Can I sell in Canada a product patented the United States?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I sell in Canada a product patented in the United States?  How can I know the united States Patent has registered an international license or not? I am interested in [US patent 7,264,189][1], please help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7264189B2/en?oq=us7264189" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22746" RevisionGUID="6dd53795-0c34-4db2-b913-ec7e3e95f1d9" CreationDate="2020-11-18T15:28:59.007" UserId="17003" Text="To add to George White's answer, the cited US patent should expire in the US as of April 19, 2020. According to Google Patents, the Canadian application [CA2444353C][1] should it get approved would expire about a year later on April 11, 2021. Once a patent expires, it is no longer a concern from an infringement aspect. This doesn't mean other, more recent patents aren't also a concern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/CA2444353C/en?oq=us7264189" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22746" RevisionGUID="4117c9b0-d9e2-4ea4-b2a7-b2f5716ffff5" CreationDate="2020-11-18T17:51:47.563" UserId="17003" Comment="edited body" Text="To add to George White's answer, the cited US patent should expire in the US as of April 19, 2021. According to Google Patents, the Canadian application [CA2444353C][1] should it get approved would expire about a year later on April 11, 2022. Once a patent expires, it is no longer a concern from an infringement aspect. This doesn't mean other, more recent patents aren't also a concern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/CA2444353C/en?oq=us7264189" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63100" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20585" RevisionGUID="99a44fcb-9fb8-4dc6-b234-f5e4f775a620" CreationDate="2020-11-19T00:03:10.387" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22749" RevisionGUID="5ed29718-c945-4129-a9ac-e88499a49986" CreationDate="2020-11-19T16:15:16.853" UserId="24969" Text="I am contesting the list and order of inventors on the patent that my former company is filing. Firstly, they added many more &quot;inventors&quot; even though the idea and whole planning for testing were done by me and my colleague, and additionally, they have hidden our names in the middle of the inventors' list.&#xD;&#xA;I know it is not a publication and probably formally it does not matter if you are first or last on the patent but we do feel we should be first (and only to be honest) inventors.&#xD;&#xA;I wrote to them that I am not going to sign the assignment documents in that shape so their solution was to remove me whatsoever.&#xD;&#xA;My question is, what legal steps can be taken to fight for the correct inventorship and when to do it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63105" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22749" RevisionGUID="5ed29718-c945-4129-a9ac-e88499a49986" CreationDate="2020-11-19T16:15:16.853" UserId="24969" Text="Inventor omitted from the provisional application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63106" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22749" RevisionGUID="5ed29718-c945-4129-a9ac-e88499a49986" CreationDate="2020-11-19T16:15:16.853" UserId="24969" Text="&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22750" RevisionGUID="61b33416-fbd7-4c32-886b-c7400a1f124a" CreationDate="2020-11-19T21:30:21.687" UserId="3076" Text="The local employment laws and any agreements you have with the company will govern the ownership issues. I do not have any knowledge in that realm. However, if there is no agreement or action of law automatically assigning the invention to the company, you - as an inventor would have an undivided ownership of the patent under U.S. law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the question of inventorship, the location of filing is determination not your location or the company's. All of the listed inventors should sign the application that states they believe themselves (collectively) to be the inventors. Before the AIA law patents were being torn up for incorrect inventorsship. Under the laws in place before the AIA incorrect inventorship was grounds for invalidation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any attempt to fix inventorship needed to have a signed statement that the incorrect inventorship was done &quot;without deceptive intent.&quot; If that couldn't be honesty signed the inventorship could not be fixed and the patent died.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The AIA changed that. All mentions of &quot;deceptive intent&quot; are gone. It will hurt and complicate any resulting patent if is has intentional erroneous inventorship. But, if challenged, they can correct it at any point, even in the middle of an infringement suit. This limits your leverage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm knowledgeable about applying and prosecution of patents as a USPTO registered patent agent but I'm not an attorney. There is probably a way to take them to court but a letter to the company's patent attorney is easy and should cause them to include you. Including people that do not belong is less dangerous to the patent than leaving off a true inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They can declare you an uncooperative inventor (thank the AIA again) and file with you as an inventor but not a signer.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22750" RevisionGUID="1a391ff3-1d98-4c19-b927-238db46dfa5a" CreationDate="2020-11-19T22:33:31.117" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The local employment laws and any agreements you have with the company will govern the ownership issues. I do not have any knowledge in that realm. However, if there is no agreement or action of law automatically assigning the invention to the company, you - as an inventor would have an undivided ownership of the patent under U.S. law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the question of inventorship, the location of filing is determination not your location or the company's. All of the listed inventors should sign the application that states they believe themselves (collectively) to be the inventors. Before the AIA law patents were being torn up for incorrect inventorship. Under the laws in place before the AIA incorrect inventorship was grounds for invalidation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any attempt to fix inventorship needed to have a signed statement that the incorrect inventorship was done &quot;without deceptive intent.&quot; If that couldn't be honesty signed the inventorship could not be fixed and the patent died.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The AIA changed that. All mentions of &quot;deceptive intent&quot; are gone. It will hurt and complicate any resulting patent if is has intentional erroneous inventorship. But, if challenged, they can correct it at any point, even in the middle of an infringement suit. This limits your leverage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm knowledgeable about applying and prosecution of patents as a USPTO registered patent agent but I'm not an attorney. There is probably a way to take them to court but a letter to the company's patent attorney is easy and should cause them to include you. Including people that do not belong is less dangerous to the patent than leaving off a true inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They can declare you an uncooperative inventor (thank the AIA again) and file with you as an inventor but not a signer.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63109" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="13da2911-75e1-4599-bc3a-a21132bf1bff" CreationDate="2020-11-20T15:04:45.420" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22750" RevisionGUID="c83048ee-0bea-4aa8-abf0-54246c5bdb3a" CreationDate="2020-11-21T17:47:56.967" UserId="3076" Comment="added 526 characters in body" Text="The local employment laws and any agreements you have with the company will govern the ownership issues. I do not have any knowledge in that realm. However, if there is no agreement or action of law automatically assigning the invention to the company, you - as an inventor would have an undivided ownership of the patent under U.S. law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the question of inventorship, the location of filing is determination not your location or the company's. All of the listed inventors should sign the application that states they believe themselves (collectively) to be the inventors. Before the AIA law patents were being torn up for incorrect inventorship. Under the laws in place before the AIA incorrect inventorship was grounds for invalidation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any attempt to fix inventorship needed to have a signed statement that the incorrect inventorship was done &quot;without deceptive intent.&quot; If that couldn't be honesty signed the inventorship could not be fixed and the patent died.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The AIA changed that. All mentions of &quot;deceptive intent&quot; are gone. It will hurt and complicate any resulting patent if is has intentional erroneous inventorship. But, if challenged, they can correct it at any point, even in the middle of an infringement suit. This limits your leverage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm knowledgeable about applying and prosecution of patents as a USPTO registered patent agent but I'm not an attorney. There is probably a way to take them to court but a letter to the company's patent attorney is easy and should cause them to include you. Including people that do not belong is less dangerous to the patent than leaving off a true inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They can declare you an uncooperative inventor (thank the AIA again) and file with you as an inventor but not a signer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inventorship often changes between a provisional and a non-provisional with multiple inventors, particularly becasue what is claimed determines who is and is not an inventor. There have been issues with foreign applications that get priority from a provisional but have additional inventors in the foreign application. The inventors, collectively, do not have a 100% consistent chain back to the provisional. For that reason the company would be wise to have everybody on the provisional that might be an inventor.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22751" RevisionGUID="398e6323-f78d-4373-9e91-3c49f3f6a0fb" CreationDate="2020-11-23T00:38:12.790" UserId="24983" Text="I am not your attorney. The following educational information might not be appropriate for your situation. You might want to consult your own attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US constitution gives the intellectual property ownership rights of patents to their inventors. Inventors often assign those rights to a corporation but do not need to. Any owner of an interest in a patent may give others a license, which could effectively render the patent worthless to others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incorrectly naming an inventor gives them undeserved control over property and its value. Incorrectly omitting an inventor robs them of their property right. Either situation, if proven by evidence in court, is grounds for invalidating a US patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The standard for inventorship is anybody who contributed to conceiving the idea in any claim. If there is even 1 claim with a tiny additional feature that somebody helped to conceive, they must be named as an inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might want to look carefully at the claims, as filed, and collect evidence regarding who did contribute to any of the claims and who did not contribute to any of the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A common error is to name as inventor a person who set out a problem to be solved, such as a manager, but did not participate in conceiving the solution. Another common error is to name as inventor a person who merely implemented the solution, such as a junior programmer, but did not participate in conceiving the solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the patent application is pending but not granted, you could raise your concern with the attorney or agent handling prosecution of the application. Doing so in a polite way, assuming an honest mistake, is probably best. They are ethically obligated to investigate and get it right. If you raised the issue and the patent is eventually granted with an inventorship list that is incorrect, you have what is needed to invalidate the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the patent is already granted with an incorrect list of inventorship that was an honest mistake, such as because the attorney was misinformed, it can be corrected. You could raise the issue, politely, with the owner of the patent. If they refuse, even faced with your evidence, then you can invalidate the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are able to invalidate the patent, and do not wish to remain on good terms with the owner, you can approach whoever the owner has licensed the patent to. The licensee might be very glad for your help to stop having to pay a license fee for the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have signed an employment agreement that obligates you to assign your invention rights to your employer, and you refuse to sign the assignment agreement, then you might be in breach of your employment contract. The employer patent applicant might be able to file your employment agreement with the patent office and claim ownership without your cooperation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the order of names, there is no legal requirement as to the order. Generally, whoever is paying the lawyer's fees can decide what they want the order of inventors to be. They might change the order if you ask nicely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22751" RevisionGUID="edfd9620-a73d-4373-a872-ae8372561141" CreationDate="2020-11-23T00:56:18.800" UserId="24983" Comment="Added clarification about how requirements differ for a provisional applicaiton" Text="I am not your attorney. The following educational information might not be appropriate for your situation. You might want to consult your own attorney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US constitution gives the intellectual property ownership rights of patents to their inventors. Inventors often assign those rights to a corporation but do not need to. Any owner of an interest in a patent may give others a license, which could effectively render the patent worthless to others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incorrectly naming an inventor gives them undeserved control over property and its value. Incorrectly omitting an inventor robs them of their property right. Either situation, if proven by evidence in court, is grounds for invalidating a US patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The standard for inventorship is anybody who contributed to conceiving the idea in any claim. If there is even 1 claim with a tiny additional feature that somebody helped to conceive, they must be named as an inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might want to look carefully at the claims, as filed, and collect evidence regarding who did contribute to any of the claims and who did not contribute to any of the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A common error is to name as inventor a person who set out a problem to be solved, such as a manager, but did not participate in conceiving the solution. Another common error is to name as inventor a person who merely implemented the solution, such as a junior programmer, but did not participate in conceiving the solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the patent application is pending but not granted, you could raise your concern with the attorney or agent handling prosecution of the application. Doing so in a polite way, assuming an honest mistake, is probably best. They are ethically obligated to investigate and get it right. If you raised the issue and the patent is eventually granted with an inventorship list that is incorrect, you have what is needed to invalidate the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the patent is already granted with an incorrect list of inventorship that was an honest mistake, such as because the attorney was misinformed, it can be corrected. You could raise the issue, politely, with the owner of the patent. If they refuse, even faced with your evidence, then you can invalidate the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are able to invalidate the patent, and do not wish to remain on good terms with the owner, you can approach whoever the owner has licensed the patent to. The licensee might be very glad for your help to stop having to pay a license fee for the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have signed an employment agreement that obligates you to assign your invention rights to your employer, and you refuse to sign the assignment agreement, then you might be in breach of your employment contract. The employer patent applicant might be able to file your employment agreement with the patent office and claim ownership without your cooperation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the order of names, there is no legal requirement as to the order. Generally, whoever is paying the lawyer's fees can decide what they want the order of inventors to be. They might change the order if you ask nicely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: Since the question is about a provisional patent application, and a provisional application need not have claims, the inventorship question would hinge on who contributed to any concept described in the document. That might be a longer list of inventors than will be named on a potential future non-provisional application. Inventorship in that application will depend on the claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22752" RevisionGUID="ad6d5c9e-4f6f-4d86-9159-58fdd9abbd9d" CreationDate="2020-11-23T02:11:30.900" UserId="24983" Text="I prosecute in-house. Most patent attorneys and agents, during their working hours, are either writing, reading, or trying to find clients. If you start your own practice, much of your time will be spent finding clients at first. If you work for a law firm or in-house, most of your time will be writing or reading. There is some administrative time spent managing your docket task list and, if in private practice, entering information for billing. You will also have occasional discussions with inventors about solutions to difficult problems. That is what makes it all worthwhile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of writing, I spend about 40% of my work time writing. That can include drafting a new patent application, but also writing replies to rejections from the patent office or writing emails providing advice to a client/boss. All are fairly cerebral and require a sharp mind and drawing on experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I spend about 40% of my work time reading. That include inventors' descriptions, prior art, patent office rejections, case law, and legal blogs. There is usually enough variety to keep work stimulating." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22753" RevisionGUID="7fba9551-4baf-49f2-ab8e-b9e4d10287ad" CreationDate="2020-11-23T02:37:23.793" UserId="24983" Text="Some patent practitioners advise filing third party preissuance submissions. However, many others will advise that you hold the prior art and do not interfere with the pending application. If you submit the prior art that you know, there is a high likelihood that the examiner will not use it in a rejection. Therefore, it would have no effect to force the applicant to narrow the claims. However, after that, it would be difficult to use that prior art in the future if you are involved in a dispute and want to invalidate the patent(s) in court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do not interfere, and the applicant gets claims with undeserved breadth, it might be to your advantage by preventing a third competitor from entering the market. Your competitor having a patent is no harm to you if they never assert it against you. If they do, you can show them the prior art and tell them that if they sue, you will invalidate their overly broad patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22754" RevisionGUID="03701630-924f-48bd-a28e-fb528290d9ee" CreationDate="2020-11-23T03:08:17.807" UserId="24983" Text="The words &quot;comprising&quot; to refer to an open list and &quot;consisting of&quot; to refer to a closed list are terms with well-settled meaning in patent law. Perhaps the term &quot;inclusive&quot; has well recognized meaning in chemical or pharmaceutical technologies. In my drafting for high-tech, I would avoid using the term &quot;inclusive&quot; to bound a list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I was sued over a claim phrased as in either example, unless the specification made it very clear, I might use the possible ambiguity to argue for a claim construction that disfavors the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The words &quot;either... or&quot; in the first example is somewhat dangerous. If infringement requires practicing option 1 or option 2, then surely avoiding infringement requires not practicing option 1 or option 2. Therefore, as long as the accused product doesn't do both, the defendant can argue non-infringement. The argument might not win, but it can run up the legal bills. For that reason, the second phrasing is probably better than the first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some practitioners never use the word &quot;or&quot; in a patent claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The approach I would take is to split it into multiple claims, one for each option in the list. Having a large number of claims might require paying an extra fee. However, in the lifetime costs of a strong patent, those excess claims fees are very little." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22755" RevisionGUID="fb172dac-c15f-4315-b230-e26c2beb3acf" CreationDate="2020-11-23T03:29:17.790" UserId="24983" Text="In the US, like most countries with patent systems, it is illegal to use an invention claimed in a patent without a license. In some countries, the government will grant an injunction against such users if you show evidence of the infringement to a court. In the US, at least in high-tech fields (bio/pharma might be different), injunctions are rare since the Ebay v MercExchange case. If you win a lawsuit, you are likely to be awarded the amount of money you would have gotten if you and the user had negotiated a license before they began using the invention. Such a license generally involves a royalty payment on their marginal profit from using the invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, once you have your granted patent in hand, you ought to consider how much more profit are is the user making by using your invention than they would make without using your invention. A small portion of that difference, as a royalty, is what you could get if you win a lawsuit. If that is greater than the cost of the lawsuit then you should ask them to negotiate a license agreement and pay you a royalty. Otherwise, it is probably not worthwhile for you to do anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, every situation is different. You might want to consult a knowledgeable attorney about your case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22756" RevisionGUID="00307a1b-a02e-4c7d-833e-e01855d38b61" CreationDate="2020-11-23T06:07:54.427" UserId="24983" Text="If you contributed to conception of the ideas in any claims of the patent, you must be named as a (co-)inventor for a US patent to be valid. If you defined the problem but not the solution or if you implemented an inventive solution that somebody else specified then you must not be named.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel that you should be named, you might want to gently and politely suggest that to your manager. If you can reach the attorney or agent who will or did file the patent application, you can mention it. They are ethically obligated to inquire and make sure that the correct inventors are named.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have evidence to prove that you should have been named as an inventor yet the company knowingly left you out, you have grounds to invalidate the patent later. If the company is licensing out the patent, you could approach the licensee. They might be happy to stop paying license fees for an invalid patent. However, doing so might make you quite unliked by some people." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22757" RevisionGUID="2f674423-243d-42b8-b0b1-06a0af0b0a0d" CreationDate="2020-11-23T06:27:08.597" UserId="24983" Text="A reissue application requires an application data sheet (ADS). I have never tried, but I suspect that when the USPTO issues the reissue patent, they will list inventors in the order of names provided in the ADS filed with the reissue application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [USPTO MPEP Section 1410][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not, you should be able to change the order of inventor names with a certificate of correction (and appropriate fee).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [USPTO MPEP 1481.02][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO will not issue a new ribbon copy for a certificate of correction, so the inventors will not see the first name change on the face of the patent. I suspect that Google Patents will not pick up the change, either. So, the result of a correction might be unsatisfactory for the inventors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A certificate of correction is also the way to go if an inventor changes name, such as through marriage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1410.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1481.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63125" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20595" RevisionGUID="f2ec11fe-ef26-4900-bf96-915e320ce73b" CreationDate="2020-11-23T12:04:05.400" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22759" RevisionGUID="84a5390a-0ba3-4b7d-b80c-83f31ae89e6a" CreationDate="2020-11-23T16:39:53.827" UserId="24983" Text="In January 2019 the Director of the USPTO issued new guidance to the examining corps that caused them to be much less strict on giving 101 rejections. The 3620, 3680, and 3690 art units, which examine business methods, are still very strict due to the nature of the subject matter (Alice was about a business method).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many patent applicants were happy with the changes to examination. Some, like I, are concerned that examiners will now allow patents that courts would find invalid under 101. To ensure that your eventual granted patent will be enforceable, it is important to understand how the courts apply 101 law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In opinions of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the top appeals court for most patent cases), an often repeated word is &quot;specificity&quot;. Also, &quot;results-oriented&quot; claiming is not sufficient. My summary is, &quot;don't just say what it does, say how it works&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specificity does not require that the claim is long, and many long claims have been found ineligible under 101. Furthermore, machine claims are not significantly more eligible than method claims. Only 2 cases that I can find have been decided on 101 grounds based on claims in means-plus-function form. One eligible, one ineligible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I maintain a growing document listing almost all claims analyzed by the Federal Circuit on 101 grounds since Alice and excerpts of the court's explanations for why they are or are not eligible. Though you might use some eligible claims as a template for your own drafting, I think that the document is mostly useful for study.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can download my document [here][1] and a similar document for European Patent Office Board of Appeals cases on subject matter eligibility [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.dropbox.com/s/gaqre59znt75j77/CAFC%20claims%20found%20101%20eligible%20and%20ineligible.pdf?dl=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.dropbox.com/s/6gwqbc23ssdwcow/EPO%20BoA%20claims%20analyzed%20for%20technical%20character.pdf?dl=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63127" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="22682" RevisionGUID="c3e75b09-f2d3-4827-82aa-58369196969a" CreationDate="2020-11-24T02:27:05.617" UserId="24770" Comment="added more tags" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;reissue&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63128" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="22682" RevisionGUID="c3e75b09-f2d3-4827-82aa-58369196969a" CreationDate="2020-11-24T02:27:05.617" Comment="Proposed by 24770 approved by 18033, 18521 edit id of 2140" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22760" RevisionGUID="71450f51-19a5-42e5-a19a-89bcf142c49d" CreationDate="2020-11-24T04:22:53.687" UserId="24990" Text="Since 2010 recently deceased inventor (Pa. resident) received several significant US patents and filed several pending applications for US and international patents. No estate has been filed 8 months after death.  Inventor formed corporation, sold shares, solicited and accepted loans, hired staff with wage claims. Experiments by publicly traded US corps. and academic institutions have demonstrated viability of patent claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a former employee, lender to the firm, shareholder in the Corporation and with potential claims for intellectual property created while an employee what are my options to discover actions taken to commercialize and/or transfer various rights and intellectual properties and to discover the actions being taken by surviving relatives, other employees, share holders and creditors?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63130" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22760" RevisionGUID="71450f51-19a5-42e5-a19a-89bcf142c49d" CreationDate="2020-11-24T04:22:53.687" UserId="24990" Text="Patent holder died, no estate filed. Relatives may commercialize patents. The deceased sold shares and accepted loans?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63131" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22760" RevisionGUID="71450f51-19a5-42e5-a19a-89bcf142c49d" CreationDate="2020-11-24T04:22:53.687" UserId="24990" Text="&lt;intellectual-property&gt;&lt;assignment&gt;&lt;employee&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22762" RevisionGUID="c6b2ad3b-3bbb-40d5-8a99-7bcdf74cb5a5" CreationDate="2020-11-24T16:50:31.123" UserId="20503" Text="The [USPTO Cancer Moonshot Patent project][1] includes an interesting data set called [the Orange Book, which links FDA drugs to patent numbers][2].  Can anyone share other open source government patent to *'anything'* correlation data? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/national-cancer-moonshot&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-approvals-and-databases/orange-book-data-files" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63138" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22762" RevisionGUID="c6b2ad3b-3bbb-40d5-8a99-7bcdf74cb5a5" CreationDate="2020-11-24T16:50:31.123" UserId="20503" Text="Available patent correlation data" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63139" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22762" RevisionGUID="c6b2ad3b-3bbb-40d5-8a99-7bcdf74cb5a5" CreationDate="2020-11-24T16:50:31.123" UserId="20503" Text="&lt;databases&gt;&lt;opensource&gt;&lt;bulk-download&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22764" RevisionGUID="9ff4c582-787d-47c6-b241-1a770ae38485" CreationDate="2020-11-25T06:05:18.147" UserId="24983" Text="The only similar types of documents that come to my mind are lists of standard-essential patents for technologies such as video codecs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This link leads to a list for the H.264/AVC video codec standard.&#xD;&#xA;https://www.mpegla.com/programs/avc-h-264/patent-list/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This link leads to a list for the H.265/HEVC video codec standard.&#xD;&#xA;https://www.mpegla.com/programs/hevc/patent-list/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This link leads to a list for the HEVC Advance video codec standard.&#xD;&#xA;https://accessadvance.com/licensors/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other technologies with industry standards probably have patent lists." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63147" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22716" RevisionGUID="b2a9d8cd-a34f-4fbe-86a4-9ca34d5c9f7a" CreationDate="2020-11-25T23:02:25.227" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22759" RevisionGUID="eb497708-b7f0-4218-95dd-4a8d52b51544" CreationDate="2020-11-26T02:40:17.860" UserId="24983" Comment="Added links to USPTO resources" Text="In January 2019 the Director of the USPTO issued new guidance to the examining corps that caused them to be much less strict on giving 101 rejections. The 3620, 3680, and 3690 art units, which examine business methods, are still very strict due to the nature of the subject matter (Alice was about a business method).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many patent applicants were happy with the changes to examination. Some, like I, are concerned that examiners will now allow patents that courts would find invalid under 101. To ensure that your eventual granted patent will be enforceable, it is important to understand how the courts apply 101 law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In opinions of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the top appeals court for most patent cases), an often repeated word is &quot;specificity&quot;. Also, &quot;results-oriented&quot; claiming is not sufficient. My summary is, &quot;don't just say what it does, say how it works&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specificity does not require that the claim is long, and many long claims have been found ineligible under 101. Furthermore, machine claims are not significantly more eligible than method claims. Only 2 cases that I can find have been decided on 101 grounds based on claims in means-plus-function form. One eligible, one ineligible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I maintain a growing document listing almost all claims analyzed by the Federal Circuit on 101 grounds since Alice and excerpts of the court's explanations for why they are or are not eligible. Though you might use some eligible claims as a template for your own drafting, I think that the document is mostly useful for study.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can download my document [here][1] and a similar document for European Patent Office Board of Appeals cases on subject matter eligibility [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Multiple resources are available [here][3]. The &quot;October 2019 update&quot; is a fairly small update to the January 2019 guidance. That is available [here][4]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.dropbox.com/s/gaqre59znt75j77/CAFC%20claims%20found%20101%20eligible%20and%20ineligible.pdf?dl=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.dropbox.com/s/6gwqbc23ssdwcow/EPO%20BoA%20claims%20analyzed%20for%20technical%20character.pdf?dl=1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22764" RevisionGUID="62252c0a-64c7-41d5-acfe-01730475de61" CreationDate="2020-11-26T02:50:49.067" UserId="24983" Comment="Added suggestion for keyword searching Google Patents and Espacenet" Text="The only similar types of documents that come to my mind are lists of standard-essential patents for technologies such as video codecs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This link leads to a list for the H.264/AVC video codec standard.&#xD;&#xA;https://www.mpegla.com/programs/avc-h-264/patent-list/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This link leads to a list for the H.265/HEVC video codec standard.&#xD;&#xA;https://www.mpegla.com/programs/hevc/patent-list/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This link leads to a list for the HEVC Advance video codec standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://accessadvance.com/licensors/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other technologies with industry standards probably have patent lists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also possible to type search terms of interest into Google Patents and click the Download link to get a .CSV spreadsheet file listing up to 25,000 search results. Google Patents allows filtering by types of publications, national offices, date ranges, assignees, and other frequently useful parameters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Espacenet, run by the European Patent Office, has a similar search ability, but limited to 500 results and a bit less user-friendly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22765" RevisionGUID="8cd6916f-84de-4c52-888f-a75386ebfbc0" CreationDate="2020-11-26T03:15:07.770" UserId="24983" Text="With few exceptions, patents apply only to activities within the borders of the countries that issue them. Therefore, generally, a US patent has no effect on use of the patented invention in Canada. The user would have no liability for infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2018 the US Supreme Court, in the case of WesternGeco v ION Geophysical Corp, 138 S.Ct. 2129 (2018), said that a patent owner can recover lost profits that they could have made but for an infringer's conduct inside the US that led to use of the patented invention outside of the US. That would be an uncommon situation that is probably not within the intended scope of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if the invention is or becomes patented in Canada, there could be liability to the owner of the Canadian patent for infringing use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22766" RevisionGUID="886613a3-df0e-4474-9fb4-09bb82b44d95" CreationDate="2020-11-26T18:38:53.280" UserId="24983" Text="A patent license is a contract between two parties, a licensor who owns a patent right and a licensee who wants to practice what the patent claims. If the licensee is a business, it is possible but would be uncommon to pay for a license without knowing what patents it covers. Contracts with businesses are not usually published, so it would be uncommon for you to know what patents are covered by somebody else's license agreement. When an end-user buys a product or service, it comes with an implied license from the seller for any patents that cover the product or service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If somebody says that they own a patent that covers a technology, whether it is licensed to others probably shouldn't make much difference to you. If you would like to know what patents are owned by a specific owner (&quot;assignee&quot;), you can do a worldwide search on [Google Patents][1] or [Espacenet][2] by filtering results for the assignee. Be aware that the spellings of company names are inconsistent, so be sure to search with and without &quot;inc&quot;, &quot;, inc&quot;, and the names of parent companies or subsidiaries. Theoretically, a patent can be sold without recording a new assignment. however, most sales are publicly recorded, at least for US patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to know what technologies are covered by patents, you can use those search engines and enter keywords that are related to the technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different countries have different laws about patent marking. Under US law, [35 U.S. Code § 287][3] says that a patent owner can only collect money for your infringing activity (&quot;damages&quot;) once that have put you on notice of your infringement. That can come from them, for example, sending you a letter or by marking their patent number(s) on the product. Some products are small and implement technologies covered by many patents. For such products, a URL to a web page listing patents covering the product is appropriate notice. However, you can be held liable for any infringmeent of patents that claim a method, even if the patent owner provides no marking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/287" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22720" RevisionGUID="8898880f-cd5f-4441-a24e-d1f9658c8e65" CreationDate="2020-11-26T18:51:15.503" UserId="3076" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Yes,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inventorship and ownership are two different things. If A and B are both listed as inventors then they can chose one among them to represent all before the USPTO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*From 37 CFR 1.32.  Power of attorney.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b)  A power of attorney must:(1)  Be in writing;(2)  Name one or more representatives in compliance with (c) of this section;(3)  Give the representative power to act on behalf of the principal; and( 4)  Be signed by the applicant for patent (§ 1.41(b)) or the assignee of the entire interest of the applicant.(c)  A power of attorney may only name as representative:(1)  **One or more joint inventors** (§ 1.45);(2)  Those registered patent practitioners associated with a Customer Number;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22767" RevisionGUID="1138fe0c-27e8-49d2-8588-7cb5f14ad7e0" CreationDate="2020-11-26T21:25:17.027" UserId="25009" Text="If I invent something specific then someone patents a similar thing later (let's assume a recent patent e.g. 2015), do I have the right to manufacture and sell products using the invention? And if so, do I technically have copyright but not the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63154" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22767" RevisionGUID="1138fe0c-27e8-49d2-8588-7cb5f14ad7e0" CreationDate="2020-11-26T21:25:17.027" UserId="25009" Text="If someone has a patent but I invented same thing earlier, can i manufacture it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63155" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22767" RevisionGUID="1138fe0c-27e8-49d2-8588-7cb5f14ad7e0" CreationDate="2020-11-26T21:25:17.027" UserId="25009" Text="&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22768" RevisionGUID="20ce0714-cd61-464d-8950-d0d37e5ee89f" CreationDate="2020-11-26T21:57:53.367" UserId="17003" Text="You don't mention the country, but assuming the patent is from the country you are looking to manufacture or sell in then no you can't produce the product without fear of being sued for infringement. It doesn't matter that you believe you invented it first since most all countries have a first to file system for patents. Now, if you publicly disclosed the invention before the patent was filed, you might have grounds for invalidating the patent, but that isn't an easy or cheap process. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will say that many people confuse patents with applications and it is very possible the document you are worried about isn't an active granted patent. If you were to provide the document number we can advise you as to its status.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Copyright is really a different thing altogether and not really relevant to inventions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22769" RevisionGUID="e2caa493-f721-4822-92f1-c785b89ad996" CreationDate="2020-11-26T22:09:14.643" UserId="3076" Text="Most likely - **No**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, copyrights have nothing to do with it other than any written or drawn plans you might have made can't literally be copied without your OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have a patent and can try to stop you from making something that infringes that patent. An exception would be if you had been already manufacturing it before they applied for their patent. Then you could keep making it, where you were making it, the way you were making it. It's sort of a grandfather right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility would be if you had published your invention before they applied for their patent. They still have the patent but you (and anyone else) can use that publication to attack the validity of the patent at the USPTO. If successful, then you can make it. Or you could make it and use the publication as part of your defense if they came after you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The heart of the patent system is you get a temporary monopoly in return for disclosing your invention to the public and giving the rights to it to the public at the end of the patent term.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63158" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="22767" RevisionGUID="7271225c-9c88-4027-896d-d7c37b03e2b2" CreationDate="2020-11-26T23:43:40.513" UserId="17003" Comment="edited title" Text="If someone has a patent but I invented same thing earlier, can I manufacture it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22769" RevisionGUID="1dabe2de-563d-4aa1-ac6d-8540813d343a" CreationDate="2020-11-27T02:03:00.877" UserId="3076" Comment="changed to indicate prior use must be 1 year before the other party filed." Text="Most likely - **No**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, copyrights have nothing to do with it other than any written or drawn plans you might have made can't literally be copied without your OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have a patent and can try to stop you from making something that infringes that patent. An exception would be if you had been already manufacturing it *more than one year before the patent’s effective filing date.* they applied for their patent. Then you could keep making it, where you were making it, the way you were making it. It's sort of a grandfather right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility would be if you had published your invention before they applied for their patent. They still have the patent but you (and anyone else) can use that publication to attack the validity of the patent at the USPTO. If successful, then you can make it. Or you could make it and use the publication as part of your defense if they came after you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The heart of the patent system is you get a temporary monopoly in return for disclosing your invention to the public and giving the rights to it to the public at the end of the patent term.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22770" RevisionGUID="4b72db6f-827a-4015-9969-bdfa3587fc3b" CreationDate="2020-11-27T05:50:22.333" UserId="24983" Text="This question is mostly about copyright licenses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Method patents (in theory) allow their owners to exclude others from implementing their claimed processes. If an implementation is by a computer running software, any of an infinite number of source code designs using any appropriate programming language can cause the computer to perform the infringing process. It is possible for somebody to be totally unaware of the patent or any other implementations and still write a program that would cause infringement of the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a copyright perspective, any particular source code implementation is a work of art. The right to make and use a copy of the code is owned by its creator unless the creator has agreed to have been hired to create it or the owner sells the copyright. The owner of a copyright can grant one or more others parties permission to make and use copies as a license. Licenses can have any kind of conditions that the copyright owner wishes to place on the use of the art work (source code in this case).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An open source license is how a copyright owner can grant permission for anybody to make and use copies of source code under certain conditions. For example, a condition can be that the users may only use the code as written without making modifications. Another condition could be the users may only use the code for non-commercial purposes. Another type of condition is that modifications are allowed but any modifications must also be granted to the public as an open source license under the same terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Designing the software in a way that supports extensions, such as an interpreter, is a way to allow the main program and extensions to be provided under different licenses with different conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many standard open sources licenses. Apache is one. However, there are even multiple versions of the Apache license. Some open source licenses even require licensing rights other than copyrights, such as patent rights that would cover the processes performed by a computer running the code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What license is best for providing a piece of code as open source depends a lot on the business goals of the copyright owner. That potentially includes the goal of preventing others from making a business using the code. Some lawyers have a specialty in understanding and advising on open source licenses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22771" RevisionGUID="4ef257ab-64ca-4cd3-9ed4-e52e958dff81" CreationDate="2020-11-27T22:57:57.233" UserId="25016" Text="I run a startup company. I thought i came up with a great product and everything was great. Then one day i received an email of someone claiming to have a PPA of that same product and to cease selling it or provide some form of royalties. I tried to work with them but this was there ultimatum. I was getting ready to sign a contract with them but i later found out they didn't even have a PPA for the product. It was one big deception in order to get me to pay royalties. I lost business because of this and want to know what are my option to deal with this legally? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63162" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22771" RevisionGUID="4ef257ab-64ca-4cd3-9ed4-e52e958dff81" CreationDate="2020-11-27T22:57:57.233" UserId="25016" Text="Someone claimed patent Infringment but didn't have a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63163" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22771" RevisionGUID="4ef257ab-64ca-4cd3-9ed4-e52e958dff81" CreationDate="2020-11-27T22:57:57.233" UserId="25016" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22772" RevisionGUID="80c42b47-cab9-4413-b1c0-9825dbde3693" CreationDate="2020-11-27T23:31:54.267" UserId="25009" Text="If a technology was initially invented, manufactured and sold in the UK around 2008, but not patented, and a similar technology was later patented in the US in 2015 by a different company, can the original UK technology be safely sold in the US now?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63165" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22772" RevisionGUID="80c42b47-cab9-4413-b1c0-9825dbde3693" CreationDate="2020-11-27T23:31:54.267" UserId="25009" Text="Can technology manufactured in UK be sold in US if only US patented but earlier manufactured in UK" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63166" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22772" RevisionGUID="80c42b47-cab9-4413-b1c0-9825dbde3693" CreationDate="2020-11-27T23:31:54.267" UserId="25009" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;first-to-file&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22772" RevisionGUID="2bc66ba9-1570-45a1-9d03-14f01ac8442f" CreationDate="2020-11-27T23:40:06.000" UserId="25009" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="If a technology was initially invented, manufactured and sold in the UK around 2008, but not patented, and a similar technology was later patented in the US in 2015 by a different company, can the original UK technology continue to be manufactured in the UK and safely sold in the US now?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22773" RevisionGUID="45a13dfd-0344-47f3-8efe-84714f720ffc" CreationDate="2020-11-27T23:58:18.927" UserId="17003" Text="The answer is probably yes, but not guaranteed. Since the product has been sold in 2008, it probably predates the filing of the 2015 US patent. If you had listed the US patent number we could determine the filing date and the patent's status. Since the sale of the product is public it represents prior art to the 2015 patent so that patent shouldn't be a problem. What you don't know is if there is another previous US patent that predates the original sale in the UK that controls the invention in some way. Just because the one patent you found isn't a problem doesn't mean there aren't other patents that are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best course of action is to do a formal freedom to operate analysis with a competent attorney. The reason I suggest the use of a patent attorney or agent is that it is what is in the claims that matter. Many people believe a patent cover much more than it actually does because they focus on the body of the patent. Indeed many questions here at Ask Patents confuse patent applications with actual granted patents. Applications often don't get granted and even if they do, often have their claims narrowed before becoming a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I am not a lawyer myself and this shouldn't be taken as legal advice. It is always wise to consult with an attorney in patent matters." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22773" RevisionGUID="b9a7b6d4-8297-45e6-bc3c-a30a677a10f2" CreationDate="2020-11-28T00:09:18.950" UserId="17003" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="The answer is probably yes, but not guaranteed. Since the product has been sold in 2008, it probably predates the filing of the 2015 US patent. If you had listed the US patent number we could determine the filing date and the patent's status. Since the sale of the product is public it represents prior art to the 2015 patent so that patent shouldn't be a problem. What you don't know is if there is another previous US patent that predates the original sale in the UK that controls the invention in some way. Just because the one patent you found isn't a problem doesn't mean there aren't other patents that are. I should point out that since you are manufacturing in the UK, then UK patents are also potentially an issue for infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best course of action is to do a formal freedom to operate analysis with a competent attorney. The reason I suggest the use of a patent attorney or agent is that it is what is in the claims that matter. Many people believe a patent cover much more than it actually does because they focus on the body of the patent. Indeed many questions here at Ask Patents confuse patent applications with actual granted patents. Applications often don't get granted and even if they do, often have their claims narrowed before becoming a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I am not a lawyer myself and this shouldn't be taken as legal advice. It is always wise to consult with an attorney in patent matters." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22774" RevisionGUID="bbcdbfbe-b346-4276-875f-ac2a8ac8d9a7" CreationDate="2020-11-28T14:13:13.387" UserId="25022" Text="Is there a minimum number of figures required to file a design patent? I see some patents filed with just 1 or 2 figures. Realize that it might not be great to defend the patent with fewer views but wanted to see if my application will get rejected because of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63171" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22774" RevisionGUID="bbcdbfbe-b346-4276-875f-ac2a8ac8d9a7" CreationDate="2020-11-28T14:13:13.387" UserId="25022" Text="Minimum number of figures for design patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63172" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22774" RevisionGUID="bbcdbfbe-b346-4276-875f-ac2a8ac8d9a7" CreationDate="2020-11-28T14:13:13.387" UserId="25022" Text="&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;design&gt;&lt;patent-figures&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22775" RevisionGUID="12755ec9-93d6-4be9-b033-40af3abe32e1" CreationDate="2020-11-28T19:57:31.073" UserId="3076" Text="The USPTO [guidance on drawing views][1] is very clear and copied below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you were claiming an icon on a computer screen you would most likely have a single view since it is flat with no side, top, back etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one or more surfaces were completely flat that could be conveyed in the text of the description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The drawings or photographs should contain a sufficient number of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; views to completely disclose the appearance of the claimed design,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; i.e., front, rear, right and left sides, top and bottom. While not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; required, it is suggested that perspective views be submitted to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; clearly show the appearance and shape of three-dimensional designs. If&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a perspective view is submitted, the surfaces shown would normally not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be required to be illustrated in other views if these surfaces are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; clearly understood and fully disclosed in the perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Views that are merely duplicates of other views of the design or that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are merely flat and include no ornamentality may be omitted from the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; drawing if the specification makes this explicitly clear. For example,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if the left and right sides of a design are identical or a mirror&#xD;&#xA;&gt; image, a view should be provided of one side and a statement made in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the drawing description that the other side is identical or a mirror&#xD;&#xA;&gt; image. If the bottom of the design is flat, a view of the bottom may&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be omitted if the figure descriptions include a statement that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bottom is flat and unornamented. The term &quot;unornamented&quot; should not be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; used to describe visible surfaces that include structure that is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; clearly not flat. In some cases, the claim may be directed to an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; entire article, but because all sides of the article may not be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; visible during normal use, it is not necessary to disclose them. A&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sectional view which more clearly brings out elements of the design is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; permissible, however a sectional view presented to show functional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; features, or interior structure not forming part of the claimed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; design, is neither required nor permitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/design-patent-application-guide#views" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22773" RevisionGUID="2d46f9e0-48b7-40af-add7-a42aa3a590de" CreationDate="2020-11-28T21:49:10.507" UserId="17003" Comment="edited body" Text="The answer is probably yes, but not guaranteed. Since the product had been sold in 2008, it probably predates the filing of the 2015 US patent. If you had listed the US patent number we could determine the filing date and the patent's status. Since the sale of the product is public it represents prior art to the 2015 patent so that patent shouldn't be a problem. What you don't know is if there is another previous US patent that predates the original sale in the UK that controls the invention in some way. Just because the one patent you found isn't a problem doesn't mean there aren't other patents that are. I should point out that since you are manufacturing in the UK, then UK patents are also potentially an issue for infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best course of action is to do a formal freedom to operate analysis with a competent attorney. The reason I suggest the use of a patent attorney or agent is that it is what is in the claims that matter. Many people believe a patent cover much more than it actually does because they focus on the body of the patent. Indeed many questions here at Ask Patents confuse patent applications with actual granted patents. Applications sometimes don't get granted and even if they do, often have their claims narrowed before becoming a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I am not a lawyer myself and this shouldn't be taken as legal advice. It is always wise to consult with an attorney in patent matters." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22778" RevisionGUID="8f4d7ed6-3dc7-42c7-b610-54ba3236b4d4" CreationDate="2020-11-29T15:16:35.013" UserId="17003" Text="To complement George White's excellent answer, I'd like to focus on the following phrase in the USPTO guidance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The drawings or photographs should contain a sufficient number of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; views to completely disclose the appearance of the claimed design...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it then goes on to suggest front, rear, right and left sides, top and bottom as well as perspective views, one shouldn't take this are a hard requirement. Many objects exhibit symmetry which makes some of those views redundant. I'd like to point to one of the most famous design patents ever, the [original Coca Cola bottle][1]. Since the bottle is axisymmetric, only side and bottom views are necessary and shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Coke Bottle][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: image from https://time.com/4105134/coke-bottle/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD48160S/en?oq=d48%2C160&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pTheJ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22779" RevisionGUID="94336002-af03-4b12-a22d-b9b4b0a47e0a" CreationDate="2020-11-29T20:01:20.767" UserId="24753" Text="Well, that business could be an exclusive licensee of the patent in question and have the right to sue or ask for royalties (sub license etc) &#xA;&#xA;So, I think you need to ask for proofs that that company has those rights, in case they have you then should proceed to analyze if the patent apply to your case (check for a patent attorney) &#xA;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63187" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20142" RevisionGUID="4293bf55-0b74-4346-bb60-e25fbb72f2ec" CreationDate="2020-11-30T00:02:10.183" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22779" RevisionGUID="5c69c7e4-033a-45ed-be97-db515afc7f77" CreationDate="2020-11-30T17:23:23.853" UserId="24753" Comment="Added source " Text="Well, that business could be an exclusive licensee of the patent in question and have the right to sue or ask for royalties (sub license etc) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I think you need to ask for proofs that that company has those rights, in case they have you then should proceed to analyze if the patent apply to your case (check for a patent attorney) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ADDITION:&#xD;&#xA;But seen again your question, they only claim to have a Provisional Patent Application, if that is the case, you have to check the **35 U.S. Code § 154 (d)** that covers the rights to collect royalties **once the patent is issued** for the time since the Publication of the Patent (not the issuing) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (...a patent shall include the right to obtain a reasonable royalty from any person who, during the period beginning on the date of publication of the application for such patent ....)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, but if that is the case, they need also to notify you about the patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (B)had actual notice of the published patent application and, in a case in which the right arising under this paragraph is based upon an international application designating the United States that is published in a language other than English, had a translation of the international application into the English language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if the Provisional Patent Application exist, they need to wait until the publication of the patent to notify you of the existence of it, not before the publication date and then they need to wait until the issuing of the patent to collect those royalties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even if those events finally happens, the claims that the pending patent had on the publication date have to be identical to the claims of the finally issued patent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2)Right based on substantially identical inventions.—&#xD;&#xA;The right under paragraph (1) to obtain a reasonable royalty shall not be available under this subsection unless the invention as claimed in the patent is substantially identical to the invention as claimed in the published patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, they could be miss using the 35 U.S. Code § 154 (d) to get some money ahead of time. That could be the reason you did not find the provisional patent as it is not published yet (if it really exist at all)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63189" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20232" RevisionGUID="763f7838-5ac6-423c-9c56-7efa64e3048a" CreationDate="2020-11-30T18:04:00.387" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22778" RevisionGUID="331af296-ee12-4871-9c40-c0c759c7e8dc" CreationDate="2020-12-01T00:12:06.137" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="To complement George White's excellent answer, I'd like to focus on the following phrase in the USPTO guidance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The drawings or photographs should contain a sufficient number of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; views to completely disclose the appearance of the claimed design...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it then goes on to suggest front, rear, right and left sides, top and bottom as well as perspective views, one shouldn't take this as a hard requirement. Many objects exhibit symmetry which makes some of those views redundant. I'd like to point to one of the most famous design patents ever, the [original Coca Cola bottle][1]. Since the bottle is axisymmetric, only side and bottom views are necessary and shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Coke Bottle][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: image from https://time.com/4105134/coke-bottle/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD48160S/en?oq=d48%2C160&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pTheJ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63191" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="29006dd4-43b5-4673-9b32-87cc9e66c53e" CreationDate="2020-12-01T08:01:10.327" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63192" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16336" RevisionGUID="fe4f8f29-5b58-4b2d-89d2-15d9d4fd60e1" CreationDate="2020-12-01T12:04:45.450" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63196" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="5059" RevisionGUID="1e408441-3aac-4415-a262-3411e39d1135" CreationDate="2020-12-01T14:52:23.447" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="63197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22781" RevisionGUID="eacfa419-fba0-45ea-b2fb-ad1a8867a035" CreationDate="2020-12-01T19:25:45.490" UserId="25044" Text="Have been making a product for a customer that owns the patent on the finished good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have not been paying their bills and may go into bankruptcy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I sell the completed product that is in stock as well as continue the final fabrication of components that are in inventory into finished goods to recoup my losses?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63198" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22781" RevisionGUID="eacfa419-fba0-45ea-b2fb-ad1a8867a035" CreationDate="2020-12-01T19:25:45.490" UserId="25044" Text="Selling customers product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63199" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22781" RevisionGUID="eacfa419-fba0-45ea-b2fb-ad1a8867a035" CreationDate="2020-12-01T19:25:45.490" UserId="25044" Text="&lt;sell&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63200" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17307" RevisionGUID="f9a36b43-b12d-4287-a7da-30a004fb1313" CreationDate="2020-12-02T06:05:45.540" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63201" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22418" RevisionGUID="c5a4380f-93b8-47c2-9c3c-a744fe34a443" CreationDate="2020-12-02T10:02:45.423" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63202" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17472" RevisionGUID="314bdf7e-ff8c-451a-8e25-f214faf08463" CreationDate="2020-12-02T11:05:15.447" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22782" RevisionGUID="241f197a-0645-427f-98f5-6f739c19826e" CreationDate="2020-12-02T21:12:52.827" UserId="24753" Text="&#xD;&#xA;In Australia any act that happens in Australia (**sale**/importation) infringe the patent even if it happens out of Australia and then imported to Australia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even the **proposal of sale** of some product before the expiration of the patent infringe the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case there are sales happening in Australia, no matter the other party is not in Australia. Its like selling something illegal and saying its not illegal because the sale was going to China.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.shelstonip.com/news/federal-court-australia-confirms-offers-made-patent-term-supply-patent-expiry-constitute-infringement/&#xD;&#xA;https://www.wrays.com.au/insights/industry-insights/warner-lambert-v-apotex/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But going to the Patent Act of Australia it goes even more obvious you should sue: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    exploit includes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                     (a)  in relation to a product:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                              (i)  **make**, hire, **sell** or **otherwise dispose of the product**; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                             (ii)  **offer to make, hire, sell or otherwise dispose of the product**; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                            (iii)  use or import the product; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                            (iv)  **keep the product for the purpose of doing an act described in subparagraph (i), (ii) or (iii)**; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                     (b)  in relation to a method or process:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                              (i)  **use the method or process**; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                             (ii)  do an act described in subparagraph (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) with a product resulting from the use of the method or process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2019C00088" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22782" RevisionGUID="0477736f-f619-449d-a5b4-032699838b3b" CreationDate="2020-12-02T22:58:01.223" UserId="24753" Comment="deleted 182 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;In Australia any act that happens in Australia (**sale**/importation) infringe the patent even if it happens out of Australia and then imported to Australia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even the **proposal of sale** of some product before the expiration of the patent infringe the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case there are sales happening in Australia, no matter the other party is not in Australia. Its like selling something illegal and saying its not illegal because the sale was going to China.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.shelstonip.com/news/federal-court-australia-confirms-offers-made-patent-term-supply-patent-expiry-constitute-infringement/&#xD;&#xA;https://www.wrays.com.au/insights/industry-insights/warner-lambert-v-apotex/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But going to the Patent Act of Australia it goes even more obvious you should sue: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;----------&#xA;&#xA;exploit includes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;(a)  in relation to a product:&#xD;&#xA;&#xA; - (i)  **make**, hire, **sell** or **otherwise dispose of the product**; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xA; - (ii)  **offer to make, hire, sell or otherwise dispose of the product**; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xA; - (iii)  use or import the product; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xA; - (iv)  **keep the product for the purpose of doing an act described in subparagraph (i), (ii) or (iii)**; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;(b)  in relation to a method or process:&#xD;&#xA;&#xA; - (i)  **use the method or process**; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xA; - (ii)  do an act described in subparagraph (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) with a product resulting from the use of the method or process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;----------&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2019C00088" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22784" RevisionGUID="c32f1540-4652-43c5-b2c6-0f8e33b00d9e" CreationDate="2020-12-03T20:02:27.150" UserId="25053" Text="I found a company who is violating about 4 of my claims. But i like the direction there going and i kinda wasn't going to sell it. So how would it go if i choose to work for them? do you think they even will go for that if i send them an email? there aren't the biggest company so they don't have 100's of millions to sue. But what would the legal situation be? would the patent go to the company?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63210" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22784" RevisionGUID="c32f1540-4652-43c5-b2c6-0f8e33b00d9e" CreationDate="2020-12-03T20:02:27.150" UserId="25053" Text="If my patent is being infringed could i worked for the company vs requesting royalties or cease and desist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63211" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22784" RevisionGUID="c32f1540-4652-43c5-b2c6-0f8e33b00d9e" CreationDate="2020-12-03T20:02:27.150" UserId="25053" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22785" RevisionGUID="ce1e2c9e-eed7-4062-8aa3-048291817d8c" CreationDate="2020-12-03T21:02:47.427" UserId="3076" Text="Going to work as an employee after you have gotten a patent on your own will not automatically give them any rights to your patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond that it is not really on-topic here. My two cents -- Giving them a license in return for employing you might be one way for you benefit from the situation. If they recognize you as someone who is a leading inventor in the field it would give them access to your future improvements and developments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You and they are free to negotiate any mutually agreeable arrangement including you being an employee or a consultant. You can negotiate some royalty or bonus system on top of a normal salary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, they might not agree that they infringe and might not see your future contributions as being particularity valuable. If the negotiations require them to acknowledge they are infringing it might be hard to get talks started." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22784" RevisionGUID="570722a7-82e2-4927-9bfa-7c779fac91bc" CreationDate="2020-12-03T21:59:24.400" UserId="17003" Comment="Tried to fix the numerous grammatical and capitalization errors." Text="I found a company who is violating about 4 of my claims. But I like the direction they're going and I kind of wasn't going to sell it. So how would it go if I chose to work for them? do you think they even will go for that if I send them an email? They aren't the biggest company so they don't have 100's of millions to sue. But what would the legal situation be? Would the patent go to the company?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63214" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="22784" RevisionGUID="570722a7-82e2-4927-9bfa-7c779fac91bc" CreationDate="2020-12-03T21:59:24.400" UserId="17003" Comment="Tried to fix the numerous grammatical and capitalization errors." Text="If my patent is being infringed could I work for the company vs. requesting royalties or cease and desist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22785" RevisionGUID="b1e88303-2c00-4b0d-be21-0d48fee206fd" CreationDate="2020-12-03T22:08:54.930" UserId="3076" Comment="added 240 characters in body" Text="Going to work as an employee after you have gotten a patent on your own will not automatically give them any rights to your patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond that it is not really on-topic here. My two cents -- Giving them a license in return for employing you might be one way for you benefit from the situation. If they recognize you as someone who is a leading inventor in the field it would give them access to your future improvements and developments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You and they are free to negotiate any mutually agreeable arrangement including you being an employee or a consultant. You can negotiate some royalty or bonus system on top of a normal salary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, they might not agree that they infringe and might not see your future contributions as being particularity valuable. If the negotiations require them to acknowledge they are infringing it might be hard to get talks started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also - be careful and get help from an attorney before sending a ceases and desist letter. Unless it is very mildly and carefully worded it can open you up to being sued for declaratory judgement at a time and place of *their* choosing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22786" RevisionGUID="929c8832-1def-45a6-8d87-0ee40e59a226" CreationDate="2020-12-03T23:23:52.300" UserId="20503" Text="Google BigQuery `patents-public-data.patents.publications` table has a column named &quot;application_kind&quot;.  This is different than the kind_code column which is different codes for each country's patent office.  The description simply as below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**High-level kind of the application: A=patent; U=utility; P=provision; W= PCT; F=design; T=translation.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, when I request the following query: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    SELECT &#xD;&#xA;    application_kind, count(*)&#xD;&#xA;    FROM `patents-public-data.patents.publications`&#xD;&#xA;    GROUP BY application_kind&#xD;&#xA;    ORDER BY count(*) DESC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I get a result that includes many more codes as the sample below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EACO6.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a source to find out the other types of application kinds?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63217" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22786" RevisionGUID="929c8832-1def-45a6-8d87-0ee40e59a226" CreationDate="2020-12-03T23:23:52.300" UserId="20503" Text="High level application kind for a patent document in Google BigQuery" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63218" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22786" RevisionGUID="929c8832-1def-45a6-8d87-0ee40e59a226" CreationDate="2020-12-03T23:23:52.300" UserId="20503" Text="&lt;application&gt;&lt;bigquery&gt;&lt;kindcode&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22787" RevisionGUID="eb9dc3b8-e78c-436a-a2de-b98f4adf9c08" CreationDate="2020-12-03T23:30:43.207" UserId="25055" Text="How can this be patent-worthy when FR3037791B1 discusses the same things?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63220" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22787" RevisionGUID="eb9dc3b8-e78c-436a-a2de-b98f4adf9c08" CreationDate="2020-12-03T23:30:43.207" UserId="25055" Text="How can US20200206098A1 be patent-worthy when FR3037791B1 discusses the same things?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63221" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22787" RevisionGUID="eb9dc3b8-e78c-436a-a2de-b98f4adf9c08" CreationDate="2020-12-03T23:30:43.207" UserId="25055" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22788" RevisionGUID="a057f5b3-b20d-4ba0-841e-74d63942b93a" CreationDate="2020-12-04T00:40:06.603" UserId="17003" Text="This is not my field. Also an evaluation is complicated by the fact that [FR3037791B1][1] is in French and I don't speak that language. I used Google Translate to get the following as the first claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Cosmetic packaging article comprising: i) an envelope defining at least one cavity, the envelope consisting of at least one film, said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; film comprising at least one surfactant and at least one film-forming&#xD;&#xA;&gt; polymer and ii) at least one composition, of preferably in the form of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a paste or a powder, comprising at least one compound chosen from: a)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coloring agents chosen from oxidation dyes, direct dyes, and / or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mixtures thereof; and / or b) chemical oxidizing agents; it being&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understood that the composition ii) is in one of the cavities defined&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by the envelope i).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compared to the first claim of [US20200206098A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A cosmetic product for changing the natural colour of keratinous fibres, comprising (i) at least one package (VP) comprising a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; water-soluble film (F), (ii) at least one cosmetic composition (KM)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which is packaged in the package (VP) and comprises at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; oxidizing compound, (iii) at least one cosmetic colour composition&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (FZ) which is packaged in the package (VP), wherein the oxidizing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compound is a solid oxidizing agent and is selected from the group&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consisting of a percarbonate salt, a perborate salt and a percarbamide&#xD;&#xA;&gt; salt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a chemist, but I definitely get that the two claims have similarities. All I can say is that US20200206098A1 is only an application and it may indeed not be granted in light of FR3037791B1 or other prior art. Also it is very likely that the application's claims will be changed and narrowed to avoid prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/FR3037791B1/en?oq=FR3037791B1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20200206098A1/en?oq=US20200206098A1#patentCitations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22790" RevisionGUID="a95ec3b7-dd25-47db-99c8-d19f487c35d0" CreationDate="2020-12-04T14:02:29.133" UserId="1794" Text="We have a situation in which we developed some software, where four previous members of our research group participated some time ago. Then they left the group, and said that from then on, they did not want to work on further developments of the code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now we have used that code, which has evolved a bit since they left, and we have applied it to some other contexts, in which we have made some discoveries, and it turns out we can file a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question here is, the old members that left the group and did not want to work on further developments of the code, must they be included in the patent as authors/inventors?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say the answer is no, since they said they did not want to work on further developments of the code, but since this software tool was a key step for the discovery reported in the patent, and they participated a bit in the past on the software, they should perhaps be included as coauthors/inventors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should they be included?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63229" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22790" RevisionGUID="a95ec3b7-dd25-47db-99c8-d19f487c35d0" CreationDate="2020-12-04T14:02:29.133" UserId="1794" Text="Co-authors that quit during software development and such software is using later in a patent, should they be added as coauthors/inventors?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63230" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22790" RevisionGUID="a95ec3b7-dd25-47db-99c8-d19f487c35d0" CreationDate="2020-12-04T14:02:29.133" UserId="1794" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22788" RevisionGUID="2a1bb368-0cbe-4a14-abdd-75cc75c24ec6" CreationDate="2020-12-04T15:38:20.130" UserId="17003" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="This is not my field. Also an evaluation is complicated by the fact that [FR3037791B1][1] is in French and I don't speak that language. I used Google Translate to get the following as the first claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Cosmetic packaging article comprising: i) an envelope defining at least one cavity, the envelope consisting of at least one film, said&#xD;&#xA;&gt; film comprising at least one surfactant and at least one film-forming&#xD;&#xA;&gt; polymer and ii) at least one composition, of preferably in the form of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a paste or a powder, comprising at least one compound chosen from: a)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coloring agents chosen from oxidation dyes, direct dyes, and / or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mixtures thereof; and / or b) chemical oxidizing agents; it being&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understood that the composition ii) is in one of the cavities defined&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by the envelope i).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compared to the first claim of [US20200206098A1][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A cosmetic product for changing the natural colour of keratinous fibres, comprising (i) at least one package (VP) comprising a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; water-soluble film (F), (ii) at least one cosmetic composition (KM)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which is packaged in the package (VP) and comprises at least one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; oxidizing compound, (iii) at least one cosmetic colour composition&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (FZ) which is packaged in the package (VP), wherein the oxidizing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compound is a solid oxidizing agent and is selected from the group&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consisting of a percarbonate salt, a perborate salt and a percarbamide&#xD;&#xA;&gt; salt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a chemist, but I definitely get that the two claims have similarities. All I can say is that US20200206098A1 is only an application and it may indeed not be granted in light of FR3037791B1 or other prior art. Also it is very likely that the application's claims will be changed and narrowed to avoid prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=FR&amp;NR=3037791B1&amp;KC=B1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=20170623&amp;DB=&amp;locale=&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20200206098A1/en?oq=US20200206098A1#patentCitations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22792" RevisionGUID="7ca8d1eb-4845-49ba-b816-7c9d64eafe4f" CreationDate="2020-12-04T15:49:53.207" UserId="17003" Text="Inventorship isn't like authorship where all significant contributors are listed. To be considered an inventor you need to provide a conceptual contribution to at least one claim. So the question is looking at each claim did any of the old members contribute the the concept contained in that claim. If so, the person should be added as an inventor on the patent. [This answer][1] might provide a bit more clarity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/22739/17003" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63238" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22792" RevisionGUID="2019ace6-adae-4e64-baf7-031d33c58880" CreationDate="2020-12-04T15:56:38.023" UserId="17003" Comment="added 389 characters in body" Text="Inventorship isn't like authorship where all significant contributors are listed. To be considered an inventor you need to provide a conceptual contribution to at least one claim. So the question is looking at each claim did any of the old members contribute the the concept contained in that claim. If so, the person should be added as an inventor on the patent.  For example, let's say person A has an idea for a new algorithm and asks person B implements the algorithm in code. Assuming person B doesn't modify or extend the algorithm, then person A is considered the inventor if a patent claim includes the algorithm but not person B. This is true despite the fact that person B might spend a greater effort and time on the development of the code. [This answer][1] might provide a bit more clarity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/22739/17003" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22793" RevisionGUID="a4279b9e-af4a-45e6-9ba6-d035f0a65e82" CreationDate="2020-12-04T20:20:40.720" UserId="25059" Text="I'm specifically interested in a particular plant patent. The patent describes the leaf size, but the plants sold (under the patented name by the owner of the patent) have a different leaf size. Is it fraudulent simply to file a patent with inaccurate information about the invention? Is it fraudulent if the owner of a patent sells items under the name from the patent, but those items don't fit the description in the actual patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63240" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22793" RevisionGUID="a4279b9e-af4a-45e6-9ba6-d035f0a65e82" CreationDate="2020-12-04T20:20:40.720" UserId="25059" Text="Is it fraudulent to give inaccurate information about the invention in a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63241" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22793" RevisionGUID="a4279b9e-af4a-45e6-9ba6-d035f0a65e82" CreationDate="2020-12-04T20:20:40.720" UserId="25059" Text="&lt;description&gt;&lt;plant-patent&gt;&lt;fraud&gt;&lt;inaccurate&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22792" RevisionGUID="5cdd5dd8-19c0-40e9-813b-0961ce90ef71" CreationDate="2020-12-04T21:11:51.660" UserId="17003" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="Inventorship isn't like authorship where all significant contributors are listed. To be considered an inventor you need to provide a conceptual contribution to at least one claim. So the question is looking at each claim did any of the old members contribute the the concept contained in that claim. If so, the person should be added as an inventor on the patent.  For example, let's say person A has an idea for a new algorithm and asks person B implements the algorithm in code. Assuming person B doesn't modify or extend the algorithm, then person A is considered the inventor if a patent claim includes the algorithm but not person B. This is true despite the fact that person B might spend a greater effort and time on the development of the code. If however person B improves the algorithm in a way reflected in a claim, the they both are inventors. [This answer][1] might provide a bit more clarity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/22739/17003" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22794" RevisionGUID="a84ae7ec-7f71-4e69-8524-05afb0854467" CreationDate="2020-12-05T01:08:54.920" UserId="3076" Text="I do not know anything about plant patents other than the page at the USPTO web site I just read, but I can answer for utility patents. A utility patent may have a very detailed description of a &quot;preferred embodiment&quot; but the claims are, almost always, broader than that specific item. Many things that are very different from the described embodiment can contain the claimed elements. So the thing you buy frequently does not look like a figure in the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, many things are sold with a patent marking that the item may be covered by &quot;one or more&quot; of some long list of patents. The marking is needed to perfect the patent owner's rights. [&quot;False marking&quot;][1] was a big deal before the AIA law was passed but it doesn't have much teeth anymore. Before the AIA, a third party (you) could start an action and get a percent of the fines. It was $500 per product. A [Dixie cup suit][2] was a poster child for how crazy that might be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now only the government can go after an offender, a wrong marking is not automatically an intent to deceive the public and the government keeps any fines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.hrfmtoday.com/2014/11/patent-marking-changes-made-by-aia-to-reflect-technological-advances.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.fr.com/files/Uploads/attachments/clientalerts/false-market-f.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22787" RevisionGUID="e15d9288-e1c1-4cec-8836-7f8f22b9254b" CreationDate="2020-12-05T02:40:29.200" UserId="3076" Comment="added 192 characters in body" Text="How can [US20200206098A1][1] be patent-worthy when [FR3037791B1][2] discusses the same things?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20200206098A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/055806410/publication/FR3037791B1?q=FR3037791B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22795" RevisionGUID="ca7d9aa6-2e2c-4d43-ab1b-ca6e78908fc6" CreationDate="2020-12-05T03:21:46.950" UserId="3076" Text="The application got a non-final rejection on 9/22/2020 on a few grounds. The only art cited is [US20140008285][1]. Apparently neither the applicant (in the IDS) or examiner considered the ref. you list as the closest art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20140082854A1/en?oq=20140082854" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22796" RevisionGUID="b28451e8-2e24-441e-99b9-2fa7e90a529a" CreationDate="2020-12-06T07:45:45.350" UserId="25064" Text="I am working on a home design patent with interlocking pieces, searched US patents and nothing came up not even similar; zero results, I was on Alibaba today looking around for an Amazon business and thought why don't I do a search, something similar came back in the shape but they were using completely different material with completely different ways of locking the pieces together, will I be able to get a u.s. patent on my project?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63247" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22796" RevisionGUID="b28451e8-2e24-441e-99b9-2fa7e90a529a" CreationDate="2020-12-06T07:45:45.350" UserId="25064" Text="Home Design Patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63248" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22796" RevisionGUID="b28451e8-2e24-441e-99b9-2fa7e90a529a" CreationDate="2020-12-06T07:45:45.350" UserId="25064" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22797" RevisionGUID="b4b926e2-7137-45fa-9f08-913d5cb19228" CreationDate="2020-12-06T15:26:05.147" UserId="17003" Text="To expand on DonQuiKong's comment, the answer is that you very well might be able to get a patent, but it isn't guaranteed. What you found on Alibaba represents prior art. For you to obtain a patent, your invention needs to be useful, novel and non-obvious. Useful is usually a given. Novel generally means it is different from any prior art. Non-obvious means that given the prior art the invention wouldn't be an obvious step from the prior art for someone skilled in the field. Since you can't tell us the specifics of your invention without jeopardizing its patentability. the best advice I can provide it to hire an actual patent attorney or agent. Only they can evaluate the patentability of your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is good that you did a patent search, but you need to search broader than just US patents. While another country's patent wouldn't keep you from manufacturing or selling in the US, it could prevent you gaining a US patent. In addition, it is very challenging for most people to do an effective patent search since you need to understand claim language to fully understand what is being patented. Many patent attorneys hire trained patent librarians to do prior art searches. Since you found a product that is similar, I would suggest searching for any patents associated with that product including all the patents assigned to the product's manufacturer. If you find an associated patent, then search all the patent's citations for other relevant patents. This can be an iterative process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63253" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="18915" RevisionGUID="434d06b8-1d65-4641-8da9-eeb0a0d49134" CreationDate="2020-12-08T04:44:34.453" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="63254" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="293d9aff-5cd2-43ac-b377-99860284c0c0" CreationDate="2020-12-08T10:05:20.560" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63255" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19823" RevisionGUID="2b1d0c8e-e743-42e5-8bed-2139674a3c23" CreationDate="2020-12-08T15:01:40.187" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63256" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="21232" RevisionGUID="409b793a-3498-4f0b-a1d0-2feafde31304" CreationDate="2020-12-08T19:06:10.583" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22800" RevisionGUID="a527a022-c65b-4593-b638-7cea99c182d1" CreationDate="2020-12-09T18:14:17.627" UserId="24529" Text="Applications made in member states of Paris convention benefit from 12-month priority. If I made my application in EPO (which, importantly, is not a state and not a member of Paris convention) does it benefit from the same 12-month priority under Paris convention (I am assuming no other application of the same invention was made in a Paris convention member state)? Same question can be asked about PCT applications (WIPO is not a state)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63262" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22800" RevisionGUID="a527a022-c65b-4593-b638-7cea99c182d1" CreationDate="2020-12-09T18:14:17.627" UserId="24529" Text="If I made patent application in EPO, does this application benefit from 12-month priority under Paris convention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63263" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22800" RevisionGUID="a527a022-c65b-4593-b638-7cea99c182d1" CreationDate="2020-12-09T18:14:17.627" UserId="24529" Text="&lt;priority&gt;&lt;paris-convention&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22801" RevisionGUID="b1e1dd16-6ff0-478a-b3de-ad1d1690280a" CreationDate="2020-12-09T18:55:15.610" UserId="24529" Text="If an application is made in one of member states of Paris convention, then it is entitled to 12-month priority in member states. But what if applicant didn't pay the filing fee to the receiving office (e.g. in this particular cas it's EPO) on time and application was deemed withdrawn (however, it was technically made)? Or if it was refused for some other reason?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63265" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22801" RevisionGUID="b1e1dd16-6ff0-478a-b3de-ad1d1690280a" CreationDate="2020-12-09T18:55:15.610" UserId="24529" Text="Can priority be claimed under Paris convention from withdrawn or refused patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63266" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22801" RevisionGUID="b1e1dd16-6ff0-478a-b3de-ad1d1690280a" CreationDate="2020-12-09T18:55:15.610" UserId="24529" Text="&lt;priority&gt;&lt;paris-convention&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22802" RevisionGUID="bdcba98e-e913-4393-88a1-e468e54e8d04" CreationDate="2020-12-09T20:06:59.577" UserId="25087" Text="Lets say I file a provisional patent at December 2020 with claim A. Some company B decides to file a application for non provisional patent with the same claim A at January 2021, because my provisional is not searchable by neither the patent lawyer nor the patent examiner, so company B's non provisional patent application got granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lets say at June 2021 i want to turn my provisional patent into non provisional patent since the one year window is soon expiring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could i still file a non provisional patent with claim A and still get it granted?&#xD;&#xA;If the answer is yes, does that render company B's non provisional patent useless? If yes, does that means company B just wasted a ton of money for nothing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63268" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22802" RevisionGUID="bdcba98e-e913-4393-88a1-e468e54e8d04" CreationDate="2020-12-09T20:06:59.577" UserId="25087" Text="Provisional vs Non-provisional patent dates" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63269" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22802" RevisionGUID="bdcba98e-e913-4393-88a1-e468e54e8d04" CreationDate="2020-12-09T20:06:59.577" UserId="25087" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;non-provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22803" RevisionGUID="2ba21b56-ed4c-498e-a160-1dc671a508ba" CreationDate="2020-12-09T21:03:46.027" UserId="3076" Text="The answer regarding PCT is easy. A PCT application is not an application to the non-state WIPO. It is a bundle of application to 140+ countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found this in EPO information [here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Relationship to other international conventions &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.3.001&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The EPC constitutes a special agreement within the meaning of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.  This&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means in particular that the principles of the Paris Convention on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claiming priority and the national treatment principle also apply in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the European procedure and to European applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see &quot;special agreement&quot; mentioned in Article 19 in Paris but the language of that article doesn't mention priority. It is possible that the same logic as the PCT case applies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://Relationship%20to%20other%20international%20conventions%C2%A0%202.3.001%20The%20EPC%20constitutes%20a%20special%20agreement%20within%20the%20meaning%20of%20the%20Paris%20Convention%20for%20the%20Protection%20of%20Industrial%20Property.%C2%A0%20This%20means%20in%20particular%20that%20the%20principles%20of%20the%20Paris%20Convention%20on%20claiming%20priority%20and%20the%20national%20treatment%20principle%20also%20apply%20in%20the%20European%20procedure%20and%20to%20European%20applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22803" RevisionGUID="c965057a-5055-4f91-a227-8b524c63267a" CreationDate="2020-12-09T22:10:35.620" UserId="3076" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text="The answer regarding PCT is easy. A PCT application is not an application to the non-state WIPO. It is a bundle of application to 140+ countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the EPO. I'm sure Paris applies but did not find a solid reference. I did find [this][1] in the EPO website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Relationship to other international conventions &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.3.001&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The EPC constitutes a special agreement within the meaning of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.  This&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means in particular that the principles of the Paris Convention on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claiming priority and the national treatment principle also apply in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the European procedure and to European applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see &quot;special agreement&quot; mentioned in Article 19 in Paris but the language of that article doesn't mention priority. It is possible that the same situation as the PCT case applies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://Relationship%20to%20other%20international%20conventions%C2%A0%202.3.001%20The%20EPC%20constitutes%20a%20special%20agreement%20within%20the%20meaning%20of%20the%20Paris%20Convention%20for%20the%20Protection%20of%20Industrial%20Property.%C2%A0%20This%20means%20in%20particular%20that%20the%20principles%20of%20the%20Paris%20Convention%20on%20claiming%20priority%20and%20the%20national%20treatment%20principle%20also%20apply%20in%20the%20European%20procedure%20and%20to%20European%20applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22805" RevisionGUID="ccaf417b-1f1d-42e1-b1db-f2448e54c4da" CreationDate="2020-12-10T02:21:05.103" UserId="3076" Text="I do not know the mechanics that might take place but the patent would not be enforceable in practice if it is clear that an earlier filed application makes it not novel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question has an assumption that provisional applications are more hidden from examiners than a non-provisional application and that filing the non-provisional makes it findable. That is incorrect. All applications are un-findable until they are published. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that you filed a provisional vs a non-provisional is not relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22806" RevisionGUID="4f96efe7-fd18-43cc-908b-60d2f93f4162" CreationDate="2020-12-10T06:43:39.170" UserId="21925" Text="I read a utility patent that specified the range of radiation in which the invention works as something like &quot;wavelengths between **about** 500nm and **about** 1000nm&quot; (bolded emphasis mine). My understanding is that whether or not a patent is violated depends on whether the claims of the patent are, strictly, infringed upon. But if, as in this case, one of the claims is worded ambiguously as &quot;between 'about' some value and 'about' another value&quot;, then, since this seems subjective (&quot;about&quot; has no technical meaning), how can this be valid, and how are we to interpret this? For instance, would using the same device with a wavelength of 1010nm infringe upon the claims of the patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63276" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22806" RevisionGUID="4f96efe7-fd18-43cc-908b-60d2f93f4162" CreationDate="2020-12-10T06:43:39.170" UserId="21925" Text="Ambiguously worded patent claim" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63277" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22806" RevisionGUID="4f96efe7-fd18-43cc-908b-60d2f93f4162" CreationDate="2020-12-10T06:43:39.170" UserId="21925" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;utility-patent&gt;&lt;technology&gt;&lt;wording&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22806" RevisionGUID="f5edd9e1-9263-4dcc-9f6a-2f9a512151aa" CreationDate="2020-12-10T06:49:05.373" UserId="21925" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="I read a utility patent that specified the range of radiation in which the invention works as something like &quot;wavelengths between **about** 500nm and **about** 1000nm&quot; (bolded emphasis mine). My understanding is that whether or not a patent is violated depends on whether the claims of the patent are, strictly, infringed upon. But if, as in this case, one of the claims is worded ambiguously as &quot;between 'about' some value and 'about' another value&quot;, then, since this seems subjective (&quot;about&quot; has no technical meaning), how can this be valid, and how are we to interpret this? For instance, would using the same device with a wavelength of 1010nm infringe upon the claims of the patent? What about 1030nm? Etc. And furthermore, is it safe/valid (legally speaking) to interpret this as being &quot;strictly between 500nm and 1000nm&quot; (that is, disregard the &quot;about&quot; in the wording of the claim), so that the 1010nm device does not infringe?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22806" RevisionGUID="87026ab3-dc39-43ba-a875-211ebd0102c2" CreationDate="2020-12-10T07:03:35.250" UserId="21925" Comment="added 439 characters in body" Text="I read a utility patent that specified the range of radiation in which the invention works as something like &quot;wavelengths between **about** 500nm and **about** 1000nm&quot; (bolded emphasis mine). My understanding is that whether or not a patent is violated depends on whether the claims of the patent are, strictly, infringed upon. But if, as in this case, one of the claims is worded ambiguously as &quot;between 'about' some value and 'about' another value&quot;, then, since this seems subjective (&quot;about&quot; has no technical meaning), how can this be valid, and how are we to interpret this? For instance, would using the same device with a wavelength of 1010nm infringe upon the claims of the patent? What about 1030nm? Etc. And furthermore, is it safe/valid (legally speaking) to interpret this as being &quot;strictly between 500nm and 1000nm&quot; (that is, disregard the &quot;about&quot; in the wording of the claim), so that the 1010nm device does not infringe?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I just came across the [doctrine of equivalents][1], from [this][2] answer. So, if I'm interpreting this correctly, even if you're not in *strict* infringement of the patent claims, if your device achieves the same functionality by wholly ustilizing some of the patent claims, then that is still a violation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/17966/21925" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22806" RevisionGUID="9219ab9c-531b-4c5d-b210-6183fe42675c" CreationDate="2020-12-10T07:31:18.187" UserId="21925" Comment="added 117 characters in body" Text="I read a utility patent that specified the range of radiation in which the invention works as something like &quot;wavelengths between **about** 500nm and **about** 1000nm&quot; (bolded emphasis mine). My understanding is that whether or not a patent is violated depends on whether the claims of the patent are, strictly, infringed upon. But if, as in this case, one of the claims is worded ambiguously as &quot;between 'about' some value and 'about' another value&quot;, then, since this seems subjective (&quot;about&quot; has no technical meaning), how can this be valid, and how are we to interpret this? For instance, would using the same device with a wavelength of 1010nm infringe upon the claims of the patent? What about 1030nm? Etc. And furthermore, is it safe/valid (legally speaking) to interpret this as being &quot;strictly between 500nm and 1000nm&quot; (that is, disregard the &quot;about&quot; in the wording of the claim), so that the 1010nm device does not infringe?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I just came across the [doctrine of equivalents][1], from [this][2] answer. So, if I'm interpreting this correctly, even if you're not in *strict* infringement of the patent claim, if your device achieves the same functionality by some “insubstantial” deviation from the claim (see the “[triple identity test][3]”), then that is still a violation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/17966/21925&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents#United_States" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22806" RevisionGUID="c9cf3959-64c6-4841-a92e-8020e11d88ba" CreationDate="2020-12-10T07:52:31.353" UserId="21925" Comment="added 57 characters in body; added 13 characters in body" Text="I read a utility patent that specified the range of radiation in which the invention works as something like &quot;wavelengths between **about** 500nm and **about** 1000nm&quot; (bolded emphasis mine). My understanding is that whether or not a patent is violated depends on whether the claims of the patent are, strictly, infringed upon. But if, as in this case, one of the claims is worded ambiguously as &quot;between 'about' some value and 'about' another value&quot;, then, since this seems subjective (&quot;about&quot; has no technical meaning), how can this be valid, and how are we to interpret this? For instance, would using the same device (that is, a device that strictly satisfies *all* of the other claims) with a wavelength of 1010nm infringe upon the claims of the patent? What about 1030nm? Etc. And furthermore, is it safe/valid (legally speaking) to interpret this as being &quot;strictly between 500nm and 1000nm&quot; (that is, disregard the &quot;about&quot; in the wording of the claim), so that the 1010nm device does not infringe?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I just came across the [doctrine of equivalents][1], from [this][2] answer. So, if I'm interpreting this correctly, even if you're not in *strict* infringement of the patent claim, if your device achieves the same functionality by some “insubstantial” deviation from the claim (see the “[triple identity test][3]”), then that is still a violation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/17966/21925&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents#United_States" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22806" RevisionGUID="f1834de1-9173-4952-8c5c-908342628772" CreationDate="2020-12-10T08:13:19.410" UserId="21925" Comment="deleted 130 characters in body; added 7 characters in body" Text="I read a utility patent that specified the range of radiation in which the invention works as something like &quot;wavelengths between **about** 500nm and **about** 1000nm&quot; (bolded emphasis mine). My understanding is that whether or not a patent is violated depends on whether any of the claims of the patent are, strictly, infringed upon. But if, as in this case, one of the claims is worded ambiguously as &quot;between 'about' some value and 'about' another value&quot;, then, since this seems subjective (&quot;about&quot; has no technical meaning), how can this be valid, and how are we to interpret this? For instance, would using the same device (that is, a device that strictly satisfies *all* of the other parts of the method claim) with a wavelength of 1010nm (so does not literally infringe upon one of the parts of the method claim) infringe upon the claim of the patent? What about 1030nm? Etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I just came across the [doctrine of equivalents][1], from [this][2] answer. So, if I'm interpreting this correctly, even if you're not in *strict* infringement of the patent claim, if your device achieves the same functionality by some “insubstantial” deviation from the claim (see the “[triple identity test][3]”), then that is still a violation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/17966/21925&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents#United_States" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22808" RevisionGUID="8ec2d549-5d52-46ae-ab06-e92296525678" CreationDate="2020-12-10T10:57:08.387" UserId="25087" Text="# Base of problem #&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume timelines as follows.&#xD;&#xA;Application examiner just makes error during search. He didn't see that in their database there is provisional patent application for same thing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Timeline/Problem 1 ##&#xD;&#xA;Timeline:&#xD;&#xA;* Jan 2018 - Provisional patent application - Company B&#xD;&#xA;* April 2018 - Non-provisional patent application - Company A&#xD;&#xA;* Jan 2019 - Provisional patent application transformation to Non-provisional patent application - Company B&#xD;&#xA;* April 2020 - Non-provisional patent granted - Company A (Examiner error)&#xD;&#xA;* April 2021 -  Non-provisional patent NOT granted - Company B (Because of Examiner error)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can Company B sue Company A? How can Company A defend yourself (Didn't do anything wrong, PPAs not publicized, examiner error)?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Timeline/Problem 2 ##&#xD;&#xA;Timeline:&#xD;&#xA;* Jan 2018 - Provisional patent application - Company B&#xD;&#xA;* April 2018 - Non-provisional patent application - Company A&#xD;&#xA;* Jan 2019 - Provisional patent application transformation to Non-provisional patent application - Company B&#xD;&#xA;* April 2020 - Non-provisional patent granted - Company A (Examiner error)&#xD;&#xA;* April 2021 -  Non-provisional patent granted - Company B (Because of another Examiner error)&#xD;&#xA;* December 2021 - Company A produce product patented by their patent&#xD;&#xA;* March 2022 - Company B sue Company A for patent infringement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can Company B sue Company A? How can Company A defend yourself (Didn't do anything wrong, PPAs not publicized, multiple examiners errors)?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63287" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22808" RevisionGUID="8ec2d549-5d52-46ae-ab06-e92296525678" CreationDate="2020-12-10T10:57:08.387" UserId="25087" Text="Non-provisional patent - Examiner error" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63288" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22808" RevisionGUID="8ec2d549-5d52-46ae-ab06-e92296525678" CreationDate="2020-12-10T10:57:08.387" UserId="25087" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;examination&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22809" RevisionGUID="dc0123bc-a6eb-40b6-92f7-8b1a6396ccd6" CreationDate="2020-12-10T14:19:10.427" UserId="25094" Text="In Australia, how does one usually deal with an objection that a claim lacks support under subsection 40(3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say I am claiming a kettle with a specific type of heating filament.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claim has been accepted as novel &amp; inventive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, now the Examiner says that the invention defined by the claim lacks support under subsection 40(3) because it omits a feature which appear necessary to perform the claimed invention, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A source of electric current (i.e. to supply electrical power to the heating filament) (the source of electric current is described in the description, say page 3, line 4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In responding, does the AU attorney usually:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. amend the claim (e.g. to include  a source of electric current); or&#xD;&#xA; 2. amend the description on page 3, line 4 (e.g. to say &quot;In some embodiments, there is provided a source of electric current&quot;)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63290" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22809" RevisionGUID="dc0123bc-a6eb-40b6-92f7-8b1a6396ccd6" CreationDate="2020-12-10T14:19:10.427" UserId="25094" Text="How to respond to Australian subsection 40(3) objection" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63291" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22809" RevisionGUID="dc0123bc-a6eb-40b6-92f7-8b1a6396ccd6" CreationDate="2020-12-10T14:19:10.427" UserId="25094" Text="&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;amendment&gt;&lt;australia&gt;&lt;support&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22806" RevisionGUID="6dc9c974-08de-4ee2-92c4-c054988347a8" CreationDate="2020-12-10T16:54:34.717" UserId="21925" Comment="added 679 characters in body" Text="I read a utility patent for some technology where the first claim was a method claim consisting of multiple parts a), b), c), etc. One of those parts specified the range of radiation in which the invention works as something like &quot;wavelengths between **about** 500nm and **about** 1000nm&quot; (bolded emphasis mine). My understanding is that whether or not a patent is violated depends on whether any of the claims of the patent are, strictly, infringed upon. But if, as in this case, one of the parts of a claim is worded ambiguously as &quot;between 'about' some value and 'about' another value&quot;, then, since this seems subjective (&quot;about&quot; has no technical meaning), how can this be valid, and how are we to interpret this? For instance, would using the same device (that is, a device that strictly satisfies *all* of the other parts of the method claim) with a wavelength of 1010nm (so does not literally infringe upon one of the parts of the method claim, but fully infringes upon all of the other parts) infringe upon the claim of the patent? What about 1030nm? Etc. And, with regards to the doctrine of equivalents (see my edit), at what point is the doctrine no longer valid, even though you're still violating the triple identity test? Surely there is some value outside of the range of 500 - 1000nm where, even though you're still violating the triple identity test of the doctrine of equivalents, you're not infringing upon the patent?  Otherwise, what would be the point of having the patent say &quot;wavelengths between about 500nm and about 1000nm&quot;, with those values specifically?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I just came across the [doctrine of equivalents][1], from [this][2] answer. So, if I'm interpreting this correctly, even if you're not in *strict* infringement of the patent claim, if your device achieves the same functionality by some “insubstantial” deviation from the claim (see the “[triple identity test][3]”), then that is still a violation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/17966/21925&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents#United_States" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22806" RevisionGUID="9485c138-de9f-43b7-ac51-2e5a0d41338a" CreationDate="2020-12-10T17:03:05.460" UserId="21925" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="I read a utility patent for some technology where the first claim was a method claim consisting of multiple parts a), b), c), etc. One of those parts specified the range of radiation in which the invention works as something like &quot;wavelengths between **about** 500nm and **about** 1000nm&quot; (bolded emphasis mine). My understanding is that whether or not a patent is violated depends on whether any of the claims of the patent are, strictly, infringed upon. But if, as in this case, one of the parts of a claim is worded ambiguously as &quot;between 'about' some value and 'about' another value&quot;, then, since this seems subjective (&quot;about&quot; has no technical meaning), how can this be valid, and how are we to interpret this? For instance, would using the same device (that is, a device that strictly satisfies *all* of the other parts of the method claim) with a wavelength of 1010nm (so does not literally infringe upon one of the parts of the method claim, but fully infringes upon all of the other parts) infringe upon the claim of the patent? What about 1030nm? 1100nm? Etc. And, with regards to the doctrine of equivalents (see my edit), at what point is the doctrine no longer valid, even though you're still violating the triple identity test? Surely there is some value outside of the range of 500 - 1000nm where, even though you're still violating the triple identity test of the doctrine of equivalents, you're not infringing upon the patent?  Otherwise, what would be the point of having the patent say &quot;wavelengths between about 500nm and about 1000nm&quot;, with those values specifically?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I just came across the [doctrine of equivalents][1], from [this][2] answer. So, if I'm interpreting this correctly, even if you're not in *strict* infringement of the patent claim, if your device achieves the same functionality by some “insubstantial” deviation from the claim (see the “[triple identity test][3]”), then that is still a violation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/17966/21925&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents#United_States" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22806" RevisionGUID="56eded7c-2b82-4947-9e68-9cecb0ef7bb8" CreationDate="2020-12-10T17:35:39.867" UserId="21925" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I read a US utility patent for some technology where the first claim was a method claim consisting of multiple parts a), b), c), etc. One of those parts specified the range of radiation in which the invention works as something like &quot;wavelengths between **about** 500nm and **about** 1000nm&quot; (bolded emphasis mine). My understanding is that whether or not a patent is violated depends on whether any of the claims of the patent are, strictly, infringed upon. But if, as in this case, one of the parts of a claim is worded ambiguously as &quot;between 'about' some value and 'about' another value&quot;, then, since this seems subjective (&quot;about&quot; has no technical meaning), how can this be valid, and how are we to interpret this? For instance, would using the same device (that is, a device that strictly satisfies *all* of the other parts of the method claim) with a wavelength of 1010nm (so does not literally infringe upon one of the parts of the method claim, but fully infringes upon all of the other parts) infringe upon the claim of the patent? What about 1030nm? 1100nm? Etc. And, with regards to the doctrine of equivalents (see my edit), at what point is the doctrine no longer valid, even though you're still violating the triple identity test? Surely there is some value outside of the range of 500 - 1000nm where, even though you're still violating the triple identity test of the doctrine of equivalents, you're not infringing upon the patent?  Otherwise, what would be the point of having the patent say &quot;wavelengths between about 500nm and about 1000nm&quot;, with those values specifically?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I just came across the [doctrine of equivalents][1], from [this][2] answer. So, if I'm interpreting this correctly, even if you're not in *strict* infringement of the patent claim, if your device achieves the same functionality by some “insubstantial” deviation from the claim (see the “[triple identity test][3]”), then that is still a violation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/17966/21925&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents#United_States" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63296" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="22806" RevisionGUID="56eded7c-2b82-4947-9e68-9cecb0ef7bb8" CreationDate="2020-12-10T17:35:39.867" UserId="21925" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;utility-patent&gt;&lt;technology&gt;&lt;doctrine-of-equivalents&gt;&lt;wording&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22810" RevisionGUID="17d8f79c-9af4-4393-ad26-e626aaf4c24c" CreationDate="2020-12-10T17:49:09.413" UserId="3076" Text="&quot;About&quot; is found in many claims, including range claims like the one you point out. There is a very rich [case law][1] and commentary about &quot;about&quot;. The first issue would be the meaning of about in the context of the patent. If an alleged infringer was outside whatever that was determined to be then the doctrine of equivalents could come into play.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2007/01/cafc_meaning_of.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22811" RevisionGUID="b8d7a614-e1e5-4413-965e-348950e0b819" CreationDate="2020-12-10T17:59:22.123" UserId="3076" Text="It looks like you have not read the responses to your earlier similar question. Incorrect assumptions in the question -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. There is no such thing as a &quot;non-provisional patent&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. Unpublished applications, whether or not provisional are not searchable by examiners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To simplify your question. &quot;What can happen if an examiner misses an earlier filed significant prior art?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earlier filed, but later examined, application will not suffer due to the earlier granted patent. Yes, that could result in two similar or overlapping patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicant of the earlier filed application can file an IPR (current fee to initiate $19,000) to try to invalidate the patent from the later filed applicant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22812" RevisionGUID="8862a7e0-3fe0-4ae2-97c2-9fb7b3bfae35" CreationDate="2020-12-10T21:51:39.237" UserId="3076" Text="I'm a U.S. patent agent but am not particularity knowledgeable about the AU patent system. I dealt with them through a local firm. However,40(3) is very [short][1] . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;(3) The claim or claims must be clear and succinct and supported by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; matter disclosed in the specification.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That doesn't seem very relevant to the concern - &quot;it omits a feature which appear necessary to perform the claimed invention&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it might not be clear, it might have redundant wording, or (more likely) there are things in a claim that are not supported by the disclosure. Since you can't add to a disclosure after filing either you need to subtract from the claim, i.e. narrow it, such that it is supported. Or point out how the examiner missed the location in the disclosure where the support resides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.managingip.com/article/b1kblz2mm63t88/australia-analysing-disclosure-and-support-requirements-in-australian-patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63300" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="f8746af8-ffff-4d8d-93cf-aa8e7385aca4" CreationDate="2020-12-10T22:03:45.343" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22814" RevisionGUID="05a2bc2c-ac16-4371-bad3-0c92baf03bdf" CreationDate="2020-12-11T11:39:33.663" UserId="25100" Text="Well it depends on what's the purpose of prior art search and who's doing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: If an inventor wants to do a prior art search just to determine if his invention is new or not, the easiest to use that I have come across is [PQAI][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if the purpose is invalidation, help of a professional or a skilled prior art searcher might be needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also used PQAI to do free lance prior art search, the results were quite impressive and the search was quick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have shared my experience as a free lance prior art researcher in the video below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://youtu.be/--7MGx9Q95k&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://projectpq.ai" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22812" RevisionGUID="0fa25343-0e75-474a-adad-769843c9f0d7" CreationDate="2020-12-12T00:55:46.543" UserId="3076" Comment="typos" Text="I'm a U.S. patent agent but am not particularity knowledgeable about the AU patent system. I dealt with them through a local firm. However,40(3) is very [short][1] . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;(3) The claim or claims must be clear and succinct and supported by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; matter disclosed in the specification.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That doesn't seem very relevant to the concern - &quot;it omits a feature which appear necessary to perform the claimed invention&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a claim might not be clear, it might have redundant wording, or (more likely) there are things in a claim that are not supported by the disclosure. Since you can't add to a disclosure after filing either you need to subtract from the claim, i.e. narrow it, such that it is supported or point out how the examiner missed the location in the disclosure where the support resides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.managingip.com/article/b1kblz2mm63t88/australia-analysing-disclosure-and-support-requirements-in-australian-patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63308" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="14e3a6c3-e80c-4ef2-968e-b961bc300e36" CreationDate="2020-12-12T03:09:00.953" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63309" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12028" RevisionGUID="74a86ac4-d694-4847-aaf2-3a8edfa58bcc" CreationDate="2020-12-12T22:06:55.870" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63310" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17720" RevisionGUID="3f1b4a09-9d56-401a-b803-a9bbe283d2fe" CreationDate="2020-12-13T08:07:25.740" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63316" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="ecf39cdf-38ac-4a7b-af65-4ef3b185fc59" CreationDate="2020-12-13T13:06:15.570" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63317" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="644a9b5c-25cb-4c09-9a6b-c8c457bb394e" CreationDate="2020-12-14T05:06:45.813" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22817" RevisionGUID="a72549e8-7990-4cac-9b5e-5b86633841c5" CreationDate="2020-12-14T20:02:42.140" UserId="21507" Text="In order do make a final office action allowable, I need to amend independent claim 1 which broadly claims a rotating device specific to the art which would cover most potential infringements.  The single limitation for allowance; claims a sleeve and bolt with a non-Newtonian oil lubricant between them which creates a drag that controls the rotational speed of the rotating device.  My questions is, would this be consider equivalent in view of the &quot;doctrine of equivalents&quot; for infringement in the US for an electric motor, which would also control the rotational speed of the rotating device?  I most likely would not be able to amend claim 1 with &quot;rotational control&quot; limitation only." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63324" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22817" RevisionGUID="a72549e8-7990-4cac-9b5e-5b86633841c5" CreationDate="2020-12-14T20:02:42.140" UserId="21507" Text="Decision on final office action amendment in regards to potential infringements" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63325" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22817" RevisionGUID="a72549e8-7990-4cac-9b5e-5b86633841c5" CreationDate="2020-12-14T20:02:42.140" UserId="21507" Text="&lt;infringement&gt;&lt;office-action&gt;&lt;independent&gt;&lt;final&gt;&lt;office&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22817" RevisionGUID="71ba53a5-b2e3-43ec-94cc-c0fbf3017e47" CreationDate="2020-12-15T19:31:46.947" UserId="3076" Comment="added 158 characters in body" Text="In order do make a final office action allowable, I need to amend independent claim 1 which broadly claims a rotating device specific to the art which would cover most potential infringements.  The single limitation for allowance; claims a sleeve and bolt with a non-Newtonian oil lubricant between them which creates a drag that controls the rotational speed of the rotating device.  My questions is, would this be consider equivalent in view of the &quot;doctrine of equivalents&quot; for infringement in the US for an electric motor, which would also control the rotational speed of the rotating device?  I most likely would not be able to amend claim 1 with &quot;rotational control&quot; limitation only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The publication number is US20200132895A1 and the independent claims for rotational control are 5 and 6 (needed for overcoming anticipation of US4466698A)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22817" RevisionGUID="70edeafd-c0db-4f06-ab0b-2f4ecb7e5ade" CreationDate="2020-12-15T20:22:09.267" UserId="21507" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="In order do make a final office action allowable, I need to amend independent claim 1 which broadly claims a rotating device specific to the art which would cover most potential infringements.  The single limitation for allowance; claims a sleeve and bolt with a non-Newtonian oil lubricant between them which creates a drag that controls the rotational speed of the rotating device.  My questions is, would this be consider equivalent in view of the &quot;doctrine of equivalents&quot; for infringement in the US for an electric motor, which would also control the rotational speed of the rotating device?  I most likely would not be able to amend claim 1 with &quot;rotational control&quot; limitation only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The publication number is US20200132895A1 and the dependent claims for rotational control are 5 and 6 (needed for overcoming anticipation of US4466698A)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22817" RevisionGUID="ce2c5e54-5ae9-4d96-a2b6-55b1838dadca" CreationDate="2020-12-15T20:26:48.197" UserId="3076" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="In order do make a final office action allowable, I need to amend independent claim 1 which broadly claims a rotating device specific to the art which would cover most potential infringements.  The single limitation for allowance; claims a sleeve and bolt with a non-Newtonian oil lubricant between them which creates a drag that controls the rotational speed of the rotating device.  My questions is, would this be consider equivalent in view of the &quot;doctrine of equivalents&quot; for infringement in the US for an electric motor, which would also control the rotational speed of the rotating device?  I most likely would not be able to amend claim 1 with &quot;rotational control&quot; limitation only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The publication number is US20200132895A1 and the dependent claims for rotational control are 5 and 6 (needed for overcoming Gantz US4466698A and Brobst US 6053409&#xD;&#xA;Shirasshi US 5142404)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22817" RevisionGUID="bdbb5054-63e5-4cb5-93d6-a0fe768d3a87" CreationDate="2020-12-15T20:43:11.577" UserId="17003" Comment="Added links to patents for convenience" Text="In order do make a final office action allowable, I need to amend independent claim 1 which broadly claims a rotating device specific to the art which would cover most potential infringements.  The single limitation for allowance; claims a sleeve and bolt with a non-Newtonian oil lubricant between them which creates a drag that controls the rotational speed of the rotating device.  My questions is, would this be consider equivalent in view of the &quot;doctrine of equivalents&quot; for infringement in the US for an electric motor, which would also control the rotational speed of the rotating device?  I most likely would not be able to amend claim 1 with &quot;rotational control&quot; limitation only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The publication number is [US20200132895A1][1] and the dependent claims for rotational control are 5 and 6 (needed for overcoming Gantz [US4466698A][2] and Brobst [US 6053409][3]&#xD;&#xA;Shirasshi [US 5142404][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20200132895A1/en?oq=US20200132895A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4466698A/en?oq=US4466698A&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6053409A/en&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5142404A/en?oq=US%205142404" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22820" RevisionGUID="7d5f247e-4ae2-4f97-8729-b01d38211414" CreationDate="2020-12-15T20:58:07.210" UserId="3076" Text="If the aspect of your invention that gives it novelty and non-obviousness over prior art references is not core to its functionally then you are likely to end up with a patent that is easy to design around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get a more valuable patent you would need to show how the core functionality has aspects that are not in the prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22821" RevisionGUID="aee933b3-cf70-4904-a853-df15927844a2" CreationDate="2020-12-15T21:10:10.453" UserId="17003" Text="In the prosecution of some of my patents, examiners would simply reject things citing a patent that is hardly related. Basically this is laziness asking the applicant to educate the examiner. In US5142404A the invention has nothing to do with your application and is deflecting a laser beam for printing, not reflecting sunlight for the purpose of deterring bird strikes. US6053409A similarly is a different application altogether as it is for optical imaging. Inventions are allowed to use an existing device in a new application.  In my mind US4466698A is the most relevant and you should put most your effort figuring out how to differentiate your invention to that patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I've said, I'm not a patent attorney. An attorney would know how to communicate differences from prior art to the examiner. This is the main reason I always suggest working with an attorney or agent when pursuing a patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63341" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="b830e477-4192-40a6-b750-f676a082f31d" CreationDate="2020-12-16T00:02:25.257" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22822" RevisionGUID="68cb354a-f11e-49fc-842c-33141fd85782" CreationDate="2020-12-16T02:31:46.330" UserId="21507" Text="I original had &quot;further comprises turbine blades&quot; in the specifications and claims now moving into an independent claim, is it ok to have &quot;a turbine blades&quot; or &quot;a turbine blade(s)&quot;, there is more then one turbine blade, or how else can this be done without amendment to the specifications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63343" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22822" RevisionGUID="68cb354a-f11e-49fc-842c-33141fd85782" CreationDate="2020-12-16T02:31:46.330" UserId="21507" Text="It is ok to have &quot;a turbine blades&quot; in a claim as plural?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63344" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22822" RevisionGUID="68cb354a-f11e-49fc-842c-33141fd85782" CreationDate="2020-12-16T02:31:46.330" UserId="21507" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;term&gt;&lt;plurality&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22823" RevisionGUID="bdd3b2fc-4a03-4de9-ab99-2539dbc744f7" CreationDate="2020-12-16T03:14:44.417" UserId="22086" Text="In the US you need to include anybody who has contributed to any of the claims in your application. Not doing so could possibly invalidate the application.&#xD;&#xA;https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/10/12/getting-a-patent-who-should-be-named-as-an-inventor/id=126026/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you file for additional claims, you should be able to add an inventor to subsequent claims so long as there is at least one inventor in common on the subsequent application. &#xD;&#xA;https://www.smartuplegal.com/learn-center/can-you-add-another-person-to-your-patent-application/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22824" RevisionGUID="45318c74-fb55-4c28-91a0-4cc66c7076a8" CreationDate="2020-12-16T04:12:08.357" UserId="25100" Text="Here is how this tool is different from state-of-the-art:&#xD;&#xA;1. It shows only the most relevant top 10 prior art search results.&#xD;&#xA;2. It takes the query in plain English and not a complex boolean string.&#xD;&#xA;3. It shows query element mapping with the relevant text from the prior art document, thus saving you time from sifting through prior art results, something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Drop me a message and I shall share the details!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/h5bOA.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63347" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22824" RevisionGUID="45318c74-fb55-4c28-91a0-4cc66c7076a8" CreationDate="2020-12-16T04:12:08.357" UserId="25100" Text="Hi there, looking for prior art searchers who would be open to try a new non-commercial prior art search tool and share their feedback!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63348" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22824" RevisionGUID="45318c74-fb55-4c28-91a0-4cc66c7076a8" CreationDate="2020-12-16T04:12:08.357" UserId="25100" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22824" RevisionGUID="6a64fd26-3621-4bfc-88a1-f9a386ff83dd" CreationDate="2020-12-16T14:59:50.287" UserId="25100" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Here is how this tool is different from state-of-the-art:&#xD;&#xA;1. It shows only the most relevant top 10 prior art search results.&#xD;&#xA;2. It takes the query in plain English and not a complex boolean string.&#xD;&#xA;3. It shows query element mapping with the relevant text from the prior art document, thus saving you time from sifting through prior art results, something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can try it out at https://projectpq.ai&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/h5bOA.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22827" RevisionGUID="2805f56a-3d31-41d0-ac2f-1ac932954eef" CreationDate="2020-12-17T03:58:32.517" UserId="3076" Text="Yes, definitely. There are many, many circuits that are patented." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22824" RevisionGUID="22784622-f1ba-4230-ab19-b41c9a7db013" CreationDate="2020-12-17T20:34:36.640" UserId="3076" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="Here is how this tool is different from state-of-the-art:&#xD;&#xA;1. It shows only the most relevant top 10 prior art search results.&#xD;&#xA;2. It takes the query in plain English and not a complex boolean string.&#xD;&#xA;3. It shows query element mapping with the relevant text from the prior art document, thus saving you time from sifting through prior art results, something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can try it out at https://projectpq.ai&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The poster is a co-developer of this tool which is a work in progress.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/h5bOA.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22829" RevisionGUID="416829dd-df47-4afd-b244-5f36e56bfd65" CreationDate="2020-12-17T20:44:50.973" UserId="17003" Text="My initial impression is that the tool is not at present very useful. The main issue I see is that previous queries seem to affect future queries. For instance look at this result:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jv7LK.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is pretty clear that the first and second hit has nothing whatsoever to do with coffee makers. In fact it looks like it is ignoring the sample query altogether as none of the results are relevant. This must be a bug. I'm using Safari as a browser on MacOS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another issue I have is that only 10 results is too few. This should be adjustable by a user specified parameter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22830" RevisionGUID="793eddff-8b86-4574-b2a9-f0cf81450f41" CreationDate="2020-12-17T22:26:03.330" UserId="3076" Text="It may become useful as you develop it but right now is over-hyped on your ancillary materials. Blog, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22824" RevisionGUID="e5ed1a43-c085-46c8-b7d3-6ec70ce31603" CreationDate="2020-12-18T00:15:11.027" UserId="25100" Comment="added 251 characters in body" Text="Before I tell more about the tool, it's developed by my colleagues, my role is to collect feedback from beta users and share it with the development team to improve the tool. Also, the tool is a work in progress. Thanks for your time and feedback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is how this tool is different from state-of-the-art:&#xD;&#xA;1. It shows only the most relevant top 10 prior art search results.&#xD;&#xA;2. It takes the query in plain English and not a complex boolean string.&#xD;&#xA;3. It shows query element mapping with the relevant text from the prior art document, thus saving you time from sifting through prior art results, something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can try it out at https://projectpq.ai&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The poster is a co-developer of this tool which is a work in progress.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/h5bOA.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22829" RevisionGUID="a9452563-6d98-4dc5-8bc0-1ca03b5d3d43" CreationDate="2020-12-18T22:36:05.857" UserId="-1" Comment="Updated answer with additional text" Text="My initial impression is that the tool is not at present very useful. The main issue I see is that previous queries seem to affect future queries. For instance look at this result:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jv7LK.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is pretty clear that the first and second hit has nothing whatsoever to do with coffee makers. In fact it looks like it is ignoring the sample query altogether as none of the results are relevant. This must be a bug. I'm using Safari as a browser on MacOS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update: The bug seems to be cookie related. Once I deleted the cookies for PQAI, the searching seems to be fixed.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another issue I have is that only 10 results is too few. This should be adjustable by a user specified parameter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the most annoying feature is that it doesn't like my own patents. I've put search queries targeted to my own patents and it never identifies any of my own even though they are exactly related. I even copied the entire first claim of one of my more cited patents and it didn't identify my patent within the first 10 hits." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63375" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="22829" RevisionGUID="a9452563-6d98-4dc5-8bc0-1ca03b5d3d43" CreationDate="2020-12-18T22:36:05.857" Comment="Proposed by 98.222.132.152|fab8b6fd-a1f6-481b-9679-5fba4196f43c approved by 17003 edit id of 2143" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22832" RevisionGUID="0fd3a9a0-189f-4905-8d16-4f8e3c7f1b8c" CreationDate="2020-12-20T00:02:03.507" UserId="24753" Text="&#xA;I think it’s a great question.&#xA;&#xA;EPC allows to file in any Paris convention or WTO member and then claim priority when filing at EPO. I hardly doubt some other country will reject you if you filed first at EPO, as reciprocity they should let you file there too.&#xA;&#xA;A deep look is necessary to do to see if member countries of EPC being at the same time of Paris (all of them) take filing at EPO as an “extension” of a national filing, then making Paris apply, you get my point ? &#xA;&#xA;Paris says: &#xA;&gt; Article 4 A (1): Any person who has duly filed an application for a patent, or for the registration of a utility model, or of an industrial design, or of a trademark, **in one of the countries of the Union**, or his successor in title, shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing in the other countries, a right of priority during the periods hereinafter fixed.&#xA;&#xA;EPC says: &#xA;&gt; 2. European Patent Convention&#xA;The European Patent Convention (EPC) **is an international treaty that sets out a priority right system for first filings in or for states which are party to the Paris Convention or any member of the World Trade Organization (WTO)**. Article 87(1) EPC reads as follows:&#xA;&quot;Any person who has duly filed, in or for&#xA;(a) any State party to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property or&#xA;(b) any Member of the World Trade Organization,&#xA;an application for a patent, a utility model or a utility certificate, or his successor in title, shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing a European patent application in respect of the same invention, a right of priority during a period of twelve months from the date of filing of the first application.&quot;&#xA;According to Article 88(2) EPC, it is even possible to claim multiple priorities of a patent application or a patent claim, meaning that an applicant may claim more than one priority based on previous applications in the same or different states and/or WTO members.&#xA;&#xA;Source:&#xA;[epc priority][1]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://e-courses.epo.org/wbts_int/litigation/Priority.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22834" RevisionGUID="e813478a-ce1e-4cd6-aa3d-3e7892f8b8d0" CreationDate="2020-12-21T04:29:08.310" UserId="14403" Text="It seems you are worried about what is called 'antecedent' problem in claim construction. For which, you are inclined to use 'a + 'turbine blades'. When an element is mentioned first time in claim construction - 'said + element (turbine blades)' or 'the + elememt (turbine blades)', should not be used to avoid objection by examiner based on 'lack of antecedent'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be fine if you just mention 'turbine blades'' in independent claim when mentioned first time and not grammatically incorrect 'a turbine blades'. For subsequent mentions about 'turbine blades', you should use 'the' or 'said' prefixed to 'turbine blades'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another point is, when number of blades is not specific, it is prudent to construct independent claim with 'at least one turbine blade' or ' one or more turbine blades'. Such phrase would give better protection against infringement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22832" RevisionGUID="70434f1a-2efb-4be0-a426-c30c1fd0abf7" CreationDate="2020-12-21T09:39:19.297" UserId="24753" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="I think it’s a great question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EPC allows any Paris convention or WTO member to file nationally and then claim priority when filing at EPO. I hardly doubt some other country will reject you if you filed first at EPO, as reciprocity they should let you file there too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A deep look is necessary to do to see if member countries of EPC being at the same time of Paris (all of them) take filing at EPO as an “extension” of a national filing, then making Paris apply, you get my point ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paris says: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Article 4 A (1): Any person who has duly filed an application for a patent, or for the registration of a utility model, or of an industrial design, or of a trademark, **in one of the countries of the Union**, or his successor in title, shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing in the other countries, a right of priority during the periods hereinafter fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EPC says: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. European Patent Convention&#xD;&#xA;The European Patent Convention (EPC) **is an international treaty that sets out a priority right system for first filings in or for states which are party to the Paris Convention or any member of the World Trade Organization (WTO)**. Article 87(1) EPC reads as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Any person who has duly filed, in or for&#xD;&#xA;(a) any State party to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property or&#xD;&#xA;(b) any Member of the World Trade Organization,&#xD;&#xA;an application for a patent, a utility model or a utility certificate, or his successor in title, shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing a European patent application in respect of the same invention, a right of priority during a period of twelve months from the date of filing of the first application.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;According to Article 88(2) EPC, it is even possible to claim multiple priorities of a patent application or a patent claim, meaning that an applicant may claim more than one priority based on previous applications in the same or different states and/or WTO members.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source:&#xD;&#xA;[epc priority][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://e-courses.epo.org/wbts_int/litigation/Priority.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22832" RevisionGUID="14faf1ed-9b0c-4a46-9944-8e458f46087a" CreationDate="2020-12-21T09:46:24.290" UserId="24753" Comment="Info on EPC-PCT" Text="I think it’s a great question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EPC allows any Paris convention or WTO member to file nationally and then claim priority when filing at EPO. I hardly doubt some other country will reject you if you filed first at EPO, as reciprocity they should let you file there too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A deep look is necessary to do to see if member countries of EPC being at the same time of Paris (all of them) take filing at EPO as an “extension” of a national filing, then making Paris apply, you get my point ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ON PCT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EPC classifies as a [Regional Treaty (Article 45 of PCT)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source:][2]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The EPC further constitutes a regional patent treaty within the meaning of Article 45(1) PCT, which means that European patents can be granted on the basis of an international application filed under the PCT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paris says: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Article 4 A (1): Any person who has duly filed an application for a patent, or for the registration of a utility model, or of an industrial design, or of a trademark, **in one of the countries of the Union**, or his successor in title, shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing in the other countries, a right of priority during the periods hereinafter fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EPC says: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. European Patent Convention&#xD;&#xA;The European Patent Convention (EPC) **is an international treaty that sets out a priority right system for first filings in or for states which are party to the Paris Convention or any member of the World Trade Organization (WTO)**. Article 87(1) EPC reads as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Any person who has duly filed, in or for&#xD;&#xA;(a) any State party to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property or&#xD;&#xA;(b) any Member of the World Trade Organization,&#xD;&#xA;an application for a patent, a utility model or a utility certificate, or his successor in title, shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing a European patent application in respect of the same invention, a right of priority during a period of twelve months from the date of filing of the first application.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;According to Article 88(2) EPC, it is even possible to claim multiple priorities of a patent application or a patent claim, meaning that an applicant may claim more than one priority based on previous applications in the same or different states and/or WTO members.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source:&#xD;&#xA;[epc priority][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/a45.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.epo.org/applying/european/Guide-for-applicants/html/e/ga_c2_3.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://e-courses.epo.org/wbts_int/litigation/Priority.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22832" RevisionGUID="f3844490-f5d6-466d-992d-bf79845627c1" CreationDate="2020-12-21T10:30:53.160" UserId="24753" Comment="added 775 characters in body" Text="I think it’s a great question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EPC allows any Paris convention or WTO member to file nationally and then claim priority when filing at EPO. I hardly doubt some other country will reject you if you filed first at EPO, as reciprocity they should let you file there too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A deep look is necessary to do to see if member countries of EPC being at the same time of Paris (all of them) take filing at EPO as an “extension” of a national filing, then making Paris apply, you get my point ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ON PCT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EPC classifies as a [Regional Treaty (Article 45 of PCT)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source:][2]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The EPC further constitutes a regional patent treaty within the meaning of Article 45(1) PCT, which means that European patents can be granted on the basis of an international application filed under the PCT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example patent US9895170 did a priority claim with EP2764840B1 but also claimed the benefits of a US provisional patent both filed the same day of 2013:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The present disclosure claims the benefit of U . S . Provisional Patent Application Ser . No . 61 / 763 , 426 , filed Feb . 11 ,2013 , the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety , and claims priority from European Patent Application EP 13154823 . 2 , filed Feb . 11 , 2013 , the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The certificate issued by the EPO says that you can use the paris convention :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The organization code and number of your priority application, to be used for filing abroad under the Paris Convention, is EP13154823&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paris says: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Article 4 A (1): Any person who has duly filed an application for a patent, or for the registration of a utility model, or of an industrial design, or of a trademark, **in one of the countries of the Union**, or his successor in title, shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing in the other countries, a right of priority during the periods hereinafter fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EPC says: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. European Patent Convention&#xD;&#xA;The European Patent Convention (EPC) **is an international treaty that sets out a priority right system for first filings in or for states which are party to the Paris Convention or any member of the World Trade Organization (WTO)**. Article 87(1) EPC reads as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Any person who has duly filed, in or for&#xD;&#xA;(a) any State party to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property or&#xD;&#xA;(b) any Member of the World Trade Organization,&#xD;&#xA;an application for a patent, a utility model or a utility certificate, or his successor in title, shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing a European patent application in respect of the same invention, a right of priority during a period of twelve months from the date of filing of the first application.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;According to Article 88(2) EPC, it is even possible to claim multiple priorities of a patent application or a patent claim, meaning that an applicant may claim more than one priority based on previous applications in the same or different states and/or WTO members.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source:&#xD;&#xA;[epc priority][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/a45.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.epo.org/applying/european/Guide-for-applicants/html/e/ga_c2_3.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://e-courses.epo.org/wbts_int/litigation/Priority.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22832" RevisionGUID="64299b57-1dbc-4db3-9cf6-c67bd3074a80" CreationDate="2020-12-21T11:14:00.017" UserId="24753" Comment="added 414 characters in body" Text="I think it’s a great question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EPC allows any Paris convention or WTO member to file nationally and then claim priority when filing at EPO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The EPC constitutes a special agreement within the meaning of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. [(Article 19)][1] &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *This means in particular that the principles of the Paris Convention on claiming priority and the national treatment principle also apply in the European procedure ***and to*** European applications*. &#xD;&#xA;Art. 87-89&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since nearly all the EPC contracting states are members of the WTO, the relevant provisions of the TRIPS Agreement (Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights) are implemented in the revised EPC. &#xD;&#xA;[Source][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ON PCT:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EPC classifies as a [Regional Treaty (Article 45 of PCT)][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source:][4]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The EPC further constitutes a regional patent treaty within the meaning of Article 45(1) PCT, which means that European patents can be granted on the basis of an international application filed under the PCT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXAMPLE:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example patent US9895170 did a priority claim with EP2764840B1 but also claimed the benefits of a US provisional patent both filed the same day of 2013:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The present disclosure claims the benefit of U . S . Provisional Patent Application Ser . No . 61 / 763 , 426 , filed Feb . 11 ,2013 , the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety , and claims priority from European Patent Application EP 13154823 . 2 , filed Feb . 11 , 2013 , the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The certificate issued by the EPO says that you can use the paris convention :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The organization code and number of your priority application, to be used for filing abroad under the Paris Convention, is EP13154823&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paris says: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Article 4 A (1): Any person who has duly filed an application for a patent, or for the registration of a utility model, or of an industrial design, or of a trademark, **in one of the countries of the Union**, or his successor in title, shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing in the other countries, a right of priority during the periods hereinafter fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EPC says: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. European Patent Convention&#xD;&#xA;The European Patent Convention (EPC) **is an international treaty that sets out a priority right system for first filings in or for states which are party to the Paris Convention or any member of the World Trade Organization (WTO)**. Article 87(1) EPC reads as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Any person who has duly filed, in or for&#xD;&#xA;(a) any State party to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property or&#xD;&#xA;(b) any Member of the World Trade Organization,&#xD;&#xA;an application for a patent, a utility model or a utility certificate, or his successor in title, shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing a European patent application in respect of the same invention, a right of priority during a period of twelve months from the date of filing of the first application.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;According to Article 88(2) EPC, it is even possible to claim multiple priorities of a patent application or a patent claim, meaning that an applicant may claim more than one priority based on previous applications in the same or different states and/or WTO members.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source:&#xD;&#xA;[epc priority][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/text/288514&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/apre.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/a45.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.epo.org/applying/european/Guide-for-applicants/html/e/ga_c2_3.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://e-courses.epo.org/wbts_int/litigation/Priority.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22832" RevisionGUID="66f6805f-abbb-4431-b3e6-a4c03f5f6d85" CreationDate="2020-12-21T11:19:36.760" UserId="24753" Comment="added 199 characters in body" Text="I think it’s a great question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EPC allows any Paris convention or WTO member to file nationally and then claim priority when filing at EPO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that being EPC an Special Agreement under Article 19 of the Paris convention (An Agreement between members of Paris), it is then understood the filing at EPO as a member of the union filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The EPC constitutes a special agreement within the meaning of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. [(Article 19)][1] &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *This means in particular that the principles of the Paris Convention on claiming priority and the national treatment principle also apply in the European procedure ***and to*** European applications*. &#xD;&#xA;Art. 87-89&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since nearly all the EPC contracting states are members of the WTO, the relevant provisions of the TRIPS Agreement (Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights) are implemented in the revised EPC. &#xD;&#xA;[Source][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The certificate issued by the EPO says that you can use the paris convention :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The organization code and number of your priority application, to be used for filing abroad under the Paris Convention, is EP13154823&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ON PCT:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EPC classifies as a [Regional Treaty (Article 45 of PCT)][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source:][4]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The EPC further constitutes a regional patent treaty within the meaning of Article 45(1) PCT, which means that European patents can be granted on the basis of an international application filed under the PCT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXAMPLE:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example patent US9895170 did a priority claim with EP2764840B1 but also claimed the benefits of a US provisional patent both filed the same day of 2013:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The present disclosure claims the benefit of U . S . Provisional Patent Application Ser . No . 61 / 763 , 426 , filed Feb . 11 ,2013 , the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety , and claims priority from European Patent Application EP 13154823 . 2 , filed Feb . 11 , 2013 , the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paris says: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Article 4 A (1): Any person who has duly filed an application for a patent, or for the registration of a utility model, or of an industrial design, or of a trademark, **in one of the countries of the Union**, or his successor in title, shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing in the other countries, a right of priority during the periods hereinafter fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EPC says: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. European Patent Convention&#xD;&#xA;The European Patent Convention (EPC) **is an international treaty that sets out a priority right system for first filings in or for states which are party to the Paris Convention or any member of the World Trade Organization (WTO)**. Article 87(1) EPC reads as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Any person who has duly filed, in or for&#xD;&#xA;(a) any State party to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property or&#xD;&#xA;(b) any Member of the World Trade Organization,&#xD;&#xA;an application for a patent, a utility model or a utility certificate, or his successor in title, shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing a European patent application in respect of the same invention, a right of priority during a period of twelve months from the date of filing of the first application.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;According to Article 88(2) EPC, it is even possible to claim multiple priorities of a patent application or a patent claim, meaning that an applicant may claim more than one priority based on previous applications in the same or different states and/or WTO members.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source:&#xD;&#xA;[epc priority][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/text/288514&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/apre.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/a45.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.epo.org/applying/european/Guide-for-applicants/html/e/ga_c2_3.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://e-courses.epo.org/wbts_int/litigation/Priority.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22832" RevisionGUID="15458973-6497-489d-a26a-bd625e213d07" CreationDate="2020-12-21T12:09:05.320" UserId="24753" Comment="edited body" Text="I think it’s a great question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EPC allows any Paris convention or WTO member to file nationally and then claim priority when filing at EPO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that being EPC an Special Agreement under Article 19 of the Paris convention (An Agreement between members of Paris), it is then understood the filing at EPO as a member of the union filing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The EPC constitutes a special agreement within the meaning of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. [(Article 19)][1] &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *This means in particular that the principles of the Paris Convention on claiming priority and the national treatment principle also apply in the European procedure ***and to*** European applications*. &#xD;&#xA;Art. 87-89&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since nearly all the EPC contracting states are members of the WTO, the relevant provisions of the TRIPS Agreement (Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights) are implemented in the revised EPC. &#xD;&#xA;[Source][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The certificate issued by the EPO says that you can use the paris convention :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The organization code and number of your priority application, to be used for filing abroad under the Paris Convention, is EP########&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ON PCT:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EPC classifies as a [Regional Treaty (Article 45 of PCT)][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source:][4]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The EPC further constitutes a regional patent treaty within the meaning of Article 45(1) PCT, which means that European patents can be granted on the basis of an international application filed under the PCT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EXAMPLE:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example patent US9895170 did a priority claim with EP2764840B1 but also claimed the benefits of a US provisional patent both filed the same day of 2013:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The present disclosure claims the benefit of U . S . Provisional Patent Application Ser . No . 61 / 763 , 426 , filed Feb . 11 ,2013 , the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety , and claims priority from European Patent Application EP 13154823 . 2 , filed Feb . 11 , 2013 , the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paris says: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Article 4 A (1): Any person who has duly filed an application for a patent, or for the registration of a utility model, or of an industrial design, or of a trademark, **in one of the countries of the Union**, or his successor in title, shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing in the other countries, a right of priority during the periods hereinafter fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EPC says: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. European Patent Convention&#xD;&#xA;The European Patent Convention (EPC) **is an international treaty that sets out a priority right system for first filings in or for states which are party to the Paris Convention or any member of the World Trade Organization (WTO)**. Article 87(1) EPC reads as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Any person who has duly filed, in or for&#xD;&#xA;(a) any State party to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property or&#xD;&#xA;(b) any Member of the World Trade Organization,&#xD;&#xA;an application for a patent, a utility model or a utility certificate, or his successor in title, shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing a European patent application in respect of the same invention, a right of priority during a period of twelve months from the date of filing of the first application.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;According to Article 88(2) EPC, it is even possible to claim multiple priorities of a patent application or a patent claim, meaning that an applicant may claim more than one priority based on previous applications in the same or different states and/or WTO members.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source:&#xD;&#xA;[epc priority][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/text/288514&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/apre.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/a45.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.epo.org/applying/european/Guide-for-applicants/html/e/ga_c2_3.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://e-courses.epo.org/wbts_int/litigation/Priority.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22835" RevisionGUID="ddeab15c-8dfc-4230-9063-9b903906d119" CreationDate="2020-12-21T18:36:34.750" UserId="25169" Text="I saw today that Ransom E. Olds patented the stationary assembly line. However, I wonder how you would enforce a patent like this unless an employee of your competitor defected. Straight off the top of my head I can think of two kinds of scenarios where enforcing a patent like this may become important:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Like the assembly line, where the process can be used to manufacture several different products, but owning a patent on a manufacturing process can give one business an edge over its competitors&#xD;&#xA;2) Where two company produce goods that are essentially indistinguishable, and the production process itself is the only thing that can give one company an edge in the marketplace (through, for instance, reduced cost)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, lets consider the second scenario above. If the industry is mining, and the process is a more efficient way of extracting a metal. I reckon everybody is selling the metal at market price. Would the way to enforce this patent be to keep tabs on everyone's finances? And, is that sufficient grounds to sue someone and ask to examine the competing mine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63390" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22835" RevisionGUID="ddeab15c-8dfc-4230-9063-9b903906d119" CreationDate="2020-12-21T18:36:34.750" UserId="25169" Text="Enforcing production process patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63391" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22835" RevisionGUID="ddeab15c-8dfc-4230-9063-9b903906d119" CreationDate="2020-12-21T18:36:34.750" UserId="25169" Text="&lt;enforcement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22836" RevisionGUID="706266da-8344-4ebf-95bd-0d6125c8873f" CreationDate="2020-12-21T21:17:13.027" UserId="3076" Text="If a large number of people are involved it is unlikely the process can be kept confidential for long. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22837" RevisionGUID="ad98761a-b32e-4127-8c4e-4562e69b19cc" CreationDate="2020-12-22T15:55:32.910" UserId="17003" Text="Let me preface this by saying I am not a lawyer. I know even less about court proceedings. That said, if you suspect a competitor is using your patented process, I think what you do is you sue them. As part of the lawsuit is discovery where you are able to request documentation and even perform inspections. [This webpage][1] provides a thorough description of the process. Quoting from that page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Although less common than requests for documents, Federal Rule 34 also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; allows one party to request to inspect documents or things in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; possession of another party. For example, in a patent case, a patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; holder may request to inspect the manufacturing process used to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; produce the accused product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/navigating-fact-discovery-in-a-patent-10185/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63394" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19379" RevisionGUID="6f8bc592-d3dc-4b39-80d3-053c288a6f71" CreationDate="2020-12-23T02:01:45.293" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63407" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20143" RevisionGUID="c5dbaedb-bf08-4f56-92b7-491e870ae830" CreationDate="2020-12-25T19:05:30.603" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22840" RevisionGUID="b14a0444-b75d-4494-86f7-4062a35fd271" CreationDate="2020-12-26T04:34:46.813" UserId="18886" Text="Under patent infringement doctrine, there can be infringement under doctrine of equivalents or under means plus function language. The latter is invoked when the claim includes functional language. Functional language is language in the claim that does not describe claim elements nor connects them. In your claim 1, the language “which creates a drag . . .” Is functional. This gives rise to likely means plus function equivalents not doctrine of equivalents. The doctrine of equivalents is broader protection, as means plus function equivalents just give rise to a narrower range of equivalents to what is defined in your spec. So you would need to read infringement upon a narrower equivalence doctrine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22841" RevisionGUID="5d380c16-6101-4509-8288-03ea31b396de" CreationDate="2020-12-26T11:28:59.313" UserId="22532" Text="I have two interrelated apparatus like a socket and a plug. I'd like to draft one independent claim for each one. Is it possible to draft 3rd independent claims included both apparatus? And if it is possible, after three independent claim, am i allowed to draft 4th independent claim for a system also comprises 3rd independent claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63410" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22841" RevisionGUID="5d380c16-6101-4509-8288-03ea31b396de" CreationDate="2020-12-26T11:28:59.313" UserId="22532" Text="After drafting two independent claims for interrelated apparatus, is it possible to draft 3rd independent which include both?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63411" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22841" RevisionGUID="5d380c16-6101-4509-8288-03ea31b396de" CreationDate="2020-12-26T11:28:59.313" UserId="22532" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;independent&gt;&lt;apparatus&gt;&lt;interrelated&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22843" RevisionGUID="108f9ae7-5674-43f0-9574-2a6e22eab47b" CreationDate="2020-12-26T18:25:07.773" UserId="3076" Text="You an do this, in fact it doesn't even need the third claim to be independent. There are innumerable U.S. patents with a claim 1 to a transmitter that sends a particular signal to a receiver, a claim 2 to receiver that receives that same particular signal from a transmitter; and a system including both a transmitter and a receiver. The claim for the complete system can be a dependent claim to either 1 or 2. It could also be an independent claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples are clients/servers and plugs sockets. It is possible that a restriction requirement may be made, but it is not on a &quot;unity of invention&quot; theory. Unity of invention is a rest-of-the-world concept, not at all in in U.S. law. A restriction requirement is proper when the inventions are independent AND the burden of searching the claims is serious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [9,583,897][1] 	Electrical connection system with annular contact&#xD;&#xA; - [9,306,325][2] 	Plug, socket and their combined structure of electrical&#xD;&#xA;connector &#xD;&#xA; - [10,791,311][3] 	Transmitting apparatus, transmitting method,    receiving&#xD;&#xA;   apparatus, and receiving method&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9583897B2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9306325B2&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10791311B2/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22835" RevisionGUID="4c7cf29d-ef68-480e-bd94-bc7b6597b40f" CreationDate="2020-12-26T18:33:53.000" UserId="25169" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I saw today that Ransom E. Olds patented the stationary assembly line. However, I wonder how you would enforce a patent like this unless an employee of your competitor defected. Straight off the top of my head I can think of two kinds of scenarios where enforcing a patent like this may become important:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Like the assembly line, where the process can be used to manufacture several different products, but owning a patent on a manufacturing process can give one business an edge over its competitors&#xD;&#xA;2) Where two companies produce goods that are essentially indistinguishable, and the production process itself is the only thing that can give one company an edge in the marketplace (through, for instance, reduced cost)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, lets consider the second scenario above. If the industry is mining, and the process is a more efficient way of extracting a metal. I reckon everybody is selling the metal at market price. Would the way to enforce this patent be to keep tabs on everyone's finances? And, is that sufficient grounds to sue someone and ask to examine the competing mine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22843" RevisionGUID="e9b03ce1-0208-4f1d-b7b2-3fd24ab3555c" CreationDate="2020-12-26T18:45:00.727" UserId="3076" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="You an do this, in fact it doesn't even need the third claim to be independent. There are innumerable U.S. patents with a claim 1 to a transmitter that sends a particular signal to a receiver, a claim 2 to receiver that receives that same particular signal from a transmitter; and a system including both a transmitter and a receiver. The claim for the complete system can be a dependent claim to either 1 or 2. It could also be an independent claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples are clients/servers and plugs sockets. It is possible that a restriction requirement may be made, but it is not on a &quot;unity of invention&quot; theory. Unity of invention is a rest-of-the-world concept, not at all in in U.S. law. A restriction requirement is proper when the inventions are independent AND the burden of searching the claims is serious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;examples (found using a search at the [USPTO][1] in the form ACLM/&quot;a plug&quot; AND ACLM/&quot;a socket&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [9,583,897][2] 	Electrical connection system with annular contact&#xD;&#xA; - [9,306,325][3] 	Plug, socket and their combined structure of electrical&#xD;&#xA;connector &#xD;&#xA; - [10,791,311][4] 	Transmitting apparatus, transmitting method,    receiving&#xD;&#xA;   apparatus, and receiving method&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9583897B2&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9306325B2&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10791311B2/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22841" RevisionGUID="4ca88367-daf7-4aa5-bf76-e213f0c31ff8" CreationDate="2020-12-26T18:51:08.033" UserId="22532" Comment="added 700 characters in body" Text="I have two interrelated apparatus like a socket and a plug. I'd like to draft one independent claim for each one. Is it possible to draft 3rd independent claims included both apparatus? And if it is possible, after three independent claim, am i allowed to draft 4th independent claim for a system also comprises 3rd independent claim?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: Both of apparatus can be sold seperatly so I'd like to protect both. I believe, both of them novel but the second one may be not inventetive. So i don't want a second application for 2nd apparatus. Besides that their best use is provided together, because of that may be a good idea 3rd claim (if possible) to cover both if a problematic document appears. For same reason, if possible i'd like to draft 4th indepent claim for a system which 1st and second 2nd is actually is used in it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another note: It's EPO application and I know interrelated apparatus can be claimed in one application in a different independent claims. Please interpret my question taking this into consideration." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63417" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22490" RevisionGUID="74cab09f-d65e-4aeb-9837-e1db4041bf90" CreationDate="2020-12-26T19:07:55.847" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63418" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="22841" RevisionGUID="bca73c17-aaf7-4c02-845c-8ab828396477" CreationDate="2020-12-26T19:47:27.683" />
  <row Id="63419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22843" RevisionGUID="52abf92d-1d14-4f94-86ef-b34a7db42613" CreationDate="2020-12-26T20:11:25.247" UserId="3076" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="You an do this, in fact it doesn't even need the third claim to be independent. I do not know EPO law very well but there are innumerable U.S. patents with a claim 1 to a transmitter that sends a particular signal to a receiver, a claim 2 to receiver that receives that same particular signal from a transmitter; and a system including both a transmitter and a receiver. The claim for the complete system can be a dependent claim to either 1 or 2. It could also be an independent claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EPO law allows only one independent claim for each aspect - apparatus, method, system, etc. Socket and plug might be two different things each due one independant claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples are clients/servers and plugs sockets. If there is something that makes the interaction of plug and socket novel and inventive the same principle may be at ply in both the plug and the socket. IF you are not sure abut the inventiveness of either the plug or the socket it is good to claim each and claim the combination of the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;U.S. examples (found using a search at the [USPTO][1] in the form ACLM/&quot;a plug&quot; AND ACLM/&quot;a socket&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [9,583,897][2] 	Electrical connection system with annular contact&#xD;&#xA; - [9,306,325][3] 	Plug, socket and their combined structure of electrical&#xD;&#xA;connector &#xD;&#xA; - [10,791,311][4] 	Transmitting apparatus, transmitting method,    receiving&#xD;&#xA;   apparatus, and receiving method&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9583897B2&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9306325B2&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10791311B2/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22844" RevisionGUID="78a75635-5f23-48d9-a5a3-12c133459948" CreationDate="2020-12-26T21:22:16.990" UserId="18886" Text="If you do without a license, you may be infringing. If you are sued for patent infringement they may be able to recoup damages. You can also sue them for not paying you to potentially recoup your damages for not being paid under your employment contract." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22844" RevisionGUID="02f831cb-90dc-4cf0-834b-0155cfde70c3" CreationDate="2020-12-26T21:28:59.713" UserId="18886" Comment="added 886 characters in body" Text="If you do without a license, you may be infringing. If you are sued for patent infringement they may be able to recoup damages. You can also sue them for not paying you to potentially recoup your damages for not being paid under your employment contract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you agree with them to sell the finished product in consideration for them not paying you your fee, then you may be able to do it without infringing as you would have essentially a license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they cannot pay you and you are owed money, you are a Creditor. If the firm owns the patent and it goes into bankruptcy, you may be able to gain ownership of that patent. There are many iterations and you need to understand more of the facts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if the IP is held by the actual person, it depends who owed you money and who can't pay (entity or person) - personal bankruptcy or limited liability co. bankruptcy and which owns the patent.  For further example, if contract was with a limited liability company that does not own the patent, you may be out of luck - but it depends if your employment contract also held the person responsible as well to pay your fees. etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22843" RevisionGUID="8a0b298b-85fc-4652-8aaf-b63c051b05e9" CreationDate="2020-12-26T21:36:13.437" UserId="3076" Comment="added 133 characters in body" Text="You an do this, in fact it doesn't even need the third claim to be independent. I do not know EPO law very well but there are innumerable U.S. patents with a claim 1 to a transmitter that sends a particular signal to a receiver, a claim 2 to receiver that receives that same particular signal from a transmitter; and a system including both a transmitter and a receiver. The claim for the complete system can be a dependent claim to either 1 or 2. It could also be an independent claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EPO law allows only one independent claim for each aspect - apparatus, method, system, etc. Socket and plug might be two different things each due one independant claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples are clients/servers and plugs sockets. If there is something that makes the interaction of plug and socket novel and inventive the same principle may be at ply in both the plug and the socket. IF you are not sure abut the inventiveness of either the plug or the socket it is good to claim each and claim the combination of the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;U.S. examples (found using a search at the [USPTO][1] in the form ACLM/&quot;a plug&quot; AND ACLM/&quot;a socket&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [9,583,897][2] 	Electrical connection system with annular contact&#xD;&#xA; - [9,306,325][3] 	Plug, socket and their combined structure of electrical&#xD;&#xA;connector &#xD;&#xA; - [10,791,311][4] 	Transmitting apparatus, transmitting method,    receiving&#xD;&#xA;   apparatus, and receiving method also pending as [EP3591977A1][5] with claims to both transmitter and receiver.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9583897B2&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9306325B2&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10791311B2/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP3591977A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63424" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10078" RevisionGUID="4af229ea-1176-4dd7-b1c5-f7cdf33b5cf2" CreationDate="2020-12-27T06:00:40.113" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22845" RevisionGUID="673d6c5d-94f9-4aa4-a4c5-0bf0b8016bd5" CreationDate="2020-12-27T13:06:35.060" UserId="25196" Text="I am aware that certain algorithms to generate or read digital file formats can be patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Patents on computer file formats][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am attempting to reverse engineer a particular file format that I did not design, and want to make sure the algorithms that generate and read this file format have not been patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been attempting to do a patent search, and have read that a important start in performing a patent search is identifying the patent classification that the process falls into. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone help me identify what classification a file format generation or decoding algorithm would fall into?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/11968/can-patents-on-computer-file-formats-be-obtained" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63426" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22845" RevisionGUID="673d6c5d-94f9-4aa4-a4c5-0bf0b8016bd5" CreationDate="2020-12-27T13:06:35.060" UserId="25196" Text="Patent classification for file format encoding/decoding algorithm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63427" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22845" RevisionGUID="673d6c5d-94f9-4aa4-a4c5-0bf0b8016bd5" CreationDate="2020-12-27T13:06:35.060" UserId="25196" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;classification&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22846" RevisionGUID="fc8b160d-12a5-48df-9d90-81764ee86c7a" CreationDate="2020-12-27T15:22:00.153" UserId="17003" Text="Wikipedia has an interesting [article on software patents][1]. Within that article is a table listing US classification codes to descriptions and number of patents issued. The codes range from 700 to 726. Other countries may have equivalent classification codes. I don't think there is a single code that may be relevant. For instance 710 is &quot;Electrical Computers and Digital Data Processing Systems: Input/Output&quot;, but there are several others that might be applicable too depending on the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I would do is to search for relevant patents to your technology and see how they are classified. Use the most common classification codes to search by code to find other relevant patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22847" RevisionGUID="2f137b01-aec8-4964-aa84-594fde93eb66" CreationDate="2020-12-27T19:17:40.910" UserId="3076" Text="The classification systems can be confusing. In the U.S., besides the old USPC, we now have the CPC which is based on a more international system. Somewhat analogous to imperial units vs metric. [This][1] is a list of the USPC major sections by number. At this level it looks like *707	Data processing: database and file management or data structures* might be good. But that is a class. Under it are many many [subclasses][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the [CPC][3] system the computer technology hierarchy starts at *[G06F&#xD;&#xA;	ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING][4]* One of the classes below it is *G06F 16/1794&#xD;&#xA;	. . . .&#xD;&#xA;	{Details of file format conversion}*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/selectnumwithtitle.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc707/defs707.htm#C707S609000&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/cpc/html/cpc.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/cpc/html/cpc-G06F.html#G06F16/258" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22847" RevisionGUID="6a896924-b19f-49a5-b24c-7135f6a8c543" CreationDate="2020-12-27T19:32:58.340" UserId="3076" Comment="added 321 characters in body" Text="The classification systems can be confusing. In the U.S., besides the old USPC, we now have the CPC which is based on a more international system. Somewhat analogous to imperial units vs metric. The CPc is a result of work between the EPO and the USPTO that starts with the ECLA and adds many sub-classifications to be as fine grained as the U.S. system. The only other major system for utility patents is the international IPC which originated the format used by the ECLA and CPC. It is not very fine grained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;. [This][1] is a list of the USPC major sections by number. At this level it looks like *707	Data processing: database and file management or data structures* might be good. But that is a class. Under it are many many [subclasses][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the [CPC][3] system the computer technology hierarchy starts at *[G06F&#xD;&#xA;	ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING][4]* One of the classes below it is *G06F 16/1794&#xD;&#xA;	. . . .&#xD;&#xA;	{Details of file format conversion}*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/selectnumwithtitle.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc707/defs707.htm#C707S609000&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/cpc/html/cpc.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/cpc/html/cpc-G06F.html#G06F16/258" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22847" RevisionGUID="1b76a9b5-bce2-4a51-a414-19cdb578cf9e" CreationDate="2020-12-27T20:26:59.210" UserId="3076" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="The classification systems can be confusing. In the U.S., besides the old USPC, we now have the CPC which is based on a more international system. Somewhat analogous to imperial units vs metric. The CPc is a result of work between the EPO and the USPTO that starts with the ECLA and adds many sub-classifications to be as fine grained as the U.S. system. The only other major system for utility patents is the international IPC which originated the format used by the ECLA and CPC. It is not very fine grained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;. [This][1] is a list of the USPC major sections by number. At this level it looks like *707	Data processing: database and file management or data structures* might be good. But that is a class. Under it are many many [subclasses][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the [CPC][3] system the computer technology hierarchy starts at *[G06F&#xD;&#xA;	ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING][4]* One of the classes below it is *G06F 16/1794&#xD;&#xA;	. . . .&#xD;&#xA;	{Details of file format conversion}* another is &#xD;&#xA;*G06F 2205/003&#xD;&#xA;. &#xD;&#xA;Reformatting, i.e. changing the format of data representation*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/selectnumwithtitle.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc707/defs707.htm#C707S609000&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/cpc/html/cpc.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/cpc/html/cpc-G06F.html#G06F16/258" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22848" RevisionGUID="18afbbd3-d1f8-465d-80c7-1ef4555022ba" CreationDate="2020-12-27T22:55:07.503" UserId="18886" Text="Interesting question. I would say that the burden had fallen on Patent Application A to pursue an examiner switch etc. and somehow push it through the patent office to grant. Because they failed to do that yet Patent B was able to do that, I don't think Patent B holders should be penalized. If it's true that Patent A should not have been granted and the office actions were correct, then it would stand to reason that the same arguments may be made in invalidating Patent B. That is to say though, that Patent A's prosecution history should have no direct bearing on Patent B except for similar arguments being made at trial for invalidation of Patent B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would say that:&#xD;&#xA;No, Patent A cannot be used to invalidate directly.&#xD;&#xA;No, Patent B cannot cite Patent A as prior art because it was not yet a patent, nor can it cite the application because it is not prior art, as publication date was after the filing date of Patent B.&#xD;&#xA;Yes, Patent B owners can successfully sue Patent A users if there is infringement because Patent B owns the patent. - Again it would have been up to Patent A holders to pursue a more aggressive stance at the PTO to get another examiner or come up with better arguments etc. to get it passed. Or Patent A users should have a fairly good argument to invalidate Patent B. So in the end, it seems to me that Patent A owners either dropped the ball or no patent should have issued at all with the broad claims that the question is asking about. Either way it is fair for Patent A and for Patent B owners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what's also interesting I think is that this shows another valuable aspect of keeping prosecution open and not abandoning within a reasonable amount of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should add though that as far as I know it, none of what I have said above is the law. These are just my reasonable thoughts on the matter and potentially one way that it is resolved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22847" RevisionGUID="5cdce877-adbc-4056-97b2-932a408ce882" CreationDate="2020-12-28T01:09:33.330" UserId="3076" Comment="added 278 characters in body" Text="The classification systems can be confusing. In the U.S., besides the old USPC, we now have the CPC which is based on a more international system. Somewhat analogous to imperial units vs metric. The CPc is a result of work between the EPO and the USPTO that starts with the ECLA and adds many sub-classifications to be as fine grained as the U.S. system. The only other major system for utility patents is the international IPC which originated the format used by the ECLA and CPC. It is not very fine grained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;. [This][1] is a list of the USPC major sections by number. At this level it looks like *707	Data processing: database and file management or data structures* might be good. But that is a class. Under it are many many [subclasses][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the [CPC][3] system the computer technology hierarchy starts at *[G06F&#xD;&#xA;	ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING][4]* One of the classes below it is *G06F 16/1794&#xD;&#xA;	. . . .&#xD;&#xA;	{Details of file format conversion}* another is &#xD;&#xA;*G06F 2205/003&#xD;&#xA;. &#xD;&#xA;Reformatting, i.e. changing the format of data representation*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specific to encoding I found a [page at the CPC][5] that gives an overview of where one might look for various forms or reasons for encoding. Crypto, compression, error correction, etc. under H03M.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/selectnumwithtitle.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc707/defs707.htm#C707S609000&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/cpc/html/cpc.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/cpc/html/cpc-G06F.html#G06F16/258&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/cpc/html/defH03M.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22847" RevisionGUID="a7a61fad-1519-4ff3-a5b0-0f3d263b7e95" CreationDate="2020-12-28T01:20:03.163" UserId="3076" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="The classification systems can be confusing. In the U.S., besides the old USPC, we now have the CPC which is based on a more international system. Somewhat analogous to imperial units vs metric. The CPc is a result of work between the EPO and the USPTO that starts with the ECLA and adds many sub-classifications to be as fine grained as the U.S. system. The only other major system for utility patents is the international IPC which originated the format used by the ECLA and CPC. It is not very fine grained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;. [This][1] is a list of the USPC major sections by number. At this level it looks like *707	Data processing: database and file management or data structures* might be good. But that is a class. Under it are many many [subclasses][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the [CPC][3] system the computer technology hierarchy starts at *[G06F&#xD;&#xA;	ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING][4]* One of the classes below it is *G06F 16/1794&#xD;&#xA;	. . . .&#xD;&#xA;	{Details of file format conversion}* another is &#xD;&#xA;*G06F 2205/003&#xD;&#xA;. &#xD;&#xA;Reformatting, i.e. changing the format of data representation*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specific to encoding I found a [page at the CPC][5] that gives an overview of where one might look for various forms or reasons for encoding. Crypto, compression, error correction, etc. under H03M.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The UPC concordance with this is [class 341][6], not one of the 700's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/selectnumwithtitle.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc707/defs707.htm#C707S609000&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/cpc/html/cpc.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/cpc/html/cpc-G06F.html#G06F16/258&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/cpc/html/defH03M.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc341/defs341.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63435" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="22725" RevisionGUID="f64fd366-62f8-4f1f-826c-f22cdd12983f" CreationDate="2020-12-28T05:06:30.303" UserId="17737" Comment="tags edited" Text="&lt;pending&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63436" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="22725" RevisionGUID="f64fd366-62f8-4f1f-826c-f22cdd12983f" CreationDate="2020-12-28T05:06:30.303" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 18033, 3076 edit id of 2141" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63437" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22257" RevisionGUID="62c9aa1d-2218-4aa6-8266-d7112c004c83" CreationDate="2020-12-28T21:07:40.787" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22258" RevisionGUID="7eff6156-774c-4263-a752-aa7367bc78a0" CreationDate="2020-12-29T03:02:40.160" UserId="3076" Comment="added 206 characters in body" Text="It isn't the wording of a claim that would be the clearest expression of the meaning of a reference. The wording of a claim is most relevant to determining if something infringed. In your case the claim never appeared in a granted patent so that is moot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To show that you invention is not novel, it (as claimed in your application) needs to be found described in an **enabled manner** in a reference document that qualifies as prior art. If it only resembles your invention when taken out of context then it is hard to see how it is enabled. Enablement means teaching someone skilled in the art how to make and use the invention as claimed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63439" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20973" RevisionGUID="a529ec0d-c32a-4354-9945-99d2ce5ee24d" CreationDate="2020-12-29T04:03:45.360" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63445" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22499" RevisionGUID="c5913e4f-0ff3-4597-bc8c-c4eb42fa98c7" CreationDate="2020-12-31T04:07:10.617" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63450" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22784" RevisionGUID="7c8d2d37-af0a-49b5-8a36-f0fa7e82ab01" CreationDate="2021-01-02T23:02:05.193" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63451" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20013" RevisionGUID="14326468-a2f4-4ccd-aba3-074a5eb19f36" CreationDate="2021-01-03T00:01:10.277" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63452" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10142" RevisionGUID="b22b479e-8be5-4bf0-8efe-48d0e1599eb9" CreationDate="2021-01-03T04:07:00.657" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63453" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11975" RevisionGUID="53eec433-c3fc-4735-a208-8c4340e918fd" CreationDate="2021-01-03T05:03:30.313" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22851" RevisionGUID="a3327771-5cb1-4f3e-9816-50b52e429b4f" CreationDate="2021-01-03T05:54:12.700" UserId="3076" Text="Anyone can provide the services of a novelty/patentablity search or patent landscape report. However, a freedom to operate *analysis* is a different story. Even as a registered patent agent I am leery of freedom to operate.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is clear that only an attorney (does not need to be registered patent attorney) can provide a freedom to operate *opinion*. That is an analysis of the likelihood of being sued for infringement and the likelihood of prevailing if sued. An attorney can't have liability waived by a client for professional errors therefore they are expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although a non-attorney might generate an *analysis* rather than an opinion, I think it is too fine a line and a client would take an analysis as an opinion.  Of course search firms do freedom to operate searches (possibly with some analysis) for attorneys and the attorneys use that as the basis for an opinion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22851" RevisionGUID="a8b68310-caac-417e-9f7e-8b8c7627c351" CreationDate="2021-01-03T06:00:03.587" UserId="3076" Comment="added 436 characters in body" Text="Anyone can provide the services of a novelty/patentablity search or patent landscape report. However, a freedom to operate *analysis* is a different story. Even as a registered patent agent I am leery of freedom to operate.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is clear that only an attorney (does not need to be registered patent attorney) can provide a freedom to operate *opinion*. That is an analysis of the likelihood of being sued for infringement and the likelihood of prevailing if sued. An attorney can't have liability waived by a client for professional errors therefore they are expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although a non-attorney might generate an *analysis* rather than an opinion, I think it is too fine a line and a client would take an analysis as an opinion.  Of course search firms do freedom to operate searches (possibly with some analysis) for attorneys and the attorneys use that as the basis for an opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A search company can limit its liability contractually - an attorney or agent can't in most locations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a novelty search it is pretty standard to have a disclaimer that no search by anyone is guaranteed to find everything. I heard a litigator give a talk to searchers and patent prosecutors. He said whatever combined time and effort is spent searching as part of a patent prosecution by the applicant and examiner, if the resulting patent is asserted, the time and effort spent to find prior art by the defense will be at least 10X." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63468" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22787" RevisionGUID="2adbe01a-0f5a-497c-b9a8-97e0ad4dd7b5" CreationDate="2021-01-04T04:02:50.407" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22854" RevisionGUID="cedede27-d3c7-4600-930d-b712a35dc120" CreationDate="2021-01-04T07:46:57.970" UserId="25242" Text="The patent number is ZL 2011 2 0528654.3, it's a China patent. I think the number is the application number." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63470" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22854" RevisionGUID="cedede27-d3c7-4600-930d-b712a35dc120" CreationDate="2021-01-04T07:46:57.970" UserId="25242" Text="Where can I find patent ZL 2011 2 0528654.3?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63471" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22854" RevisionGUID="cedede27-d3c7-4600-930d-b712a35dc120" CreationDate="2021-01-04T07:46:57.970" UserId="25242" Text="&lt;international&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;patent-search&gt;&lt;china&gt;&lt;patentownership&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22855" RevisionGUID="93308ae0-0f46-418e-ac2f-878ba6266106" CreationDate="2021-01-04T15:52:37.050" UserId="25169" Text="I was looking at an American [machine learning patent][1] the other day, and it detailed many specific parts. It goes through how they label the data to solve their problem, and how they train the model. Here they specifically mention that they used the method SVM to train their model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a later section, starting on page 24, of the patent is called &quot;claims&quot;. Here they claim &quot;A method for training a machine learning algorithm or statistical inference model&quot; to solve the problem they tried to solve using the way of labelling data they used. This sounds like they now own that way of labelling the data for said problem regardless of which ML model is used and not just SVM like they used. However, this way of labelling data predates their patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I may be reading the patent wrong, I wonder how specific that patent is. Does this patent now mean that nobody else can split their datasets into positive and negative datasets for identifying peptides? Or, does it only apply if that team also uses SVMs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, how should I read the claims section of the patent? Is it one claim with several parts (meaning it's one very specific claim)? Or, are they granted several separate claims? I see later claims are referring to earlier claims, but I am still having a difficult time completely understanding the those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2017186959A1/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63473" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22855" RevisionGUID="93308ae0-0f46-418e-ac2f-878ba6266106" CreationDate="2021-01-04T15:52:37.050" UserId="25169" Text="Understanding the claims in this machine learning patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63474" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22855" RevisionGUID="93308ae0-0f46-418e-ac2f-878ba6266106" CreationDate="2021-01-04T15:52:37.050" UserId="25169" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22855" RevisionGUID="6fe20216-66e0-464b-bc2e-a86fc11cf6ed" CreationDate="2021-01-04T17:09:04.610" UserId="25169" Comment="needed to edit the language to reflect that the link is an application and not a granted patent" Text="I was looking at an American [machine learning patent application][1] the other day, and it detailed many specific parts. It goes through how they label the data to solve their problem, and how they train the model. Here they specifically mention that they used the method SVM to train their model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a later section, starting on page 24, of the patent is called &quot;claims&quot;. Here they claim &quot;A method for training a machine learning algorithm or statistical inference model&quot; to solve the problem they tried to solve using the way of labelling data they used. This sounds like they now trying to patent that way of labelling the data for said problem regardless of which ML model is used and not just SVM like they used. However, this way of labelling data predates their patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I may be reading the patent application wrong, I wonder how specific that patent would be if it is granted. Would that entail that nobody else can split their datasets into positive and negative datasets for identifying peptides in a commercial setting? Or, does it only apply if that team also uses SVMs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, how should I read the claims section of the patent? Is it one claim with several parts (meaning it's one very specific claim)? Or, are they trying to be granted several separate claims? I see later claims are referring to earlier claims, but I am still having a difficult time completely understanding the those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2017186959A1/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63476" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="22855" RevisionGUID="6fe20216-66e0-464b-bc2e-a86fc11cf6ed" CreationDate="2021-01-04T17:09:04.610" UserId="25169" Comment="needed to edit the language to reflect that the link is an application and not a granted patent" Text="Understanding the claims in this machine learning patent application" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22856" RevisionGUID="cdca47ed-652e-4762-b587-e24b3555c22e" CreationDate="2021-01-04T17:13:43.683" UserId="17003" Text="The linked document is a WO application. It is not yet a patent and may or may not get granted. Even if it is eventually granted in one or more countries, it is likely the claims will be changed and likely narrowed. The claims could end up being different in the different countries the applicant is applying to. I know a bit about machine learning and less about molecular biology. That said I'll try to provide some insight to the first claim which looks like the only  independent claim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A method for training a machine learning algorithm or statistical inference model to identify peptides that contain features positively&#xD;&#xA;&gt; associated with natural endogenous or exogenous cellular processing,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transportation and major histocompatibility complex (MHC)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; presentation, that negates the influence of HLA MHC-binding and can be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applied to any peptide regardless of its MHC restriction, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (a) building one or more training data sets comprising a positive and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a negative data set; wherein the positive data set comprises entries&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of peptide sequences identified or inferred from surface bound or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; secreted HLA/MHC/peptide complexes encoded by one or a plurality of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different HLA/MHC alleles, and wherein the negative data set comprises&#xD;&#xA;&gt; entries of peptide sequences which are not identified or inferred from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; surface bound or secreted HLA/MHC/peptide complexes; wherein the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; training data further comprises a multiplicity of pairings between&#xD;&#xA;&gt; entries of the positive and negative data sets; and wherein each pair&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of said multiplicity of pairings comprises peptide sequences which:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (i) are of equal or similar length, &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    and &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (ii) are derived from the same&#xD;&#xA;&gt; source protein or fragment thereof, &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    and/or &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (iii) have similar binding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; affinities, with respect to the HLA/MHC molecule which the positive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; counterpart is restricted, and (b) applying a machine learning&#xD;&#xA;&gt; algorithm or statistical inference model on said training data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a fairly long claim with quite a few elements. Many people see long claims and assume they provide broad coverage, but in actuality, long claims are generally narrower than short ones. **In order to infringe on a claim, you need to implement each and every step in the claim.** If a claim has steps A, B, C and D and you only implement steps A, B and D you don't infringe the claim. The other claims are dependent claims. Dependent claims narrow the scope of the independent claim. If you avoid infringement of claim 1 in this application then you shouldn't have to worry about any of the dependent claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22855" RevisionGUID="86f1c1d8-819d-4053-8a4a-d60c9dab6003" CreationDate="2021-01-04T17:18:33.167" UserId="25169" Comment="added 191 characters in body" Text="I was looking at an American [machine learning patent application][1] the other day, and it detailed many specific parts. It goes through how they label the data to solve their problem, and how they train the model. Here they specifically mention that they used the method SVM to train their model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a later section, starting on page 24, of the patent is called &quot;claims&quot;. Here they claim &quot;A method for training a machine learning algorithm or statistical inference model&quot; to solve the problem they tried to solve using the way of labelling data they used. This sounds like they now trying to patent that way of labelling the data for said problem regardless of which ML model is used and not just SVM like they used. However, this way of labelling data predates their patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I may be reading the patent application wrong, I wonder how specific that patent would be if it is granted. Would that entail that nobody else can split their datasets into positive and negative datasets for identifying peptides in a commercial setting? Or, does it only apply if that team also uses SVMs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, how should I read the claims section of the patent? Is it one claim with several parts (meaning it's one very specific claim)? Or, are they trying to be granted several separate claims? I see later claims are referring to earlier claims, but I am still having a difficult time completely understanding the those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2017186959A1/en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;Edit:&#xD;&#xA;I found the final patent, and the claim section seem to be copied and pasted to straight after the references:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.freepatentsonline.com/20190311781.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22855" RevisionGUID="b5e24ed5-4efb-412f-b901-e0108a0b5089" CreationDate="2021-01-04T17:22:10.023" UserId="25169" Comment="added 191 characters in body" Text="I was looking at an American [machine learning patent application][1] the other day, and it detailed many specific parts. It goes through how they label the data to solve their problem, and how they train the model. Here they specifically mention that they used the method SVM to train their model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a later section, starting on page 24, of the patent is called &quot;claims&quot;. Here they claim &quot;A method for training a machine learning algorithm or statistical inference model&quot; to solve the problem they tried to solve using the way of labelling data they used. This sounds like they now trying to patent that way of labelling the data for said problem regardless of which ML model is used and not just SVM like they used. However, this way of labelling data predates their patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I may be reading the patent application wrong, I wonder how specific that patent would be if it is granted. Would that entail that nobody else can split their datasets into positive and negative datasets for identifying peptides in a commercial setting? Or, does it only apply if that team also uses SVMs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, how should I read the claims section of the patent? Is it one claim with several parts (meaning it's one very specific claim)? Or, are they trying to be granted several separate claims? I see later claims are referring to earlier claims, but I am still having a difficult time completely understanding the those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2017186959A1/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22857" RevisionGUID="c0d013d2-1d90-4fca-a006-e8dd05436562" CreationDate="2021-01-04T21:52:24.937" UserId="3076" Text="To supplement the excellent answer by @EricS - The claims do not limit themselves to SVM so it is not required in order to infringe these claims. This is fairly standard since there are many methods to get the result but some specific method should be presented in the specification. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent should explain at least one specific way of performing the invention in some detail.In the U.S. the requirement is to teach someone skilled in the art how to &quot;make and use the invention&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If SVM was a particularity good choice in some invention, it might be in a dependent claim as a fall back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eric mentions differences between the claim wording in the PCT and U.S. versions. Note the wording &quot;according to any preceding claim&quot; in the international version. Since there is more than one preceding claim this is called a multiply dependent claim - it depends from more than one other claim. This form is encouraged in the EPO and most of the world. In contrast, it is allowed but heavily discouraged (and financially burdened) in the U.S. so you do not see this structure in the U.S. version." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22857" RevisionGUID="f83c39b4-442d-485b-8038-a5975e340055" CreationDate="2021-01-04T22:10:39.283" UserId="3076" Comment="edited body" Text="To supplement the excellent answer by @EricS - The claims do not limit themselves to SVM so it is not required in order to infringe these claims. This is fairly standard since there are many methods to get the result but some specific method should be presented in the specification. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A patent should explain at least one specific way of performing the invention in some detail. In the U.S. the requirement is to teach someone skilled in the art how to &quot;make and use the invention&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If SVM was a particularity good choice in some invention it might be in a dependent claim as a fall back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eric mentions differences between the claim wording in the PCT and U.S. versions. Note the wording &quot;according to any preceding claim&quot; in the international version. Since there is more than one preceding claim this is called a multiply dependent claim - it depends from more than one other claim. This form is encouraged in the EPO and most of the world. In contrast, it is allowed but heavily discouraged (and financially burdened) in the U.S. so you do not see this structure in the U.S. version." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63482" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="22855" RevisionGUID="472abe3d-46fa-41c6-82dd-b25617e226a4" CreationDate="2021-01-04T23:52:48.210" />
  <row Id="63483" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="e7ca6895-9c8f-4162-b3f7-151e06fd47a6" CreationDate="2021-01-05T00:06:10.590" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22863" RevisionGUID="14d9d16a-e2c9-4fd6-869e-e7918d7f0d00" CreationDate="2021-01-09T08:34:11.720" UserId="25274" Text="I have a quick question. I own the website Pokevault.com that I have been running for 10 years or so. The &quot;pokevault&quot; name I created and has become very popular. Today I found another website called &quot;thepokevault.com&quot;. They are trying to use my name that I created for their own benefit. They sell similar Pokemon products. I do not have the Pokevault name trademarked, but is there anything I can do about this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for your time&#xD;&#xA;Brian Grabow&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63511" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22863" RevisionGUID="14d9d16a-e2c9-4fd6-869e-e7918d7f0d00" CreationDate="2021-01-09T08:34:11.720" UserId="25274" Text="Another website using my company name" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63512" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22863" RevisionGUID="14d9d16a-e2c9-4fd6-869e-e7918d7f0d00" CreationDate="2021-01-09T08:34:11.720" UserId="25274" Text="&lt;name&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22864" RevisionGUID="979c8fc8-babf-4ac9-b4bf-31e08e8df0d3" CreationDate="2021-01-09T08:58:02.393" UserId="18033" Text="If no other trademark has been filed, you can file a trademark now and use it then. Which the other person can also do and then forbid you from using your website. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There might be some national law moderating this result, but from a trademark point of view, it's quite simple and I expect this to be true in many parts of the world.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63519" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18205" RevisionGUID="4db1c9f1-051c-43f5-8d24-e47f08e392ac" CreationDate="2021-01-09T17:05:20.480" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22866" RevisionGUID="e649dd2d-9bed-4173-bc20-1321b603ac01" CreationDate="2021-01-09T18:35:09.850" UserId="25279" Text="I am looking into filing for a design patent, and have been consulting with a patent lawyer. The product I would like to patent is somewhat of a combination of a few basic shapes that I fear have a high chance of being rejected due to being too simple, not elaborate enough. But since I am still a novice in this arena, and before I shell out a few grand to file, I figured I would take the temperature of those who have more experience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will post a few examples to better represent what I am getting at. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would these have a high chance of being rejected? Low (average chance)? Or too vague to determine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![oval][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![oval1][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![sphere][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![sphere1][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![pyramid][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![pyramid1][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AbiBh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/78ybv.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/T3XFI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ojNQm.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/v8yP1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6afGo.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63521" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22866" RevisionGUID="e649dd2d-9bed-4173-bc20-1321b603ac01" CreationDate="2021-01-09T18:35:09.850" UserId="25279" Text="Basic Shaped Products Design Patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63522" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22866" RevisionGUID="e649dd2d-9bed-4173-bc20-1321b603ac01" CreationDate="2021-01-09T18:35:09.850" UserId="25279" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;design-patent&gt;&lt;design&gt;&lt;patent-design&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22867" RevisionGUID="3b7f8cef-b7fd-4b1d-a123-df984097d81e" CreationDate="2021-01-10T03:37:11.767" UserId="25281" Text="I'm starting a side business for educational software engineering videos and I absolutely love the overlay with transparency Udacity has on their videos. Today I discovered their process has a patent (https://www.slwip.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/USP-9049482B2.-Udacity.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;This brings a couple of questions:&#xD;&#xA;1. If I were to produce similar video with the transparent overlay, will I be in total infringement of the patent? How likely is that they consider it an infringement?&#xD;&#xA;3. To err on the side of being cautions, how likely is that I can get their permission to have the same overlay result as in their videos? How costly would it be for me to get permission? I'm barely getting started with the business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xngEt.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More resources:&#xD;&#xA;https://blog.udacity.com/2014/09/udacity-videos-transparent-hand.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63524" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22867" RevisionGUID="3b7f8cef-b7fd-4b1d-a123-df984097d81e" CreationDate="2021-01-10T03:37:11.767" UserId="25281" Text="What is the likelihood I can get permission to use recording process as Udacity has on their videos?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63525" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22867" RevisionGUID="3b7f8cef-b7fd-4b1d-a123-df984097d81e" CreationDate="2021-01-10T03:37:11.767" UserId="25281" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22869" RevisionGUID="e8d880e6-1017-4dd3-bb7f-5701d6651eb8" CreationDate="2021-01-10T17:02:45.023" UserId="17003" Text="To try to answer your first question, you need to look at the claims in the patent. The first claim is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. A composite lecture video generation system comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    a mobile&#xD;&#xA;&gt; device operable to generate a screen capture video, based on display&#xD;&#xA;&gt; output being output from a display screen of the mobile device, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; screen capture video including display output corresponding to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; graphical markings; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    a video camera module operable to generate an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; audio-visual recording of the display screen, the graphical markings,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and one or more physical objects positioned between the video camera&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and the display screen; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    a composite lecture video generator&#xD;&#xA;&gt; operable to: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    process the screen capture video to increase a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transparency of one or more white portions of the screen capture&#xD;&#xA;&gt; video; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    synchronize a timing and an orientation of the processed screen&#xD;&#xA;&gt; capture video with a timing and an orientation of the audio-visual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; recording, by matching, for each of one or more video frames of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; processed screen capture video, the graphical markings included in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; corresponding video frame of the processed screen capture video with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the graphical markings recorded in a specific video frame of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; audio-visual recording; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    superimpose the synchronized processed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; screen capture video over the synchronized audio-visual recording to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generate a composite lecture video, the composite lecture video&#xD;&#xA;&gt; including the graphical markings included in the screen capture video&#xD;&#xA;&gt; superimposed over the graphical markings recorded in the audio-visual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; recording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To infringe on a patent you need to implement **each and every step** in at least one claim. Claim one specifies the use of a video camera. So for instance if your implementation only uses a digitizer and not video camera, you would be clear of that claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how you plan on implementing your overlay. What you need to do is read each of the claims and see if your implementation utilizes each and every step in the claim. You should focus on the independent claims (1, 4, 7, 9, 23 and 30).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your second question, that is a business matter and not predictable for me. If your overlay clearly infringes on one or more claim, then you should definitely inquire about licensing as there is no real downside. Some companies are happy to license IP for to non-competitive companies and some aren't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22870" RevisionGUID="c71ffb70-9444-4c7a-98f3-3b1246d3b6d2" CreationDate="2021-01-10T20:41:43.190" UserId="3076" Text="As the answer from @EricS explains, to infringe you need to perform all of the elements in at least on claim. If you can find a way to achieve the same or similar result without performing all of the elements of any claim you would not be infringing just because you achieve a similar result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that several claims (7, 9, 23, 30) do not require a camera or a mobile device. If you look at the google patents page regarding this patent you will see cited about a dozen references that the applicant or examiner found that preceded this patent. That material could give you a starting point to find methods similar to that of the patent that can not be seen as infringing *this* patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That brings up an other important issue. There may well be other patents that would be infringed if one practiced this patent even with a license from Udacity. And working around these claims could result in something that infringes something else.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22870" RevisionGUID="7e1da915-a3ef-4184-a317-bb0a3292bcf9" CreationDate="2021-01-10T21:28:56.260" UserId="3076" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="As the answer from @EricS explains, to infringe you need to perform all of the elements in at least one claim. If you can find a way to achieve the same or similar result without performing all of the elements of any claim you would not be infringing a patent just because you achieve a similar result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that several claims (7, 9, 23, 30) do not require a camera or a mobile device. Separability, if you look at the google patents page regarding this patent you will see cited about a dozen references that the applicant or examiner found that preceded this patent. That material could give you a starting point to find methods similar to that of the patent that can not be seen as infringing *this* patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That brings up an other important issue. There may well be other patents that would be infringed if one practiced this patent even with a license from Udacity. And working around these claims could result in a method that infringes some other patent entirely.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22870" RevisionGUID="4bb94729-cc44-4696-8e66-9f929d2655c8" CreationDate="2021-01-10T22:11:16.303" UserId="3076" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="As the answer from @EricS explains, to infringe you need to perform all of the elements in at least one claim. If you can find a way to achieve the same or similar result without performing all of the elements of any claim you would not be infringing a patent just because you achieve a similar result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that several claims (7, 9, 23, 30) do not require a camera or a mobile device. Separately, if you look at the [google patents page][1] regarding this patent you will see 8 cited patent references and a few non-patent references that the applicant or examiner found that preceded this patent. That material could give you a starting point to find methods similar to that of the patent that can not be seen as infringing *this* patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That brings up an other important issue. There may well be other patents that would be infringed if one practiced this patent even with a license from Udacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the same token, working around these claims could result in a method that infringes some other patent entirely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9049482B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63540" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22809" RevisionGUID="82197f4d-79dd-47d1-bb5c-ef5df8a37968" CreationDate="2021-01-11T01:02:10.257" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22872" RevisionGUID="9867f8a3-c628-4722-9395-4148d2302b16" CreationDate="2021-01-11T05:34:44.220" UserId="3076" Text="As mentioned in comments, it is not how simple or fancy it is. It needs to be a novel and non-obvious ornamentation of *something*. A design patent must relate to an &quot;item of manufacture&quot;. A shape is not a shape. Your examples are meaningless without being something but please don't post your actual ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is patented is is a specific kind of [bowl][1], a [toilet bowl][2], [table top][3] or a [doorstop][4]. The claim and title are for a thing. From these examples you can see that a design can be simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD684822S1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]:https://patents.google.com/patent/USD703797S1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD610380S1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD653532S1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22873" RevisionGUID="21bc017e-1295-41e5-8f70-0e0e73f0d6b2" CreationDate="2021-01-11T10:07:36.383" UserId="25289" Text="Would it be possible to get a **patent for a data querying language** similar to SQL?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, roughly estimate - **how much money and time** (from application to approval) would it take?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63543" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22873" RevisionGUID="21bc017e-1295-41e5-8f70-0e0e73f0d6b2" CreationDate="2021-01-11T10:07:36.383" UserId="25289" Text="Would it be possible to get patent for SQL-like database querying language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63544" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22873" RevisionGUID="21bc017e-1295-41e5-8f70-0e0e73f0d6b2" CreationDate="2021-01-11T10:07:36.383" UserId="25289" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22874" RevisionGUID="97159ff3-fde5-4593-b0f7-b638c59bbfd5" CreationDate="2021-01-11T18:28:54.503" UserId="3076" Text="It depends. There are many patents *relating* to computer languages. The US Classification system has a subclass 717/114 for them. It has deeper sub-classes for object oriented, script, byte code, etc. The definition of 717/114 is&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  114	. Programming language:  	This subclass is indented under&#xD;&#xA;&gt; subclass 100.  Subject matter comprising means or steps **for using&#xD;&#xA;&gt; programming language construct** or other programming language specific&#xD;&#xA;&gt; attributes. 	(1) Note. Subject matter herein includes using extensions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of existing programming language for the purpose of adding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; functionalities not already available in the existing programming&#xD;&#xA;&gt; language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will see from my bold text that these patents are for the **use** of features of languages. [This is a list][1] of the most recent 50 patents issued in 717/114. One example is [US 8,819,621][2] *System and method for automated re-architectureing of legacy systems using object oriented language* another that relates to a database query system is [US 7,873,654][3] *Multimodal natural language query system for processing and analyzing voice and proximity-based queries*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will not find a patent for a different syntax for expressing the same actions as an existing language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A frequent estimate for a US patent is $10-20 thousand dollars and about 3 years. It can be done for less and if you pay for expedited examination it can be done much quicker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=0&amp;f=S&amp;l=50&amp;TERM1=717%2F114&amp;FIELD1=ORCL&amp;d=pall&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8819621B2&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7873654B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63546" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22874" RevisionGUID="a525c3df-0146-4fb7-958a-866ff4b340a6" CreationDate="2021-01-11T21:24:04.533" UserId="3076" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="It depends. There are many patents *relating* to computer languages. The US Classification system has a subclass 717/114 for them. It has deeper sub-classes for object oriented, script, byte code, etc. The definition of 717/114 is&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  114	. Programming language:  	This subclass is indented under&#xD;&#xA;&gt; subclass 100.  Subject matter comprising means or steps **for using&#xD;&#xA;&gt; programming language construct** or other programming language specific&#xD;&#xA;&gt; attributes. 	(1) Note. Subject matter herein includes using extensions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of existing programming language for the purpose of adding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; functionalities not already available in the existing programming&#xD;&#xA;&gt; language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will see from my bold text that these patents are for the **use** of features of languages. [This is a list][1] of the most recent 50 patents issued in 717/114. One example is [US 8,819,621][2] *System and method for automated re-architectureing of legacy systems using object oriented language* another that relates to a database query system is [US 7,873,654][3] *Multimodal natural language query system for processing and analyzing voice and proximity-based queries*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will not find a patent for a different syntax for expressing the same actions as an existing language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A frequent estimate for a US patent is $10-20 thousand dollars and about 3 years. It can be done for less and if you pay the USPTO fees for expedited examination it can be done much quicker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=0&amp;f=S&amp;l=50&amp;TERM1=717%2F114&amp;FIELD1=ORCL&amp;d=pall&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8819621B2&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7873654B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22869" RevisionGUID="35072782-be78-4542-b93c-be9921686343" CreationDate="2021-01-11T22:08:32.583" UserId="17003" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="To try to answer your first question, you need to look at the claims in the patent. The first claim is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. A composite lecture video generation system comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    a mobile&#xD;&#xA;&gt; device operable to generate a screen capture video, based on display&#xD;&#xA;&gt; output being output from a display screen of the mobile device, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; screen capture video including display output corresponding to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; graphical markings; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    a video camera module operable to generate an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; audio-visual recording of the display screen, the graphical markings,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and one or more physical objects positioned between the video camera&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and the display screen; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    a composite lecture video generator&#xD;&#xA;&gt; operable to: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    process the screen capture video to increase a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transparency of one or more white portions of the screen capture&#xD;&#xA;&gt; video; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    synchronize a timing and an orientation of the processed screen&#xD;&#xA;&gt; capture video with a timing and an orientation of the audio-visual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; recording, by matching, for each of one or more video frames of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; processed screen capture video, the graphical markings included in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; corresponding video frame of the processed screen capture video with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the graphical markings recorded in a specific video frame of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; audio-visual recording; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    superimpose the synchronized processed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; screen capture video over the synchronized audio-visual recording to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generate a composite lecture video, the composite lecture video&#xD;&#xA;&gt; including the graphical markings included in the screen capture video&#xD;&#xA;&gt; superimposed over the graphical markings recorded in the audio-visual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; recording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To infringe on a patent you need to implement **each and every step** in at least one claim. Claim one specifies the use of a video camera. So for instance if your implementation only uses a digitizer and not video camera, you would be clear of claim 1. Each claim needs to be evaluated in this manner separately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how you plan on implementing your overlay. What you need to do is read each of the claims and see if your implementation utilizes each and every step in the claim. You should focus on the independent claims (1, 4, 7, 9, 23 and 30).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your second question, that is a business matter and not predictable for me. If your overlay clearly infringes on one or more claim, then you should definitely inquire about licensing as there is no real downside. Some companies are happy to license IP for to non-competitive companies and some aren't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, if you are using a software product which already has some sort of overlay functionality, it is entirely possible that it is already licensed  and free for using. In this case I would inquire with the software publisher as to the legal status of the functionality being used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22869" RevisionGUID="3e6f69b3-9467-4420-8688-7dadb5d696ac" CreationDate="2021-01-11T22:14:28.503" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="To try to answer your first question, you need to look at the claims in the patent. The first claim is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. A composite lecture video generation system comprising: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    a mobile&#xD;&#xA;&gt; device operable to generate a screen capture video, based on display&#xD;&#xA;&gt; output being output from a display screen of the mobile device, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; screen capture video including display output corresponding to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; graphical markings; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    a video camera module operable to generate an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; audio-visual recording of the display screen, the graphical markings,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and one or more physical objects positioned between the video camera&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and the display screen; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    a composite lecture video generator&#xD;&#xA;&gt; operable to: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    process the screen capture video to increase a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transparency of one or more white portions of the screen capture&#xD;&#xA;&gt; video; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    synchronize a timing and an orientation of the processed screen&#xD;&#xA;&gt; capture video with a timing and an orientation of the audio-visual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; recording, by matching, for each of one or more video frames of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; processed screen capture video, the graphical markings included in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; corresponding video frame of the processed screen capture video with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the graphical markings recorded in a specific video frame of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; audio-visual recording; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    superimpose the synchronized processed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; screen capture video over the synchronized audio-visual recording to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generate a composite lecture video, the composite lecture video&#xD;&#xA;&gt; including the graphical markings included in the screen capture video&#xD;&#xA;&gt; superimposed over the graphical markings recorded in the audio-visual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; recording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To infringe on a patent you need to implement **each and every step** in at least one claim. Claim one specifies the use of a video camera. So for instance if your implementation only uses a digitizer and not video camera, you would be clear of claim 1. Each claim needs to be evaluated in this manner separately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how you plan on implementing your overlay. What you need to do is read each of the claims and see if your implementation utilizes each and every step in the claim. You should focus on the independent claims (1, 4, 7, 9, 23 and 30).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your second question, that is a business matter and not predictable for me. If your overlay clearly infringes on one or more claim, then you should definitely inquire about licensing as there is no real downside. Some companies are happy to license IP for to non-competitive companies and some aren't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, if you are using a software product which already has some sort of overlay functionality, it is entirely possible that it is already licensed  and free to be used. In this case I would inquire with the software publisher as to the legal status of the functionality being used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22874" RevisionGUID="09e86e5a-9b30-41c5-b009-8a4244012227" CreationDate="2021-01-12T03:17:08.527" UserId="3076" Comment="added 407 characters in body" Text="It depends. There are many patents *relating* to computer languages. The US Classification system has a subclass 717/114 for them. It has deeper sub-classes for object oriented, script, byte code, etc. The definition of 717/114 is&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  114	. Programming language:  	This subclass is indented under&#xD;&#xA;&gt; subclass 100.  Subject matter comprising means or steps **for using&#xD;&#xA;&gt; programming language construct** or other programming language specific&#xD;&#xA;&gt; attributes. 	(1) Note. Subject matter herein includes using extensions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of existing programming language for the purpose of adding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; functionalities not already available in the existing programming&#xD;&#xA;&gt; language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will see from my bold text that these patents are for the **use** of features of languages. [This is a list][1] of the most recent 50 patents issued in 717/114. One example is [US 8,819,621][2] *System and method for automated re-architectureing of legacy systems using object oriented language* another that relates to a database query system is [US 7,873,654][3] *Multimodal natural language query system for processing and analyzing voice and proximity-based queries*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will not find a patent for a different syntax for expressing the same actions as an existing language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A frequent estimate for a US patent is $10-20 thousand dollars and about 3 years. It can be done for less and if you pay the USPTO fees for expedited examination it can be done much quicker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding patents in other locations - It can get very expensive to file and prosecute in many places. It might average another $10-20k per location and most places charge an annual renewal fee while both the application is pending and after it is granted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The good news is that the U.S is a very large market and you might reasonably forgo the rest of the world for your first successful invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=0&amp;f=S&amp;l=50&amp;TERM1=717%2F114&amp;FIELD1=ORCL&amp;d=pall&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8819621B2&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7873654B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22875" RevisionGUID="2707fdb1-cac7-4fea-9d2d-e00e685db34e" CreationDate="2021-01-12T07:35:46.207" UserId="3076" Text="This method exhaustion issue was the subject of a SCOTUS case [Quanta v LG][1]. [It is covered by in Wikipedia][2]. Patent claims covered both a cache control chip as an item and methods that the use of the chip caused to occur. The court ruled that having given a license to the thing, the rights were exhausted and they couldn't stop the method from being carried out by the licensed chip.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was subtler and more complicated that I have explained here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-937.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quanta_Computer,_Inc._v._LG_Electronics,_Inc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22876" RevisionGUID="4a4f954c-10c2-4e0c-ab29-8daf33547543" CreationDate="2021-01-12T22:03:51.717" UserId="3076" Text="Many practitioners draft claims before drafting the specification. When you think about claiming you think broadly. If you start the specification first you are likely to start, and possibly end, with describing a specific embodiment. After the thought that goes into preliminary drafting of claims one is in a better position to generate a wider range of embodiment and variations on those embodiments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However the language of claims and the language of a description are very different. Specification describes and claims define. The description should be reasonably reader friendly. Structuring it like &quot;2. the item 1 of description with further addition of . . .&quot; is not what anyone would want to read to understand your invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, in the U.S., the word &quot;means&quot; means something very specific. If you do know the meaning of the term-of-art &quot;means&quot;, by all means do not use it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22877" RevisionGUID="aeab5796-13f2-4c4b-9503-990dd93bd490" CreationDate="2021-01-15T18:09:36.780" UserId="17003" Text="As an addition to George White's answer, there really needs to be some novelty. Simply creating a reasonably normal database with a functionally similar one with a different query language is probably not patentable. Now if your new database has a feature which is new and different from existing databases, that feature may be patentable but not the entire syntax of the language. Language syntax is typically protected by copyright. Copyright has the advantage of being free and automatic, but is off topic on this site. If you have questions about copyright then the Law SE site would be appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, I am not a lawyer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22878" RevisionGUID="d4736f89-b618-4c32-8f87-edbe5dae7558" CreationDate="2021-01-15T19:19:12.793" UserId="25312" Text="I have applied for a national patent and then I applied for a PCT claiming priority over the national patent and then I applied for a second national patent with improved content over the PCT just few days before the PCT was published. Now, I want to abandon the PCT and patent the content of the second national application which has improved/added matter over the PCT. Is that possible? I wonder if I can cancel the PCT and claim priority over the second national patent or cancel the PCT and claim priority over the PCT. I do not want to have to prove that my improved/added matter is novel and inventive over the PCT. Please note I am interested to get US and EU patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63555" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22878" RevisionGUID="d4736f89-b618-4c32-8f87-edbe5dae7558" CreationDate="2021-01-15T19:19:12.793" UserId="25312" Text="How can I improve a PCT?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63556" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22878" RevisionGUID="d4736f89-b618-4c32-8f87-edbe5dae7558" CreationDate="2021-01-15T19:19:12.793" UserId="25312" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;epo&gt;&lt;amendment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22879" RevisionGUID="e2703917-98c2-4b97-aa68-184d01090a06" CreationDate="2021-01-16T06:28:38.307" UserId="18102" Text="* Have applied for patent on 2020-01-26 (priority date) in an EU country; after some back and forth it was accepted a few months ago.&#xD;&#xA;* Want to extend it to other countries:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * US&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * UK&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Germany&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Russia&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * France&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Japan&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * China&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do they all have a 12 month deadline and I have only a few days left?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63558" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22879" RevisionGUID="e2703917-98c2-4b97-aa68-184d01090a06" CreationDate="2021-01-16T06:28:38.307" UserId="18102" Text="Priority Claim Deadline: 12 Months or Some Global Variation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63559" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22879" RevisionGUID="e2703917-98c2-4b97-aa68-184d01090a06" CreationDate="2021-01-16T06:28:38.307" UserId="18102" Text="&lt;priority&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22880" RevisionGUID="75497462-bce1-4c10-80e3-73899a9e5f60" CreationDate="2021-01-16T07:17:11.960" UserId="18033" Text="Yes, they all have a 12 months deadline. However you could file a PCT application. A PCT application allows you to enter national phases later (mostly 30/31 months after the priority date, so 18 more months). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a way to buy you more time for quite some money. However it also allows you to revise your country selection so you could enter more or less countries later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22881" RevisionGUID="9c30c98e-938e-420c-9e65-135110a93b9e" CreationDate="2021-01-16T15:18:47.297" UserId="25312" Text="If I cancel my now published PCT, I understand it will be prior art since it is revealed to the public domain. However, what will be the date that this cancelled published PCT will be considered as prior art? Is it going to be its original filing date or its publication date? I am looking to claim priority over a separate application I filed before the publication of my PCT and after the filing of my PCT. I wonder if this will be possible by cancelling my published PCT." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63563" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22881" RevisionGUID="9c30c98e-938e-420c-9e65-135110a93b9e" CreationDate="2021-01-16T15:18:47.297" UserId="25312" Text="What is the prior art date of a cancelled yet published PCT?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63564" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22881" RevisionGUID="9c30c98e-938e-420c-9e65-135110a93b9e" CreationDate="2021-01-16T15:18:47.297" UserId="25312" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;publication&gt;&lt;withdrawal&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22882" RevisionGUID="ef0aa839-d47d-454f-b408-74d4a21e85fe" CreationDate="2021-01-16T17:17:03.540" UserId="22334" Text="The publication date. Documents become prior art the day they are disclosed to the public, which in the case of international applications (PCT) and patent applications is whenever they become public.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I understand your second question is that you filed another application (P1), and you want to claim priority from it in yet another application (P2). You can do so as long as you file P2 within the 12-month period starting from the filing date of P1. You can only benefit from the priority of P1 for that matter for which P1 is the first application. So if your PCT disclosed some matter present in P1, then P2 will not validly claim priority from P1 for that matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22882" RevisionGUID="89d2adae-018b-4461-9c62-f6cb70d3db1a" CreationDate="2021-01-16T17:26:47.223" UserId="22334" Comment="added 261 characters in body" Text="The publication date. Documents become prior art the day they are disclosed to the public, which in the case of international applications (PCT) and patent applications is whenever they become public.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I understand your second question is that you filed another application (P1), and you want to claim priority from it in yet another application (P2). You can do so as long as you file P2 within the 12-month period starting from the filing date of P1. You can only benefit from the priority of P1 for that matter for which P1 is the first application. So if your PCT disclosed some matter present in P1, then P2 will not validly claim priority from P1 for that matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. 'Cancelling' a PCT that is already published does not help you in any way. Let it become abandoned. Perhaps you will change your mind by the 30/31-month period and you will want to enter into some phases, by actively abandoning it you lose that right. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22883" RevisionGUID="536730ff-2d0f-45e7-970b-08163f877b39" CreationDate="2021-01-16T19:38:05.690" UserId="25312" Text="I am looking to use my UK-B application below to file a new PCT-B so that I do not have to prove novelty and inventiveness over the PCT1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    1)	UK-A filed on 05/19 now withdrawn without being published&#xD;&#xA;    2)	PCT-A filed on 05/20 claiming priority from UK-A&#xD;&#xA;    3)	UK-B files on 06/20&#xD;&#xA;    4)	PCT-A published on 07/20&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there really a way to do that? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been told that even if I withdraw my PCT-A priority claim over UK-A and even if I abandon my PCT-A and even if I claim priority for my PCT-B over my UK-B, I will still have to prove novelty and inventiveness over the PCT-A, but I do not really understand it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone advise please?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: I am interested in EU and US mainly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63568" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22883" RevisionGUID="536730ff-2d0f-45e7-970b-08163f877b39" CreationDate="2021-01-16T19:38:05.690" UserId="25312" Text="Is there a way to completely cancel earlier applications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63569" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22883" RevisionGUID="536730ff-2d0f-45e7-970b-08163f877b39" CreationDate="2021-01-16T19:38:05.690" UserId="25312" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;priority&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63570" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20880" RevisionGUID="cea6dad4-aca0-4624-af2f-dc6af0e5fe55" CreationDate="2021-01-16T23:07:45.737" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63571" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22536" RevisionGUID="18dd3518-8b47-44fd-9fb2-c94ca8e7d28c" CreationDate="2021-01-17T00:03:15.257" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63572" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20371" RevisionGUID="5bfd3e6b-3628-4c76-91a9-54eac86e9552" CreationDate="2021-01-17T06:05:10.493" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22884" RevisionGUID="5b1c93eb-723c-4052-aa37-a2d18e951936" CreationDate="2021-01-17T12:58:42.243" UserId="25317" Text="Since the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is patented, one could assume that patent and the used mRNA-string are published somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that is the case, where can one find it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63574" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22884" RevisionGUID="5b1c93eb-723c-4052-aa37-a2d18e951936" CreationDate="2021-01-17T12:58:42.243" UserId="25317" Text="Where can I find the patent for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63575" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22884" RevisionGUID="5b1c93eb-723c-4052-aa37-a2d18e951936" CreationDate="2021-01-17T12:58:42.243" UserId="25317" Text="&lt;medicine&gt;&lt;reference&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22883" RevisionGUID="24dc390c-c2f3-46d5-884b-e56367736b6c" CreationDate="2021-01-17T15:41:03.947" UserId="25312" Comment="edited body" Text="I am looking to use my UK-B application below to file a new PCT-B so that I do not have to prove novelty and inventiveness over the PCT1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    1)	UK-A filed on 05/19 now withdrawn without being published&#xD;&#xA;    2)	PCT-A filed on 05/20 claiming priority from UK-A&#xD;&#xA;    3)	UK-B filed on 06/20&#xD;&#xA;    4)	PCT-A published on 07/20&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there really a way to do that? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been told that even if I withdraw my PCT-A priority claim over UK-A and even if I abandon my PCT-A and even if I claim priority for my PCT-B over my UK-B, I will still have to prove novelty and inventiveness over the PCT-A, but I do not really understand it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone advise please?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: I am interested in EU and US mainly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22885" RevisionGUID="e83fcaf0-fe86-4623-b170-137c340a483b" CreationDate="2021-01-17T16:44:37.783" UserId="17003" Text="Patent applications typically publish 18 months after filing. Since vaccine's specific to COVID-19 were started within the last year, it is likely that a patent application hasn't yet published. Reports of patent protection are probably related the the underlying mRNA technologies developed by BioNTech. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you can search the patent literature for items related. For instance on [Google Patents][1] (as one example) I've searched with &quot;BioNTech RNA Pharmaceuticals GmbH&quot; as the assignee and mrna and vaccine as keywords returning about 269 results. [Here are the results][2]. I used &quot;mrna&quot; since messenger RNA is the underlying technology for the vaccine and &quot;vaccine&quot; since I wanted more relevant hits. This is likely not a complete list of relevant patents and applications since it is possible Pfizer or BioNTech have licensed other intellectual properties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/?q=mrna%20vaccine&amp;assignee=BioNTech%20RNA%20Pharmaceuticals%20GmbH" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22886" RevisionGUID="34bfd7c3-c4d5-4902-8770-63ec6f57cb54" CreationDate="2021-01-17T17:28:59.203" UserId="3076" Text="Regarding patents on the technology behind the vaccines, I found this on PatentlyO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The components of the new mRNA vaccines of Pfizer, Moderna, CureVac and others are heavily patented. There are 2 main estates: 1. the modified mRNA estate held by UPenn; 2. the lipid nanoparticle components held by Arbutus, Moderna, Acuitas and others. Most patents have been licensed where appropriate, there is one major (public) dispute (see Arbutus/Moderna)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22887" RevisionGUID="994df047-39f6-4ef7-9b46-713e9a3fe87e" CreationDate="2021-01-18T14:27:38.483" UserId="25312" Text="If I have two PCT applications that are overlapping, is it possible to merge them into one in the EU? I think in US I can use a continuation patent but what about the EU? I was told according to Rule No. 44 of the Implementing Regulations, in relation to Article 82 of the EPC, I can claim unity of invention in a European patent application, with respect to one or more other previous applications, regardless if they are granted or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63580" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22887" RevisionGUID="994df047-39f6-4ef7-9b46-713e9a3fe87e" CreationDate="2021-01-18T14:27:38.483" UserId="25312" Text="Is it possible to claim unity of invention in a European patent application, with respect to one or more other previous applications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63581" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22887" RevisionGUID="994df047-39f6-4ef7-9b46-713e9a3fe87e" CreationDate="2021-01-18T14:27:38.483" UserId="25312" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;epo&gt;&lt;unity&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22888" RevisionGUID="c5980e0b-e9e0-4729-9189-328b4bec84c1" CreationDate="2021-01-18T19:50:31.550" UserId="25312" Text="If a description describes one embodiment but the claim is very broad that does not limit to that embodiment, what will be actually protected? Any embodiment under the broad claim or the specific embodiment in the description? To give an example, a transdermal biosensor using an enzyme is described but the claim is generally a sensor that uses enzymes. What will be protected?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63583" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22888" RevisionGUID="c5980e0b-e9e0-4729-9189-328b4bec84c1" CreationDate="2021-01-18T19:50:31.550" UserId="25312" Text="If a claim is broader than the description, what is protected exactly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63584" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22888" RevisionGUID="c5980e0b-e9e0-4729-9189-328b4bec84c1" CreationDate="2021-01-18T19:50:31.550" UserId="25312" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;description&gt;&lt;protection&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22889" RevisionGUID="bd728aab-9024-4f2c-9366-9904e196a3bc" CreationDate="2021-01-18T20:06:38.320" UserId="17003" Text="The simple answer is the claim establishes what is protected. It is important to determine if you are viewing an actual granted patent or a patent application. Applications often have excessively broad claims which usually get narrowed as part of the patent prosecution process." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22891" RevisionGUID="1a6ecc02-448d-43bd-a1e1-e25a905bd7f1" CreationDate="2021-01-19T01:07:57.320" UserId="3076" Text="If you are talking about an issued U.S. patent there is a reasonable chance that, if it is enforced, a court will interpret a claim more narrowly than its actual words. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one truism of claim interpretation that you don't import the specification into the claims. On the other hand a second truism is that the claim needs to be enabled across its scope and needs to be supported by the specification. Some judges are saying, in effect, &quot;independent of the breadth of the words of the claim, *I know what the inventor really invented* and it is the preferred embodiment.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One expert has written a book about this called The Rules of Patent Drafting: Guidelines from Federal Circuit Case Law. I am not linking to Amazon since it is over $200 but the author has written about it [elsewhere][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/08/12/rules-of-patent-drafting-the-disclosure-revolution/id=50753/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22892" RevisionGUID="410444bc-6cba-4022-975d-f1960976b27e" CreationDate="2021-01-19T14:28:55.353" UserId="22334" Text="Filing another application (say PA) now and claiming priority from UK-B will result in the following effective dates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- (1) For PA's matter disclosed in UK-B for the first time: the filing date of UK-B&#xD;&#xA;- (2) For PA's matter already disclosed in any of UK-A and PCT-A: the filing date of PA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that matter (2) has the problem of UK-A and PCT-A disclosures, which are prior art for PA, whereas matter (1) does not have that problem.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you were to enter into the European regional phase from PCT-A (say EP-A) and PA is or becomes a European patent application (say EP-B) at some point in time, whatever you claim in EP-B has to be novel over UK-A/PCT-A, so it must be novel over matter (2). This is because, at the EPO, EP-A is comprised in the state of the art but for the novelty requirement only (cf. [Art.54(3) EPC](https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar54.html)). Not sure if a similar provision exists in the US. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22893" RevisionGUID="4c94193e-f858-473b-903e-4311c8b41f2f" CreationDate="2021-01-19T14:33:40.050" UserId="22334" Text="Applications cannot be merged. You must file an application that discloses the matter of both applications, and claim priority from the two applications should you wish the effective dates of each matter to be the filing date of the respective PCT. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unity of invention has nothing to do with the content of applications. Unity of invention relates to the content of the claims in an application, and more particularly whether the subject-matter claimed in the application relates to a same invention or to more than one invention. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22894" RevisionGUID="9253d7e0-d8e2-4d28-be50-7d982c499ab2" CreationDate="2021-01-19T22:35:48.310" UserId="25328" Text="While writing my first non-provisional patent application, I came across a Medium article that claims that the &quot;Brief Summary of the Invention&quot; is not actually required and that it could be a mistake to include it. Here is the relevant section of the article, found [here][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In truth, you do not need to have a summary of the invention. The US&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patent Law, America Invents Act 35 U.S.C. §101 et seq., does not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; require a “Summary of the Invention” section nor does 37 C.F.R. 1.73,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which states “A brief summary of the invention indicating its nature&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and substance, which may include a statement of the object of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention, should precede the detailed description. Such summary&#xD;&#xA;&gt; should, when set forth, be commensurate with the invention as claimed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and any object recited should be that of the invention as claimed.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (all emphasis added)” “May” and “should” are different than “must” or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “shall,” and, as such, indicate these are not a requirement but,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; instead, are a mere option. This is reinforced by the phrase “when set&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forth,” which means that it need not be set forth. See also MPEP&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 608.01(d) (also using optional “should” rather than obligatory “must”). If an Examiner attempts to require a “Summary of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Invention” section, gently remind them that there is no requirement&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and politely demur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if I really buy this argument, considering that I have yet to come across any other articles  claiming the same or any granted patents without a summary section. Is this true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://medium.com/napp/you-can-omit-a-summary-of-the-invention-and-probably-should-599ccdbe7f7e" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63591" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22894" RevisionGUID="9253d7e0-d8e2-4d28-be50-7d982c499ab2" CreationDate="2021-01-19T22:35:48.310" UserId="25328" Text="Is the &quot;Brief Summary of the Invention&quot; section actually required?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63592" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22894" RevisionGUID="9253d7e0-d8e2-4d28-be50-7d982c499ab2" CreationDate="2021-01-19T22:35:48.310" UserId="25328" Text="&lt;summary&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22894" RevisionGUID="bbe406bc-8996-4062-ae49-720b919778cc" CreationDate="2021-01-19T22:54:36.770" UserId="25328" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="While writing my first non-provisional patent application, I came across a Medium article that claims that the &quot;Brief Summary of the Invention&quot; is not actually required and that it could be a mistake to include it. Here is the relevant section of the article, found [here][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In truth, you do not need to have a summary of the invention. The US&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patent Law, America Invents Act 35 U.S.C. §101 et seq., does not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; require a “Summary of the Invention” section nor does 37 C.F.R. 1.73,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which states “A brief summary of the invention indicating its nature&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and substance, which may include a statement of the object of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invention, should precede the detailed description. Such summary&#xD;&#xA;&gt; should, when set forth, be commensurate with the invention as claimed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and any object recited should be that of the invention as claimed.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (all emphasis added)” “May” and “should” are different than “must” or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “shall,” and, as such, indicate these are not a requirement but,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; instead, are a mere option. This is reinforced by the phrase “when set&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forth,” which means that it need not be set forth. See also MPEP&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 608.01(d) (also using optional “should” rather than obligatory “must”). If an Examiner attempts to require a “Summary of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Invention” section, gently remind them that there is no requirement&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and politely demur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if I really buy this argument, considering that I have yet to come across any other articles  claiming the same or any granted patents without a summary section, but the argument that the article makes does seem to make sense. Is this true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://medium.com/napp/you-can-omit-a-summary-of-the-invention-and-probably-should-599ccdbe7f7e" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63594" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="21041" RevisionGUID="26d127ef-485e-4281-8875-55b6efced3d5" CreationDate="2021-01-20T01:05:00.517" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22895" RevisionGUID="fe6b2135-850d-4503-b3b9-c71fd79bda96" CreationDate="2021-01-20T04:53:40.927" UserId="3076" Text="It is absolutely true in the U.S.. Many practitioners now avoid such a summary for the reasons given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And an examiner is very unlikely to require one to be added since (1) they also know this and (2) importantly, once filed, the fact that *no new matter* can be added is gospel. A newly drafted summary could carefully avoid adding new matter but it would be a danger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You positively need an abstract and if there are drawings you absolutely need a brief description of the drawings. Other than that other things like &quot;Object of the Invention&quot; and even &quot;Background of the Invention&quot; are not needed in the specification. At the very least leave the word &quot;invention&quot; out.  A section titled &quot;Summary&quot; is a little less likely to bite you. The courts have taken a statement in a Summary of the Invention as adding limitations to the claims that are not written in the claims, narrowing beyond what the examiner allowed and was issued. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A one minute search found [US10680115 P-channel oxide semiconductor thin film transistor][1] patented by Intel and granted in 2020 that does not have the word Summary at all. It has the word invention only once and in the single place it is safe. The search result at the USPTO for &quot;has the word *the* but does not have the word *summary*&quot; is -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Results of Search in US Patent Collection db for: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (the ANDNOT Summary): 55452 patents. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hits 1 through 50 out of 55452&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related is the topic &quot;patent profanity&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10680115B2/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22896" RevisionGUID="3a498091-96e9-4fda-b3e5-6e8daaf5c6db" CreationDate="2021-01-20T13:06:46.297" UserId="25312" Text="Is it possible to amend the description of a PCT to include content from a priority application? My drafter missed important content from my priority documents to include it in my PCT. Is there any way to fix that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63597" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22896" RevisionGUID="3a498091-96e9-4fda-b3e5-6e8daaf5c6db" CreationDate="2021-01-20T13:06:46.297" UserId="25312" Text="Is it possible to amend the description of a PCT to include content from a priority application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63598" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22896" RevisionGUID="3a498091-96e9-4fda-b3e5-6e8daaf5c6db" CreationDate="2021-01-20T13:06:46.297" UserId="25312" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;description&gt;&lt;amendment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22897" RevisionGUID="eb47e2ae-51a8-4bf0-8ead-85eb7a11edf3" CreationDate="2021-01-20T16:56:40.783" UserId="22334" Text="Yes, with some buts. Below I reproduce item 6.027 of the [PCT Applicant's Guide](https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/guide/ip06.html#_correction_defects); you should review the following items too, however. You have 2 months from either the date when you first filed the PCT documents or the date of the invitation issued by the Receiving Office if said Office has detected that there are missing parts in the documents making up your PCT application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6.027. **Can missing  or correct pages be added to an international application without affecting the international filing date?** This is possible under certain circumstances, but the resulting international filing date will not be recognized in some Contracting States (see paragraph 6.031). Under Rule 4.18, where an element of the international application referred to in Article 11(1)(iii)(d) or (e) or a part of the description, claims or drawings referred to in Rule 20.5(a), or an element or part of the description, claims or drawings referred to in Rule 20.5bis(a) is not otherwise contained in the international application but is completely contained in the earlier application of which priority is claimed on the date on which one or more elements referred to in Article 11(1)(iii) were first received by the receiving Office, it is possible to incorporate by reference these missing or correct elements or parts into the international application. Such incorporation by reference will have the effect that the elements or parts which have been incorporated by reference will be considered to have been received on the date on which one or more elements referred to in Article 11(1)(iii) were first received. As a result, the international filing date would remain the date when one or more elements referred to in Article 11(1)(iii) were first received (provided that all other Article 11 requirements for the according of a filing date are met). These procedures do not apply to missing pages if the receiving Office has notified the International Bureau under Rule 20.8(a) that any of Rules 20.3(a)(ii) and (b)(ii), 20.5(a)(ii) and (d), and 20.6 are not compatible with its national law. Moreover, these procedures do not apply to correct pages if the receiving Office has notified the International Bureau under Rule 20.8(a-bis) that any of Rules 20.5bis(a)(ii) and (d) are not compatible with its national law.  Such a receiving Office will therefore neither invite nor accept a confirmation of the incorporation by reference. Instead, the receiving Office would apply the above described correction procedure (paragraph 6.025). A list of Offices which have notified the International Bureau under Rule 20.8(a) and/or 20.8(a-bis) and which will therefore not accept the incorporation by reference of missing elements or parts can be found on WIPO’s website at www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/reservations/res_incomp.html. If the need to incorporate certain missing or correct elements or parts becomes apparent after the international application has been filed, the applicant may request the receiving Office to transmit the international application to the receiving Office of the International Bureau under Rule 19.4(a)(iii), which does accept the incorporation by reference of missing or correct elements or parts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17569" RevisionGUID="a5729ffe-b9f8-4a04-a12f-f7e18a514e59" CreationDate="2021-01-21T05:55:05.827" UserId="18822" Comment="deleted 553 characters in body" Text="In a large American HQed company I worked, based on an engineering work my manager and I did, the company filed a US Patent Application at the USPTO on March 2013. I am the first named inventor in the application. My manager is also listed as an inventor. As per company policy, we assigned the invention to our company, who then filed the utility patent application through a law firm specializing in patent applications. I quit the company in June 2014 to pursue a PhD in a university (present status).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We learnt through the US Public Pair Portal that the application has been successful, and all that is left is to issue the patent. The notice of allowance says that we have exactly 3 months to pay the issue fees or else, the application will be abandoned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It now looks like the company may not proceed further with the application, as per the current business needs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no financial interest in this patent application, but would like to have it issued, purely for personal purposes. Obviously, I don't have an issue that the company (rather than me) shall own the patent when it gets issued. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am willing to pay the issue fee myself. Is this allowed? How do I do this? What's the procedure? What are my choices?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update: Finding out eligibility for damages**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was suggested by a member of the community here to look for potentially pressing for damages for not offering me the possibility to self-file or take the application forward personally. How can I get started with this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22898" RevisionGUID="935ba6fd-c431-4a51-9002-bc911d58d1db" CreationDate="2021-01-21T14:09:59.363" UserId="24571" Text="When I look for patents online using Google Patents, I get the list of ranked candidate patent with several links (eg &quot;Overview&quot;, &quot;Correlations&quot;, &quot;Talk with others&quot; (note that I am translating from Italian, and the English version might differ)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I click on &quot;Talk to others&quot;, they try to redirect to an external page but fail.&#xD;&#xA;However, the page is somehow liked to this forum.&#xD;&#xA;For example, for [this][1] link, I get redirected to [https://www.google.com/url?ptose&amp;q=//++patents.stackexchange.com**/redirect/google-patents?patent%3DUS6026414&amp;usg=AOvVaw2lXlomYmNxUhpVjibk9YnU][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does StackExchange contain pages in which people talk of individual patents? How do I find them? Do they have a particular tag? I am interested because of an unrelated NLP project.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6026414?oq=US5689701A&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/url?ptose&amp;q=//%20%20patents.stackexchange.com**/redirect/google-patents?patent%3DUS6026414&amp;usg=AOvVaw2lXlomYmNxUhpVjibk9YnU" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63603" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22898" RevisionGUID="935ba6fd-c431-4a51-9002-bc911d58d1db" CreationDate="2021-01-21T14:09:59.363" UserId="24571" Text="Where are &quot;Discussions&quot; from Google Patents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63604" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22898" RevisionGUID="935ba6fd-c431-4a51-9002-bc911d58d1db" CreationDate="2021-01-21T14:09:59.363" UserId="24571" Text="&lt;google-patents&gt;&lt;meta-question&gt;&lt;forums&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22898" RevisionGUID="ef08a453-931e-4a7c-89f0-d317a7887fb0" CreationDate="2021-01-21T14:28:33.297" UserId="24571" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="When I look for patents online using Google Patents, I get the list of ranked candidate patent with several links (eg &quot;Overview&quot;, &quot;Correlations&quot;, &quot;Talk with others&quot; (note that I am translating from Italian, and the English version might differ)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I click on &quot;Talk to others&quot;, they try to redirect to an external page but fail.&#xD;&#xA;However, the page is somehow liked to this forum.&#xD;&#xA;For example, for [this][1] link, I get redirected to [https://www.google.com/url?ptose&amp;q=//%20%20patents.stackexchange.com**/redirect/google-patents?patent%3DUS6026414&amp;usg=AOvVaw2lXlomYmNxUhpVjibk9YnU][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does StackExchange contain pages in which people talk of individual patents? How do I find them? Do they have a particular tag? I am interested because of an unrelated NLP project.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6026414?oq=US5689701A&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/url?ptose&amp;q=//%20%20patents.stackexchange.com**/redirect/google-patents?patent%3DUS6026414&amp;usg=AOvVaw2lXlomYmNxUhpVjibk9YnU" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22899" RevisionGUID="8dd7e6b5-f465-41c9-8cf6-3f68349eadab" CreationDate="2021-01-21T15:20:39.407" UserId="17003" Text="Clicking the &quot;Discuss&quot; link seems to take you to the Ask Patents SE site and search on a tag with the patent number (at least for a US user). It's unfortunate the link is named &quot;Discuss&quot; since Stack Exchange isn't a discussion forum. Rather it is a question and answer site. To my knowledge there is no feature on Ask Patents related to discussion on individual patents. One might try the [Ask Patents Meta][1] site, but that site is even less populated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a specific question about a patent or patents then I encourage you to ask a specific question on Ask Patents. If you have technical questions about natural language processing then there are probably other more appropriate SE sites such as the [Data Science][2] SE site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://datascience.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/nlp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63607" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19051" RevisionGUID="8d7ea903-22e5-4bac-8ea7-f8c9a2df3aac" CreationDate="2021-01-21T17:02:35.197" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63608" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22294" RevisionGUID="db7dcc3a-b261-4ac4-8414-8c14926c8b0c" CreationDate="2021-01-22T04:08:10.837" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22900" RevisionGUID="7059446f-77d6-40e4-8bc4-2133d99f1f4e" CreationDate="2021-01-22T09:59:25.310" UserId="25312" Text="If a medical device has been patented which mentions in the first claim, a particular material for specific reasons and I manage to patent the same medical device which mentions in the first claim, a completely different material for specific reasons, will I have to pay royalties to the first inventor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63610" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22900" RevisionGUID="7059446f-77d6-40e4-8bc4-2133d99f1f4e" CreationDate="2021-01-22T09:59:25.310" UserId="25312" Text="How can I estimate the level of freedom to operate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63611" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22900" RevisionGUID="7059446f-77d6-40e4-8bc4-2133d99f1f4e" CreationDate="2021-01-22T09:59:25.310" UserId="25312" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;freedom-to-operate&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22902" RevisionGUID="e2b8ca24-33fe-42c5-8adb-7f60d6353383" CreationDate="2021-01-22T15:42:38.057" UserId="17003" Text="To infringe on a patent you must implement each and every step in at least one claim. So, in the scenario provided, if a claim includes a specific material any you don't use that material, you don't infringe that claim. However, this doesn't necessarily mean you have freedom to operate. There may be other broader patents. For example, let's say you see a patent for a lightbulb which specifies the use of a tungsten filament in evacuated glass bulb. If your bulb uses say a chromium filament you are fine with regards to that patent. However, there very well may be an earlier patent that specifies a light bulb with a filament in an evacuated glass bulb. You would infringe that earlier patent. The broader use of just filament would cover your device and you would infringe. Of course, these lightbulb examples are expired by now, but it is just to illustrate the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the very least, you should review all the patents cited by the patent and if you find a related patent look at that patent's cited documents too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63619" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22299" RevisionGUID="a080b822-69d3-467f-a383-ef05f7d56994" CreationDate="2021-01-22T22:01:05.100" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22902" RevisionGUID="1e45014c-24e5-4572-9022-8fc6182cc9a4" CreationDate="2021-01-23T02:07:23.333" UserId="17003" Comment="edited body" Text="To infringe on a patent you must implement each and every step in at least one claim. So, in the scenario provided, if a claim includes a specific material and you don't use that material, you don't infringe that claim. However, this doesn't necessarily mean you have freedom to operate. There may be other broader patents. For example, let's say you see a patent for a lightbulb which specifies the use of a tungsten filament in evacuated glass bulb. If your bulb uses say a chromium filament you are fine with regards to that patent. However, there very well may be an earlier patent that specifies a light bulb with a filament in an evacuated glass bulb. You would infringe that earlier patent. The broader use of just filament would cover your device and you would infringe. Of course, these lightbulb examples are expired by now, but it is just to illustrate the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the very least, you should review all the patents cited by the patent and if you find a related patent look at that patent's cited documents too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22905" RevisionGUID="ace0811a-958e-4502-96a3-9a6f6ddf8009" CreationDate="2021-01-23T15:06:13.087" UserId="25312" Text="I had a novelty search by the UK IPO and it was extremely poor compared to the one by EPO. Maybe the difference in the fees justifies that as it is £300 vs £1,500. Is there any particular office who conducts high quality thorough novelty search but which is cost efficient?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63627" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22905" RevisionGUID="ace0811a-958e-4502-96a3-9a6f6ddf8009" CreationDate="2021-01-23T15:06:13.087" UserId="25312" Text="Is there a professional cost efficient novelty search?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63628" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22905" RevisionGUID="ace0811a-958e-4502-96a3-9a6f6ddf8009" CreationDate="2021-01-23T15:06:13.087" UserId="25312" Text="&lt;search&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;examination&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22906" RevisionGUID="929f0e16-2c6c-4d98-bb0e-3ca335945076" CreationDate="2021-01-23T17:09:45.387" UserId="22334" Text="There is no particular office I would say. Some patent offices have examiners more knowledgeable in some topics than others, then some examiners are better than others. You could file the same application twice with the same patent office and get two completely different search reports. Since no patent office guarantees a perfect search report, some applicants also request [Supplementary International Searches](https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/pct/en/wipo_pct_zag_13/wipo_pct_zag_13_www_234625.pdf) in the international phase to check if other patent offices are able to retrieve additional prior art before entering into the national/regional phases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway bear in mind that national patent laws typically preclude you from filing the first patent application with any patent office. I do not know the particulars of the British patent law but I guess the first filing should be with the UKIPO, the EPO or the IB with some limitations regarding the ISA you can request. And this question aside, if you were to file your application with say the Chinese patent office, the costs would be significantly higher because you need the services of a registered Chinese patent attorney, and translate your application into Chinese, plus the search report/first office action would be in Chinese as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22907" RevisionGUID="526248b7-d412-4b94-a2bc-2ca7f5ec1bca" CreationDate="2021-01-23T22:52:17.650" UserId="3076" Text="In the past I got several good searches with KPO as ISA. From the U.S. the cost is still about 1/2 what it would be from the EPO. When I started using Korea they were new and charged even less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not part of the body of the question but you could hire a search firm." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22908" RevisionGUID="3a45c687-2233-4fa5-b94e-429ad45b154c" CreationDate="2021-01-24T10:49:49.660" UserId="25312" Text="I disclosed a feature in a priority application 2 years ago but it was not included in my finally pursued application. Now the priority and the pursued application have been published. Is it possible to patent this feature? I was thinking something like a divisional application but I am worried that it may not be possible to claim it since it has not been included in the final application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63633" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22908" RevisionGUID="3a45c687-2233-4fa5-b94e-429ad45b154c" CreationDate="2021-01-24T10:49:49.660" UserId="25312" Text="Is it possible to patent something that was disclosed in a priority application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63634" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22908" RevisionGUID="3a45c687-2233-4fa5-b94e-429ad45b154c" CreationDate="2021-01-24T10:49:49.660" UserId="25312" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;divisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22910" RevisionGUID="0384f224-8b99-42ce-afad-809e17e60440" CreationDate="2021-01-24T22:06:53.750" UserId="22334" Text="You cannot if the priority application is not pending. The finally pursued application does not disclose the matter, hence you cannot protect it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22911" RevisionGUID="6fb851d8-b308-4277-b2e4-e4b912f710b8" CreationDate="2021-01-25T02:23:55.577" UserId="25344" Text="I was told USPTO does not provide API for accessing their Private Pair data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I understand that a few docking software available claim that they are access USPTO Private Pair with the right USPTO login.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't find any reference on how to develop a software module to access my firm's Private Pair. I am aiming to be able to allow the module to check my Private Pair as soon as a Private PAIR Correspondence Notification is received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any way to achieve this? Appreciate for any input. Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63644" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22911" RevisionGUID="6fb851d8-b308-4277-b2e4-e4b912f710b8" CreationDate="2021-01-25T02:23:55.577" UserId="25344" Text="Developing a software module to access USPTO Private Pair for my firm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63645" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22911" RevisionGUID="6fb851d8-b308-4277-b2e4-e4b912f710b8" CreationDate="2021-01-25T02:23:55.577" UserId="25344" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;api&gt;&lt;public-pair&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22913" RevisionGUID="7ced4df2-e881-43c6-9db2-2b8f67799a16" CreationDate="2021-01-25T03:27:14.710" UserId="3076" Text="This is definitely possible as it relates to the US -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Subject to the conditions and requirements of this paragraph, if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; all or a portion of the specification or drawing(s) is inadvertently&#xD;&#xA;&gt; omitted from an application, but the application contains a claim&#xD;&#xA;&gt; under § 1.55 for priority of a prior-filed foreign application, or a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claim under § 1.78 for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonprovisional, or international application, **that was present on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; filing date of the application**, and the inadvertently omitted portion&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the specification or drawing(s) is completely contained in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; prior-filed application, the claim under § 1.55 or § 1.78 shall also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be considered an incorporation by reference of the prior-filed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; application as to the inadvertently omitted portion of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; specification or drawing(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the priority claim was not present on the filing day then there must be a petition before the material from the priority document can be amended into the application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22910" RevisionGUID="e7555add-3939-4af7-a92a-1ffcc4b0b3a4" CreationDate="2021-01-25T07:42:07.757" UserId="22334" Comment="Added mention to George White's answer regarding the possibility of protecting it in the US" Text="Other than in the US (see George White's answer), you cannot if the priority application is not pending. The finally pursued application does not disclose the matter, hence you cannot protect it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22914" RevisionGUID="8556d817-ebd3-492f-8989-9c371d8a7df4" CreationDate="2021-01-25T07:52:01.390" UserId="25346" Text="This is really two questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) What is the historical reason for patent protection to be 20 years?&#xD;&#xA;2) What is the reasoning for it to be 20 years, instead of 15 years, or 25 years? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63650" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22914" RevisionGUID="8556d817-ebd3-492f-8989-9c371d8a7df4" CreationDate="2021-01-25T07:52:01.390" UserId="25346" Text="Why do patent protections last 20 years?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63651" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22914" RevisionGUID="8556d817-ebd3-492f-8989-9c371d8a7df4" CreationDate="2021-01-25T07:52:01.390" UserId="25346" Text="&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22915" RevisionGUID="e475b800-6531-4255-99e1-22f26f2b5558" CreationDate="2021-01-25T22:04:39.670" UserId="20798" Text="When the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) agreements were being discussed, various countries had their view on what the length of a patent should be. These negotiations lead to 20 years. While there is no hard and fast rule for a length to be 20 years, this was the consensus on which member countries agreed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your second question, the reason is related to economics of innovation. Innovation as we know is good for the welfare of a society. Firms/Innovators can innovate their product by themselves (to differentiate themselves from others or reduce the production cost) or can be incentivized by the society. In a society with no patent rights, incentives to innovate is low. If one firm innovates their product, others can just replicate the innovation for free. The R&amp;D expenditure thus becoming redundant for the innovative firm. Therefore, a society agrees upon patent rights which are incentives to innovate. However, it comes with a cost; it leads to monopoly (one firm with rights to a product and other firms cannot produce the same product without permission from the original innovator). Nordhaus (1969) and Scherer (1972) have shown theoretically and geometrically that a finite patent length leads to higher welfare than infinite patent length. Intuitively, if patent length is finite, firms will compete to produce a better product by improving on the existing patented product since they only have about 20 years and then the patent rights would expire. On the other hand, if the patent length is infinite, the firm which had a patent on one of its product will sit on the its invention till someone invents a better/cheaper substitute. This will lead to lower effort from the firm which has at least one patent. Therefore, a finite patent length is better than an infinite patent length.&#xD;&#xA;Lester and Zhu (2019) summarizes the discussion on TRIPs as commented by @Eric S." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22915" RevisionGUID="a6e8ad3a-aaab-4b8b-a265-0be6f91a6826" CreationDate="2021-01-25T22:10:27.213" UserId="20798" Comment="added 281 characters in body" Text="When the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) agreements were being discussed, various countries had their view on what the length of a patent should be. These negotiations lead to 20 years. While there is no hard and fast rule for a length to be 20 years, this was the consensus on which member countries agreed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your second question, the reason is related to economics of innovation. Innovation as we know is good for the welfare of a society. Firms/Innovators can innovate their product by themselves (to differentiate themselves from others or reduce the production cost) or can be incentivized by the society. In a society with no patent rights, incentives to innovate is low. If one firm innovates their product, others can just replicate the innovation for free. The R&amp;D expenditure thus becomes redundant for the innovative firm. Therefore, a society agrees upon patent rights which are incentives to innovate. However, it comes with a cost; it leads to monopoly (one firm with rights to a product and other firms cannot produce the same product without permission from the original innovator). We as a society agree on rewarding an innovative firm with a brief period of monopoly in which they can sell their product at a higher price. The total welfare generated from innovation is greater that no innovation even after considering the costs a monopoly imparts on a society. Nordhaus (1969) and Scherer (1972) have shown theoretically and geometrically that a finite patent length leads to higher welfare than infinite patent length. Intuitively, if patent length is finite, firms will compete to produce a better product by improving on the existing patented product since they only have about 20 years and then the patent rights would expire. On the other hand, if the patent length is infinite, the firm which had a patent on one of its product will sit on the its invention till someone invents a better/cheaper substitute. This will lead to lower effort from the firm which has at least one patent. Therefore, a finite patent length is better than an infinite patent length.&#xD;&#xA;Lester and Zhu (2019) summarizes the discussion on TRIPs as commented by @Eric S." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22915" RevisionGUID="56205c73-9bbd-4865-a273-ffd7a96bde1e" CreationDate="2021-01-25T22:16:18.003" UserId="20798" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="When the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) agreements were being discussed, various countries had their view on what the length of a patent should be. These negotiations lead to 20 years. While there is no hard and fast rule for a length to be 20 years, this was the consensus on which member countries agreed. A detailed overview of TRIPs agreement can be found here: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel2_e.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your second question, the reason is related to economics of innovation. Innovation as we know is good for the welfare of a society. Firms/Innovators can innovate their product by themselves (to differentiate themselves from others or reduce the production cost) or can be incentivized by the society. In a society with no patent rights, incentives to innovate is low. If one firm innovates their product, others can just replicate the innovation for free. The R&amp;D expenditure thus becomes redundant for the innovative firm. Therefore, a society agrees upon patent rights which are incentives to innovate. However, it comes with a cost; it leads to monopoly (one firm with rights to a product and other firms cannot produce the same product without permission from the original innovator). We as a society agree on rewarding an innovative firm with a brief period of monopoly in which they can sell their product at a higher price. The total welfare generated from innovation is greater that no innovation even after considering the costs a monopoly imparts on a society. Nordhaus (1969) and Scherer (1972) have shown theoretically and geometrically that a finite patent length leads to higher welfare than infinite patent length. Intuitively, if patent length is finite, firms will compete to produce a better product by improving on the existing patented product since they only have about 20 years and then the patent rights would expire. On the other hand, if the patent length is infinite, the firm which had a patent on one of its product will sit on the its invention till someone invents a better/cheaper substitute. This will lead to lower effort from the firm which has at least one patent. Therefore, a finite patent length is better than an infinite patent length.&#xD;&#xA;Lester and Zhu (2019) summarizes the discussion on TRIPs as commented by @Eric S." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63655" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22304" RevisionGUID="e4cf7aec-3aa9-4406-b703-9e5c9eda91a8" CreationDate="2021-01-26T04:03:05.220" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63657" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="ff06a670-bb07-4b5a-bc95-be040a82cebe" CreationDate="2021-01-26T16:05:35.473" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22917" RevisionGUID="248c4119-1a93-4602-ad11-bf66a58d45e0" CreationDate="2021-01-26T22:49:23.950" UserId="3076" Text="I found an interesting [article][1] from the Cato institute about patent term. It covers the history and suggests that the original 14 year term in England (and in the U.S. 1790–1835) had something to do with the length of an apprenticeship. There was some suggestion that in return for the monopoly one needed to teach others to make the invention. At the end of the apprenticeship, and monopoly, they could make it more widely available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also covers the debate among economists about the ideas of having different terms for different technologies. With TRIPS this is all moot for the time being. One quote is from a book by Alex Tabarrok  -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patents should be stronger in industries with high&#xD;&#xA;&gt; innovation-to-imitation costs such as pharmaceuticals and weaker in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; industries with low innovation-to-imitation costs such as software.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patents of say three, 10 and 12 years could be offered with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; divisions either based on industry—with software and business-method&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patents getting three years, pharmaceuticals 20 years, and other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; innovations 10 years—or based on evidence of sunk costs. An innovator&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that wanted a three-year patent, for example, need not offer any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; evidence on sunk costs and would receive a quick response. Innovators&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applying for 10- and 20-year patents would have to provide more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information and would need to pass a higher hurdle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2020-02/lester-zhu-auilr-v34n4.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63662" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19832" RevisionGUID="a5d6c296-8990-40df-84b1-6cb7395efc43" CreationDate="2021-01-26T23:04:15.437" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22918" RevisionGUID="25468a30-4947-4aef-b061-cf74a0aff19f" CreationDate="2021-01-27T06:23:59.523" UserId="25359" Text="After receiving an NOA and paying the fee, I was anticipating an issue notification within days. Two days after paying the fee, I instead received a Notice of Withdrawal of Allowance.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***recorks champagne***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The uploaded document, &quot;Notice of Withdrawal from Issue Branch (PTOL-67)&quot; shows that the application was withdrawn by the Office under 37 CFR 1.313(b), which could be for one of the following yet-unknown reasons:&#xD;&#xA;(1) a mistake on the part of the Office:&#xD;&#xA;(2) a violation of 37 CFR 1.56 or illegality in the application;&#xD;&#xA;(3) unpatentability of one or more claims; or&#xD;&#xA;(4) for interference or derivation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Public PAIR transaction shows that there is now a non-final rejection.  It'll be a few days to find out the exact reason and then plan to act accordingly (my guess is that it is (3), due to a newly discovered prior art, but we'll see).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that this is a relatively rare occurrence. My lawyer said this happens in a small % of allowed cases but I've looked through dozens of cases without finding any, and have only uncovered 2 or 3 via Google. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas how often this happens, and how I can search out more cases to review?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63664" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22918" RevisionGUID="25468a30-4947-4aef-b061-cf74a0aff19f" CreationDate="2021-01-27T06:23:59.523" UserId="25359" Text="Withdrawal of Notice of Allowance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63665" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22918" RevisionGUID="25468a30-4947-4aef-b061-cf74a0aff19f" CreationDate="2021-01-27T06:23:59.523" UserId="25359" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;rejected&gt;&lt;withdrawal&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22919" RevisionGUID="a43a47ba-1fa6-4b59-a532-863813a48f42" CreationDate="2021-01-27T18:25:58.213" UserId="3076" Text="It is rare. I practiced as a patent agent for about ten years and never had a NOA withdrawn. Finding other cases where this happened might not be of much help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Until you see the office action you and your lawyer can't do anything but - from the MPEP the Notice should have indicated which of the four reasons caused this withdrawal. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Any notice withdrawing an application from issue after payment of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; issue fee **must specify which of the conditions set forth in 37 CFR&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.313(b)(1) through (4)** exists and thus warrants withdrawal of the application from issue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63667" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22257" RevisionGUID="aa3bdd58-3be3-4628-83b7-51d02af79e1f" CreationDate="2021-01-28T03:05:40.623" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22920" RevisionGUID="7e6d798d-c00d-4e0b-aee4-5a10f873a9cc" CreationDate="2021-01-28T11:07:24.407" UserId="25312" Text="The drafter of my PCT did very poor work and he put a restrictive term in the main claim of my PCT. What are my options to remove that term and expand my claim at the national phase or by amending my PCT without risking to invalidate my patent? The description describes an alternative embodiment which renders the restrictive term in the claim as invalid as it is incompatible with that embodiment but the drafter failed to realise that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63669" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22920" RevisionGUID="7e6d798d-c00d-4e0b-aee4-5a10f873a9cc" CreationDate="2021-01-28T11:07:24.407" UserId="25312" Text="Is it possible to remove a restrictive term in the main claim of a PCT?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63670" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22920" RevisionGUID="7e6d798d-c00d-4e0b-aee4-5a10f873a9cc" CreationDate="2021-01-28T11:07:24.407" UserId="25312" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;claim-amendment&gt;&lt;national-stage&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22921" RevisionGUID="cb124a46-bc46-4c7f-90ab-60cd3c588826" CreationDate="2021-01-28T16:17:00.673" UserId="25312" Text="I missed from the description some alternative embodiments, particularly some different structures/versions/variations. The claim is broad and it is not limited to the embodiments of the description but the alternative embodiments are not mentioned in my description. These alternative embodiments are well known and obvious to the skilled persons. For example, I have a published state of the art review paper that describes all these embodiments. Would that mean that I will be protected for these embodiments by my patent or do I need to file a new application to document these? The issue with filing a new application is that the examiner may not find it inventive because it is well known to the skilled person." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63672" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22921" RevisionGUID="cb124a46-bc46-4c7f-90ab-60cd3c588826" CreationDate="2021-01-28T16:17:00.673" UserId="25312" Text="Can alternative embodiments well known to skilled persons but not described in my description be protected by my broad claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63673" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22921" RevisionGUID="cb124a46-bc46-4c7f-90ab-60cd3c588826" CreationDate="2021-01-28T16:17:00.673" UserId="25312" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;description&gt;&lt;embodiments&gt;&lt;protection&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22922" RevisionGUID="5745db58-ed3a-4f00-92d6-86d3da0e13fe" CreationDate="2021-01-28T20:09:46.980" UserId="3076" Text="Different countries have different rules but there is normally no problem amending PCT claims when entering the national stage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You ask about the risk of invaliding your (not yet existing) patent. If the amendments you plan result in claims that &quot;go beyond&quot; the original filing such that the resulting claims are not supported by the original filings AND the examination process does not catch it, the resulting patent could be vulnerable. I do not think that is a big worry, the examiners will be looking for that with every amendment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There will be variations in how amendments are looked at. The EPO is very strict about claiming combinations and permutations of features that were not explicit in the original filing, for example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22923" RevisionGUID="7c46f189-5206-4c99-a537-00570da73972" CreationDate="2021-01-29T11:02:48.713" UserId="25312" Text="I am looking for firms who are willing to develop expertise and take an idea described in a paragraph and transform it into a patent application. This means they will be willing and capable of gaining the relevant expertise, analysing the technology landscape and draft a patent application that is complete and scientifically sound. Are there any firms that can do this? So far, IP firms were only able to contribute to legalities and procedural issues instead of the actual content of my description." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63677" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22923" RevisionGUID="7c46f189-5206-4c99-a537-00570da73972" CreationDate="2021-01-29T11:02:48.713" UserId="25312" Text="Do you know any IP firms who can provide input in the design of an invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63678" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22923" RevisionGUID="7c46f189-5206-4c99-a537-00570da73972" CreationDate="2021-01-29T11:02:48.713" UserId="25312" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;patent-services&gt;&lt;description&gt;&lt;scientific&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22924" RevisionGUID="6e7e35ef-612d-4e8b-883f-1aedfdf8a795" CreationDate="2021-01-29T16:22:35.427" UserId="17003" Text="If you have the bare idea for invention and want to develop that idea into something patentable, then you would probably want to work with a product development consulting firm. Such firms are often willing to work on early stage ideas. One thing I would caution, product development firms generally have a combination of industrial designers, engineers and less often scientists. Some firms are only industrial designers. If there is some technical development necessary, make sure the firm has the requisite skills. You may be able to find an independent consultant who can provide the necessary development. Look for someone who has a significant patent portfolio as they would know better what is necessary for patentability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You still will need to work with an intellectual property firm to draft and prosecute the actual patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22926" RevisionGUID="4edc31fe-3070-4746-95a0-765afe5a02c9" CreationDate="2021-01-29T19:20:41.570" UserId="3076" Text="First, you need to actually invent something. One paragraph describing and idea might or might not be an invention. If it was an idea rather than a fully formed invention, a patent practitioner should tell you that they need more detail as a starting point. You might mistake that as an unwillingness to dive in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, when I was an active registered patent agent it was rare for a client to have a coherent multipage  description of their invention when they walked in the door. I considered it a key part of my role to pull out from them the essence of the invention. Often they set a prototype on the table and said &quot;here is my invention&quot;. I needed to work with them to try to isolate the key concepts that make it special and then weed out any that would not be missed if left out of a competing product. This usually took the form of two or more interviews. And often required me to learn some technology I was unfamiliar with. (foot orthotics, fault tolerant battery management systems, slotted aloha communications, bio-reactors for growing algae, specialized sutures, location dependenet DNS system, low-power capture of water from the atmosphere, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I then got them to come up with uses of that concept other than the specific example embodied in their prototype. Almost never did any wording of my draft use any language provided by the inventor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Legalities and procedure are critical *after* an invention has been identified and understood by all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do need to work with consultants to flesh out your bare idea to an invention note that the consultants may become co-inventors in the process. You should have written agreements that specify that, should they become co-inventors, they have pre-assigned their rights to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22927" RevisionGUID="a8cdedb3-2ae8-4cd6-9856-744f727686c7" CreationDate="2021-01-29T21:00:16.550" UserId="17003" Text="If you have a granted patent with a broad claim, then you can enforce that patent against others who infringe upon it. If you are worried about some minor variations of the invention getting patent protection then publishing those minor (or even major) variations should keep anyone else from obtaining a patent on the variation. I say should because the patent examiner may not see your publication. That said, if you actually publish the technical details, and can prove it, you can keep anyone from trying to enforce their patent on that detail on you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can setup on [Google Scholar][1] alerts which will make you aware if someone cites your patent. This can alert you to patent applications that might be related to your patent. You can then contact the patent office with your prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://scholar.google.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22928" RevisionGUID="26bd4071-9b39-4334-bb3b-86ac290a72b1" CreationDate="2021-01-30T10:57:27.013" UserId="25379" Text="I a patient is abandoned due to unpaied fees filed 2015? Can I take it over to produde? US20160095351A1 called hydro puff. There is another produce called top puff that looks the same too. How do I proceed? Also I'm from Canada and it's a US patent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63686" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22928" RevisionGUID="26bd4071-9b39-4334-bb3b-86ac290a72b1" CreationDate="2021-01-30T10:57:27.013" UserId="25379" Text="US20160095351A1 I want to manufacture this" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63687" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22928" RevisionGUID="26bd4071-9b39-4334-bb3b-86ac290a72b1" CreationDate="2021-01-30T10:57:27.013" UserId="25379" Text="&lt;continuation&gt;&lt;similar&gt;&lt;abandoned&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22929" RevisionGUID="43a3db21-44c6-4830-bfdf-4df67ca0b945" CreationDate="2021-01-30T12:19:32.677" UserId="22792" Text="I have one patent application filed and two more coming soon, all on the same general subject matter. Application A was filed in 2018 and has yet to see action, and I will soon be filing applications B and C. My plan is to file them on the same day, with only B as a CIP, as I believe C is patentable over A. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I actually have two questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If I file a request for expedited examination on B and/or C due to age, will that force an office action on A? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If the examiner rejects C over A, can I amend C, making it a CIP of A?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63689" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22929" RevisionGUID="43a3db21-44c6-4830-bfdf-4df67ca0b945" CreationDate="2021-01-30T12:19:32.677" UserId="22792" Text="Will a request for expedited examination of a CIP force an office action on a languishing parent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63690" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22929" RevisionGUID="43a3db21-44c6-4830-bfdf-4df67ca0b945" CreationDate="2021-01-30T12:19:32.677" UserId="22792" Text="&lt;examination&gt;&lt;continuation-in-part&gt;&lt;expedited&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22928" RevisionGUID="6f02d07b-006a-488a-8a48-17c6e8e90169" CreationDate="2021-01-30T14:40:30.857" UserId="17003" Comment="Added link to application" Text="I a patient is abandoned due to unpaied fees filed 2015? Can I take it over to produde? [US20160095351A1][1] called hydro puff. There is another produce called top puff that looks the same too. How do I proceed? Also I'm from Canada and it's a US patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160095351A1/en?oq=US20160095351A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22930" RevisionGUID="a701ca63-8e12-4192-b003-67b33a000f18" CreationDate="2021-01-30T14:52:36.707" UserId="17003" Text="[US20160095351A1][1] is a US patent application. It is not a granted patent. Looking at the application on the [US Public Pair][2] site it is listed as &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot; as of 02-02-2018. The application went through a series of rejections and I'm guessing the applicant gave up. You can read these correspondences by going to Pair selecting &quot;Publication Number&quot; and entering &quot;20160095351&quot;. The &quot;Image File Wrapper&quot; tab provides links to the documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point, this application doesn't stop you from producing the described product. However, it is possible there is another patent that might. It would be good to read the rejection documents as the patent examiner might cite other active patents that are relevant. Also, patents are territorial so a US patent only protects products sold or manufactured in the US. If you are going to exclusively manufacture and sell outside the US, then a US patent isn't a problem. You do have to be concerned with equivalent foreign patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to be clear, I am not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice. Consulting with an actual patent attorney about freedom to operate is always a prudent action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160095351A1/en?oq=US20160095351A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22930" RevisionGUID="261a1dec-69a3-425f-b7b7-4d1796913910" CreationDate="2021-01-30T14:59:31.210" UserId="17003" Comment="added 248 characters in body" Text="[US20160095351A1][1] is a US patent application. It is not a granted patent. Looking at the application on the [US Public Pair][2] site it is listed as &quot;Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action&quot; as of 02-02-2018. The application went through a series of rejections and I'm guessing the applicant gave up. You can read these correspondences by going to Pair selecting &quot;Publication Number&quot; and entering &quot;20160095351&quot;. The &quot;Image File Wrapper&quot; tab provides links to the documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point, this application doesn't stop you from producing the described product. However, it is possible there is another patent that might. It would be good to read the rejection documents as the patent examiner might cite other active patents that are relevant. For example the examiner cited [US20140083520A1][3] which was granted as patent [US9788574B2][4]. Also, patents are territorial so a US patent only protects products sold or manufactured in the US. If you are going to exclusively manufacture and sell outside the US, then a US patent isn't a problem. You do have to be concerned with equivalent foreign patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to be clear, I am not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice. Consulting with an actual patent attorney about freedom to operate is always a prudent action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160095351A1/en?oq=US20160095351A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20140083520A1/en?oq=US20140083520&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9788574B2/en?oq=US9788574B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22931" RevisionGUID="e277ea4d-df4e-43e7-a5c2-71f84e0c3edc" CreationDate="2021-01-30T18:36:38.573" UserId="3076" Text="Making B or C special due to age will not change the course of A at all. If there are a few claims in A that you would really like examined quickly you could include them in an expedited B (if a CIP) and cancel them from A. Note that an application made special for age has a limit on the number of claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CIPs are not as magic as people sometimes think. Any claim in a CIP that is 100% supported by the parent application will be treated with the priority of the parent but any claim that needs even a small bit of support from the new matter will be treated exactly as if it had been filed when the CIP was actually filed. If that is a year past the publication of A then A can be used against it as if it was some random reference by someone else. The new mater claims of B will not be granted if they are obvious in light of A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to add a claim of priority for some period after the filing date but that would have no effect on C unless A was published a year or less before C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it has been a year since the parent published, a good reason to have a CIP is that you think there are claims not made in A that could have been made in A, *and separately* you have something (related to A) new to disclose and claim and want to do both in one application to save money.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22931" RevisionGUID="2fbfc5b9-9616-4b35-b6bc-013b7d04261c" CreationDate="2021-01-30T19:16:49.963" UserId="3076" Comment="added 156 characters in body" Text="Making B or C special due to age will not change the course of A at all. If there are a few claims in A that you would really like examined quickly you could include them in an expedited B (if a CIP) and cancel them from A. Note that an application made special for age has a limit on the number of claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CIPs are not as magic as people sometimes think. Any claim in a CIP that is 100% supported by the parent application will be treated with the priority of the parent but any claim that needs even a small bit of support from the new matter will be treated exactly as if it had been filed when the CIP was actually filed. If that is a year past the publication of A then A can be used against it as if it was some random reference by someone else. The new mater claims of B will not be granted if they are obvious in light of A. [See this article][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to add a claim of priority for some period (4 months) after the filing date but that would have no effect on claims in C with new matter C unless A was published a year or less before C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it has been a year since the parent published, a good reason to have a CIP is that you think there are claims not made in A that could have been made in A, *and separately* you have something (related to A) new to disclose and claim and want to do both in one application to save money.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2012/09/continuations-in-part-and-priority-claims.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22931" RevisionGUID="48cd9338-d136-411f-a69c-100bd8631def" CreationDate="2021-01-30T20:47:24.913" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Making B or C special due to age will not change the course of A at all. If there are a few claims in A that you would really like examined quickly you could include them in an expedited B (if a CIP) and cancel them from A. Note that an application made special for age has a limit on the number of claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CIPs are not as magic as people sometimes think. Any claim in a CIP that is 100% supported by the parent application will be treated with the priority of the parent but any claim that needs even a small bit of support from the new matter will be treated exactly as if it had been filed when the CIP was actually filed. If that is a year past the publication of A then A can be used against it as if it was some random reference by someone else. The new mater claims of B will not be granted if they are obvious in light of A. [See this article][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to add a claim of priority for some period (4 months) after the filing date but that would have no effect on claims in C with new matter unless A was published a year or less before C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it has been a year since the parent published, a good reason to have a CIP is that you think there are claims not made in A that could have been made in A, *and separately* you have something (related to A) new to disclose and claim and want to do both in one application to save money.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2012/09/continuations-in-part-and-priority-claims.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22932" RevisionGUID="c2c200ea-100e-4baf-b00b-203b179ec9e0" CreationDate="2021-01-31T06:35:48.100" UserId="14509" Text="How to deal or replace a difficult examiner. He allowed three patents and now he is fighting against a fourth one, which is a subset of them. Could an examiner take action? Override his decisions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63698" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22932" RevisionGUID="c2c200ea-100e-4baf-b00b-203b179ec9e0" CreationDate="2021-01-31T06:35:48.100" UserId="14509" Text="Difficult examiner" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63699" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22932" RevisionGUID="c2c200ea-100e-4baf-b00b-203b179ec9e0" CreationDate="2021-01-31T06:35:48.100" UserId="14509" Text="&lt;examination&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22933" RevisionGUID="261968c2-28f8-4389-b61c-7c12499d7b0e" CreationDate="2021-01-31T10:32:34.530" UserId="25312" Text="I have submitted two applications with different descriptions but which refer to the same concept. E.g. one application describes a substance in an oral pill form and the other application describes the same substance in an injectable form. I want to submit a PCT and merge the two applications claiming priority from both of them. Is that possible?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63701" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22933" RevisionGUID="261968c2-28f8-4389-b61c-7c12499d7b0e" CreationDate="2021-01-31T10:32:34.530" UserId="25312" Text="Is it possible to claim priority from two different applications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63702" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22933" RevisionGUID="261968c2-28f8-4389-b61c-7c12499d7b0e" CreationDate="2021-01-31T10:32:34.530" UserId="25312" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;description&gt;&lt;merge&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22934" RevisionGUID="c4b09350-208a-4ab8-a1e3-7f185a7b39e7" CreationDate="2021-01-31T13:28:29.743" UserId="22334" Text="Yes, it is possible. [Art. 8(1) PCT](https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/a8.html): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The international application may contain a declaration, as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; prescribed in the Regulations, claiming the priority of one or more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; earlier applications filed in or for any country party to the Paris&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the fact that the two applications relate to the same concept has no bearing on priority or the content of another application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22935" RevisionGUID="2c401279-9a9d-48e1-a6a0-15e82924a567" CreationDate="2021-01-31T13:36:18.853" UserId="18033" Text="You can request an interview with the supervisor present or file an appeal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both options may or may not be positive strategically. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second option will cost quite some money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summarized, there is no easy way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63705" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22573" RevisionGUID="20a5914e-e965-4f0f-bd62-f125aa41ec3a" CreationDate="2021-01-31T16:02:05.263" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22936" RevisionGUID="564bb0df-ce91-44c3-ad1c-76076b6c93f5" CreationDate="2021-02-01T12:40:51.523" UserId="25312" Text="Let's say there is a patent for a gear covered in gasoline where the gasoline is explicitly mentioned to be used for the lubrication of the gear. Can I patent the same gear covered in gasoline embodiment where gasoline is explicitly used for cooling as it evaporates? Or let's say there is a patent of a gear covered in sugar which is explicitly for protection against hear. Can I patent the same gear covered in sugar where sugar is explicitly for protection against oxidation? Another example is, an antibody coated eye contact lens to prevent infection but also an antibody coated contact lens to lubricate the eye (supposedly that both functions of antibodies, i.e. infection prevention and lubrication are known)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63707" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22936" RevisionGUID="564bb0df-ce91-44c3-ad1c-76076b6c93f5" CreationDate="2021-02-01T12:40:51.523" UserId="25312" Text="Can I patent the same embodiment with one functional difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63708" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22936" RevisionGUID="564bb0df-ce91-44c3-ad1c-76076b6c93f5" CreationDate="2021-02-01T12:40:51.523" UserId="25312" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22937" RevisionGUID="cc44891d-4abe-4e88-a2d4-89953e30139a" CreationDate="2021-02-01T15:14:09.790" UserId="17003" Text="To get a patent, an invention needs to be new, useful and non-obvious. New means no one knows about it. Useful means the invention must work. Non-obvious means someone skilled in the art wouldn't find the invention readily apparent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A snarky answer to your question is that because you have publicly disclosed your inventions they are known and not now patentable. However, in the US there is a grace period and I'm assuming these are just examples and not real inventions you want to patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing to remember is just because you might get a patent on something doesn't mean you have a right to use the invention. There might be another patent that covers the invention. I think this is the problem with several of your ideas. For example lets consider your gear using gasoline. You might attempt to get a patent on the use of gasoline to cool a gear. I'd say this would be obvious since evaporative cooling is well known and cooling a gear train is also well known. However, even if you did get a patent the original patent with covers a gear using gasoline to lubricate would be infringed. You might say &quot;I'm using the gasoline to cool&quot;, but the gasoline doesn't magically lose its ability to lubricate. If you implement all the aspects of a patent's claim, you infringe it. Similarly if sugar prevents wear and oxidation, you might get a patent on the oxidation prevention, but the sugar doesn't lose its anti-wear properties so you are probably infringing on the existing patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly using antibodies for infection control and lubrication. Assuming the antibodies actually have both properties, if you make contact lenses with antibodies and claim to use them for lubrication, they still prevent infection. However, you might work around the infringement if you devise a particular antibody that can be proven ineffective as an infection control but still has its lubrication properties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This all boils down to patentability versus freedom to operate. I am not a lawyer and patentability and freedom to operate analyses are highly dependent on the particulars of the invention. I highly recommend working with a patent attorney or agent with experience in the specific field." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22938" RevisionGUID="b1ced7bd-3003-46c2-a4c4-9cffb301dedd" CreationDate="2021-02-01T17:10:13.523" UserId="24389" Text="Well, a claim refers to the extent of the protection conferred by a patent. If claims are so important so why they are not mandatory for the provisional application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There has to be a reason for such a lenient attitude towards mentioning a claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63711" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22938" RevisionGUID="b1ced7bd-3003-46c2-a4c4-9cffb301dedd" CreationDate="2021-02-01T17:10:13.523" UserId="24389" Text="Why are claims not mandatory in provisional application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63712" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22938" RevisionGUID="b1ced7bd-3003-46c2-a4c4-9cffb301dedd" CreationDate="2021-02-01T17:10:13.523" UserId="24389" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22939" RevisionGUID="9c082aff-2750-4e4d-9d44-6867f57e12d6" CreationDate="2021-02-01T17:48:47.893" UserId="17003" Text="I am not a lawyer, but I think it is because the provisional application is not the application that gets examined. It needs only to sufficiently disclose the invention so that the non-provisional application can then be examined and claim the earlier priority date. Remember, claims get edited all the time as the patent examination process progresses. This doesn't mean it isn't a good idea to consider what your claims would be or even to include them in a provisional application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22940" RevisionGUID="96fcf479-c394-48f5-8306-ad75b320c006" CreationDate="2021-02-01T21:33:14.190" UserId="3076" Text="It will never be searched and any claims in it will never be examined so requiring them would contribute nothing to the process. On the other hand the description is key becasue it needs to support any claims in future non-provisional that do get examined." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22942" RevisionGUID="9b7d502b-6f8a-44ef-9b75-adabf00c5ff6" CreationDate="2021-02-01T21:56:59.323" UserId="3076" Text="No. First - you can't patent the same structure under a different theory of why you are doing it. Some claims (device, machine, system, apparatus, etc.) are to a thing. Your &quot;new&quot; thing is exactly the same, structurally as an old thing so this is 100% out.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In the other example,&#xD;&#xA;if your antibodies are *different* antibodies then you have a different thing and are OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second - Patents are also given for methods or processes. You could write a claim for a method of cooling a gear by immersing it in gasoline. It would be, in your hypothetical, rejected as not new becasue of [inherency][1]. The steps of the method have been performed before, just for a different reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_inherency" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22942" RevisionGUID="43dd2369-a3ce-48ac-bdbb-5b7cd58d411d" CreationDate="2021-02-01T22:06:33.877" UserId="3076" Comment="added 196 characters in body" Text="No. First - you can't patent the same structure under a different theory of why you are doing it. Some claims (device, machine, system, apparatus, etc.) are to a thing. Your &quot;new&quot; thing is exactly the same, structurally as an old thing so this is 100% out.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In the other example,&#xD;&#xA;if your antibodies are *different* antibodies then you have a different thing and are OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second - Patents are also given for methods or processes. You could write a claim for a method of cooling a gear by immersing it in gasoline. It would be, in your hypothetical, rejected as not new in the U.S. becasue of [inherency][1]. The steps of the method have been performed before, just for a different reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you could patent something old due to recognizing unknown inherent properties you could stop the making and using of something that pre-dated your application and that is taking something existing away from the public, a very big no no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_inherency" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22942" RevisionGUID="2199e2f5-b574-42ca-866a-b1a838a7bbc8" CreationDate="2021-02-02T00:16:16.110" UserId="3076" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="No. First - you can't patent the same structure under a different theory of why you are doing it. Some claims (device, machine, system, apparatus, etc.) are to a thing. Your &quot;new&quot; thing is exactly the same, structurally as an old thing so this is 100% out.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In the other example,&#xD;&#xA;if your antibodies are *different* antibodies then you have a different thing and are potentially OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second - Patents are also given for methods or processes. You could write a claim for a method of cooling a gear by immersing it in gasoline. It would be, in your hypothetical, rejected as not new in the U.S. becasue of [inherency][1]. The steps of the method have been performed before, just for a different reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you could patent something old due to recognizing unknown inherent properties you could stop the making and using of something that pre-dated your application and that is taking something existing away from the public, a very big no no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_inherency" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22943" RevisionGUID="270d45bc-9822-41e2-a206-a81241f9e78f" CreationDate="2021-02-02T14:21:11.200" UserId="25312" Text="If a method is patented and to conduct this method, you need to build a device that has been patented in the past although not in the exact shape and form nor for the same use, will you be having limited freedom to operate? For example, if someone has patent the pill, i.e. any chemical in the form of a pill to be swallowed, and someone else patented the use of pills for treatment, while you patented the use of pills for feeding, will you have any freedom to operate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63722" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22943" RevisionGUID="270d45bc-9822-41e2-a206-a81241f9e78f" CreationDate="2021-02-02T14:21:11.200" UserId="25312" Text="Is it possible to have the total freedom to operate for a method patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63723" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22943" RevisionGUID="270d45bc-9822-41e2-a206-a81241f9e78f" CreationDate="2021-02-02T14:21:11.200" UserId="25312" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;freedom-to-operate&gt;&lt;method&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22944" RevisionGUID="c8aeead1-6899-4120-abf6-7ab0d060385a" CreationDate="2021-02-02T18:36:17.297" UserId="3076" Text="As we used to say &quot;Do you walk to school or do you carry your lunch?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is a non-sequitur. Being granted a patent has absolutely nothing to do with *your* freedom to operate. Your patent affects other's freedom to operate. Your patent confers no positive rights for you to do anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only way your patent application process impacts your freedom to operate is *since your invention is published*, no one else can get a patent. Your invention being published does provide you freedom from a third party getting a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After publication, you getting the patent affects others freedom to operate by does not change your freedom to operate. If your application was published but not granted you would be in the exact same position regarding what you might or might not be able to do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22944" RevisionGUID="b73968ed-73a7-4387-8f57-c8bdb69876a7" CreationDate="2021-02-02T19:41:53.263" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="As we used to say &quot;Do you walk to school or do you carry your lunch?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is a non-sequitur. Being granted a patent has absolutely nothing to do with *your* freedom to operate. Your patent affects other's freedom to operate. Your patent confers no positive rights for you to do anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only way your patent application process impacts your freedom to operate is *since your invention is published*, no one else can get a patent. Your invention being published does provide you freedom from a third party getting a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After publication, you getting the patent affects others freedom to operate but does not change your freedom to operate. If your application was published but not granted you would be in the  same position regarding what you might or might not be able to do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22944" RevisionGUID="4fab21e8-1b92-40cb-bb2b-1c0d13d99e6b" CreationDate="2021-02-02T23:01:28.390" UserId="3076" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="As we used to say &quot;Do you walk to school or do you carry your lunch?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is a non-sequitur. Being granted a patent has absolutely nothing to do with *your* freedom to operate. Your patent affects others' freedom to operate. Your patent confers no positive rights for you to do anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only way your patent application process impacts your freedom to operate is *since your invention is published*, no one else can get a patent. Your invention being published does provide you freedom from a third party getting a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After publication, you getting the patent affects others' freedom to operate but does not change your freedom to operate. If your application was published but not granted you would be in the  same position regarding what you might or might not be able to do - assuming a patent was not issued to another in spite of your publication." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63728" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6055" RevisionGUID="142b39ac-23d4-419d-8309-12b73491a384" CreationDate="2021-02-03T06:06:05.573" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22945" RevisionGUID="2f21707f-78b8-4c64-8fb4-901923e2ce05" CreationDate="2021-02-03T15:17:16.737" UserId="25312" Text="I would like to ask how is obviousness of an invention assessed as it is difficult to appreciate it if you do not have experience of how several inventions have been evaluated. I think we can agree that many inventions (excluding novel chemicals) are using known concepts, i.e. they are based on existing concepts or scientific principles. I.e. it is known that we put catalysts inside the exhaust gas pipe to convert the gases. Putting the catalysts in the turbo would be novel but how obvious is it? In other words, is obvious the 'easy to come up with' or is it something else? Because most of the inventions could be easily generated by experts. Or is it, whether the invention is a common practice among experts already?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63730" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22945" RevisionGUID="2f21707f-78b8-4c64-8fb4-901923e2ce05" CreationDate="2021-02-03T15:17:16.737" UserId="25312" Text="How is obviousness assessed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63731" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22945" RevisionGUID="2f21707f-78b8-4c64-8fb4-901923e2ce05" CreationDate="2021-02-03T15:17:16.737" UserId="25312" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;&lt;non-obviousness&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22946" RevisionGUID="24ebb2f3-b8ae-40f0-81e8-c3004e5c60a2" CreationDate="2021-02-03T19:41:52.133" UserId="22334" Text="In Europe [the problem-and-solution approach](https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_vii_5.htm) is used most of the times because it is said to be an objective assessment of inventive step/non-obviousness. The same methodology is used in some other countries, most notably China and Japan. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22947" RevisionGUID="5d52807d-0e27-49f5-ab05-b2a408306090" CreationDate="2021-02-03T21:58:16.897" UserId="3076" Text="It is not a clear science but fortunately an examiner can't just say &quot;seems obvious to me&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the U.S., first the examiner must find a base reference with an embodiment that has some of the elements of your claim, but not all. It must also be in the same field or could be &quot;analogous art&quot; from a different field where the same problem is being addressed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next the examiner must find all of the elements from you claim that are missing in the base reference. They might be from slightly different fields but to convincing should be in the same ball park. In some cases it could another embodiment found in the base reference but usually it is one or more other prior art references. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the hard part, the examiner must make an argument as to why someone of ordinary skill in the art would think to combine the teachings of the assembled references to produce the claimed invention. This is clearly susceptible to hindsight bias. Everything seems obvious once you know it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There used to be a doctrine called TSM that required the examiner to cite either a teaching, a suggestion or a motivation *in the prior art* to combine the teachings.&#xD;&#xA;A SCOTUS case, [KSM][1] has had much [commentary][2]. It said TSM was a good tool but not the only way to establish obviousness. Added was &quot;obvious to try&quot;, &quot;only a few things possible to try&quot; and the issues of &quot;likeliness to succeed&quot; and &quot;unexpected results&quot; were introduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has made it harder for an applicant to overcome an obviousness rejection. One argument that still works well is that, if to turn a reference into the claimed invention it has to be made *unfit for its original purpose*. Making a bucket unable to hold anything would be an example. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSR_International_Co._v._Teleflex_Inc.&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/04/29/ksr-the-5th-anniversary-one-supremely-obvious-mess/id=24456/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22948" RevisionGUID="e05b948d-84b0-4e39-9938-0ee69e7df0c2" CreationDate="2021-02-03T22:22:28.030" UserId="25406" Text="1. Are there any official annual fees to maintain the patent right in China? If yes - what are they?&#xD;&#xA;2. How much does it **approximately** cost to get your patent drafted and submitted for application via the PCT route (officials fees, attorney fees, etc.) in China? Simple static mechanical device (no moving parts).&#xD;&#xA;3. How expensive is it to enforce your patent rights in China via courts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63735" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22948" RevisionGUID="e05b948d-84b0-4e39-9938-0ee69e7df0c2" CreationDate="2021-02-03T22:22:28.030" UserId="25406" Text="Chinese Patent Law - what are the official fees, especially annual renewal fees?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63736" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22948" RevisionGUID="e05b948d-84b0-4e39-9938-0ee69e7df0c2" CreationDate="2021-02-03T22:22:28.030" UserId="25406" Text="&lt;fees&gt;&lt;china&gt;&lt;chinese-patent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22947" RevisionGUID="79a69d93-5d2b-4add-961f-64c176df7cf4" CreationDate="2021-02-03T23:10:50.463" UserId="3076" Comment="edited body" Text="It is not a clear science but fortunately an examiner can't just say &quot;seems obvious to me&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the U.S., first the examiner must find a base reference with an embodiment that has some of the elements of your claim, but not all. It must also be in the same field or could be &quot;analogous art&quot; from a different field where the same problem is being addressed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next the examiner must find all of the elements from you claim that are missing in the base reference. They might be from slightly different fields but to convincing should be in the same ball park. In some cases it could another embodiment found in the base reference but usually it is one or more other prior art references. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the hard part, the examiner must make an argument as to why someone of ordinary skill in the art would think to combine the teachings of the assembled references to produce the claimed invention. This is clearly susceptible to hindsight bias. Everything seems obvious once you know it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There used to be a doctrine called TSM that required the examiner to cite either a teaching, a suggestion or a motivation *in the prior art* to combine the teachings.&#xD;&#xA;A SCOTUS case, [KSR][1] has had much [commentary][2]. It said TSM was a good tool but not the only way to establish obviousness. Added was &quot;obvious to try&quot;, &quot;only a few things possible to try&quot; and the issues of &quot;likeliness to succeed&quot; and &quot;unexpected results&quot; were introduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has made it harder for an applicant to overcome an obviousness rejection. One argument that still works well is that, if to turn a reference into the claimed invention it has to be made *unfit for its original purpose*. Making a bucket unable to hold anything would be an example. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSR_International_Co._v._Teleflex_Inc.&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/04/29/ksr-the-5th-anniversary-one-supremely-obvious-mess/id=24456/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22946" RevisionGUID="7268d9f8-68be-4a7f-9e06-faa2d2b36241" CreationDate="2021-02-04T07:57:01.157" UserId="22334" Comment="Added P&amp;S approach explanation" Text="In Europe [the problem-and-solution approach](https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_vii_5.htm) is used most of the times because it is said to be an objective assessment of inventive step/non-obviousness. Below I reproduce some points about it. The same methodology is used in some other countries, most notably China and Japan. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the problem-solution approach, there are three main stages: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (i) determining the &quot;closest prior art&quot;,  (ii) establishing the &quot;objective&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technical problem&quot; to be solved, and  (iii) considering whether or not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the claimed invention, starting from the closest prior art and the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; objective technical problem, would have been obvious to the skilled&#xD;&#xA;&gt; person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Key takeaways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **(i) &quot;closest prior art&quot;:** single reference that discloses the combination of features which constitutes the most promising starting point for a development leading to the invention. In selecting the closest prior art, the first consideration is that it must be directed to a similar purpose or effect as the invention or at least belong to the same or a closely related technical field as the claimed invention. In practice, the closest prior art is generally that which corresponds to a similar use and requires the minimum of structural and functional modifications to arrive at the claimed invention&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **(ii) &quot;objective technical problem&quot;:** one establishes in an objective way the technical problem to be solved. To do this one studies the application (or the patent), the closest prior art and the difference (also called &quot;the distinguishing feature(s)&quot; of the claimed invention) in terms of features (either structural or functional) between the claimed invention and the closest prior art, identifies the technical effect resulting from the distinguishing features, and then formulates the technical problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **(iii) &quot;would have been obvious to the skilled person?&quot;:**  the question to be answered is whether there is any teaching in the prior art as a whole that would (not simply could, but would) have prompted the skilled person, faced with the objective technical problem, to modify or adapt the closest prior art while taking account of that teaching, thereby arriving at something falling within the terms of the claims, and thus achieving what the invention achieves" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22949" RevisionGUID="5bb98572-b85c-40b9-abb4-f54c3940c282" CreationDate="2021-02-04T11:36:29.153" UserId="25312" Text="Is it possible to file a divisional patent for an embodiment briefly described in a granted (own) patent which does not have a specific claim for that embodiment? Is there a time limit that you can do that? And can you add more information about the embodiment in the divisional patent? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63740" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22949" RevisionGUID="5bb98572-b85c-40b9-abb4-f54c3940c282" CreationDate="2021-02-04T11:36:29.153" UserId="25312" Text="How do divisional patents work?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63741" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22949" RevisionGUID="5bb98572-b85c-40b9-abb4-f54c3940c282" CreationDate="2021-02-04T11:36:29.153" UserId="25312" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;divisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22950" RevisionGUID="78871dc8-4c98-4b28-a04e-4ba1e010e0fb" CreationDate="2021-02-04T16:02:39.500" UserId="22792" Text="I’m writing method claims for a nutritional supplement like the following—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A method of reducing [a health condition] of a subject, comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective dose of A [for doing something], and a therapeutically effective dose of B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The method recited in Claim 1, wherein A comprises one or more of the group consisting of C, D, and E.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A is means plus function while B, C, D and E are nutritional substances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve listed the therapeutically effective dose ranges of the nutritional substances in the specification, but do I need to spell these out in the claims? And do I need more “therapeutically effective dose” language in Claim 2?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63743" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22950" RevisionGUID="78871dc8-4c98-4b28-a04e-4ba1e010e0fb" CreationDate="2021-02-04T16:02:39.500" UserId="22792" Text="Spelling out doses in method claims with “therapeutically effective dose” language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63744" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22950" RevisionGUID="78871dc8-4c98-4b28-a04e-4ba1e010e0fb" CreationDate="2021-02-04T16:02:39.500" UserId="22792" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;means-plus-function&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22951" RevisionGUID="3104f3c3-dcc4-4032-9e5a-5e9a7845fe3d" CreationDate="2021-02-04T18:02:26.780" UserId="25417" Text="I am trying to understand WIPO filings. It appears that they give the right to file patents in multiple countries more easily, but don't constitute an international patent. If a WO numbered patent with EP granted status does not show a US patent number, does that mean the patent was not issued in the US as well. The EP patent was granted in 2010, does that preclude now filing in the US? Thank you! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63746" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22951" RevisionGUID="3104f3c3-dcc4-4032-9e5a-5e9a7845fe3d" CreationDate="2021-02-04T18:02:26.780" UserId="25417" Text="A 2010 patent shows a WIPO filing and granted EP patent, but no US mark. Does that mean the patent was not granted or pursued in the US?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63747" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22951" RevisionGUID="3104f3c3-dcc4-4032-9e5a-5e9a7845fe3d" CreationDate="2021-02-04T18:02:26.780" UserId="25417" Text="&lt;wipo&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22952" RevisionGUID="25dc0d86-20e7-41c3-b71b-cd9105b66c81" CreationDate="2021-02-04T19:09:54.233" UserId="3076" Text="The original application must still be pending when the divisional *application* is filed and no new matter can be added. The purpose is to claim something already disclosed but not yet claimed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22951" RevisionGUID="1f7b88f1-3cc5-429d-89ef-603ec2ca1a4d" CreationDate="2021-02-04T20:09:55.690" UserId="25417" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="I am trying to understand WIPO filings. It appears that they give the right to file patents in multiple countries more easily, but don't constitute an international patent. If a WO numbered patent with EP granted status does not show a US patent number, does that mean the patent was not issued in the US as well. The EP patent was granted in 2010, does that preclude now filing in the US? Thank you! https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2010012434A1/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22953" RevisionGUID="b9b42163-37f8-4ec7-879e-aee4d7037b4e" CreationDate="2021-02-04T21:32:37.387" UserId="3076" Text="There is no such thing as an international patent. Every location has its own patent laws including its own methods of enforcement.  A PCT application, administered via WIPO, is an application simultaneously to about 150 jurisdictions. After 30 months (31 in some places and somewhat extendable in some places) it is too late to continue the applications into the National Stage in specific places." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22954" RevisionGUID="cb8bc43a-731f-402f-8efd-1ef289c8989c" CreationDate="2021-02-05T17:07:50.300" UserId="22334" Text="The time window for entering into the US national phase is long gone and the applicant did not enter it so no protection for that invention is possible now in the US. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the European patent, it was granted on [September 2016](https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP08171362) but it was directly filed as European patent, i.e. it is not the entry into the European regional phase from the PCT. A non-exhaustive list of countries where the European patent has been validated and is in force can be found [here](https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP08171362&amp;lng=en&amp;tab=federated). Protection conferred by the European patent only exists in those countries where the validation formalities have been completed and the respective annuities are paid every year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first link above you can review the prosecution history of the European patent, including the possible existence of oppositions to the European patent (none filed in this case)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17149" RevisionGUID="32fcc0a4-35bf-4681-ae88-c98737fd41a6" CreationDate="2021-02-06T00:14:53.367" UserId="3076" Comment="made it clearer that PCT application itself is a real filing in each place and subsequent procssing is from entering a natioional or regionsl stage not from a second direct filing. And more precise about application vs publication vs issued patent." Text="## Application ##&#xD;&#xA;The life cycle of a patent starts with the application. The inventor files this application with a patent office, for example the USPTO (US Patent and Trademark Office). &#xD;&#xA;This grants them the right to say &quot;patent pending&quot;, but no enforceable protection rights. Everyone can file a patent application, containing basically everything (apart from obviously illegal texts submitted as patent applications, insults maybe or applications that don't meet the formal requirements as to how a patent application has to be submitted).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A recent patent application is published, usually 18 months after filing, and gets an publication number that starts with a country code (US, EP, ...), followed by a year (e.g. 2007) and a number. (Note: This is true for the US and Europe and many other countries, but may not be true for all countries, keep reading). This publication number is the number you normally find for applications when looking on the internet but, at least in the U.S., is not the actual *application number*. If you somehow got the actual application number and can't find it on google, try the &quot;Public Pair&quot; (http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair) for US applications or the national patent office (or Espacenet for Europe and elsewhere) for other applications to find the publication number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A recent patent application publication is followed by the 'kind code' A or A1 or A2 or ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent kind codes and publication numbers have changed in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because a patent application has been published (not every patent is), this does not mean it has or hasn't been granted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Grant ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the application there may (or may not!) come the grant of the patent. This means that the claims in the the granted patent are enforceable rights. Infringing them can get you in legal trouble. Those claims are regularly not the same as those in the application. It is normal to include very broad claims in the application and then iteratively narrow them during the examination so the granted claims are likely not to be the same as the claims in the publication. A thorough analysis can get you a hint at how much of the original might be patentable, but in the end, if you infringe the claims of an application and that claims stays in the granted claims, you could be liable for the time were the patent was a published application too. At least in the U.S. this requires you to have had notice of the publication. These rights are, confusingly, called provisional rights and have zero to do with provisional applications.      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A grant is indicated by a new patent number (they are awarded counting up, recent grants in the US start with a 10) and a 'B' kind code. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How to tell what it is ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google patents shows a summary on the right of the page where you can find other numbers the patent document has been published as. If you find a granted patent number there, the patent has been granted. Click on it to find the date of grant. If there is none, you should make sure google is not mistaken. Click on the Espacenet link and check for the &quot;published as&quot; links there again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's it. It is that simple. However ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The thing with the fees and ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not every granted patent still is enforceable. If the renewal/maintenance fees aren't paid or the patent is invalidated, the rights vanish. &#xD;&#xA;And nowadays the normal patent term is 20 yrs from filing. (https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/17059/18033 this answer provides a way to figure out if the patent has lapsed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## In which countries and are there associated patents? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From google patents click on the Espacenet link and then on family members. Those are the associated patents and/or published application. They have a country code (and it says the country if you click on it). Only countries with a granted patent in it are part of the protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PCT (international) patent applications are a single &quot;physical&quot; application that is 150+ applications in as many places. The PCT process causes preliminary searches to be performed but does not, itself, ever result in a patent. To do that one needs to enter the &quot;national stage&quot; in one or more of the 150+ designated countries. This keeps the original application alive past the 30/31 month point. And then work with the examiners in each office according to the laws and procedures of each specific office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The European Patent Office is a regional patent office. Like a countries office, it is one of the 150+ places one can enter the national stage (but would be called entering the regional stage) of a PCT application. Alternatively it is also possible to just apply to the EPO as if it were a country with no use of the PCT process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you get a patent grant from the EPO, that currently provides *no actual infringement protection* itself. At some point there will be an integrated European patent court system but now an EPO grant must be validated in one or more EPC locations to have any teeth. This is a purely bureaucratic process with no review before an EPO patent spawns a UK, DE, etc. enforceable patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are enforced in courts of the issuing country just as if they have been granted directly by a UK, DE, etc. application. One twist is that if the UK patent is invalidated there, there is no automatic effect on the DE patent. On the other hand if the EPO renewal fees are not paid all of the spawned patents go away!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Countries for a European granted patent can be looked up on the legals tab of Espacenet. This however relies on data from the national patent offices, so if in doubt, search for the national counterpart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## An example ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US20100289665?hl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Number:&#xD;&#xA;US20100289665 A1 &#xD;&#xA;This is an application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google shows us:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US8531308?hl=en&#xD;&#xA;(The granted version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&amp;NR=2010289665A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Espacenet link)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Family members:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?CC=US&amp;NR=2010289665A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=20101118&amp;DB=&amp;locale=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Itself and the PCT application (WO....))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We see, at this moment, an enforceable patent was only issued in the U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# PCT #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Overview ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A PCT application is an application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, which is an international treaty with 150ish members, as mentioned above. A key characteristic of a PCT application is that its patent number will begin with PCT (for an application number, such as PCT/US2016/012345) or WO (for a publication number, such as WO 2016/123456 A1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of the PCT system is to provide the applicant with additional time in which to select their final countries for protection. Without a PCT application, the applicant must decide which foreign countries they wish to file Paris Convention applications in before 12 months after filing the first priority document. With the PCT system, this is extended to 30–31 months from the filing date of the first priority document (and occasionally longer for certain countries). Some might therefore consider a PCT application to be nothing more than an expensive extension of time but it also provides a preliminary search and has other benifits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Dates ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under Paris, a PCT application must be filed before the end of 12 months after the earliest priority document was filed. For example, if a priority document was filed on 1 Jan 2010, the PCT application must be filed by 1 Jan 2011 in order to validly claim priority. It is also possible for a PCT application to not have any priority claim, though this is relatively rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the 30–31 month stage, the applicant must &quot;enter national phase&quot; by continuing the application in each country in which the application wishes to pursue protection. These applications are deemed to have been filed (for the purposes of prior art) at the time that the original priority document was filed. After the 30/31 month point, the PCT application has no rights outstanding, and effectively lapses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Between filing and any national phase(s), the PCT application will be searched by an International Searching Authority (ISA), and sometimes subsequently examined by an International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA) - usually the same patent office as selected by the applicant. These are national patent offices working in the capacity of ISAs and IPEAs. The applicant need not respond to these a international search report (ISR) provided by the ISA or an international preliminary report on patentability (IPRP) provided by the IPEA, so a negative finding by the ISA or IPEA will not autocratically hamper the application. But the results may be used by a national patent offices during the national phase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example timeline of a PCT application is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 Apr 2015: US provisional application filed (P1).&#xD;&#xA;1 Apr 2016: PCT application filed (WO1) claiming priority to P1 (before 12 months from P1's filing date).&#xD;&#xA;1 Oct 2016: WO1 publishes (18 months from P1's filing date), and its details are now made public on Patentscope.&#xD;&#xA;1 Oct 2017: WO1 enters national phase (30 months from P1's filing date) in selected countries, so national applications are filed in Europe, China and Japan claiming priority to P1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Finding information about a PCT ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;WIPO administers the PCT system. They provide [Patentscope](&#xD;&#xA;https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf) which allows you to check the status and documents related to a PCT application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notably, it also provides a listing of countries in which national phase has been entered. However, this is not always accurate, so further investigation would be prudent in important cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What rights does a PCT application provide? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PCT applications never directly result in a granted patent, and therefore do not directly provide rights of enforcement anywhere in the world. They effectively just act as a placeholder before the applicant needs to enter the national phase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the applications which are extended into a national/regional phase can result in a granted patent which provides rights of enforcement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, if you are considering the infringement risk presented by an other's PCT application, you should look at what applications have entered the national phase, and consider their status, rather than the status of the PCT application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17149" RevisionGUID="cc7ef89a-6950-43c8-b786-0f9dcbcac2ef" CreationDate="2021-02-06T01:02:03.723" UserId="3076" Comment="in a earier edit explain the regional nature of the EPO." Text="## Application ##&#xD;&#xA;The life cycle of a patent starts with the application. The inventor files this application with a patent office, for example the USPTO (US Patent and Trademark Office). &#xD;&#xA;This grants them the right to say &quot;patent pending&quot;, but no enforceable protection rights. Everyone can file a patent application, containing basically everything (apart from obviously illegal texts submitted as patent applications, insults maybe or applications that don't meet the formal requirements as to how a patent application has to be submitted).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A recent patent application is published, usually 18 months after filing, and gets an publication number that starts with a country code (US, EP, ...), followed by a year (e.g. 2007) and a number. (Note: This is true for the US and Europe and many other countries, but may not be true for all countries, keep reading). This publication number is the number you normally find for applications when looking on the internet but, at least in the U.S., is not the actual *application number* which, in the U.S. is in the form 16/035,349. If you somehow got the actual application number and can't find it on google, try the &quot;[Public Pair][1]&quot;  for US applications or the national patent office (or [Espacenet][2] for Europe and elsewhere) for other applications to find the publication number. By the way, Public PAIR has an unforgiving user interface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A recent patent application publication is followed by the 'kind code' A or A1 or A2 or ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patent kind codes and publication numbers have changed in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just because a patent application has been published (not every patent is), does not mean it has or hasn't been granted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Grant ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the application there may (or may not!) come the grant of the patent. This means that the claims in the the granted patent are enforceable rights. Infringing them can get you in legal trouble. Those claims are regularly not the same as those in the application. It is normal to include very broad claims in the application and then iteratively narrow them during the examination so the granted claims are likely not to be the same as the claims in the publication. A thorough analysis can get you a hint at how much of the original might be patentable, but in the end, if you infringe the claims of an application and that claims stays in the granted claims, you could be liable for the time were the patent was a published application too. At least in the U.S. this requires you to have had notice of the publication. These rights are, confusingly, called provisional rights and have zero to do with provisional applications.      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A grant is indicated by a new patent number (they are awarded counting up, recent grants in the US start with a 10) and a 'B' kind code. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How to tell what it is ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google patents shows a summary on the right of the page where you can find other numbers the patent document has been published as. If you find a granted patent number there, the patent has been granted. Click on it to find the date of grant. If there is none, you should make sure google is not mistaken. Click on the Espacenet link and check for the &quot;published as&quot; links there again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's it. It is that simple. However ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The thing with the fees and ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not every granted patent still is enforceable. If the renewal/maintenance fees aren't paid or the patent is invalidated, the rights vanish. &#xD;&#xA;And nowadays the normal patent term is 20 yrs from filing. (https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/17059/18033 this answer provides a way to figure out if the patent has lapsed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## In which countries and are there associated patents? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From google patents click on the Espacenet link and then on family members. Those are the associated patents and/or published application. They have a country code (and it says the country if you click on it). Only countries with a granted patent in it are part of the protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PCT (international) patent applications are a single &quot;physical&quot; application that is 150+ applications in as many places. The PCT process causes preliminary searches to be performed but does not, itself, ever result in a patent. To do that one needs to enter the &quot;national stage&quot; in one or more of the 150+ designated countries. This keeps the original application alive past the 30/31 month point. And then work with the examiners in each office according to the laws and procedures of each specific office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The European Patent Office is a regional patent office. Like a countries office, it is one of the 150+ places one can enter the national stage (but would be called entering the regional stage) of a PCT application. Alternatively it is also possible to just apply to the EPO as if it were a country with no use of the PCT process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you get a patent grant from the EPO, that currently provides *no actual infringement protection* itself. At some point there will be an integrated European patent court system but now an EPO grant must be validated in one or more EPC locations to have any teeth. This is a purely bureaucratic process with no review before an EPO patent spawns a UK, DE, etc. enforceable patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are enforced in courts of the issuing country just as if they have been granted directly by a UK, DE, etc. application. One twist is that if the UK patent is invalidated there, there is no automatic effect on the DE patent. On the other hand if the EPO renewal fees are not paid all of the spawned patents go away!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Countries for a European granted patent can be looked up on the legals tab of Espacenet. This however relies on data from the national patent offices, so if in doubt, search for the national counterpart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## An example ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US20100289665?hl=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Number:&#xD;&#xA;US20100289665 A1 &#xD;&#xA;This is an application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google shows us:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/patents/US8531308?hl=en&#xD;&#xA;(The granted version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&amp;NR=2010289665A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Espacenet link)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Family members:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?CC=US&amp;NR=2010289665A1&amp;KC=A1&amp;FT=D&amp;ND=&amp;date=20101118&amp;DB=&amp;locale=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Itself and the PCT application (WO....))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We see, at this moment, an enforceable patent was only issued in the U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# PCT #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Overview ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A PCT application is an application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, which is an international treaty with 150ish members, as mentioned above. A key characteristic of a PCT application is that its patent number will begin with PCT (for an application number, such as PCT/US2016/012345) or WO (for a publication number, such as WO 2016/123456 A1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of the PCT system is to provide the applicant with additional time in which to select their final countries for protection. Without a PCT application, the applicant must decide which foreign countries they wish to file Paris Convention applications in before 12 months after filing the first priority document. With the PCT system, this is extended to 30–31 months from the filing date of the first priority document (and occasionally longer for certain countries). Some might therefore consider a PCT application to be nothing more than an expensive extension of time but it also provides a preliminary search and has other benifits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Dates ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under Paris, a PCT application must be filed before the end of 12 months after the earliest priority document was filed. For example, if a priority document was filed on 1 Jan 2010, the PCT application must be filed by 1 Jan 2011 in order to validly claim priority. It is also possible for a PCT application to not have any priority claim, though this is relatively rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the 30–31 month stage, the applicant must &quot;enter national phase&quot; by continuing the application in each country in which the application wishes to pursue protection. These applications are deemed to have been filed (for the purposes of prior art) at the time that the original priority document was filed. After the 30/31 month point, the PCT application has no rights outstanding, and effectively lapses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Between filing and any national phase(s), the PCT application will be searched by an International Searching Authority (ISA), and sometimes subsequently examined by an International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA) - usually the same patent office as selected by the applicant. These are national patent offices working in the capacity of ISAs and IPEAs. The applicant need not respond to these a international search report (ISR) provided by the ISA or an international preliminary report on patentability (IPRP) provided by the IPEA, so a negative finding by the ISA or IPEA will not autocratically hamper the application. But the results may be used by a national patent offices during the national phase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example timeline of a PCT application is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 Apr 2015: US provisional application filed (P1).&#xD;&#xA;1 Apr 2016: PCT application filed (WO1) claiming priority to P1 (before 12 months from P1's filing date).&#xD;&#xA;1 Oct 2016: WO1 publishes (18 months from P1's filing date), and its details are now made public on Patentscope.&#xD;&#xA;1 Oct 2017: WO1 enters national phase (30 months from P1's filing date) in selected countries, so national applications are filed in Europe, China and Japan claiming priority to P1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Finding information about a PCT ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;WIPO administers the PCT system. They provide [Patentscope](&#xD;&#xA;https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf) which allows you to check the status and documents related to a PCT application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notably, it also provides a listing of countries in which national phase has been entered. However, this is not always accurate, so further investigation would be prudent in important cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What rights does a PCT application provide? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PCT applications never directly result in a granted patent, and therefore do not directly provide rights of enforcement anywhere in the world. They can be seen as a placeholder before the applicant needs to enter the national phase but have other properties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the applications which are extended into a national/regional phase can result in a granted patent which provides rights of enforcement. Entering a national/regional stage requires a fee determined by each location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, if you are considering the infringement risk presented by an other's PCT application, you should look at what applications have entered the national phase, and consider their status, rather than the status of the PCT application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.epo.org/searching-for-patents/technical/espacenet.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63754" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="22949" RevisionGUID="54f0aa91-27f3-429d-8589-c09cc7ce43d6" CreationDate="2021-02-06T03:41:37.447" UserId="3076" Comment="fixed title" Text="How do divisional patent applications work?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63758" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="21048" RevisionGUID="becf1cea-de14-4298-9a22-fc4422557299" CreationDate="2021-02-07T10:02:40.247" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22956" RevisionGUID="bb0209ba-1165-4101-bca7-45c61cdc3735" CreationDate="2021-02-07T12:58:58.047" UserId="25312" Text="If in my description, I describe functionally materials, will this protect my invention from any known material suitable for this function? E.g. if I describe that my invention has a lubricate, will this protect me for any lubricate, e.g. oils, polymers, gels, or any other? I am not a chemist to list all the possible chemical formulas or names for lubricants." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63760" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22956" RevisionGUID="bb0209ba-1165-4101-bca7-45c61cdc3735" CreationDate="2021-02-07T12:58:58.047" UserId="25312" Text="Is it possible to describe functionally materials instead of chemically?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63761" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22956" RevisionGUID="bb0209ba-1165-4101-bca7-45c61cdc3735" CreationDate="2021-02-07T12:58:58.047" UserId="25312" Text="&lt;description&gt;&lt;protection&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22957" RevisionGUID="4e568493-0b02-4f55-a35f-ba1c0cb8910d" CreationDate="2021-02-07T13:01:47.833" UserId="25430" Text="I made a board game so will you get a patent or intellectual property? My board game is like chess and some deep, but I don't know whether we will make money or not" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63763" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22957" RevisionGUID="4e568493-0b02-4f55-a35f-ba1c0cb8910d" CreationDate="2021-02-07T13:01:47.833" UserId="25430" Text="I made a board game, will you get a patent or intellectual property?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63764" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22957" RevisionGUID="4e568493-0b02-4f55-a35f-ba1c0cb8910d" CreationDate="2021-02-07T13:01:47.833" UserId="25430" Text="&lt;utility&gt;&lt;intellectualproperty-laws&gt;&lt;chess&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22958" RevisionGUID="41196c76-2173-400e-9c98-326198e5fd7b" CreationDate="2021-02-07T19:00:31.020" UserId="3076" Text="A lubricant is a noun (a thing, in this case) with relatively clear meaning. If you claim &quot;A machine comprising an A, a B and a lubricant . . . &quot; there is no functional defining. Anything fitting the plain meaning of lubricant consistent with the specification could constitute that element.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could claim &quot;A machine comprising an A, a B and a means for lubrication . . . &quot;. That would be functional claiming and would include any substance listed in the specification as being &quot;for lubrication&quot; and their equivalents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22958" RevisionGUID="a123f0a6-0392-4bc8-baaf-e951b51e2f90" CreationDate="2021-02-07T22:00:42.583" UserId="3076" Comment="added 286 characters in body" Text="A lubricant is a noun (a thing, in this case) with relatively clear meaning. If you claim &quot;A machine comprising an A, a B and a lubricant . . . &quot; there is no functional defining. Anything fitting the plain meaning of lubricant consistent with the specification could constitute that element. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could claim &quot;A machine comprising an A, a B and a means for lubrication . . . &quot; That would be functional claiming and would include any substance listed in the specification as being &quot;for lubrication&quot; and their equivalents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One strategy would be, in the U.S., to have one claim that said &quot;lubricant&quot; and get the plain meaning (in context) and use the functional claiming in another claim. The specification would need to have a comprehensive set of materials that would be &quot;for lubrication&quot; spelled out.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63767" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17115" RevisionGUID="085ab9f6-15a5-48a1-adab-96c7b72b083e" CreationDate="2021-02-07T22:14:59.563" UserId="3076" Comment="edited title" Text="Is this patent application granted, abandonded or pending? Which countries does it cover? Are there family members?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22958" RevisionGUID="529e91c5-3a27-4915-ac01-d4764a559068" CreationDate="2021-02-07T22:20:29.083" UserId="3076" Comment="added 273 characters in body" Text="*If you do not know what chemicals have the properties you require you may not have an enabled invention to patent.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking your example - a lubricant is a noun (a thing, in this case) with relatively clear meaning. If you claim &quot;A machine comprising an A, a B and a lubricant . . . &quot; there is no functional defining going one. Anything fitting the plain meaning of lubricant consistent with the specification could constitute that element. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could claim &quot;A machine comprising an A, a B and a means for lubricating . . . &quot; That would be functional claiming and would include any substance listed in the specification as being &quot;for lubricating&quot; and their equivalents. This does not relieve you of the task of listing materials, it is just that they do not appear in the claim wording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One strategy would be, in the U.S., to have one claim that said &quot;lubricant&quot; and get the plain meaning (in context) and use the functional claiming in another claim. The specification would need to have a comprehensive set of materials that would be &quot;for lubricating&quot; spelled out.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22958" RevisionGUID="4fdd5ebd-e944-4e48-9779-e88940423f46" CreationDate="2021-02-07T22:59:27.817" UserId="3076" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="*If you do not know what chemicals have the properties you require you may not have an enabled invention to patent.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The good news, taking your example - a lubricant is a noun (a thing, in this case) with relatively clear meaning. If you claim &quot;A machine comprising an A, a B and a lubricant . . . &quot; there is no functional defining going one. Anything fitting the plain meaning of lubricant consistent with the specification could constitute that element. If the range of chemicals you want to include can be covered properly by a generic term like lubricant or adhesive then you would be ok.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could claim &quot;A machine comprising an A, a B and a means for lubricating . . . &quot; That would be functional claiming and would include any substance listed in the specification as being &quot;for lubricating&quot; and their equivalents. This does not relieve you of the task of listing materials, it is just that they do not appear in the claim wording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One strategy would be, in the U.S., to have one claim that said &quot;lubricant&quot; and get the plain meaning (in context) and use the functional claiming in another claim. The specification would need to have a comprehensive set of materials that would be &quot;for lubricating&quot; spelled out.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22959" RevisionGUID="8e7ba8b8-789a-4005-b906-88c4d1c427df" CreationDate="2021-02-07T23:07:41.957" UserId="17003" Text="This is very difficult to answer. Patents cost money. You could possibly write and pursue a patent without the help of a patent attorney or agent and save some money. But in truth it is very hard to get an effective patent without professional help. You can search for similar patents on [Google Patents][1] or [The Lens][2] to get an idea of what such patents look like. Also, it isn't beyond possible that your game might infringe on someone else's patent. If you find a patent that seems relevant you could ask a question here about how to interpret it. Other forms of intellectual property are off topic for this site, but both copyright and trademark are available to you and easier to obtain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22960" RevisionGUID="5e490c0c-b1c7-48f0-930f-f0f5e9ff7315" CreationDate="2021-02-08T07:58:44.923" UserId="25437" Text="Maybe its two questions in one... but:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. if you have a youtube channel where you are crafting stuff (people come to watch you craft stuff). Would be okay to craft something similar to something patented?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. would it be ok afterwards to sell a &quot;how to craft it yourself&quot; build plan to people?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63773" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22960" RevisionGUID="5e490c0c-b1c7-48f0-930f-f0f5e9ff7315" CreationDate="2021-02-08T07:58:44.923" UserId="25437" Text="Can you craft something on your youtube channel similar to something which is patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63774" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22960" RevisionGUID="5e490c0c-b1c7-48f0-930f-f0f5e9ff7315" CreationDate="2021-02-08T07:58:44.923" UserId="25437" Text="&lt;freedom-to-operate&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63775" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22863" RevisionGUID="c39100b7-05a1-4cf0-9c3a-54ddb45b06b8" CreationDate="2021-02-08T09:00:20.037" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22961" RevisionGUID="0cefaabc-4f74-4702-9efa-e84f1318ee67" CreationDate="2021-02-08T14:49:57.933" UserId="17003" Text="Let me preface this by saying I am not a lawyer. That said, if you infringe a patent you can be sued. It doesn't matter if you don't sell the actual product. Think of it this way. If you make something that is patented instead of buying it you represent a lost sale to the patent owner. So my guess is you shouldn't infringe on a patent on YouTube and you shouldn't demonstrate to others how to infringe on a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you might want to do, however is determine if you are really infringing on a patent. What is protected by patents are often a lot narrower than you think. You should attempt to find the patent(s) in question and read the claims. To infringe on a claim you need to implement each and every aspect of the claim. Long complicated claims are inherently less restrictive than short simple ones. If there is a specific product and patent you are worried about then posting a question about that patent is welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22961" RevisionGUID="5b683e46-9d35-49b8-b656-546877c15f6a" CreationDate="2021-02-08T16:59:15.927" UserId="17003" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Let me preface this by saying I am not a lawyer. That said, if you infringe a patent you can be sued. In the US, It doesn't matter if you don't sell the actual product. Think of it this way. If you make something that is patented instead of buying it you represent a lost sale to the patent owner. So my guess is you shouldn't infringe on a patent on YouTube and you shouldn't demonstrate to others how to infringe on a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you might want to do, however is determine if you are really infringing on a patent. What is protected by patents are often a lot narrower than you think. You should attempt to find the patent(s) in question and read the claims. To infringe on a claim you need to implement each and every aspect of the claim. Long complicated claims are inherently less restrictive than short simple ones. If there is a specific product and patent you are worried about then posting a question about that patent is welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22962" RevisionGUID="18fa6a3f-911b-4000-9c13-eb6254e0477b" CreationDate="2021-02-09T21:50:49.430" UserId="25445" Text="According to the official [documentation](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/provisional-patents), the equivalent of provisional applications in the UK is to file an application without requesting search or examination, and subsequently, within 12 months, submit a related priority application for that invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What isn't clear in that documentation is whether this initial application needs to contain the claims or simply full disclosure in form of description + related work + figures is sufficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that's the case, would there be any benefit in adding claims to the initial application, or would it be more convenient to add them only to the priority application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63779" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22962" RevisionGUID="18fa6a3f-911b-4000-9c13-eb6254e0477b" CreationDate="2021-02-09T21:50:49.430" UserId="25445" Text="Provisional application in UK" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63780" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22962" RevisionGUID="18fa6a3f-911b-4000-9c13-eb6254e0477b" CreationDate="2021-02-09T21:50:49.430" UserId="25445" Text="&lt;provisional-application&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;uk&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22962" RevisionGUID="358d012c-c635-461f-8256-db9d0f1b99ae" CreationDate="2021-02-09T21:57:25.577" UserId="25445" Comment="added 426 characters in body" Text="According to the official [documentation](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/provisional-patents), the equivalent of provisional applications in the UK is to file an application without requesting search or examination, and subsequently, within 12 months, submit a related priority application for that invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What isn't clear in that documentation is whether this initial application needs to contain the claims or simply full disclosure in form of description + related work + figures is sufficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that's the case, would there be any benefit in adding claims to the initial application, or would it be more convenient to add them only to the priority application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And related question: if an inventor would like to take this route to get to a PCT application, would the deadline be 12 months from the initial filing? If so, going _provisional_ from the UK filing would mean that the patent would still have to be evaluated by the time of the PCT application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, what would be the correct procedure and timeline to go 1. provisional 2. final 3. PCT 4. individual countries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22962" RevisionGUID="9270793b-f3c4-4b9f-bb59-5a2dc8d0691b" CreationDate="2021-02-10T13:20:34.657" UserId="25445" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="According to the official [documentation](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/provisional-patents), the equivalent of provisional applications in the UK is to file an application without requesting search or examination, and subsequently, within 12 months, submit a related priority application for that invention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What isn't clear in that documentation is whether this initial application needs to contain the claims or simply full disclosure in form of description + related work + figures is sufficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that's the case, would there be any benefit in adding claims to the initial application, or would it be more convenient to add them only to the priority application?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And related question: if an inventor would like to take this route to get to a PCT application, would the deadline be 12 months from the initial filing? If so, going _provisional_ with the UK filing would mean that the patent would still have to be evaluated by the time of the PCT application, or how much time would the applicant have to apply for PCT from the initial application in the UK?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, what would be the correct procedure and timeline to go 1. provisional 2. final 3. PCT 4. individual countries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63783" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20770" RevisionGUID="6ba9151c-3d81-47a2-859e-9ae5239f5d6d" CreationDate="2021-02-10T14:04:50.453" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22963" RevisionGUID="52b2b9e6-56c6-4194-a63d-a972f54ab4c3" CreationDate="2021-02-10T16:50:20.577" UserId="22334" Text="I am not familiar with the requirements of UK's IPO when it comes to according a filing date, which is the relevant act for generating a priority right. At the EPO you can follow the same procedure suggested in the documentation you refer to, i.e. file an application but not proceeding further with it, and for [according a filing date all you need is](https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/a_ii_4_1.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) an indication that a European patent is sought; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) information identifying the applicant or allowing the applicant to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be contacted; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **(c) a description or reference to a single previous application.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The EPO is very explicit, you just need a description to accord a filing date. So the addition of claims is entirely up to you, and in no way that will influence the generation of a priority right. Perhaps at the UKIPO it is the same, but I do not know. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should filing claims not be necessary, then adding them in that 'provisional' strictly speaking has no real advantage if the description is well-written. Notwithstanding, I personally like to have claims drafted and have them written somewhere in the application, just because they provide explicit support for claim amendments later on. The dependencies of the claims are very useful in that regard, but if you draft the description carefully you can have the very same support even without claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the other question, the provisional will start the priority timer. At the end of the 12-months period from the provisional you must file every application you want to file that is to benefit from that priority. So if you ultimately want to have a PCT application with a valid priority, that PCT shall be filed no later than 12 months after the provisional. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The provisional UK application will not be examined or searched by the patent office, so you will not have any patentability opinion by the time you file the PCT. If you want a patentability opinion you need to pay the fees, but I do not know if the UKIPO is committed to draw up a search report like the EPO does in 6 months." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22964" RevisionGUID="db023cca-c54e-46da-b4c8-03374eeb6163" CreationDate="2021-02-10T17:03:26.473" UserId="25449" Text="This is pretty big news as for the time I'm posting this, but Warner Bros just patented the Nemesis System from Shadow of Mordor. Worth a read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2021-02-08-warner-bros-finally-secures-patent-for-shadow-of-mordors-nemesis-system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22964" RevisionGUID="aad3c980-0982-4234-ae46-483962e742b2" CreationDate="2021-02-10T18:00:55.283" UserId="25449" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="I don't know much about this subject but these 2 patents might be interesting to look at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.eff.org/pt-br/deeplinks/2015/12/loading-screen-game-patent-finally-expires&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2021-02-08-warner-bros-finally-secures-patent-for-shadow-of-mordors-nemesis-system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63787" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18158" RevisionGUID="6fcf5812-7a4e-4fd9-9b8a-e49ed5baf2a5" CreationDate="2021-02-11T08:08:15.773" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12320" RevisionGUID="c4f4d111-5119-433c-818f-3b2939ddd238" CreationDate="2021-02-11T15:11:11.460" UserId="17737" Comment="broken link fixed" Text="We (Dynatrace) have been talking and doing this for years. Back in 2010 we published the following blog post showing how we do this internally: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Eating Our Own Dog Food: How dynaTrace does Continuous APM Internally in Development with dynaTrace TA Lead Stefan Frandl][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also implemented specific features in our product that automatically takes performance and unit test KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) and measures them per build. We also baseline these metrics and alert in case there is a degradation in one of these measures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20160312115226/http://apmblog.dynatrace.com/2010/01/27/eating-our-own-dog-food-how-dynatrace-does-continuous-apm-internally-in-development-with-dynatrace-ta-lead-stefan-frandl/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63789" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12320" RevisionGUID="c4f4d111-5119-433c-818f-3b2939ddd238" CreationDate="2021-02-11T15:11:11.460" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 18033, 22334 edit id of 2146" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12357" RevisionGUID="daab049c-d19a-421f-b991-b54811cf6719" CreationDate="2021-02-11T15:11:29.190" UserId="17737" Comment="broken link fixed" Text="This should really be a comment on the question (or better yet, the question should be edited to reflect this), but: No patent or prior art can be reasonably discussed without studying the claims. This is not a patent on the &quot;idea&quot; of performance tests as part of continuous delivery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first claim is representative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A processor implemented method to perform a set of performance tests on an application in a continuous deployment pipeline, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- identifying, with a decision engine, a set of code changes between a baseline build and a new build, the baseline build and the new build being two distinct builds in a performance test environment;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- obtaining, with a test engine, a baseline test result by executing a set of customized test scripts on the baseline build in a performance test environment, the baseline build including a first code base that successfully completed the set of performance tests in the continuous deployment pipeline;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- testing, with the test engine, the new build by executing the set of customized test scripts on the new build in a performance test environment to obtain a new test result, the new build including a second code base being tested in the continuous deployment pipeline; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- determining, with a decision engine, a performance value by comparing the baseline test result and the new test result. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this fairly readable, but at a high level, this is about getting a diff between two builds, one of which is a &quot;baseline&quot; build that has successfully passed the performance tests, running the same tests on the new build, and comparing the performance test results. Further dependent claims talk about actually interesting things like attributing performance changes to specific code changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So relevant prior art would include one or more prior art references that teach *each and every one* of these steps alone or in combination. So far most of the answers talk about the general &quot;idea&quot;, but [this link](http://web.archive.org/web/20160919061215/http://apmblog.dynatrace.com/2009/05/04/performance-management-in-continuous-integration/) in a comment above seems to come closest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant snippet:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Regression Analysis**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The second part of Continuous Integration Performance Management is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; regression analysis.  Regression analysis points out performance&#xD;&#xA;&gt; degredations caused by changing parts of the application code.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In order have the basis for regression analysis we need to collect&#xD;&#xA;&gt; performance diagnosis data for each automated test run – or at regular&#xD;&#xA;&gt; intervals like at the end of each development iteration. These test&#xD;&#xA;&gt; runs are then automatically compared analyzing differences in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; execution behavior of test cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not mention comparing against &quot;baseline build&quot; but it should be straightforward to find other prior art references teaching that baselines are sensible things to have, the combination of which can support a 103 obviousness type rejection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63791" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12357" RevisionGUID="daab049c-d19a-421f-b991-b54811cf6719" CreationDate="2021-02-11T15:11:29.190" Comment="Proposed by 17737 approved by 18033, 22334 edit id of 2145" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22965" RevisionGUID="9399b76c-7f4f-4bc7-bec0-43768fd93f55" CreationDate="2021-02-11T18:48:29.347" UserId="25454" Text="I have a hybrid card-dice game.  I know I have to copyright the rules text, the card text, and any graphic artwork on the card face and/or card back; trademark the name and logo of the game, any logos, any character likenesses in the artwork itself, any slogans (I'm creator-manufacturer so far and see myself having to market this myself, so yeah slogans and ad campaigns -- but waaaaay far future); and I know I have to patent both the card and the game mechanics.  Thing is, How do I patent the game mechanics if I've already outlined them in the rule book? Or am I overthinking this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63793" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22965" RevisionGUID="9399b76c-7f4f-4bc7-bec0-43768fd93f55" CreationDate="2021-02-11T18:48:29.347" UserId="25454" Text="Hybrid Card-Dice Game: How do I protect it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63794" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22965" RevisionGUID="9399b76c-7f4f-4bc7-bec0-43768fd93f55" CreationDate="2021-02-11T18:48:29.347" UserId="25454" Text="&lt;card&gt;&lt;dice&gt;&lt;game&gt;&lt;mechanics&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22966" RevisionGUID="c6dfc359-1c18-4cc2-9edf-d44dbd70432b" CreationDate="2021-02-11T21:24:07.633" UserId="22334" Text="Many countries only grant patents for inventions that solve technical problems. Gameplay or game mechanics of a card game do not solve a technical problem, so you cannot get a patent for those. In the European Patent Convention this is explicitly laid down in [Art. 52.c](https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar52.html): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) The following in particular _shall not be regarded as inventions_ within the meaning of paragraph 1:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, _playing games_ or doing business, and programs for computers;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patenting it in the US perhaps is possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22967" RevisionGUID="62823a2f-ba40-4f8c-a352-5924a14ef0a7" CreationDate="2021-02-11T22:28:41.567" UserId="17003" Text="As The Europeist notes, patents for games isn't possible in many countries. I do believe it is possible to get a game patent in the US. However getting patents is not easy or cheap. The best way, by far, is to employ a patent attorney or agent with experience in game patents. It is possible to file and obtain a patent without professional help, but it is very likely such a patent will provide weak protection and is much less likely to actually get granted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to note, you certainly don't need to obtain a patent to market your game. The patent just provides some protection from someone marketing the same or a similar game." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22968" RevisionGUID="2a51650a-1d26-4af2-aa83-c606414799a0" CreationDate="2021-02-12T04:22:45.483" UserId="3076" Text="The USPTO is still issuing patents for card games and board games by the flow has slowed over the last few years. I filed a [patent application][1] for a board game for a client and it was essentially rejected as being abstract as a &quot;methods of organizing human activity”. This is a phrase plucked out of a SCOTUS case ([Bilski][2]) that, [in the opinion of many][3], is taken out of context to go crazy rejecting things. A later SCOTUS case ([Alice][4]) has added to the wholesale rejections and invalidation of things that would not be considered abstract by anyone 20 years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Criss cross poker casino card game with middle bet and five card bonus bet US 9564016][5] is an example of a recent patent on a game involving cards and dice. You can look up more at the USPTO patent [search][6] with a search string [CPC/&quot;A63F1/00&quot; AND DIE AND CARD].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can look at these as a start in searching the novelty of your ideas. I'm sure you know that you do not need a patent to market a product. I think most games like this are protected reasonably well by trademark, but that is not my field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110018199A1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/03/10/methods-of-organizing-human-activities/id=55607/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9564016B2&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22969" RevisionGUID="6eb8d553-7928-4488-baa7-cbe0538e0624" CreationDate="2021-02-13T18:58:11.783" UserId="22792" Text="I'm filing 2 CIPs on a US parent application that was published less than a year ago, with the specification cross-referencing the parent and a couple of later provisionals. Should the IDSs list any of those cross-referenced applications, and are copies required?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63800" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22969" RevisionGUID="6eb8d553-7928-4488-baa7-cbe0538e0624" CreationDate="2021-02-13T18:58:11.783" UserId="22792" Text="Does a CIP IDS require a copy of the parent US application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63801" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22969" RevisionGUID="6eb8d553-7928-4488-baa7-cbe0538e0624" CreationDate="2021-02-13T18:58:11.783" UserId="22792" Text="&lt;continuation-in-part&gt;&lt;ids&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22970" RevisionGUID="cc468d62-3af5-40aa-8f96-961b6d90fc6a" CreationDate="2021-02-13T19:05:04.767" UserId="3076" Text="The IDS does not need to list any U.S. applications that are claimed as priority applications. It should list everything listed on the IDSs on all previous applications or cited against them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You do not need copies of U.S. patent applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63803" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="13760" RevisionGUID="a07f186e-5f0e-4086-aed2-941fff534503" CreationDate="2021-02-13T22:07:15.903" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63804" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="21128" RevisionGUID="fce442c9-4a4c-4a8b-b87c-53fa2953848f" CreationDate="2021-02-13T23:03:25.310" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63805" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="22969" RevisionGUID="34c00dbd-d124-4f2b-a648-cb4cc0819063" CreationDate="2021-02-14T03:05:10.237" />
  <row Id="63806" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22629" RevisionGUID="52876674-2b14-4562-ac1b-12ea52a80283" CreationDate="2021-02-14T16:04:50.527" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22631" RevisionGUID="45130d90-e7c0-405d-bc42-8a98c6f1a971" CreationDate="2021-02-14T16:11:22.253" UserId="17003" Comment="Added details about the API" Text="I'm not sure it does exactly what you want, but I'd recommend looking at [The Lens][1]. It can definitely display full text in the browser window and has different download options. They are working on an API so you could ask them about that. The Lens is free and non-commercial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Lens now seems to provide an [API for patent data][2]. I've not used it, but the following quote is from the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Introducing the Lens Patent API v1.0**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We are pleased to introduce&#xD;&#xA;&gt; version 1.0 of the new patent API, providing access to the global&#xD;&#xA;&gt; corpus of Lens patent records using the flexibility and convenience of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a REST API.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The API is built on a new patent information architecture to implement&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Lens MetaRecord concept and accommodate additional data sources&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and fields that will be expanded in subsequent releases, providing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; access to comprehensive patent metadata. The versioned API allows you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to combine and perform several search operations to programmatically&#xD;&#xA;&gt; retrieve results. Scaling from the current 45 search fields to 120+&#xD;&#xA;&gt; search fields in this patent API, The Lens seeks to provide more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; flexibility in the way patent data can be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/user/subscriptions#patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63808" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22631" RevisionGUID="e664dc5f-97ef-4474-88be-36121d6e8ca8" CreationDate="2021-02-14T16:17:05.023" UserId="17003" Comment="Added details about the API" Text="I'm not sure it does exactly what you want, but I'd recommend looking at [The Lens][1]. It can definitely display full text in the browser window and has different download options. They are working on an API so you could ask them about that. The Lens is free and non-commercial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Lens now seems to provide an [API for patent data][2]. I've not used it, but the following quote is from the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Introducing the Lens Patent API v1.0**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We are pleased to introduce&#xD;&#xA;&gt; version 1.0 of the new patent API, providing access to the global&#xD;&#xA;&gt; corpus of Lens patent records using the flexibility and convenience of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a REST API.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The API is built on a new patent information architecture to implement&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Lens MetaRecord concept and accommodate additional data sources&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and fields that will be expanded in subsequent releases, providing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; access to comprehensive patent metadata. The versioned API allows you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to combine and perform several search operations to programmatically&#xD;&#xA;&gt; retrieve results. Scaling from the current 45 search fields to 120+&#xD;&#xA;&gt; search fields in this patent API, The Lens seeks to provide more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; flexibility in the way patent data can be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know under what terms there is to get access to the API. More information is available on the website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/user/subscriptions#patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22971" RevisionGUID="9fff4079-671f-45fd-94ec-622478d7cb94" CreationDate="2021-02-15T16:54:51.780" UserId="25472" Text="You could try using as search engine that (claims to) respect your privacy more. Duck Duck Go supposedly will not store your search history (or less of it for a shorter time? I forget). It might be you need to set that option, but either way it might significantly reduce your chance that someone will uncover your patent search.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63810" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12069" RevisionGUID="82b8e40d-22af-4356-8d43-e3001c076c57" CreationDate="2021-02-15T20:32:09.913" UserId="9802" Comment="Updated information." Text="[FirstToDisclose.org](http://firsttodisclose.org/) is a defensive publication service that is provided to users free of charge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is one of the services that Google suggested the USPTO use to [help examiners find relevant prior art](http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/comments/pa_e_google_20140314.pdf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: As of 2021-Feb-15, this service no longer seems to exist. (Thanks [Eric S][1].) It looks like the original list of services is no longer available either. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/users/17003/eric-s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22972" RevisionGUID="7b9e0e78-2821-4870-93a7-3ccdfb6316ed" CreationDate="2021-02-15T22:50:44.723" UserId="22792" Text="I'm using the USPTO's EFS-WEB, and after spending an hour adding documents to a new application, I had to take a break. I wasn't active for an hour and my application disappeared completely. Is this normal? Is there any way to save it? Also, is it possible to work on two applications at once? (I'm a registered user.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63812" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22972" RevisionGUID="7b9e0e78-2821-4870-93a7-3ccdfb6316ed" CreationDate="2021-02-15T22:50:44.723" UserId="22792" Text="How to avoid losing your work on the PTO's web based application system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63813" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22972" RevisionGUID="7b9e0e78-2821-4870-93a7-3ccdfb6316ed" CreationDate="2021-02-15T22:50:44.723" UserId="22792" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;application&gt;&lt;web&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22973" RevisionGUID="7efcf59b-d37b-41e3-b150-8e89eeacdf06" CreationDate="2021-02-16T20:53:38.467" UserId="3076" Text="This was issued as [US9183123B2][1]. The examination process surfaced and considered 19 previous patent documents and 25 non-patent documents - **one of which is this present stack exchange question**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No narrowing of claims took place during the U.S. prosecution - **all claims were allowed as filed** right out of the box. (As seen in Public PAIR)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9183123B2/en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22974" RevisionGUID="a01000e8-8e43-40be-80ab-6e3021750656" CreationDate="2021-02-16T21:46:13.270" UserId="22792" Text="I can't get the PTO's web system to accept my IDS. The error statement says,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The version of the USPTO Fillable Form you are attempting to attach is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; outdated. Please go the following website to access the newest forms&#xD;&#xA;&gt; available *http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/portal/forms.htm*. Use the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; export/import feature in Adobe Reader to quickly transfer data from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one form to another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I went there and got the &quot;latest&quot; version, which was the same version I'd submitted -- *Approved for use through 07/31/2012* -- and I downloaded Adobe in case that was the problem, but no go. I still got the same message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I assume this can't be the latest IDS form. Anyone know of a later one? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63817" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22974" RevisionGUID="a01000e8-8e43-40be-80ab-6e3021750656" CreationDate="2021-02-16T21:46:13.270" UserId="22792" Text="Which IDS form works on the PTO website?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63818" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22974" RevisionGUID="a01000e8-8e43-40be-80ab-6e3021750656" CreationDate="2021-02-16T21:46:13.270" UserId="22792" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;ids&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22975" RevisionGUID="794d9dae-7d59-41a6-b407-dd32e203d3e1" CreationDate="2021-02-17T01:46:41.260" UserId="3076" Text="The one labeled  *Approved for use through 07/31/2012* I wrong. That was pre- AIA. Yes, they are both on the same site - but in different places on the site.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You want the version of the form [here][2] NOT the version [here][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YWA70.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms/forms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22975" RevisionGUID="8c9d0868-d883-42ed-97d0-079305fb9a43" CreationDate="2021-02-17T01:52:49.437" UserId="3076" Comment="added 156 characters in body" Text="The one labeled  *Approved for use through 07/31/2012* is wrong. That was pre- AIA. Yes, they are both on the same site - but in different places on the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![screen shot forms post AIA][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You want the version of the form [here][2] NOT the version [here][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the proper version the data is machine-imported into the USPTO database. With the image version someone needs to type it in and mistakes can happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YLwuF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms/forms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22976" RevisionGUID="853d1320-0b4e-4c27-9f66-9f700934fa3a" CreationDate="2021-02-17T03:35:13.300" UserId="20798" Text="[The Lens](https://www.lens.org/lens/) is great. You may also see [EPO's Espacenet](https://worldwide.espacenet.com/). The results can be exported in CSV.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22977" RevisionGUID="1d3ddd37-608b-46b8-980b-029bb14cd0a1" CreationDate="2021-02-17T14:02:36.127" UserId="25478" Text="I downloaded a patent from internet and when tried to find its status that if it is active even today or not was not able to find on Intellectual Property of India website even by searching it from every aspect of it and tried it finding it with its title then found no patent on the date mentioned on the patent either from application date and publication date and patent was also done from India only.&#xD;&#xA;What could it possibly mean for the patent status? &#xD;&#xA;Or did I made any mistake in finding it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63823" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22977" RevisionGUID="1d3ddd37-608b-46b8-980b-029bb14cd0a1" CreationDate="2021-02-17T14:02:36.127" UserId="25478" Text="If I am not able to find patent then can I consider it expired?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63824" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22977" RevisionGUID="1d3ddd37-608b-46b8-980b-029bb14cd0a1" CreationDate="2021-02-17T14:02:36.127" UserId="25478" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;expiration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22978" RevisionGUID="50856b37-6e7b-4a51-96de-f3b1e418cc6c" CreationDate="2021-02-17T14:45:08.160" UserId="25445" Text="Following the great advice of @George White, i went on and checked patents against the [PUBLIC PAIR](https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair) database, to understand the flow between the applicant and the examiner, as well as [the uk equivalent](http://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-find-publication.htm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I stumbled upon [this](https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2560881) patent, and i do not unterstand the officer reply.&#xD;&#xA;He reports relevant patents showing lack of novelty. He also points out that the invention suggests something impossible that i knew was enough for rejection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yet, the patent has been published?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63826" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22978" RevisionGUID="50856b37-6e7b-4a51-96de-f3b1e418cc6c" CreationDate="2021-02-17T14:45:08.160" UserId="25445" Text="Understanding search report" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63827" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22978" RevisionGUID="50856b37-6e7b-4a51-96de-f3b1e418cc6c" CreationDate="2021-02-17T14:45:08.160" UserId="25445" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;uk&gt;&lt;response&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22978" RevisionGUID="18a17fc1-7e70-466e-8e4b-3f697c1a2738" CreationDate="2021-02-17T15:06:10.723" UserId="25445" Comment="edited body" Text="Following the great advice of @George White, i went on and checked patents against the [PUBLIC PAIR](https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair) database, to understand the flow between the applicant and the examiner, as well as [the uk equivalent](http://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-find-publication.htm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I stumbled upon [this](https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2560881) patent, and i do not understand the officer reply.&#xD;&#xA;He reports relevant patents showing lack of novelty. He also points out that the invention suggests something impossible and this should be enough for rejection afaik.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yet, the patent has been published, not even a non-final rejection?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22979" RevisionGUID="3b9d5741-9ee8-46b9-b661-7954a33fbde2" CreationDate="2021-02-17T16:50:06.037" UserId="17003" Text="Your link didn't work for me but I did go to [https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-find-publication.htm][1] and entered GB2560881 to find the particulars. If you go there you'll find a link to &quot;Letter - Search&quot; where the examiner points out that the idea is &quot;contrary to well established physical laws&quot; along with a few other issues. The Case Details page indicates the application was terminated before grant. I'm assuming it was withdrawn by the applicant based on the contents of the search letter which, to me, indicated the application would not get granted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-find-publication.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22980" RevisionGUID="764d30f7-a66f-4c04-82ce-3be71affdf27" CreationDate="2021-02-17T19:30:42.177" UserId="3076" Text="The document you link to says the status is &quot;Terminated before grant&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Ipsum - Online Patent Information and Document Inspection Service&#xD;&#xA;New Search View on Espacenet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - GB2560881 - Renewable energy wind funnel for powering of automotive&#xD;&#xA;   vehicles&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   - Case Details&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   - Application Number	GB1704048.6 &#xD;&#xA;   - Application Source	Form 1 Publication&#xD;&#xA;   - Number	GB2560881 &#xD;&#xA;   - Status	Terminated before grant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Terminated before grant* sounds bad to me. It is essentially an application for a perpetual motion machine. When I was practicing I had a potential client with the same impossible idea. This inventor was represented. If a professional took money and encouraged this inventor I see that as horrible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22979" RevisionGUID="5c58f583-fc97-4c6d-97d6-43880f8ace8f" CreationDate="2021-02-17T22:30:18.250" UserId="17003" Comment="added 120 characters in body" Text="One thing to remember is that applications get published regardless of whether they get granted or don’t get granted. &#xA;&#xA;Your link didn't work for me but I did go to [https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-find-publication.htm][1] and entered GB2560881 to find the particulars. If you go there you'll find a link to &quot;Letter - Search&quot; where the examiner points out that the idea is &quot;contrary to well established physical laws&quot; along with a few other issues. The Case Details page indicates the application was terminated before grant. I'm assuming it was withdrawn by the applicant based on the contents of the search letter which, to me, indicated the application would not get granted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-find-publication.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22982" RevisionGUID="fa9091d4-e9e0-4be2-a535-fd231c6b2c01" CreationDate="2021-02-17T23:11:05.667" UserId="25480" Text="I’m working on an AI project that may well be commercially viable.&#xA;&#xA;Does anybody know about filing for a patent for an AI program? How much information about the software model would I be required to submit, for example?&#xA;I’ve already had a look through the ‘filing for a patent’ information and I’m in the UK if it makes any difference.&#xA;&#xA;Grateful for any thoughts.&#xA;&#xA;Also, I’ve asked this on the stack AI form and they referred me here. &#xA;&#xA;Cheers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63837" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22982" RevisionGUID="fa9091d4-e9e0-4be2-a535-fd231c6b2c01" CreationDate="2021-02-17T23:11:05.667" UserId="25480" Text="Filing for a patent for a artificial intelligence program?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63838" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22982" RevisionGUID="fa9091d4-e9e0-4be2-a535-fd231c6b2c01" CreationDate="2021-02-17T23:11:05.667" UserId="25480" Text="&lt;software&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63839" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22883" RevisionGUID="4d56c6a6-43b9-41b4-a5fd-17e7a377b526" CreationDate="2021-02-18T15:00:45.080" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22983" RevisionGUID="1904bbab-2f83-4ba4-92da-06ac18f9e673" CreationDate="2021-02-18T16:31:23.683" UserId="17003" Text="This is hard to answer since you don't specify if there is anything new or novel about the AI program. In the US, I believe you can obtain patents on the application of algorithms to solving tangible problems. This may not be true in other countries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically one would not patent a computer program. The program would be protected by copyright. However if there is an underlying algorithm involved then the algorithm itself as applied to solving a specific problem might be patentable. However applying a well known technique such as neural networks to an application well suited to being solved by neural networks probably wouldn't be considered novel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for what you would need to submit, it is a requirement in all patents to &quot;enable&quot; an invention. This means you need to describe it sufficiently so that someone skilled in the field can implement it. As for where you live, it doesn't matter. What matters is where you want to protect the invention. Patents are territorial. You need a separate patent for each country. As I said, a software algorithm may not be patentable in all countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike copyrights and trademarks, patents are complicated and can be expensive and time consuming to obtain. With software especially the use of a qualified patent attorney is highly recommended. Crafting a patent that is actually protective is difficult. If the software is a web service it well may be preferable to keep the inner workings of the AI program a secret." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22984" RevisionGUID="1c2e7b29-ff64-4b76-bd01-22f1766c7115" CreationDate="2021-02-19T12:52:01.690" UserId="25445" Text="After several searches across several days, i finally stumbled upon one patent application, in Chinese, that resembles what i have invented.&#xD;&#xA;The (google translated, i suppose) claim is very broad, the purpose of the invention is also somewhat different as the invention itself is somewhat different, although, given the broad claim, it might actually cover a lot.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is also expired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What i wonder is: how to get an authoritative opinion that could be worth something, like if my patent, should it be accepted, could be enforced in court provided this related prior art?&#xD;&#xA;Would the PTO officer opinion suffice? I read of plenty of granted patents that aren't enforceable, but i do not know if the reason is only very narrow or limiting claims, or simply claims that won't be deemed as valid in court&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63842" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22984" RevisionGUID="1c2e7b29-ff64-4b76-bd01-22f1766c7115" CreationDate="2021-02-19T12:52:01.690" UserId="25445" Text="PTO search opinion: authoritative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63843" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22984" RevisionGUID="1c2e7b29-ff64-4b76-bd01-22f1766c7115" CreationDate="2021-02-19T12:52:01.690" UserId="25445" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22984" RevisionGUID="172a94f7-42e9-41b2-8872-d839d5f7b456" CreationDate="2021-02-19T12:57:40.513" UserId="25445" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="After several searches across several days, i finally stumbled upon one patent application, in Chinese, that resembles what i have invented.&#xD;&#xA;The (google translated, i suppose) claim is very broad, the purpose of the invention is also somewhat different as the invention itself is somewhat different, although, given the broad claim, it might actually cover a lot.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is also expired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What i wonder is: how to get an authoritative opinion that could be worth something, like if my patent, should it be accepted, could be enforced in court provided this related prior art?&#xD;&#xA;Would the PTO officer opinion suffice? I read of plenty of granted patents that aren't enforceable, but i do not know if the reason is only very narrow or limiting claims, or simply claims that won't be deemed as valid in court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theoretically, if i restrict the claim A from the previous patent to be A + B, my claim should be fine? (I happen to know that just A is not useful)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22984" RevisionGUID="3e00617c-0301-4710-b350-fd35fe480081" CreationDate="2021-02-19T13:04:29.183" UserId="25445" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="After several searches across several days, i finally stumbled upon one patent application, in Chinese, that resembles what i have invented.&#xD;&#xA;The (google translated, i suppose) claim is very broad, the purpose of the invention is also somewhat different as the invention itself is somewhat different, although, given the broad claim, it might actually cover a lot.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is also expired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What i wonder is: how to get an authoritative opinion that could be worth something, like if my patent, should it be accepted, could be enforced in court provided this related prior art?&#xD;&#xA;Would the PTO officer opinion suffice? I read of plenty of granted patents that aren't enforceable, but i do not know if the reason is only very narrow or limiting claims, or simply claims that won't be deemed as valid in court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theoretically, if i restrict the claim A from the previous patent to be A + B, should my application and claim be fine? (I happen to know that just A is not useful).&#xD;&#xA;In essence i would be teaching a different use for a slight modification of the prior art.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22984" RevisionGUID="89078d00-3572-4466-88a6-5cb051902d17" CreationDate="2021-02-19T15:16:23.587" UserId="25445" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="After several searches across several days, i finally stumbled upon one patent, in Chinese, that resembles what i have invented.&#xD;&#xA;The (google translated, i suppose) claim is very broad, the purpose of the invention is also somewhat different as the invention itself is somewhat different, although, given the broad claim, it might actually cover a lot.&#xD;&#xA;The patent is also expired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What i wonder is: how to get an authoritative opinion that could be worth something, like if my patent, should it be accepted, could be enforced in court provided this related prior art?&#xD;&#xA;Would the PTO officer opinion suffice? I read of plenty of granted patents that aren't enforceable, but i do not know if the reason is only very narrow or limiting claims, or simply claims that won't be deemed as valid in court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theoretically, if i restrict the claim A from the previous patent to be A + B, should my application and claim be fine? (I happen to know that just A is not useful).&#xD;&#xA;In essence i would be teaching a different use for a slight modification of the prior art.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22985" RevisionGUID="4cd3843a-5349-484e-9ca4-69b8504ac55e" CreationDate="2021-02-19T15:47:06.213" UserId="17003" Text="Since you decline to share the Chinese prior art with us, some of what I write is speculation. Many, if not most, people posting questions here assume patents cover much more than they actually do. They see long complicated claims and assume they are broad when in actuality they are narrow. The first and most basic question is whether an expired Chinese patent (or even a published application) is considered prior art. **The answer is absolutely yes**. It doesn't mean that the patent examiner would have found this prior art, but since you found it, you are legally required (at least in the US) to tell the patent office of its existence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What i wonder is: how to get an authoritative opinion that could be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; worth something, like if my patent, should it be accepted, could be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; enforced in court provided this related prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only way I know of to get an authoritative opinion is to hire a patent attorney. You are asking for a legal opinion and only a licensed attorney can provide that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I read of plenty of granted patents that aren't enforceable, but i do&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not know if the reason is only very narrow or limiting claims, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; simply claims that won't be deemed as valid in court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm only speculating, but my guess is the main limitation on enforcing a patent is narrow claims. Many people who write their own patents rather than hire an attorney do a poor job of claim construction or else don't do an adequate job of defending those claims with the examiner. There are some bad patents that get granted, but my guess is those are fewer than many think. In any case you state the Chinese patent you found is expired so it isn't a problem for infringement. It is still prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Theoretically, if i restrict the claim A from the previous patent to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be A + B, should my application and claim be fine? (I happen to know&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that just A is not useful). In essence i would be teaching a different&#xD;&#xA;&gt; use for a slight modification of the prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe or maybe not. It depends on whether A + B is legally obvious. Also, there might be another patent which covers A + B. The best you can hope for will only be protection for A + B. This is where working with an actual patent attorney is most important. If you are asking this question, then you really don't know how to construct claims. Since you don't understand claim construction your specification probably isn't written so support those claims. What all this means is you are probably saving money but not getting what you want which is an effective patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. , I do, however, have 90 patents to my name so I've been through this process before. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22986" RevisionGUID="41ef94c2-c9f4-4dad-b900-2f62f086c5d5" CreationDate="2021-02-19T23:00:37.853" UserId="3076" Text="You might be confusing infringement with patentability. They really are very different issues. In your car analogy, if someone had a *claim* on a car with four wheels and an power train and you invented the hybrid car your hybrid car would presumably infringe their patent since it has all the elements. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Importantly, you could get a patent on the hybrid car becasue they did not teach a hybrid car. You couldn't make. sell, etc. your hybrid car without their permission but no one could make a hybrid car without your ok.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A M+F claim is a different way to claim a physical thing than a normal structural claim. They both are ways to claim a thing. If you have a thing that is too close but its *use* is very different, then M+F is no help. You would consider a method claim. To complete the picture, there is such a thing as a Step+Function claim that is analogous to M+F but for methods. &quot;. . . a step for polishing . . .&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22985" RevisionGUID="801f762d-9f75-485f-b027-63d9ab2e626b" CreationDate="2021-02-20T14:52:15.567" UserId="17003" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Since you decline to share the Chinese prior art with us, some of what I write is speculation. Many, if not most, people posting questions here assume patents cover much more than they actually do. They see long complicated claims and assume they are broad when in actuality they are narrow. The first and most basic question is whether an expired Chinese patent (or even a published application) is considered prior art. **The answer is absolutely yes**. It doesn't mean that the patent examiner would have found this prior art, but since you found it, you are legally required (at least in the US) to tell the patent office of its existence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What i wonder is: how to get an authoritative opinion that could be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; worth something, like if my patent, should it be accepted, could be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; enforced in court provided this related prior art?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only way I know of to get an authoritative opinion is to hire a patent attorney. You are asking for a legal opinion and only a licensed attorney can provide that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I read of plenty of granted patents that aren't enforceable, but i do&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not know if the reason is only very narrow or limiting claims, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; simply claims that won't be deemed as valid in court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm only speculating, but my guess is the main limitation on enforcing a patent is narrow claims. Many people who write their own patents rather than hire an attorney do a poor job of claim construction or else don't do an adequate job of defending those claims with the examiner. There are some bad patents that get granted, but my guess is those are fewer than many think. In any case you state the Chinese patent you found is expired so it isn't a problem for infringement. It is still prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Theoretically, if i restrict the claim A from the previous patent to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be A + B, should my application and claim be fine? (I happen to know&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that just A is not useful). In essence i would be teaching a different&#xD;&#xA;&gt; use for a slight modification of the prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe or maybe not. It depends on whether A + B is legally obvious. Also, there might be another patent which covers A + B. The best you can hope for will only be protection for A + B. This is where working with an actual patent attorney is most important. If you are asking this question, then you really don't know how to construct claims. Since you don't understand claim construction your specification probably isn't written so support those claims. What all this means is you are probably saving money but not getting what you want which is an effective patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. I do, however, have 90 patents to my name so I've been through this process before. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22987" RevisionGUID="239af5ca-4939-4474-9c75-04d24e55387a" CreationDate="2021-02-21T12:35:41.290" UserId="25493" Text="I am curious as to patentability of critical parameters of an existing (and patented) process. For clarity I will posit a hypothetical situation analogous to a real situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Industrial material A has possibility of being made at better performance via new process class B.&#xD;&#xA;So over the years, various inventors develop variants of B, i.e. B1, B2, B3 . . . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All class B processes focus the process on a single idea, e.g. that chilling of the material from its production temperature to ambient conditions will produce a material with superior properties. This is generally observed by all researchers and industrial producers. The various different class B processes differ only in *how* this chilling is done. Most of the class B processes were invented by engineers rather than pure scientists (i.e. chemists, physicists, biologists) in the industries using material A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A new researcher X who has a pure science background, after looking in detail through decades of research data of class B type processes and being cognizant of the physical and chemical state of the starting material, realizes that *rapid heat extraction via chilling is not the sole factor involved in this transformation*. For example, X may intelligently speculate that the chill starting temperature is also very important as it affects the condition of the primary state of the material and therefore its subsequent evolution during chilling. X supports this hypothesis with extraneous but largely uncommented-on data from prior publications on B processes. X also does his/her own experiments that clearly show situations where a moderate chill from a temperature higher than that used in normal production can produce even better material. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results in terms of material performance are dramatic. Yet the only real difference **in practice** is that X has adjusted the process parameters for all class B processes with his/her insight that engineers in industry and academia have somehow missed over decades: it is definitely something not obvious to many good engineers working in that area. There is no doubt that X's contribution will have great industrial application and will surely lead to much higher performance in material A with appropriate added value to its unit cost. And it is almost certainly &quot;new&quot; to the world as the social/financial incentives for its publication/patenting are substantial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But given that it only requires an adjustment of a single process parameter to each of a class of existingly patented processes, can it be patentable ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be very interested in the opinions of patent agents/attorneys on this question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63851" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22987" RevisionGUID="239af5ca-4939-4474-9c75-04d24e55387a" CreationDate="2021-02-21T12:35:41.290" UserId="25493" Text="Patentability Of Parameter Optimization For Previously Patented Process" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63852" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22987" RevisionGUID="239af5ca-4939-4474-9c75-04d24e55387a" CreationDate="2021-02-21T12:35:41.290" UserId="25493" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;process&gt;&lt;parameter&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22987" RevisionGUID="4629bf70-ee4d-4b7a-8b72-e6bd6a3f4318" CreationDate="2021-02-21T12:43:36.363" UserId="25493" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="I am curious as to patentability of critical parameters of an existing (and patented) process. For clarity I will posit a hypothetical situation analogous to a real situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Industrial material A has possibility of being madLet's say X has no academic ambitions and simply wants to improve revenues for his/her employer and benefit industry in general with this enhanced material. e at better performance via new process class B.&#xD;&#xA;So over the years, various inventors develop variants of B, i.e. B1, B2, B3 . . . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All class B processes focus the process on a single idea, e.g. that chilling of the material from its production temperature to ambient conditions will produce a material with superior properties. This is generally observed by all researchers and industrial producers. The various different class B processes differ only in *how* this chilling is done. Most of the class B processes were invented by engineers rather than pure scientists (i.e. chemists, physicists, biologists) in the industries using material A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A new researcher X who has a pure science background, after looking in detail through decades of research data of class B type processes and being cognizant of the physical and chemical state of the starting material, realizes that *rapid heat extraction via chilling is not the sole factor involved in this transformation*. For example, X may intelligently speculate that the chill starting temperature is also very important as it affects the condition of the primary state of the material and therefore its subsequent evolution during chilling. X supports this hypothesis with extraneous but largely uncommented-on data from prior publications on B processes. X also does his/her own experiments that clearly show situations where a moderate chill from a temperature higher than that used in normal production can produce even better material than that made via a severe chill from the normal production temperature. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results in terms of material performance are dramatic. Yet the only real difference **in practice** is that X has adjusted the process parameters for all class B processes with his/her insight that engineers in industry and academia have somehow missed over decades: it is definitely something not obvious to many good engineers working in that area. There is no doubt that X's contribution will have great industrial application and will surely lead to much higher performance in material A with appropriate added value to its unit cost. And it is almost certainly &quot;new&quot; to the world as the social/financial incentives for its publication/patenting by a prior discoverer are substantial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But given that it only requires an adjustment of a single process parameter to each of a class of existingly patented processes, can it be patentable ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be very interested in the opinions of patent agents/attorneys on this question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63854" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22987" RevisionGUID="e0127813-4387-4442-b177-dd77a8987b11" CreationDate="2021-02-21T16:56:06.157" UserId="25493" Comment="Correction to previous edits that were not integrated properly. " Text="I am curious as to patentability of critical parameters of an existing (and patented) process. For clarity I will posit a hypothetical situation analogous to a real situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Industrial material A has possibility of being made at better performance via new process class B. So over the years various inventors develop variants of B, i.e. B1, B2, B3 . . . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All class B processes focus the process on a single idea, e.g. that chilling of the material from its production temperature to ambient conditions will produce a material with superior properties. This is generally observed by all researchers and industrial producers. The various different class B processes differ only in *how* this chilling is done. Most of the class B processes were invented by engineers rather than pure scientists (i.e. chemists, physicists, biologists) in those industries producing material A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A new researcher X who has a pure science background, after looking in detail through decades of research data of class B type processes and being cognizant of the physical and chemical state of the starting material, realizes that *rapid heat extraction via chilling is not the sole factor involved in this transformation*. For example, X may intelligently speculate that the chill starting temperature is also very important as it affects the condition of the primary state of the material and therefore its subsequent evolution during chilling. X supports this hypothesis with extraneous but largely uncommented-on data from prior publications on B processes. X also does his/her own experiments that clearly show situations where a moderate chill from a temperature higher than that used in normal production can produce even better material than that made via a severe chill from the normal production temperature. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results in terms of material performance are dramatic. Yet the only real difference **in practice** is that X has adjusted the process parameters for all class B processes with his/her insight: something that is definitely not obvious to many good engineers working in that area. There is no doubt that X's contribution will have great industrial application and will surely lead to much higher performance in material A with appropriate added value to its unit cost. And it is almost certainly &quot;new&quot; to the world as the social/financial incentives for its publication/patenting by any prior discoverer are substantial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But given that it essentially only requires an adjustment of a single process parameter to each of a class of existingly patented processes, can it be patentable ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be very interested in the opinions of patent agents/attorneys on this question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22988" RevisionGUID="c335f2fc-ea4e-4b52-9bbb-d8106c38a016" CreationDate="2021-02-21T18:36:57.803" UserId="3076" Text="As you describe it, this would be a patentable invention. A surprising critical range that makes a unsuspected huge difference is classic. However it is complicated by principles [like][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior&#xD;&#xA;&gt; art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; routine experimentation,&quot; citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1955); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469–70 (Fed. Cir. 1997); and In&#xD;&#xA;&gt; re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).&quot;][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patentablity is improved if the performance was not recognized as being sensitive to the exact value of the parameter. And you are in great shape if there was literature &quot;teaching away&quot;. Everybody thinks colder is better and you find out warmer is better. Also if there are dozens of parameters that might affect performance you might avoid the deadly &quot;obvious to try&quot; obviousness argument. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  The owner of a resulting patent would still need to license the existing patent for the process since you are performing all of the steps of that older patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.patentdocs.org/2018/09/e-i-du-pont-de-nemours-co-v-synvina-cv-fed-cir-2018.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22989" RevisionGUID="f7b82069-88a6-4e28-a1d5-bf9f23cdec1f" CreationDate="2021-02-21T20:02:56.193" UserId="25445" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Right now i have no idea whom to hire, possible costs etc. &#xD;&#xA;I've been contacting a few firms i found online, also here, and the best i got was a polite reply saying they are no longer in business (worst: no reply).&#xD;&#xA;So I've been considering to focus myself mostly on the description of the invention with possible claims in mind, and try to come up with claims to the best of my abilities.&#xD;&#xA;Then submit and start looking for professional help.&#xD;&#xA;As far as i understand, claims can be changed, so as long as the description of the invention is sufficiently clear and novel, there should be sufficient space for a professional to find the right formulation later on?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63857" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22989" RevisionGUID="f7b82069-88a6-4e28-a1d5-bf9f23cdec1f" CreationDate="2021-02-21T20:02:56.193" UserId="25445" Text="Is hiring a professional attorney/prosecutor after the first evaluation a good idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63858" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22989" RevisionGUID="f7b82069-88a6-4e28-a1d5-bf9f23cdec1f" CreationDate="2021-02-21T20:02:56.193" UserId="25445" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;attorney&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22990" RevisionGUID="7f99d1b1-be4c-4e9e-9f45-7bb8b33ead25" CreationDate="2021-02-21T20:42:18.917" UserId="3076" Text="I do not think you will save much money in the long run by waiting to involve a professional after you have filed your own document. There are many many ways to shoot yourself in the foot when writing a specification. It is possible to make a study of patent prosecution yourself but it is a deep and subtle field that is ever changing its rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not all practitioners are eager to take on individual inventors. You cut that down more by being an independent inventor who already drafted and filed an application and need someone to try to fix it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I was practicing I belonged to the National Association of Patent Practitioners. It is composed of about 50/50 patent agents and patent attorneys most of whom are at small firms. You are more likely to find someone suitable from their [list][1] of members than going to the USPTO's [list][2] of all registered practitioners many of which work for huge firms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there are inventors [clubs][3] around the U.S. who might be able to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.napp.org/membership&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/practitionerSearchEntry&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/inventors/independent/eye/201106/orgsjun.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63860" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22990" RevisionGUID="73a668ad-41d5-4111-a07a-98053b377d57" CreationDate="2021-02-22T01:01:18.873" UserId="3076" Comment="added 156 characters in body" Text="I do not think you will save much money in the long run by waiting to involve a professional after you have filed your own document and waited a year or more to get an initial rejection. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many many ways to shoot yourself in the foot when writing a specification and a lot can happen in the world of innovation in that year +. It is possible to make a study of patent prosecution yourself but it is a deep and subtle field that is always changing its rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not all practitioners are eager to take on individual inventors. You cut that down more by being an independent inventor who already drafted and filed an application, got a rejection and need someone to try to fix it from that point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I was practicing I belonged to the National Association of Patent Practitioners. It is composed of about 50/50 patent agents and patent attorneys most of whom are at small firms. You are more likely to find someone suitable from their [list][1] of members than going to the USPTO's [list][2] of all registered practitioners many of which work for huge firms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there are inventors [clubs][3] around the U.S. who might be able to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.napp.org/membership&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/practitionerSearchEntry&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uspto.gov/inventors/independent/eye/201106/orgsjun.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22991" RevisionGUID="3585411d-95f8-43ec-bb66-8249cc954721" CreationDate="2021-02-22T13:01:42.087" UserId="25501" Text="Suppose company A and company B jointly own the rights of a patent, and that this patent results from the work collaboration between inventor 1 (from company A) and inventors 2, 3 (from company B). Also suppose that both company A and B have internal rules to pay 30% of the revenues generated by patents to the inventors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the US patent laws, it seems that one of the companies, for example company A, could independently license the patent to a third company and not share its profits with company B. And that seems to be considered one of the perils of joint owning a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first question is: if company A licenses the patent to a third company, although it is not required to give any money to company B, is company A required by law to pay the inventors 2 and 3 (so all inventors get 10%)? Or company A could give the 30% of revenue to inventor 1 and pay nothing to inventors 2, 3 since they are employed by company B?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question below assumes companies A and B are still in the preparation phase for a joint patent submission.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My second question is: assuming company A wants to delay the patent application process or, simply, decided that it does not want to submit the patent based on the joint work. Could company B go ahead with the submission by paying all costs by itself provided that it got the signature from inventor 1 (from company A)? In other words, what I want to know is if one company could intentionally block the other company from attempting to get patent rights on a joint invention. In regards to licensing the patent rights, in the US, I know one company can act independent from the other company, but I am wondering if this is also true for the patent application process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63862" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22991" RevisionGUID="3585411d-95f8-43ec-bb66-8249cc954721" CreationDate="2021-02-22T13:01:42.087" UserId="25501" Text="Question about joint patent ownership" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63863" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22991" RevisionGUID="3585411d-95f8-43ec-bb66-8249cc954721" CreationDate="2021-02-22T13:01:42.087" UserId="25501" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;process&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22989" RevisionGUID="774b7a9e-d2cd-4edf-9a5b-d10e9f8815a6" CreationDate="2021-02-22T14:23:10.773" UserId="17003" Comment="Fixed numerous capitalization issues." Text="Right now I have no idea whom to hire, possible costs etc. &#xD;&#xA;I've been contacting a few firms I found online, also here, and the best I got was a polite reply saying they are no longer in business (worst: no reply).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I've been considering to focus myself mostly on the description of the invention with possible claims in mind, and try to come up with claims to the best of my abilities then submit and start looking for professional help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I understand, claims can be changed, so as long as the description of the invention is sufficiently clear and novel, there should be sufficient space for a professional to find the right formulation later on?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22992" RevisionGUID="c17f400e-5b68-4aa6-9655-71b3f0206a4e" CreationDate="2021-02-22T14:32:07.970" UserId="17003" Text="George White's answer is excellent and should be accepted. I'd just like to add a bit since I'm an in inventor rather than an attorney or agent. Writing a draft of an application is an excellent way to save some time and money when working with a patent attorney in that it facilitates efficient communication about the invention. However, don't expect the attorney or agent to actually use any of your own text. Most attorneys I've worked with start with the claims, and then carefully structure the specification to support those claims. A well written application can save a lot of money later in the patenting process. For this reason, I'd suspect few patent professionals would want to work on a case where they didn't have the ability to draft the application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22993" RevisionGUID="c66a1adb-1891-4f69-8e4f-2b4192273bf5" CreationDate="2021-02-22T15:07:47.307" UserId="25503" Text="If I sell a product in the US as a US resident sales agent on behalf of an EU seller of a product they manufacture in the EU that subsequently breaches a US patent can I be sued? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63867" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22993" RevisionGUID="c66a1adb-1891-4f69-8e4f-2b4192273bf5" CreationDate="2021-02-22T15:07:47.307" UserId="25503" Text="Am I able to be sued for patent infringement as an sales agent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63868" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22993" RevisionGUID="c66a1adb-1891-4f69-8e4f-2b4192273bf5" CreationDate="2021-02-22T15:07:47.307" UserId="25503" Text="&lt;liability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22994" RevisionGUID="a9f0f76a-4077-41dc-b484-1b6f3465edbf" CreationDate="2021-02-22T19:53:29.993" UserId="18033" Text="Anyone who (commercially) made, used, sold, offered to sell, or imported a patented product infringed the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, yes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22994" RevisionGUID="b28a2b27-a42f-4112-a29f-872c67ae397b" CreationDate="2021-02-22T20:07:17.853" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="Anyone who made, used, sold, offered to sell, or imported a patented product infringed the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, yes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22995" RevisionGUID="18ee51a1-0a2d-4c96-82be-06b7274353e9" CreationDate="2021-02-22T20:23:25.507" UserId="3076" Text="Your basic assumptions is flat wrong in any realistic case. Yes, in the case of joint inventors they have separate ability to practice and license the invention with no need to coordinate or transfer money between them. Not a practical commercial situation, but that is the law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, each of the inventors has assigned their rights to their respective companies *and with 100% likelihood in real life*, there is a company-to-company contract governing their joint ownership so the question you have does not come up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you insist on a hypothetical where there is no agreement between the companies, they do have separate rights to license and it is a very, very, very unlikely case and definitely *not* within the scope of this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22995" RevisionGUID="601930a5-b0fa-4eed-bc4f-e0b0124c76a9" CreationDate="2021-02-22T20:51:51.690" UserId="3076" Comment="added 473 characters in body" Text="Your basic assumptions is flat wrong in any realistic case. Yes, in the case of joint inventors they have separate ability to practice and license the invention with no need to coordinate or transfer money between them. Not a practical commercial situation, but that is the law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, each of the inventors has assigned their rights to their respective companies *and with 100% likelihood in real life*, there is a company-to-company contract governing their joint ownership so the question  about payments to inventors does not come up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they have disagreements as to the prosecution of one or more patents under their (presumed) agreement they will need to look to the terms of that contract and/or sue each other. Not patent law but contract law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you insist on a hypothetical where there is no agreement between the companies, they do have separate rights to license and it is a very, very, very unlikely case and definitely *not* within the scope of this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; One point of patent law that might be relevant is that each side, barring any agreement otherwise, can file for patents that only have claims to things specifically with conceptual contributions exclusively from their side, if any." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22995" RevisionGUID="ade269e1-902d-4273-a3ce-7a644d52307d" CreationDate="2021-02-22T21:02:53.240" UserId="3076" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="Your basic assumptions is flat wrong in any realistic case. Yes, in the case of joint inventors they have separate ability to practice and license the invention with no need to coordinate or transfer money between them. Not a practical commercial situation, but that is the law. However, the joint inventorship rules can be overcome by a contract between the parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, each of the inventors has assigned their rights to their respective companies *and with 100% likelihood in real life*, there is a company-to-company contract governing their joint ownership so the question  about payments to inventors does not come up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they have disagreements as to the prosecution of one or more patents under their (presumed) agreement they will need to look to the terms of that contract and/or sue each other. Not patent law but contract law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you insist on a hypothetical where there is no agreement between the companies, they do have separate rights to license and it is a very, very, very unlikely case and definitely *not* within the scope of this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; One point of patent law that might be relevant is that each side, barring any agreement otherwise, can file for patents that only have claims to things specifically with conceptual contributions exclusively from their side, if any." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22995" RevisionGUID="3dcae1e2-d46b-4bca-b0b2-58f1b86bc58d" CreationDate="2021-02-23T00:55:48.677" UserId="3076" Comment="added 171 characters in body" Text="Your basic assumptions is flat wrong in any realistic case. Yes, in the case of joint inventors they have separate ability to practice and license the invention with no need to coordinate or transfer money between them. Not a practical commercial situation, but that is the law. However, the joint inventorship rules can be overcome by a contract between the parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, each of the inventors has assigned their rights to their respective companies *and with 100% likelihood in real life*, there is a company-to-company contract governing their joint ownership so the question  about payments to inventors does not come up. Normally the project would have been started under a joint R&amp;D agreement that would have set out the rules they agreed to abide by in patenting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they have disagreements as to the prosecution of one or more patents under their (presumed) agreement they will need to look to the terms of that contract and/or sue each other. Not patent law but contract law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you insist on a hypothetical where there is no agreement between the companies, they do have separate rights to license and it is a very, very, very unlikely case and definitely *not* within the scope of this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; One point of patent law that might be relevant is that each side, barring any agreement otherwise, can file for patents that only have claims to things specifically with conceptual contributions exclusively from their side, if there any such claims possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22996" RevisionGUID="2c097834-28dd-4790-805f-c09cb3aec881" CreationDate="2021-02-23T03:37:45.367" UserId="25507" Text="I developed a prototype outside of work using my own materials and time. The end product would be very useful in my field of work so I showed it to my boss, who now wants me to finish development in house using his materials and paying me for my time. Will I automatically lose the rights (barring a written contract) to my invention if I begin this work, despite already creating a working prototype?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63876" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22996" RevisionGUID="2c097834-28dd-4790-805f-c09cb3aec881" CreationDate="2021-02-23T03:37:45.367" UserId="25507" Text="Prototype developed outside of work, employer wants me to finalize work in house. Do I automatically lose my IP?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63877" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22996" RevisionGUID="2c097834-28dd-4790-805f-c09cb3aec881" CreationDate="2021-02-23T03:37:45.367" UserId="25507" Text="&lt;intellectual-property&gt;&lt;invention&gt;&lt;prototype&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22996" RevisionGUID="9972b288-dc25-446d-b23f-ca9395011cbc" CreationDate="2021-02-24T00:30:53.410" UserId="3076" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="I developed a prototype outside of work using my own materials and time. The end product would be very useful in my field of work so I showed it to my boss, who now wants me to finish development in house using his materials and paying me for my time. Will I automatically lose the rights (barring a written contract) to my invention if I begin this work, despite already creating a working prototype? Located in CO, USA." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22997" RevisionGUID="581ae649-6ada-472f-be43-65268b30207a" CreationDate="2021-02-24T00:32:37.340" UserId="25430" Text="I want to obtain intellectual property for the game, and I do not want a patent for a board game similar to chess. Does ownership increase me profit more than a patent or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63880" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="22997" RevisionGUID="581ae649-6ada-472f-be43-65268b30207a" CreationDate="2021-02-24T00:32:37.340" UserId="25430" Text="Can you obtain intellectual property for board games" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63881" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="22997" RevisionGUID="581ae649-6ada-472f-be43-65268b30207a" CreationDate="2021-02-24T00:32:37.340" UserId="25430" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;novelty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22998" RevisionGUID="f4361a65-a59a-4c45-910b-ac0f9a21f01d" CreationDate="2021-02-24T13:03:51.460" UserId="25517" Text="There isn't a direct way to do this through an API.  What you'll want to do is develop a crawler, either local (e.g., automate IE or Selenium) or cloud-based. As Private PAIR access requires passing 2-factor authentication from the uspto.gov website, you'll need to build that authentication process into your framework.  As a result, you'll need to wait for the user input or have some email configured on the server to receive/handle authentication messages from PTO before you can log-in.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you log-in to the internal  Pair page, then it's just a matter of automating clicks and moving through their website while collecting data or downloading documents. Either way, it's a quite a bit of work.  Also, the USPTO is always tweaking their site and actively trying to prevent bots from accessing it, so it's a project that will require constant updates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also consider getting some commercial software that can do it.  For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ClaimMaster: https://www.patentclaimmaster.com/blog/tutorial-downloading-documents-from-pair/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pair Downloader: https://www.neustelsoftware.com/pairdownloader/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23002" RevisionGUID="36477890-687c-4bec-8fe1-44e9a7699ed1" CreationDate="2021-02-25T15:10:56.153" UserId="17003" Text="Assuming your invention is completely unrelated to your work, I would first negotiate with your employer before allowing them any access. If fact I wouldn't have disclosed it to your boss without first signing a confidentiality agreement. I'm not a lawyer and I don't know what your employment contract contains. That said, I think if you develop something on your own time with your own resources not using any knowledge related to your employment, it should be your own property. You may or may not want to license it to your employer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it would be a very good idea to consult with an intellectual property attorney before taking any additional steps. It might especially be useful to file a provisional patent application. You want to maximize the value of the invention. That might be done by licensing to your company. That might or might not be an exclusive license. In any case a lawyer can help you protect your invention and realize its full value." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22987" RevisionGUID="cd2913c4-f5b8-4112-ae1c-bacf1689a062" CreationDate="2021-02-26T11:41:37.017" UserId="25493" Comment="Clarity" Text="I am curious as to patentability of one critical parameter of an existing (and patented) process. For clarity I will posit a hypothetical situation analogous to a real situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Industrial material A has the possibility of being made at better performance via new process class B. So over the years various inventors develop variants of B, i.e. B1, B2, B3 . . . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All class B processes focus the process on a single idea, e.g. that chilling of the material from its production temperature to ambient conditions will produce a material with superior properties. This is generally observed by all researchers and industrial producers. The various different class B processes differ only in *how* this chilling is done. Most of the class B processes were invented by engineers rather than pure scientists (i.e. chemists, physicists, biologists) in those industries producing material A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A new researcher X who has a pure science background, after looking in detail through decades of research data of class B type processes and being cognizant of the physical and chemical state of the starting material, realizes that *rapid heat extraction via chilling is not the sole factor involved in this transformation*. For example, X may intelligently speculate that the chill starting temperature is also very important as it affects the condition of the primary state of the material and therefore its subsequent evolution during chilling. X supports this hypothesis with extraneous but largely uncommented-on data from prior publications on B processes. X also does his/her own experiments that clearly show situations where a moderate chill from a temperature higher than that used in normal production can produce even better material than that made via a severe chill from the normal production temperature. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results in terms of material performance are dramatic. Yet the only real difference **in processing practice** is that X has adjusted one parameter for all class B processes with his/her insight: something that was definitely not obvious to many good engineers working in that area. There is no doubt that X's contribution will have industrial application and will surely lead to much higher performance in material A with appropriate added value to its unit cost. And it is almost certainly &quot;new&quot; to the world as the social/financial incentives for its publication/patenting by any prior discoverer would have been substantial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But given that it essentially only requires an adjustment of a single process parameter to each of a class of existingly patented processes, can it be regarded as patentable ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be very interested in the opinions of patent agents/attorneys on this question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23003" RevisionGUID="b1476a28-b888-43b5-a3e0-7fc5ad6c2aba" CreationDate="2021-02-26T23:08:43.483" UserId="25533" Text="I am a licensee of an invention patent. the patents is registered in some countries only.an I manufacture the patent in the country that the patent is registered and sell it to another country that the patent is not registered and not pay the royalty fee? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63901" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23003" RevisionGUID="b1476a28-b888-43b5-a3e0-7fc5ad6c2aba" CreationDate="2021-02-26T23:08:43.483" UserId="25533" Text="Can I sell a patented product as licensee in a country that the patent is not registered?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63902" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23003" RevisionGUID="b1476a28-b888-43b5-a3e0-7fc5ad6c2aba" CreationDate="2021-02-26T23:08:43.483" UserId="25533" Text="&lt;royalty&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23004" RevisionGUID="0859ee97-f096-4113-adb5-ca52def2a2ae" CreationDate="2021-02-27T00:15:31.597" UserId="3076" Text="Patents give the owner the right to control who is allowed to make, sell, offer for sale, import and use anything that would infringe one or more claims. They are territorial so one could something in a location where no patent was issued and sell in in that or another place where no patent has issued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are a licensee, I would look to the terms of your license to see what rights that gave you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23005" RevisionGUID="4b6293d3-b9de-4467-9d4d-c5a29de0f7fb" CreationDate="2021-02-27T02:36:13.177" UserId="17003" Text="If you manufacture in a country that has a granted patent covering the product, it doesn’t matter where you sell the product. The patent still is in force and you would need to abide be your license. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23005" RevisionGUID="912ba827-4047-40d9-95e0-2d0050fcaaa3" CreationDate="2021-02-27T13:34:56.037" UserId="17003" Comment="edited body" Text="If you manufacture in a country that has a granted patent covering the product, it doesn’t matter where you sell the product. The patent still is in force and you would need to abide by your license. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23004" RevisionGUID="3fef2252-bace-4be0-b468-7ddb80b3c755" CreationDate="2021-02-27T17:19:22.000" UserId="3076" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Not likely&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents give the owner the right to control who is allowed to make, sell, offer for sale, import and use anything that would infringe one or more claims. They are territorial so one could make something in a location where no patent was issued and sell in in that or another place where no patent has issued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a licensee, I would look to the terms of your license to see what rights that gave you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23004" RevisionGUID="5ecc52d9-5815-4ce0-adc4-df1b9f63efcd" CreationDate="2021-02-27T18:26:05.760" UserId="3076" Comment="added 173 characters in body" Text="Not likely&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents give the owner the right to control who is allowed to make, sell, offer for sale, import and use anything that would infringe one or more claims. They are territorial so one could make something in a location where no patent was issued and sell in in that or another place where no patent has issued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a licensee, I would look to the terms of your license to see what rights that gave you. If it allows you to make and sell in the U.S. those are probably two different rights. *It is possible that your agreement only requires royalties on units sold in the U.S.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23006" RevisionGUID="28fe5f33-f672-4387-ba92-d51365e21983" CreationDate="2021-02-28T18:00:53.647" UserId="25541" Text="US20160255970A1 has US patent..how to identify if they have applicability in Indian and European Markets? How to find the PCT number?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63910" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23006" RevisionGUID="28fe5f33-f672-4387-ba92-d51365e21983" CreationDate="2021-02-28T18:00:53.647" UserId="25541" Text="How to find if US patent is applicable in INDIA? How to find the PCT number?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63911" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23006" RevisionGUID="28fe5f33-f672-4387-ba92-d51365e21983" CreationDate="2021-02-28T18:00:53.647" UserId="25541" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;patented&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23007" RevisionGUID="d1059cd8-2788-4093-9574-8d9e9f59412a" CreationDate="2021-02-28T23:50:18.777" UserId="17003" Text="Patents are territorial. A US patent only provides protection in the United States. US20160255970A1 is a US patent application. The invention was granted as US patent [US9730534B2][1]. There are two related US patents by the same inventor [US9930976B2][2] and [US10206527B2][3]. I looked in Espacenet and as far as I can see there are no other applications or patents in any other country. You can get to Espacenet by clicking the links provided in the Google Patents page for each patent. Then click the &quot;INPADOC patent family&quot; link. I searched Google Patents for the inventors name and there are no non-US publications at all. I'm not an expert in searching India patents so I might have missed something, but it looks like there is no equivalent patents in Europe or India.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would caution you that I am not a patent lawyer so this isn't legal advice. Also, there is always the possibility of other similar patents by other inventors so a formal freedom to operate analysis is always a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9730534B2/en?oq=US9730534B2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9930976B2/en?oq=US9930976&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10206527B2/en?oq=US10206527" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23007" RevisionGUID="4d3af9e9-8f3a-4977-a384-78aeaff6cf98" CreationDate="2021-03-01T03:22:59.800" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Patents are territorial. A US patent only provides protection in the United States. US20160255970A1 is a US patent application. The invention was granted as US patent [US9730534B2][1]. There are two related US patents by the same inventor [US9930976B2][2] and [US10206527B2][3]. I looked in Espacenet and as far as I can see there are no other applications or patents in any other country. You can get to Espacenet by clicking the links provided in the Google Patents page for each patent. Then click the &quot;INPADOC patent family&quot; link. I searched Google Patents for the inventor’s name and there are no non-US publications at all. I'm not an expert in searching India patents so I might have missed something, but it looks like there is no equivalent patents in Europe or India.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would caution you that I am not a patent lawyer so this isn't legal advice. Also, there is always the possibility of other similar patents by other inventors so a formal freedom to operate analysis is always a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9730534B2/en?oq=US9730534B2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9930976B2/en?oq=US9930976&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10206527B2/en?oq=US10206527" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63915" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19965" RevisionGUID="c18f9e19-c616-4e5b-90ab-0179cf5a50eb" CreationDate="2021-03-01T20:22:40.343" UserId="11791" Comment="Removed outdated protocol from title" Text="Is the trademark search feature on USPTO.gov (tmsearch.uspto.gov) accurate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63916" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19965" RevisionGUID="c18f9e19-c616-4e5b-90ab-0179cf5a50eb" CreationDate="2021-03-01T20:22:40.343" Comment="Proposed by 11791 approved by 18033, 21485 edit id of 2147" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23009" RevisionGUID="7f980332-0360-42d5-a5de-bea281d30139" CreationDate="2021-03-02T09:14:41.050" UserId="24753" Text="Yes, you can as RichS said, but also take in account the comment from George, at least in the United States you can not offer for sale or use that patented product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First you should check well the total amount of countries where the patent has been granted and check similar laws that forbid the offer for sale or use, for example Australia includes (offer to make, hire, sell or otherwise dispose of the product).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will end with a product/business that will be in a constant risk of getting sued after the minimal error (of course depends on the owner enforcement strategies) by you or a reseller.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should use a label on the product and any material that the client/reseller face saying :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;... This product cannot not be exported, offered to sell, use, make, hire ....... to Australia/United States/etc ...&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should try to reach some agreement with the patent owner to avoid bigger problems as you can get in problems even with an email" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23010" RevisionGUID="93c733eb-3830-472b-9e30-66f3578cedd8" CreationDate="2021-03-02T10:55:49.460" UserId="24753" Text="&#xD;&#xA;As there is no provisional filing in UK, you have the (nice) option to file a patent and not pay for it. If you do that before 31 March 2021 the cost will be £60, after that date it will be £75 when you decide to pay for the Search £150 and Sustantive examination £100 after the 12 months of the filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you file (and don't pay) you do not need to include claims nor abstract, you can send that latter (12 months limit)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.gov.uk/patent-your-invention/apply-for-a-patent&#xD;&#xA;https://www.gov.uk/patent-your-invention/after-you-apply&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if your plans are to go latter via PCT I would recommend you to go directly without middle steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to save money on the PCT search report you have to add some to the application (applicant of convenience) to increase your ISAs options (International Search Authorities) because if you are an UK citizen living in UK your only ISA available is EP (One of the best/Most expensive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The search report fees goes from 34 USD (India) to 2091 USD (EP/AT/ES/FI/SE/TR/XN/XV)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/pct/en/fees.pdf &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further savings can be obtained on the international filing fee depending on the applicant nationality and residency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if you are short on money you can file the PCT and not pay the search fee to the ISA, the application is still valid to enter on the national stage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/a17.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    (b)  The national law of any designated State may provide that,&#xD;&#xA;    where the national Office of that State finds the invitation, referred&#xD;&#xA;    to in subparagraph (a), of the International Searching Authority justified&#xD;&#xA;    and where the applicant has not paid all additional fees, those parts of &#xD;&#xA;    the international application which consequently have not been searched &#xD;&#xA;    shall, as far as effects in that State are concerned, be considered &#xD;&#xA;    withdrawn **unless a special fee is paid by the applicant to the &#xD;&#xA;    national Office of that State**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I won't recommend you not to pay the search but to find an indian friend :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further sources: &#xD;&#xA;https://www.neifeld.com/pubs/WhichROAndISAShouldYouSelectWhenFilingPCT.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23011" RevisionGUID="2ababa92-2eb8-48b7-bdc7-f6fea8aca357" CreationDate="2021-03-02T18:57:51.940" UserId="25554" Text="I was working on a piece of software, and after implementing the entire system I looked up similar devices in the USPTO search for applications. I found a patent application (submitted april 2020) that is very similar to my work, but it is also very generic. No real instruction on how to build it or what system should be used exactly, just broad fields/areas of expertise (such as &quot;deep learning&quot; to do x rather than a specific technology). They have some flow and box diagrams showing their process. I just think their scope is very broad, and don't believe it has been implemented yet (because it is very broad and seems to encompass everything under the sun).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since its just an application (A1) would I be able to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) put my work online for free (open source)?&#xD;&#xA;2) apply for a patent my own work and being more narrow? (narrow the scope of the technologies used and scope of the invention)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for your help, I am very new to patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63921" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23011" RevisionGUID="2ababa92-2eb8-48b7-bdc7-f6fea8aca357" CreationDate="2021-03-02T18:57:51.940" UserId="25554" Text="If a patent application exists can I develop an implementation and post it online?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63922" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23011" RevisionGUID="2ababa92-2eb8-48b7-bdc7-f6fea8aca357" CreationDate="2021-03-02T18:57:51.940" UserId="25554" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;utility-patent&gt;&lt;opensource&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23012" RevisionGUID="68a5eb4b-c22a-4959-80f5-2f2600fe035c" CreationDate="2021-03-02T19:28:41.593" UserId="13318" Text="The most important part of the patent application is at the end.  The end includes a list of claims that act as a &quot;fence&quot; that protects their IP.  However, keep in mind that you are reading a patent application, not an issued patent.  The Applicant is likely to amend the claims during examination and the issued claims in a patent may be different from the application.  The issued version of the claims in a patent provides the protection and what they can prevent others from doing.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible you could file your own application and you could claim something different from what they are doing in that application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23010" RevisionGUID="d5b8c08e-474b-46f9-976d-bb96e66bc79b" CreationDate="2021-03-03T08:43:21.177" UserId="24753" Comment="typo" Text="&#xD;&#xA;As there is no provisional filing in UK, you have the (nice) option to file a patent and not pay for it. If you do that before 31 March 2021 the cost will be £60, after that date it will be £75 when you decide to pay for the Search £150 and Sustantive examination £100 after the 12 months of the filing date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you file (and don't pay) you do not need to include claims nor abstract, you can send that latter (12 months limit)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.gov.uk/patent-your-invention/apply-for-a-patent&#xD;&#xA;https://www.gov.uk/patent-your-invention/after-you-apply&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if your plans are to go latter via PCT I would recommend you to go directly without middle steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to save money on the PCT search report you have to add someone to the application (applicant of convenience) to increase your ISAs options (International Search Authorities) because if you are an UK citizen living in UK your only ISA available is EP (One of the best/Most expensive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The search report fees goes from 34 USD (India) to 2091 USD (EP/AT/ES/FI/SE/TR/XN/XV)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/pct/en/fees.pdf &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further savings can be obtained on the international filing fee depending on the applicant nationality and residency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if you are short on money you can file the PCT and not pay the search fee to the ISA, the application is still valid to enter on the national stage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/a17.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    (b)  The national law of any designated State may provide that,&#xD;&#xA;    where the national Office of that State finds the invitation, referred&#xD;&#xA;    to in subparagraph (a), of the International Searching Authority justified&#xD;&#xA;    and where the applicant has not paid all additional fees, those parts of &#xD;&#xA;    the international application which consequently have not been searched &#xD;&#xA;    shall, as far as effects in that State are concerned, be considered &#xD;&#xA;    withdrawn **unless a special fee is paid by the applicant to the &#xD;&#xA;    national Office of that State**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I won't recommend you not to pay the search but to find an indian friend :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further sources: &#xD;&#xA;https://www.neifeld.com/pubs/WhichROAndISAShouldYouSelectWhenFilingPCT.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23013" RevisionGUID="6ea38948-c274-4077-bfd6-057c21b5b8d7" CreationDate="2021-03-03T09:37:46.650" UserId="24753" Text="&#xD;&#xA;If you think it covers all under the sun, gather all the documentation you have / code / etc that is older than the priority date of the patent application, make an argument and send it to the examiner on this link:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/third-party-preissuance-submissions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will help him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Under 35 U.S.C. 122(e), such submissions may be made before (1) the later of (i) 6 months after the date of publication or (ii) the date of a first Office action on the merits rejecting any claims, or (2) before the date of a notice of allowance, if earlier. Section 122(e) also provides for such fees as the Director may prescribe. This new provision was effective on September 16, 2012, and applies to any patent application.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But suppose that they get grated that wide patent, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`The American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) provides damages for infringement in the period before a patent applicant is&#xD;&#xA;granted a patent. Provisional rights, also known as pre-issuance royalties, provide a patentee with the prospect of obtaining a reasonable royalty from a third party that infringes a published application claim. This right is provided only if the third party has actual notice of the application and a patent issues from the application with a substantially identical claim` [(source)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could say that you have notice of the application, so you should take care of this provisional right, also file the third party preissuance submission and also file your own patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;`put my work online for free (open source)?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are big differences between publishing something for free, online (public domain) and using an open source **license**, if you license something is because you have certain rights over the licensed **thing**, the source code by it self does not infringe the patent but if you license it under some license like GPL v3 you are granting others some rights that you don't have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;GPL v3 says:&#xD;&#xA;`Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't grant those rights (if they finally become effective with a granted patent)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;`apply for a patent my own work and being more narrow? (narrow the scope of the technologies used and scope of the invention)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, you can try that, but do it before publishing your code online (for free, in wharever kind of licence you wanna use). If you publish your code online it will be taken as prior art by most patent offices. In the US you will have a grace period of 12 months to file the patent after the publishing of your code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1177&amp;context=njtip" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23014" RevisionGUID="929efa1e-c91d-4f72-86bf-4aba6a58b50a" CreationDate="2021-03-03T22:19:54.490" UserId="17003" Text="With regards to your second question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. apply for a patent my own work and being more narrow? (narrow the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scope of the technologies used and scope of the invention)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your invention is a patentable refinement of the previous invention, you may be able to file for a patent. However, even if your patent is granted, if the invention is covered by the claims of the previous patent (assuming it gets granted), you would still infringe on the previous patent and could be sued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance if patent a has a claim containing steps A, B and C. Your invention has a claim with steps A, B, C and D. You can protection for the addition of D, but your invention infringes since it practices A, B and C. A patent on the refinement doesn't guarantee freedom to operate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23015" RevisionGUID="64a69998-a6a4-422e-916c-0ad935513ba6" CreationDate="2021-03-03T23:44:54.107" UserId="25557" Text="I am looking into a new project for which there are a few similar technologies described in patents, but nothing that includes every novel feature I have in mind. However, one of them is written in an ambiguously broad way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to develop a device that has features A, B, C, D, E, and F; let's call that patent1. Yet patent2 covers features A, B, C, D, and E. However, the way claims of patent2 are written in a way that implies a certain organization of components to accomplish features A-E. Is it possible to sell a device with only features A-E if the features are configured differently? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Claim 1 from patent2 reads something like:&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;A device for *overall purpose* comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a *Subunit1*; and&#xD;&#xA;a *Subunit2*;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;said *Subunit1* having:&#xD;&#xA;    a *hardware1*,&#xD;&#xA;    a *hardware2*,&#xD;&#xA;    a *hardware3*, and&#xD;&#xA;    a *software1*; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;said *Subunit2* having:&#xD;&#xA;    a *hardware4*,&#xD;&#xA;    a *hardware5*, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;wherein *Subunit2* can *accomplish feature A*,&#xD;&#xA;and wherein Subunit1 can *accomplish features B, C, D, and E*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Claim 2 is a method describing specific actions to use the subunits above to get features A-E&quot;&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;*Note: all punctuation and wording outside of ** is verbatim from the patent.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on how the subunits are described in patent2, can I sell a device like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;said *Subunit1* having:&#xD;&#xA;    a *hardware1*,&#xD;&#xA;    a *hardware2*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;said *Subunit2* having:&#xD;&#xA;    a *hardware3*, and&#xD;&#xA;    a *software1*; and    &#xD;&#xA;    a *hardware4*,&#xD;&#xA;    a *hardware5*, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;wherein *Subunit2* can *accomplish feature A, B, C*,&#xD;&#xA;and wherein Subunit1 can *accomplish features D, and E*&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am assuming that I couldn't patent such a configuration, as it is probably obvious, but I am curious about where infringement standards fall on this topic. It seems to me that such a device *should* infringe on patent2, but the wording seems to narrowly describe the organization and (to some extent) the interconnection of components that could be avoided to achieve the same features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also note that, patent2 is really an extension of other patents that cover the same concept and features A-E. The intention laid out in the description of patent2 is to add a more complex analytical package (say... feature G) on top of existing patents, yet the claims are only written to describe the necessary hardware components needed to implement that analysis. The problem is that the hardware components AND the analysis listed in the claim language are generic and not really specific to the goals of the description; feature G isn't mentioned in the claims. In my mind, they are obvious components of any solution to accomplish features A-E. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully removing the specifics of the application doesn't obscure the overall purpose of the question. I am trying to keep details of the project confidential.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63928" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23015" RevisionGUID="64a69998-a6a4-422e-916c-0ad935513ba6" CreationDate="2021-03-03T23:44:54.107" UserId="25557" Text="Importance of configuration descriptions in a claim" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63929" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23015" RevisionGUID="64a69998-a6a4-422e-916c-0ad935513ba6" CreationDate="2021-03-03T23:44:54.107" UserId="25557" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23017" RevisionGUID="645dd8c8-cb22-4018-a264-104df52212dd" CreationDate="2021-03-04T01:41:41.337" UserId="3076" Text="Generally, yes, the configuration of the elements in a claim makes a difference in an infringement analysis. We often talk about a claim that requires an A, a B and a C but many inventions have a spring and lever and a weight but are very different things. Claims also define how the elements are interconnected and arranged. &quot;B&quot; could be the required relationship between A and C.  To infringe, a product has to meet the &quot;all elements&quot; criteria and some of the elements are configurations/ inter-relationships of distinct physical things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A semi-random claim (US9637082B2) is way more than &quot;a mounting portion, a mechanical energy storage system, and a trigger system&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. An actuation mechanism for releasing stored mechanical potential energy as an application force for acting on an adjacent object, the actuation mechanism comprising:&#xD;&#xA;**a mounting portion** configured for mounting the actuation mechanism to a mounting surface associated with the adjacent object;&#xD;&#xA;a **mechanical energy storage system** having a *device configured for storing mechanical potential energy* for displacing the adjacent object from, a first position to a second position, the release of the stored mechanical potential energy actuated by a trigger force; and&#xD;&#xA;**a trigger system** configured to provide the trigger force to release the stored mechanical potential energy, the trigger system including a *trigger biasing element* and a *retaining element*, such that destruction of the retaining element provides for the trigger force as a result of the trigger biasing element moving from a first trigger position to a second trigger position, the trigger system further comprising a *destructive element* for damaging a structural integrity of the retaining element, such that said release is a result of a loss of tension in the retaining element due to a decrease in the structural integrity caused by said damaging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, if the grouping of the hardware3 and hardware4 in the second subunit is actually functionally different than if they were associated with subunit 1 then you would probably not be seen as infringing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23014" RevisionGUID="059f248b-97bf-4c5f-9ccc-1e3ee9802cce" CreationDate="2021-03-04T01:51:43.037" UserId="17003" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="With regards to your second question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. apply for a patent my own work and being more narrow? (narrow the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scope of the technologies used and scope of the invention)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your invention is a patentable refinement of the previous invention, you may be able to file for a patent. However, even if your patent is granted, if the invention is covered by the claims of the previous patent (assuming it gets granted), you would still infringe on the previous patent and could be sued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance if patent a has a claim containing steps A, B and C. Your invention has a claim with steps A, B, C and D. You can get protection for the addition of D, but your invention infringes since it practices A, B and C. A patent on the refinement doesn't guarantee freedom to operate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63935" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22277" RevisionGUID="0f6929ee-a8ba-4e20-9dab-922987be0d8f" CreationDate="2021-03-04T04:08:00.877" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23018" RevisionGUID="86126f9e-10fa-4e6d-8d52-2701139bcdfe" CreationDate="2021-03-07T16:32:25.710" UserId="24598" Text="The file can only be saved after payment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23020" RevisionGUID="e410b927-2c9f-4a74-8ec1-f67ef8a9116c" CreationDate="2021-03-07T20:22:54.773" UserId="24598" Text="How to fill in the Patent PTO/SB64 form&#xD;&#xA;I did not receive the allowance and publication notice.&#xD;&#xA;Do I need to pay the following fees? &#xD;&#xA;(2) Reply and/or issue fee;&#xD;&#xA;(3) Terminal disclaimer with disclaimer fee – required for all utility and plant applications filed before June 8, 1995, and for all design applications; and.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63942" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23020" RevisionGUID="e410b927-2c9f-4a74-8ec1-f67ef8a9116c" CreationDate="2021-03-07T20:22:54.773" UserId="24598" Text="How to fill in the PTO/SB64 form" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63943" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23020" RevisionGUID="e410b927-2c9f-4a74-8ec1-f67ef8a9116c" CreationDate="2021-03-07T20:22:54.773" UserId="24598" Text="&lt;sb64&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22663" RevisionGUID="7efa3483-c4cd-478a-8bf5-3b320942d2ef" CreationDate="2021-03-08T13:46:05.030" UserId="24655" Comment="edited body" Text="Quite awhile back I came up with an invention, or I read about it somewhere even longer ago and didn't come up with it myself. At any rate it's already in production in the form of a toy in Japan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After looking around a bit I can't find any patent covering this invention. Can I still patent it for my own commercial use? How about a Dutch patent, EU or worldwide? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm really asking is whether prior art by a company in some country also provides protection for them abroad. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say I do get a worldwide patent, could the Japanese company in question just ignore it and sell any product based on the invention in Japan alone, or even worldwide? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used Espacenet but I'm not very skilled at searching for patents. In addition to that the tool uses machine translation which isn't perfect yet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63954" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="17891" RevisionGUID="953b6a49-df34-4cad-a0a6-136222a4cb63" CreationDate="2021-03-08T17:34:40.937" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="63955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23023" RevisionGUID="9660964e-2700-4fff-a13c-076e74fe6683" CreationDate="2021-03-08T21:31:31.023" UserId="25577" Text="I have an improvement to a product. Let's call the improvement &quot;A&quot; and the product &quot;B&quot;. Improvement A is not novel, product B is not novel. The way A &amp; B are combined is novel. I want to patent combining A + B. Can someone sell my improvement to users of the product B? I realize that anyone who uses A+B is infringing the patent, but suing end users is rarely good for business. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63956" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23023" RevisionGUID="9660964e-2700-4fff-a13c-076e74fe6683" CreationDate="2021-03-08T21:31:31.023" UserId="25577" Text="Can someone sell part of my patent claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63957" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23023" RevisionGUID="9660964e-2700-4fff-a13c-076e74fe6683" CreationDate="2021-03-08T21:31:31.023" UserId="25577" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23024" RevisionGUID="e978d717-6ac5-4d90-be2c-5e8f61bd4bf8" CreationDate="2021-03-09T02:38:46.220" UserId="3076" Text="If A applied to B is novel and not obvious then you might get a patent for the combination of A and B configured a specific way. Or a method of operation that only happened when A is attached to B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone selling A alone would not infringe but, as you say, the end user who attaches them together would be a *direct infringer*. A company that sold A specifically for being attached to B might be an *indirect infringer*. [See this article][1]. They might do this by their advertising or instructions that came with the A they sold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to prove that at least one person actually infringed as part of going after a big indirect infringer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.scmlaw.com/secondary-indirect-infringement-of-patents/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23024" RevisionGUID="54fec22c-3174-4e07-8e27-d31ca2302f07" CreationDate="2021-03-09T03:33:09.793" UserId="3076" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="If A applied to B is novel and not obvious then you might get a patent for the combination of A and B configured a specific way. Or a method of operation that only happens when A is attached to B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone selling A alone would not infringe but, as you say, the end user who attaches them together would be a *direct infringer*. A company that sold A specifically for being attached to B might be an *indirect infringer*. [See this article][1]. They might do this by their advertising or instructions that came with the A they sold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to prove that at least one person actually infringed as part of going after a big indirect infringer but it is the big infringer selling A for the purpose of using it with B that you would target.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.scmlaw.com/secondary-indirect-infringement-of-patents/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63960" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18215" RevisionGUID="961ed04c-9a65-465d-9a5e-4d436936c44b" CreationDate="2021-03-09T17:06:15.660" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63961" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22957" RevisionGUID="3636c386-ba21-48ec-a2d5-389ad37ea4cc" CreationDate="2021-03-10T00:07:35.750" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23024" RevisionGUID="8f85dcf0-c430-4d75-b8a0-7e5d76027f9c" CreationDate="2021-03-10T00:28:31.997" UserId="3076" Comment="added 718 characters in body" Text="If A applied to B is novel and not obvious then you might get a patent for the combination of A and B configured a specific way. Or a method of operation that only happens when A is attached to B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone selling A alone would not infringe but, as you say, the end user who attaches them together would be a *direct infringer*. A company that sold A specifically for being attached to B might be an *indirect infringer*. [See this article][1]. They might do this by their advertising or instructions that came with the A they sold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to prove that at least one person actually infringed as part of going after a big indirect infringer but it is the big infringer selling A for the purpose of using it with B that you would target.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;edit - I just saw this in a previous answer I gave. It has limited applicability if A is already in commerce as a separate product -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **see 35 US 271** (b) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;c) Whoever offers to sell or sells within the &gt;United States or imports into the United States a component of a patented machine,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or apparatus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple&#xD;&#xA;&gt; article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.scmlaw.com/secondary-indirect-infringement-of-patents/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23025" RevisionGUID="aeb91308-8eaf-475a-b1c0-f76eeec45b39" CreationDate="2021-03-10T06:51:12.557" UserId="25588" Text="I inherited this patent unfortunately I'm just becoming aware of the paperwork and or knowledge to this as of June 2020. I apologize for any inconveniences. &#xD;&#xA; Thank you for your time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63964" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23025" RevisionGUID="aeb91308-8eaf-475a-b1c0-f76eeec45b39" CreationDate="2021-03-10T06:51:12.557" UserId="25588" Text="Patient Abandoned" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63965" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23025" RevisionGUID="aeb91308-8eaf-475a-b1c0-f76eeec45b39" CreationDate="2021-03-10T06:51:12.557" UserId="25588" Text="&lt;abandoned&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23026" RevisionGUID="50226303-a5ab-45d8-9bb0-a8a61b5438d4" CreationDate="2021-03-10T16:51:35.690" UserId="17003" Text="Without knowing the actual patent number, it is impossible to provide specific guidance. For US patents, there are periodic maintenance fees required to maintain the patent. If those fees aren't paid, the patent may expire early. It is possible, in some cases, to reinstate an expired patent. [This USPTO page][1] describes what is required to maintain a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23013" RevisionGUID="b15ce380-efee-4ed7-a6c4-f9be0492b3bc" CreationDate="2021-03-11T18:11:36.577" UserId="24753" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;If you think it covers all under the sun, gather all the documentation you have / code / etc that is older than the priority date of the patent application, don’t make an argument and send it to the examiner on this link:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/third-party-preissuance-submissions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will help him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Under 35 U.S.C. 122(e), such submissions may be made before (1) the later of (i) 6 months after the date of publication or (ii) the date of a first Office action on the merits rejecting any claims, or (2) before the date of a notice of allowance, if earlier. Section 122(e) also provides for such fees as the Director may prescribe. This new provision was effective on September 16, 2012, and applies to any patent application.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But suppose that they get grated that wide patent, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`The American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) provides damages for infringement in the period before a patent applicant is&#xD;&#xA;granted a patent. Provisional rights, also known as pre-issuance royalties, provide a patentee with the prospect of obtaining a reasonable royalty from a third party that infringes a published application claim. This right is provided only if the third party has actual notice of the application and a patent issues from the application with a substantially identical claim` [(source)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could say that you have notice of the application, so you should take care of this provisional right, also file the third party preissuance submission and also file your own patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;`put my work online for free (open source)?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are big differences between publishing something for free, online (public domain) and using an open source **license**, if you license something is because you have certain rights over the licensed **thing**, the source code by it self does not infringe the patent but if you license it under some license like GPL v3 you are granting others some rights that you don't have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;GPL v3 says:&#xD;&#xA;`Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't grant those rights (if they finally become effective with a granted patent)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;`apply for a patent my own work and being more narrow? (narrow the scope of the technologies used and scope of the invention)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, you can try that, but do it before publishing your code online (for free, in wharever kind of licence you wanna use). If you publish your code online it will be taken as prior art by most patent offices. In the US you will have a grace period of 12 months to file the patent after the publishing of your code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1177&amp;context=njtip" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23027" RevisionGUID="bbfe800b-29fe-4fee-b773-c6c7bf7da891" CreationDate="2021-03-12T02:01:17.153" UserId="3076" Text="There is a USPTO department (Art Unit) of examiners dedicated to things like board games but ever since the [Alice decision][1] it has been very hard to get and keep a board game patent. Before that SCOTUS case these patents were readily issued for inventions that were novel and not obvious. Now it is very easy for an examiner to say a claim is &quot;abstract&quot; - now very frequently the magic word that kills an application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specific reason given is often that your claim is &quot;certain methods of arranging  human activities&quot; even though the Alice ruling does not make it clear what that that means or when it is applicable as a reason to call something abstract. One law firm has a web page called [Alice Watch][2] that keeps track of what cases have been won and lost since Alice at the PTAB, Federal Circuit and district courts. You can read the rulings for cases that both lost and the much, much fewer that won. I am responsible for one of the PTAB appeals that lost. You can put in a keyword like &quot;game&quot; to cut down the display to relevant cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.fenwick.com/post-alice" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23027" RevisionGUID="c80e8a0e-5a5b-4812-9e35-9c8a2f2df7ee" CreationDate="2021-03-12T02:45:18.160" UserId="3076" Comment="typos" Text="There is a USPTO department (Art Units 3714  and 3715) of examiners dedicated to things like board games but ever since the [Alice decision][1] it has been very hard to get and keep a board game patent. Before that SCOTUS case these patents were readily issued for inventions that were novel and not obvious. Now it is very easy for an examiner to say a claim is &quot;abstract&quot; - now very frequently the magic word that kills an application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specific reason given is often that your claim is &quot;certain method of arranging  human activities&quot; even though the Alice ruling does not make it clear what that that means or when it is applicable as a reason to call something abstract. One law firm has a web page called [Alice Watch][2] that keeps track of what cases have been won and lost on abstractness at the PTAB, Federal Circuit, and district courts since Alice. You can read the rulings for cases that both lost and the much, much fewer that won. I am responsible for one of the PTAB appeals that lost. You can put in a keyword like &quot;game&quot; to cut down the display to relevant cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.fenwick.com/post-alice" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63970" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="0d1c2d08-c764-47ab-91a9-406663dfb638" CreationDate="2021-03-12T06:07:35.693" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63971" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22385" RevisionGUID="74cd2a19-5454-46a0-a17b-3c9ae970a244" CreationDate="2021-03-12T10:06:35.617" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63972" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="23025" RevisionGUID="66b2ce54-8c7f-4eed-a617-1297a07d0f64" CreationDate="2021-03-12T15:00:31.617" UserId="25445" Comment="fix typo in the title" Text="Patent Abandoned" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63973" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="23025" RevisionGUID="66b2ce54-8c7f-4eed-a617-1297a07d0f64" CreationDate="2021-03-12T15:00:31.617" Comment="Proposed by 25445 approved by 18033, 17003 edit id of 2148" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17011" RevisionGUID="215f0645-77e0-4bd5-88ac-7f3d5e60a9fc" CreationDate="2021-03-12T15:02:00.373" UserId="22953" Comment="Sentences are breaths; paragraphs are breaks." Text="Performing a thorough patent search is a significant effort. Some people make a career of it. I think you should try to do it yourself first and then ask for help if you get stuck. Even though I don't consider myself a professional, here are some tips:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, it can be useful to do a basic Google search for such products. From this you can see which companies make competitive products. If you see something, you will want to search for that companies patents in particular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, use a patent specific search site. The two free ones I like are [Google Patents][1] and [The Lens][2]. I especially like The Lens. Initially just put search terms in and see what pops out. For instance using the terms &quot;baseball cap ponytail&quot; and limiting to US documents yielded 82 hits on The Lens. Be careful not to to be too specific. &quot;Cap&quot; might not find a patent which only uses the term &quot;hat&quot;. You can refine the terms, limit the search to US documents, etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you find some relevant patents/applications, look at them for cited patents. This will give you some more prior art. Also, experts use the classification codes to help refine the search. When you find particularly important patents, then it is good to use the [US Public Pair][3] site for research. Here you can review the communications between the examiner and the applicants, see all the prior art the examiner used, determine the legal status of the patent, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a few hours of work, you should be able to get a pretty good start on identifying relevant patents. Remember, it is the claims that define what the patent is covering. I usually look at the claims and the figures first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't eliminate the need for a professional at some point while pursuing your own patent, but doing a search for yourself will greatly speed any subsequent searches (and save you some money).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63975" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17011" RevisionGUID="215f0645-77e0-4bd5-88ac-7f3d5e60a9fc" CreationDate="2021-03-12T15:02:00.373" Comment="Proposed by 22953 approved by 18033, 17003 edit id of 2144" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17011" RevisionGUID="4e307779-6dc7-4c10-b27e-fda176810c38" CreationDate="2021-03-12T22:31:39.100" UserId="17003" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Performing a thorough patent search is a significant effort. Some people make a career of it. I think you should try to do it yourself first and then ask for help if you get stuck. Even though I don't consider myself a professional, here are some tips:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, it can be useful to do a basic Google search for such products. From this you can see which companies make competitive products. If you see something, you will want to search for that companies patents in particular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, use a patent specific search site. The two free ones I like are [Google Patents][1] and [The Lens][2]. I especially like The Lens. Initially just put search terms in and see what pops out. For instance using the terms &quot;baseball cap ponytail&quot; and limiting to US documents yielded 82 hits on The Lens. Be careful not to to be too specific. &quot;Cap&quot; might not find a patent which only uses the term &quot;hat&quot;. You can refine the terms, limit the search to US documents, etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you find some relevant patents/applications, look at them for cited patents. This will give you some more prior art. Also, experts use the classification codes to help refine the search. When you find particularly important patents, then it is good to use the [US Public Pair][3] site for research. Here you can review the communications between the examiner and the applicants, see all the prior art the examiner used, determine the legal status of the patent, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a few hours of work, you should be able to get a pretty good start on identifying relevant patents. Remember, it is the claims that define what the patent is covering. I usually look at the claims and the figures first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't eliminate the need for a professional at some point while pursuing your own patent, but doing a search for yourself will greatly speed any subsequent searches (and potentially save you some money).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23028" RevisionGUID="638512ab-d182-4ecf-b896-11c11edd1b66" CreationDate="2021-03-15T16:20:23.333" UserId="25618" Text="Regarding U.S. patent law under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, I'm wondering how the phrase *[actual filing date][1]* is defined (37 CFR §1.109).  What value does the USPTO use as the official *actual filing date*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, is *actual filing date* defined to be the date that appears on the patent application paperwork?  This seems unlikely because the date on the application paperwork could be just about anything—e.g., a typo that yields an application date that is far into the future: the year 2021 is incorrectly specified as 2201.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is the *actual filing date* defined via a date stamp (or timestamp) that the USPTO affixes onto the application paperwork, or a timestamp that is entered into a computer database record that's associated with the application paperwork, after the application paperwork arrives at the USPTO?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.109" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63978" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23028" RevisionGUID="638512ab-d182-4ecf-b896-11c11edd1b66" CreationDate="2021-03-15T16:20:23.333" UserId="25618" Text="How is &quot;actual filing date&quot; defined?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63979" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23028" RevisionGUID="638512ab-d182-4ecf-b896-11c11edd1b66" CreationDate="2021-03-15T16:20:23.333" UserId="25618" Text="&lt;filing-date&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18728" RevisionGUID="e07cf9ff-f209-4470-b9eb-c8c5ffcc8928" CreationDate="2021-03-15T18:10:54.917" UserId="3076" Comment="edited to remove link" Text="This topic has come up here several times before. There are many helpful answers you can see by searching &quot;defensive publication&quot; on Ask Patents. Also, it is not expensive, but to publish on ip.com you still need to buy &quot;vouchers&quot; from them, I believe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some others of the defensive publication sites specialize. For example, OIN (Open Invention Network) *had* a site www.defensivepublications.org at one time that was related to OIN's mission to keep Linux open. This seems to now be gone (March 2021)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.defensivepublications.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23029" RevisionGUID="60157e62-f2d4-43a2-ae2d-20e42f8963d0" CreationDate="2021-03-15T18:49:00.797" UserId="3076" Text="Date stamps in computers are involved.  It is assigned by the USPTO either when the envelope containing a paper application arrives by mail (except in the case of USPS Express Mail) or at the acceptance window or when the servers providing electronic filing receive a submit via EFS-Web using the time in Alexandria VA. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it arrives by USPS Express Mail, the date of mailing *as of the location of mailing is used.* To protect themselves the applicant should have a physical receipt with the tracking number and mail date and the tracking number should be written on the first page of the paperwork in the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can all be more complicated than one might think see the [relevant section of the MPEP][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some corner case you are worried about?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://512%20Certificate%20of%20Mailing%20or%20Transmission%20[R-10.2019]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23029" RevisionGUID="23aeb6fb-b43e-4cda-899b-d1917de817f1" CreationDate="2021-03-15T18:59:28.340" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Date stamps in computers are involved.  It is assigned by the USPTO either when the envelope containing a paper application arrives by mail (except in the case of USPS Express Mail) or at the acceptance window or when the servers providing electronic filing receive a submit via EFS-Web using the time in Alexandria VA. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it arrives by USPS Express Mail, the date of mailing *as of the location of mailing is used.* To protect themselves the applicant should have a physical receipt with the tracking number and mail date and the tracking number should be written on the first page of the paperwork in the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can all be more complicated than one might think; see the [relevant section of the MPEP][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some corner case you are worried about?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s512.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23029" RevisionGUID="23fd97e3-14d9-407b-bb2f-ae521bf10e78" CreationDate="2021-03-15T22:20:01.980" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 50 characters in body" Text="Date stamps in computers are involved.  It is assigned by the USPTO either when the envelope containing a paper application arrives by mail (except in the case of USPS Express Mail) or at the acceptance window or when the servers providing electronic filing receive a submit via EFS-Web using the time in Alexandria VA. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it arrives by USPS Express Mail, the date of mailing *as of the location of mailing is used.* To protect themselves the applicant should have a physical receipt with the tracking number and mail date and the tracking number should be written on the first page of the paperwork in the application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can all be more complicated than one might think; see the [relevant section of the MPEP][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s512.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63984" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="23028" RevisionGUID="83586673-b6df-40c8-86d5-34dc2f7b0c89" CreationDate="2021-03-16T00:21:58.790" />
  <row Id="63985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23030" RevisionGUID="ac514dd3-b534-45e8-8e66-3212ebc18cb6" CreationDate="2021-03-16T20:53:41.313" UserId="17003" Text="One option targeted to the IT industry is [Prior Art Archive][1]. From their [About page][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Low quality patents waste money. US companies spend millions of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dollars year after year in litigation expenses defending against&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patents that shouldn’t have been issued. The patent examination&#xD;&#xA;&gt; process should stop patents from being issued on old or obvious&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technology. Unfortunately, just because technology is old doesn’t mean&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it is easy for a patent examiner to find. Particularly in the computer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; field, much prior art is in the form of old manuals, documentation,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; web sites, etc. that have, until now, not been readily searchable.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Cisco have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; collaborated to create this first free and open archiving platform for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the entire IT industry.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Simply put: fewer bad patents will be issued if we as industry give&#xD;&#xA;&gt; USPTO examiners the tools they need to find old technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've had some issues creating an account, but I've gotten a response so I'm guessing its a work in progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.priorartarchive.org&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.priorartarchive.org/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23031" RevisionGUID="55c39650-81a6-4b27-9fc4-ea3461c4a0f7" CreationDate="2021-03-17T05:48:39.903" UserId="3076" Text="**To prevent others getting a patent, file a patent application, let it publish and then go abandoned.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this came back up I have thought more about it. To win a case after a patent is issued or to have something date stamped to send in as a third party submission or, outside the U.S., as an objection or observation, these defensive publication sites can be valuable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However if you are trying to prevent a patent from being issued whose prosecution you are unaware of, your prior art needs to be where a patent examiner searches. They have great systems for searching patent literature. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked at the history of a recently allowed patent in the IT field where the examiner did a search five times as claims were amended. It is a [data point of one][1] with at least 100 inventors and pages and pages of IDS submitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Public PAIR shows the actual search commands put into the EAST system. They show the specific databases selected for each search string.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All strings were run against US-PGPUB and USPAT. A few against JPO and EPO and one per search session against DERWENT. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not think an examiner will find anything in ip.com or the MIT/Cisco database since they are not looking there. Plenty to find in patent literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10367677B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23030" RevisionGUID="e4c077e0-3e0f-4ebf-92e1-cc8dc7c560eb" CreationDate="2021-03-18T20:42:38.190" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1372 characters in body" Text="One option targeted to the IT industry is [Prior Art Archive][1]. [This article][2] suggests it is being developed in concert with the USPTO. From their [About page][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Low quality patents waste money. US companies spend millions of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dollars year after year in litigation expenses defending against&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patents that shouldn’t have been issued. The patent examination&#xD;&#xA;&gt; process should stop patents from being issued on old or obvious&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technology. Unfortunately, just because technology is old doesn’t mean&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it is easy for a patent examiner to find. Particularly in the computer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; field, much prior art is in the form of old manuals, documentation,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; web sites, etc. that have, until now, not been readily searchable.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Cisco have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; collaborated to create this first free and open archiving platform for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the entire IT industry.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Simply put: fewer bad patents will be issued if we as industry give&#xD;&#xA;&gt; USPTO examiners the tools they need to find old technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've had some issues creating an account, but I've gotten a response so I'm guessing its a work in progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is [Technical Disclosure Commons][4]. From their [FAQ][5]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **What is Technical Disclosure Commons (TDCommons)?**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; TDCommons is a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; website that hosts technical disclosures from various different&#xD;&#xA;&gt; companies and individuals. Many of these technical disclosures are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; defensive publications, published for the specific purpose of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; preventing subsequent patenting of those ideas. Defensive publications&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can boost patent quality by creating prior art that prevents the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; issuance of overly broad or obvious patents.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **What are the benefits of using Technical Disclosure Commons?** &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Free to publish. Cost does not have to be a factor when making defensive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; publication decisions. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Free to search. Anyone can search for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; publications on TDCommons - no subscription required. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Accessible&#xD;&#xA;&gt; through any search tool. The entire repository can be indexed and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served using any search tool, including Google Patents, making it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; easier for patent examiners and the public to find TD Commons&#xD;&#xA;&gt; publications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You do need to create an account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.priorartarchive.org&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.fr.com/the-usptos-prior-art-archive-and-its-implications-for-defensive-publication/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.priorartarchive.org/about&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.tdcommons.org&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.tdcommons.org/faq.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23031" RevisionGUID="15679a22-c44b-4e7d-ae42-08170fa23952" CreationDate="2021-03-18T20:52:11.987" UserId="3076" Comment="added 350 characters in body" Text="**To prevent others getting a patent, file a patent application, let it publish and then go abandoned.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this came back up I have thought more about it. To win a case after a patent is issued or to have something date stamped to send in as a third party submission or, outside the U.S., as an objection or observation, these defensive publication sites can be valuable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However if you are trying to prevent a patent from being issued whose prosecution you are unaware of, your prior art needs to be where a patent examiner searches. They have great systems for searching patent literature. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked at the history of a recently allowed patent in the IT field where the examiner did a search five times as claims were amended. It is a [data point of one][1] with at least 100 inventors and pages and pages of IDS submitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Public PAIR shows the actual search commands put into the EAST system. They show the specific databases selected for each search string.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All strings were run against US-PGPUB and USPAT. A few against JPO and EPO and one per search session against DERWENT. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not think an examiner will find anything in ip.com or the MIT/Cisco database since they are not looking there. Plenty to find in patent literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the current (3/2021) [USPTO fee structure][2] a micro entity would pay $455 to do an electronic non-provisional utility filing. That is the sum of the filing, search and examination fees. After publication you could explicitly abandon it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10367677B2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule#Patent%20Fees" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63989" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="1c16f356-d706-4150-9cd5-73deae4d8832" CreationDate="2021-03-20T15:06:45.777" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63990" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22982" RevisionGUID="ae8afcd2-00df-4dd7-829b-fefcb3d77e85" CreationDate="2021-03-20T17:03:40.287" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63991" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20595" RevisionGUID="54041031-e97b-4e00-933e-9ff28775e45e" CreationDate="2021-03-23T12:04:25.503" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63992" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22716" RevisionGUID="824ff232-f4b5-41db-88da-6026c2070d27" CreationDate="2021-03-26T00:07:30.743" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="63993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23032" RevisionGUID="cae7ebab-f961-4eaa-9898-3b43af49753a" CreationDate="2021-03-26T00:11:39.800" UserId="25675" Text="As far as I know, it is illegal to advertise an invention as &quot;patent pending&quot; unless a patent application has actually been filed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, theoretically, if a company or individual wanted to file a provisional patent application (as quickly as possible and with minimum effort) only to be able to use the term &quot;patent pending&quot; when referencing their invention, what would be the minimum amount of work they would have to do? This is assuming they do not care about filing dates or following up the PPA with a nonprovisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read that the requirements for a PPA (besides the fee) are a coversheet and a written description. Since provisional patent applications are never examined, could one theoretically only submit the required coversheet along with an attached very short (maybe paragraph-long) but accurate description of the invention when filing for a PPA? Would doing so allow the use of the term &quot;patent pending&quot; when referencing the invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63994" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23032" RevisionGUID="cae7ebab-f961-4eaa-9898-3b43af49753a" CreationDate="2021-03-26T00:11:39.800" UserId="25675" Text="What are the absolute minimum theoretical requirements for a provisional patent application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63995" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23032" RevisionGUID="cae7ebab-f961-4eaa-9898-3b43af49753a" CreationDate="2021-03-26T00:11:39.800" UserId="25675" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;utility&gt;&lt;ppa&gt;&lt;requirements&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63996" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="23032" RevisionGUID="bdeee759-3a33-448d-886c-2dc4e5f65de3" CreationDate="2021-03-26T00:53:46.593" UserId="25675" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;utility&gt;&lt;ppa&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23033" RevisionGUID="281833c8-aa87-428d-a854-a1fbbbf76a7b" CreationDate="2021-03-26T06:00:52.753" UserId="22283" Text="In Australia all you need to file a provisional patent application is a title, an inventor name and a description of the invention. You don't even need claims. But the problem with doing that is some countries require claims to be part of a provisional patent application for the purposes of deriving priority. Thus you would be very brave to file it without any claims as it may be useless for priority reasons.  - Source I am an Australian Patent Lawyer and am trained as a Patent Attorney." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23032" RevisionGUID="6de64d35-67c7-45eb-81e6-49441058d675" CreationDate="2021-03-26T06:24:42.317" UserId="25675" Comment="clarified country" Text="As far as I know, it is illegal to advertise an invention as &quot;patent pending&quot; unless a patent application has actually been filed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, theoretically, if a company or individual wanted to file a provisional patent application (as quickly as possible and with minimum effort) only to be able to use the term &quot;patent pending&quot; when referencing their invention, what would be the minimum amount of work they would have to do (in the US)? This is assuming they do not care about filing dates or following up the PPA with a nonprovisional application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read that the requirements for a PPA (besides the fee) are a coversheet and a written description. Since provisional patent applications are never examined, could one theoretically only submit the required coversheet along with an attached very short (maybe paragraph-long) but accurate description of the invention when filing for a PPA? Would doing so allow the use of the term &quot;patent pending&quot; when referencing the invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="63999" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22911" RevisionGUID="a9948ab2-46a2-4113-b76f-09ccf2e77864" CreationDate="2021-03-26T13:07:20.813" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23034" RevisionGUID="ad15b34d-d105-4564-acb4-b10867f32fbf" CreationDate="2021-03-26T21:01:43.513" UserId="25679" Text="For example, let's say you invented Git. And you want to make Git completely open source. But at the same time you want to build GitHub, and patent GitHub. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume you first have to write a patent for GitHub, which will have to first explain how Git works. But Git is not technically a &quot;prior art&quot; in this case because it hasn't been invented yet. Basically you are inventing Git first, and then GitHub, but trying to secure the GitHub model in the same patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would one go about handling this case? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One scenario I can think of is you could patent the entire Git and GitHub model and then later open source Git with a non revokable and completely open license, but keeping the patent attached. Or, you could clarify in the patent you are only claiming the GitHub model and not the Git model, even though the Git model is explained. But I am thinking maybe there are other ways. What would be the best way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;p.s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm only using Git and GitHub as an example to illustrate the situation more concretely, not really saying I'm trying to do anything like that obviously." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64001" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23034" RevisionGUID="ad15b34d-d105-4564-acb4-b10867f32fbf" CreationDate="2021-03-26T21:01:43.513" UserId="25679" Text="How to open source a technology and patent a derivative system simultaneously?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64002" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23034" RevisionGUID="ad15b34d-d105-4564-acb4-b10867f32fbf" CreationDate="2021-03-26T21:01:43.513" UserId="25679" Text="&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;opensource&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23035" RevisionGUID="7e3c02e6-c643-4079-8655-21208c56f8b0" CreationDate="2021-03-26T23:19:36.360" UserId="17003" Text="Git is distributed version control system software. It is not the first distributed version control system. Software is typically protected by copyright not patents. Git as an application is almost assuredly not patentable. It is possible that some specific elements within Git might have been patentable but they would need to meet all the requirements of patentability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;GitHub is a website that provides version control services using Git. Again, it isn't unique and it is unlikely to be patentable as whole. Because your example scenario isn't really relevant, I'm having trouble figuring out how to answer the question. Perhaps you could come up with a different scenario. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will say that something that is patented can be freely licensed if desired. You could, for instance, freely license for non-commercial usage while maintaining control for commercial uses. There are many examples of software products that are provided free for certain usage cases while maintained as proprietary for other usages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23032" RevisionGUID="5c74a123-7450-4b28-be1d-076a7e6f7d30" CreationDate="2021-03-27T01:29:16.993" UserId="25675" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="As far as I know, it is illegal to advertise an invention as &quot;patent pending&quot; unless a patent application has actually been filed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, theoretically, if a company or individual wanted to file a provisional patent application (as quickly as possible and with minimum effort) only to be able to use the term &quot;patent pending&quot; when referencing their invention, what would be the minimum amount of work they would have to do (in the US)? I am aware that this is not considered good practice, but lets assume they will later be following up this PPA with a far more detailed PPA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read that the requirements for a PPA (besides the fee) are a coversheet and a written description. Since provisional patent applications are never examined, could one theoretically only submit the required coversheet along with an attached very short (maybe paragraph-long) but accurate description of the invention when filing for a PPA? Would doing so allow the use of the term &quot;patent pending&quot; when referencing the invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23036" RevisionGUID="6b2d232e-9b8e-4245-89be-7b2a6008b589" CreationDate="2021-03-27T07:58:02.633" UserId="18033" Text="&gt;Or, you could clarify in the patent you are only claiming the GitHub model and not the Git model, even though the Git model is explained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to explain the basics for the derivative to be sufficiently discussed. Explicitly disclaiming them achieves your goal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23037" RevisionGUID="34f6d516-0ab7-41cf-8d8a-db606a1c34fd" CreationDate="2021-03-29T04:58:57.650" UserId="25690" Text="I have an idea for an APP, but I don't have the skills or resources to implement it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the only way for me to profit from it is to sell the idea to someone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that what patents are for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64007" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23037" RevisionGUID="34f6d516-0ab7-41cf-8d8a-db606a1c34fd" CreationDate="2021-03-29T04:58:57.650" UserId="25690" Text="If I patent my idea for an APP, can I then sell it to people with the resources to implement it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64008" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23037" RevisionGUID="34f6d516-0ab7-41cf-8d8a-db606a1c34fd" CreationDate="2021-03-29T04:58:57.650" UserId="25690" Text="&lt;app&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23038" RevisionGUID="437fbf9c-5fac-41c7-abfa-3abb4cbd699a" CreationDate="2021-03-29T14:21:01.223" UserId="17003" Text="As the Europeist stated in a comment, ideas really aren't patentable, inventions are. The difference is that an invention describes how the idea is implemented. A silly example would be that someone couldn't get a patent for an app that &quot;picks stocks that always go up in value&quot;. You might, however, be able to get a patent on the specific algorithm that assesses the stocks' values. You don't need to show an actual working model or code to obtain a patent, but you do need to &quot;enable&quot; the invention. This means you need to describe the implementation in sufficient detail that someone skilled in the field could implement it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As DonQuiKong states, obtaining a patent does cost real money, both in fees to the patent office and paying a patent attorney or agent to draft and process the application. Especially with software related patents, trying to do it yourself is likely to either result in rejection of your application or else a narrow and worthless patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you actually have a good implementation in mind, you could approach potential investors after having them sign confidentiality agreements. If they agree to fund you then you can use some of that money to pursue the patent. Alternatively, you could work with a programmer to develop the invention. In lieu of pay, you might offer the programmer a percentage of the licensing income. Once you have a an actual implementation then you could pursue patents or investors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23039" RevisionGUID="ac7b15e8-24c3-4f20-8907-ec95ea2bc26a" CreationDate="2021-03-29T19:24:26.723" UserId="3076" Text="The detailed description doesn't need to be particularly detailed however I have seen a case where a filing date was retracted on a provisional application (that would remove the ability to use the patent pending marking) because the only text was headed &quot;Summary&quot; and there wasn't much of it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23040" RevisionGUID="55274741-5d37-4f49-83b9-d23db2263695" CreationDate="2021-03-29T20:29:30.577" UserId="3076" Text="Yes, that is what patents are for. A working model is not not needed but a specific way of preforming a method is required. The inventor can assign complete rights to a patent or can license it on whatever basis is mutually agreeable to another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As other answers have pointed out, an app is not the kind of thing that is getting readily patented theses days." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23041" RevisionGUID="3376e890-a00d-4b63-9b11-dd2bedb881ef" CreationDate="2021-03-29T23:04:11.810" UserId="3076" Text="There are a few cases to consider. You have developed an internal combustion engine and a hoist that uses the engine to lift ships from the water. Either or both might or might not be patentable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The hoist might be novel whether or not that particular engine is used in it. The engine might or might be obvious over previous internal combustion engines.&#xD;&#xA;If the engine is patentable, and the hoist obvious, then  a hoist might only be protectable due to combination with the novel engine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You seem to want to give away freely the right to make the engine but control the making, using, selling, etc. of the hoist using that engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the engine is not patentable but the hoist with the engine is, then you patent the engine + hoist. If the engine is patentable but the hoist is not then you patent the engine and license it with the exception of its use as part of the hoist. Or, like the earlier case, you file a patent that describes the engine and hoist and only has claims to the combination, even though it could have claimed the engine alone. Then there are no granted claims to the engine itself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64013" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20142" RevisionGUID="0e8d2712-3fa2-40f3-a53e-53a95dccf5e3" CreationDate="2021-03-30T01:02:20.200" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23042" RevisionGUID="d0d6c43d-0a4d-4358-a457-68d0f14f2f0d" CreationDate="2021-03-30T18:52:55.090" UserId="25701" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This plate for patent number 20877, dated November 16, 1921, is on a horse-racing slot machine.  What does this patent cover and where was it issued?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the date (November 16, 1921), it's not a United States utility or design patent.  US utility patent 20877 and design patent 20877 were both issued several decades earlier.  Also, I don't believe slot machines were patentable in the US at that time, since they weren't considered &quot;useful&quot; - however it's possible that the slot machine contained a patented device used in other non-gaming devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6Redk.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64015" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23042" RevisionGUID="d0d6c43d-0a4d-4358-a457-68d0f14f2f0d" CreationDate="2021-03-30T18:52:55.090" UserId="25701" Text="Help identify the country and the invention of this patent 20877" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64016" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23042" RevisionGUID="d0d6c43d-0a4d-4358-a457-68d0f14f2f0d" CreationDate="2021-03-30T18:52:55.090" UserId="25701" Text="&lt;identifying&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64017" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20232" RevisionGUID="b6b8c502-8291-499b-9d4c-88ea066f3c33" CreationDate="2021-03-30T19:00:35.083" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64018" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="da2a33be-db76-49df-8081-616c1db7bca0" CreationDate="2021-03-31T08:01:40.177" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23043" RevisionGUID="9ddfb4d3-baf7-41ea-8170-9e66f4f5bfe7" CreationDate="2021-03-31T23:38:47.300" UserId="25690" Text="I know that this idea is not patentable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;An app that allows people to find their perfect match for marriage.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is too general, too abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about the implementation to the idea:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;My app will show members images of various objects. Members will then be able to react to those images with various emojis. The app then will match members based on how similar their reactions are of the same images&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a specific implementation of an abstract idea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is it patentable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64020" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23043" RevisionGUID="9ddfb4d3-baf7-41ea-8170-9e66f4f5bfe7" CreationDate="2021-03-31T23:38:47.300" UserId="25690" Text="Idea vs implementation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64021" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23043" RevisionGUID="9ddfb4d3-baf7-41ea-8170-9e66f4f5bfe7" CreationDate="2021-03-31T23:38:47.300" UserId="25690" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23044" RevisionGUID="2fad1eda-7231-4ac0-b351-abfff2519d79" CreationDate="2021-03-31T23:57:26.540" UserId="3076" Text="It is specific enough to not be just an idea but it might not be specific enough to avoid being obvious in light of previous knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There have been many patents issued in this area in the past, see [this one from eHarmony for example][1]. However, it is getting harder and harder to avoid any computer related claim being labeled as &quot;abstract&quot; and therefore not patentable. An experienced practitioner in that field can be a big help, but no guarantee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7454357B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23044" RevisionGUID="2f7aeefe-2d7d-4559-8ab3-b62795ba243e" CreationDate="2021-04-01T00:26:40.157" UserId="3076" Comment="added 445 characters in body" Text="It is specific enough to not be just an idea but it might not be specific enough to avoid being obvious in light of previous knowledge (prior art).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might be that someone already had the exact invention and either published it or applied for a patent. Then your invention would not be *novel*. Alternatively, there might be an existing publication/patent/patent application that matches people based on them choosing a favorite flower or fruit. An examiner might argue that since some emoji's represented flowers or fruits your idea is *obvious* and therefore not patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There have been many patents issued in this area in the past, see [this one from eHarmony for example][1]. However, it is getting harder and harder to avoid any computer related claim being labeled as &quot;abstract&quot; and therefore not patentable. An experienced practitioner in that field can be a big help, but no guarantee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7454357B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23045" RevisionGUID="1a11d5ab-d3b7-4fb6-a43f-02b51917dda7" CreationDate="2021-04-01T14:08:30.923" UserId="17003" Text="&gt; This is a specific implementation of an abstract idea.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So is it patentable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a lawyer, but in my opinion, the implementation is not sufficiently specific enough to merit a patent. Even if you get past the issue of novelty and obviousness (which is not a given), you haven't enabled the invention. You stated how you select the number and type of emoji to present, how the reactions are recorded and most importantly how you measure similarity of reaction. There is a whole field of statistics related to [measuring similarity][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now if you develop a new algorithm to measure the degree of similarity of the different members test results, that algorithm may indeed be patentable. Particularly if you can show it works better than existing algorithms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Similarity_measure" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23045" RevisionGUID="cf294e6b-f9fd-4d04-8ec6-88fc2ef7c944" CreationDate="2021-04-01T14:28:54.290" UserId="17003" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="&gt; This is a specific implementation of an abstract idea.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So is it patentable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a lawyer, but in my opinion, the implementation is not sufficiently specific enough to merit a patent. Even if you get past the issue of novelty and obviousness (which is not a given), you haven't enabled the invention. You haven’t stated how you select the number and type of emoji to present, how the reactions are recorded and most importantly how you measure similarity of reaction. There is a whole field of statistics related to [measuring similarity][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now if you develop a new algorithm to measure the degree of similarity of the different members test results, that algorithm may indeed be patentable. Particularly if you can show it works better than existing algorithms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Similarity_measure" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23046" RevisionGUID="92cfdb99-495c-4820-873a-b40ccdfd6908" CreationDate="2021-04-01T16:52:59.607" UserId="25346" Text="On the one hand, I can see that companies may want to be cautious and obtain patents before starting expensive clinical trials. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, for drugs with large commercial potentials, it seems worth it to start patent applications and clinical trials in parallel and not wait for the long patent application delay (which can easily take years). Otherwise, the useful life of patents will be reduced by that delay. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is usually done in practice? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64027" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23046" RevisionGUID="92cfdb99-495c-4820-873a-b40ccdfd6908" CreationDate="2021-04-01T16:52:59.607" UserId="25346" Text="In practice, how often do U.S. pharmaceutical companies start clinical trials before obtaining their patent from the USPTO?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64028" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23046" RevisionGUID="92cfdb99-495c-4820-873a-b40ccdfd6908" CreationDate="2021-04-01T16:52:59.607" UserId="25346" Text="&lt;pharmaceutical&gt;&lt;drugpatent&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64032" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="23048" RevisionGUID="f67194ba-d99f-4269-bbe7-ef853e12cd65" CreationDate="2021-04-01T19:26:29.027" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/63724/what-is-the-reason-that-the-20-year-patent-protection-term-starts-from-filing-da" />
  <row Id="64033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23048" RevisionGUID="b8251653-f1bd-4815-b6aa-a3303fcde118" CreationDate="2021-04-01T07:51:57.027" UserId="25346" Text="The USPTO backlog has been growing over time. Now, it takes 3-4 years to get a patent approved, with large variation in delays across applications. The patent prosecution time seriously eat into the 20 years of patent life. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't seem super natural that patent protection time length should be influenced by the efficiency of the USPTO. Thus my question: what is the reason that patent law is designed so that the 20 year clock starts from filing date? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64034" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23048" RevisionGUID="b8251653-f1bd-4815-b6aa-a3303fcde118" CreationDate="2021-04-01T07:51:57.027" UserId="25346" Text="What is the reason that the 20 year patent protection term starts from filing dates rather than issue dates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64035" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23048" RevisionGUID="b8251653-f1bd-4815-b6aa-a3303fcde118" CreationDate="2021-04-01T07:51:57.027" UserId="25346" Text="&lt;intellectual-property&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64036" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="23049" RevisionGUID="7825627f-e1d5-43f9-92a2-84f82b258e1d" CreationDate="2021-04-01T19:26:29.027" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/63724/what-is-the-reason-that-the-20-year-patent-protection-term-starts-from-filing-da/63725#63725" />
  <row Id="64037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23049" RevisionGUID="ceb56c67-9df9-459b-a5e7-728cc3250745" CreationDate="2021-04-01T07:58:37.637" UserDisplayName="Trish" Text="# History.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From 1790–1835 the Patent Act of 1790 dictated 14 years from issuing and from 1836–1860 patents ran 21 years from issuance under the Patent Act of 1836.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before being swapped to 20 years from *filing*, patents between 1861 and 1994 ran 17 years from the granting date under the rules of Pub.L. 36–88 (12 Stat. 246). The time a filing spent in the USPTO before granting was - on average - 3 years, thus in practice about 20 years. However, that was somewhat unreliable: some patents came faster, others took longer, leading to at times more or less protection on different patented parts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the reasoning to give a more streamlined process, they swapped to 20 years from filing in 1995 under the [Uruguay Round Agreements Act][1]. The act was the result of the [Makaresh Agreement][2] and other agreements that create the WTO and resulted in not only the Berne convention but also similar patent runtimes globally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay_Round_Agreements_Act&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marrakesh_Agreement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23050" RevisionGUID="878af073-a31f-4ce3-af88-3f2507f3e287" CreationDate="2021-04-01T20:45:26.113" UserId="17003" Text="I'm not an expert at this, but patents typically take something like three years from filing to issue although this can vary quite a lot. Drug development is generally much longer on the order of 10 years or more to get to market. It would be advantageous to delay filing a patent to obtain a longer effective protection, but then the company would be taking the risk of someone else patenting the compound first. Since patents now go to the first to file this is a real risk. I'm not sure what your concern is with &quot;long patent application delay&quot; is. Patent protection starts with the application date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23049" RevisionGUID="df74a004-5e91-4ec6-b74d-0905d804c92d" CreationDate="2021-04-01T20:49:47.613" UserId="25716" Comment="added 623 characters in body" Text="# History.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From 1790–1835 the Patent Act of 1790 dictated 14 years from issuing and from 1836–1860 patents ran 21 years from issuance under the Patent Act of 1836.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before being swapped to 20 years from *filing*, patents between 1861 and 1994 ran 17 years from the granting date under the rules of Pub.L. 36–88 (12 Stat. 246). The time a filing spent in the USPTO before granting was - on average - 3 years, thus in practice about 20 years. However, that was somewhat unreliable: some patents came faster, others took longer, leading to at times more or less protection on different patented parts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the reasoning to give a more streamlined process, they swapped to 20 years from filing in 1995 under the [Uruguay Round Agreements Act][1]. The act was the result of the [Makaresh Agreement][2] and other agreements that create the WTO and resulted in not only the Berne convention but also similar patent runtimes globally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under some conditions, one can [extend a patent][3], and delays in the patent office (answer deadlines missed or evaluation taking longer than 3 years) or other approval processes (like FDA approval in pharmaceuticals or waiting for security releases) can be reasons for an extension of a patent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some cases though, a patent might be shortened too: if your patent stems so directly from another that it becomes *obvious* the moment the other patent becomes prior art, then both expire simultaneously. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay_Round_Agreements_Act&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marrakesh_Agreement&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States#Adjustments_possible_under_current_law" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23050" RevisionGUID="039033fa-342a-4e5f-9f14-ce80b3f68a61" CreationDate="2021-04-01T20:51:32.520" UserId="17003" Comment="added 457 characters in body" Text="&gt; In practice, how often do U.S. pharmaceutical companies start clinical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; trials before obtaining their patent from the USPTO?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not an expert at this, but I think the answer is companies pretty much never start a clinical trial before applying for a patent. You need to disclose (publish) quite a lot of technical description about the drug to get a clinical trial approved and you need to file you patent applications before public disclosure of the compound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents typically take something like three years from filing to issue although this can vary quite a lot. Drug development is generally much longer on the order of 10 years or more to get to market. It would be advantageous to delay filing a patent application to obtain a longer effective protection, but then the company would be taking the risk of someone else patenting the compound first. Since patents now go to the first to file this is a real risk. I'm not sure what your concern is with &quot;long patent application delay&quot; is. Patent protection starts with the application date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23050" RevisionGUID="ee7fb9a2-fa9f-4a18-8aca-bb492f1c7d5f" CreationDate="2021-04-01T21:05:11.613" UserId="17003" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="&gt; In practice, how often do U.S. pharmaceutical companies start clinical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; trials before obtaining their patent from the USPTO?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not an expert at this, but I think the answer is companies pretty much never start a clinical trial before applying for a patent. You need to disclose (publish) quite a lot of technical description about the drug to get a clinical trial approved and you need to file you patent applications before public disclosure of the compound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents typically take something like three years from application to grant although this can vary quite a lot. Drug development is generally much longer on the order of 10 years or more to get to market. It would be advantageous to delay filing a patent application to obtain a longer effective protection, but then the company would be taking the risk of someone else patenting the compound first. Since patents now go to the first to file this is a real risk. I'm not sure what your concern is with &quot;long patent application delay&quot; is. Patent protection starts with the application date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23044" RevisionGUID="a07a449d-9262-4627-9ec7-68229eebfee2" CreationDate="2021-04-01T21:32:25.900" UserId="3076" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="It is specific enough to not be just an idea but it might not be specific enough to avoid being obvious in light of previous knowledge (prior art). It also needs to be fleshed out in terms of the details of the best way you know to carry it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might be that someone already had the exact invention and either published it or applied for a patent. Then your invention would not be *novel*. Alternatively, there might be an existing publication/patent/patent application that matches people based on them choosing a favorite flower or fruit. An examiner might argue that since some emoji's represented flowers or fruits your idea is *obvious* and therefore not patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There have been many patents issued in this area in the past, see [this one from eHarmony for example][1]. However, it is getting harder and harder to avoid any computer related claim being labeled as &quot;abstract&quot; and therefore not patentable. An experienced practitioner in that field can be a big help, but no guarantee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7454357B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23050" RevisionGUID="0d39863f-d4a0-44e9-bf16-5959129ddd56" CreationDate="2021-04-02T01:07:12.347" UserId="17003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt; In practice, how often do U.S. pharmaceutical companies start clinical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; trials before obtaining their patent from the USPTO?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not an expert at this, but I think the answer is companies pretty much never start a clinical trial before applying for a patent. You need to disclose (publish) quite a lot of technical description about the drug to get a clinical trial approved and you need to file your patent applications before public disclosure of the compound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents typically take something like three years from application to grant although this can vary quite a lot. Drug development is generally much longer on the order of 10 years or more to get to market. It would be advantageous to delay filing a patent application to obtain a longer effective protection, but then the company would be taking the risk of someone else patenting the compound first. Since patents now go to the first to file this is a real risk. I'm not sure what your concern is with &quot;long patent application delay&quot; is. Patent protection starts with the application date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23052" RevisionGUID="13103cb2-b3bf-4a09-b6de-b198c949ca46" CreationDate="2021-04-02T04:26:20.110" UserId="25346" Text="I'm referring to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;101: utility (and others)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;102: lacking novelty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;103: obviousness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64047" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23052" RevisionGUID="13103cb2-b3bf-4a09-b6de-b198c949ca46" CreationDate="2021-04-02T04:26:20.110" UserId="25346" Text="In practice, which patent rejection reason is the hardest to address and overcome?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64048" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23052" RevisionGUID="13103cb2-b3bf-4a09-b6de-b198c949ca46" CreationDate="2021-04-02T04:26:20.110" UserId="25346" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prosecution&gt;&lt;rejection&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23053" RevisionGUID="b46da30e-bf97-43b8-b257-4cf9431b585a" CreationDate="2021-04-02T15:49:30.553" UserId="22334" Text="From my personal experience it is both 101, when the invention is a computer-implemented invention, and 103 rejections. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 101 rejections are a nightmare for me because with them it is alleged that the invention is nothing more than an abstract idea, yet most of the times that makes no sense from my point of view because the invention is a computer-implemented invention that solves a technical problem, i.e. has a technical effect, which is the key element in most jurisdictions worldwide. So if the invention solves a technical problem then it automatically cannot be an abstract idea even if implemented in a general-purpose computer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The concept of 'abstract idea' in steps 2A and 2B of the two-part analysis that was created after the Alice Corp vs. CLS Bank decision is quite vague. No matter how much you show that the invention has some technical purpose, examiners may maintain the rejection because they can without providing much explanation backing up such statement. Hopefully the 'abstract idea' concept or the two-part analysis will be revised in the future. The existence of such analysis is a great addition, but since its inception many inventions that are actually abstract ideas or business methods have been granted patents so the parameters for establishing what is an 'abstract idea', if any, are flawed. We have a much clearer set of rules for this question at the EPO (I think that the USPTO will at some point reproduce the European system to address this issue even if worded differently).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like 101 and unlike 102 rejections, the 103 rejections can also be tough ones because they stem from a subjective analysis. It is very easy for the examiner to simply find the claimed features in whatever documents and argue that the person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined the documents to arrive at the invention. And if some features are not found in the prior art, the examiners can go ahead and say that the person having ordinary skill in the art would find or stumble upon the missing features during its routine activities, and that's it. It does not matter whether the documents relate to different technical fields or not, or that the teachings of the documents are incompatible. For me, the problem is that the figure of the 'person having ordinary skill in the art' has lost its meaning over time and nowadays obviousness is not assessed from *phosita*'s standpoint despite the explicit reference to it in 103 rejections. This means that the obviousness analysis is frequently biased. In that case, examiners might not change their opinion regardless of whether you rely on legal provisions or provide sound remarks to defend the non-obviousness of the invention. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23053" RevisionGUID="c17abdae-33c3-4e21-99d1-c0f323ad67d1" CreationDate="2021-04-02T15:55:59.587" UserId="22334" Comment="added 204 characters in body" Text="From my personal experience it is both 101, when the invention is a computer-implemented invention, and 103 rejections. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 101 rejections are a nightmare for me because with them it is alleged that the invention is nothing more than an abstract idea, yet most of the times that makes no sense from my point of view because the invention is a computer-implemented invention that solves a technical problem, i.e. has a technical effect, which is the key element in most jurisdictions worldwide. So if the invention solves a technical problem then it automatically cannot be an abstract idea even if implemented in a general-purpose computer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The concept of 'abstract idea' in steps 2A and 2B of the two-part analysis that was created after the Alice Corp vs. CLS Bank decision is quite vague. No matter how much you show that the invention has some technical purpose, examiners may maintain the rejection because they can without providing much explanation backing up such statement. Hopefully the 'abstract idea' concept or the two-part analysis will be revised in the future. The existence of such analysis is a great addition, but since its inception many inventions that are actually abstract ideas or business methods have been granted patents, so in my view the parameters for establishing what is an 'abstract idea' are not set correctly. We have a much clearer set of rules for this question at the EPO (I think that the USPTO will at some point reproduce the European system to address this issue, even if worded differently).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like 101 and unlike 102 rejections, the 103 rejections can also be tough ones because they stem from a subjective analysis. It is very easy for the examiner to simply find the claimed features in whatever documents and argue that the person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined the documents to arrive at the invention. And if some features are not found in the prior art, the examiners can go ahead and say that the person having ordinary skill in the art would find or stumble upon the missing features during its routine activities, and that's it. It does not matter whether the documents relate to different technical fields or not, or that the teachings of the documents are incompatible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me, the problem is that the figure of the 'person having ordinary skill in the art' has lost its meaning over time and nowadays obviousness is not assessed from *phosita*'s standpoint despite the explicit reference to it in 103 rejections. This means that the obviousness analysis is frequently biased. In that case, examiners might not change their opinion regardless of whether you rely on legal provisions or provide sound remarks to defend the non-obviousness of the invention. At the EPO there is the so-called problem-and-solution approach that lowers the subjective component in the obviousness analysis, but even with that method we get biased rejections too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23054" RevisionGUID="af6bccfe-c03c-4265-8df0-b088e07fd4be" CreationDate="2021-04-02T16:25:04.533" UserId="25701" Text="This is a somewhat arbitrary question and I think you’ll get different answers from different people, based on their area of expertise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order from most to least difficult to argue against, I would rank them as §101, §112, §102, §103.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order from most to least attorney time spent overcoming them, I would rank them as §103, §112, §102, §101. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a patent attorney, but have worked with them on hundreds of US patents - some were my own patents and some were patents that they needed an engineering perspective on.  My reasons for the rankings I give are based on my own experience and not on any inside knowledge of USPTO policy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;§101 - I see §101 rejections the least, but if something isn't patentable subject matter, it's very hard to come up with an argument as to why it should be. I've only seen it successfully argued once, when the patent examiner claimed no one wanted a particular solution, and the patent attorney showed them several websites discussing how to approach the problem - arguing that the fact that someone is discussing it shows that someone will find our solution useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;§102 - I've seen this occasionally when the patent application very closely matches an existing invention.  We can almost always find some small facet of our invention that isn't included in the prior art or find some small distinction between our invention and the prior art.  It leads to narrower claims, but it's a straightforward exercise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;§103 - I've seen this when the patent examiner can combine two or more existing inventions to produce the invention in question.  To overcome it you either must show that it wasn’t obvious to combine the pieces of prior art, or find some difference between your invention and the combined prior art.  It’s the same exercise as overcoming a §102 rejection, but much more tedious.  §103 rejections are the most common ones I see.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;§112 - I've also seen quite a few rejections for §112 because the specification of the patent doesn't provide enough detail to support the claims.  In layman terms, you weren't specific enough.  In patent terms, you didn't enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to reproduce your invention without undue experimentation.  Whenever we’ve encountered a §112 rejection, our attorneys have limited the claims to what was specified.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23055" RevisionGUID="01cad3f1-b605-466e-8e0e-22c35d01a664" CreationDate="2021-04-02T23:05:24.597" UserId="25721" Text="Here's a dumb absolute beginner question: so I have in the claim something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a first lever arm pivotally connected to the widget member at a first joint;&#xD;&#xA;a second lever arm pivotally connected to the first lever arm at a second joint;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is it a problem if the first joint is named just for clarity and the claim never mentions it again, discussing only the role of the second joint? Are you expected to &quot;use everything you introduce&quot;? In software development, if you declare a variable you don't do anything with, you get a warning at quality check...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64054" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23055" RevisionGUID="01cad3f1-b605-466e-8e0e-22c35d01a664" CreationDate="2021-04-02T23:05:24.597" UserId="25721" Text="Is it ok to introduce an element in a claim and never mention it again?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64055" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23055" RevisionGUID="01cad3f1-b605-466e-8e0e-22c35d01a664" CreationDate="2021-04-02T23:05:24.597" UserId="25721" Text="&lt;claims&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23055" RevisionGUID="8a78aad9-dbb7-4490-a0a4-f794aca17212" CreationDate="2021-04-02T23:19:34.057" UserId="25721" Comment="edited body" Text="Here's a dumb absolute beginner question: so I have in the claim something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a first lever arm pivotally connected to the widget member at a first joint;&#xD;&#xA;a second lever arm pivotally connected to the first lever arm at a second joint;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it a problem if the first joint is named just for clarity and the claim never mentions it again, discussing only the role of the second joint? Are you expected to &quot;use everything you introduce&quot;? In software development, if you declare a variable you don't do anything with, you get a warning at quality check...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23042" RevisionGUID="a14eb359-fc10-4581-a6bf-410b39e847af" CreationDate="2021-04-02T23:28:56.257" UserId="25701" Comment="added 115 characters in body" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This plate for patent number 20877, dated November 16, 1921, is on a horse-racing slot machine.  What does this patent cover and where was it issued?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the date (November 16, 1921), it's not a United States utility or design patent.  US utility patent 20877 and design patent 20877 were both issued several decades earlier.  Also, I don't believe slot machines were patentable in the US at that time, since they weren't considered &quot;useful&quot; - however it's possible that the slot machine contained a patented device used in other non-gaming devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6Redk.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:  I've checked the USTPO, Google Patents, and Espacenet.  Nothing matches both the date and patent number." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23056" RevisionGUID="8deb9ef6-871e-4375-b7de-2f3d9cc57ee6" CreationDate="2021-04-02T23:46:23.160" UserId="3076" Text="The question leaves a fair amount of ambiguity. But no, a feature might be simply introduced. widget A common simplification of a generic claim is &quot;A widget having an&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if the joints are a feature of the widget or the lever arms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23056" RevisionGUID="1dd5e2ee-bb26-499b-ae4c-cec3edc65a67" CreationDate="2021-04-02T23:59:12.130" UserId="3076" Comment="added 590 characters in body" Text="The question leaves a fair amount of ambiguity. I wonder if the joints are a feature of the widget or the lever arms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But generally no, a feature might be simply introduced or enumerated. A common simplification of a generic claim is &quot;A widget having an A, a B and a C.&quot; A more realistic claim will need to define how A and B and C relate to each other in order to achieve novelty and non-obviousness, because an A, B, and C sitting on a table is not likely to be something new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand if an element does not have an important relationship to other features it might not belong in the claim. Anything not really needed that is positively claimed is something a competitor can leave out and get around the claim. If it takes &quot;with an A on top of the B&quot; to achieve novelty or non-obviousness then you need it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64060" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23055" RevisionGUID="147ebe47-f014-447e-a199-f861c9bceecc" CreationDate="2021-04-03T00:10:23.550" UserId="25721" Comment="added 466 characters in body" Text="Here's a dumb absolute beginner question: so I have in the claim something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a first lever arm pivotally connected to the widget member at a first joint;&#xD;&#xA;a second lever arm pivotally connected to the first lever arm at a second joint;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it a problem if the first joint is named just for clarity and the claim never mentions it again, discussing only the role of the second joint? Are you expected to &quot;use everything you introduce&quot;? In software development, if you declare a variable you don't do anything with, you get a warning at quality check...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to clarify... I could write that part of the claim like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    a first lever arm pivotally connected to the widget member;&#xD;&#xA;    a second lever arm pivotally connected to the first lever arm at a first joint;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;because the only joint I need to *refer to later* is the one connecting the first and second lever arms, but since that one is in reality the second joint in the chain of connected elements being defined, would that be confusing or better? (Since the first lever and the widget member are pivotally connected, there is a joint.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64061" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23056" RevisionGUID="341dfa73-d3e4-48de-be6b-82c73f89797d" CreationDate="2021-04-03T00:13:03.413" UserId="3076" Comment="added 240 characters in body" Text="The question leaves a fair amount of ambiguity. I wonder if the joints are a feature of the widget or the lever arms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But generally no, a feature might be simply introduced or enumerated. A common simplification of a generic claim is &quot;A widget having an A, a B and a C.&quot; A more realistic claim will need to define how A and B and C relate to each other in order to achieve novelty and non-obviousness, because an A, B, and C sitting on a table is not likely to be something new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand if an element does not have an important relationship to other features it might not belong in the claim. Anything not really needed that is positively claimed is something a competitor can leave out and get around the claim. If it takes &quot;with an A on top of the B&quot; to achieve novelty or non-obviousness then you need it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding &quot;clarity&quot;, claims *define* they don't *explain*, that is for the specification. As advanced topic is something called inferential claiming where a feature is named in the claim but not positively claimed as a required element.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23056" RevisionGUID="ba728d4a-7072-449d-93c6-1c3d577d1183" CreationDate="2021-04-03T00:54:49.160" UserId="3076" Comment="added 206 characters in body" Text="The question leaves a fair amount of ambiguity. I wonder if the joints are a feature of the widget or the lever arms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But generally no, a feature might be simply introduced or enumerated. A common simplification of a generic claim is &quot;A widget having an A, a B and a C.&quot; A more realistic claim will need to define how A and B and C relate to each other in order to achieve novelty and non-obviousness, because an A, B, and C sitting on a table is not likely to be something new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand if an element does not have an important relationship to other features it might not belong in the claim. Anything not really needed that is positively claimed is something a competitor can leave out and get around the claim. If it takes &quot;with an A on top of the B&quot; to achieve novelty or non-obviousness then you need it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding &quot;clarity&quot;, claims *define* they don't *explain*, that is for the specification. As advanced topic is something called inferential claiming where a feature is named in the claim but not positively claimed as a required element.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is not important that the first lever arm is connected to a joint on the widget, as opposed to being connected to the body of the widget, then including it unnecessarily narrows the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23057" RevisionGUID="67c2223f-d39a-44b8-8262-93b6c2f02f1a" CreationDate="2021-04-03T09:37:58.910" UserId="18033" Text="You're asking if it is ok to introduce an element you never mention again. It is, but might be a bad idea as it narrows the protection without benefits in most cases and can indicate problems with your claim logic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, that's not the answer to your specific question. You missed that you are actually mentioning the first joint after introducing it. More precisely, your claim can be rephrased as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... the device having a first joint, the joint forming a connection between the first lever and the widget member ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, you are not defining and then not using the first joint, you are just using the first joint without having defined it previously. Which is ok, it can make claims shorter to defined things on the fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In programming, you might get a warning for dynamically defining a variable at the same time you use it. But you are using it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23057" RevisionGUID="63d99250-cb4d-436d-adfc-2c7ac493ce3c" CreationDate="2021-04-03T09:43:17.987" UserId="18033" Comment="added 190 characters in body" Text="You're asking if it is ok to introduce an element you never mention again. It is, but might be a bad idea as it narrows the protection without benefits in most cases and can indicate problems with your claim logic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, that's not the answer to your specific question. You missed that you are actually mentioning the first joint after introducing it. More precisely, your claim can be rephrased as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... the device having a first joint, the joint forming a connection between the first lever and the widget member ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, you are not defining and then not using the first joint, you are just using the first joint without having defined it previously. Which is ok, it can make claims shorter to defined things on the fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In programming, you might get a warning for dynamically defining a variable at the same time you use it. Afaik some programming languages don't allow this while others do. A programming example would be something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For x in [1:5] do sth().&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;X isn't defined and then not used, x is used without being defined." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23056" RevisionGUID="75d3d0cf-eb20-4d2e-ad6f-72b7b7fe15fd" CreationDate="2021-04-03T17:19:25.260" UserId="3076" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="The question leaves a fair amount of ambiguity. I wonder if the joints are a feature of the widget or the lever arms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But generally no, a feature might be simply introduced or enumerated. A common simplification of a generic claim is &quot;A widget having an A, a B and a C.&quot; A more realistic claim will need to define how A and B and C relate to each other in order to achieve novelty and non-obviousness, because an A, B, and C sitting on a table is not likely to be something new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand if an element does not have an important relationship to other features it might not belong in the claim. Anything not really needed that is positively claimed is something a competitor can leave out and get around the claim. If it takes &quot;with an A on top of the B&quot; to achieve novelty or non-obviousness then you need it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding &quot;clarity&quot;, claims *define* they don't *explain*, that is for the specification. As advanced topic is something called inferential claiming where a feature is named in the claim but not positively claimed as a required element.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question is really about naming, i.e. whether or not to say the first arm connects to the widget via a joint or the first arm is connected to the widget via a *first* joint, then it doesn't matter unless you need to refer back to that specific joint or to make it clear that a second joint isn't the same thing as the first joint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23056" RevisionGUID="b7e0dfb8-6ec4-4185-9e15-123b41546d38" CreationDate="2021-04-03T17:26:51.307" UserId="3076" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="If the question is really about naming, i.e. whether or not to say the first arm connects to the widget via *a joint* or the first arm is connected to the widget via a *first joint*, then it doesn't matter unless you need to refer back to that specific joint or to make it clear that a second joint is distinct from the first joint. If you do name it there is no requirement to refer back to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But generally no, a feature might be simply introduced or enumerated. A common simplification of a generic claim is &quot;A widget having an A, a B and a C.&quot; A more realistic claim will need to define how A and B and C relate to each other in order to achieve novelty and non-obviousness, because an A, B, and C sitting on a table is not likely to be something new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand if an element does not have an important relationship to other features it might not belong in the claim. Anything not really needed that is positively claimed is something a competitor can leave out and get around the claim. If it takes &quot;with an A on top of the B&quot; to achieve novelty or non-obviousness then you need it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding &quot;clarity&quot;, claims *define* they don't *explain*, that is for the specification. As advanced topic is something called inferential claiming where a feature is named in the claim but not positively claimed as a required element.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64067" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="23055" RevisionGUID="885464cd-4745-49cb-b84c-c6c2135b30a5" CreationDate="2021-04-03T17:27:34.243" UserId="3076" Comment="edited title" Text="Is it ok to introduce a named element in a claim and never mention it again?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23057" RevisionGUID="745c9f8b-196d-48f3-974a-c8d0b1e5a917" CreationDate="2021-04-03T17:56:18.840" UserId="18033" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="You're asking if it is ok to introduce an element you never mention again. It is, but might be a bad idea as it narrows the protection without benefits in most cases and can indicate problems with your claim logic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, that's not the answer to your specific question. You missed that you are actually mentioning the first joint after introducing it. More precisely, your claim can be rephrased as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... the device having a first joint, the joint forming a connection between the first lever and the widget member ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, you are not defining and then not using the first joint, you are just using the first joint without having defined it previously. Which is ok, it can make claims shorter to define things on the fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In programming, you might get a warning for dynamically defining a variable at the same time you use it. Afaik some programming languages don't allow this while others do. A programming example would be something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For x in [1:5] do sth().&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;X isn't defined and then not used, x is used without being defined." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23058" RevisionGUID="94bf0619-3fc9-4b6e-bcd9-9bd1c7de61e2" CreationDate="2021-04-03T18:33:33.443" UserId="25728" Text="Consider two inventions: X and X+Y. For the sake of argument, assume that X is not patentable for whatever reason (prior art, abstract idea, etc.), but the combination of X+Y is patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem: In practice X must be sold by itself. However, the intention would be to use X in combination with Y provided by the end user. For example, X could be a device which performs chemical processing, and Y could be raw material to be processed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question: If a company starts selling X with the clear intention of using it in combination with Y, is that sufficient to infringe on a patent claim covering X+Y?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm mostly interested in the US but would also be interested in other jurisdictions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64070" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23058" RevisionGUID="94bf0619-3fc9-4b6e-bcd9-9bd1c7de61e2" CreationDate="2021-04-03T18:33:33.443" UserId="25728" Text="When the product as-sold is unpatentable but the product as-used is patented" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64071" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23058" RevisionGUID="94bf0619-3fc9-4b6e-bcd9-9bd1c7de61e2" CreationDate="2021-04-03T18:33:33.443" UserId="25728" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23059" RevisionGUID="600897a8-e738-462d-97dd-ea90a70a858c" CreationDate="2021-04-03T21:21:06.007" UserId="25731" Text="Help me find the Original document of this Patent by French Association 'La Reliure Spirale'&#xD;&#xA;'A flip-sheet notebook system' could be the translation, but I could not find the Original document from 1927-06-01" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64073" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23059" RevisionGUID="600897a8-e738-462d-97dd-ea90a70a858c" CreationDate="2021-04-03T21:21:06.007" UserId="25731" Text="ES102424A Un sistema de cuaderno de hojas intercambiables" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64074" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23059" RevisionGUID="600897a8-e738-462d-97dd-ea90a70a858c" CreationDate="2021-04-03T21:21:06.007" UserId="25731" Text="&lt;european&gt;&lt;coil&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23060" RevisionGUID="f5d488e1-543b-4f27-8a3e-27d9cd8be37f" CreationDate="2021-04-03T23:13:35.923" UserId="3076" Text="In this example I will assume that the claim to X+Y is a method/process claim. The end user is the only one who is a direct infringer. If it is an industrial size use then it might be profitable to go after that industrial end user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone sells X for the purpose of using it with Y then it is possible that they can be found to be an indirect infringer. The law is 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) *Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.* [Some cases where this worked.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.copperpodip.com/post/2020/02/04/indirect-infringement-what-is-it-and-how-to-prove-it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23058" RevisionGUID="390af0c3-0eb4-4699-bf73-ebc0f913356d" CreationDate="2021-04-03T23:15:36.933" UserId="25728" Comment="Added additional comment." Text="Consider two inventions: X and X+Y. For the sake of argument, assume that X is not patentable (prior art), but the combination of X+Y is patentable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem: In practice X must be sold by itself. However, the intention would be to use X in combination with Y provided by the end user. For example, X could be a device which performs chemical processing, and Y could be raw material to be processed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question: If a company starts selling X with the clear intention of using it in combination with Y, is that sufficient to infringe on a patent claim covering X+Y?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm mostly interested in the US but would also be interested in other jurisdictions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Comment: In reality I probably can write a more narrow claim covering X', which is similar to X but more specialized towards combination with Y, and consequently narrowed to avoid prior art. I believe that the combination of X in general with Y is patentable, but I don't know if it'll be useful as a claim.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23060" RevisionGUID="9f2eb7bb-8ff9-46c4-b41e-1e3b422a67cb" CreationDate="2021-04-03T23:32:18.020" UserId="3076" Comment="added 369 characters in body" Text="In this example I will assume that the claim to X+Y is a method/process claim. The end user is the only one who is a direct infringer. If it is an industrial size use then it might be profitable to go after that industrial end user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone sells X for the purpose of using it with Y then it is possible that they can be found to be an indirect infringer. The law is 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) *Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.* [Some cases where this worked.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the claim was to the physical combination of X and Y then the end user is still the direct infringer and the potential indirect infringement would be a seller of X might be accused of is 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) which is much more complicated and would exclude something that was &quot;a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non infringing use&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.copperpodip.com/post/2020/02/04/indirect-infringement-what-is-it-and-how-to-prove-it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23059" RevisionGUID="f338822b-88ce-4f50-9ae6-fa88354f28ef" CreationDate="2021-04-04T00:10:25.813" UserId="3076" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Help me find the Original document of this Patent ES102424A by French Association 'La Reliure Spirale'&#xD;&#xA;'A flip-sheet notebook system' could be the translation, but I could not find the Original document from 1927-06-01" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23061" RevisionGUID="8a74b909-9cf1-43b4-9f22-8af0ecba9b68" CreationDate="2021-04-04T10:27:07.800" UserId="22334" Text="Found it in the [database][1] of the Spanish PTO: [PDF of the document you are looking for][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://consultas2.oepm.es/InvenesWeb/faces/busquedaInternet.jsp&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.oepm.es/pdf/ES/0000/000/00/10/24/ES-0102424_A3.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23050" RevisionGUID="41d9a5ba-d3bd-4930-bd67-da270e1cbe55" CreationDate="2021-04-04T22:33:13.640" UserId="17003" Comment="added 369 characters in body" Text="&gt; In practice, how often do U.S. pharmaceutical companies start clinical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; trials before obtaining their patent from the USPTO?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not an expert at this, but I think the answer is companies pretty much never start a clinical trial before applying for a patent. You need to disclose (publish) quite a lot of technical description about the drug to get a clinical trial approved and you need to file your patent applications before public disclosure of the compound. There is absolutely  no reason to wait for the patent to be granted. A patent, when granted, provides protection from the filing date of the application forward for 20 years. If the patent prosecution (period from filing to grant) is excessively long due to the USPTO delaying things than there may be a patent term adjustment to account for the extra processing time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents typically take something like three years from application to grant although this can vary quite a lot. Drug development is generally much longer on the order of 10 years or more to get to market. It would be advantageous to delay filing a patent application to obtain a longer effective protection, but then the company would be taking the risk of someone else patenting the compound first. Since patents now go to the first to file this is a real risk. I'm not sure what your concern is with &quot;long patent application delay&quot; is. Patent protection starts with the application date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23050" RevisionGUID="c2dad355-5360-4487-b4a6-2ac64681a9a3" CreationDate="2021-04-05T14:22:26.767" UserId="17003" Comment="added 364 characters in body" Text="&gt; In practice, how often do U.S. pharmaceutical companies start clinical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; trials before obtaining their patent from the USPTO?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not an expert at this, but I think the answer is companies pretty much never start a clinical trial before applying for a patent. You need to disclose (publish) quite a lot of technical description about the drug to get a clinical trial approved and you need to file your patent applications before public disclosure of the compound. There is absolutely  no reason to wait for the patent to be granted. A patent, when granted, provides protection from the grant date of the application forward for 20 years from the filing date. If the patent prosecution (period from filing to grant) is excessively long due to the USPTO delaying things than there may be a patent term adjustment to account for the extra processing time.  As Trish points out there are other provisions in law to [compensate for excessive regulatory approval time][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents typically take something like three years from application to grant although this can vary quite a lot. Drug development is generally much longer on the order of 10 years or more to get to market. It would be advantageous to delay filing a patent application to obtain a longer effective protection, but then the company would be taking the risk of someone else patenting the compound first. Since patents now go to the first to file this is a real risk. I'm not sure what your concern is with &quot;long patent application delay&quot; is. Since any potential infringer would also have to do clinical trials and obtain FDA approval, there is no real potential for a lost sales.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Price_Competition_and_Patent_Term_Restoration_Act" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23063" RevisionGUID="6ea8c1b5-6ac9-4740-9d5f-6497d4926640" CreationDate="2021-04-05T16:35:38.147" UserId="22797" Text="I try to make my first patent (a machine/construction) in my country. Here is how things are, I thought of an idea I constructed, it is fully operational so I make a request with the data to the patent office (including the description I made, the schematics, the claims). The patent office sends me a file with patents that have some claims the same as me either part of them or all of them, but these patents exist on US, China and one international patent (the last one covers 3 out of 9 of my claims). None of them is a patent in my country. So my question what is the purpose of the composition that the patent office sends to me? What should I check/see?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64087" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23063" RevisionGUID="6ea8c1b5-6ac9-4740-9d5f-6497d4926640" CreationDate="2021-04-05T16:35:38.147" UserId="22797" Text="What is the purpose of the composition the patent office sends" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64088" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23063" RevisionGUID="6ea8c1b5-6ac9-4740-9d5f-6497d4926640" CreationDate="2021-04-05T16:35:38.147" UserId="22797" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23063" RevisionGUID="6d97a1e1-51c1-441c-8053-3c9d3147effb" CreationDate="2021-04-05T17:15:39.743" UserId="22797" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="I try to make my first patent (a machine/construction) in my country. Here is how things are, I thought of an idea I constructed, it is fully operational so I make a request with the data to the patent office (including the description I made, the schematics, the claims). The patent office sends me a file with patents that have some claims the same/similar as mine, either part of them or all of them, but these patents exist on US, China and one international patent (the last one covers 3 out of 9 of my claims). None of them is a patent in my country. So my question what is the purpose of the composition that the patent office sends to me? What should I check/see?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23064" RevisionGUID="8e8fb914-d6f4-4c73-98eb-2eb66090ff2d" CreationDate="2021-04-05T20:24:01.710" UserId="17003" Text="You don't state your country, but the general rule is that prior art anywhere in the world is prior art everywhere in the world. Thus you can't just patent in your country an invention found in any other country. This is not limited to patents. Any invention that is publicly disclosed is prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I always suggest working with a patent attorney when drafting patents. Writing claims that are effective is difficult and requires experience and legal knowledge. While you see patents with similar claims, they may not be truly the same invention. In nearly every one of my patents the patent office cited prior art. With my patent attorney, we explained why that prior art was different from my inventions and in nearly every case obtained a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I should point out that if there are no patents covering your product in your country, you can sell the product in your country without fear of infringing a patent even if you don't obtain a patent yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23065" RevisionGUID="480e0106-b428-491e-bb38-0425c2ef6efa" CreationDate="2021-04-06T00:54:53.967" UserId="3076" Text="Usually a patent office will make you aware of publications, patents and patent applications that tend to show that your claims are either not new (not novel or anticipated) and/or are obvious (lack an inventive step or element). Any document published anywhere in the world in any language at any time before you filed can be used to show that your idea is not new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Along with it should be a search report or rejection that spells out how aspects of the publications map onto your claims and give you a time period to reply. To get the patent you need to either amend your claims to only included novel and non-obvious claims or argue why the publication do not show what the examiner thinks they show." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23050" RevisionGUID="9d8b2153-87ac-4024-979b-88e885f0b279" CreationDate="2021-04-06T16:29:08.550" UserId="25716" Comment="it's specifically FDA approvval that adds time." Text="&gt; In practice, how often do U.S. pharmaceutical companies start clinical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; trials before obtaining their patent from the USPTO?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not an expert at this, but I think the answer is companies pretty much never start a clinical trial before applying for a patent. You need to disclose (publish) quite a lot of technical description about the drug to get a clinical trial approved and you need to file your patent applications before public disclosure of the compound. There is absolutely  no reason to wait for the patent to be granted. A patent, when granted, provides protection from the grant date of the application forward for 20 years from the filing date. If the patent prosecution (period from filing to grant) is excessively long due to the USPTO delaying things than there may be a patent term adjustment to account for the extra processing time.  As Trish points out there are other provisions in law to [compensate for excessive regulatory (FDA) approval time][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patents typically take something like three years from application to grant although this can vary quite a lot. Drug development is generally much longer on the order of 10 years or more to get to market. It would be advantageous to delay filing a patent application to obtain a longer effective protection, but then the company would be taking the risk of someone else patenting the compound first. Since patents now go to the first to file this is a real risk. I'm not sure what your concern is with &quot;long patent application delay&quot; is. Since any potential infringer would also have to do clinical trials and obtain FDA approval, there is no real potential for a lost sales.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Price_Competition_and_Patent_Term_Restoration_Act" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64093" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="23050" RevisionGUID="9d8b2153-87ac-4024-979b-88e885f0b279" CreationDate="2021-04-06T16:29:08.550" Comment="Proposed by 25716 approved by 18033, 17003 edit id of 2150" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64097" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22972" RevisionGUID="87142483-8d68-4fe0-aefd-450a2364962a" CreationDate="2021-04-06T17:04:50.397" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64098" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="ae06eee7-f160-4aaa-8d54-b001f73d17cc" CreationDate="2021-04-07T11:04:45.367" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64099" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19823" RevisionGUID="20a46047-a57a-436f-9361-030339fdabd1" CreationDate="2021-04-07T15:04:25.390" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3388" RevisionGUID="846c8cb3-e6f1-4aa8-9983-2fbfc867212e" CreationDate="2021-04-07T23:30:50.027" UserId="-1" Comment="Fix patent link" Text="I want to use the SIFT algorithm for my scientific research (in EU, concretely SP), but it may end in a commercial software. I've searched the internet and what I found is that the patent is only in US and that in EU there is no &quot;software development&quot; patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I use SIFT algorithm without any fear? For sure, without selling to US. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The patent: [US6711293][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6711293B1/en &quot;US6711293&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64102" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3388" RevisionGUID="846c8cb3-e6f1-4aa8-9983-2fbfc867212e" CreationDate="2021-04-07T23:30:50.027" Comment="Proposed by 81.249.85.238|b5f58740-a7b5-4fe5-8687-4f29cfe4387d approved by 3264 edit id of 2151" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23068" RevisionGUID="386359dc-2d5e-40f2-8c59-16d30a0318c5" CreationDate="2021-04-09T11:55:42.353" UserId="25182" Text="Are patents titles required to be unique, as for instance required for websites addresses? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take as an example the UK patent [description for a patent][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and suppose that a patent with title &quot;Bicycle Stabiliser&quot; has been filed in the past. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I find a patent introducing a completely novel bicycle stabiliser, but with the same &quot;Bicycle Stabiliser&quot; title?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/873877/WS0055_Description_Jan_2020.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64109" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23068" RevisionGUID="386359dc-2d5e-40f2-8c59-16d30a0318c5" CreationDate="2021-04-09T11:55:42.353" UserId="25182" Text="Are patents titles required to be unique?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64110" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23068" RevisionGUID="386359dc-2d5e-40f2-8c59-16d30a0318c5" CreationDate="2021-04-09T11:55:42.353" UserId="25182" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;title&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23068" RevisionGUID="ea1ef7f5-c362-40ac-96cf-120ad46c0bd8" CreationDate="2021-04-09T12:02:04.243" UserId="25182" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Are patents titles required to be unique, as for instance required for websites addresses? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take as an example the UK patent [description for a patent][1], and suppose that a patent with title &quot;Bicycle Stabiliser&quot; has been filed in the past. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I file a patent introducing a completely novel bicycle stabiliser, but with the same &quot;Bicycle Stabiliser&quot; title?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/873877/WS0055_Description_Jan_2020.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23069" RevisionGUID="5aee3540-efac-4340-96a7-498e090d64d7" CreationDate="2021-04-09T13:25:12.250" UserId="18033" Text="No, they are not required to be unique. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For examples try any standard product in any patent search engine and you'll find plenty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64113" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="23068" RevisionGUID="9c2dc048-6ee0-43d4-ad38-3cb745fbbbd4" CreationDate="2021-04-09T20:01:54.367" />
  <row Id="64114" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="39b94acf-90e1-434d-bd42-8227c866b90d" CreationDate="2021-04-09T22:04:45.373" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64115" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22957" RevisionGUID="3500b065-31d9-469b-998c-7a70bdbb0f39" CreationDate="2021-04-11T03:01:40.140" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64116" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="d6da17a2-6a6d-4dd2-bf81-b1b5796df37f" CreationDate="2021-04-11T04:03:35.367" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64117" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12028" RevisionGUID="a97389b8-2dd1-42f5-85c7-55d9ad9b323e" CreationDate="2021-04-11T23:03:35.460" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64119" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17720" RevisionGUID="80ddc69a-0037-4f89-a048-20ce1ff59a86" CreationDate="2021-04-12T09:02:30.337" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64120" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="fd106667-f86b-4731-984b-78352c78d3db" CreationDate="2021-04-12T14:05:05.540" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23070" RevisionGUID="94fb0b3a-e846-4d89-9276-0a3c70622ba7" CreationDate="2021-04-12T15:41:29.263" UserId="21722" Text="I would like to submit an application for a new mechanism to be patented. Do I have to attach the complete mechanism including screws, nuts, housing and general electric components like DC motors in the illustration drawings? Or it's just sufficient to attach drawings for the main mechanism components that i would like to grant? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64122" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23070" RevisionGUID="94fb0b3a-e846-4d89-9276-0a3c70622ba7" CreationDate="2021-04-12T15:41:29.263" UserId="21722" Text="During patent application submission, which case is correct for approval?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64123" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23070" RevisionGUID="94fb0b3a-e846-4d89-9276-0a3c70622ba7" CreationDate="2021-04-12T15:41:29.263" UserId="21722" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;wipo&gt;&lt;electronics&gt;&lt;patent-design&gt;&lt;mechanics&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23071" RevisionGUID="48c03b54-9cb1-43a6-85ac-d399b636efea" CreationDate="2021-04-12T17:01:25.033" UserId="17003" Text="I'm not an attorney, but generally you submit drawings that illustrate the just specific mechanism involved in the invention with enough context to explain how it works. Ordinary elements like motors and gears can be illustrated generically. You can get a pretty good idea of what patent drawings look for by looking at other patents. You can use [Google Patents][1] to search for some comparable device and look at some of the patents that show up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's important to note that the drawings and the text of the application work together to explain how the invention works. You really want to think about alternative variations in addition to the preferred implementation to make sure that you can cover enough breadth in the claims. I always suggest working with a patent attorney or agent even though it costs money. My experience is you are much more likely to end up with an effective patent that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23072" RevisionGUID="85e3ab88-d6e4-4912-a8d6-2ca30f5a6a6e" CreationDate="2021-04-13T02:08:43.030" UserId="3076" Text="To supplement another answer - You mention a &quot;main mechanism&quot;. A critical point before drafting a patent application is to determine what you think that the invention is. If you have invented a new carburetor you do not need to show a whole car and you might discuss variations of the carburetor that make it suitable for a lawnmower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An invention needs to be enabled in a patent application meaning you need to teach someone skilled in the art how to make and use the invention. Usually that does not include specifying where all the screws go. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64126" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="ab9b9653-aed4-444d-92ee-3288275dc1fb" CreationDate="2021-04-13T06:03:25.360" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23071" RevisionGUID="0f11f1ee-fb3b-49a6-b07b-9f6c42c8a6fc" CreationDate="2021-04-13T16:50:12.543" UserId="17003" Comment="edited body" Text="I'm not an attorney, but generally you submit drawings that illustrate just the specific mechanism involved in the invention with enough context to explain how it works. Ordinary elements like motors and gears can be illustrated generically. You can get a pretty good idea of what patent drawings look for by looking at other patents. You can use [Google Patents][1] to search for some comparable device and look at some of the patents that show up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's important to note that the drawings and the text of the application work together to explain how the invention works. You really want to think about alternative variations in addition to the preferred implementation to make sure that you can cover enough breadth in the claims. I always suggest working with a patent attorney or agent even though it costs money. My experience is you are much more likely to end up with an effective patent that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23076" RevisionGUID="8bd642a2-5e82-41ac-ab01-cf88c0adbcd6" CreationDate="2021-04-15T10:41:21.090" UserId="25721" Text="When USPTO says&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;The same part of an invention appearing in more than one view of the drawing must always be designated by the same reference character, and the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;, do they really mean the same **element** or just exactly the same part? If I have drawings of different embodiments where parts performing the same function in the invention are differently shaped and in different positions, are they still the same part that should have the same reference character?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64141" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23076" RevisionGUID="8bd642a2-5e82-41ac-ab01-cf88c0adbcd6" CreationDate="2021-04-15T10:41:21.090" UserId="25721" Text="What exactly does &quot;same part&quot; mean in the reference characters rules?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64142" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23076" RevisionGUID="8bd642a2-5e82-41ac-ab01-cf88c0adbcd6" CreationDate="2021-04-15T10:41:21.090" UserId="25721" Text="&lt;application&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23077" RevisionGUID="5fe29407-9a1d-4ccb-8246-c29427412e28" CreationDate="2021-04-15T15:39:33.973" UserId="3076" Text="Differently *shaped* means they are different parts. I often use the prime symbol i.e. part 100 and part 100' to emphasize the relationship but have a distinct label. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Differently located but physically identical should have the same label.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23078" RevisionGUID="da514fa4-d598-4250-a468-7a2514ab933e" CreationDate="2021-04-15T22:59:59.857" UserId="25820" Text="I recently filed a provisional application. The invention is in a late stage of development in terms of bringing to market. So my question is if I were to begin sale before a PCT is filed, but within one year of the provisional, would I still maintain my IP claim in the PCT? Also if I would in a country where the law is 6 months from disclosure (like China) would I have to file the PCT within 6 months of sale or would I have the full year from the provisional filing date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64146" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23078" RevisionGUID="da514fa4-d598-4250-a468-7a2514ab933e" CreationDate="2021-04-15T22:59:59.857" UserId="25820" Text="Can I begin sale after a provisional and before a PCT without losing IP rights?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64147" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23078" RevisionGUID="da514fa4-d598-4250-a468-7a2514ab933e" CreationDate="2021-04-15T22:59:59.857" UserId="25820" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;priority&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23079" RevisionGUID="308dca62-5814-4c38-bfd9-367d8368fe5b" CreationDate="2021-04-15T23:12:22.493" UserId="3076" Text="Under the terms of the [Paris Convention][1], to which China is a contracting party, the first application in any Paris country for a particular subject mater can be used as a priority filing in any other Paris country  to allow 12 months to file. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The six month grace period in China to file from when novelty is broken only applies in very [specific cases][2]. Not relevant in youir case if you file in 12 months since the Paris Convention provisions are such that novelty isn't considered broken by a disclosure if the first Paris filing is done before that disclosure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/paris/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://legal-patent.com/patent-law/new-patent-law-in-china/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23080" RevisionGUID="8f1f08c2-17e1-4be7-8e9a-35d9fc84016f" CreationDate="2021-04-16T00:47:44.330" UserId="25821" Text="This is a problem I've experienced with Foxit Phantom PDF. I believe if you make the entries in Adobe it will work. I don't know about other PDF editors. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-ZT" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23081" RevisionGUID="11989df5-4f17-4eef-bde6-464b68d6e077" CreationDate="2021-04-16T02:00:17.517" UserId="25346" Text="The answer likely depends on 1) to what extent the firms rely on patenting, and 2) whether the firm can get around difficult examiners/art units. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please provide anecdotal examples or experiences, if possible. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64151" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23081" RevisionGUID="11989df5-4f17-4eef-bde6-464b68d6e077" CreationDate="2021-04-16T02:00:17.517" UserId="25346" Text="Do slow or difficult USPTO patent examiners frustrate companies to the extent that they reduce research and development?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64152" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23081" RevisionGUID="11989df5-4f17-4eef-bde6-464b68d6e077" CreationDate="2021-04-16T02:00:17.517" UserId="25346" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;examiner&gt;&lt;research&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23082" RevisionGUID="a9e863cc-43fe-4094-a5fd-e47eca3ebe3c" CreationDate="2021-04-16T20:31:10.557" UserId="17003" Text="This is entirely anecdotal. I worked for years in a large medical products firm. Patents were essential and R&amp;D spending was not impacted by patent office challenges. However, it is certainly possible that in other industries with faster product life cycles, pursuing patents is seen as less important. Even so, I kind of doubt it impacts R&amp;D spending much. It is also possible that with small firms patent delays are a bigger issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly in the case of my own patents we had several difficult examiners. In one case, in particular, my lawyer had to appeal to the examiner's supervisor when the examiner was completely misunderstanding the prior art. Generally speaking, we were successful in obtaining effective patents. A lot has to do with the quality of the patent attorney or agent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23079" RevisionGUID="b8a65896-8969-403c-a41d-a2c9d47a4a48" CreationDate="2021-04-17T03:18:47.700" UserId="3076" Comment="added 168 characters in body" Text="To answer the question of title - **Yes** if it a very good provisional application, **No** if is done by yourself or for any other reason the PCT needs more detail or other new matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the terms of the [Paris Convention][1], to which China is a contracting party, the first application in any Paris country for a particular subject mater can be used as a priority filing in any other Paris country  to allow 12 months to file. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The six month grace period in China to file from when novelty is broken only applies in very [specific cases][2]. Not relevant in youir case if you file in 12 months since the Paris Convention provisions are such that novelty isn't considered broken by a disclosure if the first Paris filing is done before that disclosure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/paris/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://legal-patent.com/patent-law/new-patent-law-in-china/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23083" RevisionGUID="d4bcb654-bdc3-4ac9-898c-6045710095c6" CreationDate="2021-04-17T21:23:34.137" UserId="3076" Text="It has been several years since I worked at a huge technology company but my two cents is that problems with and examiner here and there would not affect corporate strategy but a strong trend toward classes of inventions having reduced chances of getting a granted patent would. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The limited ability to get patents on business methods, software, anything that be reduced to a gist that seems abstract (almost everything), and DNA related patents should be causing companies to re-think ways to protect their R&amp;D investments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23084" RevisionGUID="119ab964-4488-4bb0-987b-c551a6d9e714" CreationDate="2021-04-19T04:30:47.453" UserId="25835" Text="I am doing drawings for my utility patent, which is a computer process that includes some user feedback in text. I don't know and don't want to limit by specifying exactly what the feedback will be, but I know that it will consist of a set of text values, for example Value1:XXXX, Value2: XXXXX, Value3: XXXXX and so on. I consider that the method of displaying the user feedback is worth a drawing for my invention. Currently, I'm just placing XXXX in the figure where a string of text would be on the display. I know USPTO doesn't like words on the drawings. Is there a/what is the recommended way to represent &quot;there is arbitrary text here whose value does not matter to the invention&quot; in a drawing?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64157" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23084" RevisionGUID="119ab964-4488-4bb0-987b-c551a6d9e714" CreationDate="2021-04-19T04:30:47.453" UserId="25835" Text="How to represent arbitrary text in a patent drawing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64158" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23084" RevisionGUID="119ab964-4488-4bb0-987b-c551a6d9e714" CreationDate="2021-04-19T04:30:47.453" UserId="25835" Text="&lt;drawing&gt;&lt;patent-drawings&gt;&lt;patent-figures&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23085" RevisionGUID="0793c88b-31e9-4869-8ab8-8425f54b1aa4" CreationDate="2021-04-19T07:23:42.870" UserId="22334" Text="I do not think there is a 'recommended way', what you should do is explicitly state that the value/text could be something else as well. So in the drawings you include the text you mentioned or an actual value/text, but in the description you state something like: in Fig. # an exemplary value/text has been represented for the sake of clarity, the disclosure is not limited to the illustrated value/text, other possible values/text are also part of the present disclosure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The skilled person should know what other value/text could that be based on your disclosure and the common general knowledge in the art. If you do not explicitly state what those other values/text might be, it is unlikely that you will able to include those in the claims in case that may be beneficial for the patentability of the invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23087" RevisionGUID="b642bec9-e5a9-4c6a-9ed9-b8e3ec362e70" CreationDate="2021-04-21T22:00:57.083" UserId="25853" Text="I´m new in research in patent classificacions and need to get the CCL: Current US Classification, CPC: Current CPC Classification, CPCL:Current CPC Classification Class and ICL: International Classification. of various patent numbers i used to get them from see the forest, but found out that they had a lot of errors, furthermore I can´t find the bulk database for that information, the anwers that i looked up in this page are good but the links no longer work. Can anyone give me a way to solve this problem ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64162" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23087" RevisionGUID="b642bec9-e5a9-4c6a-9ed9-b8e3ec362e70" CreationDate="2021-04-21T22:00:57.083" UserId="25853" Text="USPTO classification databse" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64163" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23087" RevisionGUID="b642bec9-e5a9-4c6a-9ed9-b8e3ec362e70" CreationDate="2021-04-21T22:00:57.083" UserId="25853" Text="&lt;uspto&gt;&lt;classification&gt;&lt;cpc&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64164" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19379" RevisionGUID="ffb20731-9ee5-4b95-bc94-ce4df42d2c16" CreationDate="2021-04-22T03:04:55.523" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23088" RevisionGUID="d66f6dd7-c07d-4705-8722-afc92a60db66" CreationDate="2021-04-22T15:30:01.590" UserId="17003" Text="[The Lens][1] provides classification codes as fields. You can download the results of a search to a CSV file. There is also an [API][2] for bulk queries although that, I believe is not free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/user/subscriptions#patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23088" RevisionGUID="0f75325f-4fad-40bc-931d-0d81a2e354a8" CreationDate="2021-04-22T15:35:11.993" UserId="17003" Comment="added 186 characters in body" Text="[The Lens][1] provides classification codes as fields. You can download the results of a search to various formats including CSV and JSON files. I just tested it and got the following column headers related to classifications:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    CPC Classifications,IPCR Classifications,US Classifications&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also an [API][2] for bulk queries although that, I believe is not free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org/lens/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lens.org/lens/user/subscriptions#patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23090" RevisionGUID="46cb9013-b355-4556-b9cd-71103b517a66" CreationDate="2021-04-24T08:13:34.043" UserId="25764" Text="**Can I patent an application of a popular technology?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say Blockchain is a very popular technology nowadays and there are hundreds of applications proposed and ongoing in many different domains like in, finance and medical sectors. Now, when I come across a new idea of a particular application of the Blockchain technology like, resolving an existing problem (never been addressed for distributed solution) with a distributed system using Blockchain where several solutions might exist for centralized system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can my idea be patented reasonably?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;NB: I am new in this site, please correct me if my question is not addressed properly. I will modify it.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64175" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23090" RevisionGUID="46cb9013-b355-4556-b9cd-71103b517a66" CreationDate="2021-04-24T08:13:34.043" UserId="25764" Text="Can I patent an application of a popular technology?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64176" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23090" RevisionGUID="46cb9013-b355-4556-b9cd-71103b517a66" CreationDate="2021-04-24T08:13:34.043" UserId="25764" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23091" RevisionGUID="33fc5d1e-18be-4bc8-93ea-8d1e2b71f926" CreationDate="2021-04-24T08:33:27.760" UserId="18033" Text="Yes. A (technological) solution to a problem needs to be novel and non-obvious(/inventive) as a whole. Basically every solution is composed by known components. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specific answer depends on many factors. In general, if you use an existing technology in a new field, the question is, would it have been obvious to try this solution. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While going into details of non-obviousness in patents is a topic for a book and not an answer here, if you, as a technically skilled person, think it wasn't too obvious but could have been tried, you are probably well beyond the needed non-obviousness. Getting a patent for something is in most cases a lot easier than people would expect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64178" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="23090" RevisionGUID="3078aba9-7f48-473c-8e23-02a35e406a99" CreationDate="2021-04-24T18:52:23.947" />
  <row Id="64179" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20143" RevisionGUID="7e0a77b6-5c6b-4d50-893f-d7a936312680" CreationDate="2021-04-24T19:13:21.330" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23091" RevisionGUID="69444848-1086-45d3-a954-c0cb2cb9551e" CreationDate="2021-04-25T08:48:14.047" UserId="18033" Comment="edited body" Text="Yes. A (technological) solution to a problem needs to be novel and non-obvious(/inventive) as a whole. Basically every solution is composed of known components. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specific answer depends on many factors. In general, if you use an existing technology in a new field, the question is, would it have been obvious to try this solution. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While going into details of non-obviousness in patents is a topic for a book and not an answer here, if you, as a technically skilled person, think it wasn't too obvious but could have been tried, you are probably well beyond the needed non-obviousness. Getting a patent for something is in most cases a lot easier than people would expect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64181" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22490" RevisionGUID="44abd615-c8bd-4448-929c-783babdcb511" CreationDate="2021-04-25T20:08:20.633" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23092" RevisionGUID="11ed6d6f-bde2-486c-87b4-641db1345a18" CreationDate="2021-04-25T23:20:54.590" UserId="25880" Text="Our lawyers filed a patent on April 20th, 2021. I need to see the status of it on the USPTO website. I tried searching on public pair using the application number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am unable to find it. Is there any way I see it?  I need to extract that information. I am thinking to use that as proof of application submission. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64183" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23092" RevisionGUID="11ed6d6f-bde2-486c-87b4-641db1345a18" CreationDate="2021-04-25T23:20:54.590" UserId="25880" Text="I have application number and attorney docket number, but I could not find application status on the USPTO website" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64184" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23092" RevisionGUID="11ed6d6f-bde2-486c-87b4-641db1345a18" CreationDate="2021-04-25T23:20:54.590" UserId="25880" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;status&gt;&lt;pair&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23093" RevisionGUID="f5505403-863a-4423-a57c-9460e24ec6b4" CreationDate="2021-04-26T03:52:50.207" UserId="3076" Text="It will be visible now in Private PAIR to the attorney who filed it, but *not* visible to the public in Public PAIR until it is published at the 18 month point unless early publication was requested. Or not until grant if non-publication was requested." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64186" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10078" RevisionGUID="e399fe56-2278-4150-bc66-e687b219c3c8" CreationDate="2021-04-26T06:04:10.390" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23095" RevisionGUID="8d336967-bff5-4e24-ae69-261a3d260e4f" CreationDate="2021-04-28T03:42:03.267" UserId="25896" Text="So if I had a U.S. provisional or non-provisional that wasn’t yet published, disclosed in any way, and was not yet filed as a PCT is there anything stopping a foreign country from doing so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say in the case of a patent with a national competitiveness aspect where there would be incentive for a foreign country to (of somehow aware despite none of the public disclosures above - espionage) prevent a patent internationally, in their country, or even to steal the IP. Is there a way that after filing my provisional and on my way to the PCT that a foreign country can’t just say a non-provisional was filed a month earlier and change the date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an international system for dating a patent outside of the PCT process (which would still have the same problem since it gives priority to domestic patents). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64191" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23095" RevisionGUID="8d336967-bff5-4e24-ae69-261a3d260e4f" CreationDate="2021-04-28T03:42:03.267" UserId="25896" Text="Foreign filing of a U.S. based patent before PCT or disclosure" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64192" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23095" RevisionGUID="8d336967-bff5-4e24-ae69-261a3d260e4f" CreationDate="2021-04-28T03:42:03.267" UserId="25896" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;foreign&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23095" RevisionGUID="59836cc1-1107-4faa-98b2-6ad368cc9bbc" CreationDate="2021-04-28T04:10:33.823" UserId="25896" Comment="edited body" Text="So if I had a U.S. provisional or non-provisional that wasn’t yet published, disclosed in any way, and was not yet filed as a PCT is there anything stopping a foreign country from doing so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say in the case of a patent with a national competitiveness aspect where there would be incentive for a foreign country to (if somehow aware despite none of the public disclosures above - espionage) prevent a patent internationally, in their country, or even to steal the IP. Is there a way that after filing my provisional and on my way to the PCT that a foreign country can’t just say a non-provisional was filed a month earlier and change the date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an international system for dating a patent outside of the PCT process (which would still have the same problem since it gives priority to domestic patents). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64194" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20973" RevisionGUID="98bf30a8-8f84-4b52-ad79-648a0d141084" CreationDate="2021-04-28T05:08:55.880" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23096" RevisionGUID="17177de8-5284-4edc-a007-b4a6fceb6f5e" CreationDate="2021-04-28T10:23:38.270" UserId="18033" Text="No - except the part where this would cripple your countries patent system for a long time if it ever came out. Potentially all patents ever filed in your country serving as priority could be invalid in other countries. Your patent publications might not be accepted as prior art anymore. So overall, I don't think it's a good idea strategically. But no, afaik there is no international system to prevent this kind of systematic fraud." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5411" RevisionGUID="9deb0408-61fd-4571-bfaf-8920e55b67ff" CreationDate="2021-04-28T15:54:44.473" UserId="7200" Comment="Updated DarkShikari link since original link 404s" Text="**AN OVERBROAD PATENT ON run-level encoding for video** - This application from [Cisco][6] seeks to patent work that was previously published as open-source software! 10 minutes of your time can help narrow US patent applications before they become patents.  [Follow @askpatents](https://twitter.com/AskPatents) on twitter to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe there is good prior art for [this patent][3]. Now the applicant is trying to [patent the same idea in the US][5]! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Quantized transform coefficients representing pixel values in a Video][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Controversy is explained in full here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Wikipedia Article][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [x264.nl][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION** - Have you seen anything that was **published before 12/30/2008** that discusses: Run-level coders for video&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [From x264.nl][2]: A run-level coder is a function that takes an array of values and calculates the distances between nonzero values (runs) in the array, as well as the indices of the nonzero values (levels). This is necessary for practically any video format that makes use of run-level compression (H.264, MPEG-2, Theora, etc). Here's one of x264's unoptimized run-level coders.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This function is run often enough that high performance is very important. Naively, there is no obvious way to make use of SIMD in such an algorithm, so some trickery has to be used to write a fast assembly function for it. Near the end of 2008, I added optimized assembly implementations of two run-length coders (for block decimation and CAVLC) to x264.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So why the deja vu? Because this patent application was an exact, step-by-step description of the algorithm I came up with for decimate_score (and later coeff_level_run) in x264 in 2008!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Publication Number**: [US 20100166076 A1][5]&#xD;&#xA;- **Application Number**: US 12/649,764&#xD;&#xA;- **Assignee**: Tandberg Telecom (now Cisco)&#xD;&#xA;- **Prior Art Date**: Seeking prior Art **predating** 12/30/2008&#xD;&#xA;- **Link to Google Prior Art Search** - [&quot;Find Prior Art&quot;][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Claim 1** requires each and every step below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A method for calculating run and level representations of quantized transform coefficients representing pixel values included in a block of a video picture, the method comprising:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Packing, at a video processing apparatus, each quantized transform coefficients in a value interval [Max, Min] by setting all quantized transform coefficients greater than Max equal to Max, and all quantized transform coefficients less than Min equal to Min;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Reordering, at the video processing apparatus, the quantized transform coefficients according to a predefined order depending on respective positions in the block resulting in an array C of reordered quantized transform coefficients;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Masking, at the video processing apparatus, C by generating an array M containing ones in positions corresponding to positions of C having non-zero values, and zeros in positions corresponding to positions of C having zero values;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Generating, at the video processing apparatus, for each position containing a one in M, a run and a level representation by setting the level value equal to an occurring value in a corresponding position of C; and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Setting, at the video processing apparatus, for each position containing a one in M, the run value equal to the number of proceeding positions relative to a current position in M since a previous occurrence of one in M.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X264#Tandberg_controversy&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20160303215250/http://x264.nl/developers/Dark_Shikari/tandberg.html&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2010077148A1&#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://www.google.com/patents/related/US20100166076&#xD;&#xA;[5]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20100166076&#xD;&#xA;[6]: http://www.cisco.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23098" RevisionGUID="4fcb9ad4-bf99-449f-8fa5-0f30c8696b65" CreationDate="2021-04-29T20:30:25.217" UserId="25908" Text="What person or group is the registered owner or registered assignee of the following design patents&#xD;&#xA;8257475&#xD;&#xA;9182080&#xD;&#xA;9574710&#xD;&#xA;10100980&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64202" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23098" RevisionGUID="4fcb9ad4-bf99-449f-8fa5-0f30c8696b65" CreationDate="2021-04-29T20:30:25.217" UserId="25908" Text="WHO IS THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THE FOLLOWING PATENTS AND IS THEIR AN ASSIGNEE RECOREDED" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64203" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23098" RevisionGUID="4fcb9ad4-bf99-449f-8fa5-0f30c8696b65" CreationDate="2021-04-29T20:30:25.217" UserId="25908" Text="&lt;design&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64204" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="23098" RevisionGUID="b86f6075-58cd-4c37-8d0f-d8fca728dbfa" CreationDate="2021-04-29T21:32:03.430" UserId="3076" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;assignment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64205" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="23098" RevisionGUID="1271434c-1156-4154-bbe5-4f2f94a9c0b1" CreationDate="2021-04-29T23:06:06.500" UserId="17003" Comment="Edited title to remove all caps." Text="Who is the Registered Owner of the Following Patents and is Their Assignee Recorded?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23099" RevisionGUID="d59490ad-a4e7-47fa-8b02-678a59c60cea" CreationDate="2021-04-29T23:15:42.593" UserId="17003" Text="I'm formalizing George White's comment as an answer since it is so useful. As George White points out, those are US utility patents, not design patents. Go to the [USPTO Patent Assignment Search page][1], select &quot;Look up by Patent Number&quot; and type in the patent number (digits only). It's really easy. Looking at the first number you get the following result. You can scroll down to see the entire entry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html#/patent/search/resultAbstract?id=8257475&amp;type=patNum&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2sRdQ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64207" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22499" RevisionGUID="aaac4bef-c16a-40d7-aa22-88deddbfb83a" CreationDate="2021-04-30T04:14:11.410" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23100" RevisionGUID="f7604f64-7d0f-47ab-8ea9-7425fb79c769" CreationDate="2021-04-30T21:35:20.867" UserId="25915" Text="In order to infringe on a US patent, does every step of at least one claim need to be implemented or is each step in a claim separately protected?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64209" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23100" RevisionGUID="f7604f64-7d0f-47ab-8ea9-7425fb79c769" CreationDate="2021-04-30T21:35:20.867" UserId="25915" Text="Is each step in a claim separately protected?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64210" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23100" RevisionGUID="f7604f64-7d0f-47ab-8ea9-7425fb79c769" CreationDate="2021-04-30T21:35:20.867" UserId="25915" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;usa&gt;&lt;inventive-step&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23101" RevisionGUID="ed57bc86-c1df-4622-bedd-23608083d352" CreationDate="2021-04-30T23:08:21.947" UserId="17003" Text="All patents define claims in their entirety. To infringe on a claim, **each and every step** of the claim must be implemented. If a claim has steps A, B, C and D and someone implements A, B and D, they do not infringe on the claim. Individual steps by themselves aren't protected unless there is a separate claim covering just that step. To my knowledge this is true in every country, not just the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Determining freedom to operate (lack of infringement) can be tricky and I encourage you to work with a patent attorney or agent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23102" RevisionGUID="bd822414-5d49-40d1-abb1-7c1046ac3d10" CreationDate="2021-04-30T23:14:45.157" UserId="3076" Text="It is fundamental to patents that in order to infringe a claim all elements must be present and configured as specified or, in the case of a method claim, all steps must be executed. Often the component parts of a claim are individually not new it is the claim as a whole that is novel and non-obvious and patented. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each numbered claim in a granted patent does stand alone as something that might or might not be infringed by someone's actions. A patent is considered infringed if at least one claim is infringed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23103" RevisionGUID="4f2ddf9a-5255-4b9e-a636-0c52d2317b0a" CreationDate="2021-05-02T18:08:46.813" UserId="25922" Text="I want a rough estimate and does not really need the exact number. Is it more than 500 per year overall? more than 100?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I want to know how common is it for these companies to litigate each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64214" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23103" RevisionGUID="4f2ddf9a-5255-4b9e-a636-0c52d2317b0a" CreationDate="2021-05-02T18:08:46.813" UserId="25922" Text="How common is it for public companies to sue each other regarding patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64215" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23103" RevisionGUID="4f2ddf9a-5255-4b9e-a636-0c52d2317b0a" CreationDate="2021-05-02T18:08:46.813" UserId="25922" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64216" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="23103" RevisionGUID="6efc7b99-5f45-4579-b838-7bd54934bb11" CreationDate="2021-05-02T18:33:10.867" UserId="25922" Comment="edited title" Text="How common is it for public companies in US to sue each other regarding patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64217" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22784" RevisionGUID="54c500c7-3f05-42af-a051-8a336f56f914" CreationDate="2021-05-02T23:06:05.690" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23104" RevisionGUID="2367da5b-886d-48e4-8880-ab65cec5066e" CreationDate="2021-05-02T23:22:55.680" UserId="25923" Text="Is it possible to patent or maybe copyright a **process** of protecting say a **file** format as a software utility patent, or another type of patent if it uses free domain technology?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main hurdle I am questioning is about trying to receive some input on where to look for legal documentation. Documentation or feedback responses based on if you are protecting a file format, say it uses public domain software such as the **MD5** hash algorithm. Yet, this public domain software has not been used in a method for protecting certain file formats in a specific manner of the embodiment of said software in question to be patented. Is this open to be patented? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If used in conjunction with other aspects of steps, to reach a final result. Are you allowed to patent something that uses other public freely domain aspects of software? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A great example would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You use the MD5 free hash algorithm with salt key, but it involves other algorithmic design aspects or process steps. Then applies them to said file formats to ultimately form a software process that protects file's unlike anything that exists presently. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am new to patent's and anything or advice would be helpful. Just as someone might have patented the '.docx' file format, but may you patent a process that uses processes to secure these file formats in conjunction with public domain algorithms such as the **MD5** hash algorithm, but more detail obviously are involved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64219" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23104" RevisionGUID="2367da5b-886d-48e4-8880-ab65cec5066e" CreationDate="2021-05-02T23:22:55.680" UserId="25923" Text="Patenting computer software that uses public domain aspects" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64220" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23104" RevisionGUID="2367da5b-886d-48e4-8880-ab65cec5066e" CreationDate="2021-05-02T23:22:55.680" UserId="25923" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64221" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="23104" RevisionGUID="5e2e67d5-9b2d-42c8-8d44-f7b2a320b956" CreationDate="2021-05-02T23:38:44.027" UserId="25923" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Patenting computer software/method that uses public domain aspects" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64222" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="23104" RevisionGUID="5e2e67d5-9b2d-42c8-8d44-f7b2a320b956" CreationDate="2021-05-02T23:38:44.027" UserId="25923" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;law&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64223" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20013" RevisionGUID="ef34f48e-f077-4295-9767-1935cd7697c9" CreationDate="2021-05-03T00:01:15.083" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23105" RevisionGUID="36e50df0-ca05-4376-a721-4d1d59ca460d" CreationDate="2021-05-03T04:11:21.973" UserId="25924" Text="So I recently filed a provisional application for an IP that is a process attached with extreme significance in bioinformatics. It is a clearly patentable process. It does not qualify for national competitiveness in the legal definition, but being US based would have a profound impact in health related applications in a few years. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disclosed this process (confidentially) to a department head at my university in the Fall. I Filed in early April. My concern is around a data breach found recently from the Fall. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I keep all the details of my development over years (dated as far back as 2016) in immutable storage (cross regional server on permanent retention in a WORM bucket). Given this and the details of the investigation ongoing I feel confident that I can later prove a filing made without my knowledge was based on my work. So for the questions below please assume this is the case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the process were publicly disclosed before April by a period of 6 months but not filed in any way would I still be able to file a PCT and maintain global IP control if granted? To be clear this disclosure was not made by any university employees but from illegal access to my computers; I am particularly concerned about countries like China which could negate the strategic value simply from use in their country alone. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the process was filed as a patent before my provisional (which only had confidential disclosures to refine the process and extend IP window for sale) by a period of more than 6 months would I maintain global priority if I were to win a derivative process proceeding? As in if they filed in summer of 2020 and I filed in April of 2021, then I were to win a derivative proceeding would I gain the priority date of their filing?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64226" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23105" RevisionGUID="36e50df0-ca05-4376-a721-4d1d59ca460d" CreationDate="2021-05-03T04:11:21.973" UserId="25924" Text="Questions about derivative process and abusive disclosure" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64227" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23105" RevisionGUID="36e50df0-ca05-4376-a721-4d1d59ca460d" CreationDate="2021-05-03T04:11:21.973" UserId="25924" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;disclosure&gt;&lt;public-disclosure&gt;&lt;derivative&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23105" RevisionGUID="8bc13fea-2df1-469b-a1bb-c274357f6e5b" CreationDate="2021-05-03T04:16:42.457" UserId="25924" Comment="deleted 135 characters in body" Text="So I recently filed a provisional application for an IP that is a process attached with extreme significance in bioinformatics - a data analysis process that can be used to make a health service 1/100th the cost. It is a clearly patentable process. It does not qualify for national competitiveness in the legal definition, but being US based would have a profound impact in health related applications in a few years. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disclosed this process (confidentially) to a department head at my university in the Fall. I Filed in early April. My concern is around a data breach found recently from the Fall. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I keep all the details of my development over years (dated as far back as 2016) in immutable storage (cross regional server on permanent retention in a WORM bucket). Given this and the details of the investigation ongoing I feel confident that I can later prove a filing made without my knowledge was based on my work. So for the questions below please assume this is the case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the process were publicly disclosed before April by a period of 6 months but not filed in any way would I still be able to file a PCT and maintain global IP control if granted? To be clear this disclosure was not made by any university employees but from illegal access to my computers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the process was filed as a patent before my provisional (which only had confidential disclosures to refine the process and extend IP window for sale) by a period of more than 6 months would I maintain global priority if I were to win a derivative process proceeding? As in if they filed in summer of 2020 and I filed in April of 2021, then I were to win a derivative proceeding would I gain the priority date of their filing?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23106" RevisionGUID="d4c3438c-a941-471d-8393-33e6eb49e5e0" CreationDate="2021-05-03T06:04:13.110" UserId="3076" Text="A partial answer is that the derivation proceeding you mention is a process within the USPTO. Establishing that an earlier U.S. filing was derived from your work would only help you with the USPTO and not likely remove an earlier filing as prior art in the eyes of any other patent office. You can file a PCT application since the PCT itself does not make a ruling on this since that application is a bundle of applications to individual countries and each patent office follows its own laws and procedures. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some countries may have grace periods and some may have ways to argue the case that an earlier disclosure or filing was essentially stolen from you. However, the fundamental purpose of  requiring strict and broad unbroken novelty and first-to-file is to avoid all such messy arguments. Someone with expertise in EPO law may offer a more complete answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23106" RevisionGUID="05efacde-cbec-4bfd-bf4d-39b2f4ecc76d" CreationDate="2021-05-03T06:13:37.920" UserId="3076" Comment="added 390 characters in body" Text="A partial answer is that the derivation proceeding you mention is a process within the USPTO. Establishing that an earlier U.S. filing was derived from your work would only help you with the USPTO and not likely remove an earlier filing as prior art in the eyes of any other patent office. You can file a PCT application since the PCT itself does not make a ruling on this since that application is a bundle of applications to individual countries and each patent office follows its own laws and procedures once you enter the national stage there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, derivation proceeding were established by the AIA passed in 2012. Up until 2019 the PTAB rejected all attempts to even initiate a derivation proceeding and in the first one allowed to go forward in 2019 it [ruled][1] that there was no derivation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some countries may have grace periods and some may have ways to argue the case that an earlier disclosure or filing was essentially stolen from you. However, the fundamental purpose of  requiring strict and broad unbroken novelty and first-to-file is to avoid all such messy arguments. Someone with expertise in EPO law may offer a more complete answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/blogs/at-the-ptab-blog/ptabs-finds-no-derivation-in-first-derivation-proceeding.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23107" RevisionGUID="587f3c05-82ff-45df-a200-b9b1975e0c62" CreationDate="2021-05-03T06:59:12.063" UserId="18033" Text="For the EPO (applies to some other jurisdictions with similar laws):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your invention was published more than 6 months prior to your filing, your application won't survive. This might be a dark net database for example, but tbh I would expect it to be very difficult for anyone to prove this publication and it's date. So the risk seems small.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Derivation proceedings at the EPO include the possibility of gaining control over their application. If the application is good and they have one at the EPO, you might be fine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they do not have an EPO application, their yet unpublished application won't be prior art for your application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So overall, your chances are good, but if you do see an application based on your invention, act fast. The more time they have to screw up the prosecution or abandon the application, the worse it gets.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23108" RevisionGUID="d104f841-edc8-4086-ab99-3c215161bc3e" CreationDate="2021-05-03T16:19:52.140" UserId="25932" Text="It's much more than 500 per year but the number varies year to year and the rate has grown considerably from 2009. You might like to peruse this document:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_941_2018-chapter1.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It covers more than US activity but you'll find US-specific charts and commentary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23109" RevisionGUID="9d04cc22-ff2f-41df-8f8f-62fe756f5f09" CreationDate="2021-05-03T18:27:02.210" UserId="18333" Text="I would like to know the expiration date of several older patents which expired because the fees stopped being paid. I am missing an input to figuring out the expiration date, namely the date the assignee stopped paying fees, so here is the information I have to work with,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The USPTO [patent term calculator][1], a spreadsheet which calculates the expiration date from user-entered data. It lists the dates of several sets of maintenance fees due 4, 8 and 12 years after issue. I am supposed to enter which of these fees were skipped (don't know) in order for it to predict the expiration date. &#xD;&#xA; - The [Public Patent Application Information Retrieval][1] (PAIRS) &quot;Application Data&quot; tab retrieved in a search for the patent by number. PAIRS lists the status as &quot;Patent Expired Due to NonPayment of Maintenance Fees&quot;. It gives a &quot;status date&quot; which seems to be when the status was checked, but not when the patent actually expired,&#xD;&#xA; - The PAIRS &quot;Transaction history&quot; tab in the search results, which includes &quot;Issue Fee Payment Verified&quot; transactions, but does not seem to include maintenance fee transactions which I need for the patent term calculator,&#xD;&#xA; - The PAIRS &quot;Transaction history&quot; tab also lists a date for an &quot;Expire Patent&quot; transaction. Is this the actual expiration date? I can't find more information on this type of transaction on PAIRS.&#xD;&#xA; - The Google Patent entry for the patent, which lists the &quot;Anticipated expiration&quot; date. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is how I am proceeding. Please let me know if it's wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Get the maintenance fee dates from the patent term calculator. &#xD;&#xA; 2. Get the status date from PAIRS. Since the status is expired, assume the fees stopped being paid at the last due before the status date. For example, if fees were due 2000, 2008, and 2012, and the status date was 2009, assume the dues were paid in 2000 but not in 2008 or 2012. &#xD;&#xA; 3. Plug the unpaid fees date from #2 into #1, and get the expiration date. This can differ from the &quot;anticipated expiration&quot; date in #3 by many years!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this enough to get me within 6 months of the actual expiration date? Can I just use the &quot;Expire Patent&quot; date from PAIRS and skip the calculation? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/patent-term-calculator" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64234" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23109" RevisionGUID="9d04cc22-ff2f-41df-8f8f-62fe756f5f09" CreationDate="2021-05-03T18:27:02.210" UserId="18333" Text="Calculating a patent expiration date from PAIRS and Patent Term Calculator" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64235" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23109" RevisionGUID="9d04cc22-ff2f-41df-8f8f-62fe756f5f09" CreationDate="2021-05-03T18:27:02.210" UserId="18333" Text="&lt;expiration&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23109" RevisionGUID="b8966178-f577-4440-840d-0107a091545a" CreationDate="2021-05-03T18:32:21.207" UserId="18333" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="I would like to know the expiration date (within 6 months) of several older patents which expired because the fees stopped being paid. I am missing an input to figuring out the expiration date, namely the date the assignee stopped paying fees, so here is the information I have to work with,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The USPTO [patent term calculator][1], a spreadsheet which calculates the expiration date from user-entered data. It lists the dates of several sets of maintenance fees due 4, 8 and 12 years after issue. I am supposed to enter which of these fees were skipped (don't know) in order for it to predict the expiration date. &#xD;&#xA; - The [Public Patent Application Information Retrieval][1] (PAIRS) &quot;Application Data&quot; tab retrieved in a search for the patent by number. PAIRS lists the status as &quot;Patent Expired Due to NonPayment of Maintenance Fees&quot;. It gives a &quot;status date&quot; which seems to be when the status was checked, but not when the patent actually expired,&#xD;&#xA; - The PAIRS &quot;Transaction history&quot; tab in the search results, which includes &quot;Issue Fee Payment Verified&quot; transactions, but does not seem to include maintenance fee transactions which I need for the patent term calculator,&#xD;&#xA; - The PAIRS &quot;Transaction history&quot; tab also lists a date for an &quot;Expire Patent&quot; transaction. Is this the actual expiration date? I can't find more information on this type of transaction on PAIRS, and it differs from the spreadsheet output by a bit (a month or so).&#xD;&#xA; - The Google Patent entry for the patent, which lists the &quot;Anticipated expiration&quot; date. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is how I am proceeding. Please let me know if it's wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Get the maintenance fee dates from the patent term calculator. &#xD;&#xA; 2. Get the status date from PAIRS. Since the status is expired, assume the fees stopped being paid at the last due before the status date. For example, if fees were due 2000, 2008, and 2012, and the status date was 2009, assume the dues were paid in 2000 but not in 2008 or 2012. &#xD;&#xA; 3. Plug the unpaid fees date from #2 into #1, and get the expiration date. This can differ from Google's &quot;anticipated expiration&quot; date by many years!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this enough to get me within 6 months of the actual expiration date? Can I just use the &quot;Expire Patent&quot; date from PAIRS and skip the calculation? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/patent-term-calculator" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23109" RevisionGUID="6da4ff70-6b2b-4c95-82e6-81fc1f34d404" CreationDate="2021-05-03T19:14:37.150" UserId="18333" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="I would like to know the expiration date (within 6 months) of several older patents which expired because the fees stopped being paid. I am missing an input to figuring out the expiration date, namely the date the assignee stopped paying fees, so here is the information I have to work with,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The USPTO [patent term calculator][1], a spreadsheet which calculates the expiration date from user-entered data. It lists the dates of several sets of maintenance fees due 4, 8 and 12 years after issue. I am supposed to enter which of these fees were skipped (don't know) in order for it to predict the expiration date. &#xD;&#xA; - The [Public Patent Application Information Retrieval][1] (PAIRS) &quot;Application Data&quot; tab retrieved in a search for the patent by number. PAIRS lists the status as &quot;Patent Expired Due to NonPayment of Maintenance Fees&quot;. It gives a &quot;status date&quot; which seems to be when the status was checked, but not when the patent actually expired,&#xD;&#xA; - The PAIRS &quot;Transaction history&quot; tab in the search results, which includes &quot;Issue Fee Payment Verified&quot; transactions, but does not seem to include the maintenance fee transaction dates which I need for the patent term calculator,&#xD;&#xA; - The PAIRS &quot;Transaction history&quot; tab also lists a date for an &quot;Expire Patent&quot; transaction. Is this the actual expiration date? I can't find a definition on the PAIRS website, and it differs from the spreadsheet output by a bit (a month or so).&#xD;&#xA; - The Google Patent entry for the patent, which lists the &quot;Anticipated expiration&quot; date. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is how I am proceeding. Please let me know if it's wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Get the maintenance fee dates from the patent term calculator. &#xD;&#xA; 2. Get the status date from PAIRS. Since the status is expired, assume the fees stopped being paid at the last due before the status date. For example, if fees were due 2000, 2008, and 2012, and the status date was 2009, assume the dues were paid in 2000 but not in 2008 or 2012. &#xD;&#xA; 3. Plug the unpaid fees date from #2 into #1, and get the expiration date. This can differ from Google's &quot;anticipated expiration&quot; date by many years!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this enough to get me within 6 months of the actual expiration date? Can I just use the &quot;Expire Patent&quot; date from PAIRS and skip the calculation? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/patent-term-calculator" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64238" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23109" RevisionGUID="e7743672-d64e-45c9-a49b-67aff3d8738c" CreationDate="2021-05-03T19:39:15.487" UserId="18333" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I would like to **know the expiration date (within 6 months)** of several older patents which expired because the fees stopped being paid. I am missing an input to figuring out the expiration date, namely the date the assignee stopped paying fees, so here is the information I have to work with,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The USPTO [patent term calculator][1], a spreadsheet which calculates the expiration date from user-entered data. It lists the dates of several sets of maintenance fees due 4, 8 and 12 years after issue. I am supposed to enter which of these fees were skipped (don't know) in order for it to predict the expiration date. &#xD;&#xA; - The [Public Patent Application Information Retrieval][1] (PAIRS) &quot;Application Data&quot; tab retrieved in a search for the patent by number. PAIRS lists the status as &quot;Patent Expired Due to NonPayment of Maintenance Fees&quot;. It gives a &quot;status date&quot; which seems to be when the status was checked, but not when the patent actually expired,&#xD;&#xA; - The PAIRS &quot;Transaction history&quot; tab in the search results, which includes &quot;Issue Fee Payment Verified&quot; transactions, but does not seem to include the maintenance fee transaction dates which I need for the patent term calculator,&#xD;&#xA; - The PAIRS &quot;Transaction history&quot; tab also lists a date for an &quot;Expire Patent&quot; transaction. Is this the actual expiration date? I can't find a definition on the PAIRS website, and it differs from the spreadsheet output by a bit (a month or so).&#xD;&#xA; - The Google Patent entry for the patent, which lists the &quot;Anticipated expiration&quot; date. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is how I am proceeding. Please let me know if it's wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Get the maintenance fee dates from the patent term calculator. &#xD;&#xA; 2. Get the status date from PAIRS. Since the status is expired, assume the fees stopped being paid at the last due before the status date. For example, if fees were due 2000, 2008, and 2012, and the status date was 2009, assume the dues were paid in 2000 but not in 2008 or 2012. &#xD;&#xA; 3. Plug the unpaid fees date from #2 into #1, and get the expiration date. This can differ from Google's &quot;anticipated expiration&quot; date by many years!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this enough to get me within 6 months of the actual expiration date? Can I just use the &quot;Expire Patent&quot; date from PAIRS and skip the calculation? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/patent-term-calculator" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23110" RevisionGUID="041d4f10-4873-4293-af87-dcb93445317e" CreationDate="2021-05-03T23:51:19.437" UserId="3076" Text="&#xD;&#xA;You can look up the maintenance payment history [here][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And - From the [MPEP][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Therefore, if the maintenance fee and any applicable surcharge are not paid, the patent will expire as of the end of the grace period as listed above. **A patent that expires for failure of payment will expire on the day following the anniversary date the patent was granted in the 4th, 8th, or 12th year after the grant.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://fees.uspto.gov/MaintenanceFees&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2506.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64240" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22787" RevisionGUID="681f9c2b-eb02-4cce-a06f-cc7ce418da8d" CreationDate="2021-05-04T04:11:00.960" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23111" RevisionGUID="4bcef966-f4b9-4cb4-b92c-08fe10cb2b6d" CreationDate="2021-05-04T08:10:04.540" UserId="25937" Text="In a nutshell: patents filed after June 1995 have a lifetime of 20 years from filing date, plus any patent term extensions (PTE). Check for PTE on the front page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US 7055282 has a PTE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US 9591814 does not have a PTE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience, the expiration date listed on Google Patents has always been correct, EXCEPT for patents with terminal disclaimers, which Google didn't take into account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NErci.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hnDPS.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AQOWv.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64246" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="cf94cbd4-1f95-460d-8bd8-8724643eebae" CreationDate="2021-05-05T01:06:10.600" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23113" RevisionGUID="36820c1f-a84c-49e1-8073-760f4e03bae7" CreationDate="2021-05-05T19:59:24.180" UserId="22792" Text="The invention is a method and composition to treat a medical condition — a CIP with 20 claims initially. The examiner has required election between the method and composition claims, and election between six species (A-F). I will choose the method claims without traverse and species A with traverse. The broadest method claim reads like the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A method for treating (a specific disease) in a subject, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;(a) supplying a promoter of A;&#xD;&#xA;(b) supplying a promoter of B; and&#xD;&#xA;(c) supplying a promoter of C;&#xD;&#xA;whereby (specific things happen and the disease is reversed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is nothing patentable about A, B, or C individually, but these three elements work together. A by itself does not treat the disease permanently, but it does with B, and C doubles the response. No one previously knew how A actually worked, so the combination was never made. But as A, B and C are each listed as Markush groups in the dependent claims, some with substantially different chemical properties, the examiner is apparently now entitled to require restriction. But how she could determine patentability based on examining only one element is beyond me.  I thought of adding a new independent claim that will eliminate the Markush groups—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;21. (New) A method for treating (a specific disease) in a subject, comprising:&#xD;&#xA;(a) supplying a [specific promoter of A]; and&#xD;&#xA;(b) supplying a [specific moiety of B]; &#xD;&#xA;whereby (specific things happen and the disease is reversed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding specificity and eliminating one element. I had not done this before as this claim without (c) exists in the parent application, and has languished for more than 2 years with no examiner assigned to it. But does this get me anything? It would certainly simplify the searching.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64248" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23113" RevisionGUID="36820c1f-a84c-49e1-8073-760f4e03bae7" CreationDate="2021-05-05T19:59:24.180" UserId="22792" Text="Adding linking claim to defeat species restriction" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64249" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23113" RevisionGUID="36820c1f-a84c-49e1-8073-760f4e03bae7" CreationDate="2021-05-05T19:59:24.180" UserId="22792" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;restriction&gt;&lt;species&gt;&lt;linking&gt;&lt;markush&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23114" RevisionGUID="902af8a4-fe6c-456a-845c-da0ec3af2cfd" CreationDate="2021-05-06T01:36:36.020" UserId="3076" Text="Narrowing claims will make searching easier and increase the chance of getting an allowance. By picking a specific &quot;promoter&quot; of A and another of B, I assume you are making an election.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the chemical properties of long lists of A items, for example, are very different from each other you will have a hard timing grouping them in a Markush group. One approach is to have one independent claim be a &quot;step for&quot; claim that does not specify the chemicals, i.e. &quot;step for promoting A&quot;. This assumes the chemicals are listed in the specification as chemicals for promoting A, B, and C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may know that, in the U.S., method claims can not be enforced against a doctor, nurse or other medical professional or hospital.  [See][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) With respect to a medical practitioner’s performance of a medical activity that constitutes an infringement under section 271(a) or (b), the provisions of sections 281, 283, 284, and 285 shall not apply against the medical practitioner or against a related health care entity with respect to such medical activity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does **not** apply to the use of a patented machine or a patented medicine or to something involving a *biotechnology* patent. I have no idea if your method claim would fall under that provision or not. It would require a study of case law and maybe legislative intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can go after an entity that packages A and B together and markets them as a treatment for X. The medical professional who carried out the method step would be a direct infringer (but shielded from enforcement) and the packager/marketer would be an indirect infringer whom you can enforce against.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In considering this you should look hard at &quot;supplying&quot; in the context of the specification. If it means supplying to the doctor's office and they order the A promoter from one supplier and the B promoter from a different supplier then no single entity is doing all steps of the method and the claim is not infringed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the question of the body doesn't seem the same as the question of the title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/287" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23115" RevisionGUID="2f7f63d5-89a8-4c12-8199-4b273505b7c1" CreationDate="2021-05-06T10:37:11.887" UserId="22571" Text="I am trying to get a clearer picture of how companies like ARM manage to stay afloat with just IP/Royalties. Recently ARM licensed some of it's instruction sets to Apple in order to design/build the M1 Chip. Also I have read about improvement grant backs [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say Apple came up with some form of next level improvements to what was licensed from ARM would this have meant ARM would have rights to build on the improvements from Apple and be able to license new technologies (based on the improvements) to other companies or clients in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass-high-tech/2006/03/when-licensing-out-patents-make-sure.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64252" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23115" RevisionGUID="2f7f63d5-89a8-4c12-8199-4b273505b7c1" CreationDate="2021-05-06T10:37:11.887" UserId="22571" Text="How do companies like ARM handle improvements to their patent licenses?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64253" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23115" RevisionGUID="2f7f63d5-89a8-4c12-8199-4b273505b7c1" CreationDate="2021-05-06T10:37:11.887" UserId="22571" Text="&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;improvement&gt;&lt;royalty&gt;&lt;royalties&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23116" RevisionGUID="8c3764b3-92b2-4d53-941e-7084a1233bcc" CreationDate="2021-05-06T14:29:16.263" UserId="17003" Text="I don't know the particulars of the licenses ARM provides. I do know there are different ones. ARM can indeed make a great deal of money off the licenses without the need to invest in manufacturing plants and other costs associated with actually producing chips. If you want to learn more about their license options, they are quite open about them. Just look on the [ARM website][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for whether there are grant back provisions I don't know. Apple is a large company and it is possible they have negotiated a non-standard license with ARM. I kind of doubt that Apple would be in an agreement where they had to provide the fruits of their own research and development to others, but I don't know for sure. In any case, this question is really about contracts rather than patents which is outside the scope of Ask Patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.arm.com/why-arm/how-licensing-works" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23117" RevisionGUID="567d3327-6267-4560-8a53-e96e6202e643" CreationDate="2021-05-07T11:27:45.320" UserId="22532" Text="Can I use two alternative element without broder statement without covers both? (In one independent claim) (In EPO application)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In example, X comprising (A or B) and C (it is an independent apparatus claim)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further question,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;X comprising (A or B) and C wherein &quot;C is configured for Y if invention comprising A&quot; or &quot;C is configured for Z if invention comprising B&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S: Combination of A and B and C provides very similar techical effect for both alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;P.S: I cant use broder term covers both A and B&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64256" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23117" RevisionGUID="567d3327-6267-4560-8a53-e96e6202e643" CreationDate="2021-05-07T11:27:45.320" UserId="22532" Text="Two alternative element in one independent claim" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64257" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23117" RevisionGUID="567d3327-6267-4560-8a53-e96e6202e643" CreationDate="2021-05-07T11:27:45.320" UserId="22532" Text="&lt;claims&gt;&lt;epo&gt;&lt;claims-construction&gt;&lt;embodiments&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16830" RevisionGUID="a3d6ff4c-7af5-4f22-a53a-337aef15682d" CreationDate="2021-05-08T14:43:11.813" UserId="18098" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="I developed a digital signature standard for 2D barcodes in 2007 for the TSA to verify the authenticity of boarding passes. IATA took this work and carried it forward as a standard across airlines. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy_pia_tsa_bpss_0.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23119" RevisionGUID="728fc850-1347-4d21-9c6a-c9a4a2038cfc" CreationDate="2021-05-08T19:34:39.247" UserId="3076" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Claims are hard to draft and your approach might not be artful but [alternatives are allowed][1] in EPO claims if they don't get too confusing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A claim, whether independent or dependent, may refer to alternatives,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; provided that the number and presentation of alternatives in a single&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claim does not make the claim obscure or difficult to construe and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; provided that the claim meets the requirements of unity (see also F-V,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.2.1 and 3.2). In the case of a claim defining (chemical or non-chemical) alternatives, i.e. a so-called &quot;Markush grouping&quot;, unity&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of invention is considered to be present if the alternatives are of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; similar nature and can fairly be substituted for one another (see F-V,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.2.5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/f_iv_3_7.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64266" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="18205" RevisionGUID="c210bf24-1730-4182-9bd0-69edc39a358c" CreationDate="2021-05-09T18:00:25.023" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23120" RevisionGUID="cd1e3eeb-5bc1-4bce-9a7e-07dcdca26fae" CreationDate="2021-05-10T14:05:40.310" UserId="25554" Text="I am trying to get a patent on an invention, spoke to my patent lawyer and he stated that the patent search looked good and asked me if I wanted to proceed with a provisional patent or a utility patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not have any clients right now wanting to use my invention just yet, I have not taken on any work. I also have to do some market research to see exactly where my invention will fit. I was thinking to do a provisional patent as its &quot;easier&quot; to file (my lawyer will draft for 2k USD), cheaper to apply, and will protect me for 1 year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;VS a utility patent where protection starts at the same time as a provisional, its more expensive (lawyer will draft for same price as provisional 2k).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is if the utility patent protection starts at the same time as a provisional why would I choose to get a provisional over a utility since I will have to pay to apply for a utility patent after my provisional expires (if I want continued protection). It feels almost like paying double the price(?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am thinking to go with a provisional patent to start, my lawyer also advised me to get a provisional since I don't know the market just yet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64268" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23120" RevisionGUID="cd1e3eeb-5bc1-4bce-9a7e-07dcdca26fae" CreationDate="2021-05-10T14:05:40.310" UserId="25554" Text="Provisional Patent vs Utility Patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64269" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23120" RevisionGUID="cd1e3eeb-5bc1-4bce-9a7e-07dcdca26fae" CreationDate="2021-05-10T14:05:40.310" UserId="25554" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;&lt;utility&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23121" RevisionGUID="b1cc723b-ff73-4ce4-abb7-668e0c6330a9" CreationDate="2021-05-10T18:14:31.607" UserId="17003" Text="**There is no such thing as a provisional patent**. There are only provisional applications which will never be examined or granted as a patent. The point of a provisional application is to establish a priority date that is earlier than what might be obtained waiting for a non-provisional application to be drafted and filed. Typically provisional applications are less complex than non-provisional applications. So, if you are worried about someone else filing ahead of you, filing a provisional application is a good idea. In no way does this mean you don't also need to draft and file a non-provisional patent application to potentially obtain a patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23122" RevisionGUID="ef9c02a0-e9c6-41fe-9a31-3520401dc349" CreationDate="2021-05-10T22:59:29.390" UserId="3076" Text="If &quot;protection&quot; means you have the right to exclude others from making, selling, importing, using, etc., then you have *no* protection until a patent issues. That might take a couple of years after filing a non-provisional utility patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If &quot;protection&quot; means you have a stake in the ground of a date that no one who files after you do can beat, then either filing gives you equal protection for the subject matter it properly covers. In many cases, what might be filed as a provisional application is less detailed or complete than something that might be filed as a non-provisional application. Therefore a typical provisional might be less protective merely due to level of effort put into it. If the fact that the cost for both is the same means the content would be identical then the protection of having a particular filing date would be identical either way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope the terms you are using are not the terms your attorney is using. The two types of application you are considering are technically a *provisional utility application* and a *non-provisional utility application*. They are both utility application as opposed to design or plant patent applications. This might seem pedantic but patent law is an area that spits hairs and has bad consequences when details are not correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the actual application content is identical then the difference is a few hundred dollars in lower filing fees now for the provisional and a  delay in getting a granted patent. If you will definitely be moving ahead to later also file a non-provisional than the non-provisional filing fees are just an added cost to what will be the total costs after both are eventuality filed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One good reason to file a provisional is that you get today's priority date for what you have developed so-far and also get a year to come up with improvements and alternate embodiment that will be added to make your non-provisional filing. If that happens, presumably, it will cost another 2K to write that new document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If asked to draft a provisional, some patent practitioners will consider that they are being asked to do a less thorough job compared to drafting a non-provisional and will charge less to draft the provisional. Others will only draft a non-provisional quality application whether you want to file as a provisional or a non-provisional and charge the same. You are being charged the same either way but you might ask if the effort and end-product would be exactly the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And $2k is low for a typical non-provisional to be drafted and filed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64273" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="23120" RevisionGUID="585cc2a5-8470-4f74-b56e-2125a963e0ff" CreationDate="2021-05-11T00:27:36.663" UserId="3076" Comment="edited title" Text="Provisional vs non-provisonal utility patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23122" RevisionGUID="c6de1b10-cb7b-4ba1-b38e-2196e056a871" CreationDate="2021-05-11T00:29:02.277" UserId="3076" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="If &quot;protection&quot; means you have the right to exclude others from making, selling, importing, using, etc., then you have *no* protection until a patent issues. That might take a couple of years after filing a non-provisional utility patent application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If &quot;protection&quot; means you have a stake in the ground of a date that no one who files after you do can beat, then either filing gives you equal protection for the subject matter it properly covers. (Although that will only last a year if a non-provisional.) In many cases, what might be filed as a provisional application is less detailed or complete than something that might be filed as a non-provisional application. Therefore a typical provisional might be less protective merely due to level of effort put into it. If the fact that the cost for both is the same means the content would be identical then the protection of having a particular filing date would be identical either way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope the terms you are using are not the terms your attorney is using. The two types of application you are considering are technically a *provisional utility application* and a *non-provisional utility application*. They are both utility application as opposed to design or plant patent applications. This might seem pedantic but patent law is an area that spits hairs and has bad consequences when details are not correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the actual application content is identical then the difference is a few hundred dollars in lower filing fees now for the provisional and a  delay in getting a granted patent. If you will definitely be moving ahead to later also file a non-provisional than the non-provisional filing fees are just an added cost to what will be the total costs after both are eventuality filed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One good reason to file a provisional is that you get today's priority date for what you have developed so-far and also get a year to come up with improvements and alternate embodiment that will be added to make your non-provisional filing. If that happens, presumably, it will cost another 2K to write that new document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If asked to draft a provisional, some patent practitioners will consider that they are being asked to do a less thorough job compared to drafting a non-provisional and will charge less to draft the provisional. Others will only draft a non-provisional quality application whether you want to file as a provisional or a non-provisional and charge the same. You are being charged the same either way but you might ask if the effort and end-product would be exactly the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And $2k is low for a typical non-provisional to be drafted and filed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64275" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22809" RevisionGUID="1637eee9-d536-4c49-a788-5741c6c83ba5" CreationDate="2021-05-11T02:04:30.380" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23123" RevisionGUID="c37357c0-c3e7-42d2-b040-93dcbada9380" CreationDate="2021-05-11T07:19:11.243" UserId="26001" Text="i am working to sell a product whose patent search results show that &#xD;&#xA; &quot;Deemed withdrawal of patent application after publication (patent Law 2001)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;someone please explain this to me " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64277" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23123" RevisionGUID="c37357c0-c3e7-42d2-b040-93dcbada9380" CreationDate="2021-05-11T07:19:11.243" UserId="26001" Text="what is meant by &quot;Deemed withdrawal of patent application after publication&quot; ? is the patent still holds or its withdrawn?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64278" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23123" RevisionGUID="c37357c0-c3e7-42d2-b040-93dcbada9380" CreationDate="2021-05-11T07:19:11.243" UserId="26001" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;patent-lifetime&gt;&lt;withdrawn&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23124" RevisionGUID="4e4ee709-e907-4c5a-9d7f-b104fe4e1a98" CreationDate="2021-05-11T13:52:10.783" UserId="17003" Text="You don't specify the application number so we can't be definitive. Patent applications generally publish 18 months after filing. It would seem from your question that the application you are asking about was withdrawn after publication and never was granted. This means there isn't a patent and there is no patent protection for the invention described in the application. There are many reasons why an application might be withdrawn or abandoned. The applicant may decide the financial opportunities are not worth the cost of pursuing a patent. They may discover prior art which would invalidate the application. They may want to add more to the patent application and decide to abandon it in favor of pursuing a different application. Should you decide to specify the application number we might be able to clarify by reviewing the files." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23126" RevisionGUID="7085ec28-083d-452c-aa30-b7622b0a7e9f" CreationDate="2021-05-12T14:11:45.107" UserId="1605" Text="It would be an infringement.&#xD;&#xA;The end user would be using a patented solution. He and the software cpy may both do this unknowingly, but nevertheless infringing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.upcounsel.com/indirect-patent-infringement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The most common method of indirect infringement is when two or more parties support one another in the infringement activity&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is called divided infringement. Both could in theory be held accountable, since you are not allowed to conspire with another party to infringe a patent, specifically in US:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;U.S. patent laws allow patent owners to sue others for indirect patent infringement.  As such, even though one type of entity along the distribution channel may not be liable for direct infringement, that entity may still be liable under an indirect patent infringement theory&quot;&#xD;&#xA;https://ocpatentlawyer.com/scotus-reduces-liability-for-indirect-patent-infringement/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23127" RevisionGUID="11632632-c779-4978-aae3-ed2d94452352" CreationDate="2021-05-12T14:26:19.403" UserId="1605" Text="Machine learning models are defined by both the architecture (which may be generic) and the training data. Specifically, the same model may be trained to achieve desired results from the same training data but with different outcome labels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of traditional algorithm engineering and consequently patents have covered specific methods of analysis. As an example, assume that a patent claim says &quot;Process the data and output a classification by comparing the mean value to a defined threshold.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A neural network (or other &quot;machine learned&quot; algorithms) may perform this step through a generic approximation of the decision boundary. Specifically they will at no point define the threshold in the model architecture but the model parameters will be optimized based on data that *may* have been labeled by comparing a mean value to a defined threshold.&#xD;&#xA;This will not be evident by looking at the implementation of the model, since the training dataset is not part of the final product. But it may be suggested by testing the model performance on such a dataset and seeing how it *approximates* the patented method.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my understanding a desired outcome is not itself patentable, while the method of achiving the outcome can be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Generally, will a generic approximation of a patented method constitute infringement of the method?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64283" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23127" RevisionGUID="11632632-c779-4978-aae3-ed2d94452352" CreationDate="2021-05-12T14:26:19.403" UserId="1605" Text="Infringement by approximation with AI" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64284" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23127" RevisionGUID="11632632-c779-4978-aae3-ed2d94452352" CreationDate="2021-05-12T14:26:19.403" UserId="1605" Text="&lt;machine-learning&gt;&lt;ai&gt;&lt;approximation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23128" RevisionGUID="f51c7e72-ec4c-404e-8c4a-e2d47537a2df" CreationDate="2021-05-12T17:00:18.390" UserId="3076" Text="Unlike copyright infringement which requires copying an original, even if inadvertently, patent infringement does not require any knowledge of the original invention and can even be an &quot;original&quot; invention by the infringer. Infringement is not triggered by a second inventor conceiving the same thing as the patent owner but is triggered by making, selling, offering for sale, importing or using a patented device or executing the steps of a patented. The entity doing the making, selling, etc. does not need to know that the thing being sold operates in a way that infringes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23129" RevisionGUID="26f8ae63-311d-4319-b588-7f00de5ebcf8" CreationDate="2021-05-12T17:08:44.807" UserId="17003" Text="Infringement is based on what is described in the claims. If you implement each and every element of a claim, you infringe on that claim. If you don't implement each and every element then you don't infringe. People often attempt to get around patent claims by implementations that get the same effect but not in the same way the claim describes. Often this is possible because the claim may be too specific. Either way, whether or not you infringe is very specifically based on the claim language. You only need to infringe on a single claim to infringe a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion (and I'm not a lawyer), if an AI based algorithm is trained to produce the same input to output relationship, but does not implement the method described in a patents claims it doesn't infringe. Doesn't mean you won't get sued, however." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23128" RevisionGUID="2b98c12f-5cf2-49e4-b657-a22fdb12f939" CreationDate="2021-05-12T22:11:02.667" UserId="3076" Comment="added 178 characters in body" Text="Unlike copyright infringement which requires copying an original, even if inadvertently, patent infringement does not require any knowledge of the original invention and can even be an &quot;original&quot; invention by the infringer. Infringement is not triggered by a second inventor conceiving the same thing as the patent owner but is triggered by making, selling, offering for sale, importing or *using* a patented device or executing the steps of a patented. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your scenario the end user is *using* the patented invention and would be a direct infringer. If the software provider knew that this would occur they might be an indirect infringer essentially supplying a component of a patented object or might not be if it had significant non-infringing uses.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64289" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="20068" RevisionGUID="1dcf1833-72ca-405b-b5c4-e5515d38b5e0" CreationDate="2021-05-12T22:16:21.430" UserId="3076" Comment="edited title" Text="Can an AI solution evolve to infringe a patent a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23130" RevisionGUID="64818c72-3a12-4866-9026-b2a3655a406b" CreationDate="2021-05-13T11:14:29.013" UserId="26017" Text="I've been researching better user interfaces, specifically alternatives to mice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In doing this I've come across 3dmice. The only manufacturer seems to be [3dconnexion][1] (owned by logitech). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They appear to have several quite broad patents. See for example https://patents.justia.com/assignee/3dconnexion-gmbh&#xD;&#xA;To my mind these may be overly broad and possibly could be invalidated by prior art with sufficient research and a good lawyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also came across a nice open source project to create a similar device - https://github.com/mattogodoy/mighty-mouse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This brings to mind several questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Does providing instructions on how to build something potentially infringe a patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Are you free to provide instructions so long as you don't sell the complete product or assembled components that mgiht infringe?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* There are places that will fabricate items for you given instructions such as thingiverse.&#xD;&#xA;  If you upload the instructions there (e.g. like https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1693444)&#xD;&#xA;  Such that someone can buy them. Who if anyone is liable for infringing the patent?&#xD;&#xA;    * the author or team contribtuion the instructions (e.g. on github)&#xD;&#xA;    * the person uploading them to the manufacturer's site&#xD;&#xA;    * the site hosting the design and offering to print it for you (e.g. thingiverse)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing it would work something like copyright on youtube.&#xD;&#xA;The author's could be threatened with a suit and the hosts github and or thingiverse for example would be issued some kind of takendown notice asking them to remove the infringing content and would face legal action if they did not comply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also consider that the various entities involved could be in different juristictions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3Dconnexion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64291" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23130" RevisionGUID="64818c72-3a12-4866-9026-b2a3655a406b" CreationDate="2021-05-13T11:14:29.013" UserId="26017" Text="does an open source project describing how to make something infringe a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64292" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23130" RevisionGUID="64818c72-3a12-4866-9026-b2a3655a406b" CreationDate="2021-05-13T11:14:29.013" UserId="26017" Text="&lt;opensource&gt;&lt;publication&gt;&lt;manufacturing&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23130" RevisionGUID="58667068-0943-4069-b4f1-6fc59985e539" CreationDate="2021-05-13T11:47:20.143" UserId="26017" Comment="Link interesting answer to a different question" Text="I've been researching better user interfaces, specifically alternatives to mice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In doing this I've come across 3dmice. The only manufacturer seems to be [3dconnexion][1] (owned by logitech). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They appear to have several quite broad patents. See for example https://patents.justia.com/assignee/3dconnexion-gmbh&#xD;&#xA;To my mind these may be overly broad and possibly could be invalidated by prior art with sufficient research and a good lawyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also came across a nice open source project to create a similar device - https://github.com/mattogodoy/mighty-mouse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This brings to mind several questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Does providing instructions on how to build something potentially infringe a patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Are you free to provide instructions so long as you don't sell the complete product or assembled components that mgiht infringe?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* There are places that will fabricate items for you given instructions such as thingiverse.&#xD;&#xA;  If you upload the instructions there (e.g. like https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1693444)&#xD;&#xA;  Such that someone can buy them. Who if anyone is liable for infringing the patent?&#xD;&#xA;    * the author or team contribtuion the instructions (e.g. on github)&#xD;&#xA;    * the person uploading them to the manufacturer's site&#xD;&#xA;    * the site hosting the design and offering to print it for you (e.g. thingiverse)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing it would work something like copyright on youtube.&#xD;&#xA;The author's could be threatened with a suit and the hosts github and or thingiverse for example would be issued some kind of takendown notice asking them to remove the infringing content and would face legal action if they did not comply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also consider that the various entities involved could be in different juristictions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just came across [this][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unlike copyright infringement which requires copying an original, even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if inadvertently, patent infringement does not require any knowledge&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the original invention and can even be an &quot;original&quot; invention by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the infringer. Infringement is not triggered by a second inventor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conceiving the same thing as the patent owner but is triggered by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; making, selling, offering for sale, importing or using a patented&#xD;&#xA;&gt; device or executing the steps of a patented.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In your scenario the end user is using the patented invention and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would be a direct infringer. If the software provider knew that this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would occur they might be an indirect infringer essentially supplying&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a component of a patented object or might not be if it had significant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non-infringing uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3Dconnexion&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/23128/26017" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23131" RevisionGUID="853b5865-1f45-4b9e-9725-e0da0b9b88c4" CreationDate="2021-05-14T00:15:55.903" UserId="26021" Text="I am a researcher working for a university, and I am forming a collaboration with an industry partner. This collaboration involves us both signing a contract related to IP. The contract states that &quot;each party owns the foreground IP it generates during the project&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I would like to know, is what it actually means to &quot;own the IP&quot; for an invention. Does this simply mean that this party has the right to patent the invention? And if that party decides not to patent the invention, then does &quot;owning the IP&quot; actually mean anything in practice? If I owned the IP, would this mean that the company would not be allowed to use it for free?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And on a related topic, let's say this collaboration goes ahead, and I write a paper describing this invention in detail, and publish it in public domain. Would I still own the IP? Or does putting something in the public domain mean that the IP is now public?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64295" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23131" RevisionGUID="853b5865-1f45-4b9e-9725-e0da0b9b88c4" CreationDate="2021-05-14T00:15:55.903" UserId="26021" Text="What does it mean to &quot;own IP&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64296" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23131" RevisionGUID="853b5865-1f45-4b9e-9725-e0da0b9b88c4" CreationDate="2021-05-14T00:15:55.903" UserId="26021" Text="&lt;ownership&gt;&lt;intellectual-property&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23130" RevisionGUID="36b795d6-3834-4a34-88d0-9d9bc49ac4c2" CreationDate="2021-05-14T07:17:35.470" UserId="26017" Comment="De-emphasise comment about broadness of patents which cause an objection" Text="I've been researching better user interfaces, specifically alternatives to mice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In doing this I've come across 3dmice. The only manufacturer seems to be [3dconnexion][1] (owned by logitech). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They appear to have several quite broad* patents. See for example https://patents.justia.com/assignee/3dconnexion-gmbh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also came across a nice open source project to create a similar device - https://github.com/mattogodoy/mighty-mouse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This brings to mind several questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Does providing instructions on how to build something potentially infringe a patent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Are you free to provide instructions so long as you don't sell the complete product or assembled components that mgiht infringe?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* There are places that will fabricate items for you given instructions such as thingiverse.&#xD;&#xA;  If you upload the instructions there (e.g. like https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1693444)&#xD;&#xA;  Such that someone can buy them. Who if anyone is liable for infringing the patent?&#xD;&#xA;    * the author or team contribtuion the instructions (e.g. on github)&#xD;&#xA;    * the person uploading them to the manufacturer's site&#xD;&#xA;    * the site hosting the design and offering to print it for you (e.g. thingiverse)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing it would work something like copyright on youtube.&#xD;&#xA;The author's could be threatened with a suit and the hosts github and or thingiverse for example would be issued some kind of takendown notice asking them to remove the infringing content and would face legal action if they did not comply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also consider that the various entities involved could be in different juristictions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To my untrained eye the patent claims I linked to look overly broad and possibly could be invalidated by prior art with sufficient research and a good lawyer but that is irrelevant to this question*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just came across [this][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unlike copyright infringement which requires copying an original, even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if inadvertently, patent infringement does not require any knowledge&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the original invention and can even be an &quot;original&quot; invention by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the infringer. Infringement is not triggered by a second inventor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conceiving the same thing as the patent owner but is triggered by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; making, selling, offering for sale, importing or using a patented&#xD;&#xA;&gt; device or executing the steps of a patented.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In your scenario the end user is using the patented invention and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would be a direct infringer. If the software provider knew that this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would occur they might be an indirect infringer essentially supplying&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a component of a patented object or might not be if it had significant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non-infringing uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3Dconnexion&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/23128/26017" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23132" RevisionGUID="1090bf59-d1ef-4247-8afe-8039b147545a" CreationDate="2021-05-14T14:54:02.943" UserId="17003" Text="Based on what I can see from the Mighty Mouse link, it is not infringing on the 3DConnexion patents. The Mighty Mouse is based on using a standard dual axis joystick while the 3DConnexion mouse patents an arrangement of optical sensors to provide 6 degree of freedom control. Although the Mighty Mouse is styled similarly to one of the 3DConnexion devices I don't see any design patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to understand that the title and abstract of a patent tells you little or nothing about how broad a patent is. Only the claims define that. In addition, you need to be aware when a document is an application versus a patent. In you comments, you reference [US20070164995A1][1] which is only an application. Patents.google.com provides more information than patents.justia.com. In this case US20070164995A1 was abandoned, so it isn't and won't become a patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I am not a lawyer so my assessment is not a legal one. I will say, that to my knowledge, you can infringe on a patent if you don't sell a product. There is a [research exemption][2] in the US associated with developing drugs, but otherwise giving away an infringing device represents potentially lost sales to the patent holder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20070164995A1/en?oq=us%2020070164995&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_exemption" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23133" RevisionGUID="b7655cf6-038c-4f0b-a5e4-c2e982e51ad7" CreationDate="2021-05-14T18:21:54.637" UserId="3076" Text="To infringe a patent directly one needs to make, sell, offer for sale, import or use a patented device or perform the steps of a method claim in a granted patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publishing something that explains how to make something is not making, selling, etc. a patented device. There is something called indirect infringement which can involve contributing to someone else directly infringing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23134" RevisionGUID="daf9e49d-7037-48a0-8b5f-0d1dde4c19d7" CreationDate="2021-05-14T18:26:32.020" UserId="3076" Text="Hopefully the words of the agreement you have quoted are not the complete addressing of IP. If you and the company both own it equally that might mean that either party can file for a patent and, working a cross purposes, that either party could publish the invention potentially killing the ability for either to get maximum protection for the invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23135" RevisionGUID="7ab9fccf-96c1-49bd-8201-f2cc236efd2b" CreationDate="2021-05-14T20:29:47.817" UserId="26026" Text="so I have this product, and it only exists in this scifi movie, when you think about this product automatically you remember the movie, example: light saber from starwars.(this is not the product)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so I was wondering can you have a patent for this kind of products? can the movie company sues you?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64303" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23135" RevisionGUID="7ab9fccf-96c1-49bd-8201-f2cc236efd2b" CreationDate="2021-05-14T20:29:47.817" UserId="26026" Text="Can I have a patent for a product inspired by a really famous movie?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64304" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23135" RevisionGUID="7ab9fccf-96c1-49bd-8201-f2cc236efd2b" CreationDate="2021-05-14T20:29:47.817" UserId="26026" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23135" RevisionGUID="2e2ffd68-65da-4733-aa4d-c20eee8c6a5f" CreationDate="2021-05-14T20:34:52.173" UserId="26026" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="so I have this product, and it only exists in this scifi movie, when you think about this product automatically you remember the movie, example: light saber from starwars.(this is not the product)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so I was wondering can you have a patent for this kind of products? can the movie company sues you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: it's not like a toy or anything, it's a genuine invention that doesn't exist yet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64306" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="20068" RevisionGUID="45a0f69c-42c7-43de-9588-f1aa0367aaad" CreationDate="2021-05-14T20:59:34.750" UserId="18033" Comment="edited title" Text="Can an AI solution evolve to infringe a patent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23136" RevisionGUID="fcdfca98-1f3e-4f41-9a39-f6287ed0e42a" CreationDate="2021-05-14T21:09:07.693" UserId="3076" Text="If watching the movie made it clear to someone &quot;skilled in the art&quot; how to make and use the invention then the people behind the movie are the inventors, not you. You can only patent what you invent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the item in the movie was a sci-fi impossibility, like a [skyhook][1] or a hyper-drive and you have figured out a way to actually make it then you have invented something and can patent it. No one will successfully sue you merely for getting a patent on something you truly invented. Getting a patent itself does not infringe someone else's rights; making a product is what potentially infringes someone else's rights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a patent means you can (try to) exclude others from making it; a patent grant does not give you any particular right to make/sell what you have patented. For example, someone might have a patent that covers a sub-component of your product or it might not be legal - like some weapons systems. If you make a product and name it the name given in the movie, that might infringe some trademark or other right the movie producers think they own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyhook_(cable)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23136" RevisionGUID="cbd6c150-6a64-44d6-a74b-f4608f4bbb2a" CreationDate="2021-05-14T22:44:09.753" UserId="3076" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="If watching the movie made it clear to someone &quot;skilled in the art&quot; how to make and use the invention then the people behind the movie are the inventors, not you. You can only patent what you invent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the item in the movie was a sci-fi impossibility, like a [skyhook][1] or a hyper-drive and you have figured out a way to actually make it then you have invented something and can patent it. No one will successfully sue you merely for getting a patent on something you truly invented. Getting a patent itself does not infringe someone else's rights; making a product is what potentially infringes someone else's rights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a patent means you can (try to) exclude others from making it; a patent grant does not give you any particular right to make/sell what you have patented. For example, someone might have a patent that covers a sub-component of your product or it might not be legal - like some weapons systems. If you make a product and name it the name given in the movie, that might infringe some trademark or other right the movie producers think they own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, at least in the U.S., a toy can be patented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyhook_(cable)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23137" RevisionGUID="3c3b5f9a-5d62-4931-8da7-634b96ed6cc5" CreationDate="2021-05-15T21:54:54.750" UserId="25923" Text="Thank you for the warm welcome on Patent StackEchange. When citing a patent, because presently, I am writing it myself before a pro-bono student works on it. Does this simply mean you are (claiming) what is claimed in the ***cited*** patent as well as your own patent which is and will be submitted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or does it mean that you only receive your own claims, reference in your patent being submitted? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Simply put when **citing another patent what is beneficial to the patent holder**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64310" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23137" RevisionGUID="3c3b5f9a-5d62-4931-8da7-634b96ed6cc5" CreationDate="2021-05-15T21:54:54.750" UserId="25923" Text="USA Citing a patent that is european" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64311" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23137" RevisionGUID="3c3b5f9a-5d62-4931-8da7-634b96ed6cc5" CreationDate="2021-05-15T21:54:54.750" UserId="25923" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;design&gt;&lt;utility&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23138" RevisionGUID="edc6b9ea-0330-4264-b07f-a264a699d688" CreationDate="2021-05-15T22:35:08.097" UserId="17003" Text="By citing another patent in your application, you are making the patent examiner aware of relevant prior art. In no way do you obtain a claim on the cited patent's claims. Indeed, you are going to have to explain why your invention is different and inventive from existing prior art. I'm not a patent attorney so the why's of when it is beneficial I'll leave to an actual patent lawyer or agent to explain. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23138" RevisionGUID="c3ac9c00-7a77-4c2b-8830-ac35b150d6e7" CreationDate="2021-05-15T23:03:54.553" UserId="17003" Comment="added 178 characters in body" Text="By citing another patent in your application, you are making the patent examiner aware of relevant prior art. In no way do you obtain a claim on the cited patent's claims. Indeed, you are going to have to explain why your invention is different and inventive from existing prior art. I'm not a patent attorney so the why's of when it is beneficial I'll leave to an actual patent lawyer or agent to explain. I would speculate that some might feel that if there is an obvious bit of prior art, you might as well cite it and proactively explain why your invention is novel in light of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23139" RevisionGUID="a929feb8-90f5-4d03-9eda-bd06a1898bc9" CreationDate="2021-05-16T00:43:59.933" UserId="3076" Text="Some patent attorneys would advise not to mention another patent in the body of your application. Specifically, not to go into details about what is different and definitely not to say what is wrong with it. Some judges have essentially narrowed claim in reading a granted patent due to things the inventor said in a background section. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you get a rejection that cites some prior art is the time to differentiate from that prior art in your response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However you must cite it in an IDS document whether of not it is mentioned in the body of the application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23139" RevisionGUID="7298b655-4b5f-4e11-8cd1-293512a2f223" CreationDate="2021-05-16T00:49:30.513" UserId="3076" Comment="added 296 characters in body" Text="If this is a U.S. application, you **must cite it** in an IDS document. Mentioning it in the body of the application is optional. There is a very important duty to inform the USPTO  of anything you know of that would tend to show your claims as not new or obvious. It doesn't matter if it is a US patent, EPO patent, published application that was rejected or a journal article - you must disclose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some patent attorneys would advise not to mention another patent in the body of your application. Specifically, not to go into details about what is different and definitely not to say what is wrong with it. Some judges have essentially narrowed claim in reading a granted patent due to things the inventor said in a background section. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you get a rejection that cites some prior art is the time to differentiate from that prior art in your response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23139" RevisionGUID="4f63f7cb-3c5d-42cc-803d-ce5b0b0937ce" CreationDate="2021-05-16T00:54:57.500" UserId="3076" Comment="added 296 characters in body" Text="*The benefit to the applicant, if it is a U.S. application, is otherwise any patent you get might later be torn up for violating your [duty of disclosure][1].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is a U.S. application, you **must cite it** in an IDS document. Mentioning it in the body of the application is optional. There is a very important duty to inform the USPTO  of anything you know of that would tend to show your claims as not new or obvious. It doesn't matter if it is a US patent, EPO patent, published application that was rejected or a journal article - you must disclose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some patent attorneys would advise not to mention another patent in the body of your application. Specifically, not to go into details about what is different and definitely not to say what is wrong with it. Some judges have essentially narrowed claim in reading a granted patent due to things the inventor said in a background section. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you get a rejection that cites some prior art is the time to differentiate from that prior art in your response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2001.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23139" RevisionGUID="f68f6ba9-7b27-4996-ac3a-452f5ff3ed91" CreationDate="2021-05-16T01:20:47.837" UserId="3076" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="*The benefit to the applicant, if it is a U.S. application, is otherwise any patent you get might later be torn up for violating your [duty of disclosure][1] whatever you know about significant prior art.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is a U.S. application, you **must cite it** in an IDS document. Mentioning it in the body of the application is optional. There is a very important duty to inform the USPTO  of anything you know of that would tend to show your claims as not new or obvious. It doesn't matter if it is a US patent, EPO patent, a published application that was rejected or a journal article - you must disclose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some patent attorneys would advise not to mention another patent in the body of your application. Specifically, not to go into details about what is different and definitely not to say what is wrong with it. Some judges have essentially narrowed claim in reading a granted patent due to things the inventor said in a background section. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you get a rejection that cites some prior art is the time to differentiate from that prior art in your response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2001.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64318" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20880" RevisionGUID="e1bc2e85-ad24-4dc0-a5c5-ebd69dd23d0a" CreationDate="2021-05-17T00:00:40.593" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64319" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22536" RevisionGUID="b084acd4-b37d-4e3a-ba53-3e471b0d6c81" CreationDate="2021-05-17T01:02:45.283" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64320" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="20371" RevisionGUID="02c7e1e3-0b83-4581-9c97-79000f5a717d" CreationDate="2021-05-17T07:06:20.667" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23140" RevisionGUID="acc13f84-ad29-4ec4-b371-d6e9bc27e1c3" CreationDate="2021-05-18T18:44:23.720" UserId="18333" Text="Is there a way to get alerts on a PCT application, for example through [PatentScope][1] or Google Patents, which both list it? Specifically, I would like to get an email if the application is granted or denied. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64322" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23140" RevisionGUID="acc13f84-ad29-4ec4-b371-d6e9bc27e1c3" CreationDate="2021-05-18T18:44:23.720" UserId="18333" Text="Alerts for PCT application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64323" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23140" RevisionGUID="acc13f84-ad29-4ec4-b371-d6e9bc27e1c3" CreationDate="2021-05-18T18:44:23.720" UserId="18333" Text="&lt;pct&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23140" RevisionGUID="72d9fae9-0f75-42d1-9978-bf299af65a0c" CreationDate="2021-05-18T18:52:43.317" UserId="18333" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="Is there a way to get alerts on a PCT application, for example through [PatentScope][1] or Google Patents, which both list it? Unfortunately, freepatentsonline which offers alerts doesn't list the application. I want to get an email if the application is granted or denied. I can also work with RSS feed readers, if that's an option. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23140" RevisionGUID="612a6ca4-1987-4396-91aa-32adb10ebca5" CreationDate="2021-05-18T20:42:24.820" UserId="18333" Comment="added 139 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Is there a way to get alerts on a PCT application, for example through [PatentScope][1] or Google Patents, which both list it? Unfortunately, freepatentsonline offers alerts but doesn't list the application, and I am not sure if Google Alerts will tell when an application becomes a granted patent, because the document numbers aren't the same. My goal is to get an email if the application is granted or denied. I can also work with RSS feed readers, if that's an option. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64326" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="23140" RevisionGUID="612a6ca4-1987-4396-91aa-32adb10ebca5" CreationDate="2021-05-18T20:42:24.820" UserId="18333" Comment="added 139 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&lt;pct&gt;&lt;google-patents&gt;&lt;patentscope&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23141" RevisionGUID="3da7483f-3e7d-4dad-a5a5-6de57d95bdef" CreationDate="2021-05-19T15:18:05.780" UserId="17003" Text="[The Lens][1] provides the ability to run saved queries if you create an account. I have it set up to check for patents issued with me as the inventor. It will send me an email if one of my applications get granted. I haven't tried searching on a specific document number, but I assume that would work too. The site allows very fine grained control of searches. Creating an account is completely free and The Lens doesn't seem to do any marketing with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/alerts&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://scholar.google.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23142" RevisionGUID="112f855a-c0aa-46a1-869c-16675ae8172b" CreationDate="2021-05-19T15:59:18.620" UserId="22334" Text="If you are interested in getting emails about a PCT when there are any developments about the prosecution of the PCT itself or the European regional phase (if ever entered into, and the European regional phase **only**), you can monitor the PCT in that way through the [European Patent Register][1] (linking to an exemplary PCT). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the dark navigation bar at the top, on the right, there is a link that reads '*Register Alert (email alerts)*'. Once you are registered and logged in, once you are in the page of a PCT (or an EP application/patent), below the header '*About this file:*' there are several links, one of which is '*+Add*'. It will start monitoring that application and when there are any changes in it, you will receive an email informing you about the event and with a link to the actual communication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While logged in the Alert service you will also have access to your private panel with all the applications you are monitoring and links to add/modify/delete monitored applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said before, if you monitor a PCT it will inform you about the developments of an eventual EP regional phase, but not about developments in other phases. The reason for this is because the EPO assigns an EP application number to all PCT applications, and when you monitor a PCT in this manner you are actually monitoring that particular EP application number. If it does not enter into the EP regional phase you will receive a notification that the application is deemed to be withdrawn, but perhaps it will have entered into the US national phase, the JP national phase, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP20803803&amp;tab=main" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23141" RevisionGUID="5cd00b63-73ce-4638-9469-cd3bfb9c9254" CreationDate="2021-05-20T13:36:19.703" UserId="17003" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="[The Lens][1] provides the ability to run saved queries if you create an account. I have it set up to check for patents issued with me as the inventor. It will send me an email if one of my applications get granted. I haven't tried alerts based on a specific document number, but I assume that would work too. The site allows very fine grained control of searches. Creating an account is completely free and The Lens doesn't seem to do any marketing with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lens.org&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/alerts&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://scholar.google.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23143" RevisionGUID="6dab7463-42a2-4649-99b8-e0310d95dfca" CreationDate="2021-05-21T07:35:32.457" UserId="25876" Text="This means all the **communications and documents submitted, generated, exchanged and issued during the international phase** (PCT) and all the communications and documents submitted, generated, exchanged and issued **during the different national phases** for a patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64331" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23143" RevisionGUID="6dab7463-42a2-4649-99b8-e0310d95dfca" CreationDate="2021-05-21T07:35:32.457" UserId="25876" Text="Where can I find all the reference documentation for a PCT?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64332" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23143" RevisionGUID="6dab7463-42a2-4649-99b8-e0310d95dfca" CreationDate="2021-05-21T07:35:32.457" UserId="25876" Text="&lt;patent-applications&gt;&lt;international&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;documents&gt;&lt;national&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23143" RevisionGUID="ef3be4d0-bdee-4000-a231-43724f8cba3f" CreationDate="2021-05-21T07:42:02.770" UserId="25876" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="This means all the **communications and documents submitted, generated, exchanged and issued during the international phase** (PCT) and all the communications and documents submitted, generated, exchanged and issued **during the different national phases** for a patent between all the stakeholders." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23144" RevisionGUID="109290a8-4683-4280-a821-913663512147" CreationDate="2021-05-21T11:15:03.183" UserId="22334" Text="For the first part of the question, namely the international phase, you have most of the communications available at [PatentScope][1], tab 'Documents' once you are in the file of a particular PCT. Documents relating to PCT Chapter II only become available after the IPRP has been issued, in the meantime it is not publicly available. And once it becomes publicly available, it is not even completely available at PatentScope. You have to find all the exchanged communications directly in the public Register of the IPEA, which may or may not make those documents publicly available. The EPO publishes them in the [European Patent Register][2] for example. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the second part of the question, namely the national/regional phases, you have to retrieve those documents from the Register of the concerned Patent Office. I mentioned the European Patent Register already, you have the [Public Pair][3] for USPTO files, and there are many more, you can find links for the registers in the webpages of the Patent Offices. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://register.epo.org/regviewer&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23144" RevisionGUID="ec6c2199-7bba-44ea-a7d2-7bd8898d3cf3" CreationDate="2021-05-21T12:41:31.923" UserId="22334" Comment="Adding Global Dossier links" Text="For the first part of the question, namely the international phase, you have most of the communications available at [PatentScope][1], tab 'Documents' once you are in the file of a particular PCT. Documents relating to PCT Chapter II only become available after the IPRP has been issued, in the meantime it is not publicly available. And once it becomes publicly available, it is not even completely available at PatentScope. You have to find all the exchanged communications directly in the public Register of the IPEA, which may or may not make those documents publicly available. The EPO publishes them in the [European Patent Register][2] for example. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the second part of the question, namely the national/regional phases, you have to retrieve those documents from the Register of the concerned Patent Office. I mentioned the European Patent Register already, you have the [Public Pair][3] for USPTO files, and there are many more, you can find links for the registers in the webpages of the Patent Offices. For the IP5 Patent Offices (USPTO, EPO, Chinese Patent Office, Japanese Patent Office and South-Korean Patent Office), you can also retrieve the documents through the [Global Dossier][4], which is also accessible through [Espacenet][5]: once you are in the 'Bibliographic data' of a particular application, at the top there is a link to the Global Dossier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://register.epo.org/regviewer&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://globaldossier.uspto.gov/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23143" RevisionGUID="e31d98ee-aaaa-4f96-8e01-437a146739c4" CreationDate="2021-05-21T14:52:42.753" UserId="25876" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="This means all the **communications and documents submitted, generated, exchanged and issued during the international phase** (PCT) and all the communications and documents submitted, generated, exchanged and issued **during the different national phases** for a patent between all the stakeholders, Iincluding all the notificationd to and from IPO, national patent offices, inventors, lawyers, IP agents, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64341" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19051" RevisionGUID="857956a0-5260-491d-8506-265451c76974" CreationDate="2021-05-21T17:06:15.607" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23146" RevisionGUID="84d830b5-168f-4ce9-a977-a9b99e45be9a" CreationDate="2021-05-21T23:22:03.280" UserId="142" Text="The announcement that President Biden has backed a temporary but &quot;narrow waiver&quot; on COVID-19 vaccines seems like a win for all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if a pharmaceutical company is forced to waive its specific patent on their COVID-19 vaccine, are they also forced to waive any (dependent?) patents they hold that are not specific to the creation of a COVID-19 vaccine but are crucial to the manufacture process of a COVID-19 vaccine (for example work done generally on Coronaviruses which are wide ranging), without which, a third party can't create a COVID-19 vaccine unless they get permission or a license for these dependent patented processes? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64343" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23146" RevisionGUID="84d830b5-168f-4ce9-a977-a9b99e45be9a" CreationDate="2021-05-21T23:22:03.280" UserId="142" Text="Patents dependent on other patents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64344" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23146" RevisionGUID="84d830b5-168f-4ce9-a977-a9b99e45be9a" CreationDate="2021-05-21T23:22:03.280" UserId="142" Text="&lt;patent-infringement&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23147" RevisionGUID="80c9c76d-e02c-47a7-a55d-5248f02eda8f" CreationDate="2021-05-22T00:41:15.493" UserId="3076" Text="First a small background - patents are territorial. No USPTO issued U.S. patent has any relevance to what happens in India and visa versa. Of course pharmaceutical companies tend to pursue the grant of patents in many countries. To made a vaccine in India would require suspension of *Indian* patent rights that might belong to a vaccine developer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you say in the question, there is quite a bit of technology involved in producing  vaccines. Some building block things are patented and others are trade secrets. Building block patents are held by multiple companies and there is some cross-licensing between them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of May 8th, I do not believe any U.S. patents have been issued for COVID vaccines themselves. Some COVID related patents have been issued for testing, etc. And there are certainly building block technology patents related to mRNA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*From a comment on the [Patently-O][1] blog*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have a Derwent alert set us that informs me every time a patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; issues with “SARS” or “COVID” in the claims or title. So far, none of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; these grants concern a vaccine. The largest category so far are test&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technologies. The next largest concern algorithms that purport to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; predict something COVID-related (where the next outbreak is likely to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; emerge, how a given patient’s disease is likely to progress, etc). The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; smallest category so far is putative therapies (mostly second medical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; use claims for existing FDA-approved drugs, but also some novel herbal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; blends).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The claims directed to SARS-CoV2 vaccines are still being examined,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but none have yet granted. Of course, as previously noted, all the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vaccines approved in the U.S. are covered by one or more granted&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patents directed to the novel vaccine platforms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the WTO is discussing, and the president has endorsed, is a waiver of terms of an international treaty. The signatories of the TRIPS treaty have agreed to have national patent systems with certain minimum provisions. If a country unilaterally suspended enforcement of some patents in their country, other countries could impose tariffs or otherwise try to commercially punish that country in the sphere of international trade for violation of TRIPS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theoretically the steps would be - (1) the signatories to TRIPS can agree to wave its terms that allow commercial retaliation among them for weakening patent and trade secret rights locally. There would be some defined scope in terms of the technology addressed and the time frame of the waiver.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) In a specific country, they could pass a law or use something like executive action to suspend specific IP rights that had been granted or might be granted by that country in the near future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) Someone in that country could try to make a vaccination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without know-how transmitted by the organization that developed the vaccine they would have a very, very hard time doing so. The text and drawings of a patent are not a specific easy to follow recipe. The original companies involved might be incented either financially or by political pressure to provide this technology transfer. They will say that the best use of that time and talent is further ramping up their product capacity and it is probably true&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively a country might import vaccine not made under a patent license from a third country that had patent rights suspended.  Patents do not just confer the right to stop others from making, but also selling, importing and using the patented invention in the country who issued the patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2021/05/covid-19-patents.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23147" RevisionGUID="1cf42fd1-90fa-400d-92aa-16aa2343c2fe" CreationDate="2021-05-22T00:52:48.827" UserId="3076" Comment="added 498 characters in body" Text="I'm sure the people negotiating the scope of any waiver have figured this out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First a small background - patents are territorial. No USPTO issued U.S. patent has any relevance to what happens in India and visa versa. Of course pharmaceutical companies tend to pursue the grant of patents in many countries. To make a vaccine in India would require suspension of *Indian* patent rights that might belong to a, possible U.S. based, vaccine developer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you say in the question, there is quite a bit of technology involved in producing vaccines. Some building block things are patented and others are trade secrets. Building block patents are held by multiple companies and there is some cross-licensing between them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of May 8th, I do not believe any U.S. patents have been issued for COVID vaccines themselves. Some COVID related patents have been issued for testing, etc. And there are certainly building block technology patents related to mRNA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*From a comment on the [Patently-O][1] blog*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have a Derwent alert set us that informs me every time a patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; issues with “SARS” or “COVID” in the claims or title. So far, none of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; these grants concern a vaccine. The largest category so far are test&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technologies. The next largest concern algorithms that purport to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; predict something COVID-related (where the next outbreak is likely to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; emerge, how a given patient’s disease is likely to progress, etc). The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; smallest category so far is putative therapies (mostly second medical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; use claims for existing FDA-approved drugs, but also some novel herbal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; blends).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The claims directed to SARS-CoV2 vaccines are still being examined,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but none have yet granted. Of course, as previously noted, all the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vaccines approved in the U.S. are covered by one or more granted&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patents directed to the novel vaccine platforms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the WTO is discussing, and the president has endorsed, is a waiver of terms of an international treaty. The signatories of the TRIPS treaty have agreed to have national patent systems with certain minimum provisions. If a country unilaterally suspended enforcement of some patents in their country, other countries could impose tariffs or otherwise try to commercially punish that country in the sphere of international trade for violation of TRIPS. The waiver would presumably cover trade secrets as well as patent rights. What is taught by an issued patent is published for all to see in that patent but waiving trade secret rights does not automatically produce the trade secrets on a platter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theoretically the steps would be - (1) the signatories to TRIPS can agree to wave its terms that allow commercial retaliation among themselves for weakening patent and trade secret rights locally. There would be some defined scope in terms of the technology addressed and the time frame of the waiver.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) In a specific country, they could pass a law or use something like executive action to suspend specific IP rights that had been granted or might be granted by that country in the near future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) Someone in that country could try to make a vaccination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without know-how transmitted by the organization that developed the vaccine they would have a very, very hard time doing so. The text and drawings of a patent are not a specific easy to follow recipe. The original companies involved might be incented, either financially or by political pressure, to provide this technology transfer. However, they will say that the best use of that time and talent is further ramping up their production capacity and it is probably true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, a country might import vaccine from a third country that had patent rights suspended.  Patents do not just confer the right to stop others from making, but also selling, importing and using the patented invention in the country who issued the patent. So one country could make it under a suspended patent right and many other countries could import from their due to their similar action suspending patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2021/05/covid-19-patents.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23147" RevisionGUID="0f905d5e-68d6-4134-9f19-9c3725f9b45f" CreationDate="2021-05-22T01:14:44.803" UserId="3076" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="I'm sure the people negotiating the scope of any waiver have figured this out and if companies were waiving their own patents,as in your question, no TRIPS or other waivers would be needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First a small background - patents are territorial. No USPTO issued U.S. patent has any relevance to what happens in India and visa versa. Of course pharmaceutical companies tend to pursue the grant of patents in many countries. To make a vaccine in India would require suspension of *Indian* patent rights that might belong to a, possible U.S. based, vaccine developer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you say in the question, there is quite a bit of technology involved in producing vaccines. Some building block things are patented and others are trade secrets. Building block patents are held by multiple companies and there is some cross-licensing between them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of May 8th, I do not believe any patents have been issued for COVID *vaccines* themselves. Some COVID related patents have been issued for testing, etc. And there are certainly building block technology patents related to mRNA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*From a comment on the [Patently-O][1] blog*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have a Derwent alert set us that informs me every time a patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; issues with “SARS” or “COVID” in the claims or title. So far, none of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; these grants concern a vaccine. The largest category so far are test&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technologies. The next largest concern algorithms that purport to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; predict something COVID-related (where the next outbreak is likely to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; emerge, how a given patient’s disease is likely to progress, etc). The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; smallest category so far is putative therapies (mostly second medical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; use claims for existing FDA-approved drugs, but also some novel herbal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; blends).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The claims directed to SARS-CoV2 vaccines are still being examined,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but none have yet granted. Of course, as previously noted, all the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vaccines approved in the U.S. are covered by one or more granted&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patents directed to the novel vaccine platforms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the WTO is discussing, and the president has endorsed, is a waiver of terms of an international treaty. The signatories of the TRIPS treaty have agreed to have national patent systems with certain minimum provisions. If a country unilaterally suspended enforcement of some patents in their country, other countries could impose tariffs or otherwise try to commercially punish that country in the sphere of international trade for violation of TRIPS. The waiver would presumably cover trade secrets as well as patent rights. What is taught by an issued patent is published for all to see in that patent but waiving trade secret rights does not automatically produce the trade secrets on a platter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theoretically the steps would be - (1) the signatories to TRIPS can agree to wave its terms that allow commercial retaliation among themselves for weakening patent and trade secret rights locally. There would be some defined scope in terms of the technology addressed and the time frame of the waiver.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) In a specific country, they could pass a law or use something like executive action to suspend specific IP rights that had been granted or might be granted by that country in the near future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) Someone in that country could try to make a vaccination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without know-how transmitted by the organization that developed the vaccine they would have a very, very hard time doing so. The text and drawings of a patent are not a specific easy to follow recipe. The original companies involved might be incented, either financially or by political pressure, to provide this technology transfer. However, they will must likely say that the best use of that time and talent is further ramping up their own production capacity, and it is probably true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, a country might import vaccine from a third country that had patent rights suspended.  Patents do not just confer the right to stop others from making, but also selling, importing and using the patented invention in the country who issued the patent. So one country could make it under a suspended patent right and many other countries could import from their due to their similar action suspending patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2021/05/covid-19-patents.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23147" RevisionGUID="0f257590-c142-440d-b19a-8ba467c33730" CreationDate="2021-05-22T01:57:55.937" UserId="3076" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I'm sure the people negotiating the scope of any waiver have figured out that might be many levels of patents. By the way, if companies were waiving their own patents under pressure from the U.S, as in your question, no TRIPS or other waivers would be needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First a small background - patents are territorial. No USPTO issued U.S. patent has any relevance to what happens in India and visa versa. Of course pharmaceutical companies tend to pursue the grant of patents in many countries. To make a vaccine in India would require suspension of *Indian* patent rights that might belong to a, possible U.S. based, vaccine developer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you say in the question, there is quite a bit of technology involved in producing vaccines. Some building block things are patented and others are trade secrets. Building block patents are held by multiple companies and there is some cross-licensing between them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of May 8th, I do not believe any patents have been issued for COVID *vaccines* themselves. Some COVID related patents have been issued for testing, etc. And there are certainly building block technology patents related to mRNA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*From a comment on the [Patently-O][1] blog*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have a Derwent alert set us that informs me every time a patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; issues with “SARS” or “COVID” in the claims or title. So far, none of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; these grants concern a vaccine. The largest category so far are test&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technologies. The next largest concern algorithms that purport to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; predict something COVID-related (where the next outbreak is likely to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; emerge, how a given patient’s disease is likely to progress, etc). The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; smallest category so far is putative therapies (mostly second medical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; use claims for existing FDA-approved drugs, but also some novel herbal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; blends).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The claims directed to SARS-CoV2 vaccines are still being examined,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but none have yet granted. Of course, as previously noted, all the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vaccines approved in the U.S. are covered by one or more granted&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patents directed to the novel vaccine platforms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the WTO is discussing, and the president has endorsed, is a waiver of terms of an international treaty. The signatories of the TRIPS treaty have agreed to have national patent systems with certain minimum provisions. If a country unilaterally suspended enforcement of some patents in their country, other countries could impose tariffs or otherwise try to commercially punish that country in the sphere of international trade for violation of TRIPS. The waiver would presumably cover trade secrets as well as patent rights. What is taught by an issued patent is published for all to see in that patent but waiving trade secret rights does not automatically produce the trade secrets on a platter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theoretically the steps would be - (1) the signatories to TRIPS can agree to wave its terms that allow commercial retaliation among themselves for weakening patent and trade secret rights locally. There would be some defined scope in terms of the technology addressed and the time frame of the waiver.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) In a specific country, they could pass a law or use something like executive action to suspend specific IP rights that had been granted or might be granted by that country in the near future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) Someone in that country could try to make a vaccination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without know-how transmitted by the organization that developed the vaccine they would have a very, very hard time doing so. The text and drawings of a patent are not a specific easy to follow recipe. The original companies involved might be incented, either financially or by political pressure, to provide this technology transfer. However, they will must likely say that the best use of that time and talent is further ramping up their own production capacity, and it is probably true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, a country might import vaccine from a third country that had patent rights suspended.  Patents do not just confer the right to stop others from making, but also selling, importing and using the patented invention in the country who issued the patent. So one country could make it under a suspended patent right and many other countries could import from their due to their similar action suspending patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2021/05/covid-19-patents.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23147" RevisionGUID="1b18d542-e2bc-4fc5-9e82-fc8c14b64969" CreationDate="2021-05-22T02:03:54.213" UserId="3076" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="I'm sure the people negotiating the scope of any waiver have figured out that might be many levels of patents. By the way, if companies were waiving their own patents &quot;voluntarily&quot; under pressure from the U.S, no TRIPS or other waivers would be needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First a small background - patents are territorial. No USPTO issued U.S. patent has any relevance to what happens in India and visa versa. Of course pharmaceutical companies tend to pursue the grant of patents in many countries. To make a vaccine in India would require suspension of *Indian* patent rights that might belong to a, possible U.S. based, vaccine developer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you say in the question, there is quite a bit of technology involved in producing vaccines. Some building block things are patented and others are trade secrets. Building block patents are held by multiple companies and there is some cross-licensing between them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of May 8th, I do not believe any patents have been issued for COVID *vaccines* themselves. Some COVID related patents have been issued for testing, etc. And there are certainly building block technology patents related to mRNA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*From a comment on the [Patently-O][1] blog*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have a Derwent alert set us that informs me every time a patent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; issues with “SARS” or “COVID” in the claims or title. So far, none of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; these grants concern a vaccine. The largest category so far are test&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technologies. The next largest concern algorithms that purport to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; predict something COVID-related (where the next outbreak is likely to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; emerge, how a given patient’s disease is likely to progress, etc). The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; smallest category so far is putative therapies (mostly second medical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; use claims for existing FDA-approved drugs, but also some novel herbal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; blends).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The claims directed to SARS-CoV2 vaccines are still being examined,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but none have yet granted. Of course, as previously noted, all the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vaccines approved in the U.S. are covered by one or more granted&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patents directed to the novel vaccine platforms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the WTO is discussing, and the president has endorsed, is a waiver of terms of an international treaty. The signatories of the TRIPS treaty have agreed to have national patent systems with certain minimum provisions. If a country unilaterally suspended enforcement of some patents in their country, other countries could impose tariffs or otherwise try to commercially punish that country in the sphere of international trade for violation of TRIPS. The waiver would presumably cover trade secrets as well as patent rights. What is taught by an issued patent is published for all to see in that patent but waiving trade secret rights does not automatically produce the trade secrets on a platter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theoretically the steps would be - (1) the signatories to TRIPS can agree to wave its terms that allow commercial retaliation among themselves for weakening patent and trade secret rights locally. There would be some defined scope in terms of the technology addressed and the time frame of the waiver.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) In a specific country, they could pass a law or use something like executive action to suspend specific IP rights that had been granted or might be granted by that country in the near future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) Someone in that country could try to make a vaccination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without know-how transmitted by the organization that developed the vaccine they would have a very, very hard time doing so. The text and drawings of a patent are not a specific easy to follow recipe. The original companies involved might be incented, either financially or by political pressure, to provide this technology transfer. However, they will must likely say that the best use of that time and talent is further ramping up their own production capacity, and it is probably true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, a country might import vaccine from a third country that had patent rights suspended.  Patents do not just confer the right to stop others from making, but also selling, importing and using the patented invention in the country who issued the patent. So one country could make it under a suspended patent right and many other countries could import from their due to their similar action suspending patents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2021/05/covid-19-patents.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64350" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22294" RevisionGUID="7609a1b2-4d4d-4595-9af1-b1f70f613e42" CreationDate="2021-05-22T05:05:45.563" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64352" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22299" RevisionGUID="554207dd-2edb-47af-8ed6-eedb575b3674" CreationDate="2021-05-22T22:02:55.267" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23148" RevisionGUID="9ca1dbc6-c8e4-415a-9f82-656f649e967e" CreationDate="2021-05-22T23:38:06.183" UserId="26083" Text="Help is much appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a poor engineer trying to patent something on my own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote and filed a US provisional application, then I wrote a PCT application and chose EPO as the Receiving Office. I chose to be part of the IP5 program for compound WOISA. Offices that contributed were US, China, Japan, Korea, and the EPO. After receiving the WOISA report from the EPO (including opinions from the rest of offices), I filed a demand for Chapter II (article 34), selecting the EPO as IPEA. After two office actions and a few amendments I received a positive IPRP, meaning that all my amended claims passed the preliminary exam for novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did all this on my own, it's my first patent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I want to enter national phase in US and EU for sure, and I am considering China and Japan as well given the market size.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's month 28 now. I believe that filing and prosecution in the US and EU I can do myself, given what I got so far. But for China and Japan I would need to translate the patent and file + prosecute there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any affordable way I can do China and Japan? &#xD;&#xA;(I don't speak or read or write Japanese or Chinese languages)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64354" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23148" RevisionGUID="9ca1dbc6-c8e4-415a-9f82-656f649e967e" CreationDate="2021-05-22T23:38:06.183" UserId="26083" Text="National phase after PCT with positive IPRP (chapter ii)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64355" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23148" RevisionGUID="9ca1dbc6-c8e4-415a-9f82-656f649e967e" CreationDate="2021-05-22T23:38:06.183" UserId="26083" Text="&lt;filing&gt;&lt;pct&gt;&lt;foreign&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23149" RevisionGUID="58220275-06e9-4560-a6fc-658316447f15" CreationDate="2021-05-23T00:06:47.170" UserId="3076" Text="Congratulations - You will find that there are rules in many places, like the EPO, that [require][1] you to use a qualified agent to file unless you are a resident. This will be the case in most places, but not in the U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the EPO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The PCT explicitly allows the receiving Office to apply its national law to the extent that it requires an applicant to be represented by an agent having the right to represent applicants before it. Therefore, the EPC provisions concerning professional representation apply in respect of international applications processed by the EPO as receiving Office. According to the EPC, applicants not having their residence or principal place of business in an EPC contracting state need to be represented by a professional representative. Two categories of representatives (&quot;agents&quot; in PCT terminology) have the right to practise before the EPO as receiving Office: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.epo.org/applying/international/guide-for-applicants/html/e/ga_c2_9.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64357" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="23148" RevisionGUID="002ac51b-609c-4bdd-9d0d-5a173ee0066b" CreationDate="2021-05-23T07:38:13.490" />
  <row Id="64358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23150" RevisionGUID="52fd860d-fe44-4c27-ba1b-6611ec63c877" CreationDate="2021-05-23T15:19:33.993" UserId="26017" Text="If there is a patent granted only in another juristiction can they retrospectively apply for a patent if you manufacture something similar in a different juristiction?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider this time-line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * party A is granted a patent for DeviceA in juristicationA (e.g. the US)&#xD;&#xA; * party A manufactures and sells DeviceA in juristicationA (e.g. the US)&#xD;&#xA; * party B manufactures a similar device DeviceB in juristicationB (e.g. the UK)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    marking it &quot;for sale in juristictionB only&quot; or &quot;not for sale in juristictionA&quot; &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    (as per example https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/16898/can-a-product-patented-in-us-be-manufactured-in-india)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q** If party A discovers DeviceB can they apply for a patent in juristictionB that would make party B's business infringe retrospectively?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;partyB could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* unaware of DeviceA or its patent in juristictionB&#xD;&#xA;* deliberating trying to fill the niche locally and make a copy of DeviceA available for customers in JuristictionB&#xD;&#xA;* creating a 'knock-off' product not caring that it might impact partyA's current or future international business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Morally we might hope that the laws in juristictionB would try to protect partyB in cases 1 and 2 and try to protect partyA in case 3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is typically the legal stance in this case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would the question be significantly different if you considered &quot;design rights&quot; instead of &quot;patentable mechanisms&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64359" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23150" RevisionGUID="52fd860d-fe44-4c27-ba1b-6611ec63c877" CreationDate="2021-05-23T15:19:33.993" UserId="26017" Text="Retrospective patent following manufacture in a different juristiction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64360" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23150" RevisionGUID="52fd860d-fe44-4c27-ba1b-6611ec63c877" CreationDate="2021-05-23T15:19:33.993" UserId="26017" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23151" RevisionGUID="4a149dbe-125f-451e-958b-c44347b335cd" CreationDate="2021-05-23T17:33:23.180" UserId="17003" Text="I am not a lawyer so someone else might be more authoritative. However, I don't think this scenario is possible. If you file a US patent application, I believe you have up to one year to file equivalent foreign patent applications. Patent applications typically don't publish until 18 months after filing and a patent usually takes about 3 years to get granted. Thus if a US patent actual existed, you couldn't subsequent to that issuing file for an equivalent patent in a foreign jurisdiction as the US patent would represent prior art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what the term &quot;design rights&quot; means. There are design patents, but those cover the ornamental design of functional objects which I don't think is relevant to the question being asked." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23152" RevisionGUID="41512afa-c24d-4925-b7ba-9bbb7fd54501" CreationDate="2021-05-23T20:49:17.113" UserId="3076" Text="There is nothing legally wrong with party B manufacturing a device anywhere where no one else has an issued patent, nor is there, in my opinion, anything morally wrong regardless of the three reasons you mention. A patent in the U.S. imposes no constraints on what can be made and sold in the U.K. Party A is free to decide to secure, or not secure, IP rights in which ever locations it deems important to its business plans.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Of course if party A did later get a U.K. patent, party B would need to stop making, selling, etc. anything that fell under the issued claims.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Can party A try to get a UK patent? Possibly - It would only be able to if it had initiated some appropriate action before the earlier of -  (1) its patent application in the U.S. or anywhere else, was published, (2) it started selling anywhere in the world, or (3) it disclosed the invention anywhere in the world. An appropriate action would include filing a patent in any country that was part of the Paris Agreement as long as the UK (or EPO) application was filed within a year. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If those conditions were not met, party A can *never* file in the UK. The rules are the same in most places other than locations with some type of grace period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Design rights, like the [European Community Design Regulation][1], often provide for a grace period where the applicant's own disclosure can not be used against them. This would give party A a bigger window to decide if it wanted to secure its design rights than the window it has for its patent rights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/brand-management/design-rights-european-union" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23152" RevisionGUID="109e537a-4140-48fd-ab6e-30c0fe355bfc" CreationDate="2021-05-23T20:54:33.430" UserId="3076" Comment="added 427 characters in body" Text="There is nothing legally wrong with party B manufacturing a device anywhere where no one else has an issued patent, nor is there, in my opinion, anything morally wrong regardless of the three reasons you mention. A patent in the U.S. imposes no constraints on what can be made and sold in the U.K. Party A is free to decide to secure, or not secure, IP rights in which ever locations it deems important to its business plans.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Of course if party A did later get a U.K. patent, party B would need to stop making, selling, etc. anything that fell under the issued claims.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Can party A try to get a UK patent? Possibly - It would only be able to if it had initiated some appropriate action before the earlier of -  (1) its patent application in the U.S. or anywhere else, was published, (2) it started selling anywhere in the world, or (3) it disclosed the invention anywhere in the world. An appropriate action would include filing a patent in any country that was part of the Paris Agreement as long as the UK (or EPO) application was filed within a year. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If those conditions were not met, party A can *never* file in the UK. The rules are the same in most places other than locations with some type of grace period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Design rights, like the [European Community Design Regulation][1], often provide for a grace period where the applicant's own disclosure can not be used against them. This would give party A a bigger window to decide if it wanted to secure its design rights than the window it has for its patent rights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________&#xD;&#xA;You say -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unaware of DeviceA or its patent in juristictionB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you meant to say in jurisdiction A since party A does not yet have a patent in jurisdiction B in your scenario. If party A does have a patent in location B then party B will be infringing it whether or not it knows about the patent. In some places the damages will be greater for willful infringement than for inadvertent infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/brand-management/design-rights-european-union" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23149" RevisionGUID="e3131cb1-6dca-4e55-b305-8d975b3f08dc" CreationDate="2021-05-23T20:56:04.530" UserId="3076" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Congratulations - You will find that there are rules in many places, like the EPO, that [require][1] you to use a qualified agent to pursue it unless you are a resident. This will be the case in most places, but not in the U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the EPO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The PCT explicitly allows the receiving Office to apply its national law to the extent that it requires an applicant to be represented by an agent having the right to represent applicants before it. Therefore, the EPC provisions concerning professional representation apply in respect of international applications processed by the EPO as receiving Office. According to the EPC, applicants not having their residence or principal place of business in an EPC contracting state need to be represented by a professional representative. Two categories of representatives (&quot;agents&quot; in PCT terminology) have the right to practise before the EPO as receiving Office: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.epo.org/applying/international/guide-for-applicants/html/e/ga_c2_9.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23152" RevisionGUID="924bcc70-8c74-4bf6-a2de-67be95090fbf" CreationDate="2021-05-23T21:37:25.373" UserId="3076" Comment="added 500 characters in body" Text="There is nothing legally wrong with party B manufacturing a device anywhere where no one else has an issued patent, nor is there, in my opinion, anything morally wrong regardless of the three reasons you mention. A patent in the U.S. imposes no constraints on what can be made and sold in the U.K. Party A is free to decide to secure, or not secure, IP rights in which ever locations it deems important to its business plans.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Of course if party A did later get a U.K. patent, party B would need to stop making, selling, etc. anything that fell under the issued claims.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Can party A try to get a UK patent? Possibly - It would only be able to if it had initiated some appropriate action before the earlier of -  (1) its patent application in the U.S. or anywhere else, was published, (2) it started selling anywhere in the world, or (3) it disclosed the invention anywhere in the world. An appropriate action would include filing a patent in any country that was part of the Paris Agreement as long as the UK (or EPO) application was filed within a year. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If those conditions were not met, party A can *never* file in the UK. The rules are the same in most places other than locations with some type of grace period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Design rights, like the [European Community Design Regulation][1], often provide for a grace period where the applicant's own disclosure can not be used against them. This would give party A a bigger window to decide if it wanted to secure its design rights than the window it has for its patent rights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________&#xD;&#xA;You say -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unaware of DeviceA or its patent in juristictionB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you meant to say in jurisdiction A since party A does not yet have a patent in jurisdiction B in your scenario. If party A does have a patent in location B then party B will be infringing it whether or not it knows about the patent. In some places the damages will be greater for willful infringement than for inadvertent infringement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;Retroactive infringement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are scenarios where B makes a device that is fine in the U.K until A's patent issues. There is not retroactive infringement. As long as B stops making, selling, etc. as soon as the patent is issued they are not infringing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the U.S. there is rare possibility of retroactive royalty based on the infringer being put on notice of A's published application. It is called provisional rights in the U.S. - I don't know how common this is in other places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/brand-management/design-rights-european-union" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23153" RevisionGUID="c586577f-8d64-46de-8289-93f4424c7f26" CreationDate="2021-05-24T08:18:04.330" UserId="25876" Text="Let´s assume that a company has designed and developed several &quot;building blocks&quot;, components, elements or devices that when combined and considered in a specific way (and only in that way) define a final and complete solution (device composed of several subelements) that will be patented. If:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **An inventor is a party who conceived** (not just contributed to the reduction-to-practice) **at least one claim to a patent**, &#xD;&#xA; 2. the **threshold question&quot; of inventorship** is &quot;**who conceived the invention**&quot;. &#xD;&#xA; 3. Conception is &quot;the complete performance of the mental part of the inventive act&quot;, and &quot;the **formation in the mind of the inventor of a definite and permanent idea of the *complete and operative invention*** as it is thereafter to be applied in practice..&quot;. An idea is usually not &quot;definite and permanent&quot; or &quot;complete&quot; where changes result from experimentation. In this case, **other individuals who contribute to the formation of the &quot;definite and permanent&quot; idea are co-inventors**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the employee who described the final configuration of building blocks to be added to the &quot;integrated device&quot;, who defined the list of claims to be included in the PCT and prepared the documents submitted to apply for the PCT be included as co-inventor? Has he any any rights on this PCT?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, should other different set of sub-components be selected and listed on the PCT, or claims defined in a different way, the PCT would be declared as not &quot;inovative&quot; or not novel. This guy selected the right building blocks, the right claims to be included on the PCT and prepared the documentation submitted (obviously includind the building blocks created by other guys in his company).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64367" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23153" RevisionGUID="c586577f-8d64-46de-8289-93f4424c7f26" CreationDate="2021-05-24T08:18:04.330" UserId="25876" Text="Who is the inventor in a sintesis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64368" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23153" RevisionGUID="c586577f-8d64-46de-8289-93f4424c7f26" CreationDate="2021-05-24T08:18:04.330" UserId="25876" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;inventor&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64369" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="23153" RevisionGUID="8e7cc3e7-af3b-44c5-9c12-9d9a4053192f" CreationDate="2021-05-24T08:23:23.867" UserId="25876" Comment="edited title" Text="Who is the inventor in an invention composed of several already existing sub-devices?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23153" RevisionGUID="ff59bcaf-f9e8-4e43-b242-71059a2695f2" CreationDate="2021-05-24T08:31:24.860" UserId="25876" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="Let´s assume that a company has designed and developed several &quot;building blocks&quot;, components, elements or devices that when combined and considered in a specific way (and only in that way) define a final and complete solution (device composed of several sub-elements or components) that will be patented. If:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **An inventor is a party who conceived** (not just contributed to the reduction-to-practice) **at least one claim to a patent**, &#xD;&#xA; 2. the **threshold question&quot; of inventorship** is &quot;**who conceived the invention**&quot;. &#xD;&#xA; 3. Conception is &quot;the complete performance of the mental part of the inventive act&quot;, and &quot;the **formation in the mind of the inventor of a definite and permanent idea of the *complete and operative invention*** as it is thereafter to be applied in practice..&quot;. An idea is usually not &quot;definite and permanent&quot; or &quot;complete&quot; where changes result from experimentation. In this case, **other individuals who contribute to the formation of the &quot;definite and permanent&quot; idea are co-inventors**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the employee who described the final configuration of building blocks to be added to the &quot;integrated device&quot;, who also selected and defined the list of claims to be included in the PCT and who prepared the documents submitted to apply for the PCT be included as co-inventor? Has he any any rights on this PCT?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, should other different set of sub-components be selected and listed on the PCT, or claims defined in a different way, the PCT would be declared as not &quot;innovative&quot; or not novel. This guy selected the right building blocks, the right claims to be included on the PCT and prepared the documentation submitted (obviously includind the building blocks created by other guys in his company).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23153" RevisionGUID="eab1722b-b835-4085-a537-bdbcf52eb3ac" CreationDate="2021-05-24T08:39:36.047" UserId="25876" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="Let´s assume that a company has designed and developed several &quot;building blocks&quot;, components, elements or devices that when combined and considered in a specific way (and only in that way) define a final and complete solution (device composed of several sub-elements or components) that will be patented. If:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **An inventor is a party who conceived** (not just contributed to the reduction-to-practice) **at least one claim to a patent**, &#xD;&#xA; 2. the **threshold question&quot; of inventorship** is &quot;**who conceived the invention**&quot;. &#xD;&#xA; 3. Conception is &quot;the complete performance of the mental part of the inventive act&quot;, and &quot;the **formation in the mind of the inventor of a definite and permanent idea of the *complete and operative invention*** as it is thereafter to be applied in practice..&quot;. An idea is usually not &quot;definite and permanent&quot; or &quot;complete&quot; where changes result from experimentation. In this case, **other individuals who contribute to the formation of the &quot;definite and permanent&quot; idea are co-inventors**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the employee who described the final configuration, who selected the building blocks to be added to the &quot;integrated device&quot; and the bloxks to be left out of the PCT, who also selected and defined the list of claims to be included in the PCT and who prepared the documents submitted to apply for the PCT be included as co-inventor? Has he any any rights on this PCT?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, should other different set of sub-components be selected and listed on the PCT, or claims defined in a different way, the PCT would be declared as not &quot;innovative&quot; or not novel. This guy selected the right building blocks, the right claims to be included on the PCT and prepared the documentation submitted (obviously includind the building blocks created by other guys in his company).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64372" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="23153" RevisionGUID="bbf7396c-01d2-48b5-aa4c-6cef7612e581" CreationDate="2021-05-24T10:15:11.077" UserId="25876" Comment="edited tags" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;claims&gt;&lt;inventorship&gt;&lt;claim-construction&gt;&lt;inventor&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23150" RevisionGUID="731dd23d-d9d6-4374-9f51-7634400956b3" CreationDate="2021-05-24T14:59:00.233" UserId="26017" Comment="correction" Text="If there is a patent granted only in another juristiction can they retrospectively apply for a patent if you manufacture something similar in a different juristiction?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider this time-line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * party A is granted a patent for DeviceA in juristicationA (e.g. the US)&#xD;&#xA; * party A manufactures and sells DeviceA in juristicationA (e.g. the US)&#xD;&#xA; * party B manufactures a similar device DeviceB in juristicationB (e.g. the UK)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    marking it &quot;for sale in juristictionB only&quot; or &quot;not for sale in juristictionA&quot; &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    (as per example https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/16898/can-a-product-patented-in-us-be-manufactured-in-india)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q** If party A discovers DeviceB can they apply for a patent in juristictionB that would make party B's business infringe retrospectively?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;partyB could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* unaware of DeviceA or its patent in juristictionA&#xD;&#xA;* deliberating trying to fill the niche locally and make a copy of DeviceA available for customers in JuristictionB&#xD;&#xA;* creating a 'knock-off' product not caring that it might impact partyA's current or future international business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Morally we might hope that the laws in juristictionB would try to protect partyB in cases 1 and 2 and try to protect partyA in case 3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is typically the legal stance in this case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would the question be significantly different if you considered &quot;design rights&quot; instead of &quot;patentable mechanisms&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23154" RevisionGUID="0c92b64d-5548-4585-8a46-c9fc6ae21e6e" CreationDate="2021-05-24T15:27:44.363" UserId="17003" Text="I an an inventor, not a lawyer, so this is my best understanding. The specific criteria is whether you identify at least **one claim** which wouldn't have been there without your contribution. Ideally you can prove this by referencing your lab documentation or other permanent record. You really need to do something inventive. Preparing documents or even selecting claims in the application are not sufficient. Otherwise every patent would list the patent lawyer as an inventor too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, describing the final configuration would not entitle you to being named an inventor unless that final configuration is specified in a claim. Even then, the configuration needs to be novel. I worked for a large company and the question of inventorship came up frequently when preparing patent applications. In general, we left it to the patent lawyers to assess inventorship. In my experience they were generally inclusive rather than exclusive. In my company and as is standard with most companies, the inventors assign all the patent ownership rights to the company so the only practical difference is who is listed as an inventor on the patent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23155" RevisionGUID="cfa2bf19-aea8-4c26-b113-ccf112611943" CreationDate="2021-05-24T18:27:11.683" UserId="3076" Text="The strategies for what to claim and what embodiments to detail in a patent application might fall into the domain of your patent attorney (or patent agent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of the hierarchy of subcomponts of a product, inventorship might exist or not exit at all levels of the project. In some cases a critical sub-component is what enables the final product to exist and that sub-component is what is really novel and non obvious and what amounts to the protectable part." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23152" RevisionGUID="1f7c9322-7c98-4a51-bb15-9d1d7c5fb6ce" CreationDate="2021-05-24T18:33:33.850" UserId="3076" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="There is nothing legally wrong with party B manufacturing a device anywhere where no one else has an issued patent, nor is there, in my opinion, anything morally wrong regardless of the three reasons you mention. A patent in the U.S. imposes no constraints on what can be made and sold in the U.K. Party A is free to decide to secure, or not secure, IP rights in which ever locations it deems important to its business plans.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Of course if party A did later get a U.K. patent, party B would need to stop making, selling, etc. anything that fell under the issued claims.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Can party A try to get a UK patent? Possibly - It would only be able to if it had initiated some appropriate action before the earlier of -  (1) its patent application in the U.S. or anywhere else, was published, (2) it started selling anywhere in the world, or (3) it disclosed the invention anywhere in the world. An appropriate action would include filing a patent in any country that was part of the Paris Agreement as long as the UK (or EPO) application was filed within a year. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If those conditions were not met, party A can *never* file in the UK. The rules are the same in most places other than locations with some type of grace period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Design rights, like the [European Community Design Regulation][1], often provide for a grace period where the applicant's own disclosure can not be used against them. This would give party A a bigger window to decide if it wanted to secure its design rights than the window it has for its patent rights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;Retroactive infringement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are scenarios where B makes a device that is fine in the U.K until A's patent issues. There is not retroactive infringement. As long as B stops making, selling, etc. as soon as the patent is issued they are not infringing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the U.S. there is rare possibility of retroactive royalty based on the infringer being put on notice of A's published application. It is called provisional rights in the U.S. - I don't know how common this is in other places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speed of perfecting rights&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important for world-wide progress for implementers to know what an inventor will claim (and where) and what they will not. Learning from what others have done and copying it or build on it are a feature not a bug.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The publication of patents is to allow the world to benefit from what the inventor has done - within the constraints of any issued patent. That is what the inventor gives in a social contract with the rest of us in return for some limited exclusivity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/brand-management/design-rights-european-union" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23156" RevisionGUID="0c6ec3c2-8d50-451d-b796-f7551c208fa9" CreationDate="2021-05-25T08:34:23.793" UserId="25764" Text="**Can generalization of a prior art be patented?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say a prior art X exists claiming for only system A, B, C. Now I have come across an idea of making the prior art idea applicable for A~Z with some additional steps. Kind of generic approach to cover all unclaimed systems. To make it generic of course, I need to add some more steps along with prior art steps as a core. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can my idea be patented in such scenario?** " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64378" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23156" RevisionGUID="0c6ec3c2-8d50-451d-b796-f7551c208fa9" CreationDate="2021-05-25T08:34:23.793" UserId="25764" Text="Can generalization of a prior art be patented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64379" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23156" RevisionGUID="0c6ec3c2-8d50-451d-b796-f7551c208fa9" CreationDate="2021-05-25T08:34:23.793" UserId="25764" Text="&lt;patentability&gt;&lt;prior-art&gt;&lt;patentable&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23157" RevisionGUID="be19f6fa-5c41-4233-8ca9-87fe7829f4b1" CreationDate="2021-05-25T10:57:50.517" UserId="26095" Text="Could you suggest a database or solution how it is possible to find the origin for required patents? It is necessary to get the origin for patent families and download a datasets in bulk format. I see origin of applicants in description to the patent, however I couldn`t download datasets containing this information for free. I have used the Lens for conducting research paper and need information for required patents worldwide. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64381" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23157" RevisionGUID="be19f6fa-5c41-4233-8ca9-87fe7829f4b1" CreationDate="2021-05-25T10:57:50.517" UserId="26095" Text="Finding the origin of patent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64382" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23157" RevisionGUID="be19f6fa-5c41-4233-8ca9-87fe7829f4b1" CreationDate="2021-05-25T10:57:50.517" UserId="26095" Text="&lt;applicant&gt;&lt;patent-family&gt;&lt;origin&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23158" RevisionGUID="0aae740a-7a8e-4f1a-ae1a-ea30ae824677" CreationDate="2021-05-25T12:53:53.167" UserId="17003" Text="To be patentable an invention needs to be useful, novel and non-obvious. It might be hard to convince a patent examiner of novelty and non-obviousness if you just tweak an existing device. Even if you do manage to get a patent on an invention that builds on prior art by adding steps, your patent would only be on the added steps not on the prior art. To my mind this isn't generalization but specialization. Regardless, if the added steps you are conceiving of are truly new and not something a person skilled in the field would consider obvious, you very well might be able to obtain a patent. Just don't expect it would be applicable to any existing prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23159" RevisionGUID="acd98aac-552a-4762-b664-e208126d7b8c" CreationDate="2021-05-25T19:39:20.953" UserId="3076" Text="As you describe it, the method would be a narrowing of the existing method but, due to added mechanism, would have broader use than the previous method. It is not really a generalization of the old method.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are similar cases where patents are awarded for someone finding a sweet spot in an already known method. Maybe at a certain temperature range a process becomes, unexpectedly, much more efficient and therefore has broader applicability. But it is still a narrowing of method.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Separate from the issue of prior art is the issue of freedom to operate. If the prior art is subject to an in-force patent, then you will have a patent that you can't practice without the permission of the prior art patent owner. They have patented doing steps A, B and C, You have patented doing steps A, B, C *and D* but to practice your patent one is still doing A, B and C." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23158" RevisionGUID="7408096e-351c-4885-aba9-74a786f67318" CreationDate="2021-05-25T21:00:16.137" UserId="17003" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="To be patentable an invention needs to be useful, novel and non-obvious. It might be hard to convince a patent examiner of novelty and non-obviousness if you just tweak an existing device. Even if you do manage to get a patent on an invention that builds on prior art by adding steps, your patent would only be on the system including the added steps not on the prior art system. To my mind this isn't generalization but specialization. Regardless, if the added steps you are conceiving of are truly new and not something a person skilled in the field would consider obvious, you very well might be able to obtain a patent. Just don't expect it would be applicable to any existing prior art." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23160" RevisionGUID="1458f354-4bdf-49e3-98c3-9e7c24758e9c" CreationDate="2021-05-25T21:09:44.850" UserId="17003" Text="I'm not sure what you mean by the term &quot;required patents&quot;. If you mean patents that need to be licensed to use a particular technology, then I don't know of a single database with that information. Some standards related technologies list the associated patents as part of the documentation of the standard. Some products have patent numbers on their packaging. Some other companies might list patents on their websites. Either way, that doesn't guarantee the patents listed are all the relevant patents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mostly what I think people do is a patent search. You can search by keyword, patent class or other criteria to try to narrow the search to relevant patents. Once you find some related patents you can search for others with the patent family and look at the patents cited for more hits. It's an iterative process. The Lens is a really good option for searching for patents, but other options include Google Patents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2051" RevisionGUID="fd61d4dd-d86b-4193-9e22-3f32cb9840cc" CreationDate="2021-05-25T21:35:55.757" UserId="-1" Comment="Clarification of history to avoid misrepresentation" Text="The first electronic spreadsheet was LANPAR in 1969. It was extensively used across the US by AT&amp;T and the Bell Operating Companies and Bell Canada. It incorporated Forward Referencing for which the inventors Rene Pardo and Remy Landau obtained a patent. No other spreadsheet until Lotus 1-2-3 in 1983 had this cornerstone feature. The first spreadsheet program on micro computers was Visicalc which was very revolutionary in 1981. However, the creators did not take out a patent since software patents were not well established back then. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64388" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2051" RevisionGUID="fd61d4dd-d86b-4193-9e22-3f32cb9840cc" CreationDate="2021-05-25T21:35:55.757" Comment="Proposed by 70.26.34.201|c1922c59-72b2-4979-95a0-21ffb227ec6b approved by 17003 edit id of 2152" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23161" RevisionGUID="27f391b4-0cdf-4ceb-98c9-ad345ab9a456" CreationDate="2021-05-25T22:09:17.493" UserId="14308" Text="we previously filed a response to Non-Final Office Action and 132 Declaration with 3-month extension. Then, Examiner called and verbally asked us to modify the 132 Declaration and cancel the withdrawn claims, then some claims would be allowable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone help advise on how much time we have to file this Supplemental Response and Updated 132 Declaration?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64390" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23161" RevisionGUID="27f391b4-0cdf-4ceb-98c9-ad345ab9a456" CreationDate="2021-05-25T22:09:17.493" UserId="14308" Text="Time for submitting Supplemental Response &amp; update 132 declaration" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64391" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23161" RevisionGUID="27f391b4-0cdf-4ceb-98c9-ad345ab9a456" CreationDate="2021-05-25T22:09:17.493" UserId="14308" Text="&lt;office-action&gt;&lt;prosecution&gt;&lt;mpep&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23155" RevisionGUID="44f157c9-935b-4bd9-9839-7f68e8782aca" CreationDate="2021-05-26T00:21:44.573" UserId="3076" Comment="added 536 characters in body" Text="The strategies for what to claim and what embodiments to detail in a patent application might fall into the domain of your patent attorney (or patent agent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of the hierarchy of sub-components of a product, inventorship might exist or not exit at all levels of the project. In some cases a critical sub-component is what enables the final product to exist and that sub-component is what is really novel and non obvious and what amounts to the protectable part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might be inventing or it might not be. Probably not. Was there an unexpected result due to the combination? Did others think it would not work that way? As a patent agent I do something a lot like that to try to craft a claim that will be seen as novel has an inventive step and is important to the business needs of my client. It requires cleverness and creativity but I'm not inventing. I'm strategically choosing a subset of what has been invented by others to be claimed. It definitely adds value but is not inventing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23162" RevisionGUID="c564a116-9689-410d-b102-edcc0649c5f8" CreationDate="2021-05-26T01:21:47.210" UserId="3076" Text="Sounds like the call from the examiner was not a formal action, so there is not formal deadline. If you wait long enough you will get a final action that you do not want so,  if it will be more than a week or so to get the filing done, call the examiner and let them know when you plan to file." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64394" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22304" RevisionGUID="9b21acee-3e89-4bb4-9f6b-ce5f3d573254" CreationDate="2021-05-26T04:05:15.483" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23163" RevisionGUID="ea485f4b-036a-4df6-9016-30dc2d51e527" CreationDate="2021-05-26T15:29:23.940" UserId="26112" Text="Application US09/062,017 events &#xD;&#xA;1998-04-17&#xD;&#xA;Application filed by Thellmann; Rick&#xD;&#xA;1998-04-17&#xD;&#xA;Priority to US09/062,017&#xD;&#xA;2000-01-11&#xD;&#xA;Application granted&#xD;&#xA;2000-01-11&#xD;&#xA;Publication of US6013181A&#xD;&#xA;2018-04-17&#xD;&#xA;Anticipated expiration&#xD;&#xA;Status&#xD;&#xA;Expired - Fee Related  (Can I make a Payment to bring my patent current?) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64396" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23163" RevisionGUID="ea485f4b-036a-4df6-9016-30dc2d51e527" CreationDate="2021-05-26T15:29:23.940" UserId="26112" Text="Expired Patents due to fees?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64397" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23163" RevisionGUID="ea485f4b-036a-4df6-9016-30dc2d51e527" CreationDate="2021-05-26T15:29:23.940" UserId="26112" Text="&lt;fees&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23164" RevisionGUID="ef4a4acf-0187-4a3b-bfd6-601cd13ac2dc" CreationDate="2021-05-26T15:50:42.887" UserId="26113" Text="I seem to recall that there might be a USPTO rule that forbids this, but I can't seem to find it now. Am I right or wrong?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64399" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23164" RevisionGUID="ef4a4acf-0187-4a3b-bfd6-601cd13ac2dc" CreationDate="2021-05-26T15:50:42.887" UserId="26113" Text="Can a patent attorney give advice on a case only, without filing papers or becoming the attorney of record?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64400" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23164" RevisionGUID="ef4a4acf-0187-4a3b-bfd6-601cd13ac2dc" CreationDate="2021-05-26T15:50:42.887" UserId="26113" Text="&lt;representation&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23165" RevisionGUID="d7186ea0-060c-4ff1-a9a8-801daea3b5b3" CreationDate="2021-05-26T17:06:26.993" UserId="17003" Text="I'm not a lawyer, but according to the [US Public Pair][1] the priority date for US6013181A is 04-17-1998. Even if you had kept the fees up to date, the patent whould have expired on 04-17-2018 so I would guess that there is nothing you can do to revive it. I can see no patent term extensions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23166" RevisionGUID="c53bfbfc-b114-46a7-89db-00be9b9152dc" CreationDate="2021-05-26T18:00:24.533" UserId="3076" Text="There is no such rule. Take on example - early in the process an inventor will need advice on whether or not to file, what aspects might be the most value to claim. There would be advice put not necessarily any filing. Or if a pro-se applicant was considering fully engaging a practitioner there would be advise in advance of any formal action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue where this seems to be brought up are when a pro-se applicant gets some professional advice short of a registered practitioner taking responsibility via filing in the case. The (erroneous) theory is that a pro-se applicant gets some special treatment by the USPTO that would be undeserved if &quot;secretly&quot; getting professional advice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examiners are trained to consider helping pro-se applicants but that does not amount to any actual rights being accorded them so no &quot;rights&quot; are being fraudulently obtained. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO's [ethics rules][1] for registered practitioners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/patent-and-trademark-practitioners/current-patent-practitioner/ethics-rules" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23166" RevisionGUID="564d9182-d379-4590-8b05-3294d9f699ff" CreationDate="2021-05-26T21:44:01.057" UserId="3076" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="There is no such rule. Take one example - early in the process an inventor will need advice on whether or not to file, what aspects might be the most value to claim. There would be advice but not necessarily any filing. Or if a pro-se applicant was considering fully engaging a practitioner there would be advice in advance of any formal action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue where this seems to be brought up are when a pro-se applicant gets some professional advice short of a registered practitioner taking responsibility via filing in the case. The (erroneous) theory is that a pro-se applicant gets some special treatment by the USPTO that would be undeserved if &quot;secretly&quot; getting professional advice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examiners are trained to consider helping pro-se applicants but that does not amount to any actual rights being accorded them, so no &quot;rights&quot; are being fraudulently obtained. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USPTO's [ethics rules][1] for registered practitioners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/patent-and-trademark-practitioners/current-patent-practitioner/ethics-rules" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64404" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="19832" RevisionGUID="c77924dd-1ebe-4f89-8cef-9f22829e0bdc" CreationDate="2021-05-27T00:02:45.330" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23167" RevisionGUID="83f22fea-9047-4b67-8cb2-24c649185be1" CreationDate="2021-05-27T03:15:39.040" UserId="26118" Text="Let's say I have filed a first provisional with content A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About 2 weeks later, I add some more explanatory bits to my spec, maybe some more drawings showing greater detail in some aspects, and some claims (which I didn't have in A) so that I have content A+B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I file A+B in a second provisional, or just the B material? Should I reference the first provisional, and if so what is the correct phrasing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us assume that I am only interested in U.S. and not international rights, and that the A content might be able to support some of the B claims." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64406" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23167" RevisionGUID="83f22fea-9047-4b67-8cb2-24c649185be1" CreationDate="2021-05-27T03:15:39.040" UserId="26118" Text="Should a second provisional reference or incorporate a first provisional?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64407" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23167" RevisionGUID="83f22fea-9047-4b67-8cb2-24c649185be1" CreationDate="2021-05-27T03:15:39.040" UserId="26118" Text="&lt;provisional&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23168" RevisionGUID="646a9605-c09f-45d2-ad34-ed68f436ef2a" CreationDate="2021-05-27T04:31:04.480" UserId="3076" Text="The second provisional should be a standalone document with all of the updates you have created. If you file a non-provisional within the year from the 1st one, claim the benefit of both in that application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23169" RevisionGUID="f51f6b62-732a-4059-b939-c1e41ad9a6f7" CreationDate="2021-05-27T17:48:20.530" UserId="19232" Text="I have an open application with a first OA rejection, which of course is typical. My only intention with this application is to have an open application associated with granted patents, in the hope of selling the family. However I don't want to spend any more than absolutely necessary to keep it open. Assuming I *ever* get any acquisition interest – Am I now better off just ignoring the OA response deadline, or proceeding with some kind of response that will likely fail (while I still have a no-charge option to respond), and then essentially abandoning it? (Or no difference, really?) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64410" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23169" RevisionGUID="f51f6b62-732a-4059-b939-c1e41ad9a6f7" CreationDate="2021-05-27T17:48:20.530" UserId="19232" Text="Is it more difficult and/or costly to reopen an application if abandoned after a 1st OA rejection, or after a final rejection in the 2nd OA?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64411" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23169" RevisionGUID="f51f6b62-732a-4059-b939-c1e41ad9a6f7" CreationDate="2021-05-27T17:48:20.530" UserId="19232" Text="&lt;oa&gt;&lt;timely-response&gt;&lt;applicant-response&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23169" RevisionGUID="16589789-d19c-4bf9-9e06-2e33f0219489" CreationDate="2021-05-27T18:19:40.267" UserId="19232" Comment="Realized I needed to rephrase the whole thing to put emphasis on the point of view of a potential buyer of a patent family." Text="I have an open application with a first OA rejection, which of course is typical. My *only* intention with this application is to have an open, potentially modifiable application associated with granted patents, in the hope of selling the family. However I don't want to spend any more money and time than absolutely necessary to keep it open. Assuming I *ever* get any acquisition interest – Which looks better (or, less undesirable) and could be more useful to a potential buyer of a family including an opened application:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. An opened application abandoned after the first OA, due to not responding to the OA response deadline, or &#xD;&#xA; 2. An opened application abandoned after the 2nd OA (typically, a &quot;final rejection&quot; that isn't really final, but requires an RCE and associated cost)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If #2, then best to proceed with some kind of response that will likely fail (while I still have a no-charge option to respond)? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23170" RevisionGUID="37ebb749-bc0d-449c-be17-e751820b6067" CreationDate="2021-05-27T19:43:57.420" UserId="3076" Text="In either case the application is not really &quot;open&quot; - it is *abandoned*. To get it revived will take someone asserting that all delay in responding was inadvertent. That will not be true in either scenario. You are planning a strategic abandonment and will have a tainted application even if it is revived. If it is ever used in an enforcement a sophisticated infringer will figure out what happened in the history of prosecution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23171" RevisionGUID="0fed6c7c-f8aa-4a3f-b089-88c3e02a79b5" CreationDate="2021-05-27T19:55:51.463" UserId="26128" Text="I've had trouble with the credit card payment interface in the past, hence this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd expect the answer to be yes, but I'm also somewhat wondering how the USPTO controls access to the deposit accounts - what would stop someone from charging a random account as an unregistered e-filer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64415" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23171" RevisionGUID="0fed6c7c-f8aa-4a3f-b089-88c3e02a79b5" CreationDate="2021-05-27T19:55:51.463" UserId="26128" Text="Can an unregistered e-filer pay using a deposit account?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64416" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23171" RevisionGUID="0fed6c7c-f8aa-4a3f-b089-88c3e02a79b5" CreationDate="2021-05-27T19:55:51.463" UserId="26128" Text="&lt;payment&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23170" RevisionGUID="4affe3da-99ac-4517-908f-88f8d45008e9" CreationDate="2021-05-27T20:03:31.207" UserId="3076" Comment="added 523 characters in body" Text="In either case the application is not really &quot;open&quot; - it is *abandoned*. To get it revived will take someone asserting that all delay in responding was inadvertent. That will not be true in either scenario. You are planning a strategic abandonment and will have a tainted application even if it is revived. If it is ever used in an enforcement a sophisticated accused infringer will figure out what happened in the history of prosecution and it will be a weak point. Spend money filing a string or continuations if you want something that can be built upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternative for an acquirer who want to improve on or target new claims is for them to file for a [reissue][1] of an issued patent on the grounds that the patent is defective. Within two years of grant this can be due to not claiming all you where entitled to! *Defective becasue it was not as broad as it could have been.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1401.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23172" RevisionGUID="f715fac9-3e86-4ba9-a105-894c2ded501a" CreationDate="2021-05-27T20:10:37.693" UserId="3076" Text="Registration is not required to open a deposit account but you will need at least $1,000 in it on the last day of every month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not think the USPTO has major problems with deposit account fraud. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64419" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="22257" RevisionGUID="a62bf993-e694-4859-8feb-b0e7ffb4e620" CreationDate="2021-05-28T04:04:10.300" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="64420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23170" RevisionGUID="6cde6dd4-0f7d-4e8c-a03d-68059c6e7a1b" CreationDate="2021-05-28T18:08:09.880" UserId="3076" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="In either case the application is not really &quot;open&quot; - it is *abandoned*. To get it revived will take someone asserting that all delay in responding was [unintentional][1]. That will not be true in either scenario. You are planning a strategic abandonment and will have a tainted application even if it is revived. If it is ever used in an enforcement a sophisticated accused infringer will figure out what happened in the history of prosecution and it will be a weak point. Spend money filing a string or continuations if you want something that can be built upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternative for an acquirer who want to improve on or target new claims is for them to file for a [reissue][2] of an issued patent on the grounds that the patent is defective. Within two years of grant this can be due to not claiming all you where entitled to! *Defective becasue it was not as broad as it could have been.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s711.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1401.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23173" RevisionGUID="9f25bdb0-9e30-4d4a-b9da-3337901076a6" CreationDate="2021-05-29T15:49:27.547" UserId="24120" Text="The USPTO 009 International Class category for trademarks, which covers &quot;recorded and downloadable media, computer software&quot;, is where every mobile application seeking trademark protection will at the least register. I hope the USPTO realizes how giant this sector already is and how much more it will grow and allow for robust diversity. There are literally millions of apps in circulation with millions more to come. Conversely, there are definitely not millions of chemical companies, for example. Is this a safe assumption given the history of how it treated other similar sectors? For example, if a personal finance app can successfully claim a trademark on &quot;pineapple&quot; (in IC-009), is it safe to assume the USPTO would allow a children's game app to claim the same trademark in IC-009 also?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64422" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23173" RevisionGUID="9f25bdb0-9e30-4d4a-b9da-3337901076a6" CreationDate="2021-05-29T15:49:27.547" UserId="24120" Text="Reasonable to assume mobile application trademark protection will allow for robust diversity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64423" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23173" RevisionGUID="9f25bdb0-9e30-4d4a-b9da-3337901076a6" CreationDate="2021-05-29T15:49:27.547" UserId="24120" Text="&lt;intellectual-property&gt;&lt;trademark&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="64424" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="23173" RevisionGUID="2c8bde16-7faf-4c22-9ba3-3f0593cf86e7" CreationDate="2021-05-29T16:51:25.750" UserId="3076" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3076,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George White&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="64425" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="22863" RevisionGUID="d1f02188-0890-46db-bb63-9a17b9ab905b" CreationDate="2021-05-29T23:59:21.453" UserId="3076" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3076,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George White&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="64426" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="22457" RevisionGUID="acd2cf7b-c571-4eeb-8a7a-6488ca4f3f71" CreationDate="2021-05-30T00:00:32.517" UserId="3076" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3076,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George White&quot;}]}" />
</posthistory>